<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<posts>
  <row Id="1" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="73" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:19:59.877" Score="19" ViewCount="936" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon 7D with a 50mm f/1.4 lens, and I think the auto-focus of the lens is off.  How can I test and adjust this reliably?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Will this approach work with all of my lenses? If I had a different camera body, would I have other/different options?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-04T11:31:06.703" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T19:23:47.940" Title="What is the best way to micro-adjust a lens?" Tags="&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;back-focus&gt;&lt;tests&gt;&lt;focus-adjust&gt;&lt;front-focus&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="9" />
  <row Id="2" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:20:38.567" Score="14" ViewCount="638" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that it occurs when there's a shallow depth of field, but what are the various ways I can increase this effect in my photos when I'm taking them?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that I'm &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; asking  how to use an editing program to achieve this effect after they've been shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="9" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-28T01:33:32.103" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T01:33:32.103" Title="How can I maximise that &quot;blurry backround, sharp subject&quot; (bokeh) effect?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;bokeh&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="89" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:21:55.490" Score="17" ViewCount="645" Body="&lt;p&gt;All my attempts at HDR come out looking remarkably fake, how can I reduce the halos effect?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-07T22:51:25.537" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T04:10:33.257" Title="How can I stop my HDR shots looking so fake?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;hdr&gt;&lt;artifacts&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="4" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:22:08.873" Score="12" ViewCount="408" Body="&lt;p&gt;I lose lens caps by the billion. Is there another way to protect my lenses without having to carry these things around with me?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3040" LastEditorUserId="1913" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-09T14:27:38.773" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T14:27:38.773" Title="Should I really lug around a lens cap everywhere?" Tags="&lt;equipment-protection&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="515" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:22:41.493" Score="22" ViewCount="780" Body="&lt;p&gt;Due to weight restrictions I cannot take my tripod on my next foreign trip. What are the alternatives?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-17T01:00:59.237" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T23:01:56.903" Title="What are alternatives to a tripod when I can't take one along?" Tags="&lt;tripod&gt;&lt;travel&gt;" AnswerCount="15" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:23:13.020" Score="10" ViewCount="187" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been reading up on the different kinds of lighting kits out there. I read about using optical triggers for external lighting kits. This would allow me to use my on-camera flash (or a mounted flash)  without having to invest in TTL compatible parts. I use a Nikon d50 which doesn't support that out of the box.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the pros and cons to using this method of triggering external lighting?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="13" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T10:31:40.107" Title="What are the pros and cons of using an optical trigger for external lighting?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;flash&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="7" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:23:29.620" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, you want a shallow depth of field, which means a low fstop number (f/2.8 for example).  The lower the fstop number, the more light that gets in, so in order to expose correctly, you need to increase your shutter speed (1/1000 is better than 1/25), lower your iso (100 is better than 400), and if all this is not enough, add a neutral density filter to reduce ambient light, so that you can further open up your aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:23:29.620" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="68" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:23:40.070" Score="45" ViewCount="1287" Body="&lt;p&gt;At present I meticulously add metadata as EXIF tags to my photos using Microsoft Pro Photo Tools, which also lets me place them accurately on a map. The thing is I tend to leave photos in a folder based on the date I downloaded the image from the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is fine for finding shots taken in the last month, or for birthdays, but virtually impossible to remember months ago where I was in the second week of September -- what tips do you have for organising your files on disk? Are there good cataloguing programs out there that rely on the EXIF data so that I don't have to double enter? It'd be really cool if there was something that would let me poke at a map and say &quot;what have I taken near here?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-22T02:58:43.240" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T04:19:08.040" Title="How can I organise my photos better?" Tags="&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;workflow&gt;&lt;organisation&gt;&lt;curation&gt;" AnswerCount="13" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="14" />
  <row Id="9" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:24:18.010" Score="4" ViewCount="251" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm always in a hurry and never really check my camera settings before a snapping a few photos using whatever setting the camera was left on. I'm thinking I should probably try to put a checklist into my camera bag as a reminder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you set your camera back to a known settings before putting it away?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you use a checklist? What's on it? Where do you keep your checklist?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other suggestions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T13:43:14.670" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T13:43:14.670" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-05T11:22:45.730" Title="What are some of your pre-shoot checklist tips?" Tags="&lt;workflow&gt;" AnswerCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="10" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:24:24.080" Score="23" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://joby.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gorillapod&lt;/a&gt; range are quite portable tripods, with the added benefit of 'attach anywhere' - at least places you won't get a conventional tripod!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="17" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:24:24.080" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="11" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:24:28.820" Score="12" ViewCount="351" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that high ISOs tend to produce more noise, and some cameras' software can handle that noise better than others, but are there any other settings or conditions tha affect visible noise?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm using a micro-four-thirds camera (E-PL1) if it matters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="9" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-01T21:04:33.153" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T23:48:21.670" Title="How can I reduce the noise present when taking pictures without lowering my ISO?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;iso&gt;&lt;noise&gt;&lt;micro-four-thirds&gt;" AnswerCount="8" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="12" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="55" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:24:43.720" Score="15" ViewCount="456" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've got a couple of spots of dust on the sensor of my Canon 20D - a rocket blower isn't shifting them, and I'm ridiculously scared of some of the more direct methods for cleaning sensors -- what methods/systems have you tried, and how successful have they been?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-10T15:04:34.827" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T12:58:52.803" Title="Best way to clean the sensor on a digital SLR?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;cleaning&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;" AnswerCount="8" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="13" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="120" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:24:45.297" Score="15" ViewCount="520" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been happily using Photoshop and Bridge to manage and edit my digital photos. I'm aware that Lightroom 3 was recently released, and decided to take a look at it, since Lightroom has been widely promoted in the past few years. I haven't used it before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've read the specs, but I'd like to hear from those in the know: what benefits, if any, does Lightroom provide over the Photoshop/Bridge combination? I'm particularly looking for benefits to workflow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastEditorUserId="26" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-15T18:26:12.760" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T03:03:37.080" Title="What benefit does Lightroom offer over Photoshop+Bridge" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="14" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:24:58.710" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can bring a small gorilla pod, or my preference, a little collapsible monopod.  monopods are great because they offer a lot of monitored support, but are quite compact and lightweight.  My mom even bungees hers to available supports and uses the timer mode to take &quot;afk&quot; pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:24:58.710" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="15" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:25:12.597" Score="15" ViewCount="846" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general shooting in RAW format uses a lot more file storage than JPEG. What am I gaining when shooting RAW? Besides file size are there any downsides to shooting RAW?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="13" LastEditorUserId="13" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-06T19:46:47.497" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T06:02:47.047" Title="What are the pros and cons when shooting in raw vs JPEG?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;jpeg&gt;" AnswerCount="13" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="16" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:25:33.373" Score="23" ViewCount="421" Body="&lt;p&gt;The books that helped me most initially were the Bryan Peterson books and more recently the Joe McNally books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both of these working photographers give a lot of honest and helpful examples. These books don't lose their appeal once you've finished reading them, they're good for reference and continual inspiration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone have any other favorites?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-09T19:43:01.737" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T18:18:35.340" Title="What are the first few photography books someone should read?" Tags="&lt;tutorial&gt;&lt;books&gt;&lt;inspiration&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="16" />
  <row Id="17" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:25:40.347" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I keep a UV filter on most of the time as a secondary barrier - but to be honest, I just have to get into the habit of putting my lens cap in the same pocket each time I remove it.  I've spent way too much time hunting around for the the damn things too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="17" LastEditorUserId="17" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-15T19:31:48.897" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:31:48.897" />
  <row Id="18" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:26:26.837" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I prefer radio.  You a have a shorter range on optical, but more importantly, your sensor and your trigger need to be &quot;face to face&quot; - which can be a pain if you are using 2 strobes, one on camera.  Alienbees has a nice, medium priced radio system called &quot;cybersync&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:26:26.837" />
  <row Id="19" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="42" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:26:27.537" Score="13" ViewCount="374" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have an Olympus 770SW compact digital camera, and in macro mode I can manage to achieve a blurred background, if the background is far enough away (over a metre). Can this be done when taking non-macro pictures, and if not, is there a way to simulate it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Merged: How to blur the background using a super-zoom camera?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I shoot portraits with my brother's Nikon D90, this is quite easy to fade out the background. But with my Fuji HS10, super-zoom camera, I haven't been able to take such photos yet. I choose a large aperture for my camera but it still doesn't work. I know that standing further and zooming will result in a smaller depth of field. Why DSLR cameras are so much better in this area? Why zooming make the depth of field smaller? What are the general recommendations to do the job using a super-zoom?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-- &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/users/4841/mohsen&quot;&gt;Moshen&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-22T19:07:14.587" LastActivityDate="2011-04-23T07:14:45.423" Title="Is it possible to take shallow depth of field photos with point-and-shoot cameras?" Tags="&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="20" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:26:35.650" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps not applicable in all scenarios, but taking sequences of photos as the maximum speed possible in your camera (say around 5 or so frames) can act as a &quot;stabilizer&quot;. Out of such a series, one frame tends to be pretty sharp, even at rather slow shutter speeds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:26:35.650" />
  <row Id="21" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:26:59.970" Score="18" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can use a monopod as a lighter, but still sturdy alternative. Small legs for the point at the bottom can serve to help steady you, although it's no replacement for a proper tripod.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;GorillaPods are an option, as mentioned by others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I actually like to use a beanbag when I'm tight for space; it turns almost any surface into a usable camera mount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="14" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:26:59.970" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="22" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:27:39.703" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This doesn't quite eliminate the annoyance, but a leash is a great solution that prevents losing them.&lt;/strong&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cheap ones just stick on your existing lens cap like mounting tape, and an elastic band goes around the base of the lens.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That way, when you take off the cap, it just hangs about 4 inches off the camera, so you can't misplace it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="9" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:27:39.703" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="23" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:27:40.453" Score="32" ViewCount="969" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm playing with my old XTi with a new travel lens, Tamrom 18-270mm and I'm reading the instruction sheet for the Tamron and read a section about Manual focusing and got to the small print.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even in MF mode, when turning focusing ring while pressing the shutter button halfway, the focus aid function lamp lights up when the picture is in focus.&#xA;Huh?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I grabbed my camera, set it to manual focus played around. Sure enough the little focus indicator turns on when I've focused properly. And now the whole Manual AF Point Selection button makes sense (the crosshair button nearest the shutter on the XTi).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wow, that's really cool.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What's something you've discovered that gave you a similar feeling?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T18:54:59.347" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T18:54:59.347" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-01T18:55:11.547" Title="What is something you learned recently about your gear that you wish you discovered earlier?" Tags="&lt;tips&gt;&lt;discovery&gt;&lt;instructions&gt;" AnswerCount="25" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="7" />
  <row Id="24" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:28:01.200" Score="24" ViewCount="1005" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been shopping around for a prime lens for my Nikon d50. I noticed that the 1.8 is hundreds of dollars cheaper than the 1.5 AF-S. What will I gain for that cost difference? Is it really noticeable?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="13" LastEditorUserId="95" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T02:21:56.137" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T04:37:51.003" Title="Is there a noticable difference between 1.8 and 1.4 prime lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;prime&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="25" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:28:23.883" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The wider your aperture, the smaller your focal depth will be. So if you can shoot with a fast lens and use aperture priority to use the most open aperture setting possible you will increase this effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming you have already taken the photo and everything is in focus, you can use software such as photoshop to select everything in the image you want to be blurry and apply a blurring filter. You can take it a step further and create an alpha layer to vary the amount of blur with the depth of the image. This will take longer but result in a very nice effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="23" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:28:23.883" />
  <row Id="26" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:28:31.527" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use a large aperture (small F number) when you take a photo. The larger the aperture the narrower the depth of field will be (compensate with with a shorter shutter speed). In addition you can try to vary the distance between the camera and the subject. The shorter the distance, the smaller the DOF will be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:28:31.527" />
  <row Id="27" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:28:44.443" Score="8" ViewCount="71" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm a serious hobbyist photographer and take pictures mostly for myself, but also love seeing my work used elsewhere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recently I was in a position to use a photo of mine at an annual neighborhood event. I used my photo on the cover of an HOA membership list that's used when people checked into the picnic. A local city councilman saw the photo and expressed interest in acquiring a print of the photo for use in in City Hall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are some of the off beat methods you've tried to give your photography more exposure?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T03:45:31.770" Title="What creative ways have you exhibited your photos that led to more exposure?" Tags="&lt;marketing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="28" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:29:02.897" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I always consider a RAW file like a traditional negative -- The biggest benefit of shooting in RAW is the ability to tweak things like white balance and exposure with greater accuracy and ease back when you're &quot;developing&quot; them. However, shooting in RAW consumes memory card space faster, and some cameras perform faster when shooting in JPEG&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:29:02.897" />
  <row Id="29" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:29:12.227" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Maybe &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photoshop Lightroom&lt;/a&gt; is a good answer for this. Especially because of the tagging functionality...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="24" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:29:12.227" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="30" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:29:13.023" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;RAW definitely takes more work.  If you want to go straight to Facebook with an album of 50+ photos, you may want to consider using JPG.  Using RAW allows you to customize white balance, exposure, etc.  This takes more time, but can yield a better photo.  If you have the time, this is the route to take.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are going for the HDR effect, you can sometimes achieve it with a single RAW file, and use exposure adjustments to create 5 differently exposed JPGs for merge. It's harder to accomplish that with a single JPG as source.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, if you have enough memory cards, some cameras allow you to record both RAW and JPG for every shot — this is what I do, and may be a good option for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastEditorUserId="499" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-12T12:38:02.270" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T12:38:02.270" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="31" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2567" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:29:25.160" Score="14" ViewCount="828" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are there are any &quot;ultra-portable&quot; tripods out there? I'd like to find one for backpacking that weighs 500 grams or less, but none seem to exist... there are tabletop tripods that weigh considerably less, and the full-size tripods that seem to bottom out around 1000g. But nothing in between?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm happy to sit down while photographing, but I'd like to make photos without needing a rock or log to put a tabletop tripod on, or a tree to strap one to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the spirit of &lt;strong&gt;a&lt;/strong&gt; tripod is better than no tripod, I'd give up a lot. But I have not been able to find a product like this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would also be interested in directions for building one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Clarifications&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The 500g budget includes a complete tripod: both legs and head.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The goal is to support about 1.5kg (e.g., D90 + 18-200).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The 500g budget is for additional weight above and beyond what I'm already carrying. So, if an item I'm already carrying on a backpack can be repurposed or a new item substituted, only the net mass increase counts against the budget.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-20T21:46:46.657" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T18:39:15.773" Title="Super-super-lightweight tripods: Do they exist?" Tags="&lt;tripod&gt;" AnswerCount="13" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="32" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:29:34.050" Score="20" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I expect pro-RAW answers will dominate here, so I'll offer a pro-JPEG view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was shooting RAW from the start when I started using digital cameras. However, after a few years, when looking into my workflow, I realize that I &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; rarely use what RAW offers (post exposure white balance changes, exposure corrections and so on). My typical adjustments to the image is a slight increase of contrast, and perhaps adjust brightness a bit (yes, I try to be thorough with white balance and exposure when shooting). Given that, I really could not justify my image using 3-4 times the storage space required by RAW, so a year and a half ago I stopped shooting RAW out of habit, and instead default to JPEG.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It still happens that I switch to RAW, if the subject is of a nature where I expect to need extra post processing (tricky high-contrast light situations for instance), but more than 99% of my images are JPEG in the camera, and I have not yet felt that it limits me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:29:34.050" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="33" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:29:41.210" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want to increase this effect when making photos, then shoot on the longest focus end and with smallest possible aperture value (F number).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are talking about the post production, then in Photoshop you can use layer with gradient mask, copy the main layer, apply any blur filter to it, then use gradient for the mask. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.recipester.org/Recipe%3aAdd_Gradient_Blur_to_image_in_photoshop_33784813&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here is the lesson&lt;/a&gt; for this technique. If you have a landscape shoot from the high point, then you can apply 2 gradients on top and on the bottom leaving the center of the image focused and sharp so that it looks like toy model.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:29:41.210" />
  <row Id="34" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:29:43.787" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The file size is because of the raw data, which the camera normally discards when outputting a JPEG.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shooting RAW involves more post-production work. That can be a little, or a lot, or whatever you need. But you get much more capability to tweak your light balance, colour settings, and more. Plus the changes are reversible, and can be edited further.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The obvious downside is the file size. That's up front. But there is the extra cost of time in post-production.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:29:43.787" />
  <row Id="35" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:30:23.050" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Obviously, smaller fstop means shorter depth-of-field, so I'm not going there. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a couple of things you can do:&#xA;1) Remove the subject from the background as much as possible. How much will depend on the lense and aperture you can use.&#xA;2) Use a longer lens. Longer lenses have more narrow DOF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope that helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="32" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:30:23.050" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="36" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:30:47.497" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have to say that the Scott Kelby book &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/032147404X&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Digital Photography Book: The Step-by-step Secrets for How to Make Your Photos Look Like the Pros&lt;/a&gt;&quot; was a digestible and easy page turner which is small enough for a beginner to lug around whilst still referring to situation specific shot suggestions.  A little tongue in cheek in tone in places, but I found it invaluable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="17" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:30:47.497" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="37" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="56" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:30:55.780" Score="5" ViewCount="235" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm curious about how my &quot;area of acceptable focus&quot; changes when the focal length of the lens I'm using changes. In particular, I'd like to know how the front &amp;amp; back focal planes change, thus changing the depth of field and the minimum focus distance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastEditorUserId="48" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-15T19:38:09.757" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:38:09.757" Title="How does zoom/focal length affect depth of field?" Tags="&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;focus&gt;&lt;focal-length&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="38" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:30:59.477" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can always use software to create bokeh. There are many different choices ranging from amateur filters to professional software. I suggest you do a search or start with a simple tutorial with PS &lt;a href=&quot;http://dustylens.com/selective_focus_gradient_tool.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="16" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:30:59.477" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="39" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:31:08.073" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you don't mind trading the cost of additional lens caps against the cost of the UV filter, then go for it, and skip them.  What I mean by that is if you don't keep a lens cap handy, you will end up replacing the filter eventually.  Up to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I just toss the cap in my pocket, and haven't lost one yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:31:08.073" />
  <row Id="40" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:31:12.347" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's more complicated than just depth of field. You can have two photos with identical depth of field, but one can have more background blur than the other. In addition to background blur, there is also &quot;bokeh&quot;, which describes what kind of blur there is. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/bokeh_background_blur.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Check out this article&lt;/a&gt; which describes it in detail, and gives you a tool for calculating the various parameters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:31:12.347" />
  <row Id="41" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="24" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:31:33.827" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, but until you master the 1.8 lens I wouldn't recommend spending the money on the 1.4. The wider the lens the more precisely you have to focus to get good results. I've taken photos of a person's face where the eyes were in focus but the nose is blurry with the 1.8. So get the 1.8, and get good at manually focusing it. Even with AF-S on the D50 you will want to manually focus a lot to get really good results with this lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="23" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:31:33.827" />
  <row Id="42" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:32:20.690" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a good answer from &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.epicedits.com/2007/02/27/6-tips-for-controlling-depth-of-field/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Brian Auer&lt;/a&gt;, which I'll reproduce here, as it pretty much covers the problem you're trying to solve:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ooh, good question. Yes, but how much will depend on the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If the camera has manual controls for aperture, that definitely helps. It also helps if the camera has zoom, as most P&amp;amp;S cameras do. The problem with creating a shallow depth of field comes from the fact that the sensor is so small, and as a result the lens is close to the sensor — thus creating very small focal lengths. My P&amp;amp;S has a focal length range from 6mm to 18mm — which is very small. They create an effective focal length much higher due to the small sensor size. As I said in the tips, a short focal length will produce an image with nearly everything in focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So to blur the background using a P&amp;amp;S, you’ll get your best results if you zoom in all the way, focus on something close (you don’t want to focus out to infinity), and have a background that is much further away. So your two points of control are focal length and subject distance. I just gave it a shot with my camera, and it does work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="14" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:32:20.690" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="43" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:32:30.283" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have started with the guide comming with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apple.com/aperture/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Apple Aperture&lt;/a&gt;, it can be downloaded here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/aperture_photography_fundamentals.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/aperture_photography_fundamentals.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not the most complete guide of course but it explain basics in a very clear way&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="34" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:32:30.283" />
  <row Id="44" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:33:02.530" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had a Canon 30D and got a bad dust spot on the sensor ... the only way I was able to get rid of it was to take it to a camera shop and get it cleaned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was thinking about cleaning the sensor myself, but decided against it.  If the camera shop screwed it up, they had the resources &amp;amp; skill to fix it.  If I screwed it up, I would probably have to pay a lot more than $60.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would suggest taking it to a good &lt;em&gt;CAMERA&lt;/em&gt; shop (not a 1 hour photo printing place that also sells cameras) ... you might pay more, but I'm betting you'll get better quality results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="33" LastEditorUserId="33" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T14:23:32.413" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T14:23:32.413" />
  <row Id="45" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="24" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:33:29.173" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Heh, that's the same camera I use!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't have a nifty-fifty, but my understanding is that you don't get even a full extra stop when moving from 1.8 to 1.4. Also, I've read that the 1.4 version introduces more distortion. Unless you really need the best max. aperture, save your money and get the 1.8 version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:33:29.173" />
  <row Id="46" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:33:36.693" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depending on your environment even with a UV filter you will want a cap to keep dirt and stuff off of the lens. A cheap cap keeper is handy, although I've become pretty used to sticking the cap in my back pocket. It beats carrying around something to clean the lens!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="23" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:33:36.693" />
  <row Id="47" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="24" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:34:50.870" Score="31" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's an extra two-thirds of an f-stop, with all that comes with it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Narrower depth of field (perhaps marginal in comparison to the f/1,8)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Brighter viewfinder; great in low-light situations&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Might be the difference between getting the shot or not, also in low-light situations&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lenses tend to get sharper when stopped down. At f/1,8 the f/1,4 lens is stopped down two-thirds of a stop, while the f/1,8 is wide open. I don't know if there is any actual difference in sharpness between the lenses here, but I would assume that the f/1,4 is sharper at f/1,8 than the f/1,8 lens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it worth the price difference? Only you can tell...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-10T04:37:51.003" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T04:37:51.003" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="48" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:35:07.440" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you don't want to pay for Adobe Lightroom or Apple Aperture, you could go with Apple's iPhoto or Google's Picasa.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm most familiar with iPhoto; it does a fair amount of hand-holding when it comes to organizing photos. Smart Albums are really nice; you write the filter logic, and iPhoto shows you the matching photos on an ongoing basis. Works wonders for the sort of stuff you'll probably be doing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:35:07.440" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="49" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="88" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:35:08.610" Score="16" ViewCount="347" Body="&lt;p&gt;How does aperture affect my photographs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why should I care about the aperture with which a photo was taken?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="54" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-08T17:49:17.720" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T13:49:37.320" Title="What is aperture, and how does it affect my photograph?" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="50" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:35:30.777" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Testing autofocus is hard to get right, so it's a good question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have used this chart with success:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://pentaxdslrs.blogspot.com/2008/06/part-1-autofocus-adjustment-for-pentax.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://pentaxdslrs.blogspot.com/2008/06/part-1-autofocus-adjustment-for-pentax.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(It's a Pentax blog, but the chart and directions are general except for the interactions with the actual camera.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Follow the directions - they're very fiddly, but important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that near focus and far focus can have difference calibration needs -- making a small chart like the one I suggest problematic -- but I have no idea if this is actually a problem in practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:35:30.777" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="51" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="83" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:35:49.683" Score="2" ViewCount="512" Body="&lt;p&gt;It appears that Canon do not offer native 64-bit drivers for any of their range of digital cameras; Is there any way to work around this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;EDIT&lt;/b&gt; Would I be better upgrading to Windows 7 x64, or no better off?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-15T19:55:35.080" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:01:49.243" Title="How can I use my Canon EOS 20D with Vista x64" Tags="&lt;workflow&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="52" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:36:10.103" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biggest upside for RAW is color depth. Most RAW formats capture color information in 12 bit format. This means that color intensities can vary from 0 to 4095. In contrast JPG can only capture 8 bit in color depth (0 to 255). Therefore a RAW file can be tweaked much more extensively without the whites being washed out. The only two downsides I can think of are storage space and a more complex workflow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:36:10.103" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="53" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:36:24.923" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Try out the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.acdsee.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ACDSee&lt;/a&gt; photo manager, it's the best thing I have found for very large collections of images. Adobe Lightroom or Bridge are good also, but ACDSee is much better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="23" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:36:24.923" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="54" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:36:50.697" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Con: I've had problems with lighting modifiers (specifically, a shoot-through umbrella) altering the light enough to not reliably trigger the optical hotshoe on my second flash. It's a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; more finicky this way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:36:50.697" />
  <row Id="55" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:37:10.133" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A rocket blower can be worse than not cleaning at all.  it inhales air from your environment - which can be dustier than your sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use pecpads and eclipse cleaning solution, with a sensor swipe.  This &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&amp;amp;field-keywords=pec+pad&amp;amp;x=0&amp;amp;y=0&amp;amp;ih=2_1_0_1_0_1_0_1_0_1.77_15&amp;amp;fsc=3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;link&lt;/a&gt; has all of these products in the search.  It works well to remove spots.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A tip - take a picture of a clear blue sky at f/22 to identify all your dust spots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:37:10.133" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="56" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="37" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:37:13.987" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is tool to calculate DOF by putting Focal length and f-stop here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;With result you can create an interesting graph&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="34" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:37:13.987" />
  <row Id="57" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="92" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:38:03.500" Score="34" ViewCount="930" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are there any &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;real&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; downsides to using a UV filter?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that a poor quality UV filter can effect image quality ... but, assuming I use a good quality UV filter, will that actually be an issue? Is there any other reason not to use one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="33" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-02T18:40:16.803" LastActivityDate="2011-05-14T21:51:34.353" Title="Are there any downsides to using a good-quality UV filter?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;filters&gt;&lt;uv&gt;&lt;protection&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="58" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="27" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:38:10.380" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've tried hanging them at the lobby of my apartment building. And also I've tried showing them at bars and restaurants, and that's how a gallerist discovered the pictures and started showing them at the gallery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="32" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:38:10.380" />
  <row Id="60" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="31" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:38:53.263" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;if you sitting with the camera, you might be able to get away with a small carbon fiber monopod.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:38:53.263" />
  <row Id="61" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="168" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:39:05.433" Score="5" ViewCount="86" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have lots of old slides and should probably digitize them? What is the best way of achieving this? What kind of touchups might be necessary?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:45:40.280" Title="What is the best method to digitize and touch up my old slides?" Tags="&lt;slides&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="62" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="133" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:39:23.823" Score="20" ViewCount="252" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm aware of the difference between RAW and DNG file formats. The RAW format is proprietary to the camera manufacturer while DNG is an open standard. DNG files can be compressed without loss of detail, and can also include the photo metadata within. Both can be edited in Photoshop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would DNG be considered widely used today? I have a library of photos in NEF (Nikon D50) format that I have been contemplating whether to convert.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-04T02:44:13.520" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T03:14:31.953" Title="Is switching to DNG worthwhile?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;dng&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="63" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="57" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:40:04.400" Score="-4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No. It also protects the lens glass from scratches and dust.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:40:04.400" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="64" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:40:23.480" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are so weight restricted that even a &lt;a href=&quot;http://joby.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gorillapod&lt;/a&gt; wouldn't make it, then look for the more stable support you can get reach of that would allow you to place your camera in the approximate position you want to shoot from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When indoors, tables, chairs and walls are good candidates. When outdoors, look for posts, branches, rocks or other natural platforms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your camera allows, lock the exposure (and eventually the focus) before placing the camera on its chosen place. Remember to check if the camera is out of slipping danger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if your camera has the options for that, turn off image stabilization, turn on the self timer (2 seconds are enough for shots you don't plan to be part of, 10 seconds otherwise), and press the shutter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It never hurts to take more than one shot on those occasions, just in case. :o)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:40:23.480" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="65" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="78" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:40:38.627" Score="16" ViewCount="298" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like a clear &amp;amp; easy-to-understand (especially for non-physics-types) explanation of what Hyperfocal Distance is, how it affects photographs, and what determines its value.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T13:59:10.293" Title="What is &quot;Hyperfocal Distance&quot;?" Tags="&lt;focus&gt;" AnswerCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="67" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="31" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:41:07.440" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A 1kg tripod is really light and I doubt it's possible to construct something lighter that is usable for anything except carrying around. I don't know what other stuff you are carrying around with you, but I suggest you rather try to restrict the rest of the load. Carrying a 1kg tripod is really not a problem if you are serious about photography IMHO. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="16" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:41:07.440" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="68" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:41:53.163" Score="22" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The key is adding some specific tags &lt;em&gt;every time you import&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use Aperture (which is Mac-only,) but Lightroom has similar capabilities, as does iphoto.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you need to tag depends on what you shoot, and what you think you might be looking for someday, but this works for me:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The people in the pictures.&lt;/strong&gt;   I use Apple's &quot;Faces&quot; feature to tag people in the pictures (sometimes it recognizes them itself).  This is key for me, so I can then pull up pics of my Mom, with me, but not with my brother, for example.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The place the pictures were taken.&lt;/strong&gt;  Again, Aperture has a nice, pre-defined &quot;places&quot; tag that can read any associated GPS data, but you can also just manually add tags for this:  (NYC, Our Lake House, Oz, whatever.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;An event name.&lt;/strong&gt;  New Years 2008, Tom's 30th Birthday, Walking in NYC Mar 2010, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Any relevent themes or types you might look for someday.&lt;/strong&gt;  This one's optional, but if you sometimes want to find a picture of a flower, or animals, or you generally shoot in ways that are thematically bucketed, this can save some time.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="9" LastEditorUserId="9" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-15T20:43:59.597" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:43:59.597" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="69" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:42:15.440" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can't really have complicated setups with just optical trigger E.g. if you are using one flash to illuminate a person's face and another flash to illuminate the wall on the back, which you won't be able to do because the flash is not facing the primary flash. Just go with the affordable alienbees.. believe me those ebay optical triggers don't last that long.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="55" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:42:15.440" />
  <row Id="70" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="79" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:42:24.880" Score="11" ViewCount="162" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the ISO setting on my camera?  What does it represent?  What should I be aware of with regards to ISO when taking photographs&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="54" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T21:38:45.903" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T21:38:45.903" Title="What is ISO and how does it affect my photos" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;iso&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="71" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:42:51.477" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A beanbag doesn't take too much space in your bag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="16" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:42:51.477" />
  <row Id="72" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="65" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:42:58.607" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The hyperfocal distance is used a lot in landscape photography, where the maximum depth of field is achieved , which carries on up to the &quot;infinity&quot; point too - it's generally two thirds of the way between the camera and its infinite distance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:42:58.607" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="73" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:43:11.850" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To check if your camera/lens is having front-focus or back-focus issues you can download a pdf (incl a focus chart) here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://focustestchart.com/focus21.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://focustestchart.com/focus21.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first few pages describe how AF works and how it can be tested. The actual instructions for testing the AF start at page at page 13.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastEditorUserId="19" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T19:23:47.940" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T19:23:47.940" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="74" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:43:42.503" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you have to work with available light and you are already at a high ISO then the only way is either to expose for a longer period at a lower ISO or use noise reduction software in post-production.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bottom line, higher ISO will produce more noise and the only way to reduce the ISO is to have more light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="32" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:43:42.503" />
  <row Id="75" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:45:25.853" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't drop it..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:45:25.853" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-01T18:55:11.547" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="76" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="65" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:45:34.870" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The hyperfocal distance is the nearest distance on which a lens can be focused on a given aperture, where the depth of field will extend to &quot;infinity&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:45:34.870" />
  <row Id="77" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="70" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:45:37.570" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The ISO number represents the sensitivity of the film material. You need to configure the right ISO number in order to obtain the fight brightness of your photos because the camera will adjust the time of exposure, size of opening and/or flash in the appropriate way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Newer cameras are able to read the ISO number from the label on the film role.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.geofflawrence.com/photography_tutorial_ISO_film_speed.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.geofflawrence.com/photography_tutorial_ISO_film_speed.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:45:37.570" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="78" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="65" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:46:06.633" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The hyperfocal distance is the distance at which everything from 1/2 the distance to infinity is in focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance, if the hyperfocal distance of a particular lens at a particular aperture is 100ft, then by focusing at 100 ft you can capture anything from 50ft-infinity in clear focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A more in depth explanation can be found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dofmaster.com/hyperfocal.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.dofmaster.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-30T13:09:29.947" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T13:09:29.947" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="79" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="70" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:47:32.167" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Changing the ISO setting in digital camera's is like changing the gain (amplification) of your photo sensors. With a low ISO setting (e.g. 100) you don't amplify the signal from the sensors. But using a high ISO setting (e.g. 1600) results in an amplification of the signals registered by the sensors. A high ISO setting usually results in more noise in your images so try to keep the ISO as low as possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This article explains various sources of image noise: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_noise&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_noise&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:47:32.167" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="80" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="24" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:47:41.497" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's the Thom Hogan review: &lt;a href=&quot;http://bythom.com/Nikkor50AF-Slensreview.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://bythom.com/Nikkor50AF-Slensreview.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His take is: yes, the f/1.4 is somewhat better, but not by a whole lot, so save your money unless you really do need the extra 2/3 stop. Consider boosting the ISO by a stop instead (and you should be ignoring the pixel-peepers and their 100% crop noise tests anyway).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also note that the f/1.8 D does not have an internal focusing motor and thus is not compatible with some bodies. I don't recall if the D50 is such a body, but check this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't worry about depth of field, because it makes focusing that much more critical and also having too narrow DOF is a much more common technical error than too deep DOF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:47:41.497" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="81" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="31" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:48:06.660" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tamrac makes a very lightweight tripod called the ZipShot, it's only 11oz (312g) but does not carry much weight, 3 lbs (1361g) by manufacturer spec., this will carry a small DSLR with a light lens, but don't expect it to do miracles. Regarding height it is only 44&quot; (112cm) tall so it is somewhere in-between a tabletop and a full size tripod. Might be worth checking out if weight is that more important than stability. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:48:06.660" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="82" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:48:31.633" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pretty much the only way to alter the noise is to lower the ISO. If you are afraid of having darker photos, you can look into getting a faster lens (lower f-stop), or take longer exposures (at the risk of having blurry photos).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="28" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:48:31.633" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="83" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="51" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:49:08.543" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For image transfers, it should work in PTP mode (or you could use a card reader); you won't be able to remote-control the camera, unfortunately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your edit, the problem is 64-bit support from Canon for older models, not necessarily the OS itself. However, on Windows 7 Professional, you could possibly run the 32-bit versions of everything in &quot;XP Mode&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="14" LastEditorUserId="14" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-15T20:05:45.773" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:05:45.773" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="84" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="57" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:49:29.883" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When the lens are designed they usually try to minimize the number of optical elements as each extra element will affect the image. Good filters make no noticeable changes, however it's still an extra element which can, for example, add a reflection in some rare cases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if you are using a wide angle lens, then choose low profile filter, otherwise you may get a vignetting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:49:29.883" />
  <row Id="86" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="62" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:51:48.663" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is DNG widely used? Not really. My Pentax K200D supported it, but not very well. Leica supports it in their S2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NEF is very common (because Nikon is huge), enough so that I'm not worried about it going away. There is open-source software that can interpret current NEFs, so if (for example) Nikon disappeared tomorrow and took away all their software and specs and forbade third parties from creating NEF software, you could still get into the files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't bother converting preemptively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:51:48.663" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="87" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:53:03.900" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I took a new 50 1.2 for a test drive on a 5D Mark II, I was having trouble keeping the shutter speed below 1/8000 with the lens wide open. I bought the 1.2 to shoot it wide open so this was going to be a problem in sunny conditions. I was happy to learn that turning on ISO Expansion in the custom functions menu also includes a low setting of ISO 50. I use this quite a bit now!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="50" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:53:03.900" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-01T18:55:11.547" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="88" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="49" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:53:25.257" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The aperture affects not only the amount of time required to take a photo, but also the depth of field within it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With a wide aperture (so a low number, like f/1.8) gives a shallow depth of field - sometimes less than a millimetre with a macro lens. Because a lot of light is reaching the sensor (be it film or digital), this allows for fast shutter speeds&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With a narrow aperture (so a high number like f/22), the depth of field is much greater, which is useful for things like landscape photography - it will limit the amount of light reaching your sensor, so you will get slower shutter speeds, which makes a tripod handy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:53:25.257" />
  <row Id="89" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:55:38.980" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The key to a good hdr photo is to use the correct amount of processing for the feel you want to achieve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your goal is to get the &quot;hdr look&quot;, then you're probably doing it about right, because there should be a slightly &quot;fake&quot; feel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are only using hdr as a method to improve a photo, then just be careful and try to under-process it.  If you can't quite tell what method you used to process the image then you've probably done it right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a lot like sharpening, it's best if you can't tell that you did it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-27T20:11:27.443" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T20:11:27.443" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="90" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="51" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:55:56.017" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;AFAIK, all Canon DSLR's present themselves to the computer as a USB drive.  The drivers for that are built into Windows.  It should work fine with Windows XP, Vista, &amp;amp; 7 in both 32bit &amp;amp; 64bit flavors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're talking about the Canon software that comes bundled with your camera, you can probably download an update from the Canon website.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I installed the Canon software, that came with my 7D, on my x64 Windows 7 system and had no problems at all (although I don't use the software on a regular basis, I know it works).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT 1&lt;/strong&gt;: If you upgrade to Win7 x64, you might be able to use XP mode.  Alternatively, you could install a virtual machine product.  I recommend Sun's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.virtualbox.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;VirtualBox&lt;/a&gt; because it has the ability to route USB connections to the VM's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT 2&lt;/strong&gt;: Regardless of how the camera is presented to the computer from a technical perspective ... all the Canon digital cameras I own or have owned have worked fine with all versions of Windows.  Just plug it into the USB and it worked.  Does the 20D require drivers to work on any other version of Windows?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="33" LastEditorUserId="33" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-15T21:01:49.243" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:01:49.243" CommentCount="11" />
  <row Id="91" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:56:15.580" Score="6" ViewCount="108" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another question is how to correct it (&lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1265&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;suggested in proposals&lt;/a&gt;), but&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... &lt;strong&gt;are there ways of avoiding it in the first place?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="64" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T08:10:01.343" Title="How do I avoid getting any chromatic aberration in my photographs?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;wavelength&gt;&lt;chromatic-aberration&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="92" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="57" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:57:01.270" Score="44" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It degrades image quality - adding more elements to a lens &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; reduces image quality; better filters will just do so less. One specific thing that happens is light reflecting between the front element of the lens and the filter, which can be reduced (but not eliminated) with coatings on the filter.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It makes it more difficult to use other filters. Either you have to remove it before adding the other filter, or you have to stack, which can introduce vignetting.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether the IQ reduction is noticeable and/or whether this is a good tradeoff is another question. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:57:01.270" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="93" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="108" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:58:49.207" Score="5" ViewCount="117" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have an old analog camera (I believe yashica) with a bayonet lock and several zoom lenses for it. All of that was very high quality at the time and I would like to re-use it for a digital camera. Are any such digital cameras on the market?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T23:50:14.897" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T23:50:14.897" Title="Are there new digital cameras that my old zoom lenses from my analog camera fit for?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;digital-vs-film&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;digital&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="94" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="49" CreationDate="2010-07-15T19:59:57.457" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Aperture is often confused and considered backwards - larger hole, smaller number - but this isn't really the case.  Aperture is measured in a ratio, so its really a ratio of the diameter of the aperture in comparison to the focal length of the lens.  This is why it seems backwards, because a smaller number in the denominator is really a larger number (e.g. 1/ 2.8 &gt; 1/5/6).  As said in other answers, the size of the aperture affects the amount of light let in, so changing it forces you to compensate with shutter speed and/or iso and/or ambient light changes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T19:59:57.457" />
  <row Id="95" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="24" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:01:01.963" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure about with Nikon, but one of the biggest differences I see mentioned between the Canon 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 lenses is the build quality - plastic vs metal among other things. This is probably what accounts for most of the price difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="59" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:01:01.963" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="96" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="729" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:01:17.360" Score="4" ViewCount="376" Body="&lt;p&gt;Now that we are moving to the digital world...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the best negative scanner for the price range of up to 400$&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="80" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T03:13:40.253" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T13:47:21.730" Title="Best 35mm scanner" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;scanner&gt;&lt;negative-scanner&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="97" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:02:06.517" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Keep the camera as cool as possible! High temperature increases the thermal noise in your images. That's why certain astrophotographers actively &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.centralds.net/en/products-x.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;cool their camera&lt;/a&gt;!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:02:06.517" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="98" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="61" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:02:13.223" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could get a film scanner ... although you would probably want to get a good quality product, as the lower end models do a very poor job.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another option would be to find the slides and/or negatives you want scanned and send them to a photolab that can do the scanning.  If it's a good lab (I've used Helix Color Labs in Chicago) they can get you very high quality scans with high resolutions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for touching them up ... I have to defer to people more skilled in image editing.  I suspect, however, that most consumer photo editing programs have built in recipes to do a fairly good job.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="33" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:02:13.223" />
  <row Id="99" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:02:28.963" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Turning the dial on my XTi also lets you cycle through photos in preview mode.  I was always pressing the left and right arrows until now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:02:28.963" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-01T18:55:11.547" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="100" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9584" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:02:34.940" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Chromatic aberrations are closely related to the construction of the lens itself, although the situation can be made worse if you stack lots of filters on the front. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The likes of Canon and Nikon would also say that their lenses perform better than others (or each other, for that matter), and there is an element of truth in that, although, whether some of the astronomical differences between two similar lenses is worth it, is a matter of personal choice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-19T08:10:01.343" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T08:10:01.343" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="101" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9584" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:03:07.123" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's no way to avoid it since its inherent in the lens. A better quality lens will have less chromatic aberrations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One way to correct it is using lightroom. Here's a quick tutorial: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpnotes.com/how-to-reduce-chromatic-aberration-using-adobe-photoshop-lightroom/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpnotes.com/how-to-reduce-chromatic-aberration-using-adobe-photoshop-lightroom/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="32" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:03:07.123" />
  <row Id="102" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="62" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:03:12.050" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on what software you use to store/catalogue your photos. For example Lightroom understands NEF, and I'm perfectly fine with using NEF and not DNG.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:03:12.050" />
  <row Id="103" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="113" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:03:35.343" Score="8" ViewCount="233" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is focal-length?  Are focal-length and zoom synonymous?  How does the focal length of a photo affect it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="54" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T21:38:02.733" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T21:38:02.733" Title="What is focal length and how does it affect my photos" Tags="&lt;focal-length&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="105" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="49" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:05:18.660" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Aperture is how much light can come into your lens (like an iris on your eye). Assuming two lenses have the same size opening, a wider aperture value (smaller f stop #) will let more light in than the same size lens with a larger minimum aperture value.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A wide aperture will need a shorter shutter speed, which means you can capture high speed motion quicker. More light means a lower ISO setting is needed, which means less grainyness in low light. A wider aperture will allow you to take photos in lower levels of light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A wide aperture will result in a shallower depth of focus (the in focus part of the image will be smaller in the direction directly outward from the camera)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="23" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:05:18.660" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="106" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="57" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:06:00.267" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mutli coated UV filters are intended to reduce sun flare - so if thats the effect you are going for, then you may want to consider losing the filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some anecdotal evidence, I (read as: my wife) dropped my 50 mm f/1.4 on a vacation.  We had a uv filter on it, and it cracked it in several places, and jammed the lens cap into the filter threading.  After some work with a pair of needle nose pliers, we were able to pry it of.  Thankfully the lens itself was fine.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:06:00.267" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="107" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="103" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:08:43.427" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Focal length is the more techy way of talking about zoom (so that 3x optical zoom on a compact camera really means the focal length at its longest will be three times that at it's shortest, or widest).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can use longer focal length to fake perspective, as the human mind is used to seeing pictures at a 35mm equivelent focal length of about 50mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're using a a modern DSLR you then get the crop factor (sometimes mis-described as a focal length multiplier), but for a camera with an APS-C sized sensor, you have a crop factor of 1.6; and if you have a 100mm lens attached to it, then it will have the same field of view as a 160mm lens on a 35mm camera; in reality, the focal length is still 100mm though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:08:43.427" />
  <row Id="108" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="93" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:09:18.450" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/eos_adapters.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This page&lt;/a&gt; seems a good reference to use yashica/contaxt lens on Canon EOS D&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But be aware that you will have to use manual mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="34" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:09:18.450" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="109" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="103" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:09:55.263" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_length&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Focal length&lt;/a&gt; is the distance from your lens to your film (or sensor). Depending on your focal length your picture is either zoomed in or zoomed out (or normal size when the focal length is usually 50mm).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:09:55.263" />
  <row Id="110" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:10:13.983" Score="5" ViewCount="143" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently bought a Canon EF 24-70/2.8L to use with my 450D and I suspect that it is constantly back focusing. Is there any way of determining if it is something wrong with the lens or if it is a problem with my technique/camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppopse I could send the lens to Canon for calibration, but before I do that I want to make sure it will actually help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="88" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:15:50.633" Title="How can you tell if a lens is having problems with back focusing?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;lens&gt;&lt;back-focus&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="111" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="131" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:10:47.477" Score="5" ViewCount="145" Body="&lt;p&gt;As someone who publishes a lot of photos on Flickr, I'd like to know the best way to export my photos.  I see that Lightroom 3 has a built-in publishing tool... is that the best option or are there better ways such as third-party plugins?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T20:23:22.943" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T14:23:17.197" Title="What's the best way to get photos from Lightroom to Flickr?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;flickr&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="112" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:12:17.647" Score="3" ViewCount="270" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been trying to find a Lee .9 Hard stop GND since November.  Really, November of '09.  Adorama, b&amp;amp;h, amazon were all out.  I finally found one on amazon through a third party in the beginning of July.  This led to me to think that going the Lee route was not the best idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question - what is the highest quality GND out there?  I will be using it for landscapes, and don't mind a system.  I heard that Cokin casts a ruby tint in their GND, so I avoided them.  I do not want a threaded, spin GND, as I need to adjust the horizon, without changing the composition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T18:00:36.777" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T16:52:39.750" Title="What is the highest quality graduated neutral density filter?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;lee&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="113" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="103" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:12:21.670" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Focal length is a measure how the lens focusses the light into a point. When light enters a 50mm prime lens, the light converges into a point the camera sensor after 50mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition the focal length determines the magnification of the object you photograph. A long lens (e.g. 300mm) magnifies the images a lot (useful for birding) while a short (wide angle) lens (e.g. 20mm) is useful for indoor pictures or landscapes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Zoom usually means the focal length of the lens can be changed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:12:21.670" />
  <row Id="114" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:13:16.957" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One nice feature of some cameras is the ability to save both raw and jpeg. This gives you almost all of the advantages of both (you have the option of post processing or not depending on your requirements), at the cost of even worse filesize than raw alone (but not that much more if you're already shooting raw). Memory cards are cheap, and this might be a good option until you decide whether you prefer raw or jpeg.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="59" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:13:16.957" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="115" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:14:16.440" Score="21" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;RAW:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pros:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Great color&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;More post-processing options&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Large File size&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;More storage needed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Slower capture time&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;More complicated workflow for processing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;JPEG:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pros:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fast capture (so higher burst speed)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Simplified viewing/sharing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Finalized (editing degrades the image more)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Smaller range of color/contrast options.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:14:16.440" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="116" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:14:47.233" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a horrific naming scheme that renames based on EXIF taken date and the MD5 hash of the photo.  This lets me keep things in chronological order while also differentiating between different photos taken in the same second and edited photos.  It's sounds really ugly, but I haven't found a better way of keeping track of unique and duplicate photos across multiple computers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:14:47.233" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="117" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="103" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:14:49.527" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_length&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The focal length of an optical system is a measure of how strongly the system converges (focuses) or diverges (defocuses) light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a single lens objective, the focal length is the distance to the film plane, but since most objectives are a rather complicated set of lenses it's not that simple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's rather technical, but the most interesting characteristic of focal length is that it's one of the decisive factors in how the angle of view of your lens is. The longer the focal length is, the narrower the field of view. The other decisive factor in the angle of view is the size of the film or sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lenses with a fixed focal length are also called &lt;em&gt;primes&lt;/em&gt;, and lenses with a variable focal length are called &lt;em&gt;zoom lenses&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="92" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:14:49.527" />
  <row Id="118" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:15:27.297" Score="11" ViewCount="263" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use Wordpress for my photo-blog site and currently use &lt;a href=&quot;http://johannes.jarolim.com/yapb&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Yet Another Photoblog&lt;/a&gt; plug-in to help manage uploading the pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there other similar plug-in's that might offer more features.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm particularly interested in automatically adding watermarks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="33" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-11T16:03:57.553" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T16:31:41.000" Title="Wordpress plug-in for a photoblog?" Tags="&lt;web&gt;&lt;blog&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="119" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="110" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:15:50.633" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To check if your camera/lens is having front-focus or back-focus issues you can download a pdf (incl a focus chart) here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://focustestchart.com/focus21.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://focustestchart.com/focus21.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The interesting stuff starts at page 13.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:15:50.633" />
  <row Id="120" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:16:00.197" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One big workflow benefit is that you're in a single application.  Importing files, performing file management, keywording, editing, publishing, and printing can all be done from a single interface.  In some cases you're literally one key press in moving between modules.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:16:00.197" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="122" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9584" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:17:30.597" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Buy a better lens.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Otherwise, shoot in RAW and fix it in post-processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:17:30.597" />
  <row Id="123" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:17:51.580" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a lot cheaper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="92" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:17:51.580" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="124" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:18:21.017" Score="5" ViewCount="609" Body="&lt;p&gt;I keep hearing things about using CCTV C Mounts hacked into a Micro 4/3 camera using an adapter.  Does anybody have any experience with this?  Can any ebay lens work, or is the C-mount not universal?  Can you really take video with virtually no lighting?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T06:01:42.737" Title="CCTV Lenses with Micro 4/3 Adapter" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;micro-four-thirds&gt;&lt;adapter&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="125" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:19:19.157" Score="19" ViewCount="285" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have taken photos at gigs and concerts a few times, but only from the front of the standing section. What's the best way to get a photographer pass?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="93" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-10T18:48:31.347" LastActivityDate="2010-11-11T00:16:55.513" Title="How do I get a photographer pass for gigs and concerts?" Tags="&lt;concert&gt;&lt;gig&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="126" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:19:57.410" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are the things I &quot;reset&quot; before each time I head out... I keep this in my head but at first I had to think about it more:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mode dial set to your preference (P, Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ISO set to your preference (usually low)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Memory card has been formatted (assuming it's been downloaded)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;White balance set to auto&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Auto Exposure Bracketing turned off&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:19:57.410" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-05T11:22:45.730" />
  <row Id="127" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:20:35.973" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you use the Photomatix plugin, try to use a higher Light Smoothing value. I usually use the highest setting or one lower. This reduces the halo effect you described.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:20:35.973" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="128" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:21:45.220" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Switch to RAW instead of JPEG (at least for serious shoots).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For some reason this isn't set by my &quot;green dot reset&quot; on my D90. (Not sure if that's my settings or a camera limitation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:21:45.220" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-05T11:22:45.730" />
  <row Id="129" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="215" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:22:43.597" Score="8" ViewCount="183" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a number of websites that let you tag people in photos, such as Facebook and now flickr, but is there an EXIF standard for tagging who is in a photo, and where they are?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:59:47.563" Title="Is there an EXIF standard for tagging people in photographs?" Tags="&lt;workflow&gt;&lt;exif&gt;&lt;organisation&gt;&lt;tagging&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="130" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="216" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:22:59.150" Score="12" ViewCount="540" Body="&lt;p&gt;What scenarios are better shot with a prime lens? A zoom lens? A macro lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="54" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T00:03:24.900" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T08:44:58.260" Title="Prime vs. Zoom vs. Macro lens" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;prime&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="131" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="111" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:24:00.440" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jeffrey's Lightroom Exporter seems to be the most popular...&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="50" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:24:00.440" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="132" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:24:08.973" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Batteries! I always try to charge after a shoot, then I also check them a few hours before a shoot (to make sure I've got time to charge if needed).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="23" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:24:08.973" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-05T11:22:45.730" />
  <row Id="133" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="62" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:24:48.410" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whatever you do, do not throw away your original RAW files. DNG is not a replacement for them. Perhaps your workflow requires you to convert into DNG's, but for the love of god do not throw away the originals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do, then one day you will find that you will want to use a piece of software that doesn't support the DNG format as input. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="92" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:24:48.410" CommentCount="12" />
  <row Id="134" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="332" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:24:59.097" Score="12" ViewCount="494" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm in the market for a new camera and I've been shopping around looking at various DSLRs.  I currently use a Canon compact super-zoom camera, and shoot in manual mode 99% of the time, so the step to DSLR should be relatively painless.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I take a wide range of different pictures, from action shots to landscapes to nature macros.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know this is a pretty wide open question, but I've been overwhelmed by the selection that is available and having never used a DSLR before I don't really know what I need or want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do I narrow down the options without making a mistake?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="83" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-06-02T10:09:54.867" LastActivityDate="2011-06-02T10:09:54.867" Title="What DSLR should I buy?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="135" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="158" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:25:02.793" Score="5" ViewCount="115" Body="&lt;p&gt;What should I be aware of when buying a zoom lens (other than that it will fit my camera)?  What specs should I pay close attention to?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="54" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-25T00:07:10.463" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T00:07:10.463" Title="What are important considerations when purchasing a zoom lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="136" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="51" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:25:27.350" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My preference has been to use a card reader. I realize this is not really answering the question, but this is what I've done since the day I got my 20D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My experience is that transfer speeds are better. I never have compatibility issues. Programs just see the files are being in a normal folder somewhere. Using the Canon software just caused trouble.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="98" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:25:27.350" />
  <row Id="137" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="212" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:26:10.857" Score="5" ViewCount="155" Body="&lt;p&gt;What should I be aware of when buying a prime lens (other than that it will fit my camera)? What specs should I pay close attention to?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="54" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-09T19:44:52.267" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T19:44:52.267" Title="Considerations when purchasing a prime lens?" Tags="&lt;purchase&gt;&lt;prime&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="139" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="294" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:26:42.150" Score="21" ViewCount="598" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm reading that a 50mm lens is recommended as a first prime lens for DSLR owners as it's supposed to give a 'natural' perspective, but when used on (most) DSLRs, the view is cropped, as if you were zoomed in by 1.5-1.6x, so it's more of a telephoto lens when used on a DSLR. I've also read however that the 50mm lens gives the same perspective on a DSLR and a 35mm, and shouldn't really be considered to be 'equivalent' to an 80mm lens as the crop factor isn't really a magic focal length changer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can someone explain how the image is different from (for example) a 50mm lens on a DSLR and an 80mm lens (assuming 1.6x crop factor) on a 35mm camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="59" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T21:45:16.030" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T06:12:36.637" Title="What is the difference between focal length and crop factor?" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;focal-length&gt;&lt;field-of-view&gt;&lt;crop-factor&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="140" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="160" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:26:49.997" Score="8" ViewCount="162" Body="&lt;p&gt;What should I be aware of when buying a Macro lens (other than that it will fit my camera)? What specs should I pay close attention to?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="54" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-09T19:44:33.093" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T21:29:48.210" Title="Considerations when purchasing a macro lens?" Tags="&lt;macro&gt;&lt;purchase&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="141" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="125" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:28:50.210" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Best place to start is by contacting local venues and promoters - it is unusual to be allowed to use flash, and also unusual to be allowed to stay in the press pit for the duration of the gig. It's definitely worth putting together a portfolio, which could also include doing promo shots for local unsigned acts - they may also be able to get you the press passes you want as their guest in return for rights to use the shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't forget to take advantage of any free arts festivals for building your portfolio -- there was one near me the other weekend where almost 40,000 people came along to enjoy the music spread over 7 stages, all absolutely free of charge -- amateur photographers were allowed side by side with the professionals, and were happy to swap tips as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:28:50.210" />
  <row Id="142" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="130" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:29:12.270" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use prime lenses for portraits (e.g. Canon 50mm 1.8), zoom lenses for traveling/holidays and my 100mm macro for well... macro shots :).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use a Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-F4.5 DC most as it is most versatile. But prime lenses are usually sharper and allow a shorter DOF which is preferrable for portraits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:29:12.270" />
  <row Id="143" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:29:16.607" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Always keep in mind that HDR is fake in itself. You are attempting to portray a dynamic range that is not possible, thus almost every picture will have a fakeness factor. You just need to decide how much fake is acceptable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best way is using bracketing and then merging everything in post-production. If you use an HDR software don't turn every knob you see :P&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="32" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:29:16.607" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="144" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:30:11.970" Score="9" ViewCount="309" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why should I put up with the inconvenience of lugging around a DSLR?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They look cool, but is there more substance to it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="98" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T03:09:56.783" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T03:09:56.783" Title="Why is a DSLR better than a P&amp;S?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;" AnswerCount="8" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="145" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:30:21.800" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Consider investing in lenses with image stabilisation, or a camera body with stabilisation depending on the brand and type of camera that you use. Even on wide angle lenses I've had good use of my stabilized lenses in places where I could not take a tripod not only because of transport restrictions, but also because of local restrictions on site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="92" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:30:21.800" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="146" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="129" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:31:34.043" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think there is ... you can take a look at the EXIF specifications at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.exif.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.exif.org&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jeita.or.jp/cgi-bin/standard_e/pdfpage.cgi?jk_n=47&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.jeita.or.jp/cgi-bin/standard_e/pdfpage.cgi?jk_n=47&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EXIF is a technical standard for images files ... not the content / subject of the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="33" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:31:34.043" />
  <row Id="147" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="139" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:31:34.667" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Focal length is focal length - it doesn't change between sensor sizes. However, due to the dominance of the 35mm format, focal length has come to &lt;em&gt;also&lt;/em&gt; represent the field of view resulting from use of that focal length on 35mm film or FX-sized DSLR. Crop factor lets you translate field of view from one sensor size to another (and usually one of those sensor sizes is implicitly 35mm/FX).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:31:34.667" />
  <row Id="148" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="139" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:32:07.147" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're using a a modern DSLR you then get the crop factor (sometimes mis-described as a focal length multiplier), but for a camera with an APS-C sized sensor, you have a crop factor of 1.6; and if you have a 100mm lens attached to it, then it will have the same field of view as a 160mm lens on a 35mm camera; in reality, the focal length is still 100mm though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:32:07.147" />
  <row Id="149" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="140" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:32:36.053" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One import aspect to consider is the focal length ot the Macro lens, depending on the application. The longer the focal length, the longer the minimum working distance to the subject. If you're shooting insects, for example, you'll want a longer working distance so you don't scare the poor critters off, but you'll need better stabilisation to take out camera shake. If you take a short focal length, you shorten the minimum focal distance but you'll also be able to use the lens as a portrait lens, for instance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="92" LastEditorUserId="92" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-10T21:29:48.210" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T21:29:48.210" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="150" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:32:54.850" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;+1 for a filter as a matter of course, but my main walkabout lens, once it's been unleashed for the day, is rarely without its lens hood - the extra plastic quite effectively prevents little bumps directly on the glass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="96" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:32:54.850" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="151" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="144" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:34:18.687" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Larger sensor -&gt; higher ISO, lower noise, better image quality, can shoot in extreme low light conditions&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fast focus, no lag -&gt; you can catch moment which is not possible with P&amp;amp;S camera&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Interchangeable lens, choose one which better fits your needs, conditions, etc&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;More control over DOF, can create portraits with nice looking bokeh, your girl will like it =)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You look like a PRO! =)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-15T20:41:47.840" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:41:47.840" />
  <row Id="152" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="135" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:34:27.420" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The zoom factor of course&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aperture, if aperture value is low you will either be able to take better photo in darkness and/or do blur effect in lower focus distance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Min. focus distance, you will not be able to take a correct shoot if subject is closer than this distance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Weight depending of your need you might not want something too heavy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each time you want to buy a lens, try to find some review on Internet !&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="34" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:34:27.420" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="153" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="134" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:34:44.020" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biggest decision in a DSLR purchase is choosing your brand, because that determines your lens choices (and the glass is more important).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me it came down to Nikon vs. Canon because they have the widest lens selection and large user bases (and therefore more used lenses).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After narrowing it down to those two I chose based on the ergonomics. I chose Canon because it felt better in my hands, but I have a friend who chose Nikon for the same reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:34:44.020" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="154" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="144" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:34:54.020" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Basically, a larger and better sensor and the ability to use a variety of lenses, from cheap and crappy to astonishingly expensive and good - which don't always go together. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Micro 4/3 cameras are somewhat of a middle ground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:34:54.020" />
  <row Id="155" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="144" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:34:54.347" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer my own question, my reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;P&amp;amp;S cameras make you wait. I press the button, I wait, the subject loses interest and looks away, the camera takes the picture. in the mean time, the shot is ruined&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;DSLR cameras can accomodate a 'real' flash. Bouncing light off the ceiling yields an infinitely better picture.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Larger image sensor. It's more forgiving of lower light situations.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;RAW. The increased color depth means more options for tweaking the exposure.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above is not true for all P&amp;amp;S cameras. Please comment on notable exceptions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="98" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:34:54.347" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="156" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:35:09.290" Score="24" ViewCount="551" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't really know where to start with post-processing my images. I normally just straighten, crop and sharpen. Do people know of any good resources on the internet for getting a grip with Photoshop and similar tools?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="93" LastEditorUserId="93" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-19T07:49:50.707" LastActivityDate="2010-09-24T10:37:13.630" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-23T12:16:00.387" Title="Any good tutorials for learning how to post-process images?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;" AnswerCount="13" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="11" />
  <row Id="157" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="144" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:35:11.820" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;They aren't better &lt;em&gt;per se&lt;/em&gt;; They just tend to allow greater artistic control over the result. They're useless for just keeping in your pocket for that surprise sunset, or random performance in town.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd advocate having the right camera for you. In my case, I'm quite indecisive so that's a DSLR, film SLR, and a digital compact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:35:11.820" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="158" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="135" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:35:36.653" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One consideration (this is a generalization, but most generalizations are based on some facts) is that usually the longer the zoom range, the quality of the image will suffer.  As an example, the mega-zooms (28-300mm for example) will usually result in softer images (especially at either end of the zoom range) than a lens with a narrower zoom range (such as 24-70mm).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, look for real-world reviews and photo samples before making a purchase.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I really like the lens &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;review section of FredMiranda.com&lt;/a&gt; for getting real-world reviews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:35:36.653" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="159" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:35:41.567" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A few options for reducing the noise other than lowering the iso or increasing the light:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Keep the camera's sensor cool.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take a burst of photos, then average them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lower the resolution.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="106" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:35:41.567" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="160" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="140" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:35:41.723" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are quite some different models on the market. Canon alone already has 5 different models I believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It depends what you want to photograph. If you can get very close to the subject a 50mm would be enough. If you need a bit more distance (e.g. animals/insects) the 200mm would be a better (but also more expensive) choice. There is also a special model (MP-E 65mm) that allows a variable magnification (1x-5x) but has no autofocus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:35:41.723" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="161" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="144" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:35:52.207" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;More control over settings&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;More options in lenses&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;More options in accessories&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You don't look silly with a DSLR attached to a big tripod :)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="33" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:35:52.207" />
  <row Id="162" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="170" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:36:02.037" Score="6" ViewCount="260" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there some kind of equivalency table or formula that expresses what kind of pixels you need in a digital camera to have roughly the same quality as a particular ISO graded film? What other variables would influence this (focal-length, exposure time, etc)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-10T18:45:31.877" LastActivityDate="2010-11-11T15:24:53.090" Title="Which xMPixel is equivalent to which ISO film?" Tags="&lt;iso&gt;&lt;digital-vs-film&gt;&lt;resolution&gt;&lt;pixels&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="163" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:36:38.680" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It doesn't make a lot of sense to organize photos by something that is already in the EXIF data, like the date the photos were taken. I organize my photos in folders by event/location. The most important thing is to make sure you tag as much as possible when you import. The chances of going back later to tag are basically nil, so you need to make sure to do it when the info is freshest in your mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;another opinion:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bythom.com/workflow.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Thom Hogan's workflow&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:36:38.680" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="164" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:36:39.413" Score="69" ViewCount="4435" Body="&lt;p&gt;Over time, I've found there are a handful of really simple things that anyone can do to take better pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are your favorites?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Understand the basics of aperture, shutter speed, and ISO.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Take your camera everywhere, including when you don't intend to use it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Take a lot of pictures. If you find what you could perceive as an interesting subject or image, take many images varying angle, height, framing, working distance, aperture, focal length, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When reviewing your own pictures, think about what you like and don't like for each one. What could be done to improve it (not just in post process, but when you were taking it, or even stuff like if that tree wasn't there, the clouds were better, a certain facial expression, etc).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Also look at photos and photogs that you like and try to understand why you like the work and how to do that.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Submit your good ones to critique forums and websites.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Critique other people's photos, it will help you see and take better pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participate in photo challenges. Once you spend a week agonizing over a good concept for a theme, you can look at what other people did. The pains of your own creative process combined with great ideas that others have executed will give you new insight.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Forget about gear.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;For a day, limit yourself to one focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Limit yourself to a certain number of pictures (once you have started to develop a photographic eye from taking and looking at many pictures), it will teach you to be careful and deliberate about creating a photograph.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Have fun.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;check your edges&quot; -- think about everything that's inside the frame, and make sure you want it there.  (&quot;check your edges&quot; meaning to look around the edges of the frame -- often things that straddle the edge of the frame are good candidates for either bringing further in (tops of heads, say, or feet sometimes) or excluding (random objects, a transition that doesn't need to be there, etc.)). &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="98" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-02T18:23:31.317" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T18:23:31.317" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T17:21:01.970" Title="What are your easiest beginner tips?" Tags="&lt;learning&gt;&lt;tips&gt;&lt;photography-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="41" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="60" />
  <row Id="165" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="134" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:36:40.503" Score="26" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't spend too much money on the DSLR, if it's your first. Invest in good lenses. Most people are not aware that when buying a DSLR the cost is not just in the body. Choose a brand based on feedback that you get from peers and your own expectations, and stick with it. The lenses that you buy today can be used on your next DSLR tomorrow, while the bodies themselves lose their value technologically much faster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In practice, expect a budget ratio of 50/50 between body and your first lens. You'll be tempted to buy a kit with a body and lens, but beware that even though kit lenses have become optically much better in later years they are still pretty limited in terms of zoom range, aperture and focusing speed and other features.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="92" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:36:40.503" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="166" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="140" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:36:52.143" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You'll want a wide aperture range, f/2.8-f/32 preferably.  Some people are tempted to use the macro/telephoto combos that only stop down to f/3.5 at best, and this may not be enough, if you are going for an artistically shallow depth of field.  You also need to make sure the lens you buy has an acceptable magnification factor.  The canon 100mm offers a 1:1 mag factor.  I'm not sure the 60mm gets that high, so keep that in mind.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One other thing, you need to keep minimum focusing distance in mind.  A 70-200 f/2.8 may take incredibly sharp photos and provide some amazing bokeh, its longish minimum focusing distance makes it a poor choice for macro.  Example, the canon 100mm has a MFD of 1', while the 50mm's is 1.5'.  You want to be able to get closer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:36:52.143" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="167" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="156" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:39:23.853" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;You Suck at Photoshop&quot; series of tutorials posted by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/user/MyDamnChannel&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;MyDamnChannel on YouTube&lt;/a&gt; are very educational (and presented in a humorous way).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another good resource is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kelbytraining.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kelby Training&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-18T04:27:21.543" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T04:27:21.543" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-23T12:16:00.387" />
  <row Id="168" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="61" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:39:30.233" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you would like to scan the slides the &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Epson Perfection V500 Photo Scanner&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; seems to get good reviews for slide scanning as well for scanning 35 mm negatives  - see amazon (4 stars and 281 customer reviews): &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000VG4AY0/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000VG4AY0/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you would like to outsource it - &lt;strong&gt;ScanCafe&lt;/strong&gt; might be a good option:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scancafe.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.scancafe.com/&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="81" LastEditorUserId="81" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-15T21:45:40.280" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:45:40.280" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="169" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="139" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:39:31.980" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Crop factor is dependent on your camera's sensor. Focal length is dependent on your lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Combine them to get the &lt;em&gt;effective focal length&lt;/em&gt;, which is stated in 35mm-frame-size terms. This will let you &quot;talk the same language&quot; as the 35mm/full-frame folk (which is by and large the standard).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, if you hear someone state that &quot;85mm is a good focal length for a portrait lens&quot;, (&lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; you know they're referring to a 35mm/full frame scenario), you could divide that number by your camera's crop factor (1.5x on my D90) and get the real focal length that will give you the same effect. 85mm / 1.5x = 57mm, so I can use my 50mm lens and get close to the same results. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastEditorUserId="48" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-13T06:12:36.637" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T06:12:36.637" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="170" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="162" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:39:36.800" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I remember seeing a figure of 22MP was &quot;as good&quot; as 35mm resolution (of course, with film it isn't just the ISO, but the manufacturer and age of the film, skill of developer etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Higher ISO film tended to have more grain; and higher ISO digital shots exhibit more noise - a similar cause, but the visual appearance is different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Digital ISO noise is related to the size of each pixel, as the noise is per-pixel (so the more pixels you have, the less obvious noise is when viewed the same size). One analogy I've used in the past to demonstrate this is to ask several people to time with a stopwatch how long it takes a car to drive around a car park, and then to time how long a person takes to do the same journey - because the person is slower, the margin of error is a smaller in proportion to the overall figure, even though different people will give timings to within a few seconds of each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T19:12:08.377" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T19:12:08.377" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="171" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:42:22.190" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photofocus.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Scott Bourne&lt;/a&gt; has recommended using a bean bag as an alternative, and for traveling he takes a bag/sock then fills it with beans/rice/etc. when he gets there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:42:22.190" />
  <row Id="172" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:42:36.107" Score="13" ViewCount="320" Body="&lt;p&gt;Taking good photos is about more than just the camera. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What accessories are you sure to take with you?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="98" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T18:54:46.477" LastActivityDate="2011-04-02T01:19:18.693" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T15:49:01.650" Title="What are must have accessories?" Tags="&lt;accessories&gt;" AnswerCount="14" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="173" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="162" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:42:47.387" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not easy to compare ISO grade with sensor resolution because they're not related. What's more related is noise ratio versus film grain, but it's not that simple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Film grain behaves differently that sensor noise. Where sensor noise makes you lose detail is where the noise limits the ability to perceive detail. Film has grains of different sizes and sometimes more detail can be found in the smaller grains of the lighter areas (in negative film, for instance) than in the larger grains of darker areas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="92" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:42:47.387" />
  <row Id="174" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:43:43.733" Score="8" ViewCount="126" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm beginning to seriously think about selling my photos online ... as prints, greeting cards, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone recommend a site that does a good job of handling the sales translations, printing, &amp;amp; shipping?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't mind giving the vendor a cut of the sale (fairly large, I would imagine) ... but I do want something that gives me a lot of control over how the sales gateway looks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ideally I would like a site that let's me put a simple 'purchase this photo' button or link on my own site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; looking for a stock photo site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="33" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-22T03:00:25.203" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T03:00:25.203" Title="Suggestions for a photo sales &amp; printing vendor?" Tags="&lt;prints&gt;&lt;business&gt;&lt;web&gt;&lt;sales&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="175" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="186" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:44:04.793" Score="13" ViewCount="467" Body="&lt;p&gt;Realizing that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;no single brand or camera model is perfect,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;most DSLRs are &quot;good enough&quot; for most situations&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;there is no single right answer to which camera should be purchased&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...what are some things that should be considered when choosing a brand for a DSLR?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-08T10:58:57.817" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T10:58:57.817" Title="What are considerations when choosing a DSLR brand?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;purchase&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="176" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:44:06.307" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Force yourself to shoot in manual for a month, and expect &lt;em&gt;everything&lt;/em&gt; to suck.  Then force yourself to shoot in raw after that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Make sure you understand the three legged table relationship of ISO, shutter speed, and aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:44:06.307" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-03T18:24:54.070" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="177" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="156" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:44:10.283" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recommend &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.Lynda.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.Lynda.com&lt;/a&gt; - great videos about Photoshop, Lightroom, Bridge and hundreds of other design/photo software for just $25/month.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="81" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:44:10.283" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-23T12:16:00.387" />
  <row Id="178" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="301" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:44:24.900" Score="12" ViewCount="510" Body="&lt;p&gt;My zoom lens (75-300mm) is fairly slow: 5.6 at its farthest point. (I think it's 3.5-5.6, and it's not image stabilizing. I'm on a budget, sadly!) Unfortunately, my primary use for it is hand-held shots: sporting events, etc., where a tripod or even monopod isn't viable. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Add to the mix that I have shaky hands, and because what I'm usually shooting with it is in motion, I'm using the AI Servo auto-focus motor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are some techniques I can use to improve the quality (specifically sharpness and focus) of shots I take with this lens, when hand-held? (More generally, what are some techniques all of us can use to improve image quality and sharpness when shooting hand-held?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it helps any, I'm using a Canon XTi body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="108" LastEditorUserId="108" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-15T21:11:12.327" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T15:42:28.550" Title="Techniques for hand-held image stabilization?" Tags="&lt;focus&gt;&lt;photo-quality&gt;" AnswerCount="18" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="9" />
  <row Id="179" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="172" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:44:27.443" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Battery&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tripod&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A good lightweight bag&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rain protector&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Spare memory card &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;External Flash&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cleaning kit&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="34" LastEditorUserId="482" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-02T18:59:18.730" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T18:59:18.730" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T15:49:01.650" />
  <row Id="180" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="172" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:45:04.277" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Extra batteries &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lens Cleaning cloth&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Extra memory cards&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rain jacket&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Plastic bag to put your camera in if you need to use the rain jacket.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="33" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:45:04.277" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T15:49:01.650" />
  <row Id="181" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="130" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:45:04.977" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Macro = any time you need a close-up shot, typically for detail of small objects. Macro refers to the minimum focus distance. Macro lenses are typically prime, though could be zoom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:45:04.977" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="182" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="175" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:45:06.367" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Consider what brand of camera/lenses are used by your close friends or associates who are also photographers.  It can be helpful if you're able to borrow or share lenses, flashes, or other accessories with one's friends because you all have compatible gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:45:06.367" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="183" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:46:03.463" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can reduce noise without lowering ISO by slightly overexposing your picture, especially if you shoot RAW.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A 12 bit image is capable of recording&#xA;  4,096 (2^12) discrete tonal values.&#xA;  One would think that therefore each&#xA;  F/Stop of the 5 stop range would be&#xA;  able to record some 850 (4096 / 5) of&#xA;  these steps. But, alas, this is not&#xA;  the case. The way that it really works&#xA;  is that the first (brightest) stop's&#xA;  worth of data contains 2048 of these&#xA;  steps — fully half of those available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Why? Because CCD and CMOS chips are&#xA;  linear devices. And, of course, each&#xA;  F/Stop records half of the light of&#xA;  the previous one, and therefore half&#xA;  the remaining data space available.&#xA;  This little table tells the tale.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Tone Level       |  Levels dedicated | Stops of difference&#xA;==========================================================&#xA;Brightest Tones  |  2048 levels      |  Within first stop&#xA;Bright Tones     |  1024 levels      |  Within second stop&#xA;Mid Tones        |  512 levels       |  Within third stop&#xA;Dark Tones       |  256 levels       |  Within fourth stop&#xA;Darkest Tones    |  128 levels       |  Within fifth stop&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The simple lesson to be learned from&#xA;  this is to bias your exposures so that&#xA;  the histogram is snugged up to the&#xA;  right, but not to the point that the&#xA;  highlights are blown. This can usually&#xA;  be seen by the flashing alert on most&#xA;  camera review screens. Just back off&#xA;  so that the flashing stops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now of course when you look at the RAW&#xA;  file in your favourite RAW processing&#xA;  software, like Camera RAW, the image&#xA;  will likely appear to be too light.&#xA;  That's OK. Just use the available&#xA;  sliders to change the brightness level&#xA;  and contrast so that the data is&#xA;  spread out appropriately and the image&#xA;  looks &quot;right&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Read more&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="92" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-02T23:48:21.670" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T23:48:21.670" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="184" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:46:25.303" Score="8" ViewCount="291" Body="&lt;p&gt;When shooting outdoors in bright sunlight, and specially when shooting with the sun visible in the background, lens flare can affect the picture by reducing contrast and introducing artifacts. Are there any special techniques or any equipment that can be used to reduce the problem with flares? Are certain types of lenses better than other?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="88" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-15T20:50:40.923" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:21:36.123" Title="How can you avoid/minimize lens flare when shooting into the sun?" Tags="&lt;lens-flare&gt;&lt;sunlight&gt;&lt;outdoor&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="185" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="172" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:46:47.250" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Polarizers are very useful when shooting outdoors, especially because they can double as neutral-density filters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:46:47.250" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T15:49:01.650" />
  <row Id="186" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="175" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:46:48.030" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the top consideration would be the lenses that you have available. If you already have lenses with Canon mount, and if you want to keep those lenses, then stick to Canon. In practice the investment is in lenses, not on the camera body. Lenses should drive your decision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't have any existing lenses try to review lenses before buying the camera that fits them so make a more informed choice. I can't really recommend any other way without getting into brand wars.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="32" LastEditorUserId="32" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-15T21:32:00.370" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:32:00.370" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="187" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="175" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:46:51.807" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you plan to do off camera lighting with flashes, I think nikon has a leg up right now with their CLS.  If money is no object, you can negative this difference with some radio transmitters.  Otherwise both Nikon and Canon offer high and low end lens, high and low end bodies, and plenty of overpriced bags :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:46:51.807" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="188" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="96" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:47:16.143" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Epson Perfection V500 Photo Scanner seems to be a good scanner:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000VG4AY0/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000VG4AY0/&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;(4 stars and 281 customer reviews)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="81" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:47:16.143" />
  <row Id="189" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="172" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:47:41.117" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Extra batteries&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Extra memory cards&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tripod if appropriate&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flash and remote triggers if appropriate&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Remote shutter release&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Folded garbage bag, for quick cheap rain/water protection.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Microfiber towel for quick lens cleaning&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Double check that I have those extra batteries and extra memory cards. Twice.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="14" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:47:41.117" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T15:49:01.650" />
  <row Id="190" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="178" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:48:07.187" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One thing I've heard of people doing is improvising a tripod using a length of string - the idea being that you can tie it to the D ring on an existing tripod plate, and then use the string in tension, for example by looping it under your foot for a string monopod, or tying off to a railing or post to add an extra degree of stability.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other simple steps, like practising relaxation techniques, and holding your breath at the crucial moment. Practice makes perfect though&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-15T20:53:49.980" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:53:49.980" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="191" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="329" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:48:31.180" Score="12" ViewCount="596" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for a shoulder bag for 1 DSLR, 2 extra lenses and a small flash. I will probably be picking up a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, so the bag needs to fit that attached to a camera. The bag needs to allow the camera to be easily stored and retrieved one handed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T15:25:50.807" Title="Which camera bag for a single DSLR camera plus 2 lenses?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;camera-bag&gt;&lt;storage&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="192" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="174" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:48:35.703" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've used both Photoshelter and SmugMug.  Here are some quick thoughts on the two:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photoshelter's Strengths:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;great online image delivery system for electronic use&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;easier integration with standalone websites (they have some GREAT integration with WordPress sites that use a Graph Paper Press theme)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(subjective) generally seen as higher-end and more professional than SmugMug&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;SmugMug's Strengths:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;they seem to be innovating faster at the moment and announcing new features quicker&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;larger product and print selection from their printing vendors&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(subjective) their shopping cart/ordering process seems a bit easier to average (non-techie) folks who purchased my products/prints&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;cheaper&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-27T22:33:22.253" LastActivityDate="2010-10-27T22:33:22.253" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="193" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:48:46.000" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Image stabilization (or vibration reduction), or a tripod/monopod, along with longer exposures will lower noise. Assuming your subject is sitting still, that is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="109" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:48:46.000" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="194" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="178" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:48:55.513" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Try to rest the lens on a fence or something (use a bean-bag)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lean against a wall to stabilize your body&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:48:55.513" />
  <row Id="195" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="178" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:49:54.093" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hold your camera close to your body... stand with your elbows bent and your arms against your sides.  By moving the weight of the camera/lens closer to you and your center of gravity, it is easier to support that weight with less shake than if you're holding it farther away or with your arms spread out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:49:54.093" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="196" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:50:07.260" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd agree with Peterson (e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0817463003&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Understanding Exposure&lt;/a&gt;).  One I've found very useful is Michael Freeman's &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1905814046&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Photographer's Eye&lt;/a&gt; - some excellent stuff about the composition of photos, with plenty of good examples, and very helpful diagrams.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="96" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:50:07.260" />
  <row Id="197" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="184" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:50:21.970" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lens hood is a device that is used on the end of lens lens to block the sun or light source in order to prevent lens flare.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="81" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:50:21.970" />
  <row Id="198" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="184" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:50:38.100" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is exactly the purpose of a lens hood. The other preventative steps are to minimise the number of filters attached to the front of your lens, as lens flare is the result of some the light reflecting back from one element, before bouncing back from another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you use a lens hood or try to keep the front element in shade wherever possible, you shouldn't as much flare as without&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:50:38.100" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="199" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:50:57.833" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To make more interesting photos, focus on going more interesting places, take lots of photos and iterate, and learn from great photos that inspire you (galleries, Flickr, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="109" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:50:57.833" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-03T18:24:54.070" />
  <row Id="200" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="178" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:51:02.110" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Never shoot at shutter speeds slower than 1/f, where f is the effective focal length. It would be (1.6 x your chosen focal length) as the crop factor for XTi is 1.6. Lets say you chose to shoot something at 100mm. This means that your shutter speed should be atleast 1/160s. Tune ISO and/or aperture to aid you in this. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is just a ballpark; Actual necessary limits migt vary with an individuals ability to stay still.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="111" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:51:02.110" />
  <row Id="201" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="184" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:51:21.467" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's not much you can do really since it's how light behaves when going through a lens. Always to keep in mind: higher quality means less flare artifacts. If you shoot at the sun you'll get flare anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to reduce it use lenses with fewer optical elements. The more elements the more imperfections you can have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="32" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:51:21.467" />
  <row Id="202" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="172" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:51:40.547" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nikon 7072 Lens Pen Cleaning System - it's about $10.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;It's the size of a fat pen, has a retractable brush on one side.&#xA;The other side has a soft chamois like material to remove fingerprints.&#xA;Simple, portable, useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="113" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:51:40.547" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T15:49:01.650" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="203" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="191" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:52:41.387" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-85121-DSLR-Crossover-Bag/dp/B001IKKMT0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pentax crossover&lt;/a&gt; one. Lightweith and I can put Camera with one lens mounted + 2 others lenses (or even 3 if lens are small - like fixed focal ones) as well as extra stuff like battery, memory card, ... in the upper part&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="34" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:52:41.387" />
  <row Id="204" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="184" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:53:04.427" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lens hood won't do you much good if the light source is in the frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, the things to do are (a) use high-quality, well-coated lenses, designed for digital if you're doing that (i.e., the rear element is coated) and (b) minimize extra glass in the optical path - remove UV filters, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:53:04.427" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="205" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="191" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:53:25.707" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use a Lowepro Minitracker backpack but there are so many alternatives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a nice site with pictures of many bags incl equipment: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambags.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cambags.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:53:25.707" />
  <row Id="206" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="178" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:53:48.093" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Monopods are great&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Change your exposure settings if it doesn't hurt your composition.  A faster shutter can prevent less shake effect from showing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Brace the camera against your shoulder if possible.  You may look a little funny, but it can help.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shorter telephoto lengths also provide less visible &quot;shake&quot;.  This is the inverse rule - you can typically hand hold the inverse of your focal length as a shutter speed.  e.g. if you are zoomed in to 300mm, then you need to be a 1/300 shutter or better.  Since you say your hands are shaky, you might want to add a stop or two to that as a rule.  So if you have a huge sensor, like a 25.6 megapixel or whatever those monstrosities are, then you may be able to back off the zoom some, and then &quot;digitally zoom&quot; in post.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:53:48.093" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="207" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:54:25.097" Score="26" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Stay active, take more pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you've taken them, review them and think about what you like/don't like about them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/978/what-are-good-photography-projects&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;give yourself a project&lt;/a&gt; to work on.  It doesn't necessarily have to be anything big, but having a goal will help motivate you to keep improving.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-21T15:01:55.557" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T15:01:55.557" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-03T18:24:54.070" />
  <row Id="208" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1196" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:54:53.143" Score="2" ViewCount="256" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the best photo editing applications for an Android camera phone such as the Nexus One, Droid, Droid Incredible, HTC Evo, etc...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T03:11:59.163" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T03:11:59.163" Title="Best Android photo editing apps?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;android&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="209" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:54:59.260" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I got used to always set my camera to some &quot;default&quot; settings before I put it away (P mode, auto ISO, auto white balance, matrix metering, auto AF point selection, etc.), so when I pull the camera out I won't be shooting small RAWs on 2600K unless I really want to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before the shoot I usually just take the camera, backup battery and whatever other equipment I'm going to need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:54:59.260" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-05T11:22:45.730" />
  <row Id="210" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="191" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:55:13.707" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've got a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tamrac.com/5768.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamrac Velocity 8&lt;/a&gt; and love it.  It's got good space, is very comfortable, and can be pushed out of the way easily.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Plus the accessory system makes it easy to add things like water bottle holders, filter pouch, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I was looking at a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tamrac.com/3385.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamrac Aero Speed Pack 85&lt;/a&gt; yesterday and was quite impressed by it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="33" LastEditorUserId="33" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-15T21:26:21.070" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:26:21.070" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="211" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="191" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:55:22.440" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Lowepro-SlingShot-All-Weather-Digital-Backpack/dp/B000BAX50G/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=electronics&amp;amp;qid=1279227275&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lowpro slingshot&lt;/a&gt; is an awesome bag.  Has a built in weather cover for light rain, and enough extra storage for keys, wallet, neutral gray card, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:55:22.440" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="212" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="137" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:57:42.187" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Aside from focal length, the most important thing to consider is the maximum aperture of the lens.  That's what people are often looking for when they buy primes.  The max aperture is usually part of the lens description such as:  50mm f/1.8 where 50mm is the focal length and f/1.8 is the maximum aperture.  The lower that &quot;f/&quot; number is, the better low-light performance the lens will have and the more shallow the depth of field you can get out of the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other considerations are the same as any other lens: autofocus quality, whether it has IS or can do macro (if you want/need it), if it has a rotating front element (if you plan to use a circular polarizer with it), etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides those things, there's not much else to look into regarding specs.  You can get sharpness test results along with data on distortion, CA, etc on &lt;a href=&quot;http://photozone.de&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://photozone.de&lt;/a&gt; and search for other reviews on Google.  Flickr and it's groups can also help, people often have test data or sample photos you can view large to get an idea of the image quality you can expect -just make sure you get a large sampling of data since poor test conditions or methods can make a lens look worse than it really is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="110" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:57:42.187" />
  <row Id="213" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="175" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:57:51.687" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's important that the camera fit you, ergonomically and aesthetically. Otherwise you won't use it. So, it's very important to see/feel/touch a new camera in person, &lt;em&gt;especially&lt;/em&gt; if you haven't used that brand before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, I think the low-end Canon and Nikon offerings are just vile - they feel like cheap plastic toys to me. But you'd never get that from the fancy pictures online. Also, others might feel differently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:57:51.687" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="214" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:59:39.217" Score="23" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Rule of thirds - &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compose your photos so that the main subject is on one of the intersection points. Don't center your subjects (until you figure out when to break the rule).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="37" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:59:39.217" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-03T18:24:54.070" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="215" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="129" CreationDate="2010-07-15T20:59:47.563" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is not.  IPTC, another image metadata standard, also does not contain a &quot;People&quot; field.  There's a Contact field, but that is used for contact information for the photographer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most people I know will store people as keywords.  The main debate is whether or not to include spaces (would a photo of me be tagged as aaronhockley or as &quot;aaron hockley&quot;?).  I don't use spaces since that simplifies things at times, but it's pretty subjective.  &lt;strong&gt;I think the main thing is consistency&lt;/strong&gt;... pick one method and stick to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T20:59:47.563" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="216" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="130" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:00:27.577" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Prime lenses are better suited to specific environments - a 50mm f/1.8 is great for food photography, a 100mm macro is quite flattering for portraiture, but neither work well as a general purpose &quot;carry-round&quot; lens. I use Canon's 28-135 IS lens as a carry round, and can't sing its praises higher, even performing well doing some music photography the other week.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:00:27.577" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="217" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="191" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:00:54.207" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tamrac.com/5513.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamrac Adventure Zoo&lt;/a&gt;m Case and attach &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tamrac.com/g_modularaccessory.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lens cases&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I absolutely love the system because I can take out only what I need on a given trip.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:00:54.207" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="218" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="178" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:01:05.907" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This may be slightly less relevant for things like sports, but often when I'm in a situation where handheld steadying is important I just take a handful of shots in Continuous Shooting mode, and some of them are invariably better than others.  Not so good to catch a specific moment, but better than nothing in other situations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="96" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:01:05.907" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="219" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:01:41.723" Score="21" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Where ever you go take your camera!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:01:41.723" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-03T18:24:54.070" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="220" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="178" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:02:33.220" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't forget to exhale just before triggering the shutter. It works for snipers!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3040" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:02:33.220" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="221" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="178" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:02:49.833" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Breathe in (or out) as you take the photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="93" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:02:49.833" />
  <row Id="223" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="61" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:03:21.813" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I bought an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V700/page_1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Epson V700 Photo&lt;/a&gt; a year ago to try and digitise some of my old negs and slides and have been very happy with the results. It will scan 12 mounted or 24 unmounted 35mm slides at a time as well as scanning larger format film (up to 10 x 8&quot;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I tend to scan to TIFF at 3200 dpi and then retouch in Photoshop before batch converting to JPEG to save space. The retouching is dust/scratch/watermark removal (mainly with spot healing, patch and clone tools) which can be pretty time consuming. I sometimes also need to remove colour casts but try to eliminate this at the scanning stage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's worth deciding what you want the scans for before you go to town on the retouching. I found it was only really practical for me to retouch photos I wanted to do something with immediately (print, email or upload to a gallery). If I've put the work in I also keep the TIFF along with the JPEG so I can go back to it later if necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having the folders full of (unretouched) JPEGs is great though and so much better than having to look through contact sheets or a loupe. I've rediscovered several images that I missed at the time I took them as they didn't look like much as 35mm negs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="71" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:03:21.813" />
  <row Id="225" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="178" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:05:14.943" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Boost the ISO until you get a shutter speed you can use: noise is better than blur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, note that your shutter speed may actually be constrained by the action, not shake. VR doesn't help with blur due to subject motion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:05:14.943" />
  <row Id="226" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:08:20.867" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Err on the side of zooming in less - I can't count the number of times I've been sorting out an album, and wished I had a bit more image surrounding the subject.  You can always crop afterwards, and it's quite rare that every single pixel will be needed in the final pic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Never be afraid to ramp up the ISO rather than lose a moment to unwanted blur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do something with your photos - don't leave them languishing on your hard disk because you can't find the time to do all the processing you need, at the very least choose a handful to show people who would love to see them!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="96" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:08:20.867" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-03T18:24:54.070" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="227" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="96" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:08:28.010" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are just looking for a way to digitize your collection, you may mant to consider a scanning service, once they're scanned there isn't much need for the scanner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scancafe.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.scancafe.com&lt;/a&gt; is one of the services I've heard of, but I'm sure there are others too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:08:28.010" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="228" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:09:00.070" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apart from aperture and focal length, depth of field also decreases with camera-subject distance. So get you subject as close to the camera as possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:09:00.070" />
  <row Id="229" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:09:10.847" Score="8" ViewCount="166" Body="&lt;p&gt;What photography quotes do you think everyone should know?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mine is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Nothing happens when you sit at home.  I always make it a point to carry a camera with me at all times... I just shoot at what interests me at that moment.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;emsp;&amp;emsp;&amp;mdash; Elliott Erwitt&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="81" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T17:46:19.983" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-15T21:13:42.623" Title="What is your favorite photography quote?" Tags="&lt;fun&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="230" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="233" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:11:49.190" Score="21" ViewCount="488" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can anyone recommend some good tools for creating panoramas from multiple photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Free and commercial)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Personally I use either Windows and Ubuntu, but I'm not fussy, suggestions for other platforms will help others.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="97" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T12:55:57.737" LastActivityDate="2010-10-07T17:14:06.940" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-03T13:16:05.547" Title="Recommendations for panorama creation/stitching tools" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;panorama&gt;" AnswerCount="12" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="7" />
  <row Id="231" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="230" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:13:16.147" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've had great results with Photoshop Elements. I personally found Hugin a bit over the top and fiddly for my needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="93" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:13:16.147" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-03T13:16:05.547" />
  <row Id="232" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="229" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:13:59.017" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase&quot; - Percy W. Harris&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:13:59.017" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-15T21:13:59.017" />
  <row Id="233" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="230" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:14:16.647" Score="25" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://hugin.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hugin&lt;/a&gt; (based on &lt;a href=&quot;http://panotools.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Panorama Tools&lt;/a&gt;) is a good open-source option, and is multi-platform.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="14" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:14:16.647" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-03T13:16:05.547" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="234" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="279" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:14:43.073" Score="10" ViewCount="344" Body="&lt;p&gt;(Happy to keep the question general, but personally interested in Canon fit)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've got a Sigma 18-125 that's served me well, but the image quality isn't stellar, it's unstabilised, max f3.5, and focus is slow and noisy.  It does, however, cover an excellent range, from decently wide to close enough to catch details from some way off.  I've seen lenses that go longer (up to 200, or even higher), but have heard bad reports of general quality, and e.g. pronounced vignetting.  I have a better 17-55, but that doesn't seem long enough.  The current version of my Sigma is stabilised, so that's an option, but I'm spoilt by my other lenses with IS and Ultrasonic focusing, and want it all - is there such a lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="96" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-22T03:06:29.767" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T03:06:29.767" Title="What's an excellent walkabout lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;" AnswerCount="12" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="235" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="252" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:16:17.397" Score="7" ViewCount="121" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it a physical part of the lens, or just an optical illusion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="113" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-21T01:12:58.893" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T05:27:41.353" Title="What is Chromatic Aberration?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;optics&gt;&lt;chromatic-aberration&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="236" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="230" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:17:11.050" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've had &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/ratarsed/4234552978/in/set-72157619783244054/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;great&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/ratarsed/4234580238/in/set-72157619783244054/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;success&lt;/a&gt; with &lt;a href=&quot;http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/groups/ivm/ice/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Microsoft ICE&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:17:11.050" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-03T13:16:05.547" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="237" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="260" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:17:50.207" Score="17" ViewCount="546" Body="&lt;p&gt;I always feel that I should buy a Canon lens for my Canon camera, and Sigma would just be a cheap knock-off. Is that the case?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="93" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-22T03:07:58.643" LastActivityDate="2011-06-01T17:50:18.803" Title="Are Sigma lenses worth it?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;sigma&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="238" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="248" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:18:27.353" Score="5" ViewCount="171" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use Lightroom (2.7) a lot, and love it, but I don't use Collections at all, instead just preferring to keep photos in folders, and then tag/flag/pick within that.  People often rave about Collections, though - what are the key benefits of using them, either in their own right, or as part of an overall workflow?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="96" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T20:23:15.033" LastActivityDate="2010-11-26T13:56:22.320" Title="Lightroom - benefits of using Collections" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;lightroom&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="240" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="229" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:19:45.467" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;I take a lot of pictures ... some of them come out OK.  A few of them come out OK and are what I intended&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-- me&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="33" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:19:45.467" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-15T21:19:45.467" />
  <row Id="241" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:19:56.510" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Switch one automatic setting on your camera to manual per month (or week, or whatever interval you choose).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This makes it easier to figure out how that one setting impacts your photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="119" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:19:56.510" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-03T18:24:54.070" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="242" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:20:05.357" Score="42" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Change your Perspective&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For beginners, it's much more about technique than equipment.  Try taking the photo from a non-standard angle.  That is to say, don't just stand there and take the picture from eye level. That's the point of view that everyone has anyway. It's not that interesting.  Crouch down, stand on something, tilt the camera.  Anything to take your photo from a perspective that's different than what people see everyday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="37" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:20:05.357" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-03T18:24:54.070" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="243" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="234" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:20:31.253" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're going to get a million &quot;it works for me&quot; answers to this one. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My answer: the Sigma 17-70mm (Canon). The focal range has been just about perfect for walk-around use on an APS-C camera (although there's a bit of distortion at 17mm, and vignetting is an issue with my Cokin filters), &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/517-sigma1770f284osapsc&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;IQ is &quot;good enough&quot; for me&lt;/a&gt;, and the price was very attractive at the time. There's an f/2.8 version of the lens (vs. my f/2.8-4) that I'd get today, if I were buying it again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like more reach from time to time, but that's why I have a longer lens in my bag. There's no such thing as a perfect lens for all situations, IMHO, which is why we have SLRs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="14" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:20:31.253" />
  <row Id="244" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="184" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:21:36.123" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lenses produce different flares depending on aperture setting, so besides trying different lenses and removing filters, you might want to play with that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:21:36.123" />
  <row Id="245" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="465" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:22:03.220" Score="6" ViewCount="76" Body="&lt;p&gt;On one of the rare occasions I've used Lightroom Collections, I found myself wanting to transfer the Pick/Reject info from the Collection back to the main Folder the photos are in.  Picks are Collection-local, and there doesn't seem to be a built-in way of doing it.  The best I could come up with is using a tag or coloured flag (which are global) as a temporary marker, allowing me to edit the Picks in the Folder.  Is there a better way?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="96" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T20:23:07.780" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T20:23:07.780" Title="Lightroom - how to move Picks from a Collection to a Folder" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;lightroom&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="247" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="234" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:22:32.190" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Might be seen as a slightly contraversial answer, but I really enjoy using my 50mm f/1.8 as a walkaround lens. Its light, which is great. It's incredibly fast, so I don't normally have issues with low light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously it's a fixed focal length, but I think the weight and the amount of light it lets in makes up for that. I usually use it on my Canon 50D, so it's on a cropped sensor, but I often put it on a 35mm film body, and I never have trouble framing my shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="93" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:22:32.190" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="248" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="238" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:22:37.090" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Standard collections are similar to folders (although they are manually created and can incorporate files from multiple storage locations), but the real power are the smart collections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A smart collection is defined by a set of query data, which can be based on EXIF data, file locations, edit status, or any other number of criteria.  Images are automatically added or removed based on the smart collection's criteria.  Here are some examples of smart collections I use:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Photos pending upload to Flickr (tag them with a color, use an upload plugin that supports a &quot;has it been uploaded&quot; bit)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;all HDR photos (all of my HDR results have _tonemapped in the filename)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;photos without any keywords&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:22:37.090" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="249" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="130" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:22:51.147" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My definitions follow...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prime: fixed-length lens. Shorter ones are good for portraits, while longer primes are better distance shooters than the zoom varieties. You have to use your feet to get the right setup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Zoom: lens can zoom in and out. Can be versatile, depending on the lens. Tends to have lower performance than prime lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Macro: for closeups of small objects, and sometimes portraits. Not for distance shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:22:51.147" />
  <row Id="250" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="234" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:23:33.377" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I really like my Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens.  I almost never take it off my camera these days. I use is on a cropped sensor body and it provides a nice range from pretty wide to telephoto.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="37" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:23:33.377" />
  <row Id="252" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="235" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:23:51.350" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Chromatic Aberration is a distortion that occurs when a lens focuses different colours slightly differently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is caused by the refractive index of the lens (the amount that the lens bends light) being slightly different for different colours, so I suppose you could say it is caused by physical properties of the lens. It is possible to produce higher quality lenses that exhibit this effect to a lesser extent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia has a very &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;detailed article on chromatic aberration&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="97" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:23:51.350" />
  <row Id="253" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="175" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:25:07.340" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;See whether friends or family are using particular brands. If you have a common brand, it is easier to lend/borrow/swap lenses and related accessories.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:25:07.340" />
  <row Id="254" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="265" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:25:09.527" Score="3" ViewCount="42" Body="&lt;p&gt;Every display device has a different characteristic in regards of how the colours are shown. This can be adjusted by the gamma correction. Are there any good tools that help with finding the right gamma correction?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-10T18:58:56.920" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T18:58:56.920" Title="Are there any good tools to figure out the correct gamma corrections for equal appearence?" Tags="&lt;color-management&gt;&lt;color&gt;&lt;colorimeter&gt;&lt;color-calibration&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="255" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="237" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:25:17.777" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sigma makes some great lenses, and Sigma makes some lenses that are of pretty poor quality.  Canon is the same way... it's hard to make a brand-wide generalization.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A much better option is to do research based on specific lenses.  I've found the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lens reviews at FredMiranda.com&lt;/a&gt; to be pretty helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:25:17.777" />
  <row Id="256" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="172" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:25:22.600" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depends of what you're shooting. For landscapes many people won't go out without a tripod. On the other hand tripod is quite useless for indoor reportage, in which you can perfectly use an external flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Batteries and memory card are handy for most applications, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:25:22.600" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T15:49:01.650" />
  <row Id="257" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="172" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:27:07.060" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Polarizers&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Extra memory cards&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Extra batteries&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lens cleaning cloth&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tripod, if you expect to need it&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flash, if indoors&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:27:07.060" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T15:49:01.650" />
  <row Id="258" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:28:14.347" Score="7" ViewCount="157" Body="&lt;p&gt;Could you recommend a good source of presets for Lightroom&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastEditorUserId="115" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-15T21:40:23.587" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T16:47:00.807" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-15T21:29:38.653" Title="Lightroom Presets" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;presets&gt;&lt;post-processing&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="9" />
  <row Id="259" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="234" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:29:24.193" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've always been a fan of &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/130/prime-vs-zoom-vs-macro-lens/216#216&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon's 28-135 IS&lt;/a&gt; as a good carry-round lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:29:24.193" />
  <row Id="260" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="237" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:29:27.047" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My wife and I own three Sigma lenses: the &quot;bigma&quot; (50-500mm), my 17-70mm f/2.8-4, and her 30mm f/1.4 prime. We absolutely love them, for their respective strengths:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Noone touches the Bigma for range. Yes, it's soft. Yes, it's unbelievably big and heavy. But it's a disturbingly versatile lens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The 30mm is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/erica_marshall/sets/72157603817722933/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;incredibly sharp&lt;/a&gt;, and f/1.4 is something you just have to use to understand why you want it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;My 17-70mm is a great compromise lens; it's almost always attached to my camera, and I switch off when I have a particular need.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, quite frankly, it's tough to touch Sigma on price. As with all things, they have their good lenses and their bad lenses (just like Canon); be sure to check sites like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photozone.de&lt;/a&gt; for quality tests before plunking down your money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="14" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:29:27.047" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="261" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="144" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:30:11.477" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;More control over your photos&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Most DSLRs can shoot RAW, most compacts can't&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You can change lenses - HUGE advantage&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bigger image sensor to offset crazy megapixels&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:30:11.477" />
  <row Id="262" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="235" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:30:37.360" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're trying to figure out how to identify it in your photos, it's that faint purple halo that appears.  It's usually easy to spot when shooting a dark object against a bright background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="37" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:30:37.360" />
  <row Id="263" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="135" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:33:07.580" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you know someone with the lens you are interested in, or a similar one, borrow and use it if you can. That goes way beyond reviews!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:33:07.580" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="264" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="258" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:34:37.890" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the good resources is &lt;a href=&quot;http://lightroomkillertips.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LightroomKillerTip&lt;/a&gt;s blog by Matt Kloskowski.&#xA;Matt publishes new presets quite regularly and each post includes before/after example and the preset download.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lightroomkillertips.com/category/presets/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Presets Section on LightroomKillerTips&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=33&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;140 free Lightroom presets by Jack Davis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/exchange/index.cfm?event=extensionDetail&amp;amp;loc=en_us&amp;amp;extid=1651019&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lightroom Presets by Bryan Wheeler&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastEditorUserId="115" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T11:03:58.417" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T11:03:58.417" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-15T21:34:37.890" />
  <row Id="265" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="254" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:35:40.137" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;best&quot; solution is to use a colorimeter to accurately calibrate the screens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some screens do have ICC colour profiles that you can obtain from the manufacturer as well, which can give acceptable results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:35:40.137" />
  <row Id="266" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="254" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:35:51.230" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You want a hardware display calibrator. I have a Huey Pro, I believe. You need to adjust a lot more than the gamma, and it's extremely difficult to do this by eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:35:51.230" />
  <row Id="267" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="178" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:35:55.350" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A slight variation on Rowland Shaw's string trick is to loop the neck strap of your camera around the elbow of the hand you trip the shutter with and adjust it until the strap is tense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Combine that with continuous shooting mode and I think you're bound to get a lot of jitter-free shots--even with a lens as long as the 75-300.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="119" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:35:55.350" />
  <row Id="268" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="118" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:36:26.130" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I host my images on Flickr, and use the &lt;a href=&quot;http://tantannoodles.com/toolkit/photo-album/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr Photo Album&lt;/a&gt; plugin to display them on my site. The plugin can be used to display gallery pages and individual photos, and load Flickr photos in an individual post or page. It's quite configurable, and comes with a load of templates.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:36:26.130" />
  <row Id="270" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="234" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:39:02.493" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the Nikon 18-200 which I like a lot, and I've used the Pentax (Tamron) 18-250 which I did not like at all. I realize this is not directly applicable to your Canon - the point is that yes the superzoom can be done well, but it can also be done badly. It will cost you, though; I believe the Nikon is up to $800 or so new.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:39:02.493" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="271" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="144" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:42:41.560" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on what you wish to do. If all you need is to take a few shots of your friends and family in various life situations, a P&amp;amp;S will serve you well. However, if you wish to have total control over your photos, and are interested in the composition, lighting, and ultimate quality of your shots, a DSLR will serve you better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally don't think of my DSLR as &quot;cool&quot;. It is a tool that lets me accomplish something that has value to me. With a DSLR, you don't just get higher megapixels and a heavier camera. You get more features that give you the power and control you need to fine-tune your shots, and capture the moments that you find meaningful in the best way possible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some of the benefits of a decent DSLR over a P&amp;amp;S:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Often have higher megapixel counts&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Considerably larger sensors, some up to the size of a full-frame 35mm film camera&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Better ISO sensitivity range, and better control over noise levels&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Extensive control over the color, tone, and sharpness of your photos&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The ability to interchange a multitude of powerful lenses&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A hotshoe to which a variety of devices, such as quality external flash devices, may be attached.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The ability to shoot in RAW format, which gives you powerful control over your photos in a post-processing tool like Photoshop, Lightroom, or Aperture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Higher (and lower) shutter speeds and shooting rates, allowing you to freeze time, or watch it pass by&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A DSLR is an amazing device, and if you have the need for any of the above, it can serve you well. It is certainly not an ad-hoc camera that will let you quickly and cheaply capture those zillions of friend and family moments that happen every day...but it will let you capture those fantastic moments that you pass by on rarer occasions in perfect clarity and quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:42:41.560" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="272" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="275" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:43:05.490" Score="0" ViewCount="121" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/139/what-is-the-difference-between-focal-length-and-crop-factor&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;What is the difference between focal length and crop factor?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see the term &quot;crop factor&quot; used to describe some DSLRs (for example, the Canon 7D has a 1.6x crop factor).  What does this mean?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T21:44:21.257" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T21:44:21.257" ClosedDate="2010-07-17T09:55:29.590" Title="What does &quot;crop factor&quot; mean on a DSLR?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;crop-factor&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="273" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="135" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:44:34.493" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm a big fan of Thom Hogan's lens reviews. &lt;a href=&quot;http://bythom.com/nikon.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://bythom.com/nikon.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:44:34.493" />
  <row Id="275" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="139" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:49:07.833" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's ratio of size of your sensor to regular 35mm film frame. Canon 7D has 23&amp;times;15mm sensor size, so if you use &quot;normal&quot; 50mm lens on it, the resulting image will be smaller (the projection is going to stay the same, but smaller sensor will get just the center part).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since 7D has 1.6 crop factor, resulting image from 50mm lens will look like you'd use a 80mm lens on a regular film DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-17T08:42:11.603" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T08:42:11.603" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="277" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="283" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:52:16.880" Score="8" ViewCount="119" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sometimes one will hear of a photo being reprinted, redistributed, or otherwise used without specifically being licensed or having permission granted.  Often the defense is called &quot;fair use&quot;.  What does this mean from a legal standpoint?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T14:45:00.833" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T14:45:00.833" Title="What is &quot;Fair Use&quot; (US Copyright Law)" Tags="&lt;fair-use&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;legal&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="279" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="234" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:55:20.997" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I guess it depends on what your cost range is, what camera you use, and what your goals are. I myself am a canon user, so I can give you options that would serve a canon camera particularly well. I can't say that I can help much for other brands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you need a cheaper, middle-grade, middle-range lens that will cover most common situations, a lens in the range of 20-130mm will probably suffice. Canon makes two lenses in this range, of different grades: the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF 24-105mm f/4 IS USM L&lt;/a&gt;, and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 24-105 lens is a higher end L-series pro lens. Its an excellent quality lens and a good performer. It has an f/4 aperture, which while ok for general lighting, will not perform as well in more fringe lighting scenarios like indoor sports, morning/evening, or night shooting. The 28-135 lens is very similar, but is one of Canon's middle-grade lines. Its quality is not quite as good as an L-series. It does offer a slightly larger aperture at f/3.5, but it is not constant, and closes down to f/5.6 as you zoom. It does offer slightly greater zoom range, however, which may be useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are looking for a single lens that is truly multi-purpose, and will cover any situation you may find yourself in, then there is also a large zoom range lens for that as well. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-300mm-f-3.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM L&lt;/a&gt; lens is one of the ultimate multi-purpose lenses I've ever encountered. It has one of the largest zoom ranges in existence at 11x zoom. This lens, at the short end of 28mm, is not particularly wide with an f/3.5 aperture. However, as it extends towars the 300mm long end, an f/5.6 aperture is not too bad. The quality of this lens is pretty good throughout its range, although it certainly is not as good as a 300mm or 28mm prime. Given that it is a single lens, it is highly adaptable for a broad range of situations, allowing you to take one lens and leave the rest at home.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon lenses usually come with a price premium, and there are some other brands that offer similar lenses at similar quality, and cheaper cost. You might also look into the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50-150mm-f-2.8-II-EX-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 II EX DC HSM Lens&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-18-200mm-f-3.5-6.3-DC-OS-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Lens&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-18-270mm-f-3.5-6.3-Di-II-VC-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC LD&lt;/a&gt; (largest zoom range period at 15x)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:55:20.997" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="280" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="234" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:56:35.320" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A standard prime. Canon 28/1.8 or Sigma 30/1.4 for aps-c, 50/1.4 for full-frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="12" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T21:56:35.320" />
  <row Id="281" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="277" CreationDate="2010-07-15T21:57:52.293" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fair use is a construct in US law, that allows you to use copyrighted works without permission of copyright holder, under some specific circumstances (usually commentary, teaching, news reporting or similar). For example, English Wikipedia can use a copyrighted &quot;Tank man&quot; photo &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_man&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;in its article&lt;/a&gt; without getting a special license. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tianasquare.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;image description&lt;/a&gt; for long legalese that explains why exactly is it possible in this case, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fair use&lt;/a&gt; article for explanation of details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-15T22:57:36.493" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:57:36.493" />
  <row Id="283" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="277" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:02:25.583" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fair use describes a clause in copyright law that permits use of limited parts of copyrighted materials without permission in restricted situations. Usually for commentary, criticism, reporting, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fair use normally requires that only a small percentage of the whole work be used (for example a quote of a few lines from a book), so with regards to photo's you may find fair use can only be applied when dealing with collections of copyrighted images, or if your reproduction is of significantly reduced quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[I am not a lawyer and fair use clauses will vary between jurisdictions so it is best to check with the original author of a work if you are unsure.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wikipeida has a more &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;detailed article on fair use&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="97" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:02:25.583" />
  <row Id="284" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="296" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:02:44.633" Score="16" ViewCount="257" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently went to Silverstone to watch the F1 qualifying and took my DSLR camera with me. Throughout the day, I switched lenses a few times, but each time was very conscious that there was a lot of dust around (by then end of the day, my clothes were covered in dust).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Every time I changed lenses, I was very protective of the SLR body and made sure the amount of time that the SLR lens hole was exposed was minimised. Was I being too protective, or is it very easy to get dust in the SLR body when changing lenses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="127" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T00:03:57.440" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T01:49:20.577" Title="Should I be worried about getting dust inside my SLR?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;dust&gt;" AnswerCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="285" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="284" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:04:18.623" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my experience, its easy to get dust inside the body &lt;em&gt;without&lt;/em&gt; switching lenses.  Yes, keep it protected.  In fact, try not to change the lens in that type of environment at all, if you can.  Bring two bodies if you have them available, or retreat to the bathroom or somewhere indoors, away from drafts, if you have the time and inclination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:04:18.623" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="286" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="293" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:05:28.373" Score="10" ViewCount="215" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can never get nice silhouettes and appropriate exposures for sunrise and sunset. How should I meter for this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="93" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:04:30.510" Title="Where is it best to meter for sunrise and sunsets?" Tags="&lt;metering&gt;&lt;sunrise&gt;&lt;sunset&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="287" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="284" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:07:41.710" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depends on how much you're afraid of dust. I'm trying to minimize time I keep the body/insides of lenses &quot;vulnerable&quot;, and I still occasionally get dust spots on the sensor, visible around f/16. They're not that much of a problem and can be brushed off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand I've seen news photographers switching lenses and putting them into bags without any front or rear caps at all, so the bodies must be able to survive it somehow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:07:41.710" />
  <row Id="288" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="139" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:07:49.137" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The crop factor of a sensor has to do with its size in relation to a full-frame camera (i.e. a 35mm film camera or a top-end DSLR with a 35mm sensor.) There are a variety of crop factors, and depending on the camera manufacturer, they differ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon generally has three sensor sizes in its DSLR camera: full-frame (1x), APS-H (1.3x), and APS-X (1.6x). Most of canon's cameras make use of an APS-C style sensor, and have a 1.6x crop factor. Few of canon's cameras use an APS-H or FF sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Crop factor, while interesting from a sensor size perspective, has a more useful meaning. If you take a shot of a scene with the same lens in the same location with both a FF and an APS-C camera, the 1.6x crop factor causes the photo from the APS-C to appear &quot;more zoomed&quot;. If we assume that you took the photo with a 50mm lens, the FF 1x image would appear correct for a 50mm lens, but the APS-C 1.6x image would appear as though it was from an 80mm lens. (Simply multiply the &lt;em&gt;real&lt;/em&gt; focal length by the crop factor to get the &lt;em&gt;effective&lt;/em&gt; focal length.) This simple effect can be useful in some scenarios, such as say photographing birds at a great distance. The cropped sensor gives the appearance of being closer to your subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-10T17:35:38.723" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T17:35:38.723" />
  <row Id="289" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="284" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:08:21.150" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dust on the sensor is a small downer[1]: when you review photos and you see the same ugly-shaped smudge in the same spot in each image (usually in the sky), it sort of makes you wish you weren't shooting digital.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Somehow, even without changes lenses for years, my sensor has a big fuzzy dark shape on it. This can be fixed by using a blower or sending the body out for cleaning, but strangely enough even though I looked for dust before I left on a two week photo trip, I didn't spot it (or new dust got in there without any lens changing). I suppose my little LCD doesn't show the ugly spots the way they show up on my computer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My solution: grab a blower, shoot photos of the sky and check ON THE COMPUTER for dust BEFORE it covers my beloved images. Clean the sensor in a draft-free room and shoot more sky photos until they come up clean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[1] Note that most images (of the sky usually) could be Photoshopped when the dust is obvious, the whole point is not to have to manually fix thousands of photos in this manner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="109" LastEditorUserId="109" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-21T01:13:31.367" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T01:13:31.367" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="290" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:08:23.037" Score="7" ViewCount="66" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a set of 600 photographs from my wedding that were supplied to me on DVD by the photographer to do with as I wish. I'd like to put them into a wedding album, but in the style of a printed glossy album. Has anyone got any experience of a company that does this? The things I'd like from the service are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;photos printed onto glossy paper&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;album to be professionally bound&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;hardback cover&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A4 (or larger) size&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ability to lay the photos out as I wish (single or multiple photos per page)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;up to about 60 pages in total&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have found a few companies that do this type of thing, but would like dis/recommendations. I don't mind paying a decent price for this, but I will probably only be wanting one (possibly two) copies of the finished album. I'm in the UK, if that makes a difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="127" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-30T00:16:02.707" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T00:16:02.707" Title="What recommendations do you have for high-quality hardback printing of photo albums?" Tags="&lt;printing&gt;&lt;printed-album&gt;&lt;service-recommendation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="291" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="286" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:09:44.517" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want to get silhouettes you should use spot metering on the sky around the sun. If you have time the definite way is to switch to manual, look on histogram and adjust until it looks the way you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:09:44.517" />
  <row Id="292" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="307" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:09:45.033" Score="10" ViewCount="302" Body="&lt;p&gt;What method do you recommend to take secure backups of your photos?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have used Carbonite.com for my family photos and videos - it is an online backup - just select folders to backup and the software takes care of the rest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For my other photos (more than 2 terabytes) I use 4 external hard disks that I connect with USB once in a while and then store them at my parents' house.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="81" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-28T02:07:19.870" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T11:54:16.050" Title="What method is best to take backups of your digital photos?" Tags="&lt;storage&gt;&lt;backup&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="293" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="286" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:10:23.080" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Its near impossible to balance the foreground and the horizon/ambient when shooting into the sun without lighting modifiers, so you have to pick a target.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your target is to expose the sunset correctly, then expose for the sky - a non-white, non sun patch close to your composition, and recompose using those settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your target is to expose the foreground correctly, well, thats easy, expose the foreground as normal :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your target is to create a silhouette in the foreground, then you might try exposing for the sky, taking a test shot, and using your view/histogram controls to ensure you have a large chunk of black in the photo (tall peak on the left side).  Alternatively, you could set your exposure points to center point, expose on the foreground silhouette, then close down the shutter until your light meter is buried, -2 or better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:10:23.080" />
  <row Id="294" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="139" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:10:51.723" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can find detailed definition of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Crop Factor in Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; there is also a good explanation on dpreview site where it is referred to as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Focal_Length_Multiplier_01.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Focal Length Multiplier&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short in your scenario if you have one full frame camera (crop factor 1) with 80mm lens and a second camera with 1.6 crop factor and 50mm when taking photos from the same position you will get the same frames  (80 x 1 = 50x1.6 = 80)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That does not mean however that the photos will be identical. The depth of field for example if shooting with the same aperture will be different as it is still dependent on the (actual) focal length of the lens, that is the reason why people who are interested in achieving shallow depth of field tend to use full frame cameras. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also the camera with crop factor 1.6 has a smaller sensor (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;see crop factor definition&lt;/a&gt;) - so assuming the both have same resolution say 10 Mega Pixels, and use the same technology the full frame camera will have bigger pixels, each would capture more light and that would usually translate into better high iso performance and better dynamic range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More details in linked articles:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Crop Factor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Focal_Length_Multiplier_01.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Focal Length Multiplier&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#hypothetical&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Equivalence&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Please Note&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Crop Factor&lt;/a&gt; is sometimes referred as &quot;Field Of View Crop&quot; (&quot;FOV Crop&quot;), &quot;Magnification Factor&quot;, &quot;Focal Length Factor&quot;,  or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Focal_Length_Multiplier_01.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Focal Length Multiplier&quot;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As pointed out correctly by &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/users/21/rowland-shaw&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rowland&lt;/a&gt; Focal Length Multiplier and other terms that mention focal length are not correct and can be confusing as the focal length does not really change here. Those terms are however still being used in some camera reviews or specifications.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastEditorUserId="115" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T10:32:11.017" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T10:32:11.017" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="295" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:11:12.940" Score="24" ViewCount="1271" Body="&lt;p&gt;Which sites do you use for sharing photos with family and friends?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="93" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T03:05:17.200" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T10:53:23.517" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-15T22:11:12.940" Title="Best sites to share photo galleries with friends?" Tags="&lt;photo-galleries&gt;&lt;sharing&gt;" AnswerCount="28" FavoriteCount="13" />
  <row Id="296" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="284" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:12:20.147" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my experience, it is pretty easy to get dust...as well as other unwanted junk, inside your camera body fairly easily. I follow a pretty rigorous routine when changing my lenses so that I minimize the world-exposure time of anything...sensor, back lens element, etc. Despite my attempts to be careful, even a short, random gust can blow in the most astonishing things and they can drastically effect your photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A couple months ago I was out taking shots of birds (one of my first times trying bird photography) and I changed a lens. I had exposed the camera sensor for only a few seconds, but a dried fragment of a grass blade ended up inside my camera body. It took a while to find it at first, as I was looking at the shutter and sensor assembly. After some time, I finally realized it was actually stuck to the prism that redirects light to my viewfinder. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since then, I've completely accepted my paraniodism about switching lenses. Better safe than sorry. ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:12:20.147" />
  <row Id="297" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="24" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:12:24.750" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, there is a noticeable difference between the 1.8 and 1.4.&#xA;My thoughts on the subject in a few bullet points&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ignore the light difference, there are more significant differences between those lenses&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The focus on the 1.4 AF-S is much faster and more accurate&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The focus on the 1.8 does quite a bit of hunting in low light&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Image quality is also better on 1.4 AF-S but my experience here is a bit limited. I have only used that lens in the shop.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I usually shoot the 24-70 2.8 and when I occasionally switch to the 50 1.8 it is always a bit frustrating. Once I wanted to avoid intimidating kids during a birthday party and went with the prime. I regretted it so much when the focus couldn't keep up with fast moving non-cooperating objects. If you can afford the 1.4 go for it, I regret that I didn't and I will as soon as I can afford it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="125" LastEditorUserId="125" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T01:49:16.513" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T01:49:16.513" />
  <row Id="298" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="295" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:13:20.130" Score="28" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Flickr&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Definitely the most photog-friendly of the &quot;big&quot; sites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastEditorUserId="93" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-27T15:34:33.933" LastActivityDate="2010-08-27T15:34:33.933" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-15T22:13:20.130" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="299" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="295" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:14:50.333" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many great sites for sharing photos these days. Here are the top few that I use myself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://Redbubble.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Redbubble.com&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Great, simple site&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lets you sell your art at your own prices, and gives an excellent commission&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://DeviantArt.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DeviantArt.com&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Very large, lots of features, good for exposure&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://1x.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1x.com&lt;/a&gt; &#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Extremely high quality&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Kind of a goal for me...if my work progresses far enough to be accepted here, I'll be happy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://flickr.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr.com&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Simpler than redbubble, great for just showing work&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No prints, stuff of every kind of quality and type&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="48" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-15T22:19:01.967" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:19:01.967" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-15T22:14:50.333" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="300" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="292" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:19:08.347" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have recently purchased a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Netgear-ReadyNAS-RND2000-Storage-Solution/dp/B001O35S7M/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=electronics&amp;amp;qid=1279231932&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ReadyNas Duo&lt;/a&gt; which I use to store my photos (and other files). It attaches to my home network as a stand-alone device and takes 2 hard disks, which are mirrored using RAID, meaning that a copy of the photos are on each disk. The disks are hot-swappable, meaning that I can easily remove one disk to keep a backup of the files on it somewhere safe. This seems to be the best approach I have found so far for the number of photos I have (around 7500).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An off-site backup would possibly be better, but uploading 9GB of photos to an online backup becomes painful really quickly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="127" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:19:08.347" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="301" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="178" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:21:17.767" Score="21" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Increase your ISO as far as you can go without losing too much quality (to get a shutter speed as close as possible to the 1/focal length rule).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Practice and use a stable shooting position like one of these to help steady the camera:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.muddyboots.org/2009/04/avoiding-blur-due-to-camera-shake.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://blog.muddyboots.org/2009/04/avoiding-blur-due-to-camera-shake.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Slowly and smoothly press the shutter button, don't jab it.  Most people move the camera more than they realize when pressing the button -it helps to practice this beforehand as well.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Breathe out slowly while you take the photo (don't hold your breath).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Try putting your camera in burst mode.  If you jab the shutter button, you'll find that when you use burst and hold the shutter down, the 2nd or 3rd shot will come out sharper than your 1st one.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="110" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:21:17.767" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="302" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="295" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:23:34.083" Score="21" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;PicasaWeb&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've used &lt;a href=&quot;http://picasaweb.google.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PicasaWeb&lt;/a&gt; in the past and found it to be quite good. It integrates well with Picasa, especially if you have tagged your Google contacts  (which are typically your family and friends) in the photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you upload a photo set, it can automatically email the people in the photos to let them know that there is a new set for them to view. There are also controls to restrict who can see the photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="127" LastEditorUserId="93" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-27T15:35:03.933" LastActivityDate="2010-08-27T15:35:03.933" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-15T22:23:34.083" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="303" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="312" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:24:10.760" Score="2" ViewCount="133" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I have a mediocre monitor, and a reasonable but not fantastic printer, what are my options for getting a good photo print? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Printer ink is not cheap, and I usually do not have the patience or resources to print out several attempts with various adjustments to brightness, contrast etc. I find it particularly difficult to get the settings to a good enough compromise between seeing the detail in dark parts of the printed image versus blowing out the highlights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="133" LastEditorUserId="133" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-15T23:05:41.880" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T00:15:30.573" Title="How to calibrate a printer and monitor if neither are very good" Tags="&lt;prints&gt;&lt;monitors&gt;&lt;color-management&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="304" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="229" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:24:43.240" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;The best camera is the one you have with you.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;-- unknown (to me at least)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:24:43.240" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-15T22:24:43.240" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="305" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="313" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:25:53.503" Score="18" ViewCount="619" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a couple lenses that don't have inner focusing system and whenever I want to put them back in my bag I turn the focus ring to make the lens shorter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I noticed that when the lens is set to auto focus, the focus ring is harder to move than when it is on manual focus. Can I damage the focusing system by turning the focus ring when the lens is set to auto focus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would think that if the lens is off the camera it wouldn't cause any damage. Am I right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="132" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T18:42:57.470" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T18:42:57.470" Title="Can I damage the focus motor by turning the focus ring with my hand?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;focus&gt;&lt;equipment-damage&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="306" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="326" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:26:36.530" Score="7" ViewCount="329" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm thinking about getting an neutral density filter to shoot some silky waterfalls and smooths waves on the beach.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What would you recommend in terms of:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;1. Brand - quality, durability, price&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2. Darkness - what do I need to slow a direct sunlight shot (sunset, sunrise) down to 10-20s exposure?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;3. Type - uniform or gradual?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="125" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-21T01:16:58.700" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T09:30:03.347" Title="What ND filter would you recommend?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;filters&gt;&lt;neutral-density&gt;" AnswerCount="6" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="307" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="292" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:26:40.180" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Photo backups are like backing up any other data, and so the same principles from computing apply:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You want to have one &lt;em&gt;active&lt;/em&gt; copy. This would be your memory card and/or computer hard drive when you're editing/organizing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You want to have one &lt;em&gt;easy-to-access&lt;/em&gt; backup. This is so that you can get the safe copy in the event that you have a minor crash or corrupted file. (This includes corruption by overzealous editing). An external hard drive works well; you can also get a home server, NAS, etc. Burnt DVDs or archival memory cards work too.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You want to have one &lt;em&gt;offsite&lt;/em&gt; backup. This is to guard against catastrophic losses (ie: your house burns down) which take your easy-to-access backup with it. It also guards against coincidental failure of your active + first backup copy; this is common since you often don't check your first backup for errors until your active copy fails. Online backup services are great for this, but burnt DVDs or memory cards in a safety deposit box work too.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;General rule: the more copies you have, the better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:26:40.180" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="308" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="292" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:27:17.187" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My workflow is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;copy files off the camera into a YYYY/MM/ directory tree, with whatever subdirectories are needed to make sense&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I have a &quot;permanent&quot; external drive that is sync'ed hourly (this guards against HD failure)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I have a portable external drive that I sync to manually, usually every couple of days. I copy this to an external drive at a relatives house (this happens every couple of weeks) (this guards against the &quot;house burns down&quot; scenario)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't set up automatic backup to the offsite HDD, but it probably wouldn't be that hard to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="134" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:27:17.187" />
  <row Id="309" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="134" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:30:06.373" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Choose a segment (beginner such as 1000D, beginner+, pro or top of the line)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Read reviews at dpreview &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Buy the Nikon or Canon you fancy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="100" LastEditorUserId="100" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-26T20:16:28.410" LastActivityDate="2011-02-26T20:16:28.410" />
  <row Id="310" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="229" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:30:25.450" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are some of my favorites, in no particular order:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst.&quot; ~Henri Cartier-Bresson&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Photography is no more about equipment than writing is about word processors&quot; ~Unknown&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus&quot; ~Mark Twain&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Buying an expensive Nikon doesn't make you a photographer. It makes you a Nikon owner.&quot; ~Unknown&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.&quot; ~Ansel Adams&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;No photographer is as good as the simplest camera.&quot; ~Edward Steichen&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="136" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:30:25.450" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-15T22:30:25.450" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="311" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="229" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:30:26.760" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;In photography, as in life, the most important mathematics is subtraction. Subtract all that is distracting and unnecessary until only the essential remains.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-- Unknown (reiterated by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nd-magazine.com/articles/art3.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Andy Mumford in ND Mag&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:30:26.760" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-15T22:30:26.760" />
  <row Id="312" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="303" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:31:02.160" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Probably not the answer you want, but if you have a bad monitor, and a bad printer, you're probably going to get bad prints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A color calibration system (hardware) would help, but that's an investment of money and if you aren't willing to do that for your monitor/printer I'm guessing you aren't willing to spend the money on a calibrator.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't make a lot of prints, the best option might be to use a third-party printer... drugstore, online, etc.  Good printers will allow you to download the printer profile for their equipment, and you can use that profile in your photo editor (Photoshop, etc) so that what you see matches what gets printed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:31:02.160" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="313" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="305" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:31:39.070" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that depends a bit on the construction of the AF mechanism in the lens. If there is resistance when turning the focus ring, this also means that there is greater force applied to move the mechanics, and so there is greater stress in the material. I would personally switch over to manual focus for that procedure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:31:39.070" />
  <row Id="314" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="62" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:31:53.297" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're happy throwing away the original RAW files then you can save a little disk space. I've converted CRW (Canon RAW) to DNG and I typically end up with files about 20% smaller with all the information there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course disk space is cheap, and Canon and Nikon RAW formats are likely to be supported for a long time to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Ricoh is another camera manufacturer who supports DNG - though that still leaves it fairly short of being widely supported by camera manufacturers. Though I would assume all major software packages should support DNG.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:31:53.297" />
  <row Id="315" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="306" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:34:17.193" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is similar to a question I &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/112/what-is-the-highest-quality-graduated-neutral-density-filter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;posed&lt;/a&gt;.  I'll dump what I know, and hope my question gets answered in turn :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have heard that Cokin has a color cast to their &quot;ND&quot; filters, so avoid them.  Not sure about singh-ray.  Lee I have heard is the best, but in my experience, their 4x6 gnd's are having supply chain issues.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think I read an article somewhere about some pro using a 9ish? stop filter to slow down waves at twilight.  This sounds about right to me, but I've never tried it myself.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of uniform or gradual, that depends on what you want to accomplish.  An overall ND would be good for taking those hot white peaks out of wave caps, but a GND is important for balancing the sky against the water (GND on top).  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimpatterson/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jim Patterson&lt;/a&gt; is my idol for this stuff, and he recommended a .6 hard GND, and .9 soft.  The .6/.9 describes the number of stops of light it filters, and the hard or soft describes how the edge is feathered.  He said for water shots of sunsets on the horizon, he even uses a reverse GND - where the bottom half is clear, the darkest part is dead center, and it trails off to clear at the top.  This allows you to balance three pieces - dark water against hot sunset against semi dark sky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:34:17.193" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="316" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="292" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:34:33.200" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a WD NAS on my desk, to which I backup all valuable files on my computer, my photos included. I also use JungleDisk nightly to have an offsite backup of all my files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:34:33.200" />
  <row Id="317" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="292" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:36:12.903" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently had a hard drive failure, and lost a lot of content, but thankfully none of my original raw files. As you can imagine, my heart nearly stopped when it happened. I've taken the most effective approach I can think of to resolve the problem. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I purchased a ReadyNas NVX, a network attached storage device. The ReadyNAS NVX is a very nice, compact 4-bay raid device that hooks directly into your home network. It can hold a considerable amount of space (currently holds 4 2Tb drives for a total of 8Gb, with about 2Gb used for redundancy and protection), and is very, very fast. I was able to transfer a couple Tb of data to this puppy in about 3 hours at a rate of 60mb/s. Reading from the drive is amazingly fast, peaking at around 85mb/s, and rarely dropping below 75mb/s.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The beauty of a device like the ReadyNAX NVX is that it supports dynamically expanding your storage. If you start out with just one 2Tb hard drive, you can easily expand that to 4Tb by adding another drive while the device is running. If you have 8Tb with 4 2Tb drives, you can pull one drive out and replace it with a 4Tb drive, and the system will automatically expand your space. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that a NAS/Raid device like this is not sufficient as a sole, permanent backup. In addition to the NVX, I also regularly burn my photography work to BluRay discs. I tend to keep the discs in my car, just in case something happens to my home.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:36:12.903" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="318" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="359" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:37:24.477" Score="8" ViewCount="123" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to purchase a Speedlite for my Canon DSLR, but am curious to whether I need to spend the extra dollars to get the top of the line 580EX II over the more affordable 430EX II.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the advantages of the 580EX II?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For people that have owned both, was the 580EX II worth the extra cost for you?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="131" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-18T01:59:51.440" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T01:59:51.440" Title="What are the advantages of the Canon 580EX II over the 430EX II?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;speedlite&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="319" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="237" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:39:10.357" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sigma seems to be fairly competitive on both price and quality. My experience: I have the 10-20mm, for my Nikon D50, and it is just a great lens. I have had no issues with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:39:10.357" />
  <row Id="320" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="306" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:39:54.193" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you don't mind polarization you can get variable ND filter by combining a linear polarizer with another polarizer and adjusting their relative position.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:39:54.193" />
  <row Id="321" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:40:45.393" Score="12" ViewCount="481" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most well known software for managing your photos are only available on Windows and Mac. so what photo management software do you use on Linux? What are it's strengths and weaknesses? What sort of users would you recommend it for?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T18:28:55.103" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T18:42:38.590" Title="What photo management software would you recommend for Linux?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;photo-management&gt;&lt;linux&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="322" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="230" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:40:45.737" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I used to use the combination of Hugin and Blend to join images. The results were so-so, though I suspect my inexperience at the time had something to do with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nowadays, I use Photoshop's Photomerge feature, and it gets the job done, with good results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:40:45.737" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-03T13:16:05.547" />
  <row Id="323" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="318" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:41:42.023" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biggest advantage that I know is that it can act as an optical master, and can control a and b groups of slaves (the 430 can act as a slave).  They also both have hotshoe hookups, but only the 580 has the pc sync cable, afaik.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I own both, and while I'm sure there are various features I am missing, I never notice those differences because i always use remote triggers and shoot in manual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastEditorUserId="31" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T03:09:07.927" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T03:09:07.927" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="324" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1488" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:42:11.897" Score="4" ViewCount="170" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been reading &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strobist&lt;/a&gt; lately and love the moody half-lit-half-dark effect in a lot of these types of photos. I'm a beginner and have a limited equipment budget, so I got a 45&quot; reflective/shoot-through umbrella. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It gives great softness for the really low price. However, I find that I can't get the really dark areas/high contrast in my portraits. I think that this is because the excess light from my strobe is bouncing off my room walls and coming back at my subject. This effectively creates a new &quot;ambient&quot; light source (I've killed the real ambient) that prevents the deep shadows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are some good ways to work around this? Bonus points for being low-cost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T19:24:06.677" Title="Preventing light spill from an umbrella" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;umbrella&gt;&lt;lighting-modifiers&gt;" AnswerCount="5" />
  <row Id="325" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="372" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:44:16.653" Score="12" ViewCount="210" Body="&lt;p&gt;Cameras rarely specify exactly what speed cards you should be using in them - I just checked the manual for my DSLR, and all it says is to use an SDHD card, and a &quot;high speed&quot; card should be used for recording video.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, there are a number of different rating systems for memory card speed (33x! 150x! Class 2! Class 10!) and price seems increases with speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any way to test the maximum write speed the camera is capable of?  Are the read/write speeds documented anywhere?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="134" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:40:17.517" Title="How can I know what speed card to get for my camera?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;write-speed&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="326" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="306" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:46:10.583" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have also recently been researching the same subject. I'm a DSLR user, but there are many scenarios where shooting without an ND filter is just not possible. In my extensive exploration of ND filters, I've found Lee Filters. Both from a textbook technical perspective, and in reality, Lee seems to have the best filters available. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the things I've learned about ND filters are that you need flexibility in how they are situated in front of your lens (particularly for ND Grad filters), and quality of filtration. A lot of other brands don't filter all ranges of light...they filter the &quot;central&quot; bulk of visible light, but allow either infrared or ultraviolet wavelengths to slip through. This can give an undesired color cast to your images...either warming them or cooling them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lee filters are solid filters that don't leave much of a color cast, and they have a very broad range of stops, anything from a few stops up through their &quot;Big Stopper&quot;, a whopping 10-stop filter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In regards to which kind of filter you get, you will ultimately probably need both solid and graduated filters. One of the most useful purposes for an ND Grad filter is to balance the contrast in a scene, and depending on the scene, you may want a hard ND grad, or a soft ND grad. If you have a sharp horizon with a very bright sky, a hard ND grad will serve you well. If you have a softer or less defined horizon, such as a mountain landscape, a soft ND grad will probably be better. The most common &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.leefiltersusa.com/camera/products/finder/ref%3aC475674155E58E/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ND grad filters&lt;/a&gt; I have seen in use, and the ones I've purchased for myself, are the 0.6 and 0.9 (or 2 and 3 stop).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you wish to greatly slow down the rate at which light reaches your sensor, by that 10-20 seconds, you'll likely need a high-stop solid ND filter. Lee's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.leefiltersusa.com/camera/products/finder/ref%3aC4B98B6210C4C3/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Big Stopper&lt;/a&gt; is an excellent high-stop ND filter that will definitely get the job done for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:46:10.583" />
  <row Id="327" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="367" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:46:47.883" Score="9" ViewCount="276" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the point at which a lens is considered &quot;ultra-wide angle&quot; vs just wide angle?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-22T11:42:32.467" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T03:46:36.813" Title="What is an ultra-wide lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;wide-angle&gt;&lt;ultra-wide&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="328" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="324" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:47:01.173" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Maybe try hanging some fabric remnants (I got 2 yards of black velvet for 5$ from hobby lobby) or some landscaping fabric from your walls.  Anything black and non-specular (I think thats right?) will do.  If your wife / roommate / mom won't permit such a thing, consider placing something closer to the light source, in a smaller format.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.zackarias.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Zack Arias&lt;/a&gt; recommends bifold closet doors I think, but you could basically use an easily standable, movable piece of cardboard.  I think the strobist crowd calls these barn doors - you might search Hobby's site for that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:47:01.173" />
  <row Id="329" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="191" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:50:24.650" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm leaning towards the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thinktankphoto.com/products/retrospective-20-pinestone-shoulder-bag.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Think Tank Retrospective 20&lt;/a&gt; which looks like it meets all my requirements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:50:24.650" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="330" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="295" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:51:51.137" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For tagging/notifying people and restricting access, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.facebook.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Facebook&lt;/a&gt; works really well, if most of your friends use it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-03T21:53:51.827" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T21:53:51.827" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-15T22:51:51.137" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="331" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:52:08.547" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst. – Henri Cartier-Bresson&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="81" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:52:08.547" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-03T18:24:54.070" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="332" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="134" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:52:19.437" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The one that is most comfortable to use, and doesn't get in the way of taking pictures!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People can tell you what ones they prefer, but really you need to get your hands on them, try out the controls and the menu system, and make sure you're happy - you don't want to miss a great shot because your camera didn't feel natural.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;hr/&gt;&#xA;For your specific styles of photography:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;action shots of MMA fights&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So you want something with good indoor/low-light performance, with decent noise handling at high ISOs, and a decent buffer for taking multiple shots one after the other?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;nature shots (landscapes and macro for the most part)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Afaik, most SLRs will be fine for these, these days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll want a good long lens for animal/macro shots - at least 200mm, probably more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether to get a single 18-200mm or go for an 18-70mm and 70-300mm is something you'll get assorted opinions on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;With those things in mind, go read the reviews (as mentioned, &lt;a href=&quot;http://dpreview.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dpreview.com&lt;/a&gt; tends to have good in-depth information), and come up with a shortlist based on those features and your budget.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then go out and test all the cameras on the shortlist, and find the one you're most comfortable using.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="137" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:52:19.437" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="333" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="321" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:53:10.213" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digikam.org/drupal/about/overview&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;digikam&lt;/a&gt; which is developed for KDE and has ports to Windows and Mac OS X. It's one of the more powerful packages I've tried, with good folder and tag management workflows, though it's not always the most intuitive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has lots of plugins for different websites, so you upload your photos to sites like facebook and flick with a single menu option. It will shrink the image to a suitable size before uploading it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It can deal with pretty much any RAW format. The built in editor is pretty good, though it could be better integrated with the viewer - it can feel a little separate. There's also a light table for comparing photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Overall I'd recommend it for a keen amateur who takes a lot of photos and is prepared to spend a little time learning the package in return for a lot of power. I'm sure I've still not explored a lot of what it can do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/DigiKam-snapshot.png/240px-DigiKam-snapshot.png&quot; alt=&quot;Digikam screenshot&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:53:10.213" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="334" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="355" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:54:00.853" Score="5" ViewCount="135" Body="&lt;p&gt;I enjoy macro photography and have heard of using &quot;Rim Lighting&quot; for higher contrast. How do I achieve this effect?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:17:00.240" Title="How do I create &quot;Rim Lighting&quot; in macro photography?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;strobist&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="335" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="375" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:54:55.797" Score="11" ViewCount="143" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've seen people over the internet aiming their flashes to the umbrella's axis but haven't seen yet a before and after photo. In my case, the flash aims a bit above the axis. What would be the benefit of aiming the flash to the umbrella's axis?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="132" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-14T19:25:12.527" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T15:59:23.693" Title="Will I see a difference in my photos if I aim my flash to the umbrella axis?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;umbrella&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="336" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:56:42.503" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are a few of the things I've learned over the year or so I've been doing photography:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take pictures, always, constantly, of the same thing, of different things&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lighting is a photographers BEST friend...use it, learn its moods&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Composition is key, compose in your mind and eye before you compose in the lens&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use common guidelines, like:&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rule of Thirds&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Golden Ratio&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take your time, and wait for the moment&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Always shoot in RAW!!! :D&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Be your own critic, and subject your work to the critical review of others&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Friends and family will always love your work, and are thus rarely critics&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Find a way to challenge yourself, and set a goal you know is higher than your current skill&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Don't let a technical understanding of shutter, aperture, and sensitvity get in the way of art and instinct (I make this mistake all the time.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:56:42.503" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-03T18:24:54.070" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="337" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="286" CreationDate="2010-07-15T22:59:01.470" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Also consider bracketing, which is a good thing to try in any difficult exposure situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T22:59:01.470" />
  <row Id="338" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="325" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:00:54.960" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For SDHC cards there are &quot;Class&quot; ratings that indicate the speed. There is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital#Speed_Class_Rating&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;table on wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; that compares the ratings, but the class # is the key.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have used Class 6, which is fairly affordable, but still quite fast. It will never hurt to have a faster card, so given a choice you always want the higher class.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:00:54.960" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="339" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="348" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:01:07.473" Score="10" ViewCount="244" Body="&lt;p&gt;My attempts at creating a hair light have been less than successful; I can get a hint of highlight but nothing like I see in the pro shots. What are the things that I should be adjusting in terms of location, height, distance, and light modifiers?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:15:10.787" Title="How do I create a (good) Hair Light?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="340" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="321" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:01:08.597" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I prefer to organize photos myself, so I download them from camera using &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gphoto.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gphoto2&lt;/a&gt; and store in a directories like &lt;code&gt;2010/07 Some event&lt;/code&gt;. That way I can backup them by simple copying, and don't have to do much more with them except deleting the bad ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:01:08.597" />
  <row Id="341" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:02:02.557" Score="39" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If something is worth photographing, it's worth photographing &lt;em&gt;twice&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt; (at least)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For each picture you take, look at it afterwards, and take a distinctly different picture - whether different angle, different framing, different focus, just deliberately try something else.&#xA;Repeat as many times as you like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, the key is to experiment, and see how different ideas affect the picture you've taken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="137" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:02:02.557" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-03T18:24:54.070" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="342" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="295" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:02:30.263" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just have a regular Blogger blog. Picasa makes it super-easy if you use that software, and even if you don't, it's not hard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You're limited to 5 photos per post unless you jump through hoops, but that can be a good thing - no one wants to look at the 50 frames you downloaded straight from the camera. :) Share only the best ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, you then get a good RSS feed to notify people; they get one notification per post instead of one per photo which is what Flickr does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, you can arrange it so new posts are e-mailed to people, which is nice when your friends &amp;amp; family aren't RSS savvy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:02:30.263" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-15T23:02:30.263" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="343" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="286" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:04:30.510" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I also have a hard time with sunrise/sunset scenes. I am still working on improving my skill here, but here are some of the things I've learned recently that have begun to help:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When metering at the extremes of the day, meter both the darkest part of the scene and the brightest part. Camera sensors have a limited range of contrast that they can capture, around 5-6 stops. If the difference in exposure value between the darkest and brightest part of a scene is greater than 5-6 stops, you need to compensate.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use graduated neutral density (ND) filters to compensate when contrast range is too great for your sensor. Lee makes EXCELLENT ND Grad filters and holders, in a wide variety of stops (1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3). &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Don't be afraid to stack ND filters, and always have a set of filters at your disposal. I've learned that at least one NDG .6 soft, NDG .6 hard, and solid ND .6, are some of the most useful tools you can have in your nature photography toolbelt.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Meter without a filter to determine the true contrast range of your scene, and remember the exposure settings. Once applying filtration, manually adjust your camera by however many stops worth of filtration you have added, and ignore the meter. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:04:30.510" />
  <row Id="344" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="295" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:04:31.350" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do it in one of two ways, depending on whether or not the images should be viewable for the general public.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the public ones, I've found that uploading images to &lt;a href=&quot;http://flickr.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr&lt;/a&gt; and then sharing those links works fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the private ones (parties, etc) I also upload to Flickr, but mark them as private. I then share the albums via &lt;a href=&quot;http://divvyshot.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Divvyshot&lt;/a&gt;, where the albums get a &quot;secret&quot; URL, which I give to people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On Flickr people needed to create users, join groups, etc., which I found was too much of a hassle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course the 'security' isn't top-notch, but for photos which aren't exactly confidential, just not for the general public, I think it's a good solution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt; Well, it seems Facebook has bought Divvyshot, so they are closing down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:09:39.440" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-15T23:04:31.350" />
  <row Id="345" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:05:30.833" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Look up. Look down. Lean on something. Crouch. Be creative!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also: be critical of your photos. When looking at each one, try to find something that you could have done better. This will help you improve your photos when taking them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastEditorUserId="26" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-15T23:12:23.303" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:12:23.303" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-03T18:24:54.070" />
  <row Id="346" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="295" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:08:06.290" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;DropBox&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So you're specifically looking to only share with friends and family? Yeah, Flickr is great, but only useful if all of your friends and family have accounts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;DropBox is really handy for sharing photos with specific people without requiring any sort of account. The links you'd send out aren't private, but they're not searchable and only those who knew of them would see the photos. I like DropBox for when I just want to quickly email some photos to people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="50" LastEditorUserId="93" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-27T15:35:19.160" LastActivityDate="2010-08-27T15:35:19.160" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-15T23:08:06.290" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="347" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:08:59.223" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When using my Nikon 70-300m VR, I discovered that with the lens in auto mode, you can hold down the shutter button for autofocus, then adjust the focus ring for fine-tuning. I had assumed the focus ring was only useful when focusing manually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:08:59.223" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-01T18:55:11.547" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="348" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="339" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:09:19.300" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd put a hair light almost behind the model and a bit high and try to have it very focused so it wouldn't spill into the camera, using a grid or snoot. Something like this:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://vvv.mokrakocicka.cz/gang/lighting-diagram-1279235257.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-15T23:15:10.787" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:15:10.787" />
  <row Id="349" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="305" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:09:34.243" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think your intuition is correct.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the lens is mounted and set to autofocus, turning the focus ring turns all of the autofocus mechanisms back to the in-camera motor, and backwards - the gears and stuff are designed to bring the high-speed rotation coming out of the electric motor down to something more reasonable for manipulating the lens, and driving this setup backwards applies stress it wasn't designed to handle. You can feel this - as you say, it's harder to move the focus ring when autofocus is on. So, don't do it when the lens is mounted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the same rule of thumb applies when the lens is not mounted. If turning the focus ring is noticeably harder when autofocus is on, don't do it. Otherwise, feel free.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many lenses (e.g. Nikkor AF-S) are specifically designed to let you do this, so then it's no problem obviously.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:09:34.243" />
  <row Id="350" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="430" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:09:40.577" Score="17" ViewCount="353" Body="&lt;p&gt;I own a Canon 450D with just the standard lens kit that comes with it (poor so won't be buy a new lens for a while) and one thing I tend to struggle with is shotting in lower light conditions, indoors and out.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we have people over I try and document the party with my camera, most of these photos are taken inside the house however even on the lowest f/s 3.5 for my 18-55mm lens the images tend to come out blurry and out of focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have heard increasing your ISO works well but then you have the problem of noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is increasing the shutter speed and overexposing a good idea for these situations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="138" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-15T23:19:05.820" LastActivityDate="2010-10-08T08:12:45.130" Title="What are some tips for shooting in low light" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;shutter-speed&gt;&lt;low-light&gt;" AnswerCount="10" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="351" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="466" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:12:55.800" Score="5" ViewCount="60" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am working on a year long photo a day project, and after about 8 months I'm beginning to lose motivation. How do you stay motivated and gain new inspiration to continue in long projects?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T10:55:14.813" Title="Sustaining motivation during a long project." Tags="&lt;inspiration&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="352" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="357" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:13:29.200" Score="4" ViewCount="878" Body="&lt;p&gt;Everytime I upload a photo to facebook I'm disappointed, the photos just look really bad. What size do you recommend, dpi, etc? If it helps, I'm using lightroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="132" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T01:09:07.997" Title="What are the optimal jpeg settings for facebook photos?" Tags="&lt;jpeg&gt;&lt;facebook&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="353" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="350" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:14:42.833" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Noise is better than blur (and much less of a problem than you might think from reading the internet), so don't hesitate to vigorously boost ISO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Underexposing won't help; it's basically the same as increasing ISO w.r.t. noise. The only time to do this is when you've already maxed out the ISO adjustment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider a &quot;fast fifty&quot; - you can get a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens for super cheap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T15:42:57.323" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T15:42:57.323" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="354" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="350" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:16:12.033" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Aperture is king. As opposed to higher ISO (noise) and slower shutter speed (blur), a larger aperture (ie: a lower f-number) often results in &lt;em&gt;better&lt;/em&gt;-looking pictures in lower light. The lower f-numbers give a shallower depth of field, resulting in blurry backgrounds. This gives a nice separation between the background and your in-focus subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A 50mm f/1.8 lens is a great investment for this reason. It's cheap too!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:16:12.033" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="355" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="334" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:17:00.240" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You get a rim light by placing the light behind your subject, but it's more used in portrait photography than in macro (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/preciouskhyatt/3151891639/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;see example&lt;/a&gt;). But I guess it can work, if you make your light small enough to fit behind what you're shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:17:00.240" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="356" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="438" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:19:03.730" Score="7" ViewCount="112" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that filters have in common a protective aspect. Beyond that, which filter type would you use for certain shots? e.g. Sunsets, waterfalls, daylight...Any case where you would change filters!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a UV filter on one lens, and polarizers on some others. I'd like to hear about other filter options.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-08-01T17:09:40.563" Title="What are your preferred filters for certain subjects?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="357" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="352" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:19:10.343" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use 72 dpi - Resize to fit checked - 700 pixels - Long Edge - Don't Enlarge checked.&#xA;Sharpen for Screen - High.&#xA;Quality 100 - sRGB - JPEG.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="81" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:19:10.343" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="358" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="350" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:19:28.690" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The obvious answer for low-light shooting is a tripod. You can get sharp images in almost no light with a tripod, remote control, and ridiculously long shutter times. This is not always practical though; any sort of movement rules this out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:19:28.690" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="359" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="318" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:20:29.063" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;More power!&#xA;Master capability.&#xA;PC port.&#xA;Retractable bounce card.&#xA;&quot;Weather sealing&quot; at the hot shoe.&#xA;The 580 will also swivel further to the right and a little more downwards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 430 is a great flash though. I don't think you'd regret it. Too bad you just missed Canon's summer rebate on the 580! It was going for $400. If you got the 430 and eventually upgraded to a 580, you'd still have a nice slave and a great backup. Get what you can afford.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="50" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:20:29.063" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="360" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="324" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:22:58.980" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As light intensity falls off faster when you're close to the light source, you can minimize the effect of wall/ceiling reflections by putting the umbrella as close to your subject as possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another very low cost option is to wait for the night and shoot outdoors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:22:58.980" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="361" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="350" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:23:21.150" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;An image-stabilized (vibration reduction) lens can also help you reduce blur in hand-held low-light situations. My understanding is that you can basically get the equivalent of 1-2 stops; you can trade this off for aperture, ISO, or shutter speed. However, it only works for hand shake; subject movement will still result in blur. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:23:21.150" />
  <row Id="362" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="350" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:23:58.403" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is the exact reason I got a 50mm f/1.8.  The 1.8 aperture makes a huge difference in low light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:23:58.403" />
  <row Id="363" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:27:45.307" Score="17" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Relax!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And don't read the internet too much. You'll read a million reasons your equipment is inadequate and how in order to do X you have to buy Y, which you can't afford, and how the camera you have has minor terrible flaws A, B, and C.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All cameras have flaws. You can take great photos with the camera you have, no matter what it is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:27:45.307" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-03T18:24:54.070" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="364" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:27:48.037" Score="3" ViewCount="403" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is your favorite photography jokes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If you saw a man drowning and you could either save him or photograph the event...what kind of film would you use? - Anonymous&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The quickest way to make money at photography is to sell your camera. - Anonymous&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If an old man asks a young girl for a date... &#xA;That's his business.&#xA;If the young girl accepts...&#xA;That's her business.&#xA;If the old man and the girl decide to marry...&#xA;That's their business.&#xA;However, if they want great wedding photographs...&#xA;THAT'S MY BUSINESS!!! - Anonymous - - sign on studio wall&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="81" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T10:03:25.240" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-15T23:36:59.583" ClosedDate="2010-07-16T18:35:50.543" Title="What is your favorite photography joke?" Tags="&lt;fun&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="365" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="356" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:27:50.237" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have used a circular polarizer on various water subjects (streams/lakes/waterfalls). The ability to cut the glare on the surface can really change the feel of the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:27:50.237" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="366" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="178" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:29:37.097" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find it useful to have the camera body touching my face. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead of hovering it in front of me, I have my nose on the back of the body. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternately, I have my flash resting against my forehead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="98" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:29:37.097" />
  <row Id="367" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="327" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:30:39.297" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_wide_angle_lens&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia says&lt;/a&gt; lenses below 24mm focal length (in 35mm-equivalent) are considered ultra-wide. Personally I'd say that the field of view becomes ultra-wide when people near the border of the picture start to look significantly wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:30:39.297" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="368" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="237" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:30:43.197" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Sigma EX 30mm f/1.4 and it's fine - does what it should, no significant complaints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also have a Sigma 70-300mm Macro and it's slow, noisy, and not great quality. It was cheap, and better than not having a tele zoom, but I've been meaning to replace it for a while now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="137" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:30:43.197" />
  <row Id="369" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="306" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:32:08.560" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;B+W is good stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've used their 10 stop ND filter. It's pretty cool for long daytime exposures. There was a slightly warm tone for longer exposures. I was using it on a 10-22, which has a fair amount of vignetting at the wide end, so keep in mind that a 10 stop filter will emphasize that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The type is up to you, but I think a regular one would be more versatile.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="50" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:32:08.560" />
  <row Id="370" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:39:01.200" Score="6" ViewCount="958" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a canon T2i camera. I am beginner looking for some tips on the best lenses to carry around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="147" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T18:37:27.770" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T23:26:11.653" Title="What lenses are must and affordable for a canon T2i camera?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="371" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="350" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:39:08.127" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;By the way, it's important to note that there's a difference between &quot;blurry&quot; and &quot;out of focus&quot;. I like to think of the difference as &quot;side to side&quot; vs &quot;in and out&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Blur&quot; is typically used to describe the effect of motion between the subject and the sensor. That's caused either by the motion of the subject, or the motion of the camera (including camera shake and vibration). This is the sort of thing that's helped by tripods, shutter speeds, and image stabilization. It's also not necessarily bad; some blur can help imply motion on the part of the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Out of focus&quot; is used to describe problems with the distance between subject and sensor, given a particular lens focus setting. Most of the time you want your subject to be in complete focus. Depth of field (which is controlled by aperture) can help achieve this. However, most of the results are determined by the focusing system itself, either you (for manual focus) or the autofocus system of your camera. The latter can be quite complex and tricky in low-light; different cameras and lenses will have different behaviors. That's why you'll often see the little light from your camera turn on before a shot; the AF system needs a minimum level of light in order to do its work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They're two different things and require two different types of corrections. It's important to know what you're dealing with beforehand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:39:08.127" />
  <row Id="372" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="325" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:40:17.517" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Camera reviews on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dpreview&lt;/a&gt; mention writing speeds (example: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos550d/page12.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EOS 550D&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there's no documentation it should be possible to derive actual camera+card write speed by switching to RAW and shooting in sequence until your buffer fills up (then shooting fps should go down significantly). Then writing_speed = raw_file_size * fps_with_full_buffer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:40:17.517" />
  <row Id="374" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="370" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:43:36.920" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the most popular lenses in in the Canon arsenal is the nifty 50 - a 50mm, f/1.8 lens.  Its prime so it won't zoom, but it's aperture opens WAAAAY up so that you can use it in those low light situations without uglying everything up with the on camera flash.  Check it &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-8-Camera-Lens/dp/B00007E7JU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=electronics&amp;amp;qid=1279237396&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:43:36.920" />
  <row Id="375" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="335" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:45:39.647" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The benefit should be a bit better effectiveness of the umbrella and less spill outside. If your flash isn't significantly off I doubt that the change will be noticable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-15T23:45:39.647" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="376" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1074" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:48:01.543" Score="7" ViewCount="267" Body="&lt;p&gt;I love Adobe Lightroom, the workflow, the interface, the whole package. However, as a Nikon owner never did I manage to get the colors to look as good as after processing with Capture NX. No doubt about the fact that Capture NX understands Nikon's white balance data much better. Of course Lightroom has camera profiles, but as far as my experience goes they don't solve the problem completely.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the question is: did I give up on Lightroom to soon? Have you been able to get the colors look the way you like them? Have you created or discovered some third party camera profiles that you are happy with and would recommend to others?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="125" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T19:44:26.720" Title="Nikon RAW image processing in non-Nikon software" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;white-balance&gt;&lt;image-processing&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="377" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:53:45.807" Score="8" ViewCount="408" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use a full frame Nikon camera and would love to play with macro photography. Is the Nikon 105 macro strong enough or would you rather recommend some bigger third party lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="125" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T19:06:00.910" LastActivityDate="2011-04-02T19:02:54.020" Title="Macro lens for a full frame Nikon camera" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;full-frame&gt;" AnswerCount="9" />
  <row Id="378" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="174" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:54:33.933" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My SmugMug experience as a SmugMug Pro user:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pros&lt;br&gt;&#xA;A lot of control over your gallery's settings and prices.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Excellent customer support. This high level of support on the web is uncommon.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The customer's experience is simple and straight forward (as long as you don't overwhelm them different sizes and options).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Tons of cool features with the Pro account, like coupons and packages.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cons&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Almost too much control over your gallery's settings and prices sometimes. It can sometimes be a little overcomplicated.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Not necessarily that great looking right out of the box.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;SmugMug handles all of the transaction. The customer checks out, SmugMug takes their money, sends the stuff to the lab and ships it to the customer. SmugMug takes 15% of your profit. I don't think you can have a buy link on your photo that integrates with their shopping cart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think SmugMug is really all that great as simply a photo sharing site. Flickr is better. But, SmugMug is pretty darn good for the pro selling prints. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="50" LastEditorUserId="50" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T00:00:56.993" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T00:00:56.993" />
  <row Id="379" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="386" CreationDate="2010-07-15T23:59:54.733" Score="5" ViewCount="773" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently purchased a Panasonic GF1 with the 20mm pancake lens. It's by far the nicest camera I've ever owned and I'm really excited to learn the basics of digital photography (primarily street photography) with it. It comes with all sorts of &quot;scene&quot; modes (which I guess are just preset iso, aperture, shutter speed values... is that right or is that totally oversimplifying things?). It also has the ability to define 2 custom modes... so, while I'm having fun experimenting with various combinations of these settings I'm finding it to be kind of overwhelming. There are so many different combinations of iso, aperture, and shutter speed that can be set I'm wondering if there are some good &quot;base&quot; values to start with? I think I'd like to setup one of the settings to work in b&amp;amp;w and the other to work in color, but am open to any and all suggestions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="104" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T21:32:40.297" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T16:21:12.243" Title="What are some common iso, aperture, &amp; shutter speed settings for street photography?" Tags="&lt;iso&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;shutter-speed&gt;&lt;street-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="380" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="392" CreationDate="2010-07-16T00:00:15.123" Score="18" ViewCount="485" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is specific to Canon, but what is the difference between EF and EF-S lenses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="147" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-01T14:02:16.793" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T14:02:16.793" Title="What is the difference between EF and EF-S lenses?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;cropped-sensor&gt;&lt;full-frame&gt;&lt;lens-mount&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="381" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="463" CreationDate="2010-07-16T00:01:42.920" Score="8" ViewCount="219" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am interested in portraits and landscapes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="147" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T21:43:48.153" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T08:22:01.710" Title="What are some good books to learn SLR photography?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;learning&gt;&lt;books&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="382" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="380" CreationDate="2010-07-16T00:02:08.193" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;EF-S lenses are a specific mount that was designed to better suit the new digital bodies.  EF Lenses can be used on both digital and film EF mount bodies, but typically EF-S lenses are not backwards compatible to EF mount film bodies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T00:02:08.193" />
  <row Id="383" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="569" CreationDate="2010-07-16T00:02:52.340" Score="22" ViewCount="556" Body="&lt;p&gt;What filters are good and why? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="147" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T01:04:02.570" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T01:04:02.570" Title="What are the must-have filters for a new photographer" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="8" />
  <row Id="384" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="394" CreationDate="2010-07-16T00:03:44.070" Score="65" ViewCount="1376" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am beginner and looking for sites/blogs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="147" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-13T20:04:49.110" LastActivityDate="2011-04-23T18:10:42.837" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T03:47:50.670" Title="What blogs should I be following if I am learning photography?" Tags="&lt;learning&gt;&lt;blog&gt;" AnswerCount="29" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="54" />
  <row Id="385" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="350" CreationDate="2010-07-16T00:04:24.507" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To reduce motion blur (both by camera movement and subject movement) you need to get a shorter exposure time and/or reduce movement. To get a shorter time you need more light or reduce the need for light, so there are a few things that you can do:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Higher ISO&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Underexposure&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Add light (doh! But I think that it should be mentioned)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using higher ISO and underexposing is basically the same when you are using a digital camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To reduce movement there are some tricks:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use stationary objects for support&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Elbows in and use your own body for stability&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tripod&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Monopod&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tell people to be still&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of these things aren't practically possible, for example telling people to be still generally takes away a lot of the mood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One old trick is to use a piece of string for support. You tie one end in the camera and let the other end hang to the floor. You step on the string and pull the camera upwards to tension the string, this will reduce movement of the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T02:35:29.833" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T02:35:29.833" />
  <row Id="386" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="379" CreationDate="2010-07-16T00:04:51.010" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your tripod of settings, iso, shutter, and aperture, all work together to create an exposure.  That level can change every second, based on whether a car is driving by, a street light is flickering, the moon goes behind a cloud, your subject puts on a hat, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heres my oversimplified two step approach:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Learn how each of the three legs affect a picture other than in terms of light adjustment&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set your camera to automatic, see what it records, switch it to manual, renter those exact settings, then play around.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T00:04:51.010" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="387" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="380" CreationDate="2010-07-16T00:05:44.317" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The &quot;S&quot; in EF-S stands for &quot;short back&#xA;  focus&quot;, which means that the rear&#xA;  element of the lens is closer to the&#xA;  image sensor than on regular 35 mm SLR&#xA;  cameras. The proximity of the rear&#xA;  element to the image sensor greatly&#xA;  enhances the possibilities for wide&#xA;  angle and very wide angle lenses,&#xA;  enabling them to be made smaller,&#xA;  lighter (containing less glass),&#xA;  faster (larger aperture) and less&#xA;  expensive. Most current Canon EF-S&#xA;  lenses are wide angle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-S_lens_mount&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon_EF-S_lens_mount&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T00:05:44.317" />
  <row Id="388" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-16T00:08:40.380" Score="8" ViewCount="185" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have you ever sold any pictures through Getty images? Are you happy with the experience?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What did you think about the pricing they proposed? Did you think you could sell more for a smaller price?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What did you think about the royalties? What did you get - 20%? 30%? Did your feel fairly rewarded for your work?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Any problems getting the money? Was the payment on time?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="125" LastEditorUserId="125" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-01T22:24:54.217" LastActivityDate="2010-08-01T22:24:54.217" Title="Experience selling with Getty Images" Tags="&lt;stock-photography&gt;&lt;picture-sales&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="389" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="379" CreationDate="2010-07-16T00:10:22.047" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no common setting that produces a good exposure.  You need to practice, experiment and make sure you understand how these settings work together.  Some general guidelines I've come across in the past might help you on your way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Photojournalists have a saying, &quot;f/8 and be there&quot;, meaning that being on the scene is more important than worrying about technical details. (from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_16_rule&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sunny 16 Rule&lt;/a&gt; might help with exposure levels, but it doesn't suggest an appropriate depth of field&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T00:10:22.047" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="390" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2010-07-16T00:11:36.753" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of my favorites is &lt;strong&gt;The Online Photographer&lt;/strong&gt;: &lt;a href=&quot;http://theonlinephotographer.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://theonlinephotographer.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm also a big fan of &lt;strong&gt;Thom Hogan&lt;/strong&gt;, though his site isn't exactly a blog. He does tweet occasionally, though. He has a strong Nikon focus. &lt;a href=&quot;http://bythom.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://bythom.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T20:08:57.380" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T20:08:57.380" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T03:47:50.670" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="391" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="380" CreationDate="2010-07-16T00:12:01.683" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;EF was the mount for the new EOS system that replaced their FD mount in 1987.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EF-S lenses are specifically designed for the smaller APS-C sensor size, like on the Rebels. They're not compatible on full-frame cameras. These cameras have a white square on the mount's surface, along with the typical EF red dot that all EOS cameras have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="50" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T00:12:01.683" />
  <row Id="392" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="380" CreationDate="2010-07-16T00:12:26.190" Score="22" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;EF-S lenses are specifically designed for APS-C digital bodies and optimized for the fact that they have smaller sensor and mirror. EF-S lenses are marked with a white dot on the mount instead of red one that EF-glass has, and can be only used on EF-S compatible bodies (almost all of smaller-sensor Canon DSLRs, up to EOS 7D).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Film and larger-sensor digital cameras (5D, 1D, 1Ds) take only EF lenses. If you have a camera with EF-S mount support (such as EOS 7D, 50D or 500D), you can use both EF and EF-S lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-22T10:34:51.557" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T10:34:51.557" />
  <row Id="393" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="208" CreationDate="2010-07-16T00:14:43.410" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.androidslide.com/camerazoom&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Camera Zoom FX&lt;/a&gt; does some interesting effects if you don't mind the cheesy stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T00:14:43.410" />
  <row Id="394" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2010-07-16T00:16:58.973" Score="36" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I love &lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Photography School&lt;/a&gt;.  It has a variety of tips and interviews and challenges.  Beginners and pros alike should check it out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="116" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T00:16:58.973" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T03:47:50.670" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="395" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2010-07-16T00:17:20.033" Score="31" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For lighting, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strobist&lt;/a&gt; is a must-read. Check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lighting 101&lt;/a&gt; series for introduction into off-camera flash, and then &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/06/lighting-102-introduction.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lighting 102&lt;/a&gt; with detailed overview of properties of various properties and ways you can alter them. There's also &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobistindex.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an index&lt;/a&gt; of all the entries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-07T15:16:48.667" LastActivityDate="2010-08-07T15:16:48.667" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T03:47:50.670" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="396" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2010-07-16T00:19:54.053" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strobist&lt;/a&gt; is a great resource for all things flash-related.  In addition to their excellent 101 series, they have great anecdotes and tips to help with tricky lighting situations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="116" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T00:19:54.053" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T03:47:50.670" />
  <row Id="397" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="306" CreationDate="2010-07-16T00:20:50.107" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The other brand that gets a good review is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.singh-ray.com/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Singh-Ray filters&lt;/a&gt;.  Amongst the range of products they also have the (i think) very interesting &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.singh-ray.com/varind.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Vari-ND&lt;/a&gt;.  This is a ND filter that you can adjust from 2 to 8 stops.  Although you pay a premium for it, you only need to buy a single filter instead of many.  Can be very useful your trying to slow water down for long exposures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="152" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T00:20:50.107" />
  <row Id="398" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2010-07-16T00:23:55.717" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Photography School&lt;/a&gt; (as the name implies) is a good place to learn about photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="152" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T00:23:55.717" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T03:47:50.670" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="399" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="407" CreationDate="2010-07-16T00:30:25.063" Score="11" ViewCount="202" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have one lens hood for a 28-105mm lens that is petal shaped.  I have another lens hood for a 50mm lens that is fully round.   If the purpose of the lens hood is to block stray light, then wouldn't fully round always block more?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="113" LastEditorUserId="101" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-22T15:58:13.220" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T15:58:13.220" Title="Why are some lens hoods petal shaped and others not?" Tags="&lt;lens-hood&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="400" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="178" CreationDate="2010-07-16T00:31:03.440" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My competing in shooting air rifle has been a useful knowledge for reducing camera movement. Here are some tips:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A heavy camera helps. The lighter the camera, the easier it vibrates. (A competition air rifle weighs 4-5 kg.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Feet 30-40 cm apart, left foot against the subject. Straight legs, lean backwards.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Put the camera in your left palm, left elbow against your body. This will give you a stance with a straight line from the camera down your left lower arm and down your left leg.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Find a position where you use as little muscles as possible to maintain it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Breathe while you aim the camera, hold your breath just before you shoot.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Squeeze the trigger, so that you don't shake the camera.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set your camera to single shot mode, so that you can just keep holding the trigger while taking the picture. If you have to release the trigger immediately you will cause movement. Alternatively just hold the trigger and shoot a few frames, some will be sharper than others.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You have a few seconds after you hold your breath to take the picture, after that you start to shake and it's better to breathe a little and try again.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T00:31:03.440" />
  <row Id="401" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="766" CreationDate="2010-07-16T00:34:46.287" Score="10" ViewCount="2694" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon Digital Rebel XT =  EOS 350D&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="113" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-06-04T12:46:47.360" LastActivityDate="2011-06-04T12:46:47.360" Title="How can I see the amount of shutter actuations for my Canon Digital Rebel XT camera?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;shutter-actuations&gt;&lt;canon-350d&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="402" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-16T00:41:35.913" Score="8" ViewCount="169" Body="&lt;p&gt;Basically, who inspires you? One answer per post please. A link to some images would be cool too...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="104" LastEditorUserId="297" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T14:28:21.677" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T15:00:48.850" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-16T00:42:29.343" Title="Who is your favorite photographer and why?" Tags="&lt;inspiration&gt;&lt;photographer&gt;" AnswerCount="15" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="403" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="399" CreationDate="2010-07-16T00:49:24.103" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For wider angle lenses the optimal design is the petal shape. This is because of the rectangular sensor and wide field of view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T00:49:24.103" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="404" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="402" CreationDate="2010-07-16T00:53:08.620" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.helleso.com/gallery.asp?cat=1&amp;amp;photograph=0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Terje Hellesø&lt;/a&gt;, some of his pictures change how you think of photography. For example his picture of a rabbit that is just a silhouette.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T00:53:08.620" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-16T00:53:08.620" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="405" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="401" CreationDate="2010-07-16T00:56:04.247" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This page might help &lt;a href=&quot;http://dptnt.com/2007/06/how-to-find-out-the-total-shutter-actuations-of-your-dslr/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://dptnt.com/2007/06/how-to-find-out-the-total-shutter-actuations-of-your-dslr/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="87" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T00:56:04.247" />
  <row Id="406" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-16T01:02:21.037" Score="5" ViewCount="255" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've shot RAW + JPEG for most of my photos, and have added quite a lot of metadata to the JPEGs using Windows Live Photo Gallery. I've mainly added keywords and people tags (thanks to the new face recognition).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't find a way to tell Lightroom to sync the metadata from the JPEGs into the RAWs (or even just the catalog).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any ideas?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="142" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T12:43:59.027" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T03:58:14.847" Title="Is there a way to synchronise JPEG metadata into RAW files in Lightroom?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;metadata&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="407" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="399" CreationDate="2010-07-16T01:02:36.307" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Chills stated, petal shaped hoods are designed to better take into account the wider shape of a camera's film or sensor. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/lens-flare.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lens Flare&lt;/a&gt; has a good description of lens hoods and how they function.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://images.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/tut_lensflare_hooddiag.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="94" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T02:29:56.273" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T02:29:56.273" />
  <row Id="408" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="111" CreationDate="2010-07-16T01:03:31.250" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've had no problems at all using the built in Flickr plug in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only minor issue is that it doesn't seem to show you photos you've previously uploaded before you started using the Lightroom Flickr export.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="142" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T01:03:31.250" />
  <row Id="409" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="364" CreationDate="2010-07-16T01:04:46.053" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://whattheduck.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;What The Duck&lt;/a&gt; comic has heaps of great photography jokes in his comic strip.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="142" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T10:03:25.240" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T10:03:25.240" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-16T01:04:46.053" />
  <row Id="410" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="370" CreationDate="2010-07-16T01:06:18.110" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 50 1.8, for sure. It's a good lens for portraits and general usage. I even recommend people to just skip the kit lens all together and start with the 50 1.8 when buying a Rebel. It's also a good lens for shooting video because it's lightweight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since you're into landscapes, you'd enjoy Canon's 10-22. It's a great lens for the smaller sensor and isn't terrible expensive. Sharpness and color is good. It shows a little bit of CA, but offers good image quality overall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as telephotos, you can't go wrong with Canon's 70-200 f/4L. These can be had for around $500 used. 70-200 is a &quot;must have&quot; focal length in my opinion. There are some other options in that focal length, like the 70-300 or 55-250, but you'll really appreciate the colors and contrast from a L-series lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a little over $1,000 total, those are three great lenses that will go a long way and you'll pretty much be equipped for anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="50" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T01:06:18.110" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="411" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="258" CreationDate="2010-07-16T01:07:11.633" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;X Equals has lots of presets: &lt;a href=&quot;http://x-equals.com/blog/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;X-Equals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if you go to the lightroom Plugin exchange, there are lots of presets as well as plugins&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/exchange/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adobe Marketplace &amp;amp; Exchange&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="142" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-26T16:47:00.807" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T16:47:00.807" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-16T01:07:11.633" />
  <row Id="412" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="402" CreationDate="2010-07-16T01:08:23.207" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ansel Adams, hands down ... I love his treatment of nature in black &amp;amp; white.  I've used his work as inspiration for a number of my projects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="33" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T01:08:23.207" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-16T01:08:23.207" />
  <row Id="413" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="352" CreationDate="2010-07-16T01:09:07.997" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You should find out how large the image ends up being, and make it that size. That way it won't be resized, which reduces the sharpness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try to find out the maximum file size allowed, and adjust the quality setting to get below that size. Otherwise just save at best quality and let them reduce it when uploaded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The PPI setting (often called DPI) is irrelevant for images that is shown on the screen. They are always sized according to pixels, not inches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T01:09:07.997" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="414" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="418" CreationDate="2010-07-16T01:10:07.930" Score="4" ViewCount="254" Body="&lt;p&gt;Has anyone used the 3rd party 70-200 lenses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are you happy with the quality, or do you wish you had saved up for longer and got the Canon?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="142" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T02:25:26.957" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T22:17:28.347" Title="Alternatives to Canon 70-200 2.8" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;3rdparty&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="415" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="356" CreationDate="2010-07-16T01:10:14.390" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Circular polarizer for pictures near water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Graduated ND filter for sunsets &amp;amp; some beach photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="33" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T01:10:14.390" />
  <row Id="416" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="402" CreationDate="2010-07-16T01:22:45.093" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Aside from Ansel Adams, I really don't have favorite photographers that are well known.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My favorite wedding photographer is Stacy Reeves in Dallas, TX. Her photos often rise above the rest. If it wasn't for her, I probably wouldn't have even considered buying Canon's 50 f/1.2 (which I love!).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stacyreeves.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.stacyreeves.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="50" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T01:22:45.093" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-16T01:22:45.093" />
  <row Id="417" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="420" CreationDate="2010-07-16T01:32:02.903" Score="13" ViewCount="347" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm really interested in getting into so-to-say professional photography. I read some articles about fundamental concepts like aperture, exposure, iso rates, etc. and I want to get the feeling of how changing different setting affects the resulting picture. My point-and-shot camera has a manual mode but it seems like no matter what kind of settings I set up I always get worse result then if I shoot in auto mode :( Some people claim that manual mode on point-an-shots is a joke. May be I should get a real camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="158" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T21:43:13.503" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T14:41:35.223" Title="Should I buy a DSLR to get started?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="418" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="414" CreationDate="2010-07-16T01:39:43.807" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Personally I have a 70-200 2.8 IS.   Yes it cost a lot, and yes it is heavy,  but the results from it speak for themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But having said that, you need to pick a lens that is going to meet your needs (i.e. what sort of photos you plan on taking with it).  I have a friend who uses a 70-200 F4 (non-IS) and is very happy with the results. Likewise I know someone who has a Sigma Bigma (50-500) who produces good results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One resource you may find useful is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fred Miranda Reviews&lt;/a&gt; which agregates the results from people submitting reviews about the lenses they own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="152" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T01:39:43.807" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="419" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="402" CreationDate="2010-07-16T01:53:40.263" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.zackarias.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Zack&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.zarias.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Arias's&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://creativelive.com/courses/zack_arias/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;free weekend course on creativeLIVE&lt;/a&gt; was really cool. He really got into the nitty-gritty of &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; to take photos in a studio setting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T01:53:40.263" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-16T01:53:40.263" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="420" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="417" CreationDate="2010-07-16T01:55:42.020" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You might want to try borrowing or renting a camera first. Even the cheapest DSLR will cost several hundred dollars, which can be a lot of money if you aren't sure it is right for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, DSLRs now are a lot better than they were in pure auto mode, which can make it pretty easy to jump right in. I went from a P&amp;amp;S to a DSLR not all that long ago and really enjoyed it pretty much right away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One big consideration when thinking about switching to a DSLR is the pure size of the camera. You will no longer have something you can stick in a pocket or throw in a bag. They are much bigger, much heavier and much more fragile. They are also a lot more expensive to buy, repair and upgrade.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T01:55:42.020" />
  <row Id="421" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="402" CreationDate="2010-07-16T01:56:40.503" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Hurley&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Frank Hurley&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Not for his dubious photo-journalism (compositing shots), his treatment his treatment of the natives of Papua and the Torres Strait or his abandonment of his family. To modern eyes, these were disappointing.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More for the conditions under which he took many of his photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Particularly, his remarkable photographs taken while marooned in the Antarctic on Shackleton's disastrous voyage (6 months living under a long-boat during the Antarctic winter, if I recall correctly), including dramatic images of their ship being crushed by ice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="160" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T01:56:40.503" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-16T01:56:40.503" />
  <row Id="422" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="417" CreationDate="2010-07-16T01:56:58.913" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are willing to spend time in your investment then I would say yes, go get a consumer grade DSLR to start playing and learning about your equipment. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are only as capable as your tools and the more knowledge you have in the use of your tools, the more you can push your tools to the limits....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be aware that I have only just started DSLR photography myself so I am very, very far from being an expert and going to full manual mode results in some terrible photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T01:56:58.913" />
  <row Id="423" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="399" CreationDate="2010-07-16T01:59:31.277" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The petal design is more effective. Think of what you can see through your lens: it is a pyramid-shaped chunk of space that falls within your view, one that has a rectangular rather than a square base. Now imagine placing a round lens hood atop that pyramid - there will be a large gap on each side, because the corners bump into the round opening first. A petal-shaped hood fills in these gaps, excluding more stray light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T01:59:31.277" />
  <row Id="424" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-16T01:59:43.570" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Learn how to perform post-processing on your photos. You don't need Photoshop or anything expensive like that; great things have been done even in free tools like GIMP and Paint.net. Just basic editing like cropping, brightness\contrast adjustment, and color adjustment will greatly improve a lot of photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="150" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T01:59:43.570" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-03T18:24:54.070" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="425" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2010-07-16T02:00:03.553" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Count me in as another &lt;a href=&quot;http://bythom.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Thom Hogan&lt;/a&gt; fan. I also like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ken Rockwell's&lt;/a&gt; blog/site. They are both fairly Nikon focused, though Ken does some Canon reviews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For camera/lens reviews, I also like &lt;a href=&quot;http://dpreview.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://dpreview.com/&lt;/a&gt;, which also has pretty decent forums.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastEditorUserId="309" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-05T13:50:10.363" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T13:50:10.363" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T03:47:50.670" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="426" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="376" CreationDate="2010-07-16T02:02:43.440" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Which version of Lightroom did you use? I find LR 3 to work really well for me, and haven't had a ton of WB problems with it. Perhaps you might want to give 3.0 a shot and see if it works any better?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T02:02:43.440" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="427" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="402" CreationDate="2010-07-16T02:03:08.010" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I first got into photography, it was partly because of Ansel Adams work. I think it was less his photography and more his work ethic. As I have begun to learn more about photography and explore more and more, I've encountered many other photographers work. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question is difficult to answer as there are a variety of major kinds of photography. You have nature photography, portraits, architectural, abstract, and possibly a few other kinds. I have not really formulated a particular favorite artist for all of these. However, given that Nature photography is my own past time, I have encountered some phenomenal artists who's work and style I absolutely love:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.andymumford.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Andy Mumford&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A very talented photographer, his work is particularly inspiring. He has an understanding of nature and landscape composition that has taught me a lot.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://1x.com/member/14617/john-parminter/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Parminter&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Phenomenal skill for finding amazing, intriguing light. His work is amazingly crisp and clear, and always of something stunning.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll probably update this answer with more photographers in other areas, as I am continually finding new people with such phenomenal talent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T02:03:08.010" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-16T02:03:08.010" />
  <row Id="428" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="448" CreationDate="2010-07-16T02:03:22.563" Score="1" ViewCount="54" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are some good forums for talking about editing photos in Photoshop or GIMP? Where do you talk about such things?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt; Other than here, of course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="150" LastEditorUserId="150" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T17:56:54.117" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T17:56:54.117" Title="What are some good online forums for discussing photographic editing?" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;photo-quality&gt;&lt;photo-galleries&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="429" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="417" CreationDate="2010-07-16T02:05:02.403" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many &quot;truths&quot; in photography, and you'll hear them a lot, variations of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The best camera you have is the one you have on you&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A great camera does not a great photographer make&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;etc etc. (more variations of how the equipment does not matter)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To a large extend, the feelings above are true. &lt;strong&gt;HOWEVER&lt;/strong&gt;, I believe that to be a great photographer you must know the rules, even if you intend to break them all. You can only bend and subvert rules if you know them to begin with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The SLR camera is not the be all and end all of photography, however it is extremely popular and provides you, the photographer, a really manual and mechanical access to all the basic notions of photography. From an SLR you can really learn a great deal, especially if you're disciplined enough to leave it on Manual at the beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, I recommend you get a DSLR (because digital can give you an easy entry into experimentation, without the cost/time of film), as you'll learn a lot... and then once you've learned, you can move to whatever camera you prefer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="161" LastEditorUserId="4690" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-28T14:41:35.223" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T14:41:35.223" />
  <row Id="430" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="350" CreationDate="2010-07-16T02:08:01.210" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Get a flash!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seriously, even the small external flashes make a huge difference. You can also (at least on my Nikon SB-400) direct the flash at the ceiling, which both annoys people less and also nearly always eliminates red-eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T02:08:01.210" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="431" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="417" CreationDate="2010-07-16T02:09:14.640" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some of the newer point and shoots do great in manual mode.  The problem is probably your lack of experience and understanding the fundamentals, which will come with, well, experience :)  I made similar comments in this &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/164/what-are-your-easiest-beginner-tips/176#176&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;thread&lt;/a&gt;. My suggestion is to a&gt; study the tripod of exposure settings, and b&gt; force yourself to shoot in manual.  Your shots will be terrible, but you'll get better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A day will come where you curse your camera for using its flash in auto mode, and you'll know exactly what to do in manual to avoid using it.  When that day comes, smile to yourself, and realize you made a big step :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To directly answer your question, I think an entry level DSLR with a nice lens is a great start.  Don't be afraid to shop for refurb's in bodies either.  And don't let your past experience with manual on a point and shoot affect your decision - its going to take some time to learn, but you'll get it down, and you'll enjoy doing it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T02:09:14.640" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="432" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2010-07-16T02:10:03.937" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I was a brand new photographer, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cambridge In Color&lt;/a&gt; was extremely helpful. Great articles, not too long, and not too technical (but they do cover technical concepts.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another great site, although much more loaded with content and a little harder to find specifics, is &lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Photography School&lt;/a&gt;. Beautifully designed site (as an ex graphic designer, I find this site a wonderful piece of work), it has plenty of information for any photographer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a nature photographer, I have always found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/index.php/articles&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NatureScapes.net&lt;/a&gt;'s articles to be helpful. I am not sure if nature photography is an interest for you, but there is still a lot of useful general photography information in some of their articles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another great site, although again more geared towards nature, is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nd-magazine.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ND Magazine&lt;/a&gt;. One of the main editors is one of my favorite photographers, Andy Mumford. It was after reading some of his articles on this site that I started following his work. Some excellent tips here on how to be an excellent photographer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another site that I frequently use is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Digital Picture&lt;/a&gt;. This site has EXCELLENT lens reviews. It was primarily a Canon site, but the author has started reviewing Nikon gear as well. Brand and off-brand lenses are covered in great detail by someone who has had extensive use of all the equipment reviewed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T02:23:43.730" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T02:23:43.730" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T03:47:50.670" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="433" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2010-07-16T02:11:44.430" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpchallenge.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dpchallenge - good contest site&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;strobist - do it yourself lighting&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://flickr.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;flickr - thousands of groups discussing any topic or piece of equipment you want&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastEditorUserId="157" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-19T01:16:46.167" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T01:16:46.167" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T03:47:50.670" />
  <row Id="434" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="417" CreationDate="2010-07-16T02:11:46.567" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're not going to get better shots simply by switching to a DSLR. In fact, they may get noticeably worse as you start fiddling with the settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you (and everyone else) really need is practice and study. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://robertbenson.com/blog/2010/04/18/photographers-life-in-graph/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This graph&lt;/a&gt; is meant to be funny, but it's also frighteningly true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for a DSLR: it really comes down to how much money you want to spend, especially spend right now. If you're certain you're going to stick with it, then you might as well start spending now. (And spend you will!) However, if you're at all unsure, take a &lt;em&gt;good&lt;/em&gt; point and shoot and spend your efforts on practice and study instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The camera does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; make the photographer. Want proof? &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOoGjtSy7xY&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here's a fashion shoot done with an iPhone camera&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A DSLR mostly raises the upper limit of how good you can be. But it doesn't actually make you better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T02:11:46.567" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="435" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="428" CreationDate="2010-07-16T02:25:37.580" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, I would recommend this site first. ;) Discussing the editing and post-processing of photos is one of the primary purposes of this site, and as a strong support here, I can't help but promote it. It may be rather slim right now, but given the overall success of StackExchange sites, I do not doubt that this site can become one of, if not the, top resource on the Internet for photography and photographic editing questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T02:25:37.580" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="436" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="446" CreationDate="2010-07-16T02:26:25.083" Score="6" ViewCount="120" Body="&lt;p&gt;I saw Adobe Lightroom on my friend's computer and it seems awfully complex to me. Basically he was adjusting color palette of the photo by changing some curves and moving sliders. I noticed that many settings overlapped each other but I got completely lost because I couldn't understand why my friend picked one setting over the other. He said that it's something I would just get used to but right now I'm totally puzzled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are basic tips to getting started to use such software? Should I just &quot;play&quot; or should I progress from one setting to the next?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="158" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T20:22:25.563" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T20:22:25.563" Title="Getting started with photo editing suites" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;tips&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="437" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="376" CreationDate="2010-07-16T02:31:47.330" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use Bibble and have been very happy with it, though I never even installed Capture NX and so can't make that comparison.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T02:31:47.330" />
  <row Id="438" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="356" CreationDate="2010-07-16T02:33:14.583" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have recently begun to make much broader use of filters in my work. Even with a digital camera, filters are a powerful tool that can greatly expand the range of things you can do with a camera. Here are some of the filters I use&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Multicoated Circular Polarizer&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I use this most of the time for landscape photography. It helps mitigate highlights and bring out detail. Great for improving shots involving water, and can help balance contrast a bit when a bright sky is in the frame.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Graduated ND filter&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Essential when you are taking photographs with a high range of contrast. This is particularly common during sunrise/sunset hours, where the sky can be more than half a dozen stops brighter than the landscape. I try to keep a .6 (2 stop) and .9 (3 stop) soft and hard ND grad with me at all times.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ND filters&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Solid ND filters are excellent when you wish to lengthen your exposure time. Many shots can benefit from a reduction in detail in certain things. This includes the noisy ripples on the surface of a lake, or the puffy detail in clouds. Stacking a few ND filters (or using a high-stop filter like the Lee 10-stop 'Big Stopper') can allow you to greatly lengthen your exposure times, and smooth out noisy detail that is detracting from your shot.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you are a DSLR user, many modern digital sensors are sensitive to infrared light. IR photography has become a growing field of photography. An IR filter is another useful tool if you wish to do IR photography, as it filters out all visible light (it literally looks solid black to the human eye), while letting in only infrared wavelengths.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a digital SLR user, I have not had much need for warming or cooling filters, as white balance can easily be adjusted in post processing. However, if you are an SLR user, warming (and possibly cooling...may depend on your personal style) filters are also an excellent tool to have in ones photography toolbelt.  I highly recommend looking into Lee Filters...excellent quality, and one set of filters can be used on a wide range of lenses with their custom mounts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-29T05:40:15.630" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T05:40:15.630" />
  <row Id="439" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="441" CreationDate="2010-07-16T02:40:58.183" Score="6" ViewCount="443" Body="&lt;p&gt;Right now, I have a Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-f/5.6 VR lens. I like it, but want more telephoto range and would also like to be able to use faster shutter speeds. I am interested in the 70-200mm f/2.8, but would probably want a 1.4 or 1.7 teleconverter to get my reach. Another possibility is the 70-300m f/4.5-f/5.6, but then I don't get the aperture, though I do save a bunch of money. Are there any other suggestions? I shoot all handheld, and would prefer an image stabilized lens. My camera body is currently a D5000, though I could see myself upgrading, but probably not to full frame any time soon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastEditorUserId="101" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-19T15:52:02.523" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T15:08:47.707" Title="70-200mm + teleconverter or a longer zoom lens" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;lens&gt;&lt;telephoto&gt;&lt;teleconverter&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="440" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="436" CreationDate="2010-07-16T02:45:21.590" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it really comes down to how you learn best. You can certainly jump into a program like Lightroom and start messing around with the sliders until things look right. You also might consider books, or some of the various learn Lightroom videos online.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing that helps a lot with some of the settings is to do some reading up on stuff like white balance, exposure and sharpening. These are all things that the camera can do for you, but you can also choose to tweak within Lightroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T02:45:21.590" />
  <row Id="441" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="439" CreationDate="2010-07-16T02:47:10.367" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know about nikon, but I did the same thing on the Canon side.  I had a junk 70-300 lens, and decided to upgrade.  I ended up buying the 70-200L IS, plus the 1.4 teleconverter.  You just &lt;em&gt;have&lt;/em&gt; to, they're both white :)  Since then, I've used the lens itself quite a bit - zoomed all the way out for portraits, zoomed in for some sports and wildlife.  I rarely, very rarely, take the teleconverter out of my bag.  Why?  Not really sure.  I lose two stops, so my fastest is f/4.  The picture is not quite as sharp.  It makes an already heavy and big lens even heavier and bigger.  If I had to do it all over again, I think I would just buy the super sharp telephoto with stabilization (70-200), forgo the teleconverter, and use my crap 300mm if I really, really need to reach out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T02:47:10.367" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="442" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="234" CreationDate="2010-07-16T02:52:02.290" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My everyday lens is the Nikon 18-70mm, mounted on my D50. Great combination, useful focal range, handles a lot of types of shots rather well. I only bring the camera bag if I expect to need one of the other lenses (e.g. wide, telephoto, macro).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T02:52:02.290" />
  <row Id="443" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="439" CreationDate="2010-07-16T02:53:07.140" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I am not a Nikon user (nothing against Nikon though, excellent gear), I can't offer any specific answers. However, when it comes to using a teleconverter, you will really want the fastest lens you can find. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tacking on a teleconverter tends to reduce your effective aperture. I know that with Canon cameras (and I believe this is the case with Nikon bodies as well), autofocus and metering are dependent on having an appropriately wide aperture. An aperture below f/5.6, maybe as tight as f/8, may still be used to autofocus if the camera body is good enough...but generally you lose AF ability when the maximum aperture is so tight. Even with a camera and teleconverter that provides the necessary info to the camera so it can compensate its metering, adding a teleconverter still tends to skew the results. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the general rule of thumb is that the magnification provided by a teleconverter is nearly synonymous with the reduction in lens aperture. A 1.4x converter will increase your focal length by 1.4x, but reduce your maximum aperture by at least 1x, maybe 1.4x. A 2x converter will increase your focal length by 2x, and reduce your maximum aperture by about 2x. That would mean that, with the 18-200 and a 1.7x, at the long end, your effective maximum aperture is f/7.1 - f/8 for a focal length of 340...thats pretty slow. However, with the 70-200mm f/2.8, your effective maximum aperture at the long end is f/4...which is actually pretty good for a 340mm focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon EF 100-400mm lens, and with a 1.4x teleconverter on it, even though that effectively gets me a 140mm-560mm focal range, it is so dim that I can't autofocus, and the meter, even though it is able to compensate to some degree, is still pretty inaccurate and I have to use full manual mode to get my shots to come out right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T02:53:07.140" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="444" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="467" CreationDate="2010-07-16T03:00:41.880" Score="2" ViewCount="186" Body="&lt;p&gt;If so why do you use them over desktop software?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="158" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T12:45:09.867" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T23:45:09.177" Title="Does anybody use online photo editors like picnik.com?" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;software&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="445" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="462" CreationDate="2010-07-16T03:04:44.663" Score="5" ViewCount="72" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a wood deck in back that a possum family has decided to move in to.  Momma has been there for a few days now.  She lines up her nose and eyes straight through the 1/4&quot; gaps between the floorboards.  This could be a decent photography opportunity, but it would be pretty intrusive for the family.  Because of the gap size and the angle, I would have to be within 6 inches of them or so.  So the question is - should I try getting a couple shots off, or should I respect their space and leave them alone?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T03:36:43.907" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T05:05:22.487" Title="Should I shoot momma possum and her babies?" Tags="&lt;wildlife&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="446" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="436" CreationDate="2010-07-16T03:14:52.120" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tools like Adobe Lightroom and Apple Aperture are geared towards the professional photographer, and as such, offer a lot of tools. While I do agree with your friend, you might want to decide which tool is best for your needs. Tools like Lightroom and Aperture tend to offer pre-packaged tools and settings for things that can already be done in Adobe Photoshop. Doing some of the same things in Photoshop may be more complicated, but, if you are already an adept PS user, then you might not gain anything from Lightroom or Aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Lightroom user myself, I can say there are things I like and hate about it. While I am well-versed in Photoshop, Lightroom does provide a much smoother and quicker workflow when you need to work with a lot of images. For one, it offers a lot of image organization and management tools, which are not natively available in Photoshop. In particular, Quick and Smart collections can help you rapidly find the photos you are looking for. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lightroom does offer some improved workflow over using Photoshop to do the same things. Adjusting exposure, white balance, tone, etc. is very, very easy in Lightroom. However, when you need to work with a lot of images that may span a variety of collections, Lightrooms segmented UI can be disruptive and frustrating at times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adobe Aperture is another tool like Lightroom. Personally, I find it to be one hell of a phenomenal tool. Unlike Lightroom, which has distinct areas of the application that provide a specific set of tools, Aperture has a non-linear, unsegmented, continual workflow. You can do anything at any time, without needing to change modes or stop your train of thought to do something else. I think it is generally a more mature product that is easier to use. As it is only available on Mac, I do not have it. Otherwise I would purchase it in a heartbeat! I highly recommend Aperture if you have a Mac.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both applications, Lightroom and Aperture, seem daunting and overly complicated at first glance. Such a sense is probably only highlighted by watching a skilled user race through edits on their photos. Despite this, learning these tools is a lot easier than it looks. You'll quickly find the key tools that will help you touch up your work, and they will become familiar extensions of your workflow in very little time. I have not found the learning curve of either program to be particularly high. As for how to learn them...I would just &quot;play&quot;. :) Set your mind to fixing up a few photos that have a lot of issues, and you'll quickly become a pro.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T03:14:52.120" />
  <row Id="447" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="428" CreationDate="2010-07-16T03:17:21.920" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For starters I would visit: &lt;br/&gt;&#xA; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.adobe.com/community/photoshop&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adobe Photoshop forum&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br/&gt;&#xA; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gimptalk.com/forum/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gimp forum&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, +1 for @jrista's suggestion... this is the spot :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="104" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T03:17:21.920" />
  <row Id="448" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="428" CreationDate="2010-07-16T03:19:45.493" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Completely agree with jrista, but assuming you meant &quot;other than this cool place&quot;, I like dgrin's &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dgrin.com/forumdisplay.php?s=d904174bf137575d3d4e3a75f394815e&amp;amp;f=10&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Finishing School&lt;/a&gt;&quot; subforum.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="166" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T03:19:45.493" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="449" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="370" CreationDate="2010-07-16T03:22:23.747" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As deciding on a lens is generally a personal choice, rather than offering my own subjective opinions, I'll direct you towards my favorite lens review site: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Digital Picture&lt;/a&gt;. This site has excellent, hands-on reviews of a multitude of brand and off-brand lenses for Canon gear. You should be able to find the information you need here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, here are some of the reviews I recommend:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.8-II-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens Review&lt;/a&gt; (Landscape, maybe portrait)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens Review&lt;/a&gt; (Landscape, limited to crop-sensor)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens Review&lt;/a&gt; (General purpose)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens Review&lt;/a&gt; (Landscape/Portrait, high quality)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-135mm-f-2.8-with-Softfocus-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 135mm f/2.8 With Softfocus Lens Review&lt;/a&gt; (Portrait, general quality)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-135mm-f-2.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 135mm f/2.0 L USM Lens Review&lt;/a&gt; (Portrait, very high quality)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T03:22:23.747" />
  <row Id="450" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="452" CreationDate="2010-07-16T03:28:49.523" Score="40" ViewCount="560" Body="&lt;p&gt;I realize that an image histogram is a graphical display of an images tonal distribution (i.e. horizontal darks to lights, vertical pixel distribution), but how do YOU really use it and why? I mean, can't you determine everything you need just by looking at the image? I imagine there is no &lt;strong&gt;right&lt;/strong&gt; answer, but I'm interested to hear how others use it (or don't) and why...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="104" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-03T09:02:50.583" LastActivityDate="2010-09-01T03:01:05.000" Title="How and why do you use an image histogram?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;technique&gt;&lt;tonal-distribution&gt;&lt;tonal-range&gt;&lt;histogram&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="10" />
  <row Id="451" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="445" CreationDate="2010-07-16T03:34:19.430" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer as is &quot;it depends&quot; but I would suggest you give it a try. Just keep quiet and be very careful, move slowly and make sure that other people around you are aware of what you are doing so they won't intercept with loud voices and questions. Non-bright clothes is also advisable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Research the area, perhaps you'll find an opportunity to shoot from a longer distance. Putting camera on some long handle can be helpful, too: animals are less scared of non-living objects, especially when they move &lt;em&gt;reeeeeeeally&lt;/em&gt; slowly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="158" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T03:34:19.430" />
  <row Id="452" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="450" CreationDate="2010-07-16T03:34:48.853" Score="32" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While there may not be a &quot;right&quot; answer to this question, there are &quot;correct&quot; answers. A histogram is a powerful tool, and when you understand how to use it effectively, it can greatly help your photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you mentioned, a histogram is a representation of tonal range and distribution in a photo. The basic mechanics are as such:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A histogram represents tonal range from left to right, with blacks and shades to the left, progressing through midtones in the middle, to highlights on the right. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &quot;volume&quot; of any given tone is represented by the height of the vertical line that represents that tone. &#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A vertical line at the very left end is indicative of the volume of total black tones&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A vertical line at the very right end is indicative of the volume of total highlight tones&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A vertical line in the very center is indicative of the volume of 18% gray tones&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The tones for an image are taken from the intensity of each pixel (chroma, or hue, is ignored, and only brightness/lightness/luminosity is measured)&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The total number of tones in an image is dependent upon the bit depth of the image&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An 8-bpp (24-bit) image has a total of 256 distinct tones&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A 12-bpp (36-bit) RAW image has a total of 4,096 distinct tones&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A 14-bpp (42-bit) RAW image has a total of 16,384 distinct tones&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A 16-bpp (48-bit) RAW image has a total of 65,536 distinct tones&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A 32-bpp (96-bit) HDR image is effectively able to represent infinite tonal range&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As a real (float) number, its values range from 1.0 x 10^-37 through 1.0 x 10^38&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In more real-world numbers, tonal range from black, through very dim starlight (0.00001), through indoor lighting (1-10), through the sunlit outdoors (1,000,000), to the brightness of the sun itself (100,000,000) and well beyond can be represented in a single HDR image&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is no technical limit to the height of a histogram.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Unless you have a very low-bit image, a single histogram is generally incapable of representing every single &lt;em&gt;individual&lt;/em&gt; tone in an image, so each vertical line tends to represent a small range of similar tones.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A color histogram can represent a much greater range of information than a pure tonal histogram in the same space.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given these facts about a histogram, there is a wide variety of information you can gleen from one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Contrast&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Contrast is the measure of difference between the brightest tones and the darkest tones.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The more range a histogram covers between its left and right edges, the greater the contrast of an image.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Key&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Key is the rough measure of brightness in an image, with high-key being brighter, and low-key being darker&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the histogram is bunched up in the highlights, you have a high-key image&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the histogram is bunched up in the shades and shadows, you have a low-key image&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;White Balance&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When using a colored histogram, the convergence of red, green, and blue peaks is an indication of white balance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In particular, the offset of major blue peaks can be a strong indicator of the warmth or coolness of a photo&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tonal Range&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The balance and height of peaks in a histogram is an indication of tonal range and tonal balance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Parts of the histogram that are very low (valleys) indicate very low volume for those tones&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Parts of the histogram that are very high (peaks) indicate very high volume for those tones&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Color Volume&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A basic colored histogram will often show gray, red, blue, and green&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A more advanced colored histogram may also show yellow, magenta, cyan&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Colored peaks are an indication of the volume of those given primary colors&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The horizontal position of a colored peak is an indication of the tone of colors of that particular primary or primaries&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gray indicates a balance of primary colors at those tones&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Off-primary color peaks (or partial height lines), such as yellow, magenta, and cyan, indicate a blend of two primary colors at those tones&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As mentioned by Jordan H., there is a trick called &quot;expose to the right&quot; (or ETTR) that can be useful to get you the optimal RAW data. When shooting a scene, particularly those that have a broad range of contrast that may be on the border of, or possibly slightly beyond, the 5-6 stop dynamic range of a digital camera, capturing enough tonal range in the shadows can be difficult. This is due to the the limitations of most current digital sensors, and how they are more sensitive to highlights than shadows. &quot;Exposing to the Right&quot;, which is a technique where you slightly overexpose your shots by 1/3 to 1/2 of a stop (which, in turn, shifts your histogram to the right...toward highlights), can help mitigate these limitations. Exposing to the right can also help alleviate noise problems in the shadier parts of your images. It should be noted that exposing to the right requires that you use RAW format, as only with raw are you saving enough information to correct your overexposure during post-processing to bring your image back into normal range. The benefit of this technique is that it allows you to capture detail that would otherwise be lost, without the need to resort to ND grad filters or other more extreme measures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This guideline is just that, a guideline. With newer camera sensors, dynamic range is improving, and capturing a greater range of contrast in a scene with a single shot is easier. However, even as digital sensor dynamic range improves, there will always be times when we need to shoot &quot;on the edge&quot; or what is possible, and tricks like shooting to the right will always be useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-01T03:01:05.000" LastActivityDate="2010-09-01T03:01:05.000" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="453" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="450" CreationDate="2010-07-16T03:41:32.800" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When you look at a picture, it can be hard to tell exactly how well the shadows and highlights fill up the range, especially if you are looking at the picture in the display of the camera. The histogram gives you an exact measure for how the image is exposed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T03:41:32.800" />
  <row Id="454" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="27" CreationDate="2010-07-16T03:45:31.770" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depends on what your goals are, of course, but I've found volunteering at a deserving charity that's in-line with what you want to be doing a good thing. If you want to focus on pets, volunteer at the local shelter taking photos of the current dogs and/or cats. Personally, I volunteer for my local Make-A-Wish chapter and do a few events for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Get some business cards (I like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.moo.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Moo&lt;/a&gt;) and hand them out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="166" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T03:45:31.770" />
  <row Id="455" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="258" CreationDate="2010-07-16T03:51:00.347" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I really like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.presetsheaven.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PresetsHeaven&lt;/a&gt;. It's the biggest collection of presets and examples I've found so far.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="166" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T03:51:00.347" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-16T03:51:00.347" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="456" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-16T03:56:53.950" Score="11" ViewCount="689" Body="&lt;p&gt;What size images do I need for common print sizes, such as wallet size, 8x10, and 16x20?  Is there a general formula?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How could that size change if, for example, a 16x20 was printed on canvas rather than photopaper?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-10T23:26:56.280" LastActivityDate="2011-04-10T23:26:56.280" Title="Is there a general formula for image size vs. print size?" Tags="&lt;prints&gt;&lt;resolution&gt;&lt;dpi&gt;&lt;ppi&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="458" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="295" CreationDate="2010-07-16T04:03:07.707" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.smugmug.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SmugMug&lt;/a&gt; for me. If I want to highlight a certain photo and link to a set on Flickr, I have a &quot;family blog&quot; set up on &lt;a href=&quot;http://posterous.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Posterous&lt;/a&gt; that's passworded and really easy to use. All of my family is able to contribute to it, so we can all keep each other up-to-date.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="166" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T04:03:07.707" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-16T04:03:07.707" />
  <row Id="459" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6816" CreationDate="2010-07-16T04:05:55.753" Score="16" ViewCount="816" Body="&lt;p&gt;All my attempts to get a good shot of the full moon with my DSLR result in an overexposed circle on a black background.  I've used a tripod, remote shutter release, low ISO and long exposure but nothing has worked so far.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there some magical combination of ISO and exposure time that will produce good results?  I particularly want to catch a full moon with the reddish effect when it is close to the horizon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="168" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T04:52:43.523" LastActivityDate="2011-03-20T08:27:04.217" Title="Best settings for nighttime moon photos?" Tags="&lt;low-light&gt;&lt;moon&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="8" />
  <row Id="460" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="459" CreationDate="2010-07-16T04:11:35.733" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If your moon is &lt;i&gt;over&lt;/i&gt;exposed, you've gone too far in that direction &amp;ndash; back up a bit.  Use &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracketing&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;bracketing&lt;/a&gt; to sample a wide variety of settings and narrow down on what you need for your conditions.  With experience, and a lightmeter (though conventional metering won't work on the moon), you will more easily get it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, there's never a silver bullet or magic combination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T04:11:35.733" />
  <row Id="461" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="456" CreationDate="2010-07-16T04:13:41.003" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some general rules you can use to determine the &quot;maximum&quot; (I use that term loosely) print size. Keep in mind that the quality of a print is often more dependent on what is being printed than its size in megapixels, and &lt;em&gt;even if your image size is not dense enough to mathematically fit onto a certain page size, you can still blow most images up pretty large without significant or noticable loss in quality.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, as a general formula:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[width in pixels] / [print pixels per&#xA;  inch] = [print width in inches]&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  [height in pixels] / [print pixels per&#xA;  inch] = [print height in inches]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Screen/camera pixels do not directly translate to print pixels (PPI, pixels per inch), so you need to translate your image pixel size into a print size by dividing your screen pixel sizes by the PPI of your print. Assuming you have an 8mp camera, your image sizes are likely to be around 3200 x 2400 or so. If you print at the native &quot;photo quality&quot; PPI of an Epson printer of 300ppi, you would end up with the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3200 pixels / 300 ppi = 10.7&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  2400 pixels / 300 ppi = 8&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That boils down to an 8.5 x 11 print at full resolution without any loss of quality or resolution in the translation between screen and print. However, this is not a general rule for print quality...it is simply a rule for ascertaining the &lt;em&gt;lossless&lt;/em&gt; print size for a given image size. You could still blow up your 8mp photo and print it at 11x16, or 13x19, and still have a good print. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can use this formula in reverse as well, to determine the screen pixel size your image would need to be to be for a particular paper size:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[print width in inches] * [ppi] =&#xA;  [width in pixels]&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  [print height in&#xA;  inches] * [ppi] = [height in pixels]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using this, you could determine what size image you would need for a 2x3 inch print:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2&quot; * 300 ppi = 600 pixels&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  3&quot; * 300 ppi = 900 pixels&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other things you can do with your image to improve its quality when printed. Sharpening an image before printing, assuming you do so with the proper care, can improve the quality of your printed copies. It is also possible to use image editing software, such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/photoshop/whatsnew/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photoshop&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;QImage&lt;/a&gt;, to digitally blow up your image to a higher resolution, perform some post process sharpening, and print at even larger sizes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond this relatively simple explanation, the discussion of how to translate a photo image to its printed paper size is a relatively complex topic. It is possible to print at a variety of PPI, from as low as 100 to as high as 480 or higher. The PPI you choose to print at, the size of your image, and the quality of the algorithms you may have used to scale your image up or down, the texture, brightness, thickness, and color of your paper, and the kind of printer all determine how good a photo looks when printed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-22T17:05:09.367" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T17:05:09.367" />
  <row Id="462" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="445" CreationDate="2010-07-16T04:17:48.753" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would say no, but only because I have been around possums. If cornered or threatened, they can get downright vicious and they move very quickly. If you've ever seen one in this kind of state, you'd appreciate the damage they can do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Getting you and your camera inches in front of a mother with babies will probably result in (at least) your camera getting attacked. I'd look for another angle, one that affords a little more safety and a lot less disruption :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Jordan says, its probably a good idea to get them out of there anyway. You can try a battery powered / cheap transistor radio. They hate rock / rap music. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="52" LastEditorUserId="52" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T05:05:22.487" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T05:05:22.487" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="463" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="381" CreationDate="2010-07-16T04:21:37.953" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0817439390&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Understanding Exposure&lt;/a&gt; is great for helping understand the ins and outs of cameras.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0240809343&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Photographer's Eye&lt;/a&gt; is a good book about creating strong design elements in your photographs.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Not a book, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cambridge in Colour's tutorials&lt;/a&gt; are &lt;em&gt;great&lt;/em&gt; at helping you understand the technical aspects.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="166" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T04:21:37.953" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-16T04:21:37.953" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="464" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="459" CreationDate="2010-07-16T04:25:28.247" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Remember, the moon is in daylight...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can go ISO200, but 100 should work. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then you actually want a pretty fast shutter speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: I should note, in my experience, this is if you want just the moon. If you want the moon + foreground features, then it's pretty much always going to end up with an overexposed moon. Compositing two pics in post is one option to overcome that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="146" LastEditorUserId="146" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T04:31:19.943" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T04:31:19.943" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="465" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="245" CreationDate="2010-07-16T04:25:36.983" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Temporarily tagging them is probably the best move. I've hit this same frustration before and that's how I moved on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="166" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T04:25:36.983" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="466" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="351" CreationDate="2010-07-16T04:29:39.523" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Good question. Didn't we all at some point feel like all the money spent on the gear is going to waste as it's lying there catching rust. Some of my thoughts:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;One thing that very easily gets me excited about taking pictures is a new piece of equipment. I wouldn't go as far as getting a new camera to reignite my interest (who am I kidding, I would if I could afford it) but anything that allows for experimenting with new kinds of photography or trying new techniques would definitely work for me. Grab a new filter or something like that and try squeezing the most out of it.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Another rather extreme example - kids, better yet - your own kids, better still - newborns. You are excited about having them and want to keep every moment of their new life for eternity. You have to be quick though, newborns very fast grow into toddlers and although giving just as many opportunities they become very hard, fast moving targets.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Travelling is another way to put yourself in front of new, exciting photo opportunities. It doesn't have to be a week long trip to tropical islands (although that would be nice) but a simple weekend away from the city should bring some motivation.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Unusual circumstances - get up before the sunrise and get some blue hour shots. Very rewarding!  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Local events - car races, flower fair, horse riding competition. All full of photographic potential.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;New exciting hobbies - do a scuba diving course and play with underwater photography.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="125" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T04:29:39.523" />
  <row Id="467" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="444" CreationDate="2010-07-16T04:30:59.913" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I used Picnik several times when sharing stuff on flickr, mostly just for cropping something that I didn't see before uploading. It also does (reasonably) good white balance correction. Its convenient and easy enough to use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm a SOOC (straight out of camera) type of person, though, so I don't do much post-processing. If I can't fix it with a crop or WB correction, I generally go back and re-shoot it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="52" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T04:30:59.913" />
  <row Id="468" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="381" CreationDate="2010-07-16T04:32:50.673" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are some excellent books on nature and landscape photography that I have found invaluable to my own work:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;General Nature&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0817440593&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Shaw's Nature Photography Field Guide&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0715331493&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;100 Ways to Take Better Nature &amp;amp; Wildlife Photographs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0715328190&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Waiting for the Light&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1902538463&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Working the Light: A Landscape Photography Masterclass&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/190253851X&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A Landscape Beyond: Journey Into Photography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Composition and Style&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1902538498&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Developing Vision and Style: A Landscape Photography Masterclass&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0240809343&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Photographer's Eye&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T04:32:50.673" />
  <row Id="469" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="376" CreationDate="2010-07-16T04:37:12.840" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rawtherapee.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Raw Therapee&lt;/a&gt; is also rather nice, but still heavily in development. It is also (now) open source. I've never used the software that ships with the camera body. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="52" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T04:37:12.840" />
  <row Id="470" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="473" CreationDate="2010-07-16T04:43:47.480" Score="4" ViewCount="150" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been contemplating the purchase of an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.expoimaging.com/product-overview.php?cat_id=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Expodisc&lt;/a&gt; to finally be rid of most white balance corrections. The price is a little steep for me, however. I was wondering, is there a way to make something similar to this using materials that one might find 'off the shelf' at a store like Home Depot?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've tried lenses (prismatic diffusers) from lighting fixtures combined with various translucent plastics without much luck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note, the price is not &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; steep, I'm just one who sticks to a very strict gear budget and I like the satisfaction of making my own stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="52" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T16:48:44.870" Title="Can I make my own Expodisc?" Tags="&lt;white-balance&gt;&lt;diy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="471" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-16T04:48:24.790" Score="22" ViewCount="979" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been taking some photographs with RAW format. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use GIMP and Rawstudio to tweak images once a while.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just wanted to know what are other tools available in Linux which people in this forum are using..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="171" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-10T20:25:03.167" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T06:33:59.117" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-10T15:23:42.103" Title="What tools are available for RAW image processing in Linux?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;image-processing&gt;&lt;linux&gt;" AnswerCount="14" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="13" />
  <row Id="472" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="470" CreationDate="2010-07-16T04:49:15.210" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, the Expodisc will capture the white balance of all the light reaching the camera, not the subject, which could be different. I'll bet a cheap gray card would meet your needs. They cost something like $5.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your question directly, I suspect it's difficult to find a color-balanced white or gray object that wasn't specifically designed to be so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T04:49:15.210" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="473" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="470" CreationDate="2010-07-16T04:50:28.237" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From what I understand about Expodisc, it is a rather carefully engineered filter. It is designed to transmit a diffuse 18% of visible light, corresponding to a standard 18% gray card. Unless you have a way to precisely measure the light passing through materials that can be found at the likes of Home Depot, and can ensure that the resulting light is properly diffused, I am not sure you'll have any luck. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would either buy a set of gray cards, or just bite the bullet and get the Expodisc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T04:50:28.237" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="474" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="459" CreationDate="2010-07-16T04:52:19.637" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Haven't used it, but try this moon exposure calculator: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adidap.com/2006/12/06/moon-exposure-calculator/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.adidap.com/2006/12/06/moon-exposure-calculator/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I agree with Roger - bracket.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, a Google search for &quot;moon exposure&quot; yields many good-smelling hits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T04:52:19.637" />
  <row Id="475" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="471" CreationDate="2010-07-16T04:55:59.367" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bibble is payware and while not perfect is the best I've run across. That's what I use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T04:55:59.367" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-10T15:23:42.103" />
  <row Id="476" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="510" CreationDate="2010-07-16T04:56:49.023" Score="8" ViewCount="68" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to start a new project soon, &quot;People in bars&quot;. I think it will be fun, and I think I'll capture a lot of interesting faces.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thing is, bars are harsh environments for DSLRs. Obviously, there's protecting the camera from someone bumping into you, attempting to beat you with it, spilling a drink on it, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, what will all of the smoke do to my lenses and sensor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Normally, I would just use a discreet prime, but I don't think I'm going to be able to get the shots I want without making myself overly conspicuous. I'm considering my 18-105 or possibly 18-70mm, but those things suck in air (and smoke) as your adjust the focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm guessing the same problem exists when shooting in some industrial settings. How do you protect your camera and lenses from excessive airborne pollutants?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="52" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-30T00:04:49.407" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T00:04:49.407" Title="How do I protect my camera in a smoke filled environment?" Tags="&lt;cleaning&gt;&lt;equipment-protection&gt;&lt;smoke&gt;&lt;pollution&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="477" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="471" CreationDate="2010-07-16T04:59:08.893" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Darktable is starting to look quite impressive &lt;a href=&quot;http://darktable.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://darktable.sourceforge.net/&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;RawTherapee is another option: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rawtherapee.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.rawtherapee.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="125" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T04:59:08.893" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-10T15:23:42.103" />
  <row Id="478" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="471" CreationDate="2010-07-16T05:01:25.567" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rawtherapee.com/?mitem=3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Raw Therapee&lt;/a&gt; is getting to be quite nice, and was recently made open source. I've had success with building it myself, or just using the precompiled Windows version under WINE (with a bit of a slow down, but not bad).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It does appear that Raw Therapee is making its way into most popular distributions and can be installed via the system package manager. Be sure to check for it prior to installing the source build, unless of course you want the latest / bleeding edge build.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="52" LastEditorUserId="52" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-09T05:57:33.327" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T05:57:33.327" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-10T15:23:42.103" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="479" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="628" CreationDate="2010-07-16T05:05:19.493" Score="4" ViewCount="140" Body="&lt;p&gt;The photos I take on my Nikon P100 look very good on the viewfinder, but when I transfer them to my PC, they look really bad/dull in terms on colour and contrast. Am I supposed to do some post-processing of the photos if I transfer to PC or is just my monitor settings?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="175" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T21:41:07.260" LastActivityDate="2010-10-18T11:15:09.457" Title="ViewFinder(LCD) brightness" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;viewfinder&gt;&lt;coolpix&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="480" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="776" CreationDate="2010-07-16T05:35:06.263" Score="9" ViewCount="96" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've read that you can examine a lens for scratches and defects by holding the aperture ring at its lowest setting and shining a flashlight through the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I do this, however, a lot of stuff becomes visible, but the lens seems to take perfect photos. Even what appears to be scratches don't show up in the final product.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its all well and good to say &quot;Test each used lens before you buy it&quot;, but its not always possible to do that, especially when at camera shows. (edit, by test I mean take a picture and look at it on a computer screen, not just the LCD).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, how do I better interpret what I see on the flashlight test, or is there a better way of examining the glass?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="52" LastEditorUserId="52" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T11:16:37.663" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T06:08:58.757" Title="How to rate the optical quality of a used lens?" Tags="&lt;optical-quality&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="481" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="490" CreationDate="2010-07-16T06:21:03.193" Score="8" ViewCount="383" Body="&lt;p&gt;Everyone hears something about &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/235/what-is-chromatic-aberration&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;chromatic aberration&lt;/a&gt; but are there any other types? What causes them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="24" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-07T16:23:40.453" LastActivityDate="2010-08-07T16:23:40.453" Title="How many optical aberration types are there in lenses? And what are they?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;optical-quality&gt;&lt;aberration&gt;&lt;optics&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="482" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="230" CreationDate="2010-07-16T06:21:54.440" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ptgui.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PTGui&lt;/a&gt; (commercial) works fantastically well. It is available for Windows and Mac OX.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="179" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T06:21:54.440" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-03T13:16:05.547" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="483" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-16T06:24:59.660" Score="8" ViewCount="180" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can anyone recommend some good noise removal tools, free and commercial? Should support RAW and JPEG.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="179" LastActivityDate="2010-11-08T14:49:23.390" Title="Recommendation for noise removal tools" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;noise&gt;&lt;noise-removal&gt;" AnswerCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="484" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="584" CreationDate="2010-07-16T06:31:55.527" Score="6" ViewCount="236" Body="&lt;p&gt;In this day and age, do 35mm film cameras have &lt;strong&gt;any&lt;/strong&gt; advantages over high-end digital cameras?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:&#xA;I was thinking more quality-wise but sure, other aspects are interesting, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="179" LastEditorUserId="179" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T06:41:41.263" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T14:55:57.813" Title="Film versus digital" Tags="&lt;digital-vs-film&gt;&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;film-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="485" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="459" CreationDate="2010-07-16T06:35:48.717" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The moon is still lit by sunlight -- I've had success around the 1/60 second at f/5.6 at ISO 100 in the past -- you'll need to fiddle around there to get settings that work for the amount of high cloud in the way etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Changing the metering mode can help too - if you can use spot metering, then that should help and if your camera supports exposure compensation, you can tell the camera that the scene needs to be under exposed by around 2 stops &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T06:35:48.717" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="486" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="484" CreationDate="2010-07-16T06:38:21.847" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One huge advantage is that the cost of a full frame digital camera can be prohibitively expensive for beginners and enthusiasts, but it is possible to buy 35mm cameras Veery cheaply which fit the same set of lenses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I bought a 35mm SLR from eBay for under £10 and it fits my Canon EF lenses (but not EF-S).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't forget that there are different costs associated with film cameras - film, processing, etc.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="93" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T06:38:21.847" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="487" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="501" CreationDate="2010-07-16T06:39:28.460" Score="-6" ViewCount="276" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm going to buy my first digital camera... please suggest an affordable and good camera for newbie like me...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;UPDATE&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;To be precise, these are my criteria&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Compact &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Digital &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Price: Anything between $250 - $300 &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I like to travel a lot; want to take some snaps along the way :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="173" LastEditorUserId="173" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-26T10:20:04.447" LastActivityDate="2011-02-26T19:47:04.277" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-27T21:12:27.193" ClosedDate="2011-02-28T12:23:19.827" Title="Which is the best and affordable camera for newbie or amateur?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="488" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1331" CreationDate="2010-07-16T06:56:18.597" Score="4" ViewCount="193" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a D50 and I would like to use my manual focus lens (a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AI) from my analog SLR.  It fits on the mount and all seems to be good, but the status on the LED display blinks &lt;code&gt;F - -&lt;/code&gt; and the view also blinks &lt;code&gt;F - -&lt;/code&gt;. When I try to press the shoot button, nothing happens.   I have heard that Nikons will allow for these lenses to work.  How does it work?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="117" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T19:43:36.317" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T19:43:36.317" Title="Nikon D50 and Nikkor AI manual focus lens" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;manual-focus&gt;&lt;nikon-d50&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="489" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="487" CreationDate="2010-07-16T06:56:44.137" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found the Nikon D3000 to be a great entry-level camera as a newbie.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://a.img-dpreview.com/news/0907/Nikon/D3000/D3000_18_55_SLup_fr34l_l_001.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot; title=&quot;Nikon D3000&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The DSLR has all the features you will want to learn and the price point is not too far away from high-end point-n-shoots or super-zoom cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also contains a guide mode that lets to start taking specific type of pictures instantly without meddling with too many settings at that time, which you can learn later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check out the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD3000/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DP Review&lt;/a&gt; for more information. HTH&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="180" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T06:56:44.137" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-27T21:12:27.193" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="490" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="481" CreationDate="2010-07-16T07:00:17.920" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are numerous kinds of optical abberations that you may encounter with a lens. Chromatic Aberration is only one of them. Some are more drastic, others are more subtle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Lens Flare&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Probably the most commonly known aberration is lens flare. Flare occurs when non-incident light enters the lens and reflects off of the various lens elements and/or diaphragm. The effect, when strong enough, can create bright spots and streaks, and may also have a detrimental effect on contrast where it occurs. Flare is usually caused by a bright near off-scene light source, such as the sun, or a bright light illuminating your scene.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can mitigate or eliminate flare by using a lens hood. For telephoto lenses, a round hood will block all non-incident light. For wider lenses, a petal-shaped hood is best, as it takes into account the wide form factor of the sensor. Multi-coated lens elements help to reduce undesirable reflections, and when used for front and back lens elements, but particularly when used on all internal lens elements, can greatly reduce flaring. Filters, being an additional glass element with their own imperfections, will likely increase the chance of flaring.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ghosting&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similar to flare, ghosting is the result of light bouncing off your sensor, reflecting off of the back lens element or elements, and returning to the sensor. Ghosting usually creates a soft, off-centered replica of your main image. It can look somewhat like what a person with astigmatism sees, a slightly blurred or streaked off-set copy of the scene.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Higher quality lenses use milti-coated lens elements to reduce reflection as much as possible, and they can limit the cases where ghosting is possible. It is impossible to completely eliminate reflection, however, and in the right scenarios, ghosting is always possible to a degree.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Distortion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another type of aberrant lens behavior is distortion. It comes in two varieties: pincushion and barrel. In most zoom lenses, distortion occurs at the focal length extremes. Cheaper lenses often have more of a problem with distortion than higher quality lenses, however pretty much all lenses have some degree of distortion (including primes.) Many lenses have such a low degree of distortion that it is not a factor, and others are clearly noticable. Distortion may not be much of a problem if you are not photographing subjects that make the effects of distortion apparent, like brick walls or buildings. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to pincushion and barrel distortion, many lenses will create distortion in perspective. Particularly with wide-angle lenses, distortions in perspective can be seen when using very wide focal lengths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certain types of lenses, often called TS or Tilt-Shift lenses, tend to generate very little barrel or pincushion distortion. Such lenses offer two additional controls over the normal focus and zoom: tilt and shift. Using these additional controls, a photographer can straiten out perspective distortion to one degree or another, and restore a proper degree of strait perspective to your images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Spherical Aberration&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Spherical aberration is another type of optical aberration that may occur in camera lenses. It results from the difference in refraction at the edges of a lens compared to the center, resulting in improper convergence of light rather than convergence into a focal point. Spherical aberration generally results in softer focus, rather than clear and sharp focus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Spherical aberration may be corrected in a couple of ways. A combination of spherical convex and concave lenses may be used to correct the convergence of light. Modern high-end professional lenses often include an aspherical lens element. Aspherical lens elements cause less refraction at the edges and more in the center, resulting in proper convergence over a given focal length. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some lenses, such as soft-focus portrait lenses, intentionally leave a certain amount of spherical aberration in place to produce more pleasing shots. In these cases, spherical aberration is a desirable effect, one which you may explicitly look for in a lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Coma&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Related to spherical aberration, comatic aberration is a refractive problem that occurs in off-axis point light sources. Due to the difference in refraction near the edges of a spherical lens element, off-axis point sources may appear stretched and &quot;haloed&quot; at the focal plane. Coma is generally a combination of both spherical aberration of a point light source and chromatic aberration to produce an effect that looks like a comet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Coma is generally controlled by using lenses of the appropriate curvature to minimize edge distortion. In camera lenses, a combination of lens elements is generally required to minimize such optical aberrations. Comatic aberration is a problem that largely affects those who do night photography or astrophotography, as point light sources are most common on these scenarios.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Diffraction&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A final type of distortion is also possible, and prevalent on all cameras. Diffraction is an effect of light, given its waveform nature. When waves encounter an edge or opening, then have the tendency to bend around it. The diaphragm in a camera allows one to control the aperture, or the opening through which light passes on its way to the sensor. The aperture gives us control over how much light reaches the sensor...but as a result, it can also cause diffractive blurring via an effect called the airy disc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At sufficiently wide apertures, diffraction is low enough that it does not cause any problems. However, all sensors have a diffraction limit, beyond which the effects of diffraction will begin to affect image quality. For most sensors, this is around f/8 to f/11. The larger the photosites and the more effective the microlensing around each photosite on a sensor, the higher the limiting aperture. When the aperture is stopped sufficiently far below the diffraction limit, the airy disc effect will allow light to bleed past the intended sensor pixel (photosite) and affect others. Apertures below f/22 or so will generally start causing enough loss in sharpness to counter the gains by having a tighter aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the diffraction of light is caused by the diaphragm in a lens, it should be noted that the resulting effect is dependent on the sensor in the camera. Large full-frame sensors in high-end DSLR camera bodies will exhibit problems due to diffraction less than the smaller sensors in entry-level DSLR camera bodies, which in turn will exhibit problems significantly less than the tiny, pixel-dense sensors in most point and shoot cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-30T05:38:58.550" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T05:38:58.550" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="491" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5" CreationDate="2010-07-16T07:13:30.867" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can fake the tripod with few metres of string. Instructions &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.instructables.com/id/String-Tripod/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="179" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T07:13:30.867" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="492" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="487" CreationDate="2010-07-16T07:15:49.520" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The low price of the &lt;strong&gt;Canon 550d&lt;/strong&gt; (Rebel T2i in US) and all advantages of Full HD Video shooting up to 30 frames per second is a great choice if you go to Canon ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon and Nikon are like BMW and Mercedes, they are both great in this range that you are looking for, because I already had 4 Canon's and 3 EF lens, &lt;strong&gt;I bought the 550d&lt;/strong&gt; and the Video and the Shooting &lt;strong&gt;is just fantastic&lt;/strong&gt;, the LCD has vibrant colors and it's huge :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It's very light and an excellent choice not only for beginners&lt;/strong&gt;, but as well when you start to know a little better of shooting photos and you need a little more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several magazines and reviews that put head to head both Canon's and Nikon's ... just go to a photo shop, pick up one in your hand and see witch you prefer more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos550d/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Preview review&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photoradar.com/reviews/buying-guides-video/canon-eos-550d-review-of-key-features&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Key features review&lt;/a&gt; (youtube)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to save more money and the 550d is a little out of your pockets range, &lt;strong&gt;try the 500d or 450d&lt;/strong&gt;, a used model is very cheap and people are trying to sell them to buy the new 550d.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/6/550d_review.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="183" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T07:15:49.520" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-27T21:12:27.193" />
  <row Id="493" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3688" CreationDate="2010-07-16T07:21:49.990" Score="10" ViewCount="292" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dcresource.com/news/newsitem.php?id=4142&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Newer Sony cameras&lt;/a&gt; offer &quot;sweep panorama&quot; mode where you just pan the camera and it stitches the panorama picture in the camera. This function is starting to appear in models from other manufacturers too (can't find the relevant link at the moment).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apart from the obvious limitation to one picture height/width (one cannot create 2xN or Nx2 panorama in this mode) - can anybody tell how sweep panoramas compare to traditional panorama montage? Is the result comparable/better/much worse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="179" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-11T04:44:33.833" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T04:44:33.833" Title="How does &quot;sweep panorama&quot; compare to traditional montage?" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;panorama&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="494" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="484" CreationDate="2010-07-16T07:32:31.820" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Plenty of cinematographic movies/series are now been shoot in Full DSLR cameras with very expensive lents :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An example is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.petapixel.com/2010/04/09/house-season-finale-filmed-entirely-with-canon-5d-mark-ii/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;House M.D. season finale&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a very good Photographer and Cinematographyc called &lt;strong&gt;Vincent Laforet&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Blog&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.laforetvisuals.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Website&lt;/a&gt; uses the Canon 5d mkII and 7d to shot almost everything and the images are just &quot;out of this world&quot; (just see his blog and website)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttrT5U67FnE&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;last video of him&lt;/a&gt; about talking about Cinema 5D (Cinema with Digital Cameras)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;his the one that shot that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&amp;amp;articleID=2326&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;great short movie &quot;Reverie&quot;&lt;/a&gt; with the first 5d mkII that Canon asked him to shoot before make the camera public back in 2008&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I still have my Canon 5 QZ (35mm) but I can tell you... it's for souvenir! as it's expensive to get pictures from it (camera film plus revelation of the film), I bought the 550d and kept the Lens ... was a great deal :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="183" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T07:32:31.820" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="495" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-16T07:35:17.633" Score="1" ViewCount="153" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/230/recommendations-for-panorama-creation-stitching-tools&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Recommendations for panorama creation/stitching tools&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I always wondered what is the best trick and what software is the most easy to preform a great panoramic shoot&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/02/uk-electronics/shops/sony/TX1_Sweep_panorama.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="183" LastEditorUserId="133" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T08:01:31.297" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T08:14:46.680" ClosedDate="2010-07-18T15:20:58.567" Title="What is the best shoot trick plus software to take 360 photos?" Tags="&lt;panorama&gt;&lt;panoramic-shoot&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="496" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="508" CreationDate="2010-07-16T07:36:22.903" Score="43" ViewCount="1372" Body="&lt;p&gt;Then looking at a lens name there is a lot of acronyms in the name describing it's features (often specific to the manufacturer). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Examples, Nikon:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Nikon AF-S DX 16-85mm VR f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Nikon AF-I 600mm f/4D IF-ED&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Nikon AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Examples, Canon:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Canon EF 85mm f1.2L USM Mark II&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Canon 70-300mm f/4.5-f/5.6 DO IS  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Examples, Sigma:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX APO DG HSM Macro&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Sigma 50-150mm F2.8 EX DC APO HSM II  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do I decipher the lens names from different manufacturers? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="129" LastEditorUserId="707" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-06T07:32:26.833" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T16:54:02.797" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T07:05:20.740" Title="What do all those cryptic number and letter codes in a lens name mean?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="22" />
  <row Id="497" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="484" CreationDate="2010-07-16T07:44:01.433" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just a personal opinion - nothing (I can afford) in digital world comes close to a Velvia slide projected big. And just as with 35mm film cameras, the price of good projectors has made the same drop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T07:44:01.433" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="498" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="487" CreationDate="2010-07-16T07:48:43.933" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want to buy a DSLR nothing would beat the Pentax Kx in Performance / Price ratio.&#xA;It has a great Sensor (Look at DXO Mark), Built In Stabilizer (Every Lens is stabilized, in Canon Nikon you pay for Stabilization in each lens) and great price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Enjoy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="114" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T07:48:43.933" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-27T21:12:27.193" />
  <row Id="499" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="483" CreationDate="2010-07-16T07:52:26.437" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think Topaz Denoise and Imagenomic Noiseware are the best.&#xA;I wrote a thorough &lt;a href=&quot;http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&amp;amp;sl=auto&amp;amp;tl=en&amp;amp;u=http://d-spot.co.il/%3Fp%3D2753&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;review on the previous Topaz Denoise&lt;/a&gt; (It's in Hebrew, yet Google Translation makes it readable and understandable in English). It should be even better now (Version 4).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="114" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T07:52:26.437" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="501" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="487" CreationDate="2010-07-16T07:54:09.257" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no right answer to this.  Everyone will recommend their favourite brand, and then argue for months about the relative benefits.  The best thing to do is set a realistic budget (for a beginner DSLR you're looking at around £500), buy a couple of magazines or read a few reviews online, then go down to your local camera shop and play with each of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I'm a Pentax person and have a Kx, which is brilliant.  If I was starting again and didn't already have a lot of money invested in lenses I'd go down the Nikon route.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="186" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T07:54:09.257" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-27T21:12:27.193" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="502" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="496" CreationDate="2010-07-16T07:54:53.263" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nikon: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/lensacronyms.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Thom Hogan's acronyms page&lt;/a&gt; - look at &quot;The Dictionary&quot; box on the right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pentax: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/technology/lens_terms.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bojidar Dimitrov's terminology page&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sigma explain a few terms on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/support/faq_lens.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;their FAQ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="185" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T07:54:53.263" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-16T15:29:03.733" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="503" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="356" CreationDate="2010-07-16T08:01:52.887" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you shoot a lot under tungsten lightning, then a blue filter will be handy. Using blue filter you'll gain exposure in blue channel leading to less noise in that channel and also in overall picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check this answer for more info on color filters: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/586/are-colour-filters-worth-using-with-digital-cameras/619#619&quot;&gt;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/586/are-colour-filters-worth-using-with-digital-cameras/619#619&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-01T17:09:40.563" LastActivityDate="2010-08-01T17:09:40.563" />
  <row Id="504" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="376" CreationDate="2010-07-16T08:03:02.667" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nothing could beat &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_optics_pro&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DXO Optics&lt;/a&gt; Image Quality.&#xA;It has the best NR algorithm in the industry.&#xA;If the Lens / Body combo you use is supported by them, the Optical Correction Engine is spectacular.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Their main disadvantage is it takes time to properly use their software.&#xA;But if you bear with it, you won't regret it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S.&#xA;DXO has color profiles which imitates Nikon colors in a much better way than Lightroom (In my opinion).&#xA;Though it doesn't have all Picture Control options.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="114" LastEditorUserId="114" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-22T19:16:28.500" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T19:16:28.500" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="505" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="495" CreationDate="2010-07-16T08:14:29.207" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do what you can to get equal-&lt;em&gt;ish&lt;/em&gt; exposure of all the images. The software can't fix very obvious differences between two neighboring images, but on the other hand, there can (and will) be a lot of difference in the light around 360 deg.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hold your camera steady around the focal point in the lens. Some swear by special panorama heads to tripods, some do it by hand. (I'm mostly in the latter category, but I don't carry a tripod with me everywhere.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When in doubt, shoot it twice (if still in doubt, thrice). Vary your technique (i.e. practice).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Practice with your software (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/230/recommendations-for-panorama-creation-stitching-tools&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Recommendations for panorama ... tools&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Practice the &quot;whole stack&quot;; taking proper care in taking the pictures can save you hours of work when stitching them - and vice versa.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've experimented quite a bit (probably shot 100+ panoramas) by now, mostly by hand, and I still feel there's a large element of luck in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/msiebuhr/sets/72157602415035355/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;my good ones&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="187" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T08:14:29.207" />
  <row Id="506" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="495" CreationDate="2010-07-16T08:14:46.680" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Step 1 is to take the photos.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You need to keep the camera in the same location rotate it around what is known as the &quot;no-parallax point&quot;. This will be different for different lens, and can also move when you zoom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is possible to purchase special tripod heads that allow you to rotate around this point rather than rotating from the base like a normal tripod would.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For large scale panoramas (outside, landscapes, etc.) the problems with parallax are reduced, but for indoors small scale shots the effects can become very pronounced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try to allow for plenty of overlap between the photos. If you aim for around 40%-50% overlap that leaves plenty of space for identifying common points.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Step 2 is to compose the separate images.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this I refer you to one of my questions - &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/230/recommendations-for-panorama-creation-stitching-tools&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Recommendations for panorama creation/stitching tools&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further information:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.panoguide.com/howto/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;panoguide&lt;/a&gt; has some great in depth tutorials for all of the details of shooting and composing panoramic photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="97" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T08:14:46.680" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="507" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="24" CreationDate="2010-07-16T08:26:27.790" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can compare the technical results from reviews such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/217-nikkor-af-50mm-f18-d-review--test-report?start=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;those&lt;/a&gt; at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/413-nikkor_50_14g?start=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photozone&lt;/a&gt;. It is interesting to see that the AF 50/1.8 D has less distortion than the AF-S 50/1.4 G. The centre resolution of the f/1.8 is also higher at all apertures, although the f/1.4 is more consistent out to the borders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However you have to work out what you want from such a lens and at what apertures you expect to use it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also consider that the price difference reflects the design &amp;amp; manufacturing cost rather than the value or quality: it is that much more difficult to make an f/1.4 lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="185" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T08:26:27.790" />
  <row Id="508" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="496" CreationDate="2010-07-16T08:30:58.077" Score="79" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h1&gt;Brand Lenses&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most major camera manufacturers offer their own line of lenses. Such lenses tend to follow the most stringent quality guidelines, and often come with a price premium.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Canon Lenses&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon lenses use the following terms to indicate features of each lens:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Common&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;XYZmm:&lt;/strong&gt; Focal length&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;f/x.y:&lt;/strong&gt; Maximum aperture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Focus/Mount Type&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EF:&lt;/strong&gt; Electronic Focus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EF-S:&lt;/strong&gt; Short-Back Electronic Focus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;TS:&lt;/strong&gt; Tilt-Shift&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;TS-E:&lt;/strong&gt; Tilt-Shift Electronic focus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Features&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;IS:&lt;/strong&gt; Image Stabilization&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;USM:&lt;/strong&gt; Auto Focus Type: Ultrasonic Motor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(Mark) N:&lt;/strong&gt; Version of lens (Mark II = v2, Mark III = v3, etc., word Mark may not be present)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;DO:&lt;/strong&gt; Diffractive Optics&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;L:&lt;/strong&gt; Luxury series&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Macro:&lt;/strong&gt; 1:1 magnification&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Examples&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon TS-E 17mm f/4 L&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Nikon Lenses&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nikon lenses use the following terms to indicate features of each lens:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Common&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;XYZmm:&lt;/strong&gt; Focal length&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;f/x.y:&lt;/strong&gt; Maximum aperture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Lens System&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;DX:&lt;/strong&gt; Digital, Short Back&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;FX:&lt;/strong&gt; Full Frame (film or digital)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Lens Mount&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;AI:&lt;/strong&gt; Automatic Indexing mount (includes metering sensor)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;AI-S:&lt;/strong&gt; Improved Automatic Indexing mount&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Focusing System&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;AF:&lt;/strong&gt; Auto Focus, built into camera&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;AF-S:&lt;/strong&gt; Auto-Focus Silent (Silent Wave Motor, required for bodies without focus motor)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;AF-I:&lt;/strong&gt; Auto-Focus Internal&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;AF-N:&lt;/strong&gt; Auto-Focus (improved version, rare)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Features&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SWM:&lt;/strong&gt; Silent Wave Motor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;N:&lt;/strong&gt; Nano-Crystal Coating&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NIC:&lt;/strong&gt; Nikon Integrated Coating (multicoated lenses)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SIC:&lt;/strong&gt; Super Integrated Coating (multicoated lenses)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;VR:&lt;/strong&gt; Vibration Reduction&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ED:&lt;/strong&gt; Extra-low Dispersion Glass&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ASP:&lt;/strong&gt; Aspherical Lens Element&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;IF:&lt;/strong&gt; Internal Focusing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;RD:&lt;/strong&gt; Rear Focusing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Micro:&lt;/strong&gt; 1:1 magnification&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;G:&lt;/strong&gt; No aperture ring (automatic aperture only)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Examples&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon AF-S DX 16-85mm VR f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon AF-I 600mm f/4D IF-ED&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Olympus 4/3 lenses&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Common&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;XYZmm:&lt;/strong&gt; Focal length&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1:x.y:&lt;/strong&gt; Maximum aperture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Features&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ED:&lt;/strong&gt; Extra-low dispersion glass elements&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SWD:&lt;/strong&gt; Auto Focus Type: Supersonic Wave Drive Motor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;N:&lt;/strong&gt; Version of lens (II = v2, III = v3, etc.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Pentax lenses&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Common&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;XYZmm:&lt;/strong&gt; Focal length&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;f/x.y:&lt;/strong&gt; Maximum aperture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Focus/Mount Type&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;K, M:&lt;/strong&gt; Manual Focus, Manual/Aperture priority metering&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;AF:&lt;/strong&gt; Early AF system with AF motor and electronics in lens that works only with ME-F body.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A:&lt;/strong&gt; Manual Focus, supports Shutter priority and Program exposure metering&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;F:&lt;/strong&gt; Adds Auto Focus to capabilities of A lenses&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;FA:&lt;/strong&gt; Adds ability to communicate &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;MTF&lt;/a&gt; to body to capabilities of F lenses&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;FAJ:&lt;/strong&gt; Removes aperture ring from capabilities of FA lenses&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;DA:&lt;/strong&gt; Same capabilities as FAJ, but with reduced imaging circle for digital cameras with APS-C sized sensor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;DA L:&lt;/strong&gt; Same capabilities as DA lenses, Lighter construction&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;D FA:&lt;/strong&gt; Same capabilities as FA lenses, usable on both film and digital cameras&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Features&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;AL:&lt;/strong&gt; Aspherical elements&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ED:&lt;/strong&gt; Extra-low dispersion glass elements&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SMC:&lt;/strong&gt; Super multi coating lens coating &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;PZ:&lt;/strong&gt; Power Zoom&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SDM:&lt;/strong&gt; Auto Focus Type: Supersonic Drive Motor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;IF:&lt;/strong&gt; Internal focussing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;WR:&lt;/strong&gt; Weather Resistant (when matched with weather resistant body)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;*: High performance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Limited:&lt;/strong&gt; High quality (primes)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Sony/Minolta Lenses&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sony lenses, previously Minolta lenses, have similar features to Nikon and Canon. Their notation is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Common&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;XYZ/x.y:&lt;/strong&gt; Focal length/Maximum Aperture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Lens Mount Type&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Alpha:&lt;/strong&gt; α Type Mount&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;E:&lt;/strong&gt; E Type Mount&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Focusing System&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SSM:&lt;/strong&gt; In-Lens Super-sonic Motor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SAM:&lt;/strong&gt; In-Lens Micro Motor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Features&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;G:&lt;/strong&gt; Gold Series (highest quality)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(D):&lt;/strong&gt; Distance Encoding (supports ADI feature of some Sony bodies)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;DT:&lt;/strong&gt; Digital Technology (optimized for digital cameras)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;APO:&lt;/strong&gt; Apochromatic correction using AD elements&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;HS-APO:&lt;/strong&gt; High-Speed APO&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;AD:&lt;/strong&gt; Anomalous Dispersion&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;OSS:&lt;/strong&gt; Optical Steady Shot (E-mount only)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;T:&lt;/strong&gt; High-performance Coating&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Examples&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sony Alpha 70-200/2.8 G&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sony Alpha 28-75/2.8 SAM&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sony Alpha DT 18-250/3.5-6.3&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sony E 18-200/3.5-6.3 OSS&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sony Alpha 100/2.8 Macro&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Off-Brand Lenses&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many off-brand lens manufacturers make lenses that fit many types of bodies, including Canon, Nikon, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Sigma Lenses&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sigma lenses use the following terms to indicate features of each lens. They differ slightly in how they denote aperture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Common&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;XYZmm:&lt;/strong&gt; Focal length&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fx.y:&lt;/strong&gt; Maximum aperture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Compatible Body Brands&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sigma&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Minolta/Sony&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pentax&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Kodak (extremely limited)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fujifilm&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Olympus (limited)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Panasonic (very limited)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lecia (very limited)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Features&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;HSM:&lt;/strong&gt; Hyper-Sonic Motor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ASP:&lt;/strong&gt; Aspherical lens element&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;APO:&lt;/strong&gt; Aphochromatic (low-dispersion) lens element&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;OS:&lt;/strong&gt; Optical Stabilizer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;RF:&lt;/strong&gt; Rear focusing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;IF:&lt;/strong&gt; Inner focusing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;CONV:&lt;/strong&gt; Teleconverter compatible (APO Teleconverter EX)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EX:&lt;/strong&gt; Professional lens body finishing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;DG:&lt;/strong&gt; Supports full-frame cameras&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;DC:&lt;/strong&gt; Supports cropped-frame cameras (lightweight construction)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Macro:&lt;/strong&gt; 1:1 magnification&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Examples&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Tamron Lenses&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tamron lenses use the following terms to indicate features of each lens. Tamron offers a considerable degree of functional features and lens types, particularly lens types that affect chromatic aberration:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Common&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;XYZmm:&lt;/strong&gt; Focal length&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;F/x.y:&lt;/strong&gt; Maximum aperture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;AF:&lt;/strong&gt; Auto-Focus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Compatible Body Brands&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Minolta/Sony&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pentax&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Features&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Lens Elements&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;XR:&lt;/strong&gt; Extra Refractive Index Glass (lighter, smaller lenses)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;LD:&lt;/strong&gt; Low Dispersion (chromatic aberration reduction)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;XLD:&lt;/strong&gt; Extra Low Dispersion (advanced chromatic aberration reduction)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ASL:&lt;/strong&gt; Aspherical (improved focal plane convergence)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;LAH:&lt;/strong&gt; LD + ASL hybrid lens element&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;AD:&lt;/strong&gt; Anomalous Dispersion (improved control over chromatic aberration)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ADH:&lt;/strong&gt; AD + ASL hybrid lens element&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;HID:&lt;/strong&gt; High Index, High Dispersion Glass (minimizes lateral chromatic aberration)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Functional Features&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;VC:&lt;/strong&gt; Vibration Compensation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;USD:&lt;/strong&gt; Ultrasonic Silent Drive&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SP:&lt;/strong&gt; Super Performance (professional line)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;IF:&lt;/strong&gt; Internal Focusing System&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Di:&lt;/strong&gt; Digitally Integrated (optimized for use with full-frame digital cameras)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Di-II:&lt;/strong&gt; Digitally Integrated (optimized for use with APS-C digital cameras)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ZL:&lt;/strong&gt; Zoom Lock (prevents undesired zoom lens barrel extension)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A/M:&lt;/strong&gt; Auto-focus/Manual-focus Switch Mechanism&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;FEC:&lt;/strong&gt; Filter Effect Control (controls filter direction when lens hood attached, i.e. for Polarizing filters)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1:1 Macro:&lt;/strong&gt; 1:1 Magnification&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Examples&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tamron SP AF17-35MM F/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical (IF)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tamron AF18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tamron SP AF180mm F/3.5 Di LD (IF) 1:1 Macro&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Tokina Lenses&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tokina lenses use the following terms to indicate features of each lens:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Common&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;VW~XYZmm:&lt;/strong&gt; Focal length&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;f/x.y:&lt;/strong&gt; Maximum aperture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;AF:&lt;/strong&gt; Auto-Focus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Compatible Body Brands&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Minolta/Sony&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pentax&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Features&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;AS:&lt;/strong&gt; Aspherical Optics&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;F&amp;amp;R:&lt;/strong&gt; Advanced Aspherical Optics&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SD:&lt;/strong&gt; Super Low Dispersion&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;HLD:&lt;/strong&gt; High-Refraction, Low Dispersion&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;MC:&lt;/strong&gt; Multi-Coating&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;FE:&lt;/strong&gt; Floating Element System&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;IF:&lt;/strong&gt; Internal Focus System&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;IRF:&lt;/strong&gt; Internal Rear Focus System&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;FC:&lt;/strong&gt; Focus Clutch Mechanism (allows switching between auto &amp;amp; manual focus)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;One Touch FC:&lt;/strong&gt; One-Touch Focus Clutch Mechanism&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="185" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-17T13:51:27.720" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T13:51:27.720" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-16T18:30:10.137" CommentCount="13" />
  <row Id="509" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2" CreationDate="2010-07-16T08:49:20.513" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's the list of things that influence depth of field the most (in this particular order):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Subject distance, the closer the subject is, the shallower the DOF (think of macro) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Focal length, the more millimeters, the shallower the DOF&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aperture, the smaller the f-number, the shallower the DOF&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T08:49:20.513" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="510" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="476" CreationDate="2010-07-16T08:55:45.833" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;At least higher-end DSLR bodies and lenses have dust seals around controls, so if you're using one of those and avoid changing lenses in lot of smoke you should be fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T08:55:45.833" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="511" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="514" CreationDate="2010-07-16T09:08:42.227" Score="8" ViewCount="287" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am looking to do a little macro work, but am not ready to invest in a macro lens.  For hobby work like photographing flowers and such would it be better to invest in a set of extension tubes or in a good close up filter?  I would like to utilize my Canon 40D with either the 24-70mm f/2.8L or the 50mm f/1.2L lens I already own. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="189" LastEditorUserId="189" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T09:37:40.130" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T11:28:34.213" Title="Extension Tubes vs. Close Up Filter" Tags="&lt;macro&gt;&lt;filters&gt;&lt;extension-tubes&gt;&lt;accessories&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="512" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="484" CreationDate="2010-07-16T09:12:38.430" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With a film camera, with every shot you take you get a new &quot;sensor&quot;. With digital, that sensor stays in place and gathers dust and dirt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="92" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T09:12:38.430" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="513" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="476" CreationDate="2010-07-16T09:16:22.037" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apart from following che's advice and relying on the build quality of the kit/not changing lenses, the only other thing I can think of is to use something like an underwater kit to enclose the camera completely!  Undoubtedly overkill for your project, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="96" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T09:16:22.037" />
  <row Id="514" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="511" CreationDate="2010-07-16T09:17:36.717" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've used extension tubes in the past, with success, but what I did find was that you'll have to manual focus because the AF sensor gets really crazy with tubes. For most macro work you'll want to focus manually anyway, so use your camera's live view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would stay away from close up filters. They're bulky and the quality is very poor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, if you don't already own a portrait lens, a macro lens with a short focal length (say, the EF-s 60 or EF 100 macro lenses) can double portrait lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="92" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T09:17:36.717" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="515" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5" CreationDate="2010-07-16T09:18:53.020" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Several people have mentioned beanbags and such which are nice, if you want to spend a few bucks on a dedicated solution based on the beanbag concept then check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://thepod.ca/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Pod&lt;/a&gt; series of &quot;beanbags with camera mounts&quot;.  I have been using one for a few years and they are great and don't take up much room.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="189" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T09:18:53.020" />
  <row Id="516" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="480" CreationDate="2010-07-16T09:19:30.777" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Personally, I just try just taking photos of a nice smooth surface (white paper for example) at the smallest possible aperture. Similar to sensor dust, scratches won't be apparent at the larger apertures (small f numbers).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, that all depends on whether or not it's possible to use the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That only covers scratches though. A used lens may have other faults in terms of focussing for example if it has been dropped.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T09:19:30.777" />
  <row Id="517" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="364" CreationDate="2010-07-16T09:22:33.837" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/751/photoevolution.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="189" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T09:22:33.837" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-16T09:22:33.837" />
  <row Id="518" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="480" CreationDate="2010-07-16T09:22:37.347" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Used lenses lose their value fast if they have scratches, on the barrel but especially on the surface of the front or back lens. Those scratches may not show up in pictures, but that's the psychology of buying and selling used gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would spend more attention on other features. Check if the AF works properly, if the lens doesn't wiggle too much when you attach it, and if the zoom ring or focusing ring turn smoothly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="92" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T09:22:37.347" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="519" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="383" CreationDate="2010-07-16T09:26:24.697" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm gonna go out on a bit of a limb and say there are no filters that you &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; have!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally think UV filters are a waste of money, if you think you need it for protection, just be more careful...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a circular polariser that I use more than anything else, but to be honest, I only use that for photos of water and clouds etc which I find to be the most boring photos anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Save your money for some nice glass :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T09:26:24.697" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="520" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="234" CreationDate="2010-07-16T09:27:33.013" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My personal walkabout lens is the Canon 24-70mm f2.8L.  But really it depends on what type of photos you are taking most often.  If you focus of landscape type scenes you will want a different walkabout than someone who focuses on close up details or portraits.  If you are a general photo hobbyist and want a wide range then something like in the 20ish to 100ish range is a good choice.  Also, the amount of money you are willing to part with is a big factor...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="189" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T09:27:33.013" />
  <row Id="521" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="534" CreationDate="2010-07-16T09:36:21.190" Score="17" ViewCount="605" Body="&lt;p&gt;Please can someone explain the &quot;Rule of Thirds&quot;?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;What is it?&#xA;What does it tell me?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Why is it important?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;What can I do with it?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-01T08:09:07.407" LastActivityDate="2011-05-01T08:09:07.407" Title="What is the &quot;Rule of Thirds&quot;?" Tags="&lt;composition&gt;&lt;composition-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="522" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-16T09:37:13.203" Score="1" ViewCount="446" Body="&lt;p&gt;Specifically:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;(not the previous non-macro version. HSM is only on Nikon fit)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Vs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 SP XR Di II LD VC Lens&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;(not the cheaper one without vibration control)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Currently the Sigma is slightly cheaper and offers a macro ability but this question is only concerned with sharpness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure if it matters, but I'm only really interested in the Canon fit versions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks,&#xA;Matt&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-17T01:42:28.550" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T21:20:24.017" Title="Which lens is sharper? The Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 or the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;sigma&gt;&lt;tamron&gt;&lt;wide-aperture&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="523" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="488" CreationDate="2010-07-16T09:39:40.537" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/slr-lens.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon SLR Camera and Lens Compatibility chart&lt;/a&gt; at nikonians.org that probably can answer your question. It depends a bit on what lens it is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T09:39:40.537" />
  <row Id="524" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2010-07-16T09:43:58.430" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;PhotoFocus&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I read PhotoFocus at &lt;a href=&quot;http://photofocus.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://photofocus.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;It's run by a photographer called Scott Bourne, and I have found it a very rich source of ideas, information, news, technique and just plain thought-provoking stuff.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also publishes a podcast (&lt;a href=&quot;http://photofocus.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;same URL&lt;/a&gt;), which I also enjoy.  The podcast is all Q&amp;amp;A, often with famous photographers as guests.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T09:43:58.430" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T03:47:50.670" />
  <row Id="525" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2010-07-16T09:45:22.470" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;DIY Photography&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you enjoy Strobist then you might also enjoy DIY Photography at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diyphotography.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.diyphotography.net/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I find it's a bit varied, but there are some total gems when it comes to home-made photo gear and accessories.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T09:45:22.470" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T03:47:50.670" />
  <row Id="526" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2010-07-16T09:49:47.337" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Scott Kelby&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also follow Scott Kelby at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I find that (apart from promoting his own training and books - which is not a bad thing) Scott gives a good load of news, and has a weekly guest blogger section, where another famous photographer writes an entry.  These can be very thought-provoking and inspirational.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I personally found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2010/archives/11070&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Wright&lt;/a&gt;'s entry extremely encouraging.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T09:49:47.337" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T03:47:50.670" />
  <row Id="527" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="381" CreationDate="2010-07-16T09:52:17.507" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Scott Kelby's &quot;Digital Photography&quot;&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first book to really improve your photography quickly is Scott Kelby's &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/032147404X&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Photography&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's really a hints and tips book, but I came away from it with a lot of really good solid practical things which I now include in my photography.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T09:52:17.507" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="528" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="521" CreationDate="2010-07-16T09:52:29.630" Score="20" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The rule of thirds suggest that you should divide the image area into a 3x3 grid, and then position compositional elements of the image along the lines between those cells, preferably where vertical and horizontal lines meet:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;|---|---|---|&#xA;|   |   |   |&#xA;|---X---X---|&#xA;|   |   |   |&#xA;|---X---X---|&#xA;|   |   |   |&#xA;|---|---|---|&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rule of thirds is a simplification of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;golden ratio&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is that an image will be more pleasing to the eye if important elements of the image is positioned according to this rule, rather than positioned in the center of an image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, it's just a rule of thumb and as such should not be followed blindly. Sometimes breaking it and positioning the subject extremely far out towards an edge or corner or even in the center of the image lead to a stronger composition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastEditorUserId="10" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T09:59:48.550" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T09:59:48.550" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="529" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="381" CreationDate="2010-07-16T09:55:05.243" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Digital Portrait Photography by Steve Sint&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best book I have ever read on photography is Steve Sint's &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1600593356&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Portrait Photography&lt;/a&gt;.  It is very rich, full of information with no padding.  I learned new stuff from nearly every page.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As well as covering composition, interacting with your subject(s) and a little about equipment, this book includes the best lighting primer I have come across.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T09:55:05.243" />
  <row Id="530" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-16T09:57:17.520" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read the manual&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T09:57:17.520" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-03T18:24:54.070" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="531" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="379" CreationDate="2010-07-16T10:01:59.703" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;A suggestion - nothing more&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;ISO&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lower your ISO, the less digital noise you will have.  Although modern cameras are improving noise very quickly, I suggest that you start by setting the lowest ISO you have.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Shutter&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To start out with, you probably don't want any motion blur in your photos, so set the shutter speed at faster than, say 1/50 of a second.  (The rule of thumb is to have the shutter going at least as fast as the length of the lens, so at least 1/50 of a second for a 50mm lens, at least 1/100 of a second for a 100mm lens, etc.)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Apperture&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This leaves apperture - leave apperture on automatic so that you can get the correct exposure having set the ISO and shutter speeds.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try it out and see how it works for you - then have fun changing things.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;When changing settings, it is often best to choose one setting and change that, rather than making lots of alterations at once.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-04T15:29:35.840" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T15:29:35.840" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="532" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="535" CreationDate="2010-07-16T10:14:34.280" Score="11" ViewCount="194" Body="&lt;p&gt;Or to put it differently - how to keep the highlights from blowing and shadows losing details? &#xA;EDIT: I'm mostly interested in what can be done in the field to get me the optimal data to begin with, not during post-processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T12:36:51.087" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T08:44:09.250" Title="What techniques do you employ to control contrast in your landscape shots?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;landscape&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="533" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="574" CreationDate="2010-07-16T10:14:48.180" Score="16" ViewCount="458" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going travelling around the world for a year in September and am already panicking about how best to send my photos home while in various countries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Requirements:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I only need to backup JPEG files (I don't shoot RAW bu that's another thread ;) )&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I need to be able to upload in a web-based manner (I will be using internet cafes and so can't assume I can use FTP etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I need plenty of space, preferably unlimited (I racked up about 200GB last year)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I need to store the full image (no lossy compression is acceptable!)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Options I can think of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Burning and posting DVDs (can I trust these in the post and not to get corrupt? it may be better than waiting for upload speed though...)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flickr (I have a pro account but not sure how hard it'll be to get the photos back down again. Will I even be able to get the original snaps?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Setting up a server at a friend's house and hosting some kind of file server with a web-app front end&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What have other people done or does anyone else have a better idea?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-Matt&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-20T18:34:29.753" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T06:24:20.157" Title="How can I backup my photos while travelling?" Tags="&lt;storage&gt;&lt;backup&gt;&lt;travel&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="534" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="521" CreationDate="2010-07-16T10:17:36.833" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The rule of thirds is actually the golden ratio. It's a number that divides a line into roughly 2/3 and 1/3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In photography it's used to make images more dynamic. If you place the subject in the center of the image, it's percieved as balanced and perhaps dull (unless the subject is very strong in itself), while if you place the subject at one side you add a tension between the subject and the empty space:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;&amp;lt;--------2/3---------&amp;gt;&amp;lt;-----1/3-----&amp;gt;&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.guffa.com/photos/small/991-09480.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This can be applied both horizontally and vertically, and used for different purposes. The lower right spot is considered positive while the upper left is considered negative, which can be used to enhance what you want to express with the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T10:25:39.790" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T10:25:39.790" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="535" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="532" CreationDate="2010-07-16T10:19:29.297" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduated_filter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;graduated filter&lt;/a&gt; to tone down bright skies&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take multiple exposures and use a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;HDR&lt;/a&gt; technique to combine them (personally I hate these but that's a taste thing)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take your photos at sunrise/sunset when the light is more manageable. I find mornings best as waters are calmer and there are fewer people around etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T10:19:29.297" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="536" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="533" CreationDate="2010-07-16T10:26:45.547" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dropbox.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dropbox&lt;/a&gt; but it's a bit expensive&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;You could also take a Virtual Private Servers, some providers provide low performance server but with very big storage capacity for a cheap price (around 5$ by month). It will be cheaper than dropbox but it's your work to manage a web front end to upload files&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have money, taking an SSD drive to keep with you a copy of photo is also a good idea.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Posting DVDs/SSD can be a solution but depending of country you visit I would not trust this solution but you can use more reliable service like UPS in some countries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="34" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T10:26:45.547" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="537" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="479" CreationDate="2010-07-16T10:29:30.833" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you take a simple portrait of someone in daylight on the camera's auto mode you should expect the camera to expose the photo correctly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it looks dark on your screen you probably need to adjust the monitor settings. Here's a website with some simple test images to see if your screen needs adjusting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T10:29:30.833" />
  <row Id="538" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="483" CreationDate="2010-07-16T10:39:23.913" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't know about &quot;best&quot; but I quite like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neatimage.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NeatImage&lt;/a&gt;. Windows 32/64 and Mac OS X, with plugins for Photoshop and Aperture. Prices start at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neatimage.com/purchase.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;$29.90/€24.90&lt;/a&gt; and there's also a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neatimage.com/featuremap.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Demo&lt;/a&gt; edition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="179" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T10:39:23.913" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="539" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="402" CreationDate="2010-07-16T10:40:32.727" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;John Wright&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.johnwrightphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.johnwrightphoto.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I love his attitude.  I love the style of his photos.  I would like to emulate some of both.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I was especially inspired by John's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2010/archives/11070&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;recent guest post&lt;/a&gt; on Scott Kelby's blog.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T10:40:32.727" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-16T10:40:32.727" />
  <row Id="540" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-16T10:51:28.530" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;LIGHT - Learn how it impact the photos you shot. No matter what camera and what your skill lever is the light is the most important factor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I you do landscapes for example, get up early in the morning when the sun is very low and I guarantee you photos will look much better than if you were to take them in the middle of the day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The light before the sunset will give you photos a warm feeling - nice for portraits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally shooting photos when the sun is low - will give much better 3D look to you photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Experiment, shot against the sun for example, if the some object are too dark use some sort of reflector or fill in flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T10:51:28.530" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-03T18:24:54.070" />
  <row Id="541" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="533" CreationDate="2010-07-16T10:52:10.230" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fast internet access can be a problem in many remote locations (esp. Africa, Asia and South America). I'd suggest buying a bunch of 16 GB SD cards and copying each file on two cards. Then you keep one copy with you and send another home via mail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="179" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T10:52:10.230" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="542" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="532" CreationDate="2010-07-16T10:53:14.880" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use a single shot in RAW with HDR techniques. A RAW file has a lot more dynamic range than most people assume. You can get by with simple gradient masks in Photoshop or Lightroom to get decent results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that taking multiple exposures does not equate HDR but rather pseudo-HDR, and can result in difference between exposures (leaves blowing in the wind, people moving around, clouds moving) that need to be dealt with in post.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="92" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T10:53:14.880" />
  <row Id="543" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="351" CreationDate="2010-07-16T10:55:14.813" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You got this far. Don't give up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="92" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T10:55:14.813" />
  <row Id="544" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="522" CreationDate="2010-07-16T11:07:06.120" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have not used either, but this website has quite a bit of data, you might try your comparisons there:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/482-tamron_1750_28vc_canon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamron&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/531-sigma1750f28os&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sigma&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I saw a new lens comparison website a month ago and it looked promising, but for the life of me, I can't find it now.  I hope someone can post a link to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T11:07:06.120" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="545" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="178" CreationDate="2010-07-16T11:09:52.980" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Try to &lt;strong&gt;form triangles with your body&lt;/strong&gt;. For example, I might sit on the floor with my bum and each foot forming a triangle on the floor, then knees together and elbows on knees.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Self-timer mode&lt;/strong&gt; is handy too to stop you moving the camera as you press the shutter. Some cameras have a 2 second shutter time for this purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also &lt;strong&gt;cup the lens&lt;/strong&gt; in your left hand so that your palm is facing upwards and thumb pointing forwards rather than fingers on top with thumb underneath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T11:09:52.980" />
  <row Id="546" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="564" CreationDate="2010-07-16T11:24:12.770" Score="3" ViewCount="287" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a keyboard shortcut to step through presets in Lightroom?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have development presets grouped in folders, for example one of them is B&amp;amp;W.&#xA;I often find myself stepping through a number of presents in a group to get a look I like for a particular photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the moment it is mouse-click on the preset and Ctr+Z to undo if I do not like it then click on the next one, etc.. Can I step through presets using just the keyboard?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T20:22:54.487" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T20:22:54.487" Title="Lightroom - keyboard shortcut to step through presets" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;keyboard-shortcuts&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="547" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="511" CreationDate="2010-07-16T11:28:34.213" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The two lens you own might work, but be aware that their minimum focusing distance might not fit what you need.  Macro lenses are special in that they have a much shorter MFD than regular lenses - this means that you can get closer to your subject and still focus, giving you a much larger subject for the same resolution.  This is important when photographing bugs and flower stamen, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the rings / filter debate, a couple things to keep in mind:&#xA; - rings have no glass, so they don't reduce light, change color quality, or reduce sharpness&#xA; - rings can stack, multiplying the effect&#xA; - rings without AF support can be extremely inexpensive&#xA; - filters can sometimes not carry additional filters on top of them - this can make it difficult if you want to attach a polarizer or some other filter&#xA; - filters cannot be used on all cameras, unless you buy a larger one (77mm for your 24-70) and also buy a step down ring.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might also try and older toy called a &lt;a href=&quot;http://elshaw.tripod.com/Visoflex/UFB.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;focusing bellows&lt;/a&gt; - its similar to a ring, but its in accordion style, and lets you incrementally change your focus, allowing you to do focus stack macros.  These are like the HDR of macro shots.  Check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/lordv/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lord V. on flickr&lt;/a&gt; for examples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T11:28:34.213" />
  <row Id="548" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="383" CreationDate="2010-07-16T11:31:26.610" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;UV Filters are a must have in my book, for protections sake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T11:31:26.610" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="549" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="533" CreationDate="2010-07-16T11:38:08.830" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It all depends on the risks that you're backing up against but one option you'd missed is the dedicated devices for backing up memory cards (Jobo and the like) - we had one of these circulating at our wedding, so that all the guests didn't have to worry about memory card space. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T11:38:08.830" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="550" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="533" CreationDate="2010-07-16T11:42:13.193" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Google Picasaweb. It has a web-based interface and a &quot;Private albums&quot; feature. For 200GB of storage it's $50/year, which isn't too bad. (You can purchase more, up to 16TB, should you need it.) You can also bulk upload from it's desktop client.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="150" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T11:42:13.193" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="551" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="70" CreationDate="2010-07-16T11:58:13.787" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The ISO number (sometimes ASA) is a standardised measurement of how sensitive the film (or digital sensor) is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Higher ISO film tended to have more grain; and higher ISO digital shots exhibit more noise - a similar cause, but the visual appearance is different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Digital ISO noise is related to the size of each pixel, as the noise is per-pixel (so the more pixels you have, the less obvious noise is when viewed the same size). One analogy I've used in the past to demonstrate this is to ask several people to time with a stopwatch how long it takes a car to drive around a car park, and then to time how long a person takes to do the same journey - because the person is slower, the margin of error is a smaller in proportion to the overall figure, even though different people will give timings to within a few seconds of each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T11:58:13.787" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="552" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="533" CreationDate="2010-07-16T12:16:57.507" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use Epson P-5000 Multimedia Storage Viewer - it has 80 GB Hard Drive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="81" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T12:16:57.507" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="553" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="483" CreationDate="2010-07-16T12:39:55.370" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.picturecode.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Noise Ninja.&lt;/a&gt;  I don't have any experience with the other so I'm not sure how to compare it, but it did seem relatively easy to use, albeit a little overwhelming in terms of features and controls offered.  I think the home standalone is around $35.  You can buy plug in versions for photoshop, etc as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T12:39:55.370" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="554" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="483" CreationDate="2010-07-16T12:44:29.683" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you shoot Canon, their &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/content/dpp2/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Digital Photo Professional&quot;&lt;/a&gt; software that comes with the cameras actually has a pretty decent noise removal tool.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T12:44:29.683" />
  <row Id="555" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="557" CreationDate="2010-07-16T12:57:18.080" Score="10" ViewCount="181" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some Canon cameras can be hacked with a tool called the Canon Hack Development Kit (&lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://chdk.wikia.com&lt;/a&gt;), which does interesting things like add manual controls and allow scripting. Do similar tools exist for other brands of cameras? HP cameras, in particular?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="150" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T02:26:43.573" LastActivityDate="2010-09-13T11:16:57.790" Title="Is it possible to hack other brands of cameras in a manner similar to Canon cameras?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;manual-focus&gt;&lt;firmware-hacks&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="556" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="561" CreationDate="2010-07-16T13:04:55.257" Score="15" ViewCount="565" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am on a tight budget and chose to use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gimp.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;GIMP&lt;/a&gt; for editing since it is free.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What important photographic post-processing features am I missing from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/?promoid=BPDEK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photoshop&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-26T19:12:37.530" LastActivityDate="2011-03-06T05:42:29.137" Title="What are the key photography-related features from Photoshop that are missing in GIMP?" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;open-source&gt;&lt;gimp&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="557" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="555" CreationDate="2010-07-16T13:07:57.243" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The chdk project is the only one I've heard of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T13:07:57.243" />
  <row Id="558" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="522" CreationDate="2010-07-16T13:09:13.653" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are some reviews, with data for the Tamron, but not the Sigma:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Lenses/Lens-Test-Sigma-18-50mm-f-2.8-EX-DC-Macro&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Lenses/Lens-Test-Sigma-18-50mm-f-2.8-EX-DC-Macro&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;http://www.popphoto.com/tamron/2010/03/lens-test-tamron-sp-17-50mm-f28-xr-di-ii-vc-af&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And here with data for the Sigma, but not the Tamron:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lens-reviews.com/Lenses/Sigma/Sigma-18-50mm-f2.8-EX-DC-Macro.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://lens-reviews.com/Lenses/Sigma/Sigma-18-50mm-f2.8-EX-DC-Macro.html&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;http://lens-reviews.com/Lenses/Tamron/Tamron-SP-AF17-50mm-F2.8-XR-Di-II-LD-Aspherical-IF.html&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...other than those and other reviews you can find with Google, you might want to check Flickr for full size photos you can inspect in their original sizes to compare the lenses.  Just make sure you get a large sampling of data since some people are better with sharpening than others and lack of focus, low light, and motion can all make a lens look worse than it is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="110" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T13:09:13.653" />
  <row Id="559" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="305" CreationDate="2010-07-16T13:09:51.407" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You should avoid turning the focus motor by hand. The motor itself will probably take it, but the transmission from the motor to the focus ring is where you put the strain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there is a resistance when turning the focus motor by hand, it means that there is a gear system for reducing the high speed of the motor to the low speed of the focus ring. When the motor is pulling the gears, there is little resistance as it's always a smaller gear pulling a larger. When you turn the motor by hand, there is a lot more resistance as it's always a larger gear pulling a smaller one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T13:09:51.407" />
  <row Id="560" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12" CreationDate="2010-07-16T13:10:32.217" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just take it to a local camera shop / repair man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've done it once and the camera came back pristine. I paid £35 (~$55) in the UK&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T13:10:32.217" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="561" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="556" CreationDate="2010-07-16T13:14:42.110" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For photos? Not too much, actually. GIMP lacks automatic HDR processing. It doesn't have adjustment layers - although you don't need those too much for photos. Photoshop's Hue\Saturation dialog is superior. Photoshop CS5 has content-aware fill, which GIMP lacks, but there's a GIMP plugin called Resynth that does about the same thing:&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.logarithmic.net/pfh/resynthesizer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.logarithmic.net/pfh/resynthesizer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some pretty good art has been done in GIMP. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_117_dSzJg2A/S__PT2xd5cI/AAAAAAAAA8Y/vHrLL6Lt0iI/s1600/Snow_Gate.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;My snow photomanip, for instance&lt;/a&gt;) It's more about the artist's skill than the tools he\she uses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="150" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T13:14:42.110" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="562" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="556" CreationDate="2010-07-16T13:29:09.317" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The big one is bit depth. GIMP can only deal in 8 bits per channel internally (by default - see below), Photoshop and others 16 or more. This leads to loss of precision problems even if the output image is only 8 bits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Suppose you have a pixel with the value 196.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You make an edit which doubles this value: the correct doubling is 394, but since you only have 8 bits of precision, you clip the channel and get 255 instead.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You make another edit which halves the value, resulting in 127 (half of 255), but the correct result is 196 (since (196*2)/2 = 196).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you were operating in 16-bit space, all this would work correctly and you'd be back at 196.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Higher bit depths have been coming to GIMP &quot;real soon now&quot; for years. The current status is that GIMP 2.6 has 32-bit working space that you can turn on in the preferences, but it's still considered experimental.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T18:26:45.367" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T18:26:45.367" CommentCount="16" />
  <row Id="563" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="305" CreationDate="2010-07-16T13:30:55.223" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This depends on the lens. Focus can be overridden manually for Canon lenses with ring USM designation and Nikon lenses that have MA/M (manual-auto/manual) switch. As already mentioned, if there is any resistance/specific noise when turning the focus ring, you probably shouldn't be doing this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T13:30:55.223" />
  <row Id="564" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="546" CreationDate="2010-07-16T13:42:09.253" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the unfortunate answer to your question is......you can't.  Sorry!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps it might be possible to use some kind of automation system to do this outside of Lightroom (if you could guarantee each preset was going to be in exactly the same place on the screen every time, for example), but that's all I've got!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="96" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T13:42:09.253" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="565" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="290" CreationDate="2010-07-16T13:45:57.870" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blurb.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;blurb&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photobox.co.uk/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photobox&lt;/a&gt; have both been good for me. My tip would be to use as few photos as possible rather than just chucking them all in. If you can't choose between two similar photos then toss a coin, don't be tempted to put them both in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's quite boring when someone shows you their wedding photos and the book has millions of identical images in it yet you have to smile and keep saying how nice it is ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T13:45:57.870" />
  <row Id="566" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="573" CreationDate="2010-07-16T13:50:48.017" Score="9" ViewCount="336" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Nikon D80 I seem to remember having read somewhere that it should be possible to take photos in it using something called a second curtain technique. My question is does anybody know if this is so and how to go about it with the D80 (instructions for other camera models would be cool too)? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also what kind of photos would this technique be best for?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="87" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-11T00:34:13.813" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T00:34:13.813" Title="What is second-curtain or rear-curtain technique?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;second-curtain&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="567" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="305" CreationDate="2010-07-16T13:52:09.790" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a rule of thumb, don't turn anything that has a motor engaged, it doesn't matter if it's your camera lens or your garage door.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put the lens in manual mode to disengage the motor, then turn the focus ring all you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="32" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T13:52:09.790" />
  <row Id="568" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="383" CreationDate="2010-07-16T13:52:39.523" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;At the least, I get a clear filter (Hoya usually, sometimes Nikon) just to help protect the lens from surprises that include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Accidental spraying (Happens more than you'd think)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dusty environments&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Work where you have to go through heavily wooded areas&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It puts one cheap peace of glass in front of much more expensive glass. A friend of mine had a $500 prime bite the dust when a passing car kicked up a small rock. What are the chances?? But it does happen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the other filters, it depends entirely on what you are shooting. I usually carry a warming filter, a grad, and maybe a UV depending on what I'm doing. Most of the time, I just leave them at home, with the exception of the clear / protective filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, its not so much the body, but the lens and the conditions you are shooting in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="52" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T13:52:39.523" />
  <row Id="569" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="383" CreationDate="2010-07-16T13:52:48.387" Score="27" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;To Summarise&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is an attempt to summarise the widely-held opinions of photographers in general.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I believe this is a fair distillation of views.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adding any filter risks adding &lt;strong&gt;lens flare&lt;/strong&gt; and reducing sharpness&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The effect of most filters can be &lt;strong&gt;reproduced in post&lt;/strong&gt; processing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The only filter which cannot be adequately reproduced in post is a &lt;strong&gt;polarising filter&lt;/strong&gt; (particularly when used to remove / reduce reflections / glare).  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Neutral Density&lt;/strong&gt; filters are sometimes necessary.  For example: when the photographer wants to reduce the amount of light entering the lens to allow a wide apperture and a long exposure (for example, when photographing flowing water).  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;UV Filters&lt;/strong&gt;:&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Many photographers feel that it is worthwhile to put a UV filter on the front of every lens, on the basis that this will protect the front lens element - from dust, scratches and catastrophic damage if the lens is dropped.  In other words, it is a kind of insurance policy against lens damage.  I understand that Scott Kelby takes this position.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Many (other) photographers believe that this practice is not worthwhile:  they may feel that the reduction in image quality (actual or potential) is not justified by this &quot;insurance policy&quot;.  I have heard Scott Bourne articulate this belief.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this is a fair and sensitive summary ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T13:58:08.840" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T13:58:08.840" CommentCount="18" />
  <row Id="570" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="707" CreationDate="2010-07-16T14:00:12.173" Score="13" ViewCount="213" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to buy some more rechargable batteries (AAs) for my flashes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose I mainly care about:&#xA; - Quick recycling of the flash&#xA; - Hold their charge when not in use&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although bonuses for:&#xA; - Long lasting (on a single charge)&#xA; - Long lasting (before they need to be thrown away (recycled) )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is brand important? What types are available? Show I just get the highest mAh?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastEditorUserId="190" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-05T10:01:54.733" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T10:01:54.733" Title="What attributes should I look for when buying batteries for a flash?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;batteries&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="8" />
  <row Id="571" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="566" CreationDate="2010-07-16T14:00:48.380" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Second curtain sync is a flash-related term. In usual first curtain mode the flash is fired just after shutter opens, while in second curtain case the flash is fired just before shutter closes. This makes a difference with slow shutter speeds making the motion blur appear after moving objects instead of before them. Here's an example of second-curtain sync usage: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/30093796@N07/4588904009/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/30093796@N07/4588904009/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T14:00:48.380" />
  <row Id="572" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="566" CreationDate="2010-07-16T14:11:26.420" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've always heard it called &quot;rear curtain&quot; too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the blurb from DPS: &lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/slow-sync-flash&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://digital-photography-school.com/slow-sync-flash&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A key difference from front (first) curtain is that movement blur will seem to &lt;em&gt;end&lt;/em&gt; at the solid image instead of begin, so people and objects will appear to be moving in the direction they actually were rather than the opposite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T14:11:26.420" />
  <row Id="573" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="566" CreationDate="2010-07-16T14:15:10.500" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nikon refers to this as rear curtain sync.  You can turn it on by holding down the flash button and turning the command dial to move between the different flash modes available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rear curtain sync is available in Program-Auto, Aperture priority, and Manual modes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check out the D80 manual for more info:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/dslr/D80_en.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/dslr/D80_en.pdf&lt;/a&gt; (PDF)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T14:15:10.500" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="574" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="533" CreationDate="2010-07-16T14:19:46.650" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depends on how much you value your shots. Last year my wife and I took a 5 month photographic trip and we took:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Laptop&lt;/strong&gt;: We had Lightroom to download and do a basic selection every night (out of focus pictures don't need to take any disk space!). Photoshop to do some basic retouches if we wanted to publish them on Flickr, etc. And a large enough HD to store the whole trip.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;6 4GB memory cards&lt;/strong&gt;: we numbered them and made sure to rotate them correctly so we kept the pictures in there the longest possible time as backup. We rather use more cards with less GB to diversify risk. If you are in the middle of nowhere and your only 16 GB card breaks you are SOL.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 300GB USB HD&lt;/strong&gt;: once the pictures were classified on the laptop we backed them up to one drive and mirrored on the other.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Online storage is not practical when you are travelling because of the time it takes to upload the amount of data you will generate. This way we felt very confident that we weren't going to lose any data, at any given time pictures were stored in up to 4 different places at the same time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And to send home, select up to 5 pictures of each escapade and post them on Flickr. Selection is key.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="32" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T14:19:46.650" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="575" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4" CreationDate="2010-07-16T14:24:05.940" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do want to have a lens cap for when the camera is in a bag/case. I basically have two modes of usage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One is I'm out and about and taking quite a few photos. I will fit a lens hood and leave the cap in the camera bag. The hood gives plenty of protection against knocking the front and I can shoot easily.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other mode is when I'm sitting around with friends and family and taking the occasional shot. Then I take the cap off and hold it in my left hand while I take the shot and put it straight back on afterwards. (I have large hands which helps with that case).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh and like others I use UV filters aswell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T14:24:05.940" />
  <row Id="576" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5" CreationDate="2010-07-16T14:26:48.007" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're going to be hiking, many walking / hiking sticks have a camera compatible screw mount under the handle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="33" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T14:26:48.007" />
  <row Id="577" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="583" CreationDate="2010-07-16T14:27:20.440" Score="11" ViewCount="187" Body="&lt;p&gt;I love photography.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I love capturing beautiful images and preserving precious memories.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I believe that I have a gift for this - one which I have worked hard to hone and grow over recent years.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am wondering about trying to earn some of my income from my photography.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;However, I find the thought very scary:  surely I can't be good enough?  Yet I think that I can consistently get results as good as most of what I find online.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can I tell if I'm good enough?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Am I even asking the right question?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What questions should I be asking myself?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-22T04:03:34.830" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T04:03:34.830" Title="How do I know if I'm ready to turn professional?" Tags="&lt;business&gt;&lt;professional&gt;&lt;amateur&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="578" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="484" CreationDate="2010-07-16T14:33:35.947" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One advantage with older film cameras is that they don't rely on a battery - your battery won't run out, and it won't not work when you're somewhere really cold. (I used to do a lot of mountaineering and when you're at altitude before dawn it's pretty cold, and batteries don't work well when it's really cold.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an example I still have my dad's old reliable Olympus OM-1. It does strictly have a battery, but only for the light meter so you can still guess the light and take a photo. The aperture and exposure time are set by physical controls and taking photos is all mechanical. A wonderful first camera, though I have to admit sadly gathering dust these days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T14:33:35.947" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="579" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="577" CreationDate="2010-07-16T14:34:08.893" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a pretty complicated question, with a number of answers.  First of all, I think you should be at the point where you are &lt;em&gt;already&lt;/em&gt; making money from hobby photography - either through small product shoots, architectural stuff from craigslist, shooting friends small weddings, etc.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, if you already have a job, and you are looking to replace it, then its pretty easy - do you know that you could be making more money with photography, but your job is in the way?  Can you project your income from photography, plus the additional benefit of doing something you like, putting you past the income of your current job?  If so, its time to think about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third, have you subjected your work to a series of peer reviews?  This may be the most important step, in my opinion.  Make sure that you have a good resource of pro photogs, and see what they think about your work.  Take their advice and improve certain aspects that they recommend.  Keep in mind that while a number of people out there shoot as wedding photographers, baby photographers, and class photographers, they probably wouldn't really fit into the skill level of a true &quot;professional&quot;.  I guess what I mean to say is that you can make money, or you can make money &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; take good shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course this is all said by a photog thats made less than a total of $1k!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T14:34:08.893" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="580" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="471" CreationDate="2010-07-16T14:42:57.390" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digikam.org/drupal/about/features9x&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;digikam&lt;/a&gt; - it supports 300 RAW formats. You can see previews in the organise mode and edit RAW photos with the built in editor. The editor supports 16 bit colour depth and has enough features to support most amateurs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think Raw Therapee might be a little better technically as a stand alone editor, but if you're not a pixel peeker then digikam makes life pretty easy by supporting all the photo management needs in one place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T14:42:57.390" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-10T15:23:42.103" />
  <row Id="581" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3705" CreationDate="2010-07-16T14:46:50.597" Score="12" ViewCount="165" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently got married, and new what I wanted in a photography.  Cost was a big concern, so I spent some time on Craigslist reviewing the websites of the various &quot;pros&quot; that posted there.  Most were below the quality that I expected - often times it was someone with an entry level dslr, a couple mid range lenses, and stock website, and only two or three wedding examples to show off.  I finally found a photographer that I liked.  They charged $1500 for engagement photos and 8 hours of prep and during wedding shots, plus post processing, and N free prints.  They also gave my all digital negatives, which was awesome.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I went with them, and was extremely disappointed in nearly every shot we received. They lacked an overall knowledge of exposure, and even a good sense of composition.  We had several shots where the hill edge of our rolling vineyards cut straight through my bride's head.  This is a big no-no, and one he should have caught through the viewfinder.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am now convinced the pictures on his website were stock photos that he purchased, rather than shots he actually took himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in when it comes down to it, and you need to shell out quite a bit of money for a photographer, what are some tips to choose the right one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastEditorUserId="130" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-02T20:16:16.137" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T09:24:54.230" Title="How do I choose a professional photographer for my wedding or newborn?" Tags="&lt;professional&gt;&lt;wedding&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="582" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="570" CreationDate="2010-07-16T14:51:30.117" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You probably want a name-brand high capacity &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-metal_hydride_battery&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NI-MH&lt;/a&gt; rechargeable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The higher capacity the better and to improve their lifespan use a &quot;peak-detecting&quot; charger, that will avoid damaging the batteries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The higher the mAh number the better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a good review of the top brands at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metaefficient.com/rechargeable-batteries/best-rechargeable-batteries-battery-chargers.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.metaefficient.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T14:58:43.407" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T14:58:43.407" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="583" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="577" CreationDate="2010-07-16T14:51:37.510" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My tips:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Don't assume you're good&lt;/strong&gt; because friends and family say your are.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Don't start with weddings&lt;/strong&gt;. Wait until you've done a few simpler things first (christenings / babies etc). You may be a great photographer when snapping flowers but how are your people skills / planning skills etc.?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Try to sell some&lt;/strong&gt; stock photos or prints in a market.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Go for it!&lt;/strong&gt; Just don't quit your job until you have run out of weekends and are turning down bookings ;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T14:51:37.510" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="584" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="484" CreationDate="2010-07-16T14:55:57.813" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think we can talk about quality difference anymore. The definite difference, in my opinion, is the need of power of digital cameras. If you are going mountain climbing then a film camera might be more appropriate since mountains still lack power plugs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, film cameras have a very low starting price. If you are a novice it is economically convenient to be able to have an SLR for almost nothing just to see if you like photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other than that, there's the love some people have for manually developing film, but that's about it from my point of view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="32" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T14:55:57.813" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="585" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="581" CreationDate="2010-07-16T14:56:22.210" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ask for references&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;choose someone who you get along with personally.  Even if you just met the photographer, you'll be able to tell if you guys &quot;click&quot; or not.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;choose a photographer whose style you like, then let the photographer use that style.  Don't hire someone with a photojournalistic style if you want to give them a list of 50 posed shots you want.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ask if they're insured&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T14:56:22.210" />
  <row Id="586" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="619" CreationDate="2010-07-16T14:56:24.877" Score="23" ViewCount="676" Body="&lt;p&gt;Digital photos can have colour filters applied after the fact by software, so are there any good reasons to use colour filters with a digital camera? As I understand it, the main reason for them originally was for effects with black and white film, but now even black and white is a post-processing effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that UV filters are good for lens protection, and that ND filters allow you to use longer exposures, but what use are colour filters?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-31T22:10:15.470" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T22:10:15.470" Title="Are there reasons to use colour filters with digital cameras?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;filters&gt;&lt;color-filters&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="587" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="586" CreationDate="2010-07-16T14:57:49.337" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With the flexibility offered by digital image programs such as Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, and such, there is no reason to use a colored filter on a digital camera.  ND filters and polarizers can obtain effects that aren't possible purely through software, but for adding a color cast to an image there's no reason to purchase or carry around a physical filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T14:57:49.337" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="588" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="586" CreationDate="2010-07-16T14:59:41.687" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, if you want to spend &lt;strong&gt;less&lt;/strong&gt; time behind your computer, attach a color filter on your lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T14:59:41.687" />
  <row Id="589" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="581" CreationDate="2010-07-16T15:00:49.080" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've not needed to do this yet (despite pressure from a would-be-mother-in-law) but I would suggest asking the photographer if you can see the full set of photos (s)he took on their most recent shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have to bear in mind that a photographer's portfolio only shows you their &lt;em&gt;best&lt;/em&gt; shots which could just be luck and offers no indication of how consistent they are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To steal a quote from golfer Gary Player:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The harder you practice, the luckier&#xA;  you get.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T15:00:49.080" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="590" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="616" CreationDate="2010-07-16T15:01:08.627" Score="6" ViewCount="241" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm interested in efficient processing of RAW photos on Linux. I've played with RAW a little, but so far I've always reverted back to JPG as I can't be bothered to spend hours doing post-processing. But if I could find a pretty quick way of tweaking RAW photos then I might try again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/471/&quot;&gt;tools for working with RAW files in Linux&lt;/a&gt;, but which of them let you do things like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;correct the white balance on one photo and then apply that to a whole set of photos?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;have a process of a couple of clicks per photo in some application?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or is RAW post-processing simply not worth doing if you don't take the time to process each photo individually?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-22T04:06:43.467" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T04:06:43.467" Title="Which software can batch-process RAW photos on Linux?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;workflow&gt;&lt;linux&gt;&lt;batch&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="591" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="493" CreationDate="2010-07-16T15:03:51.880" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It might just be a personal thing, but I prefer to let my computer do the heavy lifting of stitching (&lt;a href=&quot;http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/groups/ivm/ice/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Microsoft ICE&lt;/a&gt; for me) and processing my photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other than the limitation that you pointed out, I wonder about the ability to individually edit the photos - if the camera just produces one image instead of allowing you access to each one or something like that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="166" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T15:03:51.880" />
  <row Id="592" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="586" CreationDate="2010-07-16T15:04:49.710" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you shoot RAW, then there isn't much reason to use color filters anymore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you shoot jpeg, then you're better off getting it right the first time rather than doing processing afterwards, so color filters are quite useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T15:04:49.710" />
  <row Id="593" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="605" CreationDate="2010-07-16T15:10:12.193" Score="15" ViewCount="173" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why don't they make all DSLRs with an electronic shutter? Is it technically possible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Surely this would allow easier syncing with flashes (rather than the usual 1/200s or 1/250s max).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could even imagine a special RAW format that basically recorded all data from the CCD for, say, a second and then in software you could retrospectively shorten that time window. eg. only use data recorded in the first 1/100h of a second...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or am I being stupid?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T15:30:09.160" Title="Why don't they make all DSLRs with an electronic shutter?" Tags="&lt;shutter-speed&gt;&lt;shutter&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="594" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="669" CreationDate="2010-07-16T15:13:02.893" Score="27" ViewCount="883" Body="&lt;p&gt;What does f-stop mean? Is it the same thing when people say &quot;2 stops&quot; for example?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T20:16:01.320" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T20:16:01.320" Title="What does f-stop mean?" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;f-stop&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="11" />
  <row Id="595" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="590" CreationDate="2010-07-16T15:13:38.180" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DCRaw&lt;/a&gt; is the de facto standard for dealing with RAW photos on Linux -- in fact, DCRaw is the basis for the RAW handling in some commercial applications&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T17:08:11.000" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T17:08:11.000" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="596" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="234" CreationDate="2010-07-16T15:14:11.223" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My everyday lens is Canon's 18-200 IS. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a bit weighty and unwieldy, but has good range. And whenever I carry my camera, I have a backpack along as well, and do not really mind the bulk.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The aperture could be better. While 3.5-5.6 is decent, it's by no means stellar. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Focus, on the other hand, is rapid.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="82" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T15:14:11.223" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="597" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="601" CreationDate="2010-07-16T15:15:23.097" Score="19" ViewCount="367" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have found myself using spot metering on several occasions in order to get the right exposure, such as sunsets and on bright days with a subject in the shade.  What other situations are well suited for spot metering instead of the standard matrix mode?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-08T16:28:55.340" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T16:28:55.340" Title="What situations are best suited for spot metering?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;metering&gt;&lt;spot-metering&gt;" AnswerCount="7" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="599" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="594" CreationDate="2010-07-16T15:17:03.270" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;f-stop&quot; is the figure for measuring the aperture, and is measured as a ratio of the focal length (that's the &quot;f&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, at 100mm focal length, with an f-stop of f/2.8, the aperture is physically about 35mm wide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nowadays, most cameras allow the aperture to be adjusted by a third of a stop or half a stop, but &quot;a stop&quot; is either halving the size of the aperture (so f/2.8 to f/4) or doubling it (so f/5.6 to f/4).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, with shutter speeds, one stop is either halving the time ( 1/60 -&gt; 1/120) or doubling it (1/60 -&gt; 1/30)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T15:44:25.763" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T15:44:25.763" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="601" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="597" CreationDate="2010-07-16T15:18:40.213" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Shooting the moon is a pretty good time to use it. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically anytime the subject you actually want a clear photo of is drastically different in brightness compared to the rest of the scene.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="166" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T15:18:40.213" />
  <row Id="602" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="597" CreationDate="2010-07-16T15:19:17.903" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;At a concert spot metering is a good way to go.  Metering on the performers face so that the skin is exposed propertly - rather than the stage, clothing, stage lights, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T15:19:17.903" />
  <row Id="603" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="417" CreationDate="2010-07-16T15:19:23.630" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could consider an old film SLR - you can pick up some real bargains second hand these days. I learned with my dad's old Olympus OM-1 with a 50mm lens - a fully manual camera. (It did need a battery, but that just powered the light meter in the view finder - everything else was mechanical).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reasons for:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;much cheaper to buy the camera&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;not being able to take lots of shots forces you to &lt;em&gt;think&lt;/em&gt; about the shot before you press the shutter - this is a really valuable habit to pick up&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you get to tell the young 'uns &quot;When I started off I didn't have all this technology ...&quot; ;-)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reasons against:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you don't get the instant feedback of the screen, instead having to wait to develop it&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you don't get the camera settings embedded into your image&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you can't use photoshop&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you can't get a zillion photos to try out different things&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;paying for developing film costs money&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And even if you do go digital, spend some time with just a prime lens (ie not a zoom) - picking up the habit of having to think about the shot, and having to move around to try different angles and framing is really useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T15:19:23.630" />
  <row Id="604" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="577" CreationDate="2010-07-16T15:20:02.773" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Don't do it.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The photography business is insanely competitive and it's extremely difficult to make a living. The hours are very long and the pay is bad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Laurence Kim, a pro wedding photographer, on the necessary gear ($4k recommended minimum): &lt;a href=&quot;http://laurencekimblog.com/index.php?link=140&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://laurencekimblog.com/index.php?link=140&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ken Rockwell on going pro: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/go-pro.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/go-pro.htm&lt;/a&gt; (Note that Rockwell is frequently insane, so use caution in reading his work.) The key quote is:&lt;p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you want to photograph professionally you'll make less money, have to shoot the boring stuff in crappy locations for which you're hired, shoot it the way the client wants, and probably have to shoot everything as if it's some big emergency every time. You'll probably only be able to afford beat up old gear that's &quot;good enough.&quot;&lt;p&gt;&#xA;  Making a buck in photography is a lot tougher than keeping a real job. The photo jobs and locations that pay the most are the most boring. Think you're going to have people hiring you as a travel photographer? Guess again. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;On evaluating your own work:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Be able to explain &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; your good photos are good. If you can't do this, you won't be able to consistently replicate high quality, which is essential for a pro.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;+1 on peer reviews. You need to have good people who are willing to be brutally honest, and you need to listen to them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T15:20:02.773" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="605" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="593" CreationDate="2010-07-16T15:24:33.960" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sounds nice but apparently there are currently some technical limitations:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;An electronic shutter requires the sensor to be equipped with what is commonly called &quot;snap shutter&quot; circuitry. Basically, this is a second set of diodes, as big as the light gathering photodiodes, but shielded under a dark cover, and some additional switches. To shoot, the photodiodes are cleared of charge, exposure starts, and at the end of exposure, the charge in the diodes is transferred over to the shielded storage part of the cell. The cell is already full of stuff, so the only way to make space for this extra circuitry is to cut the size of the photodiode in half. Which cuts dynamic range and low light, high ISO performance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00SuYs&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Joseph Wisniewski&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T15:24:33.960" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="606" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-16T15:25:50.390" Score="14" ViewCount="608" Body="&lt;p&gt;What camera was it that made you fall in love with photography? Was it a little crappy point and shoot that you still took great photos with? Was it an old film SLR? The magic of polaroid as a kid? Or the DSLR you bought the other day?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To copy the guidelines from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackoverflow.com/questions/102714/what-was-your-first-home-computer&quot;&gt;equivalent stack overflow question&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As with all poll type Q&amp;amp;As, please make certain your answer is NOT listed already before adding a new answer - searching doesn't always find it (model naming variations, I assume).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;If it already exists&lt;/em&gt;, vote that one up so we see what the most popular answer is, rather than duplicating an existing entry.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you see a &lt;em&gt;duplicate&lt;/em&gt;, vote it down so the top entries have only one of each model listed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;If you have interesting or additional information to add&lt;/em&gt;, use a comment or edit the original entry rather than creating a duplicate.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T13:58:51.580" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-16T15:25:50.390" Title="What camera first made you fall in love with photography?" Tags="&lt;fun&gt;" AnswerCount="31" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="607" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="597" CreationDate="2010-07-16T15:26:47.847" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Any time there is something in the frame that you want to be white or black (and where the subject is still, or at least slow) works well. For white, you can spot meter on the white surface and then overexpose the given reading around 1.5 - 2 stops. For black you do the opposite, measure and then underexpose as much (test with your own camera to figure out exactly how much to adjust the exposure). I often find that this works best with the camera in manual mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T15:26:47.847" />
  <row Id="608" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="593" CreationDate="2010-07-16T15:30:09.160" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowledge-center/why-digital-cameras-have-mechanical-shutters.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Some good readin' here.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some key notes...  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Cameras, typically smaller&#xA;  point-and-shoot cameras, that use no&#xA;  mechanical shutters typically use an&#xA;  interline transfer sensor. An&#xA;  interline transfer sensor dedicates a&#xA;  portion of each pixel to store the&#xA;  charge for that pixel. The added&#xA;  electronics necessary to be able to&#xA;  store the charge for each pixel&#xA;  reduces the fill factor of the pixel,&#xA;  in turn reducing it's ability to&#xA;  capture light since a portion of each&#xA;  pixel is not light sensitive.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Interline transfer sensor's typically&#xA;  have higher noise levels and lower&#xA;  sensitivity than the full frame&#xA;  sensor's used in high end digital&#xA;  SLR's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, basically, the electronics required for an electronic shutter result in compromised image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="50" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T15:30:09.160" />
  <row Id="609" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="586" CreationDate="2010-07-16T15:30:22.047" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depends why you're using a coloured filter in the first place -- if it's to enhance contrast with a B&amp;amp;W shot, then you may be better with doing this at the digital processing stage (unless you've set the camera to shoot in B&amp;amp;W as JPEG)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're wanting to correct or enhance different lighting, you can just fiddle your white balance settings on the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some artistic effects can be achieved through using coloured filters, but software like Photoshop can emulate all of the settings -- it's just a case of when you want to spend the time -- shooting, or processing&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T15:30:22.047" />
  <row Id="610" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1335" CreationDate="2010-07-16T15:30:24.790" Score="50" ViewCount="1203" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am enjoying taking candid photos of people, but the subject is usually someone I know, or it is during some family/friend event, so after a while the people get used to the presence of the camera and act quite naturally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I like &quot;street photography&quot; which captures ordinary people in everyday situations and I am thinking about giving it a try.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have experience in that type of photography, could you share some tips on how to approach people in a way that the the presence of the camera is not too obtrusive, and you can achieve the natural look on your photos?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not interested in paparazzi-style shooting using telephoto lenses, but more in photos taken within the range of 24-85mm lens, which means that you need to be pretty close to the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-12T12:35:23.903" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T12:35:23.903" Title="How do I approach people for a natural look in street photography?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;street-photography&gt;&lt;people&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="24" />
  <row Id="611" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="586" CreationDate="2010-07-16T15:30:46.867" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What you have to take into account are two main variables:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Anything you do at the time you shoot the picture is something you won't do in post-production.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Post-production will always lower picture quality.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taking that into account what you want to do is maximize the output of your shot and minimize post-processing. That is the rationale behind using filters in digital photography: to maximize quality right out of the shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In practice, if you use RAW you will be able to do color filtering with minimal impact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="32" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T15:30:46.867" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="612" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-07-16T15:30:50.610" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_OM-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Olympus OM-1&lt;/a&gt; that was originally my Dad's. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I loved that camera - much smaller than today's monsters. &lt;em&gt;Fully&lt;/em&gt; mechanical - the battery was only required for the light meter. The viewfinder was a real thing of beauty - much more light comes through than the viewfinder of any DSLR I've used. The feel of it in the hand, the lovely clunk of the shutter ... I'll stop now. Suffice to say I loved using it, and still feel the occasional pang of guilt when I think about it gathering dust on a shelf.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Olympus_OM-1.jpg/700px-Olympus_OM-1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Olympus OM-1&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T15:30:50.610" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-16T15:30:50.610" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="613" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="614" CreationDate="2010-07-16T15:32:00.517" Score="9" ViewCount="694" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that there are &quot;gray cards&quot; sold that help with exposure/color correction, but as I'm on a tight budget I'd like to make my own. Is this possible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, are there other objects (paint sample cards for instance) that can be used for color correction?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-02-24T21:43:59.417" Title="DIY Gray card for exposure/color correction." Tags="&lt;diy&gt;&lt;color-correction&gt;&lt;gray-card&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="614" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="613" CreationDate="2010-07-16T15:35:31.843" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Gray cards are super cheap (e.g., &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/231564-REG/Delta_98705C_Gray_Card_4.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;$2.49&lt;/a&gt;) - I wouldn't bother. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T15:35:31.843" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="615" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="586" CreationDate="2010-07-16T15:42:26.403" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would say that the biggest advantage of using filters on the camera rather than post-processing in the computer is that you can see the result on the site, making any necessary adjustments. The same goes for in-camera double exposure instead of stacking frames in the computer; you can get immediate feedback on the result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T15:42:26.403" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="616" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="590" CreationDate="2010-07-16T15:47:32.220" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;May I suggest &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rawstudio.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;RawStudio&lt;/a&gt;? It has support for batch operations of the type you're asking for, and has dramatically simplified my post-processing workflow over my old approach of ufraw + GIMP. If you're familiar with similar &quot;workflow&quot; products on other platforms, the UI should feel pretty comfortable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="14" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T15:47:32.220" />
  <row Id="617" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2010-07-16T15:59:30.843" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not a blog, but a mailing list: &lt;a href=&quot;http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/photography_beginners/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photography Beginners&lt;/a&gt;. They've been around since 2001, and provide a good environment for folks just learning about photography, composition, and the nuts and bolts of their cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="14" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T15:59:30.843" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T03:47:50.670" />
  <row Id="618" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-07-16T16:01:03.073" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Minox_35_GT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Minox 35 GT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A real pocket beauty that handled standard 35mm film. Reputedly a smallest 35mm camera ever mass produced. It had no manual controls but one could fake aperture correction by changing film ISO speed setting (which was not autodetected from the film case).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I took thousands of photos with this camera, all on dia film, and I only stopped when it fell into water and died :(&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also had an original Minox flash for 35 GT which was also a small pocket wonder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Minox_35GT.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Minox 35 GT&quot;&gt;Image by &lt;a href=&quot;http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer%3aSofteis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Softeis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="179" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T16:01:03.073" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-16T16:01:03.073" />
  <row Id="619" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="586" CreationDate="2010-07-16T16:01:14.883" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a difference between &lt;strong&gt;color&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;color correction&lt;/strong&gt; filters although they both are colored. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Color correction filters are useful&lt;/strong&gt; in digital photography to get more &lt;strong&gt;even exposure in all channels&lt;/strong&gt; under some special types of lightning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example you'd probably get more exposure and thus less noise in blue channel if you used blue color correction filter (82A/B/C) under tungsten lightning. It should be noted that these filters have &lt;strong&gt;filter factor&lt;/strong&gt;, meaning one stop gain in noise could mean lost stop in terms of exposure time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Underwater photography is another domain where light is tricky and physical filters are suggested, mostly warming, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://wetpixel.com/i.php/full/filters-and-ambient-light-photography/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fluorescent-correction filters may also apply&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this example two pictures were made in the same conditions under tungsten lightning (street light in winter), the first one shows blue channel from picture without any filtration and the second one blue channel from picture with fairly weak 80D filter. Note the differences in noise. It's important to mention that the white balance reference for both shots was taken from gray card and the blue channel shows more noise in unfiltered case because the blue channel got more amplified in that case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/g1WE7.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Unfiltered image&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/8LIQT.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Blue filter&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The usual &lt;strong&gt;color filters for BW film are not very useful in digital world&lt;/strong&gt; as these can easily result overexposure in one channel and leave the other underexposed and noisy. Putting a strong color filter in front of your lens means that you are using your digital camera inefficiently, as for example in case of red/blue filter, you're using just 25% of your available pixels and 50% in case of green.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The list of filters with their Wratten number and description can be found from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wratten_number&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-27T07:55:23.963" LastActivityDate="2010-09-27T07:55:23.963" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="620" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="610" CreationDate="2010-07-16T16:10:27.603" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lot of it depends on the ability to engage and develop a bit of rapport with casual conversation.  Ask a person about what they're doing.  Compliment them on something they're wearing.  Ask them if they have email and offer to send them a copy of your photo&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T16:10:27.603" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="621" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="634" CreationDate="2010-07-16T16:12:06.060" Score="9" ViewCount="91" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are thousands of photography workshops offered every year, ranging from small/local gatherings to megaconventions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does one know if a workshop will be worthwhile? How do you decide which events might be of the most educational value?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-30T00:23:28.023" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T02:52:10.483" Title="How do you know if a workshop will be good?" Tags="&lt;education&gt;&lt;workshops&gt;&lt;conventions&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="622" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="570" CreationDate="2010-07-16T16:12:14.343" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Rechargeable Ni-Mh batteries have a lower voltage, and a higher current.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;This gives a faster recycle time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use Sanyo Eneloop batteries, which claim to have a long shelf life.  The claim is that they retain 85% of their charge over 12 months.  I have no reason to doubt them, although I have only been using them for 6 months.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T16:12:14.343" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="623" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="230" CreationDate="2010-07-16T16:13:07.820" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.autopano.net/en/photo-stitching-solutions/autopano-pro.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;AutoPano Pro&lt;/a&gt; (commercial, 99 € -- Mac, Windows, Linux) with great results. It merges photos together automatically and is able to blend together photos with several different focal-lengths and even exposures. I now usually just hand-hold a series of shots for a pano rather than bothering to set up a tripod. As long as I am zoomed out enough to crop off the uneven edges, the slight shifts in perspective don't cause merging problems. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its kind of neat to look at the program's detailed merge view to see the key points it has chosen and how it will wildly warp images to merge them together seamlessly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="139" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T16:13:07.820" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-03T13:16:05.547" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="624" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="546" CreationDate="2010-07-16T16:13:44.357" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually, I think you can do this. I'm not at my computer with Lightroom right now, but there is a menu option to copy various settings from a picture and then a key combo to paste them to another pic. The copy settings option lets you choose just to copy certain categories of settings, like just white balance or exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T16:13:44.357" />
  <row Id="625" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="450" CreationDate="2010-07-16T16:24:38.763" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The basic thing I use it for is telling at a quick glance if there is enough light. If the histogram is all on the left, it is too dark and at best you will need to do some post-processing tweaks to get a usable photo. If it is all to the right, it will probably be washed out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that you can recover somewhat from both of these in post-processing, but you will almost certainly have lost some detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T16:24:38.763" />
  <row Id="626" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="570" CreationDate="2010-07-16T16:34:33.043" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I always get the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_self-discharge_NiMH_battery&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Low-Self Discharge batteries&lt;/a&gt; like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.eneloop.info/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SANYO Eneloop&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.duracell.com/en-US/product/pre-charged-rechargeable-batteries.jspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Duracell Pre-charged&lt;/a&gt;.  They have a low discharge rate when not in use and seem to have a longer lifespan than the other rechargeable batteries I have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T16:34:33.043" />
  <row Id="627" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-07-16T16:42:40.600" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canondigitalixus/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon Powershot S100&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My first camera, and it was a digital camera that can fit in my pocket.  I took hundreds of thousands of photos throughout high school with this camera.  I moved on to bigger and better cameras since then, but nothing bit me harder with the photography bug than this camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Ixus-p1010137.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T16:42:40.600" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-16T16:42:40.600" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="628" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="479" CreationDate="2010-07-16T16:43:00.290" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The LCD screen (which is what I assume you mean when you said viewfinder in the question) can't be reliably used to gauge color or exposure.  The best option is to learn how to use the histogram feature on your camera (&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/450/how-and-why-do-you-use-an-image-histogram&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this question can help&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another scenario might be that you have a monitor color problem - the ink provided in matt burns' answer is a good resource.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T16:43:00.290" />
  <row Id="629" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="470" CreationDate="2010-07-16T16:48:44.870" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ebay has pseudo knockoffs that use a plain white plastic covering to assist in white balance correction.  They cost around $3, but your mileage may vary on how accurate they are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T16:48:44.870" />
  <row Id="630" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="610" CreationDate="2010-07-16T16:53:53.427" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think there are many small steps you can take, but it will depend on your personality how fast you move through each.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing that helped me a lot was going to public events. During public events people are more inclined to be photographed, so that will help you break the ice. Try not to go to a G20 protest though :) Maybe Mardi Gras or something like that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another thing that helped was shooting in crowded places. It's easier to just turn around and pretend you are doing something else if you feel too uncomfortable with the situation. But be careful, shooting in a crowded Subway is not the same and can be stressful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I think the last thing is just to be courageous and do it. Most of the times it's your own fear that stops you from doing it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm still working on this one, but I've noticed that if you just lift your camera and shoot nothing bad will happen, and more often than not you will strike a conversation and come out ahead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="32" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T16:53:53.427" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="631" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="869" CreationDate="2010-07-16T16:56:09.320" Score="3" ViewCount="58" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the dos/don'ts when using HMIs?  E.g. hot striking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="203" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T16:06:50.413" Title="What are some precautions to consider when using HMIs?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="632" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="671" CreationDate="2010-07-16T16:59:04.993" Score="7" ViewCount="450" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I shoot portraits indoors, I'd like the option to tether my Nikon D90 to a Windows computer with the USB cable, both to view the results and help adjust the lighting, but also to be making an instant backup of each shot.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anybody have a favorite solution to this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="48" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T18:00:11.957" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T07:58:51.527" Title="Recommendations to tether a Nikon DSLR to a Windows PC?" Tags="&lt;digital&gt;&lt;tethering&gt;&lt;windows&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="633" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-16T16:59:59.593" Score="7" ViewCount="288" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm having trouble getting a nice, smooth light falloff when shooting portraits.  If you look at the left side of David Hobby's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidhobby/4501107816/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;beautiful portrait&lt;/a&gt;, thats the effect I am trying to achieve.  I have used softboxes on alien bees, and small &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lumiquest.com/products/softbox-iii.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lumiquest softbox 3's&lt;/a&gt; on speedlights.  I never seem to get a good fall off, and my guess is because of size of the light source, and placement.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a good set of general guidelines that I can use as a starting point? e.g. use a 4 foot octobox, center at eye level with the model, 1.5 feet out from model's face at center, and 45 degrees off camera axis?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-28T05:26:29.463" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T05:26:29.463" Title="How do I replicate the lighting for this style of portraits?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;lighting-modifiers&gt;&lt;lighting-basics&gt;&lt;strobist&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="634" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="621" CreationDate="2010-07-16T17:03:13.427" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I try to find out who's speaking and research the speaker; read their blog, flip through pages of their book on Amazon, see what other people say about them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T17:03:13.427" />
  <row Id="635" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="414" CreationDate="2010-07-16T17:03:49.900" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Tamron 70-200 2.8. It gets the job done and I've used it plenty for stage photography, but I always wish I forked over that little bit extra for the Canon. My particular lens always hunts and has problem with moving the autofocus motor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T17:03:49.900" />
  <row Id="636" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="633" CreationDate="2010-07-16T17:17:43.387" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It looks like the key was relatively big light on the right side and above the eye level of the model (see reflection in the eyes), I'd say 60 degrees off camera axis and quite close. The falloff might be further softened by some fill light. (David Hobby tends to use ring flash for that purpose.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Also note that it's not importat how big your light is, but how big &lt;em&gt;it look&lt;/em&gt; from the point of view of your subject. Eg. big softbox 20 meters away is going to give you harder light than small softbox right next to the model.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T17:17:43.387" />
  <row Id="637" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="648" CreationDate="2010-07-16T17:30:24.740" Score="9" ViewCount="168" Body="&lt;p&gt;My viewfinder (not LCD) has spots of dust on it.  What is the best way to clean the inside?  I have cleaned the outside with a QTip.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T18:04:53.537" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T18:09:49.957" Title="How do I clean the inside of my viewfinder?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;cleaning&gt;&lt;viewfinder&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="638" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-16T17:40:43.023" Score="1" ViewCount="96" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm shooting 3-perf 35mm @ 24 fps. How many feet of film do I need if I'm shooting one hour?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a good site/app for calculating this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="203" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T17:57:50.090" ClosedDate="2010-07-16T21:14:40.133" Title="How much film do I need (in feet/meters)?" Tags="&lt;film&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="639" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="638" CreationDate="2010-07-16T17:42:19.183" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;4,050 feet of film.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Kodak makes a free app for iOS called &quot;KODAK Cinema Tools&quot; which has a film calculator, among other features.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Tools/Mobile/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Tools/Mobile/index.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For reference:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;8mm = 80.0 frames per foot&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Super 8 = 72.0 frames per foot&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;16mm = 40.0 frames per foot&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;35mm 2-perf = 32.0 frames per foot&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;35mm 3-perf = 21.3 frames per foot&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;35mm = 16.0 frames per foot&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;65mm = 12.8 frames per foot&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="203" LastEditorUserId="203" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T17:57:50.090" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T17:57:50.090" />
  <row Id="640" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="597" CreationDate="2010-07-16T17:51:59.633" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use spot metering frequently for portraits, I measure on the face and then recompose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T17:51:59.633" />
  <row Id="641" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="676" CreationDate="2010-07-16T17:52:37.463" Score="17" ViewCount="288" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to share lighting plans with my crew -- what software exists for creating lighting plans?  What are the pros/cons to the different packages?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been using Microsoft Visio, but there must be a better app for this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="203" LastEditorUserId="108" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T18:21:02.240" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T10:34:25.957" Title="Software for creating lighting plans/diagrams?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;software&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="642" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="666" CreationDate="2010-07-16T18:00:13.813" Score="5" ViewCount="279" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to experiment with mounting my Canon F/1.4 50 mm lens backwards to experiment with macro photography (on a Rebel Xti).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What kind of gear do I need, and how do I go about it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="204" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-16T22:19:24.437" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T22:19:24.437" Title="How can I reverse-mount a Canon F/1.4 50 mm for macro photography?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;adapter&gt;&lt;reverse-mount&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="643" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2253" CreationDate="2010-07-16T18:00:38.320" Score="15" ViewCount="193" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm getting the hang of manual white balance and I haven't yet shot &lt;b&gt;lightning strikes in a storm&lt;/b&gt; but I may this summer. What would be a safe &lt;b&gt;white balance&lt;/b&gt; to deal with the fact that lightning is appears to make the scene/sky so blue (to my eyes)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What is the &lt;b&gt;color temperature of lightning&lt;/b&gt;? Sources?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Are there any good references about shooting lightning, especially regarding WB?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Will &quot;Sunny&quot; work (letting it come out sort of blue?), or should I go for &quot;Flash&quot; balance or &quot;Shadow&quot; balance to warm things up even more?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Does this even make sense since the goal may not be to make lightning look neutral? (any more than a blue sky could be made neutral -- rather Shadow WB makes the scene &lt;i&gt;lit&lt;/i&gt; by the sky look more neutral)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="109" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T15:29:19.013" Title="Photographing Lightning Strikes: White Balance" Tags="&lt;white-balance&gt;&lt;landscape&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="644" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="643" CreationDate="2010-07-16T18:00:55.013" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.popphoto.com/showthread.php?s=b55806cac0ef5aa9a3d893da3f192bb8&amp;amp;t=268886&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This thread&lt;/a&gt; on PopPhoto has a lot of varying information about the actual color temperature of lightning (in Kelvin).&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870001225_1987001225.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This NASA Tech Memo&lt;/a&gt; from 1986 has a lot of charts and data about RF emission from lightning but I wonder how well the emission spectra of lightning fits the black body model and whether it makes sense to give it a Kelvin value. That memo certainly doesn't boil it down to a photographer friendly number.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hillsrain.com/lightning/lightning_tute.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this tutorial&lt;/a&gt; and he basically says to shoot RAW, leave it on Auto WB, or make a decision based on the scene (&quot;Cloudy&quot;). It looks like it depends on the scene and the effect you're going for.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="109" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T18:00:55.013" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="645" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-16T18:02:25.680" Score="0" ViewCount="33" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I were a photographer trying to learn cinematography, what regularly updated resources (not books) should I follow?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="203" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T18:03:47.190" ClosedDate="2010-07-16T18:18:28.457" Title="Good periodicals/magazines/blogs for cinematography?" Tags="&lt;education&gt;&lt;cinema&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="646" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="645" CreationDate="2010-07-16T18:03:47.190" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I consider &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theasc.com/magazine/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;American Cinematographer&lt;/a&gt; to be the best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many forums have great communities, though:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cinematography.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cinematography.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reduser.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.reduser.net/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="203" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T18:03:47.190" />
  <row Id="647" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="637" CreationDate="2010-07-16T18:07:22.393" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If it is a Canon, it may not be so much the &quot;inside&quot; of your viewfinder as it is the bottom of the prism, where your focusing screen is. I have a 450D, and I know that if I pop off my lens, and leave the mirror down, I can see right up to the bottom face of the viewfinder prism. I am not sure how the 30D is constructed, but I doubt that a fundamental design factor of a prominent DSLR manufacturer has changed much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have used a soft qtip a couple times to blot larger specks of dust off my viewfinder. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T18:07:22.393" />
  <row Id="648" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="637" CreationDate="2010-07-16T18:09:49.957" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've cleaned the inside (bottom side of prism) recently of my 30D. You can easily spot the viewfinder element when you take off the lens. I then use the same sensor swabs and eclipse fluid as I use for the sensor. I suggest you bend the sensor swab stick 90 deg so you can sweep is more easily across the viewfinder. I think I also cut off a bit of the sensor swab since it was a bit too large. It is still awkward to clean it like this though!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T18:09:49.957" />
  <row Id="649" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="641" CreationDate="2010-07-16T18:10:24.853" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's an online creator at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lightingdiagrams.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lightingdiagrams.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T18:10:24.853" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="650" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="632" CreationDate="2010-07-16T18:10:26.850" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that Lightroom 3 Supports camera tethering. It appears to support the D90 according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/842/cpsid_84221.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this list&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Nikon&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;D3&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;D3s&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;D3x&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;D90&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;D200&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;D300&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;D300s&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;D700&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;D5000&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T18:10:26.850" />
  <row Id="651" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="632" CreationDate="2010-07-16T18:10:39.750" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can do this with the tethering features in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another option is Nikon's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Imaging-Software/25366/Camera-Control-Pro-2.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Camera Control Pro&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T18:10:39.750" />
  <row Id="652" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="112" CreationDate="2010-07-16T18:14:19.400" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently purchased some Lee ND and ND grad filters. I had a tough time finding them online, and finally searched around locally for a store that sold them. Best I can tell, Lee filters are not much of an online commodity, and are sold in retail stores most of the time. I do believe that Lee makes some of highest (if not the highest) quality filters available, and if you can find a local store, they are definitely worth it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a PDF that might be helpful:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.leefiltersusa.com/downloads/LEECameraDealers.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lee Camera Dealers&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The story on Lee filters is a much more complex one than I originally noted above. I seem to have been lucky finding anything, particularly the foundation kit, locally. There isn't a single local store near where I live anymore that has any Lee filter equipment. I've turned to online sources, but they are nearly as dry. I managed to get a .3, .6, and .9 Soft GND set from B&amp;amp;H, and have found some filter adapter rings on Adorama. Generally speaking though, the most disappointing thing about Lee filters is the simple fact that they are not available...ANYWHERE. I've been on a waiting list for some filter slide guides and extension screws for my lee foundation kit for months now, with no hope in sight of actually getting any of them. I've been waiting to get some additional solid ND filters, but they also seem to be completely dry, with no date in sight for when they may be available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There seems to be a couple online stores in the UK that have all Lee parts, but the cost is considerably higher than the already high cost here in the US, not counting any import fees. Very sad state of affairs with Lee filter equipment. There is no question Lee makes the best filters around, but without any of it being available for general purchase, their amazing quality is kind of moot. Perhaps an online petition to Lee to step up production and fill their supply lines would be useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-28T16:52:39.750" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T16:52:39.750" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="653" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="642" CreationDate="2010-07-16T18:22:44.920" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You will need a Reverse Mount Adapter, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.novoflex.com/en/products/macro-accessories/reverse-adapter-eos-retro/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here's&lt;/a&gt; an example. You mount the adapter to the body, then mount the lens and finally you attach the second part of the adapter to the back of your lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T18:22:44.920" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="654" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="610" CreationDate="2010-07-16T18:25:40.967" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;ahockley is 100% right.  Your ability to get those sorts of shots depends on your ability to engage people in conversation.  I got &lt;a href=&quot;http://scottlaw.knot.org/photoblog/?p=61&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this shot&lt;/a&gt; while chatting up a large group of people at a company picnic.  Also, be prepared for people to say no sometimes (some people &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; don't like to be photographed).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People who are having a good time tend to be more open to being photographed, at least in my experience.  Definitely keep an eye out for couples.  Especially if they're in a new place, or on vacation, couples seem to want pictures to share with their friends to show where they've been.  They'll generally have their own camera and ask you to take a picture of them, so following ahockley's advice from that point will generally net you a couple of shots for yourself too.  That's how I got &lt;a href=&quot;http://scottlaw.knot.org/photoblog/?p=75&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this shot&lt;/a&gt; (for which I should have used fill flash).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other rather odd thing I've noticed, is that if you look like you know what you're doing, sometimes people will just ask you to take their photo.  I've been out a few places shooting, and the mere fact that I had a 24-85mm zoom with a lens hood on it was enough to make people think I was some sort of pro (which I definitely am not).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="119" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T18:25:40.967" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="655" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="661" CreationDate="2010-07-16T18:30:12.020" Score="15" ViewCount="244" Body="&lt;p&gt;I received a circular polarizing filter as a gift, but I have a hard time determining when I should be using it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've done river shots with some success, but other than that, it doesn't seem to do much beyond reducing the amount of light. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What am I missing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="204" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T04:25:01.033" Title="In which situations should I use my circular polarizing filter?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;polarizer&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="656" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="655" CreationDate="2010-07-16T18:35:26.923" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Circular polarizer gives the biggest effect when the light is falling from your left or right and much smaller effect when the light source is before or behind you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is most usually used to change color of the sky (lighter/darker) and enhance the clouds, enhance or remove (depending on the position of the filter) reflections off glass or water. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="179" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T18:35:26.923" />
  <row Id="657" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="655" CreationDate="2010-07-16T18:46:55.293" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A polarizing filter removes secondary light, i.e. light that has bounced on a surface and become polarized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This happens when light bounces off of things like a water surface, glass window, and even in the atmosphere. (Light that bounces off a metal surface doesn't get polarized though.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you filter out the light that bounces in the athmospehere, you will get a darker blue sky in your images. When you filter out polarized light in the sky, you get the highest effect if you point the camera 90 degrees away from the sun, and almost no effect if you point the camera towards the sun or away from it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;em&gt;circular&lt;/em&gt; polarizing filter is used in a SLR camera. As there is a mirror in the camera, the light has to be de-polarized after it has been filtered, or you would not see anything at all in the viewfinder when the filter is turned at certain angles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T18:53:47.277" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T18:53:47.277" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="658" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="655" CreationDate="2010-07-16T18:47:36.167" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Polarizers do block light, as they are designed to filter out light coming from certain directions. Polarizers are useful for a variety of reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mitigating highlights on water, rocks, shiny plant leaves, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Enhancing the sky, particularly blue sky, and improving the contrast balance of a scene&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bringing out the detail in clouds by reducing their glare&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A polarizing filter, particularly circular polarizers, are a great tool to balance out and enhance a scene. They do reduce the rate at which light flows into your lens, so a slight exposure adjustment is usually necessary to compensate. They are generally worth it, if you have one, and can help improve your shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T18:47:36.167" />
  <row Id="659" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="450" CreationDate="2010-07-16T18:52:52.100" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To add to jrista's excellent answer, an histogram is god-sent in high light situations where your LCD is very hard to read (eg: at noon in a field of snow).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="204" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T18:52:52.100" />
  <row Id="660" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="655" CreationDate="2010-07-16T18:54:33.767" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apart from what has already been mentioned (decreasing reflections from water and glass surfaces, bringing out that tourist-brochure blue skies with bright white clouds) it is worth to mention that it also decreases reflections from leaves on plants. Using a polarizer when shooting landscapes with a lot of vegetation helps bringing out a deeper, more lush green tone from the vegetation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T18:54:33.767" />
  <row Id="661" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="655" CreationDate="2010-07-16T19:01:42.407" Score="20" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use polarizer so much that I never take it off of my main lens. The good thing about it that depending on its rotation you can adjust how strongly it affects you picture from maximum to virtually nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's start with what the polarizer physically does:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it reduces (sometimes completely) the glare from non-metallic objects.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does it translate to photographic situations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;enhances the blue of the sky and pulls out the detail on clouds&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;enhances the green of leaves and generally colors of plants and their flowers&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;makes the water and glass transparent&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;reduces the shining of human skin and gives it a soft appearance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it can remove the rainbow (which I imagine is rarely desired)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it enhances the overall contrast of the picture, creating very dramatic result in extreme cases&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples of the same subject non-polarized (left) and polarized (right):   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/piotrzurek/2159532287/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Shell on Pakiri beach (non-polarized) by Piotr Zurek, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2094/2159532287_35e9a06c57_m.jpg&quot; width=&quot;240&quot; height=&quot;161&quot; alt=&quot;Shell on Pakiri beach (non-polarized)&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/piotrzurek/2160324122/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Shell on Pakiri beach (polarized) by Piotr Zurek, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2368/2160324122_3b5b11ee42_m.jpg&quot; width=&quot;240&quot; height=&quot;161&quot; alt=&quot;Shell on Pakiri beach (polarized)&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/piotrzurek/392606098/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;... and not polarized by Piotr Zurek, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm1.static.flickr.com/180/392606098_fc960edc32_m.jpg&quot; width=&quot;240&quot; height=&quot;161&quot; alt=&quot;... and not polarized&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/piotrzurek/392606154/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Polarized... by Piotr Zurek, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm1.static.flickr.com/130/392606154_376faa8098_m.jpg&quot; width=&quot;240&quot; height=&quot;161&quot; alt=&quot;Polarized...&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When does it work best?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;when the camera is facing on an angle 90° to the sun and the direction marker is positioned towards sun (hope it's clear - I'm not quite happy with the wording here, will fix it when I come up with something better)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What to be careful about?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;when overused polarizer can give photos a very unnatural appearance (which I personally enjoy)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="125" LastEditorUserId="125" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-20T04:25:01.033" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T04:25:01.033" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="662" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="665" CreationDate="2010-07-16T19:04:14.447" Score="10" ViewCount="178" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pretty straight forward question.  What does a lens hood do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="101" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-22T15:57:41.600" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T15:57:41.600" Title="What does a lens hood do?" Tags="&lt;lens-hood&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="663" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="613" CreationDate="2010-07-16T19:06:13.443" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Spot-meter the palm of your hand (be sure it's lit appropriately, however).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seriously.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It, or a Caucasian face, will meter about 1 stop brighter than you need, which means it's easy to compensate for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="14" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T19:06:13.443" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="664" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2421" CreationDate="2010-07-16T19:07:16.060" Score="9" ViewCount="788" Body="&lt;p&gt;How and in what kind of situations should it be used?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-12T19:54:47.253" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T20:03:56.157" Title="What is Universal White Balance (UniWB)?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;white-balance&gt;&lt;tonal-distribution&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="665" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="662" CreationDate="2010-07-16T19:08:26.900" Score="18" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lens hood has two purposes - one is to shield the lens elements from stray light - either directly from the sun, from passing cars, from a flash, etc.  This stray light can cause lens flare and reduced contrast, so it is best to limit it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its also useful for avoiding bumps to your lens or filter.  I use mine a lot in the car, because my lens is always very close to the window.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(It can also make that huge telephoto look that much more impressive)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastEditorUserId="31" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T19:14:18.790" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T19:14:18.790" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="666" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="642" CreationDate="2010-07-16T19:12:46.593" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You may want a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Adorama-Macro-Coupling-Ring-52-52/dp/B0000AB4LV/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=electronics&amp;amp;qid=1279307415&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;coupling ring&lt;/a&gt; ($7).  This lets you mount one lens, in reverse, to another lens.  This gives you insane macro capabilities, and very little depth of field.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will find that focusing takes an extremely long time, and you need to set your aperture on your reversed lens first, mounted normally, before flipping it.&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/reuscam/2414466787/lightbox/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Not-too-good-example&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastEditorUserId="31" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T19:22:39.580" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T19:22:39.580" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="667" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="699" CreationDate="2010-07-16T19:14:44.653" Score="14" ViewCount="251" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the best practices for DOF stacking? How do you get the frames with focus just right amount apart? How do you stack them in post processing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2010-10-23T14:56:59.773" Title="Practices for DOF stacking" Tags="&lt;macro&gt;&lt;focus&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="668" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="406" CreationDate="2010-07-16T19:18:10.620" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think it's possible to take metadata from JPGs in Windows Live Photo Gallery and automate the process of attaching it to RAW files via Lightroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.msdn.com/b/pix/archive/2006/08/16/702780.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This article from Microsoft&lt;/a&gt; indicates that Windows Live Photo Gallery does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; write out XMP data to sidecar files, which would be the only method I can imagine would allow metadata from JPGs to get associated to RAW files in Lightroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one could write out to XMP sidecar files, one should be able to tell Lightroom to import the XMP metadata for the respective RAW files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T19:18:10.620" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="669" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="594" CreationDate="2010-07-16T19:21:14.200" Score="29" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;An f-stop is kind of a combination of two terms. First off, f/x.y is generally the notation used to indicate the size of the diaphragm opening, or aperture, in a camera. Let me give a little detail about how that notation came about, before I go on to explain the meaning of a &lt;em&gt;stop&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Aperture Values and f/Stops&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aperture openings are measured as fractions of the focal length of a lens. That is what the 'f' stands for in the aperture rating, 'focal length'. Assuming we have the epitome of lenses, the 50mm, with an aperture of f/2.8, we can determine the actual diameter of the aperture opening like so:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;50mm / 2.8 = 17.85mm&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we open the aperture up to its maximum of, say, 1.4, we can measure that as well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;50mm / 1.4 = 35.71mm&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference between an aperture of f/2.8 and an aperture of f/1.4 is a difference of four times as much light...or two &lt;em&gt;stops&lt;/em&gt;. We know this because the area of the aperture opening itself is four times as large at f/1.4 (1001.54mm^2) as it is at f/2.8 (250.25mm^2). A stop in photography nomenclature means a difference of one &lt;em&gt;exposure value&lt;/em&gt;, which is the doubling, or halving, of the amount of light reaching the sensor. There are a few standard &quot;full stops&quot; that f-numbers are rated in:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32, 45, 64&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These aperture settings all differ by one full exposure value, or one full &quot;stop&quot;, and create the full &lt;code&gt;f-stop scale&lt;/code&gt;. When you close down your 50mm f/1.4 lens from its maximum aperture of f/1.4 to an aperture of f/2.8, you are &quot;stopping down&quot; by two full stops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that most cameras these days offer a two additional f-stop scales beyond the standard full stop scale: a half-stop scale and a third-stop scale. Most cameras default to a fractional scale rather than the full stop scale, so it is important to learn and memorize the full stop scale so that you are making the proper adjustments when you change your aperture setting on your camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Half-stop Aperture Value Scale&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.7, 2, 2.4, 2.8, 3.3, 4, 4.8, 5.6, 6.7, 8, 9.5, 11, 13, 16, 19, 22&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Third-stop Aperture Value Scale&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2, 2.2, 2.5, 2.8, 3.2, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5.0, 5.6, 6.3, 7.1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Relationship with Shutter Speed&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An important relationship exists between aperture and shutter speed. Both are rated in stops. While aperture differences are often denoted in 'f/stops', shutter speed changes are usually simply called 'stops', or possibly exposure values. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Back to our example with the 50mm lens. Assuming we are shooting on a bright sunny day, with an ISO of 100. We have the aperture set to f/16, and the shutter speed set to 1/100th. (This is called the &quot;Sunny 16&quot; setting, as photographic theory indicates that an f/16 aperture, with a shutter speed matching the ISO speed, will produce a proper exposure in bright midday sunlight.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming we need to shoot something that is moving very fast, and we need a higher shutter speed. We can easily calculate the proper aperture value, assuming we know how many stops of additional shutter speed we need. If we increase our shutter speed to 1/200th, that is a difference of one whole stop. Shutter speed and aperture are inverses of each other, so if we increase shutter speed by one stop, we must open the aperture by one f/stop, to f/8. Despite the difference from the original settings, the new settings will produce the same exposure. The same applies if you are using a half- or third-stop scale...any half or third stop adjustment of one setting requires an similar inverse adjustment of the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T19:33:21.537" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T19:33:21.537" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="670" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="672" CreationDate="2010-07-16T19:22:32.297" Score="10" ViewCount="160" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is image stabilization useful when shooting from a flying plane or helicopter?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T22:45:13.730" Title="Image stabilization in aerial photography" Tags="&lt;image-stabilization&gt;&lt;aerial-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="671" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="632" CreationDate="2010-07-16T19:25:59.340" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're looking for a free program to let you shoot tethered with your Nikon, &lt;a href=&quot;http://thephotogeek.com/choosing-nikon-dslr-camera-tethered-shooting-software/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this post&lt;/a&gt; discusses a few of the options.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="166" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T19:25:59.340" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="672" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="670" CreationDate="2010-07-16T19:27:06.277" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, it can help minimize camera shake.  To take it to the extreme, serious aerial photographers sometimes use a gyroscope mount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Related but not directly answering the question: you want to ensure that the camera is not touching the airplane or helicopter - you'll end up transferring all sorts of vibration from the aircraft to the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T19:27:06.277" />
  <row Id="673" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="691" CreationDate="2010-07-16T19:37:32.930" Score="6" ViewCount="194" Body="&lt;p&gt;Other equivalents are welcome as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want this information to know what scanners I need to look at or at least to have the ability to determine if a scanning service will suffice my needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="80" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T19:40:34.467" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T23:54:05.560" Title="What DPI do I need to use when scanning a 35mm to get an equivalent of say 8 MegaPixel digital photo" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;scanning&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="674" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2010-07-16T19:41:06.417" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photo.net&lt;/a&gt;.  It's probably among the oldest photography sites on the web.  I've learned plenty from visiting it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="119" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T19:41:06.417" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T03:47:50.670" />
  <row Id="675" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="144" CreationDate="2010-07-16T19:41:11.033" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're not feeling the limitations of your point-and-shoot camera, then you probably &lt;em&gt;don't&lt;/em&gt; need a DSLR. (Not least because, if you're happy with the P&amp;amp;S, you'll probably leave the DSLR at home when you go out!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;DSLRs have loads of extra capabilities, but will you actually use them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I solved this dilemma for myself by taking a weekend photography course with my P&amp;amp;S camera (it has a fairly limited manual mode, which was enough). I learned a lot, took lots of photos that were much better than usual, and I got a really clear idea of what I &lt;em&gt;personally&lt;/em&gt; could do with a DSLR. And then I bought my first Canon about a month later...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T19:41:11.033" />
  <row Id="676" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="641" CreationDate="2010-07-16T19:43:05.600" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sylights (free registration required): &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sylights.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.sylights.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OLDC (free, with donation requirements for commercial use): &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lightingdiagrams.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lightingdiagrams.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photo Diagrams (free, Flash-based): &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.professionalsnapshots.com/PhotoDiagram/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.professionalsnapshots.com/PhotoDiagram/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Strobox (iPhone app, free): &lt;a href=&quot;http://app.strobox.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://app.strobox.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="14" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T19:43:05.600" />
  <row Id="677" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="682" CreationDate="2010-07-16T19:45:10.587" Score="5" ViewCount="146" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to get into sports photography, and would probably want a better telephoto lens so I can get better close up shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What other factors should I keep in mind as I make my choice? Does IS (or VR) matter?  What is a good focal length?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll probably be shooting mostly little league baseball/softball, church softball leagues, and kids soccer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T06:48:06.313" Title="Sports photography lens selection." Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;telephoto&gt;&lt;sports&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="678" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="493" CreationDate="2010-07-16T19:53:14.610" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's ridiculously easy to use - you just point and pan the lens. It stops when it runs out of space, or when you shake/move in such a way that it can't stitch the results. You don't get to see the individual photos, just the resulting panorama. The result looks comparable to doing it yourself, as far as I can see, but I still prefer to take individual photos and stitch with AutoPano.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T19:53:14.610" />
  <row Id="679" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2010-07-16T19:53:40.020" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Luminous Landscape (&lt;a href=&quot;http://luminous-landscape.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://luminous-landscape.com/&lt;/a&gt;). As the name suggests - strong orientation towards landscape photography and also equipment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-22T00:56:11.177" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T00:56:11.177" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T03:47:50.670" />
  <row Id="680" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="577" CreationDate="2010-07-16T19:57:16.283" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am not a pro ... and I suspect I never will become one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main reason is: I really enjoy taking photos ... but I don't enjoy &lt;strong&gt;HAVING&lt;/strong&gt; to take photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I learned this when I was taking photography classes at a local botanical garden.  When I was just taking pictures of flowers, I loved it.  But when I had to take pictures of flowers for the class, it turned into a chore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My point in this answer ... be sure you even want to consider turning pro ... because when it's a job, it might not be as much fun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="33" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T19:57:16.283" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="681" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="134" CreationDate="2010-07-16T20:00:18.570" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since you're already shooting manual mode with a Canon, buying a Canon DSLR will require the least amount of adjustment for you as far as actually using the camera.  Your question doesn't mention what sort of budget you're working with, but there are Canon EOS bodies retail for anywhere under $600 to thousands of dollars.  Unless people are buying your photos, one of the EOS Rebel bodies or an EOS 50D might be the way to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could also buy a second-hand camera and lenses, preferably in-person so you can go back in the event of problems with the gear.  It's a good way to get quality gear (especially lenses, which can cost a fortune brand-new) at a reasonable price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="119" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T20:00:18.570" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="682" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="677" CreationDate="2010-07-16T20:01:20.017" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sports in general means stopping the action. Kids are slower than pro athletes, but you still need a good range in shutter speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that in mind, IS/VR is no use because both technologies prevent camera shake at slower shutter speeds, and obviously slower shutter speeds does the exact opposite of stopping the action. However, IS/VR is nice for low-light, handheld use for other purposes, so if you plan on using your lenses for more than sports, you may wish to consider getting IS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what do you need in a good sports photography lens? Lenses with wider apertures (aka faster lenses) give you more light to work with, allowing faster shutter speeds. In addition, the faster the lens, the better your camera's AF will perform. On most prosumer bodies, the AF points require at least F2.8 to achieve their best performance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Focal length's will depend on how close you can get to your subject, as well as how much cropping you can get with your body. If money is no object, then a 300, 400, or 500mm prime will do you well, but they're really expensive, so a zoom around 300mm might be a good start, or even a good 70-200 with a TC in a pinch (though the latter option does reduce your working f-stop).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T20:01:20.017" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="683" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="685" CreationDate="2010-07-16T20:06:15.403" Score="13" ViewCount="764" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard that it's possible to create an HDR image from a single RAW file. (Obviously, it won't be as good as using multiple bracketed RAW files; I know that much.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Every time I try — using Photomatix with the default settings -- the results are truly awful. I'm not even trying for something printable, I mean it's too noisy, blotchy and generally horrible even for viewing onscreen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone have any tips — either about what kind of RAW files will work well, or about how to tweak the Photomatix settings for this case, or about other software which will do this better?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-23T02:50:54.840" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T02:50:54.840" Title="How can I get a good HDR image from a single RAW file?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;hdr&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="9" />
  <row Id="684" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="673" CreationDate="2010-07-16T20:14:06.010" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, get a pixel x pixel amount for an 8MP picture:&#xA;3504 x 2336 = 8.5 mp&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, get what size it would be in cm at 300 dpi&#xA;20x30 cm @ 300dpi&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third, take the picture to the final size:&#xA;2.4 x 3.7 cm @ &lt;strong&gt;2400&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can actually do this calculation in Photoshop. Be careful, make sure they are not resampling the image to get to the size you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And you should thank my wife for this information :P&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="32" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T20:14:06.010" />
  <row Id="685" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="683" CreationDate="2010-07-16T20:14:10.300" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ideally you want to capture at least 3 distinct images, but the more properly exposed your single raw image is, the better the outcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By proper exposure (a subjective term), I mean to expose to the right. You want to capture as much detail in the shadow areas of your image, without blowing out the highlights. The way dSLR CMOS sensors work, they do a much better job capturing information in an image that is slightly overexposed, than with an image that is underexposed (shadow areas will have more noise).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you have your single RAW file, you want to hopefully create at least three images with varying exposure levels. Depending on your base image, these exposures may be -2/0/+2 EV or -1/0/+1 EV (as Marc's answer (and image shows)), or some variation of three exposure values--one that is less than your base image, and one that is more than your base image. You will need to play with the EV values until you get the intuition on what EV values will work with your base image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When using Photomatix, try playing with the settings, the default values were never good. IIRC, bumping up the strength to full, and then tweaking from there produced good results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-16T20:21:43.150" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T20:21:43.150" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="686" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="234" CreationDate="2010-07-16T20:15:37.580" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I love my Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC LD; I can't imagine that there's anything better in that price range. It has no macro capabilities, but apart from that it does everything I ever need...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T20:15:37.580" />
  <row Id="687" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="683" CreationDate="2010-07-16T20:15:47.300" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I usually export a single RAW three times by only changing the exposure (0, -1, +1). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might be using too extreme exposure settings for your shots. Or the Photomatix settings are far from optimal. The Light Smooting setting should be quite high to achieve a realistic result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This shot is a HDR from one RAW file, it worked fine for me so I'm sure you can do it too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcduiker/2903512519/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Scotland - RGB by MarcDuiker, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3167/2903512519_b577f0fca1.jpg&quot; width=&quot;333&quot; height=&quot;500&quot; alt=&quot;Scotland - RGB&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastEditorUserId="19" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-18T15:10:47.907" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T15:10:47.907" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="688" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="683" CreationDate="2010-07-16T20:34:30.920" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use single RAW files to generate HDR images all the time. It is a very effective technique, and in many cases, the only option (i.e. when your shot contains mobile elements like clouds, water, animals, etc.) I also use Photoshop to merge my images into HDR, rather than Photomatix or other HDR tools. Photomatix, at least in my experience, tries to give you that &quot;dreamy&quot; HDR look, rather than simply extending your dynamic range to encompass all the contrast you need, without losing that &quot;normal photograph&quot; look. Photomatix has the tendency to reduce the sharpness of your images, and it does have the odd behavior of increasing the noisieness of images as well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a couple things to keep in mind when shooting a RAW image that will be used for HDR. First off, try to shoot within the bounds of your camera sensor's normal dynamic range. If you overexpose and blow out highlights, that can not be recovered...even with HDR. Try to use up as much of the available dynamic range as you can without blowing out highlights or blocking your shadows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you have a shot, it is easy enough to adjust your exposure by +/- 1 or 2 exposure values, and export three images. Just use the built-in &lt;code&gt;Merge to HDR&lt;/code&gt; feature of Photoshop to get an HDR image. It will start out in 32bit, but when you downconvert it to 16bit, you have the option of adjusting the image by manually editing the tone curve. You have total control over how your HDR image turns out at this point, and it just takes some experimentation to get your desired result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photomatix has some similar tools, although they do not behave quite the same as in Photoshop. If Photomatix is your only option, then I would try to do the same thing with it...tweak the tone curve until you get the maximum range of contrast out of your image without overexposing deep shadows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T20:34:30.920" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="689" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="664" CreationDate="2010-07-16T20:37:50.197" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most camera bodies (afiak) that display an image histogram, presents a histogram that is based on the JPEG representation of the RAW data captured by the camera sensor. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do your post processing work with RAW images (and you should ;) ), and you use the camera's histogram display as a guide when taking pictures, then the discrepancy between the histogram and the actual image may be enough to throw off your image (ie what you see, isn't what you get).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some bodies allow you to use neutral parameters for contrast, saturation, and brightness which means the JPEG and RAW image are more closely matched (and by relation the histogram), but that still leaves the camera's whitebalance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UniWB is a way to effectively cancel out the whitebalance, thus allowing for a more &quot;true&quot; histogram for your RAW image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what kind of situations should you use it? Well clearly if you're not shooting RAW, then there is not point. If you don't use the camera's histogram after taking the shot, then it makes no sense to use this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it does make sense is if you find that the RAW images you work with aren't what you expect, and you're looking for tweaks to make in your workflow to reduce the effort you spend in post processing to correct your images. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, if you are a crazy perfectionist that has to do everything imaginable to get the best, most perfect image possible, then this is worth investigating.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T20:37:50.197" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="690" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="677" CreationDate="2010-07-16T20:50:12.553" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've taken some quite good rugby shots with a Sigma 70-300mm f3.5 lens.  It was a nice sunny day which helped keep shutter speed up.  300mm isn't quite enough to get full person shots across the whole width and length of a rugby field, so you just need to choose your shots based on the position of the ball.  I went for more &quot;scene setting&quot; shots when they were at the far end (line outs, the whole scrum) and close up or single person shots as they got closer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've used the same lens for a cricket match, and it was fine at full zoom. A longer lens would have meant slightly less cropping afterwards, but there was plenty of detail there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just make sure you get the ball(s) in the shot! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="186" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T20:50:12.553" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="691" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="673" CreationDate="2010-07-16T20:56:10.400" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can calculate the reolution from the megapixels like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;ppi = sqrt(mp * 1000000 * 3/2) * 25.4 / 36&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which gives you:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;6 mp = 2117 ppi&#xA;7 mp = 2286 ppi&#xA;8 mp = 2444 ppi&#xA;9 mp = 2592 ppi&#xA;10 mp = 2733 ppi&#xA;11 mp = 2866 ppi&#xA;12 mp = 2993 ppi&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T20:56:10.400" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="692" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="677" CreationDate="2010-07-16T21:52:13.683" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently shot a hockey tournament, and picked up the Sigma 70-200 for it - it was perfect - I shot in my end of the rink, for the most part, but the lens was built well, sharp and was significantly cheaper than the Nikon I was looking at. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing I'm thankful for, is the fast focus on that lens.  That's an important part of sports photography, and sometimes people don't think to recommend thinking about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="11" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T21:52:13.683" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="693" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="414" CreationDate="2010-07-16T21:56:57.677" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the Sigma 70-200 (pre-IS), although Nikon mount, and I quite like it.  Super fast focus, seems pretty sharp.  Build quality is top-notch on mine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="11" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T21:56:57.677" />
  <row Id="694" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1236" CreationDate="2010-07-16T22:14:08.023" Score="6" ViewCount="573" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm running Lightroom 2.6 on Windows XP and it runs painfully slow. Just navigating from one image to the next takes a few seconds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What can I do to speed it up?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T12:43:26.827" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T12:40:52.857" Title="Does anyone have any tips to make Lightroom run faster?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;software&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="695" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="414" CreationDate="2010-07-16T22:17:28.347" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I always go with first party lenses, only because of one silly issue:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Canon's EOS lens system is proprietary. In order for 3rd party lenses to work, the manufacturers have to reverse engineer the communication protocols. There have been cases where older sigma lenses were not compatible with newer canon bodies. Sigma will happily &quot;chip&quot; older lenses to fix the issue (for free IIRC), but it's somewhat of a hassle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ran into a similar issue with my Sigma DG Super 500 flash being incompatible with my 5D2. Sigma will flash it, but I bought a Canon 580 EX II, and just use the Super 500 as a slave.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;FWIW, I have read a few rumors that Canon secretly licenses their protocol to Tameron, but it was only a rumor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T22:17:28.347" />
  <row Id="696" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="694" CreationDate="2010-07-16T22:38:15.473" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Without knowing the amount of RAM or processor speed, it's hard to make specific recommendations, but Lightroom will perform significantly better with more RAM and a faster processor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also doesn't hurt to occasionally optimize the Lightroom catalog, which helps increase the efficiency of operations.  On a PC it's under Edit-&gt;Catalog Settings, on a Mac It's under Lightroom-&gt;Catalog Settings.  Click the &quot;Relaunch and Optimize&quot; button.  Lightroom will do just that.  It can take a while depending on the size of your catalog.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T22:38:15.473" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="697" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="694" CreationDate="2010-07-16T23:10:07.190" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Upgrade. LR 3 is a fair amount faster for me. I also have found that RAM seems to matter more than raw processor speed, at least for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastActivityDate="2010-07-16T23:10:07.190" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="698" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="402" CreationDate="2010-07-17T00:24:42.873" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Henri Cartier-Bresson&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I like street photography a lot and therefore Henri Cartier-Bresson is my hero:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photoquotes.com/showphotographs.aspx?id=98&amp;amp;name=Cartier-Bresson,Henri&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.photoquotes.com/showphotographs.aspx?id=98&amp;amp;name=Cartier-Bresson,Henri&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="81" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T00:24:42.873" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T00:24:42.873" />
  <row Id="699" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="667" CreationDate="2010-07-17T00:37:15.640" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are taking photos of something stationary, then a focusing rail will allow you to do them perfectly.  If you are talking about moving things, like insects, then all you can do is take a lot of photos.  If you aren't able to focus reliably without a tripod and rail, then you can use burst mode.  But, with some practice, you can get to the point where you can reliably click the shutter when specific portions of the shot are in focus and capture a series that way instead.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="110" LastEditorUserId="110" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-17T05:37:49.387" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T05:37:49.387" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="700" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="702" CreationDate="2010-07-17T01:06:22.647" Score="8" ViewCount="115" Body="&lt;p&gt;A rubber viewfinder cover is connected to my camera strap.  What's it for, and when do I use it?  What happens to a photo if I don't use it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="113" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T01:23:45.537" Title="Should I use the rubber viewfinder cover?" Tags="&lt;viewfinder&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="701" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-17T01:09:46.320" Score="3" ViewCount="235" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am working on this photo in Aperture 3 (this is a partial area of the shot).  It's a night shot with a 30s shutter speed, so there are areas, namely above the roof that are blown out.  This compared to the darkness of the roof make the line between the two look almost drawn in.  My eye keeps going to it and it really bothers me.  Is there a way I can decrease the contrast between the two in just that area of the shot without ruining the contrast in the rest of the photo?  Should I smooth it out somehow? Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i30.tinypic.com/qn35z4.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="205" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T18:29:06.967" LastActivityDate="2010-10-01T10:54:30.440" Title="How to adjust high contrast edges in Aperture 3" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;apple-aperture&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="702" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="700" CreationDate="2010-07-17T01:23:45.537" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The viewfinder cover is for when you take long exposures on a tripod. You only want light to come in via the lens, not through the viewfinder. Normally your eye covers the viewfinder and keeps stray light from entering the camera that way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You really only need to use the viewfinder cover if there is bright light behind the camera. The mirror folds up and cover most of the prisma, so if there is as little light behind the camera as in front of it (as you are making a long exposure) it should not be a problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T01:23:45.537" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="703" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="522" CreationDate="2010-07-17T01:54:22.843" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've not used the Sigma, but I own the Tamron 17-50 VC. It really is quite sharp, sharper than the 50mm 1.8 prime, comparing both at f2.8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, when you're using slower shutter speeds, the VC does help prevent motion blur from camera shake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As always, it's a lot sharper at f4 than f2.8, but all lenses are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In both samples below, the focus was on the 'AAA'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 @ 50 mm, 2.8&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/uushJ.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon 50mm 1.8 @ 2.8&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/wCH1o.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="142" LastEditorUserId="142" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-18T21:20:24.017" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T21:20:24.017" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="704" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="701" CreationDate="2010-07-17T02:01:08.053" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Its been a while since I have used Aperture, so I am not sure if Aperture 3 is the same. In Aperture 2, there were options just like in Lightroom to recover shadows and hightlights. If you wish to balance the contrast of your foreground out a bit, I would bring up the shadows slider a bit, which should brighten and recover detail in just the darkest shades of your image. Usually, tools like Aperture and Lightroom divide an image into four ranges of tone: shadows, fill, main color, and highlight. Adjusting shadows and highlight usually has little effect on the rest of the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-21T05:36:35.607" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T05:36:35.607" />
  <row Id="705" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="49" CreationDate="2010-07-17T02:07:19.147" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;aperture&lt;/em&gt; of a lens is the opening in the diaphragm that controls how much light is allowed to reach your focal plane (film or sensor). The aperture is usually rated as a fraction of the focal length, hence the f/x.y nomenclature. The wider an aperture is, the more light it allows through, and the smaller the number under f/ is. A common wide aperture is f/2.8, and is called a &quot;fast&quot; lens. A common tight aperture is f/5.6, and is called a &quot;slow&quot; lens. Tighter apertures allow less light through, which requires an decrease in shutter speed to maintain the same exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a much more detail answer about aperture, including the basic mathematics behind how they affect light, you can see my reply to this question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/594/what-does-f-stop-mean/669#669&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/594/what-does-f-stop-mean/669#669&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-19T18:45:07.767" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T18:45:07.767" />
  <row Id="706" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2071" CreationDate="2010-07-17T03:41:43.027" Score="3" ViewCount="522" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am not just asking for the best shoots but also where to take the pictures from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="147" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T13:10:35.060" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T03:08:09.120" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T15:54:53.927" ClosedDate="2011-02-23T18:34:22.663" Title="What are some of the best spots in New York City to take really good pictures?" Tags="&lt;street-photography&gt;&lt;locations&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="707" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="570" CreationDate="2010-07-17T03:48:53.663" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1. Use high-quality NiMH cells&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You want the NiMH chemistry because it's able to supply the high peak current that leads to faster recycle times (and less energy lost to internal resistance).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Hold their charge when not in use&quot; and &quot;long lasting (on a single charge)&quot; are opposing criteria: the reason is that the newer low-self-discharge (or &quot;hybrid&quot;) cells have a lower capacity than standard NiMH cells (for example, the last time I was buying, you could get 2600 mAh in regular but only 2100 mAh in low-self-discharge). A rule of thumb: if the batteries are going to sit for more than a month in a ready-to-use state, get the low-self-discharge variety.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Yes, a good brand is important, though the NiMH market is not dominated by Energizer and Duracell as the alkaline market is. Don't just buy the highest mAh - you'll get scammed. Good brands include:&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sanyo&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Powerex (Maha)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Energizer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dave Etchells has written up some great &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imaging-resource.com/ACCS/BATTS/BATTS.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;capacity tests&lt;/a&gt; (though they are somewhat dated now).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2. Use a high-quality charger&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This is very important for cell life and capacity. It turns out that you need rather fancy circuitry and algorithms to charge NiMH cells (a) to full capacity and (b) in a way that is not damaging to them. Do not go to Target and buy whatever charger they have.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Important qualities include:&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Individual charging circuit for each cell.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Testing and refresh cycles.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Appropriate sensing and algorithms for charging.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I personally use and recommend the LaCrosse BC-900, which doesn't seem to be available any more (it seems to have been replaced with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Crosse-Technology-BC-9009-AlphaPower-Battery/dp/B00077AA5Q/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;BC-9009&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Another good brand is Maha, which has several chargers which meet the above criteria (the MH-C800 series and the MH-C9000, perhaps others).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3. Manage your battery collection&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you put four cells into the flash, the capacity of the group is limited by the weakest cell. Managing your collection minimizes this inequality. Key things to do include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Number your cells so you can keep track of each one. I use a Sharpie, but this wears off so I have to re-label from time to time (I label each cell twice to reduce the chance of losing the number to wear).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Keep the cells in sets (i.e., don't just keep a pile of batteries and choose four when you need them). This exposes the members of each set to the same wear and environment, so they stay equal.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Regularly test your cells. This will let you identify and deal with cells that are going bad (they will have diminished mAh capacity). I wrote a Python script (&lt;a href=&quot;http://reidster.net/software/battman&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;battman&lt;/a&gt;) for this purpose, but a spreadsheet will work just as well.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bad cells can often be repaired using the refresh cycle on your charger.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Note that new cells sometimes have a capacity significantly lower (say 10-15%) than their rating. That's just how it is and doesn't indicate a defect. The better brands won't do this.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;More info&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://batteryuniversity.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://batteryuniversity.com&lt;/a&gt; is a great resource for learning lots more about batteries.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thomasdistributing.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.thomasdistributing.com/&lt;/a&gt; is my favorite retailer. Their website is a somewhat bizarre, but they have a wide selection and have provided me with excellent service. All they do is rechargeable batteries, so they actually know their products. (No affiliation, just a satisfied customer.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Suggestions welcome in comments - I'll edit.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T03:48:53.663" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="708" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="664" CreationDate="2010-07-17T04:03:30.460" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Alan says, it's a way to get an in-camera histogram that more accurately represents the raw capture. So, the times when you would use it are when you are unsatisfied with the histograms you're getting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The very long and detailed explanation from Guillermo Luijk is here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.guillermoluijk.com/tutorial/uniwb/index_en.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.guillermoluijk.com/tutorial/uniwb/index_en.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T04:03:30.460" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="709" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="706" CreationDate="2010-07-17T04:07:56.850" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I really enjoyed the city view from the NBC building's observation deck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T04:07:56.850" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T15:54:53.927" />
  <row Id="710" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="740" CreationDate="2010-07-17T05:32:44.620" Score="8" ViewCount="971" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the optimal size? Are certain brands better? What speed rating is preferred? Any other things to keep in mind?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, I am using a Canon t2i.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="147" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-21T16:07:36.893" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T16:07:36.893" Title="What SD(HC) memory card should I be using for my DSLR camera?" Tags="&lt;memory-card&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="711" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="710" CreationDate="2010-07-17T06:21:48.113" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos550d/page12.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dpreview&lt;/a&gt; SanDisk Extreme III will get you almost unlimited JPEG burst size, and almost 2 secs of full burst shooting with RAW. 8 GB version should be quite enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T06:21:48.113" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="712" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="677" CreationDate="2010-07-17T06:36:26.667" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You might want to look into &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/173-canon-ef-400mm-f56-usm-l-lab-test-report--review&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L&lt;/a&gt;, which has significantly longer reach than the 70-200, but still might be usable if you want to use it outdoors. It's also cheaper, costing around $1250.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-17T06:48:06.313" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T06:48:06.313" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="713" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="718" CreationDate="2010-07-17T06:46:35.910" Score="5" ViewCount="216" Body="&lt;p&gt;How can timelapse sequences be shot without having in-camera support for it? Which third party tools are recommended?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T11:16:46.343" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T11:16:46.343" Title="Timelapse without in-camera support" Tags="&lt;timelapse&gt;&lt;intervalometer&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="715" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="713" CreationDate="2010-07-17T07:01:47.863" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a number of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.se/search?sourceid=chrome&amp;amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;amp;q=remote+shutter+release+with+time+lapse&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;remote shutter release devices with time lapse&lt;/a&gt; capabilities. I cannot recommend any specific, partly because I never used one of them myself, and also because I do not know what camera you have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T07:01:47.863" />
  <row Id="716" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="713" CreationDate="2010-07-17T07:03:05.753" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Even though most cameras don't support it by themselves, many times it's possible when you connect them to a computer and use vendor-supplied software. For example Canon EOS utility should be able to do time lapse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T07:03:05.753" />
  <row Id="717" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="496" CreationDate="2010-07-17T07:26:50.817" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Tamron&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Common&lt;/b&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;AF:&lt;/b&gt; autofocus (probably*)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;XYZmm:&lt;/b&gt; focal length&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;F/x.y:&lt;/b&gt; max. aperture&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Features&lt;/b&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;[IF]:&lt;/b&gt; internal Focusing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Aspherical:&lt;/b&gt; has some aspherical glass&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;LD:&lt;/b&gt; Low Dispersion&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;AD:&lt;/b&gt; Anomalous Dispersion&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;SP:&lt;/b&gt; High-performance specifications (probably some kind of &quot;pro&quot;-designation)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Di:&lt;/b&gt; Digitally Integrated Design (for film and digital SLRs)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Di II:&lt;/b&gt; lenses for Digital SLR Cameras Only (not for full-frame DSLRs)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;MACRO:&lt;/b&gt; has some macro magnification ratio&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;MACRO 1:2:&lt;/b&gt; has 1:2 macro magnification&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;MACRO 1:1:&lt;/b&gt; actual macro lens&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;VC:&lt;/b&gt; Vibration Compensation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;USD:&lt;/b&gt; Ultrasonic Silent Drive&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*) only lens without &quot;AF&quot; in name is currently &lt;em&gt;SP70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD&lt;/em&gt; which seems to have autofocus anyway&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Examples&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR DiII VC LD Aspherical [IF]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AF28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical [IF] MACRO&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;SP AF200-500mm F/5-6.3 Di LD [IF]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;SP AF90mm F/2.8 Di MACRO 1:1&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T07:26:50.817" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-16T18:30:19.840" />
  <row Id="718" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="713" CreationDate="2010-07-17T07:32:49.617" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon TC80N3, which works as a remote shutter, can do hundred of exposures at a timed interval (aka time lapse), a long delay before taking a shot, and very long exposures (ie, greater than 30 seconds that the camera can do).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They seem to be quite difficult to get new nowadays - but they do have them on eBay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="93" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T07:32:49.617" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="719" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="720" CreationDate="2010-07-17T08:20:03.530" Score="7" ViewCount="87" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/667/practices-for-dof-stacking&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Practices for DOF stacking&lt;/a&gt; I noticed a mention of a &quot;focusing rail&quot;. I never heard of such device. Can you explain what it is and in what occasions is it useful?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="179" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T18:54:28.583" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T18:54:28.583" Title="What is focusing rail?" Tags="&lt;macro&gt;&lt;focusing-rail&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="720" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="719" CreationDate="2010-07-17T08:32:51.313" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Focusing rail is a type of camera mount that allows you to move the camera forwards and backward on a very small scale.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.earthboundlight.com/images/phototips/focus_rail1.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;(image taken from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/closeup-focusing-rail.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article at Earthbound Light&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason for using them is that in macro photography you have such small depth of field that it's easier to focus lens to given distance and then move the camera to get the parts you want in focus than the other way round (and it's also ensures you always use maximal magnification, if you need to).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T08:32:51.313" />
  <row Id="721" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="401" CreationDate="2010-07-17T09:24:00.340" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a program called photome that will allow you to access the Exif data of a picture and will also give you the shutter actions in that data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T09:24:00.340" />
  <row Id="722" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="401" CreationDate="2010-07-17T09:32:19.017" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have previusly used &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.opanda.com/en/iexif/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Opanda IExif&lt;/a&gt; to get this kind of information. The program is freeware and will show you (among other things) how many shots that you have taken with your camera based on the shutter count attribute recorded on a photo’s &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exif&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EXIF&lt;/a&gt; information. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After you have pressed &quot;Open&quot; and find a recently taken photo, look for &lt;code&gt;Total Number of Shutter Releases for Camera&lt;/code&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="213" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T09:32:19.017" />
  <row Id="723" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="728" CreationDate="2010-07-17T09:35:34.773" Score="5" ViewCount="282" Body="&lt;p&gt;My Nikon 18-200 lens on a D300 camera will not focus when it is zoomed between 135mm and 200mm. Is there any tips on how to solve this besides handing it in to a photo store?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="213" LastEditorUserId="95" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-17T11:45:46.453" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T20:35:48.870" Title="Nikon 18-200 lens not focusing" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;focus&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;repair&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="724" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="774" CreationDate="2010-07-17T09:47:10.000" Score="7" ViewCount="303" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi Folks,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I own a D90 with a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 prime lens. However ever since buying my camera I am struggling to find a proper workflow to process RAW images on my Mac which does at least the following&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adjust shadows and highlights.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adjust an image via its histogram.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adjust white balance.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adjust exposure.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Crop a photo.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Present a preview of how the photo may look like after printing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Apply EXIF tags.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Apply watermarks.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question is what kind of workflow should I follow, if I were constrained to use only free software on my Mac? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: Please also suggest a software or a set of software applications to use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: Flagged as a wiki question since there can't be correct or perfect answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="211" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-22T04:13:32.820" LastActivityDate="2011-04-30T05:36:09.250" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T11:49:55.980" Title="Please suggest a workflow on Mac using only free/open source software" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;open-source&gt;&lt;macintosh&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="725" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5383" CreationDate="2010-07-17T10:26:38.567" Score="5" ViewCount="75" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have this problem: the mode selection wheel on my Canon 5D II is much looser than I'd like and changes values randomly as I take it out of the camera bag. Same thing sometimes happens to the autofocus / IS selector on my lenses. Is there a product or a technique for dealing with this annoynce?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="215" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T20:31:32.183" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T20:31:32.183" Title="How do you tighten loose controls on camera / lenses?" Tags="&lt;repair&gt;&lt;camera-controls&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="726" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="725" CreationDate="2010-07-17T10:29:53.477" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe these are not user-servicable parts, so I would suggest to locate the nearest Canon service center and have them look at it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T10:29:53.477" />
  <row Id="727" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="724" CreationDate="2010-07-17T11:34:06.723" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I shoot Canon, so my workflow will be slightly different... but I use:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Picasa to upload/organize&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Digital Photo Professional (Canon only) for most cropping/simple adjustment.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Gimp for almost all the other processing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T11:34:06.723" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="728" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="723" CreationDate="2010-07-17T11:47:30.930" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There really isn't all that much you can do with lenses yourself without making things worse. It sounds like something mechanically is wrong, and the only way to fix that is going to be to open up the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: I would take it to a Nikon authorized repair shop. If you are in the US, &lt;a href=&quot;http://nikonusa.com/Service-And-Support/Nikon-Authorized-Repair-List.page&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this is the list&lt;/a&gt; of authorized repair shops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastEditorUserId="95" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-17T17:52:19.030" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T17:52:19.030" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="729" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="96" CreationDate="2010-07-17T11:59:30.467" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm using &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product-Archive/Film-Scanners/9239/COOLSCAN-V-ED.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon Coolscan V ED&lt;/a&gt; and I'm very happy with it. Sadly, it has been discontinued and now the only Nikon option is much more expensive &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Film-Scanners/9237/Super-COOLSCAN-9000-ED.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Coolscan 9000 ED&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two Coolscans V on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&amp;amp;_trksid=p3907.m570.l1313&amp;amp;_nkw=coolscan+v+ed&amp;amp;_sacat=See-All-Categories&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;eBay&lt;/a&gt; at the moment but I don't think I would comfortable buying a film scanner on a online auction site ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:&#xA;The biggest problem with a second hand scanner is that you don't know how much it was used. The light source in the scanner has a limited lifetime (same as the bulb in a video projector) and it's hard to tell how close to this limit it is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can test the scanner you can at least see if it still works fine on dark source. (With dia film that means a dark object and with a negative film this means a bright object.) In that case I'd suggest selecting few negatives of a known quality (i.e. you had made prints from it) and running them through the scanner. That would show you the detail in bright areas. You should also check for picture noise that would indicate transport problems (i.e. a missing line in the scan or a &quot;squashed&quot; picture with one dimension disproportionately small) and for the noise in the scanned photo. Of course, some noise is imminent as you are working with a noise-sensitive equipment (scanner) on a source that already contains a noise from the analog recording process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S. I'm &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; selling my Nikon ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="179" LastEditorUserId="179" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-20T06:49:28.437" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T06:49:28.437" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="730" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="725" CreationDate="2010-07-17T12:23:15.600" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I haven't experienced that with mine. The stops are quite distinct, and you have to apply a lot of pressure if you want to turn it by pressing on one side (as opposed to gripping both sides).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are able to turn it by just putting in your camera bag, there is probably something wrong with it, and you should contact your dealer. Judging from the sound and feel, it's a ball and spring mechanism, in that case it's not adjustable in any other way than modifying or replacing the spring.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T12:23:15.600" />
  <row Id="731" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9" CreationDate="2010-07-17T13:16:57.813" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have this checklist and &quot;&lt;strong&gt;3-2-3&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; is the way I keep it in my head (you can also tape &quot;&lt;strong&gt;3-2-3&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; to the backside of your camera if you need):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3 steps before going out with a camera:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are the most critical checks. You rarely are going to have a chance to recover from not having checked them once you're out with the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Battery inserted and with charge&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Memory card inserted and with space available&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Quick power on test&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you happen to have a second battery or card, try to always carry them too if you are leaving for more than a hour. If leaving for a full day, take the battery charger too if possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 steps during a session, before turning off the camera:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many other things to check, sure, but the two items bellow can really ruin your next shot if not checked. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Turn on Image Stabilization (critical if your next shot is handheld but the previous one was not)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set white balance to auto (critical if you are changing light conditions, a quite common situation while traveling or indoors)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you manage to remember it after the above checks, it never hurts to reset ISO too. On the other hand, a higher than needed ISO setting while not a good thing, probably won't ruin your next shot like missing one of the two checks above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everything else is usually quickly noticeable before your next shot (due to their direct interference with exposure levels).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3 steps after the session itself:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Backup the card(s), even if not erasing them yet, wherever you can&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Charge the battery (and replace it with the spare if available in order to rotate them)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Charge the spare battery, if the case&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A long answer, I know, just keep the &quot;&lt;strong&gt;3-2-3&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; in mind and you'll see that it's not that much trouble. :o)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T13:16:57.813" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-05T11:22:45.730" />
  <row Id="732" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9" CreationDate="2010-07-17T13:53:57.507" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Gear:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Battery check (this is done the night before to give time to charge)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lens check. Since I'm mobile with my gear, I give a little thought to what lenses I should pack with me. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flash check. Will I need a fill flash?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bag check. Will I want my shoulder bag, or my camera backpack?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Memory card check. Do I have enough memory cards?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;RS Strap. Is my strap secure. Are there any tears in it?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lens Hood: Do I need my lens hoods?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tripod/Gorilla Pod: Do I need my pods?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Camera Settings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ISO&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shooting Mode&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For almost all the camera settings, I do these on the fly, depending on the situation. I generally stick to AV, but flip to Manual when necessary. I also have all three custom settings, to quickly switch to less frequently used configurations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During the actual picture shot itself, I compose, focus lock, (recompose if necessary), take one last look around the view finder, exhale and pull the trigger. I quickly glance at the histogram, and go from there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After making enough mistakes, this has become completely natural, so I don't need to write anything down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T13:53:57.507" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-05T11:22:45.730" />
  <row Id="733" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-17T15:05:30.567" Score="6" ViewCount="167" Body="&lt;p&gt;After reading some questions, I am getting lost with stage photography, curtain photography? etc.. I only know portrait, landscape, street, sports etc..is there a standard lingo somewhere?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="147" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-22T04:14:39.667" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T11:40:35.913" Title="What are the different kinds of photography?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;style&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="734" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="496" CreationDate="2010-07-17T15:40:15.723" Score="20" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;jrista has covered the actual definitions very well. I thought I might add a few comments as to what some of the features actually mean in terms of consequences of the features (it took me a while to work out what some of them meant).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Lenses only for reduced frame DSLRs&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most low to mid range DSLRs have a sensor that is smaller than a 35mm film frame - sometimes called &quot;reduced frame&quot; or &quot;cropped sensor&quot;. So using a &quot;full frame&quot; lens will mean lots of extra light around the sensor that isn't used. You can makes lenses smaller and lighter by reducing the projected image size to fit the sensor size. However using these lenses on a full frame camera would result in the corners of the image being dark - and mostly these lenses won't fit on a full frame camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;less than full frame&quot; codes are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon: &lt;strong&gt;EF-S&lt;/strong&gt; (EF for full frame)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon: &lt;strong&gt;DX&lt;/strong&gt; (FX for full frame)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pentax: &lt;strong&gt;DA&lt;/strong&gt; (FA or D FA for full frame)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sigma: &lt;strong&gt;DC&lt;/strong&gt; (DG for full frame)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sony/Minolta: &lt;strong&gt;DT&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tamron: &lt;strong&gt;Di II&lt;/strong&gt; (Di for full frame)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Image Stabilisation/Vibration Reduction&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Image Stabilisation is also called Optical Stabilisation, Optical Image Stabilisation, Optical Steady Shot, Vibration Compensation and Vibration Reduction. Does what it says on the tin basically. (Although note that some DSLR bodies have a form of vibration reduction in the body and so don't need it in the lens).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon: &lt;strong&gt;IS&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon: &lt;strong&gt;VR&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Panasonic: &lt;strong&gt;OIS&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sigma: &lt;strong&gt;OS&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sony/Minolta: &lt;strong&gt;OSS&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tamron: &lt;strong&gt;VC&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Fast and Quiet Focussing Motors&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The focussing motors in some lower end lenses can be quite noisy. The higher end lenses are able to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/U/ultrasonic_focus_motor.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;focus more quickly&lt;/a&gt; (the movements can be more accurately controlled) and are quieter and use less battery. The acronym for it usually includes &quot;Sonic&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon: &lt;strong&gt;USM&lt;/strong&gt; Ultrasonic Motor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon: &lt;strong&gt;SWM&lt;/strong&gt; Silent Wave Motor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Olympus/Zuiko: &lt;strong&gt;SWD&lt;/strong&gt; Supersonic Wave Drive&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pentax: &lt;strong&gt;SDM&lt;/strong&gt; Supersonic Drive Motor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sigma: &lt;strong&gt;HSM&lt;/strong&gt; Hyper-Sonic Motor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sony/Minolta: &lt;strong&gt;SSM&lt;/strong&gt; Super-Sonic Motor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tamron: &lt;strong&gt;USD&lt;/strong&gt; Ultrasonic Silent Drive&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Lens Features&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a variety of lens features to reduce &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;chromatic abberations&lt;/a&gt; (where different colours don't exactly converge) and other imperfections in lens performance. In particular &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspheric_lens&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;aspherical lens elements&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; have a more complex surface profile that can reduce or eliminate spherical aberration and also reduce other optical aberrations compared to a simple lens. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;low dispersion&lt;/strong&gt; glass means that there is a relatively small difference in the amount different colours bend while going through the glass (technically the refractive index does not vary so much with wavelength).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apochromat&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;apochromatic lens elements&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; are very good at reducing chromatic aberration - they are generally made up of three different materials stuck together.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Canon: &lt;strong&gt;DO&lt;/strong&gt; Diffractive Optics&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon: &lt;strong&gt;ED&lt;/strong&gt; Extra-low Dispersion Glass, &lt;strong&gt;ASP&lt;/strong&gt; Aspherical Lens Element&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Olympus/Zuiko: &lt;strong&gt;ED&lt;/strong&gt; Extra-low dispersion glass&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pentax: &lt;strong&gt;ED&lt;/strong&gt; Extra-low dispersion glass, &lt;strong&gt;AL&lt;/strong&gt; Aspherical Lens Element&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sigma: &lt;strong&gt;ASP&lt;/strong&gt; Aspherical lens element, &lt;strong&gt;APO&lt;/strong&gt; Aphochromatic (low-dispersion) lens element&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sony/Minolta: &lt;strong&gt;AD&lt;/strong&gt; Anomalous Dispersion, &lt;strong&gt;APO&lt;/strong&gt; Apochromatic correction using AD elements, &lt;strong&gt;HS-APO&lt;/strong&gt; High-Speed APO&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tamron: &lt;strong&gt;Aspherical&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;ASL&lt;/strong&gt; aspherical lens element, &lt;strong&gt;AD&lt;/strong&gt; Anomalous Dispersion, &lt;strong&gt;ADH&lt;/strong&gt; AD + ASL hybrid lens element, &lt;strong&gt;HID&lt;/strong&gt; High Index, High Dispersion Glass, &lt;strong&gt;LD&lt;/strong&gt; Low Dispersion, &lt;strong&gt;LAH&lt;/strong&gt; LD + ASL hybrid lens element, &lt;strong&gt;XLD&lt;/strong&gt; Extra Low Dispersion, &lt;strong&gt;XR&lt;/strong&gt; Extra Refractive Index Glass&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tokina: &lt;strong&gt;AS&lt;/strong&gt; Aspherical lens element, &lt;strong&gt;F&amp;amp;R&lt;/strong&gt; Advanced Aspherical lens element, &lt;strong&gt;HLD&lt;/strong&gt; High-Refraction, Low Dispersion, &lt;strong&gt;SD&lt;/strong&gt; Super Low Dispersion&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Lens Coatings&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a variety of lens coatings used to reduce internal reflections and other possible problems. Internal reflections can end up producing ghost images or adding to lens flare. Not all lens manufacturers specify the lens coatings they use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon: &lt;strong&gt;NIC&lt;/strong&gt; Nikon Integrated Coating, &lt;strong&gt;SIC&lt;/strong&gt; Super Integrated Coating&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pentax: &lt;strong&gt;SMC&lt;/strong&gt; Super Multi Coating&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sony/Minolta: &lt;strong&gt;T&lt;/strong&gt; High-performance Coating&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tokina: &lt;strong&gt;MC&lt;/strong&gt; Multi-Coating&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Yashica: &lt;strong&gt;DSB&lt;/strong&gt; Single-Coating, &lt;strong&gt;ML&lt;/strong&gt; (later &lt;strong&gt;MC&lt;/strong&gt;) Multi-Layer (later Multi-coating)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Macro&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Macro lenses can focus very close to the end of the lens, providing (at least) a 1:1 ratio between the size of the object and the size of the image on the sensor. In plain english, you can take very close up shots of flowers, insects and so on. They are just called &lt;strong&gt;Macro&lt;/strong&gt; (or occasionally &lt;strong&gt;Micro&lt;/strong&gt;), making life easy for once.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Focusing&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This includes Internal/Inner Focusing (&lt;strong&gt;IF&lt;/strong&gt;) and (Internal) Rear Focusing (&lt;strong&gt;RF&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;IRF&lt;/strong&gt;). Both of these reduce the number of individual lenses moving inside the lens. They also mean that the front of the lens will not move in or out, or rotate, during focusing. The lack of rotation can be important if, say, you have a circular polarizing filter, or a graded ND filter fitted to the lens. And the front not moving in or out can be important if the lens is very close to the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;High End Lenses&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some manufacturers have a code to indicate their high end lenses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon: &lt;strong&gt;L&lt;/strong&gt; Luxury&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pentax: * and &lt;strong&gt;Limited&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sigma: &lt;strong&gt;EX&lt;/strong&gt; Professional EXternal lens body finishing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sony: &lt;strong&gt;G&lt;/strong&gt; Gold Series&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tamron: &lt;strong&gt;SP&lt;/strong&gt; Super Performance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Miscellaneous&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other codes might indicate the mount type (which will indicate whether it will fit your body), whether it will work with a Teleconverter or whether the lens needs the camera body to provide the motor for auto-focussing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note that I'm not an expert at this and am happy to integrate clarifications left in comments.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="1913" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-20T17:09:19.107" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T17:09:19.107" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-16T18:30:19.840" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="735" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="733" CreationDate="2010-07-17T16:19:25.170" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a lot of categories, some more well known than others. There is no specified standard for categories, so it's just up to what people use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you make a web search for a category, you will see approximately how well used it is. Stage photography for example is well known, but curtain photography is not used enough to even show up before a bunch of photographers with the last name Curtain or photographcs of actual curtains (unless it actually means taking photos of curtains...).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photosig.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PhotoSig&lt;/a&gt; website for example have chosen to use these categories:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Abstract&#xA;Aerial&#xA;Animal&#xA;Architecture&#xA;Astrophotography&#xA;Avian&#xA;Black and White&#xA;Cityscape&#xA;Current Events&#xA;Decisive Moment&#xA;Defocused&#xA;Documentary&#xA;Emotive&#xA;Expression&#xA;Family&#xA;Fashion&#xA;Film&#xA;Fine Art&#xA;Food&#xA;Glamour&#xA;HDRI (High Dynamic Range Imaging)&#xA;Humorous&#xA;ICM (intentional camera movement)&#xA;Industrial&#xA;Infrared&#xA;Interior&#xA;Journalism&#xA;Landscape&#xA;Lomo&#xA;Macro&#xA;Nature&#xA;Nude&#xA;Panoramas/Mosaics&#xA;Performance&#xA;Pinhole&#xA;Portrait&#xA;Product&#xA;Publicity&#xA;Random&#xA;Recycled Art&#xA;Rough Camera&#xA;Rural&#xA;Sea and Sand&#xA;Sky&#xA;Snapshot&#xA;Sports&#xA;Still Life&#xA;Stock&#xA;Street Photography&#xA;Suburban&#xA;Swimsuit&#xA;Tourist&#xA;Travel&#xA;Underwater&#xA;Urban&#xA;Vehicle&#xA;Vintage&#xA;Weather&#xA;Wedding&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T16:19:25.170" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="736" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="479" CreationDate="2010-07-17T16:21:52.813" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the washed out look is fairly subtle, than this is a common problem, especially if you shoot in RAW rather than JPG*.  The reason it happens is that the camera's trying to give you all the data in the photo by not under-exposing anything (making it pure black) or over-exposing anything (making it pure white).  The resulting photo with no true white or true black looks washed out.  But, post-processing fixes it easily by using Auto-Level, or you can use Curves or Levels manually to make it suit your taste.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;.* &lt;em&gt;Shooting in JPG means the camera processes the photo more to help make it look better straight out of the camera with no post-processing.  RAW applies no in-camera post processing, the photos tend to look worse straight out of the camera, but it gives the photographer more control over the final result if they want it.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The camera allows you to change the brightness on your LCD.  If you change it all the way up or down, your photos will look over or under exposed and nothing like what you get when you put them on your computer.  This should show that you can't trust the LCD.  Instead, learn to use your histogram, which will show you your exposure in a graph format that's very easy to read.  There's a quick tutorial on reading a histogram here if you want to read it:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.muddyboots.org/2009/02/histogram-basics.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://blog.muddyboots.org/2009/02/histogram-basics.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="110" LastEditorUserId="110" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-17T16:27:46.617" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T16:27:46.617" />
  <row Id="737" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="733" CreationDate="2010-07-17T17:47:21.117" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Guffa's answer is extremely complete, so I'll take a bit of a different tack. There are a few &quot;major&quot; and &quot;minor&quot; categories of photography that I think are pretty common, and regularly used in photographic jargon:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;General&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Journalism&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Street&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Still Life&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Nature&lt;/strong&gt; &#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wildlife&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bird&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Scapes&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Land&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sea&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sky&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Macro&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nature&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Floral&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Insect&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;General&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Objects&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Abstract&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Portrait&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Personal&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wedding&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Family&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Nude&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sports&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Architecture&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Astrophotography&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-22T11:40:35.913" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T11:40:35.913" />
  <row Id="738" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="710" CreationDate="2010-07-17T18:16:10.403" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Class 6 is sufficient. That camera can almost write as fast as that, though. You might consider a Class 10, which could be more useful in the future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The size is really up to you and your take on &quot;putting all your eggs in one basket.&quot; I have a few 32GB CF cards because I don't like fumbling with cards all the time. Basically, the more I'm handling my baskets, the more opportunity there is to break my eggs. That's just me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Stick with the reputable brands for memory. Kingston and SanDisk are good. I'm sure there are some others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="50" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T18:16:10.403" />
  <row Id="739" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="377" CreationDate="2010-07-17T18:23:50.310" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't speak to the ability of the nikon 105, but I have a Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM macro (which i believe is the rough canon equivalent), and am completely happy with it. It is the sharpest lens I own, and gets in tight enough to get great detail for large insects and flowers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also have used this lens for portaits and have been very happy with the results, which wouldn't be as easy with a longer lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-19T15:15:40.900" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T15:15:40.900" />
  <row Id="740" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="710" CreationDate="2010-07-17T18:37:09.220" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For the T2i, I would stick with SanDisc Extreme III (a Class 6 card). These cards are very reliable, very fast, and for a decent size (8gb or 16gb), not terribly expensive. The size you choose is up to you, depends on how much you like swapping out cards, when you might have the opportunity, etc. If you are shooting a lot of action on a continuous basis, a larger 32Gb card might be better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are a few brands that I've tried that have the tendency to die within a few months. Stear clear of them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Transcend (Absolutely terrible)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lexar (hit and miss, I've had a couple myself die, and know many other photographers who have had problems)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Patriot (hit and miss, not really recommended)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;PNY (not too bad, but they do have a higher rate of failure than say Kingston or SanDisk)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T18:37:09.220" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="741" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="377" CreationDate="2010-07-17T18:42:32.270" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Which macro lens you get would probably depend on what kind of macro photography you want to do. There are a variety of macro subjects: flora, insects, still-life objects, abstract closeups.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you wish to photograph insects, and are a beginner, a longer focal length that gives you more working room in front of the lens would probably be better. I am a Canon user, and I know that Canon offers a 180mm Macro lens that fits the bill. The greater distance between you and your subject reduces the chance you'll be scaring your subject off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you wish to photograph flora or still life objects, a 105mm Macro will do the job. I have the Canon 100mm Macro myself, and it is a great focal length. You have a lot of control over depth of field with this focal length. Its not too long, so you don't have to be over a foot away from your subject. If you need to get in really close, you can always get a set of extension tubes to reduce your distance to subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also macro lenses in the 50-60mm range. They tend to have a shallower depth of field, but let you get closer to your subjects. To me, DOF is one of the most important factors of a macro shot, and I like the extra DOF versatility a 100mm lens gives me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to answer your question, the Nikon 105 Macro would probably be an ideal lens for most subjects, although if your subject of interest is the insect world, you might end up scaring off more of your subjects than you would wish (at least as a beginner.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T18:42:32.270" />
  <row Id="742" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="744" CreationDate="2010-07-17T18:46:45.113" Score="8" ViewCount="624" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the differences in features for a photographer between Photoshop CS 5 and Photoshop Elements 8?  I know that Photoshop CS 5 contains some features that are more for graphic designers or web graphics, but when it comes to photo processing and editing, what is missing from Elements?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-16T16:56:28.697" LastActivityDate="2010-10-16T16:56:28.697" Title="Differences (for a photographer) between Photoshop CS 5 and Photoshop Elements 8?" Tags="&lt;photoshop-elements&gt;&lt;photoshop-cs5&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="743" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="436" CreationDate="2010-07-17T18:52:27.397" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While &quot;play&quot;ing around is a great way to experiment, if you're looking for tutorials on how to do specific things there are a lot of them available.  Some are available for free on YouTube, and if you're willing to spend a few dollars the videos available from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lynda.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lynda.com&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kelbytraining.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kelby Training&lt;/a&gt; are excellent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T18:52:27.397" />
  <row Id="744" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="742" CreationDate="2010-07-17T18:59:41.937" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would consider Elements to be more along the lines of an entry-level Lightroom than a competitor to Photoshop CS5. All three products serve a certain audience, with some overlap between all three as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Elements is an excellent entry level tool that allows you to quickly clean up photos at the basic level with prefab tools that do most of the work for you. Some of the things Elements has that Photoshop does not (at least from a built-in feature perspective) are the ability to organize collections of photos, find photos by their content (i.e. facial recognition), and an auto-analyzer that apparently can find your &quot;best work&quot; for you. Elements 8 can also sync your photo libraries across computers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photoshop CS5 is, like previous versions of Photoshop, the ultimate photographers tool. Anything that can be done in elements can be done in Photoshop...although sometimes it might require more work and steps to accomplish. Photoshop CS5 offers some intriguing new features that I am dying to try out myself, however, that are not found in any other Adobe product.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most intriguing feature is content-aware fill, which makes it easy to eliminate undesired elements from your photographs, and fill in the gap with content that is generated to nearly perfectly match the content around it. Similar features have existed in tools like Gimp for a couple years, so the idea is not new, however this is its first encounter with a mainstream product. Along similar lines are two other new features, including &lt;code&gt;automatic lens correction&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;puppet warp&lt;/code&gt;. The lens correction feature can analyze a photo for various types of distortion (such as pincushion or barrel), and correct lines that should be strait. The puppet warp feature is pretty intriguing, as it allows you to mark parts of your photograph, such as a flower, and bend, tilt, or move just that part without affecting the rest. I believe this feature works hand-in-hand with the content-aware fill to keep your picture looking pristine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another feature of Photoshop is its Merge to HDR feature. This is probably one of my most used tools in CS3. It has been improved in CS5 to support single-image HDR via RAW (or other high-bit-depth files such as TIFF), better ghost removal, and an improved tone mapping tool. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another benefit of CS5 is that it has begun incorporating GPU shaders to accelerate a lot of the common operations, greatly improving the performance of the application.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T18:59:41.937" />
  <row Id="745" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-17T19:13:20.770" Score="16" ViewCount="121" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are some good podcasts that deal with photography?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please answer with &lt;strong&gt;one podcast/link/description per answer&lt;/strong&gt; (so that members can then vote based on their opinions of that podcast).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T15:05:19.000" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T19:13:20.770" Title="What are some good photography podcasts?" Tags="&lt;learning&gt;" AnswerCount="7" FavoriteCount="8" />
  <row Id="746" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="745" CreationDate="2010-07-17T19:14:47.337" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I really like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thisweekinphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This Week in Photography&lt;/a&gt;, which is part of the TWiT nextwork.  Hosted by Frederick Van Johnson, the podcast covers all sorts of topics including gear, news, events, and techniques.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T19:14:47.337" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T19:14:47.337" />
  <row Id="747" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="745" CreationDate="2010-07-17T19:23:25.910" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I really enjoy &lt;a href=&quot;http://photofocus.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PhotoFocus&lt;/a&gt;, by Scott Bourne.  He generally answers listener questions and talks with guests about photography and DSLR videography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T19:23:25.910" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T19:23:25.910" />
  <row Id="748" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="757" CreationDate="2010-07-17T19:24:49.090" Score="14" ViewCount="109" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although tools exist to remove red-eye in post-production, what's the best way to avoid it while creating the photograph in the field?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-18T01:58:50.100" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T18:52:27.547" Title="How to Avoid Red-Eye in Photos?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="749" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="751" CreationDate="2010-07-17T19:40:46.103" Score="5" ViewCount="129" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to get a little higher magnification out of my Canon 100mm Macro, so I am looking at extension tubes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know Canon makes the EF25, but it seems pretty expensive considering there isn't even glass involved. I saw a &quot;Kenko&quot; extension tube set that is only a little more expensive for a 12, 20, and 36mm.  Are there any downsides to buying a third party extension tube?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T19:51:16.173" Title="Extension tubes for Canon" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;extension-tubes&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="750" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="748" CreationDate="2010-07-17T19:41:58.940" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Using an off camera flash, or bouncing the flash off the ceiling/wall, will help to avoid red-eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a more in-depth answer this is a good article about &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpfwiw.com/red-eye.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;red-eye control&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-29T18:52:27.547" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T18:52:27.547" />
  <row Id="751" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="749" CreationDate="2010-07-17T19:51:16.173" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I know there should be no real difference. The extension tube have no lens elements but is merely (as the name suggests) a tube. The Kenko extension tubes feature the same electrical connections as the Canon one (judging from reviews and images on the net). &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Kenko-Extension-Tube-Set-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;According to this review&lt;/a&gt;, there are two versions of the Kenko tubes; an older one that is not compatible with EF-S lenses, and a newer one that is. Worth keeping in mind if you have such lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T19:51:16.173" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="752" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="748" CreationDate="2010-07-17T19:51:40.913" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If your subjects are prone to red eye, prefiring a flash pulse before taking the shot will make their iris contract, reducing redeye. Many camera's have this as a setting for the flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-17T21:56:51.100" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T21:56:51.100" />
  <row Id="753" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-17T20:25:40.583" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Take your camera everywhere. You should always be on the look out for something to shoot. The more you look the better your eye gets at spotting worthy things to take a picture of and the better your shots get.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="218" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T20:25:40.583" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T20:25:40.583" />
  <row Id="754" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="208" CreationDate="2010-07-17T20:50:18.153" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could find something useful at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/services/apps/search/?q=android&amp;amp;w=applications&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr App Garden&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="136" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T20:50:18.153" />
  <row Id="755" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="852" CreationDate="2010-07-17T21:50:06.610" Score="8" ViewCount="360" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to convert a room downstairs into a home studio to do mostly portrait/fashion/pet photography. I have a few strobes, softboxes, and stands, but that's it. What are the bare basics needed to get started?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-11-15T16:26:17.367" Title="What equipment is required for a home studio?" Tags="&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;studio-setup&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="756" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-17T21:52:00.183" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most important tool to improve the picture composition are your legs!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Legs will remove obstructing elements from the photo. They will add a foreground interest. They will provide a framing to focus the viewers attention on the main object.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't be afraid to move close to the object. Don't be afraid to take a very low or high viewpoint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A small change in perspective can make or break the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="179" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T21:52:00.183" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T21:52:00.183" />
  <row Id="757" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="748" CreationDate="2010-07-17T21:53:35.970" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To understand how to prevent red-eye you need to understand what causes it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Red eye is caused by light from a flash that is close to the lens entering the subjects pupils and bouncing off the rear of the eye back into the lens. (The main cause for the red colour is the blood in the back of the retina). &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-eye_effect&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia has more info&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To prevent red-eye you need to prevent this light bounce back. There are several ways to achieve this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Pre-flash. By flashing a bright light prior to taking the main photo. This causes the subjects pupils to narrow and reduces the amount of red eye. Many modern compacts have red eye reduction modes that do this by flashing multiple times before the main flash, or providing a continuous bright light in place of a quick flash.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Use and angled flash to direct the light to bounce of a wall or ceiling to prevent the direct bounce back.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Use a flash that is separate from the camera so the light bouncing back does not bounce directly back down the axis of the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i25.tinypic.com/xpzi8o.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;prevention of redeye&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have a compact camera it is likely your only option is number 1. With an SLR you have more choices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="97" LastEditorUserId="97" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-17T22:36:08.603" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T22:36:08.603" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="758" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-17T21:55:00.447" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Take a picture first!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then take a breath, compose the picture properly, check the camera settings and start shooting &quot;for real&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Too many times a picture is not taken because the golden moment is lost while the photographer is preparing to take a photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="179" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T21:55:00.447" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T21:55:00.447" />
  <row Id="759" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-17T22:01:20.117" Score="10" ViewCount="223" Body="&lt;p&gt;Personally, I shoot in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative_%28file_format%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DNG&lt;/a&gt; and avoid the proprietary RAW format for my camera (PEF on a Pentax K200D). I like DNG because it's open and supports embedded metadata, both of which is not true with formats like PEF (Pentax), NEF (Nikon) and CRW (Canon). What are the incentives for shooting in these proprietary formats then?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Clarification&lt;/strong&gt;: My question is not really about converting the RAW format of the camera into DNG as a part of a workflow (during post processing or importing, say) but rather if the camera supports shooting both RAW and DNG then why stick with RAW.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="135" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-04T02:41:41.840" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T15:58:05.983" Title="What are the advantages of shooting in a proprietary RAW format over DNG?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;dng&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="760" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="759" CreationDate="2010-07-17T22:08:17.397" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biggest advantage to me, is that it's an extra step in my workflow to convert my 5D2 raw files to DNG. That extra step translates into more time in the post processing step. I'm going through 20GB of photos I just took while in spain, and converting them to DNG before I got started with it, would be a pain. I could save the resultant images as DNG, or have Lightroom convert to DNG upon import, but that still is more time that doesn't translate into any percieved benefit (since Lightroom already manages the metadata for me).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If my camera could shoot DNG natively, then perhaps I would consider shooting DNG.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T22:08:17.397" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="761" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="851" CreationDate="2010-07-17T22:13:24.397" Score="5" ViewCount="327" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does Lightroom have a healing brush?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm aware of the spot-healing capability, for some corrections I need a brush to paint the healing. Photoshop has this, but it slows my workflow down to have to keep jumping into PS to correct aberrations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd love to do this directly in Lightroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="130" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-31T15:38:21.973" LastActivityDate="2010-07-31T15:38:21.973" Title="Lightroom: Healing Brush?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;post-processing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="762" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-17T22:18:57.997" Score="12" ViewCount="237" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not all cameras support DNG natively. That is, if you want to process DNG files they need to be converted from the camera's proprietary RAW format to DNG afterwards. So, which cameras support DNG natively?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm thinking it would be best to have one answer per camera manufacturer with each answer listing the camera models but I'm open to something better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="135" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-04T02:42:20.437" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T18:39:32.987" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T22:18:57.997" Title="Which cameras support DNG natively?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;dng&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="763" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="762" CreationDate="2010-07-17T22:20:06.137" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Pentax&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;K-x&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;K-r&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;K-5&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;K-7&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;K10D &lt;em&gt;(u)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;K20D &lt;em&gt;(u)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;K200D &lt;em&gt;(u)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;K2000 &lt;em&gt;(u)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Models marked with (u) do not support creating compressed DNGs. These older cameras create DNGs that are larger than the equivalent Pentax-proprietary PEF raw files.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="135" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-25T18:39:32.987" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T18:39:32.987" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-17T22:20:06.137" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="764" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="759" CreationDate="2010-07-17T22:21:09.257" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I guess technically speaking, DNG (although it is called a &lt;code&gt;raw file&lt;/code&gt; or &lt;code&gt;raw file archive&lt;/code&gt;) is not really raw in the truest sense. A &quot;RAW&quot; file is one that is essentially a direct dump of data from a camera's image sensor and image processors (i.e. Digic 4 in Canon), without any format conversion or processing applied. Such raw files are tuned to the hardware for optimal performance, and as such are unique to the hardware they are written by. Thats why each camera manufacturer has their own format. Saving to DNG within a camera would require conversion from the cameras native raw file format into DNG. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The advantages of a true RAW format over a DNG are probably limited. If you photograph action a lot, and use a high frame rate camera like Canon 1D series or the Nikon D3 series, shooting in the camera's native raw format will likely get you a higher FPS vs. shooting in DNG (if it is supported), since you eliminate the need to convert. If a high frame rate is not important, shooting directly to DNG is probably beneficial as it can shorten your import times for post processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T22:21:09.257" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="765" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="755" CreationDate="2010-07-17T23:14:48.847" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The minimum equipment needed to take a decent picture is two light sources and a background, so either two lamps/flashes or one lamp/flash and a reflection screen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason that you need a minimum of two light sources is that the images will look very flat if you have a single light source.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is the bare minimum, everything after that is just to make the work easier. You might want more light, for example a separate light for the background, and a light meter can be very handy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-07-17T23:14:48.847" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="766" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="401" CreationDate="2010-07-18T00:01:46.983" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am not aware of any available software that would give you the shutter count for Canon 350D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have used before &lt;a href=&quot;http://astrojargon.net/EOSInfo.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EOSInfo Utility&lt;/a&gt; but I am afraid it only supports 40D, 50D, 450D, 500D, 1000D and 5DmkII. I tested it on 40D and 450D and it worked fine. Based on the notes on the EOSInfo website it seems that this information is not available for other models&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The shutter count information is available &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; on Canon DIGIC III/IV DSLRs &lt;em&gt;except&lt;/em&gt; the 1D* series. This means that EOSInfo will display the shutter counter for the 40D, the 50D, the 450D, 500D, and the 1000D. It will also show the shutter counter for the 5DMkII, but the camera must be power-cycled before the value is updated. The shutter counter will not be displayed (or will be displayed as &quot;0&quot;) on the 1D*, 5D, 10D, 20D, 30D, 300D, 350D, and 400D.  It's not that I have anything against the owners of those cameras, but simply that the Canon SDK does not support retrieving the shutter count for them. UPDATE (08/06/2009): Apparently, Canon has removed the facility for checking the shutter count on the 500D. More news when I learn something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not sure if this refers to the EOSInfo software or the availability of that information in general &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T00:01:46.983" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="767" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="745" CreationDate="2010-07-18T00:02:23.503" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I really enjoyed &lt;a href=&quot;http://5by5.tv/tacksharp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tack Sharp&lt;/a&gt;, but they haven't put out any episodes since November 2009.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T00:02:23.503" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-18T00:02:23.503" />
  <row Id="768" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="759" CreationDate="2010-07-18T00:03:18.603" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's one particular difference that I'm aware of: proprietary RAW formats contain complete data, while the DNG standard has a specific format, which may not match up to a RAW format. I'm aware some vendors, Nikon in particular, have been encrypting some of their RAW data so that it cannot easily be converted, if at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T00:03:18.603" />
  <row Id="769" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="488" CreationDate="2010-07-18T00:29:44.680" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That's curious...I use the old 105mm 2.8 Micro on my D50 without any trouble, certainly not like you've mentioned. For what it's worth!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The D50 should be able to handle most any compatible lens, except possibly rather old or eclectic ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T00:29:44.680" />
  <row Id="770" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="436" CreationDate="2010-07-18T00:50:32.313" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What has worked best for me is watching videos on Lynda.com - they cover the full spectrum of photo and design software and are both for beginners and advanced users. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="81" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T00:50:32.313" />
  <row Id="771" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="761" CreationDate="2010-07-18T01:51:04.410" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The spot-healing brush is a dual-mode brush. There is a &lt;code&gt;Clone&lt;/code&gt; setting as well as a &lt;code&gt;Heal&lt;/code&gt; setting. The heal setting is much more effective at generating &quot;healing content&quot;, if you will. I believe it is based off of the same healing brush found in Adobe Camera Raw, so it should serve the same purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T01:51:04.410" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="772" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="759" CreationDate="2010-07-18T01:57:06.563" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another advantage is that the &lt;strong&gt;manufacturer's raw files are better supported by post-processing software&lt;/strong&gt;. For example, the raw converter I use, Bibble, supports basically all Nikon DSLRs and add support for new models quickly. The way they do this is to obtain raw files from each camera and test those and tweak as necessary. This is done using NEF, not DNG. Thus, for any given camera, the data flow from sensor to JPEG is better tested if it does not include DNG.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T01:57:06.563" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="773" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="775" CreationDate="2010-07-18T02:02:09.860" Score="3" ViewCount="224" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Bridge CS5, I've been updating my photos' metadata and IPTC fields. There are a lot of fields available...How much of them do you &lt;strong&gt;typically&lt;/strong&gt; fill out? I can tell I'd at least want to put in my name, and the location of the photo along with keywords, but I'm not sure how far to go. For example, should I bother filling in the creator contact information?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastEditorUserId="26" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-18T02:09:19.093" LastActivityDate="2010-09-16T04:06:29.877" Title="How much metadata do you add to your photos?" Tags="&lt;exif&gt;&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;iptc&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="774" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="724" CreationDate="2010-07-18T02:11:07.747" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given that the reason for the question is price, I encourage you to rethink this constraint. How much is your time worth? You can get excellent post-processing software for little money compared to a lens. For example, Bibble can do everything above in the same application (might need a plugin for the watermark) and it costs only $100 for the lite version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I tried to go the same route (on Linux) and got tired of screwing around with freeware. The commercial software is way better and your time is worth more than you think it is - particularly since the smoother post-processing is, the more fun photography will be. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T02:11:07.747" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-18T02:11:07.747" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="775" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="773" CreationDate="2010-07-18T02:38:22.023" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the obvious things like keywords, I use a metadata preset in Lightroom to automatically add my name, contact information, website URL, and copyright information to every photo as it is imported.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Proving copyright infringement is significantly easier if you have contact info in the metadata, since most infringers aren't savvy enough to remove it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T02:38:22.023" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="776" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="480" CreationDate="2010-07-18T03:03:49.653" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;All lenses will show dust with a flashlight shown through them,&lt;/strong&gt; even brand new ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are a couple of detailed articles on how to evaluate a used lens, from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.calvinstudio.net/?p=321&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Calvin Foo&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=194&amp;amp;pgno=0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;TechARP&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, scratches matter less than you might think. Check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.10.30/front-element-scratches&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this lens&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T03:03:49.653" />
  <row Id="777" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16" CreationDate="2010-07-18T03:42:04.190" Score="23" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The manual that came with your camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T03:42:04.190" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="778" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="779" CreationDate="2010-07-18T03:48:25.333" Score="12" ViewCount="186" Body="&lt;p&gt;What should one consider when choosing a style of tripod head?  There are ball heads, 3-way pan/tilt heads, geared heads, even gimbal heads.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not asking so much about brands, but styles... how should one consider which type of tripod head will be best suited for their style of photography?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T18:54:01.063" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T18:54:01.063" Title="How to choose a style of tripod head" Tags="&lt;tripod&gt;&lt;tripod-heads&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="779" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="778" CreationDate="2010-07-18T05:29:32.993" Score="18" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your last sentence pretty much describes what you need to consider with tripod heads: what and how do you like to shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As geared and gimbal heads are specialized, it's really between the pan-tilt and ball heads. Many start with pan/tilts due to relatively low costs, but will find themselves switching to the ball head for ease of use, and sturdier head (IMO ball heads offer a more sturdier mount than pan/tilts at the same price point--ie to get a sturdier pan/tilt you have to pay for a more heavy duty head).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3-way Pan/Tilt Head&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;With 3-way heads, your camera moves on 3 distinct axes (axissesis?). If you need precise movement on each axis for your needs (panning for sports for example), then a 3-way makes a lot of sense. It's downside is the need to adjust three knobs to set your camera position. Many start out with a Pan/Tilt head, because of the lower costs. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ball Head&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;A ball head gives you less precise control of each axis, because your camera is mounted on a ball and socket joint, typically with two controls, one to lock the mount, and the other to adjust tension. You have less control, but are given more degrees of freedom to move your camera around, allowing you to more quickly adjust your camera with fewer controls to manipulate. Some ball heads allow for independently panning around the horizontal axes without manipulating the actual socket, but this is a feature, not a standard. This is probably the most general purpose type of tripod head, and many who start with budget pan/tilt heads move to ball heads for greater flexibility and sturdier mounting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Geared Heads&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;A geared head is a type of head that uses a crank-shaft + gears to rotate the head. Typically found on 3-way heads, these heads allow you to rotate the head using a crank, rather than applying force to the camera body itself, resulting in smoother movement, and a finer grain of control over moving the camera body. Architecture, and any other application requiring a fine control over placing the camera make for good uses for geared heads.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gimbal Head&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Gimbal heads are specialized heads typically reserved for long telephoto lenses (400mm+). It gets it's name from a gimbal, a type of pivot support that allows movement on a single axis. Gimbal heads are designed to allow you to rotate heavy lenses about it's center of gravity, which results in easier movement. These are used in any application that uses huge telephotos, bird-in-flight, other wildlife, sports, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T05:29:32.993" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="780" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="156" CreationDate="2010-07-18T05:57:41.500" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matt Kloskowski posts free Lightroom tutorials at &lt;a href=&quot;http://lightroomkillertips.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lightroom Killer Tips&lt;/a&gt;. I learned a lot from his material.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="179" LastEditorUserId="179" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-18T12:59:49.750" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T12:59:49.750" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-23T12:16:00.387" />
  <row Id="781" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="480" CreationDate="2010-07-18T05:58:43.523" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first thing is to buy used from reputable sellers. Many Buy and Sell forums have a feedback system which allows you to make an informed decision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next step is to do your homework. Used lens hold their value, unless badly mistreated, or made obsolete (in some cases this can increase the value). If the lens is way off what you find on B&amp;amp;S Forums or ebay prices, then it's either stolen, or problematic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fungus is a huge no-no, and I prefer my lenses to come from smoke free homes (hard to verify).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dust inside the element is okay, but front element scratches (while not likely to cause light-path issues) is a sign of a mistreated lens, and I would immediately walk away from purchasing, unless sold at a considerable discount. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check the focus rings for smooth motion. There shouldn't be any grinding, or grit. Push-pull zooms, and non-constant length zooms may have some barrel creep, but if it slides too quickly with no force, I would consider not purchasing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Minor focus issues can be corrected with a trip to Canon Service, and even with the service fee, you may be left with a better deal than had you purchased a 9+ lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ensure the lens caps still fit snug, and the mount ring is clean. If you can mount the lens, and ensure the AF communication works (as well trying out focusing).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I stated, buying from a reputable reseller will mean that you have a good recourse should something not be to your liking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-18T06:08:58.757" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T06:08:58.757" />
  <row Id="782" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="783" CreationDate="2010-07-18T05:59:21.573" Score="10" ViewCount="1860" Body="&lt;p&gt;How can a lens have a range of focal lengths (shouldn't it be a number instead of a range)? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isn't focal length supposed to be fixed for a lens of a particular shape and geometry?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What am I missing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How many lenses are actually there in a &quot;lens&quot;?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="64" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-04T17:37:57.880" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T17:37:57.880" Title="What does 18-55 mm mean?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;focal-length&gt;&lt;lens-design&gt;&lt;optics&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="783" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="782" CreationDate="2010-07-18T06:04:39.937" Score="18" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A range of focal lengths indicates a zoom lens. There are two major classes of lenses. Primes, or primary lenses, have a single focal length. They tend to be higher quality, as there can be fewer lens elements, and fewer moving element groups. One exception to this rule is super telephoto prime lenses, particularly faster lenses (f/2.8), which are some of the most advanced optics on earth, and contain numerous element groups with special types of lens elements (i.e. ultra low dispersion glass, fluorite lenses, aspherical elements, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other class are zoom lenses, and they have a range of focal lengths. They generally have more element groups overall, and usually have several moving groups. The length of a zoom lens can be increased or shortened, thus changing the focal length. The quality of a zoom lens depends on its construction. Some have great quality at one end of the range, and lesser quality at the other end. Some have great quality at the ends of the focal range, but lesser quality in the center of the range. Super telephoto zooms also often have special types of lens elements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the question about &quot;how many lenses are in a lens&quot;, the question depends. Some lenses have few lens elements (individual glass or other material lenses within a camera lens body), and others have many. The number of lens elements in a given lens is usually an indication of a few things. Lower quality lenses tend to have fewer elements, and the glass used in those elements tends to be of a lower quality (less dense, greater chance of splitting light and causing things like chromatic aberration.) Lower-end lenses may have 3-5 lens elements total. Higher quality lenses tend to have more elements, and often larger elements. Many high-end lenses tend to have more lens elements, around 5-10. Higher end telephoto lenses may have 14-20 lens elements or more. More glass is generally required to produce wider apertures, and having a very wide front lens element often requires additional lens elements to focus that light down to a size that can pass through the lens mount into your camera. As focal length increases, maintaining the quality of the generated image often requires additional elements that serve different purposes. High end telephoto lenses often contain aspherical elements, ultra-low dispersion elements, fluorite elements, movable element groups, etc. These additional lens elements increase the control the lens has over light, but also increase the overall weight of the lens, and its manufacturing complexity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T21:36:39.977" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T21:36:39.977" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="784" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="782" CreationDate="2010-07-18T06:06:01.027" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;By moving the glass elements in and out, you change the focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagine holding a magnifying glass up to your eye. As you pull away the glass, you're chaning the focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what happens in a zoom lens when you rotate the zoom ring. You're essentially moving one or more optical elements in and out, changing the focal point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The two numbers themselves, refer to the min and max values of the focal length. At 18mm, you are setting the focal point 18mm away from the camera's focal plane (the film plane or image sensor). At 55mm, the focal point is 55mm from the camera's focal plane. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-18T06:35:39.410" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T06:35:39.410" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="785" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="778" CreationDate="2010-07-18T06:31:01.887" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't add much to the answer already given except to say that I switched from a pan/tilt to a ball and love it.  Most photogs I know use ball heads, and one unexpected benefit of a ball is that if you end up with your tripod at a weird angle because you are on uneven ground you can still have your camera level no matter what with no concern over where your axis of adjustment is.  This has saved me in many situations with landscape photography, motorsports, urban areas, and in abandoned houses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One downside of ballheads, though, is that if you improperly adjust the tension (loosening it too quickly or mixing up your &quot;righty tighty&quot; with your &quot;lefty loosey&quot;)  -look out!  Your camera can &quot;fall&quot; to the side unexpectedly.  I haven't had mine fall, but I've had a few scares and can easily see how it'd occur.  Heavy lenses like my Bigma are that much more dangerous as they could probably knock the entire tripod over if they don't just come off the quick release mount and fall that way.  As long as you're careful when adjusting the position and tension, though, you should be fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="110" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T06:31:01.887" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="786" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="773" CreationDate="2010-07-18T07:28:48.723" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've set my camera to automatically add my name and website URL to every photo I shoot. This can be done using supplied software at least on Canon DSLRs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T07:28:48.723" />
  <row Id="787" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="759" CreationDate="2010-07-18T08:42:26.423" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is something particularly conceptually wrong with throwing away the stuff that comes out of your camera. If your camera shoots in DNG, then that's what you work with. If it shoots in RAW, the same. If it shoots in either, you have to figure out what the difference is in terms of metadata that is supported, as well as all of your workflow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When your camera shoots in its own proprietary RAW format, and you convert that into DNG and throw away the former, you're essentially throwing something away and the sad part is that you probably don't even know what. It's like shooting in color negative film, and have the lab contact print that into color positive film, just because you're scared that someday your scanner will no longer scan negative film anymore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your workflow supports your proprietary format today, there is no reason to think that it won't support it tomorrow. So what is the net benefit of converting it into another proprietary format that is simply 'open' because Adobe has published the specs? That whole open/closed thing doesn't matter. What matters is the tools that you use and how they support them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've made the mistake of converting and throwing away the originals, and I did learn the hard way. I didn't lose any shots, but I lost my freedom to use them in the tools that I wanted, because those tools didn't support the DNG as much as I wanted to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="92" LastEditorUserId="92" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-19T20:44:01.587" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T20:44:01.587" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="788" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="805" CreationDate="2010-07-18T09:47:18.773" Score="10" ViewCount="385" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is a shot of the different series of camras that Canon has to offer&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/mcdeX.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which one is for whom broadly? Maybe Canon uses can help with this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am looking to buy a mid-level DSLR with a normal 18-55 lens. Budget ~1000USD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="64" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T20:49:26.670" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T15:23:57.427" Title="What are the major differences between these camera series by Canon?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="789" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="788" CreationDate="2010-07-18T10:39:41.543" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon have different names for cameras in different parts of the world, so let's start with a translation table for those:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;EOS 1000D = EOS Rebel XS  = EOS Kiss F&#xA;EOS 550D  = EOS Rebel T2i = EOS Kiss X4&#xA;EOS 500D  = EOS Rebel T1i = EOS Kiss X3&#xA;EOS 450D  = EOS Rebel XSi = EOS Kiss X2&#xA;EOS 400D  = EOS Rebel XTi = EOS Kiss X&#xA;EOS 350D  = EOS Rebel XT  = EOS Kiss N&#xA;EOS 300D  = EOS Rebel     = EOS Kiss&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The numbering system on the left is intended to tell you how advanced the cameras are. EOS 1 is the professional end, and EOS 1000 is the least feature packed model.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, generally, the lower the number, the more expensive the camera is. However, a newer camera in the same segment gets a higher number, so 550D is the replacement for 500D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-21T14:51:29.933" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T14:51:29.933" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="790" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="802" CreationDate="2010-07-18T10:49:32.443" Score="11" ViewCount="376" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am planning to buy a DSLR soon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before I zero in on the model, I want to know whether it is advisable to buy a kit (body + 18-55 lens) or not? OR should I go for the camera-body and the lens separately?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am planning Canon EOS 500D as of now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="64" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T08:47:25.080" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T08:47:25.080" Title="Should I buy a kit, or body + lens separately?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;kit-lens&gt;" AnswerCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="791" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="790" CreationDate="2010-07-18T11:03:03.977" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you find a kit that suits you, that is generally cheaper than buying the body and lens separately. If you buy them separately you get to choose whatever lens you want for the body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lenses in a kit (except for the most expensive cameras) is usually one of the cheapest models, and as they are sold in kits they can manufacture a lot of them at lower cost. So, you get a cheap lens, but at a good price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T11:03:03.977" />
  <row Id="792" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="762" CreationDate="2010-07-18T11:16:25.853" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;K20D also has a DNG and also PEF the pentax format ( never used it thou ) always DNG&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T11:16:25.853" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-18T11:16:25.853" />
  <row Id="793" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="566" CreationDate="2010-07-18T11:32:53.587" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Addressing your second question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I often photograph performers using fire - fire jugglers, fire-staff spinners, fire-poi, and the like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Flash is useful in these situations to light the face and hands, so the photos aren't just streaks of orange lines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second-curtain flash is useful to make the streak of flames appear to recede into the &quot;past&quot;, which is more natural than having the flames seem to anticipate where the performer is going.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="160" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T11:32:53.587" />
  <row Id="794" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="790" CreationDate="2010-07-18T11:59:58.707" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is nearly always a good idea to buy the kit. First of all, you may be able to find a kit with the lens you really want - the kits are not always just the 18-55mm lens. You also might find that the manufacturers discount a body + lens purchase pretty significantly. For example, right now Nikon is offering rebates of up to $400 with a body + lens purchase.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I would first look and see if you can find the body + lens combination you would want anyway. Even if you can't find it, you may be able to find a package with another lens that you could sell to someone else (the 18-55mm might be a tough one to sell, since nearly everyone who wants it already has it)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T11:59:58.707" />
  <row Id="795" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="790" CreationDate="2010-07-18T12:09:03.270" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only time I would argue for not buying a kit is when you already own other lenses that cover the same focal range.  If you are purchasing your first DSLR you should go ahead and get the kit. Even though the kit lenses have a bad reputation, it's been said that &quot;99% of lenses are better than 99% of photographers&quot;, and the kit lens is going to be a great deal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T12:09:03.270" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="796" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="156" CreationDate="2010-07-18T12:19:33.997" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For Photoshop, check out Scott Kelby's Photoshop User TV, they have weekly videos and other resources available there too: &lt;a href=&quot;http://kelbytv.com/photoshopusertv/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://kelbytv.com/photoshopusertv/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="205" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T12:19:33.997" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-23T12:16:00.387" />
  <row Id="797" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="790" CreationDate="2010-07-18T12:31:10.177" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I first did it, I bought a body and a separate zoom lens.   If I were to do it again, I think I would do the same thing, but get a 50m prime lens.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Every camera company offers a 50m prime lens that is inexpensive, so it's a great buy when you are first starting out.  The other reason is overload of information.   When you first start out, the camera body has a bunch of settings and modes and options that are all new to you.  You need time to figure them all out and to get comfortable with using the equipment.   Keeping something in the equation of taking pictures simple, by having  a prime lens instead of a zoom, helps you to focus (sorry no pun intended) your attention on the important parts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="113" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T12:31:10.177" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="798" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="782" CreationDate="2010-07-18T12:39:14.383" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;18-55 mm gives you a range of focal lengths for a lens, although in practice, camera lenses are actually several lenses that move in complex ways together to adjust focus etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A lens will have a fixed deflection of the rays striking it, so if the rays of light striking it are parallel you would have a fixed focal length. If you have partially focused rays striking it, then it will adjust the overall focal length. In reality, it's a fair bit more complex by having many lens elements (in the case of the Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6, 11 lenses) in 9 separate groups that can all move relative to each other allowing the range in focal lengths, as well as focusing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T12:39:14.383" />
  <row Id="799" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="788" CreationDate="2010-07-18T13:02:11.163" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Canon range is loosely in ranges aimed at entry-level (the Rebel series in North America, and Kiss series in Japan, and three or four digit model numbers elsewhere), &quot;Prosumer&quot; (those with 2 digit model numbers, such as the 50D) and professional (with single digit model numbers such as the 5D)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At any one time, there may be more than one model in a particular range, with a more specific target audience; for example, the 1Ds series is aimed at studio photography, with a large sensor; but the 1D (with no s) is more tuned towards sports photography, with the ability to do longer bursts of photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the opposite end of the scale, there are cheaper options for those on a tighter budget - as an example, the 1000D/Rebel XS/Kiss F uses the older Dig!c 3 processor as well as having a lower resolution sensor than the other Rebels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a rule of thumb, higher specs get higher numbers except in the single digit range, when the lower numbers are considered better. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T13:02:11.163" />
  <row Id="800" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="790" CreationDate="2010-07-18T14:23:01.453" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Think about it this way: would you buy the kit lens if it was standalone?  For example, if you needed a lens near the 18-55mm range, would you buy the kit version (which is generally of a fairly low build quality, fairly slow with a variable aperture) or would you buy something a bit more professional?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you see no problems with the kit lens and would buy it standalone, get the kit.  On the other hand if you'd probably opt for a different lens... don't get the kit and instead spend your money on what you really want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T14:23:01.453" />
  <row Id="801" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="762" CreationDate="2010-07-18T14:36:16.757" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ricoh&lt;/strong&gt; supports DNG in &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the Ricoh Digital GR, considered a professional compact, &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the Ricoh Caplio GX100&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the Ricoh GR Digital series&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T14:36:16.757" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-18T14:36:16.757" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="802" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="790" CreationDate="2010-07-18T15:03:23.603" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is, unfortunately, depends.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, what kit are we talking about? The 5D Mark II kit comes with the 24-105mm f4 IS L lens. The lens is roughly $1000 new, so selling it immediately, gives you discount on the body itself, so it absolutely makes sense to get the kit (unless you don't want to hassle with selling the lens). I bought the 5d2 kit, even though I already had a great copy of the 24-105 (I the new one) However the 24-105 f4 IS L lens is a great general purpose zoom, so I would think twice before selling it. In kit your looking at, the 18-55mm Zoom lens isn't that all great of a lens. It works, but there are a number of drawbacks. The lens costs $170 new, but you will have a harder time selling that lens for that price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next, what is your budget? If you can afford a better lens, then you should buy a better lens. Lens are far more important than camera bodies. However, having no lens is way way way worse than having a &quot;bad&quot; lens. So if you need the 18-55mm range, and can't afford the step-up alternatives (or even the 3rd party alternatives), then get the kit lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, what other goodies are you getting with the kit? If you search, you can find kits that also come with bags, memory cards, a filter, 2nd batteries, cleaners, etc. If you don't have these items already, they will add up quickly. Having them thrown into the kit will generally reduce your total cost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T15:03:23.603" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="803" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="808" CreationDate="2010-07-18T15:27:14.980" Score="8" ViewCount="193" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it something like the sensor captures a circular image and then what we get is the cropped version?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Something like this -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/BcnZC.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or did I get it completely wrong?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="64" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T02:25:55.430" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T02:25:55.430" Title="How do spherical lens produce rectangular shots?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;theory&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="804" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="816" CreationDate="2010-07-18T15:32:44.343" Score="10" ViewCount="235" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know the effect of IS and VR, but what exactly is going on when they're enabled... how do they work from a technical standpoint?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="101" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-28T08:59:05.543" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T21:28:31.227" Title="How does Image Stabilization / Vibration Reduction work?" Tags="&lt;image-stabilization&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="805" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="788" CreationDate="2010-07-18T15:34:49.693" Score="21" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Canon Rebel or EOS XXXXD Series&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt; Beginner/Intermediate models for hobby photographers who are transitioning to dSLR's, and looking to start, but within a moderate budget. The difference between the different Rebel cameras you've listed are just subsequent upgrades, and features: more megapixels, HD video, faster burst rate, etc. These camera's are quite capable of producing amazing pictures. What they lack in comparison to the higher priced line-ups are typically features and options. Much like you would expect when going from a base-model car to it's fancier deluxe model. These camera's use an APS-C sensor, which results in a 1.6x Field of View crop when compared to a 35mm film negative. A 100mm lens when used with an APS-C camera will result in a Field of View that is equivalent to 160mm on a 35mm film camera. These bodies make for excellent choices if you are on a budget, new to photography, or not sure how deep you want to get into the world of SLR photography (you aint seen nothing yet, alice).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Canon 50D or XXD Series&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt; This is what has been dubbed the prosumer model. Taking all the features of the Rebel series and adding many more options, to create a camera that suits well for a beginner, but enough features and options that advanced photographers can make use of, resulting in a body that will &quot;grow&quot; with you as you advance in your skills. These camera's have a more advanced AF system compared to the Rebel series, have a high burst shot count, making them suitable for action photography, but lack in many of the features found in Canon's pro line. These camera's make for excellent bodies for someone who has experience with SLR photography, or new comer who is serious about getting into photography. For many pro's, these bodies serve as a 3rd body backup (some even using them as 2nd body backups). These bodies are also APS-C bodies, so any lens paired with the body will have a 1.6 FOV crop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Canon 5D/5D Mark II&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt; This is Canon's non-professional line Full Frame camera. Unlike the Rebel and XXD series, the 5D and 5D Mark II have a full frame image sensor. Thus there is no Field of View Crop. They are designed for studio and landscape work, primarily because of the slower burst rate, and AF system. These are more specialized bodies; they are a step up in terms of both features, and image quality from the XXD line, but lack in the high-speed performance that the XXD offers for sports.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Canon 7D&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt; What The 5D Mark II is for studio and landscape photography, the 7D is for sports, wildlife and action shots. This is a specialized camera with an AF system, and high burst rate designed to offer sports/action shooters a lot more performance. The 7D is an APS-C 1.6x crop camera, like the Rebel and XXD series.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Canon 1 Series&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt; This is Canon's professional camera line. These are built with the tough demands of professionals in mind. I have seen hobbyist shooters with 1 series bodies (and certainly if money was no object I would have a closet full of 'em). It sports an insane AF system, a tank-like build quality, and a fine degree of control and features that allow users to custom tailor the body for their needs. The bodies are full weather sealed, when paired with a weathersealed lens. The shutters have a very high life expectancy, and it's very common to see used 1 series bodies with shutter actuation counts in the 200,000 range. Canon has two types of 1 Series bodies, each specialized for specific needs:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;code&gt;The Canon 1D Series&lt;/code&gt; is designed for the sports/action/wildlife shooter with a very high burst rate, and a highly sensitive AF system tuned to keep the focus on the action. This body is a 1.3x crop factor.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;code&gt;The Canon 1Ds Series&lt;/code&gt; is a full framed body ideal for studio and landscape work. It has a very high megapixel count, and has tonal range suitable for studio work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, that isn't to say you can't use the 1Ds for sports, or the 1D for studio work. Either will work, just that the 1D has more features specific to action, compared to the 1Ds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That also goes to say that you couldn't be a professional photographer using Rebel bodies. All these camera's, when used properly, are capable of producing &lt;em&gt;AMAZING&lt;/em&gt; images. It's more that the Canon 1 Series is designed to be used abused in a daily basis, where as the Rebel is not. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-27T23:43:53.997" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T23:43:53.997" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="806" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="804" CreationDate="2010-07-18T15:46:14.043" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Wikipedia article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Image Stabilization&lt;/a&gt; has quite a bit of information. Below are some of the relevant sections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For in lens stabilization:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In Nikon and Canon's implementation, it works by using a floating lens element that is moved orthogonally to the optical axis of the lens using electromagnets.  Vibration is detected using two piezoelectric angular velocity sensors (often called gyroscopic  sensors), one to detect horizontal movement and the other to detect vertical movement.  As a result, this kind of image stabilizer only corrects for pitch and yaw axis rotations,  and cannot correct for rotation around the optical axis. Some lenses have a secondary mode that counteracts vertical camera shake only. This mode is useful when using a panning technique, and switching into this mode depends on the lens; sometimes it is done by using a switch on the lens, or it can be automatic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Some of Nikon's more recent VR-enabled&#xA;  lenses offer an 'Active Mode' that is&#xA;  intended to be used when shooting from&#xA;  a moving vehicle, such as a car or&#xA;  boat, and should correct for larger&#xA;  shakes than the 'Normal Mode'.&#xA;  However, Active Mode, when used under&#xA;  normal shooting conditions, can result&#xA;  in poorer results than the 'Normal&#xA;  Mode'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For in camera stabilization:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The sensor capturing the image can be moved in such a way as to counteract the motion of the camera, a technology often referred to as mechanical image stabilization. When the camera rotates, causing angular error, gyroscopes encode information to the actuator that moves the sensor.  The sensor is moved to maintain the projection of the image onto the image plane, which is a function of the focal length of the lens being used; modern cameras can acquire focal length information from the lens. Konica Minolta used a technique called &quot;anti-shake&quot; now marketed as SteadyShot in the Sony α line and &quot;shake reduction - SR&quot; in the K10D, K20D, K-7, K100D, K200D, K-m (K-2000) and K-x lines by Pentax, which relies on a very precise angular rate sensor to detect camera motion. Olympus introduced image stabilization with their E-510 D-SLR body, employing a system built around their Supersonic Wave Drive.  Other manufacturers use DSPs to analyze the image on the fly and then move the sensor appropriately. Sensor shifting is also used in some cameras by Fujifilm, Pentax, Samsung, Casio Exilim and Ricoh Caplio.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally, for video, there is software based image stabilization that occurs during post processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T15:46:14.043" />
  <row Id="807" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="809" CreationDate="2010-07-18T15:49:52.047" Score="5" ViewCount="144" Body="&lt;p&gt;I see memory cards and they claim 60x or 100x or 300x, where I assume 'X' means times.&#xA;Times what?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm assuming it has something to do with transfer speeds.  Is it only on 'reading', ie, going from the card to the computer.   Or is also on 'writing', ie, going from the click of the shutter to the card?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="113" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T16:07:29.273" Title="What does the X mean in memory specs?" Tags="&lt;write-speed&gt;&lt;memory-card&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="808" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="803" CreationDate="2010-07-18T15:50:14.993" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, you are correct and the reason photos are the size and shape  they are just has to do with the size and shape of the film or digital sensor used to capture the image from the lens.  The rest of the image that falls to the top, bottom, and sides of the film or sensor are just not recorded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...interesting thought, I never really realized the circular image/rectangular photo thing before!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="110" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T15:50:14.993" />
  <row Id="809" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="807" CreationDate="2010-07-18T16:07:29.273" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's transfer speed. 100X means 100 times faster than a 1x CD-ROM (whose data rate is 150KB/s).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So a 100x card is &lt;code&gt;100 * 150 KB/s&lt;/code&gt; or &lt;code&gt;15,000&lt;/code&gt; KB/s or &lt;code&gt;15MB/s&lt;/code&gt; (note that this is data rates, not storage).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are, of course, theoretical max writes, and real world, average case performance is not that high. You just need to get a CF card that can keep up with your camera's buffer. Once that is achieved, then your burst bottle-neck will be the camera's internal shot buffer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T16:07:29.273" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="810" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19" CreationDate="2010-07-18T16:15:59.017" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can also use &quot;Portrait&quot; mode if your camera has one and get as close to your subject as you can -frame it as tight as possible to increase the background blur (you're more likely to get blur the closer you are, that's why you get blur when taking macros).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Portrait mode is designed to give background blur on most automatic cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="110" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T16:15:59.017" />
  <row Id="811" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="755" CreationDate="2010-07-18T16:23:14.097" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're probably going to want a background stand for holding paper or muslin backgrounds.  You can acquire different backgrounds over time to suit your needs.  If you don't need portability, you have more options about your background stand, e.g. you can make it yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T16:23:14.097" />
  <row Id="812" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="24" CreationDate="2010-07-18T16:35:57.220" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming this is a 50mm lens than for DOF the difference would be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;50mm, f/1.4 w/ subject 10 feet away = 7.8&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;50mm, f/1.8 w/ subject 10 feet away = 9.7&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You can check different focal lengths/distances here:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as shutter speed goes, f/1.8 to f/1.4 is a half-stop, so:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;if your shutter speed was 1/30 at f/1.8, it'd be 1/45 at f/1.4.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;if your shutter speed was 1/100 at f/1.8, id be 1/150&quot; at f/1.4&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You can calculate other shutter speeds by just multiplying the shutter speed at f/1.8 by 1.5 to get the shutter speed at f/1.4.  Or divide to go the other way.  (Full stops double as the aperture value gets lower, so a half stop is 1.5X.  Just divide to go the other way.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="110" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T16:35:57.220" />
  <row Id="813" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="803" CreationDate="2010-07-18T17:02:32.927" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The lens will always produce a circular image - the sensor however is rectangular, and only captures the portion of the image falling on it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With some &quot;digital optimised&quot; lenses (be they third party or something like Canon's EF-S mount), the circle is much smaller, as they tend to be optimised for an APS-C sized sensor. Conversely, you can get Tilt/Shift lenses which generate a much larger circle of an image to allow for the shifting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T17:02:32.927" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="814" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19" CreationDate="2010-07-18T17:04:41.550" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Macro distances really shrink depth of field, I'm afraid you won't be able to reproduce it on longer distances with a small-sensor camera. You can either fake it in Photoshop, or, if you're in darker environment, get something vaguely similar by setting long shutter speed, enabling flash and moving your camera during exposure. Flash will then make foreground sharp, while camera shake will smudge background. (&quot;Night portrait&quot; mode setting usually does something similar.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T17:04:41.550" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="815" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="803" CreationDate="2010-07-18T17:08:35.973" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's the way you've illustrated. The only exceptions are circular fisheye lenses, which have it other way around. (E.g. you have a full 180° circle in center of your photo, and everything else is dark. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/254-peleng-8mm-f35-fisheye-converted-to-eos-mount-test-report--review&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pictures from Peleng 8mm Fisheye&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T17:08:35.973" />
  <row Id="816" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="804" CreationDate="2010-07-18T17:18:42.137" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have gyroscopes and electronincs which detect camera shake, and then move parts of lens (in case of IS lens) to compensate the movement of camera. In-camera stabilization moves whole sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Illustration of in-lens IS from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/Lens_Advantage_IS&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon description page&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;br&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets/app/images/CanonAd/Lens/ef_02_090119_06.gif&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T17:18:42.137" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="817" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="847" CreationDate="2010-07-18T17:24:30.957" Score="17" ViewCount="188" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The back-story:&lt;/strong&gt; my father-in-law, who was an active film SLR user earlier in his life, suffered a series of strokes several years ago. He lost most of his ability to speak, and cannot use his right side (he has no fine motor skills at all in his right hand), and has limited mobility as a result: he's confined to a wheelchair, but gets around his care facility just fine. Despite the communication barrier, he manages to get across the gist of what he's after most of the time (and while he can't speak, he's a Marine, so he can still swear at you ;-).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What we're after:&lt;/strong&gt; we'd like to help him be able to shoot the world around him again. He lives in a facility with plenty of accessible indoor and outdoor spaces, and he has free roam of the place each day: a great environment for capturing unexpected surprises in photographs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The constraints we're working with:&lt;/strong&gt; his wife visits regularly and can take care of processing (transferring to computer, printing, etc), but isn't strongly tech or photo savvy, so any solution has to take her skill level into account. He'll have difficulty using anything without a simple user interface; half-presses of the shutter might be a problem, a viewfinder (rather than an LCD) may pose a problem, and it must be operable with his left hand. Also, due to his environment, the ability to easily clean (or even better, seal) the unit would be helpful. Finally, as anyone who has a loved one in a care facility knows, theft can sometimes be an issue, so this needs to be something he can take with him in his chair; bulky solutions will end up being left behind and &quot;misplaced&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So, with that in mind:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Can anyone recommend a camera manufacturer that caters to lefties, or even better, specifically to the handicapped? Cost is a consideration, but a low one; we're much more interested in finding something that meets his needs.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If anyone has specific experience with this kind of situation or equipment use case, can you share how it went for you? What worked, what didn't, things that would have been good to know?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="14" LastActivityDate="2011-02-06T18:34:57.080" Title="Photo equipment for the disabled" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;disability&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="818" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="817" CreationDate="2010-07-18T17:38:25.583" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although I don't have any real-life experience with this I've heard that some people use a small Point &amp;amp; Shoot camera up side down. They can then press the shutter with their left thumb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/23843/casio-ex-g1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Casio EX-G1&lt;/a&gt; is suitable. It is shock- and water proof.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T17:38:25.583" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="819" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2010-07-18T17:59:17.010" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been blogging photography tips for 3 years or so, much of it is aimed at true beginners who are using Auto mode or just beginning to learn about manual controls, but other topics like image editing with Gimp are covered as well:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.muddyboots.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://blog.muddyboots.org/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="110" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T17:59:17.010" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-18T17:59:17.010" />
  <row Id="820" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="823" CreationDate="2010-07-18T18:27:56.670" Score="14" ViewCount="528" Body="&lt;p&gt;What's the difference between adjusting a photo's exposure versus its brightness?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I created a virtual copy of a photo. The original's exposure was increased 1 stop. The other got an increase in brightness from 50 to 100.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Flipping back and forth between the photos, the photos appear to be almost identical and their histograms are almost the same. The colors are the same, except for a very small difference in brighter blues on the photo that saw increased exposure. Side by side, you probably wouldn't be able to find differences, but very small differences are noticeable when you quickly flip the images back and forth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="50" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-18T19:09:30.923" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T19:09:30.923" Title="Lightroom - What's the difference between Exposure and Brightness?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;brightness&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="821" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="820" CreationDate="2010-07-18T18:42:14.910" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The exposure control stretches the histogram in a linear way, so it will affect the brightest colors the most.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The brightness control affects the middle range more, so that you can make an image brighter without affecting the brightest colors too much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the image where you increased the exposure, you see that the light blue color is brighter. In the image where you increates the brightness, the light blue was not affected as much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T18:42:14.910" />
  <row Id="822" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="820" CreationDate="2010-07-18T18:43:07.110" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Increasing the Brightness tries to preserve the highlights while increasing Exposure will scale everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This image demonstrates it nicely:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://lightroomkillertips.com/files/2010/07/brightness_exposure1b.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://lightroomkillertips.com/2010/lightroom-exposure-vs-brightness/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://lightroomkillertips.com/2010/lightroom-exposure-vs-brightness/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastEditorUserId="19" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-18T18:48:23.587" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T18:48:23.587" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="823" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="820" CreationDate="2010-07-18T18:45:26.043" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Exposure has a stronger effect on the highlights. Brightness has a stronger effect on the midtones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To quote from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://livedocs.adobe.com/en_US/Lightroom/1.0/help.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lightroom user manual&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exposure&lt;/strong&gt; Sets the overall image&#xA;  brightness, with a greater effect in&#xA;  the high values.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  ...&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Brightness&lt;/strong&gt; Adjusts image brightness,&#xA;  mainly affecting midtones.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  ...&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Set the overall tonal scale by setting&#xA;  Exposure, Recovery, and Blacks. Then&#xA;  set the overall image brightness.&#xA;  Large brightness adjustments can&#xA;  affect shadow or highlight clipping,&#xA;  so you may want to readjust the&#xA;  Exposure, Recovery or Blacks slider&#xA;  after adjusting brightness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[See &quot;Adjust image tonal scale&quot; - Page 75]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="97" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T18:45:26.043" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="824" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="790" CreationDate="2010-07-18T19:26:28.343" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, unless you are buying a high-end kit with a top of the line camera body, the bundled lenses (particularly 18-55mm lenses) that come with your entry-level camera bodies are not worth it. If you can find a kit that includes a reasonably decent mid-grade or top-grade lens, I would go for it. However, if your buying a kit that includes the bottom of the barrel lens (which the 18-55mm usually is), you are MUCH better off buying the body only, and saving for a more decent lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This might also be beneficial if you know the kind of photography work you wish to do, as 18mm is an ultra-wide focal length, and does not offer much unless you are looking to do a lot of landscape photography. A more useful focal range is 24-135, and any lens in that range will be much more useful from a general photography standpoint. The wide-normal lengths are useful for landscape, photojournalism, and other general forms of photography, while the 100mm and 135mm telephoto lengths are excellent for portraits and the like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T19:26:28.343" />
  <row Id="825" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="817" CreationDate="2010-07-18T19:37:02.437" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.disabledphotographers.co.uk/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Disabled Photographers' Society&lt;/a&gt;, which is a group that provides support in regards to photography to the disabled in the UK.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure if there is a similar group in the US, but they might be able to point you in the right direction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T19:37:02.437" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="826" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="846" CreationDate="2010-07-18T19:56:47.287" Score="4" ViewCount="216" Body="&lt;p&gt;My camera can shoot in 4 different aspect ratios (4:3, 3:2, 16:9, and 1:1). Aside from personal preference of composition are there any advantages to choosing one over the other? Is there an industry standard?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="104" LastEditorUserId="101" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-19T16:02:53.783" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T16:02:53.783" Title="What are the advantages of shooting a particular aspect ratio?" Tags="&lt;composition&gt;&lt;aspect-ratio&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="827" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="826" CreationDate="2010-07-18T20:04:57.127" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The standard for still photography has generally been 3:2 since that is the standard for 35mm film, which has continued into most DSLR systems.  One notable exception to this is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Four_Thirds_system&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Micro four-thirds system&lt;/a&gt; that has gone to a 4:3 native aspect ratio.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As everything goes digital, that is beginning to change because 16:9 and 4:3 are common lcd monitor aspect ratios.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-19T15:05:24.983" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T15:05:24.983" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="828" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="826" CreationDate="2010-07-18T20:06:09.480" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Other than preference/composition, the only other consideration is that if you're making a print, shooting to the same aspect ratio as the print means that you won't have to crop any of the final image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;for a 4x6 print, a 2:3 image won't require cropping, where a 4:3 would.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;for an 8x10 print, either 2:3 or 4:3 will require cropping, but the 2:3 won't lose as much of the image.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T20:06:09.480" />
  <row Id="829" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="826" CreationDate="2010-07-18T20:06:39.870" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's all down to the artistic effect you're after, but you might find that when getting prints done, they tend to favour specific ratios.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historically, 3:2 has it's history with 35mm and on through DSLRs, with 4:£ having history in TV (and video) cameras, which is why a number of compacts use this ratio. 16:9 was available on APS format cameras, although I've not seen much support for printing in these ratios except from APS film. Medium format favoured square exposures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, with the digital age, you can crop to whatever ratio you like -- I tend to print using the either 3:2 or 1:1 ratios as I personally find them most pleasing&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T20:06:39.870" />
  <row Id="830" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="826" CreationDate="2010-07-18T20:13:19.493" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's really just down to what kind of image you are trying to create.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;4:3 a common format for digital compact cameras as this matches standard TV and monitor aspect ratios.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;3:2 is the original standard for 35mm film shooting, many DSLRs continue to use this ratio and many compact digital cameras support this as an option too.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;16:9 is widescreen TV.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1:1 is just square (obviously)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have a requirement to display on a TV/monitor, go 4:3. If you have a requirement to display on a widescreen TV/monitor go for 16:9. If you need to print to match a particular frame you may find it easier to take at the correct ratio rather than cropping later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most printing companies offer at a minimum both 6&quot;x4.5&quot; (to match 4:3 ratio images) and 6&quot;x4&quot; (to match 3/2 ratio images) so you are unlikely to have any problems printing at either ratio.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll find that most modern basic albums and frames you buy on the high street will probably be 4:3 as they cater for the general consumer market which is largely digital now, but there's plenty of 3:2 frames around though, and plenty of weird shapes/ratios too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other than that, just choose whatever suits your subject/shot/composition the best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_%28image%29#4:3_standard&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;More on wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="97" LastEditorUserId="97" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-18T20:36:52.433" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T20:36:52.433" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="831" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-18T20:54:23.047" Score="4" ViewCount="241" Body="&lt;p&gt;[&lt;a href=&quot;http://superuser.com/questions/161483/iphone-photo-download-workflow-for-only-new-photos-onto-mac&quot;&gt;Cross posting this from SuperUser&lt;/a&gt; since I have a bounty on it and have no replies yet, hopefully will get more attention here ;)]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm finding my iPhone photo download workflow to be a bit cumbersome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are my requirements:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Download photos+video off my iPhone Camera Roll, but keep photos on iPhone&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Only display/download &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;new&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; photos+video on iPhone since last download&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Avoid iPhoto, ideally, because it makes me a bit nervous&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Have &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; my iPhone-taken photos+video available to view on my iPhone&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Maintain all EXIF/GPS metadata at all costs&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Currently, I use regular folder structure + Picasa for all of my digital photos, however for my iPhone, I use iPhoto because it will &quot;only display new items&quot; when I go to import photos off my iPhone&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm finding that will 5000+ photos+videos on my iPhone, iPhoto generally takes a while (2-10 minutes) to 'find' my iPhone after I plug it in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ideally, I'd like to just use OSX's built in ImageCapture.app to download iPhone photos, but it loads/displays ALL the photos, not just the new ones since last sync (as iPhoto does..).  I then have to know which was the last downloaded iPhone photo and download only the newer ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Picasa Import also loads/displays ALL photos on the iPhone (which is very cumbersome with so many images to load off the device...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess I'd like to know if anyone has a similar workflow/requirements and how they do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My current plan is to set up a workflow that removes photos from the Camera Roll as I download them, but then have iTunes sync them back on as albums based on folders - I may even automatically resize them so I have smaller versions on the iPhone and the original full size versions on my Mac (so conserve previous iPhone storage space)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="172" LastActivityDate="2010-11-07T00:55:03.633" Title="iPhone photo download workflow for ONLY new photos onto Mac" Tags="&lt;workflow&gt;&lt;organisation&gt;&lt;iphoto&gt;&lt;iphone&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="832" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="471" CreationDate="2010-07-18T20:56:08.860" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently came across &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rawstudio.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rawstudio&lt;/a&gt; which seems to be very good for the task of going through RAW files. It is focused on processing the RAW images, so it doesn't do image manipulation beyond conversion, or general management of images, but does seem to have a very usable workflow for the conversion process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T20:56:08.860" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-10T15:23:42.103" />
  <row Id="833" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="834" CreationDate="2010-07-18T21:15:59.387" Score="18" ViewCount="325" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some DSLR manufacturers have image stabilization (IS) in the body of their cameras, others sell (some) lenses with IS. Are there particular advantages of one over the other? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Apart from only having to pay for it once when it is in the body).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-22T04:47:38.660" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T04:47:38.660" Title="Is Image Stabilization better in the lens or the body?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;image-stabilization&gt;&lt;lens-design&gt;&lt;body&gt;" AnswerCount="6" />
  <row Id="834" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="833" CreationDate="2010-07-18T21:22:10.813" Score="27" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Advantages of having stabilisation in the camera:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Works for all lenses&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The lenses gets cheaper&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Advantages of having stabilisation in the lens:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The camera gets cheaper and can be built smaller&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The stabilisation can be specially made to fit the lens characteristics&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Works also with older camera models&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-18T21:50:41.247" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T21:50:41.247" />
  <row Id="835" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="790" CreationDate="2010-07-18T21:36:16.610" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that you are talking about:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Canon 500D body only&lt;/strong&gt; vs &lt;strong&gt;Canon 500D + 18-55 IS lens.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For that combination I believe it is worth buying the kit. The price difference is minimal and actually if you find that you want to change/upgrade the lens you will easily sell the 18-55IS for the price that will cover the difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also Canon 18-55 IS is not such a bad lens optically and it also offers image stabilisation. The build quality is indeed not too good but it is definitely worth the price also the financial consequences of braking it are not too big neither. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Upgrade in the same focal range would be EF-S 17-55IS 2.8 but that is in completely different league in terms of price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I were you I would get the kit and 50mm 1.8 - the kit as a walk-around and simply to learn what focal range works for you best, the 50mm for portraits and photos in low light situations and also to find out if you really need a faster zoom with better optics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some reviews of the lenses I mentioned&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/404-canon_1855_3556is_50d?start=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/160-canon-ef-50mm-f18-ii-test-report--review?start=2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of their price/performance ratio those are perfect lenses for the begginer and should work great on the 500D body that you are planning to buy&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T21:36:16.610" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="836" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="837" CreationDate="2010-07-18T21:50:04.913" Score="12" ViewCount="218" Body="&lt;p&gt;What exactly is flash sync speed and should it be a factor in a buying decision ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="120" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T19:47:42.327" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T19:47:42.327" Title="Flash sync speed : buying decision factor ?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;sync-speed&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="837" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="836" CreationDate="2010-07-18T22:21:27.223" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Flash sync speed is the maximum shutter speed possible when using a flash. For most flashes, the flash sync speed, sometimes also referred to X-Sync speed due to the use of Xenon in the flash bulb itself, is around 1/200th to 1/250th of a second. When using flash, your maximum shutter speed is limited to the flash sync speed. In many cases, this is perfectly adequate, as the flash pulse itself is sufficiently short enough (around 1/1000th of a second), and brightly lights up the scene beyond the normal ambient lighting for a fraction of the time the shutter is actually open. Flash sync speed can sometimes be a limiting factor, such as for action photography, as 1/200th or 1/250th of a second may not be enough to stop some kinds of action being photographed when fill flash is not able to overcome ambient lighting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some higher-end camera gear is capable of higher flash sync speeds. Some models support up to 1/500th of a second, which is better for photographing action. There are also alternative flash sync modes for better camera gear and flash gear. Normally, flash is synced with the &quot;forward&quot; shutter edge, and fires when the forward shutter curtain edge has opened and is moving. An alternative sync mode that syncs flash with the &quot;back&quot; shutter edge.  When shooting with back curtain flash, you can produce action ghosting, and freeze your subject at the very end of the exposure, which is sometimes a desirable effect for sports photography. Finally, there is &quot;high speed sync.&quot; With this alternative sync mode, cameras may sync to flash at any shutter speed, even up to 1/8000th of a second on top-end models. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;High speed sync does have some limitations. With normal flash sync, there is a single pulse of the flash. In high speed sync mode, the flash pulses continuously thousands of times a second. This ensures that the scene is illuminated for the duration that the shutter is open and accommodates the behavior of a camera shutter at such speeds. The drawback here is that to provide enough power for continuous flash pulses, the power of each flash is less, by around 1 stop per stop of higher shutter speed. Additionally, since the scene is illuminated continuously for the duration the shutter is open, the flash itself is not as useful for &quot;stopping&quot; action. This is often not that big of an issue, however, as the higher shutter speed itself is capable of freezing action (particularly at 1/4000th or higher.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't need high-speed flash sync, any flash supporting a standard sync speed will suffice. If you need to sync flash at extremely high shutter speeds, then you will need both a camera body and a flash that supports high speed sync. You won't be quite as limited with high speed sync, but keep in mind that the power of your flash will be a little less than normal. (Generally, this is not a problem at all, and you can usually open your aperture to compensate...but it is a factor to be aware of.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-25T20:33:22.103" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T20:33:22.103" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="838" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="833" CreationDate="2010-07-18T22:40:43.530" Score="20" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another advantage to add to Guffa's list is that when it is in the lens you can see the image stabilization in action through the viewfinder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="198" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T22:40:43.530" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="839" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19" CreationDate="2010-07-18T22:45:29.080" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as post processing for a lower depth of field depending on the way the image is shot you might be able to get the effect by applying a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.creativemac.com/2003/07_jul/tutorials/psgradient030723.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gradient mask&lt;/a&gt; in photo shop and then using the blur effect with that. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This works pretty well for the sort of photos where you have something on a plane.  For example if you are shooting a small item on a table and what that narrow depth of field effect. I don't think it works as well for creating bokeh in the background of a portrait.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="198" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T22:45:29.080" />
  <row Id="840" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="844" CreationDate="2010-07-18T22:56:21.467" Score="19" ViewCount="745" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently bought a Nikon D90 camera body, which has a &quot;DX&quot; APS-C-sized sensor..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Within the same budget, should I go with DX lenses or should I get full frame lenses in case I upgrade to a full frame body in the future, when they become more prevalent?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="120" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-11T15:33:54.640" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T15:33:54.640" Title="Should I get DX for my APS-C camera, or FX lenses in case I upgrade to full-frame in the future?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;cropped-sensor&gt;&lt;full-frame&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="841" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="840" CreationDate="2010-07-18T23:06:11.263" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's no &quot;right&quot; answer to this question.  Other than the fact that DX only works on the APS-C (crop factor) bodies, there really aren't any global differences between the DX lenses and any other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you think you'll be getting a full-frame body in the future, I'd definitely skip the DX lenses.  If you don't have that in your plans, get the DX lenses if they meet your needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T23:06:11.263" />
  <row Id="842" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="840" CreationDate="2010-07-18T23:18:09.637" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That depends on how likely it is that you will get a full frame camera, but also on what lens you buy. If you buy a cheap lens, it's likely that you want to upgrade the lens anyway if you get a better camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another aspect is how the lenses work with the camera you have now. With a full frame lens you will get much less vignetting, and also better edge sharpness. Lenses are worst at the edges, so with a smaller sensor you use the best part of the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-18T23:32:25.307" LastActivityDate="2010-07-18T23:32:25.307" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="843" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="857" CreationDate="2010-07-19T00:08:49.540" Score="4" ViewCount="280" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why the Canon S90 does not handle macros as well as the Canon G11? I understand the S90 has a minimum focus distance of 5cm, while the G11 can focus at 1cm, but why there is this difference since they are so similar otherwise?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-04T02:49:34.477" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T02:49:34.477" Title="Macro differences between Canon S90 and G11" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;canon-g11&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="844" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="840" CreationDate="2010-07-19T01:52:55.970" Score="30" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The price you pay for using FX lenses on DX is &lt;strong&gt;bigger and heavier lenses&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;less appropriate focal lengths&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The core question you should be asking is: &lt;strong&gt;Why do you want to upgrade to full frame?&lt;/strong&gt; Image quality in DX is superb and getting better. FX bodies have better low-light ability, but DX will be just as good; it just lags a few years. The higher resolution is a factor only if you have both great lenses and great tripod support - i.e., very few people. FX bodies will always be larger and heavier, and DX will be with us as long as F-mount is. &lt;strong&gt;Unless you can articulate a specific, good reason for an eventual FX upgrade path, stick with DX.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, keep in mind that &lt;strong&gt;lenses retain their value very well&lt;/strong&gt;. If you can sell a lens for 70-80% of what it cost you, why not just buy the most appropriate lenses and sell them if they become inappropriate?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T01:52:55.970" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="845" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="833" CreationDate="2010-07-19T02:00:04.127" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my (admittedly limited) experience, in-lens stabilization (Nikon D90 + 18-200mm) works a lot better than in-body (Pentax K200D + 18-250mm).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T02:00:04.127" />
  <row Id="846" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="826" CreationDate="2010-07-19T02:05:11.590" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My short answer: &lt;strong&gt;Always make images with your full sensor, and crop in post.&lt;/strong&gt; In your case that's probably 4:3. Why throw away data sooner when you can do so later if necessary?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Of course, this may be moot if you're shooting in raw and get all the data regardless of the in-camera crop. In that case, shoot with whatever suits your fancy, since you can always change it later.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another consideration: If you mental checklist for each frame includes choosing an aspect ratio, that's one more step you need to deal with when making every single image. And I assume changing aspect ratios involves a fair amount of button &amp;amp; menu fiddling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T02:05:11.590" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="847" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="817" CreationDate="2010-07-19T02:14:03.550" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What level of tech savvy is available for setup? You could tether the SLR to a laptop or netbook and write a script which uses speech recognition to trip the shutter. (For sealing, you could add a &quot;keyboard condom&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://thehuangs.com/?p=49&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;e.g.&lt;/a&gt;) or just cover the whole laptop in plastic.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another option would be a remote shutter release, either wired or wireless. Maybe you can find one he can activate by biting, or rig it somehow as foot pedal (can he use his left foot?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another thing that could be helpful is rigging a monopod with a ball head to his wheelchair. That could help with support and stabilization even if you don't tighten down the head.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, on a personal note: good on you for doing this. Both of my grandfathers had strokes and spent the last years of their lives in a similar situation, so I know it's rough. Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-19T02:19:12.163" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T02:19:12.163" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="848" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="324" CreationDate="2010-07-19T03:21:28.970" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I often use black wrap to prevent spill. Great for general shaping of light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="203" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T03:21:28.970" />
  <row Id="849" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="836" CreationDate="2010-07-19T04:43:11.283" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;X-sync is the lowest shutter speed during which the shutter is entirely open at some time, and thus allows use of flash. (You don't want it to light just top half of frame.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;X-sync differences don't play that much role in stopping action (flash pulse duration is around 1/1000 anyway), but rather in eliminating ambient (or overpowering sun, if you want) with flash in photos when you have both kinds of light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have a flash-lit portrait outside, you usually want to have the surrounding landscape a bit darker than the person. Now, if you use a full power of your flash, and get proper exposure of foreground at f/8 and ISO 100, out might even get background overexposed at 1/200 sec if it's sunny day. Being able to go to 1/500 might make the shot possible, or allow you to raise ISO to 200 and save some flash power to get faster recycle times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes you can kind of &quot;cheat&quot; by using high speed sync which fires the flash multiple times to cover all parts of the frame. This doesn't really help in this situation as it eats flash power you need to have foreground exposed properly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-19T13:15:07.340" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T13:15:07.340" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="850" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="833" CreationDate="2010-07-19T08:26:25.890" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As innovations are made into image stabilisation, there is the possibility of including it in newer lenses, which can then be an advantage to pre-existing camera owners; rather than having to invest in a new camera body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some corrections that will be virtually impossible to do with in-lens stabilisation, that &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; be achieved with in-camera stabilisation, such as correcting rotations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, Canon, Nikon &amp;amp; their fans are going to advocate in-lens stabilisation, where as Pentax et al are going to suggest in-camera stabilisation is far superior.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In practice it's better to try and avoid the movement in the first place than to manage movement once it's present.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T08:26:25.890" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="851" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="761" CreationDate="2010-07-19T09:13:48.387" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Short Answer:  No&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lightroom has a spot healing tool, which will heal a circular area of the image.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Alas, you cannot paint the healing on in an ad-hoc shape.  In order to remove a line (like an overhead power line or similar), you have to create a row of circular healing spots.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I &lt;em&gt;long&lt;/em&gt; for the day when this changes!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(Note: this is written as of Lightroom 3.0)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T12:25:05.397" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T12:25:05.397" />
  <row Id="852" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="755" CreationDate="2010-07-19T09:33:12.113" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Start with What You Have&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;What kit do I need?&quot; It's our eternal question, isn't it?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the time, I tell people to just pick up their camera and get on with it.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;However:  this is one of the few times when, realistically, you do need a couple of bits of kit.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a studio, the most important additional thing is a background.  This can be a plain whitewashed wall (and you'd be surprised how small an area you actually need) or a muslin, paper, etc.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for light:  a window (in the right weather) gives a lovely light, and a reflector positionned opposite the window can do a nice job as a fill.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you've already got multiple lights and modifiers then I reckon you're more than well-enough equipped to get going.  Once you've done one or two shoots, you'll soon work out if some additional kit would help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For info:  I have been working in an occasional &quot;home studio&quot; for a while, with a muslin background, 2 strobes on stands with umbrellas.  Sometimes I'll add one or two reflectors.  I've had some nice results, but I could really make good use of a couple more strobes.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scott Kelby has some nice tips for a small studio in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0321678737&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Photography series&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This may be relevant: &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strobist.com&lt;/a&gt; has a great series of tutorials on getting started with small-flash photography.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS.  I'm happy to talk makes and models, but you didn't ask for that so I've left out all the gory details for now.  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-15T16:26:17.367" LastActivityDate="2010-11-15T16:26:17.367" />
  <row Id="853" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="854" CreationDate="2010-07-19T09:43:16.880" Score="8" ViewCount="126" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I can see, using shoot-through umbrellas is slightly cheaper than using softboxes.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Would I give up anything if I went with umbrellas?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Would it make any difference to the images I create?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T18:53:28.490" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T18:53:28.490" Title="What is the Difference Between a Softbox and a Shoot-Through Umbrella?" Tags="&lt;lighting-modifiers&gt;&lt;softbox&gt;&lt;umbrella&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="854" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="853" CreationDate="2010-07-19T10:50:02.507" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have more control over &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answers.com/topic/spill-spill-light&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;spill&lt;/a&gt; and hot spots with a softbox. The hot spots are much less significant with a softbox.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="185" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T10:50:02.507" />
  <row Id="855" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="208" CreationDate="2010-07-19T10:58:58.780" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;PicSay and Photoshop.com Mobile are both pretty good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="186" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T10:58:58.780" />
  <row Id="856" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1949" CreationDate="2010-07-19T11:48:04.527" Score="31" ViewCount="632" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've recently become aware that one of my photos has been used by a national newspaper beyond its licensing terms (cc-by-sa-2.5, used without the required credit), and whilst I can pursue them for some compensation, I was wondering about how effective watermarking is as a deterrent for the future? After all, if somebody has little regard for copyright, what's to stop them cropping a watermark out?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-04T11:50:46.323" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T17:28:36.407" Title="Is watermarking worth it?" Tags="&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;legal&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="7" />
  <row Id="857" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="843" CreationDate="2010-07-19T12:14:11.977" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_s90.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;S90&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_g11.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;G11&lt;/a&gt; share the same sensor, but each have different lens and that determines the macro parameters&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T12:14:11.977" />
  <row Id="858" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="859" CreationDate="2010-07-19T12:35:38.580" Score="5" ViewCount="81" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given lighting is not a problem, can you hit a limit where you have too much extension tubes (a very long tube) and the quality of the image will suffer?  For example a diffraction limit will be hit for the adjusted F-Stop or something like that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the variables that come into play here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T12:46:27.887" Title="What are the limits of extension tubes?" Tags="&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;extension-tubes&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="859" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="858" CreationDate="2010-07-19T12:46:27.887" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, if I put 68 mm of tube (36+20+12) behind my 12-24 lens, I can't focus on a subject because the focus point is behind the front lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T12:46:27.887" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="860" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="856" CreationDate="2010-07-19T12:47:09.977" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think watermark, if done tastefully and artfully is worth it, perhaps not as a deterrent for copyright theft, but so if your images are seen, that it properly gets people to look you up. Yes they can crop out the watermark, but if you can prove that, then you probably can increase the damages awarded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also think that a well done watermark enhances an image, much like a well done image border, but that is clearly personal preference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do portraits and the like, and you offer online proofs, I'd definitely put a big &quot;PROOF&quot; watermark across the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T12:47:09.977" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="861" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="862" CreationDate="2010-07-19T13:09:47.853" Score="4" ViewCount="161" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't ever bring my old tripod with me, not because it's too heavy, but because it doesn't fit into my bag... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So: are there any full-size tripods that fold down to, say, 35cm or less? (Extra information: it needs to support at least 1kg, and by full-size I mean at least 1m and preferably taller)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T18:53:11.143" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T18:53:11.143" Title="What full-size tripods are shortest when folded?" Tags="&lt;tripod&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="862" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="861" CreationDate="2010-07-19T13:19:24.473" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.velbon.co.uk/newvelbon/pages/CXminiF.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Velbon CX Mini&lt;/a&gt; that folds to 30 cm, but it only gets 64 cm tall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.velbon.co.uk/newvelbon/pages/vpod.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Velbon V-Pod&lt;/a&gt; folds to 29 cm and reaches 101 cm, according to their specifications.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Manfrotto doesn't seem to have anything that folds to less than 42 cm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-19T13:30:39.783" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T13:30:39.783" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="863" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="856" CreationDate="2010-07-19T13:25:50.810" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am generally of the opinion that people with no respect for copyright will continue to ignore/subvert any deterrents that you use. If they can see it, they can steal it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Watermarking, however, can be used as a marketing tool, and as long as it does not detract from the image itself it is completely valid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as tracking down usage, there are lots of other tools, including Exif data or image tracking services like &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.digimarc.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digimarc&lt;/a&gt;, that you can use to discover infringement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-19T13:31:09.267" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T13:31:09.267" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="864" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="856" CreationDate="2010-07-19T13:33:17.593" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think probably they do deter misuse. Psychologically, using an plain image without credit is a different beast than using one with COPYRIGHT ROLAND SHAW staring you in the face (or taking active steps to remove the watermark). Also, there's more opportunities for people in the chain who might not otherwise think of it to say &quot;hey, do we have permission for that image?&quot;, and I think there's a good chance the situation you describe is due to ignorance rather than active malice (&quot;all images on the Internet are free, aren't they?&quot;). And if there's no watermark, it's easier to rationalize, e.g. &quot;we'll talk to him later&quot; and then forget about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, I've never seen a watermark that didn't look awful, detracting significantly from the image. Perhaps it can be done &quot;tastefully and artfully&quot;, but I've never seen it. So it's a tradeoff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T13:33:17.593" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="865" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="836" CreationDate="2010-07-19T13:55:48.053" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Short Answer:  Probably not a Factor in Buying Decision&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;definition:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sync speed is the fastest shutter speed you can use when using the flash.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;It depends mostly on the camera body.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;typical behaviour:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Most flashes&lt;/strong&gt; will sync with &lt;strong&gt;most cameras&lt;/strong&gt; at around 1/250.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Unless you have specialist requirements, they will all perform in a very similar way.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Other factors are more likely to help you decide which flash to buy.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;(e.g. price, manufacturer, recharge time, length of flash, controls, remote control, swivel, ...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;freeze the action:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This does not typically affect your ability to freeze the action, because (as @che points out) the flash only lasts for 1/1000 of a second (typically), so for images where the subject is being illuminated mostly by the flash, it will be frozen as though you were using a shutter speed of 1/1000.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Confusing?  I find it a bit confusing, to be honest, but it does all work out logically once you get the hang of it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T13:55:48.053" />
  <row Id="866" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="833" CreationDate="2010-07-19T15:24:21.780" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Today's Answer Will Change Tomorrow&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is an area of rapid development, and I'm pretty sure that we will be seeing more innovation and technological improvement in coming months and years.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, since the answer is very technologically dependent, I suspect that it is impossible to give a definitive answer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sorry to be unhelpful.  I guess the real answer is that although the argument could (and will) rage on, just make the most of whichever system you have.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...And get a sturdy tripod ;)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T15:24:21.780" />
  <row Id="867" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="870" CreationDate="2010-07-19T15:32:53.643" Score="15" ViewCount="378" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;wikipedia.org&quot;&gt;Zone System&lt;/a&gt; was originally used with B&amp;amp;W film photography. With colour digital photography, though, couldn't you get much the same results by keeping an eye on the histogram? I think I might have missed the point, so let's ask: would I gain anything by learning to use the Zone System with my DSLR?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-23T03:05:20.190" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T03:05:20.190" Title="Is the Zone System useful with a DSLR?" Tags="&lt;color&gt;&lt;digital&gt;&lt;zone-system&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="868" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="867" CreationDate="2010-07-19T15:44:55.617" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System#Digital_photography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt; on this has some good information. Basically, yes, it is probably still worth the time to learn the system, but you probably won't use it in it's original form.&#xA;The Zone system will tell you what the exposure and dynamic range &lt;strong&gt;should be&lt;/strong&gt;, and the histogram will tell you what the exposure and dynamic range &lt;strong&gt;is&lt;/strong&gt;. The benefit is in knowing the difference between the expected and actual results, which allows you to adjust to get what you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-19T15:53:05.443" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T15:53:05.443" />
  <row Id="869" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="631" CreationDate="2010-07-19T16:06:50.413" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My only answer would be to follow the safety guidelines found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrargyrum_medium-arc_iodide_lamp#Safety&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;HMI lamps can reach ignition voltages&#xA;  of up to 70,000 V when striking hot,&#xA;  and are considered very dangerous if&#xA;  miswired. It is good practice to&#xA;  strike the light from the ballast and&#xA;  not the head, in the event that there&#xA;  is a short circuit in the lamp head.&#xA;  Proper striking procedures should be&#xA;  followed as well, such as calling out&#xA;  a vocal warning whenever a light is&#xA;  turned on to warn persons in the area.&#xA;  Also, the header cable should be&#xA;  properly and securely connected (most&#xA;  header cables will twist and click&#xA;  into place).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In addition to these concerns, HMI&#xA;  lamps have been known to explode&#xA;  violently at the end of their lifetime&#xA;  or if stressed enough. While not as&#xA;  violent as the explosion of a xenon&#xA;  short-arc bulb, they still require&#xA;  caution. As a result, HMI lamps should&#xA;  not be used past half their rated&#xA;  lifetime, and care should be taken&#xA;  with larger lamps when striking&#xA;  (turning on the lamp), as a lamp is&#xA;  most likely to explode within the&#xA;  first five minutes of striking. Care&#xA;  should also be taken transporting the&#xA;  lamp and replacing lamps. The gasses&#xA;  in an HMI lamp are under pressure,&#xA;  which increases with temperature.&#xA;  Dropping the lamp could result in an&#xA;  explosion, sending hot quartz glass&#xA;  flying. As with quartz-halogen bulbs,&#xA;  care should be taken not to touch the&#xA;  glass directly as skin oils can&#xA;  attract heat and cause a weak point on&#xA;  the bulb. Most lamp housing designs&#xA;  are inherently tougher and thicker&#xA;  than traditional tungsten units so&#xA;  that in the event of a bulb explosion,&#xA;  those nearby are protected from flying&#xA;  debris. There is the possibility of&#xA;  the front lens element on the lamp&#xA;  head cracking from thermal shock.&#xA;  Proper safety procedures should be&#xA;  followed when using HMI units, as they&#xA;  can be quite dangerous if misused.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T16:06:50.413" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="870" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="867" CreationDate="2010-07-19T16:24:20.977" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd say it's worth it. My friend &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/users/456/nick&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nick&lt;/a&gt; has written &lt;a href=&quot;http://nickminers.com/2009/05/the-zone-system/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a fairly decent overview of the zone system&lt;/a&gt; which uses an example that was taken in colour on his digital SLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="101" LastEditorUserId="101" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T13:25:13.557" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T13:25:13.557" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="871" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2010-07-19T16:29:01.113" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.speedliting.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Speedliting.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're a Canon shooter interested in small flashes, then Syl Arena's speedliting.com is a good resource. It's fairly new, and still in development, but the &quot;how to&quot; section contains blog-like articles, and the &quot;gear&quot; section contains articles on choosing what gear to use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also Syl's personal blog, &lt;a href=&quot;http://pixsylated.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pixsylated&lt;/a&gt;, although this is not purely photography focussed, but does include photography posts that aren't speedlite related (Topics covered include, for example, colour management).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="101" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T16:29:01.113" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-19T16:29:01.113" />
  <row Id="872" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2010-07-19T16:40:05.873" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thisweekinphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;TWiP&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This Week in Photography is a weekly podcast discussing all things photo-related with a number of regular and guest professional and serious-amateur photographers, mainly from the US. Their new website, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thisweekinphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.thisweekinphoto.com/&lt;/a&gt;, contains show-notes from all of the episodes they've recorded, plus articles written by the hosts on a range of photographical topics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="101" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T16:40:05.873" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-19T16:40:05.873" />
  <row Id="873" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="755" CreationDate="2010-07-19T16:58:07.237" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.zarias.com/white-seamless-tutorial-part-1-gear-space/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Zack Arias'&lt;/a&gt; tutorial to be incredibly helpful, and extremely straight forward and easy to understand.  I won't bother to regurgitate it here, I recommend you go read a bit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T16:58:07.237" />
  <row Id="874" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="877" CreationDate="2010-07-19T17:30:35.683" Score="7" ViewCount="186" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm aware of two devices that can extend the reach of a lens: the teleconverter and the extension tubes. What else would they have in common, and where do they differ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there situations where one would be preferable over the other?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T20:16:36.967" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T20:16:36.967" Title="What is the difference between teleconverters and extension tubes?" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;teleconverter&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="875" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2010-07-19T17:34:20.437" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://nickminers.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nick Miners.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nick is a friend of mine who posts articles on &lt;a href=&quot;http://nickminers.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;his blog&lt;/a&gt; covering a range of photography topics. All posts are photography related, and cover a range of subjects, from beginner's-guide style overviews of the zonal system, to comments on new versions of software.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="101" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T17:34:20.437" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-19T17:34:20.437" />
  <row Id="876" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="874" CreationDate="2010-07-19T17:40:56.710" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;An extension tube has no optical components. It's role is to move the lens further away from film/sensor. This results in a &quot;closer&quot; focus, which makes it more ideal for macro photography. The downside is that with some extension tubes you lose AF, and with all tubes, you require more light for the exposure, as light falloff becomes an issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A teleconverter, increase the focal length of a lens. Common TC are 1.4x and 2.0 multipliers. The TC has optical elements which increases the zoom range of certain lenses (not all lenses will work with a TC). The downside is a reducing in the maximum aperture of the lens and some degradation in overall image quality. TC's are a low-cost way to go &quot;long&quot; with your telephoto lenses. When you need the extra reach of a super telephoto lens, pairing a TC with an existing telephoto lens is a very economical solution, at the expense of optical quality, a darker view finder, and potentially manual focus only scenario (most bodies lose AF abilities unless the lens has a certain max aperture)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T17:40:56.710" />
  <row Id="877" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="874" CreationDate="2010-07-19T17:56:14.493" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The two devices do entirely different things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Extension tube:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An empty tube which moves the lens further away from the sensor.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The point is that as you focus on closer and closer objects, the focused image (which you want to place on the sensor) moves further from the lens. Eventually the lens reaches the limit of its travel and closer objects focus behind the sensor. Adding an extension tube gives you more room to do this, so you can focus on closer objects.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Teleconverter:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Contains optical elements which increase the focal length of your lens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As a consequence, the maximum aperture shrinks (making the lens slower).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For example, a 300mm f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC becomes a 420mm f/4 (you lose one stop), and with a 2x TC it becomes a 600mm f/5.6 (you lose two stops).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Typically, TCs work best with telephoto lenses.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Teleconverters can make autofocus stop working by reducing the maximum aperture beyond the limit of the autofocus system (often f/5.6). For example, adding a 2x TC to a f/4 lens results in a f/8 lens, which probably won't autofocus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Also, adding elements to a lens degrades its quality somewhat; this may or may not be a visible problem. Generally, you will want a lens and TC which are designed to work together to minimize this issue.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both (if good-quality) contain mechanics and electronics to let the lens and body &quot;talk&quot;, to keep auto-focus and metering working.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T17:56:14.493" />
  <row Id="879" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="843" CreationDate="2010-07-19T19:04:14.307" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The lens on the S90 is optimized for compactness and letting more light in, so it sacrifices closer focus capability compared to the larger and slower (larger f number, smaller aperture) lens of the G11. &quot;Macro&quot; lenses for SLRs are bigger and slower than the corresponding non-macro lenses, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sensor affects minimum focus distance just because it is easier to make closer focusing lenses if the sensor is smaller, even though the lenses are not really optimized for that. Macro lenses for SLRs cannot even focus as close as the S90's 5cm!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T19:04:14.307" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="880" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2010-07-19T19:44:50.200" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I really love &lt;a href=&quot;http://petavoxel.wordpress.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Petavoxel&lt;/a&gt;. He uses his extensive knowledge of physics and photography to explain in very clear language how different camera manufacturer's choices lead to better or worse photographs. In particular, he specializes in myth-busting. For example, &quot;back side illumination&quot; isn't all that it's cracked up to be. And he's constantly focusing on sensor size and light sensitivity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="153" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T19:44:50.200" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-19T19:44:50.200" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="882" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="874" CreationDate="2010-07-19T21:41:09.980" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A teleconverter and an extension tube are pretty much each others opposite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A teleconverter is used to increase the focal length, for example turning a 70-200 zoom into a 140-400 zoom. It has lenses to preserve the characteristics of the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An extension tube is used for macro photo, turning a standard lens into a macro lens by reducing the closest focusing distance (and reducing the longest focusing distance also).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if you want to take images at a long distance, you can use a teleconverter, and if you want to take extreme close-ups, you can use an extension tube.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(You could even use both, but they don't cancel each other out, you still end up with a macro lens.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T21:41:09.980" />
  <row Id="883" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="439" CreationDate="2010-07-19T22:01:28.873" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that the 70-200 accepts a few specific 1.4x TCs quite well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, the 70-200 and 70-300 are totally different beasts. One is a inexpensive, slow consumer lens and the other is an expensive, fast pro lens. And good TCs are not cheap (more than the 70-300 alone?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, there's some confusion about how much aperture loss there is from a TC. A 1.4x TC will lose one stop (f/2.8 becomes f/4) while a 2x TC will lose two stops (f/2.8 becomes f/5.6). This is defined by the laws of optics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-19T22:01:28.873" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="886" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="894" CreationDate="2010-07-20T00:07:52.183" Score="29" ViewCount="3338" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are there any kind of photography left today which digital cameras are still in the disadvantage to film cameras?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T02:21:06.730" LastActivityDate="2011-03-20T07:10:51.267" Title="What kind of photography is still better done with film cameras?" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;digital-vs-film&gt;&lt;film-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="13" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="887" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="892" CreationDate="2010-07-20T00:28:33.547" Score="12" ViewCount="231" Body="&lt;p&gt;In particular that run natively on Linux.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="2425" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-03T20:56:45.260" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T08:09:48.343" Title="Are there any good open source noise removal tools?" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;open-source&gt;&lt;noise-reduction&gt;&lt;noise-removal&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="888" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="886" CreationDate="2010-07-20T00:32:40.540" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Five or six years ago, when I first took up photography, I would have said night photos.  I could put black &amp;amp; white ISO 6400 film in my Nikon N80 and get shots I wouldn't even think of attempting with a digital back then.  I doubt that's true today though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="119" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T00:32:40.540" />
  <row Id="889" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="890" CreationDate="2010-07-20T00:43:44.900" Score="3" ViewCount="36" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the downsides?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-20T03:10:54.747" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T03:10:54.747" Title="Are there any downsides to use a 2x extender?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;teleconverter&gt;&lt;extender&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="890" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="889" CreationDate="2010-07-20T00:52:13.380" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general this is what you can expect for using a 2x extender:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lower max aperture-which may cause your camera's AF system to stop working, or at least perform worse.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Darker view finder&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Loss of sharpness, especially at the corners&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Loss of color contrast&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Increase in color fringing and chromatic abberations.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The effects of the optical degradation will depend on the lenses you pair the 2x with (also some Canon lenses aren't directly compatible with the 2x TC, though there are &quot;mods&quot; that will allow it to work with many lenses).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T00:52:13.380" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="891" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="886" CreationDate="2010-07-20T00:57:37.487" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Film cameras have (iirc) universal support for multiple exposures. Some dslr bodies have added this feature, and you can certainly do this in pp, but film allows you to do this in a straight forward manner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Medium format is still much cheaper (relatively) using film, as digital MF's are wicked more expensive than their film counterparts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T00:57:37.487" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="892" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="887" CreationDate="2010-07-20T01:01:49.973" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are &lt;a href=&quot;http://registry.gimp.org/search/node/noise%20reduction&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;several different plugins&lt;/a&gt; for gimp to remove noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T01:01:49.973" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="893" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="886" CreationDate="2010-07-20T01:05:06.533" Score="42" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think medium and large format photography is still a world dominated by film. While that fact is starting to change with more recent digital cameras that have extremely high megapixel counts (20mp or more), going to a larger format is SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper with film. The benefits of large format are particularly nice for landscape photography, but shine whenever you need the ability to generate extremely large prints (poster size or very large canvas prints.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some digital cameras explicitly designed as medium-format, such as the Hasselblad H4D. The H4D sensor ranges around 50-60 megapixels and is 40.2 x 53.7mm in size, which is considerably larger than a full-frame 35mm sensor. The cost of this camera, at $45,000, is extremely prohibitive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T01:05:06.533" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="894" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="886" CreationDate="2010-07-20T01:11:31.820" Score="26" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_photography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Infrared photography&lt;/a&gt; is much more accessible with film.  With digital it &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/infrared/#CAMERA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;is possible&lt;/a&gt;, but generally involves modifying the sensor to remove the infrared filter, which is very expensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T01:11:31.820" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="895" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="945" CreationDate="2010-07-20T06:10:52.740" Score="3" ViewCount="190" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently purchased a Gitzo Mountaineer tripod, the GT0541. It is a Series 0 (not really sure what that means), 4 section with ground-lock capability. The G-Lock capability has been really nice for those close-to-the-ground macro shots of flora and insects and the like. Sadly, I am using my old tripod head on it, and the thing is a solid, heavy beast that more than doubles the weight of the tripod. That makes it nearly impossible to trek around the mountains with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been looking around at Gitzo heads, and I am not really sure how to decipher the model numbers. Information about Gitzo heads seems rather lacking on the internet, so hopefully someone can explain what the different Gitzo part names mean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've looked at the following heads, amongst others, and I am not sure of a few things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Gitzo-GH3780QR-Magnesium-Center-Ball/dp/B001F0RNWC/ref=sr_1_74?s=photo&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1279605232&amp;amp;sr=1-74&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gitzo GH3780QR Series 3 Magnesium Center Ball Head QR&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Gitzo-GH2781TQR-Traveler-Quick-Release/dp/B002WO1BVE/ref=sr_1_81?s=photo&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1279605232&amp;amp;sr=1-81&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gitzo GH2781TQR Series 2 Traveler Ball Head QR&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Gitzo-GH1781QR-Quick-Release-Black/dp/B0039YP18U/ref=sr_1_113?s=photo&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1279605957&amp;amp;sr=1-113&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gitzo GH1781QR Series 1 Ball Head QR&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For one, what exactly do the Gitzo &lt;em&gt;Series&lt;/em&gt; mean? They seem to have Series 0 - 4 for their products. I am not sure if the series simply indicate progressive lines of their products, or if they indicate different levels of quality/capability/manufacturing processes? I'm also curious what the difference in their major product lines are. They have the Magnesium Center ball heads and the Traveler ball heads, but they look and pretty feel the same as far as I can tell. The Series 1 looks a bit different in terms of colors, but otherwise also seems to have the same general design and functionality. I'm not entirely sure why the Magnesium heads warrant almost twice the price tag in most cases over other Gitzo head styles. Insight is greatly appreciated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-23T03:10:00.447" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T03:10:00.447" Title="Choosing a Gitzo Tripod head - deciphering series, model #, etc." Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;tripod&gt;&lt;tripod-heads&gt;&lt;gitzo&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="896" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="31" CreationDate="2010-07-20T06:31:02.233" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are lightweight tripods. I recently purchased a Gitzo Mountaineer GT0541 tripod. Its fairly expensive at $500, but it only weighs 1.7lbs, or 780g. I know its not quite 500g, but still very light weight as far as tripods go...one of the lightest weight tripods I could find. I think Gitzo only makes one tripod that is just a tad lighter at 720g, but it is also several inches shorter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The GT0541 is one of Gitzo's carbon-fiber 6x line, and has some nice features. It has a decent load capacity of 11lbs, rises to a maximum height of 56&quot; (with center extender and without a tripod head attached) with 4-section legs, and allows a minimum height of about 10&quot; when you remove the center extender and set it for ground-lock. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adding a Gitzo ball head probably adds about another 3 inches to its height, putting it at nearly 60&quot; tall (I have not yet purchased a Gitzo head, and my current head adds about 3.5-4&quot;, but weighs more than the whole tripod by almost two fold.) From some recent experience, without my old head attached, this tripod is EXTREMELY lightweight, and is a dream to hike around with. I have been searching for a Gitzo head to go along with it, and I know they have some very nice, very light-weight heads that weight in around a pound (probably less, as 1lb is the shipping weight), although I can't give you any more details than that yet as I haven't actually purchased one and hiked around with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-17T03:12:51.873" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T03:12:51.873" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="897" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1163" CreationDate="2010-07-20T08:40:26.143" Score="2" ViewCount="167" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Nikon D-40 and D-90 with a wide assortment of prime lenses. I like fast primes for low light photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of my lenses are sufficiently old that they do not auto focus at all. Others do, but some Nikon bodies don't have an AF motor, they just rely on the silent wave.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is, I can't seem to find a way to have the AF assist light (on the camera, or on a flash) come on when manually focusing, or when the camera detects that auto focus is not possible. I have gone though every setting that I can find and have yielded nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this just not possible, or am I missing something obvious? In certain settings, its just impossible to get a good focus without that. I don't hit the same problem with most film cameras (or anything else with brighter view finders) nearly as much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="52" LastEditorUserId="52" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-20T08:47:06.893" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T00:40:51.060" Title="Force AF assist light on body / flash to come on with Nikon DSLRs?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;old-lenses&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="898" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="901" CreationDate="2010-07-20T08:52:55.007" Score="10" ViewCount="220" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a good hardware solution for generating shaped bokeh?  I know Lensbaby has a set of filters that give various shapes — is there a similar solution for other lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="189" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-23T03:11:20.120" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T03:11:20.120" Title="Best way to get shaped bokeh?" Tags="&lt;bokeh&gt;&lt;accessories&gt;&lt;lensbaby&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="899" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="898" CreationDate="2010-07-20T09:03:42.080" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just cut a hole in a piece of paper, and tape it over a wide-aperture lens? See, for instance, &lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/how-i-took/33858-shaped-bokeh.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this link&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diyphotography.net/diy_create_your_own_bokeh&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this link&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastEditorUserId="206" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-20T09:09:41.037" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T09:09:41.037" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="900" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="910" CreationDate="2010-07-20T09:13:15.557" Score="12" ViewCount="345" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is back-focusing? Is it something I need to be worried about, or can I just live with it? How can I tell if my camera/lens is sufferring from it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="101" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-17T22:48:28.123" LastActivityDate="2010-11-17T22:48:28.123" Title="What is back-focusing?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;focus&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;back-focus&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="901" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="898" CreationDate="2010-07-20T09:26:13.537" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Bokeh Masters Kit&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Available here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bokehmasterskit.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bokehmasterskit.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T09:26:13.537" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="902" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="900" CreationDate="2010-07-20T09:28:58.373" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a page at &lt;a href=&quot;http://focustestchart.com/chart.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;focustestchart.com&lt;/a&gt; that goes into enormous detail about this. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The quick summary: back focus is when the focus plane is further back than you were expecting it to be (so your subject is out of focus, but something behind it is sharp). This is usually operator error, but might possibly be a problem with the lens; the page linked above gives you a way to distinguish between the two.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T09:28:58.373" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="903" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="833" CreationDate="2010-07-20T10:16:52.067" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lenses are generally the most expensive part of photography equipment and likely to be kept longer than bodies. Assuming that mounts don't change it may be more cost effective to use cameras with in-body stabilization and take advantage of the certain technological improvements in the body which will occur every few years while keeping an investment in top quality lenses valid. Quality lenses are rarely improved upon quickly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="231" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T10:16:52.067" />
  <row Id="904" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8" CreationDate="2010-07-20T10:39:38.560" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For me its a mix of tools:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have my camera set to create a new folder based on date automatically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My photos are then imported from the camera into a folder with the date taken and the camera name is added (automated in the import software). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I then add a location or reminder to the folder name eg 2010-03-27-EOS40D-Special Event. This means they stay sorted in chronological order year-month-day. Within this I put RAW, Edited and Uploaded folders for workflow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once imported I add tags, people, places etc using Photoshop Elements, although plenty of other tools would work just as well if not better. This is the most time consuming part but doesn't need to be done immediately as the folder naming is often enough to help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means i can quickly find what I am looking for either in a standard explorer window or via Elements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="231" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T10:39:38.560" />
  <row Id="905" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8" CreationDate="2010-07-20T11:00:44.350" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://picasa.google.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Picasa&lt;/a&gt; will show you your photos on a map, and you can definitely zoom into the map to see all the photos around a given place. It'll also let you geotag by positioning photos on the map -- I find it easier to use for geotagging than Microsoft Pro Photo Tools.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, it only maps the photos in the currently selected folder, and doesn't recurse into subfolders. But you can define a new album (containing photos from many folders), and map all of the photos in that album at once - so you could conceivably have an &quot;Everything&quot; album. Personally, I organise into folders based on year and location, so usually I'm only looking at a single folder at a time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastEditorUserId="206" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-20T11:19:13.883" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T11:19:13.883" />
  <row Id="906" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8" CreationDate="2010-07-20T11:35:01.440" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Adding my voice to Picasa, however it is VERY important to use the tagging feature of the latest version along side with (or instead of albums)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Picasa stores the tag(s) you add to a photo &lt;a href=&quot;http://superuser.com/questions/34839/does-google-picasa-store-metadata-in-the-pictures/34935&quot;&gt;right into the EXIF metadata&lt;/a&gt; which means your tags (albums) will live on even if you pull the photos away from Picasa or stop using it altogether.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Picasa has a feature that will create a 'virtual' album based on a specified tag - my plan is to migrate over all my existing Picasa albums to tags right in the photos - this is especially important if you store your photos on an external HDD and access them via different computers/programs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="172" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T11:35:01.440" />
  <row Id="907" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="900" CreationDate="2010-07-20T12:09:21.047" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Back-focusing/front-focusing is when your auto-focus is wrong, and focuses too far or too close. This is most visible when you're shotting with fast telephoto lenses and in other situations with shallow depth of field. Most people don't like to have their photo out-of-focus, so if you're suffering from this it's best to fix it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Matt writes, you can check your camera+lens using chart at &lt;a href=&quot;http://focustestchart.com/chart.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;focustestchart.com&lt;/a&gt;. On some cameras front-back focusing can be tuned directly in their menu, but sometimes it's necessary to get the camera and/or lens calibrated in service center.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T12:09:21.047" />
  <row Id="908" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="911" CreationDate="2010-07-20T12:17:44.320" Score="4" ViewCount="608" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most of Canon Speedlites flashes have quite nice built-in AF-assist LED lights, which would are useful in low-light situations, even when one doesn't want to use flash in photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any way to set the flash (or camera) to fire only AF-assist, and not the flash itself? Only way I know is to prefocus and then turn off the flash, which is not very practical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T00:45:11.943" Title="How to trigger AF-assist light on Canon Speedlites without firing the flash?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;speedlite&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="909" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="908" CreationDate="2010-07-20T12:21:01.273" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally this can be enabled through a custom function on your camera -- depending on your camera, the setting will be in a different place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In low light situations, the flash may still strobe to assist in metering and determine how much flash power is required.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T12:21:01.273" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="910" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="900" CreationDate="2010-07-20T12:25:35.553" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Back-focusing and front-focusing is when the auto-focus consistently is slightly off in either direction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This problem has always existed as long as auto-focus has existed, but it has come into focus (no pun intended) with digital cameras where you can enlarge the image to pixel level and really see where the focus is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can test this with a simple setup of a ruler and a box of matches, or any similar objects. Put the ruler on a table and place the box standing right beside it. Focus on the box and take a picture, preferrably using a long lens and the largest possible aperture (lowest f-stop value).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;box -&amp;gt; |                         o &amp;lt;- camera&#xA;       |&#xA;--------------- &amp;lt;-ruler&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now when you examine the photo you can see where the ruler is sharp. If the auto-focus is correct, the box is in focus, and the part of the ruler that is sharp is a section in front of and behind the box, centered slightly behind the front of the box. That is because the depth of focus is slightly longer behind the subject:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;box -&amp;gt; |&#xA;       |&#xA;--------------- &amp;lt;-ruler&#xA;     ^  ^&#xA;     |__|sharp&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Testing my EF 28-135:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.guffa.com/Temp/focus.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;auto-focus test&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-20T13:16:54.623" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T13:16:54.623" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="911" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="908" CreationDate="2010-07-20T13:23:56.977" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Disable the flash in the camera settings. It still uses the AF-assist beam, but it will not fire the flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The setting is in different places depending on the camera, for example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EOS 5D:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Menu &gt; Custom Functions &gt; 07&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EOS 5D mk II:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Menu &gt; Tools 3 &gt; External Speedlite control &gt; Flash function settings &gt; Flash firing&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-20T13:38:29.267" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T13:38:29.267" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="912" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-20T13:29:03.750" Score="10" ViewCount="232" Body="&lt;p&gt;I remember taking infrared pictures with a simple filter and black and white film. How can I do something like this with digital cameras? Or is this even possible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-23T03:16:41.383" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T03:30:11.000" Title="Is it possible to do infrared photography with digital cameras?" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;digital-vs-film&gt;&lt;film-photography&gt;&lt;infrared&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="913" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="912" CreationDate="2010-07-20T13:31:02.233" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, but not on most standard DSLRs.  Most digital cameras have an infrared filter on the sensor to improve the image captures in the visible spectrum.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to do take infrared photos it is best to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/digital_cameras/is/finepix_is1/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;buy a camera designed for that purpose&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://lifepixel.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;modify a camera&lt;/a&gt; by removing the filter on the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a great overview of digital infrared photography here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/infrared/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Infrared Photography with a Digital Camera&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T02:18:54.193" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T02:18:54.193" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="914" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="912" CreationDate="2010-07-20T13:33:21.900" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpfwiw.com/ir.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpfwiw.com/ir.htm&lt;/a&gt; might give you some information about it. It seems possible on some (not all) cameras. The site looks pretty comprehensive to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T13:33:21.900" />
  <row Id="915" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="900" CreationDate="2010-07-20T14:10:25.743" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;See also the focus test chart at &lt;a href=&quot;http://pentaxdslrs.blogspot.com/2008/06/part-1-autofocus-adjustment-for-pentax.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://pentaxdslrs.blogspot.com/2008/06/part-1-autofocus-adjustment-for-pentax.html&lt;/a&gt;. It has a slightly more accurate focus target and measures the 45 degree angle for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that it's incredibly easy to do focus testing wrong. Be careful and disciplined in following the directions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T14:10:25.743" />
  <row Id="916" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="917" CreationDate="2010-07-20T14:17:54.397" Score="17" ViewCount="503" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is used by professionals?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="101" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-26T13:59:13.573" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T19:37:15.107" Title="Which focal-length lens is is usually used for portrait photography?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;focal-length&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="917" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="916" CreationDate="2010-07-20T14:31:15.583" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends a bit on the kind of portrait you want to take, but there are two key things you want to do regardless:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Not distort your subject. If you're too close to the subject things get warped, so whilst using your wide-angle and getting right up to the nose of your subject may produce an amusing result, it's seldom what you want (but as with all things, it can be great when used sparingly).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Throw the background out of focus, drawing attention to your subject.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bearing in mind that you want to be stood a reasonable distance from the subject to avoid the first issue, for a head-and-shoulders type shot, you'd normally be looking at something that's the full-frame equivalent of 80-85mm, so about 50mm on an APS-C sensor with a crop-factor of 1.6x (Canon).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a 3/4s length type shot you'll want to be using a wider lens; something like a 50mm on a full-frame body, so about 35mm on a 1.6x crop sensor. You'll get more depth of field with the shorter lens, so may need to ensure the subject is far enough from the background so you can still throw it out of focus. Needless to say fast primes are the norm for portraiture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="101" LastEditorUserId="101" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-28T13:09:03.363" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T13:09:03.363" CommentCount="11" />
  <row Id="918" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="916" CreationDate="2010-07-20T14:31:46.237" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;depending on the photographer's choice, it can be 50mm or 80mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;on my DSLR, I use a 50mm but it behaves like a 80mm because of the sensor size &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T14:31:46.237" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="919" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="922" CreationDate="2010-07-20T15:02:12.980" Score="18" ViewCount="822" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd really like to stop blowing out the sky and/or underexposing the ground in my pictures. The traditional solution would be to use graduated ND filters, but taking multiple exposures and applying HDR postprocessing would also work (and some point-and-shoot cameras can even do that in-camera).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When should I use graduated ND filters, and when would HDR be a better bet? Or is it just a matter of personal preference?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-23T18:18:34.107" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T18:18:34.107" Title="When should I use graduated ND filters and when should I use HDR processing?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;hdr&gt;&lt;dynamic-range&gt;&lt;neutral-density&gt;&lt;sky&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="920" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="928" CreationDate="2010-07-20T15:09:44.163" Score="8" ViewCount="835" Body="&lt;p&gt;When photographers take pictures at events, like at the latest British open golf tournament, you can hear a lot of loud shutter(?) noises? Is that really necessary for a digital camera? Especially when photographing wildlife, it is important to be as silent as possible. What kind of camera can be used for this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T23:47:20.947" Title="Are there any really silent but good DSLR cameras?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;digital-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="921" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="919" CreationDate="2010-07-20T15:10:06.957" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think what you need to consider is the fact that using HDR won't just fix your blown skies - it's an effect in its own right and will increase the dynamic range of the whole image. If you want to shoot HDR anyway, then you'll be able to expose your skies correctly due to the increased dynamic range of the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't want a HDR affect on your photo use a filter (real or in software, although personally I'd always use a real filter and get it right in-camera) to bring the sky into the dynamic range of the rest of the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;HDR isn't something that interests me too much at the moment, so I'd always use a filter. Essentially what I'm saying is that you should use a filter unless you happen to be shooting a HDR image anyway, in which case it probably isn't necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="101" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T15:10:06.957" />
  <row Id="922" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="919" CreationDate="2010-07-20T15:12:04.237" Score="17" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ND filters&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Advantages&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No extra post-processing required.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You can see the result in the viewfinder.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Disadvantages&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Making the exposure is more complicated because you have to select a filter and place the transition appropriately for the scene.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You probably need several filters (of different density and transition abruptness) to cover a sufficiently wide variety of scenes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The straight transition between dark and light needs to more or less match the needs of the scene (for example, a large mountain with sunlit clouds behind probably won't work).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ND filters are more fragile than other filters because they are placed in a frame so you can shift around the transition.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Good ND filters aren't cheap, and you may need multiple sets to fit different lenses.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;HDR&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Advantages&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No mucking around at exposure time (just make the exposures).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Can deal with arbitrarily shaped transition between light and dark areas.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A variety of HDR software is available for free (though there are pay options as well).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Disadvantages&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lots of mucking around in post.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If your camera doesn't support bracketing with a sufficient number of frames, a tripod will be required and you'll have to adjust exposure manually.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Scenes with moving objects will lead to difficult or impossible editing in post.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Significant practice is required for good results, particularly if you don't want the &quot;HDR look&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-22T21:53:15.430" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T21:53:15.430" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="923" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="920" CreationDate="2010-07-20T15:15:50.230" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;See this question: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/593/why-dont-they-make-all-dslrs-with-an-electronic-shutter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/593/why-dont-they-make-all-dslrs-with-an-electronic-shutter&lt;/a&gt; - there are significant costs, in terms of camera performance, to using electronic instead of mechanical shutters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can usually make DSLRs a bit quieter by using the mirror lock-up and/or &quot;live view&quot; feature, if that helps...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T15:15:50.230" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="924" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-20T15:16:44.787" Score="15" ViewCount="432" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;this question seems similar to &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/533/how-can-i-backup-my-photos-while-travelling&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt;, but my needs are different :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I shoot in RAW exclusively&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I'm looking for a 100% offline solution : while travelling, Internet won't be accessible&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the &quot;laptop&quot; solution is too heavy for me : I'm looking for a lightweight solution&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the simpliest, the better : &lt;em&gt;one device to rule them all&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt; &#xA;I'm using good old Compact Flash cards (yes, the bigger ones), so I need a device that can read it. If it can read from other cards, this question might be interresting for more people than myself  - that's the whole purpose of the website.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;thanks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-20T20:17:45.833" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T00:19:21.243" Title="How can I backup my RAW photos while travelling without Internet access?" Tags="&lt;storage&gt;&lt;backup&gt;&lt;travel&gt;&lt;memory-card&gt;" AnswerCount="13" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="925" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="920" CreationDate="2010-07-20T15:18:06.880" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;expensive&lt;/strong&gt; solution : Leica M9 is very silent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T15:18:06.880" />
  <row Id="926" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="924" CreationDate="2010-07-20T15:24:41.050" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I'm feeling paranoid about backing up, I use a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nextodi.co.uk/uk/ND2700.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nexto DI&lt;/a&gt;, which can backup a card directly to its own internal drive. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It reads CF/SD/SDHC, doubles as a USB2/external SATA drive, and is much faster than most of the other similar products I could find. (There are a bunch of similar products available, but this one had the best reviews at the time, about 6 months ago.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastEditorUserId="206" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-20T15:47:14.330" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T15:47:14.330" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="927" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="924" CreationDate="2010-07-20T15:25:01.393" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are plenty of different portable hard drives that can read directly from the memory card. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/portable_storage.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; are some examples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I bought a 60 GB &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/equipment/digital/tripper/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tripper&lt;/a&gt; a few years ago, but that is bulky and feature-lacking by todays standards...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T15:25:01.393" />
  <row Id="928" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="920" CreationDate="2010-07-20T15:32:37.230" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;True DSLRs will always make noise by moving the mirror. This can be reduced by using mirror lock-up or in some modes of live view, but if you need to be really quiet you have to use either something mirrorless (like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicGF1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Panasonic GF1&lt;/a&gt;) or a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.soundblimp.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sound Blimp&lt;/a&gt;, which is basically a soundproof box around a DSLR (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.assignmentconstruct.com/index.php/assignmentconstruct/whatweuse/jacobsen_sound_blimp_for_cameras/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;video from John Harrington&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-22T08:14:24.647" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T08:14:24.647" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="929" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="924" CreationDate="2010-07-20T15:37:27.450" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some great portable hard drive/card reader solutions out there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One example is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adorama.com/DFPS2250G.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Foci Photo Safe II, 250GB&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T15:37:27.450" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="930" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="916" CreationDate="2010-07-20T15:40:20.603" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For classical portrait it's usually something around 80mm, but for envirnmental portraits (think and old fisherman in his fishing hut with all his fishing equipment and fish tropies around) you'll have the most success with wide-angles around 28mm. Obviosly you don't want to deform your fisherman, so for wide-angle shots you'd have to put him somewhere not far from the center.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T15:40:20.603" />
  <row Id="931" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="920" CreationDate="2010-07-20T15:56:27.197" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d5000.htm#quiet&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ken Rockwell claims&lt;/a&gt;, and I agree, that the D5000 in quiet mode is pretty darn quiet. I haven't measured mine, but it is pretty hard to hear from across the room in quiet mode. That being said, I don't like the delay, and only turn it on when I really have to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T15:56:27.197" />
  <row Id="932" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="955" CreationDate="2010-07-20T16:25:00.343" Score="7" ViewCount="626" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon 40D and like taking macro shots sometimes, so I'm thinking of buying a macro lens. I'd also like the lens to double up as a portrait lens. I'm not a super serious photographer, so my budget is not huge, but I'm considering the &lt;strong&gt;Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 USM Macro Lens&lt;/strong&gt; and the &lt;strong&gt;Canon EF 100mm f2.8 USM Macro Lens&lt;/strong&gt;. I also note that Sigma and Tamron have lenses in that focal range and price range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So reasons I can think of to go for the 60mm would be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;smaller and lighter&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;probably a better focal length for portraits&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;bit cheaper&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the 100mm would be better for:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;insect photography, as I could keep my distance a little better.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there other key factors to consider? Would you recommend one of the third party lenses as particularly good? Are there any of these lenses to avoid?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-20T17:50:38.673" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T19:42:52.260" Title="Choosing a macro lens for Canon APS-C camera" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;cropped-sensor&gt;" AnswerCount="8" />
  <row Id="933" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="924" CreationDate="2010-07-20T16:30:51.447" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many dedicated devices for backing up memory cards (Jobo and the like) - we had one of these circulating at our wedding, so that all the guests didn't have to worry about memory card space, and fit in your pocket/hotel safe relatively easily. They tend to back up the card, without caring what is on it, so RAW files shouldn't be a problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T16:30:51.447" />
  <row Id="934" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="936" CreationDate="2010-07-20T16:44:17.047" Score="31" ViewCount="1109" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm wondering what are the most compelling reasons to switch to manual mode on my DSLR. I mostly just use aperture priority mode so I have good control over the depth of field combined with an awareness of the shutter speed that goes with it. My photography is mostly done wandering about with camera in hand, or occasionally on a tripod. I don't do studio photography and I just use the natural light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I did learn how to take photos manually (with an Olympus OM-1) so I know how to do it, but I enjoy the extra convenience of aperture mode, particularly being able to take the photo quickly and capturing the moment rather than fiddling with dials and missing the shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what would be some key advantages of using manual mode for my sort of photography that are worth the (small amount of) extra hassle involved?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And do you have any tips to minimise the downside (other than practicing to be quick)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-23T03:21:01.757" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T02:31:13.327" Title="What advantages does manual mode have over aperture priority mode?" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;tips&gt;&lt;manual-mode&gt;&lt;aperture-priority&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="11" />
  <row Id="935" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="919" CreationDate="2010-07-20T17:00:06.667" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some good answers already, so I'll just add some notes. HDR is a powerful tool that can be used to produce images with a much broader range of contrast than is normally possible with a camera. It should be noted, however, that if you really do &quot;blow out&quot; your highlights by overexposing beyond the upper range of your sensor, or conversely &quot;block out&quot; your shades by underexposing beyond the lower range of your sensor...no amount of HDR will be able to correct that. Once you go far enough beyond the absolute limits of your sensor (truly blow out), HDR can't help you. You will still need to be careful that, even if you ride the line and get right up to the edges of your sensors contrast range, you don't go beyond. HDR can then serve you very well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T17:00:06.667" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="936" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="934" CreationDate="2010-07-20T17:12:48.457" Score="24" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I typically use aperture priority as well, but I also work a fair bit in manual mode. The typical case for me is if I am in an environment where the lighting situation is quite static, but the subject may have a lot of contrast. Here I switch to manual mode and shoot a few test frames to pinpoint the exposure (typically I try to spot meter on a white surface, and then overexpose that reading by 1.5-2 steps as a first guess).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main advantage is that you are in full control, and the camera will not be &quot;fooled&quot; by unexpected contrasts in the frame. The downside is that it is a bit slower to change exposure in case the lighting situation changes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastEditorUserId="10" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-20T17:19:33.890" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T17:19:33.890" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="937" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="932" CreationDate="2010-07-20T17:15:48.527" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have used the older Canon EF 100mm Macro (the non-USM version). Absolutely wonderful lens. However, I found the working distance to be a bit on the short side for insects. I am currently using a Sigma EX 180mm f/3.5 which I find very good for this use. Not the smallest of lenses though...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T17:15:48.527" />
  <row Id="938" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="932" CreationDate="2010-07-20T17:17:19.930" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use the 100mm f/2.8 with my 20D, and find it works quite well for portraiture - don't forget Canon's 50mm f/1.8 is also their cheapest (and most under-rated) lens (about £90 in the UK) if you don't need true Macro, and that is brilliant for portraiture, especially with APS-C sensors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T17:17:19.930" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="939" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="916" CreationDate="2010-07-20T17:17:54.280" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As others have stated, 50mm could almost be considered the &quot;standard portrait focal length&quot; for an APS-C size sensor. Personally I often use an 85mm lens (on an Nikon D300, 1.5x crop factor) which I find most excellent for portraits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T17:17:54.280" />
  <row Id="940" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="934" CreationDate="2010-07-20T17:20:10.033" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Manual mode can give you more consistent metering when you're taking several photos in a scene. For example, suppose that you're photographing a person whose body is fully illuminated but whose face is partly in shade. If you take a full-body image and then a head and shoulders portrait, the metering could end up different because the percentage of the frame that its brightly illuminated will change. But if you're in manual mode, you can select the &quot;right&quot; exposure and then both will be consistent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T17:20:10.033" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="941" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="934" CreationDate="2010-07-20T17:24:55.067" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Aperture priority can be ideal for a walkaround mode, especially when combined with exposure compensation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I only tend to flip to manual mode when I'm shooting a lot with the same lighting, or rapidly changing lighting -- so things like food photography (where dark meat or glistening glazes can trick the metering), or fireworks where the automatic metering may pick up a previous shot, or not understand why you're taking a photo of a blank scene.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T17:24:55.067" />
  <row Id="942" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="934" CreationDate="2010-07-20T17:31:30.670" Score="18" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biggest benefit I can think of is consistency between shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is normally not much of an issue, but when you are wanting to capture the changing light in a scene for &lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-make-a-time-lapse-video-with-your-dslr&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;time lapse&lt;/a&gt; or do &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-panoramas.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;panorama stitching&lt;/a&gt; the consistency becomes really important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T17:31:30.670" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="943" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="932" CreationDate="2010-07-20T17:41:41.090" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the &lt;strong&gt;Canon EF 100mm f2.8 USM Macro Lens&lt;/strong&gt; and a &lt;strong&gt;Canon Xsi&lt;/strong&gt; and absolutely love it.  The 60mm might be better for portaits, but if you have room to back up a little the 100mm does just fine.  As far as Macro shots go, I think the 100mm is a great fit for a cropped sensor.  It gives you a little more working space than the 60mm would and it's not terribly heavy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was worried about the price when I was researching, but I am really glad I took the hit and went for the 100mm, it's certainly the best lens I own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T17:41:41.090" />
  <row Id="944" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="932" CreationDate="2010-07-20T17:45:34.470" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have both the 100 Macro and the 40D, and the 100mm doesn't give you that much option to stay away from the bugs. You still need to get upclose. The 100mm is pretty light to begin with, so it really boils down to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you want more reach? (100mm)&#xA;Do you want shorter reach (60mm)&#xA;Will you move to a fullframe body? (100mm)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I knew I was going to move to a fullframe/non-efs body, so I went with the 100mm. I love it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T17:45:34.470" />
  <row Id="945" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="895" CreationDate="2010-07-20T18:27:52.280" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The official explanation is at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gitzo.com/cms/cache/offonce/home/products/code_systems_and_charts&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.gitzo.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I can tell the Series is basically a size/weight indicator ranging from 00 (ultralight) to 5 (bulky).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T18:27:52.280" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="946" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="954" CreationDate="2010-07-20T18:45:54.020" Score="8" ViewCount="442" Body="&lt;p&gt;When using fill flash to supplement ambient light, how do you determine the flash color that will match the ambient light? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T13:09:56.753" Title="How do I use gels to make my flash match the color of the ambient light?" Tags="&lt;lighting-modifiers&gt;&lt;color-correction&gt;&lt;fill-flash&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="947" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="533" CreationDate="2010-07-20T18:45:55.423" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have you looked into using &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Live_Sync&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Microsoft Live Sync&lt;/a&gt;? Live Sync is a PC-to-PC sync system that allows you to sync files between multiple computers over the internet. You can sync hundreds of thousands of files, and they can be up to 40Gb each in size. It also supports up to 2Gb of online storage in Microsoft SkyDrive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The nice thing about Live Sync is that you are syncing your data to your own computers. You could, for example, set up a NAS device at home, map the drive to our main computer, and install Live Sync on that computer. Set up a shared folder on the mapped NAS drive, and you can sync files from a laptop in the field to your home NAS over the internet via a secured channel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its my favorite way to keep data protected when I am abroad, and the beauty of it all is that I don't have to copy any of it again when I get home...its already there. The one drawback, as with any online service, is the performance of syncing large volumes of data. Gigs of data don't sync quickly, so either you have to just spend the time doing it, or involve a third form of backup as an intermediary (i.e. get a 500Gb portable drive, and sync at night while you sleep.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T18:45:55.423" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="948" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="950" CreationDate="2010-07-20T19:28:36.840" Score="16" ViewCount="410" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do you find that bracketing your photos is still in general a good practice, or has photo editing software greatly reduced the need for this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-bracket-your-photo-subject.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;How To Bracket&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://malektips.com/digital_photography_0013.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(Why You Should) Bracket Your Important Photos&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="233" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-16T11:33:58.260" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T11:36:32.047" Title="Do you still bracket your photos?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;digital-vs-film&gt;&lt;bracketing&gt;" AnswerCount="10" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="949" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="948" CreationDate="2010-07-20T19:34:14.317" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bracketing still has its uses, and is encouraged for HDR images (High dynamic range).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It remains the case that it is better to get things right in-camera, but using tools like the histogram that most cameras (at least those that support brakecting) can be useful to tell whilst you're there and see if you've got the exposure right, which does reduce the need for bracketing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T19:34:14.317" />
  <row Id="950" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="948" CreationDate="2010-07-20T19:36:22.890" Score="17" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll put it this way: &lt;strong&gt;I've often regretted not bracketing, but rarely regretted bracketing.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Meters still make errors, and data which exceeds the dynamic range of the sensor is gone forever, regardless of post-processing software. I recommend bracketing any images which have complex lighting or any particularly important images, certainly until you understand very well how your meter behaves in the situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The alternative is chimping and checking the histogram, which provides immediate feedback but slows the shoot and is prone to error (as the histogram shows data processed as if for JPEG even if you're shooting raw).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-20T20:14:23.330" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T20:14:23.330" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="951" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="948" CreationDate="2010-07-20T19:46:58.963" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Regarding bracketing for HDR, I regret bracketing when I don't need to, esp. when it leaves three times as many photos clogging up my computer/iPhoto library. Now I just try to look for better lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="109" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T19:46:58.963" />
  <row Id="952" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="912" CreationDate="2010-07-20T19:47:15.843" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can achieve a similar effect without modding your camera by buying a Near-IR filter.  These usually stop you waaaay down, so your exposure is 25–30 seconds, and you can't see anything through the viewfinder.  Requires manual focus too.  After taking the capture, you have to post-process the image — I forgot the details but it involved switching reds with blues in the channel mixer.  Was way too much work for me, but I have seen some really successful shots with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastEditorUserId="499" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-12T12:38:40.460" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T12:38:40.460" />
  <row Id="953" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="924" CreationDate="2010-07-20T20:17:18.173" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depends on your budget obviously, but some cameras have dual card slots and can write identical files to both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T20:17:18.173" />
  <row Id="954" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="946" CreationDate="2010-07-20T20:19:36.623" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That comes down to color temperature of the ambient light. Flash always has something similar to daylight (5500-6500K), so you need to use conversion gels from daylight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most useful gel is &lt;em&gt;CTO&lt;/em&gt; (color temperature orange), which will color daylight to tungsten (3200K). Usage is as follows:&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;Stick CTO gel on flash&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Set color temperature to tungsten&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Shoot&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This has two possible effects:&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;If ambient light is tungsten, everything will look just normal&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;If the ambient is normal daylight, you foreground will have proper color, and everything else will be toned to blue. This can provide nice color separation effect (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/che_0/2699258162/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;example&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other usual gel is &lt;em&gt;window green&lt;/em&gt;, that converts daylight (e.g. flash) to fluorescent-like green. Usage is similar to full CTO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People also use half- and quater CTO, which convert daylight to 3800K and 4600K. These can be used for less-visible separation, or to warm up light for portraits. (Usual scenario: light some stuff with ungelled flash and the person with 1/4 or 1/2 CTO-gelled flash; an example with a bit more complicated setup &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/l_s_g/4446264598/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;can be seen here&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Full description, examples and links to much more can be found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101-using-gels-to-correct.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article at Strobist&lt;/a&gt;, overview of various gels can be seen at &lt;a href=&quot;http://rosco.com/uk/filters/ecolourplus.cfm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rosco&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-22T08:12:30.267" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T08:12:30.267" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="955" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="932" CreationDate="2010-07-20T20:31:39.030" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To throw in another opinion, I have EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro and it worked really great for me, both for macro and snapshot portraits of people around me (size also helps here). &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/513-canon60f28apsc&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Review at photozone&lt;/a&gt; is also rather positive. I guess you'll be happy with whichever of those two you choose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T20:31:39.030" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="956" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="948" CreationDate="2010-07-20T20:47:04.063" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think in addition to the other answers this can boil down to a philosophy for your own development in your skill. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some people feel if you are more conservative in the shots you take you will learn more. I know I have taken a bunch of shots thinking that &quot;I will study them and figure out why the one that is right was the best&quot; and just don't do that.  If you only take a couple shots and miss what could have been a great shot because you didn't chose the best settings you really remember why that happened.  The emotional impact of a failed picture helps make the impact in memory.  This development can also help if you get involved in action photography such as sports or wildlife because you're chances to get the right moment are limited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The flipside of this of course is that you will end up missing a shot that might have worked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="198" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T20:47:04.063" />
  <row Id="957" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="932" CreationDate="2010-07-20T21:40:31.913" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When it comes to macro lenses, two of the things you need to take into account is Depth of Field and Field of View. With a 60mm lens, you are going to have a greater FOV and less flexibility in terms of DOF. You'll need to get pretty close with a 60mm to do either macro photography of insects, or for portraits (unless you want the wider field for your portraits, and are not interested in getting close-up facial shots.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, with a 100mm macro lens, you are going to have a narrower FOV, and greater flexibility in terms of DOF due to the longer focal length. You won't need to get as close to snap shots of either insects or close up portraits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of build and construction, hands down the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens is one of their best-built lenses. It is solid, and has some of the smoothest focus I've ever encountered. Its clarity and quality are second to none. One thing you should be aware of, however, is the difference in these two lenses mounts. The 100mm is an EF lens, designed for full-frame sensors. It will work on an APS-C, however it will effectively be a 160mm lens. The 60mm is an EF-S lens, and is designed to work only on APS-C sensors. It'll effectively behave as a 96mm on a full-frame, but if you ever upgrade your camera body to an APS-H or FF, you won't be able to use it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T19:42:52.260" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T19:42:52.260" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="958" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="924" CreationDate="2010-07-20T22:27:54.020" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I own Epson P-5000 Multimedia Storage Viewer - it has 80 GB Hard Drive.&#xA;It has been working great for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="81" LastActivityDate="2010-07-20T22:27:54.020" />
  <row Id="960" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="924" CreationDate="2010-07-21T01:13:51.697" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;How about a basic NetBook combined with Windows Live Sync? The NetBook would give you some basic editing capabilities (or even extensive ones if you threw Lgihtroom on it), the ability to hook up either USB drives or the camera itself, without the heavy weight of a full laptop. With Live Sync (read more about it at my &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/924/how-can-i-backup-my-raw-photos-while-travelling-without-internet-access/959#959&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;other answer to a similar question here&lt;/a&gt;), you can back up your field work to your home computer over the internet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T01:13:51.697" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="961" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="964" CreationDate="2010-07-21T04:49:33.437" Score="7" ViewCount="338" Body="&lt;p&gt;Chimping - the act of reviewing the picture you just took on the camera's LCD, is used as a way to disparage shooters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I heard that chimping might refer to proudly showing off a shot after you taken it with a nice vocal accompaniment of ooh-ooh-aah, but I have also heard that just bothering to look at the LCD after you shoot is also chimping. Why is either a big deal?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I review the histogram of nearly every shot I take. Admittedly, I rarely shoot anything in motion, so there is NIL chance that I will miss the shot (perhaps the Eiffle Tower might get up and walk away, but I somehow doubt it). Usually after the first time I review the shot, I will not look at it again until it's on my computer but there was one image that I couldn't help but look at, again and again through out the evening.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T02:09:28.137" Title="Why is chimping a derogatory term?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="962" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="383" CreationDate="2010-07-21T04:49:36.277" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One important thing to have in addition to filters is an assortment of stepping rings.  This way you can primarily invest in filters of a single size, say 77mm and have inexpensive stepping rings to use these filters on your 72mm, 67mm, 58mm, 52mm lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T04:49:36.277" />
  <row Id="963" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="961" CreationDate="2010-07-21T05:02:14.010" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sportsshooter.com/special_feature/chimping&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;video from SportShooter.com&lt;/a&gt; with some sports photographers giving their views on chimping.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="160" LastEditorUserId="160" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-21T05:10:51.953" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T05:10:51.953" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="964" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="961" CreationDate="2010-07-21T05:05:41.493" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe it mocks photographers who spend more time fiddling with their equipment than making photographs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not always derogatory. I used it a few questions ago and there it was just matter of fact, a concise and appropriate verb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other interesting jargon includes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;measurebation&lt;/em&gt; - becoming too caught up in data and measurements at the expense of making photographs&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;pixel-peeping&lt;/em&gt; - using 100% crops and similar techniques to identify flaws that have no effect on the photograph under real-world conditions&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T05:05:41.493" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="965" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="701" CreationDate="2010-07-21T05:06:41.460" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Aperture 3 supports brushing in an adjustment now, so maybe you could try &quot;brushing in&quot; some blur/softening with a fine brush? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The line just looks oversharpened to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="146" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T05:06:41.460" />
  <row Id="966" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="961" CreationDate="2010-07-21T05:10:38.210" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Chimping seems to have two definitions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) To look over your photos while on the camera to see how they turned out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) To show off or excessive admire said photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not opposed to 1. I am not much interested in 2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the early days of digital photography, I noticed a uninterested-in-photography friend and I had completely different approaches to taking photos at a party or group setting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I prefer candid portraits, and will try to subtly take photos of people interacting without them being distracted by me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She would get her friends together to pose, take the photo with a crappy little camera that fit in her handbag, and coo with them over the result (i.e. the second definition of chimping, above.) What I realised was that, for her, the act of taking the photo itself was the social bonding event. Once the photo was taken, it may as well be deleted; it was no longer of much interest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps it is a reaction to this sort of photographer - for whom the quality of the results is an irrelevant by-product, compared with the act of bonding - which triggers the poo-pooing of chimping?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="160" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T05:10:38.210" />
  <row Id="967" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="932" CreationDate="2010-07-21T08:24:33.103" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I used to have the Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro and have switched to the Canon 100mm f2.8 for two reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;better build quality&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;faster (and silent) focus due to USM&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;no extension/rotation of the lens while focusing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Especially the last point is very important if you don't want to scare little animals away. As far as image quality is concerned, both are excellent lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="225" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T08:24:33.103" />
  <row Id="968" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="970" CreationDate="2010-07-21T09:44:20.633" Score="7" ViewCount="336" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many times I shot photos, but the photo is some times &lt;em&gt;too bright&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;too dark&lt;/em&gt; and the colors are incorrect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some times the white on the photo is not the white that I have on background but gray and I see that not on camera, but when I input the image on the computer. I can not match the white background on the pages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can correctly meter light with proper color balance? Are there any tips, tricks, books, or web sites?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="236" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T02:12:56.697" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T10:02:35.847" Title="How can correctly measure light using a built-in camera meter?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;white-balance&gt;&lt;metering&gt;&lt;light&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="969" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="968" CreationDate="2010-07-21T09:57:59.317" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That's a huge question. I'm going to assume you're a beginner, because of the lack of jargon in the question -- apologies if I'm wrong about that...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway: there are plenty of resources to learn about exposure -- I'd recommend the book &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0817463003&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Understanding Exposure&quot;&lt;/a&gt;, but I'm sure you'll get plenty of suggestions to choose from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[EDIT: added the next two paras because I felt guilty about just saying &quot;read this book!&quot; and nothing else]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a quick fix, you could try using &lt;em&gt;exposure compensation&lt;/em&gt;. This lets you tell the camera to make the picture darker or lighter; it's normally indicated by a scale that goes from EV -2 (darker) to EV +2 (lighter). Your camera manual will tell you how to use this; if you're in automatic mode, you'll probably have to switch to program auto first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a real fix, you have to understand why your camera is making the scene too bright or too dark. If you're in automatic mode, that will be down to &lt;em&gt;metering&lt;/em&gt;. Most cameras will give you a choice between measuring the amount of light at a single point (&quot;spot metering&quot;), or averaging over the whole frame, or some more complicated option. Have a look at the metering options in your camera's manual, and experiment with them -- try taking a few pictures of a scene that contains both very bright and very dark areas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem of colours not being correct might be to do with the white balance on your camera (if there's an overall colour cast - say, everything looks blueish, or yellowish), but that's just a guess.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastEditorUserId="206" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-21T11:14:04.600" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T11:14:04.600" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="970" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="968" CreationDate="2010-07-21T09:58:22.873" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem is that the exposure meter in the camera does not know whether the subject itself is bright or not. It simply measures the &lt;em&gt;amount&lt;/em&gt; of light that comes in, and makes a guess based on that. &lt;strong&gt;The camera will aim for 18% gray, meaning if you take a photo of an entirely white surface, and an entirely black surface you should get two identical images which both are gray&lt;/strong&gt; (at least in theory). This means that if your scene is very bright you will need to over-expose the image. Otherwise the camera's exposure meter will be fooled, and produce an image that is too dark. The opposite goes for a dark scene, here you will need to under-expose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I have a subject that contains a white surface that I really want to be white, I often spot-meter on that surface, and then set an exposure in the camera that is around 1.5 to 2 steps brighter than that (so if spot-metering on the white suggests an exposure time of 1/250, I will instead use something around 1/90 - 1/60).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the histogram is a good tool for this. If you have bright parts of your scene, you want the histogram to reach as close to the right edge as possible, preferably without blowing out any highlights. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Expose Right&lt;/a&gt; article on Lumonous Landscape offers some good info on that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-10T10:02:35.847" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T10:02:35.847" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="971" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="968" CreationDate="2010-07-21T10:24:57.020" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There seems to be two things here; getting the correct exposure, and getting the correct white balance. What sort of camera are you using? I'm going to answer as if it were a D-SLR, but if it's not I'll edit this post according to your response.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the former, the key thing to remember is that your camera only has a finite dynamic range (that is if you have a subject that is both very bright and very dark in places, one or the other will most probably lose detail due to highlights being blown or the darks all being too dark). You'll want to use the metering mode on your camera to get the exposure you want correct for the part of the photo you are interested in. If you have a bright subject against a dark background, I'd probably use spot-metering on the subject to get the subject exposed correctly, and let the background be dark. If my subject was bright against a medium-bright background I would probably choose to use centre-weighted metering to try and get a good compromise between the exposures ideally required to capture the foreground and background correctly. For things such as silhouettes I'd probably spot-meter on the background, meaning the darker foreground was black.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To fix the second problem you describe, namely the colours and particuarly whites, being off, then you probably need to adjust the white balance. Your camera will probably have an auto-wb setting, which you could use, or you could set it based on the lighting conditions whenever you take a photo. Another option is to photograph a greycard, and have the camera use a custom white balance. Personally, I shoot in RAW and then adjust the white balance in Lightroom if necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It could also be a problem of colour management. &lt;a href=&quot;http://pixsylated.com/2008/05/why-your-photos-look-lousy/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Syl Arena's written an article about it&lt;/a&gt;, but essentially you need to ensure that your camera records colour in the same way that your monitor displays colour and your printer prints colour. You do this by &lt;em&gt;profiling&lt;/em&gt; the various devices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="101" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T10:24:57.020" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="972" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="976" CreationDate="2010-07-21T12:43:09.610" Score="1" ViewCount="142" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bibble 5 Lite only allows output in &lt;code&gt;Kodak ProPhoto RGB&lt;/code&gt;, which quite a few applications do not represent correctly (esp. when uploading to web services).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;AFAIK, Bibble 5 Lite is hard-coded only to support this color profile, so it's not possible to change there. GIMP supports &quot;correcting&quot; it to sRGB, but is quite heavy to fire up for each picture I output.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So -- is there any way around this? Either a simple application to bulk-change the color profile, or perhaps some solution within Bibble?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I'm not a color-profile expert, so I might have overlooked something obvious.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="187" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T15:55:42.563" Title="Correcting output from Bibble 5 Lite" Tags="&lt;linux&gt;&lt;color-correction&gt;&lt;color-management&gt;&lt;bibble&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="974" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="934" CreationDate="2010-07-21T13:28:49.553" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sometimes the amount of exposure compensation available (ie +/- 2 stops) in Aperture priority mode might simply not be enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T13:28:49.553" />
  <row Id="975" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="961" CreationDate="2010-07-21T13:37:02.060" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I never just take one shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I usually shoot on manual with spot metering. I adjust shutter speed and aperture based on the scene and then I take a few snaps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When shooting digital&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course I'm going to look at the first few shots, mostly for exposure. Then I just go back to shooting, which is why I'm out and about with my camera in the first place. I may check again if I notice a change in light, especially if it causes me to adjust the aperture more than 1/3 stop (in which case I'm interested in keeping the same DoF that I had). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When shooting film&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You obviously don't have the ability to check 'test shots' prior to burning up a roll. But, you do typically have much better metering, a brighter and fuller view finder as well as a better preview when it comes to hyperfocal length. You also learn, quickly when to bracket a shot that you simply can't 'do over' again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think its just a question of making the most out of the tools that are available to you when using any given camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then again, I don't like cameras that get in my way, or fellow photogs that keep interrupting me to show me the back of their camera. I would classify either as just annoying. You won't see people in a press pit showing off their awesomeness while other photographers get all the pictures that news agencies actually want to pay for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then again, the same could be said about people who spend more time worrying about what other people are doing than anything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In either event, its just another way of saying &quot;You take better pictures when the camera is  in front of your face&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="52" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T13:37:02.060" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="976" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="972" CreationDate="2010-07-21T13:40:32.537" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibblelabs.com/products/bibble5/learn/webhelp/index.html?batch_output.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this documentation&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;em&gt;&quot;Bibble 5 Lite offers sRGB and ProPhotoRGB (the working space), while Bibble 5 Pro offers a broad selection of color profiles.&quot;&lt;/em&gt; It's under Additional Image Settings in the output settings for the queue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-21T14:51:54.517" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T14:51:54.517" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="977" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="886" CreationDate="2010-07-21T13:45:43.990" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Black and white photography&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No monochrome sensors are available on the mass market.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-16T10:11:31.083" LastActivityDate="2010-12-16T10:11:31.083" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="978" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="983" CreationDate="2010-07-21T13:55:30.347" Score="27" ViewCount="1091" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am currently in the middle of a year long photo a day project, and am beginning to think about what I will do once this is done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What types of photography projects have you done?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please keep answers to a single type.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T10:25:38.063" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-21T13:55:30.347" Title="What are good photography projects?" Tags="&lt;fun&gt;&lt;learning&gt;&lt;project&gt;" AnswerCount="22" FavoriteCount="20" />
  <row Id="979" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="978" CreationDate="2010-07-21T13:56:28.740" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A photo a day (Photo365) blog.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T13:56:28.740" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-21T13:56:28.740" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="980" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="978" CreationDate="2010-07-21T13:59:50.477" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm currently working on a project with the theme &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Doors&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="101" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T13:59:50.477" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-21T13:59:50.477" />
  <row Id="981" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="978" CreationDate="2010-07-21T14:06:00.573" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One that I've done is: Draw a random walk (say, 12 points, each 200 yards apart) on a map.&#xA;Go and take at least one photo at each point, no matter how uninspiring you find it when you get there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're a programmer, you can generate walks with Google maps/Bing maps (my own horrible implementation is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.eccentrablog.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Walk.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, and I apologise in advance for the UI...). If not, then print a map and just trace around some household object to get a nice random route.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastEditorUserId="206" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-21T14:23:26.833" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T14:23:26.833" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-21T14:06:00.573" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="982" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="978" CreationDate="2010-07-21T14:06:14.613" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My next one is going to be &quot;People In Bars&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="52" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T14:06:14.613" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-21T14:06:14.613" />
  <row Id="983" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="978" CreationDate="2010-07-21T14:17:40.060" Score="18" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do the opposite: A day a photo. You are only allowed to take a single photo each day, so choose wisely. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would not be something for a long running project, but you could try it for a few days, just to get a completely different view on photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-21T14:20:11.473" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T14:20:11.473" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-21T14:17:40.060" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="984" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13" CreationDate="2010-07-21T14:20:24.890" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As well as being a one-shop stop for the vast majority of your photo management and editing needs, for me the key difference between Lightroom and Photoshop is the fact that Lightroom is non-destructive and works on RAW files. That is that all of the changes you make simply add notes to the file (Meta data) telling Lightroom what changes to make when you export the image. Only then is the Raw file converted to produce a jpeg/tiff image. You still have your Raw file managed within Lightroom for future alterations without losing the benefits of being able to process the Raw file.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="101" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T14:20:24.890" />
  <row Id="985" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="978" CreationDate="2010-07-21T15:24:29.067" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had a &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogme_95&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dogme 95&lt;/a&gt;&quot;-inspired project a couple of years ago (and still do it, occasionally). I set up a strict set of rules for my photography, which caused me to start making images in a different manner from what I was used to. The set of rules was:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In-camera black &amp;amp; white, jpeg format (so there was no way of tweaking the gray scale conversion afterwards). Color filters were OK, both physical and in-camera software filters.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Camera set in manual mode with spot metering.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One (1) exposure per subject. I even considered switching off the functionality that automatically displays the last exposure on the LCD (but didn't).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The images that I produced under this set of rules came out with a somewhat darker atmosphere than I had done before, and it also made me look for subjects in a new manner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the (in my personal opinion) better images that came out of this was this one (showing rain drops falling onto a water surface):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://blog.alcedo.com/image.axd?picture=_MG_9967.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;rain on water&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T15:24:29.067" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-21T15:24:29.067" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="986" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="972" CreationDate="2010-07-21T15:55:42.563" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.irfanview.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;IrfanView&lt;/a&gt; has a batchmode and a huge array of functions. Perhaps it can correct the color  space too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="221" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T15:55:42.563" />
  <row Id="987" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="990" CreationDate="2010-07-21T17:03:25.553" Score="6" ViewCount="236" Body="&lt;p&gt;I tend to use Program mode on my camera, and try to avoid using the &quot;easy&quot; options, particularly Auto. I should probably at least get familiar with the other options - Manual, Aperture, and Shutter. On that line of thought, I'd like to hear what other photographers prefer, and why.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T00:16:42.317" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T00:16:42.317" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-22T01:12:32.203" Title="What is your preferred shooting mode?" Tags="&lt;shooting-mode&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="988" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="978" CreationDate="2010-07-21T17:05:53.847" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been thinking about dragging my camera out to the same point on a trail several times a week for a year, then combining all the images into a video.  Then I realized I was too lazy to do that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T17:05:53.847" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-21T17:05:53.847" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="989" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="987" CreationDate="2010-07-21T17:16:33.533" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I tend to stick to aperture priority (Av) mode, as it gives me control over the depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T17:16:33.533" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-22T01:12:32.203" />
  <row Id="990" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="987" CreationDate="2010-07-21T17:17:10.427" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do my bulk of shooting in the aperture priority mode, since I like to have control over the depth of field. Second most common mode is manual for full control, and after that shutter priority mode for the few cases when I want a particular effect based on shutter speed (typically some panning shot with motion blur). Not seldom I actually stick to aperture priority also for such shots, just setting a smaller aperture, leading to the shutter speed I want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T17:17:10.427" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-22T01:12:32.203" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="991" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="978" CreationDate="2010-07-21T17:26:35.110" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's always the subject A-Z with your photo's successive subjects in alphabetic order (for more of a challenge, try and go it for photos that relate to your local area - as an example, a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/ipswichtown/discuss/72157601272798300/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;few people have done this on Flickr&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T17:26:35.110" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-21T17:26:35.110" />
  <row Id="992" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="978" CreationDate="2010-07-21T17:31:14.913" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want to improve portraiture, then try to photograph a 100 different people -- ideally people you'd not previously met (always advisable to get their permission, and avoid children thoguh)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T17:31:14.913" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-21T17:31:14.913" />
  <row Id="993" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="987" CreationDate="2010-07-21T17:39:59.940" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have my camera on P by default and switch to aperture priority when I care about depth of field. When I'm in the fixed-light environment (like events lit by theatrical lights or dark places where I mostly use flash) I switch to manual mode, mostly to eliminate surprises.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My reason is that there are times when I just want to snap a picture, and don't really care about aperture settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T17:39:59.940" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-22T01:12:32.203" />
  <row Id="994" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="987" CreationDate="2010-07-21T17:43:31.947" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I used to use Aperture Priority (AV) mode on my Canon most of the time. It gives me control over depth of field and the sharpness/clarity of my shots. However, since I got some ND/NDGrad filters, I've been using manual mode more often. The in-camera meter does not seem to be quite as accurate with ND or even Polarizer filters on, so I have noticed the need to manually adjust my shutter more when I'm using one. I generally start with AV without a filter, meter bright highlights and dark shades to determine my contrast range, meter where I want my focus to be, add the necessary filter(s), meter again, then switch to manual and adjust my shutter by 1/3 - 2/3 of a stop + the stop-values of the filter(s) and take the shot. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T17:43:31.947" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-22T01:12:32.203" />
  <row Id="995" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="987" CreationDate="2010-07-21T18:27:27.270" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My default is Program (P), for several reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I want to shoot RAW (Not possible in automatic/preset modes on my Canon)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I want to decide when to use my flash (also not easily configurable in auto/preset)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I typically want to use mostly automatic settings.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I often switch to Shutter-Priority when using a telephoto or shooting action, or Aperture-Priority when doing portrait or macro.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T18:27:27.270" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-22T01:12:32.203" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="996" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="978" CreationDate="2010-07-21T19:04:54.357" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.100strangers.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;100 strangers&lt;/a&gt;&quot; project is something I've been meaning to try for a while, but I haven't yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am almost finished on my 2nd year of photo-a-day though, and I expect that I'll probably keep doing a photo a day for the rest of my life. It's worth it just for the memories attached to them, and I'm already saying that before I've finished my second year :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="40" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T19:04:54.357" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-21T19:04:54.357" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="997" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-21T19:19:20.910" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;TURN OFF YOUR FLASH.  And then set your ISO to the lowest setting you can without the photo being blurry (but don't be afraid of using a high-ISO - I'd rather have a 'noisy' shot without flash than a blown-out one with flash)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nothing ruins a shot more than a poorly used/placed flash (which is 99% of the time)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="172" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T19:19:20.910" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-21T19:19:20.910" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="998" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1001" CreationDate="2010-07-21T19:23:18.387" Score="5" ViewCount="119" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been planning to get the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adorama.com/CA430EX2U.html?utm_source=gbase&amp;amp;utm_medium=Shopping%20Site&amp;amp;utm_campaign=Other&amp;amp;utm_term=Other&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 430EX&lt;/a&gt;, but I'd love to save a little cash, so I started looking at other 3rd party flashes. I've found a few that claim to have ETTL II support, but being so much cheaper, it makes me wonder about the quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, does anyone know of a good, inexpensive flash with ETTL II support?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are 2 of the ones I found:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adorama.com/VVDF283CAN.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Vivitar DF283 Digital TTL&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adorama.com/FASFD35C.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bower ETTL / ETTL II Zoom Flash&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-21T19:26:27.163" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T20:26:06.943" Title="Inexpensive flash with full ETTL support" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;ettl-ii&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="999" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="998" CreationDate="2010-07-21T19:32:44.170" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adorama.com/SG530EOS.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma EF-530 DG Super&lt;/a&gt; supports E-TTL II, and is supposed to be very good (a friend of mine had a couple before and was very happy about them).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastEditorUserId="10" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-21T19:38:51.923" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T19:38:51.923" />
  <row Id="1000" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="978" CreationDate="2010-07-21T19:41:45.100" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Constraints drive creativity. So take away your choices during shooting. Go out with just one camera and fixed lens. Shoot only black and white. Shoot slide film. Buy yourself some ancient camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively work with something you hate. Hate lens flare - so make a picture where you actually like lens flare. Hate high ISO noise - again, make it work for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T19:41:45.100" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-21T19:41:45.100" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1001" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="998" CreationDate="2010-07-21T20:26:06.943" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you might be misunderstanding what ETTL-II is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ETTL-II is a software improvement on using information with ETTL flashes and EF/EF-S lenses. It's implemented in &lt;strong&gt;camera bodies&lt;/strong&gt;, not the flash-gun. So any flash that is ETTL compatible is automatically ETTL-II compatible when used with a Canon body that has ETTL-II.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for a list of all bodies that have the improved ETTL-II, basically any Canon dSLR since 2004 has ETTL-II.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding your question--inexpensive flash, I would go for the bigger Sigma &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/998/inexpensive-flash-with-full-ettl-support/999#999&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fredrik Mörk&lt;/a&gt; posted over the 430ex (IIRC they're nearly the same price, but the sigma can act as a master, and has a higher guide number, and is more feature rich).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T20:26:06.943" />
  <row Id="1002" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="978" CreationDate="2010-07-21T21:04:30.860" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you don't want to come up with the assignments yourself at first, check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://dailyshoot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Daily Shoot&lt;/a&gt;.  You follow them on twitter, upload the photo you take for the assignment to any one of a number of photo-sharing sites, and tweet a link to your photo with @dailyshoot and the assignment hashtag in it.  dailyshoot.com picks up all such references and displays them in a grid on the website.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've only tried it a couple of times, but I enjoyed it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="119" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T21:04:30.860" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-21T21:04:30.860" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1003" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8" CreationDate="2010-07-21T23:11:15.477" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been using Picasa &lt;a href=&quot;http://picasa.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=93773&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;version 3.6&lt;/a&gt;.  In addition to tags and geo-tagging, it also recognizes (some) faces and can attach &quot;name tags&quot; to photos.  I use separate folders for the date the photo was taken grouped by months and years, e.g. Photos\2010\07\0720.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Picasa orders the pictures by folder and date, or &lt;a href=&quot;http://picasa.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=15253&amp;amp;cbid=-acv0t8cmlny&amp;amp;src=cb&amp;amp;lev=answer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;album&lt;/a&gt; and I can also search by tag, person, or caption text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="238" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T23:11:15.477" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1004" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="456" CreationDate="2010-07-21T23:16:59.133" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most printers print in 300 dpi. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you use Photoshop you can go to Image --&gt; &quot;Image Size&quot; --&gt; uncheck &quot;Resample Image&quot; and then change the Resolution to 300 dpi (pixels/inch). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then the you will see maximum Width and Height in cm (or inches) that you can print this image without resizing it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to print on canvas then you will probably use the same size as for photopaper (if the canvas printer will print in 300 dpi) but for canvas print you probably will need to sharpen the image more than for ordinary photopaper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to print 8x10 at 300 dpi then you will probably need an image that is 2400 pixels (width) x 3000 pixels (height). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For 16x20 at 300 you will need image that is 4800 pixels (width) x 6000 pixels (height). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="81" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T23:16:59.133" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1005" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="978" CreationDate="2010-07-21T23:54:33.313" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pick a common object, and see how many different photos you can take with that object as the subject.  Look for ways that are not obvious.  I once did American Flags,  and after many pictures of flagpoles,  started looking for flags in reflections, flags on cars, etc...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="105" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T23:54:33.313" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-21T23:54:33.313" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1006" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2010-07-21T23:59:01.807" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.PhotoQuotes.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PhotoQuotes.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My site has more than 3000 quotations about photography - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.PhotoQuotes.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.PhotoQuotes.com&lt;/a&gt; - you can learn a lot by reading those quotes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="81" LastActivityDate="2010-07-21T23:59:01.807" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-21T23:59:01.807" />
  <row Id="1007" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="471" CreationDate="2010-07-22T00:06:18.950" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://picasa.google.com/linux/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Google Picasa&lt;/a&gt; to organise and preview, &lt;a href=&quot;http://darktable.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Darktable&lt;/a&gt; for manipulation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="156" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T00:06:18.950" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-10T15:23:42.103" />
  <row Id="1008" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1022" CreationDate="2010-07-22T00:28:37.503" Score="10" ViewCount="135" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a photographer, I take a lot of pictures around the world. In the US, the rights for photographers are pretty clear cut, although harassment and bullying occur at the hands of security and law enforcement personell. However, the rights for photographers in other countries are not so clear cut. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are some good resources for photographers rights for around the world?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-22T00:37:23.897" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T08:06:23.510" Title="Resource for Photographer's Rights Around the World?" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="1010" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1008" CreationDate="2010-07-22T00:31:53.657" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For the US, Bert P. Krages, an Attorney, has a great write up about the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;US Photographers Bill or Rights&lt;/a&gt;, which I recommend every US photographer print and carry with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T00:31:53.657" />
  <row Id="1011" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1013" CreationDate="2010-07-22T02:41:12.897" Score="11" ViewCount="991" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the difference between digital high ISO noise and film grain? Why does one &quot;eat detail&quot; and the other does not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-22T13:07:11.813" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T00:03:16.863" Title="High ISO noise vs film grain" Tags="&lt;digital-vs-film&gt;&lt;iso&gt;&lt;film-grain&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1012" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1011" CreationDate="2010-07-22T02:51:15.913" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biggest difference is the patterns in the noise.  Film grain is caused by the grains of silver present in the film, and are not in a consistent pattern.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ISO noise is caused in the digital sensor and is pixel based, and therefore in a pattern.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some feel that film gran is more pleasing because of the inconsistent pattern in which the noise occurs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T02:51:15.913" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1013" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1011" CreationDate="2010-07-22T03:00:42.273" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The size of the grains in the film varies depending on the film sensetivity. The more sensetive the film, the larger the grains. Digital noise is always the size of a pixel, regardless of the ISO setting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Film grain is color neutral, as it consist mostly of luminance differences. Digital noise consists of both luminance and color differences, and is most visible in the blue color channel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the more recent digital cameras the digital noise is quite even, in earlier models the noise had more banding and patterns. The film grain doesn't have any banding or patterns, so it's seen as pure noise. If the digital noise has any banding or pattern, the brain can easily pick that up, and that is more disturbing than pure noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neither grain nor noise eats detail. It's noise reduction that eats detail, as it can't tell the difference between small details and noise. Noise reduction is used on digital noise, but it can also be used to reduce film grain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the left is the film grain from a Kodak Gold ISO 200 film, on the right is the digital noise of a Canon EOS 5D mark II @ ISO 3200. Notice the blue noise in the dark areas in the right image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.guffa.com/Temp/grains-vs-noise.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-22T16:12:33.150" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T16:12:33.150" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="1014" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1011" CreationDate="2010-07-22T03:06:15.003" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's also the issue of chroma (color) vs. luma (brightness) digital noise. People generally find chroma noise more objectionable because it appears less natural; this is why noisy photographs sometimes work better in a B&amp;amp;W conversion. The better noise reduction algorithms can also address one or the other selectively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that film has pretty much only luma noise, which is one reason people sometimes find it less objectionable than digital noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T03:06:15.003" />
  <row Id="1015" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1076" CreationDate="2010-07-22T03:15:42.250" Score="9" ViewCount="594" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the advantages and disadvantages of negative/print film compared to reversal/slide film?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-25T20:22:21.867" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T20:22:21.867" Title="Negative vs reversal film" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;negative-film&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="1016" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1015" CreationDate="2010-07-22T03:35:49.497" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the key disadvantages of slide &amp;amp; transparency film is the ability to casually browse the results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My father preferred slide film for many years, for its quality, and as a result, many of his family photos are locked away in boxes of slides, unseen for years, while his prints are available for browsing in an album at any time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="160" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T03:35:49.497" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1017" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1019" CreationDate="2010-07-22T03:41:01.680" Score="10" ViewCount="911" Body="&lt;p&gt;How does Picasa decide how to process RAW photos? When I shoot in RAW+JPEG the two pictures can look dramatically different. Is it just converting the RAW files upon import, or is post-processing still possible in the application?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="123" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T04:59:04.390" Title="How does Picasa process RAW photos?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;jpeg&gt;&lt;picasa&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="1018" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1015" CreationDate="2010-07-22T04:13:22.100" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Reversal film has a smaller exposure latitude than negative film, so it's harder to expose correctly. Also, as there is an extra step from negative to print, a negative that is slightly under- or overexposed can be corrected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The extra step of printing negative images can also be used to control the contrast of the photo, by using papers with different contrast grade. This is mostly used in black and white photography, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is of course also the difference in the final result. Reversal film can also be printed on paper, but it's mostly used as slides. Photo prints can easily be viewed without any equipment, while you need a viewer or projector to view slides. On the other hand, slides can be projected very large, while large prints are very expensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-22T04:42:09.123" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T04:42:09.123" />
  <row Id="1019" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1017" CreationDate="2010-07-22T04:47:07.463" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know all the technical details of how Picasa handles RAW files, but my short answer would be: &quot;Dont even bother&quot;. There's a good &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.alex-kunz.de/2008/03/picasa-and-raw-images.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;blog post&lt;/a&gt; on using Picasa with RAW files.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Unfortunately the conclusion is that it's pretty much useless.&#xA;Picasa is a photo management app with basic editing and sharing functionality not a RAW post-processor. &#xA;Even Google makes it pretty clear. Here's a quote from &lt;a href=&quot;http://googlephotos.blogspot.com/2008/01/raw-in-nutshell.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Google Photos Blog&lt;/a&gt;:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Although Picasa’s RAW support will do&#xA;  a great job of helping you organize&#xA;  and share RAW-formatted files on your&#xA;  computer, Picasa doesn’t support&#xA;  super-sophisticated editing of RAW&#xA;  files. For this, you’ll need to use&#xA;  either the software that came with&#xA;  your camera, or purchase advanced&#xA;  photo-editing applications, like&#xA;  Aperture or Lightroom.Aperture or Lightroom.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with Picasa. It's very good at what it's made for. I use it all the time for basic JPEG editing and uploading baby snapshots to share with family, but when I need to process some RAW files I'll always go to Capture NX or Lightroom (one day when I figure out how to handle colors in Nikon's RAW files).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="125" LastEditorUserId="125" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-22T05:39:08.847" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T05:39:08.847" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1020" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1015" CreationDate="2010-07-22T07:19:28.600" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another difference - negative film is darker than slide film and is therefore harder to scan properly. You need a quality scanner with a strong light source to properly scan negative film. (Of course, you need a quality scanner to properly scan dark parts of a slide film but sometimes you can handle loss of detail in dark areas.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="179" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T07:19:28.600" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1021" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1011" CreationDate="2010-07-22T07:45:56.243" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Higher ISO film tended to have more grain; and higher ISO digital shots exhibit more noise - a similar cause, but the visual appearance is different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Digital ISO noise is related to the size of each pixel, as the noise is per-pixel (so the more pixels you have, the less obvious noise is when viewed the same size), whereas with film, the noise is per crystal - you need larger crystals for higher sensitivity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One analogy I've used in the past to demonstrate this is to ask several people to time with a stopwatch how long it takes a car to drive around a car park, and then to time how long a person takes to do the same journey - because the person is slower, the margin of error is a smaller in proportion to the overall figure, even though different people will give timings to within a few seconds of each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T07:45:56.243" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1022" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1008" CreationDate="2010-07-22T08:06:23.510" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For UK, some info can be found at website of &lt;a href=&quot;http://photographernotaterrorist.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;I'm a Photographer, not a Terrorist&lt;/a&gt; group, including a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photographernotaterrorist.org/bust-card/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;bust card&quot;&lt;/a&gt; which sums up your rights under &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;British Terrorism Act&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other than that, I can only comment on the situation in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Republic&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Czech Republic&lt;/a&gt;, which seems to be pretty relaxed and free of any silly restrictions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T08:06:23.510" />
  <row Id="1023" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="471" CreationDate="2010-07-22T08:09:41.363" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is &lt;a href=&quot;http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;UFRaw&lt;/a&gt;, which is based on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cybercom.net/%7Edcoffin/dcraw/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dcraw&lt;/a&gt; and can be integrated with GIMP.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T08:09:41.363" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-10T15:23:42.103" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1024" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-22T11:34:37.317" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Know how to read the histogram. It might seems a bit of an more advance advise but it's actually not that hard and I wish I had learned it earlier. The histogram tell you in a quick glance if your photo is correctly exposed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a link for a quick explanation: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.basic-digital-photography.com/how-to-use-the-camera-histogram.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.basic-digital-photography.com/how-to-use-the-camera-histogram.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sensor is a linear device and can only capture over a specific range. The histogram will tell you that you've lost some information that you won't be able to recover. This is when the blue sky look white in your photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that you know how to detect a incorrectly exposed photo. Now you can correct it by changing the exposure compensation. Take another shot and tada! the sky is blue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="219" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T11:34:37.317" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-22T11:34:37.317" />
  <row Id="1025" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1026" CreationDate="2010-07-22T12:24:55.253" Score="4" ViewCount="407" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to use my Speedlite flash as my main flash off-camera and fire it remotely (with cactus V2 triggers) but I find it really annoying when the camera just goes to sleep and I have to walk over and wake it up again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any way to disable this power save feature?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-22T12:52:20.970" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T12:52:20.970" Title="How do I stop my Canon Speedlite (430exii) from going to sleep? (auto power off)" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;speedlite&gt;&lt;presets&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="1026" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1025" CreationDate="2010-07-22T12:25:25.987" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;Auto power off&quot; feature can be toggled as one of the unit's &quot;custom features&quot;. You need to set feature number 1 to have the value &quot;1&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;To set the custom features:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Press the &quot;C.Fn&quot; button for 2 sec. or more so that &quot;C.Fn&quot; is displayed on screen.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Select the Custom Function No.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Press the + button to select the Custom Function number (&quot;01&quot;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Change the setting.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Press the &quot;sel&quot; button.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The setting number will blink.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Press the + button to set the desired number (&quot;1&quot;), then press the &quot;sel&quot; button.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;After you set the Custom Function and press the &quot;MODE&quot; button, the camera will be ready to shoot.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T12:25:25.987" />
  <row Id="1027" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="932" CreationDate="2010-07-22T12:44:00.583" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've just bought the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bristolcameras.co.uk/p-sigma-lens-18-50-f2-8-ex-dc-macro.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; and can highly recommend it (not to be confused with the non-macro version). Note that it has a max aperture f/2.8 throughout the zoom range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For portraits it is optically almost as good as my excellent Canon 50mm f/1.4 but better in many other ways because of the zoom range and macro capability.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Definitely one to consider.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-Matt&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T12:44:00.583" />
  <row Id="1028" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1030" CreationDate="2010-07-22T12:48:12.743" Score="4" ViewCount="333" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the good softboxes for a small flash like a canon 430ex for example?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T22:32:06.257" Title="A good softbox for small speedlite" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;speedlite&gt;&lt;lighting-modifiers&gt;" AnswerCount="5" />
  <row Id="1029" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="961" CreationDate="2010-07-22T12:55:10.527" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When taking pictures of people I think &lt;strong&gt;a quick chimp is a good idea&lt;/strong&gt; but I have some tips:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Don't grimace!&lt;/strong&gt; If you stuffed up the photo by getting your exposure wrong or lighting them like Frankenstein, don't cringe when you see the image. &lt;strong&gt;Always smile when you chimp&lt;/strong&gt; even if you don't mean it becasue your subject will be watching you. If you show a face like the photo is bad they aren't going to to be smiling for the next one.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Lie!&lt;/strong&gt; Chimp then say &quot;&lt;em&gt;Wow, that is great, you look amazing!&lt;/em&gt;&quot;. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, when you take the next picture, it really will be amazing. &lt;strong&gt;People are suckers for compliments.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Matt&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T12:55:10.527" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1030" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1028" CreationDate="2010-07-22T13:01:25.070" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lastolite make an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lastolite.com/ezybox-hotshoe.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ezybox&lt;/a&gt; which is pretty &quot;good&quot; but it really depends on how you term &quot;good&quot;. Do you want:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Small when collapsed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Durable and long-lasting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Big (bigger the light source, the softer the light)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Affordable?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have you also considered just using a shoot-through unbrella?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T13:01:25.070" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1031" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1028" CreationDate="2010-07-22T13:04:24.143" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;At Strobist there is a review of &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/09/by-request-lumiquest-softbox-iii.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LumiQuest Softbox III&lt;/a&gt;. You can also use a hotshoe adapter for regular softboxes (such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lastolite.com/ezybox-hotshoe-kits.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the one sold by Lastolite&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(Dislaimer: Haven't personally tried any of those, was always afraid softboxes are too complicated to set up.)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T13:04:24.143" />
  <row Id="1032" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="946" CreationDate="2010-07-22T13:09:56.753" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're using flash as fill light outdoors on a sunny day you shouldn't need anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to get a bit funky though, on a bland day with a grey or white sky, you can gel the flash with a CTO to warm up your subject, then set the WB on you camera to cool the shot back down again. This has the effect of lighting you subject correctly while having a cool blue sky that was never there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-Matt&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T13:09:56.753" />
  <row Id="1033" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-22T14:47:39.517" Score="4" ViewCount="141" Body="&lt;p&gt;We're talking a lot here about the technical part of photography, but what are the other related disciplines that help us create better pictures? What one needs to master to be a photographer? When answering, please also explain why you think it's relevant and how do you apply it to photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T18:21:36.833" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-29T15:25:00.937" Title="Photography-related disciplines" Tags="&lt;artistic&gt;&lt;photographer&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1034" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1033" CreationDate="2010-07-22T15:51:51.900" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Communication&lt;/b&gt; &amp;ndash; unless you're a purely landscape-oriented monk, you need to be able to communicate with people you want to photograph, let you go somewhere, hold lights, or at least not get in your way.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Business and marketing&lt;/b&gt; &amp;ndash; not related to taking better pictures, but if you want to earn some money with photography, you don't only have to make good photographs, but be able to sell them to prospective clients. (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2007/01/welcome-to-photo-business-forum.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Harrington's blog&lt;/a&gt; for extensive details)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Legal issues&lt;/b&gt; &amp;ndash; very useful to know your rights, whether that comes to someone using your pictures or getting arrested you because you took picture of a policeman.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T15:51:51.900" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1035" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1033" CreationDate="2010-07-22T15:52:21.790" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Composition, including the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;rule of thirds&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;golden ratio&lt;/a&gt;, is an essential topic that photographers should learn about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Knowing how to create a well-lit, tack-sharp photograph isn't of that much value if the photographers are aesthetically boring.  Understanding composition is one step to creating visually pleasing images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T15:52:21.790" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1036" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1054" CreationDate="2010-07-22T15:57:46.637" Score="9" ViewCount="334" Body="&lt;p&gt;As someone who has only done photography seriously in a digital world, I've occasionally had folks recommend that I learn to shoot film as an educational experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What reasons might one choose to learn shooting analog/film after having become an accomplished digital photographer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-16T13:48:26.400" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T13:48:26.400" Title="Why should a digital photographer learn to shoot film?" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;digital-vs-film&gt;" AnswerCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="1037" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1033" CreationDate="2010-07-22T15:59:59.617" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think you really need to master anything to be a photographer, or to take good pictures. Obviously knowing the technical stuff is really important, but mastery of it, isn't a requisite to producing amazing photographs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some virtues (not necessarily disciplines) that have helped me:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Patience&lt;/strong&gt;: taking a photograph requires you to sit back and think. You don't always have that luxury, of course, but when you do, use it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Self Critique&lt;/strong&gt;: most of us will be our harshest critics, but we need to temper that in order to effectively improve. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Perspective&lt;/strong&gt;: trying to look at the world differently, will translate to your photographs.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Outside of these, I would say the one discipline you &lt;strong&gt;should&lt;/strong&gt; master is your job. Money helps heaps in photography. It's expensive. You can absolutely be an amazing photographer with an inexpensive kit, but give that same awesome photographer a even better (read: more expensive) kit, and see how much their photographs will improve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T15:59:59.617" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1038" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1036" CreationDate="2010-07-22T16:01:58.773" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It teaches you to think through your shots more carefully, and think about all the components of the shot before pressing the button.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unlike digital where each shot is essentially free and you can review them as you go, with film you get the film in the roll (30 or so shots I think), you have to pick an ISO beforehand, the cost per photo is higher, and you wait for the results until after you leave.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T16:01:58.773" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1039" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1049" CreationDate="2010-07-22T16:32:55.940" Score="36" ViewCount="899" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am surprised by how many people automatically put on a cheesy smile when I point a camera in their direction.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please share any tips / techniques / links that might help me get better, more natural-looking portraits.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T22:36:15.867" Title="How can I get my portrait subjects to look natural and drop the cheesy smile?" Tags="&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;people&gt;&lt;posing&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="11" />
  <row Id="1040" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="987" CreationDate="2010-07-22T16:34:43.503" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on how much time you have to set up the shot. I would leave the camera in Program mode by default to catch shots where I don't have time to modify any settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I have a little more time I would go for one of the scene modes as most cameras will do a pretty good job, e.g. landscape mode should give teh AF system a head start to focus in the distance, preferring a small aperture but not at the expense of a shutter speed that is too slow to eliminate handheld blur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I have some time to set the shot up I will go for aperture or shutter speed priority depending on the situation, and time allowing use exposure compensation based on the histogram information to get the image I want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When using an external flash I will use aperture priority to control the ambient light/flash balance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only in very low light conditions (where exposure compensation doesn't have enough reach and the meter gets confused) will I use manual mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="185" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T16:34:43.503" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-22T16:34:43.503" />
  <row Id="1041" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1039" CreationDate="2010-07-22T16:38:01.050" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a relative who behaves like that. The only methods I have found so far basically try to catch him unprepared by:&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;fast surprise snapshot&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;photographing without raising camera to an eye, either using live view or just trying out luck&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;using a telephoto from somewhere outside immediate visibility&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, none of that works for staged portraits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T16:38:01.050" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1042" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1043" CreationDate="2010-07-22T16:42:14.620" Score="6" ViewCount="231" Body="&lt;p&gt;Currently my AB800's have a built-in optical trigger, but still requires a flash to trigger them. I'd like to move to an all wireless setup. I also have the canon ST-E2 to pair with my Sigma 500 DG Super and Canon 580 EX II.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to use a wireless trigger system that will work with both my Alien Bee's and my Speedlites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Money isn't necessarily an issue, assuming the triggers do what I need them to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-07T15:00:03.240" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T15:00:03.240" Title="Recommendations for Wireless Flash Triggers?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;off-camera-flash&gt;&lt;strobes&gt;&lt;triggers&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1043" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1042" CreationDate="2010-07-22T16:47:23.893" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My apologies for linking to Strobist all the time, but as it happens there is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2010/07/syncing-your-flash-recommended-list.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;recent post just about that&lt;/a&gt;. He lists &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pocketwizard.com/products/transmitter_receiver/plus%20ii/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PocketWizard Plus II Transceiver&lt;/a&gt; as the best and most reliable, followed by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.radiopopper.com/products/jrx-receiver/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;RadioPopper JrX&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alienbees.com/cybersync.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;AlienBees CyberSyncs&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.elinchrom.com/products.php?p_id=31#content&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Elinchrom Skyports&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You also might want to check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.radiopopper.com/products/px-transmitter/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;RadioPopper PX&lt;/a&gt;, which looks like it might be able to trigger slave units for your Speedlites and AlientBees at the same time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-25T22:55:49.807" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T22:55:49.807" />
  <row Id="1044" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1036" CreationDate="2010-07-22T16:55:23.073" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Obviously, there are huge differences in the media (film vs. sensor), but more experience shooting is always better.  There are some important aspects of learning to shoot film.  IMHO, i want to get the highest yield (more &quot;good&quot; pictures) from my picture-taking experience, so i want to think about film from the cost perspective and the opportunity perspective.  It costs money to process film.  There isn't going to be an opportunity to review the shot.  You have to make sure it's good by doing the &quot;preprosessing&quot; with your eye, brain and camera.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, choose and lock in the ISO - no &quot;Auto-ISO&quot; mumbo-jumbo.  With film, because of differences in processing you really only get one ISO choice per roll (the standard ISO, or maybe push one or two stops), and you'll shoot the entire roll at that ISO.  Shooting digital, you can choose the ISO per shot - my point is &lt;em&gt;don't&lt;/em&gt; let the camera do this for you.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Choose the camera mode.  Aperture priority?  Shutter Priority?  &quot;full auto&quot;?  Manual?  Ensure the exposure is right, either with a meter or using the camera's built in meter.  no more &quot;HI&quot; for the shutter speed in the display when you're in aperture priority mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Slow down.  Think.  Compose carefully.  Make it feel like taking this picture might be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity (even if it is the Eiffel Tower).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Focus carefully, or verify that AF did the &quot;right thing&quot;.  Do you want to change the AF point?  Maybe something on the left side of the picture should have the AF point?  Preview your depth of field, if necessary - you might not have to preview the DOF if you have a good feel for the subject distance and your lens's behavior.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;i guess even if you use a digital camera and pretend you're shooting film, you'll improve your technique by trying to live with the restrictions (and cost) of film.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Work on taking the same number of pictures as you do now, and try to get a better yield.  Digital or film, i think that's a good goal as a photographer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="240" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T16:55:23.073" />
  <row Id="1045" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1039" CreationDate="2010-07-22T16:55:52.183" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most natural looking portraits is usually taken when the subject is not aware of it. To consiously look natural isn't very easy, and untrained people generally can't do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One method is to simply &quot;wear them out&quot;. After a while they will become accustomed to the camera and stop making a face, either because they grow tired of it, or because they simply don't care. It might however take days or weeks to get there...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T16:55:52.183" />
  <row Id="1046" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="924" CreationDate="2010-07-22T17:17:27.937" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use 6 Sandisk 8GB SD cards.  For practical numbers, each card holds about 700 RAW images, and i keep them carefully stored in a Targus storage cases (about the size of a business card case), until i return home.  then i load the images onto the computer.  yes, i have some exposure when i'm not backed up, but no one touches the cards when they're not in the camera and the cards have proven to be pretty reliable.       &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="240" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T17:17:27.937" />
  <row Id="1047" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="24" CreationDate="2010-07-22T17:35:06.860" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Besides the DOF questions, i'd like to point out that the effective focal length of a 50mm FX lens when used on a DX camera (like the D50), will be about 70 or 75mm.  Make sure you consider that when thinking about this lens.  I happen to like it, as the lens feels a little like a &quot;portrait&quot; lens, and the DOF control is very nice.  Buying the Nikon FX 35mm lens puts you at about 50mm on a DX camera, but it also has a minimum aperture of f/2, thus different DOF characteristics: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/singlefocal/wide/af_35mmf_2d/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/singlefocal/wide/af_35mmf_2d/index.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;some of the pictures on my web-site, like this one: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bobplotts.com/galleries/Floral/aai.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://bobplotts.com/galleries/Floral/aai.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;were shot with the 50mm 1.4 on a Nikon D90. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-- bobp &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="240" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T17:35:06.860" />
  <row Id="1048" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1065" CreationDate="2010-07-22T17:37:13.567" Score="8" ViewCount="627" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard about 18% gray tone - what it real is, why 18% ? (and not 20%) and how can I make it in photoshop ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you in advanced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="236" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-22T19:43:29.263" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T14:59:40.873" Title="What is the 18% gray tone, and how do I make a 18% gray card in Photoshop?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;gray-card&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1049" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1039" CreationDate="2010-07-22T17:38:00.040" Score="19" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find the cheesy smile comes out when the subject is uncomfortable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on the style of photo you're after your options fall into distinct groups:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The &quot;When did you take that?&quot; photo&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes referred as the paparazzi style (although the circumstances are generally more favourable), but the method is very similar -- long lens, wide aperture, and generally from distance, so the subject has no chance to get uncomfortable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also get some closer candids by pointing and hoping for the best (or taking a crafty look at live view) - practice will improve the ratio of good to bad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Formal portraiture&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So things like the family shot at the wedding, it can be beneficial to build rapport with the models, with the odd joke, but maintain the position of authority as a director too. Kids tend to photograph best when they're amused, so a similar idea can work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T17:38:00.040" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1050" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1055" CreationDate="2010-07-22T17:40:01.330" Score="8" ViewCount="507" Body="&lt;p&gt;How many stops can a digital camera capture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wondering if some one know, or have measure, the stops also for the negative or positive film, the human eyes, the monitor, the television, etc...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you in advanced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="236" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T12:02:53.320" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T12:02:53.320" Title="How many stops can a digital camera capture?" Tags="&lt;f-stop&gt;&lt;dynamic-range&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1051" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1048" CreationDate="2010-07-22T17:41:16.290" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;18% grey is the shade that through the lens (TTL) metering base their exposure figures from -- you can also use it to check white balance if you want to calibrate for a shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you haven't got one to hand, you can usually substitute with an area of concrete, if it's in the scene or at least under similar lighting circumstances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-26T11:47:49.620" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T11:47:49.620" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="1052" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1050" CreationDate="2010-07-22T17:49:18.880" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Most digital cameras use a 10 to&#xA;  14-bit A/D converter, and so their&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;theoretical maximum dynamic range is&#xA;  10-14 stops&lt;/strong&gt;.  However, this high bit&#xA;  depth only helps minimize image&#xA;  posterization since total dynamic&#xA;  range is usually limited by noise&#xA;  levels.  Similar to how a high bit&#xA;  depth image does not necessarily mean&#xA;  that image contains more colors, if a&#xA;  digital camera has a high precision&#xA;  A/D converter it does not necessarily&#xA;  mean it can record a greater dynamic&#xA;  range.  In practice, the dynamic range&#xA;  of a digital camera does not even&#xA;  approach the A/D converter's&#xA;  theoretical maximum; &lt;strong&gt;5-9 stops is&#xA;  generally all one can expect from the&#xA;  camera&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;cambridgeincolour.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-22T17:56:58.507" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T17:56:58.507" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1053" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1050" CreationDate="2010-07-22T17:49:21.063" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The exposure latitude, as it referred, is generally about +/- 5 stops for digital cameras (so 10 stops overall). There are techniques, such as HDR, that artificially increase the range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Traditional film is generally considered to have a slightly wider latitude, and this does very not only on the type of film, but brand, age, etc. Generally it's more forgiving, and you can rescue an over exposed roll by under developing, for example. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ranges used tend to follow the average human eyesight (which again will have different performance based on age and genetics), which is why photographs appear to be realistic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T17:49:21.063" />
  <row Id="1054" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1036" CreationDate="2010-07-22T17:54:13.753" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think there's such thing as &quot;learning to shoot film&quot; given that most of the automation (auto-exposure, autofocus, with the exception of auto-ISO and auto white balance) was available in film era also. You can simply point and shoot with film too (think of lomography).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you will learn are the properties of different emulsions. Film choice is not just about ISO, it's also and more importantly about color rendition (or gray-tone rendition in case of BW films), grain, contrast, dynamic range, white balance. It will probably take tens if not hundreds of rolls to be able to previsualize how the scene will render on some specific emulsion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll not just need to plan the technical aspects of the shot, you'll need to plan the emotion you want to convey (Velvia and Portra can render the same scene in very different ways). If you gain anything with this is probably very personal thing, but it certainly won't make you a worse photographer either. Good question - when I think about it, only artistic reasons come to mind, nothing rational nor provable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T17:54:13.753" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1055" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1050" CreationDate="2010-07-22T18:00:59.497" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer will most probably change in time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Current top cameras are said to capture around 10-11 stops at base ISO, less at higher ISOs, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3x/page21.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DPReview tests of Nikon D3X for example&lt;/a&gt;. As a sidenote - you won't probably like the pictures that are processed to measure the maximum dynamic range, they'll simply lack contrast you'd expect from &quot;normal&quot; picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Negative film is said to have up to 9-10 stops of latitude and reversal film around 5-6 stops. What you're actually able to see also depends on the medium used to present the picture - prints from negatives are usually limited to what the paper can reproduce, slides to what can be projected and digital images to what the monitor is able to show.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T08:13:08.803" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T08:13:08.803" CommentCount="18" />
  <row Id="1056" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1033" CreationDate="2010-07-22T18:21:36.833" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think there's a specific answer to this question because most other artistic disciplines can help your photography.  Studying paintings or learning to paint yourself can allow you to see light and shadow in everyday scenes around you as well as teach you about classic composition techniques.  So, I think painting is a great thing for a photographer to study.  But even something like flower arranging, I suspect, would help you see symmetry and abstraction better.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="110" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T18:21:36.833" />
  <row Id="1057" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1048" CreationDate="2010-07-22T18:47:55.113" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;what it real is, why 18% ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the amount of light used by most cameras for determining exposure.  This was chosen (instead of 20%, etc) because, on average, most &quot;photographs&quot; used by average photographers tend to work out to roughly the same amount of light exposure as solid, 18% gray.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If, however, you're shooting something that has a lot of white, or a lot of dark, you're exposure will be off.  For example, if you take a photo of a large white building, you'll probably want to adjust your exposure to compensate, since the default will target 18% gray, see all of the white, and lower your exposure (to make the entire picture average the same light content as 18% gray).  You'll want to have a higher-than-default exposure to compensate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can use a solid card that's colored the appropriate gray tone to help compensate for this in your camera.  Many cameras have exposure compensation functions that will let you configure your camera by pointing it at something with the right amount of color saturation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to make your own card, you'll want to saturate the card with 18% grey.  This will work out to a solid fill (in RGB) of about 46 for R, G, and B.  Just be aware, however, that most printers will distort your color somewhat -so when you print, you may want to check the results against your original.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="244" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T18:47:55.113" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="1058" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1039" CreationDate="2010-07-22T19:17:00.700" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If it's for a staged portrait, just shoot and keep giving directions.  In order to not embarrass the subject, snap a picture with the cheesy smile, say &quot;Great!&quot; and then follow up with &quot;Now let's try a soft smile&quot; or similar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they get a serious look because they're uptight or trying to figure out your instructions, just say &quot;Try to look like you don't hate me&quot;, that should loosen them up.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keep it light, keep affirming what you like, and if you don't like something, don't point it out.  Just shoot and move on to something different.  Your subject should have fun and if you keep your cool you'll end up with usable shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T19:17:00.700" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1059" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1063" CreationDate="2010-07-22T19:25:01.913" Score="3" ViewCount="118" Body="&lt;p&gt;How does the D40 decide which focus location to use?  It always seems to choose the wrong focus area.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="264" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T19:43:03.297" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T19:43:03.297" Title="Nikon D40 Focus Issue" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;nikon-d40&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1060" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1315" CreationDate="2010-07-22T19:26:22.003" Score="15" ViewCount="473" Body="&lt;p&gt;When buying a used lens, what should the buyer check?  Other than looking for obvious physical damage on the outside of the lens, what else should be inspected to identify the condition or quality of the equipment?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-07T23:49:46.277" LastActivityDate="2010-08-07T23:49:46.277" Title="What should one look for when buying a used lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;used-equipment&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="8" />
  <row Id="1061" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1193" CreationDate="2010-07-22T19:27:29.270" Score="28" ViewCount="599" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon 20D. I'd love to take some photos of the moon and stars. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do I get started?  I've search the web and the information is sparse and cryptic. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to know what equipment is the best for a beginner and what I should try taking a photo of first... besides the moon :).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Links:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/NIK_CAN.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon vs. Canon DSLR&lt;/a&gt; in regards&#xA;to Astrophotograhy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/dslr/EOS300Dastro.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Camera settings&lt;/a&gt;: Aimed at Canon&#xA;cameras.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.astro.shoregalaxy.com/dslr_astro.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Getting started tutorial&lt;/a&gt; -  so far the best... even though he has a $3k telescope setup. I have telescope envy.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.telescope.com/control/main&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Telescope retailer&lt;/a&gt; - they have an astrophotography section.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/SCOPES.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Article on different types of&#xA;Telescopes&lt;/a&gt; - this article gives recommendations on telescopes based on level of astrophotographer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/above_the_horizon/4525043518/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photo of Astrophotography Setup&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.skywatchertelescope.net/swtinc/knowledge_base.php?class1=14&amp;amp;class2=1401&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sky-Watcher Astrophotography&lt;/a&gt; - this is a 10 chapter online book, very in depth.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/index.php/category-technical/145-long-exposure-astrophotography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Long-Exposure Astrophotography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Books&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0521700817&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital SLR Astrophotography&lt;/a&gt; by&#xA;Michael A. Covington&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0972973753&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A Guide to Astrophotography with&#xA;Digital SLR Cameras (CDROM)&lt;/a&gt; -&#xA;Jerry Lodriguss&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1441906029&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The 100 Best Astrophotography&#xA;Targets&lt;/a&gt; - Ruben Kier&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Forums&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/Cat/0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Telescope Review&lt;/a&gt; - good reviews&#xA;of equipment and advice on initial&#xA;setups&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="265" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-12T02:50:11.780" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T02:50:11.780" Title="How do I get started in Astrophotography?" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;astrophotography&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="19" />
  <row Id="1062" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="924" CreationDate="2010-07-22T19:29:11.093" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The simplest option is the External HDD that reads memory cards, like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hypershop.com/HyperDrive-COLORSPACE-UDMA-s/64.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;HyperDrive&lt;/a&gt;. Fast, you can use your own HDDs, etc. seems good... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I dont like the idea of all my eggs in one basket, so i would (if i where not backing up to my laptop and keeping files on my CF cards also and sometimes even to another external HDD) backup to the external drive (like the HyperDrive) and sync that to a second 2.5&quot; laptop drive... if you have a travle companion, get them to cary the second drive... redundancy and all that...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="262" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T19:29:11.093" />
  <row Id="1063" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1059" CreationDate="2010-07-22T19:29:31.107" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a pretty good, in depth article about this at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40/af-settings.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;kenrockwell.com&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, it tries to use the closest subject it can find without extra help from the photographer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T19:29:31.107" />
  <row Id="1064" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1059" CreationDate="2010-07-22T19:29:53.413" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The camera makes a best guess as to what it thinks is the primary subject of a photo.  Given that the camera has multiple (three) autofocus points, sometimes it guesses wrong.  There are a couple ways to overcome the fact that autofocus can't always guess where you'd like the focus point:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Manually choose the correct focus point and compose your scene so that your subject is at that focus point&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use a single focus point (usually the center) all of the time, and set your focus using that point and then recompose your scene.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T19:29:53.413" />
  <row Id="1065" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1048" CreationDate="2010-07-22T19:30:33.163" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Think of the tonal scale from black to white. Instead of an even gradient, break it into 11 parts (called zones). Zone 0 is solid black with no detail. Zone 10 is solid white with no detail. Zone 5 in the middle is 18% gray. Google &quot;zone system&quot; for more info.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's very likely that the gray tone you actually care about is 12% as this is what camera meters are most probably calibrated to measure. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/graycards.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Thom Hogan's article&lt;/a&gt; about gray cards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-26T18:04:18.290" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T18:04:18.290" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="1066" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-22T19:31:31.913" Score="5" ViewCount="486" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a large number of rolls of undeveloped 35mm file (over 100). What are some places I can find that will develop these for a reasonable price, and ideally digitize them for online download at the same time? So far the cheapest I have found is York Photo, who will develop the film + 1 set of prints for $4.50 (includes S&amp;amp;H) + $1 to digitize the photos. But I have no idea of their quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T07:52:34.327" Title="Inexpensive 35mm Film Developing?" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;35mm&gt;&lt;developing&gt;&lt;digitizing&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1067" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1059" CreationDate="2010-07-22T19:32:02.880" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe cameras try to pick the focus sensor that has the highest contrast, plus magical proprietary special sauce.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can either choose the sensor yourself (as in chills42's answer) or set it to the center sensor only and focus (half-press of the shutter) then recompose and shoot (full press).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T19:32:02.880" />
  <row Id="1068" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="383" CreationDate="2010-07-22T19:34:29.113" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think a polarizing filter is pretty darn necessary. It allows you to manipulate bright sky, water, and clouds in ways that are immediately evident and cannot be fully replicated in post-processing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="280" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T19:34:29.113" />
  <row Id="1069" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-22T19:35:37.893" Score="8" ViewCount="1067" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon T2i, a 50mm f/1.8 and the kit lens (18-55mm).&#xA;I'm considering buying a new lens for more flexibility with taking pictures of my upcoming newborn.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I LOVE the 50mm/1.8 lens, but on the 1.6x crop body, it is too much of a telephoto sometimes for up close picture taking. I'm thinking about purchasing a 30mm (approximately) lens, like the Canon 30mm f2, but I'm wondering what other reccomendations there may be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="283" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T03:05:59.540" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T03:05:59.540" Title="What's the best Canon lens for around $500 for taking pictures of my newborn" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1071" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="924" CreationDate="2010-07-22T19:41:15.853" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've bought an Epson P2000 but I've never used it for travelling (and honestly i'm thinking to give away the device). &#xA;Instead I've bought a bunch of memories so i travel with almost 40gb (= no backups). &#xA;Sometimes i travel with a netbook.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="284" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T19:41:15.853" />
  <row Id="1072" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1060" CreationDate="2010-07-22T19:41:32.590" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the bad experiences I've had you have to look at external signs of abuse first. If the lens is too dented, then it's a sign that the owner didn't treat it well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then there's the fungus that can build up inside the lens if it's not taken care of properly over time. You have to look through the lens against a bright light looking for black spots that give away fungus build up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another thing that almost got me was the auto-focus. Make sure you twist the zoom ring and force the auto-focus motors many times all the way through. One lens I looked at was slow to auto-focus and it made a very low screeching sound when it got to the extreme focus. It turned out the user had banged it and some parts were touching inside.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other than that I think it has to do with how much confidence you have about the seller.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="32" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T19:41:32.590" />
  <row Id="1073" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1060" CreationDate="2010-07-22T19:42:44.820" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Besure to examine the aperature opening/closing correctly.  If you are looking at a telephoto lens, look for fluidity in zooming in/out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="270" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T19:42:44.820" />
  <row Id="1074" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="376" CreationDate="2010-07-22T19:44:26.720" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Adobe Camera RAW/Lightroom white balance presets have too much magenta in them (for Nikon cameras, anyway). This can skew the overall color balance, but it can easily be gotten around by creating your own presets that leave the magenta/green balance at zero.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The latest versions of the RAW engine and DNG spec support &lt;a href=&quot;http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles%3aEditor&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DNG profiles&lt;/a&gt;, which go a long way towards allowing you to get the color rendering you want. Many folks like the DNG Profiles that emulate Nikon's color modes, so you may give those a try. I was never a big fan of the Nikon color rendering though (too much cyan in skies, not to mention red/orange and blue/purple crossover problems). My preferred approach is to use a Macbeth Color Checker chart to create a custom DNG profile (which can be further tweaked to taste, you don't have to take the wizard-generated profile as-is).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also often overlooked are the Hue/Saturation/Luminance adjustments, which can give you further control and may be more intuitive to some. And if you find yourself repeating certain adjustments on many images, you can make a preset of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think once you get the hang of the options available in the ACR/LR raw engine, you should be able to get pretty much whatever color rendering you want. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="291" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T19:44:26.720" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1075" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="924" CreationDate="2010-07-22T19:44:42.863" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;How about using an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apple.com/ipad/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Apple iPad&lt;/a&gt; with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC531&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Camera Connection Kit&lt;/a&gt; accessory. It allows you to offload your photos from your camera (via USB) or direct from an SD card onto the iPad where you can view the images and later offload onto a PC or Mac.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe not the cheapest option, but we're photographers, its not cheap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="271" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T19:44:42.863" />
  <row Id="1076" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1015" CreationDate="2010-07-22T19:44:45.500" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I started with (color) negative film then switched to slide film for one specific reason: I wanted control over my pictures. With negatives, unless you develop and print yourself (which is a convoluted process for color film), when you drop your film at the local shop, you have almost no control over the look of your prints (exposure, contrast). And with negative film, it's hard to judge how good your picture is without a print (negative has crazy colors).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With slides, it's very simple: the process is the same for all slide film, the result is always the same, and the slide you see is 100% your picture, your work. If you under- or over-expose (on purpose or by mistake), it's your work, not that of the machine that made your prints. Plus, colors on slides, especially saturated films (eg. Velvia), looks worlds better (to me), but that's a matter of taste.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, when developing slide film, prints are extra, but I don't spend money for any print up front: I select those pictures I like and scan them, they can be printed like any digital picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the downside, slide film is much less forgiving of bad exposure: when light is very contrasted, you have to choose if you sacrifice highlights or shadows (similar to digital), while negative film can take more contrast. It's also getting hard to find slide film in brick-and-mortar shops (I buy all of mine online), so when travelling you better bring enough film. Also, scanning film to have prints is more work, and good scanners for slide or film are more expensive than entry level scanners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T19:44:45.500" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1077" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-22T19:45:40.803" Score="9" ViewCount="281" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sometimes it happens that I would like to extract a person from a photo and remove the background. How can I do it with GIMP? Every attempt that I made gave me very bad results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you give me some steps to follow?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="290" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T21:40:55.230" Title="How can I remove the background of a photo using GIMP?" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;gimp&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1078" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1069" CreationDate="2010-07-22T19:47:15.247" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 50mm f1.4 would be the best bet, it's fast at low light, and quality is superb. I use my 24-70mm for baby shoots too, but that's more expensive than your price range&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="294" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T19:47:15.247" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1079" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1060" CreationDate="2010-07-22T19:49:35.130" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My advice would be to buy from a reputable dealer like &lt;a href=&quot;http://keh.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KEH&lt;/a&gt;; you pay a bit extra, but you also get a warranty and a no-questions-asked return period. For me, that's a good tradeoff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T19:49:35.130" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="1080" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1069" CreationDate="2010-07-22T19:53:22.313" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Look at the Canon EF 28mm f2.8 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28mm-f-2.8-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;review&lt;/a&gt;) or the Canon EF 35mm f2.0 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-2.0-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;review&lt;/a&gt;) lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both lenses are very reasonably priced:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12096-USA/Canon_2505A002_Wide_Angle_EF_28mm.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;$249&lt;/a&gt; for the 28mm f2.8&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12119-USA/Canon_2507A002_Wide_Angle_EF_35mm.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;$329&lt;/a&gt; for the 35mm f2.0&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both lenses are relatively fast and impressively sharp at their lowest f-stops. This can be checked over &lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&amp;amp;FLIComp=0&amp;amp;APIComp=0&amp;amp;Lens=254&amp;amp;Camera=453&amp;amp;Sample=0&amp;amp;FLI=0&amp;amp;API=0&amp;amp;LensComp=122&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="271" LastEditorUserId="271" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T11:59:39.973" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T11:59:39.973" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1081" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1069" CreationDate="2010-07-22T19:54:41.170" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I assume you want a &quot;faster&quot; lens, because your kit lens is too slow? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead of getting a new lens, I suggest in getting a flash/strobe. As your baby gets bigger, they will tend to move more, and flash is absolutely useful in capturing those moments by &quot;freezing&quot; the movement. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can learn on how to use flash via strobist: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.strobist.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.strobist.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are &lt;a href=&quot;http://picasaweb.google.com/setiabud/Jon012Months#&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;my kids photos&lt;/a&gt;, some are using flash, some aren't. As you can see, they won't go blind and you can still get good open eyes picture - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastEditorUserId="297" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T14:45:47.077" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T14:45:47.077" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1082" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1036" CreationDate="2010-07-22T19:56:06.987" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With all of technical differences aside, because there are many, I think one of the biggest benefits a primarily digital photographer would gain is learning to slow down and think about the shots they are taking. Learning how to compose a good picture is an important thing to learn. With film you don't have the luxury of looking at the shot you just took and deciding whether or not to keep it. You need to have a certain amount of foresight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A great exercise recommended to me by a friend is to get a disposable film camera and go out and fill the entire camera. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="289" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T19:56:06.987" />
  <row Id="1083" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1077" CreationDate="2010-07-22T19:56:47.250" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With most things in Gimp and Photoshop, it comes down to using the selection tools. The better you get at using selections, the easier time you have removing/extracting elements from the background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a pretty good step by step &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photo-info.co.nz/articles/removing-image-backgrounds-gimp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt; on how to use the selection, masks, and feather tools to get a good selection around your subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T19:56:47.250" />
  <row Id="1084" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="919" CreationDate="2010-07-22T19:59:19.333" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll just add that there are alternatives to HDR tone-mapping. Sometimes manually blending layers in photoshop works well (and gives you a more natural looking result, similar to using a grad filter except you have a lot more control over the transition).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another good option is exposure fusion, as implemented in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tawbaware.com/tufuse.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tufuse&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tawbaware.com/tufusepro.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tufuse Pro&lt;/a&gt;. This gives a more automated approach than manual blending, but without the stylized look that usually comes out of Photomatix. The only downside is that it doesn't compensate for ghosting caused by movement in-between exposures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="291" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T19:59:19.333" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1085" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1039" CreationDate="2010-07-22T20:00:59.923" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;People like to see smiles in photos because that implies that the subjects were happy at the time. But getting photographed does not always make people happy. So getting better photos often means helping people relax, get used to the camera (or forget about the camera if necessary), and actually enjoy themselves. Different techniques will work with different people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's just one idea to add to the others'. If they're physically able, ask them to jump in the air. A jumping shot can turn out well, but even if it doesn't, take another shot after they land. At that point they are probably laughing about how silly it felt and have forgotten to be uptight about getting their photo taken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="285" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T20:00:59.923" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1086" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="897" CreationDate="2010-07-22T20:03:08.687" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is not possible. AF Assist light is for AF, hence only activated during AF mode. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T20:03:08.687" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1087" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1069" CreationDate="2010-07-22T20:03:21.213" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;How about Sigma 30mm f1.4? I had a Canon 50mm f1.8 couple of years back but then it broke down and I decided to try something wider. I had been using the 50 only inside and it is a bit too narrow there when combined to a 1,6x crop sensor (Canon 40D).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been satisfied to the Sigma I now got. Like some Sigmas, also mine had a back-focusing issue but it was fixed quickly at the local service center.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="306" LastEditorUserId="306" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-26T11:29:35.220" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T11:29:35.220" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1089" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="886" CreationDate="2010-07-22T20:14:47.393" Score="32" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Star trails (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&amp;amp;source=imghp&amp;amp;q=star+trails&amp;amp;gbv=2&amp;amp;aq=f&amp;amp;aqi=g3&amp;amp;aql=&amp;amp;oq=&amp;amp;gs_rfai=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Google images search&lt;/a&gt;) are much easier to photograph using film equipment, for a few reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It won't kill your battery.  A digital SLR will expose for an hour if you're lucky before the battery dies, depending on your power setup (extra grip vs no).  A film camera can expose indefinitely without using any additional battery usage, which is helpful when you want to expose for a few hours.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Noise.  DSLRs heat up the longer they expose for, so if you expose for too long you end up with a fuzzy layer on top of your image.  There are ways to prevent this, such as taking several shorter shots or using post-processing, but they are inferior to taking one nice, long, clean shot on film.  One of the nicer features I've seen on my Nikon D700 is the in-camera Long-exposure Noise Reduction, which follows up your shot with an equally long &quot;blank&quot; shot, which it then subtracts out from the initial image to eliminate the noise.  This is a nifty feature, but the downside it cuts down by half the max time duration of your original shot.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="309" LastEditorUserId="309" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-04T18:38:28.650" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T18:38:28.650" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1090" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1050" CreationDate="2010-07-22T20:15:02.167" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is an easy trick: &quot;measure&quot; for yourself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;take your camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take your camera&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;switch to manual mode&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;close the aperture or short time until the picture of some uniform surface is pitch black&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Now open the aperture one full stop (2-3 clicks depending on cam) or double time&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take another picture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Repeat from step 4 until your picture is all white&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;count the number of pictures it took from all black to all white&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;voila, you got the # of stops your cam can differ in the current settings.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course the result depends on your jpg settings (contrast etc) in cam, but it is probably more realistic than the marketing numbers from the cam maker.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastEditorUserId="311" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T06:18:36.783" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T06:18:36.783" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1091" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="916" CreationDate="2010-07-22T20:15:30.077" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I read an article when I first started out on Digital Photography School, which said that if you're taking photos of one person, then a 85mm is best, but if it's a group, then 50mm is best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="294" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T20:15:30.077" />
  <row Id="1092" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="919" CreationDate="2010-07-22T20:16:33.740" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I personally tend to use a gradient transition in post to mimic graduated neutral density filters.  Lightroom does this as one of its handy tools, but you can also use it in Photoshop.  Just create a layer with a gradient between white and black with a transition abruptness you select across the sky/ground transition.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That way, you don't have to stress the HDR, nor lug around a huge number of filters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T20:16:33.740" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1093" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1042" CreationDate="2010-07-22T20:17:04.283" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Or just go with the ultra-cheap YongNuo RF-602, which give you a lot of bang for the buck. I own two sets and find them good enough for serious work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before I owned a set of Cactus V2 Trigger (one sender, two receivers), and these gave me a lot of problems:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Sometimes they did not trigger the flash.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Sometimes they triggered the flash without me taking a picture (leaving me with a drained flash when I needed it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Cactus V4 are reported to be better, but I do not own these, so I cant tell from personal experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastEditorUserId="311" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T13:17:06.010" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T13:17:06.010" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1094" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1028" CreationDate="2010-07-22T20:20:12.827" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I love my EzyBox 60x60cm for use with speedlights.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The packed size is smaller(!) than the 43x43cm Ezybox, and it is way more versatile than my Lumiquest III thingies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T20:20:12.827" />
  <row Id="1095" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="987" CreationDate="2010-07-22T20:28:12.213" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My important pictures are all shot in (M) manual mode, because I either shoot in very difficult lighting conditions, where the cam can't read my mind which part of the image I want properly exposed (think person in spot on dark stage) or I use remote flash, where auto modes don't work since my flash remotes don't do TTL.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I make a simple fast picture of something for twitpic or facebook I mostly use Av, sometimes P - depends on which auto mode first crosses my fingers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most important thing about shooting in (M): the light will be consistent from picture to picture to picture. With auto modes it will change, depending on your framing or the subject moving in the frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastEditorUserId="185" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-22T21:49:49.800" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T21:49:49.800" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-22T20:28:12.213" />
  <row Id="1096" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="924" CreationDate="2010-07-22T20:31:36.060" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For traveling small I use my Hyperdrive Space to backup my pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Otherwise I'll pack my &quot;netbook&quot; (Lenovo Thinkpad X200s).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For important sessions I'll take both, having a copy of all images on both the notebook and the imagetank.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T20:31:36.060" />
  <row Id="1097" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="948" CreationDate="2010-07-22T20:36:34.283" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've tried bracketing once, and was annoyed about all the extra pictures. It wasted a lot of my shooting space and cost me a lot of time in postprocessing, filtering the images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I pay way more attention to get my exposure right on set, so I'll don't have extra work in postprocessing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There had been some rare occassions where I would like an additional underexposed image, but for me these are not worth the extra space needs and work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T20:36:34.283" />
  <row Id="1098" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1036" CreationDate="2010-07-22T20:40:36.677" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT to be perfectly clear&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;You should not learn to shoot film.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should instead ask yourself the question before every shot:&#xA;&quot;Will anyone care about this photo?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer is, for the most part, no.  No one cares about your photos, just as no one cares about mine.  You have to make them care, and you make them care by taking shots that resonate with the viewer.  Some viewers will continue not to care about what you do, while others may find great appeal.  Part of the mystery of creating art is accomplishing this feat.  Technology enables you to do it, technology informs the decisions done when doing it, but ultimately, the resonance comes from your own vision of the world and your ability to make your technology realize your vision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of the arguments by the other posters basically boil down to &quot;Slow down, digital allows you to move to quickly without thinking about the consequences of your actions.&quot; And to a certain extent, that's true.  But consider the drawbacks of film:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Film results are not instant.  When you experiment with different apertures, isos, shutter speeds with digital, you get instant feedback via review.  With film, you have to wait until you get the results back, and ISO is not an instant change.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Film processing can only be done once.  You get one negative.  You blow the negative, you've lost the shot.  You process it one way, hard to get it back to another.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Film processing is expensive if you do it yourself.  Chemicals, knowledge, equipment, and space may or may not be cheap for you, but they are all part of the package of learning to shoot film completely, to get a final print.  With digital, you need a computer, some programs, and a printer (granted, making a print does require some knowledge of calibration, and that wasn't so hard for me).  As film chemicals become harder to find, as well as the space and plumbing for a dedicated darkroom, digital gets to be much cheaper, faster.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Film processing is expensive if someone else does it for you, and you may not like the results.  If you go to the guys down the street at the corner drug store, you'll have to settle for 'auto processed' colors.  If you go with a lab, expect to pay a lot. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is very debatable if film is of 'higher quality'.  I would think that, now, it's not really a debate, but some people are willing to shoot brick walls until the cows come home to prove one point or another.  I leave that debate to them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that the best think you can do to achieve the same results everyone else was talking about (thinking about composition, locking yourself to aperture/shutter/iso, etc) is to get a prime lens and a little bit of discipline and thinking about the shot you want to take.  Getting involved with all of the technical difficulties of film is just a more expensive way of doing the same thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Meta&lt;/em&gt;: I already have two downvotes on this answer, but I think that this will become one of the most asked and debated questions on this site.  I also think that it will border on the religious.  Let me not mince words, because I'd rather lose rep points now to answering the question (or at least having a series of responses to point to), so that repeated questions can just go here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Previous Answer (2 downvotes):&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;For me, the question is whether or not you're doing this as a hobby, or professionally.  As someone who has done pro event photography, the downsides of film are just too great to shoot with it compared to digital.  Consider that with digital, when I'm taking a shot of the bride, the groom, seven bridesmaids, seven groomsmen, and a two-year-old ringbearer, spamming that shot is critical.  Someone always looks away at the worst moment, and so getting a three to five shot burst means I don't have to worry about it.  I can also chimp through those shots and make sure that I got something reasonable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bursting is just necessary for the first kiss, the handoff, etc.  Those things don't come twice, and trying to one-shot-one-kill sniper that kind of thing means that I end up hoping my second got the shot.  Of course, timing plays a role, and it's a big one, but the milliseconds between facial expressions can tell different stories.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, if you're doing this to learn, as a hobby, then that's a different story.  Learning film is like doing any other exercise to take you out of your comfort zone, forcing you to know what you're doing (and maybe even writing a log of shots you've taken, so that when you get the roll back, you'll know what you did).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Digital lets you get sloppy with metering, especially with a RAW capture of a huge dynamic range that can be fixed in post processing using fill light/exposure correction/recovery/etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Digital lets you get sloppy with cropping.  Off by a little bit, no problem.  Considering using your 60mm lens as a 120?  Lots of sensor lost, pretty sloppy.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Digital lets you burst, meaning that if you want to get that perfect Doisneau moment, you either hire models (which he sometimes did) or get very very lucky with timing, and that luck turns into skill the more you do it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With digital, you still need to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Compose.  I take issue with the idea that digital shooters don't slow down and compose their shots.  I'd say that &lt;em&gt;bad&lt;/em&gt; digital shooters don't slow down and compose their shots, just like bad film shooters don't slow down and compose their shots.  If you don't know the rule of thirds (and when and why to break it), then switching to film doesn't magically give you this.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Learn the etiquette of candid/street photography.  Film or digital, people just don't like lenses in their faces sometimes.  Switching to film doesn't naturally give a better rapport with the subject, or make you a better 'ninja shooter', grabbing candid shots that no one knows happened (ok, maybe with a soundless Leica m7 shutter, but a point-and-shoot can be soundless as well).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Know the times of day and how that plays with light.  Shooting in direct sunlight still sucks in digital, even with all the dynamic range a camera can take.  Shooting at dusk, in the so-called 'magic hour', is just a good idea all around.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastEditorUserId="266" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T20:30:25.507" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T20:30:25.507" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="1099" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="934" CreationDate="2010-07-22T20:47:56.160" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I prefer manual mode for a few areas:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) stage fotografie. Usually, on stages the light has very high contrast. Any automatic mode most of the time will blow the faces because it is trying to get all the dark background to 18% grey.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) panoramic fotos. Having inconsistent exposure for the frames is a real pain in stitching them together, so I'll use manual mode for these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) other high contrast scenes (person in front of window). The automatic mode does not know if I want the background properly exposed or the person in front of it, usually the person is too dark and the window too light. Using manual mode I decide which one is important for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4) manual wireless flash. I use non-TTL strobist flash a lot, and in these cases the automatic modes do not know about the extra light from the flash, so I need to go manual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use automatic modes when I just want to make a quick picture to show on twitpic or facebook.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T20:47:56.160" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1100" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1226" CreationDate="2010-07-22T20:49:37.920" Score="19" ViewCount="566" Body="&lt;p&gt;I shoot primarily with a Nikon D300, and that's not likely to change soon.  The camera does everything I need it to do, but this.  I also use a 17-55 lens, which I know that &lt;a href=&quot;http://bythom.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Thom&lt;/a&gt; castigates as being too expensive for not enough lens, but it's worked well for me for years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm on a trip in Italy at the moment, though, and having some serious problems with looking up at large buildings going to infinity.  Consider Il Duomo:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.markmroden.com/Travel/London-and-Italy-2010/Italy-Day1-Milan/MMR7617/943558198_RBsjt-M.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Il Duomo&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't actually tilt inward like that, it's a pretty solidly built structure.  For some reason, I'm really noticing on this trip that my building shots are just mangled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this readily solved in post production such that the resulting image is printable and usable for something other than internet slideshows?  Or should I be looking at a tilt-shift lens for this?  And if I do look at the lens, I've been told that the flash overhang on the d300 means that the nikon 24mm lens won't fit-- is that true?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-24T04:02:11.767" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T15:38:06.733" Title="Will a tilt-shift lens solve my 'leaning building' shots?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;tilt-shift&gt;&lt;perspective&gt;&lt;architecture&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="1101" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1061" CreationDate="2010-07-22T20:52:00.457" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's loads of useful-looking information in the &quot;Astrophotography Techniques&quot; section of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.astropix.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;astropix.com&lt;/a&gt;. Unfortunately, I can't vouch for any of it; I live in London, light pollution capital of Europe...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T20:52:00.457" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1102" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="919" CreationDate="2010-07-22T20:59:26.943" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a lot of situations where you need to lower the amount of light, but still need the shutter speed and F stop...shooting a waterfall, for example. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whenever you need to lower the light but maintain the other aspects of the picture, ND filters are the way to go. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="328" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T20:59:26.943" />
  <row Id="1103" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1238" CreationDate="2010-07-22T21:00:49.750" Score="9" ViewCount="165" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Nikon D50 had a very inexpensive, but reliable wireless remote. Recently bought a D300s but dont want to purchase the expensive Nikon brand remote. Does anyone have a recomendation for an inexpensive but reliable alterative? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="326" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T19:42:37.333" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T18:21:09.673" Title="Inexpensive Nikon D300s remote" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;nikon-d300&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1104" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1309" CreationDate="2010-07-22T21:01:28.250" Score="7" ViewCount="368" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wish to purchase a &quot;standard angle-of-view&quot; prime lens for my Canon Rebel XSi which has an APS-C sized sensor. Various articles note that the popular &quot;nifty 50mm&quot; lenses are are a little too much of a telephoto on these cameras to work well as an all-purpose walk-about prime. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What focal length should I look for that would have a 'standard' angle of view similar to the unaided eye?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="139" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-24T04:08:01.093" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T04:08:01.093" Title="What focal length gives a &quot;normal&quot; field-of-view on APS-C cameras?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;focal-length&gt;&lt;field-of-view&gt;&lt;aps-c&gt;&lt;normal&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="1105" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1104" CreationDate="2010-07-22T21:04:25.263" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;30mm.&#xA;Sigma make an excellent 30 f1.4 that would work well as a normal prime.&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-30mm-Canon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0007U0GZM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-30mm-Canon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0007U0GZM&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="131" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T21:04:25.263" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1106" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1104" CreationDate="2010-07-22T21:04:53.700" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;focal length multiplier&quot; to get the equivalent angle of view for your camera is 1.6, so to get the same angle of view as a 55 mm lens, you should get a 55 / 1.6 = 34 mm lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T14:00:54.127" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T14:00:54.127" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1107" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1028" CreationDate="2010-07-22T21:08:30.870" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;LumiQuest Softbox makes the best on flash softbox. I use this for all indoor/outdoor (dawn/dusk )shots and on the go shots. (Wedding, Baby, and Engagment) It attaches with Velcro on the end of the flash. Full tilt and rotate are not impacted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="335" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T21:08:30.870" />
  <row Id="1108" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1100" CreationDate="2010-07-22T21:09:36.327" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is one of the purposes of tilt-shift lenses, and they are often used in professional architectural photography to avoid distortions&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T21:09:36.327" />
  <row Id="1109" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1115" CreationDate="2010-07-22T21:12:26.527" Score="10" ViewCount="146" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm thinking about buying my first DSLR (I have no experience) and was thinking about the lens brand issue. I'm thinking I should buy a Pentax Kx because of it's cost-effective value, but I'm wondering if some time from now I'll end up spending more because I decided to change platforms, know what I mean?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  So the question is: is there any way I could adapt lenses from Nikon or Canon into a Pentax body and what are the implications of doing this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="322" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T13:46:43.590" Title="Is it possible to adapt lens from one brand into another brand's body?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;adapter&gt;" AnswerCount="5" />
  <row Id="1110" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1301" CreationDate="2010-07-22T21:12:54.327" Score="4" ViewCount="154" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the reasons to cross-process (developing C-41 film in E6 chemistry or vice versa) films? How repeatable are the results with the same film? In Flickr they all look different and you never know if this is the result of chemical or additional digital processing so realistic examples are also welcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T12:10:20.243" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T12:10:20.243" Title="Uses for cross-processing" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;developing&gt;&lt;cross-processing&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1111" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1100" CreationDate="2010-07-22T21:15:22.300" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depends how much of this sort of photography you do. Tilt-shift lens are very expensive so unless you do this for a living then it's probably not worth it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively, as you suggest this is easy solved in post. Most photo editing software contains some sort of perspective correction function.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="342" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T21:15:22.300" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1112" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1100" CreationDate="2010-07-22T21:15:42.800" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, you can use software like &lt;a href=&quot;http://hugin.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hugin&lt;/a&gt; to correct this. The results may not be quite as good as a tilt-shift lens, but they will certainly good enough for printing except at the most humongous sizes. (A image like this with lots of horizontals and verticals will work great in Hugin as it will be very easy to set the control points.) Also, it will be much cheaper and less fiddly on-site (you can correct the perspective looking at a large computer screen instead of a tiny viewfinder).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T21:15:42.800" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1113" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1109" CreationDate="2010-07-22T21:19:23.333" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short answer: Yes.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Long answer: But you probably don't want to.&lt;/strong&gt; You can often make stuff like this work, but you almost always lose autofocus, aperture stop-down, and perhaps metering. If you're going to shoot a manual lens, you should buy one of the cheap classics for your system (of which Pentax has many - look into Super Takumar and SMC Takumar).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-22T21:27:32.620" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T21:27:32.620" />
  <row Id="1114" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1109" CreationDate="2010-07-22T21:25:48.750" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on the distance between the mount and the film plane for your particular mount, you are only able to adapt lenses made for cameras with longer distances (the adapter makes up for the difference). Canon cameras can mount Pentax and Nikon lenses, Nikon cameras can mount Pentax lenses, but Pentax cameras cannot mount either Nikon or Canon. Any adapter will also make you lose autofocus, and you probably lose metering and auto-closing of the diaphragm, too, meaning you have to stop down the lens before each shot (or try to frame and focus with a darker image).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;TL;DR: You usually can adapt, but you lose quite a lot of functionality if you are used to auto-focus, auto-metering, auto-everything SLRs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T21:25:48.750" />
  <row Id="1115" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1109" CreationDate="2010-07-22T21:26:08.640" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Theoretically yes. It depends on the flange focal distance for this given bayonet mount. You can mount, say, Nikkor F lens to Canon body. Nikon F lens have longer flange focal distance and even mounted on top of a Canon mount (farther away from the film than the original canon lens) will still be close enough to the film (sensor) to focus to the infinity. But not vice versa, because Canon EF bayonet has a shorter flange focal distance and Canon lens will not be able to focus to the infinity on Nikon bodies. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Practically no. You loose all coupling - aperture, focusing and often metering. Precise manual focusing on modern non-pro SLR is barely possible; metering will be just a guess and manual aperture will make things unbearable. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="341" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T21:26:08.640" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1116" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1110" CreationDate="2010-07-22T21:31:57.113" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The reason is to achieve this special &quot;cross-processed&quot; look with colder shadows, warmer highlights and more color contrast. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In film photography results are repeatable only for the given exact combination of film, chemicals and the developing process details: length, temperature, etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In digital photography results are absolutely repeatable. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However nowadays people call almost any color distortion &quot;a cross process&quot;, which renders the term too general to mean something. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="341" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T21:31:57.113" />
  <row Id="1117" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1109" CreationDate="2010-07-22T21:35:04.837" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are converters available but they are not ideal, not all that common and probably not worth it. You would lose some of the functionality in the lens such as auto-focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not sure what you mean by the &quot;lens brand issue&quot;? When you choose a DSLR manufacturer you are investing in a system. Any of the big manufacturers will have all the lenses you will need, plus there are third party manufacturers such as Sigma and Tokina.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="342" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T21:35:04.837" />
  <row Id="1118" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-22T21:39:38.130" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Turn off the flash (unless it's really dark)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Get your subject as far from the background as possible&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fill the frame with your subject&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A waist-up shot of Uncle Joe standing in front of a wall with flash-glare on Uncle Joe and a flash-shadow on the wall will look horrible.  A head-and-shoulders shot of good ole Joe with no flash and nothing behind him for 10 feet will look &lt;em&gt;much&lt;/em&gt; better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T21:39:38.130" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-22T21:39:38.130" />
  <row Id="1119" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1042" CreationDate="2010-07-22T21:40:51.407" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.elinchrom.com/products.php?p_id=31#content&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Elinchrom Skyports&quot;&gt;Elinchrom Skyports&lt;/a&gt;, but if money is not an issue then go for PocketWizards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="342" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T21:40:51.407" />
  <row Id="1120" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1077" CreationDate="2010-07-22T21:40:55.230" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Removing backgrounds in a photo that wasn't specifically shot for the isolation is usually a very complex process. There are many completely different techniques to isolate details, all depending on the subject itself. One thing is to isolate evey single hair of a lady against a forrest background, another is to isolate a sharp car on a blurry road. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.russellbrown.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Russel Brown Show&lt;/a&gt;, he's one of the Adobe Photoshop team members, he's got a lot of free video tutorials on different background isolation techniques. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many of these techniques can be fully implemented using Gimp. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="341" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T21:40:55.230" />
  <row Id="1121" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-22T21:42:02.187" Score="5" ViewCount="163" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a huge collection (over 1000) of 35mm slides that I'm considering digitizing. So far the cheapest I've seen is ScanCafe, at $0.22/slide for large orders, that would be $220 for 1000 slides. I also considered getting a slide scanner, but I don't want to get one where I have to sit there and feed it 4 or 5 slides at a time, it would take years to get through them all. There are very few automated slide scanners that would take either a slide carousel or a stack of slides, and they all seem to be very expensive, with poor reviews (they get jammed, eat slides, etc)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T21:47:56.417" Title="Inexpensive method of digitizing large numbers of 35mm slides?" Tags="&lt;slides&gt;&lt;scanning&gt;&lt;35mm&gt;&lt;digitizing&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="1122" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1104" CreationDate="2010-07-22T21:43:36.087" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The crop factor/focal length multiplier of 1.6 Guffa mentions applies to Canon cameras. This answers the original question but it doesn't apply to all cameras. If you're interested in the crop factors for other brands, a list is here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APS-C#Multiplier_factors&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APS-C#Multiplier_factors&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="348" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T21:43:36.087" />
  <row Id="1123" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1121" CreationDate="2010-07-22T21:47:56.417" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have used ScanCafe in the past with much success.  What they used to do was charge for a minimum of 50% of your exposures.  You get a chance to review online and they batch everything.  It really comes down to how much your time is worth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me, ScanCafe was worth it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="349" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T21:47:56.417" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1124" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1039" CreationDate="2010-07-22T21:53:21.203" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are taking a fairly formal portrait and are using a tripod, stand a bit away from the camera, carry on a conversation, and trigger the shutter with a cable release or a remote. As the subject relaxes, you will be able to get more natural seeming shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="350" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T21:53:21.203" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1125" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-22T22:01:17.127" Score="14" ViewCount="378" Body="&lt;p&gt;My technophobe mother returned from a European trip to discover she'd erased all but 15 images from a nearly full 2GB card. As I am the computer guy in the family, she posted the card to me and asked that I make something magical happen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The photos were taken with and deleted by a Nikon Coolpix. (I don't know the model.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am a linux guy, but there is a Windows Vista box at my disposal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is my best strategy to try to recover something?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="350" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-27T23:23:45.943" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T23:23:45.943" Title="Recover deleted photos from an SD Card" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;memory-card&gt;&lt;file-recovery&gt;&lt;sdcard&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="1126" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1125" CreationDate="2010-07-22T22:08:24.610" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First you'll want to clone the card's filesystem using dd. I believe the filesystems on those things are simple, FAT or something like that. Once you figure out what the FS is, you could then google for appropriate recovery tools. If you can, work on copies of the clone rather than the card itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the files were erased and then nothing else happened, you can probably get them back. On the other hand, if she deleted and then took more photos, you are almost certainly SOL on at least some of the photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T22:08:24.610" />
  <row Id="1127" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1066" CreationDate="2010-07-22T22:08:49.663" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Currently (July 2010) in the UK:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photo-express.co.uk/digital.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photo express&lt;/a&gt; develop &amp;amp; scan 35mm or APS to 2048 x 3072 on CD for £4.50&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metrocolourlab.com/index_files/Metrocolourlab_C41.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Metro Colour Lab&lt;/a&gt; develop &amp;amp; scan 35mm to 4MB on CD for £6.50 or £7 for 18MB&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.peak-imaging.com/htmls/process_and_scan_to_cd.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;peak imaging&lt;/a&gt; develop &amp;amp; scan 35mm to 1800 x 1200 on CD for £6.96 (or more for higher resolution)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="185" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T22:08:49.663" />
  <row Id="1128" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1125" CreationDate="2010-07-22T22:12:34.183" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When files are deleted, they are just left where they are, and the clusters are flagged as unused, so while the directory entries that contains the file name and start cluster are gone, most of the file data should be intact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several different programs that can undelete files, you should make a web search on &quot;undelete files&quot; and the file system of the memory card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T22:12:34.183" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1129" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1125" CreationDate="2010-07-22T22:14:00.127" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't speak for Linux, but on Windows I've used the excellent &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.piriform.com/recuva&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Recuva&lt;/a&gt;&quot; product from Piriform to recover deleted files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recommend giving that a go to see if the content is still retrievable and as Reid said - if there were more photos taken afterward then she's almost certainly up the creek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="354" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T02:12:21.150" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T02:12:21.150" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1130" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1125" CreationDate="2010-07-22T22:14:10.300" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;TestDisk&lt;/a&gt; or the associated &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/PhotoRec&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PhotoRec&lt;/a&gt; tool from CGSecurity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;TestDisk will allow you to scan the file system and look for deleted files. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk%3a_undelete_file_for_FAT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;How to Undelete files with TestDisk&lt;/a&gt;.) Provided the data hasn't been overwritten it should be possible to recover the files. You can also use TestDisk to take an copy of the underlying file system to stop any accidental overwrites of the data deleting it permanently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PhotoRec offers similar functionality but specifically targets recovering photos/videos and will search the file systems data for info that can be re-built into images. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/PhotoRec_Step_By_Step&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PhotoRec step by step&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both free, open source and run on Windows and Linux.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(You mention it's an SD card. It might be worth putting it into read-only mode before you plug it in just to be sure nothing gets written to the card while you are working with it)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="97" LastEditorUserId="97" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-24T15:06:23.367" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T15:06:23.367" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1131" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1125" CreationDate="2010-07-22T22:16:16.583" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two apps I have tried that worked for me:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ontrackdatarecovery.com/file-recovery-software/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ontrack EasyRecovery&lt;/a&gt; - Very good, comprehensive and reliable. Got me out of trouble more than once. Unfortunately a bit pricey. Windows only. The Lite version is good enough for you as it can recover up to 25 files.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lc-tech.com/software/rprodetail.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sandisk RescuePRO&lt;/a&gt; - Not as comprehensive as EasyRecovery but gets the job done and is optimized for pictures. Comes free with some (or maybe all) Sandiks memory cards. Available for Windows and Mac.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.piriform.com/recuva&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Piriform Recuva&lt;/a&gt; - A free solution that I never used but have heard good things about. Again Windows only.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="125" LastEditorUserId="125" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-22T22:39:39.480" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T22:39:39.480" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1132" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-22T22:23:41.227" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that the most important rule is `Violate any rule if the photographic situation or your intended effect requires that the rule be violated.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A really useful exercise is to take a rule (better: guideline) and give yourself half an hour to take 15 photos that violate it. So, for the rule of thirds, you might take only photos with the centre of interest in the centre of the frame or the edge of the frame. Another time, you might try taking portraits that are all back lit, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Much of the time, the exercise will help you understand why the guideline is there, much more firmly than if you'd merely read and followed it. Some of the time, you will discover something that you like that you only found by the willful flouting of the guideline. In that case, the follow up exercise is to spend time exploring what it is that you liked about the results by violating the guideline some more. You'll understand the guideline better and you will understand how better to exploit its violation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="350" LastEditorUserId="350" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-05T13:04:02.090" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T13:04:02.090" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-22T22:23:41.227" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1133" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1125" CreationDate="2010-07-22T22:24:26.343" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like &lt;a href=&quot;http://ronmartblog.com/2010/01/how-do-i-rescue-lost-photos-and-video.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PhotoRescue&lt;/a&gt; because I can start by doing a backup image of my card (useful if the card is close to dying) and then I can recover from the backup (faster because its on your hard drive). It also can recover video which some others can't do and it's super cheap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check out the review in the link or on ronmartblog.com&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="356" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T22:24:26.343" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1134" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-22T22:27:44.607" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Get a digital SLR for better control.  Then, go out and use it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had unspeakable depressing results shooting with the ever-present mini digital camera (e.g. Powershot) that didn't have the shutter speed, lens option, or sensitivity control until I moved up to a digital SLR.  &lt;strong&gt;Getting a picture when you press the capture button is paramount&lt;/strong&gt; in shooting photos and developing your &quot;eye&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="349" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T22:27:44.607" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-22T22:27:44.607" />
  <row Id="1135" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1069" CreationDate="2010-07-22T22:28:36.167" Score="-4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I agree with the flash recommendation and have a good book review on my blog about On-Camera Flash (see the right hand column for book reviews). I also discuss the topic of what lens is right for what scenario in my &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://ronmartblog.com/2008/03/which-lens-should-i-buy.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;What Lens should I buy&lt;/a&gt;?&quot; article as well as how to research them and not just rely on fanboy testimonials.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="356" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T22:28:36.167" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1136" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1028" CreationDate="2010-07-22T22:32:06.257" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've experimented with a lot of these devices and agree that the EzyBox is probably the best, but honestly I find that a flash bounced off the ceiling or wall with the little white card thing pulled up (or a business card taped on) is really the best bet for most scenarios. Check out my blog for a book review of On-Camera Flash to see some amazing stuff, and I've done many of those types of shots with less sophisticated flash attachments than Neil uses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also have interviewed some of the top photographers in the world on my blog and I find that many don't even bother with mods beyond the card trick I mention above. It's only the prosumers that obsess over flash modifiers &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="356" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T22:32:06.257" />
  <row Id="1137" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1125" CreationDate="2010-07-22T22:36:26.660" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Try Zero Assumption Recovery (ZAR) - I have used it to retrieve data from a hard drive with corrupt Master Boot Record and worked really well. The program is free to use on memory cards: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.z-a-recovery.com/digital-image-recovery.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.z-a-recovery.com/digital-image-recovery.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="358" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T22:36:26.660" />
  <row Id="1138" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="175" CreationDate="2010-07-22T22:36:30.793" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a hot topic of religious proportions. I discuss it in-depth in my &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://ronmart.blogspot.com/2008/03/which-dslr-should-buy.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;What DSLR should I buy article&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. In the end, you are buying into a system and those who are around you with gear in the same system has a benefit. Canon and Nikon both make excellent products and some even like Sony as a system, but personally I strongly advise you stick with one of the two big players. See my article for more details and as I say at the end of the article - do your own research and judge for yourself. Just realize you'll get a lot of heavily biased and usually heated responses from people on this topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="356" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T22:36:30.793" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1139" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="886" CreationDate="2010-07-22T22:37:05.647" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hipster Lomo photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="351" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T22:37:05.647" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1140" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1125" CreationDate="2010-07-22T22:46:28.347" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I successfully recovered all the files from a formatted card by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dd_%28Unix%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dd&lt;/a&gt;ing it and then using &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sleuthkit.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the sleuth kit&lt;/a&gt; under linux. Fortunately no pictures had been taken since the card was formatted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used the fls and icat commands as described in test image results at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sleuthkit.org/informer/sleuthkit-informer-14.txt&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.sleuthkit.org/informer/sleuthkit-informer-14.txt&lt;/a&gt; and in &lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.sleuthkit.org/index.php?title=TSK_Tool_Overview&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;TSK Tool Overview&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="185" LastEditorUserId="185" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T08:23:18.747" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T08:23:18.747" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1141" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1104" CreationDate="2010-07-22T22:49:24.913" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;standard&quot; or &quot;normal&quot; focal length that gives a similar field of view as that of the human eye is between 45-55mm depending on who you ask.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On an &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APS-C&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;APS-C sensor&lt;/a&gt; the equivalent range would be range would 28-34mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are looking for a Canon Lens two reasonably priced prime lenses are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_28mm_f_2_8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF 28mm f/2.8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_35mm_f_2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF 35mm f/2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are ok with third party lenses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adorama.com/SG2818DEOS.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 28mm f/1.8 EX DG Aspherical&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adorama.com/SG3014EOS.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-22T22:56:08.587" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T22:56:08.587" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1142" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1148" CreationDate="2010-07-22T23:00:45.207" Score="9" ViewCount="379" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a difference in dynamic range between film and digital?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="372" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T04:10:38.390" Title="Is there a difference in dynamic range between film and digital?" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;digital-vs-film&gt;&lt;dynamic-range&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1143" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1142" CreationDate="2010-07-22T23:04:52.987" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Typically, film has a greater dynamic range than digital.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="376" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T23:04:52.987" />
  <row Id="1144" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1142" CreationDate="2010-07-22T23:09:08.597" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on the type of film. The typical negative color film will have a greater dynamic range than most digital cameras. A typical digital camera has roughly the same dynamic range as a slide film, as I recall it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T23:09:08.597" />
  <row Id="1145" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1066" CreationDate="2010-07-22T23:12:23.253" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Certain &lt;a href=&quot;http://shop.costco.com/Photo-Center/Index&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Costco&lt;/a&gt; locations do develop &amp;amp; scan (3000x2000) to CD for ~$5. You'll have to call to see if one near you provides it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="372" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-16T07:52:34.327" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T07:52:34.327" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1146" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-22T23:13:42.753" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Learn the limitations of your flash. Realize when it helps, and realize when it doesn't. Photographers love to hate on flash, but there are times when a picture is possible only with the flash: backlit subjects, hard light, etc. Knowing when to use fill flash will improve your daytime and evening photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T23:13:42.753" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-22T23:13:42.753" />
  <row Id="1147" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1069" CreationDate="2010-07-22T23:35:11.143" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been using a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens with my XSi for a while now, (I also own the 50mm f/1.8 and the same kit lens) and its a great all-rounder with good low light performance.&#xA;Its a good balance between the two lenses you already have, and doesn't break the bank.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More info at PopPhoto.com: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.popphoto.com/tamron/2010/03/lens-test-tamron-sp-17-50mm-f28-xr-di-ii-vc-af&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lens Test: Tamron SP 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II VC AF&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="372" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T02:08:32.597" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T02:08:32.597" />
  <row Id="1148" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1142" CreationDate="2010-07-22T23:55:16.473" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The following article is an excellent comparison of the dynamic range differences of film and digital. It is a few years old, so it is a bit out of date, but the underlying theory is basically the same with modern gear. It has a lot of empirical data, and the conclusions are pretty interesting:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that this article lacks some information about film. While digital does have good dynamic range in comparison to film in general, film does tend to edge out digital when it comes to highlights. Some empirical data is also missing due to the fact that the film images were scanned, which results in some loss of dynamic range and detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T00:00:57.523" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T00:00:57.523" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1149" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1069" CreationDate="2010-07-22T23:56:38.530" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I highly recommend the consideration of the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM. If it is indeed out of budget then try to get one in very good condition used or simply wait. It's essentially a normal zoom and a short telefocal in one--you'll probably discover little need to remove it for family, single-person, small group portraitures. And friends asking you to cover their special events would certainly not mind it if you use this lens to do just that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try the reviews on the lens. Best personal regards,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="387" LastActivityDate="2010-07-22T23:56:38.530" />
  <row Id="1150" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1011" CreationDate="2010-07-23T00:03:16.863" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I did a 5 part &lt;a href=&quot;http://ronmart.blogspot.com/2009/04/noise-reduction-roundup-5-of-5-and.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;series on Noise Reduction&lt;/a&gt; and reviewed the leading products in noise reduction (which many of those software companies have called one of the best and most comprehensive reviews of noise reduction software). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd suggest you check it out and see.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the thing though, not all noise is bad. An image completely free of noise is generally going to look plastic like. Noise reduction can reduce texture. Finally, there are actually products designed to add noise back in (like RealGrain) because it can be preferable to have some noise when printing. The thing is you generally want to remove the bad noise (chroma noise) and then dial back in the good noise if you want it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is humongous oversimplication so go check out the article for more details. There's also discounts on the noise reduction software too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally remember, noise is subjective - movies like Saving Private Ryan digitally added a lot of noise to get a classic &quot;film grain&quot; look, so it isn't necessarily an evil thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="356" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T00:03:16.863" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-23T00:03:16.863" />
  <row Id="1151" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="987" CreationDate="2010-07-23T00:07:14.887" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If a camera has a good auto-iso mode (which most don't, they limit the max ISO in certain modes like manual to as little as ISO 400) then I prefer to shoot in manual so that I can control my depth of field (via aperture) with and shutter speed (to eliminate or insure motion blur - depending on the scenario). However, for most cameras your best bet will be to use Aperture priority for most scenarios, but be very careful as your camera can be too aggressive in reducing the shutter speed to unacceptable levels so you may need to manually adjust your ISO or make compromises with your aperture to get the results you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="356" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T00:07:14.887" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-23T00:07:14.887" />
  <row Id="1152" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1039" CreationDate="2010-07-23T00:11:45.503" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use this technique and so do several events photography friends of mine. When we are doing group shots we often invite everyone to close their eyes and think of a beautiful memory and happy thought. And then we tell them that we'll count to three and have them open their eyes, and smile for the camera--on three.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What happens is the smile is more natural, less forced. And with a little practice you can explain the instructions without flaw, everyone can do it and everyone is curious to try it out. So it's an easy sell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bed-side manner is very important as a portraiture or events photographer (to say nothing of other equally challenging specialities), rapport is important as many of the previous entries have made. Get over the idea that you are in the peripheral and you aren't 'part of the celebration or event'. You are very much a part of it. It's embarassing perhaps, might bring on anxiety, but acknowledge your role to play early on and direct. The results will make it all worth while.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be kind, use tact, always take every opportunity to practice your bed-side manner with your subjects on easy or hard situations. It gets easier, more fun, and less stressing each time with every practice--and the results are well worth it. It's also ultimately a really good life-skill to have, that can pay off dividends in other aspects of life and work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="387" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T00:11:45.503" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1153" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-23T00:11:55.753" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been asked this by readers of my photography blog and my students many times. I've found that formula that has resulted in the fastest results has been to start with &lt;a href=&quot;http://ronmart.blogspot.com/2008/05/which-books-should-i-read.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;these quick and easy books to read&lt;/a&gt; (even if you aren't a book person - they aren't theory books), and then get out and shoot. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can learn a lot by looking at your bad shots afterwards and see what went wrong by looking at the EXIF metadata (viewable in Bridge, Lightroom, and Windows Explorer). It's also good to have someone (for me it's my wife) who has a more creative eye than your own give you compositional feedback as that super sharp shot of the bolt on your furnace might look awesome to you, but that person will generally give you good realistic feedback (i.e., &quot;what's interesting about a dimly lit bolt in the dead center of your picture?&quot;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="356" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T00:11:55.753" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-23T00:11:55.753" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1154" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1142" CreationDate="2010-07-23T00:14:14.827" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another point is that film's sensitivity is logarithmic when reaching saturation.  Digital is linear, and has a hard saturation point, leading to easily clipped highlights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many cameras simulate this by underexposing and applying a tone curve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T00:14:14.827" />
  <row Id="1155" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1100" CreationDate="2010-07-23T00:18:13.913" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It took me a while to understand why it was different than holding the camera above your head.  This article helped me:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wkoopmans.ca/notebook/?p=1497&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pentax K-7 Sensor shift (Composition adjust)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T02:15:29.490" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T02:15:29.490" />
  <row Id="1156" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="924" CreationDate="2010-07-23T00:19:21.243" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;HyperDrive's and portable drives by Western Digital (I use the passports &amp;lt; 500GB) are my weapon of choice for this. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="356" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T00:19:21.243" />
  <row Id="1157" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="916" CreationDate="2010-07-23T00:23:24.527" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depends on the subject and the goal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally, 70-135 FF equivalents.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Focal length (or to be more correct, distance from subject) will change how large or small different parts of the body and face are relative to each other.  Longer focal lengths (and longer working distances) will minimize the differences, while the inverse will comparatively exaggerate them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the most interesting portraits I have seen are taken with wider than 70mm equivalent focal lengths.  Those portraits are done to tell a story about the person and focus on more than the aesthetics of their face and body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T00:23:24.527" />
  <row Id="1158" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1164" CreationDate="2010-07-23T00:23:25.027" Score="5" ViewCount="153" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am planning on doing some photo sessions for friends and want to do it right. I want to have a contract, but I'm not sure what all I need to include.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the most important issues to cover in a photo contract?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T02:50:39.593" Title="Portrait photo contract" Tags="&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;legal&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="1159" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="916" CreationDate="2010-07-23T00:23:25.260" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I talk about this extensively on my &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://ronmartblog.com/2008/03/which-lens-should-i-buy.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;What Lens should I buy&lt;/a&gt;&quot; article, as well as how to shop for lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll get a lot of opions though as the 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 are good economical choices, and the 1.4's are a good step from there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I love shooting 200mm @ f/2.8 for portraits or using my 100mm macro (yes, you read that right) lens @ f/2.8. Check out my photography notebook at ronmartinsen.blogspot.com and go look at the outline for the 2nd article I posted. It's a brunette with her hands in her hair and its one of my most successful shots (taken with a Rebel XTi actually) using a 100mm macro lens. Killer sharp. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="356" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T00:23:25.260" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1160" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="920" CreationDate="2010-07-23T00:27:33.787" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Answering the original question, yes there are. At the moment here are your options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A) Timing the loud shutter to make its obnoxious sound before snapping the shot silently in the golden silent moment. This is possible with many of the current DSLRs supporting Live View.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;B) Using the latest mechanical mirror-flip technology which slows down the flip up to reduce noise (the mirror flip up is pretty much the loudest contributor to the noise you hear upon shutter release). Both Canon and Nikon are pretty much committed to using this new technology in newer DSLRs, as other answer entries have mentioned D5000 is well known for having this feature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;C) There are enclosures that completely wraps around the entire DSLR + lens and muffles the sound. It's added cost but may just allow you to use a camera in places where it's taboo, like concert halls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;D) Use an camera that uses alternative shutter mechanisms. Cloth and leaf shutter comes to mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;E) Use compacts. Compacts tend to have a very small sensors--even premium compacts have tiny sensors. And as a result the shutter is either completely substituted with an electronic shutter or the shutter makes very little sound. And these compacts have no mirrors to flip either--which pretty much contributes the most noise in high performance DSLRs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;F) A special mention can be made for premium compacts and mirror less cameras with electronic viewfinders like that of the Olympus/Panasonic micro four-thirds system or the Samsung NX system and last but not least the Sony NEX platform. As you know the lack of mirror flipping means a great deal of noise can be dampened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keep in mind other sources of noise, if you are wary of noisy cameras because you need to record sound, forget about it. You almost always need to have someone carry a dedicated boom with the mic attached because other things on your camera will make a ton of noise. Here's a short list: 1) working with the tripod and ballhead; 2) the rustling of sound made by your fingers operating the camera; 3) the image stablization mechanism inside the camera body or inside the lens will also contribute noise; 4) working with the focus and zoom rings will also make some grinding noise with lense not in the best condition; 5) the auto-focus motor, even the silent type, can make an audible noise that will be recorded by any sensitive on-camera mic. This is just a short list--there's more. But it's kinda drifting off topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="387" LastEditorUserId="387" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-25T16:01:48.660" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T16:01:48.660" />
  <row Id="1161" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="920" CreationDate="2010-07-23T00:29:34.967" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe the most silent DSLR is the Pentax K-7.  It is quiet due to both dampening and weathersealing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;K-7 vs A900 for reference &lt;a href=&quot;http://youtube.com/watch?v=6SzFL1FoheM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://youtube.com/watch?v=6SzFL1FoheM&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-27T23:47:20.947" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T23:47:20.947" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1162" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="948" CreationDate="2010-07-23T00:37:49.040" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Only when I am shooting very high dynamic range subjects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Otherwise, RAW gives me enough leeway for even tonemapping.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T00:37:49.040" />
  <row Id="1163" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="897" CreationDate="2010-07-23T00:40:51.060" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You actually have some choices, but they will force you to wear the engineering hat. One of the things you can do is buy a flashlight that has a squeeze button. The squeeze button can be lightly pressed to temporarily turn the light off (being on) or to turn the light on (being off). Yes, it's clumsy and really an awful workaround than anything else but know that that's an option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you tinker with it a bit, you can create an extended trigger that will be placed near the shutter release button so that the minute you press the shutter release button fully this light will turn off (its only purpose is to help assist manual focus). You are not going to believe this, but you might be buying an aftermarket trigger meant to toggle flashlights typically attached to tactical assault weapons. See www.dealextreme.com (they ship slowly, but surely, and decent customer service) for such flash lights and triggers. Being a photographer means good bed-side manners, so don't take a LED flashlight and blind your subjects, think about ways to considerably soften the light while still lighting the situation sufficiently for you to focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a huge bummer of course, so what I do is simply to ask the venue to please turn on the light a little bit, which works out pretty well when doing events photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another thing you can do is to get really good at flash photography. Once you are comfortable with flash photography you'll be able to kiss the ambient lighting condition by a stop or two, that of course doesn't help you manual focus, but it does afford you the chance to stop down the aperture. Once you've said goodbye to f/1.2~2.8 and hello to f/4~f/8 you'll get a generally deep depth of field--less focusing issues then. From then on you just do zone-focusing by manipulating the focus ring of the lens to the distance marks ticked on the barrel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you know you'll have some ambient light, then your last choice is to swap out the default DSLR focus screens for after market focus screens condusive to manual focusing. You'll still need a little ambient light, swapping out the focus screen won't help you focus in pitch black.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, get great professional lenses that can continuously auto-focus with the help of a powerful focus assist lamp from an off-camera flash. That's really the thing to do especially if your subjects are a moving target. All too often they ARE moving targets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this is already old news to you I hope it will help others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Best personal regards,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="387" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T00:40:51.060" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1164" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1158" CreationDate="2010-07-23T00:44:10.070" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pricing details, even if you are doing it for free&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Session details, when/where/etc&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What happens if you can't make the session&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What happens if you loose the images&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Model Release if you want to use the photos to promote yourself&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those are the biggies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="392" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T00:44:10.070" />
  <row Id="1165" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1100" CreationDate="2010-07-23T00:59:09.447" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many photo processing programs will have a &quot;perspective correction&quot; or equivalent mode that can improve the geometry of a shot like this.  It may be worth playing around with this in post-processing to see how you like the results before you pop for a new lens.  When framing your shot, be sure to leave a little extra room around your subject, however, because the corrected image is going to be trapezoidal in shape, and you're going to end up cropping the image to get back to a printable picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T00:59:09.447" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1166" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="948" CreationDate="2010-07-23T01:05:05.550" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I highly recommend building into your gestalt a certain bat sense about when to use bracketing. I think you'll quickly figure out when, it's when your camera's meter is guessing every thing wrong and yet you still don't want to go full manual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another equally impressive type of bracketing is aperture bracketing [used together with a very steady hand, or tripod/monopod]. There's amazing things you can do when you have full control over how sharp your subjects are and how blurry/sharp your backdrops are. Aperture bracketing affords you that. It's a type of technique that finds themselves in more and more use in this age of almost mandatory photoshopping.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="387" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T01:05:05.550" />
  <row Id="1167" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1050" CreationDate="2010-07-23T01:19:29.250" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Now consider this though: that photographers often place certain criteria firmly in mind before shooting or fuming about the lack of dynamic range in the camera they are carrying around. For one, they will jot down the media that will finally display the image. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Newsprint on pressed newspaper pulp without any glossy coating have a hard time showing shades of gray or shades of color.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Highly compressed JPEGs is not often blamed for throwing away absolute levels but will throw away intermediate levels of shades, making photos look digitized and unnatural. But that's outside of discussion here, just mentioned for completeness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Web visitors are an important demographic of viewers. And widely visited websites often have to consider that the mass majority of the viewership are using LCD screens that are probably somewhat aged and in all likelihood not truly capable of showing 256 shades of RGB. LCDs and plasmas actually capable of representing shades that are near pitch black are often high end home theater components that costs thousands--well out of the reach of the masses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even highly regarded fine art giclee photographic paper designed to be used with the highest grade of piezo electric inj-jet printers have limitations. They can be coated with a metal- or pearl- like sheen and it still won't bridge the considerable gap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if you want dynamic range, you'll want it because you want to capture both the sun shining through the canopies of a lush central american rainforest but also the dimly lit fern at the forest floor all in the same picture. That's nuts. And not possible. [Actually it's well within the realm of the possible, just not fun. Think lots of ND filters. Think specialized one-time-fire-and-then-dispose flashes that can light up the entire forest--crazy! That's if the mosquitoes don't get to you first.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And not printable. I don't know, maybe with OLED displays and more fancy technologies we can start getting close. Maybe sparks of electricity suggesting how that image might look like to our brain using a Matrix-like jack-in would work and our brain would be capable of imagining infinite dynamic range. But thanks to the limitation of output devices and output media--you really are safe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess this is a long winded way of saying don't worry, hang loose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="387" LastEditorUserId="387" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T01:48:35.310" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T01:48:35.310" />
  <row Id="1168" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1158" CreationDate="2010-07-23T01:27:19.760" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Every photography session is a social interaction, a social event. And everyone has some rights on that image. You as the photographer have the rights of interpreting the lighting, creating the set, the angles and framing of the shot, the visual language expressed by the entire composition. That's you. Great job. But then there's also the subject. The model (friend) who share through using their face, their gestures, their style and their composure (or lack there of). That's them. There's copyright and law protecting them too. So a contract that takes everything into consideration (where the main thing is that you NEVER use the face of your friend in a widely successful and well funded international hemorrhoid commercial) IS important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I highly recommend the following book to start, it's probably one of the better books out there that will fill your brain full of helpful gestalt about how to think about all this. Teaching you how to fish, not just presenting a fully cleaned and filleted fish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.danheller.com/model-release-book.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.danheller.com/model-release-book.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From there, I have noticed in my reading that a lot of photography business books will further provide very helpful hints and things to watch out for. Knowledge is your friend. Read up as much as you can at a local reference library.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="387" LastEditorUserId="387" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T02:50:39.593" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T02:50:39.593" />
  <row Id="1169" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="934" CreationDate="2010-07-23T01:31:58.207" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If your subjects stay the same but your background changes in luminosity greatly.  I was shooting sports indoor with a door to the outside open, so my subjects would have gotten real dark if they went by of the door.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if you want to maintain a certain shutter speed (freeze action) and aperture (for subject isolation), and you don't have TAv mode or equivalent, you would use manual mode.  You can increase ISO through software (essentially it is the same as hardware ISO), although if you need to change the ISO significantly, you need to use RAW or the JPEG tone curve will eat the data in the shadows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Manual everything makes it a lot easier if you are doing shoots for stuff like events, sports, portraits, etc.  Often, you want to post-process the first picture and copy all of the settings to the following ones.  If your camera is changing the exposure or WB between shots, it makes it harder.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, manual mode is great for flash photography when and mixing ambient with flash.  There are some cases where &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-to-track-ambient-automatically.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;aperture priority can work better&lt;/a&gt;, with auto ISO off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-24T02:31:13.327" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T02:31:13.327" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1170" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1103" CreationDate="2010-07-23T02:20:18.213" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I went through situation when I upgraded from my D50 to the D300s.  There isn't a cheap wireless remote.  You can get a cable release (MC30) for about $50.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T02:20:18.213" />
  <row Id="1171" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="886" CreationDate="2010-07-23T02:55:50.657" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;None of the digital camera today have the full range of movements(Rise, Fall, Tilt, Shift, Swing) of the view camera.  PC or TS lense get you there partially, but their range of movement is nowhere close to what's available to view cameras.  So they don't offer nearly as much control on focus plane placement, DoF and perspective control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A smaller aperture is also possible before diffraction kicks in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So certain landscape, architectural photographys and fine art photography are better done with film.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="405" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T02:55:50.657" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1172" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1218" CreationDate="2010-07-23T02:56:09.250" Score="6" ViewCount="234" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm aware that you can find out a lot from looking at the exif tags of an image, such as camera make/model and the various settings used to take the picture, but what non-obvious things can you discover about how a photograph was taken using the exif tags.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Almost as important - what are the limitations of the exif tags set by default in cameras? For example, I'm looking back through our wedding pics (we were able to obtain digital copies), and see on a picture that the Exposure Program was 'Normal Program' (as opposed to something like Aperture Priority or Landscape mode). Unless I'm misunderstanting, I can't tell if this means the image was shot using Program or Auto mode on the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="59" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-24T04:21:01.400" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T04:21:01.400" Title="What useful things can/can't you find out from exif tags?" Tags="&lt;metadata&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="1173" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1042" CreationDate="2010-07-23T02:58:46.827" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have some of the &quot;eBay&quot; triggers that I bought a year ago.  I found them at mpex.com (Midwest Photo Exchange).  They are the Cactus V2's and are $30 for a receiver and transmitter.  I feel like it was a good deal, considering the price of a PocketWizard.  They obviously are not as reliable as the pro equipment but for an amateur like myself, they work great.  They miss sometimes, but it is rare enough that I don't care or even think about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="406" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T02:58:46.827" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1174" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1142" CreationDate="2010-07-23T03:35:15.230" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The comparison is not as simple as it seem on the surface.  Different film have different dynamic range, so do different digital cameras.  More importantly, often the limitation is not the recording media but the display media.  A high quality LCD tend to have a higher dynamic range than photo paper.  A traditional dark room B&amp;amp;W paper can have a higher dynamic range than the ink ject paper ... etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another generalization is that the new digital sensors are generally on par with the negatives, but superior to the slide film.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="405" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T03:35:15.230" />
  <row Id="1176" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1172" CreationDate="2010-07-23T03:37:30.503" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I used the EXIF tags over thousands of images to determine the focal lengths I tend to use, to try to help me decide which lens I should buy first when I upgrade.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="160" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T03:37:30.503" />
  <row Id="1177" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-23T03:38:17.167" Score="4" ViewCount="200" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the easiest way to add data to an EXIF file? For example if I wanted to add a copyright to my images can that be easily added to the EXIF data?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T08:21:29.797" Title="Adding data to an EXIF file" Tags="&lt;exif&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="1178" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="383" CreationDate="2010-07-23T03:43:02.937" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm with the no filter crowd. I prefer the higher quality you get without a filter. Glare reduction with a polarizing filter may be the only exception. Darkening of the sky  with a polarizing filter can be achieved often by use of various layer modes in Photoshop, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for protection. I've dropped a $1800 70-200 2.8 IS lens and the lens hood took the hit with no damage to the lens. I have lens hoods on all lenses, but no filters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T03:43:02.937" />
  <row Id="1179" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1177" CreationDate="2010-07-23T03:44:56.290" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The easiest way to add exif data is to do so in camera. Not all camera models allow for setting the copyright in body however, so the next best way is during image import. I use lightroom as the hub for my digital workflow, and it allows me to specify any and all exif information I want. You'll want to check with your image import utility and verify it has exif support.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you'd like to go back and re-add/edit exif data, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.geosetter.de/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;GeoSetter&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;exiftool&lt;/a&gt; are two good utilities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T03:44:56.290" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1180" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1172" CreationDate="2010-07-23T03:47:30.377" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most useful things I gather when looking at an image's exif are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The date the image was taken&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The camera make and model&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The lens used to take the image&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously exif information can be scrubbed and edited, but to me, those are the most important things I look at when looking at exif data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T03:47:30.377" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1181" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1050" CreationDate="2010-07-23T03:51:46.943" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When talking about dynamic range for digital sensors, its best to look at real-world tests. There is a very wide variety of digital sensors on the market these days, ranging from smaller entry-level DSLR sensors to the advanced full-frame sensors in top of the line camera bodies. When reading about a camera, you'll often come across terms like &quot;maximum dynamic range&quot;, which for current FF bodies may range up to 13 or 14 stops. Take these values with a grain of salt, however, as real-world performance in common scenarios tends to differ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;average&quot; dynamic range is a more useful value. Most of the reviews at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dpreview.com&lt;/a&gt; include a dynamic range test. These tests include comparisons of the &lt;em&gt;tone curves&lt;/em&gt; of real photographs to compute the average real-world dynamic range. Most current digital cameras have probably 6-9 stops of DR, which falls off as you increase ISO. Top of the line camera bodies often provide more even DR throughout their standard ISO range, but tend to rapidly fall off as you use extended higher ISO settings. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The full theoretical maximum dynamic range of a sensor can only be achieved by reducing signal-to-noise ratio to a baseline (usually ISO 100), and by applying a &lt;em&gt;linear tone curve&lt;/em&gt; when processing the RAW data. Applying a linear tone curve results in flat, dull, low-contrast images, so most all cameras and software that support RAW apply non-linear tone curves, which effectively reduces the the usable dynamic range. (Think of it like taking a piece of string...pulled strait between two points, the points can be farther apart than if you add a curve to the string between those two points.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recommend reading the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD3X/page20.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon D3X&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS1DMarkIV/page19.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 1D IV&lt;/a&gt; DR studies to get an idea of the usable dynamic range these cameras offer. Read the studies carefully, and note that artifacts like noise in higher ISO settings have an effect on the resulting images. They can often reduce the effective usable dynamic range depending on the scenario (i.e. low-light shots often suffer greater degradation from high ISO noise, loosing DR.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T07:38:24.237" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T07:38:24.237" />
  <row Id="1182" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1039" CreationDate="2010-07-23T04:02:24.943" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I agree with Rowland. When people feel uncomfortable they try to put on a happy face or &quot;cheesy smile&quot;. When I am doing portraits, especially with kids is I say something funny but something to break the ice. If you continue to talk and have a conversation that always helps. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if you you are in an open environment it relaxes the subjects as well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I find that adults that don't want to have their portrait taken are the most difficult. I tell them a funny story from my past that give them an opportunity to laugh at me a little bit so that I am not just a someone taking a picture, I am after all human as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="335" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T04:02:24.943" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1183" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1213" CreationDate="2010-07-23T04:19:00.623" Score="2" ViewCount="76" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lets say I have two opened images I am working on in Photo Shop.  I want to copy an entire layer or a smart object from one opened image to the other opened image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do i do it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="415" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T12:53:06.963" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T12:53:06.963" Title="How do I copy smart objects from one opened file to another." Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1184" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1061" CreationDate="2010-07-23T04:33:20.203" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am pretty new to the astrophotography scene but I have learned fairly quickly. I read Introduction to Digital Photography which can be found on Amazon, this gave me a great starting point to start from and experiment with. My current setup is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon 40D&#xA;Celestron Omni XLT 150 Newtonian Telescope with adapter ring.&#xA;Auto Compensating tripod. This compensates for the rotation of the earth for long exposure shots. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some shots take a few hours and some post processing to get a really good deep space photo. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="335" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T04:33:20.203" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1185" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="230" CreationDate="2010-07-23T05:30:05.767" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Personally i've only used photoshop's photomerge and the panorama creator built into windows live photo gallery. They seem to be about as good as each other to me - i.e both need to be 'cleaned up' if you want them to be flawless - but for just a quick panorama i now prefer photo gallery simply for its ease of use&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(example done using WL Photo Gallery &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaips/4309314024/in/photostream/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaips/4309314024/in/photostream/&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="416" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T05:30:05.767" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-03T13:16:05.547" />
  <row Id="1186" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1191" CreationDate="2010-07-23T05:44:36.133" Score="7" ViewCount="743" Body="&lt;p&gt;I once experimented with standing in a dark room and directing a laser pointer towards my digital camera with a long shutter speed while moving the two about. I made a few images that way; one was quite satisfying once the colours were altered in GIMP. But, after the first few, it occurred to me that doing this might risk damage to the sensor. Is there a real worry, here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="350" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T18:41:20.060" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T18:41:20.060" Title="Can a laser pointer damage the sensor in a digital camera?" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;equipment-damage&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1187" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="230" CreationDate="2010-07-23T05:52:39.380" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://cvlab.epfl.ch/~brown/autostitch/autostitch.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Autostitch&lt;/a&gt; (for &lt;a href=&quot;http://itunes.apple.com/app/autostitch-panorama/id318944927?mt=8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;iPhone&lt;/a&gt; too). Super easy and very good at stitching&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="282" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T05:52:39.380" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-03T13:16:05.547" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1188" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1189" CreationDate="2010-07-23T05:53:57.130" Score="3" ViewCount="222" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do I to calibrate my monitor (using maybe something to help me ?) so the images I get with my digital dslr is shown on monitor correctly - at least on monitor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I say, something to help me, I imaging from a digital photo on Internet that I can use it to make the calibration up to a robot that comes to my office and make the calibration :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 1995 I was have create this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.inathos.gr/athos/en/gamma.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;page&lt;/a&gt; for calibrate my monitor. You need to blur your eyes to compare the colors, the outside is 18% gray shade between your black and white of your monitor. &lt;strong&gt;The Is this correct or not ? Did this page works ?&lt;/strong&gt; I still think that is correct. Some &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.inathos.gr/athos/en/SetupMonitor.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;infos&lt;/a&gt; for that page - just blur your eyes and try to not see the cycle to get the middle tone on each color and on all together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="236" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-24T04:27:58.760" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T04:27:58.760" Title="how to calibrate my monitor to match the 18% gray tone ?" Tags="&lt;display-calibration&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1189" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1188" CreationDate="2010-07-23T06:05:50.773" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Essentially your web page is correct.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Display Calibration depends on your operating system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By far the easiest, least error prone way is to use a colorimeter, like the Eye-One or Spider systems. These plug into your computer, then you place the sensor on your montior, run it's software, wait a minute or too, and it'll generate a proper color profile for your display. The downside is colorimeters are not cheap. I think I paid $150 for mine, and it was used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next way, on a PC, is to use Adobe Gamma. It has you walk through a series of steps, much like your web-page with the eye blur, and lets you eye-ball set the calibration. It's not as accurate as a hardware based setup, but it works better than the default.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a Mac, under System Preferences-&gt;Display-&gt;Color there is an option to calibrate your display, again by eye, using a setup similar to your page.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/color-management-essentials-in-photoshop-cs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This is a decent article on color management&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T06:05:50.773" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1190" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1188" CreationDate="2010-07-23T06:08:54.137" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To calibrate your monitor you need a calibration device like a DataColor Spyder or X-Rite DTP94, or a monitor with inbuild calibration device like the Eizo CG245w.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These will calibrate the colors of your monitor, but usually not the brightness. To really calibrate brightness you need to take the lighting of your working place into account, you need controlled lighting, which might be overkill for your situation.&#xA;Simplified you can use some calibration tools to set the monitor brightness to around 100cm/m2, which is quite good for working on pictures (most monitors are way too bright).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T06:08:54.137" />
  <row Id="1191" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1186" CreationDate="2010-07-23T06:10:11.123" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Oh man. Yes lasers can and will damage your camera's sensor! Your laser pointer is probably weak enough, but I still wouldn't risk it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Light painting (as you were doing), is okay, so long as you're not pointing your laser directly into the lens, however, if you plan on doing more light painting, I would switch to an LED or incandescent source instead of a laser.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.laserist.org/camera-sensor-damage.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Info&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.planet5d.com/2010/07/lasers-can-damage-your-canon-hdslr-cameras-cmos-sensor/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;More info here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T06:10:11.123" />
  <row Id="1193" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1061" CreationDate="2010-07-23T07:37:45.627" Score="17" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You don't need any special equipment if you're just starting out with astrophotography. So forget about a telescope and an equatorial mount (to counter the earth's rotation) just for now, it's complicated enough already without those things ;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides the moon you can take wide field shots of the night sky with your 20D and a normal lens and tripod. I suggest you use a lens that has a large aperture (e.g. the 50mm F1.8) since you want to capture as much light as possible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a fixed (normal alt/az) tripod you could try photographing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/TRIPOD/TRIPOD1.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;constellations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/TRIPOD/TRIPOD2.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;star trails&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because the rotation of the earth the stars appear to move. Therefore you need to limit the exposure time unless you want to photograph star trails. There are some guidelines to determine the maximum exposure time on the Astropix site (I have a calculation somewhere as well, I'll try too look it up for you). It's advisable to take multiple photo's of the sky and stack these. This will improve the signal/noise ratio considerably. &lt;a href=&quot;http://deepskystacker.free.fr/english/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DeepskyStacker&lt;/a&gt; is an easy (and freeware) tool to help you stacking your images. The images do not have to be aligned. DeepskyStacker will do the alignment and registration for you. If you find DeepskyStacker too limited you can also try &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/us/iris/iris.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;IRIS&lt;/a&gt;. This tool is not so user friendly but it offers many more options than DeepskyStacker.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you've mastered astrophotography with a fixed tripod and a normal lens you can consider an equatorial mount and a telescope. Since a telescope will magnify the image so much you will need an equatorial mount otherwise the stars and galaxies will move out of your frame in seconds. Buy the best equatorial mount you can afford. I had a Orion Skyview Pro mount which was not so well performing so it was useless for serious astrophotography. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.losmandy.com/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Losmandy GM-8&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vixenoptics.com/mounts/sphinx.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Vixen Sphinx&lt;/a&gt; mounts are far better. If you only want to use the camera the &lt;a href=&quot;http://telescopereviews.com/item.php?item_id=1591&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kenko Skymemo&lt;/a&gt; would be a good solution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many different telescopes you can choose (refractor, reflector, catadioptics) and each has their pros and cons (could be another post ;). I had an Orion ED80 refractor and was very happy with it. To connect your camera to a telescope you'll need a photo adapter like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.telescopes.com/telescope-accessories/photographic/2inchphotoadapter.cfm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Last but not least: if you live in an area with lots of light pollution you can consider buying a light pollution filter. I can recommend the front filters from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sciencecenter.net/hutech/filters/ffilter.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hutech&lt;/a&gt;. These filters are placed in the camera body and therefore work with many types of lenses and telescopes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clear skies! (this is the standard astrophotographer greeting :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As promised: Here's a &lt;a href=&quot;https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AmO0s4zVkQSzdHpPODc5Q0kydUpJQVJCVGJtYXRkVnc&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;authkey=CIi7jG0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;link&lt;/a&gt; to a Google spreadsheet where you can calculate the maximum exposure time without trailing stars. You need to provide 2 numbers: camera crop factor and focal length of the lens. The final parameter is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declination&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;declination&lt;/a&gt; of the celestial object (already available in the table in 5 deg steps to get a rough idea).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastEditorUserId="19" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-11T19:39:05.353" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T19:39:05.353" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1194" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1177" CreationDate="2010-07-23T08:01:07.083" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some cameras, support setting an owner name on the camera, which will end up in the EXIF metadata on the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are thousands of programs for adding extra keywords and other information, and you'll find people rave about their favourite. Personally, I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.microsoft.com/prophoto/downloads/default.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Microsoft Pro Photo Tools&lt;/a&gt; which happens to be free, and allows me to add information as to where the photo was taken (&quot;geotagging&quot;) as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T08:01:07.083" />
  <row Id="1195" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1177" CreationDate="2010-07-23T08:02:17.330" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Photoshop will allow you to add your copyright information etc to the EXIF, it also allows you to save templates of your common information for easy addition to new images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="430" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T08:02:17.330" />
  <row Id="1196" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="208" CreationDate="2010-07-23T08:07:47.427" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd go with Photoshop Mobile app it seems the best that I've tried so far.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="430" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T08:07:47.427" />
  <row Id="1197" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1186" CreationDate="2010-07-23T08:13:35.150" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't worry too much... it's taken them 50 years to work out to generate enough power to shoot down an aeroplane, and they are using considerably more power than the AA battery in a hand held pointer has...  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said that, small torches (maglights or similar) are fine for light painting.  When I've done it I've never pointed the light source at the camera, but &quot;painted&quot; over the object I'm photographing: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrbennstep/2242968500/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrbennstep/2242968500/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="186" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T08:13:35.150" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1198" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="948" CreationDate="2010-07-23T08:19:59.580" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I never use bracketing.  I don't want the shot where the composition subject's expression is just perfect to be the one that got underexposed or overexposed by the bracketing.  Minor adjustments in exposure can easily be made in post-processing.  Telling people at an event to strike the same pose again is much more difficult.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do regularly check the exposure after taking a shot and use exposure compensation to adjust the following shots as needed.  I find that as long as I watch out for blown highlights, the metering and dynamic range of modern digital cameras is good enough that I don't have to throw away any shots because the exposure couldn't be fixed in post-processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or maybe I'm just lazy.  Exposure compensation can be dialed in directly and set in small steps on any serious camera.  The amount of overexposure and underexposure used by bracketing is usually buried in some menu.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T08:19:59.580" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1199" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1177" CreationDate="2010-07-23T08:21:29.797" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a comprehensive list at &lt;a href=&quot;http://exif.photofb.com/how-to-edit-exif-info.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://exif.photofb.com/how-to-edit-exif-info.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="185" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T08:21:29.797" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="1200" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="831" CreationDate="2010-07-23T08:21:48.577" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If your plan is to keep the photos in albums on your iPhone, surely you should import and delete all photos from the Camera Roll and then rely on your workflow using iTunes and albums to put them back on the iPhone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="271" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T08:21:48.577" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1201" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="57" CreationDate="2010-07-23T08:22:39.857" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use one mainly to protect the lens from dust and scratches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="430" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T08:22:39.857" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1202" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="406" CreationDate="2010-07-23T08:25:54.620" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why not stop using JPEG images and use RAW exclusively? To make Windows Live Gallery work with RAW images buy a copy of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/codecs/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;FastPictureViewer Codec Pack&lt;/a&gt; which opens the various RAW image formats up to most applications, even including Windows Explorer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="271" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T08:25:54.620" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1203" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1069" CreationDate="2010-07-23T08:35:40.010" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I used my Olympus 4/3 camera and the Zuiko 50mm lens to photograph our newborn with excellent results.  That lens is equivalent to a 100mm on a 35mm camera, so it's even more telephoto that a 50mm on your Canon.  Newborns are very small and don't move around.  You can easily take a step back or lift the camera up (using live view) to get a wider view.  Taking pictures up close with a wider lens often gives less flattering results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I don't think you'll find your 50mm to be too much of a telephoto.  Save your money to buy a fast action zoom lens once your kid starts running around and zooming with your feet becomes tiresome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T08:35:40.010" />
  <row Id="1204" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1172" CreationDate="2010-07-23T08:35:57.407" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some cameras will write the focus information to the EXIF (e.g. focus point used, focus distance).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can try &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.softpedia.com/progDownload/KUSO-Exif-Viewer-Download-52677.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KUSO Exif Viewer&lt;/a&gt; to see what it can reveal about your files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The specification for ExposureProgram (0x8822) can be found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.awaresystems.be/imaging/tiff/tifftags/privateifd/exif/exposureprogram.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.awaresystems.be/imaging/tiff/tifftags/privateifd/exif/exposureprogram.html&lt;/a&gt; and doesn't differentiate between auto and program mode (although maybe some cameras would put the scene mode chosen by the auto program, if their auto program fucntions like that).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="185" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T08:35:57.407" />
  <row Id="1205" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="321" CreationDate="2010-07-23T08:37:36.183" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Google Picasa is available for Linux &lt;a href=&quot;http://picasa.google.com/linux/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;download page&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've had limited success in getting digikam working on Ubuntu.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="430" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T08:37:36.183" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1206" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="566" CreationDate="2010-07-23T08:43:49.057" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are essentially two kinds of &quot;slow synchro&quot; flash: front curtain and rear curtain.  Most point-and-shoot cameras only support front curtain.  The flash fires immediately when you press the shutter button, and the shutter stays open a little while longer to capture more ambient light.  Most &quot;serious&quot; cameras also offer rear curtain flash.  When you press the shutter button, the shutter opens to capture ambient light.  The flash fires at the end of the exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key difference between the two is that if your subject moves during the exposure, rear curtain flash makes the movement look like tail, an impression of where the subject has been.  This generally looks best.  Front curtain flash gives the opposite look, which tends to look weird.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T08:43:49.057" />
  <row Id="1207" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1061" CreationDate="2010-07-23T08:46:41.983" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One thing I'd reccomend is getting along to your local club.  There will be people there who can help you, and you may well be able to borrow equipment to try out.  One near me (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wyas.org.uk/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;West Yorkshire Astronomical Society&lt;/a&gt;) even have a motorised 16&quot; or so reflector and a group that meets to do photography (with that and other telescopes), obviously if there was something like that near you it would be ideal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T08:46:41.983" />
  <row Id="1208" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="230" CreationDate="2010-07-23T09:14:12.593" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have played with various panoramic software tools over the years and without doubt, Autopano is the clear winner for me. It stitches images that I don't even expect it to be able to handle. I'm a wedding photographer and incorporate hand-held panoramic work at weddings which requires some great stitching technology when the images haven't been captured on a tripod.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I love capturing panoramas on my iPhone too and for this, I use Autostitch Panorama. I post examples to my iPhone Photography blog here:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.iphonebroadcast.co.uk/?tag=autostitch-panorama&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.iphonebroadcast.co.uk/?tag=autostitch-panorama&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="436" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T09:14:12.593" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-03T13:16:05.547" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1209" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1172" CreationDate="2010-07-23T09:24:00.963" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm very keen on geotagging, and try to tag all of my pictures with a location. I find it's much easier to remember &lt;em&gt;where&lt;/em&gt; I took a photo than to remember exactly &lt;em&gt;when&lt;/em&gt; I took it, for some reason. So that's probably my most-used EXIF tag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some newer cameras have GPS and can do this automatically. For other cameras, you'll need to carry a separate GPS unit and insert the EXIF tags later - I've had good results with a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gisteq.com/PhotoTrackr/phototrackr-cd111.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gisteq PhotoTrackr&lt;/a&gt;, which can be had for about £65.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T09:24:00.963" />
  <row Id="1210" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-23T09:25:32.960" Score="4" ViewCount="390" Body="&lt;p&gt;I love capturing panoramas on my iPhone and for this, I use Autostitch Panorama. But does anyone know of a &quot;sweep style&quot; App for the iPhone that mimics the technique used in the new compact Sony cameras? This would be a great App to have if it was effective. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I post examples to my iPhone Photography blog here:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.iphonebroadcast.co.uk/?tag=autostitch-panorama&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.iphonebroadcast.co.uk/?tag=autostitch-panorama&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="436" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T10:52:47.903" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T20:30:34.750" Title="&quot;Sweep&quot; style iPhone Panorama App." Tags="&lt;panorama&gt;&lt;iphone&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1211" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1100" CreationDate="2010-07-23T09:29:21.607" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Photoshop, with the image open, select:&lt;br&gt;Filter/Distort/Lens Correction&lt;br&gt; It's a lot cheaper than buying a Shift Lens for the occasional correction and in most cases, is very effective. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="436" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T09:29:21.607" />
  <row Id="1212" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1183" CreationDate="2010-07-23T10:15:38.830" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You just drag from the layers tab, the smart object and drop it to the other window with the second photo that you like to copy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="236" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T10:15:38.830" />
  <row Id="1213" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1183" CreationDate="2010-07-23T10:16:45.973" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For a layer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In your original image right click the layer in the list and select the &quot;Duplicate Layer...&quot; option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You get a dialog prompting for the new layer name and (importantly in this case) a Destination drop down. It's defaulted to the current document but you can select another open document or create a new document. If you select another document you can also set it's name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="441" LastEditorUserId="441" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T10:23:02.663" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T10:23:02.663" />
  <row Id="1214" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1100" CreationDate="2010-07-23T10:23:13.550" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As previus say, tilt-shift lens are expensive, I also add, that you need and a good tripod to make them really horizontial, and they are big and a little heavy. Also tilt-shift lens did not have extreme quality, as other lens (at least when I have made the checks some years ago).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;There is a very fast and easy way to correct the distortion on photoshop with the crop tool.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;here is a tutorial about.&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://akvis.com/en/photoshop-tips/perspective-distortion.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://akvis.com/en/photoshop-tips/perspective-distortion.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have deside to not use them because I am not profesional and not leave by photograph, so I just go with the crop tool from the ps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="236" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T10:23:13.550" />
  <row Id="1215" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1100" CreationDate="2010-07-23T11:00:52.867" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A tilt and shift lens allows you to redirect the plane of focus in an image to exaggerate the sharpness of a particular area (or plane). This is accomplished by moving the lens up, down, or sideways (or often a combination of the two) that allows the photographer to achieve some interesting effects, such as achieving the maximum possible depth of field in a landscape image while still using a large aperture (which would normally greatly restrict depth of field). Product photography also benefits from the use of tilt and shift (or perspective control) lenses as it allows the product in question to be pin sharp and in focus from near to far. Ansel Adams used this technique to incredible effect in many of his photographs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In answer to your question, yes, a tilt and shift lens will allow you to remove the converging verticals you mention above. I'd recommend renting one for a week or so to try and get the hang of it...it's quite tricky at first. Also, a full frame camera such as a D700 will greatly improve the effect you'll see as the D300's APS-C sensor will give greater depth of field and restrict the effect. See below for a D300 shot I took in Newcastle for an example! Hope this helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/cochranephotography/4820897414/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/cochranephotography/4820897414/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T11:00:52.867" />
  <row Id="1216" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1069" CreationDate="2010-07-23T11:03:18.980" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I second the recommendation to go wide with either the Tamron or Sigma lensen that go from 17/18mm to 50-70mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 EX and that is a really proper performer for its price. I think they have newer ones out now which are even better and all of them are under the $500 budget.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'd want to go wide rather than narrow so anything beyond 50mm isn't as important as the bit between 17-24 is. And also you may want to look into one where the aperture doesn't degrade as sharply as mine. Get a flat f/2.8 if you can find 'em (for instance the 18-50mm f/2.8).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="437" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T11:03:18.980" />
  <row Id="1217" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="321" CreationDate="2010-07-23T11:12:08.450" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't forget about virtual machine software like VMWare or Oracle/Sun's VirtualBox, which will let you run Windows programs from your Linux environment.  The latest VM software is able to support DirectX in the Windows client, and I think both of these options have a &quot;seamless&quot; mode that lets you view a Windows program right on your Linux desktop, as if the program were running right on your Linux OS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a small performance penalty for running in a VM, but if you can't find a good native-Linux option, this might give you some additional choices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T11:12:08.450" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1218" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1172" CreationDate="2010-07-23T11:21:41.693" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I usually look at EXIF if I found something wrong with the picture and want to learn from it. Plain obvious, but most useful are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;aperture (is the DOF too deep/too shallow? does my lens really vignette so much at that aperture?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;shutter speed (was it fast enough to freeze motion/cancel hand shaking? or was it slow enough to get the desired effect?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ISO (why is my picture so noisy?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;focus mode in case of focus errors (didn't I switch to manual incidentally?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;exposure compensation (didn't I notice the blown highlights?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;lens used/focal length (do I like/dislike the field of view?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;time/time between shots (how was the light and how did it change between shots?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;anything intentionally set to custom value (white balance, metering, self-timer, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;date becomes important later&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For JPG shooter the picture settings like white balance/contrast/saturation/sharpness/quality are probably also very important things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you own multiple cameras then the camera itself also becomes important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People who use flashes will probably care about whether it fired and what was the flash exposure compensation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T13:14:39.417" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T13:14:39.417" />
  <row Id="1219" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1069" CreationDate="2010-07-23T11:35:49.347" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As someone who has gone through this very exercise just recently, I can safely recommend the Canon 35mm f2.0&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Firstly, you definitely don't want to blind the baby, and even bounce flash causes his/her eyes to close tightly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You also definitely want a fast lens - and here I wouldn't recommend anything slower than f2.0.&#xA;I first bought the highly rated Canon 50mm f1.4, but found it WAY too zoomed in on a 1.6x crop factor. I also found it to be very soft wide open, meaning it needed to be stopped down to f2.0 or f2.8 before being sharp enough anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After much research I settled on the Canon 35mm f2.0. It is very sharp at f2.0 and has obviously a much better crop factor. It's very reasonably priced if you don't want to buy L glass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Highly recommended!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another lens which appears to be a very good option is the Canon 28mm f1.8. It costs around $460. I have not personally used it, but I am interested in getting it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: Don't forget to set your white balance else your pics will be way too warm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="447" LastEditorUserId="447" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T12:10:36.957" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T12:10:36.957" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1220" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1221" CreationDate="2010-07-23T11:37:03.307" Score="5" ViewCount="63" Body="&lt;p&gt;The new Lightroom 3 and Adobe Camera Raw 6.1 have a lens and body database included to automatically correct your image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a small description of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/features/?view=topnew&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this new features&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Quickly and easily perfect your images&#xA;  by automatically reducing lens defects&#xA;  like geometric distortion, chromatic&#xA;  aberration, and vignetting with&#xA;  single-click profiles. Even images&#xA;  from the best lenses will be improved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the problem is, for Nikon and Canon, only a limited set of lenses and bodies are included, Adobe has released a program to create your &lt;a href=&quot;http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lensprofile_creator/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;own lens profiles&lt;/a&gt; but I haven't been able to find a community which posts their profiles. I image a nice database for this could be created to share these profiles with others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So is there a community which shares these profiles or does everyone keep the profiles private?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To clarify, yes I know that in Photoshop you can search for other submitted profiles, but it seems to lack quality control and cannot be used in Lightroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="245" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T11:43:58.430" Title="Where can you find user created camera and lens profiles for Lightroom 3 and Camera Raw 6.1" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;post-processing&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1221" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1220" CreationDate="2010-07-23T11:43:58.430" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;After asking this question and searching some more I found a Adobe employee confirming they were creating a site for this purpose. See: &lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.adobe.com/thread/682560?tstart=0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;[suggestion] shared profiles server&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="245" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T11:43:58.430" />
  <row Id="1222" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="93" CreationDate="2010-07-23T11:55:13.353" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your best bet is a &quot;Contax/Yashica&quot; (or C/Y) adapter for Canon or Nikon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most adapters will only make the physical connection and leave you in complete manual mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the nicer ones, like those from &lt;a href=&quot;http://shop.ebay.com/happypagehk/m.html?_nkw=&amp;amp;_armrs=1&amp;amp;_from=&amp;amp;_ipg=&amp;amp;_trksid=p3686&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;HappyPageHK&quot; on ebay&lt;/a&gt;, also have focus confirmation chips that allow you to use some of the auto-focus features from the new cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T11:55:13.353" />
  <row Id="1223" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="444" CreationDate="2010-07-23T12:04:16.580" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have used Picnik for some basic edits of pictures I've upload to Flickr.&#xA;It is okay for a quick crop or levels correction of the mobile phones I upload.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One things I've noticed about the free version at least is that when you save the image the JPEG compression is quite high, which is good if you want to reduce the file size but bad if you want to keep the quality of the original. So my advice would to always, save it as a new image and keep the unaltered original.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="430" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T12:04:16.580" />
  <row Id="1224" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1172" CreationDate="2010-07-23T12:04:35.563" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's the C struct from a 2003 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.codeproject.com/KB/graphics/cexif.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CodeProject&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;typedef struct tag_ExifInfo {&#xA;    char  Version      [5];&#xA;    char  CameraMake   [32];&#xA;    char  CameraModel  [40];&#xA;    char  DateTime     [20];&#xA;    int   Height, Width;&#xA;    int   Orientation;&#xA;    int   IsColor;&#xA;    int   Process;&#xA;    int   FlashUsed;&#xA;    float FocalLength;&#xA;    float ExposureTime;&#xA;    float ApertureFNumber;&#xA;    float Distance;&#xA;    float CCDWidth;&#xA;    float ExposureBias;&#xA;    int   Whitebalance;&#xA;    int   MeteringMode;&#xA;    int   ExposureProgram;&#xA;    int   ISOequivalent;&#xA;    int   CompressionLevel;&#xA;    float FocalplaneXRes;&#xA;    float FocalplaneYRes;&#xA;    float FocalplaneUnits;&#xA;    float Xresolution;&#xA;    float Yresolution;&#xA;    float ResolutionUnit;&#xA;    float Brightness;&#xA;    char  Comments[MAX_COMMENT];&#xA;    unsigned char * ThumbnailPointer;&#xA;    unsigned ThumbnailSize;&#xA;    bool  IsExif;&#xA;} EXIFINFO;&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I adapted the program to rename image files the way I wanted them but &lt;em&gt;Nikon Transfer&lt;/em&gt; does the job for me now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="452" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T12:04:35.563" />
  <row Id="1225" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="406" CreationDate="2010-07-23T12:06:52.860" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps you could write a program to extract the information out of the jpg's using the API from microsoft (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee719799.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Overview of Reading and Writing Image Metadata&lt;/a&gt;) and create XMP files from them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I suggest this alternative because you've got a StackOverflow account.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="245" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T12:06:52.860" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1226" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1100" CreationDate="2010-07-23T12:11:47.577" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A tilt-shift lens is indeed the best way to correct this effect in-camera, but even then, it can look odd if the distortion is quite high. The example you have given should be OK. If you want to do it in post-processing, Lightroom 3 now has built-in perspective correction tools. When you use them, a grid overlays the photo which is updated live, so you can spot when the verticals become parallel. With a high-enough resolution image, this should produce results almost as good as with a T/S lens, for a lot less money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T12:11:47.577" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1227" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="321" CreationDate="2010-07-23T12:18:33.727" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kphotoalbum.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;kphotoalbum&lt;/a&gt; which is a great piece of software. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I keep my photos organized in it. It allows me to tag the photos in diffrent categories - be it &lt;code&gt;people&lt;/code&gt;, &lt;code&gt;places&lt;/code&gt; or &lt;code&gt;events&lt;/code&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My usual workflow with it is to import photos (which means just to copy them to the program's direcotory; I keep the photos in subdirectories named after dates of copying them from my card to PC), then reviewing. What I start with is to group similar photos (like a few from a single burst shooting) in one group. Then I review the groups again and mark the photos with tags, usually 1-letter ones, to mark them for printing, web gallery export or posting to online forums or such.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the shooting was for the client, I also select photos I want to show her at this step.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After all this, I edit the pictures I selected, either starting with &lt;code&gt;RAWs&lt;/code&gt; or with JPEGs. Editing means curves, cropping, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Kphotoalbum also has a nice selection of plugins that automate exporting pictures to picasa web albums, flickr, creating flash or html galleries, and many others.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="320" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T12:18:33.727" />
  <row Id="1228" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-23T12:19:04.630" Score="5" ViewCount="144" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a mediocre photographer, so I take lots of photos and delete most of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I thought I would be able to load the photos on to the iPad and review and delete them when convenient, but you can't delete the photos on the iPad from the iPad, except for the 'saved photos', which means I can't use folders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What other options are there that would allow me to load or access the original photos from the iPad and delete the ones I don't want to keep&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not have the camera connection kit, I'd prefer an option that just used the iPad as is, though I'd buy one if it was necessary&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="458" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T21:26:53.243" LastActivityDate="2010-10-07T11:57:37.543" Title="What options are there for reviewing photographs on an iPad" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;ipad&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1229" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="694" CreationDate="2010-07-23T12:21:36.620" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure how well Lightroom performs when your catalog grows too large. I'd recommend improving general system performance by addressing the following areas:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;faster &amp;amp; more system memory (limited by the 32-bit XP in this case but max out at 3GB if you can)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;faster disk (at least 7200 RPM spindle, striped as RAID-0 or RAID-1+0 if you can afford it)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;faster processor (the more cores the merrier, Lightroom might not make use of them directly, but the system is a multi-tasking OS and will make use of them nonetheless)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;upgrade to Windows 7 (huge improvements in I/O (memory &amp;amp; disk) as well as processor core usage)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of Lightroom itself, I can only suggest creating smaller catalogs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="271" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T12:21:36.620" />
  <row Id="1230" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1235" CreationDate="2010-07-23T12:26:39.013" Score="9" ViewCount="463" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is probably an old chestnut, but I'm trying to decide between purchasing Adobe Lightroom or Aperture for Mac, and would appreciate any pointers that would help me decide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think I've outgrown iPhoto, and would like to spend a little more time post processing my RAW files to get the best out of them.  I guess in the future, I'd like to try some HDR stuff too (if that has any relevance).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="460" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T00:12:37.347" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T00:12:37.347" Title="Apple Aperture or Adobe Lightroom" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;macintosh&gt;&lt;apple-aperture&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="1231" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="156" CreationDate="2010-07-23T12:30:02.283" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently found &lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Photography School&lt;/a&gt; to have a good selection of tutorial on post processing as well as other areas of photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="430" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T12:30:02.283" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-23T12:16:00.387" />
  <row Id="1232" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1228" CreationDate="2010-07-23T12:35:08.653" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have you tried Photoshop.com Mobile app?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="430" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T12:35:08.653" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1233" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2216" CreationDate="2010-07-23T12:37:36.387" Score="2" ViewCount="307" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm currently running a 2008 unibody 15&quot; MacBook Pro 2.53 with 320GB 5400 RPM hard drive and 4GB of system memory. I've upgraded to Snow Leopard and I'm running Lightroom 3 (64-bit).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have two problems with my setup currently and I'm seeking recommendations on improving the situation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;memory usage during processing exceeds 1.5GB&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;time to move between images in Develop module is painfully slow&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've noticed that system memory usage typically goes up drastically during export to JPEG. Is this normal and how much memory is normal? It seems the larger the set of photos being exported, the greater the amount of memory is needed. I often find myself staring at Activity Monitor and shutting down all other applications to free up as much RAM as possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then switching photos in the Develop module takes ages for me. I think this is a disk related issue so I'm thinking new larger 7200 RPM hard drive should sort that out. The current hard drive is a Hitachi 320GB 5400 RPM drive and it often seems to be the bottleneck when installing applications and writing data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any recommendations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="271" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T20:21:26.380" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T20:55:00.243" Title="Mac hardware recommendations for Lightroom 3" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;macintosh&gt;&lt;hardware&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="1234" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="321" CreationDate="2010-07-23T12:37:53.873" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been using f-spot for a few years. It works very well for me. It only has very basic functionnality, but integrates well with Gimp. It is also very easy to backup : all the photos are in the directory of your choice, and the database is a single file. You can also ask it to store your tags in the exif infos, so even if you loose the database it is not too much of a problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="461" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T12:37:53.873" />
  <row Id="1235" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1230" CreationDate="2010-07-23T12:39:21.127" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Personally I much prefer Lightroom, though I suspect you'll find this argument goes on as long as the Mac vs PC or Canon vs Nikon debates.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lightroom is more expensive but has far more features, and (surprisingly) seems easier to use, but that may just be because I'm more used to it. The main advantage of Aperture is that it integrates with your other iLife apps, and has (I believe) built-in print ordering options, much like iPhoto does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aperture doesn't have as many image adjustment tools as Lightroom, like split-toning (where you colour the highlights and shadows different tints), and graduated filter, and the noise reduction in the latest version of Lightroom is mind-blowingly good. Neither of them supports HDR images as far as I know, but Lightroom integrates more tightly with Photoshop (as you'd expect) which is where you may be doing most of your HDR work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can download trial versions of both so it's worth giving them a try and seeing what you prefer working with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(One other consideration - Aperture requires an Intel processor, not sure what you have but if it's G5 or earlier then you can't use Aperture)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastEditorUserId="456" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-28T12:29:53.973" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T12:29:53.973" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="1236" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="694" CreationDate="2010-07-23T13:03:58.907" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't let the catalogue grow too large.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Separating your pictures into several catalogues can bring a lot of speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me the main waiting point is waiting for lightroom to render the 1:1 previews - if I let lightroom render those on import I can usually work faster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course putting the catalogue on a fast harddisk (SSD) helps, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T13:03:58.907" />
  <row Id="1237" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1100" CreationDate="2010-07-23T13:13:24.177" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While the tilt-shift lens is expensive, i have rented lenses from &lt;a href=&quot;http://lensrentals.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Lens Rentals&quot;&gt;LensRentals.com&lt;/a&gt;.  i have had awesome experienced with LensRentals.com - i rented a tilt-shift (Nikon 85mm f/2.8 PC-E) for 21 days for about $260 all-in, including insurance and shipping.  They also have the 45mm PC lens if you're interested (it's probably better for building/architecture photography).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certainly not free, but a great opportunity to try something that you wouldn't normally get to do.  Other times i've rented lenses i was considering buying, and this is a great way to get the experience you want with Lens Rentals's first-quality glass.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="240" LastEditorUserId="240" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-02T11:14:38.583" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T11:14:38.583" />
  <row Id="1238" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1103" CreationDate="2010-07-23T13:22:01.067" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found infrared remotes to be too slow for my taste, and bought a cheap YongNuo RF-602 sender/receiver pair (less than $50) for my nikon.&#xA;It is not perfect, but way better than any infrared remote I ever owned: no need to point the remote to the cam, the delay is shorter, works over bigger distance.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I even bought extra cables so I can use it with any of my DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, and it can be used to remote trigger your flash, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T13:22:01.067" />
  <row Id="1239" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="383" CreationDate="2010-07-23T13:23:19.973" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you get a screw-on filter (e.g. a polariser) then you should get a good quality coated one. With digital cameras, the sensor is very reflective, so light entering the camera has a tendency to bounce off the sensor and back off the filter, causing a ghosting effect. This is reduced/eliminated with a coated filter. Note also that a polariser also acts as a 1-2 stop neutral density filter so you will need wider apertures or slower shutter speed/ISO to counter the effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neutral density graduated filters are also very useful, as even though the effect can be reproduced in PP, you will retain more detail in highlit areas using the physical filter. Recovering a blown sky in post risks a weird 'grey border' effect, where saturated highlights that were originally blue become pure white, and when darkened in post turn an incongruous grey. I'm a big fan of getting it right in camera as much as possible, but that's not to say you should NEVER make adjustments afterwards. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T13:23:19.973" />
  <row Id="1240" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1230" CreationDate="2010-07-23T13:28:11.553" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your best bet would be to give both apps a try - as far as I know you can download trials for both software, so you can see which one is better fitting for your work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T13:28:11.553" />
  <row Id="1241" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1230" CreationDate="2010-07-23T13:40:28.183" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is very subjective, do as mentioned above and download the trials for both. They are both equally great. Personally though, I went with Aperture, as I don't like the modularized approach of Lightroom. Its also a lot cheaper. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing not mentioned above is the community surrounding each application. Take a look at the plugins available for each platform, hang out in forums during your 30 day trial. And see what your friends are using.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="342" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T13:40:28.183" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1242" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="383" CreationDate="2010-07-23T14:01:40.583" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just a clear filter for protection and to allow you to clean it without having to touch the actual surface of the lens. That's my advice.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt; Get a high quality one, perhaps Hoya and it's really all you need for the vast majority of cases. The only one I would say is work keeping in your bag perhaps is a graduated Neutral Density for darkening skies.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;For effects, I now do all my work in Lightroom/Photoshop:&lt;br&gt;www.talkingpictures.info&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="436" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T14:01:40.583" />
  <row Id="1243" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1246" CreationDate="2010-07-23T14:08:48.833" Score="3" ViewCount="162" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Nikon- and Canon-branded battery grips are insanely expensive.  What alternatives are out there, and where is the best place to buy them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="309" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T00:46:42.753" Title="Recommendations for off-brand battery grips for DSLRs" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;accessories&gt;&lt;batteries&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="1244" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="139" CreationDate="2010-07-23T14:28:13.483" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just a technical nitpick on kristof's answer (since I can't leave comments yet):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depth of field is not directly affected by focal length, but rather the working distance between the camera and the subject.  It is tied to perspective distortion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With a full frame camera, you will stand closer to the subject, comparatively exaggerating distances (compared to longer focal lengths) and creating a more shallow depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is the same reason why Olympus and 4/3rd cameras can simulate FF depth of field by simply standing closer and stitching.  This user simulates sub f1 images on different gear: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/carpeicthus/2922047522/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/carpeicthus/2922047522/&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK1JWPN65CVOSZV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK1JWPN65CVOSZV/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Focal length is a physical measurement, but is nothing more than magnification.  It is the same as simply cropping an image or adding a teleconverter.  When you crop a 50mm f/2 image by 1.4x, you will get the same depth of field as a 70mm f2.8, with the loss in pixel resolution associated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is precisely why they call it a crop factor, as that is what a smaller sensor is effectively doing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T14:39:14.160" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T14:39:14.160" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1245" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1233" CreationDate="2010-07-23T14:40:16.637" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Memory usage is fine, as long as you have enough system memory to cover it. Once you start running out of memory, then you'll notice performance problems. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Switching between images in LR3 is a bit slow; I think there are enough users who report this issue that an update to lightroom will address it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You've probably nailed it, the 5400 RPM hdd is your biggest bottleneck. That said, you should forego the 7200 RPM and go for an SSD. I replaced my 7200 RPM drive in my MBP with an SSD, and the MBP performance screams.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T14:40:16.637" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1246" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1243" CreationDate="2010-07-23T14:47:17.603" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I &lt;strong&gt;highly&lt;/strong&gt; recommend &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Zeikos-ZE-CBG5DII-Battery-Grip-Canon/dp/B00246XB1S/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1279896096&amp;amp;sr=1-2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Zeikos&lt;/a&gt; battery grips. I have the Zeikos grip for my 5D Mark II, and I could not be happier. It matches my 5D2 perfectly, with no flex. With two batteries, it gives it enough heft to match my bigger lenses. It has vertical shooting controls (which I never use), and sits firmly attached to my 5D2 body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I bought it from Amazon, paid $90.00, compared to the $250.00 that Canon's brand grip cost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding reliability, I've taken it with me now on several shooting trips: Greece, Holland, Germany, Spain, France, Sweden and Finland, and it's never had a single failure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've not handled the Canon 5D2 grip, but the Zeikos feels &lt;em&gt;identical&lt;/em&gt; to my canon brand 40D grip. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe they also make Nikon grips, but I can't speak to them, as I am a Canon shooter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are definitely a chinese knock-off brand, but the quality is surprisingly good, and if you need a grip and are looking to save money; you can't beat it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, just a word of caution: while I recommend 3rd party grips, I can't recommend 3rd party batteries. I've read enough horror stories to stick with Canon's over priced batteries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T14:47:17.603" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1247" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1210" CreationDate="2010-07-23T14:49:39.047" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was looking for something similar for my Android phone and I came across this in the Google search, maybe this is what you are after?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jefframos.com/2010/01/review-videopano-for-the-iphone/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;VideoPano&lt;/a&gt; makes panoramic images straight from videos!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="430" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T14:49:39.047" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1248" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1230" CreationDate="2010-07-23T14:51:17.127" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my opinion, the biggest advantage of using Lightroom is seamlessly moving between PC and Mac (which I often do).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aperture has a lot of great features, but in the end I preferred Lightroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T14:51:17.127" />
  <row Id="1249" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="156" CreationDate="2010-07-23T14:52:08.077" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I also recommend going to forums that have post-processing contests, where everyone post-processes one image and explains their technique, and the submitter chooses a winner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;photocamel, photoforum, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One overlooked skill is applying the best post-process for a specific image, and this helps immensely.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-28T00:03:01.837" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T00:03:01.837" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-23T12:16:00.387" />
  <row Id="1250" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="156" CreationDate="2010-07-23T14:58:52.473" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The tutorials at Chromasia are really good. You have to pay for a yearly subscription to get most of them, but I think it's worth it.  They're extremely thorough with a lot of examples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chromasia.com/tutorials/online/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.chromasia.com/tutorials/online/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Free sample tutorial: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chromasia.com/tutorials/online/curves/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.chromasia.com/tutorials/online/curves/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="37" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T14:58:52.473" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-23T12:16:00.387" />
  <row Id="1251" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="388" CreationDate="2010-07-23T15:16:34.957" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My recommendation would be have a look at Flickr discussions, given that there is probably little experience with Getty in our current user base here (we're a pretty small bunch). Getty has an arrangement with Flickr that allows them to contact users who are interested in selling and so the experience of that is probably going to appear somewhere in their discussion groups.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T15:16:34.957" />
  <row Id="1252" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="667" CreationDate="2010-07-23T15:30:22.923" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a good article over at DPS about &lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/an-introduction-to-focus-stacking&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;focus stacking&lt;/a&gt; which documents one way of doing it including post processing in Photoshop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="430" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T15:30:22.923" />
  <row Id="1253" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="916" CreationDate="2010-07-23T15:33:55.777" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a few have said it depends on the subject and the environment. When doing protaits in studio or outdoors I use a Canon 50mm f/1.4 with USM. It isn't an 'L' lens but it is very close.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="335" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-29T19:37:15.107" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T19:37:15.107" />
  <row Id="1254" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1255" CreationDate="2010-07-23T16:20:01.870" Score="9" ViewCount="323" Body="&lt;p&gt;I own a Nikon D700, which has in-camera support for taking time-lapse photos, but I need advice on the easiest and best software solutions for processing the resulting heap of images.  I accept that the best software may not be the easiest, and vice versa.  Open-source would be great, but I'm open to commercial solutions as well.  I've tried Picasa's movie-making feature, but found it to be kludgy and missing many useful options.  What do you recommend?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="309" LastEditorUserId="2425" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-03T20:51:43.923" LastActivityDate="2010-12-03T20:51:43.923" Title="Recommendations for time-lapse photography software" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;timelapse&gt;&lt;open-source&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="7" />
  <row Id="1255" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1254" CreationDate="2010-07-23T16:42:00.007" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are on a Mac, one of the best ways is using Automator, which you can use to do basic cropping/editing and conversion to video (although this part usually requires Quicktime Pro).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a good walkthough here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.brokencitylab.org/blog/how-to-make-a-time-lapse-video-from-stills/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;How to Make a Time-Lapse Video from Stills&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, a great open source solution is to use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ffmpeg.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ffmpeg&lt;/a&gt;, but it is a much more technical path to take, so keep that in mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are lots of examples out there, here's one example: &lt;a href=&quot;http://notes.theorbis.net/2010/05/creating-time-lapse-with-ffmpeg.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Creating Time Lapse with ffmpeg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T16:47:33.730" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T16:47:33.730" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1256" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-23T16:48:11.963" Score="34" ViewCount="1060" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are recommended settings for my Nikon Coolpix P1 to best portray rain?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's what I got. No retouching was applied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The picture I took when the rain was heavy with the automatic settings: &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1164414/SO/Rain/Auto%20settings.JPG&quot; alt=&quot;Picture taken with &amp;quot;Automatic&amp;quot; settings&quot; title=&quot;Picture taken with &amp;quot;Automatic&amp;quot; settings&quot;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The picture I took with the &quot;Sports&quot; program; by then, however, the rain was not as hard. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1164414/SO/Rain/Sports%20settings.JPG&quot; alt=&quot;Picture taken with &amp;quot;sports settings&amp;quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Ugh, ugly gray strip at the bottom, that was the flat surface I put my camera on to get a stable picture.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My main problem is that &lt;em&gt;the actual rain and hailstorm is very hard to see in the picture&lt;/em&gt;. The overall effect is, instead, of fog.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Follow-up from the thread&lt;/strong&gt;, courtesy of more rain, now with less hailstorm and more thunder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The feedback amounted to flash and faster shutter. I took a few photos and I'm having some trouble to reconstruct what I did to get each result. Two representative results:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fast shutter, with some guest starring:&lt;br/&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1164414/SO/Rain/Fast%20shutter.JPG&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;I'm talking about that horrible building obviously.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Faster shutter and flash:&lt;br/&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1164414/SO/Rain/Flash%20and%20fast%20shutter.JPG&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Kinda difficult to say those pictures were taken sixty seconds of each other. :)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure, however, that either of this is really an improvement of the original results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="479" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T21:25:05.550" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T17:49:59.590" Title="How do you photograph rain?" Tags="&lt;weather&gt;&lt;shooting-technique&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="10" />
  <row Id="1257" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1256" CreationDate="2010-07-23T17:09:28.500" Score="21" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Photographing rain is very hard because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rain is fast&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rain is small&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So usually you can do several things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use flash to &quot;freeze&quot; the rain (or use very high shutter speed if light is permitting)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Narrow your angle (zoom)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some examples:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/how-i-took/107734-rain-flash.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/how-i-took/107734-rain-flash.html&lt;/a&gt; and &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=82324&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=82324&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;update:&#xA;There are also multiple ways to photograph rain &quot;mood&quot;. In most cases, this can be achieved without the picture of the rain itself. For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dark big clouds&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wet pavement/road&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Umbrellas&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Splashing water&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some examples that I found that I thought were awesome in capturing the &quot;rain mood&quot;: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/09/07/35-brilliant-examples-of-rain-photography/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Examples of Rain Photography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastEditorUserId="297" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-03T20:50:43.563" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T20:50:43.563" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1258" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="162" CreationDate="2010-07-23T17:15:27.790" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Film when scanned and viewed through the 'filter' of digital media (meaning, film pixelized and viewed on a monitory) will always be at a disadvantage compared with a first generation digital file. A true comparison would be to a slide viewed in optimal conditions next to a suitably graphics-centric monitor (high end). For color work, you would see the additional gamut of film, the deeper colors, and the superior sharpness (all things being equal, camera, lens, technique). So, in speaking of equivalents, we have to come up with 'information' equivalences for film and digital, recognizing that with different films, scanning hardware, techniques, etc., the results can vary widely. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My experience? Working with films that scan well (Fuji NPH, Kodak Portra, chromogenic BW films) on a high end desktop scanner (Minolta Multi Pro - 4800 PPI), film can easily surpass digital in the following ways: smoothness of tonality, sharpness (NOT acutance, which is digital with unsharp masking applied, which simply increase contrast of adjacent pixel edges), and color fidelity with certain subjects such as skin and landscape subjects (not necessarily accuracy across all colors!). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T17:15:27.790" />
  <row Id="1259" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-23T17:16:57.460" Score="2" ViewCount="47" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am going to White Mountain Forest (New Hampshire) and Acadia Park (Maine) in August. Any photographic related suggestions on those 2 beautiful parks? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T17:43:46.977" ClosedDate="2010-07-26T16:19:21.693" Title="Photographic suggestions in White Mountain Forest &amp; Acadia Park" Tags="&lt;travel&gt;&lt;landscape&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1260" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-23T17:24:27.977" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Read the book Understanding Exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take your camera everywhere, including when you don't intend to use it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take a lot of pictures.  If you find what you could perceive as an interesting subject or image, take many images varying angle, height, framing, working distance, aperture, focal length, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When reviewing your own pictures, think about what you like and don't like for each one.  What could be done to improve it (not just in post process, but when you were taking it, or even stuff like if that tree wasn't there, the clouds were better, a certain facial expression, etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also look at photos and photogs that you like and try to understand why you like the work and how to do that.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Submit your good ones to critique forums and websites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Critique other people's photos, it will help you see and take better pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Participate in photo challenges.  Once you spend a week agonizing over a good concept for a theme, you can look at what other people did.  The pains of your own creative process combined with great ideas that others have executed will give you new insight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Forget about gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a day, limit yourself to one focal length.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Limit yourself to a certain number of pictures (once you have started to develop a photographic eye from taking and looking at many pictures), it will teach you to be careful and deliberate about creating a photograph.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have fun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="617" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-29T11:41:12.570" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T11:41:12.570" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-23T17:24:27.977" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1261" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1256" CreationDate="2010-07-23T17:31:33.050" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use a fast shutter speed.  The slower the shutter, the more it will look like fog as the rain will move a large amount and other rain drops will overlap, and you can't differentiate them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A flash as a major light source will act as a very fast shutter.  Do that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T17:31:33.050" />
  <row Id="1262" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1256" CreationDate="2010-07-23T17:38:29.140" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Flash will help.  You may want to play with 1st-curtain vs. 2nd-curtain and some different shutter speeds -- you should be able to get several different &quot;looks&quot; out of the same precipitation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T17:38:29.140" />
  <row Id="1263" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1259" CreationDate="2010-07-23T17:43:46.977" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't help you with specific subjects to shoot, but I can definitely recommend that you bring a tripod of some sort.  If you're hiking, I've had good luck w/ a Trekpod - this isn't as stable as a full-sized tripod, but it's great to have a device that does double-duty as a hiking stick, and it's invaluable when shooting landscapes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I brought my Trekpod on a 10-day canoe trip earlier this summer, and not only did it help immensely with pictures, it also saved my butt a few times on portages when I was using it as a hiking stick.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T17:43:46.977" />
  <row Id="1264" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5" CreationDate="2010-07-23T17:53:53.790" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I bought a Trekpod this spring, and I like it a lot.  I took it on a 10-day canoe trip to Canada, and I really appreciated a piece of equipment that did double duty.  If you haven't seen one, it's a walking stick of sorts with tripod legs that fold out at the bottom.  It's not quite as stable as a full-sized tripod, so it's more susceptible to swaying in the wind, and it's not as good on uneven ground as a full-featured tripod, but it folds into a very functional walking stick when you're not using it as a tripod.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the landscapes in &lt;a href=&quot;http://davelambert.smugmug.com/Vacation/Northern-Tier-2010/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this gallery&lt;/a&gt; were taken on the Trekpod, and I'm certain that most of them wouldn't have turned out due to the long exposures I needed (see some of the sunset pics).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T17:53:53.790" />
  <row Id="1265" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1256" CreationDate="2010-07-23T17:59:09.957" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are my tips:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;try to choose the angle so that the raindrops reflect as much light as possible&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;try to frame so that the lighter drops are separated from darker background&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;try to get perspective into the picture (so that there are objects at different distances which will render the lighter the longer the distance to the object)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;try different (fairly fast) shutter speeds so that the drops will draw lines instead of fog&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;stop down your aperture to get the closest rain drops in the picture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;use wide angle lens to maximize depth of field&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it might not be a good idea to focus at infinity, try different distances with manual focus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;be as close to the rain as possible&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or you might get a different and also interesting picture by doing the contrary to steps 3. and 6.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And don't use flash (at least for landscape work).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-26T19:35:06.267" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T19:35:06.267" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1266" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="916" CreationDate="2010-07-23T18:04:13.817" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll second the 85mm recommendation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon 85mm f/1.2 is the best portrait lens I've ever used. At f/1.2, you can get some great bokeh. (but make sure you nail the focus . . .)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="414" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T18:04:13.817" />
  <row Id="1267" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="667" CreationDate="2010-07-23T18:19:23.787" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A friend of mine recommended &lt;a href=&quot;http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ImageJ&lt;/a&gt; in combination with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/plugins/stack-focuser.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Stack Focuser&lt;/a&gt; plugin for combining the images into a single image with an extended depth of field. He mainly uses it for microscope images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've also found good references for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hadleyweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CombineZP&lt;/a&gt;. Although there's not much info on the site there is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/combinez/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;yahoo user group&lt;/a&gt; for it for more information and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.janrik.net/insects/ExtendedDOF/LepSocNewsFinal/EDOF_NewsLepSoc_2005summer.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; (old) article describes a complete workflow using CombineZP.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastEditorUserId="19" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T18:28:46.873" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T18:28:46.873" />
  <row Id="1268" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5" CreationDate="2010-07-23T18:30:09.350" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've used a combination of gorilla pod + walking stick with some success (my walking sticks are not equipped with a screw mount) It's a more flexible setup than just the gorilla pod, or just a monopod.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="204" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T18:30:09.350" />
  <row Id="1269" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1272" CreationDate="2010-07-23T18:32:29.110" Score="5" ViewCount="115" Body="&lt;p&gt;I own an all-in-one camera (shame on me.) It's a Canon Powershot A710.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not aware what happened exactly, but now the automatic cover (the thing that opens when you turn on the camera and the lens pops out) is sticky and it doesn't always open I have to either wait or push it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've tried using alcohol and some cotton tip, and it works for a little while, but then it gets sticky again. Are you aware what trick could I use to fix this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another option would be to open the lens and check what it is that gets it sticky again, but I don't see an easy way to open the lens in this camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any suggestion is very welcome&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: Finally I discovered it was indeed a sticky substance. To discover that I played with the side that got stuck when closed and pushed slightly so the edge touched the rail on which it's mounted. Doing this I discovered that a section of the rail was indeed sticky, it didn't feel like dust, because the stickiness was only on a small portion of the rail, after that portion the cover moved normally. So I applied a bit of alcohol with a tip in the section of the rail (this is, cleaning the rail, on the side of the lens entry, not directly on the cover nor on the lens of course) that had the stickiness and it's been working correctly for a few hours now, which had never happened before. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="487" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T02:12:29.147" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T02:12:29.147" Title="How to clean a lens cover?" Tags="&lt;cleaning&gt;&lt;repair&gt;&lt;body&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1270" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-23T18:35:09.543" Score="9" ViewCount="508" Body="&lt;p&gt;Has anyone ever invited amateur and pro photographers to take pictures of the same environment (or people) using the same gear to compare the results? If so, maybe results of such experiment are available on some sites for everyone to see? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example how would fashion magazine photos would look like if they were taken by amateurs, or how would a pro take a regular picture of a person on the street with amateur gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="488" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T22:11:33.590" Title="Pro vs amateur photographer work visual comparison" Tags="&lt;professional&gt;&lt;amateur&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="1271" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2010-07-23T18:48:54.040" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chasejarvis.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Chase Jarvis&lt;/a&gt; is an excellent resource for pro behind-the-scenes stuff, lots of excellent material available as a podcast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would also recommend &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.brucepercy.co.uk/blog/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Art of Adventure Photography&lt;/a&gt;, Bruce Percy is a marvellous photographer with an amazing way of capturing the light. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.martinbaileyphotography.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Martin Bailey&lt;/a&gt; is an amazingly dedicated blogger and podcaster who is also worth checking out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="482" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T18:48:54.040" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-23T18:48:54.040" />
  <row Id="1272" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1269" CreationDate="2010-07-23T18:56:08.457" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Based on your description, it sounds like whatever sticky stuff got on the lens cover ended up getting inside the camera body when you opened the cover. Each time you opened the cover, I'm guessing some of the sticky substance rubbed off on the rim around the lens and cover. You might try getting some pre-packaged wet wipes designed for cleaning camera lenses, and see if you can slip the corner underneath the edge of the rim around cover while it is closed. Keep the corner underneath the rim, and wipe around the whole circumference of the lens cover. You might need to do this a few times to really clean it up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If that does not work, you might need to take the camera into a Canon dealer that offers a repair service, and see if they can pop the camera off and clean the inside for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T18:56:08.457" />
  <row Id="1273" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1256" CreationDate="2010-07-23T19:02:30.253" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I photographed some rain in India, but then it was a lot heavier there :). My experience makes me agree more with Johannes and less with Karel. Basically:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Using a wide angle lens creates more space between the objects. Since the rain is already sparse this will work against capturing it. I would suggest you user a longer lens to photograph so it 'compresses' your scene and increases the apparent density of raindrops. Of course this will affect the composition you are trying to achieve.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Use a smaller aperture to increase the dof so that you can see more detail.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Use the raindrop bounce-back. i.e. I've often found it helpful to compose from lower angles in a way that the ground the rain is falling on is clearly visible - this is probably the one part in your scene where the rain should be immediately apparent. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Now I'm not a 100% sure about this, but I think lighting wise you generally want to avoid backlight and should go with frontal/side lighting. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="489" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T19:02:30.253" />
  <row Id="1274" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1230" CreationDate="2010-07-23T19:03:00.203" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think both programs have a lot to offer. They have overlapping and complimentary feature sets, and if you have the luxury of owning both a PC and a Mac (or just a Mac), both are valuable tools. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some other great answers here, so I won't go into a lot of detail. There are some fundamental differences between Lightroom and Aperture that I think are important. Particularly, Lightroom uses a segmented workflow that separates library management from development from printing. Aperture, on the other hand, provides a non-linear, unsegmented workflow, allowing you to perform any operation at any time. While I love Lightroom, and think it offers a powerful feature set, I prefer a non-linear workflow. If I had a Mac, I think Aperture would end up being my primary tool, with Lightroom being a secondary tool.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would most likely use both tools, however, as they do offer some complimentary features. An Aperture feature is the ability to easily geocode your photograph locations, and visualize where your photos were taken on a map. Lightroom v3 offers some very rich noise reduction and film grain enhancements that are not found in Aperture. I think both tools are phenomenal, and if you have the option, both should probably ultimately end up in your post-processing toolset.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T19:03:00.203" />
  <row Id="1275" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1269" CreationDate="2010-07-23T19:04:06.753" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been there - I have a A530 and one other camera with a similar two-piece automatic cover and had periodic problems with sticking exactly as you describe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my case, the stickiness was always due to dust, not a sticky substance of some kind. So, I would &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; start with wet cleaning materials.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get it to &quot;go&quot; if it's stuck, often tapping or flicking the side of the lens when extended would make the lens cover complete its opening or closing. Sometimes power-cycling would also help. Usually the camera went through sticky and not-sticky periods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For cleaning, I'd try blowing it vigorously with a hand blower, both with the cover open and closed. The goal is to dislodge the dust particles which are causing the stickiness. The Giottos Rocket (there's a few variations) is very well regarded. Don't use the compressed air in a can - it's too strong and you can get goop in the camera - nor your breath, as you will invariably blow in tiny particles of saliva.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prevention, however, is the best cure. When I started religiously keeping the camera in a case when not in use, the problems pretty much went away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T19:04:06.753" />
  <row Id="1276" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1270" CreationDate="2010-07-23T19:11:40.420" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a regular feature in several magazines, and occasionally these things happen by chance. For example, I bumped into &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.williamcheung.co.uk/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Will Cheung&lt;/a&gt; when I was shooting &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/ratarsed/3451147038/in/set-72157617050992884/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; -- I'd taken &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/ratarsed/3451148118/in/set-72157617050992884/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this other shot&lt;/a&gt; and Will followed my lead and featured his copy of the photo in Photography Monthly a couple of months later. I was torn between being proud that he'd taken inspiration from my shot, and that he'd stolen my idea...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T19:11:40.420" />
  <row Id="1277" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="701" CreationDate="2010-07-23T19:12:20.857" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can combine the two advices here: Use the highlight/shadows options and brush them in only where you need them. That will allow you apply the necessary adjustment only where you need them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="401" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-27T18:56:46.517" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T18:56:46.517" />
  <row Id="1278" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1285" CreationDate="2010-07-23T19:22:32.330" Score="24" ViewCount="537" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a relatively new photographer. I've only owned my Canon Rebel XSi for a year, however I was researching SLR/DSLR camera gear and photographic theory for over a year before I purchased a DSLR. I have extensive theoretical knowledge, and I understand the technical aspects of cameras very well. I think this has lead to some of my troubles with practical application, however. All those technical details seem to get in the way, and I don't have any artistic knowledge to balance things out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am primarily interested in landscape, wildlife/bird, macro, and other nature photography. I am wondering how someone in my position can go about learning the artistic aspects of photography. I have several of the most recommended books, like &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0817440593&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Shaw's Nature Photography Field Guide&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1902538498&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Developing Vision &amp;amp; Style&lt;/a&gt;. Shaw's book is great, however primarily film based, and a lot of the book is about film photographic theory and technique (i.e. &quot;pushing&quot; film ISO). The Developing Vision &amp;amp; Style is a phenomenal book that interviews some fantastic artists, but does not really get to the heart of &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; one really &lt;em&gt;develops&lt;/em&gt; vision and style.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any other resources I could use to help me learn more about the artistic aspects of nature photography? Books, web sites? Personal tips are also welcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many thanks for your insight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T19:46:16.533" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T15:38:22.197" Title="How does one develop good photographic vision and style?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;style&gt;&lt;vision&gt;&lt;nature&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="16" />
  <row Id="1279" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1256" CreationDate="2010-07-23T19:31:34.167" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I remember reading somewhere that when they want to show rain in the movies, they actually have someone standing there with a hose pipe spraying water onto the scene, as real rain is far too small to show up on camera. I've no idea if this applies to stills or not, but it does seem to match with your experience. Perhaps you could try the same thing and see if the result looks like how you would expect rain to look on a photograph.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="59" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T19:31:34.167" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1280" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1278" CreationDate="2010-07-23T19:36:43.263" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm debating even posting this since I don't know there's a &quot;right&quot; answer, but...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I really think everyone develops their own style and vision &lt;em&gt;in their own way&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Create lots of photographs, and see which ones you like.  Find patterns or consistent elements between the images that please you, then expand on those and see how you might extend those patterns and commonalities.  Over time you'll start to see what sort of style or vision you have.  There's not a prescriptive &quot;how to&quot; for developing your vision and style; I feel that it will come to you in a retrospective way as you look at your body of work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thing about vision and style is that most successful photographers have developed their own take on things.  There is benefit in seeing what has worked (and what hasn't) for other photographers, but you won't really form your own style by merely trying to copy others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T19:36:43.263" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1281" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1278" CreationDate="2010-07-23T19:36:46.460" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When reviewing your own pictures, think about what you like and don't like for each one. What could be done to improve it (not just in post process, but when you were taking it, or even stuff like if that tree wasn't there, the clouds were better, a certain facial expression, etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also look at photos and photogs that you like and try to understand why you like the work and how to do that. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Submit your good ones to critique forums and websites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Critique other people's photos, it will help you see and take better pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Participate in photo challenges. Once you spend a week agonizing over a good concept for a theme, you can look at what other people did. The pains of your own creative process combined with great ideas that others have executed will give you new insight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Learn what you like, and learn how to make it happen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T19:36:46.460" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1282" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1278" CreationDate="2010-07-23T19:38:05.210" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not nearly anywhere I'd like to be with my photography, but here are the things that have helped me on the way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Books&lt;/strong&gt;, both educational and &quot;picture books&quot;. On educational side I'd recommend &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0240809343&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Photographer's Eye&lt;/a&gt;&quot; by Michael Freeman and Freeman Patterson's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.freemanpatterson.com/books.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;instructional books&lt;/a&gt;. I can now also recommend Michael Freeman's &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0240815173&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Photographer's Mind&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Uploading your work to some photo &lt;strong&gt;critique&lt;/strong&gt; site&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Taking part of some photo &lt;strong&gt;competitions&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Printing&lt;/strong&gt; your own work. Sometimes photos that looked almost on computer screen doesn't really impress on A4.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Choosing a &lt;strong&gt;narrow topic&lt;/strong&gt;, for example birding (not wildlife, not nature) and &lt;em&gt;learning&lt;/em&gt; it. Not just the photography part, but also the species, where they live, how they act, when are they active, what they eat, how they hunt, etc. Rule number 1 of underwater photography is: &quot;you have to be a good diver&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Trying to find a &lt;strong&gt;differentiator&lt;/strong&gt; (ie why and how should your work stand out in Flickr) and work with it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Setting yourself &lt;strong&gt;goals&lt;/strong&gt; for example: &quot;I want to take 3 photographs that I'll hang on the wall during half a year&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Browsing through huge volumes of pictures and &lt;strong&gt;thinking&lt;/strong&gt; what I &lt;strong&gt;like&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;dislike&lt;/strong&gt; about them. Make yourself familiar how the classics of your specialty were born. If your wildest dream is to get to National Geographic, well, you have to subscribe to it first.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-01T15:38:22.197" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T15:38:22.197" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1283" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1210" CreationDate="2010-07-23T19:40:44.953" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a new app called &lt;a href=&quot;http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/you-gotta-see-this/id379058646?mt=8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;You Gotta See This!&lt;/a&gt; that seems to be just what you are looking for. However, it is only available for the iPhone 4, because it uses the internal gyroscope to  determine the direction so that it can stitch the photo correctly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T19:40:44.953" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1284" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1256" CreationDate="2010-07-23T19:42:21.363" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the answer depends on whether you are trying to capture the &lt;em&gt;mood&lt;/em&gt; of the rainy scene or the &lt;em&gt;actual raindrops&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the &lt;em&gt;mood&lt;/em&gt;, I think your scene above has some good possibilities, but you need to zoom in. I think there are many possibilities among those buildings and trees. A tripod will help as you could compose the right framing and then wait until the rain ebbs and flows to your linking. Some post-processing effort on contrast and curves may be beneficial.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the &lt;em&gt;raindrops&lt;/em&gt;, the trick will be lighting the drops while having a background of sufficient contrast. The trick with the flash will be to illuminate just raindrops without catching the background (as you did with the leaves above). You could try zooming in, making sure no background objects are within flash range. Some other dark background might work. You could also try a B&amp;amp;W conversion and adjust the contrast vigorously.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a couple of drizzle shots of mine that I enjoy (or perhaps snow). Note that they're mostly about light; the rain illustrates the interesting lighting. &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.reidster.net/2009/11/lights-on-campus-at-umn.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://blog.reidster.net/2009/11/lights-on-campus-at-umn.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T19:42:21.363" />
  <row Id="1285" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1278" CreationDate="2010-07-23T20:01:03.173" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;We've moved into (in my opinion) a more philosophical question with art and photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer this, you need to figure out what is your definition of &quot;good photographic vision?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do you measure the artistic value of a photograph? To me, that is a very subjective question; much like judging any type of art is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have had the luxury of visiting many of the worlds finest art museums, and not every work of art that is on display had artistic meaning to me. In fact, I now know that I prefer modern art to the the classics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to get to your question: Spin it another way: &lt;strong&gt;Why do you think your photographs lack in artistic value? Are you judging your own work yourself?&lt;/strong&gt; We're all probably our own harshest critics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My definition of art is: any work that evokes an emotional connection. What is your definition?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How does one get better?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Like all artists, you need a mentor.&lt;/em&gt; Study the works of photographers whose work you admire. Every great artist spent years studying the works of other great artists. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Like many artists, you may need to leave your home.&lt;/em&gt; How many great authors, painters, sculptors, have traveled to find inspiration. Perhaps you need your own &quot;walk about&quot; (yeah I'm a Lost fan :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Take risks.&lt;/em&gt; Since you enjoy nature photography, how about trying a different type of photography, to get you to think outside the parameters of nature. Street Candids, or still-life, macro, sports. A subject you don't have the &quot;technical&quot; mastery of will force your right brain to engage more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Experiment.&lt;/em&gt; If you always shoot nature with tele's, try grabbing a wide-angle and see what you get.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Practice.&lt;/em&gt; The idea that creative types just know how to be creative is false. Artists spend so much time honing their skills, and it's the same with photography. The Beatles played shows day in and day out for years to hone their musical skills. Malcolm Gladwell famously wrote about 10,000 hours in Outliers. You said you're &quot;new&quot; to photography, so give it time. If you shot photographs for every hour of every day for the first year you owned your dSLR, you'd still need over 1000 more hours of practice :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Be a true Renaissance man (or woman).&lt;/em&gt; Try other creative outlets. Ansel Adams taught himself piano. Lessons learned in one art form can directly influence the works of others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Submit your work for critique.&lt;/em&gt; Enter photo contests, find a way to get into an art-show, submit your photos online to places that give honest constructive feedback.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T20:11:37.237" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T20:11:37.237" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1286" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1288" CreationDate="2010-07-23T20:14:54.687" Score="13" ViewCount="256" Body="&lt;p&gt;We all have made investments in our camera equipment. From hundreds of dollars to $TEXAS, our gear isn't cheap. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How do we protect against theft, fires, water damage? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Accidental Damage?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What insurance options are available?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is Home Owners/Renters insurance enough?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T04:49:05.453" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T23:25:13.200" Title="Recommendations for insuring camera equipment?" Tags="&lt;equipment-protection&gt;&lt;insurance&gt;" AnswerCount="8" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="1287" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1286" CreationDate="2010-07-23T20:22:44.137" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One universal piece of advice is to have your serial numbers written down in some easily accessible place. I send them to myself using Gmail so that they're available from my mobile or any computer with internet access. I know that's a partial answer but the insurance is already location-specific.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T21:21:58.847" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T21:21:58.847" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1288" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1286" CreationDate="2010-07-23T20:32:56.217" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I won't name my insurance company, but I talked about this with my broker recently when I took an international trip.  If you're a pro, get pro insurance, and that's a policy that will cover theft, fire, water, dropping, etc.  You will need to find out how they define 'pro' (ie, is it the level of the equipment you have, or is it the percentage of your income from photography).  If you're not, then a home owner's/renter's policy is enough, but that may vary from policy to policy.  If you're not sure, check with your broker.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll also add: one friend of mine has pro event insurance, meaning that if her equipment fails during a wedding, the insurance will pay up to $50k to redo the wedding to get the shots.  If that's the kind of insurance you need, I can ask her for more details.  It's a bit much for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastEditorUserId="266" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T20:49:07.457" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T20:49:07.457" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1289" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1278" CreationDate="2010-07-23T20:39:03.830" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://robertbenson.com/blog/2010/04/18/photographers-life-in-graph/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This graph&lt;/a&gt; has been doing the rounds. It shows visually what you can expect as you develop as a photographer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T20:39:03.830" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1290" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1278" CreationDate="2010-07-23T20:40:34.500" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I really like @Alan's answer.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I always ask myself this question when taking a shot, or going through shots I've taken:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Who cares?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why should anyone look at the photo that I've taken?  We are saturated with images on a daily basis in modern life, constantly bombarded with messages.  In order to get through that, I have to consider my audience.  And that means, I have to make something that resonates with them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the kicker-- I can't read their minds, I can just read my own.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In some instances, it's pretty easy.  If you have a person who hires you to do a job, then they tell you what they want, and you produce it for them, and your audience is either satisfied with you or wants their money back.  That kind of photography, while it can definitely produce works of art (viz: wedding photography, I've seen several shots there that I am simply amazed by), has a very clear focus and definition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you shoot without definition, your task becomes harder, because you have to make the definition.  You have to find the thing that makes your audience care.  And you have to develop a thick skin when no one else cares but you and people who like you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T20:40:34.500" />
  <row Id="1291" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1278" CreationDate="2010-07-23T20:41:46.603" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One thing to bear in mind that single biggest advantage of digital over film is the freedom to experiment. While, of course, you can experiment with film, the cost of developing the results of your experiments can be prohibitive and you have to wait to see if the experiment worked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, I started experimenting with water drop photography (not using fancy triggers, just me and the camera) and the first time I took well over 100 shots and got a handful that were interesting. That would have never happened with my film, I wouldn't have tried.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, the moral of the story is just do it, be unconvential and shoot. You'll probably end up with a lot of discards, but you'll probably nail some real gems as a result and all it cost you was time that you were willing to spend anyways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T20:41:46.603" />
  <row Id="1292" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1270" CreationDate="2010-07-23T20:53:16.793" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To be honest, a good amateur takes the same or better than photos of a professional. It's 2010 so there's so much information available to the public, and with the falling prices of photography equipment there's really no difference between a good amateur and pro.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="498" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T20:53:16.793" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1293" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1297" CreationDate="2010-07-23T20:59:48.260" Score="12" ViewCount="315" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ideally the tool should be&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;easy to use&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;able to work with images taken without a tripod (i.e. allow to align the images)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;free&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="497" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T22:38:27.520" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T13:00:12.277" Title="What tools do you recommend for creating HDR images?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;hdr&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="1294" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1296" CreationDate="2010-07-23T21:01:44.883" Score="2" ViewCount="450" Body="&lt;p&gt;When photographing candid shots of my children at play with a Nikon D90, I have trouble with the autofocus system.  I focus and shoot one shot, great.  But a second later another shot opportunity opens up, and I waste it because when I press the shutter the camera won't fire, even though I think the focus is fine.  The AF system seems to want me to go through the whole press the shutter halfway process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Am I missing something about using the autofocus system? Usually the lens is set to M/A, and the autofocus mode is AF-A.  I've wondered if I should just switch to all-manual focus for situations like this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T14:03:39.520" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T14:03:39.520" Title="Why does my Nikon D90 autofocus not work in rapid succession?" Tags="&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;focus&gt;&lt;nikon-d90&gt;&lt;continuous-autofocus&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="1295" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1286" CreationDate="2010-07-23T21:02:56.677" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you make any money from your equipment then your home owners/renters will not cover it.  You'll want to contact a broker if you make money from your equipment and have them get you a couple quotes to compare.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="392" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T21:02:56.677" />
  <row Id="1296" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1294" CreationDate="2010-07-23T21:04:55.673" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could try using AE-L/AF-L.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="420" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T21:04:55.673" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1297" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1293" CreationDate="2010-07-23T21:21:12.513" Score="19" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First and foremost, the best &quot;tool&quot; for creating HDR images is having a proper understanding of what HDR is, and why you might need to use it. Most people are familiar with the classic &quot;HDR Look&quot;, while at the same time not fully understanding why the classic HDR look is not necessarily how an HDR image &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;should&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;HDR, or high dynamic range, is a means of increasing the usable, functional range of contrast and color depth in a photo. Realistically, this provides greater flexibility when working with such an image, but there should not be any fundamental differences in how the resulting image looks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My preferred tool for working with HDR images is Photoshop. Adobe Photoshop, for several versions now, has offered a &lt;code&gt;Merge to HDR&lt;/code&gt; tool. This tool allows you to select multiple shots of differing exposures to merge into a single 32bit, high dynamic range image. The merging process will automatically align your images and attempt to remove undesirable artifacts. (Note: Photoshop CS5 improved the HDR features, and added a deghosting capability that helps when merging hand-held shots.) Once created, you have the option of applying a tone map to the image when downconverting to 16 or 8 bit, which allows you to pick the range of tones you wish to utilize, and map them to the target color space. The final result should look like a normal photograph, just with a greater range of tones that extend beyond what you would normally be able to achieve with a single shot with the normal 5-7 stops of most digital sensor, or 5-9 stops of film or high-end digital sensors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another popular tool is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hdrsoft.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photomatix&lt;/a&gt;. This tool is explicitly designed to generate HDR images, and it has a fairly rich feature set. Photomatix is well known for creating images with that &quot;classic HDR look&quot;, and if that is what your looking for, this is definitely the tool you want. There are some drawbacks to Photomatix, however. It sometimes has problems with generating noise, rather than eliminating it, when merging multiple shots. The end result is grainy images that have larger grains than your normal digital noise, but on par with film grain. Another quirk of Photomatix is that sometimes it caps off highlights lower than it should, limiting the available dynamic range you have to work with for bright highlights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T23:31:46.567" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T23:31:46.567" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1298" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1299" CreationDate="2010-07-23T21:41:16.967" Score="3" ViewCount="406" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently had the experience where I was attempting to get a night portrait of someone but still maintain some of the background.  For example, getting an image of someone on top of Rockefeller Center in New York while also getting lights from the city below.  Back when I had an old Canon film SLR, there was a setting where it would double expose a single picture, taking a longer exposure first for the background, then firing the flash for the second exposure to light up the subject. All done with a single click to minimize shaking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this the best way to capture such a photo?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If so, anyone know how to do it on an Olympus E-PL1?  It's got a setting for multiple exposures, but the only way to do this is to take a long exposure, pop-up the flash, take the flash exposure.  This results in a good deal of shaking and seems like it's less than ideal for something that seems like a moderately common scenario.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="500" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T13:42:35.110" Title="Multiple exposure night portraits with the E-PL1" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="1299" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1298" CreationDate="2010-07-23T21:50:12.833" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With a flash that has TTL control you can just set a long exposure time and let the camera turn off the flash when the foreground is sufficiently exposed. The shutter will be open for the specified time and let in the light from the background. I don't know if you can use this method with your camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Left: 1/60 s. f/4.0&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Right: 1.6 s. f/5.0&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.guffa.com/Temp/flash.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-23T22:38:31.623" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T22:38:31.623" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1300" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1294" CreationDate="2010-07-23T21:56:28.837" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Set it to continuous autofocus: &lt;strong&gt;AF-C&lt;/strong&gt;. The camera will then (a) always try to keep whatever is under the active focus point in focus and (b) fire the shutter whenever you ask, regardless of whether the device thinks it's in focus or not. You might also want to set it to the center focus point and shoot wider than you would otherwise, cropping in post.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;AF-A is supposed to pick AF-S or AF-C depending on the situation, but it sounds like it's guessing wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(This is not relevant, but I have anxiety dreams where I push the button and the shutter won't trip. I feel your pain.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T21:56:28.837" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1301" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1110" CreationDate="2010-07-23T21:58:52.173" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Repeatable? Definitely.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using the same film, cross-processing has perfectly repeatable results, but it helps to be specific:  &lt;strong&gt;the negatives&lt;/strong&gt; will turn out the same, positives (virtually always scans) may not, and it's the positives you see on Flickr and elsewhere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reasons for this are pretty simple: both the film emulsions and processing chemistry (both E-6 and C-41) are highly standardised.  If either one changed unexpectedly to any degree, you'd get unpredictable results regardless of whether you were cross-processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scans (especially of E-6 in C-41, but the reverse as well to some degree) admit much more variation - if done at the lab, it depends on the machine, it's presets, how much effort the operator takes, and whether they're familiar with cross-processed negatives.  When people scan at home, they might do so with different goals in mind - some may want the extreme colour casts, some may prefer to correct the image to almost &quot;normal&quot;, and anywhere in between.  The results are like you see: the same film (even the same image) can have wildly varying results depending on its treatment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I should add that this is true to some degree of any negative film – there is always much more room for variation in the colour balance and treatment when converting to positive than when shooting direct positive film.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Why? Good question.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think there's a general answer to &quot;why&quot; - often it's just a matter of enjoying the look (like with any other film/technique), following a fad (they've happened a few times), or even not having easy access to E-6 processing.  If there is a general reason &quot;why,&quot; then I don't think it's significantly different to any other film.  For example, original Agfa Precisa&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; yielded a high-contrast image with exaggerated blues, but otherwise mostly neutral colour shifts, and an almost-clear base.  As a result, it was reputedly used for commercial shots of blue jeans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Examples&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above makes &quot;realistic&quot; examples difficult, but here's some mine (otherwise it's impossible to comment on processing/lighting) to display the kind of range you can get, shot on Precisa:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/matt/2311160961/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Ordering by matt, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2179/2311160961_301de279e8_t.jpg&quot; width=&quot;100&quot; height=&quot;67&quot; alt=&quot;Ordering&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/matt/2239923549/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Lindsay by matt, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2223/2239923549_4f787a67ea_t.jpg&quot; width=&quot;100&quot; height=&quot;67&quot; alt=&quot;Lindsay&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/matt/1541749646/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Here be Dragons, also nectarines. by matt, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2341/1541749646_8f290a0492_t.jpg&quot; width=&quot;100&quot; height=&quot;67&quot; alt=&quot;Here be Dragons, also nectarines.&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/matt/454319804/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Mark, Josie, and Louise by matt, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm1.static.flickr.com/189/454319804_4da157ada3_t.jpg&quot; width=&quot;100&quot; height=&quot;67&quot; alt=&quot;Mark, Josie, and Louise&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(from left to right)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Very cool lighting, a window on the shaded side of a building, almost &quot;straight&quot; and very typical Precisa blue.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Golden hour&quot; lighting; very warm, corrected (maybe even over-corrected?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fluorescent lighting at night; corrected, but mostly for the green of the lights, not the cast of the film.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For comparison, non-cross-processed Precisa in cloudy/cool light.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Going back to the question of repeatability, even with such a broad range of outcomes, in the same situation I'd have every confidence of getting the same result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Current new/in-date Agfa Precisa is not manufactured by Agfa, but is a different emulsion packaged under the brand.  It's reported to have a greenish cast when cross-processed (I haven't tried it myself).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T11:06:05.617" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T11:06:05.617" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1302" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1286" CreationDate="2010-07-23T22:20:29.503" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're purely a hobbyist, talk with your homeowner's or renter's insurance provider and you'll find they should be able to add a rider that covers your photo gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're a professional, the trade organizations such as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.asmp.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ASMP&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ppa.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PPA&lt;/a&gt; have arrangements with insurers who offer policies specific to photographers.  In addition to equipment coverage, the professional policies can also include things like liability and errors &amp;amp; omissions insurance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T22:20:29.503" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1303" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1293" CreationDate="2010-07-23T22:39:27.707" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://hugin.sourceforge.net&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hugin&lt;/a&gt; will meet needs 2 and 3. Not sure about #1, but try it out and see if it's close enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T22:39:27.707" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1304" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1298" CreationDate="2010-07-23T22:43:40.743" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You really don't need multiple exposures.  When the flash goes off, it does so only for a very brief period of time, so it acts like the second shot did with your previous Canon camera.  So, if you set a long exposure time with the flash, your subject will be lit up (and recorded) when the flash goes off, then the background will be exposed for the rest of the time that the shutter is open.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you find ghosting of your subject because the shutter's open long enough to record them once when the flash goes off, then again while the shutter remains open, then you can have them run out of the frame after the flash fires.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="110" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T22:43:40.743" />
  <row Id="1305" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1307" CreationDate="2010-07-23T23:11:00.923" Score="2" ViewCount="107" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking at buying this camera, but can't find any specs or pictures that indicate whether there is a tripod mount.  Does anyone know?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T23:23:51.323" Title="Does the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FT2/TS2 have a tripod mount?" Tags="&lt;tripod&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="1306" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1313" CreationDate="2010-07-23T23:20:40.000" Score="14" ViewCount="523" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to track GPS points while I am photographing with my Canon EOS (5D) camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What option do I have track them and what do you recommend?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="81" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T03:47:26.013" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T08:29:47.257" Title="What options do I have for GPS/Geotagging  with a digital SLR?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;geotagging&gt;" AnswerCount="9" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="1307" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1305" CreationDate="2010-07-23T23:20:56.257" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.camera-catalog.com/compares/popular/panasonic_lumix_dmc-ft2_vs_panasonic_lumix_dmc-ft1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This page&lt;/a&gt; says that it has a tripod mount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_ft2_review/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; you can see a picture of the underside, showing the tripod mount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T23:20:56.257" />
  <row Id="1308" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1305" CreationDate="2010-07-23T23:23:51.323" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes it does. You can see the mount on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digicambuyer.co.uk/cameras/panasonic/dmc-ft2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an image on this page&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a side note, I can't recall ever having seen a camera without one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T23:23:51.323" />
  <row Id="1309" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1104" CreationDate="2010-07-23T23:39:50.767" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Using the 1.6 crop factor certainly works, but it might be interesting to work it out from first principles, too.  The &quot;normal&quot; focal length is generally considered to be close to the diagonal of the image area (sensor, film, whatever).  For 35mm film and &quot;full frame&quot; digital, this is about 43mm - 50mm is the closest common focal length for reasons that are interesting but probably not relevant here apart from indicating there's some range for variation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, another way to determine which lens is to find the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SensorSizes.svg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dimensions of Canon's APS-C&lt;/a&gt;, and apply some Pythagoras:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;sqrt( 22.2^2 + 14.8^2 ) = 26.68&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So for a Canon APS-C, you might consider anything from 24mm* up to about 35mm as a good choice for a &quot;normal&quot; lens.  If you wanted to get as close as possible to a 50mm, then the 30mm mentioned is likely a good choice, which we can see by comparing the ratio of 50mm to the theoretical 43mm:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;50mm / 43mm = 1.16&#xA;35mm / 26.7 = 1.31&#xA;30mm / 26.7 = 1.12 – closest to 50mm&#xA;28mm / 26.7 = 1.04 – closest to theoretical normal&#xA;24mm / 26.7 = 0.89&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T23:39:50.767" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1310" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="673" CreationDate="2010-07-23T23:54:05.560" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In terms of buying scanners, the DPI that manufacturers provide can be a bit misleading, and the actual image resolution you can get from the scanners is quite a bit lower.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The common wisdom is that most consumer flatbed scanners top out at an effective resolution somewhere around 2000-2400dpi, despite reporting numbers as high as &quot;4800x9600&quot; (like my Epson 4990).  Dedicated negative scanners come much closer to their reported dpi, though still generally don't quite make it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But even that isn't quite the whole story: scanning at the higher settings (4800) may not get you an improvement in pure resolution, but if you reduce the image to something closer to the 'true' resolution (2400), you effectively get a super-sampled scan, and can see improvements in noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe to sum up: a flatbed scanner will get you a quality print from a 35mm negative up to about 8x10, and a &quot;pretty good&quot; print might stretch up to about 16x20.  And don't forget the influence of the printer...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T23:54:05.560" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1311" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1306" CreationDate="2010-07-23T23:56:09.550" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon's official method is to use a gps unit with their &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/consumer_cameras_wft&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wireless File Transfer&lt;/a&gt; accessories.  Not sure I'd actually recommend that solution unless you have lots of money and don't mind the extra weight though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T23:56:09.550" />
  <row Id="1312" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1306" CreationDate="2010-07-23T23:56:31.827" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a number of options for external GPS trackers (Sony makes one, for example) that when you combine with software will use the EXIF data of the image combined with the GPS log to tag your photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, in my experience, many of these are iffy in their reliability. There are good ones, however, and the key is to make sure that they communicate with many satellites to ensure that you do, in fact, track.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get you started, this one looks promising: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gisteq.com/PhotoTrackr/PhotoTrackrDPL900.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PhotoTrackr Mini&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-07-23T23:56:31.827" />
  <row Id="1313" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1306" CreationDate="2010-07-24T00:26:30.457" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've found that the best solution is to buy an inexpensive stand alone GPS device, make sure your camera clock is synced with the GPS time, carry the GPS in your camera bag while on and saving the track log and use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.robogeo.com/home/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;RoboGeo&lt;/a&gt; to tag your photos after the fact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Robo Geo does a nice job and has lots of features, plus it will work with any camera out there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="23" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T00:26:30.457" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1314" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1243" CreationDate="2010-07-24T00:46:42.753" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have used the Opteka brand which was outstanding value for money.&#xA;For example for the Canon Digital Rebel series, check this out:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001HK4LWA/ref=oss_product&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001HK4LWA/ref=oss_product&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the price (at the time of writing), and given the inclusion of two 1800mAh batteries, it's pretty hard to beat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="131" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T00:46:42.753" />
  <row Id="1315" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1060" CreationDate="2010-07-24T01:04:49.800" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a checklist.  It mostly applies to buying classic (manual-focus) gear to use, but is probably of general use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a good idea to try all of these on your own gear first, since you know how you've treated it, and hence what effect you've had, and what &quot;normal&quot; gear feels and looks like when you're really looking closely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Most Important Step&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Know what you're after.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do a bit of research on the lens you want.  Classifieds/eBay/KEH/etc will give you an idea of the price, and camera forums will give you an idea of common problems to check for with specific models.  Both of those are probably more useful than most of the stuff below.  If you're going to buy a lens on a whim, make sure it's for an amount of money you don't mind losing!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, something like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cameraquest.com/mlenses.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Stephen Gandy's guide to Leica M lenses&lt;/a&gt; will tell you a lot more about what to look for than any general guide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that in mind, here's my general steps for checking out a lens:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;0. Keep your perspective&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember you're not an expert, not a collector, and that your evaluation is subjective.  If you want to &lt;em&gt;use&lt;/em&gt; a lens rather than keep it on your shelf to resell it later, &lt;strong&gt;most problems are actually pretty minor&lt;/strong&gt;.  You would be shocked at the quality images you can get from the ugliest-looking gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;1. Look at the glass&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Dust, fungus&lt;/strong&gt;: Preferably shine a light through, or look at it, wide open, against a white wall.  &lt;strong&gt;All&lt;/strong&gt; lenses have dust, do not worry about it unless it's extreme.  A bug stuck inside counts as &quot;extreme&quot;.  What you should be more concerned about are web-like things that are likely fungus, or internal fogging of the lens (e.g., it sat in a smoker's house for 10 years).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Scratches&lt;/strong&gt;: Look for scratches and cleaning marks - examine the front and back element at an oblique angle.  If scratched lens may still be perfectly usable, but scratches can increase the amount of flare, sometimes drastically.  Cleaning marks shouldn't worry you unless you're in the collector's game.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Separation&lt;/strong&gt;: will (usually) appear as white marks around the edges of the elements (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.ca/images?q=lens%20separation&amp;amp;um=1&amp;amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;amp;source=og&amp;amp;sa=N&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;tab=wi&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Google Images&lt;/a&gt;).  This is a severe defect, repairable, but at fairly high cost, and with a significant risk of failure.  Some lenses can be usable for years with mild separation, if you don't mind stopping down a bit.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Coating&lt;/strong&gt;: doesn't really apply to modern lenses, which have durable multi-coats, but for older lenses with softer single-coating, examine the lens coating to see if it's still even.  Worn-away coating usually appears as oval-shaped wear marks about a finger's width from the edge of the lens (i.e. where it's been cleaned the most).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;2. Look at the aperture&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Movement&lt;/strong&gt;: basically, does it move? smoothly? Do the stops seem correct? Use the camera's actuator rather than the aperture ring (if possible or applicable). If so, great. If not, pass immediately.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Oil&lt;/strong&gt;: close the diaphragm completely, and look for spots or a coating.  This is somewhat inevitable in most lenses as the lubricants separate and the lighter fractions migrate around.  A few spots are not much to worry about, an even coating is a problem, but can often be cleaned.  This is less of a problem in rangefinders and cameras with stop-down metering, as the aperture doesn't have to move quickly, but it can cause the aperture to move slowly enough to ruin exposures on modern (post-1980) auto-diaphragm SLRs.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rust/corrosion&lt;/strong&gt;: Just a sign it hasn't been well cared for; left in a too-humid environment, not used enough.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;3. Fiddle with the mechanics&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Appearance&lt;/strong&gt;: paint chips, wear, probably fine.  Dents, big problem.  Remember to retain perspective with respect to the age of the lens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mount&lt;/strong&gt;: does it mount? Any visible dings or dents in the mount?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Focus(feel)&lt;/strong&gt;: should be smooth and well-damped for manual lenses. AF lenses generally looser, but it varies more (and I have less experience).  Stiffness through the whole range is usually dried lubricant, and can usually be fixed with a cleaning if it's unbearable.  And 'gritty' feeling should be a big warning sign.  This probably applies to zoom, too (again, not part of my experience).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Focus(distance)&lt;/strong&gt;: For SLRs, does it look focused close in? At infinity? Are the distance markings approximately right?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Front threads&lt;/strong&gt;: Dents, dings = problem.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Filter&lt;/strong&gt;: if it has one, especially if it's claimed to be on there &quot;since new,&quot; can you take it off? Filter threads can bind to the front threads on the lens, which is a pain if you ever want to remove it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Shutter&lt;/strong&gt;: (if it has one)  Does it fire? Does it seem about right? People are pretty good at estimating this up to about 1/125.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Aperture&lt;/strong&gt;: For auto-diaphragm SLRs, does it stop down correctly when fired? Open the back, and fire the shutter on a fairly slow speed.  Try this wide open, stopped down all the way, and in-between.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T01:04:49.800" />
  <row Id="1316" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1306" CreationDate="2010-07-24T01:11:35.353" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's a free software that will take a GPS track log recorded from your standalone GPS device (or perhaps from your phone, if it has a GPS), and applies the geocoding to your images:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://code.google.com/p/gpicsync/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://code.google.com/p/gpicsync/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Along with it, I found a site to convert various types of GPS log format into GPX (what is needed by the above software)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gpsies.com/convert.do&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.gpsies.com/convert.do&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T01:11:35.353" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1317" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="379" CreationDate="2010-07-24T01:24:45.397" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most street photographers will insist, loudly, that the technique and equipment are very much secondary to the vision and the results.  They're quite correct, and it's important not to obsess.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, from a very basic standpoint, there are some pretty simple constraints to most street work:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;People are probably moving.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You don't have time for extra-careful focus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's outdoors, but you have to deal with shade and shadow.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Movement means you want a slightly higher shutter speed.  Not having time to focus would imply a higher f-number to increase depth of field.  Take both of those together, and combined with the variation in light and shade in the city, and you'll want to raise the ISO, at least a little.  Tri-X 400 was the photojournalist film of choice (though sometimes downrated to ~250).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a very typical 'photojournalist' type of setup, with nothing particularly special about it.  And there are always reasons to vary your approach, like this great long-exposure shot by Trent Parke:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3566/3513224510_f5a38121d9_o.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And very much worth reading is his commentary on how he got the image, reproduced on Flickr here:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/onthestreet/discuss/72157617875097800/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/groups/onthestreet/discuss/72157617875097800/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T01:24:45.397" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1318" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1321" CreationDate="2010-07-24T01:28:17.527" Score="3" ViewCount="406" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking to buy a Skylight filter leave permanently attached to a lens for the primary purpose of protecting it. I don't really understand the difference between Skylight 1A and Skylight 1B filters. So, which of the two is the better choice for a general and always on filter?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="350" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T02:20:16.857" Title="Which filter is the more generally useful: Skylight 1A or Skylight 1B?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1319" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1318" CreationDate="2010-07-24T01:29:55.120" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;1A is clearer than 1B, which will tint and add warmth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Best filter to always have on is none.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T01:29:55.120" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="1320" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1060" CreationDate="2010-07-24T01:43:23.513" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Shamelessly stolen from PentaxForum's RicoRico, but may be of interest: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-lens-articles/59245-pawnshop-lenses-other-used-lenses-buyers-guide.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-lens-articles/59245-pawnshop-lenses-other-used-lenses-buyers-guide.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;BRIEFLY: The quick-and-dirty approach.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I walk into the slightly seedy premises, wander over to the photo gear display, look over the Pentaxian offerings. I discard focal lengths I already have too many of. I pick up each lens, judge its build quality, twist and slide any moving parts, push any pins and switches, look into and thru it for cruddiness, see if the diaphragm blades move. I pull a M42-PK adapter ring out of my pocket, see if the lens mount looks/is compatible. Then I might offer ten bucks (US$10) for it. Or maybe not. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this method won't work for everyone, so here's a detailed screening technique.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;INTRO: Basics of lenses and mounts.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lots of lenses will fit your (and my) K20D. Many will have some sort of PK mount, the bayonet twist-on mount like the lens that (hopefully) came with your camera. Many more will have a 42mm diameter threaded screw mount, known as an M42. To use an M42 lens, you'll need an adapter. I &lt;em&gt;strongly&lt;/em&gt; recommend an honest-to-goodness PENTAX-brand adapter, to avoid all sorts of grief, both in focusing, and in removing the adapter. (I won't go into fitting other lens mounts onto a Pentax camera.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of either sort of lens, PK or M42, may say PENTAX or PK on them somewhere, and some won't. Besides all the more-or-less prominent third-party makers and branders whom I won't list here, you'll also see some fine lenses from Sears and Ricoh. Some Ricoh-made lenses are branded as Sears. WARNING: a Ricoh lens with an RP designation on it has an extra pin that WILL jam the lens on your camera. Other Ricoh lenses are fine, just avoid the RP's. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And of course the &lt;em&gt;best&lt;/em&gt; lenses say Asahi and/or Pentax and/or (Super) Takumar. Some that say Takumar Bayonet are not highly regarded, so don't be talked into paying a lot for those. Some older Pentax-made lenses are branded as Sears or Honeywell. I won't go into the pros-and-cons of other brands, except to mention the Russians - see the warning below on Russian lenses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SCREENING: What to run away from.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When stalking pawnshops for lenses, be sure you have 1) your camera, 2) a PENTAX-brand M42-PK adapter, 3) a small flashlight, not too bright, and 4) a dust pen or lens brush. (Maybe mud-over the camera so you don't look too rich.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gross appearance shouldn't be a deciding factor unless you think beauty is critical. I bought a Vivitar 90/2.8 macro whose knurled rubber grab was decayed. I finally peeled it off and replaced it with duct tape. The lens, one of my favorites, with crystalline optics, cost me US$3; a 'cherry' version might cost 50-100x more. Minor dings, dents, scratches can be ignored or painted over. (Tell the girls you were a combat photographer.) Remove any filthy filters before assessing the lens. Major damage should be avoided - like, it should all be and stay in one piece. If it falls apart when handled, skip it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To examine a lens, first shake it a little. If anything rattles sharply, skip it. Then try turning the focus and aperture rings. If they're too tight or loose, skip it. Make sure the diaphragm leaf blades open and close when turning the aperture ring. You may have to push the stop-down pin (if any) and/or move the M/A switch (if any). If blades or pin or switch don't move, skip it. If the lens mount is corroded, skip it. If you cut yourself on anything, skip it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now use the lens pen or brush to whisk away lens dust, and whip out that not-too-bright flashlight and look inside the lens, from both ends, shining the light both into and thru the lens. (You don't want to blind yourself when looking into magnified light.) It can be pretty scary in there! If the lens surface or interior is fogged, clouded, or just cruddy, skip it. If the glass is scratched anywhere near the center, skip it. Minor scratches around the periphery may not matter much, but they certainly lower the value. Dust inside the lens may be a problem; if you see much dust, skip it. You want to be looking at and thru rather clear, clean glass. If not, skip it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pointing the light into the lens, work the aperture. Look at the diaphragm blades. Are they clean, or oily? If oily, skip it. Check from both ends. NOTE: To get the most from this and all the above screening tests, you should go to a camera store and ask to inspect a new lens and/or superior used lens. This will give you an idea of just what a good lens' condition is, and thus what a prospective used lens should aspire to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other aperture tricks: some older and simpler lenses have no stop-down pin. The aperture can only be set from the ring, called a pre-set. Some lenses have two rings, on that lets you pre-set the smallest aperture you'll want, the other to actually (and smoothly) dial in the stop-down. Make sure the rings are easy to turn, not too tight or loose. And make sure they actually stop-down the diaphragm. If you have a problem here, skip it. And some modern auto-aperture lenses have NO aperture ring; with such, you can't check it at all, until trying it on the camera. I wouldn't trust one of these unless the pawnshop or seller guarantees that you can return it after purchase. Yup, that includes our fine Pentax DA lenses. Consider them guilty until proved innocent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the lens passes so far, check that the mount will actually fit on your camera or the M42 adapter. Don't force it - if it doesn't fit right on, skip it. WARNING: Some Russian lenses branded Helios and Jupiter and Industar (or anything with Cyrilllic characters) have 39mm threads (M39), not M42. Some of those M39s, fitted with a cheap adapter, will work fine on your camera. Most won't. And other lenses made for Leicas and their clones have M39 threads and WILL NOT WORK! If it doesn't thread smoothly onto the M42 adapter, skip it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;TEST-FIRING: Trying-out the candidate.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will NOT be able to fine-check the optical quality of the lens now. Well, you &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; fire off some shots, then review and pixel-peep, but it's hard to judge quality on the little LCD screen. The best you can probably do is check the lens' mechanical operation, see if it actually works on the camera. WARNING: Unless the shop/seller explicitly states a guaranteed return policy, or the lens is REALLY REALLY CHEAP, you should ALWAYS try it out before purchase. I've failed at this a couple times. I then repeat my mantra: OWAH TAGU SIAM. Say it over and over.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;FOCUS: Does the lens manually focus? Look at something and try. The K20D's focus-lock lights, or the ZX-M's split focus screen, should help here. After getting it in focus, maybe look at the lens' distance scale and see if it's about right. Does it focus to infinity? Does it focus as close as the scale says? If it's an autofocus lens, does it actually autofocus? Is it loud, grinding, slow, hunting with futility? If focus isn't good, skip it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;APERTURE - PRESET: A lens with no stop-down pin and/or no M/A switch and/or no aperture-ring A-setting, will likely only work in Av mode. (Setting the mode to anything but B or M won't matter - both the K20D and the ZX-M will default to Av.) Set the lens M/A switch (if any) to M. Focus on something, half-press the shutter, note the shutter speed. Now twist the aperture ring a bit and repeat. Does the speed change? It should increase when you open up, decrease when you stop down. If not, skip it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;APERTURE - MANUAL: Otherwise, set the lens M/A switch to A, and the aperture ring to anything &lt;em&gt;but&lt;/em&gt; A (if available). Set the K20D to M (Manual) mode. Focus on something. Hit the Green button. The lens should audibly stop down as the camera takes an exposure reading. Note the reading. Now manually change the aperture and repeat. Does the reading change, as with presets? If not, skip it, unless 1) the lens passes the PRESET test and 2) you'll be happy using it as preset-only and 3) it's cheap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ZX-M: The ZX-M works differently. Rather than the Green button, there's the DOF (Depth-Of-Field) Preview button, which only works when the ZX-M has power ON. Many (all?) M42 lenses with M/A switches, set to A, will NOT stop down to the selected aperture when DOF Preview is pressed, nor will they when the shutter is pressed. This includes fine Pentax glass! You'll have to decide whether you like the lens enough to use it with aperture presets only. A K-mount bayonet lens should ALWAYS stop down to a selected aperture. If it doesn't, skip it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;APERTURE - AUTOMATIC: Ah, the blessed PKA mount! Set the aperture ring to A. (If there's no A there, skip this test.) Set the K20D to P mode. Focus on something, half-press the shutter, note the reading. Try turning the front and/or rear e-dials. Do the aperture and speed change? If not, skip it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ZX-M: With the ZX-M, set both the camera Shutter Dial and the lens aperture ring to A. The LCD panel should show that you're in P mode. Now focus on something, half-press the shutter, and twist the aperture ring. The speed indication should change. If it doesn't, skip it. At a selected aperture, push the DOF Preview button. Does the aperture stop down? If it doesn't, skip it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ZOOM: Is it a push-pull or twist'em or power zoom? Does it push-pull, twist, and/or power smoothly, quietly, effortlessly? Can you tolerate the zoom creep, if any? Does is seem to zoom from minimum to maximum of its range? If not, skip it, unless it's one of those huge obnoxious lenses and you just want it to show off. Camera bling, yeah sure. If it's a macro-zoom (or any kind of allegedly 'macro' lens) does it reach its close focus? If not, skip it, unless you just don't care.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;OUTRO: Closing the deal.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's all I can think of right now. This should be sufficient info on what to look for in a used lens that you can fondle before purchasing. It's &lt;em&gt;your&lt;/em&gt; credit card and/or financial future; go for it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll mention that pawnshops near major casinos are great places to look for used photo gear. Winners buy a new, upgraded outfit; losers go home naked. Or so I hear. My favorite pawnshop in a major Nevada city (I won't say which) has a great assortment, and sends a Sweet Young Thang out to show lenses to male customers. (I won't mention her name.) She volunteers that she's done some modeling. I suspect that she's rather effective in diverting some customers' attention from prices and other bothersome details. So yes, self-discipline is needed in this kind of shopping. Be strong, be wary, and don't spend more than you can afford. Yeah, right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T01:43:23.513" />
  <row Id="1321" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1318" CreationDate="2010-07-24T01:45:42.557" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The difference is that Skylight 1B has a slight pink tint, to add some warmth to the images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have a digital camera and use automatic white balance, there will be no practical difference at all between the filters as the white balancing compensates for the color tint. I would choose 1A as it has no tint, so it affects the incoming light less.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-24T02:00:26.857" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T02:00:26.857" />
  <row Id="1322" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1318" CreationDate="2010-07-24T02:20:16.857" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The value of any UV filter for a dSLR is questionable. On the lens protection front, a filter that is broken, as noted, can scratch the lens, thus undoing any protection it may have offered in the first place. The other downside is that the filter can cause unexpected ghosting of light sources in your image as a result of reflection, something that will annoy the heck out of you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, cameras and lenses are not as delicate as some make them out to be. Photographers have been running around with these in everything ranging from extreme weather to extreme violence without destruction of their gear, so unless you're extraordinarily clumsy and likely to bounce your camera and lens off of hard surfaces on a regular basis, I wouldn't worry about it. Buy your filters for photographic effect, not protection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T02:20:16.857" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1323" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1342" CreationDate="2010-07-24T02:23:35.913" Score="5" ViewCount="241" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a nikon d700 and an sb-900, and I'm interested in getting started with off-camera flash for portraits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've skimmed strobist, but I'm looking for some really simple instructions for how to get started. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What equipment do I need to buy to trigger flashes? (Should I use Nikon's CLS or Pocketwizards, or just a sync cable)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What other resources should I look at to figure out how to get started?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="414" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T18:02:08.483" Title="aspiring strobist -- equipment and resources" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;strobist&gt;" AnswerCount="5" />
  <row Id="1324" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1323" CreationDate="2010-07-24T03:22:42.013" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, I'll toot my own horn with this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.grumpyjohns.com/index.php?module=article&amp;amp;action=view&amp;amp;article%3a%3aarticle%3a%3aid=154&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DIY Light Modifiers&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That'll help you out with setting up, or at least knowing what they are, light modifiers that you can roll on your own. However, the Strobist site is about the best when it comes to all of this and I can't stress the value in reading through the lesson posted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now to answer your question... Pocket Wizards are great, but have a price tag you need to consider and there are other options that, while less reliable, are substantially cheaper while still being pretty good. Again, the Strobist site discusses them, so worth looking. Either way, the PC sync cable should be your last option...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T03:22:42.013" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1325" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="694" CreationDate="2010-07-24T03:54:25.233" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Upgrading to Lightroom 3.2 is cheap and easy.  You'll find version 3 a lot more responsive than 2.6, and version 3.2 even more so.  In most situations where Lightroom 2 makes you wait, Lightroom 3 will do its processing in the background, so you can continue to interact with the program.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You didn't say what hardware you're running, but if you're using Windows XP, it's probably an older system.  Lightroom really taxes PC hardware.  Getting the fastest PC you can afford is definitely a good idea.  I'd recommend a 64-bit system with lots of RAM and an SSD drive.  If you can't afford an SSD big enough to store your images, use an SSD for the operating system and your Lightroom catalogs, and a normal hard disk to store your RAW files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lightroom doesn't benefit from multi-core CPUs as much as I'd like.  If you tend to have Lightroom run multiple background tasks (import, export, render previews) as the same time, your computer will stay more responsive with a quad core CPU.  If you don't run multiple background tasks, then a dual core may be a better choice.  For the same money, the individual cores on a dual core CPU are faster than those on a quad core.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lightroom does not make use of GPU acceleration at all.  So don't spend money on a graphics card unless you need it for other purposes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastEditorUserId="432" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-02T12:40:52.857" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T12:40:52.857" />
  <row Id="1326" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1328" CreationDate="2010-07-24T05:10:15.773" Score="9" ViewCount="198" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm in the Develop module in Lightroom 3.  The secondary monitor shows a grid with multiple photos selected.  When I change a develop setting, e.g. exposure +1, the setting is only applied to one of the selected photos (the one shown on the primary monitor).  Is there a way to make Lightroom 3 apply the change to all photos selected in the grid?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T20:21:11.793" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T12:46:01.130" Title="Developing multiple images in Lightroom" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;lightroom&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1327" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1323" CreationDate="2010-07-24T05:12:38.533" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question looks to be a duplicate of &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1042/recommendations-for-wireless-flash-triggers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1042/recommendations-for-wireless-flash-triggers&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a few good solutions there, and some advice overlaps with what John Cavan said above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="309" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T05:12:38.533" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1328" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1326" CreationDate="2010-07-24T05:36:58.260" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes: hold down command (ctrl on windows) and the 'Sync' button on the bottom of the development pane (i.e., the lower right) becomes 'Auto Sync', which will apply any changes to the whole selection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The switch on the sync button toggles Auto Sync on and off more permanently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-25T19:49:20.977" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T19:49:20.977" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1329" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="886" CreationDate="2010-07-24T06:12:43.917" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pinhole photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The optics of pinhole systems mean that increasing the size of the imaging medium makes enormous gains to the resolution of the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In practice, film (or photographic paper, commonly, but still silver-halide) is easily the best choice, and will probably remain so indefinitely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T06:12:43.917" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1330" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1323" CreationDate="2010-07-24T07:08:52.957" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fro my d300, I can set the main camera to be 'commander' and my sb900 to be 'slave', and make sure that the appropriate channels are used (ie, that the flash is firing on a2, and the slave is listening on a2).  Your d700 manual should contain instructions for how to set these things up.  The flash will have to 'see' the pulses sent by the camera, ie, be roughly in front of the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Make sure you remember to turn the commander setting off once you're done. At a wedding I shot recently, someone had set their flash to slave mode, and every time I took a shot, their flash fired.  Took me a bit to figure out why my shots were so mangled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T07:08:52.957" />
  <row Id="1331" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="488" CreationDate="2010-07-24T07:11:02.483" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;F--&quot; indicates that the lens isn't set to its maximum aperture, or that the camera can't control the aperture directly, which is necessary for most automatic exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To make this work, you'll need to do use manual mode (M), and you'll need to change the aperture using the aperture ring on the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Metering won't work, the solution there is to use the histogram to judge the correct exposure.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that focus confirmation will &lt;em&gt;also&lt;/em&gt; not work, and the solution there is to do your best, and use higher apertures (f/5.6 or higher).  Shooting at f/1.4 will likely be quite difficult to do reliably - it can be difficult on cameras built for manual focus; if you want to try, a good solution is to focus as best you can, then move slightly forward (maybe 5-10cm), and take several pictures, moving backwards a small amount (2cm) each time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T07:11:02.483" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1332" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1306" CreationDate="2010-07-24T07:23:16.523" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I take the approach of using a standalone GPS device (which happens to be an old Windows Mobile powered phone, running the free &lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osmtracker&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;OSM Tracker&lt;/a&gt;) and then combine the GPX tracks from it with my photographs using &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.microsoft.com/prophoto/downloads/tools.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Microsoft Pro Photo Tools&lt;/a&gt;, which also happens to be free.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Microsoft Pro Photo Tools also allows saving metadata back to RAW files (if you've install the &lt;a href=&quot;http://software.canon-europe.com/software/0038095.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;RAW Codec&lt;/a&gt; from Canon), and I'm not aware of any other tool that can do this; It can also add other metadata such as photographer contact details in the EXIF data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T07:23:16.523" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1333" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="229" CreationDate="2010-07-24T07:28:57.820" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Gary Winogrand: &quot;My only interest in photography is to see what something looks like as a photograph.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It only gets better when you realize he was lying through his teeth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T07:28:57.820" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-24T07:28:57.820" />
  <row Id="1334" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11" CreationDate="2010-07-24T08:59:34.233" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;An expensive solution: buy a cam with better ISO performance (usually containing a bigger sensor).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you are a lot in situations with little light and moving picture content, the investment might be worth it. I bough my D700 mainly for stage fotografie, since the light onstage often is quite dark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T08:59:34.233" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="1335" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="610" CreationDate="2010-07-24T09:09:50.683" Score="40" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[This answer is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/11740/what-are-community-wiki-posts-on-stack-overflow&quot;&gt;community wiki&lt;/a&gt;. Please contribute any other interesting and relevant articles or examples to list at the bottom.]&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a slightly different vein to answers so far: &lt;strong&gt;don't approach people first, just shoot them&lt;/strong&gt;.  This is mostly for practical reasons; you don't get good street photography by asking permission first (though you will get some great portraits that way).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some examples in action:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gary Winogrand (briefly): &lt;a href=&quot;http://2point8.whileseated.org/2007/03/23/garry-winogrand-with-bill-moyers/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://2point8.whileseated.org/2007/03/23/garry-winogrand-with-bill-moyers/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Joel Meyerowitz, discussing shooting street specifically: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.joelmeyerowitz.com/photography/interview_06.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.joelmeyerowitz.com/photography/interview_06.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jeff Mermelstein (briefly): &lt;a href=&quot;http://2point8.whileseated.org/2007/08/01/jeff-mermelstein-video-from-media-matters/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://2point8.whileseated.org/2007/08/01/jeff-mermelstein-video-from-media-matters/&lt;/a&gt; (excellent contrast to Meyerowitz!)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Daido Moriyama: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=FR&amp;amp;hl=fr&amp;amp;v=VViYphLJWOk&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=FR&amp;amp;hl=fr&amp;amp;v=VViYphLJWOk&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Something you will see in common in these: they are all at ease.  Even Meyerowitz bobbing up and down excited about the dogs - he's relaxed.  They keep their cameras in their hands, raise it, frame and take the photo quickly, and lower the camera.  Then they engage, briefly, and usually non-verbally.  Even the quiet and contained Jeff Mermelstein gives a smile or a nod.  This isn't impolite or aggressive, it's just a different set of mannerisms and timing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In as few words as possible: Take the photo quickly and without fuss, then look at the subject, &lt;strong&gt;smile &lt;em&gt;happily&lt;/em&gt;, and &lt;em&gt;mean it&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's where you engage your subject, and reassures them this is all totally normal and that you're not doing anything sneaky.  It happens quickly, so it's not a big deal.  This type of body language, communicating comfort and calmness, works &lt;em&gt;incredibly&lt;/em&gt; well.  It does not take as much practice as you might think, and you need not be the social butterfly extravert type; again, just look at Mermelstein!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my several years of shooting street and trying to emulate this approach, the most usual reactions I've seen, in order:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nothing/vaguely puzzled (60%)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Smile back&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Frown/scowl&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ask me about my camera&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Apologise for being &quot;in the way&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Annoyed enough to confront me in some way &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you are confronted (it happens), remain happy.  Remember that you have a right to be doing what you're doing, and also remember that they have a right to be annoyed.  Be respectful and listen.  Do not argue or contradict, instead attempt to calm and disarm.  If they're yelling at you, often the best thing to do is to walk away.  How to deal with all the different possibilities is a whole article in itself, but the thing to remember here is that this is actually quite rare; I've had conversations like this maybe a half-dozen times in total, over about five years of actively shooting street photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other articles and links (please note the date of addition so people can skip to the bits they may not have read yet):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(Aug 29 2010)&lt;/strong&gt; - The excellent Digital Photography School had an article on this which is both interesting and decorated with lots of lovely street scenes: &lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/10-tips-for-the-aspiring-street-photographer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://digital-photography-school.com/10-tips-for-the-aspiring-street-photographer&lt;/a&gt; (copy of &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/610/street-photography-hints-on-approaching-people/2848#2848&quot;&gt;my answer&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(Aug 25 2010)&lt;/strong&gt; - Alex Garcia, a photojournalist with the Chicago Tribune, has a short article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/assignment-chicago/2010/08/take-pictures-of-people-in-public-spaces.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;How To Take Candid Pictures of Strangers&lt;/a&gt; from a working photojournalist's point of view, which requires him to identify anyone he photographs, and often does involve asking first.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://2point8.whileseated.org/category/rules/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A series of 11 articles&lt;/a&gt; on &quot;Ways of Working&quot; again courtesy of street-oriented blog &lt;a href=&quot;http://2point8.whileseated.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2point8&lt;/a&gt;. Very thorough, very good.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/onthestreet/discuss/72157603551870243/72157603584256392/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A brief but excellent description on Flickr&lt;/a&gt;.  Very much of the &quot;be obvious&quot; school of thought, though in a way that's geared to not attract attention.  It could easily be describing Mermelstein in the video above.  The gist is to appear as if you're already taking the picture when the person enters the frame.  Very worth a read.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="602" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-29T14:44:38.797" LastActivityDate="2010-08-29T14:44:38.797" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-26T17:39:29.377" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1336" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="229" CreationDate="2010-07-24T11:08:30.833" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;A thing that you see in my pictures is that I was not afraid to fall in love with these people.&quot; ~ Annie Leibovitz &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="445" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T11:08:30.833" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-24T11:08:30.833" />
  <row Id="1337" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1306" CreationDate="2010-07-24T11:19:10.987" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I second the approach of a standalone GPS Tracker and then using some software to sync it into your metadata. I actively used a device called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.i-gotu.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;i-gotU&lt;/a&gt;. It is cheap and reasonable accurate, but in my experience needs a long time to pick up on the available satellites, which can be annoying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are on a Mac available syncing software is for example GPSPhotoLinker.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="445" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T11:19:10.987" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1338" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1306" CreationDate="2010-07-24T11:24:47.357" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gisteq.com/PhotoTrackr/phototrackr-cd111.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PhotoTrackr&lt;/a&gt;. It's a standalone GPS tracker, and comes with Windows &amp;amp; Mac software to automatically geotag your photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good points: cheap, small, robust, straightforward, enough memory to store at least two weeks' worth of data, runs for ~2 days on a single charge, Gisteq customer support are actually helpful if you ever need them, software is reasonably pleasant to use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bad points: no display, can take a while to get a position if you haven't used it recently, takes several hours to fully charge battery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T11:24:47.357" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1339" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1364" CreationDate="2010-07-24T11:33:51.853" Score="16" ViewCount="735" Body="&lt;p&gt;I need another LP-E5 type battery for my Canon 450D. Should I buy an original Canon battery or one of the many generic brands available? There are loads of cheapos on &lt;a href=&quot;http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Camera-Battery-Canon-EOS-1000D-450D-500D-Kiss-F-/180464527723?cmd=ViewItem&amp;amp;pt=UK_Photography_DigitalCamBatt_RL&amp;amp;hash=item2a0486296b#ht_753wt_911&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;eBay&lt;/a&gt;, for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I should add that the new battery will be added to my existing Canon battery in a battery grip.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone have any experience (good or bad) of using generic batteries?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: Thanks for all your advice. On balance I think the general feeling was to buy original brand, so one Canon branded battery ordered from Amazon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="482" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T03:53:32.597" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T03:53:32.597" Title="Should I buy an original manufactuer battery or is a generic brand OK?" Tags="&lt;batteries&gt;&lt;generic-brand&gt;&lt;3rdparty&gt;" AnswerCount="12" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1340" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1339" CreationDate="2010-07-24T11:42:00.123" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have mixed Canon and Ansmann batteries for my 5D, and had no problems at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that you still won't get more than you pay for, so if the batteries are really cheap, they will probably not hold the specified capacity and/or wear out quicker.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-24T12:06:30.137" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T12:06:30.137" />
  <row Id="1341" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1339" CreationDate="2010-07-24T12:17:11.737" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the last 6 years I owned several Pentax and Nikon DSLRs and batteries, original and generics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For any cam I owned I bough original batteries as well as generics. Usually, generic batteries worked great ... in the first few months. After those they tended to let me down, sometimes quickly.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Worst case was one shoot where two generic batteries both died after 60-80 pictures. Lucky me I still had one original spare battery which lastet long enough for the situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I tried different generics, with varying results. I time-Lapse-Experiments, where I took thousands of pictures over weeks I got to know my batteries quite well, and was a bit annoyed that the nearly new generics only gave about 2/3rds of the pictures than my original Nikon batteries, especially since these generics had not been that cheap (half price of the original).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Funny thing is, I never noticed the generics did not last as long as the original until I counted the shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it depends. obviously I got no clue how good original Canon batteries are, nor do I know each and every generic brand. Still I trust them not very far, and would not bet money on any of my generic batteries (meaning I'd always make sure to have more than enough spare batteries on any important shoot, preferable original ones - I use the generics for lesser important stuff).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T12:17:11.737" />
  <row Id="1342" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1323" CreationDate="2010-07-24T12:28:15.663" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For practice you can use the Nikon Wireless CLS. The D700 buildin flash can act as commander, and the SB-900 as TTL slave.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Pro: you can use full TTL capabilities.&#xA;Con: range is limited, especially in bright areas. Range can be extended by buying a TTL-Flash-Controller (SB-12?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cable is a great start, too: it works very reliable, you can use full TTL, but of course range is limited to cable length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simple wireless triggers (like YongNuo RF-602, Cactus V4, Skyports, Radiopopper JRx) are the strobist way, cheap, quite reliable, range is good. Downside: no TTL, instead you need to make all settings on the flash itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pro Wireless triggers (Radiopopper PX, Pocketwizard TTL) will give you full TTL with great reliability and good range, but for a hefty price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd buy a cheap set of radio triggers like the YongNuo RF-602 for learning strobist, and see if this works for you. Of course you need to learn lighting manually for this, but I think this is a good skill to have, even if you are using TTL.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For resources of course have a look at strobist 101 and 102 at www.strobist.com.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T12:28:15.663" />
  <row Id="1343" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1339" CreationDate="2010-07-24T13:18:56.137" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've always been loyal to buying Canon's own batteries, as I've seen the damage that counterfeit lithium batteries have done to a friend's laptop. Of course, this is unlikely with third party batteries (and you've got to be fairly unlucky with a counterfeit one), but why risk £1000 worth of camera body for the sake of saving £25?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T13:18:56.137" />
  <row Id="1344" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1109" CreationDate="2010-07-24T13:46:43.590" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some older Nikkor lenses can be mounted on a Pentax body (I know somebody who does just that with a K-x), but in general there is little reason to do so. However, as Pentax shooter myself (K20), I have to ask why you think you will switch platforms? If you seriously feel that this will happen, then you probably should look at Canon or Nikon, but I think you'd be selling Pentax short. Sure, it's not as big as those two, but it's actually older and you can mount their entire lens history (which is highly regarded) to their cameras, though M42 will require an adapter that's easily purchased.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, the K-x is a very good camera, great at high ISO (up there with full frame options) that will serve you well for years and the price is fantastic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T13:46:43.590" />
  <row Id="1345" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="987" CreationDate="2010-07-24T13:52:12.280" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With Pentax, I have the option of a TAv which is shutter/aperture priority, so I pick shutter for motion control and aperture for depth of field and the camera chooses ISO in a range that I set. Very handy mode that is usually where I have the camera set when shooting outside. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For indoor stuff, I usually switch to manual mode because I'm often doing things like macro work and want more precise control over all the elements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T13:52:12.280" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-24T13:52:12.280" />
  <row Id="1346" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1339" CreationDate="2010-07-24T13:53:38.703" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been using an Olympus BP-511-compatible battery in my 300D, 20D and 30D for two or three years now, and I've been very happy with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I should note, it's not super cheap — it was $40 or $50 — but still much cheaper than the $90 that a legit Canon battery cost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="515" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T13:53:38.703" />
  <row Id="1347" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1348" CreationDate="2010-07-24T13:58:25.777" Score="9" ViewCount="253" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are some techniques for getting good group pictures (3-8 people, say) on a bright sunny day?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've found shade to be difficult, because someone will invariably have a splash of harsh sun across their face… But I haven't had the opportunity to experiment with multiple off-camera flashes yet. Does that help?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt;: Thanks for the suggestions. One of the issues I was thinking of, which I should have mentioned more explicitly, is harsh shadows (eg, on people's eyes, on their nose).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="515" LastEditorUserId="515" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-24T20:24:31.817" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T03:05:22.593" Title="Group shots on a bright sunny day?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;people&gt;&lt;sunlight&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1348" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1347" CreationDate="2010-07-24T14:30:40.737" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The easiest is if you have the sun behind you, but not exactly behind you, but at an angle. That will give a slight side light to the faces, and they don't have to squint so much because of the sun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you use a flash in daylight, it's mostly to push away shadows, so that is useful if you have the sun from the side or behind the subject. The direction isn't very critical as it mostly affects the shadows, so a camera mounted flash works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you happen to have a big light wall close by that is in sunlight, you could use that as a giant reflector. Be a bit careful about the color though, something just off-white with a yellow tone would be ideal to match the warm sunlight and counter the slight blueish tone in the shadows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is not really the same need to use multiple lights outside as in a studio, you usually have a lot of secondary light bounding around, so not even the shadows are very dark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-24T14:43:15.793" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T14:43:15.793" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1349" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1339" CreationDate="2010-07-24T16:12:44.953" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't speak for Canon cams, but in the Nikon world generally one should stick with Nikon brand batteries. Particularly for the batteries from eBay, sometimes one gets a battery which is fine and of essentially the same quality as the Nikon batteries, and sometimes it's wretched junk. There's no way to tell. Poor-quality Li-ion batteries also run the (very small, to be true) risk of fire &amp;amp; explosion. For me, the trade-off wasn't worth the savings even though I do feel ripped off buying Nikon batteries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't buy any batteries at all on eBay since there's a very large number of counterfeit Nikon batteries floating around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I assume the situation is similar in Canon-land.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T16:12:44.953" />
  <row Id="1350" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1339" CreationDate="2010-07-24T16:46:53.557" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-LP-E5-Battery-Digital-Camera/dp/B0015GADB4/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1279989944&amp;amp;sr=1-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Amazon has the LP-E5 for $39.99 USD&lt;/a&gt;. To me, after buying a $500+ camera, a $40 second battery is a no brainer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I still have the original BP-511a that I purchased for $70 from Canon for my 20D in 2005 (it's now in my 40D), and I purchased a second LP-E6 for $79 for my 5D Mark II. In nearly 5 years of shooting, I've spent a total of $149 for camera batteries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would consider buying a 3rd party battery if it was from a reputable brand, like energizer, or duracell etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The amount of money you save, vs how often you replace 1st party batteries, vs the chance of faulty generics damaging your equipment or worse starting a fire, make the decision easy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think of it this way, the added price is an insurance policy. If the canon brand batteries do damage your body (unlikely), you have a recourse with Canon. Good luck trying to get any help with chinese knock-off batteries sold on ebay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T16:46:53.557" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1351" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1380" CreationDate="2010-07-24T17:32:34.577" Score="6" ViewCount="863" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am curious if there is a way to see thumbnails for more than the default file types (i.e. GIF, JPG, BMP, PNG) in Windows 7. I tend to use other formats like DNG, CRW, CR2, TIFF, etc., and sadly, Windows does not support thumbnail previews of these images by default.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used to use a few registry hacks in previous version of windows, however they no longer seem to work for Vista/7. I currently run Windows 7 64bit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-24T18:32:38.173" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T00:22:34.083" Title="Viewing thumbnails of RAW, DNG, PSD, TIFF, and other files in Windows 7" Tags="&lt;dng&gt;&lt;thumbnail-preview&gt;&lt;windows-7&gt;&lt;cr2&gt;&lt;tiff&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1352" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1347" CreationDate="2010-07-24T17:42:23.093" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As @Guffa said, but I've found a somewhat useful technique (if you have patient subjects, that is) for squint avoidance is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;have everyone close their eyes&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;on the count of three, have them open their eyes&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;take the shot on the count of three.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Right when the eyes open, they will not be squinting.  They will squint about a second later, though, and the first time you try this, some joker will inevitably ask &quot;Wait, you mean, on three, or right after three?&quot; and then that will lead to a round of clarification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of these potential crowd control issues, you should only use it when you need it, like if you're shooting on white marble or something (Hearst Castle pool deck, certain parts of Joshua Tree) where the entire area is very very bright and you have to take the group shot right now.  Otherwise, follow @Guffa's suggestion and angle the sun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T17:42:23.093" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1353" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="229" CreationDate="2010-07-24T17:46:19.983" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;“Not everybody trusts paintings but people believe photographs.”&#xA;—Ansel Adams&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“In my mind’s eye, I visualize how a particular . . . sight and feeling will appear on a print. If it excites me, there is a good chance it will make a good photograph. It is an intuitive sense, an ability that comes from a lot of practice.”&#xA;—Ansel Adams&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“You don’t take a photograph, you make it.”&#xA;—Ansel Adams&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.”&#xA;—Ansel Adams&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.”&#xA;—Dorthea Lange&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Where there is perhaps a province in which the photograph can tell us nothing more than what we see with our own eyes, there is another in which it proves to us how little our eyes permit us ro see.”&#xA;—Dorthea Lange&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="518" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T17:46:19.983" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-24T17:46:19.983" />
  <row Id="1354" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1339" CreationDate="2010-07-24T17:53:01.640" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had no problem with Ansmann batteries for 350D and 30D. When I got 5D Mark II, only off-brand batteries I could find were not fully electronically compatible and had to be charged in a special charger. That made me go with original LP-E6.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I'd say if you have a reputable (e.g. not Chinese eBay) off-brand battery that fully works, there no reason to avoid it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T17:53:01.640" />
  <row Id="1355" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1323" CreationDate="2010-07-24T17:56:49.090" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As mmr and Sam point out, your D700 can work as wireless master for SB-900. Therefore, everything you need is to set the triggers according to your instruction manual, stick the flash somewhere to the side and try it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later you might want to use some light modifiers, and perhaps look into other triggering methods, but as you can use CLS out of the box, there's really no reason not to use it right now. All you need to create photos &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/04/on-assignment-blind-snoot-portrait.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;like this one&lt;/a&gt; is a piece of cardboard and a sticky tape.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-24T18:02:08.483" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T18:02:08.483" />
  <row Id="1356" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="610" CreationDate="2010-07-24T17:58:15.513" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you find a really interesting character, ask permission, you can get up close and create very vivid and telling portraits.  You must be able to get them comfortable.  Talk a lot, ask a lot of questions, tell some jokes, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Otherwise, if you just want to capture moments and situations and brief expressions, etc, you won't gain anything by asking, in fact you may lose the candid moment.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T17:58:15.513" />
  <row Id="1357" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1351" CreationDate="2010-07-24T18:12:17.153" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;All you need do is install the relevent codecs, which are available from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canon-europe.com/vista/eos/raw_codec/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon&lt;/a&gt; for CR2/CRW (32-bit only), &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonimglib.com/nefcodec/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon&lt;/a&gt; for NEF (32-bit only), &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.olympus.co.jp/en/support/imsg/digicamera/download/software/codec/index.cfm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Olympus&lt;/a&gt; (32-bit only), &lt;a href=&quot;http://panasonic.jp/support/global/cs/dsc/download/raw/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Panasonic&lt;/a&gt; (32-bit only), &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentax.jp/english/support/digital/rawcodec_vista.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pentax&lt;/a&gt; (32-bit only) &amp;amp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://esupport.sony.com/US/perl/swu-download.pl?mdl=DSLRA900&amp;amp;upd_id=4022&amp;amp;os_id=30&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sony&lt;/a&gt; (32-bit and 64-bit)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The hack to run the 32-bit version of Windows Explorer (even on a 64-bit OS) no longer works on Windows 7, in my experience. For reference, as this works on 64-bit editions of Windows Vista; install the 32-bit codecs, and then create a shortcut to &quot;C:\Windows\SysWOW64\explorer.exe /separate&quot;. Even on 64-bit editions of Windows 7, the 32-bit codecs do have some use and still work for any 32-bit applications that allow on Windows Imaging Components (WIC)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-24T18:19:15.410" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T18:19:15.410" />
  <row Id="1358" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1230" CreationDate="2010-07-24T18:15:36.693" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It really depends on what kind of things you want to do with your photos and what is your workflow. Lightroom is good as tool for most of the things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aperture at least had edge over previous Lightroom versions on RAW image processing quality of images. At least based of what I heard from one advertising photographer (who works mainly with large number of studio flashes and medium format camera with digital back or smaller DSRLs), he had problems at getting as good image processing quality with LR as with Aperture. It was more than year ago so I'm not sure about the current situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have seen both Lightroom and Aperture been used and both have their own fans and approaches. Both programs have many different ways how they can be used so it depends on the way you use them how software fits to your workflow. Modular approach of LR is sometimes distracting and slows you down but one has to understand that user interactions of both programs have been designed differently. At one point, Aperture was re-developed by team that had made Final Cut Pro so it might have some similarities in some details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I feel that Lightroom fits better to my workflow even if it has some problems in the implementation (LR should learn things from UI of Aperture). One interesting thing to note is that the file size of Aperture 3 is around 600+ MB while LR3 is around 90 MB (not sure how much more there are application support files elsewhere for each of them).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="518" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T18:15:36.693" />
  <row Id="1359" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="987" CreationDate="2010-07-24T18:17:59.297" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Shutter priority for shots that I want to control how much the action is frozen or blurred (panning).  This used to include hand shake on cameras with weaker Auto-ISO, but Pentax's (not sure if other brands have followed suit) Auto-ISO aims for shutter speeds dependent on current focal length, so that function has moved to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aperture priority for controlling depth of field (or MTF sharpness).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Manual mode for controlling both motion and depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T18:17:59.297" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-24T18:17:59.297" />
  <row Id="1360" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1351" CreationDate="2010-07-24T18:35:42.020" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/codecs/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fast Picture Viewer&lt;/a&gt; has an extensive pack for the low price of $9.99 and it appears to cover them all. They used to give the DNG one away for free (I'm using it), but I'm not sure if that is still the case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T18:35:42.020" />
  <row Id="1361" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1381" CreationDate="2010-07-24T20:53:53.693" Score="5" ViewCount="63" Body="&lt;p&gt;After having quite success/fun with bromoil, I am thinking of trying collodion. Unfortuantely ressources about this process are extremely rare. Do you know of any, except the ones that google finds right away? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="418" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-25T00:17:27.557" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T00:24:35.530" Title="how can I learn the collodion process" Tags="&lt;developing&gt;&lt;alt-process&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1362" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1351" CreationDate="2010-07-24T20:58:57.613" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found a tool called &lt;a href=&quot;http://mysticcoder.net/mysticthumbs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;MysticThumbs&lt;/a&gt;, which supports a wide variety of formats. It has a free trial, but costs $15. The DNG thumbnails have not appeared yet...not sure if there is a bug or not. Every other image format on my system has a thumbnail now, however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T20:58:57.613" />
  <row Id="1363" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-24T21:04:49.923" Score="5" ViewCount="88" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do you know of any manufacturer that makes filters thin enough so that the can stay on the Voigtländer Bessa III even when folded? I would need yellow, red and polarising filter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="418" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T03:58:32.300" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T03:58:32.300" Title="Does anyone make filters thin enough for a Voigtländer Bessa III?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;rangefinder&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="1364" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1339" CreationDate="2010-07-24T21:48:41.907" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the easiest choices is to buy brand name batteries. From batch to batch the manufacturer takes quality and performance very seriously. You know and I know that in general there will be no lemons. Generic batteries can be made by any number of manufacturers and they all take on the challenge with different perspectives. And as a result if you were to buy from a e-retailer www.dealextreme.com (which has been selling generic batteries from many manufacturers for years) you'll note that customers leave reviews indicating that one generic marque is better than another. One marque will hold almost as much charge as a Canon/Nikon marque for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But because generic battery manufacturers often just copy-cat the design and don't really take special care in being faithful to copying everything, they'll miss something that is non obvious. For example there are several cold weather expeditions to Antartica, mountaineering, and ocean faring where photogs discover generic brands to give out all too quickly, rendering the whole trouble of carrying them moot. They all chimed in wishing they had packed genuine brands. So you can imagine a generic battery maker using thin plastic shields without weather sealing because they could shave off a couple of cents and improve profits--not knowing what they are about to do to some of your most important photographic adventures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Batteries are also intimately connected to the electronics in your camera, you don't want to be in an uneviable situation where Canon or Nikon disclaim their responsibility to repair your camera because they've discovered that the electronics may be busted due to a generic vertical grip, charger, or battery. That could be quite costly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But do what you must, and do it smartly. For example, you might have some bust up out of warranty camera you bought at a garage sale and you just need to find some el cheapo battery to go with it. So that you can take out the IR screen of the old busted camera's sensor and do some art projects. No harms done and your wallet won't feel all too much lighter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="387" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T21:48:41.907" />
  <row Id="1365" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1339" CreationDate="2010-07-24T22:17:02.627" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had a super cheap non-Canon battery in my 400D and it was as good as the Canon one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But &lt;strong&gt;I wouldn't trust a sample of 1&lt;/strong&gt; if I were you ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although you mention in the details you have a 450D, I'll add an answer to the generic Canon question for others that may read this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For some Canon cameras (such as the 7D) the battery holds special information regarding battery life and requires a special charger. The non-Canon versions don't support this and need a different charger. This means &lt;strong&gt;you may need to carry two chargers&lt;/strong&gt; and also not have the battery life indicator on the screen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just something else to consider.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T22:17:02.627" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1366" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1384" CreationDate="2010-07-24T22:17:03.687" Score="9" ViewCount="426" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like hiking, and usually take my DSLR with me. I often find myself in front of beautiful landscapes, with the sun really high or directly in front of me. The resulting pictures are usually pale, ie they lack contrast (I don't know if I'm clear). Also, the sky is usually very clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This can usually be post-processed, but what are the techniques for getting good pictures in such conditions ? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="527" LastEditorUserId="527" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-26T19:59:15.023" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T23:21:06.493" Title="How to take a good landscape picture against the sun ?" Tags="&lt;sunlight&gt;&lt;landscape&gt;&lt;sun&gt;" AnswerCount="7" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="1367" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1366" CreationDate="2010-07-24T22:19:02.763" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd say time of day is the best thing if you can control that ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is discussed more in &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/532/what-techniques-do-you-employ-to-control-contrast-in-your-landscape-shots/535#535&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T22:19:02.763" />
  <row Id="1368" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1372" CreationDate="2010-07-24T22:20:30.640" Score="17" ViewCount="201" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I bought my polarizer, a friend told me that I should get a circular one, because the linear ones can mess with the autofocus. Is this true? What should each be used for?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="527" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-25T00:03:29.987" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T08:04:51.780" Title="What is the difference between a linear and a circular polarizer?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;polarizer&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1369" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1339" CreationDate="2010-07-24T22:22:01.343" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't go with generic batteries as there is too much of risks related to them even when you might get 3 generic batteries for the cost of the one original battery. Canon (and other electronics manufacturers) clearly indicate that you are out of luck if you can used batteries made by other manufacturers than the original.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="518" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T22:22:01.343" />
  <row Id="1370" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1377" CreationDate="2010-07-24T22:23:00.513" Score="17" ViewCount="585" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm interested in getting into post-processing stuff, and I'm wondering about the Unsharp Mask operation. Specifically, there are 3 parameters involved:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;amount&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;radius&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;threshold&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do these do? Should I just leave them on the default settings? If not, what are the criteria for modifying them in each direction?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T02:43:20.707" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T02:43:20.707" Title="Unsharp mask - what do the parameters do?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;unsharp-mask&gt;&lt;sharpening&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="8" />
  <row Id="1371" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1370" CreationDate="2010-07-24T22:30:50.337" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The unsharp mask will increase the perceived sharpness of an image by increasing the contrast of pixels next to each other. It does so by making darker pixels a bit darker, and brighter pixels a bit brighter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;em&gt;amount&lt;/em&gt; parameter will control how much darker or brighter the pixels will be made. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;em&gt;threshold&lt;/em&gt; parameter will prevent the filter from having any effect unless the difference between pixels is large enough. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;em&gt;radius&lt;/em&gt; parameter determines how large area around each pixel that will be analyzed when performing the calculations.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Different images will require different settings. I typically use (in Photoshop) radius as low as possible, amount at around 80%, and then experiment with the threshold so that the sharpening happens where it is intended. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the amount is too high, the image will look &quot;over sharpened&quot; in an unnatural way. If radius is too high, there will be a halo effects in sharpened areas of the image and if the threshold is too low, it may make image noise become more apparent. If radius or amount is too low or if threshold is too high, the result will be that there is no or little effect of the operation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastEditorUserId="10" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-24T22:35:57.117" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T22:35:57.117" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1372" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1368" CreationDate="2010-07-24T22:40:18.657" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A polarizer works in the way that it will let through only the light that is polarized in the same direction as the filter is currently turned. It is true that many AF systems have problems with this. To solve this, circular polarizer have a layer &quot;inside&quot; the polarizing filter that &quot;un-polarizes&quot; the polarized light so that the AF can function properly. The linear polarizer does not have this extra layer. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizing_filter_%28Photography%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt; explains this quite well, I think.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, there are no cases when you would want a linear polarizer instead of a circular one. Anywhere a linear polarizer will do the job, the circular one will work just as well, but not the other way around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T22:40:18.657" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1373" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-24T22:51:03.090" Score="26" ViewCount="1738" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon Powershot A710 and I previously had a previous Powershot A-series model. I love them due to the high amount of control they offer. Sadly, they both suck in low light conditions, their flash is very unresponsive and the camera takes several seconds preparing itself for the next shot after a flash shot. And even then, the pictures they take in low light/flash are as bad as good are those with good light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, two questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is there a point and shoot that gives the amount of control the A-series give AND that takes great pictures in low light/flash?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is there a point and shoot that's great on low light/flash (regardless of how much control you get)?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="487" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T12:00:19.317" Title="What point and shoots are good in low light conditions?" Tags="&lt;low-light&gt;&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;" AnswerCount="10" FavoriteCount="8" />
  <row Id="1374" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1373" CreationDate="2010-07-24T23:33:31.180" Score="22" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For both cases I strongly recommend looking for something with&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a fast lens (2.0 is faster than 2.8 for example)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;reasonable ISO handling (at least 400, but preferably 800) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the biggest sensor available&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sum of these factors are really critical for low light situations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Currently, both the Canon S95 and the Lumix LX5 offers that set of characteristics. If you don't mind a slight bulkier camera, you can also consider the Canon G12 due to its movable LCD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And last but not least, if you can afford the extra cost, the Sony NEX and the micro four thirds offers from Panasonic (GF1) and Olympus (E-PL1) are certainly better than the previous options.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that these are current examples, but the market is always offering new cameras. The important thing to keep in mind is the sum of the above mentioned factors (fast lens, ISO handling and sensor size).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastEditorUserId="46" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-29T12:00:19.317" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T12:00:19.317" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1375" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1366" CreationDate="2010-07-24T23:46:32.983" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In this case you might try under exposing the image. I think you will still want to post process it but if your white areas end up clipped with digital you might have a little less room to create more contrast in post processing.  This also might be a place where shooting in raw might give you a little more range you can work with in post processing as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might also look for a way to make the flatness of the lighting work with the landscape. If you get lots of layers and then maybe flatten the perspective even more with a telephoto you might get kind of a nice gradient feel to the overall image.  You know, something artsy like that ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="198" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T23:46:32.983" />
  <row Id="1376" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1366" CreationDate="2010-07-24T23:54:17.853" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Time of day&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Underexposing&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Graduated ND filter&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;HDR with tonemapping (I don't like overcooked HDR, but you can make it look very realistic, all depends on the settings).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there are foreground subjects, a strobe setup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-07-24T23:54:17.853" />
  <row Id="1377" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1370" CreationDate="2010-07-25T00:01:47.383" Score="19" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some background:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The unsharp mask is an old technique that has been used in darkrooms long before computers were capable of processing images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The original process consists of two exposures; first you create an unsharp mask by making a contact copy on low-contrast positive film, but with a distance between the original and film (and sometimes a diffusing plastic sheet) so that it becomes blurred. When you put the blurred positive and the negative together and make an exposure on paper, the positive cancels out some of the light from the negative. As the positive is blurred, it lets through more of the small details, which makes the image appear sharper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two of the parameters directly correspond to this old method;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The radius is how much the positive is blurred.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The amount is how much the positive is exposed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The threshold has been added to enable you to exclude low-contrast edges from the sharpening.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good baseline for the radius is around &lt;code&gt;0.1 mm&lt;/code&gt;. For an image that is to be viewed on a screen, which is about &lt;code&gt;100 ppi&lt;/code&gt;, it translates to a radius of &lt;code&gt;0.5&lt;/code&gt;. For an image that is to be printed at &lt;code&gt;300 ppi&lt;/code&gt;, it translates to a radius of &lt;code&gt;1.5&lt;/code&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I sharpen images in the final step for publishing on my web site, I use these settings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Amount: 50%&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Radius: 0.5&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Threshold: 2&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T00:01:47.383" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1378" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1368" CreationDate="2010-07-25T00:02:43.700" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes, it's true&lt;/strong&gt; - sometimes. Some AF systems work OK with a linear polarizer under some or all conditions, and others fail all the time. You'd have to try it and see.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When would you want a linear polarizer?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They are often cheaper.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Since there's only one polarizing layer, not two, light transmission is often greater.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T00:02:43.700" />
  <row Id="1379" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1373" CreationDate="2010-07-25T00:10:08.007" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It sounds as if you're more concerned with flash than ISO and sensor noise, which are essentially unsolvable with P&amp;amp;S in low light, so that's good. I identify two possible problems with suggestions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Insufficient power/recycle time.&lt;/em&gt; Some P&amp;amp;S have a hot shoe, so you can attach a real, internally powered flash. You could try this. You may also be able to optically trigger the external flash; the camera flash will still fire, but at a lower power, so recycle time will be less.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Poor flash placement.&lt;/em&gt; On-camera flash can lead to the deer-in-the-headlights look and exposure problems, either from nearby objects overexposing and/or causing metering problems that leave the rest of the scene dark or specular materials reflecting too much light, causing underexposure. Moving the flash away from the lens and/or using bounce flash may mitigate these problems.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Canon A series uses AA batteries, as do external flashes, and the batteries you choose will have a significant effect on the flash recycle time. Never use alkaline as battery life will be pathetic. If you want a disposable cell, use lithium, though they are expensive. What I would suggest is high-quality NiMH - look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/570/what-attributes-should-i-look-when-buying-batteries-for-a-speedlite-speedlight&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt; for more on that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-25T00:16:18.137" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T00:16:18.137" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1380" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1351" CreationDate="2010-07-25T00:16:54.717" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/codecs/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fast Picture Viewer&lt;/a&gt; is $9.99 and works just fine on 64-bit Windows 7 (I'm using it myself).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also install the 32-bit codec and then view the folder with Windows Live Photo Gallery, which will generate the thumbnails for you. Other applications, like Explorer, will then be able to use these thumbnails - but you'll have to reopen WLPG every time you add any new files. IMHO, this is an enormous amount of faffing about, just to save $10...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastEditorUserId="206" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-25T00:22:34.083" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T00:22:34.083" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1381" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1361" CreationDate="2010-07-25T00:17:13.983" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Alternative Photography, which is on Google's first page, is still one of the best resources I know of for alt-process photography, so I'll recommend it anyway:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/processes/wetplate/the-wetplate-collodion-process&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/processes/wetplate/the-wetplate-collodion-process&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The forums at f295.org are low-traffic, but generally helpful and knowledeable, and don't show up for the obivous searches.  They have a dedicated collodion section:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.f295.org/Pinholeforum/forum/Blah.pl?b-collodion/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.f295.org/Pinholeforum/forum/Blah.pl?b-collodion/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unblinking Eye has a decent article on the process, with some photos of the portable darkbox used:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.unblinkingeye.com/Articles/WPC/wpc.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.unblinkingeye.com/Articles/WPC/wpc.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://APUG.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://APUG.org&lt;/a&gt; doesn't have a dedicated section for collodion, but there's a fair amount of information scattered around their forums; site-specific search with Google is a good place to start with APUG:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?q=site:apug.org+collodion&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.google.com/search?q=site:apug.org+collodion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the best place by far isn't on the internet at all.  If there are any people working with the process locally, they may offer workshops from time to time; it takes about a day to get oriented and produce your first images (often using the instructor's gear, which is convenient).  To find those, get in touch with any local photography clubs, darkroom spaces, or decent camera stores – those are usually the venues where you'll see such things advertised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-25T00:24:35.530" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T00:24:35.530" />
  <row Id="1382" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1373" CreationDate="2010-07-25T00:18:05.590" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I highly recommend the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-Digital-Optical-Stabilized/dp/B002LITT42/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon S90&lt;/a&gt;. I have one, and for a point and shoot it has pretty stellar low-light performance. Using it, with a good noise reduction pp produces great results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's light weight, and feature rich. I paid near MSRP for it, because I bought it new. It has all the bells and whistles you would expect from a point and shoot, plus full manual, aperture and shutter priority modes. Also (iirc) it has video mode. All and all, it's a top notch P&amp;amp;S.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T00:18:05.590" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1383" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1386" CreationDate="2010-07-25T00:21:29.310" Score="9" ViewCount="127" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was at Seattle Beagle Rescue's Beaglefest today and was trying to take pictures of all the hounds. Needless to say, the results were less than stellar. A few dogs were still enough to take photos of, but the rest, well, they were busy beagling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are some tips for pet photography, especially in a high distraction settings like a dog park?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What AF settings work well for pets?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What shooting modes are better suited for pets?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flash for fill?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is burst/drive shooting helpful?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-14T12:56:21.667" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T12:56:21.667" Title="How to take pictures of pets in a high distraction environment?" Tags="&lt;tips&gt;&lt;pets&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="1384" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1366" CreationDate="2010-07-25T01:24:34.953" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think this is an example of: &lt;strong&gt;use the opportunities you have, rather than the ones you wish you had&lt;/strong&gt;. The situation you describe is tricky, and it'll be difficult to get the kind of grand, well-lit landscape that you seen in magazines. But, as Kyle suggests, perhaps there are different interpretations of the scene that could work. Some specific suggestions (some of which are mentioned in other answers as well):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Keep the sun off your glass (not just out of the frame): shoot from the shade, use a lens hood, shade the lens with your hand or a hat, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you want a blue sky, underexpose or shoot in manual, spot-metering off the sky.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A polarizer will help.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make note of interesting scenes and come back when the light is better.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T01:24:34.953" />
  <row Id="1385" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1383" CreationDate="2010-07-25T01:30:02.270" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know the answer to all your subquestions, but I'll try a few. Keep in mind this is speculation rather than success stories.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;AF settings&lt;/em&gt; - I'd try AF-C (continuous), choose the center focus point, and shoot a bit wide, cropping in post.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Shooting mode&lt;/em&gt; - Manual might be best if the lighting is fairly even. Otherwise, shutter priority would keep you at a fast enough shutter speed for rambunctious dogs.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Drive mode&lt;/em&gt; - I'd say yes, as it gives you more opportunity to capture an interesting expression or pose. The drawback is more photos to shovel through in post (it's easy to overlook this cost).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T01:30:02.270" />
  <row Id="1386" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1383" CreationDate="2010-07-25T01:46:09.283" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;AF Setting:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;If your camera has an autofocus mode has the camera track the point of focus and adjust to compensate when/if it moves (like Canon's AI Servo mode), then that's the mode I'd choose.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Shooting Mode:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Assuming you want to stick to auto modes, then I'd choose &quot;Portrait&quot; (icon = woman's head) to blur distracting  backgrounds, &quot;Sports mode&quot; (icon = person running) if you're subject is moving quickly (ie a frisbee or agility demo), or &quot;Landscape&quot; mode (icon = mountains) to keep the background sharp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Flash:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;If the dog's looking at you, you have to be careful with flash.  You'll often get &quot;green eye&quot; (rather than the &quot;red eye&quot; you get with humans).  You can try redeye reduction mode for your flash (if available) to try to get rid of that, but I find that it often doesn't work no matter what I try.  An off-camera flash is helpful in that situation, or just don't use flash at all -if you're outside and can shoot with natural light in mind, you don't really need flash.  Just make sure the light is hitting the dog in a flattering way; I tend to look for the best light and look for photo ops in that direction.  A good place to start with that is to keep the sun at your back, or if it's close to noon, then try in the shade (mid-day sun can be too harsh to produce good photos).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Burst:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;If you have the space on our memory card and the time to review the extra photos it doesn't hurt.  I actually find that sometimes the sound of the shutter makes dogs cock their heads in the &quot;what was that&quot; expression, which is cute and often caught on the 2nd or 3rd photo in a series.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Other suggestions:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Get low to get on their level if you can.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Find a whistle or clicking sound that gets their attention.  I find that a long whistle that slowly goes from a normal to a high pitch often gets their attention.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For portrait-like photos, I tend to frame animals tight and/or blur the background so they stand out and I can eliminate any distractions from my image.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wide shots that show the event in the background are nice too, but you have to be really aware of what's showing in the background.  Make it tell a story, don't let it just be what happens to be there or you'll likely end up unhappy with the results.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="110" LastEditorUserId="110" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-25T01:55:57.420" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T01:55:57.420" />
  <row Id="1387" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-25T01:49:56.247" Score="13" ViewCount="155" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm currently working to finish my thesis, which is pretty all-consuming. I've made almost no photos of note in many weeks. This makes me sad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To generalize, given the following constraints:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A very limited daily time budget for photography (say, 15 minutes on average including post-processing and publishing).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Restricted to familiar locations (e.g. home, work, commuting).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When out and about, in a hurry (for me, bike commuting) and at times of day with no-so-great lighting (10am, noon, 5-7pm - sunset is after 8:30).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What suggestions for staying photographically inspired and productive do you have? I realize that I'm obviously not going to have high output during this type of period, but I'd like for it to not be essentially zero.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T03:59:57.353" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T03:59:57.353" Title="How can I stay inspired during periods of distraction?" Tags="&lt;inspiration&gt;" AnswerCount="8" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="1388" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1387" CreationDate="2010-07-25T02:07:48.077" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You may want to try different ways to get into the mood:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You can try taking a shot at the exact time everyday. This will force you to prepare for the shot wherever you are and will let you find new subjects without too much effort.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you have regular habits, you can try taking a shot at the same location or of the same subject for many days on a row. This will force you to think creatively about the subject and discover its subtleties along the time you dedicate to it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You could use the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/roygbiv/&quot;&gt;ROYGBIV&lt;/a&gt; rule for example and focus on a color at time. This will make you take notice on the &quot;color of the day&quot; and probably find nice subjects with it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You may use a pre-defined sequence of themes like &lt;em&gt;People-City-Colors-Abstract-Water-etc&lt;/em&gt; and dedicate each shot to one of these themes in order.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice that all these approaches intentionally take part of your &lt;em&gt;freedom&lt;/em&gt; in order to make you get more focused on a specific aspect of the shot. When under such time constraints, too many options are not the best way to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T02:07:48.077" />
  <row Id="1389" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1366" CreationDate="2010-07-25T02:13:10.780" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Polarizers and neutral density filters will go a long way to help this, but they are not a panacea. At some point you will hit their limits and will need to consider an alternate time of day to really get the shot. That is, after all, the &quot;secret&quot; of photography: the right time at the right place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T02:13:10.780" />
  <row Id="1390" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1387" CreationDate="2010-07-25T02:17:37.040" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm in the middle of a 365 project and it can be tough to come up with something, anything, to keep it going. Fortunately, I never promised that the picture would be good, just that there would be one. That, I think, is the secret. If nothing else, point your camera in a direction and press the release and, from time to time, you will discover that you took a gem. You'd be surprised at what is interesting in the things around us that we take for granted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T02:17:37.040" />
  <row Id="1391" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1383" CreationDate="2010-07-25T02:26:23.353" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, like most living subjects that move:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;AF Settings&lt;/strong&gt; Continuous, as other have mentioned.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Shooting Mode&lt;/strong&gt; Well, assuming you're not talking scene modes, then shutter priority is a good place to start. If you shoot Pentax, like me, then TAv (shutter/aperture priority) mode is even better. By setting the shutter, you control the effect of movement.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Flash&lt;/strong&gt; Yes but, as noted, be aware of the potential effect on the eyes. If you can place the flash off camera, that is better, otherwise look to bounce the light off of a ceiling or bounce card.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Drive Mode&lt;/strong&gt; It will help to shoot in burst if the animal is moving quickly because you up your odds that one in the sequence will be quite sharp. It's a handy feature, so I recommend using it where the subject isn't entirely predictable.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T02:26:23.353" />
  <row Id="1392" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1387" CreationDate="2010-07-25T02:35:53.283" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Photographers often use different kinds of limitations to help their creativity. If your time is limited, you might be able to use that to your advantage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could for example decide that you have to take a picture within 60 seconds. Rush out and look for something to photograph (while trying not to look too demented ;), and if you can't find anything within the minute, just take a snap of anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or perhaps stand still in one spot and take a picture within the minute. I have tried this (but without the time limit), and there are plenty of photos to be taken pretty much anywhere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe this will produce some usable photos, maybe not, but it should at least help you to get in the mood quickly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T02:35:53.283" />
  <row Id="1393" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1420" CreationDate="2010-07-25T07:11:44.810" Score="8" ViewCount="522" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm usually very good at getting water/finger marks on lens, so I must use something for protection. Is there any downside of using an UV filter instead of a protector filter?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example: Hoya HD Protector or Hoya HD UV?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="420" LastEditorUserId="420" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-30T17:25:16.190" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T17:25:16.190" Title="Lens protection: choose between protector or UV filter" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;filters&gt;&lt;protection&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1394" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1393" CreationDate="2010-07-25T07:33:02.747" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I tend to have a polariser strapped to the front of my lens whenever shooting outside (which is, of course, the third option).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that digital cameras are less sensitive to UV light than film is, then the choice is moot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I'd tend to opt for the UV filter option, when I'm not using a polariser; as I'd still be able to use it with my film cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T07:33:02.747" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1395" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1393" CreationDate="2010-07-25T08:00:11.310" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Digital cameras have built-in UV filter, so using UV on them is the same as using a protector.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T08:00:11.310" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1396" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1387" CreationDate="2010-07-25T08:04:37.647" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Due to your limited time budget, you probably don’t want to do shoots that have high setup time, like studio work or landscape (where so much depends on waiting for the right weather and right natural light).  Perhaps you could use one of your activity as the content of your photograph, like a documentary of the people that you see on your commute, or houses in your neighborhood, or one of your family/friends.  This would be kind of like what William Eggleston did, he turned the viewer’s eye to the beauty in ordinary subject matter.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;When I was working in New York, I also had the same problem, then I start taking photos of the subway during my commute.  After awhile, patterns in the demographics of the commuter at different stations start emerging.  So I was able to show a bigger picture about the different areas of new York as reflected by the commuters without leaving the subway.  I think the key is to keep your eyes open and be observant of your surroundings.&#xA;Depends on your project, you might want to have one longer shoot and processing time, rather than shoot every day, so that you have sufficient time to context-switch and get into your subjects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="405" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T08:04:37.647" />
  <row Id="1397" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1368" CreationDate="2010-07-25T08:04:51.780" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because many AF and metering systems have problems with polarized light, circular polarizer has an added layer which &quot;un-polarizes&quot; the light that comes out. Therefore you should only get circular polarizers in usual cases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The exception is when you want to use two polarizers to create a tunable ND filter. In that case, the front polarizer has to be linear, and then you can control the darkening effect by adjusting relative position of the two polarizers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T08:04:51.780" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1398" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8" CreationDate="2010-07-25T10:10:05.300" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sounds too simple but I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://explore.live.com/windows-live-photo-gallery&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Windows Live Photo Gallery&lt;/a&gt; the best out there. First of all it's &lt;strong&gt;free&lt;/strong&gt; and built into Windows. The most important features for me are that I can &lt;strong&gt;tag pictures&lt;/strong&gt; (and it actually touches the &lt;strong&gt;IPTC&lt;/strong&gt; metadata so it's portable over different file-systems if you have both Windows and Mac) and find them very easily using Windows search or the search functionality built into almost any image organization software. Tagging files lets you organize the files as you want on disk (I go for the directory-per-date).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everybody told me that iPhoto on Mac was fantastic but with more than 20Gb of images it becomes a problem since it creates its own library (double the files). Also if you don't &quot;import&quot; it won't touch the original files, so the day you switch computers or something goes wrong and you lose the library file you are desperate :(&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="282" LastEditorUserId="3078" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-24T04:19:08.040" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T04:19:08.040" />
  <row Id="1399" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1400" CreationDate="2010-07-25T12:43:29.220" Score="3" ViewCount="121" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there any software which allows to &lt;em&gt;automatically&lt;/em&gt; slice a panoramic photo so that it can be printed as several normal dimension photographs to stitch after printing?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Say I have a 9x2 image which can be printed as 3 3x2 photographs which can be stitched to produce a 9x2. I could obviously prepare the 3 images manually, but this looks like an easy task to automate. Do you know of any software which does such slicing automatically?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="532" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T17:38:52.513" Title="Automated way to slice a panoramic photo to print as several normal photos for stitching" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;panorama&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="1400" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1399" CreationDate="2010-07-25T13:23:29.880" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many of the software packages for creating panoramas also have the ability to automatically tile images for the printer, so even if you don't need the panoramic creation portion, the printing portion can be used. Most of them appear to be pretty inexpensive, one of the first ones I found, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.serif.com/panoramaplus/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Panorama Plus&lt;/a&gt; is $29.99 US which isn't outrageuous, though it doesn't appear that they have a trial option. Anyways, a quick Google search will find you plenty of options.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T13:23:29.880" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1401" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1306" CreationDate="2010-07-25T13:29:32.407" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have not used them, but there are devices like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.eye.fi/products/geox2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Eye-Fi Geo card&lt;/a&gt; which are souped-up SD cards that automatically geotag the photos as they are being taken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="530" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T13:29:32.407" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1402" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1404" CreationDate="2010-07-25T14:59:38.133" Score="20" ViewCount="645" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can anyone offer any tips on achieving long exposures (with the intention of blurring water, clouds etc)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="482" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T14:31:17.620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T11:51:02.560" Title="What is the best technique for long-exposure photography in good light?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;long-exposure&gt;&lt;motion-blur&gt;" AnswerCount="6" FavoriteCount="9" />
  <row Id="1403" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1402" CreationDate="2010-07-25T15:08:36.320" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general, use a smaller aperture. If that will not give you slow enough shutter speeds, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_density_filter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;neutral density filters&lt;/a&gt; (ND-filters) will give you slower shutter speeds without altering colors and such in the scene. They come in different strengths and can be combined. If you go shopping for an ND filter, make sure not to mix up graduated ND-filters with regular ones. The graduated filters have another purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another option is to use a polarizer (which will typically steal 2 stops worth of light).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T15:08:36.320" />
  <row Id="1404" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1402" CreationDate="2010-07-25T15:09:31.700" Score="36" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;The Technique&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Stable &lt;strong&gt;Tripod&lt;/strong&gt; is a must if you want to be able to compose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want exposures over 30 seconds, use &lt;strong&gt;Bulb mode&lt;/strong&gt;, as most of the cameras only meter up to 30 seconds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use &lt;strong&gt;small apertures, low ISO&lt;/strong&gt; and add &lt;strong&gt;ND filters&lt;/strong&gt; if there is too much light. You probably want your sensor to be &lt;strong&gt;clean&lt;/strong&gt; also as small apertures will render the dust relatively sharply.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use &lt;strong&gt;remote trigger&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;self-timer&lt;/strong&gt; so you don't touch the camera during exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's better to use &lt;strong&gt;mirror-lockup&lt;/strong&gt; to avoid camera shake caused by mirror movement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disable all &lt;strong&gt;automatic features&lt;/strong&gt;, like auto-ISO, auto-flash, probably also autofocus (just focus once from a contrasty point and then switch to manual).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the cameras have something called &quot;&lt;strong&gt;long exposure noise reduction&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; which will double your exposure time, expose a dark frame and subtract it from the main frame to lessen noise. If you're OK with the exposure time doubling, use it, otherwise disable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the exposures get really long (up to and over 30 min) you might want to do it with &lt;strong&gt;fresh battery&lt;/strong&gt;. Around these times &lt;strong&gt;amplifier noise&lt;/strong&gt; will probably be problem with digital cameras - it will result purple glow in some parts of the frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should you be doing it with film, keep the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_%28photography%29#Reciprocity_failure&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;reciprocity failure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; in mind. You can check the needed exposure correction amounts from the film manufacturer's website.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Artistic side&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;long exposures&quot; starting from anything that is not hand holdable any more are usually used to add dynamics to the picture. &lt;strong&gt;Motion blur&lt;/strong&gt; can sometimes result very nice photos, it just needs a lot of experimentation to get right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The long exposures ranging around 1-30 seconds can be used to play with the &lt;strong&gt;balancing lights&lt;/strong&gt; concept. The prime examples of balancing light work are the photos taken at after dusk or pre-dawn, when there is some natural ambient light available, but it balances well with the artificial light sources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also balance ambient light with flash or other kinds of controlled artificial lightning. Experiment with different directions and vary the intensity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an example of balancing light concept: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/digitallion/3823333007/sizes/l/in/photostream/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photo with natural light only&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/digitallion/3824172978/sizes/l/in/photostream/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the same shot with additional artificial lightning&lt;/a&gt; (this is the winner of &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nmm.ac.uk/visit/exhibitions/astronomy-photographer-of-the-year/winners/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Astronomy Photographer of the Year 2010&lt;/a&gt;&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast the very long exposures are usually used &lt;strong&gt;smooth out any movement and create a static and mysterious mood instead&lt;/strong&gt;. Good examples this approach can be found among &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.michaellevin.ca/MichaelLevin.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Michael Levin's works&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-15T05:59:22.287" LastActivityDate="2010-09-15T05:59:22.287" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="1405" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1402" CreationDate="2010-07-25T16:10:36.640" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The other two answers cover most of it, but don't forget to set the ISO to as low a value as possible - 100 at most. This will allow you to have a longer exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T16:10:36.640" />
  <row Id="1406" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1387" CreationDate="2010-07-25T16:15:51.973" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Maybe allow a little longer for your bike commute, so each day you can stop at one point, take a photo or three and then carry on. You could document the route by making the point you stop at a little further on each day until you have a photo essay of your commuting route.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And of course the old adage of just always carrying a camera with you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T16:15:51.973" />
  <row Id="1407" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1366" CreationDate="2010-07-25T16:24:47.970" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you use a Canon body, Digital Photo Professional (DPP) has a series of picture styles you can try. Emerald PS comes to mind. It brings out the colors during well lit days when pictures might look pale and uninteresting. This is post processing, but DPP allows you to create a set up you like on one photo, then simply copy it to all photos. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you shoot in JPEG, then lens hood and under exposing are your best options. Filters will also help, but its additional money you need to invest. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, make sure you set the right white balance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T16:24:47.970" />
  <row Id="1408" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1416" CreationDate="2010-07-25T16:35:04.967" Score="22" ViewCount="387" Body="&lt;p&gt;After removing dust with an air pomp and a brush, what are you using to remove stains from the lens and filters?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So far I'm using the liquid from a Giotto's CL 1002 cleaning kit for the lens, but I'm not sure what should I use for the filters, and if there is some better alternative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, what kind of brushes are recommended?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="420" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-25T19:55:52.133" LastActivityDate="2010-09-13T08:13:03.390" Title="What are you using for cleaning lens and filters?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;filters&gt;&lt;cleaning&gt;&lt;maintenance&gt;" AnswerCount="9" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="1409" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1408" CreationDate="2010-07-25T17:07:07.060" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Microfiber cloths are pretty much all I've ever used to wipe off things like fingerprints and smudges. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="538" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T17:07:07.060" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1410" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1408" CreationDate="2010-07-25T17:08:01.160" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I picked up a cheap pack of lens/glasses cleaner wipes at Costco, they seem to work well. I think there can be a problem with some filters with them, but I only have UV filters, and they work fine for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T17:08:01.160" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1411" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1408" CreationDate="2010-07-25T17:35:49.947" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A controversial subject!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One tip: &lt;strong&gt;don't over-clean&lt;/strong&gt;. There's no need to keep your lens free of minor dust or worry about minor goop spots or even scratches. For an extreme example, check out &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.10.30/front-element-scratches&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this lens&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T17:35:49.947" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1412" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1399" CreationDate="2010-07-25T17:38:52.513" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I were doing this, I'd just use one of the several Internet services that can print big panoramas directly, with no stitching - no seams, and no hassle of assembling. If you choose a shop with good color calibration, you can be confident the results will look as you expect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not for everyone, of course (some people really like to print themselves), but worth considering IMO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T17:38:52.513" />
  <row Id="1413" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1408" CreationDate="2010-07-25T18:21:23.773" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off, I don't deeply clean my lenses or filters very often. When I do, I use microfiber cloths or special lens cleaning tissue (a microfiber tissue that is capable of cleaning greasy marks, but does not scratch the glass.) I try to keep this kind of cleaning to a minimum, however, as the more frequently you clean that deeply, the greater chance you run of scratching a lens or filter. I only really ever bring these out if I accidentally put a fingerprint on something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The tool that I have found most useful is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lenspen.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lens Pen&lt;/a&gt;. This is a small, soft fiber brush that is designed to brush off loose particulate like dust from your lenses and filters, without scratching the surface. It works wonders, and I use it whenever I photograph anything. Just brush your lenses clean with a few light dabbing swipes, and  you're good to go. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-25T23:16:11.273" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T23:16:11.273" />
  <row Id="1414" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1408" CreationDate="2010-07-25T18:48:46.480" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-lenspen-lens-cleaner/p1030276&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lens pen&lt;/a&gt; most of the time, just to keep everything clean when it needs it. If I do need to give anything a more thorough clean, which happens maybe once every six months at most, is to use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-eclipse-lens-and-ccd-cleaning-fluid-59ml-/p1001956&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Eclipse fluid&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-pec-pads-10x10cm-100-sheets-/p1001963&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pec-Pads&lt;/a&gt;. I also carry a microfiber cloth attached to my camera's strap, so I've always got it with me, for getting rid of the worst of anything that gets on my lens or filter when out and about. I'd be reluctant to try and shift any large dirt with this, though, and would much prefer to wait and use the lens pen's brush to remove it without scratching the glass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="101" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T18:48:46.480" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1415" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="762" CreationDate="2010-07-25T19:26:04.433" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;All digital Leicas support DNG, including M8, M8.2, M9, S2 and X1.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T19:26:04.433" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-25T19:26:04.433" />
  <row Id="1416" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1408" CreationDate="2010-07-25T19:27:24.087" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Do not clean your lens&lt;/strong&gt; (too much).  Cleaning marks are by far the most common source of damage to lenses.  Shooting under normal conditions, it takes a large amount of dust and grime to have any effect.  The same approach applies to filters; good filters use the same type of glass and coatings as your lens (though perhaps not the same absolute quality).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the approach I try to take with my various old lenses (some dating from the 50s):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;How to clean less&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use a hood.  This will protect the lens from accidental finger-marks, light rain and other hazards when you're actually using it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Put the cap on when you're not using it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Put it in a case/bag/drawer when it's not on the camera (remember to use a desiccant if you live in a humid part of the world and will be storing it for a while).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Store it lying down.  Dust drifts downwards, so don't point the front/back element upwards.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternately or additionally to the above, a protective filter.  I wouldn't personally recommend it, but many people (particularly camera store sales staff) do, so it may be an option for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;How to clean best&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Materials: I use a camel-hair brush from the local art store.  I just picked the softest one.  A good camera store will stock similar, or something like a LensPen.  For cleaning solution, I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ror.net/company/about-ror/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ROR&lt;/a&gt;, which is a mixture of dilute ammonia, isopropyl alcohol, and a mild surfactant.  Microfibre cloths are pretty easy to get these days, but the oldest cotton t-shirt you own is also a decent choice, particularly if you haven't washed your microfibre cloth recently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Brush/blow away big dust.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Consider stopping there, it's probably 90% of the problem.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Spray a &lt;em&gt;small&lt;/em&gt; amount of ROR on the cloth. It should not be wet, too much will streak.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wipe gently, try to use a new section of the cloth for each stroke.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do not rub or scrub, just repeated gentle wipes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This can take 20 minutes for a lens that's sat in the closet of a heavy smoker for 15 years, but for a lens in daily use is perhaps a 5-minute job, tops.  For a bit of context, most of my lenses have been cleaned like this once, when I bought them.  Thereafter, just a brushing now and then, and another cleaning only if I manage to stick my thumb on them (or similar).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Credit where credit is due: this is a fairly common approach, but I first saw it in Karen Nakamura's section on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?repair.html~mainFrame&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cleaning and Maintaining Classic Cameras&lt;/a&gt; which is a great source of information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-25T19:54:34.273" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T19:54:34.273" />
  <row Id="1417" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2192" CreationDate="2010-07-25T20:12:18.723" Score="6" ViewCount="95" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been using selenium as the last step during negative development to increase durablilty of the negative. I was told that it can be used to increase the contrast of the negatives too. I tried, but I don't see any significant result. Do you have any experience with selenium for contrast increase? How do YOU use it for this purtpose? What dillution? Do you rinse? How long to expose the negatives to selenium?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="418" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-25T20:25:24.510" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T16:03:32.000" Title="Selenium to increase contrast?" Tags="&lt;negative-film&gt;&lt;developing&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1418" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1363" CreationDate="2010-07-25T20:16:00.353" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not really an answer, but if I had a folding Bessa, I wouldn't do it. But if you're feeling lucky, why not to try the low profile (meant to minimize vignetting on wide-angles) Hoyas? Or any other company that makes low profile filters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T20:16:00.353" />
  <row Id="1419" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1110" CreationDate="2010-07-25T20:54:00.743" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The results are actually pretty repeatable &lt;strong&gt;if&lt;/strong&gt; (and that is important for ALL darkroom work) you keep all variables the same. You will have to use the same chemicals, the same development times and the same temperatures. Even the same drums/tanks. If you vary at least one of the variables the result get less predictable. This applies to standard color and black and wite processing too. Just not quite to the same extend because the negs and chemicals have been designed and tested for the standard processes. Predicability increases again when you get some experience playing with the variables.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do not develop yourself you will have to trust the lab of your choice and hope that they will keep their machines always well calibrated and stay with the same chemical brands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But to be honest, for me the exciting thing about cross processing and the main motivation behind using it is unpredictablilty. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="418" LastEditorUserId="418" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-25T21:00:10.620" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T21:00:10.620" />
  <row Id="1420" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1393" CreationDate="2010-07-25T21:40:28.637" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, I wouldn't be especially worried about the odd fingerprint, dust mark, or water on the lens as it would take quite a bit to make an impact. To give you a sense, helpfully posted in another thread is &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.10.30/front-element-scratches&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this lens&lt;/a&gt; which, despite massive damage to front element, still works and does so reasonably well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, there are ways to reduce your incidental contact with the lens such as using the lens hood and ensuring you cap it when its not in use. If you do get something on it, despite that, then cleaning tools such as the lens pen and microfibre cloths will help you remove it. That's if you even notice!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if you do get something like a UV filter, which will help with this problem, bear in mind that you still have to clean that with reasonable care or you introduce potential image artifacts beyond what the filter will already do. By the way, the downside really applies to both options in a way, primarily artifacts from light sources appearing in unexpected places. It is, after all, another piece of glass added to your lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T21:40:28.637" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1421" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1426" CreationDate="2010-07-25T22:02:28.223" Score="13" ViewCount="462" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been at photography for a little over a year, and I primarily do landscape and wildlife/bird photography. Most of my work has been a learning experience so far, with few shots actually something that I believe is high enough quality to try selling. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I've experimented, I've learned that the best times of day to shoot interesting shots (particularly for landscape) are in the mornings and evenings. At these times, light is lower, and I tend to have to increase the ISO to capture a proper shot. With landscapes, I have the option of exposing for a longer duration (or use an ND filter and expose for a considerably longer time, but that totally changes the game), and I don't have to increase ISO as much, but for wildlife, to get a shot with enough sharpness I often have to increase my ISO to 800, and in a very few occasions, 1600. As a result, I have very few shots that I've felt were &quot;acceptable&quot; due to lots of grainy noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My camera, the Canon 450D (Rebel XSi), does not have very good ISO performance, so 800 is not particularly good, and 1600 is pretty terrible. At least, this has been my gut feeling most of the time. I am wondering when noise is unacceptable in a photograph, and if there are tools (other than Lightroom) that are adept at removing noise without softening the resulting image so much that it is &lt;em&gt;still&lt;/em&gt; unacceptable. I like to print at 13x19 (A+) size, so the sharpness and clarity of my shots shows through on my prints to a considerable degree.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sample Images:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://a.imageshack.us/img97/1474/highisonoisesample1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Iris&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Figure 1:&lt;/strong&gt; A macro shot of an Iris at 1600 ISO. Tried to shoot some that were in full sunlight, however wind forced me to reposition to flowers in the shade that were not moving, and I had to use ISO 1600. Looked OK on the camera, but the noise is extremely visible on screen, and shows up when printed. There are little details in the stamen that have been pretty much obliterated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://a.imageshack.us/img811/9178/highisonoisesample2.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Finch&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Figure 2:&lt;/strong&gt; A shot of a finch near sunset, surprisingly shot at ISO 400. I had to shoot at the 400mm end of my 100-400mm, so the image was a tad soft to start with. The noise drowned out any of the feather detail that was left. I'm not really sure why this shot, at ISO 400, looks so grainy...most of my ISO 400 shots seem to be ok, and the noise is acceptable. This shot was cropped quite a bit before it was printed, and the noise was visible in the final print, although it wasn't quite as bad as the ISO 1600 shot of the Iris.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T00:15:38.233" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T11:50:41.217" Title="How much &quot;noise&quot; is acceptable in a photograph?" Tags="&lt;sharpness&gt;&lt;image-quality&gt;&lt;iso-noise&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="1422" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1421" CreationDate="2010-07-25T22:07:39.453" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was a big fan of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.picturecode.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Noise Ninja&lt;/a&gt; for the longest time until I got my hands on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.topazlabs.com/denoise/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Topaz Denoise&lt;/a&gt; which produced remarkable results. I used to avoid 1600 ISO or higher for the longest time on my Pentax K20, but not any more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a sample of ISO 3200 after Topaz Denoise:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.grumpyjohns.com/files/gallery/150/20.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the before (the change in colour is not related to noise reduction):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.grumpyjohns.com/files/gallery/150/imgp2513.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-25T23:05:41.507" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T23:05:41.507" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="1423" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1421" CreationDate="2010-07-25T22:22:13.153" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I guess it depends on personal taste. There surely are people which would claim anything above ISO 200 has unacceptable noise, while others are happy with low-light images from compact cameras which look like oil painting and still are significantly noisy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you feel your high-iso photos are unusable, feel free to avoid the settings, but it will cost you some amazing pictures you'd otherwise be able to make.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T22:22:13.153" />
  <row Id="1424" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1553" CreationDate="2010-07-25T22:23:02.060" Score="9" ViewCount="242" Body="&lt;p&gt;Photography and diving are two good hobbies of mine, and I would really like to start doing both at the same time. I have a DSLR for photography (Canon 450d), but I'm not sure I'm willing to risk ruining it by taking it underwater, even if there exists some kind of housing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I saw several compacts that are waterproof, but most of them are only up to 3 meters deep, which is not really useful for what I'd like to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the easiest (and cheapest) piece of equipment I could buy to make decent underwater photos ? Do I need to buy a specialised diving camera, or are there any compacts that go deeper than 3 meters ? Or should I simply buy a housing and trust it ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, what are the ideal lenses/flashes for underwater photography ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="527" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T02:11:37.837" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T13:31:04.970" Title="Which equipment for beginning underwater photography ?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;underwater&gt;" AnswerCount="6" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="1425" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1421" CreationDate="2010-07-25T22:37:04.887" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't forget that noise can also be a creative tool. Especially when paired with black-and-white, high ISO noise can sometimes add a lot of atmosphere to the image. Some images &lt;em&gt;need&lt;/em&gt; noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd say that the answer to your question is &quot;as much as the image can take&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T22:37:04.887" />
  <row Id="1426" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1421" CreationDate="2010-07-25T23:24:20.993" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It totally depends - it's an artistic vision thing, and I don't think anyone but you can really answer it. That said, I've rarely encountered folks who were insufficiently concerned about noise; far, far more often people are more worried than they should be. It might be worth your while to have some third-party critiques of prints you're concerned about. Perhaps you could post an image here too?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whatever you do, don't evaluate noise by zooming to 100%. It will look far worse than it really is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another answer suggested a B&amp;amp;W conversion - that can help dramatically in terms of noise mitigation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the new samples, which appear to be at 1:1, I do wonder if you are falling into the 100% crop trap. Since you're most concerned with prints, I'd suggest circulating those for feedback - unfortunately, that's not something we can help with. :) But even non-photographer friends could help; get their initial impressions, and then ask them if they think it's too grainy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-25T23:57:32.417" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T23:57:32.417" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="1427" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1424" CreationDate="2010-07-25T23:27:33.657" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have you looked at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.liquidimageco.com/products/cameras/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Liquid Image&lt;/a&gt;? I saw them at the Photo show in Toronto this year and it looked interesting. Admittedly, the images are low res by most camera standards, but they have gear rated to 40 meters. Beyond that, I'm afraid I have little advice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-07-25T23:27:33.657" />
  <row Id="1428" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1421" CreationDate="2010-07-26T00:19:24.790" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;How much noise/grain we accept is subjective, but there are at least some things we can say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Film grain is something that we have lived with since the dawn of photography. Some like the effect, and even add fake grain to their digital images.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Film grain is mostly luminance differences, while digital noise is both luminance and color differences. If you reduce the color noise, digial noise looks more similar to film grain.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's hard for noise removal software to tell the difference between noise and small details, so some detail will always be lost if you remove a lot of noise.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, noise that look like film grain is generally more accepted. By reducing most of the color noise and some of the luminance noise, I think that you can reach a good compromise that doesn't remoce too much detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The I would like to add some perspective:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if you think that your camera doesn't have very good ISO performance, it's still a lot better than my first DSLR, the Canon D60. It was terrible at 800 and awful at 1000, and it didn't even go as high as 1600. Still I payed about five times as much for it...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Newer cameras are definitely pretty good at high ISO, both compared to older cameras and compared to film grain. If you compare the result from your camera at ISO 1600 with the grain in an ISO 1600 film, it's not very noisy at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T00:19:24.790" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1429" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1408" CreationDate="2010-07-26T01:13:20.987" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Always use a blower first.  Then use a microfiber or whatever next.  If you skip the blower step, you can wipe a particle across the front element, creating the all-too-common 'cleaning scratch'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T01:13:20.987" />
  <row Id="1430" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1424" CreationDate="2010-07-26T01:27:03.013" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many compact cameras with underwater housings available from Canon and Olympus.  I had an Olympus C5000z with Oly's housing and it worked, but the camera was... not the best.  I've just purchased a Canon G11 which has an underwater housing available for it for around $180 and hope that's a better setup for me.  If I ever get more than 1 dive a year in (I live in Chicago and prefer warm dives), I'll probably get an Ikelite housing and strobe(s) for my Canon 30D and be a little more serious about it, but for now the compact thing works well enough for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Ikelite makes housings for compacts as well as for SLR's.  They are expensive but very well made from what I hear.  They'd be what I'd recommend for an SLR because they have a variety of lens housings available as well so they'd likely accommodate whatever setup you'd be looking to use -if you want to take a look at their offerings, their website is: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ikelite.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ikelite.com/&lt;/a&gt; )&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;As far as trusting a housing:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I'd trust Olympus, Canon, and Ikelite housings, but they will only seal well if you take care of them.  Read the instructions carefully, and make sure you clean lube them as the instructions say before each dive.  I never had a problem with mine.  Investing in some silica gel packs is a good idea too because inevitably I'd fog up with out one.  And if there's a choice of a weight or no weight -get the weight.  Buoyant cameras aren't a lot of fun to keep track of!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="110" LastEditorUserId="110" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-26T01:34:14.353" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T01:34:14.353" />
  <row Id="1431" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1393" CreationDate="2010-07-26T05:11:39.487" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only advantage of an additional protection element (UV or protector) is that it is cheaper to replace should you scratch it when you rub it with your t-shirt/accidentally drag dirt over it. And for that purpose they do admirably. Having said that small specks of dust and dirt rarely have a significant impact although water drops can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if you're going to add another layer of glass then it's probably best to make sure it’s as good a quality piece as you can get, commensurate with the quality of the lenses it goes onto. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the best quality one for the price will be the better option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="231" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T05:11:39.487" />
  <row Id="1432" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1433" CreationDate="2010-07-26T08:19:07.490" Score="3" ViewCount="165" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to capture motion trails (like throwing a ball or running) using a camera like the Nikon Coolpix S70?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If so, how do I do it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="173" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-27T16:46:14.087" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T16:46:14.087" Title="Can I capture motion-trails with a point-and-shoot camera?" Tags="&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;&lt;sports&gt;&lt;motion-blur&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1433" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1432" CreationDate="2010-07-26T09:34:46.160" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, due to a lack of a manual or shutter priority mode on the S70, it may be difficult to capture motion in the way you describe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there are no 'scene' modes available that provide a long shutter speed your best bet may be to mount the camera on a tripod, disable the flash &amp;amp; set the ISO to its lowest (if possible) then shoot in a low light situation. This will hopefully force the camera into a long enough shutter speed to create some form of motion trail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="553" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T09:34:46.160" />
  <row Id="1434" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1393" CreationDate="2010-07-26T09:48:32.450" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally, digital sensors are far, far less sensitive to UV light than film, because of this you probably wont notice much, if any, difference between using a UV or clear protector. Personally I prefer to use a clear protector, 1 - because I don't use film any more so don't feel I need to keep one around and 2 - even though I know the UV filtering probably makes no difference, it's nice to know my lens has an uninterrupted view of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whichever one you choose make sure you get the highest possible quality filter you can afford. I use the Hoya HDs but if your budget is a little tighter the Hoya Digital filters are also very good. Don't even think about the cheap eBay filters - I had some and they ruined every shot I took, I was surprised quite how bad they were.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="553" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T09:48:32.450" />
  <row Id="1435" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1408" CreationDate="2010-07-26T10:02:28.213" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I need to clean a lens or a filter I've found the best technique is to use a soft brush and blower to remove dust and loose debris. In the event there are more stubborn marks (such as salt residue from the beach) I use Eclipse solution and Pec-Pads.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The technique I use for the wet clean is to clean away any loose debris using a brush. I then 'bud' the pad so much of it is in between my fingers and a smooth (pea-sized) surface is exposed. Then place a drop or two of Eclipse on the exposed surface and starting from the centre of the lens or filter (with minimal pressure), working in a circular motion, spiral out to the edge of the lens using the pad. Repeat the process with a new, dry pad to absorb any excess solution. Rinse and repeat as necessary applying a little more pressure if the dirt is particularly bad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've always found this technique leaves my lenses and filters clean and smear-free.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, I should also say that I recommend staying away from cheap lens tissues and cheap solution. Unless you really know what you're doing they're far more likely to scratch something. Pec-Pads are more like disposable microfibre cloths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="553" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T10:02:28.213" />
  <row Id="1436" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1482" CreationDate="2010-07-26T10:07:19.537" Score="18" ViewCount="470" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am considering buying my first DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do I know whether I need a 18-200 lens, 17-85, or 18-55? Or something else?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="558" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-27T14:57:46.550" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T14:57:46.550" Title="How to choose a lens for my first DSLR?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="1437" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1436" CreationDate="2010-07-26T10:12:42.497" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it depends largely on whether you know what you want to take photos of or not. I think if you do then this will have an influence over the lens you choose, in terms of reach, maximum aperture and stabilisation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd also consider a fast prime, such as a 50 f/1.8 that can be bought cheaply for most cameras, as a possible first lens. It's certainly the lens that improved my photography the most once I'd worked out what all of the controls did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="101" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T10:12:42.497" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="1438" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1436" CreationDate="2010-07-26T10:13:19.437" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That depends entirely on what kind of shots you are most likely to make and how much weight you are willing to carry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming you are going for only one lens, the above mentioned lens would be better for:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;18-200&lt;/strong&gt;: landscapes, street scenes, people, relatively far subjects&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;17-85&lt;/strong&gt;: landscapes, street scenes, people,  slightly far subjects&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;18-55&lt;/strong&gt;: landscapes, street scenes, people&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other than that, you may want to check the maximum aperture of the lens. The smaller the number (say 2.0, 1.8 or even 1.4) the better the lens for low light situations and portrait shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T10:13:19.437" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1439" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1436" CreationDate="2010-07-26T10:55:07.927" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1436/choosing-a-lens-for-my-first-dslr/1438#1438&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Andre&lt;/a&gt;'s answer is good. My experience is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I started with a 18-70 one (3.5-5.6) and later when I learned what I liked to shoot I bought additional lenses.18-200 is usually very expensive to buy for a first lens when you are not sure what kind of a photographer you are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="80" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T10:55:07.927" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1440" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1436" CreationDate="2010-07-26T11:04:51.797" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on what you want to take pictures of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to shoot small bugs and other macro stuff, obviously you need a macro lens.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;If you want to shoot architecture or landscape, you'll probably want the widest lens possible.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;If you want to shoot wildlife, you'll want a long lens (200+).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Probably, as a starter, you don't even know what you will take pictures of. In that case you might buy anything and start with that until you learn what you need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a starter I loved long lenses. 200mm and more. For me (and a lot of other fotogs I know) this wears off after a while.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nowadays I take nearly all my pictures with a fixed 50mm lens. I do own 24-85, 18-200 and a few other zooms, but I just love working with the fixed lens more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I'd need to choose just one lens for the rest of my life, it would be a fixed 50mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T11:04:51.797" />
  <row Id="1441" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1461" CreationDate="2010-07-26T11:18:35.940" Score="7" ViewCount="576" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am looking at getting a DSLR. I have a little experience with a film SLR but not much more than the basics. I plan to take a range of photo types.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My research has narrowed down the products to the Nikon D5000 and Nikon D90. On paper they look relativity similar with the main differences being a few more on body controls, the physical size and better kit lens of the D90.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is that are the differences worth the extra cost for a beginner will I out grow the D5000 too quickly?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="560" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T21:42:36.433" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T05:11:57.867" Title="Is the D90 worth the extra money for a beginner" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1442" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1441" CreationDate="2010-07-26T11:25:12.840" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are beginning, most DSLR will work pretty fine for you. Unless you really don't mind the extra cost and weight, go for the Nikon D5000 and a better lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A better lens like a prime 50/1.8 or any other fast lens (faster means lower aperture numbers, like 1.8 or 1.4) are probably going to render you better chances of getting a good picture with a good enough body (which the D5000 is more than).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the time you have mastered (I don't think &quot;out grow&quot; would apply here) the D5000, there will plenty of choices on the market for you stepping up. By the way, by then a D90 will probably be quite affordable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T11:25:12.840" />
  <row Id="1443" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1424" CreationDate="2010-07-26T11:28:09.840" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have an Olympus mju 770 sw that is waterproof to 10m. I only snorkel, so 10m seemed like enough. That was until I went deeper once and the camera decided to not show any image on the back (and it has no viewfinder).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Much to my amazement and relief, it's since recovered (magically?). I've had it for years now and it's my favourite camera of all time because I can sit on it whilst sailing and I just need to remember to pay attention to the constant hi-pitched sound that it makes when I exceed 7m.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I heard they're not making them anymore because the seals were too costly. But if you can get hold of one I'd say it's a great camera for taking outside in any conditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T11:28:09.840" />
  <row Id="1444" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1445" CreationDate="2010-07-26T11:52:23.587" Score="4" ViewCount="147" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to take silhouette photos like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/05/17/captivating-examples-of-silhouette-photography/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; using my Nikon CoolPix S 70? if so please let me know how? I tried but getting blurry images :(&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="173" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T02:10:15.673" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T02:10:15.673" Title="Is it possible to take silhouette photos with Nikon CoolPix S70?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;technique&gt;&lt;sunlight&gt;&lt;low-light&gt;&lt;coolpix&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1445" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1444" CreationDate="2010-07-26T12:04:47.090" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You should be able to, but the controls (or lack thereof) on the s70 will make it a little difficult.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key to getting a good silhouette is to put your subject in front of a bright background, then expose for the background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The easiest way with your camera might be to set up your shot without the subject, half press the shutter, and then have your subject come to the right spot, and take the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, remember not to use flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T12:04:47.090" />
  <row Id="1446" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1436" CreationDate="2010-07-26T12:07:52.263" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As already said here, the lens choice depends on your needs but I would suggest two alternatives, either: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Get a relatively inexpensive zoom lens, 17-55mm, 17-50, 17-85 or the like. After a while you'll start thinking &quot;I wish I had a telephoto/wide-angle lens to capture this&quot;. When you know what you really like to shoot, choosing the second lens type is easier.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Go for the 50mm prime. Losing the zoom functionality will really change the way of shooting and makes you plan the photos and composition more. On the other hand, the learning curve might be a bit steep and you might end up thinking that having no zoom is a huge drawback.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If you intend on shooting people and portraits&lt;/strong&gt; - especially in situations with limited natural light available - I suggest you go for the 50mm/1.8 (or a similar lens). It can still produce great photos in situations where your 'kit zoom lens' requires really long exposures and thus produces blurry, out-of-focus photos. Furthermore, the shallow depth-of-field makes portraits look much better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd stay away from the 18-200 lenses. In general, that kind of do-it-all lenses tend to be compromises. If you're going to join the Nikon side, the Nikkor 18-200mm is said to be a good lens but then again its no bargain either. I think there isn't a decent 18-200mm lens for Canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;my 2 cents,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="306" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T12:07:52.263" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1447" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1444" CreationDate="2010-07-26T12:13:23.233" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You'll also want to be sure you're using a tripod for these shots.  You might not be able to get all of these with your camera (stopping action on a shot like this will be tough), but you should be able to get shots where the subject isn't moving quickly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T12:13:23.233" />
  <row Id="1448" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1444" CreationDate="2010-07-26T12:13:36.603" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was going to suggest the same thing as &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1444/is-it-possible-to-take-silhouette-photos-with-nikon-coolpix-s70/1445#1445&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;chills42&lt;/a&gt;, with you exposing correctly for the background and then moving the subject move in. Obviously this is less ideal if you're trying to shoot trees or a fence, for example, in silhouette, but maybe you could move the camera to get a clear view before you half-press the shutter?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The blurring you describe is probably down to the exposure not being fast enough, but as far as I'm aware you don't have control over this directly on your camera. I believe you can adjust the ISO when in Auto mode, though. Exposing for the bright background should reduce the exposure time a bit, but if this doesn't work you may have to use a tripod/rest the camera on something, or increase the ISO which will probably introduce more noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="101" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T12:13:36.603" />
  <row Id="1449" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1393" CreationDate="2010-07-26T12:18:13.740" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's an ongoing debate in the photography world and blogosphere whether having a UV filter is a good or a bad thing (whether it reduces the quality if images). Assuming you want one, do like spg said and get a good quality filter. Putting cheap plastic in front of (quality) lens elements doesn't make much sense as it essentially can reduce the image quality of the lens, causing lens flare etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally tend to use a UV filter or a lens hood to protect the lenses. I've got a Hoya Pro 1 Digital series UV filter and some B+W filter and I haven't had any issues with either one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also notice that if you've got a wide-angle lens, you may need a slim-line filter to avoid vignetting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="306" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T12:18:13.740" />
  <row Id="1450" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1441" CreationDate="2010-07-26T12:18:23.443" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Additionally, according to rumours the D90 will be replaced soon with a newer model:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://nikonrumors.com/2010/07/20/first-word-on-the-nikon-d90-replacement.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://nikonrumors.com/2010/07/20/first-word-on-the-nikon-d90-replacement.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T12:18:23.443" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1451" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1441" CreationDate="2010-07-26T12:53:23.560" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to B&amp;amp;H:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=d5000+kit&amp;amp;N=0&amp;amp;InitialSearch=yes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;D5000 KIT&lt;/a&gt; which includes a 18-55 is 750$&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/580422-REG/Nikon_25448_D90_SLR_Digital_Camera.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;D90 KIT&lt;/a&gt; which includes a 18-105 is 1200$&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/477230-GREY/Nikon_2170_18_55mm_f_3_5_5_6G_ED_II.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;18-55&lt;/a&gt; costs 100$&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/582443-GREY/Nikon_2179_18_105mm_f_3_5_5_6G_ED_VR.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;18-105&lt;/a&gt; costs 320$&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know you can get the D90 kit for 1000$ in the US, but since I am not familiar with the discounted price for the D5000 I will disregard this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although the 18-105 is an excellent lens the difference is too much. You can buy the D5000 and a seperate 18-105 and still stay below the D90 kit. The D5000 is certainly sufficient and strong for a beginner. The only reason I would recommend going with the D90 kit is in the case the lens would have made it worthwhile (since you can use it with future bodies). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the dry math calculation does not make it worth I don't think you need to strech yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="80" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T12:53:23.560" />
  <row Id="1452" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1441" CreationDate="2010-07-26T12:59:16.337" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When you saw the differences between the cameras, did any of them make you think 'Yeah, that could come in handy' or were you struggling to see how they would help you? I don't think there's much point splashing out on extra features that you won't use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other consideration is the lens; my advice would be to buy the body only, and get a separate lens as kit lenses are generally not that great, even on higher spec cameras. There's another question on this site about what lens a beginner should get; check out some of the answers there, and bear in mind that if you get the cheaper body, you can spend more on a decent lens, which in the end is often more important than the camera when it comes to image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T12:59:16.337" />
  <row Id="1453" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1069" CreationDate="2010-07-26T13:08:57.373" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Having recently had a child, using the 50mm 1.8 took great photos (I have the Canon 450D).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But once they start crawling, running, etc. you need the flexibility of a standard zoom range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I got the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC (VC is Tamron's name for image stabilization). It was about AU$600, so about US$500.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I highly recommend this lens, in fact, the sharpness and colour are actually better than the 50mm 1.8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="142" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T13:08:57.373" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1454" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-26T13:27:00.780" Score="4" ViewCount="164" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am the owner of a Nikon D200 and an assortment of DX lenses.  I am considering upgrading the body to something better, but I am hesitating for a few reasons.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, I am reasonably satisfied with the D200.  My main gripes is the exceedingly bad battery life, and the now surpassed high ISO performance.  Of those two, the battery life is the worst.  I never get more than a couple of hundred exposures before a recharge is required. I bought a second hand MB-D200 battery grip, but I was very disappointed to learn that the it actually depletes the batteries even when the camera is turned off. Battery power is used to brighten the viewfinder display.  This is impossible to turn off, and I have to take the batteries out of the grip to prevent power leakage.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, I do not see a clear upgrade path.  The D300(s) is too similar to justify the cost, and the D700 would require me to upgrade the lenses also. I have seen rumors of a D90  replacement coming &quot;soon&quot;, which may or may not be relevant.   Video, on the other hand, is not important to me. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I always thought &quot;wait for the D400&quot;, but playing the waiting game is hard. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What would you do in my situation? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="563" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T03:07:59.580" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T03:07:59.580" Title="What is the natural upgrade path for a Nikon d200?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;purchase&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1455" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-26T13:30:30.460" Score="28" ViewCount="474" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a technical perspective, what exactly is RAW and how does it differ from JPG or bitmap images? I'm not asking about the pros/cons versus another format, but rather what constitutes RAW format, how is the data stored, how does it differ from JPG (other than lack of compression), and how is it different than bitmap?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="371" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T14:30:38.003" Title="What is RAW, technically?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="1456" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="713" CreationDate="2010-07-26T13:32:39.953" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For Nikon SLRs, have a look at this blog post:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://thephotogeek.com/choosing-nikon-dslr-camera-tethered-shooting-software/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://thephotogeek.com/choosing-nikon-dslr-camera-tethered-shooting-software/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These tools do however require you to have a PC available nearby... I'm still looking for an Android app!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems there's a slew of free and commercial software available that will capture images on a timelapse basis. I've used Apple's Quicktime Pro on Windows to successfully create videos from image sequences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="562" LastEditorUserId="562" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-26T13:42:02.583" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T13:42:02.583" />
  <row Id="1457" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1454" CreationDate="2010-07-26T13:37:43.030" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think I'd ever upgrade unless there was a specific issue that could only be cured by doing so. You mention a few, so I'll give my thoughts on them. With the battery life have you tried new batteries? They do lose their oomph over time. Did you buy a Nikon battery grip, or was it a third party one? If it was the latter, would a Nikon prevent the battery-drain you describe? Or is the battery grip faulty? A new battery grip is cheaper than a new body, and cheaper means you have more money to spend on other things (lenses and accessories).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the noise at high ISOs, I guess the only question you can really ask yourself is if you need to use high ISOs a lot, and is the noise so bad that you can't fix it in post  (Noise ninja, or Lr3, for example) if you only encounter it rarely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="101" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T13:37:43.030" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1458" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1455" CreationDate="2010-07-26T13:42:52.613" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you took a look at the image that your camera initially takes, you'd be disappointed in it.  After an image is taken, the photo is run through what you can think of as post-processing within the camera to boost the color, contrast, sharpness, etc.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you shoot in RAW you get roughly the same image as you would with JPG, but you get all the data necessary to &quot;undo&quot; all that in-camera post-processing so that you can do it differently yourself if you want to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you shoot in JPG, the camera records the data, processes the image, then deletes that &quot;undo&quot; data to save room on your memory card.&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;More technical info can be found here:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or if you want to qualify in a degree in RAW and camera processing check out these videos from the Google PhotoTechEDU talk:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=7SuDOMhUUMg&amp;amp;feature=PlayList&amp;amp;p=F7C5C8C217CF2E13&amp;amp;index=1&amp;amp;playnext=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=7SuDOMhUUMg&amp;amp;feature=PlayList&amp;amp;p=F7C5C8C217CF2E13&amp;amp;index=1&amp;amp;playnext=1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="110" LastEditorUserId="110" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-26T13:53:31.543" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T13:53:31.543" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1459" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1455" CreationDate="2010-07-26T13:48:45.190" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;RAW is a copy of the data from the sensor.  JPEG has been refined.&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Summary&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A RAW file is a direct dump of the data which the camera captures.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;A JPEG file has been derived from that RAW data by a process of sharpenning, colour correction and compression.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Detail&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The heart of a digital camera is a light-sensitive chip known as a sensor.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;A RAW file is pretty much a copy of the data directly from this chip when it an image is captured.  As such, the image file is not readily recognisable as an image because:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it is not in any widely recognised file format&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it has not been refined in any way&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A JPEG file, on the other hand, is both a standard file format, and has had some refinement applied to the image to make it look better.  These refinements include correcting for white balance and sharpenning.  Also, a JPEG has typically had some compression appiled.  So the process of creating a JPEG discards data which was originally present on the sensor, and which will be preserved in a RAW file.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both a RAW file and a JPEG are kinds of bitmaps (they both represent individual pixels).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many cameras are capable of generating both a JPEG and a RAW file for each image.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;When to use each&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;JPEG is better if&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you want a usable file straight from your camera&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;space on your memory card is at a premium&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you want to shoot images in very quick succession&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;RAW is better if &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you want to post-process the file&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you want to keep your options open for exposure or white balance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you want the highest possible level of detail (I could be wrong about this - depends on the camera)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;disclaimer&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have skipped some of the details here (see comments) in order to make the basics clear.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-13T09:49:24.057" LastActivityDate="2010-10-13T09:49:24.057" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="1460" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1455" CreationDate="2010-07-26T13:49:04.237" Score="31" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Raw files aren't really images as such, but the data straight off of the camera's sensor. I think of it as freezing the state of the camera immediately after the exposure has finished, and bundling it up into a file, normally with some kind of lossless compression. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt; provides a fair amount of detail about the sort of thing that's recorded, but as a guide I'd say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;All the levels readings from the sensor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some information about the sensor type (so the Raw converter knows how to interpret the sensor data)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;All of the settings currently applied to the camera&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The time and other EXIF-type meta-data associated with the image&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Possibly a JPEG thumbnail image&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bear in mind that there is no single Raw format, and all camera manufacturers are free to bundle up this sort of data in their own way. Adobe is trying to promote its &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative_%28file_format%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DNG (Digital Negative) format&lt;/a&gt;, which I personally use, as a standard RAW format. A few cameras can output DNG, but most have to be converted. I do this on import into Lightroom, as one of the advantages is that it can store Lr edit data within the file, and not require xml sidecars. Another advantage of DNG is that it tends to result in smaller file sizes than native Raw files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would imagine that because of how most sensors are built with a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bayer filter&lt;/a&gt;-type design, the data from the sensor just contains levels from each photo-site on the sensor. A bitmap, for example, would have combined the RGB sites to form a single pixel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="101" LastEditorUserId="101" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-26T18:47:22.087" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T18:47:22.087" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1461" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1441" CreationDate="2010-07-26T13:51:25.603" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Go to a physical shop and feel both cameras.&lt;/em&gt; While the advice in other answers is good (don't buy features you don't need), ergonomics are important, both size of the body and placement of the controls and just how it &quot;feels&quot;. For example, I haven't seen a D5000, but I've handled a D40 and it felt like cheap junk. On the other hand, the D90 feels like a well-built machine. This is something you have to see/feel for yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, don't go to a camera shop, look at their stuff, and then leave and buy it online. That's unethical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might find it a bit more expensive to go this route, but the opportunity to make a better decision and your confidence in that decision is worth it IMO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the kit lenses are just fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T13:51:25.603" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1462" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1455" CreationDate="2010-07-26T13:52:27.473" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think this question can better be answered by wikipedia for the most technical aspects: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, RAW is the exact output of the sensor. It can be compressed, or not, but the main difference between JPEG and RAW is that RAW is a loss-less format. JPEG has an 8-bit per pixel depth, while RAW can have as many bits as the sensor has. So, in order to get from RAW to JPEG you have to lose a LOT of information to get from, let's say, 12-bit per pixel to 8-bit per pixel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;RAW formats are what cameras use. After that, when you are post-processing you would use a TIF format to maintain as much information as possible. TIF is also a loss-less format and it will keep the same bit depth as RAW. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="32" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T13:52:27.473" />
  <row Id="1463" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1454" CreationDate="2010-07-26T14:09:27.963" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It does sound like new batteries would solve a lot of your issues, if you haven't already tried them. Personally, I would wait. There are a lot of pretty neat features that aren't quite done in the current generation of camera bodies (video is a big one, and low light performance just seems to get better and better), and putting things off will help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T14:09:27.963" />
  <row Id="1464" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1387" CreationDate="2010-07-26T14:12:49.937" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would suggest creating a multi-day schedule of events that can be repeated for different subjects.  I don't think 15 minutes per day is worth running around looking for something to shoot.  You'd get much more value if you divided the process into segments (one segment = one day = 15m).  Possibly something like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Segment 1&lt;/strong&gt; - Research a subject - Browse online photo galleries for interesting ways to shoot subjects found near home/work. (plants, pets, kids, cars, house, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Segments 2-4&lt;/strong&gt; - Shoot the subject(s) trying to recreate or innovate on some of the interesting techniques you found during Segment 1.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Segment 5&lt;/strong&gt; - Post-process &amp;amp; publish.  Do a gallery review for the subject and choose your favorite(s).  Do a quick exposure &amp;amp; white balance adjustment (assuming RAW) and simple alterations like cropping and get your shots published so you can start getting feedback.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Segments 6-7&lt;/strong&gt; - Consume feedback on your published images.  Compare/contrast to original research.  Pick a new subject for next week.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="288" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T14:12:49.937" />
  <row Id="1465" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1441" CreationDate="2010-07-26T14:15:43.173" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I made the &lt;em&gt;exact&lt;/em&gt; same decision 6 months or so ago, and I chose the D5000. It ended up being about $200 cheaper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The one big difference is the lack of an internal focus motor on the D5000. If you think you are likely to want to use older lenses, you will not be able to autofocus with them on the D5000. For me, this wasn't a big issue, but it might be for you. The one lens I was looking at that might have been an issue is the AF 50mm, which is super cheap, but it won't AF with the D5000. Physically, I didn't see much difference between the two, the D5000 was a bit smaller and lighter, which I preferred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I would at least try to wait another couple weeks, it does sound like the D90 replacement is pretty close to coming out. The video on both of them is not all that useful right now, and supposedly that is one thing that the replacement will fix.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T14:15:43.173" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1466" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1454" CreationDate="2010-07-26T14:18:33.057" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If your main concern is battery life, I'd replace those first.  As far as I know, most rechargeable batteries lose their ability to hold a decent charge after 18-24 months.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Waiting for the a new body may be best.  Beyond that, I'd consider the D90.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="119" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T14:18:33.057" />
  <row Id="1467" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1441" CreationDate="2010-07-26T14:19:52.523" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For me the deciding factor to get &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Nikon/nikon_d90.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;D90&lt;/a&gt; is build-in Autofocus Motor which is absent in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Nikon/nikon_d5000.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;D5000&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many good affordable prime lenses require that the camera has an in-body AF motor, for example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/217-nikkor-af-50mm-f18-d-review--test-report&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8 D&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/221-nikkor-af-85mm-f18-d-review--test-report&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.8 D&lt;/a&gt;, and more&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using those lenses on D5000 would mean that you need to rely on manual focus&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastEditorUserId="115" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-26T14:42:17.087" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T14:42:17.087" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1468" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1436" CreationDate="2010-07-26T14:21:30.617" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;After playing around with some friend's cameras, I chose the 18-200 in the exact same situation. It is a bit pricey, but I love the flexibility of the lens. I have since picked up a couple more lenses, including a big heavy 70-200 f/2.8, and still like the 18-200 for a lot of situations. Especially when I was just getting started with the DSLR world, I didn't want to have to mess around with changing lenses and miss the shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lens also seems to hold its value pretty well, I picked up mine for $600 and I see other folks selling them on Craigslist for $550, so if you end up deciding to go another way you won't have lost all that much money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think a lot of the folks here like primes, but I wouldn't recommend them to someone just getting started. They are great once you understand the basics, and they are cheap enough to get into later (some of them at least!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T14:21:30.617" />
  <row Id="1469" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1472" CreationDate="2010-07-26T14:38:28.657" Score="9" ViewCount="262" Body="&lt;p&gt;How does light from a beauty dish behave, and when and why would you use one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-21T00:49:24.880" LastActivityDate="2010-11-21T00:49:24.880" Title="What are the lighting characteristics of a beauty dish?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;lighting-modifiers&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="1470" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1469" CreationDate="2010-07-26T15:32:14.847" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general, the beauty dish will cause an even spread of light around the subject that provides for better contrast. Basically, it becomes less directional, illuminating from several directions rather than from above or to the side. So, in that sense, it would be used for portrait work or even product or macro. It is, however, more harsh than using a softbox setup, so be aware of the impact that can have on skin flaws and such.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T15:32:14.847" />
  <row Id="1471" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1387" CreationDate="2010-07-26T15:32:56.033" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Would it be possible to &quot;save up&quot; a couple of those 15 minutes slots and get a single one hour slot per week? I find it hard to get into the right mindset for photography in such a short period of time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me, the best way to get inspired is to put on my headphones and just walk around for an hour or so and take pictures. I usually listen to Sigur Ros because I find that music with lyrics that I can't understand helps me to focus, but obviously whatever you like is good. For the first 15 minutes or so the shots are usually pretty bad. But, then I start to mellow out and see things better. Clearly if you can do this when the light is good, that helps, but it's definitely not necessary. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After taking a couple of hundred shots in an hour, I process the ones that I like when I can find a spare few minutes throughout the week.  Sometimes it's a good break from work or whatever else I have to get done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="37" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T15:32:56.033" />
  <row Id="1472" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1469" CreationDate="2010-07-26T15:33:31.993" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A beauty dish gives a softer light than an unmodified flash, but not as soft as a softbox or shoot-through umbrella.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means that you can control the light more than when using a softbox.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A beauty dish is often used in portrait work, and can be flattering when used as a light on the subject's face, where it can give a nice balance between even softbox type illumination and harsh ringflash.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T15:33:31.993" />
  <row Id="1473" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-26T17:47:53.593" Score="5" ViewCount="167" Body="&lt;p&gt;I purchased a new camera during my vacation, but I managed to take a whole night worth of photos with the incorrect date. I purchased the camera July 18th, but managed to set June 18th as the date.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are JPEG's by the way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I imported the photos into Lightroom, but no matter what I try, I can't get all the photos moved to the correct date.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's what I tried, which looked promising, but failed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I first exported all the originals back out (I've tried copying the files as well) to a temporary directory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then I used FastStone Viewer to batch manipulate the date and time. It has a function that allows me to keep the time, but set the date, and brought all images up to July 18th. The files had their dates changed on disk as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I try to import the files back into Lightroom, they still appear on the June 18th date, I can see that in the import window, and after import they're still back in June.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is Windows 7, 64-bit, Lightroom 3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I check the files with FastStone viewer on disk, they have no date back in June, still Lightroom seems to think they are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What am I doing wrong? Does LightRoom cache this information from a previous import? I've tried exiting LightRoom, moving the directory with my temporary files, and restarting it, same results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="568" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T23:43:00.967" Title="Batch adjusting the date (but not the time) of photos imported into Lightroom?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;exif&gt;&lt;metadata&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="1474" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1475" CreationDate="2010-07-26T18:10:51.083" Score="7" ViewCount="455" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm familiar with using white / silver / gold reflectors to add fill light to a photo.  When would you use a black &quot;reflector&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-26T18:42:59.520" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T19:05:13.263" Title="What does a black reflector do?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="1475" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1474" CreationDate="2010-07-26T18:16:04.427" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To remove light. I'm no professional but I had it explained to me by a friend.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're shooting outside, or in a place where there's lots of background light being bounced around, it might not be enough to place an item to create a shadow onto your object, since light reflected off of that item might still give you tints or light you don't want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A black &quot;reflector&quot; creates shadow and doesn't reflect light (or as much light, depending on the quality) onto your object, which might help you darken it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance, if you're trying to take a portrait outside, and the face gets a bit too much light on one side, a black reflector might help you reduce that by both creating a &quot;shadow&quot; by blocking light, and not reflecting any light onto that side of the face.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="568" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T18:16:04.427" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1476" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1474" CreationDate="2010-07-26T18:17:03.130" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Basically, it's to subtract light. It can reduce bounced light or provide isolation of your subject to make it stand out more. I do this all the time with things like smoke photography because it eliminates stray light and provides a clean, dark, background for the smoke to stand out. For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.grumpyjohns.com/files/gallery/94/views/IMGP2632.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T18:17:03.130" />
  <row Id="1477" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1473" CreationDate="2010-07-26T18:28:14.730" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not sure about Lightroom, but there are other tools -- &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.microsoft.com/prophoto/downloads/tools.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Microsoft Pro Photo Tools&lt;/a&gt; has an option to bulk adjust the date/time on photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T18:28:14.730" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1478" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1473" CreationDate="2010-07-26T18:30:01.247" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You might try creating a new LR catalog, and importing to that. It also might be worth using some EXIF viewing utilities to make sure &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; the dates were changed, as there are sometimes more than one date/time in the EXIF data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T18:30:01.247" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1479" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1473" CreationDate="2010-07-26T18:31:42.367" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lightroom can do this natively - you don't need to export and re-import.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Select the photos in Grid view - go to Metadata-&gt;Edit Capture Time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Lightroom/3.0/Using/WS57264460-DC72-4a1f-A665-1E90907A9FFD.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This article from Adobe&lt;/a&gt; has details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T18:31:42.367" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1480" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1474" CreationDate="2010-07-26T19:05:13.263" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Black  is a &quot;dark reflector&quot;. Think of it as of &quot;anti fill light&quot;. It really works that way, just like the white reflector, but subtly adding shadow instead of fill light. It takes time to learn how to use it, as the concept of &quot;dark light&quot; is unnatural and non-intuitive, but after all it's just a tool like all others. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="341" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T19:05:13.263" />
  <row Id="1481" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1048" CreationDate="2010-07-26T19:05:26.337" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;18%&quot; is the amount of light reflected by the midpoint of black and white (Adams' Zone V).  The precise convention of 18% (not 17%, 19%, etc) comes from the graphics industry (probably - see links).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In photography, it has two main uses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An object known to be a neutral colour can help when correcting white balance.  This doesn't have to be middle grey, but any grey.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An object of known reflectance can help with metering.  The palm of your hand is a good substitute for this function of a grey card: it's about 1 stop brighter.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, in the largest typeface possible here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;18% grey is not what your meter is calibrated to.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Really and truly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a persistent myth, but is not actually the case.  Your in-camera meters are calibrated closer to 12% grey, which is a difference of approximately half a stop.  This is the ANSI standard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a practical explanation by Thom Hogan here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/graycards.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bythom.com/graycards.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And for those who prefer to deal in foot-candles and foot-lamberts, a mathier version here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.richardhess.com/photo/18no.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.richardhess.com/photo/18no.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;That's a shocking revelation, what should I do?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Probably nothing.  Most grey cards sit unused in the closet.  Even in use, a half stop is pretty negligible in most situations.  So if you're happy how things are, continue!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this difference matters to you, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/graycards.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hogan article&lt;/a&gt; has practical advice on a sidebar, excerpted here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you shoot digitally, shoot a gray card under even lighting at the metered value, and at third-stop increments (use only spot or center-weighted metering, and make sure the card is angled slightly towards the light [to ensure you're seeing reflected light]). Look at the histograms for each exposure (on the camera, not in Photoshop, which uses a different method of generating histograms). If you're using a 18% gray card, pick the exposure setting that generates a centered value and set that in your exposure compensation control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-26T19:15:52.100" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T19:15:52.100" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1482" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1436" CreationDate="2010-07-26T19:13:01.390" Score="27" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lens questions are probably the hardest gear recommendation questions to answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's unclear if you're a seasoned photographer, or just starting out, so my question is geared towards a person new to photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Don't think about it.&lt;/strong&gt; Buy a lens that fits in your budget. Make it easy and get the kit lens (the lens that is packaged with a camera body).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It won't have all the fancy bells and whistles, but it will be general purpose, won't break the bank, and will let you concentrate more on taking pictures and less about gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bad habit I see with so many photographers who have an online presence is that they sweat the minute, technical details. It's fun to do, but it's also orthogonal to the real goal (imo): producing great photographs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, keep it simple. Get the kit lens. Learn what goes into make a great photograph (&lt;strong&gt;SUPRISE: IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CAMERA GEAR!&lt;/strong&gt;), and have fun. Then when your kit lens starts holding you back, come back and ask away. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T19:13:01.390" />
  <row Id="1483" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1421" CreationDate="2010-07-26T19:20:25.850" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two different kinds of noise, and they should be discussed separately: luminance noise and color noise. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The color noise is disturbing, unwanted and should always be avoided. Here's how it looks: &#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www2.fine.kiev.ua/lj-26-07-2010/color-noise.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;color noise&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luckily, it's very simple to eliminate it without loosing details, so about any noise reduction software will do:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www2.fine.kiev.ua/lj-26-07-2010/color-noise-eliminated.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;no more color noise&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(of course, this is an extreme example).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The luminance noise is completely another story.&lt;/strong&gt; First of all, almost no image is possible without luminance noise. Computer screens and printers are not able to reproduce &quot;ideal&quot; color gradients without some random pixel jittering in it - the noise. Second, some media require additional luminance noise for better output: printers. Third, luminance noise psychologically adds sharpness to an image. Classic example of fake sharpness for a landscape is to add luminance noise to it. Fourth, luminance noise is almost never psychologically visible. I.e. common viewer will not pay attention to it, won't notice if it is there or not. To test, go check out AP or Reuters pics - lots of them have luminance noise but I bet you never noticed:) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, if you have an extremely noisy picture, you will have to reduce luminance noise as well, but never too much. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt; fight color noise, leave luminance noise. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="341" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T19:20:25.850" />
  <row Id="1484" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1492" CreationDate="2010-07-26T19:42:22.880" Score="27" ViewCount="550" Body="&lt;p&gt;I enjoy getting images of different types of weather and would really like to capture some good lightning shots.I have a feeling that I should be stopping down a bit and taking somewhat long exposures, but it's all just a guess.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What settings would you recommend for lightning photography?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I saw &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/643/photographing-lightning-strikes-white-balance&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a question regarding lightning color&lt;/a&gt;, but I'm looking for a little more general information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-07T15:26:59.913" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T17:15:44.523" Title="What technique and settings should I use to capture lightning strikes?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;weather&gt;&lt;lightning&gt;" AnswerCount="6" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="1485" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1421" CreationDate="2010-07-26T19:52:42.043" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most of the answers here discuss noise removal in post-processing. My suggestion would be to do everything you can to avoid noise (if noise is not part of the concept) before you take the shot - good camera, fast lenses, VR/IS where applicable, stable tripod for landscapes and gimbal type head for wildlife, &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11/how-can-i-reduce-the-noise-present-when-taking-pictures-without-lowering-my-iso/183#183&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;proper technique&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you want to sell your images and compete with the guys who have spent a lot of money to get the best equipment you have to spend a lot of money and get the best equipment too, plus you most probably need to find something that differentiates your images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-26T21:57:46.123" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T21:57:46.123" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1486" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1484" CreationDate="2010-07-26T20:02:46.713" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is pretty similar to photographing fireworks (if it is relatively dark out or you have tons of ND filters):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use a tripod.  Set aperture and ISO exposure for daylight.  Use bulb mode, open the shuter and wait for a lightning flash, then close the shutter (a remote is useful).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use RAW, it it will give you a lot of headroom in case you want to increase exposure in the shadows (buildlings, etc).  It will be very similar to increasing ISO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or you can get a lightning trigger (if you have a Canon P&amp;amp;S, I believe CHDK has something similar).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-27T04:46:29.153" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T04:46:29.153" />
  <row Id="1487" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1484" CreationDate="2010-07-26T20:04:05.603" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Stable tripod, stop down your aperture, lower ISO, use ND filters if needed, switch off &quot;long exposure noise reduction&quot; otherwise you send half of the time exposing dark frames. Disable automatics that are too smart or keep the time between shots long.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main concept when photographing such unpredictable things is to &lt;strong&gt;keep the shutter open as much of the time you can and keep time between shots minimal&lt;/strong&gt;. You probably want the shutter speed to be around 10-30 seconds as anything less than 10 seconds means too much time between shots and anything more means switching to bulb mode, guess-based metering and more fiddling with settings (so you spend less time exposing and have less probability of getting the shot). Take a sequence of shots and hope for the best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An even more unpredictable problem with photographing lightning is the &lt;strong&gt;relative brightness of lightning strike compared to other light sources&lt;/strong&gt;. Meaning the sensor could get saturated with ambient light, leaving the distant lightning strike of relatively low intensity. The solution is to underexpose ambient lightning to get your main subject relatively brighter (or vice versa if you want to catch more ambient light). Check your first results and adjust when needed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might find parts of &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1402/tips-for-a-long-exposure/1404#1404&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt; relevant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-11T12:53:19.610" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T12:53:19.610" />
  <row Id="1488" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="324" CreationDate="2010-07-26T20:07:43.333" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another option is called &quot;bookends&quot;; 4x8 sheets of foam board, hinged together with tape.  Leave one side white and use it as a reflector, paint the other side black and use it to eat light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T20:07:43.333" />
  <row Id="1489" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1484" CreationDate="2010-07-26T20:11:42.527" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If a Canon P&amp;amp;S camera, you can install CHDK and install one of the scripts to trigger the shutter when the lightning goes. (Since P&amp;amp;S have an electronic shutter, the sensor can be activated without taking a picture. The script does this and watches for a changed image, then captures a photo when it detects lightning.) Believe it or not, it's fast enough to do that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-26T20:39:15.940" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T20:39:15.940" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1490" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1256" CreationDate="2010-07-26T20:39:53.880" Score="32" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I once made a picture which I believe displays rain quite well. I think the main reason why it works is the backlight coming from the car lights. There are two parts of the image where the rain is very visible. One of them is the area directly in front of the car, where the backlight makes the rain shine and the background is almost black.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another area is the road, where falling drops hit already present water. As water is reflective under certain angles, these little impact areas throw reflections of the lights, while the rest of the water stays invisible, again show there is some rain. Dark pavement also helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I'd say one way to show and photograph rain is find or create place where it's lit from side or back against something dark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/che_0/4832069088/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;rain by che 0, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4113/4832069088_f5098a6661.jpg&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;333&quot; alt=&quot;rain&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-03T21:47:59.117" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T21:47:59.117" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="1491" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1424" CreationDate="2010-07-26T21:25:45.013" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I bought a canon G11 this year specifically because I am a diver (circa 90 dives, so still lots to learn), and there are a number of waterproof housings around for that camera.  In particular, I bought the Canon housing, and it works a treat up to 30 metres.  If you go this route, make sure to buy the extra weight set that screws onto the bottom of the case, this gives the camera neutral buoyancy, and if you don't it gets really annoying pulling out of your wrist &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recently back from a live aboard on the Red sea and there were a lot of photographers on that trip with real super-duper equipment, some running to thousands of euros worth.  However, there was one diver there with a G9, Ikelite case and external strobe taking amazing shots.  I thought I'd made the wrong choice with the Canon case, as there is no external output socket for a stobe (whereas there is on the Ikelite) - but upon returning, I discovered that you can attach an external light sensitive trigger to the Canon case just in front of the internal flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An Ikelite housing is likely to cost twice as much as the camera, so I think I'll wait a while.  But I &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; buy an external strobe for the next trip - once you go below 10 metres depth (even in clear seas like the Red sea) you get a real case of light loss, colour loss and shakes set in.  The internal flash is useless at distance, and the design of the case blocks the flash on the bottom 3rd of macro shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I'm happy to learn what to do &lt;em&gt;without&lt;/em&gt; a strobe first:  there is enough to worry about in diving without adding &lt;em&gt;another&lt;/em&gt; electronic gadget...  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All advice about diving with an underwater housing says that on the first dive (your check dive) of a series, that you take the housing down without the camera in it - just to make sure there are no leaks).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.uwphotographyguide.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Underwater Photography Guide&lt;/a&gt; for loads of tips and a good tutorials&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(PS: One practical piece of advice I never saw, and wish I had is to never dive with a shorti wet suit and take photos:  You'll need protection from all the things you bump into while concentrating on exposure and aperture!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="460" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T21:25:45.013" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1492" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1484" CreationDate="2010-07-26T22:19:09.850" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is how I usually approach the subject:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I attach a remote cable release to the camera and set the camera to manual mode, and make a first guess on exposure (for instance 15 sec, f/11, ISO 100 or 200). Then I shoot a test frame and check the resulting image. I aim to make an exposure where the landscape looks like I want it to look in the lightning image. The lightning itself shines for such a short period of time that it actually does not illuminate the landscape very much in relation to the long exposure. Once I have settled for an exposure, I press the release button on the remote, and lock it. With the camera in continuous mode, this will capture frame after frame with very little waiting time in between. Now I just leave the camera there and hope :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The image below was captured this way. It is taken around midnight in late summer in Sweden (which means that it was not pitch black, but quite dark). Exposure was 30 seconds on f/10, ISO 200.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://blog.alcedo.com/image.axd?picture=WindowsLiveWriter/Litetur/185E164F/_DSC1893_10546.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T22:19:09.850" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1493" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1366" CreationDate="2010-07-26T23:21:06.493" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As others mention, time of day. I found over the years that these dramatically lit scenes mostly don't turn out, as you mention, but the times immediately before the extreme sunset light and the times after the extreme sunrise light look amazing on actual photos. The colors pop, the dynamic range is not to strong, the angles of light are interesting. Keep an eye out for the first morning light and the last afternoon light (but not necessarily sunset/sunrise or dusk/dawn--- these look good to our eyes but tend to overwhelm the camera).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Try turning around and seeing what the sun is lighting up behind you. In other words don't plan to shoot directly at the sunset or at the sunrise, try shooting at what the sun is lighting up. Plan sunrise and sunset hikes (if that's your thing) with not only (A) the colorful sunrise/sunset sky in mind (what you describe) but also watch for (B) the colorful landscape/scenery lit by the colorful part of the sky (the golden colors).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="109" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T23:21:06.493" />
  <row Id="1494" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1473" CreationDate="2010-07-26T23:32:37.490" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that one of the most powerful tools for batch manipulation of EXIF data out there is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exif Tool&lt;/a&gt;. I use it mainly for batch renaming files, but it can also be used for manipulating the EXIF data. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/#shift&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here are a couple of examples of batch date/time shifting&lt;/a&gt;. Not the most user friendly piece of software around, but quite accessible for software developers, and it comes in versions for both Windows and Mac.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastEditorUserId="10" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-26T23:43:00.967" LastActivityDate="2010-07-26T23:43:00.967" />
  <row Id="1495" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1454" CreationDate="2010-07-27T01:28:08.303" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a D80 that uses the same battery &amp;amp; charger as D200 and my battery can go 500 shots or more at least and also have the battery grip. I am not certain why you have a bad battery life, but here are some guess:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You use built-in flash often. In this case, maybe getting a strobe (like SB 600) is not a bad idea&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You use VR lenses pretty much the whole time. I would try to turn off VR is not needed (like wide angle shots, high shutter speed, on a tripod, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You always drain the battery before recharging. Lithium batt is best when it is topped off most of time. Try recycling your batter or get a new one. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to upgrade, I recommend D700 (since they are closing out I think - so you can get them cheaper) or wait until new model comes out. D700 handles DX lenses nicely (although you only get ~6mpix). During light travel, sometimes I bring my D700 paired up with 18-200 DX for convenience. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T01:28:08.303" />
  <row Id="1496" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="178" CreationDate="2010-07-27T03:22:44.147" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Stand with legs shoulder width apart, slightly bent (think of wrestling or karate stances, you want to be the most resistant to being knocked down).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Use your left hand to cradle the bottom of the camera/lens.  For longer lenses, hold out further on the lens (there are also variations such as holding your upper arm and resting the lens on your elbow: &lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-avoid-camera-shake&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-avoid-camera-shake&lt;/a&gt; )&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Brace your elbows against your chest and each other.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Raise your left shoulder.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hold the camera flat up against your face/cheek (twist your face slightly)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Don't tense your muscles in your arms or hands.  Be loose and gentle. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Breath slowly 3 times.  Right after the 3rd exhale, gently push the shutter, then inhale.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hold the shutter for a bit after you have shot your picture.  You can also use continuous mode and take two, often the first will have the most shake as you are inducing rotational shake by pushing the shutter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If there is anything nearby, lean on it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you can get close to the ground, use your knee as a support like a tripod.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you can get on the ground, lay down.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-30T20:05:17.160" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T20:05:17.160" />
  <row Id="1497" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1498" CreationDate="2010-07-27T05:25:52.023" Score="14" ViewCount="589" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have made a few short films and plan to get more serious about it, but professional digital video cameras are generally expensive and the recent line of beginner DSLRs which can take HD video like Canon 550D gets cheaper. I wonder what pros and cons of video DSLRs over traditional video cameras are and if I should buy a new DSLR for film-making if I have already had a DSLR (Nikon D50).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="578" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T02:53:27.503" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T02:53:27.503" Title="Video camera vs. DSLR which can take video" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;video&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="1498" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1497" CreationDate="2010-07-27T05:47:21.583" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I tried to list the pros and cons in a vacuum (ie ignoring external factors). For example, handycams have much better mics than than dSLR's, however you have the option of using either a dedicated recording system, or a solid quality mic. So the mic is still a con, but it's easily mitigated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pros&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Access to awesome lens lineup&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Amazing low-light performance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use existing equipment, instead of separate video hardware&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lighter travel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Great performance for low cost compared to dedicated video cameras.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AWESOME photo image quality&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lens based image stabilization&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;build format (this can be a con as well)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Familiarity with camera body&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In the right hands, with the right accessories, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photographyblog.com/news/canon_5d_mark_ii_shoots_season_finale_of_house/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;produces professional results&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Depth of Field&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Huge image sensor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Cons&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dedicated video cameras are designed for video&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Auto focus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Video Format Support&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Video File Size &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Only flash media&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sensor overuse causing heating issues&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;built-in audio sucks&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;very few bells and whistles for video. Since camera bodies are first and foremost for photography, most features are geared towards still photos (bracketing, AEB, etc). Features that you expect from a dedicated video camera (stereo mic, video outputs galore, jog-scrolling, enhanced playback features, dub over, etc) may not be present&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M15MqHpAvs&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Jello/Jelly&quot; Motion Effect&lt;/a&gt; caused by the CMOS Sensor when panned quickly. Not all dSLR bodies exhibit this.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;build format (this can be a pro as well)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-27T16:42:19.757" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T16:42:19.757" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="1499" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1502" CreationDate="2010-07-27T06:14:26.363" Score="7" ViewCount="437" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do you use dodge and burn in post-process to enhance a photograph?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In lightroom, I've used dodge only to dial back some of the more drastic global settings in specific areas, but that's really it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm curious what techniques are out there (tutorials or otherwise) on using dodge and burn.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-27T23:41:43.377" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T23:41:43.377" Title="Digital Dodge and Burn Techniques to enhance photographs during post-process?" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;technique&gt;&lt;post-processing&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1500" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1387" CreationDate="2010-07-27T07:39:35.153" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could try building a portrait of the house / flat / apartment where you live. Imagine you are going to be leaving it at the end of the time you have to complete your thesis. Then build a portfolio of images you can publish in book form (Blurb or whatever) so you won't forget the character and charm (or otherwise!) of where you are staying now. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T07:39:35.153" />
  <row Id="1501" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1497" CreationDate="2010-07-27T08:32:56.633" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;DSLR video setups are more similar to traditional film camera, in the sense that you need to expose everything manually. It's very difficult to capture any action unless you have a dedicated focusing rig and someone to operate it. If you build all this stuff around a DSLR, you can get professional results, but if you just want to have one cameraman which can come with you and capture something that moves then video camera is still your best bet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T08:32:56.633" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1502" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1499" CreationDate="2010-07-27T08:44:20.957" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dodge and Burn normally applies when you want to change the relative exposure of part of an image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Lightroom you can do this with an adjustment brush that you set to change the exposure or brightness (&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/820/lightroom-whats-the-difference-between-exposure-and-brightness&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;there is a difference&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Photoshop and GIMP there are specific tools for Dodge and Burn that you can also use like a paintbrush. For example you may be happy with the general exposure of an image but may just want to &lt;strong&gt;burn&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;em&gt;darken&lt;/em&gt;) the edge of a cloud or &lt;strong&gt;dodge&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;em&gt;lighten&lt;/em&gt;) someone's eyes to make them &quot;pop&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photoshopessentials.com/photo-editing/dodge-burn/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is a Photoshop tutorial on the technique&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T08:44:20.957" />
  <row Id="1503" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1648" CreationDate="2010-07-27T09:12:26.603" Score="17" ViewCount="737" Body="&lt;p&gt;What websites expose the camera body serial numbers from the original image EXIF?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr&lt;/a&gt; is a photo sharing website that exposes lots of photo metadata (from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchangeable_image_file_format&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EXIF&lt;/a&gt; data) and even make it easy to access thanks to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/services/api/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr API&lt;/a&gt;. Google's Picasaweb also offers &lt;a href=&quot;http://code.google.com/apis/picasaweb/docs/2.0/reference.html#exif_reference&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;some information&lt;/a&gt; from the EXIF but not the serial number.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any other sites that may help me?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a bit of background on what I'm doing, I'm trying to collate a database of camera serial numbers and the URLs of the images where they were found. This is just me doing something for free in the hope that we can catch some of the people that steal our precious cameras! I hope this isn't too off-topic as I'm not trying to sell anything, just trying to do some good!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer: I'm the author of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stolencamerafinder.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;stolencamerafinder&lt;/a&gt; ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr/&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update&lt;/strong&gt; - As requested by fbuchinger, here's a quick update to the project status:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many sites (including facebook unfortunately) strip the makernotes out of the EXIF. So far, I've found the richest source of serial numbers to be Flickr. I suppose it's because people often upload full-size (read &quot;unedited&quot;) images. On my site (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stolencamerafinder.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;stolencamerafinder.com&lt;/a&gt;) I offer a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mattburns.co.uk/stolencamerafinder/launch.jnlp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;java webstart app&lt;/a&gt; that harvests flickr data through its API. Since there is a cap on the rate at which I make API calls, I've written it so that the work is &lt;em&gt;shared&lt;/em&gt; between the number of web start clients, thus reducing bandwidth and CPU on the clients the more people that run it. If you're reading this and you have, say, admin access to a server at work that doesn't do much, why not leave it running on there ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have also written a Google Chrome plugin that just keeps an eye out for images on websites that have a serial number embedded. I don't expect a very high yield from this app, the main idea was to discover what websites may be good sources to write bespoke spidering tools for and then crawl them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've publicised &lt;a href=&quot;http://code.google.com/p/stolencamerafinder/wiki/API&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;my API for stolencamerafinder&lt;/a&gt; and am looking for other programmers to help me write programs that may serve as web crawlers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've collected lots of interesting data in doing this project that I will put on the website soon such as which camera models do and don't write useful serial numbers. The Nikon D50 for example just writes &quot;D50&quot; as its serial number!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would be extremely grateful for any feedback (good or bad!) you may have on my project.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-Matt&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastEditorUserId="190" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-15T05:14:05.817" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T14:07:53.917" Title="What photo-sharing websites expose camera serial numbers?" Tags="&lt;metadata&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="1504" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-27T12:10:39.460" Score="15" ViewCount="475" Body="&lt;p&gt;I need to carry around some camera equipment (lens, flash, cables, cards, accessories, etc) but don't want a flashy camera bag attracting attention.  What suggestion do you have?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please only post one suggestion per answer so they can be sorted by votes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Considerations:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;padding or some way to pad&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;easy to carry (i,e., handles/straps)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;easy access to equipment&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;organization&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="113" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T04:08:17.060" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T03:34:00.450" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-30T18:18:27.620" Title="What options are there for a camera bag that does not look like one?" Tags="&lt;camera-bag&gt;&lt;travel&gt;&lt;equipment-protection&gt;" AnswerCount="13" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="1505" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-27T12:26:37.120" Score="6" ViewCount="436" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do you know a mobile application that would:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;calculate sunrise/sunset/twilight time&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;calculate moonrise/moonset/moonphase&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;would do that based on the location from internal GPS module&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are good enough online resources available to do the job (for example &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/moonrise.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;timeanddate.com&lt;/a&gt;) given that you're happy to mess with the printouts, but I haven't yet found a decent application for mobile phone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this question is relevant because for a landscape shooter timing is everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-27T22:24:38.820" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T20:47:05.317" Title="Mobile application calculating sunrise/sunset" Tags="&lt;landscape&gt;&lt;sunrise&gt;&lt;sunset&gt;&lt;moon&gt;&lt;golden-hour&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="1506" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1509" CreationDate="2010-07-27T12:29:33.730" Score="4" ViewCount="190" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have an old Nikon Nikkormat reflex film camera. It's an object of sentimental value more than else, but I would like to know if it's possible to &quot;convert&quot; it to digital. Something like a fake film with a digital sensor on it...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="587" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T03:44:43.753" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T03:44:43.753" Title="Old reflex to digital" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;digital-vs-film&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1507" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1233" CreationDate="2010-07-27T12:31:22.493" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Regarding your second point, try increasing the 'Camera RAW cache settings' in the Preferences ('File editing' tab). This defaults to 1Gb and will determine if LR will need to generate the rendered preview from scratch or use a cached copy. In the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/videos/lr3.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luminious Landscape tutorials&lt;/a&gt;, they have this set to 50Gb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="71" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T12:31:22.493" />
  <row Id="1508" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1505" CreationDate="2010-07-27T12:42:36.167" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think an application called &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photoephemeris.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Photographer's Ephemeris&lt;/a&gt;&quot; might be what you are looking for.  Currently it's only available on desktop and iPhone I believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="443" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-27T18:58:21.210" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T18:58:21.210" />
  <row Id="1509" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1506" CreationDate="2010-07-27T12:43:15.200" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A quick Google for 'Nikkormat &quot;digital back&quot;' suggests that such a thing doesn't exist at the moment. A 'digital back' is the technical term for what you're after, as several medium format cameras come with that option where the film plane is replaced by a digital sensor. They are usually horrendously expensive however, so I doubt that, even if it WERE available for your Nikkormat, it would be cheap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A decent film scanner would let you scan in your 35mm negs and slides - it's a laborious process, but can be rewarding. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T12:43:15.200" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1510" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1505" CreationDate="2010-07-27T12:45:33.277" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use an app called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adairsystems.com/photocalc/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;'PhotoCalc'&lt;/a&gt; - it does sunrise and sunset (though not currently moonrise and moonset) based on your position on GPS, and has a load of other useful features too, such as an equivalent exposure calculator, and a flash exposure calculator. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T12:45:33.277" />
  <row Id="1511" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1505" CreationDate="2010-07-27T12:46:33.367" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a number of Android application available which will give you sunrise and set times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Search on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.appbrain.com/search?q=sunrise&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;App Brain&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="430" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T12:46:33.367" />
  <row Id="1512" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1525" CreationDate="2010-07-27T13:00:37.050" Score="9" ViewCount="407" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know if there is a plugin available for the GIMP that will let you view and edit all the EXIF information associated with an image?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="430" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T14:50:35.357" Title="View and edit EXIF data in GIMP" Tags="&lt;exif&gt;&lt;gimp&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1513" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1506" CreationDate="2010-07-27T13:19:01.300" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, that doesn't exist and it's unlikely to ever be built - not enough demand. However, your lenses should work on a modern Nikon DSLR. See the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/slr-lens.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikonians&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ken Rockwell&lt;/a&gt; lens compatibility charts for details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T13:19:01.300" />
  <row Id="1514" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1516" CreationDate="2010-07-27T13:41:40.873" Score="9" ViewCount="227" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question came to me this morning, thinking about 50mm lenses. I have the Pentax 50mm f/1.7 (manual) and it's a very nice lens, but would be considered, relatively, slow on 35mm film and many recommendations would be for a 50mm f1.4. However, doing the math, the diameter of the f/1.7 aperture wide open is 29.4mm which is greater than the diagonal size of an APS-C sensor, effectively meaning that no part of the sensor is &quot;hidden&quot; by the aperture. So, the questions is, does this actually have any meaning or is the f1.4 still going to be distinctly faster for APS-C?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T19:05:48.537" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T19:05:48.537" Title="FF Lens Aperture and APS-C" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;cropped-sensor&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1515" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1514" CreationDate="2010-07-27T13:46:39.160" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That people would recommend the f/1,4 over the f/1,8 for speed reasons is not related to the sensor size. The f/1,4 lens is simply faster than the f/1,8 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/24/is-there-a-noticable-difference-between-1-8-and-1-4-prime-lens&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;as discussed here&lt;/a&gt;) regardless of the size of the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, a smaller sensor results in a greater depth of field at a given aperture. For this reason it could make sense to recommend a larger-aperture lens for a smaller sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T13:46:39.160" />
  <row Id="1516" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1514" CreationDate="2010-07-27T13:49:35.003" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;f1.4 will always be 2/3rds stops faster than f1.8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The diameter has nothing to do with whether or not part of the sensor is hidden.  That is a separate measurement referred to as vignetting, and not the image circle's light level.  The image circle's light level/brightness is directly affected by the aperture of the lens design.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;FF lens simply means the image circle is designed to cover a full frame sensor (which can be film).  Using it on a APS-C will be using the inner part of the image circlce.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An APS-C lens of the same focal length and speed could have been created at a smaller size the image circle does not need to be as large, but the lens would need to be redesigned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, note that the Pentax 50mm f1.7 (if this is what you have) is generally regarded as sharper and/or more contrasty than the Pentax 50mm f1.4 at common apertures up until f2.8 or so.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pentax 50mm f1.4 advantages include one third f-stop faster, rounder aperture blades for rounder highlight bokeh &lt;strong&gt;only when stopped down.&lt;/strong&gt;   It may or may not have &quot;better&quot; and smoother bokeh as that is not simply a function of aperture blades and I have not seen any other comparisons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T13:49:35.003" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1517" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1504" CreationDate="2010-07-27T13:58:44.060" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.crumpler.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Crumpler&lt;/a&gt; has got some camera bags that don't really have &quot;camera equipment&quot; written all over them. They also used to have a &lt;em&gt;completely&lt;/em&gt; insane website that was always worth a visit (though that does not seem to be the case anymore).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T13:58:44.060" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-04T11:52:27.680" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1518" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1504" CreationDate="2010-07-27T14:01:33.413" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recommend the Crumpler 5 Million Dollar Home bag. It looks just like a purse or messenger bag (no one ever guesses that I have an SLR in there) and can fit your camera + an extra lens, plus a couple of doodads in the front, flap and side pockets. It's well padded, sturdy, and the strap is comfy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have had one for years, and have been very satisfied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="204" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T14:01:33.413" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-04T11:52:27.680" />
  <row Id="1519" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1514" CreationDate="2010-07-27T14:01:38.390" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As others have said, the f/1.4 lens will always be faster than the f/1.8 lens. I think the simplest example I can give to this is to imagine, say, a 400mm f/2.8 lens. That would have an aperture of about 140mm diameter, by my reckoning at least. That's plenty bigger  than even full-frame D-SLRs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="101" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T14:01:38.390" />
  <row Id="1520" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-27T14:06:48.970" Score="39" ViewCount="976" Body="&lt;p&gt;Always check reviews when deciding to buy a lens. There are so many factors beyond what is written in the name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that in general, comparing between mounts is not a good idea. (Even comparing lenses on a different shared mount than your own is a bit better.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;General:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fredmiranda.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.fredmiranda.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slrgear.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.slrgear.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.photozone.de&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dpreview.com - Lens Reviews Section&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cameralabs.com/lenses/Latest_DSLR_Lens_reviews.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;cameralabs.com - Lens Reviews Section&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.popphoto.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.popphoto.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ephotozine.com/reviews/Interchangeable-Lenses-46&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.ephotozine.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photodo.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.photodo.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dxomark.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.dxomark.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pixel-peeper.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pixel-Peeper&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Canon:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-Lens-Reviews.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.the-digital-picture.com - Lens Reviews&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.the-digital-picture.com - 100% Crop Comparisons&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Nikon:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/nikon.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bythom.com/nikon.htm - Nikon gear&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Pentax:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Vintage:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(For many of these, use google search, as they are forum based.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/category-Pentax-Takumar-M42-Screwmount-Lenses.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pentax&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pentaxforums third-party&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mflenses.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.mflenses.org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.manualfocus.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.manualfocus.org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adaptall-2.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.adaptall-2.org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a &quot;community wiki&quot; post, where answers do not have individual ownership. Please use the answers to rate and comment on each site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-31T22:02:42.900" LastActivityDate="2011-06-01T20:20:42.520" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-27T14:06:48.970" Title="Where can I find reviews of lenses?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;purchase&gt;&lt;review&gt;" AnswerCount="13" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="34" />
  <row Id="1521" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1520" CreationDate="2010-07-27T14:11:19.880" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photodo.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photodo&lt;/a&gt; has a collection of lens reviews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T14:11:19.880" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-27T14:11:19.880" />
  <row Id="1522" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1520" CreationDate="2010-07-27T14:13:37.847" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonians.org/resources/reviews/nikon-lenses&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikonians&lt;/a&gt; has got a collection reviews on various Nikon lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T14:13:37.847" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-27T14:13:37.847" />
  <row Id="1523" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1520" CreationDate="2010-07-27T14:35:43.567" Score="19" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Digital Picture&lt;/a&gt; has good reviews of lenses for Canon bodies - pretty much every lens I've looked for has been there. They also do reviews of some lenses for Nikon bodies, of Canon bodies and of some accessories. When I've been looking for Canon lens reviews that's where I seem to end up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T14:35:43.567" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-27T14:35:43.567" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1524" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1504" CreationDate="2010-07-27T14:36:30.477" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://shootsac.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;shootsac.com&lt;/a&gt; - I own this and the hip slip for my laptop.  Both are excellent.  The Shoot Sac is perfect for quick access to lenses and flash.  It maybe isn't ideal for the smaller items, I'd recommend smaller cases strapped onto the strap for those.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="392" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T14:36:30.477" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-04T11:52:27.680" />
  <row Id="1525" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1512" CreationDate="2010-07-27T14:50:35.357" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To be honest I'd probably use some photo management software for managing the exif data. It's likely to be more powerful and allow for various batch operations. If you're on Linux, you could try one of the ones listed under &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/321/what-photo-management-software-would-you-recommend-for-linux&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if you insist, you could try &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the &lt;a href=&quot;http://registry.gimp.org/node/8839&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;exif viewer plugin&lt;/a&gt; which will let you see the exif data; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the &lt;a href=&quot;http://registry.gimp.org/node/33&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;save for web plugin&lt;/a&gt; which will strip exif tags (amongst other operations);&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't know if that's enough for you, but as I say, I'd use something else for exif manipulation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T14:50:35.357" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1526" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1514" CreationDate="2010-07-27T15:05:03.560" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The max aperture has nothing to do with the sensor size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lens has a max sensor size that it can be used with, but that is because other elements limit the image circle, like the size of the front lens. (A fish eye lens may even have an image circle smaller than the sensor, leaving the corners black.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 1.8 lens isn't so slow. A zoom lens in the same price segment is about two stops slower, and they are not considered unusable. The 1.4 is faster, so it's just a question about what you need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T15:05:03.560" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1527" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="178" CreationDate="2010-07-27T15:56:10.980" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Joe McNally wrote a nice blog post about &quot;Da Grip&quot; he uses.  Lots of good information there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.joemcnally.com/blog/2008/03/10/da-grip&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.joemcnally.com/blog/2008/03/10/da-grip&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T15:56:10.980" />
  <row Id="1528" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="920" CreationDate="2010-07-27T16:05:40.413" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer just the final part of the question, I'll second the Pentax K-7 - it's probably the quietest SLR I've used (and it's not a mode, the shutter is just generally quiet).  There are videos on YouTube which demonstrate how quiet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="443" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T16:05:40.413" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1529" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1504" CreationDate="2010-07-27T16:34:09.140" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A diaper bag with a foam insert (like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Inserts/ci/4382/N/4291080167&quot;&gt;Domke inserts&lt;/a&gt;. It's not pretty, but that's the point: it looks exactly like something you don't want to stick your hand into.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="14" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T16:34:09.140" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-04T11:52:27.680" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1530" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1504" CreationDate="2010-07-27T16:56:17.570" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Crumpler bags are &quot;designed&quot; to not to scream fancy camera bag, however at this point in the game, thieves know that crumpler bags are expensive, and target them anyway. They're good for keeping a low key amongst non-pro thieves, and meet all the requirements you listed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally use the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000W8ZDWA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;6 Million Dollar Home&lt;/a&gt; &quot;messenger&quot; style bag and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000W8R8V4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Whickey and Cox&lt;/a&gt; Backpack. The 6mdh has been &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Crumpler-Million-Dollar-Photo-Black/dp/B001TIJZQC&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;redesigned&lt;/a&gt;; with two snaps (not sure I like that), so I can't speak for certain about it's performance (I have the older one--which I linked too).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 6mdh is great for quickly accessing gear, but it does wear on my shoulder after a day of walking around. The W&amp;amp;C is perfect for carrying lots of gear on a hike, or a day trip, but because the main compartment is only accessible if you take off the backpack (for security reasons), it makes swapping gear much harder. I use them both while on travel. I keep all my gear in the W&amp;amp;C, use it for day trips that will have a lot of walking. For out-and-about street photography, I put what I need in the 6mdh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your mileage may vary based on your size, strength, and gear carried.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T16:56:17.570" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-04T11:52:27.680" />
  <row Id="1531" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1499" CreationDate="2010-07-27T17:08:50.573" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like the way a burning vignette produces a more realistic result as opposed to a simple &quot;fade to black&quot;. It affects the colors as well, and gives a little bit more contrast, and I prefer the look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="92" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T17:08:50.573" />
  <row Id="1532" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="324" CreationDate="2010-07-27T17:23:04.983" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A great low cost option is to buy a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.walmart.com/ip/Mainstays-Sheet-Set-Rich-Black/13437092&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;black sheet at Walmart&lt;/a&gt; and use it as a &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1474/what-does-a-black-reflector-do&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;black reflector&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. Instead of adding light, it will subtract the light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As well as being useful for photography, it never hurts to have a spare set of sheets for guests.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-27T19:24:06.677" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T19:24:06.677" />
  <row Id="1533" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1499" CreationDate="2010-07-27T17:25:28.410" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can dodge and burn to make textures pop by applying contrast selectively - for example, on someone's clothes, you would burn the creases and darker areas and dodge parts where light is already striking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T17:25:28.410" />
  <row Id="1534" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1505" CreationDate="2010-07-27T17:36:15.723" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.veladg.com/magichourapp.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Magic Hour&lt;/a&gt;, it's only on the iPhone I believe but does all you need. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's only a couple of quid too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="482" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T17:36:15.723" />
  <row Id="1535" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1505" CreationDate="2010-07-27T17:46:10.483" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My favorite website for this is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.golden-hour.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.golden-hour.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have not tried it on a mobile, but it is quite informative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T17:46:10.483" />
  <row Id="1536" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1497" CreationDate="2010-07-27T17:46:31.933" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I shoot video with two cameras, a Panasonic DVX100 (video camera) and a Canon T2i.  I'll say that DSLR video looks great if you spend the time and effort but for ease of use a traditional video camera is leaps and bounds better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The big differences are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;No autofocus with the DSLR.  You &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; autofocus but you'll be waiting 4-5 seconds for it to hunt focus.  Every decent video camera can autofocus in real-time.  With a DSLR you'll be shelling out some change for a good follow focus (which can cost more than the camera in some cases!).  You'll also have to convince a friend to pull focus if you're shooting with a fast lens.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;XLR audio with the video camera.  Nobody really uses any built-in mics on DSLR or video cameras for anything serious, so connecting a good mic is key.  Every prosumer+ video camera gives you native XLR audio ports.  DSLR's usually just have a stereo/mono 3.5mm jack and few options to balance/monitor audio.  I know the Canon T2i even has auto-gain control which actually reduces audio quality!.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jello with the DSLR.  As much as this is talked about you have to try hard to get significant jelloing.  It's something to think about but you'll quickly find the limits of your camera and it's easy to avoid.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Video cameras seem to have better image stabilization.  Perhaps it's just me but even the midrange consumer camcorders have better IS than the lens-based IS from any of the Canon DSLR lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ergonomics and the other issues mentioned by the other answers are an issue but these are the biggest things I've noticed in the time I've been shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="217" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T17:46:31.933" />
  <row Id="1537" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1505" CreationDate="2010-07-27T19:02:26.913" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use a nice tool on my iPhone called &lt;a href=&quot;http://bjango.com/apps/darkness/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Darkness&lt;/a&gt;. It is a world clock with sunrise/sunset/moonphase, and supports grabbing your current location (in addition to configured locations.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T19:02:26.913" />
  <row Id="1538" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1520" CreationDate="2010-07-27T19:06:07.030" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My favorite is dpreview, which has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lens Review Widget&lt;/a&gt; that is pretty cool. They don't have a whole lot of lenses available in the widget, but you really get a good feel for the quality of the ones they have added.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T19:06:07.030" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-27T19:06:07.030" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1539" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1520" CreationDate="2010-07-27T19:46:04.300" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/nikon.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Thom Hogan&lt;/a&gt; specializes in reviewing Nikon gear. I always check his site when I am checking out some new gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T19:46:04.300" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-27T19:46:04.300" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1540" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1506" CreationDate="2010-07-27T20:41:10.313" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While you could try to find some form of a &lt;code&gt;digital back&lt;/code&gt; for your camera.  You probably won't be happy with the quality of the photos.  Unless you want to shoot film and scan the images you might want to consider buying a new digital body.  The good news is that as long as your current camera uses a Nikon F-Mount most (if not all) of you existing lenses should work on a new body.  Keep in mind though that some of the really nice features of a digital body such as the built in meter may not work unless you have newer electronically controlled lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would suggest the Nikon &lt;a href=&quot;http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25452/D5000.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;D5000&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25462/D3000.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;D3000&lt;/a&gt; if you are on a tighter budget.  You may even be able to find a used D50 or D60 pretty cheap.  (I bought both the D50 and D60 new they are fantastic cameras for the price.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If you don't like the suggestion for the upgrade...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Feel free to find a digital back as I (and others) have suggested.  The problem being that not many exist and most of the ones that do exist are pretty low resolution.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/news/0102/01021404pma04.asp#siliconfilm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here is&lt;/a&gt; an example from 2001.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/news/0102/01021404pma04.asp#siliconfilm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EFS-1 from Silicon Film&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="590" LastEditorUserId="590" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-28T03:09:19.000" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T03:09:19.000" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1541" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1545" CreationDate="2010-07-27T20:44:26.970" Score="10" ViewCount="276" Body="&lt;p&gt;I notice that hotshoe flashes (e.g. Nikon SB-800) typically have a Fresnel lens system to focus the light, but studio strobes (e.g. Photogenic Powerlight 1250) do not.  What's up with that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-25T02:08:12.573" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T02:08:12.573" Title="Why do hotshoe flashes use fresnel lens, but studio strobes do not?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;studio-lighting&gt;&lt;strobes&gt;&lt;hotshoe-flash&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1542" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1436" CreationDate="2010-07-27T20:55:32.870" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 18-200mm lens is a great walk around lens.  It allows you to have a pretty wide working area for a fairly low price.  I shoot on Nikons and just love my &lt;a href=&quot;http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2159/AF-S-DX-VR-Zoom-NIKKOR-18-200mm-f%252F3.5-5.6G-IF-ED.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon 18-200mm VR&lt;/a&gt;.   The 18-55/17-85 are good ranges too but they just don't have the same reach.  It really comes down to your budget and needs.  As a side note before I bought the 18-200mm I had an 18-55mm kit lens and a 55-200mm lens.  Getting the 18-200 meant I could take more photos faster with less change of dust and sand getting into my camera body... and that's a really good thing :o)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may want to think to put more money into your lens collection because new bodies will come out every few years.  And as long as you take care of them your lenses should have no problem out living your bodies. Assuming the manufacture doesn't change the mount on you. (The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F-mount&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon F-Mount&lt;/a&gt; hasn’t changed much since it came out in 1959.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="590" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T20:55:32.870" />
  <row Id="1543" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1541" CreationDate="2010-07-27T21:27:00.360" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't say for sure, but my spontaneous guess would be a tradeoff between portability and quality. The fresnel lens takes less space and weighs less than a traditional lens, so it's more practical in the case of a hotshoe flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand the fresnel lens typically has a lower image quality than traditional lenses. Perhaps this affects also the quality of the projected light in some way that is undesirable, which could explain why they are still in use in studio strobes, where portability is a less important factor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T21:27:00.360" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1544" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1541" CreationDate="2010-07-27T21:43:04.213" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fresnel lens are rarely used in studio strobes because in studio we mostly need soft light, not the hard one.  And if we need hard light, we can always use standard reflector.  And if we need spot light, we can always use tube reflector. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fresnel are used on hot-shoe light because there are different focal lengths of different lens, the hot-shoe light is located at the fixed position (at the camera) and must use every single ray to light the scene and not spill around. In studio you can move the light whereever you want. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given all that fresnel lens in studio are almost useless. (However they do exist.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="341" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T21:43:04.213" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1545" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1541" CreationDate="2010-07-27T21:49:31.920" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fresnel spots are one of the traditional studio-lighting tools, carried over from theatre and movie work; they allow focusing the light from wide to narrow, just like the zoom function on a flashgun.  For example &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.elinchrom.com/products.php?p_id=101#content&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this one from Elinchrom&lt;/a&gt;, or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=fresnel&amp;amp;Ns=p_PRODUCT_SHORT_DESCR|0&amp;amp;N=4291575548&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;these Broncolors&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason you don't see them &lt;em&gt;often&lt;/em&gt; is that, like a scrim, snoot, honeycomb, or other tools, they're a fairly special-purpose device that gives a particular look; one you don't want all the time.  They were widely used in the 30s-50s in Hollywood movies and studio photography, which today gives them a fairly 'retro' look when used on their own, but they're still around (and are still the workhorse lights of theatre and movie production).  I'm not a particular student of lighting trends, but I'd describe them as slightly harder light than is currently fashionable for portraiture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, flashguns have a couple of special properties that make a fresnel lens attractive for that application.  A big one is effciency: Since power for flashguns comes from batteries, this is a much bigger concern than for mains-powered studio lights.  The fresnel helps to focus the light to the desired field of view, and so the same power can be used to produce a higher GN (or extend battery life with the same GN).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-28T06:57:29.517" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T06:57:29.517" />
  <row Id="1546" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1505" CreationDate="2010-07-27T22:16:34.663" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From mobile I usually visit &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wolframalpha.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.wolframalpha.com/&lt;/a&gt; and enter &quot;sundown  &quot; - works good enough for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-07-27T22:16:34.663" />
  <row Id="1547" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-27T22:27:46.667" Score="5" ViewCount="147" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lately I took a few pictures from quite bright things with a Nikon D700. Even though I did not overexpose them by at least 2/3rds of a stop, the pictures lacked a lot of details in high key.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later on I saw comparison pictures between a Hasselblad H4D and a Nikon D700, and noticed: the H4D pictures had lot better distinction in high key, where the D700 just mashed stuff together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Funny thing: For me this loss in detail was only visible in bright areas, not in midtones. So I wonder if this is a software problem of the D700 (and other DSLR), and how this could be avoided?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I heard the rumour Hasselblad is using a straight curve in cam, while DSLR always enhance highlights and darktones, and therefore loose separation in bright and dark areas - can something confirm this?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;And can something be done about this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Update] The picture was shot in RAW, of course, and no whites had been clipped.&#xA;You can see a picture with comparison between D80, D700 and H4D in this forum: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fotografienonstop.de/showpost.php?p=30647&amp;amp;postcount=16&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.fotografienonstop.de/showpost.php?p=30647&amp;amp;postcount=16&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;Look at the highlight details in the blue cloth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T03:50:58.133" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T03:50:58.133" Title="Loss of detail in high key areas?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;full-frame&gt;&lt;medium-format&gt;&lt;high-key&gt;&lt;highlights&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="1548" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1547" CreationDate="2010-07-27T22:52:03.300" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Even though I did not overexpose them by at least 2/3rds of a stop, the pictures lacked a lot of details in high key&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you clairfy that? Particularly the first part.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, a MF camera will capture more total dynamic range than a FF, but light is light.  If you underexpose and pull the shadows, you should get more detail than you're describing.  The MF will have better color sensitivity but it doesn't appear to be what you are describing.  It sounds like microcontrast, which can be affected greatly by lens and PP.  Perhaps sensor could have something to do with it, but I cannot see why, especially at low pixel densities (as opposed to P&amp;amp;S which are quite diffraction limited).  Do you have a link to the comparison and your own pictures?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your camera likely has some sort of highlight compensation by default, especially in JPEG.  Look at tone curves in DPR reviews, many cameras compress the highlights to capture more overall detail and simulate film.  This is why most camera's ISO ratings are optimistic (ie it says 1600 but is more like 1100).  I'm not sure if you can completely disable it on D700 and turn it off for JPEG, I know I can on K-x (often criticized for the linear highlights without highlight compensation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are using RAW, you should have complete control.  The Hasselblad user could have applied a better tone curve, but it should be within reach as long you capture the extremes of the dynamic range in the high key area you are talking about.  After all, you are mapping 4096+ luminosity levels to 256 when you are viewing it on a computer.  You may need to post process in some local-contrast. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-28T00:28:19.647" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T00:28:19.647" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1549" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1048" CreationDate="2010-07-28T00:18:49.713" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Warning: this is a long, somewhat technical post that includes some math (but when you get past the superscripts and such, it's ultimately pretty simple math). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some time ago, Thom Hogan published an article:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/graycards.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bythom.com/graycards.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;that claims meters in Nikon digital cameras are calibrated for a mid-level grey that corresponds to 12% reflectance rather than the 18% grey of most standard grey cards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, while the title and opening paragraph of the article are quite emphatic about 18% being a “myth”, the remainder of the article fails to provide much factual basis for this claim. Here’s what Thom gives as the basis for his statements:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;ANSI standards (which, unfortunately, are not publically published--you have to pay big bucks to have access to them), calibrate meters using luminance, not reflection. For an ANSI calibrated meter, the most commonly published information I've seen is that the luminance value used translates into a reflectance of 12%. I've also seen 12.5% and 13% (so where the heck does Sekonic's 14% come from?), but 12% seems to be correct--one half stop lighter than 18%, by the way. I haven't seen anyone claim that ANSI calibration translates into a reflectance of 18%.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, he seems to have no real basis for his claims, merely a statement that “12% seems to be correct,” with no real evidence, or even information about why he considers this correct. Despite this, however, this article is now widely cited on various photographically oriented web sites (among other places) as if it were absolute and indisputable fact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since this issue seems to be of interest to a fair number of photographers, I decided to see if I could find some real facts with evidence to support them. The first step in this journey was to find the standard in question. Doing some searching, I found the relevant standard. Contrary to Thom’s implication above, this is really published by the ISO rather than ANSI. This may be trivial to most, but when I was looking for the standard it was somewhat important – I put in a fair amount of work trying to find an ANSI standard that apparently does not exist. In the end, however, I found the relevant ISO standard: ISO 2720-1974, “Photography - General purpose photographic exposure meters (photoelectric type) - Guide to product specification (First edition - 1974-08-15)”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also found that Thom was (at least from my viewpoint) quite mistaken about prices as well – a copy of this standard costs only $65 US. This didn't strike me as &quot;big bucks&quot; -- in fact, it seemed like a fair price to pay for some real enlightenment (pun noted by not really intended) on the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The standard confirmed part of what Thom had to say, such as calibrating meters directly from sources that emit light rather than from reflected light. Unfortunately, other parts of what Thom had to say are not quite so closely aligned with the content of the standard. For example, at the conclusion of his article, he includes a comment from “lance” that mentioned a &quot;'K' factor&quot;, without specifying its exact meaning or purpose. Thom replied by saying: “No manufacturer I've talked to knows anything about a K factor, though, and they all speak specifically about the ANSI standard as their criteria for building and testing meters.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As stated, this may not be exactly wrong – but it’s certainly misleading at best. In reality, a large part of the ISO standard is devoted to the K factor. Much of the rest is devoted to the C factor, which corresponds to the K factor, but is used for incident light meters instead (the K factor applies only to reflected light meters). It would be utterly impossible to follow the standard (at least with respect to a reflected light meter) without knowing (quite a lot) about the K factor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The standard specifies that: “The constants K and C shall be chosen by statistical analysis of the results of a large number of tests carried out to determine the acceptability to a number of observers, of a number of Photographs, for which the exposure was known, obtained under various conditions of subject matter and over a range of Iuminances.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The standard also specifies a range within which the K factor must fall. The numbers for the range depend on the method used for measuring/rating film speed (or its equivalent with a digital sensor). For the moment, I’m going to ignore the DIN-style speeds, and look only at the ASA-style speed ratings. For this system, the allowable range for the K factor is 10.6 to 13.4. These numbers do not correspond directly to reflectance values (e.g. 10.6 doesn't imply a 10.6% grey card as mid-level grey), but they do correspond to different levels of illumination that will be metered as mid-level grey. In other words, there is not one specific level of reflectance that is required to be metered as mid-level grey – rather, any value within the specified range is allowable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The K factor is related to a measured exposure by the following formula:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;K = LtS / A&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;K = K factor&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  L = Luminance in cd/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  A = f-number&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  t = effective shutter speed&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  S = film speed&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using this formula and a calibrated monitor, we can find the K factor for a specific camera. For example, I have a Sony Alpha 700 camera and a monitor that’s calibrated for a brightness of 100 cd/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. Doing a quick check, my camera meters the screen (displaying its idea of pure white) with no other visible light sources, at an exposure of 1/200th of a second at f/2. Running this through the formula, gives a K factor of 12.5 – just above the middle of the range allowed by the standard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next step is to figure up what level of “grey” on a card that corresponds to. Let’s do that based on the sunny f/16 rule, which says a proper exposure under bright sunlight is f/16 with a shutter speed that’s the reciprocal of the film speed. We can mathematically transform the formula above to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;L = A&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;K/tS&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let’s work things out for ISO 100 film:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;L = 16x16xK/.01x100&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The .01 and 100 cancel (and they will always cancel since the rule is that the exposure time is the reciprocal of the film speed), so this simplifies to: L = 256K.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Working the numbers for the lowest and highest allowable values for the K factor gives 2714 and 3430 respectively. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, we run into the reason the ISO standard specifies light levels rather than reflectance of a surface – even though we’ve all seen and heard the sunny f/16 rule, the reality is that clear sunlight varies over a considerable range, depending on season, latitude, etc. Clear sunlight has brightness anywhere from about 32000 to 100000 lux. The average of that range is about 66000 lux, so we’ll work the numbers on that basis. This has to be multiplied by the reflectance to give a luminance – but the result from that comes out in units of “apostilbs” rather than cd/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. To convert from apostilbs to cd/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, we multiply by 0.318:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;L = I x R x 0.318.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;R = reflectance&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  I = Illuminance (in Lux)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  L = luminance (in cd/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We already have the values for L that we care about, so we’ll rearrange this to give the values of R:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;R = L / 0.318 I&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Plugging in our minimum and maximum values for I, we get:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;R&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = L / 10176&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  R&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = L / 31800&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then we plug in the two values for L to define our allowable range for R:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;R&lt;sub&gt;1,1&lt;/sub&gt; = 2714 / 10176&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  R&lt;sub&gt;1,2&lt;/sub&gt; = 2714 / 31800&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  R&lt;sub&gt;2,1&lt;/sub&gt; = 3430 / 10176&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  R&lt;sub&gt;2,2&lt;/sub&gt; = 3430 / 31800  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;R&lt;sub&gt;1,1&lt;/sub&gt; = .27&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  R&lt;sub&gt;1,2&lt;/sub&gt; = .085&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  R&lt;sub&gt;2,1&lt;/sub&gt; = .34&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  R&lt;sub&gt;2,2&lt;/sub&gt; = .11  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, between the range of brightness of the sun and the range of K factors allowed by the ISO standard, a reflectance anywhere from about 8.5% to about 34% can fall within the requirements of the standard. This is obviously a very wide range of values – and one that clearly includes both the 12% Thom advocates and the 18% of a typical grey card. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To narrow the range a bit, let’s consider just the arithmetic and geometric mean of the range of brightness from the sun: 66000 and 56569 lux respectively. Plugging these into the formula for the range of possible reflectance values gives:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;R&lt;sub&gt;1,1&lt;/sub&gt; = 2714 / 20988&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  R&lt;sub&gt;1,2&lt;/sub&gt; = 2714 / 17989&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  R&lt;sub&gt;2,1&lt;/sub&gt; = 3430 / 20988&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  R&lt;sub&gt;2,2&lt;/sub&gt; = 3430 / 17989  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The results from those are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;R&lt;sub&gt;1,1&lt;/sub&gt; = .13&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  R&lt;sub&gt;1,2&lt;/sub&gt; = .15&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  R&lt;sub&gt;2,1&lt;/sub&gt; = .16&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  R&lt;sub&gt;2,2&lt;/sub&gt; = .19  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An 18% grey card is close to one end of this range, but still falls within the range. A 12% grey card falls outside the range; we have to assume an above-average light level for it to work out. If we average the four numbers above together, we get a value of about 16% grey as being the &quot;ideal&quot; – one that should work out reasonably well under almost any condition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To summarize:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The ISO standard allows a range of calibrations, not just one level&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Normal daylight brightness covers a fairly wide range as well&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;18% grey is justifiable based on average light levels&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;12% grey is not justifiable based on average light levels&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Based on average light levels, the ideal value for a grey card would be about 16%&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You meter might be calibrated to 18%, but probably isn't (and shouldn't be) calibrated to 12%.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T20:21:27.133" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T20:21:27.133" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="1550" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1547" CreationDate="2010-07-28T00:26:09.030" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;DSLRs are generally regarded to be very unforgiving of clipped whites.  With digital people generally recommend that you aim to underexpose with digital a little.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do shoot in RAW you will have a better chance of getting some detail back in the whites. Various RAW converters support &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/camera-raw-recovery-fill-light.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;highlight recovery&lt;/a&gt; which can work very well.  The idea is that the data might be there in RAW but not showing up with the gammat of your monitor.  Also on that topic, are you sure it isn't that your monitor doesn't have the contrast set to high? This would cause a loss of detail in highlights and shadows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have also gone so far as to create detail with burning and other techniques in photoshop if an area had lost all detail and I couldn't recover it from the RAW data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It might help you to look at the histogram of your images to see if they are being over exposed.  If the histogram is cut off on the right you are loosing highlight detail.  Some cameras also have an option where when they display the photo back in the LCD they will flash RED over highlights that were clipped.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recommend you go and over expose a bunch of images and under expose them in manual mode on purpose to get a good feel for this if you haven't already.  If you meter from dark areas in the final image you will end up overexposing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One last activity I did one was to shoot a bunch of pictures of a lamp with a textured shade on it.  In order to reveal the texture of the shade I had to make the walls behind it totally black.  In order to see the texture of the walls the lamp was just a big white spot. So in the end with a high contrast scene you have to decide where you want the detail to be. This is actually where subtle uses of HDR can be be nice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contrast is texture is detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="198" LastEditorUserId="198" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-28T00:38:44.387" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T00:38:44.387" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1551" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1436" CreationDate="2010-07-28T00:55:02.510" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know if this factors into your decision at all, but one of the things I've been pretty surprised about is how well used equipment (especially lenses) tends to hold its value.  It's very possible that you could get into a lens today and decide you want to change to something else in a year and sell the lens without taking a big bath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might find that the most effective way you can answer this question is to get any lens at all (of halfway-decent quality), and then shoot with it until you know why you've absolutely got to have something else!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T00:55:02.510" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1552" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-28T01:03:14.163" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Learn to use a tripod (or other support) -- compare handheld shots with tripod-mounted shots in different lighting conditions to learn when the extra stability is important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A useful rule of thumb is the one over focal length rule: for handheld shots, the shutter speed should be faster than one over the focal length (for 35mm cameras).  A DSLR's sensor size and any image stabilization features will influence the results, but it's a good starting point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="541" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T01:03:14.163" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-28T01:03:14.163" />
  <row Id="1553" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1424" CreationDate="2010-07-28T02:03:12.903" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Underwater photography is a challenging but rewarding hobby. However, it is expensive. I have done underwater photography with 35mm point and shoot's, digital point and shoot and DSLR, I have gotten good picture with the point and shoots but GREAT pictures with the DSLR. Although what I use is not the cheapest or absolute best equipment I am very happy with the results. I would highly recommend spending the money and time to learn with a DSLR with a housing. I would also recommend buy one piece at a time and learn how to shoot with each piece and your underwater photography will become great. I shot this on a Blackwater dive in Hawaii with my setup. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i1041.photobucket.com/albums/b413/damonbruce/Web_UW-1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Blackwater Dive&quot;&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My setup:&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 40D &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ikelite.com/web_two/can_40d.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ikelite Housing #6870.50&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pro V8 LED &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Digital Substrobe DS51&#xA;&#xA;I shoot with a Canon 50mm f/1.4.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="335" LastEditorUserId="335" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-28T02:27:36.230" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T02:27:36.230" />
  <row Id="1554" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-28T02:18:57.093" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For people who are not interested in photography:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Framing, composition and background&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;BR&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they intent to be photography enthusiasts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shutter speed, aperture and exposure&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;BR&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Either way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Get inspiration by looking at professional (and good amateur) pictures&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="600" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T02:18:57.093" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-28T02:18:57.093" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1555" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3700" CreationDate="2010-07-28T02:53:04.810" Score="2" ViewCount="281" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Google Blogger &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.reidster.net&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;blog&lt;/a&gt; that I use to share photos with family &amp;amp; friends. I also use Bibble Lite 5.1 to process my photos. I'm on Linux (Debian Lenny, 32-bit to be specific).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's my current workflow:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Edit images.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Send images to a batch output queue, creating JPEGs.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Go to Blogger and create a new post.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Click the &quot;add images&quot; button.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Navigate to the new JPEGs and upload them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Blogger new post window with the images in it is ready for typing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's my desired workflow (very similar to how Picasa works):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Edit images.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Send images to some batch output queue.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A Blogger new post window appears with the images in it, ready for typing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to get this desired workflow, and if so how?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bibble has the ability to call an arbitrary program with arbitrary arguments after outputting a JPEG, so that's a potential hook to use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-10-02T20:41:58.657" Title="Easy way to upload photos to Blogger blog directly from Bibble?" Tags="&lt;blog&gt;&lt;bibble&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1556" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1402" CreationDate="2010-07-28T05:41:44.833" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A couple of people have already mentioned ND filters. An alternative is to stack two polarizers and &quot;cross&quot; them (make sure the front one is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; a circular polarizer though) to reduce light transmission. This can be particularly effective when you need a &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; long exposure (e.g., to get a 10 minute exposure in broad daylight to make tourists &quot;disappear&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T05:41:44.833" />
  <row Id="1557" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-28T05:50:11.883" Score="13" ViewCount="298" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the tough things to learn in photographie is composition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What good books (or other sources) can you recommend to learn and hone your compositional skills?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-11T02:03:06.433" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T04:04:58.330" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-28T09:24:35.303" Title="Good books to learn photographic composition from?" Tags="&lt;learning&gt;&lt;books&gt;&lt;composition&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="1558" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-28T06:28:19.077" Score="13" ViewCount="1380" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the best way to synchronize Adobe Lightroom databases between two computers (a desktop and a laptop). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to be able to edit photos on either machine, and preferably not copy the whole 3+ gb database on each sync. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="605" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T20:20:48.313" LastActivityDate="2010-09-10T04:05:18.980" Title="Lightroom: synchronizing databases" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;software&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="1559" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4804" CreationDate="2010-07-28T07:54:18.057" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;The Photographer's Eye: Composition and Design for Better Digital Photos&quot; by Michael Freeman is a pretty good book : &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0240809343&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/Photographers-Eye-Composition-Design-Digital/dp/0240809343&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="461" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T07:54:18.057" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-28T14:01:56.487" />
  <row Id="1561" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1558" CreationDate="2010-07-28T08:49:12.930" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am not sure if you are talking about Adobe Lightroom or Apple Aperture. Assuming you are talking about Lightroom, since you used that in the title and in the tags of your question, I would recommend using Microsoft Live Sync. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Live Sync Info&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Live Sync is a system that allows you to share folders between your computers through the Microsoft &quot;cloud&quot; network. Synchronization is automatic, lightweight, and allows nearly unlimited files. The current &quot;beta&quot; version of Microsoft Live Wave 4 supports the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Up to 200 synchronized folders&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Up to 100,000 files per folder&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A maximum size of 40Gb &lt;em&gt;per file&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thats a grand total of 800,000,000 Gb, or 800 petabytes of data. When syncing, Live Sync only syncs the differences between your shared folders. If you added 100 photos and edited 50 more, it will sync only those photos and the related lightroom data, along with the lighroom collection database. Only modified parts of files, along with patching details, will be transferred, making sure syncs are as quick as possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Drawbacks&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Live Sync may not be the right tool for the job. If you need to sync considerable amounts of data (many gigs) very quickly, Live Sync may be too slow. Syncing huge amounts of new data on a regular basis will overload your allotted bandwidth that you have to use with Live Sync, so your syncs can take a very long time. If you only need to sync a few hundred megs here and there throughout each day, it will serve you well. If you need to sync many gigs every day, it may not perform well enough to be useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Portable Drive Solution&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do need to sync multiple gigs per day, then a better solution than Live Sync would be a portable external hard drive. To keep things quick, I would try to get a portable drive that supports E-SATA for maximum speed. Just move your lightroom collection and your photography to the portable drive, and set up both your desktop and your laptop to use the portable drive as your collection storage area. The drawback with this solution is you need to be able to physically move a hard drive between the two systems, which may not be ideal. A nice, high-speed, high-density drive like a Hitachi or a Seagate Barracuda will keep things fast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T08:49:12.930" />
  <row Id="1562" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4804" CreationDate="2010-07-28T09:23:32.683" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't have any specific book recommendation (I don't tend to read books a lot, as it seems), but I would suggest not getting too focused on &quot;photographic composition&quot;, but rather widen the field into &quot;image composition&quot;. Composition is a field that has been of interest for as long as man has created images, so there is a lot to learn from the painters that have been around for so much longer than photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T09:23:32.683" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-28T14:01:56.487" />
  <row Id="1563" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1567" CreationDate="2010-07-28T09:34:18.367" Score="7" ViewCount="219" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I find the bulk of my DSLR too much of an inconvenience for most of my photography, I'm considering replacing it with a high-end compact (maybe a Lumix LX5). However, I'm getting intrigued by the possibilities of timelapse photography, so a compact which can be 'tethered' to a PC for remote control would be ideal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are such things available?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="562" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T04:42:32.827" Title="Are there any tetherable compact cameras?" Tags="&lt;timelapse&gt;&lt;tethering&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="1564" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1575" CreationDate="2010-07-28T10:04:25.257" Score="0" ViewCount="157" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/384/what-blogs-should-i-be-following-if-i-am-learning-photography&quot;&gt;What blogs should I be following if I am learning photography?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, for a (learning/advancing) photog, which are the best blogs and websites which he should read?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which photog blogs are best to follow to learn more about photographie?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-13T20:05:03.260" LastActivityDate="2010-12-13T20:05:03.260" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-28T14:02:14.440" ClosedDate="2010-07-28T12:26:36.333" Title="Photographers blogs which are worth a read" Tags="&lt;learning&gt;&lt;blog&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1565" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4804" CreationDate="2010-07-28T10:14:15.670" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd suggest David Ward's &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/190253851X&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Landscape Beyond: Insights and Inspirations for Photographers&quot;&lt;/a&gt; and Freeman Patterson's &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1552636143&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Photography and the Art of Seeing: A Visual Perception Workshop for Film and Digital Photography&quot;&lt;/a&gt;. These are not just composition books, but rather talking about the process of getting from taker to maker (David Ward's quote).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T10:14:15.670" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-28T10:14:15.670" />
  <row Id="1566" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1555" CreationDate="2010-07-28T10:20:05.023" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One idea: it should be possible to send images to Blogger with email, now the question remains if Bibble supports email output (ie Picasa does).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T10:20:05.023" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="1567" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1563" CreationDate="2010-07-28T10:23:19.407" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know of any that can be tethered to a PC. However the open source &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;CHDK&quot;&gt;CHDK&lt;/a&gt; firmware for Cannon cameras support on camera scripting that may fulfill your needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively for any camera that has support for an external shutter release you can drive that shutter release externally from a PIC or a USBIO module attached to a PC.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="617" LastEditorUserId="617" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-28T11:01:15.180" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T11:01:15.180" />
  <row Id="1568" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1558" CreationDate="2010-07-28T11:10:44.617" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If we remove Lightroom from the equation, we reduce the question down to this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How can I synchronize changes to large files between multiple (2 in this case) computers, without just copying the whole file each time&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, let's say you're 100% disciplined. You only ever make changes to the file on one computer at a time, and you allow the synchronization software run and do its job before you change the file on any of the other computers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Warning, read further below for a BIG caveat&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, there are many software programs that can do what you want, but since any software that runs on only 1 of the computers will have to read the file on any of the other computers to work out what changed, the only viable solution is one that has software running on both ends, ie. both machines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Software like this includes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;DropBox&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Microsoft Live Sync&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and there are many other. Basically you install the software on all the machines involved, set up synchronization, which usually means registering the folder on one of the machines as &quot;I want to synchronize this folder&quot;, and then visiting all the other machines and mapping the synchronized folder (that the software knows about) to a folder on disk. After that, it's all automatic. Changes on one computer gets propagated to the others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Microsoft Live Sync does not keep an online copy of your files, which means synchronization only happens when computers are online and can talk to each other, whereas DropBox keeps an online copy so you can update on one machine, let DropBox synchronize, turn the machine off, and then turn on another to get the changes downloaded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the problem here, and you'll find this holds true for all file-level synchronization tools, is that at some point, your disciplination skills waver, and you end up having changes on more than one computer. There is no way for the above type of software to work out how to merge these files. Microsoft Live Sync will flag it as a conflict, and then go about making sure &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; unique copies of the files are available on &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; the machines. This essentially means one of them will be renamed, and then both will be downloaded to the machine they're not on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know how DropBox handles conflicts, but I can tell you it won't be able to merge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So now you have 2 copies of your catalog.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It gets worse. The Lightroom catalog also contains many smaller files, like thumbnails and such, and what you might end up with is that changes to those on multiple computers gets cross-synchronized to other computers, but end up not corresponding to the catalog they belong to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Catalog + smaller files A, B and C on machine 1 is changed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Catalog + smaller files D, E and F on machine 2 is changed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After synchronization:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Conflict on catalog files&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A, B and C copied to machine 2, but does not correspond to the catalog any more (remember, conflicting catalog changes)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;D, E and F copied to machine 1, and does correspond to the catalog (at least, one of them)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So let me give you what I consider is a good advice: &lt;strong&gt;Don't&lt;/strong&gt; use file-level synchronization tools for this. It might work in the beginning, but at some point you're left with a restore from backup and hours (or days) worth of lost time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If, on the other hand, you can find true Lightroom catalog synchronization tools (I've looked but haven't found any yet), that should work. The lightroom catalog is (or at least was in earlier versions) an SQLite database file, so replicating the individual changes to the contents is perhaps doable, but hard, and requires precise tools that understands the database type and most likely the content.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other ways you can do what you want:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use RDP or similar to work from one machine, but keep everything on just 1&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;... suggestions?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="568" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T11:10:44.617" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1569" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-28T11:19:00.143" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Animals, people and moving things need space in front of them to look/move into.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Someone told me this after a year or so of photography and it was a real palm meet forehead moment for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you photograph an animal from the side it's tempting to mostly fill the frame with the animal as they are the subject. However the photograph will work better if you have the animal off center so as to leave space in front of the animal. If you don't it feels like they are bashing up against the edge of the photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This also applies to anything that is looking or moving. A more subtle example would be a parked vehicle, people view car grills as being like faces and so they need space to look into.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/tolomea/2894125179/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is a classic example of what not to do straight out of my flickr.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="617" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T11:19:00.143" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-28T11:19:00.143" />
  <row Id="1570" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1571" CreationDate="2010-07-28T11:21:52.260" Score="14" ViewCount="308" Body="&lt;p&gt;We all buy a new digicam/DSLR every now and then.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what web sites do you use to get more information about cameras and compare them?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Where do you look for technical information, camera reviews, recommendations, comparison tables, and so on?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I don't think there is one right answer for this, so this is a Community Wiki question.  Please put one website recommendation per answer - if you know more websites, just write one answer for each one.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T22:20:47.947" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T22:20:47.947" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-28T11:35:16.403" Title="What websites are there for comparing cameras?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;web&gt;&lt;reviews&gt;" AnswerCount="13" FavoriteCount="7" />
  <row Id="1571" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1570" CreationDate="2010-07-28T11:27:49.973" Score="25" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dpreview.com&lt;/a&gt; is really the place to start in my opinion. They have tested digital cameras for quite a few years, and they have a sort of standardized test method so that you can compare reviews of different camera in a meaningful way. They also include side-by-side image samples for predecessors and competing models, which I find very valuable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T11:27:49.973" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-28T12:10:38.817" />
  <row Id="1572" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1570" CreationDate="2010-07-28T11:28:51.360" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apart from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dpreview.com&lt;/a&gt;, you can use &lt;a href=&quot;http://snapsort.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Snapsort&lt;/a&gt; if you'd like something more flashy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T11:28:51.360" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-28T14:02:33.503" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1573" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1570" CreationDate="2010-07-28T11:29:35.103" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For fast comparisons of technical features, &lt;a href=&quot;http://snapsort.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://snapsort.com/&lt;/a&gt; is useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T11:29:35.103" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-28T14:02:33.503" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="1574" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1570" CreationDate="2010-07-28T11:39:31.187" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll second dpreview, they have very comprehensive reviews and as mentioned, the side-by-side comparisons are excellent. However I'll also recommend &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php?cat=14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fredmiranda.com&lt;/a&gt; - here people who have used the cameras post their reviews, and they also display the average score for cameras and lenses. They only show reviews for Canon and Nikon models however, as their user base is largely professional.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T11:39:31.187" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-28T11:39:31.187" />
  <row Id="1575" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1564" CreationDate="2010-07-28T11:42:20.493" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well as nobody has posted anything yet I thought I'd cheekily point you in the direction of &lt;a href=&quot;http://nickminers.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;my own blog.&lt;/a&gt; Whilst it's mostly galleries, I do other stuff, such as a few lessons on advanced photo techniques, and advice for people looking to enter competitions etc. Please let me know if you like it, and/or if you find it helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T11:42:20.493" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-28T14:02:14.440" />
  <row Id="1576" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1578" CreationDate="2010-07-28T11:43:17.420" Score="8" ViewCount="166" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you'd were to teach photography, how would you start, and why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would you first teach camera usage, then composition, then exposure?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or would you start with composition without a camera, then camera usage?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or just teach camera usage and exposure and leave composition to personal taste?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please keep in mind, this question is explicitly not about &lt;em&gt;learning&lt;/em&gt; photography, but about &lt;em&gt;teaching&lt;/em&gt; it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastEditorUserId="95" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-31T02:04:16.553" LastActivityDate="2010-07-31T02:04:16.553" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-28T12:16:19.600" Title="How to teach photography?" Tags="&lt;teaching&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="1577" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-28T11:43:57.683" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't just look where you're going, look either side, up, down and behind you too. You may spot something that most people miss.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T11:43:57.683" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-28T11:43:57.683" />
  <row Id="1578" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1576" CreationDate="2010-07-28T12:06:50.587" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First a bit of a background to my answer. In the days before digital cameras were widely available (or available at all), people asking &quot;what camera should I get to learn photography&quot;, answers would tend to go along the lines &quot;get your self an old, manual camera so that you learn from the ground up&quot;. I always found that rather stupid. If you stick a manual camera in the hands of a newbie, chances are that all images come out completely crappy, exposure way off and so on. I can't see a more efficient way of killing and aspiring interest in photography. My advice was always the opposite; get something fully automatic (but with manual capabilities), and focus on the &lt;em&gt;image&lt;/em&gt;. The rest will come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Different people will have to approach the subject in different ways. Photography has two sides; &lt;em&gt;the technology&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;the image&lt;/em&gt;. I have seen plenty of stunning images captured by people of haven't got the slightest clue about aperture, or ISO settings or shutter speeds. All it took was an eye for a good image. I have seen fewer great images from technological virtuosos without an artistic eye. Of course, it helps if you can predict the result in some way by knowing the technology, but I would argue that it is not strictly &lt;em&gt;necessary&lt;/em&gt; to know all about how aperture, shutter speed and ISO are chained together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I would say, start off with the &lt;em&gt;image&lt;/em&gt;. Dive into composition, what makes an image more or less interesting. These discussions will most likely spawn threads into the technological field (&lt;em&gt;How do I get the background more out of focus in my portraits?&quot;&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;&quot;How do I get more of this landscape to be in focus?&quot;&lt;/em&gt;  - start talking about aperture and how it affects depth of field - &lt;em&gt;&quot;Wow, how can I do to capture the feeling of speed when that motorcycle drives by?&quot;&lt;/em&gt; - start talking about shutter speeds). When there are specific cases to talk about, it is often easier to learn. When a beginner has captured an image that they feel proud of, but perhaps wonder how it could get even better, there is a hunger for learning that will make things so much easier.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T12:06:50.587" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-28T12:20:37.890" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1579" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1583" CreationDate="2010-07-28T12:15:08.963" Score="1" ViewCount="139" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some overlooked detail in photography are quick release systems. I found it tough to get good information about them, and since they tend to be rather expensive I'd like to hear pros and cons of different quick release systems and brands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-16T11:33:18.260" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T11:33:18.260" Title="Pro and con of different quick release systems" Tags="&lt;tripod&gt;&lt;quick-release&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="1580" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1514" CreationDate="2010-07-28T12:23:54.017" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does the sensor size really affect the depth of field though?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The full frame image would have a shallower depth of field, because to achieve the same framing, you can be closer to the subject thus having a shorter focusing distance, therefore shallower depth of field. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The amount of bokeh in the image would be the same for the same focusing distance, all the smaller sensor is doing is cropping. If I take a photo, crop the middle of it in Photoshop, I don't get more bokeh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="142" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T12:23:54.017" />
  <row Id="1581" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1579" CreationDate="2010-07-28T12:30:56.293" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are you talking about quick release system as in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/site/manfrotto/cache/off/pid/20312?livid=80|81&amp;amp;idx=83&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ball head with quick release plate&lt;/a&gt;? It seems to me that the linked thing costs around 85 USD including the ball head, which does not look expensive to me. Personally I'd simply buy a tripod head that has the feature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T12:30:56.293" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1582" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1570" CreationDate="2010-07-28T12:31:50.287" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photozone.de/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.PhotoZone.de&lt;/a&gt; also has decent reviews. They started with lens reviews some years ago but they also do DSLR reviews nowadays.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T12:31:50.287" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-28T12:31:50.287" />
  <row Id="1583" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1579" CreationDate="2010-07-28T12:46:40.147" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you have any interest in extra tripod head gear, whether it be panoramic heads, macro focus rails, L-brackets or anything else in that space then your first concern is going to be interoperability and standardization.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately the quick release market is horribly fragmented with each major tripod brand having several unique systems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the degree that there is any interoperability and standardization at all the Arca-Swiss style brackets are clearly the leader.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notably Arca-Swiss style is now the standard system for the larger third party tripod accessory vendors like &lt;a href=&quot;http://reallyrightstuff.com/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Really Right Stuff&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nodalninja.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fanotec&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="617" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T12:46:40.147" />
  <row Id="1584" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1570" CreationDate="2010-07-28T12:53:25.890" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've always found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cameralabs.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CameraLabs&lt;/a&gt; to have good reviews, and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/equipment/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;equipment section&lt;/a&gt; of &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photo.net&lt;/a&gt; is worth a look for reviews by actual users.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="443" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T12:53:25.890" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-28T12:53:25.890" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1585" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1579" CreationDate="2010-07-28T13:17:02.597" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've got a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/site/manfrotto/cache/off/pid/2308?livid=80|81&amp;amp;idx=83&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Manfrotto 488RC4&lt;/a&gt; and their quick release system works really well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pros:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The plate is quite large and therefore supports large/heavy cameras perfectly. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The quick release has a secondary safety hatch so you can't release it accidentally when you bump the normal hatch into something. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The plate attaches very easily to the base. You only need one hand (that's holding the camera) and snap the camera/plate right into position.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Since the plate is quite large it isn't comfortable shooting handheld in portrait orientation with a batterygrip attached.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T13:17:02.597" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1586" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="175" CreationDate="2010-07-28T14:03:41.770" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you've got no current investment in a system, it's worth remembering that Pentax and Nikon both use lens mounts that allow you to use their old lenses without too many problems - if you're doing things &quot;on the cheap&quot; this may be a factor.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The older lenses (before the early 90s) tend to be manual focus, and often don't support full metering (leaving you with centre-weighted or spot), but this may not be an issue (for example, I do mostly landscape, so lack of AF hasn't been a huge problem).  The quality of some of the old lenses can be very good for the price, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ken Rockwell has &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a list of the compatibility issues with Nikon bodies &amp;amp; lenses&lt;/a&gt;, and Thom Hogan &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/lensacronyms.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;has another&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="443" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T14:03:41.770" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1587" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1576" CreationDate="2010-07-28T14:29:10.290" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I generally agree with Fredrik, I think with the features of modern cameras a beginner can be overwhelmed and so it's best to let the camera do the work as they begin to understand what makes a good picture. It basically removes distractions and lets them focus, no pun intended, on what they see in the viewfinder or display.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once they have confidence that they can compose a good picture, they can then start to play with the various options on the camera, especially if they're using an SLR. The single biggest upside to digital is that mistakes don't really cost, except for time that they already want to invest. Got a terrible shot? Delete it and try again. That gives so much freedom as you can experiment with the effects of shutter speed, aperture, and ISO on various subjects and just learn from doing it and without the expense of developing your mistakes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in a sense, I'm suggesting that the best way to teach them is to have them do. Of course, that doesn't mean that you don't start them off with the basics of things like composition, exposure, and such, but that you then encourage them to just do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T14:29:10.290" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-28T14:29:10.290" />
  <row Id="1588" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-28T15:28:20.917" Score="4" ViewCount="143" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm searching suggestions to quickly and easily add a gel to color correct light from a giant softbox to match ambient.  In my application I'm using a CTO for tungsten ambient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The equipment I'm using is a Paul C Buff giant foldable softbox mounted on an AlienBees AB800. Hoping to hear suggestions that will work for any flash/softbox setup rather than specifically PCB gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many thanks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="624" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T07:10:49.733" Title="How to gel a large softbox to match ambient." Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;color-correction&gt;&lt;softbox&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1589" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="237" CreationDate="2010-07-28T15:37:01.070" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/macro/180mm.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 180mm macro&lt;/a&gt; (sorry, I can't find it on the US site) and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/120-400mm-f45-56-dg-apo-os-hsm-sigma&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 120-400mm OS telephoto&lt;/a&gt;.  I am very happy with these lenses and they were much cheaper than the &lt;em&gt;brand&lt;/em&gt; lenses for my Nikon D50 and D60.  A friend uses the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/18-200mm-f35-63-dc-os-sigma&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 18-200mm&lt;/a&gt; on this D40 and I can't tell the difference from it and my &lt;a href=&quot;http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2192/AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-18-200mm-f%252F3.5-5.6G-ED-VR-II.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon 18-200mm&lt;/a&gt; (and I love this lens.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="590" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T15:37:01.070" />
  <row Id="1590" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-28T15:37:05.313" Score="4" ViewCount="70" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that cameras are getting impossible for people with poor motor skills to use.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a friend that used to have a camera on a tripod that was fixed to his wheelchair.   However he can’t find a digital camera with large enough buttons, a tripod mount and a remote release.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="623" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-28T18:04:55.397" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T02:27:45.243" Title="Are there any DSLR with large controls that don’t need good hand-eye coordination to use?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;disability&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1591" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1607" CreationDate="2010-07-28T15:44:29.010" Score="2" ViewCount="170" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use to have Ricoh Caplio R7, I loved it’s zoon range and wide angle lens.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However its lens kept sticking that will have a few weeks to get fixed under the warranty each time.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also it’s zoom control is too small for my wife to use.  My wife could not even pick up the camera without pressing the “shoot” button, as its body is a bit too thin.  However we want a camera that will fit in a normal pocket.  (My wife can use a normal sized compact camera without a problem)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What options should I consider for its replacement?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="623" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T15:18:27.797" Title="Compact camera with good zoom range and wide angle." Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1592" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-28T15:48:17.963" Score="9" ViewCount="300" Body="&lt;p&gt;I keep seeing people talking about focal-length of lenses without saying how large the frame is.  Is there a more sensible way to talk about how much a lens “zooms”?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I have seen so many adverts etc that just have the focal-length(s) of a camera so this is a common problem)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="623" LastEditorUserId="623" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-28T16:23:04.493" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T17:36:52.650" Title="Why do we talk about focal-length when frame sizes are different?" Tags="&lt;focal-length&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;field-of-view&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="1593" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1600" CreationDate="2010-07-28T15:48:49.587" Score="12" ViewCount="376" Body="&lt;p&gt;My SLR is equipped with a mirror lockup function. What does it do, and when would I employ such a feature?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="624" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T19:27:23.340" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T19:27:23.340" Title="What is mirror lockup and what is its primary function?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;slr&gt;&lt;mirror-lockup&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="1594" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1588" CreationDate="2010-07-28T15:49:43.097" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does your softbox have an internal baffle? If so, you could gel to that and use velcro or clips to hold it in place. You may need to cut the gel down to fit, not sure if you're willing to do that or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T15:49:43.097" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1595" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4" CreationDate="2010-07-28T15:50:14.017" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I am using a bag I try to get one that is large enough to allow me to use the lens with the hood on.  Even if I am just trekking around on foot with just my camera I have found the hoods to be long enough so I don't have to worry about bumping the front element and accidently touching the lens with my fingers.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are times I walk around without my hood but I still don't have my lens cap because I have one of these &lt;a href=&quot;http://skytoptrading.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;holsters&lt;/a&gt; (fairly expensive but I'd have to say it's my favorite case by far and it looks great.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it counts for much the only time my lens caps are on any more is when I am storing the lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="590" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T15:50:14.017" />
  <row Id="1596" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1592" CreationDate="2010-07-28T15:51:18.603" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Focal length is focal length. Field of view is field of view. Unfortunately, sometimes they're conflated and the former means the latter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it's a concern in a particular question, I'd suggest asking that the OP clarify with his/her crop factor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T15:51:18.603" CommentCount="23" />
  <row Id="1597" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="237" CreationDate="2010-07-28T15:52:14.547" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sigma lenses can offer excellent value, but it does depend which model you go for. I have a Canon 5D Mark II, which has a full-frame sensor, and I use two Sigma lenses with it: A 50mm EX-DG Macro and a 105mm EX-DG Macro; both of these produce excellent, sharp pictures. The only downside to these lenses is lack of USM focusing, but this isn't an issue in most cases, especially when doing macro work as I'd focus manually anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Their 100-300mm f/4 is another lens I used which was also very good, though not quite so cheap. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other side, the 20-40mm zoom I bought from them was a dud, and didn't last long before being replaced with a Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L II. Not cheap by any stretch of the imagination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conclusion: it appears to be hit and miss with Sigma lenses; there are some great ones, and also some that don't deserve a second look. Check &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php?cat=46&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fredmiranda.com&lt;/a&gt; for comprehensive reviews by users.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T15:52:14.547" />
  <row Id="1598" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1593" CreationDate="2010-07-28T15:53:19.680" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mirror lockup will move the mirror out of the way, pause (often around 2 seconds), and then acutate the shutter. This will reduce shake in the camera as a function of the mirror slap and can substantially help sharpness for very long lenses, macro work, and long exposures where the shake from the slap can become apparent in the result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T15:53:19.680" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1599" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1593" CreationDate="2010-07-28T16:03:46.303" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mirror lockup can function in a couple of different ways, depending on the camera:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mirror lockup with self-timer&lt;/strong&gt; - when you press the shutter release button, the mirror flaps up immediately. The image is taken after the timer interval has passed (typically somewhere between 2 and 10 seconds, often configurable in the camera).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mirror lockup without self-timer&lt;/strong&gt; - when you press the shutter release button, the mirror flaps up, but the image is not exposed until you press the shutter release button again.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The use of mirror lockup is to separate the event of opening the mirror - which can create some vibrations in the camera - from the exposure. These vibration can cause some motion blur. The effect depends very much on the shutter speed, but tends to peak at shutter speeds slower than 1/15 of a second, but faster than a couple of seconds. When the shutter speed goes beyond a few seconds, the short time during which the mirror-flap-vibration occurs is so short in relation to the full exposure time that the effect becomes neglectible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, when using mirror lockup without the self timer, you should use some sort of remote release so that you don't need to touch the camera for pressing the shutter release button.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is an &lt;a href=&quot;http://bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/mlu.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article at Bob Atkins' website&lt;/a&gt; explaining it more in detail, with diagrams and all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastEditorUserId="10" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-28T16:11:24.113" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T16:11:24.113" />
  <row Id="1600" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1593" CreationDate="2010-07-28T16:04:21.793" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mirror lockup is used to reduce vibrations with longer exposures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the mirror folds up, the camera shakes for a bit. For short exposure times this doesn't matter, but for times of a few seconds it will cause motion blur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By locking up the mirror before, the camera will be still for the exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T16:04:21.793" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1601" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1592" CreationDate="2010-07-28T16:05:02.853" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depends entirely on their question.  If they are talking about what lenses to use in certain situations, I believe we should encourage the use of effective focal length, as personally, I don't memorize field of view or angle of view numbers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When talking about lens reviews and comparisons, unless specifically about its application and a specific type of environment, it is unnecessary to mention effective focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The practice I adhere to is usually mentioning both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-28T16:41:10.887" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T16:41:10.887" />
  <row Id="1602" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1590" CreationDate="2010-07-28T16:12:29.417" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have you considered a DSLR that has a easy to use menu that has access to all the features?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is teacher's opinion on brand's menu systems:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&amp;amp;message=33202013&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&amp;amp;message=33202013&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T16:12:29.417" />
  <row Id="1603" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1593" CreationDate="2010-07-28T16:29:24.160" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, what you have is probably mirror pre-fire rather than a true mirror lockup. Only a few cameras have ever had a true mirror lockup, and I don't know of anything current that does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With a true mirror lockup, you lock up the mirror, and it stays up until you unlock it. This &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; be used in the same cases as mirror pre-fire to reduce camera shake. It's also useful in a few other cases though. For example, Nikon once made a 6mm lens that &lt;em&gt;required&lt;/em&gt; true mirror lockup -- the back of the lens stuck so far into the camera that the mirror couldn't swing by it. To use it, you had to lock up the mirror, then mount the lens. You left the mirror locked up the entire time the lens was mounted. This meant you couldn't use the viewfinder with the lens at all. Fortunately, for a 6mm lens, you don't really need it -- its field of view was something like 220 degrees, so &lt;em&gt;everything&lt;/em&gt; in the general direction where you pointed it (and more besides) was in the picture. In fact, the lens kind of wrapped around the whole front of the camera, so you generally held it almost by your finger-tips at arms length (and aimed upward a bit to keep your feet out of the picture). The alternative was to mount it on the end of a stick to hold it away from your body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as mirror prefire goes, it's worth noting that it's primary use is really for exposures in the general vicinity of a tenth of a second up to around a second or two. For something like a 30 second exposure, it makes little real difference, because the vibrations damp fairly quickly so most of the exposure time is relatively vibration free.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T16:29:24.160" />
  <row Id="1604" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1592" CreationDate="2010-07-28T16:38:44.870" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In theory you should probably talk about angle of view -- but almost nobody knows that. Most people are accustomed to thinking in terms of focal length X on a 35mm camera, so that's how things like &quot;effective focal length&quot; are usually expressed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you look at things more carefully, however, there are still differences that can't take into account. For example, depth of field depends entirely on aperture and distance from the subject. This is why some people say that a full-frame camera gives less depth of field than a cropped-format camera. Technically, it's not really true -- if I mount (for example) an 85mm lens on a full-frame camera and then on an APS-C camera, and shoot at the same aperture and distance from the subject, both will show exactly the same depth of field -- but given the narrower field of view on a crop-format camera, with the same lens you'll be farther away from the subject to get (roughly) the same field of view, and that extra distance from the subject will increase your depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T16:38:44.870" />
  <row Id="1605" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="130" CreationDate="2010-07-28T16:45:06.483" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The correct prime lens will always give the better photos, however owning and transporting 101 prime lenses is not an option for most people, hence a zoom lens is more practical as a main lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other partial problem with prime lenses is that every time you change a lens you risk letting dust in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first step to getting a great photo, is to be there with your kit, so ask yourself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If I use a lot of prime lenses will I&#xA;  be likely to take less photos?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="623" LastEditorUserId="623" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-29T08:44:58.260" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T08:44:58.260" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1606" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1609" CreationDate="2010-07-28T16:46:18.837" Score="10" ViewCount="179" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is a remote shutter release?  In what kind of photo situation would I use a shutter release?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="624" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-16T19:43:29.907" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T12:50:32.920" Title="What is a remote shutter release?" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;remote&gt;&lt;shutter&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1607" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1591" CreationDate="2010-07-28T16:48:42.547" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Looks like you could make good use of a &quot;travel zoom&quot; camera and, as Frederick mentioned, dpreview.com have lots of details about them. In particular, a recent &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q210grouptravelzoom/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;travel zoom group test&lt;/a&gt; shows some of the best current contenders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From those options, I would personally recommend the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q210grouptravelzoom/page9.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Panasonic ZS5&lt;/a&gt; for it's 25-300mm zoom and image/camera quality. But since you have a specific need of separate zoom controls, you may want to consider the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q210grouptravelzoom/page8.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Olympus µ-9010&lt;/a&gt; then (in the U.S. you may need to settle for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/q209grouplongzoom/page3.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;9000&lt;/a&gt; model, which features a harder to use zoom control).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastEditorUserId="46" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-29T15:18:27.797" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T15:18:27.797" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1608" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1606" CreationDate="2010-07-28T16:55:30.480" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a (wired or wireless) button to release the shutter. There are a couple of times they're useful. One is for things like shooting wildlife in a situation where you can set the camera up close to a likely spot, and trigger it remotely when a good target walks/flies/swims/whatever into its field of view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another is when you want to minimize camera shake for longer exposures, when pushing the button on the camera itself would tend to shake the camera a bit, but little or no vibration is transmitted to the camera by a remote release.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T16:55:30.480" />
  <row Id="1609" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1606" CreationDate="2010-07-28T16:56:32.317" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Anything you can use to trigger the camera shutter without touching it. :o)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Serious. It can be a remote or cable based control for your camera shutter. It's main advantage is allowing you to take shots without interfering with the camera stability, but it could also be used for shooting from awkward/distant positions or when taking shots including yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another common use of them is to do aerial photography (using R/C planes and helicopters, kites etc), where the shutter can be controlled by radio or electrical signals through a wire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A third option, but not exactly remote, is to use automatic shutter control mechanisms based on time (those are usually available in the camera itself) or events. Using special software (for example CHDK for Canon cameras) or tethering you could make the shutter trigger whenever there is movement in the scene, a change of light or some other event.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastEditorUserId="46" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-09T12:50:32.920" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T12:50:32.920" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1610" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1592" CreationDate="2010-07-28T17:34:11.943" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_length#In_photography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wikipedia article on focal length&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The focal length of a lens determines the magnification at which it images distant objects. The focal length of a lens is equal to the distance between the image plane and a pinhole that images distant small objects the same size as the lens in question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the focal length of a lens is an optical property - it does not change when attached to a different camera. However photographers are used to what the focal length numbers mean when attached to a 35mm film SLR - which is equivalent to a full frame DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;crop-factor&quot; multiplied by the focal length gives you the focal length of a lens that will produce the same field of view on a 35mm sensor. (However it will not be exactly the same image.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't have any particular suggestion of what else to use. I don't find it too confusing myself. You &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; use the field of view angle in degrees. However that would have to specify the sensor aswell and lots of prime lenses are used on cropped sensor bodies, so it wouldn't make that much sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; Just found &lt;a href=&quot;http://petavoxel.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/35e/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; which argues for using the suffix &quot;e&quot; for &quot;35mm equivalent&quot;. So for APS-C cameras, you might say &quot;This is a 60mm (96e) lens&quot; - which is succinct and saves mental arithmetic. When it's not clear what sensor size it might be used with, it would be best to go for just the focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I rather like this idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="130" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-10T14:45:52.880" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T14:45:52.880" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1611" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1613" CreationDate="2010-07-28T17:44:57.620" Score="8" ViewCount="516" Body="&lt;p&gt;I often walk around with my camera on the lookout for shots, but photography isn't the main thing I'm doing. I normally end up with the camera hanging off a shoulder (on the strap it came with), which isn't the most secure way of having the camera. The camera and lens would be too heavy to be comfortable just around my neck, and might bounce around whilst walking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what I'd like is to find a strap I can have across my body so the camera can sit to one side, with an arm over it to offer some protection. I'd also like it to work (ie be easy to raise to the eye) while wearing a rucksack over the top. Any recommendations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon 40D, in case straps aren't a generic thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-09-12T15:46:04.257" Title="Recommendations for a long cross body strap" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="1612" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1611" CreationDate="2010-07-28T17:53:34.517" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a few sling-style straps on the market today which are popular.  The most common of these are the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blackrapid.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Black Rapid R-straps&lt;/a&gt;.  They'll attach to the camera so that when not in use, the camera will ride along one's side, but the camera can quickly be lifted up to the eye to create a photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're going to wear a rucksack, you'd want to put the rucksack on first, then the camera strap, so that the strap is outside of the pack's shoulder straps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T17:53:34.517" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1613" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1611" CreationDate="2010-07-28T17:54:22.297" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Straps-Lightweight-Profile-ConnectR-2-FastenR-2/dp/B0029LDIS4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Black Rapid RS-4&lt;/a&gt; strap, and I love it. I do a lot of street/travel photography, and the RS-4 works great. It really is quick to &quot;draw&quot; up to your eye and shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a few downsides:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I keep the camera near waist/pocket level, so the camera will rub against my pocket&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You need to be careful, so you don't knock your camera around things as you move.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use the supplied connector to connect to the bottom of your camera, instead of any hooks that come with quick release plates.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After a few minutes of using a Black Rapid strap you'll get use to it and won't have any issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a company that makes a strap similar to the RS-4, but they ripped-off the design from Black Rapid (they started as off as a Black Rapid reseller). As a photographer who cares about IP and copyright infringement, I'd recommend buying black rapid over the knock-off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-28T18:05:21.700" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T18:05:21.700" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1614" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1592" CreationDate="2010-07-28T18:06:18.187" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To put it simply, the field of view of a camera body, which depends on its sensor size, determines the effective focal length of a lens when used on that body. There are a variety of sensor sizes and body depths, and therefor a variety of fields of view, for cameras these days. If we take just Canon, they have three sensor sizes for their DSLR cameras: Full-Frame 35mm (1x Crop), APS-H 28mm 1.3x Crop, and APS-C 22mm 1.6x Crop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to lenses, a single lens may be able to be used on multiple camera bodies. Again, if we take Canon as an example, the bulk of their lenses are the EF mount. A single EF mount lens, say the 24-70mm focal length L-series lens, supports all three of Canon's DSLR sensor sizes (and therefor all three fields of view.) One may buy the 24-70mm lens for their first Rebel series 550D body, and later upgrade to a full-frame 5DMkII body. When buying an expensive lens that should have a very, very long life, the field of view of the camera body should not really be a factor. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The focal length of the lens itself is really the key factor, and as long as you know the appropriate multiplier for your sensor, you can calculate the effective focal length for each body it might be used on, and its usefulness on that body. This little fact was useful for one of my recent lens purchases. I have a Canon Rebel XSi (450D), and I needed something in the 24-70 range. Since I know my crop factor (or focal length multiplier) is 1.6x, it was easy enough to calculate that the 16-35mm L would effectively be a 25-56mm lens, which generally fit the bill. I also know that when I upgrade to a 5DMkII (or III) in the relatively near future, that this lens will behave as a very nice, ultra-wide to wide angle 16-35mm zoom lens ideal for landscape photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If lenses were rated in their field of view, it would be rather confusing to make such a simple determination as effective focal length when a lens is used on different bodies with differing sensor sizes. Lenses are lenses, and should be rated in focal length.  Camera bodies are camera bodies, and there should be a simple way of determining their focal length multiplier due to the field of view the sensor provides. In most cases, cameras have a known multiplier, and if not, the information can be easily gleaned (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APS-C&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon has 1x, 1.3x, and 1.6x, Nikon has 1x and 1.52x, etc.&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-10T17:36:52.650" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T17:36:52.650" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1615" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1618" CreationDate="2010-07-28T18:14:45.750" Score="6" ViewCount="214" Body="&lt;p&gt;When referring to flash exposure, what does &quot;max sync speed&quot; mean?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="624" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-23T03:00:51.193" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T03:00:51.193" Title="What is sync speed?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;hotshoe-flash&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="1616" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1615" CreationDate="2010-07-28T18:26:30.610" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sync speed is the fastest shutter speed that the camera can physically swing the mirror up and open the shutter curtains in sync with the flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Selecting a sync speed over the max sync speed will capture the shutter curtains or mirror in the exposure as it fails to &quot;get out of the way&quot; in time for the flash exposure.  It appears as a uniform dark area.  Select a lower shutter speed below the shutter max sync and adjust aperture or flash power to compensate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="626" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T18:26:30.610" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1617" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1615" CreationDate="2010-07-28T18:28:24.977" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It refers to the maximum shutter speed where both the sensor is fully exposed to the light.  Shutters consist of a rear and front curtain.  For shutter speeds faster than that, the rear curtain trails increasingly close behind the front shutter before it reaches the other end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One benefit of sync speed that has nothing to do with flash is the amount of distortion that you will get with very fast moving subjects. It is the same as the rolling shutter effect of DSLR video slow sensor readouts, but their effective speeds are much much slower. I am not sure how much the improvement is, if anyone else knows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A flash works by emitting one quick burst of light.  If you manage to shoot a shutter speed faster than the sync speed, part of the image will likely be unexposed to the flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some flashes have HSS, which emit many pulses of light.  There are some disadvantages vs a higher sync speed, like inability to stop motion using flash (on the extreme end, often you use HSS at fast enough shutters anyway) and lowered max flash power&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-30T05:58:49.260" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T05:58:49.260" />
  <row Id="1618" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1615" CreationDate="2010-07-28T18:34:18.473" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With mechanical shutters on most common DSLRs, they actually consist of two shutters, that move in the same direction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At slow shutter speeds, one will open, and then, after some time, the other will close. As these are mechanical devices, there is a maximum speed at which they move, and with really fast shutter speeds only a narrow band is exposed to the image through the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sync speed is the fastest speed at which the entire sensor is exposed to the light through the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;High Speed Sync is available on some flash/camera combinations which allow flash to be used at faster shutter speeds. This is achieved by strobing the flash to coincide with distinct bands of the sensor, such that the entire picture is correctly exposed. As an example, if the shutter speed were to allow at most half the sensor to be visible, the flash would strobe twice - once for the top half, and once for the bottom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T18:34:18.473" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1619" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1623" CreationDate="2010-07-28T18:44:30.433" Score="5" ViewCount="202" Body="&lt;p&gt;(I thought this question would already have been asked/answered here, but if it is I can't find it.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll soon be doing some handheld indoor/low-light photography, so I want a VR lens to help with that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I currently have the following lenses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bythom.com/1870lens.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED DX&lt;/a&gt; - ok, but it doesn't have VR&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/70-300mm-f4-56-apo-dg-macromotorized-nikon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG&lt;/a&gt; - cheap and slow, doesn't have VR, and I often find myself wanting to go wider than 70mm.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/30mm-f14.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 30mm f/1.4&lt;/a&gt; - ok, and good for low light, but at 30mm it can mean getting pretty close for head shots.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have two camera bodies: a &lt;strong&gt;D300s&lt;/strong&gt; and a &lt;strong&gt;D70&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, my choices seem to be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Option 1:&lt;/strong&gt; 18-200mm VR, cost ~&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-18-200mm-F3-5-5-6G-VR-II/dp/B002JCSV8A&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;£545&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Lens: Nikon &lt;em&gt;18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G IF DX VR&lt;/em&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://bythom.com/18200lens.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;17/20 by Thom&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-200mm-ii.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ken Rockwell&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Option 2:&lt;/strong&gt; 18-105mm VR and 55-200mm VR, cost ~£460&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED VR&lt;/em&gt; for ~&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-18-105mm-af-s-dx-nikkor-f3-5-5-6-g-ed-vr-lens/p1028017&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;£220&lt;/a&gt;,  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor18-105lensreview.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;15/20 by Thom&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-105mm.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ken Rockwell&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;55-200mm f4-5.6 G AF-S DX VR IF-ED&lt;/em&gt; for ~&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-55-200mm-f4-5-6-g-af-s-dx-vr-if-ed-lens/p1018071&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;£240&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/55200lens.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;16/25 by Thom&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55-200mm-vr.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;23/25 from Ken Rockwell&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Option 3:&lt;/strong&gt; 16-85mm VR and 55-200mm VR, cost ~£675&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G IF DX VR&lt;/em&gt; for ~&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-16-85mm-f3-5-5-6g-vr-ed-af-s-dx-lens/p1025671&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;£435&lt;/a&gt;,  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor16-85lensreview.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;16/20 by Thom&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/16-85mm.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ken Rockwell&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;55-200mm f4-5.6 G AF-S DX VR IF-ED&lt;/em&gt; for ~&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-55-200mm-f4-5-6-g-af-s-dx-vr-if-ed-lens/p1018071&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;£240&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/55200lens.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;16/25 by Thom&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55-200mm-vr.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;23/25 from Ken Rockwell&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Option 4:&lt;/strong&gt; Something else?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Comparing Option 1 and 2, Thom's review scores suggest the 18-200mm is better (although he still &quot;highly recommends&quot; the other two), and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200/versus-55-200mm.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ken Rockwell suggests go for the 18-200mm&lt;/a&gt; if the extra ~£100 isn't an issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Comparing Option 1 and 3, Thom's scores are a little closer, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/16-85mm-vs-18-200mm.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ken still suggests the 18-200mm&lt;/a&gt;, and spending £675 is really in the more-than-I-want-to-spend zone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, signs are pointing towards the 18-200mm being the best choice, but that's mostly only from two opinions (albeit from authorative/popular professionals).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would anyone here recommend anything different?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;(Or should I stop wasting time and just order the 18-200mm?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;More Details:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll happily photograph most things, but my main focus is landscapes, trees, and related stuff, and it's generally either handheld or on a beanbag.&#xA;So yeah, VR will be a help when &lt;a href=&quot;http://photos.bpsite.net/Destruction.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;in a forest&lt;/a&gt;, or just &lt;a href=&quot;http://photos.bpsite.net/Rusted%20metal.1000x170.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;random&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://photos.bpsite.net/Clouds.1000x470.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;handheld&lt;/a&gt; shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I am actively looking at upgrading now due to photographing soon at an event, which will be mostly people shots, so that is a factor too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The event itself is all day long, will be both indoors and outside, so could be a range of different conditions and lighting types.&#xA;However, the photos are for recording the event, and unlikely to be used past a web gallery, so print-quality shots are not essential.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking on dpreview (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300s/page15.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300s/page16.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;), it seems the D300s  &lt;em&gt;might&lt;/em&gt; produce acceptable results (for web-gallery use) at ISO 3200/6400 with Noise Reduction?&#xA;(The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.calculator.org/calculate-online/photography/exposure.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the exposure calculator&lt;/a&gt; gives 1/125s at f/4 for that.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that, would any of the f/3.5-5.6 lenses above therefore be good enough, or is it pushing things a bit far?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="137" LastEditorUserId="137" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-28T21:57:13.147" LastActivityDate="2010-10-20T00:39:53.500" Title="Looking for a new zoom lens for a DX frame Nikon, should I get Nikon 18-200mm or something else?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;purchase&gt;&lt;lens&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="1620" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1624" CreationDate="2010-07-28T18:44:51.243" Score="6" ViewCount="244" Body="&lt;p&gt;When speaking in terms of flash specifications, what is flash duration and how does it impact exposure?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="624" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T19:26:43.937" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T19:26:43.937" Title="What is flash duration?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1621" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1620" CreationDate="2010-07-28T19:03:53.873" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The duration is exactly that - the amount of time that the flash is lit for. The longer the flash is lit, then the more light can be used to illuminate the scene.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Flash power affects its &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guide_number&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;guide number&lt;/a&gt;&quot; with more powerful flashes having a higher guide number and you can get the same amount of light out of a more powerful flash in a shorter time, which allows you to capture faster moving objects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T19:03:53.873" />
  <row Id="1622" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1620" CreationDate="2010-07-28T19:04:08.927" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Duration is how long the bulb is on, essentially, and so determines how much light is applied to the subject. The duration would then have an impact on freezing a subject, shorter durations able to freeze faster motion. This is very common in high speed photography such as water drops and the like where you apply a very short burst of light to freeze the drop and/or splash at that brief moment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use this technique a lot with water drops, my actual shutter is open for a second and I will apply a very short burst of light to freeze the motion. So, clearly, the room needs to be &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; dark, but now the shutter is irrelevant to stopping the motion, it's all in the light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T19:04:08.927" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1623" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1619" CreationDate="2010-07-28T19:06:27.380" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It sounds like you want to be photographing people, and VR won't help anywhere near as much as a fast aperture for that kind of indoor photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, based on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.calculator.org/calculate-online/photography/exposure.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this exposure calculator&lt;/a&gt;, your shutter speed at ISO 1600 under &quot;domestic interiors at night&quot; lighting will be 1/15 at f/5.6 and 1/30 at f/4 -- neither of which is fast enough to stop even modest human motion, and VR won't help with that. Keep in mind that those zooms are only f/3.5 or f/4 at the very widest focal lengths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe your options are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fast prime (e.g. 50mm f/1.8 or 85mm f/1.8), which would be well within your budget.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pro f/2.8 zoom, which is not in your budget for buying but probably is for renting.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The former would get you a shutter speed of ~1/180 and VR won't be necessary. You could probably even back off the ISO a bit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;w.r.t. More Details&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None of the lenses you propose can be relied on to get good portraits inside. You may get lucky (e.g., exceptionally bright, people very still) but if you're being relied on as an event photographer, that's a huge risk. Keep in mind you'll be shooting at f/5.6 if you zoom in much. And VR can't be relied on for shake-free shots at 1/15 and 1/30; you'll have a higher hit rate, but it's no guarantee. Nikon will claim 4 stops improvement in workable shutter speed, but it's uncommon to actually get that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recommend you read this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2010.07.25/fwigtew-and-other-first-wedding-acronymss&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;blog post&lt;/a&gt; over at LensRentals. It covers common mistakes for first-time event photographers, and I'm concerned that a number of them may be developing already.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-28T22:47:41.853" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T22:47:41.853" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="1624" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1620" CreationDate="2010-07-28T19:09:22.897" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Simply, it's the duration the flash is actually on, emitting light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This doesn't impact exposure per se; as long as the same amount of light is emitted, you'll get the same exposure.  But it can affect the result: as the flash duration gets shorter, it has a better ability to freeze motion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For most photography this won't matter very much.  1/1000s is a typical duration for decent flashguns at full power&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, which is more than sufficient to freeze normal motion in a photograph.  Other aspects will have much more bearing on the results; flash power, shutter speed, and so forth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The one example I can imagine where shorter flash durations would be particularly desirable is for high-speed photography like below, where you're trying to capture extremely fast motion:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/lbrummphoto/4315487404/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Caffeine Rush. by L.Brumm Photography, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4061/4315487404_e1b8322df4_m.jpg&quot; width=&quot;240&quot; height=&quot;160&quot; alt=&quot;Caffeine Rush.&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[&quot;Caffeine Rush.&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en_CA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CC BY-NC-ND&lt;/a&gt;, courtesy &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/lbrummphoto/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Logan Brumm&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Studio strobes are sometimes rated faster, but thanks to their different characteristics, may be slower in practice.  More detail here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scantips.com/speed.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.scantips.com/speed.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-28T22:15:12.883" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T22:15:12.883" />
  <row Id="1625" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1570" CreationDate="2010-07-28T19:11:48.180" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have used &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imaging-resource.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.imaging-resource.com/&lt;/a&gt; for years for reviews and sample images from consumer point &amp;amp; shoot through pro DSLRs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T19:11:48.180" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-28T19:11:48.180" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1626" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1570" CreationDate="2010-07-28T19:35:22.023" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I personally like &lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Digital Picture&lt;/a&gt;. Its an excellent site that started out just with Canon gear, but it has recently moved into Nikon gear as well. Its not quite as rich in terms of reviews as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DPReview.com&lt;/a&gt;, but the author of the reviews is extremely thorough and his conclusions are sound.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T19:35:22.023" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-28T19:35:22.023" />
  <row Id="1627" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1619" CreationDate="2010-07-28T19:59:11.077" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, stop wasting time and get the &lt;a href=&quot;http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2192/AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-18-200mm-f%252F3.5-5.6G-ED-VR-II.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon 18-200mm VR&lt;/a&gt; (I use it with a D50 and a D60).  It's a fantastic lens.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are a few samples that were taken with my &lt;a href=&quot;http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2192/AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-18-200mm-f%252F3.5-5.6G-ED-VR-II.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon 18-200mm VR&lt;/a&gt; lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whited.us/AlphaSite/Services/PhotoRest.svc/get/a6965ff4d9dce71478e7a3700ca61c2a/Favorites&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Presidential Dog&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whited.us/AlphaSite/Services/PhotoRest.svc/get/a2a6427c3d48990bd0c7455973d7a8fe/Favorites&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Purple Lilly&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whited.us/AlphaSite/Services/PhotoRest.svc/get/4eb3f9fa923ae45c59278a496631c832/Favorites&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Busy Bee&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whited.us/AlphaSite/Services/PhotoRest.svc/get/735d2b431b77432dad2aa6cfca68fcfb/Favorites&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Late Night Camping&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;... low lighting handheld examples ...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whited.us/AlphaSite/Services/PhotoRest.svc/get/72f3c964ea6d1bb4ee5f2138399f7368/Favorites&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bridge to Lower Falls (Stone bridge in the woods)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whited.us/AlphaSite/Services/PhotoRest.svc/get/4dbe8641205ed2d9705a088876dcb83b/Favorites&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Neon Sign at Night&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whited.us/AlphaSite/Services/PhotoRest.svc/get/932e435d1c6d6819def6841ead4b75ee/Favorites&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Old Church at Night&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whited.us/AlphaSite/Services/PhotoRest.svc/get/fe72f6b5b947d2680581daeb79256a47/Favorites&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;On the Strip (Paris Casino in Las Vegas)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whited.us/AlphaSite/Services/PhotoRest.svc/get/d3ea628e93e3ec0a26b14ae0b2e579f3/Favorites&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fremont Street (Las Vegas)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whited.us/AlphaSite/Services/PhotoRest.svc/get/5e53bc01857a41da65fd98351bd3af88/Favorites&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Another Fremont Street&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are with a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/macro/180mm.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 180mm Macro Prime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whited.us/AlphaSite/Services/PhotoRest.svc/get/e00039f58bb3523dda070038bcae4432/Favorites&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Big Bee&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whited.us/AlphaSite/Services/PhotoRest.svc/get/cee07048a67f686147d7753062a4b564/Favorites&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Busy Bees&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whited.us/AlphaSite/Services/PhotoRest.svc/get/222b190746cc8308db2b9bc2349e3745/Favorites&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Little Flower&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And now for a few with a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/120-400mm-f45-56-dg-apo-os-hsm-sigma&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 120-400mm OS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whited.us/AlphaSite/Services/PhotoRest.svc/get/edfa76a3db8cf8d117a6c6a8d00078b6/Favorites&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sleeping Roo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whited.us/AlphaSite/Services/PhotoRest.svc/get/4e1a31ee00af57b86d1ed579512cee29/Favorites&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Little Nephew&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a Deepzoom Collection with more photos.  But it's a mixed set so I'm not able to say which lens was used for each shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whited.us/Deepzoom/Favorites/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deepzoom Favorites&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it counts for much a friend of mine has the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/18-200mm-f35-63-dc-os-sigma&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 18-200mm OS&lt;/a&gt; (He has a D40) and from what I can tell it's just as good as the Nikon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="590" LastEditorUserId="590" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-29T13:40:48.307" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T13:40:48.307" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="1628" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1611" CreationDate="2010-07-28T20:11:35.433" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not a strap but here is my favorite solution for these types of situations.  It's much more expensive but offers excellent protection, works great and looks better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://skytoptrading.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Leather Camera Holster/Case&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="590" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T20:11:35.433" />
  <row Id="1629" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1619" CreationDate="2010-07-28T20:32:30.607" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Reid is right - that VR does not help at all in stopping motion. So if you are taking pictures of people/moving objects then you will still get blurry pictures because of object movement/motion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, just in case that you are taking picture of static object or people who can stand/sit still and really need VR, I would recommend the AF-S 18-200. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For head shots, I very much recommend AF-S 70-200 VR (I or II). If that is beyond your budget, get the Sigma. It has f/2.8 AND VR (or OS in Sigma).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T20:32:30.607" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1630" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1634" CreationDate="2010-07-28T20:33:46.330" Score="14" ViewCount="559" Body="&lt;p&gt;Entry level dSLR's, for the most part, are using less expensive SD and SDHC memory cards, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, why do pro-sumer and professional cameras (for the most part) use only Compact Flash (CF) memory?  Is it a performance, reliability or durability issue?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="624" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T12:40:07.453" Title="Why don't professional SLR camera's use SD or SDHC memory?" Tags="&lt;memory-card&gt;" AnswerCount="6" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="1631" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1630" CreationDate="2010-07-28T20:37:26.260" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mostly because CF has faster read/write speed than SD card. SDHC has a higher capacity (more space) but not necessarily faster read/write speed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some high-end CFs allow parallel read/write (the interface allow this), but not SD/SDHC. So some high-end camera usually take advantage of this in combination with their buffer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now Rob Galbraith did lots of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/camera_multi_page.asp?cid=6007-9038&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;test&lt;/a&gt; ... and his conclusion is basically it does not really matter for most of us - unless you have that Nikon D3s and do a lot of rapid continuous shooting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastEditorUserId="297" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-28T20:42:37.667" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T20:42:37.667" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1632" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1630" CreationDate="2010-07-28T20:40:23.383" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I guess in part because CF cards are bigger, and so it's easier to develop faster and larger quantities of memory in large-sizes, before scaling down to the smaller SD cards later on. I think the added bulk and resilience of the more substantial CF cards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd imagine most of the professional camera body users also have a fair amount already invested in CF cards, and so are likely to be reluctant to have to replace all of their CF cards with SDs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="101" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T20:40:23.383" />
  <row Id="1633" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1630" CreationDate="2010-07-28T20:40:34.457" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some professional DSLRs do support SDHC, such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_SLR/EOS-1Ds_Mark_III/index.aspx?specs=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon's 1Ds&lt;/a&gt;. Historically, Compact Flash offered higher capacity with miniature hard disks, although with advances in flash memory, solid state media has long overtaken it. Manufacturers don't want to give any excuse for photographers from upgrading, so tend to carry on supporting CF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T20:40:34.457" />
  <row Id="1634" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1630" CreationDate="2010-07-28T21:09:04.810" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Initially the reason was performance and capacity. A lot of the pro-level cameras went CF because you needed the performance and, usually because a pro shoots RAW, the capacity which the original SD couldn't match. Not to mention there was a point in time where SD was more expensive as a result of volume sales differences. SD is now cheaper thanks in a big way to the proliferation of small devices that used them such as point and shoot cameras, media players, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, the speed/capacity issues largely evaporated with SDHC and will evaporate with SDXC. Then I think you will see a big move, in fact the shift is already happening without SDXC support in any camera. Canon's 1Ds as noted, but even Pentax stayed SDHC with the 645D medium format and that is miles away from a consumer camera. Also what we are starting to see is dual card support because SD cards are nice and small, that's a nice thing to have and impractical with CF. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T21:09:04.810" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1635" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1590" CreationDate="2010-07-28T21:11:15.197" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Large enough buttons&quot; is probably relative, but I would highly recomend the Nikon D300s. &quot;Almost everything&quot; (relative again) that you need in the normal operation of the camera is right on the body, so you dont have to mess around scrolling through lots of menu's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="326" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T21:11:15.197" />
  <row Id="1636" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1570" CreationDate="2010-07-28T21:22:20.130" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not what people typically think of as a review site, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KenRockwell.com&lt;/a&gt; does excellent reviews, and some comparisons for various types of cameras. It's his personal site, so he doesn't hit a super broad list of cameras, but if you're looking to get new lenses for a Nikon, Cannon or Leica... or you want to buy one of those three cameras, definitely look at that site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T21:22:20.130" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-28T21:22:20.130" />
  <row Id="1637" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="804" CreationDate="2010-07-28T21:28:31.227" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-stabilization.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KenRockwell.com also has a great article on how the two work&lt;/a&gt;, with practical information including where it will help (low light and hand jiggle), and where it won't (aircraft vibration).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T21:28:31.227" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1638" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1591" CreationDate="2010-07-28T22:12:22.730" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Caplio line still exists and has seen a number of new models since the R7. As well as the usual image quality advances they have also fixed up the lens sticking problems, the camera has gotten slightly heftier, the layout of the controls has been improved and the zoom is slightly longer. Aside from that it's still essentially the same device, so you wouldn't have to relearn the UI, which can be a significant advantage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The current models are the CX-1 through CX-3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="617" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T22:12:22.730" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1639" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1669" CreationDate="2010-07-28T22:26:06.760" Score="9" ViewCount="151" Body="&lt;p&gt;When photographing photos with the intent to stitch (merge) images into a large panoramic, either manually or with the aid of software, how should one capture the source images for consistency between the frames and to reduce distortion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="624" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T14:39:39.303" Title="How to properly capture photos for merging?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="1640" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1639" CreationDate="2010-07-28T22:31:27.830" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Choice of focal length is entirely depending on the type of scene to be captured. For a wide panorama perhaps some wide angle lens would be preferable. I have made a few stiched scenes using a 50mm lens (on an APS-C size sensor), which can come out quite nicely as well. Not wide panoramas, but more &quot;normal-looking&quot; images with very large resolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would say that the single most important thing  to keep in mind in order to get a consistent set of images to work with (apart from the obvious tripod) is to &lt;strong&gt;shoot in manual mode&lt;/strong&gt;. Take test shots in different directions over your scene to evaluate exposure and when you have decided on exposure, set it in manual mode. This will allow you to get images that have exactly the same exposure, so you don't get ugly edges between the images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T22:31:27.830" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1641" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1504" CreationDate="2010-07-28T22:41:06.337" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.billingham.co.uk/acatalog/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Billingham&lt;/a&gt; are the classic camera bags - they scream camera to anyone who works as a photojournalist, but look like army surplus satchels to anyone else.   Especially once you have battered them and dragged them through the mud enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively, an army surplus satchel and some padded inserts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="631" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T22:41:06.337" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-04T11:52:27.680" />
  <row Id="1642" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1639" CreationDate="2010-07-28T22:42:17.600" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biggest point is that you want to shoot in manual mode so the brightness stays constant across shots. You don't want to use a polarizer. Though somewhat helpful, a tripod is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; really necessary as long as you're careful in your hand-holding. Either with or without, you'll usually get some rather ragged edges that you'll have to crop off. With care, a tripod can reduce that, but it'll happen anyway. You also generally want to avoid particularly wide-angle lenses (especially zoom) lenses -- any lens distortion leads to more ragged edges that need to be cropped.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T22:42:17.600" />
  <row Id="1643" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="124" CreationDate="2010-07-28T22:45:38.250" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;C mount is universal, CS is the same mecahnical thread but a shorter back focal distance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;C mount CCTV lenses are normally very short focal lengths, they are made for wide angle with TV cameras that have very small imagers = very large crop factors.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;They are also generally poor optical quality - CCTV doesn't demand Ansel Adams levels of sharpness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it's not clear why you would want to use them on an expensive micro 4/3 camera&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="631" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T22:45:38.250" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1644" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1639" CreationDate="2010-07-28T22:52:37.040" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The closer objects are to the foreground, the more you need to rotate about exact pivot point of the lens+body+settings combination, and not behind (as one usually does).  Otherwise, you get parallax problems.  There is equipment you can buy to help, but I've done it handheld just fine with foreground objects. See here for details:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.panohelp.com/panoramicpivotpoint.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.panohelp.com/panoramicpivotpoint.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Manual mode is a must.  It is possible to match exposures/brightness after you've taken pictures, but it is a pain. Software can help distortion pretty well.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recommend a third overlap.  Many viewfinders have an AF point or visible bracket around 1/3rd in to help you with this.  It's better to overlap than to have something missing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-28T22:59:27.157" LastActivityDate="2010-07-28T22:59:27.157" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1645" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="130" CreationDate="2010-07-29T01:59:46.217" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whether to use primes or zooms is largely a matter of personal preference.  That said, zooms are usually considered to be more versatile and better suited for fast-moving environments--i.e., photojournalism, sports, etc--since you can probably achieve your desired framing more quickly by zooming than by running or changing lenses.  When speed is not an issue--say, when making art--primes are great, usually having advantages in size, maximum aperture, and price/performance ratio.  Fast primes are a huge asset in low-light situations where flash is not allowed (e.g., performing arts), and/or when small depth-of-field is desirable (e.g., portraiture).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for macro lenses, well, most true macro lenses are primes.  Macro lenses are best for macro  (i.e., close-up) photography, but there are macro lenses that also happen to be great walk-around lenses, such as the highly-regarded Pentax DA 35 f2.8.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="634" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T01:59:46.217" />
  <row Id="1646" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="178" CreationDate="2010-07-29T02:12:14.953" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lots of great answers here about camera-grip technique, but unfortunately, no amount of hand-steadiness will make your sports photos less blurred.  As others have suggested, upping the ISO is your best bet.  More often than not when hand-holding, my ISO is set to 800--far better noisy than blurry, as others have mentioned.  If you run out of ISO, another trick is to just go into manual or shutter priority mode and set the minimum shutter speed you feel comfortable with (say, 1/f).  The shot will be underexposed, but you can fix that in post-processing, at the expense of yet more noise.  Still better than a blurry shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="634" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T02:12:14.953" />
  <row Id="1647" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1639" CreationDate="2010-07-29T02:12:52.800" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;These are some points I usually follow,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Setup your panning plan with Auto or Aperture Priority to meter and focus the primary area of your target picture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Then switch to manual mode (don't change settings) for the panning&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Overlap a third of the neighboring pictures&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When the objects in the pan are close, avoid too much zoom in your initial setup (however don't go wider than normal -- less than 35mm or some such threshold for your lens and it might start adding distortion that will make joining the images difficult)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Additional trick is to take the entire set of pictures 2 or three times with exposure bracketing&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;that way you have the choice of using the best exposure or even going HDR with the pans&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do these things with a Nikkor VR Zoom lens and can get by without a tripod in most cases. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="163" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T02:12:52.800" />
  <row Id="1648" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1503" CreationDate="2010-07-29T02:19:23.267" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I love the idea of a thief-catcher. ;) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have noticed that DeviantArt.com seems to &quot;capture&quot; all of the EXIF metadata that is embedded in any uploaded images. It does not show all of it, however there are some parts of the site (many of them only for paying members) that show more detailed information about an uploaded image, and I've seen full tag data listed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess, technically speaking, if you could do something similar to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tineye.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;TinEye.com (Reverse Image Search)&lt;/a&gt; that indexes images and searches by content similarity. TinEye is handy in that it matches images by content, but it has its limitations. Photomanipulations created with someones copyrighted photo are difficult to identify. Searching by serial number would provide an alternative, complimentary approach.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could technically get any exif data that is embedded in the images uploaded to the Internet. If the camera serial number is embedded, you would have what you are looking for. You would need to scrape a copy of each image from the sites you index, extract any EXIF (or other tag data) from the indexed images, and track the information with a link back to the source. You could probably also use major search engines like Bing and Google to find images to index (basic keyword image searches, such as photographer names, locations, etc. might be sufficient.) You probably wouldn't need to keep the image around (and doing so might involve legal issues anyway), but at least you would have an index of EXIF/IPTC tag data, possibly a serial number, and a source link. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T02:19:23.267" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="1649" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1590" CreationDate="2010-07-29T02:27:45.243" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most competent DSLRs should support some kind of cable release.  If all he wants to do is use it as a point-and-shoot, that should be sufficient.  If he wants manual control, that's a bit trickier.  Aperture control can be obtained by using a manual lens with a physical aperture ring.  If the ring isn't big enough, perhaps a lever could be jury-rigged to the ring.  This would hopefully allow aperture-priority operation, but check the specific lens and body model to be sure.  Shutter speed could be also controlled through the cable release in bulb mode, which requires the user to physically hold the button for the desired duration--probably a long shot, but worth mentioning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also note that lenses with physical aperture rings seem to be a dying breed, unfortunately, so just make sure the lens in question actually has one, if you choose to go this route.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="634" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T02:27:45.243" />
  <row Id="1650" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1591" CreationDate="2010-07-29T02:41:49.017" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unless you want to want to go to micro 4/3, I strongly recommend Canon S90. Its zoom range is not as long as the Ricoh but it's reliable and easy to use. It has fast lens, excellent high ISO, and large screens. Highly recommended.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T02:41:49.017" />
  <row Id="1651" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="175" CreationDate="2010-07-29T02:43:45.580" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Agreed that lenses are a huge factor in the buying decision.  The quality, diversity, price, and availability of primes were a large factor in my buying into Pentax.  Ebay is a virtual candy store of quality, cheap old primes that will fit basically any modern Pentax body.  Pentax also has probably the most diverse set of modern primes of any of the manufacturers.  As for long zooms, the selection is so-so, unfortunately--the other manufacturers probably have a leg up here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, to paraphrase a wise forum user somewhere on the net, it hardly matters which brand has the absolute best quality lenses, if you are unwilling to shell out several thousand dollars for a single top-of-the-line lens. Keep that in mind when shopping for a system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="634" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T02:43:45.580" />
  <row Id="1652" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1691" CreationDate="2010-07-29T02:52:39.303" Score="7" ViewCount="578" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the best way to get the clearest, sharpest print without pixelation or blurring? I have tried some sharpening techniques in Photoshop, however they are geared towards sharpening for viewing on a screen, and do not generally produce great print results. Unsharp masking does not seem to produce clearer results, as it generates more psuedo-noise, and that sometimes reduces fine details&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am an avid user of Adobe Lightroom, and I use it extensively to process my work and generate prints. I am not particularly impressed with the print quality from Lightroom. Despite using custom ICC/ICM profiles tuned to my specific printer (a Canon 9500 II) and the specific papers I use, my photos tend to lack in the area of sharpness. Lightroom also seems to have some limitations on its maximum print resolution, defaulting to 240ppi, and topping out at 480ppi. I believe my printer has a standard resolution of 300ppi, and a native resolution of 600ppi, however there does not appear to be much of a difference at either 240 or 300 ppi when printed from lightroom. I am also looking to get an Epson 3880 in the future, and I believe its native resolution is 720ppi.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard of qimage, however I did not have a chance to fully explore its options and resulting quality over the 14-day trial period, and I am not sure its worth the $90 or so to buy it. (If it is worth it, I may just go with Qimage.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of my prints are from 12.1mp Canon RAW files generated by my 450D, rendered through custom Hahnemuehle ICC profiles for Canon papers (fine art, museum, satin or pro photo glossy), which are really just Hahnemuehle in disguise. Color tones are great in general, perhaps lacking a bit in contrast when printed on fine art or museum paper. The images definitely seem lacking in the sharpness area...details visible in smaller on-screen versions just don't appear as striking or evident when printed, and fine edges on screen often appear softer or even blurred when printed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-27T17:22:59.000" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T17:22:59.000" Title="How do you optimally resize and sharpen images for printing?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;printing&gt;&lt;ppi&gt;&lt;sharpening&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="1653" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1441" CreationDate="2010-07-29T02:54:16.787" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For learning/beginner, I recommend getting a used D90 or D80, or even cheaper still a used D40. You can get a complete used D40 with 2 lenses (18-55 and 55-200) and usually cards, bag, etc for under $450 and probably $500 for used D80 with a lens (18-70 or something like it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They do not have videos, but they have plenty of life to learn from in photography. If you have extra money, invest in lenses instead of bodies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T02:54:16.787" />
  <row Id="1654" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1347" CreationDate="2010-07-29T03:05:22.593" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since you only have a small group, if possible, bring the group into the shade. Or setup and ready to shoot and wait until you get a shade cause by the cloud blocking the sun for several seconds/minutes. I have done lots of group photos during sunny day with these tricks. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this is not possible, do what @Guffa wrote above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T03:05:22.593" />
  <row Id="1655" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1652" CreationDate="2010-07-29T03:10:52.270" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICC_profile&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ICC profiles&lt;/a&gt; are not really related to sharpness, they are used to get correct color.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as sharpening goes, you want to over-sharpen a bit from where you would normally for screen viewing, because the pixels are more obvious on screen.  I tend to go about 10% farther in my sharpening when I am planning to print. Also, in photoshop, I always sharpen as the absolute last step because you lose quality when you sharpen as an intermediate step, and other changes can have an adverse effect on the detail. Also, I tend to use &quot;smart sharpen&quot; tools, which try to focus the sharpening effects on high contrast areas, and leave flatter areas (skies/skin/etc.) alone.  This helps to decrease the noise added while still sharpening the areas that actually make a difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the resolution, your best bet is to sharpen at the resolution of the printer.&#xA;By this I mean if your printing service's print resolution is 300ppi, use 300ppi.  Anything else will be resampled to 300ppi for printing and that conversion can have an effect on the quality.  If printing at home (as you are) then keep in mind the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tildefrugal.net/photo/dpi.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;differences between dpi and ppi&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your Canon printer has a native max resolution of 4800x2400dpi, 10 ink colors, and 7680 print nozzles... which all leads me to think that the native resolution is a multiple of 150 (4800*2400)/(10*7680)=150... so, either 300, 450, or 600 are reasonable. I would guess that the best quality print would be achieved at 300 or 450ppi.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-29T12:39:10.287" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T12:39:10.287" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1656" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1591" CreationDate="2010-07-29T04:58:38.410" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're looking for a compact, I can recommend the Nikon Coolpix S8000. It has a very nice lens which starts wide and has a 10x zoom factor. The camera itself is quite pocketable, and feels very sturdy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T04:58:38.410" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1657" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19" CreationDate="2010-07-29T06:01:39.987" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Even if the camera has a broad depth of field,  you can get the most out of  it by focusing short of the foreground  object, but keeping it inside that field of focus, at the far end  of it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, I had the same situation although with a fancier camera.  I wanted to shoto moss hanging from a tree with the background greatly softened.   Due to the light etc. I couldn't just crank open the aperture more.  So I took a step toward the tree, focused on the mooss, then  stepped back to  snap the shutter.   It takes trial and error and knowing your lens, and some luck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="637" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T06:01:39.987" />
  <row Id="1658" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1620" CreationDate="2010-07-29T07:05:55.487" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One thing I'd add to &lt;a href=&quot;#1624&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matt's explanation&lt;/a&gt; would be that when you use high-speed flash sync (available on most same-brand DSLR+flash combinations) to get shorter shutter times below your camera &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/836/flash-sync-speed-buying-decision-factor&quot;&gt;sync speed (X-sync)&lt;/a&gt;, the flash actually fires multiple times, so you can't use it to freeze fast moving subjects, because all you'd get would be several phases merged together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T07:05:55.487" />
  <row Id="1659" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1588" CreationDate="2010-07-29T07:10:49.733" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Shouldn't it be possible to attach some kind of gel holder directly to the flash unit, and then softbox on top of that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T07:10:49.733" />
  <row Id="1661" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1662" CreationDate="2010-07-29T09:34:13.170" Score="14" ViewCount="161" Body="&lt;h3&gt;I am leading a photowalk for a small group&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have not done this before.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you give me any suggestions for what to do?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The walk will be about an hour, in a mostly rural area.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The group covers a wide range of abilities, from beginner to pretty serious amateur.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Questions I am thinking about are: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;should I start with a pep talk? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;should I start by showing a few example pics? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;how fast should we move? (Or: how do I tell that we're ready to move to the next location?)  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;is  it appropriate to share tips / suggestions as we go along?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;anything else! &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see, I really have very little idea how to do this, so all advice will be very welcome.  Thank you!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-16T11:32:25.657" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T22:29:52.240" Title="Tips for leading a photowalk?" Tags="&lt;teaching&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="1662" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1661" CreationDate="2010-07-29T10:52:34.490" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I were doing one I'd:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Talk about the area, including some&#xA;of its history, from a&#xA;non-photographic point of view.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Stick to an itinerary of a fixed&#xA;number of places to stop, with a&#xA;little chat at each one, before&#xA;sending people off to take pics for&#xA;10-15 minutes&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Allow for plenty of overrun so&#xA;people aren't rushed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Give people one-to-one advice as&#xA;they're taking photos&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set up a website or flickr group so everyone can share their photos afterwards. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastEditorUserId="456" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-29T12:31:28.007" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T12:31:28.007" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1663" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-29T13:05:46.940" Score="6" ViewCount="704" Body="&lt;p&gt;I shoot a bit of everything, though mostly landscape stuff. Mostly with a beanbag, or handheld.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I currently have the following lenses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bythom.com/1870lens.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED DX&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/30mm-f14.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/70-300mm-f4-56-apo-dg-macromotorized-nikon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma EX 30mm f/1.4&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 18-70 is fine, but the 70-300 is cheap and slow, and I often find myself wanting to wider than 70mm with it (changing lenses is a hassle, and lets dust in).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For both of them, I often think VR would help, particularly in dim lighting (e.g. shaded forests, night shots, etc)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've got two camera bodies, a D300s and a D70.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been considering the &lt;em&gt;Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G IF DX VR&lt;/em&gt;, which goes for ~&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-18-200mm-F3-5-5-6G-VR-II/dp/B002JCSV8A/ref=dp_ob_title_ce&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;£545&lt;/a&gt;..&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-18-200mm-f3-5-5-6-g-af-s-dx-ed-vr-ii-lens/p1032955&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;£580&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, another option might be to get a &lt;em&gt;18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED VR&lt;/em&gt; (~&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-18-105mm-af-s-dx-nikkor-f3-5-5-6-g-ed-vr-lens/p1028017&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;£220&lt;/a&gt;) plus a &lt;em&gt;55-200mm f4-5.6 G AF-S DX VR IF-ED&lt;/em&gt; (~&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-55-200mm-f4-5-6-g-af-s-dx-vr-if-ed-lens/p1018071&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;£240&lt;/a&gt;), allowing one on each camera body - are there any advantages to that, compared to just the 18-200mm?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any other lens options that make sense?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't really have a fixed budget, but anything over £600 is probably pushing it.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;(The less money I can spend without getting rubbish, the better.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="137" LastEditorUserId="137" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-29T15:12:19.010" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T07:14:51.987" Title="What's a good Nikon lens (DX) for a serious hobbyist landscape photographer?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;purchase&gt;&lt;lens&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="1664" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1667" CreationDate="2010-07-29T13:26:25.220" Score="7" ViewCount="125" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll soon be covering an event, and my existing lens set isn't necessarily ideal for low-light people photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As with many events, this may be both indoors and outside, and runs throughout the day, so need to be prepared for all sorts of lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, there are lots of non-equipment things to consider - such as scouting the venue in advance to get a better idea of potential conditions, and other &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2010.07.25/fwigtew-and-other-first-wedding-acronymss&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;possible pitfalls mentioned here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Equipment-wise, I have a Nikon D300s and a D70.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My current lenses are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bythom.com/1870lens.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED DX&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/30mm-f14.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/70-300mm-f4-56-apo-dg-macromotorized-nikon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma EX 30mm f/1.4&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 30mm can do low light, and will be fine for general/scene shots, but not great for individual people/portrait style shots, since it requires getting in close.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 70-300mm is bad in even a little dim light, and in general is slow and crappy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what would be a good lens to buy or rent for someone not yet an experience event photographer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any other equipment that would be useful to have?&#xA;(for example, is a battery grip beneficial, or is a pair of charged spare batteries sufficient?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="137" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T13:53:32.143" Title="What is good equipment to buy/hire for a generalist photographer, new to event photography?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;purchase&gt;&lt;lens&gt;&lt;renting&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1665" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1663" CreationDate="2010-07-29T13:35:36.587" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I dont think you go wide enough.  I have the Sigma 10-20 mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM, and I love it for landscapes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="563" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T13:35:36.587" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1666" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1661" CreationDate="2010-07-29T13:51:23.773" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd suggest also going around the circle and asking each person to tell a little about themselves w.r.t photography and what they hope to achieve on the walk.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T13:51:23.773" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1667" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1664" CreationDate="2010-07-29T13:51:24.677" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would think at least one external flash that you will be able to bounce off of walls etc is not only a &quot;nice to have&quot; , but probably a requirement for event photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="198" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T13:51:24.677" />
  <row Id="1668" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1664" CreationDate="2010-07-29T13:53:32.143" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For event, I would use both cameras in these setups:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;D300s with 70-200 (rent, Nikon or Sigma with VR/OS)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;D70 with 18-70 with an SB (flash)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the D300s is for head shots, candid, and low light. Use the D70 for the wide angle, group shots, outdoors, and use flash for indoor. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can/have the budget, rent a 24-70 or 17-55 and put it on the D70.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T13:53:32.143" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1669" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1639" CreationDate="2010-07-29T14:26:30.600" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have stitched a few images so far, the successes are all visible on my &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/tolomea/sets/72157623100282163/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;flickr&lt;/a&gt; there are currently 97 there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of these were shot off a compact super zoom (Ricoh R7 and CX-1), stitched using the open source &lt;a href=&quot;http://hugin.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hugin&lt;/a&gt; stack and generally with automatic exposure, white balance and focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From these experiences I would say that there is really only one thing that matters for creating decent panoramas and that is controlling parallax effects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It used to be that barrel distortions and varying exposure / white balance wrecked havoc with the stitching process, but newer stitching software can readily deal with these complications. Leaving only the parallax artifacts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Parallax artifacts are a function of how you rotate the camera while taking the images. If you rotate the camera wrong then the foreground and background won't move together. You can test for this by aligning a foreground and background object, rotating the camera and checking if the two are still aligned, if they are not then you will have parallax problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two ways to address parallax issues, the first is to take images that consist entirely of distant objects. The second is to take the time and effort to figure out how to rotate the camera correctly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key to rotating the camera correctly is knowing the location of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrance_pupil&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;entrance pupil&lt;/a&gt;. If you search online you will find many references to the forward nodal point, this is incorrect, the important point is the entrance pupil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To rotate the camera correctly for a stitched panorama you must rotate it around the entrance pupil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The entrance pupil is the aperture as viewed through the front of the lens. Often you can see this just by looking into the front of the lens. It is the narrowest hole visible inside the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a wide angle lenses that hole will appear to sit somewhere between the front of the lens and the camera body. On wider lenses the entrance pupil will be closer to the front of the lens. When my CX-1 is set to it's widest the entrance pupil is roughly 22mm in front of the tripod mount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On telephoto zoom lenses the entrance pupil will be behind the camera body. When my CX-1 is set to maximum zoom the entrance pupil is over 30mm behind the tripod mount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However knowing the location of the entrance pupil is not enough, you also need to reliably rotate the camera around that point. For a single row panorama this is relatively easy, I get by with this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/tolomea/4560446832/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;rig&lt;/a&gt;. For multi row panoramas you will need a full panoramic tripod head like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nodalninja.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nodal Ninja&lt;/a&gt;. It is worth noting that most of these heads are designed for wide angle lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="617" LastEditorUserId="617" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-29T14:39:39.303" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T14:39:39.303" />
  <row Id="1670" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1671" CreationDate="2010-07-29T14:38:01.273" Score="10" ViewCount="312" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was at the camera shop a few weeks ago looking for a neutral density filter, so I could play around with long exposure shots without overexposing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The guy at the camera shop told me I didn't need a ND filter I could just use exposure compensation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've got a general idea of what exposure compenstation does ... but really don't understand what the guy was talking about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Could someone elaborate?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="644" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T08:34:42.160" Title="ND filter or exposure compensation?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;neutral-density&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="1671" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1670" CreationDate="2010-07-29T14:43:10.607" Score="17" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I disagree with the sales person; it's two completely different things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Exposure compensation is used for making the image brighter or darker than what automatic exposure in the camera would make it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An ND filter is used for allowing a slower shutter speed &lt;em&gt;without&lt;/em&gt; making the image brighter.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you would simply use exposure compensation, you would pretty soon have a situation where you blow out the highlights because there is too much light hitting the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, there are some different ways that you can achieve slower shutter speeds without altering the overall image brightness:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Use a lower ISO setting&lt;/strong&gt; - this will allow you to also use a slower shutter speed with the same aperture without making the image brighter.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;User a smaller aperture&lt;/strong&gt; - this will allow you to use a slower shutter speed, but it will also increase the depth of field.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Use a filter that &quot;eats&quot; some light&lt;/strong&gt; - This is where the ND filter comes into the picture. It blocks some light without altering the image in any other way, so you can use slower shutter speeds than what would otherwise be possible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastEditorUserId="10" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-30T08:34:42.160" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T08:34:42.160" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="1672" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1670" CreationDate="2010-07-29T14:43:11.603" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think your camera shop guy miss understood your intention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exposure compensation is designed to compensate for the camera's light meter over exposing for very dark compositions,  and under exposing for very bright compositions.  You tell the camera &quot;For this composition, I want you to measure the light, then add (or subtract) xx stops to compensate&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ND filters reduce the amount of light entering the lens so that you are able to use a longer shutter speed, or, a wider aperture.  Exposure compensation would still be used in the same fashion, to compensate for an overly dark or extremely bright situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are, in this case, completely unrelated.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="624" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T14:43:11.603" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1673" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1661" CreationDate="2010-07-29T14:46:44.607" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This may fall in the 'obvious' category ... but know the area you are going to be walking through ... the history, the people, the layout, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if you are going to be walking through natural areas, scout ahead to know where hazards are (muddy areas, rocky paths, poison ivy, etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, if you are going to be even near private property, give the property owners a heads up.  Even if you don't go on their property, you don't want to spook them.  If you talk to the property owners, you might even be able to get permission to go on their land and/or talk to them about interesting things in the vicinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="644" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T14:46:44.607" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1674" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12" CreationDate="2010-07-29T14:58:08.603" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I concur ... go with a camera shop.  Additionally, I would recommend going with a manufacturer authorized repair location.  &lt;em&gt;Theoretcially&lt;/em&gt; they have more training.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="644" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T14:58:08.603" />
  <row Id="1675" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="172" CreationDate="2010-07-29T15:01:44.430" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;All good suggestions ... I would like to repeat the 'extra memory cards' thought.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had a situation where I brought a single high capacity memory card, but the card had some kind of error on it and I was stuck.  Luckily my wife had a spare, lower capcity, card with her ... so I could take some pictures (but I couldn't take them in raw+jpg the way I wanted).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="644" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T15:01:44.430" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-29T15:01:44.430" />
  <row Id="1676" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="402" CreationDate="2010-07-29T15:10:21.647" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been following Scott Bourne's &lt;a href=&quot;https://twitter.com/ScottBourne&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;tweets&lt;/a&gt; recently and like his commentary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="644" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T15:10:21.647" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-29T15:10:21.647" />
  <row Id="1677" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1663" CreationDate="2010-07-29T15:18:06.283" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it's useful to emphasize that &lt;strong&gt;technique matters more than equipment&lt;/strong&gt;, particularly in this context. For example, an inexpensive consumer zoom plus a decent tripod used well will get you better images than an expensive pro lens with no tripod or poor technique.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A similar high-level point: &lt;strong&gt;buy equipment that addresses your specific needs&lt;/strong&gt;. In other words, to justify and plan an equipment purchase:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Identify specific shortcomings in your photography you'd like so solve.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you can identify specific equipment acquisition that will help you address these shortcomings, and you understand why, go for it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you can't, or things seem vague, don't buy anything yet.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, buy equipment when you can say &lt;em&gt;Purchasing X will improve my Y by helping with A, B, and C&lt;/em&gt;. If you can't fill in the variables with specificity, the equipment purchase is not justified from a photographic standpoint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(To be clear, the research and purchase of equipment, and great interest in same, is a valid variation on the hobby. But make this choice consciously.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take a read through Thom Hogan's &lt;a href=&quot;http://bythom.com/nikon.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;site and reviews&lt;/a&gt;, particularly his articles &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bythom.com/rationallenses.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rationalizing Lenses&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bythom.com/DigRecs.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon Digital SLR Lens Kit Recommendations&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, and &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bythom.com/support.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tripods 101&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Random tips:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you are actually going to carry two camera bodies, don't bother with a superzoom. (Though, I'm skeptical of dragging around two bodies when out and about for landscapes.) Carry two lenses with complementary focal lengths. This might be a good plan even if you're only carrying one body.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The 16-85mm is also well regarded.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I do have the 18-200 and like it, though I'm not 100% convinced I'd buy it again, since I often want to go a little wider.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Consider something strange, like the 10.5mm fisheye.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;At the risk of repetitiveness, consider a decent tripod instead of a lens as your next investment. The lenses you have will all take great landscapes used well.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Don't hesitate to buy used lenses. I've purchased from and can recommend &lt;a href=&quot;http://keh.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KEH&lt;/a&gt;; don't know if they ship to your side of the pond or if it's cost-effective to do so.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T15:18:06.283" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1678" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="481" CreationDate="2010-07-29T15:48:05.530" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Strictly 'optical' (ie wavefront) aberations are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Defocus &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Spherical aberration &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Coma&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Astigmatism &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Field curvature &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Image distortion&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the ones that are mostly likely to affect your photographs are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Chromatic aberation - different colors  are focused to different positions in the image, this gives rainbows around bright objects, especially on the sky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Flare/ghosting - light is scattered inside the lens, either from the glass or the metal body. This creates the row of colored circles going toward the sun that you sometimes see in movies and reduces the contrast of the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="631" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T15:48:05.530" />
  <row Id="1679" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="172" CreationDate="2010-07-29T15:48:25.217" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Thermos of tea.  Because sometimes photography is about patience (and cold places) -  it's hard to take good pictures when your hands are shaking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some coffee is good too!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="614" LastEditorUserId="1641" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T06:16:54.920" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T06:16:54.920" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-29T15:48:25.217" />
  <row Id="1680" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1685" CreationDate="2010-07-29T15:50:22.063" Score="5" ViewCount="316" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm running Ubuntu (Lucid) and have installed Google Picasa using the Synaptic Package Manager. The current version of Picasa for Linux is 3.0.0 Build 57.4402.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Currently, it renders my RAW images as thin pink rectangles. Is there any way I can get Picasa to handle my RAW files? I know my RAW format is supported in the current Windows version.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattburns.co.uk/pinkRaw.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;screenshot&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-04T02:48:39.783" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T19:06:47.127" Title="Does Picasa for Linux support RAW from a Canon 7D?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;linux&gt;&lt;picasa&gt;&lt;canon-7d&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1681" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-07-29T15:51:06.993" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Shutter speed should target the inverse of your focal length. (The inverse holds true as well.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="326" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T15:51:06.993" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-29T15:51:06.993" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1682" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12" CreationDate="2010-07-29T15:52:40.457" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;what methods/systems have you tried,&#xA;  and how successful have they been?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I bought an Olympus, I simply turn it on and let it clean the sensor - so far very sucessfull.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="631" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T15:52:40.457" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1683" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="496" CreationDate="2010-07-29T16:05:11.980" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Olympus&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Have three ranges of lenses, but this is only marked by a band on the lens - not as part of the name (you can also tell by the price label!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SUPER HIGH GRADE&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;weather sealed, use ED glass and generally USM motors, constant fast aperture&lt;br&gt;&#xA;ED 7–14 f4&lt;br&gt;&#xA;ED 14–35 f2&lt;br&gt;&#xA;ED 35–100 f2&lt;br&gt;&#xA;ED 150 f2&lt;br&gt;&#xA;ED 90–250 f2.8&lt;br&gt;&#xA;ED 300 f2.8    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;High Grade&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Weather sealed, some with ED glass&lt;br&gt;&#xA;11–22 f2.8–3.5&lt;br&gt;&#xA;ED 12–60 f2.8–4&lt;br&gt;&#xA;14–54 f2.8–3.5&lt;br&gt;&#xA;ED 50–200 f2.8–3.5 SWD&lt;br&gt;&#xA;ED 50 f2 macro&lt;br&gt;&#xA;ED 8 f3.5 fisheye    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Standard&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Kit lenses supplied with camera bodies, or cheap consumer line.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;No weather sealing and slower maximum apertures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ED 9–18 f4–5.6&lt;br&gt;&#xA;ED 14–42 f3.5–5.6&lt;br&gt;&#xA;ED 14–45 f3.5–5.6&lt;br&gt;&#xA;ED 17.5–45 f3.5–5.6    (cheaper kit lens for some markets)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;ED 40–150 f3.5–4.5&lt;br&gt;&#xA;ED 40–150 f4–5.6&lt;br&gt;&#xA;ED 70–300 f4–5.6&lt;br&gt;&#xA;25 f2.8 &quot;pancake&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;35 f3.5 macro&lt;br&gt;&#xA;ED 18-180 f3.5-6.3&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ED - extreme dispersion glass&lt;br&gt;&#xA;SWD - supersonic wave drive motor&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="631" LastEditorUserId="631" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-09T16:54:02.797" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T16:54:02.797" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-16T18:30:19.840" />
  <row Id="1684" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1680" CreationDate="2010-07-29T16:56:42.567" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Linux version is only a beta, and google seems to have discontinued updates.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It looks like some people in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.google.com/group/google-labs-picasa-for-linux/browse_thread/thread/37c9ff49041d2eb1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;picasa for linux user group&lt;/a&gt; are having a better time using the &lt;a href=&quot;http://picasa.google.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;windows version&lt;/a&gt; installed through &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.winehq.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wine&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T16:56:42.567" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1685" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1680" CreationDate="2010-07-29T17:06:57.447" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That behavior is pretty typical for Picasa when it doesn't support a given format correctly (older releases had similar behavior with Nikon NEF files, and new Canon RAW formats as they are released):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Picasa/thread?tid=61513a1e87b54c38&amp;amp;hl=en&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Why do NEF files have purple or pink bar?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.google.com/group/google-labs-picasa-for-linux/browse_frm/thread/635286286b8c611b/8b9e3b9091929748?lnk=gst&amp;amp;q=pink#8b9e3b9091929748&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon RAW files have a pink/magenta overlay&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the windows version is working for you, I'd suspect it's simply because the Linux release is quite out of date (the version you posted is the most recent release for Linux, as of the time I'm writing this). As chills42 mentioned, you might try running the most recent Windows release on Wine, or look into native alternatives like Rawstudio, Shotwell, or F-Spot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="14" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T17:06:57.447" />
  <row Id="1686" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1689" CreationDate="2010-07-29T17:22:39.060" Score="22" ViewCount="333" Body="&lt;p&gt;As part of how Canon (and other lens makers) give technical information about their lenses, they supply an MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) chart. How do I read and interpret what the chart is telling me?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a sample MTF Chart for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_16_35mm_f_2_8l_ii_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;16-35 f2.8 L II&lt;/a&gt; (one of my favorite lenses for walkabout photography). What do the various lines mean? What are the axes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets/app/images/eflenses/ultrawide_zoom/EF16-35f28LIIUSM/mtf_tele.gif&quot; alt=&quot;MTF Chart&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-10T11:55:04.410" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T11:55:04.410" Title="How do I interpret an MTF Chart?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;optics&gt;&lt;mtf&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="1687" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1693" CreationDate="2010-07-29T17:27:38.147" Score="23" ViewCount="477" Body="&lt;p&gt;What aspects should one keep in mind when choosing monitor for photo processing? What about color gamut, panel types, input types, requirements for video card, different gammas, refresh rate, angle of view?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-27T11:34:16.967" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T11:34:16.967" Title="What should I look for in a monitor for photo processing?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;color-management&gt;&lt;display-calibration&gt;&lt;monitors&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="1688" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1687" CreationDate="2010-07-29T17:52:23.533" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Color is the most important part.  If possible choose a monitor with a wide &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamut&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;color gamut&lt;/a&gt;, then get a color profile for the monitor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T17:52:23.533" />
  <row Id="1689" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1686" CreationDate="2010-07-29T17:55:25.743" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a really good tutorial that explains all the details at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;luminous-landscape.com&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't want to read the whole article, this section covers the basics:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Here are some rules of thumb for&#xA;  reading a chart...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;— the higher up the chart the 10 LP/mm&#xA;  line is (the thick lines), the higher&#xA;  the contrast reproduction capability&#xA;  of the lens will be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;— the higher up the chart the 30 LP/mm&#xA;  line is (the thin lines), the higher&#xA;  the resolving power and thus&#xA;  subjective sharpness of the lens will&#xA;  be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;— keep in mind that the black lines&#xA;  show the lens wide open while the blue&#xA;  lines show the lens stopped down to&#xA;  f/8, so the closer these sets of lines&#xA;  are to each other the better the&#xA;  performance of the lens when used wide&#xA;  open. The very best lenses will have&#xA;  the black and the blue lines close&#xA;  together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;— generally speaking a lens whose&#xA;  thick lines (10 LP/mm) are above .8 on&#xA;  the chart should be regarded as having&#xA;  excellent image quality. Above .6 is&#xA;  regarded as &quot;satisfactory&quot;. Below .6&#xA;  is, well, below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T17:55:25.743" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1690" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1686" CreationDate="2010-07-29T18:10:07.320" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Zeiss has a pretty good paper on how to read MTF charts. It is rather detailed and extensive, but if you are interested in fully understanding how an MTF represents a lenses quality (and how accurate the MTF may be), it is an excellent read.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_30_MTF_en/%24File/CLN_MTF_Kurven_EN.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;How to Read MTF Curves&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A very interesting little facet of the article denotes three important properties of MTF, which lead to an intriguing conclusion about the maximum contrast range of a camera lens. I found this to be interesting not only in the context of understanding lens MTF, but also as an important factor in the camera film/sensor dynamic range argument.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We can then recognize three important&#xA;  properties of MTF here which we should&#xA;  remember when reading MTF curves:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Small differences in higher MTF values are particularly significant at&#xA;  high object contrast levels.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;On the other hand, weak tonal value variations of less than one&#xA;  aperture stop do not require high MTF&#xA;  values. Differences above 70-80% are&#xA;  then hardly relevant.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;With very low MTF values, it practically does not matter how high&#xA;  the object contrast is; the image&#xA;  contrast is always low.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Incidentally, this is why the&#xA;  datasheets of films always also gave&#xA;  the resolving power for the low&#xA;  contrast of 1:1.6. The resolution&#xA;  figures for the contrast of 1:1000 can&#xA;  only be measured using contact&#xA;  exposure. For the finest structures&#xA;  (i.e. very high spatial frequencies),&#xA;  no lens in the world is capable of&#xA;  producing a contrast of ten aperture&#xA;  stops. Estimating the amount of&#xA;  information of film images based on&#xA;  this higher resolution value is thus&#xA;  too optimistic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another excellent resource for how to read MTF charts can be found in the last parts of Canon's book &quot;Lens Works&quot;. The part &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://software.canon-europe.com/files/documents/EF_Lens_Work_Book_10_EN.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Optical Terminology and MTF Characteristics&lt;/a&gt;&quot; provides an EXCELLENT overview of lens types and capabilities, and provides a wonderful, visual review of MTF charts for many Canon lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-04T19:13:25.057" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T19:13:25.057" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1691" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1652" CreationDate="2010-07-29T18:27:31.060" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unsharp mask works just fine when sharping for print, the original method was actually used when creating prints in a darkroom. You just have to know how to adjust the parameters for the specific resolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good base value for the radius is 0.1 mm, which you have to translate to a value depending in the resolution:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;radius = 0.1 mm * ppi / 20&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, for images intended for screen, which has a resolution around 100 ppi, you use a value around 0.5. For an image printed at 300 ppi you use a value around 1.5.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get an approximate preview of the effect, you can zoom the image according to the resolution. An image to be printed at 300 ppi can be viewed at 33% on the screen to see roughly what the sharpening will look like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T18:27:31.060" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="1692" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23" CreationDate="2010-07-29T18:42:56.270" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On my Canon Rebel, when shooting in Av or Tv mode and using a flash, the camera meters for the ambient light rather than for the flash.  It drove me crazy that I would be in Av, set my aperture, turn on the flash, and still had a shutter speed of 1/15!  I expected it to work the same way as P mode, and I couldn't figure out why it didn't until I learned that little tidbit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T18:42:56.270" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-01T18:55:11.547" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1693" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1687" CreationDate="2010-07-29T18:46:34.530" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are probably a few things you should look for. Color range is probably the most important factor, and a monitor that is at least capable of representing the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Wide_Gamut_RGB_color_space&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adobe RGB Wide Gamut&lt;/a&gt; color space (or &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamut&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;color gamut&lt;/a&gt;) is important. Most professional cameras will generate images in the Adobe RGB space, while many printers, such as Epson's Stylus Pro line, support a gamut that in some areas extends beyond even the Adobe RGB space. Many photographers like to work in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProPhoto_RGB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pro Photo RGB&lt;/a&gt; color space, which is quite a bit larger than Adobe RGB or that of most printers, and often beyond the range of most monitors. If you want the ultimate in color quality, the higher the color range the better. LCD technology on a professional screen (i.e. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.colormanagement.nl/reports/index.php?id=22,0,0,1,0,0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Apple CinemaDisplay 30&quot; HD&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.eizo.com/global/products/coloredge/cg303w/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Eizo ColorEdge&lt;/a&gt;) will produce fairly accurate representations of the Adobe RGB space, up to around 98%. Newer LED LCD technology on top of the line screens (i.e. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?pid=11095&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LaCie 730 LCD&lt;/a&gt;) will produce accurate representations of a considerably greater gamut beyond Adobe RGB (in the case of LaCie, around 120%.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, you will want a monitor that offers a high range of contrast. The color gamut that a monitor supports (such as Adobe RGB) clearly represents color range, but does not always represent the full contrast range. A high-contrast screen will be useful in representing a broader range of tones. I would look for something that offers at least 700:1 to 1000:1. Professional and top of the line LCD and LED screens generally fall within this range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the brightness of a screen can play an important role. If you intend to place your computer in a darker area, a moderate brightness of 200-300cd/m^2 will probably be sufficient. However, if you need to place your system where bright glare from lighting or particularly sunlight might overpower your screens brightness, a brighter screen will probably be necessary. I would go for something around 380-400cd/m^2 if you have a brighter work area. Upon calibration, the necessary adjustments to correct a screens gamma will result in a lower operating brightness than the maximum brightness you may see when purchasing a screen. An ideal brightness to support accurate representation of printer gamuts is about 80cd/m^2. A very high end professional screens such as the Eizo ColorEdge CG303W or LaCie 730 are designed for an operating gamut of 80cd/m^2. Middle-grade screens such as the Apple CinemaDisplay start to loose dynamic range at such a low brightness, and operate better at around 120-160cd/m^2 in a properly lit environment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you have purchased a monitor, to get the most out of it, it is important to color calibrate it. Most monitors provide a default color profile that does not accurately represent colors...often by oversaturating. Additionally, the setting in which you use your monitor changes the appearance of the light it emits, so even if you manage to find a properly calibrated monitor, it is only going to be calibrated for its previous environment, not the one you place it in. You can easily calibrate your own monitor with a device like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://spyder.datacolor.com/index_us.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DataColor Spyder&lt;/a&gt;. There are a variety of versions of these types of devices, and they range from $30 up to many hundreds or thousands of dollars. Generally speaking, something along the lines of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://spyder.datacolor.com/product-mc-s3pro.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Spyder3Pro&lt;/a&gt; @ $170 is sufficient to accurately calibrate your monitor. If you spend $1000 or more on a screen, $170 is a drop in the bucket to get the most out of your new beauty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-30T22:02:56.340" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T22:02:56.340" CommentCount="11" />
  <row Id="1694" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1670" CreationDate="2010-07-29T18:55:32.563" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's worth noting that an ND filter and setting a negative exposure compensation ARE equivalent when photographing a still-life scene, so that could explain the salesperson's comment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I don't see why you'd ever use an ND filter to shoot a scene that has no movement in it, so his/her advice is somewhat moot.  It is perfect for things like allowing you to capture the blur of a waterfall on a sunny day, or trying to remove all the people from Times Square by shooting it over a long period, so the moving people disappear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="309" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T18:55:32.563" />
  <row Id="1695" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="172" CreationDate="2010-07-29T19:01:51.800" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Extra batteries&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Extra memory cards&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;gallon sized zip-lock bags&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;used to protect gear during inclement weather AND&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;preventing condensation on camera/lenses when going between air conditioning and humidity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;tripod (but only if I have a specific reason, usually this is left behind)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;small microfiber cloth&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T19:01:51.800" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-29T19:01:51.800" />
  <row Id="1696" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1687" CreationDate="2010-07-29T19:05:37.207" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides/lcd-panel-types.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;three types of flat-panel monitors&lt;/a&gt; (IPS, VA, and TN) and IPS will give you the best results for photography. It's often difficult to figure out the exact type of panel a given monitor uses; here's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides/s-ips-lcd-list.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a list&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Install it somewhere you can provide consistent lighting, and calibrate it with a hardware colorimeter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T19:05:37.207" />
  <row Id="1697" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23" CreationDate="2010-07-29T19:33:34.320" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can effectively and easily get quick shift on every AF lens I own.  Quick-shift (may be called something else for other brands) is a clutch mechanism that allows MF adjustments when the camera and lens is still in AF mode.  Often there is resistance of the motor and it is just bad to rotate it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the K-x, I can use my right middle finger to push the lens release button in, which retracts the AF driving screw.  Then, I can adjust the focus as I want and take a picture.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that I have decoupled the AF from my shutter half-press and moved it to the AF button completely, otherwise the motor would spin indefinitely (in AF-C) or not take a picture at all (AF-A or AF-S).  I had done this for other reasons: more control over autofocus, and ability to prime SR independently from autofocusing.  All SR/IS/VR/etc systems operate best if they have been primed for over a second or so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T19:33:34.320" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-01T18:55:11.547" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1698" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23" CreationDate="2010-07-29T19:35:44.003" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Shooting in RAW allows pushing the exposure equivalent to increasing the in-camera ISO above 1600 (or so) and near equivalent below that ISO.  One is analog hardware amplification (usually up to 800 or 1600 ISO) amplification, the rest is all software (including in camera).  E.g. In-between stops (640 ISO for example) is a software push above ISO 400.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;JPEG tone curve drops out a lot of that information and much worse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-29T19:41:04.613" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T19:41:04.613" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-01T18:55:11.547" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1699" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23" CreationDate="2010-07-29T19:47:54.067" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can get trap-AF on all my MF lenses.  It is a bit more annoying with M42, I need to tape foil to any two connectors since the lens doesn't go flush against it, but still doable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This + expsure meter + SR makes MF lenses a pleasure to myself and my wallet :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T19:47:54.067" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-01T18:55:11.547" />
  <row Id="1700" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23" CreationDate="2010-07-29T19:50:17.417" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pop-up flash can be made useful indoors.  Use a small mirror or cardboard with foil to bounce it to a nearby wall or low ceiling for a nice bounce effect.  You do look like a tool, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T19:50:17.417" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-01T18:55:11.547" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1701" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23" CreationDate="2010-07-29T19:53:43.617" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My continuous buffer size of 17 is actually infinity or 50+ if I shoot ISO 1600 and below (and push in post if needed.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T19:53:43.617" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-01T18:55:11.547" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1702" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="481" CreationDate="2010-07-29T20:09:24.017" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to write down a more photographer oriented answer. So the different lens-related issues are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Vignetting&lt;/strong&gt; - corners of the frame are darker than the center&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;noticeable in viewfinder/on screen&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;to avoid - stop down your aperture, filters only make it worse, so you might want to try without&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;post-processing - relatively easy to correct&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;special attention needed in panoramic shots&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;vignetting should not be confused with loss of detail nor loss of contrast in the edges&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Lens flare&lt;/strong&gt; - sun-spots or low contrast areas in frame&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;usually noticeable in viewfinder/on screen&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;to avoid - use lens hood, change your position to keep bright points out of the picture if possible, filters only make it worse, so you might want to try without&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;post-processing - hard to correct in areas with lots of detail&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Diffraction&lt;/strong&gt; - your image starts to be soft all over if you stop down too much (over f8-f16 depending on sensor element density)&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;noticeable on screen if zoomed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;to avoid - know your diffraction limit and don't stop down over that, expensive alternative is to use tilt on tilt-shift lenses&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;post-processing - cannot be corrected&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;diffraction should not be confused with far more common focusing errors and camera shake (the latter is directional blur)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Chromatic aberration&lt;/strong&gt; - green/magenta glow on the edges of highlights, usually called &quot;purple fringing&quot;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;noticeable on screen if zoomed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;to avoid - know your lenses' sweet spots, stop down&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;post-processing - easy to correct &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Distortion&lt;/strong&gt; - vertical and horizontal lines are curved in the edges of the frame (barrel distortion - outward curves, pincushion distortion - inward curves, complex distortion - wavy curves)&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;easily noticeable in viewfinder/on screen&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;to avoid - you can't unless you have better lens available&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;post-processing - relatively easy to correct (except complex distortion)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;special attention needed in panoramic shots&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not really in the same category, but also very important aspect of lenses is &lt;strong&gt;resolution&lt;/strong&gt;, or actually we usually care about &lt;strong&gt;resolution loss&lt;/strong&gt; towards the edges due to various other aberrations such as coma, astigmatism, field curvature, etc. You can usually make things better when you stop down and you should try, because you can't correct it in post-processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One should keep in mind that &lt;strong&gt;there is no such thing as perfect lens&lt;/strong&gt; and every lens has some degree of aberrations due to the compromises made during optical design.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-30T07:57:06.167" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T07:57:06.167" />
  <row Id="1703" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1705" CreationDate="2010-07-29T20:16:15.077" Score="2" ViewCount="89" Body="&lt;p&gt;How can I update the firmware for my Sony H20 camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Has anyone upgraded firmware for sony in the past?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="646" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-23T23:13:23.453" LastActivityDate="2010-11-23T23:13:23.453" Title="Firmware For Sony Camera" Tags="&lt;sony&gt;&lt;firmware&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1704" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1687" CreationDate="2010-07-29T20:39:22.633" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's a good &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/choosing_an_LCD_monitor/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article &lt;/a&gt; on the details, quite a bit of info. One thing to also consider, when getting a good monitor is a calibration device. I use the Pantone Huey Pro, but there are several other great options out there. You'll want one that stays on and helps to compensate for changes in ambient light if you're working in a room with lots of light sources such as windows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T20:39:22.633" />
  <row Id="1705" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1703" CreationDate="2010-07-29T20:45:49.497" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't see any firmware updates listed on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://esupport.sony.com/US/perl/swu-list.pl?mdl=DSCH20B&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sony support page for that model of camera&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T20:45:49.497" />
  <row Id="1706" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="724" CreationDate="2010-07-29T21:34:04.847" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pisca provides basic photo editing tools (crop and colour and level adjustments) as well as good EXIF tagging.&#xA;Have a look at GimpShop application which is based on the GIMP but with a more Apple/Photoshop style user interface.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="430" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T21:34:04.847" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-29T21:34:04.847" />
  <row Id="1707" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="417" CreationDate="2010-07-29T21:42:22.180" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found that when I switched to a DSLR from a point-and-shoot digital, the quality of my photos improved dramatically. Not because the camera made me a better photographer, but because the camera was more capable: less shutter lag, better auto focus, etc. It meant that when I started playing with a single setting at a time, I could really concentrate on playing with that setting (let's say, shutter speed). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance, when I wanted to explore water photography, and how much flow was interesting, versus how much began to look like fuzz (and how slowly I could hand hold), I didn't have to worry about focus, aperture, or any of the other settings, knowing the camera was competent to take care of those settings. When I've tried this on point-and-shoots, I've always come up with far less satisfactory results. It's not that those cameras can't do it...it's that, in my experience, they don't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd argue against using film as a learning tool. The greatest thing about digital, to my mind, is the lack of a per photo cost. That means you can experiment freely (so to speak), and learn a huge amount about what doesn't work. Of course, that means you have to go through all those photos, look at what you did (another advantage of a dslr is that it tells you what settings you used for a given photo), and critique yourself harshly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me, really trying to learn with anything less than an SLR was an uphill battle, and I think it's a necessary tool (especially for someone who's learning). To take great photos with a point-and-shoot requires a much better photographer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="649" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T21:42:22.180" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1708" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="172" CreationDate="2010-07-29T21:48:42.120" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Spare lenses&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Spare Battery&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Extra memory&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Something I'm comfortable cleaning a lens with.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="649" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T21:48:42.120" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-29T21:48:42.120" />
  <row Id="1709" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="172" CreationDate="2010-07-29T21:57:06.530" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lenspen.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lens Pen&lt;/a&gt; or soft camel hair brush&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lightweight Tripod&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ball-type Tripod Head (for wide angle shots)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gymbal-type Tripod Head (for telephoto shots)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Variety of ND Filters &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Proper attire &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Proper amount of gear (less may be better)&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I've made the mistake of taking too much...you eventually feel like your hauling around a bag of bricks&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-29T23:17:43.613" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T23:17:43.613" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-29T21:57:06.530" />
  <row Id="1710" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="172" CreationDate="2010-07-29T22:40:34.170" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Good, &lt;strong&gt;comfortable footwear&lt;/strong&gt; - many types of photography involve walking a fair bit, and you don't want your feet getting sore and being a distraction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, &lt;strong&gt;suitable clothing&lt;/strong&gt; in general - if there might be a great shot in the next field over, don't let fancy trousers stop you climbing a fence to have a look!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh and &lt;strong&gt;a friend&lt;/strong&gt; - to warn in case that one last half-step to get the scene framed perfectly will result in a big splash. ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="137" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T22:40:34.170" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-29T22:40:34.170" />
  <row Id="1711" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="724" CreationDate="2010-07-29T23:48:20.957" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know you asked for free stuff, however given that I whole-heartedly agree with Reid about how valuable your time is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have you looked into Adobe Photoshop Elements 8? This is a powerful little tool that offers everything your looking for, in a single package, for a very cheap price (relatively speaking.) For $80, you can have a nice, professional tool that serves your needs, without any hassle. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not sure how much $80 (or quite possibly less, deals for PSE8 are all over the net, and you can often get it bundled with camera equipment even) affects your bottom line, but it seems rather trivial compared to say $1000 for a new lens. At least with Elements, you could get the most out of the lenses you do buy. ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-07-29T23:48:20.957" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-29T23:48:20.957" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1712" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1663" CreationDate="2010-07-30T01:23:12.910" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I went for the &quot;trinity&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;17-35 (or 16-35 or 14-24) - this is probably my most used lens for landscape&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;24-70 - I mainly use this for event photography&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;70-200 - for head shots, portraits, wedding&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I strongly suggest in saving and getting the Nikkor instead of 3rd party for your bread and butter lenses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, some of my best landscape photos are taken using 18-70 or 18-200. For landscape, technique matters most (instead of equipment). Typically in landscape shows you are setting camera on tripod anyway (excellent tripod matters) and using small aperture (instead of wide open). On these kinda setup I find most (if not all) lenses can produce virtually the same quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, unless you really have a specific need, I would stick with what you have, save the money (for one day get a gold ring lens like 14-24) and spend more time in practice and perfecting my technique.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T01:23:12.910" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1713" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1687" CreationDate="2010-07-30T01:52:59.780" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are getting an LCD you will want to get an 8-bit monitor instead of a 6-bit monitor (a lot of this stuff depends on your budget, but I would say this is the minimum).  A lot of LCDs are the 6-bit which have a faster refresh rate for gaming and movies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="198" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T01:52:59.780" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1714" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="417" CreationDate="2010-07-30T04:12:28.993" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bearing in mind the things already mentioned (great camera ≠ great photographer) I too agree a DSLR is a good way to go. Pick up a one of the Canon Digital Rebels, even an older XT or XTi, to save some cash. I also recommend (If you choose a canon) getting their really cheap ($50 when I bought it) 50mm lens. It's a prime (no zoom), which IMO is a good thing when you're learning. It removes one distraction, and that lens is pretty freakin' amazing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the kicker. Once you have it, read the manual. Learn the manual. Go to wikipedia and learn all about aperture, exposure, shutter speeds, bokeh, chromatic aberration and the like. If you know your tool, you'll get better faster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, and I highly recommend joining Flickr and getting into one of those 365 groups. A photograph a day for a year is hard (I've never successfully completed it), but it will force you to learn. And really, it's a lot of fun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(PS. Use the shoulder strap. Seriously.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="653" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T04:12:28.993" />
  <row Id="1715" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1723" CreationDate="2010-07-30T05:12:30.573" Score="25" ViewCount="1038" Body="&lt;p&gt;Creating high-quality photo prints using an ink jet printer is no trivial matter. Depending on the tonal range and color depth desired and the expected viewing platform, how you approach printing may differ. The choices you make when printing also affect how effectively you are using your printers capabilities, resolution, and ink.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, how does one generate high quality photo prints using professional ink jet printers, such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/Pro/Home.do?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Epson Stylus Pro&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/printers/desktop_printers/photo_inkjet_printers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon PIXMA Pro&lt;/a&gt;, while maximizing the use of ink and the printers capabilities?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1715/how-do-i-generate-high-quality-prints-with-an-ink-jet-printer/1723#1723&quot;&gt;Summary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1715/how-do-i-generate-high-quality-prints-with-an-ink-jet-printer/1716#1716&quot;&gt;Detailed Explanation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Empirical Studies:&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1715/how-do-i-generate-high-quality-prints-with-an-ink-jet-printer/2737#2737&quot;&gt;Does PPI really matter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1715/how-do-i-generate-high-quality-prints-with-an-ink-jet-printer/3985#3985&quot;&gt;Extreme digital upscaling&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;strong&gt;New!!&lt;/strong&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-15T05:00:38.127" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T03:07:45.243" Title="How do I generate high quality prints with an ink jet printer?" Tags="&lt;prints&gt;&lt;ppi&gt;&lt;dpi&gt;&lt;ink-jet&gt;&lt;tonal-range&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="14" />
  <row Id="1716" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1715" CreationDate="2010-07-30T05:21:04.193" Score="27" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h1&gt;Generating High Quality Ink Jet Prints&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Making effective use of professional photographic ink jet printers is tricky business, especially when the statistics that are commonly used to describe these printers are vague and misleading. Learning how a ink jet printers function, how to properly interpret their capabilities, and make the most effective use of those capabilities, is possible. You may need to deal with a little mathematics to fully understand, but for those brave enough to endure, your answers are below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Terminology&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the printing world, there are numerous terms used to describe the various aspects of a printers behavior. Everyone has heard of DPI, many of you have heard of PPI, but not everyone understands the true meaning of these terms and how they relate. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pixel:&lt;/strong&gt; Smallest unit of an image.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Dot:&lt;/strong&gt; Smallest element of a print generated by a printer.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;DPI:&lt;/strong&gt; Dots per Inch&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;PPI:&lt;/strong&gt; Pixels per Inch&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Understanding terms is important, but everything has context, and understanding how these terms relate to each other in the context of ink jet printing is critical to learning how to generate the best quality prints. Every image is composed of pixels, and every pixel in an image represents a single distinct color. The color of a pixel may be produced in a variety of ways, from the blending of RGB light on a computer screen, to a solid mixture of dye in a dye sublimation printer, to the dithered composition of colored dots printed by an ink jet printer. The latter is of interest here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;PPI to DPI Relationship&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When an ink jet printer renders an image, it has a limited set of colors to work from, usually cyan, magenta, yellow, and black. Higher-end printers may include a variety of other colors as well, such as blue, orange, red, green, and various shades of gray. To produce the wide range of colors expected of a photo printer, multiple &lt;em&gt;dots&lt;/em&gt; of each color must be combined to create a single color as represented by a pixel. A dot may be smaller than a pixel, but should never be larger. The maximum number of dots that an ink jet printer may lay down in a single inch is the measurement of DPI. Since multiple printer dots must be used to represent a single pixel, the PPI of a printer will never be as high as the printers maximum DPI. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Human Eye&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before diving into the details of how to achieve maximum print quality, it is important to understand how the human eye sees a print. The eye is an amazing device, and as photographers, we know that better than most. It can see amazing clarity and dynamic range. It also has a limit on its ability to resolve detail, and that directly affects what resolution you may choose to print at.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Resolving Power&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The maximum resolving power of the human eye is lower than printer manufacturers would have you believe, which tends to be 720ppi or 600ppi, depending on the manufacturer. It is also lower than most print fanatics would have you believe, as well. Depending on the intended viewing distance, the lowest acceptable PPI may be considerably lower than you might expect. The most general way to describe the resolving power of the human eye is as one &lt;strong&gt;arcminute&lt;/strong&gt;, or &lt;em&gt;1/60th of a degree&lt;/em&gt;, at any distance (for the average eye...those with 20/10 vision see about 30% better, or &lt;em&gt;1/86th of a degree&lt;/em&gt; acuity.) For normal vision, we can use this to approximate the minimum resolvable size of a pixel at a given distance, so assuming a hand-held viewing distance of about 10 inches for a 4x6 inch print:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[tan(A) = opposite / adjacent ]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;tan(arcminute) = size_of_pixel / distance_to_image&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  tan(arcminute) * distance_to_image = size_of_pixel&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  tan(1/60) * 10&quot; = 0.0029&quot; min pixel size  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For sanity sake, we can make the tangent of arcminute, or resolving power &lt;strong&gt;P&lt;/strong&gt;, a constant:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;P = tan(arcminute) = tan(1/60) = 0.00029&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This may be translated into pixels per inch like so:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1&quot; / 0.0029&quot; = 343.77 ppi&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The minimum resolvable pixel size may be calculated for any distance, and as distance increases, the minimum required PPI will shrink. If we assume an 8x10 print at a viewing distance of around a foot and a half, we would have the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1&quot; / (0.00029 * 18&quot;) = 191.5 ppi&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A general formula for this can be created, where &lt;strong&gt;D&lt;/strong&gt; is the viewing distance:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1/(P*D) = PPI&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a simple rule, regardless of how close you may view a photograph, the unaided 20/20 eye is incapable of resolving more than about 500ppi (for those with 20/10 vision, resolving power reaches about 650ppi.) The only reason one may surpass a resolution of 500ppi is when you require more than a standard 300-360ppi, and you need to stay within the limitations of your hardware (i.e. 600ppi for Canon printers.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Resolving Power for 20/10 Vision&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the very vast majority of the time, you will not need more than 300-360ppi, if you do have very fine detail that requires a high PPI, you may wish to base your calculations on a higher visual acuity. For viewers with 20/10 vision, visual acuity is a bit improved, at around 1/86th of a degree (0.7 arcminute). The constant &lt;strong&gt;P&lt;/strong&gt; at this level of acuity is smaller, and therefor necessitates a smaller pixel when printing images with very fine detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given our formula from before, adjusted for improved acuity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;P = tan(arcminute) = tan(1/86) = 0.00020&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taking our 4x6&quot; print viewed at 10&quot;, and plugging this into our general formula for PPI, we would have a PPI of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1&quot; / (0.0002 * 10&quot;) = 1&quot; / 0.002&quot; = 500 ppi&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ok, enough math for now. On to the good stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Print Resolution&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that we know the limits of the human eye, we can better determine what resolution to print at for a given paper size and viewing distance. An ink jet printer is not capable of producing ideal results at any PPI, so we must compromise, and choose a resolution that is more appropriate to the hardware. Anyone who has investigated the &quot;best&quot; resolution to print at has likely come across many common terms, such as 240ppi, 300ppi, 360ppi, 720ppi, etc. These numbers are often based in truth, but when to use them, and when you might actually choose a lower resolution, is often left unexplained.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When choosing a resolution to print at, you must make sure it is divisible into the lower bound of the DPI your printer is capable of. In the case of an Epson, this is likely 1440, and in the case of a Canon it is likely to be 2400. Every printer has a native internal pixel resolution that any image printed will be resampled to. In the case of Epson, this is usually 720ppi, and in the case of Canon it is usually 600ppi. The PPI of printers is rarely publicized by the respective manufacturers, so it is up to you to figure it out. A handy little tool called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photoresampling.com/prtd_eng.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PrD&lt;/a&gt;, or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photoresampling.com/prtd_eng.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Printer Data&lt;/a&gt;, can help. Just run, and your printers native PPI will be displayed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Optimal Resolution&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Determining the optimal resolution to print at, now that we have both the printers DPI and native PPI, should be a trivial task: use the native PPI. While this seems logical, there are many reasons why this is less than idea. For one, 720ppi is well beyond the maximum resolving power of the human eye (@500ppi). Using the maximum resolution is also likely to use more ink (wasting money), while also reducing your tonal range. More on tonal range in a bit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we assume a minimum viewing distance of approximately six inches for a 4x6 print, the theoretical PPI would be about 575ppi. This rounds up to a printer-native 600ppi on Canon, and 720ppi on Epson. A viewing distance of six inches for a person with 20/20 vision (corrected or otherwise) is extremely close, and rather unlikely. If we assume a more realistic minimum viewing distance of ten inches, our theoretical PPI drops to about 350. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we printed our 4x6 photo at a resolution of 350ppi, the results would likely be less than stellar. For one, 350 is not evenly divisible into either 600 or 720, which will cause the printer driver to do some rather unsightly, distorted scaling for us. Any regular, repeating patterns will show up with very undesirable &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photoresampling.com/prtd_eng.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;moiré&lt;/a&gt;, which can greatly reduce the quality of a print. Choosing a resolution that evenly divides into the native printer resolution, such as 360ppi for Epson, or 300ppi for Canon, will help ensure that any scaling the driver does will produce even results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some common print resolutions for various DPI's:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  1200 | 1440 | 2400  &#xA; =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=  &#xA;       |      | 1200*  &#xA;   600 |  720 |  600  &#xA;   400 |  480 |  400  &#xA;   300 |  360 |  300  &#xA;   240 |  288 |  240  &#xA;   200 |  240 |  200  &#xA;   150 |  180 |  150  &#xA;&#xA;* Highly unlikely to ever be needed or used.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Tonal Range&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Despite all the knowledge we now have, knowing the native resolution of a printer is not really enough to choose an appropriate PPI. There is another issue that should be addressed first, and that is one of tonal range. The process of generating a photograph from a vision is one of continual reduction in color range and contrast. The human eye is capable of considerable dynamic range, however the camera is capable of considerably less. Printers are capable of still less, so making the most effective use of your printer's capabilities is key to producing a high quality, professional print.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The tonal range that may be reproducible by a printer is ultimately determined by the cell size of a pixel. If we take the ever present Epson printer, with its 1440 DPI, we can determine the number of dots per pixel with a simple formula:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(DPI / PPI) * 2 = DPP&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we assume the native resolution, our Epson printer can produce 4 dots per pixel:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(1440/720)*2) = 4&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These four dots must produce a square pixel, so in actuality the dots per pixel are arrayed in a 2x2 cell. If we half our ppi, and use 360 instead, we get a 4x4 cell, and at 288ppi we get a 5x5 cell. This simple fact is directly responsible for the ultimate tonal range a printer is capable of, as the number of dots at 720ppi is 1:4 what it is at 360ppi, and 1:6.25 what it is at 288ppi. As we reduce our PPI, we increase the number of colors that may be represented at each individual pixel. At 180ppi, we have theoretically eight times as much tonal range as we do at 720ppi.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we update our common print resolutions table with cell sizes, we have the following (note, 2400dpi has been normalized  with 1200dpi):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;      | 1200 | 1440 | 2400  &#xA; =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=  &#xA;  2x2 |  600 |  720 |  600  &#xA;  3x3 |  400 |  480 |  400  &#xA;  4x4 |  300 |  360 |  300  &#xA;  5x5 |  240 |  288 |  240  &#xA;  6x6 |  200 |  240 |  200  &#xA;  8x8 |  150 |  180 |  150  &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A 7x7 cell is not evenly divisible, and has been excluded. Given the chart above, it should become clearer why, despite lowering the PPI from say 720 to 360, a print can still look superb. For a close viewing distance of eight inches, we are within the limit of resolving power, and we &lt;em&gt;gain&lt;/em&gt; tonal range. Dropping even farther to 288ppi will likely increase tonal range more, without any tangible visible detriment to the vast majority of viewers. The added tonal range at a close viewing distance, however, will likely improve the overall quality of the print for the same majority of users, as the human eye is capable of detecting many millions of colors over an extremely broad range of tones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Theoretical vs. Actual&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quite often we run into the issue of the theoretical vs. the actual, and usually the actual is less appealing than the theoretical. In the case of Ink Jet printers, the theoretical may actually represent less than the actual capabilities of a printer. In particular, the actual achievable tonal range is often higher than is theoretically derivable via the above formula due to the differences in horizontal vs. vertical DPI. To determine the resolution of a print, you must base your calculations on the lower DPI bound. In the case of a 2880x1440 Epson, this lower bound is 1440. However, because the horizontal DPI is twice as much, you effectively get twice as many dots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This results in the desirable effect of increasing the possible tonal range at any given resolution. Since our Epson printer has 2880 pixels in the horizontal, at 720ppi we actually have a cell that is 4x2. At 360ppi we have a cell that is 8x4, and at 288ppi we have a cell that is 10x5. Assuming 8 different ink colors, that comes out to a theoretical 401 (400 + 1 extra for pure white...or the absence of ink) possible tones at 288ppi, which is more than enough to produce a tremendously wide range of color. Canon PIXMA Pro printers technically offer even greater range, as their vertical resolution is 2400 rather than 1440, and the horizontal resolution is 4800 rather than 2880. At 240dpi you get a 20x10 size pixel cell, with 9 inks you have 1801 possible tones. A Canon at 300ppi, you have the same tonal range as an Epson at 288ppi. Despite having a lower maximum PPI of 600, Canon printers should produce better tonal range at any given pixel size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The picture is even more complex, however, as modern professional-grade ink jet printers use not only a variety of ink colors, they also use varying ink droplet sizes. Assuming three different drop sizes (common for Epson and and Canon), theoretically that increases the range of tones to 1203. The realistic effect of varying droplet size is more even tonal grades, rather than considerably more tonal range, however the end result is basically the same: better looking images. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond all of this theory there are physical and practical limitations that, once again, take away all the gains our theory has given us. The maximum tonal range that may be achievable is dependent on more than just ink picoliters and mathematics. Paper is a critical factor in determining tonal range, and papers range from soft and warm to stunning bright, from glossy to matte, from smooth to rough. Choosing a paper, however, is a discussion for another day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Conclusions&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Knowledge is power, as they say, or in the case of photography, knowledge is a better vision envisioned. Despite all the rhetoric about printers on the internet, both from manufacturers and avid consumers, a little math and some logic can provide some useful knowledge. If you take anything away from reading this far today, I hope its that resolution is not the most important factor when it comes to creating a stunning print. Viewing distance and tonal range are just as important, if not more important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a general rule of thumb, 240-360ppi for your average professional grade ink jet printer will be sufficient for the vast majority of prints viewed within a couple feet. Larger prints framed and hung, viewed at a distance of several feet could do with 200-240ppi. Giant prints viewed at more than a few feet, such as wrapped canvas, can easily do with the bare minimum of 150-180ppi. Using the proper resolution has the benefit of improving tonal range, and will likely reduce your overall ink usage as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-05T03:07:45.243" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T03:07:45.243" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="1717" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1814" CreationDate="2010-07-30T07:07:45.643" Score="11" ViewCount="396" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for a free RAW editor/converter on Windows. Can you tell me some strong/weak points of them comparing with Capture NX and/or Adobe Photoshop Elements?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rawtherapee.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;RawTherapee&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photofiltre.free.fr/frames_en.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PhotoFiltre&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.graphicregion.com/ablerawer.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Able RAWer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.microsoft.com/prophoto/downloads/tools.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Microsoft Pro Photo Tools 2&lt;/a&gt; - conversion &amp;amp; EXIF&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://drchung.new21.net/ncfix/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;FixNEF&lt;/a&gt; - white balance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photo-freeware.net/raw-shooter-essentials.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;RAWShooter Essentials 2006&lt;/a&gt; - registration not possible anymore&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EXIF editing would be a nice bonus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Related:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/376/nikon-raw-image-processing-in-non-nikon-software&quot;&gt;Nikon RAW image processing in non-Nikon software&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1177/adding-data-to-an-exif-file&quot;&gt;Adding data to an EXIF file&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/724/&quot;&gt;Please suggest a workflow on Mac using only free/open source software&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="420" LastEditorUserId="420" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-09T23:00:52.750" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T23:00:52.750" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-04T16:23:29.083" Title="Free RAW editors/converters on Windows" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;windows&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="1718" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1717" CreationDate="2010-07-30T12:19:45.607" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In terms of RAW conversion, Nikon's ViewNX is free and will convert Nikon RAW files (NEFs and NRWs) using what is basically a cut down version of the RAW conversion engine in Capture NX2, i.e. it does a good job if you only want to tweak basic development parameters before conversion - it allows setting of picture controls, exposure, white balance, etc. but not much more than that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ViewNX also has some &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; basic editing features and metadata editing capabilities too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="452" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T12:19:45.607" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-04T16:23:29.083" />
  <row Id="1719" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="65" CreationDate="2010-07-30T13:37:28.430" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's arguable whether this is &quot;clear and easy to understand&quot;, but Thom Hogan has &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/hyperfocal.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an interesting article on Hyperfocal distance&lt;/a&gt; - explaining that it's not &lt;em&gt;quite&lt;/em&gt; what people think it is, and also why it's not necessarily a desirable effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a few quotes (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Hyperfocal focus distance&quot; is&#xA;  basically the focus distance for any&#xA;  given camera, lens, and settings that&#xA;  maximizes the &lt;strong&gt;apparent focus&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  distance while including infinity at&#xA;  the far end.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Since a lens can only&#xA;  focus one distance at a time,&#xA;  hyperfocal focus depends upon the blur&#xA;  circle that is created by things in&#xA;  front or behind the focus distance to&#xA;  be small enough that we still detect&#xA;  it as a &quot;point.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;hyperfocal is really only usable for&#xA;  wide angle lenses. By the time you get&#xA;  to a 50mm lens, hyperfocal at f/11 is&#xA;  pretty much out beyond all the focus&#xA;  markings on the lens. I doubt that&#xA;  you'll be able to focus precisely&#xA;  enough to use even a rough hyperfocal&#xA;  number with that much lens&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hyperfocal focus done right &lt;strong&gt;looks&#xA;  wrong&lt;/strong&gt;. It's an artificial construct&#xA;  promulagated by us photo writers who&#xA;  ran out of things to write about and&#xA;  started inventing things that seem&#xA;  useful but really aren't.&#xA;  &lt;br/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Our brains don't do &quot;hyperfocal.&quot;&#xA;  Indeed, a critical depth cue our brain&#xA;  uses is that detail = near, lack of&#xA;  detail = far.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;The full article is at: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/hyperfocal.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bythom.com/hyperfocal.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="137" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T13:37:28.430" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1720" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1717" CreationDate="2010-07-30T13:54:07.140" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is &lt;a href=&quot;http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;UFRaw&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/opening-raw-images-in-gimp-with-ufraw-for-windows-the-basics&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;supported through GIMP&lt;/a&gt; on Windows.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;You may also be interested in this link and site in general:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.osphoto.org/index.php/Main_Page&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Open Source Photography&lt;/a&gt; -- &lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.osphoto.org/index.php/Softwares#Raw_Viewers.2FConverters&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Raw Viewers/Converters&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="163" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T13:54:07.140" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-04T16:23:29.083" />
  <row Id="1721" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1717" CreationDate="2010-07-30T14:34:10.820" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Simplest is possibly Picasa, it supports most raw formats transparently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="631" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T14:34:10.820" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-04T16:23:29.083" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1722" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1228" CreationDate="2010-07-30T14:59:24.520" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One option I've found is to use dropbox. &#xA;Copy the original photos into a dropbox folder. The photos can be scanned through nearly as quickly as the photos app, and it is possible to delete the photos without touching the originals&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="458" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T14:59:24.520" />
  <row Id="1723" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1715" CreationDate="2010-07-30T17:25:57.063" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h1&gt;Generating High Quality Ink Jet Prints: Summary&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Making effective use of professional photographic ink jet printers is tricky business, especially when the statistics that are commonly used to describe these printers are vague and misleading. Learning how a ink jet printers function, how to properly interpret their capabilities, and make the most effective use of those capabilities, is possible. For those of you not quite as interested in the technical details, who are just looking for a simple answer, here you go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Terminology&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basic terms involved in ink jet printing are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pixel:&lt;/strong&gt; Smallest unit of an image.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Dot:&lt;/strong&gt; Smallest element of a print generated by a printer.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;DPI:&lt;/strong&gt; Dots per Inch&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;PPI:&lt;/strong&gt; Pixels per Inch&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The terms DPI and PPI, while often used interchangeably, are not interchangeable in the context of ink jet printing. A dot is the smallest element that an ink jet printer uses to create an image, and multiple dots are required to create a single pixel of an image. As such, the DPI will generally be higher than the actual resolution the printer prints images at. Most professional ink jet printers use a resolution of 720ppi (Epson) or 600ppi (Canon).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Human Eye&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The human eye is a truly amazing device, capable of seeing an astonishing range of color and tone. It does have its limitations, however, unlike a digital camera, which may have many times the resolving power of a human eye. The eye, assuming 20/20 vision (corrected or otherwise) is capable of resolving, or &quot;seeing distinctly&quot;, details down to at most 500ppi when viewed within a couple inches. Photographs are rarely viewed at such close distances, and are more naturally viewed at around 10&quot;-18&quot; for small hand-held prints up to several feet for larger prints hung on a wall. At these sizes and viewing distances, the human eye is capable of resolving details from between 350ppi at 10&quot; down to 150ppi at several feet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Print Resolution&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Due to the limited maximum resolving power of the human eye, extremely high printing resolutions are unnecessary in most viewing conditions. Common handheld prints of 4x6 which are usually viewed at 10&quot; are best printed at a resolution of 300-360ppi. Larger prints such as an 8x10, likely viewed either laid on a table or framed and displayed, are often viewed at a range of one to two feet. A resolution of 200ppi is about as much as the eye can resolve at these distances. Even larger prints, unless they are intended to be viewed at close distances, are usually framed and hung to be viewed at distances of several feet. Such large prints may be printed at the minimum resolutions of 150-180ppi, without any loss in detail that the eye can see.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Tonal Range&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Despite the frequency at which resolution is touted as the most important factor in a print, there are other factors that matter just as much, if not more. A limited number of dots may be printed per pixel, and the higher the resolution printed at, the fewer dots per pixel. At maximum resolution for Epson or Canon printers, you get around 8 dots per pixel, which gets you a total of 65 distinct tones if we have about 8 ink colors. At half the maximum resolution, you get about 32 dots per pixel, which gets you a total of about 257 distinct tones if we have about 8 ink colors. Using an even lower resolution, say 240-288ppi, you get 128 dots per pixel for a total of 1025 tones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ink jet printers these days include a variety of tonal range enhancing features. One of these is the ability to print with varying ink droplet sizes. Epson and Canon offer three different droplet sizes. While the variation in droplet size does not specifically increase your tonal range, it allows the printer to produce smoother tonal gradients, which ultimately has the same effect: better prints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Printing a quality print is about more than simply printing at the highest resolution. A variety of factors, including viewing distance and required tonal range, should be taken into account. Below is a chart that indicates the available printing resolutions, the corresponding pixel size in dots, the best viewing distance, and the approximage tonal range:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;        |  dpi               |  view   | tones/  &#xA;   dpp  | 1200 | 1440 | 2400 |  dist   | pixel  &#xA; =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=  &#xA;  4x2   |  600 |  720 |  600 |  8&quot;     |  @200  &#xA;  6x3   |  400 |  480 |  400 |  9&quot;     |  @450  &#xA;  8x4   |  300 |  360 |  300 | 11&quot;     |  @780  &#xA;  10x5  |  240 |  288 |  240 | 15&quot;     | @1200  &#xA;  12x6  |  200 |  240 |  200 | 18&quot;-24&quot; | @1800  &#xA;  16x8  |  150 |  180 |  150 | 2'-5'   | @3000  &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Despite the theoretically higher number of tones per pixel at lower resolutions such as 150-200, the greater viewing distance effectively mitigates the gains. &lt;strong&gt;The optimal printing resolution to get the most out of your printer is likely to fall within the range of 240-360ppi.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-03T21:46:53.407" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T21:46:53.407" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="1724" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1726" CreationDate="2010-07-30T18:24:43.753" Score="12" ViewCount="551" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recently I bought my first DSLR camera. It is a beginner's one, Sony alpha 230 kit. To tell the truth, my shots are not more crisp than those I used to take with my old Point and Shoot Nikon Coolpix. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to take really sharp photos not buying expensive lens?&#xA;What would be your advices for that? (I'm really trying to go beyond automatic mode, though with little success so far)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="591" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T15:37:51.150" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T15:37:51.150" Title="How I could take crisp sharp shots without expensive lens?" Tags="&lt;tips&gt;&lt;sharpness&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="1725" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1724" CreationDate="2010-07-30T18:33:57.183" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use a tripod (or a sufficently fast shutter speed), use low ISO, stop down to around f/8 (many cheap lenses perform a lot better in this range), do some post processing to add sharpness, local contrast, pop, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Find out which cheap lenses are good that you can find at pawn shops or eBay.  My recommendation, vintage lenses:  See here:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1520/lens-review-sites&quot;&gt;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1520/lens-review-sites&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-30T19:51:21.127" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T19:51:21.127" />
  <row Id="1726" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1724" CreationDate="2010-07-30T18:36:00.393" Score="18" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several factors to getting a sharp image, the lens is only one of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Lighting&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have a well-lit shot it will be much easier to get the crispness you want because you can get higher contrast lines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Shutter speed&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is actually pretty closely related to a well lit shot, but you want to make sure your &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1733/minimum-shutter-speed&quot;&gt;shutter speed is fast enough to avoid camera shake&lt;/a&gt;, which will cause blurring.  A good place to start is with a reciprocal of the lens length (i.e. for a 50mm lens, at least 1/50s).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Camera shake&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can't get lighting good enough to use a fast shutter speed, then you just have to do your best to avoid camera shake.  This means working on you technique, both with &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/178/techniques-for-hand-held-image-stabilization&quot;&gt;holding your camera&lt;/a&gt;, and with &lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/shutter-release&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pressing the shutter&lt;/a&gt;, or if your lens has image stabilization (or vibration reduction) then use it.  When none of the hand held methods work, then use a tripod.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Aperture&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Every lens will have a aperture at which it is the sharpest, a good place to start is in the middle of the range, typically around f/8.  This is a bit complicated, because there are 2 opposing elements at play, depth of field, and diffraction.  Ken Rockwell has an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/focus.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;in depth article&lt;/a&gt; about this if you really want to study it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Lens Quality&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some lenses are just better quality and will have less aberrations, so a shot taken with a kit lens will probably never be as sharp as a correctly-exposed image from a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/lenses/2183.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Leica 50mm f/1.4&lt;/a&gt;.  That is not to say that &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; shot taken with a superb lens will be better than &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; shot from a kit lens, because that is certainly false.  It does mean that the upper range is higher of some lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-31T01:49:59.397" LastActivityDate="2010-07-31T01:49:59.397" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1727" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1724" CreationDate="2010-07-30T18:36:05.667" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What kinds of lighting situations are you shooting in?  Are you using a tripod, or at least following best-practices to minimize camera shake while shooting hand-held?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're shooting with natural light and your camera is held steady, you should be getting sharp shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A different lens might help matters if you shoot low light and the lens has a wider aperture than what you have now.  An expensive lens might have vibration reduction (VR) which should also help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But be sure you have the cheap and simple basics covered first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T18:36:05.667" />
  <row Id="1728" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1989" CreationDate="2010-07-30T18:45:24.603" Score="6" ViewCount="133" Body="&lt;p&gt;For studio portrait lighting, is it better to have a UV coated flashtube, or a clear flashtube, and why?  Does it make a difference what ambient light there is?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-27T17:26:06.177" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T17:26:06.177" Title="What does UV coating do for a flash tube?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;studio-lighting&gt;&lt;uv&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="1729" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1724" CreationDate="2010-07-30T18:54:27.767" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;How are you taking your shots? There are a variety of factors that affect the clarity of a shot that you might want to work with. Lighting, aperture, shutter speed, and the type of thing you are shooting all play into how your shots end up looking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Lighting and Aperture&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First off, lighting. If you are regularly shooting in dim lighting, and you have a slower lens (i.e. f/4 maximum aperture or tighter) you might really need to consider getting a better lens. Something that has a faster maximum aperture, such as f/2.8 or f/1.4. Wider apertures (smaller numbers) allow more light in, so night shooting or photographing indoor sports greatly benefit from wider apertures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Shutter Speed&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, you might look at what shutter speed you are using. A general rule of thumb is that a shutter speed at least as fast as one over the focal length of a lens necessary to take a &quot;stable&quot; shot. If you have an 18-70mm lens at 70mm, then you would need a minimum shutter speed of 1/70 to take a stable shot. In low light, that may be too fast to capture a bright enough shot with an aperture of f/5.6. On the other hand, at 18mm, you would only need a shutter speed of about 1/20 at f/3.5 to take a stable shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The higher the shutter speed at a particular lighting, the wider the aperture must be to keep a constant exposure. Eventually you will hit the limitations of your aperture, and you will need additional lighting to keep the shot bright enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Flash&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are taking shots at night or indoors, try using your flash. Even in lit conditions like indoor sports, a flash can help brighten up a scene and freeze motion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;ISO Speed&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a final resort, you can increase your sensors ISO setting. Automatic modes tend to change the ISO as needed to accommodate lighting conditions. Once you start using semi-automatic and manual modes, however, you may need to adjust ISO manually as well. Some cameras also limit the maximum ISO that may be selected automatically, which is usually about ISO 400, possibly ISO 800. If you need to use a higher ISO setting, you will likely need to choose it manually even in a semi-automatic camera mode. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A high ISO setting will allow you to use a faster shutter speed in lower light. Where you may only be able to use a shutter speed of 1/20th of a second at ISO 100, you could use a shutter speed of 1/160th of a second at ISO 800. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Tripod&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can't improve your shots by adjusting the aperture and shutter, or by using flash, you might want to get a tripod. Attaching your camera to a tripod greatly improves the stability of your shots over hand-held.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might also try using a semi-automatic camera mode rather than full manual. Most cameras support aperture priority, shutter priority, and program modes. Aperture priority allows you to choose the aperture, and it will automatically set the shutter speed for you. This is probably the most common camera mode used by most amateurs and professionals alike. If you need control over motion, shutter priority is probably better, as it will allow you to choose a shutter speed and automatically set the aperture for you. Flash in combination with shutter speed will give you more control over freezing motion. Program mode is a mostly automatic mode that usually provides some control over exposure compensation. You can expose at zero compensation, or compensate +/- 1-2 stops (perhaps more), and the camera will automatically set shutter and aperture for you, accommodating your compensation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-30T19:08:59.120" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T19:08:59.120" />
  <row Id="1730" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1724" CreationDate="2010-07-30T19:09:35.190" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Try a cheap lens!  Cheap doesn't necessarily correspond to &quot;bad.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The used market is full of older lenses that are compatible with modern DSLRs, and are often available quite cheaply.  Sony, in particular, can use any Minolta AF-mount lens, including autofocus, and the 50mm f/1.7 is likely sharper than the typical kit zoom lens.  At around $100 on eBay, I wouldn't call it expensive (at least not in the context of lenses).  Research might reveal a few other good lenses compatible with your camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T19:09:35.190" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1731" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1724" CreationDate="2010-07-30T19:14:29.793" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Buy a remote cable instead of clicking the camera. This remote shutter will ensure that there are no movements and this will definitely result it much sharper pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="664" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T19:14:29.793" />
  <row Id="1732" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1724" CreationDate="2010-07-30T19:22:03.240" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Make sure your shake reduction is on, for one. Sony has it in the body like Pentax and it helps. Without it, the general rule of thumb is a shutter speed no slower than the reciprocal of the lens length meaning that if the lens is 100mm, then you should have a shutter speed of at least 1/100th of a second otherwise you should be on a tripod. With SR, you can go a bit slower. However, make sure you &lt;em&gt;press&lt;/em&gt; the shutter, not stab it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bear in mind, also with Sony, you can use Minolta lenses. You can find some very good deals on older Minolta lenses on eBay and Craigslist, saving a bundle without giving up quality. There's lots of old glass out there that is top notch, used isn't a bad way to go (I've bought some real gems for my Pentax this way).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My final suggestion would be to take rapid, multiple, shots of the subject if you can. Media has gotten pretty cheap, so don't be afraid to pump a few shots in as you increase your likelihood of get a crisp image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, I agree with the other responders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T19:22:03.240" />
  <row Id="1733" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1735" CreationDate="2010-07-30T19:24:24.637" Score="10" ViewCount="632" Body="&lt;p&gt;How can I determine the minimum shutter speed at which I can effectively avoid camera shake while hand-holding the camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T15:35:49.960" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T17:03:27.047" Title="How can I determine the minimum shutter speed to avoid blur from camera shake?" Tags="&lt;image-stabilization&gt;&lt;shutter-speed&gt;&lt;sharpness&gt;&lt;camera-shake&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="1734" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1733" CreationDate="2010-07-30T19:25:34.777" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The general rule is &lt;code&gt;1/EFL&lt;/code&gt; (equivalent 35mm focal length) without IS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That means if you're on an APS-C, 1/(FL * 1.5~1.6).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The improvement IS gives is given in stops.  One stop is applying a power of two, so:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;1/(EFL*(2^IS))&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everyone shakes different amounts, and even interacts differently with each IS systems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-30T20:06:07.393" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T20:06:07.393" CommentCount="24" />
  <row Id="1735" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1733" CreationDate="2010-07-30T19:26:40.250" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;General Rule&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The general rule of thumb for 35mm (full frame) has been the reciprocal of the focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means that for a 50mm lens, the minimum shutter speed when hand-holding is 1/50 sec.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;1/(focal length) = 1/50&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since this is usually not an option, 1/60 sec is the next option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the move to digital and multiple sensor sizes, the generally agreed upon rule is that the &lt;em&gt;effective focal length&lt;/em&gt; is the number to keep in mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, on a APS-C cropped sensor, a 50mm lens would need a &lt;code&gt;1/(50 * 1.6) = 1/80 sec&lt;/code&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a longer telephoto, say a 300mm on a full-frame (35mm) you would need 1/300 sec.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Image stabilization&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Camera (and lens) makers are now adding image-stabilization to their lenses, which lowers the shutter speed needed. Generally the makers will rate the level of stabilization in stops. Keep in mind these ratings are used for marketing and may be a bit inflated, but I am going to do my calculations based on the numbers being correct to keep it simple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are using a 100mm lens with a 2 stop image stabilization system on a APS-C cropped sensor then:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt; (1/(effective focal length)) * (2 ^ image-stabilization-stops)&#xA;&#xA; (1/(100*1.6)) * (2^2)&#xA;&#xA; (1/160)*4 = 1/40 sec&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-31T01:41:53.317" LastActivityDate="2010-07-31T01:41:53.317" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="1736" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1737" CreationDate="2010-07-30T19:34:20.900" Score="23" ViewCount="1353" Body="&lt;p&gt;Who actually owns a photo that is taken in a public place?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="338" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-15T15:30:59.573" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T15:30:59.573" Title="Can I publish photos taken in public legally?" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="8" />
  <row Id="1737" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1736" CreationDate="2010-07-30T19:37:08.773" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The copyright belongs to the photographer unless otherwise specified in writing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;However&lt;/strong&gt;, depending on local laws you may not have the right to take pictures of &lt;a href=&quot;http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/795.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;some subjects&lt;/a&gt;, and may only have permission to sell your images of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright_claims&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;certain subjects&lt;/a&gt; with expressed consent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T19:37:08.773" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="1738" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1733" CreationDate="2010-07-30T20:05:17.380" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A couple of answers have already mentioned the 1/FL rule of thumb. Keep in mind, however, that this is only a rule of thumb, not an iron-clad law. Depending on how steady &lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt; are, you may find that you can (or must) adjust it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good technique is critical here. The same techniques used by target rifle shooters work nicely. First, get the steadiest stance you can: prone is best, kneeling second best, standing up your last choice. If you have to shoot standing, put your left hand directly under the lens and brace your elbow against your chest if possible (especially important with longer/heavier lenses). Take a fairly deep breath, then let it about halfway out before you &lt;em&gt;squeeze&lt;/em&gt; the shutter release. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T20:05:17.380" />
  <row Id="1739" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1736" CreationDate="2010-07-30T20:17:55.507" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here in germany it is legal to publish a photo without permission of every single visible person if the picture contains several people of similar size and no one of them is emphasized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="665" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T20:17:55.507" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1740" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1736" CreationDate="2010-07-30T20:20:26.890" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Main issues that are related to usage of your pictures are the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Copyright&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In most circumstances, you own copyright to photos you take, and can do whatever you want with them. The exception is either when you've assigned copyright to someone else (paper you shoot for, for example), or when you'd infrige someone else's copyright. For example, when you take Ansel Adams photo print on street and make 1:1 photo of it, you don't own the resulting picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rules regarding what kind of works you can photograph and reproduce freely when they're in public space are different in every state, but mostly should cover buildings, permanently installed statues and so on. The overview can be found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Freedom of panorama&lt;/a&gt; page at Wikimedia Commons. For commercial usage of such pictures you usually need some kind of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;model release&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Personality rights&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Personality rights&lt;/a&gt; are mostly intended to prevent you things like snapping strangers on the street and then selling them for advertising (imagine text: &quot;I'm a HIV-positive prostitute and recommend this toothpaste&quot;). Some details regarding publication can again be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;on Wikimedia Commons&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;National security&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Special laws can prevent you from photopraphing power plants, military installations, railroad stations, security cameras, policemen, etc., depending on the state of paranoia in your country.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T20:20:26.890" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1741" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1736" CreationDate="2010-07-30T20:24:03.137" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Copyright belongs to the photographer in most situations.  In Berne Convention countries, if you're not being paid or not employed to take the photograph, it's almost certainly true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Publication is a separate act to taking the photograph, and whether it's legal to publish it  depends on many different variables.  Some examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In France, you couldn't publish someone's portrait without consent or any photo with them as a main subject.  If that same person was incidentally in the background of another photo, you could publish it (probably - this is not a hard and fast rule, just a guideline, and subject to interpretation).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Commercial photography generally requires a release for identifiable people or property in the US, but not in the UK unless the person already has a significant public reputation.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Some photos taken and published legally may fall foul of other laws, such as defamation or indecency.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best advice will always be that if you have particular concerns about a specific situation, to seek out specific advice about that situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T20:24:03.137" />
  <row Id="1742" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1736" CreationDate="2010-07-30T20:45:46.533" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h1&gt;If in doubt, speak to a lawyer&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In most jurisdictions, you can generally take photos for personal use of most things, as long as you're in a public place, your own property, or somewhere where you have permission to be (which may in turn include conditions; for example, art galleries tend to allow you to be there as long as you don't engage in photography).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theoretically, there is no law to stop you from taking a photo of a child playing in the street outside your house in the UK. I would advise against it, however, as the local constabulary may question your motives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most stock photo agencies will not handle images of people unless there is a model release signed. In some jurisdictions, this isn't a legal requirement, but agencies will want to cover themselves for an international market. Similarly, they like a property release if the subject is an identifiable piece of property (be it a can of cola, or a mansion).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some organisations have reputations for being photographer unfriendly so it is always best to check in advance if you want to use the work commercially.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T20:45:46.533" />
  <row Id="1743" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1733" CreationDate="2010-07-30T20:47:22.927" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Okay, mine is not a technical answer, but I think it has some merit that the technical answers lack: empiricism. Try using different speeds and see what you can hand-hold. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For each lens (and zoom setting, if applicable), handhold the camera while on shutter priority,and see what the slowest shutter speed YOU can use is without shaking the camera. Different people have hands that shake to different degrees. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the way, I would check out whether or not it is blurry on a monitor, not on the camera LCD. You just can't see clearly enough to be sure whether there is blur on the LCD (unless you have a much better quality LCD screen than I've seen. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="649" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T20:47:22.927" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1744" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1728" CreationDate="2010-07-30T21:01:34.343" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't claim to be an expert on this subject, but I don't see what the advantage of a clear flashtube would be (cheaper, maybe?).  Whatever you do, make sure what you're doing is safe--being flashed with a bare quartz flash tube could result in a trip to the ER, according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://members.misty.com/don/xesafe.html#u&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this page&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="634" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T21:01:34.343" />
  <row Id="1745" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1736" CreationDate="2010-07-30T23:19:01.927" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The rights of a photographer is generally quite strong. There may be local variations, but commonly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The photographer always owns the photography, unless you have a contract that transfers the ownership. Even if you ask someone else to actually press the trigger, the photographer setting up the session owns the photograph.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You can photograph anything or anyone in a public place (unless you violate any other laws).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Owning a photograph doesn't mean that you can use it for anything, though. Publishing a photo without permission where a person can be easily recognised is only allowed for artistic or journalistic purposes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using a photo for profit (e.g. ads) almost always requires a model release.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-07-30T23:19:01.927" />
  <row Id="1746" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1520" CreationDate="2010-07-31T02:08:44.033" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ken Rockwell&lt;/a&gt; does reviews as well, though I will avoid waiting for the comment from Reid and point out that some folks think he is insane... :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastActivityDate="2010-07-31T02:08:44.033" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-31T02:08:44.033" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1747" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1504" CreationDate="2010-07-31T02:11:51.483" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just got a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thinktankphoto.com/products/retrospective-20-pinestone-shoulder-bag.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Think Tank Retrospective 20&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;love&lt;/strong&gt; it. It looks very non-camera bag like, and can fit a ton of gear in it. One thing I will point out is that it was bigger than I thought it would be, but the 20 is the largest model - it fits my body attached to a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens (and actually even fits all that with a 1.7x teleconverter attached as well)!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastActivityDate="2010-07-31T02:11:51.483" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-07-31T02:11:51.483" />
  <row Id="1748" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1751" CreationDate="2010-07-31T07:37:51.437" Score="12" ViewCount="546" Body="&lt;p&gt;Being a novice in photography and reading about preferable settings of my camera I'm a little bit confused about ISO settings. Sometimes I'm advised to set as little ISO as possible to have higher quality shots, and sometimes I come accross the contradictory advise to raise my ISO settings in order to make shutter speed as fast as possible to have higher quality shots as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that here quantity of light available is involved, but are there any general rules on how to set ISO value, or everything should come through painful experience of trial and error?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="591" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-08T18:14:06.453" LastActivityDate="2011-01-08T18:14:06.453" Title="What are general rules for ISO settings?" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;iso&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="1749" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1748" CreationDate="2010-07-31T07:48:51.910" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The ISO setting is how light sensetive the sensor is. This emulates how you could use films with different sensetivity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should set the ISO as low as possible, as long as there is sufficient light to take a good picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In low light situations you can raise the ISO to reduce the need for light. This will give you more noise in the image, but this is generally less of a problem than motion blur caused by too long exposure times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-07-31T07:48:51.910" />
  <row Id="1750" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1748" CreationDate="2010-07-31T07:52:20.297" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The three aspects of exposure (ISO, aperture, shutter) interact, so each will always depend to some extent on the others - in other words &quot;as low ISO as possible&quot; really means &quot;low as possible in a given situation&quot; rather than the minimum on the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ISO determines the level of noise, which has a fairly minimal effect on the composition of most photographs, so I think it's best to work out the required ISO from the other two aspects of exposure, which have a much greater effect.  In general, they work as follows (assuming a fixed level of light):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Aperture&lt;/b&gt;: a narrower aperture provides greater depth of field.  This will in turn require a slower shutter speed or higher ISO.  Sometimes you can use a very wide aperture (and may even want to), which allows shutter speed to raise or ISO to lower.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Shutter&lt;/b&gt;: A faster shutter speed stops motion more effectively, but will require a wider aperture or a higher ISO.  Other times, you might be happy with the minimum shutter speed you can comfortably shoot hand-held, which would allow you to stop down the aperture, or lower the ISO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can work out the general constraints on those two aspects, it will lead you directly to the ISO.  This does take practice, but it's a bit better than random trial and error.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-31T07:58:51.670" LastActivityDate="2010-07-31T07:58:51.670" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1751" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1748" CreationDate="2010-07-31T07:53:03.633" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, increasing ISO will not really improve the quality of your shots. Higher ISO means more noise in most cases, which can drown out details. The story is a little more complicated than that, however. To put it simply...if you can't get a shot at the lowest ISO, increase it. Getting a shot at all is certainly &quot;higher quality&quot; than missing a shot because you cant set a high enough shutter speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me give you a little bit more background on what ISO is, and hopefully that will help you make the appropriate decisions on your own as to when you might use a higher setting. ISO determines the &lt;em&gt;sensitivity&lt;/em&gt; of your camera's sensor. Another way to put it is the ISO setting indicates how rapidly your sensor gathers light...the higher the number, the more rapid it gathers...the more sensitive it is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exposure is a triad, and is composed of three different settings working in concert to produce an image: aperture, shutter speed, and sensitivity (of film or a digital sensor.) ISO settings are rated in stops, just like aperture and shutter speeds, so adjusting it has the same proportional effect as adjusting one of the other two settings. If you are shooting with an aperture of f/16, a shutter speed of 1/100, and an ISO of 100, you can adjust any two settings and maintain proper exposure. Here is a table of various one-stop changes that produce the same exposure:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  A   |   S   |  I  &#xA;====================&#xA; f/16 | 1/100 | 100&#xA; f/11 | 1/200 | 100&#xA; f/16 | 1/200 | 200&#xA; f/22 | 1/50  | 100&#xA; f/22 | 1/100 | 200&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, you will want to keep your ISO setting as low as possible (usually 100, sometimes it may go as low as 50) to minimize the noise produced by your sensor. There are occasions, however, where using an ISO 100 setting is simply not possible. This usually occurs for one of two reasons (or possibly both in concert): you have your aperture wide open and there just isn't enough light to get a stable shot, or you are shooting action and need a very high shutter speed. In low-light conditions, increasing shutter speed will generally allow you to get a shot, but you are also most likely to get additional noise as well due to the low &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-noise.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;signal-to-noise ratio&lt;/a&gt; of darker pixels. In better lit action scenes, increasing the ISO setting will allow you to use a higher shutter speed than may normally be possible, improving your chances of stopping motion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-01T14:29:27.097" LastActivityDate="2010-08-01T14:29:27.097" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1752" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1748" CreationDate="2010-07-31T08:13:44.473" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general, as others have stated already, you should normally aim for the lowest ISO setting that will allow you to get the image that you want. However, this is not entirely true. The sensor in a digital camera has a sort of &quot;base ISO&quot; (this is often, but not always, the lowest ISO setting available). ISO settings above this &quot;base ISO&quot; means that the camera will amplify the signal (which is where the noise is introduced).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In some cameras, the highest ISO setting is identified not by its number, but by the letter &quot;H&quot; (as in &quot;High&quot;). This setting is not a normal amplification of the signal itself, but is roughly the same as taking an underexposed shot at the nearest lower ISO setting and then digitally making the image brighter (just like you adjust exposure in the computer). The same goes in the other end: there may be ISO settings indicated by &quot;L&quot;; these settings are the same as overexposing the image at the nearest higher ISO setting and then digitally adjusting the brightness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bottom line is that in the low ISO setting end, going into the L-settings will not really buy you any image quality. I may however be useful if you want the longer shutter speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-07-31T08:13:44.473" />
  <row Id="1753" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1754" CreationDate="2010-07-31T09:53:00.923" Score="3" ViewCount="224" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm buying my first DSLR at the moment and I have a choice between a Canon 40D that a friend needs to sell and is offering it at the same price as a new Canon 1000D with the basic 18-55mm Canon lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Knowing nothing about DSLRs (yet), I really don't know which I should go for - I know that the 40D is a better grade of camera, but it's a few years out of date.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I need to go with a Canon specifically because all of my friends use Canons and can share lenses with me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="672" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T21:27:23.227" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T21:27:23.227" Title="Should I purchase a second-hand Canon 40D or a new Canon 1000D?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="1754" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1753" CreationDate="2010-07-31T10:00:36.740" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon 1000D is quite low-end model: everything is plastic, you don't have normal display so you need to set up metering on the main LCD, and you have only one dial. 40D has all of this, so using it will be much more comfortable, and you'll be able to set camera faster, if that matters to you. It's also significantly faster in terms of continuous shooting speed, which is useful for sports, kids or basically anything that moves quickly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My recommendation would be to go for 40D if it's in good state and if you intend to play with the camera more. If you want just usual vacation pictures or size/weight is important to you, you might prefer smaller and lighter 1000D. (Which, of course, can also be used for &quot;serious&quot; photoshoots, it's just not that fast to get to everyting.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From technical point of view, they both have similar sensors, so it's really mostly between better+bigger vs. small+plastic. Comparison with some comments can be seen &lt;a href=&quot;http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_1000D-vs-Canon_EOS_40D&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;at Snapsort&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-31T12:15:16.543" LastActivityDate="2010-07-31T12:15:16.543" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1755" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-31T12:04:09.593" Score="0" ViewCount="142" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/496/what-does-all-those-parts-in-a-lens-name-mean&quot;&gt;What does all those parts in a lens name mean?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm thinking about buying myself a new lens for my Nikon and I have a question about the naming conventions Nikon uses for its lenses. Some of the things I have figured out on my own but looking at the following few lens names&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AF Nikkor 14mm f/2,8D ED&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1,8G DX&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AF Nikkor 180mm f/2,8 D ED-IF&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3,5-5,6G ED VR&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ok I know some of those&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;##mm is the focal length&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;f/#,# is the max aperture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;DX is to mark the lens as not full frame&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;VR is Vibration Resistance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what is the difference between G and D and what are ED and ED-IF?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="87" LastActivityDate="2010-07-31T13:57:23.030" ClosedDate="2010-07-31T14:56:58.707" Title="Nikon lens naming" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1756" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1755" CreationDate="2010-07-31T13:57:23.030" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;G&lt;/strong&gt; is for without aperture ring. If you look at the G lens and non-G lens, the non-G lens will still have the aperture ring, allowing you to use it with older non-dual-dial (front and back) camera by setting the aperture via the ring instead of the front dial. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;D&lt;/strong&gt; designated for the &quot;distance&quot; information communicated by the lens to the camera. Obviously, this is crucial for AF. Some older lenses that are still manual won't have this, but some do. Newer lens all have this. If you have a &quot;IF&quot; or &quot;G&quot; lens, it assumes the &quot;D&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;IF&lt;/strong&gt; means &quot;internal focus&quot;. So when focusing (manually or auto), it won't rotate the front element of the lens, it will only adjust the internal lens components to achieve focus. All &quot;G&quot; lens is &quot;IF&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ED&lt;/strong&gt; designated the presence of &quot;ED&quot; (stands for &quot;Extra-low Dispersion&quot;) glass/element in your lens. &quot;ED-IF&quot; is a combination of &quot;ED&quot; and &quot;IF&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-07-31T13:57:23.030" />
  <row Id="1757" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-07-31T15:36:54.080" Score="26" ViewCount="413" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently had a play with converting some images to black and white to see how that changed the image. Some baby photos came out particularly well, while others I tried seemed less interesting when in black and white.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm wondering what causes things to look more or less interesting in black and white. Are there any subjects which generally look better in black and white? Or are there particular qualities of a photo which might make you think something would look better in black and white?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Things I've thought of from my own playing around:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Black and white images prevent the eye being distracted by different colour objects, so the eye may be more drawn to the intended subject.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When the colours are a strong part of the image (maybe in a festival or market), they are unlikely to look better as black and white.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there generally accepted criteria (or rules of thumb) or is it a purely subjective judgement? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's hoping I'm not going to start a holy way - I'm genuinely interested if there are any rules of thumb for when black and white is likely to be a pleasing transformation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T18:54:06.340" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-23T22:46:33.307" Title="When is Black and White likely to enhance an image?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;black-and-white&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="7" />
  <row Id="1758" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1757" CreationDate="2010-07-31T15:53:40.860" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While by no means the only sort of subject that often looks good in black and white, subjects where the textures are of primary interest often work better in black and white. For instance, gnarled roots and bark often look better in black and white.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="350" LastActivityDate="2010-07-31T15:53:40.860" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-24T00:15:30.820" />
  <row Id="1759" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1757" CreationDate="2010-07-31T16:44:12.877" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't really have set rules (however I bet some do exist) for B&amp;amp;W conversions, but in genral for me it's:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When color really doesn't add&#xA;anything to an image.&lt;/strong&gt; For example you have a scene where most of the tones are muted.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When I want the image subject to be about the space, shapes, or negative space&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For artistic effect&lt;/strong&gt; This is a bit of a catch-all, I don't have the technical ability to describe why I choose B&amp;amp;W, just that I thought it would look good in B&amp;amp;W.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I rarely do pure B&amp;amp;W shoots, however I have done a few in the past, and I have enjoyed them. It's an interesting exercise to shoot with either B&amp;amp;W film, or force your camera to shoot B&amp;amp;W only (not allowing you any chance to recover color data). That way you think more about the image in terms of a black &amp;amp; white &quot;negative&quot; instead of a color to black and white conversion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-07-31T16:44:12.877" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-24T00:15:30.820" />
  <row Id="1760" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1757" CreationDate="2010-07-31T17:00:37.753" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That's going to vary widely I would think! However, for me it's usually falls into:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Colour in the image is distracting. Often this happens for me when I'm looking more at a light pattern that I want to convey rather than the object(s) themself.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The image conveys a sense of age and black and white enhances that quality. I took a picture once of a very old camera with dust and cob webs on it. It look good in colour, the age was there, but looked so much more older in black and white because that is what it would have once captured.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When it feels right. Which, as with Alan, is just the artistic effect that I too can't explain. Sometimes it's a portrait shot, sometimes it's the way the natural light illuminates the subject, sometimes it's just because!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, that's just my reasons for black and white. I too am curious as to what others think about this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-07-31T17:00:37.753" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-24T00:15:30.820" />
  <row Id="1761" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1757" CreationDate="2010-07-31T17:16:33.327" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Oooh very subjective! Having dabbled in B&amp;amp;W myself recently, I think the best black and white shots are those where you want the viewer to feel an extra degree of separation from the subject; I think it makes you feel like more of an observer than an empathiser (especially when shooting people). Otherwise, I think it works best where there are really interesting textures and contrasts. It's also worth trying, from an educational point of view, as it makes you think more about each photograph, so that if/when you do go back to colour, you can take what you've learned and apply it for all your shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-07-31T17:16:33.327" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-24T00:15:30.820" />
  <row Id="1762" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1724" CreationDate="2010-07-31T17:22:48.917" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's how I do it, handheld:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Always shoot RAW.&lt;/strong&gt;  Never shoot JPG.  In-camera jpg uses default settings where the manufacturer has tried to capture the 'fat middle', ie, accounted for what they perceive as the middle portion of the bell curve of shots.  Use your own RAW processing software instead, and apply your own processing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Get a fast, cheap prime&lt;/strong&gt;.  A 50mm f/1.8 is not an expensive lens (~$100), but can give really excellent results when stopped down to f/5.6-8, and give you those professional-looking blurry backgrounds at f/2-f/2.8.  Maybe kit lenses have improved in the last five years, but the 50mm prime has been a lens that manufacturers have worked on for over fifty years.  I'd also go with this lens if you want to take pictures of fast things (kids), dark things (church interiors), etc.  It will also help you improve your compositional skills (if you think those need improving) by forcing you to consider how to compose the shot without using a zoom.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Shoot at 1/2x your lens length in mm&lt;/strong&gt;.  So, if you have that 50mm prime, shoot at 1/100.  The rule of thumb used to be with film to shoot at 1/N mm, where N is your lens length.  With APS-C digital sensors, it became 1/(1.5*N)mm as the shutter speed, and I just round up to 2x to be safe.  I have a Nikon, so I don't know if the Sony has a similar setting, but I always shoot auto-iso (unless I know not to, like shooting a starry sky or something with a long exposure time on a tripod).  For me, I set the autoiso step to 1/100.  That is, the iso will increase to keep the exposure time to 1/100.  At that speed (my main lens is 17-55), I'm at 2x my max zoom factor (55mm), so very unlikely to get camera shake.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-07-31T17:22:48.917" />
  <row Id="1763" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1757" CreationDate="2010-07-31T18:13:39.307" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Quite a lot of the time&lt;/strong&gt;, much more than most people think. My advice would be to try converting pretty much everything and see how you like the results. After doing this for a while, I discovered that now I have a specific choice in mind (color or B&amp;amp;W) right when I'm composing, and I'm usually right. It's a cool feeling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also (and this doesn't quite answer your question, but I think it's germane): &lt;strong&gt;convert to black and white thoughtfully&lt;/strong&gt;. There are many, many ways to do this, of course. My own preferred method is to use a film simulator, such as the open source &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kbarni.net/#Inda&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;iNDA&lt;/a&gt; plugin for Bibble (which makes trying out an image in B&amp;amp;W extremely quick, about 2 seconds). But the point is that one should do the conversion following a specific method chosen thoughtfully rather than just setting the saturation to zero.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also find that &lt;strong&gt;vigorous use of contrast and/or curves&lt;/strong&gt; will often yield a much more interesting photo as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-31T18:20:35.113" LastActivityDate="2010-07-31T18:20:35.113" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-24T00:15:30.820" />
  <row Id="1764" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1757" CreationDate="2010-07-31T18:53:01.210" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Kodak has a series of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=498&amp;amp;pq-locale=en_US&amp;amp;_requestid=10692&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;tips for choosing black and white&lt;/a&gt; shots that really covers everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally prefer to go with black and white when I am trying to convey the texture of a subject, when the colors distract from the story I'm trying to tell, or when there is a strong lighting contrast in the shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-31T18:53:01.210" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-24T00:15:30.820" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1765" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1768" CreationDate="2010-07-31T19:02:35.777" Score="10" ViewCount="665" Body="&lt;p&gt;How should a dslr camera, lens, and batteries be stored if they aren't going to be used for weeks-- if not months?  Is it dependent on manufacturer (Nikon, Canon, etc)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any risk of damage if it's stored away for an extended period of time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="607" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T18:44:34.287" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T18:44:34.287" Title="How should a dslr camera, lens, and battery be stored?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;storage&gt;&lt;equipment-damage&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="1766" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1765" CreationDate="2010-07-31T19:18:32.483" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would store them all in cases/bag and remove the batteries and store them separate.  If you are in a humid environment, I suggest using a dehumidifier or desiccant packs nearby to keep the humidity down and decrease the likelihood of mold/fungus. Also, make sure not to leave them in direct sunlight. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-07-31T19:18:32.483" />
  <row Id="1767" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1765" CreationDate="2010-07-31T19:42:49.350" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Rechargeable lithium batteries last a lot longer, if stored at about &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_ion_battery#Shelf_life&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;40-60% charge&lt;/a&gt;, rather than fully charged; you can then charge them before use, and they'll last a lot longer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the equipment itself; A dry dust free environment will suffice, as long as it's not in an area that will see large or rapid changes in temperature or humidity (so avoid radiators, or direct sunlight)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-31T19:53:14.850" LastActivityDate="2010-07-31T19:53:14.850" />
  <row Id="1768" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1765" CreationDate="2010-07-31T19:53:06.877" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can either store the camera with the lens attached, or separate with lens and camera covers attached.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How to store batteries depends on what kind you are using. Rechargable batteries should be safe to keep in the camera, chemical batteries should definitely be removed as the can leak acid after a long period of storage. The only reason to keep the batteries in the camera would be to not lose the settings (e.g. date and time).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other than that, use common sense. Don't store the equipment in a damp place, in a draught, or in direct sunlight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recently took out my EOS 5D that I put away about a year ago, turned on the power and it's ready to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-07-31T19:53:06.877" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1769" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1774" CreationDate="2010-07-31T19:59:00.920" Score="8" ViewCount="411" Body="&lt;p&gt;While using my old Point and Shoot camera I used to think about post-processing photos in  Photoshop like something unnatural, fake, and deceptive. But after buying DSLR I have not only to think about many parameters like aperture, shutter speed and ISO settings but also about what format to choose for taken pictures: RAW or JPEG. And most of advises are to use RAW.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main advantage of the RAW format is the possibility of post processing without losing quality, so I draw conclusion that post processing is always a necessary part of the process of getting good pictures. Am I right in this conclusion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To what extent is post processing used for getting best (or just good) results by experienced photographers?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="591" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T03:29:33.293" Title="Is post processing always necessary for best results?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;image-processing&gt;" AnswerCount="6" />
  <row Id="1770" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1769" CreationDate="2010-07-31T20:02:59.520" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to be controversial, and say that post processing isn't always required; but then again, that fits my style of photography. As a general rule, my processing stops at processing RAW files (so maybe a slight tweak to exposure or white balance)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll find that some people refuse to show a photo to anyone without at least sharpening, and others live by faux-vintage effects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-07-31T20:02:59.520" />
  <row Id="1771" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1769" CreationDate="2010-07-31T20:37:05.977" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you shoot RAW, some form of post processing is always going to be required, as merely the act of converting an image to JPEG is, technically, post-processing. Additionally, the data in a RAW file needs acting on even to display the image on screen; different RAW renderers will display the same file different ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't speak for Aperture, but when I import RAW files into Lightroom it adds a level of contrast and brightness adjustment just to make the image look reasonable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I suspect you are asking about what is done after this. Personally, I prefer to get an image right in camera, as it is much more satisfying when you do. However, even before digital, a lot of black and white photographs were tweaked in the darkroom, with dodging and burning techniques applied to bring out detail in highlights and shadows. So doing the same in post processing software using local adjustments is, technically, no different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, the final image is the important element. If you are aiming for an effect that can only be achieved in PP, then fair enough; if you're honest about what you have done to a photograph, whether it's cropping to straighten a horizon or desaturating a background, the photo is no less valid than one that has had the bare minimum done to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-07-31T20:37:05.977" />
  <row Id="1772" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1769" CreationDate="2010-07-31T20:39:58.590" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For the &lt;strong&gt;best&lt;/strong&gt; results? Absolutely.  There are always little things you can do to tell the story you want to tell in a better way.  Remove distractions, draw attention to the subject, enhance aesthetic value of hue combinations, adjust contrast or perceived sharpness, change a transition here, shift emphasis, it goes on forever.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, let's define &lt;strong&gt;best&lt;/strong&gt;: there is no better.  In art, best results are subjective,  idealistic and essentially unreachable.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is worth it?  For great results, depends on the photo.  As Da Vinci said: &lt;code&gt;Art is never finished, only abandoned.&lt;/code&gt;  Know when to abandon.  It can be right as it comes out of the camera, after an import preset, or hours on photoshop.  There is a law of diminishing returns in effect, but its shape is different on every shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-02T03:29:33.293" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T03:29:33.293" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1773" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1757" CreationDate="2010-07-31T20:47:27.697" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If BW will enhance your vision, it will enhance your picture too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think BW conversion should start from the idea, from the story you want to tell, from the associations you want to create in the viewers' heads.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BW is usually associated with old, aged, mystic, timeless, gloomy, dismal, noir, dramatic, etc. Associating BW with negative emotions is not a rule, but you're likely to use BW for such purposes more often. Feel free to add your thoughts here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BW can be successfully combined with techniques like &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-key_lighting&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;low key&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-key_lighting&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;high key&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiaroscuro&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;chiaroscuro&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.michaelkenna.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Michael Kenna's work&lt;/a&gt; is worth checking if BW is of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-01T08:20:58.567" LastActivityDate="2010-08-01T08:20:58.567" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-24T00:15:30.820" />
  <row Id="1774" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1769" CreationDate="2010-07-31T21:30:21.957" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It may help to think about post processing in these terms:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When shooting film, you either took the film to the lab, or developed the film yourself. During this &quot;process&quot;, you had the opportunity to further tweak the image to produce the desired effect. In the days of film, it may have been the case that you would have made several test prints until you reached a result that you were happy with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When shooting a digital camera, your camera automatically does &quot;post-process&quot; to produce a JPEG image. The camera has a tiny little computer that does a few specialized calculations on the information captured by the camera's sensor, and produces a &quot;ready-to-print&quot; image. Many cameras offer settings which will allow you to control the &quot;final&quot; output, but ultimately the camera is doing post processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to your question: is post-processing required. Yes. Otherwise you would have meaningless information (a film negative or raw binary data), neither of which would make for a compelling image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now to your question which I think is more &quot;Is it required to edit photos on the computer&quot; for best results. That answer is depends. If you look at my example about the camera's little computer creating the image, think of post-processing with a computer and your brain, as like processing your images with like a NASA super computer. Instead having a little computer constrained by it's own designs, you have a human with all it's strengths and flaws, creativity, life experiences, knowledge, etc manipulating the image. Clearly the human computer has more capacity to create something more than just a mere visual representation of a bunch of sensor data. But that same human can totally screw things up, producing an image that is terrible compared to what was done by in-camera processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I believe getting the best out of your images is a two-phased approach:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Taking the best picture possible with your camera.&lt;/strong&gt; Nail the exposure, frame the subject properly, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Post-processing to enhance your image.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the first point: No amount of post processing can fix a poorly shot image. The closer your initial image is to &quot;perfection&quot; the less time you will need to correct flaws in your image, and the more time you will have to make the tweaks to finish off your image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the second point: there are limits to what you can do with your camera. You may not be always be able to frame your image in a way that is compelling, and removes that unsightly powerline. Or, perhaps you didn't notice the piece of trash that ruins an otherwise lovely shot of your daughter at the park. Whatever the case, the post-processing step can fix these issues, and add the proper enhancements to your photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Me personally: Adobe Lightroom 3 is an integral part of my workflow. I use it to convert my RAW images, and more often than not, apply various settings to each image. However, when I shoot the image, I take care to try and get the best &quot;negative&quot; I can. Additionally I have a mental picture of what I'd like the final output image to look like, and I use tools like Lightroom and Photoshop to achieve that final image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-31T21:38:06.933" LastActivityDate="2010-07-31T21:38:06.933" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1775" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1769" CreationDate="2010-07-31T22:28:49.633" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One way or another, regardless of whether you are using film or digital, post processing must occur. The true, raw, untainted data strait off your sensor is, for lack of a better comparison, no different than an undeveloped negative. You can't do much with an undeveloped negative...it requires &quot;post-processing&quot; to be transformed into something interesting and artistic. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Digital is no different. In most cases, some automatic post processing is occurring with every digital camera, whether you notice it or not. JPEG images are simply raw data that has been passed through a multi-channel tone curve and color processor. RAW images, when imported by a RAW editor, usually get some kind of default tone curve applied to them. Just like a film negative, the raw unprocessed data off of a digital sensor is rather bland, severely lacking contrast and rather uninteresting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Post-processing is an integral and important part of the photographic process. It has been for around a century, and digital really won't change that. What matters is how much post processing you personally think is necessary to produce the vision you had in your minds eye of a scene. If your vision is to reproduce reality as accurately as possible, very little post processing may need to be done...perhaps nothing beyond the default processing applied by a tool like Lightroom or Aperture. On the other hand, if you wish for your work to represent an artistic view of the world, or tell a story beyond the starkness of reality, then additional post processing will be &lt;em&gt;beneficial&lt;/em&gt; to your ultimate goals. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no real &quot;right&quot; way to do photography. It is a personal thing, when you boil it all down, and each individual needs to explore the options and choose for themselves what kind of photograph they want to create. Post processing, just like the camera and lens, is a tool to help you visualize reality. It doesn't matter if its &quot;real&quot; or &quot;fake&quot;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some examples of different approaches to post processing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lieveheersbeestje.deviantart.com/gallery/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Vibrantly Artistic&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ample post processing used to produce a surrealistic artistic vision&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://vincentfavre.deviantart.com/gallery/#My-best-&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Stunningly Realistic&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Minimal post processing to approach or enhance true reality&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-07-31T22:40:34.893" LastActivityDate="2010-07-31T22:40:34.893" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="1776" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1777" CreationDate="2010-08-01T02:46:40.727" Score="9" ViewCount="156" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm considering buying a DSLR from a friend. I've read the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1060/what-should-one-look-for-when-buying-a-used-lens&quot;&gt;used lens&lt;/a&gt; question elsewhere on this site, but I was wondering what I should look at on the body to assess the condition?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="672" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T19:05:23.983" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T19:05:23.983" Title="What should I look out for when buying a second-hand DSLR body?" Tags="&lt;used-equipment&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1777" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1776" CreationDate="2010-08-01T02:59:38.700" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A couple of things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make sure the obvious stuff like autofocus, aperture control, shutter speed actually work.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Check number of shutter actuations. Most bodies have a mean time between failure (MBTF) number for this, so check how close it is.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make sure all connections work. USB, HDMI (if present), Video out.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Battery, charger. Be aware you might need to replace it, depending on the amount of use it has seen.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastActivityDate="2010-08-01T02:59:38.700" />
  <row Id="1778" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1776" CreationDate="2010-08-01T04:38:54.380" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To Add to Josh's answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Check for burned pixel.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Check for scratches on the sensor (you might need a technician review for that so I am not sure how feasible this is). What may seem like dust on the sensor might be a scratch.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="80" LastActivityDate="2010-08-01T04:38:54.380" />
  <row Id="1779" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1788" CreationDate="2010-08-01T06:10:14.883" Score="2" ViewCount="168" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Cannon Rebel XTi. I'm not sure if Cannon has released a series of EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lens) cameras yet, but if not it's inevitable given their comeuppance in the market.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am wondering if the lenses I own for my XTi will be interchangeable with an EVIL body, if I will need an adapter, or if I should be saving my pennies for new lenses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="151" LastActivityDate="2010-08-01T11:29:10.437" ClosedDate="2010-08-01T15:25:33.073" Title="&quot;Classic&quot; lens on new &quot;EVIL&quot; camera body?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;adapter&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1780" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1887" CreationDate="2010-08-01T06:12:43.927" Score="3" ViewCount="193" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are your initial experiences with EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lens) cameras? Are they easier or harder to work with than traditional SLRs? Any tips/tricks for someone who has worked with SLRs in the past on making the transition?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(for those with appropriate rep, please tag accordingly)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="151" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T02:08:57.627" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T02:08:57.627" ClosedDate="2010-08-03T17:50:40.773" Title="&quot;EVIL&quot; Camera Capabilities" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1781" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1776" CreationDate="2010-08-01T06:16:42.560" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;#1) Shutter Actuations. Oh yes. Consumer DSLRs last something like 20-100k. It's a pretty fast thing to hit that. However, that's an estimate. It could go for 10k or 200k, you never know. But the higher the shutter count, the sooner it will fail.&#xA; #2) Check all the things the other guys said: aperture, AF, flash (if it has it), make sure the sensor and viewfinder are free of scratches, make sure the mounting for the lens isn't damaged and doesn't let excess light in.&#xA; #3) Take a picture in a well lit area. Look at it 100% on a computer and check for oddities (scratches, bits missing, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just factor in that you'll be buying a battery. But make sure the charger works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="653" LastActivityDate="2010-08-01T06:16:42.560" />
  <row Id="1782" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1779" CreationDate="2010-08-01T07:16:26.223" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Until Canon release a mirrorless body, there will be no way of knowing if it will support EF or EF-S lenses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-08-01T07:16:26.223" />
  <row Id="1783" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1885" CreationDate="2010-08-01T07:39:44.360" Score="27" ViewCount="833" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tonight I tried my best to take some night landscapes in the darkest of dark conditions.  Hoping for an epic composition of the Milky Way and a landmark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, none of my glass could auto focus with nothing more than dots in the sky to lock on.  I seemed to have the most success by lining up the infinity focus mark on the focus window, however, the 50mm 1.8 has no focus window. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can I set (guess) focus on a lens in relatively complete darkness?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Added for clarity: looking though the viewfinder I see nothing but black. I tried using Live View function to set focus, also, I'm shooting wide open at 2.8 or 1.8 to gather the most amount of light in the shortest exposure so the DoF is short, and the focus needs to be on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="624" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-03T21:46:47.167" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T16:47:57.240" Title="How to focus in complete darkness" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;focus&gt;&lt;low-light&gt;&lt;darkness&gt;" AnswerCount="12" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="9" />
  <row Id="1784" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1783" CreationDate="2010-08-01T07:46:46.637" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unless I'm misunderstanding you, this is what the viewfinder is for. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are options to make things a little easier; You can also use the depth of field preview button if your camera supports it (normally at the bottom, on the opposite side from the shutter, for Canon bodies). You could also use as small an aperture as possible (f/22 or above) to maximise the depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-08-01T07:46:46.637" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1785" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1783" CreationDate="2010-08-01T07:54:17.460" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your choices are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Autofocus using some bright/contrasty point at infinity, switch to manual and don't touch the focus any more (still it's a good idea to verify your focus between shots).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Focus manually (again using some bright point; most of the cameras will confirm focus, if it agrees with you, this can be helpful, but don't rely on it).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Focus using the focusing scale (beware that the teles have a long way between last indicated distance and infinity). It's best to check beforehand if your focus scale is accurate at all focal lengths if you're using a zoom lens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Let the autofocus &quot;saw&quot; and when it can't find anything to focus on, it &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; settle at infinity, now switch to manual and take the shot. Verify this behaviour in good conditions.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use Live View and on-screen zoom for focusing if your camera supports it (there has to be something on your picture, right?).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take the shot and verify if your focus is where it should be by zooming on the screen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If non of this works, it's probably too dark anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can try some focusing aid systems like Canon's ST-E2, but I wouldn't be sure they're good at infinity and you'll probably fall back to point 4.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-12T17:42:07.650" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T17:42:07.650" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1786" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1783" CreationDate="2010-08-01T10:25:36.233" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If your camera supports LiveView, you could try tethering the camera to a laptop, and using Canon's CameraWindow software to get a decent sized image streamed live. It will make it easier to assess the focus. Assuming Canon, of course, but other manufacturers have similar facilities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, use manual focus mode too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="425" LastActivityDate="2010-08-01T10:25:36.233" />
  <row Id="1787" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1783" CreationDate="2010-08-01T10:28:56.603" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know exactly what you're talking about.  The viewfinder is useless in these situations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I do is look for the focus indicator on the lens.  I switch to manual focus, and then using some object that emits light (phone, iPod touch, wristwatch, etc), set the focus to infinity. Then, I'll take the shot (say, f/4 and 15 seconds, more than 15 seconds and you'll get trails as the stars move).  Then I'll check the validity of the focus through reviewing the photo.  I realize that it's not an a priori certitude that you have focus, but since we're dealing with digital, you can burn a few frames.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-08-01T10:28:56.603" />
  <row Id="1788" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1779" CreationDate="2010-08-01T11:29:10.437" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If Canon was to release a mirrorless body and wished to support the EF/EF-S lenses on it, it would require an adapter because the registration distance will have changed. Basically, the gain with mirrorless is a thinner body, so the optical construction of current Canon lenses wouldn't work for it out of the box.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-01T11:29:10.437" />
  <row Id="1789" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1793" CreationDate="2010-08-01T14:03:01.497" Score="17" ViewCount="416" Body="&lt;p&gt;When shooting large group portraits, is there a trick to getting everyone to not blink (other than taking many shots)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="288" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-06T13:46:28.397" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T13:46:28.397" Title="Is there a trick to shooting large group portraits without blinkers?" Tags="&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;blinking&gt;&lt;group-photos&gt;" AnswerCount="5" />
  <row Id="1790" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1792" CreationDate="2010-08-01T14:16:42.353" Score="3" ViewCount="542" Body="&lt;p&gt;Among the Sony lenses there are some types with a DT abbreviation and some are without it. Those having DT called DT-series. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I didn't manage to find out what does DT mean. Could you help me? What is the difference between DT-series lenses and the rest of Sony?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="591" LastEditorUserId="130" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-01T15:23:20.093" LastActivityDate="2011-02-24T10:59:35.820" Title="What is DT series of Sony lenses?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;cropped-sensor&gt;&lt;sony&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1791" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1504" CreationDate="2010-08-01T14:41:23.387" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can use a messenger bag with some additional padding for your gear. Cocotte Equipment makes an excellent &lt;a href=&quot;http://cocotte-equip.com/english/items/fred.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;shoulder bag&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://cocotte-equip.com/english/items/capa.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photo insert&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="201" LastActivityDate="2010-08-01T14:41:23.387" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-01T14:41:23.387" />
  <row Id="1792" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1790" CreationDate="2010-08-01T15:22:28.250" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;DT (Digital Technology - &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Alpha#Designations&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;) means that the lens is designed to work with a cropped sensor camera. It should not be used with a full frame sensor or 35mm film. If you use it with a full frame sensor then some of the image would be black, particularly towards the corners, as the light projected by the lens would not cover the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having a smaller area to project light on to means that lenses can be smaller, lighter and are generally cheaper. However if you later upgraded your DSLR body to one with a full frame sensor you would have to replace the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similar questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/380/what-is-the-difference-between-ef-and-ef-s-lenses&quot;&gt;What is the difference between EF and EF-S lenses?&lt;/a&gt; (Canon)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/840/dx-or-fx-lenses&quot;&gt;DX or FX lenses ?&lt;/a&gt; (Nikon)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-08-01T15:22:28.250" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1793" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1789" CreationDate="2010-08-01T15:36:37.537" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A couple other tips:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bounce flash, and don't use red-eye reduction mode for your flash&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Don't be predictable with when you take the shot. Some folks have a special talent for blinking at the wrong time, so don't let them know when the shot is happening&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Try to avoid having a bunch of other folks taking pictures at the same time. All those other flashes will cause people to blink.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastActivityDate="2010-08-01T15:36:37.537" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1794" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1776" CreationDate="2010-08-01T15:57:54.783" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Consider a refurb -- Adorama usually has a few, and I think you can find them elsewhere, too.  Given the rate of &quot;depreciation&quot; for bodies &amp;amp; lenses, these seem to be very good values, and you'll have the assurance that the equipment has been reviewed by technicians.  In many cases, you'll also get a warranty on these items on top of the savings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-08-01T15:57:54.783" />
  <row Id="1795" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1789" CreationDate="2010-08-01T16:01:35.423" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The trick I've heard is: &lt;strong&gt;have everyone close their eyes, and then open them on your command&lt;/strong&gt; (and you then immediately take the photo). E.g., &quot;Close your eyes.... now open them on 2. 1... 2... 3 [click]&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Caveat is that I haven't actually tried this, but it makes a lot of sense to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-08-01T16:01:35.423" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1796" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1783" CreationDate="2010-08-01T16:08:03.013" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given that you can't see anything at all through the viewfinder, it seems to me like a lens with a distance scale is essential. An older manual focus prime would be ideal, and cheap (especially in 50mm), though I don't recall how much backwards compatibility Canons have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-08-01T16:08:03.013" />
  <row Id="1797" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1769" CreationDate="2010-08-01T16:14:15.693" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I never cease to be impressed with the improvements I see in my photos after post-processing.  Understand that post-processing doesn't necessarily mean that your photos will wind up unnatural.  While that's certainly a possibility if you overdo it, you should be able to generate some good results that look very natural.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-08-01T16:14:15.693" />
  <row Id="1798" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1803" CreationDate="2010-08-01T18:02:23.047" Score="20" ViewCount="459" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a variety of lenses in my camera kit. One that I do not have, and has me curious, is a fisheye lens. I mostly understand what it does: it captures an image with distortion similar to what you see through a door's peephole.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the distortion, are there any particular types of shots for which a fisheye lens is useful?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T07:09:27.630" Title="What can a fisheye lens be useful for?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;fisheye&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="1799" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6" CreationDate="2010-08-01T18:37:31.837" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pros:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Many small strobes and studio lights already have optical triggers built in, so you may already have them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Because optical triggers are often built in, this reduces the number of items you need to carry, as well as the number of interconnects. Fewer parts leaves less room for failure or error.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Optical triggers are inexpensive if you do need to add or replace them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Many optical triggers are built in or powered from the strobe's triggering circuit, so you don't need extra batteries.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Optical triggers (visible light, rather than infrared) just detect the burst of light, so you don't need a system made up of compatible triggers from the same manufacturer. You can mix and match.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you travel, optical triggers can be used anywhere. Radio triggers operate on licensed frequencies which do vary from country to country.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They can work reliably in a studio environment where conditions can be controlled.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Cons:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All these cons boil down to the issue of the reliability of detecting the triggering flash or detecting something &lt;em&gt;other than&lt;/em&gt; the triggering flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Optical triggers can fail in bright sunlight, as there's not enough contrast between the sun and the triggering flash.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Optical triggers are limited in the distance the trigger must be from the triggering flash - the flash needs to be bright enough by the time it hits the trigger.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The triggering flash may be set to a power level for creative purposes that is too low for the trigger to detect. This can force you to change your lighting scheme.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Any object between the triggering flash and the optical trigger can prevent the flash from being detected. This includes modifiers (umbrellas, softboxes etc), flags, the subject, and solid objects like walls. (When shooting interiors, it's common to hide a light on the other side of a doorway or behind a sofa, for example.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An optical trigger usually needs to be facing the direction of the triggering flash, even if there are no blocking objects in between. Otherwise you're relying on reflected light, which may not be powerful enough to trigger the strobe. This can limit light placement options.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Optical triggers are prone to false-positives and can flash with e.g. the reflected light from a passing car. This can cost battery life and cause you to wait for the strobe to recycle.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Optical triggers can be falsely triggered by other people's flashes. If working alongside other photographers, or just members of the public with point-and-shoots, any flash will trigger your lights. If this is happening, you have no options other than to eliminate the source of the flashing or move away.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If any of your equipment issues a pre-flash (used variously for auto-focus assist, red eye reduction etc) an optical trigger will fire before the main flash, often not leaving the triggered light enough time to recycle to flash again for the shutter. The result in your photo will be as if the optically-triggered lights did not fire.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's for reliability reasons that many people choose radio triggers, even inside the studio. Those are not without their problems (most pros for optical triggers are cons for radio), but I think those are out of scope for this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Optical triggers are a good, less expensive solution if you can either control the environment in which they're used, or are happy to deal with a few reliability issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="674" LastEditorUserId="674" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-02T10:31:40.107" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T10:31:40.107" />
  <row Id="1800" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1798" CreationDate="2010-08-01T18:56:05.277" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Seeing a very large field of view at once, in cases where distortion does not matter.&lt;BR/&gt;&#xA;E.g. front doors and security cameras, where you want see what is going on from every angle at once (except behind you).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="106" LastActivityDate="2010-08-01T18:56:05.277" />
  <row Id="1801" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1798" CreationDate="2010-08-01T19:00:23.647" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fisheye lens can be used to pack together some kind of action with environment, and don't mind the distortion (examples: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.corbisimages.com/Enlargement/AAEB001040.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://markjrebilas.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ea07c_1491.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt;). I've also seen some &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2010/03/light-fare-jarvie-window.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;nice portraits&lt;/a&gt; done with fisheye, but that really depends on what you can come up with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, you can &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/learn/fisheye/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;get rid of the distortion&lt;/a&gt; by software conversion and use your fisheye an normal rectilinear ultra-wide lens. (If you don't mind the loss of quality and the fact it's hard to predict what's going to be in the picture after you convert and crop it.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-08-01T19:00:23.647" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1802" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1789" CreationDate="2010-08-01T19:08:56.330" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some people are very good at &quot;TTL blinking&quot; -- they blink when they see TTL metering preflash, and make that just in time to ruin the shot then the flash fires for real. You can prevent that by pre-metering flash exposure. On Canon DSLRs it's done via Flash Exposure Lock (FEL), which is another function of AE lock button.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-08-01T19:08:56.330" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1803" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1798" CreationDate="2010-08-01T20:00:50.513" Score="25" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I started considering the purchase of a fisheye lens I was worried that I wouldn't use too often. Boy, was I wrong. I loved it so much that it actually gave me motivation to take more pictures and it grew to be my favorite lens. Unfortunately I had to sell it when I switched to a full frame camera and now I miss it a lot.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all let's start by clarifying that there are two types of fisheye lenses for SLR cameras:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Cricular - this one usually has a 180° (even more with some lenses) field of view and creates a circular, strongly distorted image in the center of the frame.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Full-frame - this one has slightly narrower (180° diagonally) field of view and produces an image that covers the whole frame with much less distortion.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both types produce images that are significantly distorted but that is either is exactly what you want or it can be corrected with the software, but it certainly doesn't have to look as what you see through a door's peephole.  Situation that I think a fisheye lens is useful are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Close distance sport/action shots - people jumping on bikes, skateboards, snowboard or skis. Fisheye gives a very cool feeling of immersion in that type of shots. I wish I had taken more of those.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Landscape - when all the objects are far away from the camera it is possible to minimize the fisheye appearance by putting the horizon in the center of your image like I tried in the shots below:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/piotrzurek/2155188753/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Sunset from Gannet's POV by Piotr Zurek, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2153/2155188753_000e686aee_m.jpg&quot; width=&quot;240&quot; height=&quot;161&quot; alt=&quot;Sunset from Gannet's POV&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/piotrzurek/1340184862/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;New Chums by Piotr Zurek, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1311/1340184862_7d69fa74fe_m.jpg&quot; width=&quot;240&quot; height=&quot;161&quot; alt=&quot;New Chums&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I'd rather stick to rectilinear wide-angle lenses (like the Nikkor 14-24) for landscape but fisheye can really produce a very compelling result as well. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Interiors/panoramas - fisheye helps shooting in confined spaces. Most professional shots of car or plane interiors are done with fisheye lenses and occasionally stitched together in 360° panoramas. Using a fisheye for panoramas allows to take less shots to cover the whole view.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Other situations where wide field of view is important. Sometimes choosing a good point of view will allow you to reduce the distortion to a point where it doesn't require software correction.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/piotrzurek/1110870857/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Pakiri Beach in B&amp;amp;amp;W by Piotr Zurek, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1340/1110870857_0d217cdd4b_m.jpg&quot; width=&quot;240&quot; height=&quot;161&quot; alt=&quot;Pakiri Beach in B&amp;amp;amp;W&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/piotrzurek/1399412798/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Misty morning by Piotr Zurek, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1272/1399412798_35ed3b557a_m.jpg&quot; width=&quot;240&quot; height=&quot;161&quot; alt=&quot;Misty morning&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bottom line is that I wish for Nikon to release a new FX size fisheye every day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="125" LastEditorUserId="125" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-02T00:51:29.787" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T00:51:29.787" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1804" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-01T20:00:53.803" Score="5" ViewCount="87" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm running out of space on my laptop hard drive and will have to move some of my photos to a portable hard disk or burn them to DVD. Is there a way to keep thumbnails of the photos that I've archived on my laptop, to allow me to search and view them? This way I could save space and then pull the original photo out of my archive if I wanted the original file.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="677" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T00:06:38.317" Title="Archiving digital photos while keeping thumbnails on the original computer" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;backup&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="1805" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1831" CreationDate="2010-08-01T20:04:51.923" Score="11" ViewCount="388" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently saw this scene while on vacation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.markmroden.com/photos/954826819_NaWuq-M.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I would like is for the moon not to be completely blown out, but to also get reflections on the water.  If I expose for the reflections, the moon blows, which is to be expected, since the moon is in daylight.  If I try to create a composite shot combining an exposure to just the moon and this shot, I have problems with the halo around the moon;  the daylight exposure doesn't have it, but the nighttime one does, and that goes past my meager photoshop/lightroom skillset.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a way to get this shot without postproduction, but entirely in-camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-15T15:09:51.270" LastActivityDate="2010-08-15T16:41:51.333" Title="How can I take a picture of the moon as part of a night landscape?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;landscape&gt;&lt;moon&gt;" AnswerCount="6" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="1806" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1805" CreationDate="2010-08-01T20:27:12.820" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could use a long telephoto lens to get a decent-sized moon, and then shade it using a gradual ND filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-08-01T20:27:12.820" />
  <row Id="1807" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1804" CreationDate="2010-08-01T20:33:57.267" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've made a Python script called &lt;a href=&quot;http://github.com/che0/thumbtree&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;thumbtree&lt;/a&gt; for this purpose. It makes a &quot;copy&quot; of directory with images, keeping the structure and file names, but scaling down all the images. I then keep the lower resolution version on my laptop. When I add some pictures to the archive, I just rerun the script and it updates the low-resolution copy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-08-01T20:33:57.267" />
  <row Id="1808" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1805" CreationDate="2010-08-01T21:32:01.027" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, the moon is around &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.calculator.org/calculate-online/photography/exposure.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;16 stops brighter&lt;/a&gt; than the landscape, so short answer: &lt;strong&gt;no&lt;/strong&gt;. I think even with very heavy ND filtering it would be tricky. You're better off doing a simple HDR stack, which you can do without getting the &quot;HDR look&quot;. You might not even need to muck with any HDR software; just put each exposure in a layer and mess with opacity a bit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-08-01T21:32:01.027" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1810" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1804" CreationDate="2010-08-01T23:35:28.190" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Any decent &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_asset_management&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Asset Management&lt;/a&gt; software will do this - it will allow you to index and catalog photos (including a small thumbnail) using its database while the actual files themselves may live on external media (that doesn't need to be attached).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples of programs which do this include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adobe Photoshop Lightroom&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Apple Aperture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Extensis Portfolio&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Expression Media&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-08-01T23:35:28.190" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1811" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1804" CreationDate="2010-08-02T00:06:38.317" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use ThumbsPlus from Cerious software. It stores the thumbnails in a database, with tags and other information. Set the thumbnail size to 200x200 or so if you really want to be able to figure out what you had.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd keep a local set of the photos downsized to screen resolution and highly jpeg compressed on the laptop as another option. This might allow you to have all of them accessible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another thing would be to get one of the 320Gb USB powered drives that are now less than US$80 everywhere, and put your photos on that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="680" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T00:06:38.317" />
  <row Id="1812" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1776" CreationDate="2010-08-02T01:47:32.797" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's like buying a used BMW.  Learn about your seller, and see if they are someone who would baby their equipment.  If they have a website, go to the website and look at the photos.  If they're a beginner, there is a chance they don't know how to care much for their equipment yet.  The perfect person to buy from is a budding intermediate amateur/professional who is upgrading to a professional body, and selling the lower end body to raise funds.  Also, a good sign of someone who takes care of their camera is someone who still has the box, receipt, packaging, and manuals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="309" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T01:47:32.797" />
  <row Id="1813" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1815" CreationDate="2010-08-02T01:48:57.943" Score="5" ViewCount="119" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a basic home studio setup now, and I want to get better at using it. So far I've just been shooting away at the dog, and a couple stuffed animals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I really don't have any feel for lighting subjects with multiple lights--it's pretty much all trial and error. I'm hoping to pickup a digital lightmeter within the coming weeks, so until then I just run around, make some changes, and snap away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems like the most backwards way to learn how to shoot in a studio setup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are some exercises, or studies that I can do that will help me get better at studio photography?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm interested in both still life shots, as well as single and family portraits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T10:45:06.207" Title="Home Studio Exercises/Studies?" Tags="&lt;studio&gt;&lt;studio-lighting&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="1814" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1717" CreationDate="2010-08-02T02:19:00.413" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I mentioned in my comment above, the camera manufacturer can sometimes offer an excellent RAW-&gt;JPG convertor.  One reason to use the manufacturer's software is that no one else knows better how to interpret the RAW information.  All the light and lens-specific data especially can be quite tricky to fully interpret and post-process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Nikon world, there's ViewNX, which ships for free with the DSLRs and is also downloadable for free &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Imaging-Software/NVNX/ViewNX.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  It's excellent for first-pass editing of photos, including Exposure, White Balance, Sharpness, Contrast, Brightness, Highlight and Shadow Protection (very impressive), Color Booster, D-Lighting HS, and Axial Color Aberration.  You can also do all your Metadata edits here.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, it's not as full-featured as their expensive, and terribly slow pay version: CaptureNX.  And also not surprisingly, Nikon inhibits you from one very basic editing option in ViewNX, which is photo cropping (with the hopes that you'll buy CaptureNX just to be able to crop?).  So sometimes I'll do my first pass of major edits in ViewNX, convert to RAW in ViewNX, and then crop the JPG in Picasa.  Cumbersome, but free and still very high quality.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure Canon probably offers something similar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="309" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T02:19:00.413" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-04T16:23:29.083" />
  <row Id="1815" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1813" CreationDate="2010-08-02T02:34:23.980" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strobist: Lighting 101&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also jump into &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fotoflock.com/index.php/learn-photography/tips-tricks/29-tips-and-tricks/5571-strobist-photography-lighting-and-basic-setups&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;basic lighting setups&lt;/a&gt; to experiment with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-02T02:39:45.137" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T02:39:45.137" />
  <row Id="1816" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1813" CreationDate="2010-08-02T04:16:52.990" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You say you've been photographing your dog somewhat dismissively, but IMO s/he would be a wonderful subject; I smell huge opportunity to make some really winning portraits of him/her. Good pet portraits are tricky, so it's a deep subject. I don't have any experience in studio lighting, so I can't help there, but if the dog is willing to hang out and be photographed over and over, I'd suggest some super high quality portraits of him/her as an initial goal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T04:16:52.990" />
  <row Id="1817" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1824" CreationDate="2010-08-02T04:24:19.287" Score="5" ViewCount="134" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is related to &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/833/is-image-stabilization-better-in-the-lens-or-the-body&quot;&gt;&quot;Is Image Stabilization better in the lens or the body?&quot;&lt;/a&gt; - there are lenses with stabilization built-in, and there are bodies with it built-in.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What if a stabilizing lens is combined with a stabilizing body?  Would the result be over-compensated, making as bad a mess as the original, or would the camera stabilization attempt to correct any residual motion the lens didn't compensate for?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="637" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-02T19:40:53.560" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T19:40:53.560" Title="What happens if stabilization is in the lens and also the body?" Tags="&lt;image-stabilization&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="1818" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1817" CreationDate="2010-08-02T04:37:11.380" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, it would be over-compensated: The lens and body stabilization systems don't communicate with each other.  You should disable one or the other.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe there were more standardized tests done on forums, but here is &lt;a href=&quot;http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&amp;amp;sl=ja&amp;amp;tl=en&amp;amp;zn=en&amp;amp;u=http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/review/special/20090908_313599.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;one&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-02T04:45:48.687" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T04:45:48.687" />
  <row Id="1819" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1817" CreationDate="2010-08-02T04:52:57.027" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's certainly plausible that a system could evolve that used both, and it's plausible that it might work better (since they have different strengths). But it would be more expensive, so I doubt anyone would ever build such a system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe you can actually do this (e.g. see Eruditass' answer, and perhaps in the 4/3 cameras?), but as mentioned, if the two systems don't communicate, they will overcompensate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T04:52:57.027" />
  <row Id="1820" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-02T04:53:17.430" Score="5" ViewCount="254" Body="&lt;p&gt;In astronomy, telescopes are most commonly built with mirrors, but there are refractors using lenses.  All cameras I know of for Earthly purposes - portraits, landscapes, etc - use only lenses, not mirrors.  Are they some special purpose cameras based on mirrors, other than for astrophotography?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="637" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T02:08:02.433" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T15:23:01.407" Title="Cameras using mirrors instead of lenses?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;astrophotography&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="1821" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1828" CreationDate="2010-08-02T05:08:07.890" Score="5" ViewCount="123" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to photograph rooms and spaces indoors, and covered areas outdoors, and get good measurements of illumination.  Light sources will be sun, sky, and artificial.   Another use is to photograph materials side by side with a variety of reflectivities, to get accurate measures of those reflectivities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can handle the physics - watts per steradian square meters and all that.  I just need a camera where I  can be sure pixel  values are proportional to physical illumination - no built-in gamma correction or curves or other enhancements etc.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could use RAW but I'd prefer to use ordinary formats for smaller size.  Of coure 8-bit/channel formats will give me only 256 distinct values; I can live with that, since I can widely bracket exposures.  There is no motion to be concerned about.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which off the shelf cameras are most suitable for this use?  Or alternatively, how to test a given camera for linearity and accuracy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="637" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T02:07:39.000" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T02:07:39.000" Title="Camera with good linear light response for photometric accuracy?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;calibration&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1822" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1820" CreationDate="2010-08-02T05:40:18.477" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are mirrors available for most SLR cameras, but their limitations make them fairly special purpose instruments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Most use catadioptric mirrors, which have a central obstruction that limits the minimum focal length that can be used -- it would be very difficult to keep the central obstruction small enough for the focal lengths most photographers use most of the time.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The central obstruction leads to out of focus highlights being &quot;donut&quot; shaped, which is often deemed unattractive. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A camera lens normally needs an adjustable aperture, which is relatively difficult with a mirror. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;mirrors typically give relatively low contrast compared to lenses.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The primary reason to use a mirror in the first place is for really large apertures; you can support the back of a large mirror, where a lens can only be supported at the edges. Almost no camera lens is large enough for this to really become an issue -- for example, a 600mm f/4 still only has a ~150 mm (6 inch) aperture.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: @Marc raises a good point: to be at all fair, I should probably point out some of the strengths of mirrors:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Catadioptrics are usually quite short for focal length (thanks to folded light path).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Usually quite light&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Often Inexpensive (especially used -- and they're often &lt;em&gt;barely&lt;/em&gt; used).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A &lt;em&gt;pure&lt;/em&gt; mirror (with no transmission through glass) eliminates chromatic aberration.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-03T15:03:15.410" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T15:03:15.410" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1823" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1821" CreationDate="2010-08-02T07:32:47.663" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that most cameras would work for this, provided that they produce RAW (or DNG) files and that they have manual exposure settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't use the RAW format, the image will be processed. This usually means that some curve is applied, and it always means that you lose some information. The RAW format usually has higher data resolution (e.g. 12 bits per pixel instead of 8), and the JPEG compression throws away a lot of information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think that you can get a completely linear result out of any camera, the chip is simply not designed with a completely linear response as the most important aspect. So, you still would need an adjustment curve to translate the pixel values into luminance values. You can photograph a grayscale to determine the response for each tone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should use manual settings in the camera to get a consistent result. You can have different settings for different amount of light, but as the response is not completely linear, I think that you need a separate adjustment curve for each setting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T07:32:47.663" />
  <row Id="1824" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1817" CreationDate="2010-08-02T08:14:37.140" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the stabilisation in the camera is digital (i.e. analyses the image to do corrections), it would work with a stabilising lens. However, the stabilisation in the camera would only add anything when the movements are too much for the lens to handle on it's own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they are both mechanical, they react to movement of the camera instead of movement of the picture, so together they would overcompensate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T08:14:37.140" />
  <row Id="1825" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1827" CreationDate="2010-08-02T08:30:04.827" Score="13" ViewCount="161" Body="&lt;p&gt;I hear photographers talk about the inverse-square law, particularly with reference to lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is this law about, and most importantly, how is it applied to lighting for photography?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="674" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T04:19:25.093" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T04:19:25.093" Title="What is the inverse-square law, and how does it apply to lighting for photography?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;science&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="1826" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1825" CreationDate="2010-08-02T08:58:32.387" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The inverse square is the proportion between the light intensity and the distance to the light source. At double the distance, the light is one fourth (1/2*2).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This applies to anything that spreads in all directions from a source, as the area of a sphere is proportional to the square of the radius.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if you move a lamp/flash away from the model, the light is reduced by the square of the distance. If you move the lamp from 1 meters to 2 meters, the light gets two stops weaker (1/2*2 = 1/4). If you move the lamp from 1 to 3 meters, the light gets a little more than three stops weaker (1/3*3 = 1/9).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T08:58:32.387" />
  <row Id="1827" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1825" CreationDate="2010-08-02T09:20:42.720" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The law states: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;If you double your distance from a light source, the amount of light reaching you drops to a quarter of what it was.&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More generally: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;If you multiply your distance from a light source by X, the amount of light reaching you will drop by a factor of X^2 (X squared)&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As is often the case, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; explains this very nicely (with a nice graphic, too).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Use for photographers&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means that you don't have to move very much relative to your light source in order to see a big change in the amount of light.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if you are lighting a subject with a strobe, you only have to move the strobe a little closer or further away to achieve a big difference in the amount of light reaching the subject.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T09:20:42.720" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1828" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1821" CreationDate="2010-08-02T09:24:53.610" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It sounds like you need a scientific imaging device.  I was told when I worked with these things that scientific grade CCD imaging devices are the most linear devices known to man, in contrast to the imagers discussed by @Guffa.  I'm talking about cameras made by photometrics, pco (the sensicam), or devices made for astrophotography or microscopy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These imagers are distinct from commercial grade imaging devices in that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No lens.  You have to supply that; this is a pure detector.  The mount is typically C or F mount.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There are no hot pixels or cold pixels (at least in the $20k/chip range).  If there are, return to the manufacturer for a replacement.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A few years back, 1280x1024x8fps was considered very good.  Maybe they've gotten larger since then, I don't know.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You can bin (combine pixels to increase the sensitivity of the device, and decrease the spatial resolution).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The logic for reading pixels from the device is very good.  On older (over ten years) devices, there was a slight error when moving pixel values from one pixel to the next to read out the value at the Analog/Digital converter at the edge of the chip.  That error is essentially zero in modern devices.  Contrast this with CMOS imagers, where the readout happens on each pixel (and so the A/D conversion may not be the same from pixel to pixel). &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The chip is cooled, usually to -20 to -40 C, so as to minimize noise.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Part of the manufacturer's specification is the Quantum Efficiency, or the percentage chance that a photon will be converted to an electron and recorded.  A backthinned CCD might have a QE of around 70-90% for a green (450nm) photon, whereas others might be more in the 25-45% range.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;These imagers are pure black and white, recording a spectrum that is indicated by the manufacturer and can go into the IR and UV ranges.  Most glass will cut UV (you have to get special glass or quartz to let it pass), but IR will probably need some more filtering.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sum of these distinctions means that the value of each pixel correlates very highly with the number of photons that struck the physical location of the pixel.  With a commercial camera, you have no guarantees that pixels will behave the same as one another (and in fact, it's a good bet that they don't), or that they behave the same way from image to image.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With this class of device, you'll know the exact amount of flux for any given pixel, within the boundaries of noise.  Image averaging then becomes the best way to handle noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That level of information may be too much for what you want.  If you need to go commercial grade, then here's a way to go:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Get a Sigma imaging chip (Foveon).  These were originally made for the scientific imaging  market.  The advantage of this chip is that each pixel is red, green, and blue overlapping each other, rather than using a Bayer sensor, where the pixel pattern is not overlapping.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use this camera only at iso 100.  Don't go to the other iso's.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Place the camera in front of a light source of known output at a known distance.  The flatter this illumination (ie, goes from edge to edge of the camera), the better.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Record images at a given exposure time, and then either modify the exposure time to change the apparent flux at the sensor, or change your light source.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;From this set of images, create a curve that shows the average pixel value in red, green, and blue for a known flux.  That way, you can translate pixel intensity to flux.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you had a completely flat illumination profile, you can also describe the behavior of your lens viz edge dropoff.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From here, you can take a picture of a room (or something else) in controlled conditions where you know what the answer is and validate your curves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T09:24:53.610" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1829" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1836" CreationDate="2010-08-02T09:34:14.380" Score="7" ViewCount="154" Body="&lt;p&gt;My current workflow as regards color spaces is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shoot in Adobe98 colorspace in RAW.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Process on a calibrated Mac monitor (I believe that the gamma is 2.2) using Lightroom&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Produce jpgs in sRGB for web deployment.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Upload said images to a website where people can buy them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My problem is this: the colors in lightroom don't match the colors of the images on the website, even when viewed on the same monitor.  I assume that that's because of the change in color spaces.  Should I maintain an adobe colorspace all the way, then?  Is it safe to assume that browsers will be able to read and interpret color spaces other than sRGB?  And how to deal with a potential customer who doesn't have a calibrated monitor, and therefore sees a different version of the image than the one I've made?  That last can lead to them either not buying the image because they don't like the color, or them buying the image and getting frustrated that the colors don't match (aren't as vibrant, etc) as what they're expecting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-03T09:06:30.387" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T11:11:27.870" Title="What workflow will preserve color accuracy?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;workflow&gt;&lt;color-management&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1830" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="701" CreationDate="2010-08-02T09:43:29.373" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As others have mentioned, Aperture 3 supports brushing in and out of adjustments on selected areas of the photo. As with a most image repair, you have to try a few things to see which technique works best for the photo in hand, but some adjustments to try:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Highlights/Shadows adjustment may bring back some detail, or can be used to reduce brightness of the highlights.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you shot RAW, the Recovery slider under Exposure may also be able to bring back some detail.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Again, if you shot RAW, try reducing the Boost slider in the RAW settings (usually right at the top of the adjustments panel).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Burn tool, used carefully, may help you to lessen the contrast of the blown out areas.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When brushing in any adjustments there are a couple of finer settings which may help:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Detect Edges should enable you to brush up to an edge of high contrast and not have the brush 'paint over the line'.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you click the little arrow top right of the brush HUD panel, there's an option to select the tone range the brush should apply to. In this case, you'd want to select Highlights. This will also stop you accidentally applying the adjustment to the wrong areas.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The brush HUD panel has options to brush in and out, but there's also a feather option. Once you're done with brushing in, use the feather to blend the edges of the adjustment to make it less noticeable.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Aperture is non-destructive, you have nothing to lose in just trying stuff out. You can always undo or revert.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="674" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T09:43:29.373" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1831" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1805" CreationDate="2010-08-02T10:39:09.273" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just take two shots.  One to get properly exposed reflections (and a blown moon), and another to get a properly exposed moon (and everything else pretty much black).  In Photoshop, copy and paste the properly exposed moon on top of the other image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't want the halo, copy and paste the entire sky in the top right corner of your picture.  If you take both your shots from the exact same position, you can create a mask that covers the top right corner of your image until the edge of the hill.  If you then paste your moon shot on top, only the top right corner will be replaced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I think your shot with the overexposed moon is just fine.  It balances with the overexposed light in the bottom left corner.  The moon's halo makes the hill's edge visible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T10:39:09.273" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1832" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1813" CreationDate="2010-08-02T10:45:06.207" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I second &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;strobist.com&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, check out this book:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1600593356&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Portrait Photography by Steve Sint&lt;/a&gt;.  It contains the best lighting primer I have come across.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T10:45:06.207" />
  <row Id="1833" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1829" CreationDate="2010-08-02T10:45:39.733" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you convert the image from one color space to another, the colors won't change (except the colors that fall outside what the color space can represent). The image data is converted so that it's interpreted with the new color space to the same color as previously.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you replace the color space without converting the image, the image data will just be interpreted using the new color space and the colors will change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally programs like browsers doesn't use the color space information in images, so they are displayed without conversion. So, you should convert the images to sRGB for a consistent look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dealing with customers that doesn't have a calibrated monitor is problematic, as you only have full control over your part of the process. You can only inform them about what this means and how the results may differ. One method that is used sometimes is to provide an image of a grayscale spectrum, so that they at least can check that their contrast and brightness settings aren't completely off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T10:45:39.733" />
  <row Id="1834" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1817" CreationDate="2010-08-02T11:10:26.373" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Until a manufacturer offers such a combination, then we can only hypothesise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only case where I could see this being developed/useful, would be if the correction method differed between the two, for example, the lens may correct for vibration, whilst the body could potentially correct rotation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If both were trying to solve the same type of problem (e.g. vibration), then you may end up with the camera disabling its stabilisation when a stabilised lens attached (or vice versa), so they didn't both try and fix the problem (leading to over-compensation), on the logic that one of them would have &quot;more advanced&quot; stabilisation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T11:10:26.373" />
  <row Id="1835" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1230" CreationDate="2010-08-02T11:58:59.267" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One factor to consider is the company and other products surrounding each application. Adobe has a strong background in image editing apps, notably with Photoshop. Apple is a relative newcomer to the field, with other pro-level creative apps, but nothing in the area of image editing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one was to speculate (and to be clear, this &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; speculation) about the future paths of both products, it would make sense to me that Adobe would not want to develop Lightroom to a point where it seriously competes with Photoshop. From a business perspective, they want photographers to buy Lightroom &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; Photoshop, so it makes sense that they'd look to keep the editing capabilities of Lightroom a good few steps behind Photoshop at all times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apple, on the other hand, has nothing to lose. Their goal is to make the editing features in Aperture as good as possible, with no concerns about protecting the revenue of other products. There are user-experience and workflow benefits to be had if they can improve the editing tools in Aperture to a point where a photographer no longer needs to use Photoshop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, that depends on Apple's ability to deliver. Aperture 3 is an excellent tool, but do they have the skills to be able to keep up with the experienced engineers at Adobe? Is Apple willing to keep up the investment in Aperture at that level?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One could speculate that Adobe will always artificially limit the capabilities of Lightroom, whereas Apple has the ability to steal a march with Aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="674" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T11:58:59.267" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1836" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1829" CreationDate="2010-08-02T12:52:02.187" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You need to be embedding a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICC_profile&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;color profile&lt;/a&gt; in you image, as also using a browser that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;supports color management&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, like &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1829/what-workflow-will-preserve-color-accuracy/1833#1833&quot;&gt;Guffa said&lt;/a&gt; even with correct color management on your part, using color profiles and a calibrated monitor, you can't really control their computer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T12:52:02.187" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1837" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1821" CreationDate="2010-08-02T14:32:18.533" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you must shoot JPEG, make sure the camera has good customizable image settings.  Turn contrast down, and any kind of highlight or shadow correction off.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, on my camera, if I shoot Natural mode with Contrast-4, Sharpness-4, it is close to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxkx/page17.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;linear&lt;/a&gt;.See if you can ask dpreview how their tests are made, or just go through all of their reviews as they do have tone curves.  From what I gather, most other manufacturers (in my class) do not allow linear uncompensated highlights to the extent of the Pentax.  Look at the link under &lt;code&gt;Dynamic Range compared&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;Contrast&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T14:32:18.533" />
  <row Id="1838" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1841" CreationDate="2010-08-02T14:33:55.630" Score="10" ViewCount="875" Body="&lt;p&gt;This may well be a question to which the answer is &quot;can't be done,&quot; but I was wondering whether it was possible to convert a film SLR to a DSLR by putting a sensor in place of the film. I have a bunch of old bodies and lenses which I would love to be able to use, but I just don't want to mess around with film, so I was wondering whether it's possible to convert them to take digital images. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="649" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T02:06:38.957" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T07:15:57.810" Title="Is it possible to convert a film SLR to digital?" Tags="&lt;digital-vs-film&gt;&lt;body&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1839" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1820" CreationDate="2010-08-02T14:37:15.027" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some mirror based lenses, such as Nikkor 500 f/8 mirror. You can see it here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5008.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5008.htm&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It does confirm what Jerry wrote, that all mirror lenses are fixed aperture and with high focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T14:37:15.027" />
  <row Id="1840" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1838" CreationDate="2010-08-02T14:44:28.270" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Kodak actually did this by converting a Nikon F5 into their Kodak DCS line. But I assume you are talking DIY kinda thing? I am not sure that it's worth the effort. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have old lenses, some or most are still usable in the digital world. Like my old manual Nikkor lenses are usable with my Nikon DSLR. You can also sell you old film bodies and get a used DSLR ... Something like Nikon D70 or D50 are really cheap now. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What brand are your old equipments?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T14:44:28.270" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1841" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1838" CreationDate="2010-08-02T15:00:24.910" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This has certainly been done with medium format SLRs that have interchangeable backs (e.g., Leaf and Phase One backs).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a 35mm camera, the situation isn't nearly so positive. There was once a company that claimed to be working on a digital sensor that would be shaped like a 35mm film cannister with the sensor sticking out roughly like the film tongue. I'm reasonably certain they never produced even a partially working prototype, and even more certain they never put a product onto the market. Personally, I rather doubt it could be done. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, the market opportunity for such a product is mostly past -- the vast majority of people who want to shoot digital have given up on the idea and bought digital bodies. Most have upgraded at least once by now, so used digital bodies are fairly common and quite reasonably priced...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T15:00:24.910" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="1842" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-02T15:56:04.857" Score="6" ViewCount="162" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are some key items to bring for a family (i.e., children, parents, pets) photoshoot?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="477" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-06T13:49:17.273" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T13:49:17.273" Title="What do I need for a camera kit for a family photoshoot?" Tags="&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;children&gt;&lt;group-photos&gt;&lt;pets&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1843" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-02T16:07:40.373" Score="4" ViewCount="176" Body="&lt;p&gt;The other day I wanted to take a picture with my 50D. I turned it on, aimed and when I wanted to take the picture my camera froze when saving the picture. The red light was still lit but I could not do anything anymore. Even turning the camera off did not work (it did not turn off). So I removed the battery and re-inserted it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then I tried the Live-View mode and everytime the image starts to appear on the LCD screen the 50D freezes. Does anyone know what this might be?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="683" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T02:05:59.630" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T02:05:59.630" Title="Canon EOS 50D can't save pictures anymore" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;canon-50d&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="1844" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1842" CreationDate="2010-08-02T16:13:47.387" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Patience&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Camera&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lots of Memory&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sense of humor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Napkins/tissues/paper towels for cleaning up faces (depending on ages of subjects)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Brush/comb and maybe detangling solution&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Patience&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="649" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T16:13:47.387" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1845" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1798" CreationDate="2010-08-02T16:22:15.583" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Back when I was a photographer at parties, I used my Tokina 10-17 fisheye ZOOM lens quite effectively to pack a bunch of people together with some scenery and a bit of a creative touch. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/groovbird/2843052087/in/set-72157607199920494/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; for an example. The fisheye zoom had the advantage that you could make the effect bigger or smaller, depending on the occasion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="92" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T16:22:15.583" />
  <row Id="1846" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-02T16:32:50.190" Score="9" ViewCount="308" Body="&lt;p&gt;What colour of clothing do you recommend your clients wear during a portrait photo session?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recently completed an urban photo shoot where the colour of my client's dress gave an odd cast to some of the photos. Do you recommend clothing choices and colours based on your background?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="477" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T04:27:44.963" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T04:27:44.963" Title="Recommended clothing colours for portraits?" Tags="&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;color&gt;&lt;clothing&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1847" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-02T16:36:23.103" Score="3" ViewCount="385" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like the simplicity of iPhoto and all the nice ordering features. But, since I like to manage my library myself (folder names etc) I have not selected the option to import my photos to iPhotos' folder structure, but rather prefer to import my photos to iPhoto but keep them where they are (in my own folders).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One drawback to this, is that when I delete a photo from my iPhoto Library, it won't also delete the original file (even if I empty its trash), which makes iPhoto useless for managing my photos (for example, checking a new batch an deleting the ones I don't like). Has anyone managed to work around this stupid feature of iPhoto?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="253" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T19:06:01.677" Title="Use iPhoto to manage my photos (delete photos from iPhoto)" Tags="&lt;organisation&gt;&lt;photo-management&gt;&lt;iphoto&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="1848" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1843" CreationDate="2010-08-02T16:55:59.410" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It might be something to do with your CF card or the lens, try a different CF card. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is the camera throwing any errors? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had something similar to this and it was due to the lens (70-200mm L) needing to clear all all memory and power from the capacitors. I let the lens sit detached from the body for a few days and all is well now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="335" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T16:55:59.410" />
  <row Id="1849" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1843" CreationDate="2010-08-02T16:57:18.347" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There could be a variety of reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Have you tried a different CF card? Perhaps the CF card you are using has gone south. This is probably the best case scenario, because it's a $30 fix.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Have you tried shooting tethered mode without a CF card? If you can save images directly to your computer, then it's likely that CF-card slot is busted.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Have you tried updating your camera's firmware? Perhaps this is a known issue with the older firmwares.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Have you tried a different lens with your body? It's highly unlikely that it's your lens causes the problem, but I have had lenses cause weird issues with my canon bodies before.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If trying a new CF, a different lens, or updating firmware don't resolve the issue, you'll need to send it in to Canon for repair.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-02T17:39:22.930" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T17:39:22.930" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1850" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1855" CreationDate="2010-08-02T17:44:42.983" Score="5" ViewCount="187" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do you use flashes to achieve an even, well-lit background when photographing a subject against a green or blue chromakey background?  One flash, two? What position? What about light modifiers, like an umbrella or soft box?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T04:29:33.670" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T04:29:33.670" Title="How do you light the background for chroma key work?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;studio-lighting&gt;&lt;background&gt;&lt;chroma-key&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="1851" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1846" CreationDate="2010-08-02T17:49:47.840" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Usually &quot;neutral&quot; color clothing is best. This covers a wide range of colors and quite versatile to work with. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T17:49:47.840" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1852" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1842" CreationDate="2010-08-02T17:54:23.650" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Other than patience, I usually brought these items:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2 speed lights &amp;amp; batteries&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;tripod &amp;amp; 1 light stand&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 silver umbrella, 1 white umbrella&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;multi-color reflector&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;CTO gel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Camera and 24-70 lens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Did I mention patience?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T17:54:23.650" />
  <row Id="1853" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1838" CreationDate="2010-08-02T17:58:32.580" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's highly likely that you can continue to use your existing lenses, but as others have said, probably not possible to get a digital back for your bodies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T17:58:32.580" />
  <row Id="1854" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1846" CreationDate="2010-08-02T18:47:50.750" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In  a studio I used to work in we used to recommend navy blue and burgundies and grays in darker shades. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="685" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T18:47:50.750" />
  <row Id="1855" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1850" CreationDate="2010-08-02T18:54:12.937" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm no expert on this, but my basic understanding is that you generally want two lights, on either side of the background (not at 90 degrees to it), aimed towards the center, far enough back to illuminate evenly, and angled downwards to reduce spill. Continuous lighting is probably better for this, or at least makes it easier to ensure that you're correctly lit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of lighting modifiers, it will depend. If you can control the strengths of the strobes sufficiently, you might not require them. That'll probably require some experimentation. In generally, your background light should be about a stop less than your foreground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, that's a nutshell summary of various articles I've read and hardly an exhaustive tutorial on the subject. For further info, unless we have a real lighting wizard pop in here to fill in better details, you might want to look at what videographers do, it's the same principle just at more frames per second.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, as a final tip, make sure your subject isn't wearing something matching the key. Unless, of course, you're looking to partially remove them. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T18:54:12.937" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1856" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1780" CreationDate="2010-08-02T19:02:43.790" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I personally have not had experience with a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EVIL_camera&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera&lt;/a&gt;, but it seems like the main draw is the smaller size that is possible. They seem to be taking the place of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangefinder_camera&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;rangefinder&lt;/a&gt; in the digital world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are drawbacks, namely the lack of an optical through-the-lens viewfinder, which has always been a draw for some to a DSLR, and the smaller sensor size.  As of yet, there are no full frame &quot;EVIL&quot; cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are not for everyone, but they will certainly have their place when a smaller form factor is important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-03T12:02:07.750" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T12:02:07.750" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1857" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1847" CreationDate="2010-08-02T19:06:01.677" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;iPhoto has an internal file storage system where it saves all the photos for the events, albums etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You notice this, when you select an event and click &quot;Show in folder&quot;. Then you see the whole folder with all the pictures in it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should treat events or albums as your folders. You can give them custom names and everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I have done is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Import all photos to iPhoto&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Delete original files&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Just work with iPhoto (when I want to see the photos in a folder structure, I can choose &quot;Show in folder&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I have heard that you can have an external file storage for your photos with Apperture. This is iPhoto with more functionality for 200 USD, in case you do a lot of work with iPhoto this might be interesting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="683" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T19:06:01.677" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1858" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1850" CreationDate="2010-08-02T19:09:16.363" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;John Cavan's answer is definitely more thorough, but I'll answer from a tiny bit of experience.  I took my kids recently to a Discovery Science museum here in Souther California, and they had a cheap green screen setup with a video camera aimed at it.  The point was to let the kids try on different costumes and dance in front of the camera and see themselves then on the lcd monitor in the &quot;Under Sea&quot; world.  The lighting in there was abysmal, yet things worked just fine on the video screen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of that to say that your best bet is to do some testing and figure out how much light you'll need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="233" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T19:09:16.363" />
  <row Id="1859" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1846" CreationDate="2010-08-02T19:12:34.110" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you've to take your background into consideration.  Suggest they bring multiple sets of outfits in different colors.  Some people tend to think they only look good in black or white, so make sure they bring something with color too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was on a game show once and the big thing they stressed for clothing choice was no white and no black.  Anything with colorful patterns made them happy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="233" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T19:12:34.110" />
  <row Id="1860" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1842" CreationDate="2010-08-02T19:13:51.033" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will add to that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An assistant who can corale people (My wife's family has easily 110 just including the first cousins, so this is necessary for me)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A stool to stand on to get everyone in (again, 110 people)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A wide lens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Keys or jingly/flashy objects to get kids to look at you when everyone else is&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;More patience&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T19:13:51.033" />
  <row Id="1861" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1863" CreationDate="2010-08-02T19:18:15.000" Score="7" ViewCount="244" Body="&lt;p&gt;So I'm in the bright sun with no shade around.  What can I do to minimize over exposure and shadows with just a regular point and shoot?  Should I go into &quot;manual&quot; mode?  If so, which mode and what do I want to tweak?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will not be taking portraits, but rather just general shots like at the beach and parks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="233" LastEditorUserId="233" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-01T19:02:22.457" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T19:02:22.457" Title="How do I compensate for a bright sun with a point and shoot?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;" AnswerCount="6" />
  <row Id="1862" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3808" CreationDate="2010-08-02T19:38:37.183" Score="2" ViewCount="172" Body="&lt;p&gt;My studio is mostly comprised of Alien Bee flashes, so I'm looking to pick up the Cyber Commander from PCB.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The device claims to be lightyears ahead of what other remote trigger solutions, so&#xA;I'd like to hear people's experiences with the Cyber Commander. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T19:04:54.497" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T19:04:54.497" Title="Experience with Paul C Buff's Cyber Commander?" Tags="&lt;studio-lighting&gt;&lt;wireless-triggers&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1863" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1861" CreationDate="2010-08-02T19:51:07.903" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is very dependent on options/modes available in your camera, but there are several things you can try:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Try to get the sun behind you, as that will allow a little more even lighting.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;if your camera has an exposure adjustment, try to decrease the exposure by -.5 to -1.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;if you can, set the iso to the lowest setting possible (100 probably)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end though, during the day under the bright sun is difficult no matter what camera you have.  If you are able, pick a time of day when the sun is not as bright.  Some of the best landscape pictures (and other styles as well) are taken during the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hour_%28photography%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Golden hour&quot;&lt;/a&gt;, the time just after/before sunrise/sunset.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T19:51:07.903" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1864" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1861" CreationDate="2010-08-02T19:51:55.297" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The camera's Program Auto Exposure should do a good job with bright sun shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on the features of your P&amp;amp;S you may have the following options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You use a bracketed exposure, taking several shots of a scene and use post-processing software to combine them into a single exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you notice that the camera is overexposing, you might be able to use &quot;exposure compensation&quot; to dial down the exposure settings by 1,2 or even 3 stops.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Use manual mode, to correct for the camera's overexposure by under exposing&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Avoid taking pictures when the sun as directly overhead (ie try the mornings or evenings)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T19:51:55.297" />
  <row Id="1865" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1869" CreationDate="2010-08-02T19:52:19.833" Score="9" ViewCount="137" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the fill flash technique?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="477" LastEditorUserId="297" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-03T16:10:22.870" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T16:10:22.870" Title="What is a fill flash and how is it used?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;fill-flash&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1866" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1861" CreationDate="2010-08-02T19:52:31.067" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately the high contrast light and shade caused by harsh sunlight cannot really be compensated for, even with high-end cameras. If you want a good exposure, try to shoot with the sun over your shoulder (as long as your shadow isn't in shot) so that most of what you are shooting is evenly lit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's no definite way to tell you how to set your camera. Manual won't give you any different results if you just follow what the camera tells you is correctly exposed, rather than making a judgment yourself on top of that. If you camera doesn't have spot metering, then I'd advise filling the frame with an area of grass that is lit in the same way as your subject, expose for that grass, and keep that setting for your photo. At the beach, the same will work with sand instead of grass if you remember that sand is lighter than grass, about 1.5 stops. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T19:52:31.067" />
  <row Id="1867" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1865" CreationDate="2010-08-02T20:02:28.513" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fill_flash&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fill flash&lt;/a&gt; is a technique, rather than a piece of equipment. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Typically, you'd use some fill in flash if your scene is backlit, with the flash set to a relatively low power setting to lift the shadows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T20:02:28.513" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1868" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1861" CreationDate="2010-08-02T21:16:49.133" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most important thing to do is to reduce the exposure (EV, ISO, shutter speed, and aperture if your camera supports that). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can do that, then you can also try firing your flash (yes, add &lt;em&gt;more&lt;/em&gt; light). When used this way it's called a &quot;fill flash&quot;, and the idea is to raise the brightness of the areas in shadow. When you do that &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; reduce the overall exposure, you'll get a more balanced picture with less hard shadows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, you're at the mercy of your flash here; I doubt most point &amp;amp; shoot cameras will have enough flash power to really compensate for the outdoor light. And that's assuming your camera can reduce the exposure enough to begin with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is where SLRs stand out; they give you more control over what you can do. They also tend to support hot-shoe flashes, which are bigger and more powerful. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastEditorUserId="48" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-04T22:55:07.993" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T22:55:07.993" />
  <row Id="1869" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1865" CreationDate="2010-08-02T21:32:18.267" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like to think of photographic lighting as &quot;adding on&quot; one light source on top of another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Start with your &quot;ambient&quot; light. That's the light that's bouncing off all of the surfaces around you. Think of it as your base lighting. This is what you control by setting your exposure (ISO, shutter, aperture). A lot of dramatic photos are lit by reducing exposure so that the ambient light is (near) complete darkness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, add your &quot;key&quot; light. This is the brightest and &quot;most important&quot; light. It's what lights your subject, from the angle you desire. You adjust the power on your light so that it gives you the correct exposure for the lit areas of your subject. Note that, unless you're lighting a flat/even surface from the same angle as your lens, you're going to get shadows on your subject. (Most of the time this is desirable.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;fill light&lt;/strong&gt; takes those shadows and reduces them: it &quot;fills them in.&quot; It's a light that lights up the areas of shadow on your subject. (If it substantially lights the non-subject areas too, then it might as well just be ambient light.) By definition it has to be less bright on your subject than your key light. Often it will come from the same angle as the camera/lens, but that's not necessarily true. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may not need a fill light, depending on what you're using for your key light &amp;amp; how stark you want your shadows to be. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Fill Flash&quot; is pretty much synonymous with &quot;fill light&quot;, though it does imply using a &quot;burst&quot; light (flash/&quot;strobe&quot;) rather than a &quot;continuous&quot; light (ie: your common household light bulb). But pretty much any light can be potentially used as a fill light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T21:32:18.267" />
  <row Id="1870" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1846" CreationDate="2010-08-02T21:47:54.170" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to take the opposite position as those saying &quot;neutral&quot; or &quot;dark&quot;. I think that color of your model's clothing is such an important element of the content, that you shouldn't try to sedate it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, here's &lt;a href=&quot;http://livepixelsphotography.com/blog/?p=70&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;various&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/julieb85/4666082828/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;portraits&lt;/a&gt; with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidhobby/4636484469/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;bright&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidhobby/4558139496/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;colored&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevencoutts/4842250483/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;clothing&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidhobby/4432230302/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This one&lt;/a&gt; even has &lt;em&gt;four&lt;/em&gt; different clothing colors. And it's still great.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Subject color is too important to give up. You should be working on avoiding the color cast in other ways (lighting, filters, distance to background, Photoshop) first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T21:47:54.170" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1871" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11" CreationDate="2010-08-02T22:05:51.200" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best way for &lt;em&gt;most&lt;/em&gt; photographs is to simply get rid of the noise in post-production using software. In the end, it will be easier &amp;amp; cheaper than most of the other options described here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2010-08-02T22:05:51.200" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1872" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1876" CreationDate="2010-08-03T01:40:15.180" Score="12" ViewCount="216" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have basic idea of what a filter is and what it is used for. I would like to know what are the different types of filters are available and if possible would love to have the following questions answered for each of them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mostly used for 'X' photography&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Price range&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Utility factor (out of 5)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="688" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T02:45:51.063" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T02:45:51.063" Title="Types of filters and their use" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;filters&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="1873" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1861" CreationDate="2010-08-03T01:41:14.773" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One small thing I've found useful is the way I hold the camera. If I focus on an object and tilt the camera a bit down, &lt;em&gt;as if I'm taking the shot from above&lt;/em&gt;, it helps reduce exposure, especially, if the sun is overhead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="175" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T01:41:14.773" />
  <row Id="1874" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1872" CreationDate="2010-08-03T01:54:28.890" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Now that world has mostly moved to digital photography, filters are mostly left too a few specific functions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Using filters to protect their lenses, &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/57/downsides-to-using-a-uv-filter&quot;&gt;though not every photographer agrees with this practice&lt;/a&gt;. Some lenses aren't fully weather sealed unless accompanied by a filter. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Using Circular Polarizer (CPL) to enhance color contrast, reduce reflections when shooting outside in sunlight&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Using a Graduated Neutral Density Filter to darken skys for landscape (though now a days GND's have largely been replaced by bracketed exposures, and composite imaging&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Using a color correcting filters to correct for light color cast. &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/586/are-colour-filters-worth-using-with-digital-cameras&quot;&gt;This is different than using a color filter for B&amp;amp;W, which has now mostly been replaced by post processing RAW images.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Using a Neutral Density Filter for long exposures (really handy for waterfalls). &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prices range from $20 for cheap filters found at large chain brick and mortars, to several hundreds of dollars for multicoated filters by companies that specialize in glass. Filter costs also depend on the size of the filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on your scale of 1-5, I'd say a CPL has a pretty high utility value, 4, while the others are around 2. If you prefer to use a filter to protect your lens then the utility value is at 5.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-03T02:01:00.840" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T02:01:00.840" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1875" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="788" CreationDate="2010-08-03T02:21:12.740" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depending on your location, that list is slightly out of date. IIRC, the XS was dropped, and the 3 'Rebel' cameras are the T2i, T1i, and XSi. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With a budget of ~1000 USD, the 50D is slightly above your price range, and the T2i, slightly below. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 50D will be a slightly nicer, more professional camera than the T2i. As mentioned above, its more of the prosumer line. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the big things upcoming in DSLR's are HD video recording. I personally have the T1i, and love it. The video recording updates on the T2i make this an even better camera at that price. I consider myself just shy of a prosumer when it comes to cameras. Its a hobby and I have done some photo shoots for others, but mostly I do it for fun. And the extra benefit of HD video is nice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If video on a DSLR is of interest to you - go with the T2i and buy the ~ $100 Canon 50mm 1.8 (an very cool lens). You can sometimes find it around $80 as well. If not, get the 50D, and probably get the 50mm lens anyways :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T02:21:12.740" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1876" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1872" CreationDate="2010-08-03T02:25:06.163" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wow... Well, there are a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; of filters out there that are used for a whole variety of purposes, but to cover the high points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;UV Filters&lt;/strong&gt; are designed to reduce or eliminate UV rays coming through the lens. At this point, they're primarily used as lens protection, though the utility of that is debatable (I side on the not so useful side of that argument, but others disagree) versus the possible side effects (such as ghost lights). So, my rating is a 1 there, but that's personal choice and you have to decide if the 'protection' is relevant to you versus the potential side effects.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Color correcting&lt;/strong&gt; filters are designed to help create the correct white balance. For example, to color correct for tungsten light, you might use a 85B filter and that will help ensure that white is, in fact, white when you take the shot. My rating is, again, low, perhaps around a 2 here because white balance is easily corrected if you shoot RAW. This is a film holdover.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;strong&gt;Polarizer&lt;/strong&gt; is designed to cut certain types of glare. There are two types: linear and circular. They are basically the same, a filter that can be rotated to block light perpendicular to the filter axis which, in turn, can cut glare. For modern cameras, the circular polarizer is the one you want as the linear one may interfere with the autofocus function. Bear in mind that when using one, you will lose a couple of stops of light. My rating is a 5 if you ever want to shoot subjects around and through water or glass.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Neutral Density&lt;/strong&gt; filters are designed to reduce light, an action often seen as counter-productive to an entire practice of capturing light. However, the use of ND filters allows for significantly reducing shutter speed under very bright light without effecting the color of the light. Very handy if you want to slow down things like a waterfall to create that dreamy look as the water cascades through the rocks. ND filters come in a variety of strengths and it is a common practice to stack various types as needed to increase the strength. This is a 4 for me because I like water shots of all kinds.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Graduated Neutral Density&lt;/strong&gt; filters are similar to the above except that they reduce their density as they progress. As with standard ND, it's about light reduction, but intended to be more controlled so that, for example, you can reduce the brightness of the sky in order to even out with the brightness of the land. Again, there are various levels of strength, but unlike most of the above, these are best when they are &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; circular and directly affixed to the lens. You want a filter that is much larger than the front of the lens so that you can adjust the position of the gradation as you need for the shot. Cokin makes a good system for this purpose, though you are not limited to their filters if you get the system. Also a 4, though most useful in the landscape world which I don't do a lot of. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Special Effects&lt;/strong&gt; filters run the gamut, including options like a starlight filter that creates a 'star' like effect on light sources. These are all over the map and some can be fun, though you should bear in mind that many are gimicky. Maybe a 3 because of the fun factor, some of which you can achieve through other options such as creative bokeh kits. Still, with the right subject, a special effect filter can produce a cool result.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for all of the above, in regards to price, you get what you pay for to a large degree and it is really all over the map. Better filters aren't cheap and, if you are getting them, it's better to pay the price knowing what you want from it. Having said that, options like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cokin.fr/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cokin filter system&lt;/a&gt; can really help if you have a large lens collection. I went the Cokin route because I have 5 different filter sizes to deal with and I didn't want to be buying certain filters 5 times. Now, Cokin filters are very good, but not great, though the good news is that there are third party manufacturers that produce filters for the system and some of those really are great. I like the system, your mileage may vary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T02:25:06.163" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1877" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1872" CreationDate="2010-08-03T02:26:24.820" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While a lot of the filters can probably be replaced with digital post processing in the work-flow with digital photography today, I feel that the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizer#Circular_Polarizers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Polarizer&lt;/strong&gt; (usually the circular one)&lt;/a&gt; is not yet replaced. The way it can manipulate light is not achieved by digital post-processing techniques (here is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/adobe-photoshop-lightroom-vs-polarizing-filter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;short article to try&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides the UV filter that you would pickup for lens-protection (if nothing else), you should &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.camerafilters.com/pages/cpl.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;check the circular polarizer filters&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/polarizers.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;how to use them&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While you are planning for a polarizer, it would also be useful to check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/polarizers.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;why you need a circular polarizer&lt;/a&gt; (rather than a linear one).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="163" LastEditorUserId="163" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-03T02:31:44.510" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T02:31:44.510" />
  <row Id="1878" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1872" CreationDate="2010-08-03T04:17:47.140" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Other answers cover the typical digital &amp;amp; color film workflow, but the use of filters on B&amp;amp;W film bear mentioning.  Generally speaking, they're intended to alter the contrast and tonality of the scene.  The common ones are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Yellow. Blocks blue light, gives a 'natural' contrast to typical scenes (e.g., the sky is slightly darker than the clouds). Lighter yellows are good for portraits with light skin tones, or to soften skin tones.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Orange. Slightly higher contrast than yellow, not as much as red. Very useful for urban landscapes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Red. Very high contrast, particularly in landscapes; foliage is very dark, as is the sky.  Dark red filters or red+polarizer can produce a black sky and almost day-for-night effect.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Yellow-green. Increases contrast and separates green tones. Good general-purpose landscape filter.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Green. Lightens foliage. Darkens skin tones in portraits, popular for portraits of men.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is just a general overview, there are a number of variations within each color; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jackspcs.com/filters.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;see here for a more-thorough reference&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rating utility is tricky, as it depends on your intentions.  Any B&amp;amp;W film photographer is likely to have at least one out of yellow, yellow-green, orange or (less commonly) red.  So having any filter at all would probably rate at a 5.  And if you're shooting particular subjects regularly, filters that flatter those subjects are also very handy.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-03T17:31:04.320" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T17:31:04.320" />
  <row Id="1879" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1829" CreationDate="2010-08-03T06:58:20.507" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If your only output is web, you can:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;convert RAW directly to sRGB so you eliminate at least one difference between you and the customer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;convert JPGs' from your source color space to sRGB, use conversion preview to see if you're losing anything there&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no point to use anything except sRGB for web as you can't control the customers browser usage. You can't do anything about other peoples' monitors either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: fully color preserving workflow should start with shooting a color reference card and calibrating your camera too :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-03T09:04:14.137" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T09:04:14.137" />
  <row Id="1880" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1882" CreationDate="2010-08-03T07:17:34.487" Score="4" ViewCount="250" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello everyone! I am an amateur photographer, and I have little to no experience in shooting studio photos. There is one subject in particular that interests me more than others in that area - high contrast portrait photos. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is required to achieve a high contrast &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickcrowl37/2498523714/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;light portrait&lt;/a&gt; on a dark/black background and a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/istoica/66273435/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dark portrait&lt;/a&gt; on a light/white background?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a way to do it at home without professional equipment?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="176" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T04:34:24.027" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T04:34:24.027" Title="What do lighting equipment do I need for a high contrast portrait photo?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;studio-lighting&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="1881" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1880" CreationDate="2010-08-03T07:43:47.387" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For the light portrait you use a single light on the model, no ambient light and no light on a dark background. Depending on what type of light you use, you may need something to block the light so that it doesn't fall on the background also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The dark portrait is basically the same, but the light comes more from behind, and the background is lit. It may be possible to light the model and the backgtround with the same light, but it's easier to get the levels right with separate lights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using a single light for portraits is considered to be very difficult, so you may need to experiment a lot to get it right. You should use manual exposure, as the high contrast easily throws off the automatic exposure in the camera (but that is true for most studio photo anyhow).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's certainly possible to do at home with minimal equipment, if you have a suitable background. A directional light and a light meter should help a lot, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-03T07:50:48.587" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T07:50:48.587" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1882" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1880" CreationDate="2010-08-03T08:07:34.427" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe the photos can be made this way:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://vvv.mokrakocicka.cz/gang/lighting-diagram-1280822325.png&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickcrowl37/2498523714/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;light on black&lt;/a&gt; (You don't necesarrily need to have black background to make it look black. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/che_0/845857599/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This photo&lt;/a&gt; was taken in a normal room, I just put the lights on the sides and really close to the toys, so the main direction did not hit the wall, and the subject was so bright that the difference made the wall look black. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/06/lighting-102-12-position-distance.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strobist&lt;/a&gt; for better explanation.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://vvv.mokrakocicka.cz/gang/lighting-diagram-1280822560.png&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/istoica/66273435/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;white background one&lt;/a&gt; (you might get better contrast without the softening sheet and with the light on camera right a bit more to the back)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-03T08:13:58.967" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T08:13:58.967" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1883" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1861" CreationDate="2010-08-03T08:35:22.193" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lot of point &amp;amp; shoot cameras let you half-press the shutter button to lock the focus and exposure settings, so if you can't change them manually you may be able to 'trick' your camera like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Point it at something that that's about the same brightness as your main subject, without the harsh background light&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;While still holding the shutter half down, turn the camera to point back at your main subject&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The camera should still have the focus and exposure settings from before, so you &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; be able to get get a shot with with more shadow detail (at the cost of loosing detail in the highlights)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NOTE:&lt;/strong&gt; Doing it this way also means your camera won't re-focus when you turn it, so you'll want to make sure your &quot;example subject&quot; is close to the same distance away, otherwise it'll be out of focus (which does kind of make this of limited use, but I have found it handy at times)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is probably also more useful for portrait type shots rather than general ones, so might not be much help for you :/&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="40" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T08:35:22.193" />
  <row Id="1884" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1843" CreationDate="2010-08-03T10:44:51.507" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the firmware of your camera is older than version 1.0.3 you need to update the firmware.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;50D camera's with firmware before 1.0.3 sometimes had the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/news/0810/08102802canon50dfirmware.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;issue&lt;/a&gt; you described.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Get the latest firmware (1.0.7) &lt;a href=&quot;http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/firm-e/eos50d/firmware.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. Installation instructions are provided.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T10:44:51.507" />
  <row Id="1885" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1783" CreationDate="2010-08-03T10:56:50.917" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many suggested answers so far assume that you can see &lt;em&gt;something&lt;/em&gt; through the viewfinder or the focal point is close enough to use a focusing aid.  While all great suggestions for &lt;em&gt;low light&lt;/em&gt; focusing, I think you're dealing with no light focusing.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I spend a lot of time photographing similar situations where there is just no light in the viewfinder at all.  The method I use to focus in these situations is trial and error.  I start by setting the lens to infinity focus, capture a frame, check focus, adjust if necessary and take another exposure.  If you're taking 10 minutes exposures, this can be time consuming, in my case I up the ISO for the focus exposures then lower it for the keepers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Trial and error is probably not the answer you're looking for, but it's worked for me for years.  I haven't found a better method of setting focus in zero light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="626" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T10:56:50.917" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1886" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1829" CreationDate="2010-08-03T11:11:27.870" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my experience, when the final production will be in sRGB, use that color profile from start to finish.  In my 10 years, nobody has complained when I deliver sRGB profiled images, nor has anyone requested otherwise.  It saves a lot of headache between editor and web.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="626" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T11:11:27.870" />
  <row Id="1887" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1780" CreationDate="2010-08-03T13:37:59.390" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The major advantage of an electronic viewfinder is the reduced weight do to the absence of a mirror. As pointed out in another answer, this also affects the size. I have not had experiences with such cameras with interchangeable lenses, but I have had various devices with electronic viewfinders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The advantages are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reduced weight and size;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Screen overlays similar to those on compact cameras;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bright display despite dark subject;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Electronic shutter is silent.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The disadvantages are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No screen can replicate the infinite resolution of TTL viewfinders;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Screen preview may be deceiving due to lighting compensation (as is the case on compact cameras);&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Disappearance of the mirror's delightful &lt;em&gt;click-clack&lt;/em&gt; sound.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="692" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T13:37:59.390" />
  <row Id="1888" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1891" CreationDate="2010-08-03T13:38:35.053" Score="8" ViewCount="181" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to work out which DSLR to buy. One of my main use cases is photographing live bands in dimly lit bars. This often involves fast movement (particularly drummers) as well as low light. Which features should I prioritise in a camera for shooting in this environment?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="672" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T04:37:29.423" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T04:37:29.423" Title="What features should I look for in a DSLR to shoot live bands?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;low-light&gt;&lt;concert&gt;&lt;motion-blur&gt;" AnswerCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1889" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1888" CreationDate="2010-08-03T13:44:48.440" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The single biggest feature will be strong high ISO performance. There are a number of cameras that fit that, much will depend on your budget. In general, the full-frame dSLR options will perform very well at high ISO, but in the more budget realm, the current king of the heap seems to be the Pentax K-x. After that, you need fast lenses, the wider the aperture the better. So, things like a 50mm f/1.4 and the like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's just the basics for low light, but I think there are some concert shooters on the site that can give you some good tips on that as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T13:44:48.440" />
  <row Id="1890" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1783" CreationDate="2010-08-03T13:52:43.443" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another option would be to get to your scene early, focus on your target (either manually or automatically), then, making sure the focus is back to manual mode, leave the camera there on a tripod and don't touch a thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="204" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T13:52:43.443" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1891" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1888" CreationDate="2010-08-03T14:40:20.693" Score="17" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most important body features are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The max ISO levels (and the noise levels at high ISO)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Low light shooting is much easier at high ISO settings, but many lower end cameras have trouble with noise as you increase the iso. A good indication of the high ISO performance can be found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Sensor-rankings/List-view&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.dxomark.com&lt;/a&gt; by looking at their &quot;Sports (ISO)&quot; rating for the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The camera's low light AF performance.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some cameras simply do not handle autofocus in low light as well as others.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The camera's continuous shooting fps.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get the right shot, many use continuous shooting to take a series of shots with the idea that at least one in the series will be sharp.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moving away from the body, also keep in mind that a fast lens (nifty fifty or similar) will help both the exposure and the camera's ability to auto focus.  Also, In some situations you may want to use a flash.  An off-camera flashgun is a good candidate to avoid the direct glare on the cymbals/guitars, but this is often not possible since it distracts from the show.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-03T14:51:28.310" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T14:51:28.310" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1892" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1896" CreationDate="2010-08-03T14:52:51.130" Score="9" ViewCount="130" Body="&lt;p&gt;My camera uses AAA batteries, and I have a few sets of NiMH AAAs.  I know that these are only good for a certain number of charge cycles, but how can I tell when it's time to replace them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been charging each AAA by itself, then immediately testing it - if it doesn't show &quot;green&quot;, then I assume it's dying. (I have Sanyo smart charger, which shows power as red/yellow/green.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a better way to test them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="134" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-30T00:26:14.497" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T19:12:08.170" Title="How can I tell when it's time to replace (not just change) my rechargeable batteries?" Tags="&lt;batteries&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1894" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="295" CreationDate="2010-08-03T15:09:01.247" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://picasa.google.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PicasaWeb&lt;/a&gt; provides great value for money with large capacity for little money. The integration into Google services is also excellent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used to be a big Flickr supporter but their censorship and deletion of accounts without recourse bothered me too much to continue to pay them money as a Pro member.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another factor is whether you are interested in the Social aspects of photography or not. Flickr is obviously big with the Social aspects, others not so much, but more about storage or pics and presentation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PicasaWeb has similar Social functions as Flickr but in a very early days version, but it is getting better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PicasaWeb I think also has better privacy controls than Flickr, but I am sure others will disagree. Sharing is really easy on it to as all you do is share an album or picture with those you can email.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be cautious with using Facebook for photo storage/sharing as it only keeps a very low resolution version of your pics that can't be downloaded in a good format for say printing should you wish to provide that type of access. However as noted here it does have good people tagging if your friends and family are also on Facebook. These are also available on Flickr and PicasaWeb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T17:29:40.260" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-03T15:09:01.247" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1895" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1892" CreationDate="2010-08-03T15:22:28.417" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a really simplistic answer, and I assume that the issue is that you don't know which of several batteries is bad, in which case this answer doesn't help, but on the off chance this helps: you need to change the batteries when they no longer hold a charge. In the future, you can deal with this by creating sets of batteries that you keep together (1 set in camera, 1 set in charger), so that when a set stops holding a charge, you get rid of that set (even if not all are quite dead yet, because they've had the same number of charge cycles, they'll at least be pretty much done at the same time). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="649" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T15:22:28.417" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1896" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1892" CreationDate="2010-08-03T15:26:00.380" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are battery managers that can be used to detect this and, in many cases, rejuvenate the battery. This &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stefanv.com/electronics/using_nimh.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;website&lt;/a&gt; as a good writeup on the topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T15:26:00.380" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1897" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="450" CreationDate="2010-08-03T15:34:31.970" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not a technical photographer and never made much use of the histograms that I've been seeing for the last 5 or 6 years, until this summer. I went to Israel with family this summer, and as the goal of the group was to see a lot of sites, not to be in various places with ideal photographic lighting, I took a lot of photos in midday sun. To make matters harder, many of the historic sites in Israel consist of ruins built of light colored stone. Light colored stone, midday sun: you get the picture (or not, as the case may be). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It took a lot of post-processing to get the pictures to look like anything I was willing to show anyone, and as I played with the various contrast and light settings in Picassa, I noticed that by the time I got the photo to where I wanted it, I had made certain changes to the histogram: I had spread it out from being bunched up to the right to spread out that curve over the full range, and then the scenery looked pretty good. Alternatively, when I was shooting people in the context of the white rocks, the way to get those shots to come out was to take the bump on the left side and spread that out over the entire area (over-exposing the background, but getting good contrast on the faces). Over the course of processing about 1000 photos, I began to understand the histogram and how to use it as a tool, even in less extreme situations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know I'm not as technically proficient as many of you, but this is how I, as an amateur, came to grips with the histogram.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="649" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T15:34:31.970" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1898" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1888" CreationDate="2010-08-03T16:08:43.710" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are you going to be close to the band - like on stage or behind the stage or very near?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am assuming you are close to the band:&#xA;For drummers, you typically want to use moderate shutter speed instead of very fast, since you still want the hand movement to be blurry (from movement) but yet most of the person to be quite still. Use wider lens to get the whole drum kit + drummer. If you elect to use flash, you can use the rear curtain. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are far from the stage:&#xA;What @chills42 says and a tele-photo lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T16:08:43.710" />
  <row Id="1899" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1850" CreationDate="2010-08-03T16:15:39.037" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have only done this twice - so I am no expert either. But both times I have done it, the lighting on the background itself did not really matter - since they will be replaced anyway. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Cavan's answer is excellent in getting equal lighting on your background - but what I am trying to say is that that effort in doing that might be unnecessary for green screen/chromakey.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T16:15:39.037" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1900" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1888" CreationDate="2010-08-03T17:39:03.283" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to all of these things, make sure that your camera can autofocus with fast primes.  For instance!  For the longest time, Nikon D40 users were left out in the cold when it came to fast primes; now, they have the 35mm and the 50mm, but still can't use the 85mm (at least, in the Nikon lineups).  When I've shot bands, it's been with these fast primes rather than zooms,  and I found manually focusing to be very hit-and-miss.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T17:39:03.283" />
  <row Id="1901" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1913" CreationDate="2010-08-03T17:46:38.563" Score="1" ViewCount="269" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've looked at &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1715/how-do-i-generate-high-quality-prints-with-an-ink-jet-printer&quot;&gt;the Master's Thesis discussion on printers&lt;/a&gt;, but I'm interested in a more practical, here-and-now kind of thing.  I haven't looked at printers recently, and reading reviews on CNet and the like doesn't tell me the things I want to know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I need a printer that can:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;print up to 10x15 or 12x12&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ideally, not suck down ink like I suck down beer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;use alternative papers (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hahnemuehle.com/site/en/169/home.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hahnemuhle&lt;/a&gt;, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ideally, require little to no calibration, or be easily calibrated&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;produce prints that I would be proud to sell.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the longest time, my r800 did the third thing and the last thing (but only the last thing when I spent an hour or so fine-tuning the output).  I need something bigger now, and something that takes less draft printing to get to a good final result.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What should I be looking for?  Budget is less than $1k.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T00:16:18.523" Title="What printer should I get to replace an epson r800?" Tags="&lt;printer&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1902" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1903" CreationDate="2010-08-03T18:22:13.917" Score="8" ViewCount="230" Body="&lt;p&gt;My birthday is coming up. I have about $150 to spend on some lighting equipment for home studio. I currently have a Nikon D90 and a decent Manfrotto tripod. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For my budget, what are my choices? I'm looking for at least 2 light sources, and preferably a 1.5' cubic feet light box too. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The purpose is to set up my basement as a home studio to take portrait shots, or photos of smaller objects (lightbox).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T04:48:16.810" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T04:48:16.810" Title="What lighting equipment should I get on a very tight budget?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;lighting&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="1903" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1902" CreationDate="2010-08-03T18:37:01.400" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This might be a little unconventional, but my preference for fairly low cost lighting is to get a few of each of these:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bit.ly/cYSjPX&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Clamp Light with Aluminum Reflector&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bit.ly/bmL0lt&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Daylight 75-Watt CFL&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a few of these and have been really pleased.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They work well in groups, the clamping makes them easy to line up wherever you need them, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CFL's&lt;/a&gt; use less power and generate less heat which is nice, and the daylight bulbs are very close to my on-board flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, there is a good tutorial for making a &lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-make-a-inexpensive-light-tent&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DIY Light Tent&lt;/a&gt; at digital-photography-school.com, which you could easily modify for whatever size you would like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-03T19:56:13.007" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T19:56:13.007" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="1904" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12" CreationDate="2010-08-03T18:52:34.120" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A blower bulb I purchased once contained release agent used during manufacturing process.  When I attempted to clean my sensor, the bulb ejected powder onto the sensor.  Least recommended method of cleaning for me. I had to use a wet cleaning method using swabs specially designed to fit my 1.6 crop sensor.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Swabs and a wet solution are relatively expensive and the swab is one time use.  After a few packages of swabs were used, the VisibleDust Arctic Butterfly was suggested to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Arctic Butterfly is a powered nylon brush that uses a static charge in nylon bristles to grab on to and pull dust up off the sensor.  It works extremely well without using liquid, and it's reusable.  In fact, I've only used one swab in the two years since I obtained the Visible Dust system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A much fancier version of the butterfly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.visibledust.com/products3.php?pid=3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.visibledust.com/products3.php?pid=3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="626" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T18:52:34.120" />
  <row Id="1905" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1902" CreationDate="2010-08-03T19:06:53.817" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the great suggestion from chills42, you can also look at Halogen work lamps. Many of the are available either clamped or on stands that can be adjusted to various heights. Most big box hardware stores, such as Home Depot, will have them even if they can be a pain to find on their site. The price tag runs around $40 (Canadian) for 500 watt twin head lamps or $60 for a 1000 watts twin head on adjustable stands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are even flourescent ones available which, to be honest, is nicer because it's a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; less heat than halogen!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T19:06:53.817" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1906" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1901" CreationDate="2010-08-03T19:10:16.950" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been very happy with my Canon Pixma Pro 9000. It does 13 x 19, 8 individual ink tanks (that are reasonable in price), and even months between prints are clog free. In any case, they claim photolab quality and I, personally, cannot detect a reason to disagree with them. I've also had no problem with specialty paper, seems to be fuss free there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, Canadian price for the Mk II version is about $600, so I'd imagine that it's in your budget.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T19:10:16.950" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1907" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1902" CreationDate="2010-08-03T19:32:44.683" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a couple suggestions&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've had a lot of fun playing with a wireless trigger. I have a PT-04 from ebay. There are some compatibility issues with some cameras. I wasn't able to get it to work with my sister's D60, but I believe the D90 has a sync plug. That's how I connect it to my Canon 20D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a umbrella and stand from ebay which has been fun as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Last, get a longer usb extension cable so you can upload to the computer as you shoot. You can then setup a monitor in the background that your subject can see. This way, they can see what looks good and what doesn't. Help get everyone to loosen up a bit. I suppose a cable release fits in the same category.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="98" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T19:32:44.683" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1908" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1611" CreationDate="2010-08-03T19:35:57.750" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I got a personalized strap from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jodiescamerastraps.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.jodiescamerastraps.com/&lt;/a&gt;. Jodie is very accommodating and does an excellent job with the straps. I would definitely recommend having one!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="111" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T19:35:57.750" />
  <row Id="1909" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12" CreationDate="2010-08-03T19:38:05.797" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I highly recommend sending it in directly to the manufacturer's repair shop.  The sensor in your DSLR is one of the most critical and sensitive parts of the camera, and should not be maintained either by you or an untrained camera shop employee.  If it is under warranty, this service may be covered.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've actually tried the Eclipse + pecpad solution, and maybe it's just me but I was not able to obtain a clean enough sensor for my liking, and it seemed that it takes quite a bit of practice before you become good at this skill.  Not worth the risk, in my opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are stuck on location and need to continue taking pictures before you can get the camera repaired, then see if your camera has a &quot;dust reference photo&quot; feature, which requires you to take a picture of a blank sheet of white paper from about a foot away at the highest f-stop your lens will allow.  This can then be input into the manufacturer's software (in my case, Nikon CaptureNX/ViewNX) to remove dust spots from any images taken with a dirty sensor.  This worked wonders when I was stuck in Thailand with a dirty sensor and no hope of repair before returning to the U.S.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="309" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T19:38:05.797" />
  <row Id="1910" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1920" CreationDate="2010-08-03T19:39:08.260" Score="0" ViewCount="179" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/191/which-camera-bag-for-a-single-dslr-camera-plus-2-lenses&quot;&gt;Which camera bag for a single DSLR camera plus 2 lenses?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am looking for a sling type camera bag that is very comfortable to carry around and is easy enough to yank my equipments out of it. I have a Canon 50D body and a couple of lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="111" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T20:25:14.673" ClosedDate="2010-08-04T02:35:49.153" Title="Camera Bag recommendations?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;purchase&gt;&lt;camera-bag&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1911" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1846" CreationDate="2010-08-03T19:43:17.740" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want the face to be the central part of the picture, one tactic is to match the background to the clothing (or vice versa), e.g. charcoal clothes on black background or gray clothes on white background.  What you're going for is that of everything in the image, the face has the most contrast with everything else (background and clothes) and the viewer's eyes are drawn to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T19:43:17.740" />
  <row Id="1912" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1910" CreationDate="2010-08-03T19:44:24.837" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tamrac.com/5513.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamrac Adventure Zoom&lt;/a&gt; Case and attach &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tamrac.com/g_modularaccessory.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lens cases&lt;/a&gt;. I love the system because it allows a lot of flexibility for taking only what I need and it leaves the camera easily accessible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T19:44:24.837" />
  <row Id="1913" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1901" CreationDate="2010-08-03T19:44:45.147" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a difficult question to answer, as it is fairly subjective. Both Epson and Canon printers are excellent, and provide astonishing quality. I'll try to avoid the culture war here, so here are some basic statistics and important points about printers that meet your needs:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One of the first things you need to decide is how valuable quality is to you:&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The base cost of the printer is minimal compared to the long-term running cost&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cleaning and maintenance have an intrinsic cost due to ink usage and part replacement&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ink is the most costly part of creating your own prints&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Determine how long you hope to use your printer:&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You may want to print 10x15 and 12x12 now, but what about the future&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Will you ever need to print 17x22?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Will you ever need to print panoramics (i.e. roll paper)?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is the minimum quality bar you require:&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you intend to sell your prints, what &lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt; percieve as acceptable may be a far cry from what your &lt;em&gt;customer&lt;/em&gt; percieves as acceptable&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does the printer you are looking to buy produce adequate resolution and tonal range to be &quot;acceptable&quot; to your customers?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How long do you expect your prints to last?&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some papers and inks last for a few decades&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some papers and inks last for hundreds of years (theoretically)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both Canon and Epson printers can serve your needs. Canon offers two types of professional photographer printers that use different types of ink. Epson printers all use the same type of ink, but offer progressively greater versatility in terms of paper sizes and variety, and some of the higher-end models produce some extended tonal range into areas even computer screens can't reach (i.e. deep vivid purple hues.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to Canon, you have a choice between the PIXMA series, and the ProGraph series. The PIXMA series offers two printers, the 9000 and the 9500 Mk II. The 9000 uses dye inks, which are generally cheaper and do not dry out as easily, and are extremely economical. The ultimate tonal range and longevity of dye prints is generally on the lower end. The 9000 uses 8 individual ink tanks, allowing colors to be individually replaced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 9500 uses 10 pigment inks, including several black/gray shades for B&amp;amp;W printing. Pigment inks generally produce more accurate tonal range, and the longevity is up in the 105-200 year range. Pigment inks are generally preferred for archival and professional prints, however they do come at a greater cost. Pigment inks have a greater tendency to dry out if not used, and dry pigment ink can clog a print head, which generally costs about $120-$160 to replace. Canon ink tanks for the 9000/9500 are about 14ml in size...extremely small. These ink tanks do not last for a very long time, and the ratio of waste is fairly high. This increases the cost overall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Prograph series of Canon printers are a step up. They are generally geared towards the truly professional photographer and business class. All of the current Canon Prograph printers use the same Lucia pigment ink that the 9500 does. The advantage these printers have over the 9500 is greater paper size versatility (up to 17x22 or beyond) and considerably larger ink tanks. Lower end Prograph printers use 80ml ink tanks, and higher end (truly business class, probably well out of your interest range) use 160ml tanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to Epson, all of their printers use their stellar UltraChrome K3 pigment inks. Epson printers tend to use a higher native print resolution than Canon printers, however they have a lower DPI. Like the Canon 9500, the ink tank size for the lower end of their Stylus line are about 15ml, and like Canon this increases cost due to general operating waste. Higher end Epson Stylus printers use larger ink tank sizes, and offer the same benefit that the Canon ProGraph line does. One of the benefits of Epson is greater paper versatility. Epson provides an extremely diverse line of papers, including paper roles for panoramic and banner printing (up to several feet long.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;HP is also an alternative, as they also make a professional photography printer. I've read reviews about HP printers, however I have never used one, and can no personally provide an objective review of their capabilities. I would look into some reviews if you are interested, however Epson and Canon are the top dogs in the professional photo printing arena.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternative papers may be used on either Epson or Canon printers. Canon fine art papers are in actuality just Hahnemuhle under the Canon label. I use a Canon 9500 MkII myself, and I use the Hahnemuhle ICC profiles for Fine Art, Museum, and Matte papers, which produce significantly better results than the Canon default ICC profiles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before you make a decision, I highly recommend seeing if you can print some of your own work on a couple different Epson and Canon printers. Determine if you yourself like the results, and see what some of your potential customers (or friends/family who you think are similar to your potential customers), and choose the printer that best fits you and your potential customers needs. The Canon PIXMA Pro 9000 runs around $400 or so, while the PIXMA Pro 9500 is about $600-$700. Canon Prograph printers run from around $1200 to many thousands of dollars for the top end business class. The iPF5000 or iPF6000 series are at the lower end of that price range, and are very efficient printers. Epson Stylus printers run anywhere from about $500 up through $4000 or more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-03T21:27:56.993" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T21:27:56.993" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1914" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1918" CreationDate="2010-08-03T19:45:18.830" Score="2" ViewCount="464" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 and I have been using it for years ... it works absolutely well and still performing like champ. Now, looking at the new AF-S 16-35 MTF chart, it kinda makes me wonder, whether I should sell the 17-35 and get the 16-35 f/4 instead?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So here is my question - if you were in my situation, what are some pros/cons that you will consider in making this decision? Or would you bit the bullet and jump to 14-24 instead?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-24T20:47:11.287" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T10:51:00.443" Title="Nikon AF-S 17-35 vs AF-S 16-35" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1915" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1910" CreationDate="2010-08-03T19:50:27.837" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recommend Think Tank 360: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rotation360.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.rotation360.com/&lt;/a&gt; - comes with both back-pack and sling bag. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or Lowepro Slingshot: &lt;a href=&quot;http://products.lowepro.com/product/SlingShot-200-AW,2035,4.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://products.lowepro.com/product/SlingShot-200-AW,2035,4.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T19:50:27.837" />
  <row Id="1916" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1910" CreationDate="2010-08-03T19:50:56.307" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I highly recommend &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.crumpler.com/AU/Camera-Bags/Camera-Bags.html?LanguageCode=EN&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Crumpler's line of messenger bags&lt;/a&gt;. The bags come with removable inserts so you can customize the bag to match your gear needs. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally use the 6-million dollar home, which is big enough for a couple of bodies, and a few lenses. You can select the size of bag that makes the most sense for you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Crumpler bags are a bit pricier than some of the competition, but the price is reflected in the quality of materials and construction. Heavy duty straps, velcro, and seams, and a design that protects your gear. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just a caveat: Messenger bags are great for walk around photography, allowing easy access to gear, but if you are planning on doing serious hiking or walking long distances, I recommend using a photo backpack instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T19:50:56.307" />
  <row Id="1917" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="723" CreationDate="2010-08-03T19:56:44.397" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Send it to Nikon, if you have a USA lens, most likely you have a 5 years warranty on your lens. This can mean free repair.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T19:56:44.397" />
  <row Id="1918" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1914" CreationDate="2010-08-03T20:12:25.323" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't let MTF charts be the reason you change lenses. If you're happy with the results of your lens, then stick with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With your lens change, you give up a full stop of light (f2.8 to f4), which can be huge, even with the 16-35's VR, but gain an extra 1mm on the wide angle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the two choices, I would stick with the 17-35 solely for the extra stop of light. VR offers great flexibility for low light situations, but F2.8 is still F2.8, and no amount of IS/VR/ or w/e can compensate for that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, that said, if I were in your shoes, and I had the means to pull it off, I would buy the 14-24 in a heartbeat. Canon shooters have been fooling around with all kinds of cockamamie solutions to get the nikkor 14-24 working on Canon bodies, so if you're a nikon shooter who likes going wide angle and has the money, then yes yes yes get the 14-24! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-03T23:32:56.007" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T23:32:56.007" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1919" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1914" CreationDate="2010-08-03T20:15:43.787" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are you unhappy with the sharpness of your 17-35? Have you exhausted the reasonable improvements you could make to your technique? Unless the answer to both of these questions is &quot;yes&quot;, a new lens purchase is not photographically justified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Upgrade when you have a concrete reason to, not when reviews catch your eye.&lt;/strong&gt; More on that theme in &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1663/whats-a-good-nikon-lens-dx-for-a-serious-hobbyist-landscape-photographer&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T20:15:43.787" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1920" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1910" CreationDate="2010-08-03T20:25:14.673" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can give you the reviews of the bags I have, but I can't heartily recommend any of them.  These decisions, for me, are greatly helped by also knowing what not to get and why.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I just got a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kata-bags.com/product.asp?Version=photo&amp;amp;p_Id=433&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kata 3n1-33&lt;/a&gt; (the larger version of their bags) for traveling.  I kind of like it, in that it has all the pouches that I need and fast access to the camera.  I dislike it in that I can't carry a reflector in it.  I can also carry a laptop in it, big requirement for me.  It has a strange configuration that allows for rapid access to the camera; that's cool, but the pack weighs in excess of 20 pounds when fully loaded (with laptop, flash, camera + lens, two other prime lenses, batteries, chargers, cords, cards, dp2), so no way am I carrying this around enough to warrant the extra engineering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before that, I had the Lowepro Stealth Reporter (no link because I can't find it on their site, but it's the notebook+backpack version).  I liked that one because I could carry the reflector, but there were only three lens pouches, barely large enough to hold a 17-55mm f/2.8 lens (70-200 f/2.8?  Forget it) and two camera/flash pouches.  It also had a tearaway case for the laptop.  The camera had to be disassembled as well, so points to the Kata for those rare moments when I have the traveling bag and need to take the shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that I've traveled with both, I give it to the Kata, but only just.  I don't want to carry around a reflector on long trips, so giving it up is not a huge loss, but getting the straps to work every time is a pain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On day to day trips, I have a lowepro topload zoom 2, and it's just a bit too small for a d300 and 17-55.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope that helps...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T20:25:14.673" />
  <row Id="1921" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1505" CreationDate="2010-08-03T20:47:05.317" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been using a tool called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.getjar.com/mobile/1155/compass/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Compass&lt;/a&gt; myself on my Nokia. No GPS support though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T20:47:05.317" />
  <row Id="1922" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1926" CreationDate="2010-08-03T21:17:24.783" Score="16" ViewCount="502" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many discussions of differences between prime, zoom and macro lenses.  I have not heard about prime lenses until recently.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Could someone explain what exactly a prime lens is?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it just that the focal length is fixed?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And if so what are the advantages of having the focal length fixed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also why the name 'prime'?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="501" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-27T19:42:52.493" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T19:42:52.493" Title="What is the definition of a &quot;prime lens&quot;?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;prime&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="1923" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1922" CreationDate="2010-08-03T21:23:49.587" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A prime lens is merely one with a fixed  focal length. They are considered to be of a higher quality, and are capable of wider apertures as the mechanics tto cope with zooming don't need to be incorporated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is an extended discussion on the pros and cons in &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/130/prime-vs-zoom-vs-macro-lens&quot;&gt;another question here on the site&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T21:23:49.587" />
  <row Id="1924" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1922" CreationDate="2010-08-03T21:24:02.597" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a fixed focal length lens. The primary advantage is simpler optics which, in turn, usually leads to wider apertures and sharper images. Generally, the more glass you throw in front of the sensor to accomodate zooms, the more correction you have to do, with glass, which then leads to smaller apertures and optical degradation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not sure on the name 'prime' specifically, but I'm sure there's a good historical reason for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T21:24:02.597" />
  <row Id="1925" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1922" CreationDate="2010-08-03T21:28:49.413" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most common meaning presently is &quot;fixed focal length.&quot; (A less common meaning is &quot;the primary lens in a multiple lens set-up&quot; such as in a Twin Lens Reflex camera.) I've no idea why &quot;prime.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some people seem to use it more specifically for a fixed focal length lens with &quot;normal&quot; perspective. In thus use, for a 35mm camera, a 50mm or 55mm lens would be prime, and a 28mm or 135mm would not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All else being equal, prime lenses have better optical quality than do zoom lenses. They have fewer moving parts, fewer elements, and are designed to perform best at their single focal length. Zoom lens design involves trade offs and compromises such that a zoom will not perform optimally at all of its range of focal lengths, and rarely if ever, as well as a prime for any given length in its range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="350" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T21:28:49.413" />
  <row Id="1926" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1922" CreationDate="2010-08-03T21:29:42.190" Score="25" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In practice, you're correct and it means that it's a fixed focal length lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historically, the term &quot;prime&quot; derives from cine work, where it had a more literal meaning of the primary lens of a multi-lens system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The concrete advantages are typically that they are much more compact, and have a much higher quality/cost ratio, as they're easier to engineer to a high degree of correction.  There is no such thing as an f/1.4 zoom lens, for instance, but f/1.4 primes exist in several focal lengths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Zoom lenses are catching up on the quality front, a particular example being the Nikkor 14-24, which is reputedly as high-quality as the primes of similar focal lengths (and the Nikkor 24mm is considered a classic design).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The more subjective pros/cons are – obviously – a lot more subtle, and vary from person to person.  For example, some people find that primes let them focus more immediately on the composition of the image and/or their surroundings (i.e., it's one less camera setting to think about), while others prefer the ability of a zoom to quickly change the field of view, producing extremely different compositions in quick succession.  The same person might like both in different situations.  I think the only fair answer to this aspect of the different approaches is to try using a prime regularly and see how you get on with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-03T21:57:51.183" LastActivityDate="2010-08-03T21:57:51.183" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1927" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="62" CreationDate="2010-08-04T03:14:31.953" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;agreed on not throwing away the original raw; Many import systems allow you to embed the RAW inside the DNG, so it's there if you need it; I personally do that on all of my images. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use DNG primarily because that format includes the metadata sidecar as part of the DNG, where for RAW files, the metadata sidecar is generally a separate file. Bundling this all into one file simplifies workflow and makes it difficult to separate the two or lose the metadata, making housekeeping easier and reducing the risk of data loss. That alone made me decide to use DNG. It's convenient and if I ever need to unpack it, there are tools that can do it for me. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T03:14:31.953" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1928" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1929" CreationDate="2010-08-04T03:21:36.803" Score="12" ViewCount="265" Body="&lt;p&gt;I bought an entry-level DSLR at Christmas time (Nikon D3000 with 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses) and have been figuring my way around the camera.  I know the very basics, but want to take a class and can't logistically take one offered in my area.  Are there good online classes for learning about lighting, exposure, composition, etc.?  Or maybe sites with good exercises for beginners?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="706" LastEditorUserId="706" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-04T03:37:11.850" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T16:07:43.730" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-04T03:28:27.690" Title="What are the best online photo classes?" Tags="&lt;learning&gt;" AnswerCount="6" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="1929" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1928" CreationDate="2010-08-04T03:42:31.703" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many great sites on the net that can help you get started. I am not sure about official &quot;classes&quot;, however the following sites should be useful:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Photography School&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Great info on camera usage, composition, lighting, post-processing, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/digital-photography-tips-for-beginners&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;For Beginners Section&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cambridge in Color&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Another great educational site for new DSLR users&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lots of great tutorials covering all the technical details&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Great techniques section describing specific scenarios&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T03:42:31.703" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-04T03:42:31.703" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1930" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2010-08-04T04:02:37.070" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is a bundle from Google Reader that I follow:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/reader/bundle/user%2F14154652263202971815%2Fbundle%2FPhotography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.google.com/reader/bundle/user%2F14154652263202971815%2Fbundle%2FPhotography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will try to compile another one with any others that look interesting from answeres.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="501" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T04:02:37.070" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-04T04:02:37.070" />
  <row Id="1931" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1932" CreationDate="2010-08-04T05:47:25.073" Score="3" ViewCount="122" Body="&lt;p&gt;When a new model of a particular class of Canon camera comes out, will it be introduced at the same price as the model it replaces, or will it be more costly?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apple do this with the Macs - they update the specs but keep the price points fairly static relative to the previous model.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm wondering about this specifically because the Canon 60D should be announced pretty soon, but the currently available 50D is within my price range. I'm sort of concerned that if I wait, the 60D will bump up out of my price range and it will be hard to source a 50D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="672" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T14:56:43.273" Title="How do Canon's pricing tiers work with new models?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="1932" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1931" CreationDate="2010-08-04T06:09:11.513" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This answer is specific to prices in the US. EU/AUS/CAN/JAP etc all pay &lt;strong&gt;much&lt;/strong&gt; higher prices for camera gear, and as I only buy gear in the US, I can only answer about US prices.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general prices of the refresh of Canon models in the same family, will stay the nearly the same. You may see some decrease in prices by $100 or so, but overall they're about the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can expect the 60D to retail for about what the 50D retailed at when it was announced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, now that the 50D has been out for a while, it's &lt;strong&gt;street&lt;/strong&gt; price is lower than retail/MSRP. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, yes, the 60D will not be retailing for what you can get a 50D for--though there is a possibility that the 60D will be highly in demand, and you might even have to pay &lt;strong&gt;more&lt;/strong&gt; than MSRP to get one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The upside is that if the 50D has the features you want, you will be able to pick up a new 50D for a really good price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T06:09:11.513" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1933" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1798" CreationDate="2010-08-04T07:32:57.250" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;They are useful for those times when you absolutely want the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/rberteig/4272097014/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;subject&lt;/a&gt; to know you are taking a picture, unlike a telephoto where you can shoot anonymously. ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/rberteig/4272097014/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Not For Portraits by RBerteig, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2719/4272097014_999008e19d_t.jpg&quot; width=&quot;100&quot; height=&quot;66&quot; alt=&quot;Not For Portraits&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/rberteig/4084789161/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Where the Troll Goes by RBerteig, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2636/4084789161_0ca981ee77_t.jpg&quot; width=&quot;66&quot; height=&quot;100&quot; alt=&quot;Where the Troll Goes&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/rberteig/4052871387/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Self-portrait shadow by RBerteig, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2591/4052871387_aebe812632_t.jpg&quot; width=&quot;66&quot; height=&quot;100&quot; alt=&quot;Self-portrait shadow&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/rberteig/4697990058/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Giraffe with Posers by RBerteig, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4035/4697990058_212b485ce2_t.jpg&quot; width=&quot;40&quot; height=&quot;100&quot; alt=&quot;Giraffe with Posers&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/rberteig/4024992891/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Waiting by RBerteig, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2777/4024992891_7a99076ab9_t.jpg&quot; width=&quot;100&quot; height=&quot;100&quot; alt=&quot;Waiting&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/rberteig/4046191776/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;ANZAC Memorial by RBerteig, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3488/4046191776_df2b1873a6_t.jpg&quot; width=&quot;100&quot; height=&quot;66&quot; alt=&quot;ANZAC Memorial&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seriously, fisheyes have a number of real applications:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They allow coverage of large fields of view, with a distortion that has a fairly simple mathematical model. They were invented for research imagery of the whole sky for measurement of cloud coverage (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheye_lens&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;). Since the distortions are easily modeled, it is possible to make a quantitative measurement of the sky coverage from analysis of single exposures.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If used with a tripod or similar stable mounting point and rotated about the effective entrance pupil, one can capture a full sphere panorama with only two exposures. Fewer exposures allows the panorama to be captured faster, and more than one exposure makes it possible for the photographer and their gear to not be in the finished picture.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They allow documenting a confined space with very limited incursion, often just barely leaning in the window is sufficient.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They allow coverage of large, sweeping landscapes without resorting to panorama adapters and stitching.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They don't really require much aim, so they can be used for stealthy or automated captures where it is more important to catch some kind of image of the subject at all, than it is to have an artistic image.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I carried a borrowed NIKKOR 10.5mm f/2.8G ED on a recent tour of Australian tourist spots. It stayed on the D90 for much more of the trip than I expected as I found opportunities to take pictures that would not have been possible with a more &quot;normal&quot; lens. I'd strongly suggest borrowing or renting on and trying it out on a casual outing. You might be surprised at the results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; Let me add a couple of notes about nodal points, the entrance pupil, and panorama stitching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One definition of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrance_pupil&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;entrance pupil&lt;/a&gt; is the following, from Wikipedia:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The geometric location of the entrance&#xA;  pupil is the vertex of the camera's&#xA;  angle of view and consequently its&#xA;  center of perspective, perspective&#xA;  point, view point, projection centre&#xA;  or no-parallax point. This point is&#xA;  important in panoramic photography,&#xA;  because the camera must be rotated&#xA;  around it in order to avoid parallax&#xA;  errors in the final, stitched&#xA;  panorama.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Wikipedia in the section on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_point_%28optics%29#Nodal_points&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cardinal Points&lt;/a&gt;, &#xA;the nodal points are locations along the optical axis that have the &#xA;property that a light ray intersecting the front nodal point (and &#xA;entering the lens) will leave the lens as if it originated at the &#xA;rear nodal point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The section goes on to identify some common misconceptions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The nodal points are widely&#xA;  misunderstood in photography, where it&#xA;  is commonly asserted that the light&#xA;  rays &quot;intersect&quot; at &quot;the nodal point&quot;,&#xA;  that the iris diaphragm of the lens is&#xA;  located there, and that this is the&#xA;  correct pivot point for panoramic&#xA;  photography, so as to avoid parallax&#xA;  error. These claims generally arise&#xA;  from confusion about the optics of&#xA;  camera lenses, as well as confusion&#xA;  between the nodal points and the other&#xA;  cardinal points of the system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, multiple images destined for stitching into a panorama should all be taken with the entrance pupil in a fixed location, and only changing the direction the optical axis points.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, one of the interesting properties of a practical fish-eye lens is that the entrance pupil is at a changing distance along the optical axis as you vary the angle of the incident ray makes with the axis. You can see this effect by holding the lens with its rear element facing a bright wall (making the entrance pupil more visible at all) and moving your head around the front. As you move from on-axis to off-axis you can clearly see the pupil move from deep inside the lens to far in front of the rim of the front element. In order for rays to enter the lens from more than 90 degrees off axis, the pupil has to be visible to those rays. The surprise is that the pupil doesn't stay in that position as you move to smaller angles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This effect does not happen with a normal rectilinear lens design. In rectilinear prime lenses, the entrance pupil is at a fixed location. You can identify that location by carefully constructing tests for parallax error. One of the compromises in a zoom lens design is that the position of the entrance pupil moves as the focal length changes. This is one of the reasons that the f-number of the lens varies with the zoom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This makes it difficult to pick a proper point of rotation for a fisheye lens used for panorama photography. One answer is to just live with the natural field of view. After all, 180 degrees or more is pretty darn panoramic compared to a normal lens. Another answer is to use the approximate average position of the entrance pupil in the region where the individual images overlap. If you minimize the overlap, then you can calibrate the result fairly well. With a full-circle fisheye with a 190 degree or better field of view, you can cover the whole sphere with just two pictures, but you need to rotate the camera around a point that is very close to the front face of the front element for least parallax error in the overlapping band.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="707" LastEditorUserId="707" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T07:09:27.630" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T07:09:27.630" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1934" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="406" CreationDate="2010-08-04T07:47:06.050" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can use free, open-source utility &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exiftool&lt;/a&gt; to extract the metadata from the JPG files. If your RAW files are supported, you can have it add the information directly to the RAW. If not, you can have Exiftool create XMP sidecars, which stand a chance of being imported into Lightroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One difficulty with this task overall is that most versions of LR have some pretty firm ideas about where it gets metadata. If it thinks it knows how to get it from an image file, it tends to ignore any sidecars. So part of the exercise will involve some experimentation to find out what LR will be happiest with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, Exiftool should probably be in your toolbox.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="707" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T07:47:06.050" />
  <row Id="1935" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1928" CreationDate="2010-08-04T07:59:15.637" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In The UK the Open University have a course, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www3.open.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/course/t189.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;T189 &lt;/a&gt;, that is all about digital photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="697" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T07:59:15.637" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-04T07:59:15.637" />
  <row Id="1936" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1931" CreationDate="2010-08-04T08:27:04.087" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Components get cheaper to produce, and knowledge from previous models can be reused, so newer models with more features tend to be priced about the same. Producing a new model isn't so much about putting as much features in it as possible, but to choose the features that can be produced at the selected price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, competing models in the same segment from other brands affect the price. If the price of a new model is much higher than the previous model, some customers will look at alternatives in a different brand. This helps keeping the prices at the same level over time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T08:27:04.087" />
  <row Id="1937" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1888" CreationDate="2010-08-04T09:40:48.227" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As has already been said, low light performance is the most important thing from a body to shoot live bands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I love my Nikon 50mm / f1.4, but for live performances, I find that you are often restricted in your movements (most venues will not allow you to be on stage during a show). So I tend to prefer to use a zoom. I also like close-ups, so most of the time I shoot with a Sigma 70-200mm / f2.8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an aside, keep in mind that the public is there to enjoy the show, not to enjoy the photographs. I find it very annoying when the first rank at a concert is busy with 6 photographers who dont care if they ruin the show for everybody else ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="461" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T09:40:48.227" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1938" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1947" CreationDate="2010-08-04T09:54:13.210" Score="13" ViewCount="260" Body="&lt;p&gt;What types of filter cannot be successfully emulated by digital post-processing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Polarizing, obviously. and neutral density for depth-of-field control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what about UV filters? and are there other types that are best used on the camera rather than in the computer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="562" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T21:28:01.357" Title="What types of filter cannot be emulated by post-processing?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;post-processing&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1939" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1938" CreationDate="2010-08-04T10:05:07.833" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Polarizers are absolutely impossible to emulate except the popular sky darkening effect. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="341" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T10:05:07.833" />
  <row Id="1940" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-04T10:37:21.697" Score="5" ViewCount="212" Body="&lt;p&gt;I bought old M42 Pentacon 50mm f1.8 lens from a car boot sale. It works but is pretty dirty and it has also dirt inside (no mould/fungus though).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Opening the lens is not a problem but I would like to know how to get rid of grease and other dirt on lens element. I don't have access to ultrasonic washing machine. Undiluted isopropyl alcohol (IPA)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="729" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-11T22:37:19.530" LastActivityDate="2010-09-01T22:50:55.513" Title="What are the best methods for cleaning really dirty lens elements?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;cleaning&gt;&lt;maintenance&gt;&lt;old-lenses&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="1941" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1938" CreationDate="2010-08-04T10:41:46.713" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, I'd generally argue that doing it on camera is preferrable to post-processing primarily because it means you spend less time on the computer and more time behind the camera. However, many can be emulated in software, including graduated ND filters (with multiple exposures), warming, and color correction, the obvious ones that can't you've already mentioned. I'd suggest that some of the special effects ones, such as a starlight, would require some significant work to emulate and so it wouldn't be worth it, you may as well to a render instead of a photograph.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for your specific question, the UV filter reduces haze and improves contrast which, to a degree, you can accomplish in post processing. However, digital cameras are not as sensitive to UV light as film is, so the need for its effect is little to none with a dSLR. Most common use of the UV filter at this point is lens protection, though the value of that is not completely agreed upon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T10:41:46.713" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1942" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1902" CreationDate="2010-08-04T11:16:26.127" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Strobe, Stand, Umbrella, Reflector&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that for your budget you should be able to pick up:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a decent strobe - I use the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00006HC7F?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;tag=ajsstuff&amp;amp;linkCode=as2&amp;amp;camp=1634&amp;amp;creative=19450&amp;amp;creativeASIN=B00006HC7F&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Vivitar 285&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0011363NS?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;tag=ajsstuff&amp;amp;linkCode=as2&amp;amp;camp=1634&amp;amp;creative=19450&amp;amp;creativeASIN=B0011363NS&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;stand&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B001C1WO5K?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;tag=ajsstuff&amp;amp;linkCode=as2&amp;amp;camp=1634&amp;amp;creative=19450&amp;amp;creativeASIN=B001C1WO5K&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;bracket&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B001UAVE68?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;tag=ajsstuff&amp;amp;linkCode=as2&amp;amp;camp=1634&amp;amp;creative=19450&amp;amp;creativeASIN=B001UAVE68&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;umbrella&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;either a cheap radio remote or a long cable.  I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B001MP8KKE?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;tag=ajsstuff&amp;amp;linkCode=as2&amp;amp;camp=1634&amp;amp;creative=19450&amp;amp;creativeASIN=B001MP8KKE&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;these&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000RGRU3M?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;tag=ajsstuff&amp;amp;linkCode=as2&amp;amp;camp=1634&amp;amp;creative=19450&amp;amp;creativeASIN=B000RGRU3M&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;reflector&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The strobe will be your key light, and you can position the reflector to act as fill.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might prefer a &quot;real&quot; light rather than a reflector - I'm just sharing what I've been using.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have linked to Amazon.co.uk, which is where I bought most of the kit that I use, so the prices are in GBP.  Perhaps someone else can find the Amazon.com links?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T11:16:26.127" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1943" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1928" CreationDate="2010-08-04T11:20:59.960" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You might find a course you like at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kelbytraining.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kelby Training&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T11:20:59.960" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-04T11:20:59.960" />
  <row Id="1944" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1938" CreationDate="2010-08-04T11:24:42.903" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;short answer&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In practice, for almost all photographers, the only filter effects you can't reproduce in post are: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the reflection-removing effect of polarising filters&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the long exposure times enabled by neutral density fitlers&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is doubtless a longer answer with more detail which would be more technically correct, but for practical purposes for most of us, this is the bottom line.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T11:24:42.903" />
  <row Id="1945" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1946" CreationDate="2010-08-04T11:28:15.063" Score="12" ViewCount="137" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I get a microfibre cloth dirty (e.g. by dropping it on the ground), is it possible to clean it (in a washing machine, for example)?  Or should I just throw it away and get a new one?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;update&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just to be clear:  what I'm concerned about is:  will washing the cloth get rid of all the grit?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-04T15:26:56.683" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T19:25:43.817" Title="Is it worth it (or even possible) to clean a microfibre cloth?" Tags="&lt;cleaning&gt;&lt;accessories&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="1946" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1945" CreationDate="2010-08-04T11:35:29.250" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is possible to wash most of them in a washing machine -- &lt;strong&gt;just be careful not to use any fabric softener&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're ultra-paranoid about your glass (like me), you may want to write off any dirty cloths for use as screen wipes, or pass to relatives for use as glasses wipes, and replace with a brand new cloth for your lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T11:35:29.250" />
  <row Id="1947" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1938" CreationDate="2010-08-04T11:40:38.727" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Any filter that changes properties of the light that isn't captured by the digital sensor (or film), is impossible to reproduce in post-processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A polarising filter removes light beams with a specific angle. As the sensor doesn't record the angle of the light beams, it can't be recreated in post-processing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;An ultra violet filter reduces light above a certain frequency. As the sensor doesn't record this frequency range separately, it can't be recreated in post-processing. However, as digital sensors are less sensetive to UV light this is not a big problem for digital cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A neutral density filter doesn't have any filtering effect, in the sense that it affects all light the same. The desired effect is to change the exposure time or aperture, and the effect of that can not be reproduced in post-processing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Any filter that changes the path of the light, like starlight filters, is impossible to recreate exactly in post-processing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, some of the effects of those filters can be emulated, like getting the dark blue sky produced by a polarising filter, or getting something that looks very close to a starlight filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some filter effects is actually easier to use in post-processing, like positioning a gradient filter exactly where you want it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-04T11:50:26.230" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T11:50:26.230" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="1949" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="856" CreationDate="2010-08-04T12:40:38.360" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think adding your copyright info to the meta of the images is more important than a watermark. I understand both sides of the &quot;to watermark, or not to watermark&quot; discussion, and both have valid points.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But more important is that you should always added copyright and contact info to your file's meta data. There's really no excuse not to - it doesn't detract from the image at all, and it's fairly easy to do in a batch process with Photoshop, Bridge, or even Lightroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, if you don't mind people using your images, well then don't bother. But if you do, there's no excuse for not having your copyright stuff in the file meta. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not really sure, but I think that might even go further in a litigated case over copyright infringement, if it can be shown the violator's file has the meta there and they ignored it, that's pretty hard to fight from their side.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="702" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T12:40:38.360" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1950" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1931" CreationDate="2010-08-04T12:48:28.000" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's hard to know exactly how a new product launch will affect existing products, but you can make an educated guess.  Canon's got a number of product lines ranging from entry-level Rebels to advanced Rebels to the 40D/50D/60D to the 5D/7D and finally the 1D.  Any new product launch has to fit in that spectrum somewhere, and it's either going to crowd out an existing product or fill a perceived gap in the product line.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on this, Canon occasionally allows a couple of cameras in one product segment - at least for a while.  The Rebel XS and XSi were both available for a while, and right now you see the T1i and T2i available at the same time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My guess is that there isn't enough room in between the 50D and the 5D/7D for a new camera, so I'd expect the 50D to go away shortly after the 60D is rolled out.  As others have pointed out, though, this could be an excellent time to pick up a 50D on sale.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T12:48:28.000" />
  <row Id="1951" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1928" CreationDate="2010-08-04T13:03:11.263" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Creative Live! Hands down! &lt;a href=&quot;http://creativelive.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://creativelive.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are not specifically all photography related, more like art/creativity stuff. But their photography classes are superb - so superb to the point I was willing to pay for them. Some are free, but to get the archive, download, etc, you will need to pay for some. But they are worth it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T13:03:11.263" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-04T13:03:11.263" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1952" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1940" CreationDate="2010-08-04T13:07:06.747" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Regular dish washing fluid is great for removing grease, as it not only dissolves it but also binds it. However, it might not be practical to use if you can't remove the lens elements and wash them separately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pure alcohol has the advantage that it evaporates and leaves no residue. You might want to use this after any other cleaning agent, dish washing fluid for example has some other components that might leave some residure that you want to remove completely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be careful what you clean when cleaning the lens. Any moving parts (focusing, aperture) needs to stay greased.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T13:07:06.747" />
  <row Id="1953" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="370" CreationDate="2010-08-04T13:44:11.730" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I stretched my budget to the Canon 15-85 3.5-5.6 IS USM when I upgraded my camera a month or so ago, and I'm very happy with it. The 15mm wide end is great for landscapes and the lens is impressively sharp at all focal lengths. The image quality and 15-85mm range has kept me from changing to another lens at all since I got it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't say it's great value as it costs a pretty penny and it's not compatible with full-format bodies should I want to upgrade later, but as a general purpose lens for a crop-sensor canon I think it's about as good as it gets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="722" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T13:44:11.730" />
  <row Id="1954" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="788" CreationDate="2010-08-04T13:48:48.037" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Alan has alread covered the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/788/what-are-the-major-differences-between-these-camera-series-by-canon/805#805&quot;&gt;general differences between the ranges in his answer&lt;/a&gt; but here's some more detail about the lower end models.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Entry-level: Canon Rebel XS or EOS XX00D Series (e.g. 1000D)&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;0.81x viewfinder&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Canon Rebel or EOS XX0D Series (e.g. 550D, 500D, 450D, 400D)&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Slightly larger viewfinder than entry-level (0.87x for the 450D-550D, 0.8x for 400D and earlier).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Spot metering option (from 450D onwards).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The 500D introduced the ability to record movies, but this may also be added to a future entry-level camera.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Models are updated more often than the entry-level which has remained the same since the 450D.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Canon X0D Series (e.g. 50D, 40D)&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Better AF and performance (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/788/what-are-the-major-differences-between-these-camera-series-by-canon/805#805&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pentaprism viewfinder that transmits more light than a pentamirror.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Larger viewfinder (0.95x for 40D and 50D, ~0.9x for 30D and earlier).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Control dial on the rear.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AF on button.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Joystick control on the rear.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="185" LastEditorUserId="185" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-16T15:23:57.427" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T15:23:57.427" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1955" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1966" CreationDate="2010-08-04T14:22:12.623" Score="11" ViewCount="300" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think anyone can give a definitive answer, but what are the factors I should consider?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the pros and cons?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm thinking: What are the costs? the risks? How is usability affected? Anything else?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you give any concrete examples or experiences you have had which incline you one way or the other?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any thoughts gratefully received.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-04T15:06:14.533" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T17:51:53.963" Title="Is it better to have one large memory card or several smaller ones?" Tags="&lt;memory-card&gt;&lt;memory-card-size&gt;&lt;risk&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1956" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="370" CreationDate="2010-08-04T14:26:02.443" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Something I found helpful with my T2i was a good collection of fast primes.  Indoors with less light you'll find many of the Canon lenses to be very slow and hard to work with.  The T2i's sensor starts getting pretty noisy around 1600 ISO so you'll want all the light you can get.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I &lt;em&gt;highly&lt;/em&gt; recommend grabbing a nice M42 (screw mount) adapter for 5 bucks or so off Amazon/E-bay and buying a bunch of cheap, fast M42 primes.  Most of these older lenses can be had for under 100$ easy. Since you already have the nifty fifty you can look at some other focal lengths and see what suits you.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best thing about these old primes is that they're built like tanks--rarely any plastic like the Canon lenses. Just remember that you're on a 1.6x crop sensor so multiply the listed focal length of the lenses by 1.6 to get an idea of actual zoom factor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="217" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T14:26:02.443" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="1957" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1928" CreationDate="2010-08-04T14:32:33.710" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Oh dear, this is going to be a hard one to answer. Since there's so much courseware. But I'll share the ones I have appreciated. Unfortunately not a lot of this stuff mentioned below will get you college credits (if any), but you'd probably be pretty pleased with yourself at the end of it all being in the situation of knowing rather than not knowing. I wouldn't be surprised if you end up coming back to these to supplement for-credit courseware.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;General:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It goes without saying that hopefully Q and A sites such as photo.stackexchange.com (or whatever its final name will be) will someday be the source of course reading material.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photo.net is another huge source of articles. Some mercifully abridged, glossing over everything, for the most innocent of new photography learners--others surprisingly deep. If you haven't read them all, you should. They make a great course just as they are. I still go back there and discover that something well understood and worth heeding goes completely unheeded by me for far too long. Alumnis of photo.net education should return often. Photo.net exist partly thanks to people like Philip Greenspun and his photography buddies. Photo.net and slightly gated online discussion groups and bulletin boards tend to be generalist, but there are some focusing on one system at a time (the Nikon system for instance). Or specialization (children photography for instance). They are wonderful. In fact, never read a Photo.net article without also reading in the comments of the readers chiming in. It's never a waste of time in my book. What people discuss can be surprisingly deep, so the few dollars required annually to register for a discussion forum related to your photography craft is money well spent. Definitely be a team player here: learn and share likewise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Total Training and Lynda.com:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Incredible resources at a subscription price you can't ignore. All laid out clearly for the new comer or the photographers who knows that they'll need to be power users from day one. Post processing with Adobe Photoshop, presentation and media with Adobe InDesign,  Adobe  Illustrator, Adobe Flash and so on. They are really great for a first pass through the material, so that you know what's possible or probable with these software at your disposal. From there, it's good to couple these videos with a well bookmarked notes so that you can dig up the details without having to find the exact minute and second tick mark required to relearn something from these videos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Post processing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luminous Landscape by Michael Reichmann and his photography education friends all did a great job distilling everything you might want to know down to short videos between the time the RAW files leaves your camera and ends up hanging on the wall. I would still read 2000 pages on color management because I am insane like that, but if you want the short version--I can't think of anyone better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For photography lighting: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;David Hobby and his Strobist.com has tried to provide some fantastic free or nearly free material. He confesses to stand on the shoulders of giants, such as the late photography lighting educator Dean Collins and recommends Dean's material highly. I think both are fantastic for lighting. David and Dean's videos have a courseware component to them. They illustrate how it's done, why it's done, and challenge you to replicate the successes in your own DIY (or sourced from commercial light modifier makers) efforts. It seems to me that David might go into talk about lighting for cinema in the next little while on Strobist.com, stretching himself and forcing himself to learn just a tad more than the rest of us just a few hours ahead of us. That's big. That takes a great deal of confidence, hard-work and research so I wish him the best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Transition to video:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Vincent Laforet, Chase Jarvis, B&amp;amp;H, and creativeLIVE all came together to address the thousands of issues that we haven't thought about in our transition from stills to video in a three day web-casted workshop. It's a really good basecamp to figure out how to navigate the terrains of your eventual transition to video. They blog too, and what Vincent and Chase has blogged over the year probably can't ever be fit into a three day workshop no matter how they squeeze.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Marketing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dan Heller has been writing about photography, the business and marketing of photography for a long while now. And has some great ideas to share. There's no set 'class'. Lots of great material that you'll want to at least read once-through and decide for yourself the merit of each point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it's really really really wonderful that these people share so much of their time with us through blogs, videos, writing and workshops. They have been keen on helping to raise the art/biz/sci average for all photographers. They do it for a variety of reasons, for the fame that will keep their calendars booked with the clients they want to work with; or just so they never have to explain something for the Nth time with their friends; or even so that their children would someday know what mom and dad did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Off the buzzword charts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Video courseware is not a new invention, it's been around since before Betacam and VHS. So do know that folks have been making actually timeless classics for a long long while. Check your reference libraries. You'd be quite surprised by the relevance and creativity behind some of the tips being shared from some of the old old videos. On marketing, on business, on the very act of taking photos. I mean, we are still capturing light--that hasn't changed at all for many many years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="387" LastEditorUserId="387" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-04T14:39:38.423" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T14:39:38.423" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-04T14:32:33.710" />
  <row Id="1958" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1955" CreationDate="2010-08-04T14:39:10.497" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have pretty much covered it with costs, risks &amp;amp; usability.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One possible advantage to multiple cards could be to group certain tasks. e.g. photos of different events, for different clients, at different locations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="185" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T14:39:10.497" />
  <row Id="1959" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1931" CreationDate="2010-08-04T14:56:43.273" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on the equipment.  Anecdotally:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;cameras&lt;/strong&gt; usually come out near the same price point as the model they're replacing (the 30D, 40D, 50D, etc were all about the same price at release)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;lenses&lt;/strong&gt; often increase in price.  A good example is the new 70-200 f/2.8L IS, which was recently updated.  The new model has a price that is several hundred dollars more expensive than the previous version.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another thing to consider is that if the 50D is adequate for your needs, you will find that the price on a 50D will likely drop somewhat once the 60D is announced.  If you don't mind waiting, you can probably get a 50D at a lower price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T14:56:43.273" />
  <row Id="1960" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1955" CreationDate="2010-08-04T14:59:10.083" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Personally, I prefer to take a few medium sized memory cards ... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you find a memory card has gone bad for some reason (rare, I know, but it happens) you can switch to another one.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You can segregate major subjects easily ... so if you're traveling and are focusing on a certian theme, you can use one card for the theme and another card for snapshots.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you're with a group, and someone is lacking in capacity or has a bad card, you can easily loan them one of yours. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="33" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T14:59:10.083" />
  <row Id="1961" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1736" CreationDate="2010-08-04T15:05:08.607" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For some background discussion ... consider reading Carlos Miller's &lt;a href=&quot;http://carlosmiller.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photography is not a crime&lt;/a&gt; blog.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="33" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T15:05:08.607" />
  <row Id="1962" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1955" CreationDate="2010-08-04T15:06:24.767" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;i use one big card, but i'm not a pro or anything.  i find the less things i have to carry and worry about while i'm out taking pictures the better!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="83" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T15:06:24.767" />
  <row Id="1963" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1286" CreationDate="2010-08-04T15:14:48.063" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I added my cameras &amp;amp; lenses to a personal article insurance policy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It covers theft, catastrophic damage, etc.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had to provide the model, serial number, &amp;amp; purchase price to the insurance agent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="33" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T15:14:48.063" />
  <row Id="1964" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1955" CreationDate="2010-08-04T15:17:50.073" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I prefer having several medium sized cards, which I rotate between at regular intervals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This has the effect of breaking up my shots into smaller groups and decreasing the risk of losing a large number of shots. I don't worry too much about it though, as I have never actually had any corrupted cards, but I know that is a risk so I try to minimize it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also format the cards after uploading my images, which should lower the risks a bit as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not directly related, but I also recommend &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/325/how-can-i-know-what-speed-card-to-get-for-my-camera&quot;&gt;using higher speed (Class 6 or higher) cards&lt;/a&gt;, simply because it greatly speeds up the upload process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, as far as cost, it is almost negligible, so if I were to want, say, 32GB of memory, I'd prefer &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820220442&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;4 8GB cards&lt;/a&gt; over &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820237191&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 32GB card&lt;/a&gt; (same speed), which both come out at roughly $70.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-04T15:26:15.873" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T15:26:15.873" />
  <row Id="1965" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1955" CreationDate="2010-08-04T15:20:23.037" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My preference is always to carry at least 2 memory cards, just in case something goes wrong. At the moment, that means I'm carrying around one very large card and one smallish card. While I like having the capacity of the large card and not having to worry about running out of space, I'd feel naked without some sort of backup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="649" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T15:20:23.037" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1966" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1955" CreationDate="2010-08-04T15:33:52.440" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The funny thing about memory cards is that cost to size isn't always linear. For example, you might buy a 4GB card for $50, but the 8GB might only be $75 or it might be $150. That's just an example, the threshold for where the big price shift happens changes as technology and capacity improve. So, in terms of price, it will depend on the capacities you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For general pros and cons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Single Card Pros&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Only one card to carry around, no swapping required&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Likely to be a cheaper option&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Single Card Cons&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;All eggs in one basket, so if toasted, you lose it all&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you run out of space, you're stuck&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Multiple Card Pros&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reduces the risk of losing everything if one card is bad&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Allows for seperation of work&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you can afford it, it can give you a lot more capacity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Multiple Card Cons&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Can be more expensive to get to the same size&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Easier to lose them (since they're not in your camera)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Swapping&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be honest, the eggs in one basket scenario worries me bit, so I usually carry more than one card. Also, despite using 8GB cards, I have run out of space at times and have been grateful to have my spares (I'm paranoid, I have 3 8GB and 1 4GB cards in my bag).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T15:33:52.440" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1967" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="759" CreationDate="2010-08-04T15:58:05.983" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Losing the manufacturer-native RAW file feels akin to throwing away negatives just because you have some prints (okay, it's not &lt;strong&gt;that&lt;/strong&gt; bad).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems logical that camera manufacturers are in a position know their cameras, their lenses, their systems, best. Though DNG is extensible, it's not controlled by camera manufacturers, and innovations they implement may conceivably not be easily reflected in DNG. They could, on the other hand, more easily extend their own RAW format(s). On the other hand, if they were constrained by DNG, it could conceivably stifle innovation. Is DNG always good enough for everything? Or is DNG just better for Adobe?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What if DNG becomes a standard and needs to be extended to support a new feature Canon rolls out, but Nikon has more sway with the standards board? Or maybe Canon wants to keep it proprietary? DNG breaks down and everyone's using their own formats again, &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; DNG. You'd have been better off just using a camera-native RAW format all along.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for workflow, i'd support conversion to DNG if it makes software better, but if my Nikon saves its best image as NEF, you can be sure i'm saving that NEF file, even if i convert to DNG. If my next Nikon spits out DNG files, i will only opt for that if i can't get a NEF from it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your Pentax does both, i'd stick with the PEF file. If you use DNG in your workflow and have card space to burn and you'd rather have the camera do the DNG conversion in-camera, take advantage of that and save both. But throw away the PEF file? &lt;strong&gt;No way.&lt;/strong&gt; What if your next Pentax doesn't save DNG? What if DNG eventually goes away? Will you some day kick yourself for not having that PEF?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="761" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T15:58:05.983" />
  <row Id="1968" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1928" CreationDate="2010-08-04T16:07:43.730" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.morguefile.com/docs/Classroom&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Classroom - MorgueFile&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Welcome to the morguefile classroom. Do you want to learn the basics of photography or improve certain camera skills? Do you wish to contribute to a growing knowledge base for photo enthusiast. With the morguefile photography classroom you can begin to take better photos of any subject and get more enjoyment from your photography. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="420" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T16:07:43.730" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-04T16:07:43.730" />
  <row Id="1969" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1955" CreationDate="2010-08-04T16:24:31.860" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I prefer to carry at least one spare card outside the camera.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;That way I am not surprised to find I was not looking at the working card's utilization. &#xA;So, think of the second card as a reserve. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use a high-speed &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lexar.com/digfilm/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;professional&lt;/a&gt; kind card as the working one and am not particular about the reserve card. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have felt (and heard/read about) various memory based gadgets (not just camera) going slower or at times even crashing firmware frequently with larger capacity cards. I don't really use max capacity cards with my camera but, that could be a point to check. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, I have also been thinking of the 'endless memory' &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.eye.fi/how-it-works/basics&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EyeFi cards&lt;/a&gt; these days -- will go quite well with a notebook/netbook on the move.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="163" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T16:24:31.860" />
  <row Id="1970" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1955" CreationDate="2010-08-04T16:28:36.223" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This really comes down to personal preference, however there are a few best practices that should be advised:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Carry a spare card, or even a few spares.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Stick with more reputable brand cards. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use a backup solution on a daily/per-shoot basis if you wont be transferring to your computer until much later.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I prefer the largest card that I can afford at the time I'm buying memory cards. The 5D Mark II produces very large images, and because I now shoot bracketed, I go through free space quickly. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphys_law&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Murphy's Law&lt;/a&gt; will always have me run out of space in the most inopportune time, and to prevent that I use fewer, but larger cards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The caveat to this is: I only buy memory cards when I start having issues with storage. I haven't purchased a memory card in a few years, and surprisingly 32GB seems to be the sweet spot for me. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The pros of my approach:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fewer cards to keep track of&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fewer times you have to change cards&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Spare card(s) just in case &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Multiple larger cards can be costly&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T16:28:36.223" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1971" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-04T16:53:25.927" Score="3" ViewCount="167" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have few photos in portrait mode. I wish to make a good wallpaper by removing the background and applying various photoshop techniques.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you please suggest me few tutorials or ideas to make a good wallpaper?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="771" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-28T15:45:52.930" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T15:45:52.930" Title="Ideas to make a great wall paper" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;photo-editing&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="1972" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1938" CreationDate="2010-08-04T17:30:32.250" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lot of the time when filters are used, they are not used to achieve an &lt;em&gt;effect&lt;/em&gt;, but rather &lt;strong&gt;optimal data&lt;/strong&gt; in your RAW file.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Almost every entry before mine mentions &lt;strong&gt;polarizer&lt;/strong&gt;, but I'd provide different reasoning. In some cases polarizer helps to control contrast in the scene and using it means getting more even exposure across the frame. &lt;strong&gt;Contrast is easy to add, but very hard to take away&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For the same reason, I'd suggest &lt;strong&gt;Gradual ND filters&lt;/strong&gt;. Yes, darkening the sky can be emulated, but it might be hard or even impossible to emulate correct exposure in post-processing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I'd also suggest &lt;strong&gt;color correction filters&lt;/strong&gt; to achieve optimal exposure across RGB channels, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/586/are-colour-filters-worth-using-with-digital-cameras/619#619&quot;&gt;reasoning is provided in this answer&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I always prefer real filters over emulation, because emulation usually means visible artefacts (like halos around the edges where the modified and unmodified parts meet) in the photo. These artefacts are only amplified down the line (with sharpening for example).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-04T19:26:32.503" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T19:26:32.503" />
  <row Id="1973" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-04T17:47:06.530" Score="0" ViewCount="124" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1736/can-i-publish-photos-taken-in-public-legally&quot;&gt;Can i publish photos taken in public legally?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it legal to take a photograph of some person on road and publish it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What if I'm not using it for commercial purpose and I just post it on Flickr?&#xA;What if I use it for commercial purpose?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What happens if: Subject is aware, that he/she being pictured, they give their consent to take picture at the moment to take picture, later when they find them self on Flickr.. can they file a lawsuit or something?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="567" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T17:47:06.530" ClosedDate="2010-08-04T18:36:42.197" Title="Can I take a photograph of some person on road and publish it?" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="1974" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1985" CreationDate="2010-08-04T18:07:33.003" Score="5" ViewCount="48" Body="&lt;p&gt;I notice that some photographers sell Photoshop &quot;brushes&quot;.  What exactly are they, and when would I use them?  I expect that a brush has some kind of image to use as a pattern, but what use is that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-27T19:48:36.780" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T19:48:36.780" Title="In photo editing software, what is a brush and are these useful for working with photographs?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;brushes&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="1975" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2193" CreationDate="2010-08-04T18:10:14.107" Score="7" ViewCount="244" Body="&lt;p&gt;I currently use Picasa to manage my photos and when I import my photos I see &quot;doubles&quot; because I'm shooting in both RAW and JPEG.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm currently moving my raw photos manually to a folder outside of Picasa to avoid viewing doubles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does everyone else do it when shooting in both RAW and JPEG?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="777" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T13:33:37.967" Title="Best way to import and save when shooting in both RAW and JPEG?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;jpeg&gt;&lt;picasa&gt;" AnswerCount="8" />
  <row Id="1976" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1975" CreationDate="2010-08-04T18:16:45.277" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use an external tool to retrieve photos from the camera, placing the RAWs and JPEGs in separate directories. Picasa's RAW processing is pretty poor, anyway, at least for Canon raws; it ignores the camera's exposure decisions, which (here) frequently results in photos with very poor contrast compared to what is possible, and Picasa's manipulation tools are insufficient to correct this; so I also use an external tool to process the RAWs when I decide the JPEG version is not acceptable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="156" LastEditorUserId="156" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-04T21:14:37.397" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T21:14:37.397" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1980" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1975" CreationDate="2010-08-04T19:01:54.533" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You probably need to add a step in your workflow before storing them in Picasa. If you want to do this automatically with configurable settings, etc - Photo Mechanic is the best that I know for batch processing files (renaming, moving files, tagging, etc). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I meant processing here not image processing, but more like file organization before image processing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T19:01:54.533" />
  <row Id="1981" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1940" CreationDate="2010-08-04T19:06:40.343" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can highly recommend &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ror.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ROR&lt;/a&gt; as a good cleaner for extremely dirty lens elements.  I use it as a general cleaner, but was absolutely convinced when I cleaned an old 24&quot; process lens that had sat in the closet of a heavy smoker for a decade or more.  It was actually tinted from the residue, but came out flawless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a mixture of dilute ammonia, isopropyl alcohol, and a mild surfactant.  When used correctly (i.e., very sparingly) it removes greasy films easily and evaporates with no residue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T19:06:40.343" />
  <row Id="1982" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1971" CreationDate="2010-08-04T19:08:04.663" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A good wallpaper usually has an excellent use of &quot;negative space&quot;. What I meant is that it is usually mostly empty and only a small area has any real content in it. The rest are left with lines/colors/empty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the placement of the main object is also important. The easiest is always to put it in the middle, but depending on the object itself, other placements may yield a more attractive result. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some examples from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/07/31/desktop-wallpaper-calendar-august-2010/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Smashing Magazine&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T19:08:04.663" />
  <row Id="1983" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1945" CreationDate="2010-08-04T19:11:52.347" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wash them with just a bit of liquid hand soap, in the basically the same way I wash my hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However you wash them, another good tip is to boil them for one or two minutes after washing, which helps release the fibres and restores the cloth a little closer to how it was when you bought it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-04T19:25:43.817" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T19:25:43.817" />
  <row Id="1984" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1945" CreationDate="2010-08-04T19:15:10.577" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When washing microfiber cloths, I've noticed it helps to use a liquid detergent, rather than a dry granular one. I've had small granules of dry detergent get stuck on some of my microfiber cloths, and the grit in them is enough to smudge or scratch a lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T19:15:10.577" />
  <row Id="1985" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1974" CreationDate="2010-08-04T19:24:09.233" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Several photoshop tools allow you to use simple patterns rather than a simple round dot as the brush shape. Many custom brush shapes are included with photoshop, but there are, as you have seen, many thousands more for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.brusheezy.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sale or for free&lt;/a&gt; on the internet. They are used for numerous purposes, from fring graphics design styles to stylistic photographic touch up techniques.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, I think they are much more useful for the graphic designer, rather than the photographer. However, if you are the type who enjoys photomanipulation, where you blend pieces and parts of multiple photographs together, possibly with some graphic design elements, quality brushes are probably one of your more useful tools. Non-circular brushes can be very helpful when blending various photo parts together in a photomanip.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The uses for brushes is probably far more extensive than I've noted here. I would search graphic design and photo manipulation sites for more information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T19:24:09.233" />
  <row Id="1986" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1975" CreationDate="2010-08-04T19:33:04.973" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I want to shoot RAW+ (say I only want RAW in case I want to do extreme editing), in Lightroom I treat RAW and JPEG separately (or else it only imports RAW).  After the import, I sort by filetype, and reject all of the RAW files and hide rejected.  Then I go through my standard workflow of rejecting / flagging.  If there is one I want to do more editing in and am limited by JPEG, I copy the settings from the JPEG to that file's RAW and keep on going.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;RAW is just as easy to use as JPEG in Lightroom and the only reason I still used JPEG was my in-camera NR, colors, and size.  Now that my camera supports compressed DNG, its often less than 2x the size of a JPEG, and embedded profiles can be used with DNG making the colors much better.  Now that LR3 has much better NR, better RAW demoasiacing, I've started shooting DNG only with import presets, and it's just like JPEG.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T19:33:04.973" />
  <row Id="1987" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1975" CreationDate="2010-08-04T19:48:37.483" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally I keep all my RAW photos in a separate single folder not processed by Picasa. Then I only import the JPEGs into Picasa. If there is a particular image I want to open as RAW to tweak it, it's a simple matter of looking at the JPG filename in Picasa, and opening the respective RAW filename in Photoshop from my raw images directory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T19:48:37.483" />
  <row Id="1988" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1995" CreationDate="2010-08-04T20:06:31.957" Score="10" ViewCount="250" Body="&lt;p&gt;Should memory cards in DSLRs be formatted every so often?  If so, how often?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hear that after emptying the card out (transferring images to a computer), that it's a good time to format it to help reduce the chance for error/corruption.  Is this true?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to point out:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d90/users-guide/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon D90 User's Guide by Ken Rockwell&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the site:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Always format your card after you put&#xA;  it in any camera, or if you've&#xA;  connected your camera to a computer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Formatting your card(s) ensures any&#xA;  folder or file corruption acquired&#xA;  anywhere goes away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You can shoot without doing this,&#xA;  however constant formatting is good&#xA;  practice and should eliminate ever&#xA;  having any card errors. Be sure you've&#xA;  downloaded and backed up all the files&#xA;  in two different physical locations&#xA;  before formatting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="607" LastEditorUserId="607" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-04T20:38:52.767" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T21:21:12.170" Title="How often should memory cards be formatted?" Tags="&lt;memory-card&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1989" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1728" CreationDate="2010-08-04T20:08:52.267" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apparently the UV coating can help when photographing white material, such as a wedding dress, which can flouresce when exposed to UV and give it an undesirable bluish cast.  Reference the discussion at &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/007pFD&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/007pFD&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T20:08:52.267" />
  <row Id="1990" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1988" CreationDate="2010-08-04T20:13:53.877" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would see no reason to format the card on a regular basis, simply erasing all images on the card is sufficient. Bear in mind that most flash based media have a limit on the number of writes and so formatting is going to help you reach that limit a little bit faster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only upside to formatting, which is probably where this idea came from, is that it can be faster than file delete. That I might do if the card was full or close to it. However, if I'm transferring anything less than half the capacity of the card, I'd probably just erase the files afterwards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T20:13:53.877" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1991" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1988" CreationDate="2010-08-04T20:27:06.317" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The camera will only ever do a &quot;quick format&quot; as there is a limit on read/write operations on flash memory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I use several cards in rotation, and format immediately prior to needing it again -- the benefit of this approach means that when my hard disk died last year, I didn't lose any files, as I could download from card again (and restore older pictures from backups)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T20:27:06.317" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="1992" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1988" CreationDate="2010-08-04T20:27:55.830" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Memory cards are FAT formatted.  When a file is deleted in FAT, the space is marked as free, but there can still be hidden fragmentation and corruption.  Formatting rewrites the allocation table to make sure the space is continuous and you don't have any file-system errors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a precaution, I do it every so often especially when burst shooting when I never want to be limited by write speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T20:27:55.830" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="1993" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1988" CreationDate="2010-08-04T20:31:33.233" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, memory cards should be formatted now and then, but it doesn't have to be very often.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you format it every time you empty it, you will perform write operations to the same part of the memory, which shortens it's life span. So that would actually in the end cause corruption instead of fixing it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you delete files, the data is left on the memory card but marked as reusable. When you create new files it will first use sectors that hasn't previously been used, so this will spread the usage so that new files aren't always created in the same place, which prolongs the life time of the memory card. When you format the card, this information is removed. So if you format the card each time you empty it, new files will always be created in the same part, also reducing it's life time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Formatting a memory card doesn't reduce the chance of corruption, a newly formatted card is no less prone to get corrupted. It will however fix corruption if it's already there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you create and delete files on the memory card, the directory entries are not removed but left to be reused. Over time this can accumulate, and formatting will regain this space, but generally it's only a few kilobytes so it's certainly no reason to format often.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T20:31:33.233" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1994" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1888" CreationDate="2010-08-04T20:32:53.013" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my experience a fast lens is the most important thing for shooting in low light environments.  As other posters have pointed out, high ISO is helpful, but most Canon or Nikon DSLRs now have sufficiently decent low light performance.  &lt;strong&gt;The biggest determinant is going to be the lens&lt;/strong&gt;, where you really should get something good.  A versatile 70-200/f2.8 is a good one, with a 24-70/f2.8 (or equivalent) for closer up.  I've had lots of success even with older Nikon D70s and D100s as long as I used a fast lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="785" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T20:32:53.013" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="1995" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1988" CreationDate="2010-08-04T21:06:32.307" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I format my card every time I stick it in my camera and start a shoot. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do this for a couple of reasons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, it means every time I start a shoot, I don't accidentally leave the previous shoot on it (and it also means I don't delete it until I start the next shoot, by which time those images are safely on various backup disks; gives me an emergency backup on the card until I'm sure I've got multiple copies elsewhere).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, I use multiple camera bodies, and I know people who've had corruption issues with cards formatted by the computer (which I never do) or by one body and used in another because the bodies interact with the card slightly differently. By formatting every time, I know the formatting is what the camera wants and is expecting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third, formatting at the start of the shoot will (or should!) catch a card that is starting to fail. At the least, it'll catch some early failure modes in the card -- and in two cases for me so far, it has. So if the card hits an error during format, I know to immediately retire it. I'd rather find out I have a card error at the START of the shoot that midway into it, or worse, when I'm trying to read the images out later. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: any time I get a card error, I retire that card. Cards are cheap. Dead cards that eat my only copy of an image is expensive. And formatting a card every time means that every time I shoot gives me a blank slate in a known state that hasn't reported an error. Which means many fewer potential problems later. And FWIW, I basically never run into corrupted cards, lost images or problems during a shoot or during a post-shoot import. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if it means the card will wear out sooner, I don't care. I want reliable cards, not ancient ones. I'll happily replace them rather than try to recover images from them....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastEditorUserId="705" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-04T21:21:12.170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T21:21:12.170" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="1996" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1975" CreationDate="2010-08-04T21:20:19.643" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;i'd recommend saving up for lightroom. It does everything you want and more. You will quickly outgrow picasa.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="778" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-04T21:21:11.793" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T21:21:11.793" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="1997" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2003" CreationDate="2010-08-04T21:23:24.570" Score="6" ViewCount="144" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that one can photograph a color-neutral card (white, gray, black) and use it for white balance, either in-camera or in post-processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using an image of a color-neutral card taken under given lighting conditions, is there a way that the color temperature number can be measured by examining the color values in the image file?  Presumably one knows or assumes the tone of the card, e.g. all-white, 18% gray, or all black.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It'd be nice to develop a feel for color temperatures by measuring various sources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T22:46:18.490" Title="How can color temperature be measured using a digital camera?" Tags="&lt;white-balance&gt;&lt;color-temperature&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="1998" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1955" CreationDate="2010-08-04T21:23:55.413" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're going camping, a large memory card is your best bet. Not a lot of cards to carry.&#xA;If you're doing wedding photography or portfolios, you should carry several cards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="664" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T21:23:55.413" />
  <row Id="1999" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1938" CreationDate="2010-08-04T21:28:01.357" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I carry three filters:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Circular Polarizer for reducing reflections on shiny objects and to darken skies. it's also useful as a neutral density filter with a +2 rating.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neutral density filter to reduce incoming light. I typically carry a +3, which I can stack with the circular polarizer to lengthen shutter speeds to smooth out water flow and etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UV/Haze filters, because I'd rather replace a broken UV filter than the lens it's protecting. And Iv'e had that happen twice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used to carry graduated ND filters for landscape, and I no longer do; I do HDR or I do some form of post processing rather than try to handle that on site. The only filter effects I don't know how to handle in post are the polarization and ND effects. Everything else I can manage (and generally with better control) in post than in the field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T21:28:01.357" />
  <row Id="2000" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-08-04T21:29:23.477" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When you upload your photos, don't make all 400 of them public. Just choose the ones that stand apart and make those public.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I learned this the hardway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="664" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T21:29:23.477" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-04T21:29:23.477" />
  <row Id="2001" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1997" CreationDate="2010-08-04T21:44:04.643" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can use the RAW conversion software, this works for example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take a photo of a color neutral object in RAW format.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Open it in Photoshow Camera Raw.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Select the White Balance Tool.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Click on the neutral object in the image.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Temperature setting changes to make the object neutral, so it shows the color temperature.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-04T22:11:46.540" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T22:11:46.540" />
  <row Id="2002" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2004" CreationDate="2010-08-04T22:06:10.320" Score="5" ViewCount="259" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like really really sharp photos. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even with a prime lens, I seem to be able to do noticeably better with my 450D by manually focusing using live view at maximum zoom than by using auto focus (even with just the center focus point selected and aimed at the same high contrast region that I am looking at in live view). However this is a painstaking procedure that requires a tripod and a fair bit of time; not really suitable for capturing fleeting expressions on people's faces or rapidly moving children. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unlike my old film camera, the 450D lacks a prismatic focusing screen, and my eyesight isn't good enough to do better than the autofocus through the viewfinder without one. How do others deal with focusing for candid portraits? Any tips?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="156" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T20:49:04.440" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T20:49:04.440" Title="Focusing an entry-level DSLR" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;tips&gt;&lt;focus&gt;&lt;manual-focus&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2003" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1997" CreationDate="2010-08-04T22:33:42.723" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;White balance tools (like those in Lightroom or Photoshop) will tell you the color temperature of the neutral card essentially directly, based on the color temperature data in the RAW file.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More theoretically, if you're shooting with a known color temperature (even approximately known), then the color of the neutral target is directly related to the color temperature of the lighting.  Doing this &lt;strong&gt;precisely&lt;/strong&gt; has several big catches (e.g., it doesn't really apply to fluorescent or mixed lighting, and understanding color theory is a prerequisite), but doing it &lt;strong&gt;relatively&lt;/strong&gt; is eminently practical:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;if the card is bluish, it's lit with a higher color temperature than your setting.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;if the card is reddish, it's lit with a lower color temperature than your setting.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With practice, the card isn't needed; you can see the relevant color casts in any neutral object, and particularly in shadows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I think the best advice is to try to memorize the approximate color temperatures of typical situations, like this chart from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/white-balance.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cambridge in Colour&lt;/a&gt; (the full article is worth a read):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1000-2000K – Candlelight&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2500-3500K – Tungsten Bulb (household variety)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;3000-4000K – Sunrise/Sunset (clear sky)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;4000-5000K – Fluorescent Lamps&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;5000-5500K – Electronic Flash&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;5000-6500K – Daylight with Clear Sky (sun overhead)&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;6500-8000K – Moderately Overcast Sky&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;9000-10000K – Shade or Heavily Overcast Sky&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Fluorescent lamps aren't standard light sources, and many variations exist, so this should be considered a &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; approximate figure.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; There's an old joke about the noon sky outside of Kodak's offices being exactly 5500K.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-04T22:46:18.490" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T22:46:18.490" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2004" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2002" CreationDate="2010-08-04T22:36:08.133" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The lack of focus could be partially the result of camera shake.  Even though the focus is correct, the image may be blurred slightly by the movement, which would go away using a tripod.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are looking at 100% crops of digital images, there will probably be some blur unless you make sure to select a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1733/minimum-shutter-speed&quot;&gt;high enough shutter speed&lt;/a&gt;.  The same image viewed as a 4x6 is going to be quite sharp compared to the 100% crop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-05T12:10:07.280" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T12:10:07.280" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2005" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2007" CreationDate="2010-08-04T23:01:27.813" Score="7" ViewCount="146" Body="&lt;p&gt;What does Adaptive Dynamic Range do to a photograph? How does it do its job? How does it affect the results? When should it be used?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nikon calls this &quot;Active D-Lighting&quot;; discussion of other systems (and how they differ) would be appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for specifics here, not just &quot;make pictures look better in extreme lighting conditions.&quot; Nitty-gritty technical details might be appropriate too, but please be gentle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T23:54:49.960" Title="How does Adaptive Dynamic Range work?" Tags="&lt;dynamic-range&gt;&lt;adr&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="2006" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2002" CreationDate="2010-08-04T23:05:36.183" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There have been claims of back and front focus issues on the Canon 450D, but I'm not entirely sure I believe them. I have a friend with that camera that runs around with an unstabilized 400mm Canon prime and takes sharp bird pictures using that lens. So... I suspect that it may be more related to camera shake caused by one or more of the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mirror vibration which can have bigger impact on slow shutter speeds.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Technique which can cause camera shake. For example, if you stab at the shutter release, that can cause movement.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Slow shutter. Hand holding a shot with a shutter speed well below 1/f (f being focal length) is sure to introduce shake, especially with an unstabilized lens.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Low light focus hunting. You may have shifted focus as you pressed the release and not realized it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After all that, it is entirely possible that you have a front or back focussing issue but, as I said, I suspect the general claims of this are unlikely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T23:05:36.183" />
  <row Id="2007" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2005" CreationDate="2010-08-04T23:30:41.510" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The dynamic range captured by the camera is higher with more steps than can be stored in a JPEG image.  Around 2^14 (there is loss due to noise, of course) versus 2^8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The mapping of those values is known as a tone curve.  Adaptive Dynamic Range, Highlight Correction, etc. usually underexpose the image slightly and apply a tone curve that everything to the correct exposure, while compressing the highlights and thus capturing more highlight detail.  Many cameras already do this without any options on, if you look at dynamic range comparisons on DPReview, the non-linear highlights (all digital sensors capture light linearly), and DxO's ISO Sensitivity charts (cameras that do this have lower ISO sensitivity ratings)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some DSLRs also have Shadow Correction, which doesn't underexpose the image, but just boosts the shadows as that is where most of the information is lost when saving to JPEG.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The result with Shadow Correction is a more noticeable contrast decrease, although you get more information to work with and you can always push it down afterwards.  Highlight correction doesn't have a noticeable decrease in overal contrast, but rather just increases local contrast in the highlights and captures detail at the upper end of the exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-04T23:54:49.960" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T23:54:49.960" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2008" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2002" CreationDate="2010-08-04T23:37:21.407" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Every component (lens and body) have independent tolerances when it comes to focusing.  With a the shallower the depth of field, the overall focus offset becomes apparent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To make things more complicated, the focus offset may change with these variables: focus distance, aperture, and focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although it is entirely possible that your combination may be front or back focusing, you should look at other factors such as camera shake.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to determine if it really is front or back focusing, or something else, do a focus test. It's important you do this outside with natural light, as artificial, particularly incandescent, will cause front focus with most cameras.  If it is calibrated indoors, you'll get back focus with other light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Make sure to read all the instructions and use a tripod:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://focustestchart.com/chart.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://focustestchart.com/chart.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-05T01:32:30.397" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T01:32:30.397" />
  <row Id="2009" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2002" CreationDate="2010-08-04T23:39:35.240" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It looks like you can put a focusing screen into a 450D. Check out these links for the procedure: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.linkdelight.com/instruction/focusscreen/450D-500D-1000D.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EOS 450D 500D 1000D Split Screen Installation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.focusingscreen.com/work/450den.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EOS 450D Focusing Screen Installation&lt;/a&gt; **&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;** &lt;em&gt;Beware, that page is written in fairly bad English.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon 450D &amp;amp; 500D focusing screens for purchase. I have no idea if the price is reasonable...plain it is $105, with the brightness enhancement and AF points, it is $200:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/item--Canon-450D-%28Rebel-XSi%29-Focusing-Screen--prod_450D.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KatzEye™ Focusing Screen for the&#xA;Canon® 450D/500D (Rebel XSi/T1i)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a much cheaper one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.linkdelight.com/vmchk/Others/Double-45-Split-Focusing-Screen-For-Canon-450D-500D-1000D/Detailed-product-flyer.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Double 45° Split Focusing Screen For Canon 450D 500D 1000D&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-04T23:45:52.063" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T23:45:52.063" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2010" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2002" CreationDate="2010-08-04T23:46:03.670" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can change the focusing screen of the 450D. (It does come with one, but not a high contrast one). A quick google has found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/item--Canon-450D-Focusing-Screen--prod_450D.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;one by katzeye&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.focusingscreen.com/work/450den.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;instructions for changing it&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is easier for the higher spec cameras, but can be done at your level.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-08-04T23:46:03.670" />
  <row Id="2011" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="856" CreationDate="2010-08-05T00:33:20.590" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I disagree that most watermarks don't detract from the image. Most do. I've tried many things. I finally moved to a very subtle watermark that embraces my use of a low-res image and creative commons that recognizes the sharing culture on line (whether you want it shared or not...) rather than fight that. the watermark is there to encourage people to learn about creative commons and to not assume all images are public domain. My views on this are published here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chuqui.com/2010/06/online-images-and-watermarking/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.chuqui.com/2010/06/online-images-and-watermarking/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the sharing culture is here whether you want it to be or not. If you are online, you have to deal with it. I think fighting it is a losing battle, so I decided to embrace it instead. That doesn't mean I put my high-value, high-res images where they can be easily copied -- I protect those (mostly by leaving them offline!), but lower res images that can help promote my photography? why not? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and I think the new healing tool in CS5 probably takes out most of the watermarks I've seen people use online these days, so I'm not sure watermarking is going to prevent a motivated thief... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T00:33:20.590" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2012" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2002" CreationDate="2010-08-05T01:09:52.403" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One trick you can use to avoid camera shake on the 450 is to use the 2 second timer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could go so far as to introduce a tripod and muck around with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.howtodothings.com/video/canon-xsi450d-set-mirror-lockup&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;mirror lock-up&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use the 60mm prime macro and get reasonable results just using the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/samsam/4610478279/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;auto focus stuff&lt;/a&gt; even in low light with high ISO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As soon as I tighten the aperture and use higher speeds I start getting fantastic results. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that a bigger factor is the 450s poor performance with high ISO which restricts what you can do in low light. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have noticed that photos that use flash tend to appear a lot more focused so another trick you could look into is using a fill flash in low light. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="230" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T01:09:52.403" />
  <row Id="2013" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="831" CreationDate="2010-08-05T02:48:21.713" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Looks like Photoshop Lightroom will do what I need it to do - HOWEVER, it doesn't support/import .PNG files, so unfortunately any iPhone screen-captures are ignored.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="172" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T02:48:21.713" />
  <row Id="2014" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="856" CreationDate="2010-08-05T06:36:13.090" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you actually want your pictures to be printed, you drop the watermark. Editors are in a hurry and can't wait to buy a non-watermarked version.  You'll have to find out who used your image and send the bills yourself though, but that's some money after all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="795" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T06:36:13.090" />
  <row Id="2015" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2002" CreationDate="2010-08-05T07:09:04.600" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another thing to think about: If you do change the focusing screen, manually focusing will get quicker over time. You'll learn your lens and you'll be able to do it much faster. Practice, practice, practice!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="653" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T07:09:04.600" />
  <row Id="2016" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1971" CreationDate="2010-08-05T07:17:18.843" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mandolux.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.mandolux.com/&lt;/a&gt; for some amazing ideas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="653" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T07:17:18.843" />
  <row Id="2017" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-08-05T07:35:19.650" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Learn all the rules of composition, then break them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="342" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T07:35:19.650" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-05T07:35:19.650" />
  <row Id="2018" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2010-08-05T08:07:55.607" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jonathan Cherry &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mullitover.cc&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mull It Over&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. Every week or so, he interviews an emerging photographer and links to his/her gallery. A great way to discover new talents. At the end of the day, the path to be a better photographer goes through watching A LOT of other people pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T08:07:55.607" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-05T08:07:55.607" />
  <row Id="2019" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="532" CreationDate="2010-08-05T08:44:09.250" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use aperture priority mode, spot metering, exposure compensation on +1.5, and do the metering on the brightest area (eg. white clouds). If you don't have spot metering, use centered metering and zoom in on the bright area. You will want to play with different values for compensation to find one that suits your taste (and your subject, and your film or camera sensor).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If shooting digital (JPEG), I can also set a lower contrast, but it's hidden in some menu. This is pointless when shooting RAW. Also, using a low ISO will let you record more contrast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With all of the above, I only work to protect the highlights; but with slide film and digital, highlights need more protection than shadows. So if highlights are well-exposed, shadows will be as good as they can be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T08:44:09.250" />
  <row Id="2020" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1286" CreationDate="2010-08-05T09:11:46.620" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As always, read the exclusions carefully. I have heard a case where a man accidentally dropped  his camera while on a ship. The camera ended down in the sea, so it could not be retrieved. His camera insurance did not cover because there was no theft to report or damage to show. I think in many cases 'disappearing' is not covered...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="729" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T09:11:46.620" />
  <row Id="2021" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2032" CreationDate="2010-08-05T09:16:00.643" Score="16" ViewCount="851" Body="&lt;p&gt;A great way to learn and find ideas.  Some of these also have mini-games such as post-processing challenges, which is a wonderful way to learn about the different creative ways you can post-process the same image, and what you like best. The smaller and tighter the community, the more likely you will get better and more in-depth critiques.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reason to be cautious:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Beware of scams. (These are typically&#xA;of the form &quot;Congratulations, your&#xA;photo has won a prize! We're&#xA;publishing a very expensive book of&#xA;the prizewinning photos, would you&#xA;like to order a copy?&quot;. Of course,&#xA;every entrant has won a prize...)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Watch out for the copyright clauses;&#xA;by entering, you may be assigning all&#xA;rights in your photo to whoever's&#xA;running the competition.-&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Free:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://gizmodo.com/tag/shooting-challenge&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gizmodo.com/tag/shooting-challenge&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://dpchallenge.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dpchallenge.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://dpreview.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dpreview.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photosig.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photosig.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photofriday.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photo Friday&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photocamel.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photocamel.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photoforum.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photoforum.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://dailyshoot.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dailyshoot.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://fredmiranda.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fredmiranda.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://fujimugs.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fujimugs.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://pentaxforums.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pentaxforums.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://dgrin.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dgrin.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photographybb.com/category/assignments/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PhotographyBB&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photography.about.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;About Photography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tmelive.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the mindful eye&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://smallaperture.com/category/events/competitions/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Small Aperture&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reddit.com/r/PictureChallenge/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;reddit PictureChallenge&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Other sources:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://twitter.com/dailyshoot&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;twitter.com/dailyshoot&lt;/a&gt; - not a competition, more a daily social game.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr groups&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://panachallenge.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;panachallenge.com&lt;/a&gt; - targeted mainly to Panasonic users.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Prizes&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photographycompetitions.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photography Competitions - Photo Contests - Photo Awards&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photocompete.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photo Compete&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="471" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-14T23:40:15.813" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T23:43:56.170" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T03:49:04.587" Title="On-line photo challenges" Tags="&lt;competitions&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="19" />
  <row Id="2022" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-05T09:29:11.747" Score="17" ViewCount="402" Body="&lt;p&gt;Inspired by &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/164/what-are-your-easiest-beginner-tips&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;, what are your photography tips for people who are not even beginners, just the next person with a camera? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that I mean people like me, who own a simple compact class camera and take pictures at family gatherings or vacations. They do not know all kinds of advanced concepts like &quot;focal length&quot; or &quot;shutter speed&quot; - nor are they particularly interested in them. They just want a good picture with their little camera. In fact, a definition of a &quot;good&quot; picture would also be appreciated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="811" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T21:59:21.517" LastActivityDate="2010-08-13T14:18:23.807" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T03:51:10.937" Title="Tips for casual photographers" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;tips&gt;" AnswerCount="12" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="2023" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="683" CreationDate="2010-08-05T09:44:46.120" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tawbaware.com/tufuse.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;TuFuse&lt;/a&gt; to create good-looking HDR images. I shoot into RAW and check the histogram immediately to have no overexposures. Then I develop two pictures - one with nice bright parts and the second with nice dark parts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.2i.cz/show/0b571c36e5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://2i.cz/2i/t/0b571c36e5&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.2i.cz/show/1a460d27f4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://2i.cz/2i/t/1a460d27f4&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next, I run TuFuse with standard parameters:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;tufuse.exe -o out.tif im1.tif im2.tif&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It produces quite a nice image (using standard exposure weight curve):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.2i.cz/show/e5b9f2d80b&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://2i.cz/2i/t/e5b9f2d80b&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.2i.cz/show/f4a8e3c91a&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://2i.cz/2i/t/f4a8e3c91a&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I am not satisfied, I change the curve with some parameters:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;tufuse.exe --cCo 0.6 --cBr 0.5 -o out1.tif im1.tif im2.tif&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;--cCo 0.6&lt;/code&gt; narrows curve by 0.6, &lt;code&gt;--cBr 0.5&lt;/code&gt; moves it to the right by 0.5. The result image is brighter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.2i.cz/show/d68ac1eb38&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://2i.cz/2i/t/d68ac1eb38&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.2i.cz/show/c79bd0fa29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://2i.cz/2i/t/c79bd0fa29&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T09:44:46.120" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2024" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3" CreationDate="2010-08-05T09:49:34.417" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tawbaware.com/tufuse.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;TuFuse&lt;/a&gt; to blend images. See my &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/683/hdr-from-a-single-raw-file/2023#2023&quot;&gt;step by step tutorial&lt;/a&gt; for details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T09:49:34.417" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2025" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1293" CreationDate="2010-08-05T09:52:21.217" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tawbaware.com/tufuse.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;TuFuse&lt;/a&gt; meets #3 and maybe #1. You don't need #2 if you shoot good RAW picture. See my &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/683/hdr-from-a-single-raw-file/2023#2023&quot;&gt;step  by step tutorial&lt;/a&gt; for details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T09:52:21.217" />
  <row Id="2026" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1805" CreationDate="2010-08-05T09:55:39.327" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A Ried wrote, you cannot do it in camere. Take two shots and use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tawbaware.com/tufuse.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;TuFuse&lt;/a&gt; to blend images. I think it will care about halo. See my &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/683/hdr-from-a-single-raw-file/2023#2023&quot;&gt;step by step tutorial&lt;/a&gt; for details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T09:55:39.327" />
  <row Id="2027" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2021" CreationDate="2010-08-05T10:31:58.757" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the biggest, I would think, is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpchallenge.com/index.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DP Challenge&lt;/a&gt; which has open and member based challenges across all sorts of areas. You can sign up for free to enter into open challenges, but the member challenges are reserved for paying members.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other big one is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DP Review&lt;/a&gt; challenges, again they span all sorts of areas and concepts. DP Review signup is free and challenges are open to all site members.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both of them also have extensive archives that you can explore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T10:31:58.757" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T03:49:04.587" />
  <row Id="2028" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2022" CreationDate="2010-08-05T11:36:19.343" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a long answer... :o)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if you don't want to get in contact with the technical details, there are some buttons on your camera that makes a lot of difference in casual shots. Those buttons allow you to do quite critical steps for every shot, let's go step by step in the order you should use them for each shot:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The zoom controls&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are usually positioned around the shutter button and are used to approximate your subject (zooming in) or to make it &quot;go away&quot; (zooming out). Usually the cameras offer stepped zoom controls, and it is useful to learn how to zoom in discrete steps instead of all the way in or out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use the zooming in to give more importance to certain subjects in the photo, like making a flower bigger than the surroundings. Use the zooming out to include more subjects in the photo, like a larger group of people or some landmark or landscape.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you find out how close or far you need your subject to appear in the shot, you can move to the next one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The exposition control&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This button (or option) is usually labeled like a &lt;strong&gt;+/-&lt;/strong&gt; and allows you to inform the camera how light or dark you want your shot to be. Using it usually involves a ruler labeled from &lt;strong&gt;-2&lt;/strong&gt; to &lt;strong&gt;+2&lt;/strong&gt; and this numbers refer to the darkest setting (-2) and to the lightest setting (+2).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Usually leaving this control at zero let's the camera try to balance the photo in order to not make it too dark or light, but if you learn how to adjust the exposition of your shots, you certainly are going to get better results in most cases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also keep in mind that the camera is going to try to adjust itself to whatever subject you point and that this takes a while. Before adjusting the exposition, point your camera to the subject, wait until the camera &quot;understands&quot; the scene (usually around a second or so) and then proceed to focus and composing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Darken your shots (move the exposition to a negative value) when you want to photograph something that is too bright. In the same way, lighten your shots (positive values) when you are pointing your camera to something dark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you are happy with the appearance of your light conditions, move on to the final step:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The shutter button itself&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many people treat the shutter as just a place to press when you want to take a picture, but the shutter has to be handled gently and in most cameras (and some phones) it works in two steps. If you press it halfway it focus on the subject(s) and only when you continue to press it is that the shot is really taken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take a time to check if your camera have this two step action, learn how to reach the first step without going all the way and learn how to finish the pressing without shaking the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first half of the shutter action (fucusing) is extremely important, since if you don't give time for the camera to focus on whatever you are pointing it to, the shot will most probably come out blurred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another important use of the shutter half press is to allow you to focus on a subject and then, while still holding the shutter half way, move the camera around the subject in order to put it in a better position but still focused. This is related to the &lt;strong&gt;composition&lt;/strong&gt; of the photo (see more about it below).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Other buttons&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While not as much critical as the three above, most cameras also have other buttons that can help a lot taking better pictures, but you can take more time to learn then:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The flash control - usually represented by a lightning symbol. This allows you to turn on or off the flash itself. For most shots you probably won't need the flash, but try to shoot with and without the flash to learn how it impacts the shot. Leave the flash on if you are shooting something on a really dark environment, but understand that it will look too bright in the resulting photo. You should also turn it on if you are shooting some subject against the sun or other bright light source (this is called fill in flash).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;mode&quot; control - many cameras have &quot;modes&quot; that indicate how the camera will interpret what you are trying to do. Leaving this control in the &quot;auto&quot; setting will let the camera make all the important decisions for you and is probably enough for most casual shots, but some cameras don't allow you to control exposition or the flash in this mode. Another common modes are the &quot;scene modes&quot;, where you set the control in order to inform that you want to shoot some scenery, sports event, people, close things (called macro) etc. These &quot;scene modes&quot; are very helpful and you should try them if you have the time.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;macro&quot; control is usually represented by a flower icon. This control let's you shoot something really close to the camera. Very useful for flower shots, but also for close details of objects, small animals or any other close up. Always remember to turn off the macro button before taking regular shots, otherwise your shots will come out really blurred.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So I just have to press the buttons in the right order?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No, but it really helps if you do. Once you understand what your camera controls do you certainly will start  to be able to take better pictures. Think in the car controls you need to learn before going out in the street, if you don't know about the pedals or how to steer, you probably are going to have problems driving.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you know what happens when you press the buttons, it's time to start paying more attention to what you are showing in the pictures. That's the composition part of photography, and although not using the controls correctly are surely enough to get you a bad shot, using them correctly are not enough to get you a &lt;strong&gt;good&lt;/strong&gt; one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are tons of books, sites and videos about composition and you should try to check some of this material if you have time. But this small list of hints may work as a starting point for shooting these subjects:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Landscapes&lt;/strong&gt; - try to position yourself in order to include more parts of it and look out for things in the foreground (closer to you) that may be on the way.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;People&lt;/strong&gt; - try to position yourself (or the subject, if possible) in order to not have strong light coming from behind the subject or from directly above. Usually, if the subject is in the shade things are going to be easier for you and them (no squinting).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Action&lt;/strong&gt; - be aware that snapshots are not adequate for action shots, but try to follow the subject as it moves. Not easy and not certain.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see, positioning yourself or the camera is very important and usually neglected. Composition is much more about from where and how you point the camera and what is present in a &lt;em&gt;scene&lt;/em&gt; than about what fits in the screen (which is more related to &lt;strong&gt;framing&lt;/strong&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, keep in mind that having fun is a very important part of the exercise! I hope this anwser did not end being too much information. :o)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastEditorUserId="46" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-05T16:02:28.660" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T16:02:28.660" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T03:51:10.937" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2029" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2022" CreationDate="2010-08-05T12:43:36.763" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Don't try to take 300 000 pictures that will break your hard drive, try to take three that'll break your heart.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know it's stupid to quote &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADYtPvik46o&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;commercial&lt;/a&gt;, but think it's worse not to refer to sources. It's been influential for me and I think it's in context here. And it actually even includes the definition of a good picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-05T15:39:31.670" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T15:39:31.670" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T03:51:10.937" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2030" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2022" CreationDate="2010-08-05T12:45:46.650" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are 2 sides to this, the technical and the artistic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Technical&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Try to gently squeeze the button to take the picture, don't poke it. The less the camera moves the better the focus will be.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Most (if not all) digital cameras will auto-focus when you press halfway, some also do red-eye reduction at this point, so it is usually better to half-press the shutter, then slowly squeeze it the rest of the way.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You do not always need the flash, and it is often counter-productive. Try not using flash in the following situations:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You are far away from your subject (distant landscape, a player on the other side of a football field)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is glass or fencing between you and the subject.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Artistic&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several simple &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_%28visual_arts%29#Compositional_techniques&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;rules of composition&lt;/a&gt; that you can try to remember, the simplest is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/521/what-is-the-rule-of-thirds&quot;&gt;Rule of Thirds&lt;/a&gt;, essentially it says that it is best to put your subject slightly off-center.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Point of view is another very important concept.  You can get a very &lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/photographing-children-pov-point-of-view&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;different feel from a photo depending what the view&lt;/a&gt; is.  This is a bit simplistic, but try to take pictures at the eye level of the subject.  This means that you will need to get down lower when taking a picture of a child, which puts them on an equal level in the viewers mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A &quot;Good Picture&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately this is &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; subjective... If you enjoy the picture, then it is a good picture.  &lt;em&gt;Photography is not a hard science, it is an art.&lt;/em&gt; People have varying backgrounds and viewpoints and will see images in a different context.  This means that everyone has their own opinion of what is &quot;Good&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-05T12:52:32.597" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T12:52:32.597" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T03:51:10.937" />
  <row Id="2031" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-05T12:55:54.570" Score="0" ViewCount="93" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/16/whats-the-first-few-photography-books-someone-should-read&quot;&gt;What’s the first few photography books someone should read?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Inspired by &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/164/what-are-your-easiest-beginner-tips&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;, Is there a good online tutorial or book about the basics of photography?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the sources I've read include detailed lens specs, camera-specific data or the history of cameras from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Camera Obscura&lt;/a&gt; onwards and recommendations for highly priced gadgets I am not going to buy. Unfortunately, I have simple Point-And-Shoot, and a friend's DSLR once in a while.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm interested with short and practical explanation about focus, exposure, depth of field, light and flash, composition and common pitfalls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adam&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="812" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T15:36:20.430" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T15:36:20.430" ClosedDate="2010-08-05T13:16:20.117" Title="Beginner's guide" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;books&gt;&lt;web&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="2032" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2021" CreationDate="2010-08-05T12:57:44.350" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Please use answers to rate and comment on each one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-14T23:43:56.170" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T23:43:56.170" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T03:49:04.587" />
  <row Id="2034" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16" CreationDate="2010-08-05T13:06:59.887" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson is a great and easy to read book that covers these topics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T13:06:59.887" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2035" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16" CreationDate="2010-08-05T13:11:34.493" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Scott Kelby's &quot;Digital Photography&quot;&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A great book to really improve your photography is Scott Kelby's &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/032147404X&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Photography&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a hints and tips book, not a thorough working through of the principals, but I came away from it with a lot of really good solid practical things which I now include in my photography, so I'm sure it would be helpful.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T13:11:34.493" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2036" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2022" CreationDate="2010-08-05T13:13:44.833" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Look at the work of other photographers.&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will remember the images you like.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T13:13:44.833" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T03:51:10.937" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2037" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2021" CreationDate="2010-08-05T13:13:49.280" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's already a big list of suggestions in another answer, so I'll just add:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Beware of scams. (These are typically of the form &quot;Congratulations, your photo has won a prize! We're publishing a very expensive book of the prizewinning photos, would you like to order a copy?&quot;. Of course, &lt;em&gt;every&lt;/em&gt; entrant has won a prize...)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Watch out for the copyright clauses; by entering, you may be assigning all rights in your photo to whoever's running the competition.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T13:13:49.280" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T03:49:04.587" />
  <row Id="2038" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2022" CreationDate="2010-08-05T13:14:13.147" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most beginners using a camera just points straight at what they want to photograph, from where they happen to be, and press the trigger. By just making a few consious choises first, you can improve the result very much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Light&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;is of course very important. Try to get the sun somewhere behind you if you have the choice. (Very interresting pictures can be taken with light from behind the subject, but you should start with what's simple and predictable.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Background&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;is important to give the image meaning. Try to get a good balance between the subject and the surroundings. Use the zoom if you have one, or simply move to a position where you get the right proportions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Composition&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;has many rules that you can learn, but you could start with something simple like the subject in 2/3 of the image to the right and background in the 1/3 to the left. This gives life to the image compared to just putting the subject in the center.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T13:14:13.147" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T03:51:10.937" />
  <row Id="2039" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2022" CreationDate="2010-08-05T13:16:26.217" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;look at photos and photogs that you like and try to understand why you like the work and how to do that.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When reviewing your own pictures, think about what you like and don't like for each one. What could be done to improve it (not just in post process, but when you were taking it, or even stuff like if that tree wasn't there, the clouds were better, a certain facial expression, etc).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T13:16:26.217" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T03:51:10.937" />
  <row Id="2040" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-08-05T13:39:01.180" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Back up your digital photographs to multiple locations.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't just leave them on your hard drive.  Disaster could strike at any time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="344" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T13:39:01.180" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-05T13:39:01.180" />
  <row Id="2041" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2044" CreationDate="2010-08-05T13:46:25.487" Score="11" ViewCount="479" Body="&lt;p&gt;What does DPI mean and how does it affect images displayed on screen versus printed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="624" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T14:17:16.737" Title="What does DPI mean?" Tags="&lt;display&gt;&lt;printing&gt;&lt;dpi&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="2042" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16" CreationDate="2010-08-05T13:47:30.790" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you own Adobe Photoshop, you should get &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0735712360&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Photoshop Book for Digital Photographers&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, also by Kelby.  Photoshop is a daunting tool for beginners, but it is essential if  you ever plan to sell images or prepare anything for print, even for hanging on your wall at home.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="309" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T13:47:30.790" />
  <row Id="2043" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2041" CreationDate="2010-08-05T13:54:28.373" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;DPI stands for &lt;code&gt;Dots Per Inch&lt;/code&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's used to descibe the output resolution of printers, and it's also often used instead of the PPI (Pixels Per Inch) unit, which is more appropriate for describing the resolution of computer screens, scanners and image files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, a printer might have a resolution of 2400 DPI, but that doesn't mean that you can print an image at 2400 PPI. The printer uses dots of only a few colors (usually cyan, magenta, yellow and black) which are combined in patterns to produce the entire spectrum in different intensities. A reasonable resolution for an image to be printed is 200 - 500 PPI.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you for example have an image with the specified resolution 300 PPI, it will need 300 pixels for each inch when printed. To print as 4&quot; x 6&quot; the image needs to have the dimensions 1200 x 1800 pixels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you print this image using a printer setting of 1200 DPI or 2400 DPI, it will still be the same size, but the latter will have better quality because the printer fits more ink dots in the same area.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to publish an image on the web, the PPI setting in the file has no relevance. The image is displayed with one image pixel per screen pixel. The resolution of a screen is usually around 100 PPI, so that's what people tend to specify when creating images for the web, eventhough the value is ignored by the browsers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-05T14:17:16.737" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T14:17:16.737" />
  <row Id="2044" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2041" CreationDate="2010-08-05T13:59:03.963" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;DPI, or Dots Per Inch relates to the dot density when printing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To help better understand the relationship of DPI to pixel dimensions, take an 800x600 pixel image for example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Using 300dpi, an 800x600 image will print 2.6x2 inches.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Using 200dpi, an 800x600 image will print 4x3 inches.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Using 100dpi, an 800x600 image will print at 8x6 inches.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As the DPI gets less dense, or lower, the print quality degrades.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The pixel dimensions don't change in the example, only the printed pixel density&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Extremely large prints may be printed at lower DPI because they are viewed at a distance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When changing DPI in a photo editing program, you can choose to resample which will change pixel dimension, or, if you choose not to resample, the pixels remain unchanged, only the print dimensions change.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="626" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T13:59:03.963" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2045" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1454" CreationDate="2010-08-05T14:06:42.327" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The battery question was answered sufficiently elsewhere, but I'll chime in on the upgrade path to D700 and beyond.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found myself in a very similar position a few months ago, and decided to pick up a used D700.  The important question you want to ask yourself now is, what do you want your gear bag to look like 5 years from now?  Do you see value in moving to the &quot;professional&quot; world of the D700/D3, etc?  Consider that lenses matter much more than your camera body when it comes to getting reliably good shots.  For most serious photographers, the lens collection cost dwarfs the camera body investment over time.  So think about whether you want to stay committed to the prosumer lens line (DX), or do you cut and run at this point, sell your gear, and upgrade to FX and start fresh.&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Where do you take your pictures?  If you tend to shoot in well-lit environments (outdoors, sunny climate), then you don't have much use for the low-light performance of the professional cameras.  But most professionals want the flexibility to shoot anywhere, so they pay a premium for incredible high-ISO performance.  For instance, the D700 takes printable shots at ISO 3200.  It's mind-blowing.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I figured that eventually I'd like to build up a portfolio of some top-notch zoom lenses, and keep them for at least a decade, or even a few decades (which they should last for, in theory).  And the best zoom lenses Nikon has to offer are in the FX format (the 24-70/2.8, the 14-24/2.8, and the 70-200 VRII), so I made the switch and have been very pleased.  My D300 sold for a decnet amount on Craigslist, as did my DX lenses, so that all subsidized my used D700 and my first professional lens, the 24-70/2.8.  If you ever think you are going to upgrade, there is no point in continuing to invest in the &quot;professional&quot; DX lenses, knowing that you will eventually liquidate them anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="309" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T14:06:42.327" />
  <row Id="2046" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="745" CreationDate="2010-08-05T14:11:36.373" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tipsfromthetopfloor.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tips from the top floor&lt;/a&gt; by Chris Marquardt&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="563" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-05T14:23:38.440" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T14:23:38.440" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-05T14:11:36.373" />
  <row Id="2047" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="745" CreationDate="2010-08-05T14:22:14.310" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.happyshooting.de/podcast&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;HappyShooting&lt;/a&gt; by Chris Marquardt and Boris Nienke, in german.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T14:22:14.310" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-05T14:22:14.310" />
  <row Id="2048" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2021" CreationDate="2010-08-05T14:36:05.373" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Gizmodo has a weekly shooting challenge - &lt;a href=&quot;http://gizmodo.com/tag/shooting-challenge&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://gizmodo.com/tag/shooting-challenge&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T14:36:05.373" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T03:49:04.587" />
  <row Id="2049" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2050" CreationDate="2010-08-05T14:46:28.020" Score="3" ViewCount="119" Body="&lt;p&gt;[EDIT: The original main question here was &quot;What is Highlight Tone Priority?&quot; &#xA;It turns out that Highlight Tone Priority, Active D-Lighting, D+, and Adaptive Dynamic Range all mean the same thing, so that was an exact dupe of &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2005/how-does-adaptive-dynamic-range-work&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The non-duplicated part of the original question was: why is ADR incompatible with ISO expansion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastEditorUserId="206" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-05T17:31:33.563" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T17:31:33.563" Title="Why is Adaptive Dynamic Range incompatible with ISO Expansion?" Tags="&lt;iso&gt;&lt;adr&gt;&lt;d-lighting&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2050" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2049" CreationDate="2010-08-05T14:51:47.497" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Highlight Tone Priority (HTP) changes the exposure settings used by the camera to ensure that the highlights are not over-exposed.  This is especially helpful in strong daylight pictures with lots of detail in the highlights.  A great example of a time to use it is a daytime wedding in the sun, when you are trying to get the details in the white wedding gown.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The downside of using HTP is that the picture will basically just be under-exposed.  This is perfectly fine if your image is generally high key and low contrast, but if you have a high contrast image, then your shadows will be quite under-exposed, which will increase the noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe the reason that ISO expansion would be disabled is that the ISO is internally modified down a bit to lower the overall exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-05T15:20:19.450" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T15:20:19.450" />
  <row Id="2051" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1888" CreationDate="2010-08-05T16:09:12.317" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Even with fast primes, you may need a small LED flash light.  If you go this route, you will have to set your exposure and auto-focus separately, but most cameras allow this (and many people prefer it!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think there are a few flash/body combos out there that will allow you to use the auto-focus assist light, but not fire the flash, but they are tricky to figure out.  I believe the Canon ST-E2 will also provide this function for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could of course learn to manual focus, but this can get tricky if you are trying to work fast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="832" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T16:09:12.317" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2052" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-05T16:20:56.297" Score="-4" ViewCount="452" Body="&lt;p&gt;If so, does anyone know when it's supposed to be available? Are there any other 'pro' quality compact cameras people might recommend?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="833" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T08:58:43.267" Title="Do I buy a Canon G11 now, or wait for the G12 to come out?" Tags="&lt;purchase&gt;&lt;canon-g11&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="2053" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2022" CreationDate="2010-08-05T16:25:19.380" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;TAKE A MILLION PICTURES&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think there's a myth for beginners who think that photographers take 1 picture of a scene and it's either good or bad and then they leave. In reality, photographers take a ton of pictures, and by a ton I do mean a ton. The secret really is in the editing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT YOUR PICTURES&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that you have a gazillion pictures you have to be hard on the editing. That's a lot of the work of a photographer, selecting the right pictures. Throw away blurry pictures without regret, have no mercy on out of focus subjects, keep only 1 of the 25 you took of your aunt in front of the statue of liberty. And only show the ones you think are good to show. Soon you'll notice you start taking less pictures and the editing becomes easier, it's all part of the process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="32" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T16:25:19.380" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T03:51:10.937" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2054" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2052" CreationDate="2010-08-05T16:32:25.160" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know when the G12 is coming out, but they usually come out around &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photokina-cologne.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photokina&lt;/a&gt; time, in one month. I'd wait for the G12 really.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as a 'pro' quality compact, there isn't one really. Pros use compacts as a companion camera, but there is no competition whatsoever between a compact and a dslr. I wouldn't even start trying to compare them, they serve two different purposes and markets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The G11 is an excellent compact camera though, the G12 will probably be a good one too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="32" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T16:32:25.160" />
  <row Id="2055" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2061" CreationDate="2010-08-05T16:43:45.193" Score="11" ViewCount="144" Body="&lt;p&gt;So I want to use one of the many &lt;strike&gt;online printer&lt;/strike&gt; photolabs to send my photos to and have them print them and send them back.  What is the best way to make sure the colors I see on my monitor match what I get back from them?  What am I up against?  What is perhaps the biggest factor? White balance?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="233" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-27T20:13:09.987" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T20:13:09.987" Title="What are the recommendations for getting best color matching when using a photolab?" Tags="&lt;color-management&gt;&lt;printing&gt;&lt;photolabs&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2056" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2052" CreationDate="2010-08-05T16:46:27.967" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to this, it will be announced 2010-08-19: &lt;a href=&quot;http://canong12.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://canong12.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;London, UK 19th August 2010: Canon&#xA;  today announces the launch of the&#xA;  feature packed PowerShot G12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As this information will be useless in only two weeks, and information about specific camera models is available elsewhere, I'll try to add some more general thoughts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there is a new camera release imminent, you may want to wait for it, otherwise it's just a question of whether you want a camera now or if you want to wait for some specific feature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are new and better cameras released all the time, so if you want to wait for the best camera, you will wait forever. You just have to settle for good enough. If you buy a camera, and see that after a while there is a new and better model released, that doesn't make your current camera any less good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may even look at buying the older model when the newest is released, or a used camera. You may even find the previous model in a more expensive segment at the same price as the newest in the segement you first aimed at.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-05T16:55:14.480" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T16:55:14.480" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2057" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2052" CreationDate="2010-08-05T16:51:33.423" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you wait until after the launch of the G12, you may well be able to pick up a G11 at a reduced price as shops try to get rid of &quot;old&quot; stock.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Personally, I have my sights (and budget) set on a reconditionned G9).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-06T08:58:43.267" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T08:58:43.267" />
  <row Id="2058" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="610" CreationDate="2010-08-05T16:59:10.010" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just found this on Photojojo.  It's a pretty dorky accessory, but I wonder how well it would work.  It's a fake telephoto lens that has a 45 degree mirror built into it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/candid-photography-spy-lens/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/candid-photography-spy-lens/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T16:59:10.010" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2059" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2055" CreationDate="2010-08-05T17:00:19.230" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're up against a few factors:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Your own monitor color situation. Unless you're using a color calibration tool, it's very likely that your monitor isn't showing color correctly and you're either used to it or it's close enough that you haven't noticed.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Not all software treats color space the same or even at all. Depending on what you're using to view the image, it may appear subtly different.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Color space of the image. I'm pretty certain that all cameras support sRGB, but some also do Adobe RGB (and possibly even ProPhoto RGB). sRGB is standard for monitors and many (or most) consumer grade printers, but if your image is in Adobe RGB, well it may come it differently when professionally printed. However, I suspect that you're shooting sRGB. To find out, in Windows, right click on the image, select properties, click the details tab, and scroll down until you see the line 'Color representation' and it will tell you.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;White balance is a factor, but only if they actually correct/change it. Possible, I suppose, but I'd be surprised.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;RGB vs CMYK. Monitors are RGB, which is additive (colors add to create white) and printers are often CYMK which is subtractive (colors add to remove white). The theory of color is a little large to go into here, but suffice to say they are different and perfect match would be quite difficult.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, if I were to hazard a reason why a print would come back that doesn't match your monitor, it would probably be for the first one I mentioned, the remainder are highly unlikely to be problems for most digital images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T17:00:19.230" />
  <row Id="2060" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2055" CreationDate="2010-08-05T17:00:31.367" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;See if your printer uses ICC profiles, if they have calibrated their printers correctly and you use color management you should be able to embed a custom profile and they will match what you see.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an example, WHCC has their color management guidelines in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whcc.com/resources/faq/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;their faq&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are their current guidelines:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Q. How do I calibrate to your&#xA;  printers? A. You don't calibrate&#xA;  directly to our printers. You&#xA;  calibrate your monitor and generate a&#xA;  monitor profile which software like&#xA;  Photoshop uses to show you accurate&#xA;  color on your screen. We calibrate and&#xA;  balance our printers to create a&#xA;  printer profile. Using a standard&#xA;  working color space like Adobe RGB&#xA;  1998 or sRGB and embedding this in&#xA;  your file allows the printer software&#xA;  at WHCC to use our printer profile to&#xA;  make sure what is printed is what you&#xA;  saw on your screen. We recommend all&#xA;  clients perform hardware monitor&#xA;  calibration. This is a relatively&#xA;  straightforward and simple procedure.&#xA;  We recommend the X-Rite i1 Display.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Q. Do you supply any profiles? A. Yes.&#xA;  Once you have an account number, you&#xA;  can download ICC profiles for soft&#xA;  proofing purposes. The profiles are&#xA;  for all of our printers and we also&#xA;  have instructions on how to properly&#xA;  use them. Under no circumstances&#xA;  should you convert to our printing&#xA;  profile or embed it in your files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Q. Is it okay to embed an ICC profile?&#xA;  A. Embedding a valid ICC profile in&#xA;  your image is very important. Without&#xA;  embedding the profile our software has&#xA;  no idea what colorspace your file is&#xA;  in. This will result in uexpected&#xA;  color in the prints. All files not&#xA;  tagged with an embedded profile are&#xA;  assumed to be in sRGB.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Q. What colorspace do you accept? A.&#xA;  We accept any colorspace as long as it&#xA;  is embedded in the file. Our software&#xA;  will read the colorspace embedded in&#xA;  the file and print appropriately for&#xA;  that colorspace. We recommend the use&#xA;  of a standard working space profile&#xA;  such as Adobe RGB 1998 or sRGB.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously this is one one printer, and they will each have their own specific methods of handling this issue, but most of the information is going to be similar to this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-05T17:07:20.713" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T17:07:20.713" />
  <row Id="2061" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2055" CreationDate="2010-08-05T17:04:49.893" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biggest is color management by far. I use the term &quot;photolab&quot; instead of &quot;online printing company.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ensure your files have the correct color space attached. Many pro labs support a variety of color spaces, so you should use the one that they recommend.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Have your monitor color calibrated using a hardware colorimeter. Eye balling it, will not give you the best results. When color calibrating it, you need to make sure that the ambient light levels are consistent with how you typically view and edit your photos.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Once your monitor is calibrated, you need to obtain the ICC color profiles for the printers from the photolab to which you will send your photos too. With the correct ICC profile, you can &quot;proof&quot; your photos using software which will show you how you can expect your photos to look.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Above all else, contact the photo lab and find out what steps they recommend for getting the most accurate colors from their prints.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If by chance, the photolab does not supply ICC profiles, and you have your heart set on still using this lab, you can send them a color calibration target to print. You can then send this image to a specialist company who will build you an ICC profile, and then proof the images. This of course is a royal pain, so you might as well just find a different lab to do business      with.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T17:04:49.893" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2062" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="706" CreationDate="2010-08-05T17:25:27.457" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's probably rather cliché, but you really can get some amazing photographs just walking around Times Square at night. Also, when I was there a few weeks ago, I noticed that if you go late enough (after 1:30 AM, say), there will still be people present, but the crowd will have thinned quite a bit. Whether this is useful or not depends on just what sort of photos you want, of course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="746" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T17:25:27.457" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-05T17:25:27.457" />
  <row Id="2063" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2022" CreationDate="2010-08-05T18:45:53.920" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assign yourself projects when you go to photograph.  I may go out and say 'today I'm going to concentrate on taking backlit photos', or 'framing my landscape pictures' , or high-key/low-key, etc.  I find that having something to concentrate on keeps me from just taking a bunch of random pictures hoping one comes out good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="105" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T18:45:53.920" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T03:51:10.937" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2064" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2065" CreationDate="2010-08-05T19:03:52.123" Score="8" ViewCount="210" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems like a hotshoe flash's zoom head position might factor in to the lighting pattern when shooting through an umbrella.  In the wide beam position, I expect more even light that one is presumably looking for when using an umbrella.  I wonder if you put it in the narrow beam position if there would be a bit of a hotspot in the lighting pattern.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-25T19:04:24.983" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T22:08:52.603" Title="Does the zoom head position of a flash matter when shooting through an umbrella?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;umbrella&gt;&lt;light&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="2065" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2064" CreationDate="2010-08-05T19:16:07.387" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The wide beam is going to fill the umbrella more completely than the narrower beam, creating a better spread. I don't think you would get a hotspot, as such, with a narrow beam but it wouldn't spread and soften the light as much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scantips has a pretty &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scantips.com/lights/umbrellas.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;good writeup&lt;/a&gt; on umbrella and softbox usage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T19:16:07.387" />
  <row Id="2066" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2092" CreationDate="2010-08-05T19:23:33.643" Score="8" ViewCount="641" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the pros and cons of both platforms in context of black and white photography?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several rather subjective arguments out there (like &quot;film has richer gray-tones&quot;) and they're welcome too if they're well-reasoned, but I'm mostly looking for &quot;hard evidence&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are we gaining or losing anything when we convert to RGBG and back? Filtering is easier in digital, sure, but is the outcome comparable?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-28T01:29:54.820" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T01:29:54.820" Title="What are the pros and cons of film and digital for B&amp;W photography?" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;digital-vs-film&gt;&lt;black-and-white&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2067" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2066" CreationDate="2010-08-05T19:34:05.013" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The one clear benefit of digital that I see is the ability to emulate color filters in software.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other side, many feel that film grain has a much more pleasing appearance when compared to digital ISO noise. Many black and white photos are taken in a way that accentuates the film grain, and while this might be possible to emulate with software, it is probably still easier with film.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T19:34:05.013" />
  <row Id="2068" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2066" CreationDate="2010-08-05T19:34:25.183" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most obvious, and most distinct, difference will be cost. BW film has been expensive to develop for years, but it's only going to get worse. However, I suspect you knew that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At this point, I think the difference will be between how the light is captured. While an imaging sensor just captures photons, it's filtering mechanism is there to ensure that a given photosite captures one particular color and records the intensity of that. This is different from film which would be capturing light intensity, period.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, net effect, there is some loss of information at any given photosite versus film which means that the tone of a black and white film capture would be more challenging to recreate. However, that doesn't mean that the outcome of digital is any worse, or better, than the film option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mind you, this is just me thinking through what would seem to be the essential difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T19:34:25.183" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="2069" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2022" CreationDate="2010-08-05T19:59:02.437" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fill your frame: get closer to your subject, use the zoom or crop the picture afterwards to really focus on the subject. All too often, people get lost in the scenery. A shot just of faces tends to be more interesting than one that has the whole person, head to toe. Will you really care what shoes Uncle Joe was wearing in ten years, or will you want more detail of his expression?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="649" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T19:59:02.437" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T03:51:10.937" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2070" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2066" CreationDate="2010-08-05T20:07:39.250" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My $0.02: &lt;strong&gt;B&amp;amp;W on digital is just easier.&lt;/strong&gt; No film to develop, immediate results, use any color filter you want, etc. I like using a film simulator (e.g. the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kbarni.net/index.html#Inda&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;iNDA plugin&lt;/a&gt; for Bibble) as it gives great results and it's very quick.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T20:07:39.250" />
  <row Id="2071" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="706" CreationDate="2010-08-05T20:35:32.863" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recommend taking a trip over to Brooklyn via the Brooklyn bridge and going down to the river side. Some classic shots of both the Brooklyn and Manhattan bridge can be got, particularly at sunrise / sunset.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="216" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T20:35:32.863" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-05T20:35:32.863" />
  <row Id="2072" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-05T20:36:33.237" Score="23" ViewCount="467" Body="&lt;p&gt;How many shots do you take on an average to produce a high dynamic range photograph?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="664" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-31T03:45:12.643" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T05:45:27.450" Title="How many shots do you usually take to produce an HDR photo?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;hdr&gt;&lt;tutorial&gt;" AnswerCount="12" FavoriteCount="9" />
  <row Id="2073" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3839" CreationDate="2010-08-05T20:39:01.407" Score="20" ViewCount="622" Body="&lt;p&gt;Over time I've become fairly skilled in using Picasa to do post-processing starting with NEF files, but I'm thinking it's time to step it up a notch, and explore what I can do with a more sophisticated tool. The problem is . . .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;GIMP and Photoshop intimidate me. They have all these settings and choices I don't understand. I can't even figure out quite how to do the things I know how to do in Picasa. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone have a non-scary way to begin to explore more sophisticated post-processing? (BTW, if it's relevant, I prefer to work in a Linux environment, which is another strike against Picasa at the moment).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="649" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-05T21:44:52.827" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T13:49:09.957" Title="How do I move my post-processing beyond Picasa?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;linux&gt;&lt;gimp&gt;&lt;picasa&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="2074" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2073" CreationDate="2010-08-05T20:44:13.687" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Linux I use Bibble, which is has some warts but which is the only serious option AFAICT. It's $99 for the Lite version and $199 for the Pro version, and you can download a free trial and check it out. The results look great.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One reason you might be confused by Picasa is that the controls try to be &quot;magic&quot; and hide what is actually going on. In raw converters like Bibble, the controls tend to be more orthogonal and specific.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Edit&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bibble will support the workflow in Alan's answer. I believe other Linux options like RawTherapee and Lightzone will as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-05T21:10:13.327" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T21:10:13.327" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2075" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2073" CreationDate="2010-08-05T20:49:19.887" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;GIMP and Photoshop aren't really designed for post-processing per-se. They're both excellent image editors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ideally what you want to define is a workflow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A workflow goes something like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Import photos from camera&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tag, assign metadata and organize your photos&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Process&quot; raw images, using exposure, contrast, saturation etc controls &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If necessary, use GIMP or Photoshop for any major image manipulations&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Export to Disk/Web&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can use a variety of tools, or a single all in one tool, to accomplish each step of your workflow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Picasa obviously does many of these things for you, but as you noted in your question, it's light weight in terms of processing images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since you prefer Linux, I can't offer too much help, other than to seek out other workflow solutions on the web. My guess for linux, you won't find too many all-in-one solution, so you will probably need to combine several opensource tools to accomplish what picasa gives you. As a Windows/OS X user, I use Adobe Lightroom for all steps, with Photoshop as my &quot;super toolbox&quot; when I need it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T20:49:19.887" />
  <row Id="2076" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2077" CreationDate="2010-08-05T20:56:40.387" Score="2" ViewCount="215" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2192/AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-18-200mm-f%252F3.5-5.6G-ED-VR-II.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and am planning to buy this&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/ProductDetail.page?pid=2137#tab-ProductDetail.ProductTabs.Overview&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;does that make any sense? I'm interested in taking pictures that has lot of DoF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Something like these...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/17-beautiful-images-with-shallow-depth-of-field&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;17 Beautiful Images with Shallow Depth of Field&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="567" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-06T14:25:37.563" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T14:25:37.563" Title="Have a Nikon 18-200 VR lens ..want to buy a new lens for super DoF" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2077" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2076" CreationDate="2010-08-05T21:02:05.650" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer: Yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Long answer: You can still get the shallow DoF look with any lens by doing any combination of the following: focusing close/decreasing working distance, ensuring the background is far away, and increasing the focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can even take it to the extreme and get very close, more than your intended composition, and stitch:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/carpeicthus/2922047522/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/carpeicthus/2922047522/&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK1JWPN65CVOSZV/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK1JWPN65CVOSZV/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-05T22:13:56.220" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T22:13:56.220" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2078" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2080" CreationDate="2010-08-05T21:16:28.750" Score="18" ViewCount="695" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Nikon D90 and until recently it has been working just perfectly.  While viewing a set of photos I had taken I'm starting to find these little nasty dead pixels:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/7391/d90noise.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They only show up when zoomed in - however now that I know they are there I can pick them out of just about any photo I shoot.  What are some techniques to go about removing these?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-11T13:52:38.833" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T14:10:38.070" Title="How do I remove dead pixels from a digital photo?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;dead-pixel&gt;&lt;hot-pixels&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2079" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2072" CreationDate="2010-08-05T21:17:19.030" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I typically take three shots, 1 1/2 or 2 stops apart, and then process in photomatix pro followed by cleanup in Lightroom. That seems to work fine for most of what I do. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(most recent HDR: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/chuqui/4836274768/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/chuqui/4836274768/&lt;/a&gt; -- also see my yosemite winter trip images: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/chuqui/sets/72157605120670838/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/chuqui/sets/72157605120670838/&lt;/a&gt; basically, all the landscape work is HDR) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T21:17:19.030" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2080" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2078" CreationDate="2010-08-05T21:32:39.963" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Adobe Lightroom (I know, broken record) has a tool to spot clean. Once you define the area, you can apply it to all photos in a collection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Mister Shaw has commented on, some camera's have dust delete capabilities, which may work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, have you considered (out-of) warranty repair on your body?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T21:32:39.963" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2081" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2066" CreationDate="2010-08-05T21:36:20.413" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It always depends on what you are comparing.  There's lots of different films and film formats, and there's lots of different digital sensors.  All have their pros and cons.  What format are you looking for?  What film speed/sensor sensitivity? ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="842" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T21:36:20.413" />
  <row Id="2082" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2078" CreationDate="2010-08-05T21:41:24.263" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The spot heal tool in Photoshop would be the best or the clone tool in the Gimp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="430" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T21:41:24.263" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2083" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2078" CreationDate="2010-08-05T21:51:21.810" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many raw converters have tools to map your hot pixels and then automatically remove them, but I don't know details. E.g., &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibblelabs.com/products/bibble5/features/plugins.html?plug=pixie&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pixie&lt;/a&gt; for Bibble. I'm sure there's equivalents for other software too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T21:51:21.810" />
  <row Id="2084" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2066" CreationDate="2010-08-05T22:10:54.787" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I personally believe the Pros and Cons of each system are nearly the same in color as they are in B&amp;amp;W.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some things are either a pro or con depending on how you slice your cake. For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With digital, your image is constrained to the limits of the CMOS sensor and the software that translates the sensor data into a meaningful image. The discretization of an &quot;analog&quot; light source does mean some amount of information is lost. Many people can not tell the difference between CD audio, and a vinyl record, but there are those who can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In film, your image is constrained to the chemical reactions in the film itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd argue that the pros of one format are the cons of the other, so I will list only the pros of each.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Film:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pros&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Variety of film for different look and feel for images&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You will end up with a hardcopy of each image. It's possible to have the images scanned, but lets just ignore that for now and assume you will have your film images developed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Full Frame for cheap. Get all the wideness from your lenses.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Typically shot with b&amp;amp;w film, so there is no conversion process&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Digital:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pros&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;B&amp;amp;W processing is much simpler using digital images and a computer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No need to have specialized B&amp;amp;W film&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No need for color filters.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T22:10:54.787" />
  <row Id="2085" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2078" CreationDate="2010-08-05T22:12:20.197" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you happen to be using &lt;strong&gt;iPhoto&lt;/strong&gt;, you can use the &quot;Retouch&quot; tool (with a small circle). Just click over the dead pixel and it should be nicely removed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T22:12:20.197" />
  <row Id="2086" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2076" CreationDate="2010-08-05T22:13:36.157" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 50mm 1.8 is an excellent choice for small DoF type pictures, as well as many other types of pictures.  The large aperture makes it a good lens for low light situations, and the focal length is ideally suited for portraits.  For the price, it is an unbeatable lens that should be in any camera bag.  A strong buy recommendation from me.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="563" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T22:13:36.157" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2087" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2076" CreationDate="2010-08-05T22:35:09.597" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;if you're using the 18-200 dx, it means you don't use a full frame body. therefore, remember the 1.5 factor. so, the equivalent lens of what you want is the 35mm 1.8. this will give you a 'real' 50mm focal length.&#xA;also notice that the 50mm doesn't autofocus (no inner engine) and therefore won't autofocus on d40/x/60, only on d80/90/200 etc.&#xA;this might be even more relevant when shooting with small F number, since focus misses are more likely to occur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-08-05T22:35:09.597" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2088" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2072" CreationDate="2010-08-06T00:11:26.737" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I always take 3-shots because I use my camera's bracketing exposure mode, which only allows for 3 shots. By default this mode is set to +/- 2EV,0.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some bodies that allow for 5 shot brackets, which is more ideal for creating HDR images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T00:11:26.737" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2089" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-06T00:46:46.563" Score="5" ViewCount="343" Body="&lt;p&gt;I took a number of shots of the sun during mid-afternoon and now all my images have pink spot where the sun was. Is there anyway to fix this, or is it permanently damaged?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The camera was pointed at the sun for a few hours. I was using it as a webcam and left it unattended for a while, plus the camera is about 10 years old. Later I was taking shot at 1/400 and moving the camera after, and that still caused some problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="846" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-28T02:17:38.057" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T02:17:38.057" Title="How to fix an image sensor damaged by long sun exposures?" Tags="&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;repair&gt;&lt;sun&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2090" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2089" CreationDate="2010-08-06T00:52:52.277" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hrm...it's weird that your sensor would be damaged with a mid-afternoon shots of the sun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Were you directly pointing to the sun?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Were these long exposures of the sun?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Were you using LiveView (on an SLR)?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How big are the pink spots?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When did you take the shots, and how long have you let the body rest before trying again? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps try letting the body rest for a hour or two, pop in a different memory card, and try again. If it truly is sun damage to your sensor, it is permanent, and cheapest option will likely be to buy a used body to replace your camera. You can send it in for repair, but the costs might outweigh the value of the body (again look at used bodies).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T00:52:52.277" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2091" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2155" CreationDate="2010-08-06T00:56:21.320" Score="6" ViewCount="146" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've seen plaq mounted photos that seem to be laminated on MDF board.  I'm interested in producing my own plaq mounts.  What is the equipment and process involved?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="624" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T19:41:22.593" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T19:41:22.593" Title="What is the process to plaq mount (dry mount) photos on MDF?" Tags="&lt;framing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="2092" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2066" CreationDate="2010-08-06T01:29:31.877" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think &quot;film vs digital&quot; is much too broad a basket here.  Even limiting ourselves to 35mm equipment, there is an astonishing number of variables.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance: are we comparing prints&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;?  Both digital and film admit a huge variety of printing techniques.  Hybrid methods go in both directions, scanning negatives for digital printing is probably obvious, but perhaps less so is inkjet production of large-format negatives used in carbon or platinum-palladium printing.  Even on the less-exotic side, traditional darkroom prints will vary with the developer and paper used, and there are a number of alternative inks that can be used for high-quality B&amp;amp;W inkjet prints instead of the manufacturer's standard ones (which have several varieties themselves).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Leaving aside those questions, the short answer is this: digital B&amp;amp;W can be perfectly comparable to traditional methods in terms of the results.  Also, digital B&amp;amp;W has value in and of itself, not just in reference to traditional methods (and vice-versa, obviously).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, in terms of results, I don't find what hard evidence there is to be very compelling, as even objective differences are subject to individual taste.  Differences in process are more obvious, but even more subject to personal preference.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And even those preferences might change depending on the context.  Digital is indisputably more immediate than film, but if you're buying a photo rather than taking a photo, does that matter in the same way?  Similar for darkroom printing; is the extra effort rewarding, or drudgery? Does it add value to a work, or is it irrelevant?  Different people will come up with different answers to all of these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, after all of that, here's a couple of examples of objective, hard evidence: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the red filter on the typical Bayer array doesn't allow you to reproduce the effect of deep-red filters on film&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.  In practice, you'll never know the difference.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;if fine detail/resolution is the criteria that trumps all others for you, then &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imx.nl/photo/Film/page169/page169.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;35mm film is probably still a good choice&lt;/a&gt;.  But even dedicated film shooters (like me) balk at ISO 12 for regular use.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think you can see how given all the other factors, the objective technical details sort of fade into the background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; For which I've unfortunately lost my reference, which was several years old and may have changed in the mean time.  Hopefully the larger point remains clear, but if anyone wants to look up the requisite transmission curves, that might be interesting to know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T01:29:31.877" />
  <row Id="2093" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2078" CreationDate="2010-08-06T02:22:59.337" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Its pretty easy in Photoshop, all you need to do is use the retouch or clone tool. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could even do this with the free &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.getpaint.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;paint.net&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just select the clone stamp tool, hit the right ctrl key to select an adjacent region you want to clone on to the area, and then clone away. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/5f0pF.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="230" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T02:22:59.337" />
  <row Id="2094" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2073" CreationDate="2010-08-06T02:25:13.170" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you have to just jump in and try it.  I have a list of tutorials for Gimp designed for people without much image editing or computer experience here:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/gimp_beginners/discuss/72157618632212393/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/groups/gimp_beginners/discuss/72157618632212393/&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;...that'll give you some experience with the tools I use the most. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Feel free to Flickr Mail me with any questions rather than posting them to the group -that group is pretty much dead, but I'm responsive by FlickrMail.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="110" LastEditorUserId="110" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-06T22:50:24.010" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T22:50:24.010" />
  <row Id="2095" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2072" CreationDate="2010-08-06T02:28:36.223" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I usually take 3 at 2 stops apart. Sometimes if I only want the effect I'll do it with a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/samsam/3888778389/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;single RAW image&lt;/a&gt; which is OK if all you want is a trippy image. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some lighting conditions will call for more than 3 shots (like shooting directly towards the sun). For most cases 3 RAW shots will give you plenty of detail to work with. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="230" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T02:28:36.223" />
  <row Id="2096" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-06T03:22:39.737" Score="0" ViewCount="49" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm particularly interested in places in the flanking hills where you can get good views of the valley and are legally allowed to stop and get out of your car. Also places further out like James Lick Observatory are no good as everything is obscured by the haze.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the places I've managed to find just by scouting the google maps terrain feature turned out to be in no stopping zones which is less than ideal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And searching on google only found San Fran stuff, nothing at all for the valley area.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="617" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T13:08:45.703" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T13:08:45.703" ClosedDate="2010-08-06T10:09:00.843" Title="Where are the good views of Silicon valley." Tags="&lt;locations&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2097" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2091" CreationDate="2010-08-06T03:27:59.067" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is going back a lot of years, but my grandfather did this using wood and polyurethane, but that was with film-based prints. I'm not entirely sure if the same process would work with prints from an inkjet printer, but you could try it with a small sample, just give it a lengthy time to dry thoroughly (at least 24 hours).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T03:27:59.067" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2099" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2100" CreationDate="2010-08-06T05:15:40.320" Score="13" ViewCount="505" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will be attending a music festival (Lollapalooza) this weekend, and according to the site's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lollapalooza.com/info/faq/index.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;FAQ page&lt;/a&gt;, attendees are not allowed to bring in &quot;professional&quot; recording equipment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the site:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Allowed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Non-Professional Recording Equipment (Point &amp;amp; Shoot Cameras, Flip&#xA;  Video Cameras, etc.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Not Allowed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Professional Recording (Photo, Video, Audio) Equipment (NO Detachable&#xA;  Zoom Lense, Tripods or Other&#xA;  Commerical Equipment&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This made me think about what makes a camera and its user, a professional or hobbyist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My questions are: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What makes a camera and its equipment &quot;professional&quot;?  For amateurs and hobbyists?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it cost?  The detachable lens?  Would professionals not use point &amp;amp; shoot cameras?  Megapixels?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's horrible that DSLRs are not being allowed in a public park for these private events to protect the image/copyright of the performers, but what clear distinction can we come to a consensus on as to what is &quot;professional&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="607" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-16T11:31:22.927" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T02:33:42.753" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T05:15:40.320" Title="What makes a camera &quot;professional&quot; vs. amateur/hobbyist?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;professional&gt;&lt;amateur&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="2100" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2099" CreationDate="2010-08-06T05:28:14.340" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It's a meaningless distinction.&lt;/strong&gt; It depends on who's saying it, and what's &quot;professional&quot; to one venue might not be to another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, it's pretty clear they won't let you bring in a DSLR, because it has a detachable &quot;lense&quot;. Good luck educating them on the distinction between prime and zoom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I totally share your frustration. It's obvious from their &quot;policy&quot; that whatever their goals w.r.t. photography are - if they in fact do have coherent goals - they are pretty incompetently expressed. I have no problem with event organizers setting a photography policy, but not if it's incoherent and ignorant of what photography is and what photographers do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-06T05:44:49.150" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T05:44:49.150" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T05:28:14.340" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2101" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2099" CreationDate="2010-08-06T05:33:51.103" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What makes a camera &quot;professional&quot;, to a photographer?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What makes a camera &quot;professional&quot; to everyone else?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case these people clearly don't know anything about photography as their definition of &quot;professional&quot; is based on pretty stupid criteria. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example: Detachable Zoom Lenses aren't allowed, so how about detachable prime lenses? Obviously the minimum wage highschool dropouts they'll have working security won't know the difference...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The definition is professional is nuanced. Anything a professional photographer uses, is professional gear, by definition.  Professional means &quot;someone who makes a living through photography.&quot; This has no implication about skill, or quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of gear, professional &quot;equipment&quot; is gear designed for rugged use. It's built with very high quality control, to very exact specifications, highly durable, and offers a bevy of features that your regular hobbyist might not ever want or need.. If you are someone who makes a living shooting cameras, and your camera's cannot fail ever, you buy a professional body. This is almost always reflected in the price, but if you need performance, you pay for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the right skilled hands, any camera is capable of producing images that can grace magazine covers. &lt;a href=&quot;http://fstoppers.com/iphone/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fstoppers did a photo shoot using only an iPhone camera.&lt;/a&gt; And if any random person picked up a new 1Ds, there is a strong likelihood that the pictures will suck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There will be many professionals who swear by non-professional grade bodies. And certainly they have a point. President Obama's Presidential Portrait was taken with a 5D Mark II. However the 5D II has only a 9-point AF system compared to the 1Ds Mark III 45 point AF system with like 36 high resolution cross-types at f4 or better. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to recap: professional means professional grade: high durability, high standard of quality, crazy feature set, and full control. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T05:33:51.103" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T05:33:51.103" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2102" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2021" CreationDate="2010-08-06T06:23:29.213" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't forget about flickr groups. While the badges you get are worthless, it still is a good way to get critiques of your photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="653" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T06:23:29.213" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T06:23:29.213" />
  <row Id="2103" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2099" CreationDate="2010-08-06T06:47:49.807" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;remember that at places like that, the &quot;rules&quot; are generally enforced by rentacops. So there isn't a lot of training and they can be widely varying depending on which door you go in. So expect ambiguity. Many times, it &quot;it looks professional&quot; to whoever looks at it, that's all that matters, and there's no real appeal channel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been involved in helping foster rational camera policies for a couple of venues over the years (once having been on the wrong end of a subjective enforcement that got a bit nasty). With the organizations I've dealt with, the way they teach the ushers to evaluate cameras for &quot;no professional&quot; generally runs to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No interchangeable lenses (i.e., no SLR/DLSR).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No lenses over six inches long.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;no &quot;big&quot; lenses (i.e. large front lens elements, implying fast lenses)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;no tripods or monopods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;with modern gear, you can get really good (and publishable) images with gear that meets these criteria. Panasonic/Lumix does a super zoom that does well in sports venues that limit you to &quot;oint and shoots&quot; because it looks like one. Increasingly, when things like iPhones can turn out high quality images and video, this is a losing battle (but that doesn't help you today).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What they're trying to do is manage professional images from photogs that aren't credentialed. It's increasingly a losing battle, but the things that'll set them off are high magnification, fast lenses, and if they know what they're looking for, units that are good at low-noise in low-light situations because ultimately that's what a concert's going to be. So leave your IS lenses at home.. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T06:47:49.807" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T06:47:49.807" />
  <row Id="2104" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2096" CreationDate="2010-08-06T07:04:09.337" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The haze will be an issue no matter what; that's a fact of this area. The way to &quot;fix&quot; that is to shoot in the winter when the air is colder and crisper, especially just after a front moves through and clears it out. That's when you'll get interesting/dramatic clouds as well. Summer months are just not good for landscape vistas in the bay area. I don't even consider shooting the kind of shots you're thinking of half the year, only between about October and March, unless a rare front moves through&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also look to shoot early on days with limits or no marine layer, winter or summer. There's some wonderfully dramatic cloud formations that show up in the winter if you're awake and in position to take advantage of them in winter (which means being in position by 5:30AM or so.. yawn).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A couple of areas to keep in mind. There's a vista point on Skyline (highway 35) that looks to be useful for an east facing vista of the bay; I scouted it a while back but haven't gotten back there to shoot. Should be interesting both dawn and pre-sunset when the east bay hills are lit and the rest is shadowed -- if there's decent cloud work and little haze. I don't have my notes handy, but I believe it's N of 84 along the way up to 92. That's a wide swath of road but it'll be obvious when you hit it. room for 6-8 cars. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some photo opportunities from the east bay hills on Calaveras out behind Ed Levin Park in Milpitas. No perfect place -- some utlity wire obscuration and no great parking spot -- but you might find some decent shots there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've also wanted to explore the campus at CSU east bay (hayward); there seems to be some real opportunity for shooting from that campus, but I haven't been there in years so I can't suggest more than go and look. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T07:04:09.337" />
  <row Id="2105" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2099" CreationDate="2010-08-06T07:25:29.857" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For a professional photographer a professional camera is something that is built to be durable and reliable, things like a camera with a metal body and a shutter guaranteed for 100000 exposures, and weather sealed lenses. For a Canon user that means a 1 series (or possibly 5 series) camera, and L series lenses. (Professionals of course frequently use equipment not specifically intended for professional use.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the ones arranging the music festival it means anything that you can use to produce professional looking images. That actually means a decent camera and a good photographer, but as they can't forbid good photographers to enter, they have to focus on the equipment instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T07:25:29.857" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T07:25:29.857" />
  <row Id="2106" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2021" CreationDate="2010-08-06T07:31:00.860" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://panachallenge.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://panachallenge.com&lt;/a&gt; -&gt; targeted mainly to Panasonic users.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://twitter.com/dailyshoot&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://twitter.com/dailyshoot&lt;/a&gt; -&gt; Not so much a contest, but a socially enabled album&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="38" LastEditorUserId="38" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-12T14:48:36.063" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T14:48:36.063" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T07:31:00.860" />
  <row Id="2107" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2073" CreationDate="2010-08-06T07:34:04.787" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have you tried f-spot? It has some photo editing features. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On an unrelated note, I really wish Adobe would release Lightroom for Linux...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="38" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T07:34:04.787" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2108" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2116" CreationDate="2010-08-06T08:59:30.453" Score="13" ViewCount="948" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do you organize your lightroom library (libraries)? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since I am a casual photographer, I have a single huge library with all my photos in it. Then I create smart collections to be able to find my photos faster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance, I have a smart collection named &lt;em&gt;Trips&lt;/em&gt; with the places I have been under it as sub-collections. Some of these photos are also tagged as &lt;em&gt;Family&lt;/em&gt;, which is another collection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My concern is that in a few years this collection will grow so much that the software will not perform so well anymore. But, if I split my libary into many libraries, I will have to hunt for the photos I am looking for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is your approach?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&gt;&gt; Also asked by Igor Oks &gt;&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How do you use catalogs in Lightroom?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or perhaps, how do you organize your photos in Lightroom 3?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I got a feeling that the way I do it is not very convenient. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The flow that I do on every new set of photos is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Copy the photos from the camera to a new folder on the HD (e.g. to C:\Photos\Bobs_bday_2010). &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Create a New Catalog, and save it to the same directory where the photos are.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Import all photos from the directory to this catalog.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does it make sense? Should I use catalogs for photos organization, or should I rather use something else? Should I create a new catalog for each new set of photos, and where to save all these catalogs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="38" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-16T14:26:21.090" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T14:26:21.090" Title="Best practices with Lightroom libraries" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;photo-management&gt;&lt;lightroom-catalog&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="2109" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2099" CreationDate="2010-08-06T12:25:22.183" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This might be a good time to haul out something like a Canon G10/11, or as chuqui pointed out, a Panasonic Lumix or other superzoom.  I've got a Lumix FZ-28, and if the lighting is good (daylight), this would perform well.  If you shoot into the evening, I think I'd rather have the Canon, as I'm not crazy about the high-ISO performance of the Lumix.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to push your luck a bit, something like an Olympus PEN might just &lt;em&gt;look&lt;/em&gt; enough like a P&amp;amp;S to get in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T12:25:22.183" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T12:25:22.183" />
  <row Id="2110" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2076" CreationDate="2010-08-06T12:31:53.777" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two key specifications of a lens that determine the depth of field, the focal length and the aperture. (There are other factors such as distance from the subject and sensor size, but those are not directly tied to the lens).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, to get a really shallow depth of field you want a wide aperture (low f value) and a long focal length, then have your subject fairly close.  Obviously there are some limits to that, and framing your shot correctly is more important that limiting the DOF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 50mm 1.8 is going to have a much narrower depth of field that the 18-200, because you have at least 2 full f-stops difference in aperture size, which will allow you a lot more flexibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, when you are researching a lens with shallow depth of field in mind, look at the number of &quot;Diaphragm Blades&quot;.  This is not directly linked, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/bokeh-comparison.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;bokeh is very important with a shallow dof&lt;/a&gt;, and the higher the number of blades, the smoother your background can be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T12:31:53.777" />
  <row Id="2111" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2072" CreationDate="2010-08-06T13:16:07.077" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Usually the larger of shots you can take will enhance the range - so if your camera is possible in bracketing 7 shots with 1 stop exposure difference, go at it. Or you can always go manual. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But at least you will need 1 RAW shot or 3 JPEG shots. 1 RAW shot can be manipulated during pp to get +1 and -1 exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T13:16:07.077" />
  <row Id="2112" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2108" CreationDate="2010-08-06T13:26:10.987" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I used to keep two libraries, one for personal shots, one for assignments, but over the years that I've been using Lightroom I've found that it can handle pretty large databases (+30000 pictures) pretty well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another reason why I had to libraries is because Lightroom 1 didn't handle external volumes very well and I kept my two libraries together with the pictures on different external volumes. Since Lightroom 2 this has been improved very much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will be merging all my shots into a single library.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I recommend sticking to a simple scheme of importing your shots into directories based on date, for example, and not worry too much about the lack of usefulness. You've got collections to group relevant shots together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="92" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T13:26:10.987" />
  <row Id="2113" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2108" CreationDate="2010-08-06T14:15:28.520" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;For a casual user, one library is enough&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm a fairly serious amateur, with tens of thousands of images, and I keep them all in a single library. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't experienced any problems with this in the 18 months that I've been using Lightroom.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;UPDATE&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have recently upgraded to Lightroom 3.0:  still no problems with the single large library.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-01T10:24:14.357" LastActivityDate="2010-09-01T10:24:14.357" />
  <row Id="2114" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2073" CreationDate="2010-08-06T14:19:24.737" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;You will Never Regret moving to Lightroom or Aperture&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sorry that neither of these run on linux, (Aperture is mac only).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I moved from Picasa to Lightroom about 18 months ago, and I haven't looked back.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Now I can do so many things with such precision and ease that it's a whole new world!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I rave about Lightroom to my friends whenever this topic comes up, but I hear very good things about Aperture, so I won't claim that Lightroom is better (I went for Lightroom because I was using Windows).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both products have a free 30 day trial:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?product=photoshop_lightroom&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lightroom Trial&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apple.com/aperture/trial/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Aperture Trial&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope that helps  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-23T09:36:49.017" LastActivityDate="2010-08-23T09:36:49.017" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2115" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2064" CreationDate="2010-08-06T14:22:38.567" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another thing to look out for is positionning the flash too close to the umbrella.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;If it's too close, the beam won't fill the whole umbrella and you end up wasting the outer rim, as it were.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In practice this will probably mean putting the flash further back than the edge of the umbrella fabric.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;... A bit of experimentation will make it pretty clear what's right for you.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T14:22:38.567" />
  <row Id="2116" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2108" CreationDate="2010-08-06T14:38:46.150" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Keep everything in one library.  Lightroom 3 has overcome some of the past performance issues with large catalogs, so the benefits of having a good search ability dictate a single library.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use a lot of Smart Collections that are based on metadata and workflow steps.  I also create standard collections for each client job that I shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Caption and keyword anything that's worth keeping.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Much like GMail showed the world that powerful search is better than a jillion manually-managed folders for email, good DAM tools like Lightroom or Aperture reveal that keywording and search is more efficient than manually managing collections and folders.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T14:38:46.150" />
  <row Id="2117" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2130" CreationDate="2010-08-06T14:46:39.643" Score="6" ViewCount="169" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for suggestions on equipment to use for shooting while riding the bike (road-bike, for that matter). My list of requirements would be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Light&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To be fixed on the handle bar&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Durable or cheap enough to be replaced&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it's a video cam that can take reasonable good still images, that's fine as well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would use the camera always to shoot in the direction of driving, I don't want to dismount the camera to take a particular shot. It's more meant to be like &quot;as seen from the bike's perspective&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Thanks for the responses so far, the suggested mounts look good. Any recommendations on the actual camera? I'm not willing to mount my DSLR for that purpose. It's more meant for drive-by-shooting (please don't quote that out of context :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="861" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-28T01:57:54.617" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T16:12:26.347" Title="Equipment for shooting while on a bike?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;bicycling&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2118" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2072" CreationDate="2010-08-06T14:55:12.920" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My HDR technique is heavily influence by Trey Ratcliff from Stuck in Customs and I follow his HDR tutorial (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stuckincustoms.com/hdr-tutorial&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.stuckincustoms.com/hdr-tutorial&lt;/a&gt;/) to a large degree. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't have bracketing in my camera, so I have to either adjust my settings manually or use exposure compensation. I lock my camera down on a tripod, then take 5-7 photos, depending on the light in the scene (trying to get all the detail in either the sky / bright area or a particularly shadowy area will mean more exposures). I think use Photomatix Pro from my HDR processing (I've tried Photoshop's new HDR product and HDR Expose but they didn't seem to get the same quality processing of light that Photomatix does. I then do adjustments in Aperture, possibly do some masking in Photoshop if there are an artifacts on my image (see Trey's tutorial for how to do this), and then do any final edits using Nik Software's plugins. If I'm going for a really surreal look, then I almost always apply Tonal Contrast in Color Efex Pro, and I've been doing a lot of black and white HDR recently using Silver Efex pro.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="862" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T14:55:12.920" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2119" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="745" CreationDate="2010-08-06T14:59:07.000" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you use Nik Software's plugins for photo editing, then you'd probably benefit from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.niksoftware.com/teamnik/usa/entry.php?view=nik_radio/usa_main.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nik Radio&lt;/a&gt;. I have picked up a few tips from that, but more importantly learned about some of their upcoming webinar offerings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="862" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T14:59:07.000" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T14:59:07.000" />
  <row Id="2120" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="745" CreationDate="2010-08-06T15:05:19.000" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Rick Sammon and Juan Pons' &lt;a href=&quot;http://dpexperience.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Photography Experience&lt;/a&gt; is a good combination of interviews with prominent photographers and Q&amp;amp;A. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="862" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T15:05:19.000" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T15:05:19.000" />
  <row Id="2121" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2117" CreationDate="2010-08-06T15:09:42.670" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several companies that make handlebar camera mounts, one example is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/619136-REG/Delkin_Devices_DDMOUNT_STRAP_Fat_Gecko_Bike_Mount.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Delkin Devices Fat Gecko Bike Mount&lt;/a&gt;, and another is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/696522-REG/Aiptek_ZAC_STD_6_Bike_Mount.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Aiptek Bike Mount&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both are relatively inexpensive, and seem to fit your needs. Also, I have not used it, but I have seen a &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/product/standard-item.jsp?_DARGS=/cabelas/en/common/catalog/item-link.jsp_A&amp;amp;_DAV=&amp;amp;id=0040094712815a&amp;amp;navCount=0&amp;amp;podId=0040094&amp;amp;parentId=&amp;amp;masterpathid=&amp;amp;navAction=push&amp;amp;catalogCode=IA&amp;amp;rid=&amp;amp;parentType=&amp;amp;indexId=&amp;amp;cmCat=netcon&amp;amp;cm_ven=netcon&amp;amp;cm_cat=Google&amp;amp;cm_pla=camera%20stabilizer%20mount&amp;amp;cm_ite=netcon&amp;amp;rid=2146251080&amp;amp;hasJS=true&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;vibration dampener&lt;/a&gt;&quot; that is designed to work with a camera system for hunting, but it might be helpful in your situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-06T15:17:54.990" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T15:17:54.990" />
  <row Id="2122" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2117" CreationDate="2010-08-06T15:12:17.800" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This home made &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.camerahacker.com/build/Bicycle_Camera_Mount.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;bicycle camera mount&lt;/a&gt; looks like it could work, or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.instructables.com/id/Bicycle-Camera-Mount-for-under-%241/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this even cheaper&lt;/a&gt;, similar &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.michaelhanscom.com/eclecticism/2009/04/08/diy-bicycle-camera-mount/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;to this&lt;/a&gt;. You can mount any camera on it (that has a tripod mount), so you could use a reasonably cheap camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An alternative could be to mount it &lt;a href=&quot;http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/helmet-camera-mount/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;on your helmet&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-06T20:23:03.123" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T20:23:03.123" />
  <row Id="2123" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="191" CreationDate="2010-08-06T15:25:50.807" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's hard finding a perfect bag so here are my top picks...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://skytoptrading.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Skytop Trading Leather Holster&lt;/a&gt; - This is my favorite case.  I use it for general photos such as street, short hikes, and museums.  (And I think it looks great.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://products.lowepro.com/product/Fastpack-250,2086,14.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lowepro Faskpack 250&lt;/a&gt; - I use this for travel.  Holds several lenses and bodies and I have even used the laptop section stuffed with a camelbak water bladder before camera bags with bladders were popular.  You can even swing it off one shoulder and use it like a sling bag.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tamrac.com/5770.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamrac Velocity x10&lt;/a&gt; - My gear lives most of its life in this bag... mainly for it's size.  It's a HUGE sling bag but it's not very comfortable.  After 6+ hours of carrying this packed with pretty much all of my gear I realized that this monster is best at just getting me from point &lt;code&gt;A&lt;/code&gt; to &lt;code&gt;B&lt;/code&gt;.  I do like the fact it is so big I can keep my cameras with lenses and hoods mounted and the lens caps off. This allows me to switch camera quick, but at the expense of bulk (and weight.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="590" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T15:25:50.807" />
  <row Id="2124" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2125" CreationDate="2010-08-06T15:35:51.850" Score="5" ViewCount="220" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have an older Quantaray QTB-7500A flash with the Canon TTL module.  I used this with my old Canon EOS Elan 35mm which died a few years back.  I recently bought a Canon Rebel XSi, because I could use my old EF lenses, and figured the Flash would also work.  However, when I mount the flash on the camera,  it does not acknowledge that the flash is there.   The Flash powers up, and if I hit the test button, the flash fires, so I know the bulb/charging system is OK.  The TTL connectors on the flash look like they match the connectors on the Camera's Hot shoe.   Am I missing something?  Is the Hot shoe bad? Has Canon changed the TTL connector over the years?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;TIA&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="105" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T17:47:31.783" Title="Canon TTL connectors" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="2125" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2124" CreationDate="2010-08-06T16:00:01.740" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is an in-depth post about Canon TTL &lt;a href=&quot;http://super.nova.org/DPR/Canon/TTL/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The short version is that there is TTL (film/old style), E-TTL (early digital), and E-TTL II (recent digital).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some new flashes will work with older systems, but flashes designed for TTL are not fully compatible with either version of E-TTL. According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://canon-eos.webuda.com/geraet/index.htm?/geraet/frames/flashes_others.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;canon-eos.webuda.com&lt;/a&gt;, the Quantaray QTB-7500A is only compatible with TTL.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-06T16:12:58.077" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T16:12:58.077" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2126" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-06T16:39:29.170" Score="13" ViewCount="726" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon Digital EOS Rebel XT camera, and I wonder how you could take photos of moving water like rivers, waterfalls and fountains...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="866" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-28T02:02:24.193" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T02:02:24.193" Title="How can I make good fountain/waterfall photos?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;technique&gt;&lt;shutter-speed&gt;&lt;motion-blur&gt;&lt;water&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="2127" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2126" CreationDate="2010-08-06T16:49:40.407" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want the flowy dreamy look, try to use a longer shutter speed and a tripod  It depends on the water flow rate.  In the sun, you may need to use a ND filter as stopping down will get you into diffraction-limited range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For some waterfalls (particularly violent ones), you may want the opposite: a very fast shutter speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will need to experiment and instantly review with each waterfall as the flow rates are different.  If you are getting distracting reflections, a polarizer will also help (and act as a bit of a ND filter by eating light)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T16:49:40.407" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2128" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2126" CreationDate="2010-08-06T17:09:28.660" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most common approach to taking great flowing water pictures is to use a long exposure. This allows the &quot;soft, dreamy flow&quot; of water to be captured as you have probably seen in many photos. Achieving a long exposure may require extra equipment, depending on how the scene is lit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Long Exposures&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To achieve a long exposure, you will need to reduce the amount of light reaching your sensor, and expose the sensor for a long duration of time. This usually requires a very tight aperture, such as f/11 or higher, and a long exposure, anywhere from 1/6th of a second to several seconds. You should always use the lowest ISO setting your camera is capable of, as this helps in extending your exposure times. Normally this is ISO100, however if your camera goes to ISO50 or lower, use the lowest setting you can achieve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to your camera exposure settings, you will need to use a tripod to stabilize the shot. Lengthy exposures in the large fractional seconds to full seconds can not be stabilized by hand, even with the most powerful IS/VR. A tripod will not only allow you to stabilize your shot, but they often have levels that help you keep your shot horizontally level.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To further minimize camera shake, a couple other tools can help. If your camera supports a Mirror Lockup feature, use it. This allows you to flip the mirror with the first press of the shutter, and take the shot with the second. Sadly, pressing the shutter often causes greater camera shake than the mirror flip itself, so an important tool is a remote or cable shutter release. These provide a remote controlled or cable-connected shutter button that allow you to flip the mirror and release the shutter without touching the camera, eliminating camera shake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Tuning for the Scene&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which settings you use will be dependent upon the scene. Brightly lit scenes may require a very tight aperture. I would avoid using an aperture tighter than f/22, as around there your image will start showing noticeable distortion due to diffraction. I would recommend keeping your aperture between f/11 and f/16, and if you need a longer exposure, add an ND (neutral density) filter to the front of your camera. An ND filter will reduce the amount of light that enters your camera, allowing you to expose for a longer duration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The longer the shutter is open, the more it will capture that soft sense of motion in water. The amount of motion you wish to capture can greatly affect your scene, so the longest exposure time is not always the most appropriate. A &quot;shorter&quot; long exposure, anywhere from 1/6th of a second up to perhaps 1 second, will show the motion and shape of water better. A &quot;longer&quot; long exposure, up to several seconds, will smooth out the shape of water and enhance that &quot;soft, dreamy glow&quot; effect. The longer you expose, the glassier flat, clear parts of the waters surface will get.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Dimming and Deepening&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I highly recommend investing in some ND filters if you wish to do long-exposure shots of water. Even if a scene does not explicitly need an ND filter, they help to mitigate the volume of light and give you more control. ND filters can help deepen the contrast and vibrance of a scene, and can add to the overall effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Alternative Scenes&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond just photographing waterfalls, longer exposures can create a nicer effect for a wide variety of water scenes. From simple streams or rivers, to lakes lakes, to expansive ocean coastline shots, or tighter shots of reefs and tidal pool areas around coast lines. Longer exposures of water can smooth out the noisy detail of ripples and waves on the surface, reducing the complexity of a scene, helping users zero in on the true subject you are trying to portray.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-06T21:44:41.457" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T21:44:41.457" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2129" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2124" CreationDate="2010-08-06T17:47:31.783" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon hasn't changed the hotshoe connector, but they have updated the communication specs, and trigger voltages over time. As Canon's communication algorithms are proprietary, 3rd party manufacturers are stuck having to reverse engineer them to work with bodies. As canon updates their bodies and changes how the body communicates to accessories like flashes and lenses, 3rd party accessories may not work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have an E-TTL compatible Sigma DG Super 500 that works awesome with my Canon 40D, but does not work with my 5D Mark II. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Quantaray flash has a seperate module which allowed Sigma (Quantaray gear is rebadged sigma stuff) to manufacturer a single flash head cheaply, and create separate modules for different camera bodies. The Canon SLR Module you have is incompatible with your new Rebel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So long story short: you need to find an updated module that will work your new rebel, however I don't believe one is made (google didn't show anything useful for me...). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another solution is to forgo the auto flash exposure, and use a PC Sync flash cord to trigger your flash from your camera (&lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2009/05/universal-translator-ushers-in-new-age.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Your flash may need this dealy&lt;/a&gt;). You will need to manually set the flash settings, but it is a low cost solution--and gives you the option to trigger your flash &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;off camera&lt;/a&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T17:47:31.783" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2130" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2117" CreationDate="2010-08-06T18:47:00.503" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think there's any camera, even &quot;rugged&quot; ones, that are guaranteed to be durable enough to survive a spill, so I would stick with your personal value of &quot;cheap&quot;.  Buying used on local craigslist or equivalent might bring down the price.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only two things I'd consider must-haves would be a standard tripod mount, and the ability to use some sort of remote shutter release (or be ready to buy &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kaiser-fototechnik.de/en/produkte/2_1_produktanzeige.asp?nr=6154&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an adapter&lt;/a&gt; as well).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the mount, a small ball head can be very handy.  Some mounts don't have any way to adjust the camera independently of the mount, and some have lousy plastic versions that work decently while still, but creep around when from the normal vibrations and bumps of riding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/site/manfrotto/cache/off/pid/2289?livid=80|81&amp;amp;idx=83&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Manfrotto 482&lt;/a&gt; that I've used on my bike and a few other odd places.  It's all-metal, and durable as anything.  It's been rock-solid on long rides with small cameras.  I paid around $60 at the time, which isn't cheap, but it was the only thing in stock locally when I needed it.  I'm still happy to recommend it despite the price; it's a solid little piece of gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the cheaper side, for under $20 Slik has a similar product (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300404-REG/Slik_618_610_SBH_100_Compact_Ballhead_100.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;B&amp;amp;H link&lt;/a&gt; - Slik's own site is useless) that's much cheaper and seems like it would work just as well, and there are probably a few others that would be worth a try as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T18:47:00.503" />
  <row Id="2131" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="856" CreationDate="2010-08-06T19:23:05.050" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use a D90, and i took some advice from Ken Rockwell, and put a copyright notice in the camera's comment field, which is stamped into the EXIF data of every image. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="240" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T19:23:05.050" />
  <row Id="2132" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2126" CreationDate="2010-08-06T20:17:53.257" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are different ways that you can shoot moving water:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Freezing it, at about 1/100 s.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A little movement, at about 1/10 s.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Much movement, at about 1 s.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Foggy, at about 10 s.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best time for each effect of course varies a bit depending on the scene, and the focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A polarising filter has great effect on water, as light that bounces off water gets polarised. You can use it either to remove reflections, or enhance them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A neutral (ND) filter is useful if you want to get a longer exposure time. A tripod (or any other means of keeping the camera still) is needed for the longer times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-07T07:01:23.563" LastActivityDate="2010-08-07T07:01:23.563" />
  <row Id="2133" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="723" CreationDate="2010-08-06T20:35:48.870" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have experienced the EXACT same issue. I sent it to repair and they said that the top had to be screwed  back on. I have also read that this could be caused by dirty contacts so you can also try to clean them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have seen some articles about this on different forum so I guess it's a rather common problem and you shouldn't pay anything to get it fixed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="16" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T20:35:48.870" />
  <row Id="2134" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2398" CreationDate="2010-08-06T20:44:34.470" Score="6" ViewCount="182" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Nikon 18-200 VR which I think is great. I often use the 200mm part of it so I'm thinking of an even more extreme superzoom, but I'm not familiar with other lenses than Nikon, but I have been thinking about Tamron 18-270. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Has anyone experience with this lens? I have not seen any good reviews of it or comparisons with the Nikon 18-200? How do they compare?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, are there any other alternatives? I saw a superzoom in a magazine some weeks ago that went from 16-xxxmm and that could also be interesting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="16" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T11:43:27.293" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T11:43:27.293" Title="Alternative/third-party superzoom for Nikon?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;third-party&gt;&lt;superzoom&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2135" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2134" CreationDate="2010-08-06T21:10:51.640" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 16-xx you're thinking of may be the Tokina 16.5-135 which was announced a year or two ago; available at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/652825-REG/Tokina_ATXAF635DXN_16_5_135mm_f_3_5_5_6_AT_X_DX.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;B&amp;amp;H for $450&lt;/a&gt;. It's a nice focal range in general but not if you're wanting more than 200mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that the 18-200's internal focus design means that when focusing close, it's considerably shorter than 200mm. So it could be that a real 200mm would meet your needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might also consider a zoom which is longer but less super, such as the 70-300 VR or the AF-D version which is not VR but is very inexpensive ($150).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T21:10:51.640" />
  <row Id="2136" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2144" CreationDate="2010-08-06T23:23:04.803" Score="23" ViewCount="639" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm leaving for holidays tomorrow, and there's a good chance that I'll be able to be by night on a field with no artificial light around, and no moon in the sky.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I'd love to take some picture of the landscape: the starry sky + the surrounding mountains' silhouettes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apart from bringing a tripod (duh), do you have any tips to yield the best possible results? Exposure, framing, etc. (sorry for the lousy tags, can't create new)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="449" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-07T00:25:22.013" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T02:20:17.960" Title="Tips for landscape+stars photography?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;tips&gt;&lt;landscape&gt;&lt;astrophotography&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="2137" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2136" CreationDate="2010-08-06T23:31:33.540" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;tripod. Use your lowest ISO (50 or 100). I always use a cable release to avoid vibration in the camera. You'll get circular trails if you point the camera at Polaris (the north star; assuming northern hemisphere here); pointing it at something interesting and just letting the trails happen is fine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;exposure length is something to experiment with, start at 30 seconds and see what you like. For star trails, longer exposures or a series of shorter exposures and stack them together later with software are both options. The advantage of stacking a series of shorter ones is you can exclude a ruined image but you can't exclude that 10 seconds of headlights from a car in one long expsoure -- but you add post processing complexity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;bring a flashlight. I use one on a headband. I prefer using a cable release iwth a bulb lockdown and timing with a stopwatch to programming the camera. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;for good night photography, you'll need to wait until it's very dark -- past astronomincal sunset. But the time from late afternoon through the twilight into darkness can be a great time to get some fascinating imagery. experiment and you may get yourself some nice &quot;sunset&quot; shots. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;oh, and don't forget that you have another optiopn -- getting up really early  and doing pre-dawn shooting, too. Depending on what stars/planets are out and what the weather is, that might work better. In the evening things are cooling off so you might get heat shimmer and other effects, pre-dawn things tend to be the most still and quiet.. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/chuqui/4041906692&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/chuqui/4041906692&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T23:31:33.540" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2138" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-06T23:38:09.100" Score="11" ViewCount="339" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm dating a professional photographer that has been accumulating digital images at an alarming rate (thousands of high-res images per month).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone have any recommendations of external and/or remote storage solutions to effectively work with such large volumes of data?  Managing burned DVDs seems a little scary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="774" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-28T12:32:44.023" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T18:55:27.690" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T23:38:09.100" Title="What storage solutions are there for working with large volumes of digital photo data?" Tags="&lt;storage&gt;&lt;curation&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="2139" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2138" CreationDate="2010-08-06T23:39:45.323" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.drobo.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Drobo&lt;/a&gt; offers interesting attached storage devices (USB, Network, etc).  They aren't cheap but RAID-based storage seems like a good idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="774" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T23:39:45.323" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T23:39:45.323" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2140" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2138" CreationDate="2010-08-06T23:41:57.130" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Storage and reliability are major problems for photographers. Chase Jarvis did a great piece on how he does it. His approach can be scaled down for smaller data sets but it gives you an idea of what to shoot for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2010/06/workflow-and-backup-for-photo-video/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2010/06/workflow-and-backup-for-photo-video/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-08-06T23:41:57.130" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-06T23:41:57.130" />
  <row Id="2141" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2138" CreationDate="2010-08-07T00:19:56.780" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To expand on what Nate has suggested you have the following options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A dedicated server with RAID&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;External USB device as a secondary storage medium.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Network based NAS with RAID support&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;External USB based drive caddy that you could then use like a tape backup system and also ensure HDD stored offsite incase of fire&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also some software that can create an ISO image (CD/DVD Image) that can contain recovery bits and store that inside the ISO or as a separate file. You can then use this to recover data from the medium as it becomes faulty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update: The software I have been searching for is called: &lt;a href=&quot;http://dvdisaster.net/en/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DVDisaster&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, and the most important part, always have more than one copy! You should also be aware of bit rot that can occur in media so its always worth re-copying your entire catalog to another medium to ensure the bits are reset.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="154" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T01:41:04.807" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T01:41:04.807" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-07T00:19:56.780" />
  <row Id="2142" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2138" CreationDate="2010-08-07T00:43:12.383" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The pain of DVD could be mitigated with Blu-Ray, but I wouldn't recommend it, it's actually a pretty expensive option especially when considering the media size vs cost. I think Wayne has a pretty good list, disk is cheap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One option, not covered, is the external SAS option. You can get RAID configurable enclosures that can be attached to your machine and offer far superior speeds to the USB or NAS options. Writing gigabytes of files across USB or the network can be tedious...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-07T00:43:12.383" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-07T00:43:12.383" />
  <row Id="2143" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2138" CreationDate="2010-08-07T02:55:53.980" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've started generating a considerable amount of photography data myself. My main Lightroom library is well over 300 gigs, and there are also all of the backups. I tried out a couple Drobo RAID devices, which connect via USB (or possibly network, with an extra device.) The Drobo, while a simple to use device, is excessively slow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After some research, I came across the NetGear ReadyNAS devices. These are small Network Attached Storage (NAS) devices that support 1-4 hard drives in RAID configuration. You can start out with a single drive, and expand as you need to. Once reaching the maximum drive capacity, you can swap out one of the drives for a larger drive, and the system will expand into the additional space.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NetGear offers a couple generations of their NAS devices now. The older generation, the ReadyNAS NV+, offers X-RAID 1, which requires being taken offline when a new drive is added or upgraded. The newer generation, the ReadyNAS NVX, offers X-Raid 2, which allows your NAS to remain online and usable while the drive expands into new space. I chose an NVX myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The total cost of a ReadyNAS ranges from $300-700 for the enclosure, plus the cost of drives. Buying a ReadyNAS with drives tends to be more expensive, as high speed drives can be purchased much cheaper individually. I recommend using Seagate Barracuda or Hitachi drives myself, as they have a larger cache (32mb for the 2TB) and higher density platters. The larger cache and higher density generally equate to higher speeds (a Western Digital Green or Blue runs about 20-30mb/s sustained, while a Seagate or Hitachi run about 90-130mb/s sustained.) My ReadyNAS NVX setup uses three Hitachi 2Tb 32mb Cache drives, and achieves a sustained 80-85mb/s read speed, and about 60mb/s sustained write speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Despite the cost, the investment is pretty sound. For about $400-$800, you can get a rock-solid, quiet, simple device that can store a tremendous amount of data, and can grow with you for many, many years. If you start out with 1TB, you can easily expand to 8Tb or more in the future. The performance is phenomenal, the device is flexible, and it should last.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="875" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-07T09:06:39.293" LastActivityDate="2010-08-07T09:06:39.293" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-07T02:55:53.980" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2144" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2136" CreationDate="2010-08-07T03:40:30.703" Score="22" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The approach you take will probably depend on whether you wish to photograph star trails, do short-exposure astrophotography, or long-exposure astrophotography. Star trails are relatively easy to capture, however short and long exposure astrophotography must be done with a little more care. These tips assume you are using a DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Required Gear&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To take quality star shots, you'll need the proper gear. The specific gear may change depending on the kind of photography your are doing, but in general, you'll need the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Stable Tripod&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For star trails or short-exposure, any decent tripod will do&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For long-exposure, an equatorial tracking mount will be required&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;High-ISO camera&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;While not absolutely required, a camera that supports high ISO (3200 or greater) will generally have better low-ISO performance, reducing noise over your longer exposures&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cable Shutter Release w/ Lock&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A cable release for your shutter will eliminate camera shake caused by you pressing the shutter button, and should allow exposures longer than 30 seconds&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fast lens&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Again, while not an absolute requirement, a fast lens allows you to stop down a little bit and gain sharpness without reducing light too much&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Extra batteries or battery grip or ac adapter&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Long exposures can really suck up the battery power, bring along extra batteries.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you intend to do hour-long shots, a battery grip that extends your battery life will be essential. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It may not be possible to get truly long shots, say 2-3 hours, with a digital camera, without an AC adapter.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another requirement is a moonless sky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Capturing Star Trails&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Capturing star trails is fairly strait forward. You will not be tracking the stars across the sky, so an equatorial tracking mount will not be necessary. To capture star trails above a landscape, you will need to expose for a lengthy period of time, from several minutes to possibly a half hour or hours. A camera with good ISO performance will greatly help here, as very long shots heat up the camera sensor, and can cause a greater level of noise than you would normally get. An ISO setting of 100 or less, preferably 50 or 25, would be best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before taking your shot, set up your camera on the tripod, and frame and focus your shot. You should use a battery grip, or if possible, and AC adapter, to ensure you can take very long shots. Make sure you really like the composition, because it could be 30 minutes to several hours before you'll see the result and be able to try again. Keep in mind, you'll probably have to experiment for a while (i.e. several nights) before you really get the hang of things, and get a decent shot. Thats just part of the process (I have not yet taken a startrails shot I really like myself yet, and I've been at it every moonless weekend I've had for several months.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you have your shot framed, you'll need to configure your camera. Best to use manual mode so you have full control. Set your aperture to around f/4, your ISO to 100, and set your shutter speed to BULB mode (most digital cameras can't meter beyond 30 second shutter speeds, and require BULB mode to shoot any longer.) Attach your cable release, and enable mirror lockup mode if you have it. When you are all set, press the shutter button on your cable release, and lock it into position. A cable release that supports automatic timing is a huge plus here, as you can set a time, such as 30 minutes or 2 hours, and go to sleep if you have to. If you can't afford a timer release, a basic lockable cable release will do, you'll just have to keep an eye on the time and manually unlock when your time is up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recommend starting with 30-45 minutes and experiment a bit, and check the results. Having a laptop you can export the images to can greatly help in your experimentation phase, as it can be difficult to really gauge the results on a camera view screen. From this point on, its a matter of experimentation. Shorter exposures will generally be darker, star trails will be short, but they will be very clear. Longer exposures up to an hour or several hours will expose the landscape around you, possibly to near daylight levels, and your star trails will be very long, possibly 130 degrees for a several hour shot. If you intend to take a very long exposure of several hours, and have ISO settings below 100, I would try using them, and see how the results look. If the shot turns out too bright, adjust your aperture. An aperture of f/5.6 or perhaps f/6.3 might be required to keep the ambient lighting at an appropriate level after a long exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get really long star trails, it is better to expose using an intervolometer so you can get many shots of shorter length, taken only moments apart. Stacking multiple photos of short startrails will result in a single image with very long startrails. The clarity and brightness of stacked startrails images are usually better than single exposure startrails images. To adequately stack, you will probably want to look into a tool like DeepSky Stacker or IRIS astronomical image processing tools.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Capturing Short-Exposure Night Sky (Star and Milky Way) Shots&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another form of astrophotography is the short-exposure star/milky way shot. Like star trails shots, these also require a normal tripod, but use a higher ISO and wider aperture. Fast lenses are extremely helpful here. You'll definitely want a moonless night to capture a decent sky shot. Set up your shot like you would for star trails, but set your ISO to 800 or so, and open your aperture wide. A lens with an f/2.8 aperture will be helpful, but one with a wider aperture, say f/1.4 or f/1.2 will be even better. Speed is important here to get saturation without star trails. If you are looking to get zoomed shots with a telephoto focal length, try to use a lens with an f/2.8 aperture...otherwise you'll have a hard time avoiding trails. In general, wider angles are better than telephoto, as the more you zoom, the more apparent the motion of stars will be. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exposures that are intended to capture the sky without star trails need to be shorter. Once your shot is framed and focused, I would set your shutter speed to 10-15 seconds. Again, use mirror lockup and a cable release to open your shutter. Since your exposure times are much shorter here, you have a lot more time to experiment. You can try exposures up to 30 seconds or so, however around there you will likely start seeing trails. Keep an eye on your image noise, and adjust your ISO setting and shutter speed as appropriate. Noise from higher ISO settings (i.e. 1600, possibly even 3200 or more if you have extremely high ISO performance, like say a Canon 5D Mk II) may or may not be a big problem if you can get a brighter exposure. A good night sky shot that captures a lot of stars may not exhibit visible &quot;noisieness&quot; due to the fine pixel-sized point-like nature of the stars you are photographing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, experimentation here is key. You will have a lot more opportunity to experiment with the much shorter exposure times, so use it as best you can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Capturing Long-Exposure Night Sky Shots&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Long-exposure sky shots require a bit more equipment and care than the other two forms. To capture long exposures of the sky without star trails, a special kind of mount will be necessary. An equatorial tracking mount is one which, once properly &lt;em&gt;set&lt;/em&gt;, will track stars across the sky with keen accuracy, allowing you to expose for several minutes without getting trails.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Long-exposure shots will generally use a higher ISO than star trails shots, but likely less than short-exposure shots. I would try an ISO setting of around 400, possibly 800. Since you will be tracking the stars across the sky, you will have more flexibility with your aperture. You can choose to shoot wide open, or stop down in 1/2 or 1/3 increments. If you shoot wide open with an ISO of 400, start with a shutter speed of 5-8 minutes. If you use a higher ISO, you can reduce your shutter speed, unless you want a more saturated shot. Apertures between f/2.8 (or wider) down to f/5.6 are probably the most useful. Stars are point light sources, and will be particularly susceptible to diffraction, so avoid very tight apertures. I would avoid going lower than f/5.6 unless your sensor is very large with very large photosites. Always use your cable release with mirror lockup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As always, experiment. You may need to try setting your equatorial mount a few times to get it set right the first few times you try. Once set, you have a lot of flexibility to experiment. A camera with very high ISO performance, such as the Canon 5D Mark II or 7D, will greatly improve the quality of your shots, as well as give you more options. Shooting at higher ISO settings such as 1600 or 3200 can improve the types of shots you might be able to achieve, and expand the volume of stars you can capture in a single shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;Resources&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/index.php/category-technical/145-long-exposure-astrophotography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Long-Exposure Astrophotography&lt;/a&gt; &#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Great article on long-exposure with an equatorial mount&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bjango.com/apps/darkness/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Darkness iPhone App&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Helps you keep track of sunset, sunrise, and moon phases to plan the perfect night for shooting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-14T02:20:17.960" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T02:20:17.960" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2145" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2134" CreationDate="2010-08-07T05:00:23.770" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The full frame for Tamron 28-300 is actually getting a pretty good review (check &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-28-300mm-3-5-6-3-Aspherical-Digital/dp/B00066EK40&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Amazon&lt;/a&gt;). Here is the dpreview lens review for Tamron 18-270 (ASP-C): &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_18-270_3p5-6p3_vc_n15/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DPREVIEW&lt;/a&gt; (not bad for a super zoom)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-08-07T05:00:23.770" />
  <row Id="2146" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2151" CreationDate="2010-08-07T12:44:45.557" Score="6" ViewCount="156" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon uses different codenames for the same camera body depending whether it is sold in North America or Europe. In Europe we have the 50D, 550D and so on, while the US has XTi (or something like that).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the questions on this site just refer to the names they're familiar with, so it would be useful to have a post to refer to which can translate the names. I'm making this CW in the hope that this will be updated as new models come out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-07T12:59:57.693" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T10:49:35.547" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-07T12:44:45.557" Title="Translating Canon DSLR body codenames" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;body&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2147" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2146" CreationDate="2010-08-07T12:59:21.610" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canon_EOS_Digital_Cameras&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;good breakdown&lt;/a&gt; of the Canon dSLR line that includes the variable names so that you can easily see. It also includes a handy comparison summary of their features.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-07T12:59:21.610" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-07T12:59:21.610" />
  <row Id="2148" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2134" CreationDate="2010-08-07T13:38:42.767" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was in a similar situation, and I decided to get a used 70-200mm f/2.8 and the Nikon TC-17E teleconverter. It is a pretty pricey solution, but the lens is great!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See my somewhat related question &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/439/70-200mm-teleconverter-or-a-longer-zoom-lens&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastActivityDate="2010-08-07T13:38:42.767" />
  <row Id="2149" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2153" CreationDate="2010-08-07T13:53:44.593" Score="10" ViewCount="441" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've read a few threads on here that mention some &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/130/prime-vs-zoom-vs-macro-lens&quot;&gt;elementary descriptions&lt;/a&gt; of macro lenses and found some marketing fluff in the box for my Canon about them as well, but being a complete novice I was left a bit confused.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can someone please provide me with a top-to-bottom explanation of what a macro lens does?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="672" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-26T18:20:30.377" LastActivityDate="2010-11-26T18:20:30.377" Title="What is a macro lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="2150" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2149" CreationDate="2010-08-07T14:13:35.647" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A macro lens is a lens that you can use to protograph on a relatively short distance, to take extreme closeups.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a short focal length, that means as close as a few centimeters, for a long focal length it can be several decimeters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The classical definition is that the image on the film plane should be close to, or larger than, life size. With digital cameras with smaller sensors it's hard to reach that definition, so some manufacturers uses the definition that a regular 10x15 cm print should be close to life size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are special macro lenses, but you can also use a extension tubes or close-up lens to give a regular lens macro capabilities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples of macro photos; a bottle neck and a rowan flower. Notice the blurry background, which is common for macro photos as the background is so far away compared to the subject:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.guffa.com/photos/small/991-12039.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Bottle neck&quot;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;http://www.guffa.com/photos/small/991-08453.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Rowan flower&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-07T21:55:43.697" LastActivityDate="2010-08-07T21:55:43.697" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2151" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2146" CreationDate="2010-08-07T14:55:38.340" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I put together a translation table in &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/788/what-are-the-major-differences-between-these-camera-series-by-canon/789#789&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;EOS 1000D = EOS Rebel XS  = EOS Kiss F&#xA;EOS 550D  = EOS Rebel T2i = EOS Kiss X4&#xA;EOS 500D  = EOS Rebel T1i = EOS Kiss X3&#xA;EOS 450D  = EOS Rebel XSi = EOS Kiss X2&#xA;EOS 400D  = EOS Rebel XTi = EOS Kiss X&#xA;EOS 350D  = EOS Rebel XT  = EOS Kiss N&#xA;EOS 300D  = EOS Rebel     = EOS Kiss&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-08-07T14:55:38.340" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-07T14:55:38.340" />
  <row Id="2152" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2010-08-07T15:06:09.693" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't forget to subscribe to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://kelbytv.com/dtowntv/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;D-Town TV&lt;/a&gt; podcast as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-08-07T15:06:09.693" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-07T15:06:09.693" />
  <row Id="2153" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2149" CreationDate="2010-08-07T15:31:22.437" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;True macro lens gives you a 1:1 magnification -- that is a ratio of size of the subject and its image on the sensor. With 1:1 magnification on APS-C sensor (22&amp;times;15 mm), you can fill whole picture with area of this size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other properties of macro lenses include that they have fixed focal lengths, usually very low distortion (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/167-canon-ef-100mm-f28-usm-macro-test-report--review?start=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;distortion figures of Canon EF 100mm macro&lt;/a&gt; at photozone.de for example). Also, macro lenses tend to have non-rotating and non-moving front elements which is useful since you put them very close to the thing you're shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mostly due to marketing reasons, term &lt;em&gt;macro&lt;/em&gt; is now used for lenses with 1:2 or even lower magnification. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/28200_di_a031.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamron AF28-200mm F/3.8-5.6 XR Di Aspherical (IF) Macro&lt;/a&gt; has 1:4, which means on APS-C body the smallest area you'll focus on is 88&amp;times;60 mm.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On compact cameras, macro means &quot;setting where you can focus a bit closer&quot;. (Although, &lt;a href=&quot;#2158&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;as Roddy points out&lt;/a&gt;, this can sometimes get you close to actual macro range: Panasonic TZ5 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonictz5/page3.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;can capture&lt;/a&gt; a 63&amp;times;47mm area, which gives results similar to lens with 1:3 magnification on APS-C DSLR -- image quality aside)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T09:24:28.283" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T09:24:28.283" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="2154" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2117" CreationDate="2010-08-07T17:13:17.223" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/546371-REG/Manfrotto_035_035_Super_Clamp_without.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;super clamp&lt;/a&gt; might do the trick as a mounting solution... and then you have a super clamp as a bonus.  Most DSLRs support the use of a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/668174-REG/Bower_RCMC1.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;cable release&lt;/a&gt;, which you could use to fire it.  I have thought about doing this before, but have never gotten around to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="634" LastActivityDate="2010-08-07T17:13:17.223" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2155" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2091" CreationDate="2010-08-07T18:07:42.007" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found the following article after a good hour of searching around. There are a zillion places that offer to do plaq/block/artblock mounting for you, but this was the only one I could find that actually explained the process:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wonderhowto.com/how-to-plaque-mount-posters-using-mdf-082397/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;How to Plaque Mount Posters using MDF&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope its helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-08-07T18:07:42.007" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2156" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2165" CreationDate="2010-08-07T19:42:45.397" Score="3" ViewCount="210" Body="&lt;p&gt;I need a few cheap and fast USB card readers, mainly for SD (16GB cards), CF support would also be nice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any pro/cons about:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vivanco.de/cgi-bin/vivanco/en_US/productDetail.html?catId=496&amp;amp;showItems=1&amp;amp;pageNo=1&amp;amp;pageSize=10&amp;amp;productId=7753&amp;amp;todo=add&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Vivanco&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.transcendusa.com/Products/ModDetail.asp?ModNo=269&amp;amp;SpNo=-100&amp;amp;LangNo=0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Transcend P7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://store.lexar.com/?category=22&amp;amp;subcategory=8&amp;amp;productid=RW035-001&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lexar Professional Dual-Slot USB Reader&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sandisk.com/products/readers-accessories/sandisk-imagemate-all-in-one-usb-20-reader&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SanDisk ImageMate&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="420" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-28T02:12:43.440" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T02:12:43.440" Title="Recommended cheap and fast SDHC USB card reader?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;accessories&gt;&lt;usb&gt;&lt;card-reader&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="2157" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2201" CreationDate="2010-08-07T20:54:36.970" Score="6" ViewCount="1387" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've long been interested in astrophotography, and it was one of the primary reasons I purchased my Canon 450D about 15 months ago. I've been working on getting milky way shots for the last 6 months, and finally feel I have the hang of both the theory and application. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am interested in taking time-lapse short-exposure (25 seconds) shots over a period of several hours (possibly a full nights worth, 8-10 hours), in an effort to put together short movie clips of the stars and milky way moving across the night sky. I've found numerous intervalometers, including the &lt;code&gt;Canon TC80N3&lt;/code&gt;, however they all seem to be for the XXD and XD series of bodies. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any intervalometers that will work with a Canon Rebel XSi 450D body? Will the TC80N3 work? Or is time-lapse photography simply not a capability of Canon's entry-level bodies?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-11T15:46:21.613" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T15:46:21.613" Title="Which Intervalometer for Time-Lapse Astrophotography will work with a Canon 450D?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;astrophotography&gt;&lt;timelapse&gt;&lt;canon-450d&gt;&lt;intervalometer&gt;" AnswerCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2158" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2149" CreationDate="2010-08-07T21:01:19.297" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/users/112/che&quot;&gt;Che&lt;/a&gt; wrote...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On compact cameras, macro means&#xA;  &quot;setting where you can focus a bit&#xA;  closer&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On some compacts, macro mode can be incredibly effective. My Panasonic TZ4 focuses down to a couple of inches. Mayflys are big, but not &lt;em&gt;this&lt;/em&gt; big.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.rascular.com/photos/P1020687.JPG&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="562" LastActivityDate="2010-08-07T21:01:19.297" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2159" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2157" CreationDate="2010-08-07T21:17:36.827" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.pclix.com/shopping/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pclix&lt;/a&gt;. Canon 450D is listed as supported camera, but I'm not 100% sure it fits your purposes. I have no experience with it myself, although it's high on my list (for timelapse experience).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/713/timelapse-without-in-camera-support&quot;&gt;These answers&lt;/a&gt; might also be useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-07T21:23:26.217" LastActivityDate="2010-08-07T21:23:26.217" />
  <row Id="2160" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2138" CreationDate="2010-08-07T21:39:09.810" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What about simple, external hard-drives? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="880" LastActivityDate="2010-08-07T21:39:09.810" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-07T21:39:09.810" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2161" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2022" CreationDate="2010-08-07T21:43:15.563" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Also remember the rule of thirds...do not put your subject right on center, put it off to the side, etc&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="880" LastActivityDate="2010-08-07T21:43:15.563" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-07T21:43:15.563" />
  <row Id="2162" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2157" CreationDate="2010-08-07T22:09:13.840" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am not entirely convinced that you would need an intervalometer for what you want to do. Most timelapse movies that I have seen of the night sky seem to use a ~30 second interval for the shots. If you intent to use 25 second exposures you are quite close to that, so you could probably get away with a cheaper remote release that you can lock with the camera in continuous mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course an intervalometer will give you greater control (and it can be used for other subjects as well), but you &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; get started experimenting with a smaller investment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-08-07T22:09:13.840" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="2163" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2156" CreationDate="2010-08-07T23:38:19.570" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I bought a really cheap (about $5 iirc) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.siig.com/ViewProduct.aspx?pn=JU-MR0512-S1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SIIG usb card reader&lt;/a&gt; at Frys Electronics.  The MSRP is $17, but it was much cheaper in store.  It works really well with sdhc cards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Normally I get these types of items at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&amp;amp;N=100007958%20600031471%20600021094&amp;amp;IsNodeId=1&amp;amp;bop=And&amp;amp;Order=RATING&amp;amp;PageSize=20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Newegg.com, they have a great selection and good reviews.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-08-07T23:38:19.570" />
  <row Id="2164" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1061" CreationDate="2010-08-07T23:39:22.907" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I finally found one of the best astrophotography articles I've ever found on the net. This article is very thourough, and covers both the taking of long-exposure shots as well as the critical post-processing phase. I have not yet been able to take advantage of the great knowledge here yet, as I do not have a tracking mount, however the theory explained in the article seems very sound and specifically geared towards taking the best astrophotography shots:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/index.php/category-technical/145-long-exposure-astrophotography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Long-Exposure Astrophotography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-08-07T23:39:22.907" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2165" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2156" CreationDate="2010-08-07T23:47:12.677" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a cheap ebay one (couple bucks?) that had 150x written on it.  It read/writes my SanDisk Extreme III at 20 MB/s, even when the auction says it is much slower.  Originally found out from a slickdeals thread where they did speed tests.  Still going strong after a year.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The non 150x one I got is much slower at around 3 MB/s.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T00:10:48.990" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T00:10:48.990" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2166" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2177" CreationDate="2010-08-08T01:47:13.453" Score="18" ViewCount="397" Body="&lt;p&gt;Firstly, of course, photography is all about light, but for doco/street style photography (which is what I like), it's &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; about being in the right place at the right time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I've been really struggling for years now with taking pictures during the middle of the day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Night photography is awesome, because of the blacks and contrast. Dawn and dusk of course, the &quot;golden light&quot;, great angle of light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I really struggle in the middle of the day, especially if it's sunny. Colours and/or textures seem washed out, and things generally look flat, or lack sharpness and definition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do any of you find you have the same issue, and how do you deal with it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've kinda dealt with it by not shooting during the middle of the day anymore!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="161" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-28T02:19:57.260" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T02:19:57.260" Title="How can one deal with midday light in street photography?" Tags="&lt;light&gt;&lt;sunlight&gt;&lt;street-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="2167" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2166" CreationDate="2010-08-08T02:22:29.030" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure what you use to process your images or if you're even shooting RAW. For myself, I use Photoshop CS5 and for shots like that, during the RAW processing phase, I'll make adjustments to contrast, usually bumping it up, as well as adjustments to saturation, again usually increasing it. However, every image is different, so there's no formula I can give for this, just that contrast and saturation adjustments can seriously help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, if you do shoot JPEG, you can still do the contrast curves and saturation adjustments in your photo editor of preference, it's just that it has some additional cost in loss when saved again. Mind you, that can be unnoticeable, but it is there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, one way to deal with the harsh sun during shooting is to look at filters. A circular polarizer will not only reduce the light by 2 stops, making it less bright, it will also help to cut the glare that can wash out images. Of course, this is assuming you're using an SLR, you didn't mention what camera you have, so much of my advice (less the JPEG stuff) is aimed at dSLR shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T02:22:29.030" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2168" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2166" CreationDate="2010-08-08T02:56:24.350" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have three options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Avoid shooting during the day... obviously this has some drawbacks :)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fix it in post... a better option, because at least this way you have a picture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use filters to remove the glare/haze &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Post Processing Options&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are quite a few different techniques, but curves are your friend.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Filters&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I have the option, I'd prefer to get the shot right and avoid the extra steps to fix the shot later, so this is my preferred solution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have several options as far as filters go:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ND (Neutral Density)&lt;/strong&gt; - these block all light evenly, which allows you to effectively darken the whole scene, allowing a greater flexibility in aperture/shutter settings. This can help avoid stopping down as much, which can decrease diffusion.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;GND (Graduated ND)&lt;/strong&gt; - these can be used to darken the sky, allowing better contrast on the ground&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Polarizers&lt;/strong&gt; - these are probably the most helpful, as they can block the glare on glass or other light reflecting off your subject, however they are directional. In order for these to be helpful the light source needs to be at the correct angle from the subject so that you are able to block it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Haze (or UV)&lt;/strong&gt; - UV filters are most often used on digital bodies for lens protection, but they are helpful in daylight scenes for reducing haze and can improve contrast.  A haze filter takes this one step further by blocking a wider range of UV light.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, slightly underexposing can improve color saturation in brightly lit scenes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T15:33:15.593" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T15:33:15.593" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2169" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="134" CreationDate="2010-08-08T04:37:07.167" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;seriously consider renting some gear to try out options before you buy. Places like borrowlenses.com are great for letting you check out options without a strong commitment. Canon/Nikon is to a good degree a religious argument, I recommend you figure out which most of your friends use and then think about joining them; they'll be able to help you learn the gear, and you can probably borrow lenses from them to try out as well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The recommendation to think about and focus on lenses is right on. The way technology is going, it's not unusual to be upgrading bodies every few years as your skill progresses; but lenses you buy now will be with you for a decade or more. When I started building my collection, I spent on a key lens, bought an inexpensive lens to supplemnt it, and went with a lower end body. Since then, I've added a couple of lenses, upgraded my inexpensive lens, and upgraded my body twice -- but the key lenses are going to be with me for a long time. So put your money in to the best glass you can, and it'll serve you well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My purchase history (over four years)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon 100-400IS&#xA;Canon kit wide angle lens&#xA;Canon Rebel XT&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Added: Canon 300/F4&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Added: Canon 30d body&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Added: Sigma 180 Macro&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Added: Canon 1.4x teleconverter&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Added: Tamron 28-300 (retired Canon Kit lens)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Added: Canon 7d (retired Rebel XT)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;also bought a 480EX flash, added a 580EX, then bought a used 580EX II and retired the 480EX. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've spent fairly heavily on top quality lenses, except for the wide angle where I decided go less expensive (I wanted a flexible street lens that would work as a one-body/one-lens pack for urban shooting that was small and light). In retrospect, I would buy the sigma 18-200 instead of the tamron -- I prefer the build quality of sigma over tamron, and the tamron isn't wide enough at the low end so I'm always fighitng it to get the shot I want, and the extra zoom at the top end doesn't really benefit me as much as I thought it would (more on this here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chuqui.com/2010/01/a-few-thoughts-on-lenses/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.chuqui.com/2010/01/a-few-thoughts-on-lenses/&lt;/a&gt; ). When I do upgrade my wide angle, I'll probably buy much wider and with less zoom, probably a high quality Canon like the 17-55 F2.8 IS (but the 17-50 F2.8 looks tempting and is much cheaper).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My current buying plans include another 7D and the wide angle lens. Then I'm going to start saving up for a 500mm.... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T04:37:07.167" />
  <row Id="2170" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="621" CreationDate="2010-08-08T04:39:55.717" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;the best way to decide which workshops you want to go do:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) find workshops by photographers that impress and inspire you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) track down people who've gone to workshops by those people and talk to them. Find out what the workshops are like by people who've gone to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) research online for reports on workshops and read what they say about them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second one is crucial. word of mouth is the best advertisement you can get. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T04:39:55.717" />
  <row Id="2171" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2166" CreationDate="2010-08-08T04:47:42.740" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whenever someone says &quot;avoid shooting during the day&quot; I say &quot;Bah!&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reality is, many of us shoot when we can, and don't always have the flexibility to time shift on a regular basis. Or are in locations where timeshifting isn't practical (or necessarily safe more on my BAH! here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chuqui.com/2009/12/three-rules-they-tell-new-photographers-and-why-they-are-wrong/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.chuqui.com/2009/12/three-rules-they-tell-new-photographers-and-why-they-are-wrong/&lt;/a&gt; ). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;you should shoot when you're able to shoot. It might make the shooting more challenging, but still, you're better off shooting at a bad time than not shooting at a better time because you can't be there. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing I never see recommended when people ask this question: think about changing what you shoot to take advantage of or mitigate the conditions. If it's bright and midday, instead of trying to take vistas and landscapes, shoot macro and get into the shade where the bright glare won't be a factor. Sometimes you have to change plans and shoot what's good rather than bull through and shoot what you went there for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But many times there are things you can do to mitigate. If you're shooting people, put them in shade or on the side of the building out of direct light. Or put a scrim or a canopy over them and use bounce panels to soften the light. Think about the ways you can adjust the light or take advantage of it to get a better image. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are always options. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T04:47:42.740" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2172" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2166" CreationDate="2010-08-08T05:31:03.290" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't have an issue shooting images at any point during the day; I try to take advantages of the lighting and go from there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would wholeheartedly say: SHOOT ANYTIME YOU CAN! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Midday sun is overhead, and gives you dark (often called harsh shadows). On the plus side, mid-day sun is very bright and gives you plenty of opportunities for good exposures while handholding a body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When bright light is directly on your subject, you end up with exactly what you describe: washed out colors, flat geometry, and definition is not there. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So how do you combat this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Use a sheet or other material to diffuse the light. Softening the light will reduce the harsh shadows, and give your subject more volume.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Use a fill flash to brighten up shadows. &lt;a href=&quot;http://photos.aballs.com/Travel/Oregon-Crabbing/OregonCrab-16/595128882_Wpbwo-XL.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This image was shot at high noon on a super bright day on the oregon coast.&lt;/a&gt;. The subjects were lit with an on camera fill flash and because the image was shot at high noon, you get a perfectly illuminated background.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Use a reflector to add more light to a subject. This will cause certain areas of your subject to have shadows, which will in turn give your subject more volume. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Use a circular polarizing filter to help increase color contrast. Part of the reason colors looked washed out is due to the reflection of sunlight on colors. The strong intensity of the light reduces overall saturation. These reflections manifest themselves as polarized light waves. A CPL will block out specific polarized light, which results in more vivid colors. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Use shadows. Sometimes the most interesting photos are created by shadow play. Harsh sun creates harsh shadows which can be used for amazing results.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Bracket Exposures and try HDR images. THe effect is often abused, but it's fun to see what sort of images you can create with multiple exposures. Give it a whirl!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Stay in the shade. One thing I quickly learned in the 90+ degree heat of spain was to stay in the shade. Buildings make great areas shade. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T05:31:03.290" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="2173" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2175" CreationDate="2010-08-08T06:23:24.247" Score="5" ViewCount="71" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a fair few photos in my Aperture library that have been taken by other photographers. I'd like to mark them with the photographer's name in a way that allows me to search easily, but I can't see a field for this in either the metadata inspector or the search dialogue. Which field do I use to accomplish this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm using Aperture 3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="672" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T12:28:57.547" Title="Which metadata field do I use for the photographer in Aperture?" Tags="&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;apple-aperture&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="2174" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-08T08:12:43.310" Score="6" ViewCount="326" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently experimented with using the timer in my D300 for a longer car ride (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNR--7jqUtY&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the result can be seen here&lt;/a&gt;). That went fairly well, but one thing that bugged me was that the timer stopped taking pictures after 999 exposures, so I had to fiddle a bit with the camera to restart it. Is there a simple way (that I obviously overlooked) to have the camera make more images, preferably until the card is full?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T19:41:37.497" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T23:01:17.857" Title="Nikon D300: Using the timer for more than 999 exposures?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;timelapse&gt;&lt;nikon-d300&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="2175" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2173" CreationDate="2010-08-08T12:28:57.547" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the right field is IPTC / Contact / Creator.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can freely choose which fields are displayed in the metadata inspector. So if you can't find the field &quot;Creator&quot; in the default set of fields that you are using, choose another set or choose &quot;Edit...&quot; and add the Creator field (under IPTC / Contact).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the search tool, click &quot;Add Rule&quot;, &quot;IPTC&quot;, and select &quot;Creator&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="247" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T12:28:57.547" />
  <row Id="2176" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="96" CreationDate="2010-08-08T12:34:07.160" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have used two different scanners for this.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, a Minolta DImage Scan Elite 5400. This is a high resolution 35mm scanner which scans strips of negatives (or slides) as well as framed slides. The &quot;5400&quot; refers to the resolution: 5400 ppi. That's pretty high.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, an Epson Perfection 4990 Photo flatbed scanner. This comes with a number of adapters to scan negatives and slides in transparency mode. I used this mainly for scanning my Hasselblad 6x6 negatives. (A dedicated slide scanner for this format is exceedingly expensive). Did some high resolution jobs with it, like 7200x7200 pixel scans (that's 3000 ppi), though only in black&amp;amp;white. Very satisfied with the results.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both scanners are already a few years old, so you'll have to check about availability and pricing.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;HTH&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Steven&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="878" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T12:34:07.160" />
  <row Id="2177" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2166" CreationDate="2010-08-08T13:12:28.957" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Street photography comes with a lot of constraints on equipment and methodology – no diffusers, no reflectors, no asking people to please move one way or the other – so the best advice is to concentrate on what you can control: where you shoot, and how you shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The environment&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Much of this boils down to &lt;strong&gt;know your city&lt;/strong&gt;, or be ready to explore it.  Interesting compositions can make up for technical deficits, so find interesting places and concentrate on those.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Watch where the shadows fall&lt;/strong&gt;.  Midday at summer will always be problematic, but there are always awnings, bridges and overhangs to take advantage of, and tall office blocks almost always have a shaded side.  As soon as the shadows get a little longer, they can benefit you in a lot of ways.  A background in shadow with the subject brightly lit can be a strong composition. The transition from shadow to sunlit space can be very interesting, objects like signposts can cast interesting lines, and large blocks of shadow can make some interesting geometry, for example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/waxypoetic/3871597706/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Visor by Waxy / John Goldsmith, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3432/3871597706_27292db8f4_t.jpg&quot; width=&quot;100&quot; height=&quot;67&quot; alt=&quot;Visor&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/waxypoetic/4815164207/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Improvement Services by Waxy / John Goldsmith, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4141/4815164207_35b9d126fa_t.jpg&quot; width=&quot;100&quot; height=&quot;67&quot; alt=&quot;Improvement Services&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;[©John Goldsmith]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Watch for reflected light&lt;/strong&gt;.  This can be something as extreme as &lt;a href=&quot;http://2point8.whileseated.org/2006/09/28/post-grant-no-flash-corner/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;No Flash Corner&lt;/a&gt;, or as simple as an interesting pattern or unexpected contrast in an otherwise-shaded area.  There are almost certainly some 'sweet spots' for reflections at various times of day.  Tall office blocks can cast reflections of their windows even at midday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Exposure and postprocessing&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't already, use a hood. This will help eliminate any possibility of veiling flare (I think &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lenshoods.co.uk/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;these printable hoods&lt;/a&gt; are always worth mentioning). Similarly, it might be worth removing any 'protective' filter if you habitually use one, if only to rule it out as a source of flare.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Underexposure can help by improving colors, but also make sure you're metering the right thing to begin with: the street/sidewalk/people, and not the sky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;White balance may also need some slight adjustment; slight blue casts (from a white balance set too low) can really rob from the apparent detail of an image.  Alternately, give a warm tone to highlights to separate them from the cooler shadows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some street photographers use fill flash, but it definitely is more intrusive, and isn't a technique (or a look) that everyone likes.  I think anyone concentrating on street should give it a try, but it might not be a long-term solution for you personally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of typical filters, graduated NDs just aren't compatible with typical street compositions.  Haze and UV filters have a minimal effect on nearby subjects.  Polarizers could be useful, though you should avoid the temptation to fiddle, or you'll likely end up missing shots – I'd try to preset it to something reasonable for the area you're shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T13:12:28.957" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2178" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2174" CreationDate="2010-08-08T13:24:57.537" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My understanding is that the only way to do it is to take more shots at the interval which, obviously, isn't what you're looking for. Anyways, according to Ken Rockwell, the formula is '# of intervals' x 'shots @ interval' = 'total shots' where the total shot value is calculated by camera. The # of intervals seems to be capped at 999.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T13:24:57.537" />
  <row Id="2179" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2174" CreationDate="2010-08-08T14:04:20.797" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;How about using an intervalometer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T14:04:20.797" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2180" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2186" CreationDate="2010-08-08T14:12:58.903" Score="11" ViewCount="440" Body="&lt;p&gt;I meant like from the film days - can I use those lenses on the newer Pentax DSLR?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any caveats/exceptions or modifiers needed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-28T02:36:30.310" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T21:51:28.813" Title="Can I use old Pentax lenses on newer Pentax DSLR?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;pentax&gt;&lt;compatibility&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2181" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2184" CreationDate="2010-08-08T14:13:11.540" Score="18" ViewCount="2390" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard about Adobe Lightroom before, but never really understood what's so great about it, or why you'd pay for it when you can get Picasa for free. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know Lightroom probably has more sophisticated editing options, but what are they, exactly, and how to do they compare to Picasa? Why would you use one over the other? Is Lightroom better for streamlining editing workflow, but Picasa is better for organizing &amp;amp; tagging photos? And would you ever use &lt;em&gt;both&lt;/em&gt; programs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, what are the differences between Picasa and Lightroom?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="263" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T10:26:44.337" Title="Picasa vs. Lightroom - What's the difference?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;workflow&gt;&lt;picasa&gt;&lt;comparison&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="2182" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="402" CreationDate="2010-08-08T14:17:27.177" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.magnumphotos.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Magnum&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly not one single photographer, but has been the home of some of the world's preeminent photographers since it was founded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T14:17:27.177" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-08T14:17:27.177" />
  <row Id="2183" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="402" CreationDate="2010-08-08T14:22:24.637" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nickturpin.com/work/street&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nick Turpin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A stellar street photographer, and a public champion of the form in general.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also a founding member of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.in-public.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;in-public&lt;/a&gt;, which is worth a collective mention as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T14:22:24.637" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-08T14:22:24.637" />
  <row Id="2184" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2181" CreationDate="2010-08-08T14:22:44.467" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several features that I think are just awesome in one or the other. Depending on your needs, one of these features will make you (usually + some other things) go towards Picasa or Lightroom. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lightroom:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Integration with other Adobe product (Photoshop, InDesign, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;More sophistication in editing (somewhere in between Picasa &amp;amp; Photoshop)&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Color correction, CA correction&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;NR &amp;amp; sharpening&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Exposure &amp;amp; WB adjustments&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Can do batch processing &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Picasa:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Arguably faster (much faster for me)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Integration with Google product (Blogger, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Simpler editing tools&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if your workflow deals with more Photoshop, other Adobe stuff, Lightroom is the way to go. If you need more editing tools but don't want Photoshop, go Lightroom. Other than that, like me, I went for Picasa.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T14:22:44.467" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2185" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="402" CreationDate="2010-08-08T14:30:11.047" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Joe McNally (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.joemcnally.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.joemcnally.com/&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His down-to-earth and goofiness and personable-ness won me over. Of course also the masterful use of light and making simple poses to be a masterful creation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T14:30:11.047" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-08T14:30:11.047" />
  <row Id="2186" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2180" CreationDate="2010-08-08T14:41:11.333" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, all Pentax DSLRs accept all K-mount lenses.  This includes autofocusing (if applicable), focus confirmation, metering, IS, etc.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The oldest two series, K and M series (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;database&lt;/a&gt;), do not have aperture contacts, and thus do not work with Av and Tv mode.  Instead, you'll have to use M mode, but you will get meter readings.  It can also suggest a shutter speed if you push the +/- or green button (depending on camera model and settings).  Metering on these digital SLRs tends to be noticeably more inconsistent than on on the film SLRs they were designed for.  These two series do not get matrix metering, just center-weighted and spot, but do get focus-trap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a rare breed of K-mount that Ricoh used, called &quot;KR&quot; mount.  They have an extra pin which will get stuck if it is not &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theatreofnoise.com/2008/05/ricoh-lenses-on-pentax-cameras-ricoh.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;removed&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also get a M42-PK adapter and use the endless supply of great cheap screwmount lenses available at ebay, pawnshops, etc.  They will have focus confirmation, IS, center/spot metering, and can actually use Av mode as they will stop down with the aperture ring.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-02T22:11:52.517" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T22:11:52.517" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2187" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-08T14:43:26.507" Score="6" ViewCount="400" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm thinking about getting an external microphone for my Canon EOS 7D (since the built-in one isn't very good.) Nothing pro, but something that gives better audio quality. Suggestions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="890" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T14:50:10.253" Title="Getting an external microphone for a DSLR with video recording" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;video&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2188" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2181" CreationDate="2010-08-08T14:50:39.860" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Programs like &lt;strong&gt;Picasa&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;iPhoto&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;ACDSee&lt;/strong&gt;, are pretty much all most people need. They let you sort/manage your photos in a way that lets you find them again, either by searching (e.g. for keywords you've added) or just sorting them in a way that makes sense to you. It's a &lt;strong&gt;big&lt;/strong&gt; step up from having a bunch of folders of badly named photos on your hard drive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Programs like &lt;strong&gt;Lightroom&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;Aperture&lt;/strong&gt; are the more &quot;Pro&quot; versions, where you can do much more serious editing, tagging, processing, etc and automate a lot of actions that might be useful for providing your photos to someone else (e.g. export a series of photos at a specific resolution with a common naming system).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally, I tell people to get one from the first category (Picasa if they're using Windows, iPhoto if they're on a Mac) if&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;they just like taking photos but don't modify them afterwards; or&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;they own a point &amp;amp; shoot (and not a high end DSLR)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(not to be elitist or anything, but &lt;em&gt;generally speaking&lt;/em&gt; people with a cheaper camera are probably more interested in capturing the memories rather than editing/managing their photos)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;they don't know what Lightroom / Aperture actually do; or&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;they've never opened up PhotoShop to edit a picture&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(again, &lt;em&gt;generally speaking&lt;/em&gt; if someone's not used some serious photo editing software or doesn't even know about it, they &lt;em&gt;probably&lt;/em&gt; don't need photo management software like Lightroom or Aperture)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whereas I'd recommend the latter for someone&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;who is really interested in the technical aspects of photography&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;who &lt;em&gt;doesn't&lt;/em&gt; use their camera on the Auto settings&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(they're probably the sorts of people who'd find the capabilities of a more professional photo manager interesting if not helpful)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that with all the extra functionality of the more professional photo programs, you also have a more complex interface with more things you can break, so if you're unsure, I'd say try using Picasa (or another from that category) and if you need to make adjustments to photos often (that Picasa just can't do) then think about switching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T14:50:39.860" />
  <row Id="2189" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2136" CreationDate="2010-08-08T15:16:38.487" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From my experience...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tripod&lt;/strong&gt; of course is vital&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As is a &lt;strong&gt;shutter-release cable&lt;/strong&gt; or, better still, some kind of &lt;strong&gt;automated/timed trigger&lt;/strong&gt; (I have a battery grip with in-built time-lapse/long-exposure controls, you can also get external shutter releases that have the same timing features)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If possible &lt;strong&gt;avoid near/sub-zero temps&lt;/strong&gt; unless you have some high quality gear (you'll end up with ice/condensation all over your camera/lens)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take some &lt;strong&gt;test shots&lt;/strong&gt; at your highest ISO and widest aperture to get an idea of what things will look like, and then reduce your aperture and ISO and adjust the shutter speed accordingly (e.g. test shot of 30 seconds at ISO 3200 and f/4 would be similar in brightness to a 4h15m exposure at ISO 100 and f/16.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Try to avoid going above f/16 or so to increase the exposure time, as on most cameras this will actually make things blurrier as you go to the extremely small apertures. If you can't make the exposure long enough within your camera's limits, you may do well to &quot;stack&quot; the images afterwards (see below).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take a &lt;strong&gt;powerful torch&lt;/strong&gt; if you want to get focus right on any fore-ground (e.g. a tree or house or whatever nearby).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Try to avoid individual exposures of more than about 30 minutes (the figure will depend on your camera and its CCD/CMOS sensor quality — see below about hot pixels).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You may want to get/use a viewfinder cap (some camera straps have one on them) to cover your viewfinder while taking the photos. This stops light entering from &lt;em&gt;behind&lt;/em&gt; the camera through the viewfinder (e.g. if you're going to be sitting behind it with a laptop/torch/fire/...). Might be worth checking how much light will actually get into the image this way by taking a long exposure with the lens cap on in a dark room and shining a torch through the viewfinder.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If your camera has automatic dark frame subtraction, you might want to turn it off to avoid having to wait ages between each shot (the dark frame takes as long as the original exposure). Then again, it should eliminate/reduce hot pixels and noise in general, so if you've got the time its worth leaving on. For your first attempts, I'd say forget about it though.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you have multiple cameras (and tripods) take them. Apart from &quot;just in case something breaks&quot;, you'd get to play around with some shorter exposures while your other camera is taking a 3 hour photo (or a series that combines to 3 hours if you're stacking).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for &lt;strong&gt;hot pixels&lt;/strong&gt; / &lt;strong&gt;stacking&lt;/strong&gt; as mentioned above...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On most digital cameras (high end DSLRs included) you'll find that keeping the shutter open for long periods (e.g. an hour) will produce &quot;hot pixels&quot; in the image. These show up as red/green/blue spots all over the image from the pixels heating up from extended, continuous use. These of course won't &lt;em&gt;damage&lt;/em&gt; your camera, just the photo you're making at the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on your specific camera (some are much better than others), you might find it worth creating shorter exposures (of say 10-30 minutes) and stitching them together afterwards in Photoshop or one of these programs (that do various different 'astrophotography' things):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some free applications:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Star Trails: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.startrails.de/html/software.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.startrails.de/html/software.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Deep Sky Stacker: &lt;a href=&quot;http://deepskystacker.free.fr/english/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://deepskystacker.free.fr/english/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;RegiStax: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.astronomie.be/registax/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.astronomie.be/registax/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or some paid ones:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nebulosity ($60 USD): &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stark-labs.com/nebulosity.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.stark-labs.com/nebulosity.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;CCDSoft ($349 USD): &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bisque.com/sc/shops/store/CCDSoftWin2.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bisque.com/sc/shops/store/CCDSoftWin2.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;MaxIm DL ($665 USD): &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cyanogen.com/maxim_main.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cyanogen.com/maxim_main.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T15:16:38.487" />
  <row Id="2190" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-08-08T15:24:49.803" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Photographing people:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The face is NOT the only part of the human body that expresses emotion.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A photo is NOT considered good only when it includes a human head.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;people need NOT be in the centre of the photo. think about the attention to people and their environment around them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it is NOT necessary to take pictures at eye level, parallel to the ground. you live in a 3D world, take advantage of your six degrees of freedom.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="802" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T15:24:49.803" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-08T15:24:49.803" />
  <row Id="2191" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2157" CreationDate="2010-08-08T15:27:32.753" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've got a battery grip for my 450D that has controls to automate time-lapse and long-exposures (you can set the exposure length, time between exposures, length of exposures, and number of exposures) which is basically the same as these two from Amazon:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Studiohut-Professional-Vertical-Battery-Cameras/dp/B002SI6TKW/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1281280785&amp;amp;sr=1-2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/Studiohut-Professional-Vertical-Battery-Cameras/dp/B002SI6TKW/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1281280785&amp;amp;sr=1-2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Jenis-J-C450D-P-B-Professional-Battery-Digital/dp/B0026RHE8G/ref=pd_cp_p_0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/Jenis-J-C450D-P-B-Professional-Battery-Digital/dp/B0026RHE8G/ref=pd_cp_p_0&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I got mine on eBay, but it looks identical to the pictures — I've also seen remotes that do exactly the same thing (but plug into the side rather than as a battery grip). Can't seem to find them right now though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only downside is (at least on the model I have) it has a maximum of 99 exposures, which would only last about 42 minutes @ 25sec per photo (with no gap between). You could of course come back and restart it every 42 minutes...? Or maybe newer models have increased this limit...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T15:27:32.753" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2192" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1417" CreationDate="2010-08-08T15:35:30.883" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Haven't used it myself but have you seen Ansel Adams mention of it in '&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0821221868&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Negative&lt;/a&gt;'?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The method he used was:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Soak neg thoroughly in water&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Re-fix in &lt;em&gt;plain&lt;/em&gt; hypo solution for &quot;several minutes&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;5-10 mins in Selenium/Kodak HCA solution mixed 1:2 (constant agitation)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;HCA&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wash  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This produced about a one zone density increase in the highlights.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="71" LastEditorUserId="71" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T16:03:32.000" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T16:03:32.000" />
  <row Id="2193" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1975" CreationDate="2010-08-08T15:56:41.817" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can select which formats that Picasa displays from the 'File types' tab in 'Options':&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;code&gt;Tools &amp;gt; Options &amp;gt; File types&lt;/code&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;then deselect 'RAW formats'.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Picasa will then only display your JPEGs (and any other formats you may have selected in 'Options' such as TIFF).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="71" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T15:56:41.817" />
  <row Id="2194" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2211" CreationDate="2010-08-08T16:28:22.090" Score="7" ViewCount="494" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a beginner in photography and especially for a Nikon D90. Can you please point me to some resources about getting started with Nikon D90 (did some googling and found some resources, but none of them are really targeted to a new user). I am more likely looking for getting good photographs with effects like smooth backgrounds and similar techniques. Any websites/resources that help teach these techniques will be good. I had a Nikon D90 with 18-105 mm AF and 50mm prime lens. Please provide any techniques for using these lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="901" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T19:41:04.207" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T17:01:05.300" Title="Best place to find techniques about using Nikon D90" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;nikon-d90&gt;&lt;shooting-technique&gt;" AnswerCount="7" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="2195" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="934" CreationDate="2010-08-08T16:49:29.570" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Reading through &lt;a href=&quot;http://nickminers.com/2009/05/the-zone-system/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article about the zone system&lt;/a&gt; (found from &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/867/zone-system-with-a-dslr/870#870&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt;) made me see how using the zone system would be useful and require manual mode. Basically using a spot meter (for me, the one built into the camera) to find the exposure for the part of the photo you want to appear with a particular brightness, and setting the exposure accordingly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, you could make a fair guess and use exposure compensation. Or suck it and see with viewing the result on the back of the camera, adjusting and retaking the photo (for static subjects). But that did seem interesting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T16:49:29.570" />
  <row Id="2196" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="487" CreationDate="2010-08-08T17:05:11.807" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;All the major DSLRs have excellent sensors and optics - far batter than even the best pro gear of 10years ago.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You get more value for money by staying away from the top two (Canon/Nikon) - Olympus/Pentax give you a lot more for your $$&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider buying used, the pace of new DSLR models and the latest shiny toy factor means that you can buy last years models that are hardly used, for a fraction of their original price. (checkout bhphotovideo and keh)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="631" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T17:05:11.807" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-27T21:12:27.193" />
  <row Id="2197" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="487" CreationDate="2010-08-08T17:13:38.330" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It sounds like you might be happiest with a small point and shoot that you will have with you when you travel. One key feature to look at is shutter-lag. The most frustrating aspect of p&amp;amp;s cameras is not the inability to fine-tune the settings but the fact that you miss shots because the shutter doesn't respond to the button quickly enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="649" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T17:13:38.330" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-27T21:12:27.193" />
  <row Id="2198" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="487" CreationDate="2010-08-08T17:26:32.413" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could try finding something at a flea market and start taking pictures? I don't want to seem antagonistic, but some of the best cameras I have ever bought cost me less than $20 with a few lenses to boot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Amateur photography is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;absolutely no different&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; than it was prior to the DSLR. You still need to understand things like aperture, shutter speed, depth of field, colors of light, filters, bracketing, frames per second, &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/476/how-do-i-protect-my-camera-in-a-smoke-filled-environment&quot;&gt;sealed, ass gaskets&lt;/a&gt;, light modifiers, burning and dodging (no matter if you use film or digital), ethics, viewfinder range and brightness and a plethora of other things. Additionally, metering (spot, matrix or a 'new invention') also apply. Taking vacation snaps or doing photojournalism, you still need to be able to argue with your camera. The point (in both cases is), you bring back great pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or you could buy a really expensive camera, set it to auto and get less quality than the  camera maker did on their sample photos (hint, they use photographers). In that case, why not get a point and shoot?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you buy a DSLR, the major difference is you have to deal with white balance and a bunch of other settings that you'll need to research, beyond filters that color any artificial light that you use. Seriously, that is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;it&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; as far as exercising the shutter is concerned. Post processing is a different story for another question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I highly recommend a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rokkorfiles.com/SR%20Series.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Minolta SR series&lt;/a&gt; camera for any beginner. They are quite cheap, they offer great metering and they are very simple to use. I got my latest replacement for $50 at a garage sale, with a 50mm f/1.7 lens that takes perfect pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="52" LastEditorUserId="52" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T17:32:07.847" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T17:32:07.847" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-27T21:12:27.193" />
  <row Id="2199" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2194" CreationDate="2010-08-08T17:29:24.357" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are not likely to find many technique descriptions that is specifically targeted at your camera or lenses, but that is not a problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The photographic terms are pretty much the same for all cameras, so you just have to learn how to apply the settings to your camera (which you can look up in the users manual), and you can use any method description that you find.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T17:29:24.357" />
  <row Id="2200" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2166" CreationDate="2010-08-08T18:42:22.330" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm with matt and churuqi - use what the light gives you, and leave your fixed ideas behind. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Strong contrast can be great for strong lines, for leading the eye, for picking out aspects. Maybe hang out near an alleyway that's aligned with the sun so that there is shade on the main road, with a narrow-ish area of light at the end of the alleyway. Anyone walking through the patch of light will be picked out compared to the people on the shady part of the street.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The strong contrast could also allow for negative space - if something is partly in the sun you could aim to have the shaded side completely black with a well balanced sunny side. (Might require post processing). Or you could have a mostly shaded picture with deliberately blown out highlights where the sunlight enters the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe find a market where all the stalls have canvas roofs. It would be a bit dark in that kind of environment early or late in the day, but midday the light coming through the canvas would still be enough for handheld shots. Different colour canvas would produce different colour lights on the people - and the produce being sold.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or think about what might look good in a bleached out light. It could well add to the impression of an object having been there for ever - think old posters on a wall, an old shop front, faded material hanging in the street.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or look at different types of shade. I love the light you get filtered through trees - green and dappled. The pattern of contrast would probably be distracting on a face, but on a more even surface it could add interest. So you could look for tree lined streets, or head into a park.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, you are only limited by your imagination - open your eyes and see what is there rather that trying to see what you wanted to see when you set out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T18:42:22.330" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2201" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2157" CreationDate="2010-08-08T18:44:40.827" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've found a couple remote timers that will work with the Rebel line. Only one of them seems to actually support more than 399 explicit exposures, up to 9999 (or unlimited, which will apparently shoot until you manually stop it.) It is fairly cheap at $45, compared to nearly $200 for the TC80N3. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wired: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/RainbowImaging-Control-Digital-Cameras-replaces/dp/B0031ZHN1K&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;RainbowImaging LCD Timer Remote Control for Canon EOS&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Digital Rebel XT, XTi, XSi,550D, 500D, 450D, 400D, 350D, 1000D, G11, G10 &amp;amp; ELAN SLR&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wireless: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/RainbowImaging-Wireless-Control-Digital-replaces/dp/B003OLIW4I&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;RainbowImaging Wireless LCD Timer Remote Control for Canon EOS&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Digital Rebel XT, XTi, XSi,550D, 500D, 450D, 400D, 350D, 1000D, G11, G10 &amp;amp; ELAN SLR&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also an intervalometer from Aputure, which, while not quite as capable as the RainbowImaging one, supports exposures up to 399 or unlimited. It is also about $45:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Aputure-intervalometer-Contral-Powershot-Compatible/dp/B003Y35VJA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Aputure intervalometer Timer Camera Remote Contral Shutter Cable 1C for Canon EOS&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rebel XT, XTi, XSi, XS, T1i, T2i, EOS 1000D/550D/500D/450D/400D/350D/300D, Canon Powershot G10, G11, Fullly Compatible with Canon RS 60-E3&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key search term to find these was &quot;remote timer&quot; or &quot;timer remote&quot;, rather than &quot;intervalometer&quot;. Hopefully others wishing to do time-lapse photography with their Rebel, and not wanting to spend hundreds of dollars, will be able to find some use in one of these devices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T18:44:40.827" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2202" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-08T18:55:08.497" Score="9" ViewCount="491" Body="&lt;p&gt;How can I use these prime lenses for Canon T2I? Are these cheap and good? I have no clue what M42 lenses are. Please post appropriate links for the lenses and adapter that I can use for my canon t2i.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="147" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T18:37:08.693" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T23:25:42.667" Title="What are M42 prime lenses?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;old-lenses&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2203" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-08T18:57:58.023" Score="8" ViewCount="222" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do you need the permissions from the subjects? Specially if there is money to be made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="147" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T19:04:14.390" LastActivityDate="2010-10-22T11:59:53.157" Title="Street Photography: Can you take pictures on the street and enter them in contests?" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;street-photography&gt;&lt;model-releases&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2204" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2203" CreationDate="2010-08-08T19:03:53.597" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer is &quot;it depends&quot;, and the rest of my answer is based on US law.  To be on the safe side, you'll probably want to have a release.  Many contests have a motive to find the best photos possible that showcase a product or service, and the subject(s) in your photos could be inferred to be endorsing that product or service, a model release would definitely be needed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the usage is purely editorial, a model release may not be needed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, be sure to read the fine print of the particular contest, it may address the issue of whether or not releases are required for individuals in the photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Someone will also inevitably point out that you can do anything, as long as you don't get caught :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T19:03:53.597" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2205" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2194" CreationDate="2010-08-08T19:05:51.267" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As noted in Guffa's answer, most of what you're asking about is not specific to your model of camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, if you do run into questions that are Nikon-specific or just want to chat with other passionate Nikon users, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonians.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikonians&lt;/a&gt; is a big Nikon user community.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T19:05:51.267" />
  <row Id="2207" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2202" CreationDate="2010-08-08T19:11:38.230" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The M42 is a standard lens mount. It has a 42mm diameter, hence the name. It was apparently originated by Zeiss, however it appears to have extremely broad compatibility with both old and obsolete as well as modern and current camera bodies. This includes Canon EOS, such as a T2i.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that to use this mount on camera bodies other than the Zeiss Contax, you will likely require a mounting adapter. Additionally, these lenses do not include any electronic capabilities (or the adapter does not support electronic adaptation), so you will not have any features like auto-focus or electronic aperture control. Everything would be manual if you used one of these lenses on a modern electronic camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M42_lens_mount&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt; about this mount and its lenses at wikipedia.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T19:08:24.477" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T19:08:24.477" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2208" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2202" CreationDate="2010-08-08T19:45:38.320" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just to add to jrista's point, the M42 mount lenses can often be found quite cheaply and many of them are extremely good, especially ones made by Zeiss. Pentax popularized this mount enourmously in its day, so there is also usually a lot of Pentax lenses available in this mount, also quite good. Which reminds me, you may sometimes see them referred to as &quot;Pentax screw/thread mount&quot; in adverts as a result of the popularization, however it's M42.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, for reviews and other good info on manual lenses, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mflenses.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Manual Focus Lenses&lt;/a&gt; site has a bunch of info and reviews, though not all lenses are M42.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, bear in mind, these lenses will be fully manual and so you need to use them in manual mode on your T2i, possibly including metering (I'm not sure how to do stop-down metering on the Canon), and definitely including focusing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T19:45:38.320" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2209" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2202" CreationDate="2010-08-08T19:47:06.227" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;M42 prime lenses are single focal length lenses that fit the M42 mount, also known as screwmount.  There are many M42 bodies other than the Zeiss Contax, but no digital M42 bodies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beware that Contax mount lenses are typically &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; M42 mount, but it's replacement, the C/Y mount or even N-mount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason why primes are recommended is because when these were made, zoom lenses were of particularly poor quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any EF-m42 adaptor should work just fine.  I am not positive, but some may result in the aperture and distance markings to be at 6 o'clock instead of 12.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will have manual focus and manual aperture control (you adjust the aperture ring and the lens stops down).  Some bodies will allow more or less functions like metering, Av mode, focus-trap, IS.     &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some lenses will have an Auto/Manual switch or have preset rings, which can be very helpful.  In Auto (preset ring set one way), it will be wide open, allowing you to compose, focus, etc.  Then switch to Manual and the lens will stop down to whatever the Aperture ring is set to.  Then you shoot.  Very helpful if you are using extension tubes and doing macros.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While there are tons of great M42 primes, there are also a lot of bad ones.  Look up reviews in the vintage section &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1520/lens-review-sites&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T23:25:42.667" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T23:25:42.667" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2210" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2203" CreationDate="2010-08-08T20:03:09.900" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming you can publish the photo as a work of art (&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1736/can-i-publish-photos-taken-in-public-legally&quot;&gt;which is not guaranteed&lt;/a&gt;), then it mostly depends on the terms of the photo contest.  i.e., let's put aside the question of whether or not you can publish a photo of a stranger at all, and just think about the contest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, the fact you're making money/receiving prizes doesn't have a direct bearing on whether or not you need a release.  Selling a photo as a work of art doesn't require the subject's permission (for emphasis, with the assumption you can publish it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Things that might impact you in the contest terms are clauses like these:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The right to use the photo in promotional material.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The right to sublicense the photo.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A requirement to indemnify the organizers.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So tip #1 is &lt;strong&gt;read the terms and conditions&lt;/strong&gt;.  In most contexts, promotional use puts a larger burden on the photographer than simple display, and would normally require a release.  The hypothetical problem boils down to this: you enter the photo, and win.  It's used to promote some aspect of the sponsor's business/operation.  The person sees it and objects to this use of their image, sues.  You end up on the hook for costs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this a big deal in practice? Yes and no.  I've never heard of it happening, but on the other hand: if terms like these aren't subject to sensible limits (such as only requiring rights for the winning photos, and/or only for use directly in connection with the contest itself) then you should probably think twice about entering the contest anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T20:03:09.900" />
  <row Id="2211" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2194" CreationDate="2010-08-08T20:10:13.440" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As ahockley and Guffa suggest, but don't necessarily break out this way, you have two different needs. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Learn about how to be a good photographer.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Learn how to use your camera.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will need to address these two needs differently. I would begin by getting a good book on basic photography (it can even be an old book that assumes film cameras) and begin to learn about the various settings, and what they do (e.g., depth of field, shutter speed, aperture, etc.). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you are learning about these techniques, and you want to try them out, take out your camera manual and look up how to change that setting. The one key to remember is that when an older book is talking about film speed, that translated to ISO setting in a digital camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's important to begin with the basic photography book rather than with the manual, because if you start with the manual you will quickly become overwhelmed. Learning &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; to do things without knowing &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; you are doing them means you won't retain the how. So first learn what changing the shutter speed does for your photography, and why you might want to change it, and then look up in the manual how to change it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Best of luck on the adventure of photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="649" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T20:10:13.440" />
  <row Id="2212" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-08-08T20:22:11.680" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Imagine the photo you're about to take...&#xA;Imagine it being used in a Newspaper article, a magazine story, or hanging at an art exhibition. What story does it tell?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T20:22:11.680" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-08T20:22:11.680" />
  <row Id="2213" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2214" CreationDate="2010-08-08T20:30:04.657" Score="12" ViewCount="418" Body="&lt;p&gt;I describe myself as an amateur photographer to other photographers and avoid using qualifiers like &quot;pro&quot; or &quot;amateur&quot; when talking to clients, but after reading a number of articles in Rangefinder that really attacked amateurs I started wondering where the line is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So what is the distinction between a professional and amateur photographer?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I describe myself as an amateur because I have had no art training and photography is not my primary occupation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Side note:  I'm disappointed that people consider &quot;professional&quot; or &quot;amateur&quot; descriptions of the quality of a photographer's work.  Pros can take some pretty crummy pictures and amateurs can take some spectacular ones.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="907" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-29T21:32:52.427" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T05:15:50.827" Title="What is the distinction between a professional and amateur photographer?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;professional&gt;&lt;amateur&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2214" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2213" CreationDate="2010-08-08T20:41:29.373" Score="19" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think, in general, you are considered a professional photographer if your primary source of income comes from your photographic work. For example, if you are a wedding photographer by trade, your &lt;em&gt;job&lt;/em&gt; is to photograph weddings. You are a &quot;professional&quot; wedding photographer. The same would be true if you were a sports photographer, and sold your work to various sports-related franchises, newspapers, magazines, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the flip side, you would generally be considered an amateur photographer if you simply do photography as a hobby, without making any money on the deal. Other common terms for this are &quot;hobbyist&quot; or &quot;enthusiast&quot;. It is possible to be considered &quot;semi-professional&quot;, in that a portion of your income is earned from photography, while your primary profession is something else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fundamentally, I don't think formal education really has anything to do with being a professional or not. I think that many professionals are formally educated, but I know some photographers who do sports or wedding photography professionally, and they simply picked up a camera one day and started learning. They have no formal education, but have some phenomenal raw talent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it is important to note that, like you mentioned yourself, the quality of a photograph has nothing to do with whether you are a &quot;pro&quot; or not. The quality of a shot ultimately boils down to the individual taking the shot, their skill/talent, their work ethic, their diligence, and their sense of artistic vision. &lt;strong&gt;None&lt;/strong&gt; of those things &lt;em&gt;require&lt;/em&gt; any kind of formal education, nor do they require that your photographic work be the primary source of your income. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, if you make your living via photography, you will undoubtedly become more skilled than someone who casually does photography, simply because of the sheer volume of shots you'll likely take, and the time you'll invest in using your camera and its settings, in post-processing, in working with prints, etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-08T21:15:22.923" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T21:15:22.923" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2215" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2213" CreationDate="2010-08-08T20:48:44.393" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do you have a business license? Do you market your work and solicit business? You're a pro.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you sell an occasional image or print? Not a pro. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think it's about income; it's about intent. Are you putting time in on a regular basis on your photography business? Then, you're a pro.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I just evaluated where I am in all of this and decided NOT to move forward on &quot;going pro&quot;; it'd only take away time from the photography, and I'd rather focus on that for now. To successfully run a business you have to invest time and sweat. Right now, my &lt;em&gt;long term&lt;/em&gt; view is that my photography business will be better invested in building a portfolio and inventory and improving my skills than trying to general revenue. Fortunately, I don't have to right now, so I can afford to stay amateur (happily). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-12T16:15:42.997" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T16:15:42.997" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2216" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1233" CreationDate="2010-08-08T20:55:00.243" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;yes, that memory usage is normal converting to jpeg.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I&quot;m finding 4Gig works fine. A few suggestions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;upgrade your drive to a 7200 drive. you're probably seeing I/O delays and a faster drive will help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;preferences-&gt;file handling, set the cache to a larger value. I use 25 gig. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;optimize your catalog (under the file menu) every so often. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;system performance will lag as your memory set grows. You can check /var/vm (using terminal):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[chuq-laptop:~] chuqui% cd /var/vm&#xA;[chuq-laptop:/var/vm] chuqui% ls -l&#xA;total 8912896&#xA;-rw------T  1 root  wheel  4294967296 Aug  6 12:14 sleepimage&#xA;-rw-------  1 root  wheel    67108864 Aug  4 21:57 swapfile0&#xA;-rw-------  1 root  wheel    67108864 Aug  7 16:57 swapfile1&#xA;-rw-------  1 root  wheel   134217728 Aug  8 13:53 swapfile2&#xA;[chuq-laptop:/var/vm] chuqui% &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;if you see more than 3-4 swapfiles, you'll speed things up by rebooting and re-initalizing VM.  If you haven't rebooted for a while, you may see 6-7 files especially if oyu've done a lot of image work, and that slows down the paging system (again, a 7200 RPM drive as your boot drive helps this as well...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T20:55:00.243" />
  <row Id="2217" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="402" CreationDate="2010-08-08T20:55:41.850" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Trey Ratcliff (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stuckincustoms.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.stuckincustoms.com/&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do a lot of HDR shooting myself, and I pretty much use Trey's tutorial as the basis for a lot of my work. Additionally, I am a fan of the &quot;surrealistic&quot; style of HDR and that is right in Trey's wheelhouse. I know that not everyone likes surrealistic HDR looking images, so my guess is not everyone will like his stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="862" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T20:55:41.850" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-08T20:55:41.850" />
  <row Id="2218" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13" CreationDate="2010-08-08T21:11:16.960" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While Photoshop+Bridge generally offer the same capabilities, Lightroom is packaged and designed in such a way that all those capabilities are far more accessible. In Photoshop, you don't have at-hand access to the histogram, tone curve, white-balance (color balance), and exposure tools all at once. There are a wide variety of other photography-related tools that are also available at your fingertips in Lightroom, where as the same tools or operations may require a sequence of activities to find and use in Photoshop. Some tools offer capabilities that are not found in Photoshop, like the new camera lens profiles of Lightroom 3. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Workflow is better with Lightroom, as your library management and development are all in a single application. You don't have to switch back and forth, and many library-management activities can be performed from Lighroom film strip on demand. Additionally, Lightroom provides to additional workflows for generating web sites and slide shows, as well as a very rich workflow for print management. The printing capabilities of Lightroom are pretty extensive now in version 3, providing tools to print booklets with multiple prints per page in artistic layouts very easily.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Overall, for a cheaper product, Lightroom really outshines Photoshop as far as digital photo editing goes, despite the fact that both tools offer the same capabilities. Lightroom just makes it a whole lot easier and quicker.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T21:11:16.960" />
  <row Id="2219" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2022" CreationDate="2010-08-08T22:31:46.140" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;try things. the things you like, do more of. the things you don't like, don't do again. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;keep the pictures you like. throw out the ones you don't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ignore all other rules. If you just want to enjoy taking pictures for yourself, then enjoy taking pictures for yourself. If that makes you want to get more serious about photography, THEN you can start worrying about rules. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the important things are to have fun and end up with pictures you like. don't do anything that gets in the way of those things. Just enjoy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-08-08T22:31:46.140" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-08T22:31:46.140" />
  <row Id="2220" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-08T22:34:10.397" Score="9" ViewCount="83" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently took photos of a parade, but when looking at my photos, I realised that I was standing at the same spot almost all the time, so the photos were not really coherent or telling a story. Does anyone have any tips for how to make more interesting, story telling photos showing personal characteristics during parades?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="910" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T12:53:52.530" Title="How to make photos of parades?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;tips&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2221" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-09T00:32:22.807" Score="7" ViewCount="406" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon T2I, and also a good prime lens (50mm / f1.8) but I cannot seem to take close up portraits like I see in magazines. Do I need a better lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="147" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-04T16:46:47.093" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T19:12:37.397" Title="What is a good Canon lens to take portraits?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2222" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2221" CreationDate="2010-08-09T00:46:18.287" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, a classic lens for portrait is 80mm to 135mm on a 35mm full frame camera. If you do the math, on the 2Ti it's around 50mm to 85mm for the same field of view. So, in that sense, you're at the wide end of the portrait &quot;sweet spot&quot; as it were.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does that mean anything? Well, it does. A shorter lens wil often have a greater depth of field and that tends to bring backgrounds into focus and that adds distraction to the primary subject. Also, the smaller the sensor, the greater the depth of field. So, for a dSLR, I'd recommend getting to farther end of the range for the APS-C (70-85mm) to get that nice bokeh on the background that makes the subject pop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, having said all that, it is important to realize that magazine shots have a few other things going for them such as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Very experienced portrait photographers. This shows in their manipulation of light, the angle of the shot, and the depth of field they aim for.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Very experience makeup artists. You can't discount this, high end work isn't just the camera and the lens, it's also the people behind the scenes that make sure everything is perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Top of the line post-processing. If you have ever seen the photo manipulation done during the work for a professional magazine shoot, you'd get over the limitations of your own efforts. This level is insane, they will adjust anything at all to make the shot look better. Sure, they have to start with something, but after they're done, it can be night and day.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, to get good portrait shots it is a balance of the right lenses, as I mentioned, and the right light. The right light is a whole new level of challenge and there are some great sites to help you get started:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strobist&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lighting-essentials.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lighting Essentials&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck! In the end, to get the great shots takes practice, so dig around these sites and shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T00:46:18.287" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2223" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-09T01:07:21.453" Score="6" ViewCount="110" Body="&lt;p&gt;I hear that this is the most vital to store/manage/edit and other tasks. What is your ideal workflow?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="147" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T01:43:13.787" Title="What workflow do you follow for managing your photography?" Tags="&lt;workflow&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="2224" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-09T01:08:50.483" Score="14" ViewCount="480" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7520/which-photographer-do-you-find-inspirational&quot;&gt;Which photographer do you find inspirational?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am curious to see what draws your inspiration into this field. One photograph per answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="147" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-11T21:35:06.220" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T22:13:09.620" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-09T01:13:07.620" ClosedDate="2011-02-20T00:31:12.530" Title="What is your favourite photographic inspiration?" Tags="&lt;art&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="2225" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2223" CreationDate="2010-08-09T01:37:39.090" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off, while I'll try to offer some helpful advice, I think that each individual should develop a workflow that fits their own personality. There is no one &quot;correct&quot; photo management workflow. That said, here are a few tips:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Optimize for discoverability over structure&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Manually storing photos in a folder structure is a lot of work, and only provides one way to organize your work.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Storing all of your work in a single (or very few) folders, and using tags/keywords &amp;amp; metadata to provide flexible and alternative ways of organizing your work tends to be more effective&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Most modern photo management tools allow you to tag or keyword your photos, offer metadata editing, and provide powerful searching tools&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tag or Keyword &lt;em&gt;early&lt;/em&gt; so you gain the benefits they offer&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This should be a primary organizational tool, allowing you to quickly find and organize your work in a variety of combinations&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tagging/keywording on import is the most effective way to start, and is a quick way to add common keywords to bulk images&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;After import, review the photos you have imported and add more specific tags/keywords to individual photos or smaller groups&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Add proper metadata &lt;em&gt;early&lt;/em&gt; so you gain the benefits metadata offers&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Metadata describes your work in detail, and includes camera details (EXIF), geocoding, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;IPTC Data:&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Title &amp;amp; Job Title&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Description/caption&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Copyright year/owner&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Location: Address, City, State/Province, Postal Code, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Much more&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EXIF data (usually set automatically): Camera &amp;amp; Lens Details&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Flag picks and rejects in work while adding keywords and metadata&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Look for rejects and either flag them as rejects or delete them:&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Blurry or Out-of-focus shots&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Unrecoverable exposures (radically blown highlights or severely blocked shadows)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Interrupted shots that had to be retaken&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Look for top picks and flag them:&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;These are the shots you will probably keep&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shots with proper exposure, good composition &amp;amp; lighting, interesting story, strong vision&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Process your picks&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you shoot in raw, you'll definitely need to process your picks&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Don't be afraid to adjust keywords or metadata as your processing if you think of something additional or more descriptive than what you chose originally&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Publish your work&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you intend to publish online, export your images for screen viewing and upload&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mild sharpening&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Moderate saturation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some tools allow you to create flash web sites that may be exported and published online&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some tools allow you to generate CD's or DVD's of your work that may be burned and shared with friends, family, customers, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Best to create a clone or copy of your images that are intended to be published online, to avoid degrading the original&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Print your work&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you intend to print your work, adjust for optimal printing:&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Moderate sharpening&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Apply an appropriate color profile for the paper you intend to use&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If permanent changes are required to tune your image for print, best to create a clone or copy of your images to avoid degrading the original&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The tool or tools you choose to use will ultimately dictate which of the tips above you follow. Some tools offer a linear workflow that directly support the activities and order specified above. Other tools offer non-linear workflow that allows the activities above to be done in any order at any time. Some tools only offer a subset of all the activities above, or you may use a combination of tools that each support a part of the process. Learn what your tools support, and adjust your workflow for both those tools, and the way you use those tools.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(NOTE: The workflow above is particularly useful with Adobe Lightroom, which explicitly supports a linear workflow of import, organize, develop, publish/print. Apple Aperture supports a highly flexible non-linear workflow. Photoshop, in combination with Bridge or another photo organization tool, support the activities above without any specified workflow.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T01:43:13.787" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T01:43:13.787" />
  <row Id="2226" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2224" CreationDate="2010-08-09T01:50:21.493" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://1x.com/photos/member/14617/31052/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Silently Sleeping&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recently discovered &lt;a href=&quot;http://1x.com/member/14617/john-parminter/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Parminter's&lt;/a&gt; work on 1x.com. His work is an exquisite combination of lighting, composition, and majestic beauty. His work is very earthy in tone, but always clear and sharp, uniquely composed, and fantastically lit. His work recently inspired me to entirely re-evaluate my approach to landscape photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(The image host forbids external linking, you'll need to click the title above to view the image.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-11T07:37:34.300" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T07:37:34.300" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-09T01:50:21.493" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2227" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2221" CreationDate="2010-08-09T01:56:51.040" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Like &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2221/what-is-a-good-canon-lens-to-take-portraits/2222#2222&quot;&gt;John Cavan&lt;/a&gt; mentioned you are on the short end of the classic 80-135mm effective focal length range.  While the 50mm is a great lens, if you're wanting to get the really close shots you might want to look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_85mm_f_1_8_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;85mm f/1.8 USM&lt;/a&gt;.  That would put you on the other end at an effective length of 136mm. The longer length will help compress the image a bit so you won't see as much depth in the subjects face, which is generally more appealing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally use my &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer/eos_slr_camera_systems/lenses/ef_100mm_f_2_8_macro_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;100mm f/2.8 USM Macro&lt;/a&gt; with a Canon Xsi, which with the sensor crop is a little long, but it is a very sharp lens, and I have been really pleased with the result.  The macro lens is a little slow to focus, but for portraits that hasn't been much of an issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-27T04:16:51.667" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T04:16:51.667" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2228" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2224" CreationDate="2010-08-09T02:29:08.530" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This image is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.grumpyjohns.com/files/gallery/107/IMGP1101.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why? Because it was the image that sparked me back into photography in a big way.  Once you get the &quot;shot&quot; you want it again and again and this shot I took was the one that did it for me. I haven't looked back and even now I still really like it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T02:29:08.530" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-09T02:29:08.530" />
  <row Id="2229" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2437" CreationDate="2010-08-09T02:57:40.427" Score="6" ViewCount="295" Body="&lt;p&gt;Olympus micro 4/3 cameras apply distortion correction on their in-camera JPEGs when used with a micro 4/3 lens. Panasonic cameras correct both distortion and chromatic aberration with their lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although I'm not sure where this information is stored, since this also works on the off-camera software I'd guess that it's in metadata attached to the RAW images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this format documented anywhere (either officially or through reverse-engineering)?  It would be nice to be able to implement this correction in open-source software (specifically &lt;a href=&quot;http://lensfun.berlios.de&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lensfun&lt;/a&gt;) without needing to either calibrate the lens or rely on the calibration database.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt;: to make this perfectly clear - the objective is to take the RAW file from the camera and be able to apply the same correction that the in-camera JPEG gets, or that gets applied by the Olympus software.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="145" LastEditorUserId="2425" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-03T21:20:40.970" LastActivityDate="2010-12-03T21:20:40.970" Title="Is the format for the distortion and chromatic aberration correction of µ4/3 lenses documented?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;open-source&gt;&lt;micro-four-thirds&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="2230" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2224" CreationDate="2010-08-09T03:08:01.710" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.michaelkenna.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Michael Kenna&lt;/a&gt; is my most admired photographer. &quot;Six Sticks&quot; is my most favorite photo from his work. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://trinixy.ru/pics3/20080513/michael_kenna_03.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T04:25:38.677" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T04:25:38.677" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-09T03:08:01.710" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2231" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2233" CreationDate="2010-08-09T03:14:48.430" Score="7" ViewCount="298" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been wanting to add a wide angle lens to my collection for a while now. Sigma 10-20mm f5.6 looks good. I was looking at it about 2 years ago. I was wondering if there have been newer wide angle lenses around the same price range. My budget is $500ish. I'm aware of the newer Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 but it's way over my price range. I have a Nikon D90.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T06:46:59.657" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T23:23:54.240" Title="Sigma 10-20mm f5.6 alternatives?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;cropped-sensor&gt;&lt;sigma&gt;&lt;wide-angle&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="2232" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1975" CreationDate="2010-08-09T03:22:35.423" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://f-spot.org/Main_Page&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;f-spot&lt;/a&gt; on linux - that has a raw+jpeg plugin which merges the RAW and JPEG images into different versions of the same picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously that's specific to f-spot, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="145" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T03:22:35.423" />
  <row Id="2233" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2231" CreationDate="2010-08-09T05:06:34.783" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The alternatives are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon 10-24mm f3.5-4.5&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon 12-24mm f4&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tokina 11-16mm f2.8&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tamron 10-24mm f3.5-4.5&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sigma 10-22mm f3.5&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If budget is your only consideration, Tamron seems to be the best fit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fullframe lenses like the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 also exist, but these are much more expensive and bulky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T07:32:38.540" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T07:32:38.540" />
  <row Id="2234" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2229" CreationDate="2010-08-09T05:12:03.820" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would guess only lens data is stored in EXIF, the correction amounts are hardcoded to both camera firmware and the post-processing software and not included in EXIF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T05:12:03.820" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2235" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2224" CreationDate="2010-08-09T05:12:43.930" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://dalantech.deviantart.com/art/Freckles-II-134560378&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Freckles II&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This photograph is from an incredibly talented artist who has a meticulous talent for macro shots. His work inspired me to start taking my own insect macro shots, as I never knew about the amazing detail and complexity of such tiny creatures until I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://dalantech.deviantart.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dalantech's&lt;/a&gt; work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://th01.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/i/2009/360/1/0/Freckles_II_by_dalantech.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Freckles II&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T05:12:43.930" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-09T05:12:43.930" />
  <row Id="2236" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2224" CreationDate="2010-08-09T06:01:25.227" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are way too many. I love &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Leibovitz&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Annie Leibovitz's&lt;/a&gt; work, this one sticks out a bit cause of the story behind it. It was created the same day John Lennon was shot.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://sexualityinart.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/untitdsled.JPG&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="230" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T06:01:25.227" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-09T06:01:25.227" />
  <row Id="2237" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2220" CreationDate="2010-08-09T06:08:39.923" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think getting close and using a 35mm lens can give you fairly interesting results, the distortion can give the photos more of a personal feel. Choose a few spots you intend to shoot from before the parade that way the background can be composed to your liking. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I really like parade shots that tell the story of a couple of people as opposed to the birds I shots that just show the structure.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="230" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T06:08:39.923" />
  <row Id="2238" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-09T06:22:36.930" Score="2" ViewCount="105" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wonder whether it would be possible to mount &lt;i&gt;Pentax&lt;/i&gt; lenses on a &lt;i&gt;Sony NEX&lt;/i&gt;, using an adapter. Are such adapters already available? Would it be possible to have automatic focus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="874" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T21:31:55.460" Title="Adapters for Sony NEX" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;old-lenses&gt;&lt;sony&gt;&lt;pentax&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2239" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1570" CreationDate="2010-08-09T06:57:13.070" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my opinion, most &quot;objective&quot; reviews of cameras (e.g., dpreview's) border on completely useless. The problem is pretty simple: they basically have a generic review where they fill in the blanks. This mostly tells you a lot about how cameras are alike, &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; about the differences that really matter. Knowing that camera N has 12.67% less noise at ISO 25,600 than camera C will almost never mean anything to most photographers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the same time, they rarely devote more than  sentence or two (and often even less than that) to features that really matter. Just for a couple of examples: the liveview on Sony's cameras is a lot different from that on any other brand -- but most reviews (at most) have a half-sentence mentioning something like &quot;...with a somewhat unusual take on liveview...&quot; Likewise, Pentax has a feature that can sound a lot like program shift when it's first described -- and in a lot of reviews it'll be described about the same way:  &quot;...an unusual version of program shift...&quot; In reality, it's &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; program shift at all, and it can make a &lt;em&gt;substantial&lt;/em&gt; difference in how you're likely to take (some types of) pictures -- but most reviews seem to have been written by people who've never even figured out what it really is, not to mention why it matters, when you'd be likely to use it, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A couple of people have mentioned Ken Rockwell as an alternative. In my opinion, he's almost the &lt;em&gt;worst&lt;/em&gt; example of an alternative possible. In particular, he seems to routinely write things that even he undoubtedly knows are complete nonsense, simply because doing so is almost certain to attract page hits. While he has some good material, it's mixed about equally with stuff varying from nonsense to sheer lunacy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Michael Reichmann at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luminous Landscape&lt;/a&gt; writes from a fairly similar viewpoint, but without the lunacy factor. Thom Hogan is devoted almost exclusively to Nikon equipment, but does quite a decent job of reviewing what they produce (and unlike some brand-specific reviewers, he's quite open about it when he doesn't think very highly of a particular product). While he's devoted to a different brand (Sony), David Kilpatrick at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photoclubalpha.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photoclub Alpha&lt;/a&gt; does pretty much the same, taking some time to get to really know a product and then writing a review -- and doesn't seem to pull punches about definite or potential shortcomings, mistakes, etc. Unfortunately, I don't know of a Canon-specific site about which I can honestly say the same. Rather the contrary, every Canon-specific site of which I'm aware looks like they're basically just publishing Canon press releases. With some luck, that's just a matter of my ignorance though, and there are really some good ones out there. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T08:34:39.997" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T08:34:39.997" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-09T06:57:13.070" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2241" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2242" CreationDate="2010-08-09T09:16:17.727" Score="10" ViewCount="577" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've read about a pancake lens but don't really understand what it is? What the pros and cons of having a pancake vs another type of lens? I'm thinking of getting a Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 which comes with such a lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="920" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-28T02:41:38.903" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T02:41:38.903" Title="What is a pancake lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;lens-design&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2242" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2241" CreationDate="2010-08-09T09:19:45.623" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pancake lens is a lens which is designed to be &lt;strong&gt;physically very thin and compact&lt;/strong&gt;, relatively pocketable when combined with a slim body. Current pancakes have fixed focal length, from moderate wide to moderate telephoto, they're usually relatively slow for a prime lens (f2.8 and slower) although exceptions exist. Pancake lenses &lt;strong&gt;don't alter the image&lt;/strong&gt; in any way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although pancake design is quite old, it has been lately popularized by (Micro) Four Thirds system. The currently produced pancake lenses are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Olympus Zuiko Digital 25mm (50e) f2.8 (Four Thirds)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm (34e) f2.8 (Micro Four Thirds)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Panasonic 20mm (40e) f1.7 (Micro Four Thirds)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pentax DA 21mm (32e) f3.2&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pentax DA 40mm (60e) f2,8&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pentax DA 70mm (105e) f2.4&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an example of a pancake lens:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/ironwulf/3117303335/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Olympus Zuiko 25mm f2.8 Pancake Lens by ferdzdecena, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3091/3117303335_08a568f6ce.jpg&quot; width=&quot;490&quot; height=&quot;368&quot; alt=&quot;Olympus Zuiko 25mm f2.8 Pancake Lens&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-09T02:30:36.583" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T02:30:36.583" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2243" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-08-09T11:31:23.600" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenit_%28camera%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Zenit B&lt;/a&gt;, with a Weston Master II meter. I think the meter cost more than the camera!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both long since departed, but gave me a great grounding in the basics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/artysmokes/4392070874/in/pool-camerapedia#&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/artysmokes/4392070874/in/pool-camerapedia#&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.westonmeter.org.uk/westontwo.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.westonmeter.org.uk/westontwo.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="562" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T11:31:23.600" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-09T11:31:23.600" />
  <row Id="2244" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-08-09T12:23:56.413" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Chinon CEII that My Dad gave me as a student.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bit big and clunky, but at the time M42 screw lenses were dirt cheap on ebay, so I was able to get a few interesting extra lenses for it. And everything's manual, so you have to learn the basics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.thecamerasite.net/01_SLR_Cameras/Images/Chinon-CEII.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="927" LastEditorUserId="927" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T22:23:32.210" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T22:23:32.210" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-09T12:23:56.413" />
  <row Id="2245" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2220" CreationDate="2010-08-09T12:53:52.530" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it depends on the kind of parade.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance, for a few New Years' parades, I've been in Philadelphia and shot the Mummer's Parade.  Everyone wears such bright and varied costumes, and walks really close to the edge of the road.  Shooting with a wider lens (35mm f/2.0, or 17-55mm f/2.8 for me) still let me get pretty good portrait shots.  When people are within five feet of the lens, more telephoto means less keeper shots, or at least, shots that show I was at a parade.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure that staying in the same place prevents you from telling a story.  I can't remember the name of the movie, but one that particularly sticks in my mind had a store keeper in it who shot from the same location, every day, at the same time of day, for twenty years.  The resulting photos told the story of how the neighborhood changed, of how some people are always on the same schedule (always passing by his store at the same time), of those strange days when everything's completely out of whack.  Just because things are passing you and you stand still doesn't mean you can't tell the story of what's passing you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T12:53:52.530" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2246" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1570" CreationDate="2010-08-09T13:09:25.383" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digicamreview.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.digicamreview.com/&lt;/a&gt; is a good one from the UK. Sometimes it's a little heavy on compacts and bargain finding, but the reviews are good and the guy who runs it is friendly and helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="927" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T13:09:25.383" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-09T13:09:25.383" />
  <row Id="2247" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2248" CreationDate="2010-08-09T13:24:19.397" Score="10" ViewCount="219" Body="&lt;p&gt;To what extent it can be harmful for a camera and lens to take shots when being on the beach? I mean the influence of beach sand on the gear. What precautions should be taken to prevent any bad effects of it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="591" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-28T02:44:08.387" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T02:44:08.387" Title="Shooting on the beach: is it dangerous for my equipment?" Tags="&lt;equipment-protection&gt;&lt;beach&gt;&lt;environmental-dangers&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="2248" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2247" CreationDate="2010-08-09T13:40:36.647" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The combination of sand and wind that is common on a beach can be harmful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sand can get into the camera and damage the lenses and sensors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are quite a few different approaches:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Don't take a camera to the beach&lt;/strong&gt; I think this is far too extreme, without risk there is no reward&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Don't take an expensive camera to the beach&lt;/strong&gt; plausible, but still a little much for me&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Take your camera&lt;/strong&gt; but take good care of it&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;make sure to keep it covered as much as possible (gallon sized zip-locks are your friend) and clean it as good as you can when leaving.  When cleaning, try to blow any sand/dust off &lt;strong&gt;before&lt;/strong&gt; you wipe it off (think about sandpaper).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;avoid changing lenses while on the beach, if you need to change lenses, go inside a car/building/somewhere secluded to avoid letting grit inside the body.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;use a uv filter to protect the lens (some will argue with this, but a damaged filter is much cheaper than a damaged lens)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do Not place your camera in the sand (also avoid touching it with sandy hands)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Avoid putting a camera bag down in the sand, because once the sand is in the bag, it will be hard to get it out.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Don't worry about it, just go ahead and take some good pictures.&lt;/strong&gt; This is the photojournalist approach... if you get good enough shots, you can pay to repair/buy new equipment.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think &lt;strong&gt;option 3&lt;/strong&gt; is the best, do what you can to take care of the equipment, use a single lens if possible, and take some good pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T13:46:07.707" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T13:46:07.707" />
  <row Id="2249" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2247" CreationDate="2010-08-09T13:51:56.337" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Take the risk seriously.  Beaches not only have sand, they tend to be windy.  Within just a minute of getting your camera out you can have sand on your lens or somewhere else.  This is a good time to have a UV filter on your lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T13:51:56.337" />
  <row Id="2250" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2247" CreationDate="2010-08-09T14:01:20.450" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, a lot of it depends on the camera and lens(es) involved. A lot of point and shoots designed for rugged use are perfectly fine there. For dSLR cameras, it will depend. For most brands (if not all of them), the top end of their gear is often dust and weather sealed and so the camera, itself, is probably well defended. However, if the lens is not dust and weather sealed, you can run into some issues with that. Net effect, if both camera and lens has weather sealing, knock yourself out! If they aren't, then chills42's option #3 is a prudent way to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T14:01:20.450" />
  <row Id="2251" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-09T14:24:28.257" Score="5" ViewCount="303" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recently inherited a Yashica 300 Autofocus SLR.  Because the camera was manufactured (1993) before we had online reviews of anything (cameras, books, TV's, etc.), I can't find any reviews on whether it's a good camera in general or if it's good for something specific (i.e. black/white pictures).  I came here in the hopes that someone might have owned (still owns?) this Yashica model and would have anything positive/negative to say about it.  Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-12T16:17:07.320" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T05:00:18.773" Title="Yashica 300 AutoFocus SLR" Tags="&lt;yashica&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2252" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2187" CreationDate="2010-08-09T14:50:10.253" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm using the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Audio-Technica-PRO24CM-Stereo-Microphone-Camera/dp/B0016ARZ9C&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Audio Technica Pro 24 CM&lt;/a&gt;. It has a nice short curled lead that fits snugly over the camera, a hot-shoe shock mount and I've gotten good results with it. It's not 'pro', it doesn't feature XLR but it's practical and reasonable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="92" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T14:50:10.253" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2253" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="643" CreationDate="2010-08-09T15:29:19.013" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I took some shots of lightning last night. I did not have a great vantage point, so I used the time to experiment and learn. When it came to white balance, even with AWB set on my camera, the resulting scenes came out with considerable color cast. The clouds had a deep orange hue, partly due to the orange street lights that light up suburbia where I live. The lightning bolts themselves showed up with a vibrant purple hue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I spent some time in Lightroom trying to manually correct the color by manually setting the proper kelvin for lightning, however there is no one single correct value. After a little while I noticed a tool I had never noticed before...a dropper that lets you pick a pixel in your image that you wish to set as the 18% gray point. Using this tool, my photos instantly started looking correct. The clouds were a proper grayish tone, while the lightning bolts themselves came out to a brilliant, barely bluish, bright white.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not sure if other tools have a tool that lets you select an area of your image to set as the 18% gray point, however if you do, it is by far the most accurate way to properly color balance lightning shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T15:29:19.013" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2254" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2256" CreationDate="2010-08-09T15:57:43.510" Score="6" ViewCount="54" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have 'inherited' a Bilora tripod that's about 30-40 years old, at a guess. It's in decent nick but some of the head motion feels a bit 'sticky'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to 'service' tripods, or should I just consign it to the recycling?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="562" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T16:24:33.730" Title="Can you service a tripod?" Tags="&lt;tripod&gt;&lt;maintenance&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="2255" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-09T16:03:53.493" Score="13" ViewCount="855" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am fairly new to photography and have done a few high-school senior sessions of friends here and there. I have been getting more and more requests to photograph families, seniors, etc. and am starting to spend quite a bit of my spare time doing this. I consider myself an amateur, but am thinking about charging money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am wondering what a typical price for a sitting fee is for a senior session or child/family session, and how many images people would expect from these types of sessions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-09T16:50:17.567" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T17:34:55.367" Title="How much should an amateur charge for a portrait session?" Tags="&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;business&gt;&lt;pricing&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="2256" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2254" CreationDate="2010-08-09T16:24:33.730" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The key question is, I think: &lt;strong&gt;Is the stickiness caused by dirt/grime or corrosion/breakage?&lt;/strong&gt; In either case, I believe the answer is &lt;em&gt;yes, it can be serviced&lt;/em&gt;, but in the former you just need disassembly and cleaning while the latter may require replacement parts, which are perhaps tricky to find (but check eBay).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it's just the head that's not working, you can probably replace that part and keep the legs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T16:24:33.730" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2257" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2251" CreationDate="2010-08-09T16:26:06.143" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The single biggest minus nowadays is probably the fact that it's not digital :) Other than that, just try. If it's broken, no review will help you anyway. And for which pictures it's most suitable depends on the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T16:26:06.143" />
  <row Id="2258" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-08-09T16:26:58.827" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tostepharmd.net/photo/camedia2020.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.tostepharmd.net/photo/c2020.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Olympus C-2020&lt;/a&gt;, which we got in 2001, I think. It's basically compact by today's standards, but had full manual control, with apertures ranging from f/2.0 to f/11, ISO up to 400 and whooping 2.1 megapixels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T16:26:58.827" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-09T16:26:58.827" />
  <row Id="2259" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2255" CreationDate="2010-08-09T16:40:23.273" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The key to setting your pricing is to figure out your costs, that way you can make an informed decision:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You need to not only consider the printing costs, but also all the other fixed costs:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;As an example:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Costs per 3 years:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Camera - $500&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lenses - $1000&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Accessories - $250&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Software - $250&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Total: $2000&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Annual Costs:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;image hosting: $100&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;website: $50&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Total: $150&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Per Project:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;$10 - printing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;$2 - gas&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Total: $12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So your major purchases for 3 years would be $2000. To spread out the costs, we will split that up over 3 years, so $666.67 per year&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to break even and shoot 52 sessions per year (1 per week) then you need to charge&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;(amortized costs) + (per project costs) = minimum charge&#xA;(666.67 + 150.00)/52 + 12 = 27.71&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;to break even, covering the cost of your equipment. This is the &lt;strong&gt;bare minimum&lt;/strong&gt; that you should charge, and as your skill improves you should charge more (&lt;em&gt;you want to be paid for your time, right?&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is obviously just an example and every person's costs are different, but hopefully this can be a good place to start to figure out what you will need to charge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When starting out many people work at cost and some decide to work at a loss to build a portfolio, but you have to know what your true costs are in order to make that decision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as what packages to offer, that is highly dependent on your local competition.  Find out what other local photographers offer and use their offerings as a starting point.  I wouldn't suggest copying their packages directly, but again, you want to make an informed decision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-09T15:45:45.897" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T15:45:45.897" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2260" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2255" CreationDate="2010-08-09T16:49:15.023" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One good guideline regarding pricing is the monkey principle:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let's say your prospective client decides to ignore your photographic skill, and instead use someone totally incompetent to cut costs. They therefore decide to go to a local zoo and let a monkey shoot the pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But there's a catch: the monkey has no camera. So they use local rental service and get some gear for the monkey to use. Monkey then snaps some pics and everyone goes happily home.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The moral of the story is that if you can produce better results that monkey + rental, you probably should not be cheaper than what it costs to rent the necessary equipment without your services.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Adapted from what I've read on &lt;a href=&quot;http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Harrington's blog&lt;/a&gt; some time ago.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T16:49:15.023" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2261" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2255" CreationDate="2010-08-09T16:54:39.743" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't agree that pricing should only offset your costs.  Photography was a hobby before you started making money with it, so the cost of your equipment isn't exactly an expense of your photography business.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead, I think the end product you produce is the only factor in pricing.  &lt;em&gt;There is no reason for a client to have to pay for your expensive DSLR if you output photographs that could easily be made with a point and shoot&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So a good place to start is to look at other photographers and studios that output similar products (senior portraits) and have similar quality to your pictures.  Then check out their prices and maybe take an average.  This is a good place to start for sitting fees.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When selling prints remember that you aren't just selling the paper and ink -- your artistic talent, along with time dealing with printers, also went into producing that print.  Don't sell prints at cost (I see a lot of amateurs do this).  This is also another place where it is a good idea to look at other photographers and studios for guidance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try mirroring prices of a nearby studio that does the same thing you do.  After a number of sittings, evaluate how well the prices you choose reflect your work.  Don't sell a valuable photograph for less than it is worth (called undercutting the industry and this is what makes 'pros' get so insecure and start to dislike you), but also recognize that you don't take the same photographs that a top-tier studio can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Side note: I am a press photographer in Cleveland and student.  Over the summers I take a number of clients (a fair number of senior portraits).  Just so you know where I'm coming from ;)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="907" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T16:54:39.743" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="2262" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2268" CreationDate="2010-08-09T17:23:40.383" Score="9" ViewCount="782" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there any way, shape, or form that ultraviolet light is recorded by a digital sensor?  Ideally, this question is related strictly to the sensor, without even a glass lens in between which could cut or block UV light.  But of course I don't talk pictures with a bare sensor, I also have a lens, so I'd also like to know how much UV gets to the sensor to begin with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="350" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T17:33:19.803" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T09:21:19.367" Title="Are digital sensors sensitive to UV?" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;uv&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2263" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2266" CreationDate="2010-08-09T17:27:03.107" Score="3" ViewCount="115" Body="&lt;p&gt;Studio flash makers sell both bare flash tubes and flash tubes with a UV coating to block the UV emissions.  Quite a few studio monolights come up on eBay without the UV coating, and I'm wondering if that's OK since I plan to always shoot through a soft box.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T17:52:35.117" Title="Does UV light pass through the fabric of a softbox?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;lighting-modifiers&gt;&lt;uv&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="2264" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2247" CreationDate="2010-08-09T17:29:14.367" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sand is not the only issue, there is also saltwater is the air. Even if you keep your camera dry, the environment at the beach is more corrosive than some distance inland. (Cars owned by those who live near the beach show more corrosion than those not near the beach.) This isn't as big an issue as sand, and is far less an issue the more plastic the camera body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would always give the externals of the camera a good wipe-down when returning from beach shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="350" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T17:29:14.367" />
  <row Id="2265" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2262" CreationDate="2010-08-09T17:32:47.730" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The widely accepted view is that they are not. However, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.rit.edu/andpph/text-reflected-uv.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this description of empirical tests&lt;/a&gt; (from 2004) which seems to establish that the digital sensors tested were UV sensitive, albeit much less so than is film.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="350" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T17:32:47.730" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2266" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2263" CreationDate="2010-08-09T17:43:17.617" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general no, but it depends on the diffuser material used. Many come with UV blocking material, while others do not. The amount of UV produced by flashtubes varies, but it's small. Typically the result of the UV is a change to the color temperature of the softbox, potentially throwing off your shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T17:52:35.117" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T17:52:35.117" />
  <row Id="2267" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2229" CreationDate="2010-08-09T17:57:49.380" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It also could be part of the lens-body handshake. Not sure how the desktop software would know the information though. How are you determining that the off-camera software can do the correction?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know Adobe has some sort of public lens correction stuff for Lightroom 3, perhaps you might have better luck reverse-engineering that stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T17:57:49.380" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2268" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2262" CreationDate="2010-08-09T18:04:31.863" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, digital sensors are indeed sensitive to UV light, as well as a considerable amount of the infrared spectrum. Most digital sensors are equipped with multi-coated, multi-layered filters that are designed to filter out the extended ranges of UV and IR. Generally speaking, filtered digital sensors are sensitive to a much broader range of light than the human eye, from about 250nm (the near-UV range) through visible light (400nm to 750nm), and down about 780nm (the IR range). Unfiltered, a digital sensor is sensitive to a far greater range, from deep UV (200nm, true UV) down to true IR (as far as 900nm) &lt;sup&gt;[#1]&lt;/sup&gt;. It should be noted that sensitivity is not constant throughout this range, and falloff is fairly rapid and becomes significant the farther away from 380nm you go. Same goes for the IR range. Human eyesight ranges on average from about 390nm through 700nm, while some people are more sensitive and able to see from about 380nm through 750nm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Despite the filtration applied to digital sensors, UV light is still a problem, and can affect color balance. In general, the ability to sense UV light is not a huge problem, as digital sensors have relatively weak sensitivity to blue, and the UV sensitivity is generally captured as blue. However, without proper filtration, UV dispersion can generate disruptive haze that can be captured by a digital sensor, which may result in a rather undesirable result. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that optical glass filters out a considerable amount of UV light. Most UV wavelengths up to around 310nm are blocked by the glass of a camera lens, and the remainder from 310nm up through 380nm can be blocked with a UV/Haze filter. If one wishes to create images in the UV light range, special lenses are available. Non-standard materials such as quartz or calcium fluoride have a greater transparency to the UV spectrum. From a camera imaging perspective, most research shows the most interesting UV wavelengths probably lie between 250nm and 310nm &lt;sup&gt;[#2]&lt;/sup&gt;. To get a clear UV shot, you may need to remove the UV filter that covers the sensor itself. This is similar to removing the IR filter when modifying a camera for IR work, or may involve removing the entire filter apparatus, which would remove both UV and IR filters at the same time (depends on the camera.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alt-vision.com/documentation/5301A-25.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Infrared and ultraviolet imaging with a CMOS sensor having layered photodioedes&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Introduction discusses unfiltered layered CMOS sensitivity range: 200nm - 1100nm&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Layered CMOS (i.e. Foveon) tend to have a greater sensitivity range than bayer CMOS&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Interesting discussion about the individual wavelength sensitivity of each color photosite (graphs included)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Seems a little out of date (2003/2004 period?), but still useful&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.uvcorder.com/pdf/ADI0406%20Component%2018-20.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Reflected-Ultraviolet Imaging&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Older article from several years ago, covers reflected-UV imaging&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Discussed the nature of UV imaging and how it differs from visual/IR imaging&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://people.rit.edu/andpph/text-ultraviolet-wratten-18A.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Wratten 18A: A problematic filter for reflected-UV photography&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Interesting article that uses an original Canon Rebel and a Wratten 18A filter to image UV&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Wratten 18A allows UV from ~290nm through 400nm&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The older Canon Rebel CMOS sensor seems to image this wavelength range well&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C020909/efslide.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Visible Light CMOS Sensors&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Page 7 has a graph of CMOS vs. Human Eye sensitivity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Stops at 400nm, but shows that the CMOS sensitivity curve is still quite high at that point, and falls off at a moderate curvature (likely ends around 250nm-290nm)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-10T19:12:41.837" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T19:12:41.837" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2269" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2255" CreationDate="2010-08-09T18:20:19.117" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a few ways to slice this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Charging just to make a little money on the side.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Setting the appropriate costs for your services and time.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The former makes some sense: as a friend, you might want to give discount prices. After all you're doing people a favor, and maybe these friends have helped you out with pricing breaks. That's fine, so long as it's a tit-for-tat kind of deal, and it's a rare occasion. For example, I agreed to do the senior photos for my friend's daughter probono--he gave me one hell of a referral which landed me a really good (re:high paying) job.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this sounds like this is getting to be more serious, then you should consider the latter option. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the latter, I recommend looking up the local branch of some professional photo association, skim the directory and find several photographers, especially those who's skill level you feel you could compete with, and see how much they charge for their services.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;And price yourself near that level.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Food for thought:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By pricing yourself at the level of the competition you are essentially setting the proper value of the services you are providing. Just because you're an &quot;amateur&quot; does not mean the service you provide is any less valuable. Also, just because you're an &quot;amateur&quot; does not mean you should not attempt to act like a &quot;professional.&quot; This means having at least:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;one spare camera (rent if you have to)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;multiple redundant backups including backing up images during the shoot&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a legally binding contract that explains who retains what rights for the image&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a model release form should you decide to use these images in your marketing (better to ask now, then later).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T18:20:19.117" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2272" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="370" CreationDate="2010-08-09T20:44:41.563" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've bought a 50mm 1.8; Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC and Tamron 18-270 VC, for my 450D (the model before the T1i)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All three have been fantastic so far. I'd recommend all three.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though, if you don't mind changing lenses more often, then get a dedicated telephoto zoom instead of the 18-270, like the 70-200 f/4 as suggested above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="142" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T20:44:41.563" />
  <row Id="2273" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="370" CreationDate="2010-08-09T20:53:24.740" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Having used both the 10-22 EF-S and the 70-200 F4 EF L I have to agree with the earlier answers that included these lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've also enjoyed the 24-105 EF L for a high quality walk-around lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to recommend that you try renting a few of the lenses that you are thinking about purchasing.  It is relatively inexpensive to do so and you can really find out if they are what you want to buy or not.  Just search for &quot;canon lens rental&quot; and you'll find a lot of options.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="937" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T20:53:24.740" />
  <row Id="2274" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2294" CreationDate="2010-08-09T21:00:50.633" Score="11" ViewCount="1090" Body="&lt;p&gt;My wife and I are amateur photographers and we are upgrading from a Canon 20D.  We will be using the camera for a variety of subjects.  She likes to do portrait work with the kids and I like to shoot Motorsports.  We both use the camera when we are on vacation and like to shoot everything from landscapes to close ups of interesting things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It looks like I can get the Canon T2i with either an 18-55 or an 18-135 kit lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think I'd like to end up with a 50mm 1.8, a 10-22 EF-S, and a 70-200 F4 L.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 18-55 is small and light and I'm wondering if I should go ahead and get it for a walk-around zoom lens.  It only costs $100 in the price of the kit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 18-135 seems like it might be a bit bulky to use as a walk-around lens, and adds $300 to the price of the body.  It is worth considering?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="937" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-28T02:47:36.967" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T09:13:40.080" Title="Getting ready to buy an entry-level dSLR — should I skip the kit lens?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;kit-lens&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="2275" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2286" CreationDate="2010-08-09T21:01:54.283" Score="9" ViewCount="270" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon 1000D and it doesn't come with a focusing screen.  Sometimes my camera cannot focus in low-light.  I'd like to manually focus, but without a focusing screen I haven't been able to do it accurately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do you manually focus accurately without a focusing screen?  Or is the standard solution to get a focusing screen?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="671" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T13:25:43.540" Title="How do you manually focus accurately without a focusing screen?" Tags="&lt;focus&gt;&lt;manual-focus&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2276" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2274" CreationDate="2010-08-09T21:07:55.720" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you don't mind the added price tag, then the 18-135 could act as a handy walk-about lens for casual shooting. Kit lenses are usually not the best of the line, but for casual stuff, I doubt most people would really notice and Canon generally has good glass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T21:07:55.720" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2277" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2274" CreationDate="2010-08-09T21:09:59.460" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What do you want to do with it?  You might want to edit the question to add that info.  You mention &quot;walk around&quot;, a kit zoom might be good for &quot;tourist&quot; types of applications where you photograph things in the daytime, and the zoom helps compose your shot.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But kit lenses usually aren't very fast, and you may find that starting with one good prime lens with a nice low aperture (50mm 1.8 sounds good) will give you room to grow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T21:09:59.460" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2278" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2275" CreationDate="2010-08-09T21:11:34.417" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would recommend getting a focus screen, but that's not specifically going to help your manual focus efforts. My suspicion would be that camera shake, either by hand or mirror slap, is a more likely culprit for the blur. This is entirely common in low light, slow shutter situations, especially when hand-held.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T21:11:34.417" />
  <row Id="2279" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2238" CreationDate="2010-08-09T21:31:55.460" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, they're available, from several sources.  Two notable ones are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rayqual, who make many similar adapters and other equipment [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rayqual.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;webiste (Japanese)&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/news/1006/10061502rayqualsonynexadapter.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;press release&lt;/a&gt;]. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cosina, long-time photography manufacturer, recently acquired the Voigtländer brand [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cameraquest.com/voigt_adpt_sonye.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Stephen Gandy's page&lt;/a&gt;, not listed on Cosina's main site yet].&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also versions available on eBay from various sellers, but I have no idea about reliability or quality of those.  Rayqual and Cosina are both long-time manufacturers with pretty good reputations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Autofocus will not be possible.  AF systems aren't necessarily compatible to begin with, and the connection information isn't available to third parties.  The best situation for most adapters is focus confirmation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T21:31:55.460" />
  <row Id="2280" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-08-09T22:01:03.480" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wasn't a camera, not in hindsight.  What really turned it from &quot;this is sort of interesting&quot; to &quot;this is absolutely amazing&quot; was the first print I made, so maybe...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX_Papers/MCC/MCC.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX_Papers/MCC/files/page21_1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Adox MCC paper&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adox MCC paper; the resurrected version of the Agfa paper we used at school.  The camera obsession came later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T22:24:34.720" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T22:24:34.720" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-09T22:01:03.480" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2281" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-08-09T22:09:37.467" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some more exotics:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.ussrphoto.com/Wiki/Content/1262.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T22:09:37.467" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-09T22:09:37.467" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2282" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-08-09T22:33:14.033" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;CANON AE1-P&#xA;I was going for a nikon but ended up with 2 canon, AE1 and AE1-P ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T22:33:14.033" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-09T22:33:14.033" />
  <row Id="2283" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-08-09T22:41:38.077" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't say it was really a camera that tickled my fancy originally. I spent a good year researching digital SLR cameras, DSLR camera functionality, and photographic theory before I ever purchased a camera. I think it was more the theory that attracted me at first than anything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today, now that I've been working on my photography with my Canon 450D for about 15 months, its become more about the art than anything else. And now, the camera that I really want to get my hands on is the Canon 5D Mark II (or Mark III, if it comes out soon enough.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T22:41:38.077" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-09T22:41:38.077" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2284" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2275" CreationDate="2010-08-09T22:53:33.330" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The easiest solution is a focus screen, however in lieu of a focus screen, I recommend focus and recompose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Find an object that is on the same plane as your subject, and focus on that, then while maintaining focus lock, recompose your shot, then take the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, since the 1000D has a built in flash, you can use it to illuminate your subject long enough for the AF to kick in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T22:53:33.330" />
  <row Id="2285" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2274" CreationDate="2010-08-09T23:06:17.833" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a bit unclear what lenses you have already with your 20D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would consider the 18-135 which will tide you over as a general purpose lens, until you are able to pick up lenses in your dedicated range (10-22,50,70-200).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wide angle shots make for fun portraits of little-ones (don't use it on your wife!), and the range gives you something to get up close for a nice and tight head shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For motorsports, I'd imagine you'd want as much reach as you can get.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since you already know what focal lengths you'd like to use, I suggest the 18-135 kit lens, and eventually replacing it with the lenses as you have the finances to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T23:06:17.833" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2286" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2275" CreationDate="2010-08-09T23:11:34.067" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 1000D has live view. If you're on a tripod, you could zoom the live view to 100% and use that to focus. This is going to be more accurate than a focusing screen anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Of course, the camera needs to support live view zoom, and I don't know whether that's the case for the 1000D).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or you could turn on the focus assist, which will use the flash to illuminate the subject so the AF works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T23:11:34.067" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2287" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2274" CreationDate="2010-08-09T23:48:23.760" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You mentioned that you currently have a 20D. Both the 20D and the 550D T2i both use Canon's standard EF mount. The 550D also supports EF-S (short-back) lenses, but it is still compatible with standard EF lenses as well. Any lens you currently own for your 20D should still work with a new Canon body. As such, I would recommend skipping the kit lens and use what you currently have until you can afford to buy something better that fits the kind of photography you wish to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T23:48:23.760" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2288" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2194" CreationDate="2010-08-09T23:53:52.283" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ken Rockwell (http://kenrockwell.com) has some very good tips and guides on how to use the D90 as well as a number of other digital cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="946" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T23:53:52.283" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2289" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2224" CreationDate="2010-08-10T01:06:28.300" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Virtually impossible to pick a favorite-of-favorites, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alexeytitarenko.com/port_cityshadows.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;City of Shadows&lt;/a&gt;, a series of long-exposure shots of St Petersburg, by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alexeytitarenko.com/about.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Alexey Titarenko&lt;/a&gt; always comes to mind, this shot in particular:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alexeytitarenko.com/city17.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.alexeytitarenko.com/cityshadows_pix/city_pict17a.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;City of Shadows&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T01:06:28.300" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-10T01:06:28.300" />
  <row Id="2291" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2295" CreationDate="2010-08-10T02:12:09.733" Score="6" ViewCount="243" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was trying to take pictures of people on the dance floor at a big birthday party.  With a disco ball, green laser lights, and other flashing lights of various colors, how do you get the white balance correct?  It doesn't seem to fit the mood to stand there while the music's pumping and photograph a gray card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my situation, I was trying to just get some interesting action shots with ISO cranked way up, no flash involved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-10T04:06:04.020" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T01:33:04.853" Title="How do you white balance for a dance floor?" Tags="&lt;white-balance&gt;&lt;low-light&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2292" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2291" CreationDate="2010-08-10T02:25:14.007" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are shooting RAW, you can correct WB in post processing by finding a near grey/white object and set that as your whitepoint. This can be less than ideal, but in a pinch it's effective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This will also work with jpegs, however there maybe extra noise, and added dataloss associated with this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to correct for WB while shooting, find a white object and take a picture of that and use that for WB correction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T02:25:14.007" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2293" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2291" CreationDate="2010-08-10T02:25:23.587" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would suggest shooting raw and not worrying about getting the white balance right in-camera, then fixing it in post.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It sounds like there may be a background lighting which is relatively constant plus a lot of strangely colored additional lighting on top of that. The background lighting is what you should try to balance for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ideas:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you're there to take photos, you're there to take photos. It is OK that you're doing stuff no one else is doing (i.e., photographing a gray card).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In post, use the white balance dropper to sample something that's white. (Be aware that white fabric can flouresce under black light, which will muck up the white balance if you sample off it.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Twiddle white balance settings manually in post until it looks right (make sure your monitor is calibrated).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The lighting may be so crazy that it doesn't really matter if you get the white balance correct.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Go to the venue during lighting setup and take your white balance then. You may be able to have the lighting people give you a cue with only the &quot;background&quot; lights on for sampling purposes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T02:25:23.587" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2294" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2274" CreationDate="2010-08-10T02:55:04.373" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Option 1&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Get the T2i and a 50 1.8. You'll never even use that kit lens if you had the 50mm, so skip it. The Rebel kit lenses are good enough to document a crime, but you're not going to mount yours unless you absolutely have to and even then, you'll be trying your hardest to use the 50mm. I don't understand why Best Buy and these big box stores don't carry the 50 1.8. I'd even go as far as saying Canon should offer a Rebel + 50 1.8 kit, although a good 35 1.8, like what Nikon offers, would be even better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Option 2&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Get the T2i, 28-135 and a 50 1.8, The 28-135 is the 50D and 7D's kit lens. It's really not a bad lens at all. Pretty sharp. Color and contrast is &quot;okay.&quot; These are around $400 new, but there are tons of practically brand new ones online from people who are dumping their 50D/7D kit lens. It's a useful focal length range, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Either way, I like your plan; the 10-22, 50 1.8 and 70-200 f/4L. That's a really good setup for the money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="50" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-22T01:39:00.113" LastActivityDate="2010-10-22T01:39:00.113" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2295" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2291" CreationDate="2010-08-10T03:36:14.007" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A grey card will not help you much; the coloured lights will throw off any auto white balance, and if you're adjusting manually, you'll still need to account for what coloured light was actually there, which will change from photo to photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You're more like to want to reproduce the colours well, which means balancing for the bulbs behind the coloured gels/filters, which often overwhelm the background light (but will depend on the venue).  If the background light is particularly bright, this means you've got a bit of a problem, as it probably doesn't match the bulbs in the coloured lights, and you'll have to compromise at something that doesn't make the background balance unnatural, but still renders the colours well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All that said, a quick and dirty method to get you in the ballpark:  Take two pictures, one at tungsten (or slightly higher; say 3500K) and one at daylight.  Compare them to see if one looks especially blue or especially orange, and pick the other one.  If you can't decide, pick an in-between value like 4500K.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reasoning is that the lights behind the gels/filters are likely to be very close to one of those values.  With all the coloured light around, it's not going to matter as much, and if you need to do subtle tweaks in post, this gets you more than close enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I strongly suspect you won't need to tweak WB subtly in post, and will be more worried about bringing out the colours. Even then I wouldn't feel bound by any sort of objective accuracy; it's often the &lt;em&gt;feeling&lt;/em&gt; of these situations that's the important thing, and they often feel exaggerated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-10T03:54:56.410" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T03:54:56.410" />
  <row Id="2296" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2301" CreationDate="2010-08-10T04:52:31.630" Score="22" ViewCount="558" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know if this is a stupid question, this just came across my mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagine a photo of a dog yawning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Someone could say that is a very good photo as it is taken just at the right moment, from a perfect angle (eg. level with the dog) and it has a shallow depth of field focusing on its face.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Someone else might dislike it because unfortunately the dog is ugly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So from that example I could say people look at the following elements when judging a photo (but I could be wrong):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The timing (if it's taken at the right moment)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The angle it's taken from (composition?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;DOF (composition?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The subject (eg. whether the dog is pretty)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am interested to know what experts think the elements you look at when judging whether a photo is a good photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance for your comments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="948" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-16T19:47:19.973" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T08:30:26.993" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-16T19:47:49.393" Title="What makes a photo a good photo?" Tags="&lt;art&gt;&lt;judging&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="14" />
  <row Id="2297" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-10T05:04:29.553" Score="18" ViewCount="726" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have got an old lens (f1.4) that I have to use only with manual focus on a DSLR. Well, it is difficult for me to get the subject on focus. Although on focus according to the viewfinder, the actual picture is blurred or the focus is slightly elsewhere. I usually reduce the aperture to avoid this. Do you have any suggestions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Added: I'm using a Pentax K10D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="874" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-18T15:51:45.023" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T01:03:29.080" Title="How does one get manual focus right with a fast-aperture lens?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;focus&gt;&lt;manual-focus&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2298" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2297" CreationDate="2010-08-10T05:13:32.363" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are using higher end Nikon bodies, you can use the built in electronic rangefinder for focusing assist. This function is only available in 'A' (aperture priority) mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="128" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T05:13:32.363" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2299" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2297" CreationDate="2010-08-10T05:25:39.020" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;this sounds very old-fashioned, but the only way I know of to get good at manual focus is practice. Lots of it. It takes time and work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can use your AF to help you understand what your camera thinks is focus for &quot;easy&quot; images and then learn to match that using manual focus. Keep doing it until you're comfortable doing it and you understand your gear and how to quickly get the focus you're looking for. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There aren't many shortcuts here. you have to put in the time to learn the skill. AF can help you get there, but ultimately, you need to put in the hours. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T05:25:39.020" />
  <row Id="2300" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-10T05:34:22.703" Score="7" ViewCount="322" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've looked around quite a bit and I'm about to bite the bullet and order the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMW-RSL1-Remote-Shutter-Release/dp/B000GBVA34/ref=sr_1_1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Panasonic DMW-RSL1 Remote Shutter Release&lt;/a&gt; which feels quite overpriced, but is the manufacturer's own product. At that price point, I'm quite tempted to go for a slightly more featureful StudioHut product with a built-in intervalometer. Although part of me is thinking that this is ridiculous and I should just get the cheapest compatible switch I can find. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any reason to prefer the manufacturer's product? Are there wireless shutter-release solutions that work with the Panasonic interface? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="950" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-18T21:08:00.123" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T21:08:00.123" Title="What should I know about remote shutter-releases for a Panasonic GF-1?" Tags="&lt;micro-four-thirds&gt;&lt;triggers&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2301" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2296" CreationDate="2010-08-10T05:54:47.490" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off, what makes a &quot;good photo&quot; is something ultimately subjective, and its hard to say exactly. There are some guidelines that you can follow help you determine what a good photo are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A good photo:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Makes effective use of light&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Photography is the art of &quot;drawing with light&quot;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Photos: Greek for &lt;em&gt;light&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Graphia: Greek for &lt;em&gt;drawing&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flat, total illumination tends to be rather boring&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Plays of shadow and light, warm or cool colors, alternative tints, etc. can make a photo better&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is properly composed&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shoot just a mountain solo, and even in good lighting, it might just be boring&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shoot a mountain in front of a lake during sunset, with a the husk of an ancient tree silhouetted in the foreground, and you have something considerably more interesting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Subtracts the unnecessary and enhances the key subject&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;DOF it is a powerful tool of simplification and can help you compose your shots and isolate your subject&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Longer exposures can blur elements with motion, flattening and simplifying them, enhancing the more important aspects of an image&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is properly focused and appropriately sharp&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lack of focus deemphasizes the subject of your shot&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Too much sharpness can hamper the viewers eye, overemphasizing details&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Makes effective use of color, or the lack thereof&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Color reflects the world we see and can be a powerful tool to show vision and tell stories&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Black &amp;amp; White can bring forth and enhance aspects of an image that just can't be seen when color is present&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Monochromatic and split-tone images other than B&amp;amp;W can bring an artistic element to an otherwise boring image&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Removal of color can satisfy the &quot;simplification&quot; rule when nothing else can &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tells a story or depicts a artistic vision&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A photograph thats just as photograph may be interesting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A photograph that tells a story has more substance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-10T19:24:16.913" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T19:24:16.913" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-16T19:47:49.393" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="2302" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2296" CreationDate="2010-08-10T05:59:31.337" Score="18" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two parts to what makes a good photo:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is the photo technically correct?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is the photo interesting?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 2nd aspect can trump the 1st aspect, but the 1st will never trump the 2nd.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is the photo technically correct?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Image Quality, Exposure, Focus, Sharpness, Contrast, (lack of) Distortion, (lack of) Aberrations all have to be correct. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is the photo interesting?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Above all, the photo has to have something intriguing about it. Interesting is subjective, so it may vary from viewer to viewer, but in general images that we're not use to, appear more striking. It's why images of kids shot from their eye-level look so much better than images shot from an adults vantage point. Or often why we love candid shots over a posed image. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I mentioned above, the photos uniqueness can override the technical aspects. An image shot that is purposefully distorted can produce an effect that supersedes the lack of technical &quot;correctness.&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://photos.aballs.com/Travel/Chicago/9671034_n9WEo#652960000_p6wj2-A-LB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This is a very imperfect photo&lt;/a&gt;, but it's easily one of my favorites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The flip side to this is, a technically perfect image that is &quot;boring,&quot; will never be a good photograph. In this way, it's the 2nd part that gives the photo it's true meaning. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm fond of saying you should know the rules, so you can break them. I believe photography is the same way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T05:59:31.337" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-16T19:47:49.393" />
  <row Id="2303" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-10T06:08:45.437" Score="2" ViewCount="105" Body="&lt;p&gt;Today I got a Canon S90 and took a few shots in the Auto mode. The images are perfectly exposed and the well balanced color in both outdoor shots and indoor shots under fluorescent or incandescent lights. I know from experience using the Auto mode on my Rebel Xti that it would not get the indoor shots. Is my Rebel defective? Or have the algorithms improved that much?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I use the Tv, Av, or M modes the shots from the Rebel are great when I adjust the white balance and the exposure myself. I was just surprised how well the S90 did it on its own. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I tend to use an EFS 17-55 or an EFS 60.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="951" LastEditorUserId="951" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-10T12:03:44.030" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T16:18:41.027" Title="Is my Rebel broken?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2304" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2303" CreationDate="2010-08-10T06:33:53.497" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would hardly say your Rebel is broken based solely anecdotal evidence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to really know if it's broken, take images with both your S90 and your XTi under the same conditions, post them here and we can help you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an aside, the S90 is a top-notch P&amp;amp;S, and they have updated the in-camera processing in the subsequent DIGIC upgrades, but your XTi will still outperform the S90.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT TO ADD:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based the new information added, it's most likely that the in camera algorithms have had some much needed overhauls since the XTi days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I would be reluctant to judge the performance of an SLR based on sample shot in Auto mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-10T15:55:00.433" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T15:55:00.433" />
  <row Id="2305" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2296" CreationDate="2010-08-10T06:54:37.153" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A good photo is one that triggers an emotional response. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T06:54:37.153" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-16T19:47:49.393" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2306" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2296" CreationDate="2010-08-10T07:34:37.357" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For example you can see some &lt;a href=&quot;http://asp.photo.free.fr/Composition/photoProgramCompMainClass.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;guidelines&lt;/a&gt; on how to make technically correct and attractive photos..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="900" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T07:34:37.357" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-16T19:47:49.393" />
  <row Id="2307" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2297" CreationDate="2010-08-10T07:39:31.260" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For example my Canon EOS 450D has such function for manual focus: when you press the trigger button like you do when using auto-focus(a very lite touch) and start to adjust your lenses to find the right focus - the body beeps when processor thinks that the subject is in focus. So by that &quot;beep&quot; sound i can definitely say that i have found at least almost right focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="900" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T07:39:31.260" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2308" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2296" CreationDate="2010-08-10T08:04:11.903" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's be honest - I don't know what makes a good photo, I could only show some that &lt;em&gt;I think&lt;/em&gt; are good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I agree with most of the answers before, but I'd like to add that &lt;strong&gt;following the rules can improve the photo, not necessarily make it a good photo&lt;/strong&gt;. Here's some &lt;a href=&quot;http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;anecdotal evidence against the rules&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that different skills are required to take a good photo and to &lt;strong&gt;recognize a good photo&lt;/strong&gt;. Not everybody has one of these skills, having both is even more rare. Photo editors are usually not photographers and vice versa.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Goodness of a photo &lt;strong&gt;depends on the context&lt;/strong&gt; where the photo is judged - you'll probably never hang a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/06/caught_in_the_oil.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;legendary press photo&lt;/a&gt; on your wall, still that doesn't make it a bad photo. Every category has it's own rules - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2010/wildlife-photographer-of-the-year-wolf-winner-is-disqualified54567.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;in wildlife just not being wild can make a huge difference&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photos have &lt;strong&gt;different value for different people&lt;/strong&gt; depending mostly on whether it triggers emotions and associations, whether it will &quot;make a connection&quot;. War photos are perceived differently by people who have been in the war and those who haven't. The best one's just make the most connections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One can judge the photo on the scale of technical quality, how much money it makes (hey, popular stock photos are easily the most boring ones), how hard it was to get the shot (Antarctica vs my backyard), how rare is the documented event, etc. There's &lt;strong&gt;no universal formula for a good photo&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One common mistake made when judging photos is that &lt;em&gt;&quot;positive emotion = good photo, negative emotion = bad photo&quot;&lt;/em&gt; (portraiture variant of this is &quot;beautiful model = good photo, not so perfect model = bad photo&quot;). That's certainly not true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-10T12:44:23.510" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T12:44:23.510" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-16T19:47:49.393" />
  <row Id="2309" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2224" CreationDate="2010-08-10T08:21:47.710" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most inspirational photo?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Kevin Carter's Pulitzer prize winner. The link bellow is from a blog of someone where I found the picture: See &lt;a href=&quot;http://designedtofeed.com/node/12&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; for the photo's history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.designedtofeed.com/sites/default/files/kevin_carter_0.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(One of) the best photographers? &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;James Nachtwey&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/jn/images/JN0003AFG_107-3FIN.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/jn/images/JN0001RWIN_GA.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/jn/images/02-JN_WTC_3-34GA.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;HTH&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="952" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T08:21:47.710" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-10T08:21:47.710" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2310" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-08-10T08:23:07.147" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not one camera got me to fancy photography; I got excited from a crappy Logitech webcam, then a D2H that I managed to lay my hands on for a period, and afterwards I enjoyed running around taking snaps with a slow, zoomless, cheap, horrible Sony P&amp;amp;S.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you love photography you'd love the tool of the trade too, but the machine in itself probably won't be the only thing that will get you to catch the bug.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="100" LastEditorUserId="100" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-19T13:58:51.580" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T13:58:51.580" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-10T08:23:07.147" />
  <row Id="2312" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2291" CreationDate="2010-08-10T09:10:47.857" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most dancefloor lights are tungsten, so unless you're using flash you should be okay with that. However, I've found that in these kind of photos with colored light and all, precise white balace rarely matters, and according to Exif I've shot one &lt;a href=&quot;http://vvv.mokrakocicka.cz/uprag-xmasso/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;entire evening on auto WB&lt;/a&gt; and I think colors came out fine (although some of those photos use flash).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the best way is to try out what setting looks best and then just use it. If you prefer tungsten and use flash, you can always gel it to have the same color (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/946/how-do-i-use-gels-to-make-my-flash-match-the-color-of-the-ambient-light&quot;&gt;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/946/how-do-i-use-gels-to-make-my-flash-match-the-color-of-the-ambient-light&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T09:10:47.857" />
  <row Id="2313" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2297" CreationDate="2010-08-10T10:36:17.447" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The camera will confirm focus, even with a manual lens, I use manual lenses on my K20 all the time. One trick, you might want to experiment with, is the 'catch in focus' feature on your camera, it's basically a way for Pentax to do autofocus with a manual lens. To do this, on the K10:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set the autofocus level on the camera to AF-S&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Focus slightly behind or in front of the subject, keeping it blurry&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Press the shutter release fully&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Manually adjust focus until the subject becomes clear, the camera will trip the shutter when focus is acquired (you'll see the focus hex and hear the beep).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The K20 has a menu option to turn this on or off, but I don't think the K10 has that. Anyways, it only works with manual focus lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-10T13:32:30.950" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T13:32:30.950" />
  <row Id="2314" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2274" CreationDate="2010-08-10T11:32:39.017" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;RE: She likes to do portrait work with&#xA;  the kids and I like to shoot&#xA;  Motorsports.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have the 450D and almost always use the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021703canon_efs60mmmacro.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;60mm USM macro&lt;/a&gt; for portraits (lots of baby shots). I prefer its results to the 50mm 1.8 (which I also have). I think it is a fantastic lens that produces amazing pictures at a great price. The kit lens I have has not been on my camera for a very long time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would totally skip the kit lenses and instead go for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;17-55 USM&lt;/a&gt; instead of the kit 18-55. Or just stick with another wider prime and the cheap 50mm prime. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thing is, you can never go back and shoot those old shots again with more detail. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the 70-200 F4 L, its meant to be a great lens for sports photography. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="230" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T11:32:39.017" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2315" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2297" CreationDate="2010-08-10T12:37:54.460" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check if your viewfinder has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.revellphotography.com/blog/2010/01/i-can-see-clearly-now-dioptric-adjustment/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dioptric adjustment knob&lt;/a&gt; - this is a little adjustment on the viewfinder that allows you to adjust for your eyes. It might be set for someone short sighted. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it is there then make sure the in-viewfinder display is visible, and adjust so that the display is sharp. Then try focusing on other things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could also see if there are alternative &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focusing_screen&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;focusing screens&lt;/a&gt; available for your camera. I replaced the focusing screen in my Canon 40D and it made a big difference in manual focusing. The higher end cameras generally have official alternative focusing screens available, but you could also go to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.focusingscreen.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.focusingscreen.com/&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/&lt;/a&gt; and see what they have to offer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should also be aware that some alternative focusing screens are intended for fast lenses - say f/2.8 or faster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T12:37:54.460" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2316" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2275" CreationDate="2010-08-10T13:25:43.540" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can also try the &quot;focus confirmation light&quot; in your VF. It's not always accurate, but it gives you a better chance than nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T13:25:43.540" />
  <row Id="2317" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2274" CreationDate="2010-08-10T13:35:15.360" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;18-55mm IS kit lens is not that bad. Not very durable but sharp and its quiet stabilizer makes it ok for video as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="729" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T13:35:15.360" />
  <row Id="2318" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2321" CreationDate="2010-08-10T13:38:22.077" Score="10" ViewCount="400" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know it's best to do as much post-processing before converting from RAW, but in cases where it's not possible - what is the optimal order of post-processing steps (like noise removal, dust-spot removal, color correction, brightness/contrast correction, straighten, distortion/aberration removal, selective edits, sharpening, resize, color space and bit-depth change, etc)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I say optimal order I mean the order that will result the least banding, clipping, halos and other digital artefacts. I'd also like to understand the reasons behind some particular ordering. Is it different for prints and web output?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-28T02:49:50.037" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T02:49:50.037" Title="What is the optimal order of post-processing steps?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;workflow&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="2319" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2318" CreationDate="2010-08-10T14:16:51.173" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As always, &lt;em&gt;it depends&lt;/em&gt;.  Prefereably you would use a non-destructive editor, Lightroom is one example.  In that case, the order doesn't make much (any?) difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, if you are using an editor that makes the changes as you go, then each change is permanent, and you will have some loss of quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In those situations, I tend to make the smallest changes first, and work up to larger changes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Going with that order I would probably say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;color space&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;spot/dust removal&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;color correction&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;selective edits&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;straightening, or other image wide edits&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;resizing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;sharpening&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;That being said, the only things I worry about are the last 2, resize at the end, then after resizing, sharpen&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T14:16:51.173" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2320" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1820" CreationDate="2010-08-10T15:23:01.407" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Advantages of mirror: lower weight and shorter length&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Disadvantages: horrible bokeh and (much) greater diameter (think filters!)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only useful (and available?) for long focal distances (400mm and up)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="878" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T15:23:01.407" />
  <row Id="2321" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2318" CreationDate="2010-08-10T15:38:45.547" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Several of the operations you're describing manipulate the data in the image such that information is lost or transformed.  For the most part, I don't think this matters with traditional photography (ie, prints and the like), but it definitely matters when each pixel is considered a measurement of the number of photons.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I think about when I do operations is the propagation of error.  Error can exist at the single pixel level, the spatial level, and the color level.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Noise is single pixel sensor error during the detection process, introduced either by errant photons, quantum effects (translating a photon into an electron for counting is a probabilistic event on the quantum level), and analog to digital conversion.  If subsequent operations will do things such as stretch contrast (histogram equalization) or emphasize darker regions (fill light), then you'd want to reduce noise prior to doing those.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a completely reduced example of what I mean, take a dark field image (picture with the lens cap on).  The result is noise.  You can contrast enhance that, or whatever you want, but it's still noise.  A perfect noise reduction algorithm should remove all of it, so no contrast can be found to enhance in later steps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Spatial error can be introduced in a number of ways.  When you rotate an image, you introduce spatial errors.  If you think of there being a 'true' image (in the platonic ideal sense), the camera records a digital version of that.  Even when you use film-- the film grains/crystals are of finite size, and some sampling of the 'true' image will happen.  When you rotate a digital image, you introduce aliasing effects. The very sharpest edges will be dulled slightly (unless you rotate to 90 degrees, in which case the grid sampling still holds).  To see what I mean, take an image and rotate it by 1 degree increments.  The sharp edge will now be (slightly) blurred because of the sampling necessary to do small rotations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bayer sampling may just be a spatial sampling error that we have to live with.  It's one of the big draws (perhaps the only real draw) to the Foveon sensor.  Each pixel has measures the color at that location, rather than getting the other colors from neighboring pixels.  I have a dp2, and I must say, the colors are pretty stunning compared to my d300.  The usability, not so much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compression artifacts are another example of spatial error.  Compress an image multiple times (open a jpg, save it to a different location, close, reopen, rinse, repeat) and you'll see what I mean here, especially at 75% compression.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Color space errors are introduced when you move from one color space to the next.  If you take a png (losslesss) and move it from one color space to another, then save it.  Then go back to the original color space, you'll see some subtle differences where colors in one space didn't map to the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I'm processing photos, then, my order is generally this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;noise reduction&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;contrast enhancement, exposures, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;rotations&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;color space&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;final compression to output image.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I always save the raw.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T15:38:45.547" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2322" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2297" CreationDate="2010-08-10T15:43:11.617" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I realise not all DSLRs have it (the K10D unfortunately being one of these), I've found magnified Live View to be very useful for manual focus when the other assists fail or aren't suitable.  In fact, I've found this to be the main reason I use Live View on my camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="443" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T15:43:11.617" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2323" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2303" CreationDate="2010-08-10T16:18:41.027" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Try this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set both cameras to full manual mode, RAW (no processing-- the jpg algorithms will interfere)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Place one camera on a tripod, aimed at something relatively innocuous (a wall of books).  Do not aim the camera at something that moves (person, pet, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shoot using some group of settings (f/8.0, 1/60 shutter, 100 iso, 35mm, or whatever produces a reasonable exposure-- if you're not used to doing this, you may need to experiment to get something good on the back view of the camera).  Write down these settings, or remember them.-+-&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shoot the same scene with the same camera on auto mode.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Repeat steps 2-4 with the other camera.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You now have two sets of images.  One set is where you have controlled the settings of the camera, and these images should show the difference of the sensors directly.  The other shows the differences in the auto settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your rebel is not producing a 'better' (more noise-free, better color rendition, less blurring between pixels) image when using manual settings, then either the s90 is just that much better (doubtful) or your camera is broken.  You can perform the same test with another rebel, if you have access to one, just to see if the cameras are at all different (they should not be).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, it may be possible that on auto settings, the s90 is producing a 'better' image than your rebel.  'Better' is a very subjective term, and what looks good to your eye may not look good to others-- for instance, my wife loves brighter images, and I tend to the darker.  If you find that on auto settings the s90 produces what you want out of an image, and your rebel does not, you can either learn how to make the rebel do what you want or you can just use the s90.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-+- remember that both cameras have different meanings for their zoom settings.  That is, 35mm on your rebel will probably not be the same image as on your s90, because they have different chip sizes in them.  What you want is the same angle of view.  That's why I suggest a bookshelf-- you should have a good idea of where to zoom to with both cameras so that the images are roughly similar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T16:18:41.027" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2324" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2318" CreationDate="2010-08-10T18:14:34.433" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think in practice are very, very few operations where the order makes a particular difference.  There may be some where you change a smaller amount of data in total, but concern about destructive editing is largely overblown.  I have gone back and re-done photos only very rarely for a few particular favorites; if I've made what I later perceive to be a mistake, I prefer to make adjustments going forward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think rather than thinking in terms of order, it's more helpful to think in terms of interacting groups of operations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(If relying on RAW conversion first, like Photoshop does) &quot;close enough&quot; color/tonality and white balance adjustments, applied as a batch.  Minor changes are fine to make later.  Big tip here is to use a manual WB setting when it's feasible, as that makes it much easier to batch.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;keep/discard, crop &amp;amp; straighten, dust, distortion, white balance.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;these are the basic things I do to get the image I'm working with. It doesn't matter if they're 'destructive' or not; I'm never going to re-do them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tonality: color, brightness, etc.  Lots of perceptual feedback in these steps, so no particular order for me.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Export, I usually work from presets depending on the destination: &#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;bit depth, color space&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(rarely) re-adjust tonality&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;resizing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;sharpening &lt;strong&gt;must be last&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My archival copy is usually after step 3, but occasionally after step 2 if 3 seems particularly experimental or extreme.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-10T18:28:06.327" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T18:28:06.327" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2325" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2328" CreationDate="2010-08-10T18:54:39.877" Score="9" ViewCount="299" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here and there i hear people saying the photo is technically correct. I would like to know how to find out whether a photo is technically correct or not. provide some examples links.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="961" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-07T09:02:18.487" LastActivityDate="2010-09-07T09:02:18.487" Title="What are the criteria to decide whether the photo is technically correct or not?" Tags="&lt;photo-critique&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="2326" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2325" CreationDate="2010-08-10T19:08:22.703" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The essentials of a &quot;Technically Correct&quot; image would be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sharp&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_%28photography%29#Exposure_settings&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Correct Exposure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Correct Focus (Auto-focus should take care of this)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the most part, if you use good equipment in auto mode and avoid things like camera shake, your camera will take care of the technically correct part. As long as you know how to avoid the big issues, you can take a picture that is technically correct, the hard part is taking one that tells a story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-10T19:13:56.967" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T19:13:56.967" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2327" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2331" CreationDate="2010-08-10T19:08:55.387" Score="8" ViewCount="661" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi all&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any material difference between Cokin and Lee filter systems?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for a limited range of filters - ND, Grad ND and Polariser - for use with a Sigma 10-20 Wide angle lens on a Nikon D200, predominantly for landscapes. Which way should I jump and will my choosing (say) a Cokin filter holder rather than a Lee one limit me to using Cokin filters?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many thanks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Danny&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T12:52:40.580" Title="Comparison of Cokin and Lee filter systems" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;wide-angle&gt;&lt;filters&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="2328" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2325" CreationDate="2010-08-10T19:23:33.187" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For start, one should be aware that &lt;strong&gt;technical correctness is no substitute for artistic vision.&lt;/strong&gt; Here are some technical criteria in no particular order:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The exposure is correct, shadows are not lost, highlights are not clipped&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The parts that need to be in focus, are in focus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is no motion blur (caused by camera shake)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The photo does not have a color cast (probably because of incorrect white balance)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The colors are correct (what you usually see, not oversaturated or changed)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The noise/grain is not dominant&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There are no sensor dust spots&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There are no scratches, dust spots, interference patterns in case of scanned images&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There are no obvious digital artefacts (sharpening halos, banding, compression artefacts)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Post-processing is not too obvious (think of overcooked HDR)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is no obvious distortion, chromatic aberration, lens flare, vignetting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is enough depth of field (important parts of your subject are not out of focus)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is enough contrast (the photo is not flat nor overdone)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Orientation is correct, vertical objects are vertical and not leaning because of bad shot angle, horizontal objects are horizontal (usually horizon)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Skin tones are correct (in case of portraits/people shots)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The retouching marks/feel are not noticeable (think of visible cut edges in cases where different parts of image are from different photos or &quot;Playboy skin&quot; where all the detail is lost)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any of these can be part of your concept or meant to create the mood, then they can be discarded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether you're following this or not &lt;strong&gt;depends largely on the purpose&lt;/strong&gt; - standards are higher when you sell your images or large prints, enter contests, etc and lower when you only do them for family album.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-11T07:38:22.337" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T07:38:22.337" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2329" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2325" CreationDate="2010-08-10T19:27:37.903" Score="24" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A technically correct photo should:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;be sharp rather than blurry&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://vvv.mokrakocicka.cz/gang/0810_766445.jpg&quot; /&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://vvv.mokrakocicka.cz/gang/0810_766767.jpg&quot; /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;be focused properly rather than on some random AF point&lt;br /&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://vvv.mokrakocicka.cz/gang/0810_766445.jpg&quot; /&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://vvv.mokrakocicka.cz/gang/0810_766656.jpg&quot; /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;be properly exposed&lt;br /&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://vvv.mokrakocicka.cz/gang/0810_766445.jpg&quot; /&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://vvv.mokrakocicka.cz/gang/0810_767099.jpg&quot; /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;have correct color balance&lt;br /&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://vvv.mokrakocicka.cz/gang/0810_766445.jpg&quot; /&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://vvv.mokrakocicka.cz/gang/0810_767813.jpg&quot; /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;not have too much noise&lt;br /&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://vvv.mokrakocicka.cz/gang/0810_766445.jpg&quot; /&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://vvv.mokrakocicka.cz/gang/0810_766448.jpg&quot; /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T19:27:37.903" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2330" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2327" CreationDate="2010-08-10T19:33:59.477" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use Cokin filters and have been happy with them, though I've read commentary that Lee filters are better, but I can't give specific statements around that and sometimes it can be subjective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of the holder, I know that Lee and many others either make compatible filters for the Cokin system or they're compatible because the systems are designed to match up, at least for the P series. The upside to the Cokin holders is price, they're quite reasonable and they're perfectly fine in terms of ruggedness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T19:33:59.477" />
  <row Id="2331" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2327" CreationDate="2010-08-10T19:52:30.480" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had some Cokin filters earlier, and was thinking of getting some again, mostly ND and effect filters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference between the systems is first of all in the size of the filters. The Lee standard system uses 100 mm filters, while the Cokin P system uses 84 mm filters. The less common Cokin Z-PRO system uses 100 mm filters, so they should be compatible with the Lee system. I have also seen mentioned Lee filters made compatible for the Cokin P system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I have read, Lee filters are higher quality (durable and even in color), but also a lot more expensive. A cokin user had problems with the neutral density filters not being really neutral, however that shouldn't be a big problem if you are using a digital camera, as you can adjust the white balance to compensate for any differences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a 10-20 lens you should be careful what holder you get. There are special low-profile holders for wide angle lenses that you might need so that it's not visible in the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-10T20:00:06.203" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T20:00:06.203" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2332" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2334" CreationDate="2010-08-10T20:53:45.217" Score="8" ViewCount="403" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've seen rangefinder cameras around and idly wondered what the difference was between them and SLR cameras.  Are there any advantages rangefinders offer that cannot be reproduced using an SLR?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="217" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-10T21:35:36.463" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T21:35:36.463" Title="What's the difference between a rangefinder and SLR?" Tags="&lt;slr&gt;&lt;viewfinder&gt;&lt;rangefinder&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="2333" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2332" CreationDate="2010-08-10T21:05:08.167" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The basic difference is that a rangefinder has some kind of contraption to measure the distance (i.e., range) to the subject and then set the focus to that distance, while the SLR uses direct observation through the lens (either with phase detect autofocus or a manual focusing screen) to set the focus. Wikipedia has decent writeups: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangefinder_camera&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;rangefinder&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-lens_reflex_camera&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SLR&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Advantages of the SLR format:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You look through the same lens that will take the photo, so the composition seen in the viewfinder will match exactly what goes on the film. In particular, there's no parallax error.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rangefinders have no feedback loop in the focusing mechanism, so if e.g. the distance scale on the lens becomes miscalibrated, then the camera won't focus right. At a general level, it's very difficult to calibrate rangefinders for good focusing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Any filters are in the light path for both the sensor and the viewfinder, so again what's in the viewfinder matches better what will be captured.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Advantages of the rangefinder format:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No second light path for the viewfinder yields a simpler light path and a smaller, lighter camera.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No mirror slap: quieter, and no vibrations from the mirror.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Viewfinder typically shows what will be captured plus lots extra, which many people find useful for composition.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T21:05:08.167" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2334" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2332" CreationDate="2010-08-10T21:08:14.900" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A SLR camera allows you to look through the lens and was created to reach WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get).  It has a mirror box inside, and as a result, is much larger.  Other developments include splitting the beam for auto-focus, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A rangefinder is a camera that has a rangefinder mechanism.  This is a device that measures subject distance.  Through this device, you see two images.  When the two images coincide through moving the dial, the correct distance is displayed.  On older cameras, this was a separate device and one must transfer this to the lens.  Now they are built into the viewfinder. You have different viewfinders for different focal lengths (zoom lenses are difficult, as a result)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Advantages:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;body size/weight&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;discreetness &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;no mirror blackout, mirror sound, mirror induced vibrations&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;shorter registration distance: smaller/lighter lenses, higher quality wide angles&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ease of both-eye-open photography and awareness&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disadvantages:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;lack of auto-focus (though some have contrast-detect AF, but it is no phase-detect)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;parallax effect, pronounced at close differences&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;no depth-of-field preview, exact framing, and other WYSIWYG things&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;switching viewfinders&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-10T21:29:35.027" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T21:29:35.027" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2335" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2332" CreationDate="2010-08-10T21:11:11.087" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With rangefinders, you compose the shot using a separate viewfinder, rather than with through-the-lens view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://vvv.mokrakocicka.cz/gang/100810-leica-m6.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Leica M6, &lt;a href=&quot;http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leica_m6.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photo by E. Wetzig&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This has several implications:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;rangefinder cameras can be smaller than SLRs, since they don't need the space for mirror and prism&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;they also can be quieter, cause they don't need to move the mirror in order to take a shot&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you don't exactly see what the lens is going to capture, especially on close distances&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you can't check exact focus and have to rely on distance scale&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you can't check what depth of field is the final image going to have&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;when you have interchangeble lenses, you have switch the viewfinder to cover properly the field of view of each lens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T21:11:11.087" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2336" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2332" CreationDate="2010-08-10T21:24:17.380" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A rangefinder is simply a mechanism to measure the distance to an object. Early models came as accessories to cameras, then was incorporated into the viewfinder of the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A rangefinder camera is a camera with a built in rangefinder, which today is synonymous with a camera with a viewfinder. So, what you are asking is really the difference between a viewfinder camera and an SLR:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A viewfinder is separate from the lens, often with much simpler optics, so you see how much you will get in the image, but not exactly how it will look. As the viewfinder is offset from the lens, you get a difference from what you see and the result the closer you get, so closeups can be difficult.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An SLR uses the lens for the view, so you get a better view of what the image will actually look like. Common nowadays is a matte focusing screen that even let you see the depth of focus you get.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The viewfinder camera still has some advantages though. As there is no mirror, it's quieter and smaller, which is useful for some applications.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-10T21:31:18.990" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T21:31:18.990" />
  <row Id="2337" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2297" CreationDate="2010-08-10T21:44:38.107" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/digital-camera-forum/00RvLK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This thread&lt;/a&gt; on another forum might be of interest to you.  One poster suggests a particular method of training oneself to quickly obtain sharp manual focus.  Though I haven't tried it, it does sound interesting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="634" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T21:44:38.107" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2338" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2297" CreationDate="2010-08-10T22:41:49.140" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If your having trouble focusing, and you are sure your gear is properly calibrated, you might try using a focusing screen. Here is an example of how they work, and a comparison of a variety of focusing screens:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.focusingscreen.com/privacy.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.focusingscreen.com/privacy.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recently learned about these, and have ordered one for myself, as I also have trouble focusing with the tiny view screen of my DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T22:41:49.140" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2339" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2213" CreationDate="2010-08-10T23:07:57.790" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ask your tax officials.  They will have a very clear definition as to which category your activities and earnings belong.  I have met amateurs that are some of the most accomplished photographers I know.  I have met professionals that are inept.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Let me here call attention to one of the most universally popular mistakes that have to do with photography - that of classing supposedly excellent work as professional, and using the term amateur to convey the idea of immature productions and to excuse atrociously poor photographs. As a matter of fact nearly all the greatest work is being, and has always been done, by those who are following photography for the love of it, and not merely for financial reasons. As the name implies, an amateur is one who works for love; and viewed in this light the incorrectness of the popular classification is readily apparent.&quot;  -Alfred Stieglitz &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="965" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T23:07:57.790" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2340" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2078" CreationDate="2010-08-10T23:12:54.117" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Adobe Camera Raw removes them from raw files automatically.  I would assume Lightroom does also as it's basically the same thing.  I do not know if this works on jpegs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="965" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T23:12:54.117" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2341" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2066" CreationDate="2010-08-10T23:40:25.257" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I agree that the question is hard to answer because it is so vague, and there are so many possible variables involved in process, materials, and tool choice.  Here are some differences I noticed moving from the traditional BW darkroom to Photoshop.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Digital can be processed by inspection.  Meaning I can see exactly what is happening to my image in real time on my calibrated monitor as I process.  My eye and mind assess the image aspects, and I adjust to taste.  Digital processing can be reversible.  As long as I've used non-destructive processing techniques I can re-adjust or start over at any point whether it's because I've changed my mind or made a mistake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although a few darkroom wizards process by inspection, most film users do at least some of the processing by prediction.  Meaning I have to plan the film development based on previous experience and knowledge to achieve the desired visual results, and I cannot see if I am achieving those results until I am finished processing.  Methods such as the Zone System allow for quiet a bit of control, but it's sort of like the difference between understanding the physics behind throwing and catching a ball (the Zone System), and just throwing and catching a ball (assessing visual aspects with my eyeballs).  Film development is not reversible.  Once it is done I have to live with what I've got even if I've made a mistake or changed my mind.  There is potential for adjustment in printing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both film and files can be easily damaged, destroyed, or lost.  It is more difficult to make high quality reproductions of film negs/slides for archiving than copying digital files.      &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="965" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T23:40:25.257" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2342" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15" CreationDate="2010-08-11T00:33:48.177" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Raw vs jpeg is choosing processing software.  Raw is not a specific file format like jpeg or tiff or psd.  Most manufacturers have their own raw file format.  Raw just means the data from the sensor in the most unprocessed form available.  If the camera is set to jpeg then the processing is done by the manufacturer's in-camera processing software.  If the camera is set to raw it saves the unprocessed data for processing with the photographer's choice of software.  There are several potential advantages to doing the processing yourself with out-of-camera software.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many choices of out-of-camera processing software, and most of them offer more features, controls, and precision than what is currently installed in digital cameras.  For instance the in-camera processing software for my Canon DSLRs is mainly controlled by several slider bars with a few setting options each.  Photoshop on the other hand offers almost unlimited options, many more features, and increased precision in comparison.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I'm using the in-camera software I need to process by prediction.  Meaning I need to adjust the processing settings before I make the exposure.  I previsualize the finished photograph, and set the processing to achieve it.  If I don't achieve what I wanted I can't go back and reprocess the jpeg.  Information that has been discarded is irretrievable.  Using out-of-camera software I am processing by inspection.  I look at the photo on a calibrated monitor, and can see my processing adjustments as I make them.  As long as I am using non-destructive processing methods I can go back to any step or the beginning and start again.  I'm pretty good at processing by prediction.  I used the Zone System in my BW darkroom for many years.  Even so my eyes and mind can assess image aspects in a split second.  There is a huge advantage to using vision when creating visual art.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is similar to drop-off, automated, uniform film development and printing compared to doing it yourself in the darkroom.  As long as you are getting the results you want either is fine, but most photographers find that with a little practice they can do a better job and have more options doing the processing themselves than when they rely on the machine for processing.  The machine is fast, but the human offers more options and control.  It's up to the photographer as to whether those advantages outweigh the extra time and effort required to DIY.  I prefer the results I get doing the processing myself.  I think they are significant enough to warrant the extra effort.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the future I expect that we will be able to install the processing software of our choice in digital cameras.  When I can load up my favorite Adobe Camera Raw presets into my DSLRs I might start shooting jpeg more often.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="965" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T00:33:48.177" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2343" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="162" CreationDate="2010-08-11T00:58:16.850" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No.  Because different films with the same ISO can have different quality aspects, and digital cameras with the same megapixel count can have different quality aspects.  There are also many potential variables in processing/development and printing for both film and digital that will effect image quality.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can discuss very specific examples.  For instance how do these compare:  a 12&quot;x18&quot; silver gelatin print from a Pentax Spotmatic w/ Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 loaded with 35mm Kodak TX-400 rated at ISO 1250 and developed in Diafine, 2 bath, compensating developer and printed with a contrast filter grade of 3.5 using a condenser enlarger compare to a 12&quot;x18&quot; ink jet print from a file taken with a Canon 5D w/ EOS L 24-70 f/2.8 shooting raw at ISO 1600, and processed in Adobe Camera Raw with {specific processing settings} and printed using an Epson printer {specific model, specific inks, specific paper, printer software, etc...}.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my opinion the finished image quality is going to have a lot more to do with the photographer's experience and skill with the tools, materials, and process they choose.  When I got my first 8mp APS-C DSLR I couldn't match the image quality I was used to getting from the BW 35mm film I was developing in my darkroom.  Several years of raw processing and digital printing practice later there was little doubt I was surpassing the quality level I was used to getting from 35mm film with the same 8mp camera.  Now when looking at large prints from my Hasselblad 500c/m hanging next to large prints from my 5DII I think it's easily seen by most that I'm surpassing the technical quality I was getting from medium format film.  Yet there are obviously folks who are not reaching this level of quality with the same DSLR and processing software.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="965" LastEditorUserId="965" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-11T01:03:44.670" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T01:03:44.670" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2344" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2291" CreationDate="2010-08-11T01:33:04.853" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I shoot in raw on auto-wb, and then adjust to taste in the raw processor.  Raw processors usually offer some sort of auto-wb feature, but when it comes to a crazy mix of colored lights I'll usually just go with what looks good to my eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="965" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T01:33:04.853" />
  <row Id="2345" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1783" CreationDate="2010-08-11T01:38:00.333" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the daylight focus on a very, very far away object, like a radio tower.  Mark your focusing ring with a bit of tape or something, and you have your infinity setting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For closer focusing in the dark carry a laser pointer.  Tape it to the camera or tripod so it points at your subject.  The red dot should be easily seen through the viewfinder, and it will be easy to tell if you've got it in focus or not.  You will probably have to use manual focus.  Turn off the laser when taking the photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="965" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T01:38:00.333" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2346" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4804" CreationDate="2010-08-11T01:52:29.487" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is a link to a page with many links to online articles on image composition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photoinf.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://photoinf.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="965" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T01:52:29.487" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-11T01:52:29.487" />
  <row Id="2347" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1339" CreationDate="2010-08-11T01:58:23.733" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I used generic BP-511 batteries from Sterlingtek.com in my Canon 20D, 40D, and 5D for 6 years.  They were $11, and most outlasted the $60 Canon brand batteries.  In the last order of 4 batteries I bought 2 were defective.  I couldn't get them to hold much of a charge.  I probably bought about a dozen over the years, and all but those 2 worked great.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="965" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T01:58:23.733" />
  <row Id="2348" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="961" CreationDate="2010-08-11T02:09:28.137" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For some reason people needed to come up with new terms when digital came along.  For instance even though all photographic methods require processing, and it's always done post-exposure, suddenly people are calling processing &quot;post-processing&quot;.  Chimping used to be called &quot;using Polaroid&quot;, and most pros and masters took advantage of it if they had the resources to do so, because there is a huge advantage to using vision when creating visual art.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another one is &quot;crop factor&quot;.  Multiple formats have been around since the beginning, and they didn't seem all that confusing until someone decided to call it crop factor.  maybe it was troublesome to have a size format and format the memory card?    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="965" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T02:09:28.137" />
  <row Id="2349" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="948" CreationDate="2010-08-11T02:15:00.260" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't bracket with digital unless I'm blending multiple exposures to get greater dynamic range.  A quick look at the histogram tells me all I need to know about whether the exposure is good or not, and I either adjust exposure and reshoot or move on to the next photo.  The histogram is like having a field densitometer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="965" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T02:15:00.260" />
  <row Id="2350" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2296" CreationDate="2010-08-11T03:09:30.893" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To add some balance, ask what is the purpose of the photo?  I think everyone here is answering from a more or less artistic perspective, which is what I care about too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But let's be complete: sometimes you &lt;em&gt;need&lt;/em&gt; a mug shot.  Or a shot of a hotel room for a website.  Or 27 8x10 color glossy pictures of the &quot;scene of the crime&quot;; the approach, the getaway, and that's not to mention the aerial photography (GUTH1967).  Some purpose that is by nature more objective (not that it can't be artistic and evoke an emotion reaction in some contexts!).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T03:09:30.893" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-16T19:47:49.393" />
  <row Id="2351" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4804" CreationDate="2010-08-11T04:04:58.330" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Eventually instruction-oriented books won't be as useful to you, and you'll need to start looking at (and thinking about) photography directly.  What you should pick when you get to that point will depend on your taste, but if you have even an inkling of interest in street photography or photojournalism, there are worse places to start than this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0500543666&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Magnum Magnum&lt;/a&gt; (hardcover - &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0500288305&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;paperback here&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;400 photographs from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://magnumphotos.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Magnum&lt;/a&gt; archives: Henri Cartier-Bresson, Martin Parr, Alec Soth, and many others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can find it (and want to splurge a bit), the original giant hardcover edition (more than 30x45cm) is amazing. Larger is definitely better for these images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T04:04:58.330" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-11T04:04:58.330" />
  <row Id="2352" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2365" CreationDate="2010-08-11T04:27:44.597" Score="14" ViewCount="280" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hey,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are loads of ratings and tests for how long DSLR bodies last, but I have never really seen much that describes the expected lifespan of lenses.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recently, one of my cheap-o lenses (Nikon 18-55mm, ~10,000 exposures) started making some funny noises and the focus ring jams up occasionally.  It has been through a lot (got frozen in China, and bounced along trails on the back of a motorcycle in the Rockies), but I expected it to last a little longer than a couple years, especially next to my 20 year old 80-200mm which gets twice the usage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, &lt;strong&gt;how long it is reasonable to expect a lens to last before needing to be serviced or replaced?&lt;/strong&gt;  Are there any brands/lines of lenses that do better than others (and vice versa)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="907" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-11T08:00:25.950" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T02:56:50.110" Title="How long should a lens last?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;maintenance&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="2353" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2352" CreationDate="2010-08-11T05:35:03.423" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lens longevity is something that is very hard to nail down, as there are countless and often unpredictable circumstances that affect it. Generally speaking, however, there are two major factors that will affect how long a lens lasts: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Build Quality&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Not all lenses are created equal, and build quality matters&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A cheap entry-level lens uses cheaper parts, and are rarely weather sealed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A top quality lens will use much higher quality, precision parts, and are often weather sealed, which further protects them from harmful environmental compunds&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Maintenance&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Just like any other mechanical device, a lens must be maintained&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Proper lens maintenance and treatment will help improve its lifetime&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All that said, any lens can break at any time, for many unforseeable reasons: being dropped or crushed, manufacturing defects, improper use, &lt;em&gt;being frozen&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;bounced along trails too much&lt;/em&gt;, etc. Barring any of these things, a high quality lens should last for decades. I honestly couldn't say how long a cheap lens should last...maybe a few years, maybe a decade...it entirely depends on the quality of the parts, and you really can't expect terribly much from the bottom of the barrel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-11T17:51:16.110" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T17:51:16.110" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2354" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2352" CreationDate="2010-08-11T05:35:41.957" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lens life isn't measured in exposure time. Camera bodies will fail before a lens will, if properly cared for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It sounds like your lens was abused a bit too much for it's quality-level. A more rugged lens would have likely fared better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm a Canon shooter, so I can only speak to Canon lenses, but their L lenses are made to take some abuse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can find manual-only Canon FD lenses that still perform like champs some 20+ years later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to answer your question, your lens should be easily good for 10k exposures. It's likely due to the abuses it's suffered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-11T05:41:14.833" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T05:41:14.833" />
  <row Id="2355" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2297" CreationDate="2010-08-11T07:36:24.120" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You'll have a hard time focussing a wide aperture lens wide open without a live preview with magnifying option. Here's why:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Your viewfinder has a fixed depth of field that you perceive when viewing through it. It's the matte screen that poses a limit. In general, it's close to F/2.8 in terms of the depth-of-field that you see here, so if you use a wider aperture with a more limited depth-of-field, there's simply no way of seeing wether it's in focus, no matter how good your eyes are. You can get a special matte screens for some camera's, but they tend to darken the image in the viewfinder.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Your AF sensor can only check for focus to a limited degree. This is also a technical limitation not by the AF sensor itself but by the aperture that forms between the mirror and the the AF sensor. You can use a wider aperture for lens, but the AF sensor won't see this larger aperture and can therefore only focus to what it can see. Usually the center AF point in most camera's is more sensitive than the others, because it lies at the center of the aperture and has less light fall-off, but even in professional camera's it doesn't do much better than F/2.8, so even if your AF system confirms your focus, it's only confirmed to what it can focus to.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without live-view-with-magnification, your best best is to take a shot, check it, take one again, check it, or live with the limitations of your system that even though you might need the light (for low-light photography) the focus may not be as accurate. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="92" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T07:36:24.120" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2356" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2352" CreationDate="2010-08-11T07:59:55.920" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on the lens. The cheapest lenses are simply not built to last very long as you usually exchange them for something better over time, while more expensive lenses could last for decades.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon EF 29-90mm kit lens where there is a band of connectors that bends every time you change the zoom. After several years it has bent too many times, so the electronics fails. More expensive lenses doesn't have parts that wear out in that manner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-11T09:32:14.653" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T09:32:14.653" />
  <row Id="2357" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2352" CreationDate="2010-08-11T09:26:14.963" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Cheap lenses like Canon EF 18-55mm IS are not too long lasting. Mine failed after two years with AF problem. But the more expensive models and some older ones are built to last. For example I had Canon EF 70-210 f4 from 1987 for couple years with my 450D and it worked fine. I eventually sold it after L-upgrade.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="729" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T09:26:14.963" />
  <row Id="2358" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2370" CreationDate="2010-08-11T11:57:49.457" Score="6" ViewCount="705" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been using LR3 for a while now and have noticed that when I export a photo to JPG and upload it to Flickr it ends up slightly darker. The exported photo is ok, it's the image when viewed through Flickr that is darker.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm exporting the photos as sRGB. I've noticed that in the EXIF data some applications (such as PS Elements) there's a &quot;Color Element&quot; tag that is set to sRGB, whilst my LR3 exports don't seem to have this. I've also read that it can be down to some browsers not supporting color management. I use Firefox 3.6 which apparently does have color management support. I've looked at the image in Chrome and it still exhibits the same problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A friend of mine is seeing the same problem when he exports from LR3 and uploads to Flickr, so I know it's not something specific to my PC. Is this a Flickr problem (ie it's doing something strange with the color space), or could it be a monitor calibration problem? I'm not totally sure it's down to calibration as they do look correct on my PC, it's only the images that Flickr renders that are the problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="697" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T00:48:52.613" Title="Lightroom exports are too dark in Flickr" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;flickr&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2359" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2417" CreationDate="2010-08-11T12:14:03.183" Score="11" ViewCount="762" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've taken some stock photography of lots of clear bottles, and now want to remove the background (which is white-ish, because at a pinch I could leave it...) so that the bottle becomes transparent with highlighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My bottles are clear with different colored liquids with multiple refraction and reflection surfaces.  I am looking for a background color subtraction effect that will allow me to get to transparent (hopefully with some sort of effect/opacity slider).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Ideas that I can't pull off yet&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Combine layer with a color fill layer (keyed off the &quot;transparent color&quot;) in some manner to produce some output that could be used as the starting point of a layer mask&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Same layer combination as above, but somehow translating &quot;pure white&quot; to transparency.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Notes for what doesn't work (Photoshop terminology)&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Color Range&quot; and delete (fuzzy select, but not graded/alpha) - results in harsh lines and only leaves the pure white and dark highlights and shadow refractions/reflections&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Magic wand selections for the same reason&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Background Eraser&quot; because although it is able to only subtract a certain color and leave &quot;the rest&quot;, it (like all tolerance based tools) eventually hits a colour slightly outside of the range that it just won't touch.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll add more if I can remember what I've found&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="978" LastEditorUserId="978" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-11T12:41:06.687" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T11:23:17.003" Title="How do I make a bottle image transparent?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;stock-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="2360" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2327" CreationDate="2010-08-11T12:52:40.580" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer your question, Cokin filters are made of plastic, Lee filters are made of glass.  That's the material difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, I use Cokin filters.  I bought them thinking it was a small investment to see if I like the type of filter and I'd upgrade to Lee if necessary, but I didn't find any major issues with the Cokin filters.  I've never noticed the color cast problem that was mentioned.  The only issue I've had is that the filters get scratched rather easily due to them being plastic.  Still, 2 Cokin filters are much cheaper than 1 Lee filter, so I'm sticking with Cokin and just being more careful about keeping them from getting scratched in the future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="110" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T12:52:40.580" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2361" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1298" CreationDate="2010-08-11T13:35:42.383" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Multiple exposure is not the way to achieve this. A better technique is to use slow shutter sync.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Slow Shutter Sync&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two basic ways in which a camera can take a flash photo when light levels are low. The camera can either use a short shutter speed to minimize camera motion blur and have the flash blast out enough light to illuminate the foreground objects whilst leaving the background dark, or the camera can extend the shutter time to allow more of the background to show up and flash-illuminate the foreground subject. This latter technique is called slow sync, slow shutter sync or “dragging” the shutter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;A typical example is a tourist snapshot of someone standing in front of a famous landmark at night. If you keep the shutter speed fast then you’ll have a nice flash-illuminated photo of your friend against a pitch black backdrop, unless the landmark is extremely brightly lit or unless you’re using very fast film or a high digital ISO.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, &lt;strong&gt;by slowing down the shutter speed you can take a photo of the person standing against a properly exposed background at night.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The drawback is obvious, of course. By slowing the shutter speed you’re going to need a tripod to avoid blur induced by camera movement, especially with long shutter speeds like 1/15 second or slower.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Olympus PEN Specific Setting&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the PEN the setting you are looking for, located within the flash settings menu, is called &quot;Slow&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="979" LastEditorUserId="979" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-11T13:42:35.110" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T13:42:35.110" />
  <row Id="2362" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2367" CreationDate="2010-08-11T13:58:45.993" Score="12" ViewCount="655" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am currently shooting with a nikon d90 and use the kit 18-105 and a 50mm 1.8f.  mostly I shoot as a hobby but lately I've been asked to do some family and engagement shoots.  The 50mm is lovely, great depth of field, great sharpness, great price!  The 18-105 is not nearly as good.  I'm thinking of upgrading.  I know the Nikkor 24-70 2.8 is great and I've also read a bit about the Nikkor 17-55 2.8.  Both lenses are quite expensive though (i'm in Canada so add a couple hundred dollars to any american prices).  Any suggestions on other lenses that might do the job?  I'm open to Sigma/Tamron if they have great lenses, but so far I've stuck with Nikon gear only.  I'd like to have some zoom range (so prime and fixed lenses probably won't do the trick - although a nice macro lens does seem to be good for portraiture...).  I'm open to buying used, but I'm located in Newfoundland Canada so the available used lens market here is pretty small and I'm not sure about buying from ebay for a lens.. but I could be.  Any and all suggestions welcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="274" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-12T16:56:51.843" LastActivityDate="2010-11-12T17:25:00.223" Title="Great portrait lens for nikon (under $1000)" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2363" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="111" CreationDate="2010-08-11T14:23:17.197" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I usually just export to a file, then upload the files to Flickr.  I'm not using any of the tagging or library features of Lightroom though; I'm just using it to post-process so your mileage may vary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="361" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T14:23:17.197" />
  <row Id="2364" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2362" CreationDate="2010-08-11T14:26:19.327" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My suggestion would be to stick with the 50mm. It'll be sharper than nearly everything else you could get, and is just fine for head &amp;amp; shoulders portraits. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem with it is that it's a fairly narrow field of view, especially on a 1.5x crop-factor camera like the d90 (I'm in the same boat myself). The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikon.ca/en/product.aspx?m=14310&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon 35mm prime&lt;/a&gt; is a good substitute in this respect. Whether it's wide enough for you is a different story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you really want a zoom, then the 28-70mm seems to be the lens of choice among pros, and it's in the right zoom range. But I'd far prefer to have the extra f-stops (for shallower DoF) AND an extra $1000 in my pocket (or spent on lights). Zooms are good for active walking-around shots, but for portraiture I'd say they're not necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastEditorUserId="48" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-13T21:59:19.167" LastActivityDate="2010-08-13T21:59:19.167" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2365" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2352" CreationDate="2010-08-11T15:13:12.823" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This doesn't quite answer your question, but it's relevant: &lt;strong&gt;there is value in using your equipment in the way that best serves your photography, even if it's not ideal treatment for the equipment.&lt;/strong&gt; So for example the freezing and bumping along on a dirt bike aren't super great for the lens, but it sounds like those things were essential to having the equipment in those situations at all. It's not an expensive lens, so maybe you got your money's worth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words: &lt;strong&gt;treat your equipment as well as you can, but a little abuse may be the price you pay to get a given shot.&lt;/strong&gt; And maybe that shot is worth the price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T15:13:12.823" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2366" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2369" CreationDate="2010-08-11T15:36:03.783" Score="10" ViewCount="376" Body="&lt;p&gt;Every now and then when shooting with this lens, I'll get this error and have to turn the camera off and on to resolve. Of course I've missed the shot of the day by this time!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm pretty sure it's the lens, because I've shot with plenty other lenses on that body, and never get the error..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anybody found a better solution, short of sending the lens in? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="930" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-20T21:18:41.100" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T11:30:32.210" Title="Error 99 on Canon 20D with 17-85 EFS lens" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="5" />
  <row Id="2367" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2362" CreationDate="2010-08-11T16:05:11.090" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two suggestions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you want to stay Nikon, 85mm f/1.8.  I shoot with this thing at f/2.0 regularly, and it produces fantastic portraits for your price range.  The f/1.4 is call the 'cream machine' by the guys over at dpreview, but I hesitate to even look at it-- it's so expensive for 2/3 of a stop better light.  I own this lens, and love it.  It's also useful for shooting stage productions in low light on a d300 (which is where I find myself using it a lot these days).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you don't care so much, check out the Tamron f/2.8 90mm macro is reputed to be a very good lens, both for portraiture and for macro work.  I don't have one, but the results I see on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pbase.com/cameras/tamron/sp_af_di_90_28_macro&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pbase&lt;/a&gt; make me think that it's quite capable. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know what you mean about moving past the 50mm f/1.8.  I have a 50mm f/1.4 that I got used for a very reasonable price, but I find myself using that focal length very rarely for whatever reason.  I have the 17-55 f/2.8, and it's a very capable lens (my workhorse for events and traveling), but the 85mm is something else when you know you're going to use it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're buying used, I don't know if &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.keh.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KEH&lt;/a&gt; ships to Canada, but it might, and if so, it's definitely worth a look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastEditorUserId="266" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-11T16:10:52.693" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T16:10:52.693" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2368" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2366" CreationDate="2010-08-11T16:13:49.087" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, it's definitely the lens. I've had this exact same problem with the 20D and a 17-85. In order to resolve it, I sent the lens in to canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can check if the electrical contacts on the lens and ensure there is no corrosion (very unlikely). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T16:13:49.087" />
  <row Id="2369" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2366" CreationDate="2010-08-11T16:14:02.207" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.richardsnotes.org/archives/2005/04/29/50mm-lens-contact-points/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;blog post&lt;/a&gt; that covers a few different things to try if you see Error 99.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other than having the lens or body serviced, it seems that you can:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Remove the battery and card, then wait 20 min (long enough for the residual charges to completely drain) and try with a fresh battery.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;clean the lens contacts&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T16:14:02.207" />
  <row Id="2370" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2358" CreationDate="2010-08-11T16:35:26.307" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Several things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The exif &quot;Color Element&quot; tag is not directly related to ICC profile. Your image can have an Adobe RGB profile, yet still say &quot;sRGB.&quot; Applications should use the attached profile, not the exif tag, when determining how to render colors. Ideally the EXIF color element tag should match the attached color profile, but there is nothing that will enforce the behavior.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is definitely a color management issue. To diagnose try the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Download the image from flickr to your computer. open it in Photoshop PS and see if the image renders as you expect. If it does, then it's your browser's color management configuration. Firefox 3.6 does have color management, and while it's turned on by default, if you upgraded from Firefox 2.x, color management may be turned off. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To check: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;type &lt;strong&gt;about:config&lt;/strong&gt; in the address bar&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;hit enter&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;click the &quot;I'll be careful button&quot; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;type &quot;color_management&quot; in the search bar&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should see three values:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;gfx.color_management.display_profile&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;gfx.color_management.mode&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;gfx.color_management.rendering_indent&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On my computer the values are (in order from above): blank (nothing),2,0 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If the image doesn't render correctly on your computer, open the image in PS Elements and inspect the color profile, and ensure it's sRGB. If there is no profile, then LR3 either didn't actually embed a profile, or Flickr removed it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Since the images right out of LR3 look right, double check that the embedded profile is sRGB. If it's not, then you likely have an export issue. If it's there, then Flickr removed your profile (which seems unlikely).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-11T16:41:21.853" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T16:41:21.853" />
  <row Id="2371" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-08-11T16:41:38.140" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon Powershot G1&lt;/a&gt; is what made me fall in love with creating photos. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ability to frame a shot, take it, and see the result instantly was the primary factor initially.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Canon_PS_G1_front.jpg/800px-Canon_PS_G1_front.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Canon Powershot G1&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Image Credit: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3aCanon_PS_G1_front.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikimedia Commons&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="986" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T16:41:38.140" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-11T16:41:38.140" />
  <row Id="2373" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1256" CreationDate="2010-08-11T17:49:59.590" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was inspired by your question to try to come up with a reasonable shot of rain myself.  And it is hard, as others have noted.  For me, I think that a successful rain shot shows not necessarily the rain as it falls from the sky, but when it hits the ground.  I think that @che's shot is a great one; here's my attempt:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.markmroden.com/Travel/London-and-Italy-2010/Days-7-8-and-9-Monterossa/MMR8714/954882767_3pn52-M.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Monterosso Rain&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, the reason it works (in my opinion, anyway) is composition more so than any technical abilities of the camera.  The raindrops splashing on the ground show how hard it is, the water on the ground shows that it's been ongoing as well as a rippling reflection, and the rain in front of the sign shows up through contrast.  A friend was with me and shot this with his p&amp;amp;s as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These tricks didn't work when I tried to get a picture of hail, however-- mainly because i didn't want to get nailed by the hail.  So I went with the dark background of the cloud, but still, it's hard to tell that this is hail as opposed to rain:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.markmroden.com/Travel/London-and-Italy-2010/Days-13-and-14-Milan-and/SDIM1412/957432582_bdDGB-M.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T17:49:59.590" />
  <row Id="2374" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2296" CreationDate="2010-08-11T18:25:42.343" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This article compiled 11.4 million opinions of photo attractiveness of a list of photos.  Those opinions were then associated to the exif data of each photo, like what camera brand was used for the photo, the camera class, using flash or not, depth of field, time of day etc.  Then they could use this data to determine the optimal value for each of those variables.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/dont-be-ugly-by-accident/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/dont-be-ugly-by-accident/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a statistical analysis of what people actually think is beautiful.  This is the kind of things that is good to know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T18:25:42.343" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-16T19:47:49.393" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2375" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2359" CreationDate="2010-08-11T18:26:26.913" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is what it sounds like to me that you are trying to do:  You have taken a picture of transparent objects and would like to remove the background and preserve the transparency of the foreground objects (so that perhaps you could replace the background with something else).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First thing is a choice you have to make:  &lt;em&gt;You can use built in tools to do the job as quickly as possible, but you sacrifice a lot of quality and realism.  Or you can put in a little time and do it manually but with far better results.&lt;/em&gt;  I would choose the latter ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I had to pull that off I would probably shoot a white background to start with, then in Photoshop (or the equivalent):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cut out the negative space (the background that doesn't show through the bottles.  Basically anything you can remove entirely from the image.  Be careful to preserve hard edges so that the image looks realistic if you replace the background later.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make a new background layer that is black (you will delete it later to get your transparency back).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Create a clipping mask for the bottles and whatever else is in the foreground.  (After this all you should see is back because the clipping mask will be empty).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Slowly brush in parts of the image by adding content to the clipping mask.  Add opacity slowly.  Make sure hard edges are completely opaque, areas where the color affects the background are semi-transparent, and areas where you could originally see the background are completely transparent.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That would be my workflow. I would also probably stick a semi-transparent copy of the original image between the background and the clipped image as a reference for the brush and then get rid of it later.  If you want a perfect background replacement though, you are going to need to do a little touch up depending on what the background is to make reflections and diffractions look realistic.  Best of luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="907" LastEditorUserId="907" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-12T15:19:11.910" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T15:19:11.910" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2376" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1680" CreationDate="2010-08-11T19:06:47.127" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming it doesn't, based on the images, you could pre-process your images with something like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;DCRaw Homepage&quot;&gt;DCRaw&lt;/a&gt; (which does support the 7D and about 400 other cameras) into either 8-bit or 16-bit images (depending on whether or not you want to keep the full 14-bits of info from your 7D).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the &lt;code&gt;-T&lt;/code&gt; option, DCRaw will generate a 16-bit TIFF with metadta. Otherwise I believe it makes 8-bit JPEGs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[2]: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/#faq&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/#faq&lt;/a&gt; DCRaw FAQ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T19:06:47.127" />
  <row Id="2377" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2381" CreationDate="2010-08-11T19:07:59.810" Score="8" ViewCount="79" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2352/how-long-should-a-lens-last&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;, proper maintenance &amp;amp; treatment is need to ensure a long lens life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But other than occasional cleaning, I've never done anything to any of my lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What else should I be doing to ensure my lenses outlive me?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="134" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T21:55:42.213" Title="What do you do to service a lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;maintenance&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="2378" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2377" CreationDate="2010-08-11T19:26:27.740" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To outlive you, I would let the pros do it; send your lens in to be serviced by your brand's authorized repair center every few years, or more often depending on use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T19:26:27.740" />
  <row Id="2379" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2380" CreationDate="2010-08-11T20:03:53.157" Score="6" ViewCount="149" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon XSi, with the kit lens and a Canon 50 compact macro with the converter. At some point before the trip I also plan on buying a telephoto.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This coming January, I will be headed to Germany and Switzerland and in particular the Alps. I  hope to bring my gear along(I don't know if I will need the super macro gear, but you never know). My concerns are the temperatures and the elevation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My first question, is if I will experience any problems with this gear. Last year, in the same area I had a Canon S2IS get an E8 error. I understand that this error just occurs after a while, but it happened while I was standing on a bridge overlooking Neuschwanstein Castle, so if it was a coincidence, it was a really frustrating one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My second question is fairly contingent on the first, if I will experience these issues, how to protect against them? What kind of precautions can I take ahead of time to prevent them and deal with them if they occur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastEditorUserId="988" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-23T19:10:36.177" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T19:10:36.177" Title="Special Care for my Canon in the Alps" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;travel&gt;&lt;weather&gt;&lt;equipment-protection&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2380" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2379" CreationDate="2010-08-11T20:26:06.050" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was in Germany and Switzerland in the Alps with my canon gear and it was fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you expect to take your gear from extreme weather conditions, say from normal room temps to freezing or below--when coming back into warm weather, stick your camera lenses in a sealed ziplock bag to prevent condensation from building up on your lens. After the lens has warmed up to room temp--should take an hour or two, pull it out and let it and the ziplock bag air out (so you can shoot again!).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was in Sweden and Finland in the dead of winter in temps well below freezing and using the ziplock bag trick, I had no issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-11T21:01:33.143" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T21:01:33.143" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="2381" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2377" CreationDate="2010-08-11T20:31:52.823" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Pay attention&quot; is the big one.  If your lens starts to develop a significant change in feel or noise, it's almost certainly due for a service.  Don't let it get wet, and ensure that if you store it for a while it's not too humid.  If your lens takes a severe knock, it's worth checking movements and focus to make sure nothing's out of alignment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Preventative maintenance – basically cleaning and re-lubricating – is best done by a professional.  For a time frame, I'd say every 2-5 years would be more than enough, and even 5 could be considered conservative and cautious for some users.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do send your lenses in for service, something to consider is whether to send the camera in as well, so the lens can be calibrated to that body.  This is obviously a bit more expensive, and perhaps mildly obsessive, but if you prefer shooting fast primes wide open, it could be worth it for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-11T21:55:42.213" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T21:55:42.213" />
  <row Id="2382" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2379" CreationDate="2010-08-11T20:41:38.790" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another good tip is to keep a spare battery (or two) in a warm inside pocket.  Lithium batteries suffer horribly in the cold, but will revive a little as they warm up.  Apart from having a fresh battery, you can swap back and forth for a bit of extra juice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A related trick is to keep your camera under your coat.  This does depend on how you're dressed, as it can cause problems with condensation if you're not layering your clothing, or if you've put on too much and are sweating heavily.  But it does work; it's how I kept my camera alive in the Yukon in the middle of winter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T20:41:38.790" />
  <row Id="2383" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4371" CreationDate="2010-08-11T22:44:53.517" Score="4" ViewCount="197" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the best airbrushing plugin besides Kodak Digital GEM Airbrush Pro and Portraiture? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I the kodak plugin to cleanup skin and textures, but they're apparently not going to upgrade for CS5/Mac/64bit (yes, and I don't want to run photoshop in 32bit). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="341" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T20:47:04.867" Title="Best airbrushing plugin?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="2384" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2433" CreationDate="2010-08-11T22:53:22.663" Score="8" ViewCount="471" Body="&lt;p&gt;While exporting photos (and metadata) &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/111/whats-the-best-way-to-get-photos-from-lightroom-to-flickr&quot;&gt;from Lightroom to Flickr&lt;/a&gt; is relatively simple, importing your own photos and metadata from Flickr to Lightroom doesn't seem to be as straightforward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a lot of previously uploaded (and tagged) photos on Flickr and I'd like to add them to my Lightroom catalogue with the associated tags (and sets if possible).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a perfect world, the solution would also allow for synching of the photos as new tags were added either on Flickr or on Lightroom, but this feature is not critical. I don't mind doing a one time import and maintaining things manually from there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastEditorUserId="46" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-13T02:29:50.467" LastActivityDate="2010-09-01T06:26:24.343" Title="How to import photos and metadata from Flickr to Lightroom?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;flickr&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="2385" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2416" CreationDate="2010-08-11T23:04:54.000" Score="9" ViewCount="175" Body="&lt;p&gt;Continuing the thread started by others, I have another question in this area. I've been lucky to have the opportunity to photograph several large thunderstorms in Colorado recently, however I ran into a couple issues. The first issue I've run into is getting proper focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a landscape photographer, I've become accustomed to using the &lt;code&gt;hyperfocal&lt;/code&gt; setting on my wide-angle lenses, as it makes it easier to get good focus for very distant mountain ranges and the like. I started trying to do the same thing to photograph lightning, however, setting my lens right to the hyperfocal mark does not actually seem to capture the lightning itself in focus. The landscape in the distance behind seems to be in focus, but it seems to be a bit too far out otherwise. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the time these thunderstorms happen late at night, and it is nearly pitch black except for the light from lightning itself. Are there any tricks I can use to &lt;em&gt;quickly&lt;/em&gt; focus properly so I can capture lightning without it looking like chains of bright white bubbles? I've tried a trial and error approach, however I've ended up missing many really GREAT shots because I was fiddling with my camera trying to get it in proper focus. Even slightly out of focus, I wish I had been able to get some of the shots I missed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://a.imageshack.us/img412/8115/lightningfocusexample.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Lightning Focus&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Above is the best ground strike shot from a set taken a few days ago. You can best see the lack of focus in the non-main streamers. This was a smaller bolt, struck probably less than 500 feet away. The tree in the foreground, probably about 10 feet from the camera, is also a bit out of focus. I had originally tried to focus on the landscape well behind near hyperfocal focus...at least, as best I could tell in the dark. I made several adjustments successively through numerous shots to finally get this shot as clear as it was. I missed plenty of much better shots, however, due to the lack of focus. If there was some quick trick to set a correct focus in near darkness, I'd LOVE to know about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-12T01:23:31.067" LastActivityDate="2010-08-13T00:41:09.793" Title="Photographing Lightning Strikes: Proper Focus" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;focus&gt;&lt;weather&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="2386" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2393" CreationDate="2010-08-11T23:09:05.117" Score="10" ViewCount="456" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been trying to photograph lightning lately, as we have had some great storms in Colorado. I've had some difficulty getting a good vantage point, however, as almost all of these storms include rain as well. To keep my camera from getting drenched (I have weather-sealed lenses, but my camera body, a Canon 450D, is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; weather sealed as far as I can tell), I've had to shoot under the eve of a building or under a thick canopy of trees, however that has greatly limited my ability to adapt to the changing weather and get get a vantage point on the best lightning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any equipment, something I can purchase or something home-made that has easy-to-find parts, that can help me protect my lens from the rain while still being able to shoot? Additionally, I've been getting rain on a UV filter I have on the front of my lenses, simply to prevent rain from getting on the front lens element itself. However, once a storm really gets going, so does the rain. Is there a simple solution to keep rain off the front of the lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-12T00:33:34.727" LastActivityDate="2010-08-26T13:55:57.067" Title="How do you protect a camera and lens while photographing in rain or snow?" Tags="&lt;weather&gt;&lt;equipment-protection&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2387" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2385" CreationDate="2010-08-11T23:13:01.647" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do not try to autofocus. Switch to manual, set to hyperfocal and close the aperture to, say, 5.6 - this will give you a really huge depth of field for most lenses you would use for lightning short. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My guess is that the lightnings aren't out of focus; they are blurry because of the camera shake. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="341" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T23:13:01.647" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2388" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2385" CreationDate="2010-08-11T23:20:16.410" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does the channel move around a bit between bolts? Lighting is usually several flashes, so if they're not exactly in the same place, it might appear fuzzy. Also there is the leader, which isn't very bright but maybe that's affecting things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Could also be bloom. Lightning is very bright (it's a lot hotter than the sun's surface).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verify that stuff in front of and behind the lightning is in focus. If yes, that means focus isn't your problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T23:20:16.410" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2389" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2385" CreationDate="2010-08-11T23:29:44.303" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best thing to do is set focus to infinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="567" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T23:29:44.303" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2390" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2444" CreationDate="2010-08-11T23:31:29.167" Score="7" ViewCount="392" Body="&lt;p&gt;What issues are there with printing 32-bit HDR images?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do printing companies simply convert them to 8-bit?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do some have printers with a wider gamut that can use additional color data?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is there a better-than-8-bit but not 32-bit format?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="992" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T19:46:42.920" Title="Printing 32-bit HDR Images" Tags="&lt;hdr&gt;&lt;prints&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="2391" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2390" CreationDate="2010-08-11T23:41:37.170" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, I think the format you want your images in for printing is 16bit. Most of the time, when I've taken in photos to be printed, I've always had them in 16bit per pixel (48bit) TIFF files, and used the Adobe RGB color profile. That seems to be pretty industry standard, however my experience printing with a third-party company is limited, so I can't say that definitively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I always save a final &quot;print&quot; copy of my HDR images as 16bit TIFF images. Usually, Photoshop does not even give you the option to fine-tune the tone curve when Merging to HDR until you downconvert from 32bit to 16bit or 8bit anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T23:41:37.170" />
  <row Id="2392" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2386" CreationDate="2010-08-11T23:53:32.513" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are various companies that make covers for cameras, such as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://fotosharp.com/camera_rain_covers.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fotosharp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also do it yourself with plastic bags, especially since you have WR lenses. Final thought, you could look for something like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.random-good-stuff.com/2009/08/17/umbrella-sholder-holder/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; for an umbrella.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T23:53:32.513" />
  <row Id="2393" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2386" CreationDate="2010-08-11T23:54:10.797" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is actually quite a few products designed specifically for this purpose, ranging in prices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the products are glorified rain ponchos, and as such, if you have the DIY spirit, you can save yourself major bucks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diyphotography.net/protect-your-camera-from-rain-using-an-old-pair-of-rain-trousers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This is a really good instructional on making one out of rain pants&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you'd rather buy an OTS solution, then consider the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Think-Tank-Hydrophobia-70-200-Smaller/dp/B00361J3FS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=electronics&amp;amp;qid=1281570962&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ThinkTank Hydrophobia&lt;/a&gt;, or similar products.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-11T23:54:10.797" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2394" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2397" CreationDate="2010-08-12T00:01:04.370" Score="9" ViewCount="259" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard that resizing your image from 100% to the desired size is not a good way to resize an image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given developer/photographers like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fredmiranda.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fred Miranda&lt;/a&gt; have written tools to help resize your images optimally, how do you optimally resize an image (besides buying FM's cool plugins ;P).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm interested in both enlarging and shrinking. I primarily shoot for web, but occasionally will shoot for prints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-12T08:45:30.043" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T08:45:30.043" Title="How to get the best results with resizing an image?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;technique&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="2395" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1441" CreationDate="2010-08-12T00:09:07.210" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I actually was in the EXACT same boat you are in 7 months ago, I initially purchased the D5000 because it was cheaper without too many other considerations. After using it for a month, I returned it and decided to &lt;strong&gt;purchase the D90&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The ability to use commander mode and fire an off-body flash.&lt;/strong&gt; (SB-600 for me).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The internal focusing motor.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The commander mode was the biggest thing for me. Using an off-body flash has come in handy quite a number of times and gives you a bunch more lighting flexibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="992" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T00:09:07.210" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2396" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2394" CreationDate="2010-08-12T00:44:25.733" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Shrinking an image is easy. Just shrink it, using the bicubic algorithm available in most image processing applications.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Enlarging an image is trickier. Strictly speaking it can't be done, as there is no information to use to determine what the extra pixels you put in should look like. So what you do is to use an algorithm to invent pixels based on the already existing pixels. The bilinear algorithm gives a smoother result that works better for some images, the bicubic algorithm gives a sharper result that works better for other images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some say that you get a better result by enlarging in small steps, e.g. repeatedly enlarge by 10% until you reach the desired size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also more advanced algorithms, like the one used by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genuine Fractals&lt;/a&gt; that does a better job at guessing what the pixels should look like. It's of course still a guess, you can never get real details back by enlarging an image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T00:44:25.733" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2397" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2394" CreationDate="2010-08-12T00:59:15.127" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a very wide variety of solutions for resizing and sharpening images for use on the web. As preparing images for publication on the web generally involves a reduction in size, you have the benefit of starting with more information than you need. This is always the better position to be in. When reducing an image, use a Bicubic filtering method, rather than a Bilinear, as you'll get better results. (In photoshop, Bicubic or Bicubic Sharper is best.) Sharpening is usually a key factor in producing a quality reduction. Exactly what you are sharpening will sometimes determine which approach you take to sharpening, as not all content is equal. Different approaches work better for different kinds of content.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sharpening for print is generally more difficult, as if often requires increasing your image size, meaning you start out with less data than is necessary to produce a quality print. It is possible to scale an image up and still maintain high quality, however. When scaling and image up, you can either do it in a single step, or do it in multiple increments. Scaling up incrementally will usually produce better results, as you are iteratively adding new information, which provides each successive resize with more information than if you did it all in one step. Between each resizing step, or perhaps every other step, you might want to sharpen your image to &quot;generate&quot; even more useful data that may be used when resizing. Again, sharpening is a key factor when scaling up, however the process will generally be more complex if you wish to maintain the maximum amount of quality possible. Regardless of what you do, an enlarged image will never contain the same maximum degree of quality as the original. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Image upscaling is an area that is constantly enduring rigorous research, and improvements are made on a fairly regular basis. Many third-party tools exist that employ very advanced algorithms to scale your images (up or down) while maintaining the maximum amount of quality that can be. They often cost a pretty penny, however if you have the cash, they will save to a ton of time (and, depending on the volume of work you do, possibly a lot of money too.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a wide variety of techniques that may be used to resize and sharpen images. Here are links to a few that I have found helpful in the past:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.naturescapes.net/052007/juza0507.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Processing and Saving Photos for the Web&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Good general ideas, primarily geared towards nature photography&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photoshopsupport.com/tutorials/sharpen-an-image/photo-sharpening.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;How To Sharpen An Image In Photoshop — Advanced Photoshop Sharpening Techniques&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An advanced technique that shows how to custom-sharpen an image in only the areas that need it&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/techniques/image-sharpening.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cambridge In Color: Guide to Image Sharpening&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-resize-for-web.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cambridge In Color: Image Resizing for Web and Email&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/techniques/local-contrast-enhancement.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cambridge In Color: Sharpening with Local Contrast Enhancement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T00:59:15.127" />
  <row Id="2398" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2134" CreationDate="2010-08-12T01:16:13.657" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've got the Tamron 18-270 for my Canon, and very happy with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="142" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T01:16:13.657" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2399" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2394" CreationDate="2010-08-12T01:26:31.073" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have found there is no single best way to increase size.  I've compared the results from Adobe Photoshop bicubic smoother and Genuine Fractals side by side.  Sometimes Adobe does the better job, other times GF.  I've tried increasing size in 10% increments, and doing it in one step.  Most of the time I see no difference.  For me Adobe PS bicubic smoother in one step usually works well.  When it doesn't I've rarely found that another method or software can do it significantly better.  I think it depends a lot more on how sharp the original appears out of the camera, and careful processing and sharpening.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For reducing size I start with Adobe PS bicubic sharper, and do it in one step.  If bicubic sharper makes it look too crispy I go with straight bicubic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="965" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T01:26:31.073" />
  <row Id="2400" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2386" CreationDate="2010-08-12T01:40:18.250" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think I'm a little more cavalier with this stuff than most; I'm happy to shoot in most rain with precautions amounting to keeping the camera mostly under my coat, and using a couple of dry cloths to wipe off the drips.  If it gets to the point of needing a cover, it'd have to something pretty special to even get me outside, let alone the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regardless of how you keep the camera dry, though, &lt;strong&gt;a lens hood is a must-have&lt;/strong&gt; in snow and rain, even with a completely sealed camera, just to help keep the front of the lens clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For snow I'm much less concerned than rain (unless it's the wet, sticky, already-melting kind of snow).  It's usually fairly easily brushed off before it melts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-12T01:57:33.840" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T01:57:33.840" />
  <row Id="2401" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2384" CreationDate="2010-08-12T02:44:34.897" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/services/apps/72157622874451890/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/services/apps/72157622874451890/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't vouch for it personally, it's just the best-seeming result for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/services/apps/search/?q=download&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a search for &quot;download&quot;&lt;/a&gt; on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/services/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr App Garden&lt;/a&gt;.  It seems to hit all the right points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;adds tags to EXIF&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;folders for sets&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;respects privacy settings (which you didn't ask for, but is worth mentioning)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems like enough to do a one-time import to Lightroom, and them use Lightroom as your primary sorting/tagging system going forward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not aware of any two-way syncing to Lightroom, and I'm not entirely sure it's possible.  I haven't looked at the Lightroom API in a while, but I don't believe there's any possibility to automate additions or changes to the library.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T02:44:34.897" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2402" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2352" CreationDate="2010-08-12T02:56:50.110" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lens will outlast your camera, easily, if treated with sensible care and respect. I have two lenses (A Vivitar 100mm f/2.8 macro and the Vivitar 70-210 f/2.8-4.0 3rd edition) that are about 30 years old, give or take a couple of years. Both are considered to be amongst some of the finest lenses ever made, especially the 100mm, and are at zero risk of falling apart. My camera will fail long before they do, so unless the mount changes such as it kills backwards compatability, I expect to dramatically increase the camera count, beyond the two that has already been attached to them, as I go along.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, that's the world of old, manual, lenses. Modern lenses with specialized motors, image stabilization, and such? Hard to say. The more moving parts, the more likely failure will eventually kick in, it's simple reality. Even then, if those features die, the lens may still be usable in manual mode, the glass isn't going to fail unless you really trash it. Nevertheless, as with many things, you pay for quality. A $200 lens is a consumer throw-away lens because, as far as lenses go, that's practically free and I wouldn't expect a whole lot from it. Now, a comparable lens (in terms of focal length) going for $1000 or more? A different story. For lenses, you get what you pay for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T02:56:50.110" />
  <row Id="2403" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2358" CreationDate="2010-08-12T03:08:34.200" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A common reason for this is that we are viewing these images on an LCD screen, and we have a tendency to crank up the screen brightness. That artificially lightens images seen on them. When those images are moved to a device that doesn't have that backlight, they darken. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first step for minimizing this is to calibrate your monitor (and then leave it alone; easier said than done). that'll get your monitor close, or at least closer, to what you'll see on other devices. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But after that, what works for me is learning how the monitor is affecting the image and learning to adjust for it. Watching your histogram can help here; the more the luminance of the monitor is tweaking the image, the more an image that &quot;looks right&quot; will have a histogram that slides to the left. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One way to bring this back into sync is to make an image you like, then print it (or upload it) and check it. If it's off, adjust the image and try again. Keep tweaking until the image looks right on whatever device you want it to be viewed on. You now can see how the histogram for the &quot;before&quot; and &quot;after&quot; of the adjustment. Over time you'll be able to make that adjustment on the fly or teach yourself to crank down the brightness of the LCD. I'll regularly do test uploads or test prints just to make sure my processing is working on the output device. You can, over time, make this part of your workflow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in quick summary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;calibrate your monitor (and recalibrate it monthly or when the lighting situation changes. When I am on the road, for instance, I calibrate my laptop screen every time I change motel rooms to get in sync with that room's lighting)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;use test uploads to compare the screen image to the &quot;real&quot; image (where &quot;real&quot; is whatever oyu're ultimately outputting to). Reduce the brightness on the screen until the difference goes away if you can. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can't fully reduce the brightness to match your output device, use a series of before and after tests to figure out what changes you need to make to go from &quot;screen looks good&quot; to &quot;output looks good&quot;. Then make those changes on each image before you output. Consider making a preset or action to automate that adjustment. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Learn to read your histogram. It'll help you identify images that are &quot;okay&quot; and which images are in the &quot;looks okay, but will output dark&quot; category. It'll also help you identify what adjustments you need to fix it (what I find is that in most cases, the &quot;okay but will output dark&quot; images are fixed or mostly fixed by adjusting exposure or brightness until the tip of the histogram hits the right edge (effectively setting your white point. that's not a bad habit to get into in your workflow anyway). That presumes an &quot;average&quot; histogram and typical images. For images with strange histograms, you'll have to figure out how to intepret it, but if you know what the typical adjustment is, hitting the image iwth it should get you in the neighborhood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;don't be afraid to test print or test upload. Nobody will laugh at you for doing them. Honest... And they help a lot more than guessing does... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But over time and with practice, you'll get a sense for what an image needs and can &quot;guess&quot; and get it right much of the time.... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, it's not you, and it's not a bug. It's that the active lighting of the monitor screen can fool you into thinking the image is brighter than it is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T03:08:34.200" />
  <row Id="2404" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2407" CreationDate="2010-08-12T08:59:24.627" Score="7" ViewCount="271" Body="&lt;p&gt;Reading up on astrophotography, there seems to be a movement that believes real aperture (diameter of iris) is more important than f-number when talking about speed.  How and where did this come from? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have read one rebuttal but would be interested in hearing opinions.  I guess you could attribute it to spreading the same light (a section of the image) over more photo-sites, or just a cryptic way of saying magnification is good, but this seems to have been also applied to wide angle shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've also even read stuff about the f-number affecting the sky fog limit (as opposed to overall exposure).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-12T09:25:58.943" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T21:05:15.743" Title="Astrophotography: real aperture vs f-number?" Tags="&lt;astrophotography&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="2405" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2021" CreationDate="2010-08-12T09:56:50.803" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I always try to take part in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photofriday.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PhotoFriday&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="999" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T09:56:50.803" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-12T09:56:50.803" />
  <row Id="2406" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2194" CreationDate="2010-08-12T11:54:57.620" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've found youtube to be a great source for learning about my D90 (i have the same lenses as you) and post processing in general (photoshop and lightroom).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="274" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T11:54:57.620" />
  <row Id="2407" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2404" CreationDate="2010-08-12T12:00:29.637" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In a camera, all parts of the image passes through all parts of the lens, so the aperture affects how much light hits each part of the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a telescope, the incoming light is parallel, so each part of the image only passes through one point in the lens. The aperture only limits the image circle, it doesn't affect how much light hits each part of the image. So, the relation between aperture and focal length (f-number) is not relevant for the exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sky fog limit is mostly determined by how much stray light you get, and as the stray light is not parallel (as it comes from within the athmospehere) it's intensity is affected by the aperture. So, a smaller aperture would have some effect on the sky fog limit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-12T12:06:05.180" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T12:06:05.180" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="2408" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2409" CreationDate="2010-08-12T12:54:07.890" Score="10" ViewCount="402" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a good reason why I can turn the focusing ring on my lenses beyond infinity mark on focusing scale? Following recent questions &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1783/how-to-focus-in-complete-darkness/1785&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2385/photographing-lightning-strikes-proper-focus&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, it sounds like a real usability issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clarification: When I'm focusing manually, I only care about the infinity mark on my focusing scale, but there is around 5-10mm of room (depending on the lens) beyond infinity mark. Why is it there?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-12T15:56:23.773" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T15:56:23.773" Title="Turning the focusing ring beyond infinity" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;focus&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;manual-focus&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2409" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2408" CreationDate="2010-08-12T13:01:11.620" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most obvious reason is to be sure that you can reach the spot where it focuses at infinity. It would be hard to make the lens stop at exactly infinity, and any little change (temperature, humidity, filters, et.c.) might move that point slightly, making it impossible to focus exactly at infinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a prime lens you would need only a small margin, so they can be adjusted to stop just slightly beyond infinity. On a zoom lens the focus varies somewhat depending on the focal length, so it needs a lot more margin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-12T15:23:49.790" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T15:23:49.790" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2410" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2408" CreationDate="2010-08-12T13:26:39.223" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The manual focus lenses I've handled (M42 Takumars) actually have stopped right at infinity; it's the AF lenses that have slush beyond. My understanding is that there's two reasons for this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Conditions (mostly temperature) can move the focus point slightly&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The autofocus system needs to be able to &quot;miss&quot; infinity a bit without slamming into a mechanical stop, which would cause excessive wear.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T13:26:39.223" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2411" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2359" CreationDate="2010-08-12T13:38:35.717" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have an idea&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;shoot the bottle once with a black background, exposing for the highlights, then with a white background, exposing for the shadows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pull the two images into a new document with a transparent background, applying the darken or multiply blend mode to the white background pic, and lighten or screen to the dark background pic. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course I haven't tried this in practice, but might have to after work!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="930" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T13:38:35.717" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2412" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2390" CreationDate="2010-08-12T14:13:55.990" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is simply no physical way to emulate the gamut of additive luminance (light, your monitor) with subtractive pigments (CMYK). Not even close.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best use you could make of an HDR image for print is to compress the luminance selectively while preserving borders between light and dark regions. This is a matter of great art and you'd do well to learn of Ansel Adams' darkroom techniques as he achieved the illusion of huge tonal range on a medium that didn't support it by dodging and burning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In some sense, you'd wind up doing the equivalent of unsharp mask, but on a regional - not pixel - level. This fools the perceiver into thinking the shadows are as detailed as the mid-tones while having equal mean luminosity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1002" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T14:13:55.990" />
  <row Id="2413" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-12T14:36:25.453" Score="4" ViewCount="582" Body="&lt;p&gt;Now I have old Sony A100 DSLR + Minolta AF 24-50/4, Minolta AF 50/1.6, Tokina ATX 80-400/4.5-5.6, ...&lt;br&gt;&#xA;My camera is old.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;In near future I am going to buy new DSLR.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I think it will be Canon or Nikon. I do not decide yet.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Not Sony because I would like to use high ISO.&#xA;On Sony I can use ISO 400 maximum.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to have lenses for macro and for birdwatching.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Something like following:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Sigma 180 f/3.5 EX APO Macro HSM - for macro&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM - for birdwatching&lt;br&gt;&#xA;50/1.8 - for day by day usage&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course I am not going to buy this lenses simultaneously because I do not have a lot of money :)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I will buy it one by one.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not sure about lenses for macro and for bird watching yet.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;What lenses would it be better to use with Nikon and with Canon?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;UPDATE:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;What about Nikon?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Are there any good and not very expensive lenses for birdwatching and for macro?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1005" LastEditorUserId="3356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-18T10:09:56.203" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T07:59:23.670" Title="Lenses for macro and for birdwatching for Canon and Nikon" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;wildlife&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2414" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2413" CreationDate="2010-08-12T15:06:30.967" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use the Canon 100-400 as my goto lens for bird and animal photography. It's awesome and I love the lens. Powerful and flexible and worth the cost. It works well handheld and on a tripod. it's not a lens I'd put a teleconverter on, though. (I also have the 300 F/4 that I use a lot with a 1.4x attached on a tripod)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also have the Sigma 180 macro, and it's a really good lens. It is solid and well built (and I need to use it more...). Both are good options. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For animal/bird photography, don't underestimate the advantage of shooting with an APS sensor body. I use a Canon 7D (my second body is a 30d) and the crop factor of the APS added to the magnification of the 100-400 is a great tool for getting closer shots of moving things that are far away. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, a full-sized sensor body would be nice for landscape and macro. But the Sigma works nicely on an APS sensor. (so buy one of each!) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T15:06:30.967" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="2415" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="178" CreationDate="2010-08-12T15:42:28.550" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just found a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lightstalking.com/five-ways-to-steady-your-camera-without-a-tripod&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;page&lt;/a&gt; that has some information about this. Take special notice of the 'Use a String' tip. It is sort of rudimentary but it does work as advertised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="32" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T15:42:28.550" />
  <row Id="2416" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2385" CreationDate="2010-08-12T16:02:39.947" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm writing down some of the ideas that are scattered here and there:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hang something heavy below your tripod to minimize wind (and possibly shockwave) shake&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Check whether you can trust your focusing scale for manual focusing (&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2408/turning-the-focusing-ring-beyond-infinity/2409#2409&quot;&gt;see my comment below Guffa's answer&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Stop down your aperture as much as you can (you probably want to stay in the 30 sec AE limit so it might not be applicable)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If possible check whether something is &lt;em&gt;in focus&lt;/em&gt; in your picture to understand where the focus was set. It's really easy to loose focus by accidentally touching the focus ring (sorry if it sounds too obvious, just I've lost more shots I'd like this way myself).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-12T16:39:28.137" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T16:39:28.137" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2417" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2359" CreationDate="2010-08-12T16:30:07.397" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Gimp has a really nice 'Color to Alpha' feature that sounds like it does exactly what you want. It doesn't just erase one color, but tries to make things that are almost white into almost transparent. It's not perfect, but comes pretty close. Here's an example from the docs: &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://docs.gimp.org/en/plug-in-colortoalpha.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://docs.gimp.org/en/plug-in-colortoalpha.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="59" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T16:30:07.397" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2418" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2362" CreationDate="2010-08-12T16:48:33.540" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As someone who has owned the Nikon 85mm f1.4 and the f1.8 I would only recommend the f1.4 if you never leave the studio. It is a gorgeous piece of glass and in my opinion one of the best portrait lenses ever, but crazy heavy... i shoot around the world and very purposely chose the f1.8 because it is so much smaller, but still really beautiful. Can't recommend it highly enough... I have shot hundreds and hundreds of people with that lens indoors in a studio and out in the field. And i agree with Craig that prime lenses for portraits are the way to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="786" LastEditorUserId="786" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-12T17:10:42.430" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T17:10:42.430" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2419" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2413" CreationDate="2010-08-12T17:22:47.743" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Looks like the Canon 100-400 is a great choice for bird watching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For macro, I'd also consider the 100mm Macro lenses (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer/eos_slr_camera_systems/lenses/ef_100mm_f_2_8_macro_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;USM&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_100mm_f_2_8l_macro_is_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;L Series&lt;/a&gt;), esp. if you go with a cropped sensor.  If you don't need the extra range, the f/2.8 is really nice to have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T17:22:47.743" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2420" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2413" CreationDate="2010-08-12T19:05:21.130" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can only speak to Canon gear, as I have never owned a Nikon. Its tough to go wrong with either brand, however the Canon 100-400mm is a fantastic lens for bird watching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recently purchased the Canon EF 100-400mm myself as my wildlife and bird watching lens. It is, without question, a phenomenal lens. The IS is a must-have when photographing wildlife and birds, and this lens has some pretty decent IS. I've been able to stop down at least two stops, sometimes three, to get hand-held shots. On a cropped sensor body, such as one of the Rebels or the 7D, you effectively get a 160-640mm lens, which is GREAT for snapping shots of jittery birds. I highly recommend it for such work. The aperture is not particularly wide, but f/4 is nothing to sneeze at for this focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has amazingly smooth focusing, and uses a unique push/pull design for zooming. This allows you to very rapidly zoom, and if you can learn the skill, you can zoom and focus simultaneously if a subject is moving towards/away from you while you are shooting. The push/pull does take a little getting used to, but once you do, its really nice. You really can't go wrong with this lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also use the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens. This is a fantastic macro lens with amazing control over DOF. Not much to say other than it is solidly built, idyllically priced (some $400), and performs wonderfully. If you have the cash, there is also a new L-series EF 100mm IS lens, which has a unique newer form of IS. I have not tried it myself, but in the macro space, movement is greatly magnified, and the IS might help. Its more than twice the cost of the non-L 100mm Macro, however. Either one is a great choice, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T19:05:21.130" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2421" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="664" CreationDate="2010-08-12T19:45:41.720" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For myself the easiest way to understand UniWB was the following.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most current digital cameras have twice as much green light sensors as they have reds and blues (referenced as RGBG). Now to achieve neutral gray by changing white balance, usually the red and blue channels need to be amplified more than green. Just a few examples (for Canon 350D):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tungsten: multipliers (R) 1.392498 (G) 1.000000 (B) 2.375114&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shade: multipliers (R) 2.531894 (G) 1.000000 (B) 1.223749&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So when your camera generates JPG based histogram (where your in-camera white balance setting is taken into account regardless the fact you shoot RAW) under tungsten lightning, the blue channel will be shown as clipped far before it actually is. Same goes for red channel using Shade WB.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;UniWB's main idea is to set all WB multiplier's to 1, so your histogram is as close to reality as possible and you can achieve optimal exposure.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To use UniWB, simply find a RAW file for your camera, download, copy to your memory card and set the camera's white balance using that photo (most of the modern cameras can set WB based on taken shot). Files for some cameras and a lot more theory can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.guillermoluijk.com/tutorial/uniwb/index_en.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;at the end of this page&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be aware that the colors on your camera display will be way off and need correction during RAW conversion. When shooting with UniWB, you'd better use a color target as a reference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an example shot using UniWB before correction (RGB values of white square are 162, 253, 197):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/6mfva.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;UniWB before correction&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And after correction (RGB values of white square are 236, 235, 235):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/lcLSk.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;UniWB after correction&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-02T20:03:56.157" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T20:03:56.157" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2422" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2423" CreationDate="2010-08-12T19:53:50.860" Score="5" ViewCount="72" Body="&lt;p&gt;Curious if I can use Bulb exposure with a wireless remote on the Rebel series bodies from Canon&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="624" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T21:25:21.650" Title="Can I use Bulb exposure with wireless shutter release?" Tags="&lt;wireless&gt;&lt;remote&gt;&lt;shutter-release&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="2423" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2422" CreationDate="2010-08-12T19:56:42.397" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, you can, provided that your Rebel supports remote shutter release.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just different remotes will behave differently and you need to check how exactly. Some will open the shutter on first push of the button and close on the second, while the others need to be held down during the whole exposure time. This behavior might also depend on other settings, like mirror-lockup (if I remember it correctly I was only able to get the former behavior when ML was &lt;em&gt;disabled&lt;/em&gt; with my 5D and cheap Yongnuo remote, because when I was using ML the first push actuated ML and the second push+hold was for exposure). If you do really long exposures, the two-click approach where you don't have to hold the trigger is preferred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-12T21:25:21.650" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T21:25:21.650" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2424" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2426" CreationDate="2010-08-12T20:33:55.677" Score="8" ViewCount="300" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking to find a free program that allows me to edit my images. Ones I have used so far are very limited, so if you have any ideas please let me know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks&#xA;Rachel&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1009" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-13T06:11:59.047" LastActivityDate="2010-08-14T01:32:55.843" Title="Free program for editing pictures" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2425" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2424" CreationDate="2010-08-12T20:42:41.320" Score="22" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a few, but two of the best are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gimp.org/windows/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Gnu Image Manipulation Program&lt;/a&gt; (quite powerful)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.getpaint.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Paint.NET&lt;/a&gt; (not as powerful as the GIMP, but very good)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T20:42:41.320" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2426" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2424" CreationDate="2010-08-12T20:52:06.197" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;GIMP and Paint.net are two very good ones, as John has pointed out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While somewhat limited, Picasa and iPhoto are two other alternatives (the latter being Mac only), which are pretty good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T20:52:06.197" />
  <row Id="2427" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2404" CreationDate="2010-08-12T21:05:15.743" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Consider, for a moment, pointing your camera at a wall that's completely even lit. Let's assume you start with a 50 mm lens with a 25 mm aperture (i.e., f/2). If you change to a 100 mm lens you're reducing the angle of view so you're collecting light from a smaller area -- so you're collecting less light. To be more specific, you're cutting the angle of view in half, which reduces the area to 1/4th as much, so you're collecting 1/4th as much light. To look at it from a slightly different viewpoint, the light from a given part of the input gets spread over quadruple the area on the sensor/film, so it only appears 1/4th as bright on any given part of the sensor/film.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using a relatively aperture compensates for that so, for example, f/2 gives the same total amount of light entering the camera regardless of the combination of focal length and aperture size necessary to get to f/2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most astrophotography is a bit different though. In particular, when you're taking a picture of a star, doubling the focal length should &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; double the apparent size of the star. Other than the sun, all the stars&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; are far enough way that they should always show up as a point source. Doubling the focal length does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; mean the star will be projected onto four times the area on the film/sensor. Rather the contrary, with the limits of sharpness of the optics, any focal length you use will still project the stars image as a point source.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I say &quot;most&quot; above, because this really applies only to &lt;em&gt;stars&lt;/em&gt;. For the moon, nebulae, comets, and closer planets, you're typically magnifying to the point that the object in question projects as a disc on the sensor/film. As soon as that happens, you get back to the situation originally described: changing the focal length changes the apparent size of the object. A long focal length spreads the same light over more pixels, so you need to collect more light to compensate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Purely as a technicality, a few of the very largest telescopes theoretically have enough resolution to actually resolve a disc of a couple of extremely large, relatively nearby stars such as Betelgeuse. Even with them, this is still purely theoretical though -- the atmosphere is never still enough for them to achieve the necessary level of detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a 200 inch telescope were placed in orbit, outside the atmosphere, then we could actually see Betelgeuse as a disc rather than a point source. Even that's only possible because Betelgeuse is almost astoundingly huge &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; relatively nearby though. For &lt;em&gt;most&lt;/em&gt; stars you'd need an orbiting telescope that was much larger still.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T21:05:15.743" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2428" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2424" CreationDate="2010-08-12T22:09:50.707" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have to agree with everything that's been said so far.  I've been using Picasa considerably and find it to be great for working with simple edits and jpeg images.  Lately I've been using a demo version of Lightroom 3 to see if it might fit my needs better (but it's expensive-ish).  Generally new Nikon and Canon cameras come with their own software, like View NX &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Imaging-Software/NVNX/ViewNX.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Imaging-Software/NVNX/ViewNX.html&lt;/a&gt; for Nikon.  Canon also seems to have lots of free tools for viewing and tweaking their RAW format.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="274" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T22:09:50.707" />
  <row Id="2429" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2362" CreationDate="2010-08-12T23:24:37.117" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've used the 35mm DX lens, it really is quite nice. Fast and sharp. The lack of a zoom bugged me at first, but it forces the photographer to be more active in forming photos. I also liked it for the fact that it has a lesser &quot;zoom&quot; factor than the 50mm, when you account for the crop factor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T23:24:37.117" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2430" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2385" CreationDate="2010-08-13T00:41:09.793" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This image looks to me BOTH shaken (although very slightly) and out of focus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To verify it, this is what I suggest you do. In a bright sunny day, switch your lens to MF, set at hyperfocal and shot a tree across the street. Or perhaps even a long street with clear road markings. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look at the results. Find the in-focus spot. Tune the lens. Repeat until you will figure out the REAL hyperfocal point in your lens. Should take no more than a few minutes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="341" LastActivityDate="2010-08-13T00:41:09.793" />
  <row Id="2431" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2424" CreationDate="2010-08-13T00:43:24.250" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I haven't tried it myself, but Adobe offers a free online editor at photoshop.com  I assume it's not as cool as their for-pay software, but maybe worth checking out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="965" LastActivityDate="2010-08-13T00:43:24.250" />
  <row Id="2432" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="450" CreationDate="2010-08-13T01:23:53.450" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the old fashioned darkroom we had a tool called the densitometer.  It measured the density (how much light is blocked when you shine a light through) of the negative or slide.  It was a bulky and expensive device, and of course it required the film to be developed so it wasn't very practical for use in the field.  But we could use it in testing to determine optimum exposure and development techniques for personal use.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Film photographers are primarily concerned with a lack of density.  Too much density can conceivably be burned through (apply a greater intensity and/or duration of light to a local area) to recover detail in printing.  A lack of density (shadows with negs, highlights with slides) cannot be corrected for, as it means the detail/information isn't there to recover.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Digital photographers have to be concerned at both ends.  When the tonal range goes beyond the edges of the histogram scale it means there is nothing in those areas except white or black.  You can lighten or darken, but you are only making solid gray tones with no detail recovery possible.  I use the histogram display like a field densitometer.  It shows me if I've got areas of my photo where details will not be recoverable no matter what Photoshop tricks I know.  Because I use ETTR (expose to the right) I don't expect my files to come out of the camera looking like the finished photo any more than I expected my negs to look like my finished photos.  The histogram helps me assess the exposure even if what's on the LCD doesn't look quite right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As was mentioned in the comments, the histogram display is created from a jpeg processed according to the in-camera software parameters even if you are shooting raw.  Raw is like exposed but undeveloped film.  There is a potential image there, but we can't see it until it is processed.  The raw data needs to be processed for a histogram to be generated.  I keep my cameras set to the most neutral in-camera processing parameters available in order to get a more accurate histogram.  It's still not the same as the histogram I'll see in Adobe Camera Raw when I open the files there.  The standard default in-camera processing, among other &quot;Picture Styles&quot; or whatever your brand calls them, is often higher contrast and higher saturation.  Both of these can cause a histogram from an in-camera jpeg to display the histogram falling off the highlights side (right side), when that is not the case with the actual raw data, and the potential image if processed with other software or techniques.  Only practice and experience will teach you how to interpret the histogram for your processing techniques, and how much of the blinkies you can ignore.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="965" LastActivityDate="2010-08-13T01:23:53.450" />
  <row Id="2433" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2384" CreationDate="2010-08-13T03:10:06.470" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm pretty sure that Jeffrey Friedl's updated flickr plug-in for lightroom 3 does most (or all) of what you want, but I haven't really experimented with it yet. It's something I want, also, but there's enough complexity here I'm taking my time...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/flickr/publish&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/flickr/publish&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-08-13T03:10:06.470" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2434" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2438" CreationDate="2010-08-13T05:07:24.093" Score="3" ViewCount="241" Body="&lt;p&gt;Using photoshop, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/joshuacraig/2351735931/in/photostream/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;how do I get an image to have this silvery/metallic look&lt;/a&gt;? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know how the scene was lit--the photographer explains how, so I am aware how to duplicate that part of it, but I believe the final image had post-processing to achieve the silvery/metallic look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once the image is properly lit, how do you finish the image to get a similar result? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edited to Add:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look at the photographers other work using this setup, it seems pretty clear that it wasn't all done with just lighting. For example: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/joshuacraig/2362070167/in/photostream/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/joshuacraig/2362070167/in/photostream/&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-13T16:19:05.797" LastActivityDate="2010-08-13T17:06:06.707" Title="How to achieve this specific metalic look in Photoshop?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;tutorial&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2435" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2434" CreationDate="2010-08-13T05:11:00.517" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;B800 through white umbrella on right and left.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;BR800 on camera&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;B1600 with 20 degree grid on backdrop&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An umbrella flash unit on each side with a ringflash on the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a shot of the setup &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/joshuacraig/2352605637/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-08-13T05:11:00.517" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2436" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2434" CreationDate="2010-08-13T06:25:44.433" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you can do this by toning the image towards cold tones (in GIMP it's Colors/Color Balance: you tone down reds and enhance blues, Photoshop should be similar) and then decreasing saturation (Hue/saturation adjustment should be somewhere there as well).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-08-13T06:25:44.433" />
  <row Id="2437" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2229" CreationDate="2010-08-13T06:42:27.193" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There appears to be a pretty rich Open Source movement in the Linux community to generate raw file format processors for linux. I've found several wiki's that are working on compiling file format details for known RAW formats, and there are a few applications that contain some code. Some formats, like Canon's .CRW and .CR2, are open specifications and you can find the details online. It seems that the .ORF format (or the Panasonic .RAW format) are not open, so the only thing knowledge that can be gleaned is via reverse engineering. I doubt that the information you are looking for is contained within EXIF data, however if it is stored, it should be available in RAW format metadata. Here are some resources:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://osp.wikidot.com/raw&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://osp.wikidot.com/raw&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Project to decode RAW file formats&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://osp.wikidot.com/raw-linux-software-comparison&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://osp.wikidot.com/raw-linux-software-comparison&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;List of open source programs that decode .ORF (and other formats)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Contains the DCRaw project&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Has some free code that does basic interpolation of raw bayer info for .ORF&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/PhotoRec&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/PhotoRec&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Home of PhotoRec&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Source code can be downloaded here: &#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk_Download&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk_Download&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rawsamples.ch/index_en.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.rawsamples.ch/index_en.php&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Contains a bunch of sample raw formats, including Olympus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bulk of a RAW file format is a direct sensor data dump, either from a Bayer array, CCD, or possibly a layered CMOS (like the Foveon.) That makes the image data pretty easy to spot, as it is very patterned. The data you are interested in will likely be more complex and and random, either stored at the beginning or possibly the end of a file format. I've done a fair amount of file format reverse engineering in my day, and may be able to recognize some structure in the .ORF format for you. (I worked on an editor for Sim City 4 and the Sims 2 a number of years ago, and alongside a few others, we must have decoded some 300+ file formats via HEX. I may be able to help provide some insight if I can get a hold of some .ORF raw files from the camera+lenses you have access to.) Your best bet, if you wish to have support for lens correction added to lensfun, would be the open source movements to bring RAW processing to Linux.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively, it seems like Adobe has released a Lens Profile generator that can generate lens profiles for Lightroom 3/ACR. They cover geometric distortion, chromatic aberration, and vignetting. I know you mentioned something that could be used with the program lensfun, but this might be a viable alternative. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-14T19:36:32.937" LastActivityDate="2010-08-14T19:36:32.937" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2438" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2434" CreationDate="2010-08-13T07:20:19.603" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Other things to try:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;leave mids and highlights neutral-to-warm, cold tone only the shadows&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;selective sharpening (&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt; with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/joshuacraig/2362070167/sizes/o/in/photostream/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;new example&lt;/a&gt;, I'm pretty sure on this one. Though whether it's a fundamental aspect, I couldn't really say. Could probably work globally just as well.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;slight overexposure&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/contrast-enhancement.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Local Contrast Enhancement&lt;/a&gt;, or its sibling, &lt;a href=&quot;http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adobe's &quot;Clarity&quot; tool&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;on the outside, perhaps some mild tone mapping? Seems like overkill in this situation, though.  (Well, to me it &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; seems like overkill, but you know what I mean)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the lighting &lt;em&gt;and the subject&lt;/em&gt; is the fundamental part of the look.  Glossy dark fur would catch highlights, then some processing to enhance that contrast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-13T17:06:06.707" LastActivityDate="2010-08-13T17:06:06.707" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2439" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-13T07:22:41.987" Score="6" ViewCount="144" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon 1Ds Mark II. This means that it has a N3 connector for remote control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found something affordable &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.meritline.com/canon-wireless-remote-controller---p-37222.aspx?source=fghdac&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; but unfortunatelly they doesn't provide too much informations about the product itself, shipping costs etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would be interested in something similar but I'd like to know more what I'm buying, shipping costs and user experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, a thing which which concerns me is the significant price difference between the above item and a 'regular' remote controller from B &amp;amp; H (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/654651-REG/Vivitar_VIV_RC_200_40D_VIV_RC_200_40D_Wireless_Remote_Shutter.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I mention also that I'm &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; interested in &lt;em&gt;infrared&lt;/em&gt; controllers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if the product has inside a wired solution, together with the wireless, would be a plus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;TIA.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="952" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T19:27:20.223" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T19:27:20.223" Title="Looking for a cheap wireless remote control for Canon 1Ds Mark II" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;remote&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2440" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2424" CreationDate="2010-08-13T07:28:16.200" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xnview.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;XnView&lt;/a&gt;. It is good because it is also a photo organizer, has batch editing, scripts etc.&#xA;Regularly updated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="952" LastActivityDate="2010-08-13T07:28:16.200" />
  <row Id="2441" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1783" CreationDate="2010-08-13T08:44:42.163" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want to focus on the stars there are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/FOCUS/METHODS.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;many ways&lt;/a&gt; to accomplish this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few possibilities are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A right angle finder with magnification (I've used a Hoodman with 2.5x magnification). Choose a bright star to focus on.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartmann_mask&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hartmann&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.spike-a.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bahtinov&lt;/a&gt; mask (can be generated online &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.billyard-ink.com/Hartmann.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://astrojargon.net/MaskGen.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;). This is basically a piece of cardboard or plastic with a certain pattern cut out that will aid during focussing. Using a right angle finder with magnification in combination with a mask for the best results. If the stars are still to dim you'll need to take exposures with the mask on to determine the correct focus. Once you have the right focus remember to take the mask off for the normal exposures ;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastActivityDate="2010-08-13T08:44:42.163" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2442" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2447" CreationDate="2010-08-13T08:49:04.867" Score="6" ViewCount="137" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for the best photografic editing tool for &lt;code&gt;iPad&lt;/code&gt;. There are many programs on the &lt;code&gt;App Store&lt;/code&gt;, but I cannot test them without buying them. So what is your experience in the subject? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks, Conrad&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1019" LastActivityDate="2010-08-13T12:42:56.507" Title="The best photographic editing tool for iPad" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;ipad&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="2443" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2434" CreationDate="2010-08-13T09:02:04.570" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That is no special effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's just a slightly over-sharpened high contrast black-and-white picture. Then the flickr software has added more sharpening when resizing the image to make it really over-sharpened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-08-13T09:02:04.570" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2444" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2390" CreationDate="2010-08-13T09:41:52.940" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is simply impossible to print a 32bit image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the sake of truth it is impossible to view it on a monitor too :) ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I know there is no device being able to render 32 bit per channel, neither the human eye ... so if you'd be able to print you'll not be able to see it :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course you can choose &lt;strong&gt;how to tone map&lt;/strong&gt; your huge 32bit information into a smaller range, this is what is achieved by the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;tone mapping&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; process.  This is a very liberal procedure, I mean that you are free to choose what you want to render, what to enhance, exasperate and so on ... HDR + tone mapping is an &quot;artistic&quot; tool, not a photorealistic one IMHO. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@msw: HDR tone mapping is necessary both for RGB and CMKY, none of them can represent 32 bit of information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1022" LastEditorUserId="1022" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-16T14:10:07.910" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T14:10:07.910" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2445" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-13T10:07:17.127" Score="5" ViewCount="544" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does anyone have and could share experiences with the use of?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can buy cheap lens &lt;code&gt;Canon EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 III USM&lt;/code&gt; for my &lt;code&gt;Canon EOS 550D&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I have found yet is that it hasn't &lt;code&gt;IS&lt;/code&gt; and is quite old and how about sharpness and light? f/4-5.6 is a bit much...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is your experience with this lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reason:&lt;/strong&gt; I'm looking for a cheap and good lens to photograph distant objects (aka 10x zoom in compact camera)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1019" LastEditorUserId="1019" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-13T14:50:09.003" LastActivityDate="2010-08-13T19:56:32.627" Title="Canon EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 III USM" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="2446" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2359" CreationDate="2010-08-13T12:25:11.877" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't believe - I figured it out! (I am just a photoshop hacker)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So heres what will get you 80% of the way to a perfect transparency (higher numbers are on the top):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rename your bottle layer (1) to &quot;Original&quot; and hide it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Get a nice background (perhaps a fill color) and put it in a layer &quot;Background&quot; (2).  This is for looking at how we're going along the way...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Create a new copy of &quot;Original&quot; and call it &quot;Alpha and Highlights&quot; (3).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Add a layer mask to &quot;Alpha and Highlights&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take a copy of your &quot;Original&quot; and call it &quot;Alpha Source&quot; (4)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Create a fill layer (5) with the color of your background called &quot;Alpha Merge&quot;.  My background is (214, 193, 188) - I believe a grey color close to (but not white) may actually yield the best results (as opposed to a chroma key) - this is because of step 6.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Change the blend mode of &quot;Alpha Merge&quot; to Different.  This shows us how much each part of the image matches the background.  Perfect black (0,0,0) means that the bottle is 100% transparent at that point. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Merge &quot;Alpha Source&quot; and &quot;Alpha Merge&quot; layers together. Rename this to &quot;Alpha Mask&quot; (4).&#xA;&lt;em&gt;At this point the goal needs to be considered: We know which part of the bottle is fully transparent, but there are also highlights and shadows we want to preserve. (Note at this point I have only achieved preserving the highlights - I'll update for shadows later). Now white is very close to my grey; it would show as (41, 62, 67) at the moment which is rather dark.  For this reason...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Add a curves adjustment to the &quot;Alpha Mask&quot; layer, and push the curve to the left so that it starts at 0 and gets to 100% about 10-20% in from the left.   This will give us a transparency band of around 20-40% of the &quot;sameness&quot; of the background (before it becomes completely opaque - as said above, this works for highlights; shadows not so well...). You should now have an image that is basically white, but is black in the areas that match the background.  You need to ensure that areas that should be white are completely white at this point.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Copy the contents of &quot;Alpha Mask&quot;, alt-click on the &quot;Alpha and Highlights&quot; mask layer and paste.&#xA;&lt;em&gt;At this point, if you have only got &quot;Alpha and Highlights&quot; and &quot;Background&quot; visible, you'll have a decent transparency, but all the highlights will be washed out...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Select &quot;Alpha and Highlights&quot; and &quot;Alpha Mask&quot; and group them into a smart object.  Open the smart object for editing...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Duplicate your layer and hide it (so you have a reference point for when you stuff up :)).  I won't detail the modifications you'll need, except to say that I needed to adjust certain portions of my image to make highlights brighter, and also more transparent (around the bottom of my bottle&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Add a &quot;Curves&quot; adjustment layer at the top.  We're going to use this to make the highlights way brighter - they need to be, since most of them have a large amount of transparency now.  Make the curve a bit like an 'S' - I have full white and full black for 25% from each end.  (As stated, I haven't got shadows working quite yet, but this is what would be needed).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Save and exit the smart object, and you should now have a really great start on a transparent bottle!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If someone would like to use this to make a tutorial (with images etc), feel free (I may even get to it one day) as long as you reference this answer in your tutorial and put a link in the comments below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="978" LastActivityDate="2010-08-13T12:25:11.877" />
  <row Id="2447" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2442" CreationDate="2010-08-13T12:42:56.507" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the &lt;a href=&quot;http://mobile.photoshop.com/iphone/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photoshop mobile app&lt;/a&gt; is going to be one of the better options.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-08-13T12:42:56.507" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2448" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2445" CreationDate="2010-08-13T12:49:05.183" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, note my comment to your question. I have the EF 75-300 lens which I bought 5 yrs ago with my old Rebel XT. It served me very well at the time. For a first tele lens, this is not a a bad choice at all, especially given its low price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will find in time that its quality is mediocre compared to more expensive teles. But, take your time enjoying your new equipment. If you buy this lens, remember that even if you come to a conclusion that it is not what you need, the &quot;damage&quot; is not that great, and you can always resell it and get back some of your investment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Coupled with the 18-55 &quot;kit&quot; lens, you'll have enough gear for a couple of years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aside from that - the lens' zoom number relates to the ratio of the long focal length to the short one a zoom lens can be set. So, 75-300 gives you a zoom of x4 and 18-55 gives x3. Zoom numbers are not (directly) related to the lens being telephoto or wide-angle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-13T14:13:31.853" LastActivityDate="2010-08-13T14:13:31.853" />
  <row Id="2449" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2445" CreationDate="2010-08-13T13:33:50.700" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I haven't had a chance to try out the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer/eos_slr_camera_systems/lenses/ef_75_300mm_f_4_5_6_iii_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 75-300 f/4-5.6 III USM&lt;/a&gt;, but I have the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer/eos_slr_camera_systems/lenses/ef_75_300mm_f_4_5_6_iii&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;non-USM version&lt;/a&gt; which I picked up for ~$100 on ebay a couple months ago, which is optically equivalent. On a cropped body like the 550d, it has a great telephoto range, and is quite good in well lit areas. The USM version should focus a little faster and quieter, but I believe it is a bit heavier as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are hand-holding, the combination of the slow aperture and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1733/minimum-shutter-speed&quot;&gt;need for a high shutter speed&lt;/a&gt; makes it hard to use unless the subject is well lit, however, when you are able to get the shot the results are quite good.  There is some &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/235/what-is-chromatic-aberration&quot;&gt;chromatic aberration&lt;/a&gt;, but for such a low cost that is to be expected, and there are ways to fix that in post-processing.  Also, I highly recommend getting a lens hood, which is very helpful in midday sun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Overall it's a decent lens, and at such a low cost it is a great option if you don't have a lens with a similar focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-13T19:56:32.627" LastActivityDate="2010-08-13T19:56:32.627" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2450" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2022" CreationDate="2010-08-13T14:18:23.807" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are out for a walk, keep looking behind you. Its amazing how many times you walk past something that looks dull only to look back and get a wonderful photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-08-13T14:18:23.807" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-13T14:18:23.807" />
  <row Id="2451" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2456" CreationDate="2010-08-13T14:39:54.410" Score="9" ViewCount="509" Body="&lt;p&gt;After asking &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2362/great-portrait-lens-for-nikon-under-1000&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; I'm thinking the 35mm prime lens will do the job for me.  Since I take a number of photos indoors and in low light conditions, this lens will let me sty reasonably close to my subjects and still be crisp.  The question now is do I get the new 35mm DX lens or the 2.0f full frame.  I'm looking for any justification for the extra $100 or so for the 35mm 2.0f.  Here are links to the Canadian prices:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://nikon.ca/en/Product.aspx?m=14167&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikkor AF 35mm 2.0F&lt;/a&gt; $399&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://nikon.ca/en/Product.aspx?m=14310&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G&lt;/a&gt; $279&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for all the help and insight. Really liking this stackexchange site so far.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update&lt;/strong&gt;: Just wanted to state that I have a D90 so the auto-focus motor isn't an issue. More so the quality of the lens and the speed of focus.&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Update #2&lt;/strong&gt;: So I just bought the 35mm DX 1.8f off of B&amp;amp;H.  First time ordering from them, so we'll see how that goes.  Should get the lens in a couple days - excited to give it a try and see how much difference it makes compared to the 50mm prime. Thanks all for your help and suggestions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="274" LastEditorUserId="274" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-15T20:39:18.090" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T17:16:48.363" Title="Nikon 35mm 1.8 or 2.0?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;prime&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2452" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2445" CreationDate="2010-08-13T14:58:25.413" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Personally I would go for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=362&amp;amp;sort=7&amp;amp;cat=27&amp;amp;page=2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS&lt;/a&gt; instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is only slightly more expansive compared to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=18&amp;amp;sort=7&amp;amp;cat=27&amp;amp;page=2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;75-300 f/4-5.6 III USM&lt;/a&gt; but gives you better optical quality and offers Image Stabilisation that can be very helpful when shooting at the long end of the focal range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It think &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=362&amp;amp;sort=7&amp;amp;cat=27&amp;amp;page=2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS&lt;/a&gt; offers the best value for money in this focal range for crop sensor body. The lens is in many aspect similar to much more expansive &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=294&amp;amp;sort=7&amp;amp;cat=27&amp;amp;page=2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So unless apart form your Rebel you have a film camera body or another full frame body I would recommend 55-250&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just for reference the current prices on BHPhoto&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/169269-USA/Canon_6472A002_75_300mm_f_4_0_5_6_III_USM.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM - $200&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/543923-USA/Canon_2044B002AA_EF_S_55_250mm_f_4_5_6_IS.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS - $229.50&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastEditorUserId="115" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-13T15:04:24.430" LastActivityDate="2010-08-13T15:04:24.430" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2453" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2451" CreationDate="2010-08-13T15:03:56.880" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you have a Nikon body without an auto-focus motor (e.g. D40, D60, D3000, D5000, etc), then you'll want the DX lens with AF-S (built in focus motor).  The FX lens won't autofocus on any of these bodies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have a full-frame body (the D700/D3/D3s/D3x) you'll want the FX lens, the DX lens suffers a lot of fall off (or vignetting) on a full-frame body (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35mm-f18.htm#fo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35mm-f18.htm#fo&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I've read the FX lens is slower to focus (its much older) but has better looking bokeh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="934" LastActivityDate="2010-08-13T15:03:56.880" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2454" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2451" CreationDate="2010-08-13T15:06:02.257" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biggest argument for the AF 35mm 2.0F is that you could still use it if you switch to full frame someday. If you have no intention to ever make that switch, it looks like the 1.8 is actually a better lens optically, and at a lower price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-08-13T15:06:02.257" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2455" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2424" CreationDate="2010-08-13T17:19:04.860" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to put in a a plug for picasa. I know it's simple, and doesn't adequately &quot;respect the RAW,&quot; but it gives me good results for web-based viewing or smallish snapshots (I'm not sure I would want to blow up the prints, but I haven't tried it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I really like about Picasa is the ease of use: the controls help you see the changes as you go, and give you a good sense of what they do. Just for making your pictures look better on screen, it does a great job.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="649" LastActivityDate="2010-08-13T17:19:04.860" />
  <row Id="2456" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2451" CreationDate="2010-08-13T17:35:47.500" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are on a DX camera, the DX lens makes more sense as it is built for your sensor size. Plus it's a great lens. On the other hand, if you anticipate switching to an FX camera anytime soon, you may prefer to buy the FX lens for future compatibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll have to decide what's more important: a great lens now, or forward compatibility for a camera change that may or may not happen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For what it's worth, my suggestion would be to get the DX lens now - you could always sell it later if need be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-08-13T17:35:47.500" />
  <row Id="2457" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2451" CreationDate="2010-08-13T22:46:21.870" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just to add to the reponses in a non-Nikon fashion, if you're doing low-light photography then the faster the lens, the better. So, if the FF path is distant or unlikely, you might want to go with the f/1.8 for more light. Even then, later on, you can always look to sell the lens if you go FF or even keep it if you want to have vignetting effects just for fun (or if you keep your current as a backup).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-13T22:46:21.870" />
  <row Id="2458" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2501" CreationDate="2010-08-14T00:39:26.800" Score="9" ViewCount="225" Body="&lt;p&gt;Persistently on my wish list is a small, portable, auto-mode flash.  Non-TTL is a must, as I need to use it on a bunch of different equipment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the vast array of flashes out there is a bit bewildering; does anyone have some recommendations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Intended use is wide/normal lenses, mostly as direct fill.  I'll emphasize &lt;strong&gt;small&lt;/strong&gt;; I can live without zoom, bounce, and many other things in preference of portability.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've used:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Vivitar 283 &amp;amp; 285: Just too big, really.  Otherwise OK, though maybe a little overpowered for what I typically use it for.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 580EX: Also too big. Can dial down the power, but no auto mode, and GN calculations are getting to be a drag.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt;: for context on 'small' both of these are similar in size to one of my usual cameras, the Zeiss ZI: 138 x 78 x 32 mm (5.4”x3.1”x1.3”).  I'm willing to lose a lot of power to find a decent flash that isn't the size of my camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-15T18:09:39.860" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T12:57:13.060" Title="What's a good, small, auto/thyristor flash? (non-TTL)" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;flash&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2459" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2463" CreationDate="2010-08-14T01:08:24.930" Score="12" ViewCount="519" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking at buying my first DSLR (Canon). It's a bit expensive in store (I've already picked the model) so I started looking on Ebay. Some people are selling still in box with warranty and some are selling used, but with a macro lens included.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What should I be aware of when buying photo equipment off of Ebay? What should I look for and ask of the seller? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="689" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-10T16:22:24.317" LastActivityDate="2011-04-10T16:22:24.317" Title="What should I look for when buying a used or new camera via Ebay?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;used-equipment&gt;&lt;ebay&gt;" AnswerCount="7" />
  <row Id="2460" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2459" CreationDate="2010-08-14T01:30:47.830" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would ask the seller if it has been dropped - whether in box or out.  Also ask &lt;strong&gt;why&lt;/strong&gt; the seller is selling the camera, ie, an upgrade, or it is a lemon, or whatever.  Also look closely at the camera, to see signs of scratches or dings and such, it will show how much the seller has taken care of the camera, and ask if the seller used a case...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="880" LastActivityDate="2010-08-14T01:30:47.830" />
  <row Id="2461" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2424" CreationDate="2010-08-14T01:32:55.843" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I really like Microsoft Office Picture Manager...Simple, &lt;strong&gt;fast&lt;/strong&gt;, and just some basic tools for those who don't need a full blown program.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="880" LastActivityDate="2010-08-14T01:32:55.843" />
  <row Id="2462" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2459" CreationDate="2010-08-14T01:50:18.093" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;also be aware that in many cases, these are &quot;unauthorized&quot; imports (aka grey market), and you may buy something that the manufacturer won't accept the warranty on. grey market is not necessaryily bad (b+H and others sell international units, too), but make sure you get all the details about the unit including it's source. No fun to get something with japanese language manuals you can't read and a warranty you can't use if something goes wrong. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-08-14T01:50:18.093" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2463" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2459" CreationDate="2010-08-14T02:28:25.367" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Used gear is a very cost effective way to purchase high quality gear for the fraction of the price. I have bought and sold camera gear on ebay and have had a good time, but I also practice due dillegence. These are some tips that have helped me. Many of these apply to other items on ebay, while others are specific to camera gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Check feedback. Just having a high feedback isn't good enough. If the seller only sells $10 knick-knacks and this is their first high-value item, beware. Ebay accounts are often hacked, and reputable sellers can be used as fronts for fake auctions.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Insist on Paypal. If the seller does not accept paypal, don't purchase from them. When using paypal, pay with a credit card. Paypal does have buyer protection, but it pales to what your credit card company offers. If there is a problem with the transaction, notify your credit card company and they will refund the purchase price.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There is no such thing as a free lunch. If the price of the used/new body is way off from what you see else where, then it's a scam. Check prices for used gear on various buy and sell forums. That will give you a good idea.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Double check the fine-print. Make sure it's not some dumbass selling you a &quot;picture of a Canon Dslr&quot; or something stupid like that.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What is the return policy?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some questions to ask:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If this isn't an ebay merchant store (ie a private party), is the seller the original owner. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Does the camera come from a non-smoking home?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What is the datecode on the lens? (You can look up the date code and find out the real age of the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Are there pictures of the lens and body? Make sure there isn't any fungus on the lens, and not major dings and knicks on the body and lens housing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If the body is used, find out approximately what is the shutter count.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is the gear US or &quot;Grey Market&quot; As @chuqui has pointed out, grey market gear is not eligible for US warranty service. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If the seller claims mint, then the body should be in mint. Do not budge from this. Any and all cosmetic defects should be explained in the body of the ad.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your gut tells you something is up, then something probably is, and you should walk away. Also, have you considered looking at Buy and Sell forums on various sites? I can personally vouch for DGrin and FredMiranda.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-14T02:28:25.367" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="2464" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-14T10:26:12.003" Score="6" ViewCount="530" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a way to get the bulb mode on the D90 to open the shutter when I press the shutter release button, and to close it again when I press the button for the second time, rather than having to hold the button down ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="120" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T19:40:39.103" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T19:40:39.103" Title="bulb mode on nikon D90" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;nikon-d90&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="2465" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2459" CreationDate="2010-08-14T12:12:38.747" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been buying and selling cameras and lenses on eBay, it's been fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is how I decide if I will buy an item:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The seller must have at least 99.5% positive feedback&lt;br&gt;&#xA;(Also note the number of feedbacks, 100% positive out of only 10 feedbacks may not be very reliable.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Read the feedbacks, especially the negatives and make sure there is nothing seriously wrong (eg. fake products).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;This is a good but slow website for checking negative feedbacks: &lt;a href=&quot;http://toolhaus.org/cgi-bin/negs&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://toolhaus.org/cgi-bin/negs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Search for similar items and compare the description. There might be something that is normally included but not included on the one you are buying.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;(I use eBay Australia and I sometimes have to use the Advanced Search to find all items &lt;strong&gt;available&lt;/strong&gt; to Australia - not only the ones &lt;strong&gt;on&lt;/strong&gt; eBay Australia)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Check or ask the shutter count, and check the expected life of the Canon body you are buying (although this number might not be reliable - I mean if it says the lifespan is approx 100,000 shutters, it may still be ok until 500,000)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;For the accessories, if it is not a popular brand, try googling about it or ask for sample pictures taken with it (if applicable), or ask them questions about your doubts. I once bought a wide angle filter, not satisfied with it and got partial refund because I have asked detailed questions about it and it turned out to contradict their own answer.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think PayPal offers warranty on items above $25 or something, so if you have problems with a dodgy seller you can complaint to PayPal. It is a painful process though so you still need to be careful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alan's comment is also very good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="948" LastActivityDate="2010-08-14T12:12:38.747" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2466" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2464" CreationDate="2010-08-14T13:01:31.223" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you get the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Remote-Cords/25395/MC-DC2-Remote-Release-Cord-%281-meter%29.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon MC-DC2&lt;/a&gt; cable release, the button can be locked in place until you release it. For bulb exposures, I'd recommend a cable release to avoid shake and blurring in your result anyways, you're almost assured to do that with your hand on the camera directly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-14T13:01:31.223" />
  <row Id="2467" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-14T13:22:06.997" Score="9" ViewCount="899" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am looking for a wide angle lens for my D90, between 12 and 18mm focal length, preferably a prime, because I like fast(er) and cheap(er) lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any recomendation ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="120" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-22T20:35:32.593" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T16:02:11.627" Title="Wide angle prime lens for Nikon DX (APS-C) format" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;prime&gt;&lt;wide-angle&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="2468" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2459" CreationDate="2010-08-14T15:41:31.177" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Consider buying from a reputable used camera dealer like &lt;a href=&quot;http://keh.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KEH&lt;/a&gt; instead of eBay.&lt;/strong&gt; You might pay a bit more, but you will also get a warranty, a no-questions-asked return period, and gear which is graded on a reliable and respected condition scale.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-08-14T15:41:31.177" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2469" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2467" CreationDate="2010-08-14T15:45:34.310" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Seems like a 14mm f/2.8 is a great way to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adorama.com/NK1428AFDU.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon 14mm f/2.8D ED AF&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adorama.com/PRO1428NK.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pro-Optic 14mm f/2.8 Aspherical&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Pro-Optic version is a whole lot cheaper if you're on a tight budget, but I would have to believe that the quality is a lot higher with the Nikon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-08-14T15:45:34.310" />
  <row Id="2470" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2439" CreationDate="2010-08-14T15:56:41.950" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't address the Meritline remote but I use the Phottix Cleon II (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.phottix.com/wireless-remotes/phottixr-cleon-ii.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.phottix.com/wireless-remotes/phottixr-cleon-ii.html&lt;/a&gt;) with my Nikon D300 and I have no complaints.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;It's my first non-IR wireless remote so I don't have anything to compare it to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Phottix make versions for most of the popular cameras. I think the Vivitar unit at B&amp;amp;H is a rebranded Cleon. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Cleon II includes a wired option but it's not very long.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1043" LastActivityDate="2010-08-14T15:56:41.950" />
  <row Id="2471" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2467" CreationDate="2010-08-14T16:21:14.613" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe there are no wide-angle primes specifically for APS-C cameras. There are zooms that start at 10 or 12 mm. The widest available primes are 14mm and those are full-frame and very expensive. I suggest you look into Nikon or third-party ultra-wide DX zooms. Some reviews can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;at photozone.de&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-15T09:30:09.197" LastActivityDate="2010-08-15T09:30:09.197" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2472" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2464" CreationDate="2010-08-14T16:43:58.197" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wireless one is good too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Wireless-Control-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00007EDZG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=electronics&amp;amp;qid=1281804189&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Wireless-Control-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00007EDZG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=electronics&amp;amp;qid=1281804189&amp;amp;sr=8-1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When i bought it, it was actually cheaper than the wired one.  Gotta aim it directly at the camera front though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="652" LastActivityDate="2010-08-14T16:43:58.197" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2473" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2479" CreationDate="2010-08-14T17:12:52.333" Score="6" ViewCount="182" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there such a thing as an interchangeable lens compact (aka EVIL, MILC, SLD, micro) with an optical viewfinder? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm tempted by having a high quality camera I can stick in my pocket (with a pancake lens on anyway) but I'm still not entirely convinced by the electronic viewfinder or having to compose on the back of the camera. I like the ergonomics of holding the camera to my eye, and would prefer not to have to use up the battery powering a viewfinder. I'm OK with the viewfinder being slightly offset from the lens - I've had that in plenty of compacts before and been fine with that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they do exist, I'm assuming they're an optional extra. Are they made by the original manufacturer, or only by third parties? Are they adjustable to match the lens focal length or do you need a different viewfinder to go with different lenses? Can they automatically zoom if you have a zoom lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All info appreciated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-08-15T00:09:32.503" Title="Interchangeable lens compact with optical viewfinder" Tags="&lt;viewfinder&gt;&lt;optical-viewfinder&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2474" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-14T17:20:30.747" Score="5" ViewCount="371" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a picture of a very old house but there's a real estate sign in the yard.  What software would I use to remove that sign and blend the background?  I really don't want to purchase anthing expensive because it's not something I will use a alot.  Its' just my Great-Grandparents house and I would like to print copies, frame them and give to cousins for Christmas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-09-19T19:57:22.667" Title="Remove part of a photo and blend that space" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2476" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2474" CreationDate="2010-08-14T17:39:29.107" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You would use a cloning or healing tool in a regular photo editing program.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See this question for some free options: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2424/free-program-for-editing-pictures&quot;&gt;Free program for editing pictures&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-14T17:46:51.577" LastActivityDate="2010-08-14T17:46:51.577" />
  <row Id="2477" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2467" CreationDate="2010-08-14T17:54:34.820" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I generally encourage people to consider primes over zooms, you're definitely in the territory here where zooms start to become more plausible.  Before getting into that, a recommendation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Your best bet is probably a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2231/sigma-10-20mm-f5-6-alternatives/2233#2233&quot;&gt;DX zoom in the 10-24 range&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. You'll lose a stop of speed compared to the 14mm prime (most are f/4), but they will be much cheaper (~50%) and a little wider.  I've never tried it personally, but the Tokina 11-16mm has a good reputation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On to the comparison.  Primes, like you say, are typically cheaper, faster, and of higher quality.  But when it comes to ultra-wides, the situation changes a little, as ultra-wide primes have never been at the level of simplicity and well-corrected design that's been possible in the 35mm+ range, and zooms are rapidly improving.  Sticking to Nikon only, here's the interesting comparison:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xA; Zooms:&#xA;   Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8    $1800&#xA;   Nikkor 12-24mm f/4 DX   $950&#xA;&#xA; Primes:&#xA;   Nikkor 24mm f/2.8       $425&#xA;   Nikkor 20mm f/2.8       $600&#xA;   Nikkor 14mm f/2.8       $1700&#xA;&#xA; Fast Primes:&#xA;   Nikkor 24mm f/1.4       $2100&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So even considering only the 14mm area, the fancy, fast zoom is the same speed as the 14mm prime, and only barely more expensive (one downside: &lt;strong&gt;much&lt;/strong&gt; larger).  Throw in even one other prime in the range it covers, and it's cheaper in absolute terms.  The DX zoom is half the price, only one stop slower.  Quality is harder to show in a chart, but Nikon says the 14-24 is as sharp as the primes in that range; pretty bold, but going on the review/testimonials I've read, they seem to be living up to that particular claim rather well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-14T19:51:23.713" LastActivityDate="2010-08-14T19:51:23.713" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2478" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2473" CreationDate="2010-08-14T18:06:59.973" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There actually still are a few viewfinder cameras with exchangeable lenses. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/previews/leicam9/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Leica M9&lt;/a&gt; seems nice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-14T23:23:40.387" LastActivityDate="2010-08-14T23:23:40.387" />
  <row Id="2479" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2473" CreationDate="2010-08-14T18:25:57.020" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Olympus made the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-VF-1-Optical-Viewfinder-Digital/dp/B002CGSYNA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;VF-1 optical viewfinder&lt;/a&gt; to match its 17mm lens when it released the EP-1.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apart from that, I believe all other accessory viewfinders are actually made for the rangefinder market, and are all designed to match particular focal lengths on 35mm film; you'll have to adjust for the crop factors of EVIL cameras (2.0 for µ4/3, 1.5 for the newer Sony and Samsung):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/accessories/viewfinder_accessories/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Leica&lt;/a&gt; (Leica gear, Leica prices)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://photo-shop.zeiss.com/epages/cz.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/CZ/Categories/Zubehoer/ZM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Zeiss&lt;/a&gt; (pricy, but contrasty and well-corrected)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cameraquest.com/voigtacc.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cosina/Voigtländer&lt;/a&gt; (less pricy, still rather good)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Russian. &lt;a href=&quot;http://fedka.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=34&amp;amp;osCsid=6f18d52557cac2dc29da5efe75eacc88&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fedka&lt;/a&gt; is where I get Russian gear, and eBay's always a good choice.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are none that will zoom automatically.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is one that I know of that can be zoomed: the &lt;a href=&quot;http://cameraquest.com/voigt_1535_vf.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Voigtländer 15-35mm finder&lt;/a&gt;, which is not particularly cheap.  It has two models, one provides adjusted scales for 1.3x and 1.5x crop, the other for 1.3x and 2.0x crop (1.3x is the crop factor of the Leica M8, which should also help explain the price point).  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://fedka.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=34&amp;amp;products_id=83&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Russian 'turret' finders&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/accessories/viewfinder_accessories/2218.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Leica Universal Wide Angle Finder&lt;/a&gt; (which is &lt;em&gt;expensive&lt;/em&gt;) can be adjusted to particular focal lengths (e.g., 18, 21, 24), but not smoothly between steps like the CV. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of note is parallax correction, but it's actually slightly good news: EVIL cameras have a smaller lens/shoe distance, and so parallax will be smaller than the film (or film-sized) cameras these finders were designed for.  Many finders include parallax correction marks (only telephoto finders tend to have dial-in correction), but the best practice is always to be a little generous in your framing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding focal lengths, something to remember is that you can be &quot;close enough&quot;.  There is a certain amount of built-in error with almost any viewfinder, and accessory finders more than most.  E.g., a 35mm finder would work perfectly well with the Olympus 17mm lens, and adequately with the Panasonic 20mm lens (though there is a CV 40mm finder).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All that said, I've used the electronic viewfinders for the EP-2 and GF1.  The GF1 was lousy; worse than guessing.  But the EP2 finder was actually quite good; definitely worth seeing for yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-14T20:08:11.427" LastActivityDate="2010-08-14T20:08:11.427" />
  <row Id="2480" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2459" CreationDate="2010-08-14T19:13:49.247" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For a 1st (used) Canon DSLR, I would go to Craigslist first. Buy local is your best guaranty for used equipment. People nowadays offer past models for great prices and you can really find bargains if you live in or next to a metro area. Also, Craigslist sellers who sell due to upgrading their equipment often sell it as &quot;kits&quot;. That is, you get that Rebel with the 18-55 and maybe 75-300 in a good shape for a better price than what you'll find in stores and usually in eBay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're unlucky with CL, I'll check one if the big photo stores (Adorama, B&amp;amp;H, Beach Camera, etc.). They have a used equipment department and they give you some warranty with the purchase. Another alternative to used is refurbished which you can also find in these stores. Your local store may be selling used equipment two. Worth checking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It may be just me, but I buy on eBay only from reputable stores and names. Never bought expensive gear from private sellers on eBay. But did great business with Beach and Adorama on eBay. Also for cheap accessories I have no problem ordering from the many Hong-Kong resellers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck, and have fun with your first DSLR!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2010-08-14T19:13:49.247" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2481" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2488" CreationDate="2010-08-14T19:19:17.143" Score="11" ViewCount="391" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I read instructions about lighting setups, I often see reference to to &quot;feathering&quot; this or that light.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have some ideas what that means: for example, I imagine taking a flashlight and instead of holding it perpendicular to a wall to make a circle, rotating the light &quot;down the wall&quot; so it forms a parabola, and has an extended falloff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-08-14T22:37:24.920" Title="What is &quot;feathering&quot; a light?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;studio-lighting&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="2482" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2481" CreationDate="2010-08-14T19:27:31.697" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your flashlight analogy is pretty much right. Feathering the light means to aim the light to make use the edges of light and light falloff for effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://portrait-photographer.blogspot.com/2009/10/feathering-light.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This blog post&lt;/a&gt; has some nice diagrams and examples which might make the concept a little more concrete.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-14T19:27:31.697" />
  <row Id="2483" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2474" CreationDate="2010-08-14T19:34:03.020" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Guffa's link is great. My recommendation is the free GIMP. Will give you max control and power - but you need to invest some time for getting the best out of it. You have plenty until xmas!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2010-08-14T19:34:03.020" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2484" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2486" CreationDate="2010-08-14T19:51:00.983" Score="3" ViewCount="155" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just purchased a nice Gitzo GH1780QR ball head for my tripod. This head has a nice set of 3 levels that make it easy to properly level the camera. I have been using my Canon 100-400mm lens with it. I've noticed something odd about the way this lens particular mounts onto my camera when I bolt the Gitzo head plate to the lens rather than the camera body. When set perfectly level, the camera body itself appears to be tilted a few degrees, so when taking a shot, it is not fully horizontal. I am using a Canon Rebel XSi (450D) body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this something normal and expected with the EF 100-400mm IS USM L lens from Canon? Or is this a defect, and something I should have fixed? To resolve the imbalance, I have to tilt the ball-head slightly off-axis, but this in turn affects panning. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-08-14T21:58:54.280" Title="Canon 100-400mm Lens Mount off-angle?" Tags="&lt;canon-450d&gt;&lt;ball-head&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2485" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2474" CreationDate="2010-08-14T21:01:47.240" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You'd use the Clone tool in a free program like GIMP. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gimp.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.gimp.org&lt;/a&gt;) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's also a GIMP plugin called Resynth that allows much easier removal of objects from images (The much-hyped Photoshop Content Aware Fill is based on it), though results vary based on the image. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.logarithmic.net/pfh/resynthesizer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.logarithmic.net/pfh/resynthesizer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="150" LastActivityDate="2010-08-14T21:01:47.240" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2486" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2484" CreationDate="2010-08-14T21:23:56.243" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't have this lens, but from what I read it should have a rotating tripod mount. If I understand that right, you can just loosen the screw on the side and turn the mount around (or rather turn the lens and camera when it's mounted on a tripod).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If so, your problem is simply that the mount is not locked in the horizontal position. There should be a marking for where that is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-14T21:31:42.207" LastActivityDate="2010-08-14T21:31:42.207" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2487" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2484" CreationDate="2010-08-14T21:58:54.280" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is definitely not normal. The 100-400  is a heavy lens and comes with a tripod collar -- you should definitely mount it on the tripod via the collar. If you're mounting the camera, the weight of the lens is enough to cause some flex and sag, and I'm guessing that's what you're seeing. That lens is just too big to mount onto a tripod on the body and keep everything rigid. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By moving to the tripod collar you move the center of gravity so that the entire camera will balance on the tripod, removing this flex and sag. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-08-14T21:58:54.280" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2488" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2481" CreationDate="2010-08-14T22:37:24.920" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;feather&quot; of a light source is the transition between full light straight on, and no light when a light source is rotated away from the subject. Imagine you have a main light source say at 45 degrees to the line between the camera and the subject and the light source (say a square soft box) is pointed straight at the subject. If you rotate the light source away from the subject (keeping the light at the same location), the light source will appear to become a narrower and narrower rectangle (thinner vertical) until it totally disappears because it it is eventually facing away from the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The great thing about feathering is that, as you rotate and narrow the light say over the first 45 degrees there is little change in the quantity or quality of light, but as you get close to the light disappearing there is a more rapid drop-off. This is the &quot;feather.&quot; This is a sweet light to use. Experiment with it by rotating little by little.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An added advantage is when photographing say group of people in a straight line all facing the camera. If the main light is say at 45 degrees to the persons with the face of the source pointing at the center of the group, the end of the line closest to the light will be much brighter than the end furtherest from the light (because of drop-off due to distance). By feathering the light by pointing it at the end of the line of people furtherest away, they see the light as a square, and those closest see the light as a thin vertical light. Consequently those furtherest away get more light (it's full on to them) while those closest get less light (as the area they 'see' is smaller and the quantity of light is dropping off). Thus you get even lighting across the entire line of people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1047" LastActivityDate="2010-08-14T22:37:24.920" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2489" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2473" CreationDate="2010-08-15T00:02:37.260" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The mirror box assembly and necessary registration distance for an optical TTL viewfinder makes it nearly impossible to be compact.  You'll have to live with pancakes (Pentax makes a great trio: DA40, DA21, and DA70)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can live with a non TTL optical viewfinder, there are rangefinders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hear some EVFs are actually pretty good, even in low light.  &lt;em&gt;Speculation&lt;/em&gt;: I think in the future, EVFs improve vastly and overtake the advantages of OVFs:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1018&amp;amp;message=35477390&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;From an SLR lover: one EVIL lust&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-15T00:09:32.503" LastActivityDate="2010-08-15T00:09:32.503" />
  <row Id="2490" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2491" CreationDate="2010-08-15T00:35:13.293" Score="10" ViewCount="129" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm planning to join a photography club. What equipment do you take with you?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you take camera, lens, tripod and flash every time or you just pick your gear based on location?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm kind of lost what to take with me, since I don't know how do these clubs operate. Do they stick round in one place and shoot or move a lot? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="567" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T19:04:30.427" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T19:04:30.427" Title="Photography club: What to take with you?" Tags="&lt;clubs&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="2491" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2490" CreationDate="2010-08-15T01:59:21.220" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My experience from the two photo clubs I have been a member of, is that there are two kinds of gatherings. There are meetings where you just meet and don't photograph, and there are outings where you do photograph. Well, that's how swedes do it at least, there are of course variations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are going to photograph, I would say that you generally just bring what you think that you might need. If you bring too much, people might think that you are just trying to show off, so keep it down at least until you have seen what the crowd is and what they bring.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-08-15T01:59:21.220" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2492" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2467" CreationDate="2010-08-15T03:01:46.143" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you do end up going with a zoom, look at the older Sigma 10-20mm and the Tokina 12-24mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-15T15:05:51.217" LastActivityDate="2010-08-15T15:05:51.217" />
  <row Id="2493" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2490" CreationDate="2010-08-15T03:04:56.527" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my experience most photo club meetups are informal gatherings where people swap stories and get to know each other.  People do tend to take their cameras, but that's b/c we all love photography, and not really because you &lt;em&gt;need&lt;/em&gt; it.  it's rare to see a tripod, extra lenses, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just have fun! In my experience photo clubs are a great way to learn new techniques, shooting locations.. almost anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="355" LastActivityDate="2010-08-15T03:04:56.527" />
  <row Id="2494" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2496" CreationDate="2010-08-15T07:32:27.400" Score="5" ViewCount="281" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm an amateur photographer and only just picked up my first DSLR (went for a 50D with a basic 18-55mm Canon IS lens) and was considering purchasing a wider angle lens such as the Sigma 28mm f/1.8-22 for around $400 AUD, or a Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 for a little less to allow me to take photos of groups of people in rooms and buildings without breaking the bank.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm in a band and we'll be recording early next year and I thought I would get a moderately cheap wide angle lens to be able to take photos in studio-sized rooms (often small) and venues in particular where a wide FOV would give me room to breathe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Am I correct in assuming these would be the types of lenses that would work well in these more enclosed spaces? Would a prime lens be the way to go for this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would they also be usable for outdoor short DOF shots (such as nature macro shots)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for any advice you can give me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-08-15T08:13:59.110" Title="Wider angle lens for indoor photography?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;wide-angle&gt;&lt;sigma&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="2495" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2494" CreationDate="2010-08-15T07:53:52.497" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You may find that the kit lens works well for you, although it's not got such a wide aperture (which would help you in low light) - it's also wider than the primes you're looking at, and is also stabilised which will be a bonus if you're shooting hand-held in low light. I'd suggest using this for a while and see how you get on -- it'll also allow you to examine the EXIF information in your photos to see which focal length(s) you tend to use, before splashing out on a lens that you then find you don't make the most of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The kit lens also focuses quite well at near distance, and whilst not a true macro (which is defined as the image on the sensor being at least life size), you may find it suffices until you can stretch to one of the dedicated macro lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-08-15T07:53:52.497" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2496" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2494" CreationDate="2010-08-15T08:13:59.110" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The lenses you list aren't very wide on a 50D, so I don't think they'd be particularly good for tight-quarters indoors shots.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your kit lens is already quite a bit wider; it's good advice to see how you fare with that, then you can work out where to go next.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the kit lens doesn't turn out to be wide enough, then one of the best options going are the various third-party ultra-wide zooms in the 10-24mm range.  They get much wider than the kit lens.  Unfortunately, they're not as inexpensive as the 28mm primes; AUD$800 seems typical if my Googling is any indication, and the Canon 10-22mm is around AUD$1300.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For macro work and short DOF shots, you typically need a longer lens than the 28, and preferably a wider aperture than the kit lens.  The kit lens might work at extremely close distances, but if you've got a particular interest in this, than the &quot;thrifty fifty&quot; (Canon's 50mm f/1.8) is a very popular choice.  And it's about their cheapest lens, so hard to go wrong.  Macro-specific lenses run a little more, but will enable you to work with some extreme close-ups.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-08-15T08:13:59.110" />
  <row Id="2497" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-15T09:40:13.970" Score="4" ViewCount="237" Body="&lt;p&gt;I dislike the loosing of camera settings when I shoot in raw (.NEF) in nikon . the colors become dimmed and the camera noise reduction is removed , so the the photos look very noisy compared with relative .jpg direct photos .&#xA;I have tried to open RAW files of canon in photoshop , and I was able to get the camera settings to be applied on the raw files, but I couldn't do that in nikon raw files .&#xA;is there are any software or plugins for PS or lightroom to do that ? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-08-15T13:36:49.857" Title="How to add the in-camera settings to raw nikon photos (.NEF) ?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2498" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2439" CreationDate="2010-08-15T09:43:40.393" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hahnel.ie/index.cfm?page=dslrremotecontrols&amp;amp;id=60&amp;amp;pId=60&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hähnel Giga T Pro 2.4GHz Wireless Timer Remote&lt;/a&gt; which can work as simple wireless or wired remote, timer, bulb mode timer, has delays and interval mode (for example for time-lapse photography).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can use the remote controller (the one with LCD display and buttons) connected with wire to the camera or use the remote controller with wireless receiver connected to the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe not as cheap as others, but not that expensive either, can do great deal of stuff and works like charm. I use it with Canon 1D Mark II.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="855" LastActivityDate="2010-08-15T09:43:40.393" />
  <row Id="2499" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2497" CreationDate="2010-08-15T10:39:03.167" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nikon's own RAW processing software (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.capturenx.com/en/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CaptureNX&lt;/a&gt;) will probably get you the most in-camera like results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively, shoot both RAW and JPG.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-15T10:44:40.393" LastActivityDate="2010-08-15T10:44:40.393" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2500" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2497" CreationDate="2010-08-15T13:36:49.857" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're using a more recent version (I can't say for pre-CS4), the Adobe Camera Raw processor has a tab in the settings box for camera profiles. You should be able to select from several different profiles which are designed to mimic the behaviour of the vendor's development process, at least for Canon and Nikon (us Pentaxians don't have as many options as I understand).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, downloading a sample NEF image for a D300, I got options for Camera D2X Mode 1 through 3, Camera Landscape, Camera Neutral, Camera Portrait, Camera Standard, Camera Vivid along with standard Adobe profiles for ACR 6.1. I have a feeling the one that you want is either Standard or Vivid, the Vivid really pops the colours, but experimentation is half the fun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a side note, the funny thing about the sample image I got is that it's a picture of a Pentax booth!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-15T13:36:49.857" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2501" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2458" CreationDate="2010-08-15T14:02:27.983" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have you looked at the Sunpak lineup? Some are TTL, but I think they have non-TTL and you can often find them on Craigslist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To add from my comment, a very popular one appears to be the Sunpak 383 Super which is non-TTL. It's discontinued, but appears to be available on places like EBay. Anyways, BH lists the dimensions as 4.4 X 3 X 2.8&quot; (WxHxD).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another, similar, would be the Metz 36 Series C-2. Dimensions for that is 2.80 x 4.3 x 3.4&quot;, so a little bigger on some dimensions. The Metz 20 C-2 is 2.55 x 3.85 x 2.12&quot;, so small.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the way, I'm not finding much smaller without going to the LED ones. They are an option as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-15T18:37:41.440" LastActivityDate="2010-08-15T18:37:41.440" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2502" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2604" CreationDate="2010-08-15T14:17:27.323" Score="5" ViewCount="250" Body="&lt;p&gt;When cutting(deleting) a selection with a feather it completely deletes all that is inside the selection and creates the feather with gradually increasing opacity outside the selection line.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;On the other hand when the cut selection is pasted (e.g. to a different layer) it has the feather effect applied inside the selection. Thus if I cut a selection from one layer and paste it to a layer above it I have a part of the image along the selection edge lost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a way around this (still using the feather effect), so that when you cut from a layer and paste to a layer above you don't have anything lost?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="532" LastActivityDate="2010-09-17T13:43:30.470" Title="Photoshop selection feather and cut/paste behavior (pixel loss)" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2503" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-15T14:19:10.130" Score="22" ViewCount="363" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find myself in this kind of situation a lot.  I'll be photographing someone who doesn't have a whole lot of modeling experience, but they want me to take photos of them (ie, a friend while on vacation, engagement photos, etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I say these things now:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Stand with one foot in front of the other, to slim the profile&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For a man, squat and look up, to avoid double chins (apparently, not a flattering pose for a woman)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In bright sunlight, close eyes and then open on the count of 3 to avoid squint&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For a couple, have the man hold the woman from behind&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For a couple, have them touch foreheads (and then wait to see where they go from there, usually works pretty well once they get over the giggles)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think I need more in my bag of tricks to guide these models around.  What are some of your best model guidance tricks?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-16T19:23:37.923" LastActivityDate="2010-10-26T23:58:15.430" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-15T14:19:10.130" Title="What are your tips for guiding an inexperienced model?" Tags="&lt;models&gt;&lt;posing&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="9" />
  <row Id="2504" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2231" CreationDate="2010-08-15T14:40:38.783" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;+1 for the Tokina..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I rented one for 2 week earlier this month and absolutely loved it.. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="355" LastActivityDate="2010-08-15T14:40:38.783" />
  <row Id="2505" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2510" CreationDate="2010-08-15T14:47:53.540" Score="20" ViewCount="425" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a novice in photography and my current camera (Sony alpha 230 kit) which I recently have bought is the first DSLR of mine. Soon I'd like to buy a tripod for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please advise me what should I take into consideration when choosing a tripod? At present all the tripods seem similar to me and I feel that I need some help in choosing the right one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edited (added):&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I tend to shoot now, I think that the primary usage of the tripod will be landscape and portrait (outdoor) photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="591" LastEditorUserId="591" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-15T17:34:09.460" LastActivityDate="2010-10-20T17:19:30.683" Title="What should I pay attention to when choosing a tripod?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;tripod&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="2506" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1805" CreationDate="2010-08-15T14:54:39.343" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Multiple exposure and good zoom lens will help you. Your D300 supports multiple exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Configure 2-frame multiexposure, zoom in and meter on moon, place the moon where you want it to be in the final image. Avoid anything else in the frame, especially anything bright. Take the first shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Zoom out, frame the landscape as you like it, avoid moon getting in the picture, leave the place where the moon was in the first frame dark and empty. Take the second shot. The camera will take care of the rest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2010-08-15T14:54:39.343" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2507" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2505" CreationDate="2010-08-15T14:58:59.377" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several factors to consider, and their relative importance will depend on what you intend to use it for, but they are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Weight&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're going to be carrying your tripod long distances for landscape photography, you don't want something too heavy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Maximum Load&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tripods are rated for a maximum load -- if you have an interest in nature photography, you may want to allow for heavier lenses. Bear in mind that the maximum loads quoted are normally exactly that, and a tripod might not be as stable as you'd like around those weights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Working Height&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Normally one of the last things that people consider, but for plat macros, you'll want to be able to get very close to the ground, whereas with more formal portraiture, you'll want to get up quite high.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-15T15:49:23.247" LastActivityDate="2010-08-15T15:49:23.247" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2508" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2503" CreationDate="2010-08-15T15:27:25.193" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your best bet is to get them talking about anything other than the photo shoot... work, vacation, kids etc. This gets them more relaxed and they tend to forget, or at least aren't 100% focused on the fact that they are in the uncomfortable situation of being in front of a camera. There are great books on how to pose people to hide flaws... sounds like you have a great start on getting the worst of them taken care of... I think your next step is just get them to loosen up and relax.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="786" LastActivityDate="2010-08-15T15:27:25.193" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-15T15:27:25.193" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2509" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2505" CreationDate="2010-08-15T16:19:26.643" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Great list Rowland!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd add stability. Some of the cheaper tripods out there have a tendency to shake after you've touched them (when you trip the shutter release).  If you find your self in a situation where you don't have your cable release with you a jittery tripod can really mess you up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="355" LastActivityDate="2010-08-15T16:19:26.643" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2510" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2505" CreationDate="2010-08-15T16:20:18.467" Score="20" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A tripod is really two pieces -- the tripod itself, and the head that the camera connects to and lets you aim the camera. They need to be considered separately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The tripod's purpose is to be a rigid platform -- but portable. you end up having to make a series of compromises around cost, weight and rigidity (choose two....). Cheapest is steel, generally rigid but heavy. Then aluminum, lighter but more expensive. Then carbon fiber, much lighter, but you either pay a lot more or give up rigidity (or both). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The worst tripod is one that's so heavy you won't take it with you. The second worst tripod is one that's so twitchy it doesn't really serve its purpose as a rigid platform. That said, you can pick up some decent tripods at good cost. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I started with an aluminum tripod, upgraded to a moderately priced carbon fiber. The weight difference was about a pound, which doesn't sound like much until you haul it around for eight hours. Then the cost of a carbon fiber seems like a bargain. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wood tripods are fairly rare now; also fairly expensive, but very rigid and heavy. For large camera rigs (medium format, for instance) useful, for 35MM, not necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You want a tripod that puts the camera at a comfortable shooting height. If you aren't comfortable using it, you won't. Less expensive tripods have shorter legs and center post that raises the the camera to eye level. More expensive tripods will meet closer to eye level. That center post can cause vibration and cost rigidity (especially in a windy environment), so if you can afford it, go for a taller one. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A center post with a hook on the bottom allows you to add weight to the tripod which will cut the vibration and add stability in wind. You can use your camera bag as a weight. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most tripods come iwth legs that collapse in 3 sections. Some are in four, a few five. The primary advantage of the more sections is that the tripod will collapse into a smaller lump which makes it easier to store and travel with. More sections means more moving parts and generally a loss of some rigidity and added cost. I'd lean towards a four-part leg unless you're backpacking, but three is fine (especially if the tripod lives in your trunk). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tripods have a weight rating. The heavier the capacity a tripod can carry, in general, the more rigid it is. You can put a heavier camera on a tripod than it's capacity, but you might end up fighting sag and vibration. I use the weight capacity as a rough estimate of rigidity when evaluating tripods, so the higher this value the better (but as you beef up the tripod, you're generally adding weight and cost).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Better tripods can give you flexibility on positioning -- if you do macro work, being able to adjust legs or shift the center post can be helpful (Gitzo tripods are good at this, for instance). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For someone just starting out, I'd recommend an aluminum tripod; it'll be a good starter unity that won't cost you a lot until you know what you really need, and not expensive enough that you feel too bad upgrading when you're ready. I'd plan on paying $100-140 for the legs to get into a price range with good quality and rigidity without paying for capabilities you find out you don't need. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tripods like the Induro AT114 ($125) or the SLIK PRO 700DX ($100) would be good starting points. If you want to start with carbon fiber, the Slik 614 ($224) is a good starting point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You then need a head on the tripod. It's purpose is to connect the camera to the tripod and allow you to aim the camera but hold it in place once it's where you want it to be. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are basically two main styles of head: pan head and ball head. Pan heads use multiple hinges to allow you to adjust the camera in different planes. ball heads use a ball in a socket (similar to your shoulder) so that you have freedom to adjust the camera with a single locking mechanism. A third mounting mechanism is the gimbal, used primarily on really large (500mm and larger) lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I much prefer ball heads. You'll need to decide over time what you prefer, but most pro photographers rely on ball heads for most purposes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heads have a weight capacity just like the tripods do. If you put a heavier camera on one than it's designed for, you may find it sags or won't stay in position. You shouldn't overpay for a big head you don't need, because it'll cost you money and weight. But if you get one too small, you'll end up frustrated trying to make things work reliably. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A question with heads is &quot;quick release or not?&quot; -- there are a number of quick release options available where you attach a plate to your cameras and it allows you to attach and detach the camera swiftly. You want a quick release system, bceause screwing your camera onto tripods and taking it back off again gets old quickly. Which one depends on which head you want to buy. There are a few standardized setups for quick releases, the one most pros seem to use is the &quot;arca-swiss&quot;, but it can also be pricey. I've standardized my quick release on the manfrotto RC2 plate, and it works pretty well; it's not as rigid as the arca-swiss mount but it gets the job done pretty well. I've only found a couple of situations (like my 12x100 astronomical binoculars) where the weight creates problems (those binoculars are huge and tend to be aimed at awkward angles). One reason I like the RC2 -- it has a switch that lets you lock the quick release in place. there's nothing quite like having your quick release release at the wrong time...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good starting point for ballheads would be something like the Manfrotto 495 ($85). it's a solid basic unit. My primary head today is the Mnanfrotto 498 ($130), one step up from that. It's solid and reliable. I do plan on upgrading it (to a ballhead from Really Right Stuff with an arca-swiss mount) at some point, but that's a fairly major financial investment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My current tripod is a slik 3 piece carbon fiber with the manfrotto 498. It's only major flaw is that I get a fair amount of vibration in windy situations because I have to raise the center column to get to eye level. Weighting the center column helps, but moving to a beefier tripod is the long term change at some point (on the other hand, switching to a higher end carbon fiber tripod and the RRS ballhead is much closer to $1000 than $100. It's an investment purchase). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;my first tripod was a slik aluminum tripod with a manfrotto pan head. It was a good, solid starter tripod and I still carry it and use it for my spotting scope or if I need to have two cameras on tripods at the same time. It is (amusingly enough) more rigid than my 2nd tripod -- but a lot heavier. So it lives in the trunk. It would make a good starter unit for any photographer taking this step and the equivalent current products are listed above (the only items I listed I don't own are the induro tripod legs, but I've talked to enough photographers swearing by them and the really right stuff heads that I trust recommending them and they're the units I'm planning on purchasing next)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't overspend to start, because you don't need to. Don't UNDERspend because you'll get something taht you'll have to fight to do what you want. And remember that since the tripod and the head are separate, you can mix and match -- and you can upgrade each piece separately as you find out what you need and want. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-08-15T16:20:18.467" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2511" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1805" CreationDate="2010-08-15T16:41:51.333" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dan Heller has some great night, star, and moon photography guides. He generally uses a film camera due to their &quot;double exposure&quot; capabilities, although he has also used digital for capturing the milky way and such. He has a tutorial on photographing the moon here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.danheller.com/moon.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.danheller.com/moon.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-08-15T16:41:51.333" />
  <row Id="2512" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2458" CreationDate="2010-08-15T17:29:15.567" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a SunPak 383, and it's a great flash, though I haven't had much luck in Auto mode since I switched to my DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2010-08-15T17:29:15.567" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2514" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2503" CreationDate="2010-08-15T20:59:03.097" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would recommend watching &lt;a href=&quot;http://fstoppers.com/fstoppers-original-peter-hurley-exposes-the-perfect-headshot/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this video&lt;/a&gt; over at &lt;a href=&quot;http://fstoppers.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fstoppers.com&lt;/a&gt;.  Peter Hurley talks about shooting headshots and how he has a kind of routine in his head and usually goes through that to make people at ease or to give their best.  Interesting look into workflow and the whole site is really great.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="274" LastActivityDate="2010-08-15T20:59:03.097" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-15T20:59:03.097" />
  <row Id="2515" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-15T23:17:48.907" Score="10" ViewCount="1695" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am planning to invest in a polarizing filter for my Canon T2i. Please recommend a good one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="147" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-27T22:01:27.153" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T22:01:27.153" Title="Which polarizing filter would you recommend for my dSLR?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;filters&gt;&lt;polarizer&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2517" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2515" CreationDate="2010-08-15T23:30:43.797" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What you should look for is a circular polarizing filter, as that is needed for an SLR. And of course the correct size to fit your lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other than that, it depends on what you mean by &quot;good&quot;. If you want quality, buy an expensive one. If you want a cheap one there are filters that aren't as durable, but should be enough for a hobbyist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-08-15T23:30:43.797" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2518" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-15T23:45:00.353" Score="7" ViewCount="136" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are it uses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="147" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T19:39:48.387" Title="Why do you need a remote switch for your camera?" Tags="&lt;remote&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2519" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2518" CreationDate="2010-08-15T23:54:07.353" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The primary use for a remote release, whether they're wired or not, is to prevent camera shake during long exposures. Long exposures will magnify any shake in the camera, especially those created by even careful hands on the shutter release, so a remote is used to eliminate that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the added bonus of a wireless remote is for the big group shots you're in. You no longer have to run into the group while the timer counts down, you can simply point the remote at the camera and release from a distance assuming, of course, that you can trigger from the front and the back as not all cameras do that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, I have both the wired and wireless for my camera and use them, especially the wired, like crazy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-15T23:54:07.353" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2520" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="856" CreationDate="2010-08-16T00:54:50.353" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I must say that watermarking when done tastefully doesn't detract from an image. I personally think the most unobtrusive way to do it is to have a simple translucent white logo in the corner, roughly 10-15% of the width of the photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An example (of a friend's work) would be something like this: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/teddibrice/4629473858/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/teddibrice/4629473858/&lt;/a&gt; though you could go further and simply stick it right against the edge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You see it but it doesn't yell at you and gets the point across that this is their photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T00:54:50.353" />
  <row Id="2521" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2515" CreationDate="2010-08-16T01:32:24.943" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would recommend a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.marumi-international.com/dhg/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Marumi&lt;/a&gt; filter; they are relatively cheap, but good. They're the OEM manufacturer for a few other quality brands. The problem is that they're hard to find, though I see you can now get them through Amazon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Guffa notes, you'll want a circular polarizing filter (abbreviated CPL) as linear polarizers are incompatible with most autofocus systems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other good brands include B&amp;amp;W and Hoya.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be sure to get a multi-coated filter, to cut down on reflections. For the Marumis, this is the DHG or Super DHG lines. Polarizers aren't a good item to be cheap on; the cheap polarizers are really quite awful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your lenses should be marked with the proper filter size (on Nikon lenses it looks like &quot;72ø&quot;); if not, check the lens cap. That info will also be in the manual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-16T18:31:14.220" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T18:31:14.220" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2522" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3406" CreationDate="2010-08-16T01:39:22.493" Score="3" ViewCount="82" Body="&lt;p&gt;I carry around one 72mm filter (a CPL), and I'm looking for a good, small case to protect it, one that I can put in my pocket.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I'm envisioning is hard plastic with a foam insert for the filter. Many filters come with such a case, but mine didn't; it's a nasty one and the filter rattles around all the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've poked around but have found only cases that carried many filters, weren't hard-sided, or both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can such an item be obtained without a filter already inside it? And if so, where?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-09-21T01:46:59.413" Title="Protective case for one filter" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;protection&gt;&lt;transport&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="2523" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2522" CreationDate="2010-08-16T01:47:48.760" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For a DIY answer, if you can get your hands on an old metal cigarette case, they should be large enough, and some thin packing foam, you could roll your own (no pun intended). The cigarette case can be found at a myriad of antique shops around, I've seen them plenty of times in such environments, both in the States and Canada, and they're usually only a few bucks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update:&lt;/strong&gt; Adorama has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adorama.com/LEP44.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;4&quot;x4&quot; Lee pouch&lt;/a&gt; for one filter. A little larger than your filter, but at $8.95 it's hard to go wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-16T15:34:12.053" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T15:34:12.053" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2524" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2522" CreationDate="2010-08-16T04:31:24.150" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could try...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;buying the cheapest 72+mm filter you can find (whether it be on eBay or a retail shop or some kind of photography market/swap-meet)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;if you've got friends into photography, they may have an old filter they don't use, or a spare case from a filter that's broken/lost/permanently-affixed (have you asked around for old/spare cases?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;just get some thin foam or cloth from a stationery/arts shop to glue into your current filter case to stop the filter rattling around&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T04:31:24.150" />
  <row Id="2525" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2530" CreationDate="2010-08-16T04:36:22.740" Score="7" ViewCount="231" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want a &quot;product shot&quot; style photo of several small objects without any background (pure white background).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Knowing the hours of work involved in properly deep-etching, but not having nice lighting or a curved-white-matte background, I photographed them on white paper. My hope was that instead of laboriously removing the BG with a selection tool, I could somehow &lt;strong&gt;&quot;whiten the whites&quot; of the images&lt;/strong&gt; use &quot;curves&quot; or something like that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I played with the curves tool but couldn't figure it out. How do I do this? (or any better suggestions?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1065" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T07:01:19.417" Title="How do I easily remove an almost-white background?" Tags="&lt;background&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2526" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2525" CreationDate="2010-08-16T05:05:16.570" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unless it's a terribly complex item, I would suggest just going and removing the background. You may get somewhere first with using a magic wand selection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Removing the background manually either with a selection tool or an eraser will give you the cleanest result without affecting the item itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's how I would go about it anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T05:05:16.570" />
  <row Id="2527" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2525" CreationDate="2010-08-16T05:10:48.370" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If there is no bright areas on your products, then you can use curves to blow all the highlights until the paper is all white.  Go near the top right and experiment with bringing a spot near the top up, but it will probably change the lighter areas of your product noticeably.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T05:10:48.370" />
  <row Id="2528" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="934" CreationDate="2010-08-16T05:40:11.237" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The main reason I switch into manual mode is to create shots that I know aperture priority won't do.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Silhouettes or intentionally over/under exposed shots for example.  Aperture priority is great for 'normal' or 'properly exposed' shots, but not so great once you want to start experimenting a bit.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A recent favourite of mine is a very high contrast shot I took from inside a tunnel looking out into the bright sunlight.  This was well outside what the aperture priority mode on my Canon 400D would be happy doing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="611" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T05:40:11.237" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2529" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="934" CreationDate="2010-08-16T06:25:38.977" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As well as the reasons of consistency between shots (either for high-contrast photos in fairly consistent lighting or for stitching shots together), I also use Manual when I'm using a flash indoors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Might be just due to lack of effort to learn how to shoot Av + flash on my part, but I find it much easier just setting it in full manual with f/4, 1/100 ISO 400 (or thereabouts) and letting the E-TTL flash metering do its thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(this is for shooting events indoors)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also find that shooting indoors in a location with large windows makes it worth being in Manual mode as well. Otherwise whenever there's a window in the frame, you'll have the meter under-expose (in the day) or over-expose (at night) depending on the brightness outside. This seems to be more important with wider lenses (with a long telephoto I guess you're getting much more subject than background anyway most of the time, so the frame is more likely to be more consistent).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T06:25:38.977" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2530" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2525" CreationDate="2010-08-16T07:01:19.417" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll show how you can do this in GIMP, it should be similar in photoshop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We start with our object on paper. Curves dialog basically shows us histogram of the image. When I click into the image, I can see where in the histogram given area is. This way I can find out where approximately my future white point is going to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://vvv.mokrakocicka.cz/gang/0816_314901_pre.jpg&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then I modify the curve in way that makes tones even a bit darker than our projected point go completely white. The curve basically sets brigtness tone mapping in our image. Original curve projected every tone to the same one, so did not change anything. The curve we have now makes everything above 55% brightness completely white, the second point in the middle tries to keep tones that were originally dark relatively unchanged.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://vvv.mokrakocicka.cz/gang/0816_314901_post.jpg&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see this curve didn't work completely. I could have pushed the brightness a bit further (e.g. the curve a bit left, to eat out more of middle tones), but I think that would destroy original image too much. If I needed to go through with this I'd probably create another layer in which I'd push it all the way to eliminate the shadow, and than mask it in a way that would only show up in shadow area where I need it, without affecting a low of the object.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, our can simply take this as a a starting point and use white brush to kill the rest of the background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T07:01:19.417" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2531" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="402" CreationDate="2010-08-16T08:05:44.940" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.daviddoubilet.com/default.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;David Doubilet&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He's made underwater photography my favourite type. I especially love the fact he built a special camera with two lenses for under/above water photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1068" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T08:05:44.940" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-16T08:05:44.940" />
  <row Id="2532" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="978" CreationDate="2010-08-16T11:15:18.097" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Saw this the other day thought it was a good little project:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/08/07/beautiful-examples-of-transparent-screen-trick-photos/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/08/07/beautiful-examples-of-transparent-screen-trick-photos/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="560" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T11:15:18.097" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-16T11:15:18.097" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2533" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2458" CreationDate="2010-08-16T12:57:13.060" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Remember to check trigger voltages before using exotic flashes :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="729" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T12:57:13.060" />
  <row Id="2534" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="402" CreationDate="2010-08-16T15:00:48.850" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not one specific person (if I had to name only one, it'd likely be George Lepp), but I just did an extended piece on the photographers that have and continue to influence my photography:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chuqui.com/2010/08/my-photographic-mentors-and-inspirations/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.chuqui.com/2010/08/my-photographic-mentors-and-inspirations/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T15:00:48.850" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-16T15:00:48.850" />
  <row Id="2535" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2229" CreationDate="2010-08-16T15:59:01.257" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not stored in the Exif - the correction is automatically applied to Jpeg images.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The Olympus raw format contains a simple (4 ?) parameter matrix for lens correction for regular lenses - this is only for the higher end models and is only populated by the pro series cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The corrections for the Adobe software are generated by Adobe testing lenses themselves - tit doesn't use the manufacturers values.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sorry don't know about the micro 4/3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="631" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T15:59:01.257" />
  <row Id="2536" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2541" CreationDate="2010-08-16T16:02:01.507" Score="23" ViewCount="433" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems to me that there is a preference for full-frame sensors rather than cropped sensors, and I'm curious as to why. It seems to me, that the cropped sensor means that I get more bang for my buck with zoom lenses. True, I suppose it means I would need to a shorter lens to get the same wide-angle effect on the short end, but it seems like wide-angle lenses are (generally) cheaper than telephoto lenses. Am I missing something? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="649" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T22:51:53.327" Title="Is crop-factor a bad thing?" Tags="&lt;cropped-sensor&gt;&lt;crop-factor&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="2537" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2518" CreationDate="2010-08-16T16:04:11.130" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the reduction of shake mentioned by @John, they can also be useful for portraiture. For more see &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1039/how-can-i-get-my-portrait-subjects-to-look-natural-and-drop-the-cheesy-smile/1124#1124&quot;&gt;another&lt;/a&gt; of my answers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="350" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T16:04:11.130" />
  <row Id="2538" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2543" CreationDate="2010-08-16T16:30:12.047" Score="8" ViewCount="122" Body="&lt;p&gt;In terms of f-stops, how much light is typically lost when shooting through an umbrella?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T17:22:38.053" Title="How much light is typically lost through an umbrella?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2539" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2536" CreationDate="2010-08-16T16:35:39.433" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Full-frame sensors have more megapixels, better noise, or both; in other words, they permit better image quality which is why many people prefer them. However, crop sensors yield extremely good IQ as well. You're correct that the make lenses longer, which is an advantage in many cases; one issue is that there's much less legacy glass which is wide on crop sensors. They also yield smaller and lighter cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wide-angle lenses aren't cheap, but there's a limit as to how wide you can get. On the other hand, you can make a lens as long as you can afford, which is why there are truly huge and expensive telephoto lenses but no (well, very few) wide-angle exotics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T16:35:39.433" />
  <row Id="2540" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2536" CreationDate="2010-08-16T16:38:11.553" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want more &quot;zooming&quot;, I think you're right, it's an advantage.  One advantage to a larger sensor is reduced noise and/or better high ISO performance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are a couple of other references to consult:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/full-frame-sensor-vs-crop-sensor-which-is-right-for-you&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://digital-photography-school.com/full-frame-sensor-vs-crop-sensor-which-is-right-for-you&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T16:38:11.553" />
  <row Id="2541" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2536" CreationDate="2010-08-16T16:42:31.093" Score="30" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, it is not a bad thing. It is not really &quot;good&quot; or &quot;bad&quot; in any sense. Its simply a different format than full-frame, which is different than medium format, etc. There are pros and cons to each. The smaller APS-C style &quot;cropped&quot; sensors do have some effects on lens focal length due to their field of view, and that can be beneficial or detrimental, depending on how you choose to see it. Here are some facts about sensors:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Cropped Sensor Formats (APS-C)&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;These are smaller sensors&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They have higher manufacturing &quot;yield&quot; than larger sensors&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As such, they are generally much cheaper&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Photosites are generally smaller and more densely packed&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This generally results in lower signal-to-noise ratio, more noisy pictures&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This also means the maximum dynamic range (contrast ratio) of cropped senors is lower (less light gathering power per photosite)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They have a narrower &lt;em&gt;field of view&lt;/em&gt; compared to larger sensors&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Their narrower FOV has the &lt;em&gt;effect&lt;/em&gt; of multiplying the focal length of any lens&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This may be beneficial if you need super telephoto lengths (i.e. 400mm on FF ~= 640mm on APS-C, effectively)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This may be detrimental if you need ultra wide angle lengths (i.e. 16mm on FF ~= 26mm on APS-C, effectively)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The additional &quot;effective magnification&quot; offered by a cropped sensor is only illusory, and is not actual magnification&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Given a large enough sensor with enough megapixels, and the same exact &quot;crop&quot; provided by a cropped senor can be achieved with a full-frame or medium format (however, the larger sensor would need some SERIOUS megapixels to achieve this.)&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The 1.6x crop sensor of a Canon 450D would require a full-Frame sensor with 31mp to achieve the same crop&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The 1.6x crop sensor of a Canon 550D would require a full-frame sensor with 46mp to achieve the same crop&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Full-Frame Sensor Formats&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;These sensors provide the same &quot;usable&quot; pixel area as 35mm film&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;These sensors are larger, and have lower manufacturing yield&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This generally means they are more expensive&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The photosites are larger and often less densely packed&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This results in better signal-to-noise ratio, less noisy pictures&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dynamic range is generally higher with larger photosites. &#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(The new Canon 1Ds IV with a 30mp+ sensor is touted as having full 16bit RAW capability, which offers much greater dynamic range than the general 12bit RAW of cropped sensors)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Their field of view is &quot;normal&quot; from the perspective of the bulk of the photography community and equipment&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A lenses focal length is as stated when used on a full frame&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Medium Format Sensors&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;These sensors are often much larger than full-frame (up to 57mm or larger)&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They have extremely low yield, and thus their cost is extremely high&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They have high density, but large photosites&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This results in some of the best dynamic range possible in a digital sensor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Leica and Hasselblad's latest medium-format sensors tout 24bit RAW&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They may have a much wider field of view than normal 35mm for a given focal length&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A lens of a normal 35mm focal length would be shorter on medium format, providing even greater field of view&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As with cropped sensors, the effect is illusory, and only useful when describing things at a technical level&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Note that the effect of sensor size on focal length or the apparent magnification assumes a common lens system. Medium format cameras tend to be rather specialized, so a direct comparison here is likely impossible. For the sake of discussion, the effect given similar lens system and focal lengths would thread throughout the range of sensor sizes.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-17T00:18:39.697" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T00:18:39.697" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2542" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2503" CreationDate="2010-08-16T16:56:02.637" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Top posing suggestions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rotate shoulders - no football shoulders (straight on to the camera)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Head tilt - women tilt towards higher shoulder (S curve), men towards lower shoulder (C curve).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If it bends, bend it.  Elbows, torso, neck.  Ramrod straight is not interesting to look at.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tell them &quot;feels weird, looks good&quot; for something that might be uncomfortable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T16:56:02.637" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-16T16:56:02.637" />
  <row Id="2543" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2538" CreationDate="2010-08-16T17:22:38.053" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That's going to vary a great deal depending on whether it's a bounce or shoot-through, what material is used, etc. In general, the range can be as little as 1/2 stop (or less) through to several stops. If you're interested in a particular brand, you can probably find details on light loss in the product literature. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lastolite.com/umbrellas.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lastolite&lt;/a&gt;, for example, will supply the light loss information for their umbrellas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T17:22:38.053" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2544" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2549" CreationDate="2010-08-16T17:24:06.773" Score="10" ViewCount="286" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to get started in food photography, and my first attempts are worlds apart from the examples we see all around us on food labels, in cookbooks, and in advertising.  What are some tips to someone getting started?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that background blurring and good color management is a good start, but I'm not sure about other things, e.g. lighting and styling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-06-02T21:31:31.797" LastActivityDate="2011-06-02T21:31:31.797" Title="What do I need to know to get started with food photography?" Tags="&lt;food-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="2545" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2544" CreationDate="2010-08-16T17:48:31.983" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A wide aperture lens doesn't do background compression. It does background blurring (bokeh). You'll find that you'll need a pretty good close-up lens (perhaps even macro) and at those distances getting that shallow-depth-of-field effect isn't all that hard, even at less-than-wide apertures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would invest in a light tent. That will get you the quickest results if you want to go for a high-key look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="92" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T17:48:31.983" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-16T17:48:31.983" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2546" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2544" CreationDate="2010-08-16T17:56:06.710" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Styling is an art unto itself when it comes to food photography. Essentially, you're basically not photographing food! For example, motor oil is often used as a substitute for various syrups, white glue for milk, and more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://photocritic.org/food-photo-tricks/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photocritic&lt;/a&gt; website has a good rundown on some of the styling tricks used in food photography. Just be warned, you may never quite get hungry looking at those pictures again!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T17:56:06.710" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-16T17:56:06.710" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2548" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2550" CreationDate="2010-08-16T18:43:29.593" Score="15" ViewCount="212" Body="&lt;p&gt;What does the term &quot;background compression&quot; mean?  How would you tell you're achieving it, and how would you achieve it?  Ideally, the right answer would also explain how this is  related to background blurring.  For example, is compression completely different, or does it sometimes give you some blurring.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-16T20:48:03.587" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T00:25:13.503" Title="What is background compression?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;background&gt;&lt;perspective&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2549" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2544" CreationDate="2010-08-16T18:51:52.010" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well there are two types of food photography: product shots (for menus), and food documentation for blogs, recipes etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Product shots are a whole different ball game. Often these &quot;models&quot; are constructed using materials that simulate the look and texture of the food--designed to stand up to rigors of product shots. For example, using lard to for shots Ice Cream--since Ice Cream melts quickly, it's hard to take multiple shots under hot lights. So the next time you're at a Burger King and you wonder why your Whopper looks nothing like what you see on the menu, it's because they used something like beets instead of tomatoes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other type, is more of a documentation style, in which you try to present dishes served in an appealing way. To me, this is more fun (since I'm a total foodie), so these tips are geared towards photographers who wish to document meals and dishes, as opposed to making images that look like food. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photos.aballs.com/Food/el-Bulli&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here is the first attempt I made at food photography&lt;/a&gt;. Shot with a 5D2/Canon 50mm f1.4.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photos.aballs.com/Food/Armandos&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;And here is the second attempt&lt;/a&gt;. Shot with a 5D2/Canon 50mm 2.0 Macro.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some tips that have worked for me:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Natural light is so much better than flash. If you are shooting your own creations, place them on the table near a window during the day and get up on that lovely light!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Shoot the dishes right as they're plated. Since this isn't food science type, you don't have much time. Shoot the food quickly.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Shoot from a just-above table perspective. Photographs that look like images we see every day aren't as visually pleasing, so a top-down shot of a bowl of soup looks worlds apart from a shot from just above the table.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Gorilla Pod or Handholding. Since the 5D2 has awesome high-iso performance, I can shoot in dim lighting. If your camera doesn't have stellar high-iso, then invest in a gorilla pod, or other similar pocket tripod. Handholding is much easier to frame the shot in, so thats what I stick with. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Set the image properly. Move other dishes, glasses, and silverware in and out of the frame as desired. During the 35 courses at elBulli, I was constantly shifting things around to get an image I thought would be compelling.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Look for interesting angles. This may be personal preference, but food lends itself well to angles. For each dish you shoot, try a shot from a different angle.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the techincal side of things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I try to shoot with the largest aperture available to give a nice DOF, and to produce a nice bokeh (background blurring).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I use 50mm for a nice tight-crop of the dish. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Macro lenses will let you get a nice in-close focus of your subject.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specific to photographing your own food:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Use a cloth to clean up any aberrant sauces, food particles etc. You can clean these up in post-process, but much faster if you don't have to.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Garnish is key. The sprinkle of green onions offer a nice contrast to a bowl of New England clam chowdah.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Think about your dishes. White dishes are fairly pleasing as they brighten up the dish, and give good contrast to the food contents.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Think about your table setting. White table cloths, like white dishes, will brighten up your image.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you're at home, you can use your own tripod, and forgo buying a table top one.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most importantly: &lt;strong&gt;Have fun.&lt;/strong&gt; Food is a social experience that is so much more than just a combination of nutrients. Keep that in mind, enjoy your food, and have a good time taking pictures of what you're eating.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T18:51:52.010" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-16T18:51:52.010" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2550" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2548" CreationDate="2010-08-16T19:04:04.763" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Background compression&quot; is part of how we perceive perspective in a photograph.  Images taken with a narrow field of view (longer focal lengths) will appear to have a shorter back-to-front distance than those with a wide field of view (shorter focal lengths).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's important to remember that perspective, technically speaking, does not depend on the lens, only on your distance to the subject.  If you take a shot with a wide-angle lens and crop down to the very centre, you would have the same background compression as if you took the shot with a telephoto lens (though likely not the same image quality, thanks to the crop and enlargement).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The perception of perspective in a photo is related to the fact that even though they capture wildly different fields of view, we view most photos at approximately the same size (in print, on screen, etc).  A wide-angle shot is crammed into a smaller angle of view, and the narrow field of view of a telephoto shot is expanded.  If you printed a wide-angle shot large enough (and stood close enough), it would appear perfectly natural.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It follows from this that you're always achieving background compression simply by standing where you stand; it's a much tricker question to figure out how to use it to your advantage compositionally.  One example of using a &lt;em&gt;lack&lt;/em&gt; of compression (background expansion) would be using an ultra-wide to convey a sense of wide-open space.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This isn't directly related to background blurring; it's possible to have a photo sharp through the entire frame exhibit various degrees of compression.  Characteristics of the lens (aperture, focal length, etc) will determine the amount and qualities of background blur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-17T00:25:13.503" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T00:25:13.503" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2551" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2623" CreationDate="2010-08-16T19:30:04.307" Score="9" ViewCount="367" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm learning to create panoramic photos. I'd like to know if there's any recommended proportion to determine its size. I have the feeling that 4:1 is fine, but I could'nt find any pattern.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1061" LastActivityDate="2010-08-19T17:55:53.810" Title="Is there a recommended size for panoramic photos?" Tags="&lt;panorama&gt;&lt;panoramic-shoot&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2552" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2518" CreationDate="2010-08-16T19:39:48.387" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several reasons why you might want to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To control the camera from a large distance, e.g. when shooting shy wildlife&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To minimise camera shake&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To take self-portraits&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;With certain programmable wireless releases, you can set up time-lapse sequences and/or long exposures (longer than 30s) using bulb mode&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T19:39:48.387" />
  <row Id="2553" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2551" CreationDate="2010-08-16T19:42:34.837" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no set rule for this; it all depends what you want to photograph. If a photo is wider than a 4:1 ratio, it will look a bit too thin, but you could shoot a whole 360° panorama and make an interactive QuickTime panorama that lets you pan and zoom within a window.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the end result is a good photo, it shouldn't matter what the exact proportions are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T19:42:34.837" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2554" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-16T20:56:04.130" Score="4" ViewCount="281" Body="&lt;p&gt;I currently have an EOS 3000V. It was my first SLR and I thought that the romance of film would outweigh the impracticalities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's served me well for a couple of years, but I'd really like to step things up a bit in terms of going digital and in terms of the quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to be able to use my existing lenses (without an adaptor) and I'm interested in CHDK - so it really has to be a canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question then: Where is the sweet-spot between price and quality when it comes to 2nd hand Canon DSLRs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1076" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T19:24:17.093" Title="Where is the Canon DSLR second-hand sweetspot?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;purchase&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2555" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2554" CreationDate="2010-08-16T23:01:12.013" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Consider that the camera body is a far distant third when it comes to (image) quality, with Photographer and Lenses being First and Second, respectively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So perhaps this formula: Given a certain budget, the sweet spot is the difference between your budget and your lens choices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, pick out lenses, and whatever money is left, pick the body. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To put things in perspective, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/cameras/canon/eos_digital_rebel/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here is the flickr pool&lt;/a&gt; for the Canon Rebel (aka EOS 300), which was Canon's first entry level dslr, which you can purchase on Ebay for around $250.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the 60D is right around the corner, the current sweet spot is the 50D used (once the 60D is announced, you will see fantastic bargains on Buy and Sell forums).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-16T23:01:12.013" />
  <row Id="2556" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2557" CreationDate="2010-08-16T23:09:29.003" Score="8" ViewCount="130" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know how it's achieved or what it's called, but occasionally in a movie I see an effect in which the perspective of the scene is modified in such a way that the objects that are further away appear to move closer so that the overall depth from near objects to far objects is greatly reduced. All the while, everything is in sharp focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How would I achieve a similar effect in still photography so that in one still a tree appears at its apparent actual distance behind a house, for example, and in another shot it appears that its right behind the house, compressing the perspective?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="522" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T00:20:34.043" Title="How can I achieve an effect in still photography that's analogous to a cinematographic effect?" Tags="&lt;focus&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;perspective&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="2557" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2556" CreationDate="2010-08-16T23:20:17.473" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That &quot;telescopic&quot; effect is achieved by maintaining your field of view, while simultaneously changing your focal length. This is called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;perspective distortion&lt;/a&gt;. You should be able to achieve a similar effect with two shots and a standard camera. An understanding of background compression would be useful here, and thankfully there was &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2548/what-is-background-compression&quot;&gt;another question with a great answer&lt;/a&gt; for that just posted recently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, this is an effect of adjusting your background compression. The concept is relatively easy to understand, however achieving it in an acceptable manner may require a fair amount of trial and error. For your first shot, you will want greater background compression, which will have the effect of bringing the background closer to you. This is achieved with a longer focal length (narrower field of view). Your second shot will want less background compression, which will have the effect of pushing the background farther away. This is achieved by doing two things with the second shot. To start, you'll need a shorter focal length (wider field of view). To keep your subject composed the same in the shot, however, you will need to get closer to your subject. The combination of a wider FOV and closer camera-to-subject distance should achieve the effect you are looking for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll need to experiment a bit to get the second shot right. In particular, you'll need to pay close attention to your scenes composition. It will change in some respects (greater depth and more of the background visible), but in others it will need to remain identical. Keeping your key foreground subjects composed as identically as possible to the previous frame will take some doing. I have only mildly experimented with this effect, and never taken it to any degree of perfection, so I can't offer any tips to help here. Perhaps someone else will offer a complimentary answer that may help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some basic mathematics at work for such an effect, and if your savvy enough, it might help you compose your scenes. The general formula at work is as so:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;subjectDistance = widthOfScene / (2 * tan(AOV/2))&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;code&gt;subjectDistance&lt;/code&gt; is the distance to subject you are trying to discern, with the given &lt;code&gt;AOV&lt;/code&gt; (Angle of View, or Angle @ a given Field of View). The &lt;code&gt;widthOfScene&lt;/code&gt; is the width of the scene being photographed, and should generally be known ahead of time. Given that formula, you could calculate the distances you would need to be from your subject with different focal lengths. Assuming you start with a 135mm portrait shot of a person with a compressed background, and want to end up with a 50mm portrait shot of a person with a decompressed background:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;d_135 = 4' / (2 * tan(15/2))&#xA;d_135 = 4' / (2 * tan(7.5))&#xA;d_135 = 4' / (2 * 0.13165)&#xA;d_135 = 4' / 0.2633&#xA;d_135 = 15.2'&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Start at a distance of &lt;code&gt;15' 2&quot; @ 135mm&lt;/code&gt;, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;d_50 = 4' / (2 * tan(39/2))&#xA;d_50 = 4' / (2 * tan(19.5))&#xA;d_50 = 4' / (2 * 0.35411)&#xA;d_50 = 4' / 0.7082&#xA;d_50 = 5.65'&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;End at a distance of &lt;code&gt;5' 8&quot; @ 50mm&lt;/code&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should be able to figure out the proper distance for a scene of any given width for any field of view. This is still not enough to ensure that there is very little movement of your subject in the frame between the two shots...you'll still need to work on that aspect of composition manually. Once you know the shooting distance, however, solving that problem should be considerably easier.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Angle of View Resources:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sweeting.org/mark/lenses/canon.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF lenses&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sweeting.org/mark/lenses/canon-efs.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF-S lenses&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sweeting.org/mark/lenses/nikon.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon lenses&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sweeting.org/mark/lenses/sigma.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma lenses&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-17T00:20:34.043" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T00:20:34.043" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2558" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2568" CreationDate="2010-08-17T00:05:08.943" Score="11" ViewCount="190" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have quite a few photos, some of which I consider to be particularly good. I've been thinking of putting some up on stock photo sites (that's another discussion), but have been wondering about image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any important aspects a photo should have before being put up on a stock site? I'm thinking of subject, composition, colour, and clarity, but what else?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T13:37:39.957" Title="Are there any important considerations for stock photos?" Tags="&lt;photo-quality&gt;&lt;stock-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="2559" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2562" CreationDate="2010-08-17T00:27:03.173" Score="17" ViewCount="363" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been teaching myself the various settings in cameras and now have a much fuller understanding of how to use my camera effectively, but one thing is still bugging me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the aperture size is changed, are any other lenses moving to refocus the ray bundles to the full frame size?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I mean is, to me, the aperture would seem like it would &quot;crop&quot; the image to a smaller and smaller circle (or n-sided shape, rather). While I understand that this obviously means less light, is there something else going on that refocuses the light bundle back to fit over the entire sensor when it is adjusted?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update:&lt;/strong&gt; It appears I wasn't connecting the dots (pun intended). The focal point &lt;em&gt;of each point of light&lt;/em&gt; at the image plane &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; the image plane. This was the missing link in my understanding of just why the smaller aperture doesn't &quot;crop&quot; the image, it only crops the amount of light &lt;em&gt;from one source&lt;/em&gt; focusing onto the image plane.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-11T16:16:03.513" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T16:22:48.933" Title="How does aperture work without &quot;cropping&quot; the image hitting the sensor?" Tags="&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;optics&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="2561" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2559" CreationDate="2010-08-17T00:43:30.637" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, there is no refocusing needed when you change the aperture, and the aperture doesn't crop the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you might know, the image is mirrored and upside down when it hits the sensor. The image is focused into a single point inside the lens, and comes out flipped on the other side. This point where all light rays meet is the aperture, that's why the image can pass through such a small hole without being cropped.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lens elements in a lens is actually not needed to produce the image, only the aperture is needed. A pinhole camera doesn't have any lenses at all, it only has a small pinhole that works as aperture and projects the image onto the film.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The effect is named &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;camera obscura&lt;/a&gt; and is where the camera gets its name from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-11T16:22:48.933" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T16:22:48.933" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="2562" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2559" CreationDate="2010-08-17T00:50:06.347" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lenses don't shine light directly through, they focus it, if you forgive the lousy ray-tracing:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/GQpcV.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The green lines represent the cone of light striking the lens with a narrow aperture, the red is the cone of light allowed by a wide aperture.  In this case you can imagine the aperture immediately in front or immediately behind the lens (there's not much difference with a simple lens)  &lt;strong&gt;Regardless of the aperture, the light is still focused to the same point.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's a simple lens, but the same is true of complex ones.  That's where your intuition about cropping (typically called vignetting in this context) the image comes into play: in a complex lens, the aperture has to be at an appropriate location.  Obstructions in other parts of the lens will cause vignetting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-17T15:14:41.180" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T15:14:41.180" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2563" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2566" CreationDate="2010-08-17T00:56:22.947" Score="7" ViewCount="122" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to pick up a film camera but I have a nice G lens &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09090107tamron17mm50mm.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 with VC)&lt;/a&gt; and I'd really like to be able to use it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm having a hard time understanding which cameras will be able to work either fully or partially. For example, if I put it on a Nikon FM3A it would work but without any aperture control or autofocus right? Most of the backwards compatibility charts I've seen are extremely confusing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="540" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-17T03:12:01.437" LastActivityDate="2010-10-05T16:34:31.310" Title="Looking to find out which Nikon film cameras will work with my newer G F-mount lens." Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;lens-mount&gt;&lt;tamron&gt;&lt;compatibility&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="2564" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2558" CreationDate="2010-08-17T02:30:52.610" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would say &quot;following the good-photo guidelines&quot; would be the biggy, whilst keeping post-processing to a minimum.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rule of thirds for framing, good white balance, lighting and exposure, sharpness and contrast, etc would need to be of a high standard. Post processing would really only be used to correct minor issues such as touching up levels and colour balance as far as I would say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose composition would be a somewhat subjective element, except for objective shots like textures. You would need to find subjects and shots that you find appealing as well as branching out and finding shots that you think may be useful to other people and prospective customers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, a podiatry company would be interested in shots of people walking happily on a beach or walkway with joggers. A sportswear company would be interested in people playing sports (obviously), partaking in exercise activities, leasurely outdoor activities etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T02:30:52.610" />
  <row Id="2565" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2558" CreationDate="2010-08-17T02:34:11.213" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you noted, subject and composition are vital.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another item to think about is the mood. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/20/advertising-procter-gamble-volkswagen-omnicom-old-spice-cmo-network-get-happy.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mood is important&lt;/a&gt; for a company that is looking for  marketing material.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Color&lt;/strong&gt; is the main factor, as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.color-wheel-pro.com/color-meaning.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;colors tend to have meanings associated&lt;/a&gt; with them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sharpness, or lack thereof&lt;/strong&gt;, can give an image a totally different mood.  For instance, a distinct lack of focus can actually be used to impart a dreamlike feel.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;High saturation&lt;/strong&gt; images can be more child like.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Low saturation&lt;/strong&gt; can give an image a historic feel.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond image quality, be sure to keep in mind that you will most likely need and subjects to sign off on images you sell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T02:34:11.213" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2566" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2563" CreationDate="2010-08-17T03:11:08.893" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The two lens compatibility resources that I know of are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/slr-lens.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;nikonians.org&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ken Rockwell&lt;/a&gt;. A caveat is that they only deal with Nikon lenses; it's a harder question to answer with your Tamron.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it really is like a Nikon G VR lens, then with the FM3A it won't work at all, but it won't damage your camera to attach it. On the other hand, everything including metering, focus, and VR would work on an F100.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, as danio says, the lens needs to have a sufficient image circle to cover the film. This lens doesn't, so it won't work on any 35mm film camera unfortunately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-17T15:38:59.180" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T15:38:59.180" />
  <row Id="2567" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="31" CreationDate="2010-08-17T03:13:00.690" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;An alternative tripod that may serve your needs is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.trek-tech.com/products/trekpods.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;TrekPod&lt;/a&gt;. It might be the closest thing you are going to get from a weight perspective, but it has an interesting capability that may make its weight a moot point. The TrekPod XL weighs 630g (including the ball head), and is a cross between a tripod and a monopod. It can get up to 62&quot; in height, but breaks down very small so it can easily be packed away. The real kicker: it can also double as a hiking staff! As a hiking staff, it wouldn't need to be something you have to stick in your pack, so the weight might not matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I chose the Gitzo over this since I needed a full tripod with the flexibility that a full set of telescopic legs offered. The TrekPod is probably the lightest full-height tripod I've ever encountered, though. Its 130g over your limit...but maybe it will still work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T03:13:00.690" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2568" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2558" CreationDate="2010-08-17T05:14:52.507" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One thing that's not technical but more subjective is how &quot;sellable&quot; the image is.  The world has so many photos of sunsets, women sitting at desks on the phone, and nice forest landscapes that you will want to choose subjects that are something a little different in order to stand out amongst the crowd.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, technical correctness will be needed, but to really get noticed on a stock site (and in some cases, to get accepted) you need images that are timely and can't be found in hundreds of other locations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T05:14:52.507" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2569" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2558" CreationDate="2010-08-17T06:02:40.260" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The criteria for technical correctness are listed here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2325/what-are-the-criteria-to-decide-whether-the-photo-is-technically-correct-or-not&quot;&gt;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2325/what-are-the-criteria-to-decide-whether-the-photo-is-technically-correct-or-not&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me there are more important considerations though. I'd ask myself if &lt;strong&gt;&quot;photography is a creative entertainment or source of income for me?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;. Once you start selling your images, you'll optimize your images for selling and thus limiting your creative freedom that you have as an amateur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-18T13:37:39.957" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T13:37:39.957" />
  <row Id="2570" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="31" CreationDate="2010-08-17T08:23:19.993" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem with lightweight tripods in my opinion is that they tend to be floppy. If you're using a decent sized camera that's not going to work, and hanging stuff off the bottom doesn't much help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For air travel, walking etc I leave the big stuff at home and take an Induro A012, which is a tiny 800g tripod with two-section legs. That &lt;em&gt;does not&lt;/em&gt; meet your criteria. You could save 100g or so if you chopped the centre column (never use them). A decent head weighs a few hundred grams, and I'd add a proper quick-release system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's more weight that you want to carry, but this is a serious alternative to the sort of floppy &quot;accessory&quot; table tripods you'll see. It will easily hold 1-series cameras and performs as well as any large &quot;pro&quot; tripod (I have several of those). The down-side is that you have to scrabble around on the floor a bit, but otherwise it's the only way to fly/walk.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1055" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T08:23:19.993" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2571" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2554" CreationDate="2010-08-17T08:55:57.853" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;At the moment 450D or 40D could be good purchase. They are quite modern but they lack video shooting so they are not that 'hot' any more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For CHDK get a second hand IXUS or similar, older models are cheap. The only CHDK like project  for DSLR is the magic lantern project for 5DII and 550D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="729" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T08:55:57.853" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2572" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2554" CreationDate="2010-08-17T09:17:00.800" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You may want to consider full frame, given that you're coming from film and will have FF capable lenses. In which case, a second hand 5D (mark i) will be a good bet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T09:17:00.800" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2573" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="31" CreationDate="2010-08-17T10:43:15.543" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In cases where my Gitzo GT1530 is too heavy for travel I bought a used Gitzo GT0027 which is very light with 0.94 pounds, folds to neat 11.8 inch which even fit inside my smallest photo backback.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The main limit is max height with 28 inches, which does not bother me.&#xA;As head I use a GH1780, which is light but sturdy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This combo works good enough for me with either the D700 or D90. Of course, when I need maximum stability I'll use mirror lockup and a cable/remote release.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only drawback of the GT0027: no ALR (Anti Lock Rotation), which, if you are used to it, is really annoying not to have. There is a more modern version of the GT0027 (it might be the GT0531 someone else mentioned), which has ALR but is slightly heavier, I think.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T10:43:15.543" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2574" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2551" CreationDate="2010-08-17T13:00:32.813" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lot of the recommended sizes for different image types (2:3, 4:5) are based on the availability/cost of printing in those sizes. For instance, 4:5 is only common because many portraits are printed as 8&quot;x10&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For panoramas, there hasn't been any agreed upon standard, and there are not a lot of printers that handle panoramas outside of a custom job.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T13:00:32.813" />
  <row Id="2575" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2563" CreationDate="2010-08-17T13:05:08.013" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As the SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II VC LD is a Di II it has reduced image circle coverage and it will most likely display severe vignetting on 35mm film or a digital camera with a 35mm sized sensor such as the D700 or D3 series.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="185" LastEditorUserId="185" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-05T16:34:31.310" LastActivityDate="2010-10-05T16:34:31.310" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2576" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="31" CreationDate="2010-08-17T13:19:05.147" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I needed a travel tripod, I also opted for a Trekpod.  As noted, it doesn't meet the weight requirement, but it does double duty, which mitigated the weight, in my opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the alternatives I considered, by the way, was a Gorillapod.  I know you specifically indicated that you didn't want to &quot;strap the camera to a tree&quot;, but this might give you some positioning options to take advantage of material around you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If none of these options meet your needs, it might be worth stepping back a bit to consider your overall objectives.  Others have mentioned some really nice carbon fiber tripods that miss your target by just a few hundred grams.  If you're trying to get your entire pack weight down to a certain target, can you make that weight up elsewhere (lighter tent, lighter tools, etc.)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If weight is the ultimate goal here, it may also be worth considering the rest of your shooting package.  What about the camera body?  Would you be better off with a lightweight body (D40 or similar) on a really stable tripod, rather than a D90 on an unstable platform?  What about the lens?  If I'm not mistaken, the 18-200 weighs around 560g; would you consider something like a Tamron 18-250 (430g) in order to save 130g?  (hint: if you wouldn't consider swapping lenses or bodies, then you're indicating that there are some places where quality is worth a few extra grams -- consider that with respect to the rest of the package).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I was in Canada this spring, I took some landscape shots where no tripod = no shot.  In hindsight, I'm really glad I had the Trekpod along.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T13:19:05.147" />
  <row Id="2577" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="31" CreationDate="2010-08-17T15:08:48.143" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are you already using a walking stick? If so, converting it into a monopod is probably your lightest option. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a couple of options &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.brighthub.com/multimedia/photography/articles/36271.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.instructables.com/id/Trekking-Pole-Monopod-for-Small-CameraCamcorder/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; (although the second one might be a challenge to adapt to a larger camera)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.instructables.com/id/Trekking-Pole-Tripod/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This tutorial&lt;/a&gt; from instructables looks pretty nifty too if you're hiking with a partner who also has walking poles. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="204" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T15:08:48.143" />
  <row Id="2578" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="31" CreationDate="2010-08-17T15:55:49.537" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The lighest option ever is to take no tripod. I've been happily travelling without one and haven't really missed it. (Although I'm photographing mostly when there's some daylight available.) See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;expert opinion of Ken Rockwell&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T15:55:49.537" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="2579" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2583" CreationDate="2010-08-17T17:24:26.797" Score="8" ViewCount="334" Body="&lt;p&gt;My wife is starting to get in to photography more and more. She likes her point and shoot camera because it is small so it can go with her most ever where.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She is interested in some of the nicer cameras (with focus control and high zoom lenses). Is there anyway to have the best of both worlds? Have a camera with the features of a higher end camera but in the size of a point and shoot camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1092" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T06:20:18.910" Title="Point and shoot size camera with Advanced Camera features" Tags="&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2580" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2579" CreationDate="2010-08-17T17:28:42.983" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Such cameras are generally known as bridge cameras, as they bridge the gap between SLR and compact cameras. The Canon PowerShot G range and the Nikon Coolpix P range fall into this category and offer such features as RAW file shooting, manual exposure, spot metering and external flash support.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T17:28:42.983" />
  <row Id="2581" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2579" CreationDate="2010-08-17T17:39:09.783" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would also look at the Micro 4/3 cameras. They are pretty small but have a large sensor and can give DSLR-like results, and they have a variety of lenses of varying sizes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think in this case it is particularly important for your wife to go to a camera shop and touch &amp;amp; hold the various options. She should wear clothes that have typical pockets, or a typical purse or wherever she wants to carry the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T17:39:09.783" />
  <row Id="2582" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2579" CreationDate="2010-08-17T17:41:07.907" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For the braver individual, if you have a Canon compact, there is the option to install custom firmwares, such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CHDK&lt;/a&gt; which adds more advanced features, such as RAW file formats to existing compact cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also more compact cameras coming to market with interchangeable lenses, such as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/21693.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Olympus PEN&lt;/a&gt; which give the power of an SLR in the size of a compact (if the hype is to be believed)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T17:41:07.907" />
  <row Id="2583" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2579" CreationDate="2010-08-17T17:41:43.397" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As well as the &quot;bridge&quot; category, there is also the new category that has yet to settle on a name, but is variously known as &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrorless_interchangeable_lens_camera&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(Mirrorless) interchangeable lens compact/camera&lt;/a&gt; (MILC or ILC)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;electronic viewfinder, interchangeable lens (EVIL)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;single lens direct view (SLD or SLDV)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These have different lenses available, as do SLRs, but are smaller due to not having mirrors. Some examples are the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_PEN_E-P2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Olympus PEN E-P2&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-GF1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Panasonic Lumix DMC GF1&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_NEX-5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sony NEX-5&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are all pretty compact, especially when used with a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancake_lens&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pancake lens&lt;/a&gt;. You can get big zooms for them, but the lens will be big, so the overall compactness will be lost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing to note is that a large zoom built into a compact (often marketed as &quot;Ultrazoom&quot; or similar) tends to be combined with a very small sensor, which means that the image quality will suffer, as will low light performance. &lt;a href=&quot;http://petavoxel.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/ultrazooms/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This article explains why&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="130" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-17T17:49:03.977" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T17:49:03.977" />
  <row Id="2584" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2558" CreationDate="2010-08-17T18:24:08.040" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Remember the business side of this.  Generally, logos and any identifying information will not be appropriate for a stock photo.  A picture of a mug or something that has a Starbucks logo on it won't pass muster.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, &quot;identifiable&quot; (yes, it's a little subjective) people need to have model releases.  Specific, identifiable, property might need a property release - think of commercial real estate.  Maybe you're got an awesome picture of the Empire State building  - it might need a property release.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think about it from the point of view that your photo might be used for anything from hawking anti-depressants to advertising handguns.  Some people (and property owners) might not want to have their images (or images of their property) associated with specific causes.       &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="240" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T18:24:08.040" />
  <row Id="2585" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2588" CreationDate="2010-08-17T18:34:03.077" Score="8" ViewCount="106" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking to purchase a camera for my nine year old daughter. Is there anything relatively cheap that she could use that would teach her some basics, remain fairly cheap and give her decent results?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My budget is in the sub $100 range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: despite nostalgia about simpler times, a film camera is pretty much out of the question for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1094" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T15:32:37.433" Title="What is a good set of features to look for in a camera for kids?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2586" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2579" CreationDate="2010-08-17T18:58:07.957" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not sure if this type of camera is what you want, but I discovered a lot of good info at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cameralabs.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CameraLabs&lt;/a&gt;.  Their categories and reviews are very informative and although I'm not sure how they're biased (unbaised reviews don't exist), I've generally found their reviews to be in line with my experiences and those of my camera-using friends.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, we're quite happy as with our Panasonic Lumix ZS-3 as a PnS camera with decent AVCHD one-button movie mode.  It definitely fits in my wife's purse.  If your wife is willing to get a larger purse or carry the camera outside, my 2nd suggestion would be one of the many 4/3 lens cameras... I've played with one, and the (semi) manual mode pictures are almost as good as my full-size dSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1095" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T18:58:07.957" />
  <row Id="2587" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2585" CreationDate="2010-08-17T19:12:58.410" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A few features that might make sense:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A camera that your daughter will enjoy using. No sense in buying her something she doesn't like.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rugged Construction. It will get dropped.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One-touch uploading&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Integrated USB connector&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Colorful, so if it's easier to find.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Few controls, so as you said, she can concentrate on learning the basics.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bonus Points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Built in sticker printing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most camera's won't have all of these features, so I woudl just look for something that your kid will want to use. Looking around Amazon, they have several kids branded camera's for around $30.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-17T19:18:43.560" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T19:18:43.560" />
  <row Id="2588" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2585" CreationDate="2010-08-17T19:13:42.450" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd look for robustness first and decent optical quality (cameras branded for kids often have very crappy optics). Given that, you best bet is probably to go for a used model.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would suggest one of the Pentax waterproof point and shoots (Optio W80 or similar model from the same series), as they are very rugged (and waterproof, so you can clean them easily under the faucet). New, they're out of your budget, but could probably be found one used in your price range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I don't have kids yet, but I have a husband who ruined two point and shoots within a year. Our Optio was our solution, and so far it has survived two years of sand, sea water, snow blizzards, downpours and several drops on concrete. We also have an SLR, but it's our go-to camera for backpacking/paddling/beach going)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't worry too much about control simplicity - if everybody's mom can manage the basic features of her camera, your daughter will too :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="204" LastEditorUserId="204" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-18T15:32:37.433" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T15:32:37.433" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2589" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2585" CreationDate="2010-08-17T19:14:28.190" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Considering your budget, I'd go with a rugged camera like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-FinePix-Z33WP-Digital-Green/dp/B001QENO6Q&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fujifilm FinePix Z33WP&lt;/a&gt; or the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Vivitar-ViviCam-2-4-Inch-Underwater-Digital/dp/B001PKCK2A&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Vivitar ViviCam 8400&lt;/a&gt;. Both are around $100 on Amazon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both can go underwater and will probably be a lot fun to use. :o)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T19:14:28.190" />
  <row Id="2590" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2579" CreationDate="2010-08-17T20:23:43.747" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It definitely depends on what she means by 'features' and by 'size'.  Bridge cameras are still a bit too bulky to fit into a coat or shirt pocket (unless you have very large pockets).  I have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/dp2-compact-digital-camera-sigma&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sigma dp2&lt;/a&gt;, which is much smaller than the bridge cameras such as the olympus pen series, sony nex, etc.  It only fits in my jeans pockets when I don't mind looking like my thigh has an enormous goiter growing out of it, though.  It's also not the easiest camera in the world to use; it's the one you want to use when image quality matters more than convenience of shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The features you list-- focus control and longer zoom lenses-- sound like she's more interested in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&amp;amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;amp;q=canon+s90&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon s90&lt;/a&gt; than in an actual bridge camera.  I've used this camera once, and I really like it.  You can adjust the focus using the barrel, and it has a much longer zoom than the dp2 (that is just a fixed lens).  It will also fit into a shirt pocket.  It does not have the image quality of a bridge camera or of a Sigma camera, but it does do what it sounds like she wants to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T20:23:43.747" />
  <row Id="2591" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-17T22:02:28.253" Score="7" ViewCount="147" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there an off/disable control anywhere? I realize that the INFO button toggles it off, but it comes right back on as soon as you tap the shutter, and that it a problem in low light situations where the LCD keeps blasting me in the eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1091" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T19:35:35.347" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T19:35:35.347" Title="Nikon D40 : LCD hard off?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;display&gt;&lt;nikon-d40&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="2592" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2591" CreationDate="2010-08-17T23:47:12.687" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This may not get you all the way, but you can turn off image review.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40/users-guide/menus-custom.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40/users-guide/menus-custom.htm&lt;/a&gt;, you can do this by going into the menus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Custom (pencil icon)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;07 Image Review&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Set this to &lt;strong&gt;Off&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To see this, you may need to set Full Menus in the Setup Menu (wrench icon) and be shooting in P, S, A, or M mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-18T00:03:00.470" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T00:03:00.470" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2593" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-18T00:39:03.143" Score="18" ViewCount="742" Body="&lt;p&gt;Something that confuses me is why there is some lenses that cost so much. For example the only difference that I see between the two lenses is the aperture: f/2.8 vs f/4. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;$2250.00&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;$639.99&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...and of course the price: almost 4 times more expensive!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that a greater aperture offers more versatility but I just can't understand the huge price difference. I'm sure I am missing something fundamental here and I would appreciate if someone could clarify what &quot;important things&quot; I should consider when saving for a $1000+ lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1099" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-03T17:04:37.223" LastActivityDate="2010-09-03T20:42:25.787" Title="Why do some lenses cost so much?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;pricing&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="2594" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2593" CreationDate="2010-08-18T00:45:16.203" Score="27" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually it's more than just the aperature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The First lens on your list also has built in Image Stabilization, which will allow you to hand-hold your lens at &lt;strike&gt;near 2-3 stops&lt;/strike&gt; &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;4 STOPS!!&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; lower than what is possible without IS. One handy rule for shutter speed is that is should be 1/(Focal length), so at the maximum reach, 200mm, you would need a shutter speed faster than 1/200s. With Image Stabilization you can hand hold around 1/25s (3 stops) or even 1/10s ( 4 stops) if you have steady hands! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So that is one reason for a big bump in price, even when compared to the &lt;strong&gt;Canon EF 70-200 EF f2.8 Non IS&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the lens opening is larger, the optical elements have to be designed differently to account for the larger amount of light. It's not as simple as making a larger max opening. It's a whole change in optical characteristics, which includes higher precision glass, number of elements, which translates into higher production costs. And again, when you tack on built in Image Stabilization, you have a much more complicated system, which costs more to design, and to build properly, which is reflected in the high sticker price (for a fun time, I recommend looking around for the Canon EF 400 F2.8 IS...).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And just so we're clear, the difference between F2.8 and F4 is &lt;strong&gt;non-trivial&lt;/strong&gt;. That is 1 &lt;em&gt;full stop of light&lt;/em&gt;, which if everything else is equal, you can shoot your camera with 1/2 the shutter speed as you could with a maximum lens at F4. In doors this can be the difference between getting the shot, and not. Not to mention the depth of field and background blur that occurs at F2.8. Also many Canon DSLR's have high precision AF points when combined with F2.8 lenses, plus F2.8 produces a brighter view finder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS II is a new lens, which is hard to come by, which means you will pay list price for it. Just wait it out, and you'll probably be able to pick it up near what the 70-200 F2.8 IS Mark I went for, about $1600 street.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-18T07:36:01.903" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T07:36:01.903" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="2595" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2593" CreationDate="2010-08-18T01:04:14.933" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's what the market will bear.  Few non-pros see the need for the 2.8 aperture lens with IS, especially since it's as long as my forearm and weighs just as much.  Well, almost.  I'm pretty big.  It's not exactly ideal for wandering around Europe while staying at hostels, taking on a cruise ship, hauling to a kid's soccer game, etc, except for the true fan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For people who have the need and who understand the benefit, the lens is often also a professional expense.  Just as a software programmer might be given a $10k machine in order to do his/her job, a professional photographer might be given the lens by an employer so that the employer gets the photos that they need (even if self employed, and either way, the lens is a definite tax writeoff, at least in the US).  It's also why medium format digital backs can cost $25k+ just for the back, before you even get to lenses; the people using them are pros or affluent amateurs who will see a return on investment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take a look at the price of the Nikon f/2.0 200mm prime: $3.9k at B&amp;amp;H.  That's one stop faster than the 70-200mm lens you quoted and doesn't zoom.  But if you're a pro sports shooter in a gym with no lights, or a fashion shooter who knows that they need that length, then you get the lens to get paid.  Otherwise, it's a very expensive, very specialized bit of kit that fills a niche most non-pros don't need filled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T01:04:14.933" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="2596" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2593" CreationDate="2010-08-18T01:35:28.823" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;More expensive technology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The more expensive model includes IS, which is a fairly complicated system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, compare the lens construction:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF 70-200mm f/4L USM - 16 elements in 13 groups&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM - 23 elements in 19 groups (1 Fluorite and 5 UD elements)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice the difference here... 7 more elements. That makes for a much more labor intensive process, both in the engineering and production.  Besides that, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorite&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fluorite&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://lens-reviews.com/component/option,com_glossary/func,view/Itemid,242/catid,147/term,UD+glass+lenses/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;UD&lt;/a&gt; elements are much higher quality than standard glass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On top of the increased cost of production, the higher the quality of a lens, the more focused it will be on professionals.  This also increases the cost, because a pro is more willing to invest in the tools they use to make money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T01:35:28.823" />
  <row Id="2597" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2598" CreationDate="2010-08-18T07:11:48.153" Score="5" ViewCount="168" Body="&lt;p&gt;For Nikon I can use the free &lt;code&gt;ViewNX&lt;/code&gt; / &lt;code&gt;ViewNX 2&lt;/code&gt; to adjust the white balance for NEF raw files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there an equivalent from Canon for CR2 files (also free)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="420" LastEditorUserId="420" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-16T11:38:54.647" LastActivityDate="2010-12-16T12:56:35.940" Title="Canon CR2 white balance utility" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;windows&gt;&lt;cr2&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2598" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2597" CreationDate="2010-08-18T07:39:19.117" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon bodies comes with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&amp;amp;articleID=386&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Photo Professional&lt;/a&gt;, Canon's RAW converter which has White Balance adjustments (as well as plenty of other settings as well). The downside is that it's not free, per-se. I'm pretty sure you need to have the original software disk that comes with your Canon body in order to use the updates which are provided on Canon's website. So there is no direct link to download a standalone version of DPP. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are ways to work around Canon's silly restriction, but I believe it's outside the scope of this question (though google is your friend).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T07:39:19.117" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2599" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2881" CreationDate="2010-08-18T08:06:35.217" Score="7" ViewCount="183" Body="&lt;p&gt;I actually use a GretaMacbeth ColorChecker 24 to be able to produce .dng and have a good color checking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now it is time to reach a better result, taking in to account &lt;strong&gt;a better calibration of the hardware involved in the entire workflow&lt;/strong&gt;, from the camera to the printer, through the displays.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course there is a huge number of devices promising excellent performances, GretaMacbeth produces such devices too, but it is hard to choose the best without experience... they are quite expensive too, so the choice must be evaluated carefully :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any suggestion is appreciated, especially when supported by real life experiences. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1022" LastEditorUserId="1022" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-24T13:56:10.450" LastActivityDate="2010-08-28T18:44:22.093" Title="What is the best equipment for a good (semi-)professional color management ?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;color-management&gt;&lt;colorimeter&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="2600" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2599" CreationDate="2010-08-18T11:19:32.917" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The devices really mostly differ in the bundled software. And the only device you'll need is one that makes color profiles of your display.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For your printer, it's suffice to use a by-mail service where you print out a test sheet and mail it to them, and they'll scan it and mail the profile back to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I have not used their service nor endorse them in any way, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.colourprofiles.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this company&lt;/a&gt; seems to provide such a service.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="92" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T11:19:32.917" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2601" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2607" CreationDate="2010-08-18T12:31:17.710" Score="12" ViewCount="624" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just found that there is a 200mm lens at my school. It is a Canon with &lt;s&gt;Image Stabiliser&lt;/s&gt; (with red detail). &lt;s&gt;It is old, at least 10 years.&lt;/s&gt; It has been great playing around with it, but I really don't know what it is good for. What type of photos is it built for. I recall vaguely a friend telling me that a lens with no room to change the zoom will give you better focus... but apart from that I am not sure what type of photos it is good for. I want to take it to the sports field and capture some sports in action.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update&lt;/strong&gt;: The lens is a &quot;Canon EF 200mm 1:2.8 L II Ultrasonic&quot;. It does &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; say anything about image stabaliser :(&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1111" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-16T17:29:52.123" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T17:29:52.123" Title="What is a 200mm lens good for?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;prime&gt;&lt;telephoto&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2602" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2601" CreationDate="2010-08-18T13:00:25.093" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's good whenever you need this field of view and magnification. Sports and wildlife come to mind first, but it's usable for portrait work also if you have enough room.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lens with fixed focal length is &lt;em&gt;probably&lt;/em&gt; optically better and faster than the zoom in the same range. On the other hand, you have to choose the right distance or &quot;zoom with your feet&quot;, frame creatively or just miss the shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be aware that you'll need to look out for camera shake - you'll need either fast enough shutter speeds (it depends on how much your hands shake, but the rule of thumb says your shutter speed should be shorter than 1/200) or a good support.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best way to determine what you can do with it is to shoot with it. There are really no limits like &quot;you can only shoot sports with 200mm prime lens&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T13:00:25.093" />
  <row Id="2603" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2601" CreationDate="2010-08-18T13:02:40.597" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Especially with older lenses a prime (fixed focal length) lens will usually have better optical quality than a zoom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A 200mm lens is a telephoto lens, and can be used in a variety of ways.  A telephoto lens will compress the image so it looks like the objects are closer together. It may also be good for bird or sports photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T13:02:40.597" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2604" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2502" CreationDate="2010-08-18T13:33:43.507" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just before pasting, you need to deselect (Ctrl-D on Windows or Menu: Select\Deselect).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When pasting, if you have a selection, the paste will be restricted to the selection. The feather result is already included in the copied image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1093" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T13:33:43.507" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2605" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2616" CreationDate="2010-08-18T14:21:47.150" Score="4" ViewCount="256" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am planning to buy a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/247091-GREY/Nikon_2137_Normal_AF_Nikkor_50mm.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon Normal AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Autofocus Lens&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't autofocus on the D5000 but for the price, I think it's a good choice of lens for portrait.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do you think? Will I regret the fact that it doesn't have AutoFocus, neither VR?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1112" LastEditorUserId="48" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-22T23:37:27.860" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T23:37:27.860" Title="Nikon D5000 with older lens that doesn't autofocus" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;image-stabilization&gt;&lt;nikon-d5000&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2606" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2611" CreationDate="2010-08-18T14:30:57.223" Score="8" ViewCount="270" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given two lenses with different max apertures but the same size image circle (say, full frame on a Nikon FX DLSR camera) and taking shots at the exact shutter speed and focal length under the same lighting, taken on the same camera, say, f/1.8 and the other f/4.5, if I shoot the faster lens (the f/1.8) at an aperture of f/4.5 doesn't it let in the exact same amount of light as the &quot;slow&quot; f/4.5 lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, do I have to have a narrower depth of field (and thus more demand on accurate autofocus) to get the benefit of the fast lens, or if I shoot with a smaller aperture and have more depth of field do I &quot;lose&quot; the speed benefit of the lens (i.e. letting in more light)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="109" LastEditorUserId="109" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-18T14:50:58.343" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T14:52:25.517" Title="Are fast lenses only fast when shot wide open?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;wide-aperture&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2607" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2601" CreationDate="2010-08-18T14:34:04.720" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A 200mm lens is in the category of lenses called &quot;fixed focal length&quot; or &quot;prime&quot;, which cannot zoom in and out.  The more common lens type is the zoom, which does allow you to zoom in and out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The primary tradeoffs between prime and zoom lenses are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;aperture - Typically, prime lenses tend to operate a wider maximum aperture than zooms.  For instance, Nikon makes 50mm, 85mm, and 105mm prime lenses that can expose down to an aperture of 1.4, whereas the best zoom lenses that cover that range can only focus down to 2.8.  In terms of the photo, that can be a noticeable difference in the Depth of Field, which controls how much of the image is in focus and how much is in blurred out.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;optical quality - Prime lenses are almost universally better optically than equivalent zooms.  They achieve better sharpness by usign fewer optical elements.  You can think of this as fewer pieces of glass between you and your subject, thereby reducing the amount of distortion, letting more light in, and having more fine-tuned control of the final image.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;weight - Prime lenses are always much lighter in weight than their zoom counterparts&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You asked specifically about the 200mm lens.  This lens is often used for:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wildlife - When you are on safari, or birding, your subject can be as far as 50 to a few hundred yards away, and if you still want to fill the frame of your image with that subject you need a hefty zoom.  The 200mm helps accomplish that.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sports - Same as in wildlife, if you are standing on the sidelines of a sports game, you need to zoom in to capture the action up close in your frame.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Portraiture - This lens is also useful for portraiture, but it requires standing very far from your subject.  Some professionals will do this to achieve a very dramatic effect and a maximal blurring of the background.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This lens is best used with a tripod or monopod because when you are zoomed out that far, even the slightest bit of camera shake will significantly impact your image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="309" LastEditorUserId="309" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-23T01:21:40.497" LastActivityDate="2010-08-23T01:21:40.497" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2608" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2614" CreationDate="2010-08-18T14:40:01.303" Score="4" ViewCount="118" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have to convert to .DNG with an Adobe external tool before use in Photoshop because Photoshop doesn't recognize the Raw file that my Nikon D5000 produce. Is that normal that I have to convert all pictures before processing them in Photoshop?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1112" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T15:03:05.087" Title="Nikon raw file need to be converted to be open in Photoshop?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;raw&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="2609" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2606" CreationDate="2010-08-18T14:40:57.620" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the answer is: yes, faster lenses are only faster shot wide open.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, based on &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/24/is-there-a-noticable-difference-between-1-8-and-1-4-prime-lens/47#47&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; it looks like it's possible that the faster lens may be also have a few other advantages:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;sharper at other apertures&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a brighter viewfinder (since it's wide open until you hit the DoF preview button) for low light situations&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone find a reference for (1)? (2 seems fairly obvious)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="109" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T14:40:57.620" />
  <row Id="2610" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2613" CreationDate="2010-08-18T14:43:11.700" Score="9" ViewCount="235" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to take long exposure shots in the day, but I just can't imagine how to do it because even fireworks (night shot) exposed for more than five seconds are too bright.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I did some research, and I guess it's because I have no filter. What do you recommend to me for night and for day for long exposure shots?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1112" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T02:49:47.483" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T02:49:47.483" Title="What filter should be used to lengthen exposure?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;long-exposure&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2611" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2606" CreationDate="2010-08-18T14:43:49.703" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In theory, both lenses will allow the same amount of light to pass through at f/4.5, so yes, when stopping down, you lose the advantage of fast lens. The actual amount of transmitted light depends on the lens design and is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number#T-stops&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;measured in T-stops&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the fast lens will still make a difference when you look through the viewfinder and your autofocus will also gain from it as the lens is only stopped down to the aperture you set for the shutter actuation time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-18T14:52:25.517" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T14:52:25.517" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2612" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2606" CreationDate="2010-08-18T14:44:59.310" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since the aperture isn't stopped down until the exposure is made, you get the benefit of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A brighter viewfinder  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Faster, more accurate autofocus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once the picture is taken, at, say f/4.5,  you get the DOF that you'd expect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="414" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T14:44:59.310" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2613" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2610" CreationDate="2010-08-18T14:51:05.643" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're looking for ND (as in Neutral Density) filter. They're usually marked as ND2, ND4, ND8, ..., each step indicating 1-stop change in your exposure settings. For example if you were shooting at f/2,8, 1/100, ISO100 then adding ND2 filter will give you options to shoot either at f/2,0, 1/100, ISO100 or f/2,8, 1/50, ISO100.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of recognized filter manufacturers have ND filters in their lineup, including Hoya, B+W, Singh Ray, Lee, Cokin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should you already own a polarizing filter you might use it to get rid of 1-2 steps of light or even combine it with the second polarizer to create a &lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/create-your-own-variable-neutral-density-filter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;variable density ND filter&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-18T16:10:06.970" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T16:10:06.970" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2614" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2608" CreationDate="2010-08-18T15:02:14.590" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You should probably update your Photoshop or Adobe Camera Raw (not sure it can be updated separately) to &lt;a href=&quot;http://postscript.info/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4517&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ACR version 5.4 or later&lt;/a&gt;, because D5000 was not supported in the previous versions of ACR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T15:02:14.590" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2615" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2608" CreationDate="2010-08-18T15:03:05.087" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Photoshop has a Camera Raw plug-in.  You just need to update it to the most recent version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T15:03:05.087" />
  <row Id="2616" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2605" CreationDate="2010-08-18T15:07:45.963" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;VR:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;I don't think VR matters at all for portraits, where you can control the lighting to make sure you have a suitably fast shutter speed (1/125 or 1/250) to avoid blur due to camera shake. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;AF:&lt;/strong&gt; This depends on how good you are at focusing manually. For portraits with shallow depth of field (wide aperture), it's critical to make sure that one or both of the eyes is in perfect focus. If you can do this manually, then by all means, go for the manual focus lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before buying, you can try manually focusing on one of the lenses you already have, and then check your focus by looking at the full-size image on your computer. I often find that I've missed by a bit when focusing manually, but some people are quite good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="414" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T15:07:45.963" />
  <row Id="2617" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2605" CreationDate="2010-08-18T15:10:11.700" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Manual focus sounds plausible for portraits, especially if you're on a tripod.  If you shoot with a shallow depth of field, obviously focus becomes much more important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you shoot tethered, you can check your focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are motivated you can work on your manual focus technique.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think your only regret would be in not researching this question until you know very clearly what the tradeoffs are.  If you know what the limitations are, and you're willing to live with it, no regrets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T15:10:11.700" />
  <row Id="2618" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2610" CreationDate="2010-08-18T15:22:26.943" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the ND filters Karel mentions, a circular polarizer will also reduce the light by 2 stops and, as an added bonus, cut down certain types of glare and reflection from things like glass, water, and other bright surfaces.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T15:22:26.943" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="2619" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2605" CreationDate="2010-08-18T15:38:20.773" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Manual Focusing with the 50mm 1.8 is extremely hard.  The deep of field is very small when the lense is wide open. The viewfinder on the D5000 is small and the live view doesn't provide enough detail to focus.  Often, you will think your focus is correct, but will only find out it's slightly out of focus at the computer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would not recommend.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could look at the Nikon 1.4 AF-S version (not the AF), which has a motor.  Or maybe the Sigma 50mm 1.4.  But they are all more expensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1093" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T15:38:20.773" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2620" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2554" CreationDate="2010-08-18T19:24:17.093" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On Amazon.com, the T1i is approximately half the price of the T2i at the moment. I'd say that's a fantastic deal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="142" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T19:24:17.093" />
  <row Id="2621" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2390" CreationDate="2010-08-18T19:46:42.920" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that by &quot;32 bit&quot; you are referring to CMYK colors, that is 8 bits per channel with 4 channels. This is a color space that is usually used for offset printing, not for continous tone photographic printing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Almost all images captured by a digital cameras or scanners are RGB colors and sometimes known as 24 bit color, 8 bits per channel with three channels. Confusingly the same images might be called 8 bit images because of the number of bits per channel. I will use the number of bits per channel terminology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pardon me if this all review for you, it's hard for me to be sure so I'm covering all the bases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you truly are referring to CMYK images I would not submit them to a service for fulfillment in this layout as almost all photographic hardcopy output devices use RGB colors (like laser printing on silver halide paper, inkjet, or thermal) converting between CMYK and RGB can be tricky and it is likely the results won't match your expectations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps you are really asking about 16 bit images which are RGB with 16 bits per channel? I'll assume this is the case. Almost all prints made from digital images at various fulfillment services are done using 8 bit RGB images. If you submit a 16 bit image and it is not rejected the service will sample the 16 bit image to an 8 bit image. Typically (except for specialized applications) a 16 bit image allows you to have values from 0 (darkest) to 1023 (lightest). An 8 bit image is 0 (darkest) to 255 (lightest) the difference between the two is the number of intermediate steps available to be manipulated, not on the maximum lightness or darkness. The gamut of an image printed on an output device is driven by many factors: input color space, printer calibration, media, ink, minimum and maximum density achievable, etc. The number of bits in your image is a very small component.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Testing has shown that the human eye can only differentiate about 266 discrete levels in the green part of the visible light spectrum, about 200 in red and 150 in blue. A properly prepared and well-printed 8 bit image is capable of producing results indistinguishable by humans from a higher bit depth image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;High level advice for the highest gamut possible: capture your image in RAW and render it to a wide gamut color space like &quot;Adobe RGB&quot; or &quot;Wide Gamut&quot; (&quot;sRGB&quot; the default for most cameras encompasses the gamut of CRT monitors and is not close to the gamut available in a good hardcopy printer), carefully set white and black points in the image submitted, use a device with a large gamut (most pro level inkjet printers and laser silver halide printers do very well).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All that said it is my anecdotal opinion that most non-professional services are likely to use uncalibrated or poorly calibrated and poorly color managed devices which will override any of the careful preparation outlined above. You get what you pay for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T19:46:42.920" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2622" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2503" CreationDate="2010-08-18T21:11:27.163" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've had good success bringing pictures of poses I'm looking for, and showing them to my model as an indication of how they should place themselves. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I try to keep a library of interesting poses for that purpose on my iPod photo gallery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I recently discovered that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.designaglow.com/store/category/45/Portrait-Posing-Guides&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Design Aglow&lt;/a&gt; sells posing guides for a variety of classic subjects (engagements, babies, teenagers...) that could serve that purpose really well)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="204" LastEditorUserId="204" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-26T23:58:15.430" LastActivityDate="2010-10-26T23:58:15.430" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-18T21:11:27.163" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2623" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2551" CreationDate="2010-08-18T22:37:53.867" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As others point out, there is no standard. I personally use somewhere between 2:1 to 3:1. I like 3:1 because 36x12 inch frames are easy to find and therefore cheap. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1125" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T22:37:53.867" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2624" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2626" CreationDate="2010-08-18T23:02:13.800" Score="19" ViewCount="198" Body="&lt;p&gt;I see the term &quot;Color Profile&quot; a lot and I have this vague idea that it helps you adjust color values based on the unique differences of both cameras, displays and printers from some ideal device. Where can I find a good guide to what I need to know about color profiles and when and how to use them to get good results and fine grained control of my workflow and prints?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="950" LastActivityDate="2010-08-22T20:48:10.370" Title="What are Color Profiles and where would I find information on using them properly?" Tags="&lt;color-management&gt;&lt;prints&gt;&lt;color-correction&gt;&lt;image-processing&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="2625" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2624" CreationDate="2010-08-18T23:15:16.433" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A good site, for understanding some of the more technical issues in Photography in general is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cambridge in Colour&lt;/a&gt; and specifically their series on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/color-management1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Color Management&lt;/a&gt;. The site, as a whole, is worth visiting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-18T23:15:16.433" />
  <row Id="2626" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2624" CreationDate="2010-08-18T23:47:10.250" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Color Management is a scientific process by which various devices used in an image processing workflow can be used despite differences in their supported color. Every device is only approximating some of the total range of colors humans can see, and this limited range is called its &quot;color gamut&quot;. Each device has limitations, but those limitations differ from device to device. Different methods of rendering color also introduce additional differences, so the RGB &quot;additive&quot; model of computer screens and digital sensors is radically different, and perceived quite differently, than the CMYK (or variations thereof) &quot;subtractive&quot; model of print. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Color Spaces &amp;amp; Profiles&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Color Profile is a file that specifically defines the color parameters of a device, and when used in conjunction with systems and software that support color management, allows &quot;safe&quot; conversion of image data to and from various devices. This is important, as your camera, computer screen, and printer will all have different color gamuts, and proper conversion of image data between each is critical to ensuring accurate representation of the original scene you may have photographed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A simple example would be taking a photograph of a vibrantly colored scene that contains bright reds, greens, violets, etc. By default, most cameras save images in JPEG using the sRGB color profile. A high-powered graphics workstation is likely to have a computer screen capable of rendering a greater range of colors, usually the Adobe RGB color space. While both the sRGB and Adobe RGB color spaces cover much of the same gamut, Adobe RGB supports more shades of green and orange, but covers a little less than some parts of sRGB in the vibrant reds and violets. Any colors captured by your camera in the areas that the Adobe RGB color space does not cover will need to be approximated. The same issue arises when you print your images, as printers generally support smaller gamuts than either a camera or a computer screen. Colors supported by Adobe RGB or sRGB will need to be mapped and approximated in the color space supported by a printer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Color Management&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ICC Color Management system, supported by most modern operating systems like Windows and MacOS, as well as by professional image and photograph editing tools like Photoshop, Lightroom, and Aperture, take care of these conversions for you. You just need to make sure you choose the appropriate color profile for each of your devices. Generally speaking, most DSLR cameras support the standard sRGB and Adobe RGB profiles when saving to JPEG. When using RAW, the full color range supported by the camera sensor will be available, which in modern digital cameras can greatly exceed the sRGB or Adobe RGB gamut. Film can support a considerable gamut as well, and a high quality drum scan of a 4x5 transparency may also cover a wider gamut than either sRGB or Adobe RGB. Computer screens generally support sRGB, however professional graphics screens usually support Adobe RGB, while the upper echelon of screens may even support a broader gamut. Newer screens may support the very wide gamut ProPhoto RGB, which covers a much wider range of green, violet, and red/orange tones that the human eye can see (as well as some which the human eye can't see) which are generally excluded by most other gamuts. For a computer screen, it is important to calibrate the screen, and generate a custom profile that will make the best use of the gamut the screen supports. Regardless of what gamut a computer screen supports, it is best to avoid actually selecting sRGB, Adobe RGB, or any other common color profile for it in your ICC management settings. Always calibrate for accurate color representation and tonal range distribution. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While color management system is capable of handling conversions between color spaces for you, it is important to realize the &quot;intent&quot; behind a conversion. If you have an image in the Adobe RGB space that makes use of the extended range of colors, and need to convert that image to sRGB, you are converting into a smaller color space that is not capable of directly representing all of the original colors. Your intent may be to &quot;clip&quot; the unsupported colors, mapping them to the nearest supported color in the destination space. While this will accurately represent all directly supported colors in the destination space by choosing the closest match, it will not accurately represent any out-of-gamut colors. This may result in hard edges, banding, and other undesirable artifacts. This is called &lt;strong&gt;Relative Colorimetric&lt;/strong&gt; intent. Alternatively, you may choose to shift all of the colors from the source space to the destination space. This has the effect of compressing, rather than clipping, the colors represented in your image. The result is a shift in possibly all of the colors of your image, not just the ones that are out of gamut. This shift is done in such a way that the resulting image is still perceived the same way, and although the colors are no longer all exactly the same, it still appears the same. This is called &lt;strong&gt;Perceptual&lt;/strong&gt; intent. If your original image does not make use of any (or many) colors supported by a larger gamut, you may choose to convert with relative intent to preserve accuracy. However, if your original image does make use of colors supported by a larger gamut, a perceptual shift may be more appropriate, although possibly less accurate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Print Profiles and Management&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More important than the color spaces used by the camera or computer screen, however, are the color profiles used for print. The colors you perceive when viewing a print are highly dependent upon a few key factors: the inks used, the paper used, and the intended viewing lighting. Papers come in a very wide variety of tones, from ultra bright stark white to much duller, warmer, earthier tones. The gloss or matt finish of a paper also affects how colors are perceived. The tone of the paper affects how colors look when printed, and require different mixtures to accurately represent any particular color. The inks used also determine what colors can be represented on paper. Normally its just Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and Black, however modern ink jet printers and professional/industrial printers may use many more colors. The raw color pigments or dyes used also affect the gamut of a print. In addition to the color of paper and mixture of inks, the light a print is viewed in can have an effect on your perception of color.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To accurately reproduce colors in print, a unique color profile that is specific to the inks being mixed and the paper being printed on is required. For maximum accuracy, a profile that includes the kind of light the print will be viewed in may also be used. If you do your own printing, and use a variety of papers, you could quite likely end up with dozens of different color profiles, one for each combination of paper type, printer/inks, and lighting conditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Print vs. Screen: Gamut's and Reality&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many professional ink jet printers and ink systems support a larger gamut than either sRGB or Adobe RGB. In the case of Canon ipF5100/6100 printers, which make use of a 12-color LUCIA pigment ink system, they can represent a considerably &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200707_canonipf5000.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;larger gamut than sRGB, and it even exceeds Adobe RGB&lt;/a&gt; in some areas. Epson's UltraChrome pigment ink system is similar, offering less green coverage but extended magenta, violet and possibly orange coverage. This fact is generally only applicable to the most modern professional ink jet systems, such as Canon PIXMA &amp;amp; ProGraph w/ LUCIA or Epson StylusPro w/ UltraChrome 3. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Professional ink jet printers are generally capable of a greater range of colors than your average commercial printing (offset printing or similar processes), by almost two-fold. Professional ink jet's have a gamut that covers about 800,000 colors, while offset printing covers about 400,000-480,000 (See &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.graphicrepro.co.za/assets/2/pdf/64-WideGamut.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wide Gamut approaching Full Gamut&lt;/a&gt;&quot; for reference). In comparison, Adobe RGB covers about 1.3 million colors, while ProPhoto RGB covers about 2.9 million colors. There are different schools of thought on how many distinct colors may be perceived by the human eye, however based on scientific studies it ranges from 2-3 million up through ten million or so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the differences between various methods of printing, it is important to use the correct color space that can preserve the colors that may be reproduced with your chosen printing method. In the case of professional ink jet printing, ProPhoto RGB (even though it can not be fully and accurately represented on screen yet) will generally support better results with ink jet reproduction. Commercial printing supports considerably fewer distinct colors than professional ink jets, however those colors still cover the area of a fairly wide gamut that nearly spans Adobe RGB. If you ship your work off to a lab, in general, they tend to require sRGB, so your likely stuck with it. I honestly can't say what the equipment in a photo lab is capable of, however you are likely losing some color range regardless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A New Color Space&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For all the popularity of sRGB and Adobe RGB, they are not really ideal color spaces for much photographic work. The ProPhoto RGB color space covers a much wider range of colors, however it can not be fully reproduced on either a computer screen or in print. It also supports colors that are outside of the range of human vision, which poses its own problems. A newer color space has been developed that is designed to better approximate the colors that we commonly work with, support the tools we commonly do that work in, and cover the range of colors commonly supported by the devices we use. This new color space, called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?BetaRGB.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Beta RGB, developed by Bruce Lindbloom&lt;/a&gt;, has some intriguing implications for both photographic workflow as well as printing. The Beta RGB color space has been meticulously designed to support the needs of photographers while attempting to minimize the problems with sRGB and Adobe RGB. While it is not possible to use the Beta RGB space when working with JPEG, it is possible to process a RAW file into TIFF or DNG and use the Beta RGB space.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Notes on # of Colors&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A quick note on the numbers of colors quoted above. When discussing the colors supported by a gamut, or the human eye, the numbers generally refer to the total number of full intensity colors, from white to fully saturated distinct colors (chromaticity, or the measure of a color's purity irregardless of its intensity.) These numbers do not account for the entire range of &lt;em&gt;color shades&lt;/em&gt;, or colors with differing degrees of brightness (intensity). The grand total range color in all shades visible to the human eye is tremendous...likely ranging in the trillions. The total colors and shades covered by any given color space is also higher than the baseline numbers quoted above. While Adobe RGB may cover 1.3 million distinct colors from white to saturation, Adobe RGB covers a greater range of shades of those colors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should also be noted that if you are working with 8-bit per pixel (24bit) images, you always have 16.7 million &quot;colors&quot; (read that as distinct colors &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; their shades), regardless of the gamut. Those colors simply map to different distinct colors, and a wider gamut allows for a broader distribution of distinct colors and shades. If you are working with 16-bit per pixel (48bit) images, you have some 270 billion &quot;colors&quot;. This does not really translate to more distinct colors, however it does translate to a greater range of tones, or a more finely grained distinction in various levels of brightness. The same goes for 32-bit per pixel HDR (96bit float) images. The total distinct colors of an HDR image would still be around 1-2 million...however you gain orders of magnitude more range on the brightness scale, and are able to represent a near-infinite range of brightness levels (or a near-infinite range of tones).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The measurement of &quot;color&quot; is a rather complex endeavor, and simply put, can not be effectively measured in only two dimensions. A full exploration of the total range of &lt;em&gt;chromaticity (hue &amp;amp; colorfulness) and intensity&lt;/em&gt;, or &lt;em&gt;hue, saturation, and brightness/lightness&lt;/em&gt; (or any other common model) requires an examination in three dimensions that takes the intensity of a color into account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reference&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some links to useful sites that cover Color Management:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/learn/digital-photography-workflow/color-management/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Color Management Primer: Overview&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/color-management1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cambridge in Color: Color Management&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/prophoto-rgb.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Understanding ProPhoto RGB: A Preferred Working Space for Digital Photographers&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-22T20:48:10.370" LastActivityDate="2010-08-22T20:48:10.370" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="2627" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2628" CreationDate="2010-08-19T01:35:56.073" Score="81" ViewCount="6096" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm curious to see some real examples of where simply capturing the same photo in RAW (and being processed by someone who can do it justice) has significantly improved the photo at the end of the process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand what RAW is and why you might want to use it over JPEG, however, I'd like to actually see some examples where it has allowed for a better result. More control over tone, conversion from the more detailed data to 8-bit RGB etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone have or know of some processed RAW+JPEG shots for exact comparison?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update:&lt;/strong&gt; For those coming to this question recently, I've been shooting RAW for about two months now and &lt;em&gt;it totally trumps JPEG.&lt;/em&gt; Not just because you have more data, but because you have the base data to do any kind of photo treatment you want without losing that original data. I strongly recommend shooting RAW!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastEditorUserId="609" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-04T23:35:03.530" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T16:57:38.857" Title="Good examples of RAW's advantages over JPEG?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;jpeg&gt;&lt;comparison&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="41" />
  <row Id="2628" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2627" CreationDate="2010-08-19T01:56:27.570" Score="99" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;The Value of RAW:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think you may be misunderstanding the value of RAW. In the grand scheme of things, from seeing a scene with your eye to printing it, the best you get is what the printer you printed with is capable of, and that tends to be &lt;strong&gt;considerably less&lt;/strong&gt; than what you see, or your camera or your computer is capable of representing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The value of RAW is not really in the end result, although it is possible for the end result created with a RAW image to be better than that created with a JPEG. The reason for this has to do with the &lt;em&gt;workflow&lt;/em&gt; between snapping a shot and saving or printing a final image. RAW gives you headroom that JPEG can't come close to offering. You have the ability to recover highlights and shadows, apply alternative tone curves, rework old RAW images with newer RAW processing algorithms to get better results, etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are basically asking what is the value of an original film negative or slide, over a final scanned JPEG copy of that film negative/slide. With the original film, you have plenty of capability to rework and improve, use different printing techniques, etc...where as with the final JPEG, you got what you got, and not a whole lot more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Example:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An original JPEG of Lower Yellowstone Falls. The sky was completely blown out, as this was one of the very first few photos I took over a year ago when I first got into photography. I had researched RAW, along with most other camera theory, long before I ever purchased a camera, so I had RAW+JPEG enabled at the time:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/c0xUo.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Lower Falls JPEG&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Below is the reworked version from a RAW file. Because of RAW's considerable headroom, I was able to nearly fully recover the horrendously blown out sky, retone the whole image, and generate three alternative exposures (-1.5 EV, Original EV, +1.5 EV) using Lightroom to create a far sharper, clearer, and richer HDR image:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/UZ6ur.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Lower Falls RAW Corrected&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was largely because of the radical improvements I was able to make to this image that I rarely ever shoot in JPEG anymore. I opt for RAW the vast majority of the time, and as I am still a student of the artistic aspects of photography, I appreciate the headroom that RAW offers. Most of the time, the final image saved from a RAW file is very similar to that of a JPEG...its the times when you botched it big and need to massively rework an image that RAW's advantages over JPEG really start to shine. Its all in the workflow, rather than the destination. ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;JPEG Example:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark took the time to rework the JPEG sample I posted, to demonstrate what can be done with a JPEG. I think its important to note that a JPEG is not completely unworkable once it is taken...I may have lead to that belief in my comments above. JPEG images do have some room to be reworked, if needed, however it is more limited than RAW. Marks reworked copy of the JPEG sample is here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/EZvw8.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Retouched JPEG Example&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A couple things should be noted. For one, he was able to retone the image decently, and it looks similar to the retoned RAW example I posted. The retoning, caused the unrecoverable parts of the sky to become yellowed, which I would consider an undesirable outcome. Depending on the software used, that may or may not happen. Something also not visible in the very small JPEG examples are compression artifacts, which have a tendency to become more pronounced as you rework an image, limiting your options.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Detailed Example:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Something else that I was able to recover from was a severe degree of softness, caused by the 18mm extreme of the cheap EF-S 18-55mm lens I used when I took this shot. I have some crops below that demonstrate the original image, a sharpened copy of the JPEG using a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1370/unsharp-mask-what-do-the-parameters-do/1377#1377&quot;&gt;technique explained by @Guffa here on Photo-SE&lt;/a&gt;, and an HDR version that was only possible because with RAW, I could use Lightroom to export two additional alternative exposures 1.5EV from the original. Even using Guffa's excellent sharpening technique, the JPEG can't compare to the ability to create an HDR image from a single poorly-shot RAW image (these images are about 1/3 of their full resolution):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/sggrR.png&quot; alt=&quot;Original&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/3ya4l.png&quot; alt=&quot;Shrpened&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/jviCH.png&quot; alt=&quot;HDR&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And another example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/R9y3a.png&quot; alt=&quot;Original&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/LIRkt.png&quot; alt=&quot;Sharpened&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/MxK2l.png&quot; alt=&quot;HDR&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The HDR examples were not sharpened using any normal sharpening technique; the added sharpness was the result of Photoshop's image alignment during Merge to HDR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-25T16:57:38.857" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T16:57:38.857" CommentCount="15" />
  <row Id="2629" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2627" CreationDate="2010-08-19T03:06:10.693" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;jrista pretty much summed up the whole difference, but just to clarify on the point of RAW headroom: JPEG is 8 bits, meaning 256 discrete levels per channel (RGB) which creates quite a wide range of color (16,777,216 discrete colors to be exact), but that pales in comparison to what RAW can potentially offer. The actual number of bits that a dSLR sensor captures varies, but the average hangs out around 12 bits, or 4096 discrete levels per channel which translates into 68,719,476,736 discrete colors. That's likely far and away beyond what the human eye can detect, but having pure volume gives you control over the final image that is way beyond anything you can do with a JPEG that comes out of the camera. Heck, even if your camera adds a mere bit to the capture, it still results in 134,217,728 colours, almost 10 times that of JPEG.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, once you realize what RAW gives you, the question of JPEG vs RAW becomes pretty simple to decide. Having said that, the trade-off is that you have to do the work yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-19T03:06:10.693" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="2630" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2601" CreationDate="2010-08-19T04:34:21.557" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The usefulness of a lens entirely depends on what use you put it to. Like Karel's excellent statement said, &quot;there really are no limits&quot;. So long as you are creative and imaginative, you can put a 200mm lens to excellent use, even in areas where wide-angles dominate. A great example is Andy Mumford's telephoto landscape work...purely genius: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/KNqgX.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Two by Andy Mumford&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Reference: &lt;a href=&quot;http://andymumford.deviantart.com/art/Two-119452261&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Two by Andy Mumford&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The full range of telephoto focal lengths can be useful for landscape, not just 200mm. Here is another example at 80mm:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Sxe2A.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Capella by Andy Mumford&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Reference: &lt;a href=&quot;http://andymumford.deviantart.com/art/Capella-140796598&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Capella by Andy Mumford&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This photographer has written a great article about the value of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nd-magazine.com/articles/art6.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;telephoto lenses in landscape at ND Magazine&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-08-19T04:34:21.557" />
  <row Id="2631" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2627" CreationDate="2010-08-19T13:03:25.540" Score="-8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The other thing to note is that most people's idea of RAW is not actually what it is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most people assume that RAW is the RAW data coming off the sensor, when what it really is is just a very high bit depth JPEG or the like. This is why you can grade it, get more out of the highlights etc. JPEG is actually a very good standard, just not when its only 8 bits. I tried to find a reference for the RAW being a 14-bit JPEG, but couldnt find one. I heard about it in passing on the red center podcast #68 from www.fxguide.com. Great Podcast by the way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anywho, just thought I'd let people know. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="426" LastActivityDate="2010-08-19T13:03:25.540" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="2632" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2633" CreationDate="2010-08-19T14:54:21.207" Score="4" ViewCount="195" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a way to get Auto mode to record RAW files on the 450D?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's for when I hand over the camera to less experience people, it's easiest for them to just use Auto.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can use 'P' mode as a fallback, but then they still have to choose to popup the flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I think the 400D allows this, as it only has one setting for RAW / JPEG, etc. Whereas the 450D has one setting for the manual modes, and one setting for the auto/preset modes, and the latter only offers you a choice of different JPEG sizes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="142" LastEditorUserId="142" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-20T15:47:18.570" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T15:47:18.570" Title="RAW files in XSI / 450D full auto mode" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;canon-450d&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2633" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2632" CreationDate="2010-08-19T15:38:06.873" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not that I know of, I tend to use Program (P) for that exact reason.  As far as choosing to use flash, I actually prefer that situation, since in most situations, on board flash isn't all that helpful, and in some it actually causes problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-08-19T15:38:06.873" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2634" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2632" CreationDate="2010-08-19T16:27:00.183" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, unfortunately there is not a way to use RAW as &quot;Green Box&quot; is fully automatic, the camera does everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As noted program Auto Exposure gives you slightly more control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've found that if the lighting isn't complicated, the camera does a decent job. Add to that with newer bodies, the incamera calculations have gotten better in successive generations, so green-box is not nearly as limiting for newbies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One advantage to the images being jpeg, is that since I shoot raw exclusively, and don't swap memory cards until they are full, it makes it super easy to filter out images that were taken by other people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-19T16:27:00.183" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="2635" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2627" CreationDate="2010-08-19T17:41:48.343" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Much of it is that I just find it easier to achieve the sort of look I prefer with Adobe software than the software in my Canon cameras.  Trying to achieve what I like with the limited in-camera control I'm allowed is harder than getting it done in Adobe Camera Raw.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where I notice a big difference is with my compact digital camera.  Below is a snapshot from my Canon G7.  I've installed CHDK so I can get raw.  I have as much of the in-camera sharpening and noise reduction turned off as I can, and yet it's obvious that there is some serious detail destroying processing going on in-camera.  Yeah, my version has more noise, but in all but the largest prints that will show as increased detail, while the NR and sharpening artifacts from the jpeg will show as nasty digital haze in prints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;G7 jpeg processed by camera&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/xLx8X.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;G7 raw processed by me&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Axwpy.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;jpeg crop at 100% magnification&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fEMZx.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;raw crop at 100% magnification&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/f3agb.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="965" LastActivityDate="2010-08-19T17:41:48.343" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2636" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2551" CreationDate="2010-08-19T17:55:53.810" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some common panoramic film camera aspect ratios would be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1:3 - 35mm film cropped with in-camera pano feature&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2:5 - 35mm Widelux/Noblex/Horizon swing lens pano cameras, also common in old banquet view cameras&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1:2 - 6x12 medium format cameras&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;6:17 - 6x17 medium format cameras&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="965" LastActivityDate="2010-08-19T17:55:53.810" />
  <row Id="2637" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-19T19:33:06.570" Score="6" ViewCount="329" Body="&lt;p&gt;Question about &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2627/good-examples-of-raws-advantages-over-jpeg&quot;&gt;RAW advantages over JPG&lt;/a&gt; made me curious if somebody has examples where in-camera JPEG is actually image quality-wise better than RAW image converted in computer (possibly by third party RAW converter). I don't mean default settings, but the best you can get from both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt; I finally found at least one example myself: &lt;a href=&quot;http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/06/iso-6400-from-an-ep1.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/06/iso-6400-from-an-ep1.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although this is really subjective, I get consistently better colors from Canon's DPP (which should match the camera algorithms) than what I get from the converters I've tried. This might fall into (poor) skill category though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT2:&lt;/strong&gt; Another case where this &lt;em&gt;could possibly happen&lt;/em&gt; is when the highlight rescuing functionality (Active D-lightning/Highlight tone priority/...) is used. So if anybody has made this kind of tests, feel free to share your results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT3:&lt;/strong&gt; Here are my own results where in-camera noise reduction seems to beat everything else: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2691/does-long-exposure-noise-reduction-option-make-any-difference-when-shooting-raw/2705#2705&quot;&gt;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2691/does-long-exposure-noise-reduction-option-make-any-difference-when-shooting-raw/2705#2705&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-21T21:00:41.040" LastActivityDate="2010-09-28T15:34:06.007" Title="Examples where in-camera JPEG has advantage over (third party software) converted RAW" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;jpeg&gt;&lt;comparison&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="20" />
  <row Id="2638" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2637" CreationDate="2010-08-19T19:59:20.783" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, by definition there isn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the conversion to JPEG a lot of information is thrown away. The RAW file contains all the original information, so anything that the camera does to convert it to JPEG can be done later on from the RAW file. Generally you can even get a better result, because you can fine tune the conversion depending on the picture, and also because the RAW conversion program isn't contrained by the speed requirements that is put on the conversion in the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if you get a better result from the JPEG file, it's simply because you don't know how to get the same result from the RAW file.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-19T20:06:01.407" LastActivityDate="2010-08-19T20:06:01.407" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2639" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2637" CreationDate="2010-08-19T20:21:58.683" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here some advantages of JPEG over RAW:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Faster to write file to card&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Faster to transfer files from card to computer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Faster to browse files&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Faster to process files in software&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Less space on card/disk/backup&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Universal support&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those are advantages that needs to be taken in consideration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do NOT plan to retouch your images (take them as-is), JPEG could be the way to go.  Because of the high-dynamics in the RAW files, the initial look may look a bit more flat on RAW, compared to JPEG.  When converting to JPEG, the camera applies a light contrast curve on the image.  Depending on your camera, JPEG may look better out-of-box.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1093" LastEditorUserId="1093" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-19T20:32:56.567" LastActivityDate="2010-08-19T20:32:56.567" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2640" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2646" CreationDate="2010-08-19T20:22:03.113" Score="17" ViewCount="841" Body="&lt;p&gt;I need to do some headshots of myself for a gig I have coming up.  My initial thought was to use a plain light background (as you see in many studio shots), but I've had some advice to use a dark background, which sounds like an interesting idea.  I'll probably try out both to see which I prefer.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm mostly concerned with posture/composition/angles now.  I read somewhere that it was best to shoot men slightly from above with the head angled up to avoid double chins, which, if I'm being honest, is a concern :-)  I have an idea of my &quot;best side&quot;, so of course that helps too.  I haven't done much photography of people, so general tips on this subject would be appreciated.  (I mostly do photos of stuff outside: flowers, buildings, etc., where the light is good and the subjects are already posed to their advantage).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The headshots will be converted to black and white before use.  If you know of a way to get the Nikon D90 to &lt;em&gt;shoot&lt;/em&gt; in black and white (rather than editing in-camera after taking the photo), I'd appreciate the advice there too.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance for your help!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="602" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-01T02:53:01.200" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T06:08:27.537" Title="Tips for taking headshot self-portraits?" Tags="&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;composition&gt;&lt;self-portrait&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="2641" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2637" CreationDate="2010-08-19T20:22:19.197" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a difficult question to answer, because yes it's technically possible to have a in-camera jpeg look better than RAW, but the scenarios are contrived.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Scenario One: Person Doing the Raw Conversion is unskilled&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, the user who is interacting with the RAW file doesn't understand what they are doing, and makes setting adjustments that produce an image that looks worse than the incamera jpeg.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Scenario Two: The raw converter itself is poorly written&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Raw conversion requires an algorithm to reconstruct the image data from the bayer pattern data. By definition, the bayer pattern has 33% of the information that was present in the original scene. It's conceivable that one could write their own RAW converter using a poorly thought-out conversion algorithm which would result in a malformed image that looks considerably worse that what In-Camera processing can produce.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Scenario Three: The raw converter does not properly understand the RAW format&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you attempt to use an older RAW converter on RAW files from an unsupported camera, the results are undefined and likely will be terrible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-19T20:22:19.197" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2642" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2637" CreationDate="2010-08-19T20:25:14.823" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the camera maker has special knowledge of the sensor characteristics, for example the exact absorbtion spectrum of the filters, it might be able to do a better job than a generic converter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is only theoretical, I don't have any good examples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certainly if you're going to work with JPEG anyway, having the camera do it will be faster than going through an extra software step.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="775" LastActivityDate="2010-08-19T20:25:14.823" />
  <row Id="2643" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2637" CreationDate="2010-08-19T20:52:16.257" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've always shot with just jpeg. I know many think I'm crazy but for me I find the advantages of jpeg (as mentioned by decasteljau) still just clinch it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On Saturday, I set my Canon 7D to record both jpeg and RAW for every shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Below are the results after separately editing each of the file formats from the same shot in Lightroom 2.6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not really a useful test and you shouldn't draw any conclusions from it since I haven't edited each one in the same way. To be honest, any differences you see here are almost certainly due to the way I edited them rather than the format. The jpeg shot is much brighter for a start. If I get a chance, I'll have a 2nd attempt at trying to get the photos looking more similar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is however what the question asked, and I was personally curious to see if the difference was worth it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Final edit from camera-generated RAW source image&lt;/strong&gt;:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/geVzZ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Final edit from camera-generated jpeg source image&lt;/strong&gt;:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/a93QB.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastEditorUserId="190" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-19T21:22:43.877" LastActivityDate="2010-08-19T21:22:43.877" />
  <row Id="2644" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="31" CreationDate="2010-08-19T20:53:11.277" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've had this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/682193-REG/Slik_611_461.html#specifications&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Slik Compact&lt;/a&gt; for years. It's 572g and is only rated for 1.24kg, but it comes very close to meeting your spec. It's very basic and a bit of a pain to set up with so many leg segments; mine is an earlier version that had twist-lock legs rather than the clamps pictured. Still better than no tripod at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="775" LastActivityDate="2010-08-19T20:53:11.277" />
  <row Id="2645" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-19T20:58:12.450" Score="7" ViewCount="735" Body="&lt;p&gt;I moved from a 20D to 7D recently and moved my EFS 17-85mm to the 7D. The 7D images are soft so I had to program my own sharpness mode. I use both tripod and hand held, and yes I know to turn off stabilization on tripod. &lt;code&gt;Has anyone else experienced this on the 7D?&lt;/code&gt; Is it camera or lens? I didn't notice this on the 20D even though for most of my images I'm shooting8M jpg / 10M Raw, very similar to the 20D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1139" LastEditorUserId="889" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-20T01:28:19.413" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T09:04:09.043" Title="7D soft images problems" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;sharpness&gt;&lt;canon-7d&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2646" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2640" CreationDate="2010-08-19T21:10:50.423" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In terms of equipment, the immediate obvious is that you need a tripod, but I'd also recommend a remote (preferrably wireless) so that you're not attempting to beat the timer. After that, depending on the seriousness of the shots, there are lots of ways to experiment, especially with odd angles and lighting. You're the subject and photog, so be patient with yourself. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, rather than re-create some existing excellent advice, the Digital Photography School has some good articles on the subject:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/self-portrait-photography-tips&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Self-Portrait Tips&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/self-portraits-7-tips-for-going-beyond-the-basics&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;7 Tips for going beyond the basics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; Now, in regards to black and white... The sensor only records light intensity, the color it records at a given photosite is a result of a filter placed above it (the bayer array of 2 green, a red, and a blue) which are then combined to create the colored pixel. Net effect, to create black and white, the camera must convert, there's no other way. If you do the conversion in post-processing, from the RAW file, you will have better control of the outcome of black and white, so that would be my advice there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-20T01:56:34.367" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T01:56:34.367" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2647" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2645" CreationDate="2010-08-19T21:13:22.310" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I upgraded from 400D to 7D and things just got sharper (and you should expect the same).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you still have both bodies, take the same shot with both and compare them on your computer so that both images take up the same amount of screen size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are you saying things are fine now you have programmed your own sharper mode?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, try taking it into a shop and just ask if you can try out a lens (like canon f1.2 50mm) and just fire a couple of shots. If they look soft then you may have a camera fault... or perhaps you're just used to seeing over-sharpened images ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2010-08-19T21:13:22.310" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2648" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2645" CreationDate="2010-08-19T21:30:16.767" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;yes, my experience with the 7D is that images are much sharper and more detailed, especially compared to my 30D (which is roughly comparably to your 20D).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A couple of options to consider:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, make sure the camera is focusing where you think it should be. the 7D is good at showing where the focus points are on the LCD, so you can make sure the softness you see isn't just an autofocus not doing whta you expect. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, it's also possible that the lens isn't focusing quite right for that body. But that can be tested for and adjusted using the microfocus controls. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-08-19T21:30:16.767" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2651" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2640" CreationDate="2010-08-19T23:17:49.450" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Personally, I think portraits looks best with a shallow depth of field (low f number). This will be a little tricky on your own so you'll need to think of some way to make sure your camera is focussed where your head is going to be. Then you'll want to stick your mug in that spot and fire off a couple of shots. I suggest just firing off loads while slightly moving your distance from the camera and hope you get lucky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some quick tips that popped into my head:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make sure that the nearest eye is pin-sharp&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Don't use on-camera flash&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Don't smile like a loon. Relax your face and just &lt;em&gt;think&lt;/em&gt; about smiling ;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2010-08-19T23:17:49.450" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2652" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2653" CreationDate="2010-08-20T00:16:16.567" Score="3" ViewCount="935" Body="&lt;p&gt;The new Nikon D3100 has video capabilities, and a mono microphone on the front. However, I can't seem to find anywhere if it has an audio input, to enable using a better microphone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T01:00:04.107" Title="Does the Nikon D3100 have audio input?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;video&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="2653" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2652" CreationDate="2010-08-20T01:00:04.107" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I read the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikon.com/about/news/2010/0819_d3100_01.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;specifications&lt;/a&gt; correctly and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/previews/Nikond3100/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;preview&lt;/a&gt; from DP Review, it would appear that it only has the built in mono microphone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T01:00:04.107" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2654" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2768" CreationDate="2010-08-20T01:46:33.190" Score="7" ViewCount="183" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just picked one up as a much less expensive option than a tilt/shift lens for the Pentax mount (they're hard to find and crazy expensive for the K-mount). I have done some experimental shots with it, discovering that I clearly need practice, but beyond that, does anyone have experience with these and have some tips to share?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-27T00:51:05.653" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T00:51:05.653" Title="Tips for using the Lensbaby 3G?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;technique&gt;&lt;tips&gt;&lt;tilt-shift&gt;&lt;lensbaby&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2655" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2658" CreationDate="2010-08-20T02:14:36.400" Score="8" ViewCount="215" Body="&lt;p&gt;I usually try to avoid lens flare, usually by avoiding shooting directly into bright lights (or using &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/184/how-can-you-avoid-minimize-lens-flare-when-shooting-into-the-sun&quot;&gt;other techniques&lt;/a&gt; to minimize it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, sometimes I find a situation where lens flare actually adds to the image. What can I do to effectively incorporate lens flare into my image? Also, are there any ways to do so while minimizing loss of contrast?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-08-23T13:54:12.913" Title="Using lens flare for good" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;technique&gt;&lt;lens-flare&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="2656" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2659" CreationDate="2010-08-20T02:17:47.763" Score="8" ViewCount="226" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Nikon D40. The ISO ranges from 200 to 1600. Why isn't ISO 100 (or smaller) available? Is this common in other cameras? I understand that there are technical limitations to provide higher ISO values, but are there reasons why they must start at 200? And is the fact that the smaller ISO is 200 a problem?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1061" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T19:34:27.190" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T19:34:27.190" Title="Why the smallest ISO in Nikon D40 is 200, rather than 100?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;iso&gt;&lt;nikon-d40&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2657" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-20T02:31:19.153" Score="4" ViewCount="142" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is more of a request than a question. I'm considering getting the aforementioned lens but I'm a bit afraid that it may not allow me to produce as much magnification as I would hope for. That's why I would like to ask users of this lens to post pictures or links to pictures taken with this lens and a full frame camera. Show me how &quot;big&quot; it can go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="125" LastEditorUserId="125" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-20T03:27:03.340" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T05:24:34.790" Title="Examples from the Nikkor Micro 105mm f/2.8 on a full frame camera" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;picture-samples&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="2658" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2655" CreationDate="2010-08-20T02:38:40.320" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The flare is likely to wash out contrast, regardless, but that too can make the scene work better. I'm not really sure that you can change that except, perhaps, using HDR techniques.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, some of the more effective uses of flare that I've seen are with images that are silhouettes, where the beams stand out against the dark foreground. The other place that I've seen it work well is with the wash out creating almost a low-contrast cross-processed look. I think it's a bit trial and error, but in a number of articles I've read regarding artistic lens flare, the use of manual focus really helps to fine tune the look you're going for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T02:38:40.320" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2659" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2656" CreationDate="2010-08-20T02:55:23.057" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The camera is a bit 'elderly' these days, but the ISO range is usually determined by the native base of the sensor itself. However, most current cameras will do ISO 100 (and the odd one even less), but the limits are usually based on the technology at the time, cost factors, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a more technical description, the ISO of a digital sensor is determined by the signal gain of the sensor and these are matched up to be similar to film. At the low end of the gain, you get low ISO, so the lowest gain of the sensor matched up to film determines that end as well as the far end. ISO 12232:2006 gives guidance to camera makers on how to actually line these up, and the options vary quite a bit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, if you want a really detailed article on film speed that covers film through digital, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; has it. It's an interesting read.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T02:55:23.057" />
  <row Id="2660" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2657" CreationDate="2010-08-20T03:02:14.180" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a 1:1 lens, so that means that the size of the subject will be the same size on the sensor. Meaning, for example, a 10mm x 10mm square will project exactly 10mm x 10mm on the sensor at the 1:1 focus point. To go beyond that, you need extension tubes or multipliers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, reviews on the lens rate it very high. Like most macro lenses, it's razor sharp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T03:02:14.180" />
  <row Id="2661" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2664" CreationDate="2010-08-20T04:14:43.163" Score="7" ViewCount="153" Body="&lt;p&gt;I feature all my work exclusively online. What are ways, besides the link-spamming and SEO to drive traffic to your online gallery?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use Facebook and Twitter to occasionally to post links, but I'd like to find out other methods that have been successful in driving viewers to your gallery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not interested in fame, or making money, just getting more people to view my art.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T16:47:25.957" Title="What are ways to drive traffic to your online gallery?" Tags="&lt;photo-galleries&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="2662" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2593" CreationDate="2010-08-20T04:18:28.007" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a few aspects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A smaller minimum F-stop will require a larger outer lens. The amount of glass in the lens, and the corresponding amount of shaping needed, will vary to the square of the diameter. An F/2.8 lens will require a lens twice as large in area as an F/4 lens, and it isn't unreasonable to expect it to cost at least twice as much.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The need to optimize sharpness, chromatic aberrations, and distortion will require complex lens designs and/or exotic glass formulations which cost more than lesser lenses.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Economies of scale mean that lenses which appeal to the mass market will just cost less to manufacture than more limited lenses. Kind of a catch-22: expensive lenses will sell less, so they will cost even more to manufacture, plus the cost of design and company overhead must be amortized over fewer units.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is true that pricing will be determined by what the market will bear, but usually competition ensures that the budget for lens manufacture will be some reasonable fraction of the final lens price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="775" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T04:18:28.007" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2663" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2661" CreationDate="2010-08-20T04:27:37.267" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Get involved in things. Comment on photos, add contacts (such as Flickr) you are interested in and get involved in forums. If other people see some interesting and well shot photos of yours lying around the net, they may be interested to see more. As such, if you interact with people about yours and their photography they may be curious about what &lt;em&gt;your&lt;/em&gt; stuff is like. That's one thing you might be able do more of?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T04:27:37.267" />
  <row Id="2664" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2661" CreationDate="2010-08-20T05:19:23.367" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Send emails to friends and family when you update your gallery. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you sell photos through your gallery, send your customers emails as well.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Forum posting is nice, but then you end up with other hobbyists, rather than a good 'target audience'.  Find, instead, people who might be interested in the photo and will post to their facebook pages or twitter, and have lots of 'friends' or 'followers'.  These people should get frequent updates.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Go to craft fairs and sell prints.  Do this frequently enough, and you'll start to see the same people.  There is an art community that arises around these fairs, and then there are the customers and the like as well.  Some are repeats, others are one-offs, and you should get all of their email addresses for updates.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make your site easy to use.  It does no good to have traffic without allowing people to get to your photos.  Sites like Kodak, that require logins, add a barrier to entry that people will often just not bother vaulting.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Group photos how you think your traffic wants to see them.  If you have photos from a trip, put them together.  Don't mix trips from two years ago with trips taken recently, and don't lump everything together into one huge datastream.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make business cards with your website on it.  Give these cards to potential clients.  If you're not doing photography as a business, business cards might seem a bit creepy, so use at your discretion.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tag your photos with appropriate keywords.  Some of the photos I have that have gotten the most traffic, I tagged with keywords that were apparently straight out of some vampire fiction; I had no idea why those photos were getting so much traffic until I googled those keywords.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T05:19:23.367" />
  <row Id="2665" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2657" CreationDate="2010-08-20T05:24:34.790" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are many samples:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/105_28g_ed_if_afs_vr_micro&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pbase.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Out of the 16k photos there, I'm sure some are with a d700.  A bit hard to narrow down the search there, but still, a good way to get some impressions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For what it's worth, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bjørn Rørslett&lt;/a&gt; did not particularly like this lens in comparison with the 200mm or the 60mm, while &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/qadmacro.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Thom Hogan&lt;/a&gt; doesn't understand the point of a 60mm, since the 1:1 focal distance is so close to the front element that most bugs will be spooked by it.  I find both of those reviewers to give very thorough, detailed critiques of lenses, and coupled with the samples on pbase, I have a much better idea of what to expect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T05:24:34.790" />
  <row Id="2667" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2661" CreationDate="2010-08-20T08:28:25.627" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Take amazing photos&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T08:28:25.627" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2669" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2670" CreationDate="2010-08-20T12:26:43.730" Score="12" ViewCount="139" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are Extension Tubes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-24T20:41:52.293" LastActivityDate="2010-11-24T20:41:52.293" Title="What are Extension Tubes?" Tags="&lt;macro&gt;&lt;extension-tubes&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2670" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2669" CreationDate="2010-08-20T12:36:49.350" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;They're a tube that fits between the lens and camera body to help with macro photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;its sole purpose is to move the lens farther from the image plane. The farther away the lens is, the closer the focus, the greater the magnification&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also loss of light so your aperture and/or exposure time will be affected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can buy ones specific to your camera that have electrical contacts that allow autofocusing etc to work, or generic ones that have no contacts and therefore force you to use manual focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension_tube&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="441" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T12:36:49.350" />
  <row Id="2672" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2681" CreationDate="2010-08-20T15:59:43.050" Score="5" ViewCount="496" Body="&lt;p&gt;So as mentioned above, I have a D90 and an SB600.  I can set up the SB600 to be used as a flash on-camera and off using TTL w/ the D90 as a commander.  What I'm trying to understand is can I fire the SB600 without using my on-camera flash as a trigger?  Maybe I don't quite understand how CLS/TTL works, but I was thinking that I'd be able to put the SB600 wherever I'd like and could fire it wirelessly (there's also an AA setting that i'm not sure about).  I know that Pocket Wizards and Cactus wireless triggers exist and I think I understand how they work, but I'm wondering if they're a requirement when you're using all nikon gear with a body that is a commander...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="274" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-01T05:49:18.567" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T05:49:18.567" Title="Nikon CLS Question - D90 and SB600" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;nikon-d90&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2673" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2678" CreationDate="2010-08-20T16:28:48.443" Score="7" ViewCount="277" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the most correct way to delete all photos from a camera after they all have been copied to a computer: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;to format memory card using the camera menu, &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;or simply &lt;strong&gt;Select All&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;Delete&lt;/strong&gt; photo files from the card using a computer as if it would be just a usb flash drive, &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;or maybe some other way?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or no difference at all? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="591" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T01:36:02.960" Title="The right way to delete all photos from a camera" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;memory-card&gt;" AnswerCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2674" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-20T16:34:11.730" Score="14" ViewCount="589" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many sites out there that offer printing services. I've seen references for online sales sites like SmugMug and PhotoShelter, this is not what I'm looking for.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which would you (the community) consider 'best' in reference to the following criteria:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Quick (from user account creation, uploading photos, customizing order, checking out)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cheap without sacrificing baseline quality (paper quality, quality of ink, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fast (no long delays for order processing, or shipping)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Agile (their process is such that it can handle anything from 10 prints to 500 prints of varying sizes)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm trying out &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.snapfish.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.snapfish.com&lt;/a&gt;, it seems to have all of this, but there are a dozen or more sites out there that offer print services.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1098" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T07:46:05.607" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-23T00:43:28.670" Title="What is the best site for ordering prints online?" Tags="&lt;prints&gt;" AnswerCount="12" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="8" />
  <row Id="2675" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2673" CreationDate="2010-08-20T16:40:46.510" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure that the effects would be different but I would say the safe bet is &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;'Format the memory card using the camera menu'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just make sure you have all of the pictures saved elsewhere before you do this (accidentally wiping out photos sucks)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1098" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T16:40:46.510" />
  <row Id="2676" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2661" CreationDate="2010-08-20T16:47:25.957" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Enter contests, even if you don't place, more people are looking at your photos, if you &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; place, even better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1098" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T16:47:25.957" />
  <row Id="2678" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2673" CreationDate="2010-08-20T17:16:02.433" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's no &quot;right&quot; way to do this, it's what works best for you. In general, I just tend to do the &quot;delete all&quot; unless the card is quite full, then I may format. It's just a question of speed, I'll tend to use the fastest path to clearing it off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, there are some that recommend regular formatting of the card for various reasons. I'm not in that camp, the basis for it isn't entirely sound. However, the upside is the detection of potential hardware flaws on the device. So, even if it isn't specifically regular, doing it every now and then may have some use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Either way, I only do it after I've made two successful copies (primary and backup). I've lost images in the past by not being more careful about it, so now I take a little time to be sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T17:16:02.433" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2679" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2674" CreationDate="2010-08-20T17:23:28.710" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.AdoramaPix.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.AdoramaPix.com&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;Reasonably priced and I've always found the quality to be top notch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1155" LastEditorUserId="1155" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-20T18:05:25.503" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T18:05:25.503" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2680" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2684" CreationDate="2010-08-20T17:36:20.060" Score="5" ViewCount="286" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've seen numerous mentions of Lightroom's database, or catalog, and having to back it up. Being used to Bridge and Camera Raw, I'm accustomed to seeing sidecar .xmp files alongside my RAW files. These can easily be backed up with my RAW files since they are actual files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does Lightroom use sidecar files, same as Bridge, or does it use its own database for storage of image tags, metadata, etc? Or is it some combination?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-29T20:59:00.413" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T20:59:00.413" Title="How does Lightroom store data about photos?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;storage&gt;&lt;lightroom-catalog&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2681" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2672" CreationDate="2010-08-20T17:37:14.427" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can absolutely use other triggering mechanisms, but the wireless part of the CLS uses the on-camera flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One way that's cheaper than the PocketWizard route is a cable.  Refer to Strobist's &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lighting 101&lt;/a&gt; Series for hints on connectivity options.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're using Commander mode, did you set the on-camera flash to -- (essentially off)?  From what I can tell, by shooting a picture of my camera and my SB-800 into a mirror, the on-camera flash does appear a little bit, so you might see it catchlights (as I recently did), but does not contribute significantly to the lighting of the scene.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T17:37:14.427" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2682" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2674" CreationDate="2010-08-20T17:56:47.203" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;They're not the cheapest, but the quality is superb, so I'm a fan of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whcc.com/products/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;WHCC&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also... the account setup isn't exactly quick, but that's a one time process including a test print job, which helps ensure that you get accurate printing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T17:56:47.203" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2683" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2673" CreationDate="2010-08-20T18:05:30.247" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read your camera's manual.&lt;/strong&gt;  They usually have recommendations.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Eliminate human error.&lt;/strong&gt; Card errors of any type are much, much more more rare than you just messing up.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The format used on cards has been a standard for a &lt;em&gt;long&lt;/em&gt; time, and modern sizes are such that what metadata or hidden files a computer might leave are pretty insignificant.  If you can find a method that keeps &lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt; from screwing up and deleting stuff by accident, then the most you'll likely need to do is a periodic in-camera format, just to be on the safe side.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd also add another option to the list, which is letting some sort of image-library management software take care of clearing the card for you; sort of midway between the camera and treating it like a generic USB stick.  I believe Lightroom has an option for this, as does Image Capture and iPhoto on the Mac.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T18:05:30.247" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2684" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2680" CreationDate="2010-08-20T18:39:37.120" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lightroom (on a Mac at least) has its own database, which it calls a catalog, which is stored and backed up separately from your image files. It's called 'Lightroom Catalog.lrcat'. There is an option in 'Catalog Settings' to 'Automatically write changes into XMP'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The following page tells you more about how Lightoom handles metadata and adjustments:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Lightroom/3.0/Using/WS638E3AC9-A04C-4445-A0D3-F7D8BA5CDE37.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Lightroom/3.0/Using/WS638E3AC9-A04C-4445-A0D3-F7D8BA5CDE37.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T18:39:37.120" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2685" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2674" CreationDate="2010-08-20T19:12:16.693" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been happy with Shutterfly but never thought about in that kind of detail. They do well with color though you have to opt out of their magic process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update 1/9/2011:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, I'm not longer all that happy with Shutterfly. My last batch of prints (the first in a long time) came out poorly, so I sent this (excerpted) inquiry to try to figure out where the screw-up happened:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have a question about the prints in&#xA;  my order [number].&#xA;  Specifically, the color is wrong; they&#xA;  are a bit too dark. I have a&#xA;  calibrated workflow and I turned off&#xA;  VividPics on everything. I'm trying to&#xA;  figure out whether I did something&#xA;  wrong or the problem is on your end. [...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... which resulted in this (excerpted) response:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On checking your order number&#xA;  [number], I see that you&#xA;  have turned off vivid pics for this&#xA;  order. The images will be printed as&#xA;  you have uploaded to the site. Please&#xA;  edit the image using an image editing&#xA;  software and place a new order for the&#xA;  prints. We do value your Business and&#xA;  have credited your account with 6 free&#xA;  5x7 prints and 2 8x10 prints so that&#xA;  you can place a new order for the&#xA;  prints. Please note that this offer&#xA;  expires on 2011/1/31. [...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-10T00:08:12.783" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T00:08:12.783" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2686" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2674" CreationDate="2010-08-20T19:26:46.383" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Best is going to be subjective. I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://ezprints.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ezprints&lt;/a&gt;, and I love them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T19:26:46.383" />
  <row Id="2687" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2674" CreationDate="2010-08-20T20:34:04.843" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are a member of Costco, their prints are great.  The prints, with ICC, match my calibrated monitor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on the location, you can get prints in Lustre, which is the professional cross between Glossy and Matte.  I much prefer Lustre to either.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They also supply you with ICC color profiles you can apply before uploading.  They use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.drycreekphoto.com/custom/customprofiles.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dry Creek Photo&lt;/a&gt;.  Make sure to turn off their auto-correction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At mine, they use a Noritsu QSS-3411 with Fuji Crystal Archive paper, and a Epson 7880 with Fujifilm Papers for posters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are their current prices:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;4x6   $0.13&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;5x7   $0.39&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;8x10  $1.49&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;8x12  $1.49&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;11x14 $2.99&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;12x18 $2.99&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;8x8   $1.49&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;12x12 $2.99&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;wallets(4) $0.39&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;16x20 $5.99&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;20x30 $8.99&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-26T17:36:45.570" LastActivityDate="2010-08-26T17:36:45.570" />
  <row Id="2688" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2680" CreationDate="2010-08-20T21:03:34.303" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you choose to write data to file (as Nick's answer explains), then all the adjustments are also written out.  For example, here's some data extracted from one of my files&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; showing crop, dust spotting and an exposure adjustment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;Crop Angle              : 0&#xA;Crop Bottom             : 0.989721&#xA;Crop Left               : 0.043881&#xA;Crop Right              : 0.972479&#xA;Crop Top                : 0.007033&#xA;Exposure                : +0.35&#xA;Retouch Info  : centerX = 0.086913, centerY = 0.126265, radius = 0.010000, &#xA;                sourceState = sourceAutoComputed, sourceX = 0.061588, &#xA;                sourceY = 0.134257, spotType = heal,...&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; which are mostly TIFF film scans; the data's extracted using the rather excellent &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;exiftool&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T21:03:34.303" />
  <row Id="2689" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2695" CreationDate="2010-08-20T21:35:18.033" Score="6" ViewCount="163" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do you calculate the flash power fraction, assuming you want to keep constant the other variables of ISO, aperture, and distance from subject to flash?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Guide Number formula for a flash (strobe) is&#xA;GN = distance * f-stop&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's say the Guide Number is 174 at ISO 200.&#xA;You want to shoot at f/8.&#xA;This gives a distance of d = 174/8 = 21.75 feet&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, let's say you're shooting in a room that doesn't have that much room to play with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But you do know you can move the flash 10 feet away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What fraction of power do you use?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it linear, e.g. 21.75/10=2.175, so use 1/2?  Or something else?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The numbers in this example are for the Nikon SB-800 and a Nikon D90 camera, but the principle is likely the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-21T03:39:15.870" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T18:19:06.860" Title="How do you set the power for a flash in manual mode?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;studio-lighting&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2690" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2689" CreationDate="2010-08-20T21:45:52.427" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Its not linear, its a square,  so if you double the distance, you need 4 times the light.&#xA;So in your example you would need 1/4 the power, or adjust the aperture and or ISO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="105" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-25T18:19:06.860" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T18:19:06.860" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2691" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2705" CreationDate="2010-08-20T21:52:10.940" Score="6" ViewCount="486" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can configure my camera (5D) to use long exposure noise reduction (dark frame is exposed and subtracted), but is this method really effective when shooting RAW? Or is the actual subtraction only done when shooting JPEG?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-21T08:58:13.263" LastActivityDate="2010-08-23T20:04:42.923" Title="Does &quot;long exposure noise reduction&quot; option make any difference when shooting RAW?" Tags="&lt;long-exposure&gt;&lt;noise-reduction&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="2692" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2691" CreationDate="2010-08-20T22:19:44.017" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can you test it out?  Take a picture with noise reduction off, then with noise reduction on, and then you'll see.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you said, it's probably a dark frame subtraction, meaning that any bias patterns that are present in the chip will get removed.  These bias patterns show up on longer exposures, as in, some pixels may be more sensitive than others, so the dark frame will identify those inter-pixel biases and allow the camera to correct them.  That means that it should affect RAW frames, because the intensity information from the dark frame will still be removed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that it worked on my D70 back when I took pictures of the night sky.  It's harder for me to find a region without light pollution nowadays.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T22:19:44.017" />
  <row Id="2693" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2691" CreationDate="2010-08-20T22:24:55.553" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's effective. Basically, the camera can use the second, dark frame, to subtract signal out of the first frame, so it definitely gets used in RAW. In fact, if you try it, you'll discover that you end up with only one RAW image as the DFS image is discarded after use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On this topic, however, I'd note that you want to use this carefully. If you're doing long night exposures, DFS can double the amount of time it takes to snap a shot and that cuts into your shooting time. Many astrophotographers will do their own DFS after the fact as a result of that and us Pentaxians are gnashing our teeth because we have no option to shut it off (my only complaint about Pentax).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T22:24:55.553" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="2694" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2691" CreationDate="2010-08-20T22:29:44.860" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, the long exposure noise reduction is applied to the RAW file also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regular noise reduction is not done on the RAW data. As that only uses the data in the image, it can be repeated afterwards. The long exposure noise reduction uses the data from another exposure to correct the data, so that can't be repeated from only the RAW data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T22:29:44.860" />
  <row Id="2695" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2689" CreationDate="2010-08-20T22:36:48.767" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Light falls off according to the inverse-square law. Basically it boils down to this equation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ~ 1/r&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where &lt;code&gt;I&lt;/code&gt; is the intensity and &lt;code&gt;r&lt;/code&gt; is the radius (which is subject distance for us) and the ~ means 'approximately equal'. Anyways, a couple of good articles on the subject can be found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-flash-2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cambridge in Colour&lt;/a&gt; and at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.portraitlighting.net/inversesquare_law.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Portrait Lighting&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-20T22:36:48.767" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2696" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2697" CreationDate="2010-08-20T23:11:01.690" Score="6" ViewCount="216" Body="&lt;p&gt;Heya,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for some advice on achieving the look this photographer has:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/yosigo/4670815511/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/yosigo/4670815511/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I love the style and tones of everything. Wondering what sort of thing, both on camera and with post-processing, that would produce this look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="91" LastActivityDate="2010-08-21T14:35:01.793" Title="Love these colors/style - tips on achieving the same look?" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;color-management&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="2697" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2696" CreationDate="2010-08-21T00:59:07.817" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On the surface, it looks as though he's desaturated the colors and maybe a little exposure bump. Here's an example, the first image is only white balance adjusted to daylight:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/2JrdO.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second image is adjusted as +1.75 exposure and -52 saturation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/6D8oB.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see the drop in color intensity, while retaining reasonable contrast, that the sample images you supplied seem to show. It's an interesting effect, but probably best used judiciously. Anyways, if that's what he's doing, the degree of change I described will probably vary according to the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; A 3rd go at it using this action from &lt;a href=&quot;http://browse.deviantart.com/resources/applications/psactions/?order=14&amp;amp;q=photoshop#/d2wk5ex&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deviant Art&lt;/a&gt;. It looks almost cross-processed, but not quite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/cNioS.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-21T13:33:07.393" LastActivityDate="2010-08-21T13:33:07.393" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="2698" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2696" CreationDate="2010-08-21T02:39:34.497" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Going on the rest of his stream, looks like he's shooting with film, probably a low-saturation film like Portra NC or Astia transparency film.  &lt;s&gt;If forced to guess (notoriously difficult) I'd pick Astia, slightly over-exposed.&lt;/s&gt;  Going on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/yosigo/4645138113/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this other photo&lt;/a&gt; at the same date/location, it's quite likely shot on Kodak Portra NC 800.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lots of his other work seems to be fairly straight scans with minimal correction, and I've had similar cold tones with a lot of scans (though usually transparency film more than negative), as the scanner lightsource tends to be quite cool.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to mimic that, lower the saturation, lower the contrast (at least a little), slightly cool tones in the highlights.  Bring the shadows up (there are no deep blacks in the photo).  Also note the lighting: it's bright, but with no hard shadows; I think it'd be difficult to get this look on a day with full sunlight and hard shadows.  You could add grain/noise, but a word of caution; despite it being a fast colour film, the size of medium format makes grain a lot less obvious than the same film in 35mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-21T10:00:51.037" LastActivityDate="2010-08-21T10:00:51.037" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2699" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2696" CreationDate="2010-08-21T05:55:51.600" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I attempted to reverse the process by trying to make the image look normal though my regular workflow in Adobe RAW.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ended up with lowering the expose by 1.5 steps, and lowering the contrast by 20. There are no hard shadows in the image, so it was probably a bit cloudy when it was taken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, increasing the exposure by 1.5 steps and increasing the contrast by 20 should get you pretty close.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-21T14:35:01.793" LastActivityDate="2010-08-21T14:35:01.793" />
  <row Id="2700" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2689" CreationDate="2010-08-21T07:35:42.943" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you have an iPhone or iPod Touch you could do worse than pick up a copy of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adairsystems.com/photocalc/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PhotoCalc&lt;/a&gt; - a great piece of software that, among other things (DoF calculator, sunrise/sunset times), will do exactly this for you!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-08-21T07:35:42.943" />
  <row Id="2701" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2640" CreationDate="2010-08-21T07:35:51.493" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Shoot tethered if you can. Tethering means attaching your camera to your computer directly (typically via USB). With a tethered connection your shots will show immediately on your screen. That makes framing adjustments a lot easier, since you won't be rotating your camera to see your LCD after every shot. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the Mac/Nikon, I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sofortbildapp.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sofortbild&lt;/a&gt;; it's free and pretty good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastEditorUserId="48" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-21T06:08:27.537" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T06:08:27.537" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2702" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2624" CreationDate="2010-08-21T09:34:00.383" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a comment not an answer, but I can't type it there and I can type it here... Feel free to mod it away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;comment on subsidiary question: monitor profiles&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Setting a monitor to &quot;Adobe RGB&quot; is &lt;em&gt;really a bad idea&lt;/em&gt; and confuses the concept of working colour space with output device profile. Your monitor is probably quite close to sRGB, so assuming you can't calibrate it, then you'd be better off leaving it alone or assigning sRGB to it. Adobe RGB is almost certainly incorrect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think about people looking at your images on the web. None of them have Adobe RGB (1998) as their monitor profile - they're all either calibrated/colour managed, or they're pretty close to sRGB, which is why sRGB was invented. You probably want them to see the same thing you're seeing don't you?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;comment on working color spaces&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adobe RGB(1998) &lt;em&gt;does not contain&lt;/em&gt; &quot;more color data&quot;; all ICC spaces contain precisely the same number of colours, it's the distribution which is different. My recommendation would be to keep your original RAW files (which are in the sensor colour space). That way you lose nothing, and as converters improve, so can your output.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then convert these into whatever working space you choose when preparing output. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adobe RGB is mostly with us for historic reasons - people who fiddle with this stuff would more likely use ProPhoto these days. This won't let me post a reference, but the Luminous Landscape has a good comparison you can google for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question asked specifically where a good guide could be found. The references given here are good, but the text less so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my opinion it's best to separate the issues discussed here into two:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Getting your colours right.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Stuff about extended colour spaces.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would suggest that it's best to focus on (1) before even considering (2).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/index.php/index.php/articles/379&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;My contribution to this&lt;/a&gt; may be useful for Windows users, most of whom don't realize, for example, that their desktop wallpaper is not colour managed by their OS (Windows 7 and all earlier versions). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the good news about this is that it's not black magic: you can see it in with your own eyes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1055" LastActivityDate="2010-08-21T09:34:00.383" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2703" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2674" CreationDate="2010-08-21T14:46:04.673" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm a big fan of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photobox.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photobox&lt;/a&gt; who operate in the UK and across Europe  (but not the USA). They are &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photobox.co.uk/content/prices-and-services&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;decent value&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;support standard prints up to 12&quot;x10&quot;, poster prints up to 45&quot;x30&quot;, along with other options for printing on canvas or acrylic,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;have a large range of options for things they'll print your photos on mugs, mouse mats etc. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Standard prints have a very quick turn around - arriving the next day is not unusual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've read the occasional review, and most seem to reckon they don't apply post-processing to your images, so if you've got your image just right it should come out right without extra sharpening being applied. For large prints there is &lt;a href=&quot;http://photobox-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/98&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;some support for colour profiles&lt;/a&gt; but they &quot;prefer to provide customers with a free calibration print to use&quot;. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photobox.co.uk/content/quality/technical&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;More on the technical details&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-03T23:52:06.050" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T23:52:06.050" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2704" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-21T17:19:13.370" Score="0" ViewCount="114" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems like an early replacement of the 55-200mm? A bit more clumsy and probably not as good? Any idea on what to expect from this new lens? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="16" LastActivityDate="2010-08-21T17:19:13.370" ClosedDate="2010-08-21T18:39:18.767" Title="What to expect from new Nikon 55-300mm?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2705" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2691" CreationDate="2010-08-21T20:39:13.843" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wasn't really intended this way (and I didn't have this information when I asked the question), but my experience shows different results. I made a 556-second exposure at ISO 400 with lens cap on and long exposure noise reduction switched on and RAW+JPEG configured. The results are 100% crops with no additional processing applied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In-camera JPEG:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NHdvN.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon DPP (noise reduction disabled):&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rWfxX.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adobe Camera RAW (noise reduction disabled):&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ap2DJ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adobe Camera RAW + Topaz Denoise (RAW-moderate setting):&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/XB5XI.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My conclusion is that there is no point to shoot only RAW with long exposure noise reduction on (expose and subtract dark frame) as it doubles exposure time and it's effect is questionable unless done by camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-23T20:04:42.923" LastActivityDate="2010-08-23T20:04:42.923" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="2706" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2713" CreationDate="2010-08-22T00:41:00.973" Score="45" ViewCount="3615" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that it refers to out-of-focus areas of an image. But there is obviously more to it than that. How well is bokeh really understood? Is it purely subjective, or can it be evaluated, measured, classified? And how can bokeh be compared and contrasted in different lenses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1091" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-22T03:43:57.387" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T05:06:41.923" Title="What is bokeh really?" Tags="&lt;bokeh&gt;&lt;optics&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="17" />
  <row Id="2707" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2706" CreationDate="2010-08-22T01:08:12.963" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bokeh is a bit like evaluating wine, there's some technical evaluation and some subjective evaluation of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the purely subjective, it's going to be whether or not it pleases you and the viewer, and that's a subtle thing to many. The success of the bokeh will depend on how well the subject pops from the background and whether or not you even really see the background as part of the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there are some technical sides to it as well, that can be measured, to determine if the lens is even going to achieve good bokeh. Mirror lenses, for example, are often accused of having poor bokeh because of the resulting donut shape to the light, people find this distracting. For regular lenses, the ability to deliver good bokeh will depend on the quality of the lens. Out of focus light will take on the shape of the aperture, usually round and, depending on the spherical aberrations of the lens, light distribution may be uniform, to the edge, or to the center. You may also see it behave different in front of the focal plane or behind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I mentioned the shape of the aperture. In a traditional sense, the rounder the aperture, the softer the bokeh. If the aperture takes on a more hexagonal look, it can create hard edges which are seen as less pleasing. However, this feature has been put to use by photographers who shape their aperture using kits or DIY filters. Basically, you cut a small shape, say a heart, and place it in front of the lens. The bokeh will take the shape of the heart and, potentially, create an interesting effect. Mind you, it can be over done and take over the image, essentially ceasing to be bokeh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Final thing to mention is depth of field. The depth of field is influenced by both the lens and the sensor. Telephoto and macro lenses have very shallow depths of field and so typically have the greater background blur. Wide angle lenses tend to deep depths of field and so often have less blur, or even none at all at hyperfocal. For sensor, the size matters, the tiny sensors of a point and shoot will struggle to create bokeh, dSLR crop sensors can be good at, but the full frame sensors will be the best in class. Partly this is photosite density and angle of view, but it's also lenses, most point and shoots just can't open the aperture enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; provides a nice description, but I summarized the technical aspects here already.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-22T01:08:12.963" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2708" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2706" CreationDate="2010-08-22T01:14:11.967" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bokeh, in its most technical definition, is the shape produced by taking an out of focus picture of a single point of light. The overlapping bokeh from all the myriad points of light that make up a scene creates the blur in out-of-focus areas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People may have different preferences, but there are really just a few different measurable qualities of bokeh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What fundamental shape does it have? Hexagonal? Heptagonal? Are the edges flat or rounded? (this shape is produced by the aperture's blades.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are the edges sharp or blurry?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is the disk of uniform brightness, or is it brighter in the center, or on the edges?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-28T05:06:41.923" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T05:06:41.923" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2709" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2673" CreationDate="2010-08-22T01:15:11.153" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Files stored on a memory card are organized in much the same way as a computer hard drive, and can become fragmented over time. Although the effects of fragmentation are much less significant for flash memory than it is for a mechanical hard drive, I would still recommend reformatting, at least periodically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1091" LastActivityDate="2010-08-22T01:15:11.153" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2710" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2706" CreationDate="2010-08-22T01:31:12.293" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The areas which are out of focus are blurred in a shape matching that of the lens opening. The final shape is usually circular when shooting wide open, but when stopped down, the aperture blades modify the shape, for instance, with 6 blades, the bokeh would probably be hexagonal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One example of circular bokeh:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://art21.photozou.jp/pub/845/300845/photo/33311696.v1281930136.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;http://photozou.jp/photo/show/300845/33311696&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To really show this effect, you can use a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diyphotography.net/diy_create_your_own_bokeh&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;technique to create &quot;shaped bokeh&quot;&lt;/a&gt;. In doing so, you can even make the areas show as well recognized shapes, like Christmas trees or stars.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is one example of shaped Bokeh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/yLlFY.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephendl/2100917312/&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Technically, Bokeh (or blur) is related to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;circle of confusion&lt;/a&gt; of a lens/sensor combination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-22T03:05:04.427" LastActivityDate="2010-08-22T03:05:04.427" />
  <row Id="2711" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2706" CreationDate="2010-08-22T02:32:35.710" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the best way to describe Bokeh is to show Bokeh:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/a91zR.png&quot; alt=&quot;In the Spotlight&quot;&gt;&#xA;Reference: &lt;a href=&quot;http://healzo.deviantart.com/art/In-The-Spotlight-127760568&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;In the Spotlight&lt;/a&gt; by &lt;a href=&quot;http://healzo.deviantart.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Healzo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The blurry background &quot;circles&quot; are what we normally refer to as Bokeh, however in general it more simply refers to the quality of background blur. The picture above has some truly excellent bokeh, as the circles are truly round, generally evenly shaded across the whole circle, present and visible, but not overly distracting from the foreground subject. Less desirable bokeh may show a polygonal shape, if the aperture of the lens is stopped down enough. &quot;Good&quot; bokeh generally only occurs at the the maximum aperture, or very nearly so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, its up to you to decide what kind of bokeh you want in your shot. Some artists prefer that their bokeh be smooth and creamy, without any apparent circles. I personally love this effect for bird shots, as it really brings out the subject. Other artists like to take shots where the polygonal shape of point light sources in the background are part of the key subject of the shot. Bokeh comes in a wide variety, from soft edged circles, to full, solid circles, to circles with a bright ring (or two) around them, to various shapes. Fundamentally, the kind and quality of background blur in a photograph is an artistic tool, one which you can use any way that you believe benefits your shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not all lenses are capable of producing good-quality background bokeh. Generally speaking, a shorter depth of field allows a larger area out of focus, so wider apertures usually help, particularly for shorter focal lengths. Any macro lens worth its name will have an f/2.8 aperture at the very least. Telephoto lenses generally do not need quite as wide an aperture to create great bokeh as they compress depth better to start with. The type of aperture blades used, and the total number of them, will also affect bokeh. More blades generally produce better bokeh, however more than 8 and you get diminishing returns. Circular blades are designed in such a way that they have curved edges around their tips, which helps keep the aperture opening round at wider apertures (however as you stop down, you may still end up with polygonal shapes). It is also possible to use non-standard apertures in artistic shapes to create interesting bokeh effects. Lensbaby offers a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensbaby.com/accessories-creative.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Creative Aperture Kit&lt;/a&gt; with a variety of shaped apertures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-22T06:06:57.103" LastActivityDate="2010-08-22T06:06:57.103" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2712" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4198" CreationDate="2010-08-22T03:17:38.747" Score="4" ViewCount="634" Body="&lt;p&gt;As my primary photographic interests lie in landscape photography, I've been seriously looking into buying a large-format camera. In my research, I encountered the Tachihara 4x5&quot;, which is a beautifully crafted cherry-wood and brass frame camera. Sadly, as I've started looking at prices, it appears it was discontinued...this year! :( &lt;em&gt;sob&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am curious about two things. First, is the Tachihara something worth buying used, and if so, outside of ebay, where might I find a used one? Second, are there any equivalent alternatives to the Tachihara that are still being manufactured? I really loved the cherry wood look of this particular camera, and all of the others I've looked at seemed to be black with simple chrome highlights. If there are comparable wood/brass alternatives to the Tachihara, I would be very interested. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T22:55:16.760" Title="The Tachihara 4x5&quot; Large-Format camera, or an equivalent alternative?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;film&gt;&lt;large-format&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2713" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2706" CreationDate="2010-08-22T03:43:37.327" Score="48" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most importantly: &lt;strong&gt;It's not just the disks rendered from a point source&lt;/strong&gt;, even though that's the simplest way to describe it and see it.  The disk is just a shorthand; the lens characteristics that produce these disks are always present; they're what determines the look of the out-of-focus areas in every photo you take!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the one hand, it's quite well-understood in that cause and effect are fairly well known.  On the other hand, what makes one type &quot;good&quot; or &quot;bad&quot; is (as with so many things) extremely subjective and sensitive to context.  The general consensus is that good bokeh renders a smooth background without artifacts, but like so many other things, it's possible to make a good picture with &quot;bad&quot; bokeh; it might even be a good picture &lt;em&gt;because&lt;/em&gt; of 'bad' bokeh, like the examples with shaped apertures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Shape:&lt;/strong&gt; The shape of the disk is determined by the shape of the aperture, and is well-described in other answers (though see also the note on 'distortion' below).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Brightness:&lt;/strong&gt; The brightness across the disk is influenced by other aspects of the lens, primarily its degree of spherical aberration.  There are three basic situations, simulated here: &lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/4HrhY.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;bokeh&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the centre is what you get from a perfectly-corrected lens (or close to it): a disk evenly lit from edge to edge – this is the situation in a large number of modern lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the left is &quot;smooth&quot; bokeh: a bright centre with a gradual fall-off towards the edge.  This is what's generally considered to be desirable, as it blends smoothly and eliminates hard edges in the background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the right is what I call &quot;bright-line&quot; bokeh; a bright exterior that fades towards the centre.  I'll emphasise that while you get a similar &quot;doughnut&quot; shape from catadioptric lenses, you can see this bright-line effect in many other lenses as well to a lesser degree. Classicaly, this is the less-desirable kind of bokeh, as it will emphasise edges in the background, sometimes to the extent of rendering them as parallel lines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you get each type depends largely on spherical aberration, with the background rendering being most important:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Under-corrected lenses will typically exhibit smooth bokeh in the background, with the bright-edged type in the foreground.  Many of the classic portrait lenses are deliberately designed this way, and it's also what's largely responsible for the very smooth &quot;creamy&quot; look of many older lens designs like the Zeiss Sonnar or Voigtländer Heliar.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Over-corrected spherical aberration will produce the opposite; a smoother bokeh in front of the plane of focus, the harsher one behind.  This is often a characteristic of lenses that are both fast &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; sharp, like many 50mm f/1.4 designs, as well as some macro designs (where sharpness is at a priority).  While this type of bokeh might be the classically &quot;bad&quot; one, the effect is not usually extreme, and other characteristics of the lens can more than make up for it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Distortion&lt;/strong&gt;: Ideally, all disks would be round and a similar shape, but various other aspects of the lens will stretch them to ovals (astigmatism, field curvature), create small tails (coma), or there may even be mechanical obstructions that cut off edges.  All of these tend to be much more obvious as you move towards the edge of the frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Color&lt;/strong&gt;: Chromatic aberrations will colour the disk; lateral chromatic aberrations will create the familiar magenta/green fringing, and longitudinal chromatic aberration will cause a slight colour cast over the entire area of the disk, which will be a different colour in front of the plane of focus than behind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Examples and links&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm&lt;/a&gt; for a very thorough test of a number of different lenses and lens designs.  If you want to see an example of classically &quot;good&quot; bokeh, his Sonnar examples are worth checking out.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mike Johnson has &lt;a href=&quot;http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/01/what-is-bokeh.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an interesting essay&lt;/a&gt; about the entry of the term &quot;boken&quot; into English.  He also links a &lt;a href=&quot;http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/files/bokehrankings5.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;list of ratings of various lenses&lt;/a&gt; [PDF] (unfortunately with only two examples).  To emphasise the subjective and variable nature of things, the same Sonnar design Denney praises gets a 5/10 from Johnson (who I think is using a later Contax SLR version).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-24T18:11:35.573" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T18:11:35.573" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2714" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2712" CreationDate="2010-08-22T05:02:13.573" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Large-format cameras are very much worth buying used; they're often extremely well-cared-for, if not coddled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apart from eBay or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-Large-Format/system-Large-Format/category-Folding-Cameras?s=1&amp;amp;bcode=LF&amp;amp;ccode=3&amp;amp;cc=79300&amp;amp;r=WG&amp;amp;f&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KEH&lt;/a&gt;, local sources are often a good bet.  People will often have these cameras for sale, even if they're not &lt;em&gt;selling&lt;/em&gt; them, so checking out local clubs can mean you get lucky.  Similarly, consignment sections of local camera stores; people may prefer this route to the relative risk/hassle of eBay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, the only other option for a new wood/brass camera is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ci=27&amp;amp;N=4288586273+4291111058&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wista&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can live without the brass, but must have some really nice wood:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/112648-REG/Horseman_27191_4x5_Woodman_Wood_Field.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Horseman&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ebonycamera.com/cam/main.SV45Ti.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ebony&lt;/a&gt;, with titanium fittings (this is the top of my personal list if I were ever going to get a high-end large format camera).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_list&amp;amp;c=98&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Shen Hao&lt;/a&gt;. That link says aluminum, but I've seen &quot;copper&quot; listed (which sounds frankly strange) and at least a couple of pictures that look like brass. Perhaps worth looking into further.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-22T05:08:37.340" LastActivityDate="2010-08-22T05:08:37.340" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2715" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2706" CreationDate="2010-08-22T05:39:54.153" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The good people at Zeiss managed to write &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_35_Bokeh_EN/%24File/CLN35_Bokeh_en.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an excellent paper&lt;/a&gt; of no less than 45 pages on the topic. (granted, it talks about DoF too)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="878" LastEditorUserId="878" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-22T05:55:33.347" LastActivityDate="2010-08-22T05:55:33.347" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2716" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2673" CreationDate="2010-08-22T09:32:28.683" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you use your cards in different cams you'll notice that quite a few cameras only show pictures took with this one camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if you chose &quot;delete all&quot; it will only delete those images it knows, made by the cam itself and you'll end up with a partly filled memory card, not being able to take as much pictures as it should.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Same if you sometimes have other files on your memory cards, which eat up space.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another thing, if the file system ever got corrupt for any reason, delete all won't fix it, while format will fix logical file system corruption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd always use format. Except maybe if the format is extremely slow, taking several minutes (like it was in the Leica M9, not sure if they fixed it by now).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, in case of format &lt;em&gt;everything&lt;/em&gt; is gone which, for me, is what I want, but if you tend to put important data or pictures on a memory card without having a backup somewhere else, might not be what you want (but you would not do that, would you).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-08-22T09:32:28.683" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2717" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2712" CreationDate="2010-08-22T09:41:58.363" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I had to pick, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.linhof.de/technikardan_e.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Linhof&lt;/a&gt; would be my choice. Not wood and brass, but they still have the reputation of being the Leicas of large format.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Used kits are good choice because they often already contain all the small things that are needed, but what you can't think of and will add to the cost if bought separately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Random things that come to mind: lens mount and availability of lenses, tripod - you need a sturdy one. Viewfinder and lightmeter. Sheet film and E-6 processing availability. Good scanner or scanning service. Light table and loupe. The bad thing with 4x5 slides is that they cannot be projected (one of the aspects I really like about slides). Not to mention the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.calumetphoto.co.uk/p/spotlight/david-ward&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;huge bag&lt;/a&gt; :).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I've commented elsewhere - I'm myself in a stage where I'm learning the emulsions and how they render the scene in different lightning (white balance, contrast, saturation), so I find it useful to shoot couple of hundred rolls of &quot;cheap&quot; 35mm reversal film before moving to anything bigger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-23T19:14:11.590" LastActivityDate="2010-08-23T19:14:11.590" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="2718" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2721" CreationDate="2010-08-22T19:24:10.850" Score="14" ViewCount="663" Body="&lt;p&gt;My wife has a Canon EOS 450D and, after following a few threads and questions and answers, a Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens seems to be popular for insect photography.&#xA;I am considering buying one for her birthday, would it be a good buy or a good bye.&#xA;To add to my question do Canon provide better lenses for insect photography?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1179" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-22T19:54:27.030" LastActivityDate="2010-11-21T14:45:07.170" Title="Can I use a Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens on a Canon EOS 450D" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;canon-450d&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2719" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2718" CreationDate="2010-08-22T19:47:36.390" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 450D can take EF and EF-S lenses, so the 100mm f/2.8 macro will work on it. I would, by the way, recommend the IS version of it, though it is substantially more expensive. Macro shooting has very little tolerance for shake, so without IS, it can be harder to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the lens, it's top notch, I've seen some stunning shots from it. However, if you want a little more working distance, especially for insect shots, the 180mm f/3.5 may be a good one to look at as well. Nevertheless, the 100mm is excellent. Here's a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/167-canon-ef-100mm-f28-usm-macro-test-report--review&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;review from Photozone&lt;/a&gt;, it's highly recommended.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-22T19:47:36.390" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2720" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2718" CreationDate="2010-08-22T19:48:25.013" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That would be ideal, and work with no problems on the 450D, or any other camera from the Canon EOS range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-08-22T19:48:25.013" />
  <row Id="2721" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2718" CreationDate="2010-08-22T19:49:32.767" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Canon 100mm f/2.8 is a great lens for macro photography. It is indeed possible to use it on the 450D, as I do so myself. However it should be noted that due to that camera's 1.6x cropped sensor, you get an &quot;effective focal length&quot; of 160mm. This is due to the fact that the 450D has a narrower field of view than a full-frame camera like the 5D or 1D series.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as general macro photography goes, the 100mm is a great lens that offers beautiful bokeh (background blur), very wide maximum aperture, very smooth focusing, and a decent focusing distance. Specifically for insect macro photography, the 100mm will allow you to get some ok shots, but if your wife wishes to get in really close, the Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro lens might be a better chose. A true &quot;macro&quot; lens can magnify a subject 1:1 on the image sensor (in the case of the 450D, its effectively 1.6 times &quot;larger&quot; than 1:1 because of the cropped sensor). The Canon MPE 65 is capable of magnifying subjects even larger, up to 5:1, on the image sensor (or an effective range of 1.6:1 through 8:1 for the 450D.) The MP-E is a more manual lens, as it does not offer automatic focus, while the 100mm does. At very close distances, however, AF looses its value, and manual focus begins to reign supreme.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In comparisons of Insect macros taken with the 100mm vs. the MPE 65mm, the detail and magnification offered by the 65mm is simply stunning. If extreme close-up is the goal, I recommend the MPE 65mm over the 100mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EXAMPLES:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/N1eSK.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;EF 100mm f/2.8&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Macro close with the 100mm&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/FdBDh.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;MP-E 65mm f/2.8&quot;&gt;&#xA;Beyond macro with the MPE 65mm&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-22T19:55:09.993" LastActivityDate="2010-08-22T19:55:09.993" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="2722" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2673" CreationDate="2010-08-22T20:54:29.187" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Flash cards generally are limited in the number of writes rather than the number of reads (as in the MTBF is a function of writes not reads).  Formatting a card is a much &quot;cheaper&quot; operation (in terms of writes) than deleting all the images, so it's possible that formatting the card rather than deleting may help prolong the life of your card, although in the grand scheme of things, who can really tell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1124" LastActivityDate="2010-08-22T20:54:29.187" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2723" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2674" CreationDate="2010-08-22T21:01:16.473" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I highly recommend &lt;a href=&quot;http://mpix.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mpix&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.  They produce great quality prints at very reasonable prices, and have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://mpix.com/Products.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;variety of products&lt;/a&gt; available&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1180" LastActivityDate="2010-08-22T21:01:16.473" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2724" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2726" CreationDate="2010-08-22T21:59:49.680" Score="26" ViewCount="422" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm considering uploading some of my photos to a stock photo website as a way of getting a few $$$ back from what's essentially been a hobby for me. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this a sensible step, or am I likely doomed to disappointment and failure with this approach?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="562" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T21:09:17.597" Title="Are stock photo sites a viable source of income?" Tags="&lt;stock-photography&gt;&lt;business&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="8" />
  <row Id="2725" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2724" CreationDate="2010-08-22T22:28:05.387" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For the most part, no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a decent number of photographers out there that make money with stock photos, but there are many many more who never really make enough to justify the time put into it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, if you're willing to spend the time, there is money to be made.  If you decide to give it a try, take a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2558/are-there-any-important-considerations-for-stock-photos&quot;&gt;these ideas to keep in mind for stock photos&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-22T22:34:02.820" LastActivityDate="2010-08-22T22:34:02.820" />
  <row Id="2726" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2724" CreationDate="2010-08-22T23:01:58.117" Score="21" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer your question, no, stock photos are not a viable source of income. You can make money off of it, just like some people who are able to write iPhone applications are able to make huge paydays; but in general the market is saturated, and unless you produce something that stands out amongst all the cruft, you won't be making much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think of it in terms of economics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Supply and Demand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Professional looking images required (in no particular order):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Equipment&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Technique/Knowledge&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Skill&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And back in the day, all three were fairly hard to come by. Camera equipment was expensive (especially digital), you hard to find someone willing to teach you the ropes, and it took a long time to learn. Now a days:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Camera equipment costs necessary to produce professional looking images have dramatically decreased since the digital camera boom.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Likewise, computing power has become more powerful, and much more affordable, and image editing software has become much easier to use&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The internet has made it incredibly easy to find information for learning how to produce quality images, as well as made it super easy to submit images for publication.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, the barrier to entry to producing quality images has been lifted nearly completely. With that, more and more people are able to produce nice images. One could say that stock photographs have become a commodity; there is no short supply of quality looking images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the supply is very saturated, that drives the price down (while demand for stock photos has increased, it hasn't been to the scale as supply). Anyone with a digital camera and an internet connection can produce stock photos. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Nick pointed out that as long as it doesn't cost you anything to submit your photos, you have nothing to lose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is outside your question, but if you want to make money off your photography, you're going to want to be creative and see what areas are underserved and target them. Assuming you are in the US, how about getting into real-estate photography--there is a huge glut of houses on the market and (at least when I was looking to buy a house) most have crap photos taken by real-estate agents. Another area, not for money necessarily--is to team up with animal shelters and do photos of the pets for adoption. Most shelters dont spend any time taking nice images, so volunteering your time will &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Increase your skill in pet photography&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Let you network and meet potential clients. After all they might want prof. photos done with their new family addition.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Help with a great cause: helping find pets a forever place to live.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-23T00:06:30.693" LastActivityDate="2010-08-23T00:06:30.693" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2727" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2739" CreationDate="2010-08-22T23:24:24.117" Score="5" ViewCount="290" Body="&lt;p&gt;I need to print some passport-sized photos for visa applications. They each need to be 35mm x 45mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there an easy way to take a single photo of my face and create a new jpeg file from it that I can just print in 6&quot;x4&quot; and have several passport photos on it in the right size that I can just cut out?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2010-08-23T14:00:12.730" Title="What's the easiest way to create passport-sized prints?" Tags="&lt;prints&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="2728" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-22T23:30:27.960" Score="0" ViewCount="46" Body="&lt;p&gt;Flickr has an advanced search page, but it does not allow to specify search filters like minimal mega pixels, minimal dimensions or orientation (portrait vs. landscape) etc. Is there is some 'more advanced' search space available or something like that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The advanced search of google images is truly advanced, it provides these features. But I noticed that restricting a google image search to flickr.com skips a lot of images in comparison to a search on flickr.com with the same search terms. Plus, it does not provide flickr tag searches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1181" LastActivityDate="2010-08-22T23:30:27.960" ClosedDate="2010-08-23T13:58:08.943" Title="How to search on flickr with advanced filters like portrait, &gt; x mega pixel etc.?" Tags="&lt;flickr&gt;" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2729" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2727" CreationDate="2010-08-22T23:57:53.017" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You should be able to use any photo or printing program to print several on the same page. Windows printing will do this as well. If you're on a Mac, you should be able to use Preview to print several JPEGs opened in the same window. Just make sure that scaling and anything other size related settings are set so that your images print at the size they should be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the size, 35x45mm is 413x531 pixels at 300DPI. You may want to print them with a few mm of bleed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you really wanted to though, you could use Photoshop to just generate your own collage of passport photos on an A4 sized template.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have the passports resized to 413x531px, create a new A4 image in Photoshop (or any image editing program you want to use) then drag or paste in the images and assemble them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-08-22T23:57:53.017" />
  <row Id="2730" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2733" CreationDate="2010-08-23T00:45:31.770" Score="12" ViewCount="197" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there an industry standard file system cards are formatted with (when you first get them, and/or after a camera formats them)? Fat32, FAT16?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1098" LastActivityDate="2010-09-28T15:19:26.540" Title="What file system are memory cards formatted with?" Tags="&lt;memory-card&gt;&lt;storage&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2731" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2730" CreationDate="2010-08-23T01:05:48.297" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Such cards are usually formatted as FAT32 or exFAT, as that is nearly a universally compatible format at this point. It might depend on what kind of memory card you are referring to...SDHC, CF?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-23T20:12:33.063" LastActivityDate="2010-08-23T20:12:33.063" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2732" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2727" CreationDate="2010-08-23T01:42:25.307" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Newer versions of Picasa actually have a passport photo feature, it is in the &quot;Tools&quot; menu.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-08-23T01:42:25.307" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2733" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2730" CreationDate="2010-08-23T02:11:39.583" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;They're formatted with FAT16 or FAT32 (FAT32 is required for card sizes &gt;2GB), and have a fairly specific (though simple) directory structure something like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xA;ROOT --- DCIM -+- ###ABCDE&#xA;               |&#xA;               +- ###ABCDE&#xA;               |&#xA;               ...&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;###&lt;/code&gt; is from 100-999, and need not be consecutive. ABCDE is free text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This structure won't be recreated if you format on a computer, but an in-camera format will usually construct it (or it will be built as required on a blank card).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are similar standards for file names, and it's all specced out in detail by the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_rule_for_Camera_File_system&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Design Rule for Camera File System&lt;/a&gt;, which you can read in full here (PDF):&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jeita.or.jp/cgi-bin/standard_e/pdfpage.cgi?jk_n=51&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.jeita.or.jp/cgi-bin/standard_e/pdfpage.cgi?jk_n=51&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-08-23T02:11:39.583" />
  <row Id="2734" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2724" CreationDate="2010-08-23T02:23:32.010" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Yes!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;But not the way you might hope.&lt;/strong&gt; In other words, not usually from the type of photography you do as a hobby.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Stock photography, like any other kind of paying work in photography, has its own requirements and demands, and is usually quite separate from the kind of work you'd do as a hobby.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, it's a job.  Like a lot of jobs in photography, it's a job with a huge amount of competition, and the rewards are distinctly uneven and unpredictable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps a topic for another question, but if you have a day job that satisfies, and want to make a bit of money back from the photography you enjoy, think about selling prints or exhibiting.  If you want to work as a professional photographer, there are much better fields to get into than stock photography (especially microstock sites).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-08-23T02:23:32.010" />
  <row Id="2735" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2736" CreationDate="2010-08-23T03:44:35.977" Score="9" ViewCount="206" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had a B/W film turn out transparent after being developed. Does it mean that a) it was never exposed b) it was always overexposed or c) something went wrong during development?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1184" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-23T04:35:26.747" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T01:19:40.190" Title="Transparent film after being developed" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;developing&gt;&lt;black-and-white&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2736" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2735" CreationDate="2010-08-23T04:34:07.967" Score="22" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem is definitely not overexposure; that renders negatives black.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To work out whether it was underexposure or a development problem, there's a fairly straight-forward indicator: Do you see any edge markings (marked red in the example below)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/FSt5D.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They'll vary from film to film; not all will have barcodes, but there's usually a name or number at the very least.  These are exposed onto the film at the factory, and should show up if development was correct.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If you have edge markings&lt;/strong&gt; then the problem is most likely on the camera side of things.  There's a few possibilities; the camera didn't wind correctly, the shutter is jammed or sticky and doesn't open correctly.  On the less-likely-but-still-possible end of things, you may have left the lenscap on, or drastically underexposed the entire roll (e.g., set to 1/1000s accidentally while shooting in a dark pub).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If you have no edge markings&lt;/strong&gt; then there was almost certainly an error in development. Exactly what type of error is hard to say, but there are a couple of usual suspects:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You developed the film yourself: if it's perfectly clear, with not a trace of density anywhere, then you may have used fixer before developer, or didn't use developer.  If there's small amounts of density, the developer may have gone bad, or it may be severely under-developed (e.g., you only left it in for a minute or two when 12 was required).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A lab developed the film: they may have developed standard black-and-white in a C-41 process.  One of the final steps of C-41 removes all the silver from the film, leaving only dyes. Standard black and white is only silver, and the image is destroyed by the C-41 process.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-08-23T04:34:07.967" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2737" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1715" CreationDate="2010-08-23T07:15:01.357" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h1&gt;Emprical Study: Does PPI Really Matter?&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For all of the theory above, thats all it currently is...theory. It is the end result of days of research on the physical characteristics of printers, the theory behind printing and ink, the concepts of DPI and PPI, etc. The real question is, how does it stack up against empirical evidence? Does it withstand the test of reality?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this small study, I'll be looking at whether choosing a higher PPI over a lower one really matters. The theory states that the human eye has high, but limited, resolving power. In the case of a 4x6 print intended for close hand-held viewing, does printing at 600ppi vs. the more common 240ppi offer any benefit? Hopefully a visual demonstration will help shed some light on the issue, and put theory into practice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Subject&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this particular study, I took a shot of a small house fly that was enjoying some Mango rinds. I thought it would make an interesting subject of study, as a fly, even shot at macro scale, is riddled with extremely fine details that are normally well beyond the resolving power of the human eye. The scene covered a fairly high range of contrast, from the relatively bright yellow/orange mango peel to the nearly black fly. The scene was lit with natural light from behind and tungsten light in the foreground to bring out detail in the eyes and thorax.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/uBLXZ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Mango Fly&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The shot was created with a &lt;code&gt;Canon EOS 450D (Rebel XSi)&lt;/code&gt; cropped-sensor body and the &lt;code&gt;Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro&lt;/code&gt; lens. The shot was taken at f/8, ISO 800, and exposed for 1/6th of a second in natural light. It was imported as a RAW .cr2 file to disk, all workflow was done directly from RAW. The original image was 4272x2848, however it was cropped to 2295x1530 to enlarge the subject and fill most of the frame. At that screen resolution, it translates into a 3.83x2x55&quot; print @ 600PPI, or a 9.56x6.38&quot; print @ 240ppi.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Test&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The test is fairly simple. The original photo was cropped to create a sufficiently large subject, which took up approximately 1/6th of the total photo area initially. It was color corrected with a proper white balance, an exposure was slightly adjusted to lighten blacks, which were too dark to print well. A slight amount of noise reduction and sharpening was also applied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two prints were generated from Adobe Lightroom 3. The prints were generated by a fairly cheap &lt;code&gt;Canon iP4500&lt;/code&gt; 5-ink CMYK printer with a native 9600x2400 dpi. The first was a 600ppi borderless print on 4x6&quot; &lt;code&gt;Canon Photo Paper Plus Glossy II&lt;/code&gt; paper. The second print was a 240ppi borderless print on the same type of 4x6&quot; paper. Both prints were allowed to dry for about 12 hours, as full detail does not generally appear on prints made with ChromaLife100+ ink until it has dried and cured for a time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both prints were finally scanned into Adobe Photoshop a &lt;code&gt;Canon CanoScan 8800F&lt;/code&gt;. (Now that I'm writing this, I'm shocked at how much Canon gear I have...that was never intentional...Guess its time to buy an Epson printer...) Scans of both prints were made at 600dpi, this particular scanners maximum &quot;photo&quot; scanning resolution. Crops of the eye and the wing joint of the fly were made at 100% resolution from both the 600ppi and 240ppi print for comparison.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Results&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All sharpening and post processing options for the scanner were disabled. No additional post processing was done in Photoshop after the scans were complete. The images below are unmodified, raw scans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Crop #1: Fly Eye&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The crop of the eye, which includes parts of the head and appendages, is an excellent example of fine details. A comparison of both resolutions may be seen below:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/4Nsua.png&quot; alt=&quot;Fly Eye @ 600ppi&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Eye @ 600 ppi&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/tEsBg.png&quot; alt=&quot;Fly Eye @ 240ppi&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Eye @ 240 ppi&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Image Evaluation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From these two crops, it is clear that the 600ppi print definitely renders finer details much better. The detail in the eye is mostly preserved. An appendage that contained fine details is also clearly sharper and more defined in the 600ppi print. However, the 600ppi print also picks up image noise better, which degrades some of the smoother areas of the image. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tonal range appears to be slightly better in the 240ppi print, however not significantly. This seems to debunk the idea that printing at lower resolutions theoretically offers greater tonal range per pixel. This is likely due to the fact that the printer does not support alternative line heights and always prints at 600ppi (scaling images up as necessary internally.) Given that the 600ppi print is actually closer to a 4x3&quot; print size, manually scaling the image up to the proper resolution for a native 600ppi print could likely extract more detail than is currently visible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on these images, one would expect that printing at 600ppi would always generate a better, clearer, sharper print. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Print Evaluation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The actual physical print is a slightly different story than the scanned crops above. The eye detail is not really that visible to the naked eye at a viewing &quot;comfortable&quot; hand-held viewing distance. At about 3-4 inches, detail in the eye can barely be seen, and at about 2-3 inches, it can be seen but not extremely clearly. (This may change if the image is manually scaled to exactly the right screen resolution for a 600ppi print, and appropriately sharpened. Another test will need to be done to verify.) On the other hand, the very fine but higher-contrast details of the appendage, as well as many other appendages and hairs in the full photo, clearly appear sharper at 600ppi.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Crop #2: Fly Wing Joint&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The crop of the wing joint is a lower contrast shot. The aim here is to determine if details spanning a larger low-contrast area benefit from printing at a higher PPI.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/VPuK5.png&quot; alt=&quot;Fly Wing Joint @ 600ppi&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Wing @ 600 ppi&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fdct0.png&quot; alt=&quot;Fly Wing Joint @ 240ppi&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Wing @ 240 ppi&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Image Evaluation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This crop is a little harder to discern. There is some additional detail at 600ppi, however the difference is minor compared to 240ppi. Image noise is definitely picked up here, and definitely degrades the overall tonal range of the image compared to the lower resolution crop. As a lower contrast area, the differences don't seem worth the higher printing resolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Print Evaluation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Surprisingly, although the differences when evaluated from scanned crops seem negligible, the finer details of the 600ppi print are recognizable by the naked eye at a comfortable viewing distance. While the wing joint at 240ppi appears to be a fairly smooth and continuous color, fine streaks of detail are visible at 600ppi. In other parts of this crop, however, finer details brought out at 600ppi are not readily visible over the 240ppi print.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Final Conclusion&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Despite the theory indicating that a print resolution above approximately 360ppi will not generate detail resolvable by the naked eye, actual tests seem to prove differently. The scanned crops clearly show that there is greater detail produced by the 600ppi prints over the 240ppi prints. This detail includes a greater degree of image noise, however this is rarely visible when prints are viewed at a proper viewing distance. In lower contrast areas, fine details are difficult if not impossible to resolve at a comfortable hand-held viewing distance. However, areas of fine detail with greater contrast do appear clearer and sharper at a hand held distance. This may or may not be immediately recognized, however given a few moments of examination, and the difference is apparent. The fine hairs and appendages are definitely more soft at 240ppi, but are very sharp at 600ppi. Some very fine details visible along the fly's legs nearly disappear completely at 240ppi, but are visible at 600ppi on closer inspection. As the Canon iP4500 prints at only a single resolution...600ppi, no additional tonal range is visible in the 240ppi print outside of what is gained by less image noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specific results may differ with different types of printers. Professional Ink Jet printers seem to always print at only one resolution, with only a single line height (pixel cell size). Other types of printers that offer dynamic cell size may produce different results, and may offer less detail but improved tonal range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-08-23T07:15:01.357" CommentCount="11" />
  <row Id="2738" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2674" CreationDate="2010-08-23T08:01:54.693" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've recently done a survey of the cheap ~€0.10 per 3:2 photo sites in Europe, and selected 10 photo's with different difficulties, than used 2 persons to each select the best print of every photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The results, 90% of the selected pictures were the SnapFish prints, so that made it easy for me, for €0.09 per photo, and the ability to disable any on site photo editing (print original as supplied) SnapFish is a very nice way to print your pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But off course  you should try this yourself, most sites have a introduction offer like 25 prints for 3 euro and no shipping, just select some good pictures with color, sharpness and detail. And create a blind test to compare them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="245" LastActivityDate="2010-08-23T08:01:54.693" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-23T08:01:54.693" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2739" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2727" CreationDate="2010-08-23T08:28:25.780" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I ended up using a website (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.epassportphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ePassportPhoto&lt;/a&gt;) that allows you to upload a photo and then you can just download a jpeg ready to print at 6&quot;x4&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They also let you choose which standard passport photo size you need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They offer a &quot;pro&quot; service which is how they make money, but for my purposes I could do everything for free.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know this probably reads like spam or that I work for them but I promise I don't! Especially since I'm answering my own question and my photos is suspiciously good-looking ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Source photo:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/UGAaM.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Output photo:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/DTMcM.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update&lt;/strong&gt;: I just printed that photo out in an instant boots kiosk. Size is just right,  about a millimetre over which is actually what I wanted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastEditorUserId="190" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-23T14:00:12.730" LastActivityDate="2010-08-23T14:00:12.730" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2740" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-23T10:49:54.250" Score="0" ViewCount="77" Body="&lt;p&gt;A bit specific, but we'll see how we go...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm located in Frankston, Victoria (about 40 kms from Melbourne) in Australia.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been trying to formulate a decent search on google to find some photographic studio space to rent - on an hourly basis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ideally, I'd like to have a home studio, but for various reasons that's not viable at the moment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't mind travelling up to 1/2 hour to get there....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hopefully someone on here is familiar with my location, and can make a recommendation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cheers,&#xA;Brendan&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1193" LastActivityDate="2010-08-23T10:49:54.250" ClosedDate="2010-08-23T10:56:52.710" Title="Studio Space for Rent Near Frankston" Tags="&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;studio&gt;" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2741" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2744" CreationDate="2010-08-23T11:32:55.753" Score="13" ViewCount="166" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2724/are-stock-photo-sites-a-viable-source-of-income&quot;&gt;Are stock photo sites a viable source of income?&lt;/a&gt; and thought I might give it ago.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However what are the things to look for when choosing a stock photo sites to sell on taking in to account:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Range of seller features&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Submission Rules&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Submission Process&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Range of customers &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ease of use &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Levels of payment&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Feedback&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also should I post the same images to each of the sites or focus on one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="560" LastEditorUserId="560" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-23T12:03:36.127" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T21:28:08.853" Title="What should I look for when choosing a stock web sites to sell through?" Tags="&lt;stock-photography&gt;&lt;web&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="2742" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2741" CreationDate="2010-08-23T11:56:43.237" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The bigger agencies, such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.getty.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Getty&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alamy.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Alamy&lt;/a&gt; have a range of options that include high resolution images down to low resolution &quot;microstock&quot; imagery intended for web use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you use Flickr, there is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/callforartists/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dedicated group to submit to Getty&lt;/a&gt;, and if they like your work, you may be contacted. This makes it very easy to submit, but conversely, difficult to stand out from the crowd, and be accepted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alamy have an online system that you can sign up as a contributor online, and then submit a sample batch of images, which they apply a full QA on to decide whether to accept your work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;( In the interests of disclosure, I use Alamy regularly, and have had no problems with them )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-08-23T11:56:43.237" />
  <row Id="2743" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2741" CreationDate="2010-08-23T11:57:16.433" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately there is no standard licensing that you can count on, so you have to look through the options and see what is best for you. The best choice is probably to find one service and stick to it, because it will greatly simplify the licensing (some require an exclusive license).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as which one, that's entirely up to you. There are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dphotojournal.com/sell-photos-online/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lots&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://stock-photography-service-review.toptenreviews.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;of&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.givemeareview.com/stock-photo/reviews.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;reviews&lt;/a&gt; out there, so take a look at 3-4 of the top rated sites in the reviews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-08-23T11:57:16.433" />
  <row Id="2744" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2741" CreationDate="2010-08-23T11:59:09.473" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is hugely subjective. The 'best' for one person may be anathema to another. Personally, I would avoid micro-stock sites, that have vast collections of images from amateur photographers selling at a couple of quid each. You'd have to submit hundreds of images just to appear in searches, let alone make any sales.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alamy.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Alamy&lt;/a&gt; for my photos, though I don't make regular sales. When I have sold a photo, it's usually been for about £100 or more. They will take any photo that is technically excellent (i.e. they don't filter by percieved artistic merit) and you specify when you upload the image whether you want to sell royalty-free or licenced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A lot of newspapers get their images from Alamy - one of mine ended up in the Guardian. They do appear to have a significant customer base, however most of the time you won't know who has purchased an image. The only reason I knew of the one in the Guardian was because I came across it by accident - that was a nice surprise!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, they do pay well - they take 40% commission (though that increases to 50% for 'Novel Use', and 60% for distibutor sales), meaning you get more than half of the sale price for the majority of sales, and they allow you to see views, zooms and purchases of all your images on a day by day basis, including the keywords that were used when finding your photos, which helps in getting your keywords right. You can change photo details at any point after uploading (except the licence type), and you can indicate whether you have model and/or property release on photos that require it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bapla.org.uk&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;BAPLA&lt;/a&gt; website for a comprehensive list of photo libraries in the UK.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-08-23T11:59:09.473" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2745" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2655" CreationDate="2010-08-23T13:54:12.913" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it's interesting that it's not uncommon to see lens flare added to CGI sequences (think SF space scenes).  It's a fingerprint of the device (lens), and people may expect to see it when a bright light source is in the scene.  In general I try to avoid it, but sometimes it works.  My IR camera is particularly flare prone, so I try to incorporate it in the composition.  The flare characteristics of various lenses is different, so practice is probably the only way to get an idea of how your lenses each react to flare situations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Tim Summons His Gemini Mind-Wack Powers&quot;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/APiKF.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="965" LastActivityDate="2010-08-23T13:54:12.913" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2746" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2748" CreationDate="2010-08-23T18:32:12.173" Score="8" ViewCount="292" Body="&lt;p&gt;Owning a cheap Canon 20D, I now want to buy an entry level speedlight/external flash but I'm confused with &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;should i go for used or new the one while considering my low budget(150$ max).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What things i should take into considerations &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Also is it good to spend money on &quot;Aurora Mini/Max 6 x 8&quot; BHB Soft Box&quot;   &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="338" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-29T22:45:05.237" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T22:45:05.237" Title="Low budget entry level Speedlite ?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;speedlite&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="2747" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2746" CreationDate="2010-08-23T18:53:32.007" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If that is sterling, the only Speedlite that would be in your price bracket (new) would be the Canon Speedlite 270EX, which retails at about £100 (a direct conversion would be about $150, but I suspect it may be cheaper in the US market). If I were in your situation, I'd probably consider saving for a more powerful model that has a few more features that come in handy, such as AF-assist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally, you need to consider the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guide_Number&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Guide Number&lt;/a&gt; of a flash - as a general rule, the Canon Speedlites have model numbers that are ten times their (metric) guide number (so the 580 EX has a GN of 58, the 270 has 27).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on what you want to use the flash for, you may want to consider recycle times (although this does vary on batteries in use)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Flashes often have over (optional) features such as an auto-focus assist beam, which can be handy in low light situations; or the ability to &quot;zoom&quot; to focus the light and use less power; both can also be useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-23T18:59:33.240" LastActivityDate="2010-08-23T18:59:33.240" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2748" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2746" CreationDate="2010-08-23T18:53:54.720" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are not a lot of new options for flash that is sub-$150, though the Metz Mecablitz 20 C2 is one of them and Metz makes a good flash, though I haven't used this one personally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of flash shopping, considerations would include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Recycle time (how fast is the flash at being usable again once fired).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Guide number (at full power, what's the range of the flash at ISO 100, the higher the better).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Power supply (e.g. what type of batteries, most are AA).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ability to control the flash power. Sometimes you want to be able to dial down the power and decrease the duration of the light burst.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;TTL support for the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Wireless support and/or sync cable support.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Trigger voltage. Some older flashes can have higher voltage and that could cause damage to your camera.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, some of these considerations are less an issue for basic flash use for taking candid shots of friends and families at parties, etc. Also, given your budget, in some ways you're going to really just look at getting the best you can buy. I'm a fan of hitting Craigslist for stuff, but you may want to look at going new. You can, of course, get a more powerful used flash, but there are risks (see item 7 above) and it's really much better to go in and get some expert advice at the counter if you're not sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't say on the Aurora soft box, I'm afraid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt; By the way, if you do go used, take a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.botzilla.com/photo/strobeVolts.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this page&lt;/a&gt; on voltage by flash as it applies to the EOS line.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-23T19:00:13.600" LastActivityDate="2010-08-23T19:00:13.600" />
  <row Id="2749" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2751" CreationDate="2010-08-23T20:44:28.863" Score="4" ViewCount="297" Body="&lt;p&gt;My wife has a Canon IXUS 960 IS, and she's finding that she is filling the 2Gb cards I'd originally got for her too quickly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that some cameras have a maximum supported capacity for memory cards, and rather than waste money on some cards that would turn out to be wasted, I thought I'd try to find the maximum size supported by this camera; So, what is the maximum memory card size supported by the Canon IXUS 960?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-23T21:51:53.797" LastActivityDate="2010-08-23T22:09:44.887" Title="What is the largest memory card that is supported by the Canon IXUS 960 IS?" Tags="&lt;memory-card-size&gt;&lt;canon-ixus&gt;&lt;sdhc&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="2750" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2749" CreationDate="2010-08-23T21:51:43.577" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I couldn't find a strict maximum listed anywhere, but this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer/digital_cameras/powershot_sd_series/powershot_sd960_is#Specifications&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;spec sheet&lt;/a&gt; from Canon mentioned capacities of 8GB cards. So that would be the minimum maximum. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-08-23T21:51:43.577" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2751" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2749" CreationDate="2010-08-23T22:09:44.887" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://software.canon-europe.com/products/0010516.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon's User Guide&lt;/a&gt; (and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_Digital_IXUS&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082003canonsd950is.asp#specs&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dpreview&lt;/a&gt;) list the camera as compatible with SDHC cards, which has a maximum size of 32GB.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It'd be unusual for something to list as SDHC compatible and not be, and a quick google for memory card problems didn't turn up much of anything.  I'd feel pretty confident using any SDHC card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-08-23T22:09:44.887" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2752" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2073" CreationDate="2010-08-24T00:33:47.110" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you have Windows, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.getpaint.net/download.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Paint.net&lt;/a&gt; is an excellent (and free) image editor similar to GIMP or Photoshop, but simpler and easier to learn.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it's a good &quot;next step&quot; (easy enough to just try it, since it's small and free) after Picasa. My own workflow is more like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Copy images to PC&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Organise, rotate, crop, etc in Picasa&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If needed, do some basic editing on a few images with Paint.net&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If there's something I need that Picasa and Paint.net can't do, fire up the GIMP.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also note that the main &quot;tricky&quot; part of the serious image editors (Paint.net, GIMP, Photoshop) is the concept of &lt;strong&gt;layers&lt;/strong&gt;. You might want to find a youtube video on how layers work, because once you've seen it explained clearly, it's pretty straightforward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1065" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T00:33:47.110" />
  <row Id="2753" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2673" CreationDate="2010-08-24T01:36:02.960" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Erasing rather than formatting will let you use a tool like photorec to recover photos off your memory card, should the need arise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've erased a card thinking I'd copied photos over, but actually hadn't, and photorec came through and recovered them for me. If I'd formatted, I'd be SOL.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1205" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T01:36:02.960" />
  <row Id="2754" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2755" CreationDate="2010-08-24T03:44:11.577" Score="5" ViewCount="241" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently took some shots of a house fly, primarily for use in a simple case study of print sharpness that I posted here. Several of the shots turned out fairly well with flash, however they all seem to have some kind of ghosting going on. I am not really sure if it is actual sensor ghosting, or possibly something else? I'm a bit unsure about what the aberration actually is, as the only part of the scene that appears to be ghosting is the fly itself, and the shape of the &quot;ghost&quot; does not mirror the actual photographed shape...it looks more like the fly moved between the time the shutter opened, the flash fired, and the shutter closed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ghOVt.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Fly Ghosting?&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see the &quot;ghost&quot; to the left of the fly's head...it looks as though the fly has changed position from the &quot;ghost&quot; position to where it is in the shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I checked two things, the exposure length and my flash settings. Exposure length for these ghosted shots was surprisingly long...1/5th of a second through 0.3 seconds. The camera was mounted on a tripod since it was macro, so I didn't really register the exposure times when snapping them. Second, flash sync speed was set to &quot;Auto&quot; in my 450D custom function settings. I'm not exactly what that means (I haven't been able to find any clear documentation on it)...however the alternative setting is 1/200th. Not sure if these factors affect a flash shot much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am a bit confused about the nature of the ghosted image. If the fly moved over the duration of the shot, I would have expected the ghost to cover the entire span of motion...however it seems to be frozen at a particular moment. (I can't imagine that was the moment of flash...wouldn't that be the clearly exposed part of the scene?) Anyway...very confusing issue...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-24T04:58:28.533" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T22:32:24.397" Title="Is this sensor ghosting, or something else?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;aberration&gt;&lt;ghosting&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2755" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2754" CreationDate="2010-08-24T03:49:12.197" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The flash may light the scene for only a small portion of the exposure time. If the camera or subject move during that exposure, the ambient light will expose some part of the picture at a lower level than the flash, resulting in a ghost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="775" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T03:49:12.197" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2756" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4" CreationDate="2010-08-24T04:25:49.847" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jackets are great for lens caps. If you have jacket with inner pockets it's easy as pie to reach in quickly and drop the lens cap in the pocket, instead of fumbling around in other pockets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mind you, this only works in colder climates where you need jackets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I tend to just put mine in a pocket.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T04:25:49.847" />
  <row Id="2757" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2754" CreationDate="2010-08-24T04:26:21.470" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To be honest, it looks like shadow to me. With macro exposures and a pretty slow shutter speed for insects (assuming you're synchronized to the flash, the EXIF is missing from the linked image), any movement would be outright blur and the image is crisp enough to dismiss that. It could be a ghost, but I really don't think so, as even a fly will cast a shadow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your flash was strobing, I'd buy into a ghost, but in that event that shadowy spot would look much more like the fly, in other words more ghostly. This just doesn't look like one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T04:26:21.470" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2758" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="782" CreationDate="2010-08-24T04:45:09.227" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One thing to remember, particularly when determining which lens to buy in regards to focal length, is the crop factor of your camera's sensor. Lenses designed for full frame cameras will produce a narrower field of view on an APS-C or similar sized sensor, as found in most non-professional D-SLR's and micro 4/3rds cameras, with exceptions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lens focal lengths are commonly specified in relation to a full frame (35mm) sensor, given it's heritage in film cameras. Most enthusiast and entry level D-SLR cameras will be APS-C size or similar, which has a crop factor of 1.6. This means an 18mm focal length on an APS-C sized sensor will produce a field of view the same as a 28.8mm focal length on a full frame sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T04:45:09.227" />
  <row Id="2759" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2761" CreationDate="2010-08-24T05:03:02.067" Score="5" ViewCount="95" Body="&lt;p&gt;I hooked up the 50D to my MacBook Pro the other day at home and found it great to see exactly how a photo is going to turn out on the big screen &lt;em&gt;before taking it&lt;/em&gt; and was wondering when such a setup might be used and how frequently it &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; used, considering it's not exactly something you can roam about with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess the obvious ones such as long exposure (astronomy, landscape) etc, but are there other uses? Model photo shoots?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it better to simply use a remote instead of hooking it right up to a computer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastEditorUserId="101" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-24T13:37:32.980" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T13:37:32.980" Title="Situations you might use USB remote mode?" Tags="&lt;tripod&gt;&lt;remote&gt;&lt;long-exposure&gt;&lt;tethering&gt;&lt;usb&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="2760" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2763" CreationDate="2010-08-24T06:55:16.613" Score="9" ViewCount="309" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi all, Am an Painting Artist, I would like to start photography. But I don't know the &lt;code&gt;basics of photography&lt;/code&gt;, and I need to purchase a good &lt;code&gt;entry level SLR&lt;/code&gt; Camera. So Please help me to findout a good &lt;code&gt;beginner tutorial or helping articles&lt;/code&gt;, what are the &lt;code&gt;Do's and Don't&lt;/code&gt;. &#xA;How can I select a camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance!!!&#xA;Have a nice day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1206" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-09T19:58:00.640" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T21:48:01.930" Title="How to start the basics of photography, which is the best entry level SLR camera?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;learning&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="2761" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2759" CreationDate="2010-08-24T06:57:10.363" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's called tethered shooting, and is mostly used in studios; as you say, it's not exactly a portable setup. It has the advantage of letting you write photos direct to disk, bypassing the memory card, and as you said, you can see a photo preview large and on-screen before shooting, like a high-res version of live view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Press photographers at football matches and other events can use wireless tethering, with a laptop connected to the internet, so that picture editors back in the office can access the photos directly almost as soon as they are taken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there's no overriding need to get your photos on disk immediately, however, then using a remote will do in most situations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T06:57:10.363" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2762" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2754" CreationDate="2010-08-24T07:34:18.670" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would bet on ghosting/reflection as the ghost image is out of focus in the same areas where the main image (the eyes are sharp and the rest goes gradually out of focus). If it were a shadow, it would be out of focus altogether and if it was fly movement then the white area between the eyes should have drawn bright strips.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-24T11:21:06.390" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T11:21:06.390" />
  <row Id="2763" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2760" CreationDate="2010-08-24T07:56:27.387" Score="24" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You've asked quite a few questions, each that is not necessarily as straight forward to answer, but I'll do my best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For reference, check out this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scrapjazz.com/topics/Photography/Lessons/1046.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;link for some definitions for key terms often used in photography&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[What are the] basics of photography?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The very basics are: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adjusting your camera settings&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aiming your camera at something&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pressing the shutter release button&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And that results in an image, which you then do something with (edit, upload, print, etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Producing better images is usually a function of adding more detail to each of these steps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Camera Settings&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are three key settings to photograpy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aperture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shutter Speed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ISO Speed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each of these settings are methods to adjust the amount of light that is captured by the camera. In addition to controlling the amount of light, each has a &quot;secondary&quot; function.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aperture also controls the depth of field--the distance infront and behind the focal point that is also in focus. A &quot;shallow&quot; depth of field means that the space that is in focus is narrow. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shutter speed controls the &quot;stopping of action.&quot; Long shutter speeds will blur motion, while short shutter speeds will freeze it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ISO Speed, specifically when talking digital, increases image noise. This is usually not desirable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to these settings, camera's have a bevvy of other options, such as autofocus controls, flash controls, metering modes and so on, but Aperture, Shutter Speed, and ISO settings are what is most important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Aiming your camera&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This part, is in my opinion, one of the most vital parts of photography. From choosing your subject, to properly lighting the scene, to setting a good composition, this is likely where you will spend most of your time learning. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As this area is very broad, I can only hope to point you to some decent web sites to better explain this topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://connectedphotographer.com/issues/issue200411/00001426001.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Image Composition&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Off Camera Lighting&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Landscapes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/digital-photography-tips-for-beginners&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Photography School&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pressing the Button&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is probably the easiest step. There are some techniques that you will learn for this, but in most cases, this step is fail-safe. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Buying a Digital Camera&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Buying a camera can be a difficult process. I highly recommend buying either a Nikon body, or a Canon body. There are other manufacturers that produce very nice dSLR's, but Canon and Nikon are the two top manufacturers, and are likely to continue to be around for a long time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also recommend buying a camera kit, which usually comes with a body and a lens. The typical kit lens is often mediocre, but until you know what you want to shoot, it will be nearly impossible, and cost prohibitive to purchase any other lenses. Nikon and Canon both have models that are suited for beginners, along with mid-level, and professional-grade bodies. All models, regardless of target demographic, will produce excellent images--there are &quot;professional&quot; photographers who make a living through photography who shoot with so called &quot;beginner&quot; models. I suggest you look at these entry-level dslr (Canon Rebel class or Nikon D40/D3000 class bodies). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One dirty little secret in the photography world is that camera bodies are probably the least important part for making a beautiful photograph.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Guides/dslr_buying_guide_01.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DPReview has a good buyers guide&lt;/a&gt;, which is definitely worth reading.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming you live in the United States (from the OP's profile you live in India--not sure where to buy from in India), I recommend purchasing camera gear from:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;BH Photo Video&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canogacamera.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canoga Camera&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Amazon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And if you live in the greater Seattle Area:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.glazerscamera.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Glazers Camera&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do's and Don'ts&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is my personal list:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Do's&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Have fun&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take lots of images&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Think about what you are shooting, before you shoot it&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ask more questions on Photo.SE&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Experiment--don't be afraid to try new things&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Learn from others. Good photographers borrow techniques. The great ones steal.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Dont's&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do lens testing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Be a pixel peeper&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ask &quot;is this lens soft?&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Worry about buying the &quot;best&quot; gear&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aim directly at the sun&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aim at a laser&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-24T17:18:58.640" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T17:18:58.640" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="2764" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2759" CreationDate="2010-08-24T08:03:54.310" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nick's answer pretty much nailed it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will add, that when I am playing around with self portraits, I will use Tethered Mode so I can more easily see the image, instead of running back around to check the LCD on the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T08:03:54.310" />
  <row Id="2765" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2759" CreationDate="2010-08-24T10:33:21.120" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tethering also allows you to capture Timelapse images if your camera doesn't support this directly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="562" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T10:33:21.120" />
  <row Id="2766" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2767" CreationDate="2010-08-24T11:26:52.557" Score="7" ViewCount="524" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to do remote capture on a Canon ESO400D?  I have an infra-red remote, but when I connect the camera to the PC via USB I only get the option to download pictures from it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm a pretty proficient Windows user, currently on XP, Vista or Win7 depending on which machine I use.  The laptop is Win7, so any information with a bias in that direction would be most appreciated. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1194" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T19:26:03.237" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T19:26:03.237" Title="Remote Capture on Canon EOS400D?" Tags="&lt;remote&gt;&lt;tethering&gt;&lt;canon-400d&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2767" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2766" CreationDate="2010-08-24T11:33:59.763" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're on Windows, then you'd use the &quot;EOS Utility&quot; application (which you &lt;a href=&quot;http://software.canon-europe.com/software/0037078.asp?model=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;can download from Canon&lt;/a&gt; if you haven't already got it). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This application supports:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Functions for downloading and displaying images&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Remote shooting&lt;/strong&gt;, and camera control of each setting when an EOS DIGITAL camera is connected to a computer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T11:33:59.763" />
  <row Id="2768" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2654" CreationDate="2010-08-24T11:42:36.317" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't use a lensbaby and don't have any great resources for you, but seeing that the question has gone unanswered for so long, I'll post what I can...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Craig of The Mindful Eye uses a Lensbaby.  Back in the day he posted more how-to stuff about using it, but there are some of his photos along with nuggets of info in his blog:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.craigtannercreative.com/lightdiary/?cat=18&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.craigtannercreative.com/lightdiary/?cat=18&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;...he also seems to be good at answering questions, so maybe you can ask him directly?  Or search his site and see if you can find more useful information -I stopped following him after he changed from his old site to this new one, so it's possible that I missed some better resources there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="110" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T11:42:36.317" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2769" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2746" CreationDate="2010-08-24T12:32:19.727" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have used both:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the Nissin Di466 (supports TTL - but I have only used it in manual)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the Vivitar 285 (only supports manual mode). &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both have given me very satisfactory results. &#xA;I believe that both should be within your budget.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T12:32:19.727" />
  <row Id="2770" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2766" CreationDate="2010-08-24T12:41:37.477" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On Linux or MacOS, you could try using &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gphoto.org/doc/remote/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gphoto2&lt;/a&gt;, which definitely supports the 400D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See, for instance, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.moreno.marzolla.name/software/time_lapse_movies/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this guide to creating timelapse movies using gphoto2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T12:41:37.477" />
  <row Id="2771" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2773" CreationDate="2010-08-24T13:11:31.673" Score="6" ViewCount="94" Body="&lt;p&gt;Essentially, if you own an E-TTL II (or presumably iTTL) cable of a certain length/type, is there any reason to also own a manual PC-sync cable of a similar length/type, or can the camera be fired in manual mode via the E-TTL cable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I presume it can, and so getting a PC-sync cable would be redundant for those just starting to get into flash, and not owning studio flashes or anything other than a speedlite, since it looks like it just maps all the connections on the camera hotshoe to another hotshoe a length of cable away, but I'd like confirmation of this before I disgard the idea of buying a cheaper PC-sync cable to experiment with manual flash before moving on to E-TTL stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="101" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T13:25:15.093" Title="Can an E-TTL II cable trigger a speedlite in Manual mode" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;ettl-ii&gt;&lt;manual-flash&gt;&lt;off-camera-flash&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="2772" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2766" CreationDate="2010-08-24T13:20:03.170" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As others have said, if you use Windows or Mac OS-X, then you can use the EOS Capture utility which is part of Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP) - You can install this from one of the disks that came with your camera, and then update it from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canon-europe.com/support/software/dpp/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An alternative, if you're a Lightroom 3 user, would be to do the tethered capture from within Lr itself, since &lt;a href=&quot;http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/842/cpsid_84221.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the EOS 400D is a supported camera&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="101" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T13:20:03.170" />
  <row Id="2773" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2771" CreationDate="2010-08-24T13:25:15.093" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The contacts used for manual flash are just a subset of the contacts used for E-TTL, and the E-TTL cable will just be replicating the contacts on your on-camera hot shoe. If the same contacts appear at the end of the cable, the manual flash will behave exactly as it does when attached to the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T13:25:15.093" />
  <row Id="2774" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-24T16:41:48.313" Score="5" ViewCount="186" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for a wireless remote for my Canon 50D, but the canon RC-5 and RC-6 don't seem to support it in the information I've found thus far.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone recommend anything that might work with bulb exposures and won't break the bank into a million bits like the LC-5?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="672" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-24T15:38:22.917" LastActivityDate="2010-10-24T15:38:22.917" Title="What options are available for a wireless remote for a Canon 50D?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;remote&gt;&lt;canon-50d&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="2775" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="230" CreationDate="2010-08-24T17:04:42.790" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On Mac, I had bad luck with Hugin; it kept crashing. YMMV. &lt;a href=&quot;http://echoone.com/doubletake/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DoubleTake&lt;/a&gt; ($25 currently) seemed promising, and is almost a one-step solution, but didn't seem to have vignette removal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My best results have been with Photoshop's Photomerge. On CS5 (don't know about &amp;lt;=CS4), it has vignette removal, and the stitching is very intelligent. I ended up with a slightly curvy horizon and some perspective issues, but they're very easy to fix with Puppet Warp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Plus, you can fill in the sky and other non-important areas with Content-Aware Fill to make it rectangular.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/AUMFI.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;NYC at sunset, from the Brooklyn Heights promenade. &quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T17:04:42.790" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-03T13:16:05.547" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2776" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-24T17:24:02.187" Score="6" ViewCount="236" Body="&lt;p&gt;Has a Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 got an Image Stabiliser&#xA;Following an answer to a previous question re my wifes Canon EOS 450D in which Jrista suggested the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 lens rather than the Canon 100mm F/2.8 Macro. (the second photograph is stunning)&#xA;The price of the 100 with IS is not a long way off the cost of a 65, I just wanted to know if the 65 had an Image Stabiliser and if not could she have problems holding it still, with freehand shots?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1179" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-29T22:43:22.277" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T22:43:22.277" Title="Stabilization of the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8" Tags="&lt;macro&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2777" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2776" CreationDate="2010-08-24T17:29:23.893" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, it does not have IS, but it could still be useful.  Image stabilization is just one way to improve you freehand shots, but there are &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/178/techniques-for-hand-held-image-stabilization&quot;&gt;lots of other ways&lt;/a&gt;. It is really all just about having a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1733/minimum-shutter-speed&quot;&gt;fast enough shutter speed&lt;/a&gt; that movement is not noticeable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T17:29:23.893" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2778" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2776" CreationDate="2010-08-24T17:34:36.160" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As @chils42 points out, the lens does not have IS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The MP-E is really a specialized lens for macro. At 5x magnification, movements will be very much exaggerated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the lens is a specialized macro lens, it cannot focus more than an inch away, making it inappropriate for any photography beside macro (although I'm sure people have found other creative uses for it). As such, macro does not lend itself well to handholding; however your wife might not have time to setup a tripod if she wishes to capture a subject that moves frequently. Your wife could have problems holding it still for handheld shots (especially at higher magnifications), but there are techniques she can do to better hand stabilize the camera and lens (breathing, bracing her body, bracing the camera body etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If she is primarily interested in hand holding, then perhaps the 100macro IS is a better choice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T17:34:36.160" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2779" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2776" CreationDate="2010-08-24T17:34:47.323" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The MP-E 65mm f/2.8 does not have IS, but at the magnification it allows I would think you would really need a tripod. In many ways you'd better thinking of it as a microscope rather than a normal lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="130" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-26T17:58:48.377" LastActivityDate="2010-08-26T17:58:48.377" />
  <row Id="2780" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2776" CreationDate="2010-08-24T17:36:06.010" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The MP-E 65mm does not have IS. When it comes to real close up macro work, IS can be a blessing or a curse. The 100mm L Macro with IS is a fairly new type of lens, and there really is not enough information out there yet to demonstrate whether the IS has any value at the macro scale.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;IS is not the only way to stabilize a shot, however. If you really want to get solid, stable macro shots, you can look into getting a &lt;a href=&quot;http://reallyrightstuff.com/rrs/items.asp?Cc=MACRO&amp;amp;Bc&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;macro focusing rail&lt;/a&gt; mount. These offer a very stable, low-profile mount with smooth movement in multiple planes. IMO, they are a much better way to stabilize and focus macro shots than a lens with IS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EXCERPT FROM &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_100_2p8_is_usm_c16/page4.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DPREVIEW&lt;/a&gt; of Canon 100mm L IS Macro:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Close range test&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To see how effective Canon's new&#xA;  Hybrid IS actually is at dealing with&#xA;  shake during macro shooting, we&#xA;  repeated our test at a much closer&#xA;  distance, with an image magnification&#xA;  of approximately 1:1 (very much the&#xA;  worst-case scenario). In this test we&#xA;  also have to take special steps to&#xA;  keep the chart consistently in focus,&#xA;  using a small aperture combined with&#xA;  AI Servo focusing. IS OFF IS ON&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Hybrid IS is clearly having some&#xA;  positive effect even at 1:1&#xA;  magnification, but in truth the&#xA;  benefit isn't huge (closer to 1 stop&#xA;  in this test as opposed to Canon's&#xA;  claimed 2 stops), and we struggled to&#xA;  get many really sharp shots which&#xA;  truly reflected the lens's exceptional&#xA;  resolution. It's worth noting here&#xA;  that the 1/focal length rule of thumb&#xA;  for estimating the lowest 'safe'&#xA;  hand-holding shutter speed has clearly&#xA;  broken down, which tends to be the&#xA;  case when shooting at macro distances&#xA;  - you need to use even faster shutter speeds than usual. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Third Dimension&#xA;  (or, where Hybrid IS still breaks&#xA;  down)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In its publicity material describing&#xA;  Hybrid IS, Canon helpfully provides a&#xA;  diagram explaining how its new&#xA;  technology corrects for slight&#xA;  vertical and horizontal shifts in the&#xA;  camera's position, as well as the&#xA;  usual tilts. What it fails to mention,&#xA;  though, is a third dimension of shift,&#xA;  namely back and forward movements of&#xA;  the photographer (and camera) relative&#xA;  to the subject. This has the effect of&#xA;  throwing the subject out of focus, and&#xA;  becomes highly problematic at macro&#xA;  distances for which depth of field is&#xA;  measured in millimeters or less.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The problem with this kind of&#xA;  movement, and the focus shift it&#xA;  creates, is that even the new Hybrid&#xA;  IS system doesn't attempt to correct&#xA;  for it. All you can do is set the&#xA;  camera to continuous autofocus, and&#xA;  hope for the best. This of course&#xA;  assumes you can place an AF point&#xA;  precisely where you want to on the&#xA;  subject, which often isn't possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In practical shooting with the 100mm&#xA;  macro, this effect frequently negates&#xA;  any potential benefits offered by the &#xA;  Hybrid IS, as there's little point in&#xA;  getting a picture which is unaffected&#xA;  by shake but not in correct focus. So&#xA;  until designers work out a way to&#xA;  continuously correct focus in a&#xA;  similar manner to shake, even Hybrid&#xA;  IS is only a very partial solution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-24T17:45:42.923" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T17:45:42.923" />
  <row Id="2781" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2754" CreationDate="2010-08-24T19:55:43.883" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Were you just using on-camera flash?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If so, there's a good chance the lens was so close to the subject that the flash had very little effect because the lens obscured it. That would account for the long exposure time - which in turn means your fly was primarily lit by ambient light. The lack of harsh shadows tends to confirm this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If that's the case, you're just seeing shadow from whatever ambient light source there was around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="562" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T19:55:43.883" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2782" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-24T20:05:18.817" Score="6" ViewCount="185" Body="&lt;p&gt;Similar to the question about who's blogs to follow ... &#xA;Who represents photography well in the twitterverse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(BTW, I tweet about too many things besides photography, so I am not a good candidate. @theChrisMarsh)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="992" LastActivityDate="2010-12-08T07:58:15.270" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-24T20:21:04.580" Title="Which photographers do you follow on twitter?" Tags="&lt;blog&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2783" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2774" CreationDate="2010-08-24T20:35:29.607" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In terms of Canon products, there only seems to be the LC-5, according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/lit_files/80.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the 50D manual (Pg203)&lt;/a&gt;. It does seem a bit overkill, and rather pricey, though. Another option may be to do something with PocketWizards, but since I don't use them myself I can't say how you'd set this up, or if it's even possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="101" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T20:35:29.607" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2784" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2774" CreationDate="2010-08-24T21:15:09.020" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know what your budget is, but I use the Hähnel Giga-T Pro with my 5D2, which allows for bulb exposures. It also acts as an interval timer for time lapse work, and as a standard wireless remote.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-hahnel-giga-t-pro-remote-control-canon/p1519110&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;£80 from Warehouse Express&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T21:15:09.020" />
  <row Id="2785" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2782" CreationDate="2010-08-24T21:22:37.453" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I follow DPS (not photographer tho)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But love the question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="567" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T21:22:37.453" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-24T21:22:37.453" />
  <row Id="2786" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2782" CreationDate="2010-08-24T21:35:48.923" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I follow, indirectly, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diyphotography.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DIY Photography&lt;/a&gt; because I'm into that sort of thing and you can learn a lot, not to mention save some serious coin. Besides, I got &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diyphotography.net/create-a-complete-strobing-system-from-foamies-velcro&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;featured&lt;/a&gt; there not long ago, so it makes me loyal. ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T21:35:48.923" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-24T21:35:48.923" />
  <row Id="2787" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2782" CreationDate="2010-08-24T22:12:19.237" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I follow &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.twitter.com/kaimanwong&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;@KaiManWong&lt;/a&gt;. He's a photographer that works for DigitalRev. I find his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/user/digitalrevcom&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;YouTube&lt;/a&gt; reviews and videos pretty funny. &quot;Asian guy with a funny British accent&quot; he calls himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T22:12:19.237" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-24T22:12:19.237" />
  <row Id="2788" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2782" CreationDate="2010-08-24T22:44:31.987" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;ScottBourne has some great contests as well as useful info.  He is the host of th PhotoFocus podcast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T22:44:31.987" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-24T22:44:31.987" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2789" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-08-24T23:27:59.843" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Canon A-1, with the speedy 50/1.4 prime lens. I also loved the 24/2.8 wide angle. Here it is with the 50/1.4 - just look at that glass:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/AM4we.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sadly it got stolen out of my car, and I've only recently gotten back into photography on the digital side.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1091" LastActivityDate="2010-08-24T23:27:59.843" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-24T23:27:59.843" />
  <row Id="2790" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-24T23:52:41.427" Score="9" ViewCount="341" Body="&lt;p&gt;I love the colors in this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/24208716@N07/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photostream&lt;/a&gt; on Flickr, especially &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/24208716@N07/3220785158/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this photo&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/24208716@N07/3214153622/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt;. How can I get colors like this in my photos? Is this done with post processing? Good luck? The lighting looks like either early morning or sunset (ie. the golden hour).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="677" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T03:53:40.027" Title="How to get this colorful look in a landscape photo?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;landscape&gt;&lt;sunlight&gt;&lt;golden-hour&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2791" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2790" CreationDate="2010-08-25T00:01:21.117" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, it's mostly post-processing. The images have very high contrast, which also makes the colors more vivid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also increase the saturation to get more vivid colors without getting too high contrast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your reflection on the lighting is probably correct; the images should have reasonably high contrast and color to start with, or they will look too unnatural if you force the contrast or saturation that high.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the right I have increased the contrast quite a bit, and also the saturation somewhat:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/SH7Pe.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-25T01:59:00.973" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T01:59:00.973" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2792" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2790" CreationDate="2010-08-25T01:46:10.553" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can get close to this kind of look by enhancing local contrast. This works a bit similar to HDR tone mapping, and can be archieved by using unsharp mask filters with high blur radius.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This example was a bit overdone so you can see how easily this can go wrong. Usually you'll get nicer looking results by using just a small amount of this, and perhaps using curves in more layers and then combining them manually if you have really high-contrast image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/FPN9a.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;before&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ukTTC.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;after&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T01:46:10.553" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2793" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2790" CreationDate="2010-08-25T02:11:44.110" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some of these effects can be achieved in camera using a polarizing filter.  The images you indicate are likely popped in post processing, but if you haven't tried a polarizing filter out, you might be surprised at home much it affects color.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1216" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T02:11:44.110" />
  <row Id="2794" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2790" CreationDate="2010-08-25T03:53:40.027" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a number of techniques employed to get the look of the examples you posted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I think you're correct about the lighting, these pictures were taken with the optimal lighting for their location.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The contrast was enhanced. This might be an automatic process as suggested by &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2790/how-to-get-this-colorful-look-in-a-landscape-photo/2792#2792&quot;&gt;che&lt;/a&gt;, or it may be done by selecting areas of the image and enhancing the contrast directly. The sky in the second example looks like it might have been enhanced more than the rest of the picture.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The saturation has been greatly increased to make the colors pop.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The sharpness has been enhanced, probably with an unsharp mask filter. This is very easily seen in a crop of the mountain profile in the second example. Notice how the edge has an unnaturally bright and dark line along the edge, this is what you get when sharpening is taken to an extreme.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/gKefv.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="775" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T03:53:40.027" />
  <row Id="2795" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2796" CreationDate="2010-08-25T05:18:13.470" Score="5" ViewCount="406" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been told that most photo labs now use scanners and print your photos from these scanned images. I live in an area with only a few photo labs such as Wal-mart, Target, and the local Groceries, so it is unlikely that they are using anything but the least expensive printing method available. I do not have the resources to develop my own shots, but recently found an older 35mm SLR and have considered started to take some shots with it, however I worry if what I have been told is true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is it true that because of current printing methods for 35mm, shooting in this format will be necessarily of lower quality than my DSLR?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastActivityDate="2010-08-27T21:43:39.703" Title="Is it true that analog SLR's are obsolete unless you develop your own photos?" Tags="&lt;digital-vs-film&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2796" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2795" CreationDate="2010-08-25T06:44:18.370" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You asked two slightly different questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is it true that analog SLR’s are obsolete unless you develop your own photos?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No, that is not true. Film may have been supplanted by digital, but it is in no way obsolete.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is it true that because of current printing methods for 35mm, shooting in this format will be necessarily of lower quality than my DSLR?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's true, for places like Walmart and their ilk that use cheapo film scanners, however, I wouldn't necessarily say that Walmart, Target and your local grocer are photo-labs. They can develop prints, but like you said, they're going to use the most cost effective method (read: cheap) method they can get away with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are serious about getting good quality prints from your film images, there are still a number of pro labs that develop film and most of them offer mail-in services. Many can be found on the web, and offer a range of service from your standard dip-and-dunk, to more specialized processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, check with local camera retailers (instead of the big chain ones), as they will often have an attached photo-lab.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-27T21:43:39.703" LastActivityDate="2010-08-27T21:43:39.703" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2797" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2795" CreationDate="2010-08-25T06:52:56.477" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a number of different routes to take here:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Shoot film (I don't like the term analog here) and have your photos printed at a photo lab.&#xA;Photo labs have been taking the digital route here for years: the developed film is scanned and printed on a digital printer. You shouldn't worry about print quality; the scanner is good enough to capture all details of the film (film has a limited latitude too!)  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Shoot film and darkroom print yourself. This is becoming a rare art now, for obvious reasons: it's more complicated, especially if you want to do color. That being said I still prefer &quot;silver prints&quot; for B&amp;amp;W over digital prints, this is somewhat subjective, but silver prints have this extra &quot;je-ne-sais-quoi&quot;. The bottom line is that you have total control yourself of every step in the process, especially if you also develop your films. (I find that B&amp;amp;W films developed by a lab often lack contrast.)  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Shoot digital and have your printing done by a lab. Here the lab starts out with a digital file like the one it obtained from scanning in 1). Print quality is good, esp. for standard small formats like 10x15cm or 5&quot;x7&quot;. Larger format quality depends on your file's resolution.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Shoot digital and print it yourself. Most inkjet printers have excellent print quality, and again you have total control; you can experiment as much as you like. Some drawbacks: most inks are not waterproof, you're limited to A4/letter size, and inks are not cheap.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Especially if you want to shoot B&amp;amp;W, I'd say: try film, and maybe try to make your own prints. Film is not dead! After all these years I'm still thrilled when I see the image emerging on what was just a sheet of white paper. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="878" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T06:52:56.477" />
  <row Id="2798" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2795" CreationDate="2010-08-25T07:16:33.913" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are tons of variations on this situation; a lot of it will depend on your cameras (both film and digital), as well as what you typically do with your photos.  If you only tend to upload to Flickr it's a very different answer than if you like to print at 20x30.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, I'd say the basic situation is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A simple print from a color negative will look a lot like a simple print from straight-from-camera JPEG.  And I mean a &lt;strong&gt;lot&lt;/strong&gt; like it; they're being printed on the same machines, with the same color correction, and so forth.  From Target, etc, they'll probably turn out a little over-saturated and gaudy, but 40 years of colour photography has shown that's what most people like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For anything more complicated, you need a good custom lab, access to a darkroom, or – having ruled those two out – the current favorite of mainstream film users: scans!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is where digital's advantage really picks up compared to the chain stores: you don't have to scan it, you've got the full-quality image right there.  Getting good scans from chain stores is quite hit-and-miss, large scans suitable for large prints might be too expensive, or not even available.  I'll emphasize that it's definitely worth checking out all the options locally; it can vary even between different stores in the same chain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I think the &quot;typical&quot; situation would be that the simplest chain-store scans are usually the size they'd use for their normal size of prints: suitable for 4x6 or 5x7, perhaps 8x10 with a bit of care.  For large prints, digital has a definite advantage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For posting online, I'd probably still lean towards digital, but the quality you get from the chain-store scans is much more likely to be an acceptable level for Flickr or other online galleries - I think it's worth noting that some of the better film photographers I know on Flickr have found ways to work with chain stores only.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The scanning situation is why a lot of regular film shooters get themselves a scanner; you get better scans and better prints, and pays for itself pretty rapidly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: I know it's not what you asked, and certainly not worth getting into for a few rolls of experimenting, but processing your own film is almost certainly much simpler than you think.  If you find you like shooting film, it's definitely worth looking into a little closer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T07:16:33.913" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2799" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2782" CreationDate="2010-08-25T07:46:05.817" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://twitter.com/kevinwinzeler&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;@kevinwinzler&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://twitter.com/shatterkiss&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;@shatterkiss&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://twitter.com/DonMacAskill&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;@DonMacAskill&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://twitter.com/SmugMug&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;@SmugMug&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T07:46:05.817" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-25T07:46:05.817" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2800" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2774" CreationDate="2010-08-25T09:40:51.687" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Also my vote for Hähnel Giga-T Pro. Really awesome device and can do lots of different things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="855" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T09:40:51.687" />
  <row Id="2801" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2802" CreationDate="2010-08-25T11:19:13.497" Score="9" ViewCount="208" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whats the crop factor and what are its effects on lenses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1209" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-25T11:55:21.910" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T13:14:07.830" Title="Can someone explain the different sensor sizes used by Canon, namely APS-C, APS-H and full format? Also what are the standards used by Nikon?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;cropped-sensor&gt;&lt;full-frame&gt;&lt;crop-factor&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2802" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2801" CreationDate="2010-08-25T11:23:57.170" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;These are the different sensor sizes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Full frame sensor (Nikon's FX, Canon does not use special term): 36 x 24mm, no crop (actual size might differ slightly between brands and cameras)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon's APS-H: 27.9 x 18.6mm, crop factor 1.3&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon's APS-C: 22.3 x 14.9mm, crop factor 1.6&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon's DX: 23.6 x 15.8mm, crop factor 1.5 (23.1 x 15.4mm, crop factor 1.55 for Nikon 3100)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The effects of crop factor to the lenses is that the smaller sizes lessen the angle of view, but as the focal length is universally adapted to represent the field of view, you can multiply the focal lengths by the crop factor to get the indication for angle of view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In example if you take 18-55mm zoom, it's effective angle of view on APS-C is equivalent to 18x1.6-55x1.6 ~ 28-90mm lens on a fullframe camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might find &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.photo.stackexchange.com/questions/283/a-possible-shorthand-for-equivalent-focal-length&quot;&gt;this discussion about focal lengths and their equivalents&lt;/a&gt; useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When shopping for lenses, one should keep in mind that when you have camera with cropped sensor, both fullframe (Canon's EF, Nikon's lenses without DX marking) and cropped sensor (Canon's EF-S, Nikon's DX) lenses are usable on your camera, but lenses made for cameras with cropped sensor are not usable on fullframe cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-25T13:14:07.830" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T13:14:07.830" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2803" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2807" CreationDate="2010-08-25T13:03:38.747" Score="3" ViewCount="344" Body="&lt;p&gt;My local camera shop has a secondhand Canon 1D MkII for sale for approx £500, as a current 450D user is this worth the upgrade or would I be better off saving for a new 5D or 7D?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="482" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T14:01:11.727" Title="Is a Canon 450D to Canon 1D Mk 2 upgrade worthwhile?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;canon-450d&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2804" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2803" CreationDate="2010-08-25T13:24:16.140" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Canon 1D MkII is a professional grade camera - see review of it here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmkii/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmkii/&lt;/a&gt; £500 seems like a bargain especially if it was about £3000 when new. Even though it is 6 years old I am sure it will take better (and faster) pictures than most new DSLR's of that price. You need to consider the size and weight of the 1D but it would make you look like a pro. If it was me, the 450D would be on ebay and I would have the 1D instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="358" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T13:24:16.140" />
  <row Id="2805" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2803" CreationDate="2010-08-25T13:39:34.680" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Probably not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 1d is a pro level camera, but it is also a fairly old model relative to the 450D. While the build quality is probably higher and it has the look and feel of a pro camera, from a technical aspect, it really isn't that much higher quality, and in some ways it's actually lower than the 450D. The 450D has a digic 3 processor and a 12MP sensor, vs the digic 2 and 8MP sensor in the 1d, which will improve the in camera processing. That said, the 1d does have some other features (more AF points, weather sealed, 1.3 vs 1.6 crop, etc.) that you simply won't find on an entry level dslr.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, another concern is the shutter actuation count on the 1d.  Being a pro level camera, you can expect that it was previously owned by a pro, so the shutter count is probably pretty high.  While the quality is higher in a pro level camera, any mechanical system is prone to failing eventually, so you might actually have more life left in the 450D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I were you (and actually as a 450D owner) I think the better route is to pass on this and save for a 5D. The exceptions to this would be if:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you need a weather sealed camera&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the shutter actuations are low&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you need a larger sensor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you primarily use EF (not EF-S) lenses&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want the pro look without switching, one way to get there is to get a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001HK4LWA/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&amp;amp;pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&amp;amp;pf_rd_t=201&amp;amp;pf_rd_i=B0015G58WS&amp;amp;pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&amp;amp;pf_rd_r=0YWJXQKWNKM090FSCC9B&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Battery Grip&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/speedlite_flash_lineup&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SpeedLight&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-25T13:53:29.920" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T13:53:29.920" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="2806" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2803" CreationDate="2010-08-25T13:46:41.883" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Every upgrade should have a reason. So ask yourself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What are the features that you're missing in your 450D?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What are the features that you're expecting from 1D?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What else do you need to upgrade (probably lenses)?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What are the up and downsides of 1D (covered by chills42 and jrista)?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is it suitable for the kind of photography you do?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally - will it improve your photos?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-25T14:01:11.727" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T14:01:11.727" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="2807" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2803" CreationDate="2010-08-25T13:48:53.530" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;2 years ago I upgraded from a 400D to a 5D(Mk I), and am really happy with the upgrade. At the time, my primary reasons for upgrading were:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Full-frame sensor size, compared to APS-C (I know this doesn't fully apply to you)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Spot metering&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It was a bargain! (And bought from a friend who I knew looked after it)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of saving for a 5D Mk II or a 7D, and before buying this, I think you need to consider where you want to go with your photography. Personally, I see the 5D II and 7D being similar in terms of &lt;em&gt;levels&lt;/em&gt;, in the same way the 1D and 1Ds are on the same sort of pro-level. The differences are that the 5D is full frame, and so more costly, but the 7D is faster. Do you want speed or a full-frame sensor? (I'm assuming the video differences are irrelevant since you're looking at a 1D Mk II)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I sold my 400D for about £350, I seem to recall, with kit lens and some accessories and bits and bobs, so you can deduct a bit off the price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I were in your position I would be severely tempted to go for it, but bear in mind a few things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF-S lenses won't fit a 1D body - if you've invested in these then it'd put the brakes on things for me. I knew I wanted to go to full-frame at some point, so only had EF lenses.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's a bigger, heavier body (obvious I know), so may be less convenient to have with you as much as the smaller 450D.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's a pro-level body. It certainly makes you look more professional, and the bodies can take more abuse, but they're also more likely to have been heavily used already - I'd make sure it was in good nick, still.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reduced megapixel count. If you crop frequently and want to print big, then you may have to work on your framing/get longer lenses to allow you to get the crop you want in-camera.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For reference, here are the links on the Canon site to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canon.co.uk/For%5FHome/Product%5FFinder/Cameras/Digital%5FSLR/EOS%5F1D%5FMark%5FII/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1D Mk II&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/product_finder/cameras/digital_slr/EOS_450D/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;450D&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="101" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T13:48:53.530" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2808" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2803" CreationDate="2010-08-25T13:57:50.360" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For that price, I would grab a 1DMkII. That sounds like a pretty good bargain. Its about the same price as my 450D when I purchased it new (well, perhapse a couple hundred more), and even though the 450D has a larger MP count, the 1D still has several advantages:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Larger sensor (1.3x crop vs. 1.6x crop), so wider FOV&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It'll make better use of EF lenses, however it will not be compatible with any EF-S lens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Better ISO capabilities&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Overall ISO quality is likely not that much better&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You have extended range (50 through 3200)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You can adjust ISO in 1/3rd stops vs. 1 stops&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Much finger grained control over most settings&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;White Balance/Tint&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Far more custom functions than the 450D&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Larger range of exposure compensation &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Better Auto Focus system&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Higher flash sync speed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Higher burst rate for continuous high-speed action photography&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;8.3fps vs. 3.5fps&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Larger buffer allowing more continuous shots without slowing down&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Better battery life (due to built in battery grip)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fully environmentally sealed and more ruggedly built&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Support for multiple types of storage (CF, SDHC)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Many more benefits&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the flip side, there are some detractors:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Older technology, using Digic 2 and 8mp sensor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Smaller view screen (2&quot; vs. 3&quot;, lower res)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Compatible with fewer lenses &#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Only supports EF lenses, but is also not a full-frame sensor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does not support EF-S lenses that a 1.6x sensor like the 450D would&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Larger and heavier to lug around than a 450D&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;More complex camera that requires more knowledge to fully take advantage of&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T13:57:50.360" />
  <row Id="2809" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2782" CreationDate="2010-08-25T14:32:12.803" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;David Hobby, aka &lt;a href=&quot;http://twitter.com/strobist&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;@strobist&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T14:32:12.803" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-25T14:32:12.803" />
  <row Id="2810" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2836" CreationDate="2010-08-25T15:25:31.953" Score="5" ViewCount="409" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use digital for the convenience aspect of it, but sometimes I take a picture and can't help thinking that the soft, slightly &quot;faded&quot;, washed-out look would be nice.  How would I go about getting such an effect in post-processing, and what (if any) in-camera settings are required to do a good job?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1194" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-25T16:50:11.533" LastActivityDate="2010-08-26T15:26:47.873" Title="Get a film-effect with a digital camera" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2811" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2810" CreationDate="2010-08-25T15:40:56.580" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you use Lightroom, there are any number of presets you can use to achieve film-like effects; this is probably the easiest way to achieve what you want. Have a look &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=33&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, the film grain tool in Lightroom adds grain to photos to make them look more film-like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T15:40:56.580" />
  <row Id="2812" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2810" CreationDate="2010-08-25T15:41:45.033" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are numerous filters and special lens systems that allow you to create special effects in-camera. One of the best known is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensbaby.com/lenses.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lensbaby&lt;/a&gt;, a specialized lens system that makes it possible to create all kinds of effects. Beyond Lensbaby, there are soft-focus filters that can help to soften a shot, while slight over exposure can produce the washed-out effect. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would look into advanced filter systems like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.leefilters.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lee&lt;/a&gt; (my personal preference as they have glass, which is better for digital), &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cokin.fr/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cokin&lt;/a&gt;, etc. Both brands offer a very broad range of filters for their multi-filter holder systems. Several of their offerings are special effects filters, like softening filters. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for film grain, which is another effect of film that many find desirable and beneficial to their shots...all you can do there is use post processing. Lightroom 3 offers an explicit &quot;film grain&quot; tool that can add nice, fairly realistic film grain to a digital shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T15:41:45.033" />
  <row Id="2813" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2810" CreationDate="2010-08-25T15:47:58.360" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you have Photoshop, there are lots of ways to get to the more film-like look from the old days in post-processing. Some of these have been turned into actions and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thephotoargus.com/freebies/24-amazing-photoshop-actions-to-help-you-achieve-a-retro-look/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Photo Argus&lt;/a&gt; has a nice roundup of some good ones. In terms of camera settings, some of which can also be done post, white balance and correct exposure is the primary starting point. I'd recommend shooting RAW as well, though I always recommend that. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T15:47:58.360" />
  <row Id="2814" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2816" CreationDate="2010-08-25T15:49:10.770" Score="6" ViewCount="111" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm an amateur with a Canon EOS 400D/Rebel xti.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that any given shot requires it's own recipe for shutter speed, ISO and aperture, and I'm aware of the triad of those three.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I typically shoot in aperture priority mode, but sometimes I want to deliberately get a certain amount of movement in a shot, so go for shutter priority mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is a good starting-point shutter speed when I want to capture the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Motion&lt;/strong&gt; - For example, when taking a picture of a moving car, wanting to get the wheels looking like they're spinning, and the background motion-blurred, but with a good chance of keeping the car itself sharp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;Slow-synchro&quot; flash&lt;/strong&gt; - For example at an indoor dinner or (darker still) disco, where you want the subject to be illuminated by the flash and quite sharp, but where the shutter is still open long enough to capture the background lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1194" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T16:37:08.907" Title="Starter-for-ten shutter speeds" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;shutter-speed&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2815" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2814" CreationDate="2010-08-25T16:09:37.153" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Digital Photography School has a couple of nice articles on the subject:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-capture-motion-blur-in-photography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;How to Capture Motion Blur&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/slow-sync-flash&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Slow Sync Flash&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both describe the topics nicely, I highly recommend the site for some good tutorials.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T16:09:37.153" />
  <row Id="2816" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2814" CreationDate="2010-08-25T16:30:13.427" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Motion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It depends on a few variables eg, speed of subject / distance to subjects / focal length / speed of moving camera (for panning shots) etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I would suggest just start at 1/20th second, take a test shot, then adjust as needed. Simple!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;Slow-syncro&quot; flash&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, now you're adding a fourth factor in the exposure with the flash (flash power / distance etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, assuming you're using the built-in flash or a speedlite that supports ETTL... I would allow for slightly longer shutter speeds, since the flash will freeze the main subject and you probably want long light trails for artistic effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 second:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/pkV1h.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1/10 of a second:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/SySEA.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;taxi&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastEditorUserId="190" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-25T16:37:08.907" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T16:37:08.907" />
  <row Id="2817" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2180" CreationDate="2010-08-25T16:31:48.633" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a great summary of K-mount features at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/technology/summary/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bojidar Dimitor's page&lt;/a&gt;. You should look for the &quot;crippled&quot; KAF2 body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="507" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T16:31:48.633" />
  <row Id="2818" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2819" CreationDate="2010-08-25T17:05:44.297" Score="16" ViewCount="749" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've created a few photos of the Moon using a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksutov_telescope&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Maksutov-Cassegrain&lt;/a&gt; telescope and a DSLR. I've tried different ISO settings, shutter speed, bracketing to find the best settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here I show a (reduced size) example photo (ISO 200, 1/250 sec, digital processing: +2.5 EV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/8LlCv.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Moon&quot;&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a smaller part of the Moon:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/SdV5A.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the best way to digitally postprocess the images? I've read several articles mentioning noise reduction and image stacking but without any details. For instance there are several noise reduction techniques, which one is the best here? How many photos should be taken for image stacking? Is it the best to take the photos with the same settings...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="507" LastActivityDate="2010-09-03T13:41:00.903" Title="How to postprocess Moon photos" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;astrophotography&gt;&lt;moon&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="2819" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2818" CreationDate="2010-08-25T17:17:48.917" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would read this article for information on stacking and how to properly stack photos: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/index.php/category-technical/145-long-exposure-astrophotography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/index.php/category-technical/145-long-exposure-astrophotography&lt;/a&gt;. The relevant information is farther down in the article.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking at your shot, it appears that there is a fair amount blur, I'm guessing due to incorrect auto-tracking? Before doing any stacking, since this is the moon, and exposing the moon is a LOT easier than exposing stars...I would make sure your auto-tracking is correct. Its difficult to do, but once you have your mount set properly, you should be able to get MUCH sharper photos with a lower ISO setting, an not need to do any stacking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are interested in photographing the sky or stars, then stacking is a much more useful tool, as getting a good, clear, bright exposure with low ISO of the sky requires either one very long exposure, or several long exposures stacked. Stacking definitely helps manage noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more on Astrophotography, see this post: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1061/how-do-i-get-started-in-astrophotography&quot;&gt;How do I get started in Astrophotography?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T17:17:48.917" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2820" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2689" CreationDate="2010-08-25T18:01:20.330" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Personally, I just guess, take a shot and look at my histogram and tweak as needed. I just find it quicker and less complicated on my poor brain. It also affords me more brain power to keep talking to my subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T18:01:20.330" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2821" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2782" CreationDate="2010-08-25T18:17:46.053" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like following @DamienFranco, @ScottBourne, @pixelatedimage, @TamaraLackey, @nicolesy, @mostlylisa&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T18:17:46.053" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-25T18:17:46.053" />
  <row Id="2822" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2754" CreationDate="2010-08-25T18:21:13.003" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You already have the answer but...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The long exposure time caused the ghost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When using aperture priority with a Canon speedlite the flash will pop, effectively, instantaneously. The camera will then leave the shutter open to balance out the exposure with some ambient light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a custom function to fix this shutter duration at 1/200s but that is a pointless feature because then you may as well be in manual mode (you have fixed aperture and shutter and are asking the camera to set the exposure with the flash power).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T18:21:13.003" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2823" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2830" CreationDate="2010-08-25T20:07:08.060" Score="18" ViewCount="430" Body="&lt;p&gt;When photographing protests and rallies, how do you show that you are not a protester and just a photographer to avoid police crowd control tactics?  What do you do if the crowd you are in is getting particularly rowdy?  Any other tips and best practices?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T22:38:22.367" Title="How do you protect yourself at protests?" Tags="&lt;photojournalism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2824" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2827" CreationDate="2010-08-25T20:51:01.533" Score="13" ViewCount="211" Body="&lt;p&gt;I took a bunch of pictures, and when I loaded them onto my PC, I discovered the time on my camera was set incorrectly. Now this normally wouldn't be a problem...but I am combining pictures from multiple cameras, and I would like the have the photos sorted chronologically, which is not possible since the timestamps are off on one set of images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What's a good/easy way to mass adjust the timestamps stored in an image, without affecting any of the other EXIF data or the image data itself? Bonus points if the tool can also adjust the file's timestamp to match the EXIF timestamp, but that's not required.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastActivityDate="2010-08-26T11:42:57.350" Title="Fix photo timestamps?" Tags="&lt;exif&gt;&lt;jpeg&gt;&lt;time&gt;&lt;batch&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="2825" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2824" CreationDate="2010-08-25T20:52:20.183" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/#shift&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ExifTool&lt;/a&gt; can do that for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example from the linked page:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;exiftool -AllDates-=1 DIR&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would set all date fields in image in the directory DIR back one hour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ExifTool is &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; powerful when it comes to manipulating meta data in images. I would recommend to practice on copies of the files to get the command to do what you want, before unleashing it on your original files (that you, of course, will have a backup copy of somewhere).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T20:52:20.183" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2826" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2831" CreationDate="2010-08-25T20:53:03.573" Score="7" ViewCount="467" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have canon 400D. my photos (jpgs) are usually from about 3.5 MB to 6 MB (3888 x 2592 in pixels). How can I resize them to get good 10cmx15cm photos &amp;amp; faster upload? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1223" LastEditorUserId="1223" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-26T11:43:15.947" LastActivityDate="2010-08-30T13:11:50.380" Title="what should be dpi and size (in pixels) to print good 10x15 photos ?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;prints&gt;&lt;dpi&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2827" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2824" CreationDate="2010-08-25T21:12:29.750" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've used &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.relliksoftware.com/exifdatechanger/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EXIF Date Changer&lt;/a&gt; in the past, and it's worked pretty well. It's got a GUI so you don't have to fiddle about with reading man pages and learning command line arguments. Only (very minor) downside is it can't modify images in place, it needs to make a copy when modifying, so it doesn't affect the originals. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The hardest part really is trying to determine the exact time offset of the pictures after the fact. You have to find something that was captured by two different cameras, or hope someone took a picture of a clock/watch/etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rE50l.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;EXIF Date Changer Screenshot&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T21:12:29.750" />
  <row Id="2829" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2826" CreationDate="2010-08-25T21:36:26.193" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you re-save at JPG quality 10 instead of 12, you'll get smaller files without sacrificing resolution.  You may not want to do this as a general rule though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T21:36:26.193" />
  <row Id="2830" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2823" CreationDate="2010-08-25T22:28:51.200" Score="22" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;how do you show that you are not a protester and just a photographer to avoid police crowd control tactics?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You don't, really.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the one hand, the vast majority of protests are peaceful low-key sort of things where the police are just watching what's going on (if they're even there), or ensuring protests and counter-protests remain separate.  They're basically not worried about you or what you're doing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And on the other hand, if they've closed ranks, they're worried about &lt;em&gt;everyone&lt;/em&gt; and they literally don't care if you're a protestor or &quot;just a photographer.&quot; Press accreditation might get you through a police line, but even that's no guarantee; plenty of accredited journalists were caught up and detained in the G8/G20 protests in Toronto.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, for the most part, being a photographer at the front line of a protest means you need to think in much the same way as a protestor at the front line:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Be aware of the overall situation.&lt;/strong&gt;  Are things getting hostile or escalating?  Have the police blocked the route?  Have they blocked &lt;strong&gt;all&lt;/strong&gt; the routes (bad sign)?  Are they demanding protestors move back?  Is anyone provoking the situation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It's usually safe.&lt;/strong&gt;  In fact, photographers will often be just as plentiful as protestors at the police line, as that's where the good pictures are.  This was true even at the most violent protests during the Edinburgh G8 in 2005.  You are more likely to get caught up in other people's scuffles, but that's what being at the front entails (see above about &quot;being aware&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If people are being arrested, the police do not discriminate.&lt;/strong&gt;  You're in the crowd, it's easier for them to detain you and sort it out later.  This entails being prepared to be arrested:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Talking your way out is generally fruitless.  If you say &quot;I'm just a photographer&quot; and they don't immediately send you on your way, there's likely no point arguing further, so be ready to tough it out.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Have a copy of any relevant photographer's/media rights information.  Generally just helpful to indicate you're covering the event, not participating (if you have the urge to wave it around and quote it, see above)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Have the number for a local civil liberties or legal aid organisation.  Often these are published by the involved protest groups.  Write it on your arm in marker pen.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Know your rights and obligations when arrested.  Consulting the aforementioned civil liberties organisations &lt;em&gt;before you go&lt;/em&gt; is a good start.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take medication? Have enough on you for 24 hours, a copy of your prescription, and tell the arresting officer about it, as well as any processing officers.  (This is likely the only information you should volunteer.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If the tear gas (etc) is being deployed,&lt;/strong&gt; and you're on the wrong side of the police lines, it's basically out of your hands.  Do not panic, try to stay out of any clashes, and stay away from anyone throwing anything back at the police (or be aware of the risk you're taking to get that particular picture).  Staying where you are is often a surprisingly good choice.  Do &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; assume having a camera means you aren't a target, if anything, assume the opposite. See above about being arrested.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NB: this is based on my experience in Canada, Switzerland, and the UK.  Probably decent advice for most western-style developed democracies, though variations certainly exist.  &lt;strong&gt;Concrete local knowledge will always trump general advice.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="130" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-24T22:38:22.367" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T22:38:22.367" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-26T17:35:20.737" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="2831" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2826" CreationDate="2010-08-25T22:32:50.503" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;JPEG Quality of 9 ~ 10 out of 12 (or 70 ~ 84 out of 100) is pretty indistinguishable from uncompressed.  See &lt;a href=&quot;http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/jpeg-quality&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; for an in-depth comparison.  In short, if you have less color gradients, you can get away with higher compression (lower quality values).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For PPI (what you care about), in general, 240 to 360 PPI is high quality.  This depends on typical viewing distances and your audience.  For example, with posters where people won't be walking up to and scrutinizing, you can get away with lower PPI because the viewing distance is further.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ideally, you should find out what the printer's native PPI (not DPI) is and use a quality program and algorithm to resize (including upscaling) to that resolution, as opposed to letting their software or printer do the resizing.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To calculate the number of pixels, simply take your desired physical output size, convert to inches if necessary, and multiply by the PPI:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;10 cm by 15 cm&lt;br&gt;&#xA;x 1 inch / 2.54 cm&lt;br&gt;&#xA;x 250 pixels / inch&lt;br&gt;&#xA;= 985 pixels by 1477 pixels&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;10 in by 15 in&lt;br&gt;&#xA;x 250 pixels / inch&lt;br&gt;&#xA;= 2500 pixels by 3750 pixels&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-30T13:11:50.380" LastActivityDate="2010-08-30T13:11:50.380" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="2832" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2826" CreationDate="2010-08-25T23:12:30.590" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depends on your audience. I have printed and sold a lot of 2MP Sony Mavica images printed on matte paper to 8x12 at 180 dpi. Some of the answer is in the paper you print on. Matte and semi matte paper have a tendency to wick the inks, they have less D-Min, but this helps mask the dots. There is also stitching software if you want greater resolution. I use a canon 7D now mostly at 10, sometimes 18mp, but my best selling images (all I sell are monochrome) were taken with a 5MP camera. My clients don't care about dots on the paper, just the feeling of the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1139" LastActivityDate="2010-08-25T23:12:30.590" />
  <row Id="2833" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2824" CreationDate="2010-08-26T01:15:52.530" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you use &lt;a href=&quot;http://picasa.google.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Picasa&lt;/a&gt; to manage your photos, it has a basic option for fixing times on photos. I haven't used it to know if it affects EXIF, file timestamps or both, but it's there. Select the images you want to fix, then click Tools -&gt; Adjust Date And Time...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://imgur.com/dFkzh.png&quot; alt=&quot;picasa adjust date screenshot&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastActivityDate="2010-08-26T01:15:52.530" />
  <row Id="2834" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-26T04:36:48.173" Score="15" ViewCount="1115" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2359/how-do-i-make-a-bottle-image-transparent/2417#2417&quot;&gt;I have discovered Gimp's &quot;Color to Alpha&quot; feature&lt;/a&gt;, and man is it awesome! Basically, it will extract a particular color out of a selection and convert it to transparency.  This gave me the ability to make a bottle taken on a flat background a truly transparent layer with highlights and shadows intact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does Adobe Photoshop have anything similar? Paid or otherwise? (&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2359/how-do-i-make-a-bottle-image-transparent/2446#2446&quot;&gt;Here's my attempt at steps coming to around 60% quality of the Gimp plugin&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="978" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-06-03T19:55:03.933" LastActivityDate="2011-06-03T19:55:03.933" Title="Does Photoshop have an equivalent to Gimp's &quot;Color to Alpha&quot;?" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;gimp&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2835" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2834" CreationDate="2010-08-26T05:27:27.697" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe you can use the &lt;code&gt;Select -&amp;gt; Color Range...&lt;/code&gt; tool to achieve this affect. The color range selection tool is a pretty handy feature that lets you click a color from a gray-scaled version of your image, then use a &quot;fuzziness&quot; slider to adjust the range. You can also preview the selection in the full image. This creates a normal photoshop mask when you choose OK. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you have your baseline selection, you can then further adjust the mask using all of the normal masking tools in Photoshop. This is probably the most ideal way to do what you need to do (based on your previous question, your trying to isolate a bottle?) The Color Range selection will give you an almost-ideal mask with transparency in tact...and you can further adjust that to fix areas that were selected that should not have been, or that were excluded and should have been selected. Once you have fine-tuned your mask, simply hit &lt;code&gt;Delete&lt;/code&gt;, and watch the magic occur. Since the mask was a full alpha mask, the deletion will remove varying degrees of &quot;opacity&quot; based on how heavily an area matched the base color you selected initially.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since your background is white, selecting the white color and adjusting fuzziness to appropriately &quot;fill in&quot; the parts of white that show through your bottles should give you a pretty effective mask in about 30 seconds flat. A little adjusting might take a couple minutes, but the end result should be better than the Gimp &quot;Color to Alpha&quot; plugin (at least, based on the few examples I've seen...it seems to be a bit over-zealous in its application of transparency.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, a &quot;full green&quot; or &quot;full blue&quot; background might be better for this kind of thing. White is a blend of all colors, and that can make it more difficult to isolate specific objects from an &quot;all-color&quot; background. Thats usually why a lot of special effects sequences shot for movies are filmed against a green backgrop...its easier to filter out during post-process compositing (its a single &quot;primary&quot; color in the RGB model, rather than a blend of all three colors. This is called Chroma Key filtering.) It should be noted that you want to use a chroma key that is complementary to the color(s) of the object being shot. For example, if you are shooting a green bottle, it might actually be best to use a red background, as using a green background would make it very difficult to exclude a green background without losing the bottle along with it. If you have yellow, orange, red or brown bottles, a blue background may be best. The general idea, though, is to use a background that is complementary (think opposite color on the color wheel) to the foreground objects being shot. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-26T05:35:23.220" LastActivityDate="2010-08-26T05:35:23.220" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2836" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2810" CreationDate="2010-08-26T07:38:25.870" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The answer you don't like&lt;/strong&gt; - out of all the digitally added film effects I've tried (and I've tried many along with actually shooting film) none really come close. That is not a scientific type of knowledge, but rather an impression. So if you really really want film look, you'll end up shooting film and even then, you'll most probably be disappointed on how far your results are from the film icons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In many cases what is perceived as the film effect is not just a film effect, but photographer's creative vision put into right film choice and shooting technique plus the specifics of the emulsion plus photographer's editing. Harald Mante's Kodachromes are worlds apart from Steve McCurry's Kodachromes (again, personal impression based on the books, can't provide a reference).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The answer you might find useful&lt;/strong&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.niksoftware.com/index/en/entry.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nik Software's&lt;/a&gt; Color Efex Pro plugin contains many color film emulations and their Silver Efex Pro contains B&amp;amp;W film emulations. Other than that, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/filmpack/filmpack_examples&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DXO FilmPack&lt;/a&gt; also has pretty decent choice of films. These are the ones I've tried myself and can recommend, although this is not a guarantee of realistic rendering. Based on just web examples, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alienskin.com/exposure/exposure_examples.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Alien Skin Software's Exposure&lt;/a&gt; also looks interesting (I'm looking forward to try out their Kodachrome emulation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-26T15:26:47.873" LastActivityDate="2010-08-26T15:26:47.873" />
  <row Id="2837" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-26T11:19:18.980" Score="4" ViewCount="219" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dotcomgadgets.com/shop/panasonic+lumix+dmc-tz10+battery-CS-BCG10.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Some companies&lt;/a&gt; claim to offer cheap batteries that work with this camera however I read on the description for the Panasonic battery:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Panasonic DMW-BCG10E ID Secured&#xA;  Battery for TZ7 and TZ6,TZ10, TZ8&#xA;  contains special technology which&#xA;  means that third party manufacturers&#xA;  cannot copy them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used a cheap battery in the TZ5 and it performed as well as the Panasonic one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The official Panasonic battery seems overly expensive to me but is it the only type that works?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2010-08-27T21:32:42.850" Title="Do I have to use an official &quot;Panasonic&quot; spare battery in the Lumix TZ10?" Tags="&lt;batteries&gt;&lt;panasonic&gt;&lt;lumix&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2838" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2841" CreationDate="2010-08-26T11:22:00.647" Score="8" ViewCount="760" Body="&lt;p&gt;I quite like the D90 but what concerns me is that it was launched almost 2 years back and is quite a bit heavier than other two. Although what I like most about it is the continuous shooting (4.5 vs 3.4/4). D5000 could be eliminated as its entry level, although good, but 500D wins over it hands down. So basically split between D90 and 500D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can someone provide a quick suggestion on which one should i go for, I am an amateur photographer with almost 2 years of exp. with compact camera. I looked at the comparison charts but could not figure out which one to pick. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1209" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T06:09:24.793" Title="Nikon D5000 vs Nikon D90 vs Canon 500D ?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;comparison&gt;" AnswerCount="10" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2839" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2824" CreationDate="2010-08-26T11:27:54.290" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could also try the excellent and seemingly little known &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.microsoft.com/prophoto/downloads/tools.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Microsoft Pro Photo Tools&lt;/a&gt;. Free and allows you to mess around with all sorts of meta data. I mainly use it for copying GPS data: I take a photo on my iPhone (which geotags it), when I take pictures with my 50D, and then copy the iPhone GPS data to the 50D pics later. Works with RAW too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="425" LastActivityDate="2010-08-26T11:27:54.290" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2840" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2824" CreationDate="2010-08-26T11:42:57.350" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since I do a lot of geotagging of photos and also use multiple cameras on many occasions, I have really liked the Lightroom's Edit Capture Time. See: &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.oreilly.com/lightroom/2007/10/adjusting-your-photos-capture-1.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://blogs.oreilly.com/lightroom/2007/10/adjusting-your-photos-capture-1.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mostly my work flow with capture time goes as following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Start up GPS and switch the screen to show current time with seconds&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take photo of the GPS screen with every camera&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take photos... and more.. and more..&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Download photos to computer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In Lightroom, select photos from one camera, select photo of the GPS clock, edit capture time to all photos.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Repeat 5. for all different cameras&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Geotag all photos from GPS's track log&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="855" LastActivityDate="2010-08-26T11:42:57.350" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2841" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2838" CreationDate="2010-08-26T11:52:21.233" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Go into a store and hold them both.  The ergonomics are a little different, and technically they aren't all that different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, do you have any friends/relatives that have a Nikon or Canon?  if so, you might want to keep in mind that if you had the same brand you could borrow lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-08-26T11:52:21.233" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2842" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-26T12:32:31.703" Score="6" ViewCount="99" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is lighting ratio and how is it calculated?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="624" LastActivityDate="2010-08-26T12:39:49.363" Title="What is lighting ratio?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;studio&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="2843" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2842" CreationDate="2010-08-26T12:39:49.363" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's the difference between your main light and fill light expressed as a ratio of brightness. Example: if your main light is twice as bright as your fill light, the ratio is 2:1. A high ratio will give a more contrasty effect, as shadows cast by the main light will still be dark. A lower ratio means the fill light lessens the effect of shadows cast by the main light, giving a flatter effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note a difference of one f-stop is a factor of two, so a ratio of 2:1. Similarly, two stops is 4:1, and three is 8:1.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-08-26T12:39:49.363" />
  <row Id="2844" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2823" CreationDate="2010-08-26T13:44:34.420" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd add that you should expect that in case of an arrest, you could get your material and especially your media confiscated or destroyed. Anti-democratic and possibly against the law, yes. But it can happen, even in western countries. You could also be targeted BECAUSE you're a photographer, especially if you've witnessed situations the police would prefer not to get public. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know some activists use cell-phones cameras with auto-upload features for that very purpose: the picture and/or video gets backed-up online as soon as it's taken. Slightly paranoid, but keep in mind that they're not there to make art - they're precisely trying to catch scenes of police abuse. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, apart from hugely politicized rallies, and events where you know in advance that there's going to be trouble, you shouldn't have to worry about all that. If you keep to the joyful side of the demonstration - the section with drums and oversized papier-maché heads, and families with kids in strollers, and old ladies - you'll never have any problems, and you'll get the best photo opportunities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="204" LastEditorUserId="204" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-26T13:51:33.283" LastActivityDate="2010-08-26T13:51:33.283" />
  <row Id="2845" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2386" CreationDate="2010-08-26T13:55:57.067" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I usually collect hotel plastic caps for that purpose. In a pinch, I can punch a hole in the middle to put my lens through, and use the rest of the cap to cover my camera, with the elastic opening giving me access to the buttons. It's not perfect, but it's free, and small enough to always keep one in my camera bag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="204" LastActivityDate="2010-08-26T13:55:57.067" />
  <row Id="2846" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2838" CreationDate="2010-08-26T15:04:27.753" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I bought a D90 about a year ago and I'm very happy with it.  The one thing you don't get with the lower end models is the shutter AND apperature click wheels which i find very handy and the LCD screen on top with access to all the camera settings.  Also the physical size of the D90 fits in my hand better than the Rebels or the D5000/3000.  If I were buying now, I might be tempted to wait and see what comes out (the D90 is getting a little old compared to all the new Canon models) but it's a great camera that'll do much more than most people will ever need.  Any questions, feel free to ask.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="274" LastActivityDate="2010-08-26T15:04:27.753" />
  <row Id="2847" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2826" CreationDate="2010-08-26T15:14:54.073" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For printing, i usually scale photos to 300dpi. Since 10cm x 15cm are approximately 4in x 6in, that means scaling to 1200 times 1800 pixels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1234" LastActivityDate="2010-08-26T15:14:54.073" />
  <row Id="2848" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="610" CreationDate="2010-08-26T16:04:49.463" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;DPS had an article on this only today, which I found interesting.  Worth a read, and obviously comes decorated with some lovely street scenes :-)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/10-tips-for-the-aspiring-street-photographer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://digital-photography-school.com/10-tips-for-the-aspiring-street-photographer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="602" LastActivityDate="2010-08-26T16:04:49.463" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2849" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2072" CreationDate="2010-08-26T16:14:14.657" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I always take 3 shots that are 2 stops apart. I've tried just doing 1 stop, but typically find that it's not enough. Then, from within Lightroom, I run Photomatix and do the processing. You can see some at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/seanbatten/sets/72157623769215732/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/seanbatten/sets/72157623769215732/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a guy I follow on Flickr called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/35614822@N08/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;David Gn&lt;/a&gt; who takes some stunning HDR shops and always gives a description of how he's processed them. They're well worth a look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="697" LastActivityDate="2010-08-26T16:14:14.657" />
  <row Id="2850" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2072" CreationDate="2010-08-26T16:33:52.577" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I usually take a single shot, exposed to the right (ETTR) as far as I can go without permanently blowing out the highlights. I use Lightroom to generate alternative exposures from RAW, and then Merge to HDR with Photoshop. This technique has the benefit of A) never requiring bracketed shots, which are susceptible to numerous issues such as object motion, temporary scene interference by people, cars, wildlife, etc., as well as camera movement that generates shots that are not perfectly aligned with each other, and B) basically always being viable for HDR if you need it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using the RAW+Lightroom Exposure technique, you eliminate all of those undesirable effects, and are able to generate a variety of alternative exposures to find the ones that best fit the needs of the shot when generating an HDR image. If you use this approach, its very important to use the ETTR technique when shooting...by exposing to the right, you effectively dedicate more sensor sensitivity range to the shades, which have less range to start out with. You also mitigate sensor noise, which can be problematic when merging to an HDR image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since a RAW ETTR image makes the most use out of a digital sensors dynamic range, there is little need to shoot bracketed shots, as alternative exposures up to several stops difference can be created with post processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recently, I've been exploring Exposure Fusion as an alternative to HDR. I've lost a lot of interest in HDR processing to improve photographs that can't be captured in a single photograph due to the amount of meticulous and very careful effort required to properly tone-map the extensive dynamic range of an HDR image into the far smaller dynamic range of a 16-bit or 8-bit image. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exposure Fusion is an alternative way of merging multiple exposures into a single 8-bit image. In my experience, it produces far more pleasing output, and it requires far less effort than HDR does. It uses an intelligent algorithm to automatically identify the &quot;best&quot; outcome, and produce an &quot;enfused&quot; image for you. While the concept and basic approach have been around for a while in different ways, Exposure Fusion as a dynamic range tool is fairly new. There are not a lot of programs that support it, nor any plugins for Photoshop, however I think it has a lot of potential.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-18T21:42:04.927" LastActivityDate="2010-10-18T21:42:04.927" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2851" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2823" CreationDate="2010-08-26T16:47:51.373" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matt covers a lot, but one specific tip would be to &lt;strong&gt;have a buddy to watch your back&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're taking photos you have that very specific focus and won't be so aware of the general situation around you. So having &lt;strong&gt;someone you trust&lt;/strong&gt; who will &lt;strong&gt;commit to sticking with you throughout the day&lt;/strong&gt; and not having any other focus will make a huge difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As others say most protests are pretty quiet affairs, but if you think there is a serious risk of violence (whether from the protesters or the police) then you should have a chat before the day about what level of risk you are both up for. It's no good charging into the dramatic fight if your buddy is running the other way for their own safety. And the buddy thing goes both ways - look out for your buddy. If either one of you is freaked out and wants to leave (assuming the police allow you) then you should respect your buddy and leave with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If things get hectic, particularly in a mobile crowd where some are panicking, then you might want to stay in physical contact - your buddy could rest a hand on your shoulder or upper arm - so you can be confident they are with you even when your eye is glued to the viewfinder. It also means they can get your attention without having to speak to you - it can get very loud inside a big protest, whether due to whistles, chants, samba bands ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All this is really just general protest advice. As the other answers mention, don't expect to be treated any different if trouble does start. If you're planning to go to a few protests you might want to read a few general guides such as this &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.lotfan.org/2009/06/tips-for-successful-nonviolent-protest.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;one pager&lt;/a&gt; or this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.networkforclimateaction.org.uk/toolkit/action_resources/direct_action_a_handbook.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;handbook&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-08-26T16:47:51.373" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2852" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2837" CreationDate="2010-08-26T17:36:48.880" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There seem to be mixed results, I would proceed with caution. See this thread for more information: &lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1033&amp;amp;thread=35117236&amp;amp;page=2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1033&amp;amp;thread=35117236&amp;amp;page=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One guy says he got a third party battery (which the ebay auction claimed is correctly decoded), but it didn't work. Another guy claims he got a third party battery on ebay that worked. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1125" LastActivityDate="2010-08-26T17:36:48.880" />
  <row Id="2853" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2072" CreationDate="2010-08-26T17:39:12.483" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of my multi-exposure work in the film days were &lt;strong&gt;two shots&lt;/strong&gt; (though i tried three and four at times), one exposed for the highlights and one exposed for the shadows, hand-merged in Photoshop. Required a stable tripod and patience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When i moved to digital, but before HDR was all the rage, my process was similar, using whatever tools were available, mostly hand-merging &lt;strong&gt;two or three shots&lt;/strong&gt; in Photoshop but trying various software tools.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then lately, with the move to Photoshop CS3, and now to CS5, i merge &lt;strong&gt;one to nine bracketed shots&lt;/strong&gt; (but usually &lt;strong&gt;two to five&lt;/strong&gt;) from Lightroom to Photoshop's HDR Pro. If i only have one shot, i create two or three virtual copies in Lightroom before sending to HDR Pro, which will ask how i want them processed (a 2 EV spread usually works well).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="761" LastActivityDate="2010-08-26T17:39:12.483" />
  <row Id="2854" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2838" CreationDate="2010-08-26T21:17:42.307" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd be a bit wary of buying a D90 at the moment as it is due to be replaced in the next month or so, also apart from the moveable screen, the new D3100 looks to have a better spec on it, currently I'm in the same bout and looking to see if I can get a D90 cheap when they release it's replacement (D7000) or get a D7000 depending on price&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1240" LastActivityDate="2010-08-26T21:17:42.307" />
  <row Id="2855" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2859" CreationDate="2010-08-26T21:23:53.357" Score="6" ViewCount="433" Body="&lt;p&gt;I bought a Vivitar 70-210 Macro Focusing Zoom lens for my Nikon D3000. After using it for a while, I've noticed that a lot of my shots are slightly out of focus - a side effect of my inexperience with manual focus lenses, as well as the small viewfinder in the D3000.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The d3000 has an &quot;Electronic Rangefinder&quot; feature that uses the autofocus sensors and the exposure meter display to tell you whether to focus closer or further. Unfortunately, this feature doesn't work in Manual (M) mode, presumably because it wants to display the metering info in manual mode. I &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; get the rangefinder when I go to P,S, or A. Since I don't get any metering info anyway (this is a non-CPU chip, so the camera has no idea what my aperture size is), I don't get much help at all from the camera in focusing or exposure. (It does, however, light up a dot in the lower-lefthand side of the viewfinder when I'm in focus.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, is there a way to force the camera to display the rangefinder information in Manual mode?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T19:33:27.520" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T19:33:27.520" Title="How do I get the d3000's electronic rangefinder to display when I use an AI lens?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;manual-mode&gt;&lt;nikon-d3000&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="2856" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2860" CreationDate="2010-08-26T21:59:42.373" Score="4" ViewCount="71" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm at a loss as to where I can buy nice, high-quality ink jet papers (Hahnemühle, Museo DFA, Breathing Color, Ilford, etc.) at a local store (rather than on the internet.) There are a couple local camera shops, like Mikes Camera and a couple film development shops that sell fine art ink jet papers, however they tend to have a very limited selection. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In particular, actual Hahnemühle (outside of the two or three types of Canon Fine Art papers that are actually made by Hahnemühle), Museo Digital Fine Art papers, Breathing Color (a brand that I found recently that has some very nice 100% cotton papers and canvas), Ilford (most shops have ilford film development papers, but not much in the way of ink jet printing paper), etc. seems fairly rare. Finding actual packs of paper directly from any of these brands seems almost impossible, but I'm hoping I just don't know of the proper store names to go looking for it at.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any common stores where I can find high quality, fine art papers from the brands listed above? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-27T01:52:18.370" LastActivityDate="2010-08-27T01:52:18.370" Title="Buying high-quality papers for use with large format fine art ink jet printers?" Tags="&lt;printing&gt;&lt;ink-jet&gt;&lt;large-format&gt;&lt;paper&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="2857" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2856" CreationDate="2010-08-26T22:34:25.710" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you don't mind ordering from a Canadian store, you can find most of these, if not all, at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vistek.ca/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Vistek&lt;/a&gt; and they do ship to the United States.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-26T22:34:25.710" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2858" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2856" CreationDate="2010-08-26T23:43:21.213" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check high-end art supply stores as well as camera stores.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm going on my experience here in Vancouver: the most reliable selection is actually &lt;a href=&quot;http://opusframing.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Opus&lt;/a&gt;.  They do online ordering, but I don't know their shipping situation, so I mention it more for the general idea to check art stores.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The good local camera stores (there are a couple, we're pretty spoiled compared to a lot of places) have a decent selection, but not as much large paper, and not as much variety of brands and surface treatments.  They're happy to order in anything you want, but Opus carries a larger stock more regularly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-08-26T23:43:21.213" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2859" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2855" CreationDate="2010-08-27T00:09:13.037" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &quot;Nikon D3000 for Dummies&quot; that I managed to hit through Google books, in manual mode the viewfinder always displays the exposure meter. You can try &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.ca/books?id=35lsgGHv0soC&amp;amp;pg=PA160&amp;amp;lpg=PA160&amp;amp;dq=d3000+rangefinder+manual&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=9J2-VRpyIq&amp;amp;sig=G8m7RUMzFHNClIhww_Zsi-oeM2U&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;ei=1wB3TNGjGc-jnQeemtH3AQ&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=book_result&amp;amp;ct=result&amp;amp;resnum=4&amp;amp;ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=d3000%20rangefinder%20manual&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this link&lt;/a&gt; to see  what they say, but I'm not sure if the link to it will work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-27T10:24:58.237" LastActivityDate="2010-08-27T10:24:58.237" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2860" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2856" CreationDate="2010-08-27T01:49:30.467" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;adorama carries many of these papers, including hahnemuhle. so does B&amp;amp;H. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-08-27T01:49:30.467" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2861" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2072" CreationDate="2010-08-27T01:52:23.003" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nik software has just announced their HDR product, HDR Efex Pro, to ship later this fall. I love their tools (viveza, silver efex pro), and at first glance, this seems to be another potentially great product:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.niksoftware.com/hdrefexpro/usa/entry.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.niksoftware.com/hdrefexpro/usa/entry.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-08-27T01:52:23.003" />
  <row Id="2862" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2838" CreationDate="2010-08-27T02:38:11.987" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A Canon vs Nikon decision is not one you should take that lightly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you decide on the body you start investing in lenses and that is where you can spend a fair bit of money, and become invested in the brand. A couple of L series lenses could set you back a couple thousand dollars. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sure, the 500D (or 550D) is a newer camera, and has a few extra bells and whistles the nonetheless the D90 is still considered a great entry level SLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Review of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos500d/page29.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;500D&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos550d/page29.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;550D&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Review of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page36.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;D90&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key factor I would look at would be choosing lenses. Personally I think Nikon have a better low price offering of lenses (and better second hand options - you can get a low price 35mm prime for example). On the other hand the L series Canon lenses are pretty amazing and you will be able to use them for many years. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="230" LastEditorUserId="230" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-28T10:43:00.187" LastActivityDate="2010-08-28T10:43:00.187" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2863" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2864" CreationDate="2010-08-27T05:18:40.957" Score="6" ViewCount="758" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do mostly portrait work, in a photo studio or for weddings, and need to know which camera will best serve my needs. I'm also interested in learning which lens will best support portrait photography. I'm on a tight deadline, and need to buy something soon. What are your recommendations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are a few of the camera brands and models I've looked at. I'm hoping someone with some similar experience can offer insight into which ones offer the best cost/benefit for portrait work, both in studio and possibly outdoors for weddings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 1Ds Mark III  / NIkon D3x&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;From what I've learned, these two are pretty pricey.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;D300s vs 5D Mk II&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;These seem to be more reasonably priced, and have piqued my interest.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many thanks for any insight offered! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1238" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T19:25:35.780" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T19:25:35.780" Title="Canon 5D Mark II vs NIkon D3x for studio/wedding work?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;canon-5d-mark-ii&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="2864" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2863" CreationDate="2010-08-27T07:28:32.510" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although this question is highly subjective, teetering on a flame war, and about two great cameras that aren't really in the same class as each other, if I had zero gear invested, and an unlimited budget I would pick the Nikon D3x. As a Canon guy who owns and loves his 5D Mark II, the Nikon D3x and the 14-24mm f2.8 Nikkor seriously made me consider selling my gear and switching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the 5D Mark II is an awesome full frame camera. I love mine. I love the images it produces, but such love hasn't blinded me to the fact that in almost every aspect the D3x is a better camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The D3x is nearly 3 times the price as the 5D Mark II, but clearly no where near 3x the performance. The D3x is a studio camera, whos more direct Canon competitor is the 1Ds Mark III. The D3x is a behemoth of a camera for pro photographers who need the reliability and ruggedness that a pro studio body will provide. If this isn't you, then you might want to consider the D300s, which is Nikon's nearest competitor to the 5d2. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to which lens to buy, certainly if you go the Canon route, you'll have more money to spend on lenses, though which ones to recommend highly depend on what you want to put in your portfolio. Since your question mentions you'll be doing wedding photos, at 70-200 lens is great for close up shots, and for headshots. The 85mm and 135mm focal ranges are very nice for portrait work. 35mm for wider group shots, and a 50mm for normal images. I know that Canon makes excellent lenses in each of these ranges--I'm not a nikon shooter, but I would imagine the same is true with nikon. Note that since both the 5D2 and D3x are full-frame cameras, I'm talking in full-frame focal lengths. If you move to a crop body, you will need to take that into consideration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the real question is: do you really need to consider either of these cameras? Honestly if you are asking which camera should you get, then perhaps neither would be a good fit; consider a body that is geared towards beginners and new hobbyist instead of looking at camera bodies that are for serious professionals. If you are just starting out with a portfolio, there is nothing that either of these cameras can really do for you, that a good entry-level body wouldn't, and for a nearly a fraction of the price. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDITED TO ADD:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing that slipped my mind when writing this answer is that if you are looking to do professional work, such as studio photography/wedding photography, you need to act like a professional. This means being ready for every contingency. Just having a really awesome D3x or a slightly-less awesome 5D2 won't cut it. You will need a 2nd body, possibly even a third backup body available to you. Ideally you'd want to have two of the same body type, to make transition between to two seamless. Can you realistically afford 2 $7000 D3x? Or even 2 $2500 5D2's? Is this a wise investment?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the comment you made, you'd like to purchase a single body upfront, instead of incremental successive upgrades. I think that's not a bad approach--if you went with the 5D Mark II. I personally believe the D3x is in a whole other class, and unless you can justify it's price tag, it would be likely be more camera than you would need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-27T20:23:56.590" LastActivityDate="2010-08-27T20:23:56.590" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2865" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2867" CreationDate="2010-08-27T08:41:16.017" Score="7" ViewCount="1722" Body="&lt;p&gt;Now that the 60D specs are released. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When choosing a camera for still photography (no movies) which one of Canon 50D, 60D and 7D has an edge over the others and why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What still photography features does each camera, respectively, have that the others don't?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1023" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T19:04:20.707" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T19:04:20.707" Title="Choosing between Canon 60D, 50D and 7D for still photography" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;canon-7d&gt;&lt;canon-50d&gt;&lt;canon-60d&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="2866" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2865" CreationDate="2010-08-27T09:26:29.503" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 60D has supplanted the 50D in Canon's range, so to my mind the only advantage the 50D would have over the others now is price. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Otherwise, if you go to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Compare_Products&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this page&lt;/a&gt; and click on 'Digital SLR', you can generate a side-by-side comparison of the features of the 60D and 7D. If you know what you're looking for in terms of features, then that should help you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To summarise though, the 7D has dual processors instead of one in the 60D, more AF modes, including microadjustment for when your lenses aren't spot-on when using AF, a smaller spot metering zone, larger partial metering zone. Other than that there isn't a huge amount to choose between the two, and the 60D has a better LCD screen and more image size options.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-08-27T09:26:29.503" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2867" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2865" CreationDate="2010-08-27T09:52:03.650" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a very good feature comparison on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos60d/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dpReview&lt;/a&gt; site&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To give you some summary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of picture quality I would say that you would not spot a difference between results achieved from all the camera on the list, and I would say that the choice would be more related to handling and the way you are planning to use the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;7D&lt;/strong&gt; is pro grade body, with magnesium body and environmental sealing. It has an excellent pro grade autofocus and offers 100% view viewfinder. So it will have an edge when it come to shooting sports, birds and in rough conditions. Those features come at price though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;50D&lt;/strong&gt; has pretty similar body to &lt;strong&gt;7D&lt;/strong&gt; (magnesium) but it is not that well sealed and the autofocus is a bit lower quality as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;60D&lt;/strong&gt; has plastic body, same autofocus as 50D and similar sensor to &lt;strong&gt;7D&lt;/strong&gt;. It offers swivel LCD which can come handy in some situation, and its lower weight and size can be considered an advantage by some (me included).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So you need to handle the cameras, consider your budget a see which one works best for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-27T21:35:59.460" LastActivityDate="2010-08-27T21:35:59.460" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2868" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2837" CreationDate="2010-08-27T10:23:42.130" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I emailed Bristol Cameras asking the same question since they sell a non-brand battery:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Your question was:&lt;/strong&gt; I thought that Panasonic &quot;secured&quot; their cameras so&#xA;  that only panasonic batteries work.&#xA;  For example, the TZ7 would only&#xA;  recognise it if the firmware was&#xA;  downgraded to pre-v1.2. Can you&#xA;  confirm that this battery actually&#xA;  works in the new TZ10 please?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Answer is:&lt;/strong&gt; Hi, yes these Hahnel batteries are chipped so they will&#xA;  work with the Panasonic TZ10. When&#xA;  ordering pop in the comments box that&#xA;  it needs to be compatible with the&#xA;  TZ10 and we can then make sure we&#xA;  supply one of the latest ones which is&#xA;  marked on the packaging as compatible&#xA;  with the TZ10 camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I get the camera, I'll pop in there and try one out and let you all know what happens...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-27T21:32:42.850" LastActivityDate="2010-08-27T21:32:42.850" />
  <row Id="2869" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2863" CreationDate="2010-08-27T13:49:35.907" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I give someone recommendations for their first SLR, I always recommend that they choose their brand first, then pick whatever camera in that brand matches their budget. The reason for this is that if you're taking this seriously, you'll make most of your investment in light and lenses, which are compatible between cameras of a brand. You don't want to switch brands, three or five years from now when you upgrade your body to a more serious model, and throw away all those lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to which brand to choose, it's mostly a question of personal preference at this stage. All big manufacturers make decent entry level cameras, and they're pretty much the same in terms of functionality. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I'm not sure it's worth getting beyond an entry-level model, unless you have a specific need (eg: you need a very rugged model because it's going to take a lot of abuse) or you already have decades of experience with film photography. By the time you get good enough to use all the features of your camera, it will be quite outdated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="204" LastActivityDate="2010-08-27T13:49:35.907" />
  <row Id="2870" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2776" CreationDate="2010-08-27T15:14:54.437" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The MP-E is a tricky lens to use, requires practise and more practise. A set of macro flashes (MT-24EX) is often recommended.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would go with 100mm lens unless the goal is to take photos of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/4hero/4857871370/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fly's eyes&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="729" LastActivityDate="2010-08-27T15:14:54.437" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2871" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2838" CreationDate="2010-08-27T18:09:25.917" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are liking the 4.5 fps continuous mode. Wait till September 15th. The Nikon D7000 is rumored to have 6-8 fps, as well as a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/23/nikon-d7000-to-be-the-d90s-spiritual-and-actual-successor/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;number of other upgrades&lt;/a&gt; from the D90.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At least, wait till the D7000 ships, and you can buy my (lightly used) D90 when I upgrade :).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="992" LastActivityDate="2010-08-27T18:09:25.917" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2873" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2838" CreationDate="2010-08-27T21:58:52.350" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A similar question was asked &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1441/is-the-d90-worth-the-extra-money-for-a-beginner&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, though only about if the D90 was worth the extra price from a D5000. As other people mentioned, you probably should wait another couple weeks to see what the new D90 (D7000?) will have. Even if you don't buy it, it should drop prices on the D5000 and D90 in the used market quite a bit (I am scared to see what the D3100 did to used D5000 prices, as I own one)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastActivityDate="2010-08-27T21:58:52.350" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2874" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2823" CreationDate="2010-08-27T22:06:28.497" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;How about a fedora with a slip of paper in it that says &quot;press&quot;?&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/HIbT9.png&quot; alt=&quot;Press Hat&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastActivityDate="2010-08-27T22:06:28.497" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2875" PostTypeId="7" CreationDate="2010-08-28T02:54:50.337" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&#xA;    Photography - Stack Exchange is for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers.&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have a question about …&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;photography&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;photographic processing or retouching&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;using photographic equipment&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;techniques and best practices&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and it is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; about ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.photo.stackexchange.com/questions/150/should-photo-critiques-be-allowed&quot;&gt;photo critiques&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.photo.stackexchange.com/questions/130/should-we-allow-questions-about-unreleased-cameras&quot;&gt;unreleased equipment&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.photo.stackexchange.com/questions/28/can-i-ask-videography-related-questions&quot;&gt;videography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Which camera or brand is the &quot;best&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Graphic Design&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Programming&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Web Site Development&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Image Manipulation (outside of the Photography context)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;… then you're in the right place to ask your question!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-27T03:22:52.033" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T03:22:52.033" />
  <row Id="2876" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2877" CreationDate="2010-08-28T16:31:34.177" Score="9" ViewCount="388" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am thinking of buying a digital SLR camera. What things should I be looking for?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1092" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T22:16:01.150" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T22:16:01.150" Title="What should I look for when shopping for my first DSLR?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;features&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="2877" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2876" CreationDate="2010-08-28T16:50:13.750" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Things to look for when buying your first dslr:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Price. Far from me to tell anyone how to spend their hard earned cash, but having an idea of what money you want to pay will help.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ergonomics. Does the body feel good in your hands? What about when you have your lens attached? &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What brand? I'm a fan of Canon. Nikon is equally awesome. There are other brands as well, but I recommend the big two: Canon and Nikon. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Beginner/creative modes. Since this is your first camera, having modes that do some automation will ease you into using an SLR.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Entry Level/ Prosumer Level body. If you have a sufficient budget, consider which would serve you better: Buying a more expensive body now, with features that you can grow with, or a less expensive body with fewer features, leaving you more cash more lenses. In terms of producing great images the chain of importance goes: Photographer &gt;&gt;&gt; Lens &gt; Camera Body. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My first dSLR was a Canon 20D, a prosumer body. I chose it because I have larger hands, and the 20D size and weight felt better (twss), and I wanted something I could grow with. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-28T16:50:13.750" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2878" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-28T17:51:09.423" Score="4" ViewCount="137" Body="&lt;p&gt;if you accidently make a document in proof setup 'working CMYK' is there any easy way to convert the document to RGB without the colours getting washed out?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1253" LastActivityDate="2010-09-27T22:53:35.937" Title="if you accidently make a document in working CMYK how can you change it to RGB?" Tags="&lt;color-management&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="2879" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2876" CreationDate="2010-08-28T17:58:27.473" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Find out what brand of cameras your photo friends own. The relative differences between Canon and Nikon are fairly small (and probably don't matter until you get very advanced), so a big advantage when starting out is buying the brand the people you hang out with have bought. That gives you a source of free advice, plus the ability to try out cameras and borrow lenses to see how things work. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't overbuy. You can buy a really good camera in the entry level; even if you outgrow it, having a second body around is a good thing, or you can sell it and upgrade. If you get serious about this, you probably WILL outgrow it, so don't overspend. Buying more expensive cameras means buying features you won't need, use, or understand and might make growing into the hobby harder and frustrating. The Canon Rebel is a great way to get started.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you really need a DLSR? There are some really nice cameras that just don't happen to have interchangeable lenses. We've used the Panasonic Lumix superzooms for years, the current model is the DMZ-fz35) and it can turn out really nice pictures without many limitations. Another is the Canon G11. Consider whether you need a DLSR or whether you're really looking for a good entry level camera (how badly do you need/want interchangeable lenses?) -- some of these high end point and shoots match entry level in image quality and are less expensive and more convenient. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;if you stick with a DLSR, figure out your lenses first, and don't cheap out on them. Assume you'll upgrade your camera body 2-3 times before upgrading your lenses -- if you pick your lenses well. So be willing to spend a bit more on lenses and buy a less expensive body. It's a good investment. Avoid &quot;kit&quot; lenses that come bundled with bodies. waste of money, IMHO. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I like as an entry level set something like the Canon Rebel and a good third party lens with a decent superzoom capability, like the Sigma 18-200 (I wrote a bit about why I prefer that lens to the Tamron I actually own here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chuqui.com/2010/01/a-few-thoughts-on-lenses/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.chuqui.com/2010/01/a-few-thoughts-on-lenses/&lt;/a&gt;) -- the cost difference between the rebel with a kit lens and the rebel body only is about is about $250-275. You can buy the body only and the sigma for pretty much the same money and get a much better and more flexible lens.. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;consider renting a camera for a week with the lens you're considering. Make sure you like the results, make sure it's comfortable in your hands. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-08-28T17:58:27.473" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2880" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-28T18:43:36.437" Score="10" ViewCount="136" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to help my wife take some pictures of jewelry she made.   It's not for commercial use, but think of the photos we're going for as being similar to what one might want for a commercial shot in a catalogue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The jewelry in question has some earthy, rough qualities, and we'll likely shoot it with some warm, earthy things in the background, but I'm trying to see if there are specific types of lighting or settings that are generally more appropriate when shooting jewelry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The items are gold and silver, but highly textured, and some have diamonds in them.   I'm shooting with an Olympus E-PL1, if it matters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="9" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-20T23:25:50.390" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T00:49:53.317" Title="What are the key things to think about when photographing jewelry?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;product-photography&gt;&lt;jewelry&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="2881" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2599" CreationDate="2010-08-28T18:44:22.093" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I am not 100% certain what you are asking, the best I can offer is a complete system for calibration. Its the system used by many of the high-end hardware testing labs that test printers, monitors, etc. for proper calibration. Its called X-Rite, and is designed to support complete workflow calibration. I've never used it myself, although plenty of the hardware reviews for screens and printers that I read use it. Seems to do pretty much everything, from calibration to color checking and a hell of a lot more. You can get any kind of statistic you could imagine from it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a range of package options with the X-Rite, ranging from the &quot;low end&quot; at $1500 to the high end at $4800. The low end options are called the i1XTreme, and the high end ones (the stuff used by hardware testing labs and the like) are called PM5. Both lines can apparently do &quot;camera calibration&quot; by creating &quot;camera profiles&quot;. Not exactly sure what that means, but there ya go:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adorama.com/GHEOXTRUV.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;X-Rite i1XTreme UV Cut Professional Color Management &amp;amp; Calibration System&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adorama.com/GHPM5PSEOUIO.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;X-Rite PM5 ProfileMaker 5 Photostudio Pro Eye-one UV iO Bundle for Mac &amp;amp; Windows&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The PM5 series supports using color checking cards, as well as profiling devices for both printers and screens, from a variety of the top brands, such as GretagMacbeth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-08-28T18:44:22.093" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2882" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2878" CreationDate="2010-08-28T18:52:30.623" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, once you have &quot;lost color accuracy&quot; by converting to a smaller gamut, there really isn't any good way to do the reverse and increase your color accuracy by converting to a larger gamut. This is generally why I'm part of the camp that advocates working in the largest gamut you can (even if your screen can't display all the colors), as you are able to preserve that color accuracy for as long as possible. When working in a large gamut, you can always approximate down to a smaller gamut and preview the results, or convert a final image to a smaller gamut by assigning it a different profile.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to CMYK vs. RGB, because there are fundamental color model differences, it complicates the issue even more. It is very difficult to convert the generally more limited tonal range of a CMYK profile into the broader tonal range of a good RGB profile, since one model is subtractive (CMYK) and the other is additive (RGB).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an after thought, you might try converting from your CMYK space into a wider RGB space using &quot;saturation&quot; rendering intent. Generally speaking, saturation intent is rarely used, as it does not accurately preserve color information. However, in your case, it may be the only thing that does what you need. I can't make any guarantees, however, as color management is generally used to accurately translate color information when converting from a wide gamut down to a narrow gamut...it doesn't really offer much in the way of converting up from a narrow gamut to a wider gamut.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-28T22:47:30.537" LastActivityDate="2010-08-28T22:47:30.537" />
  <row Id="2883" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2880" CreationDate="2010-08-28T20:11:19.347" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use indirect flash.  You want the light to be hard enough to show the brilliance of the gems, but using on camera flash will leave you with a lot of strange glare. If you use flash from the side you will end up with much more natural lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-08-28T20:11:19.347" />
  <row Id="2884" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2891" CreationDate="2010-08-28T21:15:09.670" Score="23" ViewCount="382" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Where can I post my photos and get reviews, comments, and critiques from the community, in order to learn to become a better photographer?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a list of places to get feedback.  Please use answer wikis to comment and rate each one.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you get more advanced you might also want to try out photo contests, both online and local.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/critique/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital-Photography School&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photocamel.com/forum/photography-genre-critique-discussion/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PhotoCamel&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://treklens.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Trek Lens&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photo-critique/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pentax Forums&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=12&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photography on the Net&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fredmiranda&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://reddit.com/r/photocritique&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;reddit /r/photocritique&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/photo-critique-forum/%EF%BB%BF&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photo.net&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photosig.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PhotoSig&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://1x.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1x.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.karmacritic.com/photography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KarmaCritic&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/photographycritique/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr Photography Critique&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/critique/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr Critique&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photographycorner.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PhotographyCorner&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="558" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-14T18:35:35.043" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T13:46:28.830" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-07T02:57:07.643" Title="Where to get community-based feedback on my photos online?" Tags="&lt;photo-critique&gt;&lt;review&gt;" AnswerCount="15" FavoriteCount="14" />
  <row Id="2885" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2884" CreationDate="2010-08-28T21:26:26.937" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are not many &lt;em&gt;great&lt;/em&gt; places to get such feedback. One site that I use is 1x.com, which is known for only accepting the absolute best work. They have fantastic art there, and its useful as a milestone...if you get something accepted, you've really improved your work! Even if your art gets rejected, you can still submit it for critique. The community at large is able to critique art, and you get some pretty good feedback. Note that unless you are a paying member, you only get one upload slot per week, so you can only get one critique per week. You are also required to critique at least three other works before you can submit your own for critique.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its a really tough community, but they have rigid, high standards and talented artists. Its a great place to submit your best work, figure out where you can improve, and resubmit an improved version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, DeviantArt.com allows you to submit work for critique if you are a paying member. If you have enough visibility, you can get some good critiques...however the community at DeviantArt is some 15 million people strong, and it is difficult to get any kind of visibility unless you managed to get recognized years ago and already have a strong following.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also believe Flickr.com has a photo critique group, however it seems to be rather brutal, so if your looking for helpful constructive feedback, it may not be the best place to get useful critiques.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-29T03:29:45.427" LastActivityDate="2010-08-29T03:29:45.427" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-07T02:57:07.643" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2886" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2880" CreationDate="2010-08-28T21:56:43.223" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Soft light. I would use some kind of macro tent to get soft light from all around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe add one direct flash to emphasize texture or add some flashy highlights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With highly polished jewelry beware of reflexions. Polished jewelry acts like an allround mirror reflecting everything in sight, best would be to have a light tent with just a small opening for the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-08-28T21:56:43.223" />
  <row Id="2887" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2884" CreationDate="2010-08-28T23:59:47.007" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reddit.com/r/photocritique&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.reddit.com/r/photocritique&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;/r/photocritique has a lot of people from reddit.com/r/photography. The subreddit is active and anyone can participate, there's no requirements like on other critique sites. Most pictures, no matter the quality, seem to get a least a couple comments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="540" LastActivityDate="2010-08-28T23:59:47.007" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-07T02:57:07.643" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2888" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2901" CreationDate="2010-08-29T00:15:18.730" Score="9" ViewCount="191" Body="&lt;p&gt;The camera is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Premoette_Junior&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kodak Premoette Junior&lt;/a&gt;. What sort of film was it originally designed for and where can I buy/develop it? Can I improvise with some sort of modern medium format film? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also any tips from people with experience with this type of camera would be appreciated. Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/7dB3d.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="540" LastEditorUserId="540" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-29T00:42:07.817" LastActivityDate="2010-11-17T22:20:22.143" Title="Today I was given a vintage 1913 Kodak camera, what are my options for buying and developing film for it?" Tags="&lt;film&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2889" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2880" CreationDate="2010-08-29T00:52:46.017" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Seamless backgrounds are also good for product shots. There's no need to spend any real money on it either, there are hundreds of DIY projects for this made from things that you're very likely to already have in your house. A great example of this is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diyphotography.net/homestudio/super-simple-light-tent&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DIY light tent&lt;/a&gt; made with a cardboard box, some white semi-transparent material (cookie sheets will work), and some bristol board. This gives you a nice seamless background and is set up specifically to use indirect lighting so that you reduce/eliminate shadows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-29T00:52:46.017" />
  <row Id="2890" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2921" CreationDate="2010-08-29T00:53:53.857" Score="9" ViewCount="692" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have tested two different 50mm lenses in my camera. One was a Nikkor 50mm ∅52mm. The other one was a Sigma 50mm ∅72mm. I took some pictures with both lenses using the same setup for aperture and shutter speed, but couldn't notice significant differences in the quality of the pictures. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, how does the diameter affects the photo quality, if it does? What advantages would the ∅72mm lens have over the ∅52mm one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1061" LastActivityDate="2010-08-30T06:03:26.823" Title="How does the lens diameter influence photo quality?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;comparison&gt;&lt;photo-quality&gt;" AnswerCount="5" />
  <row Id="2891" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2884" CreationDate="2010-08-29T01:14:57.317" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Please use answers to rate and comment on each one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-14T23:45:15.390" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T23:45:15.390" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-07T02:57:07.643" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="2892" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2890" CreationDate="2010-08-29T01:25:14.420" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally a wider lens diameter just allows for a greater maximum aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only other effect is that a larger diameter could help reduce vignetting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-29T12:32:06.090" LastActivityDate="2010-08-29T12:32:06.090" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2893" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2890" CreationDate="2010-08-29T01:25:25.853" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Essentially a larger diameter allows the lens to be designed with a larger maximum aperture. More light means shorter shutter speed which means less motion blur when holding the camera directly, IS or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The benefit of a large aperture is that you will be able to bring down the ISO sensitivity to reduce noise when shutter speed isn't a priority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-08-29T01:25:25.853" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2894" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2890" CreationDate="2010-08-29T01:30:18.683" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Quick edit, I suddenly realized that the second measurement was the diameter, kind of confused me, for a moment... The nutshell answer then is that it doesn't really. I'll leave the rest of my answer to explain what does matter...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Focal length and aperture do effect image quality, but they're hardly the only things! The ability of the lens to transmit light is measured as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;MTF (modulation transfer function)&lt;/a&gt; which is basically a way to measure how much light is lost in passing through the lens. Some lenses are fairly poor at this, others are incredibly good, but none pass all the light. This ability will be a very large factor in image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, getting back to focal length and aperture... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Telephoto lenses tend to have less variation in sharpness across the aperture range versus wide angle lenses. A big part will be the narrowed field of view, there's simply less &quot;stuff&quot; in the frame. However, telephotos will have less depth of field, so things in front or behind the subject may not be in focus. This, by the way, is often desirable as it makes the main subject 'pop' in the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prime lenses will typically be sharper versus zoom lenses at the same focal length, this is a function of simpler optics as they have less glass which usually translates to less loss of light. Though there are some very impressive zooms that approach prime lens capability, including some Nikkor lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Professional grade lenses will typically be sharper versus consumer grade lenses because of the quality of the materials being used. Pro lenses will usually have better quality optical elements, leading to less light loss, and better coatings to help reduce flare and other stray light annoyances. You pay a price at the cash register, however, for that!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your lenses aren't variant in their focal lengths and if their optical qualities aren't too divergent, you may not see any real difference because you have the same aperture. Bearing in mind, of course, you're probably reviewing them resized to screen and that will sharpen. However, don't fall into the pixel peeping trap, 100% on your monitor isn't a reasonable comparison to print.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-30T03:14:23.373" LastActivityDate="2010-08-30T03:14:23.373" CommentCount="13" />
  <row Id="2895" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2884" CreationDate="2010-08-29T01:57:09.720" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photosig.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photoSIG&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="847" LastActivityDate="2010-08-29T01:57:09.720" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-07T02:57:07.643" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2896" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2890" CreationDate="2010-08-29T02:37:23.880" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The diameter you're seeing is for the filter threads; it's unrelated to image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If anything, there are disadvantages to a larger thread diameter (assuming the other specifications are similar): they tend to be heavier, bulkier, and filters to fit them are substantially more expensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are concerned about image quality and handling, you should be looking at specifications like the maximum aperture, something like an MTF chart, sample photos from the lenses, or other reviews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-08-29T02:37:23.880" />
  <row Id="2897" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2903" CreationDate="2010-08-29T04:27:20.973" Score="5" ViewCount="321" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a photography beginner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a Nikon D90 with the kit lens. I am planning to buy an additional lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I started with a Canon S3IS, and shot &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/nivasr/3260904618/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;some&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/nivasr/3260075251/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;macro&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/nivasr/2749807724/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photos&lt;/a&gt;, which I &lt;em&gt;think&lt;/em&gt; are good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to get a lens that can shoot macro photos that I can use with my D90.&#xA;I saw the following  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-300mm-Nikon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0012X43P2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 SLD DG Macro Lens with built in motor for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-300mm-Motorized-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B0012X61U2/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1283055592&amp;amp;sr=1-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG APO Macro Motorized Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon SLR Cameras&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the first time I would be buying a lens. I want to know:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is the difference between these two lenses? One says &quot;SLD DG&quot; and the other &quot;DG APO&quot;. I am not very familiar with lens jargon.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If I have to choose between the two, which one would you recommend?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;These are a good lens at all, or do you recommend any other lenses?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Perhaps you have already guessed — my budget is pretty limited.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1067" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-27T15:03:23.543" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T15:03:23.543" Title="Which Nikon-mount Sigma macro zoom lens for a beginner?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;sigma&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="2898" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2897" CreationDate="2010-08-29T06:42:25.863" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;SLD, APO and DG are all Sigma Jargon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I don't have first hand experience between either lens, according to this article, while both lenses are nearly identical (even so far as to call them sisters), &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Sigma-70300mm-F456-APO-DG-Macro-4569&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the DG APO is the better of the two&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, you will have to differentiate between &quot;macro&quot; photography, and &quot;close-focus capability.&quot; Many cameras and lenses have a &quot;macro&quot; mode, but in actuality means the lens/camera can focus at nearer distances. True macro refers to the size of the subject on the film negative/image sensor. True macro is at least 1:1 magnification. That is, if your subject is 2cm long, it will take up 2cm on the image sensor. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both lenses you quote are 1:2 Macro, which means that if the subject is 2cm long, it will take up 1cm on the sensor. So while not &lt;em&gt;true&lt;/em&gt; macro, you will still be able to take some  closeup shots. However, if you &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; want to take &lt;em&gt;true&lt;/em&gt; macro shots, these lenses will not give you what you want. I suspect you are more interested in close up photography, instead of splitting hairs regarding &quot;true&quot; 1:1 magnification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that both of these lenses fit your budget, I doubt you can go wrong with picking up the APO. It will pair up nicely with your kit lens, giving you a large focal range to work with, and give you close-focus capability.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-29T06:48:31.473" LastActivityDate="2010-08-29T06:48:31.473" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2899" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2900" CreationDate="2010-08-29T07:27:04.760" Score="6" ViewCount="120" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a reason only certain lenses can be fitted with an extender? I'd really love to be able to fit the extender to some of my cheaper lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="93" LastActivityDate="2010-08-29T20:58:59.703" Title="Why can only certain Canon lenses be fitted with an extender?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;teleconverter&gt;&lt;extender&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="2900" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2899" CreationDate="2010-08-29T08:21:17.280" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The lens mounts have a specification over the maximum distances that elements can extend backwards - with EF-S lens, this is further back than on an EF lens. With an extender, which differs from extension tubes that don't contain any optical elemetns, the situation is reversed -- compatible lenses cannot go as far back as the normal EF lens specifications allow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adding an extender also has a big effect on the amount of light reaching the sensor and, more importantly, focusing systems, which can cause problems, and leads to unsupported configurations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In either case, you may find you get away with it, but it may not be the same quality that you'd normally come to expect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-08-29T08:21:17.280" />
  <row Id="2901" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2888" CreationDate="2010-08-29T09:57:12.253" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Premoette_Junior&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The manual&lt;/a&gt; (linked from the camerapedia page) says it takes a particular kind of 2&lt;sup&gt;1/4&lt;/sup&gt; x 3&lt;sup&gt;1/2&lt;/sup&gt; pack film, which (like I think you guessed) isn't made anymore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's hard to say without being able to look at the camera, but I'd suggest there are two main options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first is to use 2&lt;sup&gt;1/4&lt;/sup&gt;x3&lt;sup&gt;1/4&lt;/sup&gt; sheet film, which should fit. You'd likely have to rig up some sort of way to keep the film in the right position, but that's usually fairly simple and non-destructive (like a piece of foam, or taping the film to a piece of card, etc).  This size isn't particularly common, but is still available (e.g., from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_search.php?rfnc=404&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Freestyle&lt;/a&gt;).  This would make it into a simple one-shot camera that you'd have to reload in the dark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second option, if you're particularly handy, is to modify the camera.  You may not want to do this if the camera is particularly valuable (I don't think it is, but I'm far from an expert on how collectable this type of camera is, so best to find out for yourself).  This is all very speculative, you'll have to judge for yourself if any of it feasible, but hopefully it gets you started:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Modify the camera to take a 2x3 film holder.  Remove (partially?) the back of the camera so that you can attach a normal 2x3 film holder.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fuji (and Polaroid until recently) makes instant pack films that are the appropriate size.  Similar to the sheet film holder, maybe graft a Polaroid back in place of the current back of the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Modify the camera to use medium-format roll film.  This would be simpler if this was a roll-film camera to begin with.  You'll need to find out if there's space for the spools; it's certainly wide enough, but possibly not deep enough.  You'll likely also have to rig up guides to keep the film at the correct distance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for development, medium format is by far the simplest: if there's noone locally, there's still lots of send-away options.  2x3 sheet film is trickier; not a lot of places develop sheet film these days, and 2x3 is a &quot;weird&quot; size - 4x5 is far more typical.  I'd plan on doing that yourself, especially if you opted for the simple one-shot method.  Instant film, obviously, wouldn't be a problem to develop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-08-29T09:57:12.253" />
  <row Id="2902" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2884" CreationDate="2010-08-29T13:54:39.833" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photocamel.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://photocamel.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Billed as &quot;friendly&quot;, it does seem to both provide critique without holding back.  Depending on your genre, it has professionals who visit and will give critiques.  At least I can vouch for Kids/Family and Portraits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-08-29T13:54:39.833" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-07T02:57:07.643" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2903" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2897" CreationDate="2010-08-29T14:07:48.910" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;APO means apochromatic glass, typically considered a higher grade.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;SLD means special low dispersion glass, which is their terms for high performance glass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;DG means the lens is specially coated to reduce reflection on digital cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have the second lens you listed for the Pentax mount and I've used it quite a bit. It generally works well, but there's a tendency for the autofocus to hunt a lot with it. That's partly my camera as well, Pentax AF is not noted for its speed, but in comparison to my other AF lenses, this one hunts the most. As Alan noted, it's not a &quot;true&quot; macro in the sense that it doesn't give 1:1 or better magnification, but it does allow close focus and you get some nice, close, shots with them such as these:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/4CN0L.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/MY4yv.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just be aware that with both of the lenses, the rear element extends and you can't use a Sigma teleconverter on them. It also looks like Sigma may have replaced these lenses with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/70-300mm-f4-56-dg-os-sigma&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a new one&lt;/a&gt;, but it's magnification ratio is much less, though you do get optical stabilization.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, the second lens listed is a good, budget, option for starting into macro. Eventually, you'll want to get a 1:1 or better lens, but learning the ropes on the Sigma lens is a good place to start and you also get a solid telephoto length at the same time. By the way, once you do look to get another, don't hesitate to look at places like Craigslist for older lenses, in macro you're very often going to be manually focussing, so some of the older, manual lenses, with 1:1 macro will work great and cost little.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-29T14:07:48.910" />
  <row Id="2904" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2937" CreationDate="2010-08-29T15:27:44.900" Score="6" ViewCount="423" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can we use the lenses from, say a Canon EOS 550D kit (Canon EF-S 18-55mm) with a Nikon DSLR D5000 for example) ? Also, is the reverse possible ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking at interchangeability between recent DSLR lenses only, and not with older lenses. Also, for &quot;average&quot; lenses, and not ultra wide/ultra zoom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason for this question is that I'm trying to decide between a Nikon D5000 and a Canon EOS 500D. I like the Nikon better, but Canon is more popular here amongst people I can interchange lenses with :) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1170" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-30T10:41:37.390" LastActivityDate="2010-08-31T06:58:33.057" Title="Canon EOS Lenses on Nikon DSLRs (and vice-versa) ?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;lens-mount&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="2905" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2904" CreationDate="2010-08-29T15:36:23.353" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, it's been done. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.novoflex.com/en/products/adapters/adapter-finder/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Novoflex&lt;/a&gt; has a Nikon to Canon adapter and, I think, for the other direction. However, unless it's optically corrected, you'll likely lose focus to infinity and, if it is optically corrected, you'll likely degrade the image quality. In general, you'll do better with lenses designed for your camera body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-29T15:36:23.353" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2906" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2908" CreationDate="2010-08-29T19:03:17.497" Score="15" ViewCount="333" Body="&lt;p&gt;What makes someone a good photographer? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Skill with the camera?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Artistic eye?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Theoretical knowledge?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A lot of practice?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason I am asking is that my photographs don't look nearly as good as I wish it to be. When I see photos on deviantArt and then when I look at my photos - there is just no comparison.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am frustrated because I can't achieve the photo results I want and I am not sure what's wrong - is it just me, or my lack of skill with the camera, or perhaps both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="887" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-10T06:46:51.123" LastActivityDate="2010-09-10T18:03:48.807" Title="What makes someone a good photographer?" Tags="&lt;photographer&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="2907" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2949" CreationDate="2010-08-29T19:24:22.133" Score="8" ViewCount="306" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking to digitise my old photos - I've probably got about 2000 frames to scan, so not sure if I really want a dedicated film scanner as I'd like to be able to continue using the scanner to capture sketches, kids drawings etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So obviously I'm looking for recommendations, but given the long life of answers on this site, I'd be much more grateful for suggestions of what features I really need to look for.  For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;for someone who will not likely print anything larger than A4 what maximum DPI should I look for? (if I want bigger I can get something scanned professionally!)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;dust removal features - worth it, or just marketing?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;anything else that is worth searching out or paying extra for?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="926" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-30T16:14:29.713" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T16:14:29.713" Title="What to consider when scanning 35mm film (and scanning in general)" Tags="&lt;scanning&gt;&lt;digitizing&gt;&lt;negative-scanner&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="2908" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2906" CreationDate="2010-08-29T19:46:21.170" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Patience and persistence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Your first 10,000 photographs are&#xA;  your worst.&quot; - attributed to Henri&#xA;  Cartier-Bresson&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm amazed how much you learn simply by taking more pictures.  I started a photo a day project last October, and I can tell a huge difference in the quality of my photos now compared to when I started.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, take an evening and spend a few hours observing one scene, perhaps a park or something. Especially during the &quot;golden hour&quot; before sunset, you can see huge changes in the scene, and each moment gives a different mood to the scene.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Technical skill is important, but you don't really need to focus to much on it, because you will improve your skill as you take pictures that aren't quite right.  The ones that turn out pretty well except one little flaw are the ones you can learn the most from, because that one flaw will drive you nuts and force you to figure out how to fix it the next time you encounter a similar situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-29T20:59:33.527" LastActivityDate="2010-08-29T20:59:33.527" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2909" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2910" CreationDate="2010-08-29T19:48:00.157" Score="6" ViewCount="104" Body="&lt;p&gt;The situation: I have a 580EX on a lightstand and am firing it with Cybersync triggers. The transmitter is mounted on a 5D Mark II.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because the camera is unaware of the transmitter, there's not a way to tell it to trigger on 2nd curtain. You can set the flash to 2nd curtain, but that doesn't do anything since the trigger just tells it when to fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a way to accomplish a 2nd curtain fire with a setup like this? I'm trying to avoid buying $500+ worth of Radiopoppers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="50" LastActivityDate="2010-08-29T20:48:25.953" Title="Can you enable 2nd curtain when firing off-camera flashes?" Tags="&lt;strobist&gt;&lt;second-curtain&gt;&lt;off-camera-flash&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="2910" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2909" CreationDate="2010-08-29T20:48:25.953" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No. Unfortunately the 5D2 does not allow 2nd Curtain Sync unless there is an attached to Canon EX compatible speedlite. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's unfortunate as the only solutions seem to be workarounds, or expensive radio triggers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-29T20:48:25.953" />
  <row Id="2911" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2899" CreationDate="2010-08-29T20:58:59.703" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a physical limitation with the Canon 2xII, where the front element of the extender sticks out in front of the bayonet where your lens will fit. You may be able to find an alternative manufacturer's extender which has a different front-element design which will work with other lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even Canon's extenders can work with lenses you may not expect: the TS-E lenses for example can be usefully extended with the 2xII (I have tested only the 24mm TS-E mk1).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1055" LastActivityDate="2010-08-29T20:58:59.703" />
  <row Id="2912" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2766" CreationDate="2010-08-29T21:14:23.327" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've tried the evaluation copy of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.breezesys.com/DSLRRemotePro/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DSLR Remote&lt;/a&gt; on two different still projects and it's really great. A simple but functional application.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="221" LastActivityDate="2010-08-29T21:14:23.327" />
  <row Id="2913" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2915" CreationDate="2010-08-29T21:52:01.513" Score="9" ViewCount="317" Body="&lt;p&gt;I tried reading &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/450/how-and-why-do-you-use-an-image-histogram&quot;&gt;this thread &lt;/a&gt; about histograms, but couldn't understand it well enough to answer this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I took some shots yesterday where the main peak of my Histogram was actually off the chart. The histogram had one large peak and most everything else was very low. I was wondering what exactly this means, and if it something bad(I expect that it is) how I can avoid this in the future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: Here is the Histogram in question &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://imgur.com/tnYiQ.png&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; title=&quot;Hosted by imgur.com&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and the image can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbischof/4939040919/lightbox/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here.&lt;/a&gt; Edit 2: I altered the photo, so the link is taking into account Jrista's excellent suggestions. This histogram no longer corresponds to this photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastEditorUserId="988" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-01T03:59:38.923" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T21:30:44.303" Title="What does it mean if the main peak of my Histogram is beyond the top of the chart?" Tags="&lt;histogram&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2914" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2913" CreationDate="2010-08-29T22:02:25.597" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the histogram shows everything bunched up at one end, then have either a very dark or very light image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If the histogram is bunched at the right&lt;/strong&gt; this means you have a very light image - most of the pixels have recorded lots of light, and lots of pixels will have the maximum value. This is often referred to as &lt;em&gt;blown highlights&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While there are some occasions where having a very light image is a deliberate choice for artistic reasons, mostly it means that you have overexposed the image. Unless you are in a fully manual mode, you should check you haven't bumped the Exposure Compensation control off the middle, and if you have an image that is hard to meter accurately you should use the Exposure Compensation control to make a darker image. (Provided you notice when reviewing immediately rather than later). If you are in manual mode you could reduce the shutter speed or use a smaller aperture (higher f-stop number).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And vice versa. &lt;strong&gt;If the histogram is bunched at the left&lt;/strong&gt; this means you have a very dark image - most of the pixels have recorded very little light, and lots of pixels will have recorded zero. The fix is the opposite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-08-29T22:02:25.597" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2915" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2913" CreationDate="2010-08-29T22:31:43.330" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The height of each individual, vertical line in a histogram indicates how much of that particular tone your image has, or the tones &lt;em&gt;intensity&lt;/em&gt;. As tones in a histogram progress from left (black and shades) to right (brights and highlights), where a particular vertical line lies indicates how intense the tones represented by that line are. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one particular tone is extremely intense, and the rest are very low, then the image is primarily comprised of that (or those) particular tones. Generally, this happens in the highlights when they get blown out. It it happens somewhere else, then the histogram is simply telling you that your image is almost entirely composed of that particular range of tones. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that the histogram generally does not show enough vertical lines to represent the entire tonal range of an image. Every individual vertical line in a histogram usually represents a small range of tones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-08-29T22:31:43.330" CommentCount="12" />
  <row Id="2916" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2906" CreationDate="2010-08-29T22:44:07.143" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a pretty subjective question... However, I'm game. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Skill, obviously, helps a great deal especially when you have to react to the moment and be able to adjust quickly for that. However, that alone isn't going to create a great photo. An old adage was f/8 and be there, indicating that you should forget about the camera and get the image. Easier said than done, sometimes, and one gains confidence to do that when they've built a lot a skill around their equipment.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Art is often in the eye of the beholder. One man's art is another man's trash, so it goes with the artistic eye. Now, that's not to say that there aren't images that will take anyones breath away, but I have a feeling that these are so statistically rare that you may have a better chance winning the lottery than capturing one of them. Mind you, you never know! I suppose that's what keeps us snapping. Anyways, I'd hardly consider myself to have an artistic eye, but it's something that can be trained, I think (I hope!). I'm working on it, lots of flops, but I get the odd one I'm happy with.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I, honestly, doubt that theoretical knowledge has very little impact, if any. In fact, I'd wager it goes the other way. I know people so caught up in the theory that they fail to see the image. This isn't unique to photography, I see it my industry too. I've seen a number of software developers with deep theory that couldn't deliver a &quot;hello world&quot; program because they'd be stuck debating on the best algorithms for doing it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A lot of practice? Bingo! Why not fire until your finger wears out? Just delete what you don't like. You can take hundreds, even thousands, of images and even if none turned out, you may learn from them. The quote chills42 listed is a good one, but you do have to take some time to look at the outcome and try to understand why it missed, or why it hit, otherwise you're just pressing a button.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After all that, the camera is just part of the bag of tricks skilled photographers have to make their images look great. Many of these tricks also existed in the darkroom, but digital brings more of them to the masses. A lot of shots you see on sites like Deviant Art didn't look like that coming out of the camera (though some may have, I don't want to disparage). Some of these are going to be fairly basic changes such as adjusting contrast, saturation, vibrance, sharpening, and the like. Others start to get more interesting when you crop, rotate, clone out parts, and more. What is your goal? To create art or to capture precise information at that moment in time? If it's art, you can get very creative after the fact and why not? After all, the goal is to provide an image that gives the viewer pleasure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, don't get discouraged because there are better photographers, for all but one in the whole world, there always will be. Just get out there with the camera, play around, and make mistakes. Most importantly, have fun and just enjoy the moment of the capture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-29T22:44:07.143" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="2917" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2919" CreationDate="2010-08-30T00:56:22.247" Score="13" ViewCount="1014" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've tried googling this, but have never found a satisfactory answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard the term &quot;sweet spot&quot; thrown around by some photographers to mean the f-stop of a lens which results in the highest sharpness that lens can achieve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few questions on this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;General photographic knowledge states that the higher the f-stop (the smaller the aperture), the largest depth of field you will achieve. This seems to &quot;suggest&quot; the higher the f-stop, the sharper your image will be (all other factor being equal of course). Does the idea of a &quot;sweet spot&quot; trump this rule? (so, theoretically a f11 could be sharper than f22)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is the &quot;sweet spot&quot; an optical algorithm that can be applied to any lens, or is it to do with the particularities of the manufacturing of some lens.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Finally, how can I determine the &quot;sweet spot&quot; of my prime lenses?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;NOTE 1:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know other things come into consideration in sharpness, like ISO, light, glass (lens) etc etc, but please ignore these and assume these are equal for every different lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;NOTE 2:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For context, I'm mainly trying to achieve ultimate sharpness in architectural (indoor and outdoor) photography, and urbanscape, where usually I tend to SHY AWAY from small depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="161" LastActivityDate="2010-08-31T17:52:19.023" Title="How do you find out the &quot;sweet spot&quot; of a lens" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;sharpness&gt;&lt;f-stop&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="2918" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="886" CreationDate="2010-08-30T01:02:17.223" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Fine Art Photography&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fine art photography, for some photographers, the actual process of taking a photo, using film, is still very important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, shooting with film, with an older film body, as an artist, can connect you to the legacy of photographers past, in a way that you cannot do with digital bodies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="161" LastActivityDate="2010-08-30T01:02:17.223" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2919" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2917" CreationDate="2010-08-30T01:21:39.003" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The sweet spot of a lens is probably just as dependent upon the type of image capturing surface used as the lens itself. Both film and digital sensors have a limit of detail they can resolve (although large-format film has the tendency to capture FAR more detail than 35mm or digital sensors at &lt;em&gt;much tighter apertures&lt;/em&gt;, around f/22.) Assuming you have a lens with the best resolution imaginable...it will ultimately be limited by the imaging material. This is due to the &quot;diffraction limit&quot; of the film or sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The mechanics behind finding the &quot;sweet spot&quot; of a lens can be fairly complex, as it is very mathematical. To simplify this for consumers, the MTF (modulation transfer function) chart was born as a way to provide clear, mathematically derived information about the sharpness, or resolution, of a lens, film, or sensor. If you are interested in the underlying theory, this article is a good read: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Understanding image sharpness&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In simpler terms, assuming you want the maximum clarity for the sensor size and density you are using, for most DSLR image sensors the &quot;sweet spot&quot; of most lenses of decent to high quality is between f/8 and f/11. Entry-level DSLR's, which tend to have smaller sensors with smaller photosites of greater density, are diffraction limited at around f/8 or f/9. Higher-end DSLR's, which tend to have larger sensors with larger photosites and lower density, are diffraction limited around f/11. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Outside of having a really crappy lens that does not have the greatest intrinsic resolution, most lenses can resolve a high degree of fine detail. Most lenses on the market these days have their own MTF chart that can be helpful in knowing the lenses &quot;sweet spot&quot; in and of itself. Most digital cameras have information about when the sensor becomes diffraction limited. Review sites such as DPReview.com, the-digital-picture.com, etc. will also state the apertures at which the sensor becomes diffraction limited for most cameras. I don't do much film myself, so I can't offer you much regarding when various types of film may become diffraction limited. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that the diffraction limiting aperture (DLA) is only when diffraction &lt;em&gt;starts&lt;/em&gt; affecting quality, but not when it has reached its maximum effect (which is usually several stops beyond the DLA.) Visible image softening from diffraction will usually not be apparent until a couple stops beyond the initial DLA. For sensors of a given size (i.e. APS-C), a higher-density sensor will start revealing diffraction earlier, however the lower-density sensor will be incapable of resolving detail as high as the sensor of greater density. For any given megapixel size (i.e. 18mp), a sensor with larger physical size will usually provide better results. Diffraction affects image quality due to light dispersing beyond a single photosite and affecting others. As larger sensors (i.e. Full-Frame vs. APS-C) have larger photosites, they become diffraction limited at tighter apertures than smaller sensors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The real trick is finding the overlap between the point of peak sharpness for the lens, and the point at which an image sensor is able to resolve clear detail without visibly softening it due to diffraction. An aperture setting in the overlap area will be the true &quot;sweet spot&quot; of the camera and lens you are using. On the flip side, if depth of field is more important than ultimate sharpness, then a higher aperture may provide a sweet spot more appropriate to your work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-31T17:52:19.023" LastActivityDate="2010-08-31T17:52:19.023" CommentCount="14" />
  <row Id="2920" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2917" CreationDate="2010-08-30T05:56:38.683" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think &quot;sweet spot&quot; is a rather poorly-defined term in general use, and in fact you'll see some people talk about the sweet-spot of a lens with regard to the sharpest aperture setting, and others talking about the sweet spot of a lens' image circle (e.g. using a full-frame 35mm lens on a cropped-sensor DSLR).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You cannot generalize and say &quot;50mm primes have a sweet spot at f/8&quot;, different lens designs perform differently and will make different trade-offs. So not all lenses of a given type will have the same sweet spot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With regards to sharpness and aperture, MTF charts will give you a good picture (albeit theoretical), if they're published for the aperture settings you're interested in. But MTF charts can be difficult to find for some lenses, and usually will show just one or two aperture settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The empirical way of determining the sweet spot for a lens that you personally own is to take test shots at different apertures, preferably of a flat-field scene with both fine details and high-contrast edges. Then compare the images and draw your conclusions. It may not be clear-cut, depending on what your criteria are. For instance the aperture where the corners sharpen up may be different than the aperture where the center of the images is sharpest. Obviously shooting technique is important for this, so using a tripod with mirror-lockup and a cable release is ideal to remove camera shake as a factor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the f/8-f/11 range is generally considered a safe choice, I wouldn't say it's universally true. Higher-quality lenses will already be starting to see the affects of diffraction by f/8, especially on high-resolution camera sensors. For instance, many of late-model pro-level lenses will hit their sharpness sweet spot around f/4-f/5.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="291" LastActivityDate="2010-08-30T05:56:38.683" CommentCount="13" />
  <row Id="2921" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2890" CreationDate="2010-08-30T06:03:26.823" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not just about maximum aperture. Even in two lenses with the same focal length and max aperture, one could have a larger diameter.  The larger diameter could be because of using larger lens elements, which could have advantages with regard to sharpness and light falloff at the edges of the image circle. Some lenses may even project a larger image circle than is strictly necessary. These difference would likely be more apparent at larger apertures (especially wide-open), if they are there at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said that you can't automatically assume the &quot;larger&quot; lens will always be better optically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="291" LastActivityDate="2010-08-30T06:03:26.823" />
  <row Id="2922" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2913" CreationDate="2010-08-30T10:37:45.853" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You might read this histogram like this:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/dJQcG.png&quot; alt=&quot;histogram w/ description&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's nothing wrong with you image. (At most, this histogram says there are &quot;unused&quot; bright tones, so you could maybe expose the photo a bit more, to &quot;move&quot; the histogram a bit to the right -- e.g. use more you your dynamic range to get more of the spider's dark area. But moving to the right might get you overexpose if you add too much light. So it's tricky. And this photo is fine anyway.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What might give you better idea about tones present is switching the histogram to logarithmic scale. That way you'll be able to see more of the differences between various darker tones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-30T12:40:41.733" LastActivityDate="2010-08-30T12:40:41.733" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2923" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2904" CreationDate="2010-08-30T11:39:35.663" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it's not good idea to use the adapter. Plus there are a lot of other manufactures like Tamron, Sigma which provide good lenses for reasonable price for both Nikon and Canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.radiantlite.com/lens-guide&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lense Comparison Guide&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1261" LastActivityDate="2010-08-30T11:39:35.663" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2924" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2917" CreationDate="2010-08-30T11:50:02.887" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With primes I always put a page of text up on the wall, put my camera on a tripod with a remote trigger (the self timer works too) and take a couple of photos at each major f-stop: 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 20 and then I compare them for sharpness at the center, edges, and corners.  You'll see that there's a range that's sharpest and I use a label maker and print &quot;8-11&quot; to put on the lens itself so I know for each lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With zooms it's harder because the sweet spot will change with the focal length, so for a 70-200mm lens you'd want to do it incrementally like 75mm, 100, 125, 150, 200 maybe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just keep in mind that even if the text isn't perfectly sharp at any focal length/aperture, we don't generally photograph text and differences in sharpness can be seen with text that you'd never see in a landscape, for instance.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="110" LastActivityDate="2010-08-30T11:50:02.887" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2925" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2906" CreationDate="2010-08-30T12:02:49.443" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's similar to ask what makes smn good lawyer or surgeon. Only the consequences are less danger :) IMHO the are 3 features that makes your professional regardless the field of activity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Passion.&lt;/strong&gt; This what directs you and doesn't allow to give up.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Discipline.&lt;/strong&gt; You must practice constantly.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Constant desire to learn.&lt;/strong&gt; This also includes advice from &quot;older&quot; people.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course some one can be born as a genius photographer or a singer but he is one of a million. Look at the other famous photographers. Mostly of them began from the begging.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S. DSLR is last thing in this list )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1261" LastActivityDate="2010-08-30T12:02:49.443" />
  <row Id="2926" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2917" CreationDate="2010-08-30T13:48:50.937" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Regading photography, there are two points that limit the resolution of an image: one is the Depth of field (look at Wikipedia yourself, I'm not allowed to post two links), the other the physical resolution of the lens (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_criterion#Explanation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rayleigh criterion&lt;/a&gt; of maximum resolution). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A large depth of field is generally obtained with a small aperture (f/11 has a smaller depth of field than f/22), while a large aperture leads to a smaller diffraction limited spot size for these areas of the image that are in focus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For an &lt;em&gt;ideal&lt;/em&gt; picture there are two contradicting goals: large aperture (small f-number) for the points in focus, small aperture (large f-number) for for a large depth of field. Depending on the lens, the film/ccd detector used and what you intend to picture, different settings are &lt;em&gt;optimal&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1260" LastActivityDate="2010-08-30T13:48:50.937" />
  <row Id="2927" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="978" CreationDate="2010-08-30T15:07:26.373" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Spare change for a portrait&lt;/strong&gt; - Whenever someone approaches you and asks you for money, ask them if you can take a portrait of them in exchange for the money. Inspired by Thomas Hawk's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/sets/72157605579131380/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;$2 Portraits&lt;/a&gt; set.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="890" LastActivityDate="2010-08-30T15:07:26.373" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-30T15:07:26.373" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2928" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-30T15:08:51.627" Score="3" ViewCount="72" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can recommend David Noton's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.leefilters.com/camera/news/articles/ref%3aN48035D8818398/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Chasing The Light&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="482" LastActivityDate="2010-08-30T19:02:42.910" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-30T15:33:55.477" Title="What are some good photography related DVDs?" Tags="&lt;learning&gt;&lt;dvd&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2929" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="978" CreationDate="2010-08-30T15:09:37.757" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Like Night and Day&lt;/strong&gt; - Take two shots of the same scene, one during the day and one at night, to show the contrast between night and day. Inspired by &lt;a href=&quot;http://roger.redbubble.com/sets/91146/works&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Roger Barnes&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="890" LastActivityDate="2010-08-30T15:09:37.757" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-30T15:09:37.757" />
  <row Id="2930" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2928" CreationDate="2010-08-30T17:39:53.257" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been using Sandy Puc' resources for studying child and family portraiture.  They're priced for people who want to go professional in that area.  Without a mentor, it's hard to find a better source for posing and tricks for working with kids.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She sells her materials through&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sandysworlduniversity.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.sandysworlduniversity.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Click on Campus Store.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can recommend the Tour DVDs as a start.  I attended the 2010 Family Tour, and have watched the Bellies and Babies and Teens to Tots tour videos from previous years. All good stuff, but all aimed at professional photographers or someone who wants to be in that business.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-08-30T17:39:53.257" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-30T17:39:53.257" />
  <row Id="2931" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2928" CreationDate="2010-08-30T19:02:42.910" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;James Nachtwey in &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.war-photographer.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;War Photographer&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2010-08-30T19:02:42.910" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-30T19:02:42.910" />
  <row Id="2932" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2933" CreationDate="2010-08-30T20:12:49.557" Score="4" ViewCount="66" Body="&lt;p&gt;I took a photo with my iPhone of a package of bread, oriented in landscape. I then copy-pasted it to iOS-Mail (the only way to get un-resized photos sent via email), and emailed it to myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the gmail preview, the image is oriented correctly. That is, the bread labels display text correctly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I downloaded the image to my desktop, I opened the image in Paint.NET, the image as rotated counter-clockwise 90 degrees.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I rotated the image in paint.net 90degrees clockwise, resized it, then saved it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I emailed this photo to a friend, and in the gmail preview it now shows oriented 90CW, and the image preview in windows shows it as 90degrees counter-clockwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I open the image, or upload the image, it is oriented properly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So why are thumbnails oriented incorrectly, and how does software interpret the orientation to display the image?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are the thumbnails, windows on the left, gmail on the right. Same image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/i6HMQ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;rotations&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-08-30T21:13:05.370" Title="Orientation on image thumbnails and how programs interpret it?" Tags="&lt;thumbnails&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2933" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2932" CreationDate="2010-08-30T21:13:05.370" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two options for software -- you can either orientate the file in the right direction, or you can store meta-information that stores the information to allow for automatic correction. Not all software supports the automatic correction, and it is most likely one of these cases that you've spotted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-08-30T21:13:05.370" />
  <row Id="2934" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="295" CreationDate="2010-08-30T21:15:49.577" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.LensFolder.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LensFolder.com&lt;/a&gt; was mentioned in Popular Photography magazine this month for pretty much exactly this use case-they described it as useful for weddings, but by the looks of their website it's good for all events etc.  And you can download all the photos in full resolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-08-30T21:15:49.577" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-30T21:15:49.577" />
  <row Id="2935" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2942" CreationDate="2010-08-31T05:24:12.600" Score="8" ViewCount="213" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been trialling Lightroom 3 for a awhile, and like what I see. I will be buying it in the near future, thanks to a student discount. I'm sure I've only just scratched the surface so far, and being a visual learner, I could use suggestions for learning material.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm interested not just in the editing process, but also in the overall workflow - organization, tagging, metadata, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastEditorUserId="26" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-03T03:46:50.653" LastActivityDate="2010-09-03T03:46:50.653" Title="Suggest a book for a Lightroom newbie" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;books&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="2936" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2935" CreationDate="2010-08-31T06:25:53.360" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Instruction video rather than a book: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lynda.com/home/DisplayCourse.aspx?lpk2=59972&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photoshop Lightroom 3 Essential Training&lt;/a&gt; by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lynda.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lynda.com&lt;/a&gt;. The training videos from Lynda.com I've watched so far (including this one) are excellent. Drawback, esp. for students and others with limited budgets: neither subscription nor DVD (you choose either one) come cheap :-(&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="878" LastActivityDate="2010-08-31T06:25:53.360" />
  <row Id="2937" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2904" CreationDate="2010-08-31T06:58:33.057" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nikon has the longest flange to focal-plane distance, so you can't use lenses meant for other 35mm lens-mounts on Nikon cameras (the lens would be too far from the sensor/film to focus to infinity). The exception might be if you were doing closeup/macro photography and didn't care about infinity focus. There are some medium-format lenses that can be adapted for use on Nikon cameras, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon has one of the shorter flange to focal-plane distances, so lenses for other mounts can more easily be adapted to Canon EOS (even with the extra spacing of the adapter in place, the lens is still close enough to the sensor/film to focus on infinity).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adapting Nikon lenses to use on Canon cameras is a pretty common thing to do. For instance, lots of Canon shooters use adapters with Nikon's wide-angle lenses, which are particularly well-regarded. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One note about adapting Nikon lenses for use on Canon bodies. You'll either want to get the older lenses that have a physical aperture ring; or you'll need to get a special &quot;G&quot; adapter that allows you to set the shooting aperture on Nikon's 'G' lenses that have no physical aperture ring. Also, there's no adapter I know of that will work with Nikon's new PC-E lenses, since they have a completely different aperture control mechanism (currently only the three tilt/shift lenses are PC-E, though).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another consideration is that adapted lenses are going to be completely manual-focus, and you may also lose in-camera metering (best you can hope for is probably spot- or center-weighted metering in manual exposure mode, maybe aperture mode if you're really lucky). So unless you have a specific reason for wanting to use a specific lens, it's probably not worth the trouble. I wouldn't recommend getting an adapter just so you can share lenses with friends. If all your friends shoot Canon and you want to be able to share lenses, you should go with a Canon DSLR. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="291" LastActivityDate="2010-08-31T06:58:33.057" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2938" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2010-08-09T19:59:14.060" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_%28company%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon&lt;/a&gt; is a prominent manufacturer of optical equipment, and particularly cameras and lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Their main photographic line website is at: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canon.com/eos-d/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.canon.com/eos-d/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T19:59:14.060" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T19:59:14.060" />
  <row Id="2939" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2935" CreationDate="2010-08-31T11:05:49.980" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Also video based is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/videos/lr3.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luminous Landscape&lt;/a&gt; tutorials. The price is $49.95 for the tutorial, which doesn't seem too bad, and there's no DRM, just download the full set and view as desired.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-08-31T11:05:49.980" />
  <row Id="2940" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2947" CreationDate="2010-08-31T12:09:42.657" Score="3" ViewCount="113" Body="&lt;p&gt;I plan to go to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photokina-cologne.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photokina 2010&lt;/a&gt; but a little bit unsure about what to expect. Beside exhibition, what exactly can I do in Photokina? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I've heard that &lt;strong&gt;you can try any&#xA;camera you want&lt;/strong&gt;, is that correct?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are the exhibitors usually offer some&#xA;kind of discount to the guests?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="72" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-16T11:39:03.417" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T12:17:59.023" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-31T14:50:03.757" Title="What can I do in Photokina?" Tags="&lt;photokina&gt;&lt;trade-fairs&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2941" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="295" CreationDate="2010-08-31T12:13:59.887" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Indonesian photographers use &lt;a href=&quot;http://multiply.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Multiply&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; a lot&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="72" LastActivityDate="2010-08-31T12:13:59.887" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-31T12:13:59.887" />
  <row Id="2942" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2935" CreationDate="2010-08-31T14:54:46.980" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd highly recommend Scott Kelby's &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0321700910&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 Book for Digital Photographers&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scott really knows his stuff and is a great author.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-08-31T14:54:46.980" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2944" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2907" CreationDate="2010-08-31T17:34:40.590" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Get someone else to do it?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have you considered using a scanning service such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scancafe.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ScanCafe&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm in a similar situation, but I have come to the conclusion that I won't be able to scan negatives / slides as well as a dedicated lab.  (So now I'm saving up!).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-08-31T17:34:40.590" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2945" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2906" CreationDate="2010-08-31T17:37:02.520" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;An ability to take photographs without worrying about whether or not they're a good photographer.&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-08-31T17:37:02.520" />
  <row Id="2946" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2950" CreationDate="2010-08-31T18:00:50.990" Score="29" ViewCount="813" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I change the ISO settings on my camera, obviously the gain of the system is increased, amplifying the signal from the sensor. What's not clear to me is where the amplification takes place. I see several possibilities:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In the sensor, by increasing voltage or some other mechanism&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Via an analog amplifier outside of the sensor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Digitally, after the signal has been digitized, but before storing data in the RAW file&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As a parameter applied solely in creating an image from RAW&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If #4 is true, then you could take a 4-stop overexposed RAW picture at ISO 1600, and then in post processing produce a JPEG at ISO 100 that would be the same as if the original photo had been shot at ISO 100.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If #1 or #2 is true, then a RAW file shot at ISO 1600 would actually contain more information about shadows, and an ISO 100 RAW would contain more information about highlights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-24T06:34:42.710" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T14:23:42.133" Title="How is ISO implemented in digital cameras?" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;iso&gt;&lt;digital&gt;" AnswerCount="6" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="2947" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2940" CreationDate="2010-08-31T18:01:50.163" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For your specific questions, the answers are 'no' and 'not really'.  Both derive from the fact that photokina's more of an industry exhibition than a consumer show.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I was there two years ago, there were a number of cameras that were only on display, or only available to the press.  Not many, but a few.  There's certainly no shortage of cameras to try.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also two years ago, Kodak was giving away samples of Ektar film (which was brand new), and like any conference there's promotional items being given away.  I wasn't there looking to buy, but to my eyes it didn't appear there were any vendors set up to offer individual sales (large trade orders, on the other hand, are a big part of photokina).  I suppose it would never hurt to ask, but there were definitely no &quot;€100 off for Photokina guests!&quot; signs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastActivityDate="2010-08-31T18:01:50.163" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-08-31T18:01:50.163" />
  <row Id="2948" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2946" CreationDate="2010-08-31T18:18:32.127" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes. The ISO setting is the sensitivity of the sensor -- in practice the amount of amplification applied to the signal from the pixel on the sensor to get a real result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In theory, you could post process to produce a similar result to that of a lower or higher ISO using exposure compensation - I've always found I've got much better results shooting it right &quot;in-camera&quot;, which leads me to believe that the amplification is done in an analogue manner prior to digitising.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-08-31T18:18:32.127" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="2949" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2907" CreationDate="2010-08-31T18:55:04.713" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want to use it for documents as well, you're looking at a flatbed scanner, and there are a few options.  The two I hear recommended most often are Epson's v-series (in particular the v700 and up) and PlusTek.  I have a slightly-older Epson 4990 (the immediate predecessor to the v700s), and have been perfectly happy with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For printing, most flatbed film scanners should give you adequate scans of 35mm film for printing at A4 sizes.  I wouldn't do gallery/portfolio prints from them, but for anything else they've been fine for me.  With the right image and a bit of care in post-processing, I've printed up to 11x14 from flatbed scans and been happy with the results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Resolution&lt;/strong&gt; is partly the reason; despite flatbed scanners being labelled with high numbers for dpi (e.g., my Epson is 4800dpi), their optical resolution is somewhat lower; topping out around 1500dpi.  Above that, you get more pixels, but not really any extra detail.  This does have a bit of a silver lining, as sizing down (e.g., scanning at 4800dpi, reducing the resulting image by 50%) is a quite effective way to reduce the noise in the scan and smooth out some gradients in the result.  Some of the higher-end scanners have a liquid-mounting option that improves results, but is definitely not something you'd want to do on a mass basis, nor would I think it gains you much advantage for A4-sized prints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of slightly more importance than resolution for me is the &lt;strong&gt;scan area&lt;/strong&gt;.  Some scanners can only scan film in a narrow strip; sometimes just one 35mm strip.  Others can scan much larger areas and so can do more strips of film at once, or larger formats.  Again to my 4990, it can scan up to 8x10 film, which means 4 4x5 negatives, four 35mm strips in the holder, and pretty easily six if I put them directly on the glass (which does hurt quality, but is good for making a &quot;contact sheet&quot; for review).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Software&lt;/strong&gt; can obviously play a role; unfortunately there's no clear winner.  In terms of ease-of-use, none are spectacular, and all are serviceable.  Personally, I've always been happy with the default Epson software, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hamrick.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;VueScan&lt;/a&gt; is a popular choice, especially if you're trying to get the absolute most out of your scans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Dust removal&lt;/strong&gt; comes in two flavours: software, which isn't worth bothering, and hardware (commonly &quot;digital ICE&quot;).  The difference is in how it works: software-only methods just look for sharp lines of high contrast, and will often blur a lot of general detail.  Hardware methods use an infrared channel; color films are transparent to infrared, dust is not, so it can tell which defects are from the dust, and which are part of the image.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't have much direct experience (I shoot mostly B&amp;amp;W film, the silver is IR-opaque, so doesn't work with ICE-like methods), but the general consensus seems to be that software methods aren't useful, and ICE/hardware methods are useful at least sometimes.  A further wrinkle is that depending on the scanner, ICE processing time can be very high (3-5 times the normal scan time, or even more).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Dmax&lt;/strong&gt; is potentially something to be aware of, depending on what you need to scan.  This doesn't really enter into the equation for negative films, but some transparency films can have very dense shadows that are difficult to scan well (Kodachrome and Velvia in particular).  Unfortunately, like dpi, these ratings aren't very reliable if the manufacturers even make them available.  It's better to rely on reviews and user feedback.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="496" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-31T20:22:50.103" LastActivityDate="2010-08-31T20:22:50.103" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2950" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2946" CreationDate="2010-08-31T19:42:29.490" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;1~2 and 3.  On CCDs, the amplifier is effectively in the corner of the sensor, but on CMOS, there is an amplifier built into each photosite, dispersed throughout the sensor.  See &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/learn/dark_noise/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As mentioned in one thing I recently &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/23/what-is-something-you-learned-recently-about-your-gear-that-you-wish-you-discover/1698#1698&quot;&gt;discovered&lt;/a&gt;, most DSLRs have an amplifier before the ADC.  They tend to max at 800 or 1600 ISO and are all digital amplifications afterward.  The following paragraphs assume a camera that maxes out its analog amplification at 1600:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, the 12 or 14 bit RAW files prevent you from doing what you describe.  The digital amplification takes place before the RAW files are stored.  There is a maximum value that can be stored, so when you shoot 4-stops overexposed, even though the ADC is not saturated, the RAW file will probably be clipped.  &lt;strong&gt;However, the technique that overexposes just as much as to not clip highlights is effective at reducing noise, and known as ETTR (Expose To The Right).&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, due to the analog amplification, RAW files at higher ISO do contain more detail.  However, ISO 1600 and ISO 12800 should contain the same amount of shadow detail (unless there is some additional special processing OR the ADC has effectively more precision than whatever bit depth your RAW files are stored in).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even though #3 is true above ISO 1600, an ISO 1600 RAW may contain more information about highlights because they can still be clipped through the digital amplification process.  For this reason and perhaps others (battery life, effective buffer size), when shooting RAW, it may be beneficial to shoot ISO 1600 and simply post process later.  Again, I have not tested this, and if the effective ADC bit-depth is higher than the RAW format's bit-depth, it will not be true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-01T12:34:56.100" LastActivityDate="2010-09-01T12:34:56.100" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="2951" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2946" CreationDate="2010-08-31T19:48:23.610" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Warning:  My answer is 100% anecdotal, and is based on results from a Panny FZ-28, which very possibly doesn't handle RAW's the same as a DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said that, I've struggled with noise levels in low-light conditions since day 1 with this camera.  There's only so much performance you can wring out of a small sensor, but I've tried a number of things to try to get the best results I can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since I see a pretty dramatic increase in noise as I increase ISO, I usually try to keep the ISO pinned at or near 100.  One of the things I tried, though, was shooting RAW at ISO 100 with the shot underexposed to maintain the shutter speed I wanted.  Post processing lets me fix exposure (to some extent), but when I do that, I pick up an amount of noise that seems to be about the same as if I'd just set ISO higher to begin with.  I see a very comparable noise level when I increase the ISO and exposure (so that I don't have to boost exposure in post-processing), leading me to believe that there's little to no room to &quot;cheat the system&quot; this way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't done any reading to support this, but based on what I've seen, I'd be inclined to believe that either #1 or #2 (personally, I believe it's #1) above are true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-08-31T19:48:23.610" />
  <row Id="2952" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2010-08-10T17:13:33.873" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adobe Lightroom&lt;/a&gt; is one of several professional level photo editing and management tools.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1230/apple-aperture-or-adobe-lightroom&quot;&gt;commonly compared&lt;/a&gt; to &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged?tagnames=apple-aperture&amp;amp;sort=info&quot;&gt;Apple Aperture&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-10T17:13:33.873" LastActivityDate="2010-08-10T17:13:33.873" />
  <row Id="2953" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2680" CreationDate="2010-08-31T22:50:01.473" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Nick pointed out, there is an option in 'Catalog Settings' to 'Automatically write changes into XMP'. I personally turn it off because I do not want to update my files that often (for performance and backup synchronization reasons). However, you can manually write metadata, keywords, rating, labels and develop settings by selecting one or more files and using 'Metadata &gt; Save Metadata to File(s)' (Ctrl+S or Command+S). You can also click on the 'Metadata File Needs To Be Updated' icon (a down arrow) in a thumbnail in the Grid view, then click Save.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The extent of this update depends on the file type. For a DNG file, this will pretty much copy everything currently in the catalog and pertaining to that file back to the file. For a RAW/CR2 file this will update the sidecar. For a JPG, TIFF and PSD file this will update the tags, some EXIF info and potentially a sidecar if the &quot;Write develop settings to XMP for JPG, TIFF, and PSD&quot; option is On. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is explained in more details with a few useful tables here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobepress.com/articles/article.asp?p=1211707&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.adobepress.com/articles/article.asp?p=1211707&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2010-08-31T22:50:01.473" />
  <row Id="2954" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2108" CreationDate="2010-08-31T22:55:38.233" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a bit arbitrary but works for me as a hybrid between a keyword-based and a directory-based workflow management. I use a very specific directory structure explained below. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I do like and use metadata, keywords and smart collections, there is a drawback to them: what happens if I want to look at and &lt;em&gt;search&lt;/em&gt; my files on a computer that doesn't have Lightroom installed for example? How can I share my photos on my network with devices like an XBox or an old piece of electronic that only supports a directory-based structure, as opposed to a database? What if I need to quickly send my photos with my phone, or create a ZIP files for friends or clients?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my directory structure &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; database I keep track of both the RAW files &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; sRGB JPEG exported copies. The JPEG files are stored in a subfolder level by broad category first (say Celebration, Concerts, Sports, Urban Exploration). At the second level I use a strict &quot;What - Where - When&quot; naming convention automatically generated by Lightroom (most DAM apps support this feature). The RAW files are stored by year, then by date with a short description.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It looks like this from both the catalog/database/library view and a basic File Explorer (this is only a subset of course):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Pictures/&#xA;    JPEG/&#xA;        Celebrations/&#xA;            St. Patrick's Day - Albany, NY - 09, Mar/&#xA;                St. Patrick's Day - Albany, NY - 09, Mar - 01.jpg&#xA;                St. Patrick's Day - Albany, NY - 09, Mar - 02.jpg&#xA;                ...&#xA;            4th of July - Albany, NY - 09, Jul/&#xA;        Urban Exploration/&#xA;            Hudson Cement Factory - Kingston, NY - 10, May/&#xA;    RAW/&#xA;        2009/&#xA;            2009-03-22 (St. Patrick's Day)/&#xA;                _MG_9046.dng&#xA;                _MG_9047.dng&#xA;                ...&#xA;            2009-07-04 (4th of July)/&#xA;        2010/&#xA;            2010-05-12 (Hudson Cement Factory)/&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I import my RAW files, I let Lightroom put them automatically in a RAW/year/year-month-day folder, based on the date the photos were taken on. I then add a suffix to that directory with a quick description (say St. Patrick's Day or Hudson Cement Factory, etc). I select all my RAW files, and update their metadata by setting the Scene attribute to &quot;what&quot; the subject is (here St. Patrick's Day or Hudson Cement Factory, which I still have conveniently in my Copy/Paste buffer). I also set the Location attributes, i.e. the City, State and Country. The earlier you set this kind of metadata, the better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I'm done processing, keywording &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; geotagging my RAW files, I export sRGB JPEG copies (and upload them to Flickr from Lightroom later on). My export preset automatically creates files that follow the &quot;Scene - City, State - YY, Mon - Counter&quot; naming convention, fields that I have filled by now (the date is found in the photo itself of course). I finally use Lightroom to quickly move the files to a subdir under a broad category subfolder (Celebrations, Urban Exploration, etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At this point what I have is a catalog/database that I can explore by metadata (date, location, scene, keywords), as well as a reasonably clear directory structure that I can use without Lightroom. This directory structure tells me what, where and when just by looking at the file names. My XBox will organize and present my photos the same way. A simple file search will quickly retrieve my photos based on these criteria.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This whole JPEG directory doesn't have to be managed by LR, but I found it pretty convenient since I still have a lot of JPG files that don't have a RAW counterpart. Why manage some, and not the others? Granted, keyword searching will return both the RAW file and JPEG file (since the JPEG file has the same keywords), but this can be easily worked out by adding a rule that will filter our either JPG or RAW/DNG files (in smart collections especially). I also use smart collections of course, to keep track of the files, versions and virtual copies I used for clients, galleries, contests and print shops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, this worked fine so far, but I have only 6000 photos in there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-01T03:48:51.937" LastActivityDate="2010-09-01T03:48:51.937" />
  <row Id="2955" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3708" CreationDate="2010-09-01T01:40:22.823" Score="5" ViewCount="221" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have lots of Lightroom presets that are great, but some of them are a bit to severe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a way to apply a preset at 50% strength for example?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="142" LastActivityDate="2010-10-03T14:09:24.383" Title="Is there a way to partially apply a preset in Lightroom 3?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;presets&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="2956" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2955" CreationDate="2010-09-01T03:32:18.210" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately no, there is no direct way to partially apply a preset in LR3. A &quot;Fade preset&quot; slider is sorely missing, in my opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is however pretty easy to achieve if you have Photoshop. There are a few ways to do it, but at the end of the day it boils down to sending your original file to PS as a layer A, then sending your file with the preset fully applied to PS as a layer B, and fading the top layer to reveal more or less of the original A. By fading B, you are essentially displaying something &quot;in-between&quot; A and B.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Step by step, using virtual copy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Go to the Develop module.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Select your photo (in this example, a color photo).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Right-click and create a virtual copy.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Apply the preset to the virtual copy (in this example the 'B&amp;amp;W Creative - Look 1' preset for illustration purposes).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In the film strip at the bottom (or from the Grid in the Library module), select both the original and the virtual copy, either by using Control+Click on each, or Shift+Click since they should be next to each other.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Right-click on any of those 2 photos and select 'Edit in -&gt; Open as Layers in Photoshop' (see screenshot, look at how the virtual copy in the film strip is completely B&amp;amp;W).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In Photoshop, you should now have one single file opened with 2 layers, one containing the original, the other containing the virtual copy with the preset applied.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make sure the virtual copy is the top layer by dragging/reordering the layers as needed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Select the top layer and drag the opacity slider on top of the layer panel to the strength you are looking for. In your case, 50%. Check the screenshot, the resulting image is a blend between the two layers (in this example, a sepia blend between the color original and the B&amp;amp;W virtual copy).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Exit Photoshop, don't forget to 'Save Changes' when you are asked to.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Back in LR, a new PSD image should be in your catalog. If it's not, right-click on the folder containing your original file in the Library module and select &quot;Synchronize folder&quot; to bring the new PSD file. This is your resulting image.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There you have it. It's actually pretty easy to do, practice makes perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are unhappy with the blend, right-click on the PSD file in LR, select &quot;Edit in Adobe Photoshop&quot;, &quot;Edit Original&quot;, then re-adjust the opacity to apply more or less of the virtual copy preset. Save and go back to LR to watch the result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you are satisfied with the blend and if you are short on disk-space, you may want to open the PSD file once more and merge both layers. You won't be able to adjust the blend after that but your file will be significantly smaller. You can also get rid of the virtual copy at this point but they are really cheap to keep around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/vmZfS.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NenKw.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-01T06:35:04.280" LastActivityDate="2010-09-01T06:35:04.280" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2957" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8" CreationDate="2010-09-01T03:48:56.477" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, you will save a lot of effort by adopting a software that includes worflow management and Digital Asset Management. Aperture, Lightroom, or even Adobe Bridge to name a few. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a bit arbitrary but works for me as a hybrid between a keyword-based and a directory-based workflow management. I use a very specific directory structure explained below. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I do like and use metadata, keywords and smart collections, there is a drawback to them: what happens if I want to look at and &lt;em&gt;search&lt;/em&gt; my files on a computer that doesn't have Lightroom installed for example? How can I share my photos on my network with devices like an XBox or an old piece of electronic that only supports a directory-based structure, as opposed to a database? What if I need to quickly send my photos with my phone, or create a ZIP files for friends or clients?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my directory structure &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; database I keep track of both the RAW files &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; sRGB JPEG exported copies. The JPEG files are stored in a subfolder level by broad category first (say Celebration, Concerts, Sports, Urban Exploration). At the second level I use a strict &quot;What - Where - When&quot; naming convention automatically generated by Lightroom (most DAM apps support this feature). The RAW files are stored by year, then by date with a short description.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It looks like this from both the catalog/database/library view and a basic File Explorer (this is only a subset of course):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Pictures/&#xA;    JPEG/&#xA;        Celebrations/&#xA;            St. Patrick's Day - Albany, NY - 09, Mar/&#xA;                St. Patrick's Day - Albany, NY - 09, Mar - 01.jpg&#xA;                St. Patrick's Day - Albany, NY - 09, Mar - 02.jpg&#xA;                ...&#xA;            4th of July - Albany, NY - 09, Jul/&#xA;        Urban Exploration/&#xA;            Hudson Cement Factory - Kingston, NY - 10, May/&#xA;    RAW/&#xA;        2009/&#xA;            2009-03-22 (St. Patrick's Day)/&#xA;                _MG_9046.dng&#xA;                _MG_9047.dng&#xA;                ...&#xA;            2009-07-04 (4th of July)/&#xA;        2010/&#xA;            2010-05-12 (Hudson Cement Factory)/&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I import my RAW files, I let Lightroom put them automatically in a RAW/year/year-month-day folder, based on the date the photos were taken on. I then add a suffix to that directory with a quick description (say St. Patrick's Day or Hudson Cement Factory, etc). I select all my RAW files, and update their metadata by setting the Scene attribute to &quot;what&quot; the subject is (here St. Patrick's Day or Hudson Cement Factory, which I still have conveniently in my Copy/Paste buffer). I also set the Location attributes, i.e. the City, State and Country. The earlier you set this kind of metadata, the better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I'm done processing, keywording &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; geotagging my RAW files, I export sRGB JPEG copies (and upload them to Flickr from Lightroom later on). My export preset automatically creates files that follow the &quot;Scene - City, State - YY, Mon - Counter&quot; naming convention, fields that I have filled by now (the date is found in the photo itself of course). I finally use Lightroom to quickly move the files to a subdir under a broad category subfolder (Celebrations, Urban Exploration, etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At this point what I have is a catalog/database that I can explore by metadata (date, location, scene, keywords), as well as a reasonably clear directory structure that I can use without Lightroom. This directory structure tells me what, where and when just by looking at the file names. My XBox will organize and present my photos the same way. A simple file search will quickly retrieve my photos based on these criteria.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This whole JPEG directory doesn't have to be managed by LR, but I found it pretty convenient since I still have a lot of JPG files that don't have a RAW counterpart. Why manage some, and not the others? Granted, keyword searching will return both the RAW file and JPEG file (since the JPEG file has the same keywords), but this can be easily worked out by adding a rule that will filter our either JPG or RAW/DNG files (in smart collections especially). I also use smart collections of course, to keep track of the files, versions and virtual copies I used for clients, galleries, contests and print shops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, this worked fine so far, but I have only 6000 photos in there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2010-09-01T03:48:56.477" />
  <row Id="2958" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2358" CreationDate="2010-09-01T04:23:07.643" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Alan pointed out, this is most likely a color management issue. Definitely try to download the image from Flickr, re-import it in LR3 and I'm pretty confident it will look just fine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is catch though. I went back &amp;amp; forth for a while reporting this issue in the Firefox bug tracker last year (issue &lt;a href=&quot;https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=497363&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;497363&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=509710&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;509710&lt;/a&gt;) but unfortunately it isn't as easy as enabling an option. ICC profiles differ in structure and capabilities. A few of us had calibrated monitors but Firefox appeared to be unable to interpret the corresponding ICC profile correctly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seemed especially true for people using high-gamut monitors, i.e. any monitor that can typically display 95% or more of the AdobeRGB color space. High-gamut monitors are spectacular to use and more and more common but this is the price to pay if your applications are not properly color-managed. Your photos will look great in LR, but not so much outside this app. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't tried any Firefox beta version since then, I just got used to this issue. If you do try a newer version, I'd love to hear about it. Don't lighten your photos and don't use AdobeRGB, ever, stick to the web-friendly sRGB color space. Given time, color management will permeate more component on Windows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Firefox issue: 497363 &lt;a href=&quot;https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=497363&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=497363&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Firefox issue 509710: &lt;a href=&quot;https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=509710&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=509710&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-01T06:24:58.983" LastActivityDate="2010-09-01T06:24:58.983" />
  <row Id="2959" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2384" CreationDate="2010-09-01T04:31:20.647" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've done this extensively and successfully, so let me advise two tools, especially if you are using Lightroom 2. Note that I haven't used the 'Publish to Flickr' service now available in Lightroom 3, I'm pretty sure it's worth investigating first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;FlickrMetadataSynchr&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;URL: &lt;a href=&quot;http://flickrmetadatasynchr.codeplex.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://flickrmetadatasynchr.codeplex.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This worked flawlessly for me. It allows you to synchronize metadata added to images stored on Flickr with the original versions of those images stored locally on your hard drive. If you don't have the original version on your hard drive, the application can download the missing pictures for you. The app can sync the metadata two-way on a picture-by-picture and metadata field-by-field basis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is what you need to keep in mind though: do &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; use LR at the same time. Exit the app before syncing. Once you have synced your metadata/tags, you need to let LR know it should update its own keywords database with the new tags you imported withFlickrMetadataSynchr, otherwise they won't show up. You do &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; need to re-import your JPG files if you have them already in LR: just select the files then use &quot;Metadata &gt; Read Metadata from File(s)&quot;. WARNING: this &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; replace the metadata that was in your LR catalog for said files, so make sure you write any metadata back first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me clarify this last warning: say you imported JPG files in LR, then added some keywords. These keywords are stored in the catalog, not in the JPG's EXIF section. Before syncing with FlickrMetadataSynchr, select your files and use &quot;Metadata &gt; Save Metadata to File(s)&quot; to write the keywords back as tags. Exit LR, then use FlickrMetadataSynchr to merge the tags from Flickr with yours. Now use &quot;Metadata &gt; Read Metadata from File(s)&quot;, and you should have all your tags as keywords, both the ones you added in LR, and the ones you imported from Flickr.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, I strongly suggest your run FlickrMetadataSynchr in &quot;Simulate updating Metadata&quot; mode first, to evaluate what is going to happen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A second tool I've used extensively works the other way around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;FlickrSync&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;URL: &lt;a href=&quot;http://flickrsync.freehostia.com/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://flickrsync.freehostia.com/index.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This app displays your local folders and your flickr sets and can establish synchronization rules between them. You can manage all your photos locally and FlickrSync will keep them updated in flickr. For about 6 months I didn't have a clue about color management and was uploading my Flickr photos in AdobeRGB space. A big no no. I converted all my JPG photos back to sRGB and used FlickrSync to &lt;em&gt;replace&lt;/em&gt; the old files with the new versions. This is definitely a case where you do not want to invalidate the old photo page, lose your tag or any of the links going to that photo. That tool did the job, updating the existing photo on Flickr with my new sRGB file.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-01T06:26:24.343" LastActivityDate="2010-09-01T06:26:24.343" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2961" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2946" CreationDate="2010-09-01T08:12:58.063" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If #3 is true, then you could take a 4-stop overexposed RAW picture at ISO 1600, and then in post processing produce a JPEG at ISO 100 that would be the same as if the original photo had been shot at ISO 100.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No. If you take a picture with the ISO 100 setting you get a different exposure (more light on the chip) than with the ISO 1600 setting. No matter how the amplification (in hardware or software) is achieved, your ISO 1600 picture will carry more noise than an ISO 100 image. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1260" LastActivityDate="2010-09-01T08:12:58.063" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2962" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2964" CreationDate="2010-09-01T08:29:43.957" Score="8" ViewCount="143" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am planning to converge on the Canon EOS 1000D as the camera to purchase. The other considerations were EOS 500D and EOS 550D, but they are much more than what I want to spend right now. (2nd hand purchases are a bit dicey, so I'm not considering some of the other models usually recommended in other threads here).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would like to know what important controls are missing (or are difficult to access because of no dedicated button) on the 1000D. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I read in one of the threads that metering is one such issue, as it has to be accessed only via the LCD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any such pain points, due to which I should consider the 500D (which is the next camera in terms of features and price, although at a significant difference).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My target shots are general landscape, potraits, etc. Nothing &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; high speed, or &lt;em&gt;very high&lt;/em&gt; macro. Planning to get the 18-55 kit + 50mm 1/8 prime, and possible the 18-135 if budget allows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;** Edit **&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have already compared these, and more models, on dpreview and understand the sensor limitations, lack of movie recording, and lower ISO range. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks !&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1170" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T19:21:40.760" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T19:21:40.760" Title="What (important) controls are missing from EOS 1000D (w.r.t 5xxD)" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;canon-1000d&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="2963" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2962" CreationDate="2010-09-01T08:40:18.613" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As for control, I think they both have the same number of buttons/controls. For a complete comparison you can always use dpreview.com: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sidebyside.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sidebyside.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are the main things I can find:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No high ISO&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No movie capability&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sub-standard LCD&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="72" LastActivityDate="2010-09-01T08:40:18.613" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="2964" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2962" CreationDate="2010-09-01T09:38:01.493" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Spot metering would be handy, especially for portraits, but you can always take a test shot first and check the histogram.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wireless remote control is also a nice-to-have, for example setting up a wildlife shot and then retreating from the camera. However you will still have the option of using a cable release.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also the viewfinder is slightly smaller (0.81x vs 0.87x) on the 1000D but that falls into teh category of 'you get what you pay for'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="185" LastActivityDate="2010-09-01T09:38:01.493" />
  <row Id="2965" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2967" CreationDate="2010-09-01T10:22:59.460" Score="9" ViewCount="133" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to get all my old slides and negatives converted to digital.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;There is no way that a clutz like me is going to make a good job of doing this myself.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have about 3000 images to convert.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Has anyone had any experience with scanning services?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Can you recommend one?  (Or warn me away from any bad ones!)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In particular, can you recommend a service in the UK?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T11:25:27.813" Title="Any experience of Scanning Services?" Tags="&lt;scanning&gt;&lt;scanning-service&gt;&lt;service-recommendation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="2966" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2968" CreationDate="2010-09-01T17:23:40.117" Score="9" ViewCount="164" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I last checked years ago, the price of a typical Ring flash unit was approximately $500. Nowadays there are still ring flashes for approx. $500 like Pentax AF160FC, Pentax AF-140C, Canon MR-14EX, Sigma EM-140 DG ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, there are &quot;noname&quot; LED ring flashes for approx. $50. The price is very tempting maybe a bit too cheap. What's the main difference? Do they really that bad?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="507" LastActivityDate="2010-09-01T22:32:44.990" Title="Cheap macro ring flashes" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;ring-flash&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="2967" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2965" CreationDate="2010-09-01T17:27:54.810" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've only used them for a minimal amount of work myself but know of LOTS of folks who have had large collections scanned by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scancafe.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ScanCafe&lt;/a&gt;.  I can't speak to their availability for the UK.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-09-01T17:27:54.810" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2968" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2966" CreationDate="2010-09-01T17:50:09.237" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not having owned a cheap-o ring flash, I can only guess what the tradeoffs might be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cheaper build quality &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Inconsistent Light Output&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No &quot;Bang-bang-bang&quot; shooting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Little/no camera interfacing (ie no support for Canon's E-TTL)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Weaker light output&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, for $50, if you can swing it, it seems like it might be worth it to first try using a ring-flash and get the hang of it, before moving onto a more expensive solution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may also want to look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strobist&lt;/a&gt;. He/They periodically do comparisons on so called &quot;ebay-gear&quot; and give honest, objective feedback taking into consideration price/performance capabilities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-01T19:50:50.743" LastActivityDate="2010-09-01T19:50:50.743" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2969" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2966" CreationDate="2010-09-01T18:28:10.787" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;All the things Alan said, plus the more expensive ring flashes give you more control over the lighting ratio - generally the left and right sides are separate bulbs and you can set one to fire brighter than the other. Additionally, they can act as master flash units, whereby you can set up other flash units to synchronise wirelessly with the main camera-attached flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-09-01T18:28:10.787" />
  <row Id="2970" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2108" CreationDate="2010-09-01T20:13:01.677" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For another perspective:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Kevin Kubota, who runs a wedding and portrait studio, recommends using one catalog per job, for precisely the concern you outlined above.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For his sitation, it's more important that the catalog perform quickly.  For a particular job, he will have several folders representing different stages of the job (e.g. originals, edited-out, jpg-proofs, slideshow, and prints) so you still have some structure to navigate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For him, if he still needs searching, he uses a different indexing program which uses the keywords and information from the EXIF file.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-09-01T20:13:01.677" />
  <row Id="2971" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2972" CreationDate="2010-09-01T20:18:43.130" Score="7" ViewCount="443" Body="&lt;p&gt;How can I be sure to get a &quot;good&quot; preset white balance reading?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only thing I know to make sure is that the card fills the frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many times I get the &quot;no good&quot; indication when I shoot the gray card, both inside and outdoors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can be sure to get the &quot;good&quot; indication right away?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T19:57:36.837" LastActivityDate="2010-10-22T18:08:07.127" Title="Why would D90 preset white balance be no good?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;white-balance&gt;&lt;nikon-d90&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2972" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2971" CreationDate="2010-09-01T20:31:58.973" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have had that problem when I don't have the exposure set correctly before try to set it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="992" LastActivityDate="2010-09-01T20:31:58.973" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2973" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2976" CreationDate="2010-09-01T21:50:37.887" Score="5" ViewCount="355" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been using &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.friedemann-schmidt.com/software/exifer/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exifer&lt;/a&gt; for many years to re-date and re-name my photos based on the EXIF dates from the camera(s).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have now started using some alternative camera apps available on the iPhone (specifically &lt;a href=&quot;http://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/plastiq-camera/id356126212?mt=8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Plastiq Camera&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/hipstamatic/id342115564?mt=8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hipstamatic&lt;/a&gt;) but these do not save any EXIF information in the images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I would like to do then is to insert the &lt;code&gt;Date Digitised&lt;/code&gt;, &lt;code&gt;Date Taken&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;Date Modified&lt;/code&gt; EXIF values based on the JPG file's &lt;code&gt;Modified Date&lt;/code&gt; (which is correct to the time of taking the photo) and to also set the &lt;code&gt;Make&lt;/code&gt; to &lt;code&gt;Apple&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;Model&lt;/code&gt; to &lt;code&gt;iPhone 3GS&lt;/code&gt; (although the process would apply to any JPG image which has no EXIF data, regardless of the source)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have looked at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.friedemann-schmidt.com/software/exifer/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exifer&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.irfanview.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;IrfanView&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ExifTool&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://picasa.google.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Picasa&lt;/a&gt; and others and they either cannot set the dates at all or can only set them to a specific date/time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, is there any software available which will automatically set the EXIF Dates based on the file's Modified date property?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, is there some switch in ExifTool that I have missed possibly?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to be able to do this as a batch on a folder of images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT: Following John's answer&lt;/strong&gt;, this is the Windows .bat file I created to do this. The order of commands is important so as not to overwrite any of the dates with other commands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;&quot;D:\Program Files\ExifTool\exiftool.exe&quot; &quot;-FileModifyDate&amp;gt;AllDates&quot; *&#xA;&quot;D:\Program Files\ExifTool\exiftool.exe&quot; &quot;-Make=Apple&quot; *&#xA;&quot;D:\Program Files\ExifTool\exiftool.exe&quot; &quot;-Model=iPhone 3GS&quot; *&#xA;&quot;D:\Program Files\ExifTool\exiftool.exe&quot; &quot;-FileModifyDate&amp;lt;DateTimeOriginal&quot; *&#xA;&#xA;Pause&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="86" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-31T13:45:45.167" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T13:45:45.167" Title="Insert EXIF Dates from File Modified Date" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;exif&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2974" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2973" CreationDate="2010-09-01T22:27:00.383" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This can be done with a Python script, along the lines of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;import sys, os, datetime&#xA;filename = sys.argv[1]&#xA;ts = datetime.datetime.fromtimestamp(os.stat(filename).st_mtime)&#xA;ts_string = ts.strftime('%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S')&#xA;os.system('some_exif_tool -ts &quot;%s&quot; &quot;%s&quot;' % (ts_string, filename))&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(I know this isn't really photographer-friendly answer, there's hope it might be helpful for someone.)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-09-01T22:27:00.383" />
  <row Id="2975" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2966" CreationDate="2010-09-01T22:32:44.990" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've just bought a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ray-flash.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ray Flash adapter&lt;/a&gt;, and it looks like it might easily work for macro as well. All the TTL abilities of your regular flash still work, which is nice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-09-01T22:32:44.990" />
  <row Id="2976" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2973" CreationDate="2010-09-01T22:33:45.290" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you can do it with ExifTool:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;exiftool -v &quot;-FileModifyDate&amp;gt;DateTimeOriginal&quot; *&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tried on some copies of jpegs and it seems to have worked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-09-01T22:33:45.290" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2977" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2962" CreationDate="2010-09-01T22:41:01.073" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I know 1000D does not have proximity sensor that turns off the main LCD when you raise the camera to your eye. (One thing I'd really miss when using 1000D is a status LCD, but 550D doesn't have it either so that's a moot point when you're choosing between those two.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-09-01T22:41:01.073" />
  <row Id="2978" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2971" CreationDate="2010-09-01T22:43:04.147" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On my D70s this used to happen to me until I realized that you need to include other colors/darks/etc. beside the card itself. In other words, take a step back from the white object/paper/card or zoom out and fire again. Try it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="109" LastEditorUserId="109" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-22T18:08:07.127" LastActivityDate="2010-10-22T18:08:07.127" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2979" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1940" CreationDate="2010-09-01T22:50:55.513" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For what it's worth, dirt on the lens might not be as detrimental as you would think.&#xA;Kurt Munger performed a few tests comparing a clean lens, a lens with dirt, dust, fingerprints and even bits of masking tape, and a lens with a completely busted front element. The results are surprising.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Based on my un-scientific testing, I'd&#xA;  say there isn't any noticeable&#xA;  reduction in image quality as a result&#xA;  of normal dirt, smudges and small&#xA;  scratches on the front element.  My&#xA;  dirt, smudges and scratches presented&#xA;  here are clearly more numerous and&#xA;  larger than what I'd consider&#xA;  &quot;normal,&quot; but as I've shown, they have&#xA;  little effect on image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2010-09-01T22:50:55.513" />
  <row Id="2980" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="694" CreationDate="2010-09-01T23:47:11.500" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Something that hasn't been mentioned yet: in 'Catalog Settings' turn off 'Automatically write changes into XMP'. This will prevent LR from automatically dumping its catalog metadata, keywords, rating, labels and develop settings back to your photo files. By doing so you will reduce the number of disk operations performed by LR. You can still write your metadata back manually, as &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2680/lightroom-data-storage/2953#2953&quot;&gt;I describe in this other question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have 8GB of RAM and I process 21MP RAW files out of a Canon 5DMII. Increasing disk performance is how I made it run faster. I replaced a pair of fairly zippy Hitachi SATA 15,000 RPM drives by a pair of 160GB Intel X25G2 SSD. Be careful with your choice of SSD drives, they are not born equal. Most of them read really fast, but many are slow on write. Pair your SSD with a modern operating system like Windows 7, one that supports the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;TRIM&lt;/a&gt; command. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What should you put on a SSD and what should you leave on a standard drive? Opinions differ, but here is what I would recommend: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;your LR catalog file (Lightroom 3 Catalog.lrcat), which is where LR stores its metadata, keywords, rating, labels and develop settings&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;your Previews directory (Lightroom 3 Catalog Previews.lrdata), which is where LR stores intermediate representation of your photos for faster viewing (1:1, low res, thumbnails, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;your Adobe Camera RAW Cache (ACR Cache)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;your RAW files, or at least a subset of them&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the Camera RAW Cache? Quoting Jeff Schewe via Luminous Landscape Forum&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Every time you open an image in Camera&#xA;  Raw the full resolution of the image&#xA;  must be loaded into Camera Raw… as you&#xA;  can imagine, this can be pretty&#xA;  processor intensive… the Camera Raw&#xA;  cache will cache recently opened&#xA;  images to make re-opening them faster.&#xA;  There’s a preference limit to&#xA;  determine the size and the cache will&#xA;  remain constant in size by flushing&#xA;  out older cache files when newer&#xA;  images are loaded into Camera Raw.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can change the default location of your catalog, previews and Camera RAW Cache from the Preferences and group them on the same SSD. I would definitely recommend increasing the size of your ACR Cache, if you can afford it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;RAW files are big. You don't need to have all of them on a SSD, but what about the past 6 months worth of photos? Move older photos back to a standard drive every month or so (do it from LR of course).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you need to put LR or the whole Operating System on a SSD? If you can, sure, it will start faster and feel a bit more responsive, but I don't think it's critical. If you don't have a lot of RAM though, try to put your page file and TEMP directories on the SSD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should you go RAID0? I really recommend against it, unless you have really strong backup habits and monitor your RAID controller regularly. Remember, RAID0 uses 2 drives: if one dies, you lose the data on both. Don't risk it. I personally like RAID1 a lot for this very reason and from past experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, you will &quot;feel&quot; LR run faster if you let it generate your 1:1 photo previews during import. I usually do something else during import anyway, run some errands or whatnot. In any case LR has to generate your 1:1 previews soon or later when you go to the Develop module, right?, so you might as well let this happen during import.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-01T23:52:20.550" LastActivityDate="2010-09-01T23:52:20.550" />
  <row Id="2981" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2982" CreationDate="2010-09-02T00:52:47.130" Score="6" ViewCount="474" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like a great multi purpose lens that could work of a full frame body. At the moment am tossing between getting the 24-70 2.8 from Canon or selling my gear and moving to a Nikon (since all my good lenses are EF-S and I will need to buy new lenses anyway if I move to full frame). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know I can not go wrong with either brand, but would like to know what the equivalent offering to Canon's L 24-70 2.8 is in the Nikon range? What are its pros and cons over the Canon lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="230" LastEditorUserId="230" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-02T08:41:15.580" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T08:41:15.580" Title="What is Nikon's equivalent to the Canon L series EF 24-70 2.8?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="2982" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2981" CreationDate="2010-09-02T03:16:55.097" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nikon has an incredible 24-70/2.8 lens.  I own it, and the images that come out of it are tack sharp.  Also, its autofocus speed and accuracy are unmatched among all midrange Nikon zooms that I've used.  It's quite large and heavy, so some people don't like that, but that's the necessary evil of a 2.8 zoom.  Here is a link to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24-70mm.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ken Rockwell's writeup&lt;/a&gt; on the Nikon 24-70/2.8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="309" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T03:16:55.097" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="2983" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2010-09-02T03:36:20.683" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;When it comes to photography, the Aperture refers to the opening in the lens diaphragm. The diaphragm is a thin multi-bladed plane with an opening in it (the aperture) situated at the point in a lens where light converges and inverts. Adjusting the blades allows the aperture to be opened or closed at specific settings, called stops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aperture is one of the key elements in the exposure triad. It controls how much light passes through the lens and reaches the imaging plane. Aperture is also the key element of control over depth of field in a shot, as tighter apertures (smaller opening) allow for greater depth than wider apertures (bigger opening). Aperture is usually rated in stops, where each stop is a difference of twice the area of the opening. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The aperture of a lens rated in &quot;effective&quot; aperture values, such as f/2.8, f/5.6, etc. (which differ from the true physical size of the aperture.) This refers to the maximum aperture of the lens. Lenses also have a minimum aperture, which varies between lenses, but is usually somewhere between f/22 and f/64, with a very common minimum aperture being f/32. The maximum aperture of a lens is often also used to indicate a lenses &quot;speed&quot;. Wider maximum apertures are &quot;faster&quot; lenses, as they allow more light to pass at any given moment. Tighter maximum apertures are &quot;slower&quot; lenses, as they allow less light to pass at any given moment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-17T19:03:44.283" LastActivityDate="2010-09-17T19:03:44.283" />
  <row Id="2984" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2987" CreationDate="2010-09-02T04:09:55.887" Score="13" ViewCount="412" Body="&lt;p&gt;My Canon 450D can (or at least has) survived light rain, condensation in the cold and a little icing up overnight during astrophotography...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The various different levels of camera above the Rebel/XXXD range talk about improved weather sealing, and of course the L lenses do too... but I've never seen an indication of exactly &quot;how sealed&quot; they are. People talk about the 1D/5D having better sealing than the 7D which is in turn better than XXD series, and that the Rebel/XXXD series just don't have it (though obviously the plastic shell offers &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; basic protection). But what's the &lt;em&gt;difference&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, &lt;strong&gt;what is the &lt;em&gt;quantitative&lt;/em&gt; difference between the weather sealing on a 50D vs 7D vs 5D vs 1D?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm referring to Canon models only due to familiarity with them, I'm pretty sure this all applies to any brand offering weather sealing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a system called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Code&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;IP Ratings&lt;/a&gt; which define weather sealing against dust/moisture. Do weather-sealed DSLRs meet any of those criteria? By which I mean, does the &lt;em&gt;manufacturer&lt;/em&gt; make IP rating claims? (It's all good and well to say &quot;I once splashed water on my ... and it's fine&quot; but that's no better than me getting ice/condensation all over my 450D and 10-22 and being lucky it still works fine).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or is there some other specification which the different models meet? Ideally I'm after &lt;em&gt;objective&lt;/em&gt; claims that can be made to differentiate between the levels of weather sealing (e.g. &quot;safe in any level of rain&quot;, or &quot;safe to submerse in water&quot;, or &quot;safe on the beach/in a dust storm/...&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not upgrading my camera body just yet, but plan to in a year or two and want to know if there's one that's going to be safer to use in some more extreme conditions, and whether I'll have a warranty after taking it there (;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-02T12:42:52.120" LastActivityDate="2010-09-08T21:16:21.117" Title="What's the difference between the levels of weather sealing on DSLRs (e.g. 50D vs 7D vs 5D vs 1D)?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;weather&gt;&lt;body&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="2985" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2986" CreationDate="2010-09-02T04:54:37.717" Score="7" ViewCount="264" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've just about used every cent I can afford on my DSLR and an extra lens and a tripod and a friend of mine suggested I come along and do a casual photo shoot of two bands that are staying at her house in the next few weeks for some gigs in town. I was wondering if anyone had any cheap lighting tricks or gear they've gotten away with in case we get a bit more serious during the shoot?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, would a couple of cheap lights / flash lights be helpful as well as those black, grey or white sheets of material?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've never done anything more than spontaneous non-portrait photography and wanted to at least have a few things I could try.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T05:06:03.420" Title="Photoshoot lighting on a shoestring budget?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;photo-shoot&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="2986" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2985" CreationDate="2010-09-02T05:06:03.420" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you can borrow a camera mounted, TTL-enabled, flash (i.e. an external one, not the pop-up) that can point sideways/backwards it's pretty useful for some basic but effective improvement in lighting. A big white sheet or just the walls if they're light and neutral-coloured are great as reflectors — have them off to the side or behind you and you'll get some nice even lighting from one direction (and the TTL means you're not fiddling with settings/learning too much as you go).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Set up is particularly easy because you just need someone to hold the sheet and move it around a bit (no big lights on stands and power cords).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T05:06:03.420" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="2987" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2984" CreationDate="2010-09-02T05:12:54.547" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not aware of any specific claims for immersion, rain or dust resistance made for any SLRs.  I've not read every warranty, but if there was even one that covered water damage I'd be surprised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Weather sealing is typically a combination of high-tolerance, tight-fitting joints and gaskets.  &quot;Better&quot; sealing essentially consists of more sealing in more places.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The closest thing I know of to objective data are renderings of weather sealing locations (courtesy dpreview.com):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5dmarkii/page5.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;5DmkII&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS5DMarkII/Images/seals.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS5DMarkII/Images/seals-001.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon D700&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/images/features/D700_Sealed_back_l.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/images/features/D700_Sealed_front_l-001.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/images/features/D700_Sealed_back_l.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/images/features/D700_Sealed_back_l-001.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an aside, an interesting (though apocryphal) trick from the first Gulf War to keep dust off of cameras and film was to store them immersed them in water - the catch being you needed an a camera like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/htmls/nikonos.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikonos&lt;/a&gt;, which is rated to something like 60m depth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="496" LastEditorUserId="94" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-08T21:16:21.117" LastActivityDate="2010-09-08T21:16:21.117" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="2988" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2946" CreationDate="2010-09-02T05:32:58.070" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, ISO setting does affect the image data stored in the RAW file. Here are two images, shot at the same time/place (almost - this was shot hand-held, without much attention to composition), with the same aperture (f/2.8) and shutter speed (1/100).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This first image was shot at ISO 100 and adjusted +2 stops in ACR to an effective ISO of ~400. All adjustments besides exposure were zeroed (No noise reduction, sharpening, contrast adjustments, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/9kJ2V.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This image was shot at ISO 1600 and adjusted -2 stops in ACR to an effective ISO of ~400. Again, all adjustments were zeroed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/qWl94.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice the blown-out highlights in the second image. Same amount of light hitting the sensor each time, but different information recorded in the RAW file.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T05:32:58.070" />
  <row Id="2989" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2981" CreationDate="2010-09-02T05:36:49.213" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As others have already pointed out, Nikon also has a 24-70/2.8. Since your question stems from switching to full frame, that's what you probably care about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a preface, the two lenses are &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; similar on APS-sensor cameras. The Canon seems a bit sharper toward the short end, while the Nikkor is a bit sharper toward the long end. For that situation, it's mostly a question of which end you tend to use more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a full frame camera, the same isn't really the case. Like most lenses, they both get softer toward the edges on a full-frame camera -- but the Nikon doesn't lose as much quality as the Canon. As on APS, the Nikkor is at its worst toward the short end, and anywhere from about 35-70 it's quite good across the frame, even wide open. The Canon does really well around 35-50mm, but gets pretty soft at the edges when you go toward either the short &lt;em&gt;or&lt;/em&gt; the long end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On APS sensors, it's pretty much a toss-up. On full-frame, at least to me, the Nikon seems to be a better lens -- not by a huge margin, but better nonetheless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T05:36:49.213" />
  <row Id="2990" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3020" CreationDate="2010-09-02T08:36:10.560" Score="7" ViewCount="230" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am new to photography, recently I bought a new camera which is Panasonic Fz35 which has lots of nice features in it. However while browsing through the settings mode, I found an option for Metering mode. There is no help on that in instructions manual nor in the help of camera. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone tell me what is this used for and how to use this for photo shoots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1272" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-02T16:55:26.273" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T16:55:26.273" Title="Metering mode in panasonic Fz35" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;metering&gt;&lt;panasonic&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="2991" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3018" CreationDate="2010-09-02T08:43:23.500" Score="7" ViewCount="80" Body="&lt;p&gt;I currently have 2 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00006HC7F?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;tag=ajsstuff&amp;amp;linkCode=as2&amp;amp;camp=1634&amp;amp;creative=19450&amp;amp;creativeASIN=B00006HC7F&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Vivitar 285&lt;/a&gt; strobes.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;These are working very nicely for me. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to buy 2 more strobes, and I would be quite happy with the Vivitars, but I would also like to consider either the  &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2010/06/lumppro-lp160-quad-sync-v20.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LumoPro LP160&lt;/a&gt; or something similar.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I typically shoot with the flashes off-camera in manual mode.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I use a cheap radio trigger.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is:  will I have problems if I start mixing different makes of strobe? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you for any advice.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-02T12:02:54.807" LastActivityDate="2010-09-03T09:53:53.810" Title="Is it OK to use different kinds of strobes together?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;strobes&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="2992" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2010-09-02T08:45:53.440" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="Canon is a prominent manufacturer of optical equipment, and particularly cameras and lenses.&#xA;&#xA;Their main photographic line website is at: www.canon.com/eos-d/&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-02T08:45:53.440" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T08:45:53.440" />
  <row Id="2993" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2010-08-12T12:48:58.757" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Four_Thirds_system&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Micro Four Thirds system&lt;/a&gt; is a standard that provides comparability between cameras and lenses from several different manufacturers that adhere to the standard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the distinguishing features is the sensor size, which is larger than most compact cameras, but smaller than a standard DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-12T12:48:58.757" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T12:48:58.757" />
  <row Id="2994" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2010-08-12T12:48:58.757" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="The Micro Four Thirds system is a standard that provides comparability between cameras and lenses from several different manufacturers that adhere to the standard.&#xA;&#xA;One of the distinguishing features is the sensor size, which is larger than most compact cameras, but smaller than a standard DSLR.&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-12T12:48:58.757" LastActivityDate="2010-08-12T12:48:58.757" />
  <row Id="2995" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2010-08-20T20:40:36.843" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Digital Single Lens Reflex (Digital SLR or DSLR) cameras use mirrors to allow the image coming through the lens to also be viewed through the camera's viewfinder. The mirror is flipped out of the way when the photographs are taken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This class of camera is the primary digital type used by professionals and are usually compatible with the lenses used on older Film SLR cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-04T13:50:49.750" LastActivityDate="2010-11-04T13:50:49.750" />
  <row Id="2996" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2010-08-20T20:40:36.843" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="Digital Single Lens Reflex (Digital SLR or DSLR) cameras use a mechanical system to allow the image coming through the lens to also be viewed through the camera's viewfinder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This class of camera is the primary digital type used by professionals and are usually compatible with the lenses used on older Film SLR cameras.&#xD;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-04T13:50:49.780" LastActivityDate="2010-11-04T13:50:49.780" />
  <row Id="2997" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2010-09-02T08:45:53.663" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="Adobe Lightroom is one of several professional level photo editing and management tools.&#xA;&#xA;It is commonly compared to Apple Aperture.&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-02T08:45:53.663" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T08:45:53.663" />
  <row Id="2998" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2010-08-11T16:42:21.260" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;While RAW is not an acronym, it is usually written in all-caps in the manner of&#xA;other image file formats, like TIFF, GIF, JPG/JPEG, and PNG. This helps distinguish the technical term from the English-language word. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many types of RAW formats, including, but not limited to, Canon (cr2/crw), Nikon (nef/nrw), Panasonic (raw/rw2), Pentax (ptx/pef), and Sony (arw/srf/sr2).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T00:53:25.333" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T00:53:25.333" />
  <row Id="2999" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2010-08-11T16:42:21.260" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="RAW refers to any of several native data formats that contain the full data captured by the sensor. Typically these are proprietary formats and each company uses it's own." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T00:53:25.363" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T00:53:25.363" />
  <row Id="3000" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2010-08-09T19:47:28.237" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_lens&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photographic lens&lt;/a&gt; is used to focus the light onto film or a digital sensor. Many cameras have interchangeable lens systems, allowing the photographer to choose the type of lens to use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many types of lenses, but they generally fall into two main types:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_lens&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fixed focal length (prime)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoom_lens&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Variable focal length (zoom)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;FAQ&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/496/what-do-all-those-cryptic-number-and-letter-codes-in-a-lens-name-mean&quot;&gt;What do all those cryptic number and letter codes in a lens name mean?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Using this tag&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lens tag should be used for questions whose content is directly related to a camera lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T19:47:28.237" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T19:47:28.237" />
  <row Id="3001" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2010-08-09T19:47:28.237" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="A photographic lens is used to focus the light onto film or a digital sensor. Many cameras have interchangeable lens systems, allowing the photographer to choose the type of lens to use." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-09T13:16:25.977" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T13:16:25.977" />
  <row Id="3002" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2010-08-09T19:56:31.383" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon&lt;/a&gt; is a prominent manufacturer of optical equipment, and particularly cameras and lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Their main photographic line website is at: &lt;a href=&quot;http://imaging.nikon.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;imaging.nikon.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T19:56:31.383" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T19:56:31.383" />
  <row Id="3003" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2010-08-09T19:56:31.383" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="Nikon is a prominent manufacturer of optical equipment, and particularly cameras and lenses.&#xA;&#xA;Their main photographic line website is at: imaging.nikon.com&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-09T19:56:31.383" LastActivityDate="2010-08-09T19:56:31.383" />
  <row Id="3004" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2010-09-02T08:45:54.183" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="Aperture is the opening in the diaphragm of a camera lens." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-02T08:45:54.183" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T08:45:54.183" />
  <row Id="3005" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2010-08-28T03:31:50.563" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;An optical 'zoom' or 'variable focal length' lens is one that has a range of focal lengths at which it can operate. &quot;Digital zoom&quot; is a technology which simulates optical zoom by cropping the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-28T03:31:50.563" LastActivityDate="2010-08-28T03:31:50.563" />
  <row Id="3006" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2010-08-28T03:31:50.563" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="An optical 'zoom' or 'variable focal length' lens is one that has a range of focal lengths at which it can operate. &quot;Digital zoom&quot; is a technology which simulates optical zoom by cropping the image.&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-28T03:31:50.563" LastActivityDate="2010-08-28T03:31:50.563" />
  <row Id="3007" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2010-08-28T03:26:59.530" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;A 'Prime' or 'fixed focal length' lens is one that has a single focal length. The alternative would be a multiple or variable focal length (zoom).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-28T03:26:59.530" LastActivityDate="2010-08-28T03:26:59.530" />
  <row Id="3008" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2010-08-28T03:26:59.530" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="Questions about lenses that have a fixed focal length." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T18:43:26.083" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T18:43:26.083" />
  <row Id="3009" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2010-08-17T12:51:35.810" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Macro photography&lt;/a&gt; is a specialized area typically dealing with very small subjects. There are also &quot;Macro Lenses&quot; which are designed with macro photography in mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;FAQ&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2149/what-is-a-macro-lens&quot;&gt;What is a Macro Lens?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-17T12:51:35.810" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T12:51:35.810" />
  <row Id="3010" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2010-08-17T12:51:35.810" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="Macro photography is a specialized area typically dealing with very small subjects. There are also &quot;Macro Lenses&quot; which are designed with macro photography in mind.&#xA;&#xA;FAQ&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;What is a Macro Lens?&#xA;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-08-17T12:51:35.810" LastActivityDate="2010-08-17T12:51:35.810" />
  <row Id="3011" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2010-08-09T20:09:50.040" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Image Stabilization&lt;/a&gt; (or Vibration Reduction) is a technology used to reduce the effects of camera shake.  This is done is several different ways, and different companies use different names.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Using this tag&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This tag applies to all types of image stabilization, regardless of the name or whether it happens in the lens, body, or digitally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should not be used for other means of reducing vibration, like tripods or tripod alternatives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T01:52:42.247" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T01:52:42.247" />
  <row Id="3012" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2010-08-09T20:09:50.040" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="Image Stabilization (or Vibration Reduction) is a technology used to reduce the effects of camera shake.  This is done is several different ways, and different companies use different names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using this tag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This tag applies to all types of image stabilization, regardless of the name or whether it happens in the lens, body, or digitally.&#xD;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T01:52:33.247" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T01:52:33.247" />
  <row Id="3013" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2010-08-10T17:15:17.227" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apple Aperture is one of several professional level photo editing and management tools. These tools help photographers create a workflow, simplifying the process of importing, processing, editing metadata and publishing photographs. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1230/apple-aperture-or-adobe-lightroom&quot;&gt;commonly compared&lt;/a&gt; to &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged?sort=info&amp;amp;tagnames=lightroom&quot;&gt;Adobe Lightroom&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="2127" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-09T12:55:42.843" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T12:55:42.843" />
  <row Id="3014" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2010-08-10T17:15:17.227" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="Apple Aperture is one of several professional level photo editing and management tools.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is commonly compared to Adobe Lightroom.&#xD;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="2127" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-09T12:55:46.850" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T12:55:46.850" />
  <row Id="3015" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3029" CreationDate="2010-09-02T08:46:30.393" Score="17" ViewCount="459" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm thinking about getting a combined monopod/trekking pole, as I use a trekking pole already and I can't really be bothered to carry a heavy tripod into the hills during daylight. I'm wondering how much difference they make. Is there a rule of thumb such as &quot;allows 2 stops better than 1 over focal length&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, does lens image stabilisation work with monopods? I believe you should turn it off when using a tripod, but I'm not sure with a monopod. Any ideas?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And as to weight, I have a Canon 40D and often use my 18-200 lens, so I think that makes between 1 and 2kg.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T18:37:35.560" Title="How good is a monopod?" Tags="&lt;image-stabilization&gt;&lt;monopod&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3016" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3015" CreationDate="2010-09-02T09:37:57.170" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As an alternative, may I mention &lt;a href=&quot;http://joby.com/gorillapod/slrzoom/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;tripods&lt;/a&gt; from Joby?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1296" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T09:37:57.170" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3017" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3015" CreationDate="2010-09-02T09:53:09.063" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find I get about 1 stop more by using a monopod. Maybe 2 stops, if I'm lucky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Functionally, it's pretty much the same as hand-holding, only a bit less shaky because the camera only has two degrees of freedom instead of three. So you can still make use of image stabilisation. Camera weight shouldn't be an issue, since the monopod won't be supporting the whole weight of the equipment anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously, a monopod won't do for really long exposures, nor for anything that relies on having the exact same camera position from one shot to the next.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the plus side: you can often get away with a monopod in places like museums that don't allow tripods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T09:53:09.063" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3018" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2991" CreationDate="2010-09-02T10:35:19.783" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In day to day use, you should not have any problems mixing manually controlled strobes, as long as the color of light from both is the same. I think you'd be fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1298" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T10:35:19.783" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3019" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2990" CreationDate="2010-09-02T11:24:27.877" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two manuals to be had on the Panasonic site at &lt;a href=&quot;http://service.us.panasonic.com/operman/findmanual.aspx?model=DMCFZ35&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://service.us.panasonic.com/operman/findmanual.aspx?model=DMCFZ35&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Metering mode is in the Advanced manual, page 142. Apparently it has three modes: multiple, centre-weighted and spot. The manual explains a bit more, and you might find the answers to &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/597/situations-suited-to-spot-metering&quot;&gt;situations suited to spot metering&lt;/a&gt;&quot; useful, too...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T11:24:27.877" />
  <row Id="3020" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2990" CreationDate="2010-09-02T11:26:51.850" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not familiar with Panasonics, but metering modes usually consist of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Evaluative/matrix metering (it takes readings from x spots all over the frame and averages them)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Center-weighted average (like the first one, except that reading from the center influences the result more than the rest of the frame)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Spot metering (takes reading only from small area of the frame, usually center, but it can also be bound to focus points in some cameras)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Evaluative metering&lt;/strong&gt; is universally applicable for most situations on digital camera, where you can easily take a picture, check it (maybe even together with histogram) and apply exposure compensation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll only need &lt;strong&gt;spot metering&lt;/strong&gt; in very tricky lightning situations, where the subject and background are so many stops apart, that you need to apply more exposure compensation than supported by camera (usually +-2 stops) or don't even fit in your camera's dynamic range (ie when shooting moon).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to &lt;strong&gt;center-weighted average&lt;/strong&gt;, I can't find realistic use case for it, as it is somewhere in between evaluative (which you simply have to trust) and spot metering (where you need to &lt;em&gt;think&lt;/em&gt; about exposure), but you never know how smart the algorithm actually is and when it will interfere with your intentions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you  want to delve into exposure and metering, your first step is to switch to spot metering and take the reading from different parts of the frame, think about how many stops is the difference and what you want to do about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-02T11:57:25.677" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T11:57:25.677" />
  <row Id="3021" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3015" CreationDate="2010-09-02T12:10:14.403" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One thing you may want to look for in a monopod is one that can become self standing. They're not as stable as a proper tripod, but under the right circumstances they can really help in getting some shots. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/site/manfrotto/cache/off/pid/2372?livid=107|117&amp;amp;idx=119&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Manfrotto&lt;/a&gt; makes one and there are others kicking around as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T12:10:14.403" />
  <row Id="3022" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1186" CreationDate="2010-09-02T12:37:09.280" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would be concerned about the sensor's Bayer filter.   If the red, green and blue dyes in the filter become discolored by your laser then your camera becomes color blind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would also be &lt;strong&gt;very&lt;/strong&gt; concerned about your eyes.  Never look through the viewfinder when playing with laser pointers.  Use a camera with live view.  If the laser destroys your camera you can buy a new one.  If it destroys your eyes, the damage will be permanent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T12:37:09.280" />
  <row Id="3023" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1326" CreationDate="2010-09-02T12:46:01.130" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matt's answer put me on the right track.  His solution works and made me discover another solution that is a bit more obvious.  In Lightroom 3 the Sync button has a little toggle button attached to its left side.  Clicking that toggles the button between Sync and Auto Sync.  When the button says Auto Sync, any changes in develop settings are applied to all selected photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T12:46:01.130" />
  <row Id="3024" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3015" CreationDate="2010-09-02T13:04:08.537" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've got a Trekpod - a monopod with fold-out tripod legs on the bottom.  It's slightly heavier than a &quot;plain&quot; monopod, but quite a bit more versatile.  One of the issues you'd potentially run into is stability, since the &quot;legs&quot; are relatively short (around 14&quot;, I'd estimate).  If you consider it to be a monopod with the additional stability of these legs, though (and not as a true tripod), it ends up being pretty handy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've had decent luck using the Trekpod with a Panasonic FZ-28, which is lighter than your setup.  Placement is important, since it's naturally going to be top-heavy, and the platform is susceptible to swaying if there's more than a light breeze.  You can improve stability somewhat by leaving the pole collapsed to walking-stick height (rather than extended to near-eye level).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All these disclosures aside, I've been able to use the Trekpod for long-exposure shots more often than not, and I was happy to have it with me as a walking stick on a trip to Canada earlier this summer.  For me, the fact that it does double duty outweighs the shortcomings of the hybrid design.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T13:04:08.537" />
  <row Id="3025" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3034" CreationDate="2010-09-02T13:11:41.373" Score="7" ViewCount="372" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently bought this lens, but it seems to me that it hunts a lot in low(ish) light, and sometimes (often) does not achieve focus at all. I never had any problems with the kit lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pointing the AF sensor to a place with higher contrast helps, but no t always.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even with the AF assist light on, it sometimes fail to lock focus and I have to change to manual focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any recomendations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="120" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T20:40:36.597" Title="Nikon 50mm f/1.8 focus" Tags="&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;prime&gt;&lt;nikon-d90&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="3026" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1424" CreationDate="2010-09-02T13:31:04.970" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are waterproof compacts that go to 10 meters, such as some of the Olympus Tough models.  But that's still not enough for scuba diving.  Even if you stay above 10 meters, the seals on such cameras aren't good enough to stay at depth for an hour at a time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I started with a Canon S90 and the Canon underwater case.  It's a compact camera with a wide (28 mm) and fast (f/2.0) lens.  Underwater you want wide and fast.  I also needed a new pocket camera, so this purchase covered both purposes.  The Canon underwater case is (relatively) cheap and works just fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've since learned from experience that if you want to make really great underwater photos, you definitely need an external strobe or two.  Without a strobe there's just not enough color in the pictures once you go deeper than 5 meters or so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm stuck on the surface now due to medical reasons.  But if I ever dive again, I'll invest in a great flash setup first, and in a camera after that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T13:31:04.970" />
  <row Id="3027" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3028" CreationDate="2010-09-02T13:36:15.470" Score="12" ViewCount="283" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the benefits of (expensive brand new) manual focus lenses?  Why did you, for example, buy a manual focus Carl Zeiss 85/1.4 rather than an auto-focus Nikon 85/1.4?  I'm not concerned with these two lenses in particular.  I'm curious about the reasons for buying expensive brand new manual focus lenses in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2010-09-03T01:54:41.257" Title="Why buy an expensive manual focus lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;manual-focus&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="3028" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3027" CreationDate="2010-09-02T14:34:33.907" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While you can obviously manual focus with an autofocus lens, manual focus lenses are catered towards manual focus users.  Some possibilities:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Longer focus throw (Autofocus lenses typically have short focus throws in order to focus faster.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;More distance markings or depth of field markings (DoF markings are particularly useful)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wider focus ring&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Better feel, such as smoother or more dampened and resistant focus ring.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Higher quality grip&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lower weight since there is no AF motor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No chance of AF motor failing (which could lock up the focus ring on certain lenses)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, it could have been bought for its optical quality, bokeh, size, weight, build, prestige of Zeiss, and other qualities not intrinsic to simply being a manual focus lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-02T15:25:10.563" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T15:25:10.563" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3029" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3015" CreationDate="2010-09-02T14:42:41.467" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was long a user of monopods out in the field. With the advent of image stabilization lenses, I find I almost never haul it out any more. About the only use case I have for it now is when I'm using my 300/1.4x combo with waterbirds or shorebirds, and even then, I'm most likely to either carry the tripod or go handheld. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see the use case for monopods in two broad areas: the situation above where you want the ability to reposition quickly but want the added stability, or a similar setup where you're shooting sports (baseball or football), especially extended sessions where handholding might cause arm fatigue. The third case (locations like museum where a monopod might be allowed and tripod not...) might make sense in certain special cases. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in general, improvements in lens speed/quality and IS, and carbon fiber tripods reducing weight, have made monopods a niche tool. lighter tripods means I'm not as likely to choose the monopod as a compromise for weight, and remember you can always just put down one leg of a tripod and use it as a funny looking monopod, but you can't extend the other two legs of a monopod for stability... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In some cases the &quot;string monopod&quot; might be a useful alternative, too. use a bolt in the tripod connector (it's a 1/4 20, I believe) and attach a string to it that reachers the ground. then stand on the string and pull up to create tension -- and it'll stabilize the camera. I need to experiment more with this, but unless you are using the monopod to avoid arm fatigue, it seems to give you all the benefits of the monopod for stability, at almost no weight and similar stability improvements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So for me, it's using IS lenses where possible, and either carrying a tripod or going handheld. monopods just aren't that useful with modern technology. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T14:42:41.467" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3030" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3027" CreationDate="2010-09-02T15:04:06.240" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because auto-focus doesn't work for what you do, or simply because you don't use it. Then you can get a better quality lens for the same money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Auto-focus works fine when some part of the image is exactly in focus, but if you for example want to put the focus between two objects so that they end up at the front and back edge of the DOF, auto-focus is useless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Easy to get one or three batteries sharp with autofocus, but not two:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/wkISw.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-02T17:16:03.617" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T17:16:03.617" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3031" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3027" CreationDate="2010-09-02T16:00:46.090" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't forget that not all DSLR cameras are easy to use with manual focusing. Semi-professional cameras have dimmer viewfinder making the manual focusing process almost impossible, because you can't be sure you've focused right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1290" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T16:00:46.090" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3032" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-02T16:11:48.550" Score="23" ViewCount="522" Body="&lt;p&gt;What portrait posing rules could you recommend for studio photography?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How to pose (and not to) the head, body, hands, wrists, waist, hips, legs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In what categories can the models can be divided into, and what is good and bad for each category?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1290" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T14:34:08.663" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T14:34:08.663" Title="What portrait posing rules do you recommend for studio photography? " Tags="&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;studio&gt;&lt;posing&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="10" />
  <row Id="3033" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2300" CreationDate="2010-09-02T16:34:19.340" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The primary reason to go with the manufacturer's product is 100% compatibility. With 3rd party/other vendors, you need to be sure of the correct model (especially as the Panasonic supports a different, 4 pin connector - others use 2/3 pins IIRC).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are quite a few which work though, and are marked compatible with the DMW-RSL1. If you're really in need of the better features of the studioHut, then check the compatibility and go ahead (I checked the site, and it looks like it will)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1170" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T16:34:19.340" />
  <row Id="3034" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3025" CreationDate="2010-09-02T16:53:32.890" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the same lens on my Nikon D50, and found it has major problems focusing when not using the center point of focus.  When using the left,right,top,bottom focus points, it will run the whole focus range without finding something to focus on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When using the center, it will focus, except when the center region is completely flat (without any detail to focus).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, maybe try to lock the focus point in center to see how it reacts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, the focus speed of the 50mm 1.8 is far slower than focus speed achieved with the 18-55 kit lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I also have the 35mm f1.8 DX and it does not suffer from this problem, it has similar performance as the kit lens)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1093" LastEditorUserId="1093" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-02T17:23:53.733" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T17:23:53.733" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3035" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3015" CreationDate="2010-09-02T16:59:51.910" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been using a monopod for over fours years now, predominantly in situations where I'm treking through rough terrain and a tripod would take too much time to set up and break down. I've found it particularly useful in shooting wildlife (penguin colonies for instance) where I'm often moving position very frequently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also been invaluable for shooting from non-stable platforms - in my case the decks of ships at sea, where a tripod would provide no stability whatsoever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T16:59:51.910" />
  <row Id="3036" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3032" CreationDate="2010-09-02T17:06:03.473" Score="30" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some different styles, and a variety of poses, but for classic portraiture, it's all about the face.  Posing the body helps the overall composition and visual interest, but if you forget all else, make sure the face, and particularly the eyes are captured well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No football shoulders. Start with the subject, whether seated or standing, point their body (e.g. belly and hips) at an angle, e.g. 45 degrees, to the camera.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tall back.  Not rigid, but no slouching.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For standing, have the subject put their weight on one leg and &quot;pop&quot; other out in front, which is to say it is slightly bent.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No short sleeves, or short pants.  The eyes are attracted to bare skin, and for a portrait, it's about the face.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No disembodied body parts.  If arms are crossed, make the fingers don't just come out of nowhere, bring the whole hand out and have it holding the arm.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tilt the head.  For men, tilt the head slightly toward the lower shoulder, for women tilt the head toward the higher shoulder.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For women, the mermaid pose is good if seated.  Whether on the floor or seated in a chair, have them rest on one hip and bring both legs together to one side.  The legs create a leading line.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In general, tummy away from the light, nose toward the light, eyes toward the camera.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Don't turn the head so much that the nose breaks the cheek line.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The eyes should show whites on both sides.  You don't want the iris/pupil all on one side.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T17:06:03.473" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="3037" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3038" CreationDate="2010-09-02T17:17:22.657" Score="15" ViewCount="454" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to understand the term white balance. My camera has settings for white balance with the following options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Auto white balance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Daylight&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cloudy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shade&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flash&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Incandescent lights&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;White set1 / White set2&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;White balance K set&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone throw some, well, &lt;em&gt;light&lt;/em&gt; on this? Also, is there any relation of white balance with the exposure while taking snaps? This is, if the exposure is high, then do we need to set white balance to low, or something like that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1272" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-21T23:42:09.860" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T23:42:09.860" Title="What is the meaning of &quot;White Balance&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;white-balance&gt;&lt;color&gt;&lt;color-temperature&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="7" />
  <row Id="3038" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3037" CreationDate="2010-09-02T17:28:02.697" Score="17" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Different light sources have different color temperature and when you want natural colors, you need to correct them for that particular light source. Basically white balance says what is rendered as neutral gray. You can find a more thorough explanation here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/white-balance.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/white-balance.htm&lt;/a&gt;. Wikipedia lists &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature#Categorizing_different_lighting&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;different light sources with their approximate color temperatures&lt;/a&gt; in Kelvins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try setting your camera to different white balances and take some shots - when you use Cloudy under incandescent light, you'll get yellow results and when you use Incandescent under daylight, you'll get very blue results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whenever you need &lt;strong&gt;correct&lt;/strong&gt; white balance, you should use gray card as a reference when shooting and apply WB corrections based on that. Usually just &lt;strong&gt;believable&lt;/strong&gt; white balance will do and might be even useful for artistic purposes (when you want to make your sunset just a bit warmer).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When shooting with digital camera, the &lt;strong&gt;easiest approach is to shoot RAW and use AWB&lt;/strong&gt; (automatic white balance). This gives pretty usable results in most of the cameras and you can always fine tune your WB during RAW conversion. When shooting RAW, this correction is lossless. Most of the RAW converters have a tool called &lt;strong&gt;WB picker&lt;/strong&gt;, which you can use to set neutral gray, meaning correction curves will be applied to the whole picture so that whatever you pick will appear as gray. This tool is very useful in mixed lightning situations or whenever the light source has strong tint either towards green or purple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you shoot and correct large batches of pictures, you want &lt;strong&gt;consistent WB&lt;/strong&gt; and it's best to use the same non-auto white balance setting for all of them (even if it's slightly off), so you can apply the same correction to whole set. (Thanks, Matt)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When shooting film, you have to mess with color correction filters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;White balance affects exposure, but the effects are quite small to care in most common situations. There is a technique called &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/664/what-is-universal-white-balance-uniwb&quot;&gt;UniWB&lt;/a&gt;, whci is used to minimize white balance effects on exposure, but this is already an advanced topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't underestimate the effect of correct white balance to the photo. Here is an example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In-camera auto white balance:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/1PUro.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;In-camera auto white balance&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Software auto white balance:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/2DoTk.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Software auto white balance&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hand-picked white balance (final image with some other adjustments):&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/6fRyS.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Hand-picked white balance&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-05T15:01:59.603" LastActivityDate="2010-09-05T15:01:59.603" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3039" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3037" CreationDate="2010-09-02T17:33:06.533" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Diffent kinds of light have different color temperature. Light in the shade for example consists of reflected light, and as light in the blue end of the spectrum has more energy it bounces better, so shade light is bluer than direct sunlight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photographic film is usually made for daylight/flash, but there are films specially made for other light conditions, like lightbulb (incandescent) light. If you use a daylight film in lightbulb light, the images end up yellow, and if you use lightbulb film in daylight, the images end up blue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The settings on the digital camera corresponds to using different kinds of film.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When shooting film, the photo lab compensates for differences in lighting when copying the images, so even if you use daylight (regular) film in lightbulb light, your prints end up looking reasonably correct anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When shooting digital, you could do the same as the photo labs in the post processing. If you shoot RAW/DNG, the image data is stored before applying color temperature correction, so you can change the color temperature setting afterwards. If you shoot JPEG, you should try to use the correct color temperature setting, as the image data is stored after applying color temperature correction. You can still adjust the temperature somewhat afterwards, but you should be as close as possible so that you don't lose too much information in the process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-02T23:30:24.667" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T23:30:24.667" />
  <row Id="3040" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3043" CreationDate="2010-09-02T18:25:53.750" Score="7" ViewCount="293" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've just come back from the Red Sea and took my camera along on most of my dives. I do have an external strobe, but for most of the shots the light was so strong that the camera didn't fire it. The result is that I've got lots of shots with a strong blue cast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can always just play with the hue/saturation in Photoshop, but it occurred to me that a quicker method might be to stick a red layer over the top of the images. It seems to me to be essentially the same as the red filters that are often supplied with housings. Has anyone ever tried this and what were the results like?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-15T13:58:31.900" LastActivityDate="2010-09-15T14:16:04.853" Title="Putting the red back into underwater photographs" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;white-balance&gt;&lt;underwater&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3041" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3037" CreationDate="2010-09-02T18:40:18.910" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some good answers so far, so I'll take a slightly different tack. Here is a more scientific description of white balance. White balance is a combination of two factors: Color Temperature and Tint, aimed at eliminating unnatural color casts and making white look &quot;white&quot; in a photograph.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Color Temperature refers to the &quot;warmth&quot; or &quot;coolness&quot; of the light that illuminates a scene, and therefor the primary color cast a scene has. The term &quot;color &lt;em&gt;temperature&lt;/em&gt;&quot; is used, as it refers to the actual temperature, rated in Kelvins, that an ideal black body must be heated to in order to give off light of that color. At lower temperatures, a black body will emit redder, light, and as temperature is increased, it will progress through orange, white, and eventually blue. This is why the Color Temperature part of the white balance plot is a progression from reds and oranges to whites and blues. Sunlight is generally considered to be about 5500K-6000K, which is about as middle-ground as you get. Not 100% pure white, but very nearly so. Your average light bulbs are around 2500K - 3300K, more on the warm side (orange cast).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tint is similar to Color Temperature, however it covers ground for illuminating objects that do not behave like a black body. This tends to involve gas plasma emissions, such as the light emitted from a fluorescent tube. Fluorescent lighting is not a solid object heated to the point where it emits light, it is a phosphorescent tube filled with a noble gas, through which electricity is passed. The color casts produced by such lighting often fall along the green/magenta plane, rather than the orange/blue plane. As such, tint allows adjustments to eliminate a green or magenta color cast in a picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Full white balance is the adjustments along both planes, color temperature and tint, required to make a white object appear white to the human eye. Generally speaking, when fine tuning the white balance of an image, you'll likely make much larger adjustments to color temperature than to tint, as most light sources emit more light along the temperature plane than the tint plane.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T18:40:18.910" />
  <row Id="3042" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3040" CreationDate="2010-09-02T18:45:30.550" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would recommend using the &lt;strong&gt;Photo Filter&lt;/strong&gt; features of Photoshop. Photoshop directly supports simulating color balancing filters, and has several presets that match official warming or cooling filters (i.e. 81A, 81B, 81C). You can easily add an adjustment layer for a &quot;Photo Filter&quot;, select the filter you want to apply, the density, and whether to preserve luminosity. You can apply the same filter several times, or apply different filters, as if you had stacked the filters on your camera. This should take care of the problem, although if you have an extremely strong blue cast, you might want to try adjusting color balance a bit first to produce a more natural end result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T18:45:30.550" />
  <row Id="3043" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3040" CreationDate="2010-09-02T18:59:17.600" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The way to achieve better white balance during the shoot (and also &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/586/are-colour-filters-worth-using-with-digital-cameras/619#619&quot;&gt;better exposure on green and red channel&lt;/a&gt;) is to use actual physical filters in front of your lens. According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://wetpixel.com/i.php/full/filters-and-ambient-light-photography/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt;, the filters meant to compensate fluorescent lightning are also applicable for underwater photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To fix it during post-processing, I'd suggest &lt;strong&gt;white balance&lt;/strong&gt; tool, especially when you've shot RAW, if there is something neutral gray on your picture, the gray picker works well, otherwise you have to tune the color temperature slider along with tint (which might be tricky).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When your pictures are JPG, you can try &lt;strong&gt;curves tool&lt;/strong&gt; and neutral gray picker specifically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can find a more general White Balance question and answers here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3037/what-is-the-meaning-of-white-balance/3038&quot;&gt;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3037/what-is-the-meaning-of-white-balance/3038&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disclosure: I've never taken nor post-processed any underwater shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-15T14:16:04.853" LastActivityDate="2010-09-15T14:16:04.853" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3044" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3050" CreationDate="2010-09-02T19:21:45.533" Score="8" ViewCount="319" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apart from the obvious benefit of not changing the center of gravity, what are the technical pros and cons of zoom lenses that do not change &quot;physical length&quot; when changing the focal length?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, are they more or less prone to mechanical failure? More or less prone to attract dust in dirty environments? etc..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="502" LastActivityDate="2010-09-12T09:51:16.800" Title="What are the pros and cons of non-extending zoom lenses?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3045" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3046" CreationDate="2010-09-02T19:46:39.813" Score="8" ViewCount="138" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have accumulated some amount of dust inside one of my zoom lenses, visible through the front glass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It does not appear to affect picture quality as far as I can tell, but I wonder if this is something that can or should be addressed? Who would carry out such a cleaning?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="502" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T20:25:26.797" Title="Dust in zoom lens" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;cleaning&gt;&lt;maintenance&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="3046" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3045" CreationDate="2010-09-02T20:25:26.797" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dust inside the lens shouldn't be a problem, as it will always be thrown out of focus enough as not to make a difference. Even on the smallest apertures, the depth of field won't extend far enough forwards to make it visible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it really bothers you, take it to an independent photo shop and see if they offer lens servicing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T20:25:26.797" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3047" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3025" CreationDate="2010-09-02T20:40:36.597" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a faster version of the 50mm (I think it is the 1.4, but I forget) and it also tends to hunt around a bit, especially if there is no clear edges that the autofocus can pick up on. I prefer to use manual focus with this lens, partly because of this, its autofocus slowness and also because sound from the camera's focus motor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="502" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T20:40:36.597" />
  <row Id="3048" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3044" CreationDate="2010-09-02T21:22:26.863" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One thing to consider is that on some zoom lenses, the front element will rotate when focusing. I've seen this on some cheaper lenses. Not necessarily a problem, but you will need to readjust any mounted filters. This is not an issue on more expensive lenses, which tend to not rotate when focusing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T21:22:26.863" />
  <row Id="3049" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3044" CreationDate="2010-09-02T23:06:17.887" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Zoom lenses that change length are definitely more prone to sucking in dust, since they have some expanding space inside, at that's going to have to be filled with air that used to be outside.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other issue is that fixed-length lens is less likely to zoom by itself when you have camera hanging on your neck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-09-02T23:06:17.887" />
  <row Id="3050" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3044" CreationDate="2010-09-03T01:21:10.347" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The benefits for a non-extending zoom are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Can typically be fully moisture and dust sealed. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do not suffer from zoom-creep. Where by the lense slowly starts to extend when gravity is pulling on it. Some lenses (like the Canon 100-400) have a way to increase tension to minimize this, but this is the exception to the design.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No change to physical size (this is kind of obvious).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-09-03T01:21:10.347" />
  <row Id="3051" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3044" CreationDate="2010-09-03T01:27:53.880" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Extending during zooming:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pros:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Usually smaller when unextended and able to take up less space in storage.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cheaper and easier to manufacture?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sucks in dust but more importantly &lt;em&gt;moisture&lt;/em&gt;, can't be weather sealed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Possibility of zoom-creep (focal length changing when hung around your neck).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Front element may rotate slightly (not nearly as much as below)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Extending during focusing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pros:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Maintains focal length at closer focusing distances.  This is a big one and a common complaint of Internal-Focusing lenses.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Front element will rotate a lot, requiring adjustment of filters and eliminating the possibility of a petal hood.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-10T17:26:03.583" LastActivityDate="2010-09-10T17:26:03.583" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3052" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3027" CreationDate="2010-09-03T01:54:41.257" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Simply because usually* you would want to spend as much money as possible on the actual glass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Usually* you would want the fastest lens, with the best glass. In this case you would lose the auto focus because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a. the awesome glass you want doesn't come in AF&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;b. the same awesome lens with AF is just too expensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not all lenses are made equal, you just can't judge a lens solely by it's specifications.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*I say &quot;usually because obviously different people have different priorities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="161" LastActivityDate="2010-09-03T01:54:41.257" />
  <row Id="3053" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3054" CreationDate="2010-09-03T03:10:22.860" Score="23" ViewCount="1094" Body="&lt;p&gt;Seems that most photographers choose the 50mm as their prime lens (at least from what I've read).  I'm looking at getting a prime lens for my Nikon D3000 and the cost difference between the 35mm 1.8 and the 50mm 1.4 is quite significant.  I know there must be some reason for the difference, and that the 1.4 will be able to get pictures in lower light and whatnot ~ it just seems that it is SUCH a large price difference for not much difference otherwise between the two lenses.  So, this isn't a &quot;weigh the pros and cons of the two lenses&quot; so much as a &quot;why do most photographers choose the 50mm 1.4&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;FWIW, I'm getting the lens to take pictures of my (fast moving) baby and toddler.  I have the kit lens and a 55-200mm 4.0-5.6 zoom lens and have trouble getting good pictures without being outside.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="706" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-20T17:53:11.467" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T17:47:07.040" Title="Why is the 50mm prime lens the most standard?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;prime&gt;&lt;50mm&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="9" />
  <row Id="3054" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3053" CreationDate="2010-09-03T03:26:31.433" Score="25" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most standard because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;50mm on a full frame is said to give a natural field of view.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;50mm is apparently an simple focal length to design&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a your crop sensor, it is &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.photo.stackexchange.com/questions/283/a-possible-shorthand-for-equivalent-focal-length&quot;&gt;75e&lt;/a&gt;, while the 35mm is 52.5e.  Thus, the 35mm lens will be closer to &quot;normal&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reasons why most photographers may choose the 50mm could be to use it for portraits on crop sensors.  75e is a great focal length for portraits, especially when combined with such a wide aperture.  Other reasons may include: higher resolution, smoother bokeh, better color, better rendition, higher contrast and microcontrast, more flare resistance, less CA, less distortion, less vignetting, better build quality, faster AF, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-09-03T03:26:31.433" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3055" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2935" CreationDate="2010-09-03T03:34:32.900" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Kevin Kubota's &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1584281693&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Photography Bootcamp&lt;/a&gt; is relatively short but very useful and covers a Lightroom-based workflow.  It also some basic Photoshop recipes that I find very helpful.  It's slanted towards pros who shoot weddings, but you can see how to apply it to your own situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-09-03T03:34:32.900" />
  <row Id="3056" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3057" CreationDate="2010-09-03T04:15:14.650" Score="6" ViewCount="89" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for a digi cam for my almost 3 year old (for her birthday).  The kid's cameras are overpriced and not awesome.  I understand that the basic need is for the camera to stand up to being dropped and such, but I really can't see spending even $30 on a 0.3mp camera (seriously.  0.3mp).  Are there digi cams out there that can stand up to a semi-beating?  She's actually pretty gentle with stuff so it's not going to get thrown or smashed against the wall or anything.  I'm looking for cheap.  Doesn't have to be super excellent specs-wise, just better than 0.3mp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="706" LastActivityDate="2010-09-03T04:35:57.917" Title="Camera for a toddler" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3057" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3056" CreationDate="2010-09-03T04:35:57.917" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;We bought a VTech KidiZoom on sale for my daughter's 4 year old birthday.  They market it as 2MP, but only in the fine print do you realize the sensor is 0.7MP and you can upsample.  Still, it produces decent pictures, seems to handle abuse, and shoots video and has some games which it's been a delight to see our daughter discover.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's been about 6 months and I still recommend it, if you can find it for a price you like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-09-03T04:35:57.917" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3059" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2991" CreationDate="2010-09-03T09:53:53.810" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No. You shouldn't have any problems, because color temperature of flash units is equal to the daylight color temperature (or you are using low-quality flash unit). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you should avoid is mixing daylight (or flash light) and tungsten light sources. They have different color temperature. Balancing white for daylight (flash light) will make tungsten light yellow. Balancing white for tungsten will make daylight (flash light) blue. It's possible to correct the strobes color with gels to match the color temperature but it's a different question. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also make sure your cheap trigger is able to trigger the strobes you are considering to buy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1290" LastActivityDate="2010-09-03T09:53:53.810" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3060" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2593" CreationDate="2010-09-03T10:11:28.880" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lens could be: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cheap&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lightweight&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Have good optical quality&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any lens produced can have two of three characteristics. No more. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be serious: price depends on optical quality of the lens, it's weight and endurance to the environment influence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1290" LastActivityDate="2010-09-03T10:11:28.880" />
  <row Id="3061" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3063" CreationDate="2010-09-03T10:43:34.043" Score="5" ViewCount="133" Body="&lt;p&gt;Our college is setting up a photo studio in campus. Mostly the we do product shoots. We have some old strobes, softboxes to start with. We need suggestions on the equipments listed below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Which are the commonly used backdrop&#xA;screen colors used or say must have&#xA;colors? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Suggested tripod and head?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Colors for reflectors?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1050" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-25T02:05:01.173" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T02:05:01.173" Title="What equipment is needed for a basic product shoot studio?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;studio&gt;&lt;background&gt;&lt;studio-setup&gt;&lt;product-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="3062" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2593" CreationDate="2010-09-03T11:09:47.587" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Technically I think all have been said, so I point you this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/l_plant/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;movie&lt;/a&gt;. In the past I also didn't understand why lens are so expensive. So, adding the man labor work, quality of optical and technology added, the final price is just right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1306" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-03T12:47:33.590" LastActivityDate="2010-09-03T12:47:33.590" />
  <row Id="3063" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3061" CreationDate="2010-09-03T11:32:10.763" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I'd use a black, a white and a mid-gray (18% reflection). Theoretically, with the right lighting, you'll be able to make the white background look black, and vice versa, but it limits the lighting options for your subject.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I'm using a Manfrotto tripod and a head with separate controls for the three directions, though many people prefer a ballhead, as it moves more intuitively. Make sure to have a sturdy tripod. They're usually a bit heavier, but I guess for a studio setup this is not much of a problem. A head with built-in spirit levels might be handy.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;edit&lt;/strong&gt; You may also want quick-release camera plates, which allow you to quickly change cameras on the tripod, without having to screw it on and off again.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Personally I'm not too wild about color reflectors. You can make neutral (white) reflector panels of styrofoam, which, thanks to their light weight, are easy to handle. I'd use Lightroom to adjust colours (if you shoot digital).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="878" LastEditorUserId="878" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-03T11:37:48.250" LastActivityDate="2010-09-03T11:37:48.250" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3064" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3061" CreationDate="2010-09-03T11:47:45.010" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not asked, but in case you ever want new (or used) strobes I would recommend Elinchrom Prolinca: they're powerful, have clear controls and recharge in a fraction of a second.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="878" LastActivityDate="2010-09-03T11:47:45.010" />
  <row Id="3065" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3032" CreationDate="2010-09-03T12:05:31.570" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dare to cut! E.g. a face &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; gain dynamism if you cut off the top of the head and one of the ears. (not if done with a knife! :-))&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Also a slightly slanted camera position looks more dynamic. Not recommended if you have some form of horizon in your picture, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="878" LastEditorUserId="878" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-03T12:11:03.173" LastActivityDate="2010-09-03T12:11:03.173" />
  <row Id="3066" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3053" CreationDate="2010-09-03T12:41:13.530" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the answer above, both variants of the 50mm prime lenses (Canon &amp;amp; Nikon mounts) offer a huge bang for the buck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Either lens (in the f/1.8 variety) can be had for under $100, or so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wish I still had the pictures (I do -- I just have no idea where,) but I did a direct comparison at 50mm between my Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L (~$1,200 is what I think I paid some time ago,) and my Canon 50mm f/1.8 prime (I bought this for $50 off of a for-sale board.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I recall correctly, the 50mm f/1.8 beat the 24-70 f/2.8L out at 50mm up to f/5.6.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, with that said, if you like to shoot at 50mm (or 80mm on a 1.6x crop, etc.,) then it's a no brainer :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ian&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1308" LastActivityDate="2010-09-03T12:41:13.530" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3067" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-03T12:45:26.047" Score="14" ViewCount="392" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Christmas is Coming&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... Well, it's a few months away, but family are going to start asking for gift ideas soon, so I'm putting together my list.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure you have some great suggestions for affordable little bits of kit that make a big difference.  Please share your ideas!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-14T10:40:13.723" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T13:46:39.313" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-03T15:07:53.283" Title="What is a Cheap (less than USD50) Piece of Kit would make a Good Gift for a Photographer?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;cheap&gt;&lt;gifts&gt;" AnswerCount="13" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="3068" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3067" CreationDate="2010-09-03T12:57:48.033" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For me, it would have to be a book. Any book of great photographs is inspirational, and can give you all sorts of new ideas that would do so much more for your photography than any single piece of kit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, for that price, you could get a sensor cleaning kit (though not an Arctic Butterfly), or perhaps some ND grad filters. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-09-03T12:57:48.033" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-03T15:07:53.283" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3069" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3067" CreationDate="2010-09-03T13:17:28.240" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There was a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/15-must-have-photography-accessories-under-25&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;list of accessories under $25&lt;/a&gt; that was recently posted at digital-photography-school.com, they're not all great gift ideas, but there are certainly a few good ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also like to put things that are always useful, like memory cards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-09-03T13:17:28.240" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-03T15:07:53.283" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3070" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2818" CreationDate="2010-09-03T13:41:00.903" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Moon has a lot of great contrast, unfortunately this makes a single shutter speed and a single exposure non-optimal. You will want to take as many frames as you can...start with around 24, taking a couple of hundred is not unheard of...or crazy talk...more is better. For your shutter speed take some test images at various speeds until you have three speeds: under exposed, just about right and over exposed, think of it as an HDR subject in gray scale. Your going to mix these in post with the under exposed images will provide detail of bright ejecta and crater rims and the over exposed will provide detail for dark or shadowed areas. Add shutter speeds if you have black shadows or blown out ejecta. You might also consider taking some dark frames every 30 minutes or so...lens cap on, shutter speed at 2x the slowest you are using and click...subtracting these from your images will cancel any hot pixel defects &lt;em&gt;(although at fast shutter speeds they may not be necessary).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the fun begins... pre-process, stack, post-process...Don't be surprised if you end up doing this more than once. &lt;em&gt;It takes me around 18 hours to process a 24 image galaxy stack...nebulae can take significantly longer.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A bit of blur is hard to avoid, mostly it comes from shooting through the atmosphere and some nights are better than others. This is another advantage of having multiple exposures; you can toss out the worst offenders...like the one where you bumped the scope or caught a contrail. The cool part is that with the right software package and a process called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconvolution&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;deconvolution&lt;/a&gt; you can correct most atmospheric blurring and get a nice sharp image. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Processing astro images is a lot of work...but the finished product can be one of &lt;strong&gt;the most spectacular images you will ever see&lt;/strong&gt;...worth the effort in spades.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Things your going to need/want for a start...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.willbell.com/aip/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Handbook of Astronomical Image&#xA;Processing&lt;/a&gt;. The Bible. Comes with a really great software package for processing images. Noise reduction, stacking, deconvolution, wavelet filters, color mapping, kitchen sink, etc.  Excellent.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.astronomie.be/registax/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;RegiStax&lt;/a&gt; Free image stacking software, very powerful, one of the very best for planetary images. User interface is a bit odd increasing the learning curve...but hey... did I mention it was free ? &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://pixinsight.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PixInsight&lt;/a&gt; The Photoshop of astrophotography. Amazing feature set with excellent implementations of the high level functions: wavelet processing, star masks, deconvolution, etc. It is in a league of its own. The package price is very reasonable and the do have a trial.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The images you posted look like a great start...just be careful. If you don't want to get hooked on this hobby (read: obsession). I would advise you: Stop now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="865" LastActivityDate="2010-09-03T13:41:00.903" />
  <row Id="3071" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3067" CreationDate="2010-09-03T14:07:00.493" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to agree with a book.  For whatever reason I feel pretty justified in buying the equipment I need/want (like a filter, cleaning stuff, etc.) but will almost never spend the money on a book for myself.  Since you were asking for specifically gift ideas, I'd say book.  Also, unless your family is into photography, I find it hard to ask for really specific things.  I'm sure you do your research before buying a product, and don't want to just buy the first cleaning brush (or something similar) you see.  Not that my family doesn't care ~ they just don't do the same level of research!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="706" LastActivityDate="2010-09-03T14:07:00.493" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-03T15:07:53.283" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3072" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3067" CreationDate="2010-09-03T14:18:39.983" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photographybay.com/2010/05/20/joby-gorillapod-magnetic-is-grooviness-incarnate/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Magnetic gorillapod&lt;/a&gt; is about $25-$30. Nice and promising thing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wireless synchronization system RF-602 (warning: NO TTL!) &lt;a href=&quot;http://stores.ebay.com/hkyongnuophotoequipment&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;from the manufacturer&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1290" LastActivityDate="2010-09-03T14:18:39.983" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-03T15:07:53.283" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3073" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-03T15:14:59.767" Score="13" ViewCount="353" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like contributing to community groups with my photos, such as to Flickr photopools, and some more local groups. I do it mainly for feedback and improvements, and, quite honestly, I like it when people say I've taken a nice photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When posting to sites such as Flickr, I usually leave the copyright to all rights reserved, or on a few occasions I'll open it to the Creative Commons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing that concerns me is people taking my pictures and using them for their own benefit without any recognition to me. This does seem to happen more often than I think it would, such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/dgeezer/3089671172/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bitterwallet.com/bbc-pays-up-for-using-bw-readers-photos-without-permission/28594&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm nowhere near a standard where I could be a professional photographer, but I do feel that if someone is using a photograph for which I put the time and effort in, then I should be recognised for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Has anything similar happened to you, or what steps would you take if it did? Some options I often think about would be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Firmly ask the company to take the photo down&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Firmly ask the company to attribute the photo properly&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Send the company an invoice for a reasonable fee per picture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Send the company an invoice for an unreasonable fee&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This hasn't happened to me, but I'd definitely like to be prepared should it ever happen. Would it be justifiable to charge different fees (if going down that route) for different media, such as TV/internet/print media etc?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it's any use, I'm in the UK, so I'm more interested what the stance would be within UK law, but also just a general feeling as to the attitude towards using photographs without permission.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="93" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-23T17:29:08.923" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T00:04:14.433" Title="What steps should you take if your photo is used without permission?" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;permission&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="3074" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3067" CreationDate="2010-09-03T15:23:41.050" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Polarizing filter&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Basic Tripod&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Portable folding reflector&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1093" LastActivityDate="2010-09-03T15:23:41.050" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-03T15:23:41.050" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3075" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3073" CreationDate="2010-09-03T15:33:30.307" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the best way to approach this is to start off with the assumption that it's a mistake. You'd be surprised how many people think posting a photo on flickr automatically places it in the public domain, even people who should know better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, politely request that the photo be (a) credited or (b) taken down. If it has been used in a commercial sense, you could also include an invoice for an amount you feel comfortable charging.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If that doesn't work, then try a firmer reply, including an extract from the part of the Flickr terms and conditions that have been breached, and mention that you will be taking legal advice if they do not comply.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At this point, if you've still had no joy, you could do one of two things: contact a lawyer and ask them to send a letter on your behalf, or (and this is cheaper) write about the breach in as many public forums as possible, e.g. on Twitter and Facebook, where there are plenty of people who will express outrage on your behalf and pass your message on. That might be enough for them to get the message.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Failing that, you would probably have to go to the small claims court, to claim for non-payment of your invoice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-09-03T15:33:30.307" />
  <row Id="3076" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3053" CreationDate="2010-09-03T15:39:28.657" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a 50mm 1.8 (which unfortunately won't auto-focus for you) and the 35mm 1.8 DX.  As mentioned above, the 50mm is really great for portraits - the crop factor with the 50mm gives lovely focus and crispness.  I just recently bought the 35mm 1.8 DX lens from B&amp;amp;H and it too is quite good - great in lower light situations and fairly small (in size) so it doesn't add much weight to your camera.  I paid about $190 for it, which is great considering how good these 'cheap' prime lenses actually are (as mentioned by Ian P above).  For low-light close up photos i don't think you'll be disappointed with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="274" LastActivityDate="2010-09-03T15:39:28.657" />
  <row Id="3078" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3073" CreationDate="2010-09-03T16:50:03.703" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your copyright office should provide good reference documents detailing the steps you should take to deal with infringement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the UK the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p05_copyright_infringement&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Copyright Infringement&quot;&gt;Copyright Infringement&lt;/a&gt; fact sheet from UK Copyright Service is the one to follow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those in the US, the Copyright Office has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-infringement.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fairly basic reference on stopping infringement.&lt;/a&gt;. Also, for online violations under US jurisdiction, a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Notice_from_Copyright_Owner&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DMCA Takedown Notice&lt;/a&gt; is an option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-09-03T16:50:03.703" />
  <row Id="3080" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2593" CreationDate="2010-09-03T20:42:25.787" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One point that hasn't been pointed out is simple material costs. One stop faster means the area of the objective lens doubles -- that much is pretty obvious. What may not be quite as obvious is that (except with something like a Fresnel lens) when you increase the diameter, that also translates to a &lt;em&gt;thicker&lt;/em&gt; lens. Even at its most basic, the cost of materials &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; be roughly proportional to the &lt;em&gt;cube&lt;/em&gt; of the diameter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In reality, it's usually even a bit worse than that. First, as the size increases, there's a greater chance of a defect in a given optical blank that will render it unusable. Second, when you're dealing with an element that's really big and heavy, mounting it so that it'll stay aligned becomes more difficult.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, of course, you get the other points that have already been mentioned, with the optical design typically being more complex, involving more elements, more exotic materials, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-09-03T20:42:25.787" />
  <row Id="3081" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3067" CreationDate="2010-09-04T03:13:29.417" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A vintage manual prime.  One of the best ways to learn.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-09-04T03:13:29.417" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-04T03:13:29.417" />
  <row Id="3082" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3067" CreationDate="2010-09-04T09:03:12.667" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would say a diopter (or close-up) filter, this little filter (actually a lens) allows you to turn a regular lens into a macro lens without loosing any stops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can get a +1, +2, +4, +10 kit for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Sakar-Close-Up-Filter-Diopters-Magnification/dp/B001ANXRQA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;$10&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="245" LastActivityDate="2010-09-04T09:03:12.667" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-04T09:03:12.667" />
  <row Id="3084" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3067" CreationDate="2010-09-04T13:09:12.453" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Cheap!&lt;br&gt;&#xA;How about going to a library book sale and picking up an old book on photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For 50 cents, I picked up a 250 page paperback called &quot;Creative Photography&quot;.  It's loaded with pictures, tips, ideas, and information.   Sure some of it is directed to film photography, but that's great too.  Learning the origin of terms we use today (like burn, dodge, filter) is great.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="113" LastActivityDate="2010-09-04T13:09:12.453" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-04T13:09:12.453" />
  <row Id="3085" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3073" CreationDate="2010-09-04T14:24:52.133" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't comment directly on the answer, but the &quot;UK Copyright Service&quot; is a trading name of a commercial entity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;COPYRIGHT WITNESS LIMITED, DUNRAVEN&#xA;  HOUSE 6 MEADOW COURT, HIGH STREET &#xA;  WITNEY, OXFORDSHIRE UNITED KINGDOM&#xA;  OX28 6ER  Company No. 05016564&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no such thing as a &quot;copyright service&quot; in the uk. The &quot;advice&quot; from &quot;Copyright Witness&quot; is aimed at getting you to pay them money to &quot;register copyright&quot; with them. That's a meaningless concept in the UK as you do not need to &quot;register&quot; your copyright with anyone. You're better off with non-commercial sources of legal information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When challenged, all copyright thieves claim that their use of your images is a &quot;mistake&quot;. In UK law that's irrelevant. The issue is simply how much it will cost you to force them to pay. Using lawyers won't help as the value of the claim is unlikely to be large enough for you to be able to claim costs. So politely invoice them, and if that fails then fill out an N1, which switches the problem from you to them... they now have to decide if it's worth fighting you. Assuming you're right they will they pay up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have found &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0907297447&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; to be an easy-to-read sensible summary of this and a few other uk issues relating to photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I chase up every infringement I discover by commercial organizations. When it's individuals I get them to take the stuff down or give me a credit if they're polite and apologetic and if I'm happy with what they've done to the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1055" LastActivityDate="2010-09-04T14:24:52.133" />
  <row Id="3086" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3091" CreationDate="2010-09-04T17:50:27.793" Score="5" ViewCount="186" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a relatively stupid question this time, probably caused by my poor English. I'm looking to buy a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_table&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;light table&lt;/a&gt; (an illuminated device to view transparencies/slides on), alternatively called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scandig.com/light-panels/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;light panel&lt;/a&gt;, but whenever I search these terms from Ebay, I get a lot of light tables (light like low weight), table lights (light like lamp). I've also tried terms &quot;light panel&quot; and &quot;light box&quot;, which mostly return some kind of illuminated advertisements. I also tried some brands known to produce them, like Kaiser and Reflecta, but no luck. I somehow refuse to accept nobody actually sells these things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So how do you guys call it :)? If anybody knows the term in German, I'd be interested too, because I get most of my stuff from UK an DE Ebay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-04T20:44:51.877" LastActivityDate="2010-09-05T19:17:08.430" Title="Synonyms for light table" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;slides&gt;&lt;light-box&gt;" AnswerCount="5" />
  <row Id="3087" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3086" CreationDate="2010-09-04T18:26:41.887" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Something to view film transparencies on? If I understand what your asking, I know them as Light Boxes, or possibly Light Tables. I think light box is a pretty well known term for it, given that the term &quot;light box&quot; has also been used for years to refer to the digital variety on the web...those javascript API's that dim a web site and pop up a photo in a centered DIV, making them easier to view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't help you much with the German part much. I'm a dumb english-only speaker. ;P&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-09-04T18:26:41.887" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3088" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3124" CreationDate="2010-09-04T18:53:43.700" Score="10" ViewCount="302" Body="&lt;p&gt;What would be your advises when taking shoot in an aquarium?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are your preferred lenses? How do you deal with the low light? What about the aquarium glass which bring some deformation? The fact that fishes are moving and hiding?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A zoo style is what I had in mind but I guess tips for home aquarium are welcome as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="219" LastEditorUserId="219" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-05T09:02:01.577" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T09:14:06.687" Title="Tips for shooting in an aquarium?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;tips&gt;&lt;low-light&gt;" AnswerCount="7" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="3089" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3088" CreationDate="2010-09-04T19:25:19.610" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As in every low-light situation, fast lenses always help. Aquariums are different in that you're shooting through a glass, which obviously means that on-camera flash is guaranteed to ruing the picture. Apart from that, you might get reflections from other light sources, which you might eliminate by putting the lens directly on the glass (lens hood might also help).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're just photographing fish in your aquarium at home, you can get around the light problem by lighting the aquarium from the side.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-09-04T19:25:19.610" />
  <row Id="3090" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3088" CreationDate="2010-09-04T19:26:41.617" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Clean the glass!&#xA;And I'm not talking about any camera equipment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be careful what you use to clean though, because chemicals/soaps/cleaning fluid are bad for fish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="113" LastActivityDate="2010-09-04T19:26:41.617" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3091" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3086" CreationDate="2010-09-04T20:25:52.107" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;They are called &quot;light boxes&quot;, like for example &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hama.co.uk/portal/articleId%2a452/action%2a2563;jsessionid=FCEA38699008D89DA63C55E52006615E.tomcat_uk_lin28&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this one from Hama&lt;/a&gt;. In german it's &quot;leuchtpult&quot;: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hama.de/portal/articleId%2a452/action%2a2563;jsessionid=FCEA38699008D89DA63C55E52006615E.tomcat_uk_lin28&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;same page on the german site&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-09-04T20:25:52.107" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3092" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3088" CreationDate="2010-09-04T20:49:40.907" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't speak directly to aquariums, however I've done shots at zoo's before. When things are enclosed in glass, you tend to have problems with glare. Especially from flash, but also from other sources, it can make getting a shot very difficult. The one trick I've learned is to find off-angles from any intruding light sources. The general idea is that light bounced strait on will bounce strait back, so if you need to use flash, point it at an angle to the glass so any reflected light bounces off and away from the camera. It can be tricky to position yourself for the best shot, as you need to take the same bounce angle into account for any other light sources. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also highly recommend using at least an f/2.8 lens, however faster lenses would be even better. A wider max aperture will allow more light through in less time. High ISO performance is probably your best tool, though. A camera that can handle ISO 800/1600 (or better) without too much noise is going to give you the best chance of capturing good shots. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-09-04T20:49:40.907" />
  <row Id="3093" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3095" CreationDate="2010-09-04T21:59:58.023" Score="7" ViewCount="100" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've got a couple of pictures I was considering getting printed onto canvas. Is there anything particular I need to take into account? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm thinking of things like photo resolution, colour profiles etc - are these important for canvas prints? I've always assumed that the resolution is quite low for canvases that these don't particularly matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="93" LastActivityDate="2010-09-05T18:23:50.320" Title="What do I need to take into account for printing to canvas?" Tags="&lt;prints&gt;&lt;canvas&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="3094" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3086" CreationDate="2010-09-04T22:35:21.000" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Light boxes are also a term used for traditional animation, so you may be seeing some of these come up as well. They're basically the same thing as a light table, but it generally has an insert at the top and bottom for a peg bar. Here is one by a company that makes those same types of lightboxes, but is better suited for what you're looking for (and it's portable): &lt;a href=&quot;http://cgi.ebay.de/LED-Leuchttisch-Lightpad-A920-Lighttracer-Tracer-/310231751225?pt=Modellbauwerkzeuge&amp;amp;hash=item483b40da39&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://cgi.ebay.de/LED-Leuchttisch-Lightpad-A920-Lighttracer-Tracer-/310231751225?pt=Modellbauwerkzeuge&amp;amp;hash=item483b40da39&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1319" LastActivityDate="2010-09-04T22:35:21.000" />
  <row Id="3095" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3093" CreationDate="2010-09-04T22:53:00.913" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Resolution does matter, and what is required will depend on the size of the canvas. Typically, canvas printing services offer guidelines for minimum resolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some other considerations:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Glossy vs matte. Not all services offer both. For the ones that don't, be sure to find out which they use.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Border type. Black, white, and gallery borders are commonly offered. A &lt;a href=&quot;https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Gallery_wrap&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gallery border&lt;/a&gt; is where the image is wrapped around the edges of the frame.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Border thickness. Anywhere from 0.5&quot; to 2&quot; are commonly available, but different services will offer different thicknesses.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dimensions. Most services offer a selection of frame sizes, and you are expected to crop your photo to fit it, as necessary. Some will cut custom frames to fit your photo.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1317" LastActivityDate="2010-09-04T22:53:00.913" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-04T22:53:00.913" />
  <row Id="3096" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-05T04:22:12.710" Score="9" ViewCount="379" Body="&lt;p&gt;what is the mechanical explanations as to why some cameras can take good bokeh and not others. do lenses have a role too?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-09-07T20:26:14.340" Title="what makes a good cameras (like DSLR) can take a good bokeh and the other cameras can't?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;bokeh&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="3097" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19" CreationDate="2010-09-05T04:36:45.007" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bokeh is subjective, and all cameras can create bokeh.  One pre-requisite to pleasing bokeh is to have sufficiently out of focus areas.  Most details that are only a bit out of focus don't look too pleasing.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Something is more out of focus the further away it is from the plane of focus.  In addition, the the shallower the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;depth of field&lt;/a&gt;, the quicker things become out of focus when moving away.  Depth of field depends on several things: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;f-number&lt;/a&gt;, distance to subject, focal length, and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;circle of confusion&lt;/a&gt; (determines what can be perceived as in focus or out of focus).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The f-number is a property of the lens, essentially how large the iris or opening is. The rest are functions of the sensor size.   Basically, when compared to a larger sensor, a smaller sensor will need to be closer to the object or have a longer focal length for the object to be the same size in the picture.  Note that increasing the focal length can allow you to stand further away for the same object framing, which will compress the perspective.  Less of the background will be shown, limited more to what is directly behind the object and usually further away.  The small sensor is only taking a small part of what a larger sensor would take (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/139/what-is-the-difference-between-focal-length-and-crop-factor&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So while the lens matters, the sensor size matters more.  Once you have a larger sensor, then getting &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2706/what-is-bokeh-really&quot;&gt;good bokeh&lt;/a&gt; depends on the lens but also composition: selecting the a good background and ensuring that it is a the right distance away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, even with a P&amp;amp;S, you can get reasonable bokeh with composition, IMHO.  Of course, if you want to be able to have better bokeh in more situations, you'll need a larger sensor for what is called increased DoF control, or do an extreme version of &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.buiphotography.com/2009/07/the-brenizer-method-explained-with-directions/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;.  Here are two I've taken with P&amp;amp;S:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some older Canon:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/KOYD1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;grasshopper&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fuji E900: &#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/QzSP4.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;bracelet&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had a short subject distance and ensured the background was both far away and not too busy looking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-23T07:14:45.423" LastActivityDate="2011-04-23T07:14:45.423" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3098" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3086" CreationDate="2010-09-05T05:06:00.627" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lightbox and &quot;transparency viewer&quot; seem to work the best as terms on Ebay. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Write lightbox as a single word for best results (not &quot;light box&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, there is one word to describe two different photographic things, so it's not a perfect search.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="395" LastActivityDate="2010-09-05T05:06:00.627" />
  <row Id="3099" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2834" CreationDate="2010-09-05T14:41:58.160" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cybia.co.uk/theworks.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;plugin for Photoshop&lt;/a&gt; that can do this, but it's a little ancient and only 32bit. It is, however, free and may do the trick for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-09-05T14:41:58.160" />
  <row Id="3100" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3093" CreationDate="2010-09-05T18:23:50.320" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most printers will prefer images using the Adobe sRBG colour profile, but that can vary from printer to printer, so it is best to check with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Resolution matters more on how an image is going to be viewed, and I wouldn't list that as a primary concern when getting something printed up. I've been happy with results from resolutions below 100dpi, which works well enough for a wall hung sunset, although I'd go higher for portraiture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other things that you should consider when selecting a printer; such as whether they laminate the prints or whether the frame allows for adjustment as the canvas stretches over time. Some printers only use polyester canvases, which some believe doesn't give as good a finish as cotton.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-09-05T18:23:50.320" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3101" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3086" CreationDate="2010-09-05T19:17:08.430" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't believe nobody has said &quot;Overhead Projector&quot; that's the only name I've ever heard anyone use to refer to that device.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-09-05T19:17:08.430" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3102" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3088" CreationDate="2010-09-05T20:03:58.337" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A tip I haven't seen yet: set your white balance to Tungsten because the auto white balance will not work and everything will have a yellow tint .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have the ability to shoot RAW, than do so and correct the white balance later to get the best colors for your shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="245" LastActivityDate="2010-09-05T20:03:58.337" />
  <row Id="3103" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3104" CreationDate="2010-09-05T21:53:40.930" Score="4" ViewCount="331" Body="&lt;p&gt;All my, very limited, experience photographing the moon has been through small telescopes with low resolution mono-chrome cameras. Limited in that I prefer deep space objects with large scopes at very high sensitivities...the moon is strictly off-limits with these scopes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have recently come into the possession of a Canon 20D with a Tamron 28-300 lens &lt;em&gt;(what family members will give away can be astonishing)&lt;/em&gt; and would like to start taking moon shots with it. The tracking, exposing and processing I can handle but I &lt;strong&gt;almost no experience with DSLRs&lt;/strong&gt; or the sensors they use. So my question(s)...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Some typical DSLR filters seem to be&#xA;UV, IR block and polarizing. Are&#xA;these pertinent ? Do they protect the&#xA;sensor in some way ? &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There are several &quot;moon&quot; filters on&#xA;the market. Some appear to be neutral&#xA;density filters...others I'm not so&#xA;sure. What would be the benefit with&#xA;these types ?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Are light pollution filters&#xA;recommended ?...&lt;em&gt;I will be on the&#xA;edge of a large city.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Am I over thinking this and should just start shooting ?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cheers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="865" LastActivityDate="2010-09-06T21:20:33.800" Title="What filters are commonly used in photographing the moon with a DSLR at night without a telescope ?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;filters&gt;&lt;astrophotography&gt;&lt;moon&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="3104" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3103" CreationDate="2010-09-06T01:19:06.430" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd suggest trying without any filters to start.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A typical dslr sensor has a filter built in that blocks most ir and uv light.  There are filters available that will do a better job, but you can probably do just fine without any additional filters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A lens hood may be helpful to reduce stray light though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-06T01:24:44.877" LastActivityDate="2010-09-06T01:24:44.877" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3105" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3110" CreationDate="2010-09-06T13:09:34.440" Score="3" ViewCount="342" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm thinking about starting real photography using a DSLR; I had been using point-and-shooters before and had been dismayed by the quality of the photo that was produced. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm thinking about buying a DSLR but don't know where to start from. A photographer friend of mine had suggested a Nikon D3000 but I'm not sure if it is the right one for me. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1185" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-06T14:20:57.980" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T21:50:45.727" Title="What is the best Nikon DSLR to Start Out With?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;digital-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3106" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3105" CreationDate="2010-09-06T14:39:12.420" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;P&amp;amp;S can be just as good as DSLR - it's not the camera which takes a photo, its the photographer!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Go to your local camera hire outlet and try a few out, for at least a week, if not a month at a time and get a feel for what YOU like best&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other people's opinions count for nothing when it comes to something YOU will be using regularly and intimately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="86" LastActivityDate="2010-09-06T14:39:12.420" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3107" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="295" CreationDate="2010-09-06T15:08:47.897" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://zaplife.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Zaplife&lt;/a&gt;  is a really easy way to share your photos if you want something simple. There are no upload limitations and you can easily follow your friends photo updates.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-09-06T15:08:47.897" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-06T15:08:47.897" />
  <row Id="3108" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19" CreationDate="2010-09-06T15:33:10.503" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer: P&amp;amp;S cameras have a smaller sensor and generally smaller apertures as well, whereas bokeh (achieved by a shallow depth of field) &quot;requires&quot; a larger sensor and aperture. For a more in-depth explanation, see the answer by Eruditass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="745" LastActivityDate="2010-09-06T15:33:10.503" />
  <row Id="3109" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3105" CreationDate="2010-09-06T15:45:31.217" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;this question is very similar to another one recently asked. Take a look here for more info, too:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2876/things-to-look-for-in-my-first-slr-camera&quot;&gt;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2876/things-to-look-for-in-my-first-slr-camera&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-09-06T15:45:31.217" />
  <row Id="3110" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3105" CreationDate="2010-09-06T17:03:33.403" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is not the true answer, but I think you could be happy with a &lt;strong&gt;D5000&lt;/strong&gt; ... very simply to use, quite good for beginners and not much expensive.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course you can invest in some good optic in the next feature and retain  them when you decide to pass to a more professional device. You will loose them when you'll fall in love with FX cameras :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1022" LastEditorUserId="1022" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-07T09:10:05.760" LastActivityDate="2010-09-07T09:10:05.760" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3111" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3067" CreationDate="2010-09-06T17:35:45.073" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A UV filter for your lens. Keep 'em protected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-09-06T17:35:45.073" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-06T17:35:45.073" />
  <row Id="3112" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3116" CreationDate="2010-09-06T18:53:26.893" Score="7" ViewCount="245" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was on vacation recently and some coke accidentally splattered on one of my DSLR lenses.  It was dark and I was pushing a stroller, so I didn't see what was going on until it was too late.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I cleaned off the coke from the outside of my lens, but now the focus ring sticks and is hard to move.  Everything else still appears to work fine.  How should I go about fixing this?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not afraid to open it up and clean it (it's just the relatively inexpensive 18-55mm kit lens that came with my Pentax K200D, and if I wreck the lens, it's already essentially unusable in its sticky state), but I thought I would ask here to see if anyone has any thoughts/ideas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="752" LastActivityDate="2010-09-07T12:02:13.067" Title="Cleaning a sticky DSLR lens" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;cleaning&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3113" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3103" CreationDate="2010-09-06T21:20:33.800" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I took &lt;a href=&quot;http://bighugelabs.com/onblack.php?id=3774378955&amp;amp;size=large&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this picture&lt;/a&gt; of the moon with a DSLR last year. This photo was shot at 280mm with a Canon 70-200mm and a x1.4 extender (f/8, 1/8 s., ISO200, 100% crop out of 21MP). Not that sharp but that's how close I could get. No filter was used, only some minor white balance adjustment in post.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could push your 300mm to 600mm with a 2x extender, and if you are not using a full-frame 35mm equiv then you are already multiplying by the x1.6 crop factor, that's almost 1000mm max in theory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't worry about filters, but I would try my best to be as stable as possible, especially at the long end of the zoom. A few tips:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;use a solid tripod of course,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;use a remote trigger if possible (either wireless, or a cable release), or even a timer to avoid vibrations,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;enable &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_lock-up&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;mirror lockup&lt;/a&gt; to reduce vibration-induced motion blur during exposure. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ZYPuk.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2010-09-06T21:20:33.800" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3114" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3115" CreationDate="2010-09-07T00:38:49.813" Score="7" ViewCount="984" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm liking the extra editing abilities that Lightroom brings (over picasa), but I'm wondering if I shell out $300 can I use it on as many computers as I like? I know windows generally only allows you to use one key at a time - would Lightroom 3 have a similar restriction? I have a main desktop and a laptop and would like to have it on both if possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="274" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-30T19:26:39.670" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T19:26:39.670" Title="Lightroom 3 licensing - how many computers at once?" Tags="&lt;lightroom-3&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="3115" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3114" CreationDate="2010-09-07T00:50:04.963" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Adobe Lightroom's single license covers installing it on both your main desktop and your laptop. It even allows you to install one copy on a windows computer, and a 2nd copy on a mac.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How many computers are covered by a single license of Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Subject to the terms of the software license agreement, the primary user of the computer on which Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 is installed may install a second copy of the software for his or her exclusive use on either a portable computer or a computer located at his or her home, provided that the software on the second computer is not used at the same time as the software on the primary computer. Lightroom is sold as multiplatform software, which means it can be installed on either Mac OS X or Windows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/faq/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lightroom's FAQ&lt;/a&gt; under &quot;Pricing and Availability.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-09-07T00:50:04.963" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3116" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3112" CreationDate="2010-09-07T03:14:46.160" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, my first suggestion is to have a professional cleaning...However, if the cost is prohibitive, this is my second:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't tried it on camera equipment, but I have used &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Isopropyl-Alcohol-99-16/dp/B000FVWH6O&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;99% isopropyl alcohol&lt;/a&gt; to clean computer equipment. This is very similar to rubbing alcohol, but it is higher purity.  A typical rubbing alcohol is about 60-70% pure, which means that there can be a lot of water/additives that will not help in the cleaning process, and may leave a residue after cleaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My main concern with this approach would be that the alcohol could clean the lens too well, removing some of the coatings that are added to reduce glare.  From the sounds of it, that risk isn't too much of a problem in your situation though, as I'd rather have a lens with the possibility of bad coatings than a lens that doesn't focus well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would pour a small amount of the alcohol over the areas that are sticky, then gently wipe the excess off with a microfiber cloth.  After giving it a little time to evaporate, try the rings, and if they are still sticky, repeat the process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-07T12:02:13.067" LastActivityDate="2010-09-07T12:02:13.067" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3117" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3105" CreationDate="2010-09-07T06:00:51.827" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recommend a second-hand Nikon that has enough of the goodies to give you a sense of what you are in for. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Nikon world is filled with great Nikkor lenses. To use the most of them amicably you'll want a D200/D300/D300s. So I recommend a D200/D300. A D200 for a good price can probably be bought from a friend or friendly photog in your city. It will meter Ai-S MF lenses, and it will drive AF motors required by AF-D lenses. Some of the most approachable lenses (in terms of budget and quality--bang for the buck) are Ai-S and AF-D lenses. The penta-prism and additions of AF focus micro-adjustments, the serious build quality--are the last few things that will seal the deal for you. If you aren't using a Nikon for these merits and qualities, you might as well buy a Panasonic GF1. Because these will end up being the differentiating merits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you use a D200 you'll be settling for ISO100-400 for clean files, and that isn't exactly a deal breaker for some photogs. Lighting your shots well is going to be key anyway and that's an important lesson for a photog to learn early on. Thankfully, another selling reason to have a Nikon is that their flash systems talk to Nikon off-camera flashes in ways that Canon is taking forever to catch up to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So for a decade such as this (a thrifty one) I recommend the D200 as a great start. Hopefully people are selling them to catch up to the D300s--so you should see a lot of it on Craigslist and the like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Strangely enough, I would give the same advice to Canon beginners, try to source a well-loved D40. Try to get the best-bang-vs-professional-body you can get away with always. Things like micro AF lens adjustment, pro UI, etc becomes not just conveniences but must-haves pretty fast within a year or so of your experimentation with photography if you really apply yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="387" LastActivityDate="2010-09-07T06:00:51.827" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3118" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3105" CreationDate="2010-09-07T08:57:21.223" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Buying an used D40 will get you a cheap and good camera for beginners. Thats my recommendation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="16" LastActivityDate="2010-09-07T08:57:21.223" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3119" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3121" CreationDate="2010-09-07T09:27:03.480" Score="3" ViewCount="78" Body="&lt;p&gt;My mother-in-law is not only a very talented watercolour artist, but also something of a photographer, although she principally takes photographs for memories rather than as art.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She has recently developed arthritis, which causes her hands to swell.  As a result, her hands have lost some dexterity and strength.  This makes it difficult for her to use her Canon 350D.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My first thought is to find a point-and-shoot which is light and has big buttons,  and I would love suggestions for a model which meets these criteria.  However, I have a feeling that the community here will be able to come up with other more creative ideas.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can help, or have been through a similar experience, it would be really helpful to hear from you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is similar to (not same as) &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/817/photo-equipment-for-the-disabled&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T18:49:05.610" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T18:49:05.610" Title="Equipment / Workarounds for Physically Impaired Photographers" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;accessability&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="3120" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-07T10:12:32.400" Score="5" ViewCount="141" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nikon D50 comes with built in flash now it's not been firing for a while and its impairing the camera's usability. I've now changed to a speed-light but seems that the two different flashes have a very different outcome on the quality of the picture. I am getting very bad grain on black sections or darker sections of my photos when using the speed-light no matter what ISO setting I have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a way to stop this or reduce the grain? As I don't want to fork out for the repairs on this camera It may be worth just buying a new camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1331" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T19:32:08.453" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T19:32:08.453" Title="Flash on Nikon d50 broken, need to set up correctly" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;speedlite&gt;&lt;nikon-d50&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3121" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3119" CreationDate="2010-09-07T10:56:55.033" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A thought would be a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.disabledphotographers.co.uk/accessories.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;shoulder harness&lt;/a&gt; possibly coupled with a cable release. I'm not entirely sure where to get the harness, but something like that would make it much easier to handle the camera by taking the weight off the hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-09-07T10:56:55.033" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3122" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3088" CreationDate="2010-09-07T13:38:25.010" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If possible, get the lens right up to the glass.  And by right up I mean actually touching it.  It should also be square on. That way you lose the reflections on the glass that you might get from any lights behind you. You can also push gently against the glass which will help steady the camera for longer exposures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="186" LastActivityDate="2010-09-07T13:38:25.010" />
  <row Id="3123" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="817" CreationDate="2010-09-07T13:48:58.550" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have no experience of this, but the following comes to mind... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps you can rig up some kind of camera support attached to the chair?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;If the camera had a flip-up display, you could position it near his lap, or even over to the left side (can he tilt/swivel his head easily?).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Attach a cable release which can be taped to the left arm of the chair (or just hand held), and I would have thought you should have a workable soltion?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope you find a good solution.  Please give your father-in-law my best wishes.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;EDIT&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;appologies - I hadn't read the accepted answer closely - this is pretty much a duplicate (can't see how to delete it???)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-09-07T13:48:58.550" />
  <row Id="3124" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3088" CreationDate="2010-09-07T14:19:00.947" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3088/tips-for-shooting-in-an-aquarium/3090#3090&quot;&gt;Cleaning the glass&lt;/a&gt; is a great suggestion, however, even with clean glass you have a few more issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fast moving fish&lt;/strong&gt; - Since fish often make quick movements, you will probably want a fairly fast shutter speed, which means you need fast lenses and plenty of light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Glare&lt;/strong&gt; - This can be caused by your flash, or by other ambient lights. Ideally, there would be zero lighting on your side of the glass, with the inside well lit.  Since this isn't going to happen, you will need to account for the reflections on the glass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;On camera flash is not going to work, because the light will bounce right back. You may be able to use an off camera flash, but even then, it will be tough to get the angles right.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You may be able to avoid the glare by &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3088/tips-for-shooting-in-an-aquarium/3122#3122&quot;&gt;getting closer to the glass&lt;/a&gt;. This will decrease the area the you are shooting through, which limits the possibility of reflections, but also limits your perspective.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/655/in-which-situations-should-i-use-my-circular-polarizing-filter&quot;&gt;circular polarizer filter&lt;/a&gt; can be used to eliminate the reflection by blocking the light coming from certain angles. This will limit the glare, but it also lowers the overall light, so you may have to adjust your exposure.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-09-07T14:19:00.947" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3125" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3128" CreationDate="2010-09-07T14:35:42.623" Score="6" ViewCount="149" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a wedding and family / portrait photographer, how can I make myself a  more attractive offering to people who are considering purchasing my services?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do &lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt; look for in a photographer?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do you tell if someone is a good photographer or not?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What questions do you ask? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Grateful for any thoughts!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-07T16:18:22.803" LastActivityDate="2010-09-07T18:25:54.197" Title="What makes a client choose a professional photographer?" Tags="&lt;professional&gt;&lt;marketing&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3126" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3125" CreationDate="2010-09-07T14:43:11.533" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some random things that will help:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a professional website including a&#xA;good selection of portfolio images -&#xA;show only your best work&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;good communication skills - return client&#xA;inquiries (phone, email, etc)&#xA;promptly&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ability to offer names of&#xA;past clients if they want a referral&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;professional dress/appearance - don't&#xA;show up for a client meeting in a&#xA;T-shirt&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, indirectly: &lt;strong&gt;build up word of mouth referrals&lt;/strong&gt;.  No, this isn't something you can crank out in a day, but the number one way to get new clients is to have existing happy clients.  Create happy customers and encourage them to refer their friends, family, and colleagues to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-09-07T14:43:11.533" />
  <row Id="3127" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-07T15:51:23.683" Score="3" ViewCount="370" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have an image that is CMYK and I have tried to convert it to RGB so that I can edit the colour of the image. However it won't let me work in 32 bit and asks me to convert the image to 16 or 8 bit to be able to use the paint bucket tool.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I use it without doing this I get a different colour to the colour I wish the image to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone help please? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks&#xA;J&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-02T16:43:38.590" LastActivityDate="2010-12-03T00:24:08.243" Title="Colors shifting when converting from CMYK to RGB in Photoshop" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;rgb&gt;&lt;cmyk&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3128" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3125" CreationDate="2010-09-07T15:57:48.123" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming you talk about portrait/event/wedding photographer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When choosing - &lt;strong&gt;work that stands out&lt;/strong&gt;. Creative ideas, personal approach, tasteful pictures. These are hard to define and very personal, but usually not so hard to notice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When negotiating the deal - client relations, experience, prices, usage terms (these are very important nowadays when people post their wedding pics on Facebook and the rest think &quot;give me the number of that photographer&quot; or.. they don't).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to delivery - correctness, punctuality, attention to detail. Maybe a nice extra like 'photographer's favorite picture for free'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disclosure: I've not been in phptographer's role in these kind of deals nor do I intend to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-07T16:11:32.097" LastActivityDate="2010-09-07T16:11:32.097" />
  <row Id="3129" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3132" CreationDate="2010-09-07T18:14:36.817" Score="7" ViewCount="167" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am thinking that image stabilizers in digital cameras are available for shooting moving/shaking snapshots clearly. i.e. The image stabilizers try to focus the moving object and reduce the shaking. However, I have set the image stabilizer to auto, but still I cant get a proper focus on moving object. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For eg:- here is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://tinypic.com/r/2qi79yd/7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PICTURE&lt;/a&gt; I am trying to talk about. &#xA;In the picture there is a blurring effect. I want to reduce that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now in such cases, is there any other settings like ISO to reduce this shaking effect even further and get clear snapshot? or is this the best the image stabilizers can do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1272" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T08:29:59.360" Title="Take total advantage of image stabilizer" Tags="&lt;iso&gt;&lt;image-stabilization&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3130" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3125" CreationDate="2010-09-07T18:18:13.867" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will answer this question in context of a wedding photographer, as I have had the most experience dealing with weddings on both side of the aisle (so to speak).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several questions here, and as @Guffa pointed out, these aren't necessarily specific to photography, rather generally how to run a successful independent service.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What do you look for in a photographer? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Back when I was getting married, I was new to photography but I knew what I liked and what I expected. This is the process I followed to select a photographer for my wedding:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Searched for local photographers via google&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Visited each photographers site&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If their site had a good portfolio, I would check out their prices&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the prices were in my budget, I would inquire about the weekend of my wedding&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If they weren't booked, I would ask to meet in person&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately it came to price/performance. I was unwilling to pay money for any photographer who's portfolio did not impress me, but I also knew I had a budget I had to stick with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I settled with a local studio chain that had standard packages prices. The cost was a little higher than I had allocated, but the studio consistently puts out quality work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;how can I make myself a more attractive offering to people who are considering purchasing my services? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People are price conscious. Now that everyone has a &quot;professional&quot; looking SLR, photography is a commodity. Add to that, there are enough of us amateur photographers who are capable of putting together a decent photo or two, competition is stiff. If you are serious about making money, you need to differentiate your services from the pack of camera owning weekend warriors trying to make a buck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Weddings are all about budgets, and how to get everything you want to fit in the budget, and the first place most couples look to save money is by services that they can DIY. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One idea would be to find several wedding planners and team up with them. Wedding planners spend more face-to-face time with clients and can help guide them into understanding why hiring a professional photographer is worth their money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another idea, perhaps on your next wedding assignment, offer to create a website for your client. Many photographers do this now, so it's not out of the ordinary. Give the ability for wedding guests to upload their own photos to the site, and have them displayed on the online wedding album. Per your contract, you should secure the rights to use the wedding images you took, and images uploaded for advertising/marketing your services. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use these images to compare and contrast services. Let the bride-to-be see what she might look like under the harsh lighting of a pop-up flash, and what types of images she might expect if she lets Uncle Joe do the photography instead of letting a professional handle it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How do you tell if someone is a good photographer or not? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without seeing how they work, I judge them by their portfolio. I cannot emphasize how important a great portfolio is! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What questions do you ask?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ideally most of these questions should be addressed on your site. It will save both you and your potential clients time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Session Packages, and Costs (Do you offer engagement photos? Are costs on sliding scale?).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Area of work (do you travel? how far?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do you have an assistant?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-07T18:25:54.197" LastActivityDate="2010-09-07T18:25:54.197" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3131" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3129" CreationDate="2010-09-07T18:21:47.500" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most image stabilisation technologies work by counteracting movements of the camera. With some manufacturers, they can only counter act sideways or up down motions, and critically, not rotations, or back/forward motions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In your case, you look to be wanting to track a moving portion of an image independently of the movement of the camera -- this is more an application of computer vision, as opposed to image stabilisation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To avoid blur in a photo, you need to look to shorten your shutter speed, either by increasing the ISO, or by widening the aperture (with a lower f-number)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-09-07T18:21:47.500" />
  <row Id="3132" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3129" CreationDate="2010-09-07T18:39:34.090" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Image stabilization aims to fix the problem of a &lt;strong&gt;moving camera&lt;/strong&gt; (camera shake).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your question and example photo aim to fix the problem of a &lt;strong&gt;moving subject&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To reduce blur of a moving subject, you need a shorter shutter speed, or you need to freeze the motion with flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you also have camera shake, then image stabilization will help some.  But first make sure you take steps to reduce camera shake.  For example see the question &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1724/how-i-could-take-crisp-sharp-shots-without-expensive-lens&quot;&gt;&quot;How I could take crisp sharp shots without expensive lens?&quot;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-09-07T18:39:34.090" />
  <row Id="3133" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3140" CreationDate="2010-09-07T19:16:45.513" Score="4" ViewCount="115" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am considering buying a new DSLR camera. What differentiates the different options? What specific features should I be looking for?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="307" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T22:11:43.337" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T22:11:43.337" Title="What should I look for when shopping for a DSLR?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3134" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3127" CreationDate="2010-09-07T19:21:52.210" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any chance of posting the file somewhere on the web so I can experiment? Which version of Photoshop are you using?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Danny&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastActivityDate="2010-09-07T19:21:52.210" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3135" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3133" CreationDate="2010-09-07T19:31:21.343" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most cameras nowadays support much the same options for using an aperture priority or shutter priority modes, as well as your full auto options, so that isn't a great way to set them apart. Most of the major brands will give comparable image quality too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When thinking about cameras specific to a task, you need to think about &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; you'll use it; In the case of landscape or wildlife photography you might want to consider features such as weather proofing, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2984/whats-the-difference-between-the-levels-of-weather-sealing-on-dslrs-e-g-50d-vs&quot;&gt;differences between models&lt;/a&gt;. It is also important to consider weight if you're going to be carrying it around (along with lenses, tripods, waterproof clothing, kitchen sink, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-09-07T19:31:21.343" />
  <row Id="3136" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3137" CreationDate="2010-09-07T21:29:37.790" Score="21" ViewCount="428" Body="&lt;p&gt;We all know that autofocus is very convenient for everyday shooting, especially on cameras with tiny viewfinders that make manual focus difficult (like my Nikon d3000).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, just like the exposure settings, there's a reason that dSLRs offer a manual focus option: sometimes the brain behind the camera makes better decisions than the &quot;brain&quot; inside the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are some situations where it's usually better to switch off autofocus and do it by eye?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was browsing through DPS today and found this article:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/when-is-manual-focus-better-than-auto-focus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;When is Manual Focus Better than Auto Focus?&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;It seemed relevant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-13T00:01:46.027" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T20:09:51.330" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-07T21:29:37.790" Title="When is manual focus better than autofocus?" Tags="&lt;manual-focus&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="3137" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3136" CreationDate="2010-09-07T21:55:56.187" Score="30" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Macro shooting. The depth of field is so shallow that there is no way for a camera to know what exactly would you like to show to the world. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Studio shot. You know where exactly the things are and already focused. You don't want the camera to focus back and forth every time you press a shutter release. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Portrait with the open aperture with a very long lens. You need to focus on the eyes, and one of the good ways to do it is to focus with your body, slightly moving back and forth until you see the focus on the eyelashes. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sports/action/kinds/pets in case you know where the subject is &lt;i&gt;going&lt;/i&gt; to be. You pre-focus manually and wait. Some cameras even allow you to capture a shot exactly at the moment when something comes in focus. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Shooting moon or other distant objects. You need to prefocus on hyperfocal distance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Street photography. You know the approximate distance to your subjects which is about 1.5 meters (about 5 ft) and you shoot from your belly in an approximate direction. If the camera is in AF, it will miss too many times.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="341" LastActivityDate="2010-09-07T21:55:56.187" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-07T21:55:56.187" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3138" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3136" CreationDate="2010-09-07T21:58:00.570" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Manual focus is great in a lot of situations. AF has some intrinsic limitations given how it tends to work. One of its biggest detractors is that it will usually only autofocus around a general point, or possibly a locus of points. This is not a huge deal when precise focus is not important, such as wide hyperfocal landscape shots. In other cases, such as macro shots, portrait shots, or anything where exact placement of focus is important, autofocus often fails, or does not perform adequately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another case where manual focus can be a saving grace is when autofocus has a problem consistently focusing in the same place. It may pick the right thing to focus on most of the time, but every so often it may decide to focus on something else entirely. This can be mitigated by selecting different AF pints or loci, however even that may not be sufficient at times. If you ever run into a situation where your autofocus usually focuses on the right thing, but every so often hunts and focuses on something else, you might find it useful to use AF to focus on the proper target, then switch to manual to prevent further hunting. This can often occur at night or indoors where lighting may be low or inconsistent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-09-07T21:58:00.570" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-07T21:58:00.570" />
  <row Id="3139" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3127" CreationDate="2010-09-07T22:06:45.940" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you may just be running into a problem with the two color models. A CMYK image is 32bit because there are four separate color channels to represent. The RGB model only has three color channels to represent. When you convert from a 32bit CMYK image to an RGB image, the two common options are 16bit or 8bit, as outside of floating-point HDR images (which is an unlikely option here), there really aren't any 32bit integer RGB image formats (excluding those with an alpha channel of course, which would be RGBA.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its difficult to explain this, other than to just say that there is no &quot;direct&quot; conversion from a four-channel CMYK imate into a four-channel RGB image. The conversion is a fairly complex mathematical process involving ICM that is translating colors from one color model (the subtractive CMYK model) to another color model (the additive RGB model). I can't really say exactly how much distinct color information your CMYK image may contain, however I would be doubtful that it contains as much color accuracy as a 16bit RGB image can represent. You are probably safe to convert into an 8bit RGB image, however if you really want to make sure you preserve the maximum amount of color accuracy, I would convert into 16bit RGB. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no 32bit integer RGB format I know of that you can convert into, or at least, not one that Photoshop supports. HDR images are 32bit floating point, however there is no direct translation from a CMYK integer format into an HDR floating point format. Even if there was, a 32fbit HDR image can portray a range of tones and colors far beyond anything reproducible in CMYK print, and you might end up with some undesirable artifacts if you managed to find a way to convert between the two.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the color differences, you will need to make sure that the images are assigned the appropriate color profiles. ICM is involved in conversions between color models, so making sure that your source image has a valid and appropriate color profile assigned to it that properly maps the colors it contains will be important in preserving color information when converting to RGB. It is highly unlikely that you will be able to get 100% accurate representation of the CMYK colors in RGB due to significant differences in those two color models, and the differences in the color profiles assigned to both images. There will most likely be some color shift between the two. You may have to do some pre- and post-processing in both images to set proper white/black points, adjust contrast and saturation in RGB, etc. to get a correct final image out of the conversion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-07T22:22:10.297" LastActivityDate="2010-09-07T22:22:10.297" />
  <row Id="3140" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3133" CreationDate="2010-09-07T22:27:22.830" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The tricky part about landscape and wildlife is that they sometimes imply different, if not opposite requirements. Landscape often demands a camera/lens combo that can capture as wide a scene as possible. Wildlife usually requires one that can zoom as far as feasible to capture an elusive animal from a safe distance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To take pictures of a large landscape you can either stitch several photos together, or rely on a wide angle lens (in the 15-30mm range for example). The size of the camera sensor here is important. If you have enough resource to buy a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-frame_digital_SLR&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;full frame&lt;/a&gt; (35 mm equiv) camera, you will be able to use wide and ultra wide lenses to their full potential. On smaller-sensor DSLRs, wide-angle lenses have smaller angles of view that depend on the corresponding &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;crop factor&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most consumer cameras use APS-C sensors, which effectively &quot;zoom in&quot; by a factor of x1.6. What it means is that your new 16mm lens behaves like a 25.6mm. Your 50mm like 80mm, etc. No matter how wide your lens actually is, you will not capture a scene as broad as if it had been mounted on a full frame camera/sensor. This is not all bad though, since a lens is usually optically better at its center anyway. Ultra wide lenses can also introduce a lot of unpleasant optical distortions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two sides to this coin. What is detrimental to wide landscapes is good for distant wildlife though, because you can zoom even further with a telephoto lens mounted on a APS-C sensor. The crop factor still applies, this time to your advantage. A 200m zoom suddenly behaves like a 320mm, allowing you to get that much closer to a bird and use cheaper lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You didn't mention your budget, so keep in mind that full-frame cameras are usually much more expensive than consumer APS-C cameras. They are bulkier and heavier as well, requiring sturdier tripods. They also demand better lens/glass if possible, since they are using the whole &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_circle&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;image circle&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't do too much landscape, but I take a lot of pictures of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/altuwa/collections/72157622481431109/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;large abandoned buildings&lt;/a&gt;. In this scenario I really benefit from a 16-35mm lens mounted on a full-frame sensor. I do have a 70-200mm lens as well to shoot from a distance. If I'm willing to compromise a bit of optical quality I can always use small &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_Extender_EF&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lens extenders&lt;/a&gt; to reach x1.4 to x2.0 further.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, it's not one &lt;em&gt;or&lt;/em&gt; the other. As jrista pointed out in the comments, you can capture perfectly great landscapes with a telephoto and go for a different, compressed look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Field-of-View-Crop-Factor.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Field of View Crop Factor (Focal Length Multiplier)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nd-magazine.com/articles/art6.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Telephoto Landscapes&lt;/a&gt; by Andy Mumford&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-08T00:27:34.023" LastActivityDate="2010-09-08T00:27:34.023" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3141" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-07T22:28:03.753" Score="7" ViewCount="565" Body="&lt;p&gt;For photos taken with my Point &amp;amp; Shoot camera, the flash often leave people in the photo with a 'shiny skin' effect. Other than not using the flash (or at least moving the flash off the lens-axis), what's the best way to reduce the shiny skin effect with Lightroom 3?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="40" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-02T16:42:25.003" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T16:42:25.003" Title="How do I get rid of shiny skin with Lightroom" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;retouching&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="3142" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3136" CreationDate="2010-09-07T23:17:12.787" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Poorly lit social events&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Often times at a party or wedding reception, the lighting is too dark for the autofocus to work properly, so an AF-assist lamp is needed. Shining a light on someone distracts them and makes them aware of the camera / self-conscious, and the shot can be ruined.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2010-09-07T23:17:12.787" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-07T23:17:12.787" />
  <row Id="3143" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3150" CreationDate="2010-09-07T23:49:15.143" Score="6" ViewCount="250" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm off next week on a bit of a world trip for 12 months. Any suggestions for a camera bag solution that meets the following (in order of importance):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Discreet. Must not look like it has an SLR in it ;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No expensive logos (eg &quot;krumpler&quot; or &quot;lowepro&quot; etc. even though I like them)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Can carry bare essentials (camera body with 1 lens attached + speedlite + bottle of water + banana)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Will keep camera dry in rain&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Two shoulder straps as will be carrying it every day&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Light as possible&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Suitable as hand luggage when flying&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;DIY solutions also welcome if quick and easy to do (running out of time)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cheers,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2010-09-08T13:45:05.387" Title="Looking for a discreet camera bag." Tags="&lt;travel&gt;&lt;camera-bag&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="3144" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3141" CreationDate="2010-09-08T00:09:41.710" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Intriguing question. Only way I know how to solve this &quot;well&quot; is with a circular polarizer filter attached to the lens, however I am not sure if this is possible with a P&amp;amp;S. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you wish to try fixing the problem somewhat with Lightroom, I would try using the selective editing brush (the last tool on the right under the histogram). With this tool, you can essentially &quot;paint on&quot; a variety of color and tone settings. You could try painting on &quot;Highlight Recovery&quot; just in the areas where you need it, leaving the rest of the image unaffected. I am not sure if this will solve the problem, and you might need to tweak some other settings such as color temperature and/or saturation, as recovery has the tendency to shift colors when a single primary (such as reds/yellows in skin tones) dominate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-09-08T00:09:41.710" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3145" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3141" CreationDate="2010-09-08T00:25:17.873" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickbedford/4963612250/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; photo of my brother and his girlfriend, I used the brush with brightness set to about -10 or -20 (very subtle) with a large feather and the clarity at about -35%. This smoothed out any little specular bumps on their skin and brought down the shininess of the highlight themselves. I'm sure there might be better ways but I ended up with something that I think looks much better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was taken on a Canon 50D with the 18-55mm kit lens using the in-built flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ynEb0.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Flickr - Matt &amp;amp; Amelia&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the original.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/GUJp4.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Matt &amp;amp; Amelia Untouched&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastEditorUserId="609" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-08T20:52:44.650" LastActivityDate="2010-09-08T20:52:44.650" />
  <row Id="3146" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1504" CreationDate="2010-09-08T04:29:11.110" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like this Naneu Sierra: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.naneubags.com/products.mdv?p=mo-s#&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.naneubags.com/products.mdv?p=mo-s#&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="72" LastActivityDate="2010-09-08T04:29:11.110" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-08T04:29:11.110" />
  <row Id="3147" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1504" CreationDate="2010-09-08T04:41:11.480" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A messenger bag is a good camera bag for not looking too much like a photographer. The design makes you look more like a university student than a photographer and they're more often than not give you quick to access to the pouch(es). I must admit, I almost want to swap to one myself (if I had some spare cash).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/VUOCq.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;LowerPro&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-09-08T04:41:11.480" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-08T04:41:11.480" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3148" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3141" CreationDate="2010-09-08T08:21:21.250" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The old way of solving this problem, I mean before digital post-processing, was to apply foundation cosmetics on the model face. This is still used for TV shows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1296" LastActivityDate="2010-09-08T08:21:21.250" />
  <row Id="3149" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1504" CreationDate="2010-09-08T09:37:03.470" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Budget solution is to get a gas mask bag from military surplus store. Sturdy, easy to modify and doesn't look like a camera bag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.twenga.co.uk/prices-gas-mask-bag.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.twenga.co.uk/prices-gas-mask-bag.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="729" LastActivityDate="2010-09-08T09:37:03.470" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-08T09:37:03.470" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3150" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3143" CreationDate="2010-09-08T09:38:04.280" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a variety of padded camera bag inserts available at online stores like B&amp;amp;H for very little money that you can fit into a non-camera bag that you can buy elsewhere.  I found a bag at an Army Navy store that fit mine perfectly.  Photos:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.muddyboots.org/2007/08/diy-stealth-camera-bag.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://blog.muddyboots.org/2007/08/diy-stealth-camera-bag.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That bag is not waterproof, but I carry a garbage bag to put it in in case of rain.  I'm not sure where you could find a waterproof bag, but you can try.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another idea is a cooler or diaper bag -they often provide a little padding and they make some nicer looking ones these days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="110" LastActivityDate="2010-09-08T09:38:04.280" />
  <row Id="3151" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3153" CreationDate="2010-09-08T12:35:45.303" Score="12" ViewCount="328" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3027/why-buy-an-expensive-manual-focus-lens/3028#3028&quot;&gt;This answer&lt;/a&gt; to an earlier question of mine about manual focus lenses uses the term &quot;focus throw&quot;.  Exactly what does that mean?  Why do manual focus lenses have more of it than auto focus lenses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2010-09-08T13:49:52.527" Title="What is focus throw?" Tags="&lt;focus&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="3152" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="305" CreationDate="2010-09-08T12:45:03.907" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My camera (Olympus E-510) changes the focus of the lens to make the lens as short as possible when I turn the camera off.  So I made a habit of turning the camera off before removing the lens.  If the lens doesn't return to its shortest length for some reason (when the camera goes into power saving mode it seems to forget it has a lens), I simply turn it on and off again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All the Olympus lenses I have are focus-by-wire.  Turning the focus ring when the camera is off doesn't do anything.  So I don't really have a choice.  Pushing the inner lens element to make the lens shorter doesn't seem like a good idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2010-09-08T12:45:03.907" />
  <row Id="3153" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3151" CreationDate="2010-09-08T13:10:35.047" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The focus throw is simply how much you have to turn the focus ring when focusing, what's usually compared is how much you have to turn to get from closest focusing distance to infinity (or vice versa).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A manual lens generally have a longer focus throw, to enable you to do fine focus adjustments, while an auto-focus lens has a shorter focus throw so that it can focus faster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-08T13:49:52.527" LastActivityDate="2010-09-08T13:49:52.527" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3154" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-08T13:16:03.523" Score="7" ViewCount="827" Body="&lt;p&gt;Currently I trust the catalog file to hold all of develop settings for my files.  I don't use xmp/sidecar files.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you use them, why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm searching for a reason why I should use them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="626" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T12:10:03.797" Title="Why employ the xmp sidecar file in Lightroom?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;xmp&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="3156" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3154" CreationDate="2010-09-08T13:31:04.717" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I always use sidecar files. I find it easier to backup them along with the photo data than to backup a separate catalog.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I can open the files on separate computers without having to synchronise the catalog.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I should mention that I actually use Photoshop with Camera RAW, not Lightroom, but the principle is the same.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-09-08T13:31:04.717" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3157" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3154" CreationDate="2010-09-08T13:40:25.600" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Note that there are two ways of using xmp sidecar files:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) activate automatic writing of xmp files in lightrooms settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This way Lightroom will write and refresh the xmp files for your images as a side task if it got no other important things to do. Meaning: you'll never know if the sidecar files are really up to date or not (but usually they are).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) order Lightroom to save the xmp files for the currently selected images (alt/option+S if I'm not mistaken). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lightroom will start a real user task for this, showing you the progress while writing the xmp files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The develop settings will be stored in the xmp files, so it makes an easy file wise backup - but it would be way better to use Lightrooms catalogue backup functionality instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can use xmp files to move image development settings from one computer to another (again you might use a catalogue export/import instead, but in this case I find xmp files easier to use).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And there might be some 3rd party apps which can read xmp files and do some interesting stuff with them (though I know none).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My advise would be: don't use the automated &quot;write xmp sidecar file&quot; setting. If you want to move images with dev settings to another comp, explizitely save the xmp files using the &quot;save&quot; command instead, then copy the raw and xmp files and import on the other computer.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;For backup I'd use the lightroom backup functionality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-09-08T13:40:25.600" />
  <row Id="3158" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3143" CreationDate="2010-09-08T13:45:05.387" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The ThinkTank Retrospective are cute and might be, what you are looking for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I agree with Erica, it might be a better idea just to refit some old bag for this purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-09-08T13:45:05.387" />
  <row Id="3159" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3129" CreationDate="2010-09-08T14:01:34.687" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short: Image stabilisation is useless for moving subjects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the shutter speeds you need to freeze action you won't need IS (well, maybe you will if you got real bad shakes and drink a lot of coffee).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only exception are really long lenses, like around 500mm, where you'd need a real fast shutter speed not to notice camera shake in the picture.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;For lenses below 200mm I found IS useless. Those pictures which benefit from IS get much better when using a tripod anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastEditorUserId="311" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-09T08:29:59.360" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T08:29:59.360" />
  <row Id="3160" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3162" CreationDate="2010-09-08T14:23:14.147" Score="9" ViewCount="271" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm starting to learn how to shoot. Up until now I've only used point-and-shoot cameras mostly on automatic settings. My view is there are basically three classes of cameras sold by the major manufacturers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Point-and-shoot:&lt;/strong&gt; for those who want nothing to do with photography&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Advanced:&lt;/strong&gt; (Canon's &lt;em&gt;G&lt;/em&gt; series, or Panasonic's &lt;em&gt;LX&lt;/em&gt;) - some settings, but not complete flexibility&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SLR&lt;/strong&gt;: The &quot;real deal&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, if I want to learn how to shoot good photographs, can I start with a camera from the 2nd category, instead of an SLR? There are still options for manually setting the ISO, aperture and shutter speed on those models, I just don't understand how lacking they are and if they would hinder my learning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1208" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T22:06:55.433" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T22:06:55.433" Title="Is an SLR camera a must when learning?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;&lt;learning&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3161" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3160" CreationDate="2010-09-08T15:01:46.787" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That depends on what you want to learn, exactly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to learn all aspects of photography, you need a camera that you can control completely. Some aspects are however easier to learn if you don't have to bother with a lot of settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Low quality point-and-hope cameras, e.g. Lomo, has been used as a limiting factor to remove most technical aspects of photography, to focus on the creative part of the process instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-09-08T15:01:46.787" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3162" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3160" CreationDate="2010-09-08T15:04:52.853" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;An SLR is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; a requirement. In fact, a high end point and shoot in not even &lt;em&gt;required&lt;/em&gt;, but either will make the process easier.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/digital_cameras/powershot_sx20_is&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PowerShot SX20 IS&lt;/a&gt;, or the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/digital_cameras/powershot_g11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PowerShot G11&lt;/a&gt; are two extremely good point and shoot cameras, and both have a majority of the features included in a entry level DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main features that a high end point and shoot will miss are larger sensors and interchangeable lenses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;interchangeable lenses - The possibilities that arise with the ability to change your lens are nearly endless. In fact, once you move to a SLR, the lenses are more important than the body. (Keep in mind that non-SLR cameras are now available with the ability to switch lenses, such as micro-four-thirds models)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;larger sensor - The camera sensor in a point and shoot is much smaller, which limits the size of the individual pixels, decreasing the color saturation and increasing noise.  The size differences can be seen in the image below. A point and shoot sensor is generally in the 1/2.5 - 1/1.6 range.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside.svg/300px-Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside.svg.png&quot; alt=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides that, as long as you have the ability to use some manual features, you should be able to learn a lot, and the camera will be far less limiting that a lower end point and shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In particular, you want a camera that has the P (Program), Av (Aperture Priority), Tv (Shutter Priority), and M (Manual) &quot;Shooting Modes&quot;.  These are the modes where you can really control the exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-09T12:17:13.010" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T12:17:13.010" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3163" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3160" CreationDate="2010-09-08T15:42:52.897" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;IMO a camera with manual controls is more important than it being SLR: Manual controls meaning manual exposure settings (aperture and speed), and if possible also manual focus, although the latter is often not present on non-SLRs. Automatic settings have the disadvantage that you rely on the camera knowing what it's doing, which is nonsense really: the camera doesn't &quot;&lt;em&gt;know&lt;/em&gt;&quot; a thing.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;edit&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;One example where you can't fully trust the camera: the camera thinks all the world is mid-gray (a value chosen because it &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; occur often in nature. Foliage, for instance, is about mid-gray). However there are lots of situations where the light is different, darker or lighter. In those cases the photographer has to override the camera's aperture choice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="878" LastEditorUserId="878" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-08T17:46:31.770" LastActivityDate="2010-09-08T17:46:31.770" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3164" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3154" CreationDate="2010-09-08T18:05:58.013" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To now, I've used Bridge and Camera Raw, with changes being saved to the sidecar XMP files. This is fine by me as the individual files are easy to back up and synchronize across computers. I've been trialling Lightroom, and plan to buy it soon. The process has been helped by the fact that it works with my existing sidecar files, so those files are thus more portable than the LR catalog.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-09-08T18:05:58.013" />
  <row Id="3165" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3154" CreationDate="2010-09-08T19:26:23.093" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use it exactly because I don't trust the big catalog file.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What if some bug in a new version somehow causes your DB to go corrupt (remember, no app is bug free), and your recent backup was 200 photo's back, you'll have to redo the work for those photo's. I like my develop settings close to the file, allows easy backup of photo + meta data + develop settings and better compatibility with other programs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="245" LastActivityDate="2010-09-08T19:26:23.093" />
  <row Id="3166" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3160" CreationDate="2010-09-08T19:44:49.783" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No. An SLR is not a must when learning photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, I'd even say tha an SLR can be a real hindrance. There are so many controls and functions that it can be overwhelming, and it's pretty discouraging to spend $500+ on a camera kit, and turn bad photos. So much that it might make you want to switch back to full auto-mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A camera is a tool. Nothing more. The advantages of having full-manual have been explained in other answers, but knowing the technical details of iso/aperature/shutter are tangential to what you want to learn: How to shoot good photographs. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fundamentals of good photography are composition, subject, and lighting. All of which you can learn without having a camera with manual controls. While I hardly consider myself a good photographer, I often have people ask how I am able to take nice pictures with my iphone. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also wouldn't dare say a point-and-shoot isn't for people who don't want anything to do with photography. I know several photographers (including myself) who use point-and-shoot cameras in places where an SLR does not make sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My advice for anyone who has questions regarding the relationship between cameras and good photography is to check out flickr's camera finder. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/cameras/apple/iphone_3gs/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/cameras/apple/iphone_3gs/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-08T19:54:36.927" LastActivityDate="2010-09-08T19:54:36.927" />
  <row Id="3167" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3160" CreationDate="2010-09-08T20:15:48.473" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I started with an advanced P&amp;amp;S, and moved on to an SLR a few years ago when the P&amp;amp;S died. Two aspects where I saw a huge improvement with the SLR:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Low light photography. The flash, even the built-in one, works much better. And even without a flash, I can get a much larger aperture with a low-light lens, something that my previous camera did not allow.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Depth-of-field. Even with the largest aperture on my P&amp;amp;S, I couldn't get nice blurry backgrounds, even when following all the rules. Others can explain it better, but it has to do with the sensor size. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, the P&amp;amp;S allowed me to learn about all the fundamentals of photography, and I got many excellent shots out of it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="204" LastActivityDate="2010-09-08T20:15:48.473" />
  <row Id="3168" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3141" CreationDate="2010-09-08T21:53:09.173" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although you could fix this problem in lightroom with reasonable results, you can fix it when taking the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The flash is too hard and overexposes certain parts of the face (and reflects in the eyes), a easy fix is to diffuse the intensity of the light, sometimes this is possible by tweaking the flash intensity but what always works is just put a piece of thin paper in front of your flash. I've advised this to some friends with a P&amp;amp;S and the results are very noticeable and some of them now have a white paper taped in front of the flash. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should check that the warmth produced does not burn your paper, and if you have a popup flash, you could try the &lt;a href=&quot;http://content.photojojo.com/diy/diy-film-container-flash-diffuser/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DIY diffuser using a old film canister&lt;/a&gt; idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="245" LastActivityDate="2010-09-08T21:53:09.173" />
  <row Id="3169" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-08T23:37:00.137" Score="14" ViewCount="237" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to be getting into aerial photography of properties, buildings and homes.&#xA;Is there anything in particular to keep in mind when shopping for a camera and lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1338" LastEditorUserId="456" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-09T10:40:21.413" LastActivityDate="2010-11-21T21:49:56.593" Title="DSLR, Lens, and other considerations for Aerial Photography." Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;aerial-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3170" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3174" CreationDate="2010-09-09T01:05:02.317" Score="8" ViewCount="588" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been trying to find some alternative ways to display my photography around my home. I tried one of those LCD digital picture frames, however I hated having this brightly lit picture frame at the corner of my eye when watching TV or working at my computer. I like the idea of a digital frame that can cycle through my photos, however I would prefer it not illuminate. Has anyone heard of an electronic ink or electronic paper picture frame? If they exist, have you tried one, and how did it perform?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-20T23:24:30.827" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T23:24:30.827" Title="Electric Ink/Electronic Paper &quot;digital&quot; picture frame?" Tags="&lt;display&gt;&lt;presentation&gt;&lt;digital-frame&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="3171" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3173" CreationDate="2010-09-09T03:50:44.050" Score="1" ViewCount="168" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been trying to find a decent monitor hood for my Apple CinemaDisplay 30&quot;, as the only place I am able to use my computer at the moment is a fairly brightly lit (during the day) area of my home. I have fully calibrated my workflow, including my screen and printer for the various papers I use. However it is extremely difficult to work during the day when it is so bright out and still keep my screen's brightness at around 180cd/m^2 or less (which makes soft-proofing prints very difficult.) I tried to create a basic makeshift hood using simple carboard, however it is rather unruly and not particularly sturdy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found a hood designed specifically for the CinemaDisplays, called MacHood. I've found it for sale at several European online stores, however I would like to avoid the cost of having to ship it and whatnot. I am also not thrilled about having to pay a VAT, as it appears is included at all of the stores I've looked at. Is it possible to buy this hood in the US? If not, is there a US manufacturer that makes something similar, that doesn't have a VAT tax levied on top of everything else?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-20T23:20:56.507" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T23:20:56.507" Title="MacHood Cinema Display Hood in US?" Tags="&lt;color-management&gt;&lt;monitors&gt;&lt;computer-hardware&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="3172" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="406" CreationDate="2010-09-09T03:58:14.847" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If all of the above fail, you can always do it manually in LR. Here is how you can streamline the process using keyboard accelerators only:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You first need to display &lt;em&gt;both&lt;/em&gt; your JPEG and RAW files in the same Grid view in the Library module. If both type of files are in the same folder, just select that folder in the left panel. If they are in different folders, I would suggest you add them to a temporary collection first. The 'Quick Collection' in the Catalog section of the left panel will do the trick. Right click on it and select 'Set as Target Collection' (Ctrl+Shift+Alt+B). Now pick the folder containing your JPEG files, select all of them (Ctrl+A), right-click on any one photo and select 'Add to Quick Collection' (or just press B). This should add all your JPEG files to the 'Quick Collection'. Do the same for your RAW files.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;At this point you are looking at either the folder containing both your JPEG and RAW files, or a collection where you added both type of files. Display them as a Grid (hit G). Now sort them by 'Capture Time'. This can be done from the 'View' menu ('View -&gt; Sort -&gt; Capture Time') or from a small ribbon at the bottom that you can display by pressing T. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Your files are now sorted by 'Capture Time'. This means that you are looking at an ordered series of JPEG + RAW pairs. For each JPEG file, the RAW file next to it should be the exact same photo since it was captured at the same time, even though it might not have the same file name.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Click on your first JPEG file. In the right panel, you should see all its tags/keywords in the 'Keyword Tags' section under the 'Quick Develop' section. Click &lt;em&gt;in&lt;/em&gt; the text box right there (the one containing &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; the tags). You will stay there for the rest of this process.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Press Ctrl+A to select all the keywords. Now press Ctrl+Right or Ctrl+Left to switch the selection to the corresponding RAW file. Once again, it should be right next to your JPEG file in the Grid view. Note that the keyboard focus is &lt;em&gt;still&lt;/em&gt; in the keywords text box; if your RAW file has no tags, this box should be empty. Press Ctrl+V to paste the tags you just copied from the JPEG file. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Press Ctrl+Right or Ctrl+Left to select the JPEG file in the next JPEG+RAW pair, copy its tags, and paste them to the corresponding RAW file, just like you did previously. Rinse, repeat.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not ideal, obviously, but my point is, you can do it very quickly using just a few key strokes per JPEG+RAW pair. Ctrl+Left, Ctrl+Right, Ctrl+A, Ctrl+V. Good luck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T03:58:14.847" />
  <row Id="3173" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3171" CreationDate="2010-09-09T06:21:35.380" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does it have to be MacHood?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A quick google search on &lt;code&gt;apple cinema display hood&lt;/code&gt; turned up &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photodon.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&amp;amp;Product_Code=112-AC30&amp;amp;Store_Code=P&amp;amp;search=112-AC30&amp;amp;offset=0&amp;amp;filter_cat=&amp;amp;PowerSearch_Begin_Only_=&amp;amp;sort=&amp;amp;range_low=&amp;amp;range_high=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this product&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't vouch for the seller or manufacturer, but according to the website, they have a 30 day money back guarantee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T06:21:35.380" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3174" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3170" CreationDate="2010-09-09T06:30:42.103" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;None exist currently. There is one or two chinese made e-readers that have &quot;photo frame&quot; capabilities, (the kindle has this as well, but it is a hidden feature), but these are all limited to displaying the images in grayscale.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Color e-ink photoframes are pure speculation at this point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are the DIY person, you could conceivably find one that is easily hackible (ie runs linux) and hooked up to a proximity sensor, so that only enables the backlight when someone is close by for more than a few seconds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T06:30:42.103" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3175" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3088" CreationDate="2010-09-09T09:14:06.687" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Try manual focus. I've had issues with autofocus since the camera focused on the glass instead of the subject inside the aquarium.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T09:14:06.687" />
  <row Id="3176" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3169" CreationDate="2010-09-09T10:39:51.270" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not being an aerial photographer myself, I can't be certain that I've covered everything, but I'd say using very fast lenses from 200mm on is probably key, as there will be a lot of vibration from whatever flying machine you use so faster shutter speeds will probably be required, and most buildings will be quite small viewed from above so will need proper magnification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're going to be taking photos at night, then you will probably also want a body that can produce good-quality pictures at high ISO values; generally the full-frame bodies (e.g. Nikon D700, Canon 5DMkII) are best at this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T10:39:51.270" />
  <row Id="3177" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3186" CreationDate="2010-09-09T11:31:18.813" Score="16" ViewCount="322" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am thinking of using a diffuser on my canon speedlight flash to soften harsh shadows when shooting indoors. I was wondering what the disadvantages of this might be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="823" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-31T13:27:48.357" LastActivityDate="2011-06-01T17:33:56.413" Title="What are the disadvantages of using a diffuser on a flash?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;lighting-modifiers&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3178" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3169" CreationDate="2010-09-09T11:42:38.360" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From my somewhat limited experiences taking pictures out of my friend's Cessna, I can recommend the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The camera body itself will not make a huge difference here.  You may consider that most brands create better lenses for their professional bodies (in Nikon, D700, D3) than they do for their prosumer bodies (in Nikon, D300, D5000, D90, D3000, D40, etc), so if you can afford it and you plan to use the camera professionally, you may want a higher-end body.  Other than that, the camera is much less importan than the lens itself.  Also, brand is a non-issue here.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Buy the best telephoto zoom lens available for your camera body, with 2.8 flat aperture and vibration reduction or image stabilization.  Since you'll be in a fast-moving vehicle, you will need the shortest exposure times possible, and that can only be achieved with professional lenses.  Save the slow 70-300 f/3.5-5.6 for ground shoots on sunny days.  It will cost a lot of money, but presumably you'll be taking these pictures professionally, so consider it the cost of doing business.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do NOT let the lens does the window pane when you are shooting.  That transfers all the vibration of the vehicle directly into your camera.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Buy a circular polarizing filter.  You'll notice that unless you have the clearest of days, there will be smog and haze in your photo.  The circular polarizing filter will cut through that and allow you to shoot in more marginal conditions.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This may sound silly, but make sure the plane you're flying in has a clear window to shoot out of, and ideally a clear window on both sides of the plane.  You would think this is a non-issue but I've seen some pretty streaky small-plane windows, and that makes autofocusing all the more difficult and you end up doing a good bit of work post-processing the streaks out afterward.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="309" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T11:42:38.360" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3179" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3154" CreationDate="2010-09-09T12:10:03.797" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I started using Lightroom I had it write the XMP files automatically.  But I found that having the drive that holds my raw images filled with thousands and thousands of little XMP files rather bothersome when it comes to synchronizing that drive with its local and off-site backups.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So now I just back up the Lightroom catalog.  It's a big file but it compresses really well with 7-zip.  I make regular backups and new backups do not overwrite the old backups.  So if I discover six months from now that I messed up the metadata of last year's photos, I'll be able to retrieve that from an older backup of my catalog.  If I relied on XMP files, the messed up metadata would have been written to the XMP files too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your question: XMP files are useful for transferring metadata from Lightroom to other raw processing software.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T12:10:03.797" />
  <row Id="3180" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3187" CreationDate="2010-09-09T12:10:09.897" Score="7" ViewCount="220" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the largest possible size I can enlarge to with 35mm film?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="93" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-10T15:27:57.327" LastActivityDate="2010-09-10T15:27:57.327" Title="35mm photo enlargements" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;prints&gt;&lt;35mm&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="3181" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3120" CreationDate="2010-09-09T12:11:23.403" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It may just be a case that the flash power is too high -- Have you tried dialling in some flash exposure compensation to reduce the output from the flash?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T12:11:23.403" />
  <row Id="3182" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3180" CreationDate="2010-09-09T12:13:09.267" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That all depends on the viewing distance, and, to a lesser degree the brand, age and speed of the film. As an example, ISO1600 B&amp;amp;W film will exhibit more grain than that from say, ISO 50 Velvia.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you were shooting a large wall hanging to go in a restaurant or café, then you can get away with much larger enlargements than if you were wanting to hang this in an art gallery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a rule of thumb, I treat 35mm negs as the same as about a 24MP digital image, and would be happy to print an image for a gallery up to about A3 size; If it were more abstract, or somewhere were it sets the mood, rather than being the primary focus (so the restaurant scenario above), then I'd have no qualms with printing at a metre by just over half a metre (3' x 2') -- I've seen people go much larger than this, but you really are looking at moving to a digital process anyway then.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-10T07:59:32.017" LastActivityDate="2010-09-10T07:59:32.017" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3183" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3177" CreationDate="2010-09-09T12:14:49.650" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure you can call it a disadvantage as such, but they will usually reduce the overall amount of light, so you have to consider that when metering your subject. The light loss will vary, so there's no hard and fast answer to what you may need to compensate. Anyways, a good source for information on diffusers can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://flashdiffusers.net/category/flash-diffuser-basics/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;on this site&lt;/a&gt;, including tips on how to use them to best effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, in a nutshell, there isn't really any disadvantages if they're used for the purpose they're intended for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T12:14:49.650" />
  <row Id="3184" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3180" CreationDate="2010-09-09T12:22:11.260" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Film with a low ISO will typically enlarge better than high ISO film with lots of grain (unless, of course, you want that effect). Kodak produced a 40 x 60 foot print made from Kodachrome in Grand Central, but that's an extreme example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Either way, the intended viewing distance matters a great deal. For normal viewing distance, with good film, you might get as large as 16&quot; with good technique. For farther viewing distances, it could be much higher. Also, consider something like slide film which, when projected, is usually quite huge, but is also viewed from a distance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Net effect, there's no simple answer to your question, it simply depends on several factors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T12:22:11.260" />
  <row Id="3185" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3188" CreationDate="2010-09-09T13:04:51.427" Score="5" ViewCount="424" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;HDR&lt;/a&gt; was added to the iPhone in IOS 4.1:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Take great photos that capture a wider&#xA;  range of light intensity using the new&#xA;  high dynamic range (HDR) setting on&#xA;  iPhone 4, which automatically combines&#xA;  multiple exposures into a single HDR&#xA;  image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it seems that this is using the multiple image exposure blending approach to HDR. Other than a reduction in contrast, are there any other side effects of this process to keep in mind when choosing whether to use HDR on the iPhone?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-09-10T08:46:23.923" Title="Downsides to iPhone HDR" Tags="&lt;hdr&gt;&lt;iphone&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="3186" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3177" CreationDate="2010-09-09T13:28:13.390" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It will reduce the total amount of light that your flash can put out.  It will also use more power for the same amount of light hitting your subject.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When indoors, if your flash can bounce/swivel but the wall is further away, you will probably be better off bouncing without a diffuser.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/07/lighting-102-unit-21-apparent-light.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Harsh shadows are due to a small apparent light source&lt;/a&gt; (light travels in a line, soft shadows are when the transition from light to dark is gradual and the object can see part of the light source).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adding a diffuser barely (e.g. stofen) or doesn't at all add to the size of the light source.  The exception is that when walls and ceilings are close, the light is diffused and sent to those surfaces which can create a bit of a larger light source.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that when you bounce a flash, it can give a color cast based on the color of the surface.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-06-01T17:33:56.413" LastActivityDate="2011-06-01T17:33:56.413" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3187" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3180" CreationDate="2010-09-09T13:56:27.550" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's an interesting and thorough paper explaining film resolution, granularity and print grain: &lt;a href=&quot;http://cool.conservation-us.org/coolaic/sg/emg/library/pdf/vitale/2007-04-vitale-filmgrain_resolution.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://cool.conservation-us.org/coolaic/sg/emg/library/pdf/vitale/2007-04-vitale-filmgrain_resolution.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no clear answer to your question as it depends on multiple factors, namely:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Film's ability to record fine detail or resolution, which in turn consists of:&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;resolving power (function of particle density in the emulsion)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;granularity (function of particle clumping in the emulsion)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;sharpness (perceived edge distinction)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The resolution depends on:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;camera quality (lens mount and film plane alignment, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;lens quality (resolution and amount of aberrations)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;film type (different films of same speed have different resolution)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;film speed (granularity increases with speed)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;exposure (overexposure leads to more granularity)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;film processing (handling, developer, conditions, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;film age and archival conditions&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One can say that this is all unimportant, unless I suddenly want to make prints from, say, ORWO film shot by my grandfather in the seventies with Smena.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also different methods of judging resolution lead to different results, magnification under loupe or microscope is different from enlargements which in turn is different from scanning and printing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the viewing distance plays very important role in how big you can print. Kodak has published print grain indexes for their &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e190/e190.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Portra line (page 7)&lt;/a&gt;. It says that the grain of 35mm Portra 160 film is visible already in 4x6'' (10x15cm) prints, but without visual comparison or experience this does not mean a lot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the suggestion would be - test yourself, whatever numbers you get from here might not fulfill your expectations in the final print.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-09T19:07:58.263" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T19:07:58.263" />
  <row Id="3188" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3185" CreationDate="2010-09-09T13:57:38.377" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Quality / file size&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the camera saves the image in a format with a greater bit depth, the files will be larger. If it on the other hand saves it in the same format as regular images, the image quality will suffer in some conditions, as it has to squeeze a larger dynamic range into the same number of bits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T13:57:38.377" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3189" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3185" CreationDate="2010-09-09T14:37:22.077" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biggest issue I see with multiple exposure photos is that anything moving in the picture (or a shaky hand) will add aliasing/&quot;ghost features&quot; to the resulting photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on the algorithm (I have not tried the HDR feature), this may be more or less prominent. For example, a bird flying through the photo could, with a clever algorithm, be cancelled out from the sky for 2/3 exposures. The bird wouldn't be HDR, but you would not get three transparent birds in one shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example of a HDR photo with ghosting and how the photo would look without ghosting:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://myphotosoft.com/images/stories/hdr/digital-photo-hdr/ghost%201.png&quot; width=&quot;160&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;http://myphotosoft.com/images/stories/hdr/digital-photo-hdr/ghosting%20result.png&quot; width=&quot;160&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;(From &lt;a href=&quot;http://myphotosoft.com/reviews/hdr/digital-photo-hdr-2.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="890" LastEditorUserId="890" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-09T15:16:29.577" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T15:16:29.577" />
  <row Id="3190" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1504" CreationDate="2010-09-09T14:41:07.890" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://products.lowepro.com/catalog/Lens-Cases,11.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lowepro&lt;/a&gt; makes superb lens cases and you could definitely fit a lineup of them in a medium or large Timbuk2 messenger bag or similar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For sizing specifics, check out The Digital Picture's &lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lens reviews&lt;/a&gt; which usually mention the correct size Lowepro case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="90" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T14:41:07.890" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-09T14:41:07.890" />
  <row Id="3191" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1838" CreationDate="2010-09-09T14:52:23.783" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First the good news: yes, it's possible! And then comes a big &quot;but&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A digital camera is more than a CMOS sensor in a film body. As a matter of fact the sensor is only a small part (not in physical dimensions) of the camera's electronics. You'll have to wire a processor to the sensor, storage, and the camera's controls. I want to see you do it. No wait, you'll have to lay your hands on a processor in the first place. You'll have to write software for it; the controls on the body of your camera will differ from the camera the processor was meant for. Get your details right: how are you going to show the user the SD card's free space (the camera's frame counter has only 2 digits!).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;So let's change my opening line to: yes, theoretically it's possible. In practice you'll spend a large multiple of a new digital camera's street price.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the end of the 90s there was Silicon Film which promised a digital module to place in a film camera. The idea was not bad given the prices of digital cameras at the time. They never produced a working prototype, however, and the product went from vaporware to fartware (vaporware with a smell). And their product was an industrial design, which should have loads of advantages over DIY.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="878" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T14:52:23.783" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3192" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-09T16:35:45.327" Score="5" ViewCount="153" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've recently signed up to BigStockPhoto &lt;br&gt; &#xA;trying out to see if someone wants to buy my Pictures. &lt;br&gt;&#xA;I've discovered that most of my Pictures didn't &quot;follow through&quot; &lt;br&gt;&#xA;The very strict policy of BigStockPhoto... &lt;br&gt;&#xA;Anyways, is there a stock photo that is less strict (ahm, snobbish)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1342" LastEditorUserId="165" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-09T17:41:34.230" LastActivityDate="2010-09-10T19:49:59.903" Title="Stock Photo that is not strict with the quality ?" Tags="&lt;stock-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="3193" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3120" CreationDate="2010-09-09T16:52:26.847" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What kind of flash unit? The pop up flash on camera is pure evil. Just gaff tape it down and never use it. At ISO 200 there is no way you should be getting noise. Check your metadata and see if something is consistently the same on the bad pics. Also try shooting at ISO 200 outside in natural light as a test.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="786" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T16:52:26.847" />
  <row Id="3194" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3170" CreationDate="2010-09-09T17:05:28.013" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.liquavista.com/default.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;liquavista&lt;/a&gt; are probably closest to a commercial color e-ink display.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BUT it's probably not going to be 24bit color any time soon - it's difficult to think of a way of having an e-ink type display with enough gradations in brightness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="631" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T17:05:28.013" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3195" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3192" CreationDate="2010-09-09T17:22:59.687" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This probably isn't what you want to hear, but you might want to try and improve your quality before trying to sell your images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The market for stock photos is pretty saturated, so unless your quality is good enough to pass through the policies, you will probably not be selling enough for it to be worthwhile.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, there are quite a few &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.givemeareview.com/stock-photo/reviews.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;other stock photo sites&lt;/a&gt; out there, or you can post them to flickr and turn on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/help/gettyimages/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Request to License&quot; feature&lt;/a&gt;, which offers them via &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gettyimages.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Getty Images&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-09T17:29:41.570" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T17:29:41.570" />
  <row Id="3196" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3192" CreationDate="2010-09-09T18:09:19.790" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;www.clustershot.com has no quality standards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="626" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T18:09:19.790" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3197" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3015" CreationDate="2010-09-09T18:37:35.560" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Where I use my mono-pod is video.  Taking the video camera to school functions, where you are packed in small seats means a tripod is out of the question.  Holding a video camera up to your eye for a 45 minute performance is asking for a sore arm, and sore eyes.  I find that the mono-pod will fit in the space between me and the person in front of me, and with an LCD on the video-cam, I can move my eye away from the viewfinder, and actually watch the show.  Plus I can place the camera a little to the side, or above the head of the person in front if I don't have a good line of sight.  It does make a decent walking stick as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="105" LastActivityDate="2010-09-09T18:37:35.560" />
  <row Id="3198" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1558" CreationDate="2010-09-10T04:05:18.980" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been synchronizing collections spanning up to 60GB and ten thousands of small and large files for years now. This includes my LR catalogs and pictures since I started photography.  I'll be honest though, this is not a tool a lot of people use, it is not trivial to setup but it &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; solve your problem. Once it is up and running, it is very easy to work with and it will perform its duty &lt;em&gt;quickly&lt;/em&gt; and effortlessly.  As a software engineer, this is one of the top 3 pieces of software I use daily and can't live without.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The tool is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/unison/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Unison File Synchronizer&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Unison&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unison is a file-synchronization tool for Unix and Windows. It allows two replicas of a collection of files and directories to be stored on different hosts (or different disks on the same host), modified separately, and then brought up to date by propagating the changes in each replica to the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's free, run on both Windows and Unix, and even works across platforms.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It can deal with updates to both replicas of a distributed directory structure.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Updates that do not conflict are propagated automatically. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Conflicting updates are detected and &lt;em&gt;displayed&lt;/em&gt; (more about that below).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Unison is resilient to failure. It is careful to leave the replicas and its own private structures in a sensible state at all times.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It works between any pair of machines connected to the internet. It is careful with network bandwidth. Transfers of small updates to large files are optimized using a compression protocol similar to rsync.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Large files&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This later point is relevant to your problem. If a large file has been updated (say, your LR catalog), it will &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; copy the whole file over. It will instead transmit a smart, compressed subset (a delta) representing the difference between both files. For example, if I modify the Artist name on a MP3 or add some keywords to a JPEG file, it will not send the whole song or photo over, but only a very small portion of it. Granted, bigger changes happen in your LR catalog, but never quite big enough that they require to send the whole file over. This makes sense because your catalog is a SQLite database (a SQL db on disk); for performance reasons it is in the database engine's best interest not to shuffle every bits around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Renaming&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unison has &lt;em&gt;no&lt;/em&gt; problem renaming files and directories. Files are not identified by names actually, but by a unique signature. This is very convenient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Compared to Microsoft Live Sync&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similar to Microsoft Live Sync, Unison does not keep an online copy of your files (thank God), which means both machines need to be connected to the internet. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unlike Microsoft Live Sync (from what I understand), it &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; display potential conflicts and its user interface will let you decide which replica should &quot;win&quot;. That is, if you made changes on both sides, it will let you mark if the 'left' side should have priority over the 'right' side (see screenshot below), or vice versa. You can do so file by file, replica by replica, on a subset of files, etc. You can even, for text files, have Unison launch a tool that will let you resolve the conflict manually at the &lt;em&gt;contents&lt;/em&gt; level (say, using WinMerge).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Thumbnails and Previews&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now what about thumbnails and previews? Do &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; synchronize them. You do not need to, I never did, and LR is smart enough to regenerate a preview if it's missing. This has never been a problem for me in 2 years. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides your RAW and JPEG files of course, which piece of data should you synchronize to make sure you can work with LR on both sides? There are 3 components to consider, to my knowledge:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Your LR catalog file (Lightroom 3 Catalog.lrcat), which is where LR stores its metadata, keywords, rating, labels and develop settings. Remember, LR is non-destructive, it doesn't touch your original files but store every single change you made to a photo in its catalog instead (unless you instruct LR to dump these settings back to your XMP/DNG/PSD files, but that's another story and &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; a problem anyway). Your catalog is &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; important file to sync.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Your Previews directory (Lightroom 3 Catalog Previews.lrdata), which is where LR stores intermediate representation of your photos for faster viewing (1:1, low res, thumbnails, etc). Do &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; synchronize this folder. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Your Adobe Camera RAW Cache (ACR Cache). Every time you open an image in Camera Raw the full resolution of the image must be loaded into Camera Raw. As you can imagine, this can be pretty  processor intensive. The Camera Raw  cache will cache recently opened images to make re-opening them faster. This cache is actually used by LR and Photoshop if you have both. Do &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; synchronize this folder either, its content will be regenerated automatically.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can change the default location of your catalog, previews and Camera RAW Cache from the Preferences. This is how I moved my catalog to a specific user directory (my HOME directory, with personal data), and this is the very directory I sync.  You don't have to do that, but it makes my life easier.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Installation&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I mentioned earlier, installing Unison &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; tricky, check the user manual online, and comment if you are still in the blue. It does involve running  a SSH server on &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; of the computer (if you sync between two), traditionally using &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/unison/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cygwin&lt;/a&gt; or a &lt;a href=&quot;http://pigtail.net/LRP/printsrv/cygwin-sshd.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;subset of it&lt;/a&gt;. This is the tricky part, but SSH is an open, robust, safe and secure solution. I trust this set up more than running Microsoft Live Sync or Dropbox, which are essentially client/servers too. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once your SSH server is running, you are pretty much all set. You only need to write a small text file called a 'profile' that will tell Unison which folders need to be sync'ed. I realize it's not very user friendly, but it does have a powerful syntax that lets you ignore files using regular expressions or simple patterns. Here is what the top of a profile looks like, for instance:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;root = d:\users\barre&#xA;root = ssh://barre@foo.net/d:\mystuff&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first line specifies where my local replica is, and the second where my remote replica can be found, on the foo.net (fictitious) machine at home for example, in the &lt;code&gt;mystuff&lt;/code&gt; directory. This is even simpler if you stay within a local network. I use Unison to sync between 4 machines at 3 different sites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;ignore = Path {Pictures/Lightroom/Lightroom 3 Catalog Previews.lrdata}&#xA;ignore = Regex Pictures/Lightroom/.*\.lock&#xA;ignore = Regex Pictures/Lightroom/.*-journal&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These 3 lines instruct Unison to ignore my LR thumbnails/previews, as well as any temporary lock/journal files found in the Pictures/Lightroom sub-directory (relative to the root directory specified above). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And that's about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Running Unison&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first time you run Unison takes quite a bit as it computes hash signatures for all the files under its new jurisdiction. This is key to help computing differences quickly. The next time you run it, it's astonishingly fast. The user interface is a bit rough because Unison is an exotic beast written in OCaml + GTK. Just pick your profile from a list and Unison will check your local replica for changes. At the &lt;em&gt;same&lt;/em&gt; time it will call itself through SSH on the other replica to compute remote changes. Wait a few seconds and it will display a list of changes and  potential conflicts to help you reconcile the two, if needed. If there is nothing to resolve, just click &quot;Go&quot; and sync happens automagically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this screenshot below I’m synchronizing my local machine (first column), with my remote machine named KANEDA. The second column, in between, is what Unison thinks should be done. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/vs9it.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can tell:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I deleted one file on my local machine (First Friday…jpg), and the change will be propagated from left to right (the arrow), thus deleting the file on the remote.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I changed both my LR catalog and a DNG on the remote. The arrow is pointing from right to left, i.e. these changes will be propagated to my local replica.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I changed my .emacs.el file on both replicas, in a way that can’t be merged. Unison tells me at the bottom when the modification happened on both sides, the files size, etc. The question mark in the middle denotes that it’s up to me to make a choice. This line is selected, so I can just press the left or right arrow key to decide which side should win. I can even override any other row.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This situation doesn’t happen very often to me anymore, 99% of the time I don’t have any choice to make, I just review the situation quickly, press “Go”, and Unison synchronizes both replicas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;In Conclusion&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've used this tool for years and I swear by it. I synchronize and backup music, photos, documents and personal data using Unison, a task that would be impossible to do efficiently manually. It supports very large collections and thousands and thousands of file. It handles renaming, smart sync of large files and works quickly. It never corrupted a single one of my files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is still a file-level synchronization tool. It is not aware of the subtleties of your catalog, only Lightroom does. If you made changes to your catalog on both sides, you will have to make a choice between the two. At least the whole file is not copied over, and the user interface makes it easy to tell Unison which one should win. As somebody pointed out in this post, a bit of discipline should take care of this problem. Your catalog is one complex file. Even if a general-purpose tool used high-level SQL commands to inspect your catalog’s database and try to synchronize it with another, I still wouldn’t trust it over Lightroom. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2010-09-10T04:05:18.980" />
  <row Id="3201" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3185" CreationDate="2010-09-10T08:46:23.923" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that iPhone HDRI implementation could be an &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/exposure-fusion-what-is-it-how-does-it-compare-to-hdr-how-do-i-do-it&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exposure Fusion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; process, rather a true HDR + Tone Mapping process that would lead to a much more artifact result and would require much more CPU power to be processed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1022" LastActivityDate="2010-09-10T08:46:23.923" />
  <row Id="3202" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3170" CreationDate="2010-09-10T09:07:20.120" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your best bet, until someone starts selling a color e-ink display with a decent contrast ratio, is to adjust the digital frame's brightness until it matches ambient light. You may be able to get a frame with an ambient light sensor that automatically adjusts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2010-09-10T09:07:20.120" />
  <row Id="3204" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3180" CreationDate="2010-09-10T14:05:01.297" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In short: you can enlarge it as much as you like.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;There is no technical barrier which will stop enlarging at any size, no matter how low your original resolution is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course the larger you print, the more you'll see grain/noise, the more you'll notice the fine details of the picture are missing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the barrier for size is a purely aesthetical one, not a technical. Some will find a print in 3x5 too large, other will accept a 40x60 foot print as being great.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it depends on the viewer of the picture if it is too large for 35mm, not on technical details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-09-10T14:05:01.297" />
  <row Id="3205" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2906" CreationDate="2010-09-10T18:03:48.807" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Like the others have said, practice is VERY important. I truly believe that it is not just the camera that makes you a good photographer. If you have an eye for composition, even a camera-phone can capture some great shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am constantly grabbing my iPhone when I see an interesting angle or subject. Of course, I do go out a couple of times a week with my camera...just driving around to see what I can find.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastActivityDate="2010-09-10T18:03:48.807" />
  <row Id="3206" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3136" CreationDate="2010-09-10T18:13:30.297" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have found that I like to use manual focus most of the time. I shot a high school football game the other night and found auto-focus was the better choice (for me) in that situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastActivityDate="2010-09-10T18:13:30.297" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-10T18:13:30.297" />
  <row Id="3207" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3105" CreationDate="2010-09-10T18:16:44.360" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I LOVE my Nikon D90 and it is my first DSLR. I also have friends who own the D5000 and D3000. Both of them live by their cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastActivityDate="2010-09-10T18:16:44.360" />
  <row Id="3209" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3170" CreationDate="2010-09-10T18:53:23.930" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;LG is launching a flexible e-paper in 2010, which includes a 19&quot; black and white version, as well as a 9.7&quot; 4096 color version. Not really the best from a color standpoint, but hopefully that will improve as the technology hits the main stream.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.epapercentral.com/lg-debuts-flexible-epaper.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.epapercentral.com/lg-debuts-flexible-epaper.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-09-10T18:53:23.930" />
  <row Id="3210" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3192" CreationDate="2010-09-10T19:49:59.903" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To some degree, I would expect any stock photo site to set a standard bar for quality. There are billions of photos on the net...not all of them should be able to qualify as useful &quot;stock&quot;. Quality is an important factor even in the stock photo market, and if you really wish to make some money on it, quality will become more important if you try to get more money per photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might try to look at it a different way: If you don't meet the quality bar for stock photo sites, take that as a challenge to improve. Once you do start meeting the quality bar for some stock photo sites, up the ante, and work on improving more to meet the quality bar for better stock photo sites. Etc. etc., ad. inf. ;-P&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-09-10T19:49:59.903" />
  <row Id="3211" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3120" CreationDate="2010-09-10T19:53:06.723" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would check your camera's flash settings. Usually, there are settings for the built-in flash and separate settings for other flashes. The two settings may not be the same, so matching the settings for alternative flashes to the settings of the built-in flash may help normalize your results. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should also be noted that the built-in flash and the external flash could have different results simply due to quality and part factors. Built-in flash tends to be very cheap, where as other flashes can be of much higher quality. You may need to adjust the in-camera settings, and possibly the flash settings, to compensate for the differences to get similar results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-09-10T19:53:06.723" />
  <row Id="3212" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3213" CreationDate="2010-09-11T00:36:10.797" Score="3" ViewCount="550" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am looking to buy some more Lee ND filters, particularly ND's, but also some Coral's for sunset shots. I'd like to buy whole sets if possible (they usually sell .3, .6, and .9 sets for ND and Coral in Soft and Hard Grad.) It seems that Lee filters are sold out at a lot of online stores, and the items are back ordered. Does anyone know a good online photography gear store that is a little off the beaten path that might actually have some of these items in stock? I would rather not wait an arbitrary length of time to actually get the filters I need to order.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-09-14T20:56:38.133" Title="Buying LEE Filters: ND &amp; ND Grad" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;neutral-density&gt;&lt;lee&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3213" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3212" CreationDate="2010-09-11T02:22:44.577" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you don't mind shipping costs from Canada, then &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vistek.ca&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Vistek&lt;/a&gt; appears to have stock or you can also look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.henrys.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Henrys&lt;/a&gt; which doesn't have stock (they're special order), but says they will ship in 7 to 14 days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-09-11T02:22:44.577" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="3215" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-11T12:19:25.053" Score="8" ViewCount="269" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some lens manufacturers have special names for their lens designs/families. Just to name a few:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Leica - Summar/Summarit/Summilux, Elmar/Elmarit, Noctilux&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Carl Zeiss - Planar, Tessar, Sonnar, Distagon, Biogon&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do these mean and do they carry any important information from the buyer's perspective?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-04T21:33:59.997" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T21:33:59.997" Title="Lens &quot;family&quot; names - what do they mean and should I care?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;lens-design&gt;&lt;leica&gt;&lt;zeiss&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3216" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3215" CreationDate="2010-09-11T12:59:55.843" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Carl Zeiss lens families are in fact different lens designs (as in combination of optical elements). You can read about them at Wikipedia:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeiss_Planar&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Planar&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessar&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tessar&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeiss_Sonnar&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sonnar&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-09-11T12:59:55.843" />
  <row Id="3217" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-09-11T13:52:35.453" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Look at photos.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Okay, do more than just look. Use your brain and photographer's eye. See which ones you like or don't like, and ask yourself why.  Try and figure out how the photo was taken.  Low angle, high angle, framed, with flash, etc.  When you read magazines, look at advertisement photography.  What makes you want to look at one ad versus another.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="113" LastActivityDate="2010-09-11T13:52:35.453" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-11T13:52:35.453" />
  <row Id="3218" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-09-11T16:42:46.893" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A tip for learning composition from other's pictures: Read magazines upside down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1296" LastActivityDate="2010-09-11T16:42:46.893" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-11T16:42:46.893" />
  <row Id="3219" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-11T18:46:56.937" Score="4" ViewCount="163" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am considering purchasing a Canon PIXMA iP4700 Colour Printer just for photographs. I have already a HP Officejet J5780 All in one Printer, which I presently use for all my printing. I find the HP a little expensive on coloured ink.&#xA;Please advise me of the benefits or otherwise regarding my purchase of the canon printer.&#xA;Not sure which would produce the better quality photographs. Would I be better buying something else?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1179" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T10:19:33.227" Title="Canon PIXMA iP4700 Colour Printer vs HP Officejet J5780 All in one Printer" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;printer&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="3220" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3228" CreationDate="2010-09-11T18:59:03.917" Score="15" ViewCount="221" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been struggling with this for a while now and have done some research with no conclusive answers.  I am a beginner in photography in that I take pictures more seriously now then I did before.  I follow photographers on Twitter and read their blogs, etc. to learn.  Given that, I currently share my photos using a Creative Commons Attribution No Derivates Non Commercial license.  This effectively lets anyone use my photos for as long as they credit me, don't modify them or make money off of them.  I like the idea of sharing photos and if someone can get use out of it non-commercially that makes me feel good (it's nice to know that maybe someone has my picture as their desktop wallpaper or something like that).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, I am also considering putting my photos up on stock sites as my skills improve because the entrepreneur in me says why not make some money from it, even if it's a little amount.  You never know, maybe I can make enough to get that next lens.  I have no intention on going pro, but I can see it as a sorta-kinda-paying-hobby.  Which leads back to the copyright.  Should I copyright everything to the fullest extent?  Does it make a difference if I do decide to sell my photos?  Do I change all my existing copyrights to full copyrights? (I guess it's more then one question)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main thing is I don't know where this hobby will lead and what I can do with it down the road and I don't want to make stupid decisions now that jam me up in the future.  Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="205" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-02T17:50:03.063" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T17:50:03.063" Title="What license to use?" Tags="&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;hobbyist&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="3221" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2318" CreationDate="2010-09-11T19:03:00.887" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;(this is more of a comment than an answer).&#xA;Order makes a difference irrespective of if you're doing &quot;none-destructive&quot; editing or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photoshop is just as &quot;none destructive&quot; as any other editor depending how you use it. You're not changing the original raw file.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main point is that it's easier to make some modifications before you switch from the linear values captured by the sensor to the log-response values used to drive your eye. So that's why much processing over the last few years has moved into the raw converter: it's better done before you map it to the log-response of the eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The raw converter is the best place for most &quot;development&quot; changes because it's before the gamma correction is applied. Try adjusting colour balance before and after raw conversion to get a feel for the difference. Of course I've no idea what order the raw converter does spot-removal and noise reduction in (although I could guess), but it's not particularly relevant: it's one step in processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Back in the day people would worry about doing most work in the maximum bit-depth and then converting down for output. There's nothing wrong with that principle, but in practice you should be able to do everything you need in the raw converter, so it's a moot point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sure, you need to resize and then sharpen at that size, the point missed by maybe 95% of people who display images on the web.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is different for prints and web output. For web output you need to know how your monitor relates to others: is it sharp or not, and are the colours correct? Once you know, you'll know how much to sharpen. Mostly you'll find that printers are much softer, so then you'll usually want to over-sharpen on your screen so that the prints are spot on. The amount of over-sharpening you'll have to find by trial and error, as printers vary. Because you're none-destructively editing, you can sharpen for specific output devices without worrying about your originals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1055" LastActivityDate="2010-09-11T19:03:00.887" />
  <row Id="3222" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3229" CreationDate="2010-09-11T20:13:53.240" Score="7" ViewCount="120" Body="&lt;p&gt;When doing stop-frame animation with a video camera, some software has the ability to overlay the photo you're about to take with a semi-transparent ghost of the previous photo, allowing you to line up your shot perfectly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is this technology called?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1352" LastEditorUserId="1352" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-02T17:38:31.583" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T17:38:31.583" Title="What do you call that stop-frame ghost technology?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;onion-skinning&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3223" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3227" CreationDate="2010-09-11T20:29:55.090" Score="16" ViewCount="255" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm considering getting a microprism focusing screen for my Nikon d3000 (specifically, the KatzEye). Hopefully this will help tremendously with manual focusing, but I suspect there must be some disadvantages. What are the bigger issues with using a focusing screen?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T02:23:39.930" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T05:05:17.563" Title="Disadvantages of split-prism focusing screens?" Tags="&lt;manual-focus&gt;&lt;viewfinder&gt;&lt;focusing-screen&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="3224" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3220" CreationDate="2010-09-11T20:33:58.017" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is actually a more complicated question than you think, but the short answer is &quot;you can do both, mostly&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I post images online using a Creative Commons license -- but I limit those images to lower resolution (1000 pixel widest). That means people are able to use it but the version of the image that's free is one that (to me) has relatively low commercial value (if any). To me, the potential revenue is smaller than what I get back in marketing and getting my imagery seen and passed around -- and in time I don't have to spend policing potential infringements in situations. What I don't do is post high resolution versions or raw files -- the version of the file that could potentially be licensed out for a worthwhile sum. I do make those images licensable via smugmug and available there as prints for those that might want them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This to me is a reasonable compromise; the value of am image that someone wants to use on their web page is basically zero (or close to it); the value of that image with CC linkages back to my sites where someone who might want to license it for print use is much higher. I talk more about why I made this decision here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chuqui.com/2010/06/online-images-and-watermarking/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.chuqui.com/2010/06/online-images-and-watermarking/&lt;/a&gt; but after much thinking about it, it seems the best way to take advantage of where the photo market is likely to be as it exits the transformation it's in. You can fight online sharing (and lose), or you can embrace it and leverage it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason I say this is more complicated than you think -- it sounds like you haven't researched the stock world much; it's currently in a full implosion and it's not a place where you can just &quot;post some images and make money&quot;; being successful in stock or micro-stock is a profession of its own, and requires time and energy and committment (and investment), and even then, these days the ones that have done it for years are finding it hard to sustain income. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I made a decision not to get involved in microstock because I feel it devalues my imagery and it doesn't fit well with the type of photography I do. I'm staying far away from stock right now until it all settles out and I see if there's really a market to move into. Now's a lousy time to think about getting into stock photography, honestly, and you're asking for trouble if you think you can get into stock as a way to make money &quot;on the side&quot;. I may be misinterpreting you here (if so, sorry!), but I didn't want to leave that alone if I could warn you away from a potential minefield. You need to really research and understand what's going on in the stock industry before making decisions about it; it never really was a &quot;post images and wait for money to come in&quot; opportunity, and today, what opportunities there seem to be disappearing for many of the stock veterans, so be careful about what you decide to do here... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-09-11T20:33:58.017" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3225" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3220" CreationDate="2010-09-11T21:50:05.310" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I sometimes upload images to Wikipedia under a Creative Commons CC-BY license, taking it as a kind of &quot;donation for a good cause&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apart from that, I tend to agree with what John Harrington &lt;a href=&quot;http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2010/07/12-excuses-for-shooting-photos-for-free.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;writes on his blog&lt;/a&gt;: the only people you'll attract by giving photos for free is the kind of people who are going to want free photos. After all, if you can do it for free once, you might even be willing to shoot a story for magazine for free. Because it's great publicity, right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding microstock: I believe &lt;a href=&quot;#3224&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;chuqui&lt;/a&gt; has nailed it down: there isn't much point in trying to make money in environment where most of people just post pictures for nothing (or next to nothing).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-09-11T21:50:05.310" />
  <row Id="3226" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-11T21:51:32.150" Score="3" ViewCount="234" Body="&lt;p&gt;I saw your earlier post about a new module that was required for use with the quantaray QTB7500A with the canon rebel xsi?  I'm not sure what you meant by new module...my module says CN AF and has 1/16 full and TTL modes...none of these seem to work.  The camera says it doesn't recognize the external flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T19:09:25.843" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T19:09:25.843" Title="Quantaray QTB 7500A with module CN AF will this work with canon rebel xsi?" Tags="&lt;canon-450d&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3227" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3223" CreationDate="2010-09-11T22:26:33.307" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;here's a couple of potential disadvantages:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;blackout&lt;/strong&gt;: Split-prism focusing screens tend to turn black in the center with slower lenses (usually f/5.6 or slower, depends on the screen).  Unless you're using a slow lens, or setting the aperture manually, this probably won't be a major problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;effects on metering&lt;/strong&gt;: Focusing screens can affect the camera's metering system, especially in spot metering mode.  I haven't found this to be a major problem when I've used focusing screens in the past, but it depends on the camera/screen combination.  Check the katz-eye website for your specific camera, they list the effects of their screen on metering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;visual distraction&lt;/strong&gt;: The focusing screen breaks up the image in a way that can make it harder to see the final image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;cost&lt;/strong&gt;: The katzeye focusing screens are expensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;other issues&lt;/strong&gt;: There are some other possible issues with split prism focusing screens, like a darker viewfinder and alignment issues, but I don't think they're as likely to be a problem with a katzeye screen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've used a couple split prism focusing screens on different cameras and have liked them, but I haven't used a katzeye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1355" LastActivityDate="2010-09-11T22:26:33.307" />
  <row Id="3228" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3220" CreationDate="2010-09-11T22:45:09.457" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You seem to be mixing up two different concepts, copyright and licensing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a photographer, you own the copyright for images you create (unless you have other contracts which override this, such as a work for hire agreement). The only other action to take regarding your copyright is optionally registering as such (which is usually optional).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your main question here is regarding the licensing of your work.  It is possible to offer multiple licenses for a single work (a non-exclusive license).  This is the default, so you are able to offer a creative commons license for non-commercial use, then also offer a separate license that allows commercial use.  In this way, you can make a profit on commercial use without charging someone for personal use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some stock sites will require an exclusive license, meaning that you are agreeing to only provide a single license of your work. If you were to take this route, you would not be able to also provide a creative commons licensed version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, it is important to keep in mind that the licenses you provide are by default a permanent agreement, meaning that you can not simply change the licenses you have provided in the past.  This means that any images that you have previously released under a creative commons license are no longer eligible for exclusive licensing, but you would be able to offer a non-exclusive license.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-12T03:16:43.877" LastActivityDate="2010-09-12T03:16:43.877" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3229" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3222" CreationDate="2010-09-12T00:11:41.463" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_skinning&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Onion skinning&lt;/a&gt; I think.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2010-09-12T00:11:41.463" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3231" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3220" CreationDate="2010-09-12T01:08:11.913" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's very hard to make money from stock photos - there's too much supply and not enough demand (and considering stock photos are not consumable, this is only going to get worse). Also, you can't license something, then change your mind. Once it's under Creative Commons you can't take it back out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I'd say: If you're in it for the money, good luck. If you're not in it for the money, then just don't say anything about copyright, or include 'all rights reserved' in a small font (in which case you retain your copyright, but people won't hesitate to download it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1352" LastActivityDate="2010-09-12T01:08:11.913" />
  <row Id="3233" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3226" CreationDate="2010-09-12T01:29:57.883" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No it won't work, not without an updated module.&#xA;In order for companies like Quantaray (it's actually rebadged Sigma) to produce flash guns cheaply, they've separated the flash from the electronics that interface with the camera. This separated component is what I am referring to when I say an updated &quot;module.&quot; Along with producing a standard flashgun that works with a variety of camera systems, Sigma is able to update the electronics as Canon changes them. Canon's E-TTL system is proprietary and as such, Sigma has to reverse engineer the flash interface).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon has updated their flash hotshoe interface so it is no longer compatible with older thirdparty flashguns. In order to make use of your flash, you will either need to use it in manual mode with a off-camera flash cord, or find an updated flash module (when I last checked this wasn't easy to find). I have the same exact problem with the Sigma DG500 Super and my 5D Mark II. My 5d2 cannot trigger the Sigma as is. I will have to send it to Sigma and have it rechipped&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-09-12T01:29:57.883" />
  <row Id="3234" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3235" CreationDate="2010-09-12T04:03:00.920" Score="10" ViewCount="154" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon Digital Rebel XT.  When I look through my camera's viewfinder, I see a tiny speck near the bottom middle.  It seems to cause my camera to not focus well (I have autofocus (AF) turned on).  When I aim it at a static distant object, the camera always takes a bit to find what to focus on.  I'm pretty sure it's because of this speck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know it's not on my lenses since I've changed those out and it still appears in the exact spot.  And the speck does not show up in the  photos I take.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've blown air using a blower into the camera as well as the sensor, and the speck is still there.  How do I clean this speck off?  Do I need to have it sent out to be professionally cleaned?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="607" LastEditorUserId="607" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-12T11:16:11.177" LastActivityDate="2010-09-12T16:39:46.003" Title="How to properly clean a camera" Tags="&lt;cleaning&gt;&lt;maintenance&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="3235" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3234" CreationDate="2010-09-12T05:28:03.833" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a great site I recommend to folks trying to figure this out:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cleaningdigitalcameras.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cleaningdigitalcameras.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with it in any way). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;it has all of the background info and general instructions. The Rebel XT is a camera that was introduced before Canon started using the automated sensor cleaning, so it's going ot require maintenance, but it's not a dust pig like some (my 30d attracts dust like crazy). Getting in the habit of blowing your sensor cavity before every shoot is a good idea. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Get a good bulb blower, like the rocket. Use it. I blow and check my sensor before every photo session on the 30d. By doing so, the dust doesn't stay on the sensor long and isn't as likely to pick up moisture, and it's the moisture that will &quot;weld&quot; it to the sensor and require a wet cleaning to remove. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wet cleaning is scary, but if you're careful and follow the instructions you can do it. After you've done it a couple of times, you'll feel more comfortable, but it's not something to get sloppy or complacent with. I use the sensor tools described on that site for wet cleaning. I also own a illuminated loupe from visible dust (briteview, a 7x loupe) to inspect the sensor, and I find it quite useful because dust is small and the chamber is hard to light. There are a number of ways you can do that, but trying to examine the sensor with the naked eye will be tough to successfully clean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would strongly (STRONGLY) suggest you have the camera professionally cleaned at this point; a good camera shop in your area (especially if they have a rental area or a repair shop) can do it. If you ask nicely, many times they'll let you watch and explain how to do it; if they do, buy your cleaning materials from them for their time... Professional cleaning isn't expensive and is a good suggestion a couple of times a year in any case; I carry wet cleaning materials for an emergency cleaning on the road when I don't have many options, and will let the pros clean it for routine maintenance. If you get into the habit of good blowing hygiene, you may find you never NEED to wet clean the sensor. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Get into the some habits when changing lenses; always hold the camera with the chamber facing down, use gravity to your benefit. Have everything ready and leave the camera open as short a time as possible. Avoid doing it outdoors in dusty and windy locations and shield the camera from the wind with your body. The more you treat the sensor area as a &quot;clean room&quot; environment, the better you'll be. tough with one body and multiple lenses in the field, but if you think how to minimize &quot;open time&quot; and practice changing lenses, you can limit the problems. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And get really paranoid about blowing out the chamber. I've found it works better if you blow it out just before starting photography; I sohuld probably blow it out before AND after, but since I'm not having problems with sticky dust, it seems before is good enough.. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Never touch the sensor with anything (except a sensor cleaning tool with a fiber-free cloth on it when you're wet cleaning); if you touch it you'll leave residue (skin oils, even) that'll impact images until it gets wet cleaned. So be careful poking around in there...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Make sure your battery had a good charge; if the battery fails while cleaning, the mirror will pop down and you'll likely damage the camera. Don't push it, swap batteries if you aren't sure. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(you could, by the way, be seeing a spot of dirt that's gotten onto the focussing screen and not the sensor. If it shows up in the viewfinder but not on your images, taht's what's going on; that you can ignore, but if it annoys you, you can get it cleaned; that's something again you want to let thepros do until you're comfortable doing this stuff yourself...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-09-12T05:28:03.833" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3236" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-09-12T09:23:21.320" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually look through the viewfinder.   What you see in there (at least with an SLR) is what you're going to get.   Check for telephone poles sticking out of the top of people's heads.  Check for litter on the ground in front of your subject.   After you take the photo, check to see if somebody blinked or looks like an idiot (taking a sequence of three or so frames helps there).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check for distracting items at the edge of the frame particularly - either reframe to omit them, or actually include the object in the photograph.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Plenty of folks have already suggested using photos you don't like as learning experiences.  That is really good advice; figure out why you do/don't like examples of your work.   Something that's helped me in this is to use software in which I can rate and tag photos so that I actually think about how pleased I am with a particular image.   I use a rating scheme like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;made a technical mistake (e.g. subject is out of focus), the photo failed in its intent&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;competent but boring &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;LI had an emotional reaction to the content of the image &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I think this is among my best work &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I haven't used this rating yet!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1359" LastActivityDate="2010-09-12T09:23:21.320" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-12T09:23:21.320" />
  <row Id="3237" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3177" CreationDate="2010-09-12T09:38:26.853" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's only one disadvantage  that it may not have the effect you are looking for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A diffuser spreads the light in more directions than the flash illuminates without the diffuser.  Reasons why this might be unhelpful include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You end up with less light going in the direction the flash is pointing.   If you are short of light anyway (e.g. the flash is the main source of illumination and the subject-camera distance is large) this can result in inadequate levels of lighting, or the automatic selection of a wider aperture than you had hoped for (i.e. low depth-of-focus).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You end up with some light bouncing off something undesirable; for example a large green wall, which would then lend a green tint to your subject on that side.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People often assume that a diffuser softens the light in an image.   This is not really true.  Or at least, it's a secondary effect.   The softness of the flash lighting in a photograph is determined by the apparent size of the light source as seen from the position of the subject.   Diffusers soften light (when they do it at all) mainly by causing the light to be partly reflected from the flash off other nearby objects before hitting the subject, thus increasing the area from which illumination comes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An alternative technique is to angle your flash head up or back, and put a card or sleeve (a &quot;gobo&quot;) on the flash to prevent all direct illumination from the flash hitting the subject.  Thus the light source is now the reflection from the ceiling (which is large) rather than the flash itself (which is small) and so the lighting is softer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best book I've read on this subject is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amherstmedia.com/miva/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&amp;amp;Store_Code=AM&amp;amp;Product_Code=1888&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;On-Camera Flash Techniques for Wedding and Portrait Photography&lt;/a&gt; by Neil van Niekerk.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1359" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-31T17:09:37.297" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T17:09:37.297" />
  <row Id="3238" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3044" CreationDate="2010-09-12T09:51:16.800" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;They don't suck in dust or moisture when they are zoomed.   If you are using them for macro work, they don't bang into the subject when zoomed.   Typically, IF zooms don't rotate on zoom either, so they are easy to use with graduated filters and polarisers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Much of this is secondary though.  Zooms intended for pros have many useful features, and non-extension is just one of them.  Others include being more rugged, being weather sealed (not the same thing) and often, higher quality.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1359" LastActivityDate="2010-09-12T09:51:16.800" />
  <row Id="3239" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3120" CreationDate="2010-09-12T09:59:17.473" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Grain&quot; (really, noise) in your photo is principally determined by the ISO level.  More stictly speaking, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;by the electronic amplification applied to the electrical signal captured from the photosites in your camera's sensor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;by the shot noise inherent given a specific photosite (sensor element) physical size and actual light level&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;by the temperature of the inside of your camera&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems unlikely to me that the speedlight is directly causing noise; I can't think of a physical mechanism for this.  It's more likely that you are seeing a higher ISO level or there are image processing differences.  The second could just be different camera settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first could be caused by low flash output causing your camera to push its ISO settings; this will only happen in auto-ISO mode.  But since you said &quot;no matter what ISO setting I have&quot; I'm not certain you'd be uaing auto-ISO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try posting an A/B comparison pair of images if you would like more specific advice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1359" LastActivityDate="2010-09-12T09:59:17.473" />
  <row Id="3240" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3219" CreationDate="2010-09-12T10:10:04.133" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use an OfficeJet 6500.   It turns out colour photos, but there is a big gap between it and lab-printed photos.   Yet lab-printed photos are not that expensive.  I use the OfficeJet for basic proofing, and order lab prints online.  I order mine from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photobox.ie&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.photobox.ie&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1359" LastActivityDate="2010-09-12T10:10:04.133" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3241" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1611" CreationDate="2010-09-12T10:32:08.460" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a BlackRapid RS-5.   The padded part which is supposed to sit on the shoulder likes to drift down over my chest, which is a bit irritating (the clip on the strap prevents it slipping the other way).    I suspect the RS-4, which has a less heavy padded part, would be less prone to this.  BlackRapid have a &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blackrapid.com/product/mods/brad/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;BRAD&lt;/a&gt;&quot; product which is an extra strap which will prevent this happening I expect, but I haven't tried it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Despite this minor irritation, I would never, ever go back to a regular camera strap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The RS-5 works fine for me with backpacks.  I just put it on before the pack.   Recently, I've started using a slingshot, and that requires care to make it work with the RS.   Specifically, I put the RS-5 on first, then I put the slingshot pack on by undoing its buckle and passing the slingshot strap under the RS-5.   This makes the RS-5 work fine, while still allowing me to slide the slingshot pack around to get at stuff in that bag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1359" LastActivityDate="2010-09-12T10:32:08.460" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3242" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1611" CreationDate="2010-09-12T15:46:04.257" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use the black rapid and like it. Another alternative is the Luma Loop (http://www.luma-labs.com/products/loop), which was invented by a friend of mine (but I have no involvement in it). It's supposed to be somewhat more comfortable than the RS-5, but I haven't field tested it yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-09-12T15:46:04.257" />
  <row Id="3243" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3226" CreationDate="2010-09-12T16:04:31.573" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Thank you for such detailed information...I do have an off-camera flash cord that I will probably have to use until I can find the new module...You are the best!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-09-12T16:04:31.573" />
  <row Id="3244" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3234" CreationDate="2010-09-12T16:39:46.003" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Try taking a picture will a reall small aperture, like f/22, this will show you if the speck is on the sensor or not. When the aperture is wide open, dust is blurred so much that it is hard to spot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it's not on the sensor, it's on the mirror or on the focusing screen, and those are much easier to clean, as you don't have to be just as extremely careful as with the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it affects the auto-focus, it should be on the mirror rather than the focusing screen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-09-12T16:39:46.003" />
  <row Id="3245" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3256" CreationDate="2010-09-12T17:00:42.153" Score="6" ViewCount="128" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a feeling that my camera isn't metering as well as it used to, and I think it is now over exposing by about a stop. Whilst this can be counteracted by using exposure compensation, it's not a critical issue; but how can I check the calibration of the inbuilt metering?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-12T18:22:12.723" LastActivityDate="2010-09-13T17:48:52.253" Title="How can I check the metering calibration on my camera?" Tags="&lt;metering&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="3246" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3250" CreationDate="2010-09-12T17:04:42.643" Score="4" ViewCount="104" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found out by trial/error that the &quot;RESET COUNTER&quot; doesn't allow you to reset the image counter, it just increments it to the next largest group of 1000 photos (e.g. from P1000xxx -&gt; P1010xxx -&gt; P1020xxx). I'm stuck at P113, and I want to either set it to P2000000 without having to RESET COUNTER 87 more times, or reset it to zero.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There must be some way to do this: where is the info stored?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="530" LastActivityDate="2010-09-12T17:47:49.823" Title="resetting the image counter on a Panasonic DMC-G2" Tags="&lt;panasonic&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="3247" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3245" CreationDate="2010-09-12T17:06:18.443" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you have control the light, the easiest way to do it would probably be to compare the camera meter against a hand-held meter and see if they agree or not. Your other option would be to take it in for servicing and have them check it with their computerized gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-09-12T17:06:18.443" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3248" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3245" CreationDate="2010-09-12T17:11:57.980" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could try following the &quot;Sunny 16&quot; rule to determine the correct metering during bright midday sunlight. The rule generally follows as such:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1/ISO shutter @ f/16 aperture = bright daylight, distinct shadows, midtoned subject&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your ISO setting is 100, you would use a shutter speed of 1/100. Take a shot, then compare that shot to one metered by your camera under the same conditions. Under aperture priority mode, your camera should choose a shutter speed of 1/100, maybe 1/125. Under shutter priority mode, your camera should choose an aperture of f/16, or maybe +/- 1/3 of a stop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-09-12T17:11:57.980" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3249" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-12T17:12:50.443" Score="4" ViewCount="350" Body="&lt;p&gt;What should I set the canon xsi in terms of flash settings?  Also what would you recommend for iso and aperture settings when using this off-camera flash (that doesn't synch with camera)?  I have tried manual setting on flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T19:08:33.407" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T19:08:33.407" Title="off-camera flash in manual mode what should I set canon xsi on?" Tags="&lt;canon-450d&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3250" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3246" CreationDate="2010-09-12T17:47:49.823" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Aha, I figured it out. The logic used by the DMC-G2 camera for the &quot;RESET COUNTER&quot; appears to be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Increment the group &lt;code&gt;nnn&lt;/code&gt; (P100, P101, etc.) by 1.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the photo &lt;code&gt;Pnnn0001.JPG&lt;/code&gt; does not exist, set the photo counter to this image and stop.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Otherwise, increment the group &lt;code&gt;nnn&lt;/code&gt; by 1. (Wraparound '999' -&gt; '100')&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If we haven't tried this group # before, go to step 2.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Otherwise, give up and don't reset the counter.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to reset the counter to 200, just create directories 100_PANA, 101_PANA, 102_PANA, ... 198_PANA, 199_PANA each with one file in it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To reset the counter to 100, create directories up through 999_PANA &lt;em&gt;without&lt;/em&gt; any 100_PANA directory present.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wrote a script with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jsdb.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;jsdb&lt;/a&gt; to do this on my Mac:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;function pana_reset_help(root,firstnum,lastnum) {&#xA;  for (var i = firstnum; i &amp;lt;= lastnum; ++i) { &#xA;    var d=root+'/DCIM/'+i+'_PANA'; &#xA;    system.execute('mkdir '+d);&#xA;    // now write a dummy file &#xA;    // to prevent the RESET COUNTER from using this dir&#xA;    var S = new Stream(d+&quot;/P&quot;+i+&quot;0001.JPG&quot;,&quot;w&quot;); &#xA;    S.writeln(); &#xA;    S.close(); &#xA;  };&#xA;}&#xA;&#xA;// example run: pana_reset_help('/Volumes/sd7',113,199);&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="530" LastActivityDate="2010-09-12T17:47:49.823" />
  <row Id="3251" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3252" CreationDate="2010-09-12T20:37:04.947" Score="4" ViewCount="335" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi all,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm currently using a spyder 2 for my color calibration needs.  I see a variety of other color calibration products out there on the market, and am having trouble finding a review of many of these things side-by-side.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not even sure what I should take into consideration when I move up.  I right now have a viewsonic 24&quot; widescreen monitor that looks 'reasonable', whatever that means, but the prints coming out of the r800 are nowhere near what I think they should be.  That printer was old and busted, and I've since decided to go with a canon pixma 9500 mk II (as per this question here:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1901/what-printer-should-i-get-to-replace-an-epson-r800&quot;&gt;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1901/what-printer-should-i-get-to-replace-an-epson-r800&lt;/a&gt;) as a replacement printer.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, is it worth it to get the printer profiled as well, just so that everything's all in the same color space?  (Or should that be a separate question?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-09-15T05:23:14.767" Title="What color calibration tool should I use to step up past my spyder 2?" Tags="&lt;color-calibration&gt;&lt;display-calibration&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3252" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3251" CreationDate="2010-09-12T21:23:34.800" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Great choice of printer, it produces some excellent quality prints. It is particularly great at landscape and nature reproduction, with its red and green inks (I can personally attest to its stellar output on Fine Art media, particularly Hahnemuhle Photo Rag...absolutely fantastic landscape output on that paper.) :-) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that you do have (or plant to get) the Canon PIXMA Pro9500 II, I would recommend the Spyder3 Studio SR. I recently purchased the Studio SR myself, as a complete calibration solution from start to finish. It provides screen calibration with the Spyder3 Elite, printer calibration with the Spyder3 Print, and camera color checking with their SypderCube, a White, Black, and 18% Gray cube. The SpyderCube is an ok tool, however I think a standar ColorChecker card is a better tool. I personally am looking into getting the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xrite.com/product_overview.aspx?ID=1257&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;X-Rite ColorChecker Passport&lt;/a&gt; for field work. The new Spyter3 Elite 4.0 software is a significant upgrade from the previous software, and it offers some extensive calibration options. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The printer calibration is a Strip Reader (SR) calibrator with a nice guiding template, and it makes it very easy to properly calibrate your printer for any paper and any ink (either brand ink or third party, if your interested in getting an external continuous ink supply system.) I have not used it extensively myself, only on standard Canon papers (particularly Semi-Gloss and Pro Photo Platinum) which tend to have too much of a red-saturation shift. I am working on finding and ordering some Hahnemuhle papers, such as canvas, which will require calibration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Spyder3 Elite monitor calibrator and Elite 4.0 software are also a good step up from the Spyder2 calibrator. You have both the express calibration options, as well as some extensive advanced calibration and statistical options. It supports things like luminosity uniformity, graphing, multiple display calibration and output comparison, full gray balance, and a bunch more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can read a great review of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/profiling/spyder3print_sr.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Spyder3Print&lt;/a&gt; at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Northlight Images&lt;/a&gt;. You can find the &lt;a href=&quot;http://spyder.datacolor.com/product-pp-s3studiosr.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Spyder3Studio SR&lt;/a&gt; at DataColor's web site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively, if you want some of the best calibration available, with fully automatic patch scanning and high speed profile generation, you could get one of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xritephoto.com/ph_product_overview.aspx?id=1242&amp;amp;catid=111&amp;amp;action=overview&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;X-Rite ProfileMaker 5 and i1 bundles&lt;/a&gt;. These offer some top of the line calibration, however you do pay for it, as they range from $4000-$5000.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Working a little more with the Spyder3Studio package, I've learned about some additional features that make it even better. The software has the ability to generate profiles for different lighting conditions without even rescanning the patches. You just provide the necessary settings for color temperature and room brightness, and you can regenerate multiple variants of a profile from a single set of scanned patches. This is pretty handy, as viewing light can affect the perceived colors in a print, particularly for papers with optical brighteners (they are often designed to look best when viewed with light that includes UV wavelengths, which is often absent in artificial lighting.) There are many, many options and tweaks that can be made with the Spyder3Print software, and I've barely begun to explore. I just thought I would add a note that for its relatively low cost ($550 list, and there is currently a $50 rebate, which is about 1/10th the cost of more &quot;professional&quot; equipment like the x-Rite EyeOne kit), it certainly seems to produce excellent results and offers a tremendous range of settings and capabilities in the software.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-15T05:23:14.767" LastActivityDate="2010-09-15T05:23:14.767" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3253" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-13T03:25:02.657" Score="4" ViewCount="246" Body="&lt;p&gt;there doesn't seem to be any listed on the m4/3 section of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/accessories.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Four Thirds website&lt;/a&gt;. Olympus makes the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.four-thirds.org/en/fourthirds/accessories.html#02&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EX-25 extension tube&lt;/a&gt; but it's for regular Four Thirds lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to do some macro photography but the two lenses I have need the electronic contacts for aperture adjustment and image stabilization (can't live without the former, painful to get rid of the latter).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="530" LastActivityDate="2010-09-13T18:41:19.943" Title="where can I get an extension tube for micro-four-thirds lenses?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;extension-tubes&gt;&lt;micro-four-thirds&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="3254" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3253" CreationDate="2010-09-13T05:22:18.930" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have you looked into Diopter filters (also called Close-Up Lenses), rather than an extension tube? They can achieve the same effect, however they do throw another lens into the mix, so the quality of the diopter will likely play a big role in your ultimate image quality. Diopters come in a variety of strengths, from +1, +2, +3 or +4, and +10 in common cheaper sets, to single values, such as +10, in single-diopter high-quality lenses. Diopters can be stacked to achieve a greater effect, so a set of +1, +2, and +4 can get you up to +7 power total. I believe the value is the optical focusing power, although if that is always the case with all brands couldn't say. Regardless, they all have the same effect of allowing you to focus closer to your subject. Like any device that allows closer focusing, you DOF will become razor-thin if you stack on enough magnification. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You don't necessarily need IS for macro, and there is some question debate about how valuable IS really is for macro work. When working with such short DOF, you often need to stop down pretty far, and the best way to get a decent exposure and freeze motion is with a ring flash (rather than IS.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-09-13T05:22:18.930" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="3255" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3253" CreationDate="2010-09-13T06:04:11.647" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Along with diopters, you can get reversal rings and stick a nice prime on backwards in front of another lens.  This will net you much higher magnification and be higher quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can't find any extension tubes on ebay, the closest thing you could get might be extensions for a lens you adapt to your mount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Auto aperture is pretty nice, but if you get a lens with an A/M switch or a preset ring, it will allow you to focus wide open, and then move your finger for shooting stopped down.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;IS will likely not compensate enough because at those magnifications, shake will be, well, magnified.  If your camera allows you to adjust the focal-length for IS (such as Pentax), you can try that.  But with a macro you should try to brace yourself against, say, the ground, or use a tripod.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-13T18:41:19.943" LastActivityDate="2010-09-13T18:41:19.943" />
  <row Id="3256" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3245" CreationDate="2010-09-13T07:14:30.010" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd suggest to take an image of evenly lit area without details (wrong focus is a great way to reduce details) and check the histogram. You should see a peak in the center or just a bit left from the center if your meter is correct (left image on the example below, default exposure) and more to the right if your camera overexposes as you suspect (right image on the example below, overexposed 1 stop).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/kUg6y.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-13T17:48:52.253" LastActivityDate="2010-09-13T17:48:52.253" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3257" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1408" CreationDate="2010-09-13T08:13:03.390" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Materials you need&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;1. Cotton buds (those intended for babies are best)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2. Pure isopropyl alcohol&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Technique&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;1. Be prepared to use several cotton buds.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2. Dip a clean cotton bud in isopropyl alcohol and let the excess run off.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;3. Starting in the center of the lens, wipe gently in a spiral pattern, working towards the outer edge of the lens.&lt;br&gt; &#xA;4. At the same time rotate the cotton bud to pick up dirt and so that the lens surface is only presented with the clean surface of the cotton bud.&lt;br&gt; &#xA;5. When you have completed one rotation with the cotton bud you must replace it. This way you never rub dirt against the lens surface. You will have to use several cotton buds.&lt;br&gt; &#xA;6. Never allow the used surface of the cotton bud to come into contact with the lens surface.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;7. Depending on the condition of the lens you may have to repeat this more than once.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;8. Before you start on the lens you might want to practice on one of your filters.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;9. Do not try to 'polish' the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-09-13T08:13:03.390" />
  <row Id="3258" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3265" CreationDate="2010-09-13T08:20:19.537" Score="13" ViewCount="750" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are both scenarios legal?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I own a photo, and someone painted a&#xA;replica (using canvas and paints) and&#xA;sold prints. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Someone altered it using&#xA;Photoshop to look like a painting and&#xA;sold prints.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do I need to copyright my pictures to prevent this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1207" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-25T14:53:36.373" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T16:03:32.403" Title="If my photo is &quot;copied&quot; through a painting, is that a legal?" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="3259" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3258" CreationDate="2010-09-13T09:46:23.013" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You should consult a real lawyer. Do not expect any legal advice over Internet to be meaningful. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My personal opinion is that painted replica is legal and Photoshop alteration is &quot;derivative work&quot; and can be considered legal depending of the copyright of the pictures. Having no specific &quot;written&quot; copyright statement implies some default copyrights and in this case Photoshop alteration is probably not legal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1075" LastActivityDate="2010-09-13T09:46:23.013" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3260" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3258" CreationDate="2010-09-13T10:39:02.187" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your work is always copyrighted, there is no need to register it somewhere. This implied copyright means that you have all the rights to your work. (If you release your work under a certain license it means the same or reduced rights, you can't use a license to increase your rights.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether a copy of your work is legal or not, depends on the sitation. If your photo is unique enough, and the painting isn't, it would be illegal to sell copies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-09-13T10:39:02.187" />
  <row Id="3261" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="555" CreationDate="2010-09-13T11:16:57.790" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is an ongoing project to analyse and de-encrypt the firmware of Pentax DSLRs:-&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentax-hack.info/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pentax Hack&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-09-13T11:16:57.790" />
  <row Id="3262" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3263" CreationDate="2010-09-13T11:53:14.110" Score="9" ViewCount="515" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have read &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/594/what-does-f-stop-mean&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;,so I know what an f-stop is, but what does the number on printed the lens signify?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this is the maximum f-stop, the ideal, or something else?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="560" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-27T13:22:10.940" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T14:53:12.057" Title="What does the f-stop printed on the lens refer to?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;f-stop&gt;" AnswerCount="5" />
  <row Id="3263" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3262" CreationDate="2010-09-13T11:56:57.440" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It refers to the maximum f-stop (which is defined as the ratio of focal length to effective aperture diameter). Smaller number means larger opening and more light:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Aperture_diagram.svg/500px-Aperture_diagram.svg.png&quot; alt=&quot;Example of relative aperture sizes&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture#In_photography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some (possibly overgeneralized) examples: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;f0.9 to f1.2 is exceptional&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;f1.4 is very fast, usually the pro primes with less than 100mm focal length have this aperture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;f1.8 to f2.4 - still quite fast&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;f2.8 - good pro zooms and long pro teles usually have f2.8 constant maximum aperture (constant only applies to zooms, see below)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;f4 - good consumer-prosumer zooms and very long pro teles usually have f4 constant maximum aperture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;f4-5.6 - aperture range denotes variable aperture zooms, meaning you lose light when zooming in (70-300 f4-5.6 is f4 lens at 70mm and f5.6 lens at 300mm)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Read more about aperture from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture#In_photography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-21T20:52:08.467" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T20:52:08.467" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="3264" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3249" CreationDate="2010-09-13T12:16:59.767" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer depends on the effect you want to achieve. First you need to workeout how to set up your flash based on distance from object to flash and camera f-stop. You will need a table to allow you to work out how to set up your flash (such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://silverbased.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Exposure-Table-Decoded.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt; - there may be something similar on your flash unit) based on the following information:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flash guide number&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aperture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ISO rating&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Distance to subject (from flash, not camera - IMPORTANT!)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then you can just expose manually for the unlit parts of your scene. If you want a black background, stop the lens right down, but use a long enough shutter speed that will allow you to fire the flash while the shutter is open. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-09-13T12:16:59.767" />
  <row Id="3265" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3258" CreationDate="2010-09-13T12:18:33.627" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In most &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_registration#Requirements_by_country&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;countries copyright registration is not required&lt;/a&gt;, and copyright is granted by the act of publication.  In the US, voluntary registration is available, which is needed to sue for infringement, and gives the copyright holder more possibilities when collecting damages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as the scenarios go, both will include elements of the original work, so they would fall into the category of a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;derivative work&lt;/a&gt;, and depending on the originality (or lack thereof) of the reproduction, may infringe on your copyright. The first is much tougher to prove though, because the original elements of the image are being reproduced in a different medium.  In the case of a change using Photoshop, there very well may be enough similarity to prove that infringement has occurred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-25T12:55:12.280" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T12:55:12.280" />
  <row Id="3266" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3296" CreationDate="2010-09-13T13:33:19.690" Score="6" ViewCount="173" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a 430 EX mounted on a 450D/XSI.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any easy way to quickly disable the flash for a shot, without turning it off, as you have to wait for it power up again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="142" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-13T15:31:47.620" LastActivityDate="2010-09-14T16:28:03.060" Title="Quick way to disable the flash (Speedlite) on a Canon without switching off?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;speedlite&gt;&lt;canon-450d&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="3267" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3262" CreationDate="2010-09-13T18:13:33.880" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The number printed on the lens will be the maximum aperture (smallest numerically) of which that lens is capable. There really is no single &quot;ideal&quot; -- for example, as you stop down, the depth of field increases. Depending on what you want and what kind of picture you're taking, under what circumstances, etc., you might want to minimize, maximize, or carefully choose the depth of field (e.g., I want my subject as sharp as possible, and this book in the background blurred enough that the text is no longer readable, but still sharp enough that it's recognizable as text and a book).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-09-13T18:13:33.880" />
  <row Id="3268" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3308" CreationDate="2010-09-13T19:07:29.573" Score="5" ViewCount="90" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can someone please recommend software that enables editing for exposure mode exif data? I have tried with Picasa, but it doesn't support editing of this specific property. Thanks. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="16" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-13T19:16:56.177" LastActivityDate="2010-09-15T11:45:15.007" Title="Software for editing exposure mode exif data" Tags="&lt;exif&gt;&lt;picasa&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3269" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3266" CreationDate="2010-09-13T19:24:32.313" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't have a 450D, but doesn't it have a mode on the dial for flash off? It would be fully automatic, I would guess, so that may not be desirable. The only other option I can see is disabling it in the camera menu, but that may be a little too slow for your purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-09-13T19:24:32.313" />
  <row Id="3270" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3268" CreationDate="2010-09-13T19:26:11.757" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Probably the most likely option is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ExifTool&lt;/a&gt; as it seems to be the Swiss Army Knife of editors, though not the easiest for people to use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-09-13T19:26:11.757" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3271" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3278" CreationDate="2010-09-13T20:26:31.203" Score="13" ViewCount="293" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do I create a watermark?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="477" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-23T21:25:49.283" LastActivityDate="2010-11-23T21:25:49.283" Title="How do you create a watermark for photos?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;watermark&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="3272" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3271" CreationDate="2010-09-13T20:58:42.220" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two types of watermark, visible and invisible. Visible watermarks are usually added to &quot;brand&quot; an image, add your name and copyright information, in order to deter image theft (though it wont prevent it). They can be easily added by creating a new text layer in Photoshop/Gimp. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Invisible watermarks are used to help track images and are a more effective way to prevent copyright theft as they are resistant to image transformations (rotation, cropping etc). They can be added by plugins such as Digimark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-09-13T20:58:42.220" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3273" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-13T21:11:06.120" Score="4" ViewCount="1133" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am new to LR3 and have decided to convert RAW images to DNG on import. However, I have about 8000 or so JPEG images that I have brought in to LR and I am on the fence as to whether to leave them in JPEG format or to convert them to DNG. I know DNG will take up more space and I think I can live with that. The question is how much is gained by going to DNG from JPEG and should I do it. As I understand it, the XMP data for a DNG resides in the file where the JPEG data is in a sidecar. My photos are mainly family memories and I want to preserve them. Appreciate any comments/suggestions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1378" LastActivityDate="2010-09-14T14:05:42.057" Title="Should I convert my JPEG images to DNG in Lightroom 3?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;dng&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3274" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3273" CreationDate="2010-09-13T21:23:19.730" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only real gain is the ability to apply non-destructive edits to the image and to reset them inside the file, as you noted in your message. Bear in mind that it can't totally put you in the same position as the RAW source format since the actual sensor data is lost along with anything discarded during the JPEG compression phase. Beyond that, there really isn't an advantage since JPEG, itself, is a well known and massively supported format (much more so than DNG).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, I would suggest that if you do want to convert to DNG, that you only do it on an as-needed basis. There's probably not a lot of value in mass converting the whole 8000 up front.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-09-13T21:23:19.730" />
  <row Id="3275" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3276" CreationDate="2010-09-13T23:16:16.933" Score="6" ViewCount="160" Body="&lt;p&gt;JPG files use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/section-21.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;8 bits per color per pixel&lt;/a&gt; (I've never heard of any camera that uses the alleged 12-bit-per-color-per-pixel extension) and is a compact way of storing images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;RAW files are huge but have the full image data from the image sensor which is likely to be more than 8 bits. (judging from recent DSP specs I would assume 12 bit ADCs are the norm... but how would you actually find out how many bits a particular camera provides?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there anything similar to JPG which stores the file in a form that allows lossy compression for high spatial frequencies, but has more dynamic range than 8 bits?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="530" LastActivityDate="2010-09-14T14:43:30.423" Title="middle ground between RAW and JPG?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;jpeg&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="3276" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3275" CreationDate="2010-09-14T02:34:40.930" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's going to be difficult to answer your question without knowing in what simalarities do you wish your image format to share with Jpeg?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compression Ratios?&#xA;Universal Support on the web?&#xA;Camera support?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;JPEG2000 has support for 48-bit depths (though in practice only 24 are common). It also supports both lossy and lossless compression, so you can tailor your size savings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;DNG is strictly a lossless format, but does offer roughly 40% size savings, allowing you to get better size management, while still maintaining most of the qualities of a RAW image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PNG is also lossless, but has more universal support on the web, and up to 16bits per channel color depth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By and large however, RAW/DNG are kept/edited, while JPEG is used for web. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-09-14T02:34:40.930" />
  <row Id="3277" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3273" CreationDate="2010-09-14T03:38:42.470" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;XMP (sidecar files) are optional in lightroom. The benefit to using them is that any application that can parse them can make use of them, as opposed to the default behavior of storing edits and meta data inside lightrooms database.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since you don't need to use XMP files, necessarily, the question is whether it makes sense to move to DNG. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my opinion, there is no real advantage to moving to DNG. The file size is larger and sidecar files aren't that big (they may be irksome (especially on an SSD)). DNG really makes sense if you're looking to &quot;archive&quot; your raw files. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-09-14T03:38:42.470" />
  <row Id="3278" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3271" CreationDate="2010-09-14T03:48:29.167" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a number of ways to create a watermark, with varying degress of ease.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;An application that allows you to &quot;apply&quot; a watermark during image export. This is pretty straightforward. Adobe Lightroom has this option.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;An image hosting company that lets you apply watermarks to all uploaded images. This is also straightforward, though can be a paid-for feature. Smugmug has watermark capabilities for &quot;Pro&quot; accounts.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Image editing applications have recordable sequences that can be played back on to an image. You would record the sequence of steps of manually applying a water mark. Then replay this sequence on an image as needed, to produce a watermark. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Manually create a watermark. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the last two options, the steps to create a water mark are usually:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Create a new layer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Add text or an image in the desired location on the new layer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flatten the image&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously this requires an image editor that supports layers (almost all do these days).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-09-14T03:48:29.167" />
  <row Id="3279" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3300" CreationDate="2010-09-14T04:19:28.840" Score="3" ViewCount="111" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I am shooting in live-view, it is particularly frustrating how fast the display clicks of to conserve battery. Can I increase the time before it does this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question might be a little bit off topic, but I figured I would ask anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T16:35:11.447" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T16:35:11.447" Title="How to change the time before Live-view turns off on a 450D" Tags="&lt;canon-450d&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="3280" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3283" CreationDate="2010-09-14T10:04:44.317" Score="6" ViewCount="1521" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to order a new Canon 550d in a kit with a lens. I'm fairly new to SLR photography which means I have not much knowledge about the difference between lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is an offer for a Canon 550d with the very common EF-S 18-55mm IS lens and an (more expensive) offer with a EF-S 18-135mm IS lens. I'm unsure about which one to buy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My current knowledge tells me that the cheaper lens (18-55mm) has a more limited range and cannot zoom in as much as the more expensive 18-135mm one. The later one is also bigger and more heavy, right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any other differences but the maximum zoom-factor? Are both equally good for beginner-macro shoots? In which cases would you recommend which lens? Does it make sense to buy the kit and purchase the other one separately?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1387" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-11T18:48:18.190" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T14:43:06.020" Title="Canon kit with standard EF-S 18-55mm IS or 18-135mm IS?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;kit-lens&gt;&lt;superzoom&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="3281" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-14T11:22:18.393" Score="11" ViewCount="166" Body="&lt;p&gt;Either for entering natural history competitions that require it, or simply for more accurate titles, if you've taken a great shot of an animal or plant, how do you go about identifying what the thing in your photograph actually is?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Update:&lt;/strong&gt; Some helpful answers already, but almost all North America based - it'd be great to have some global and/or European-based resources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="137" LastEditorUserId="137" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-15T11:18:18.603" LastActivityDate="2010-09-15T18:37:43.387" Title="How do you identify the Common or Latin names of your subjects?" Tags="&lt;nature&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="3282" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3280" CreationDate="2010-09-14T11:31:49.370" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My advice to all my friends who begin photography is that if they are half serious about photography, they should not get the kit lens (or at least not alone). Unless you really need to have a zoom lense, I would get a fast 50mm instead. You can get those pretty cheap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="461" LastActivityDate="2010-09-14T11:31:49.370" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="3283" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3280" CreationDate="2010-09-14T11:56:34.087" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Beyond the longer focal range, the 18-135 also features internal focusing, so filters don't rotate during auto-focus, which is very nice if you ever use a circular polarizer or graduated ND filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only real downsides compared with the 18-55 are the increased weight and the decreased maximum magnification, making this less usable for macro-style shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you would expect with a kit, neither of these are wonderful, but the 18-135 is going to be a really good option, and you'll save a lot going with this instead of the higher end alternatives, such as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002Y5WXO?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;tag=phot0b7-20&amp;amp;linkCode=as2&amp;amp;camp=1789&amp;amp;creative=390957&amp;amp;creativeASIN=B0002Y5WXO&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-09-14T11:56:34.087" />
  <row Id="3284" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3281" CreationDate="2010-09-14T12:03:02.840" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Very nice question. There are some services that do &quot;image search&quot; by example, they can be of help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example I downloaded Wikipedia photo of &quot;Empis livida&quot; and used tineye.com image search to find similar images. This returns a list of images, some of them including the name in Latin. I am not sure how tineye image search is useful  but AFAIK Google still does not have image search by example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Empis_livida_%28aka%29.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Empis livida&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tineye.com/search/c0278cd65659f16df92ba3a0fa27a0ac97de6ebe/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Search result&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1075" LastActivityDate="2010-09-14T12:03:02.840" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3285" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3281" CreationDate="2010-09-14T12:16:48.757" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've played around with bird and insect photography and have found that (at least in north america), there are a few good sites for this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://identify.whatbird.com/mwg/_/0/attrs.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;identify.whatbird.com&lt;/a&gt; - North American bird database that you can filter down and visually compare the subject to drawings and/or photos.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bugguide.net/node/view/6/bgimage&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;bugguide.net&lt;/a&gt; - This one handles identification of bugs from the US and Canada, optionally by uploading an image, which will be classified by users of the site.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-09-14T12:16:48.757" />
  <row Id="3286" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3281" CreationDate="2010-09-14T13:13:10.183" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no one single answer, and it depends on how easy the organism is to distinguish. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For plants, you're best off if you have shots of the flower (count # of petals!) + leaves (alternate or opposite leaf pattern is important) and note where you take it i.e. which state and what habitat. Some plants are easy to ID, others have obscure technical characteristics, like ridges on seeds, or stem hair length. Do a search for native plant societies in your area -- many of them are starting to put up websites of local plant species.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="530" LastActivityDate="2010-09-14T13:13:10.183" />
  <row Id="3287" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1922" CreationDate="2010-09-14T13:58:06.190" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A couple of other advantages of primes that can be important depending on the situation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lens hoods for zoom lenses have to be designed for the widest focal length so they don't cause vignetting when you zoom out. Prime lens hoods are designed to be optimal for one particular focal length and thus provide slightly better protection against flare compared to a zoom at the telephoto end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prime lenses are easier to calibrate (e.g. to account for barrel distortion, CA, or light falloff) as these factors vary throughout the range of a zoom lens thus you must calibrate for many different focal lengths. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-09-14T13:58:06.190" />
  <row Id="3288" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3273" CreationDate="2010-09-14T14:05:42.057" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Benefits or disadvantages aside, you can't import JPEG as DNG in Lightroom (to my knowledge). If you import a JPEG file in &quot;Copy as DNG&quot; mode, LR will prompt an error dialog saying, in substance: &quot;Non-raw files were not converted to DNG&quot;. What you can do, however, is select your JPEG file in LR, and export it as DNG, then re-import that DNG file. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;DNG is really designed for RAW sensor data. For instance, your typical DNG file doesn't contain a color space. Its data structure, bit depth and format are very different from the RGB pixels found in a JPEG file. Think of a JPEG file as a &quot;baked&quot; version of a RAW file. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; a &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/linear.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Linear DNG&lt;/a&gt;&quot; variation that can store a demosaiced RGB image data arranged in a rectilinear format. It is supported by LR and is used for cameras with Foveon sensors for example. However, you do not &lt;em&gt;increase&lt;/em&gt; the quality of your JPEG file by converting it to Linear DNG. Everything you can do with a Linear DNG you can already do with a JPEG file in the Lightroom UI. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as metadata and develop adjustments are concerned, they are stored in Lightroom's catalog file, unless you tell LR to export them automatically, or do so manually by selecting &quot;Metadata -&gt; Save Metadata to file&quot;. If your photo is a JPEG file, LR will create a XMP sidecar. If it's a DNG file, LR will be store these settings directly within the file itself. At this point, yes, you can say DNG is a bit more convenient, especially if you want to share these settings with somebody else. Personally, I do not let LR export metadata automatically for performance reasons, and I rarely save the metadata back. What I make sure to do, however, is to carefully backup my catalog so that these memories we are preserving are not lost. Look for &quot;lightroom backup&quot; on this site (or check &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1558/lightroom-synchronizing-databases/3198#3198&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt; specifically).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2010-09-14T14:05:42.057" />
  <row Id="3289" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3266" CreationDate="2010-09-14T14:14:07.490" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 450D does indeed have a &quot;no flash mode&quot; on the dial but as John states it's one of the auto modes so you can't select aperture etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no way to disable the flash through the camera menu unfortunately on the 450D, the xxD models and above do have a custom function to stop the flash firing (handy if you just want the AF assist lamp) but that's not going to be much faster than turning the flash unit on and off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-09-14T14:14:07.490" />
  <row Id="3290" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3275" CreationDate="2010-09-14T14:14:21.373" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Also note that DNG can store RGB pixels, not just raw sensor data. There is a &quot;Linear DNG&quot; variation that can store a demosaiced RGB image data arranged in a rectilinear format. It is supported by Lightroom and is used for cameras with Foveon sensors for example. You can select your JPEG files in Lightroom, export them as DNG, and re-import them. However, you do not increase the quality of your JPEG file by converting it to Linear DNG. Everything you can do with a Linear DNG you can already do with a JPEG file in the Lightroom UI. See &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3273/should-i-convert-my-jpeg-images-to-dng-in-lightroom-3/3288#3288&quot;&gt;Should I convert my JPEG images to DNG in Lightroom 3?&lt;/a&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is, you don't really have much choice. Your camera either outputs JPEG, or RAW/DNG. At this point, if you are using a non-destructive workflow (Lightroom, Aperture), you might as well stick to JPEG because the pixels in your file are not affected/degraded. RAW will provide greater bit-depth and a lot more flexibility in the same workflow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How would you actually find out how many bits a particular camera provides? This is usually listed in your manual or in the camera specs online (typically review site).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-14T14:43:30.423" LastActivityDate="2010-09-14T14:43:30.423" />
  <row Id="3291" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3249" CreationDate="2010-09-14T14:34:39.497" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Manual setting is usually the right way to go with the flash. What you set your camera on depends mainly on whether you are balancing flash with ambient light and how much output you are willing and able to get out of the flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're using flash only (no ambient light) the shutter is unimportant so long as it doesn't exceed the sync speed (maximum shutter speed in which the whole frame is exposed at once) this typically means keeping it slower than 1/200s. I usually set the aperture at f/5.6 for maximum sharpness, though you might need to stop down for DOF. ISO as low as possible (100-400). If your flash output is limited or you want to conserve battery power, up the ISO or open the aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are balancing flash with ambient light this will dictate your shutter speed, set the shutter to get a good balance then set the aperture and ISO as above to gain the correct exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are syncing by hand (not electronically) you will need very low ambient light levels, a shutter speed of around 1/5 - 1/10s, and good reflexes!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-14T21:04:43.150" LastActivityDate="2010-09-14T21:04:43.150" />
  <row Id="3292" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3293" CreationDate="2010-09-14T14:36:48.250" Score="5" ViewCount="428" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to drag the shutter (second curtain sync) on my Canon 50D using either a speedlight, or via a wireless remote flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 580 EX/EXII will trigger when the shutter opens, and again when it closes.  I only want the second flash before the shutter closes, I don't want the first (e-TTL?) flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, I can't find a method of setting second curtain with a Pocketwizard attached.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any suggestions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="626" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T19:07:23.927" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T19:07:23.927" Title="How can I drag the shutter on a canon 50D (or any canon body)" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;second-curtain&gt;&lt;canon-50d&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="3293" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3292" CreationDate="2010-09-14T14:45:16.050" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately there is no way to get a Canon DSLR to actually send the flash signal when the shutter is about to close! Canon flashes know the shutter speed so they can delay the firing. When using a flash that doesn't talk to the camera you can't get second curtain sync. However, when using a Pocketwizard, you can set the Pocketwizard to add the appropriate delay to get the flash to fire with the second curtain (I think only some models e.g. Pocketwizard multimax allow this).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When set to second curtain sync the first flash is actually before the shutter opens and is for metering purposes (e-TTL as you suggest). To turn this off you'll have to use the flash in manual mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-14T21:09:01.647" LastActivityDate="2010-09-14T21:09:01.647" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3294" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15" CreationDate="2010-09-14T14:47:17.217" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In short: RAW has more room to fix photography-errors later on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you make the perfect picture happen in camera, JPG is all you need. But if you used the wrong white balance, over- or underexposed a bit, had some color problems you have more headroom in RAW to fix these things than in JPG.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Thats not to say you can't fix them in JPG, but in RAW you probably get better results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The biggest pro for JPG is size, because size is speed. Burst rates might be higher, you get more pictures on one card, backup and transfer times is faster. For sports shooter this can be very helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastEditorUserId="311" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-15T13:09:53.197" LastActivityDate="2010-09-15T13:09:53.197" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3295" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3281" CreationDate="2010-09-14T14:52:12.400" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are books to identify plants and animals like the &quot;National Geographic Field Guide to the Birds of North America&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Search on Amazon for &quot;bird identification&quot; or &quot;plant identification&quot; to find some (I got no clue which ones are good, as it depends on the area where you took the picture).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-09-14T14:52:12.400" />
  <row Id="3296" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3266" CreationDate="2010-09-14T16:28:03.060" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;430EX does not instantly discharge when you turn it off. Therefore if you do it just for a shot and then turn it back on, it'll still have almost full power and be ready in almost no time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-09-14T16:28:03.060" />
  <row Id="3297" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15" CreationDate="2010-09-14T17:18:31.623" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I shoot in &lt;strong&gt;raw+JPEG mode&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This gives the key benefits of JPEG - simple portable images - whilst not losing the extra flexibility that a raw format provides.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In response to the reasons some give for using JPEG only:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Shooting raw does not mean slow capture times&lt;/strong&gt;, unless you fill up the buffer quicker than it can empty.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;For the majority of photographers, the buffer is big enough that you don't need to worry.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;If you need a continuous burst of more than 20-30 images*, use JPEG, movie mode, or a dedicated video camera.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;If you never take more than a handful* of images at once, you'll almost certainly be fine using raw. &lt;em&gt;(*Exact limit depends on camera, settings, and card. I've not seen a modern DSLR that can't do at least 5 frames before slowing down.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, using &lt;strong&gt;raw does not result in a slower workflow&lt;/strong&gt;, (unless you want it to).&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Any decent photo management software will let you select all images and hit auto, or apply a pre-defined set of adjustments, and all images are addressed in one go.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Storage space is not a big issue these days&lt;/strong&gt;, since you can get decent cards with plenty of space.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;I have a 12.3MP camera and shoot 14-bit NEF + JPEG images, and I can get 500-800 images on a single card. That's more than enough for one card.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Hard-drives and backup storage is also cheap these days - just &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ebuyer.com/product/160649&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;£80 ($125) for 1.5TB&lt;/a&gt; gives plenty of space.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;So, for me, even when I don't need to do much post-processing, there is no reason &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; to record the raw data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="137" LastEditorUserId="137" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-15T17:34:22.717" LastActivityDate="2010-09-15T17:34:22.717" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="3298" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="831" CreationDate="2010-09-14T18:02:16.593" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;why don't you use &lt;a href=&quot;http://automatorworld.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Automator&lt;/a&gt; to do the workflow you pretend?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Automator is very powerfull and you can find much more Actions on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/automator/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Apple website&lt;/a&gt; that you can complete your workflow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Automator Comunnity is also amazing and posting your questions there you will get an answer quickly!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="183" LastActivityDate="2010-09-14T18:02:16.593" />
  <row Id="3299" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3212" CreationDate="2010-09-14T20:56:38.133" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I read an article about Lee filters a while ago that went into how they are made. The process is amazingly manual, each filter is made and checked by hand, its very painstaking. I seem to remember it takes an hour or two to make a single filter!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lee filters have a reputation for high quality, this is why they are expensive and often hard to get.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BTW, I don't work for Lee or anything, I have a Cokin set.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Edit: Found a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.brucepercy.co.uk/blog/2010/04/28/big-stopper/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;reference&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="482" LastActivityDate="2010-09-14T20:56:38.133" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3300" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3279" CreationDate="2010-09-14T21:02:49.880" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jukka is correct, you can solve the problem by changing &quot;auto power off&quot; in the 450D settings menu (first yellow spanner icon).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only thing I have to add is that even when auto power off is disabled, live view will still stop after 30 minutes to avoid overheating the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-09-14T21:02:49.880" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3301" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3304" CreationDate="2010-09-14T21:55:12.490" Score="10" ViewCount="564" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know there's lots of talk around here about 'noise' levels in photographs, but what about the actual sound that the shutter makes on an SLR? Is there anyway to silence it a bit, or is it just a reality that we have to deal with?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I currently have a Nikon D90 and find that in quieter settings (like a church) the noise from the shutter can be a bit distracting to people around me (i haven't had anyone mention it, but I'm guessing it's apparent).  Do higher-end models have quieter functioning modes, perhaps?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="274" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T20:04:30.123" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T20:55:04.293" Title="Can anything be done to reduce the shutter sound on my SLR?" Tags="&lt;shutter&gt;&lt;sound&gt;&lt;keeping-quiet&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3302" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3301" CreationDate="2010-09-14T21:59:53.010" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can try a WR lens.  There isn't really a solution as it is a mechanical problem, mostly from the mirror slapping.  One person has tried dampening it himself, but that probably messes up the mirror angle and is generally something you don't want to mess with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No DSLR is aimed to alleviate this, save the K-7.  Most shutters sound different, some more high frequency, some lower, etc.  You can find a lot of videos on youtube to compare if it is a major factor for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;K-7 vs A900 for reference &lt;a href=&quot;http://youtube.com/watch?v=6SzFL1FoheM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://youtube.com/watch?v=6SzFL1FoheM&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't mind shooting without an optical viewfinder, you can get a m4/3 or try LiveView (some cameras won't flip the mirror at all during shots)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-15T02:28:09.697" LastActivityDate="2010-09-15T02:28:09.697" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3303" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3301" CreationDate="2010-09-14T22:13:08.367" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately since the shutter is a mechanical device on almost all DSLR, it is prone to making noise. There is no way to reduce this short of using an external case body to dampen the sound (I seriously doubt these even exist).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One potential work around is to consider using a compact digicam, or even a bridge camera with an electrical shutter, which can be silences via software when you need to shoot in quiet area's. This is not necessarily ideal, but it is better than not getting the shot at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-09-14T22:13:08.367" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3304" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3301" CreationDate="2010-09-14T22:14:17.740" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most of the noise is actually not the shutter, but the mirror folding up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My camera actually have two different ways of reducing this noise somewhat:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It has a &quot;quiet&quot; mode, that lets you fold up the mirror and take the picture in two separate actions. Although that doesn't make less noise, you can separate the louder noise of the mirror foldup from the moment of taking the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You can use live view for taking pictures. That folds up the mirror, opens the shutter and shows the image on the LCD screen. When you take an image the shutter closes, then acts normally for taking the image, then opens again for live view.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-09-14T22:14:17.740" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3305" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3301" CreationDate="2010-09-15T00:38:44.050" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Nikon D5000 has a &quot;Quiet Mode&quot;, which &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d5000.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ken Rockwell claims&lt;/a&gt; is quieter than his Leica. The D300s also has a Quiet Mode, but apparently it is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d300s.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;not as useful&lt;/a&gt; as the D5000's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aside from buying a new camera, I don't think there's much you can do to decrease the noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2010-09-15T00:38:44.050" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3306" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3292" CreationDate="2010-09-15T06:42:21.810" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's custom function in some Canon models (I think 30D and 1Dm2 has it):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;15: Shutter Curtain Sync (Flash Mode) is how you select rear-curtain sync to make moving objects look like they're moving in the right direction, presuming you're using a slow shutter speed in Tv, Av or M modes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;0: 1st curtain: Flash fires as soon as the shutter opens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1: 2nd Curtain: Flash fires at the very last instant of exposure. If a subject is moving and making a blur under ambient light, the final image will have the subject stopped with a ghost flash image at the beginning of the blur. This results in a sharp image with blurs behind a moving subject, implying speed. The default above (same for all cameras) puts the blur in front of a moving object, which looks silly.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Found from: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/30d/custom-functions.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/30d/custom-functions.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="855" LastActivityDate="2010-09-15T06:42:21.810" />
  <row Id="3307" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2627" CreationDate="2010-09-15T08:01:33.953" Score="34" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's a concrete example of the advantages of shooting raw from a recent wedding. I always shoot raw+jpeg and use the jpegs to quickly sort through the photos afterwards. Here's a jpeg of the first dance that would have gone straight in the bin, except for the fact that I had very few shots of the first dance due to some very difficult conditions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/kPrsS.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I decided to have a look at what could be recovered from the raw, and this shot went from almost being deleted to making it into the album. The image below shows the best I could do with the jpeg in photoshop on the left, and what could be produced easily from the raw file on the right:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/AwOv4.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that pretty much sums it up, for anyone shooting weddings I would strongly advise shooting raw as memory cards are cheap and you can't go back and reshoot if you get it wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-29T21:16:33.357" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T21:16:33.357" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3308" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3268" CreationDate="2010-09-15T11:45:15.007" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jhead is a capable tool for modifying and examining exif data.&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/jhead/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;See this link&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-09-15T11:45:15.007" />
  <row Id="3309" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15" CreationDate="2010-09-15T15:24:23.867" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just to be the devil's advocate for a moment, please note that raw formats are proprietary and &quot;closed&quot; specifications.  These file formats are defined per camera manufacturer and often differ between camera models from the same manufacturer.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has been mentioned in this thread that raw format is more like a traditional photo negative.  i beg to differ - 20-ish years from now in 2031, when no one remembers the details of the whacky Nikon D70 raw specification (I don't know if it's really whacky, it's just an example), and no software can decode your raw file, you're in trouble.  on the other hand, i'd be willing to bet you'll find something the can decode a JPG file.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;it's just a thought, but it can become more immediate if the post processing software you use has support for a specific camera and two versions from now they screw it up, or maybe explicitly drop support for that camera.  while this is not &lt;em&gt;likely&lt;/em&gt;, it's possible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="240" LastEditorUserId="240" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-15T15:35:59.330" LastActivityDate="2010-09-15T15:35:59.330" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3310" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3281" CreationDate="2010-09-15T18:37:43.387" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In France you always can ask to a pharmacist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to learn and/or compare, some cities with big universities have botanical gardens open to the public where most of the plants are labeled with their common and latin names. Some gardens exhibit local plants, others have rich collections of overseas flora.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1296" LastActivityDate="2010-09-15T18:37:43.387" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3311" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-15T23:35:03.553" Score="8" ViewCount="222" Body="&lt;p&gt;Imagine you have a wide wall, say: about 50m wide and 2m high, like the ones in a long corridor. You want to create an image that covers the whole wall in a way that you can see in some detail what's in it (posters, light switches, whatever). Also, again like in a corridor, you can't move more than 1-2m away from that wall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's obvious, at least to me, that it's impossible to solve this issue taking a single photograph. My initial idea revolves around taking multiple photographs of the said wall and properly stitch them in order to create the huge final picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my doubt focuses primarily on what equipment and method to use: would it be a good idea to use a fish-eye lens in order to cover the whole height of the wall at each picture I take? Will the fish-eye distortion make the stitching process very hard/impossible? Or would it perhaps be better to use a normal lens and take 2/3 pictures to cover the wall's whole height?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Am I thinking it right? Should I do it another way? Any suggestions or previous attempt at doing what I'm trying to do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm a little lost and I understand the question may be a bit too vague, so I'm not expecting any final solutions, just suggestions (although if do know how it's done, please do tell).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;PS.&lt;/em&gt; Any awesome wall scanning equipment that I just take strolling down the corridor that does the whole work for me? (Yeah, right. That and the moon).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT (21/09/10)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you so much for all the answers! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll try some of your suggestions and post some feedback as soon I get results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1398" LastEditorUserId="1398" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-21T10:48:34.350" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T04:49:00.113" Title="Method to photograph a wide/long wall from a near distance and create a panoramic view of it" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;technique&gt;" AnswerCount="6" />
  <row Id="3312" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3311" CreationDate="2010-09-16T00:24:56.590" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could use a fish-eye lens, however that may not be ideal. You would need to decide if you want the warping effect of a fish-eye lens, or whether you want the final shot to be without any distortion (note, you'll have some distortion regardless of what lens you use, most likely, but that can often be managed in post-processing these days.) If you do choose to use a fish-eye, it has a 180 degree angle of view, so if you situate yourself smack in the middle, point the lens strait at the wall, you should be able to capture the whole thing in one shot. You will have good detail in the center, but detail will quickly fall off towards the ends of the hall, as it gets compressed and warped by the lens. If you do try to capture the scene with several shots using a fish-eye lens, you might have some trouble stitching them together, given the extreme distortion. Overall, it probably isn't the best lens choice if your goal is to capture a lot of detail in the wall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want a shot without distortion, it would better serve your initial request: Take a shot that preserves detail. I would recommend just using a normal- to wide-angle lens, probably in vertical orientation. Unlike a landscape panoramic, however, where you usually just swivel the lens on a flat rotating tripod head, I would actually move down the corridor in consistent increments. You can mathematically determine the distance you need to move, given the angle of view of the lens and the distance to the wall. For example, using a Canon APS-C body, with say an EF 35mm lens, you have an angle of view in vertical orientation of about 24 degrees. This is close to the AOV of normal eyesight, and very similar to a 50mm lens on a full-frame body. It should produce minimal distortion if you use a good lens. Assuming you are 1.5m away from the wall:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;widthOfView = 2 * (tan(AOV/2) * distanceToSubject)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  widthOfView = 2 * (tan(12) * 1.5m)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  widthOfView = 2 * (0.32 * 1.5m)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  widthOfView = 0.95m ~= 1m (~3.2 feet)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/PGhTA.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To photograph a whole wall with little distortion, you would point the lens strait at the wall, snap a shot, move just a little under 1 meter down, snap another shot, etc. until the wall is photographed. I would avoid using any kind of &quot;extra&quot; lighting, like flash, as you can't guarantee the shots would line up properly without any seams. Just use whatever lighting is available. A very fast lens, such as f/1.4 or faster, would probably be best if your subject is indeed a hallway with lower lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;REFERENCES:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sweeting.org/mark/lenses/canon.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF Lens Angle of View Calculator&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sweeting.org/mark/lenses/nikon.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon Nikkor Lens Angle of View Calculator&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-16T00:41:27.843" LastActivityDate="2010-09-16T00:41:27.843" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="3313" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="773" CreationDate="2010-09-16T00:56:00.400" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Besides the standard stuff, like keywords and copyright info, I try to give most of my work that I &quot;pick&quot; or &quot;flag&quot; as much detailed information as I can. The more information you supply on your images, the more information you have to find your work later on. Tooks like Lightroom and Aperture offer some very rich search capabilities, which makes working with huge libraries (or catalogs) of images much easier. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some of the things I tend to add:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Copyright Info: &#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Year copyrighted&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Usage terms &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(A URL is also possible, in case you wish to link your a copyright/license.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Detailed Photo Info&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Title&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Description/caption&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;IPTC Metadata:&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Category(s)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;genre&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;scene, location&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Contact Info&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Creator&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;State&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Country&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Phone&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Email&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are plenty of other metadata values, and I don't use even half of them all. Much of the info I have configured in Lightroom presets, so if its standard stuff, I never actually fill it in manually. Most of the time, I add the IPTC metadata, title, and caption, while the rest is added automatically on import. Every so often I have to update a preset (i.e. January of a new year, I change the copyright year.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-09-16T00:56:00.400" />
  <row Id="3314" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3316" CreationDate="2010-09-16T01:16:57.523" Score="13" ViewCount="181" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question has been bugging me for a while, as I've been digging through filters on Adorama and B&amp;amp;H and various other sites for days now. I keep seeing numerous types of filters often tagged as &quot;gels&quot;, like color correction filters, flash color adjustment filters, etc. I figured they were made out of some kind of gelatin, giving them their name...however, after more research, it seems they are all made out of polycarbonate, or maybe polyester in the case of Lee color gels and a couple other manufacturers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm at a loss as to why they are called gels when they aren't made out of gelatin. Am I just missing something obvious? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-15T21:41:58.937" LastActivityDate="2011-04-15T21:41:58.937" Title="Why are photographic gels called &quot;gels&quot;?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;color-filters&gt;&lt;gels&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3315" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3311" CreationDate="2010-09-16T02:30:53.063" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Multiple photos and panorama stiching is certainly the way to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It works best if you get 20-50% overlap between shots, which helps to avoid both edge distortion and vignetting effects. You will also have a much easier time if you use the same focal length and exposure for all the shots, so I'd recommend a prime lens and manual mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this type of panorama stitching I like to use &lt;a href=&quot;http://hugin.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hugin&lt;/a&gt;. It has a steep learning curve, but once you understand, it's really a great tool. Beyond simple stitching, it also does &lt;a href=&quot;http://hugin.sourceforge.net/tutorials/perspective/en.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;perspective correction&lt;/a&gt;, so you are able (with a little work) to get a final view of the wall with any distortion from the lens corrected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is actually a very good &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dojoe.net/tutorials/linear-pano/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;walkthrough for creating linear panoramas&lt;/a&gt; like you have described using free software (Hugin, Panotools, and GIMP)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-16T13:29:25.287" LastActivityDate="2010-09-16T13:29:25.287" />
  <row Id="3316" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3314" CreationDate="2010-09-16T03:57:27.177" Score="22" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Photography has borrowed the term &quot;gel&quot; (and the technology) from theater. The original colored &quot;gels&quot; were made out of gelatin (and tended to melt). Today, they are made out of other materials that are more heat tolerant (but can still melt....)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;there's a nice writeup on this on wikipedia:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_gel&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_gel&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-09-16T03:57:27.177" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3317" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3311" CreationDate="2010-09-16T04:03:58.117" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;multiple shots and panorama stitching is the way to go. I would not use a fish-eye. I'd set my camera in a vertical setup to maximize how much you can get floor to ceiling in the frame. To avoid distortion, you're going to want to move the tripod for every shot and line it up perpendicular to the wall (don't try to do it from one location by shifting the camera, you'll never get it to work without distortion). An easy way to do that is to get to the first shot location, set the tripod and work out exposure and focus, and then LOCK DOWN both. Masking tape on the focus wheel of the lens so it won't change. Then I'd use two story sticks, one that sets my distance from the wall, and one that sets my distance to move between shots. That way, you can quickly move the tripod, use the first story stick to make sure you set the same distance from the wall for consistent size and proper focus, and the other story stick to help you move the right distance so you get enough overlap for the stitching to work and stay consistent enough that you don't accidentally miss a section and ruin the panorama. You could do the same with a string set from beginning to end and taping each shot location so you have an easy reference. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-09-16T04:03:58.117" />
  <row Id="3318" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="773" CreationDate="2010-09-16T04:06:29.877" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;short answer: I never feel I add enough. there are always keywords and etc I feel I should add, but I don't except on my absolutely best images. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I do the same as jrista; all of my images have that data in it, most of it added via a standard default in Lightroom. I also geocode all of my images, at least to a location that can get me back to where the shot came from (at the least, say, a parking lot in the area so I can always get back there)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-09-16T04:06:29.877" />
  <row Id="3319" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3320" CreationDate="2010-09-16T06:11:36.797" Score="12" ViewCount="370" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was thinking of using public domain images as backgrounds to my photos. Do I still technically &quot;own&quot; the resulting work?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1207" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-03T23:17:17.680" LastActivityDate="2011-05-29T09:21:14.617" Title="If I use a public domain image can I own the copyright to the resulting artwork?" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;public-domain&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3320" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3319" CreationDate="2010-09-16T07:18:25.833" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your best bet is to consult a legal expert with experience in Copyright law for your country as the laws vary from place to place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the US, you are free to use images in the public domain without permission from the original copyright owner (as the owner is the public). As such, you are free to construct derivative works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You of course will need to ensure that the images you do use, are indeed part of the public domain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-29T09:21:14.617" LastActivityDate="2011-05-29T09:21:14.617" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3321" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3311" CreationDate="2010-09-16T11:13:32.683" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could use a fisheye lens as the fisheye effect is totally reversible in post processing (google &quot;defishing&quot;) however you wont end up with a square image after this which means you'll have to shoot with more overlap. With a reasonably wide rectilinear (non-fisheye) lens you should be able to get the vertical length of the wall in each shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best way would definitely be to move the camera along parallel to the wall and stitch the images. Technically you wont be shooting a panorama if you move the camera between shots, however if your subject is relatively flat the effect will be similar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is &lt;strong&gt;very important&lt;/strong&gt; to have the camera's image plane (where the sensor lies) parallel to the wall in order to be able to stitch the images easily. Assuming the wall is very near vertical this just means using a spirit level to make sure the camera is not tilting up/down. If not, vertical lines in the wall will converge (like railway lines going into the distance, except less pronounced) making it impossible to match up adjacent sections without first removing the convergence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have Photoshop CS3/4 try the photomerge function before looking into other software as it works well for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;edit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an example of people using this technique to produce a photo of a giant redwood (pretty much the same this as you are trying to do but with extra complications as it's vertical!).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://gizmodo.com/5372201/custom-camera-rig-allows-for-a-stunning-vertical-panorama-of-a-giant-redwood&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://gizmodo.com/5372201/custom-camera-rig-allows-for-a-stunning-vertical-panorama-of-a-giant-redwood&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice that as the scene is not flat there are some distortions to the trees in the foreground due to parallax errors that occur when you move the camera instead of panning&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-16T11:23:30.030" LastActivityDate="2010-09-16T11:23:30.030" />
  <row Id="3322" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3311" CreationDate="2010-09-16T12:21:56.997" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Microsoft Image Composite Editor (ICE) produces amazing results and is an absolute breeze to use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/groups/ivm/ICE/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/groups/ivm/ICE/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It can stitch vertically and horizontally at the same time. You just take your shots in a grid. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastActivityDate="2010-09-16T12:21:56.997" />
  <row Id="3323" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3326" CreationDate="2010-09-16T14:26:56.237" Score="7" ViewCount="405" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know this is not specifically a photography issue but since many of us with prosumer/professional-level DLSRs use CF cards, it is bound to happen to others as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a Sandisk 16GB Ultra card that occasionally had the camera reporting inability to access the card. I had to reinsert the card to continue using it. I was able to read the card and transfer the photo files to my computer drive. Today, the same thing happened again, just that nearing the capacity of the card, it failed one last time and the camera was subsequently unable to read it anymore. Despite reinsertion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My other CF cards never once exhibited this problem, so it's pretty much isolated to this card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The card is similarly unrecognisable on my computer CF card reader. I think the filesystem is toast, but I suspect the photo files are still intact. I would like to find ways where I can inspect the raw binary data in the card and hopefully recover the photos?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="802" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-27T23:24:06.130" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T18:44:56.090" Title="Recover photo files in corrupt-filesystem CF card" Tags="&lt;memory-card&gt;&lt;compactflash&gt;&lt;file-recovery&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3324" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3323" CreationDate="2010-09-16T14:52:58.360" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can you distinguish if it's the card that is inaccessible, or just it's filesystem? I know in Linux, you can access the raw device and try to get you data out of that (which should be possible, since it's usually just sequentially stored JPEG files).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On Windows and Mac, you can try recovery software recommended by SanDisk, demo version which shows you what it can rescue is avaiable here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lc-tech.com/software/rprodetail.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lc-tech.com/software/rprodetail.html&lt;/a&gt; (see also &lt;a href=&quot;http://kb.sandisk.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/4985&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SanDisk FAQ entry&lt;/a&gt; about that).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can't see the raw hardware then I guess your only chance is to try some data recovery service to tear the card apart and attempt to get you data from the flash chips.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-09-16T14:52:58.360" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3325" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3323" CreationDate="2010-09-16T15:00:35.673" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are able to get to the card at all, you could try using &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.piriform.com/recuva&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Recuva&lt;/a&gt; from Piriform, Inc.  It is a free download, and I have used it to get back files that were accidentally deleted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the features listed is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Recovery from damaged or formatted disks&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Even if you've formatted a drive&#xA;  so that it looks blank, Recuva can&#xA;  still find your files on it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-09-16T15:00:35.673" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3326" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3323" CreationDate="2010-09-16T15:15:36.733" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two utilities from CGSecurity that might help. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;TestDisk&lt;/a&gt; - Allows direct access to disk data and file recovery from corrupt partition tables.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/PhotoRec&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PhotoRec&lt;/a&gt; - Specifically targeted at recovering photos by identifying byte patterns in images (&amp;amp; video) files.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on what has caused your card to fail will depend on which of these tools will work best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can use TestDisk to do a raw backup of the card first to prevent further damage by using recovery tools incorrectly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="97" LastActivityDate="2010-09-16T15:15:36.733" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3327" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3323" CreationDate="2010-09-16T19:04:53.023" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Simon wrote, photorec is a god tool to recover lost data, not only image files. I the past I recover jpg files with success, but it used signatures to find the files, and I don't know if it have signatures to raw files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just a tip, first copy the content of the card with dd and the used photorec with the image created by dd. Making this, you avoid make more damages to the card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If photorec doesn't recognize raw files, see if you have any luck with other tools, as example: &lt;a href=&quot;http://foremost.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Foremost&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You also can read this article about recover files from wiped disks: www.linux.com/archive/feed/56588 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1306" LastActivityDate="2010-09-16T19:04:53.023" />
  <row Id="3328" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-16T19:44:38.703" Score="7" ViewCount="319" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is going to be somewhat provocative and more about terms and definitions, so if you feel it should be closed or moved to meta, vote so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the question - there is a lot of talk about non-destructive edits that can be done during post-processing, but I'm a bit puzzled by the term non-destructive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edits to RAW file are said to be lossless/non-destructive, because original data is kept. But how can I call an edit non-destructive if &lt;em&gt;data is lost in the result&lt;/em&gt;? Same can be said about JPEG - if I keep the original data, my edits are non-destructive because I can always go back to original (JPEG is a lossy format, but that's different story, we can as well talk about TIFF).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So there is a difference between lossless/non-destructive edit and lossless format, ie changing RAW to JPEG itself is destructive edit, because we lose information as the result. But we also might lose information &lt;em&gt;in the result&lt;/em&gt; if we do WB adjustment to RAW file (the photo is bluish, we add more red and clip the red channel in the process).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is the WB edit for example non-destructive in the meaning that we couldn't do any better in the same conditions originally? But what if we didn't take WB edit as non-destructive in the first place and &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/586/are-colour-filters-worth-using-with-digital-cameras/619#619&quot;&gt;used filters to get better data&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what are the definitions of non-destructive and destructive edits?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-17T19:07:44.163" LastActivityDate="2010-09-19T12:38:05.267" Title="What are non-destructive edits and do they exist?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3329" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3328" CreationDate="2010-09-16T19:56:19.047" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that lossless edits keep the original file together with change data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if you have a raw file and apply some color correction curves, and then some other color correction, you still have original data and two corrections, which can be computed at arbitrary precision, when you need to actually print the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;AFAIK Photoshop adjustment layers work this way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-09-16T19:56:19.047" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3330" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3328" CreationDate="2010-09-16T20:08:11.720" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The terminology is usually called &quot;Destructive vs Non Destructive&quot; editing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is that with destructive editing, information is lost. The information that is lost isn't truly lost, you can typically issue an &quot;undo&quot; which will revert the change, but this is not always guaranteed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With non-destructive editing, edits and the original are kept separate, and only applied upon final save. These edits can be reordered at anytime, and in an arbitrary order to produce varying results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As che said, Photoshop Adjustment Layers are non-destructive. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-09-16T20:08:11.720" />
  <row Id="3331" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3328" CreationDate="2010-09-16T20:33:24.807" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Like Alan said, usually when discussing edits, we refer to &quot;destructive vs. non-destructive&quot;, where as when discussing file formats, we refer to &quot;lossy vs. lossless&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we take white balance, for example. Is adjusting white balance truly &quot;destructive&quot; when performed on a raw file? A raw file can not be viewed in its native state, as its just a bunch of &quot;raw&quot; sensor information and camera data. The information from a bayer array is not viewable directly...it has to be processed to create RGB pixels that may then be viewed as an image. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I render a RAW file with all default settings, am I &quot;destroying&quot; information? Or am I simply interpreting it? When I change the white-balance setting, am I &quot;destroying&quot; information, or simply changing how I interpret the information that exists?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lets contrast that with JPEG. A JPEG image starts out &quot;lossy&quot;, since the original data has already been interpreted. Any adjustments from this point on are not from &quot;original&quot; data, they are from a previous interpretation. Technically speaking, within considerable limits, you could make non-destructive edits...but only within considerable limits. The data has already been partially destroyed, so you have to wonder, how much more destruction am I causing by adjusting poor data? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I work with a RAW image in Lightroom, and adjust exposure, white balance, tone curves, etc., all of those edits are applied to original data. Every additional adjustment is refactored into the RAW processing, and applied to original data. If I adjust white balance several times, I'm not losing any data...the &quot;total&quot; WB adjustment is applied to the original data when it is rendered on the screen. Its not as if one WB adjustment is applied, then another on top of that, and another on top of that, which indeed would be destructive. If you apply a tremendous amount of edits to an image in Lightroom, you'll start to notice lag as you zoom or pan the image, make additional adjustments, etc. This is because any adjustments are reapplied to the original RAW data when it is rendered on the screen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming you do &quot;clip&quot; reds in a particular WB edit. The information is not actually clipped, since that is just part of the overall processing applied to the raw bayer sensor pixel data when it is rendered to the screen. If you make another WB edit later on to &quot;recover&quot; those clipped reds...they can be recovered in their entirity, without any loss, since its just a step in a processing &quot;pipeline&quot; that is executed any time the RAW image is updated on the screen (i.e. zooming in, panning, making other edits, etc.) The only time information is actually lost when editing in RAW is when you save to a normal image format. It doesn't necessarily have to be JPEG, you will still incur a loss when saving to DNG or TIFF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-16T22:04:55.763" LastActivityDate="2010-09-16T22:04:55.763" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3332" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3341" CreationDate="2010-09-16T20:46:56.983" Score="7" ViewCount="252" Body="&lt;p&gt;A friend of mine accidentally shot a load of photos with the white-balance on his camera set to &quot;Tungsten&quot;. Is there an easy way to correct the resultant colour cast with Photoshop?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-09-17T10:44:18.033" Title="Correcting white balance in JPEG images" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;white-balance&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3333" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3342" CreationDate="2010-09-16T21:28:46.090" Score="12" ViewCount="803" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hey guys&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The new Nikon D7000 is out, and a lot of previews has touted the &quot;native iso&quot; of D7000 to be 100.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does this actually mean? I'm assuming it means it performs at its best at iso 100, which means if you're ok to sacrifice light sensitivity, you'll get really great images...?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="161" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-19T03:49:09.653" LastActivityDate="2011-04-30T16:22:55.423" Title="What is meant by the &quot;native iso&quot; when talking about DSLRs?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;nikon-d7000&gt;&lt;digital-iso&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3334" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3332" CreationDate="2010-09-16T21:30:17.660" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do this quite often in Paint Shop Pro, using the Manual Color Correction feature. By consecutively right-clicking and left-clicking on the same patch of the picture that should be white or gray, you end up with &quot;before&quot; and &quot;after&quot; colors that are identical. Then you modify the &quot;after&quot; so that it has less saturation, taking it closer to pure white or gray. If you don't have anything in the picture in the white to gray range to sample from, you can sample from other colors and make them match one of the built-in samples or any other arbitrary color.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sorry that I don't know how to do the same in Photoshop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="775" LastActivityDate="2010-09-16T21:30:17.660" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3335" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3333" CreationDate="2010-09-16T21:37:56.040" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From what I gather, it appears to be yet another silly measurement for gear-heads to obsess over.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a pretty good overview that I found regarding both &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cameralabs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4503&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Native Iso and Base Iso&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously from the tone of my answer, I'm not really keen on such qualitative measurements. I suppose if you need a way to stack-rank compare bodies it might be valuable, but in my opinion it needlessly complicates things with criteria that aren't really that important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-09-16T21:37:56.040" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3336" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3332" CreationDate="2010-09-16T21:51:01.667" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The level adjustment feature in Photoshop has the droppers for picking the white, black, and neutral points from the image. That would be quick approach, though you'd probably have to play with it a little from some images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-09-16T21:51:01.667" />
  <row Id="3337" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3328" CreationDate="2010-09-16T22:36:28.093" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A RAW photograph will always be non-destructively edited, that is until you produce a JPEG or other system usable format that you can then either destructively or non-destructively edit further.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key is in the software you use. Lightroom is, by definition, a non-destructive editor. Photoshop on the other hand is not, unless specifically used in a way which does not change the original image layer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lightroom stores the photo's settings and adjustments in it's database while the RAW file (and it's original settings saved by the camera) remains intact and untouched.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The edits are only destructive applied to the exported image, and even then the RAW file still remains the same. The good thing about Lightroom is it takes this approach to all files, JPEGs, TIFFs etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-09-16T22:36:28.093" />
  <row Id="3338" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3339" CreationDate="2010-09-16T22:50:03.013" Score="3" ViewCount="167" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the 18-55mm kit lens for my Canon 50D and was wondering if they're still specified against full frame 1:1 crop? Would my 18mm actually be 1.6x?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ask because I doubt anyone with a full frame camera would even think of using a kit lens of this calibre.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T08:48:21.803" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T08:48:21.803" Title="Is the kit lens focal length specified for APS-C or FF?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;focal-length&gt;&lt;kit-lens&gt;&lt;crop-factor&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3339" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3338" CreationDate="2010-09-16T23:46:00.633" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;18-55mm is the focal length, which is independent of sensor size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your lens is made for APS-C, so the any field of view measurements are likely for APS-C.  It would be the equivalent field of view of a 28.8mm-88mm, which we refer to as 28.8e-88e.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a full-frame camera, it will vignette.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-16T23:53:24.283" LastActivityDate="2010-09-16T23:53:24.283" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="3340" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3338" CreationDate="2010-09-16T23:47:54.280" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can't actually mount the 18-55mm lens on a full-frame Canon camera as it's an EF-s lens (not EF) so it's designed to physically not fit. The focal length of a lens is independent of the sensor size (a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens regardless of what camera it's mounted on) however the field of view (how wide the lens appears) will be affected by the crop, so the 18mm lens will be the same field of view as a 28.8mm lens on a full frame camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Incidentally I've had very good results mounting the £80 50mm f/1.8 on a £1000 Canon 5D. A lens doesn't have to be expensive to give good results if used in the right way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-09-16T23:47:54.280" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3341" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3332" CreationDate="2010-09-16T23:52:42.857" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can load jpegs into Adobe Camera Raw from bridge and have all the same options as processing a raw file. So you can choose the correct colour temperature and then convert several files with the same settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-09-16T23:52:42.857" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3342" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3333" CreationDate="2010-09-17T00:09:19.797" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I understand it the &quot;native&quot; or &quot;base&quot; ISO is the sensitivity you get without amplifying the analogue signal you get from the sensor. It becomes important when the native ISO is higher than the lowest available on a camera (e.g. the base ISO is 140 and the lowest setting is 100). In this case the camera is likely to overexpose the image (as you can't unamplify the signal to recover the highlights) and the non-amplified signal is more likely to be affected by the read noise of the electronics (then read noise of the electronics is roughly constant so if you have a small signal the read noise is higher by comparison).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As already stated it's unlikely to actually be noticeable in images however if you always strive to use the lowest ISO the camera offers whenever possible, you may be wasting your efforts as the image quality may be just as high/slightly better one setting up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-17T20:50:27.377" LastActivityDate="2010-09-17T20:50:27.377" />
  <row Id="3343" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3332" CreationDate="2010-09-17T03:52:30.717" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you don't have Photoshop (some of us prefer to use the camera to create the art rather than the computer) then there are other options. I use Nikon's NX2 software for all post processing, it's very quick, clean and easy. You can download a trial that has no limitation other than a 60 day limit from Nikon's web site ... &lt;a href=&quot;http://nikonimglib.com/cnx2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://nikonimglib.com/cnx2/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To correct the white balance you need to find something on each image that is meant to be a shade of white and then use the Neutral Control Point and click on it. I have found this corrects over 90% of any white balance issues with a single click!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1410" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-17T10:44:18.033" LastActivityDate="2010-09-17T10:44:18.033" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3344" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3338" CreationDate="2010-09-17T09:26:09.750" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because focusing distance is the characteristics of the &lt;strong&gt;lens&lt;/strong&gt;, NOT of the &lt;strong&gt;lens + sensor size&lt;/strong&gt;. Lens are provided with optical characteristics which has nothing in common with sensor, mount type and so on. You need to multiply on the crop factor because of sensor size. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And yes, your 18mm on sensor with crop factor 1.6 will become 28.8mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1290" LastActivityDate="2010-09-17T09:26:09.750" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3345" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3347" CreationDate="2010-09-17T12:52:35.320" Score="9" ViewCount="228" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard that CF readers allow your computer to much faster read the photos off the camera, than when you connect your camera over USB.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is that true?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="683" LastActivityDate="2010-09-17T15:21:02.720" Title="CF reader faster than connecting camera via USB?" Tags="&lt;comparison&gt;&lt;card-reader&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="3346" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3345" CreationDate="2010-09-17T13:58:44.613" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This depends on a number of factors but, in general, it would be true. The primary reason is that many readers are not attached via USB and so are not limited by the speed of the USB bus and are also not sharing the bandwidth of the USB bus with other devices. However, if your CF reader is USB, it wouldn't likely be much faster, if at all. Anyways, it can be all over the map and will very much depend on the speed of the reader, the speed of the computer, and the speed of the card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, a big win on transfering via a reader is that you don't waste your camera battery doing the download. Even if I wasn't gaining anything on speed, this is enough of a reason for me to not transfer via USB (though I do gain on the speed with my reader).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-09-17T13:58:44.613" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3347" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3345" CreationDate="2010-09-17T14:17:08.070" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My last camera only connected at USB1.1 speeds, so was slower than using a USB2.0 card reader.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if your camera can do USB2.0 or you have a USB1.1 or USB1.0 card reader, you wont see that benefit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can get Firewire or ExpressCard card readers for CF cards, which are faster than USB2.0, (and I think generally limited by the speed of the CF card). Sandisk do the fastest of these - see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sandisk.com/products/readers-accessories/sandisk-extreme-firewire-reader&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Extreme Firewire Reader&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sandisk.com/products/readers-accessories/sandisk-extreme-pro-expresscard-adapter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Extreme Pro ExpressCard Adapter&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course with USB3.0 devices beginning to appear, these are (theoretically) faster still than Firewire - but you need a machine that supports them (rather than running in USB2.0 backwards compatibility mode) to benefit from this speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="137" LastEditorUserId="137" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-17T15:21:02.720" LastActivityDate="2010-09-17T15:21:02.720" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3348" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3352" CreationDate="2010-09-17T19:48:04.257" Score="20" ViewCount="758" Body="&lt;p&gt;As newcomers to photography and printing we would like advice on the best way(s), regarding both quality and cost, of printing.&#xA;In the main my wife is photographing birds and insects, so natural colour and clarity are paramount. I have had one recommendation to a previous question for a photo lab (Photobox), thanks James.&#xA;I was just wondering if any one else can give me advise?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1179" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T05:15:17.267" Title="Lab prints vs Printer" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;prints&gt;&lt;printer&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="7" />
  <row Id="3349" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3348" CreationDate="2010-09-17T20:08:59.570" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The advantages of having your own printer are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You don't wait for prints&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Your cost per copy can be lower (the more you print, the quicker your average print cost decreases).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You don't pay for shipping&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Directly control the results&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Labs on the other hand:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;More printing options (canvas, wide-prints, extra large prints etc).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cost to Quality Ratio is higher (it's very possible to get lab-quality prints at home, but the upfront equipment cost is higher than buying prints from a lab)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Experience (there is a learning curve to putting out good looking prints)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Time (you don't have to spend your time tweaking print settings to get optimal results)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Space (You dont need to store a bulky large/wide format printer)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Materials (You pay per print. You don't need to stock up on photopapers or ink cartridges)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For simple pictures (passport, desk frames) I will use my run of the mill home inkjet printer. For any wall hung prints, I will send them out to a lab (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ezprints.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ezprints&lt;/a&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-18T03:23:06.783" LastActivityDate="2010-09-18T03:23:06.783" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="3350" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3348" CreationDate="2010-09-17T20:57:27.483" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Being a photo printer owner for many years I now get everything printed at a lab. The inconvenience of having to send off is more than offset by the quality and versatility offered. Not having to deal with ink cartridges, different types of photo paper, cropping etc. is worth the small additional cost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's not a lot to chose between the major online labs these days, they all use calibrated fully digital print processes so the output is very consistent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's still worth getting a few test prints before doing a large order to make sure your screen is calibrated and you know the effects of going from RGB to CYMK (some colours will be altered as a result as the standard inks can't reproduce the full range of colours you see on the screen).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-09-17T20:57:27.483" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3351" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3328" CreationDate="2010-09-18T01:51:39.613" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lossless / nondestructive edits are reversible and would entail transforming and/or appending the data in a way that could be reversed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two easy examples of lossless edits are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) rotation by 90 degrees&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) quadrupling the resolution by transforming each pixel into an identical 2x2 quad pixel (would work for some image formats, probably not JPEG because of the way it stores information)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="530" LastActivityDate="2010-09-18T01:51:39.613" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3352" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3348" CreationDate="2010-09-18T02:41:22.993" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When it comes down to quality, outside of the general consumer ink jet printers which are generally not recommended for quality photo printing at home, the difference between a commercial wide-format printer in a lab and a professional wide-format printer for home use is minimal. At worst, the overall quality between a lab print and a print from a Canon PIXMA Pro9000/9500 II or an Epson Stylus Pro 2880 (both &quot;entry level&quot; pro wide format printers) will be the same. At best, the fine art quality from either the Canon or Epson pro printers will be a bit better given some advancements in printer technology that is generally available on the more consumer-oriented lines than professional lines, The ability for you to calibrate the printer yourself to most ideally match what you see on your screen will also give you an edge when printing yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes down to cost, a lab may be cheaper (depends on size and volume), however that will ultimately depend on your volume and the number of years you use the printing equipment you buy. A lab can often generate a medium format print (say 13x19&quot;) for around $10-$15, excluding any shipping costs if the lab is not local. Excluding the cost of the printer equipment itself (we'll factor this in later), a similar print from your own gear may cost about $5-$8 (details later).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some additional factors you'll need to include when deciding whether to purchase your own printing equipment, or use a lab, include turn around time. If you find a lab close by, it may not be an issue, however many of the highest quality labs only exist in one place. Shipping film there and back will cost time and additional money. With digital, you can simply transfer the images over the net in most cases, however the final prints will have to be mailed back, which will cost time and money. Given these factors, printing in bulk will get you more bang for the buck with a lab, and given the cost of some consumable materials for home printing, higher volume printing will also often be cheaper at a lab. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Analysis of Cost: Lab vs. Personal Printer&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The cost of a lab can be cheap, however the difference between a lab's cost and the cost of using your own printing gear is a lot smaller than it used to be. In some cases, the cost may be the same, or even cheaper with your own gear. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A wide variety of quality papers are available for professional home printing these days. 20-50 sheets of glossy, luster/semigloss, matte, and fine art papers can be found in a wide variety of sizes, weights, and tones for decent cost. An example of a paper I prefer myself for my landscape photos is Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Fine Art paper. Its a medium weight paper with a fantastic texture and nice natural tone. A package of 20 sheets costs about $60, which boils down to $3 per sheet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Professional wide format printers are also pretty cost effective these days. Two of the most popular in this class are the Canon PIXMA Pro9500 Mark II, and the Epson Stylus Pro 2880. They both run for about $700, and offer superb quality, high resolution prints on almost any gloss, luster, matte or fine art paper you can imagine on up to 13x19&quot; paper (third-party papers will generally require custom calibration, more on this later.) These printers also offer very high quality black and white printing capabilities with pure grayscale inks, eliminating unwanted color casts to B&amp;amp;W prints. For around $1200-$1400, you can get similar printers that support larger papers (17x22&quot; and roll), and higher volume ink tanks (8-10 times more ink per tank.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ink cost for professional wide-format printers is relatively high, compared to commercial printers. Both Epson and Canon use individual colored ink tanks, containing 13-14ml of pigment ink. Each tank costs about $14-$16, so about $1.07 - $1.23 per ml. Most commercial ink jet printers use much larger tanks, from 80ml to 700ml, usually costing less than a dollar per ml. Several tests done in recent years have indicated the ink usage for professional wide-format printers is about 0.00075 tanks per square inch. (Black ink usage statistics, one of the highest-used colors in most prints, can be seen here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.redrivercatalog.com/cost-of-inkjet-printing-canon-pro9000-pro9500.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 9500&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.redrivercatalog.com/cost-of-inkjet-printing-v1.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Epson 2400&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Between the cost of the paper and the cost of ink, an average 13x19&quot; borderless print on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Fine Art media would cost $3 for the sheet of paper, and about $2.60 for the ink.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;inkCost = paperWidth * paperHeight * costPerCartridge * 0.00075&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  inkCost = 13&quot; * 19&quot; * $14 * 0.00075&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get a more real-world cost per sheet for 13x19&quot; prints on a Canon PIXMA Pro9500, you would need to factor in a couple more things. In addition to the ink usage just for the print, there is also some ink waste due to cleaning cycles. Some variation will use more ink than others...generally the lower the key of an image, the higher the density of ink. Economic forces often affect the price of individual tanks or colors (i.e. gray and black are often highly used colors, and may have a higher cost per tank than other colors). A margin of error of about 10% should be factored in to ink cost for these various factors, leading to a cost of about $2.80-$2.90 per 13x19&quot; sheet. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the cost of the printer itself will need to be factored in as well. This is a difficult one to factor, as it will be dependent upon how often you print, and how long  you intend to use it before replacing it with a newer model. A modern professional-grade wide-format printer from Canon or Epson is a quality investment, and can be used for many, many years without serious failure. Ink heads are usually replaceable in this grade of printer, as well as commercial gear, which greatly lengthens the life span of the printer housing. Assuming you generate 5 13x19&quot; prints a month, every month, for a mere three years, the &quot;printer cost&quot; per sheet would be about $4. Smaller prints would make more efficient use of ink, so this would be more of a maximum cost per sheet. This is a fairly low volume, and if you sell prints for a living you may generate considerably more. If you create 20 prints a month for three years, the printer cost per sheet would shrink to about $1. At the very least, one print a month is generally necessary to keep a professional wide-format printer in good, working condition, as ink can dry and cause tremendous ink waste and possibly even require a new print head. At only one print a month, the printer cost per sheet would be a painful $20. If your volume is particularly low, using a lab would be far more cost effective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A final cost factor if you choose to use your own print gear would be calibration. Generally speaking, out of the box, a Canon or Epson professional printer is able to print high quality prints on a fair variety of Canon or Epson brand papers. If the quality is not up to your (or your customers) standards, or if you need to use third-party papers (there is a tremendous variety of amazingly high quality papers out there), you may wish to invest in printer calibration. Very good calibration devices can be had for about $500, or you can send calibration sheets you print off to one of a variety of service centers who can perform calibration for you for a small cost. If you choose to send out for calibration, the cost is minimal, and generally only needs to be done once or twice for any given media. If you need the maximum possible quality, the cost of a printer calibration system would also need to be factored into your per-sheet print cost. Similar to the printer cost, it would depend on how frequently you print on media types you've calibrated, and how long you use the calibration system. An additional cost of a couple dollars per sheet is probably warranted. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Overall Costs&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Overall, between ink, paper, printer, and calibration costs, you can print a sheet of 13x19&quot; fine art media for about $8-$12. Thats pretty on par with a lab for moderately low (5 sheets a month) to higher (20+ sheets a month). The more volume you do, the more cost effective your own printer will be, however for large format (greater than 17x22&quot; size, up to around 40x60&quot;), the cost of printers begins to become prohibitive (thousands of dollars just for the printer.) A lab is the obvious choice for printing on larger format media. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Below is a shot of my own setup. I print about 5-20 prints a month, many of them for my portfolio, the rest for friends/family/gifts and for sale. I've had the printer for about a year, and the calibration equipment for about a week or so. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/KxpCS.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Printing Equipment&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pictured equipment above includes the printer, a full workflow calibration system, the papers I currently have at hand, as well as some print calibration patch pages and some pre- and post-calibration sample prints from a recent calibration. The total cost of everything pictured is about $1500:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon PIXMA Pro 9500 Mark II ($700)&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Full set of Lucia Inks (very lower right, $140)&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gray&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Photo Black (glossy/luster paper)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Matt Black (matt/fine art paper)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Yellow&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Photo Magenta (lighter, desaturated)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Magenta (darker, saturated)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Photo Cyan (lighter, desaturated)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cyan (darker, saturated)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Green&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Red&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;DataColor Spyder3Studio SR, Full-workflow Calibration System ($500)&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aluminum carrying case (right of picture)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;SpyderCube (left corner of printer)&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Used as a full white, 18% gray, dark dray, black color checker&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;White provides a target to pick a white point&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Spyder3 Elite (right corner in front of printer)&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Colorimeter used to calibrate screens, TV's, projectors&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Spyder3 Print (on patch paper lower left)&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Strip-reader spectrocolorimeter used to calibrate printer, paper, ink&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Includes guide to help when scanning patch strips&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Includes base holder with full white patch used to baseline calibration&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Various papers valued at approx. $200&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(Canon) Hahnemuhle Photo Rag &quot;Fine Art&quot;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;13x19&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;8.5x11&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon Photo Paper Plus Semi-Gloss&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;13x10&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;8x10&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon Photo Paper Pro Platinum&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;13x19&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon Photo Paper Plus Glossy II&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;8x10&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;5x7&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;4x6&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-18T07:08:06.797" LastActivityDate="2010-09-18T07:08:06.797" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="3353" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3367" CreationDate="2010-09-18T11:57:58.320" Score="16" ViewCount="321" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me start with the general question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Consider the following situation.  I want to take a picture of a particular object (that is, not a scenic shot).  I can alter my distance from the subject and I can use the zoom on my camera.  By altering both at the same time, I can keep the subject the same size in the picture but take different photos.  My question is: what changes as I do this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The obvious answer is &quot;depth of field&quot;.  So I'm really asking about what &lt;em&gt;other&lt;/em&gt; effects I should be aware of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background:&lt;/strong&gt; I've recently upgraded from a (decent) compact camera to one of the micro 4/3rds range and been experimenting with the new-found control over my photographs.  Fairly early on, I learnt about &quot;depth of field&quot; and enjoyed taking some photos exploiting variations in that.  The photograph that I'm currently trying to take is of a water drop splashing in a puddle (I've a fairly constant source of this due to a leaky gutter!).  I've gotten a fairly decent photograph just by taking it on standard settings, but I'm curious as to whether or not I can do better.  Obviously, taking the shot with as fast shutter speed as possible is the main thing to do, so I'm particularly interested in whether varying the focal length affects the range of shutter speeds, but I'd also be interested in other factors that are affected by focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1422" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T19:32:46.113" Title="What else changes with zoom?" Tags="&lt;focal-length&gt;&lt;shutter-speed&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3354" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3353" CreationDate="2010-09-18T12:40:07.520" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most obvious change that images shot with different focal length while keeping the main subject size intact will show is &lt;em&gt;perspective&lt;/em&gt;. By using a longer focal length (and, by necessity, increasing the distance between the camera and the main subject), you will get a more &quot;compact&quot; perspective, with the background appearing to be closer to the subject than when shooting with a shorter focal length. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/focal-length-and-perspective&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here is a very clear demonstration of that&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-09-18T12:40:07.520" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="3355" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3353" CreationDate="2010-09-18T13:32:02.950" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not often a problem, but the fact that the front of the lens rotates may be an issue when using a linear polarizing filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="878" LastActivityDate="2010-09-18T13:32:02.950" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3356" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3262" CreationDate="2010-09-18T14:04:32.733" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apart from the aperture numbers appearing on the aperture ring, prime lenses sometimes have an additional number of f-numbers printed on them, symmetrical about a central line, most often towards the body of the camera:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/I0hNj.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They indicate &lt;strong&gt;depth of field&lt;/strong&gt; for a given aperture. For the lens in the picture the selected aperture is f/5.6. Follow the lines starting at the 5.6 at the bottom and you arrive at 7m and infinity resp. So here your depth of field goes from about 7m to infinity.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Note that depth of field increases with smaller apertures (larger numbers).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Image: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.kenrockwell.com/&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="878" LastEditorUserId="878" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-18T14:55:15.513" LastActivityDate="2010-09-18T14:55:15.513" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3357" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3353" CreationDate="2010-09-18T14:11:28.450" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are taking a picture of subject X, and subject Y is in the background 10 feet further, changing the zoom will change the relative sizes of X and Y in the photo. If you are closeup with a wide angle shot of X, then subject Y will be much smaller. If you are far away with a telephoto shot of X, then subject Y will be about the same size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="530" LastActivityDate="2010-09-18T14:11:28.450" />
  <row Id="3358" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-18T14:23:37.080" Score="-2" ViewCount="453" Body="&lt;p&gt;If not, why, and what are the options in the same price range?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="377" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-18T16:01:33.077" LastActivityDate="2010-09-18T16:01:33.077" Title="Is Canon EF 17-200 f/4L USM a good enough lens for Canon 7d?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;canon-7d&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3359" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3262" CreationDate="2010-09-18T15:11:38.737" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, yes, all good information in other answers. The f-stop or f-stop range printed on your lens is its maximum.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You mentioned the &lt;strong&gt;ideal aperture&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The maximum is good for allowing you to take photos with less light at shorter exposure times, and in many situations, where the subject or you are moving, it can give you the sharpest results. &lt;em&gt;But not always.&lt;/em&gt; Landscapes, architecture, and still life are examples of situations where you will want something else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you want the most light as fast as you can get it, you want the maximum aperture for the lens at that zoom, for that exposure. Moving subjects, moving camera, low light without a tripod, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you want the ideal aperture for sharp photos, you probably want f/8 or f/11. A gross simplification is that your lens is probably sharpest there. This assumes you're either on a tripod or have enough light to keep the exposure time down below 1/60 or so.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you want to incorporate a specific Depth of Field to a photo and use film or high-end equipment, there are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/focus.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;semi-complex procedures for determining the right aperture&lt;/a&gt;. But for consumer digital camera setups, you still basically want f/8. From the linked article:&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you are a beginner or just shooting a 35mm or digital camera then this article addresses issues which won't bother you at reasonable apertures. Just use a tripod and choose the smallest aperture you have if you need depth of field. Avoid apertures smaller than f/8 or f/11 on digital cameras.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the max is great but not always the best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;EDIT&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another consideration is that beyond f/16 or so (in 35mm and smaller formats) you get increasing diffraction. With larger formats, the ideal becomes smaller. Large format lens ideal aperture are more like f/22 and diffraction is more of a problem at f/45.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Some links:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;photo.net: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?topic_id=23&amp;amp;msg_id=000f7T&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;f-stop --&gt; diffraction vs DOF&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Norman Koren: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Understanding resolution and MTF&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;FWIW, another rule of thumb i've heard (less often) is: ideal aperture is 2-3 stops below wide open.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="761" LastEditorUserId="761" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-22T11:09:50.887" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T11:09:50.887" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3360" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3358" CreationDate="2010-09-18T15:41:08.507" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is going to be very difficult question to answer, as there is not enough details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Good enough for what type of shooting?&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Outdoor Sports?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Indoor Sports?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Birds?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Portraits?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Street?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Video?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Good enough image quality wise?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Good enough so it doesn't hinder the features of the 7D?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general the 70-200F4 is a nice lens, because of it's relatively light weight compared to it's long focal length, and it's low cost compared to the other 3 Canon lenses in this focal range. The 70-200 range is an effective range for many types of photography, with a number of photographers citing it as their favorite range to work with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In low-light settings, the 70-200F4 does have an obvious disadvantage with it's one-stop less light compared to the F2.8 variants. It also does not have Image Stabilization, making the lens less desirable for indoor/low light shooting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specific to using the 7D, since the 7D has good high-iso image quality, the F4 isn't necessarily a hindrance for low light shots. The 7D's autofocus system is all cross-type which IIRC get extra sensitivity at F2.8, which means using the 70-200F4, the AF system may not be as performant as the F2.8 variants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to answer your question: assuming the 70-200 is the focal range you want (taking into account the 1.6x Field of View crop), and fits into your budget, the 70-200 is more than good enough for the 7D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-09-18T15:41:08.507" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="3361" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-18T15:53:37.187" Score="7" ViewCount="177" Body="&lt;p&gt;In image editors, especially powerful ones like GIMP and Photoshop, there happen to be a bevvy of ways to turn a color image into a black and white one, but not all techniques are the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do you analyze an image for black and white conversion to determine which black and white conversion methods would work best?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are some different methods for converting black and white images?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some good questions related to black &amp;amp; white here on Photo.SE:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1757/when-is-black-and-white-likely-to-enhance-an-image/1759#1759&quot;&gt;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1757/when-is-black-and-white-likely-to-enhance-an-image/1759#1759&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2066/black-and-white-film-vs-digital&quot;&gt;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2066/black-and-white-film-vs-digital&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-18T15:58:41.047" LastActivityDate="2010-09-19T02:00:36.727" Title="Tips for making black and white conversions in post-processing?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;black-and-white&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3362" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3361" CreationDate="2010-09-18T17:46:48.517" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The easiest method is to just drop your saturation to zero.  That leeches all the color out of the image.  It may not be the effect that you're looking for, however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another method is to add the results of different color channels in various combinations to one another to make a single intensity value at each pixel location.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, say, for instance, you could do this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;R + G + B = I&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where R is the red intensity at a given location, G is green, B is blue, and I is your final intensity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can then weight them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;R*r1 + G*g1 + b*b1 = I&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where those r1, g1, and b1 are constants for each channel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also transform them, by, say, applying a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histogram_equalization&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;histogram equalization&lt;/a&gt; to each channel prior to combination:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;T1(R)*r1 + T2(G)*g1 + T3(B)*b1 = I&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where your T1 is a transfer function (mapping of one set of pixel values into another).  Simple transfer functions are things like histogram equalizations, contrast adjustments, and other single-pixel modifications.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is all from a mathematics perspective, ie, you're doing modifications in a program or in something like Matlab.  You can also see how the transfer functions could get increasingly complex, combining neighborhood information and the like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't want to go that route (and I don't, not often, anyway), there are off the shelf solutions, in Lightroom or Nik.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/superb_black_and_white_with_nik_silver_efex_pro.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here'&lt;/a&gt;s a good review article on the last two, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://layersmagazine.com/black-white-lightroom.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://layersmagazine.com/create-stunning-black-and-white-images-in-lightroom.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; are also good primers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-09-18T17:46:48.517" />
  <row Id="3363" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3369" CreationDate="2010-09-18T18:47:13.040" Score="9" ViewCount="361" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm currently considering to buy one of the next generation enthusiast DSLRs. Either a Canon EOS 60D or the slightly more expensive Nikon D7000. I'm quite new to the SLR discussion but I know there are some controverse opinions about Canon vs. Nikon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I often read that (the better) Nikon lenses are higher quality but also much more expensive (more premium, in quality and in price). Is that the case?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is your opinion of the Canon vs. Nikon lens comparision? Which types of lenses are better from Canon which are higher quality from Nikon? How do the prices compare?&#xA;What is the quality/price ratio in your opinion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1387" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-18T19:55:25.547" LastActivityDate="2010-09-19T08:33:16.697" Title="What are the most notably differences between Canon and Nikon lenses?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="3364" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3361" CreationDate="2010-09-18T19:32:22.870" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;GIMP has a &quot;Channel mixer&quot; tool that allows you to convert to grayscale using arbitrary ratios. If you have areas where different colors dominate, you can use it to emphasize contrast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's an example below, but it's really best to play with it and see for yourself. Checking &quot;Preserve luminosity&quot; uses just ratios of the channels, so you don't have to care about clipping the result by adding everything on 200%.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/71Cu3.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;channel mixer 1&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rtLFC.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;channel mixer 2&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-09-18T19:32:22.870" />
  <row Id="3365" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3353" CreationDate="2010-09-18T19:50:55.477" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apart from the perspective and depth of field there are some rather minor (or technical, if you like) aspects:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Changing focal length alters optical configuration of the lens. Diaphragm has to open or close to keep the same aperture (&lt;em&gt;f&lt;/em&gt; in f/4 means focal length, so for f&amp;nbsp;=&amp;nbsp;24&amp;nbsp;mm, f/4 means opening it to 6&amp;nbsp;mm, on 105&amp;nbsp;mm end of the zoom you need approximately 26&amp;nbsp;mm). Apart from the effect on the depth of field, this also means that diaphragm blades might become more visible. So zooming may change the look of out of focus parts of the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, different grouping of lens element may alter look of flares when you shoot into the sun, or cause the image to be soft on certain zoom settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-09-18T19:50:55.477" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3366" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3361" CreationDate="2010-09-18T21:35:42.547" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A good place to start is by looking at each individual colour channel. This is easily done in Photoshop (and I assume GIMP) by opening up the channels palette and simply selecting either the red, green or blue channel. Usually one channel will simply look better than the others, sometimes you'll want to add a bit of another channel in, this is where the channel mixer tool comes in really handy. You can even subtract channels, so for example your final mix might be 0.5*R + G - 0.25*G&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It can take a bit of experimentation but I would recommend looking at each colour channel in isolation to give you a good idea where to start!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-09-18T21:35:42.547" />
  <row Id="3367" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3353" CreationDate="2010-09-18T21:55:48.990" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With regards to compression, as has already been stated if you move closer and zoom out you'll get more of the background in as you compress the perspective less. If you're photographing a single object against a plain background the effect is more subtle but you will get the same compression. For this reason longer focal lengths are considered more flattering for portrait photography as they make 'sticking out' features, such as the nose smaller.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Going back to the original question, zoom affects the usable range of shutter speeds, in that camera movement is exaggerated by a longer focal length, thus limiting the range of shutter speeds you can use without a tripod. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An often quoted rule is that you can hand hold shots for 1/f seconds, where f is the focal length. So you can expect to hand hold a shot at 1/50s with a 50mm lens but will need to up the shutter speed to 1/100s for 1 100mm lens. This rule is just an approximation, and you should take into account both crop factor and number of megapixels as this will influence the degree to which camera motion blur is visible in images!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Zoom can also change the aperture f number, since the term f/4.0 means the width of the aperture is the focal length divided by 4.0, so increase the focal length and the f-ratio gets bigger too (some more expensive lenses are designed so the apparent aperture increases with focal length to keep the f-ratio constant).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-01T19:32:46.113" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T19:32:46.113" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3368" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3262" CreationDate="2010-09-18T22:20:54.130" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When printed on a lens the f-stop is usually expressed as a ratio with a colon (i.e. 1:1.4) rather than the more usual f/1.4, however it still refers to the maximum apparent aperture divided by the focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-27T14:53:12.057" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T14:53:12.057" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3369" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3363" CreationDate="2010-09-19T01:16:28.537" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some starter references (while these sites might be biased, they do enumerate the points to look at).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Some of the discussions also compare Nikon and Canon bodies&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.radiantlite.com/2008/07/canon-versus-nikon-lenses.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon versus Nikon lenses&lt;/a&gt; at Radiant Lite Photography&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;rounds up with a reference to third party pro grade lenses such as Sigma, Tokina and Tamron.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon vs. Canon&lt;/a&gt; at &lt;code&gt;Kenrockwell.com&lt;/code&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikcan.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon cameras can use Nikon lenses&lt;/a&gt;, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/filters-bags-tripods-accessories-forum/009kjO&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon cameras can't use Canon lenses&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A list of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/lenses/ronreznick.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon D1 Lenses&lt;/a&gt; and one of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon_lenses.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon lenses&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An old (film) &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/equipment/35mm/canon-v-nikon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon and Canon comparison&lt;/a&gt; as reference&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="163" LastEditorUserId="163" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-19T01:21:51.363" LastActivityDate="2010-09-19T01:21:51.363" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3370" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3373" CreationDate="2010-09-19T01:28:04.813" Score="15" ViewCount="475" Body="&lt;p&gt;hey guys, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I asked a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2917/how-do-you-find-out-the-sweet-spot-of-a-lens&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt; a while ago here about the &quot;sweet spot&quot; of a lens, which led to a really interesting discussion of &quot;sharpness&quot;, the physics of light, and general image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;1st Question&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the film world, larger format films are known for providing a certain quality of sharpness, dynamic range, and fidelity that surpass the smaller formats.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The end result is clearly noticeable, but difficult to describe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In the digital world, do larger sensors provide the same advantages over their smaller counterparts as larger format film did to theirs?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Clarification Of The Question, and Caveats (&lt;em&gt;please read&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;This question is for current DSLRs only, so disregard &quot;medium format&quot; hasselblad type sensors or experimental sensors.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The question says &quot;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;all other things equal&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;, so please disregard the idea of &lt;em&gt;&quot;it's not the tool, it's the photographer&lt;/em&gt;&quot;, or &quot;&lt;em&gt;it's all about the lenses and the glass&lt;/em&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I know &quot;sharpness&quot; and &quot;image quality&quot; are problematic notions, especially when trying to measure them. Please try and think about the relationship of film sizes, and apply those to the question.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;2nd Question&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I traditionally shoot with film, and love it's &quot;quality&quot;. But I want to upgrade from my digital Nikon, my D50.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the first question in mind, will I &quot;gain&quot; that high fidelity image quality from the D700, or will the newer D7000 suffice (in case size doesn't matter, and the tech is newer after all)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;cheers!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="161" LastActivityDate="2010-09-19T15:11:21.897" Title="With all other things equal, in a DSLR, will a larger sensor produce a sharper image?" Tags="&lt;sharpness&gt;&lt;large-format&gt;&lt;nikon-d7000&gt;&lt;image-quality&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="3371" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3361" CreationDate="2010-09-19T02:00:36.727" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd suggest a &lt;strong&gt;film simulator&lt;/strong&gt;, which simulates how various black and white films would respond to the given color signal. I use the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kbarni.net/#Inda&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;iNDA&lt;/a&gt; plugin for Bibble, but it's based on a GIMP plugin I believe. It produces results that I like, it's very quick to try B&amp;amp;W on an image, and I like not having to think too much about all the parameters other answerers mention (YMMV of course).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-09-19T02:00:36.727" />
  <row Id="3372" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2834" CreationDate="2010-09-19T04:54:55.640" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have not used the Color to Alpha feature in GIMP, but it looks similar to converting a channel to alpha. In the channels panel, control click (or command click if you are on a Mac) on the channel you want to convert. Then you can either create a mask from the selection or press delete.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want more control you can edit the mask using curves, levels, etc. Just create the mask as I mentioned above and select it in the channels panel and apply whatever adjustments you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Color Range tool as suggested by jrista will also work, but I find the channels method a little easier to control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="148" LastActivityDate="2010-09-19T04:54:55.640" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3373" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3370" CreationDate="2010-09-19T07:37:25.627" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Clarification:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Firstly, you are correct in stating that sharpness is subjective, but the ability of a camera system to resolve small details can be measured, and this measurement is strongly related to the perceived sharpness. As you image black and white lines that get closer together they will eventually merge into a grey blob. By measuring how close lines can get before a losing a certain amount of contrast between the black and white, you get a measurement of sharpness. Expressing the distance between the lines relative to the picture height removes the final output size from the equation, this the sharpness measure is maximum line-pairs (i.e. one white one black) per picture height that have enough contrast to be distinguished. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;1st question:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All things being equal (same lens, subject, settings, &lt;strong&gt;final output size&lt;/strong&gt;) the larger sensor will produce an image with higher peak sharpness in the centre of the frame, and higher average sharpness across the fame. It may have softer corners than the smaller sensor image as the sharpness of the image circle projected by the lens can drop off significantly the further you move from the centre, and the larger sensor captures the extremes of the lens image circle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you take for example the 8mp Canon 30D and the 22mp 1DsMkIII, the 30D has almost exactly the same pixel size so it's image is akin to cropping the middle out of the 1Ds image. As you can imagine, cropping the middle out then blowing the image up to get the same output size, you will have to upscale and lose sharpness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you take for example the 12mp 450D and 12mp 5D, the smaller 450D has the same number of pixels but they are much smaller and together take up less of the image projected by the lens so it's sort of like blowing up the centre of the image projected by the lens, again losing sharpness. The bigger pixels of 5D sensor effectively view the lens image from further away and are less demanding of the lens resolution and will thus produce a sharper image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see this trend for larger sensors to produce sharper images reflected in the dpreview &lt;strong&gt;lens tests&lt;/strong&gt;, which allow you to see the MTF (a measure of lens resolving power, or sharpness) of the same lens on different sensors:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_50_1p4g_n15/page3.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_50_1p4g_n15/page3.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compare the test results of the Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.4G lens for the DX (1.5 crop) format compared to the FX. At f/4 the DX (smaller) sensor resolves 1500 line pairs per image height in the centre, and 1250 in the corners. The FX sensor, at the same aperture resolves over &lt;strong&gt;2200 lp/ph&lt;/strong&gt; in the centre and over &lt;strong&gt;1500&lt;/strong&gt; in the corners!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;2nd question:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For your second question increasing the number of megapixels for the same sensor size will improve sharpness (then thus image quality). However the improvements get smaller as the megapixel counts increase, thus at some point you need to move to a larger sensor. It's hard to say whether the D7000 will meet your sharpness needs, you'll have to try and borrow one!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is another factor which makes much more difference than sharpness between sensor sizes and that is depth of field. Again, all things being equal (most importantly framing) you will get shallower depth of field with a larger sensor, around 1.3 stops. For most people this is a major reason for using a larger sensor 35mm DSLR. To get the same image as a FF camera shooting at 50mm f/1.4 on an APS-C (like the D7000) you would need something like a 30mm f/0.9, which doesn't exist!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-19T15:11:21.897" LastActivityDate="2010-09-19T15:11:21.897" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3374" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="156" CreationDate="2010-09-19T08:22:39.143" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recommend the Photoshop manual, and then lots and lots of practice/experimentation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know this is not the answer you really want (and it's unlikely to get the bounty ;) but it's my opinion (and I stress this is just an opinion) that tutorials will only teach you how to use certain steps to produce a certain result. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no substitute for learning everything the long way, finding out for yourself &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; to make a change rather than simply &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. Training your eyes to analyse an image, learning when to trust your eyes and when to go by the numbers. Flexing your creativity. An experienced Photoshop artist will be able to look at any tutorial end image, take the source images and recreate it, probably using different steps to get the same result. There are so many tutorials that promise instant results and I can see the appeal, but this ability to me is far more valuable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-09-19T08:22:39.143" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-23T12:16:00.387" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3375" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3363" CreationDate="2010-09-19T08:33:16.697" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's worth knowing that there are certain lenses that only Canon or Nikon make, for example there is no Nikon 800mm f/5.6 currently in production. For some photography niches there's a genuine reasons to go with one manufacturer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also worth noting that there didn't used to be tilt-shift (perspective correction) lenses in production at Nikon a couple of years ago, but there are now. So just because there are gaps now in a manufacturers lineups doesn't mean it will stay that way for long in the ever more competitive DSLR market!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-09-19T08:33:16.697" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3376" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="156" CreationDate="2010-09-19T09:59:38.490" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some post-processing tutorials are at &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.tutsplus.com/category/tutorials/post-processing/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://photo.tutsplus.com/category/tutorials/post-processing/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-09-19T09:59:38.490" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-23T12:16:00.387" />
  <row Id="3377" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3370" CreationDate="2010-09-19T10:49:58.050" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1st question&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do you mean by &quot;a larger sensor&quot;? Larger in size, or larger in pixels?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Larger in size. As the pixel size increases its sensitivity gets better, which means less noise at the same ISO-setting. Sharpness is the same.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Larger in pixels. In this case the effect is reversed: you get noisier pictures, because pixels are smaller. At the same time sharpness increases, though you may have to shoot RAW instead of JPG to take advantage of this.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="878" LastEditorUserId="878" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-19T10:55:46.360" LastActivityDate="2010-09-19T10:55:46.360" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="3378" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3328" CreationDate="2010-09-19T12:38:05.267" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is also another type of non-destructive editing (we should call it &lt;em&gt;fake-non-destructive&lt;/em&gt;). &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digikam.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;digikam&lt;/a&gt; introduced &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digikam.org/drupal/node/534&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;non-destructive editing&lt;/a&gt; for &lt;strong&gt;all&lt;/strong&gt; type of operations, even cropping/resizing etc. But I called it &lt;em&gt;fake&lt;/em&gt; since it just saves a copy of the image before you started editing it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could do the same for your self with any other photo editing software by a simple backup before you start your work. digikam just utilized this (maybe) best practice and wrapped some tools around to make it more convenient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1387" LastActivityDate="2010-09-19T12:38:05.267" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3379" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3370" CreationDate="2010-09-19T13:43:38.277" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sharpness, or perceived sharpness, is influenced by a number of factors, but the effects of the sensor on that does depend a bit on some details around them. Typically, a full frame sensor has larger photo sites than an APS-C sensor which are, in turn, larger than a point and shoot. So, if we use this as the basis for discussion, understanding that there are exceptions to the &quot;typical&quot; case I described, then:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The larger pixel size provides some advantage in noise control which can assist in perceived sharpness (less detail loss), but it's bigger advantage is that it takes a smaller aperture to become diffraction limited as the increasing size of the airy disk can be contained inside the photo site for longer. For example, a Canon EOS 1D starts to become defraction limited at f/16 while a Nikon D70 hits it at f/11. Now, bear in mind that the physical dimensions of the sensor don't specifically effect this, it's simply a case that usually, though not always, the bigger sensor has bigger photo sites in current cameras. See this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cambridge in Colour article&lt;/a&gt; for much more detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another factor in sharpness is contrast. The bigger sensors usually, though not always, have greater dynamic range and that usually leads to better contrast. If the contrast is better, the sharpness is better. Of course, this depends on the subject matter and if there is little to contrast in that, it won't really make a lot of difference what camera you use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, on the downside, is that smaller pixel sizes may capture more detail at the same focal length, in effect, magnifying. This is where the crop factor, or focal length multiplier, comes into play. A 100mm lens on an APS-C (1.5) crop factor has the same angle of view as a 150mm lens on the full frame. Within that angle of view the APS-C, if not diffraction limited, will have captured more pixels worth of data than the full frame which gives it more detail and the potential to be sharper for the same region of the image assuming you shot using the 100mm lens on both. Which, by the way, is sometimes a disadvantage if you want shallow depth of field. It's one of the reasons that many struggle to get nice bokeh out of a point and shoot (though it can be done).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I started this reponse with an assumption of the &quot;typical&quot; condition of sensors, but the technology around this is improving dramatically and constantly. Sony (which generally supplies Nikon and Pentax) and Canon are making great strides in sensor technology and producing higher density APS-C sensors with improved dynamic range and substantially less noise. For example, cameras such as the Pentax K-x (Sony sensor) are getting rave reviews for their low-light noise control being in the same ballpark as a full frame sensors. So, while a full frame camera may some advantages in this area today, I don't think that's necessarily going to remain a constant truism. Now, these are &quot;pro&quot; cameras and will have a number of other features to go with them that others won't, so those may be compelling anyways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a side note, you excluded medium format digital, but they have one additional advantage over their full frame cousins from 35mm: no anti-aliasing filter. The filter helps with moire, but also introduces some blur. Users of this format would rather deal with the moire in post processing in order to get maximum sharpness on the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-09-19T13:43:38.277" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="3380" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="156" CreationDate="2010-09-19T13:50:10.840" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've used Ron Bigelow's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/articles.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photoshop tutorials&lt;/a&gt; quite a bit. He covers just about everything I care about and then some... He also has a bunch of other articles/tutorials on other photographic subjects that are interesting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-09-19T13:50:10.840" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-23T12:16:00.387" />
  <row Id="3381" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3402" CreationDate="2010-09-19T14:46:36.700" Score="6" ViewCount="222" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can I use mirror lockup for long exposures on the Nikon D80?  The option appears to be in the menu, I can't seem to enable it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="624" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T19:31:29.850" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T19:31:29.850" Title="Nikon D80 Mirror Lockup" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;mirror-lockup&gt;&lt;nikon-d80&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="3382" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3381" CreationDate="2010-09-19T17:13:33.297" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No you can't. It is only for cleaning the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to do long exposure shot, you can select the manual mode and roll the rear wheel in 'bulb mode' (after 30&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="765" LastActivityDate="2010-09-19T17:13:33.297" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3383" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4150" CreationDate="2010-09-19T19:06:43.897" Score="16" ViewCount="590" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've a bunch of APS films that I'd like to scan but all the film scanners I've seen on the market today are 35mm scanners; and whilst some have little carriers to allow you to physically scan APS, none seem to exist that read the metadata or even at the very least motor drive and automate the scanning?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a product I've missed, that might be found on the likes of eBay; or would I be better off getting them scanned at my local friendly photolab?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T19:58:46.583" LastActivityDate="2010-11-15T04:47:47.757" Title="Is there a film scanner that can read the data from APS films and include it in the EXIF metadata?" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;exif&gt;&lt;negative-scanner&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="3384" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3258" CreationDate="2010-09-19T19:15:36.480" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While the caveats about Internet legal advice noted by other answerers apply of course, I think this one is pretty clear: &lt;strong&gt;both scenarios involve creation of a derivative work, and if done without permission would be a copyright violation in the USA and many other countries&lt;/strong&gt;. The fact that the resulting derivative works are sold would generally increase liability.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-09-19T19:15:36.480" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="3385" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2474" CreationDate="2010-09-19T19:57:22.667" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If it's just for this one photo, you could download the 30 day &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/downloads/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;trial of Photoshop CS5&lt;/a&gt; and use the new &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photoshopessentials.com/photo-editing/cs5/new-features/fill-content-aware/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;content-aware fill&lt;/a&gt; feature. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="40" LastActivityDate="2010-09-19T19:57:22.667" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3386" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3395" CreationDate="2010-09-20T00:32:22.193" Score="5" ViewCount="145" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lenmar is, to the best of my knowledge, a reputable manufacturer of aftermarket batteries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I bought a DLPBLB13 battery as a 2nd battery for my Panasonic G2, charged it up, put it in my camera, checked for a few seconds to make sure it worked, and went off on a day trip, unfortunately leaving my original camera battery (Panasonic DMW-BLB13PP) home. When I went to use my camera, about 12 seconds after I turned it on, it complains &quot;THIS BATTERY CANNOT BE USED&quot;, locks up for a little while, and shuts off. I had to give up shooting with the G2 and use my old point + shoot instead -- grr.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now what should I do? Has anyone dealt with Lenmar before? I either want my money back or a camera battery that works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="530" LastActivityDate="2010-11-06T18:15:52.480" Title="Panasonic G2 rejects Lenmar battery: what should I do?" Tags="&lt;panasonic&gt;&lt;battery&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3387" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3408" CreationDate="2010-09-20T02:05:42.620" Score="5" ViewCount="271" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon PowerShot SD780 IS point-and-shoot which I use as my carry-around-everywhere camera when I don't want to drag my SLR about. This tiny little camera works great and takes fabulous pictures for something so small, but the big limitation I've found is a narrow depth of field when focusing closely. It seems that the camera is programmed to always favor a fast shutter speed as its priority, so in anything other that blasting sun the aperture is always wide open.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any trick I can use -- such as a process, a built-in setting, or hacked firmware -- to get this camera to stop down its aperture when doing close up shots?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="139" LastActivityDate="2010-10-07T20:47:25.663" Title="Is there any way to stop down the aperture of a Canon PowerShot SD780 IS?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;&lt;f-stop&gt;&lt;powershot&gt;" AnswerCount="7" />
  <row Id="3388" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3391" CreationDate="2010-09-20T02:09:39.527" Score="14" ViewCount="229" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ok, I know the SLR world pretty well, I've owned Pentax, Canon, and now Nikon film SLRs, from the 80's, to the naughties.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I know nothing about Medium Format cameras, so I need your advice!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;My Requirements&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;it has be pretty cheap, I'm expecting to pay between $200 and $800? less would be better so I can spend on film / processing / lenses&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I don't want a &quot;toy&quot; camera.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I'm trying Medium Format for the quality of the film, so I want a body that can take awesome interchangeable lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I want the lenses to be relatively easy to find in 2nd hand camera shops, and I don't want them to be the most expensive lenses (i.e, Pentax lenses are more than enough, though better is always good!)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I need it to have a pretty reliable through the lens light meter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;it does NOT need any auto focus&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;it CAN be heavy and bulky&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;it MUST be a waist &quot;look down&quot; viewfinder.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I'd rather 6x6, but am flexible. I want to be able to put awesome low ISO film in there.. don't know if that limits me in the size?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I would like a pretty fast shutter... but I know in older cameras it's hard to go above 1/1000&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;One More Thing, Very Important&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I do a lot of night time photography, so I need to be able to meter light at very long exposures, and of course set very long exposures.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;cheers!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="161" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T20:21:34.927" Title="Medium Format camera suggestions for an SLR guy" Tags="&lt;medium-format&gt;&lt;camera-suggestion&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3389" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3387" CreationDate="2010-09-20T02:14:34.173" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Only thing I can see is to use the Exposure Compensation feature to force it to stop down -2 EV. It seems only the shutter is selectable, and to be perfectly honest, I am not sure if the exposure compensation adjusts aperture or ISO. Seems like a great fully automatic P&amp;amp;S for those random life moments, but it doesn't appear to have much in the way of real exposure control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-09-20T02:14:34.173" />
  <row Id="3390" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3404" CreationDate="2010-09-20T02:43:51.210" Score="10" ViewCount="304" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Nikon D3000, use it mostly to take pictures of my kids.  Going into winter, I'm thinking about getting an external flash but I don't even know where to start.  I'm assuming all flashes are not created equal.  Right now I have the kit lens and a telephoto lens, and am getting a prime lens for Christmas.  The kids will start having recitals, Christmas pageants, etc. so I want something that I can use to take good pics in low light, but I'm not necessarily looking for professional grade at this point.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="706" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-20T22:35:19.820" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T22:35:19.820" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-20T02:43:51.210" Title="What's a good starter flash for Nikon?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3391" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3388" CreationDate="2010-09-20T03:23:18.207" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The good news - all medium format gear is ridiculously cheap now that everyone switched to digital. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cheapest hardware is probably 645, Mamiya was always cheapest and is lens compatible right upto their most modern digital models. Although most people used them as eyelevel SLRs you can get a waistlevel finder for $10&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My favorite 6x7 was always Mamiya RB67 (or RZ if you like more electronics)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then of course there is the famous Hassleblad - I've nearly been tempted to buy a Hassleblad just as a piece of art.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whichever it's going to cost a fortune in film and you need a very high end film scanner&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: Not sure if it's allowed here but check www.keh.com for used MF gear (no link other than a long time very satisfied customer)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="631" LastEditorUserId="631" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-27T00:25:57.243" LastActivityDate="2010-09-27T00:25:57.243" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3392" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3390" CreationDate="2010-09-20T04:21:40.573" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While the controls are not the best designed in the world, Sigma does make some very high powered and capable flashes for every major dSLR make and they're usually priced below a comparable version from the camera maker. I have the Sigma EF-530 DG Super and it's been working very well for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, ultimately, the best option for you is going to be a flash from Nikon. They're specifically designed for the camera by the company that knows it best, meaning that they aren't trying to &quot;figure it out&quot; on their own. I can't specifically advise on the Nikon front (I shoot Pentax), but you can't really go wrong there. Perhaps the SB-600 hits the basic range you're looking for, it's a mid-level option with decent range, swivel and tilt, and not too badly priced. Cheaper than my Sigma, though not as powerful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-09-20T04:21:40.573" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-20T04:21:40.573" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3393" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3390" CreationDate="2010-09-20T04:24:48.283" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For price/features, you really can't beat Sigma's line of flashes. They have many of the features that the pro-level Nikon/Canon strobes have, but for nearly 1/2 the price. Sigma's do have their issues (notably forward compatibility&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding recitals, the distance to subject will dictate how effective your flash is. I'd assume most begginer-level strobes won't have enough power to illuminate. I'm no flash expert so I can't begin to advise on what type of power you need, but I do recommend checking out &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strobist.com&lt;/a&gt; for some great information about flashes, and lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-09-20T04:24:48.283" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-20T04:24:48.283" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3394" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-20T06:00:28.733" Score="13" ViewCount="506" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've started to experiment with HDR photography and would love to have a few shots of my family rendered via HDR.  There's one problem - my family is human and they move, sometimes a LOT.  How would be the best way to go about photographing them in order to produce the best possible HDR result?  I am using a tripod with my Nikon D90 and the typical RAW shots with +2, 0, -2 EV bracketing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The results I've had so far often end up with ghosting and other minor details either removed or blurred - what am I doing wrong?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1" LastActivityDate="2010-09-21T17:44:47.100" Title="HDR processing on moving subjects" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;hdr&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="3395" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3386" CreationDate="2010-09-20T06:50:38.143" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Regarding getting money back - call the dealer, we can't help you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For future - buy brand batteries :) When you knowingly buy a camera that is publicly said to operate only with brand batteries and you pay a lot of money for it - why try to cheat then?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've personally never had good experience with 3rd party batteries and have cried but paid ~$150 for the Canon originals. On the other hand, they've never let me down either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-20T08:38:34.740" LastActivityDate="2010-09-20T08:38:34.740" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3396" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3394" CreationDate="2010-09-20T09:35:55.650" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're taking bracketed shots, ghosting of moving people / objects is always going to be an issue when combining to create an HDR image (of course, bracketing without a tripod will bring in the extra issue of ghosting due to camera movement).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 2 solutions are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shoot a single RAW and generate an HDR from this (my personal preference for shots focusing on people)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fix the HDR ghosting in Photoshop - put the tonemapped image onto the top layer, then pick the bracketed shot with the best exposure for the people, place this under the tonemapped layer and mask through to fix the people. Naturally, it takes a bit of work to maintain the HDR effect on the people that are masked through, you may well need to use some pseudo-HDR filters (such as Topaz Labs Adjust, or onOne's HDR filter).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a side point, you mention that you bracket 3 RAW shots. Technically this isn't really necessary as the benefit of RAW files is negated in the process (since the HDR / tonemapped results is usually a JPEG). RAW is a must when shooting single shots, as point 1 above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Side point number 2, the HDR process can make skin tones appear quite bizarre - overly textured and withered / worn. I usually remove the HDR effect from people in shots (if they are the main subject).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1437" LastActivityDate="2010-09-20T09:35:55.650" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3397" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3394" CreationDate="2010-09-20T09:44:35.567" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Doing an automatic conversion with Photomatix, Photoshop etc. is not the only way to blend multiple exposures in order to extend the dynamic range as as you've found it can be very difficult if you have moving subjects. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A simple way of achiveing HDR effects is to simply layer the images in photoshop and mask the relevant parts of each image. e.g. take the shadow area from one image, take the people from another and take the sky from a third image. This works very well if there's a clear boundary between areas of different brightness. Feathering the edges of each mask makes hides the transitions. If the areas where there is movement don't cross any transitions then it's not a problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another advantage of this method is that it doesn't create and HDR artifacts, such as halos, so produces a more natural looking image. Also it doesn't require any speicial software as layer masking can be done with any competant photo editing program.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an example from a few years ago when I climbed Mount Snowdon with some friends. Coming down there wasn't a lot of time to hang about as we had to get down before sunset. Looking down the valley there was no exposure that was even close to capturing the whole dynamic range:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/snowdon_original_frames.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was a lot of motion in the people climbing down (especially the dog) so I couldn't do a straight HDR without getting motion halos. I stacked the images in photoshop and took the sky from the darkest exposure, the middle ground from the middle exposure and the foreground (and importantly all the people) from the lightest exposure. I'm not 100% happy with the result, it still looks a little too fake but for a quick snap shot and momento of the day it does the job:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/snowdon_layers.jpg&quot;&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-20T18:17:39.177" LastActivityDate="2010-09-20T18:17:39.177" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3398" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3394" CreationDate="2010-09-20T10:44:14.940" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dear Geoff&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I started experimenting with HDR initially I had the same problem but I managed to work out the best workflow for this kind of situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like it has been already mentioned you have two solutions and both of them will give you great results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Solution 1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shoot 3 brackets in RAW (typically -/+ 2EV). Remember, if you put your D90 in high burst mode the brackets will be taken really fast in order to minimalise movement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use Photoshop CS5 to stack the pictures in Merge to HDR Pro. Now, I realise that Photomatix is the most popular HDR stacking software but I have to say that the guys from Adobe really made a great job with the HDR engine in CS5. You will be surprised by its performance and ability to reduce ghosting completely. Simply select one frame which you want to appear as a main frame and then the ghosting will disappear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a number of video tutorials on the web on how to use the Merge to HDR Pro engine so you won't have any difficulties with it. Go to www.photoshopsupport.com for more. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Solution 2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do not have Photoshop CS5 and want to use Photomatix then follow a different workflow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shoot one exposure in RAW and then create so called 'fake HDR' by creating the brackets. Open your file in either Photoshop CS4 or CS5, Adobe Lightroom 2 or 3 or Aperture (these are the market leading) and RAW converter should appear automatically. Then adjust the exposure bar and create one -2 EV (exposure value) and one +2EV shot. Remember, when saving your files you won't be able to save it as your native RAW so to minimalise data loss save your files as 16bit TIFF. Then stack the pictures in Photomatix as usual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is one of my first fake HDR&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/grzegorz_rogala/4937391125/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/grzegorz_rogala/4937391125/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck with your photography&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Greg&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1440" LastActivityDate="2010-09-20T10:44:14.940" />
  <row Id="3399" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3387" CreationDate="2010-09-20T10:51:29.377" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is the Canon Hack Development Kit (CHDK):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which states it supports the SD780. It's fairly safe in that you load a fully hacked version of the firmware which gets reset when you turn the camera off. It will allow you to directly control nearly every camera feature, and you can even write scripts to, for example, stop down based on focussing distance. &#xA;&lt;strong&gt;edit: you can't actually stop down with this particular model, so it looks like you're out of luck&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-21T08:43:31.323" LastActivityDate="2010-09-21T08:43:31.323" />
  <row Id="3400" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2073" CreationDate="2010-09-20T10:53:54.447" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dear Rabbi&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether you are a Windows or Mac user and a passionate photographer the next step on the path to professional photography is Adobe Lightroom 3. Unfortunately, I am not sure if it has been released for Linux users. Anyway, Lightroom 3 is a digital darkroom for serious amateur and professional photographers. There is an incredible number of video tutorials on the web so step by step you will grip the basics and more advanced controls in order to give your pictures an amazing boost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck with your photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Greg&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1440" LastActivityDate="2010-09-20T10:53:54.447" />
  <row Id="3401" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3403" CreationDate="2010-09-20T10:58:42.257" Score="0" ViewCount="254" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1177/adding-data-to-an-exif-file&quot;&gt;Adding data to an EXIF file&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the best metadata editor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: for (OS) Windows 7 Starter, for geolocation I'm thinking to use Picasa. But, what is the best and simple metadata editor? for JPG&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1439" LastEditorUserId="1439" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-20T11:33:23.297" LastActivityDate="2010-09-20T12:36:09.990" ClosedDate="2010-10-29T12:31:08.960" Title="What is the best metadata editor?" Tags="&lt;metadata&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3402" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3381" CreationDate="2010-09-20T12:15:58.123" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The D80 has an Exposure Delay mode, which basically adds a 0.4 seconds delay after opening the mirror, then automatically starts the exposure. So it's not a manual step, but just an automatic mirror lockup.&#xA;From a quick Google I think it's custom menu open 31.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1441" LastActivityDate="2010-09-20T12:15:58.123" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3403" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3401" CreationDate="2010-09-20T12:36:09.990" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For geocoding photos, I've always used &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?familyid=184075d2-40b5-4172-88ae-878f81896d4d&amp;amp;displaylang=en&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Microsoft Pro Photo Tools&lt;/a&gt; which is free and lets you drag and drop onto a map (or aerial view, if you prefer) - it also allows you to upload a GPX track from a GPS unit, and you can match up against that. It also supports setting other metadata, such as photographer information, keywords, or adjusting dates and times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-09-20T12:36:09.990" />
  <row Id="3404" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3390" CreationDate="2010-09-20T12:38:26.083" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, for what you're doing, an external flash may not be what you want.  If you're taking a powerful flash to a kid's pageant, they may tell you to turn it off so as to stop bothering everyone else watching the show.  Maybe all the parents have them where you are, though, so I don't know.  The 85mm f/1.8 prime takes great low light shots of plays; I use it to take shots of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.markmroden.com/Events/Plays-at-Milken&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;plays at my wife's school&lt;/a&gt; all the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said that, I've used the Nikon sb-800 and the sb-900 to shoot events, and shot with a friend's Canon gear and associated flashes (but I don't remember their model numbers).  Of that smallish pool of equipment, I found the sb-900 to be, by far, the best flash I've used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Very fast recycle time.  Nothing is more irritating than shooting a shot and then waiting five-seven seconds while your flash recycles and you miss whatever else might be happening.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Works well with just four AAs.  Lots of pros go with off-flash battery packs for their flash power, because different power sources can lower flash cycle times.  The sb900 has very decent flash recycle times with just four AAs (and by 'decent' I mean, in practice, 2-3 seconds or faster, depending on the power of the flash).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gel holders that work.  If you shoot while there are incandescent lights around, you may want your flash output to match the temperature of the ambient light.  The sb800 gel holders were terrible, the sb900s work.  For shooting people, I tend to leave the warming filter on all the time.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;User interface.  For this, until the sb900, the Canon flashes were just much better than the Nikon, because getting the flash to turn off and on is trivial on a canon flash.  Sometimes, you just want the flash to be turned off as the lighting changes, and having to wait several seconds to do that is just irritating.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Remoting.  My Canon friends are jealous of Nikon's remoting abilities.  With the sb900 or 800, I can set the flash up in remote mode and then put it somewhere else.  So long as its roughly in front of the camera, the camera can control the remote flash.  That means I can try &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;strobist&lt;/a&gt;-style experiments more easily and without &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pocketwizard.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pocketwizards&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This shot is a combination of 3 and 5:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/DMeHZ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Off-camera flash example&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was taken during Christmas.  The flash is on the top of a shelf in the closet (you can see a bit of the output on the top of the door).  I just set the flash to remote and the camera to commander mode (check to see if your d3000 can do this, I know that the d200 and d300 can) and left the warming gel in to match the ambient light.  Without a flash, this room was just too poorly lit to get anything, so I think that this is the kind of flash behavior you're looking for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastEditorUserId="266" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-21T14:57:18.743" LastActivityDate="2010-09-21T14:57:18.743" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-20T12:38:26.083" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3405" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-21T01:37:54.063" Score="4" ViewCount="153" Body="&lt;p&gt;I dropped my CPL onto some rocks and it's a bit scratched up. There's no obvious effect in a (very cursory) look at the photos, but &lt;strong&gt;are there tests I can do to see if the damage has a visible effect?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2011-05-21T07:08:55.453" Title="How to tell if a polarizing filter is too damaged?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;repair&gt;&lt;equipment-damage&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="3406" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2522" CreationDate="2010-09-21T01:46:59.413" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I ended up with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/154582-REG/B_W_65041408.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this case&lt;/a&gt; from B+W. It's exactly what I needed except for the lack of inserts, but two layers of corrugated cardboard worked well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-09-21T01:46:59.413" />
  <row Id="3407" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3383" CreationDate="2010-09-21T03:13:31.800" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is some discussion on Flickr here &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/aps_ix240/discuss/72157615047559419/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;APS: Advanced Photo System&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;That links to another Flickr discussion on  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/vectis-s-1/discuss/72157624395162727/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Minolta Vectis S-1 and S-100&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, some older discussion at &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/008c78&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fuji Frontier vs dedicated film scanner&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="163" LastActivityDate="2010-09-21T03:13:31.800" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3408" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3387" CreationDate="2010-09-21T03:55:39.460" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Matt stated, there is the Canon Hack Development Kit (CHDK).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;However&lt;/em&gt;, the SD780, along with many other compacts, do not have an iris for aperture control.&lt;/strong&gt;  Basically the CHDK will allow you to control the ND filter, which acts as a fake aperture.  It will only allow you to use longer shutter speeds (or increased ISO), and &lt;strong&gt;will &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; increase depth of field.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The physical aperture is fixed, but you can increase the f-stop (aperture / focal length) by zooming in with the lens.  Of course, increasing the focal length itself will narrow the depth of field more than the amount you decreased the f-stop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only way to potentially get a deeper depth of field is to shoot from further away and perhaps crop. The act of magnifying will actually change the circle of confusion and again narrow the perceived depth of field, but it may be the best chance.  You can take multiple shots and use &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-resolution&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Super-Resolution&lt;/a&gt; to try to regain some resolution.  Only one commercial software at the moment implements Super-Resolution, but you can use Matlab if you have it :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-21T05:50:50.510" LastActivityDate="2010-09-21T05:50:50.510" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3409" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3405" CreationDate="2010-09-21T04:06:53.830" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The end of the lens is extremely out of focus, it takes a lot of damage to be immediately visible. One test I've heard of is to attach a few strips of post-it paper to the front of the lens - you'll barely be able to see the difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most likely effect will be a slight blurring of the image. Take a couple of pictures of a static scene using a tripod, one with the filter and one without. If you can't see the difference, it's time to stop worrying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="775" LastActivityDate="2010-09-21T04:06:53.830" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3410" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3422" CreationDate="2010-09-21T05:40:41.340" Score="11" ViewCount="225" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are some good workflows and methods for pulling skin tones out of the shadow and preserving tonality?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I took a couple shots during a sunrise and did not want to blind riders (who had been riding all night) with a flash.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My quick attempt:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/RcYtE.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;RAW DNG if anyone's interested in playing around with it:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?7g257k44bt4tdop&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?7g257k44bt4tdop&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T16:50:37.830" Title="Techniques to pull skin tones out of the shadows?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;" AnswerCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3411" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="471" CreationDate="2010-09-21T07:25:02.597" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been using two commercial applications:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bibblelabs.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bibble Pro&lt;/a&gt;: Similar to Lightroom and Aperture. Great program, great plugins, great performance.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lightzone: Interesting software! Simple, yet powerful approach to photo editing. It's cross-platform just like Bibble Pro, so give it a try.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1447" LastActivityDate="2010-09-21T07:25:02.597" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-10T15:23:42.103" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3412" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="590" CreationDate="2010-09-21T07:31:10.960" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;[Bibble Pro][1] is a commercial application, but it allows you to copy settings from one image to another. It also has a very advanced batch processing mode that simplifies the process of exporting a large number of RAW files to JPEG, TIFF or any other format that Bibble supports.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1447" LastActivityDate="2010-09-21T07:31:10.960" />
  <row Id="3413" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8" CreationDate="2010-09-21T07:38:04.223" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use the following directory structure (in Aperture)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Year/&#xA;   Month/&#xA;      Event A&#xA;      Event B&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that I use keywords and EXIF data to create smart albums based on ratings, people, places etc. I find that this scales very well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1447" LastActivityDate="2010-09-21T07:38:04.223" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3414" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="590" CreationDate="2010-09-21T07:48:50.680" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/Guide.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;UFRaw&lt;/a&gt; also provides a batch processing command - just open the first image, apply your settings, then save those with the option &quot;Create ID File&quot; set to &quot;only&quot;. Then you can use &lt;code&gt;ufraw-batch&lt;/code&gt; to apply the settings from this &lt;code&gt;.ufraw&lt;/code&gt; file to your images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1441" LastActivityDate="2010-09-21T07:48:50.680" />
  <row Id="3415" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3410" CreationDate="2010-09-21T07:52:49.883" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Maybe using the RAW you could get some higher exposures and then use &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;HDR&lt;/a&gt; processing to get the driver a little lighter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1441" LastActivityDate="2010-09-21T07:52:49.883" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3416" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3405" CreationDate="2010-09-21T09:11:40.090" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can test the polarizing effect by placing a non-circular polarizing filter in front, you should be able to place it at an angle that almost eliminates light transmission. However I highly doubt that the scratches will have an effect on it's ability to filter polarized light! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As already stated scratches on the front of a lens typically have a minimal impact on image quality here's a very good example: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.10.30/front-element-scratches&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.10.30/front-element-scratches&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-21T09:21:03.077" LastActivityDate="2010-09-21T09:21:03.077" />
  <row Id="3417" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3410" CreationDate="2010-09-21T11:59:40.433" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can use fill light and reduced contrast to lift the shadows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The DNG download didn't work, but I gave the JPEG a quick try in Camera RAW.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Settings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Exposure: -0.25&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fill light: 33&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Contrast: -6&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Note that the fill light also reduces contrast, so the actual contrast reduction is more than just the -6.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/IQO0L.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;loading...&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using a bit more effort and perhaps curves, you should be able to get a decent result. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-21T21:46:48.067" LastActivityDate="2010-09-21T21:46:48.067" />
  <row Id="3418" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-21T13:39:03.820" Score="4" ViewCount="319" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have to buy a new camera for my brother. He's not such as a expert to buy a reflex, I mean.. not yet. So I'd like to buy a bridge camera, just to give him the possibility to do a little practise. I have a Fuji s5700 and for me (I'm not a expert either.. it's just a passion by now) and I found it great.. so I thought the Fuji s1900 could be ok for him. I'd like to ask you which are the features to look for in a bridge camera, and which one you can suggest for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a famous internet shop I found these ones:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fuji s1900&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fuji s2500HD (differences between this and the s1900?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;PANASONIC DMC-FZ38&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;NIKON CoolPix L110&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;KODAK EasyShare Z981 Black&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that the fuji s1900 is around 180 euros.. and the others between 250 and 300.. (plus shipment costs) but consider that I can buy the Fuji s2500HD for 180 euros (plus shipment costs).. what do you suggest? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you!!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1449" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-23T21:46:48.817" LastActivityDate="2011-02-25T22:45:10.450" Title="Bridge camera for aspiring photographer" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3419" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3424" CreationDate="2010-09-21T15:23:14.107" Score="7" ViewCount="376" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most mid- and high-end DLSRs offer two or three sizes for RAW capture.  When the camera is generating the medium or small sized RAW files, how does it make them smaller?  Does it capture less information onto the sensor?  Does it capture the full amount of information and then apply some sort of in-camera compression?  Does it do something else that I'm not describing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-09-21T18:19:47.857" Title="When shooting in mRAW or sRAW, how does the camera generate smaller files?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;mraw&gt;&lt;sraw&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3420" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3419" CreationDate="2010-09-21T16:06:51.443" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Simply put the camera resizes the photo so there are fewer pixels in an sRaw file, thus the file size are smaller. For example the Canon 50D sRaw1 is 7.1 megapixels compared to the full 15.1 megapixels of the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe this happens after colours have been interpolated from the Bayer array so the full sensor data is used, also an sRaw file contains full colour information at each pixel. Lossless compression is also applied to reduce the size further. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some manufacturers offer lossy raw compression using the full image resolution, however these files wont be as small as the reduced resolution raw files in most circumstances. Lossless compression is also used on full resolution raw files, which has no effect on image quality however takes more time to read/write the files (due to the need to compress/decompress) so is sometimes not used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-21T17:10:44.893" LastActivityDate="2010-09-21T17:10:44.893" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="3421" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3418" CreationDate="2010-09-21T16:08:56.180" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A &lt;em&gt;good&lt;/em&gt; bridge camera is one that allows for the user to grow and stretch into a deeper understanding of their craft. It should have the functionality to control light through ISO, aperture and shutter speed. It should have instant shutter release (you push the button and it goes!) and a hot shoe (for flash). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suggest a hot shoe because built in pop-up flashes are really good for two things: triggering other strobes (good thing) and washing your subject in a nuclear blast of FOC (Flash On Camera, bad thing). As the hobbyist gains confidence and skill, they will want to create more dramatic and balanced images with an off camera strobe of some sort, and thus will need a hot shoe mount on their camera. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other than these basics, the truth is Nikon, Canon, Panasonic and Sony all have banging models with tons of groovy gadgets. The extras are just that, extras, and most of what they offer you'll never ever use. I know you're shopping for your brother, but think about ergonomics. What feels right? Can you change lenses? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For my vote, I've talked several friends into the Nikon Coolpix P100. Huge CMOS chip. Fast shutter. HD Movie. Gorgeous body. Classic Nikon durability. AND the controls feel more like a true SLR, so your fingers begin to learn what is required of them in high speed, high stress situations. It is my favorite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2010-09-21T16:08:56.180" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3422" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3410" CreationDate="2010-09-21T16:58:18.157" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It was courteous and mindful of you to think of your subject (the rider), their passage throw the night and the amount of light you would through at them being potentially dangerous. However, the BEST thing to do here is use flash. An 80/20, fong bong, or any other strobe diffuser would be sufficient to throw enough light on the rider's face to expose without sending them on a temporary vision quest. But that's for next time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the image at hand...head into photoshop, create a duplicate layer and open curves. You can tweak the exposure a touch in RAW if you want...a little fill here, a little +exposure there. But don't go overboard. The heavy lifting this time is in PS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On your duplicate layer you'll want to bust into QM (quickmask), select a medium firm brush and paint out the rider. This is a moment where you stay within the lines, in fact don't go to close to them, otherwise you'll get weird halo guy and everyone will know you PS'd your way out of a photo whoopsy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you have a good selection (you can always go back to the QM and tweak it) open up curves. Set your first point low on the mid line, say around the bottom 1/4 (lower left) if not lower. then set another one near the top of the line (for highlights), but not as close to the top, maybe around 1/3 of the way. Bring the shadow point up, but just a little bit. You don't have much information there, so the smallest movement will create HUGE changes. Your goal here is to bring out some detail in the shadows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, bring your highlight point down. This will smooth out the highlights in the rider so they look more natural. You may (and I did) add a midpoint after this and tweaked it a touch until I got the result I was looking for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Close out curves and open levels. (Depending on your vs of PS, you can do this in your curves window as well, though I find you should close the 1st curves to set it and start with a new window, better results). Simply squeeze the black and white points towards the center, just a touch. This will add some contrast and by proxy will further smooth your gradients and pixels. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, with your rider still selected, head into noise reduction (or your favorite noise plugin) and get to work. Your subject is basically a mass of confused, lost and lonely pixels right now. Smooth them over and tell them they are okay. This will take care of the artifact created by bringing our shadows up. After this, a little dash of saturation and basic toning on the rest of the image, and viola!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;((I would post the image, but I don't have ten points yet, so I can't. Go to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rcvisualarts.com/artofpreparedness&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;my blog&lt;/a&gt; to see it.))&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;((Hey hey, I've got rep!))&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/OoQKu.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastEditorUserId="1451" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-22T05:59:57.197" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T05:59:57.197" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3423" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3394" CreationDate="2010-09-21T17:44:47.100" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another option (though more labor intensive) is to shoot your subjects first, then the HDR. There are some tricks to this though...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The 1st shot, the one of your subjects, has to be on a tripod.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The tripod and therefore camera CANNOT move, ever! (at least until you're done:))&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You have to have some PS skills.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you come across the scene, and you think to yourself, &quot;self, this would make a rockin' HDR!&quot; set up your pod and compose. Then, photograph your subjects, exposing correctly for them. Forget about overall exposure, just get them right. Shoot in RAW so that you have max info available to you in the digi-darkroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After you shoot your subjects, direct them out of frame (if you know them or are feeling brave) or exercise that all-to-critical photog skill called patience and wait for the zone to clear. Then shoot your brackets. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take it all back home and load up your fav software. Here's where it gets intense. Create your HDR of scene from your brackets. Do this first as you will have to match your subjects later. After you are happy with scene, bring in your subject frame. New layer...mask...clean. Your goal is to wipe out background but leave your subjects. Use a soft brush. Make transitions and blends look natural. Once your mask is good, it's time to breath life into this layer. Curves, channels and sat is the best way to go on this as well. (A work around is to open your subject file, create &quot;brackets&quot; within RAW, save as, then make an &quot;HDR&quot; from those new files. Try to match it to the true HDR of the scene, then proceed with the mask.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This takes time, but will yield the results you're looking for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also invest in a battery pack and a pro-level strobe with lightning fast recycle times, bracket burst fire on your loved ones, shell out the cash for burnt retina repair, and HDR blend those pics. Just saying... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2010-09-21T17:44:47.100" />
  <row Id="3424" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3419" CreationDate="2010-09-21T18:19:47.857" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Douglas Kerr gives a masterful and largely non-mathematical summary at &lt;a href=&quot;http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles/sRaw.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Canon sRaw and mRaw Output Formats&lt;/a&gt; .  The situation is complicated and not perfectly understood, but much has been deduced by reverse engineering.  Evidently sRaw is a 2 x 2 aggregation but with some chrominance subsampling; mRaw is likely a &lt;em&gt;bona fide&lt;/em&gt; resampling (involving local interpolation), with heavier chrominance subsampling.  One might indeed characterize each as a form of &quot;in-camera compression&quot; performed in a sophisticated way to optimize the appearance of detail to the human eye for a given output file size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2010-09-21T18:19:47.857" />
  <row Id="3425" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3432" CreationDate="2010-09-21T20:25:24.747" Score="7" ViewCount="92" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been happy with Photoshop CS2 for a long while now, but I've recently upgraded my camera, and I've found that the RAW plugin I've got doesn't support the updated version of the RAW files. Is it possible to upgrade to a later RAW plugin, without having to fork out for a later edition of Photoshop?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T02:29:48.443" Title="Is it possible to upgrade the RAW plugin in Photoshop without having to upgrade Photoshop?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3426" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3425" CreationDate="2010-09-21T20:53:59.403" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately not. Adobe in their wisdom decided to force you to upgrade Photoshop if you splash out on a new camera model.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may want to download the free &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4802&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adobe RAW converter&lt;/a&gt;, and convert the images to DNG format, which will be compatible with Photoshop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-09-21T20:53:59.403" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3427" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="303" CreationDate="2010-09-21T21:54:00.883" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My view is that you need at least one fixed point, and the cheapest/ easiest is your monitor. If you're rich, get something which will handle prints as well as the monitor, but just a calibrator for the monitor gets you most of the way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you know your monitor's showing correct gamma/ colours, then you need a decent profile for your printer. Chances are the manufacturer's are ok if you use the right one for the paper you're using. Then print something... compare what you see on screen to the printer and you're likely done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You're going to have to do some experimentation at least for sharpening (printers are generally soft). Also even when calibrated your monitor may be weak (say) in the shadows, and the printer may not be... so you may have to compensate a little, but once you know, it's easy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1055" LastActivityDate="2010-09-21T21:54:00.883" />
  <row Id="3428" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="303" CreationDate="2010-09-21T22:36:24.167" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You definitely need some way to judge an image reliably, and even a third party printer needs a good starting point, so figuring out how to get the monitor to show a decent image that you can trust will translate to print is a must. without that, it's all guessing. so a better monitor, or using a monitor calibration tool (or both) is a start. Once you have that as something you can depend on, you can fiddle with printing to translate what you see on screen into print. But until what you see on print properly represents what the image really looks like, you're throwing darts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-09-21T22:36:24.167" />
  <row Id="3429" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3410" CreationDate="2010-09-22T00:03:52.230" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had good luck switching the image into LAB mode, then adjusting the luminance layer only.  This rendered a brighter image, but didn't damage the color of the rider, though it did blow out the sky a bit.  At that point, I took this new image, and played with various layering options (screen worked out well) and opacity settings to get something acceptable. The rest was just feathered masking to restore the sky.  Once happy, I moved back to RGB.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1416" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T00:03:52.230" />
  <row Id="3430" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="303" CreationDate="2010-09-22T00:15:30.573" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If it was me, I'd invest in something like a &lt;A HREF=&quot;http://www.wwco.com/~wls/blog/2007/06/10/screen-calibration-wheres-my-contrast/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Huey&lt;/A&gt;, use it to calibrate my monitor as best as possible, and then use the photo editing software's color profile to control the printed output and not the printer's default.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This tends to get the best results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One more note.  Your printer has certain expectations that you'll be using their specially formulated ink.  And that ink has particular properties on certain kinds of approved paper.  For instance, if I use the right ink with the right paper (and it's painfully expensive), I get astoundingly nice prints.  If I use even the wrong paper, I get violet tinges where a nice transitional gradient should be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I usually invest in some 4x6 paper and build my own experimental profiles whenever I buy a new printer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, yes, it feels like a conspiracy against the consumer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1416" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T00:15:30.573" />
  <row Id="3431" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2358" CreationDate="2010-09-22T00:48:52.613" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am seeing the same thing- it's the viewing application not knowing how to properly do color management. When exporting a JPG from LR3 either via export or publish to flickr, I can then view the JPG successfully in LR3, Photoshop, or in Windows 7' Photo Viewer app. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It fails to render properly in Firefox 3.6, Chrome, and IE 9. This is surprising since Firefox has partial color management and IE 9 supposedly has complete CM support. Yet it still fails with the exported JPGs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T00:48:52.613" />
  <row Id="3432" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3425" CreationDate="2010-09-22T02:29:48.443" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes and no. The interface between ACR and Photoshop has changed a couple of times over the years. When a change happens, Ps can only use versions of ACR up to when the change took place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That limits the possibilities for updates, but &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; updates are still possible. Adobe has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=39&amp;amp;platform=Windows&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;download page&lt;/a&gt; with updates for the various versions of Ps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, chances are that it won't be sufficient. The most recent update to ACR for CS2 is still pretty old, so even though you can probably update somewhat from what you're using now, it still won't be enough newer to let you load files from a brand new camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T02:29:48.443" />
  <row Id="3433" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3434" CreationDate="2010-09-22T03:04:24.787" Score="11" ViewCount="372" Body="&lt;p&gt;So I currently have a Sony A700 which i bought a year ago, and wanting to get some quality glass.  I was looking at the Carl Zeiss 24-70/f2.8 lens, but then got talking to a friend who's a canon user.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He raised some good points about Canon vs Sony, namely:&#xA; - Availability - second hand gear, hire gear, borrow, etc&#xA; - Repairs - if my camera breaks when i'm in the Amazon jungle, much better chance of finding somebody to repair a canon than a sony&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm totally happy with my Sony A700, however if i'm going to be spending $2000 on some quality glass, i'm starting to think maybe i should spend some more and get Canon quality glass (along with a canon body of course). I could sell my Sony + lenses and recoup perhaps 1/3 of the cost of the new kit, a little less than the extra i'll be paying for a new body, so really what i'll be losing out of it is the extra sony lenses i have, but gaining a kickass new body, a killer lens, and a new more widely supported system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If i do this, i'm thinking the 5D (either second hand, or a new Mark II).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, for all your experienced photographers/ enthusiasts out there, what would you do if you were in my shoes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its a tough choice, as was my original choice to go with sony (which I am now slightly regretting).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cheers,&#xA;Greg&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE:  Thanks for an excellent discussion everybody, i'm glad i stumbled across this site the other day.  All things considered, i'm leaning towards cutting my losses and switching to Canon before i have even more invested.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I figure if i can sell my sony kit (which i've spent about 2.3k on) for about 1k, then for a 5d mk II with 24-105 lens i'll be out of pocket another 2.4k.  That gives me an amazing body, video capabilities, a great versatile pro lens, and the advantages that canon has over sony. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;on the other hand, if i stick with sony, i'm looking at spending about 1.7k on their 24-70 carl zeiss lens.  that's a saving of around $700, but i'll still be on a partial frame camera, and still have the pitfalls of a smaller user base and less gear availability. I think now is a good time for me to switch... it feels like the right thing to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks everybody for your advice... i'm very surprised to have seen such level-headed arguments about brands... amazed in fact. Nobody bashed another brand, at all, which is really refreshing.. i can see the value of sony and carl zeiss (reading reviews it seems there 24-70 is best in class lens, as are their new primes), however they just dont have the market penetration i'm craving.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I still have a little while before i part with my cash, so will be partaking in further discussion here if there is more, but if not i'm happy with what i got from it.  you're all fantastic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cheers&#xA;Greg&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1455" LastEditorUserId="1455" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-24T11:47:55.640" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T04:35:38.853" Title="Advice Please... Sony to Canon?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;sony&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="3434" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3433" CreationDate="2010-09-22T03:33:52.887" Score="21" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't have specific Sony experience, but I'd suggest getting over the doubts. There's a number of reasons for this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sony bought Minolta, a camera company, and thus bought into the Minolta legacy and their glass. In other words, your friend isn't correct, there is a lot of Minolta gear on the open market and much, if not all, will work on a Sony.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to second hand, legacy, gear the only company that will better Sony in support (and that may be debatable) is Pentax. Like Pentax, Sony has shake reduction on the body and that means old glass will benefit and there is some truly great optics out there for peanuts.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sony is a massive corporation, you can get gear repaired by them, they're everywhere. Bear in mind that a dSLR is an &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;electronic&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; device and Sony is the king of electronics. Frankly I'd expect it to be easier to repair Sony, they have their own stores after all, the only camera maker that does. Besides, a close friend with a 7D got to spend more than 3 weeks with film when his 7D was in for repair with Canon, not exactly speed service there, so I wouldn't assume that you gain anything from Canon on this front.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Zeiss glass will equal or exceed lenses made by Canon. We're talking one of the best lens makers on the planet with Zeiss.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sony makes more than 50% of the worlds sensors, including sensors for Nikon, Pentax, and others. Simply put, if you aren't shooting Canon, you're very likely shooting a Sony sensor. Does it mean anything? Well, cameras making the most buzz about things like high ISO with low noise carry a Sony sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Like Canon, Sony has full frame options and they're very well priced and well reviewed.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, after all that, Canon makes an excellent camera beyond question. They have great lenses, strong support, and their image IQ doesn't give into others. So, if you do cave in and go Canon, I'm sure that you'll be happy with them. However, I think you'll also find that you really didn't gain anything over Sony with a comparable camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's my take, in any case, and I'll be curious to see what others think. For myself, I can't believe I just defended Sony!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the way, the question is subjective and that may get it shot down but I didn't vote for that because I think it's worthwhile to have people ask some of these questions. There's a weird brand loyalty in the camera world that goes a little beyond the rational sometimes and so it's worthwhile for us to have some discussions that maybe challenges those beliefs a little bit. After all, it's a photographic tool, not a life partner... :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T03:33:52.887" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="3435" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3442" CreationDate="2010-09-22T03:38:05.747" Score="5" ViewCount="260" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm using a Nikon D5000 and I think I get more noise using Active D-Lighting on Auto. If I turn it off, how can I simulate A D-Lighting in post processing? I shoot RAW.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="128" LastActivityDate="2010-11-19T01:36:52.923" Title="Can I simulate Active D-Lighting on post processing?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;d-lighting&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="3436" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3443" CreationDate="2010-09-22T04:35:31.270" Score="2" ViewCount="279" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been using the Sypder 3 colorimiter and Datacolor Spyder3Elite software to calibrate my screen for several years now. The Sypder3 does wonders, and really improves the quality of my on-screen color representation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is one little annoyance, however, and I am curious if anyone else has encountered this. I calibrate my screen to a D50 white point (5000k), as it more closely matches the fine art papers I most often print on. The windows mouse cursor, however, is a very stark, bright white with a tinge of blue (7300k or so), like a glossy photo paper with copious amounts of optical brightener. I'm a little confused as to why my mouse cursor doesn't follow the white point of my monitor's color profile. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Has anyone else encountered this? Is there a way to fix it? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OS: Windows 7 Ultimate&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-22T16:06:45.963" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T17:24:12.287" Title="Color management and the Windows 7 Cursor" Tags="&lt;display-calibration&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="3437" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3311" CreationDate="2010-09-22T04:49:00.113" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;chuqui and jrista are dead on in their approach. Mutliple shots, available light, exposure lock, tripod lock, etc. One additional piece of equipment that will REALLY help you out is to use a dolly. This will allow you seamless movement from end to end and will help guarantee that your distance to wall remains the same. This is crucial, as any change in distance can alter your AOV, making stitching more difficult. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can rent dollie's from pro-video houses along with track, or you can build your own with pvc, some track wheels and a piece of plywood. Either way, I wouldn't attempt this job without one. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T04:49:00.113" />
  <row Id="3438" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3436" CreationDate="2010-09-22T04:52:42.163" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is just a guess, but the cursor is often shoveled in by the hardware. It would seem it's not the OS drawing it but something later in the stack of software and hardware that draws the complete screen image, and that something happens after the colors are adjusted to match your calibration. (This is the same reason the cursor often doesn't show up in screenshots.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of a fix, you could try crafting a copy of the cursor image which is oranger than you want (perhaps photograph the cursor on top of calibrated white to estimate the compensation needed) and set the cursor to that image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, there is a low-vision mode which makes the cursor humongous. Try that for a while, and it will seem so godawful that the normal cursor will be acceptable in comparison. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T04:52:42.163" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3439" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="156" CreationDate="2010-09-22T05:14:13.480" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recommend &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photowalkthrough.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photo walkthrough&lt;/a&gt; tutorial. They have a very good series of video podcast on post processing using Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="128" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T05:14:13.480" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-23T12:16:00.387" />
  <row Id="3440" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="156" CreationDate="2010-09-22T05:52:24.077" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Definitely get a subscription to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lynda.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.lynda.com&lt;/a&gt;. Awesome tutorials on software AND classes AND inspirationals from professionals. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T05:52:24.077" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-23T12:16:00.387" />
  <row Id="3441" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3435" CreationDate="2010-09-22T06:02:07.847" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are shooting in RAW then you can easily turn D-Lighting off and on at will as well as adjust the strength.  This is done in Nikon NX2 software which you can download a 60 day trial for free from Nikon's web site ... &lt;a href=&quot;http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/software/capturenx2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/software/capturenx2/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use this and ONLY this for all my post processing.  Once you understand how to use NX2 it is very powerful and you can replicate the effect of practically any camera setting when processing RAW images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck!&#xA;Barry&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1410" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T06:02:07.847" />
  <row Id="3442" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3435" CreationDate="2010-09-22T07:18:53.090" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Active D-Lighting intentionally underexposes the image and then boosts the shadows (and applies other adjustments) hence the additional noise you're noticing. This is done to increase the highlight headroom and prevent losing information by blowing the highlights. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can get a similar effect in most raw processing software by using custom tonecurves, or more advanced features such as fill light in Adobe Camera Raw, but if you turn D-Lighting off &lt;strong&gt;you must remember to underexpose&lt;/strong&gt; as lost highlight information cannot be recovered in post!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T07:18:53.090" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3443" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3436" CreationDate="2010-09-22T08:46:21.863" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, I have a Spyder 2, and I experience the same on all screens that I have calibrated, although not as strongly as you as I calibrate to 6500K. As the mouse cursor is drawn using a hardware sprite rather than drawn as regular graphics, if the graphics hardware supports it, it's not affected by the color profile.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might consider changing the color temperature of the monitor closer to 5000K before calibrating, if it supports it. That would make the cursor stand out less, and it would also result in a color profile that makes better use of the dynamic range of the monitor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T08:46:21.863" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3444" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3436" CreationDate="2010-09-22T08:52:15.367" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You don't say what operating system you're using but assuming it's Windows I would recommend using RealWorld Cursor Editor to create yourself a custom cursor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rw-designer.com/cursor-maker&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.rw-designer.com/cursor-maker&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's freeware and will allow you to design a dimmer cursor with a custom colour that will appear white on your monitor. If you're familiar with Photoshop or similar image editing software you'll find it easy to use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;addendum:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's just occurred to me that if you set the monitor to 5000K (or as close as you can get) using the monitor's own menu before calibrating, the software wont have to shift the colours as much, and the mouse pointer should more closely match the colours being sent for the rest of the desktop!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-22T17:24:12.287" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T17:24:12.287" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3445" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3481" CreationDate="2010-09-22T08:57:47.577" Score="6" ViewCount="205" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a borderline question again, but it's a real problem for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have noticed that the original sizes (1000px) of my older pictures on Flickr are no longer available and the biggest size is now 640px. The downsized versions of the pictures are also oversharpened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't have pro account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this a normal practice? Does it depend on the amount views or anything else? I couldn't find any information from their help pages nor Terms and Conditions. What should I do to avoid it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T13:26:08.013" Title="Involuntary resize of pictures by Flickr" Tags="&lt;flickr&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3446" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3433" CreationDate="2010-09-22T09:18:21.163" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want to rent gear a lot of the time you may well be much better off with a Nikon or Canon system. I don't know what it's like where you are but the two rental places I use in the UK stock a wide range or Canon and Nikon lenses, bodies and other accessories and no Sony equipment. This isn't a criticism of Sony, it's just that C&amp;amp;N are far more established in certain segments of the professional market and if you're a rental company you can't accomdate everybody.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on your type of shooting this can be a cheap way to switch. e.g. if you do a couple of big shoots a year it's much cheaper to rent top of the line glass for a few days than to buy. Get one body and learn how to use it then rent the lens based on the assignment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T09:18:21.163" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3447" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3433" CreationDate="2010-09-22T09:38:38.543" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;At least IMO, there are a few real reasons to favor Canon:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you need/will use really long lenses. Canon has the best selection here -- but unless you're really going to use a 1200mm f/5.6, the fact that it's listed in the catalog doesn't really make a huge difference.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you shoot a lot in low light. At ISO 1600 and above, Canon currently does substantially better than Sony -- but Nikon does better still.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lens-based stabilization. Canon and Nikon make some fairly persuasive arguments that stabilization built into the lens can be more effective than sensor-based stabilization -- perhaps enough so to give sharp results with a shutter speed that's a full stop slower (but see below for a counterpoint...)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At least IMO, most of the reasons he gave have little (if anything) to do with reality though. Almost all real repairs of digital cameras will be done at the factory. A local camera shop can send either brand in equally well (and will almost never be able to do more than that). Minolta lenses have been around for decades, so there are lots of used available. Old Minolta lenses actually work well with digital sensors; most film-era Canon lenses don't. Likewise, while they're (mostly) from different agencies, you can certainly rent Alpha-mount equipment if you're so inclined (e.g., &lt;a href=&quot;http://alphalensrental.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Alpha Lens Rental&lt;/a&gt;). OTOH, this could be an issue if you might truly need a really obscure lens on a specific schedule, and the smaller number of Alpha rental agencies decreased your assurance of getting what you need, when you need it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also reasons to favor Sony:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Portrait lenses. Sony's 85/1.4 and 135/1.8 are the best lenses of those focal lengths available. The 85 is only a little better than Canon's or Nikon's but the 135 is in a class by itself -- faster and sharper than anybody else's.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A long lenses mere mortals might actually get and use. Neither Canon nor Nikon has anything that really competes very well with the Sony 70-400G. The Canon 100-400L is a great lens -- but the Sony 70-400G is clearly sharper.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sensor-based stabilization. Having stabilization on &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; lenses is a big win. There are lots of arguments about whether lens-based stabilization has advantages, and theoretically it might -- but at best, you can only get it on a handful of lenses, all of them zooms, and mostly slower zooms at that. Even if we assume their claims are all correct, and lens-based stabilization is .5-1 stop more effective, an f/1.4 prime with stabilization comes out &lt;em&gt;way&lt;/em&gt; ahead of an f/5.6 zoom with stabilization.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also some niche lenses that &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; be influential in either direction. For a couple of examples, Canon doesn't have anything to compete with the Sony 135/2.8[4.5] STF. Sony doesn't have anything to compete with the Canon tilt/shift lenses (well, you can get a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hartblei.de/en/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hartblei&lt;/a&gt; tilt/shift lens in Sony mount -- but a Canon T/S lens &lt;em&gt;with&lt;/em&gt; body will cost less). None of these matters at all to most people, and if one of them did to you, you probably wouldn't ask the question to start with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: I'm putting this into the body of the message primarily because the links are getting broken in the comment. While it's true that the Carl Zeiss ZE 85/1.4 that's available for Canon/Nikon bodies has some problem with flare, the same does not seem to be true of the Sony version -- which is completely different design (not even the same number of elements). I haven't use the Canon 85/1.2L enough to say a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; about it from direct experience, but the reviews I've seen of it do not seem to indicate that it does as well as the Sony in this respect. Just for example: Lenstip.com has reviews of both the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lenstip.com/23.9-Lens_review-Sony_Carl_Zeiss_Planar_T%2a_85_mm_f_1.4_Ghosting_and_flares.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sony&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lenstip.com/189.9-Lens_review-Canon_EF_85_mm_f_1.2L_II_USM_Ghosting_and_flares.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon&lt;/a&gt;. Both their comments and sample photos &lt;em&gt;clearly&lt;/em&gt; favor the Sony over the Canon in this respect. Photozone.de even directly points out the difference between the two Zeiss designs in this respect: &quot;Unlike its cousin - the Zeiss ZF/ZE 85mm f/1.4 - it shows a very snappy contrast at f/1.4 ...&quot; Their conclusion is simple: &quot;Are you listening Canon and Nikon ? Welcome the new owner of the 85mm f/1.4 class - the Zeiss ZA Planar T* 85mm f/1.4.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-20T04:12:34.220" LastActivityDate="2010-10-20T04:12:34.220" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3448" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3445" CreationDate="2010-09-22T09:50:50.043" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What should I do to avoid it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Host the images yourself - that's ultimately the only way to retain control over what is done to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, it'll cost money too, but not too much. Find a host providing PHP* and MySQL and you'll have plenty of choices for Open Source image gallery software, and be able to have it exactly as you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://gallery.menalto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Menalto Gallery&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://coppermine-gallery.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Coppermine&lt;/a&gt; are both popular options, but there are plenty of others too - Wikipedia has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_photo_gallery_software&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gallery software comparison page&lt;/a&gt; which lists some.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;(*of course, PHP is not the only option, but it does have the most extensive range of free software and more cheap hosting options than CFML/.NET/Python/Ruby/etc, hence why I'm recommending it.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="137" LastEditorUserId="137" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-23T13:26:08.013" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T13:26:08.013" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3449" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3455" CreationDate="2010-09-22T10:43:59.507" Score="7" ViewCount="379" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is one feature I miss in Datacolors spyder3 calibration software:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be able to calibrate screen brightness to a defined value like 100cd/m².&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Right now the datacolor just says &quot;adjust the brightness to a level comfortable for you&quot;. Well, duh, I did not buy a calibration device to adjust my display &quot;to my comfort&quot;, but to a usable, repeatable value.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Eizo's ColorNavigator software I'm used to set the brightness I want to calibrate to in the software, then calibration will measure and adjust accordingly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without proper display brightness the brightness of prints will be off, and the prints being what I see on the display is what calibration is about.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So: Is it possible in DataColors software to measure and adjust screen brightness? Or maybe at least to measure and display the screen brightness?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastEditorUserId="311" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-22T12:09:48.850" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T16:59:08.350" Title="Measure screen brightness using Spyder3 software?" Tags="&lt;display-calibration&gt;&lt;spyder3&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3450" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3445" CreationDate="2010-09-22T11:35:28.887" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is this a normal practice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have you check the Flickr FAQ?&#xA;You could could aslo try to contact Flickr Support. I've found them quite reactive by the past.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="765" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T11:35:28.887" />
  <row Id="3452" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3679" CreationDate="2010-09-22T13:37:54.883" Score="11" ViewCount="275" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to host a photo competition with some of my coworkers, but we have no internal site that would allow voting on photos.  Does anyone know of a site that would allow uploading and voting on photos for free? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1309" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T17:01:38.227" Title="Is there a free competition hosting site?" Tags="&lt;photo-galleries&gt;&lt;sharing&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="3453" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3478" CreationDate="2010-09-22T15:19:32.320" Score="8" ViewCount="556" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the types of Canon's tripod mount rings? I've heard about &lt;strong&gt;A&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;B&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;C&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;D&lt;/strong&gt; types, but have no idea what it means or what the difference between them is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1290" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-12T01:47:19.240" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T01:47:19.240" Title="What are the different Canon tripod mount ring types for?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;tripod&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="3454" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3452" CreationDate="2010-09-22T15:45:51.390" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Facebook is a commonly used tool for photo competitions - you can judge it based on the number of 'likes' a photo gets. If you set up a new group, restrict it to those you want to enter, and enable photo posting, that should do what you want. Of course this relies on you all being signed up to Facebook...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T15:45:51.390" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="3455" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3449" CreationDate="2010-09-22T16:59:08.350" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The new version of Spyder3Elite, v4.0, supports brightness, as well as a bunch of other measurements and software-based adjustments. It is far richer calibration software than the Sypder3Elite 3.x software. An upgrade costs $99, but it is pretty worth it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://spyder.datacolor.com/product-pu-s3e4_UPGRADE.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://spyder.datacolor.com/product-pu-s3e4_UPGRADE.php&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T16:59:08.350" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="3456" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3459" CreationDate="2010-09-22T17:20:11.117" Score="12" ViewCount="415" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading that by attaching two polarised filter we could create a variable ND filter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Has anyone done this? How was this done? Any drawback (colour cast, quality...)? What would be the strength in light filtering of such filter?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="219" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-31T15:32:53.123" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T15:32:53.123" Title="Using two polarised filter to create an ND one" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;polarizer&gt;&lt;neutral-density&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="3457" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3453" CreationDate="2010-09-22T17:30:54.197" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've never heard of A B C D etc., but a quick search on the net would suggest these are types of ring mounts for lenses, probably for long lenses in which you would not mount your camera but the lens itself. I imagine the letter designation has something to do with the amount of weight the ring can handle. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're looking for pods and accessories, you've got to check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gitzo.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.gitzo.com/&lt;/a&gt;. These pods are amazing. Pricey yes, but you'll buy one and be set. The hardware is SO much stronger than a Bogen, virtually indestructible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for heads and mounts, my favorite I've found is from a little company in San Luis Obisbo, CA. called &lt;a href=&quot;http://reallyrightstuff.com/tripods/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Really Right Stuff&lt;/a&gt;. Their mounting gear is AWESOME. I use their ball mount on my Gitzo and their pano gear as well. Super strong, spirit levels on everything, and totally customizable. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, check this discussion out...you may find it useful.&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.steves-digicams.com/tripods-heads/152976-tripod-abcd.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://forums.steves-digicams.com/tripods-heads/152976-tripod-abcd.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What equipment are you trying to mount?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T17:30:54.197" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3458" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3456" CreationDate="2010-09-22T17:33:29.617" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Normal unpolarized light rays have many different &quot;orientations&quot;. A polarizing filter only lets through light with a certain &quot;orientation&quot; and proportionally filters out light rays with different orientations. The further the orientation is away from the orientation of the polarizer, the less light makes it through, up 90 degrees where no light makes it through. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you stack two polarizing filters at right angles, there is no orientation of light that can make it through both filters so the result is zero light transmission. If you vary the angles (most camera polarizing filters rotate to allow this) so they're &lt;em&gt;not quite at 90 degrees&lt;/em&gt; you'll let a very small amount of light through, and thus get an ND effect allowing long exposures ect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best thing about doing this is that you can vary the strength of your ND filter. The only thing you need to do is get two filters of the same size and make sure the front most polarizing filter is not a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;circular polarizer&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A non-circular polarizer doesn't mean it's square! Just that after filtering out all but a certain orientation of polarized light, the filter mixes up the orientations of the light coming out the other side. This is done because polarized light with only one orientation messes with the camera's AF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only downside of this is that stacking filters can cause vignetting with wideangle lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-22T17:41:48.140" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T17:41:48.140" />
  <row Id="3459" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3456" CreationDate="2010-09-22T19:04:36.413" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer is that yes, you can do this. Just stack two polarizers, and when you rotate them relative to one another, the transmission will vary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Make sure that the polarizer in front is &lt;em&gt;either&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;linear, not circular, as the latter essentially un-polarizes the light as it exits the filter.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a reversed CPL (but now the threads won't line up).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is that the light exiting the first filter needs to be polarized. The second polarizer will need to be a circular polarizer if you want autofocus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I just tried this (two CPLs, the one in front reversed) and the attenuation seems to vary between one CPL's worth (1.5-2 stops) to nearly black. I did get a strong purple tint when I was approaching max attenuation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be aware that you'll still get all the effects of a polarizer as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T19:04:36.413" />
  <row Id="3460" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-22T20:24:19.770" Score="10" ViewCount="526" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am trying to implement full hemispheric panos as a product for Realtors and for another project I am working on, but am having problems with my software stitching the zenith and nadir points. My equators look good, but the stitching gets weird on the z-axis, especially if I'm outside and the sky is solid blue. I think the software gets lost in solid color and makes assumptions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am using a Nikon D700 in portrait on a Really Right Stuff pano-head. I take a series of shots, overlapping of course, both in x and y axis. I do have my pano head set so the point of axis revolves around the point of focus withing the lens, so I've got that going for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am using PTGui and Photomatix Pro for stitching. Any suggestions? I am looking for workflow both in field and in the digi-darkroom. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a messy test shot...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/j6Bdq.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And another...&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/QY8h4.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&#xA;Notice the black band at the bottom, this is my tripod head nadir incorporated into the pano. Also notice the funky sky with multiple solar flares. Ugly. Just plain ugly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2010-09-24T02:51:49.343" Title="Nadir and Zenith shots in 360º hemispheric panos" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;panorama&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3461" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3453" CreationDate="2010-09-22T21:18:12.410" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I haven't really researched this, but I think that you either get a tripod mount ring with your lens (I got one with Canon 70-200 telezoom), or you should mount the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T21:18:12.410" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3462" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3482" CreationDate="2010-09-22T21:35:52.197" Score="19" ViewCount="555" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't own a DSLR (yet), so i do not have an opinion on the question, but I'm really curious about the usefulness of a top LCD screen, as found on cameras like the Nikon D90 or d60 and up. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does you feel you are more productive with this screen?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do the people that do not have it feel like they are missing something ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I'm talking about the LCD screen next to the shutter button, not the one inside the viewfinder.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1241" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-24T15:09:42.487" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T15:09:42.487" Title="How useful is the top LCD screen on a DSLR ?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;camera-controls&gt;&lt;top-lcd&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3463" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3462" CreationDate="2010-09-22T21:40:04.873" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently traded my K110D (which has the top LCD) for a K-x (which doesn't).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I really don't miss it at all - most of the information on the top LCD is also available thru the view finder, and the rest is available on the back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So no, I don't feel like I'm missing anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="134" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T21:40:04.873" />
  <row Id="3464" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3462" CreationDate="2010-09-22T21:41:14.670" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Extremely useful. In face, you only look pictures and navigate thru menus on the main LCD. Everything else you do on the top LCD and these are the crucial tasks: exposition, sensitivity, aperture, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="341" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T21:41:14.670" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3465" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3462" CreationDate="2010-09-22T21:47:07.993" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't own a dslr without one. Not only is it much quicker to check and change camera settings, but when you are shooting at night without one, it really messes with your eyes to have to keep switching from the darkness to the bright LCD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems like a small issue until you are trying to do star trails in pure darkness and the LCD keeps blasting away your night vision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="540" LastEditorUserId="540" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-22T21:53:48.133" LastActivityDate="2010-09-22T21:53:48.133" />
  <row Id="3466" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3452" CreationDate="2010-09-22T23:26:53.417" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe you could use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;flickr&lt;/a&gt; for that. You can set a group there, post those photos in this group - this means they are all reachable from a single place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although Flickr doesn't support voting on photos directly, in stackexchange style - &quot;upvote&quot;/&quot;downvote&quot; you can post the votes in the comments. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just my $0.02&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: I believe it also wouldn't be hard to put together a piece of code that would use flickr-hosted images and allow people to up/downvote on them... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="320" LastEditorUserId="320" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-23T12:25:22.770" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T12:25:22.770" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3467" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3468" CreationDate="2010-09-22T23:40:18.990" Score="9" ViewCount="855" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was recently asked to photograph my cousin's wedding - ceremony at the church, some outside shots at the nearby park, maybe some shots at the reception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since my photography-related budget is right now quite limited (and all my friends are using Nikons), I'm quite much stuch with what I have right now - which, in terms of equipment, isn't much. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My camera is Canon 350D, with the 50/1.8 lens. I got 2 external flash units (Canon 580 EX and 420 EX), a tripod, a monopod... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm wondering if it's even possible to effectivly photograph a wedding with just this - I mostly mean the lens. I almost never miss longer lens - but often I find myself in a situation when I'd kill for some wide ones. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I probably should try to plan some shots for the 50mm lens, but I got no idea how. Those are great for capturing portraits, faces, but - how to get the wedding ceremony spirit?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="320" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-23T09:04:17.040" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T09:27:37.417" Title="How hard would be photographing a wedding with just prime lens?" Tags="&lt;prime&gt;&lt;wedding&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3468" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3467" CreationDate="2010-09-22T23:56:06.883" Score="19" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on your and the couple's expectations.  No expectations? No problems.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the main shooter in getting high quality shots? Very difficult.  Without experience? Pretty much impossible.  Though it depends highly on the venue and how it is orchestrated.  Outside before and after shots, pose shots, etc. are no problem, but the ceremony and reception are important.  You need to get key moments where you are not in control, and having to run backwards/forwards to get the right framing will cost you (and will also be distracting).  It's the same reason why wedding photographers use 2 bodies, so they won't waste time to get the right shot.  Wide angles are great for telling the story, be it the Ceremony, the first dance, or subsequent festivities.  Even if they are okay with portrait-only shots, you'll still be running around a lot or capturing them with deep DoF and cropping away resolution.  In the least, it will be very stressful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I had one lens and they asked me to be the main photographer, I would decline and recommend some tips on finding a good budget photographer.  I think it's a special day and would not want to capture something less than what I know I could do for someone I know.  I've seen some horrible wedding pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to learn to do wedding photography, become a second shooter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-23T02:38:35.600" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T02:38:35.600" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3469" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3467" CreationDate="2010-09-23T00:30:40.633" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I strongly, strongly suggest that you get a zoom lens, something like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022014sigma17mm50mm.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;17-50 mm Sigma f/2.8&lt;/a&gt; (or it's older brother, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/18_50_28_ex_dc_macro&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;18-50mm&lt;/a&gt;).  I suggest this because you will not have time for recomposition by changing position; a wedding is an event that will happen quickly, and you'll need a tool that will let you get the angles and the shots you need as they happen.  Timing is crucial for this kind of photography, and if you see a shot develop, you can't walk backwards 20 feet to get the wide angle-- by then, the shot is gone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 50mm will be useful for shots with the bride and groom; but once you start expanding the group to include parents, siblings, relatives, etc, you'll need a wider lens.  The ceremony, toasts at dinner, etc-- all of that will require the wide angle to get the surroundings and then the zoom to get close-ups.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've tried shooting weddings with just a prime.  As a second, it's doable (if your primary isn't expecting much from you).  As a primary, it would be a nightmare.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do NOT recommend a super-zoom, like an 18-200mm, with or without VR.  These kinds of lenses are jack of all trades, master of none.  Your prime lens will give you great quality, a constant-aperture zoom will also give you decent quality (though generally not as good as a prime), and the larger the zoom range, the more quality compromises are made to have the zoom range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My wedding kit is:&#xA;17-55mm f/2.8&#xA;85mm f/1.8 (for the ceremony, where I'm typically too far away to get the couple without it)&#xA;60mm f/2.8 macro (for details, like rings, etc)&#xA;sb900&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I tried shooting with the 70-200 f/2.8 lens, but it's just too heavy to shoot with for hours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck! (and make sure the bride gives you a list of the shots she wants)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T00:30:40.633" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3470" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3460" CreationDate="2010-09-23T01:46:27.627" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I make a pano, I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://cvlab.epfl.ch/~brown/autostitch/autostitch.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Autostitch&lt;/a&gt;.  It allows me to be far less exact than you have been, mainly because I don't have the gear or the patience.  I hold the camera in a vertical position, hold it at roughly the same place, and then rotate myself and try to keep the camera in the same position.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I shot this a few months ago coming back from Mammoth Mountain in California (9000x2300):&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Qgp80.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Mammoth Pano&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used a Sigma DP2, handheld vertically, and took two rows across the entire image.  I then cropped down the final result in post to get rid of any black edges.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some things I've learned when shooting panos:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you have a polarizer, remove it.  It will do odd things across the frame.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shoot in raw, if possible, and then convert all images using the same settings in post.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set your camera to manual focus, infinity, and then manual exposure so that you don't get varying exposures from one side of the frame to the other.  Constant aperture and shutter speed both are required here.  If one square of the scene is metered differently than the others, that will mess things up in post. I tend to meter off of the brightest portion of the scene and rely on my raw processing to bring up shadows if necessary.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Try to avoid things that are fast moving (like crowds), otherwise you'll get odd blurs as one smaller photo transitions to the next in the larger pano.  The corollary to this is to move quickly; clouds aren't static, and you have to be fast before they move on you.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Be somewhat distant from your subjects, if possible.  You are creating what is essentially a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mercatur projection&lt;/a&gt;; near the edges of that projection, things will look odd, like how Greenland is far larger on a 2D map than it is on a globe.  If you want the kind of warping effect that will achieve, get more local ground features in the image, if not, not so much, maybe by holding the camera higher.  The plants in the pano I posted are no closer than aabout a hundred feet.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Avoid shooting into the sun.  Lens flares will wreak havok with you (as you've seen).  It will also cost you in contrast near the sun.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Take many many overlapping shots. You'll have to experiment with your subjects, but for the 9000 in that above shot, I believe I took about 10 images across the horizontal axis.  That translates to an image every 900 pixels, smaller than the dp2's vertical resolution of 1760, so as to avoid stitch artifacts where there isn't enough information between images to get a seamless stitch.  Two rows of 2640 shrank down to 2300; again, the mercatur projection effect and the fact that I was doing this handheld and therefore had a lot of rough edges to be cropped out were factors there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt; to go into more detail in specific about the zenith and nadir that I went into in the comments:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These points happen at the top and bottom of the hemisphere.  If you are creating a mercator-style projection, then by the math involved, they will be distorted.  If you are remapping them back onto hemisphere in a QTVR-style presentation, rather than a 2D presentation, then there won't be any distortion; you're remapping a sphere onto a sphere.  You just need to take shots from looking straight up to looking straight down, which can be pretty labor intensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast with @Greg below, I like to take lots of photos in my panos and then reconstitute them all at once, on the presumption that more sampling will lead to smoother transitions between photos.  That's only true if things aren't moving; in that case, the 8mm fisheye he recommends is an interesting choice, because then only a few shots are needed.  Fewer shots = fewer chances for things to move around between shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastEditorUserId="266" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-24T02:51:49.343" LastActivityDate="2010-09-24T02:51:49.343" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="3471" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3467" CreationDate="2010-09-23T01:57:05.250" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I went to a friend of mine's wedding and took my 50D with the 18-55mm. While not a great lens for low-light, without the wider angle (18mm) with the built-in flash I wouldn't have gotten some very cool shots of the reception and party afterwards. Group shots in a party environment need a wider angle a lot of the time to capture the &quot;party&quot; vibe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could use the 50mm for a lot of the portrait photography outside or in large indoor areas, but you wouldn't be able to capture a lot of the variety which would otherwise make the shoot a success.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keep in mind, I wasn't the photographer. They had hired a professional (and a videographer as well).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would recommend they hire a wedding photographer. They'll be happier when they have a full variety of photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T01:57:05.250" />
  <row Id="3472" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3467" CreationDate="2010-09-23T02:53:00.043" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As other commenters suggest, you're in for a world of hurt if you're the primary photographer with no experience. It's not really the equipment that's the problem (you can rent what you need and bill the couple), but rather the fact that wedding photography is hard and there are no do-overs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suggest you check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2010.07.25/fwigtew-and-other-first-wedding-acronymss&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; over at the LensRentals blog which goes into these issues in more detail (and is also funny).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T02:53:00.043" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3473" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-23T04:00:50.727" Score="12" ViewCount="432" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm new to photography and I have a lens hood on my Canon Rebel XT camera/lens.  I'm getting these dark corners on some of my photographs.  No doubt they're coming from the lens hood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What am I doing wrong?  The lens hood is a Bower 58mm Pro Hood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've since abandoned using lens hoods on my camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="607" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-06T15:33:29.973" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T08:41:21.487" Title="Lens Hood causing dark corners" Tags="&lt;lens-hood&gt;&lt;vignetting&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3474" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3462" CreationDate="2010-09-23T05:46:30.567" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's sometimes useful, at least in my own use. I personally find the viewfinder HUD more useful as you don't need to look away from the photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the viewfinder HUD doesn't include all settings, which means it's still useful for changing mode settings, like metering and shoot mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T05:46:30.567" />
  <row Id="3475" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3473" CreationDate="2010-09-23T06:04:47.710" Score="17" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You don't have to abandon the lens hood!!! Hoods are good a blocking the sun, eliminating solar flares AND most importantly protecting your glass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do this...set your camera on a tripod (or table or pile of books or anything stable) and go to your widest angle avaible to you, with the lens hood on, and shoot a picture. Then zoom in a touch and do it again. Then again and again until you have you lens zoomed all the way out. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, go back through your images. Somewhere within the focal range of your lens the vignetting (dark corners) will disappear. Check the first image that is clear of the hood and check your meta data for the focal length. This will give you an idea of how wide you can go without the problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A couple of points: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1.You may have the wrong hood for that lens. A shorter hood may work better for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2.Some hoods have two long flanges and two short ones. If yours does, then try placing the long flanges on the top/bottom side of the lens rather than the left/right. Because of the native aspect ration of your film plane (chip, sensor, pick a name) (i.e., it is a horizontal rectangle) the long flanges will appear at the left and right of the frame rather than the top and bottom. This is because there is less sensor to &quot;see&quot; the hood on the top and bottom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck...don't give up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastEditorUserId="1451" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-23T06:46:12.540" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T06:46:12.540" />
  <row Id="3476" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3473" CreationDate="2010-09-23T06:18:14.260" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can see two reasons for the hood to block the view:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The hood is not correctly positioned.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The hood is not made for the angle of view of the lens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I could find, it's a tulip shaped hood. The shape is supposed to make it usable with wide angle lenses, but it has to be turned to a specific angle to work properly. The longer petals should be at the top and bottom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't found any information about what angle of view the hood is made for. If you have the 18-55mm lens, the angle of view is quite wide at 18mm, but the hood should still work in the longer half of the zoom range. The solution for using a hood at the shorter zoom end would then be to get a hood specifically made for that lens, but that's of course a lot more expensive than a generic hood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-24T17:31:26.633" LastActivityDate="2010-09-24T17:31:26.633" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3477" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3467" CreationDate="2010-09-23T06:22:54.223" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't fret...too much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eruditass suggested becoming a second if you want to learn weddings. This is a good suggestion for the long run. I'm guessing that your cousins are on a tight budget, don't want or can't come up with the cash for a pro AND would be &quot;honored&quot; if you shot it for them. Am I right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the cool part. If you do end up shooting their wedding as the main, you get to learn to swim by jumping in the deep end. What makes weddings difficult to shoot, more than anything, is the emotional value attached to them. If you mess up, there are no do-overs, and it's a once-in-a-lifetime thing. Really the stress and overcoming it remains the largest obstacle. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So let's assume you're indeed the main photog. Convince them to pay for rental equipment. It will be much cheaper than hiring a pro. Get a wide angle. I repeat, get a wide angle. A tele-photo is a &quot;must&quot; at a wedding, but not as much as a wide. Wide allows you to get close. Wide allows drama and story telling. Wide gets the party, the scene, the flowers, the bouquet toss, the food, drunk uncle Mike, Aunt Velma in the ugly dress, the first dance, in essence the jist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Call your local rental house and get some prices before you approach your cousins. See how much an additional body (another 350D would make things easiest) and tele-photo would cost. If they can fork out the rental cost then you are in business!!! I suggest posting another question after you get your gear in order on what things to look for at a wedding. We'll help you out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BUT DO NOT SHOW UP AT YOUR LOVED ONES WEDDING WITH ONLY A PRIME!!! THEY WILL HATE YOU!!!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And when the time is right, assist a pro, you'll learn tons! Happy hunting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T06:22:54.223" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3478" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3453" CreationDate="2010-09-23T08:38:10.067" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The different types are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tripod Mount Ring A for 70-200mm f/4L (for both IS &amp;amp; non-IS versions)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tripod Mount Ring B for 100mm f/2.8 Macro, 180mm f/3.5L Macro &amp;amp; MP-E 65mm f/2.8 Macro&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tripod Mount Ring D for 100mm F2.8 IS Macro Lens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They have (B) and (W) markings on them, meaning Black and White respectively. A and A-2 (II) are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-Tripod-Mount-Ring-A-II-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;said to be interchangeable&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that Canon does not make type C, but some &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dhgate.com/tripod-mount-ring-c-w-for-canon-ef-100-400mm/p-ff8080812a45e2f0012a4a82b43d3636.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;third parties do&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to different sources, B also fits for 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 and both IS and non-IS 70-200 f2.8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-23T08:48:21.350" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T08:48:21.350" />
  <row Id="3479" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3467" CreationDate="2010-09-23T09:27:37.417" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer to your question depends on what you mean by &lt;em&gt;&quot;photograph a wedding&quot;&lt;/em&gt;. You can certainly get some beautiful photos at a wedding with that setup, but it would be almost impossible to photograph the wedding in the way most people would expect, a 50mm on a 350D is just not wide enough. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What some people don't realise is that there are couples who simply can't afford a professional wedding photographer, even a cheap one. It may be the couple understands and just wants the former (a few candids and portraits, not a complete account of the day), but it's &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;absolutely essential&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; that they understand 100% what they are getting and are ok with that or you will find yourself in serious trouble! Good luck. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T09:27:37.417" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3480" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3445" CreationDate="2010-09-23T11:14:42.193" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you don't have the pro account you will only have access to the following size:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Square (75 x 75) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Thumbnail (100 x 66)       &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Small (240 x 159)        &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Medium 500 (500 x 332)         &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Medium 640 (640 x 425)         &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Large (1024 x 680)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You don't have access to the original size - in your case the 1000px file - unless you upgrade to the pro account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Flickr will also only list the last 200 of your photos. Your older photos are there, flickr just doesn't list them in your photostream. If you have the urls you can still access them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="128" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T11:14:42.193" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3481" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3445" CreationDate="2010-09-23T11:25:02.360" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Flickr changed their behavior regarding originals for non-Pro users a few months ago. Before, if your original upload was smaller than 1280 px on the wide side, they would not generate a large (1024 px) version and show the unedited original as the large version instead. Now, they don't do that anymore. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/help/forum/72157624723286752/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this thread on the Help Forum&lt;/a&gt; for reference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1463" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-23T11:44:23.447" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T11:44:23.447" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3482" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3462" CreationDate="2010-09-23T12:23:18.483" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's hard to say really, I find it indispensable, but that's mainly because I'm so used to using it. But it's really the information that I rely on, not the location of the screen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a bit of a hangover to the film days when there wasn't a rear LCD. You could say it's easier to pull back and look at the rear LCD screen than to pull back &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; rotate the camera to look at the top. In fact I believe some film cameras such as the Minolta Maxxum 7 had exposure information LCD screens on the back instead of the top.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure I buy the point about the LCD screen being too bright when your eyes are adjusted to starlight. You can turn the brightness right down, and/or stick an ND gel over the rear screen when doing astrophotography if necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-24T15:06:22.473" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T15:06:22.473" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3483" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3460" CreationDate="2010-09-23T12:34:31.943" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To avoid problems with nadir check &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rosaurophotography.com/html/technical6.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the following technique&lt;/a&gt; (BTW, the whole &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rosaurophotography.com/html/technical0.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;technical section&lt;/a&gt; worth examining also). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To avoid problems with color (maybe this will help you with zenith shots) make sure you either in &lt;strong&gt;manual mode&lt;/strong&gt; (it will give you equal exposure in all shots) or at least &lt;strong&gt;aperture priority mode&lt;/strong&gt; (it will guarantee you at leas same depth of field and exposure could be blended and equalised by the stitching software). In manual mode you should set desired aperture (it's good to calculate &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfocal_distance&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;hyperfocal distance&lt;/a&gt;) and measure the brightest and darkest parts of the scene. This will give you the middle point of your exposure. But it seems you trying to shoot HDR, so this tip is not applicable in that case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And one more. If you shoot the blank sky without clouds then stitching software could be unable to snap on the image while calculating the control points. At the current moment I can't say how to deal with such problems (it should be possible if we shoot using the panoramic head, but many software doesn't take this fact into considerations and tries to stitch by applying it's own logics). At least &lt;em&gt;Kolor Autopano Pro/Giga&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;PTGui&lt;/em&gt; are do not consider the possibility of using panohead and base it's calculations on that fact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1290" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T12:34:31.943" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3484" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-23T14:39:15.297" Score="6" ViewCount="309" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do you carry them around? I own a tamrac backpack which is now unable to cope with my lenses and filters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="664" LastEditorUserId="165" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-23T16:54:53.617" LastActivityDate="2010-09-25T18:32:22.683" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-23T16:26:48.777" Title="How do you carry around your lenses?" Tags="&lt;camera-bag&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3485" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3484" CreationDate="2010-09-23T15:11:36.387" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I currently have three lenses for my Canon EOS.  Most of the time I use a soft-sided bag with two of the lenses in the bag vertically, and one on the camera body.  I do have an aluminum briefcase style case that I use when I travel, or think that they may get banged around a bit.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="105" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T15:11:36.387" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-23T16:26:48.777" />
  <row Id="3486" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1757" CreationDate="2010-09-23T15:36:43.193" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just read a good post: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photofocus.com/2010/09/23/seven-elements-that-help-make-a-great-black-white-photograph/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Seven Elements That Help Make A Great Black &amp;amp; White Photograph&lt;/a&gt; by Scott Bourne. Nice, succinct.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T15:36:43.193" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-24T00:15:30.820" />
  <row Id="3487" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3484" CreationDate="2010-09-23T15:47:03.940" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have eight lenses plus a couple of teleconverters. I don't carry them all around all the time, one is a 120-400mm monster, but I do have a few camera bags that I use depending on the need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Day to day, I use the Lowepro Slingshot (I can't remember the model, it was the largest one) and it usually has 5 lenses in it, one on the camera and four in various compartments along with a speedlight and a ring flash, cards, etc. It's a little hefty so I also have a small case that I use for actually walking around and it can only hold a couple of lenses (camera around the neck here).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For travel, I have a much larger case that can hold a notebook computer, the Think Tank Airport Antidote, but still fit the luggage carry on limits. It can take a bit more gear, but is even heavier as a result. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't actually a bag that can take all of my lenses if I want to put a camera in with it, so I tend to plan based on what I expect to need for the locations I'll be shooting. However, a few of my lenses are not really daily use types, so I don't normally need to carry them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T15:47:03.940" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-23T16:26:48.777" />
  <row Id="3488" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1757" CreationDate="2010-09-23T17:25:40.103" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you should consider black and white anytime nostalgia or texture are prominent components to your composition.  My favorite B&amp;amp;W photo shoot was a young couple that I shot their engagement photos on the rocks at a local beach.  These are photos that they will keep, and probably display for a long time (nostalgia factor), and the contrast of the rough rocks, and their skin really popped in B&amp;amp;W.  I'd asked the couple if they wanted B&amp;amp;W, but she wanted color,  I said let me shoot a roll of each.  She bought eight prints from that shoot, all B&amp;amp;W.&#xA;Another plus was I was able to make an poster sized enlargement of one shot and displayed it at the entrance to the reception.  I left several markers for guests to leave 'well wishes' on the poster.  I choose a shot that had a large expanse of sand, which was mostly white in the photo, to give the guests a large area where they could write.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="105" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T17:25:40.103" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-24T00:15:30.820" />
  <row Id="3489" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3491" CreationDate="2010-09-23T18:29:57.260" Score="17" ViewCount="245" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a somewhat paranoid person when it comes to expensive things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am about to buy my first telephoto(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;70-200mm f4 L&lt;/a&gt; in case you are wondering). This lens is much larger than I am used to wielding(I normally walk around with a 50mm prime). My concern is that with this new size and weight of lens, I will accidentally break it. So I have a few questions about dealing with this. I should mention that my body is a Canon 450D(XSi).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When shooting with this do I need to worry about supporting the lens? If I am hand holding, I will normally have my left hand on the focus ring, but do I have to take any special precautions of supporting it? I don't want to accidentally damage the connection to the body.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Does leaving this lens on the camera make it unreasonable to wear with the strap? I currently use the strap that came with the camera, but I worry with this heavier lens it will make the camera off balance and uncomfortable to wear like this. In particular, I will be doing a LOT of hiking on a coming trip. Will this be uncomfortable?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If I have a body mount for my tripod will this lens be too heavy? I see that the larger lenses come with special mounts, should I look into getting a mount for this set-up?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Will carrying a larger lens like this through security at an Airport (domestic and international) cause me any grief? I intend on carrying-on my camera gear, but how best to deal with this? (Maybe this should be a separate question, I'm not sure.) &lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt; I have received some great answers already, but I should mention that a backpack camera case is not possible for me, since I will be backpacking and thus be carrying a full pack. For a camera case I will have to use some sort of shoulder bag, or find something I can connect to my main pack.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope that the above is clear. Ideally I would like comments from those who have experience with this lens, or lenses of similar weights (705g) and lengths (172mm), and similar body types.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-11T16:03:20.297" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T16:03:20.297" Title="What special care do large telephoto lenses require?" Tags="&lt;telephoto&gt;&lt;equipment-protection&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="3490" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3489" CreationDate="2010-09-23T18:38:04.180" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You camera is &lt;em&gt;a lot&lt;/em&gt; more sturdy than you think. This lens will not pose a threat to it. I have carried heavier lenses than that (like 300/4 or 400/5.6) attached to the camera without taking special care, and I am yet to experience any negative side effects. For lenses weighing less than 1 kg I don't even think about this as a potential issue. If I had lenses approaching 1.5 kg or more I would perhaps start to think about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T18:38:04.180" />
  <row Id="3491" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3489" CreationDate="2010-09-23T18:41:26.127" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general Canon's L series are designed for professionals on the road and are built tough, I've seen sports photogs throw the 300 and 400 f/2.8s on the ground with abandon. In short I highly doubt you will break it accidentally provided you're not reckless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Answering your specific questions in order:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The lens mount will take the weight of the 70-200 f/4 so you wont damage the camera but with the 450D being very light it will be rather uncomfortable to hold the system by the camera alone.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I used similar weight lenses using the standard strap and it's not the most comfortable thing in the world. I would recommend buying a wider more padded strap anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Again the mount will take the weight though a tripod collar will probably be more convenient to use as it allows you to pivot the system closer to it's centre of gravity.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I have no idea about US airports, I've taken telephotos through several European airports in my hand luggage with no problems, I would avoid checking it into the hold without serious padding / a sturdy case. I would check all your gear is covered by travel / separate insurance as a matter of course.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-06T19:03:09.990" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T19:03:09.990" />
  <row Id="3492" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3489" CreationDate="2010-09-23T18:41:57.443" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been walking around with the IS version of this lens for a couple months, including some all day hikes, and have taken a couple thousand pictures with it (attached to a 550Ti, similar to your camera).  It's easy to hold and balance, perhaps more so than you would guess from its weight, but it does bang around a bit uncomfortably when you're slinging the camera over your neck.  It will stay put when rotated around to the side but it still gets in the way of the arms.  I put several smaller lenses in a Canon backpack and switch lenses around from time to time as a relief (and to vary the kinds of pictures I take).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can get a cheap (under $20) aftermarket lens mount.  Its finish isn't great but it works fine and doesn't scratch the lens.  You want this, because the camera and its vibrations are harder to manage when body mounted, even on a high-end tripod.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lens hood does a good job of protecting the lens: the biggest risk is banging the front end, especially if you're leaning over with the lens+camera strapped to your neck.  The hood will take that beating and absorb the shock.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Incidentally, I have not once regretted paying for the IS.  It has been essential in the majority of pictures I took with this lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Canon backpack is ideal for protecting this lens in airline carry-on: it has a central area in which the lens fits perfectly, affording maximum protection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T18:41:57.443" />
  <row Id="3493" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3489" CreationDate="2010-09-23T18:45:03.670" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The weight may be uncomfortable, but you do not have to worry about damage.  You will want to keep it well supported when shooting, but that is simply to be able to get the shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may want to consider a tripod ring mount if you are planning to do a lot of shooting with a tripod, but it is not absolutely necessary with a 70-200.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To keep the lens safe, as well as improve your shots, I would recommend using a lens hood.  On longer lenses I find it much easier to bump the end on things: branches, door frames, etc. and when you are using a lens hood the hood will be bumping things instead of the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Transport&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For hiking I prefer to keep the camera in a shoulder case when I'm not using it.  I use a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tamrac.com/g_holstertelezoompac.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamrac Holster-style&lt;/a&gt; bag (the adventure zoom series).  There are a couple of reasons I like this particular one, but the main reason is that it provides protection for the camera, while at the same time leaving it easily accessible while hiking.  With a 70-200 lens attached a larger model like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tamrac.com/519.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pro Zoom Pack&lt;/a&gt; would be a good fit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-23T19:29:47.667" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T19:29:47.667" />
  <row Id="3494" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3462" CreationDate="2010-09-23T19:48:58.193" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The top LCD is very useful in the following circumstances:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;On a tripod&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The camera is often at about waist height. You can make/view changes to settings without having to stoop.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Unobtrusive photography&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Lowering the camera from the eye to review settings on the top panel is less obtrusive than holding the camera aways from your body to view the back panel.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Short sighted people.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;It is easier to lower the camera far enough to focus on the top panel than it is to hold the camera up and far out enough to focus on the back panel&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Night photography&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Under some circumstances it is important to preserve your night vision. The bright rear panel can reduce your night vision.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Flower and insect photography from a tripod.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;For these subjects the camera is often mounted very low. Then using the top panel is very helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T19:48:58.193" />
  <row Id="3495" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3484" CreationDate="2010-09-23T19:50:55.137" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://products.lowepro.com/product/Fastpack-250,2086.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lowepro Fastpack&lt;/a&gt; which has a nice feature of having side access to the camera compartment, meaning you don't have to throw it on the ground to get the camera out. I use it as for my everyday walkaround stuff (camera + one lens, laptop, other personal items) and when the need arises, I can fit in a DSLR body with telephoto lens, two other lenses, two flashes, and still have room for the laptop and empty generic compartment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T19:50:55.137" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-23T19:50:55.137" />
  <row Id="3496" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3462" CreationDate="2010-09-23T20:17:55.340" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;And most of all ... , in addition to all these benefits listed above, extremely low battery consumption which will allow you to use your DSLR way longer without attaching bulky battery grips.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1440" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T20:17:55.340" />
  <row Id="3497" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="533" CreationDate="2010-09-23T20:38:28.493" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since you are a software engineer I would recommend . &lt;a href=&quot;http://aws.amazon.com/s3/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Amazon Simple Storage Service S3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;Their pricing structure is probably the most reasonable one available.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;It is intended to work with front end clients that you write. However Amazon provide numerous, fully functional examples. &lt;a href=&quot;http://developer.amazonwebservices.com/connect/kbcategory.jspa?categoryID=47&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;See the developer site&lt;/a&gt; for some good examples you could use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It occurred to me that you really have two requirements in mind&lt;br&gt;&#xA;1) backup - the Amazon S3 service would fulfill this requirement admirably&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2) sharing selected photos with family and friends during your travels - here I would recommend Picasa on a netbook uploading to Picasaweb on the Internet. This is a good way to perform multiple or batch uploads. Ubuntu runs rather well on a netbook.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T20:38:28.493" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3499" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3169" CreationDate="2010-09-23T21:27:31.710" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have to disagree with a few things Naseer said. The camera body &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; make a difference. For example, the added inertia of a heavy pro body can keep it steadier and the vertical grip and larger body can make it easier to maintain a solid grip on the camera. Also, Nikon makes an equivalent to their pro full frame lens (24-70 f/2.8) for their APS-C cameras (the 17-55 f/2.8), so in some cases at least, you can get pro glass for the non pro bodies. Also, the 70-200 f/2.8 works fine on their APS-C cameras. Either way, we don't know what gear you have, so I won't continue on here about that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next, better than shooting through a clear window, find a plane where you can open the window or even remove the door. This will be the case in some small planes and you won't be at an altitude where the plane will be pressurized anyway. It's an option you should keep in mind. Maybe better, shoot from a helicopter. Many choppers have windwings (like some planes) you can open for ventilation and you can shoot through those, or remove the door altogether.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the absolute best picture quality, you may want to do things such as shooting at your camera's base ISO (e.g., ISO 80, or 100, or 200), and the optimal aperture for the lens you're using (e.g., f/5.6 or f/8). In these cases, you might end up with a lower shutter speed than you'd like, especially when you consider vibrations from the engine, or shaking from turbulence. In this case, you should consider using a gyroscope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ken-lab.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ken-lab.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the photography is for documentary purposes, then all of this is probably overkill. If it's for artistic purposes, you'll want to seriously consider all of the above (and Naseer's suggestions).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, one last thing. If you're shooting through glass, use the polarizer to help reduce reflections. I'm not sure how this will work with the plexiglass windows of aircraft, but keep it in mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1469" LastEditorUserId="1469" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-21T21:49:56.593" LastActivityDate="2010-11-21T21:49:56.593" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3500" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2913" CreationDate="2010-09-23T21:30:44.303" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It simply means there are lots of pixes in your photograph at that brightness level.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1469" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T21:30:44.303" />
  <row Id="3501" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="295" CreationDate="2010-09-23T21:36:04.907" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.zenfolio.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;zenfolio&lt;/a&gt; is the best photo sharing site out there. Its interface for uploading photos and modifying their information (captions, descriptions, and keywords) is very professional and the support crew is top notch, responding to questions quickly and courteously.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can customize your site to have a very custom look, if you want. There are a variety of templates from which you can choose, as well. I'm a software developer, so I'm pretty picky about software. These guys know what they are doing and put out a top notch product.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I host my site there, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jpwphoto.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.jpwphoto.com&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1469" LastEditorUserId="1469" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-29T21:08:03.313" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T21:08:03.313" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-23T21:36:04.907" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3502" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3489" CreationDate="2010-09-23T23:00:24.293" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Others have given good all round answers, but on the strap issue:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't like the standard strap - it is either around the neck and uncomfortable and bouncing about, or over the shoulder and not very secure. I wanted a better option so &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1611/recommendations-for-a-long-cross-body-strap&quot;&gt;asked on this site about cross body straps&lt;/a&gt;. I went for the Black Rapid RS-7 (though check the question for other options).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I have the camera at my waist, with the strap on under my rucksack. I have the lens hood on for protection, and the lens cap off. So I can walk very comfortably with both hands free, and grab the camera quickly when a good shot appears. I was doing some hiking in Scotland recently, and the instant grab was great both for wildlife and catching good light when the sun briefly appeared between clouds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It uses the tripod screw for attaching to the camera, so it is strong, and fairly quick to remove - certainly compared to the old school straps. Being attached to the bottom of the camera also means the strap stays out of the way rather better than a normal strap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think I'll ever use the normal strap again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T23:00:24.293" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3503" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="295" CreationDate="2010-09-23T23:53:30.503" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just use &lt;strong&gt;Lightroom Web Gallery&lt;/strong&gt;, hosted on my own web server.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I want to protect the images to specific people, I password protect the directory using an Apache .htaccess file, and provide the login details when I give out the URL.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;If I felt like it, I could add some form of 'guest pass' unique URL thing for technophobes (so they didn't have to manually login), but that's never been necessary so far - and those people tend to be more reassured by something being explicitly password protected anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="137" LastActivityDate="2010-09-23T23:53:30.503" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-23T23:53:30.503" />
  <row Id="3504" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3516" CreationDate="2010-09-24T00:33:40.300" Score="12" ViewCount="712" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recently, I've been doing a lot more photography, particularly with my 100-400mm telephoto and 16-35mm wide. I am skilled enough that I can capture the shot mostly as I want with just the camera gear, requiring minimal post processing. I'm a huge fan of ETTR now, so most of my shots are overexposed to support more shadow DR and improve the noise performance of my el-chepo 450D body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've noticed quite a bit lately during post processing in lightroom that my sky's or any other lighter areas of my shots tend have spots on them. They are soft and dull to one degree or another (seems to depend on the zoom factor), so probably something either on the sensor or the lens. I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly what they are, as I try to use my lens pen brush before any shoot, yet I still have them. I am having to make quite a few healing corrections post-process to get rid of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there an easy way to identify where the spots are on my lenses? Once identified, if a quick brush of the outer lens element with a lens pen (or soft camel hair brush) doesn't do the trick, does that mean the spots are on my sensor? Is it possible there is particulate inside the lens body (all of my gear is less than a year old outside of my 450D body, and its all Canon L-Series gear, so I would home that I don't already have detrimental particulates floating around inside my lenses messing up my shots. :|)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are a couple examples. The spots are harder to see on screen, and I first noticed them when I printed a few of my more recent shots. There are quite a few, and the shot the examples below were taken from, where the sky took up about 30% of the top edge of the photo, there were probably 10-12 different spots, some of them darker, many of them lighter. The darker ones are the ones that are very visible in prints, where as the softer ones are not as visible, but still apparent enough to ruin an expensive print.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/of97U.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/JgVb1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-26T10:57:04.797" Title="&quot;Spots&quot; in my pictures. :-(" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;spots&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3505" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3504" CreationDate="2010-09-24T00:52:23.977" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm willing to bet that that's dust on your sensor, not on the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you stop down to f/22, that can help to confirm that assertion, one way or the other.  My sensor dust would really show up at the smaller apertures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they are indeed on the sensor (and they really look like the dust spots I got on my d70 and d200), you can try some of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.visibledust.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Visible Dust&lt;/a&gt; products to clean it.  Before I got the d300 (with the dust-shake on startup), one of their brushes was like American Express or a polarizer, I never left home without it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would stay away from any liquid-based solution, however-- I once tried one of those, and it ended up mucking up my d200 sensor glass.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, do not blow on the glass with your mouth, use a blower or something like that.  Your mouth has spit, and once that's on the sensor glass, you're in for a much harder cleaning job.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt; to address the comments below (because my comment was longer than the allowed number of characters):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@jrista, @Reid-- The lens has &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_%28optics%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;two places where it's in focus&lt;/a&gt;, on either side of it.  There's the side outside the camera, and then there's the focus on the detector (the eyepiece or the film/digital detector).  Stopping down increases the 'thickness' of the focal plane, which is still generally outside of the lens itself-- I can't imagine an optical configuration that would allow focus inside the lens, but maybe they could exist.  If there's nothing in the focal plane outside the camera, then the only place for the dust is on the sensor.  Stopping down just brings the dust into focus, so that when the light is collected by the sensor, you'll see the dust.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Incidentally, I can see dust on the light path to my eyepiece that isn't on my sensor using this trick.  Since that dust is just annoying but doesn't affect my process significantly, I just leave it be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastEditorUserId="266" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-24T02:30:37.217" LastActivityDate="2010-09-24T02:30:37.217" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="3506" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3513" CreationDate="2010-09-24T00:55:12.440" Score="12" ViewCount="306" Body="&lt;p&gt;In February 2010 I bought my first DSLR: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_rebel_xsi_ef_s_18_55is_kit&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EOS Rebel XSi EF-S 18-55IS Kit&lt;/a&gt; &#xA;I also bought a zoom telephoto lens: Canon &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_is_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The XSi is a simple camera which I thought would be good enough for learning photography and it has been fitting its purpose well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At some moment in the future I plan to buy a full frame DSL, probably a &lt;a href=&quot;http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_5d_mark_ii&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;5D Mark II&lt;/a&gt;. Not sure about that yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since I can keep the accessories and lenses while upgrading to new bodies, I decided to invest in the best accessories and lenses I could afford.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I decided to buy a speedlite, I bought a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/speedlite_flash_lineup/speedlite_580ex_ii&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Speedlite 580EX II&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I'm starting to look for a new lenses. A book I'm reading recommended a prime lenses for exercising composition and also for the generally better optics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In different places I saw recommendations on buying 50mm primes lenses as they give proximately the field of view of our natural vision. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been thinking on investing in an L series lenses, more specifically a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_50mm_f_1_2l_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF 50mm f / 1.2L USM&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is very expensive, but it is something that I'll be able to use for a long time even while I upgrade to more powerful EOS bodies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So instead of buying cheaper accessories and eventually replacing them later with better quality ones, I am planning to buy better quality ones and only exchange/upgrade the body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you guys think this is a good strategy? If not, what would be a better one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1457" LastEditorUserId="1457" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-29T22:46:45.843" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T02:06:24.373" Title="Upgrade strategy for Canon EOS DSLRs" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;accessories&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="3507" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3460" CreationDate="2010-09-24T01:01:12.270" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dear Rob&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have been shooting 360 equirectangular panoramas for quite some time now and when I started shooting them I had literally no idea how to go about taking them. Thanks to the Flickr community, however, I managed to master a really simple technique and an effective workflow. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some examples of my panoramas:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/mII0b.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/lLXl5.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/v7Pyg.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, the most important thing to consider in panoramic photography is the lens. The wider the angle the better. I shoot with a Sigma 8mm fisheye on a DX format DSLR and I think this is the best lens to shoot panoramas. If you use an 8mm fisheye lens on a FX (full frame) camera, the lens will deliver a circular image, which is even better, but as you know FX cameras are way more expensive than DX format ones. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The greatest advantage of a fisheye lens is that you can shoot a 360 panorama with only 4 to 6 images (depending on the overlap) instead of taking two or even three rows of pictures. Secondly, an 8mm fisheye lense offers a 180 degree horizontal field of view, so if you put your camera in a portrait orientation you won't have to shoot nadir and zenith separately as your lens will capture everything from top to bottom, so the zenith and nadir will form together from your stitched pictures. That solves one of the problems you have mentioned above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next thing to consider is your camera and the settings. You have to remember that you are capturing literally everything around you so you have to be extremely light-aware. As you may already know, you have to put your camera in 'Manual' and make sure you lock the shutter speed, exposure, ISO, white balance and, in some cases, even focus. That way, the amount of light will be exactly the same in every picture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shooting against the sun is inevitable in panoramic photography so you will always get some amount of lens flare even if the sun is partially covered by the clouds or your lens has special anti-flare coating. However, do not be afraid of shooting against the sun. I personally prefer shooting panoramas when there is no clouds in the sky as I can capture the whole sun. You can eliminate annoying flare in Photoshop by cloning or content-aware fill in CS5 (believe me it does a great job) or you can use the flare creatively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next, you have to remember that in terms of vertical field of view you are capturing a scene that even a human being cannot entirely see without moving the eyes up and down and your lens (a fisheye for instance) captures all of it without moving. Therefore, the picture will be unnaturally distorted closer to the top and bottom, especially if you are standing close to some object. In your third pictures, the stones at the bottom of the picture are distorted and the clouds in the sky as well. This is caused by an extreme angle at which the light reaches the edge of the lens and you cannot change it. I always crop my pictures for esthetic reasons. If you want to have a full uncropped equirectangular panorama then you have to select your nadir carefully, preferably a featureless area without any objects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the gear, technique and software. I used to shoot my panoramas using a Nodal Ninja panoramic head but after a while I got really tired of carrying it with me and assembling it whenever I wanted to take pictures. Secondly, a lot of places (especially museums, and galleries) have a ban on tripods. The answer to that is a technique called 'the virtual tripod' and you can read about it &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.philohome.com/tripod/shooting.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. This is a really effective technique and provided that you have a steady hand you can achieve excellent results. I personally prefer to attach the string to a weight resting on the ground instead of using a pendulum. Also, I use a 3-axis bubble level with my DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many people argue that for professional pictures you have to use a panoramic head as the quality is better and there is no stitching mistakes. Well, maybe it is partially true but when you are using a panoramic head the tripod becomes an integral part of your pictures. There is of course a way to shoot nadir and zenith with a tripod to eliminate it from the picture but believe me it is extremely complicated and involves moving the whole tripod several times. I think that with the virtual tripod you can achieve excellent results and then you can spent the time it takes you to erase the tripod from your picture to correct any possible mistakes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of software, my personal favourite is called 'Hugin&quot;. It's a free open source panorama stitcher that has a great community of users and you can get it from &lt;a href=&quot;http://hugin.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. There is a number of tutorials you can watch in order to learn how to use it. I have been using it for over one year now and never had to use anything else. Additionally, I also noticed that Hugin does a great job at removing people and moving object that can create ghosting. It also can set the control points for you and there is a variety of different projections to choose from such as stereographic, equirectangular, cylindrical, trans mercator etc. Moreover, you have a great deal of control over your panorama as you can adjust the centre, field of view, the horizon, size and much more. Finally, it creates good quality TIFF files that can be further edited. I use Lightroom 3 to work on my panoramas and it is a must have for every professional photographer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All the best and good luck with your photography&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Greg    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1440" LastActivityDate="2010-09-24T01:01:12.270" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3508" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3456" CreationDate="2010-09-24T01:11:41.450" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Speaking from my own experience, I would rather carry different ND filters that combine two polarisers. I stopped using polarisers as I didn't like the way they affect the colours and saturation. I guess two polarisers together will affect the colours even more.&#xA;Anyway, good luck with your experiment&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1440" LastActivityDate="2010-09-24T01:11:41.450" />
  <row Id="3509" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3506" CreationDate="2010-09-24T01:14:19.560" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only thing I can &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; suggest about a Canon upgrade path is avoid EF-S lenses. Most canon equipment is compatible with all of their bodies, except EF-S lenses. Those are designed specifically for APS-C sensors, which your 450D has. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to the quality of the equipment you plan to buy, it kind of depends on what you do. If you are a serious amateur on a budget, top of the line L series equipment may not be necessary in all cases. If you are intending to go semi-pro or pro, particularly for things like weddings, better gear would be more useful. Flash, filters, and other such gear are technologies that can change, possibly dramatically, over the years. Unless you need the top of the line, it may not be that important to get top of the line accessory gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to lenses, a lens is a very long-term investment. With the proper care and storage, a lens should last a lifetime (provided Canon doesn't pull another mount switch on us all), where as you may go through several camera bodies every decade (or less.) If you figure you'll use your photography gear for many years, I'd invest the money on very good lenses. You'll get the best quality you can, and higher-end lenses tend to be more durable and resistant to rough, long-term use than cheaper lenses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm pretty much in the same boat you are in. I purchased a 450D (Rebel XSi) a bout a year and a half ago. It was pretty cheap, some $700, and I sunk my money into lenses. I now have several L-series lenses, and the 100mm USM Macro (not an L, one of their gold-band lenses). Most of my lenses are zooms, including the 100-400mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM, 16-35mm f/2.8 L II and pending 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM (still debating the 24-70 f/2.8 vs. the 24-105 f/4, given that the 24-105 has IS), with my two prims being the 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro and 50mm f/1.2L USM. Within a couple weeks of buying my 450D, I knew that an APS-C sensor wouldn't serve me for long, and I made sure that (outside of the 18-55mm EF-S kit lens) ALL of my lenses were EF mount lenses to maximize their longevity and potential use on any Canon bodies I may purchase over the years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-09-24T01:14:19.560" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3510" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3410" CreationDate="2010-09-24T01:42:05.290" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I used Adobe Lightroom 3 and played around with curves as well as luminace settings of individual colours especially yellow and orange.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/GcdTP.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1440" LastActivityDate="2010-09-24T01:42:05.290" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3511" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3526" CreationDate="2010-09-24T03:58:27.497" Score="3" ViewCount="115" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a way to do a mass undo in lightroom's develop module?  I'd prefer not to push arrow key and click on the last step for this many photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The story, for those interested in face-palming: so I had adjust a setting and went to copy and paste the settings to every image from that day.  I thought I had unchecked everything, then clicked on what I had wanted, but somehow crop was selected.  Everything was pasted and I closed Lightroom to make a backup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I open it and all of my photos which I had cropped selectively had lost their crop.  Ctrl+Z did nothing, as it doesn't remember things from the last session.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-24T05:12:47.057" LastActivityDate="2010-09-24T19:16:15.053" Title="Lightroom mass undo last develop step?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="3512" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3506" CreationDate="2010-09-24T05:01:18.593" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Based on what you described, I would describe that upgrade path as &quot;foolish.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certainly you are entitled to spend your money how you see fit, but it seems like buying a $1600 lens (can't imagine how much it costs in Brazil) is a piss-poor investment. Lenses certainly hold their value (until newer better models come along). But can you justify the nearly $1200 increase over the excellent 50 f1.4? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I know, pro's even have a hard time justifying the cost--only those with the need for the extra ~1/2 stop of light and the extra sharpness wide open consider it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess I would look at it this way: if you can't out-shoot someone using the $400 50 f1.4 with your $1600 50 f1.2L, then it's a huge waste.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know where you're coming from though. I lust after owning the best gear I can afford. I'll buy contractor grade power-tools even though I have no business owning them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is, is the difference between the &quot;best&quot; and &quot;good-enough&quot; worth it? Do you want the 50 1.2L because of the prestige of owning one? Or is it because you need the extra bit of light it provides. It is a good lens, and if money was no object I'd have one for every day of the week. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I could be way of the mark. The extra bit of light could be make it or break it. But you have to answer yourself honestly, as to why you want the lens. I upgraded my $500 17-40L for the $1400 16-35F2.8 because that extra stop of light was crucial (extra 1mm was too). But, my favorite photos were still taken with the 17-40L, so go figure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-09-24T05:01:18.593" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3513" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3506" CreationDate="2010-09-24T06:16:04.270" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Alfred, I would recommend doing some homework on a case by case basis. For the 50mm f/1.2L, Alan is right, the 50mm f/1.4 is a great value for the money and will work really &lt;em&gt;just&lt;/em&gt; fine. I have a full frame Canon 5D Mark II and this is one of the first lens I bought. I use it to shoot concerts, live performances, etc. I just shot 350 frames tonight in a very dark venue and it performs as well as when I got it. The 5DMII is hungry, but this lens delivers. One of my friend just bought a 5D (the original), and even his cheap 50mm f/1.8 does the trick. Remember that at f/1.2 your focus plane is incredibly thin, so you really have to be able to focus precisely on what you want, and make the corresponding composition decisions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are L lenses that are notoriously good. The Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS, for example, is absolutely hands down my best and favorite lens. I would recommend it anytime over the non L version. I have the Canon 24-105mm f/4.0L IS (the kit lens), and while not that fast, it's a good versatile lens that I would use when I wanted to travel light (nowadays I would probably trade it for the next 24-70mm f/2.8 when it's released). I have the 16-35mm f/2.8L II and again, very strong performer, but I've never tried another ultra-wide non L glass on that body. Obviously stay away from EF-S lenses, but there are not &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; many anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the flash, I think you made the right call, I really like the 580 EXII because my 5DMII can &quot;talk&quot; to it straight from its internal menus, and it's likely all the new Canon will too. It can behave as a master too (I have a 430EXII as a slave unit). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lenses are a better investment than a camera, they resell for really good value so you can't really go &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; wrong, but don't go too crazy either; I still have to meet someone who would swear by that 50mm f/1.2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-24T06:22:18.853" LastActivityDate="2010-09-24T06:22:18.853" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3514" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3506" CreationDate="2010-09-24T07:24:22.840" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That's more or less exactly the same path I've taken, there are some key differences though in my situation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I already had a film EOS body before going digital, so I was keen to share my lenses back to an existing full frame body&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Full frame opens opportunities to specific picture styles, when working with of depth of field &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 50/1.2 is probably excessive for the moment -- it is worth bearing in mind that the 50/1.8 is the cheapest of all the Canon lenses (by list price) and only a stop different on the maximum aperture, but a twelfth of the price; yet very capable in itself. There is also the 50/1.4 at about a fifth of the price of the 1.2, and only half a stop different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is worth looking at often you're using your kit lens at around the 50mm focal range, with the aperture wide open. If you're always frustrated that you cannot get the aperture wide enough, then there is justification for a prime. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would definitely be worth trying to the cheaper lenses first, as they may save you enough to get that dream camera sooner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-09-24T07:24:22.840" />
  <row Id="3515" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3484" CreationDate="2010-09-24T08:36:00.807" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on my needs: I've got four different camera bags (two Tamrac slings, two ThinkTank backbacks) and use the one depending on my equipment needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I never carry around &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; of my equipment. I pack only what I really need for a shoot. Most times a simple small sling bag with one body with one attached lens is enough for me.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Sometimes I add a tripod and pano head.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Sometimes I add a second lens.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I need a lot of stuff I usually carry another spezial bag for lighting equipment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-09-24T08:36:00.807" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-24T08:36:00.807" />
  <row Id="3516" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3504" CreationDate="2010-09-24T08:36:46.997" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some dust spots on the sensor will absolutely not shift with air-pressure (blowing) alone. To shift them you need to wet clean the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was nervous the first time I did this as I can understand most people would be. But it is not that difficult or risky, basically it involves wiping the sensor assembly with a soft rubber &quot;wand&quot; with a cleaning fluid dampened wipe attached to it. At this point it's worth stressing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;You are not cleaning the sensor microchip itself you are cleaning a toughened piece of glass (the low pass filter) that sits on top of the sensor.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only damage you can do (when using the correct fluid) would be to the delicate shutter curtains, so make sure the shutter is open and will remain open for long enough to clean the sensor. This usually means ensuring the camera's power source remains uninterrupted. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eclipse fluid has been tested on all sensors and determined to be safe. It's basically just alcohol and will evaporate without residue. See:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photosol.com/guarantee.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.photosol.com/guarantee.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise PEC PADs are highly recommended to go with it. I suggest you get a kit that includes the basic rubber wand, fluid and pec pads, then replace the fluid and pads as they run out. This is a very cost effective solution compared to all in one wet cleaning solutions. All you have to do is wrap the pads round the wand and tape them each time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-09-24T08:36:46.997" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3518" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="156" CreationDate="2010-09-24T10:37:13.630" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I learner some killer tips from these free tutorials at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photoshopsupport.com/tutorials.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.photoshopsupport.com/tutorials.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The website is literally packed with tips and tricks explained by professionals and great photographers. It is also linked to other websites with tutorials.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you consider a more in-depth Photoshop exploration, consider buying some literature as well. You will find plenty of Photoshop books and guides on Amazon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1440" LastActivityDate="2010-09-24T10:37:13.630" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-24T10:37:13.630" />
  <row Id="3519" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3506" CreationDate="2010-09-24T10:46:57.640" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The advantage of a 50mm lens is not that it gives a similar perspective to the human eye (when was the last time you saw a photo and thought &quot;wow, that image has almost the same shortening effect as my eyes!&quot;) but that 50mm lenses can be made with a simple design which allows for very large maximum apertures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is part of the reason Canon make more 50mm lenses (4) than any other focal length. The 50L is a very niche product and I would want to be sure you needed it before spending that amount of money compared another 50mm. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also I'm not sure  of the reasons to upgrade everything else apart from the body. A 5D body and cheaper 50mm will cost a fraction of the price of a new 50L. It's no harder to use than the XSi so I don't see any reason to wait as you will see an immediate improvement in image quality. In some ways the 5D is a better camera to learn on as you can see the effects of aperture more easily. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you do come to invest in glass I would go for something peerless in the range like the 24 f/1.4L rather than the 50 which has some almost as good but vastly cheaper cousins. But really you should have an idea of what each focal length gives you and not spend money for the sake of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-09-24T10:46:57.640" />
  <row Id="3520" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3506" CreationDate="2010-09-24T10:54:09.237" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;EF 50 f/1.2L is really a waste of money if you don't specifically need that big hole. 50 f/1.4 is much better value.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the upgrade path, I also started with a Rebel and a kit lens, but when I wanted to &quot;try&quot; an L lens I went for the cheapest of them all: EF 17-40 f/4 L. It worked very nicely as a standard zoom for my APS-C body, and when I got a full frame camera I instantly had a ultra-wide lens which was quite an amazing experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-09-24T10:54:09.237" />
  <row Id="3521" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3522" CreationDate="2010-09-24T12:56:22.190" Score="11" ViewCount="231" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am attempting to take pictures of antique pocket watches, when I use my flash, even with a diffuser or farther away, I get glare from the curved elements within the watch.  Are there any sites with tips and tricks to try to avoid this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1309" LastActivityDate="2010-09-26T06:35:00.720" Title="Glare issue during macro photography" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;macro&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="3522" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3521" CreationDate="2010-09-24T13:05:02.273" Score="17" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For macro of reflecting things you need a as big as possible lightsource.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Best would be a macro tent, but you can improvise with a few pieces of paper and light sources. Just cut one piece of paper in half, form a ring from the two pieces, put them on some other papers and put light sources outside the paper:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/BujSE.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Cheap light tent&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the stuff is really reflective, put another piece of paper on top and leave just a small opening to take the photo through:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Nua2k.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(My own pictures, taken from my own &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.radeldudel.de/blog/0807/Makrostudio.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;blog entry about macro tents&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Update] Strobist just posted a &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2010/09/meet-new-neighbors.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;nice explanation for a small macro tent&lt;/a&gt;, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastEditorUserId="311" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-26T06:35:00.720" LastActivityDate="2010-09-26T06:35:00.720" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3523" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4057" CreationDate="2010-09-24T14:08:49.690" Score="2" ViewCount="245" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm hoping to use PayPal to purchase a new DSLR. I'd like to pay in USD as that's the currency I have funds in my PayPal account in, but i need it shipped to Australia.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anybody know of any stores that might do this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, wondering how Canon's international warranty would work if i bought it from a country i'm not residing in? I'll be travelling alot anyway, so assumedly i'm covered wherever in the world i am..?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1455" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-24T14:28:03.740" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T00:19:21.400" Title="Online Store accepts Paypal in US$ &amp; Ships to Australia" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;purchase&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3524" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3523" CreationDate="2010-09-24T14:32:19.400" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://newegg.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Newegg&lt;/a&gt; will accept PayPal and ship to the confirmed address in your PayPal account. Being a self-centered American, I've only done that for US addresses - don't know if they'd ship to a confirmed address abroad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PayPal will also create a debit card for you. Perhaps that's worth a try. In this case, the buyer won't even know it's PayPal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A third option is that you can indeed use the USD in your PayPal account to pay someone in AUD. I've done this successfully (with Euros, I believe). There is an extra fee to do this, though I don't recall if it's reasonable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, you could have a US seller ship to a US-based parcel forwarder who sends the item on to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the international warranty, I don't know for Canon, but for Nikon is suspect the answer is no, and they might not even look at it out of warranty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-26T14:39:34.457" LastActivityDate="2010-09-26T14:39:34.457" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3525" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3504" CreationDate="2010-09-24T17:29:59.503" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That is definitely not from anything on or in the lens, it's from dust on the sensor. Or rather, dust on the filter in front of the sensor. If the dust was actually on the sensor itelf, it would always be sharp and only a few pixels big. As it's on the filter in front of the sensor, it's slightly out of focus, and appears as a blurred dot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dust on the lens is never visible on a photo. When the light passes through each lens element in the lens, the entire image passes through every point of the lens surface. So to have dirt on the lens being visible, it would have to cover a large part of the lens surface. On a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/mirror.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;mirror lens&lt;/a&gt; a large part of the front lens is actually covered by a mirror.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I regularly get dust on the sensor, and clean it with a brush and an air blower when there is too much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few spots can easily be removed using the healing tool in the post processing. As few as 10-12 spots is barely worth cleaning the camera for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-09-24T17:29:59.503" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3526" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3511" CreationDate="2010-09-24T19:16:15.053" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I'd prefer not to push arrow key and click on the last step for this many photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can get software (e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.autohotkey.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;AutoHotKey&lt;/a&gt;) to do this for you - you simply perform a complete cycle of the required actions once, letting the software record it, and then instruct it to repeat that sequence X times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not a perfect solution, but maybe good enough?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="137" LastActivityDate="2010-09-24T19:16:15.053" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3527" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3473" CreationDate="2010-09-24T19:24:25.227" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Also remember that standard lens hoods will cause problems, if you use them with the wrong lenses,  if you are using the standard &quot;18-50mm&quot; which comes with the Rebels, unless the hood specificity supports the lens with it wide open you will have a problem. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A quick search on Amazon shows your hood is not suitable for an 18-50mm hood, so you will need to purchase the correct one for your lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1476" LastActivityDate="2010-09-24T19:24:25.227" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3528" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3556" CreationDate="2010-09-24T22:23:51.777" Score="4" ViewCount="1098" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know you can have the whole image turn grayscale: &lt;strong&gt;Image&lt;/strong&gt; &gt; &lt;strong&gt;Mode&lt;/strong&gt; &gt; &lt;strong&gt;Grayscale&lt;/strong&gt;, but what if I only want to make specific layers grayscale? There's gotta be an easier way than pulling out the layers you want to turn grayscale to a new image, grayscaling, and then pasting them back in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1478" LastActivityDate="2010-09-25T20:26:41.573" Title="How Do I Change a Single Layer To Grayscale in Photoshop CS4?" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;color-management&gt;" AnswerCount="5" />
  <row Id="3529" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3528" CreationDate="2010-09-24T22:32:04.777" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well after some playing around I discovered &lt;strong&gt;Layer&lt;/strong&gt; &gt; &lt;strong&gt;New Adjustment Layer&lt;/strong&gt; &gt; &lt;strong&gt;Black and White&lt;/strong&gt;. Just pop that on top of the layers you want to be grayscaled and viola!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1478" LastActivityDate="2010-09-24T22:32:04.777" />
  <row Id="3533" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3528" CreationDate="2010-09-25T00:05:44.977" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many ways to convert a single layer to grayscale. Non-destructively there is the black and white adjustment layer as you say, as well as the hue and saturation adjustment layer (set saturation to 0), threshold adjustment layer or channel mixer adjustment layer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My preferred method is the channel mixer as it takes account of colours in the final grey levels (as does the black and white adjustment later) allowing precise control over exactly how much of each channel you can take. I find it useful to first look at the red, green, and blue channels in isolation to get a good idea of which looks the best and should therefore dominate for a particular image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-09-25T00:05:44.977" />
  <row Id="3534" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3528" CreationDate="2010-09-25T00:31:29.453" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I guess the simplest way is to duplicate the layer (right click on the layer in the layer tab and then select duplicate layer) and then turn this individual layer into grayscale as you mentioned before. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question however is this: Why do you want to turn a single layer into grayscale if you will eventually have to either blend the layers together or completely flatten the image. Either way if one layer is grayscale and the one sitting on top is not you will not obtain any results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to be able to control luminace and saturation of individual colours and say have the entire image black and white but only the red colour visible you can do it easily in Lightroom 3 without having to work on layers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is one of my images processed that way&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/nBqCv.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please tell me if that gets you any closer to the answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1440" LastActivityDate="2010-09-25T00:31:29.453" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3535" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3528" CreationDate="2010-09-25T03:33:33.913" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The simplest approach I know of is to Desaturate the layer. Photoshop even provides a handy one-step command for it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Image &gt; Adjustments &gt; &lt;strong&gt;Desaturate&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reference: &lt;a href=&quot;http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Photoshop/11.0/WSfd1234e1c4b69f30ea53e41001031ab64-7643a.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Desaturate Colors&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-09-25T03:33:33.913" />
  <row Id="3537" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3541" CreationDate="2010-09-25T06:29:51.453" Score="10" ViewCount="440" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a relative newcomer to the photography world and am slowly building up a set of gear based around my Pentax K-x. Next on my list of priorities is a flash. As I have virtually no experience in this area, I am finding the array of choices and terminology to be a difficult (but intriguing) maze to navigate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have three primary questions, and beyond that any and all advice is welcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1) Price -&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;A quick search on Amazon turns up Pentax-compatible flashes which range in price from about $50 to $500. What can one flash do that makes it worth $450 more, when on the surface they all appear to have similar features, i.e. swivel , zoom, etc.?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2) Brand -&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;I have seen mention of incompatible flash units doing damage to a camera they are mounted on. Is this an area where I should stick with an official offering and not go with a third party brand?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3) Strobe Flash -&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;This is something I see talked about on photograph blogs, websites, magazines…, mostly in the context of Nikon and Canon. I have a basic idea of what a strobe flash (or speedlite) is, but what I don’t know is if they replace standard flashes, or are for special ‘advanced’ uses.&#xA;Also, I wonder if they are even available for a Pentax system?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1480" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-04T13:43:23.833" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T13:43:23.833" Title="What flash options are there for the Pentax system?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;pentax&gt;&lt;hotshoe-flash&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3539" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="683" CreationDate="2010-09-25T07:05:05.037" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would thoroughly recommend a read of Trey Ratcliff's excellent &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stuckincustoms.com/hdr-tutorial/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;HDR tutorial&lt;/a&gt;. The bit about post processing with layer masks as a step after all the Photomatix malarky was a real eye-opener for me, and has had a massive effect on my HDR efforts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="425" LastActivityDate="2010-09-25T07:05:05.037" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3540" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="683" CreationDate="2010-09-25T07:51:34.653" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The short answer is no it's not possible to create an HDR image from a single raw file.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;HDR&quot; is far and away the most misused term in photography. Dynamic range is the ratio between the darkest parts you can distinguish and the brightest parts. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A true multi-exposure high dynamic range image with linear tonecurve would actually look very flat and uncontrasty, due to the fact that computer monitors can only display a limited dynamic range so the differences between tones must be made as small as possible. For this reason mankind invented tonemapping. Effectively this boosts the local contrast so the dynamic range for one part of the image is displayed using the full range available to the monitor. This is what is responsible for the HDR &quot;look&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what you meant to ask was &quot;how do you create a tonemapped image from a single raw&quot;, which &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; possible. I wont go into the how (see the many other answers to this question) but will point out that &lt;strong&gt;dynamic range and noise are inversely proportional&lt;/strong&gt;. So the higher the dynamic range the lower the noise and the higher the noise the lower the dynamic range. The noise floor of an image effectively limits the ability to distinguish between shadow tones and thus affects the dynamic range, also if you have a limited number of bits per pixel the quantisation noise increases. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I mention this because you talked about noise. Unfortunately this is unavoidable. The relationship between noise and dynamic range means that if you apply tonemapping to a single raw image you will get more noise. This is because a single raw image has a &lt;strong&gt;limited dynamic range&lt;/strong&gt;, no matter what you do with it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xA;I should also add that just because you can, doesn't mean you should! Some of the worst uses of tonemapping I have seen have been used to try and make a boring photo interesting, by going all out in the contrast stakes. I would think very carefully about whether you are using tonemapping because will work with am already strong image to improve the look, or just to make an otherwise dull image look a bit more interesting. &#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-25T08:10:37.060" LastActivityDate="2010-09-25T08:10:37.060" />
  <row Id="3541" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3537" CreationDate="2010-09-25T08:45:05.940" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;1) Power and features.  A flash with more power will, of course, allow you to bounce to higher ceilings, go through larger diffuse objects, and do daylight fill-flash at further distances.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quick feature discussion:   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tilt:&lt;/strong&gt; Most models have this, save the lowly AF-200FG.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Swivel:&lt;/strong&gt; Most model shave this, except the AF-360FGZ for some reason.  Tilt/Swivel are not a problem if you get a flash bracket or sync cord.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Autofocus assist:&lt;/strong&gt; Many flashes emit a cross hatch pattern to help auto-focus in low light.  In general, this works much better than any AF-assist on a camera's body.  It is non-disorienting, does not mess with exposures, and can work (depending on the flashgun) in extremely dark situations.  Some even have an option to only AF-assist and not fire during an exposure, while some you can trick to do it (like the Sigmas).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Manual:&lt;/strong&gt; Some flashes only have a couple manual power settings which can be a pain.  Others have more steps and go to lower powers.  Quite for old lenses (particularly macros), and of course with off-camera flash.  In addition, some do not allow manual in certain modes (like Av, Tv, etc).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Zoom:&lt;/strong&gt; The flash can adjust how concentrated its light is.  Some flashes have less or more range, and some are more efficient at it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Wireless:&lt;/strong&gt; Majority of the P-TTL flashes support optical sync, where any Pentax body can act as a master to trigger the flashgun, wherever it may be sitting.  Only certain (Pentax) flashes / workarounds exist for getting Wireless HSS flash, however.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;High-speed-sync:&lt;/strong&gt; Ability to use a higher shutter speed than the body's sync speed.  Essential for daylight usage or any shots where the background is daylight.  Say if you're under a tent during the day, it's either blown out background or dark people without HSS.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Auto-thyristor:&lt;/strong&gt; The flash has a sensor on the unit to determine the correct amount of flash to output.  If you use older lenses that do not communicate aperture, you need this as P-TTL will not work on these old lenses or you are stuck in manual flash power mode.  Supposedly there is a workaround, haven't tried it.   Only the high end P-TTL models have this, and the AF360FGZ for some reason.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rear-curtain sync:&lt;/strong&gt; Flashes by default fire right when the first shutter opens, as opposed to right before the second curtain closes.  This means with longer shutter speeds, if your subject is moving, the flash will have exposed the earliest part of them.  If this is a car driving in a line, it will be at the beginning of the line, as opposed to the end, which is generally not what you want.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Recycle time:&lt;/strong&gt; How long it takes to recharge the flash.  Pretty important during events and high flash usage.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Built-in bounce card:&lt;/strong&gt; I guess it's nice to always have around, but its generally very small and you can't adjust the angle.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Modeling light:&lt;/strong&gt; Emits a burst of flashes so you can see what the shadows look like.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Auto off:&lt;/strong&gt; Some flashes don't let you adjust when it automatically turns off.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sync-port:&lt;/strong&gt; Some have a port where you can directly plug in a sync cable instead of requiring a hot-shoe adapter.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Stroboscopic mode:&lt;/strong&gt; Emit a number of flashes during the exposure for creative effect.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) Any in-production flash that says it supports P-TTL will not do any damage.  What you are referring to are old flashes from long before P-TTL where the voltage may be too high.  Generally, if you search, you can find out the voltage and see if it is compatible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can get old flashes for pretty cheap and many work great.  The disadvantage is that they won't communicate with the camera via P-TTL.  Many flashes have auto thyristor, or you can use manual mode.  This means you can't just set whatever camera settings you want and have the flash compensate, but rather you need to set Aperture/ISO (flash speeds are generally so fast that shutter can be left to you to play with for creative effect)  based on the flash's settings.  My old AF280T (highly recommended for a cheap flash to play with) did seem to somewhat communicate in some modes, but I'm not really sure how well it worked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;IMHO, the best value flashes with most of the features and great power are the Sigma EF-530 DG Super and the Metz 48 AF-1.  Having used the Sigma EF-500 DG Super (just less power than the 530) and the Metz 48 AF-1, I can detail differences if you'd like.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) Speedlight is a name used by Nikon and Canon to name their hotshoe flashes.  I will assume you mean strobes, which generally refer to studio lighting where they are hooked up to a battery pack or wall.  These are bigger, have much more power for going through large umbrellas/soft boxes, and do not go on a camera.  They often have faster recycle times and a model lighting mode.  You can trigger them with a Pentax system using a sync cord or wireless gadgets like Pocketwizard or Cactus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good guide to Pentax flashes can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://pttl.mattdm.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  It is pretty thorough, and he is in the process of updating it with any other differences that are pointed out. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A great flash photography resource is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strobist&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-12T15:01:32.567" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T15:01:32.567" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3542" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-25T12:08:03.613" Score="15" ViewCount="740" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Lowepro Slingshot 200 sling bag that I use to carry my Canon Rebel XSi with two zoom lenses. I love the bag for day trips, but it doesn't work so well for airplane trips or anytime when I need to carry the camera gear and anything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I take it on the plane, there's barely enough extra space for a paperback book and an apple much less a jacket or any of the other things I might normally bring as carry on. Also, the bag is designed for easy access to the camera, but to fish out a guide book I have to unzip the entire bag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I'm looking for is way to transport my camera gear with enough space for and easy access to additional items like a guide book, jacket, my lunch etc. Any suggestions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="677" LastEditorUserId="677" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-25T12:56:10.867" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T21:28:15.000" Title="Camera bag with extra space as airplane carry on" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;purchase&gt;&lt;travel&gt;&lt;camera-bag&gt;&lt;transport&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="3543" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3542" CreationDate="2010-09-25T12:16:45.647" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use the Think Tank &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thinktankphoto.com/products/airport-antidote-backpack.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Airport Antidote&lt;/a&gt; which not only holds my camera, 6 lenses, flash, teleconverters, and other camera gear, it also holds my laptop and ebook reader. More importantly, it fits inside the carry-on requirements and will slide under the seat of a regional commuter jet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-09-25T12:16:45.647" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="3544" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3537" CreationDate="2010-09-25T12:35:21.143" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Eruditass covered all the high points for question 1 however, in terms of brands, I would suggest going new and with one of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Pentax, obviously the safest choice, but most expensive.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sigma. I have the Sigma EF-530 DG Super and it has all the bells and whistles for less money than the comparable Pentax option. Only downside is that it's a little clunky on the user interface for setting up, but once you get used to it it works great.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Metz. I have the Metz ringflash and it also works great. Perfect for macro work.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A strobe is a hotshoe flash, just a different name for it. Speedlight is the name used by Nikon, and Speedlite is used by Canon, but they're both flashes that can mount on their cameras, hence the reason you hear it reference to them. Net effect, for question 2, the answer is yes, a rose by any name is still a rose. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing to make sure you get with a flash you select is wireless support for Pentax, which is why I suggested new and known brands. It is very handy to be able to fire the flash when it is off camera and the K-x supports this functionality. I can honestly state that my Sigma has been fired, almost exclusively, off my camera once I figured out the freedom it gave me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-09-25T12:35:21.143" />
  <row Id="3545" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3581" CreationDate="2010-09-25T14:59:04.407" Score="11" ViewCount="134" Body="&lt;p&gt;With the advent of sensor cleaning in newer bodies - does it matter which way up you hold the camera whilst it is cleaning? I understand that the sensor cleaning works by vibrating the sensor to knock the dust off, to stick to a &quot;very sticky bit&quot; - but are these very sticky bits all around, or only below the frame in landscape orientation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-25T15:07:53.543" LastActivityDate="2010-09-27T06:09:56.113" Title="Does it matter which way the camera is orientated for the sensor cleaning to work?" Tags="&lt;cleaning&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;dust&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="3546" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3542" CreationDate="2010-09-25T15:05:18.717" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tamrac.com/3385.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamrac 3385&lt;/a&gt; Aero Speed Pack 85 &lt;em&gt;tries&lt;/em&gt; to answer these needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a separate top compartment with enough space for some small items (like a guidebook, tiny umbrella, gorillapod and/or lunch). It isn't too large or convenient; depends on your jacket whether it fits in. Anyway, I very much like the idea of keeping my lunch and my camera gear in separate compartments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most importantly for me, there is also a separate compartment for a laptop. It's easy to access and there is more than enough space for my MacBook. I have also used the laptop compartment for things like magazines, paper notebooks, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a backpack, but you can use it a bit like a sling bag; there is a convenient side door for camera access.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The camera compartment is actually too large for my needs (Canon 500D); it seems to be designed for huge professional DSLRs. Especially if you happen to have a tiny lens attached (say, 50mm), the camera is a bit too loose for my taste, no matter how you try to adjust the paddings. But on the positive side, there is plenty of space in the bottom compartment for miscellaneous things that you don't need to access too often, like a laptop power adapter, mobile phone charger, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bag is fairly large; check your airline regulations if you want to play safe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; Some updates of my user experiences:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;As I mentioned above, the bag is too large for Canon 500D. However, the size of the bottom compartment seems to be perfect for a 500D with a battery grip attached – this is what I am using nowadays and it is fairly convenient to access.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;My bag got broken after only some 5 months of frequent use: the zipper of the side door broke apart. Of course I got a new bag as a replacement, but I am a little bit concerned with the durability. If the side door zipper fails, it renders the whole bag pretty much useless – something I would prefer not to happen when travelling.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="247" LastEditorUserId="247" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-07T21:28:15.000" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T21:28:15.000" />
  <row Id="3547" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3545" CreationDate="2010-09-25T15:07:40.907" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is uninformed, but my guess would be &quot;no&quot; because dust particles are tiny enough to be mostly unaffected by gravity (they are instead moved around by random motion in the air).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-09-25T15:07:40.907" />
  <row Id="3548" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3550" CreationDate="2010-09-25T16:54:03.767" Score="6" ViewCount="509" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to change the default filename prefix for pictures taken? It would be handy to help distinguish between those taken on each body, and also to allow me to tweak every 10000 shots so that filenames don't ever overlap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-25T18:31:06.773" LastActivityDate="2010-09-25T18:31:06.773" Title="Is it possible to change the filename prefix with the Canon 5D?" Tags="&lt;canon-5d&gt;&lt;file&gt;&lt;naming&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3549" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3521" CreationDate="2010-09-25T17:03:53.140" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have you tried a polarising filter? They reduce glare and reflections generally, so it might well help in your case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-09-25T17:03:53.140" />
  <row Id="3550" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3548" CreationDate="2010-09-25T17:28:31.517" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A quick Google suggests that the 5D doesn't have an in-camera way to do this, but instead requires a post rename.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I use &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.exiv2.org/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exiv2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; to read the date+time from my EXIF metadata and prefix this to the filename, precisely to avoid any possibility of overlapping numbers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the command I use to do that with:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;&quot;\path\to\exiv2.exe&quot;  -k -v -r %Y%m%d-%H%M%S_:basename: rename _DSC*&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(The &lt;code&gt;_DSC*&lt;/code&gt; there is because my images start with &lt;code&gt;_DSC&lt;/code&gt; prefix - meaning I can safely run the command on a mixed contents directory and only rename what I should, since nothing else starts with these characters.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Based on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.exiv2.org/tags-canon.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this Canon MakerNote page&lt;/a&gt;, you can extract the serial number of the camera, which allows you to differentiate between images on different bodies. There is also a page providing details of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.exiv2.org/tags.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;more generic metadata&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not as ideal as being able to configure it in the camera settings (as the 1D appears to allow; and no idea why they'd not let the 5D do it too), but at least this allows you to run a single command and get all your images renamed as you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="137" LastEditorUserId="137" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-25T17:45:48.190" LastActivityDate="2010-09-25T17:45:48.190" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3551" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3484" CreationDate="2010-09-25T18:32:22.683" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a basic large Eastpak bag for daily use. I liked it so much that I made it camera/lens-compatible: took a piece of that white packing material found in boxes for pc's etc, and cut out the exact shape of my camera and most used lenses/filters. Because I made it to fit perfectly, I like it better than any camera-specific bag I ever tried. Definitely worth a shot if you're a bit handy and if you know what equipment you'll carry most.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1482" LastActivityDate="2010-09-25T18:32:22.683" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-09-25T18:32:22.683" />
  <row Id="3552" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3554" CreationDate="2010-09-25T18:33:57.937" Score="4" ViewCount="73" Body="&lt;p&gt;I inherited Metz 35 CT2 flash from my grandfather and I don't have an idea how to set it up for use with my old manual Praktica camera. There is a &quot;slider&quot; which has lens hood numbers on it, DIN numbers above and distance in meters below. Then there is a chooser with options: TTL, M, yellow A, blue A, red A (these colors are also marked in the distance below the slider). How should I set the slider and chooser when I want to take photo with my all manual Praktica? Can someone roughly describe what does all the options mean?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1483" LastActivityDate="2010-09-25T19:25:36.320" Title="How to set up Metz 35 CT2 flash?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="3553" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3542" CreationDate="2010-09-25T18:53:17.243" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I tried some camera bags for travel but never found any that really suited all my needs; instead I converted my daily use Eastpak bag. It's one of the larger models (very rear compartment fits a 17&quot; laptop), and the rear compartment is more than large enough to fit the equipment I usually take when travelling (40D, 17-55, 70-200f4, hoods, some filters). Then there is still the middle compartment and smaller front one, more then enough space for food, books, jacket, ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I took one of those bulky large white packing materials as found in boxes for pc's etc, cut out the exact shapes of everything and made it a tight fit into the rear compartment. Result: perfect fit for everything, no fiddling with padding and justs fits 50x20x40 or whatever the typical airplane regulation is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The major withdrawal is getting the camera out does require taking the bag of your back and unzipping the top. And for switching lenses you have to take the entire white piece out. But for the rest I'm very happy with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1482" LastActivityDate="2010-09-25T18:53:17.243" />
  <row Id="3554" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3552" CreationDate="2010-09-25T19:25:36.320" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Googled at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mail-archive.com/pdml@pdml.net/msg35458.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;some Pentax maillist archive&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;User interface - very simple. Switch for mode selection - 3 auto&#xA;  (f2,f4,f8 apertures at 100 iso), manual, ttl. Above it is Exposure&#xA;  OK Check light. At top of back panel is f/stop &amp;amp; distance calculator,&#xA;  where you set iso and see instantly color-coded auto f/stops as well&#xA;  as maximum TTL/manual distance at any aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I guess the slider at the top sets power for manual mode, where aperture/ISO/distance table is a guide for setting the correct power. Colored auto modes might be build-in metering for different f-stops, and TTL should be TTL metering work with some Metz-compatible camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-09-25T19:25:36.320" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3555" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3545" CreationDate="2010-09-25T20:00:49.860" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was watching a video about the 645D and the Pentax rep mentioned, in the course of the interview, that when doing dust removal it is best to hold the camera in landscape orientation as level as you can to get the most optimal outcome. He also mentioned that it applied to all dSLR cameras with sensor shake dust removal, not specifically the Pentax ones. So... Since then, that's how I do it and I do it every time I swap lenses, seems to be working for me, I've had very little problems with sensor dust.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-09-25T20:00:49.860" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3556" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3528" CreationDate="2010-09-25T20:26:41.573" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depends...on why you want to go greyscale. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To create identical layer in greyscale...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Layer &gt; Duplicate Layer &gt; Hue/Saturation &gt; DeSat&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To create adjustable greyscale layer...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Layer &gt; Duplicate Layer &gt; New Adjustment Layer &gt; Hue/Saturation &gt; DeSat &gt; (when done) Merge Layer&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For tons more control...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Layer &gt; New Adjustment Layer &gt; Black &amp;amp; White.&lt;/strong&gt; You can tweak every color channel in greyscale. Very cool.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For FABULOUS toning of B/W images with a little less work than B/W layer. (This is my secret, guard with your life)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*&lt;strong&gt;*Layer &gt; New Adjustment Layer &gt; Hue/Saturation &gt; Blend Mode Color:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Layer &gt; New Adjustment Layer &gt; Hue/Saturation &gt; Sat -100 &gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Go back to first Hue/Sat Layer (the one in color blend mode) double click on layer window to open then tweek the Hue. Viola, instant Zone system!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your question, click on the layer you want to greyscale and use any of these methods, then select your adjustment layers and active layer and merge down through &lt;strong&gt;Layer &gt; Merge Down&lt;/strong&gt; or on a Mac &lt;strong&gt;Command + E.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2010-09-25T20:26:41.573" />
  <row Id="3557" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3542" CreationDate="2010-09-26T03:42:58.657" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lowepro Fastpack 250 - Has a padded section for your camera gear, a padded section for your laptop, and a space at the top (easily accesible) for stuff like a book, passport, ipod, etc.  Has worked great for me, doesn't break the bank either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1484" LastActivityDate="2010-09-26T03:42:58.657" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3558" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3562" CreationDate="2010-09-26T04:21:59.777" Score="6" ViewCount="153" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have noticed some strange behavior on my 450D tonight. I was shooting some macro on Live-view(couldn't get low enough using the viewfinder) and I noticed that after my shots(approx. 2-second shutter speed) the sensor wouldn't flip up for a few seconds(on the order of 4-5).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could tell this by listening to it. The screen would be black for a bit, then it would click into place and the screen would display the shot again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am mostly just worried this might be a problem. Is this normal? If it is normal, what is taking so long?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastActivityDate="2010-09-26T18:39:13.180" Title="Why does my sensor flip up slow on live view?" Tags="&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;canon-450d&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3559" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3563" CreationDate="2010-09-26T05:53:49.150" Score="5" ViewCount="122" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've calibrated my notebook-Display using a Spyder3 pro.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The strange thing: when the notebook display goes blank for video standby and I wake it up by pressing a key or moving the mouse, for a second or two everything still looks calibrated, then the display has a short flicker and changes into uncalibrated display.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After some long seconds the DataColor software kicks in and applies the calibration again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't want to switch off standby on my notebook - is there any other way to prevent windows from kicking out the calibration after standby? Why does windows disable it anyway??&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastEditorUserId="311" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-26T13:32:11.913" LastActivityDate="2010-09-26T13:32:11.913" Title="Color Management and screen standby" Tags="&lt;color-management&gt;&lt;display-calibration&gt;&lt;windows&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3560" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3545" CreationDate="2010-09-26T06:13:37.310" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;YES. It matters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1485" LastActivityDate="2010-09-26T06:13:37.310" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3561" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3537" CreationDate="2010-09-26T06:39:10.557" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Pentax flashes can do Pentax-TTL and Pentax Wireless (which works pretty well). For strobist work you probably not need this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, from my own experience: avoid the Pentax AF360FGZ. It has a standby function which can not be disabled and will mess up your strobist experience. I still own and use a AF540FGZ which works nicely. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But for radio triggers other flashes like the Yongnuo YN560 will work great.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-09-26T06:39:10.557" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3562" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3558" CreationDate="2010-09-26T09:11:08.313" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It sounds like you've got &lt;strong&gt;long exposure noise reduction&lt;/strong&gt; turned on. After taking a long(ish) exposure photo, such as 2 seconds, the camera takes an identical length exposure but with the &lt;strong&gt;shutter&lt;/strong&gt; closed. This gives the camera an image of the noise (since no light it coming in the image can only contain noise) that can be subtracted from your original image. After the second exposure the mirror flips back down which is what you can hear. You can turn this off (set &quot;C.Fn:II Image&quot; to 0) if the delay is causing problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The camera will turn off live view after a set time (around 30 seconds) in order to save battery. This might be what you're experiencing if you head the mirror click when not pressing the shutter. This is to save battery and again you can turn it off, though after &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;30 minutes&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; live view will turn off on it's own to prevent the sensor overheating. This can't be turned off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-26T18:39:13.180" LastActivityDate="2010-09-26T18:39:13.180" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3563" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3559" CreationDate="2010-09-26T12:27:47.917" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When you go into standby mode, the amount of power draw is very low, just enough to keep things in RAM. Anything else is shut off to eliminate power consumption and that may include your video card if it supports it (and it most likely does). So, what I think is happening is that when you wake the machine, the initial display is effectively what was in the video buffer at time of sleep, the device driver then kicks in and resets the display, then, finally, the calibration software kicks in and recalibrates the display.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see the same effect on my machine, so it's not specific to the Spyder3 as I use the Pantone Huey Pro. So, I think it's the video, it's effectively been shut off, and so it's largely the same effect as when you reboot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-09-26T12:27:47.917" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3564" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3565" CreationDate="2010-09-26T18:06:44.130" Score="5" ViewCount="251" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to add an adjustment layer just to one layer in photoshop? I try, but the adjustment layer seems to affect all layers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="16" LastActivityDate="2010-09-26T19:45:21.703" Title="Applying adjustment layer only to one layer in photoshop" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3565" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3564" CreationDate="2010-09-26T18:28:11.927" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes it is possible in CS4 and (I assume CS5 though I don't have a copy). By default the layer affects all layers beneath it, but if you click on the adjustment and being up the adjustment window (where you set the properties of the adjustment) there's an icon which says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;This adjustment affects all layers below (click to clip to layer)&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clicking on that icon sets the adjustment layer to apply only to the layer beneath it. See the following quick screenshot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/j3mwM.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-26T19:45:21.703" LastActivityDate="2010-09-26T19:45:21.703" />
  <row Id="3566" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3567" CreationDate="2010-09-26T19:46:27.237" Score="8" ViewCount="170" Body="&lt;p&gt;Custom camera settings allow me to select, for example, a red filter (as I only work in B&amp;amp;W this is an advantage), is there any advantage to using this digital in-camera filter over a real red lens filter when it comes to final B&amp;amp;W image quality?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1139" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-27T08:04:14.473" LastActivityDate="2010-09-27T20:26:18.933" Title="Is there any advantage in using in camera digital color filters for B&amp;W?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;color-filters&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="3567" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3566" CreationDate="2010-09-26T19:55:56.843" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general not really. The are potentially some benefits e.g. a blue filter might prevent you from blowing the red channel and getting flare or other problems with excessive light (e.g. sensor bloom) if for some reason you have far more red light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But generally using a coloured filter will just prevent you from changing your mind later compared to using the in-camera filter (and shooting raw) which to me is a massive disadvantage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-27T07:39:55.147" LastActivityDate="2010-09-27T07:39:55.147" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="3568" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3566" CreationDate="2010-09-26T21:55:21.060" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I prefer to shoot color in raw, then do the conversion in post.  There are quite a few good b+w conversion tools out there that can do a better job than the in camera filters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, at least with Canon, when you shoot raw the in camera filters can be applied using the software provided with camera (Digital Photo Professional).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-09-26T21:55:21.060" />
  <row Id="3569" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3572" CreationDate="2010-09-26T23:01:22.687" Score="12" ViewCount="483" Body="&lt;p&gt;I’m looking to buy my fist lens beyond the kit 18-55mm for my Pentax K-x. As a student my budget limits me to around a sub $300 offering. I am new to photograph, and so I have a hard time answering the typical ‘what kind of photography do you like to do?’ question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am open to exploring a range of photographic genres so all lens categories are on the table, but most of all I don’t want buy something that I will regret later for reasons of quality. I realize this is subjective, especially in my price range, so a valid answer may be to wait until I can afford better. I don’t know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The options I have been looking at are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3&lt;/strong&gt; - This lens obviously duplicates the range covered by my kit lens, but  also gives me an all-in-one telephoto option for quickly capturing a range of different images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;My Concerns:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;That the quality is not great overall, as this lens is by definition a compromise, and a cheap one at that.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;That I am duplicating a focal range I already cover, possibly with worse image quality; I don’t know.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;That I am underutilizing my DSLR by treating it like a superzoom point-and-shoot with maybe very little quality difference from a lens in this price range.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rokinon FE8M-P 8mm F3.5 Fisheye&lt;/strong&gt; - With this choice I would be moving away from the focal range I have access to now, and picking up an interesting lens option at the same time. It also has the advantage of being something I am not likely to replace with a more expensive, higher quality, version when I go to buy my next lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;My Concerns:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;That this lens is too far out there in terms of its oddity and specialization for me to be getting into at this point, and that I would be better off learning on something more conventional.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I have no idea where this type of lens is best utilized.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The new Pentax DA 35mm 1:2.4 prime&lt;/strong&gt; - As the fastest of the lenses I am looking at, this one seems like the one I would be least likely to outgrow. It does share a part of the kit lenses' focal range, but it is so much faster that I think it hardly compares.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;My Concerns:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I have never used a prime lens, or even a point-and-shoot without a good deal of zoom capacity. I don’t know what I would think of that.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;f2.4 isn’t that fast by objective standards. This goes back to the “should I just wait?” question.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Something in the 70-300mm range&lt;/strong&gt; - This avoids the issue of redundant lenses, and would probably offer better image quality than an 18-200mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;My Concerns:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;This would limit my photographic options to taking pictures of things very far way, using a tripod. Something I have never done before, so I don’t know how much I would like it.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Other Options&lt;/strong&gt; - It is entirely possible I overlooked some lens type or other. If it's not in the list, that's probably because I don't know about/forgot about it, not that I'm not interested.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1480" LastActivityDate="2010-09-26T23:40:42.087" Title="Buying first lens after kit 18-55mm" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;pentax&gt;&lt;telephoto&gt;&lt;fisheye&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="3570" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3569" CreationDate="2010-09-26T23:18:46.140" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, first things first as a Pentax shooter: look on the used market. I do this all the time (I shoot the Pentax K20) and there are some real gems to be had as bargains. Craigslist is a good place to start, lots of people selling off their parents 'old' Pentax film gear, with lenses attached, for a song and those old lenses can be amongst some of the better ever made. Just make sure you get one with a K mount, otherwise you have to go adapter hunting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if you do want to go new, $300 won't get you top of the line options, it's consumer grade only. However, Pentax primes at any price range are good lenses and the only thing you really have to learn with them is how to zoom with your feet. :) Going zoom, the Sigma 70-300mm macro is a pretty decent lens and it can be sharp. I shot this with it, handheld:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zqKvR.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, you don't necessarily need to put a long lens on a tripod, you just have to have shake reduction on and use the 1/[focal length] rule for shutter speed as a minimum (faster is better) until you get practiced. The TAv mode on your camera is awesome for this kind of shooting, try it out. Anyways, the big upside to the Sigma is a long telephoto coupled with 1:2 macro for some close up shooting fun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, adding the 70-300mm doesn't limit your options, you have an 18-55mm and the K-x is, after all, an &lt;em&gt;interchangeable lens&lt;/em&gt; camera! Change the lens as needed. Now, you still have a gap in the focal range, but it's not that big and can probably be handled by positioning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-09-26T23:18:46.140" />
  <row Id="3571" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3569" CreationDate="2010-09-26T23:33:50.067" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Take the 2.4 prime.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will learn the most about composition that way, because it will force you to consider each shot prior to taking it.  It also will streamline your technique, because it will remove the ability to zoom, ie, it will take a variable out of the equation you try to solve as you take the shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're concerned about speed (and 2.4 isn't that fast), consider going to the used market for a faster lens.  But also consider that at 1.4 from a few feet away, you can get someone's eyes in focus and their nose out of focus; ie, really wide apertures are nice for a few particular applications, but you'll tend to go down to 2. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My first prime was the nikon 60mm f/2.8 macro.  I really liked it (over the 50mm f/1.4 I got later) because it also allowed me to ignore another part of the equation, focus distance.  I could get within an inch of my subjects (not people, that's a bit intrusive) and still focus.  The speed was fast enough for where I was, ie, I hadn't perfected focusing quickly and accurately yet.  Now, I tend not to go any wider than f/2, whether or not my lens lets me, just because of the eyes/nose focal plane thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fisheye is just too... weird and specialized (and frankly, looking at those kinds of shots for any amount of time just makes me nauseous).  Zooms of any kind, in the budget where you are, will be of middling quality at best, but you won't realize it until you shoot with a good prime.  Once you do that, you'll see why pro zooms are so much better than the consumer grade.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-09-26T23:33:50.067" />
  <row Id="3572" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3569" CreationDate="2010-09-26T23:40:42.087" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My advice: &lt;strong&gt;get one or more primes&lt;/strong&gt;. Why? For $300, there are a number of very high quality prime lenses available, particularly on Pentax with its extreme backwards compatibility, and so you're likely to find a pro-quality lens that you'll keep and use for years. On the other hand, at that price point it is very difficult to find a high-quality zoom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You note that you have no prime experience, so perhaps it's also a good way to expand your repertoire. It's often fun to work under more constraints, and prime lenses go down to f/1.4 rather than f/2.8 which is the limit on all but the most exotic zooms; those two extra stops can mean a lot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Regarding your four suggestions:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Don't bother with the zooms. They will be low quality.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An 8mm fisheye is for full-frame. On 1.5x crop, you'll have kind of the worst of both worlds: a cropped field of view and heavy fisheye distortion. Now, a fisheye is certainly an interesting and very fun lens, though quite specialized. IMO it's a worthwhile component of any kit, but not the best second lens. If you do choose a fisheye, I've used the DA 10-17 and it's very nice, though slightly above your price point new.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The DA 35mm would be a fine choice, but there's nothing particularly special about it that would merit waiting.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Where to go from here:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Browse around the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PentaxForums.com lens database&lt;/a&gt;. This gives data and reviews on nearly every Pentax lens that ever existed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Consider used. This is a good way to get a great lens cheaply (or maybe even two).&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://keh.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;keh.com&lt;/a&gt; is highly reputable and I've had excellent luck with them; they back their used sales with a short warranty.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Here is one of many Pentax &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mosphotos.com/PentaxLensCompatibility.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lens compatibility charts&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you have some patience, consider a manual focus or even screwmount lens. You can get superb glass for very cheap; for example, this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Screwmount-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-PS06010800007K?r=FE&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;50mm SMC Takumar&lt;/a&gt; costs only $70 and I can assure you those Takumars are truly remarkable pieces of kit. (Note that with screwmount, you need an adapter and it's important to get a high-quality one.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-09-26T23:40:42.087" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3573" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3579" CreationDate="2010-09-26T23:41:57.593" Score="18" ViewCount="348" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to estimate (or calculate), in advance, the range of focal lengths you might need for shooting in a given scenario?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance, suppose you will be going to the zoo (with your APS-C DSLR) and you want to pack light, and assuming that you will be between 30ft(10m) and 60ft(20m) from your subjects, is it possible to calculate which zoom lens(es) to take to cover this range so that you can get wide angle to reasonable close-ups?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a forumla (or rule-of-thumb estimatation method) that you can use?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="227" LastActivityDate="2010-09-28T03:50:02.443" Title="Estimating focal length range required for shooting scenario" Tags="&lt;focal-length&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="3574" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3573" CreationDate="2010-09-26T23:46:50.623" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This doesn't exactly answer your questions, but Nikon has a cool &lt;a href=&quot;http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/simulator/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;focal length visualization tool&lt;/a&gt; that may help you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The short answer on your question is yes, you can compute that with some trigonometry. I don't know the formulas offhand but it's nothing fancy if you remember your high-school trig. The other factor you need is the size of your subjects. What you would do is compute the necessary angle of view and then translate that into focal length (which you can find in your lens specifications or I'm sure there are many calculators on the internet).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-09-26T23:46:50.623" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3575" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3573" CreationDate="2010-09-27T00:22:18.880" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For normal and longer lenses you can approximate the field of view&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;angle (radians) = imager size / focal length&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Typical imager width is 36mm (full frame), 25mm (aps)  18mm (OM 4:3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason for using radians is that something one meter (or foot) away and one meter (or foot) wide is one radian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if you want a picture of an object 1m wide and 10m away you want a field of 1/10 radian and so from the above you want a lens 10x the film (or sensor) size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(it's not quite accurate enough for wide angle lenses)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="631" LastEditorUserId="631" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-28T03:50:02.443" LastActivityDate="2010-09-28T03:50:02.443" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3576" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3577" CreationDate="2010-09-27T02:41:09.410" Score="13" ViewCount="522" Body="&lt;p&gt;I plan to try shooting my kids' indoor activities (Tae Kwon Do and Figure Skating).  I can get pretty close to the action for TKD, and I have access to ice/board level positions for shooting at the rink.  Lighting in both cases is not great, but not terrible either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I would love to pickup a 70-200mm F2.8 (or even an older 80-200mm F2.8 without VR), it is fairly expensive (even used), and am wondering if I can cheat a little by using a fast prime and get my &quot;zoom&quot; (if necessary) by cropping after the fact?  I was thinking of an 85mm F1.8 or something similar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would be using a Nikon D90.  Is using a fast prime a workable compromise?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I have to buy the fast zoom, one concern I have is that many reviews say they are &quot;soft wide open&quot;, which I take it to mean that they aren't as sharp at F2.8.  But if I have to stop it down for sharpness, then I lose shutter speed, or have to bump ISO, which is not going to help get better action shots.  With an F1.8 (or F1.4) prime, I presume I would have the sharpness wide open and be able to reduce ISO or use a faster shutter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="227" LastEditorUserId="227" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-27T11:46:48.917" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T00:54:51.330" Title="Fast prime vs. expensive zoom for indoor sports photograhy?" Tags="&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;prime&gt;&lt;sports&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="3577" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3576" CreationDate="2010-09-27T03:54:08.513" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Executive Summary:  I really like the prime over the zooms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've shot Hapkido (very similar to TKD) using an 85mm f/1.8 prime and with a 60 mm f/2.8 prime on a D200 and D70-- the D90 has better lowlight capabilities than those two cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the 85mm on the D200 at f/2.5:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/h4ylq.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Hapkido Black Belt Test&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This might be a bit of a cheat, however, since there was light from the outside and bright fluorescent lights.  Your kids' do jang might not be so well lit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And for basketball for my niece, I went with the 50mm f/1.4 (used for $100).  The lighting in that gym was terrible.  I shot ~150 shots, and only one was close to being a keeper, the lighting was so bad and they just moved too quickly to get anything.  I haven't shot figure skating.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I have many sparring shots where 1/250th of a second just isn't fast enough.  When the impact comes, it comes quickly, and 1/500th or faster is necessary to freeze the action.  This one's at 1/250th and similar lighting conditions in the same room:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/i2IkB.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;1/250th of a second&quot;&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A typical test lasted (for us) between 10 to 45 minutes for each belt level.  The 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom lens is very heavy; if you want to be handholding that thing for a long time, go for it.  A monopod might be better, tripod might be too cumbersome, but check with the instructors about what's permitted.  I like to get different angles, and that means moving faster than a tripod will allow.  Large pro zoom = big weight, fast prime = less weight.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;VR gets you nothing in these situations.  They are moving quickly, and the extra stop or two (or three or four or whatever) doesn't matter, because those stops are for the lens not moving, not the subject.  So if you decide to go with the telephoto, go for the non-VR version (unless you see yourself using the lens for other purposes).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That softness when wide open is up to some levels of interpretation, I think.  Having said that, I really dig on the 85mm's f/1.8's look at f/2 to f/2.8.  But the 70-200mm at f/2.8 can be just gorgeous.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Focus is tricky when the focus plane is that thin, and will take practice.  It took me a few years to be able to get (what I think are) decent shots of martial arts.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cropping can be tricky.  It depends on how far away you are and what kind of shots you want.  While I really like the 85mm's look, the 50mm f/1.8 or the 35mm f/1.8 might be better suited for the closeness you have to the action.  I'd recommend first using whatever lenses you have and starting to experiment with composition (regardless of whether or not the shots are tack sharp) to determine which focal length you want to start with.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Good luck!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastEditorUserId="266" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-27T04:03:48.450" LastActivityDate="2010-09-27T04:03:48.450" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3578" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3573" CreationDate="2010-09-27T04:49:13.190" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;mgb is correct, but I wanted to make an additional comment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Focal Length Calculator is available, along with a more detailed explanation of how lenses work, at this website:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It performs much like mgb's approximate rule of thumb, but gives more precise values and allows you to select different camera types. So if you are at a computer and feeling lazy or need to perform this type of calculation with greater (but not perfect) accuracy, this will help you out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1480" LastActivityDate="2010-09-27T04:49:13.190" />
  <row Id="3579" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3573" CreationDate="2010-09-27T05:49:54.250" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If you know or can estimate the distances&lt;/strong&gt;, use this equation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Focal Length = Sensor Dimension * Distance / Scene Dimension&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where you match the dimension of the sensor and the scene.  e.g:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Focal Length = Sensor Width * Distance / Scene Width&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that the the advertised size of your sensor is typically not the width, height, or even the diagonal, which are the appropriate dimensions you can use.  See &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this wiki article&lt;/a&gt; for the size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For non-Canon APS-C, the width is 23.6mm.  Say your scene / subject is 20m away and you want a width of 5m at that distance.  You can use feet as it is just a ratio.  This equation says to use a focal length of 93.6mm.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If you are out in the field already and want to know what lens to put on&lt;/strong&gt;, it might be good to give yourself a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/1106422-post6.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;good hand calibration&lt;/a&gt;:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hold your fist in front of your face&#xA;  with your elbow bent at a right angle;&#xA;  use your knuckles to select the lens&#xA;  you want for the scene behind your&#xA;  hand&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ys4JI.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;From newarts on PentaxForums&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4knuckles:50mm, 2:100, 1:200.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The trick is figuring out where to&#xA;  hold your fist so the above rule&#xA;  holds. Try it a few times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Take a photo of a scene with a 50mm&#xA;  lens (or look through the camera's&#xA;  viewfinder with a 50mm lens in place.)&#xA;  Put the camera down &amp;amp; hold your fist&#xA;  in front of your face such that the 4&#xA;  knuckles just fill that scene height.&#xA;  Remember where to hold your fist next&#xA;  time you want to select a lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-27T14:52:13.697" LastActivityDate="2010-09-27T14:52:13.697" />
  <row Id="3580" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3566" CreationDate="2010-09-27T06:06:53.933" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To my best knowledge, using strong color filters (like &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wratten_number&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;25A, 38A, 99&lt;/a&gt;) on digital cameras have only downsides:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You're can very easily blow the channel which color the filter is (red channel if you use red filter)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You're underexposing other channels resulting more noise in these channels&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The result is that you're only using efficiently 25% of your sensor (I don't know exactly how the Bayer works, but considering it's interpolating 66% of the image even without filters, one can imagine how poorly it does when it only has 1 correctly exposed channel available)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You're losing 1-2 (or even more depending on the filter) stops of exposure&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The resulting photo is only usable for specific purposes&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Having to actually buy the filter and screw it on&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Considering there is no way to avoid Bayer interpolation and all the possibilities that open when doing the BW conversion in post, I'd suggest not to use these filters on digital cameras. So shoot RAW and add the effects you want afterwards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some examples. Both images were shot RAW, developed using Monochrome Picture Style in DPP with exactly the same settings, shot with red filter had its brightness adjusted and software red filter was applied to shot without physical red filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Software red filter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/8epXD.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Software red filter&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Physical red filter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/YMt6x.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Physical red filter&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Histograms before monochrome conversion:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/1KpvS.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Histograms&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And here are some 100% details (physical filter on the left, software on the right):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/VODyj.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Side by side&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm a bit confused about the sharpening-like effects of the physical red filter version and have triple cheked my settings, sharpening was 0 for both. Lower image is meant to illustrate the differences in local contrast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some more details and situations where some color correction filters are usable is provided in this answer: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/586/are-colour-filters-worth-using-with-digital-cameras/619#619&quot;&gt;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/586/are-colour-filters-worth-using-with-digital-cameras/619#619&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-27T20:26:18.933" LastActivityDate="2010-09-27T20:26:18.933" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3581" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3545" CreationDate="2010-09-27T06:09:56.113" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://pixinfo.com/en/articles/ccd-dust-removal/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pixinfo&lt;/a&gt; talks about a test that they have made between for cameras with sensor cleaning systems. According to that, the camera has to be upright for the sensor cleaning to be effective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the test also suggests that for some cameras it doesn't matter much, because the sensor cleaning hardly works at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-09-27T06:09:56.113" />
  <row Id="3582" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3576" CreationDate="2010-09-27T06:16:05.290" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is using a fast prime a workable compromise? Yes, but it is a compromise. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I shoot with Nikkor's 50mm f/1.4 for much of my low light imagery, something I really enjoy shooting. However, for sports I would only use it for features. In other words, for stuff I'm real close to that helps build the story. The obligatory coach-talks-to-team shot or the little brother/sister mimics older brother/sister's sports shot or the guy-wearing-ridiculous-beer-helmet-at-highschool-basketball-game shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason is this...though f/1.4 can look gorgeous and tremendously increases the amount of light your camera can capture, at 50mm the compression just isn't there. A lens that fast will give you great depth of field, which we all love, but your subjects simply will not pop the way they will with a monster 300mm, 400mm or the often coveted 600mm. You can crop in post all you want, but you won't get that delicious stacked feel you get with long glass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another thing to consider is the DOF at f/1.4. When your subjects are moving that fast, especially in figure skating when they are coming or going from the camera quickly, your chance of finding solid focus is minimal. You'll blow most or your shots, and you WILL blow the ones you really want. You will think, &quot;Oh, that's the one! But it's out of focus! Darn!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best way to maximize light is to introduce light. May not be possible in these venues to use a strobe. I imagine TKD is not the place to be throwing flashes all over. Figure skating maybe, I would ask. If you want tips on mounting strobes and where to place them, let me know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One more thing, from your statement, &lt;em&gt;&quot;But if I have to stop it down for sharpness, then I lose shutter speed, or have to bump ISO, which is not going to help get better action shots.&quot;&lt;/em&gt; This is wrong. You want to bump ISO. You want to be shooting at the fastest possible ISO you can, without sacrificing quality of course. From what I understand the D90 handles ISO fairly well. If you can push it to 1250 or 1600, without insane amounts of noise, you'll be able to shoot with a nice f/5.6 200mm. You'll have your light, you'll have your fast shutter, you'll have workable DOF AND you'll have gorgeous compression. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I shoot highschool football, I shoot at ISO 1250, underexpose 2/3 stops, deal with any noise in post and have always been happy. I get sharp focus on my subject, I keep motion in the image. The editor is happy. The readers are happy. I'm happy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NDkQi.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All in all you should opt for the telephoto. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Happy Hunting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2010-09-27T06:16:05.290" CommentCount="11" />
  <row Id="3583" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3608" CreationDate="2010-09-27T15:30:42.027" Score="10" ViewCount="1254" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm a bit overwhelmed by the available options in regards to the three major photo editing apps from Adobe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know of an article or site that lists the features of Lightroom, PS Elements, and PS, side by side?  I know that Lightroom revolves around edits and workflow, and that PS is the big kahuna of image editing.  Where does Elements fit in to this understanding?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1493" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-11T18:50:41.930" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T18:50:41.930" Title="Lightroom vs. Elements vs. Photoshop: Side-by-side comparison?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;photoshop-elements&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3584" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2563" CreationDate="2010-09-27T16:12:39.250" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Looking at Tamron's site, it appears that this lens was designed for APS-C size sensors (which Nikon refers to as &quot;DX&quot;), and contains an in-lens autofocus motor.  Nearly all Nikon lenses with a similar AF motor carry the &quot;AF-S&quot; designation, and it appears that Tamron is using &quot;BIM&quot; to indicate the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, I think you can infer that Nikon film bodies that accept AF-S lenses with all of their related features will also work with this lens, with one caveat.  Given that the lens is designed for the DX sensor size, photos you shoot may not fill the frame throughout the zoom range.  You might have some success at 50mm, but at 17mm, your shots will have a cool &quot;periscope&quot; effect. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that Nikon's &lt;em&gt;digital&lt;/em&gt; full frame bodies will support DX lenses with a special &quot;DX mode&quot;, in which the camera deactivates a portion of the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're looking to get a film body, you might want to take the plunge with the film equivalent to your lens, the Tamron SP 28-75mm F/2.8.  It's more expensive, and will give you a different focal range on your digital camera, but it is a fast zoom and will work with both DX and FX-sized sensors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1493" LastEditorUserId="1493" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-27T16:19:31.733" LastActivityDate="2010-09-27T16:19:31.733" />
  <row Id="3585" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3589" CreationDate="2010-09-27T17:13:00.067" Score="17" ViewCount="325" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does a DSLR's white balance setting (whether a preset like cloudy or a custom WB setting) affect the raw file at all, or does that setting only determine the WB of the JPG that the camera generates?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A related way to ask this is whether this procedure makes sense:&#xA;1. shoot in RAW mode only&#xA;2. set the white balance using a gray card, but not by taking a picture of the gray card&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the WB setting only affects the JPGs and not the RAW files, and you want to shoot RAW only, then you must have a photo with the gray card to use in post processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-27T17:34:05.937" LastActivityDate="2010-09-28T06:50:23.813" Title="Does the camera white balance setting affect the raw image at all?" Tags="&lt;white-balance&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="3586" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3585" CreationDate="2010-09-27T17:20:28.713" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The white balance setting selected on the camera is stored in the RAW file; however, when processing the file, you can choose to &quot;develop&quot; it using an alternate setting (most software also supports an eye dropper mode to select the white balance based on a known even tone within the image).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-09-27T17:20:28.713" />
  <row Id="3587" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3585" CreationDate="2010-09-27T17:20:45.110" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer: No, changing the WB does not affect the RAW image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But you don't need a gray card to shoot RAW and get a WB; the camera can provide you with an auto WB, or you can select one prior to your shoot, either through a gray card or through a camera preset.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So here's a tricky WB situation: you're shooting in a church with different naves.  One has a gold chalice that the light from a stained glass window is hitting and bouncing everywhere, and everything looks pretty cool.  Back and the main altar, you've got light from all over, maybe from incandescent lights above.  You're moving back and forth between shrines during the wedding/baptism/whatever.  Switching WB might be very tricky to do on the fly, and fraught with the possibility of a mistake.  For this, I'd shoot the gray card in both areas ahead of time (if possible, if the light isn't changing much) and then apply the appropriate white balance setting to your raw file later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In practice, I almost never use a gray card, and several of the other wedding photogs I have worked with have also ditched their gray cards as well.  The Auto WB setting in the Canon and Nikon bodies is good enough, and the light changes so quickly, that shooting in RAW and then fixing the rare mistakes made by the auto wb is easier and faster than using the gray card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-09-27T17:20:45.110" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3588" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3592" CreationDate="2010-09-27T17:20:49.947" Score="9" ViewCount="122" Body="&lt;p&gt;Please suggest some good tips on conducting a photography workshop. I am planning to start a basic one first and then will proceed to advanced photography workshops. What tips do you suggest?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1494" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T17:16:37.340" Title="Recommended tips to conduct a workshop" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;workshops&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="3589" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3585" CreationDate="2010-09-27T17:22:23.970" Score="17" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The white balance setting doesn't affect the image data in the RAW file, but the setting is recorded in the meta data in the file, so you can still use it to process the RAW image if you like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-09-27T17:22:23.970" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3590" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3588" CreationDate="2010-09-27T17:38:35.210" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd first look at other photographers and see what they do, like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kelbytraining.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.kelbytraining.com/&lt;/a&gt; .  The training/workshop topics are pointed to a particular topic, i.e. portraits, where an instructor can discuss the finer points of what goes into portraiture photography.  For a basic topic, maybe you'd want to start out with something like 'basic camera operation'? And more advanced would goto specific shooting style.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1309" LastActivityDate="2010-09-27T17:38:35.210" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3591" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3583" CreationDate="2010-09-27T19:00:46.783" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not a true side by side comparison, and it doesn't cover all the features, but you could take a look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/ps_pse_comparison.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photo editing program comparison at Adobe.com&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-09-27T19:00:46.783" />
  <row Id="3592" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3588" CreationDate="2010-09-27T19:38:13.187" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Collected notes after three-day workshop with 11 people in total:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They divided themselves to two groups based on experience and seemed happy with that.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's good to be able to look on pictures everyone took afterwards and talk about them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There were positive reaction to shooting together as a group and being able to share knowledge and try out equipment.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you have people of various experience, it might be useful to pair more skilled ones with beginners for a while.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-29T17:16:37.340" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T17:16:37.340" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3593" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-27T20:50:01.273" Score="7" ViewCount="189" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it better to spend my money on a medium quality say 15-85 zoom lens or a very high quality fixed lens at say 24MM. (e.g 24mm 1.4 L canon) and crop in - not blow up beyond normal resolution).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A couple of points to consider for my situation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;90% of my images are 12x18 or smaller - down to 5x7.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I only do B&amp;amp;W prints on matte paper at 200 dpi.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;All of my shots are nature/landscapes shot from a tripod (no animals, action, etc.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I'm using a Canon 7D at 18Mp raw.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I don't need IS and probably not AF.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I would find an f-stop / range guide very helpful for focus (old time 5x7 shooter).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to me that a very high quality L and image crop would yield a better image than a medium quality (lets say same price) zoom. But then I really don't know. The biggest problem is knowing the final image crop with one image in the viewer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your thoughts appreciated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;TIA&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1139" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-04T20:06:00.393" LastActivityDate="2010-11-04T20:06:00.393" Title="Fixed HQ lens with image crop or medium quality zoom lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3594" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3593" CreationDate="2010-09-27T21:27:48.377" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's highly variable.  If you really wanted to know, you'd have to look at the MTF charts and other information for both lenses at various focal lengths, apertures, focus distances, diffraction limits, crop amount, and sensor resolution limits. Note that lens softness and cropping look different.  Optical softness will be the overlapping of airy disks and will look much different than the eventually visible blockyness that will result in cropping, which can be more distracting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A zoom lens at the $1500 range will not be a &quot;medium quality&quot;. You can get some wonderful L zooms in that range.  Cropping a 24mm lens to 85mm equivalent will be very low resolution (the equivalent of taking a picture with a much smaller sensor) and would even begin to compare.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The price of that prime lens is for its size, weight, and more importantly speed and the bokeh that comes with it.  Given your scenarios, I don't believe you will be taking advantage of those and you are much better off with a zoom.  At the f-stops you will presumably be using for deeper DoF, the difference in IQ becomes more insignificant.  The zooms may not have the depth of field guides, but you can learn hyper-focal distances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-28T02:11:13.727" LastActivityDate="2010-09-28T02:11:13.727" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3595" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3593" CreationDate="2010-09-27T21:36:55.913" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With landscapes you are going to be shooting at fairly small apertures so a medium range zoom will do the job very well actually. Even cheap lenses are sharp when used at the optimum aperture (usually f/5.6 - f/8). What you pay for with the 24 f/1.4 among other things is the very wide max aperture, which you don't really need. It may be sharper at say f/2.8 but you are going to lose the advantage quite quickly when you start cropping.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-09-27T21:36:55.913" />
  <row Id="3596" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3593" CreationDate="2010-09-27T21:58:39.110" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;How often do you use the various focal lengths?  It can be instructive to review the photos you have taken.  If you use the longer lengths any appreciable amount of time, you will miss the zoom: cropping a 24mm photo to get the equivalent of 85mm reduces your effective pixel count to 18 Mp * (24/85)^2 =  1.4 Mp.  That's pretty crummy even for the smaller prints you contemplate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can run this formula in reverse, too: a 12 x 18 print at 200 dpi is 2400 * 3600 = 8.64 million dots.  This means that if you have an incredibly sharp lens (so that its image quality is limited by the sensor resolution) you can afford to crop by a factor of Sqrt(18 Mp / 8.64) = 1.44.  This means you might just be willing to use the 24 mm glass for a shot that would be exactly framed by a 24 * 1.44 = 35 mm lens.  In practice, though, even the best lenses do not resolve at the pixel level on an 18 Mp sensor, so you're going to notice a bit of degradation anyway.  If, perchance, you had a &lt;em&gt;pair&lt;/em&gt; of primes--say, the 24 mm L and the F1.4 (or even F1.8) 50 mm lens, which are relatively (respectively, dirt) cheap, then you would have moderately good coverage in the 24 - roughly 72 mm range between them, with a gap around 35 - 50 mm that conceivably could be filled in later with a 35 mm prime.  That zoom covers a lot of ground!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2010-09-27T21:58:39.110" />
  <row Id="3597" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3607" CreationDate="2010-09-28T05:48:40.257" Score="7" ViewCount="346" Body="&lt;p&gt;I got a series of shots from a wedding ceremony. I'm gonna hand the selected ones as prints to the couple, but I also wanted to create a kind of movie-&quot;presentation&quot;, from selected pictures. My goal is to those have the photos to tell a story - when put in selected order, maybe with some ambient music background? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I'd like to have there is a simple way to define next &quot;frames&quot; - when a frame could contain a single (or maybe more then 1) pictures - and transitions between them. I could probably achieve that using some simple presentation-making software (be it PowerPoint or OpenOffice.org Impress) but I was wondering if there was any other way to do that? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd gladly have a flash or, maybe, quicktime output from there (or maybe something playable with dvd player). Oh, and best if the software wasn't Mac-specific :) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you guys know anything like that? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="320" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T12:35:12.703" Title="What software to use to create a &quot;photo-presentation&quot;?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;wedding&gt;&lt;presentation&gt;&lt;movie&gt;" AnswerCount="5" />
  <row Id="3598" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3585" CreationDate="2010-09-28T06:50:23.813" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I have heard, the WB does not affect the RAW data, but it does affect the exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in difficult lighting situations the camera auto exposure might react differently depending on the WB.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sadly I got no source for this information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-09-28T06:50:23.813" />
  <row Id="3599" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3597" CreationDate="2010-09-28T08:52:59.057" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;you've mentioned many solutions there and I'm sure there are more but as I see it the best way would be to either create a video file with a standard codec or a flash slideshow. The reason for this is that not every customer will have powerpoint or openoffice installed, whereas the vast majority of people will have flash and the ability to play vdieo files. Note that recent apple devices such as the iPad are unlikely to support flash anytime soon so that would push me toward video.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've actually done exactly what you (produced a wedding photo slideshow with music) and I used a free program that's been around for a while called Virtual Dub. The only thing you need is a set of images with sequential file numbers (001,002,003 etc.) which can be done through the batch processing tools in Photoshop. There are many tutorials for how to produce your slideshow (mostly written for photographers creating timelapse movies). Here's a good tutorial to get you started (the only thing I'd add is that you might be better using the h.264 codec rather than DivX as it decodes in hardware on most modern platforms):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.spacelapse.net/en/Astrophotography_Tutorials/Convert_Single_Photos_to_a_Timelapse_Movie.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.spacelapse.net/en/Astrophotography_Tutorials/Convert_Single_Photos_to_a_Timelapse_Movie&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;edit: you can lay up pages of severl images using your favourite image editor, however the above method wont let you do fancy transitions. You might be better off using flash for that, however it's not something I've done before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-28T09:01:22.413" LastActivityDate="2010-09-28T09:01:22.413" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3600" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3597" CreationDate="2010-09-28T12:10:48.773" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well... except for the non-Mac requirement, I think the answer is iMovie :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a few alternatives, some free and some not:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Paid&lt;/strong&gt;: These are probably both going to give you more control over the details, but you pay for that extra control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photodex.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pro Show&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pinnaclesys.com/PublicSite/us/Products/Consumer+Products/Home+Video/Studio+Family/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pinnacle Studio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Free&lt;/strong&gt;: If you just need a simple slideshow, with basic transitions and music, these should work just fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://picasa.google.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Picasa&lt;/a&gt; - there is a new slideshow feature in version 3 that does basic slideshows&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://explore.live.com/windows-live-movie-maker&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Windows Live Movie Maker&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-09-28T12:10:48.773" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3601" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3583" CreationDate="2010-09-28T13:42:00.587" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I see it this way: if you're a photographer (or a serious amateur), go with Lightroom. I think LR is a very, very good tool for a photographer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you need to change not only how the image appears but you want to give a completely different aspect to your images (more of a designer/artist/painter job) then go with Elements. This means that you don't mind building a library, storing metadata, directly exporting html pages for the web, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you fall in the previous example AND you're rich :) then go with Photoshop. It's huge, it's expensive. Content-aware fill drives me crazy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may even buy Lightroom and Photoshop, the tools integrate well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;/my opinions, of course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1291" LastActivityDate="2010-09-28T13:42:00.587" />
  <row Id="3602" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-28T15:12:35.830" Score="8" ViewCount="786" Body="&lt;p&gt;When taking a picture of a shiny objects, I can see the entire environment reflected on the object:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;on the site below I found the picture&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://72.29.75.243/~groovet/greg/images/miscimages/20090313blogimages/web_IMG_0141.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;http://72.29.75.243/~groovet/greg/images/miscimages/20090313blogimages/web_IMG_0141.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see, there are at least three reflections on the object...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even though my pictures are much better ;) ... I do have the reflection problem and I need your help dealing with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1503" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-28T17:46:02.780" LastActivityDate="2010-09-28T20:33:04.807" Title="How to avoid reflection when taking a picture of a ceramic object with a shiny glaze?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;shooting-technique&gt;&lt;reflection&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3603" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3602" CreationDate="2010-09-28T15:18:59.313" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You need either to remove the offending light or supply much more additional light to wash out the reflection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Removing the light can be accomplished by shading it.  In this particular situation it's possible a helper could just stand nearby to block the light source.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another way that can work with specular reflections like this is to use a polarizing filter, because the reflection tends to have a preferred polarization.  The reflection won't go entirely away but it can be much reduced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adding light is usually done with a flash or similar source(s).  Use of a diffuser or bounce is almost required, as well as appropriate positioning to avoid or at least displace the reflections.  You need to add enough light that you can stop down the original exposure enough to reduce the contribution from the ambient reflections.  Because this can cause related problems exposing the background, this method is to be used after careful consideration of the effect you want in the photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2010-09-28T15:18:59.313" />
  <row Id="3604" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2730" CreationDate="2010-09-28T15:19:26.540" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use fat32 id you can, since fat16 is becoming rare and less computer support this mode&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1503" LastActivityDate="2010-09-28T15:19:26.540" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3605" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3602" CreationDate="2010-09-28T15:22:17.847" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two things I would try:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Try using a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/655/in-which-situations-should-i-use-my-circular-polarizing-filter&quot;&gt;circular polarizer filter&lt;/a&gt;. The polarizer will block light coming from specific angles, and by turning it appropriately you should be able to block the reflection.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Control your light sources.  Your best scenario would be to have a solid colored backdrop (dark colors might reduce glare as well) with lighting coming in from the side would help.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a nice article specifically covering &lt;a href=&quot;http://mikegigi.com/photogl.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photos of glass&lt;/a&gt; that might be helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-09-28T15:22:17.847" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3606" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2637" CreationDate="2010-09-28T15:34:06.007" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You should not compare the two formats.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The raw image is the real deal while the jpg is a picture derived(manipulated) from the raw.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore the jpg can never be better than the raw (at least technically).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the camera made a good jpg, so can the computer ... it's just a question of the processing algoritm the software of your computer/camera have and how much you like the results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The raw is always superior to the jpg in representing the real picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet the same rule that let photoshop make a magicial pictures aplies here - the manipulation of a picture can sometimes look better than the original - yet there is always just on e original and it is the raw. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember : jpg is the result of computer manipulation over the original picture that tries to create a compressed image as close to the original and as small as possible with the cost of loosing data that the algoritm finds less important&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1503" LastActivityDate="2010-09-28T15:34:06.007" />
  <row Id="3607" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3597" CreationDate="2010-09-28T15:51:26.763" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depending on your specific needs you could go the web-2.0/cloud-computing/program-as-a-service route. There are a number of sites that will take your images and turn them into a slideshow with music with very little work required on your part. Most of them I've seen produce mediocre results, but usually they have some type of graduated subscription plan with a free basic version you can try out before spending any money on them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is one site that is an exception the the mediocracy trend. While I've never used it myself, I have seen &lt;a href=&quot;http://animoto.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;animoto.com&lt;/a&gt; give some truly impressive results when used to make a wedding slideshow. I was amazed when I found out it was done through a website.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realize that you are looking for a software solution, but it might be work checking out, in any case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;* (I have no affiliation with animoto. I'm just a fan.) *&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1480" LastActivityDate="2010-09-28T15:51:26.763" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3608" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3583" CreationDate="2010-09-28T16:48:02.687" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The three tools approximate three general levels of functionality and capability. Photoshop Elements is an entry-level image editing package. It provides image editing and some library management capabilities. It has some rich capabilities, and supports all the common editing capabilities of Photoshop. Adjustment layers allow non-destructive editing to a degree, however there are fewer adjustments possible in Elements than Photoshop. It is limited, and if you do a lot of photographic editing, you &lt;strong&gt;will&lt;/strong&gt; eventually run into Elements' many limitations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photoshop Lightroom is a professional image editing package. It is specifically geared towards the digital photographer with an advanced workflow, RAW image support, and extensive library management capabilities. It is designed to expose the key tools important to editing digital photographs, such as a histogram, white balance and tone adjustments, color adjustments, detail adjustments (i.e. noise reduction and sharpening), as well as some advanced features like camera and lens profiles to correct distortion and vignetting. Lightroom also offers some rich tools that go beyond the basic on-screen editing, including print and book creation, slideshow generation, and web site publishing. New publishing modules in Lightroom 3 allow direct upload of your images and metadata to sites like Flickr and Facebook.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photoshop CS is the ultimate image editing program. It is a low-level tool, giving you direct and total control over pretty much any edit you can think of. It's capabilities extend far beyond photographic editing and support artistic image creation and editing of a very wide variety. For a photographer, Photoshop brings HDR generation and editing, panoramic stitching, and a whole host of additional tools that are not available in Lightroom. Photoshop lacks some things provided by Lightroom, however, particularly its ease of use and clean workflow designed specifically to optimize a photographers image management, editing, and publishing. The most common and useful operations that need to be performed on digital photographs can be completed in much less time with Lightroom. Photoshop itself lacks any real kind of library management outside of Bridge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unless you do very light weight photography with only the most basic of edits, Lightroom is highly recommended as the central tool for managing, editing, and publishing your photographic works. It has an ideal price point, making it easy to acquire. Photoshop CS is a great tool to have to cover the cases where Lightroom is lacking, such as HDR or panoramic stitching. If you need the ultimate control over your prints and ICM profiles, Photoshop also has an edge on Lightroom and offers the ability to soft-proof your prints on screen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-09-28T16:48:02.687" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3609" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3602" CreationDate="2010-09-28T16:49:39.810" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can't remove the reflections, but you can change what gets reflected. This can be achieved by moving and shading things and lights around you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, as long as you're shooting shiny things with on-camera flash, you'll always get ugly reflection right in the middle of your picture. You can remove it only by polarizing the flash and/or lens, or by moving you main light somewhere else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first step is usually getting a tilt/swivel flash and bounce it off the ceiling or nearby wall. Then it's matter of finding out which one of those reflections is not visible in the object or at least looks best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If what you're getting by this point still looks ugly, you might have to get more lights and move then around, or use the last resort -- light tent which makes &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; of the surroundings the same invisible white.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But not all reflections are bad -- you can use them to show the nature of your object (e.g. show that it's reflective). So keeping one or two strips of light can be beneficial.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately I don't have any good examples of reflections of light at hand, so I'm going to post examples of dark reflections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is my first attempt to photograph a glass thermometer thingy. You can see that surrounding it with white doesn't work very well.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://vvv.mokrakocicka.cz/gang/042418_2719.jpg&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What works is putting two black boxes to the sides. They are reflected on the edges of the glass, and make it possible to actually recognize what we're looking at.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://vvv.mokrakocicka.cz/gang/042419_2739.jpg&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore I think you should not be avoiding the reflections, but rather use them to help your picture. Unless it's that big image of on-camera flash in the middle, or course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;update: Lighting diagram for the first shot. I think this setup can be thought of as poor man's light tent.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/lWbKr.png&quot; alt=&quot;diagram for first example&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-28T20:33:04.807" LastActivityDate="2010-09-28T20:33:04.807" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3610" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3602" CreationDate="2010-09-28T17:01:40.447" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You'll want soft light, best would be an all-around softbox like a macro tent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also this question about &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3521/glare-issue-during-macro-photography/3522#3522&quot;&gt;photographing reflecting objects&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-09-28T17:01:40.447" />
  <row Id="3611" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3602" CreationDate="2010-09-28T19:25:35.040" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Very easy to fix. Take your flash off camera (or turn flash off, put camera on tripod, and shoot with slower shutter). Clean up your background, either by cleaning the table you're photographing on or BETTER create or buy a macro tent (around $150-$250). No tent? At the very least set up a clean backdrop. IF you have an off camera flash, put flash on outside of tent and light your tent rather than your ceramic. Last, invest in a polarizer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You won;t be able to eliminate all highlights, but then you don't want to. Highlights help give shape and dimension. You will however be able to kill your reflections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ZzTlB.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Happy shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2010-09-28T19:25:35.040" />
  <row Id="3612" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-28T19:49:31.043" Score="10" ViewCount="358" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon Rebel XSi (450D) and I'm going on a two week trip to Argentina and Patagonia where I want to try some wildlife photography. I have the kit 55-250 f/4.5-5.6 lens which I like, but I thought it might be fun to rent the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L lens for the trip.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, how is significant is the upgrade from 250mm to 400mm? I know it means 1.6 times closer, but I'm having a hard time &quot;feeling&quot; what the difference is. Am I really going to notice that much difference?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, the lens is big and weighs about three times more than the camera. Besides looking silly, is that going to present any problems such as stress on the mount, difficult to balance, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, I researched lenses on the helpful &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/supertelephoto&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lensrentals.com&lt;/a&gt; site and decided on the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L in part because it's their second most rented lens. Anyone with experience renting from them or someone else?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="677" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T19:05:51.997" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T19:05:51.997" Title="Mounting a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L lens on Rebel XSi (450D) body" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;telephoto&gt;&lt;canon-450d&gt;&lt;renting&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3613" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3542" CreationDate="2010-09-28T20:20:43.740" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Answering my own question. I did some research and found a few other bags that match my criteria. I don't own them nor I have even seen them in person--just some ideas for other people who are looking for something similar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://products.lowepro.com/product/Fastpack-350,2087,14.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lowepro Fastpack 350&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://products.lowepro.com/product/Primus-AW,1995,14.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lowepro Primus AW&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kata-bags.com/product.asp?Version=photo&amp;amp;p_Id=433&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kata 3N1-30&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="677" LastEditorUserId="677" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-28T20:53:16.757" LastActivityDate="2010-09-28T20:53:16.757" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3614" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3612" CreationDate="2010-09-28T20:22:01.940" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want to do wildlife photography you want the longest lens you can get so you will definitely notice the difference with the 400. It won't look silly on the 450D, nor will it stress the mount. Balance won't be a problem as long as you're used to supporting the lens when shooting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm afraid I haven't any experience with lensrentals, hopefully someone else will chime in. Enjoy your trip! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-09-28T20:22:01.940" />
  <row Id="3615" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3612" CreationDate="2010-09-28T22:37:09.337" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The L lens is solid and has a metal mount, so no concern there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't mount the camera on a tripod (or monopod): mount the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get a sense of the difference 400 mm vs. 250 mm makes, do some &quot;digital zooming&quot; with pictures you have made at the 250 mm end of your kit lens: crop them down by 1/1.6 = about 60% of their original size and look them over.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think about how you're going to carry this thing: consider a suitable bag or pack, whether to upgrade the strap, and whether a monopod might be useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2010-09-28T22:37:09.337" />
  <row Id="3616" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3612" CreationDate="2010-09-29T00:11:37.180" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To get the feel of the difference between 250 and 400, you can set your lens to 150 and zoom to 250. That gives you approximately the same difference in magnification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having a so much heavier lens isn't a problem, as long as you change how you hold the camera completely. As the lens is heavier than the camera, you are putting the camera on the lens rather than putting the lens on the camera. You have to support the lens instead of the camera. The mount will support the weight of the camera when you hold the lens, and the weight of the lens when it's hanging vertically, but not the momentum of the lens if you hold the camera upright without supporting the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It will feel awkward at first with so much lens in front of the camera, but it passes. What doesn't pass is how much heavier it gets to carry around, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-29T00:18:15.353" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T00:18:15.353" />
  <row Id="3617" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3621" CreationDate="2010-09-29T00:28:16.140" Score="9" ViewCount="194" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm writing up a small generic contract (1-2 pages at most) and I have a check box next to each clause so they may be included on a per contract basis and was wondering if I need to include an exclusivity use clause for the client (barring me from using the photos for promotion of my services)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this done often?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have been offered a job here and there and want to make sure I've got everything covered legally. Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have revised my contract, as per recommendation that more easily read and obvious terms may be the way to go instead of going &quot;legal&quot; on them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do you say to this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Any additional costs the photographer may incur for travel, meals, parking and other reasonable costs incurred will be included in the fee.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A set of watermarked proofs shall be delivered to the client on CD or via email with the client returning a written list of photographs required for final processing in full resolution.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The client may generally request processing on particular photographs with final discretion from the photographer, such as black and white or digital cross process techniques.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The photographer retains copyright in the photographs, and hereby grants the client unlimited but non-exclusive rights to use or reproduce the photographs for which the client pays.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The client will receive the final processed images upon full payment.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see reasoning for including a lawyer but this is not something I can afford, in time and cost and my contract is simply something to make it clear to both parties what they are required of and receiving.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-29T13:03:59.857" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T13:03:59.857" Title="Exclusivity Use Clause?" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;fair-use&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3618" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3631" CreationDate="2010-09-29T00:48:35.820" Score="10" ViewCount="195" Body="&lt;p&gt;Turns out that &lt;em&gt;telephoto&lt;/em&gt; refers to a specific construction of a long-focal-length lens, i.e., one where the lens is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephoto&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;physically shorter than the focal length&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a generic term for referring to lenses of long focal length, while being agnostic as to their optical construction, other than just &quot;long lens&quot;? (Wikipedia claims there's not.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternately, is this distinction simply pedantry and I should just call all long lenses telephoto?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-15T21:42:10.060" LastActivityDate="2011-04-15T21:42:10.060" Title="Is there construction-agnostic term for a lens with a long focal length?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;focal-length&gt;&lt;telephoto&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3619" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3576" CreationDate="2010-09-29T00:54:51.330" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Try renting the lens you're considering.&lt;/strong&gt; I think really there isn't any other way to tell if it's going to work. While another answer gives success stories with the 85mm, your access may vary enough to make it the wrong focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, what you really want is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/337510-USA/Nikon_2150_200mm_f_2_0G_AF_S_ED_IF.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;200mm f/&lt;/a&gt;2. It's only $5,000 and you get free shipping!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Jokes aside, renting that or another exotic lens for special occasions would probably be within your budget. Just be sure to rent it for enough days to get in sufficient practice before you need it.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T00:54:51.330" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="3620" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3618" CreationDate="2010-09-29T01:07:11.443" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, to use &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_lens_design&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; as well, it would appear that the options are telephoto and long focus lenses and that makes some sense based on the explanation that telephoto lenses are designed to overcome some of the shortcomings of the latter. Having said that, I think telephoto has basically come to mean anything about 100mm or longer and nobody will be confused if you used the term generically for any long lens. Though, these days, I begin to wonder if anyone sees 100mm as telephoto now...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T01:07:11.443" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3621" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3617" CreationDate="2010-09-29T01:24:57.367" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me preface this by saying that I'm not a lawyer, I don't even play one on stage (though I played the bailiff in Inherit the Wind in University), so any final contract you craft should be vetted through a lawyer to ensure that the rights &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;you want to retain&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; are retained. So, with that, here are some thoughts that I'd have in this area:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the client hasn't asked for exclusive use, I wouldn't just give that to them. I'm not a pro, but my spouse is in the advertising industry and exclusives are usually more expensive because, in effect, you're assigning copyright to them, or may as well be. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but don't do that as a toss in!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, variations to consider are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Exclusive in perpetuity.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Exclusive for a set time period.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Unlimited, but non-exclusive, in perpetuity.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Unlimited, but non-exclusive, for a set time period.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Any of the above, but limited media scope.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a general professional services concept, we're looking at (at least) eight options in a contract for the outcome of the creative work. I would work out those contract formats with a lawyer and then negotiate with the client for the type of contract that they want. Once you agree, present them with the appropriate one to sign. Now, of course, you may also encounter a situation where they offer you a contract and you have decide if the terms are acceptable. To be honest, I think that's a lot easier to deal with, it's going in with eyes wide open, but odds are they end up owning the end result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One final consideration, do your level best to ensure that you can use the work in your portfolio unless, of course, it's not a shoot you want to brag about...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T01:24:57.367" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3622" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3618" CreationDate="2010-09-29T01:44:54.427" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am not certain about Wikipedia's accuracy here, as the statements about the focal length of a lens being longer than the lens itself is unreferenced, and there is no way to verify such statements. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the greek root 'tele-' means &quot;at a distance&quot; or &quot;far away&quot;, the term &quot;telephoto&quot; would logically refer to a lens that makes it possible to photograph objects &quot;at a distance&quot; or &quot;far away&quot;, and have little to do with the relationship between physical length and focal length. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are the standard focal length classifications as I understand them (for 35mm, multiply by crop factor for different formats):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ultra-Wide Angle:&lt;/strong&gt; &amp;lt;24mm&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Wide Angle:&lt;/strong&gt; 24mm - 35mm &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Normal (Standard):&lt;/strong&gt; 35mm - 60mm&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Telephoto:&lt;/strong&gt; 60mm - 200mm&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Super Telephoto:&lt;/strong&gt; &gt;200mm&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-01T00:00:19.970" LastActivityDate="2010-10-01T00:00:19.970" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="3623" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3618" CreationDate="2010-09-29T01:49:42.147" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only construction-agnostic term would be long lens to compliment the other lens classes: wideangle and normal. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The complimentary set to telephotos would be &lt;a href=&quot;http://photography.wikia.com/wiki/Telephoto_Lens&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;long-focus lenses&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Optical designs of telephoto lenses must contain a telephoto group, which allows the lens to be physically shorter than its focal length. A lens with a conventional design and a focal length longer than a normal lens should properly be referred to as long focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephoto_lens&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A telephoto lens works by having the outermost (i.e. light gathering) element of a much shorter focal length than the equivalent long-focus lens ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Long-focus lenses aren't used much anymore, at least in the SLR world, so you can basically just use telephoto to refer to longer focal lengths and not have to worry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-29T05:13:54.753" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T05:13:54.753" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3624" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3612" CreationDate="2010-09-29T02:11:40.570" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As an owner and user of both the 450D and the EF 100-400mm, I can offer some help here. From a construction, durability, and handleability perspective, using the 100-400mm on the 450D will definitely not be a problem. Both the camera and the lens are durably built, and the lens mount can handle a considerable amount of rugged use and rough handling. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The camera does look a little small in relation, but thats just how things are with supertelephoto lengths. The lens (when purchased from a reputable dealer) comes with a tripod mounting ring, and when used in conjunction with a gymbal tripod head is extremely easy to use. Hand-held, the lens is not a huge problem. Weight-wise, it is actually surprisingly light, and you shouldn't have any trouble with it. From 300-400mm, it does get a bit long, but making sure you support the weight of it from below with your left hand on the focus ring is generally enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the focal length difference, it is about a two-fold decrease in angle of view going from a 250mm to a 400mm. That's significant, however it should be clearly noted that when photographing wildlife and birds, the extra &quot;reach&quot; provided by the 400mm is still not enough to allow you to photograph from any considerable distance. When it comes to wildlife, having 400mm of focal length at your disposal will certainly help you get &quot;closer&quot; without having to be too close that it becomes dangerous. When it comes to birds, you are still going to have to creep up slow and indirectly and get pretty darn close to get frame-filling shots. In many cases, you will still have to settle for partial frame shots and cropp during post processing. The 400mm will just make it easier and more likely to get good bird shots over a 250mm lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few other notes. An important factor to keep in mind is that with a 450D body, you have an APS-C sensor. This cropped sensor has an effect on the field of view for any given focal length. This makes the 100-400mm lens effectively 160mm-640mm. This is in contrast with and effective 88-400mm for the 55-250mm kit lens. Having 640mm of effective focal length is certainly nothing to sneeze at, however it is generally more useful on a sensor with more megapixels (such as the 18mp sensor of the 7D.) Second, the optical quality of the 100-400mm is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;far&lt;/em&gt; superior&lt;/strong&gt; to that of the 55-250mm kit lens. Functionally, the 100-400mm might take a little getting used to, as it is a push-pull zoom lens. Rather than turning a second ring to adjust focal length, you push the lens out or pull it in manually. A tension ring allows you to adjust how easily this is, and once you choose a focal length, it is best to tighten this ring down to prevent accidental extension due to a bump or by gravity when the lens is pointed down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Canon EF 100-400mm L series lens is a fantastic lens. I highly recommend it to anyone who needs a versatile supertelephoto zoom lens for wildlife and/or bird work. Combined with a 450D body, you might not be able to get the best photos, given the lenses maximum aperture of 4.5-5.6. Outside of brightly lit, midday sunlight scenes, I've found I have to crank my ISO up to 800 or even 1600. While this does make it possible to get shots in the early morning or around sunset, it does degrade image quality considerably. Noise is a real problem on the 450D body, particularly with green subjects (i.e. trees, grass, etc. when shooting wildlife or birds.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T02:11:40.570" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3625" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3593" CreationDate="2010-09-29T02:29:41.303" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While a prime lens would offer some slightly better corner quality than a zoom lens, you might not want to underestimate the value of a wide angle zoom on such a high resolution camera body. It should also be noted that a lot of the high cost of Canon L-series prime lenses is due to their very high speed and accurate AF. You may find more value in investing your money in a zoom lens with ok AF rather than a prime with superb AF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II lens myself, and it is an amazing lens. Sharpness and clarity are excellent throughout its focal range. There is some softness in the corners at the extremes on a full-frame body, but on a cropped sensor like the 7D, a lot of that is eliminated. The focal range of the EF 16-35mm is effectively 25-56mm on the 7D's sensor, and costs about the same as the 24mm L II prime. Optically, the 24mm is better, however a considerable portion of its cost is due to the very high speed, advanced AF...a feature you mentioned you did not need. From a cost benefit perspective, you would get more out of the 16-35mm. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively, you could look into the EF-S 10-22mm lens. This would give you true ultra-wide angle on an APS-C body, effectively equivalent to 16-35mm. Optically it is inferior to both the 16-35mm L II and the 24mm L II, however it is a lot cheaper than either. It is a slower lens, but for landscape work, that may not matter. The key factor here would be image quality, and sharpness is a bit lacking with this lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With a prime lens, you would be limited, and would have no choice but to crop in post processing to get exactly the framing you want. With a zoom lens, you can frame in the field and maximize the potential of your shots. For the size of prints you use at the resolution you print at, a single shot at 18mp that is properly framed in the field could be used to crop out numerous interesting prints (one of the benefits of having a high megapixel sensor.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T02:29:41.303" />
  <row Id="3626" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3597" CreationDate="2010-09-29T02:52:36.803" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I highly recommend Windows Movie Maker for simple slideshows with transitions and music.  It is very easy to use, and offers a lot for a free product (including a bunch of different transitions).  I prefer the version before they went &quot;Live&quot; as it is a little less &quot;dumbed-down&quot;.  You can also easily take a Movie Maker project and use Windows DVD Maker to create a DVD with menu.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="227" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T02:52:36.803" />
  <row Id="3627" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3617" CreationDate="2010-09-29T03:04:21.140" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To expand a bit on my earlier comments:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;W.r.t. the needing a lawyer to make sure &quot;everything's covered&quot;: basically, if you really need to make sure everything is 100% airtight, you really do need a lawyer. But, if you're happy with the (probably very small) risk of gotchas, you may not need one. Basically it's a risk/reward situation: if you pay for a lawyer, your risk is less.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Now, a great way to get a lawyer is to copy and paste one. :) You can get nearly the full benefit of hiring a lawyer by using a boilerplate form. My recommendation, if you go this route, would be to find a template that's been vetted by a lawyer in your locale and then use it in its entirety, rather than cutting and pasting, because if you use only part, you might cut out something important.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;That said, I'm a fan of straightforward language. Your clients aren't lawyers and the jobs aren't big-dollar (a few thousand at max I'd assume), so you don't need the level of care a big company spending millions of dollars would. IMO (and IANAL, of course), the simpler, more straightforward language in your second version is more appealing to me. The caveat is that I didn't read either terribly closely.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I'd suggest more attention to point 4, on rights retained and what the client may do with the images. It's not entirely clear to me you fully understand what your rights are and what you are choosing to grant the client. Understand these very well first, then decide what options you want to present.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T03:04:21.140" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3628" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3661" CreationDate="2010-09-29T04:01:35.730" Score="3" ViewCount="104" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to be able to click the first picture, &amp;lt;-edit keyword metadata command-&gt;, type keywords, arrow key to next photo... rinse repeat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I can't figure out the keyboard shortcut for 'edit metadata'. Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1505" LastEditorUserId="1505" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-30T06:31:37.757" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T07:59:03.237" Title="Is there a keyboard shortcut in the Windows version of Adobe Lightroom for “Edit Keyword Metadata”?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;windows&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="3629" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3489" CreationDate="2010-09-29T06:01:59.413" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use the Canon EF 100-400mm L series lens myself. The 100-400mm is quite a bit bulkier than the 70-200, and it is a breeze to use. The weight is much less of a problem than you might think once you get used to holding the lens with your left hand. It will take some practice, but it won't take long before you are shooting with your 70-200 like a pro.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to the Canon EF bayonet mount, it is a rock-solid mount that would take a hell of a lot of pressure or torque to damage. Even with a Canon 450D body. The lens itself is a solidly built, L-series, professional lens, and is designed to hold up under heavy, daily, rugged use in the worst conditions imaginable. I wouldn't worry much about damaging the mount or the lens much, outside of outright dropping it on its front lens element on hard pavement or concrete.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for carrying it around your neck...yes, it can be quite awkward. Not so much because of the weight, but because of the bulk. The 100-400mm is a little larger than the 70-200 when fully collapsed, and it just doesn't sit right when hung around your neck. Due to this, I purchased myself a camera backpack that was designed to store a camera with the lens mounted. This allows me to quickly put the camera, with lens attached, away when I'm not using it (i.e. hiking or whatnot), and quickly pull it out when I need it. I purchased the rather cheap &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Deluxe-Backpack-200EG-Cameras/dp/B00009R6TA/ref=sr_1_1?s=gateway&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1285739808&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon Delux Photo Backpack 200EG&lt;/a&gt;, which handily stores the 100-400mm + 450D body, several other lenses, a LEE Filter kit, and numerous other little utilities, but is a little lacking in construction durability. A more popular (and more expensive) alternative is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Lowepro-Fastpack-Camera-Laptop-Backpack/dp/B001H6U7QS/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_2_0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lowepro Fastpack 250 Camera/Laptop Backpack&lt;/a&gt; and similar Lowepro products. The Lowepro is easier to use, as it offers a handy side access port so you can access your camera without taking the backpack off your back. It also supports storing a laptop in a back slip, which can be handy. If you intend to use a telephoto lens, I highly recommend getting some kind of pack that will allow you to store the camera body with lens attached, and offer some kind of quick access so you can pull the camera out if you need to take a quick shot. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just noticed that you can't use a camera backpack. You may be able to find a shoulder sling pack with a single strap. DeviantArt.com makes a camera bag that might serve your needs, but I can't say for sure if it would store a 70-200mm lens. The innards of the bag are all movable sections, and it might take some restructuring to organize it such that it could store your lens. I would check it out: &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.deviantart.com/article/130298/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DA Pro Camera Bag&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-29T06:09:38.680" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T06:09:38.680" />
  <row Id="3630" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3628" CreationDate="2010-09-29T06:15:55.517" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best way to figure out keyboard shortcuts in Lightroom is to hit CTRL+/ in any module. This will bring up the hotkey list for that particular module. It should be noted that each module in Lightroom has a different set of hotkeys, so make sure you learn how to use each module independently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For quick reference, though:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;CTRL+LeftArrow:&lt;/strong&gt; Next Photo&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;CTRL+RightArrow:&lt;/strong&gt; Previous Photo &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Usually, if you are editing &quot;metadata&quot;, you'll stay in the metadata editor. As for keywords, not sure why, but using the next/previous photo hotkeys seems to take you out of it. As far as I know, the only way to solve the problem is to bulk-edit keywords, then individually select each photo and add unique keywords.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T06:15:55.517" />
  <row Id="3631" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3618" CreationDate="2010-09-29T07:47:05.400" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Firstly words, even technical terms, change meaning over time with usage. &quot;Prime&quot; originally meant the primary lens of a multi-lens cine camera. Now it means a lens with fixed focal length (sometime incorrectly called a fixed-focus lens). While we're on the subject, telephoto isn't even nearly the most incorrectly used term (that would almost certainly be HDR), people often confuse &quot;depth of focus&quot; with &quot;depth of field&quot;, use &quot;depth of field&quot; to refer to &quot;bokeh&quot;, use &quot;bokeh&quot; to refer to the degree of defocus in an image, the list goes on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your question, the only non-construction specific term to apply to a lens with a long focal length is simply &quot;long&quot;. The distinction is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; pedantry as it makes a big difference for large format photography, when using camera movements. Since the nodal point of a telephoto lens is in front of the optic rather than roughly in the middle, any lens tilts will require you to shift the lens again in order to restore the composition. Thus telephotos are more difficult to use and usually reserved for when size and weight are critical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T07:47:05.400" />
  <row Id="3632" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-29T08:34:45.330" Score="12" ViewCount="412" Body="&lt;p&gt;It was suggested that I should get myself a polarizer filter to get over my reflection problem.&#xA;(&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3602/how-to-avoid-reflection-when-taking-a-picture-of-a-ceramic-object-with-a-shiny-gl&quot;&gt;How to avoid reflection when taking a picture of a ceramic object with a shiny glaze?&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found out that a Nikon 52mm Circular Polarizing Filter CPL &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.buzzillions.com/reviews/nikon-52mm-circular-polarizing-filter-cpl-reviews&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;cost about 75 usd&lt;/a&gt; &#xA;while I can get another filter for less than half the price — &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.microglobe.co.uk/catalog/product_info.php?pName=sigma-52mm-dg-ex-circular-polarizer-filter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;about 33 usd&lt;/a&gt;. (Please note that I know nothing about these filters and googled them just for the example.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the difference between polarizer filters?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I need to remove the glare and nothing else — would either of the two do the magic for me? What filter do you recommend for me?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1503" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T02:47:51.790" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T15:47:00.893" Title="How do I choose a polarizer?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;filters&gt;&lt;polarizer&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3633" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-09-29T09:15:28.883" Score="5" ViewCount="71" Body="&lt;p&gt;A while ago I had the need to add cutom fields to my exif &#xA;(some programming staff)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found out that most of the fields are locked and that I cannot add new fields&#xA;Do you know a software that can&#xA;1. Cancel the lock of exif fields edit&#xA;2. Enable fields adding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1503" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T09:49:57.390" Title="Is there a software that make it possible to edit all exif values and add new paramerers?" Tags="&lt;exif&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3634" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3633" CreationDate="2010-09-29T09:49:57.390" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It looks like there is a library which can change + add exif meta data: &lt;a href=&quot;http://sourceforge.net/projects/openexif/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://sourceforge.net/projects/openexif/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I'm wondering what your source was that said the fields are locked?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also a very good tool called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ExifTool&lt;/a&gt; which allows very extensive changing of the meta information.&#xA;There is however a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/writing.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;warning about changing meta data&lt;/a&gt;, you have to know what you're doing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="245" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T09:49:57.390" />
  <row Id="3635" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3644" CreationDate="2010-09-29T09:53:31.497" Score="19" ViewCount="519" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to be colour-blind (or color-blind, in the US) and still be a good photographer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any steps one can take to mitigate the effects of colour-blindness? Can you point me to any great photographers who are colour-blind?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The obvious answer which comes to mind is to shoot black and white, but is that really a sensible answer?  Does colour-blindness affect one's perception of greyscales?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-10T02:35:57.573" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T02:35:57.573" Title="Is it possible to be colour-blind and still be a good photographer?" Tags="&lt;color&gt;&lt;human-vision-system&gt;&lt;disability&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3636" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3643" CreationDate="2010-09-29T09:56:11.273" Score="7" ViewCount="1123" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a D-SLR (including the new Nikon and Canon 60D) that can take video with continuous autofocus? On cameras that don't support that feature, is it possible to autofocus by pressing a button while shooting a video?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking into a getting a new DSLR and the video feature is quite important to  me. Wondering if the existing cameras are worth the investment or if I should wait a bit more...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="253" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-29T17:23:31.593" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T19:21:30.137" Title="D-SLR with continuous autofocus on video recording" Tags="&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;continuous-autofocus&gt;" AnswerCount="5" />
  <row Id="3637" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3632" CreationDate="2010-09-29T10:31:03.103" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the specific case for shooting that ceramic, yes perhaps a better lighting setup would be a better solution.  Generally, of course, that isn't always possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I was choosing a polariser, I was unsure what to go for myself, and it took me buying a cheap one to realise you do need to pay the extra to get one that works well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I steered away from camera manufacturer own filters as I felt these had unjustified high prices as with most official accessories.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found the Hoya Pro 1D CPLs came highly recommended, but at a high price.  I hunted more and discovered Nicna have a Pro 1D series, which people were saying were as good as/very similar to the Hoya but without the high price which comes with the Hoya brand.  I picked up one of the Nicna Pro 1D CPL filters off eBay and I am really pleased with the results - it's my filter range of choice now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that in the specific case above I wouldn't expect a CPL to knock the entirety of the glare out - but it would do a pretty good job.  How effective the polariser is depends on a lot of conditions, such as the angle of the light source relative to the direction of your camera, the surface which the light is reflecting off, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Chris&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1508" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T10:31:03.103" />
  <row Id="3638" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3636" CreationDate="2010-09-29T10:42:12.943" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond7000/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon D7000&lt;/a&gt; supports autofocus in movie mode, beyond that most that I'm aware of are manual focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T10:42:12.943" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3639" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3632" CreationDate="2010-09-29T10:53:37.280" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's polarizers' test: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lenstip.com/115.4-article-Polarizing_filters_test_Results_and_summary.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lenstip.com/115.4-article-Polarizing_filters_test_Results_and_summary.html&lt;/a&gt;. Even if you don't choose anything among these filters, it still gives good idea what to value.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T10:53:37.280" />
  <row Id="3640" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3635" CreationDate="2010-09-29T11:12:25.853" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The photographer &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.zonezero.com/exposiciones/fotografos/bavcar/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Evgen Bavcar&lt;/a&gt; is not colour-blind: He is blind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1296" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T11:12:25.853" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3642" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3636" CreationDate="2010-09-29T12:06:29.583" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon EOS 5D Mark II allows you to autofocus when shooting video, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVg2NaYImOA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the results are quite ugly&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-29T12:17:34.880" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T12:17:34.880" />
  <row Id="3643" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3636" CreationDate="2010-09-29T12:13:29.097" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/technology/personaltech/23pogue.html?scp=1&amp;amp;sq=sony%20camera&amp;amp;st=cse&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sony Alpha A55&lt;/a&gt; is a new ILC (SLD, actually) camera that can do this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="677" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-29T19:19:44.727" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T19:19:44.727" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3644" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3635" CreationDate="2010-09-29T12:17:43.253" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm color blind. Specifically my eyes are less sensetive to red light than other colors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't really say that I suffer from it. It makes it harder to pick lingonberries, and I have problem reading tiny red text on a black background, but that's about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I might perhaps photograph red objects differently, as I don't experience them as brightly as most do. Post processing images and adjusting white balance is not a problem, though. I am used to how red things look like, so when I adjust the image so that they look right, it will look right to others too even if they actually experience the image differently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Yes, I know that my avatar image is orange. I don't think that it's a nice grayscale... :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T12:17:43.253" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3645" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3635" CreationDate="2010-09-29T13:10:08.840" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;different types of color blindness&lt;/a&gt;. Which one are you? In my case I have serious issues discriminating small differences in hues in the red, orange, yellow, green region of the spectrum (deuteranomaly, I read). This happens to me pretty often; invited for dinner last weekend, I identified the hostess's new wall color as orange, not yellow. Choosing socks is fun too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Am I a &lt;a href=&quot;http://barre.me/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;good&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/altuwa/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photographer&lt;/a&gt;? It's not me to say, but to cope with it I do rely on software tools and basic color knowledge. For example, I can't identify a color-cast as good as you guys can, but I experiment with what Lightroom or Photoshop will suggest to fix my White Balance. If the resulting temperature (in Kelvin) is way too low or too high, I know it's probably already too cold/blue (respectively hot/orange) for my regular viewers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do like to punch the contrast / vibrancy of my photos, most likely because it helps me see more saturated colors, but I try to keep that in mind so that it's not too &quot;cranked&quot; for non color-blind. As a rule of thumb, whenever I move a slider that affects colors in post-process, by the time the change is noticeable to me I know I need to backtrack a bit so that it's not overdone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't hurt to know about color spaces, about the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSL_and_HSV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hue wheel in HSL&lt;/a&gt; more specifically, what neighboring colors are, etc. When in doubt, try to use a color picker in Photoshop/LR and compare to hard numbers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, I use calibrated high-gamut color displays for both my desktop and laptop to avoid compounding the problems. They can both represent about 100% of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobergb&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;AdobeRGB&lt;/a&gt; color space. Considering I have problem with changes in hues, I figured that I would at least not blame it on my monitors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-29T13:20:53.690" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T13:20:53.690" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3646" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3636" CreationDate="2010-09-29T13:25:52.093" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The new Nikon DSLRs (D3100 and D7000) support that feature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for non-DSLRs, the new Sony SLTs (A33 and A55) and the micro-4/3 models (Panasonic GH1 and newly announced GH2).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1509" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-29T19:21:30.137" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T19:21:30.137" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3647" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3648" CreationDate="2010-09-29T14:16:40.123" Score="11" ViewCount="353" Body="&lt;p&gt;The reason I'm asking this is that I don't have a circular polarizer yet and I'm planning to buy one. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know I'll be too lazy to unscrew the UV filter to put on the polarizer. I'm wondering whether I can just screw on the polarizer on top of the UV filter everytime I need it. Has anyone tried to do this? Are there any downsides? Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE&#xA;Pictures taken with polarizer stacked on to on UV filter:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/boq87.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/oMxwS.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="979" LastEditorUserId="979" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-06T17:20:12.823" LastActivityDate="2010-10-11T01:55:12.750" Title="What are the consequences of stacking a circular polarizer on top of a UV filter?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;polarizer&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3648" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3647" CreationDate="2010-09-29T14:35:11.747" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You might find that the corners of your image get shaded by stacking two filters, as light from a wide angle that would make it to your sensor normally are blocked by the filter ring of the second filter. This is called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vignetting&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;mechanical vignetting&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that if you are using a lens designed for a full frame camera on a cropped sensor body then it is unlikely to be an issue unless you are using a pretty wide angle lens. Also if you are using a zoom lens and are zoomed in this is very unlikely to affect you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other than that you might want to try some test shots with both filters attached and see how the corners of the image cope with the extra filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An additional issue is that some light will be lost with every filter. UV filters don't block much light, but they do a little. The polarizing filter will block some more. So in situations where it's borderline whether you can shoot handheld, removing the UV filter might make the difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="130" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-29T16:35:17.313" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T16:35:17.313" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3649" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3647" CreationDate="2010-09-29T14:39:52.757" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The downsides are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Vignetting with wide angles&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flare, because every filter adds 2 more glass-air surfaces and the coatings do not have 100% efficiency, polarizing filters have even more layers&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Loss of contrast (same as above)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Loss of light - every filter (even UV) absorbs some light, polarizers absorb a lot&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, last but not the least, filters get stuck together very easily.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-29T14:56:20.847" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T14:56:20.847" />
  <row Id="3650" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3635" CreationDate="2010-09-29T15:01:42.837" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's so much more to photography than just color, and even if one eliminates color (e.g., b/w or tone processing), there are many photographers doing spectacular work in those realms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you'd be likely to see is a shift in emphasis, such as more concentration on composition, or depth of field, or macro imaging.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this does not force you to a monochrome world!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A friend of mine who is severely color blind produces works of art that have very interesting color choices and saturation levels.  The effect is actually quite pleasing and gives him a unique visual signature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm inclined to believe that one's perception of tone levels isn't altered.  Color-blindness is the inability to distinguish colors, not absence of them. And even so there may be degrees of perception, simply dulling the richness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the extreme, though, a relative who's completely red/green color-blind says he can't tell whether a traffic light is red or green from a distance, so he can see something's there -- to compensate he has to get closer to see &lt;em&gt;which&lt;/em&gt; bulb is lit as well as taking cues from traffic patterns.  But again, that reinforces that attention is refocused to other aspects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's some cool tools: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.colblindor.com/coblis-color-blindness-simulator/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Coblis - Color Blindness Simulator&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vischeck.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;VisCheck&lt;/a&gt; - shows and corrects for color blindness, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.huetility.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Color Blind Simulator on the iPhone&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1416" LastEditorUserId="1416" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-29T15:06:47.947" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T15:06:47.947" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3651" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3628" CreationDate="2010-09-29T16:23:35.743" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If by &quot;Edit Metadata&quot; you mean adding keywords, the shortcut key is Ctrl+K on Windows or Command+K on a Mac.  That'll put the cursor into the keywords box, at that point you can type away...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T16:23:35.743" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="3652" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3656" CreationDate="2010-09-29T20:04:58.237" Score="10" ViewCount="252" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am toning a senior portrait right now and am wondering what the best skin smoothing technique is. Think glamor. I know how to take care of blemishes, but I'm looking to enhance that silky skin look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any thoughts?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T22:40:56.890" Title="What is the best techinque to smooth skin?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;technique&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="3653" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3635" CreationDate="2010-09-29T20:05:36.297" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Color deficiency doesn't necessarily cause a problem -- obviously enough, especially when/if you produce monochrome output. Even for producing color output, it isn't necessarily a problem (in fact, some degree of color insensitivity is so common that it's less a question of &lt;em&gt;whether&lt;/em&gt; you have some shortcomings, than of just how much and in what parts of the spectrum). Those who wish to test themselves might want to try X-Rite's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?PageID=77&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;online test&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a few different causes of full-blown color blindness, most of which also cause problems with vision in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;True albinos don't have pigment in their eyes any more than they do anywhere else. This leads to complete color blindness, but in all honesty, that's close to the least of their vision problems. Substantial vision problems are almost a given, and most are considered legally blind, though they typically do have &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; vision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also people who are color blind because their eyes have only rod, not cone, receptors. Rods are more sensitive to low levels of light, but see only in monochrome. Cones, however, are what most of us use most of the time. The reason cones are less sensitive to low light levels is because they're smaller -- which also means they provide much higher visual acuity. Therefore, people who have only rods have substantially lower visual acuity (i.e., ability to see fine detail is greatly reduced). At one time, nearly all inhabitants of one particular island (see &lt;em&gt;Island of the Colorblind&lt;/em&gt; by Oliver Sacks, if you want details) had this type of color blindness. Other than that, it's quite rare. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T20:05:36.297" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3654" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3652" CreationDate="2010-09-29T20:12:02.330" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I may have just answered my own question, though I'm open to more suggestions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnkPq_RgGHg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnkPq_RgGHg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nice and quick, looks decent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T20:12:02.330" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3655" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3652" CreationDate="2010-09-29T20:18:49.030" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For a more automated way, you may want to look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.topazlabs.com/detail/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Topaz Detail&lt;/a&gt; assuming you use Photoshop. I use it, it's got some nice presets, but also has lots of fine tuning options. They have a free trial for giving it a go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-09-29T20:18:49.030" />
  <row Id="3656" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3652" CreationDate="2010-09-29T20:29:21.733" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whatever method you chose, try and blend as much of the original skin in as possible! I usually try and clean up the original first, by removing as many blemishes as possible with the spot removal tool or similar, and lighting any shadows by dodging and burning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then I mask the important areas like the nose, eyes, mouth so they are not affected, and using a duplicate of the original face layer apply a combination of median (to remove the worst imperfections while retaining detail) and gaussian blur (to finish off and hide the subtle edges that median leaves) giving a perfectly smooth result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then I add a small amount of monochromatic noise to replicate skin pores and then, importantly, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;set the opacity of the perfectly smooth layer to no higher than 50%&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. This ensures that the image does not take on a scary plastic look and retains most of the original character, moles etc. &lt;em&gt;but at a reduced level&lt;/em&gt;,  in order to get a polished but still very &lt;strong&gt;human&lt;/strong&gt; look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;edit&lt;/strong&gt; here some examples I've managed to dig out, these are crops of larger images. The first panel is the original, the second is the smoothed layer and the final image is the original plus smoothed layer at 40-45% opacity, I've also included a screenshot showing the mask for the first portrait:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/face_pp/face_pp2.jpg&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/face_pp/face_pp_layers.png&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/face_pp/face_pp1.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-30T22:40:56.890" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T22:40:56.890" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3657" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3663" CreationDate="2010-09-29T23:20:44.497" Score="9" ViewCount="273" Body="&lt;p&gt;For those of you who &lt;strong&gt;have or have had&lt;/strong&gt; a &lt;a href=&quot;http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_5d_mark_ii&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;5D Mark II&lt;/a&gt;. What do you &lt;strong&gt;don't&lt;/strong&gt; like about it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_5d_mark_ii&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;5D Mark II&lt;/a&gt; &lt;strong&gt;and&lt;/strong&gt; another full-frame model, in what kind of situations you prefer one over the other?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1457" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T13:20:51.193" Title="What are the cons of a 5D Mark II? How does it compare to other FF bodies from Canon?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;full-frame&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3658" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3657" CreationDate="2010-09-30T00:06:54.273" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've had a 5DMII for almost 2 years now, and I would be hard pressed to find something I don't like about it. Sure, after using the 7D I wish the burst rate and the focus engine were a bit better, but these (and more) will be in the 5DMIII of course. Given good lenses, I've never been disappointed by the camera. If you do intend to process videos though, it will require a really powerful computer. Of course, one thing a lot of people might not &quot;like&quot; about it, is that it's a lot of money :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-30T00:17:49.147" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T00:17:49.147" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="3659" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3652" CreationDate="2010-09-30T01:26:58.313" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;An alternative to post-processing, you could look into either a soft focus lens, which are portrait lenses designed to produce smoother, softer shots when photographing people. If you don't wish to invest in another lens, there are also soft-focus filters from Lee, Cokin, and the like. They are a variety of mesh and net filters, or sometimes special glass and polyester, often with a small port where the key facial features (nose, mouth) can be centered without a lot of softening. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.leefilters.com/camera/products/range/ref%3aI47627BB2652D5/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;See Lee Soft Focus Filters here.&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From my own perspective, doctoring skin post-process always seems to produce skin that is too surrealistic or just plain fake. The effects of a soft-focus lens or filter is quite often more pleasing and natural. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T01:26:58.313" />
  <row Id="3660" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3506" CreationDate="2010-09-30T02:06:24.373" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My advice would be to rent a 50/1.2L for a weekend, and try it out before you buy one. My guess is that'll be enough to help you realize how foolish it would be to buy one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just to give you fair warning of what to expect: I don't know a nice way to say this, so I'll put it bluntly: the &lt;em&gt;real&lt;/em&gt; cost of the 50/1.2L isn't the money you pay for it. The real cost is to the pictures you take with it. Don't get me wrong: its speed is really impressive -- but in nearly every other respect, the nicest description you can give of it is &quot;mediocre&quot;. By the standards you'd normally apply to most &quot;normal&quot; lenses, it's really a pretty lousy lens -- while it's &lt;em&gt;reasonably&lt;/em&gt; sharp at the center, as soon as you get toward the edges of the picture at all, it basically turns to mush. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 50/1.8 II (for example) is not only a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; less expensive, but it's also a lot smaller, lighter, and (most importantly) optically it's &lt;em&gt;drastically&lt;/em&gt; superior in most respects. It's quite a bit sharper and has a lot less CA (to the point that with the 1.2, you nearly always &lt;em&gt;need&lt;/em&gt; to correct the CA, but with the 1.8, it's almost entirely optional and doesn't make much difference when you do bother). In short, where the 1.2L is optically pretty poor in nearly all respects, the 1.8 is really good is nearly all respects (its only real shortcoming is fairly noticeable vignetting, at least on full-frame -- in that respect, the two are pretty similar).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't personally used the 50/1.4 much, but from what I've seen, it's a lot closer to the 1.8 in terms of optical quality -- i.e., you don't seem to be giving up much (if any) picture quality to get the faster lens in this case. As such, if you want a 50mm lens, and are willing to pay to get one that's faster than 1.8, this is almost certainly the one you want. Just keep in mind that while it's nowhere close to the size, weight, or cost of the 1.2L, it's still quite a bit bigger, heavier, and more expensive than the 1.8...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T02:06:24.373" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3661" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3628" CreationDate="2010-09-30T06:29:48.330" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Thanks for the answers guys.  You set me down the right path.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Here's how to get exactly what I was asking for done.  This is in Light Room 3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Select a photo.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;CTRL+K to enter the keyword editor.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Type keywords (separated by commas).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;CTRL+RightArrow to move to next photo.  &lt;strong&gt;The keyword editor stays activated.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Type keywords.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Repeat steps 4 &amp;amp; 5 until complete.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The area of the keyword editor, highlighted in red, is the area that should stay active.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/6qbUJ.png&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Bonus tip:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;CTRL+A to select all photos.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;CTRL+S to save all keyword changes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1505" LastEditorUserId="1505" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-04T04:58:45.640" LastActivityDate="2010-10-04T04:58:45.640" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3662" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3657" CreationDate="2010-09-30T07:10:08.993" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't qualify to answer it really, as I can only give the perspective of 5D Mark I owner about why I haven't yet switched to Mark II. My knowledge about Mark II is based on Internet and the annoyances I mention about Mark I come from actual usage. The reasoning:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Same and not very good autofocus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Same amount and layout of autofocus points (yes, you can recompose, but what's the point in having multiple points then; also very problematic for tripod/macro work)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is no easy way to switch between histogram and photo-fills-the-LCD mode (semi-transparent histogram overlay on full frame would be even better)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Amazingly slow playback time (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5dmarkii/page14.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1,4 seconds&lt;/a&gt; from releasing shutter to the photo appearing on LCD), same with both 5Ds&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some complain about the lack of internal flash, same with both 5Ds&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Same power/exp. compensation switch that will easily change it's position when rubbed against clothes&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;More pixels are usually considered better, but I would happily trade it to even better high ISOs (more personal issue is the need to upgrade my computer along with doubling pixel count)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It might sound like I think both 5Ds were a bad cameras - actually it's the contrary. It's just the question was about downsides so I won't list the upsides (although there are many).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-30T11:50:44.820" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T11:50:44.820" CommentCount="11" />
  <row Id="3663" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3657" CreationDate="2010-09-30T08:11:00.733" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's what I would consider the main cons of the 5DmkII, compiled from my research of the camera when it was released and experience of the mkI:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A lot of people have complained about the colours, specifically rendering of caucasian skintones, so images require more post-processing (just search for 5DmkII skintones on google!)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Outside AF points are simply inaccurate even in good light. AF performance is not up to 1D/7D series in general (though you wouldn't really expect it to be).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Slow shooting speed/mirror movement. Looking through the mkI viewfinder when taking a photo, the mirror moves so slowly it looks like the world is sliding sideways for a moment!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said this they are great cameras. If you're not interested in the movie mode you can pick up a good condition mkI for very cheap compared to the mkII. The only thing you really miss will be the 22mp for shooting landscapes etc. but if you shoot mostly low light / portraits you wont miss it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There aren't that many other full frame bodies from Canon, only the 1Ds(mk I, II, III). They don't really compare for an number of reasons, but to answer your question I have a 5DmkI and 1DsmkII. The 5D is usually a backup body but there are a couple of reasons I've used it instead of the 1Ds:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It's much smaller and lighter without the battery grip attached. When I'm travelling shooting for fun this matters.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You can stop the [external] flash from firing and still use the AF assist lamp (believe it or not you can't do this with the 1Ds as I found out when I couldn't use flash but needed AF assist)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It has a much bigger screen so I've preferred it occasionally when doing complicated lighting setups. Even though the 5DmkII screen is the same size as the 1DsmkIII screen, the 5D one has many more pixels.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;edit: it's also worth noting that the 5D is far more descrete, looking no different to any other DSLR, wheras the 1D is going to get attention wherever it goes and this can be good or bad.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-30T12:03:05.373" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T12:03:05.373" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3664" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3657" CreationDate="2010-09-30T08:16:41.130" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I fit in the category of owning a 5D2, and having used a 1Ds3 - so I have some experience with both the full frame offerings from Canon. I chose the 5D2 over the 1Ds for a number of reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The 1Ds is a lot heavier, which doesn't suit the photography I do - I'd imagine that would be less of an issue if you were using it for work in a studio.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The 1Ds is about twice the price&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The 5D is the only Canon full frame body to offer video support (at time of writing)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As it happens, the person I borrowed the 1Ds off of does a lot of safari photography, and found that the autofocus wasn't fast enough for him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I remember the editor of one of the photography magazines once saying to me that he'd rather use his 5D (back in 2006) when out and about than use a 1D, as he also found it more comfortable on the neck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-30T11:38:00.120" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T11:38:00.120" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3665" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3678" CreationDate="2010-09-30T08:53:22.957" Score="15" ViewCount="370" Body="&lt;p&gt;You scout the location, bring your tripod with you, wait for the right light, become victim of weather in the meanwhile, take an insane amount of photos, work hours on getting the stitch right, and only then you decide you are satisfied with those 20 million pixels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd also like to get those pixels out, on the paper and on a wall, where they belong. Where can I print such a thing (online)? Quality is a must. Bonus points if the answer is Europe-friendly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I volountarily left out many details to have more general answer, but on a second thought they might turn out useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sizes: at least 1 meter on the longest side&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Ratios: let's say from 2:1 to 5:1, but I can tolerate to resize and have some border to cut out.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Materials/finish: anything worth hanging in your house.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="449" LastEditorUserId="449" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-30T16:35:09.000" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T08:01:31.193" Title="Where can I print a panorama?" Tags="&lt;panorama&gt;&lt;printing&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="8" />
  <row Id="3666" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3665" CreationDate="2010-09-30T09:26:21.020" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Firstly I live in the UK so this is should all be euro-friendly! I've had photos printed at photobox 12&quot;x5&quot;, and 20&quot;x8&quot;, on standard photographic paper. The quality absolutely good enough to frame. Going any larger and framing becomes a problem, you end up having to get frames made which is expensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've had a few panos printed on canvass when that first became available. I can't remember who I used but it's the sort of thing everyone offers now. Recently I've been looking into acrylic prints to solve the framing problem for images that don't really suit canvass. They can look tacky if the wrong image is used and you're looking at £150 for 110x47cm (43&quot;x18.5&quot;) but they can be made to look very good and fit in well with minimalist decor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've never used them but PosterXXL offer some very large prints in a variety of pano formats, eg. 300x100cm&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.posterxxl.co.uk/products/posters/your-photo-as-a-giant-poster.html#t=format&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.posterxxl.co.uk/products/posters/your-photo-as-a-giant-poster.html#t=format&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A quick google for panorama specialists yields &lt;a href=&quot;http://panoprint.co.uk/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://panoprint.co.uk/&lt;/a&gt; despite minimal details on the website (literally they print panoramas, and that's about it) it might be worth contacting them if your images are extra wide. I wouldn't be put off by the lack of a flashy website, I've dealt with many small companies who aren't that web savvy (and can't handle huge ammounts of business) but are master craftsmen!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;But do please think about framing and mounting before you print, as it can end up being 50% or more of the cost!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having many panoramas myself I'll be watching this thread with interest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T09:26:21.020" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3667" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3636" CreationDate="2010-09-30T11:12:06.567" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently purchased a 7D (with the intent of using its movie capability as well).  I will share my experience. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like the 5DMkII, the 7D allows you to autofocus during shooting by pressing the shutter button/AF button.  As che suggests in his answer for the 5D, the results are poor if you do this during your live shoot and I would definitely not recommend it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My focusing workflow: before I start recording, I use autofocus to focus on the target area, and then whilst filming I use manual ring focus.  I found that using the ring focus in this way was much easier than I thought and it also gives far more control over what you can do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My old video camera was a far cheaper auto focusing one.  Often I wanted to be able to have full control over the focus, either because it would do it wrong or I wanted to do something more creative.  Now I can, and I am not sure I have much desire for full time auto focus for most of the stuff I am shooting...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1508" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T11:12:06.567" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3668" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3680" CreationDate="2010-09-30T11:57:56.100" Score="7" ViewCount="570" Body="&lt;p&gt;Everybody who is using Lightroom probably has seen this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have imported RAW files. Lightroom shows a preview, but contrast and color of the preview change after a few short seconds to a slightly different view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For some users the change is small, for others the change is huge: colors are different (read: wrong), contrast is off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rumor says this is happening only (more?) for Nikon users.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is Lightroom doing here? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd guess as first preview LR is showing the JPG preview file, which is embedded in the RAW file, then LR renders the RAW file itself and is showing it's own interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But why is this interpretation so different to the embedded JPG?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-11-14T16:32:05.620" Title="Lightroom preview changes after loading" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;preview&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3669" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3597" CreationDate="2010-09-30T12:35:12.703" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've seen nice things done with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.soundslides.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Soundslides&lt;/a&gt;. Here are some examples: &lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.soundslides.com/viewforum.php?id=12&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://forums.soundslides.com/viewforum.php?id=12&lt;/a&gt;. Flash output.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T12:35:12.703" />
  <row Id="3670" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3657" CreationDate="2010-09-30T13:20:51.193" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have 5D Mk II since last February.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVg2NaYImOA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Effectively no AF&lt;/a&gt; when shooting video&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AF point coverage matches APS-C sensors, so they are kind of clustered in the middle.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shooting mode dial changes position too easily and I sometimes switch it involuntarily.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Chroma noise when I pull contrast and inspect individual pixels (although this isn't really a problem and I haven't been able to produce straight-from-camera JPEG where I could convincingly show this)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;My sample of 5D2 has thrown Err 20 (unable to shoot) error under certain circumstances in the month I bought it. I could get the camera to work again by turning it off and on again or removing the battery for a while. I brought it in for repair and they got it back saying they couldn't reproduce it. The error didn't show up for more than a year. When it came back this summer even removing battery didn't work, so the service center was able to diagnose and repair it. The good side of this experience is that I know I have to bring backup equipment for important shoots.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Overall, I'm quite happy with my 5D Mark II.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T13:20:51.193" />
  <row Id="3671" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2274" CreationDate="2010-09-30T13:33:56.267" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The sigma 30mm F1.4 is an excellent normal lens for the T2i - not perfect, but close. There's some chromatic aberration. But for a solid carry-around for the canon 1.6x factor, I haven't found a better normal prime at reasonable prices. See here for some examples with the T2i:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=sigma+30mm&amp;amp;w=56656528%40N00&amp;amp;ss=2&amp;amp;ct=0&amp;amp;mt=all&amp;amp;adv=1&amp;amp;s=int&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=sigma+30mm&amp;amp;w=56656528%40N00&amp;amp;ss=2&amp;amp;ct=0&amp;amp;mt=all&amp;amp;adv=1&amp;amp;s=int&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1515" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T13:33:56.267" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3672" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3665" CreationDate="2010-09-30T13:49:47.940" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've used Costco to print 12&quot;x36&quot; prints. The only charge $5 for these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That doesn't help you in Europe though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another vendor that someone once referred me to (though I haven't used them) is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bigphotohelp.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bigphotohelp.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="98" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T13:49:47.940" />
  <row Id="3673" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3665" CreationDate="2010-09-30T14:36:30.773" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://fotoflot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fotoflot&lt;/a&gt; will do up to 5&quot; x 30&quot; prints on their &quot;floating&quot; frame system. I used them once and was happy with the results. They are US based, but say they will ship internationally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="677" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T14:36:30.773" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3674" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3665" CreationDate="2010-09-30T14:42:38.053" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ezprints.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ezprints.com&lt;/a&gt;, where you can pay per inch and the prices are dirt cheap.  You basically send them your photo and they print it.  I've gotten good results out of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want a more hands-on, professional experience, where you can download the color profile for the printers they use, and receive proofs in the mail of a portion of your print before the full size for approval, etc, then you can pay a lot more money and use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.westcoastimaging.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.westcoastimaging.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Standard frame sizes are never panorama-friendly, so I recommend using &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.framesbymail.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.framesbymail.com&lt;/a&gt;, where again you can pay by the inch for any sized frame, replete with glass and matting options.  This is significantly cheaper (by hundreds of dollars) compared to going to your local art shop and having a proper custom frame built for your work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="309" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T14:42:38.053" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3675" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12312" CreationDate="2010-09-30T15:19:57.380" Score="15" ViewCount="480" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do quite a lot of photowalks and I'd like to geo-tag my RAW (CR2) files from my Canon 500D. I'm currently considering the following options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Use my iPhone 3GS with an application like Geotag that produces GPX files. My concern here is my battery life on a long walk though.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Buy a standalone outdoor GPS like the &lt;a href=&quot;https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=145&amp;amp;pID=30925&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Garmin Dakota 10&lt;/a&gt; which can save GPX files natively.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Buy a GPS enabled fitness watch like the &lt;a href=&quot;https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=142&amp;amp;pID=63511&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Garmin Forerunner 110&lt;/a&gt; which offers similar functionality to a standalone GPS except it can be conveniently worn on your wrist as a day to day watch and used whenever you need to record a second by second GPS log. The Garmin Connect site will produce a suitable GPX file for geo-tagging purposes.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any comments, suggestions, guidance or recommendations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="271" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-09-30T17:33:32.530" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T17:37:15.627" Title="What GPS would you recommend for geo-tagging?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;gps&gt;&lt;tagging&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="3676" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3675" CreationDate="2010-09-30T15:44:47.687" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I sometimes use the GPS in my iPhone 3GS when I run.  Battery life can be an issue, wife the GPS, and the iPod going, I can go through the battery in 2.5-3 hours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd feel like the Stand-Alone GPS would be yet another gizmo to carry around, put batteries in, etc.  Plus I'd check to see if it works in your bag,  the iPhone 3gs, does not seem to work as well when I slip it in a pocket or in a waist pack, I guess that some of the signal is blocked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it were me,  I'd take a look at the watch style.  You'll get decent battery life, not have to carry another device (I assume you wear a watch when you take the walks).  And, for me, it would motivate me to exercise more&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="105" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T15:44:47.687" />
  <row Id="3677" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3668" CreationDate="2010-09-30T16:00:21.907" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This often depends on how you originally import. Most RAW files include a JPEG preview image embedded in them. You have a variety of thumbnail options when importing, including 'Embedded &amp;amp; Sidecar'. The JPEG preview will often look different than the unprocessed RAW file, and when using 'Embedded' thumbnail processing, the embedded JPEG thumbnail will be used as the initial thumbnail image. When you select an image, a &lt;em&gt;true&lt;/em&gt; preview is regenerated from the RAW data, and that will usually look different as it is unprocessed data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also the 'Standard' thumbnail generation option (as well as 'Full'), which will basically use the embedded or sidecar thumbnail first, then as part of the import process, automatically generate new thumbnails based on the RAW data. You will see your thumbnails change as the import process progresses, as thumbnail generation is slightly lazy compared to the initial import.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference should be expected in most cases. Camera JPEG generation usually applies some processing based on a selected tone curve, and obviously does some compression. Between the processing and the lossy compression, the appearance of JPEG thumbnails will generally look different than unprocessed RAW images. Nikon cameras may be &quot;more affected&quot; by this simply because of the kind of processing and tone curves they apply to their JPEG thumbnails. Technically speaking, a JPEG is not an accurate representation of what your camera actually captured....where as RAW would be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T16:00:21.907" />
  <row Id="3678" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3665" CreationDate="2010-09-30T16:02:55.367" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me advocate for offline printing for a second :) I used to print online, but I rely on a local print shop nowadays. I'm not talking CVS or Walmart (in the US), but small, quality print shops run by photographers. Not only is it good for the local economy, but you won't beat that kind of interaction. Print professionals are passionate about what they do, and will often give you good advices or guide through the process of large prints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that in mind, I would suggest you look around in your town, or a nearby town, and see what it has to offer. A local store doesn't mean you have to always drive there actually, they may have a web site for you to upload your photos. Check what kind of printer they use. I recently had this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/altuwa/3448699379/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;9K x 3K panorama&lt;/a&gt; printed at 36&quot; x 12&quot; on a ZBE Chromira digital LED printer, and you can go larger/better on a Giclée printer. You will pay a price for that, but this will be quality work (not $5).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T16:02:55.367" />
  <row Id="3679" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3452" CreationDate="2010-09-30T17:01:38.227" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since this was in internal company competition and behind the firewall. I was able to download   &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tinywebgallery.com/en/main.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;TinyWebGallery&lt;/a&gt;.  Which allowed me to create an easy to use gallery which allows people to vote on the images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for everyone's input.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1309" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T17:01:38.227" />
  <row Id="3680" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3668" CreationDate="2010-09-30T20:22:04.477" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're right in your conclusion that Lightroom is initially showing you the embedded jpeg. However, Adobe isn't privy to how the camera manufacturers process their jpegs in-camera, so Lightroom is never going to be able to produce thumbnails/previews/images that match the jpegs SOOC.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd suggest that the main issue is whether you are happy with your ability to use Lightroom to produce images in post-processing that you are happy with.  If you are, then I (along with countless others) don't think it really matters whether Lightroom's interpretation is the same as the jpegs that came out of the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, there is no &quot;right&quot; or &quot;correct&quot; image from your camera, just whether or not you find the results visually pleasing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1124" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T20:22:04.477" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3681" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3682" CreationDate="2010-09-30T20:25:41.597" Score="6" ViewCount="273" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to print a collage for my first photo-a-day project. I have 365 photos to place together, so it's going to need to be at least A1 size (594mm x 841mm). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neither Photoshop CS3 nor Illustrator CS2 will let me make a document this big, what else can I use?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="40" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-01T02:44:16.150" LastActivityDate="2010-10-01T15:58:33.163" Title="What Windows software can I use to make a large photo collage?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3682" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3681" CreationDate="2010-09-30T20:35:52.577" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just how large are you making your document?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An A1 print is 7015 x 9933 pixels at 300 dpi, or 69.1 megapixels, a size that PS cs3 most definitely can handle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're trying to open all 365 photos at once, and each photo is ~10mb, then you're going to most likely have RAM problems if you're on a 32 bit system.  32 bits ~= 4 billion, of which 2 billion is usable, and 10mb * 365 &gt; 2 billion (ie, that would use too much system memory at once).  Maybe just open them one at a time to resize and position them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T20:35:52.577" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3683" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3681" CreationDate="2010-09-30T20:47:08.927" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://picasa.google.com/#utm_campaign=en&amp;amp;utm_source=en-ha-na-us-bk&amp;amp;utm_medium=ha&amp;amp;utm_term=picasa&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Picasa&lt;/a&gt; will do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an experiment, I opened a folder of 423 jpegs (about 6 MB each) and pressed the &quot;Collage&quot; button.  It produced a collage in less than a second. Task Manager indicates it never used more than 129 MB RAM total.  You can choose different formats for sizing and arranging your collage and you can drag and drop the pieces around as you wish.  The size of the print will be limited to whatever your printer will support.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T20:47:08.927" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3684" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3665" CreationDate="2010-09-30T21:34:01.987" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Go to the signage printing industry&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes technology intended for one industry is perfect for another industry and this is a case in point. Find a small business near you that specialises in printing large vinyl signs for the advertising industry. Their rates are usually significantly cheaper than photographic printing and the results are every bit as good. And they have some advantages. The printed surface is waterproof, abrasion resistant and fade resistant in direct sunlight for five years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Normally printing is done using a printer such as the Roland Versacam 540 on self adhesive vinyl rolls, from a company like Oracom, with a peel off backing layer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once printed, the backing layer is peeled off and the print is adhered onto a suitable substrate. I mount my panoramas on white 0.9 mm ABS plastic. This is commonly used in the advertising industry for mounting large display adverts. It is easily cut and mounted. This avoids the formidable costs of framing and mounting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The scary part is trying to adhere a self adhesive 2m long panorama without wrinkles or bubbles. In fact it is amazingly easy once you know the tricks of the trade. Your signage company will be happy to show you. In outline, you peel away the backing and spray on a very dilute water/detergent solution (very dilute!). The adhesive is no longer sticky and you can easily position the print on your mount. Now you squeegee the excess water out until you have a wrinkle and bubble free result. The print is now firmly bonded to the substrate. Oracom make an excellent fabric squeegee and this is what makes all the difference, don't use anything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I printed and mounted many large panoramas in this way (to the dismay of my wife who is reluctantly conceding all the wall space) and can attest to the fact that it is inexpensive, quick and simple to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T21:34:01.987" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3685" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3675" CreationDate="2010-09-30T23:58:50.233" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;JOBO makes a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jobo.com/web/photoGPS.447.0.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;device&lt;/a&gt; called the photoGPS that attaches to your hotshoe and records your location every time you take a picture. Later, you use software to match the photos with the locations. I haven't used it, so I can't comment on how well it works, but it seems like it should be pretty camera brand-independent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2010-09-30T23:58:50.233" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3686" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3675" CreationDate="2010-10-01T02:02:55.653" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Having done a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; of work (4000+waypoints) w/ separate camera + GPS on botanical surveys, after-the-fact correlation between a GPS waypoint and a camera picture is a pain. If you don't really care whether the spot in question is at point X or 100 feet away, it's not too hard. But otherwise, it is very easy to forget which waypoint goes with which picture unless you are very diligent to write down the correlation between picture waypoint + gps waypoint in the field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if you're really looking for serious geotagging, I would find a device that can connect/communicate with the camera directly for geotagging.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea behind the photoGPS (as Evan mentioned) seems nice in practice -- you should be able to correlate the timestamps very easily, even if there's a fixed time error between the camera and the GPS receiver. But it seems like it might need to have the flash turned on to enable it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've also seen memory cards that claim to do geotagging automatically (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.eye.fi/how-it-works/features/geotagging#included&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;see this one&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good reference page for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~rakerman/geocode-photos.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;geocoding photos&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="530" LastActivityDate="2010-10-01T02:02:55.653" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3687" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2274" CreationDate="2010-10-01T02:17:07.617" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another option (I know, like you need another option) -- the secondhand market for Canon lenses is really very strong.  There's a decent chance that you could unload one of those lenses for as much money as they add to your bundle.  This would let you try one for next to nothing.  The 18-55 is supposed to be a decent value for the money, and not bad optically, but I think it feels pretty cheap.  I've heard better things about the 18-135 lens, and it's selling for right around $300 used, so it's close to free to try it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-10-01T02:17:07.617" />
  <row Id="3688" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="493" CreationDate="2010-10-01T10:44:13.557" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I tried a model like this in the store, both horizontally and vertically. I was not satisfied with the quality. The particular model that I tried used seemed to be using the HD video imaging pipeline to do its stuff. Also, when used vertically, it required you to change the orientation of the camera by 90deg. In the end, the small dimension on the pano was always 1080. You can do way better than that with stitching with a hand held p&amp;amp;s that has man exp and focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my advice is try before you buy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1521" LastActivityDate="2010-10-01T10:44:13.557" />
  <row Id="3689" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3675" CreationDate="2010-10-01T11:15:03.830" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I went for option 2 some time ago and bought a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gisteq.com/PhotoTrackr/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gisteq PhotoTracker&lt;/a&gt; Lite. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The upside is the batterylife, you can go on long walks and only have to recharge the battery occasionally. I also like the fact you can choose if you want to log based on time interval or distance interval.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The downside is that file+GPS matching is time based and you need their software to sync the photo's (Raw or jpg) with the GPS data. Usually though it does it's job quite nice. I only had to manually fix some points when the signal was weak or lost (between buildings etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you go for a Gisteq product choose the PhotoTracker Mini instead of the Lite version. The hinge of the battery compartment is fragile and broke off on my Lite. I believe the Mini has a better design.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastActivityDate="2010-10-01T11:15:03.830" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3690" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="493" CreationDate="2010-10-01T11:18:16.053" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the format limitation you mention (can't do 2x2, 4x2 etc.) you also can't choose the panorama projection. The sweep panorama will use a cylindrical projection, which is usually the best choice, however it does bend straight lines. Up to a certain width of panorama, the rectilinear projection is usually better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-projections.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-projections.htm&lt;/a&gt; (scroll down to look at the pictures!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also I would question how well it is able to cope with large changes in brightness as you pan. If shooting manually you can vary the exposure as you go, or shoot multiple exposures to produce an HDR pano.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general you sacrifice control (and in the case of Sony, resolution) for convenience. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-10-01T11:18:16.053" />
  <row Id="3691" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3675" CreationDate="2010-10-01T11:29:15.337" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My personal solution was to buy one of these: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.i-gotu.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.i-gotu.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I tried to find the cheapest thing I could, and this works! :D  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adding details asked in comment:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Battery life is approximately 30 hours. Recharges via proprietary-connector-to-usb-A cable, included.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Comes with geotagging software, which I didn't use since it's Windows® only. There is an open source program which can extract the data here: &lt;a href=&quot;https://launchpad.net/igotu2gpx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://launchpad.net/igotu2gpx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;With the above software, I get .gpx files. Don't know about the original software.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sorry I can't help much on the workflow, since I'm using Aperture and it... well, just works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="449" LastEditorUserId="449" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-01T22:23:00.423" LastActivityDate="2010-10-01T22:23:00.423" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3692" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3681" CreationDate="2010-10-01T13:51:12.957" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could try &lt;a href=&quot;http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/cambridge/projects/autocollage/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;AutoCollage 2008 from Microsoft Research&lt;/a&gt;. On some Windows 7 PCs it is even &lt;a href=&quot;http://autocollage.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!6086F52EC280775C!236.entry?sa=151802970&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;already preinstalled&lt;/a&gt; (though I got no idea on which).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-10-01T13:51:12.957" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3693" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3681" CreationDate="2010-10-01T15:58:33.163" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;FastStone Image Viewer&lt;/a&gt; (free), there is a feature called Contact Sheet Builder.  It's highly configurable and I believe you can achieve something nice with it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1093" LastActivityDate="2010-10-01T15:58:33.163" />
  <row Id="3695" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4589" CreationDate="2010-10-02T08:34:51.267" Score="4" ViewCount="240" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just got the lens. I know it doesn't autofocus on my camera body because it doesn't have built in motor but at least it should be usable in manual mode right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="128" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-04T19:56:36.487" LastActivityDate="2010-11-04T19:56:36.487" Title="The green light is blinking on D5000 when I mount a Sigma 24-70 EX DG Macro" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;sigma&gt;&lt;nikon-d5000&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="3696" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3698" CreationDate="2010-10-02T14:58:20.787" Score="9" ViewCount="660" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Nikon D90, and after taking a photography course that recommended single point auto-focus I predominately use that.  I was testing some of the modes today (single point, dynamic area, auto-area and 3d-tracking) to see what they do in different situations but i'm wondering if there are any 'rules' or basic types of shots that work best with a particular type of auto-focus?  I found that some would re-focus as I moved the scene around, which i could see being useful at times, maybe sports, but not good if you're trying to focus and recompose (as I often do for portraits).  Since I do mostly candids and portraits I find the single point works best for me, but would love to hear about other peoples experience and where the different modes might fit in.  Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="274" LastActivityDate="2010-10-07T14:44:22.550" Title="When to use a particular auto-focus mode" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;nikon-d90&gt;&lt;continuous-autofocus&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="3697" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3696" CreationDate="2010-10-02T16:45:45.167" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm using Canon, and I usually keep it of &quot;one shot&quot; AF (which focuses on half-pressing the shutter and that's it) and auto AF point selection. I use that mode for generic snapshots. If I get into situation where it's picking wrong points I set the point manually (often for that particular shot, or to center point, after which I'm switch to focus-and-recompose way of working).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use continuous AF only for sports (or red carpet :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-10-02T16:45:45.167" />
  <row Id="3698" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3696" CreationDate="2010-10-02T18:48:03.403" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Single Point Auto-focus&lt;/strong&gt;: Fastest and most accurate auto-focus mode, great to use in most situations, including predictable action shots where you can keep the object on the point.  I like to decouple the auto-focus mechanism from the half-press to avoid focusing on the background if the subject unexpectedly moves off the point.  The camera is told which AF-point to use and thus does not need to spend time thinking about which focus point to use.  It is the most accurate because you select which point yourself and know which point is being focused and you do not recompose.  Of all the points, the center point is the fastest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Dynamic Area&lt;/strong&gt;: You select one focus point and it uses the points around it in case the object leaves that focus point.  Used for more unpredictable / fast sports where you cant keep the object exactly on the focus point at all times.  Can be slower than single-point auto-focus, but if you can't keep it on the focus point, this mode may be better.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Auto-area&lt;/strong&gt;: You don't select anything and it picks the area.  This reportedly has some face detection algorithms going on, but generally I would use this for very sporadic/fast objects without high-contrast backgrounds that can confuse the AF-system or other objects either closer to the camera or around the same distance.  I might use this with a long lens and tracking objects like birds in flight, RC planes, airshow, etc.  The long lens with the fast speed will make it more difficult to keep it in one area and there are not other objects to confuse the AF system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3D-tracking&lt;/strong&gt;: For D300 class cameras, this is an extension and improvement on dynamic area focusing for tracking moving objects.  For the D90-class cameras, this is the mode you want to use with focus-recompose.  There are 2 problems with focus-recomposing that can appear with very shallow depth of fields.  First, when you recompose, you are usually not rotating about the correct point of rotation to keep the object in focus, but rather just rotating your head.  Generally your plane of focus will be slightly behind where you intended.  Second, your focus plane is generally not a plane but a curve, which will differ depending on a number of factors.  3D-tracking uses color information to select the correct AF point when recomposing to avoid such issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-07T14:44:22.550" LastActivityDate="2010-10-07T14:44:22.550" />
  <row Id="3699" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-02T20:35:11.300" Score="9" ViewCount="170" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do I go about editing the metadata of a png fie?  Is there some free software I can use?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T00:15:29.343" Title="How do I go about editing the metadata of a png fie?" Tags="&lt;metadata&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3700" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1555" CreationDate="2010-10-02T20:41:58.657" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I created a glue script which implements almost all of my desired workflow. The only missing part is that I have to bring up the Blogger draft post manually, but that's no big deal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The script is listed on my &lt;a href=&quot;http://reidster.net/software/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;software page&lt;/a&gt; as &quot;bibbleblog&quot; and here's the &lt;a href=&quot;http://reidster.net/software/bibbleblog&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;direct link&lt;/a&gt;. Feel free to modify and redistribute (BSD 3-clause license).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a Python program of about 250 lines including installation and use instructions. It runs on Linux and probably other UNIX-like systems, perhaps Mac OS X.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Thanks to Karel for pointing out this was possible. I made this the accepted answer because it's more comprehensive, but it wouldn't have happened without him.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-10-02T20:41:58.657" />
  <row Id="3701" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3695" CreationDate="2010-10-02T22:13:37.267" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm assuming you're talking about the autofocus indicator light in the bottom left of the screen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I'm using a manual focus lens on my D3000, this still lights up when the picture is in focus under the selected AF sensor. If I'm very out of focus, or the sensor is over something with no contrast to detect, then this light blinks the same way it does in autofocus mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2010-10-02T22:13:37.267" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3702" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3704" CreationDate="2010-10-03T03:27:26.120" Score="9" ViewCount="248" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've noticed that in a lot of my night shots of cityscapes, red lights (e.g. neon signs on buildings etc...) tend to come out as big red blobs:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/vzriv.png&quot; alt=&quot;Not very good example of big blobby red lights&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above was taken with my Canon 500D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What can I do to reduce this? (Either as I'm taking the photo, or as a post-processing step)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1522" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-05T12:39:59.143" LastActivityDate="2010-10-11T09:07:33.003" Title="Red lights in night / city scenes" Tags="&lt;brightness&gt;&lt;night-shooting&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3704" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3702" CreationDate="2010-10-03T08:28:16.717" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What you're seeing in that shot is overexposure. Unlike overexposure in a day time shot,where the blown highlights tend to go pure white, the red light from the sign caused &lt;strong&gt;overexposure in the just the red channel&lt;/strong&gt;. Thus all the different tones of red have become 100% red and detail is lost. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It can be fixed by reshooting at a faster speed / smaller aperture pulling up the shadows, or blending multiple exposures (using HDR techniques).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did you shoot raw? If so you may be able to fix it without reshooting, by taking advantage of the extra headroom in raw to reduce the exposure. If you have &lt;strong&gt;Adobe Camera Raw there is a tool called &quot;recovery&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; which attempts to fix this kind of blown highlights though it doesn't always work that well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-03T14:58:09.523" LastActivityDate="2010-10-03T14:58:09.523" />
  <row Id="3705" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="581" CreationDate="2010-10-03T09:05:05.307" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That may well be their photos on the website. Even people who are not that good will produce one really good photo per wedding. If people have been doing weddings for a long time they can usually produce a great portfolio whilst each wedding is not so good. This is the biggest problem with looking for photographers on the web but there are a few tips:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ask to see some complete weddings, don't go by a portfolio of mixed up shots alone.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you can, ask to see prints, it can be hard to tell if shots are in focus and not motion blurred from small images resized for the web.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you're hiring them for the reception check the quality of their work in artificial light. I see a lot of photographers' websites featuring mostly outdoor shots as these are usually much easier to pull off.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Likewise if you're getting married in a dark church, ask to see shots they've done in churches where flash is prohibited.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ask what equipment they have. Whilst gear does not maketh the photographer, if they only have a consumer body and single zoom lens this is probably a warning sign. Also if they don't have spares of everything, run away!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ask them what their plan is in the event of rain. The correct answer is &quot;stand in the rain and get the photos!&quot;. Likewise battered gear is actually a good sign (pro gear is designed to take it) - you want someone who is committed to getting the shot, no matter what.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-10-03T09:05:05.307" />
  <row Id="3706" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3699" CreationDate="2010-10-03T12:09:31.890" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the Wikipedia page for &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pngcrush#Chunk_and_metadata_manipulation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;'&lt;code&gt;pngcrush&lt;/code&gt;'&lt;/a&gt;,  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The main purpose of pngcrush is to reduce the size of the PNG IDAT datastream by trying various combinations of compression methods and delta filters. However, pngcrush can also be used for various manipulations of PNG images, such as changing the bit depth, removing unwanted ancillary chunks, or &lt;strong&gt;adding certain chunks including gAMA, tRNS, iCCP, and textual chunks&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="163" LastActivityDate="2010-10-03T12:09:31.890" />
  <row Id="3707" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3699" CreationDate="2010-10-03T12:17:00.547" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For the MAC OSX, there is a freeware called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.echomist.co.uk/software/PNGCommentator.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;'&lt;code&gt;PNGCommentator&lt;/code&gt;'&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Have not seen it on other platforms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;PNG metadata can now be added and edited at the click of a mouse.&#xA;  Version 1.2 adds support for batch processing and customisable presets, allowing for much faster workflows. Text macros extend this even further, aloowing the software to automatically insert data such as the date or filename. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="163" LastActivityDate="2010-10-03T12:17:00.547" />
  <row Id="3708" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2955" CreationDate="2010-10-03T14:09:24.383" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a plugin for Lightroom 3 which does exactly that: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.knobroom.com/thefader/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.knobroom.com/thefader/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-10-03T14:09:24.383" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3709" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3735" CreationDate="2010-10-03T16:12:07.940" Score="7" ViewCount="209" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have read about difficulties getting focusing right when using a large aperature (because of depth-of-field issues).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I am using a fast prime wide open (say F1.4 or F1.8) to shoot a target in motion (ie. sports), will my camera have trouble gaining/retaining focus?  Especially if trying to shoot continuous bursts?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm asking this question in the context of this one: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3576/fast-prime-vs-expensive-zoom-for-indoor-sports-photograhy&quot; title=&quot;Fast prime vs. expensive zoom&quot;&gt;Fast prime vs. expensive zoom&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would be using a D90, and a 50mm or 85mm prime at F1.4 or F1.8.  The targets would be moving, but not in so much motion that I'd have to be panning to keep up. (ie. they would be in frame, or entering the frame as I shoot, most of the time).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondary question, would an AF-S lens be better than an AF lens on the D90?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="227" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-03T17:07:30.223" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T16:43:50.973" Title="Focusing on moving target with large aperature?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;sports&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3710" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3763" CreationDate="2010-10-03T17:37:31.017" Score="5" ViewCount="202" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm considering the newest &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/70-200mm-f28-ex-dg-apomacro-hsm-ii-sigma&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG APO MACRO HSM II&lt;/a&gt; and comparing it against the older (but still for sale) &lt;a href=&quot;http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/zoom/telephotozoom/zoom80-200mmf_28d/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon AF 80-200mm F2.8 D ED&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are roughly in the same price class, though the Sigma is a little less expensive.  In Canada, the Sigma is available for $949, and the Nikon for $1029.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Sigma has a 10-year Canadian warranty, the Nikon a 5-year Canadian warranty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neither has OS or VR, but adding VR puts both lenses out of my price range (and I don't need the stabilization for shooting sports).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Nikon seems to be regarded as a better built lens, with better optics (but some reviews claim the optical quality of the Sigma approaches that of the Nikon so as not to be as much of a factor in the decision making process).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Sigma has the HSM AF motor, while the Nikon is AF, but not AF-S (the AF-S model is no longer available new, and is considerably more expensive even used).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reviews of the Nikon indicate that the AF speed depends on how well the camera body can drive it (ie. faster on a pro body than on a consumer body).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would be using a D90 and wonder if the Sigma with its HSM would be significantly faster in auto-focus speed than the Nikon?  And, whether this should be an issue to consider given that the intended us of the lens is for sports?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there other issues I should be considering?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would love to hear people's experience with either lens as well as any recommendations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="227" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-03T19:40:19.740" LastActivityDate="2010-10-05T20:53:45.490" Title="Sigma 70-200mm vs. Nikon 80-200mm auto-focus speed" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;sports&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3711" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3714" CreationDate="2010-10-03T19:28:15.510" Score="10" ViewCount="571" Body="&lt;p&gt;I guess this is a total noob question, but doesn't 18-55mm mean that it can focus only up to 55mm?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="64" LastActivityDate="2010-10-03T21:21:27.540" Title="How can a 18-55 lens capture objects beyond 55mm without any problems?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;focal-length&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3712" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3715" CreationDate="2010-10-03T19:42:07.710" Score="8" ViewCount="212" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can you list some of the trusted websites for buying cameras and lenses that deliver inside USA?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am looking to buy a camera, and have heard that you can get some very good package deals (camera + lens + memory card, etc) off some of these sites. Unfortunately I dont know about any of these sites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are some such reputed sites?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="64" LastEditorUserId="64" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-04T05:16:31.243" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T20:15:22.910" Title="Where can I buy a camera off the internet?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;tips&gt;&lt;purchase&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="3713" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3711" CreationDate="2010-10-03T19:47:51.320" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, it means that the focal length is adjustable between 18 and 55 mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The focal length affects the angle of view, so 18 mm gives a wide angle and 55 mm gives a more narrow angle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How near and far you can focus depends on the optics in the lens. Usually the near limit is a pair of decimeters to half a meter, and the far limit is infinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's rare for a lens to focus as close as 18 mm. A macro lens usually has a shorter near limit, sometimes almost up to the front lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-03T20:06:33.793" LastActivityDate="2010-10-03T20:06:33.793" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3714" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3711" CreationDate="2010-10-03T19:58:58.033" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a fairly simple explanation here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.paragon-press.com/lens/lenchart.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.paragon-press.com/lens/lenchart.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To summarize from that site:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Simply put, the focal length of a lens&#xA;  is the distance from the lens to the&#xA;  sensor, when focused on a subject at&#xA;  infinity. To focus on something closer&#xA;  than infinity, the lens is moved&#xA;  farther away from the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Focal length&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;focus distance&lt;/em&gt; are two different things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Focal length&lt;/strong&gt; controls the viewing angle, essentially meaning how much of the scene the camera can see. A large focal length means the camera sees only a narrow view of the world, which makes faraway objects look bigger. A small focal length, on the other hand, means the camera can see a wide view of the world. Objects appear smaller because lots of things get squeezed into the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Focus distance&lt;/strong&gt; is controlled by moving the lens further away from the sensor, so that the light rays from a single point on an object nearby converge to form a point of light on the sensor. If a 55mm lens were 55mm from the sensor, only objects infinitely or very far away would be in focus. To bring a scene into focus, the lens must be moved away from the sensor until all the rays of light converge to form distinct points. This is why almost every lens can focus on distant objects, but macro lenses (which focus on very close objects) are more expensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For additional reading, check out: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.howstuffworks.com/camera.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.howstuffworks.com/camera.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1480" LastEditorUserId="1480" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-03T20:24:25.570" LastActivityDate="2010-10-03T20:24:25.570" />
  <row Id="3715" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3712" CreationDate="2010-10-03T20:19:40.147" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a few good options for buying new gear:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.Adorama.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.Adorama.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bhphotovideo.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My personal favorite is Adorama, the service has always been wonderful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-04T12:24:20.273" LastActivityDate="2010-10-04T12:24:20.273" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3716" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3711" CreationDate="2010-10-03T21:21:27.540" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The maximum magnification, not the focal length, determines how close a lens can focus. A maximum magnification of 1.0x means you can fill the frame with an object that is the same size as the sensor (so you are getting a 1 to 1 scale reproduction) which for a typical DSLR is about 21mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Traditionally the term &quot;macro&quot; is used to describe lenses that were capable of 1:1 magnification, although certain manufacturers (*cough* Tamron *cough*) decided to start labelling lenses with 0.25x magnification as &quot;macro&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens has magnification of 0.34x meaning you can get close enough to focus on an object of width 62mm when it's filling the frame. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's usually no maximum focus distance, all regular lenses will focus to &quot;infinity&quot;. However some lenses designed for super close focussing such as the Canon MP-E 65, lenses with extension tubes (hollow tubes to move the lens further away for closer focussing) or lenses designed for a different mount (such as FD mount lenses on EF body) wont be able to focus to infinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-10-03T21:21:27.540" />
  <row Id="3717" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3712" CreationDate="2010-10-03T22:58:29.083" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For used gear, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://keh.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KEH&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; is well-regarded. I find their prices not too much higher than individual sellers, they grade condition consistently and conservatively, and you get an inspection period and a short warranty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-10-03T22:58:29.083" />
  <row Id="3718" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3712" CreationDate="2010-10-04T01:40:20.040" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another for used is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/10&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fredmiranda&lt;/a&gt; but you are buying of users, rather than the actual site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastActivityDate="2010-10-04T01:40:20.040" />
  <row Id="3719" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3724" CreationDate="2010-10-04T01:54:39.547" Score="10" ViewCount="264" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do any of you have good schemes for storing photo equipment at home?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to have one canonical place for everything to live, ideally in some kind of squarish container that fit on a shelf or in a closet, perhaps with several sizes of drawers. Big things like tripods could live independently nearby and wouldn't need to go inside. Can one purchase something like this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Right now, it's all just in one or two boxes or drawers, which I don't like because the small stuff gets lost among the bigger stuff and it's hard to quickly find what I want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;FWIW, I currently have 7 or 8 lenses, two bodies, three small camera bags (body + 1 lens), several bag straps, some filters, memory cards, and a variety of other small accessories (and maybe other stuff I've forgotten).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think what I'm looking for is some kind of contraption with small drawers for small things and big drawers for bigger things. The stuff wouldn't need padding or anything like that - this is for static, non-transportable storage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-04T03:11:39.723" LastActivityDate="2011-03-18T21:26:13.540" Title="Storing photo gear at home" Tags="&lt;storage&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3720" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3719" CreationDate="2010-10-04T02:42:35.640" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would look into getting standard &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rubbermaid.com/Category/Pages/ProductDetail.aspx?spaceId=Closet%28RubbermaidSpaces%29&amp;amp;CatName=Storage&amp;amp;SubcatId=CleverStore&amp;amp;Prod_ID=RP091401&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;snap-lid containers&lt;/a&gt;, then lining them with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.efoamstore.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;foam&lt;/a&gt; and adding &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.agmcontainer.com/desiccantcity/desiccant_sorb-it.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;desiccant packets&lt;/a&gt; at the bottom to keep things dry, which will reduce the risk of fungus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-10-04T02:42:35.640" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3721" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3728" CreationDate="2010-10-04T08:18:07.757" Score="4" ViewCount="162" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a 5 year old Point and Shoot (Nikon 4600). Though it has very limited capabilities , I have been learning lot of things related to photography from it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was trying to make some long exposure photos in the dark with a very faint light source. This is to make those fancy looking art images. I was just trying to draw English alphabets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the camera has a maximum exposure setting of just +2 seconds, I move the camera instead of the light source to create art forms, or in this case, alphabets. I see that the images look inverted. So I eventually visualize a mirror image of the letter and move the camera accordingly so that the output comes as a normal image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why does this happen?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1388" LastActivityDate="2010-10-04T11:34:41.663" Title="Explanation please: Pictures look inverted while making long exposure photograph" Tags="&lt;long-exposure&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3723" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3733" CreationDate="2010-10-04T09:03:51.730" Score="4" ViewCount="191" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was flicking through some photos on flickr and started thinking that I wanted to achieve a particular effect - after a bit research I found that what I was appreciating was Depth of Field.  Subject in focus with a blurred background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for a new camera and I really like the look of the Pentax x90, however can what I want be achieved with this camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1544" LastActivityDate="2010-10-04T13:56:04.733" Title="Can you achieve the Depth of Field effect with the Pentax X90?" Tags="&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;pentax&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3724" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3719" CreationDate="2010-10-04T10:33:12.787" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For a less haphazard answer... ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have access to an Ikea, you may want to look there for some &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ikea.com/ca/en/catalog/categories/departments/workspaces/10711/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;workplace cabinets&lt;/a&gt; as there seems to be a few options that line up. I have the &quot;Alex&quot; unit, primarily for print storage, because it's narrow and very spacious for holding them flat. One of the &quot;Micke&quot; units may cover your need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-10-04T10:33:12.787" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3725" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3723" CreationDate="2010-10-04T10:53:03.180" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you're specifically asking about shallow depth of field, so the short answer is yes, but with any compact camera that has a small sensor, it's harder to do. This won't be specific to the X90, it'll be true of any small sensor camera. There are a number of pretty technical articles on the subject, but some have made it easy to get some ratios such as this Cambridge in Colour &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article on sensor sizes&lt;/a&gt; where they have a handy calculator that you can use to punch in some numbers from some of your Flickr favourites and get the comparison info for the X90 to achieve a similar effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-10-04T10:53:03.180" />
  <row Id="3726" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3742" CreationDate="2010-10-04T11:24:29.157" Score="6" ViewCount="262" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would love to use my iPad as a tethering device for instant review.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... But I can't see how to set it up.  I have a nasty suspicion that it's not possible.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please tell me that I'm wrong!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks ;) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-10-07T11:23:58.850" Title="Is it possible to shoot tethered using an iPad?" Tags="&lt;tethering&gt;&lt;ipad&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="3728" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3721" CreationDate="2010-10-04T11:34:41.663" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When you move the camera down, the light source moves up on the film/sensor plane - just as if you look at something, then look down, the object you were looking at will be above your field of view (i.e. you'll have to look up again to see it). So if you trace a V shape from top left to bottom to top right, the light source will move from bottom right to top middle to bottom left.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not a feature of your particular camera, just geometry!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-10-04T11:34:41.663" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3729" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3726" CreationDate="2010-10-04T11:40:38.710" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a description &lt;a href=&quot;http://brentbat.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/ipad/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; that shows how you can do this, but it seems a bit of a convoluted solution. I don't there is (currently) anything that allows you to link an iPad to a WiFi enabled DSLR directly. But I certainly wouldn't rule it out from ever happening.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-10-04T11:40:38.710" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3730" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3732" CreationDate="2010-10-04T11:59:26.250" Score="13" ViewCount="476" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the manual it warns about sudden changes in temperature however there are few cases when I can't see how to avoid this. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These include entering a reptile house in a Zoo or trip to tropical house such as in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.edenproject.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;eden project&lt;/a&gt; project where the outside temperature of 15oC and an inside of 38oC.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a recent trip I did not take my SLR but I saw may others with them though the lens were all steamed up initially unable to get a shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Will the sudden change harm the camera other than fogging up the lens and are they're any Precaution to take?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="560" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-28T17:31:28.563" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T17:31:28.563" Title="Precaution for taking a Camera into Humid Conditions" Tags="&lt;equipment-protection&gt;&lt;camera-care&gt;&lt;humidity&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3731" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3730" CreationDate="2010-10-04T12:07:22.673" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best advice I've heard is to put your camera in a sealed plastic bag for several minutes to let it adjust temperature.  That way when you take it back out, there isn't condensation on the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-10-04T12:07:22.673" />
  <row Id="3732" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3730" CreationDate="2010-10-04T12:16:55.850" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Condensation is the biggest risk, and prevention is always better than cure. One thing I do prior to entering such environments is to place a lens cloth over the front element, and heat it with the heat from my hand prior to entry -- the target is to get the front element above the dew point for the area you're going into.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the specific case of the Eden Project, the trick is to go into the arid Mediterranean house first where the humidity is lower than the rainforest house (but the temperatures are generally similar).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If anything, I'd suggest SLR (and bridge) cameras are easier to remove condensation from the lens (but it would take longer to warm through). It would be a &quot;very bad idea&quot; to change a lens inside an area with elevated humidity, as humid air could then condense all over the place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is worth remembering that &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; SLR cameras have professional quality weather sealing&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-13T10:07:25.807" LastActivityDate="2010-12-13T10:07:25.807" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3733" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3723" CreationDate="2010-10-04T12:21:14.383" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is yes you can, but in a more limited set of circumstances. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depth of field is affected by sensor size, meaning that a camera with a small sensor will have a much larger depth of field (and thus less blur in the background) than a DSLR with a large[r] sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But depth of field is also affected by focussing distance. The closer you focus the smaller the depth if field, giving you more blur. The effect gets stronger the closer you focus so you will be able to get the depth of field effect when doing macro, or close to macro shooting with the x90. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whilst long zoom lenses don't affect the depth of field (much), they do influence the degree of background blur, meaning you can get the effect you're after by using the longest focal length possible. Given the x90 offers a 626mm (equivalent) focal length this should be plenty long enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also fake the effct in Photoshop but that requires masking the subject by hand in each photo. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-04T13:56:04.733" LastActivityDate="2010-10-04T13:56:04.733" />
  <row Id="3735" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3709" CreationDate="2010-10-04T12:42:53.337" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you work from the general rule:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;With a wide aperture, the depth of field will become shallower; however, as you focus further away, the depth of field becomes deeper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For fast moving sports, you're probably going to be focusing relatively far away (for the purposes of this, &quot;relatively far away&quot; is more than 20ft) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5014af.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;As far as I can see&lt;/a&gt;, the f/1.4 lens treats anything past about 20 feet as infinity, and as such I would expect it to work &quot;OK&quot;. Like all camera buying advice, its best to have a go, either by loaning the lens from a friend, retailer, or a dedicated lens rental firm in your area.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on your locale, you may find that if you were to order it online/via telephone, you may have a &quot;cooling off&quot; period in which you could decide whether it is what you want. You could check with your retailer of choice what their return policy is, and see if they'd be willing to refund if it isn't suitable for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-10-04T12:42:53.337" />
  <row Id="3736" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3709" CreationDate="2010-10-04T13:06:15.920" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Focusing depends largely on camera and lens: some DSLR/lens-combinations work great, most work mediocre and some downright suck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example the AF of a Pentax K10D with a DFA100/2.8 sucked. But the AF of the very same K10D but with a FA*200/2.8 was perfect even in near dark situations with moving targets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other combo: After I got used to the AF of the Nikon D700 I found the AF of my D90 lacking with the very same AF-S 50/1.4 (well, to be honest when I bought the AF-S 50/1.4 I was disappointed of its AF on my D90. With the D700 it got a little better).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are infinite combinations of DSLR and lenses. It is really hard to tell in advance which work great and which don't. Best would be to borrow/rent the combination you want to use and try it for yourself in the situation you need it to work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-10-04T13:06:15.920" />
  <row Id="3737" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3723" CreationDate="2010-10-04T13:20:19.490" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can achieve the DOF effect (bokeh) you're looking for with a compact camera, but you'll have to work at it a little bit because you won't have the really big apertures needed to do this at will.  Here are some examples from my Panasonic FX28, which is in the same class as the X90:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/dglambert/4257879426/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Leaves&lt;/a&gt; - this is an isolated subject with a far-off background.  If you can stage a shot like this, you can achieve decent bokeh under most lighting conditions (overcast here).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/dglambert/4257120801/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Vinyard&lt;/a&gt; - bright sun, about F/4, which is the widest I could manage at this zoom.  The bigger the aperture (smaller F-number), the narrower your DOF.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/dglambert/4620730894/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;My cat&lt;/a&gt; - probably 18&quot; or so between rose bush &amp;amp; the cat.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keep in mind that while a DSLR owner can strap on a F/1.8 lens to get shallow DOF, your camera won't be too far off the apertures seen on many &quot;kit&quot; lenses.  If you're able to compose your shot to help set up the DOF you want, you should be able to create some nice photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-10-04T13:20:19.490" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3738" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3740" CreationDate="2010-10-04T13:26:47.227" Score="7" ViewCount="424" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have never tried shooting tethered, but I would like to give it a try.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My laptop uses Ubuntu linux.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you point me at any solutions for tethering this to my camera?&#xA;I have a Canon 5DmkII, but to make this question more useful to others, please give any solutions you know of which work with other cameras too.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many thanks, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T03:07:33.613" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T03:07:33.613" Title="Is it possible to shoot tethered to a Linux laptop?" Tags="&lt;tethering&gt;&lt;linux&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3739" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3730" CreationDate="2010-10-04T13:40:34.277" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most lenses aren't perfectly sealed which means you can get moisture on the internal glass elements as well as the front and this can take a while to clear, leading to mould forming which is very bad. You're unlikely to damage a lens if this happens occaisonally but it's just better to avoid condensation in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Condensation occurs when &lt;strong&gt;moving from a cold area into an area with warm moist air&lt;/strong&gt; as the cold lens elements cool the air causing moisture to precipitate out. As stated previously, good practice is to put the camera and lens in a sealed plastic bag before moving from the cold area. This traps dry air around the lens and gives the glass time to warm up. &lt;strong&gt;Do not seal the camera in a plastic bag when moving from a warm area into the cold!&lt;/strong&gt; As the warm moist air inside the bag will start to condense as the camera cools. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just because warm air can hold more moisture doesn't mean it will always be more humid, so there will be times when this is uncessesary, however it never hurts to be cautious. Also note that if you are in an extremely cold climate it can take a long time (hours) for all the camera internals to heat up again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general rapid extreme temperature changes are bad for equipment as they cause expansion and contraction of materials and can cause brittle components to break. For this reason I generally leave gear in a bag when moving around if possible as this will slow down heat transfers to safe levels. Also black camera bodies can heat up very quickly if left in direct sunlight (this is supposedly why the Canon super teles are white) so that's another reason to use a good bag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Batteries can suffer in cold climates however these affects are usually reversible when the temperature goes back up. It's a good idea to keep batteries in an inside pocket when shooting in the cold.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-10-04T13:40:34.277" />
  <row Id="3740" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3738" CreationDate="2010-10-04T13:56:25.363" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only option I can see, right now, is using gPhoto for this but since I primarily use Linux in a server role, I might be missing some. Anyways, there's a pretty good tutorial on using gPhoto this way available here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.linux.com/news/software/applications/47498-sophisticated-picture-taking-with-gphoto&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Linux.com&lt;/a&gt; and that might do the trick for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-10-04T13:56:25.363" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3741" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3271" CreationDate="2010-10-04T18:51:30.080" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me make it easy for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;TSR Watermark Image Software will let you put Photographer Signatures / Logos on your photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's free for personal use.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Supports PNG Logos as a signature/watermark&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Supports typed text as a signature/watermark&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Supports resizing photos before watermarking. Very useful for Facebook Photos!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Specify the position of your watermark.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Download:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://watermark-image.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://watermark-image.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Screenshots:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/yfL9O.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;TSR Watermark Image&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/9W5tp.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Sample Image&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1549" LastActivityDate="2010-10-04T18:51:30.080" />
  <row Id="3742" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3726" CreationDate="2010-10-04T19:01:41.770" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could use an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.eye.fi/products/prox2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1286450251&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Eye-Fi Pro Card&lt;/a&gt; and an Application on the iPad (or iPhone or Andriod phone or laptop ect.) to read it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a few options for an App. There is the FREE &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.eye.fi/products/iphone&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;eye-fi iPhone app&lt;/a&gt; or you could have a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://lifehacker.com/5636979/how-to-take-wireless-photos-with-your-dslr-and-ios-device&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Shutter Snitch&lt;/a&gt; App which is relativity cheap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have not used this approach myself so I cannot say if it is any good however it might do what you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="560" LastEditorUserId="560" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-07T11:23:58.850" LastActivityDate="2010-10-07T11:23:58.850" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3743" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3748" CreationDate="2010-10-05T04:05:42.783" Score="5" ViewCount="83" Body="&lt;p&gt;Has anyone heard of the brand &quot;Zone&quot;, who makes large format cameras? I've been looking into buying a 4x5 large-format camera, and have been digging through eBay items. I came across this one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-Zone-VI-4x5-Large-Format-Field-Camera-RARE-MINT-/300459401266?pt=Film_Cameras&amp;amp;hash=item45f4c6a032&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NEW ~ Zone VI 4x5 Large Format Field Camera RARE MINT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It looks nice...however I am curious about the &quot;Gold Plated Hardware&quot; comment. Seems a little sketchy for a $1200 camera...a Linhof costs some five times as much, and it looks a lot less pretty. Is this thing legit? Is &quot;Zone&quot; a viable brand, or should I stick with the well-known brands like Linhof, Wista, Tachihara, etc.?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-05T12:34:37.703" LastActivityDate="2010-10-05T12:34:37.703" Title="&quot;Zone&quot; Large Format Camera...gold plating?" Tags="&lt;large-format&gt;&lt;ebay&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="3744" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3702" CreationDate="2010-10-05T09:37:19.350" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Camera Shake and Overexposure&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As well as overexposure, I believe there is some camera shake (look at the lighted windows to the left), which will tend to turn anything into a blob.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Camera Shake&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm guessing that in order to try and get enough light in for this mostly-dark scene, your camera slowed the shutter right down.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;When the shutter is slowed down, any tiny movement of the camera can blur the image, as we see here.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;fix&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using a faster shutter speed, or steadying the camera with a tripod or similar would help.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Overexposure&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lights are being overexposed (almost certainly) because the camera is exposing for the scene as a whole.  Most of the scene is very dark, so the camera thinks it needs to let in lots of light.  This means that for the light areas, it lets in too much light, with the result that the neon sign gets blown out (especially the red channel - as @Matt Grum points out).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;fix&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fix for this is to dial the exposure down - probably using your &quot;exposure compensation&quot; control.  Knowing when to do this will come quickly with experience.  Fortunately, with digital you can always check on the back of the camera and reshoot if necessary.  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using your camera's spot metering mode would probably help, too, but it brings its own compromises.  Check your manual for more details on this.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-11T09:07:33.003" LastActivityDate="2010-10-11T09:07:33.003" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3745" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3753" CreationDate="2010-10-05T10:52:31.143" Score="8" ViewCount="289" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking to buy a tripod+head (for my Canon 40D) but am not sure if I want to spend more than $100 on it. Or is it so important?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So can you suggest options for best tripods for $100 or less? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Extra props for options which might be available in India :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1551" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-08T16:23:56.460" LastActivityDate="2010-12-08T16:23:56.460" Title="Tripod for up to $100" Tags="&lt;tripod&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="3746" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3726" CreationDate="2010-10-05T11:42:02.790" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There was an episode of TWIP that discussed an iPad Camera Connection Kit.&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thisweekinphoto.com/twip-166-photographers-are-not-terrorists/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;TWiP Episode #166&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastActivityDate="2010-10-05T11:42:02.790" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3747" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3745" CreationDate="2010-10-05T12:25:58.847" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Slik Sprint Pro that is fine. I use it for a Nikon D90 with lightweight lenses. It's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/614698-REG/Slik_611_865_Sprint_Pro_II_4_Section.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;$95 at B&amp;amp;H&lt;/a&gt; right now; no idea about availability or cost in India.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, it is very easy to buy less tripod than you need, and inexpensive tripods tend to be truly awful. Many people go through several tripods before realizing they really do need nice, high-end support. Thom Hogan's &lt;a href=&quot;http://bythom.com/support.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tripods 101&lt;/a&gt; article is a good exposition on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;That&lt;/em&gt; said, I am perfectly happy with the Slik. It meets my modest needs. I am looking around for other options, but that's only because I'm trying to find something lighter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-10-05T12:25:58.847" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3748" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3743" CreationDate="2010-10-05T12:34:15.490" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The brand is actually &quot;Zone VI&quot; and yes, it's a real, legitimate LF camera. Here's a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.largeformatphotography.info/zoneVI.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;blurb&lt;/a&gt; on that camera from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.largeformatphotography.info/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;largeformatphotography.info&lt;/a&gt; (which has a lot of good info on various large format stuff).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No idea on the gold plating, through.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-10-05T12:34:15.490" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3749" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3745" CreationDate="2010-10-05T13:27:35.517" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Just a thought&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tripods are simple things, so buying from eBay or similar may be a good option, allowing you to get more tripod for your money?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-10-05T13:27:35.517" />
  <row Id="3750" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3754" CreationDate="2010-10-05T14:15:28.340" Score="9" ViewCount="5962" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the Nikon D3100 and was wondering if the autofocus on the Nikon 50mm f/1.8D lens would work with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've read that the AF is not compatible with the D5000, and that the AF is rather &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3025/nikon-50mm-f-1-8-focus&quot;&gt;slow&lt;/a&gt; in general. With that in mind, having AF isn't a deal breaker for me, but I'd just like to know to help with the decision process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1556" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-10T16:12:10.410" LastActivityDate="2011-04-10T16:12:10.410" Title="Will the Nikon D3100 autofocus with the 50mm f/1.8D lens?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;nikon-d3100&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3751" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3758" CreationDate="2010-10-05T14:23:08.200" Score="5" ViewCount="146" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've recently started my photography course at uni and have now been exposed to the program &quot;Aperture&quot;.&#xA;After finding this program extremely helpful and easy to use I get told its Mac-based only and being a Windows person I was quite disheartened by this.&#xA;So can anyone point me in the right direction of finding a cheap Macbook?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1557" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-08T16:23:01.360" LastActivityDate="2010-12-08T23:19:31.983" Title="Macbook &amp; Aperture Editing Program" Tags="&lt;apple-aperture&gt;&lt;macintosh&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3752" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3751" CreationDate="2010-10-05T14:44:37.950" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have two suggestions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Apple has &lt;a href=&quot;http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac?mco=MTM3NTA4Mzk&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;refurbished machines in their online store&lt;/a&gt;, that's a good way to get a discounted machine.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You could take a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://tryit.adobe.com/us/lightroom/tw2/standard.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lightroom&lt;/a&gt;, it's the main competitor to Aperture, and has similar functionality, but it runs on Windows as well.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-10-05T14:44:37.950" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3753" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3745" CreationDate="2010-10-05T15:09:35.950" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Only you can say whether a $100 is enough - certainly there tripods that will take a 40D for less than this amount, but you are usually compromising build quality, reliability, usability etc. so it comes down to where you priorities lie. Maybe you only need the 'pod for really low light, and you'd rather save for lenses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will say this however, there's nothing like a good tripod. The confidence that when you step away from the camera it's not going to fall over and smash into pieces is not easy to put a price on. Tripods don't become obsolete, a good one will past many many years. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-10-05T15:09:35.950" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3754" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3750" CreationDate="2010-10-05T15:18:46.653" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3100/compatibility02.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon&lt;/a&gt;, no, you cannot.  You can manually focus, but no AF with an AF lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-10-05T15:18:46.653" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3755" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3745" CreationDate="2010-10-05T15:35:40.617" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could look for something like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://joby.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gorillapod from joby&lt;/a&gt;-- the $80 version can handle large video cameras, so should be able to accommodate your 40D.  It's not a standard tripod, in the sense of height and the like, but it will wrap around nearby poles and can be placed on walls, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have a read of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/support.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Thom's tripod guide&lt;/a&gt;; essentially, for new gear, you're looking at more money than you have budgeted.  I took his low-end recommendation, with a heavier tripod and a 322rc2 ball head, and it's worked fine for me, but at more than you're willing to spend at ~$300.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-10-05T15:35:40.617" />
  <row Id="3756" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3745" CreationDate="2010-10-05T16:40:54.650" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use Benro A-250EX with BH00 ball head. I paid 99€ for this one, and it was the lightest among those I can trust my camera to (and not give away a fortune).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's very well built. With the head unmounted, it fits even in my laptop bag, but it is high enough to take portraits sometimes. The tripod weights approx. 1 kg (2.2 lb). It can endure as much as 2.5 kg of load, which is enough for most consumer DSLRs and lenses unless you are using super-telephoto zooms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastEditorUserId="1558" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-08T16:21:22.527" LastActivityDate="2010-10-08T16:21:22.527" />
  <row Id="3757" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3745" CreationDate="2010-10-05T16:47:15.827" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I bought a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.velbon.co.uk/newvelbon/pages/sherpa600R.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Velbon Sherpa 600R&lt;/a&gt; a while ago and am very pleased with it for my uses.  It stabilises my 1Kg camera+lens very well. At 2Kg it's light enough that I don't find it uncomfortable to carry for short trips but heavy enough to be stable. It's very adjustable and holds solid once locked down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With tripods you will definitely get more the more you are willing to spend up to around $1000 but for me this is the right compromise between cost and quality at this time. Currently showing at around $100/£100.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="185" LastEditorUserId="185" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-05T16:53:27.420" LastActivityDate="2010-10-05T16:53:27.420" />
  <row Id="3758" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3751" CreationDate="2010-10-05T16:48:54.817" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As above, I'd suggest looking into Adobe Lightroom, which is a sort-of equivalent Photo process-management-library-workflow program. As a student, you'd qualify for a discount from Adobe on it, and it's also worth remembering that you can use the &lt;a href=&quot;http://store.apple.com/uk/browse/home/education_routing?mco=OTY2ODQzMg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Apple store for education&lt;/a&gt; (or Higher Education for an even bigger saving) which will reduce the cost further if you intend to go down the Mac route.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a free demo of Lr available from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?product=photoshop_lightroom&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, so I'd give that a try on your Windows PC first and foremost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="101" LastActivityDate="2010-10-05T16:48:54.817" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3759" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3762" CreationDate="2010-10-05T17:10:27.277" Score="7" ViewCount="199" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was working with an off-camera flash this weekend for some portraits of my son.  I was shooting in medium sunlight (early morning, partly cloudy, w/ some shade), and I like the lighting control I got with the flash (it softened the shadows on his face), but it sort of messed up my aperture control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using a 30D w/ 50mm F/1.8, I can get a narrow DOF at low apertures, but since the use of the flash constrained my shutter speed, I couldn't use apertures low enough to produce as much bokeh as I'd have liked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm thinking that one solution would be a neutral-density filter to let me use a lower aperture.  Would this work, and if so, is this the preferred way to handle this situation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-10-05T21:43:35.700" Title="Technique for controlling aperture w/ fill flash" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;filters&gt;&lt;sunlight&gt;&lt;bokeh&gt;&lt;fill-flash&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3760" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3759" CreationDate="2010-10-05T17:38:48.057" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would look at reducing the flash power before I would start putting more glass in front of the sensor. This does, of course, depend on your flash, but in many cases you can get as low as 1/64th of the full power on the flash when configured manually. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, there are diffusion options available that can reduce the power by a couple of stops and you can find ones made by companies like Stofen or Gary Fong that attach to the flash or other forms of diffusers that are held/mounted off the flash (such as softbox or a shoot-through umbrella).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, using bounce lighting in some form can allow for even more light reduction. Indoors it could be a wall or ceiling, outside a smaller reflector can be used whether hand-held or attached to something. Of course, it could be done with umbrellas as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, an ND filter becomes more appropriate when there are no other means to reduce the light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-10-05T17:38:48.057" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3761" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3759" CreationDate="2010-10-05T18:15:40.123" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's crazy expensive, but there &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; an alternative, and that is high-speed synch.  The flash and camera need to support this, and you can do it with both Canon and Nikon systems.  Generally the high-end flashes like the SB-800 and 580-EX support this.  It's expensive because you need two flashes, a commander flash on the camera which communicates to the off-camera flash, so you need two high-end hotshoe flashes.  The commander's role in this setup is to send a pre-flash sequence to the off-camera flash telling it what to do, it doesn't contribute light to the scene.  You put the camera in high speed synch mode and the off-camera flash will actually emit several flashes to illuminate the scene as the slit formed by the front and rear shutter curtains move across the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The two dudes behind TriCoastPhotography Workshops teach this technique for TTL off-camera flash work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-10-05T18:15:40.123" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="3762" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3759" CreationDate="2010-10-05T18:16:58.797" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In your shooting conditions the constraint is that a large aperture requires a very short shutter speed to expose the ambient light appropriately and you can't sync the flash faster than about 1/200 sec on the 30D. A strong ND filter might solve this problem. Alternatively, if your flash supports &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/syncspeed.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;HSS&lt;/a&gt;, you can use that to reduce the exposure time (as little as 1/4000 second, I believe).  If neither is available, an expedient solution is to move the location and the background into dark shade: you can still get some nice ambient light but it can be reduced several stops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2010-10-05T18:16:58.797" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3763" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3710" CreationDate="2010-10-05T20:53:45.490" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have used both, and the Nikon does feel marginally faster when it comes to autofocus than the Sigma. However, if they are both within your budget, I'd go with the Nikon every day of the week. It's a little bit sharper, feels a little bit more professional, and is just that tiny bit nicer in every way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't get me wrong; The Sigma is a mighty fine lens, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://photocritic.org/live-band-concert-photography/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;I have used it extensively, especially for concert photography&lt;/a&gt;, but if everything else is the same, and the extra 80 dollars or so doesn't make a difference to you - go with the Nikon. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although, obviously, it'll be down to you as a photographer to make either lens shine :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1560" LastActivityDate="2010-10-05T20:53:45.490" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3764" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3695" CreationDate="2010-10-05T21:03:38.433" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Sigma lens should have an AF/MF selector - if you set it to Manual Focus, your lens should work as usual, because that confirms to the camera body that you're aware that you have to shoot with manual focusing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If that doesn't work, try flicking the switch back and forth a couple of times; it may be that the sensor isn't working properly&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If that doesn't work; try the lens on a different camera body; there might be a fault with the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1560" LastActivityDate="2010-10-05T21:03:38.433" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3765" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3759" CreationDate="2010-10-05T21:43:35.700" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As stated already your main options are high-speed sync (if your flash supports it) or an ND filter. There is another extreme option which is available which is not very practical but I include for completeness, and that is to &lt;strong&gt;shoot above your max sync speed&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may need to use the flash in manual mode + mask the extra pins in order to trick the camera into letting you shoot past the max sync speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if your subject doesn't occupy the whole frame you can shoot above the max speed so the flash only illuminates part of the scene. By orienting the camera you can chose which half is illuminated so this might be just enough. For more details read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/06/hacking-your-cameras-sync-speed-pt-2.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/06/hacking-your-cameras-sync-speed-pt-2.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, using Pocketwizard transmitters that have the Hypersync function, the flash firing can be tuned to precisely time the peak output with the shutter opening in order to up the sync speed. By combining two these techniques you could quadruple your shutter speed allowing you to open the aperture at least two stops. See:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pocketwizard.com/inspirations/technology/hypersync_fpsync/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pocketwizard.com/inspirations/technology/hypersync_fpsync/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-10-05T21:43:35.700" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3766" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3769" CreationDate="2010-10-05T22:11:49.750" Score="10" ViewCount="745" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm trading up my T2i for a 60D but I have a custom focusing screen for the T2i. Anyone know if I can transfer the focusing screen to the 60D or will I need to get a new one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="217" LastActivityDate="2010-10-07T00:35:26.490" Title="60D Focus screen" Tags="&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;focusing-screen&gt;&lt;canon-60d&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="3767" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3750" CreationDate="2010-10-06T01:57:47.920" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lenses without the AF-S (silentwave motor) designation will not focus on bodies without an in-body motor (any body below the D90)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T01:57:47.920" />
  <row Id="3769" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3766" CreationDate="2010-10-06T07:03:09.253" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From what I can find, the 60D has the same focusing screen as 40D and 50D, and it looks quite different from the one in the 550D (T2i) so it's not likely that it will fit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/item--Canon-40D-50D-Focusing-Screen--prod_40D.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;40D/50D custom focusing screen replacement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/item--Canon-550D-T2i-Focusing-Screen--prod_550D.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;550D custom focusing screen replacement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the Canon specs, the 550D focusing screen is not replaceable, although there are third party custom replacements. The 40D/50D/60D has easily replaceable focusing screens, so there are both brand and third party custom replacements available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-07T00:35:26.490" LastActivityDate="2010-10-07T00:35:26.490" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3770" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3772" CreationDate="2010-10-06T09:03:24.697" Score="7" ViewCount="180" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it always better to just buy now and ignore marketing hype, announcements, and speculation?  If I always wait for the next model, I will never buy anything.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What about buying the cheapest thing now as a stop-gap, and waiting until after the next big photo-show?  Or renting equipment until I find something I really like working with?  (Won't that get expensive over time?)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do you do when you want to get new kit?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would really like to hear how best to make the decision to buy or to wait. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T21:45:40.333" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T22:45:26.493" Title="What factors should I take into account when deciding whether to buy now or wait for something better?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;technology-generations&gt;" AnswerCount="7" />
  <row Id="3771" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="581" CreationDate="2010-10-06T09:24:54.230" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;We started with a recommendation, met the photographer, saw her portfolio, and spent some time talking with her about what we wanted and how she liked to work; the portfolio let us see that she had the technical skill to do her job, but the conversation was the most important part.  Weddings have plenty of stress and potential for drama about them.  You do not need more sources of that, and we went with our choice simply because she fitted in so well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1349" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T09:24:54.230" />
  <row Id="3772" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3770" CreationDate="2010-10-06T09:41:51.820" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does it do what I need now?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's the key one.  There'll be another better one in 6 months or whatever, but in the mean time do I want to miss 6 months of photos I &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; be taking?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1349" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T09:41:51.820" />
  <row Id="3773" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3770" CreationDate="2010-10-06T10:13:12.617" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Buy now. Enjoy using your gear in the meantime.&lt;/strong&gt; I held back on buying a 5D for a long time waiting for the 5D mkII, then ended up getting a mkI anyway when it was released (the specs of the mkII were not what I'd hoped given the price)!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There will allways be new models as you say. Also when new cameras are released the price starts very high, there are are often problems with supply, firmware bugs and other issues that are noticed by early adopters which take time to fix. It's much better to wait a while until all the faults are ironed out and a user base develops, helping evaluate the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only exceptions are truly game changing features such as Nikon's first FX camera (and perhaps video). That's the onoy thing I would take into account, asking myself  &quot;does this new camera do something that was &lt;strong&gt;impossible&lt;/strong&gt; before?&quot;, if not why wait. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Renting is an option, if you only expect to shoot infrequently, though this is a better approach for lenses. With camera bodies it pays to really learn all the features and get used to using it, which takes time. It's nice to sit and home and play in your spare time, not try and learn it three days a month when actually shooting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-06T10:27:25.643" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T10:27:25.643" />
  <row Id="3774" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3770" CreationDate="2010-10-06T11:18:36.933" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you know a new announcement is coming (ie. around Photokina) it might be better to wait a few weeks (or a few months), if your primary concern is budget, because you may find older models being reduced in price as their replacements are announced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance, in August, I decided that I wanted to get a D90, but knowing that its replacement was expected to be announced in September, I decided to wait.   And, although the D7000 has impressive specs, the D7000 body costs the same as what the D90 kit used to cost.  Since the announcement, the D90 has dropped dramatically in price (over $250 in Canada anyway).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ordered my D90 this morning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the otherhand, if you need the camera now, then now is the time to buy!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="227" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T11:18:36.933" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3775" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3770" CreationDate="2010-10-06T11:56:00.770" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There will always be &quot;something better&quot; released in the future; I'd advocate not getting too hung up on whether the next model will solve world hunger or not as rumours of what it may (or may not) support are merely rumours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some sites share an opinion on whether it is a bad idea to buy or not, based on their predictions, for example, for Canon gear, there is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canonrumors.com/cameras/canon-rumors-price-watch/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this site&lt;/a&gt;, which currently doesn't think any of the Canon bodies are due to replaced imminently (with a 1Ds replacement 6-12 months away).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd always recommend upgrading when there is a feature that you &lt;strong&gt;need&lt;/strong&gt;, and instead invest in lenses, as you can reap the benefits sooner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T11:56:00.770" />
  <row Id="3776" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3770" CreationDate="2010-10-06T13:14:49.680" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Like many consumer electronics, you can easily be paralyzed by perpetually waiting for the next, best thing to come out.  Unlike most other consumables, though, photo equipment comes with a couple additional factors to consider:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Compatibility&lt;/strong&gt;.  No matter what sort of setup you're buying, you're going to end up picking up a ton of accessories.  In the case of a DSLR, obviously, this includes lenses, but even for a P&amp;amp;S, you're likely to accumulate bags, batteries, tripods, flashes, memory cards (this could go on for a while), and so on.  If you're buying into a system, your purchase is pretty important, and you should be looking at the whole system -- not just the unit you're drooling over.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Resale value&lt;/strong&gt;.  Unlike many other consumer electronic items, used cameras hold their value fairly well, and lenses hold their value even better.  Therefore, you can pick up today's equipment (or even yesterday's equipment) and have a good chance of getting most of what you paid out of it if and when you want to upgrade (which makes upgrading much more budget-friendly).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the extent that you can pick a system and buy stuff that's compatible with that system, you've got a lot of flexibility to swap pieces and parts, and you'll be able to make better decisions about the stuff you're buying because you're &lt;em&gt;taking pictures&lt;/em&gt;!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T13:14:49.680" />
  <row Id="3777" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3779" CreationDate="2010-10-06T13:15:59.780" Score="5" ViewCount="145" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello Everyone,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have been using a P&amp;amp;S camera (Nikon Coolpix 4600) for about 5 years now. I usually take pictures at&#xA;family events and at my outdoor trips. I got hooked onto photography once I started getting nice words&#xA;from people who see those.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have been reading about terminologies related to cameras (DSLR) and lenses.&#xA;Though I'm quite happy with my camera, I got really excited once I saw got a chance to use my&#xA;friends' high-end Canon P&amp;amp;S. I was amazed at how advance P&amp;amp;S's have become.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would now like to upgrade my camera. My confusion is whether to go for a DSLR or to select a high-end P&amp;amp;S.&#xA;Since I have already used a Nikon, I'm leaning towards the same brand. I have a budget constraint also. Atleast&#xA;till I get a pay rise, which will not happen for another year, I do not want to go beyond $450.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have two models in mind at this point. One is the P100, which is a P&amp;amp;S and fits my budget. The other one is&#xA;the D3100,which is a DSLR that doesn't fit my budget. But the capabilities of DSLR are luring me towards buying &#xA;this, stretching my budget a bit. I do not have any contacts at my place where I can trust for getting a used one.&#xA;I also have apprehensions about maintaining the lenses and the body properly. I live in Chennai, India which is quite humid.&#xA;It may sound silly but I'm more concerned about the maintanence of the camera and lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should I jump and buy a DSLR or go for a high-end P&amp;amp;S learn the tricks more thoroughly and then do it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1565" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T18:47:33.400" Title="Usual dilemma - P&amp;S or DSLR" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3778" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3777" CreationDate="2010-10-06T13:27:37.617" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given your budget and what you intend to use the camera for, I'd lean towards the P&amp;amp;S.  You can still take decent pictures with a P&amp;amp;S if you choose to go out and shoot scenery or buildings, etc. and the P&amp;amp;S's have come a long way in allowing you to specify how the shot can be taken.  Good luck with your search.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1309" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T13:27:37.617" />
  <row Id="3779" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3777" CreationDate="2010-10-06T13:59:07.967" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Today's high-end P&amp;amp;S's really are pretty good &quot;jacks of all trades&quot;.  Considering the fact that you've got one unit to carry around, you can cover an impressive range of photographic needs reasonably well.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to cover the same focal range as the P100, you're probably going to need multiple DSLR lenses, which increases the cost and weight of the DSLR setup (in order to equal the capabilities of the P&amp;amp;S).  If you find yourself using all of the zoom range of your P&amp;amp;S, be sure you look at what sort of glass you'd need to buy to equal this range in a DSLR.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't forget that you'll then have to carry that equipment around.  Pick up a DSLR with a decent-sized lens, and compare this to your P&amp;amp;S.  The difference isn't significant for most shooting, but if you're backpacking or traveling, the bulk of a DSLR can be a factor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The DSLR, on the other hand, gives you get more versatility, higher quality, and better performance.  If you've ever become frustrated because your P&amp;amp;S couldn't perform the way you want in marginal light or doesn't autofocus or respond as fast as you'd like, these are the sorts of things that a DSLR will help with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Give some thought to the things you'd like your P&amp;amp;S to be able to do better.  What are the things that drive you crazy about your camera?  What sorts of shots do you miss?  Given these, consider whether the DSLR would help with those issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said all that, the D3100 looks like a &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; sweet camera -- especially for the price.    ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T13:59:07.967" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3780" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3782" CreationDate="2010-10-06T14:08:01.327" Score="13" ViewCount="227" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking to make some upgrades in the next couple of months (new camera body, new lenses, new tripod); and will no longer be needing some of my equipment (old camera body, some old lenses).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to sell the stuff I'll no longer be using in order to lessen the economic impact of the new purchases.  I've heard great stories about eBay, Craigslist, and local classified ads; and I've heard horror stories about eBay, Craigslist, and local classified ads.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to strike a balance between ease of sale, and not shipping my lenses to someone who has no intention of paying.  I'm curious as to where you've had successes, or failures, selling your gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1493" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T20:33:21.100" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T20:33:21.100" Title="What's the easiest and safest way to sell photo gear?" Tags="&lt;used-equipment&gt;&lt;selling&gt;&lt;ebay&gt;&lt;risk&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="3781" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3780" CreationDate="2010-10-06T14:17:53.923" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You might want to take a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.keh.com/SellYourGear/sellyourgear-1.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KEH&lt;/a&gt;.  They may not give you the absolute highest price, but they are quite reputable, and you can certainly feel safe going through them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T14:17:53.923" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3782" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3780" CreationDate="2010-10-06T14:34:44.667" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The easiest and safest way to sell photography equipment is to sell it to people you know! I've had the good fortune to be able to do this in the past. Failing that, I've also sold stuff on eBay and not had any problems. You only ship when the buyer's funds are in your paypal account, and using an insured &amp;amp; signed for delivery system prevents them from claiming they never received the goods. I'm not an eBay expert but it seems relatively safe these days and gives you access to a very large market. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With any service you have to use your wits to spot potential scams, it's usually fairly easy to tell if someone's a photography enthusiast or not. I would recommend selling to those who are! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember, the scare stories you hear are always the exception to the norm, &quot;man doesn't get ripped off on eBay&quot; isn't as newsworthy! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-14T18:11:07.400" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T18:11:07.400" />
  <row Id="3783" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3780" CreationDate="2010-10-06T14:56:04.280" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Other than selling it to people you know (as pointed out by Matt) the easiest and safest way would be to a camera shop that deals in second hand equipment. You walk in there with your kit, they look at it and you walk out with money. Of course you will get less money than if you cut out the middleman, but that's your trade off to make.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T14:56:04.280" />
  <row Id="3784" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3777" CreationDate="2010-10-06T15:10:25.640" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The key step ups you will get by going for a DSLR are, in my opinion:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;an optical viewfinder - you get to see the light coming through the lens, and this will have a higher resolution than any screen on the back of a P&amp;amp;S.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the ability to have a shallow &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;depth of field&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3aShallow_Depth_of_Field_with_Bokeh.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;example&lt;/a&gt;) - the small lenses and sensors of a P&amp;amp;S preclude getting a really shallow depth of field.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;better low light performance, again because of the bigger sensor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;more responsive - quicker focus, quicker taking of photos (from pressing the shutter release) ...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;more direct control of zoom - I much prefer adjusting zoom by twisting a grip on the lens than by pressing and releasing buttons on the back of a camera. I feel much more in control because of it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it's up to you if those advantages are worth the extra price and weight of a DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also I wouldn't worry about brand loyalty going from P&amp;amp;S to DSLR, they are quite different markets. And Olympus do some pretty nice, fairly small, relatively cheap DSLRs. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pcpro.co.uk/reviews/digital-cameras/199170/olympus-e-420&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Olympus E-420 often gets good reviews&lt;/a&gt;, as does the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pcpro.co.uk/reviews/digital-cameras/351685/pentax-k-m&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pentax K-m&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could also consider a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2579/point-and-shoot-size-camera-with-advanced-camera-features/2583#2583&quot;&gt;MILC/EVIL/SLD&lt;/a&gt; camera. Basically the sensor and interchangeable lenses from a DSLR, but a smaller body and no optical viewfinder. However last time I checked they were more expensive than the cheaper DSLRs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T15:10:25.640" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3785" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3770" CreationDate="2010-10-06T15:16:22.310" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My approach is to borrow kit to get me started, or to try out for a holiday. My first DSLR was a fairly old one second hand off a friend to dip my toe in the water and see if I really liked it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once I was sure I did like using a DSLR, and was frustrated by the limitations of the kit (lack of top LCD and second dial on a Canon 300D) I looked around for what was coming up and bided my time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end I bought a 40D just after the 50D came out - the 40D price was cheaper than the 500D at the time I think, and the big new feature on the 50D was video which doesn't interest me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T15:16:22.310" />
  <row Id="3786" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3810" CreationDate="2010-10-06T16:37:59.400" Score="2" ViewCount="289" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know this forum is for photography, but I decided to post here anyway being a StackOverflow user. I'm going to shoot my first short film. I need suggestions on buying a camera. Here are the things I'm looking for:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ability to shoot telephoto and wide-angle shots&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ability to shoot for slow-motion (If fps can be configured, then great!)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hard-disk storage with good storage memory&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Long battery life&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ability to attach an external mic&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;720p HD is fine if not full HD&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ability to export videos to MP4 or other standard formats&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Budget: $500 +/- $100, but I can afford more if it's really worth it&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have no knowledge when it comes to shooting videos or taking pictures. Some of the things I mentioned may not be even possible - like, I think I need separate lenses for telephoto and wide-angle shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for your suggestions!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1567" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-06T16:43:32.243" LastActivityDate="2010-10-08T00:53:12.833" Title="I'm Buying a Camera for a Short Film, Need Suggestions" Tags="&lt;hd-video&gt;&lt;low-budget&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="3787" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3702" CreationDate="2010-10-06T17:09:34.000" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some cameras allow you to see the histogram for each color channel side by side. That way you can tell if a single color was overexposed instead of the entire image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1569" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T17:09:34.000" />
  <row Id="3788" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3665" CreationDate="2010-10-06T17:33:01.170" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another option for the UK: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.peak-imaging.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Peak Imaging&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the past I've had a 90x30cm (but I'm sure they'd do 5:1 ratio as well) pano printed there, I was very pleased with the result and it was pretty cheap as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the frame, I found a 100x50cm at HobbyCraft, and had a custom mount made up at a local shop.  I think for the ratios wider than that, you'll need to get a custom made frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1571" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T17:33:01.170" />
  <row Id="3789" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3791" CreationDate="2010-10-06T17:53:49.027" Score="12" ViewCount="155" Body="&lt;p&gt;With the introduction of the Nikon D7000, one of its advantages over the D90 is that its lowest &quot;true&quot; ISO is 100 instead of 200.  What does this mean though, what had to change in the the construction of the D7000 to allow this lower ISO?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not asking how ISO affects exposure.  It's more like I am asking what are the limiting factors in what ISO number is the lowest for a given camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T23:46:34.813" Title="What factors determine the lowest ISO for a camera?" Tags="&lt;iso&gt;&lt;digital-iso&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="3790" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3792" CreationDate="2010-10-06T18:29:37.800" Score="3" ViewCount="83" Body="&lt;p&gt;We have two good questions that are similar to this &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3015/how-good-is-a-monopod&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; discusses how good monopods are. And &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3745/tripod-for-upto-100&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt; talks about tripods under $100. The second was the inspiration for this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am looking for some possibilities for monopods with good stability for Canon XXXD class cameras with mid size telephotos like &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3489/special-care-for-telephotos&quot;&gt;70-200's&lt;/a&gt; under $100. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An added feature which would be ideal, is the ability to use the monopod as a hiking staff or walking stick. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A friend of mine also mentioned to me that he knew of a tripod which disassembled into two walking sticks and a third part. If you have any information on this, I would be very interested.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: This question was a result of a suggestion by Anant after the discussion &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3745/tripod-for-upto-100&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastEditorUserId="269" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-06T19:12:27.233" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T23:26:33.940" Title="Monopod under $100" Tags="&lt;monopod&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="3791" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3789" CreationDate="2010-10-06T18:30:25.443" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In principal the base ISO is determined by how much light can hit the sensor before the individual photosites become saturated&lt;/strong&gt; (i.e. the signal they produce doesn't not increase in response to extra light). This is in turn affected by factors such as the electron well capacity of each sensel (how many electrons can be stored before saturation), the efficiency of the microlenses, transmission rate of UV, IR and low pass filters in front of the sensor etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;High base ISO is not necessarily a bad thing, it can indicate the sensor is very efficient at gathering light. Likewise a low base ISO (along with allowing longer shutter speeds / larger apertures), may be good as it can indicate a high well depth which will allow more photons to be captured for lower noise / higher dynamic range. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;edit: all things being equal fill fraction (the percentage of the CCD or CMOS real estate that contains light gathering circuitry) doesn't affect the base ISO&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-06T23:46:34.813" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T23:46:34.813" />
  <row Id="3792" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3790" CreationDate="2010-10-06T18:32:47.770" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe you're looking for something like the TrekPod.  I picked one of these up a year or so ago, and I love it.  As others have been quick to point out, it's no substitute for a real tripod, but it's a great hiking companion, IMO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T18:32:47.770" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="3793" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3777" CreationDate="2010-10-06T18:47:33.400" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One factor to consider, is in what kind of places do you typically take pictures? Although DSLR's physical size have been gradually getting smaller, it's still not nearly as small as point and shoot. I traveled to different places in South East Asia, and have taken some picture in bad neighborhoods in New York city. In places like that, I would be hesitant to be carrying around an expensive DSLR out in the open. Decent P&amp;amp;S with good range of ISO, shutter speed and apature size is really useful in that kind of situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T18:47:33.400" />
  <row Id="3794" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3786" CreationDate="2010-10-06T19:35:30.980" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;At the risk of being controversial, I'd suggest a good quality stills camera, that offers HD video capability; something like the Canon T2i (in the US) which appears to be a bit above your budget at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=Canon+T2i&amp;amp;cid=7906721379728819566&amp;amp;ei=j86sTKCIJMPY-QbF0e3bAQ&amp;amp;sa=title&amp;amp;ved=0CAcQ8wIwADgA#p&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;around 750 USD&lt;/a&gt;. With the larger sensor in a DSLR, you'll be able to get more of a cinematic effect with wide apertures, and the associated shallow depth of field. Don't forget that there have been a number of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS-5D_Mark_II#Independent_film_and_television&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;high profile shows filmed along similar principles&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T19:35:30.980" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="3795" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3796" CreationDate="2010-10-06T20:03:21.987" Score="5" ViewCount="116" Body="&lt;p&gt;have a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ10 and because I love to dive, i've also bought the underwater case Panasonic DMW-MCTZ 10 E. The case come with a diffuser, that can be removed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As i'm not really an expert in Photography i would like to know when or why use a diffuser for underwater pics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1361" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T20:27:02.713" Title="Diffuser for underwater" Tags="&lt;underwater&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3796" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3795" CreationDate="2010-10-06T20:27:02.713" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With underwater photography one of the biggest problems you face is backscatter - light being reflected back from the flash into the lens. This is most common in areas where there's a lot of sediment carried into the water from runoff or river sediment, but it can still be a factor in places without significant rain or river influx.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way to avoid backscatter is to limit the amount of light coming straight back into the lens (ie use a diffuser) or set up your gear in such a way that the primary light source (for instance a remote strobe) angled so that light hitting the bits of sediment is reflected away from the lens. This is why you see underwater cameras with strobes on arms set away from the camera body, rather than tucked next to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However you then have the problem of getting the remote strobe to fire when needed. DSLRs will often have TTL cable ports built into their housings, so the camera's metering system can take charge of them, but the smaller cameras won't have that functionality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Strobes built for these are designed to be fired in a slave mode - when the camera's internal flash fires, they detect the light flash and fire in response. You may (depending on the conditions) find that the internal flash itself doesn't produce enough light to trigger the external strobe. In that case you can buy fibre-optic cables that link the internal flash to the external strobe. These will increase (although not guarantee) that your external strobe will fire when needed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the short answer is that while you can theoretically remove the diffuser, in practice you risk getting too much backscatter as a result. An external strobe is not essential, but will help you get much better results, much more reliably.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T20:27:02.713" />
  <row Id="3797" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3786" CreationDate="2010-10-06T20:37:37.837" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming that you are, in fact, looking for a still camera that can shoot video, this is a tough combination of requirements.  I'm not sure if you're going to find one camera that does all these things.  The just-announced Nikon D3100 may be one of the best fits out there, though it's a little North of your budget.  There are a few other options that are &lt;em&gt;well&lt;/em&gt; North of your budget.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some thoughts on specific requirements:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For slow-motion, you might want to look at Casio - they've got some cameras that are supposed to be able to do this (though they're not DSLR's).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Not too many cameras have external mic jacks yet.  Canon's 5D, 7D, and T2i, plus Nikon's D3100 (and probably a few more) have mic jacks.  This feature is just starting to work its way down into entry-level cameras.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Still cameras write to flash cards, not HDD's.  At one point, there were mini HDD's (Microdrives) that fit the form factor of a Compact Flash type II card, but I believe these have fallen off in popularity as &quot;native&quot; CF memory became more affordable.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T20:37:37.837" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3798" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3105" CreationDate="2010-10-06T21:50:45.727" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This video at Adorama.tv &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WTaDdgpbI4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WTaDdgpbI4&lt;/a&gt; addresses this question precisely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T21:50:45.727" />
  <row Id="3799" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3790" CreationDate="2010-10-06T23:26:33.940" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Canon Monopod 100 is a great budget monopod at ~$30.  Extends to 64.5&quot;, folds down to 21.3&quot; (and attaches to my little bag quite easily), sturdy, nice ball head that holds a good bit of weight, makes a good walking stick on hikes and has a wrist strap.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've used it with my Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 at airshows and for sports.  Works great on the tripod collar.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-10-06T23:26:33.940" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3800" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3387" CreationDate="2010-10-07T00:20:05.340" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Eruditass--&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you say &quot;the ND filter...acts as a fake aperature&quot; does this mean that it really isn't a physical lens filter but merely something done on the CCD?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-10-07T00:20:05.340" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3801" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3387" CreationDate="2010-10-07T01:27:59.333" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The size of your circle of confusion is determined by the effective size of the front element. Apertures effectively shrink the front element by blocking light passing through the edges of the lens, and only allowing light hitting the middle of the lens to pass. Since your camera (as Eruditass points out) does not have its own aperture, you can't do this with any settings or firmware.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if you'd like to have the same effect, you can &lt;em&gt;create&lt;/em&gt; an aperture on the front of your lens. For example, you could punch a hole smaller than your lens's front element in a piece of black construction paper, and then center the hole in front of your lens. (You might experience some vignetting.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the same idea behind &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diyphotography.net/diy_create_your_own_bokeh&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;shaped bokeh&lt;/a&gt;, you're just using the shape of &quot;a small circle&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2010-10-07T01:27:59.333" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3802" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3780" CreationDate="2010-10-07T03:31:33.827" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would suggest &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/10&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the fredmiranda&lt;/a&gt; forums, as being a very good and safe place to sell. You will need to invest a little money(around $25), but as the seller, you are mostly protected from scams, as usually the buyer pays before you ship. Moreover, the community is very developed, so you will get a pretty fair price for your gear. You can look back at other transactions on the same gear, and see what others got.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have bought all of my photo gear off fredmiranda thus far, and have no complaints from the purchasing side. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastActivityDate="2010-10-07T03:31:33.827" />
  <row Id="3803" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3387" CreationDate="2010-10-07T03:33:08.317" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I assume from the above discussion that CHDK only lets you turn the ND filter on/off--i.e. the filter doesn't have any values attached to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-10-07T03:33:08.317" />
  <row Id="3805" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="230" CreationDate="2010-10-07T06:12:37.553" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.arcsoft.com/estore/software_title.asp?ProductCode=PMK5PRO&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Arcsoft Panorama Maker 4&lt;/a&gt;. I got in a bundle it when I bought my point 'n' shoot Nikon, but it is a great and simple piece of software. Works on MS Windows and Macintosh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I most like is that it automatically stitches images, it doesn't require that you manually set the connecting points of images that are next to each other, and does it pretty well. Only condition is that you have a well contrast and &quot;content filled&quot; images (as opposed to monotone images with not much of subjects), but even then you can set the points in a matter of minutes and have a great panorama.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I even supports creating 360° panoramas that can be saved as interactive flash objects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1579" LastActivityDate="2010-10-07T06:12:37.553" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-03T13:16:05.547" />
  <row Id="3806" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1228" CreationDate="2010-10-07T11:57:37.543" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would suggest looking at &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3726/is-it-possible-to-shoot-tethered-using-an-ipad&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;. In this I have suggest using a &lt;a href=&quot;http://uk.eye.fi/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;eye-fi&lt;/a&gt; card and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.eye.fi/products/iphone&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;free app&lt;/a&gt; to display them on the iPad. Others have other suggested other solutions that may help you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="560" LastActivityDate="2010-10-07T11:57:37.543" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3807" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="350" CreationDate="2010-10-07T12:36:42.093" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Others have covered the basic techniques you can use here pretty well - just a couple additional points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I'm not aware of a good, cheap, fast wide-angle lens for Canon.  Their 28mm 2.8 runs about $250, and that's not super-wide, super-fast, or super-cheap (compared to the 50mm 1.8, anyway).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The 50mm 1.8 is such a great bargain that it's worth considering even if you're not sure how well it'll work for composition.  You're going to get 2-3 stops better light-gathering ability relative to your lens, which will make a real difference.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;+1 for flash.  You can play with flash exposure compensation to vary the effect of the flash a bit.  Even if you don't have an external flash, you can play with diffusing or bouncing the onboard flash with something as simple as a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digicamhelp.com/taking-photos/lighting-techniques/bounce-flash/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;3x5 card&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you do end up shooting at a high ISO, take a look at DxO Optics Pro - it seems to do a pretty decent job with noise reduction, and it's pretty affordable compared to other options.  They've got a free trial if you want to try it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For the shooting you're doing, I don't think you're going to get a huge improvement from a tripod.  The tripod eliminates camera movement, but it won't stop the people in your shot from moving.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-10-07T12:36:42.093" />
  <row Id="3808" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1862" CreationDate="2010-10-07T15:15:13.263" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you can find some good responses here:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/11/cyber-commander-launched-flash-remotes.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/11/cyber-commander-launched-flash-remotes.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have not tried the commander, but I own the cybersync transmitters, and love them.  Never had a misfire.  The only problem is that they can toggle on while in a bag, and run out of juice.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2010-10-07T15:15:13.263" />
  <row Id="3809" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-07T15:47:22.817" Score="9" ViewCount="760" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I import NEF photos into Lightroom, they do not look as good as they appear when importing into Capture NX.  The colours look a little more muddy and there is a lack of contrast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means that I have do a little more work in Lightroom to make them look better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any presets, that I can use on import, which I can use to make the photos look more like how they appear in Capture NX?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a Nikon D40 and a D90.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="994" LastActivityDate="2010-10-08T09:13:07.827" Title="Lightroom import presets for Nikon D40 and D90." Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;lightroom&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3810" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3786" CreationDate="2010-10-07T15:51:02.353" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On the cheap, the Olymnpus PEN E-PL1 can be an option:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ability to shoot telephoto and wide-angle shots - &lt;strong&gt;YES&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ability to shoot for slow-motion (If fps can be configured, then great!) - &lt;strong&gt;NO&lt;/strong&gt; (But I have a Casio EX-FH100 and the slowmo at 400 fps is mind boggling) However, shooting this camera with the Diorama art filter on gives the video a stop motion/time lapse look&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hard-disk storage with good storage memory - &lt;strong&gt;SOMEWHAT&lt;/strong&gt; (Support up to 32 GB SDHC)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Long battery life - &lt;strong&gt;NO&lt;/strong&gt; (Extra OEM batteries are cheap at 5 bucks a pop at Amazon)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ability to attach an external mic - &lt;strong&gt;YES&lt;/strong&gt; (Get the SEMA-1 Adapter; hooked mine to a Senheiser mic)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;720p HD is fine if not full HD - &lt;strong&gt;YES&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ability to export videos to MP4 or other standard formats - &lt;strong&gt;YES&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Budget: $500 +/- $100, but I can afford more if it's really worth it - &lt;strong&gt;WITHIN&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Olympus shot the ad for that camera using the camera itself. If they can shoot an ad using it, it's probably good enough for you. Talk about eating your own dog food. Check out their ad:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E25em-brl8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E25em-brl8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="979" LastEditorUserId="979" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-08T00:53:12.833" LastActivityDate="2010-10-08T00:53:12.833" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3811" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3786" CreationDate="2010-10-07T16:15:48.093" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sticking with the stills camera the shoots video (I'm afraid that's probably all you'll get from us lot)...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Casio Exilim EX-FH25 is the only camera I know of to do proper slow motion, albeit at at lower than HD. It ticks a lot of the boxes, only really falls down on mic jack:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ability to shoot telephoto and wide-angle shots &lt;strong&gt;Yes 20x zoom 26-520mm equiv.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ability to shoot for slow-motion (If fps can be configured, then great!) &lt;strong&gt;Yes configurable up to 120fps at 640x480 up to 1000fps at 224x64&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hard-disk storage with good storage memory &lt;strong&gt;No, but high capacity SDHC cards are available)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Long battery life &lt;strong&gt;Yes (takes AA batteries)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ability to attach an external mic &lt;strong&gt;No, may be a deal breaker&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;720p HD is fine if not full HD &lt;strong&gt;Yes&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ability to export videos to MP4 or other standard formats &lt;strong&gt;Motion JPEG, will need converting&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Budget: $500 +/- $100, but I can afford more if it's really worth it &lt;strong&gt;Yes $350&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-10-07T16:15:48.093" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="3812" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="230" CreationDate="2010-10-07T17:14:06.940" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Microsoft ICE and Auto Pano have worked very well for me. I tried most other solutions proposed here and most of them take the fun out of making panoramas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to simply put in your images and let the software do the work and not even need to learn what control points are, then go for one of those automated tools. At this point I almost exclusively use MS ICE because it lets the center and projection to be adjusted interactively. It makes a huge difference in precisely making the pano look the way you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having to instead adjust the angle (tilt or other stepped parameter) by specifying degrees in a dialog box as with many other software is simply ridiculous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-10-07T17:14:06.940" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-03T13:16:05.547" />
  <row Id="3813" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3821" CreationDate="2010-10-07T20:37:27.667" Score="10" ViewCount="1785" Body="&lt;p&gt;When looking at used camera bodies, a question that comes up a lot, is &quot;how many shutter actuations, or clicks, does it have?&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I am wondering is, how many is too many. In other words, is there a reference for knowing when a sensor is more likely to go? How should I judge a camera body with 20000 vs 5000? Is that a significant difference, or is that not even relevant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously this might something that is dependent on model, so if there is some information based on model that would be even more interesting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the guys at Canon Tech Support said that this is completely irrelevant for the Rebel series cameras, but he is obviously slightly biased. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T19:03:37.120" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T19:03:37.120" Title="How many actuations are &quot;too many actuations&quot;?" Tags="&lt;body&gt;&lt;shutter-actuations&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="3814" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3387" CreationDate="2010-10-07T20:47:25.663" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Adam said in the beginning of the thread &quot;in anything other that blasting sun the aperture is always wide open.&quot; This is my experience with the SD780 also. The lens is rated at F3.2 and the camera nearly always chooses F3.2 except, rarely, under very bright light it will choose F9.0. But that is it, no other F stops (unless you use optical zoom). But what Erudtass just said makes me think that it isn't really choosing an Fstop of 9.0 . Is this just a number to indicate that it has turned on the ND filter??&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-10-07T20:47:25.663" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3815" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3813" CreationDate="2010-10-07T21:20:11.177" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most camera manufacturers will publish information on the average shutter life.  For example with Canon, I believe the rebels are rated for 10,000 activations, the 40D, 50D, 60D units are rated for 50,000 activations, and the higher-end units for 100,000 activations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are ballpark figures... a camera with an &quot;average&quot; life of 50,000 activations might fail at 20,000 or it could be good for 70,000.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-10-07T21:20:11.177" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="3817" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3813" CreationDate="2010-10-07T22:06:55.020" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Different camera shutters are rated for different numbers of actuations as you state so that should influence how many is too many.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also actuations will &lt;em&gt;roughly&lt;/em&gt; correlate with how well used the camera is, so that might indicate wear or the mount / body / battery. Battery wear is probably most significant. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having owned SLRs that have had shutters fail from overuse, the first thing to go is the high speeds. First you get black frames when shooting 1/4000, then at 1/1000, then it gives up. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon DSLR manufacturer stated shutter life expectancies:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EOS Digital Rebel XS / 1000D &lt;strong&gt;100,000&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EOS Digital Rebel T1i / 500D &lt;strong&gt;100,000&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EOS Digital Rebel XSi / 450D &lt;strong&gt;100,000&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi / 400D &lt;strong&gt;50,000&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT / 350D &lt;strong&gt;50,000&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EOS 50D &lt;strong&gt;100,000&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EOS 40D &lt;strong&gt;100,000&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EOS 30D &lt;strong&gt;100,000&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EOS 20D &lt;strong&gt;50,000&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EOS 7D  &lt;strong&gt;150,000&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EOS 5D Mark II  &lt;strong&gt;150,000&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EOS 5D  &lt;strong&gt;100,000&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EOS 1D Mark IV  &lt;strong&gt;300,000&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EOS 1D Mark III &lt;strong&gt;300,000&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EOS 1D Mark II N &lt;strong&gt;200,000&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EOS 1DS Mark III &lt;strong&gt;300,000&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EOS 1DS Mark II &lt;strong&gt;200,000&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-eos-rebel-t1i-500d-digital-slr-camera-review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;www.the-digital-picture.com&quot;&gt;www.the-digital-picture.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;AS this shows, the results for the cheaper models are becoming very respectable, either the quality of manufacture is getting better or more testing is leading to less conservative estimates (I suspect the latter). I've seen shutters go way past the expected life so the shutter count is not the be all and end all, if the Camera is visibly in good nick I wouldn't worry unduly about what's under the surface.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-07T23:44:32.947" LastActivityDate="2010-10-07T23:44:32.947" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3818" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-07T22:24:20.583" Score="8" ViewCount="184" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi There. I have a Canon Rebel T2i With a Kit lens and a 50mm 1.8 prime with me. I want to get started with strobes. Now the thing is, I don't have any idea about all the stuffs I'd be needing like the remotes, the light stands, the flashes etc..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So can anybody recommend which way to go for the essential things that I'll be needing for a set up?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1485" LastActivityDate="2010-10-08T15:09:28.893" Title="Starting with strobes" Tags="&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;strobist&gt;&lt;strobes&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="3819" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3824" CreationDate="2010-10-07T22:53:20.367" Score="3" ViewCount="174" Body="&lt;p&gt;My goto camera is still my 5D Mark II. As I primarily shoot landscape, I love Wide Angle on a Full Frame body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I do occasionally shoot animals and people running.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 5D Mark II's AF system, while not as bad as the Internet would like you to believe, does show it's age.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm tempted to pair up the 7D with my 5D, to better help with action shots. Currently I can get one for $1500 which is well within my price range. I currently have a 40D as a spare, and I like it well enough, but I'm not as happy with it's AF performance either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So will I notice a noticeable improvement in AF for moving subjects, worthy of the investment, or should I make do with my 5D2, given than I use it more than any other body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T02:07:57.737" Title="Replacing my XXD with a 7D?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;canon-7d&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3820" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3818" CreationDate="2010-10-07T22:58:10.083" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You, my friend, are in amazing luck, because there is a really awesome website dedicated to strobes (more specifically off-camera lighting).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I highly, highly recommend checking out &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://strobist.blogspot.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lighting 101 series is a great beginner guide to getting started with strobes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To better answer your question here, it would help to know your budget.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I highly recommend (and use) Sigma 500 series flashes for Canon if you are under budget constraints. If you are brand loyal, and have the cash, the Canon 580 EX2 is a great flash head--doing everything the Sigma's can, but adding much sturdier build.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-10-07T22:58:10.083" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3821" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3813" CreationDate="2010-10-07T23:26:25.357" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A great resource for looking at camera bodies and shutter life is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.olegkikin.com/shutterlife/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Camera Shutter Life Expectancy Database&lt;/a&gt;.  For those that have DSLR's, spread the word and submit your #'s!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Different camera bodies have different MTBF ratings.  Some more important factors are how the person cared for their camera and the typical environment.  Regular dust cleaning, for example, helps a lot.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-08T00:26:13.240" LastActivityDate="2010-10-08T00:26:13.240" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3822" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3819" CreationDate="2010-10-07T23:55:27.740" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a 5DMII, and only tried the 7D for a short time, when a friend of mine bought it. He ended up returning it for a 5DMII. This camera is indeed a machine-gun in burst mode, so fast! I can't claim I use it for long, but it felt better at focusing. However, I just couldn't deal with the extra noise. The pixel density on this camera is so high, you won't get the same performance in low light than the 5DMII. Given plenty of light, you should be fine. Unless you have money to burn or really in a hurry, I would personally wait for the 5DMIII next year.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2010-10-07T23:55:27.740" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="3823" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3813" CreationDate="2010-10-08T00:12:38.997" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A Word About Shutter Ratings&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shutter actuation counts are computed in a similar way to hard drive &quot;mean time before failure&quot; ratings. It is impossible, practically speaking, to physically test a hard drive under normal usage until it physically dies enough times to actually get statistically useful results. If a company tried to, they would spend some 11 years testing out hard drives that needed to have an MTBF of 100,000 hours. Instead, they perform an accelerated test on a high sample count of hard drives by putting them under high stress, and compute an average, statistically useful MTBF based on the failure times of all the drives in the test. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shutter actuation counts are computed in the same way. A high number of shutter samples from a batch are tested in continuous tests until they fail, and the average failure rate from the whole set of sample shutters is computed. A shutter rated for 100,000 actuations came from a batch that failed at around 100,000 actuations during testing, which is a pretty average number for most entry and mid level DSLR cameras. A shutter rated for 300,000 actuations came from a particularly good batch, or a batch manufactured with more stringent specifications.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Face Value&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should take a shutter actuation rating at face value. First off, they are computed to be statistically accurate. While there are always flukes in any set of statistics, and you may end up with a shutter that lasts half as long or twice as long as its rated lifetime, generally speaking they should last for as long as they are rated. Second, statistical ratings like MTBF or shutter actuation counts tend to be pessimistic, rather than optimistic. I guess this alleviates legal pressure from those who like to sue over petty things, and gives more weight to the rating. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Usage and Enviromnent&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your personal experience with shutter lifetime may be dependent upon how you use it. If you put an entry-level DSLR through professional-grade usage, with continuous burst shots of sports or wildlife action in rugged, dirty, or moist environments, then you could quite likely get consistently less use out of a shutter than its rated at. On the other hand, if you put a highe end professional camera through more mild use and take extremely good care of your gear, the shutter could last considerably longer than its rating. A shutter rated for 300,000 actuations (i.e. the ones used in a Canon EOS-1Ds MkIII series body) is not only manufactured to a higher spec, but tested by continually activating a sample until the shutter fails. At worst, you may continually activate a shutter for a couple hours at a time, after which the camera is stored until its next use. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are looking into buying a camera with a lower shutter rating, say 20,000, make sure that you understand how you intend to use it. I bought my first camera ever, a Canon Rebel XSi (450D) about 18 months ago. I burned through 5000 shots in the first two months with it, and have over 10,000 shots on it so far. I expect this body to last me at least a few years, and if it only had a rating of 20,000 shutter actuations, it would probably be done by the end of this year. When it comes to most DSLR's, I think the lowest shutter rating is 100,000, so generally its not a problem. I can't say for P&amp;amp;S cams, though, but I would say that a shutter rating of 5000 is not going to go very far at all, and something along the lines of 20,000 actuations would be more reasonable. This assumes it has a shutter...many P&amp;amp;S cameras use electronic shutters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-08T00:12:38.997" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3824" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3819" CreationDate="2010-10-08T00:23:03.077" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you primarily shoot landscape, it might be better to wait for the 5D Mark III in 2011. The rumormill has it getting an improved AF system, that while not likely to beat the 7D for action shots, should definitely be better than the 5D Mark II. You would then have a single camera that could serve all your needs, rather than needing to lug around two camera bodies everywhere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 7D is a great burst-mode camera for photographing birds in flight, though. I recently had the chance to use one to photograph some birds near where I live, and the thing is absolutely amazing. I have a lot of trouble photographing birds with my 450D (almost all my bird shots are total waste), but the 7D feels like it was practically designed for it. It manages to focus tack-sharp all the time. It is a large body, however, almost as large as a 5D, and pretty solid. Personally, I would rather trade the weight of the 7D for another useful lens, and carry just one camera body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-08T00:23:03.077" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3825" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3809" CreationDate="2010-10-08T03:30:19.013" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure if this is what you are looking for or not, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adobe Labs&lt;/a&gt; has a set of camera profiles for use with Lightroom and the D90 is supported.  Here is a link to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles%3aFAQ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DNG Profiles FAQ&lt;/a&gt;.  Hope that helps!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="227" LastActivityDate="2010-10-08T03:30:19.013" />
  <row Id="3826" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3830" CreationDate="2010-10-08T03:42:53.753" Score="4" ViewCount="110" Body="&lt;p&gt;A friend from online recently found out he has an extra batter for an 400D XTi that he can no longer use(he sold the camera). I have a 450D XSi and I was wondering if I could use this battery. I don't want him to send me the battery if I can't use it either, so I was wondering if they are compatible. Then I started wondering about the other Rebels, and then I started wondering in general. So,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Where can I find out what Canon batteries work in what bodies?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In particular I am wondering about these two bodies, but I am curious to know the others also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T19:03:19.647" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T19:03:19.647" Title="Are batteries for the Canon XXXD Rebel series interchangeable?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;batteries&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="3827" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3826" CreationDate="2010-10-08T04:00:23.423" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure about compatibility, but it appears that the batteries, themselves, have different model numbers.  This might mean you're out of luck.  If you go to Canon's site and find replacement batteries, I'd bet it will list the cameras that take them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;400D: NB-2LH&lt;br&gt;&#xA;450D: LP-E5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look at the specs for the &quot;Rebel&quot; bodies on a site like DPreview, you should be able to make a list of which camera goes with which battery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1493" LastActivityDate="2010-10-08T04:00:23.423" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3828" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-08T04:40:37.143" Score="4" ViewCount="345" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have never fully understood why Lightroom works exclusively in the RGB colour space. I would assume that a large number of Lightroom users use the software to prepare their photos for print. Yet, I have to import my RGB images into Photoshop just to convert to CMYK. Is this limitation by design or just a feature that hasn't been added yet?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1588" LastActivityDate="2010-12-04T17:20:28.370" Title="Why doesn't Lightroom offer conversion from RGB to CMYK?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;color-management&gt;&lt;printing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="3829" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3834" CreationDate="2010-10-08T05:01:40.863" Score="8" ViewCount="349" Body="&lt;p&gt;As is customary with preparing images for print in a magazine or newspaper, I convert my digital photos from RGB to CMYK before inserting into my publishing application. However, when I'm printing photos at my local photo lab, I leave them in RGB. In fact, I once tried printing a CMYK image; the printed colours were completely off. In what way are the printing machines at the photo lab different from the traditional offset printers?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1588" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T03:03:18.297" Title="What colour space to use when printing digital photos?" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;color-management&gt;&lt;printing&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3830" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3826" CreationDate="2010-10-08T07:33:04.197" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the battery model are those which EricB wrote, be careful because the physical shape are different (use google images to see them), and probably it won't work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check yourself, and choose your model in www.canoneos.com, go the accessories part, and in each accessory they have a compatibility list. I think &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/sna/consumer/eos_slr_camera_systems/eos_digital_slr_cameras/modelSNACompatibles.action?accessoryCid=0901e024801dba7a&amp;amp;accessoryModelName=BATTERY+PACK+LP-E5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;this is&quot;&gt;this is&lt;/a&gt; the comparability list for a replacement battery for you camera, and in that isn't the Xti.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I see I've luck, because my cameras have 5 year difference and they use the same battery model. I never imagine that canon change so much the batteries between models so close in time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1306" LastActivityDate="2010-10-08T07:33:04.197" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3831" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3818" CreationDate="2010-10-08T07:38:17.540" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm by no mean an expert, but I just bought my first strobes a few months ago. I got a kit from Elinkrom : the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.elinchrom.com/sets.php?cat=14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;D-Lite 4&lt;/a&gt;. The kit comes with 2 strobes, 2 stands, 2 softboxes, a remote trigger, a PC cable and a DVD with a short tutorial to get you started. This is all you need to start. The kit was about 900CHF (about 930USD). I find it a good value for my money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are probably many other ofers similar to this one, but I think that to get a kit is a good idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only problem I have with those strobes, is that i have a very small room as a studio, and they aer too powerful. I have to dial them down to the minimum and shoot at my minimum aperture (f16 / ISO 200). (It might also be that I dont really know how to use them yet).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="461" LastActivityDate="2010-10-08T07:38:17.540" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3832" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3828" CreationDate="2010-10-08T07:45:47.450" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lightroom was never intended to be an all in one image editing solution. In the beginning it was limited to just raw conversion and slowly more Photoshop like features, such as local corrections have been added. I wouldn't be surprised if CMYK was added somewhere down the line.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although a large number of users print images from Lightroom, doing your own CYMK conversion is a fairly advanced step that you only need to perform if you need total control over the conversion process, or if you need to use a specific black mix for magazine work. It is assumed that advanced users will have access to tools such as Photoshop to perform these steps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-10-08T07:45:47.450" />
  <row Id="3833" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="350" CreationDate="2010-10-08T08:12:45.130" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My low-light experience is not with parties but with indoors places such as churches or museums.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When these places allow photography at all, they usually forbid flashes and tripods. My solutions are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;high aperture lens, e.g. EF 50mm f/1.8&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;lens with Image Stabilization, e.g. EF-S 15-85mm USM IS&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;pocket tripod or bean bag (they are discrete enough not to draw much attention), with a telecommand&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;get as stable as possible: I put my back against a wall, my shoulders against my body, I fully breathe in, then I breathe out about one third then stop breathing and shoot.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some people use a telescopic monopod.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1296" LastActivityDate="2010-10-08T08:12:45.130" />
  <row Id="3834" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3829" CreationDate="2010-10-08T08:26:49.820" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The lab photo printers are likely to be dye-sublimation, or silver-halide (where the digital image is projected onto normal photo paper) which unlike lithography don't require halftoning, however they still use ink and thus follow the &lt;strong&gt;subtractive colour model&lt;/strong&gt;, so the principal is the same. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason your colours were off is probably due to CMYK conversion using a different colour model than the one the printer uses (Photoshop defualts to SWOP CMYK, which I believe was developed for an offset print process), as the dyes in a photo lab printer will be different in colour to the ones used in lithographic printer and so require different quantities of each colour in order to [try to] replicate a given RGB value. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unless advised otherwise by the printers you're probably best using the widest gamut available to you (usually Adobe RGB, which will likely contain 99% if not all of the printer gamut) and let the printer handle the CMYK conversion. You can ask the printer for a colour profile for their equipment in order to have more control over this process and &quot;soft proof&quot; the expected results on your monitor. But unless you need to edit the image in CYMK (for example to get a specific black mix) doing the coversion yourself will just create much larger files (since you can't use jpeg for this) and runs the risk of incorrect results if done with the wrong profile. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the end of the day producing artwork for a subtractive print process using an additive output device (i.e. a computer monitor) is error prone. It will take several attempts to get the colours how you want them when printing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-08T13:56:45.303" LastActivityDate="2010-10-08T13:56:45.303" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3835" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3809" CreationDate="2010-10-08T09:13:07.827" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Best probably would be to create your own presets: fiddle the settings in LR dev until you like the result, store the settings as preset and apply this preset on future imports.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe you will want to add some camera profiles (I've created my own &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.radeldudel.de/blog/1002/KameraprofileNikonD40D80D90PentaxK10D.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;profiles (germany) for the D40 and D90&lt;/a&gt; and stored them for usage in Lightroom).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-10-08T09:13:07.827" />
  <row Id="3836" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3818" CreationDate="2010-10-08T15:09:28.893" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I started using strobes about a year ago. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have 2 Vivitar 285s, 2 cheap &quot;cactus&quot; remotes, 2 cheap stands and 2 cheap shoot-through umbrellas.  (all available from Amazon).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It came to under GBP 200.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been very happy with this setup, and I think I've done some nice work with it &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/ajstuff/4343753184/in/set-72157623388929140/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an example is here&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-10-08T15:09:28.893" />
  <row Id="3837" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3829" CreationDate="2010-10-08T15:16:15.953" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, if you are taking photos to a local lab you have to adapt to what they do. Some labs accept multiple color-spaces and others may just ignore the color-space in your photos which is why the colors look off when you get the print.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regardless of what they accept you should ask about what they USE. Most labs always convert to a specific color space, regardless of what they accept. If you want the most reliable output then I suggest you convert to the color-space used by the lab. If you ask and they do not know, find another lab or submit sRGB which stacks the odds in your favor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Itai&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-10-08T15:16:15.953" />
  <row Id="3838" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3819" CreationDate="2010-10-08T15:21:41.393" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;@John Cavan&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That upgrade will drive you crazy! I kept the K20D when I got the K-7 and while I actually preferred the K20D's body (while preferring the K-7's features). Using both gets really annoying because they reversed the position of the EC and Green buttons. I ended up pressing the wrong thing too many times and missing shots so went with 2 K-7s finally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Itai&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-10-08T15:21:41.393" />
  <row Id="3839" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2073" CreationDate="2010-10-08T16:56:23.080" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;DigiKam&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On Linux (and with some effort on Windows), you can organize your workflow with digiKam. It is an advanced photo organizer, with 16-bit color depth support, color profiles, its own RAW processor, lens correction tool and a simple editor suitable for many tasks. You can invoke external tools too (I still invoke Gimp and UFRaw sometimes, when I need more control or multi-layer editing).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;DigiKam supports almost all photo formats, RAW included, is reasonably fast, doesn't force its own database or directory layout on you (organize photos as you like, optionally you can store metadata in IPTC/XMP tags), easily exports to many image hosting servies. DigiKam will support non-destructive editing soon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's Light Table allows to compare similar shots side by side (very useful to select the best shot out of a series, I like it). Its editor, beyond the essentials, has some cool features like Local Contrast tool (not available in Gimp) and Refocus sharpening (done better than in Gimp). Another digiKam toy I like is Contrast Blending (like &lt;code&gt;enfuse&lt;/code&gt;, but with a nice preview). There are many other gems to explore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digikam.org/drupal/about?q=about/features&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DigiKam features&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digikam.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DigiKam blog&lt;/a&gt; (a place to read about new features)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, the digiKam team is working hard to support also the Windows port of the digiKam, but I never tried it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Other Lightroom alternatives&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other Linux alternatives to Lightroom are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rawstudio.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rawstudio&lt;/a&gt; (Free)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://darktable.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Darktable&lt;/a&gt; (Free)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rawtherapee.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;RawTherapee&lt;/a&gt; (Free)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bibblelabs.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bibble&lt;/a&gt; ($100 or $200 per license)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://f-spot.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;F-spot&lt;/a&gt; (Free)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I liked Rawstudio's approach a lot, but the last time I checked it didn't auto-rotate shots from my camera. Otherwise, it is going to be a very good piece of software.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My own experience with Darktable was not positive. It appears to be too slow on my laptop, but the last version I tried was very old. It may have improved since then.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;RawTherapee was a already a decent piece of software some time ago. Now it went Open Source and is going to become even better and more flexible with time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bible is very good and advanced, but you have to be willing to pay some money for it. It is available on all three major platforms (Linux, MacOS X and Windows).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also F-Spot, but I think it's not suitable for serious use. Too slow, tends to enforce its own directory layout on the user, very simplistic tools.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastEditorUserId="1558" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-12T13:49:09.957" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T13:49:09.957" />
  <row Id="3840" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3841" CreationDate="2010-10-08T17:26:54.517" Score="9" ViewCount="2279" Body="&lt;p&gt;How can I get the actual shutter actuation count for a Canon EOS 500D or 550D (Digital Rebel T1i or T2i)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two popular solutions for most earlier Canon cameras don't work:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I peeked at location 0x9d-9e in a&#xA;raw file but for the EOS 550 &#xA;a constant value 0x0001 is stored there.  (This worked for pre-500 bodies.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://astrojargon.net/EOSInfo.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EOSInfo&lt;/a&gt; software fails to&#xA;detect the camera (perhaps because&#xA;I'm running a 64-bit system).  (This isn't supposed to work anyway...)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-22T20:50:57.567" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T04:31:48.700" Title="How can I get the shutter actuation count for Canon EOS 500D/550D?" Tags="&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;canon-500d&gt;&lt;shutter-actuations&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3841" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3840" CreationDate="2010-10-08T17:54:08.050" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have you tried just snapping a shot and previewing the image? The Rebel series usually shows in the upper right corner the number of shots since the last time you reset the image counter. So long as you have not reset the counter, it should be equivalent to the total number of actuations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-08T17:54:08.050" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="3842" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3854" CreationDate="2010-10-08T19:18:18.007" Score="7" ViewCount="251" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm planning to get a hotshoe flash soon (I currently only have the onboard), and I have narrowed my choice down to several options, but I'm having a hard time deciding which way to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ETTL&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is probably the simpler option, and I think I would go ahead and buy the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002XQWCK?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;tag=phot0b7-20&amp;amp;linkCode=as2&amp;amp;camp=1789&amp;amp;creative=390957&amp;amp;creativeASIN=B0002XQWCK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon Speedlite 580EX&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would certainly work, but I have a limited budget, so I am considering a cheap (but decent quality) manual instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Manual&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mostly based on the lower cost, I am leaning towards these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00004TVSP?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;tag=phot0b7-20&amp;amp;linkCode=as2&amp;amp;camp=1789&amp;amp;creative=390957&amp;amp;creativeASIN=B00004TVSP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Vivitar 285HV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpex.com/browse.cfm/4,14648.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LumoPro LP160&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;My Question&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two parts to this... First, is there anything important I'm going to miss by going with a manual flash? From what I can tell it simply makes it easier to use it in auto settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, is there any significant difference between the LumoPro and the Vivitar? Both are inside my budget, but the price difference is significant, so I want to make sure there's not something I'm missing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-10T00:07:00.160" LastActivityDate="2010-10-10T00:07:00.160" Title="Picking a hotshoe flash" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;speedlite&gt;&lt;strobist&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="3843" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-08T19:55:23.667" Score="13" ViewCount="769" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm getting busy, which is a good thing. I need to be able to batch process raws, or rather make global edits, to increase efficiency. I've heard that Aperature and Lightroom are both good t this but also force you into proprietary folder structures and can make a mess of your hard drive in terms of locating files outside of the programs. Is this true? Can I use these programs and keep my folder structure the way it is? Also, I bounce between Bridge and Photomechanic now as PM's IPTC encoder is easier and more robust than Bridge's, but I like Bridges viewing and export/batching capabilities. Does anyone have experience with both programs? Where should I put my money?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastEditorUserId="1451" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-10T20:03:56.587" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T15:42:52.917" Title="Lightroom vs. Aperture" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;apple-aperture&gt;&lt;subjective&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="3844" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3842" CreationDate="2010-10-08T20:39:48.087" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Aside from the obvious thing you're missing (automatic exposure control) the 580EX (and the cheaper 430EX) have an AF-assist LED light which is activated during focussing that can be very useful in low light. It also allows second curtain sync (flash which fires as the shutter closes rather than opens, useful for when doing long exposures with flash), as well as high speed sync which pulses the flash for use with shutter speeds above 1/200s. On a 1 series body the 580EX offers weather proofing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have shot events with a manual flash, it's doable but you will get a lot of over/under exposure if you bounce as the flash as the amount of light returning from the ceiling/walls varies as you move around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you mainly do creative lighting / portraits and fun experiments rather than shooting events I would wholly recommend the manual flash, it's an excellent learning tool. I've had mixed experiences with the modern Vivitar 285HV (the old Vivitar 285 non-HV are reliable but have very high trigger voltages so may not be safe for shoe-mounting DSLRs) build quality (two were DOA), as the LumoPro was designed by and for enthusiasts I would definitely give it a try.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-10-08T20:39:48.087" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3845" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3843" CreationDate="2010-10-08T20:53:22.147" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a heavy Lightroom user, I can't recall any time where it has enforced any particular folder structure on disk. It has its own &lt;em&gt;catalog&lt;/em&gt; where it stores metadata, original masters, and whatnot, but you can choose where to store that. When it comes to photos, I import wherever I choose. Particularly with Lightroom 3, you have some pretty rich options around which folders to import into, what file names to use, etc. You can create custom folder and file naming configurations as well, so you can reuse certain patterns each time you import.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't say much about Aperture, as I'm not a Mac user. I've played with Aperture, and I really love its non-modal, non-linear workflow. You can do anything any time anywhere, which is pretty nice. In Lightroom, you have to first select the correct module, which can hamper workflow a bit. When it comes to importing, I couldn't say whether you are restricted to a certain folder structure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-09T00:42:25.433" LastActivityDate="2010-10-09T00:42:25.433" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3846" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3843" CreationDate="2010-10-08T22:27:58.347" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Aperture will allow you leave the files in your own folder structure. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't compare it with Lightroom as I use Aperture exclusively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aperture stores all the meta data on a photograph in an Aperture Library folder. By default it will import masters into the library. However, when importing you are offered the choice of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;import masters into library; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;leave masters in existing folder, or &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;import the masters into a folder of your choice.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1592" LastActivityDate="2010-10-08T22:27:58.347" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3847" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-08T22:40:01.780" Score="11" ViewCount="1016" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was just reading the question &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3813/how-many-actuations-are-too-many-actuations&quot;&gt;How many actuations are &quot;too many actuations&quot;?&lt;/a&gt; and trying to figure out what a shutter &quot;actuation&quot; actually is?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only thing I can guess is that it's the number of times the shutter is released and restored - i.e. how many photos the camera has taken - but values of 50-100k doesn't seem that many. Is that really what it is?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is the word &quot;actuations&quot; used here? Is it a term manufacturers use to sound fancy or to mask that modern cameras might fail after 100,000 images? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What happens when 100k is reached (or whatever the actual lifespan is) - does the shutter fail in a way that damages the camera? Can it be repaired, or is it effectively the end of that camera body's life?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="137" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T18:49:22.083" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T18:49:22.083" Title="What are shutter actuations?" Tags="&lt;body&gt;&lt;shutter-actuations&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3848" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3847" CreationDate="2010-10-08T23:01:05.857" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What happens when 100k is reached (or whatever the actual lifespan is) - does the shutter fail in a way that damages the camera? Can it be repaired, or is it effectively the end of that camera body's life?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;**When the shutter goes it can be replaced for around £130 or free if under warranty and that is going by what I paid in June when my 450D stopped working. It doesnt as far as I know do any damage,dont try and force the camera to work. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You get a basic error code and when my camera died it failed at the zoo and playback of last 10 photos were damaged. The camera made some rattle noises and clunks before it died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since being replaced it works like a dream, make sure to store your own personal setting as 10days plus without a camera and it being reset made my best companion a stranger.**&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-10-08T23:01:05.857" />
  <row Id="3849" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3847" CreationDate="2010-10-09T00:27:46.310" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;ac·tu·ate&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  [ak-choo-eyt]&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      &lt;em&gt;–verb (used with object), -at·ed, -at·ing.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  1. &lt;strike&gt;to incite or move to action; impel; motivate: actuated by selfish motives.&lt;/strike&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  2. to put into action; start a process; turn on: to actuate a machine.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You pretty much have it. A shutter &quot;actuation&quot; is the opening and closing of the shutter when a picture is taken. It should be noted that you can actuate the shutter for other purposes, most notably to enable sensor cleaning in many modern DSLR cameras. The total actuation count of a camera may be more than the total number of pictures it has taken, so it is important to differentiate between the &lt;em&gt;number of photos&lt;/em&gt; and the &lt;em&gt;number of actuations&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, I personally find shutters that have less than 50,000 actuations have too few. On average, I figure I take 500-700 pictures a week when I am active (I've had a couple inactive periods this year, so I'm a bit under that for the year.) In a single year, on average, that would be about 30,000 shutter actuations. A camera with a shutter rating of 50,000 actuations would probably last me two years, maybe three. For a low-end DSLR, three years is probably not too bad, but it wouldn't hold up under professional use. A pro could very likely burn through 50,000 actuations in a year or less, under much more strenuous situations. Shutter lifetimes of 300,000 actuations would probably hold up for 3-4 years of professional use in the real world. Many low- and mid-range DSLR's these days have shutter lifetimes of 100,000 to 150,000 actuations, and under normal usage, a camera body should last for quite a number of years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The type of photography you do can have an effect on shutter lifetime. If you are an avid sports photographer that makes extensive use of burst mode on your camera and takes several thousand shots a week, a 300,000 actuation shutter may only last 2-3 years. On the other hand, if you are more the landscape photography type, who may snap a photo once every few minutes, and only a few at a time, a 150,000 actuation shutter may last you for a decade.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-09T00:27:46.310" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3850" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3853" CreationDate="2010-10-09T09:43:53.593" Score="3" ViewCount="71" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question targets mostly the people that sell cameras. Sometimes the producer of a certain type of camera sells it together with a few accessories in a kit. I've done quite a few searches and I still don't know the answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm a developer working on an e-commerce site for a reseller. He asked me to write code that allows him to read the bar codes for his products. When he's dealing with a kit from a producer, he wants to read a single EAN for the kit and several serial numbers corresponding to each accessory. He's currently unavailable for a couple of weeks and I need this information: do the accessories themselves have distinct EAN numbers or do they match the camera's EAN? Can these accessories be sold separately?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1594" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T08:49:50.943" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T08:49:50.943" Title="Do the products that form the kit of a camera have different EANs?" Tags="&lt;selling&gt;&lt;ean-numbers&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="3851" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3850" CreationDate="2010-10-09T11:20:31.850" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A bit of both; Sometimes a kit will consist of lenses in retail packaging, along with the camera body in an unmarked box, all contained in a single package. Sometimes the lenses will be in plain boxes. In either respect, each type of kit should have the same contents, for the same outer EAN.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-10-09T11:20:31.850" />
  <row Id="3852" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3847" CreationDate="2010-10-09T11:26:47.560" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my experience the shutter tends to fail gradually, i.e. it becomes unreliable shooting at high speeds, the first and second curtains can get out of sync, giving you inaccurate shutter speeds. It &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; fail completely in one go, but you usually get some warning. The shutter is very light and delicate so it's unlikely to do any damage when it goes! And yes you can have it replaced without writing off the body!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;100,000 actuations may not sound that many, but consider that the shutter design originates from the days of 35mm film SLRs. At $10 for a roll of film + $10 for development, reaching 100k on the shutter would cost you &lt;strong&gt;two million dollars&lt;/strong&gt; in develepment! I think that if digital had been around earlier we'd see a lot more electronic shutters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, as mentioned in &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3813/how-many-actuations-are-too-many-actuations&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; the rated shutter count is the average number. Component failure usually follows what's called the bathtub curve, i.e. the failure rate vs.number of actuations is initially high then it flattens out before increasing again at the end of the lifetime.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;@Rowland&lt;/strong&gt;: shutter lifetime, were it modelled as a random variable would be expected to follow the normal distribution, however I'm talking about &lt;em&gt;failure rate&lt;/em&gt; i.e. the chance the shutter will fail at a given point in time (if this looked like the bell curve it would mean the chance of a shutter lasting forever would be almost 100%!). Assuming random failures the graph would look like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3aNormal_Distribution_CDF.svg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;cumulative version of the normal distribution&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, failures are usually down to two factors, wear and tear (that accumulates over time) and manufacturing faults. If something has a manufacturing fault it will tend to fail immediately or very soon. If you again assume these two causes are random, and add the distributions together you get the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;bathtub curve&lt;/a&gt; which is most often used in dependability analysis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-10T17:51:46.997" LastActivityDate="2010-10-10T17:51:46.997" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3853" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3850" CreationDate="2010-10-09T15:19:16.513" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Each and every product sold separately at retail stores should have it's own EAN code.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When combined in a bundle by the manufacturer, they receive a new EAN code.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An EAN code embeds the manufacturer's identifier.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The EAN code spec has a specified range that allows a retailer to create it's own EAN code valid only within that retailer. That could be used to bundle items together, but that code would only have meaning inside that retailer. It could mean something else at another retailer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1457" LastActivityDate="2010-10-09T15:19:16.513" />
  <row Id="3854" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3842" CreationDate="2010-10-09T16:38:21.537" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just picked up a LumoPro LP160 (about a week ago, in fact).  I'm pretty happy with it so far.  As Matt indicated, this flash will be manual only, but it works fine as an optical slave (triggered by an onboard flash), and it works fine on the hot-shoe with TTL metering or in manual mode.  If you end up getting remote flash triggers (ex: Pocket Wizard or Cactus), this should work fine with those, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've seen reviews that show its flash power at maybe one stop lower than the Canon 580, which is pretty good for $160.  Some of the reviews talk about its recycle time (it's slower than the 580), but I haven't had a big problem with that - especially if you use less than 100% power, it doesn't take long at all to recycle.  All-in-all, I think it's a steal for the price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Incidentally, you may also want to add the Sigma EF-530 DG Super to your evaluation list.  It's a little more expensive than the LumoPro, but it also adds many of the Canon 580's features (E-TTL II, for example).  Again, it's not quite the same as the Canon, but it's close, and it's about half the price.  I went with the LumoPro figuring I'd get the benefit of the flash in manual mode for now, and if I decide later that I really need a 580, I can still use the LumoPro as a slave.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-10-09T16:38:21.537" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3855" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3850" CreationDate="2010-10-09T16:40:46.880" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For what it's worth, I've seen Lensrental.com offer lenses for sale with the caveat that since they came as kit lenses, they're not able to sell them with the same manufacturer warranty that normally comes with lenses.  I assume that the manufacturer has a way of tracking this...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-10-09T16:40:46.880" />
  <row Id="3856" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2073" CreationDate="2010-10-09T16:47:22.043" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've used Paint Shop Pro and DxO Optics Pro on Windows.  Both are decent alternatives to Photoshop, IMO.  One of the factors to consider in favor of Photoshop, though, is that 95%* of all tutorials ever published on how to do any kind of photo manipulation will have instructions for Photoshop.  If you're running something else, there's often a way to do the same type of thing, but you'll have to do some translating.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure how well either of these would work under something like VirtualBox, but with the seamless mode in VirtualBox, these might be pretty tolerable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(*) It's a well-known fact that 87.6% of statistics found on the internet are made-up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-10-09T16:47:22.043" />
  <row Id="3857" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3867" CreationDate="2010-10-10T01:03:38.800" Score="9" ViewCount="693" Body="&lt;p&gt;Today I own a Digital Rebel XSi and the only EF-S lens I have are those that came in the kit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been reading a lot trying to decide for my next body, but oh boy, what a tough decision!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm between the 5D Mark II and the 7D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Among the type of pictures I plan to take are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Portraits;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Landscape/Nature&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pictures at parties and other environments in low light condition.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Should I go 5D Mark II or 7D?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Updated for clarification:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;the only &lt;strong&gt;EF-S&lt;/strong&gt; lens I have are those that came in the kit.&quot; does not mean I only have the kit lens. It means my investment in &lt;strong&gt;EF-S&lt;/strong&gt; lenses is limited to those that came in the kit.&#xA;Besides the kit lens, I do also have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_is_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM&lt;/a&gt; and a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_50mm_f_1_2l_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF 50mm f / 1.2L USM&lt;/a&gt;. Neither of which are &lt;strong&gt;EF-S&lt;/strong&gt; lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/speedlite_flash_lineup/speedlite_580ex_ii&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Speedlite 580EX II&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have found that under some situations where I can't use the speedlite, I have already maxed out shutter speed, aperture and ISO settings on my XSi. That's the reason for wanting to upgrade to a body that offers better ISO and performance under low light conditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1457" LastEditorUserId="1457" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-10T17:20:43.587" LastActivityDate="2010-12-07T22:13:38.183" Title="Should I go 5D Mark II or 7D?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;canon-7d&gt;&lt;canon-5d-mark-ii&gt;&lt;upgrade&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3858" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-10T02:50:51.320" Score="4" ViewCount="231" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been doing most of my printing from Photoshop lately, as I've been fine-tuning levels and using advanced sharpening techniques to eek the most out of my prints. I started working with Lightroom 3's print module again, to create custom print layouts with multiple photos. I've run into a problem where my prints are WAY too saturated compared to my perfectly calibrated screen. If I print a photo that is used in a custom print page in Photoshop, with the exact same PPI and printer profiler, it prints out fine. It seem to only be in Lightroom 3 that prints come out too saturated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Has anyone encountered this problem before? Is there a solution?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Below is an example set of prints. The top one is from Lightroom, and the saturation and high contrast is completely obvious. The bottom one is from Photoshop. The only adjustments made to this photo were white balance, outside of that it is RAW strait out of the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/CGTLN.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;print samples&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-30T19:26:06.880" LastActivityDate="2010-11-26T12:45:26.007" Title="Over-saturated prints from Lighroom 3?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;printing&gt;&lt;lightroom-3&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3859" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3857" CreationDate="2010-10-10T02:56:09.293" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For pretty much all of the types of photos you wish to take, the 5D II will be a better camera than the 7D. The 7D excels at action photography, with its superb AF system, high burst rate, and high resolution. It is an ideal camera for sports, wildlife, and birds in flight. Its high resolution sensor makes it easier to get good high res crops. The APS-C sensor also helps give telephoto lenses greater reach than a FF, which is ideal for wildlife and bird photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the 5D, you get a full-frame sensor with larger photosites. This gives it much better low-light, high-ISO capabilities than the much higher density and smaller sensor of the 7D. The larger sensor is ideal for landscapes as well, and should do great for high tonal range portraits (I know many wedding photographers who live by the 5D II.) The 5D won't do particularly well where you need super fast and capable AF or burst-rate shooting. This rules out most sports, and makes photographing birds in flight more difficult. It can still do excellently for wildlife photography of animals that are not running, or perching birds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-10T02:56:09.293" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3860" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3857" CreationDate="2010-10-10T03:13:42.653" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm unconvinced you need to step all the way up to the 7D or 5D-II. I don't know the Canon lineup, but IMO you should consider the midrange APS-C bodies instead - 50D or 60D based on a very quick glance at the Canon website. You could put the $500-1000 you save towards better glass, which is going to be a more efficient use of your IQ-improvement dollars and a more lasting investment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is particularly true given that you have the just the kit lenses now; much of the capability of fancier bodies will be wasted if they are not accompanied by corresponding lens upgrades.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Frankly, you might be perfectly happy with one or more better lenses and waiting a bit on the body upgrade.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-10-10T03:13:42.653" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3861" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3857" CreationDate="2010-10-10T03:16:38.513" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As per jrista's breakdown, it sounds like you would get more out of the full frame sensor of the 5D Mark II than the faster, action oriented nature of the 7D. But the 7D is still a fantastic camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-10-10T03:16:38.513" />
  <row Id="3863" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3864" CreationDate="2010-10-10T12:02:58.143" Score="3" ViewCount="127" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, it doesn't look like a single body will be able to fulfill all the types of photography I see myself interested in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I said in a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/3857/1457&quot;&gt;previous&lt;/a&gt; question my main interests for now are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Portraits;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Landscape/Nature&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pictures at parties and other environments in low light condition.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For these kinds of pictures, a full-frame body such as a 5D Mark II excels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But those main interests don't rule out other types of pictures such as sports for which a 7D would be more appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've seen that some of you guys have a second body or a spare body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Do you have different bodies for different kinds of photos? Or do have (or plan to have) a second body that identical to the first one only for backup purposes?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1457" LastActivityDate="2010-10-13T09:45:31.167" Title="What to look for when choosing a second body or a spare body?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;canon-7d&gt;&lt;canon-5d-mark-ii&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3864" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3863" CreationDate="2010-10-10T13:38:49.647" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, depending on what you want to do, a spare makes a lot of sense. For myself, the approach I'm taking is when I upgrade, I'll keep my previous camera as the spare (probably this January). Primarily, since I too like nature shooting, to keep different lenses easily in play. On one I'll have a nice telephoto lens, the other will have wider angles. To me, that's a big upside, swapping cameras is a lot faster than swapping lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I noticed that you're a Canon shooter (lucky guess, huh?) so if you're doing a 5DmkII and looking to get a 7D, that too makes a lot of sense. The strength of the 5DmkII is in landscape, studio, low light, and similar where you don't need to machine gun shoot and can compose and take advantage of the great sensor with low noise. However, in fast action shooting, such as sports or wildlife, the 7D is going to be a serious workhorse, giving you an opportunity to capture some things you might miss because the 5DmkII frame rate can't keep up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, those are the considerations I gave to my decision that I'm going to hold onto my current camera on upgrade rather than cut the cost a little with a trade-in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-10-10T13:38:49.647" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3865" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4359" CreationDate="2010-10-10T15:17:35.557" Score="6" ViewCount="409" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I started shooting in RAW, and I use Adobe Lightroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What workflow would you recommend to use for the processing?&#xA;I will really appreciate a detailed description of the steps (or a link to one).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="558" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T19:17:08.830" Title="Workflow for RAW photos with Lightroom" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;workflow&gt;&lt;image-processing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="3866" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3865" CreationDate="2010-10-10T16:02:49.987" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;from what i have seen during videos on youtube and reading is to start from basics/library section then move to develope to fine tune. &#xA;photography boils down to taste.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;to be artistic you have the default in basics/library.. lots of black and white and colour tools to use with or without auto tone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;i love lightroom and it can make a ok photo pretty special, i have just started using it on the try before you buy and i am very impressed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;its recommended that you still use elements or your photoshop as it is very limited in ways but totally amazing in others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;if you have a noisy photo or its a bit off focus and needs sharpening use the sharpening tool and luminance tool .. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the vignette is amazing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;if you are doing 100 or more that you shoot at the same speed and focal length you can adjust the exposure and contrast in a flash its that quick and painfree.&#xA; i will be crying when my time usage is up. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;go to youtube and tap in lightroom i personally think play around and get a feel if you are not on a time limite like me .. 26 days of lightroom left :(&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;good luck and maybe someone more useful will come and post.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;when using a photo for web it stamps every photo with your name and copyright ...you dont have to think about doing it once you have gone to export voila like magic photo has your mark on it. &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photoshopsupport.com/lightroom/tutorials.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.photoshopsupport.com/lightroom/tutorials.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-10-10T16:02:49.987" />
  <row Id="3867" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3857" CreationDate="2010-10-10T16:54:40.020" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on what you want out of a body upgrade.  If you want certain features, better build quality, handling, ergonomics, or user interface, then you should pick one of those bodies.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If you want better pictures, then do not upgrade your body.&lt;/strong&gt;  I think you would get a lot more out of buying better glass and &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a lighting setup&lt;/a&gt;(for portraits and indoor) for your XSi.  With the kit lens, you are severely holding back your XSi.  The XSi is capable of &lt;a href=&quot;http://tinyurl.com/23h6nuo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;stunning images&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Glass, technique, and post processing are the most important when taking the shots you have mentioned.   In sports, you do get limited earlier by a lower body for predictive AF, but an entry level with great glass can still produce stunning sports photos.   And a body like the 7D will still produce stunning portraits, landscapes, and low light party photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-10T17:35:17.797" LastActivityDate="2010-10-10T17:35:17.797" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="3868" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3873" CreationDate="2010-10-10T17:30:07.270" Score="6" ViewCount="286" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm at a friend's beach wedding. I shot a bunch of pictures last night with the kit 18-55 VR lens, then today I used my Vivitar 70-200 AI (non-CPU) lens to shoot pictures on the beach.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I came inside, I switched back to the kit lens, and the camera gives me the error &quot;Error: Turn camera off and then on again.&quot; If I detach the lens and cycle power, it goes away, but immediately returns when I attach the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also happens when I attach the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 AF-S, which implies that it's the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My battery is low; I've put it on the charger to see if that will help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also called Nikon, and they're going to cover it under warranty, but I'd really like to use the camera tonight. Does anyone know of any quick fixes for this problem that might get me through the night?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have charged the battery, and it's now malfunctioning in a different way: none of the buttons on the side of the display, the D-pad, info button, or the delete button are working. However, it now takes pictures with the kit lens, and I can access the important settings (shutter, aperture, etc.) via the dial and exposure compensation button. Hopefully this will last through tonight, and I'll be able to get &lt;em&gt;something&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Also, for anyone wondering, I am &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; the wedding photographer; just a guest, so this isn't the end of the world.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally got the camera back from Nikon. (They received it Oct 28 - an 11-day turnaround.) The invoice says &quot;RPL MEMORY COMPRESSION&quot;. Not sure what memory compression had to do with my issue, but it's fixed (plus the two annoying specks of viewfinder dust are gone.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-08T22:36:29.410" LastActivityDate="2010-11-08T22:36:29.410" Title="D3000: &quot;Error: Turn camera off and then on again.&quot; Quick fix?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;nikon-d3000&gt;&lt;error&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="3869" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3870" CreationDate="2010-10-10T18:44:11.990" Score="6" ViewCount="181" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the best resources you have come across (preferably online, but books too) that could help new photographers come to a better understanding of fundamental lighting concepts?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I’m especially interested in example based learning, where an author uses visuals to demonstrate practical lighting concepts and techniques.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This could be in relation to studio portrait lighting, the use of natural light, indoor, outdoor, flash or strobe photography, still life, macro, etc... Anywhere lighting is of primary concern, so really all aspects of photography. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1480" LastActivityDate="2010-10-10T19:22:09.897" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-10-10T18:44:11.990" Title="Learning Fundamental Lighting Concepts?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3870" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3869" CreationDate="2010-10-10T19:10:40.450" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Online your best resource is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;strobist blog&lt;/a&gt; and associated &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/strobist/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;flickr group&lt;/a&gt; (people posting to the pool are required to describe the lighting setup, so there are examples a-plenty, people often post setup shots and diagrams too).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In print, a very good text on lighting fundamentals is &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0240802756&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Light Science and Magic&quot;&lt;/a&gt;. It takes you through the basics with easy to follow examples and diagrams.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other useful online resources:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://speedliting.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://speedliting.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.zarias.com/white-seamless-tutorial-part-1-gear-space/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.zarias.com/white-seamless-tutorial-part-1-gear-space/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3818/starting-with-strobes&quot;&gt;Also see the answer to this question.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-10T19:22:09.897" LastActivityDate="2010-10-10T19:22:09.897" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-10-10T19:10:40.450" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3871" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3882" CreationDate="2010-10-10T19:16:42.480" Score="6" ViewCount="131" Body="&lt;p&gt;I generally don't like legal questions, however in this case my choice is either to accept an agreement or move on to a different print service, and I'll gladly do the latter if necessary. I was reading the &lt;a href=&quot;http://ezprints.com/terms.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EzPrints.com Terms of Use&lt;/a&gt;, and I'm a little confused about part of their terms. I hope I'm just being dumb, and its just a matter of understanding. The part I am confused about is Point B:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;PHOTOGRAPHS AND PRODUCTS &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You can purchase the photographs featured on our Web site from ezprints in the form of &#xA;  photographic prints, or other photographic products such as picture frames or photo-&#xA;  albums (collectively, the &quot;Products&quot;). You acknowledge that all Products are custom made &#xA;  to your order and have no market beyond your purchase thereof. As such, all Products are &#xA;  non-returnable and payment for all Products is required to be made in full in advance. &#xA;  All items purchased through ezprints and shipped to you are subject to a shipment &#xA;  contract under which the risk of loss and title for such items pass to you upon our &#xA;  delivery to our shipping carrier.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;B.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You may not reproduce, display,&#xA;  transmit, distribute or otherwise&#xA;  exploit the Products, or any portion&#xA;  thereof, in any manner, including,&#xA;  without limitation, print or&#xA;  electronic reproduction, publication&#xA;  or any display of photographs, without&#xA;  the prior written consent of ezprints.&#xA;  While you can add captions and&#xA;  descriptions to the photographs in&#xA;  your account in accordance with the&#xA;  terms hereof, you agree not to&#xA;  otherwise modify, alter or otherwise&#xA;  manipulate any Product, including&#xA;  without limitation, adding other&#xA;  material to a Product, without&#xA;  ezprints's prior written consent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;C.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me, Point B sounds like EzPrint is telling me I can't modify, reproduce, transmit, distribute, or otherwise exploit &lt;strong&gt;my own works&lt;/strong&gt; if they are printed through them. That sounds rather ludicrous, as there is no way in hell I am giving up my right to rework, print, distribute, and sell my own property simply because I printed it through EZPrints. I am also not going to limit what I do or who I sell to with any print I farm out, however given the wording of this agreement, it sounds like EZPrint is trying to say just that. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What am I misunderstanding here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-11T03:39:35.450" LastActivityDate="2010-10-11T03:39:35.450" Title="Confusion about EzPrints.com Terms of Use" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;printing&gt;&lt;third-party&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="3872" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3863" CreationDate="2010-10-10T19:28:08.610" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have two primary camera bodies; they're identical.  My reasons for choosing the same body for my second camera were:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the model I had was functioning to help me create the shots I needed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I'm a pro who needed to always have a second body on jobs&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;other than the redundancy function, the other reason for a second body was so that I could have two different lenses mounted and wouldn't need to swap lenses to change focal lengths&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have both cameras configured the same, same custom functions, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-10-10T19:28:08.610" />
  <row Id="3873" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3868" CreationDate="2010-10-10T20:00:23.620" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This probably isn't the answer that you want to hear, but it sounds like it might be, as they say in technical terms, busted.  Best to get it off to Nikon's repair folks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-10-10T20:00:23.620" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3874" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3871" CreationDate="2010-10-10T20:02:42.380" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sounds fishy to me. The key to the mystery is in their definition of &quot;product&quot;. If you order prints of your files, and they deliver said prints, are you not allowed to resell them? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From A:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;You can purchase the photographs featured on our Web site from ezprints in the form of photographic prints, or other photographic products such as picture frames or photo- albums &lt;em&gt;(collectively, the &quot;Products&quot;).&quot;&lt;/em&gt; Sounds like they don't want you to alter what you buy, or resell it. I don't like that. Sounds like a copyright grab to me. But they also say &quot;photographs featured,&quot; so this may be in reference to homepage imagery they've collected usage from the photog. Still vague though. I never post on a web site that makes a claim on my creative license! Slippery slope for the entire industry. These companies should be boycott.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're looking for a good print house (in Denver) check out...&lt;a href=&quot;http://reedphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://reedphoto.com/&lt;/a&gt;. They've been in the biz for years, and for good reason. They've also just released a new online print service, like collages.com, called &lt;a href=&quot;http://digitaleventsonline.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://digitaleventsonline.com/&lt;/a&gt;. I'm currently looking into this service as an addition to my website. But the best part is THEY DON'T MAKE COPYRIGHT GRABS!!!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastEditorUserId="1451" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-10T22:10:42.607" LastActivityDate="2010-10-10T22:10:42.607" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3875" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3877" CreationDate="2010-10-10T23:01:47.090" Score="9" ViewCount="538" Body="&lt;h2&gt;My background&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I purchased a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer/eos_slr_camera_systems/eos_digital_slr_cameras/digital_rebel_xti&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon Digital Rebel XTi&lt;/a&gt; shortly after it came out in 2006.  I didn't know much about photography, but since then I have taken 2 photography classes and purchased a few upgrades for the camera.  I have learned a lot about photography and would like to think I am getting better at it.  I was at Best Buy a while ago and played with the new &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer/eos_slr_camera_systems/eos_digital_slr_cameras/eos_60d&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 60D&lt;/a&gt; - it was amazing.  I've never used any other camera outside of my XTi - the 60D felt great, and from exploring the menus/controls it is obviously way better than my current camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Starting to look around...&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been doing research for a while on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer/eos_slr_camera_systems/eos_digital_slr_cameras/eos_60d&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;60D&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer/eos_slr_camera_systems/eos_digital_slr_cameras/eos_rebel_t2i_ef_s_18_55mm_is_kit&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;T2i&lt;/a&gt; (probably the current version of the XTi when I got it) and then started wondering if there really is any sense in upgrading?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;My gear:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Body:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer/eos_slr_camera_systems/eos_digital_slr_cameras/digital_rebel_xti&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon Digital Rebel XTi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Flash:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/speedlite_flash_lineup/speedlite_430ex_ii&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon Speedlite 430EX II&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Lenses:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EFS 18-55mm (The kit lens)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_28_135mm_f_3_5_5_6_is_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_50mm_f_1_4_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF 50mm f/1.4 USM&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_is_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I have also rented some lenses as well&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Typical Use:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I usually photograph people - mainly my kids, but I have done engagement and graduation photos for friends and family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;My Question:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not being made of money, I don't want to upgrade just to have the newer model, but I would appreciate advice on this one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would I benefit by upgrading my camera body, or would it be better to get nicer lenses?  Is the 60D too big of a step for me, or should I be looking lower or higher?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Thanks in advance!&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Brian&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1397" LastActivityDate="2010-10-11T21:44:54.190" Title="Should I upgrade my Canon Digital Rebel XTi?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;upgrade&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="3876" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3875" CreationDate="2010-10-10T23:36:03.007" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you have a 450D or under buy a new higher spec one and better lenses is always a plus and i am talking from experience here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are going to take a jump to the semi professional cameras you will need to buy new lenses &#xA;do a compare on the internet &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Type in canon 550d and canon 7d or 5d, some will let you compare three at a time &#xA;some will say fps iso range and weight and what they are maybe best for eg:dont buy a 550 if you want to do birds in flight or sports as its a little slow but is ace at night shots and has a camcorder inbuilt for just say family get togethers and maybe street entertainers and are great for recording messages at weddings and so forth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is first and foremost the lens that you need to be decent 1:8 2:8 are faster than the basic lenses you get as a package.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have a decent prime lens :) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a new camera coming out i think the 60d oh yes you just mentioned it &lt;em&gt;drool&lt;/em&gt; .. why dont you just wait and see. never go lower than what you started with !!!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aim for the stars no need for looking in the gutter. you say you are improving so treat yourself as a reward as that is what i did recently.. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If i could get a semi professional i would jump at it but alas like you i had to budget but i am so happy with my camera and my lenses old and new.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/compare_products/LoadComparator.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/compare_products/LoadComparator.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-11T21:44:54.190" LastActivityDate="2010-10-11T21:44:54.190" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3877" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3875" CreationDate="2010-10-10T23:57:35.870" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is how I look at body upgrades (when budget is a factor): Upgrading makes sense if there are specific features that your current body lacks that would benefit you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Said another way, is your body holding you back?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an example: perhaps you do a lot of indoor, low-light event photography and the ISO range of your body is a hinderance. In that case, the high-iso abilities of the 60D might be worthwhile.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or you find that you end up having to fumble around with menu settings a lot, and the streamlined menus of the 60D would save you a minute or two. Another good reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are looking to buy a body solely because it is newer, then you would probably be better off spending your money else where.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, because you do shoot some event photography, having a backup camera is definitely a musthave (of course you can just rent a spare body)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, given the gear you have listed, I would prioritize upgrading that instead. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are actually in a really good position because you have a selection of lenses that cover a nice focal range. Which lens do you goto more often than the others? That should be the lens you upgrade first. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-11T00:30:37.500" LastActivityDate="2010-10-11T00:30:37.500" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3878" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3871" CreationDate="2010-10-11T00:15:11.720" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been using ezprints since 2003, and Smugmug (one of the most photographer friendly and trusted services around) also recommends and uses them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are a good company, and I 100% recommend them. I think their legalese is not as clear as it could be, and in some cases, pretty stupid (like you can't make a link to ezprints??!?) but here is how I interpreted their ToU:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Point A&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Point A&lt;/strong&gt; says that because their products are tailored specifically to you, they have no value to anyone else, therefore you must pay for them upfront, and you cannot return them for a refund (unless I assume they are faulty). It doesn't say you cannot resell prints you have made--just that if you do make a print of your grandma jo, the only person who would want that (in theory) is you, so they won't take it back. Think of it like getting monogramed handtowels with &quot;JRISTA.&quot; Now myself, I wouldn't mind owning a set, but really, the market for that is way too small, so they couldn't resell them if you returned them. So if you have custom prints made, you are stuck with them (unless they screw them up).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With regards to resale, Smugmugs uses Ezprints as one of their print-sale vendors, so there is no way that Ezprints prohibits the resale of prints made with Ezprints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Point B&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Point B&lt;/strong&gt; is a bit more confusing, but what they are saying is that when you use their services, you can't yourself use some backdoor hacks to modify the images that they host. Like, have Ezprints host the image, but you write yourown software that sits ontop of it, and attempts to modify the image. Like create a site called JristaPrints.com, that secretly uploads files to exprints. They're not saying you can't modify your own works. You just can't upload your picture to their site, then try to modify it there (except with their own tools).  Also this section says that, if you have them print a calender of your photos, you can't then take that calender, scan it yourself, and make copies of the calender. Or have a mug made, then have your Indian sweatshop (i know you have one), mass produce them for resale.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding copyrights and ownership, I think you missed the most important section:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;YOUR COPYRIGHTS&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ezprints respects the copyrights, real and implied, of photographers, artists and/or other copyright holders. ezprints will not knowingly print and/or distribute images without the consent of the creator or owner of the copyrights. The copyrights in the photographs are owned by the photographers thereof who have licensed to ezprints the right to post them on the Web site and provide the Services offered. ezprints makes no claim of ownership to any images uploaded to our servers by our customers. Since we cannot research every image transmitted to us or printed by us, it is your sole responsibility to ensure that you have the necessary authorizations and/or permissions to use the images. If you believe your copyright in a work has been violated through this service, please contact ezprints for notice of claims of copyright infringement at support -at- certifiedcustomercare -dot- com, or at ezprints, Inc., 1890 Beaver Ridge Circle, Suite A, Norcross Georgia, 30071, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which says, you (the photographer) own the copyright, and the only license you grant, is for ezprints to host your image, and to provide services that you yourself authorize. Everything else is left to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-11T00:22:34.147" LastActivityDate="2010-10-11T00:22:34.147" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3879" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3647" CreationDate="2010-10-11T01:55:12.750" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I asked this very same question to one of the managers at a local Henry's store.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He explained that by stacking multiple filters, there is a greater possibility for light to bounce around between the glass and thus cause a ghosting effect (ultimately reducing the contrast of the image). Although most filters are coated to prevent this from happening, they're not perfect. Generally though, the only time you really need to worry about this is if your lens is pointing directly at the sun or a bright light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One other downside he mentioned is that if you tighten the filters too tight, you might not be able to take them apart afterwards. So be sure to tighten the polarizing filter just enough so that you can turn the dial without causing the filter to come loose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1588" LastActivityDate="2010-10-11T01:55:12.750" />
  <row Id="3880" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3888" CreationDate="2010-10-11T02:46:55.590" Score="14" ViewCount="928" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have Canon Rebel XS (EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Autofocus Lens). I have been trying to take decent night photographs for a while. But it seems to take a lot of effort. Can we take good night shots without a tripod? Also a slight motion in subject is leading to blur due to high exposure times. But if I reduce the exposure time, I cannot properly capture the landscape behind. Can you provide some guidance for taking great night shots?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: I am looking for scenario where downtown is in the background and person is in front. I am not much interested in taking pictures of moon and stars. I would be also interested to know how we take good shots of landscapes just with moonlight. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: I am including the picture I took with Chicago downtown in the background and my friend in the foreground. It came out decent, but it took a lot of effort and even then it was blurry. Hope this gives you a good idea of the kind of picture I am trying to take.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/8rMYx.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: Thanks guys for all your detailed responses. Obviously there is no one right answer but for just what it's worth I am picking one of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1599" LastEditorUserId="1599" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-12T11:49:46.410" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T22:42:58.237" Title="How to take great night shots?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;night-shooting&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="3881" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3880" CreationDate="2010-10-11T03:10:36.243" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apart from sensor size, what D-SLR you have won't significantly affect your ability to take low-light photographs. A full frame sensor will make a difference, but the first you must do is buy fast, quality lenses. Cheap lenses usually don't have large apertures (for example the Canon kit lenses with 3.5 maximum aperture), except some classic lenses like the 50mm 1.8 which is very cheap, but your zoom lenses often are too slow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What lenses do you use?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-10-11T03:10:36.243" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3882" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3871" CreationDate="2010-10-11T03:34:47.193" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I think that there is not a problem here and it is not a copyright grab.&lt;/strong&gt; Why? Two reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, see the first sentence in Part 2a:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You can purchase the photographs&#xA;  featured on our Web site from ezprints&#xA;  in the form of photographic prints, or&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;other photographic products such as&#xA;  picture frames or photo- albums&#xA;  (collectively, the &quot;Products&quot;).&lt;/em&gt; [emphasis added]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My reading is that &quot;Products&quot; refers only to value-added stuff created by EzPrints: silly photo frames, mugs, calendars, etc., &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; your photographs themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, reading Part 2b as a copyright grab is highly inconsistent with Part 3 (&quot;Your Copyrights&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, I agree with Alan. IMO, image theft is not a concern here and you should evaluate EzPrints on other criteria.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Other random thoughts (converted from question comments):&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My recollection is that EzPrints has a good reputation, though I could of course be wrong. I'm surprised that they would be attempting a copyright grab or even want to be appearing to do so. I would suggest contacting them directly with your concerns.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given this good reputation, IMO it is fair to give EzPrints an opportunity to weigh in before condemning them. While one explanation for terms that are an apparent copyright grab (and I emphasize that on a second, more careful reading I don't believe it is that, but I can see how it could be interpreted that way) is malice and/or greed, another is simple error. Maybe they have a new lawyer, or whoever was in charge of vetting the terms was having a bad day, or they just had some calendar designs stolen, or something like that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-10-11T03:34:47.193" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3883" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3880" CreationDate="2010-10-11T04:00:29.000" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm hoping for more information, but here is a preliminary answer. More than anything, I think, a &quot;fast lens&quot; will do you the most good. A lenses speed is ultimately determined by its maximum aperture. If you try to take hand-held night shots with a maximum aperture of f/5.6, or even f/4, you're going to have a very difficult time of it, as such lenses are usually just too slow for the job.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A faster lens, no slower than f/2.8, but preferably around f/1.8 to f/1.2, would do wonders for your night photography. The fastest zoom lenses come in at around f/2.8, and while this is enough to get some ok shots at night with additional illumination from flash and other light sources, it really isn't enough to get decent night shots. Prime lenses, or single focal length lenses, can often be found with much wider maximum apertures, anywhere from f/2 up through f/1.2, sometimes even faster (some older lenses have been made with ultra-wide maximum apertures of f/0.95 and f/0.7...rare, and possibly not the best optics wide open, but stopped down to f/1 or f/1.2, unbeatable.) Canon offers a few very wide prime lenses that might help you out:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24mm-f-1.4-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 L II USM&lt;/a&gt; (Professional Grade, pricey)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28mm-f-1.8-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM&lt;/a&gt; (Consumer Grade, good price)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-1.4-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM&lt;/a&gt; (Professional Grade, pricey)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-2.0-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 35mm f/2.0&lt;/a&gt; (Very cheap, ok optics soft in the corners)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.8-II-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II&lt;/a&gt; (Super cheap, good optics, crappy build, best buy around for 50mm prime)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.4-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM&lt;/a&gt; (Consumer Grade, great price)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM&lt;/a&gt; (Professional Grade, great optics, superb at night, pricey)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-11T04:00:29.000" />
  <row Id="3884" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3875" CreationDate="2010-10-11T04:10:55.517" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my opinion, everyone should upgrade to at least constant aperture zooms before upgrading their body.  It will increase the quality of their photos over having a newer body with consumer zooms, &lt;em&gt;especially&lt;/em&gt; in event or portrait photography.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, if you really want that 60D or T2i, perhaps you should get it.  You can't buy motivation to go out and shoot photos and gain experience.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, with my limit experience with Canon/Nikon entry levels, I have found their interface and grip to be a bit disappointing.  Those kinds of upgrades are sometimes quite useful.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-10-11T04:10:55.517" />
  <row Id="3885" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3880" CreationDate="2010-10-11T04:18:19.853" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are four things that you can do to take properly-exposed pictures in low light:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Increase exposure time. As you mentioned, this can lead to motion blur. You can reduce or compensate for camera motion with a tripod or image stabilization, but this won't help if your subject is moving.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Increase aperture size. You may have to buy a new lens to get a suitable size. Also, you lose depth of field with a large aperture. This effect can be used creatively, but sometimes it is an annoyance and can ruin pictures, e.g. when autofocus chooses the wrong spot to focus on, or you want multiple subjects in focus, etc. At f/1.8, your subject's eyes might be in focus, while their nose is blurry.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Increase ISO. This can lead to sensor noise, which can be worse than having an out-of-focus picture. You can get lower noise and higher ISO with a more expensive camera, but even still there are limits to this.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Increase light. The light from an on-camera flash can be harsh, unnatural, and overpowering. Bounce flash can help, but there's not always something to bounce off of. An off-camera setup offers endless creative possibilities, but is less portable than on-camera flash.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Getting the best picture possible is a matter of choosing which tradeoffs you're willing to make (or your equipment allows.)   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-12T22:42:58.237" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T22:42:58.237" />
  <row Id="3886" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3896" CreationDate="2010-10-11T06:55:20.340" Score="6" ViewCount="321" Body="&lt;p&gt;When editing for the web, everyone will recommend you to use sRGB, since a lot of browsers don't offer color management, and most browsers will interpret all images as being sRGB anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is correct for browsers used on normal gamut displays, which live in sRGB themselves.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now enter wide gamut displays. These live in AdobeRGB color space, and to my dismay on a wide gamut display browsers without color management will interpret image data as being in AdobeRGB color space, too. What happens if sRGB image data is interpreted as AdobeRGB? The colors are off, too strong, it looks gaudy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem even continues when using a browser with colormanagement like FireFox, but viewing pictures without embedded profile: the pictures will be interpreted as AdobeRGB instead of sRGB.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short: since I got my wide gamut display flickr looks awful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any ideas how I get my browsers (Internet Explorer and FireFox) to use sRGB instead of AdobeRGB for color rendition as default?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm using Windows 7.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Funny thing, when I download the images to the local drive and use a file viewer to view them, the color is correctly interpreted as sRGB.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastEditorUserId="311" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-11T07:42:30.413" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T03:18:48.623" Title="Color problem with browsers on WideGamut-Displays" Tags="&lt;color-management&gt;&lt;windows-7&gt;&lt;wide-gamut&gt;&lt;internet&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3887" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3915" CreationDate="2010-10-11T07:41:53.577" Score="-7" ViewCount="193" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that this is a bit time-bound and subjective question, but this forum is probably the best place to ask.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to buy a Canon T2I (Rebel 550D0), which is currently USD 899 (incl 18-55 Lens). With an instant rebate of USD 50, it comes to USD 850. Convert that to Indian Rupees, and it becomes an even larger sum (for me ;) )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would like to know, given the recent announcement of 60D etc, and the holiday season, approximately how much the 550D would be available for around Thanksgiving season. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there are huge (15-20+ %) discounts then I can hold off making a purchase here and get the camera from US.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there are significant price reductions in street price, then also I can hold off making a purchase here, and either get it from US or wait for the reduction to percolate to the market here, and purchase locally (provides warranty)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the discounts are not that significant, will buy here (at least the warranty part will be covered on a local purchase).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, How are prices in the US compared to Singapore ? Singapore is an attractive place for us Indians to get equipment from, given its proximity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks !&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1170" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T19:56:48.073" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T19:56:48.073" ClosedDate="2011-05-24T20:49:25.613" Title="Expected Discounts and Price reductions during Thanksgiving - Christmas ?" Tags="&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;purchase&gt;&lt;pricing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="3888" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3880" CreationDate="2010-10-11T09:07:26.437" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I too am keen to see some more answers to this, in the mean-time here is my contribution:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A tripod (or at least some sort of support) has got to be a &quot;must have&quot; for this sort of night photography:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reduced camera shake means sharper images&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lower ISO settings mean less grainy images&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Longer exposure times can also give interesting effects (for example with car lights)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't have any fast lenses so I can't say how much of a difference a fast lens will make, however I &lt;em&gt;know&lt;/em&gt; that proper support makes a &lt;strong&gt;big&lt;/strong&gt; difference! :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've seen bean bags suggested as a suitable tripod alternative for when travelling, also depending on where you are you might also get away with resting your camera on walls or benches (however you will find that your photo opportunities are far more limited)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1522" LastEditorUserId="1522" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-12T06:59:49.100" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T06:59:49.100" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3889" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3886" CreationDate="2010-10-11T09:36:38.417" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe you're out of luck with IE, though perhaps that may get corrected in IE 9. For Firefox, as you already know, there is some support for profile information and you can get some &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/firefox-color-management.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;instructions&lt;/a&gt; on various settings that &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; alleviate the problem you're having with it. Your other option is to use Safari which is supposed to be properly color aware.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Final option, if you can really call it that, is to switch your monitor to the sRGB color space if it supports it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our very own jrista seems to be the color expert here, so perhaps he will chime in with either a correction of more ideas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-10-11T09:36:38.417" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3890" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3880" CreationDate="2010-10-11T09:45:15.007" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fast lenses are good, and will allow you to get candids by streetlight with a high ISO but to get really good night photos you really need some kind of camera support. This will allow longer exposures without camera shake, but more importantly it will let you blend multiple exposures together in order to even out the lighting (when your lightsources are in the frame e.g. streetlights you can get overexposure very easily, &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3702/red-lights-in-night-city-scenes/3704#3704&quot;&gt;see the answer to this question&lt;/a&gt;). Google &quot;HDR night photography&quot; for more info.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Camera support doesn't have to be a huge tripod, your Rebel has the advantage of being lightweight so you could use a compact tripod or something like a GorillaPod which is more versatile and easy to carry around. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-11T10:58:44.627" LastActivityDate="2010-10-11T10:58:44.627" />
  <row Id="3891" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3880" CreationDate="2010-10-11T10:21:40.240" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For your scenario: &quot;downtown is in the background and person is in front&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The approach that would give you a nice effect is combining flash with long exposure. Using flash will ensure that you have the main subject sharp and well lit and the long exposure will allow you to capture the background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can use this method both with and without tripod. When using tripod you should get well rendered sharp background, when shoting hand-held the background will be blurred - but you can use it to your advantage, for example light paining - it adds a more dynamic feel to the photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastActivityDate="2010-10-11T10:21:40.240" />
  <row Id="3892" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3880" CreationDate="2010-10-11T11:29:40.443" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the secrets to take great night shots is: Don't take night shots at night. There is a short period of time between day and night, when the sky is not dark yet and when the city lights are already on. This is the best moment to take night shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1296" LastActivityDate="2010-10-11T11:29:40.443" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3893" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3880" CreationDate="2010-10-11T12:50:45.563" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have to recommend a combination of &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3880/how-to-take-great-night-shots/3892#3892&quot;&gt;mouviciel&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3880/how-to-take-great-night-shots/3883#3883&quot;&gt;jrista&lt;/a&gt;'s answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You want to use a fast lens, which will allow a shorter shutter speed. This is absolutely necessary if you are going to shoot handheld. Since you only have the kit lens, you should certainly go ahead and get the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00007E7JU?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;tag=phot0b7-20&amp;amp;linkCode=as2&amp;amp;camp=1789&amp;amp;creative=390957&amp;amp;creativeASIN=B00007E7JU&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II&lt;/a&gt;, which is about the best lens you'll find under $100 US.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will also (if you have a choice) want to shoot in the first hour past sunset or the hour before sunrise for the best lighting.  During these times there is more light, but you still have the nighttime feel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other thoughts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When I'm trying to get a nighttime feel, I use a little different pattern than usual:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I try to adjust the color a bit to the cool side, which I think generally hels the mood&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I slightly under-expose (about 1 stop).  Remember that your camera is trying to adjust to about 18% grey (maybe a little different with digital), so it is going to try to make a dark scene just as bright as a midday sun scene.  By slightly under-exposing you can increase your shutter speed and avoid the blur.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Go ahead and bump up the ISO. This will cause more noise, but you will want to take that hit to get the higher shutter speed you need to get a clean shot. ISO noise can be dealt with in post, whereas camera shake can't be fixed.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Take a look into different &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/178/techniques-for-hand-held-image-stabilization&quot;&gt;hand-holding techniques&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-12T03:23:45.373" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T03:23:45.373" />
  <row Id="3894" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3886" CreationDate="2010-10-11T12:56:14.393" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've had the same problem. I think you'll find that if you install Safari then your Flickr pictures will look fine as it supports color profiles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="697" LastActivityDate="2010-10-11T12:56:14.393" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3895" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3886" CreationDate="2010-10-11T13:20:35.573" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is probably a similar question to this one: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2358/lightroom-exports-are-too-dark-in-flickr/&quot;&gt;Lightroom exports are too dark in Flickr&lt;/a&gt;. I have two wide-gamut displays (desktop, laptop). You may want to give newer versions of Firefox a try, but I wouldn't hold my breath. A year ago I went back &amp;amp; forth reporting this issue in the Firefox bug tracker (issue &lt;a href=&quot;https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=497363&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;497363&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=509710&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;509710&lt;/a&gt;). Color management in Firefox isn't as easy as enabling an option actually. ICC profiles differ in structure and capabilities. A few of us with wide-gamut displays noticed Firefox was unable to interpret the corresponding ICC profile correctly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe this problem will go away if I use a different calibration tool to generate a different ICC profile, or a monitor with hardware LUT (i.e. one that can communicate with your calibration tool directly and store the calibration parameters in its hardware). You can use the free &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.color.org/profileinspector.xalter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ICC Profile Inspector&lt;/a&gt; to play around with your profile, and compare it to another profile known to work. Here is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.color.org/icc_specs2.xalter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ICC profile spec&lt;/a&gt;. Below is a screenshot of my profile, see if there is something in common with yours. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't tried any Firefox beta version since then, I just got used to this issue. If you do try a newer version, I'd love to hear about it. Don't lighten your photos and don't use AdobeRGB in your Flickr photos, ever, stick to the web-friendly sRGB color space.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Firefox issue: 497363 &lt;a href=&quot;https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=497363&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=497363&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Firefox issue 509710: &lt;a href=&quot;https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=509710&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=509710&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/LzTJ2.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-12T03:18:48.623" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T03:18:48.623" />
  <row Id="3896" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3886" CreationDate="2010-10-11T16:39:20.837" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, there is nothing you can do that is practical. To get what you want, you have to set your system profile to sRGB.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The behavior of image color rendition for images with no attached profiles is undefined. Browsers don't guess what color space an image is in, if no profile is attached. The operating system handles that. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The proper way to get color rendition correctly, is to attach a profile to the image. Obviously flickr (and smugmug thumbnails) do not give you this option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So you have two choices: one, set windows to use sRGB as your monitor profile; then all non-tagged images will look like sRGB, but tagged images will look like crap, and your color management will be wack.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, just deal with the fact that unmanaged images are the devil and there is &lt;strong&gt;nothing&lt;/strong&gt; you can do about it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps there is a firefox plugin that can auto attach a color profile, but outside of that, it's just a plain old suck that is known as color management.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've had to deal with this same issue with Smugmug. My images all have attached sRGB profiles, so they look great (in color managed browsers), but thumbnails looks oversaturated. It's because the thumbs are autogenerated, and smugmug refuses to attach a color profile to them, because it doubles the size of the thumbnail. So the thumbs render in whatever the way the OS decides to render them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-10-11T16:39:20.837" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3897" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3880" CreationDate="2010-10-11T19:14:53.020" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I love low-light photography!!! There is endless potential for creative solutions at night. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To begin, everyone here is right so far. Fast lens, tripod, off-camera flash, long exposures etc. Let's talk about how to get YOUR picture though. You want your subject lit and well defined with the cityscape as a well-exposed, complimentary light source.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Equipment: Camera, lens, off-camera flash, tripod, magenta filter, green gel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The predominant color coming from the city is green: fluorescent, sodium vapors, etc. Slap your magenta filter (or custom WB or fluorescent WB) on to clean up your background. Gel your flash green so that it's output is the same as the city. Now get your exposures down. If you're using a nice CLS like Nikon's, than this is pretty easy. If not, get out the old ruler and start working your distance formulas. I like to underexpose background be 2/3 and subject by 1/3 to maintain moodiness of scene and separation of subject to background. Get your EX set and let'er rip!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of note: Subject blur will be minimized by the strobe. Depending on how long your shutter runs you may get some movement anyway. This can be a good thing. Work your equivalents until you achieve your desired effect. Also, the addition of magenta really sets the sunsets (if you have any) off! They look great! Second, though fast lenses give you more light and thus speed up your exposure times, they also crush your DOF. This is awesome, unless you want your cityscape recognizable. I LOVE my f/1.4, but I would never go that bold on the image you're trying for. Just a thought.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One more thing, experiment. Low-light is ridiculously good fun. I'm working on a series right now of images taken no faster than 30 sec, all hand held. Great fun this...&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/F8XVO.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This image has not been altered in PS. Only basic toning. The table is burned in over 25 secs or so, then the face of the DJ is &quot;popped&quot; by the flash at the end of the exposure. Same principle as described above, just taken a step further.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Happy hunting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2010-10-11T19:14:53.020" />
  <row Id="3898" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-11T21:29:00.203" Score="4" ViewCount="143" Body="&lt;p&gt;We’ve got a point-and-shoot (&lt;strong&gt;Canon A590 IS&lt;/strong&gt;), and it seems that the zoom function is completely useless because it is always blurry, even in broad daylight. For example, I tried to take a picture of a squirrel hanging upside-down from a tree, drinking water in the middle of a sunny day, but the picture was blurry at all three levels of zoom I tried (yes, I waited for the camera to “auto-focus”). Even without zooming, picture of distant objects are pretty blurry when I view the photo at 1:1 resolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lens is not dirty (I have gotten some terrific—and clear—macro shots). It’s almost as though the camera has myopia; like the camera needs glasses. We generally just stick to the auto mode for most photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I’m not certain, but I think it &lt;em&gt;used&lt;/em&gt; to work okay, but I’m not sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Could the camera be having a problem or are point-and-shoots just lousy for telephoto shots. Any tips on getting better long-distance shots with it? , For example, is there a better mode to use for telephoto or some specific settings in manual mode that will give better results?&#xA;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;Update&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To address some questions, I have disabled the digital zoom, so when I am specifically talking about optical zoom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1607" LastEditorUserId="1607" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-13T17:17:11.573" LastActivityDate="2010-10-13T17:17:11.573" Title="Using Zoom Function on a Point-and-Shoot" Tags="&lt;focus&gt;&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;&lt;telephoto&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3899" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3880" CreationDate="2010-10-11T23:06:35.357" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Responding directly to your sample image, &lt;strong&gt;all you need to add is a tripod&lt;/strong&gt; provided your subject is willing to stand still (as he apparently is). You could add a fill flash but that introduces difficulties matching the foreground and background lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-10-11T23:06:35.357" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3900" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3898" CreationDate="2010-10-11T23:29:46.367" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Try the camera in different modes (Easy, Auto, Program, etc.).  In addition to testing different modes, this will hopefully coax the camera into using some different autofocus modes.  Ideally, you'd like to see if it's behaving the same way for multi-point AF, center AF and face-detection AF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd also try turning off the Image Stabilization and tripod-mounting it for a couple test shots.  I'm not sure if you could have something wrong with the IS, but it may be worth trying to rule it out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-10-11T23:29:46.367" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3901" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2366" CreationDate="2010-10-12T00:47:11.847" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is the lens. I had this problem on the second day I was in Portugal in 2008.I tried everything but the error continued, so I had to use the lens 70-300 of Canon  and a Canon S3 of my wife, because I left my old Nikon with lens on the sofa, that I intended to carry as backup. Coming back to Brazil I sent the lens to Canon to be repaired. I used the lens and everything went ok.In 2009 I went to north-east of Brazil and on second day, another time, error 99. I have given up with this lens and  since that  time I am not using my Canon camera. Today, in the lab, I am used to go, the manager said to me that only lenses L of Canon have quality  and   that  a lot of users of 17-85 are having problems. I will not send the lens to be repaired, I will throw it away. If it were  a car I think the maker would have to make a recall. I think we ,with  Canon DSLR cameras,  have only the  lens EF 17-40 f/4L or the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 (1030$) to get a wide lens.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T00:47:11.847" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3902" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-12T02:30:18.123" Score="7" ViewCount="74" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the following image, and I would like to preserve a little bit of texture in the shadows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/2Ebxj.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see (hopefully), the darkest parts of the image have gone to a solid black. There is some texture there that I would like to keep; not much, but some, and I would like to bring it out in the final image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is already a fairly aggressive rendering of the source file; here is a literal interpretation of the raw file, with autolevels turned off. For reference, here is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://reidster.net/x/01845.nef&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;.NEF itself&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/f6tIN.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am assuming that one does this with the levels or curves tools. Here is a screenshot of the Bibble levels &amp;amp; curves settings for the first image (note that it is also converted to B&amp;amp;W using the iNDA plugin).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/4qWKA.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have tried adding additional control points to the curve but quickly became confused as to the mapping between input and output intensity. Perhaps untangling this confusion is the key?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T09:48:32.277" Title="Preserving texture in shadows with levels/curves" Tags="&lt;levels&gt;&lt;curves&gt;&lt;texture&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="3903" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3886" CreationDate="2010-10-12T02:44:27.927" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's the state of color-management in Firefox and IE as of right now (10/11/2010).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Firefox v3.5.x - supports full color management, but only understands ICCv2 profiles. If your display calibration/profiling software supports creating v2 profiles (look for an option somewhere in the program settings), you should be able get images to display correctly. Note that by default Firefox only uses color management for images tagged with a color profile. Since there are many un-tagged sRGB images on the web, you'll probably want to configure Firefox to manage color for all images. The easiest way to make this change is using the Color Management extension for Firefox.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;FireFox v4 (currently in beta) - FireFox4 will finally support ICCv4 color profiles, both for images and for your display profile. Current betas are bloated, buggy, and slow, so I don't recommend them for general use but at least we know correct color management is on the way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Internet Explorer 8.x - no color management at all. zip, nada.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Internet Explorer 9 (currently in beta) - The public beta has some limited color management support, but it's of no real use on wide-gamut monitors. IE9 (beta) recognizes images tagged with profiles other than sRGB, and converts them to sRGB. Unfortunately it completely ignores the display profile, which means if you have a wide-gamut monitor everything will still be over-saturated. Whether MS will fix this behavior, or whether it was an intentional decision to improve rendering speed, remains to be seen. If any of you are beta testing IE9, I suggest reporting this bug so that MS knows there are people who are unhappy about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="291" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T02:44:27.927" />
  <row Id="3904" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3829" CreationDate="2010-10-12T03:03:18.297" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The vast majority of photo labs only know how to handle sRGB images. Many of the RA-4 based digital mini-labs don't recognize embedded profiles and just treat everything as sRGB.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are new inkjet-based minilabs showing up in some locations now, but they're still catering to consumers printing direct from point-n-shoot jpeg's, so your best bet is still to stick with sRGB.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some labs catering to &quot;pros&quot; (namely wedding/portrait photogs) might support Adobe RGB in addition to sRGB, but don't assume that's true; always ask first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if you're using a lab that prints with inkjets, they're almost certainly using RGB-based drivers, so don't assume that just because the printer has subtractive inks that you should be handing them a CMYK file. Never give a photo lab CMYK images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some fine-art printers and high-end service bureaus out there who have a fully color-managed workflow and can handle pretty much any embedded profile; but they are pretty rare (and expensive).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="291" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T03:03:18.297" />
  <row Id="3905" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3902" CreationDate="2010-10-12T03:42:08.273" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Reid. Don't throw your blacks into the pits of despair! Just don't tone so aggressively. That's the easy answer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the more involved answer. I'm not sure what your end game is: print, web, tele, all have different sensitivities. But the general approach I would use goes like this. Process your RAW as you have, then hop into PS (I did my best to emulate your approach on the RAW). In PS go...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Layer -&gt; Adjustment Layer -&gt; B&amp;amp;W. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bring your yellows up and your cyan and blue down to enhance the details of your highlights and shadows respectfully.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/bGNYc.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then bust open levels. Yes levels, not curves. We're in B&amp;amp;W land and our focus is 0 and 255. To cut the knees off the detail gobbling black change your Black output to 10 (or so, I did 7) and compress your histogram from there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/9fUc7.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that your end Raise your black output by ten points or so. I bumped my black point by 8 for contrast but carefully avoiding undoing the work I just did through output. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/2XNto.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also add some noise if you like, but that seems counter to preserving and enhancing the cloud's natural details. Hope that helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T03:42:08.273" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3906" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3907" CreationDate="2010-10-12T04:05:48.110" Score="12" ViewCount="207" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are there any good reasons to use in-camera special effects, such as B+W or sepia conversion, rather than doing the same thing in software during post-processing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My gut says its better to have the original color image, and convert it on the computer rather than having the camera do it and then losing the ability to ever go back to the original version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is the camera able to do this kind of thing any better than the computer would?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realize this may depend on the camera model and the computer software being used, but I'm trying not to use a specific example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="227" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T15:15:25.087" Title="Reasons to use in camera special effects?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="3907" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3906" CreationDate="2010-10-12T04:11:56.133" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your gut is ABSOLUTELY correct. It is always best to take home the maximum amount of information, then discard later. You don't get do-overs. Always shoot with the biggest guns available. Besides, there are so many more options available to you in &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3410/techniques-to-pull-skin-tones-out-of-the-shadows/3422#3422&quot;&gt;B&amp;amp;W&lt;/a&gt; conversion in post. Cameras make assumptions. You make decisions. Trust your gut.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Happy Hunting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T04:11:56.133" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3908" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3887" CreationDate="2010-10-12T04:14:51.563" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not really sure why all the down votes. Maybe just wrong place to ask. There of course are sales in the US around this time. As to how big, ask the retailers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T04:14:51.563" />
  <row Id="3909" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3906" CreationDate="2010-10-12T04:19:37.290" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You should take pictures in the best RAW format your camera supports and post-process them.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;A big advantage of digital photography is that you are doing away with the development-lab which typically processes the entire film with one setting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can now process the pictures you think are better (or would yield more than the first effects from the original shot) with many sophisticated and (mostly) free tools. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you use &lt;strong&gt;in-camera effects&lt;/strong&gt;, you are &lt;strong&gt;likely to lose the data that was originally captured to a single iteration of effects&lt;/strong&gt;. Compare that to a 'tree' of post-processing steps that lets you try many variations from the original data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I second your gut feeling -- post-process rather than in-camera effects.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;And, I have yet had no reason to feel that the in-camera effects give you any advantage&lt;br&gt;&#xA;(besides the simple case where, you are away from all other software and want to print straight from the camera). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;If you compare any single model in-camera effect support to the vast number of software techniques and products available, it is clear, in-camera can't beat post-processing.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="163" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-12T14:47:24.633" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T14:47:24.633" />
  <row Id="3910" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3906" CreationDate="2010-10-12T07:43:14.030" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The camera is a computer so besides any analogue processing (such as amplification to increase ISO) there is nothing it can do which you can't do in on your home computer. Unless the processing involves altering camera settings such as Nikon's active d-lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I agree with everything said so far but there are still reasons to use special effects, if you don't have the time or ability to do it in post, or if you need to give live feedback to clients. In this last case I have shot raw+jpeg so I have the original data to re-do the conversion later with more control!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T07:43:14.030" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="3911" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3902" CreationDate="2010-10-12T09:48:32.277" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are right that curves is the way to increase detail at certain brightness levels. The steepness of the line dictates contrast (and hence detail). You only have so much &quot;height&quot; to play with so making the line steeper in one place (e.g. the shadows) means it must be shallower elsewhere. If you're careful you can make the line shallow in an unimportant area (such as where the histogram shows few values, usually at either end) and so get the contrast you need where you need it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above used global adjustment (ones that affect the whole image) and is therefore always going to be a compromise (contrast in the shadows means less contrast in the midtones etc.) There is another option, and that is &lt;strong&gt;local adjustments&lt;/strong&gt;. This way you can alter the contrast in certain spatial areas of the image without affecting the others, giving you maximum contrast and detail overall. This is how tonemapping works, which is responsible for the &quot;HDR look&quot;. You can get this effect with a single exposure, just Google for &quot;single image HDR&quot;. Alternatively you can get a similar effect with the &quot;fill light&quot; slider in Abobe Camera Raw or Lightroom. Finally you can do it old school by masking off the dark areas in Photoshop and altering the contrast with levels/curves. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T09:48:32.277" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3912" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3898" CreationDate="2010-10-12T11:02:16.807" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Blur is usually caused by two factors, areas being out of focus or movement of the camera or subject. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As it seems to happen more when zoomed in my first reaction would be that it is camera shake, as inevitable small camera movements get magnified greatly when using a long zoom. This can be tested by using a tripod, or placing the camera on a sturdy surface and using the self-timer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However focus problems can also be exacerbated by long zoom settings as you're magnifying the out of focus areas. If you have slight focus miscalibration in the camera this might not show up in wide angle shots as the depth of field is greater. It's also possible that a lens element is out of alignment or not moving properly when you zoom. In this case the camera will have to be repaired or replaced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, blurred photos of distant objects can be the result of atmospheric conditions such as haze, due the fact the light has to travel through a lot of dusty air to reach you. This can be alleviated to an extent using a polarizing filter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's about all I can say without seeing the images! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-12T11:08:54.667" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T11:08:54.667" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3913" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3906" CreationDate="2010-10-12T11:59:20.770" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I agree with what have being said about recording the most information possible for later use, I'd add that there's one important point in using in-camera effects (at least for point and shoot or live view cameras).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While using them you are composing and cropping exactly the same scene that you will see later. So B&amp;amp;W, Color Selection/Swap or tones are there at your disposal, which may help a lot your creative vision of what you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you take the shot with the effect (as reference), you can take as many others as needed with the effects turned off (and preferably using RAW when available). During post processing you can use your first shots (with the effect) as a reference of what you were trying to get.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T11:59:20.770" />
  <row Id="3914" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3898" CreationDate="2010-10-12T12:04:12.187" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When using the zoom longer ranges, the camera lens have less light available (due to the smaller aperture of the lenses), so in order to capture the same amount of light it will have to stay open for a longer period (bigger shutter time).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That extra time is probably what is causing the blur, since any movements by the camera or the subject will be recorded in the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to prevent that and assuming the subject is stationary, you can try putting the camera on a steady position (using a tripod, table, book, whatever) or increasing the ISO speed (think of it as a kind of &quot;accelerator for the light&quot;, so the time necessary will be smaller).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T12:04:12.187" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3915" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3887" CreationDate="2010-10-12T12:47:17.387" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Cyber Monday (Monday after Thanksgiving) this year is on November 29th.  Generally all the major online stores have huge sales.  Black Friday, the Day after Thanksgiving (November 26) is a good time to go shopping at Brick and Mortar stores.  As for the percentages, Rob has it correct, can't predict the percentages off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1309" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T12:47:17.387" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3916" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3898" CreationDate="2010-10-12T13:44:41.700" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your camera has a 4x optical zoom and a 4x digital zoom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can use the optical zoom without losing image qualty, but as soon as you use the digital zoom, you lose quality. The digital zoom simply takes a portion at the middle of the image and enlarges to fill the image frame. When enlarging there isn't information enough for each pizel, so the most noticable effect is a loss of sharpness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, keep to the optical part of the zoom range, and you will get better quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T13:44:41.700" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3917" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1520" CreationDate="2010-10-12T14:36:37.213" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Lens-with-Camera&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DxOMark&lt;/a&gt; give a quantitative rating on how well a lens works on a given camera model based on the data they collect for the lens correction tool in their DxO Optics Pro application.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's another data point to use in addition to a hands-on review.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1615" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T14:36:37.213" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-10-12T14:36:37.213" />
  <row Id="3918" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3906" CreationDate="2010-10-12T15:15:25.087" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On many cameras, these special effects are simply stored as &lt;em&gt;parameters&lt;/em&gt; in the RAW file, rather than as changes to the pixel data in the RAW file. Thus,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When shooting RAW, using an in-camera effect is effectively lossless. You lose no data.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;(Obviously, cameras vary, and you should verify that yours behaves this way.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the benefit is that you can shoot black and white pictures in your camera in RAW, and be able to get immediate feedback about how the image will look in B+W (or sepia, etc.). Since your RAW file still contains the full color information, if you want to go back and tweak the B+W conversion later, or decide that you want color, you can just reprocess the RAW file.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T15:15:25.087" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3919" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-12T17:48:34.233" Score="6" ViewCount="294" Body="&lt;p&gt;My current tripod (Slik) doesn't do heavy lenses very well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am looking for a heavy duty tripod. One that can handle lens that weighs more than 2 pounds (907.18 grams)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any recommendations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My budget for a tripod is $100.00.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="664" LastEditorUserId="1457" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-19T12:49:12.597" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T10:15:49.737" Title="Which tripod can handle a lens that weighs more than 2 pounds?" Tags="&lt;tripod&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3920" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3919" CreationDate="2010-10-12T18:02:24.647" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are literally dozens of tripods that can handle more than two pounds.  Popular brands include &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.manfrotto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Manfrotto&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gitzo.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gitzo&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without knowing further details of what you require (number of leg segments, size, budget, etc) it's hard to make a specific recommendation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T18:02:24.647" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3921" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3919" CreationDate="2010-10-12T19:18:09.653" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general it is difficult to satisfy those 3 important properties at the same time: light weight, sturdiness, and cheap. Without more information, I can only refer to my own case but I'm really interested in the answers because my tripod is &lt;em&gt;heavy&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a Camera 5D Mark II which weighs about 895 g / 31.6 oz / 1.97 lbs (body + battery). My heaviest lens is a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS, at about 1470 g / 51.9 oz. / 3.2 lbs (pounds). Both together, this amounts to a nice 2365 g / 83.4 oz. / 5.2 lbs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To support this combo, I use a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.manfrotto.com/product/055XB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Manfrotto 055XB Tripod&lt;/a&gt; that supports 7 kg / 15.4 lbs. I attach the tripod directly to the lens, since it's heavier than the camera. The tripod weighs 2.3 kg / 5 lbs, and you can get it for around $175. You still need a tripod head. My camera is a video DSLR, so I went for a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.manfrotto.com/product/0/501HDV/_/501HDV_Head&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Manfrotto 501HDV&lt;/a&gt; Video Head for smooth pan and tilt. The head costs around $180, can support 6 kg / 13 lbs and weighs 1.6 kg / 3.53 lbs. If you are not interested in video, get a lighter head. You end up with quite a heavy combo that can support 6 kg / 13 lbs and weighs 3.9 kg / 8.6 lbs, for about $355. It's not light, but it's sturdy, and it doesn't bulge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see in jrista's comment, and to get back to my intro: you can get lighter, but for more money. His first combo using Gitzo gear can support 11 lbs but weighs 1/3rd of mine for twice the price. I'm actually tempted to buy that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-12T23:55:46.090" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T23:55:46.090" />
  <row Id="3922" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3919" CreationDate="2010-10-12T20:56:36.390" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, two pounds is very lightweight duty. Heavy duty would be something that could mount a nice, sturdy gymbal head, a large fully-body camera (i.e. Canon 1D/Nikin D3), and a hefty telephoto lens (i.e. wide 600mm or 800mm). Such a setup could way a good 15-20 pounds or more, some ten times the weight your looking for. A tripod to handle 20 pounds would be pretty heavy itself, a couple/few pounds at least, plus maybe a pound or so for the gymbal head. Thats a lot of weight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a Gitzo setup that uses the Gitzo GT0541 tripod and the Gitzo GH1780QR ball head. The tripod itself weighs in at a little over a pound, and the head weighs just under one pound. The tripod itself can handle 11 pounds worth of load, and the head can handle 22 pounds of load, so the setup can handle 11 pounds total. It works beautifully with my Canon 450D and 100-400mm Telephoto Zoom lens, which weighs about 4 pounds total. The mere two and a half pound weight of the tropod/head makes it a dream to hike around with, and it cost less than $700. Hooking some weight on the hook at the bottom of the tripod takes care of any instability (there is a little bit of give due to its lightweight construction.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above can be contrasted with the Gitzo GT5561SGT, a tripod designed for &quot;heavy duty&quot; work. It is capable of handling 55 pounds of load, weighs in at almost 8 pounds itself excluding any head (and its carbon fiber to boot!). The tripod itself costs almost $1300. Throw in a head capable of handling 45-55 pounds of load, and you tack on a couple more pounds, for a total cost of around $2000 or so. This puppy with a Wimberly gymbal head is capable of handling Canon's biggest lens, the 1200mm super telephoto, which weighs almost 40 pounds itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some middle ground tripods from various manufacturers that can handle load in the range of 25, 35, and 45 pounds. Sometimes, more than load limit, you need to look at how sturdy a tripod is. Lighter weight 'pods that can handle 11lb may be able to handle plenty of weight, but may just be too flimsy. A pod that is more rigid may be what your looking for, regardless of its load limit. Various tripod heads, including panning heads, ball heads, and gymbal heads exist for similar load ranges. It is important to note that the lowest weight capacity is the most you can handle, so putting a 45lb head on an 11lb tripod is useless, as you'll still only be able to handle 11lb worth of load.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before you shell out any money on a &quot;heavy duty&quot; tripod (which could cost a small fortune), I would figure out the maximum weight of the equipment you wish to mount on it. Even a 500mm f/5.6 telephoto lens on a 1D/D3 type body still weighs considerably less than the 22-35lb load limit of most middle-ground tripods. Something like a Gitzo GT3531 @ $750, a good middle range 'pod, might offer you the sturdy build you need, even though it can support nearly 40lbs worth of weight (which is probably way more than you need.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T20:56:36.390" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="3923" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3927" CreationDate="2010-10-12T20:56:58.633" Score="7" ViewCount="297" Body="&lt;p&gt;what are the settings on my camera that I should be concentrating on getting vibrant colors in my pics. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I sure can take a picture in RAW and play with it in photoshop and get all I want, but I'm looking to get the vibrant colors out of camera. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any idea?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="567" LastActivityDate="2010-10-13T00:31:21.327" Title="Vibrant colors in pictures.." Tags="&lt;color-management&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3924" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3923" CreationDate="2010-10-12T21:45:23.083" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Without knowing your camera make and model, I can only give you some general pointers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a number of things you can do to help with color saturation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lens selection: Better lenses offer better color contrast&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In camera processing: This doesn't effect RAW images, but you can always bump saturation, and color tones in camera.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;White Balance: The more accurate your wb is in camera, the better your colors will be&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T21:45:23.083" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3925" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3923" CreationDate="2010-10-12T21:50:08.397" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Make sure the photo is exposed correctly; err on the side of underexposing (so the colors don't get washed out). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Otherwise, I think vibrancy often just comes out in post-processing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1125" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T21:50:08.397" />
  <row Id="3926" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3923" CreationDate="2010-10-12T23:12:08.760" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The other two answers are both good tips (use an expensive lens for good colour reproduction, under expose for more colour information in the highlights).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only things I can add are shoot away from the lightsources to eliminate flare as that can mess with the contrast, use a polarizer for more contrast in the skies, and finally minimise noise by getting as much light as possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other 90% of vibrant colours is down to post! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-10-12T23:12:08.760" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3927" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3923" CreationDate="2010-10-12T23:18:51.577" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;At the very least you need to be using a &lt;strong&gt;UV filter&lt;/strong&gt; when shooting outside. This will help a little by cutting out dirty light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-&lt;strong&gt;Slap a polarizer on there&lt;/strong&gt; to deepen your blues (sky) and cut reflections. Careful with skin tones though, I've seen weird stuff happen (sometimes) with a polarizer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Get your exposures nailed down.&lt;/strong&gt; I often like 1/3 - 2/3's under as color tends to saturate more, though every situation is different. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Shoot in Adobe as opposed to sRGB.&lt;/strong&gt; Again, every situation is different, but as I understand it Adobe has a larger gamut, giving you more &quot;potential&quot; for vibrancy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Shoot within your camera's reciprocity guidelines...or don't!&lt;/strong&gt; Your chip (or film) is prepared to deliver accurate color within a broad spectrum of exposure times. Shoot within this range and you have a good chance of finding good saturation. The range depends on your manufacturer, but can be determined through experimentation. For discussion let's say its between 1/2500 and 15 secs. Big range. Outside of this however the medium's ability to deliver accurate color falls off. What happens, especially on the longer exposure times, is CRAZY deep saturation and altering of colors. Yes, blues go red, yellows go green, pink elephants and walking hammers. Well, not that crazy, but you can have fun with it. This is called &quot;Reciprocity Failure.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Change your camera setting to High Saturation.&lt;/strong&gt; Every digicam I've come across has a setting somewhere in the shooting menu that will allow you to crank up the saturation in camera. Look for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Accept that post is where its at.&lt;/strong&gt; Truly you will always have to post process your images to maximize their potential. Just the way of things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Happy hunting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastEditorUserId="1451" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-13T00:31:21.327" LastActivityDate="2010-10-13T00:31:21.327" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="3928" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3930" CreationDate="2010-10-13T00:20:32.030" Score="6" ViewCount="196" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to export the EXIF metadata from my photo archives so that I can do some analysis of which focal lengths I use the most. Aperture has a &quot;File --&gt; Export --&gt; Metadata...&quot; option, but that seems to only include IPTC metadata and not EXIF info.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any way to export the EXIF metadata to a text file?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="139" LastActivityDate="2010-10-13T03:56:05.470" Title="How can I export EXIF metadata from Apple Aperture?" Tags="&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;apple-aperture&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3929" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3932" CreationDate="2010-10-13T03:39:09.833" Score="1" ViewCount="411" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon PowerShot SX130IS: Have you used/experienced this camera?  What do you have to say about it?  Thanks! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Intended/planned use:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;outdoor photography (85% of the time)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Macro subjects&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;far away subjects&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;mostly during the day - but sometimes early morning/evenings (sunset/sunrises)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="880" LastEditorUserId="880" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-13T19:18:45.483" LastActivityDate="2010-10-17T16:11:45.393" Title="Is this a good camera: Canon PowerShot SX130IS?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;powershot&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3930" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3928" CreationDate="2010-10-13T03:56:05.470" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It turns out that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apple.com/macosx/what-is-macosx/scripting.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Automator&lt;/a&gt; has an Aperture &quot;Extract Metadata&quot; action that has access to all of the EXIF fields.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was able to solve my problem using a simple Automator workflow that performs the following steps:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(Aperture) Get selected items&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(Aperture) Extract Metadata -- With the option for &quot;Tabbed Text&quot; output.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(Text) New Text Document&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have uploaded the Automator workflow as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www2.adamfranco.com/dropbox/Extract%20Focal%20Length.workflow.zip&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Extract Focal Length.workflow&lt;/a&gt; for reference. This workflow took about 30-minutes to run on 10,000 images, but at least I got the data I needed out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One note, be sure to collapse the steps so that the results aren't displayed in Automator if you are running this on many items as this will slow it down dramatically. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="139" LastActivityDate="2010-10-13T03:56:05.470" />
  <row Id="3931" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3745" CreationDate="2010-10-13T04:21:16.230" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have used a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/104984-REG/Slik_615_310.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Slik 300DX&lt;/a&gt; tripod ($109) for many years and am very pleased with it. I don't have super-heavy lenses, but you only have to crouch a little if you want to use it with the center tube down for more support. The 3 things I like about this tripod are that its reasonably priced, not too heavy, and the legs will splay out and allow (with a short center column) the camera to be positioned right off the ground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only reason I would switch to a different tripod would be to get one that was a little taller with the center column down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="139" LastActivityDate="2010-10-13T04:21:16.230" />
  <row Id="3932" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3929" CreationDate="2010-10-13T04:24:30.753" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, I bought one as a gift and the owner is very happy with it. I cannot vouch first-hand on image quality but I found it an excellent value because it is one of the cheapest modern cameras with full manual controls, a wide-angle lens and AA batteries, particularly since Canon has been removing manual controls from their A-series. I'd say there aren't too many cameras this capable for such a low price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Naturally, whether it's good for you depends on your needs. This type of camera is generally not so good for low-light and action because it responds slower and the lack of an optical viewfinder makes following action difficult. On the other hand, if you are travelling and shooting mostly in daylight you should have little to worry about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-17T16:11:45.393" LastActivityDate="2010-10-17T16:11:45.393" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3933" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3712" CreationDate="2010-10-13T04:37:56.520" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I haven't used them for a camera or lenses (though they sell those too), &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpex.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Midwest Photo Exchange&lt;/a&gt; is a great place for camera lighting &amp;amp; accessories. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2010-10-13T04:37:56.520" />
  <row Id="3934" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3938" CreationDate="2010-10-13T07:37:01.007" Score="7" ViewCount="315" Body="&lt;p&gt;I seem to remember reading that you should turn off lens image stabilization when using on camera flash? Is that right? If so why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="823" LastActivityDate="2010-10-13T13:57:52.287" Title="Should I turn off image stabilization on my lens when using flash?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;image-stabilization&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3935" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3934" CreationDate="2010-10-13T07:45:41.157" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That's not advice I've heard -- you would turn image stabilisation off when using a tripod though, as you can otherwise get a feedback loop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-10-13T07:45:41.157" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="3936" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3934" CreationDate="2010-10-13T09:24:09.343" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's no reason image stabilization and flash should interfere with each other. If you want to benefit from IS keep it on. (However, IS might make things worse when you're using a tripod, as Rowland says.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-10-13T09:24:09.343" />
  <row Id="3937" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3919" CreationDate="2010-10-13T09:24:30.513" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you go to Mafrotto's website, they have a configuration utility. You enter the details of your body and lens and it'll tell you whether the tripod/head configuration you've selected is suitable for use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastActivityDate="2010-10-13T09:24:30.513" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3938" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3934" CreationDate="2010-10-13T09:44:12.620" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally you can turn image stabilisation off when you use a flash, beacuse it doesn't make any difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some possible exceptions are when the flash doesn't really light up enough so that you still need a longer exposure, or if you are using a long exposure in addition to the flash to catch the background light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-10-13T09:44:12.620" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3939" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3863" CreationDate="2010-10-13T09:45:31.167" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I upgraded to 5D MkII I kept my previous body (30D) as a spare, simply because having two bodies is better then money I could get for a used old DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me the 8Mpix resolution is still significantly better than nothing in case 5D fails (which has &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3657/what-are-the-cons-of-a-5d-mark-ii-how-does-it-compare-to-other-ff-bodies-from-ca/3670#3670&quot;&gt;already happened&lt;/a&gt;) and one thing you don't want when shooting a wedding is to have no working camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also you 30D as a second body when I don't want to swap lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me the second body is mostly a backup, and keeping an old camera for that purpose makes more sense to me than buying something I don't want to use that often.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-10-13T09:45:31.167" />
  <row Id="3940" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3934" CreationDate="2010-10-13T13:00:45.773" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You might want to keep IS turned on when using studio flash heads. Whilst hot-shoe flash durations are very fast (1/1000s and up) and pop-up flashes even faster, bigger mains powered strobes can be more like 1/200s or longer when on full power, so you will probably benefit from IS unless you're shooting normal to wide angles. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-10-13T13:00:45.773" />
  <row Id="3941" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3934" CreationDate="2010-10-13T13:05:54.763" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only argument I think of is to save battery life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1296" LastActivityDate="2010-10-13T13:05:54.763" />
  <row Id="3942" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3934" CreationDate="2010-10-13T13:57:52.287" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You want IS on when your shutter speed is slow enough that camera shake could affect your photo, and when your camera is not securely mounted (ie, a tripod).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the use of flash causes your shutter speed to increase enough that there's no danger of camera shake, then you no longer &lt;em&gt;need&lt;/em&gt; IS.  In other words, there's a direct relationship between shutter speed and your need for IS (taking focal length into account).  Flash is part of the equation only as it relates to its affect on available light, and thus, your shutter speed (unless I'm missing something, here).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Matt indicated, just because you don't &lt;em&gt;need&lt;/em&gt;  IS on any given shot doesn't necessarily mean that there's any harm in having it on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-10-13T13:57:52.287" />
  <row Id="3943" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3945" CreationDate="2010-10-13T15:07:20.520" Score="8" ViewCount="280" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking at buying a new SLR body. I have an old film Nikon entry-level SLR (about ten years old) with a kit lens. If I buy a Nikon body, how likely is it that my old lens will work on it? Would I be better off buying a new lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1546" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T19:50:14.103" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T22:21:39.810" Title="How compatible are my old Nikon lenses" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;compatibility&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="3944" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3943" CreationDate="2010-10-13T15:19:08.003" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As long as your older lenses have the same mount compatability then every should work together just fine.  I have some 20+ year old manual focus sigma lenses that work with my D200.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1309" LastActivityDate="2010-10-13T15:19:08.003" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3945" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3943" CreationDate="2010-10-13T15:44:45.410" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a particularly thorny question with Nikon. On one hand, Nikon still uses the same basic mount as their very first SLRs did shortly after the second world war was over. On the other hand, over the years they've had to come up with quite a few variations on that mount. As a result, the exact degree of compatibility between a particular lens and camera varies all the way from &quot;it'll work fine&quot; to &quot;can break the lens and/or camera.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aiconversions.com/compatibilitytable.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;quite&lt;/a&gt; a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dentonimages.com/page.php?id=art100708a&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;number&lt;/a&gt; of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;compatibility&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/slr-lens.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;charts&lt;/a&gt; around to help out though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-10-13T15:44:45.410" />
  <row Id="3946" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4603" CreationDate="2010-10-13T18:36:11.030" Score="3" ViewCount="79" Body="&lt;p&gt;At the newspaper I used to work for we had a plugin for PS that burned corners stupendously. Simple, easy to use, customizable, actionable plugin. BUT WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE THING?!? Any hints?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T17:07:44.457" Title="Looking for corner burning plug-in" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;plugin&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3947" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3946" CreationDate="2010-10-13T18:54:47.233" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You mean a plugin that creates &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vignetting&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;vignetting&lt;/a&gt;? If you &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?q=photoshop%20vignetting#sclient=psy&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;safe=off&amp;amp;source=hp&amp;amp;q=photoshop+vignetting+plugin&amp;amp;aq=f&amp;amp;aqi=&amp;amp;aql=&amp;amp;oq=&amp;amp;gs_rfai=&amp;amp;pbx=1&amp;amp;fp=8a5b3ffa4becd4c9&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Google for it&lt;/a&gt;, I see more than a few, including &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xero-graphics.co.uk/set4/softvignette.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Xero Soft Vignette&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://photoshop.pluginsworld.com/plugins/adobe/1772/mv-s-plugins/vignette-corrector.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;MV's Vignette Corrector&lt;/a&gt;. The easiest way, in newer version of Photoshop, is just to use the Lens Correction filter, by selecting Filters &gt; Distort &gt; Lens Correction and &lt;a href=&quot;http://focusfaction.com/forums/showthread.php/1038-Easy-Vignette-in-Photoshop&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;playing with the vignette slider&lt;/a&gt;. For non-destructive editing, try to &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.epicedits.com/2007/09/18/quick-tip-using-photoshop-to-add-vignette/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;apply the effect on a new layer&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-13T23:48:40.533" LastActivityDate="2010-10-13T23:48:40.533" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3948" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3136" CreationDate="2010-10-13T19:44:40.457" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;All the time... I hate auto focus.&#xA;But seriously, even the few times autofocus is applicable, I would say stick with manual...&#xA;I tend to use AF if necessary, rather than have it be the rule...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1626" LastEditorUserId="1626" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-14T20:09:51.330" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T20:09:51.330" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-10-13T19:44:40.457" />
  <row Id="3949" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2134" CreationDate="2010-10-13T22:22:35.960" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a new Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR lens you might consider for about $1000. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ken Rockwell loves it&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="414" LastActivityDate="2010-10-13T22:22:35.960" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3950" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="124" CreationDate="2010-10-14T00:25:55.423" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've seen some beautiful effects as a result of using one of these lenses on a micro 4/3rds camera body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/psd/4805581012/in/photostream/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/psd/4805581012/in/photostream/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interesting experiments to be made, I think.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1627" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T00:25:55.423" />
  <row Id="3951" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-14T02:56:44.060" Score="4" ViewCount="404" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently upgraded to a T2i from the original Digital Rebel.  I usually used the Canon EF 35-105 lens on the old Rebel.  When I put that lens on the T2i after about 5 seconds everything goes off on the camera.  Turning off/on the camera doesn't help, I need to switch lens and re-insert the battery to get it to work.  The other lens I have from the old Rebel are a Canon EF 50mm 1:1.8 II and Canon EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III they both work fine.  Is that lens not compatible?  Seems kinda weird to me.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="662" LastEditorUserId="101" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-15T15:41:45.710" LastActivityDate="2010-10-15T15:41:45.710" Title="Canon T2i and Canon EF 35-105" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="3952" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="370" CreationDate="2010-10-14T03:10:01.960" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm a real amataur, but I upgraded to the t2i from the original digital rebel.  I've got the t2i kit lens, the Canon EF 50mm II and Canon EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III.  I stuggled to get any kind of indoor sports picture with the old rebel, but with the higher iso of the t2i I'm able to use any of the lens for decent shots.  Definitely the 50mm is worthwhile,  for a cheaper zoom i've been happy with the EF 75-300.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="662" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T03:10:01.960" />
  <row Id="3953" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3963" CreationDate="2010-10-14T04:49:31.043" Score="1" ViewCount="61" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for an economical still camera to click hi-res photos for a research project I'm doing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An important requirement is that the photo output in a RAW format. (least compression)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to know which cameras would be suitable, that can be controlled (remote capture) from any software that works okay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the list of cameras that &lt;a href=&quot;http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/842/cpsid_84221.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lightroom&lt;/a&gt; supports:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;* EOS 5D&#xA;* EOS 5D Mark II&#xA;* EOS 1D Mark II&#xA;* EOS 1Ds Mark II&#xA;* EOS 1D Mark III&#xA;* EOS 1Ds Mark III&#xA;* EOS 1D Mark IV&#xA;* EOS 7D&#xA;* EOS 500D (Rebel T1I(EOS /Kiss X3 Digital)&#xA;* EOS 450D (Rebel XSI/EOS Kiss X2)&#xA;* EOS 1000D (Rebel XS/EOS Kiss F)&#xA;* EOS 350D (Rebel XT/EOS Kiss Digital N)&#xA;* EOS 400D (Rebel XTi/EOS Kiss Digital X)&#xA;* EOS 20D&#xA;* EOS 30D&#xA;* EOS 40D&#xA;* EOS 50D&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nikon&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;* D3&#xA;* D3s&#xA;* D3x&#xA;* D90&#xA;* D200&#xA;* D300&#xA;* D300s&#xA;* D700&#xA;* D5000&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; Found some more Nikon models listed on &lt;a href=&quot;http://thephotogeek.com/choosing-nikon-dslr-camera-tethered-shooting-software/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; page:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;* D2X&#xA;* D2Hs&#xA;* D2H&#xA;* D2Xs&#xA;* D100&#xA;* D80&#xA;* D70s&#xA;* D70&#xA;* D60&#xA;* D50&#xA;* D40X&#xA;* D40&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of these are very expensive so I'm looking for cheaper alternatives that could offer similar quality and resolution of photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Are these the only Nikon and Canon cams that have remote capture?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Does &lt;strong&gt;Sony&lt;/strong&gt; have any suitable models?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1628" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T12:08:38.793" Title="Any 8+ MP Nikon/Canon/Sony cam that can click photos via the PC?" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;remote&gt;&lt;windows&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3954" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3955" CreationDate="2010-10-14T05:03:03.823" Score="10" ViewCount="302" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi There..&#xA;I'm an avid Canon user and I haven't used any  cam other than Canon's ever. Right now, I'm having a 550D with 70-200 to compliment it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question today is, Canon has a very wide range of camera ranges with such names, I can't seem to decrypt. For instance, they have Canon 5D Mark II. Now what does Mark II or Mark I signifies? Also, which one is better and in what sense? What makes 5D Mark II so adorable camera that no-one can stop talking about it? What about Mark 1 D? What's the difference? I know they are full frames. But I'm asking about the nomenclature scheme :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another thing, if we go to, say to 5D/50D from 550D, what are the camera advantages (other than ability to handle higher ISO's and faster FPS)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1485" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T10:16:04.580" Title="Decrypting Canon's Nomenclature Of Cameras" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;full-frame&gt;&lt;canon-5d-mark-ii&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3955" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3954" CreationDate="2010-10-14T06:16:16.550" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon has a pretty diverse line of DSLR products, and it can be difficult sometimes to figure out what everything means, and why one particular product is so popular. I've added a comment that contains a link to THE nomenclature decoding thread here at Photo.SE, and that should answer any questions you have about codes in lens and camera names.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for your other questions, I'll take a crack at em, but others may have better answers. The Canon 5D Mark II is deservedly a popular camera. For the price point to capability/quality ratio, it is one of the best bangs for the buck that you can get in the Pro DSLR body arena. For its price of $2500, the 5DII brings to the table a 21.1mp full-frame sensor, full weather sealing, and one of the most powerful camera bodies around. I won't go into all the details here, as you can read a &lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-DSLR-Digital-Camera-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;great review at The Digital Picture&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast to the 1D series, the 1D IV costs twice as much. It sports a 16.1mp APS-H sensor (smaller than full-frame, but larger than APS-C of most DSLRs), the most advanced auto-focus capabilities Canon offers, and a machine-gun like burst rate that can't be beat. The 1D series is built a bit tougher, and is designed for the most rugged, continual use in the worst conditions by heavy duty professionals. Its larger body and tougher build makes it weigh quite a bit more than the 5D as well, which for many landscape photographers is a real killer. The 1D does offer more than the 5D, but generally speaking, for many pros, not enough to justify twice the cost. The story was similar but more exaggerated before the 1D Mark IV was released, as the 1D Mark III cost nearly $8000. Point for point, dollar for dollar, the 5D offers more for the frugal Pro than the 1D series, which is generally where its popularity comes from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also a distinct difference in the types of photographers who buy the 5D series vs. the 1D series. The 1D is known as a top of the line, high-speed, professional camera that meets the needs of the most serious photographers in pretty much any line of work. It is particularly known for its insanely high speed burst mode of 10fps, so it is used more by photographers who need to photograph a lot of action, such as sports, wildlife, journalism, etc. The 5D is a considerably slower camera, with a burst rate of 3.9fps, and is usually chosen by those who don't need a high burst rate. This often includes architectural and landscape photographers who take the time to carefully set up and compose a shot before snapping the shutter once. The 1Ds III model also sports a 21.1mp full-frame sensor, a slightly faster burst rate than the 5D II, and offers more features and battery life than the 5D, but it is more than twice as expensive. That again gives the 5D an edge in popularity amongst those who don't need a high burst rate or the extra features of the 1D series.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When comparing the three grades of Canon EOS cameras, it is probably best to compare the 5D, 7D, 60D and 550D. The 7D, 60D, and 550D all sport a nearly identical 18mp APS-C sensor, so a comparison between those three is ideal. All three also offer HD video recording and high resolution LCD view screens. The primary differences between the three grades are build quality, features, and speed. The entry level bodies are smaller, lighter, but less sturdy than higher end models. They generally do not sport much in the way of weather sealing, so you need to be careful with them in extreme weather (rain being the most notable.) Entry level Canon cameras offer some custom functions, but generally very few compared to higher end models. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The midrange DSLRs from Canon, like the 60D, offer a lot more to semi-professionals or very serious amateurs/hobbyists. It is a larger camera with a sturdier build, and sports improved weather sealing. One of the big features of the 60D is greatly improved video capabilities, including a swing-out LCD that can be swiveled and angled for ideal recording. Another bonus over the 550D is a larger viewfinder with more (but not total) coverage and greater magnification. This can be a real bonus, particularly for those who have a hard time manually focusing. The 60D sports more custom functions, and better fine tuning of settings, such as ISO. The burst rate is a couple FPS higher than the 550D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the top of the line DSLR's from Canon, like the 7D and 5D, offer top of the line features. They are fully weather sealed, and designed to be extremely sturdy for regular, rugged, professional use. This makes them ideal for true professionals, however they are still very popular with amateurs/hobbyists and semi-professionals due to their excellent prices. Generally speaking, dollar for dollar, the 7D ($1500) offers a lot more value than the 60D ($1100). The 7D sports a much higher burst rate, an amazing 100% view screen coverage at 1:1 magnification sporting liquid crystal overlays (i.e. rule of thirds grid, focus points, spot metering circle, etc.), fantastic auto-focus with Canon's latest AF design, and an ungodly amount of custom features and fine tunable settings. It is a true professional grade body, and excellent for almost any kind of photography that doesn't absolutely require a full-frame sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 5D II is the oldest camera of the bunch, and as such offers a little less in the way of speed and cutting-edge features. None-the-less, it is a very high-resolution, 21.1mp full-frame (35mm) sensor that offers some of the best light gathering capability available these days. The full-frame sensor is one of its key defining points in comparison with the other three, as they all sport a cropped APS-C sensor (24mm vs. 35mm). When it comes to things that need a larger sensor and superb low-noise ISO performance, the 5D is unbeatable for its price. It is a prized camera by many landscape, architecture, and portrait/wedding photographers. It brings out the best from Canon's L-Series lenses given its full-frame sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hopefully this helps answer some of your questions. There is no real clear-cut distinction between models in terms of ISO performance an FPS. The 60D actually sports a higher burst rate than the 5D II, and the 550D is nearly as fast. The best way to learn the differences and make an educated decision about what camera to buy is to read reviews. An excellent site for Canon reviews is &lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Digital Picture&lt;/a&gt;, which has reviews for nearly all Canon lenses and bodies, as well as many third-party lenses and some Nikon gear. Another excellent site for camera reviews of all kinds is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DPReview.com&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T06:16:16.550" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3956" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3951" CreationDate="2010-10-14T06:38:25.573" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The EF 35-105 is one of the oldest Canon EF-mount lenses, and if I can remember what I've read about it, it sports a pretty old AF mechanism. It may indeed be that the AF mechanism isn't compatible with newer cameras, although generally speaking, any EF lens should work with an EF body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Something else you might want to consider is the lenses resolving power. The T2i has a very high resolution 18mp sensor that has some very small photosites. Comparing the MTF chart of the EF 35-105mm to the MTF chart of the EF 24-105mm, the older lens tops out at 0.9 at best, and falls to around 0.4 as it is stopped down. The 24-105mm remains nearly perfect for most apertures, and stays above 0.6 at the tightest apertures throughout most of its zoom range. The 24-105 will offer considerably greater resolving power with a very high resolution sensor, where as the older 35-105 may not offer enough resolving power at anything other than its ideal aperture to really get the full benefit of the T2i's 18mp sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that you are having trouble with the 35-105, it might be time to sell it, and trade up to the much improved 24-105 L if you need something in that range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T06:38:25.573" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3957" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3954" CreationDate="2010-10-14T07:46:16.540" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me tell you a story. In the beginning there were the D30 and D60, which were 3 and 6 megapixels respectively. Simple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But then they moved the D to the end and released the 1D, 10D and 300D (would have made sense to call that last one the 100D, but whatever). The number of digits now meant the market the camera was aimed at, 1 digit was a professional level camera, two digits for advanced amateurs, three digits for beginners / casual shooters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Successive models in the two digit series got a +10 increment whereas successive models in the three digit series got a +50 increment. Professionals are rarely swayed by impressive sounding numbers so they just got a mark II mark III etc. progression.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The trend remained until Canon decided to make a mid level full frame DSLR which they called the 5D. Kind of halfway between one and two digits. Then a little later they announced the 1000D, generating a fourth line of four digit cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All was relatively fine, the shoe-in 5D got a markII, there were always features which distinguished the lines even as megapixels and AF improved:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;1D[s] weather sealing, 100% coverage viewfinders, vast numbers of AF points, built in grip, totally different control system, high number of megapixels&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;5D full frame, somewhat underpowered AF&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;xxD 1.6 crop, metal body, pop-up flash &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;xxxD plastic body, no  LCD screen on top, SD card slot&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;xxxxD entry level, priced agressively&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then came the 7D, which didn't really fit anywhere, so they shoe-horned it in next to the 5D, with which it has almost nothing in common, and the 60D which has gone plastic body and moved closer to the xxxD (should have been a 600D IMO), rumours of a 2000D, 3D so who knows what Canon are going to do next but they're running out of numbers in the xxD line!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other Canon accessories are sensibly named, the EF 50/f.4 USM is a 50mm EF mount lens with max aperture 1.4 and ultrasonic motor. The 580EX flash is a flash with guide number 58. But camera bodies? &lt;em&gt;The higher number is better unless it's less than 10 in which case the lower number is better, unless it's more than 100 in which case the higher number is better again, unless of course it's more than 1000.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These days it's better to look at the price and specification than to try and decode it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-14T10:49:32.340" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T10:49:32.340" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3958" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3951" CreationDate="2010-10-14T07:52:52.130" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes it's compatible, being an EF lens. But as jrista states is a very old lens. It may have malfunctioned, or more likely need it electrical contacts cleaning. The little gold bits at the back that allow the lens to talk to the camera get dirty over time and no longer conduct a good electrical signal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Soft pencil erasers are recommended for light cleaning, failing that any alcohol based cleaning fluid suitable for electronics should do the trick.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or use this as an excuse to get a new lens :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T07:52:52.130" />
  <row Id="3959" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3843" CreationDate="2010-10-14T09:06:31.450" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm a Mac user with Lr, and I have my files structured how I want (YYYY/MMM/DD/).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I would say, though, is download the free trials of both applications, as they're both workflow management tools and have a fair degree of structure which they impose on you, and see which one suits your workflow best. You can get the free trials from &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?product=photoshop_lightroom&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apple.com/aperture/trial/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; for Lr and Aperture respectively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="101" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T09:06:31.450" />
  <row Id="3960" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-14T10:35:34.387" Score="-1" ViewCount="355" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm thinking of upgrading my Nikon D40, what would you suggest is the best one up from this? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1009" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T19:57:19.117" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T19:57:19.117" Title="Upgrading My Nikon D40" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;upgrade&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="3961" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3960" CreationDate="2010-10-14T11:30:44.410" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The D90 is an excellent camera, and much less expensive now that the D7000 has been announced (and it starts shipping next week). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The D7000 has some amazing specs, but hasn't been reviewed thoroughly yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to stay DX, I'd say those are your best bets.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can get a pretty great upgrade for between $700 and $1200.  Spend the rest of your money on new lenses!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="227" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T11:30:44.410" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3962" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3960" CreationDate="2010-10-14T12:05:26.213" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was looking for a new Nikon not so long ago. When I was looking the range included:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;D3000&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;D5000 &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;D90&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of which have been discontinued and will soon be replaced. This may mean that you can get them cheaper (though stock is running out of certain models).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I found the D3000 to basic so I was stuck how &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1441/is-the-d90-worth-the-extra-money-for-a-beginner&quot;&gt;to choose between the D90 and D5000&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I went for the D5000 and have been really happy with it. The only downside is the lack of motor in the body meaning more expensive lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="560" LastEditorUserId="560" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-31T19:57:39.550" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T19:57:39.550" />
  <row Id="3963" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3953" CreationDate="2010-10-14T12:08:38.793" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You should be able to find a used Canon 20D or 30D for $250-350, or thereabouts, plus whatever lens you want.  Although it looks like Lightroom can control the camera directly, it would probably be a good idea to make sure you get the original Canon software CD with the camera (that's not necessarily a given w/ a used camera).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as the Nikons go, I've seen D40's selling in a similar price range.  I don't know that you're going to find much joy for less than that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T12:08:38.793" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3964" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3960" CreationDate="2010-10-14T12:26:05.960" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The D40 is already a very good camera in terms of image quality.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you think you have reached the limits of the D40 in terms of the feature set, then waiting a little bit for the D7000 would be a good idea, but it's a lot more expensive.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Upgrading to the D3100 would also be a solution, if you are looking to do movies.  You would also get an minor upgrade on image quality (low noise performance).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are not sure why you need to upgrade, I would suggest that would invest your money in a quality lens (instead of investing in a new body).  For example, the 35mm f1.8 DX.  In general lenses are better investment than bodies, because they last much longer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1093" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T12:26:05.960" />
  <row Id="3965" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-14T13:02:08.917" Score="6" ViewCount="1520" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am looking to buy an Entry level DSLR, and had decided on Canon system due to lens availability with friends, and general popularity amongst my peer group here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am planning on general photography, landscapes, portraits, not much action/wildlife.&#xA;Video - again, casual. This is a good to have feature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I find &quot;something&quot; lacking in all models I shortlisted&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;EOS 1000D - No Video, Still specs not &quot;that great&quot; - AF system etc bit dated compared to 500D and 550D. 500D is around 200$ more here.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;EOS 500D - This is at a sweet price point, but the video I heard is not that great. Esp when we have the 550 D at 200$ - 250$ more.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;EOS 550D - Great, has Video but expensive. Not sure I want to spend that much, unless necessary and I have no option. This is probably most Value for money, but seems a big amount in &quot;absolute&quot; terms.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The pricing of the above three cameras don't help either - just enough increment between 1000D-500D-550D to bring it under consideration set, but the overall jump becomes one from 1000D to 550D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Along comes the D3100, which seems to have good Still as well as Video performance. So I have couple of questions :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is there a camera which I am missing in Canon's lineup, at D3100s price point and feature parity ? What would be the closest camera here ?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does it make sense to switch from Canon to Nikon, just because of this body ? I'm guessing not, but then I don't have anything invested yet. Just that I won't be able to interchange lenses etc with friends (which happens occasionally)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If I need to choose between EOS1000D and 500D, which should I choose ? Is the 500D a good camera to buy, given that the 550D has better all around spec ?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Another option is to buy the 1000D now and upgrade to 500D later, but I fear that will have to happen pretty soon, and the resale value of 1000D will not be that great.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thoughts ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;*&lt;/em&gt; Update :&#xA;So right after putting up this post, I bumped into a comparison between 500D and Pentax k-x. Pentax does not even have a dealer in India, forget about Service :) There is a thriving userbase of old film cameras and lenses, and seems like lenses are available for a bargain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Overall, I was almost in agreement with folks here and buying Canon 500D. However, doing some more research into whether I should consider the Pentax k-x instead, given its price points (a 500D-equivalent k-x is available at price of around the 1000D).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, all answers for my original question here have been helpful, and if not for the k-x, I am still going with the Canon 500D as you folks have suggested !&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1170" LastEditorUserId="1170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-15T08:19:14.377" LastActivityDate="2010-10-15T20:25:10.930" Title="Canon equivalent of Nikon D3100 (and choosing an Entry Level DSLR)" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;pentax&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3966" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3965" CreationDate="2010-10-14T13:38:09.517" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 500D video is not terrible - is the difference of 1080p over 720p critical for you?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="142" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T13:38:09.517" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3967" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3965" CreationDate="2010-10-14T13:41:02.317" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're new to DSLRs, it's worth sticking with the brand your friends use; not just so you can borrow stuff, but for the free advice as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1615" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T13:41:02.317" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3968" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3965" CreationDate="2010-10-14T13:54:12.540" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's always a better camera body just round the corner. I wouldn't recommend choosing a system based around one camera body as they come and go whereas lenses hang around for a long time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without turning this into a Canon vs. Nikon discussion, you have some good reasons to go Canon. It sounds like the 500D is the right camera for you. What about the video is a problem? It does HD video at 720p at 30fps and full HD at 20fps. Unless you're producing movies the lack of 24fps isn't a big deal. No DSLR does video properly (yet) if you just want to record things for your own memories it's more than adequate! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the prices, that's very intentional on behalf of the manufacturer to push you to the higher end model! I wouldn't buy the 1000D now as a stopgap if it's less than what you need, neither would I wait for a new model, you need a camera that does the job now so you can enjoy using it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-14T14:06:47.377" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T14:06:47.377" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3969" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-14T14:40:16.017" Score="3" ViewCount="165" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a noob in photography and don't have any idea of lenses and optics...  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recently though I was looking out for some camera modules and couldn't understand some of the specifications mentioned in the data-sheet.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of them stated that the Lens construction is 4P + IR, what does this mean?... To an extent I understand the IR part indicates to some filter in the lens.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I searched for the term &quot;4P Lens&quot; on the web but it didn't return relevant results either?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1633" LastActivityDate="2010-10-15T07:52:24.857" Title="What is a &quot;4P&quot; Lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="3970" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3969" CreationDate="2010-10-14T14:54:08.277" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know about 4P, but at least in CCTV IR lenses are lenses that are corrected for &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;infrared&lt;/a&gt; wavelengths, which means you can use them with day/night cameras that switch to IR when it goes dark (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tamron.com/en/cctv_ip/fixed/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamron site&lt;/a&gt; for examples of these).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T14:54:08.277" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="3971" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-14T15:19:16.457" Score="7" ViewCount="226" Body="&lt;p&gt;A while back, before I purchased LR3, I uploaded a few hundred photos to Flickr. Since, I received comments and fave's on several of them. However, I want to update them. Many need a little cropping done, others need to be adjusted, and so on. Now that I have LR3, I can manage my pictures on Flickr quite well, but how to I sync it with these pictures that were not originally added in LR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I should mention that I have these photos in Lightroom, they are just not synced up with those on Flickr.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know this is a little bit outside the normal questions on this site, but I think it is still within the bounds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastEditorUserId="988" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-09T22:30:48.837" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T22:30:48.837" Title="Updating pictures on Flickr with Lightroom which were originally not added with Lightroom" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;flickr&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3972" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3965" CreationDate="2010-10-14T16:42:26.980" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The D3100 looks like an awesome camera - I'm afraid Canon doesn't have a great answer for it at the moment (at that price point).  I think you've picked up on the fact that you've really got to think about the whole system, though, including lenses and accessories.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't rule out the idea of buying low and upgrading, especially if you can plan the upgrade and purchase lenses and accessories that fit into an upgrade plan.  A used body might give you a good place to start accumulating lenses and all the &lt;em&gt;stuff&lt;/em&gt; that goes with a DSLR outfit.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll be able to keep all of the lenses you buy (unless you switch to full-frame, in which case you'll keep only your EF lenses).  In addition, you'll be able to keep some of that other &lt;em&gt;stuff&lt;/em&gt; when you upgrade:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tripod (universal)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bag(s) (universal)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flash(es) and other lighting equipment (universal for all Canon)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Memory cards (maybe; some are SD and some are CF)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Batteries (some bodies share the same battery - ex: some of the Canon x0D series)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Other accessories (remote shutter, etc. - again, this will vary by body, but there's a decent chance that accessories are compatible within a series)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I were looking at picking either Canon or Nikon and I thought I might be able to borrow lenses from my buddies, I'd be pretty strongly-inclined to get &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; Canon at all with the thought of upgrading later to the 550D, 60D, 7D or whatever Canon comes out with next year to answer the D3100.  Then, plan your accessory purchases so that as many of them as possible will be compatible for the body you hope to upgrade to later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T16:42:26.980" />
  <row Id="3973" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3977" CreationDate="2010-10-14T17:15:50.493" Score="5" ViewCount="399" Body="&lt;p&gt;Basically, I have 2 exposures of the same seen: 1 dark, 1 normal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like all to replace all parts of the normal photo that are above a certain brightness with  the same parts from the darker.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Right now I manually feather-select these areas with the marquee tool and just delete them (the darker image is under the normal image).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this sound doable? How can it be done?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1634" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T21:14:39.833" Title="Photoshop to blend 2 photos together based on brightness" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;brightness&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="3974" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3973" CreationDate="2010-10-14T17:37:10.687" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What you can use is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_mask#Image_masks&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;layer mask&lt;/a&gt;. Basically, you create a copy of the layer, use Threshold tool (or curves or whatever you want) to make the copy white when you want top level to be visible and black when you want iot to be transparent, and then use that as mask for the top layer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T17:37:10.687" />
  <row Id="3975" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3971" CreationDate="2010-10-14T17:44:07.570" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, I don't think you can. The association between the Flickr Publish service in LR3 and the Flickr photo itself is maintained in Lightroom's Catalog. It doesn't seem to be exposed in the interface. You would need to hack in the LR3's SQLite database to change this bit of info, or create a plugin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But wait. One way to associate your Flickr photos back to your pictures in LR is to use Jeffrey Friedl's &lt;a href=&quot;http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/flickr&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;“Export to Flickr” Lightroom Plugin&lt;/a&gt;. I don't use that plugin anymore since I switched to LR3, but it has a little known feature that could help you. Select the photos you want to associate in LR, then in the &quot;File -&gt; Plugin Extras -&gt; Flickr Extras&quot; submenu select &quot;Associate Images&quot;. The plugin will try to find the corresponding photos on your Flickr by matching capture time. The association (i.e. the Flickr photo URL) will be displayed in the plugin metadata in the right panel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From there, I &lt;em&gt;think&lt;/em&gt; you can crop your photos in LR and use the plugin to update them on Flickr. You won't be able to use LR's Flickr Publish service for these though, because it is unaware of the plugin's metadata that stores the association. Give it a shot?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T17:44:07.570" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3976" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3973" CreationDate="2010-10-14T17:44:08.507" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;David, you have opened a glorious can of worms. The technique you are describing is old school, can be done and sometimes is the best way to do it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, PS has some pretty cool features under automate. Go to FILE -&gt; AUTOMATE -&gt; MERGE TO HDR. You'll select the two images and let photoshop run. This is one way to do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also use software like Photomatix Pro of PTGui to blend your images. PTGui is geared more around creating panos, but I think you can use it to the same effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Back in PS, come to think of it, I wouldn't use the marque and delete technique because it is destructive. Rather, I would stack my layers, then use a LAYER MASK to paint out the sections or note. That you you can fine tune your selections (still using marque if you want, though I prefer brush as you have more control) without ditching portions of your image. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T17:44:08.507" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3977" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3973" CreationDate="2010-10-14T18:15:26.757" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes it's very doable. I do that pretty often to create fake HDR from the &lt;em&gt;same&lt;/em&gt; photo at two different exposures. There are many ways to achieve this, it depends on how proficient you are with the selection tools and layer masks. I'm confident you can do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, put your two photos in the same file, on different layers and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?q=photoshop%20layer%20mask&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;create a layer mask&lt;/a&gt; in the &lt;em&gt;top&lt;/em&gt; one. Without the layer mask, the top layer would completely hide the bottom layer. The bottom layer will be made visible &quot;through&quot; the mask by painting in the mask itself. To simplify a bit: anything that is black/grayscale in the mask acts as a &quot;hole&quot; through which you can see the bottom layer(s). If you are not familiar with masks, start with a black or white brush and experiment to get a feeling for it, it's fun. Now if your darkest photo is in the top layer, paint &lt;em&gt;in its layer mask&lt;/em&gt; to bring back the corresponding regions of the lighter, bottom layer. Congratulations, you now have a composite of both layers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now there are two points to keep in mind, in my opinion:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) How do you select the dark and bright regions to create your mask? I would recommend you go to &quot;Select -&gt; Color Range&quot; and either: a) use the &quot;Sampled Colors&quot; mode and Fuzziness slider then just click (and shift+click) in the dark or bright regions of your photo to create/expand a selection, or b) use the &quot;Highlights&quot; or &quot;Shadows&quot; mode to directly select bright/dark regions (to some extent). Once you click OK, &lt;em&gt;select the layer mask&lt;/em&gt; and use &quot;Edit -&gt; Fill&quot; to fill the current selection with black (invert the selection before if needed using &quot;Select -&gt; Inverse&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) How do you handle the transitions between the darker regions of your top layer and the brighter regions of your bottom layer. This is the tricky part. My way to do it is to apply a &quot;Filter -&gt; Blur -&gt; Gaussian Blur&quot; on the mask itself. Since black is fully &quot;see-through&quot; in the mask and white is opaque, a Gaussian blur will create a smooth grayscale transition in between these 2 areas, thus blending both layers somehow. Make sure to enable the filter's &quot;Preview Mode&quot; so that you don't overdo it and create unsightly halos. The layer mask is basically a grayscale picture, so most of the paint tools or filters you are familiar with will work there. For example, I use selection tools to Gaussian blur some part of the mask more than others (say, trees vs. sharp transitions).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-14T21:14:39.833" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T21:14:39.833" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3978" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3979" CreationDate="2010-10-14T18:18:45.910" Score="2" ViewCount="193" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for a camera that has:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wide lens (28mm or wider)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Time-Lapse (built-it or by using CHDK)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;External power socket&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and which can be found cheaply,perhaps in the second-hand market.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The camera will be used for a timelapse spanning several months.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1636" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T19:59:25.340" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T19:59:25.340" Title="Which P&amp;S camera has a wide lens, and time-lapse shooting ?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;wide-angle&gt;&lt;timelapse&gt;&lt;chdk&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3979" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3978" CreationDate="2010-10-14T19:36:06.593" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I did a timelapse with a Canon A420 and CHDK, but I just checked and that camera's only 39mm equiv at the wide end, even though it does have the other features you require.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I can confirm that CHDK with an intervalometer script worked very well.  Here's a timelapse movie I did with this setup: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJXGGwZ2ZCo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJXGGwZ2ZCo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking at DPReview's camera specs, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_sd800is.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon SD800IS&lt;/a&gt; for example is 28mm on the wide end, and according to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/SD800IS&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CHDK site&lt;/a&gt;, will work with CHDK.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T19:36:06.593" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3980" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3712" CreationDate="2010-10-14T20:15:22.910" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Surprised no one mentioned &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.calumetphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.calumetphoto.com/&lt;/a&gt;. I tend to shop either there, at B&amp;amp;H, or at KEH.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1626" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T20:15:22.910" />
  <row Id="3981" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4088" CreationDate="2010-10-14T20:19:47.193" Score="6" ViewCount="208" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, I'm a massive fan of Nikon gear.  I've got a D60 which is pretty lovely, and I've recently bought a 2nd hand F5.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However.  The flash on the D60 is feeble, and there's no builtin flash on the F5.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like, a flash that works well on auto modes on both cameras, and will be &quot;futureproof&quot; to allow me to change up to the D7000 body in a few months time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was thinking of either the Metz 36 or Metz 48 flashguns.  I'd like a Nikon Speedlight, but they're Really Expensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to buy next week sometime, in time for an event coming up at the end of the month, so fast answers would be appreciated.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="730" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T21:39:12.077" Title="Flashgun for Nikon D60 and F5" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;film&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3982" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3983" CreationDate="2010-10-14T22:40:37.920" Score="7" ViewCount="567" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am working on a beer related website, and I would like to build a portable light box that I can take to a beer shop and photograph as many individual beer bottles as possible.  What is the best way to construct this to ensure proper lighting and the ability to rapidly swap out beers and snap photos?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1637" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T15:06:40.630" Title="Portable light box for shooting beer bottles" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;light-box&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="3983" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3982" CreationDate="2010-10-14T22:51:41.817" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are plenty of light tents on the market that would suit your needs:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?q=light+tent&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;biw=1366&amp;amp;bih=620&amp;amp;prmd=is&amp;amp;source=univ&amp;amp;tbs=shop:1&amp;amp;tbo=u&amp;amp;ei=WYi3TMahDdS7jAe4wNCACg&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=product_result_group&amp;amp;ct=title&amp;amp;resnum=9&amp;amp;ved=0CEQQrQQwCA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Light Tent - Google Shopping&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to go the DIY route, your best bet is to choose a decent piece of diffusion material (thin plastic / acrylic are good for this) and make a tall three sided pyramid and fire the flash through the diffusion material for even lighting, see:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/07/ping-from-ming-on-bling-lighting-thing.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strobist - A Ping from Ming on the Bling Lighting Thing&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This setup really favours shooting from above however you could build a two sided box with sides at right angles which would give you the ability to quickly swap out bottles. When shooting glass you want the lit-up diffusion material to make up as much of the space around the bottle as possible so you don't get odd reflections of your light tent in the glass. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-27T15:06:40.630" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T15:06:40.630" />
  <row Id="3984" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="370" CreationDate="2010-10-14T23:26:11.653" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While the 50mm 1.8 is a great lens for a great price, keep in mind that 50mm on your camera is fairly zoomed in. The 50mm became popular on full frame cameras - on those cameras, 50mm is a great focal length because it is similar to your own visual field. On cropped sensor cameras like yours, everything is zoomed in ~60%, so you'll have to step further away to capture everything your eyes see. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have the kit lens, set it to 50mm (almost all the way zoomed in) and walk around taking photos &lt;em&gt;without changing the zoom&lt;/em&gt; at all. While the 50mm lens is much nicer than the kit lens, you will get a chance to determine if the zoom level works for you. It was too zoomed in for me, especially because I wanted the lens for indoor shots, so I went with the 35mm f2 instead. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1125" LastActivityDate="2010-10-14T23:26:11.653" />
  <row Id="3985" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1715" CreationDate="2010-10-15T04:45:31.027" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h1&gt;Emprical Study: Extreme digital upscaling&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For all of the theory above, thats all it currently is...theory. It is the end result of days of research on the physical characteristics of printers, the theory behind printing and ink, the concepts of DPI and PPI, etc. The real question is, how does it stack up against empirical evidence? Does it withstand the test of reality?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this small study, I'll be looking at whether digital can really compare to film when it comes to significant enlargements, and whether maximum quality can be obtained when upscaling for extremely large format prints. It has long been held that film holds a significant advantage in this area, however I believe that digital is just as capable as film when it comes to printing significant enlargements at high PPI. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Subject&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this particular study, I will be working with a shot of a giant moth. The fine details visible in this moth, particularly the eyes, make it a good subject for exploring upscaling and sharpening for print. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/gEJxC.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Giant Moth! Run!!&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the articles above on the visual acuity of the human eye, and the average viewing distances, it was noted that as the viewing distance increases, the print resolution can be reduced without any noticeable loss of detail. While this is true, it makes the assumption that a viewer of a large print will indeed observe it at the expected distance. In practice, however, the assumed viewing distance is not guaranteed, and many a viewer steps in for a closer look, often expecting to see more detail. Achieving the maximum detail in a large print can be important in producing a print that will, quite literally, draw your viewers in. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sharpness&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When viewing a photograph, the detail of a photograph is often lost due to the way it was processed or obscured by imperfections in the way it is filtered and rendered. One of the key aspects of detail is &lt;em&gt;sharpness&lt;/em&gt;. Ideal sharpness is perceived when acutance (the definition of edges between areas of perceptible contrast) and resolution (the distinction between closely spaced fine details) are high. The various kinds of processing applied to a digital photograph, from passing through an anti-alias filter by in-camera processing, to scaling an image up in Photoshop, can all affect the sharpness of an image. A variety of methods exist to improve the sharpness of an image, and at lower resolutions, they can be quite effective. The real challenge arises when you need to maintain the maximum level of detail in an image during extreme enlargements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Data in the detail&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When scaling of an image up by any significant degree, say more than double its native size, you often suffer from information anemia and information fabrication defects. The more resolution your native image has, the more leeway you have, however enlargements beyond 2x will usually introduce some degree of softening, loss of detail and artifacting. Image enlargements are usually achieved increasing the resolution of an image up and applying some kind of scaling filtration, such as nearest neighbor (which produces blocky, pixelated images) or bicubic (which smooths out the differences between enlarged pixels.) Image detail is usually preserved by applying some kind of sharpening filter, such as an unsharp mask, which attempt to artificially improve the acutance of an image by hardening the edges softened by bicubic (or possibly more advanced scaling filtration.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Test&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both scaling filtration and sharpening try to &quot;preserve&quot; detail by fabricating information. Only an original image at its native size will contain &quot;real&quot; information, and any enlargement will contain a combination of real and fabricated information. Doubling the size of an image effectively doubles the number of pixels, however data stored in those extra pixels can only be generated and approximated from the original image. Bicubic filtration &quot;fills in&quot; extra pixels by fabricating information from nearby original pixels. Sharpening filtration simulates high acutance by lightening lighter content and darkening darker content along edges. Both processes are limited and imperfect mathematical algorithms that can introduce various kinds of undesirable artifacts into an image when they encounter something that falls outside of the domain of the algorithm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this test, I'll be comparing various common forms of image upscaling techniques. The most common form of image enlargement is the Bicubic upscale, which is often followed by an Unsharp Mask filter. A variety of third-party scaling tools exist these days, such as Genuine Fractals, PhotoZoom, etc. These tools employ more advanced algorithms including fractal and S-Spline scaling, in combination with unsharp masking, to produce some impressive upscaling results when compared to Bicubic. Despite their high tech nature, a very simple trick can be employed to produce the best results without any need for fancy algorithms or special sharpening post-scale: stepped bicubic scaling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sample images used below were scaled up from an original 12.1mp image of size 4272x2848 pixels. At 300ppi, the original image could generate a 14.24&quot;x9.49&quot; print without any scaling (which is a nearly-ideal size to print with an adequate border on 13x19&quot; A3+ paper.) The test will scale the original image enough that it could print a borderless 36&quot;x24&quot; print at 300ppi. This is an upscale of 2.5 times over the original size, which is enough to demonstrate the differences in scaling and sharpening techniques.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NOTE:&lt;/strong&gt; The sample images below are&#xA;  identical crops at 33.3% of native&#xA;  size. This provides an ideal example&#xA;  of what the image would look like when&#xA;  printed at 300ppi, when viewed on a&#xA;  100dpi or 96dpi screen (i.e. most&#xA;  professional 30&quot; screens). On a 72dpi&#xA;  screen, the images will be a bit&#xA;  larger than they would appear in&#xA;  print, however they should still be&#xA;  adequate to compare sharpness and get&#xA;  a general idea of print quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NOTE:&lt;/strong&gt; To properly compare the sample images&#xA;  below, its recommended that you save a&#xA;  copy of each image to a single folder&#xA;  on your hard drive, and use an image&#xA;  viewing application (Such as Windows&#xA;  Photo Viewer in Windows 7) to move&#xA;  forward and backwards through two&#xA;  samples to observe the sharpness&#xA;  differences. This should keep the&#xA;  images in an identical position on&#xA;  your screen, making fine detail&#xA;  differences easy to identify.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Bicubic Scaling&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The obvious starting point is bicubic scaling. This is the Photoshop default and de-facto standard way most people scale their images in most cases. It can provide good results when the ability to view maximum detail is not a concern, and is generally more than adequate for most upscaling. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/RKXCC.png&quot; alt=&quot;Direct Bicubic to 36x24&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To compensate for the softening caused by Bicubic filtering, an unsharp mask is often applied to improve the acutance of fine details. Use of a sharpening filter is often the best approach to improving detail in an upscaled image for 2x or lower enlargements, as well as for downscaling. When performing significant enlargement of several times or more, algorithms that sharpen by trying to enhance acutance can often do more damage than good. Alternative methods for upscaling will generally be required for extreme enlargements. The sample below was upscaled using Bicubic filtering, with an Unsharp mask of 80%, 1.5 radius, and threshold of 3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/LeyGv.png&quot; alt=&quot;Direct Bicubic w/ Sharpening to 36x24&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;PhotoZoom Pro 3: S-Spline Scaling&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many third-party scaling tools exist that can be used to perform extreme enlargements of digital images. They provide some of the most advanced scaling algorithms available today, and can generally do an excellent job upscaling certain types of images. Many of these algorithms are tuned for certain types of image content, and are not ideal for any kind of image. PhotoZoom's S-Spline scaling is adept at identifying high contrast edges where acutance enhancement is most beneficial and crisp, smooth definition is important. It is capable of preserving smooth edge detail through considerable enlargements. Similarly, Genuine Fractal's fractal scaling is also adept at maintaining geometric structure through the use of fractal compression and interpolation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No single algorithm is ideal, however. S-spline scaling has the tendency to pass over finer details in its quest to perform ideal geometric enlargement, and can often flatten areas of lower-contrast detail. Genuine Fractals has similar problems with detail, however given that it is based on a fractal algorithm, is better at preserving some fine detail at the cost of not being quite as adept at geometric perfection as S-spline scaling is. These tools can be superb when used with the proper kinds of images, such as architecture or images that intrinsically have minimal low-contrast detail and/or many important geometric content.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ZTEvw.png&quot; alt=&quot;PhotoZoom 3 - S-Spline Max to 36x24&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Stepped Bicubic Scaling&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neither bicubic filtering, nor alternative filtering algorithms such as Lanczos, S-spline, fractal, etc. are capable of preserving maximum detail to any size. The greater the difference between the original size and the destination size, the more information must be fabricated to &quot;fill in the holes&quot;, so to say. A simple logical conclusion to this problem, when one takes the time to ponder it, is to reduce the difference. Scale an image from its native size to your desired destination size in discreet steps that are a fraction of the difference between the native and destination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To take our sample image, scaling from 14&quot;x9&quot; to 36&quot;x24&quot;. Performing a direct Bicubic upscale would increase the image size by 252% in both dimensions. Content would need to be generated to fill in 65,593,344 pixels out of 77,760,000 pixels from the 12,166,656 pixels worth of original image data. That is over 84% of the upscaled images total area, a hefty cost and a considerable drain on image detail. The vast majority of the image would be purely fabricated content.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively, the image could be scaled up in stages, say 10% at a time. The benefit of such an approach is that, for each step, you generate a small amount of new content from a bulk of existing content. Each subsequent step only needs to generate 17.35% of the new image, rather than 84%, and each step has &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;much&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; more accurate information to work with when generating content. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scaling our original 12.1mp 4272x2848 image by 110%, we generate 2.5 million new pixels for an intermediate 14.7mp 4699x3132 image. Repeat this 110% scaling, and we generate 3.1 million new pixels for a second intermediate 17.8mp 5169x3446 image. Continue scaling until you reach (or surpass) your target image size. If surpassed, one additional downscale to the target size is necessary, however this usually has a negligible (and often positive) effect on the overall sharpness of your image. The sample below was scaled up by 110% ten times to 11080x7386 pixels, then scaled back down to 10800x7200 pixels. A whopping 77.8 megapixel image. No sharpening of any kind was applied to the final result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/AU9HX.png&quot; alt=&quot;Stepped Bicubic Upscaling, 10% increments, to 36x24&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Comparing the above sample to the original direct Bicubic example, and there is a noticable difference in sharpness of fine details. Most notable is the highlight in the eye. This scaling is comparable to the second Bicubic example &lt;em&gt;with&lt;/em&gt; the ample Unsharp masking applied. It is also comparable to the PhotoZoom S-Spline scaling, however there are some slight improvements in the stepped upscaling over the S-Spline scaling. This concept is scalable itself, however, and more detail can be preserved by scaling up in smaller steps. The sample below was scaled up by 105% twenty times in a row to 11334x7556, then scaled back down to 10800x7200.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Mlqyi.png&quot; alt=&quot;Stepped Bicubic Upscaling, 5% increments, to 36x24&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Comparing the 5% stepped sample to the direct Bicubic with sharpening or S-Spline scaling, a significant and noticeable improvement can be seen in the 5% stepped version. A considerable amount of detail was preserved by generating less new content in smaller amounts in series. The concept can be pushed pretty far, using 3% increments or even 1% increments, however there are diminishing returns for exponentially greater workload.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Final Conclusion&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While it has long been held that film has a considerable edge over digital when printing significant enlargements, I believe that is an old misnomer that can be empirically tested and put to rest. As with digital enlargements, film enlargements are still ultimately fabricating information when scaled beyond their original size. With film it is often easier to bring out fine details (and fine imperfections) that exist and make them more prevalent in an enlarged image, however on a size-comparable basis, film doesn't ultimately contain significantly &lt;em&gt;more&lt;/em&gt; original information than digital. Obviously shooting with a larger film format captures more original data, however significantly enlarging a 4x5 slide to 55x36 is not a whole lot better than enlarging an 18mp digital photograph to 55x36. On the flip side, with digital, you may actually have more options at your disposal for preserving detail during significant enlargement than you do with film, and careful massaging of your original pixel data can produce some incredible results. (As a side note, huge enlargements of film are usually done by scanning the image first, and digitally scaling up anyway.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While performing this test, a single enlargement of the original image was made by scaling it 5% at a time until it reached 55&quot;x36&quot;. The image was a whopping 16500x11003 pixels in size, or a monstrous 181 megapixels, some 386% larger than the original image! The image was compared to a direct Bicubic version as well as a Bicubic with Unsharp masking. The stepped scaling preserved at least as much detail as the sharpened version, without the tonal flattening of low contrast detail or harsh edging to fine details. Examples of all three versions below (direct bicubic, bicubic w/ sharpening, staged 5% scaling):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ff0PQ.png&quot; alt=&quot;Direct Bicubic to 55x36&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/FFM24.png&quot; alt=&quot;Bicubic w/ Sharpening to 55x36&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/DsMZF.png&quot; alt=&quot;Stepped 5% to 55x36&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A 55&quot; enlargement is a huge size, and maximum detail can easily be preserved in a digital image for printing at such sizes. Prints of 50-55&quot; are fairly popular amongst &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.marcadamus.com/index.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;experienced&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.widerange.org/photo/maroon-bells-reflection/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;landscape&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.michaelandersongallery.com/photo/streaming-into-fairyland/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photographers&lt;/a&gt;, and a landscape photograph looks &lt;strong&gt;truly &lt;em&gt;superb&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; when framed and wall mounted at such sizes. So for all you digital photographers out there who have heard for years that you can't get a high-quality super-enlargement with digital, here's to proving the nay-sayers wrong. ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-17T18:38:24.937" LastActivityDate="2010-10-17T18:38:24.937" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3986" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3992" CreationDate="2010-10-15T07:32:12.600" Score="22" ViewCount="1537" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to decide on a model in the Canon DSLR range, and I guess it's a choice between the 7D and the 5D MkII.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that the sensors are of different sizes, and as such have an effect on the perceived magnification of the lens, with the smaller APS-C sensor having an effective focal length greater than what it otherwise would be with a full frame sensor. But why does this matter?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What things should drive my choice between one or the other?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In which situations is one better than the other, and why?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1616" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-04T12:05:46.153" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T12:05:46.153" Title="APS-C vs Full Frame - why should I care?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;cropped-sensor&gt;&lt;full-frame&gt;&lt;aps-c&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="7" />
  <row Id="3987" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3989" CreationDate="2010-10-15T07:49:36.923" Score="14" ViewCount="293" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have recently entered into the HDR world, and I'm a little confused. My new camera has bracketing features, 2 modes actually. One is TV bracketing and the other is AV bracketing. In other words, one uses a fixed shutter speed, and the other uses a fixed aperture size. I tried both and it seems that I will be able to make good HDR photos, but... Which one is better? Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1641" LastActivityDate="2010-10-16T14:29:01.383" Title="TV or AV bracketing for HDR imaging?" Tags="&lt;hdr&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="3988" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3969" CreationDate="2010-10-15T07:52:24.857" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think f/4P should be read &quot;f/4&quot; + &quot;P&quot;. f/4 is clear, &quot;P&quot; according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; documentation means:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;P lenses are manual focus AI-s lenses&#xA;  that have had the electronic contacts&#xA;  of an AF lens added to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There are only a few of these: the&#xA;  500mm f/4 P from 1988, the 1200 - 1700&#xA;  mm f/5.6-8.0 P ED and the new 45mm&#xA;  f/2.8 P.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They allow Matrix metering and I&#xA;  believe the addition of all the&#xA;  automatic exposure modes on AF&#xA;  cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Again, these are manual focus lenses&#xA;  that are unique in their ability to&#xA;  take advantage of exposure and&#xA;  metering modes usually reserved only&#xA;  for AF lenses on AF cameras. You still&#xA;  have to focus them by hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="507" LastActivityDate="2010-10-15T07:52:24.857" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3989" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3987" CreationDate="2010-10-15T08:00:01.253" Score="19" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd suggest sticking to using a fixed aperture size, otherwise the depth of field will be different between shots (as well as overall exposure), which will make it a lot easier to combine images afterwards. Given the best HDR shots are done using a tripod to maintain the same field of view between shots, exposure time is less of an issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-10-15T08:00:01.253" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="3990" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3986" CreationDate="2010-10-15T08:07:05.107" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The main stylistic reasons revolve around the ability to capture wide-angle shots (although less of an issue with wider EF-S specific lenses) and that a larger physical sensor allows for a narrower depth of field (for a given aperture/focal length)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In additions, on a technical level, a larger sensor also allows for lower pixel densities, which can improve low-light performance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-10-15T08:07:05.107" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="3991" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3987" CreationDate="2010-10-15T08:12:55.267" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Definitely AV!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You don't want to change aperture between shots as the effect is dependant on how well the photos line up, if one photo was shot with a wide aperture the foreground/background might be out of focus in one shot and not in another. I would normally prefocus the image and turn AF off to ensure the focus is identical in each shot. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A tripod is recommended for the same reason, however good software can account for a certain amount of camera movement (especially for distant objects), but it can't account for changes in focus!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would be interesting to see the effects of results of using TV, I imagine you;d get weird ghosting effects in the OOf areas, but it could look interesting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-10-15T08:12:55.267" />
  <row Id="3992" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3986" CreationDate="2010-10-15T08:24:57.143" Score="38" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One major difference is that a FF camera produces a depth of field that's around 1.3 stops shallower than an APS-C camera &lt;em&gt;for the same subject &amp;amp; framing&lt;/em&gt;. This is most important when you have the aperture as wide as possible, e.g. for portraiture. To replicate the look of a 50 f/1.4 lens you'd have to use something like a 31 f/0.9 lens, which doesn't as far as I know exist!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/FF_vs_APS-C.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quick and dirty comparison image, APS-C Canon 30D left, FF Canon 5D right, same lens, same composition, both f/2.8&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Another difference is that if you're using a lens designed for a full frame camera (like all Canon EF lenses) you are making full use of the image circle, which is less demanding of the optics and so you can expect a sharper image &lt;em&gt;for the same number of megapixels&lt;/em&gt;. It's true that some lenses get softer toward the edge of the image, but you will still get higher average sharpness with most lenses, and telephotos will be sharper right across the frame. The crop factor of APS-C cameras takes the middle out of the lens and blows it up, losing sharpness in the process in a similar manner to a teleconverter. See this related question: &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3370/with-all-other-things-equal-in-a-dslr-will-a-larger-sensor-produce-a-sharper-im/3373#3373&quot;&gt;With all other things equal, in a DSLR, will a larger sensor produce a sharper image?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A bigger sensor means bigger pixels, which in turn means you capture more light &lt;em&gt;usually&lt;/em&gt; achieving lower noise levels in the process. Greater dynamic range goes hand in hand with this.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You get a larger, brighter viewfinder on a full frame camera, which can be helpful composing shots. Having said that, I personally find the 5D viewfinder &lt;em&gt;too large&lt;/em&gt;, I've not used a 7D but it has a very high spec 'finder.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You have more mirror to move on a full frame camera. The larger heavier mirror usually means shooting speed is limited. The mirror on my 5D moves so slowly I can actually see the world slide sideways/up for an instant!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Likewise the mirror box, focussing screen and pentaprism are larger, meaning the camera is larger and heavier.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Lens hoods are designed for FF image circle and are therefore &lt;em&gt;slightly&lt;/em&gt; more effective on FF cameras. This mostly applies to prime lenses, as zoom lens hoods are designed cut to accommodate the widest zoom setting, so everything else is already non optimal. If you're using an EF lens on a crop camera you ideally want the hood tighter (since the extra shading will lie outside the smaller sensor a tighter hood wont vignette.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have nothing against APS-C cameras but for any format it makes sense to use lenses designed for your sensor size. The range of EF-s lenses is smaller than the range of EF lenses. However for some uses (sports etc.) the smaller sensor size is helpful for the extra reach and speed it allows. Also the better noise characteristics of a FF sensor don't quite make up for the higher ISO you need to use get the same exposure when stopping down to match the DOF as a crop. So if you have to maximise DOF crop has a &lt;em&gt;slight&lt;/em&gt; edge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there are EF-s lenses available for what you want to shoot then it wont be noticeably worse choosing this camera. However I feel full frame gives you more flexibility (speed aside) - as you can get the same deep DOF as a crop, but go narrower if you need to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-15T20:55:59.603" LastActivityDate="2010-10-15T20:55:59.603" CommentCount="13" />
  <row Id="3995" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3986" CreationDate="2010-10-15T17:03:40.593" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two very good answers already, but I want to chime in that isn't necessarily related to Crop vs FF, but rather your ultimate decision: 7D vs 5D Mark II.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the 7D and 5D2 have different sensors, they are also geared toward different usages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 5D2 is not really designed with shooting action. It works (I use it), but the 7D is better with a higher precision AF, and machine-gun like burst shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;7D = sports, bird in flight, action&lt;br&gt;&#xA;5D2 = studio and landscape&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can intermix the two with good results, that is each bodies strengths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-10-15T17:03:40.593" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="3996" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4001" CreationDate="2010-10-15T18:05:07.483" Score="13" ViewCount="564" Body="&lt;p&gt;So far, I've tried software like luminance, bracket and fotoxx. While bracket is very fast to make the openEXR images, luminance is good with tonemapping tools, but I'd like to try some more options. What do you guys use?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in terms of options, how good are these programs compared to the ones in other platforms like photomatix?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1641" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T08:25:05.153" Title="HDR processing on Linux" Tags="&lt;hdr&gt;&lt;linux&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="8" />
  <row Id="3997" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3965" CreationDate="2010-10-15T20:25:10.930" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off, I can't really recommend switching brands over a single entry-level camera. I guess I could understand if you were planning to get something uber-stellar in the high-end Nikon range, and were willing to completely switch. (I know you don't have anything yet, but the argument generally stands.) Switching for an entry-level body can't be worth it, especially if you are able to borrow friends Canon lenses and the like. Same things go for the Pentax argument. Given that, first recommendation is to stick with Canon, especially if you can borrow lenses from friends...great way to get rolling without spending a ton of money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for which Canon body to choose, there are plenty of good answers here. Some things that are less obvious should be noted, however. I would skip the 1000D if you intend this to be more than a passing fancy with DSLR photography. The choice is only between the 500D and 550D if you are serious to any degree. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is one key difference between the 500D and the 550D that may be an important factor: sensor photosite size and density. The smaller and more dense photsites get, the more the sensor demands of your lenses. With larger photosites, a sensor is able to capture clean images without any effects from diffraction at tighter apertures. As photosites shrink, a sensor becomes diffraction limited at wider and wider apertures. The 500D is diffraction limited (the point where diffraction starts to affect image quality) at f/7.6, while the 550D is diffraction limited at f/6.8. Not a huge difference, about 1/3rd of a stop, but enough to think about. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, the fundamental resolution of a lens becomes a more critical factor with higher and higher density sensors. Using a cheap lens on the 500D may be ok, but using one on the 550D may bring out the flaws and lack of resolution in such a lens much more readily. Canon's L-series (red band) lenses are pretty fantastic these days, and are built to serve the amazingly high resolution sensors of current and upcoming cameras ranging from 18-32mp and beyond. Canon's Gold band (midrange) and Silver band (low end) lenses, while considerably cheaper, lack many of the optical aberration correction features available in the L-series. You pay a premium for an L-series lens, as they are all at least $1000, if not several thousand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The endless march towards higher and higher sensor density has obscured many of the benefits of lower density sensors with larger photosites. Just something to think of when making your decision. I think the 500D is a great entry-level camera, and for its price, is hard to beat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-15T20:25:10.930" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="3998" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4013" CreationDate="2010-10-16T01:52:37.643" Score="4" ViewCount="1348" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hey, I have CS3 on one computer and CS 5 on another. On CS3 my dynamic brush options have a section called 'Other Dynamics' that allows me to change jitter opacity, but my CS5 does not have that option in the same area.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does CS5 not have 'Other Dynamics' for brushes or is it just somewhere else?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1646" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-16T16:56:14.683" LastActivityDate="2010-10-16T18:57:07.120" Title="'Other Dynamics' Brush options in Photoshop CS5" Tags="&lt;brushes&gt;&lt;photoshop-cs5&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="3999" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4000" CreationDate="2010-10-16T03:55:42.450" Score="8" ViewCount="224" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just purchased a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/381610-REG/Sigma_201101_10_20mm_f_4_5_6_EX_DC.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 10-20mm&lt;/a&gt; lens (Canon mount) and based on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/381610-REG/Sigma_201101_10_20mm_f_4_5_6_EX_DC.html#reviews&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;reviews&lt;/a&gt; I was aware that many people receive copies of the lens that are soft or don't focus properly. I purchased from B&amp;amp;H, so I'm not worried about returning it other than the hassle. What are some tests that I can do to determine if my copy of the lens should be returned?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So far I've locked the camera on the tripod and taken comparison shots of a bar-code with both the Sigma lens and my 18-55mm kit lens. Below are crops (zoomed into 100% and cropped, only showing the center part of the image):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/LjTHb.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ewuRB.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The kit lens seems sharper and the depth-of-field seems to be more centered around the focal point whereas the Sigma lens seems to have the focus point placed toward the very back of the DOF area.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to tell if the copy of the lens is bad from these shots or are there other tests I should do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are links to two (full-size) focus-chart images I took based on one of the resources in &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3999/how-can-i-determine-if-my-sigma-10-20mm-lens-copy-is-appropriately-sharp-and-focu/4000#4000&quot;&gt;Eruditass' answer&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/tVzfd.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 10-20mm @ 20mm, f/5.6 &lt;br/&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/tVzfd.jpg&quot; height=&quot;100&quot; alt=&quot;Sigma 10-20mm @ 20mm, f/5.6&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/3tFj7.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 10-20mm @ 10mm, f/4 &lt;br/&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/3tFj7.jpg&quot; height=&quot;100&quot; alt=&quot;Sigma 10-20mm @ 10mm, f/4&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From these it seems that at 20mm, the focus is pretty spot-on, while at 10mm it might be shifted to the front by 5-10mm or so but with the target still in the acceptable DOF.  Since most of my usage at 10mm will be landscapes stopped down for max DOF and the affect isn't at all focal lengths, I'm considering that the autofocus calibration of this lens is fine for my purposes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="139" LastEditorUserId="139" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-16T14:33:26.353" LastActivityDate="2010-10-16T14:33:26.353" Title="How can I determine if my Sigma 10-20mm lens copy is appropriately sharp and focusing right?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;wide-angle&gt;&lt;sigma&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="4000" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3999" CreationDate="2010-10-16T07:18:41.070" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some key points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Focus points are larger than the LED that lights up&lt;/strong&gt;.  As a result, the camera will pick anything within the area, usually the with the most contrast (often what is closest yet not too far on the edge of the AF sensor).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Depth of field is larger with a shorter focal length, and of course with a smaller aperture&lt;/strong&gt;.  What this means is that the AF sensor will say that the area is in focus even though it is on the edge of the field in focus and not centered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some other interesting facts about focusing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some lenses, due to spherical aberration, &lt;a href=&quot;http://diglloyd.com/articles/Focus/FocusShift.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;change their plane focus&lt;/a&gt; when stopped down from wide open.  This mostly affects fast lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many AF sensors are only accurate to around f4 or f5.6.  This means it will stop when an object is within the acceptable focus for a depth of field as if the lens was at f4 or f5.6.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To really check for accurate focus, &lt;strong&gt;you should use a focus chart&lt;/strong&gt; with only one spot of contrast, so you can be sure of where you are focusing.  I like to use this, &lt;a href=&quot;http://focustestchart.com/focus21.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;page 18&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;An even better test&lt;/strong&gt; is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/1ds3_af_micoadjustment.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;moire interference test&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, &lt;strong&gt;many lenses perform quite different at close focus distances&lt;/strong&gt; (usually much worse, with softness, haloing, and other aberrations that may not be present at all otherwise).  Try to take some pictures of objects further away and compare it to full-sized samples from the same model.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-10-16T07:18:41.070" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4001" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3996" CreationDate="2010-10-16T07:24:33.177" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hugin and panotools can be used to make HDR images.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Here is a nice tutorial from &lt;a href=&quot;http://photoblog.edu-perez.com/2009/02/hdr-and-linux.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Edu Perez&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;And here is a tutorial from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.panotools.org/HDR_workflow_with_hugin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;panotools wiki&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I can't answer the comparison part of your question because I have not made those comparisons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-10-16T07:24:33.177" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4002" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3999" CreationDate="2010-10-16T09:11:09.833" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I assume when you say &quot;100% crops&quot; you mean you have posted the whole image (normally people mean the image has been cropped so the view is 100% zoomed in and were seeing 1:1 pixels). As a result its difficult to tell sharpness from those images. Also, as stated the angled sheet focus test is not accurate as you don't know exactly where the AF point in the camera is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not true that &quot;many people receive copies of the lens that are soft or don't focus properly&quot;, only that a lot of the people that have had problems have gone on the intetnet to complain about it? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the end of the day it depends what sort of photography you do - ultra wide-angles give such a large depth of field when not used as macro lenses, so if you shoot landscapes rather than barcodes it will probably be fine! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-10-16T09:11:09.833" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4003" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3971" CreationDate="2010-10-16T10:03:38.137" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I know Jeffrey Friedl's &quot;Export to Flickr&quot; plugin does all the same things as the Lightroom Flickr publisher (which is very basic) but adds synching of photos already in Flickr (as described in the answer above).  So it's not a compromise - its a step forward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/flickr/publish&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;manual is here&lt;/a&gt; - it's a bit daunting but read it a few times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1648" LastActivityDate="2010-10-16T10:03:38.137" />
  <row Id="4004" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3987" CreationDate="2010-10-16T14:29:01.383" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depending on which camera you have, you might want to try ISO bracketing, something that wasn't possible with film. That way you can keep the Tv and Av the same for all shots. Just a thought...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-10-16T14:29:01.383" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4005" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4010" CreationDate="2010-10-16T16:05:49.637" Score="6" ViewCount="135" Body="&lt;p&gt;My DMC-G2 has a viewfinder spec of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-electronics/shop/Cameras-Camcorders/Digital-Cameras/Lumix-Digital-Interchangeable-Lens-Cameras/model.DMC-G2K.S_11002_7000000000000005702#tabsection&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1,440,000 dots&lt;/a&gt;, but I read a review that says it is really &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCG2/DMCG2A.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;480,000 pixels&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The electronic viewfinder has an extremely high resolution of 1,440,000 dots (480,000 pixels), offering a 100% field of view and 1.4x magnification. The Panasonic G2's viewfinder has a generous +/-4.0 diopter adjustment range, and a rather tight 17.5mm eye point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What gives? how am I supposed to compare w/ other cameras?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="530" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-04T12:35:26.757" LastActivityDate="2010-11-04T15:48:16.657" Title="viewfinder spec" Tags="&lt;viewfinder&gt;&lt;lcd&gt;&lt;resolution&gt;&lt;panasonic-lumix&gt;" AnswerCount="5" />
  <row Id="4006" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4018" CreationDate="2010-10-16T16:38:17.327" Score="7" ViewCount="154" Body="&lt;p&gt;The last time I did photography I was in high school, shooting black and white photos on film with an old, fully manual &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikkormat&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikkormat&lt;/a&gt;, and developing and enlarging them by hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The world of photography has changed a bit since then (even then, it was pretty retro to have a fully manual camera). I'd like to get back into it, but I'm not sure where to start. Are there any good resources for learning about modern digital photography, helping pick a camera, and learning about the basics of composition, light, color, post-processing, and the like?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some particular areas I'm interested in are scenic photography, urban and architectural photography, outdoor action photography, and nighttime photography, in case that helps focus the answers (though I realize that is a rather broad set of interests).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1649" LastActivityDate="2010-10-16T21:46:29.847" Title="Getting back into photography" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;learning&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="4008" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4006" CreationDate="2010-10-16T16:53:00.680" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first step is obviously going to be to get a camera, and if you've still got your old lenses, then it &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; be worth looking at Nikon's entry level DSLRs, although I understand &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3943/how-compatible-are-my-old-nikon-lenses&quot;&gt;there are some compatibility issues with older lenses&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rules around composition and lighting have stayed pretty much the same and are always bent for artistic effect. Post processing is the bit that has changed, and this is where websites, such as this one can help out - if there is a particular effect that you'd like to reproduce in a digital workflow, then you can always &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/ask&quot;&gt;ask here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-10-16T16:53:00.680" />
  <row Id="4009" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4005" CreationDate="2010-10-16T17:40:25.740" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To reproduce colour, each pixel needs three dots - one for the red component, one for the green component, and one for the blue component. 480,000 pixels x 3 components gives 1,440,000 dots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When comparing, make sure you compare figures in the same unit (or even consider cameras with an optical viewfinder, rather than an electronic one)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-10-16T17:40:25.740" />
  <row Id="4010" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4005" CreationDate="2010-10-16T17:48:58.437" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm a bit skeptical about what they are stating. It says that the viewfinder is &quot;1,440,000 dots equiv&quot;. The &quot;equiv&quot; term is an annoying marketing term used when trying to be competitive without stating the true nature of something, they are simply stating it is &quot;equivalent to&quot; such a thing. The Electronic Viewfinder is &quot;equivalent&quot; to a &quot;1,440,000 dot&quot; resolution. Whatever that means, who knows, but I doubt its actually truly 1.4 million dots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: Based on the linked review, the EV has 480,000 &quot;pixels&quot; comprised of 1,440,000 &quot;dots&quot;. This is a wacky marketing way of saying that it has 480,000 dots each of red, green, and blue, the triplets of which make up a resolution of 480,000 total pixels in a 4:3 form factor. This boils down to a EV screen size of around 1470x1100 pixes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Comparing the viewfinder with other DSLR's. This viewfinder is 100% coverage and 1.4x magnification. The magnification is multiplied by the sensor size, which is 17.3x13.0mm. Thats a viewfinder size of 24.22x18.2mm, which is basically APS-C size. In contrast, a Canon or Nikon APS-C DSLR will usually have 95-97% coverage and anywhere between 0.70x to 1.0x magnification, depending on the model. Most of the entry-level DSLR's are around 0.85-0.95x, while the Canon 7D is a 100% 1.0x APS-C viewfinder. A Canon 5D Mark II is a 98% 0.71x viewfinder, which is again about the size of an APS-C sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The LCD screen on the back has &quot;460K dots&quot; in it, which these days is pretty low. Most of the more recent Canon and Nikon LCD screens have 920k or 1040k dots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-16T18:00:43.257" LastActivityDate="2010-10-16T18:00:43.257" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4011" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4015" CreationDate="2010-10-16T18:10:55.120" Score="8" ViewCount="152" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to help a friend taking a large number of product images and I'm wondering how I can easily preview the images on a computer screen without removing the card in my camera? I will be using a Nikon D40 for taking the images and preferable looking for a product that can transfer the images wireless. Is this possible somehow? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="16" LastActivityDate="2010-10-16T19:27:56.203" Title="Preview photos directly on laptop?" Tags="&lt;workflow&gt;&lt;preview&gt;&lt;nikon-d40&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4012" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3960" CreationDate="2010-10-16T18:15:14.847" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't upgrade unless you have a specific issue with the D40 like number of pixs, burst rate e.t.c.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's still a great camera and deserves to click until it dies. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="16" LastActivityDate="2010-10-16T18:15:14.847" />
  <row Id="4013" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3998" CreationDate="2010-10-16T18:57:07.120" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Go to the Brush panel (Window -&gt; Brush, or F5), select the &quot;Brush&quot; tab. You will find &quot;Opacity Jitter&quot; in the &quot;Transfer&quot; section.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/WhRys.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2010-10-16T18:57:07.120" />
  <row Id="4014" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4006" CreationDate="2010-10-16T19:20:17.047" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lots of good starting points. I'd suggest digital photography school (http://www.digital-photography-school.com/) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a good overview of buying your first DLSR here at Discerning Photographer: &lt;a href=&quot;http://thediscerningphotographer.com/2009/11/26/buying-your-first-digital-slr-camera/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://thediscerningphotographer.com/2009/11/26/buying-your-first-digital-slr-camera/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd strongly suggest starting out with a good point and shoot. You can but a Canon G11 for $450, or a Canon S95 for about $400. Those are the cameras professional photographers (and their wives) tend to have to carry in their pocket, and you can do a lot with them without having to invest as much money as going right back into the DLSR market. That'll let you get started again without spending a lot, and decide if you want ot get serious, and learn a bit about what kind of photography you really want to do -- and then you can consider upgrading the gear. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get started, you're going to need:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A camera; You can get some really good ones in the $400 range, like the two above, or the Panasonic Lumix DMC series, which my wife uses for the superzoom. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Memory cards that work with the camera, and enough that you can shoot as much as you want during the day and not run short. (I typically carry about 2,000 images worth of memory at any time these days, but that's just me)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;consider a spare battery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're a mac user, iLife is inexpensive and iPhoto is a great way to get started. At some  point you'll likely outgrow it, and then you can evaluate Aperture (from Apple) and Lightroom (from Adobe) and decide what you like. I used Aperture, then switched to Lightroom. Either way you'll have a good powerful system for managing your photos. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scott Kelby is a good place to start for your &quot;how the heck do I do all this post processing stuff?&quot; questions: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scottkelby.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.scottkelby.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll hear people telling you you need photoshop. 2-3 years ago, you did. Today, it's realyl expensive, and other things will do the job for you in almost all cases, and Photoshop ELEMENTS is a lot cheaper, and it'll be a long time before you say to yourself &quot;damn. if only I had the full photoshop program, because I can't do .... in this one&quot;. Until you hit that point, DO NOT BUY PHOTOSHOP. Buy elements for about 1/6th the price. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good starter kit for software is iPhoto/Elements (if you're on a PC, I don't have a clue. hopefully someone will chime in on the iPhoto replacement on windows). The next step would be Lightroom/Elements (or Aperture/elements). Before you buy photoshop, see if there's a third party plug-in for lightroom (or aperture) that does what you need instead of shelling out for photoshop. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't forget you need to backup your images, because if you have a hard disk crash, they're gone. Budget for a disk to do backups on. Even better, budget for TWO, so there are always multiple copies of your data. Your disk WILL crash some day. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On composition and technique, lots of resources. I wrote about my inspirations and mentors a while back here (http://www.chuqui.com/2010/08/my-photographic-mentors-and-inspirations/) and that will give you a few places to start and ponder, and they all have many links to many other places to explore and ponder. You'll find the voices that speak to you, and that's what matters...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Start cheap, invest as your interest grows, don't buy stuff until you need it, and don't pressure yourself to be better faster than the fun it creates in your life. And see where it takes you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-10-16T19:20:17.047" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4015" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4011" CreationDate="2010-10-16T19:27:56.203" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What about using an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.eye.fi/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Eye-Fi&lt;/a&gt; wireless SD card?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="507" LastActivityDate="2010-10-16T19:27:56.203" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4016" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4017" CreationDate="2010-10-16T21:11:43.797" Score="18" ViewCount="950" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to experiment taking photos where the sun appears. I'm afraid of what might happen if I take one with a narrower angle (where sun would be bigger). Can the lens act as a magnifying glass and burn the CCD or CMOS sensor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since my query is a little bit obvious, I will reformulate it to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Under which circumstances (zoom, exposition, aperture, etc...), can the sensor be damaged by the sun?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1641" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-16T16:07:44.253" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T05:54:57.077" Title="Can the sun damage the camera sensor? Under what conditions?" Tags="&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;telephoto&gt;&lt;equipment-damage&gt;&lt;sun&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="4017" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4016" CreationDate="2010-10-16T21:33:57.167" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Taking direct photos of the sun can destroy your camera, not to mention your eyes. It's exactly as you are afraid, the lens will act as a magnifier and multiply the suns intensity right on your cameras internals. What this effects can vary. Long exposures against the sun can cause permanent damage to your camera's sensor, but besides that, your camera's shutter curtains, and af sensors are also at risk when shooting right at the sun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, taking photos of sunset and sunrises is okay, as is taking photos in direct sunlight (though this does require some finesse to get a good exposure), but pointing your lens right at the sun is not recommended (especially for long exposures).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-16T21:46:27.617" LastActivityDate="2010-10-16T21:46:27.617" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4018" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4006" CreationDate="2010-10-16T21:46:29.847" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off, throw away all the advice about what make of camera to buy, photography is a creative act, not a tribal loyalty..&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The plain and simple truth is that great photographs are made with all major makes of camera.&#xA;What matters is to find a camera that fits you, ergonomically and emotionally (and financially). You can only do that by trying out a camera in your hand. So go and haunt your local camera dealers.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Then join a camera club. You will find that their competitions, exhibitions and social activities are an enormous source of stimulus and encouragement. There you will learn that photography is a creative act, that the camera club recognises and rewards creativity, not the brand of camera you carry.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Buy some books about creative photography. Here are some ideas:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1552636143&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photography and the Art of Seeing by Freeman Patterson&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0240809343&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Photograper's Eye, Design and Composition by Michael Freeman&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0817441816&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Learning to See Creatively by Bryan Peterson&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will need some software tools to perform three basic tasks&lt;br&gt;&#xA;1) Capture/transfer your photos (usually comes with your camera)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2) enhance and manipulate your photos (Photoshop, Gimp etc)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;4) organise your photo collection (Picasa is a low cost way of doing this)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your photo collection will grow quickly and then you will need to think carefully about storage space and backup procedures.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photographs must of course be seen so it is worth investing in the very best screen that you can afford.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally your good photos should be exhibited, at the very least in your home. That means printing. But you can delay the decision about printing equipment since there are so many reasonably priced printing shops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-10-16T21:46:29.847" />
  <row Id="4019" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4005" CreationDate="2010-10-17T00:43:09.793" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Other answers cover everything, but to be blunt: &lt;strong&gt;it's marketing bullshit&lt;/strong&gt;. They are counting each of the three color components of the pixels (red, green, blue) as a &quot;dot&quot;. People have been making color displays for decades and only recently has this ridiculousness arisen (for displays, you hear these &quot;dots&quot; called &lt;em&gt;subpixels&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, for &lt;em&gt;sensors&lt;/em&gt;, each individual photosite - which corresponds to a subpixel or &quot;dot&quot; - &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; counted as a &quot;pixel&quot; and it's been that way from the beginning of digital cameras. In this case, however, you do get full resolution in the luminosity but only 1/3 resolution in color.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The latter situation causes trouble for the Foveon sensors, where the photosites for the three colors are stacked on top of one another, so you get the same resolution in both luminosity and color. They've responded by quoting the total number of photosites still, but many people believe this is misleading because an N megapixel Foveon sensor gets you only 1/3 of the detail of an N megapixel normal sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-10-17T00:43:09.793" />
  <row Id="4020" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4016" CreationDate="2010-10-17T02:25:25.617" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, the sun can damage your sensor, as detailed in the previous sensors. If it is that strong, compared to your sensor's sensitivity, you won't get a useful exposure in any case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do want to photograph the sun, you can use an ND400 filter. This is the one I use: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/155266-REG/Hoya_A77ND400_77_mm_Neutral_Density.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/155266-REG/Hoya_A77ND400_77_mm_Neutral_Density.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It will reduce the strength of the sun by a factor of 400, making the sun dark enough to not over-expose it and much less likely to damage your sensor, at least for exposures not too long where the sun is not over-exposed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-17T16:10:16.887" LastActivityDate="2010-10-17T16:10:16.887" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4021" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4005" CreationDate="2010-10-17T02:31:31.123" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually it is slightly more misleading. 480,000 pixels normally equals 1,440,000 dots but they do get away with only 480,000 actual dots (not pixels) by using something called field-sequential display which is basically 480,000 dots which change colors very fast, sending information for each primary color sequentially.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are only 480,000 dots but since they send three colors sequentially, it is considered 1,440,000 dot 'equivalent' and therefore equivalent to 480,000 pixels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-17T16:12:07.483" LastActivityDate="2010-10-17T16:12:07.483" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4022" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4052" CreationDate="2010-10-17T04:55:02.660" Score="20" ViewCount="767" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is anyone aware of a holster-type case, or anything that is designed to keep a camera easily accessible while hiking, but prevent it from swinging freely (like it does when it hangs from the neck strap)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a pack with a chest strap, so anything that can attach to that might make sense.  I am envisioning something that I can slide/drop the camera into that is attached to my chest, and then just lift it out when I come across something photo-worthy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anything like this exist commercially?  Any ideas on a DIY solution?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="307" LastEditorUserId="307" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T17:19:40.543" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T23:05:06.480" Title="Suggestions for a 'holster' to keep DSLR handy but secure while hiking" Tags="&lt;camera-bag&gt;" AnswerCount="11" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="4023" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4022" CreationDate="2010-10-17T05:42:44.720" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are looking for something that really won't move, I do recall of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cottoncarrier.com/store.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cotton Carrier&lt;/a&gt; line of products. The web site isn't that hot, explore it to find pictures and videos. It really does look like a holster though, both on your chest, or at your side.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe a sling-type kind of strap would work better for you? I've seen two main competitors on the market:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blackrapid.com/product/camera-strap/rs-7/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Black Rapid RS-7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luma-labs.com/products/loop&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luma Loop&lt;/a&gt; by Luma Labs&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both links above will lead to videos, and you can find a very detailed side-by-side review at &lt;a href=&quot;http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=10303844&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photography-on-the.net&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;UPDATE&lt;/strong&gt;: been using the Luma Loop for a month, and I love it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-02T23:18:35.507" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T23:18:35.507" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4024" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-17T07:31:41.953" Score="7" ViewCount="241" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm using a Canon SX210 IS with CHDK. I know that capturing long exposition photos is a &quot;battery draining&quot; process, but it could be better. Why should the LCD's backlight be on while taking the photo? It might be a bug of CHDK. Otherwise, does anybody know how to turn the backlight off??&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1641" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-18T11:41:22.630" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T21:54:41.190" Title="How to turn off the LCD while taking long-exposure photos?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;long-exposure&gt;&lt;lcd&gt;&lt;backlight&gt;&lt;chdk&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="4025" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4022" CreationDate="2010-10-17T09:18:21.417" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;+1 for the Black Rapid series - I have one of those myself. Someone showed me &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.spiderholster.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; the other day, which looks as good, and is probably preferable if you have more than one body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-10-17T09:18:21.417" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4026" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4044" CreationDate="2010-10-17T13:33:52.497" Score="2" ViewCount="229" Body="&lt;p&gt;From what I understood from the material found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/consumer_cameras_wft/wireless_file_transmitter_wft_e4_ii_a&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/consumer_cameras_wft/wireless_file_transmitter_wft_e4_ii_a&lt;/a&gt;, this device is capable of connecting to an external USB hard drive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the site is not clear on what &quot;connecting&quot; means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does that mean that the photos will be saved &quot;online&quot; to the HDD while shooting or does that mean I can shoot saving to the CF and later sync to the HDD?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I understood, the device does the first option, but I'm interested in the second option. That would allow me to backup to a hard drive without the need for a netbook or a more specialized gadget (such as those devices that combine HDDs and card readers in a single device).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1457" LastActivityDate="2010-10-18T11:38:17.487" Title="Does the Wireless File Transmitter WFT-E4 II A allow backup up to an external USB hard rive?" Tags="&lt;backup&gt;&lt;canon-5d-mark-ii&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="4027" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4022" CreationDate="2010-10-17T15:55:33.653" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I grabbed an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adorama.com/OTBCHE.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;OpTech Bino/Cam harness&lt;/a&gt; a few weeks ago, and I put on a few miles with it yesterday.  It's not too bad - definitely better than a traditional strap.  I like the fact that it attaches to the camera with quick-release buckles.  I think I might pick up a regular strap that's compatible with these same buckles, because it's a little awkward to put on and take off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Cotton Carriers look interesting, but I can't quite picture how the tether works (I really don't want to have my camera be completely loose while I'm hiking if I can avoid it), and I'm not crazy about the fact that the mount uses the tripod mount.  I can see all the adapters they've got (some pieces sold separately), but I didn't see anything for a TrekPod.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I agree that it would be nice to have something that took advantage of the sternum strap, but I guess I'd almost like to see something a little simpler -- just a hook of some sort to tie the camera in place so it doesn't bounce all over when I'm hiking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The more intricate the device gets, the more of a pain it is to gear up / gear down.  I even found myself yesterday trying to keep track of what straps went on in what order to I could take everything off without turning into a tangled mess.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-10-17T15:55:33.653" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4028" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4022" CreationDate="2010-10-17T15:59:09.737" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can get a leather holster from &lt;a href=&quot;http://skytoptrading.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;these folks&lt;/a&gt; - not cheap, but does seem like a good, well thought through product.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I went for the Black Rapid strap myself and haven't regretted it at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-10-17T15:59:09.737" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4029" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-17T18:52:44.890" Score="8" ViewCount="466" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know of any good comparisons for linear polarizers, similar to the excellent circular polarizer test done by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lenstip.com/115.4-article-Polarizing_filters_test_Results_and_summary.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LensTip&lt;/a&gt;? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, a number of those manufacturers don't offer the same coatings and whatnot on their Linear Polarizers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want a Linear Polarizer over circular for a couple reasons:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pentaxians claim it does not affect their AF or metering system&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I want at least one linear polarizer so I can get the &lt;a href=&quot;http://dimagemaker.com/2008/02/23/using-crossed-polarizers-for-a-variable-nd-filter/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;cheap variable ND filter&lt;/a&gt; to play with&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They are much cheaper&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: I did some comparison of cheap CPLs and cheap LPLs.  Difference was surprising.  See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/1282812-post25.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T18:48:13.490" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T18:48:13.490" Title="Choosing a Linear Polarizer for a cheap variable ND filter" Tags="&lt;polarizer&gt;&lt;neutral-density&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="4030" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4031" CreationDate="2010-10-17T19:40:44.450" Score="3" ViewCount="86" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Someone recommended Crumpler camera bags to me, I've just bought a Cannon 500D with the standard (18-55mm) lens kit.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to the bag to be as small as possible - Crumpler says its for a SLR and short lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.crumpler.co.uk/?product=Jimmy_Bo_300&amp;amp;page=details&amp;amp;product_line=843&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.crumpler.co.uk/?product=Jimmy_Bo_300&amp;amp;page=details&amp;amp;product_line=843&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure if my lens qualifies as 'short'?  Is anyone using this bag with a similar Cannon? does it fit and still protect the camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1544" LastActivityDate="2010-10-17T19:54:42.293" Title="Will my Cannon 500 with 18-55mm lens kit fit in a Crumpler Jimmy Bo 300 case?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;camera-bag&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="4031" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4030" CreationDate="2010-10-17T19:54:42.293" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the product shots actually uses a Canon body:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rcf2U.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Product shot&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the kit lens is also one of the shortest in the current product line (the only one that is physically smaller that I can think of is the 50/1.8; so I would expect it to fit. Of course, it is always worth visiting your local friendly retailer if you're unsure about ordering online.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-10-17T19:54:42.293" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4032" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4037" CreationDate="2010-10-17T20:53:28.917" Score="10" ViewCount="611" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm currently using Picasa for simple organise/tag/crop/tune tasks. I've downloaded and tried the evaluation copy of Lightroom, and I'm impressed. However as an amateur I find the UK price a little hard to swallow, particularly given the speed at which software seems to become obsolete and need upgrading.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What (if any) decent alternatives are there around for less $$ ? I'm looking for something with a bit more power than Picasa - particularly with things like NR filtering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="562" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T09:58:01.933" Title="Any good alternatives to Lightroom for PC users?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;picasa&gt;" AnswerCount="6" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="4033" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4032" CreationDate="2010-10-17T21:08:32.623" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.getpaint.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Paint.NET&lt;/a&gt; is free and may offer some of the functionality you are after.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1616" LastActivityDate="2010-10-17T21:08:32.623" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4034" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4032" CreationDate="2010-10-17T21:56:26.693" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could try &lt;a href=&quot;http://bluemarine.tidalwave.it/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Blue Marine&lt;/a&gt;, which is a really good alternative, and it's available for Windows/Linux/OS X&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1641" LastActivityDate="2010-10-17T21:56:26.693" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4035" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4032" CreationDate="2010-10-17T23:09:05.330" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshopel/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adobe Photoshop Elements&lt;/a&gt; is actually a pretty good package these days. It offers a lot of the tools found in Photoshop, as well as some of the niceties of Lightroom. It uses a darker interface, which is ideal for working with photography, and includes some decent image library management tools as well. Its pretty cheap ($80), and certainly better than most other offerings in its price range (or free) with the possible exception of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gimp.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gimp&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-17T23:09:05.330" />
  <row Id="4036" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2072" CreationDate="2010-10-17T23:34:22.707" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depending on the scene, I usually take from 5 to 9 shots, with jumps of +/- 1 EV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, I process those photos in my Linux box, using hugin_hdrtools or Bracket to create an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.openexr.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EXR&lt;/a&gt; high depth photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The tone-mapping is then done by Radiance HDR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1641" LastActivityDate="2010-10-17T23:34:22.707" />
  <row Id="4037" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4032" CreationDate="2010-10-18T00:09:27.283" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are quite a few alternatives, depending somewhat on what you're after.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Workflow software&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I like &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibblelabs.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bibble&lt;/a&gt; quite a bit. If memory serves, the Pro version is around the same price as LR, but the Lite version is quite a bit less expensive. One warning: while Bibble works well, they do have a history of being rather late delivering new versions (e.g., Bibble 5 was promised for something like 2 years before being delivered). For noise reduction, Bibble uses a version of Noise Ninja, which is (quite rightly, IMO) considered one of the best noise reduction programs available (though there are certainly others that are competitive).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rawtherapee.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Raw Therapee&lt;/a&gt; is an open-source raw converter with decent noise reduction and a &lt;em&gt;heavy&lt;/em&gt; emphasis on demosaicing algorithms to extract as as possible from any given raw data file. The goal here is &lt;em&gt;more&lt;/em&gt; to get the most out of good pictures than reduce noise (and such) to save those that aren't so good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/products/ds3/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SilkyPix Developer Studio&lt;/a&gt; Has pretty good noise reduction as well -- depending on the situation and picture involved, it's sometimes better than Noise Ninja (though other times it's not quite as good).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lightcrafts.com/lightzone/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LightZone&lt;/a&gt; is yet another. Basically all the same kinds of features, as most of the others. I haven't used it enough to really comment on it in any detail though. Their big brag is their &quot;Relight&quot; -- one-click fix of exposure, contrast, etc. It seems to work reasonably well -- for one example, in the same league with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.athentech.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Athentech Perfectly Clear&lt;/a&gt; (Ps Plugin, also included in Bibble Pro). Their noise reduction appears usable but doesn't seem to be anything special.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apple.com/aperture/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Aperture&lt;/a&gt; is Apple's workflow software. Given that it's from Apple, it's no surprise that it only runs under OS/X, so if you're a Windows user, you might as well move on to the next item. If you do use a Mac, it should &lt;em&gt;probably&lt;/em&gt; be the first one you test. You might easily not bother looking at any others -- Aperture is easily competitive with (or, in the estimation of many Apple fans, clearly better than) anything else on the market.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;editing software&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are much more like Photoshop than Lightroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshopel/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photoshop Elements&lt;/a&gt; was originally developed as an update to Photoshop LE. The first couple of versions were kind of lame (missing some features I'd consider truly crucial), but more recently it's not too bad. This is one, however, that pays to read some of the &quot;tips and tricks&quot; kind of papers/books/magazine articles -- quite a bit of what you can do is semi-hidden, so if you just use it for what's obvious, you see something much more limited than it really is -- though I haven't used the most recent version, so this may not be (as) true anymore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite/us/en/Product/1184951547051#versionTabview=tab1&amp;amp;tabview=tab0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PaintShop Pro X3&lt;/a&gt; is another that started life (long before Corel bought it) as (at least IMO) a fairly worthless wannabe program you'd run across at Walmart for $19.95, but over the years they put in a lot of time and effort, and turned it into a serious photo editing program. I haven't used it a lot (actually, I haven't used X3 at all -- my most recent use was of X2) but it seems amazingly close to the capabilities of Ps even though the price is about the same as Ps Elements. The obvious advantage of Photoshop is support for roughly 10 zillion add-ons, plug-ins, presets, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-10-18T00:09:27.283" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4038" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4032" CreationDate="2010-10-18T00:26:33.640" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a lot of alternatives. The ideal one for you depends on how much worflow versus how much editing features you need. There is a review of the asset-management aspects of Lightroom, Bibble Pro, IDimager, IMatch and Picajet FX here:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/article.php?id=dam-software&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.neocamera.com/article.php?id=dam-software&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since you are looking at something cheap, look at IMatch and Picajet FX, they go for about $65 and $60, respectively. This article does not cover editing features other than saying which ones have any.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For editing, you seem to have already gotten some good answers. Photoshop is obviously the benchmark in terms of features and price but Elements is surprisingly affordable while delivering a rich feature set.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-10-18T00:26:33.640" />
  <row Id="4039" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4040" CreationDate="2010-10-18T02:00:14.443" Score="7" ViewCount="148" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me explain the question. I've been making a lot of HDR photos, most of them in places where the difference between darker and lighter zones is no to big, and the transition from one zone to other is slight. And I get quite fine HDR photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But when I take photos in night, where you have a very big range between lighter zones (lamps) and darker zones; and the transition is strong, I can't get good HDR photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I mean, the dark zones close to the light ones, get an ugly glow that can't be removed. Even in the source images that will later compose the HDR image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is that just &quot;light nature&quot; or something else?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do you do in this cases?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In these cases, I tried 7 stops with +/- 1 EV., but I still can't have good HDR photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1641" LastEditorUserId="1641" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-18T02:07:46.410" LastActivityDate="2010-10-18T07:17:35.603" Title="Is there always a way to capture all the light ranges to get good HDR images?" Tags="&lt;hdr&gt;&lt;dynamic-range&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4040" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4039" CreationDate="2010-10-18T02:37:28.817" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When it comes to HDR, it is important to understand the true nature of what your are doing. High Dynamic Range images contain a floating-point dynamic range that is nearly infinite. No device that exists is actually truly able to render the full dynamic range offered by a 32bit HDR image. To be able to view your HDR images, you ultimately have to downconvert them to a smaller integer bit depth, such as 16bit or 8bit. When you do so, you are mapping tones from the full range provided by the 32bit floating point image to the limited range of 16bit or 8bit integer images. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even though a 32bit HDR image can technically contain and represent an immensely wide dynamic range, its beyond visibility on any modern computer screen, and well beyond what any printer is capable of. In cases of extreme contrast, such as photographs with the sun in them that also include deep shadows, or in your case, night photographs that include artificial lighting via lamps and the like, there is simply too much contrast to compress into a 16bit or 8bit integer image or print. If you try to tone map such an image, you'll undoubtedly get things like posterization, harsh edges around highlights, undesirable color shifts, excessive noise in shadows, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There may be some things you can do to improve your images when taking the shot. Providing extra lighting for the shadows is the first thing to try. Flash can be useful for filling in some light into deep shadows. You may need to bring along some extra lighting. Try following the ETTR technique, or Expose to the Right, where you overexpose your shots as much as possible without clipping highlights (or in your case, you may want to clip them a little bit because of the extreme contrast difference). This essentially dedicates more of the sensors dynamic range to capturing shadow detail. You can recover highlights in post-processing, and effectively achieve a more balanced shot. Try combining ETTR with some fill-flash as well to get the best shots possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might also try &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/exposure-fusion-what-is-it-how-does-it-compare-to-hdr-how-do-i-do-it&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exposure Fusion&lt;/a&gt;, which is an alternative process to HDR. Expose a few shots, one to capture the bright highlights of street lamps and the like, and a few  overexposed shots to capture as much shadow detail as you can. Using a tool like Photomatix, you can &quot;fuse&quot; the exposures together to merge shadow detail into shots that contain highlight detail. The result is similar to HDR, but simpler and often produces more natural results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, some of the exposure stacking tools for night sky photography might be helpful with images that have had their shadows lightened but display too much noise. Using burst mode of your camera, snap a rapid sequence of shots of the same scene (best done with a tripod/cable release to avoid changes between frames) that covers as much contrast as you possibly can in a single shot (ETTR might help here as well). Recover shadows and fill light with a tool like Lightroom, and merge a sequence of a single scene together in a photo stacking tool designed for &lt;a href=&quot;http://deepskystacker.free.fr/english/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;stacking astrophotography shots&lt;/a&gt;. These tools excel at merging images and eliminating noise in the darker parts. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that for almost all of these things, it is important to work in RAW through the whole process if you can. Don't convert to TIFF or DNG, use copies of the original RAW files from your camera. This is particularly important if you take the astrophotography stacking route, as those tools have a variety of pretty advanced algorithms that work directly with bayer array data to produce the most ideal, low-noise results when stacking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-18T02:37:28.817" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="4041" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2072" CreationDate="2010-10-18T03:33:56.200" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I do it myself, I've done up to 5 shots, with 2 EV between shots. My camera has a built-in HDR function which takes 3 shots, at -2, 0 and +2 EV. It is really no use to use smaller steps because each shot would overlap too much as information. If your camera permits it or you're will to bracket manually, I would even go 3 or 4 EVs between frames.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What works best is when your scene exceeds the sensor's dynamic range by a few stops only, otherwise you have a huge dynamic range which you must then compress into a small one to view or print it (since nearly every display on the planet can't even show the range captured by most cameras). The result is an image which lacks punch has low local contrast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here the only that worked using the built-in HDR:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neoluminance.com/slide.php?id=v028perubak70033&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.neoluminance.com/slide.php?id=v028perubak70033&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've tried several others but find most results unsatisfying due to the low local contrast I mentioned or because of unwanted halos from blown-out lights. To get rid of those you have to use something more sophisticated than what's in the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-10-18T03:33:56.200" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4042" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="479" CreationDate="2010-10-18T03:43:52.353" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since you are mentioning the P100 specifically, the display on my evaluation unit rarely showed exposure correctly either, it was one of my biggest complaints. Many cameras show a much more accurate preview. Here is the relevant paragraph from the review (Usability page):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The LCD preview is unfortunately rarely accurate. While white-balance does not seem to be much of a problem, exposure is. Sometimes the LCD shows an image of the wrong brightness before the shutter is pressed and sometimes it shows a wrong one after. EC changes the preview but not by the correct amount. Therefore you do not know when images will be incorrectly exposed.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/review.php?id=23&amp;amp;review=detailed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.neocamera.com/review.php?id=23&amp;amp;review=detailed&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-18T11:15:09.457" LastActivityDate="2010-10-18T11:15:09.457" />
  <row Id="4043" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4039" CreationDate="2010-10-18T07:03:08.200" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Firstly, good HDR images are very difficult to produce, so don't be disheartened! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whilst you can never &lt;em&gt;gaurantee&lt;/em&gt; to capture the entire range of any scene, 7 stops will do the trick for most scenes you want to capture. However, your problem with multiple exposure night photos stems from the fact that you're often shooting directly into the lightsource, and when overexposing for the shadows you will get a combination of lens flare and sensor bloom (the latter occurs when a pixel goes so far beyond white that the charge 'overflows' and affects the pixels around it). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only way round this is to either reduce the exposure of your darkest shot and accept more noise or less shadow detail, mask the areas yourself in Photoshop (or equivalant), or use an HDR compositing program that is aware of and can remove sensor bloom (sorry I don't have any recommendations here), or capture the scene in a single exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When doing the latter you could use a flash to fill in the shadows as jrista says, but that will only work in confined spaces. If you want to take photos of larger scenes what you need to be doing is &lt;strong&gt;light painting&lt;/strong&gt; with the flash (or a torch/flashlight). See the following blog post onthe topic: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/01/using-speedlights-with-landscapes.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/01/using-speedlights-with-landscapes.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-18T07:17:35.603" LastActivityDate="2010-10-18T07:17:35.603" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4044" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4026" CreationDate="2010-10-18T11:38:17.487" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It does take a bit of digging through some of Canon's international sites, but to quote &lt;a href=&quot;http://web.canon.jp/imaging/wft/wft-e2/function/usb/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon Japan&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;An external hard drive is recognized by the camera as &quot;External Media,&quot; using the [Automatic switch media], [Record separately] or [Record to multiple] function. You can also designate an external storage media as the destination directory for the [Image copy] function.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This gives you both the options you'd proposed (as well as additionally supporting writing to multiple locations simultaneously)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-10-18T11:38:17.487" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4045" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3981" CreationDate="2010-10-18T12:15:12.750" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What about using an SB 600 from Nikon? Same price as the Metz 48.... I have a few of these... they work great on a D200 and D300. When you can afford to step up I'd recommend an SU 800 wireless controller to control SB 600.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="786" LastActivityDate="2010-10-18T12:15:12.750" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4046" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4022" CreationDate="2010-10-18T15:40:05.567" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For an approximate solution to your problem, here's what I use when backpacking:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Put on backpack and fasten hip belt, but not sternum strap&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sling the camera diagonally across my body (like a purse)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Attach sternum strap over the camera strap&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This yields a reasonably stable setup, where the camera is sitting by my waist (at about 45o to my right, so it doesn't interfere with my hiking poles), partially supported by the hip strap, and partially prevented from swinging by the sternum strap. To use the camera, I simply untie the sternum strap and swing the camera to my eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not perfect, but it's orders of magnitude more comfortable than simply having the camera around my neck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="204" LastActivityDate="2010-10-18T15:40:05.567" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4047" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4048" CreationDate="2010-10-18T17:16:06.357" Score="9" ViewCount="419" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is really useful to have a prime fast lens for portrait photography, considering a low budget? If it is, what about the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_50_1p8_ii_c16/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am have an entry level 18-55mm lens and a  Canon 20D.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="338" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-27T15:17:52.943" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T15:17:52.943" Title="Is it worth it to have the 50mm f/1.8 Canon lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;prime&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4048" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4047" CreationDate="2010-10-18T17:24:18.407" Score="21" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Yes, absolutely.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 50 f/1.8 is outstanding value for money providing a very wide max aperture for portraiture compared to other lenses in the same price bracket.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have the 1.4, but borrowed a 50 f/1.8 when my lens was being repaired. Although it was 2/3 of a stop slower and lacked an ultrasonic focus motor, wide open it was sharp, and can produce outstanding images in low light:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/blogimages/blog_MG_9403.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other advantages are that it's very light, and stopped down one of the sharpest lenses in the whole range on account of it's simple construction. The lens tests on dpreview also reveal that wide open it's &lt;strong&gt;sharper&lt;/strong&gt; than than the EF 50mm f/1.4 at f/1.8:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_50_1p8_ii_c16/page3.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_50_1p8_ii_c16/page3.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_50_1p4_c16/page4.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_50_1p4_c16/page4.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-18T17:33:10.593" LastActivityDate="2010-10-18T17:33:10.593" />
  <row Id="4049" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4047" CreationDate="2010-10-18T17:25:56.173" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 50mm f/1.8 lens is a decent lens from an optical perspective. It has good sharpness, and honestly can't be beat for its price. It should be noted, however, that it has a very cheap, fully plastic body. I also have the 18-55mm kit lens that came with my 450D, which has an all plastic body. During a recent trek through the Colorado Rockies, however, I somehow managed to crack the mount. I can't say exactly how it happened, as I never dropped it or anything. Its just an example of how fragile a plastic body really is, and how short a life the lens may have if you do indeed purchase one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would say the 50mm f/1.4 is also a good lens, with a much better body build, and just as good if not better sharpness than the f/1.8. Might be worth the extra cost to have a more durable lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-18T17:25:56.173" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4050" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4047" CreationDate="2010-10-18T17:41:21.663" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Same here, I've the 50mm f/1.4, and as my fastest lens I couldn't live without it for concerts and low-light photography. It is much sturdier than the 50mm f/1.8 and is worth the upgrade, in my opinion. At this price though, the f/1.8 is almost disposable. Note that the 50mm f/1.4 can get jammed if you press hard on its sides. I don't think you can accidentally do it while operating it the recommended way, but it has happened to me and two other friends when we left the lens detached at the bottom of a Lowepro camera bag, and the camera + another lens on top of it was pressing hard. Symptoms include not being able to focus anymore, but Canon will fix that problem for free (you still need to ship it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2010-10-18T17:41:21.663" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4051" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4022" CreationDate="2010-10-18T18:19:20.913" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check out the Lowepro TLZ series. They come in various sizes depending on what lens you want to use. They are designed for a single lens, but I've managed to carry up to 3 small ones in there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What makes it secure is that it has a slit that you can pass your belt through. Plus, when you're not hiking you can let it hang from your shoulder for more movement flexibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-10-18T18:19:20.913" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4052" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4022" CreationDate="2010-10-18T20:50:28.263" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lowepro makes a good &lt;a href=&quot;http://products.lowepro.com/product/Topload-Zoom-Chest-Harness,2054.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;chest harness&lt;/a&gt; that is similar to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cottoncarrier.com/store.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cotton Carrier&lt;/a&gt;, but provides more protection.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/GYaXn.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have no connection with Lowepro—I simply recommend their products because I've used them and because &lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Digital Picture&lt;/a&gt; speaks highly of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="90" LastEditorUserId="90" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-29T18:31:29.580" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T18:31:29.580" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="4053" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4055" CreationDate="2010-10-18T21:53:11.730" Score="5" ViewCount="222" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a shopper, is there anything in particular you should look after when it comes to a good video card for photo edit/preview? I would assume a DisplayPort might be beneficial, but are there some chipsets that are viewed as &quot;better&quot; when it comes to dynamic range or is it up to the monitor? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="16" LastActivityDate="2010-10-18T22:49:23.350" Title="Is the video card important when it comes to preview/editing?" Tags="&lt;monitors&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="4054" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4053" CreationDate="2010-10-18T22:01:00.010" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The graphics card can be very important when it comes to editing photos. Most current photo editing programs e.g. Photoshop CS4/5 use the graphics card to do some of the processing, taking the load off the processor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You don't need a monster gaming card, most low to mid range consumer cards will give you an advantage. If you plan to use Photoshop it's worth checking the card has been tested by Adobe as I saw major glitches with my card when CS4 was released, see:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/405/kb405711.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/405/kb405711.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to the quality of the output if you're using a digital connection (e.g. DVI) then the graphics card shouldn't make a difference as long as the computer/monitor is calibrated. Most calibration systems use a look-up-table (LUT) on the graphics card to translate the colours from Windows to a signal that will produce the correct tone on the monitor. However I have never heard of any differences between LUT performance between graphics cards. Some new high end monitors geared toward graphics editing have their own inbuilt LUTs for colour correction so you can perform calibration on the monitor hardware alone, although performance can be sub-optimal due to not calibrating the back light correctly compared to software (+graphics card LUT) calibration, see&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/content/nec_pa271w.htm#comparison&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/content/nec_pa271w.htm#comparison&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you suggest it's really up to the monitor as dynamic range and contrast vary greatly amongst monitors and between calibrated/uncalibrated setups.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-18T22:11:04.880" LastActivityDate="2010-10-18T22:11:04.880" />
  <row Id="4055" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4053" CreationDate="2010-10-18T22:34:25.883" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It actually really depends on the software. It is especially important to do some research here because some graphics card have really big &lt;em&gt;power requirements&lt;/em&gt;, and your computer might not be able to accommodate any of them. Make sure to compare the specs of your power supply to those of the graphics card. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To my knowledge Lightroom is not GPU accelerated (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/systemreqs/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;requirements&lt;/a&gt;), but it is heavily multi-threaded (the more cores, the better). Apple Aperture is accelerated in that it uses &quot;Core Image&quot; on Apple hardware (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apple.com/aperture/specs/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;requirements&lt;/a&gt;). As Matt pointed out, some parts of CS4 are GPU accelerated, and this is even more true for the &lt;em&gt;whole&lt;/em&gt; CS5 suite. If you have a Video DSLR like the Canon 5D MII, processing large photos and huge videos can be very tricky without the proper hardware. With the introduction of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/performance/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mercury Playback Engine&lt;/a&gt; in CS5 Adobe delivered some &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De5N9IjUkNo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;serious hardware acceleration&lt;/a&gt;; if this is something you see in your future, you might want to check the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/performance/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;list of supported cards&lt;/a&gt; for CS5 early on (and how to &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.krama.tv/hacking-adobe-premiere-cs5-to-enable-more-nvidia-cuda-cards/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;enable more&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a rule of thumb in Photoshop, the more memory on the graphics card, the more &quot;accelerated&quot; documents you can open at the same time. Opening one large photo (say &gt; 20MP) shouldn't be any problem with any modern graphics cards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't heard of any differences between LUT performance between graphics cards either; as long as your monitor is properly calibrated, you should be fine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-18T22:49:23.350" LastActivityDate="2010-10-18T22:49:23.350" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4056" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4022" CreationDate="2010-10-18T22:43:14.280" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been looking at the ThinkTank Photo holster models. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thinktankphoto.com/products/digital-holster-40-shoulder-bag.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.thinktankphoto.com/products/digital-holster-40-shoulder-bag.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-10-18T22:43:14.280" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4057" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3523" CreationDate="2010-10-19T00:19:21.400" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Honestly eBay is probably your best option - there are many reliable sellers of camera gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1662" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T00:19:21.400" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4058" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4066" CreationDate="2010-10-19T00:47:49.380" Score="5" ViewCount="94" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to achieve the effect shown below, but with a photograph and I'm having some trouble maintaining the height width ratio so the photograph doesn't look too distorted - can anyone offer any tips or tutorials?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance for your help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/W7RoG.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1662" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T05:57:31.253" Title="Perspective manipulation" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4059" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4047" CreationDate="2010-10-19T00:48:32.527" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the 18-55, 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 as well as the 20D - superseded by a 50D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My personal rules have always been these: Get the very best glass you can afford. Get prime lenses first, zooms later. Get the fastest lens you can afford.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will see a difference in sharpness, contrast and color going from the 18-55 to the 50/1.8. The 50/1.4 is better than the 1.8, but you may not be at the point where you will see or need the improvements the 1.4 offers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BUT if you can only get one more lens in the near future, AND since you have the 18-55 AND you are starting out, you may want to expand your range first with another zoom, say a 70-200 before you start picking primes.  The 70-200 is a great range for portraits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, prime lenses, especially Canon L's are significantly, sometimes vastly better than their zoom counterparts. They are also generally faster. BUT they are also expensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you have shot across the full range of 18-55 and 70-210 THEN pick the prime you want the most. I may be a 24mm, 35mm or even an 85mm. Get to know how you shoot first, then buy with a purpose. My 2 cents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1663" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T00:48:32.527" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4060" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4063" CreationDate="2010-10-19T01:23:49.567" Score="6" ViewCount="344" Body="&lt;p&gt;So I have a Pentax K20D/18 - 250 tamron which was the unexpected result of a court case with a shop over broken K100 Super 2 years back. While I love the camera itself I've become frustrated with it's seeming lack of ability in low light, poor tethered software, and price/ease of purchase of lenses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm thinking of saving for a canon but two questions occur to me:-&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Should I sell the Pentax kit or keep it&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Will the Pentax kit fetch a decent price second hand&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Which Canon 50D, 60D or 7D&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;//Edit &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photography wise I do quite a wide variety of stuff, I bought the camera for work as I build websites and the costs of photography were making my sites very expensive. So exterior/interior shots of holiday homes, portraits for of people and basic product shots - I was recently asked to photograph some clothes hence the tethered mode became a thing - and I'd like to experiment with night time photography too so I really need a good all rounder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Budget wise the 7D is a stretch but I can get there if I work hard!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1662" LastEditorUserId="1662" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T21:47:27.977" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T21:47:27.977" Title="Upgrade advice pentax to canon + which canon 50D/60D or 7D" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;pentax&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="4061" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4060" CreationDate="2010-10-19T03:54:20.843" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would suggest keeping the Pentax, and using it for the cases where you love it, with the lens you have.  Avoid spending money on it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, you can keep an eye out for anyone that might be interested in buying it, and then sell it if something comes along.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I'd suggest taking a passive approach to selling it, and enjoying it in the meantime.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This way, you can get a different lens on your new Canon, and put one down/pick the other up as you need while shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="307" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T03:54:20.843" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4062" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4060" CreationDate="2010-10-19T04:56:40.740" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can't say much about the Pentax. I think Pkaeding offered some good advice regarding keeping/selling it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding upgrading, I guess there are a few options. First, I don't really think there is much of a contest betweeen the 50D and 60D. Outside of the 60D's slightly cheaper body (being more plastic), it is almost purely improvement over the 50D. The two cameras cost almost the same, there is less than a $100 difference between them, and the more durable body of the 50D is just not enough to make it a worth while purchase at its current price point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The real contest is between the 60D and 7D. Hands down, the 7D is a FAR superior product. It wins in every arena except sensor size, as they both have the exact same sensor. It is $400-$500 more expensive, but the extra cost is definitely worth it if you can afford it. For the extra money, you get vastly superior AF and burst rate, one of the most advanced 100% 1:1 viewfinders on the market, and some of the most cutting edge custom settings and other advanced features of any APS-C camera body on the market (its competitors would be along the lines of Nikon D7000, Pentax K-5, Sony A55, etc.) It comes in a very durable, weather sealed, professional grade body that should hold up well with very rugged, daily use. There are far too many features to describe here, but you can read more at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dpreview.com&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-7D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the-digital-picture.com&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T04:56:40.740" />
  <row Id="4063" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4060" CreationDate="2010-10-19T05:44:02.697" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On switching systems:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;K-r and K-5 have greatly improved autofocus over the K-7 and earlier generations, both continuous and low-light.  That said, 7D is class leading in continuous, and it's unlikely either will come close to the 7D's AF.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Since the K-x, Pentax really stepped up their ISO performance.  K-r and K-5 look to be stellar.  7D/60D is a bit better than K-x (both being much better than the K-7 and K20D), but K-r and K-5 look to be significantly better than the K-x.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pentax does not seem to care about tethering, so I wouldn't expect it from them in the near future.  If this is a requirement, switch.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Local dealers probably won't be selling Pentax, so if this is the ease you are referring to, I don't think it will improve.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You can, however, rent Pentax lenses from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cameralensrentals.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CameraLensRentals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Price of lenses to me seems comparable, with some cheaper and some more expensive than Canon.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Their DA* lenses and limited primes are similar in quality to the L-series glass and cheaper&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pentax does not have specialty glass in production (super telephotos, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cheaper third party lenses get the benefit of in-body IS on Pentax, making it a better bargain&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You can adapt Pentax lenses to Canon (albeit losing functionality)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pentax cameras, IMO, have the best ergonomics in their class and UI.  I am not a fan of Canon's ergonomics and choice of front and rear dial, nor their menu system.  Try them out in a store and see if it bothers you.  Have not personally held the 7D.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get an idea of what price you may fetch, check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://pentaxforums.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pentaxforums.com&lt;/a&gt;.   Unfortunately, many K20D owners are upgrading to the K-5, so it will be harder to get a good price for it.  Prices range, I think, from $450 to $600.  On the other hand, the 18-250mm is out of production, so it's fetching anywhere from $350 to $400+&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for 50D/60D/7D, depends on what you are looking for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;50D's only advantages on the 60D are build, lens-specific AF adjust, which is useful if you use lenses with very shallow DoF, and slightly faster fps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;60D/7D have a significantly improved sensor, among a bunch of other general things.  While the 60D has a flip screen, the 7D is a serious camera with awesome AF performance, fps, build, WR, viewfinder, etc.  What do you want to do with your camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T15:43:41.140" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T15:43:41.140" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4064" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4058" CreationDate="2010-10-19T05:47:03.660" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That should be easily done with software like Photoshop or Gimp. You can see a good tutorial &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wonderhowto.com/how-to-create-realistic-perspective-using-photoshop-265350/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although I don't think &lt;a href=&quot;http://psd.tutsplus.com/tutorials/photo-effects-tutorials/create-a-realistic-blueprint-image-from-a-3d-object/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; is exactly what you asked for, it is complete tutorial. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://gimp.pixtuts.com/gimp-tutorials/effects/realistic-shadow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This&lt;/a&gt; is for shadow perspective in Gimp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://fontfeed.com/archives/tip-photorealistic-perspective/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Another&lt;/a&gt; one, but for Adobe Illustrator.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Something that I can tell you is to compress the image progressively but not exaggerate the effect. In that case, you will get a more unreal result, and also a very distorted photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1641" LastEditorUserId="1641" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T05:57:31.253" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T05:57:31.253" />
  <row Id="4065" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-19T05:49:08.367" Score="4" ViewCount="52" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wonder if there is any such tool in &quot;PhotoImpact 8&quot; that would be somewhat similar to a brush that, if I move it over a certain area of my image (picture), would change that area's brightness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If You know such function (I am sure there should be such one there), please give me some directions how to get to that kind of tool (the thing is I am using a Chinese computer at the moment and Chinese &quot;PhotoImpact 8&quot;, so all the menus are in Chinese characters). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank You in advance.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1667" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T07:55:14.910" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T13:52:15.123" Title="What brush tool in &quot;PhotoImpact 8&quot; would help me change brightness of some areas of the image?" Tags="&lt;brightness&gt;&lt;brushes&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4066" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4058" CreationDate="2010-10-19T05:52:47.317" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To make that perspective effect look natural you would first have to stretch the right part of the image and compress the left part of the image:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;+---------------+    +-------------+&#xA;|   |   |   |   |    | |  |   |    |&#xA;|   |   |   |   | -&amp;gt; | |  |   |    |&#xA;|   |   |   |   |    | |  |   |    |&#xA;+---------------+    +-------------+&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then you can just deform the image by moving the left corners togehter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look at the example image that you posted, you can see that this hasn't been done there, so the left half of the image looks stretched. It's not as obvious on that image, as the left half only contains text, but on a photo the effect gets more visible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T05:52:47.317" />
  <row Id="4067" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-10-19T06:06:30.147" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm kind of modern, since my first camera was digital. FUJIFLM Finepix S3000: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://ic.tweakimg.net/ext/i/1061921268.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best thing about this camera is that it has 2 LCD. The viewfinder is digital!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1641" LastEditorUserId="1641" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T18:06:00.110" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T18:06:00.110" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-10-19T06:06:30.147" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4068" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-10-19T07:47:16.520" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was interested in learning photography for a while but never got around to it until I got my first real camera:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/AilDM.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From that moment (or actually a couple weeks prior), I read about photography like crazy.  Then, a couple months later, I sold it for a K-x, heh.  Yeah, I'm a neophyte.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T07:47:16.520" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-10-19T07:47:16.520" />
  <row Id="4069" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3981" CreationDate="2010-10-19T10:10:29.963" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This may not help but I've found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lcegroup.co.uk/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;London Camera Exchange&lt;/a&gt; to be very helpful from an advice and kit point of view, they have a wide variety of new and second hand kit available and almost all the second hand gear from any one shop is available online or at any other shop - they may be able to recommend something, the manager at the shop on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lcegroup.co.uk/Branch.asp?Branch_ID=35&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Strand&lt;/a&gt; is very knowledgeable and helpful. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reading back this comes off like an advert but it really isn't!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1662" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T10:10:29.963" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4070" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3954" CreationDate="2010-10-19T10:16:04.580" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found this to be quite helpful in understanding the hierarchy of the canon range and roughly where they fall in price point, the prices are in euro's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/PPBgJ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1662" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T10:16:04.580" />
  <row Id="4071" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-10-19T12:01:22.240" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My eyes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wanted, and still want, to get a record of everything I see.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1296" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T12:01:22.240" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-10-19T12:01:22.240" />
  <row Id="4072" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-10-19T12:39:12.067" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nikon N2000 got it in high school - made me really love photography!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1309" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T12:39:12.067" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-10-19T12:39:12.067" />
  <row Id="4073" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3433" CreationDate="2010-10-19T12:52:57.997" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;So I decided to switch to Canon.  I got a 5D mark II with 24-105/f4 lens. And all i can say is &quot;WOW&quot;... its totally awesome!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Granted the comparison is not really fair (partial frame Sony with prosumer lens vs full frame canon with pro lens)... but already i'm happy i've made the switch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now to sell the old Sony kit.. hopefully i can get half my money back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks again for the fantastic (and completely unbiased) advice everybody. Looking forward to the next interesting discussion on here. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1455" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T12:52:57.997" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4074" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4075" CreationDate="2010-10-19T13:03:15.663" Score="14" ViewCount="810" Body="&lt;p&gt;The ISO specification for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/product_finder/cameras/digital_slr/EOS_7D/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the Canon EOS 7D&lt;/a&gt; reads as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;High ISO&lt;/strong&gt; &#xA;  For handheld shooting in low light, the EOS 7D offers ISO&#xA;  speeds of up to 6400. Expandable to&#xA;  ISO 12800, for low light scenes where&#xA;  using flash is undesirable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is it phrased as such?  Is there something extra that is needed in order to 'expand' it to 12800?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If not, then presumably it is capable of 12800 out of the box — so why not just list that as the max ISO speed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-- &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/users/1616/winston-smith&quot;&gt;Winston Smith&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;What does expanded ISO mean?&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Especially with regards to image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am particularly interested in when you expand to a lower ISO, say 50 rather than 100. Generally the standard high ISO is too noisy, with the expanded ISO even more so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-- &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/users/2833/lc1983&quot;&gt;LC1983&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1616" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-02T18:28:23.063" LastActivityDate="2011-04-02T18:28:23.063" Title="What does &quot;expanded ISO&quot; mean?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;iso&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;digital-iso&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="4075" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4074" CreationDate="2010-10-19T13:29:29.813" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two reasons why an ISO is not made part of the 'normal' range:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is considered a non-trivial drop in quality and you do not want users complaining about its performance. In other words, if the quality difference between ISO 12800 and 6400 is stronger than the one from 3200 to 6400. Note that there may be more changes than simply more noise, colors can be affected as well.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The camera meters and exposes for the said ISO, say 12800, but the results do not strictly comply with the ISO standard. When that happens, you will notice that the ISO is NOT stored in the EXIF of the image. This usually happens because of a drop in dynamic-range at the expanded setting.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T13:29:29.813" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="4076" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4074" CreationDate="2010-10-19T13:42:08.337" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You do have explicitly state that you want to use ISO expansion through the custom functions on the menus (the option tends to move or be renumbered between models, and I don't have a 7D to hand to double check at this moment.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand this has to be manually enabled as almost an acknowledgement that the results may not be to the same quality (noise/colour accuracy/etc.) as you'd enjoy under the &quot;normal&quot; range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T13:42:08.337" />
  <row Id="4077" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-19T13:51:37.567" Score="2" ViewCount="128" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am Planning to purchase the a cybershot camera can any one suggest which one would be a better choice as between DSC T99g or H55 as both are priced equally with major diff at &#xA;1) Zoom ie 10x Vs 4x&#xA;2) non touch screen Vs Touch screen&#xA;3) And about HD Recording in camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1670" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T15:15:22.003" Title="SONY DSC T99G Vs Sony DCS H55 Camera" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4078" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4065" CreationDate="2010-10-19T13:52:15.123" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't have any experience with &quot;PhotoImpact 8&quot;, but in Gimp this is relatively easy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using Gimp the simplest method is to use the burn/dodge tool to paint over the area. It is best to do this using an overlay layer so that you can easily revert back if you make a mistake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a tutorial using &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT_tTDaYEOU&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this method on youtube&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another way is to use &lt;a href=&quot;http://docs.gimp.org/en/gimp-dialogs-structure.html#gimp-layer-dialog&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;layer&lt;/a&gt; masks and &lt;a href=&quot;http://docs.gimp.org/en/gimp-concepts-layer-modes.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dodge/burn/lighten/darken layers&lt;/a&gt; to do the adjustment. This is a more powerful method, but it's a bit more complicated, especially if you don't have much experience with gimp of photoshop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T13:52:15.123" />
  <row Id="4079" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4074" CreationDate="2010-10-19T13:59:12.170" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You use the custom function menu I (Exposure), item 3 to enable ISO expansion. Then you change ISO setting as usual, and the extra setting 12800 is available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's common to include very high ISO settings protected in this manner, so that you don't use them by mistake as the result has very much noise. The camera manufacturer want to list both settings, one to show what you can reasonably use in normal situations, and one to brag with...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I remember that my Canon D60 went up to ISO 800, but with the expanded mode allowed ISO 1000...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T14:04:15.213" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T14:04:15.213" />
  <row Id="4080" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4074" CreationDate="2010-10-19T13:59:30.383" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it's partly to cover their ass (if people complain that their ISO 12800 image is really noisy Canon can say &quot;well it that's not a normal ISO...&quot;) but &lt;em&gt;also&lt;/em&gt; because such ISOs aren't implemented by analogue amplification like the others but are instead done digitally by doubling the numbers. They are sometimes referred to as &quot;fake ISOs&quot; for this reason. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This method is akin to underexposing by one or two stops and then boosting the brightness in post, which is partly why the noise is so bad as you're doubling/quadruopling the read noise!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally prefer not to use these modes as you don't gain anything compared to doing it yourself in post (which is not true of lower ISOs) and you run the risk of overexposing and losing data. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same is true of the expanded low ISOs (50, 100). The camera simply overexposes and you lose highlight headroom. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-19T14:35:24.850" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T14:35:24.850" CommentCount="11" />
  <row Id="4081" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4077" CreationDate="2010-10-19T15:15:22.003" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is common for manufacturer to use the same sensor in a compact and an ultra-slim camera as this is the case. That is why the specifications seem similar but in terms of features these are quite different, mostly in favor of the larger H55:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Longer zoom, as you mentioned.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Manual exposure&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shutter-speeds up to 30s, needed for night photography (use of a tripod is necessary)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Faster continuous drive (1.8 FPS vs 0.7)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Better battery life (310 shots vs 230)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They both record 720p HD video&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BTW, you can see the any number of cameras side by side by searching for the specifications you are looking for using the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;camera finder&lt;/a&gt; at neocamera.com.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To see those two cameras, simply follow &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php?megapixels=14%3amin&amp;amp;brand=sony&amp;amp;focalwide=24%3ato:26&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this link&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T15:15:22.003" />
  <row Id="4082" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4083" CreationDate="2010-10-19T15:40:16.057" Score="9" ViewCount="823" Body="&lt;p&gt;my question seems immature sorry about that. i have seen sports photography where background is completely wiped out (black) during daylight. so trying to achieve similar (pure black background) with no extra gear just DSLR camera (20D). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this is doable using sync speed (when sensor is fully exposed to flash burst), closer flash burst to the subject, some suitable shutter setting. How i can minimize light to sensor before 120 of sec. 100 ISO ?      &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="338" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-25T20:58:43.147" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T20:58:43.147" Title="How to get black background using Flash sync speed with no extra gear?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;sync-speed&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4083" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4082" CreationDate="2010-10-19T16:19:31.247" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To overpower the sun during the day you need either very high speed sync (i.e. with a leaf or electronic shutter), or tons of light and an ND filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The theory is that the exposure from a flash is practically unaffected by the shutter speed, so by using a high shutter speed you let in the &lt;strong&gt;same amount&lt;/strong&gt; of flash but &lt;strong&gt;much less&lt;/strong&gt; ambient light, allowing your flash to overpower the ambient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is, with most cameras, including your 20D you can't shoot past 1/250s when using the flash, as beyond that the second curtain starts closing before the first has fully opened and your flash is only visible in part of the image. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some new flashes offer high speed sync, which pulses the flash to act like a continuous source. The problem with this approach is that &lt;strong&gt;when you up the shutter speed you let in less flash as well as less ambient&lt;/strong&gt; so you don't gain anything. Some people combine several flashes to compensate for the loss of light, but in mist cases there's no difference between multiple flash HSS, and using tons of flashes with normal sync plus an ND filter. Here's a good post about using HSS to get the effect you want with multiple flash units:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/05/joe-mcnally-desert-shoot.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/05/joe-mcnally-desert-shoot.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Hit the comments for a lengthy debate on the merits of HSS vs. regular sync and ND filters (the short answer, you don't gain any extra power with pulsed HSS).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Older digital cameras used electronic shutters which don't suffer from the second curtain problem and so can sync up to 1/4000s without pulsing the flash, letting you overpower the sun with a single flash unit. See&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/01/control-your-world-with-ultra-high-sync.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/01/control-your-world-with-ultra-high-sync.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;edit:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With no extra gear, assuming you have a flash capable of HSS your only option is to get as close as possible with the strobe, light power squares with distance, meaning getting twice as close gives you 4 x the power, getting four times as close gives you 16 times the power! I would start at your base ISO, f/5.6 and walk the shutter speed up until you lose the ambient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-20T15:21:35.117" LastActivityDate="2010-10-20T15:21:35.117" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4084" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3388" CreationDate="2010-10-19T18:04:55.150" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Mamiya RB67 will be a very good candidate for what you need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 6x7 is &quot;almost&quot; 6x6, you have the flexibility to crop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Make sure to get a good back, preferably a pro-sd. I had 2 pro-s backs (ugly condition) and one of them has weird light leaks that I still have not been able to fix with seals. I just got a like new 120 pro-sd back and it should keep me happy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Film cost is nothing compared to the enjoyment you get being out there, taking your time to compose and shoot. Digital takes that fun of &quot;slowness&quot; away somewhat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Enjoy and report back what you chose and how you like it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1674" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T18:04:55.150" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4085" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3943" CreationDate="2010-10-19T18:37:53.107" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is your lens autofocus?&#xA;If so, your new camera will need the autofocus drive - many of Nikon's newer, entry level dslr's don't have one. Most of my older lenses are MF (Manual Focus). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a 30+ yr old MF Nikkor 135mm that works great on my D700.  It's been &quot;AI'd&quot; which means someone cut a notch in the part of the lens's mounting ring so that the newer Nikon bodies known what aperture the lens is set at.  If it isn't AI then you might have some issues.  I don't know if that means it won't mount or if you just lose metering.  Maybe someone else can comment about some of the other newer terms like &quot;AIS&quot;, etc. The link below explains mo'better &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikkor Lens Technology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1676" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T18:37:53.107" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4086" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-19T21:17:27.573" Score="4" ViewCount="1806" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to decide between Epson's v330 (or 300) and v500 scanners.  The v500 is clearly a higher spec scanner, but I don't think I need all the features.  v300 goes for around £80. The v500 is £130. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I think the v500 may be able to scan more negative frames in one go than the v330 - I plan on scanning in all my old film so this may be a benefit.  Can anyone advise if this is true?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any other features it is worth spending an extra 50%+ on?  I'm not a professional photographer.  These are hold family and holiday snaps taken before I thought a great deal before releasing the shutter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="926" LastEditorUserId="926" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-20T07:19:59.897" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T19:33:22.147" Title="Epson v330/300 vs Epson v500 scanners" Tags="&lt;scanning&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="4087" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1619" CreationDate="2010-10-19T21:20:01.123" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 18-200 was a &lt;strong&gt;fun&lt;/strong&gt; lens on my D50.  I took a lot of memorable photos and it was great for &quot;walk-around&quot; and/or Travel.  I missed not having a super-zoom with this range when I went full-frame. It's got technical limitations - like being slow and not much good in low light.  Overall it was a nice lens for those times when I didn't want to think too hard about the details and just enjoy shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a compliment, on my budget, I also had a 50mm f/1.8 prime (~100.00). It was very sharp,  and fast which worked well in the dark. It was also small and packed/carried easily - an easy pick for a first/only prime.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1676" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T21:20:01.123" />
  <row Id="4088" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3981" CreationDate="2010-10-19T21:39:12.077" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I happened to go into LCX today as my new tripod had arrived and asked your question on the off chance. They pretty much reflected what was said above i.e. the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-B0002EMY9Y-SB-600-Speedlight/dp/B0002EMY9Y&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SB600 (&amp;lt;200 GBP)&lt;/a&gt; would work very well with all three cameras you specified in auto modes and is a reasonable price, but if you wanted something more feature rich the SB900 (350 GBP) would do the job. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They also said that virtually all new flashes are backwards compatible, so I have the impression that you could buy any recent nikon hot shoe flash and it would work for the bodies you want it to. I'm sure they can help you out if you give them a call.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1662" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T21:39:12.077" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4089" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2971" CreationDate="2010-10-19T23:33:18.773" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Nick notes, if you're shooting raw it's not necessary to set the white balance in camera on-site. However, you might find it useful to still shoot the gray card so you can use it as a reference in post (any worthwhile software will have a white balance picker).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing to make sure if is that the lighting can vary across the scene, so if you do this have the subject, not you, hold the white card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-10-19T23:33:18.773" />
  <row Id="4090" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4094" CreationDate="2010-10-19T23:52:16.623" Score="8" ViewCount="200" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've seen in the CHDK page, that you can change the ISO values, and put lower ones. Now lets suppouse I want to shoot a waterfall in day, and also I want a long exposure time (10 sec. i.e.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know I can use ND filters, but what about using a very low ISO (like 15)? Is there a limit for the lowest ISO in each camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In theory, the light sensibility would be very low, so the shutter time will need to be longer. Don't name aprerture sizes, because I can only have f11 as minimum.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If all of this is true, the best of all is the reduction of noise!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1641" LastActivityDate="2010-10-20T03:44:05.520" Title="Is it possible to use a lower ISO instead of ND filters?" Tags="&lt;iso&gt;&lt;chdk&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4091" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4090" CreationDate="2010-10-20T00:06:40.517" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is possible, but there is a limit to the lowest ISO your camera supports based on the sensitivity of the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Every 1/2 ISO level requires 2x the light. So ISO 15 would roughly be 2.5 stops darker compared to ISO 100.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So while lower ISO would help (in theory), lower-iso + an ND filter would give you a lot more options to work with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-10-20T00:06:40.517" />
  <row Id="4092" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1619" CreationDate="2010-10-20T00:39:53.500" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Completely agree with Reid... in this situation a fast prime is the way to go. I'd only consider a lens that was 3.5 - 5.6 indoors if I was planning on shooting with a flash... i used to do quite a bit of corporate work and the Nikon 85mm f1.4 prime really came through.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="786" LastActivityDate="2010-10-20T00:39:53.500" />
  <row Id="4093" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-20T00:59:49.000" Score="6" ViewCount="177" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am trying to figure out how to select a group of children from the background. The image below is not the one I am using, but it is similar in that there is no clear distinction between the children and the background, and the background is complex. How would you go about tackling something like this? Can you point me to any good Photoshop selection tutorials?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/wQQkE.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Group of children&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1677" LastActivityDate="2010-10-20T22:21:16.370" Title="How to select children from a complex background?" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;photo-editing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4094" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4090" CreationDate="2010-10-20T01:45:20.450" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't really know much about CHDK, outside of that it lets you program P&amp;amp;S cameras. When it comes to ISO, though, the story is rather tricky. It may be possible to program ISO down to 15 with CHDK, but it may not really do you any good. There are &quot;real&quot; ISO settings, and there are &quot;artificial&quot; ISO settings. A real ISO setting would be something like ISO 100, which is usually the base ISO for many cameras (some have a base ISO of 200). This is an analog setting, adjusting the ISO to any of the &quot;real&quot; native settings will usually work by changing the analog readout of the sensor. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast, an artificial ISO setting is either achieved by making other &quot;behind the scenes&quot; changes to other settings on the camera, or by &quot;digitally enhancing&quot; the nearest real ISO setting. In the case of &quot;behind the scenes&quot; ISO, rather than actually changing the ISO when choosing, say, ISO 50, the camera may actually reduce the exposure time at ISO 100 instead. In the case of &quot;digitally enhancing&quot; ISO, the camera may use ISO 100 when you choose ISO 50, then apply a digital filter to the resulting image to make it appear as though it was shot at ISO 50. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, using artificial ISO settings is undesirable. You generally don't really know what is going on behind the scenes, and if the camera is changing settings to make it appear as though you are really using ISO 50, it may adversely affect your image, preventing you from capturing the scene you really wanted to capture. Most of the time, it is best to use &quot;real&quot; ISO settings that change the analog readout from the sensor. If you need to lengthen your exposure times beyond what the native base ISO setting allows (usually ISO 100, sometimes ISO 200), then filtration is usually the best option. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-20T01:45:20.450" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4095" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4086" CreationDate="2010-10-20T01:57:44.777" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Based on the Epson specifications:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Feature         | v300          |  v500&#xA;-----------------------------------------------&#xA;Native DPI      | 4800          | 6400 &#xA;Optical Density | 3.2           | 3.4&#xA;Slide Support   | 35mm          | 35mm &amp;amp; Medium Format&#xA;Reliability     | 10,000 cycles | 36,000 cycles&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Features of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/Product.do?sku=B11B193081&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;v300&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Achieve exceptional clarity and detail with 4800 x 9600 dpi optical resolution&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Scan 35mm slides and negatives with ease using the built-in Transparency Unit (for beautiful enlargements up to 13x19)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Restore the color to old, faded photos with one touch &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do more with one-touch document scanning — send e-mails or create PDFs&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Quickly copy documents and photos for archiving purposes&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Enjoy remarkable versatility, plus fully automatic scanning&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Scan books, photo albums and 3D objects with high-rise, 180-degree lid&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Enjoy more efficient operation with exclusive ReadyScan™ LED technology — no warmup time and fast scanning speeds&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rest easy with earth-friendly LED technology — no mercury included and lower power consumption&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Enhance your images with photo editing and creative software included&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Scan text with amazing clarity — Office Mode delivers sharp scans, even if text is on colored paper or a double-sided document&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Features of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/Product.do?sku=B11B189011&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;v500&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Create extraordinary enlargements&lt;/strong&gt; — create 13&quot; x 19&quot;, 17&quot; x 22&quot; or larger sizes from film with 6400 dpi  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Remove the appearance of dust and scratches from film&lt;/strong&gt; — DIGITAL ICE™ for Film &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Scan slides, negatives and medium-format panoramic film&lt;/strong&gt; — built-in Transparency UnitRestore faded color photos with one touch, using Easy Photo Fix®&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Achieve greater productivity&lt;/strong&gt; — greater productivity with the energy-efficient, earth-friendly LED light source — no warmup time, faster scans, lower power consumption&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Take your photos further&lt;/strong&gt; — Adobe Photoshop Elements included, to help edit and enhance your digital imagesGet brilliant, true-to-life colors with amazing, 48-bit color depth&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Quickly scan multiple documents&lt;/strong&gt; — optional Automatic Document Feeder&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Convenient connectivity&lt;/strong&gt; — Hi-Speed USB 2.0 included&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I can tell, the v500 doesn't necessarily do more film in one go. It does, however, support more film types, including 6x12 panoramic medium format. A more important feature of the v500, I think, is its native resolution. For film, high scanning resolution is important in generating a digital image that can be printed at large sizes. If you only intend to print at 4x6 or 5x7 sizes, the v300/v330 would probably be enough. If you need to scan medium format film, or print at larger sizes up to 17x22, the v500 would be necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-22T02:43:13.837" LastActivityDate="2010-10-22T02:43:13.837" />
  <row Id="4096" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4090" CreationDate="2010-10-20T03:44:05.520" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This doesn't add anything new beyond jrista's answer, but to summarize: probably what is happening when you select those ISOs is that the camera overexposes and then divides the numbers by 2 (or whatever). So you lose IQ fairly rapidly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would suggest looking up on CHDK website exactly how it achieves those low ISOs. I'm certainly curious, so do report back if you can! :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-10-20T03:44:05.520" />
  <row Id="4097" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2640" CreationDate="2010-10-20T07:50:00.367" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have done this using a wireless remote and a couple of strobes with umbrellas. I used a white wall as a background and a chair at a slight angle. I used the face detection focusing on the camera (a GF1). I used a moderate telephoto 45mm focal length (90mm in 35mm equivalent) otherwise the nose will look large. It took a lot of attempts to get a shot I was happy with - you do have to be patient as if you can't see yourself it is difficult to make sure you are properly centered etc. However since it is just yourself you can play about with the lighting, orientation of the head and eyes and how you smile without worrying about time. Tethered operation may help with focusing and getting centered however you still have to look at the camera for the actual shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1680" LastActivityDate="2010-10-20T07:50:00.367" />
  <row Id="4098" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4082" CreationDate="2010-10-20T11:52:20.860" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are you sure those sport photos were mixing daylight and flash? For reasons explained by Matt, you'd need to get very close or have powerful flashes to get that effect, which is both unlikely when someone photographs sport events.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;IMO there are two situations that might produce sport pics with black background and happen much more often:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;daylight + shade: what you're looking at isn't powerful flash and full daylight, but actually full daylight and shade (such as dark part of platform). This &quot;selection of background&quot; possible to achieve with long telephotos, and on sunny days the light differences may be several EVs, enough to render background black&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;flash + darkness: what you're looking at is a staged picture taken either when it's dark or in a studio&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;stadium lights + darkness: might make enough difference to make background dark&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-10-20T11:52:20.860" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4099" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-20T13:18:07.193" Score="6" ViewCount="673" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've never really found a solution to an issue that's been plaguing me since I first experienced it in Photoshop CS, and now, five versions later, it's still bugging me!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is it?&#xA;Well, seemingly randomly, Photoshop decides that when I use the solid fill bucket, or the pencil tool to &quot;paint&quot; something within a marquee selection, it will either &quot;feather&quot; whatever I'm doing to the pixels outside of the marquee, or &quot;anti-alias&quot; the inside border pixels of the marquee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes, I actually want this to occur, but it doesn't regardless of what I do (and I end up using the eraser tool with a low opacity to recreate it)&#xA;And then sometimes, when I really don't want it to occur, it does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an example screenshot of what I'm talking about:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Tq0OT.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See how it's randomly added pixels outside of the select?&#xA;(The selection was drawn with the poly marquee tool, with feather set to &quot;0&quot; - the green colour was added with the pencil tool, with &quot;normal&quot; mode andopacity set to &quot;100&quot;, and size set to 70px)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This MUST be a setting somewhere that I've totally missed, and it's driving me barmey!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please could you advise?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1682" LastActivityDate="2010-10-23T21:02:10.390" Title="How to stop anti-alias / feathering within Photoshop" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4100" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4099" CreationDate="2010-10-20T13:39:36.097" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Firsly feathering and anti-aliasing have different meanings, though for small a feathering radius the results are similar. &quot;Feathering&quot; effectively means fading the selection boundary out slowly, and is slightly different to &quot;anti-aliasing&quot; which means using intermediate values to smooth out jagged edges. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You need to turn anti-aliasing off in addition to setting the feather to zero to get what you want, which is a sharp rigid boundary. There should be a checkbox in the tool palette, next to the feather radius box:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ZzTq8.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(screen shot is from a very old version of Photoshop!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's worth noting the black and white &quot;marching ants&quot; selection border only ever shows the 50% threshold of the selection, and is therefor just a guide. If you save the selection to an alpha channel you can see the selection opacities of every pixel, and thus see your actual selection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-20T13:54:49.427" LastActivityDate="2010-10-20T13:54:49.427" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4101" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2645" CreationDate="2010-10-20T15:08:29.260" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I notice that my images are not really out of focus, but they do not have great edge detail.  I'm not talking about over sharpening or anything like that, but just an overall softness to the images.  And for me it's on every lens that I've tried.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can compensate for it in lightroom or something, but it would be nice to be able to just shoot a .jpg and have it look like it does on the preview when you get it on your PC.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-10-20T15:08:29.260" />
  <row Id="4102" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2505" CreationDate="2010-10-20T17:19:30.683" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Excellent comments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One consideration not mentioned:  What happens if you regularly stick your tripod legs into mud, seawater, or Mono Lake?  Benbo makes tripods with the big tubes on the bottom, so the sliding mechanism doesn't get fouled (as long as you don't go in TOO deep).  With a conventional design tripod one must carry it back with lower tubes extended until it can be washed off or later disassemble it for (tedious) cleaning.  Benbo tripods are heavy and need getting used to, but my love of tidepools is no longer challenged. Or, Birdsasart.com sells condom-like devices for tripod legs. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1686" LastActivityDate="2010-10-20T17:19:30.683" />
  <row Id="4103" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2362" CreationDate="2010-10-20T18:48:38.353" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Nikon 50mm f/1.4 G - Awesome color and contrast + a shallow DoF for ~1/3 the price of the 85 f/1.4 AF-D (I actually like it better too).&#xA;Alternately, for more reach - you can get a very nice used 105mm f/2.5 manual focus for ~$250. For studio/portrait - manual focus shouldn't be much of problem.  This was also rumored to be the lens Steve McCurry used for his Afghan Girl portrait.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1676" LastActivityDate="2010-10-20T18:48:38.353" />
  <row Id="4104" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-20T18:51:40.767" Score="3" ViewCount="124" Body="&lt;p&gt;I Have a D90 and have tried to set it to area of focus single point, center point,normal. It is not going to this setting, when I look through the lens after setting it the area of focus is on the left. Not the center. Am I doing something wrong or does my camera have a glitch? Please respond! Thank you! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-20T19:27:45.050" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T12:00:43.733" Title="D90 Area of focus mode" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;nikon-d90&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4105" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4093" CreationDate="2010-10-20T21:25:02.443" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have only access to GIMP, which has a specialized foreground selection tool, and it's still not precise enough to select objects on a complex background. My approach would be to try that and than perhaps refine edit the selection using masks, which probably would work very for hair and similar stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;IMO the best bet way to handle this situation is to avoid it by shooting on simple black/white background if you know you'll want cutouts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-10-20T21:25:02.443" />
  <row Id="4106" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4099" CreationDate="2010-10-20T22:11:57.323" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Surprising, you're quite correct and there seems to be no way of preventing it from happening, even with no feathering, no anti-aliasing and the tolerance set to zero you still get additional pixels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can invert the selection and delete most of the anti-aliasing but some still remains inside the selection.&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/XhfyO.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;//edit&#xA;I added the example below, the anti-aliasing is most pronounced at the points on the top - I screen shotted so you can see the selection area. This was done in CS5 using the paint bucket tool.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1662" LastEditorUserId="1662" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-21T18:57:21.740" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T18:57:21.740" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4107" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-20T22:19:05.633" Score="10" ViewCount="520" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm about to do some more clothing photography, this time with the clothing flat on the floor and the camera looking straight down at the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone have any tips for creating an inexpensive white backdrop for the pictures? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The local DIY store has some cheap wide roller blinds available so I was thinking about trying that out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1662" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T12:41:51.403" Title="Tips for an inexpensive white backdrop" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;background&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4108" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4093" CreationDate="2010-10-20T22:21:16.370" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could try downloading the CS5 demo version, then you'd have the advanced tools to use for 30 days...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1662" LastActivityDate="2010-10-20T22:21:16.370" />
  <row Id="4109" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-20T22:34:20.637" Score="8" ViewCount="98" Body="&lt;p&gt;My extended family is taking a big trip around Christmas this year. It would be really nice to have some decent camera gear to be able to have some nice photography of this once-in-a-lifetime gathering. Currently, I can't afford to go out and purchase what I would like to have and am wondering if rental would be a good option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ideally, what I would like to have is a DSLR body, a prime lens, and a good general lens that would offer decent performance and zoom capabilities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My budget would be kind of tight, as I'd like to keep under or as close to $300 as possible. But, I realize that having the capability to come away with some good photography is worth an investment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking around, it seems like the new Nikon D3100 body would be a great choice, as it would give me the ability to shoot some video and seems cheaper to rent than a D90 or equivalent, but that's not really a main goal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The timeframe for this would about 2 weeks. Which I figure would give me some time prior to the vacation to get comfortable with the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any suggestions for gear would be great as well as reviews of various rental outfits. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1689" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T02:34:01.877" Title="Renting Gear for a Vacation" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;travel&gt;&lt;renting&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="4110" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4109" CreationDate="2010-10-20T23:03:33.510" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biggest thing I'd watch out for is the learning curve with a new camera body.  You mentioned some time to come up to speed on the camera - I'd stress the importance of putting in some time ahead of time to take a couple hundred shots.  Be sure to upload and evaluate the pictures to get a feel for what works well and what doesn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you have a camera that you're used to now?  It might be worth bringing that as a backup, both in terms of equipment failure and in terms of ease of use and familiarity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-10-20T23:03:33.510" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4111" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4107" CreationDate="2010-10-21T00:14:27.577" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use a white sheet and a set of clamp lights with daylight cfl bulbs. (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1902/lighting-equipment/1903#1903&quot;&gt;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1902/lighting-equipment/1903#1903&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It works best if you can put a little distance between the subject and background, and the key is for the background to be well lit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, you're just trying to expose for the subject and totally overexpose the background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This shot was taken in front of an off-white wall in a somewhat dark room.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_nuoXbHJPJ9g/TMD8NB2dL5I/AAAAAAAACmg/lToAtzDgcQU/s1600/IMG_9795_web-791404.JPG&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bottle was sitting on top of a coffee can (you can just see the lid) about 3 feet away from the wall behind it. I pointed 2 lights at the wall behind, and used spot metering on the bottle.  Spot metering allowed the exposure to be set for the front of the bottle, and since the background was 2-3 stops brighter, it ends up completely over-exposed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since you are trying to shoot down at the floor it gets a little tricky since you can not easily light the background separate from the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing you could try is to use a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.estreetplastics.com/White_Plexiglass_Sheet_2447_s/102.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;white translucent plexiglass sheet&lt;/a&gt; as a backdrop, and light it from behind.  You will need brighter lights this way, but you should be able to achieve a similar effect with a flat surface.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-29T12:35:32.590" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T12:35:32.590" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4112" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4109" CreationDate="2010-10-21T02:34:01.877" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Frankly, I think you may be better off with used gear. The reason is that the gear at lower price points rents for a much higher percentage of its purchase cost than does the more expensive gear (which make sense, as a lot of the overhead is the same). You could get a DSLR that was a generation or two old and a good prime lens for $300.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or consider film. You could get a really classy film SLR plus a couple of nice primes for that budget. Of course, you then have to pay for processing, but that's not a high up-front cost. I have a Pentax Spotmatic II and while it's certainly not as easy to use or fast as my D90, it's a dream to operate and very satisfying. If you go this route, you will be using some of the best gear available rather than settling as you would with digital.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for rentals, check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://lensrentals.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lensrentals.com&lt;/a&gt;. I have never rented from them but they write an excellent blog and seem like smart, fair folks. Prices are listed on their website.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T02:34:01.877" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4113" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4029" CreationDate="2010-10-21T02:44:30.673" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;DSLRs use phase detection autofocus. This takes a bit of the light through a semi silvered mirror and reflects it through a variety of prisms and mirrors into the AF sensor - all these components are polarization sensitive, and so need circular polarized light (*).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compact cameras use contrast AF where the sharpness of several images is measured as the lens is tracked through focus - this needs a live view type sensor and is much slower and less accurate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(*) In theory you could use phase preserving coatings on the prisms as in very high end binocular prisms but iv'e never heard of a DSLR implementing this&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="631" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T02:44:30.673" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4114" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4120" CreationDate="2010-10-21T02:51:29.710" Score="6" ViewCount="153" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like to travel and taking snaps a lot, I usually use my mobile camera for this, but it is not worthy at all. &#xA;Can some one suggest me the good and affordable digital camera between the range of $100 - $200 (It is the only amount i can spend currently). I studied lot on net, but we can't tell how it will perform until you buy it. So Please suggest the good one, which you guys have already used or experienced. Megapixels can be compromised like (5-7Mp will do) but i would really love to have some optical zoom, and point and shoot capability.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1690" LastEditorUserId="1690" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-22T02:21:36.417" LastActivityDate="2010-10-22T02:21:36.417" Title="What is the most appropriate camera for the hobbie photograpy" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4115" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4118" CreationDate="2010-10-21T02:51:54.983" Score="37" ViewCount="2410" Body="&lt;p&gt;I took a bunch of photos at my son's martial arts club using a D90 with a 50mm F1.8.  The club is lit with overhead fluorescent lighting, and I was getting some weird results where some shots are &quot;white&quot;, others have an &quot;orange cast&quot;, and still others are partly white and partly orange in the same shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suspect it has to do with the combination of the frequency of the light flicker and with the camera shutter speed. Here is a sequence of 3 shots that show the problem.  The shots were taken with 1/500s at F2 and ISO-800 and with Auto-WB.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First shot (&quot;white/normal&quot;): &#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/nme4Z.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second shot (&quot;orange cast&quot; at top):&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/M3rwB.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third shot (&quot;orange cast&quot; at bottom):&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/vToOD.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These were taken in burst mode within a second of each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anybody tell me what is going on?  And, how I can avoid this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="227" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T18:51:05.500" Title="Problem with fluorescent lighting and shutter speed?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;shutter-speed&gt;&lt;sports&gt;&lt;fluorescent&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="9" />
  <row Id="4116" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4119" CreationDate="2010-10-21T02:56:22.447" Score="9" ViewCount="475" Body="&lt;p&gt;So my D90 offers &quot;High-ISO Noise Reduction&quot;.  Sounds like a good thing, but obviously there must be a cost of some kind.  The settings are &quot;Off&quot;, &quot;Low&quot;, &quot;Normal&quot;, and &quot;High&quot;, and the default is &quot;Normal&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the pros and cons of using this feature?  Why not always set it to &quot;High&quot;?  Or, should I be turning it off?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="227" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T16:25:28.740" Title="Pros/Cons of High-ISO Noise Reduction?" Tags="&lt;iso&gt;&lt;nikon-d90&gt;&lt;noise-reduction&gt;&lt;iso-noise&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4117" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4114" CreationDate="2010-10-21T04:09:30.747" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe you should go for a model which provides some manual control also, rather than a simple point and shoot. I use Canon S3IS, which is a great camera. Newer models have come in, which you can check.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The advantages of such a camera :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Provides more control over shots, so that you can experiment. For example, aperture, shutter speed, ISO can all be controlled manually&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Great optical zoom (10X).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cons :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bit bulky&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1170" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T04:09:30.747" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4118" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4115" CreationDate="2010-10-21T04:33:08.273" Score="40" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fluorescent lights can flicker at twice the frequency of the current feeding them, which implies an entire cycle of the flicker will take between 1/100 and 1/120 second.  During each cycle the light's intensity and its color temperature can change.  Thus, if you're using a shutter speed of 1/100 second or faster, you might observe exactly these phenomena: your photos make an interesting document of them, especially the bottom photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Details appear deep within a good &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_lamp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article on fluorescent lamps&lt;/a&gt; under the heading &quot;Flicker Problems&quot;.  The article references &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.tommyimages.com/2009/06/photographing-under-fluorescent-lights.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Feral Photographer&lt;/a&gt;&quot; blog which gives a brief (simplified) explanation from a digital photographer's perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For sports photography indoors you need a short exposure time to freeze the action.  Consider flash options if they are possible.  Very short exposures (down to 1/4000 second typically) can be achieved with HSS flashes.  To an extent you can adjust the color balance, especially when you're shooting RAW images, but that's going to be tricky during the color transition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T04:33:08.273" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4119" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4116" CreationDate="2010-10-21T04:50:52.347" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The pro's are self-evident:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lower noise on high-iso&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The biggest con:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Loss of detail&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The high-iso noise reduction might remove detail mistakenly. While newer camera algorithms have gotten better at it, it's still not fool proof.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The settings between Off, Low, Normal and High dictate the amount of tolerance used for the setting, which affects the amount of detail that might be lost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T04:50:52.347" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4120" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4114" CreationDate="2010-10-21T06:12:03.627" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It will be more effective to post your question in one of the many camera forums such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DPReview&lt;/a&gt;. They have a large and thriving membership that is very active. They commonly answer questions about camera choices and upgrade paths. You will get many more replies from some very experienced and knowledgeable members.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since those sites are usually partitioned according to camera make you can pose your questions to the supporters of the different camera makes. In this way, by hearing the opinions of the different supporters, you can form a good overall impression of what will best suit your needs.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The debate about make of camera often inspires a great deal of biased partisanship which is best kept in the relevant forums. Such divisive debates about what is in the end a very subjective issue will harm the objectivity and neutrality of this site and reduce its informative value.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T06:12:03.627" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4121" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4116" CreationDate="2010-10-21T07:20:14.347" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general I wouldn't recommend doing anything in camera that is irreversibly &quot;baked&quot; into the image, as such things can always be done better, with more control, and more importantly the option to undo, in post on your PC.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is another feature called Long Exposure Noise reduction which shoots a black frame (i.e. one in which the shutter is closed) in order to remove &quot;hot pixels&quot; and other artefacts which show up on long exposures. This feature is useful and can't be replicated in post, unless you shoot your own black frames (with the lens cap on and viewfinder covered).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T07:20:14.347" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="4122" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4115" CreationDate="2010-10-21T07:31:03.983" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fluorescent lights are terrible news for photography, and this is just one of the reasons! They give out light which is missing a big chunk of the red spectrum, which can make skin tones look greenish and unhealthy, they are usually different colours from each other even if the tubes are the same type, and they change colour during the power cycle!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your options are to sync your shutter speed with the lights, by shooting at 1/25s 1/50s (assuming 50HZ mains frequency) but this isn't good for action photography. Your other option is to reduce the shutter to 1/250s and use an external flash on full power bounced off the ceiling. The short flash duration will help freeze the action. HSS is possible but you might have difficulty overpowering the ambient light as this option costs power! If you still want to use burst mode an external power pack will be needed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T07:31:03.983" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4123" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4107" CreationDate="2010-10-21T07:44:47.413" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The more space you have the easier this is - firstly you can throw more light at the background to even our creases is your material of choice without it bouncing back onto your subject, and secondly the longer lens you use, the smaller your background can be, to the point where if you're using a telephoto your background only has to be just bigger than your subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a widely cited blog article that gives some good advice on working with seamless white backgrounds here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.zarias.com/white-seamless-tutorial-part-1-gear-space/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.zarias.com/white-seamless-tutorial-part-1-gear-space/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However it's gear heavy. Everyone says you need a minimum of three lights to do this, one for the subject and two to get even lighting on the background, like so:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/blogimages/seamless/threelight.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However when I was first doing this sort of thing on a budget (with a white sheet background) I found I could get away with two lights (one background light) because that was all I had! Here's the setup I used:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/blogimages/seamless/twolight.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem here is that you can sometimes see the lightstand poking out from behind your subject: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/blogimages/seamless/original.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is easy to fix in photoshop as the background is sure white! likewise the edges of the sheet can be fixed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/blogimages/seamless/before.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...leaving a final version, which looks expensive but was in fact a very cheap setup:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/blogimages/seamless/final.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T07:44:47.413" />
  <row Id="4124" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4074" CreationDate="2010-10-21T09:40:43.250" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that the expanded ISO setting is achieved in a different manner to the standard range. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the the standard ISO range the sensitivity is changed on the hardware level, providing more amplification to the signal from the sensor. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My understanding is that with the expanded ISO it is handled on the software level. &#xA;In your case when you set ISO to 12800 the signal from the sensor is amplified in the same manner as for ISO 6400 but the resulting image exposure is tweaked to get the results as if you were shooting at 12800. Basically the result is the same as if you took an underexposed photo at ISO 6400 and then increased the exposure in the post processing. The expanded range does it for you so you can use the camera setting as you were shooting at 12800&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastEditorUserId="115" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-21T09:46:50.150" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T09:46:50.150" />
  <row Id="4125" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4129" CreationDate="2010-10-21T11:59:31.893" Score="5" ViewCount="133" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have just started out and am learning so have limited kit at this time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wondered if renting gear like additional lenses worked for anyone or is it always better to buy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="560" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T19:08:20.393" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T19:08:20.393" Title="Pros/Cons of Renting Kit" Tags="&lt;renting&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4126" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4104" CreationDate="2010-10-21T12:00:43.733" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It sounds like you've gotten into &quot;single focus point&quot; mode, so now you can just use the d-pad on the back to move that highlighted focus point around in the viewfinder.  The center of the d-pad returns the focus point conveniently to the center.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1709" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T12:00:43.733" />
  <row Id="4127" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2010-10-21T12:15:38.343" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Canon EOS 450D (XSi or Kiss X2) is a consumer level DSLR originally released in 2008.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_450D&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Canon 450D on wikipedia.org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-21T12:15:38.343" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T12:15:38.343" />
  <row Id="4128" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2010-10-21T12:15:38.343" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="The Canon EOS 450D (XSi or Kiss X2) is a consumer level DSLR originally released in 2008." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-21T12:15:38.343" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T12:15:38.343" />
  <row Id="4129" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4125" CreationDate="2010-10-21T12:31:52.073" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The short answer&lt;/strong&gt;: It really depends on what you're shooting. If you do infrequent big events then renting can be a great way to shoot with top of the range gear. On the other hand if you mostly shoot spontaneously, or spend your spare time experimenting then you'll probably want to own your lenses. The type of photography you do comes into the equation too, as certain things such as sports/wildlife really benefit from expensive glass. In other areas knowing how to use your existing gear and how to use light is more important. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The obvious advantage to owning is that you have the gear available all the time and you're free to experiment whenever you feel like it, and you know it's reliable and been well looked after (assuming you've looked after it well!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The obvious advantage to renting is that you get access to extremely expensive glass for a relatively small fee. If you occasionally shoot wildlife you can rent a 600 f/4 without ever being able to buy it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The great thing about lenses is that the learning curve is extremely shallow - you can just pick up a lens and go, which is great if there's a lens you only need a few times a year. It's a totally different case with camera bodies, as it pays to know you camera inside out. I would only consider renting a body that I had used extensively before. Control systems vary even with manufacturers, a Canon 5D mkII shooter using a 1Ds for the first time would be totally lost! Plus you don't know how the camera has been set up by the person before you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another advantage of renting is that you can try a lens to see if it works for you before buying. You can find out if it has problems with flare, is slow to focus or is simply the wrong focal length. This can be especially helpful if you're new to photography and don't have a handle on what a 400mm lens is like to live with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For rental places, if you're in or near London &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fixationuk.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fixation&lt;/a&gt; are very good. Otherwise &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensesforhire.co.uk&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lensesforhire.co.uk&lt;/a&gt; will post lenses, that are very cheap but I've had problems with them claiming to have lenses in stock but then letting me down at the last minute, so be careful if renting for an assignment! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-24T10:49:56.180" LastActivityDate="2010-10-24T10:49:56.180" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="4130" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4131" CreationDate="2010-10-21T13:14:10.257" Score="5" ViewCount="74" Body="&lt;p&gt;In just over a week's time, I'm headed to the northernmost part of Norway, inside the Arctic Circle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm hoping to see, and get some photographs of, the Aurora Borealis and to that end, I'd like to rent a decent wide angle lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any recommendations for suppliers in the UK? I'm based in London, so somewhere with a storefront in the City would be ideal - but web based would work too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1616" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T19:02:22.800" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T19:02:22.800" Title="Reputable Rental Suppliers in the UK?" Tags="&lt;renting&gt;&lt;equipment-rental&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="4131" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4130" CreationDate="2010-10-21T13:26:07.643" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whilst I've not used them personally, I've heard reasonable things about &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensesforhire.co.uk/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lenses For Hire&lt;/a&gt; - they don't offer a collection server, and you have to return to a courier depot though (read into that what you will).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Actually, they do offer collection, but it is not form their premises &quot;for security reasons&quot; - you would need to phone &amp;amp; discuss. They do also support returns to a mailbox/courier office, which can save courier fees.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-22T12:42:40.367" LastActivityDate="2010-10-22T12:42:40.367" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4132" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4135" CreationDate="2010-10-21T13:33:59.517" Score="9" ViewCount="393" Body="&lt;p&gt;A friend has been kind enough to lend me a DSLR for a few months.  It's my first foray into DSLR photography, or indeed any kind of photography beyond simply aiming my Canon IXUS at something and clicking the button.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Over the last few weeks, I've been busy studying, practising and trying to learn as much as possible ahead of a planned trip to Norway where I hope to see, and get some photos of, the Aurora Borealis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I currently have:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon Rebel Xsi (450D)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 50mm f/1.4 L &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 18-55m kit lens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aluminium full height tripod with ball head&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cable release&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Spare battery &amp;amp; memory cards&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm prepared to spend the night wrapped up outdoors, in the hope that they will make an appearance. I'd like some advice on how to get the most out of this kit for the trip:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;How should I go about setting up to get pics of the Aurora? &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;How might I achieve optimum focus?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;From what I've read, I'll need to use the tripod and cable release, with IS turned off, on continuous shooting mode with long exposure times. But I'd like some more specific tips in terms of which aperture and ISO settings might work best?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Should I use one of the lenses above, or would it be worthwhile renting a better, wide angle lens; if so, which would you recommend?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1616" LastEditorUserId="1616" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-21T16:18:53.777" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T17:53:33.253" Title="Tips and advice for photographing the Aurora Borealis" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;focus&gt;&lt;tips&gt;&lt;night-shooting&gt;&lt;aurora-borealis&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4133" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4130" CreationDate="2010-10-21T13:46:22.253" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fixation are very reputable (I've sent lenses in for repair though I haven't personally rented anything from them) and they have a store in central London (Lambeth) they're generally not as cheap as lensesforhire but you save money by not having to courier the lenses. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fixationuk.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.fixationuk.com&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-21T14:52:18.823" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T14:52:18.823" />
  <row Id="4134" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4130" CreationDate="2010-10-21T14:13:59.833" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have not used these guys, but I have been tempted (especially as they are based near me).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I believe you can collect or courier.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hireacamera.com/about/index.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.hireacamera.com/about/index.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T14:13:59.833" />
  <row Id="4135" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4132" CreationDate="2010-10-21T14:46:13.627" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've never attempted to photograph the Aurora Borealis myself however the following advice applies to most celestial photography:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will want the fastest (biggest aperture) lens you can get your hands on. The 50 f/1.4 is ideal, though the focal length is quite long for this sort of thing. It's good because it will let in about 5-6 times as much light as the kit lens! Fast wide lenses are a rarity for crop camera bodies such as the 450D. If you need to go wide you might get away with a Sigma 20 f/1.8, the other alternatives are not cheap: the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L would be better than your kit lens, but I'd personally go for the 24 f/1.4L even though it's not as wide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In terms of focussing, for the lights themselves you'll probably want the lens set to infinity (i.e. as far as the focus ring will go) or occasionally just short of infinity. Given that the lights are very far away (i.e. the upper atmosphere) your depth of field at this focussing distance will be huge. If you want to get some foreground in for scale / composition, then obviously you need to set focus for that distance from what I can tell the Aurora are kind of fuzzy anyway to it wont matter too much if you have to focus closer. AF probably wont work in that sort of light so you focus by trial and error or maybe use live view to focus.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Shutter speed is a compromise between letting more light in to minimise noise, and avoiding motion in the images. I don't know how fast the Aurora move but this will probably limit your shutter speed. Noise can also increase with shutter time due to the sensor heating up however this might not be a problem where you're going! Multiple short exposures are generally better than one long one.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;To reduce noise you need to get as much light down the lens as possible, and then set the ISO &lt;strong&gt;as high as possible&lt;/strong&gt; (without overexposing). This sounds counter intuitive so I'll explain a bit more. High ISOs don't cause noise and actually exist to &lt;em&gt;reduce&lt;/em&gt; noise. Noise comes from the sensor electronics, but also from the random nature of light itself. So it's not high ISOs that cause noise, it's low levels of light. The confusion originates from the fact that using a high ISO in auto mode will allow a faster shutter speed and result in more noise, however the noise is a result of a fast shutter letting in less light. If you're already letting in as much light as possible, then lowering the ISO will reduce the amplification on the sensor, and when the values are read out they will be lower and thus the readout noise will be higher in proportion. When you correct the exposure in post you amplify this readout noise. When you use a high ISO, the analogue signal is amplified &lt;strong&gt;before&lt;/strong&gt; readout occurs so you don't end up amplifying the readout noise. If you still need convincing, check out this example of an underexposed ISO100 is far noisier than a correctly exposed ISO1600 shot. For the settings used, increasing the ISO, even to 1600, decreased the noise: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/ISOcomparison/ISO_100_vs_ISO_1600.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.mattgrum.com/ISOcomparison/ISO_100_vs_ISO_1600.jpg&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally when working at night stacking is the way to go. This means shooting many shorter exposures and then combining them on your PC to produce a single image. There are many pieces of software that will do this for you, Deep Sky Stacker is one of the best. The software is designed to cope with the movement of the stars, it may be able to cope with the aurora moving as well, or you might get some ghosting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other things to bear in mind are that cold dramatically reduces battery life, so keep one battery in an inside pocket close to your body and swap them often. This probably wont affect you but if you're shooting exposures around 1/2s you should use the mirror lockup function to avoid the mirror slap causing vibrations which can show up in the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would also recommend searching flickr for photos of the Aurora, most of the images will have the EXIF information still attached so you can see what camera settings / lenses other people are using.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-21T17:53:33.253" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T17:53:33.253" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="4137" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4029" CreationDate="2010-10-21T15:49:49.043" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bob Atkins has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/polarizers.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;great article covering polarizers&lt;/a&gt; in which he explains the differences between linear and circular.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, the extra cost of a circular filter is probably justified... however if you are really sure that you want a linear filter, your best bet is probably going to be to look through the review for circular polarizers that you referenced and pick a brand based on the ratings there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think you're going to find a good review out there, simply because there isn't much demand. Most people want circular polarizers, because they work better with AF on most camera bodies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T15:49:49.043" />
  <row Id="4138" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4116" CreationDate="2010-10-21T16:25:28.740" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Like many in-camera features, this boils down to &lt;strong&gt;how much do you trust your camera manufacturer vs. how much do you think you can do better yourself&lt;/strong&gt; by doing it manually in post-production.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As others have noted, once you do something in-camera, you often can't undo it in post.  With noise reduction, you'll be losing image detail just like you would when applying noise reduction via Lightroom, Noise Ninja, or other software.  The difference is that when you do it yourself, you have more control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T16:25:28.740" />
  <row Id="4139" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4029" CreationDate="2010-10-21T17:21:50.220" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some quick searches for &quot;[brand] linear polarizer&quot; returns some pretty bland results. Each brand generally has just one linear polarizer. Some offer multi-coated ones, while others offer them in a glass variant. Tiffen offered some &quot;warm&quot; versions (linear polarization seems to cool light, in contrast with circular polarization, which may warm, cool, or tint light depending on orientation an coating), B+W and Heliopan offer &quot;Kaeseman&quot;, or a fully &quot;encased&quot;, filters that are edge sealed (might be useful to guarantee full weather sealing on lenses+bodies that support weather sealing), etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They seem to come in three general price ranges: Around $20, around $60-80, and $120-$160. Between all the price ranges, the $60-80 range seems to be the best deal, as they seem to be multi-coated glass linear polarizers. The really expensive ones don't really seem to have anything particularly compelling outside of fancy terms like &quot;Kaeseman edge-sealed&quot; or &quot;slim edge mount&quot; and whatnot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I can tell, a glass, multi-coated, linear polarizer is a very simple optical device, and there are generally one or two lines from each filter maker: the basic version, and the &quot;uber&quot; version that is super thin, kaeseman sealed, better-multi-coated, etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T17:21:50.220" />
  <row Id="4140" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4144" CreationDate="2010-10-21T18:33:42.707" Score="12" ViewCount="599" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that it is illegal to take a photo of another photo, but does anybody know what the  legal situation of selling a photo that includes a sculpture that it is in a public place?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Something like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/ratarsed/4042207718/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Formation by Rowland Shaw, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2552/4042207718_0c81b0e677_m.jpg&quot; width=&quot;160&quot; height=&quot;240&quot; alt=&quot;Formation&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to interpret it as my own derivative work, and as it is taken in a public place, that no special permission is required under UK law; but would the situation change if I wanted to sell a copy to (say) the local pub?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I appreciate that jurisdictions will vary, and I'm primarily interested in works created within the EU, but if there are principles within the Berne Convention, that would be good to know for a worldwide audience&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T17:43:42.630" Title="What are the copyright issues when selling photos of public art?" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4141" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4115" CreationDate="2010-10-21T18:51:05.500" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As others point out the lights are essentially blinking different colors during your exposures.  What's worse is that different flourescent lights are on different circuits, so may be out of phase by 180 degrees, and unless they installed the same temperature color bulbs in all the fixtures (unlikely), color variations through a cycle will be even greater.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your camera complicates this by using a rolling shutter above a given speed (usually around 1/200.  This means that only a portion of the image sensor is exposed to the scene at any given time, so if the light changes during the exposure, the color change will only affect a portion of the image sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, since the color temperature is changing, the camera can't get a good grip on white balance for exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have a few options:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Decrease the speed so you get at least one full cycle of light (1/60th in the US, 1/50th elsewhere) per exposure&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Overpower the local lights with flash (which also has limitations above the 1/200 sync exposure, but high end flashes can take care of this for you)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take a lot of raw photos and note areas where color references can be used to white balance the photos in post-processing for those shots where the color doesn't change mid-exposure&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1216" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T18:51:05.500" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4142" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-21T19:26:17.973" Score="4" ViewCount="156" Body="&lt;p&gt;How to be sure that the scanner (Nikon Coolscan 4000) focuses correctly and if not, how can I manually focus it using Vuescan?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-21T19:32:23.937" LastActivityDate="2010-10-24T08:46:27.927" Title="How to manual focus Nikon Coolscan 4000 using Vuescan?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;manual-focus&gt;&lt;scanning&gt;&lt;film-scanner&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="4143" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4140" CreationDate="2010-10-21T19:27:30.733" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publaw.com/photo.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Publication of Photographs: Is A Release Required?&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;I knew about model release forms for people, but to my surprise I recently realized one may need property release forms for buildings too. Check the &quot;Photographs of Property&quot; section.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Although property does not enjoy a right to privacy or publicity that there are other bodies of the law that might prohibit or restrict the unauthorized use of a photograph containing property. These bodies of law may include among others contract, trademark, unfair competition, copyright and trespass law. The guiding principle, that of course is muddled with exceptions, is that as long as a photograph of private property is taken while the photographer is on public property or on property that is open to the public then it is permissible to publish that photograph without permission from the owner of the property. However, there are exceptions where it may be necessary or advisable to obtain permission from the owner of the property. These exceptions may include among others, [...] (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publaw.com/photo.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;cont.&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update: Top 10 Misconceptions about Photography and the Law. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2010/11/16/top-10-misconceptions-about-photography-and-the-law/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;#5. You need a property release to use a photograph of a house for a commercial use&lt;/a&gt;. Apparently not. As I said. Different opinions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-16T17:43:42.630" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T17:43:42.630" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4144" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4140" CreationDate="2010-10-21T19:28:12.027" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am no lawyer and do not claim to know about this however I can refer you to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;UK Photographers Rights&lt;/a&gt; which is a great PDF summarising many of the points written by a lawyer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In it is says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is not an infringement of copyright&#xA;  to take photographs of buildings,&#xA;  sculptures and works of artistic&#xA;  craftsmanship that are permanently&#xA;  situated in a public places&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;though I advise you &lt;strong&gt;read the whole PDF&lt;/strong&gt; in context as there are many restrictions and times this does not apply. The PDF also highlights when there is a difference between commercial selling and private use so worth a read.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said personally I agree with sebastien.b answer to get a release (which is also mentioned by &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/032147404X&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Scott Kelby in his photography book&lt;/a&gt;) as you then know you are covered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember as the PDF says If you require full legal advice please consult a lawyer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="560" LastEditorUserId="560" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-22T07:29:33.443" LastActivityDate="2010-10-22T07:29:33.443" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="4145" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1294" CreationDate="2010-10-21T20:22:30.470" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could try defining the lock button as 'AF-ON' - menu f4.  That separates the autofocus mechanism from the shutter button.  To focus, press 'AF-ON' or dial it in manually.  To shoot, press the shutter button.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a bit fiddly but it can be useful in some situations - especially when you want to take a meter reading without changing the focus, or fire a burst without refocussing in between shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember to switch it back to something else when you're done, else you'll pick up your camera in a weeks time and think the autofocus is broken!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1615" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T20:22:30.470" />
  <row Id="4146" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4114" CreationDate="2010-10-21T21:54:14.960" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Considering your budget and requirements, I'd suggest something like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=4289&amp;amp;review=canon+powershot+sd1400&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon SD 1400&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While it would not be considered a super camera by most serious photographers, I think it may be more than enough for your needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been using Canon compacts for years and they surely deliver a lot more than expected at first glance. :o)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing I like a lot is how simple is to use the P mode on them, where you can have more control over exposure (how much light goes in the picture) and focus (being able to switch from landscape to close ups easily is very important).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But of course your mileage may vary...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T21:54:14.960" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4147" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3943" CreationDate="2010-10-21T22:21:39.810" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming your lens will work fully on the body you choose (see the other answers), you've still got to decide whether you want to buy a new lens or not. There are a few issues besides compatibility:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;New lens features: Your old lens probably doesn't come with VR, whereas a lot of the new kit lenses do. Also, a modern kit lens may have better glass than your older entry-level kit lens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Appropriate focal length: If you buy a DX body, a wide angle zoom lens like a 28-85mm wide zoom becomes equivalent to a 42-128mm. You might miss the ability to zoom as wide as you could on your film camera. This isn't a problem if you buy a full-frame camera, but these are generally more expensive.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2010-10-21T22:21:39.810" />
  <row Id="4148" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4224" CreationDate="2010-10-21T23:23:37.373" Score="9" ViewCount="234" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a Pentax K20D owner, and now I'd like to buy my first macro lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Candidates I consider are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DFA-100mm-F2.8-Macro-Lens.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pentax-D FA 100 mm F2.8 Macro&lt;/a&gt; &lt;strong&gt;365 g&lt;/strong&gt;, 560 €.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DFA-Weather-Resistant-100mm-F2.8-Macro-Lens.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pentax-D FA 100 mm F2.8 Macro WR&lt;/a&gt; weather-resistant, &lt;strong&gt;340 g&lt;/strong&gt;, 590 €, nice bokeh.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/Sigma-MACRO-70mm-F2.8-EX-DG-AF-Lens-for-Pentax.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 70 mm F2.8 EX DG AF Macro&lt;/a&gt; 525 g, 460 €, nice bokeh.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/Sigma-MACRO-105mm-F2.8-EX-DG-AF-Lens-for-Pentax.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 105 mm F.28 EX DG AF Macro&lt;/a&gt; 457 g, &lt;strong&gt;400 €&lt;/strong&gt;, nice bokeh.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/Tamron-SP-AF-90mm-F2.8-Di-Macro-for-Pentax.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamron SP AF 90 mm F2.8 Di Macro&lt;/a&gt; &lt;strong&gt;405 g&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;400 €&lt;/strong&gt;, nice bokeh.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;50 mm lenses I considered initially:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DFA-50mm-F2.8-Macro-Lens.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pentax-D FA 50 mm F2.8 Macro&lt;/a&gt; 265 g, 460 €.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/Sigma-MACRO-50mm-F2.8-EX-DG-AF-Lens-for-Pentax.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 50 mm F2.8 EX DG Macro&lt;/a&gt; 320 g,300 €.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My questions are/were:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(not important now, as I decided to go for 100 mm) How does Sigma 50 mm compare against Pentax 50 mm?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(answered) What's the difference between 100 mm and 100 mm WR (beyond weather-resistant sealing)? (&lt;em&gt;UPDATE&lt;/em&gt;: I also found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/86625-lens-buying-addiction-super-multi-coated-pentax-d-fa-100mm-2-8-weather-resistant-macro.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a comparison&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(answered) Which other lenses should I consider? (&lt;em&gt;UPDATE&lt;/em&gt;: thanks for pointing me to other Sigmas and a Tamron)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is there anything I should be aware of with Tamron 90 mm?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am going to use it as a secondary lens during my outdoor activities (mountaineering, backpacking), either as complementary to the kit lens or to the midrange fix (I am about to buy the new 35 mm f/2.4 too). So, the weight and durability matter. WR is a big plus for me. But I am not sure about the focal length. On one hand, it is very likely I'll shoot without a tripod sometimes, so a shorter &lt;em&gt;f&lt;/em&gt; might be more convenient. On the other hand I lack moderate telephoto (I own an old FF 135 mm manual lens, but as a beginner photographer, I don't have anything in between the kit and that lens yet). Being able to use the same lens as macro and telephoto is an attractive option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please share your suggestions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;UPDATE&lt;/em&gt;: I decided to get a focal length around ≈ 100 mm, and finally chose Tamron 90 mm F2.8, it is told to be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tamronlensreview.com/tamron90macrovspentax100macrowr&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;even sharper than Pentax 100 mm WR&lt;/a&gt;, is not much heavier, and much cheaper. And after few months of use I am very happy with its ergonimics, build and image quality. It also makes a nice portrait lens for outdoors. It doesn't have a QuickShift focus system, so I have to be careful to always switch the camera in MF mode before rotating the focus ring, and without WR I have to pay more attention under the rain (I just put an umbrella above it, and after the session I let the accidental water drops dry up by leaving the lens in extended state); but 200€ of price difference outweight these inconveniences for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-27T15:08:01.203" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T15:08:01.203" Title="What Pentax macro lens do you recommend for outdoor activities?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;pentax&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="4149" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-22T02:14:00.993" Score="4" ViewCount="87" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a PowerShot SX20is that started to throw this err out of the blue. Any suggestions what can be done here ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks&#xA;Thomas&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1724" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T15:09:08.643" Title="Lens Error Restart Camera" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;powershot&gt;&lt;error&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4150" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3383" CreationDate="2010-10-22T02:19:40.023" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, I've searched for this for a good long while. It took some real search foo, but I eventually found the terms that seem to produce a few god results: &lt;em&gt;APS Film Magnetic Strip Reader&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems there is only one product that can be found that can read the magnetic strip on APS film that contains the EXIF metadata. Its the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Coolscan-APS-Film-Adapter/dp/B000059Z4M&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon Coolscan IV APS Film Adapter&lt;/a&gt;, a discontinued product that does not seem to be available from any commercial storefront on the internet. I did a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photography.shop.ebay.com/Film-Slide-Scanners-/15223/i.html?_nkw=nikon+coolscan&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;search on eBay for Nikon Coolscan&lt;/a&gt;, and there seem to be quite a few things, including APS specific gear. The APS Film Adapter was not listed when I did my searches, however its eBay, so you never know. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I can tell, the Coolscan scanners and the film adapters seem to be pretty expensive...as in, the $2000-$3000 range. Not exactly consumer-level gear. Most of the information I was able to find (which included the links from @nik, as well as several other similar sites and forums) seemed to indicate that the advanced features of APS film never really took off, and the magnetic strip that contained the metadata was never really effectively used. Seems like that is partly due to the downfall of APS as a film format (couldn't tell you why it really failed, never knew much about it.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was one other product that I found, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photokina-show.com/0410/fujifilm/printer/fujifilmfrontierminilab/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fuji Frontier Minilab&lt;/a&gt;, that seems to be able to scan APS film. A lot of information seems to indicate that it can read the magnetic strip and extract the EXIF data from it, however I couldn't find anything that actually confirmed that. Sadly, it is a commercial product, rather huge, and probably far outside of any individuals price range. You might try taking your APS film to a shop that uses the Fuji Minilab, and see if their scans include the EXIF metadata. Beyond that, I couldn't find anything else relating to scanning APS film and including the EXIF in the resulting digital images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-22T02:19:40.023" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="4151" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4148" CreationDate="2010-10-22T02:53:02.237" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not having used any of these lenses, I can't offer much. I did read up on the two 100mm lenses, though. Outside of the weather sealing on the WR version, the non-WR version has one thing REALLY going for it: the size of the focus ring. Prime lenses don't have any zoom, and the only thing you really do with them is focus. Particularly for macro photography, where getting focus within millimeters (or quite possibly less, if you use extension tubes) is critical, having a nice, wide, rubbery focus ring that is easy to find and grip is a huge bonus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I could tell, the non-WR 100mm macro has a beautiful, big focus ring with a rubbery grip. The newer WR version, while sporting a more durable metal body and metal focus ring, has about 1/3rd of the area dedicated to the focus ring. It may be a personal taste thing, but metal focus rings always feel a bit rough to me, and the smoother metal surface sometimes makes it difficult to get a light grip for fine-tuning your focus. Personal taste aside, the considerably smaller focus ring on the WR version is not really the most ideal feature for a macro lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-22T02:53:02.237" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4152" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4140" CreationDate="2010-10-22T04:51:08.083" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I learned that the answer is no, not if the sculpture is considered to be materially part of someone's brand and you're in the US.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The issue for me was some pictures of buildings on UCLA's campus.  One of the faculty liked them and wanted me to give them to him for free so he could print them; I refused, and so he referred their copyright office to me.  The office informed me that the buildings in question, since they had been used in letterhead and the like, were considered part of the university 'brand', and so selling photos of them would be considered to be material infringement on their copyright.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recently &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.boingboing.net/2010/10/19/english-heritage-cla.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;read an article&lt;/a&gt; suggesting that such a thing was happening with Stonehenge at the moment. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, it may be that a lawyer will tell you that they were full of it.  I just decided that fighting that fight wasn't worth it, so I didn't sell the photos.  And I don't talk to that faculty member anymore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-10-22T04:51:08.083" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4153" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4148" CreationDate="2010-10-22T05:37:15.147" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Of the four, I would pick the Pentax-D FA 100 mm F2.8 Macro WR. There are a couple of reasons for this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;100mm gives you more working distance for macro work and that can be important, especially when dealing with insects. However, it's also useful when doing things like water drop shots, etc. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It's weather sealed. You have a weather sealed body and, with a weather sealed lens, you gain a lot of freedom outdoors that you would necessarily get with any of the other options.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't be too worried about being able to shoot the 100mm handheld. Part of it is simply practice, but the 100mm isn't that long a focal length and you're often going to be shooting above the 1/100s or faster shutter speed, so coupled with the shake reduction system, you'll be fine. That's been my experience with the K20 and, as a smoker, I don't have the steadiest hands going! :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In regards to the other options... Sigma can be a hit or miss choice for lenses, but I think they've gotten much better in recent years and reviews are starting to show that. I have two of their lenses in the K mount, both telephoto (70-300mm macro and 120-400mm) and I've been happy with them. The remaining two are Pentax lenses, both good. One could argue that having the classic 50mm focal length in your arsenal is a good thing, but f/2.8 is slow for a 50mm, so I think you'd be better off with a non-macro with a wider aperture if that was the case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-10-22T05:37:15.147" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4154" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4140" CreationDate="2010-10-22T08:11:00.890" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;An example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Selling shots of Eiffel Tower by day is not forbidden. It is in public domain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Selling shots of Eiffel Tower by night is submitted to authorization of the company managing Eiffel Tower. Simply because light effects are copyrighted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1296" LastActivityDate="2010-10-22T08:11:00.890" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4155" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2971" CreationDate="2010-10-22T11:36:44.787" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a D300 and never had problems getting preset white balance work&#xA;straight away on any decent light. I always get the WB reading with auto&#xA;exposure, manual (de)focus, and the reference target filling the frame.&#xA;However, when the light is way off white, I get &quot;no good&quot;. This a&#xA;limitation of the camera: if the light spectrum is extremely unbalanced&#xA;(say candle light, with too much red and almost no blue), the camera&#xA;would have to apply a very strong correction (hugely amplify the blue&#xA;channel) with warrantied bad outcome (too much blue noise).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this kind of situation, I switch to manual Kelvin setting and I set&#xA;the color temperature to the minimum (2500 K on the D300). This gives an&#xA;undercorrected picture with a usually natural-looking warm cast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BTW, here is a cool WB trick for when you want to keep a slight warm&#xA;cast under artificial light: Set WB to Kelvin mode, switch on live view,&#xA;and manually adjust the color temperature to your taste.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1730" LastActivityDate="2010-10-22T11:36:44.787" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4156" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2203" CreationDate="2010-10-22T11:59:53.157" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the answers on &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/4140/21&quot;&gt;another question that I asked&lt;/a&gt;, I was directed towards &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this guide on photographers' rights&lt;/a&gt; in the UK - there are also guides on there for the US and Australia.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, you should check the terms and conditions for a particular contest; I would expect a contest with a theme of social documentary to be far more accepting than if you were coming up with an image to promote something or someone. Bear in mind that &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; a photo is manipulated also comes into play; I did hear the case where a sports centre took photos of people in the street, with permission, but then found themselves in hot water as the final image gave the impression that two of the people were a couple even when they were shot separately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-10-22T11:59:53.157" />
  <row Id="4157" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4158" CreationDate="2010-10-22T12:50:03.107" Score="31" ViewCount="1832" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been trying to shoot more in manual modes (both camera and flash).  At this point, I understand all the concepts, but all the adjustments slow me down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to have a &quot;cheat sheet&quot; with all the basic calculations/tables on it that I can refer to in order to speed up the process, in a format that I can easily keep in my camera bag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know of a good sheet, or alternatively, if I create it what information should I include?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the moment I'd like to have at least:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;an f-stop list (just full stops)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;basic guide number information&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-11T20:20:17.830" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T19:40:03.403" Title="Manual photography cheat sheet — where can I find one, or what should be on it?" Tags="&lt;accessories&gt;&lt;manual-mode&gt;&lt;manual-flash&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="20" />
  <row Id="4158" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4157" CreationDate="2010-10-22T13:47:54.203" Score="27" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since there are 3 important variables here: aperture, shutter speed and ISO, I would Google for Exposure Triangle Cheat Sheet for example. Here are a few:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.muddyboots.org/2009/01/manual-mode-cheat-sheet.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Manual Mode Cheat Sheet&lt;/a&gt; (Muddyboots Photography Blog)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/amandaherbertcom/2370352162/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exposure Chart Cheat Sheet&lt;/a&gt; (Flickr)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://glark.org/my-exposure-triangle-cheat-sheet/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;My Exposure Triangle Cheat Sheet&lt;/a&gt; (glark.org)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.psiro.com/index.php/continuing-education/paranormal-photography-101/98-photography-and-the-paranormal-101-aperture-iso-and-shutter-speed-explained.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Aperture, ISO, and Shutter Speed Explained&lt;/a&gt; (not a sheet, but you can compact it)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see you updated your question. With respect to guide numbers here is one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~jchi/itec745/my_project/pdf/F%20stop%20distance%20chart.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flash unit Guide Number calculations&lt;/a&gt; (for film)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-22T14:10:20.770" LastActivityDate="2010-10-22T14:10:20.770" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4159" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4157" CreationDate="2010-10-22T14:18:27.360" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the basic calculations you're referring to? Other than doubling/having shutter speed or ISO when I open/close the aperture a stop I don't find myself doing any, I just fiddle with the settings 'till the image looks right on the LCD. After a while you get a feel for what settings work in what circumstances and the process becomes much quicker.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an example of where I bluffed my way through an entire shoot in manual mode with manual flash, just using the camera's LCD screen as a guide:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This headshot of Oliver, editor of law journal Ebor Lex, done in a standard meeting room in a very short timescale. I thought it would be an interesting subject for a &quot;stream of consciousness&quot; post showing every shot that was taken during set-up and and trying to explain what was going through my head at the time. This is not supposed to be a perfect example of how it should be done, merely a record of how it &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's important to have some idea what you're trying to achieve before you start so I decided I wanted something edgy, like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/matt_grum/2681294289/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;this shot&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; but with a more traditional background. That look was achieved by having a pair of softboxes very close to the subject, angled slightly toward the camera so I started off with the lights in that position. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;No light meters no modelling lamps, what follows is exactly what I saw on the back of the camera at each stage...&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I didn't have a wide lens with me so no setup shot but here's a diagram to help you visualise what's going on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/blogimages/headshot/initial_lighting_diagram.png&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First step, set up the background light (a projector screen makes the perfect background). I used a bare speedlight angled down so that the natural falloff would provide a nice gradient from light to dark. It's close to the screen with no light modifiers so it will be nice and bright so I set it on something like 1/4 power on for faster recharge. The camera is in manual, max shutter speed I can use with flash is 1/200s, for safety I go one setting lower, 1/160s. Middle of the road aperture of f/5.6, two stops down from wide open. ISO 100. Subject in place. Bang.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/blogimages/headshot/lcd_image_01.gif&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; /&gt;&#xA;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xA;The image as it comes up first is on the left, I hit the &quot;info&quot; button straight away to get the histogram view (right). Background is a bit darker than I wanted, so I crank the flash up a stop. Bang.&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/blogimages/headshot/lcd_image_02.gif&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; /&gt;&#xA;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xA;That's better. The blinking area on the info screen indicates pixels which are blown out (i.e. have hit 100% white) since the camera can't record more than 100% white detail is likely to be lost. As the background is plain and I want it to be white I'm not bothered by this. I turn the background light off and the main light on. It's in close so power is set low. Bang.&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/blogimages/headshot/lcd_image_03.gif&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xA;Notice the timestamp (14:46), one minute has elapsed so far! The light is more extreme than I wanted. Move the softbox toward me a little. Talk to the model, explain what's going on. Bang.&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/blogimages/headshot/lcd_image_04.gif&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Light is still too oblique. Move it round a lot, which involves moving the table slightly and costs some time. Bang.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/blogimages/headshot/lcd_image_05.gif&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Getting there, but need to move the light a little bit more to throw some light on the other side of Ollie's face. Decide to move the tables out of the way completely, which takes a few minutes (pro-tip: move the furniture before you begin, or better still, get someone else to do it for you). Bang.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/blogimages/headshot/lcd_image_06.gif&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That looks like what I want but it's overexposed. Instead of moving I drop the ISO a stop to 50 (there's very little difference between ISO 50 and 100, we're not taxing the DR or noise here). Bang.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/blogimages/headshot/lcd_image_07.gif&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Little is still a little to bright (see blinkning image, right). Can't lower the ISO so I have to power the flash down a little. Bang.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/blogimages/headshot/lcd_image_08.gif&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Main light is how I want it, now I position the fill light. I've deviated from the original symmetrical setup in favour of a strong light from the left so I move the smaller softbox back to provide a glancing rim light. Use the same setting as the main light, knowing it'll be darker as it's further away. Bang.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/blogimages/headshot/lcd_image_09.gif&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looks pretty good, there is still a little bit too much shadow on the face so I move the fill light closer in and toward me. Reassure model that we're almost there. Bang.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/blogimages/headshot/lcd_image_10.gif&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both lights are how I want them, The image is a little overexposed but nothing RAW can't cope with. The purpose of turning off the back light was check the main lights don't interefere with it. As you can see they clearly do, but they add a uniform pattern of light so all I have to do is turn the background light down a stop to compensate. Bang.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/blogimages/headshot/lcd_image_11.gif&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All looks fine, take a step back (I'm using a prime lens) to give wider view for more cropping options. Accidentally nudge the shutter speed to 1/100s (the flash is easily overpowering the flourescent room lights so it's not a problem). Explain to the model we're going for a take. Bang.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/blogimages/headshot/lcd_image_12.gif&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Zoom in and check the pose, all looks good. Explain to the relieved model he can relax now. Time from the first test shot to completion: 11 min. Pack up, go home. Here is the final lighting set up:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/blogimages/headshot/lighting_diagram.png&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I filled in the shadows a little in the raw conversion, applied a few curves adjustment layers in photoshop and tweaked the colour balance. Finally the image was rotated slightly and cropped, leading to the finished version (click for larger):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/matt_grum/3410375514/sizes/o/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/blogimages/headshot/oliver_medium.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sure there are charts of aperture vs shutter speed vs ISO in different types of light, but you then have to judge the light, just as there are charts of hyperfocal distance vs subject distance etc. but you have to judge your subject distance, so instead of doing that &lt;em&gt;and then looking up an f-stop value&lt;/em&gt;, why not just learn to judge what aperture you need straight off  and not have to rely on a data sheet? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Digital is very good for trial and error shooting so my advice is to just get out there and wing it, since cheat sheets are only as good as your judgement anyway. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-12T19:40:03.403" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T19:40:03.403" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="4160" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4157" CreationDate="2010-10-22T14:32:05.490" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For the exposure, you can try an analog light-meter, like the&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.myphotoweb.com/Gossen/pages/lunasix3/Lunasix%203.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gossen Lunasix&lt;/a&gt;. Yes, I know it sounds like I did not understand&#xA;your question. But I did, please keep reading.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This kind of light-meter is made of two parts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A proper light meter that displays the luminance of the scene with a&#xA;thin needle on a logarithmic scale (the scale with a yellow&#xA;background at the top).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An analog calculator (the big round dial) that converts the&#xA;luminance reading into ISO/f-number/shutter-speed combinations.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You don't need the meter part (thus you could buy an old broken meter).&#xA;You don't need batteries either. But you do want the analog calculator:&#xA;it is really the &lt;strong&gt;ultimate exposure cheat sheet&lt;/strong&gt;!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is how to use it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Memorize (or print) a table like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;LV      conditions&#xA;15      bright sun (distinct shadows)&#xA;14      shaded sun (fuzzy shadows)&#xA;13      cloudy, clear (no shadows)&#xA;12      open shade&#xA;...&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Warning!&lt;/strong&gt; The table here is just an example, the actual Lunasix&#xA;luminance scale is offset by a few stops from this LV scale.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Display the luminance corresponding to your working conditions on&#xA;the small yellow-background scale at the bottom.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Display your ISO speed on the small ASA scale on the right.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Now you can read on the top circular scales all the f-stop/speed&#xA;combinations that will give you the correct exposure.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, BTW, although you do not need the meter to be functional, it will&#xA;not hurt if it is. ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1730" LastActivityDate="2010-10-22T14:32:05.490" />
  <row Id="4161" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3996" CreationDate="2010-10-22T15:16:46.307" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I prefer contrast/exposure blending to “real” HDR. It gives similar effect without sacrificing the natural look of the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use &lt;code&gt;enfuse&lt;/code&gt; to run it from the command line. Hugin can run it too. digiKam has a plugin for exposure blending. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://scribblesandsnaps.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/exposure-blending-with-digikam/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exposure blending with digiKam&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastActivityDate="2010-10-22T15:16:46.307" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4162" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4157" CreationDate="2010-10-22T16:22:49.413" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's really only one thing you need to memorize and it's easy: a list of standard f-stops in graduations of one f-stop (1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32, 45, 64, 90).  Once you notice that every other one doubles (with some rounding starting at f/11), you only need to remember the first two, 1 and 1.4.  (Usually you can see this sequence printed on your lens, but knowing it will speed things up, as I'll explain.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As @Matt Grum and @sebastien.b have pointed out, you are &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/6598/1356&quot;&gt;balancing three things&lt;/a&gt; (four with flash, but for simplicity I won't get into that here): aperture (f stop), exposure time (shutter speed), and sensitivity (ISO value).  The trick is to avoid making a complex calculation all over again from scratch each time you decide to alter one aspect of the picture.  Instead, &lt;em&gt;start with any combination of settings that gives approximately good exposure.&lt;/em&gt;  From that point on, change your settings by &lt;em&gt;balancing them in pairs&lt;/em&gt; to keep the exposure the same or &lt;em&gt;modifying only one&lt;/em&gt; to change the exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Balancing in pairs&quot; means that you make exactly offsetting changes in two settings.  When you double the exposure time, for example, either halve the ISO or change the aperture to keep the total light the same.  Here's where your memorized list of f-stops comes in: to compensate for &lt;em&gt;increased&lt;/em&gt; exposure, you have to &lt;em&gt;increase&lt;/em&gt; the f-stop (this perhaps is the most confusing aspect of the whole procedure, but it's easily learned).  In this example, you need an increase of one whole stop to make up for the doubled time.  That means from 1.4 to 2 or 2 to 2.8, etc.  (If you're good at multiplying in your head, just multiply by 1.4.  If your lens or camera wheel has detents at half stops or third stops to give tactile feedback, just count two or three clicks, respectively: this lets you keep your eye in the viewfinder, which is essential when photographing fast-changing scenes.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Here's a worked example&lt;/strong&gt;.  You are in AV mode (aperture priority) set at f/8.  Suppose your camera meters for 1/100 second and automatically sets the ISO to 400.  Let's see what adjustments it will take to create a shallow &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/6047/1356&quot;&gt;depth of field&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To reduce depth of field, you know you'll need to increase the aperture, probably by quite a lot.  The offsetting therefore has to come from reducing the shutter speed and/or the ISO.  Reducing the ISO is good--it eliminates some noise--so that's the first thing you might do.  Then you make up any of the rest with shutter speed.  &lt;em&gt;E.g.&lt;/em&gt;, if you want to shoot at f/2, you can quickly count mentally 2 - 2.8 - 4 - 5.6 - 8: four stops.  Change the ISO by comparable factors of 2: 400 - 200 - 100 (that's often as low as you can go): two stops.  You need two more stops to offset the change in aperture, so count 1/100 - 1/200 - 1/400 in shutter speed.  (In some cameras you might need to round 1/400 to 1/500.  If you're not good at doubling and halving numbers in your head, it's still easy to memorize some basic sequences, such as 50 - 100 - 200 - 400 - 800 - 1600 - 3200 - 6400 for ISO and 1/2 - 1/4 - 1/8 - 1/15 - 1/30 - 1/60 - 1/125 - 1/250 - 1/500 - 1/1000 - 1/2000 - 1/4000 for shutter speed.  Say these to yourself a few times before you go to sleep at night and you'll know them the next morning.)  Because you have now perfectly offset the change in aperture, you know the exposure is still correct.  Moreover, because you can perform this counting mentally (and quickly, with a little practice), &lt;em&gt;you know the answer without having to change any settings on your camera.&lt;/em&gt;  This flexibility lets you go through various options beforehand, making any compromises you must, and enables you to nail the desired settings the very first time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;To summarize the example&lt;/strong&gt;: after observing that a decent exposure can be obtained with f/8 at 1/100 sec ISO 400, by a simple procedure of counting through a series of f-stops, shutter speeds, and ISOs you can obtain your desired setting (whether it be a targeted f stop, exposure time, or ISO) &lt;em&gt;completely without reference to any cheat sheet and without any arithmetical calculation.&lt;/em&gt;  This will be far faster and more convenient than having to refer to written guides and doing a calculation for every change of settings that you are contemplating.  After doing it a few hundred times it will be second nature and you won't even realize you're going through these steps.  Now you're free to keep both eyes on the scene and focus on the art instead of the technique.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastEditorUserId="1356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-08T16:01:08.953" LastActivityDate="2011-01-08T16:01:08.953" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4163" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2010-10-22T18:36:09.783" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Nikon D7000 is a digital SLR (DSLR) camera. It is one of Nikon's newest (as of September 2010) DSLR camera bodies, and retails for about $1200 (body only) to $1500 (with kit lens). It sports the following key features:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;16.2MP CMOS sensor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1080p HD video recording with mic jack for external microphone&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ISO 100-6400 (plus H1 and H2 equivalent to ISO 12,800/25,600)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;39-point AF system with 3D tracking&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2016 pixel metering sensor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Scene Recognition System (see 2016 pixel sensor, above) aids metering + focus accuracy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Twin SD card slots&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;3.0 inch 921k dot LCD screen&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;New Live View/movie shooting switch&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Full-time AF in Live View/movie modes&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Up to 6fps continuous shooting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lockable shooting mode dial&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Built-in intervalometer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Electronic virtual horizon&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shutter tested to 150K actuations&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-22T18:36:09.783" LastActivityDate="2010-10-22T18:36:09.783" />
  <row Id="4164" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2010-10-22T18:36:09.783" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="The D7000 DSLR from Nikon." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-22T18:36:09.783" LastActivityDate="2010-10-22T18:36:09.783" />
  <row Id="4165" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4170" CreationDate="2010-10-22T18:51:55.203" Score="8" ViewCount="557" Body="&lt;p&gt;If not, what's the difference? A photographic comparison as an example would be great (assuming they are different).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1567" LastActivityDate="2010-10-23T01:14:52.323" Title="If a lens supports 18mm focal length, is that a wide angle lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;wide-angle&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4167" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4165" CreationDate="2010-10-22T19:52:16.980" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think so, &lt;em&gt;on a full-frame body that is&lt;/em&gt;. It really depends on the sensor / crop factor. For most APS-C cameras, your 16mm looks like a 26mm on a full frame... and that is still wide actually :) One of the &quot;bibles&quot; for lens reviews, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Digital Picture&lt;/a&gt;, would even call the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ultra-wide angle&lt;/a&gt;. I have such lens, and at 16mm it is &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; wide, with a lot of (expected) optical distortions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/altuwa/4706791717/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;shot of my office&lt;/a&gt; at home (below). Believe me, it's not that &quot;narrow&quot;, but I wanted to have all walls in the frame. Only possible at 16mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/MBzLj.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2010-10-22T19:52:16.980" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="4168" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4165" CreationDate="2010-10-22T19:52:53.737" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally, 18mm is considered wide-angle, but it depends on the size of the sensor. A DSLR camera with an 18mm lens WOULD take wide-angle shots, but if you have a compact digital camera or a cameraphone, where the sensor can be really tiny, an 18mm lens would look more like a 50mm lens or longer does on a DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Micro Four Thirds system recently introduced has interchangeable lenses but a much smaller sensor than DSLRs, so the standard 14-42mm lens that comes with the Olmypus E-PL1, for example, would give a similar field of view to a 28-84mm lens on a 35mm camera (Full frame).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2010-10-22T19:52:53.737" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4169" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4165" CreationDate="2010-10-22T22:37:03.250" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My experience, using the Nikon 18-70mm on my D50, is that 18mm is fairly wide for a DX camera. I only need my 10-20mm for extremely wide shots, but the 18-70 gets them most of the time. An 18mm lens on a full frame camera would be pretty wide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-10-22T22:37:03.250" />
  <row Id="4170" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4165" CreationDate="2010-10-23T00:59:00.560" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a general rule of thumb, in the modern DSLR world that is primarily dominated by Canon and Nikon, focal lengths are stated at their &quot;when used on 35mm/full-frame body&quot; values. Focal length is focal length, and doesn't physically change when the imaging medium changes in size, however different sizes of film or sensor do change the effective angle of view that is actually captured. Focal length is a rather useless value, all things being equal, as it doesn't really tell you much of anything about what the lens will do when used on a particular camera. The angle of view is a considerably more useful value, but that can be difficult to calculate given the factors involved. A simpler solution is to determine the angle of view &quot;bucket&quot; that your lens falls into for the size of sensor you are using.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;On Focal Length, Angle of View, and Sensor Size&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The angle of view of a lens of a particular focal length is dependent on the size of the imaging medium. On on a 35mm sensor or film (full-frame sensor, such as what you get with a Canon 1D or 5D, the Nikon D3's), an 18mm DSLR lens is a wide-angle lens. Full-frame bodies are expensive, and most DSLR's come in a variant of APS-C, or cropped-sensor, sizes. Most APS-C sensors are around 22-23mm. The smaller sensor captures less of the image circle projected by the lens, which &lt;em&gt;effectively&lt;/em&gt; reduces the angle of view. While the lens is an 18mm focal length lens, on a sensor that is smaller than 35mm, the lens &quot;behaves&quot; as though it is a longer focal length. As such, the focal length ranges that determine if a lens is wide, normal, or telephoto change with the size of the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Common Fields of View @ 35mm&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some common fields of view, assuming a full frame (35mm) sensor, that can be used to generally group focal lengths. There are slightly differing schools of thought on this, however here is a table from a well-known source, DPReview.com:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Focal Length        Angle of View Bucket&#xA;----------------------------------------&#xA;&amp;lt; 20mm              Super Wide Angle &#xA;24mm - 35mm         Wide Angle &#xA;50mm                Normal Lens &#xA;80mm - 300mm        Tele&#xA;&amp;gt; 300mm             Super Tele&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(From dpreview.com: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=focal+length&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Focal Length&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Wikipedia, a &quot;wide-angle is a focal length &lt;em&gt;substantially&lt;/em&gt; shorter than the focal length of a normal lens.&quot; A normal focal length is one which closely matches the diagonal of the image medium. In a full-frame 35mm sensor body, the sensor is 36x24mm, which is a diagonal of 43.3mm. The closest common &quot;normal&quot; focal length used by most manufatrurers is 50mm, which is pretty close to the 43.3mm diagonal of a full-frame sensor. (Similarly, in large-format photography, the film size is 4&quot;x5&quot;, or 101.6x127mm, which has a diagonal of 163mm. With 4x5 cameras, a &quot;normal&quot; focal length lens is usually around 150mm.) While the term &lt;em&gt;substantially&lt;/em&gt; in the Wikipedia article is not well-defined, the Wikipedia article cites 35mm and less as &quot;wide-angle&quot; and &quot;ultra-wide-angle&quot;. Similarly, focal lengths substantially longer than a normal lens are &quot;telephoto&quot; through &quot;super-telephoto&quot; lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Crop Factor and Angle of View&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the field of view buckets that a lens falls into are dependent on focal length, and effective focal length is dependent on sensor size, one most first determine the effective focal length on a sensor smaller than 35mm. An easy rule of thumb can be used to calculate the effective focal length: Divide the diagonal of a 35mm sensor by the diagonal of the actual sensor, and multiply the resulting number (the &quot;crop factor&quot;) by the focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;cropFactor = fullFrameDiagonal / croppedSensorDiagonal&#xA;effectiveFocalLength = actualFocalLength * cropFactor&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This assumes you know the diagonals of your camera sensor. The diagonal can be computed fairly easily using the Pythagorean Theorem if you know the width and height of the sensor. Pythagoras' theorem quite simply states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In any right triangle, the area of the&#xA;  square whose side is the hypotenuse&#xA;  (the side opposite the right angle) is&#xA;  equal to the sum of the areas of the&#xA;  squares whose sides are the two legs&#xA;  (the two sides that meet at a right&#xA;  angle).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This translates into the formula:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;a^2 + b^2 = c^2&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A sensor, cut in half along its diagonal, &lt;strong&gt;is&lt;/strong&gt; a right triangle, and the length of the diagonal (c) can be computed as such:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;diagonal = sqrt(width^2 + height^2)&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you know the dimensions of your sensor, and are not afraid of a little math, you can computer the effective focal length of any lens on any camera body, and once the effective focal length is known, determine whether it is ultra-wide, wide, normal, tele, or super-tele. As it is unlikely most people will know their sensor dimensions, here is convenient a table of sensor sizes, diagonals, and crop factors:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Sensor                   Crop Factor     Diagonal      Width      Height&#xA;-------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xA;4x5 Large Format Film    0.27            162.6mm       127mm   x  101.6mm&#xA;Digital Medium Format    0.64            67.1mm        53.7mm  x  40.3mm&#xA;Full-Frame               1.0             43.3mm        36mm    x  24mm&#xA;Canon APS-H              1.26 (1.3)      34.5mm        28.7mm  x  19.1mm&#xA;Pentax/Sony/Nikon DX     1.52 (1.5)      28.4mm        23.7mm  x  15.6mm&#xA;Canon APS-C              1.62 (1.6)      26.7mm        22.2mm  x  14.8mm&#xA;Sigma Foveon             1.74 (1.7)      24.9mm        20.7mm  x  13.8mm&#xA;Four Thirds              2.0             21.6mm        17.3mm  x  13.0mm&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an example, to demonstrate and prove the concept. The Canon APS-C sensors have a crop factor of 1.6x (most commonly stated, more accurately, 1.62x). This is calculated as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;cropFactor = 43.3mm / 26.7mm = 1.6217228...&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;APS-C Effective Focal Lengths&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that you know the crop factor of common sensor sizes, you can compute the effective focal length of any lens you may use. Assuming the 18mm focal length of the original topic, its effective focal length on a Canon APS-C sensor (i.e. 550D, 60D, 7D) would be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;effectiveFocalLength = 1.6 * 18mm = 28.8mm, or 29mm&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can compute the focal range of a zoom lens just as easily. Given the Nikon 14-24mm lens:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;shortFocalLength = 1.5 * 14mm = 21mm&#xA;longFocalLength = 1.5 * 24mm = 36mm&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Full Frame vs. APS-C Angle of View Buckets&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most common sensor sizes for many of the most common DSLR cameras are Full Frame and APS-C. We have a table of angle of view buckets for full frame, so it is useful to compute a table that defines the angle of view buckets for APS-C. I've used a crop factor of 1.55 to cover Canon APS-C and Pentax/Sony/Nikon APS-C:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Focal Length        Angle of View Bucket&#xA;----------------------------------------&#xA;&amp;lt; 12mm              Super Wide Angle &#xA;15mm - 23mm         Wide Angle &#xA;32mm                Normal Lens &#xA;51mm - 200mm        Tele&#xA;&amp;gt; 200mm             Super Tele&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the two AoV bucket tables, we can arrive at a table of common lenses and their AoV's for both Full Frame and APS-C sensors:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;FF Focal Length   FF AoV                 APS-C Focal Length   APS-C AoV&#xA;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xA;8-15mm            Super-Wide          |  12.4mm-24mm          Super-Wide to Wide&#xA;10-22mm           Super-Wide          |  15.5mm-34mm          Wide to Normal&#xA;14-24mm           Super-Wide to Wide  |  22mm-37mm            Normal&#xA;16-35mm           Super-Wide to Wide  |  25mm-54mm            Normal to Tele&#xA;24-105mm          Wide to Tele        |  37mm-163mm           Normal to Tele&#xA;70-200mm          Tele                |  108mm-310mm          Tele to Supertele&#xA;100-400mm         Tele to Supertele   |  155mm-620mm          Tele to Supertele&#xA;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xA;14mm              Super-Wide          |  22mm                 Wide&#xA;24mm              Wide                |  37mm                 Normal&#xA;35mm              Wide                |  54mm                 Tele&#xA;50mm              Normal              |  78mm                 Tele&#xA;100mm             Tele                |  155mm                Tele&#xA;135mm             Tele                |  209mm                Supertele&#xA;300mm             Supertele           |  465mm                Supertele&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Visual Examples of Focal Length and Angle of View&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll try to take some example photographs when it is light again to demonstrate the differences between super-wide, wide, normal, tele, and super-tele. (Its too dark right now to get any decent shots outdoors, and indoors I don't really have enough space to get telephoto/supertelephoto shots.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-23T01:14:52.323" LastActivityDate="2010-10-23T01:14:52.323" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4171" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4180" CreationDate="2010-10-23T09:20:22.370" Score="10" ViewCount="326" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi All,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks to answers given to my previous questions on white balance and image stabilizer, due to which I could experiment all my photographs on recent tour. The answers were very helpful. Anyway, but there were few things which I could not understand on how to do. Something like, a beautiful landscape with cloud filled montains and half sunshine over the mountains. When you look through naked eyes, it looks so beautiful and you want that same picture to be captured in your snap. But somehow when looking through camera, you cannot get the same perfect picture in your snap. In snaps it looks ordinary. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I was wondering, are there some good tips to capture the snaps as close as possible as you see through naked eyes. This is more often the far snaps taken from hill tops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please suggest on how do I approach to shoot such snaps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1272" LastActivityDate="2010-10-23T19:09:15.713" Title="Points to be taken care for a good photo snap" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;landscape&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="4172" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4171" CreationDate="2010-10-23T09:33:25.583" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The reason images, particularly landscapes always look that little bit better to our eyes is that the human visual system has a much greater dynamic range that you get from a typical camera. This dynamic range enables you to see detail in both the brightest parts of the sky and the darkest parts of the terrain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The good n ews is you can simulate this dynamic range by taking multiple exposures of different brightnesses and combining them on your computer, and tone-mapping or blending them into a single image. It can be tricky to get good realistic results this way but fortunately there's a ton of resources if you Google &quot;HDR&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-10-23T09:33:25.583" />
  <row Id="4173" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4171" CreationDate="2010-10-23T09:34:28.277" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two things to think about here -- capturing the image, and viewing the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Capturing the image is all about getting the composition and exposure right. For composition, things like the rule of thirds (divide the frame into nine, and place items of interest where the virtual portions intersect); having elements (such as a stream) draw your eye through a landscape.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exposure comes with practice, but your camera is good at this. I find that some cameras can over expose an image, and my big tip here is to learn how to trick your camera's meter - sometimes using exposure compensation, sometimes by pointing at the area you'd like being exposed correctly, and using a exposure lock (your camera's manual should be able to give you the exact steps for this).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that how an image is viewed makes a big difference and just as important as how well the image was captured. Landscapes are often impressive in person due to the vastness of the scene; viewing it back on a monitor won't have the same effect, so my next tip here is to have faith in your images that look &quot;good&quot; on screen, and get the printed big -- often, this will make a &quot;good landscape&quot; bring back some of the awesomeness of the original scene and give you a &quot;great image&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-10-23T09:34:28.277" />
  <row Id="4174" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="667" CreationDate="2010-10-23T14:56:59.773" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photoblog.edu-perez.com/2009/01/greater-depth-field-macro.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;good article about focus stacking&lt;/a&gt; using command line tools &lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.panotools.org/Align_image_stack&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;align_image_stack&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.panotools.org/Enfuse&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;enfuse&lt;/a&gt; (both included in &lt;a href=&quot;http://hugin.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hugin&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="507" LastActivityDate="2010-10-23T14:56:59.773" />
  <row Id="4175" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4200" CreationDate="2010-10-23T16:39:53.787" Score="9" ViewCount="636" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have noticed that in my Canon 500D, the depth-of-field preview in the optical viewfinder is inaccurate with large aperture settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I press the DoF preview button, there is very little difference between, say, f/1.8 and f/3.5. In particular, pressing the DoF preview button with f/1.8 vs. f/2.8 seems to make no difference at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously, there is a huge difference in the photo, and certainly I can also see the same difference if I use live view (LCD screen) and the DoF preview button. And even with the optical viewfinder, the DoF preview button seems to work as expected with smaller apertures (say, the difference between f/4.0 and f/8.0 is clear and what I see in the viewfinder matches what I see in the photos).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is going on? Exactly what limits the performance of the DoF preview button with the optical viewfinder, and what is the largest aperture with which it still produces &quot;correct&quot; results? Are there differences between different camera models regarding this aspect?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After a lot of googling, I was able to find &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/slrs/5d/focus-screens.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this page&lt;/a&gt; which suggests that the focusing screen in the optical viewfinder might be the limiting factor:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Oddly, these modern screens get no brighter when you're using a lens faster than f/2.8. Try it: put on an f/1.8 or other fast fixed lens and flick the depth of field button. You'll see no change in anything until you stop down to about f/2.5!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sounds familiar – but the above quotation is about Canon 5D, which is obviously a very different thing from my 500D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/500d/discuss/72157621773425448/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this page&lt;/a&gt; which is specifically about 500D, but the discussion thread seems to give few conclusive answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="247" LastEditorUserId="247" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-23T18:11:51.823" LastActivityDate="2010-10-25T20:15:13.963" Title="Depth-of-field preview, optical viewfinder, Canon 500D, large aperture" Tags="&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;focusing-screen&gt;&lt;optical-viewfinder&gt;&lt;canon-500d&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="4176" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4175" CreationDate="2010-10-23T18:05:01.997" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe it has to do with the construction of the viewfinder. Unlike the sensor or the Live View feature, on the 500D, you are only seeing 95% of the image at 0.87x magnification. It is not only a &quot;cropped&quot; area from the sensor, but it is also a smaller area than the sensor. Between the cropping, and the smaller size, and possibly some optical effects of the prism itself and focusing screen, the DOF you see through the viewfinder will not match the DOF captured by the sensor (and therefor, the DOF you can see with Live View.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The cropping factor has the same effect of comparing a full-frame sensor to an APS-C sensor. It is easier to &quot;see&quot; a smaller DOF on a full-frame sensor than on an APS-C sensor, assuming the same lens and subject distance. Technically speaking, the depth of field is identical, however as the smaller sensor is simply cropping off the outer border of the image, it appears as though there is less DOF. Through the widest apertures, DOF appears to change less on a cropped sensor than a full-frame sensor because of this. A viewfinder that does not show 100% of the frame does the same thing, enhancing the effect even further.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a good article with a visual demonstration of DOF with different sensor sizes: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.have-camera-will-travel.com/field_reports/full_frame_vs_crop_sensor_-.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Full Frame vs. Crop Sensor&lt;/a&gt;. Its a nice, short, but good read on the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-24T00:13:37.110" LastActivityDate="2010-10-24T00:13:37.110" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="4177" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4175" CreationDate="2010-10-23T18:08:54.580" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's to do with the focussing screen, however I don't profess to completely understand all of the effects you mentioned. The focussing screen in modern DSLRs is made of laser etched glass in order to facilitate manual focussing and transmit as much light as possible for slow lenses. With old fashioned ground glass screens, the micro-structure of the glass contains lots of tiny globules, each of which acts like a miniature split prism (what you used to get in the centre of the focussing screen on old manual focus SLRs). This makes the in focus parts look even sharper to help with manual focussing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is backed up by the fact that most manufacturers offer darker focussing screens for easier manual focusing, which do get brighter as you open the aperture past f/2.8, or brighter less accurate screens for better visibility in low light which don't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;edit:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I carried out the experiment Edgar suggested using a 50 f/1.4 lens and whilst I originally saw only the middle of the focussing screen, as I held the lens closer to my eye I was able to see more and more until I could see the entire screen. I'm not doubting that the lack of extra brightness at large apertures is due to the screen, and that the way the glass is cut somehow obscures light from the perhiphery, just that I wasn't able to observe the manual vignetting that Ken suggests. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I couldn't get a good photo to prove this as I couldn't get the lens of the other camera quite close enough, but I did get this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/experiments/focus_screen_through_lens.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see the bottom two corners and if I moved the camera a fraction the top two corners too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I tried 4 different cameras and always got the same result, that it's possible to see the whole focussing screen through the lens. I also got this shot with a macro lens that demonstrates the Fresnel structure of the standard focusing screen:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/experiments/focus_screen_closeup.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The shot also demonstrates some falloff which seems to be responsible for the lack of brightness at f/1.4, but why the edges of the focussing screen aren't darker when viewing it head on I don't know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-25T19:01:07.060" LastActivityDate="2010-10-25T19:01:07.060" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4178" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4175" CreationDate="2010-10-23T18:26:17.327" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Today's viewfinders are designed to have better light transmission at the expense of diffusion.  This is because autofocus cameras use a semi-transparent main reflex mirror so part of the light passes through the mirror and to a secondary mirror that is reflected down to the AF sensors at the bottom of the camera.  In addition, many cheaper cameras use a pentamirror which offers a less bright image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use LiveView and DoF preview at the same time to get an accurate view of the bokeh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-10-23T18:26:17.327" />
  <row Id="4179" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4187" CreationDate="2010-10-23T18:32:58.923" Score="18" ViewCount="471" Body="&lt;p&gt;For sports, I know that a faster lens would usually be considered more important than image stabilization, but what if, after selecting your shutter speed, your camera is picking apertures that don't require a super-fast lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's my specific example: I bought a Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 lens for my D90 thinking that I would need the F2.8 in order to shoot at my daughter's Figure Skating club.  I chose the Sigma over the Nikon 80-200mm F2.8 because the Sigma had full-time manual-focus and a built in auto-focus motor and was about $100 less expensive.  The Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 with VR was well beyond my budget.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, having used the Sigma a few times, I am pretty happy with the shots I am getting.  I set the camera for a shutter speed of 1/500s and ISO-800 and let the camera pick the aperture.  However, it turns out that most of the shots I am taking end up with the camera choosing an aperture of F4 to F5.6 (the lighting in the rink must be better than I thought).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, my question is, would I be better off returning the Sigma 70-200mm, and getting the much less expensive Nikon 70-300mm with VR (saving almost $500 that I could put into another lens or a tripod).  The aperture range of 4.5-5.6 on the 70-300m is around what I am shooting at, plus the lens has VR (I know it doesn't help with moving subjects, but I am shooting hand held at 1/500s for the moment).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could even bump the ISO up to 1600 to maintain or increase the shutter speed with the 70-300mm.  On the other hand, in a different arena, the lighting might not be as good, and I'll be wishing I still had the F2.8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="227" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-11T19:05:16.250" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T19:05:16.250" Title="For sports photography, image stabilization or a faster lens?" Tags="&lt;image-stabilization&gt;&lt;sports&gt;&lt;wide-aperture&gt;&lt;fast-lenses&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4180" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4171" CreationDate="2010-10-23T18:54:21.673" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Landscapes and Light&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to landscapes, lighting is King. When I first started doing photography, I started with landscapes. My first few hundred shots were technically perfect, but artistically morbid. I had spent over a year reading about cameras, exposure, and all the various details about photography from a technical perspective, so I could make a good choice for my camera, and be able to use it effectively when I got it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, how naive I was. In any photography, but particularly landscape photography, lighting is one of, if not &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; most, important aspects. A beautiful landscape can look radically different in different lighting. There are various types of natural lighting that can illuminate a landscape scene, from your sunrise morning rays or sunset glow, to full, bright sunlight, to diffuse, overcast, flat lighting. To the human eye, a mountain scape during mid-day with some clouds moving over the peaks looks simply amazing! From an artistic standpoint, however, such a scene really is rather bland. Its a difficult, and often fine, line that a landscape photographer walks when trying to find a beautiful scene, both physically and &lt;strong&gt;artistically&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the year and a half I've been photographing landscapes, I learned that one of the best ways to capture a good landscape scene is to wait for the right time. Mid-day landscapes in bright sunlight make difficult subjects. The lighting is strong and harsh, but there are often few shadows, the lighting is mostly white and rather uninteresting, and the depth of the scene can be difficult to gauge. In contrast, landscapes during sunrise or sunset often tend to be &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;FAR&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; more interesting. As the sun is rising or setting, you have a variety of colors lighting your scene. From yellows and oranges and reds, to the blue through red gradient of the sky. The angle of the sun during sunrise or sunset also casts much larger shadows, bringing shapes and depth to life. Clouds, especially if there are several layers, can bring an amazing and truly complex element of lighting and shadow to your scene at the extremes of the day. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good lighting is key, and one of the most important aspects of landscape photography. The difficult part about landscape photography, however, is finding good light, and being at the right place at the right time to capture an amazing scene in that good light. This often requires a fairly considerable investment of time on the part of the photographer to scout out a good vantage point before taking a shot. During that mid-day sunlight, it is important to drive or hike around an area you find to be beautiful, and find scenes you think could make a great shot. When you find them, take some time, and try to visualize your shot as if it were lit by a sunrise or sunset. Take some time to compose the scene in your mind in a variety of ways, horizontal and vertical. &quot;See&quot; what could be, and try to &quot;see&quot; as your camera sees (i.e. put up your hands and frame the landscape to help you cut out what the camera won't capture; or take a piece of cardstock, and cut out a 4:3, or 3:2 rectangular opening and use that to frame your shots.) Previsualizing your landscape shots, and imagining what they might look like with proper lighting, can go a &lt;strong&gt;long&lt;/strong&gt; way to helping you capture more intriguing, artistic landscapes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, scene contrast can play a big role in landscape photography. Cameras have limited &quot;dynamic range&quot; compared to our eyes. What may appear like a balanced scene to human eyes may be too bright in the highlights and too dark in the shadows for a camera to capture. There are a variety of ways to combat this, such as HDR or Exposure Fusion. When it comes to landscapes, however, particularly those that include clouds or water, bracketing shots (setting your camera up to snap a shot at your chosen settings, as well as one with less exposure and one with more exposure...three shots at different exposures) can introduce unwanted motion and ghosting into a blended final image. The ideal way to balance out lighting and contrast in a landscape scene is to use Graduated Neutral Density (GND) filters. A graduated ND filter is darkened in the first half, and gradually fades to fully clear on the other half. They often come in 4x5&quot; or 4x6&quot; sizes, and fit into a special filter mount that you hook onto the end of your lens. By sliding the GND filter up or down in the mount, you can darken extremely bright parts of a landscape scene (i.e. the sky.) This brings the total contrast, or dynamic range, of the scene into a range that the camera can capture in a single shot. Use of GND filters is a common practice amongst professional landscape photographers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Poor Lighting&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some shots that I took very early on in my landscape photography career (they are from my first 700 shots with my Canon 450D, most of which were total throwaways.) They looked amazing to me at the time I took them, but ended up rather bland in the end, even after some considerable effort to make them look better. The primary cause of this was poor lighting: bright, midday sun that took away any shadows and shapes, or dull, diffuse light caused by an overcast sky that also took away any shadows and shapes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ndDkt.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Grand Tetons&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Poor Lighting #1:&lt;/strong&gt; Grand Tetons in bright, midday sunlight.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Effect:&lt;/strong&gt; Awesome mountains and sky, really boring scene...no shadows, white light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/2c600.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Lower Yellowstone Falls&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Poor Lighting #2:&lt;/strong&gt; Lower Yellowstone Falls in diffuse light.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Effect:&lt;/strong&gt; Truly amazing scene of a 300+ foot waterfall in Yellowstone, but still rather boring without any shadows or more colorful lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Good Lighting&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some of my more recent shots. Still nothing to truly &quot;wow&quot; people, like some professional landscape photographers, but certainly more interesting than my first few images. These scenes take into account lighting, better composition, and time of day:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zOzCY.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Rocky Mountains Front Range&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Good Lighting #1:&lt;/strong&gt; The Front Range of the Rocky Mountains, CO. Lit by the afternoon sun streaming through a building storm.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Effect:&lt;/strong&gt; This shot is one of the more intriguing shots I've taken that included sunlight streaming through the clouds. I thought the lighting was pretty interesting and very colorful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/G1BOe.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Longs Peak&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Good Lighting #2:&lt;/strong&gt; Longs Peak, in Rocky Mountain National Park, CO. Lit by morning sunlight.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Effect:&lt;/strong&gt; Got up at 4:30am this day, headed up to RMNP, and waited for the sun to rise. This shot was taken just before 7:00am, as the first rays of sunlight struk Longs Peak. The plays of direct light, ambient light, and shadow make this shot more interesting than, say, the original Grand Tetons photograph I took a year and a half ago. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/cgTYF.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Hallette Peak&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Good Lighting #3:&lt;/strong&gt; Hallette Peak, in Rocky Mountain National Park, CO. Lit by morning sunlight.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Effect:&lt;/strong&gt; Shot on the same outing as the Longs Peak photograph, this shot was taken shortly after 7:00am. The first few rays of sunlight have faded, and the early morning red glow is gone, but the scene with Bear Lake in the foreground, and Hallette Peak in the background, made for an interesting composition. The lighting is still interesting, with the stones in the water in near total shadow, while the mountain is lit with some interesting shadow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Fantastic Lighting&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am a mere novice when it comes to landscape photography. My artistic talents are infantile, as I've only relatively recently learned how to find and capture better lighting. I am not a professional photographer, so most of my time is spent working my day job. Here are some shots from true professional landscape photographers that show what truly fantastic lighting is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/psl4I.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Marc Adamas&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Scene:&lt;/strong&gt; Crater Lake, Winter&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.marcadamus.com/index.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Copyright Marc Adamas&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/JOGkO.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Michael Anderson&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Scene:&lt;/strong&gt; Moraine Lake, Banff National Park&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.michaelandersongallery.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Copyright Michael Anderson&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/T98gd.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Jack Brauer&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Scene:&lt;/strong&gt; Bells Reflection Elk Mountains, Colorado&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.widerange.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Copyright Jack Brauer&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-23T19:09:15.713" LastActivityDate="2010-10-23T19:09:15.713" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4181" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4179" CreationDate="2010-10-23T19:22:23.717" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM, and I do shoot sports now and then (roller derby for example, since we are talking skating). This is a great lens, sharp even at f/2.8, and I like to shoot at that aperture because of that great, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/altuwa/3400338547/in/set-72157616065667079/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;creamy bokeh&lt;/a&gt;. Provided that the light is more or less constant at the venue, I shoot in Tv mode (shutter speed priority) and make sure the shutter speed is &lt;em&gt;fast enough&lt;/em&gt; that the camera &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; pick f/2.8. I double-check now and then because if the light decreases, my 5DMII would start increasing the ISO, and I'd rather avoid too much noise. If you can, why not even go full manual: pick f/2.8, ISO 800, and just do a few test shots to see which shutter speed provides the correct exposure. Not always do-able outdoor, but a bit easier indoor with constant light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2010-10-23T19:22:23.717" />
  <row Id="4182" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4179" CreationDate="2010-10-23T19:54:34.343" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Often a faster lens will be sharper even at the same aperture as a cheaper lens. It's not universally true, but it's true often enough that you need to take it into consideration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not familiar with the Nikon lens you're considering, but it's almost certainly smaller and lighter than the Sigma.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You're the only one who can weigh the plusses and minusses in the end. If it were cut and dry, one or the other lens wouldn't be on the market.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="775" LastActivityDate="2010-10-23T19:54:34.343" />
  <row Id="4183" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4179" CreationDate="2010-10-23T20:41:10.003" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two things need to be considered here: focusing speed and adequate sensitivity to light to achieve a fast shutter speed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Zoom lenses are much slower than prime lenses in the same grade because they have lots of moving parts internally. Also, lenses with smaller maximum apertures (like 4.5) are going to be slower to focus because less light gets to the camera (which does all the real focusing magic). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;VR/IS does nothing for action shots. It really only accounts for slight movement of the camera when shooting a still scene at a slow shutter speed. It can actually be detrimental when paired with a tripod, and it'll just suck down battery unnecessarily with a fast shutter speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2010-10-23T20:41:10.003" />
  <row Id="4184" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4099" CreationDate="2010-10-23T21:02:10.390" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This isn't really a bug; it's just how Photoshop handles selections. Selections are alpha masks in Photoshop CS+, and they behave as such, so they can have pixels that are only 1/127th selected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One way to workaround this is to make your selection and fire up Select &gt; Refine Edge and throw the contrast all the way up to 100%. It's not &lt;strong&gt;perfect&lt;/strong&gt;, but it does a pretty good job.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/MVST4.png&quot; alt=&quot;Refine Edge&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2010-10-23T21:02:10.390" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4185" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4179" CreationDate="2010-10-23T21:18:22.223" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Stabilization is primarily intended to help when your shutter speed is less than the reciprocal of your focal length. Even taking crop factor into account, 1/500 on a 300mm lens shouldn't require vibration reduction since a 300mm lens would want a 1/300 or 1/450 shutter speed as a base for handheld (though my personal experience indicates you don't need to consider crop factor, other opinions vary). Net effect, getting a 70-300 will give you greater range for the action, but I doubt the VR option will end up mattering all that much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, as mentioned in a way, what you may give up is a sweet spot at a wider aperture. Faster lenses often, though this isn't hard and fast, will have a sweet spot at a larger aperture than a slower lens. So what &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; result is that, by switching, you lose a little sharpness at f4.5 or 5.6. That's not assured, but something to consider.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If possible, before making such a switch, I would see if you can rent the lens and try it out. If you're happy with the outcome, make the switch, the extra 100mm can come in handy. However, if you find the sharpness and quality is missing as a result, then you're only out the rental cost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-10-23T21:18:22.223" />
  <row Id="4186" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4175" CreationDate="2010-10-23T22:01:09.123" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the 550D (T2i) which is close to the 500D in many ways.  I do not find it credible that the viewfinder could substantially alter the depth of field unless somehow it is managing to refocus the out-of-focus areas and I doubt it's capable of that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a check, I took a look at items in my office through an f/2.8 17-55 mm lens and was readily able to detect changes in depth of field even between f/2.8 and f/3.2.  The changes are more pronounced at 17 mm than zoomed out at 55 mm.  I then mounted an f/1.8 85 mm lens and looked at the same subject.  This time it was almost impossible to be sure of a change in depth of field until the aperture reached f/5.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An explanation can be had by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;calculating the depth of field&lt;/a&gt;.  With a 17 mm lens focused at 8 feet, for example, the depth of field at f/2.8 extends to 2.48 feet in front of the subject and at f/3.2 it's 2.70 feet in front.  That change of 0.22 feet (almost 3 inches) was large enough for me to notice.  With an 85 mm lens focused at 8 feet the DoF at f/1.8 extends a mere 0.09 feet in front of the subject.  At f/2.2 it increases to 0.11, a whopping 0.02 feet (1/4 inch).  I just couldn't see that, because the room is a little dim to begin with, the subject was not extremely contrasty, and as one stops down the aperture the viewfinder not only gets darker but it gets noticeably vignetted (even further darkening the areas that tend to be marginally in focus).  By f/5, though, the DoF has expanded to 0.24 feet in front of the subject, a change of 0.24 - 0.09 = 0.15 feet (almost two inches): this is within the range my eye can detect even in a darkened subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore I would like to suggest that the combination of your viewfinder (which is small and fairly dark), your eyesight (whatever it may be), and your scene give you a certain threshold of distance over which you can detect a change in focus.  (For me, with my scene and my middle-aged eyes, that threshold seems to be around two inches).  This threshold translates into a minimum change in f-stop that depends on the current f/stop and, importantly, on the focal length of your lens.  Especially with medium to long telephoto lenses you might have great difficulty actually seeing the changes in DoF associated with small differences in f-stop through your viewfinder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As others have already mentioned, the LED screen gives a much better way to preview DoF, especially because you can zoom in to investigate extreme details.  Even with better 35 mm format cameras and better viewfinders (I've had a bunch over the years) I never found DoF previewing in a viewfinder to be very reliable: the most you can hope is to get a rough sense of whether your entire subject might sort of be in focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2010-10-23T22:01:09.123" />
  <row Id="4187" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4179" CreationDate="2010-10-23T22:36:56.923" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally good advice with regard to IS and it's ability to freeze action. However I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the fact that &lt;strong&gt;some camera bodies have extra sensitive AF points that are only active with f/2.8 lenses&lt;/strong&gt;. Thus if you have an f/2.8 lens, even if you end up shooting at f/4 or f/5.6 you are gaining an advantage from the max aperture in terms of focussing performance. This is why f/2.8 is the holy grail of sports lenses, it's not for the speed, it's the for the AF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-10-23T22:36:56.923" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4188" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4199" CreationDate="2010-10-23T22:53:16.437" Score="6" ViewCount="144" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sometimes i find good images online and I hope if I have it on my room wall, is it a good idea to print it and put on my wall? did you try this before? What's the most issues i should think about before doing that? are there any recommended steps i should follow? and what pros and cons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;I will ask the Image owner before doing this and also will ask him to send me a higher quality one if needed.&lt;/em&gt; &#xA;So I will never break Copyrights&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1745" LastEditorUserId="1745" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-23T23:12:20.660" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T09:33:33.363" Title="Is it doable to take an image I like from web, print, put in a frame, and put on my room wall?" Tags="&lt;prints&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4189" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4188" CreationDate="2010-10-23T23:08:48.047" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Copyright issues aside (I'm sure people more knowledgeable than myself will contribute on this), from a technical point of view it's possible, given the original is of sufficient resolution (image size). Minimum resolution figures are often quoted in the region of 200-350 ppi (pixels per inch) but it really depends on your viewing distance. If a small printed image looks sharp to you held at arms length in front of a wall, then the same image will look sharp when occupying the same amount of wall as outlined by the print. This gives you a means to make a small copy and determine whether it can be printed larger. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will say this on the subject of copyright - it never hurts to approach the photographer and ask for permission, explaining that you appreciate the work and this is non-commercial usage. They may send you a high res version. Or not. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-10-23T23:08:48.047" />
  <row Id="4190" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4216" CreationDate="2010-10-23T23:29:37.990" Score="10" ViewCount="119" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know of any solar-powered systems with enough output to charge the average DSLR battery? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm considering going to somewhere rather remote and might be away from mains electricity (or even portable generators) for two or three weeks. I have considered taking a film camera and making do with that, but would rather take my digital gear. The cameras I'd be looking to charge are a Nikon D200 and a Canon S90.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-24T03:47:49.880" LastActivityDate="2010-10-25T20:42:56.220" Title="Solar charging systems for camera gear" Tags="&lt;batteries&gt;&lt;charger&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="4191" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4190" CreationDate="2010-10-23T23:39:14.993" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It sort of depends on what sort of charger you can find for your camera batteries, I think.  Most popular cameras have aftermarket chargers that'll work with a 12V power supply (a car outlet, for example), but that's a pretty big solar panel.  The smaller panels generally put out enough juice to power a USB device, which is 5V.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I considered the same thing, as I take my camera on camping trips for up to two weeks.  At this point, though, it's a whole lot easier and more cost-effective to just buy a bunch of batteries.  Easier to carry, too, if you're talking about one of the big solar units.  If I had other stuff to charge, too (GPS, etc.), I might swing back toward the solar panel solution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-10-23T23:39:14.993" />
  <row Id="4192" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4188" CreationDate="2010-10-24T03:41:18.410" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Speaking frankly to the copyright question, IMO it's perfectly ethical to take an image from the web and put it on the wall in your freaking private home, without asking permission.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Legality is a different question, of course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-10-24T03:41:18.410" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4193" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4190" CreationDate="2010-10-24T03:46:51.110" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can do it; Thom Hogan has a detailed explanation of &lt;a href=&quot;http://bythom.com/solar.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;his solar charging setup&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As D. Lambert says though, it might still be more economical to just take a bunch of batteries. For example, I get 500-1000 frames out of my D90 on one charge in decent weather, so two batteries is more than enough for a week -- and at this rate, one battery corresponds to roughly 15-25 rolls of film. How many rolls of film would you realistically take with you? (The place where this breaks down, of course, is that you don't know exactly how many frames are left on the battery.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-10-24T03:46:51.110" />
  <row Id="4194" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4188" CreationDate="2010-10-24T07:36:14.757" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had a friend who asked my permission to do this with some images I posted and I directed him to larger versions for his prints. He initially asked me if I was selling them, but I told him to just download and print. It was actually quite flattering and the resulting treatment he did looked amazing, actually made me jealous of my own images!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, the moral of the story is that is doable and you can get great results. I think you'll find that some amateurs will be quite flattered by you asking. However, I'd caution that professionals will likely reject the request. I don't think you'd run into copyright issues if you ignored a &quot;no&quot; answer, since private use usually doesn't violate, but I think it would be a little questionable morally. In any case, there are billions of brilliant images online now, so you're bound to find plenty where the photographer will say it's okay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-10-24T07:36:14.757" />
  <row Id="4195" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="96" CreationDate="2010-10-24T08:42:45.520" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon FS 4000 US I got off eBay a couple of years ago. It needs a SCSI card but runs  very well with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hamrick.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Vuescan&lt;/a&gt;, which is well-worth paying for. It has USB 1 but that is slower than a wet week. The quality of the scans (4000dpi) is good and dust removal works pretty well. The automatic scan of a whole-roll of APS is very handy - I just press Go and leave it to do its thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Best? Good question. My answer: nfi. I'm happy with it. I did a lot of research at the time. Perhaps you should trawl Google for old reviews and comparisons. I suspect the Nikons are probably better but I also suspect your set-up and software makes more difference than the badge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1078" LastActivityDate="2010-10-24T08:42:45.520" />
  <row Id="4196" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4142" CreationDate="2010-10-24T08:46:27.927" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc28.htm#inputfocus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc28.htm#inputfocus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;+ lots of experimenting. Don't forget to save your settings regularly in a way you can remember what they are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1078" LastActivityDate="2010-10-24T08:46:27.927" />
  <row Id="4197" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="96" CreationDate="2010-10-24T10:46:55.470" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had 10,000 images in my slide and film archives that I wanted to scan. I tried the scanner route but quickly became frustrated with its slowness.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I bought a high quality macro lens and made slide and negative adapters. I then used my DSLR and macro lens to photograph my slide/film collection.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My collection has been successfully scanned and I can report the following experiences:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;1. It is fast and simple to perform&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2. Exposure was always correct, thanks to the excellent exposure system of my DSLR&lt;br&gt;&#xA;3. I obtained crisp, sharp results, thanks to the good quality macro lens&lt;br&gt;&#xA;4. The resolution of my DSLR/macro lens combination easily exceeded the resolution of my film images.&#xA;5. The output was easily processed through my normal DSLR processing workflow.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;6. I am left with a good macro lens which I am now happily using in my normal photography so it was a lasting investment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-10-24T10:46:55.470" />
  <row Id="4198" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2712" CreationDate="2010-10-24T11:27:49.007" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can still get the tachihara from mpex.com&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-10-24T11:27:49.007" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4199" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4188" CreationDate="2010-10-24T11:38:02.327" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are technical issues, copyright issues, ethical issues and creative issues to consider.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Technical issues&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;1. The image will need to be scaled up in size. With the right software you can get good surprisingly good results. I printed a 1200 px wide image on A3 with more than acceptable results.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2. It is very dependent on the type of image. An image with many sharp edges and fine detail will not up-size well.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;3. A canvas or semi-matt print surface is more tolerant than a fine glossy surface.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;4. Placement has an influence since that will often control the viewing distance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Copyright issues&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;As you noted, we should always respect copyright and ask for permission. One can make a strong argument that the greater good of society is best achieved by freely sharing creative work, which is after all what happened until 200 years ago. But the law, as it stands, does not support that position and becoming a scofflaw is not in the interests of society. I personally recommend that people publish their work under a Creative Commons licence unless photography is an important or main part of their income, in which case it is to be expected that they reserve all rights under copyright law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ethical issues&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;If you display work which is not your own you should always show the name of the author. If you don't there is an implication that it is your own work, which is decidedly not ethical. The author normally expects some kind of recognition which usually takes the form of attribution.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Creative issues&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;This comes down to asking the question, why are you, as a photographer, displaying someone else's work rather than creating and displaying your own work? There are good reasons for doing it. Other people's work can provide a powerful creative stimulus and source of ideas. All artists learn from their fellow artists work. We can use it as a reminder and an incentive to do better work. When we admire other peoples good work we enter a zone of openness and humility that allows the creative process to flower.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-10-24T11:38:02.327" />
  <row Id="4200" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4175" CreationDate="2010-10-24T21:28:25.953" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many confused answers here... Eruditass got it right, it's all about the viewfinder. Actually it's mostly the &quot;ground&quot; glass, which is not a ground glass anymore: it's a microstructured glass, optimized for light transmission with slow lenses, &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; for ease of manual focusing. Something a bit like a Fresnel lens. The eyesight, has nothing to do with this problem, nor the viewfinder coverage, nor the pentamirror or whatever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ken Rockwell suggests a simple experiment: &quot;Look through the front of your fast lens at the focus screen. It's black outside the area of the lens that corresponds to f/2.5!&quot;. Try it! You will clearly see that no light comes through the outer part of the lens. If light cannot travel one way, it cannot travel the other way: only the light rays that hit close to the center of the lens can get through the eyepiece.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want a focusing screen optimized for actually focusing... you may try one of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KatzEye focusing screens&lt;/a&gt;. Never tried myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt;: As a followup to Matt Grum's post, here is a picture of a 85/1.4 seen from the front side:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://edgar-bonet.org/misc/entrance-pupil.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;entrance pupil of the lens&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the left: the lens alone (with my girlfriend holding the aperture open). You can appreciate the extra large entrance pupil (~ 61 mm). On the right, the lens on the camera. Here the camera is holding the aperture wide open, but you only see light coming out from the center of the aperture. It's roughly f/2.8, although the borders of the effective aperture are not very well defined.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1730" LastEditorUserId="1730" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-25T20:15:13.963" LastActivityDate="2010-10-25T20:15:13.963" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4201" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4179" CreationDate="2010-10-25T01:13:23.257" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most important fact - which is buried in one of the previous responses - is focus speed. DSLR Cameras always focus at their widest aperture. So even if you are taking a shot at F/5.6, a lens that can do F/2.8 will let much more light in during focusing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-10-25T01:13:23.257" />
  <row Id="4202" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4190" CreationDate="2010-10-25T01:21:00.633" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;AA batteries are your savior here. I use the previous version of this one:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.siliconsolar.com/solar-battery-charger-aa-aaa-c-and-d-p-135.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.siliconsolar.com/solar-battery-charger-aa-aaa-c-and-d-p-135.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It takes 6 hours to charge a set of 4 AAs, the docs say less but maybe this didn't&#xA;test on 2700 mah as I use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two ways to get AAs into your DSLR, either by a Pentax K-x which is an&#xA;entry-level DSLR with excellent image quality in a light body. You can also often&#xA;get a battery-grip which takes AAs but that means more weight. BTW, the K-x can &#xA;take 1100 on 4 AAs! You can also go to a bulk store and by 20 AAs for $20, that's&#xA;5500 photos!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-10-25T01:21:00.633" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4203" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4205" CreationDate="2010-10-25T08:49:16.277" Score="16" ViewCount="417" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are good resources (tutorials/books/videos/etc) for a beginning photographer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keep in mind that this is for a beginning photographer, who has recently moved from a point-and-shoot to an entry-level DSLR, and is interested in digging deeper into photography in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples of good topics for the resources to cover:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;what's aperture?, and other camera basics &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;color temperature and lighting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;composition and visualization&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1602" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-01T06:46:03.717" LastActivityDate="2011-05-01T07:34:05.620" Title="What are good resources for a beginning photographer?" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;tutorial&gt;&lt;photography-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="16" />
  <row Id="4204" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-25T09:14:17.100" Score="7" ViewCount="344" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can the Nikon D7000 output video on its HDMI output, with no display overlays, and shoot pictures at the same time, without interruption of the video signal?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Application is using these cameras to capture action, as well as video, which is fed into an HD video mixer, and subsequent mix is recorded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1754" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-25T12:43:15.513" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T14:19:03.440" Title="D7000 simultaneous photo capture and video?" Tags="&lt;nikon-d7000&gt;&lt;hd-video&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4205" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4203" CreationDate="2010-10-25T09:34:59.870" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Try &lt;a href=&quot;http://kelbytv.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://kelbytv.com/&lt;/a&gt; for some great video tutorials.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photography-basics.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photography Basics&lt;/a&gt; to understand the fundamentals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will link to similar questions on this site that have some resources as well&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should be enough in these resources:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/tips&quot;&gt;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/tips&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1557/good-books-to-learn-photographic-composition-from&quot;&gt;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1557/good-books-to-learn-photographic-composition-from&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/learning&quot;&gt;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/learning&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastActivityDate="2010-10-25T09:34:59.870" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-10-25T09:39:46.233" />
  <row Id="4206" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4208" CreationDate="2010-10-25T12:06:19.230" Score="11" ViewCount="229" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't normally do studio work, but I am about to do a photo-shoot in front of a green-screen for an amateur stop-motion video.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We don't have the budget for a professional make-up artist. This isn't a fashion shoot or a wedding, so it isn't about the models looking absolutely gorgeous. There's won't be many (any?) close-ups on faces. And it is destined to be a video, so the resolution is going to be low. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, make-up is going to be done by amateurs. Most of the men will probably just get a bit of a powder, and most of the women will be doing it themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my questions are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;How important is make-up under studio lights? Will it make the subjects look particularly awful? Can the men get by without? (We are using amateur volunteers, and I don't want them to balk.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is there any tips you can give to help people applying make-up? e.g. do they need to apply a lighter foundation than normal for it to look natural? (Totally invented example - I am out of my depth here.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="160" LastActivityDate="2010-10-26T15:32:04.143" Title="Make-up Advice for Photo-Shoot Models" Tags="&lt;models&gt;&lt;photo-shoot&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="4207" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4204" CreationDate="2010-10-25T12:45:25.327" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not familiar with the camera or informed, but my guess is no. The reasoning: this would be an interesting, cool, and unusual video feature, so if it were possible it would be prominent in the marketing materials. (The Canon 5DII, e.g., mentions it - thx @Rowland Shaw.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Will delete if someone who is familiar or informed shows up with a more definitive answer.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-26T00:29:56.103" LastActivityDate="2010-10-26T00:29:56.103" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4208" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4206" CreationDate="2010-10-25T16:13:48.747" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't have any experience of this, but I do have experience of amateur theatre. Stage lighting is much less bright than photographic lighting, but even it tends to make people look washed out. It's almost universal that a stage actor will need to apply makeup - even the men!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theatre audiences are much further away from the actors than the camera will be (even if you're not shooting close-ups) so you probably don't want the exaggerated makeup that actors will wear. But you probably do want some foundation, some eye-liner and some lip gloss. It's more likely that a slightly darker shade of foundation would be better. No advice on how much to use except to try it out on a willing volunteer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thinking about this some more, professional portrait photographers rarely ask their subjects (other than professional models) to wear makeup, and still produce pretty good pictures. I suspect that better control over lighting than is possible on the stage allows this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1546" LastEditorUserId="1546" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-26T15:32:04.143" LastActivityDate="2010-10-26T15:32:04.143" />
  <row Id="4209" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4203" CreationDate="2010-10-25T17:08:23.507" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Digital Photography School has plenty of tutorials ranging from basic to advanced.  Have a look at their list of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/digital-photography-tips-for-beginners&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;tutorials for beginners&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd also recommend just getting out there and trying stuff out!  Nothing will help you learn photography better than experimenting with the camera, then sharing the results on sites like flickr and deviantart. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have fun! :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1571" LastActivityDate="2010-10-25T17:08:23.507" />
  <row Id="4210" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2231" CreationDate="2010-10-25T18:31:58.913" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;DPReview has looked at both lenses and found them both to be of good quality, albeit with their individual pros/cons.  Have a look through the reviews and sample images:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_10-20_4-5p6_n15/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_10-20_4-5p6_n15/&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_10-24_3p5-5p6_n15/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_10-24_3p5-5p6_n15/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally though, seeing as there's so little in it, I'd just get whichever I can find for the best deal!  I picked up the Sigma f4-5.6 second hand for £250 earlier this year and have been very pleased with the results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1571" LastActivityDate="2010-10-25T18:31:58.913" />
  <row Id="4211" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-25T20:23:01.470" Score="8" ViewCount="342" Body="&lt;p&gt;My wifes Canon EOS 450D has various speed settings and an auto mode. &#xA;The quickest one is 1600. &#xA;She photographs mainly birds, both stationary and in flight and mainly still insects.&#xA;What are the advantages of the 1600 setting, and when would it and lower speeds be used?&#xA;If it as simple as a fast speed for moving objects, why have Canon gone to the trouble of providing multiple speed settings?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1179" LastEditorUserId="988" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-26T02:40:02.273" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T22:33:01.523" Title="How important is ISO speed" Tags="&lt;iso&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4212" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-25T20:28:42.000" Score="15" ViewCount="237" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I wanted to just view, sort, and organize (via tags or folders or both), what programs are geared toward doing this quickly?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know I could do this in most any photo editor, but it's not ideal for reviewing hundreds of images. I've also seen people use the image previewers built into their computer's OS, but that can't be the best option either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What program would you suggest instead?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Extra info on the program is appreciated, i.e. OS requirements and cost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1757" LastEditorUserId="1124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-26T21:43:29.657" LastActivityDate="2010-10-27T02:34:38.297" Title="Software focused on reviewing and organizing images" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;review&gt;&lt;tagging&gt;&lt;organize&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4213" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4212" CreationDate="2010-10-25T20:35:28.990" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I already know of one: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fast Picture Viewer&lt;/a&gt;.&#xA;The basic version is free, the pro version costs $39.99.&#xA;Both run only on windows (xp, vista, 7). Pro has a 64-bit version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1757" LastActivityDate="2010-10-25T20:35:28.990" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-10-25T20:35:28.990" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4214" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4212" CreationDate="2010-10-25T20:37:04.650" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, actually most photo editors can't do it. The category of software you are looking for is called digital asset management (DAM) software. There are review of 5 popular options here:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/article.php?id=dam-software&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.neocamera.com/article.php?id=dam-software&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If simple and fast is your criteria, then I suggest you look at PicaJet FX. It is available for Windows for $60. You can also try the free Picasa from Google which has some interfaces oddities but it can do a basic tagging job.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-10-25T20:37:04.650" />
  <row Id="4215" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4212" CreationDate="2010-10-25T20:37:44.323" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adobe Lightroom&lt;/a&gt; is one application which a lot of professional photographers would use both for reviewing large quantities of images, and also for doing some initial post-processing.  A lot of photographers these days find they rarely use Photoshop anymore, finding Lightroom very powerful in it's organising and post-process abilities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From it's conception, Lightroom has been heavily focussed on workflow, particularly for raw images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Available for both Windows &amp;amp; Mac.  Not sure on costs, but certainly not free.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-25T20:37:44.323" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4216" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4190" CreationDate="2010-10-25T20:42:56.220" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check out the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.freeloaderpro.co.uk/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;FreeLoader Pro&lt;/a&gt; from Solar Technologies in the UK.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I bought one online last year, and it's worked okay for me so far, charging the Li-ion &quot;brick&quot; battery for my Canon 350D, although I admit I haven't actually used it that much.  Comes with adaptors for different models of mobile phone too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-25T20:42:56.220" />
  <row Id="4217" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4211" CreationDate="2010-10-25T20:45:29.447" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sorry to say but I am almost entirely certain you are confusing shutter-speed and ISO sensitivity. 1600 is the fastest ISO sensitivity on that camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It represents the sensitivity of the camera to light. The drawback of using a fast ISO is that it produces more image-noise and therefore reduces the print sizes you can get out of it. For small prints and web-use, there should not be anything to worry about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can learn the basics about those terms and what they are used for here:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/guide_camera_basics_more.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.neocamera.com/guide_camera_basics_more.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-10-25T20:45:29.447" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4218" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4211" CreationDate="2010-10-25T20:51:08.883" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe the speed you are referring to is actually the ISO speed.  That is to say, your camera has various ISO speed settings, the highest of which is 1600.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is in contrast to shutter speed, where 1600 would mean the shutter is open for one sixteen hundredth of a second.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ISO setting is a measure of how sensitive your camera is to light. A higher ISO generally produces a noisier image.  It's usually advisable to use the lowest ISO setting you can in order to get the correct exposure at your chosen shutter speed and aperture size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might find it useful to browse through some of the previous questions on ISO speed, as there are some great, detailed answers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/iso&quot;&gt;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/iso&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1616" LastActivityDate="2010-10-25T20:51:08.883" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4219" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4212" CreationDate="2010-10-25T20:55:16.663" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For a free option, have a look at Google's Picasa.  It allows you to sort your images via folders and tags, and easily upload them for sharing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It can be found here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://picasa.google.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://picasa.google.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also has rudimentary editing options, but I'd recommend Lightroom if you want a decent processing program.  Conor's right, it's far from free at ~£250, but you can download a free 30-day trial from the adobe website.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1571" LastActivityDate="2010-10-25T20:55:16.663" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4220" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4212" CreationDate="2010-10-25T21:31:19.200" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.camerabits.com/site/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photo Mechanic&lt;/a&gt; for this purpose. While not free it's quite cheap and it allows you to rank (and then sort) images by a number of means, displays images along with histograms and exif information, and more importantly preloads and caches the images so you can cycle through them much more quickly than for example the windows image viewer. The program is designed for magazine/newspaper picture editors and is geared towards sorting large numbers of images as quickly as possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most importantly it understands raw files and will let you look through and sort the JPEGs and keep the raw files with them if they move.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-10-25T21:31:19.200" />
  <row Id="4221" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4211" CreationDate="2010-10-26T01:26:49.343" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For your wife, ISO 800 to ISO 1600 are probably correct, given that she photographs birds. Photographing birds is very difficult, particularly those in flight, with the 450D. It does not have very great AF (autofocus), and bird photography generally requires very long lenses (400mm telephoto is about the shortest focal length one should use when photographing birds, with 500mm or greater more ideal.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even with a telephoto lens, one has to get very close to a bird to get a frame-filling shot. The problem is that telephoto lenses are extremely expensive to get in the &quot;fast&quot; variety of f/2.8. Most are f/4 or slower, which makes it difficult to snap motion-freezing shots as the shutter is just too slow (sometimes even WITH image stabilization.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have the 450D myself, with the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS lens. This is a great lens, but the maximum aperture (f/5.6 at 400mm) is just not fast enough to freeze birds, even those that are not in flight (a bird never rests, they are always flitting about, preening, or doing something involving motion.) At ISO 800-1600 with IS, I figure I'm about 1-1.5 stops too slow to get decent bird shots in good lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sadly, the 450D's ISO performance beyond ISO 400 is pretty bad, and produces a lot of noise. For bird photography, a FAR better camera is the 7D. It has one of the most advanced AF systems available these days, and supports ISO up to 6400. I recently had the chance to use another bird photographers 7D at Cherry Creek State Park in Colorado near my home. Using the 7D at ISO 3200 with a Canon EF 400mm f/4 lens, it was a WORLD of difference compared to the 450D at ISO 1600. The better AF snapped right onto birds in flight with ease, and the better ISO performance allowed a high shutter speed even at sunset, without terrible noise. (Noise on the 7D@3200 was better than the 450D@1600.) The 7D also has an edge from a cropping standpoint, with its 18mp sensor. Even if you don't get a frame-filling shot, you have plenty of room to crop down with an 18mp image, 50% more so than with the 12mp sensor of the 450D. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to summarize, it is not surprising your wife uses ISO 1600 for her bird photography, given the shortcomings of the 450D's AF system, and the inherent difficulties in bird photography in general. I am also not surprised she uses auto mode for everything else, as when you are out photographing birds, you are almost entirely consumed with creeping up on them without scaring them off, and you want your camera to be adaptable to any situation. By letting the camera pick the shutter and aperture, you don't have to bother with it yourself. I usually use P (program) mode myself when doing bird photography. I have basic exposure compensation control in that mode, which lets me take some control if and when I need it, without having to think too hard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your wife were to upgrade (or you were to get her an awesoem gift), the new 550D, or the 7D, would make a much better choice. The 550D goes for some $750 without a lens, while the 7D goes for $1500 without a lens. The extra cost of the 7D is &lt;strong&gt;definitely&lt;/strong&gt; worth it for a bird photographer given its fantastic AF system, if you can afford it. The 60D sits in an odd spot for bird photography. At a price point of $1100 or so, it &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; be a better buy than the 550D (it might be a toss up), but is a very short cry from the 7D in price. The 7D wins hands down it in every way over the 60D (outside of maybe the 60D's fancy swivel screen.) If you were to upgrade to a better camera body, I would ignore the 60D and decide between the 550D and the 7D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-26T03:03:07.227" LastActivityDate="2010-10-26T03:03:07.227" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4222" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4234" CreationDate="2010-10-26T02:04:58.477" Score="13" ViewCount="501" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am using Lightroom 3, with the built-in Publish To Flickr feature.  When I have a JPEG image (that isn't too large for Flickr), this feature works very smoothly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I often have RAW images, that I have tweaked exposure, white balance, etc, on, and I want to upload them to Flickr.  This is where the Publish to Flickr feature falls short.  I see this error:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/qi2uk.png&quot; alt=&quot;Flickr API returned an error message (function upload, message Filesize was too large)&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is possible that the issue is not that the image is RAW, but that it is too large.  Still, I would hope that the Flickr integration would scale the image down, if necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(The publish to Facebook option works well for these, which surprises me, since I would expect Flickr to accept more formats, and I would expect the LR-FLickr integration to be more polished.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, is there a way to insert a Convert to JPEG operation before the actual publishing to Flickr?  (I also want to scale the image down, if it is larger than a certain threshold.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Thanks to @sebastien.b, I have hope!  I know that I can export the images to my hard drive, and as part of that, convert them to JPG and scale them down.  I can then publish those images to Flickr.  This works, but I am hoping for something more smooth (unlike @sebastien.b, I have no particular desire to keep the JPG images on my hard drive, though their existence wouldn't bother me).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there is an option to do this in the Flickr plugin options, I can't find it. This is what I am looking at, from the Plugin Manager:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/UUqGc.png&quot; alt=&quot;Lightroom Plugin Manager&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There don't seem to be any user-servicable parts in there, unless I am missing something or looking in the wrong place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="307" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-30T19:25:19.657" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T19:25:19.657" Title="Can I automatically convert RAW images to JPEG when publishing to Flickr in Lightroom 3" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;flickr&gt;&lt;lightroom-3&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4223" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4222" CreationDate="2010-10-26T02:33:21.557" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I only shoot raw and I use LR3's Publish To Flickr service to export images as jpeg to Flickr with no problems, and with no requirement to do anything special just because they're raw.  The publishing service takes care of resizing the output jpegs for me automatically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you say &quot;falls short&quot;, what exactly is the problem you're experiencing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-26T02:33:21.557" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="4224" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4148" CreationDate="2010-10-26T04:35:04.647" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You should decide on a focal length first.  The big difference is the working distance you will get.  There are pro's and con's to each. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For small subjects, a small working distance means you can be right up to the subject, making lighting much more difficult.  Bugs, for one, are sensitive to sunlight changes (i.e. shadows) and carbon dioxide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, with short working distances, you get to use the &lt;a href=&quot;http://dalantech.deviantart.com/art/Left-Hand-Brace-93226846&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;left-hand brace technique&lt;/a&gt;.  This is very useful for composition.  You also get to use slower shutter speeds, and if you are using a flash in one hand, you can adjust the lighting more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Pentax 50mm is supposed to be one, if not the sharpest of their lenses.  However, pretty much all of these macros are ridiculously sharp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other options:   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sigma 105mm &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tamron 90mm&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sigma 70mm&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sigma 50mm&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some lenses actually adjust their focal length to get 1:1 at close focus, which means you don't get as much working distance as other lenses.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some say Pentax lenses have better coatings for better color and flare protection.  WR is great for outdoors, and only one lens has it.  I recommend against the 50mm since there are other great 50's (1.4, 1.2, helios, etc.), and you can use the longer ones for more than just macro.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-10-26T04:35:04.647" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4225" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4212" CreationDate="2010-10-26T09:35:08.517" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My preference goes to iView Media Pro, which has been renamed Expression Media when it was acquired by Microsoft, and is currently owned and maintained by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.phaseone.com/en/Software/Expression-Media-2/Whats-new.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Phase One&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1296" LastActivityDate="2010-10-26T09:35:08.517" />
  <row Id="4226" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4212" CreationDate="2010-10-26T10:15:24.493" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Linux world Shotwell, though still new, shows a great deal of promise as a photo collection organiser. It is quick, intuitive, powerful yet simple to use. It provides essential post-processing tools and when those are not enough can call Gimp.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://yorba.org/shotwell/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Shotwell web site&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-10-26T10:15:24.493" />
  <row Id="4227" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3504" CreationDate="2010-10-26T10:57:04.797" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have an Olympus 1030SW Digital camera and have been getting round ghostly circles in some of my photos.  I just spoke to Olympus customer services and was advised it has to do with light reflection from dust in the air particularly when using flash. Nothing wrong with the camera but the downside of some digital cameras because of settings.   His advice was to move a few steps to the right or left when taking the picture to get a different angle to the light.  I did and have got some perfect pictures after dreadful ones of the same scene a few minutes earlier.  He said I could also increase shutter speed - a bit too technical for me.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-10-26T10:57:04.797" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4228" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4203" CreationDate="2010-10-26T11:56:57.650" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;BBC Wildlife photography masterclass is a good guide. It is a guide to wild life photography in 10 parts.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bbcwildlifemagazine.com/photography-masterclass&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;BBC Photography Masterclass&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-10-26T11:56:57.650" />
  <row Id="4229" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4203" CreationDate="2010-10-26T12:54:59.490" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a another nice set of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.morguefile.com/docs/Classroom&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ten structured photography lessons by Jodie Coston over at morguefile&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1763" LastActivityDate="2010-10-26T12:54:59.490" />
  <row Id="4230" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4029" CreationDate="2010-10-26T15:43:17.910" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I noted in comments, I think that you can generally expect that a company that makes a good circular polarizer will like also make a good linear one. However, if the purpose is to reduce cost, because of different lenses (now and in the future), then there is an alternative option: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.leefilters.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lee Filters&lt;/a&gt; or the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cokin.fr/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cokin P Series&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a nutshell, these are square/rectangular filter systems that you purchase an inexpensive filter holder that slides onto diameter adapters (also quite inexpensive) and then slide filters into the adapter. Most, as I noted, are rectangular except for the polarizers. These are round and fit into a special slot on the holder and then you adjust as normal. The polarizer is large enough to handle lens diameters specified by the chosen system and so you can get quite a range (I'm ranging from 49mm to 77mm with one polarizer).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of quality, Lee is generally regarded to be better than Cokin, but is also more expensive. Cokin is, however, decent and may not only cover your needs well, but may be easier to find. Either way, I literally saved close to a $1000 on circular polarizers and other filters by going this route.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The final upside is that you can get a lot of other filters, such as ND, graduated ND, and more and use them on your lens collection. Saves a lot of dough and there are third party makers of these filters for the two systems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-10-26T15:43:17.910" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="4231" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4222" CreationDate="2010-10-26T19:04:56.300" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use LR3's Publish To Flickr as well. My RAW files are 21MP, therefore to avoid the problem you mention I make sure the files are down-scaled to at most 2048 pixels vertically (my preference). Note that I first &lt;em&gt;export&lt;/em&gt; my RAW files to JPEG, &lt;em&gt;then&lt;/em&gt; publish my JPEG files. The reason I do this is because I want to keep a copy of my JPEG files on disk to share them with other devices on my network. However, the &quot;Image Sizing&quot; parameters are exactly the same in the Publishing Services, so the info below still applies if you want to publish RAW files &lt;em&gt;directly&lt;/em&gt; to Flickr and resize on the fly. Check Adobe's &lt;a href=&quot;http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Lightroom/3.0/Using/WS6505A3BB-ADF6-4127-8110-D284BBC79853.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Specify export image sizing&lt;/a&gt; for more info.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Select your Publish to Flickr service, and pick &quot;Edit Settings&quot;. Go to the the &quot;Image Sizing&quot; section, check &quot;Resize to Fit&quot;, select &quot;Width &amp;amp; Height&quot; and check &quot;Don't Enlarge&quot;. Now in the &quot;W:&quot; input box enter &quot;0&quot; for width, and in the &quot;H:&quot; input box enter &quot;2048&quot; for height. The 0 value here instructs LR to constraint the width to your maximum height (here, 2048) while keeping the same ratio. Below is a screenshot for my Export preset, but the &quot;Image Sizing&quot; section is the same in your publishing service.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/MbeRg.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE: well, turns out this 0 value for &quot;W:&quot; was working when in LR2, not anymore in LR3. It will only let you go as low as 1, not 0. Good thing I kept my old presets around. Not a problem though, you can specify 2048 and 2048 in the  input boxes, and your photo will be at most 2048 wide for landscape, and 2048 tall for portraits. If you feel adventurous, note that your Export Presets are stored in text files in your Lightroom User dir. For example, my &quot;To JPEG (sRGB, 2048)&quot; preset is stored as &quot;To JPEG (sRGB, 2048).lrtemplate&quot;. If you entered 1 for &quot;W:&quot;, you will find a &quot;size_maxWidth = 1&quot; line in your preset file, which you could modify with a text editor to &quot;size_maxWidth = 0&quot;. Unfortunately I don't think I see such files for Publishing Services...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As was mentioned already, you may want to use 1024 if you are concerned people could steal your original photo for print. Or from Flickr, disable &quot;Download Original&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-26T23:38:14.113" LastActivityDate="2010-10-26T23:38:14.113" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4232" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3996" CreationDate="2010-10-26T23:10:04.697" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since I've learn some things from the time I asked this question, I'm gonna answer myself and show you a few examples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know, this is not HDR nor tone-mapped HDR photos, but I want to show you the great results you can get using exposure fusion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please, don't judge the photos, I just want to show you the differences in shadows/lights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what I've done:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Using the &quot;hole scene&quot; light metering, I changed the shutter speed till I got 0EV&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;With shutter speed bracketing, I took 5 photos with stops of +/- 2EV (0, -2, +2, -4, +4)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In my Arch Linux box, I used the enfuse tool and merge the 5 images to just 1.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are some results:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;First photo of the serie 1: &lt;a href=&quot;http://goo.gl/BYbt&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://goo.gl/BYbt&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Final enfused image from serie 1: &lt;a href=&quot;http://goo.gl/BlXU&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://goo.gl/BlXU&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;First photo of the serie 2: &lt;a href=&quot;http://goo.gl/W2mY&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://goo.gl/W2mY&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Final enfused image from serie 2: &lt;a href=&quot;http://goo.gl/vsRj&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://goo.gl/vsRj&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1641" LastActivityDate="2010-10-26T23:10:04.697" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4233" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4212" CreationDate="2010-10-27T02:34:38.297" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm surprised nobody has yet mentioned &lt;a href=&quot;http://explore.live.com/windows-live-photo-gallery?os=other&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Windows Live Photo Gallery&lt;/a&gt;.  It's free, and has most of the basic functions you need for photo management and touch up.  Personally, I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://tryit.adobe.com/us/lightroom/tw2/?sdid=IBFIE&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adobe Lightroom&lt;/a&gt;, but it costs a fair bit.  When I am on somebody else's computer, and need to do some quick fixes, I've never been disappointed with Windows Live Photo Gallery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="227" LastActivityDate="2010-10-27T02:34:38.297" />
  <row Id="4234" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4222" CreationDate="2010-10-27T03:49:03.950" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your images are too large, which is not exclusively related to being RAW, JPEGs can be too large as well. The solution is to send a down-scaled version to Flikr.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's how:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Right-click on the Flickr 'bar' under Publishing service. From the menu that appears, select 'Edit Settings', that is the first option. The 'Lightroom Publishing Manager' will appear. You should see a big scrollable area on the right, scroll it until you see a heading that says 'Image Sizing'. If you do not see the size options, then expand the section by clicking on the heading itself. I use Lightroom 3.2, in case that makes a difference&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-10-27T03:49:03.950" />
  <row Id="4235" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4248" CreationDate="2010-10-27T04:01:08.353" Score="12" ViewCount="388" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am interested what is your experience with this speedlight with regards to the type of batteries you use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you recommend the batteries providing shortest recycle time and max number of flashes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="393" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T00:34:43.077" Title="AA rechargeable batteries for Nikon SD-600 speedlight" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;batteries&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4236" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-27T04:09:36.360" Score="8" ViewCount="219" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a very large collection of images in a bunch of nested folders. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to run some sort of process (on a regular basis) that will sync all the images to another place in a new smaller size. (I would like to restrict both height an width) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This will allow me to carry all my images around with me in lower res on my portable devices. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any suggestions for a tool that I could schedule (ideally I would like it only to process each image once)? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="230" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T09:18:20.100" Title="Software for bulk image resizing" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;batch&gt;&lt;resolution&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4237" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4235" CreationDate="2010-10-27T04:26:42.257" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I (and many others, from what I've ready), really love the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000LNI5VC?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;tag=pp-gen-20&amp;amp;linkCode=as2&amp;amp;camp=1789&amp;amp;creative=390957&amp;amp;creativeASIN=B000LNI5VC&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Eneloop batteries by Sanyo&lt;/a&gt;.  That's an Amazon link to an 8-pack but they're available elsewhere as well.  I've had great results as far as the batteries remaining charged, recharging quickly, and offering good performance for things like flash cycle time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-10-27T04:26:42.257" />
  <row Id="4238" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4236" CreationDate="2010-10-27T04:33:46.410" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;ImageMagick would be an obvious possibility for the scaling itself. Scheduling a search for new pictures and creating a scaled copy of each isn't built into it though. Most OSes have scheduling capability that could run it though. As a programmer, one thing &lt;em&gt;I'd&lt;/em&gt; probably consider would be to use a makefile to handle running the conversion only when a target didn't exist. Most normal people would consider that a really strange way to do things though...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-10-27T04:33:46.410" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4239" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4236" CreationDate="2010-10-27T07:31:33.160" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Picasa will allow you to batch resize your photos, and it's &lt;strong&gt;free&lt;/strong&gt;. You can select a bunch of images to export, then choose the desired dimensions and location. It will then save a copy of all the images you selected in the new size.  The location can be another folder, or even the web.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://picasa.google.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://picasa.google.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure it offers scheduling, but the overhead in running the above process is very small - it's really just a few clicks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has some other great features you might find useful, definitely worth checking out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1616" LastActivityDate="2010-10-27T07:31:33.160" />
  <row Id="4240" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4243" CreationDate="2010-10-27T09:42:46.103" Score="5" ViewCount="202" Body="&lt;p&gt;After doing some shooting with a friend's camera, equipped with a 18-200mm lens, I find my own 18-70mm lens rather limiting. I mostly do snapshots while traveling and/or with the scouts, and versatile lens with a long zoom range seems to support this kind of photography well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am aware that my Nikon D70 has some years behind it, and that I might want to upgrade to a newer body within the next few years. If I purchase a new 18-200mm (or similar) lens for my D70 today, will it still useful when I replace my camera body in a few years? Would it be wiser to upgrade body and lens at the same time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1771" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T09:27:14.970" Title="New zoom lens for semi-old DSLR, or new camera altogether?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;compatibility&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="4241" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4240" CreationDate="2010-10-27T09:48:12.553" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you buy a high-quality AF G lens today for your Nikon, it should still be perfectly useful with a new body in a few years. The odds of Nikon doing an overhaul of the lens mount in that time seem slim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's one big upside of SLRs/DSLRs; you can buy lenses and bodies independent of each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1772" LastActivityDate="2010-10-27T09:48:12.553" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="4242" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-27T09:56:09.810" Score="7" ViewCount="521" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm new to working with RAW images, and I'm capturing simultaneous RAW+JPGs with my new Lumix LX5, and using Bibble to view/process the results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm very surprised that the RAW images taken at 24mm wide 16x9 seem to capture a different (and larger) sensor area compared to the JPGs. The RAW images seem to contain the equivalent of about 100 extra pixels on left and right sides, and a smaller number top and bottom. I say &quot;equivalent&quot;, because the actual pixel counts of RAW and JPG are only slightly different, which implies some resizing must be going on...?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;JPG: 3968 x 2232&#xA;RAW: 3976 x 2238&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess this small difference is because JPG images must be 16x16 multiples&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The raw image displays noticeable vignetting in the extra pixels, and there's a fair bit of chromatic aberration. I can crop off the 'extra' pixels, but then my RAW image has fewer pixels in it than the JPG, which doesn't feel right. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll try and add samples shortly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="562" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-30T12:38:29.167" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T12:38:29.167" Title="Why is the pixel count of RAW images from the Panasonic LX5 slightly larger than the generated JPEGs?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;jpeg&gt;&lt;panasonic-lumix&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4243" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4240" CreationDate="2010-10-27T11:16:29.477" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A good lens is a lasting investment that will outlive generations of camera bodies. But you should be aware of these general considerations when buying a lens.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The greater the zoom range the lower the resolution, the greater the distortions and the smaller the maximum aperture. This is an unavoidable law of lenses. Thus a prime lens is capable of the highest quality, moderate zoom lenses are capable of intermediate quality while the long, so-called super-zoom, lenses have the lowest quality. It is a trade-off, convenience vs image quality that will depend on your needs and circumstances.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;High resolution camera bodies will reveal the shortcomings in your lenses. Your Nikon D70 has a 6 Mp sensor and this low resolution sensor will not reveal the shortcomings of a long zoom lens like the 18-200. But when you upgrade to a new, high resolution body you will find the shortcomings of the lens become very obvious. At the same time you will have become a more experienced photographer who expects more from his equipment.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many photographers happily make this compromise while others demand the highest possible sharpness and will only use prime lenses. It is your choice but you need to be aware that upgrading to a modern, high quality body will make the compromise more obvious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-10-27T11:16:29.477" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4244" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4242" CreationDate="2010-10-27T11:27:20.050" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Firstly there are a couple of general reasons raw and JPEG images differ in size, and raw differs from the actual number of pixels on the sensor:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whilst JPEG image dimensions don't have to be multiples of 16 (or 8 if not using chroma subsampling) it is more efficient to do so, as it allows you to rotate the images without re-encoding (lossless rotation). So that can account for a small image size difference, as you say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even raw image sizes typically differ from the actual number of pixels as most sensors have strips masked pixels (that receive no light) down each side in order to detect banding issues with uneven amplification. Further, the size you see in your raw viewer will differ from the actual raw data as some image processing operations use a form of averaging which doesn't work at extreme edges (because there's no data beyond the image to use when averaging) so they get cropped off when the image is viewed/converted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Secondly the Panasonic Lumix LX3 and LX5 have a different sensor design to most cameras, which is partially responsible for the difference in coverage between raw and jpeg you are experiencing:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The maximum 16:9 image size is actually wider than the maximum 4:3 image size. You would expect them to be the same width but different heights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is because they've made the sensor a bit wider for 16:9, employing a non rectangular design and it's pushing the very edges of the lens image circle, this explains the vignetting and CA you observe with the raw. This diagram shows the irregular design: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/7AUFL.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As John Cavan suggests, the JPEG image pipeline is doing some correction, including barrel distortion correction, given that 24mm equiv. is very wide for a compact, and the sensor is pushing to the very edge of the image circle. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Barrel distortion correction makes straight lines straight again, but will cause the image edges to bend in response. In response to this the correcting transformation enlarges the image slightly and crops to get straight edges again. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you see any differences in the appearance of straight lines between the raw and JPEG? It might be quite subtle but get revealed if you overlay them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="499" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-07T11:38:07.323" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T11:38:07.323" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="4245" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4236" CreationDate="2010-10-27T11:47:31.327" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;FastStone it's free and simple, and it can little bit more then just re-sizing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.faststone.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.faststone.org/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1681" LastActivityDate="2010-10-27T11:47:31.327" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4246" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4236" CreationDate="2010-10-27T13:49:49.813" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xnview.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;XnView&lt;/a&gt; is probably the answer, as long as you either use a scheduler or manually run it on a regular basis. Personally, I use my own scripting which runs nconvert to do this exact thing. Nconvert comes with XnView and is also available separately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;XnView is extremely powerful for batch conversion, it even can apply transformations during the process. Most importantly after you set up your conversion between certain directories, you can ask it to output a batch file that does the same conversion. This will come in very handy if you want to add this to a task scheduler or cron job.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-27T15:23:24.617" LastActivityDate="2010-10-27T15:23:24.617" />
  <row Id="4248" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4235" CreationDate="2010-10-27T15:35:39.263" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I agree &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000LNI5VC&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sanyo Eneloop&lt;/a&gt; are very good batteries, but you should also consider getting a high quality charger if you want your batteries to last a while. I took the recommendation from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/03/adventures-in-rechargeable-batteries.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this Coding Horror blog post&lt;/a&gt; and went for the BC900, but the newer BL700 is highly recommended as well (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.batterylogic.co.uk/technoline/technoline-BL700-or-BC900.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;comparison here&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="40" LastEditorUserId="40" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-27T18:51:23.940" LastActivityDate="2010-10-27T18:51:23.940" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4249" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4240" CreationDate="2010-10-27T16:03:59.167" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The D70 is indeed an old camera and has some limitations compared with&#xA;newer bodies: low res, lack of live view, no active D-lighting, few AF&#xA;points... However, if you do not feel frustrated about these limitations,&#xA;there is no urge to upgrade. A new lens will usually have a greater&#xA;impact on your pictures than a new body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 18-200 is certainly not the best lens if you look at pure image&#xA;quality. But if portability and zoom range are more important to you&#xA;than ultimate resolution, it can indeed be a very good choice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the compatibility with future bodies, the question is: are you&#xA;likely to upgrade in a few years to a &lt;strong&gt;full frame&lt;/strong&gt; body? Full frame&#xA;cameras (currently: D700 and D3 series) are quite heavier and more&#xA;expensive than DX cameras, and targeted at the prosumer and pro&#xA;markets. But Nikon still makes high end DX bodies (D300s and D7000). If&#xA;your answer is &quot;yes, it's likely&quot;, then be aware that the 18-200 does&#xA;not play well with full frame. If the answer is &quot;no&quot;, then do not worry:&#xA;the 18-200 is 100% compatible with any past and current DX camera, and&#xA;is likely to be 100% compatible with newer DX cameras in the foreseeable&#xA;future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your last question, upgrading body and lens at the same time&#xA;can indeed be a wise move. Not for technical reasons, but simply because&#xA;you may be able to buy the lens at a discount price if you buy a body at&#xA;the same time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1730" LastActivityDate="2010-10-27T16:03:59.167" />
  <row Id="4250" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4235" CreationDate="2010-10-27T16:17:40.837" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just use energizer rechargeable 2500mah, but then again, where I live, I cant find any of them Sanyo Eneloops. Heard good things about them but never had a chance to check them out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I dont do much flash photography, and when i do, a fast recycle time has never been an issue. That said, the few times that I've tried manually setting the flash to 100%, the sb-600 took about 8 seconds to recycle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1779" LastActivityDate="2010-10-27T16:17:40.837" />
  <row Id="4251" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4235" CreationDate="2010-10-27T17:51:43.010" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;NiZns recharge &lt;strong&gt;around twice as fast&lt;/strong&gt; as Sanyo Eneloops, but &lt;strong&gt;last maybe 75% as long&lt;/strong&gt; and require a different charger. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/strobist/discuss/72157622630400938/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this discussion thread&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you use your flashes continuously in a short amount of time, a higher capacity NiMh will actually perform better than a Low-Self-Discharge NiMh like eneloop.  If you don't intend to discharge the batteries in a shorter period of time, they will begin to self-discharge and LSD has the advantage.  Here are some recent test numbers I found for non-NiZn:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alkaline: 4.0 sec. min. recycle time; 110 min number of flashes&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Lithium: 4.5 sec. min. recycle time; 230 min. number of flashes&lt;br&gt;&#xA;NiMh (non-LSD 2600mAh): 2.3 sec. min. recycle time; 190 min. number of flashes&lt;br&gt;&#xA;NiMh (LSD eneloop): 2.3 sec. min. recycle time; 165 min. number of flashes &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This older chart in a Nikon flash manual is in agreement:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/94X52.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are two videos, one comparing NiMh vs NiZn and the other NiMh with battery pack vs NiZn:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/9899098@N04/4301938143/in/photostream/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/9899098@N04/4301938143/in/photostream/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/9899098@N04/4301902023/in/photostream/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/9899098@N04/4301902023/in/photostream/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reportedly, it makes an even bigger difference with flashes older than that 580 EX II&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With NiMH, a smart independent channel charger is essential for best performance.  Otherwise you are overcharging and undercharging certain cells, leading to greater wear and worse performance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-01T00:34:43.077" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T00:34:43.077" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4252" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4253" CreationDate="2010-10-27T18:43:50.950" Score="13" ViewCount="377" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just purchased my first circular polarizer. I have read the thread &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/655/in-which-situations-should-i-use-my-circular-polarizing-filter&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; about when to use it, but I still have a question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How to use it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A friend told me to spin the polarizer until the sky turns blue. However, in addition to not making sense in many contexts, I don't really understand what this means. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is, I don't really know how to use this thing. What should I be looking for through my viewfinder when using this, so I was wondering if there was an easy explanation.(I am using a DSLR)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T19:56:22.290" Title="Rule of use for circular polarizers" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;polarizer&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="4253" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4252" CreationDate="2010-10-27T19:10:19.897" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a DSLR user, you actually see through the lens, which is why it is easy to use a circular polarizer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First is to know when to put it on and when not too:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is not advisable to keep it on constantly, although I met people who do that, because it gives you 2 stops less light. This means your camera either uses slower shutter-speeds which makes things that move blurry or higher ISO which makes image grainy.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Polarizers are not useful in dull or diffuse light.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They are useful in bright directional light and you should see the effect right away when it is. Even in bright light, their effect is strongest at 90-degrees from the sun. If you are shooting into the sun or directly away, there will be very little difference.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Polarizers are not recommended for very wide-angle lenses, because of the previous point. In other words, if you get into your frame light that is parallel and perpendicular relative to the sun, the polarizer will only affect part of the light and your results will look very strange.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second is the how part:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Looking through the viewfinder, frame your shot, zooming if necessary, then rotate the outer ring of the polarizer. Make sure it is tight enough otherwise, you'll unscrew the whole thing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rotate the ring until you see the most pleasing image. Generally the sky gets darker to a point and then start brightening up. At the darkest point, the effect is maximal but you may not want to go that far if it makes things look unnatural, such as the sky being much darker than the foreground.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Polarizers also remove reflections. If that is the goal, rotate the ring until you see the least reflection where you want it to go away. It is rare that it disappears entirely unless the surface is completely flat.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-10-27T19:10:19.897" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4254" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4252" CreationDate="2010-10-27T19:15:49.660" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would say the best way to use a circular polarizer is to turn it until highlights look appropriate. The general reason you need a polarizer is because of bright, often &quot;point&quot; highlights that create glare and obscure detail. A notable situation where this occurs is on the surface of water, where the reflection of light sources blots out the true detail in the water, reducing the impact of a photo. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are numerous articles on the net that describe how to use polarizers in great detail with excellent examples. One of my favorite is Bob Atkins page, which has a superb example of a frog in water, with and without a polarizer: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/polarizers.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;All about Polarizers - Linear and Circular&lt;/a&gt;. Ken Rockwell has a good page on filters as well, which includes information on how to use polarizers: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filters.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Filters&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To quote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For filters that have different&#xA;  effects depending on rotation&#xA;  (polarizers and graduated filters)&#xA;  it's also easy. Take the filter off&#xA;  the camera, hold it up to your eye and&#xA;  rotate until you get the effect you&#xA;  want. Note the position of the filter&#xA;  (look for the position of the writing&#xA;  on the outside or an index dot), put&#xA;  it back over the lens and rotate it to&#xA;  the same position.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ken Rockwell&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my experience, you don't really need to take the filter off the lens, but to practice a bit, and get a feel for how the polarizer will work, it is useful to do this for your first few shots. Using a live view mode, if you have it, can also be useful. Sometimes it can be a little difficult to see in the viewfinder if you have a polarizer oriented perfectly for a shot. The key is to mitigate or eliminate glare on shiny or smooth surfaces. You should be able to see when this happens, and know you have the right orientation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Something to be noted about some circular polarizers. A good one will not introduce too much of a color cast to your images, but all of them will introduce some color cast. I am not certain why this happens, but it seems to be limited to circular polarizers. Linear polarizers may cool your image somewhat, although again, a higher quality one should introduce minimal color cast. Sometimes it is useful to accept some highlight glare in favor of less color shift. Generally speaking, this can be corrected during post processing if you use RAW, but if you use JPEG, its best to pick the happy medium where you mitigate as much glare as you can without introducing a strong color shift.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-27T19:22:43.863" LastActivityDate="2010-10-27T19:22:43.863" />
  <row Id="4255" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-27T19:38:56.793" Score="8" ViewCount="514" Body="&lt;p&gt;My wife has a Canon 450D and a 70-300 lens for long distance shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am considering a present or two and good advice from jrista suggests possible upgrade of camera to a Canon 7D and of lens to a Canon EF100-400 or Canon EF400 (I do like Canon).&#xA;This will result in quite a large investment in my wife’s photographic future and I would like to get it right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would, therefore, welcome any further advice from jrista and any other users who may be able to assist me in my quest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I were only able to get one of the presents, which should I choose?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1179" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-28T12:22:45.950" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T22:09:12.880" Title="What size lens is recommended for flying bird photography?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nature&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4256" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4255" CreationDate="2010-10-27T20:35:43.440" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 100-400 is an awesome lens for bird photography. it's my go-to lens, and I do about 90% of my nature work with it. Works well carrying it around and is pretty fast and flexible. I work with a crop sensor, primarily a 7d, and I recommend a crop sensor for bird photography for the magnification it brings. the 7D is a killer body for this use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I'm working off of a tripod, I tend to use a 300/F4 and a 1.4x Teleconverter. It's a little sharper and a small bit more powerful than the 100-400 @400mm. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will find that 400mm is not powerful enough at times; I do wish a lot for 400mm or 500mm lens, especially one I can slap a 1.4x tele on. The cost difference going from 300m to 400mm is prohibitive for me right now, so I make do. You can do quite well with the 100-400. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(just back from a trip shooting at a refuge; this was primarily shot with the 300/1.4x combo on the 7d: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chuqui.com/2010/10/dawn-patrol/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.chuqui.com/2010/10/dawn-patrol/&lt;/a&gt;; here's a shot taken with the 100-400 from earlier this year: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/chuqui/4980414951/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/chuqui/4980414951/&lt;/a&gt; )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I highly recommend the 100-400 as a good lens for this. The 300/F4 and 1.4x is another option to consider and probably a bit less expensive. You can buy BOTH for less than a 400mm or 50mm would cost, so they're good lenses for getting going here without committing to a mortgage. But trust me, if you catch the bug for bird photography, at some point, you'll be budgeting for ever bigger and more powerful lenses... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-10-27T20:35:43.440" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4257" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4236" CreationDate="2010-10-27T20:52:26.423" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On Windows, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.irfanview.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Irfanview&lt;/a&gt; is another free image viewer which has a good batch resizing/resampling mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a quality POV, you should be interested in the resampling algorithms that your chosen tool uses.  Irfanview provides control over, and the choice of, quite a number of high quality resampling algorithms, and the later versions also provide control over sharpening of your resampled images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sharpening is important since resizing pictures to make them smaller tends to make the images softer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-27T20:52:26.423" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4258" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4255" CreationDate="2010-10-27T21:42:09.547" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A friend of mine bought his wife the 400mm as a birthday present since she's an avid bird photographer and she loves it. If it helps you to decide a little on what to get, here's her &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/38181551@N07/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr photostream&lt;/a&gt; to see some samples of what you can get out of it. She pretty much uses the 400mm and 7D combo exclusively now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a side note, while you mentioned an affinity for Canon lenses, you might want to consider the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/50-500mm-f45-63-apo-dg-os-hsm-sigma&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma &quot;Bigma&quot;&lt;/a&gt; 50-500mm lens as an option. A really good comparison write-up of the Sigma and Canon options can be found on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_100-400_sigma_120-400_150-500_50-500.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Juza's nature photography&lt;/a&gt; website. You can see some samples of his work there too, he's quite a good photographer in Italy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-10-27T21:42:09.547" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4259" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4319" CreationDate="2010-10-27T21:55:16.353" Score="4" ViewCount="108" Body="&lt;p&gt;I offer my photos to companies and designers. Know a good place to recommend? Thank you very much!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1782" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T16:30:01.363" Title="Recommend which site to sell photos? and it is for Spanish-speaking community" Tags="&lt;picture-sales&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4260" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4255" CreationDate="2010-10-27T23:39:59.467" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When photographing birds, the ultimate goal is to get that &quot;frame filling&quot; shot, where the bird (or birds) cover the bulk of the image. To capture such shots, you need a lot of reach, however even with reach, you still need to get pretty close. As a general rule, 400mm is the minimum necessary to get good bird shots without having to get so close that you scare your subject off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon offers several lenses that fit the bill. One of the most popular bird and wildlife lenses is the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM lens. The nice thing about this lens is it comes with image stabilization, which helps offset its tighter aperture a bit, allowing better hand-held performance at lower shutter speeds. I use this lens myself, and it is a great lens overall. It truly shines when used with a camera body that offers good high-ISO performance (i.e. 5D, 7D, 550D). This lens goes for about $1500-$1600 street, $1800 list. It is probably the best bang for the buck as far as 400mm telephoto goes, and my top recommendation. I would avoid using this lens with a teleconverter, as it reduces the long-end aperture below the AF limit for many camera bodies, and greatly darkens the viewfinder. Your maximum aperture at 400mm shrinks as well to f/6.3 or so, which is much too slow to be effective as a birding lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon also offers the EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM Lens, which is one of their cheapest telephoto primes. It lists for around $1200, and can sometimes be found for around $1000. It is a great lens, but a tad slow. Optically, this lens is excellent, and provides better, sharper images than the 100-400mm. It is a favorite of a lot of Colorado bird photographers, and I have seen it paired with the 7D quite frequently lately. It is best paired with a high-ISO body. I wouldn't really recommend it for the Canon 450D, although it would probably be fine on a 550D, 7D, or 5D. An f/4 aperture would be more ideal, however for telephoto primes, the price quickly rises past $4000 for wider apertures than f/5.6.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an alternative to the 100-400mm zoom, you could also get the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L II IS USM lens, and combine it with a teleconverter. Canon offers 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters, which can extend the focal length of your lenses. The 70-200mm becomes a 140-400mm lens, but looses some aperture (it would drop to about &lt;strike&gt;f/4, maybe f/4.5&lt;/strike&gt; f/5.6 [note: this aperture makes this option not much better than the 100-400mm, and a lot more expensive]). Such a combination would make for a very ideal zoom lens setup, with a great telephoto range and a good, wide, constant aperture at f/4. This setup would cost more, some $2500 or so, but between the lens and the teleconverter(s), would cover a focal range from 70mm through 400mm, greatly expanding the usefulness of the setup beyond just bird photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some great third-party vendors who make good telephoto lenses with a Canon mount. One of the more popular is the Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 lens, often called the &quot;Sigma Bigma&quot; for its huge telephoto range and 500mm long end. Optically, it does not perform as well as, say, the Canon 100-400mm, and certainly not as good as a 400mm or 500mm prime lens. At the 500mm end, an aperture of f/6.3 is not ideal, so higher ISO performance would be best. For the price of $2400, it is a pretty good deal, and it can make a good bird lens, as well as a general purpose lens that covers pretty much all useful focal lengths outside of wide-angle. I would bump the camera's sharpness setting up, or add some sharpness in post processing if you use RAW.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any 500mm or longer lens with an f/5.6 or wider aperture will offer better results for bird photography. Sadly, once you hit this range, prices rise dramatically, for both on- and off-brand lenses. Usually, such lenses can be found starting for around $4000, and moving on up to $10,000 or more. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-28T01:31:46.693" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T01:31:46.693" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="4261" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4255" CreationDate="2010-10-28T00:59:49.033" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not a bird photographer but whenever I travel with amateur birders, they almost always use the Sigma 50-500mm. As Jrista said, you lose in terms of quality but versatility-wise it is hard to beat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is where the images go, if it's for small prints or web-use, you may not notice the difference. If it's for a gallery, you'll have to get something better and probably heavier.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I take a group to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neovoyage.com/tour.php?dest=ecuador-andes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ecuador&lt;/a&gt;, we spend two shoots (sunset &amp;amp; sunrise) at a bird-lodge sanctuary. The species are quite small, particularly the hummingbirds everyone goes to see there. Those who max-out before 400mm (like me) didn't get many closeups, except near the bird-feeders where you can get really really close. At least, I'm not there for the birds ;) Those who don't want to shoot birds, get to have fun photographing Orchids instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T00:59:49.033" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4262" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4266" CreationDate="2010-10-28T09:44:45.103" Score="10" ViewCount="261" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do you carry light or just bring everything and put the rest in the hotel and carry out those you need? Was it safe to put in hotel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1786" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T20:20:59.977" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T20:20:59.977" Title="Do you carry every piece of equipment out for your photography trips?" Tags="&lt;travel&gt;&lt;security&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4263" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4262" CreationDate="2010-10-28T10:36:38.227" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, having just got back from a 2 week trip to Italy (2 days ago), I can give you my completely honest answer! I took the vast majority of my portable gear, which included flashes, 6 lenses, tripod, etc. It also included a little netbook computer and two USB drives for backup. This all managed to, tightly, fit into my Think Tank Airport Antidote bag and weighed a ton. I also packed a very small canvas camera bag, not really designed for SLRs, which can hold two lenses and a few smaller items (such as SD cards) for the actual day-to-day trips out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With all that, each morning as we headed out for the planned excursion, I would pick the lenses I thought I might want and headed out. The interesting thing is that, by and large, I generally used one lens (a 28-105) and carried an 18-55 and 70-300. However, a number times there were things where I quickly switched to one or the other and I was glad I had them. Even the tripod got some use, mostly at night.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I never actually worried about issues in hotels, in Italy, but having done the same in Mexico I was a little more cautious and used the hotel room safe for the most important gear (e.g. camera, SD cards, irreplacable lenses). I never had a problem there either and I've done that a few times as well. I think it's just being aware of the place and the risks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, that's my experience and it's been working for me. That's my disclaimer! ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T10:36:38.227" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4264" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4259" CreationDate="2010-10-28T12:20:28.137" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't restrict yourself to the Spanish speaking community (although I believe Spanish to have fractionally more native speakers than English, so it's a pretty big audience); Instead look at the picture agencies that operate in your area. I personally use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography/27375471-EF59-48EC-ADC9-8181E0D15492/1/Rowland%20Shaw.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Alamy&lt;/a&gt;, and have sold as far afield as the Russian Federation, as well as domestic sales.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you specifically want to target Spanish speakers, make sure the photographs are correctly keyworded - I'd suggest you add keywords applicable to as many languages as you are fluent, to widen the appeal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T12:20:28.137" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4265" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4262" CreationDate="2010-10-28T13:42:56.020" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It really depends on so many factors but I'll start by saying that it is not really feasible to carry all my gear on a trip, my backers don't have that much funds! Although I know some people count their photo gear in 'numbers of suitcases'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I try to anticipate the trip and bring a flexible set that covers the needs I am likely to encounter. It may happen that I don't have the right lens or camera for a particular shot but it's not like I'm about to run out of pictures to take with whatever I have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a base, I start with 2 or 3 camera bodies and one wide-angle, one medium and one longer lens, plus one tripod. I rarely carry two longs, so either I go with a bright but shorter like my 50-135mm F2.8 or the longer 60-250mm F/4. The third camera is usually an ultra-compact for family vacations, or an ultra-zoom for other trips. That gives a lot of flexibility and backup in the event that a lens fails rather than a camera. Never happened to me so far, but I've seen people only shooting using a 300mm lens because their general purpose zoom failed, usually by falling of from a certain height.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I fill the rest such as prime lenses, a second tripod, etc based on specific needs that I can anticipate. I usually try to slip in one macro lens, but from experience it rarely gets used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From there, most days I carry all ONE set around: One body, matching lenses and tripods. I avoid as much as possible to carry my primary and backup together. When going out even to dinner, I'll leave on set in the hotel and one comes with me. Who knows what might get robbed? The hotel or me first? If there is a safe big enough, the the hotel gear does in. Most time it is not. So I attach my hard suitcase using a special metal cable and lock to a permanent fixture of the hotel. Or, if I am using a soft one, like a backpack, then I put it in a metal mesh which is attached to a hotel fixture as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nothing here is everything-proof but every bit we make it harder to be taken away reduces the chances of it disappearing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether hotels are safe or not depends on so many factors. So you won't get a useful answer. I've been to places where people leave their laptops unattended in the lobby and nothing happens... and I've also seen police investigating items which disappeared from under the dining table while people were dining! In some restaurants, they give you twist ties so that you can attach your bag to the table or chair!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T13:42:56.020" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4266" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4262" CreationDate="2010-10-28T14:28:54.783" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I try to travel ultralight, and for me, working with limited gear is a form of challenge too. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My typical setup is my SLR body, a fast prime lens, an all-purpose zoom which offers a decent wide-angle, and a truckload of memory cards. I leave all other lenses, flash, tripod and other gizmos at home. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I'm getting ready for the day, I choose one lens to travel with, and leave the other in the hotel. Sometimes, I'll carry both if I know in advance that I'll need both, or if I don't trust the hotel with my lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd rather spend my photography time looking for things to photograph, than fiddling with gear. And with a small camera bag that looks like a very-battered purse, and a smaller unimpressive lens, I'm not a magnet for pickpockets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="204" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T14:28:54.783" />
  <row Id="4267" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4236" CreationDate="2010-10-28T14:40:48.157" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I usually use ImageMagick or GraphicsMagick (less features, but faster, not always the same result). The Linux way to schedule this processing is to write a script and put it in the &lt;code&gt;crontab&lt;/code&gt;. To reduce time to run you can select only the new photos with &lt;code&gt;find&lt;/code&gt;. If you need help in writing such a script, please ask. I can help with that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Linux user I also use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bitron.ch/software/nautilus-image-converter.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nautilus Image Converter&lt;/a&gt;. On Ubuntu/Debian you can install it with &lt;code&gt;nautilus-image-converter&lt;/code&gt; package. It adds a resize option in the file manager context menu. I suppose it uses ImageMagick internally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some other Linux options are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://members.ozemail.com.au/~hodsond/dbp.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gimp Batch Processor&lt;/a&gt; (a plugin to do bulk processing in Gimp, has a graphical user interface, part of the &lt;code&gt;gimp-plugin-registry&lt;/code&gt; package on Ubuntu) (see also a &lt;a href=&quot;http://ulyssesonline.com/2008/09/22/batch-resize-images-with-gimp/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;mini-tutorial&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://pegabyte.blogspot.com/2010/01/two-ways-to-edit-multiple-photos-with.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Batch Queue in digiKam&lt;/a&gt; (a fairly advance tool for bulk processing, with graphical interface, it's nice if you are already a digiKam user)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gimp.org/tutorials/Basic_Batch/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gimp Batch Mode&lt;/a&gt; (extremely flexible, but requires some programming in Scheme; suitable for scheduled processing)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T14:40:48.157" />
  <row Id="4268" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-28T14:48:05.430" Score="9" ViewCount="207" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm using a photo I found on flickr that is licensed with the Creative Commons non-commercial attribution license.  I'm modifying this photo and then will be giving it as a present to a friend.  Does anyone know if I still need to attribute the photo?  How about if I do it verbally?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1790" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-14T05:06:34.680" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T05:07:17.423" Title="Attribution in a digital print?" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;flickr&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;creative-commons&gt;" AnswerCount="6" />
  <row Id="4269" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4268" CreationDate="2010-10-28T14:58:10.747" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You do need to give attribution any time you create a copy of it (even if you have modified it yourself).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What if you write an attribution on the back (and give attribution verbally)?  That way, if your friend forgets where you said you found it, he/she can look on the back of the photo to find out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As others have suggested, your best bet is to contact the person who took the picture, and ask how he/she would prefer you attribute it.  I am going to guess that most people who post photos on Flickr under a Creative Commons license are going to be thrilled that you like their work and want to use it, and will be very reasonable with coming up with an attribution scheme that fits aesthetically in your photo book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="307" LastEditorUserId="307" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-28T16:13:28.107" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T16:13:28.107" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4270" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4149" CreationDate="2010-10-28T15:09:08.643" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Oh boy. That error happened to me on a Powershot SX100 is some weeks ago. I visited several web sites like &lt;a href=&quot;http://camerarepair.blogspot.com/2007/12/fixing-lens-error-on-digital-camera.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt; but wasn't able to fix it by myself, so I ended up buying the same camera you have (was also an excuse to buy a new one), and pray it doesn't happen again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1595" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T15:09:08.643" />
  <row Id="4271" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4268" CreationDate="2010-10-28T15:20:50.853" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why don't send an email to the original photographer informing him of your modifications and probably also send a [digital] copy of it.&#xA;Or perhaps upload the modified photo to your flickr account and attribute it to the author.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1779" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T15:20:50.853" />
  <row Id="4272" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4268" CreationDate="2010-10-28T15:23:34.687" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want to really avoid issues, be they moral or legal; your best bet is to seek advice from the rights holder (i.e. the person who took the photograph) - They may be willing to licence it to you with different terms, or advise what options they'd see as acceptable for the attribution (If it were me, and I'd released a photo under those terms, I'd accept a note on a credits page, for a photo book; For a newspaper, I'd want it as a caption)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T15:23:34.687" />
  <row Id="4273" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="908" CreationDate="2010-10-28T15:24:01.493" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;EOS 5D (mk1) and 580EX II&#xA;AF-assist &amp;amp; no flash:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EOS 5D: {CF7: 1 (=flash off)} &amp;amp; {CF5: 0 (=send)}&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;580EXII: {CF8: 0 (Af-assist light on}&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-30T00:45:11.943" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T00:45:11.943" />
  <row Id="4274" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3858" CreationDate="2010-10-28T15:28:45.487" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Did you choose the right profile? Print &gt; Printjob &gt; Color management &amp;amp; then chose the right profile, and Perceptual as a rendering intent&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T15:28:45.487" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4275" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4268" CreationDate="2010-10-28T15:28:47.327" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (version 2.5) states quite clearly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Attribution —  You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to comply to the letter of the license you must contact the author (if they have not made clear how they would like the work attributed). Hopefully they will be reasonable!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-14T05:07:17.423" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T05:07:17.423" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4276" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4800" CreationDate="2010-10-28T17:01:56.030" Score="4" ViewCount="232" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm evaluating the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lightroom-plugins.com/AlamyIndex.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Alamy Export Lightroom Plug-in&lt;/a&gt; with Lightroom 3, but it doesn't seem to do anything -- If I attempt to export, I get a log that says &quot;[My filename] Test Mode, nothing done (1.88 Mb)&quot;. I was also expecting it to integrate as a publish service, so I wonder if it's set up wrong?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-29T13:46:33.683" LastActivityDate="2010-11-11T09:52:13.533" Title="Has anyone used the Alamy export plugin in Lightroom with any sucess?" Tags="&lt;lightroom-3&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4277" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4268" CreationDate="2010-10-28T17:46:20.597" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You do &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; need to contact the rights holder to exercise the CC licence terms. The author might specify how they want their credit worded, and what URL they would like referencing, but in the absence of that you can use your judgement - use their Flickr username and the URL of the photo page.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You simply need to provide attribution in a manner appropriate to the medium. For a framed photo for a friend, a caption on the back of the frame would be fine. If you were exhibiting in a gallery, a more visible caption would be appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="440" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T17:46:20.597" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4279" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4268" CreationDate="2010-10-28T18:22:56.953" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For a photobook, I'd consider the best solution would be to add a credits section on the last page, or on the book flap. Morally, that respects the spirit of the licence, and since it's a private use, I wouldn't be too concerned about the legal side of things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Something along the lines of &quot;Thanks to So and So, who provided the original photograph on which image on page 5 is based (link to flick page)&quot; would be just perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="204" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T18:22:56.953" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4280" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4283" CreationDate="2010-10-28T18:47:05.560" Score="7" ViewCount="208" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've dug up my dad's old &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_K1000&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pentax K1000 SE&lt;/a&gt;, along with his old lenses, and picked up some 400 film. I'm wondering which of these lenses I should go with to get the best shots tonight (outdoors, no flash):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;SMC PENTAX-M 1:1.7 50mm&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;SMC PENTAX-M 1:3.5 135mm&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm 1:3.5&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm leaning towards the 50mm, because I think it has the lowest f-stop, meaning it lets in more light? But, I might want to have a bit more of an ability to zoom to frame my shots?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I'm not sure if the meter still works, or if the battery was just dead, but approximately what sorta shutter speeds should I be using (so that I can hopefully get something reasonable if the meter doesn't work)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update:&lt;/strong&gt; Thanks for the advice. Here are the best results:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/mkelly32/5132829816/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Pumpkins by mkelly32, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4025/5132829816_d683a35a74.jpg&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;332&quot; alt=&quot;Pumpkins&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/mkelly32/5132236377/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Candy by mkelly32, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4033/5132236377_381cd61115.jpg&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;332&quot; alt=&quot;Candy&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I definitely see the trade off from a wide open aperture: the depth of field is pretty limited. But, they seemed to work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I'm not sure if the graininess is the result of the scanner that Costco used or my film (Fuji 400) and the low light.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1793" LastEditorUserId="1793" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-01T14:38:23.493" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T14:38:23.493" Title="Which setup should I choose for taking pictures of Trick-or-Treaters tonight?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;film&gt;&lt;manual-focus&gt;&lt;night-shooting&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="4281" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4280" CreationDate="2010-10-28T18:55:51.923" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just nipped outside with my trusty light meter, and it suggested 0.6 seconds @ ISO 400 f/2.8 for a street lit road. So your f/1.7 lens is your best bet with no flash. Obviously, your street may be better lit, but you'll be looking about the 1/10 sec mark for exposure times which is &quot;quite long&quot; for kids/photographers to hold still for - maybe you could up light with a torch for that extra light, I mean, &quot;spooky effect&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T18:55:51.923" />
  <row Id="4282" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4157" CreationDate="2010-10-28T18:58:36.227" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You used to be able to buy them -- I found one in my mini camera museum earlier today:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/WH2Ny.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Johnson colour Exposure Calculator&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could make something up similar?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T18:58:36.227" />
  <row Id="4283" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4280" CreationDate="2010-10-28T18:59:28.470" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you'll want to go with the 50mm f/1.7. Since you'll be shooting in low light without flash, you will want the fastest lens you can get.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the 50mm is going to give you more natural looking shots, and the wider angle will allow you to capture the overall feel of trick-or-treating better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T18:59:28.470" />
  <row Id="4284" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4289" CreationDate="2010-10-28T19:29:50.800" Score="7" ViewCount="758" Body="&lt;p&gt;As much as I'd like to work with Aperture, my main machine runs Windows (I only have a Macbook, no desktop Mac). For now, I have been using jointly Picasa and Lightroom for my photo management and editing needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Picasa&lt;/em&gt;, because it watches my photos folder (I have a flat architecture), has an easy interface, it pretty fast, but mainly because it does &lt;strong&gt;face recognition&lt;/strong&gt; (I am insanely in love with this feature in general, being able to show all pictures of grandma and aunt Lily in two clicks is awesome) and uses &lt;strong&gt;geotagging&lt;/strong&gt; to place my photos on a map.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Lightroom&lt;/em&gt;, because it allows me to do very &lt;strong&gt;fine tuning&lt;/strong&gt; of my pictures, has great &lt;strong&gt;export&lt;/strong&gt; functionalities and is more enthusiast-oriented in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, &lt;em&gt;Aperture&lt;/em&gt; has all these features that I am looking for in one single program, which would be perfect. Indeed, using Picasa and Lightroom in parallel is a mess, the edits may be lost, and I have to resync Lightroom often.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you know if such thing exists for Windows ? Or will I have either to wait for Lightroom to get face recognition and mapping, or to go to Mac ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="527" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-28T21:53:04.860" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T21:53:04.860" Title="Aperture for Windows, or the forbidden union of Picasa and Lightroom" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;picasa&gt;&lt;windows&gt;&lt;apple-aperture&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="4285" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4287" CreationDate="2010-10-28T19:29:57.587" Score="14" ViewCount="315" Body="&lt;p&gt;What strategy do you follow when setting ISO, shutter speed and aperture to achieve the correct exposure?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Do you have different strategies for different shooting conditions?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I believe that all photographers develop an informal strategy for choosing the right exposure settings.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I want to find out if there is an effective general purpose strategy that can be adapted to a wide range of conditions.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;This question is inspired by &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4157/photography-cheat-sheet&quot;&gt;the question about a photography cheat sheet&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T05:56:10.037" Title="What is an effective exposure strategy?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="4286" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4252" CreationDate="2010-10-28T19:56:22.290" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're new to a polarizer, the effect can be so subtle as you rotate it that while it's working you don't see any difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Convince yourself something is happening by looking through the lens with the polarizer on and pointing it at an LCD monitor (which emits polarized light).  The result will be very dramatic and you can make the screen go completely dark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's where I'd turn to some book learning.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://tinyurl.com/light-mgk&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Light: Science and Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting&quot;&gt;Light: Science and Magic - An Introduction to Photoraphic Lighting&lt;/a&gt; has an excellent write up, with pictures, that shows the behaviors of light and polarizing filters.  It will illustrate that the polarizer will cut glare, but not reflections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With this knowledge, walk out to your car and point your lens at your car's windshield while the sun is out.  Turning the polarizer will make the bright glare go away, allowing you to see more clearly into the car.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same effect can be seen with sunshine bouncing off of water, say on a lake or river.  In some cases, you can visually penetrate the surface and see into the water's depths, depending on angle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In each of these cases, the effect is going to appear more and more subtle, but because you're learning what to look for, the slight changes are going to be far more obvious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you point your lens at the sky and rotate the polarizer, you should see the sky getting progressively darker then progressively lighter again.  What's often missed is that this effect is dependent on where the sun's direction is relative to where you're looking.  So if the sun is behind you, you may see nothing at all.  If the sun is 90 degress to you, it may appear drastic.  (And obviously, avoid looking into the sun with remaining eye.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1416" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T19:56:22.290" />
  <row Id="4287" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4285" CreationDate="2010-10-28T20:08:18.490" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Obviously there are different strategies for different situations, I usually use an iterative process that goes a little like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Do I want a particular aperture for artistic reasons (e.g. blurred background)? Do I need a specific aperture for technical reasons (getting multiple subjects in focus)?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If yes, set it, if not pick something optimal like f/5.6. Then I look at the shutter speed and ask similar questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Do I want a particular shutter speed for artistic reasons (e.g. motion blur/light trails)? Do I need a particular shutter for technical reasons (e.g. to prevent camera shake)?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If yes, set it, if not pick something &quot;safe&quot; e.g. 1/2*focal length. Then I look at the exposure and set ISO - there's no artistic consideration here (if I want noise I'll do it in Photoshop so I can get a nice fine grain) so the only question is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Do I need to reduce noise (e.g. if I plan to do a lot of editing)?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If not, set the ISO to &lt;em&gt;whatever is necessary to get the correct exposure, even if it seems quite high!&lt;/em&gt; It's important not to underexpose as this is much worse for noise than upping the ISO. If there isn't a high enough ISO, or I want to reduce noise by letting in more light, I will go back to the earlier questions and re-evaluate any arbitrary decisions. If I can open the aperture I will, likewise if I can slow the shutter I will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If not it's time to make a compromise and weigh up how important the artistic and technical decisions were, until a sensible balance is achieved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This sounds quite complicated by I usually run through this in my head a few times by guessing what the exposure will be before actually setting the camera. It's also fine to use auto mode to fill in the aperture/shutter as appropriate if you're not setting it for creative reasons (the OP seemed to be asking about full manual settings).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Throw in flash an you've got another variable, with another art/technical trade off. It gets a bit complicated to generalize here, in general I'm either using flash for artistic effect in portraiture in which case flash rules and all other settings bow to it, or I'm using it for extra light in event/wedding photography, where I set the aperture and shutter how I want them both artistically and technically and use the flash to pick up the slack, going back to the other settings if I need faster recycles or want more ambient in the background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-28T21:38:54.340" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T21:38:54.340" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4288" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4285" CreationDate="2010-10-28T20:09:43.810" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can offer help from a landscape/nature perspective. I can't offer much help in the area of portrait or indoor photography. Matt Grum may be able to offer helpful advice in those areas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess this boils down to two different approaches. The semi-automatic approach, and the fully manual approach. I would say that 85-90% of the time, I use a priority mode, usually aperture priority, and let the rest be automatic. This is probably most common when I am doing wildlife, bird, and macro photography, as being able to set the aperture that gives me the correct sharpness and bokeh is critical in those types of shots. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alongside a priority (or program) mode, my most common exposure adjustment is via exposure compensation. Unless I am shooting in dimmer light, I keep my ISO fixed, usually at 100, sometimes 200. Compensating exposure with simple +/- 1-2 stops is real nice, and keeps things simple. It lets me put most of my focus on composition and filtration, where I think it should be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to fully manual mode, I guess it really depends. There are so many different situations that call for different settings. After sunrise, before sunset, or during the day, I try to keep my ISO low. At sunrise or sunset, or at night, you may need higher ISO settings. I usually use ISO 100 or 200, which keeps noise almost non-existent for landscape shots. When it comes to wildlife and birds, I adjust it as needed to allow the appropriate aperture and shutter speed. For aperture and shutter, I guess I generally blend a semi-automatic mode with manual mode. I make pretty heavy use of the histogram on my camera to see if I am in the ball park or way out of it when setting aperture and shutter speed. I often start in aperture priority mode, and get a feel for where the shutter speed might end up in the lighting I have. Once I have the aperture set as I need it, I'll adjust ISO until my shutter speed is fast enough to freeze motion appreciably (I generally don't use flash...but then again, I don't really know how to use it most effectively either.) I try to keep my ISO below 1600, but often enough when photographing birds, there isn't any choice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The story gets a lot more complex when you involve filtration. Outside of a high quality UV filter that does its job well, pretty much all filters block some light. The most interesting experiences I have had with exposure involved the use of ND and GND filters, as well as polarizers. When it comes to ND filtration, I've found it best to meter your shots as you normally would without any filtration in place. (The Lee system makes this really easy...it is a synch to clip on your whole filter set in the foundation mount, and take it off, without affecting the shot much.) Again, I usually work with aperture, meter to determine what the shutter should be. ISO is more complex here. Quite often, I use filtration to allow me to purposely use a long shutter speed, to smooth out flowing water, flatten and glassify lake surfaces, etc. If that is the case, I always use the slowest ISO I can, which on my current camera is 100. That, in combination with filtration, allows me to use a longer shutter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I am using graduated ND filtration to reduce the contrast (dynamic range) of a scene, it gets even more complex. Before I can calculate how long my shutter should be (which can be very difficult, and sometimes a trial and error process, if I want to smooth out clouds or water), I need to spot meter my scene. The best way to determine how much GND filtration is needed is to meter the scene in at least three spots &lt;strong&gt;without filters in place&lt;/strong&gt;: The brightest part of the sky, the darkest part of the landscape, and an area that appears to be as close to 18% gray as possible. Metering a middle tone helps you determine if you can capture the scene without filtration. It is easy to see with a histogram if this is possible or not. If not, metering the brightest spot and the darkest spot in the scene, and taking the difference between those two, will tell you how many stops of filtration you need at a &lt;em&gt;minimum&lt;/em&gt;. I usually put on an additional stop of filtration and overexpose to give myself some extra shadow range (ETTR). Once you have determined the total dynamic range and necessary filtration, recompose your scene, slap on the necessary filtration, and set aperture, shutter, and ISO. I find it is easier to calculate everything if you use ISO 100, but any ISO could be used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, I try to follow the ETTR rule: Expose to the Right. With landscapes, once shutter speed and ISO have been set, it is easy enough to adjust aperture a little. Once a scene has been metered and properly filtered, it usually only takes about 1/3 to 1/2 stop, and at most 1 stop, to bump exposure to the right as far as it can go. If it takes more, then you might try adjusting your other settings some more to cover greater dynamic range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exposure can be a very complex thing, and I'm not sure there is really a rulebook that can tell you what you need to do. In my experience, setting exposure is the key thing that a landscape photographer DOES. Taking the picture is a momentary experience after that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-29T05:10:21.847" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T05:10:21.847" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4289" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4284" CreationDate="2010-10-28T20:23:32.093" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd concur with the analysis you've done thus far.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adobe has added people recognition to Photoshop Elements 9; I wouldn't be surprised to see this added to Lightroom in the future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is at least one solid &lt;a href=&quot;http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/gps&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;plugin for Lightroom to support geotagging&lt;/a&gt; although it's a shadow geotag and not injecting it directly into the &quot;main&quot; GPS fields.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While Aperture has these features, it also is a bit lacking in some areas where Lightroom shines - the editing controls aren't as powerful and it doesn't support smart object integration with Photoshop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For further thoughts on Picasa/Lightroom, &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2181/picasa-vs-lightroom-whats-the-difference&quot;&gt;check out this question&lt;/a&gt; if you haven't already.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T20:23:32.093" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4290" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4280" CreationDate="2010-10-28T21:15:55.193" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would suggest using the 50 1.7 - it is probably the most appropriate focal length for taking pictures of nearby kids, and will give you the most flexibility with shutter speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Replace your battery if there's any doubt about it - the last thing you want is to take a roll or two of pictures and discover that they're all black.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to my &lt;a href=&quot;http://squit.co.uk/photo/exposurecalc.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;favorite cheat sheet&lt;/a&gt;, streetlights average around &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;exposure value&lt;/a&gt; 3. At f/1.7, ISO 400, you can expect shutter speeds around 1/10 of a second. However, you  can expect that light to vary by a stop or two, so you might have to use 1/5 or 1/2.5.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1/10th of a second is pretty slow; you'll have a great deal of motion blur even when the kids aren't moving intentionally. A general guideline for handheld photography is 1/focal length, so 1/50 for that lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As f/1.7 is a very wide aperture and is realistically the widest you're going to find, I'd suggest doing something else to compensate for the low light: you can buy a higher-ISO film, or add light. Otherwise, you may be restricted to taking photos in well-lit areas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T21:15:55.193" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4291" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-28T21:23:26.370" Score="8" ViewCount="1712" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use photoshop cs5 and I want to know how to do a mask layer (i think thats what i want)? i want to edit the foreground separate to the background and I can''t figure out the easiest way to separate the two any help? or point me to a good/easy tutorial?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-29T02:35:04.170" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T05:04:40.790" Title="How Do I Use Layer Masks in Photoshop CS5?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;photo-editing&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4292" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4255" CreationDate="2010-10-28T22:09:12.880" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just want to throw out there that you will see very noticeable differences in focusing speed and sharpness between the Canon 400L f5.6 and the Canon 100-400L (or 75-300).  The 400L f4.6 will focus much faster and is much shaper, I have a couple samples from back when I was looking at the pair&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;400mm f5.6&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/6BCS2.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;100-400mm&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/cJmQl.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T22:09:12.880" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4293" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4291" CreationDate="2010-10-28T22:17:17.550" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have little experience with full fat Photoshop, but this video tutorial looks easy enough to follow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://tv.adobe.com/watch/the-russell-brown-show/masking-basics-in-photoshop-cs5/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;tv.adobe.com&quot;&gt;Video tutorial&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1817" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T22:17:17.550" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4294" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4291" CreationDate="2010-10-28T22:20:08.370" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think what you're looking for is called &quot;layer mask&quot;, which is basically a separately-editable layer, that sets transparency of layer it's connected to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Googling the term found (a bit older) tutorial at &lt;a href=&quot;http://photoshoptips.net/2006/07/25/layer-masks/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://photoshoptips.net/2006/07/25/layer-masks/&lt;/a&gt; which seems to cover the thing you've wanted. In short, you:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;choose foreground layer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;add layer mask to it&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;draw to the mask. the foreground will be visible in points where the mask is white, a invisible in points where the mask is black.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T22:20:08.370" />
  <row Id="4295" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4236" CreationDate="2010-10-28T22:32:51.540" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been solving the exact same problem (having a low-res copy of my images for laptop) and wrote Python script called &lt;a href=&quot;http://github.com/che0/thumbtree&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;thumbtree&lt;/a&gt;. It basically creates a copy of directory with scaled down version of all the files. It uses ImageMagick to do the resizing and checks timestamps to scale only the files which have changed since the low-res copy was made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T22:32:51.540" />
  <row Id="4296" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4211" CreationDate="2010-10-28T22:33:01.523" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;OK, so assuming that you refer to ISO Sensitivity, the ISO 1600 gives your camera the possibility to increase the sensitivity of its light sensor, hence requiring less light to recreate the same image. For example, if you shoot under the sunlight, an ISO 100 might be more than enough to capture all the light needed to create an appropriately exposed image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast, if you're shooting during a dinner party and don't use a flash, the camera will need much more sensitivity to compensate for the relatively low amount of light that it can capture from the scene.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the question, why not set the ISO sensitivity to the highest all the time? Well, the more sensitivity, the lesser the quality. Pictures taken under high ISO settings suffer from a lot of noise (high-end cameras deal much better with this but they also have a high price tag).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, going back to bird shooting. Taking photos of subject in motion requires high shutting speeds. But the higher the speed, the lesser light that goes into the sensor. In low light conditions, this means that we need to compensate for that. The first thing you can do is increase the aperture to the maximum. Then, even if the shutter opens and closes really fast, the diameter is bigger so the amount of light that goes into the sensor increases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, most zoom lenses don't have very high apertures, so even at the max they don't let enough light through in order to get a good picture. There's where the ISO setting comes to save the day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T22:33:01.523" />
  <row Id="4297" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3843" CreationDate="2010-10-28T22:39:33.903" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I used to be all LR2 until Aperture 3 came out and I've given LR3 vs Aperture 3 a long hard trial and wound up using Aperture 3.  The main reason I decided on Aperture 3 is if I opened a RAW image in both editors and either did no (or minimal, ie exposure) adjustments and looked at the exported JPGs side by side I always liked the look of the jpg that came from Aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can't put my finger on it exactly, something about the contrast and detail.  I will say that I liked the workflow of LR3 more but ultimately the results are what I'm after.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T22:39:33.903" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4298" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-28T23:02:37.530" Score="9" ViewCount="292" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've tried but I don't think my kit is good enough. How do you take pictures of something like the milky way?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And if you've never actually SEEN the milky way, then you definitely MUST take a trip to go and see it (preferably around the Rockies if you're in the States) because it is unlike any other sight you have ever seen. I was almost moved to tears seeing it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've seen some folks take pretty good pictures, but I want to take some of my own, of course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would film be better? Worse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1837" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-29T00:16:29.617" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T05:36:10.940" Title="What's the best technique and kit for taking a picture of the Milky Way in a nearly pitch black landscape?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;astrophotography&gt;&lt;darkness&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="4299" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4298" CreationDate="2010-10-28T23:14:37.877" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.astropix.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catching the Light&lt;/a&gt; has a lot of information on astrophotography and is a great place to start. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, with just a dSLR, it can be pretty challenging to do deep space photography, many are using telescope with mount adapters for their cameras and motorized star tracking to keep everything in focus. The last is a big factor, without star tracking, of some sort, you're going to end up with star trails which, admittedly, can look really cool.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for film versus digital, it probably doesn't really matter. One thing, however, to bear in mind with some digital cameras is something called &quot;dark frame subtraction&quot; (or long exposure noise reduction) which is used to remove sensor noise, usually from heat. Many cameras allow you to turn this off, which you want to do, but some don't, so check your camera model to be sure. In general, it is better not to have that on because it will double the length of time for each exposure and it can usually be handled in post processing with a single dark frame you take yourself. A dark frame is just a long exposure with the lens cap on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, the website I linked has a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; more detail and probably explains it better than I am...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T23:14:37.877" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4300" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4298" CreationDate="2010-10-28T23:16:16.137" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whether you use film or digital, you will want &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2606/are-fast-lenses-only-fast-when-shot-wide-open&quot;&gt;a fast lens&lt;/a&gt; and probably high ISO film or a high ISO setting on your camera. Larger sensors or film size are better. If you don't want streaks you may need motorized equipment that turns with the sky (for long exposures).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="109" LastActivityDate="2010-10-28T23:16:16.137" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4301" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4262" CreationDate="2010-10-29T01:55:23.990" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I own a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; of nice Canon lenses/bodies/gear (partner in a gear rental business) so having literally anything you want at your fingertips forces you to really think about what you're actually going to bring.  Something I read in a Large Format photography book a while back has really helped me out, it came down to :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Your average 35mm photographer is carrying as much gear as they &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; because each piece is relatively light (2 bodies, 5 lenses a flash etc) but you see a Large Format photographer and they're carrying what they &lt;em&gt;have to&lt;/em&gt; because each piece is so heavy&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What helps is to pre-visualize what you want to take pictures of, if you're going out to shoot landscapes bring only the gear you would use to shoot landscapes, same for macro or architecture or birds whatever.  Not only does this allow you to cut down on weight and move more but it &lt;em&gt;forces&lt;/em&gt; you to only photograph what you intended to photograph.  Which ultimately can lead to better more thought out pictures because you're not distracted by trying to photograph &lt;em&gt;everything&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though I will say I always bring 2 bodies along on a trip though not to every session, one might fail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pre-visualize :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T01:55:23.990" />
  <row Id="4302" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3819" CreationDate="2010-10-29T02:07:57.737" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given what you said you're looking to shoot with it, I'd suggest looking at a used 1DIII which is currently hovering around $2k (just make sure you get one with the AF fix).  The AF, auto exposure and burst speed CRUSH the 7D and 5D.  &lt;em&gt;Crush&lt;/em&gt;.  Once you use a 1 series body going back to the other bodies is tough, in one word I'd describe it as more 'responsive'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T02:07:57.737" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4303" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-29T02:15:23.343" Score="11" ViewCount="678" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm wondering if anyone has an opinion about Nikkor vs. Tamron and/or Sigma lenses.  Is it worth the extra money to purchase Nikkor lenses?  I haven't had the chance to compare these.  Are the Nikkor lenses sharper?  If you think Tamron and/or Sigma are comparable, is there a certain brand that is superior?  Thanks for any input!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1844" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-29T03:12:46.137" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T23:14:11.650" Title="Nikkor vs. Tamron/Sigma Lenses" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;" AnswerCount="9" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4304" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4303" CreationDate="2010-10-29T02:33:20.133" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are enough variations in lenses that it's hard to make a generalization about an entire brand vs. another.  A lot of folks stick to the lenses from their camera manufacturer and I think in the past that the quality tended to be better.  That said, some of the third party lens manufacturers have some great lenses, and some of the lenses by Nikon and Canon aren't necessarily the best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I generally recommend that if you're looking for a particular focal length, aperture, or other feature, compare the various lenses that meet your needs.  Based on review sites such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DPReview&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fred Miranda&lt;/a&gt;, you can make an educated decision about your particular need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T02:33:20.133" />
  <row Id="4305" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4303" CreationDate="2010-10-29T02:43:01.310" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the question is a bit subjective, however, I will say that Nikon makes some very, very, good lenses and at the high end they are hard to beat. Sigma and Tamron also make some very good lenses, including some that nobody else has (for example, Sigma has the widest rectilinear lens on the market for SLRs at 8mm). And all three make lenses that are, well, base consumer grade that aren't really very good at all. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Net effect, there is no general answer to the question, because it depends on which lenses you are comparing, and when you do that it is best to find a lens review site and check the performance vs cost benefits to determine which best works for you. At that point, I think you will find that it sometimes a Nikkor lens and sometimes it is Sigma or Tamron.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if you are contemplating a lens option, it might be better to restate the question with some specifics. As it stands, the question is so broad and general that we can only give you a broad and general answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T02:43:01.310" />
  <row Id="4306" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4303" CreationDate="2010-10-29T02:52:25.857" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I used Sigma and Nikkor lenses. I can say the quality built of Nikkor is better than Sigma. But Sigma offer cheaper lenses with subtle quality difference. If you are rich enough just go for Nikkor, you wont go wrong and lessen your worries. If you compare the price between the 2 same specs and find not worth it, just get the cheaper one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1786" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T02:52:25.857" />
  <row Id="4307" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4303" CreationDate="2010-10-29T03:07:07.340" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on the lens.  Look at reviews: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1520/lens-review-sites&quot;&gt;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1520/lens-review-sites&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T03:07:07.340" />
  <row Id="4308" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4285" CreationDate="2010-10-29T03:13:09.550" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's going to be really hard to add to the previous two answers, but I'm game! The three major types of photography I'm generally interested in are nature, wildlife, and macro, so each has a different set of thought processes in my approach...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Nature&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For landscapes I tend to concentrate on aperture to achieve a depth of field appropriate to the situation. If it's a big scene, say a lake or a mountain setting, I'll aim for a more narrow aperture to bring more if it into focus. If it is a plant, I may go wider in the aperture to &quot;pop&quot; the plant from the remainder of the scene by creating a more shallow depth of field. Net effect, the thing that matters to me is aperture the most, shutter speed only comes into play if the subject is effected by things such as wind, at which point I may drive the ISO higher to keep my aperture where I want it and get the shutter speed to a point that it freezes motion. Or I may cheat and use a plamp to hold my subject. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Wildlife&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is usually a shutter speed situation for me. In general, I'm trying to get the shutter as fast as I can, especially with faster moving animals, so that I can freeze their motion. Depth of field has some play here, but usually it's telephoto and so it's going to be minimal in general anyways. Net effect, I want my shutter as fast as I can push it and will open up the lens or adjust the ISO as I need. On the upside, for me at least, Pentax has a shutter/aperture priority mode that allows me to pick the shutter speed and aperture with the camera selecting the ISO and this is very helpful in wildlife shooting. I'm still surprised that Nikon and Canon haven't added this mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Macro&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both shutter and aperture come into play here. When shooting macro, depth of field is razor thin, so tightening the aperture can be important and so I generally look to move that up quite a bit, even as much as f/11 or more. Since most of what I shoot macro is in motion, such as insects or water drops, shutter speed may play a role as well, but they differ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the subject is an insect, I want a fast shutter speed because they move and, being such tiny subjects, any movement is amplified in macro. At this point, with a tight aperture and a fast shutter, you either need a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; of available light, a high ISO, or a heck of a lot of patience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the subject is something like water drops, then my shutter speed is usually quite slow! My current technique, since I don't use devices to do the work for me, is an off camera flash, a cable release, and a faucet-based rig with a rubber hose and cake decorating ends (at some point I have to post some pictures of the rig on my site). In any case, I use a very dark room, set the drops going, and then trigger the shutter and press the test button on the flash with a very low power setting. Basically, this results in the camera capturing the result of the very quick light burst which freezes the drops. In any event, my ISO is always set at the lowest and I tweak the aperture as I go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's no &quot;grand unification theory&quot; that will apply to exposure. It is going to differ depending on the nature of the subject and the goal of the photograph. As you develop interests in certain types of subjects, you'll start to develop a feel for how to tweak your exposure options accordingly. As a general piece of advice, manual settings on the camera and a little note taking on decisions will help you achieve this feel in the long run. While you're doing that, don't worry too much about the missed shot, you'll get much, much, faster in the process as you practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T03:13:09.550" />
  <row Id="4309" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4262" CreationDate="2010-10-29T04:18:51.613" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To start, &quot;What is safe to put in a hotel?&quot;. The simple answer is: &lt;b&gt;Nothing&lt;/b&gt;. Camera gear is fairly expensive, especially if you have high quality lenses. There is zero reason to trust anyone with your equipment, even in a hotel. As others have stated, if they offer a safe, and you can't bring all your equipment out with you, put the rest in a safe. Otherwise, take it with you, and keep it locked and hidden in your car or in your possession at all times. If someone knows you have valuable equipment, and is willing to steal, they will. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for how much to bring, thats a tough call. It would really be dependent on what your trip is all about, and what kind of shots you a) want to get, and b) think you'll actually be able to get. If it is a family trip, a nice point and shoot is probably a must. Nice thing about a P&amp;amp;S though is they are small, light, and easy to pack away, hide away, or carry with you regardless. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The more important questions are what kind of photographs you &lt;i&gt;want to capture&lt;/i&gt; and the kind of photographs you &lt;i&gt;think you'll be able to capture&lt;/i&gt;. Those two are rarely the same unless the trip is specifically about your photographic goals. Its a bit of a catch-22 as well. You often can't get exactly the kind of shots you want without the proper gear, and yet you probably don't want to haul around equipment that you don't think you'll use. You kind of have to decide whether you want photographic options (and therefor more gear), or photographic simplicity (and likely less gear). One thing I've learned is that on trips with family and/or friends, you usually have a variety of competing forces pulling at you. Wife needs, kid needs, friend needs, trip needs, all counteracting your ability to explore and find that perfect shot. I would opt for less gear, and go for the simple shots. In some cases, you may be able to get away with both...on longer trips where you have the option of more personal time, or solo trips. In such cases, I would bring whatever gear you think would be necessary to photograph the way you want to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another factor that plays a role in how much gear you bring is the style of photography. If your interests are broad, then you probably need a broader set of gear. If your interests are narrow, its probably safe to stick with the basics. It is possible to optimize as well. Between three zoom lenses, I cover the focal range from 16mm through 400mm with Canon lenses: EF 16-35mm L II, (borrowed) EF 24-105mm L, EF 100-400mm L. In addition to this set of zoom lenses, I also carry the EF 100mm Macro lens, and a 50mm lens. This set of lenses leaves a fair amount of extra space in my relatively small camera bag as well, and I could probably pack in an extra camera body and lens, or a couple extra lenses as well. Weight wise, fully packed, the bag is a good weight when hauled around solo. If I needed to bring an extra bag of stuff for other purposes, I would leave the extra body and lenses at home, and stick with my core set of gear: one body, the three zooms, the 100mm macro and 50mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-29T05:11:42.467" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T05:11:42.467" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4310" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4303" CreationDate="2010-10-29T04:51:54.147" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As always, the answer is to choose carefully!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From experience I can say that although both Nikkor lenses and Sigma lenses cover a range of quality and price, Sigma covers a wider range. By that I mean that the worst Sigmas are quite bad and the top ones are absolutely superb. My absolute favorite Sigma for example is the 100-300mm F/4. It is extremely sharp, fast and nearly distortion-free.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tamron could be similar but I've only seen terrible ones and mediocre ones so far. Most people seem to go for that brand based on price alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what you must do now is compare a specific lens from Nikkor vs a specific ones from a third party brand. Note there are other differences than image quality, such as the focus motor performance, stabilization effectiveness, body compatibility (Sigma and Tamrons tend to require more upgrades when Nikon updates camera bodies) and - as silly as it may seem - the direction you have to turn the zoom and focus rings (it can drive you crazy if one lens turns 'backwards' compared to your other ones).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, you forgot Tokina. Unlike Sigma and Tamron which makes most of their money selling low-quality lens and very low cost, they actually have only (9) lenses with some unique specifications and are generally of high quality. The Tokina 11-16 F/2.8 for example is extremely well-regarded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-29T18:29:44.293" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T18:29:44.293" />
  <row Id="4311" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4303" CreationDate="2010-10-29T04:53:28.980" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If your interest is primarily the optics, you need to look at individual lenses, not brands as a whole. You can't depend on a Nikkor (or Canon, Pentax, Sony, etc.) necessarily being sharper than something like a Sigma, Tokina or Tamron. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OTOH, unless you're pretty sure you're buying a lens to keep it forever, the third party lenses don't seem to be nearly as good of an investment. Just for example, years ago I bought (at just about the same time) a Minolta 35/1.4 and a Tamron 70-210/2.8. If I recall correctly, paid about $350 for the Minolta and about $750 for the Tamron. If I were to sell them now, I'm pretty sure those prices would be roughly reversed; getting $750 for the Minolta would be easy (in fact, $900 would be fairly reasonable), but I'd probably have a hard time selling the Tamron for more than $300 (and $250 wouldn't be particularly surprising).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T04:53:28.980" />
  <row Id="4312" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4291" CreationDate="2010-10-29T04:54:48.400" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you have CS5, you have a lot of options. There are some pretty advanced new features with Photoshop CS5 and Extended, including Puppet Warp, edge refinement, etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you need simple object isolation, you can use layer masking or the quick selection tool to create a mask that generally outlines your object. The Refine Edge tool, which has been around for a while, but got a big boost in CS5, can help you refine the boundary of your selection, making it more accurate and properly soft and feathered where appropriate. Once you have a general selection around your object, the refine edge tool basically lets you paint along the edge, and photoshop figures out how to separate your object from the background for you. Once you have refined any complex edges, choose OK and you have a nearly perfect soft selection for your object. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A tutorial on edge refinement can be found here: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://tv.adobe.com/watch/photoshopcafe-tv/new-in-photoshop-cs5-cutout-and-refine-edge/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New in Photoshop CS5 - Cutout and Refine Edge&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you need more than the ability to just isolate a single object in a photo, and actually need to move it around or change its shape, the new Puppet Warp tool is amazing. Using puppet warp, you can set control points on a selection, and move it or change its shape in a non-destructive way. Photoshop uses its new Content Aware fill feature to maintain any &quot;cutout&quot; areas &quot;behind&quot; the selection you are warping. A pretty intriguing tool, which probably has some endless uses. I can't say I've needed it myself yet in my work, however I have messed with it a bit. Its a pretty fun tool.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A turorial on puppet warp can be found here: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://tv.adobe.com/watch/photoshopcafe-tv/new-in-photoshop-cs5-puppet-warp-tool-/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New in Photoshop CS5 - Puppet Warp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://psd.tutsplus.com/tutorials/photo-effects-tutorials/quick-tip-use-puppet-warp-in-photoshop-cs5-to-tweak-your-images/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Quick Tip: Use Puppet Warp in Photoshop CS5 to Tweak Your Images&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, there is Content Aware Fill. This one is easy to use, and can be a life saver. If you need to isolate an object for the purpose of removing it from a photograph, the content aware fill makes that ridiculously easy. You don't need to be super precise, and actually some imprecision is useful here. Just make a rough selection around the object you wish to remove, hit delete, and select content-aware fill in the pop-up that appears. Photoshop will analyze your scene, and fill in the hole with generated content that nearly perfectly fits the scene around it. For small removals, or things with complex content, this works beautifully. For larger removals, or removals that have fairly obvious content around them, you may need to spend some additional time making the correct selections. Additionally, it is sometimes useful to remove an object in pieces to get Photoshop to generate the proper fill content. Content Aware Fill is probably my most used Photoshop feature now, as there is almost always something undesirable intruding into my photographs. (That may be something I should work on in-camera, but CAF is so simple and fast, its hard to try and avoid using it. ;))&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tutorial on Content Aware Fill:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://tv.adobe.com/watch/photoshopcafe-tv/content-aware-fill/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New in CS5 - Content Aware Fill&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-29T05:04:40.790" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T05:04:40.790" />
  <row Id="4313" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4298" CreationDate="2010-10-29T05:36:10.940" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several threads here on Photo.SE that discuss astrophotography. They might also be of help to you, and you can find the top two here: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1061/how-do-i-get-started-in-astrophotography&quot;&gt;How do I get started in Astrophotography?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2136/tips-for-landscapestars-photography&quot;&gt;Tips for landscape+stars photography?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might also like the Astrophotography &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/astrophotography&quot;&gt;tag&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding equipment, there are some basic rules that can help you out. The first one has to do with focal length. The longer the focal length, the quicker you tend to get star trails. A 180mm lens will get star trails pretty quick, less than 20-25 seconds usually, since it is imaging a smaller area of the sky. A wider lens such as a 50mm will get star trails slower, around 30 seconds or so. A very wide lens, like 24mm or wider, will allow you to take exposures up to 45 seconds or so without visible star trailing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Effective focal length is dependent on sensor size. If you have a full-frame sensor, a 50mm lens or wider is great to get milky way shots with decently long exposures without star trailing. On a APS-C sensor, like most entry-level and mid-level (and some high end) DSLR's, a 35mm or wider lens would be ideal for full-sky milky way imaging.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The maximum aperture of a lens can be critical to getting a good shot without star trails. I myself am somewhat limited with an f/2.8 16-35mm lens. I would recommend at around one stop faster than f/2.8, which would be f/2 or f/1.8, to get a decent night sky/milky way shot. Obviously, wider lenses give you more capability. The next lens on my list is either the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 ($350), or the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 ($1450). If you want to experiment on the cheap, the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 is one of the cheapest lenses you can buy at $99.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ISO speed is a key factor in milky way astrphotography. Most milky way shots are &quot;short-exposure&quot; astrophotography, where the shutter is open between 20 seconds and perhaps a minute. Any longer, and the motion of the sky will start to &quot;drag&quot; the stars across the sensor, creating trails (startrails.) With short-exposure astrophotography, you want to absorb as much light as you can without massively blowing out the point lights of the stars themselves. Higher ISO settings, such as ISO 800 through ISO 3200, are best for short-exposure milky way shots. Higher ISO helps you keep your exposure times below the visible startrailing limit, and helps gather more light in the darkest parts of the frame. Images can be corrected during post-processing to reduce exposure back to realistic levels and mitigate noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you wish to get the best sky photos, a tracking mount is a must. Tracking mounts are fairly pricey, ranging from $900 up to several thousand. There are two types, alt-azimuth and equatorial. Alt-az mounts are ok for &quot;shorter long-exposure astrophotography&quot;, but they introduce an increasing tracking error the longer you track with them. To maintain ideal tracking, an equatorial tracking mount would be necessary. With a tracking mount, you can expose for considerably longer periods of time at lower ISO settings, gathering more detail and gaining better saturation than is possible with short-exposure astrophotography. You also have the option of exposing multiple exposures of the same part of the sky for several minutes at a time, with dark frames in between normal frames. (Dark frames are exposed for the same time as the previous frame, but with the shutter closed to gather information about fixed position and fixed pattern noise that can be eliminated during post processing.) Specialized astrophotography &quot;stacking&quot; tools can be used during post-processing to merge your series of exposures together and get a nicely saturated, low-noise image of the night sky. Long-exposure astrophotography also greatly expands the range of lenses you can use, anything from very wide angles, to telephoto angles, and even to mounting your camera body on a telescope for true deep-sky astrophotography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T05:36:10.940" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4314" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4348" CreationDate="2010-10-29T05:49:41.407" Score="17" ViewCount="1225" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am in the market for a 50mm lens for my Canon DSLR. I've read plenty of reviews, and all of them have great things to say about both lenses. From a scientific perspective, the f/1.2 performs better wide open, which is to be expected given its price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, from a real-world perspective, from people who have actually used both lenses, is there any real reason to get the 50mm f/1.2? It costs over four times as much, which really isn't a &quot;problem&quot;, per-se, but not an amount of money I want to spend unless I absolutely have to. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My primary use for this lens would be astrophotography and probably some portrait and close-up nature work. It will initially be used on an APS-C sensor, but I plan to upgrade to a 5D Mark III soon after it is released. When it comes to astrophotography, I intend to use such a lens wide open, or perhaps up to one stop down from wide open, as light gathering ability in pitch black is the main idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on Matt Grum's answer, I am also interested in hearing about competing fast 50mm lenses. I had not thought of third party lenses before, as I've always bought Canon, however if a third-party lens is optically just as good or better, for a better price, I'd be interested in hearing about them as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-30T05:56:25.353" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T18:57:57.913" Title="Canon 50mm lens: f/1.2 L or f/1.4? Alternative brands?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;50mm&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="4316" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-29T07:01:06.490" Score="8" ViewCount="523" Body="&lt;p&gt;A friend of mine is buying his first DSLR. He's chosen an entry-level Canon model, and wants to know which lens he should go for. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My advice is to go for a good 70mm prime and an 18-200mm. The former because it's quite good in low light and handy for portraits and the latter as it will give him  enormous flexibility and help him figure out what lenses to buy in the future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He doesn't really know what kind of photography he wants to do yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what do you guys think, good advice or bad — if you could pick two lenses with a buget of 500 quid what would you go for?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1662" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-27T14:54:25.483" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T15:08:16.257" Title="What is a good two lens &quot;starter kit&quot;?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;digital-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="13" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="4317" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4259" CreationDate="2010-10-29T07:04:09.220" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.istockphoto.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;istockphoto.com&lt;/a&gt; is a pretty widely used &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstock_photography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;microstock&lt;/a&gt; site and welcomes all kinds of photographers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1662" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T07:04:09.220" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4318" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4316" CreationDate="2010-10-29T07:11:43.060" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF 50/1,8 II (cheap, but sharp and great for low light situations and portraits)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF-S 18-135/3,5-5,6 IS (good enough coverage for most types of photography, sharper than Canon EF-S 18-200/3.5-5.6 IS)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1849" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T07:11:43.060" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="4319" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4259" CreationDate="2010-10-29T07:21:58.297" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can choose whatever You want from this list:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.istockphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.istockphoto.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://prostockmaster.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://prostockmaster.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dreamstime.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dreamstime.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.123rf.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.123rf.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.localfoto.co.uk/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.localfoto.co.uk/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://submit.shutterstock.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://submit.shutterstock.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://us.fotolia.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://us.fotolia.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bigstockphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bigstockphoto.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.featurepics.com/index.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.featurepics.com/index.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stockxpert.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.stockxpert.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pixmac.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pixmac.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1681" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T07:21:58.297" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4320" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4316" CreationDate="2010-10-29T07:41:53.723" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would recommend&lt;br&gt;&#xA;1. 17-70 mm F2.8&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2. 70-200 mm F2.8  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This covers a useful range from wide angle to moderate telephoto while at the same time preserving high quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T07:41:53.723" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4321" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4314" CreationDate="2010-10-29T07:55:22.553" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whilst these lenses aren't ones I've had much call for, if you think that having that difference in depth of field of about 20%, then go for the wider lens; Before you do, I would &lt;strong&gt;strongly&lt;/strong&gt; recommend hiring them both (ideally at the same time) and using them as you plan to use them, and evaluate the results -- it'll be a lot cheaper than buying the wrong lens in the long run&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T07:55:22.553" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4323" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4314" CreationDate="2010-10-29T08:13:48.793" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have you considered the Sigma 50/1.4? That's definitely the lens I would get if I were starting over. Neither The Sigma and Canon 50/1.2L were out when I bought the 50 f/1.4 so it was an easy decision. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Firstly it's worth stating that &lt;em&gt;the 50 f/1.4 is an excellent lens&lt;/em&gt; by most standards. However it is soft, and defecty (lots of lateral CA in highlights, heavy vignetting) wide open. This is of course to be expected of such a large aperture,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't mind the vignetting as it actually improves the look of portraits however if you're doing astrophotography what's the point in a lens that's f/1.4 in the centre and f/2.0 at the edges? Having said that vignetting is not really a problem with a crop camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These defects of course to be expected of such a large aperture, however the Sigma is a newer design and they worked very hard to improve the performance wide open. This is evidenced in the fact it has a much larger front element (for the same max aperture), and in tests is sharper wide open and vignettes less than the Canon 50 f/1.4. See:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_50_1p4_c16/page5.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_50_1p4_c16/page5.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_50_1p4_c16/page5.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_50_1p4_c16/page5.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the Canon 50 f/1.2, &lt;em&gt;I have never used this lens&lt;/em&gt;, but there are extensive reports of focus shift due to uncorrected spherical aberration (where the plane of focus retreats when stopping down between f/1.4 and f/4.0). This is a feature of the lens and some are able to live with it and some aren't. It doesn't affect the wide open performance (since the lens is focussed wide open), however if you were to use Tv for shutter speed and let the aperture wonder between f/1.2 and f/4.0 you would probably see very variable AF performance. Past f/4.0 the extra DOF masks the focus shift. Opinions are divided on the lens as a result. Personally I would need to be able to rely on a lens, especially at this price, and given the 85 f/1.2L is corrected for focus shift. I'm sure there's a good reason Canon didn't with the 50, I believe it's to do with the quality of the bokeh - lens design is a compromise. I would read the following before investing the 50f/1.2L&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://diglloyd.com/articles/Focus/FocusShift.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://diglloyd.com/articles/Focus/FocusShift.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://seriouscompacts.blogspot.com/2008/01/focus-shift-spherical-aberration-and.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://seriouscompacts.blogspot.com/2008/01/focus-shift-spherical-aberration-and.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, have you considered buying a second hand 5D? You could pick one up &lt;em&gt;plus&lt;/em&gt; a 50 f/1.8 for much less than the Canon 50 f/1.2L, and it would gather &lt;em&gt;more&lt;/em&gt; light than the 550D + f/1.2. You might even be able to get a 1.4 with the change. Despite the age the original 5D is still an amazing camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-29T20:19:03.173" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T20:19:03.173" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="4324" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4314" CreationDate="2010-10-29T08:19:33.267" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If build quality is important to you, then go for the f/1.2. The f/1.4 is just as sharp, but its auto focusing mechanism can break if hit from the front when it isn't fully retracted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1849" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T08:19:33.267" />
  <row Id="4325" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4316" CreationDate="2010-10-29T08:25:10.437" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;50 f/1.8 is a given. Great lens, great for learning the principals of photography, also v.good emergency go to lens in low light. You might as well edit the question to be &lt;em&gt;&quot;50 f/1.8 plus what other lens for £430&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I'm going to bend the rules a little and say you should get the 50/1.8, kit zoom, Canon 430EX flash. That should come in under £500.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This should cover a wide range of shooting options. The reason for including the flash is that most people I know who have bought a DSLR for the first time tend to be used to shooting indoors. Learning to use a flash properly in this situation can be the biggest thing you do to improve your photography. The other sort of shooting people do initially is nature/landscape which is handled by the kit lens, which performs ok stopped down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Failing that forgetting the flash replacing the kit with a superzoom as you suggest is an option, though personally I think people will get too comfortable with it and never change lenses, which is missing out on of the major advantages of having a DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-27T15:08:16.257" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T15:08:16.257" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4326" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4316" CreationDate="2010-10-29T10:31:54.503" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just a few pointers, rather than a specific &quot;two lenses&quot; answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Don't forget that the 550D is not a&#xA;full-frame sensor, so you need to&#xA;multiply by 1.6 to get 35mm&#xA;'equivalent' focal lengths.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cropping in post can increase focal&#xA;length, but you can never decrease&#xA;it... &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;50mm prime lenses are great value,&#xA;light and compact.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Big cumbersome lenses tend to get&#xA;left at home.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A long telephoto without a tripod is&#xA;unlikely to give good results.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You can easily miss the shot while&#xA;changing lenses&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I'd go for a single decent quality zoom with good wide angle end, maybe the&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EF-S_15-85mm_IS_USM/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6&lt;/a&gt; - and a 50mm prime if you can afford it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="562" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T10:31:54.503" />
  <row Id="4327" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4314" CreationDate="2010-10-29T11:05:31.910" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I bought the 50 1.2L and my dad got the 1.4.  When comparing the similar images you can tell the difference.  His photos are more than acceptable.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The average shooter does not need to invest in the 1.2.  I would only recommend it if you need that extra bit of light.  So if you are shooting astro it may be of help to you.  I shoot similar night scenes and the larger aperture helps.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just keep in mind that the 1.2 does have some issues with focusing that have been reported many times online.  My copy does have it when shooting fully open but stopped down it is fine.  I have tried using it for closeup work and prefer using my 100 2.8 for that. The 50 does not give the magnification I want on the 5dMkII &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1856" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T11:05:31.910" />
  <row Id="4328" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4329" CreationDate="2010-10-29T12:23:29.620" Score="3" ViewCount="123" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Nikon D80 and a Tamron 18-250MM lens. Every once and awhile, but often enough to be annoying, the camera will give the &quot;Err&quot; display. I've been able to determine that this is caused by slight movement of the connection between the lens and the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this issue likely caused by the camera or the lens?  Is there anything that can be done about it?  Is this a common issue?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1845" LastActivityDate="2010-11-18T04:30:47.280" Title="When a camera error occurs as a result of a lens error, is that a problem with the lens or the camera?" Tags="&lt;error&gt;&lt;tamron&gt;&lt;nikon-d80&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="4329" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4328" CreationDate="2010-10-29T12:29:51.363" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This sort of thing &lt;em&gt;shouldn't&lt;/em&gt; be common, and may be the sign of the contacts being at the extremes of &quot;normal&quot; tolerances, causing the communication issues between the lens and the body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't have the same problems with other lenses, and the Tamron is new; it may be worth going back to the dealer and getting them to test the lens on some other bodies and replace if the problems are reproducible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T12:29:51.363" />
  <row Id="4330" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4328" CreationDate="2010-10-29T12:36:53.463" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This sort of thing is not uncommon. It sounds like a communication failure between the camera/lens which is often resolved by cleaning the contacts. This may help in your case, however since you seem to be able to cause the problem by moving the lens slightly the problem may be minor damage to the lens or mount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm afraid there no way to tell if it's the camera or the lens without trying a different lens on your camera, or trying your lens on a different camera body! If you don't know anyone with a Nikon lens you can borrow, you could try going to a camera shop and ask to try out a lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T12:36:53.463" />
  <row Id="4331" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4316" CreationDate="2010-10-29T13:18:40.727" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon 50mm 1.8 - you need to get a lens with a large aperature to really appreciate the 'look' of DSLR photography. AU$150&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tamron 18-270 VC - Decent quality and hugely versatile. $AU600&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would be under 500 GBP.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="142" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T13:18:40.727" />
  <row Id="4332" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4316" CreationDate="2010-10-29T13:44:36.057" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I started with the Canon 50mm 1.8 and 55-250 zoom, as budget is a factor.  These would come in slightly under-budget, I think.  Obviously, I miss the wide-angle coverage I'd get with the 18-55 IS (kit on many Canons), but I opted for the 50 because I felt it I wouldn't grow out of it as quickly.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 17-85 might be worth considering for a general-purpose zoom, too.  I think you could do the 17-85 and the 55-250 for close to your budget amount.  This would give you a full zoom range and upper-entry-level quality, but I'd still come back and get that 50 as soon as you can scrape up the money, because it's the best bargain in Canon's line.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T13:44:36.057" />
  <row Id="4333" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4335" CreationDate="2010-10-29T13:56:36.857" Score="7" ViewCount="1649" Body="&lt;p&gt;You probably know Scott Schuman and his blog (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thesartorialist.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Sartorialist&lt;/a&gt;). What kind of lens (that is not expensive) would you recommend for Canon 550D to achieve similar effect (in terms of DoF etc.)? I'm a newbie so I'm not sure how to properly interpret those photos' EXIF info. My guess is, that a similar effect can be achieved using &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-85mm-Medium-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00007GQLU&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;85mm f/1.8&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thesartorialist.com/photos/92410Sav_7554Web.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Typical example (full body shot)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update:&#xA;Thank you guys for all the answers, it's much more clear for me right now. I think I'll try the Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1860" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-11T18:55:33.187" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T18:55:33.187" Title="What Canon lens would one use for Sartorialist-like street photography?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;street-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="5" />
  <row Id="4334" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4336" CreationDate="2010-10-29T13:58:12.710" Score="5" ViewCount="569" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to select image sensors for a particular application.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;One term that I have come across regularly in their datasheets is the CRA. I was comparing 2 image sensors and although they were of similar resolution(in terms of MegaPixel) they differed in CRA.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I would like to know is:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is there any definitive literature that could explain to me what is the CRA?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What are the implications of the CRA and what would it effect? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1633" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-29T19:52:49.767" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T19:52:49.767" Title="What is the Chief Ray Angle (CRA)?" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="4335" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4333" CreationDate="2010-10-29T14:16:23.807" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;He's using a full-frame camera with a 85mm lens on a number of those shots. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in terms of APS-C (which yours is), a 50 or 55mm lens would give you a similar angle of view if you go the prime route, but I'm not sure if Canon makes a 55mm, though they have excellent 50mm lenses. If you go zoom, something like a Canon 24-70mm or 18-135mm would add some range. Anyways, that's my take.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Welcome to the site!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T14:16:23.807" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4336" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4334" CreationDate="2010-10-29T14:49:17.263" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not an optics expert, but it's do with the angle of incident rays which travel through the very centre of the aperture. In a pin-hole camera, which has a very small aperture the only rays which reach the image plane would be cheif or principal rays.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A couple of definitions of CRA:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_%28optics%29#Optical_systems&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_%28optics%29#Optical_systems&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.trioptics.com/knowledgebase/chief_ray_angle_cra.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.trioptics.com/knowledgebase/chief_ray_angle_cra.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Cheif Ray Angle is a property of the lens, not sensor however what I think the data sheets are reffering to is the maximum CRA at which a good reading can be taken. If light rays strike a digital sensor too obliquely there are issues with intensity and colour shifts. This tends to happen when the rear of the lens sits very close to the sensor such as in rangefinder or mirrorless large sensor digital cameras. See:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://diglloyd.com/articles/LeicaM/LeicaM-RayAngle.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://diglloyd.com/articles/LeicaM/LeicaM-RayAngle.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T14:49:17.263" />
  <row Id="4337" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4314" CreationDate="2010-10-29T14:55:15.207" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I own both and possible focusing issues aside the decision on which one to use comes down to two things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If I want to shoot in low light and I don't want to use a flash then the 50 f1.2 is the obvious choice, that extra half stop is the difference between blurred people and not.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If I want to have &lt;em&gt;faster&lt;/em&gt; (not better) AF then the 50 1.4 is the obvious choice, the 50 1.4 focuses considerably faster than the 50 1.2.  The 50 1.2 isn't as slow as the 85 1.2 but its slow.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;'Course, the fact that the 50 1.4 is much lighter comes into consideration as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-11T18:57:57.913" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T18:57:57.913" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4338" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4333" CreationDate="2010-10-29T14:59:26.850" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sounds like you're after a shallow depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should be able to achieve a similar effect with the Canon 50 at around f/1.8, but you'd need to be shooting as wide as possible. I also wouldn't be at all surprised if he's got a reflector or flash out of shot to balance the light in some of those.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other things to bear in mind when trying to get that shallow depth of field, is to shoot with as wide an aperture as possible - I'd normally flick over to &quot;Av&quot; mode, and get a low f-stop number (so 1.8 with the 50mm prime lens). Then get as physically close as possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, if you're manually focusing, err on the focusing ahead of the subject -- the way that depth of field works, you get an area (depth) that &lt;em&gt;appears&lt;/em&gt; to be focused, by having the subject in the back half, the background behind is going to appear to be even more off focus, as desired. I believe this is another technique he's using, apparent when you look at the ground with more of the ground ahead of the subject in focus than even to the back of their feet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're still not happy, then you &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; and a really gentle blur in post-production, although I'm always a fan of trying to get it right in camera, as it will have a more realistic feel to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T14:59:26.850" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4339" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="295" CreationDate="2010-10-29T15:39:53.087" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've made &lt;a href=&quot;https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AsGYigQZXDPKdE53XzdaN3p2bTFuU0c3RHdOWms0UUE&amp;amp;hl=en&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a comparison table&lt;/a&gt; of the popular photo hosting sites, with features which matter for me:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AsGYigQZXDPKdE53XzdaN3p2bTFuU0c3RHdOWms0UUE&amp;amp;hl=en&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/4902/s-astanin.17/0_46637_ca7b2a5c_L.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Table of Photo Sharing Sites 2010&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my opinion, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.23hq.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;23hq&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;Flickr&lt;/strong&gt; are the best for a passionate amateur. Good price to value. Flickr has a more active community, but 23hq allows to download entire album at once with a single click and is available in more languages. So I think 23hq is more suitable for &lt;em&gt;sharing&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;strong&gt;Ipernity&lt;/strong&gt; comes close, but I don't like their design.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Picasa&lt;/strong&gt; offers the cheapest premium service and also the best free service. But I don't like the quality of their resized pictures (Recently they started offerring an option of better JPEG quality, but you need to use their Picasa program for uploads).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SmugMug&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;Snapixel&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;DropBox&lt;/strong&gt;, evidently, care only about the English-speaking market. DropBox offers the least and is the most expensive. SmugMug seems to be tailored towards professional photographers. It is a bit more expensive than Flickr and the rest of the pack. I don't know if it allows to easily download originals (I think they do) or entire albums. Snapixel seems to have chosen a very strange policy about originals (charging for &lt;em&gt;downloads&lt;/em&gt;). So it's cheaper, but is not as suitable as a sharing site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://fotki.yandex.ru/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yandex-Fotki&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; is the only reliable service which offers Premium level features for free. But it is available only in Russian language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't mention Facebook (very limited feature set; unreliable privacy policy) and various single-click hosters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S. Feel free to contribute.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastEditorUserId="1558" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-02T15:25:48.560" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T15:25:48.560" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-10-29T15:39:53.087" />
  <row Id="4340" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4333" CreationDate="2010-10-29T15:51:54.823" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Based on the EXIF data, he tends to use a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_5d_mark_ii&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EOS 5D Mark II&lt;/a&gt; with an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_85mm_f_1_2l_ii_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF85mm f/1.2L II USM&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since you have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/139/what-is-the-difference-between-focal-length-and-crop-factor&quot;&gt;cropped sensor&lt;/a&gt;, a 50mm will have similar framing.  In order to get the tighter DOF and creamy bokeh you'll want the widest aperture you can get, so either:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_50mm_f_1_2l_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;50mm f/1.2 L&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_50mm_f_1_4_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;50mm f/1.4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Incidentally, there is another question &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/4314/67&quot;&gt;comparing those two models&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, keep in mind that the DOF will not be as tight as what he can get. For example  given the same situaltion (subject 10ft away, shooting wide open):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt; | Gear                  | Depth of field&#xA; |-----------------------|----------------&#xA; | 5d mk2 + 85mm f/1.2 L |   0.29 ft&#xA; | 550d + 50mm f/1.2 L   |   0.54 ft&#xA; | 550d + 50mm f/1.4     |   0.65 ft&#xA; | 550d + 50mm f/1.8     |   0.81 ft&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All the numbers came from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DOFMaster.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-29T16:12:37.177" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T16:12:37.177" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="4341" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-29T16:02:01.943" Score="8" ViewCount="127" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I'm doing more and more photo shoots, I'm looking for a site in which I can post proofs for clients to look at.  I would use Flickr however, the images can be downloaded and I obviously don't want proofs to be downloaded before they have been edited.  Can anyone recommend a site that they use?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-11-13T00:40:36.647" Title="What are some sites that photographers use out there for posting proofs for clients to look through?" Tags="&lt;workflow&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4342" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4341" CreationDate="2010-10-29T16:11:39.747" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SmugMug.com&lt;/strong&gt; for sure.  Tons of security features both to protect the photographer's work (right click protection, watermarking, image size limitations) and to protect privacy (password protected galleries, password protected sites, unlisted galleries).  Not to mention all the commerce features and other Pro oriented stuffs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.smugmug.com/help/private-search-island&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.smugmug.com/help/private-search-island&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T16:11:39.747" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4343" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4259" CreationDate="2010-10-29T16:30:01.363" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Thank you very much for all the replies. I also found a web site to the Latin Community: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.latinstock.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.latinstock.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1782" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T16:30:01.363" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-10-29T16:30:01.363" />
  <row Id="4344" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-29T17:18:49.100" Score="5" ViewCount="441" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll be trekking in the Nepal Himalaya for 3 weeks in December, in a variety of conditions, but predominantly cold (-5°C to -30°c) , clear and dry, at altitudes of up to 6000m. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to travel light so would prefer to take the minimum of paraphernalia; if I can stick to a single lens, that would be ideal. I predominantly shoot landscapes, but I'm hoping to do some wildlife and portraits whilst I'm out there too. Which lens would you take? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of budget, I'm not overly converned, although if I can keep it under $1500 (£1000) that would be nice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;edit&lt;/strong&gt;: thanks for the answers so far, I've been reading through them all and checking out the specs, but I keep finding myself drawn toward a 24-105mm f/4L (possibly with a nice and light 50mm f/1.4 for low light), or possibly a 24-70mm f/2.8L. Any thoughts on these options?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1749" LastEditorUserId="1749" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-30T12:01:07.223" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T12:22:21.857" Title="What is a good all-purpose, single-lens choice for a 7D, to take trekking in the Himalaya?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;canon-7d&gt;" AnswerCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4345" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4344" CreationDate="2010-10-29T17:29:02.010" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 17-55/2.8 should suffice for both landscapes and portraits; wildlife is a little more tricky, since 55mm on a crop is still a little short. Since weight is always a concern while trekking, I would recommend either a 70-200/4 IS or a 135L. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt;: &lt;em&gt;Just to respond to your question about the 24-105 or 24-70, both are excellent options on a full-frame camera, but the focal lengths are sort of &quot;neither here nor there&quot;. 24mm on a crop body gives you a FOV equivalent to 38mm, which is not that wide. If you can live with that, then the 24-105 is a great travel lens to bring along. THe 24-70 is much heavier and I won't recommend it since one of your primary considerations is weight.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I used the 24-105 on a 50D for about a year, and it served me well, but I don't usually shoot landscapes wider than 35mm so it made very little difference to me. This is something to keep in mind.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1868" LastEditorUserId="1868" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-31T01:23:54.387" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T01:23:54.387" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4346" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4316" CreationDate="2010-10-29T17:36:09.647" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon's 50/1.8 is so cheap most pick it up, even though I hate that lens for its disposable build and inconsistent focus. The kit 18-55 IS is a good starter lens, though a little boring. Newer lenses like the 15-85 or 18-135 are great for those who have not decided where their interests lie; I prefer the former.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 18-200, while convenient, is optically poorer than the 15-85, and more expensive. For a beginner, I always recommend&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;18-55 IS&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;55-250 IS&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;35/2&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cheap and decent quality to start out with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1868" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T17:36:09.647" />
  <row Id="4347" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4303" CreationDate="2010-10-29T17:41:49.417" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a few Nikon lenses, and a Sigma 10-20mm for super-wide shots. When I was looking to get a wide lens, I researched the options, which included the Nikon equivalent (at the time) the 12-24mm. (they've since released the 10-24mm).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My research indicated that while first-party gear &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; be slightly better quality, the reality is that the difference is pretty small. I decided the extra cost of the Nikon wide wasn't worthwhile, plus it wasn't as wide, so I got the Sigma.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My point: in general, first party lenses tend to have somewhat better build/photo quality, but at an extra cost. Third-party lenses seem to be pretty competitive on both cost and quality,Sigma at the least. You need to decide if the extra cost is worthwhile to have all your lenses coming from the same company.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T17:41:49.417" />
  <row Id="4348" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4314" CreationDate="2010-10-29T17:42:53.683" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 50L is definitely better than the 50/1.4; I'm just not sure if it is worth that much money. If you need fast and reliable AF, sharpness wide-open, weather-sealing (with a weather-sealed camera of course), f/1.2 and great bokeh, go for the 50L.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was in a similar situation previously, and I opted for the Zeiss 1.4/50 ZE, primarily because I shoot more landscapes than portraits at 50mm, and at f/4, the Zeiss beats out the Canons. Even at f/2.8 the difference is there, but the Canons win at smaller apertures, while the Zeiss wins out in micro-contrast and colour rendition, at the cost of AF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also consider the Sigma, just make sure the AF is accurate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1868" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T17:42:53.683" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="4349" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4333" CreationDate="2010-10-29T17:46:34.350" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Any lens with large maximum apertures can give you subject isolation. The 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 are great lenses for the money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1868" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T17:46:34.350" />
  <row Id="4350" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="295" CreationDate="2010-10-29T18:22:55.617" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use flickr for my general photography, and smugmug for my &quot;serious&quot; portfolio. Love flickr for the social aspects snad it's easy to use, really like smugmug because I think it shows off and protects images better and has a good ecommerce backend for when I want it. It's nice separating the two so I don't feel conflicted about posting &quot;casual&quot; images to share with friends and family while keeping my &quot;portfolio&quot; smaller and focused.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T18:22:55.617" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-10-29T18:22:55.617" />
  <row Id="4351" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="295" CreationDate="2010-10-29T18:28:41.473" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SMUGMUG&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Me and all the photographers I associate with use &lt;strong&gt;SmugMug.com&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;My site is customized on the look I wanted and I'll even be changing the look again soon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Things that I couldn't live without.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Unlimited quantity of full size files&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Watermarking on images&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Drag and drop images into my blog&#xA;from gallery&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Customization of site&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Analytics integration (and not just&#xA;Google analytics)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Good SEO aspects&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sales through site - Including sales&#xA;of digital images (including&#xA;commercially like stock)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Easy recovery of full sized files&#xA;(Just in case)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Good security of my files&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Solid business (meaning not going&#xA;away)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Always expanding (developing new&#xA;products all the time)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you care this is me &lt;a href=&quot;http://photos.jarviedigital.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;JarvieDigital&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On another note if I use &lt;strong&gt;Facebook&lt;/strong&gt; a lot to show off my work to friends (And friends of friends) and encourage clients to get images from &lt;strong&gt;SmugMug&lt;/strong&gt; to put on &lt;strong&gt;Facebook&lt;/strong&gt;. This covers more of the social element. (Go to where the people are)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1876" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T18:28:41.473" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-10-29T18:28:41.473" />
  <row Id="4352" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4303" CreationDate="2010-10-29T18:42:57.053" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Reading reviews about the specific lenses you're interested in getting. &lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Digital Picture&lt;/a&gt; does very thorough reviews of Cannon lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have had a number of Cannon lenses and a single Sigma lens, their 20mm f/1.8, which also comes in a Nikon mount.  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-20mm-f-1.8-EX-DG-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;review&lt;/a&gt; from the aforementioned site summarizes my own findings well—for the (relatively cheap) price, the Sigma lens is decidedly ok at what it does.  The biggest complaint I had was that it opens to f/1.8 but things aren't very sharp until you get to f/2.8.  This is in contrast to something like the Canon 50mm f/1.4 (their mid-range 50mm), which is usably sharp at f/1.8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other sites with good lens reviews include &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DPReview&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ken Rockwell's&lt;/a&gt; reviews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One more thing you can do is rent lenses from a place like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.borrowlenses.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Borrow Lenses&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="90" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T18:42:57.053" />
  <row Id="4353" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4341" CreationDate="2010-10-29T18:46:15.593" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Along with SmugMug, Zenfolio and PhotoShelter also has the same features, so compare them and find one that suits your needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1868" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T18:46:15.593" />
  <row Id="4354" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="295" CreationDate="2010-10-29T18:51:13.587" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;IPERNITY&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was developed as a Flickr clone and is very euro-centric. But it's very quick and has the wonderful ability to upload a sound file to include in a gallery album.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The free account offers almost everything the pro account does. Very closeknit community, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've mapped a sub domain to my main showcase gallery on Ipernity if anyone is interested in seeing just how quick it is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.showcase.gregwallis.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.showcase.gregwallis.net/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T18:51:13.587" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-10-29T18:51:13.587" />
  <row Id="4355" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4314" CreationDate="2010-10-29T19:02:38.367" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've had the 50 f/1.4 for several years. It is the sharpest lens I own by a long shot, and I use it as often as I can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the choice between the f/1.4 and f/1.2, I would take the f/1.4 and use the cost savings to buy an additional lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T19:02:38.367" />
  <row Id="4356" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-29T19:09:49.157" Score="6" ViewCount="552" Body="&lt;p&gt;What small point-and-shoot cameras are available that support RAW images? I'm looking for something to use when I don't want to lug my SLR around, so I want something that is small and convenient. In other words - it has to fit in my wife's purse :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T19:25:56.243" Title="Small point and shoot camera that supports RAW" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;" AnswerCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4357" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4356" CreationDate="2010-10-29T19:12:55.080" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Look at the Canon S95.  I have the s90 and it creates great RAW images, I also love the UI of the camera ring around the lens which you can rotate to change aperture/shutter speed depending on the mode you're in.  Has a more positive feel for people used to SLRs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also chunkier Canon offerings like the G series (G12) but they're bulky, though you do get a hot shoe.  Nikon offers a similar (chunky) P&amp;amp;S that supports RAW, the P7000.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another thing to consider while comparing the P&amp;amp;S's is the maximum aperture (S95 goes to f2.0!) and the widest angle it offers in 35mm format (S95 goes to 28mm but I've seen other P&amp;amp;Ss go to 24).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastEditorUserId="1819" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-29T19:20:02.903" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T19:20:02.903" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4358" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4356" CreationDate="2010-10-29T19:14:56.463" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depending on your comfort level with this sort of thing, you can get one of the cameras that &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CHDK supports&lt;/a&gt;. It adds a whole lot of fancy features to less expensive Canon cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1793" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T19:14:56.463" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4359" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3865" CreationDate="2010-10-29T19:17:08.830" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My workflow is pretty simple, as most of the heavy lifting is done in Photoshop, but Lightroom is often enough for simple shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Download the RAW files into a folder&#xA;of your choice. I typically name them&#xA;YYYYMMDD_NameOfShoot so it's&#xA;relatively organised. For paid&#xA;assignments I will also create&#xA;separate folders for untouched RAW&#xA;files, WIP files, and Finished files.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Go into the LR Library module and use&#xA;Add Folder to import the files.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Proof them in the Library module. I&#xA;will only spend time to process files&#xA;that I like, and I junk those that&#xA;are just bad. I use the Rating&#xA;feature, giving one star for those&#xA;that are technically correct ie&#xA;correctly focused, correct DOF, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Go through the one-star pics one more&#xA;time by using the &quot;Rated&quot; filter, and&#xA;add stars slowly, continuing to&#xA;filter out the pics that do not&#xA;tickle my fancy till I only see pics&#xA;with a 5-star rating.-&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;This is where the processing begins&#xA;really. I start with looking at white&#xA;balance, then  clipping highlights&#xA;and shadows, recovering them as&#xA;necessary, and adjusting exposure if&#xA;needed.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Crop as needed.-&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Then comes colour accuracy. You can&lt;br&gt;&#xA;tweak them using the HSL settings on &#xA;the right.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Do some cleaning up via the Dust&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Removal tool.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Then comes sharpening. I typically&lt;br&gt;&#xA;add a smidgen of Clarity and&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Contrast.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If the pic needs more work, I edit it&#xA;in Photoshop, then save the edits as &#xA;a PSD.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Go back to Lightroom and Export as&lt;br&gt;&#xA;needed.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No one's workflow is exactly the same though, and I would suggest you play around in LR so you can find and refine your own workflow. It takes time, but it will not be wasted as you bring your images to life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1868" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T19:17:08.830" />
  <row Id="4360" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4356" CreationDate="2010-10-29T19:21:17.413" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If size and bulk is a concern, the S95 is one to consider, along with the Panasonic LX-5; the former is definitely sleeker and sexier. If not, the Canon G12 is worth considering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1868" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T19:21:17.413" />
  <row Id="4361" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4086" CreationDate="2010-10-29T19:33:22.147" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;jrista is correct; it depends on what size you print at. If you aer only intending to archive digitally or print at 4x6, then a v300 is probably enough to meet your needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1868" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T19:33:22.147" />
  <row Id="4362" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="295" CreationDate="2010-10-29T19:43:35.410" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been using SmugMug for nearly 3 years now with no regrets. Their customer service is second to none!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T19:43:35.410" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-10-29T19:43:35.410" />
  <row Id="4363" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4262" CreationDate="2010-10-29T19:45:04.400" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on where you are travelling. I have left gear in the hotel room before, but I usually travel to relatively safe areas like Taiwan and Hong Kong. I tend to travel light as well, usually packing only 1 DSLR body, 1 zoom, 1 fast prime, and 1 compact camera (which the wife carries with her), along with lots of memory cards. I would bring the zoom out during the day, and the prime comes out to play at night, unless we have a full day planned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For photographic trips this can be a little tricky, as I still shoot film. The last trip I had was a short one, 2 days, but I brought 1 digital and 1 film body, 2 zooms, 3 primes, tripod, and a ton of film and memory cards. Still not a lot compared to my friends!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1868" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T19:45:04.400" />
  <row Id="4364" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4344" CreationDate="2010-10-29T19:50:01.967" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to presume you don't want to lose ability to shoot wide, as it would be a pity if you wanted to capture something like your camp or friends on a peak without going 70 meters away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, you have basically two options for one-lens solution:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you can go with standard range zoom, best of which is probably the mentioned &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/425-canon_1755_28is_50d&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;or you can get an ultrazoom lens like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/400-canon_18200_3556is&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS&lt;/a&gt; which will allow you to take tight shots of mountain peaks, distant yaks etc. This advantage will cost you image quality and maximal aperture, as there are no f/2.8 ultrazooms.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The choice is up to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-29T20:43:29.127" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T20:43:29.127" />
  <row Id="4365" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="295" CreationDate="2010-10-29T20:03:13.967" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm on Flickr too, but I prefer SmugMug. Much nicer galleries, customizable, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T20:03:13.967" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-10-29T20:03:13.967" />
  <row Id="4366" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="295" CreationDate="2010-10-29T20:07:37.907" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been a paying customer of &lt;strong&gt;SmugMug&lt;/strong&gt; for several years, and I am very happy with it.  The ability to customize your site, to store originals, and to easily categorize all your photographs into custom albums are some of the best features.  The performance is excellent.  Images can easily be shown at larger sizes than some of the free sites allow.  The user interface is more flexible and more functional than many of the free sites.  My family often orders prints directly from SmugMug, and they are always satisfactory.  The owner, Don MacAskill is an interesting entrepreneur, who maintains an insightful and influential blog/twitter presence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1888" LastEditorUserId="1888" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-30T02:11:41.447" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T02:11:41.447" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-10-29T20:07:37.907" />
  <row Id="4367" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4276" CreationDate="2010-10-29T20:08:09.670" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm using it with no problems. The trial version is fully functional, just for a limited number of images (at least it was when I tried it some time ago).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've also found queries answered quickly by the developer (using the contact page on the website)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T20:08:09.670" />
  <row Id="4368" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="295" CreationDate="2010-10-29T20:15:35.300" Score="22" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer: I'm the founder, CEO &amp;amp; Chief Geek at SmugMug, a popular photo sharing site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The good news is that there are lots of great sites out there, and they serve lots of different use cases.  The great thing about the Internet is that there's a site for everyone.  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are a few of my favorites:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.facebook.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Facebook&lt;/a&gt; is by far the largest, and certainly the easiest answer for your specific question - sharing with your friends and family - because they're probably already there and they'll just see your photos in their News Feed.  The downside is that for this audience, the resolution is low (4Mpix max), and the display and interface will likely leave you wanting more (though their new lightbox is nice).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr&lt;/a&gt; is a great site for people looking for higher quality than Facebook and a high level of social interaction and critiques.  It supports higher resolutions than Facebook, and while it doesn't have nearly the enormous user base, there are still many millions of very active users who love to comment on your stuff.  The user interface is designed around that social interaction, though, so if you're looking for a site that focuses more on the display of your photos, big and beautiful, Flickr might not be your best choice.  Navigating from photo to photo is particularly painful, in my opinion, but leaving comments and getting feedback is a breeze.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.smugmug.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SmugMug&lt;/a&gt; (the site I run) emphasizes the display, rather than the social interaction with strangers on the net.  At SmugMug, your photos are shown big and beautiful, using all the available pixels.  Sharing via email or on sites like Facebook and Twitter is easy, but you do have to do a little more work than you would at Flickr (and a lot more work than at Facebook) to let your friends know where to find your photos.  With more than a billion photos and tens of millions of users every month, SmugMug isn't nearly as large as Facebook (30B photos, 500M users) or Flickr (5B photos), but it's not small, either.  The other large gotcha with SmugMug is that it's a premium site - every customer pays - while Flickr and Facebook are free.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are plenty of other sites out there that address other aspects of photo sharing (like printing, or twitter-specific hosting, etc), but these three probably cover the question you asked best.  Now it comes down to what your preferred sharing style is - very social or high quality or something in between?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One last important note, both Flickr and SmugMug integrate well with Facebook, so this doesn't have to be a &quot;choose one&quot; choice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1889" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-29T20:43:21.697" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T20:43:21.697" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-10-29T20:15:35.300" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4369" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="295" CreationDate="2010-10-29T20:19:29.570" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The one thing I like about Flickr are the comments.  But I really cannot stand their UI.  It is incredibly slow to navigate through pictures and I hate the whole &quot;stream&quot; concept.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I upload a series of pictures (where the order matters), I have to upload my pictures in reverse order so that in the stream is in the correct order.  But then when you look at the images as a set, they're in the wrong order.  DUMB, DUMB, DUMB.   Let me determine the order, please?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead, I love smugmug.  It is very customizable, does everything I want (other comments above have highlighted many of the good points so I won't do it here).  The only thing that I give Flickr a thumbs up over smugmug is the commenting feature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1893" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T20:19:29.570" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-10-29T20:19:29.570" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4370" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4344" CreationDate="2010-10-29T20:33:44.123" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bit of a tough call here. Landscapes generally need wider lenses, and wildlife generally needs telephoto lenses. Portraits could work at either end of the spectrum, really. If you don't want to have to get very, very close to wildlife, a telephoto lens would be ideal. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Single Lens + Extender or Two Lens Options&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A lens that might do the job is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM&lt;/a&gt; lens. This is one of Canon's more popular lenses, and prices in at about $1300, which is well within your price range. It has a rebate right now that takes it down to about $1200. Combined with a 1.4x Canon Extender, you could extend its focal range to 98-280mm. That would bring cost up to about $1700-$1800. You would be lacking on the wide end, but telephoto landscapes can be stunning and unique (and often more interesting) than their wide-angle counterparts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you go the 70-200+1.4x Extender route, you might also want to bring one wide angle prime lens as well. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28mm-f-2.8-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 28mm f/2.8&lt;/a&gt; lens is super cheap at $200-$250, decently sharp at f/4, and super light weight. You would hardly (if even) notice it in combination with the 70-200mm. The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 is even cheaper and lighter, at $99.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't mind buying an EF-S lens (short-back focus lens that only works on APS-C Canon bodies, not the APS-H or Full-Frame bodies), then there is another option that might do you well. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-200mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS&lt;/a&gt; lens is a decent lens that prices at $500-$600. It has an 11x zoom range from 18mm to 200mm, but it is not compatible with any extenders (due to the short-back focus), so you wouldn't be able to extend that to 280mm with the 1.4x extender. A 200mm telephoto focal length isn't bad for wildlife photography, but won't really get you in close. Given the super cheap cost of this lens, you might also want to grab the &lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-300mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS USM&lt;/a&gt; prime lens for wildlife work if you think you need it. It costs about $1200, making the total cost of both lenses about $1700-$1800, close to your price range. The 300mm prime is an excellent lens with GREAT optics and quality, ideal for wildlife photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Single Lens, Do Everything Options&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a couple single lenses that will do the job. They cost a fair amount, more than you are looking to spend, at $2400. The two lenses are the &lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-300mm-f-3.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon &quot;Do-Everything&quot; 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6&lt;/a&gt; lens, and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50-500mm-f-4-6.3-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma &quot;Bigma&quot; 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3&lt;/a&gt; lens. Both of these lenses cover a very long zoom range, and are pretty large and heavy to do so. The Canon covers 10.7x, and the Bigma covers 10x zoom. Both would work for landscape, portrait, and wildlife. The Bigma has better reach, and would be better for wildlife and particularly bird photography. Optically, these two lenses are pretty equal, although I think the Bigma is a little softer. Both lenses offer image stabilization, which offsets their tighter apertures a bit, allowing them to be used hand-held in a lot more situations than they would otherwise be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-30T01:55:00.743" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T01:55:00.743" CommentCount="11" />
  <row Id="4371" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2383" CreationDate="2010-10-29T20:47:04.867" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;So it turns out there is Topaz Clean by Topaz Labs. Cheaper, supports CS5 64bit and it can also add texture. The airbrushing, however is not as good as the Kodak's, but since it's used only with a small opacity, it will do. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="341" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T20:47:04.867" />
  <row Id="4372" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4356" CreationDate="2010-10-29T21:02:25.487" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just took the LX-5 on a 3-week road trip across America. I love it! I found myself reaching for it even before my D3 or D2Xs on many occasions. It's a really fun camera! It's got lots of manual controls, a great screen, a nice zoom range, and a fast lens. It also shoots RAW, but produces beautiful JPEG output as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To see samples from my trip taken with the LX-5, check out this gallery on my website. These are all untouched, straight-out-of-the-camera JPEGs:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jpwphoto.com/p332913122&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.jpwphoto.com/p332913122&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1469" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T21:02:25.487" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4373" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4356" CreationDate="2010-10-29T21:13:36.820" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently read a bunch of reviews for various compact P&amp;amp;S cameras that support RAW output. I came across the Samsung TL500/EX1 on dpreview.com. It ranked pretty high, and it has some nice features. It definitely does RAW, and one of the features I liked most about it was the 24-72mm f/1.8-2.4 lens. Nice zoom range with a great max aperture. The sensor size is small for 10mp, but overall, the image quality seems to be pretty good. This camera supports a variety of image factors as well, including 16:9, 4:3, 3:2 and even 1:1.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Almost every electronics device outside of my camera and my computer that I own is Samsung. I can attest to their quality, its stellar. This camera is pretty intriguing, and on my list as a P&amp;amp;S next to the Panasonic LX3. It has some detractors, but for my needs, they didn't seem too worrying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some links to DPReviews of the Samsung TL500 and Panasonic LX3:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samsungtl500/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Samsung TL500/EX1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicDMCLX3/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T21:13:36.820" />
  <row Id="4374" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4399" CreationDate="2010-10-29T21:33:15.937" Score="3" ViewCount="308" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been reading a lot of lens reviews for prime lenses lately, for 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm lenses. I noticed that Zeiss lenses are made directly in a Canon mount, which has intrigued me. For landscape and astrophotography work, a manual-focus lens with a very wide throw is more useful to me than an auto-focus lens with shorter manual throw. In almost all of the reviews I have read about Zeiss lenses, I have noticed something about Zeiss lenses that bothers me a bit. After focusing on a specific point, taking subsequent shots at increasing F/numbers shows that most Zeiss lenses seem to have a focus shift, often quite pronounced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Comparing similar Canon lenses with Zeiss lenses, I can't say that I've seen the same effect on Canon in most cases, and if there was some focus shift (i.e. EF 50mm f/1.2), it was not nearly as pronounced on the Canon lens as the Zeiss lens. Is there a reason for this? It seems surprising to me that such a high quality, highly rated brand would have such a consistent problem with their aperture/focus. I can only imagine the problems this could cause, the aperture is only stopped down when the shutter is released. Either I would have to use aperture preview on my camera while manually focusing a Zeiss to make sure it is focused correctly (which is just complicated), or just deal with the focus shift... :(&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there some specific design decision that leads to focus shift like that when stopping down?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T10:17:33.990" Title="Focus shift when stopping down on Zeiss Primes?" Tags="&lt;zeiss&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="4375" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4377" CreationDate="2010-10-29T22:05:38.257" Score="9" ViewCount="175" Body="&lt;p&gt;As it's heading into firework season (with Thanksgiving, Guy Fawkes, and New Years), I've never been particularly successful at photographing fireworks. In previous years I think I've always had too long an exposure, but what do you think I should be using?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the fireworks tend to not be in too predictable a location, would I be better off going faster with a handheld shot, or go longer and wider with a tripod, and crop later?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T00:27:03.380" Title="What settings should I be using to photograph fireworks?" Tags="&lt;low-light&gt;&lt;long-exposure&gt;&lt;fireworks&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="4376" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4375" CreationDate="2010-10-29T22:25:14.927" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My strategy would be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;use a tripod&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;frame a wide angle shot with some background (city, etc) and enough space where you expect the fireworks&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;expose just the background, try to get something like 3-5 second exposure&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;wait for the first explosion&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;chimp and adjust&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some adjustment guidelines would be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;longer exposure time makes longer trails&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;aperture+ISO controls brightness of the trails&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll attempt to demonstrate on fireworks snapshot I took this summer :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/EKiVz.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;bad fireworks example&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the preferred way of correcting this would be to expose a bit longer, and try to avoid taking photos when there are big explosions on the bottom, since stopping down aperture might make the trails on the top too dark. But as the fireworks change all the time the best option would be to keep the principles in mind and then just experiment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-29T22:39:20.643" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T22:39:20.643" />
  <row Id="4377" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4375" CreationDate="2010-10-29T22:32:15.270" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the tripod I use a remote to trigger exposures around 8 second. Or you could set it to 'bulb' (or the equivalent on your camera) and click to open and close the shutter manually with the remote, so you can capture the action you desire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've shot fireworks at 200 ISO, no need to go higher, in my experience. In fact I stop down the aperture to F/8 or F/11.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example (Rose Bowl Fourth of July show, from Colorado Street bridge in Pasadena, CA):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://updike.posterous.com/fireworks-example-photos&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://dl.dropbox.com/u/143480/fireworks.jpg&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(click for more)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="109" LastEditorUserId="109" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-29T22:42:47.037" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T22:42:47.037" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="4378" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4375" CreationDate="2010-10-29T22:48:33.703" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't claim any deep expertise, but I made some fireworks photos this past summer and the &quot;formula for next time&quot; I came up with was:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tripod&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wide angle (i.e., crop afterwards)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;f/9.5&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ISO 200&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bulb mode&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The advice I read was to chimp a lot, which I agree with. One thing to keep in mind is that only a small percentage of the frame will be bright (i.e., just the fireworks themselves), which means the histogram of a properly exposed frame may not look as you expect -- if you expose to get the usual hump in the middle, it will be very overexposed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other thing that was a bit tricky is focus - turn autofocus off and leave it on infinity, but make sure you don't bump it (which is easy to do).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.reidster.net/2010/07/fireworks.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is what I produced (f/8, 2-3 seconds exposure), if that's useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-30T03:27:25.357" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T03:27:25.357" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4379" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4344" CreationDate="2010-10-29T22:51:02.843" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For APS-C the Tamron 18-270 provides a great range of focal lengths. It also has stabilisation (Tamron calls it 'VC')&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I own it, very happy with it. The IQ isn't as good as the 17-50 f/2.8 but you can't beat the versatility. I used it as a primary lens on a 4 week holiday, and was very happy with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is a little slow, so it works best when there's plenty of light (thought the 7D has better ISO than my 405D). Also the zoom mechanism is a bit loose, except in the middle where it's tight. You do need to use the zoom lock to stop it sliding out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="142" LastEditorUserId="142" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-31T12:22:21.857" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T12:22:21.857" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4380" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4374" CreationDate="2010-10-29T23:42:36.783" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Zeiss-85mm-f-1.4-ZE-Planar-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;review&lt;/a&gt; of the Zeiss 85mm has an explanation from Zeiss, it's about half way down the page. In a nutshell, they state it is the nature of a fast lens, of this design, without floating elements as focus shifts as a function of spherical abberations. Anyways, more detail in the article.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T23:42:36.783" />
  <row Id="4381" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4374" CreationDate="2010-10-29T23:47:07.640" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer your question, yes, this is a design issue. The Canon 50L, like the Zeiss Planars, do not have floating elements to correct focus shifts. For Zeiss lenses that have floating elements, like the Makro-Planars, Distagons, etc, focus shifting is well-corrected. Focus shift is also more apparent in fast lenses and at MFD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My experience with the Canon and the Zeiss is that they both exhibit focus shift between f/2 to f/2.8, which is readily compensated for once you get the hang of it. I also don't find it to be much of an issue be cause I rarely take photos at/around minimum focusing distances. If you do, test the lens at different apertures at close to MFD, and you will observe a pattern (shifting towards or away from the camera) that you will get used to and compensate for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1868" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T23:47:07.640" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4382" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="295" CreationDate="2010-10-29T23:56:36.443" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Flickr &amp;amp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://smugmug.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SmugMug&lt;/a&gt; are my favorites. I enjoy both for different reasons. Flickr for the social aspect and to keep up with my friends(similar, but better than facebook) and SmugMug for customizability.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1804" LastActivityDate="2010-10-29T23:56:36.443" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-10-29T23:56:36.443" />
  <row Id="4383" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4344" CreationDate="2010-10-30T00:08:40.110" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think I would want a fairly wide angle lens, because even if you can't zoom farther, you can always crop. I would also want a weather-sealed lens, since the conditions are a bit crazy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I'd lean towards the 24-70 f/2.8 L or the 17-40 f/4 L.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 24-70 is a great mid-range zoom, and weather sealed, but it's a beast (950g).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mostly because of that my first choice would be the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-17-40mm-f-4.0-l-usm-lens-review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 17-40 f/4.0 L USM&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Apparent focal length on a 7D is 27–64mm, which is great for landscape or portrait.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Weather sealed (as long as you use a UV Filter, which you'll probably want at altitude anyway)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;light weight (lightest L lens at 475g)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00009R6WO?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;tag=phot0b7-20&amp;amp;linkCode=as2&amp;amp;camp=1789&amp;amp;creative=390957&amp;amp;creativeASIN=B00009R6WO&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Good price at amazon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if you were to take a second lens, I would suggest the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000I1X3W8?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;tag=phot0b7-20&amp;amp;linkCode=as2&amp;amp;camp=1789&amp;amp;creative=390957&amp;amp;creativeASIN=B000I1X3W8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;, which is also weather sealed, and at 760g isn't too heavy for a telephoto.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T00:08:40.110" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4384" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-30T01:26:51.313" Score="5" ViewCount="393" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have imported my images into Lightroom 3 and have put them into a specific folder that I have defined.  After I have edited an image, I export the edited image into a sub-folder with the intent of keeping my original images and edited images separated.  However, when I go back into the parent folder, the image that I edited is displayed instead of the original...it looks as though the original is being saved over and I can't find the original anywhere in my library.  Is there a setting that I'm missing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1899" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T02:16:08.720" Title="Editing images in Lightroom 3" Tags="&lt;lightroom-3&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4385" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4356" CreationDate="2010-10-30T01:34:14.043" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are presently 7 compact cameras that support RAW. You can &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php?size=compact&amp;amp;outputraw=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;see then all here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, if you were primarily concerned with size you can refine your results to get the&#xA;lightest ones and that leaves 3 models: Canon S95, Canon S90 and Casio FH100. Personally,&#xA;I really liked the S90 and its controls are really superb. They let you work efficiently&#xA;for a camera this small.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You wont get the same direct controls for the Casio but if you don't use manual controls&#xA;so often you may be swayed by its ultra-wide 24-240mm lens. It is also much faster than&#xA;the Canons, as it shoots at up to 40 FPS and has near-instant shutter-lag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-31T19:25:56.243" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T19:25:56.243" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4387" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4384" CreationDate="2010-10-30T02:08:44.983" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The reason your &quot;originals&quot; look like the edited version is due to the way Lightroom works. By default, when importing, Lightroom puts a copy of your original import in its catalog. No matter what you do with your images in lightroom, there is already always an unmodified copy of the original. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lightroom does non-destructive editing by default. You can always, at any time, get back to your unmodified original images as they were strait out of the camera. To do so, go into Develop mode, and find your history. The first entry in the history list should be &quot;Import (mm/dd/yyyy hh:mm:ss XM)&quot;. Selecting that entry will take you back to the unmodified original.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/8c8k1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Edited vs Original&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also use snapshots to give you point-in-time recovery options. You can snapshot before you ever make any edits, to create a second copy of your original image. Additionally, you can make snapshots at any time throughout your editing process. Selecting a snapshot will instantly revert your image back to that state. Every action, including selecting a snapshot, will be another entry in your history list, so even selecting a snapshot can be undone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, you don't really need to manually manage originals and backups and the like. I was a bit confused by this when I first started using Lightroom as well, but once I figured out how it worked, I was able to greatly simplify my workflow. Whenever I import a shoot, I organize/tag/keyword, develop, then print. Once that is done, I close Lightroom and let it back up my catalog. I have a backup job set up in Windows that lets me perform differential backups on the location where I specifically choose to import my photos. This makes sure I have everything backed up, including my originals, my lightroom catalog and all its settings, my lightroom presets, as well as my edited image versions. I also use the &quot;Open in Photoshop&quot; command to open copies of my images in Photoshop for editing. This automatically stacks the image edited by lightroom with the copy I edit in Photoshop, and keeps them in the same folder. All of my images and any metadata associated with them are backed up with two simple jobs on a daily (or more frequent) basis. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-30T02:16:08.720" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T02:16:08.720" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="4388" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4375" CreationDate="2010-10-30T03:03:56.643" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have yet to do it myself, but the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nyip.com/ezine/holidays/firewks.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New York Institute of Photography&lt;/a&gt; has a detailed article on the subject that is worth a read. Actually, the site in general is worth a read. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T03:03:56.643" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4389" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-30T03:51:23.293" Score="7" ViewCount="586" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm a little curious on how different is the dynamic range in each kind of camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know the DR of the human eyes is quit high. But, how different is the DR in SLR, DSLR and P&amp;amp;S cameras? Or is it almost the same?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1641" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-30T19:03:28.933" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T19:03:28.933" Title="Dynamic range comparison between SLR, DSLR, and Point &amp; Shoot" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;&lt;dynamic-range&gt;&lt;slr&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="4390" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="295" CreationDate="2010-10-30T04:16:39.517" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Someone asked me the other day why I like SmugMug so much and what I do with it that is making my life easier. So I figured it was worth answering. The main reasons I like it can be summed up in one sentence: “SmugMug lets me easily control, distribute, and manage my images.” That single phrase however overlooks a few of the items that are rolled into that process. It also doesn’t take into account all the little nuances that I thought about before purchasing a Pro level license. &#xA;The main features that made me go to SmugMug was the ability to not have to make my own webpages to share images. I used to use Dreamweaver or a hosted application on my web host to create the galleries. However this still was not the easiest or fastest way to do it. I would have to go through the images, create the web page, edit the HTML, worry about the resizing of the images to have a multi user friendly web page. Previously this was my work flow for sharing pictures with people: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take pictures&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Load pictures onto computer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rename pictures into meaningful names&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Run resize routine and rename using Fireworks to make images 1024 x 768, 640 x 480, and 102 x 77. (Small, Medium, and Large)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bring images into Dreamweaver&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Create web page with links for images in Dreameaver&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The typical process:&#xA;      create a table&#xA;      put caption under the image&#xA;      link to both the large and medium size image.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Upload images and web page to website using Dreamweaver. (Not all hotels will support FTP connections so not always easy)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wait for page and images to upload and then check that everything worked okay&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Share links with people&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now if I wanted to do something like right click protect or watermark the image, I would have to do some tweaky stuff. Not saying I couldn’t do it, just that it would add more steps. It also resulted in the watermark being embedded in the image that I upload, it was not a separate overlay. &#xA;Now the process using SmugMug is much simpler and faster &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Load pictures onto computer using Lightroom 3.2&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Create gallery in SmugMug using Lightroom 3.2 Plugin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set gallery settings the way I want in SmugMug using Lightroom 3.2 Plugin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Click the publish button&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Send link to gallery (don’t even have to wait for uploads to finish)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If want to add captions and names there are many ways to do it, ranging from Lightroom to Bridge to using the tools in SmugMug&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of these things can also be done through your website using their various tools. So if I do not have Lightroom I can still do the exact thing just replace &quot;using Lightroom 3.2&quot; with via web interface.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now if you notice there were not as many things that I could do with my personal site. The reason is that basically it was things I was not capable of doing on my own or things I had not thought about. So now with SmugMug there is much more control over the sharing and protection. I can turn on the right click protection, I also can have SmugMug add a watermark to the displayed image, not to the original image. I can also create a better setting for searching and finding images. Plus SmugMug will also properly scale the image for the user’s display. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where the control and features of SmugMug really made me chuckle was few weeks ago at a company conference. A coworker decided to borrow a few pictures without asking me. He took them from my SmugMug site which I had previously distributed. The images were pictures from the beta testing of new products in an unlisted gallery, I have no trouble sharing them. However I want to protect my images and where they are going, so I have set the defaults for all my galleries to be “Watermark enabled” (a Pro feature) and “Right Click protected”. These settings resulted in the following situation for the presenter. The person was not able to simply right click on the image and select “Save Image As…” instead an alert appeared that says “These photos are copyrighted by their respective owners. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited.” In addition to that trouble there was also a contrasting X through the image in their PowerPoint. So that the person had to explain that he had taken the images from my site to a room full of people. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know it seems petty, but I want credit for my images and when they are being used. The amount of grief I get from coworkers for taking pictures is out of proportion to the amount of people that ask me for copies of images. So I think that making it difficult for people to “borrow” my images is well worth it. It kind of pokes them back simply saying, hey you wouldn’t have this image if not for me so how about a little respect. The amount of effort it takes is literally none, I have set up a template that sets the gallery settings the way I want them without having to change it again and again. While I am not a professional photographer, this Pro feature has made my work have more value at the office as people have to ask me for images. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that I can also easily search and review the images online without having to travel with my images also makes my life easier. Being able to search quickly and easily by date range or by keywords or through the galleries, I can triangulate in on an image if needed. When I was asked on short notice to provide an image for a magazine article I had written, I simply sent over to the editor a few links to my Smugmug images; I let them pick which one was most appropriate for them. I then provided them the original image quickly and easily by simply placing it in a gallery for them with the option to save the original. I did not have to reupload the image or go back home to get it. I was able to provide it quickly and easily without having to do anything out of the ordinary. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that I can also easily print an image through the services provided is also great. I can simply select an image and decide to print it and then a few days later it is delivered. Can I just as easily do this through some “local imager” the answer is yes. However the options available are not even close. Being able to get an image color corrected and printed on metallic paper that is 24 x 36 inches is not something that my local supplier cannot do as easily or cost effectively. Also being able to print directly on metal and have it ready to hang on the wall is really nice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The customer service is also very reactive and able to respond to the questions without making one feel dumb for asking. Even when the answers are in the help files, they don’t simply say look in the help files. Often times I am trying to do something on a wireless broadband card from a job site, so browsing the internet is very slow. Using the Blackberry to send and receive an e-mail asking a question is much more time efficient for me. I am well aware that it is not for them as I used to manage my company’s Tech Support team and realize how much those questions take time that is not easily recovered. However at no point does that come through to me as the customer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not everything is perfect and they will admit it, that is actually quite refreshing. When I have had problems it is not like talking to a corporate conglomerate that is unfeeling. Rather I can talk directly with the people in charge and get real answers, not a politically polished and crafted answer from a script. While the answer might not always be what I want, it is honest and is respectful of my requests and needs. It is actually a conversation and trying to come up with solutions, not simply a “you can’t do that” answer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They have also fostered a great free community, Digital Grin, where one can go and learn an awful lot about photography, the process, and tools. The people in the Digital Grin forum will share knowledge from all levels, ranging from people who are Canon Explorers of Light to weekend shooters. However all of these people are treated the same and with respect. It is something special when your images are being critiqued by photographers that are also shooting for the New York Times, and their responses are not condescending or trite but helpful and give one a tools to use to improve. This involvement also includes their SmugMug’s artist in residence program and the entire photography community is the beneficiary. Plus they have also donated photo hosting to my favorite charity with no cajoling, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also if you are interested in trying it out, I have a referral code/couponthat saves you money, Simply enter my email address ( me    bradfordbenn.com ) or personal coupon ( D5I4bmVRNHNpU ) in the Email / Coupon field of the signup form. They do have a 14 day trial&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1901" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T04:16:39.517" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-10-30T04:16:39.517" />
  <row Id="4391" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4389" CreationDate="2010-10-30T04:23:59.560" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general, the larger the photosite, the higher the dynamic range. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So given that DSLR's typically have larger sensors than P&amp;amp;S, they typically have higher dynamic ranges.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;SLR's are slightly different, in that the film type dictates dynamic range, not the camera itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The human eye has about 24 f-stops of dynamic range, while the camera's range is around 5-9 stops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T04:23:59.560" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4392" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2413" CreationDate="2010-10-30T04:24:55.363" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Look into the Canon 300L f4 IS.  It's a good wildlife lens AND its rated as a 'macro' lens at 1:4 magnification which gets quite close.  I've used it to shoot flowers AND snakes with good results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T04:24:55.363" />
  <row Id="4393" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3433" CreationDate="2010-10-30T04:35:38.853" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My answer to these questions (same fore Olympus) is even if you assume that Sony makes just as good equipment, Canon and Nikon have waaaay more options as far as both 1st party lenses, bodies and equipment AND third party lenses and equipment.  Not to mention more resources everywhere and more mindshare. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T04:35:38.853" />
  <row Id="4394" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="533" CreationDate="2010-10-30T05:00:13.940" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On my last major trip I picked up a small spindle of DVDs for photo backups, keeping one copy there and another on my laptop hard drive. The 25 disc ones seem a bit more stable than the large ones, the space available fit the trip, they're write-once (no worry about erasing/overwrite) and reasonably durable. I had my own computer along, but you may also be able to find internet cafes or other computers with DVD burners. Compared with a hard drive it's less dense, but the discs can handle more shock and you wouldn't have to worry about some other system corrupting any more than your current batch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you think you can get reasonably fast Internet access, &lt;a href=&quot;http://smugmug.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Smugmug&lt;/a&gt; allows unlimited photos and they have an API that would allow bulk downloading them when you return home. You mention you have Flickr, and while I'm not familiar with their API I'd be surprised if they didn't have something similar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1902" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T05:00:13.940" />
  <row Id="4396" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4024" CreationDate="2010-10-30T05:42:31.637" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally, you press the DISP button to cycle through the various display options, one of which is off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No experience with CHDK, but that's how regular Canons work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Editing much later to add:&lt;/strong&gt; I have since installed CHDK on my S90, and the DISP button works the same as with the stock firmware. So simply pressing it should cycle you through basic display, extended info display, and display off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1905" LastEditorUserId="1905" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-10T21:54:41.190" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T21:54:41.190" />
  <row Id="4397" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4431" CreationDate="2010-10-30T05:55:54.370" Score="8" ViewCount="603" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am in the market for at least one wide-angle prime lens. I've focused most of my search on 50mm and 24mm prime lenses from Canon, Zeiss, and Sigma. Crossing paths with another avenue of research in large-format cameras and photography, I started looking at tilt-shift lenses. I've looked at the two Canon TS-E lenses, the 17mm and 24mm. The concept of tilt, shift, and rotation is amazing, and the focus, dof, and perspective effects and control possible with a TS lens, at least on paper, are simply amazing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The cost of such a lens is pretty high...higher than any lens I have purchased to date by at least $500, topping a retail price of $2000 for the Canon variety. My questions are, have you used a tilt-shift lens? If so, which brands and lens models have you used? Are they worth the price? Do they really offer the amazing capabilities noted in the following reviews?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-17mm-f-4-L-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon TS-E 17mm f/4 L Tilt-Shift Lens Review&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-24mm-f-3.5-L-II-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L II Tilt-Shift Lens Review&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T11:32:52.813" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T12:01:33.550" Title="How well do tilt-shift lenses work for nature/landscape photograhy?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;tilt-shift&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="4398" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="295" CreationDate="2010-10-30T06:12:52.557" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Simple MobileMe or awesome Smugmug&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use Aperture and combined with MobileMe galleries it is a very convenient solution for sharing images. However the MobileMe galleries are very simple and there is no way to customize the galleries. For more advanced solutions I would recommend SmugMug. There are so many features that make SmugMug an awesome product, so I'll just mention a few:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Unlimited possibilities for customization.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Password-protect individual galleries. No need to make your grandma sign up for a flick account just to view the images of your children.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Unlimited storage.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1447" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T06:12:52.557" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-10-30T06:12:52.557" />
  <row Id="4399" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4374" CreationDate="2010-10-30T06:20:28.740" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In answer to another question of mine, Matt Grum left a couple links that describe focus shift. One of them linked a very excellent page by Zeiss that explains why they chose a lens design that incurrs significant focus shift at wide apertures for closer focus distances:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;C-Sonnar T* 1,5/50 ZM&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Information about special features for&#xA;  dealers and users&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The C-SONNAR T* 1.5/50 ZM is a very&#xA;  special lens; based on a classical&#xA;  lens design concept from the 1930Â´s.&#xA;  The additional letter â€œCâ€ in the&#xA;  name of the lens expresses this&#xA;  designation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This lens design helps to achieve&#xA;  pictures with a special artistic&#xA;  touch. This lens â€˜drawsâ€™ your&#xA;  subject in a fine, flattering manner&#xA;  and is therefore ideally suited for&#xA;  portraiture. It renders a sharpness&#xA;  that is slightly rounded, being less&#xA;  aggressive than in contemporary lens&#xA;  designs, but at the same time not soft&#xA;  in its rendition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Many famous portraits of glamorous and&#xA;  prominent people during the 1930Â´s&#xA;  used this technique to great effect.&#xA;  These images are characterized by&#xA;  portraying the person in a shining,&#xA;  nearly celestial way. This effect is&#xA;  very well balanced and not&#xA;  exaggerated; therefore many viewers&#xA;  see it in a subconscious way. The&#xA;  trained observer, however, understands&#xA;  the underlining technique and enjoys&#xA;  the results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This lens design exhibits some&#xA;  additional effects, which should be&#xA;  understood to achieve the maximum&#xA;  benefit from the C-Sonnar T* 1.5/50&#xA;  ZM:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Because of the above mentioned&#xA;  classical characteristic of the lens&#xA;  the best focus position in the object&#xA;  space can not be kept exactly constant&#xA;  for all f-stop settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The passionate photographer might&#xA;  notice a slightly closer best focus in&#xA;  his pictures than expected. When&#xA;  stopping down the lens to f/2.8 or&#xA;  smaller this effect is minimized, so&#xA;  the focus position will be as&#xA;  expected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In order to balance the performance at&#xA;  full speed and other f-stop settings&#xA;  the lens is adjusted with above&#xA;  described characteristic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The special features of the C-SONNAR&#xA;  T* 1.5/50 ZM are best used in&#xA;  emotional, artistic, narrative images,&#xA;  portraits or atmospheric landscapes.&#xA;  For documentation or technical&#xA;  subjects CARL ZEISS recommends to stop&#xA;  down the lens at least to f/5.6 or to&#xA;  use the PLANAR T* 2/50 ZM lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I understand it, the effect is due to spherical aberration, or a focus plane that is not entirely flat from the center to the edge of the image circle. This is an intentional design decision that helps create the amazingly soft bokeh of both the Canon 50mm f/1.2 and Zeiss 50mm C-Sonnar f1.5 ZM and similar lenses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've seen a few images taken with the Canon 50mm f/1.2 that take this focus shift into account, and they are truly stunning!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/2280382988/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/2280382988/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/2907174824/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/2907174824/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/2863026063/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/2863026063/&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T06:20:28.740" />
  <row Id="4400" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4401" CreationDate="2010-10-30T06:30:55.557" Score="6" ViewCount="122" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to embark on a self portrait photo-a-day project with my Rebel XSi &amp;amp; 50mm f/1.8 lens. The problem is that the built-in timer won't work for this - the AF kicks in when you press the shutter button, rather than when the timer reaches zero. At that point I'm not in the frame and the photo turns out blurry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've tried manually focusing on the spot where I intend to stand, but it's awfully hit-or-miss.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I'd like to do is compose the shot and manually select the AF point, then step into the frame and release the shutter remotely. Is there a remote which is capable of triggering the AF mechanism like this? It's not clear to me that this is even possible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1905" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T07:51:50.487" Title="Recommend me a remote shutter release" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;remote&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4401" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4400" CreationDate="2010-10-30T07:08:25.447" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Any canon remote switch can do this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Manually select your AF point, step into the frame, and half-press the shutter release on your remote switch to trigger AF (assuming you have AF bound to shutter [it's the default]). When you hear the beep, fully press the shutter release down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you find that the trigger is in the shot, combine this with self-timer to give you a few seconds to place the trigger down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also try connecting your Rebel to your laptop and try tethered shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T07:08:25.447" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4402" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4375" CreationDate="2010-10-30T08:49:41.463" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lot of good advice here already - when I did my shots i did the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) Tripod&#xA;2) Set up bulb&#xA;3) ISO of 200&#xA;4) Autofocus off - and focused manually on infinity&#xA;5) App 16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I did have the wrong lens - would recommend a wide angle&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also found that if the fireworks were mainly white I needed only a short exposure of a few seconds&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With multiple colours I had around 10-15 seconds and even up to 60 at some point&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My shots were all over a lake so only a pure black background to focus on&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/zoe_swiss/4851188916/in/set-72157624632068372/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here is one of mine&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1907" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T08:49:41.463" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4403" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4316" CreationDate="2010-10-30T08:59:48.113" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For me the 50mm 1.8 is a given.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On top of that I have a range of zoom's and dont really use them very much- maybe the 18-135 is a good starting point&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1907" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T08:59:48.113" />
  <row Id="4404" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4356" CreationDate="2010-10-30T09:12:22.937" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the Panasonic LX3 - I bought it for exactly the same reason as yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I did debate the Canon S90 as well, there is not much between the 2. The canon has a lens that is covered, the LX3 lens sticks out (so a pain if in a pocket)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My personal preference was for the menu on the LX3 - its great to have in my bag for everyday use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1907" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T09:12:22.937" />
  <row Id="4405" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4262" CreationDate="2010-10-30T09:17:16.743" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am quite new to photography - however I do travel a fair amount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I try and travel ultralight, I will typically take:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Body (obviously)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;50mm 1.4&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;10-20mm wide&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;70mm-300mm&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That seems to cover most of my needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1907" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T09:17:16.743" />
  <row Id="4406" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4240" CreationDate="2010-10-30T09:27:14.970" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a really useful question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am working with a D90 and have been purchasing new lens recently. I have chosen to spend the money on better lenses rather than a new body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A key point is if you do decided to upgrade the body are you going to stick with a cropped or go to full frame - this has a significant difference on the lens you would purchase.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any nikon lens that is marked as DX is designed for the cropped cameras and therefore will technically work on a full frame however my understanding is that you would not get the best from the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes you can get a pretty good deal buying a new body and lens together - if you are happy with your D70 then go for a decent lens instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1907" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T09:27:14.970" />
  <row Id="4407" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4188" CreationDate="2010-10-30T09:33:33.363" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Always ask the person who owns the image - I happily let people download some of mine to use at home. Like others have said it is always flattering. Quite often I will also make the higher res images available to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However - If I find that someone has used it without asking I do find it quite rude and will frequently ask if it is on a blog etc that it is removed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1907" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T09:33:33.363" />
  <row Id="4408" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4374" CreationDate="2010-10-30T10:17:33.990" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To add to the above I don't consider a degree of spherical abberation to be a problem in a manual focus lens. MF emplies a more deliberate, careful focus and composure process, plus you can always focus stopped down if needed. Lens design is allways a compromise of so many factors and Zeiss lenses are designed for a different market. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When shooting a wedding I don't want to have to be jogging the focus ring after every shot, or even &lt;em&gt;worrying about focus shifts that may or may not occur&lt;/em&gt;. Lack of focus shift really emphasises what a stellar lens the Canon 85 f/1.2L is given the quality of the bokeh &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; correction for spherical abberation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T10:17:33.990" />
  <row Id="4409" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4235" CreationDate="2010-10-30T10:41:15.420" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm using these batteries and charger for my Nikon SB-600:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://simoncahuk.posterous.com/batteries-and-charger-for-nikon-sb-600&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;link text&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The batteries last very long, but it takes 5-6 hours to charge them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1910" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T10:41:15.420" />
  <row Id="4410" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4397" CreationDate="2010-10-30T10:45:09.613" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think it's really worth the expense of the 17mm tilt-shift lens for landscapes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically shifting allows you to capture more of your image without recomposing. For example if you wanted to capture more of the top of a building you could shift the lens &lt;em&gt;down&lt;/em&gt; (which is effectively shifting the sensor up) and capture more of top of the image. Pointing the camera up would achieve a similar effect, but you would then get converging vertical lines which are undesirable in most architectural photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ok, so you might want to do the same thing with a landscape photo in order to capture more sky. However, given &lt;strong&gt;there are no vertical lines in the sky to converge&lt;/strong&gt;, you're not gaining anything compared to simply tilting the camera up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for tilting, you're effectively tilting the plane of focus, and thus DOF (which with a regular lens is always parrallel to the camera). So if you have a wall which is coming towards you, you can tilt the plane of focus to line up better with the wall and thus get more of it in focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, this isn't as much use in landscape photography where natural features rarely run in straight lines. Plus you have so much depth of field to begin with when using a wide angle lens DOF is rarely a problem. If you're going to use a tilt-shift lens to &lt;strong&gt;minimise&lt;/strong&gt; DOF (for the fake miniature effect) you might as well do that in post.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing you can do with a T/S lens is keep the lens still and shift in order to capture a pair of images that will &lt;strong&gt;perfecty&lt;/strong&gt; line up for stiching into a mini panorama, effectively making your camera sensor bigger. But this pales in comparison with what you can do with a multi-shot panorama and VR tripod head.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure people will point out that there &lt;strong&gt;are&lt;/strong&gt; uses for T/S lenses in landscape (i.e. when you have buildings in shot, or trees you want to keep vertical) but they are relatively few, and IMO not nearly enough to justify the cost of a T/S lens. &lt;strong&gt;The TS-E 17 is a nieche lens primarily suited to shooting man made objects / close distances.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;T/S lenses are a lot of fun, however unless you really need one they're hugely expensive. You can however make your own using a cheap MF lens and some plumbing supplies. Of course you wont get anything as nice as purpose built T/S, but you're talking about &lt;strong&gt;$100&lt;/strong&gt; vs. &lt;strong&gt;$2000&lt;/strong&gt; which is a no brainer if you're doing this for fun!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a good post on going the DIY route:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.cow.mooh.org/2009/07/plungercam-2-cheaper-and-more.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://blog.cow.mooh.org/2009/07/plungercam-2-cheaper-and-more.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-30T22:44:53.970" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T22:44:53.970" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="4411" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4375" CreationDate="2010-10-30T10:52:53.333" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Take a tripod and experiment!&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Different displays will suit different settings, is it going to be mainly rockets, or will there be roman candles, is the scenery worth capturing etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From experience you're going to want a tripod as your exposures wont be in the handheld range. I would also err toward very long exposures and shoot often, you're more likely to get several bursts in and you'll get some cool long exposure effects with clouds/water etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There a lot of very similar fireworks photos on the net so it's important to look around - it's not just about the expensive displays with the big rockets, you can cool effects with smaller fireworks. Also think of capturing the people along with the display. Here's a few examples of what I'm talking about:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/katy_and_phil/reception_pt1/images/2009-10-02-21h15m18%20_katy_and_phil.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/katy_and_phil/reception_pt1/images/2009-10-02-21h22m19%20_katy_and_phil.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-30T10:59:48.227" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T10:59:48.227" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4412" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4333" CreationDate="2010-10-30T11:05:17.973" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, 85mm on a full-frame camera is 85mm. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Read &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; about full-frame and crop sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1910" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T11:05:17.973" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4413" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4389" CreationDate="2010-10-30T11:42:52.067" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes the larger your sensor and the more light you can capture the higher your dynamic range is likely to be. To put some numbers to it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Phase One P65 (54mm sensor) &lt;strong&gt;13 EVs&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 5D (35mm sensor) &lt;strong&gt;11.1 EVs&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon Powershot G9 (6mm sensor) &lt;strong&gt;10.1 Evs&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Film is often quoted as 7EVs though it's not measured in the same way as the DXO-Mark data so it's not directly comparable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T11:42:52.067" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4414" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4344" CreationDate="2010-10-30T13:44:41.073" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Regarding 24-70mm as the all-purpose lens on APS-C.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;24mm is gives you field of view equivalent to 38mm on full-frame. In terms of my local landscape, this gives me something like this:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/vvaa5.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;38mm equivalent&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, 18mm or 17mm lens would allow you to capture this (28mm equivalent):&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/HhzPS.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;28mm equivalent&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;24-70mm f/2.8L is a very good lens, and I can highly recommend it as a walk-around lens for full-frame camera. What kind of focal lengths you'd miss more is up to your style. If you really prefer portraits, wildlife and neat-looking landscapes you might be ok with this range, although it probably won't work that well for capturing what's generally around you, as it might be difficult to fit in stuff you're close to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing that might be helpful is looking at pictures from the area that you like for example on Flickr, and checking focal length used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-31T11:32:39.073" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T11:32:39.073" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4415" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="533" CreationDate="2010-10-30T13:44:49.090" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Burning DVD is your best option and even if you use another means, you should still burn DVDs. The main advantages are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Burned DVDs have no value, they won't gets stollen by themselves.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is easy to replicate and distribute. Meaning you don't have to keep all copies in the same place.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I travel for photography I always burn everything twice. One copy stays with me and the other is mailed to myself. Never lost one this way. Mailing something like this is really safe just because it has no value but to yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Internet access generally won't cut it because of speed issues. Depending on how much you shoot, it may take more time than you have to upload all those files. Watch out also as some services PicasaWeb don't store your full-resolution image... They scale it or compress it to save space.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are 3 options to burn DVDs on the road:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Laptop with a burner, either integrated or not. This is the bulky and costly option but it is reliable.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Stand-alone burning device. I use an Addonics MFR. Put the card a blank disk in. Press the backup button, wait 7 minutes. This one runs on AC or batteries. From battery, you can burn about 10 disks.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Internet cafes: Many of them will burn a DVD for you for a small fee. Bring your own disks if you want to use quality ones. It may not be always available, so look each time you see an Internet Cafe or Business center, don't wait until you're out of space.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T13:44:49.090" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4416" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4991" CreationDate="2010-10-30T18:59:07.933" Score="7" ViewCount="497" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was wondering if you guys could have a look at this zombie gallery (a tad NSFW):&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.behance.net/gallery/Zombie-Walk-Paris-2010/766679&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.behance.net/gallery/Zombie-Walk-Paris-2010/766679&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;and shed some light on the post-processing used in the pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/imamtg/sets/72157625178716162/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr photoset&lt;/a&gt; (photos by &lt;a href=&quot;http://cargocollective.com/liverasol&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Live Rasoloarison&lt;/a&gt;). I've attached a few examples, but will remove if you think it's too hardcore for photo.se, or if the photographer minds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/c2nbg.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/9IuIC.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/37kDR.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think there is at least some vignetting going on, some fake bokeh/depth-of-field, some extra background textures, and a mix of vintage look + red saturation. Lots of work I'm sure. I'm usually not into post-process, but I think it worked really nicely for this specific subject; I'd love to get the corresponding LR preset and experiment on my &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/altuwa/sets/72157625235928414/show/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;own zombie gallery&lt;/a&gt;, for kicks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: it's hard to characterize this type of question. I could typically imagine the same question being asked for a different effect. Any hint on how to make it more pertinent?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2010-11-19T00:21:09.117" Title="How do I achieve this post-process effect?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="4417" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4429" CreationDate="2010-10-30T20:21:47.020" Score="2" ViewCount="221" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like to be extra careful with my lenses, in the hope that I can resell them for nearly what I pay. To this end, I use UV filters as an extra layer of protection(in addition to my paranoia :P ). Recently I was in California, and one of the Camera Shops had used UV filters very cheap. For some stupid reason, I only bought one for my prime. Now I am kicking myself as I just got two new lenses without UV filters. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my current location, there aren't any nice shops like that, so I cant just take a ride down the road and pick some up. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Are there any places online that I can buy used filters very inexpensively?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T23:22:04.123" Title="Where to buy cheap UV filters online?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;used-equipment&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4418" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4921" CreationDate="2010-10-30T20:24:43.617" Score="9" ViewCount="261" Body="&lt;p&gt;As is often the case, after graduating, I moved to a part of the country that I didn't really grow up in or know, and as such I don't really know all the great picturesque scenes, other than those I've stumbled across.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What tips do you have for identifying those awesome locations? Is it just a case of trial and error, or being an expert geographer? What about those awesome sunsets? Are they just down to time of the year, or would I get better results by learning more how to read the landscape?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T13:10:42.900" Title="How should I go about finding awesome locations for landscape shots?" Tags="&lt;landscape&gt;&lt;locations&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="4419" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4418" CreationDate="2010-10-30T20:28:15.890" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am not sure if you are a member on Flikr, but if you are, I would recommend joining a local Flikr group. I had a similar issue, but after joining the Flikr group dedicated to my area, I could look at what others were shooting(often geotagged), and sometimes directly ask, where they were shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know how useful this is, but it helped me out. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, would you mind saying where you are? Maybe some users already know some spots in your area!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T20:28:15.890" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="4420" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4417" CreationDate="2010-10-30T20:44:01.737" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you use other filters than UV, then it saves a great deal of money to simply buy filters in one size and then a bunch of step-up rings. Step-up-rings are very cheap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You must obviously buy a filter for your largest lens, so if that is not the case with the one you bought, you may need to buy one at regular price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is one catch though and that is that step-up rings will prevent you to use the lens hood at the same time. Since UV filters are only advised to protect your lens from eminent danger, hopefully you won't find yourself bothered by this downside often.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: I know it does not answer your actual question since I'm telling you to buy step-up-rings instead but hopefully it can serve you instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T20:44:01.737" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4421" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4418" CreationDate="2010-10-30T20:48:01.060" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Awesome locations are rarely a secret... You can often find them on postcards and picture books from the area. That's advice I've been given time after time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...although I don't always do it. When leaving a place I sometimes see awesome photos on postcards that I wished I knew about earlier.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T20:48:01.060" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4422" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4433" CreationDate="2010-10-30T20:57:45.490" Score="5" ViewCount="100" Body="&lt;p&gt;While mucking around in Lightroom today and setting up some smart collections, I wondered if having a large number of smart collections might negatively impact performance?  I'm thinking that Lightroom must be continually monitoring changes to metadata and updating these collections... is this likely to have any significant impact on the speed of operations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T22:43:45.450" Title="Does the number of smart collections affect Lightroom's performance?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;smart-collections&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="4423" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4417" CreationDate="2010-10-30T21:01:05.647" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've had good luck buying used filters off ebay.  There are also a number of very inexpensive, new ones - no idea of the quality of these (but I just ordered one to try, so I guess I'll find out!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="134" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T21:01:05.647" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4424" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4418" CreationDate="2010-10-30T21:02:53.400" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One great way to find good photo locations (landscape or otherwise) is to browse the Maps feature of Flickr.  Start on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/map/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr World Map&lt;/a&gt; and then enter your location to narrow things down.  You'll be able to scroll around and find photos that have been uploaded and geotagged.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T21:02:53.400" />
  <row Id="4425" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4427" CreationDate="2010-10-30T21:04:05.233" Score="5" ViewCount="437" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm just getting into the world of photography, stepping up from a point-and-shoot. I've just purchased a Nikon D3100 and it should be here in a couple of days.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've done lots of research, but there's one thing I don't understand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why can a 200 dollar compact point and shoot zoom 10x or greater optically but to get anything over 200mm-300mm for a DSLR is going to cost an arm and a leg?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Is it sensor size that allows that kind of distance?  Does something like the SX120IS and other compacts just have that small of a sensor so even zoomed all the way out, its going to be alot more magnified than something like the D3100 (which yes, I know, don't have a full size sensor either)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-30T21:22:46.150" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T21:22:46.150" Title="point and shoot zoom vs DSLR zoom" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;focal-length&gt;&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;&lt;sensor-size&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4426" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4418" CreationDate="2010-10-30T21:06:36.177" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would go out very often on different times in different directions and LOOK AROUND and think... You'll always find something interesting, maybe not at this time of day but then You can bear in mind to come back f.ex. at night or on sunset... etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was shoot when I go for a walk with dog to nearby huge field of grass:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://goo.gl/G1rn&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://goo.gl/G1rn&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this in nearby park, also while walking with dog:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://goo.gl/oo4h&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://goo.gl/oo4h&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are looking for outstanding views, try to find some trip guides and tips on web in books. Often You can find some outstanding places.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1681" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T21:06:36.177" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4427" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4425" CreationDate="2010-10-30T21:12:06.367" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It has to do with the sensor size - &lt;strong&gt;large sensors require correspondingly larger lenses&lt;/strong&gt;. For example, a lens on a small sensor with field of view equivalent to 400mm on full-frame is quite small; 66mm real focal length if I did my math right, and needing to cover a much smaller image circle - both factors which lead to a smaller lens. On the other hand, a 400mm lens for use on a full-frame sensor is a giant $5000 beast. Those really big lenses are expensive because they require huge, precisely manufactured chunks of specialty glass along with the machinery &amp;amp; electronics to focus, zoom, and VR them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format&lt;/a&gt; is a good comparison of various common sensor sizes. Your Canon SX120 has a 1/2.5&quot; sensor (5.8x4.3mm), while the D3100 has an APS-C sensor (24x16mm).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-30T21:18:46.213" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T21:18:46.213" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="4428" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4417" CreationDate="2010-10-30T21:15:46.423" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Consider looking at &lt;em&gt;value&lt;/em&gt; and not just &lt;em&gt;price.&lt;/em&gt;  There are substantial differences among UV and haze filters; some of them will significantly degrade your photos under some circumstances and most of them have some measurable effects in any photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Useful reviews appear at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/1054387/1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/1054387/1&lt;/a&gt; (which is well illustrated--some of those photos are eye-openers--but does not try to be scientific or comprehensive) and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lenstip.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.lenstip.com&lt;/a&gt; (the site is currently down so I can't give you the precise link).  The latter evaluates the filters with a spectrophotometer to measure (a) how much visible light they allow and (b) how much UV light they block.  I recall it also evaluates flare.  It found that many (but not all) of the Hoya UV filters are both cheap and excellent.  Its top rated filter, out of the two dozen tested, is also the cheapest (one of the Hoyas).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many of the low-price dealers are now accessible at Amazon.com.  Often the shipping is free.  I have been able to obtain top-rated filters from Hoya, B&amp;amp;W, and Marumi there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T21:15:46.423" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4429" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4417" CreationDate="2010-10-30T21:19:00.353" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Their website is janky, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.2filter.com/prices/specials.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2Filter&lt;/a&gt; has pretty good prices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="90" LastEditorUserId="90" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-31T23:22:04.123" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T23:22:04.123" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4430" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4425" CreationDate="2010-10-30T21:19:45.003" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Basically, yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The zoom on a compact is started in equivalent-terms. So a 5-50mm lens can become&#xA;equivalent to a 25-250mm lens on a DSLR (those are not exact numbers, just for&#xA;illustration).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a DSLR a 250mm has to have a focal of, well, 250mm. That is 25cm or about 10 inches.&#xA;It gets bug and heavy and expensive to manufacture something that big with optical&#xA;quality glass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Comparatively, a compact with a sensor 5 times smaller (most are 5.7X smaller) needs to&#xA;create a lens that has only 50mm or 2 inches of focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The width is pretty much proportional too, it has to be to keep similar aperture sizes.&#xA;So they get cost and size saving on all dimensions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BTW, I just reviewed the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/review.php?id=92&amp;amp;review=express&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Olympus SP-800UZ&lt;/a&gt; which reaches 840mm! Do you know how much an&#xA;800mm lens cost for a DSLR? The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=219&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;only stabilized one&lt;/a&gt; cost over $10,000 USD and weighs&#xA;4.5k (10 lbs). The SP-800UZ, camera and lens, weighs 416g (less than 1 lbs).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T21:19:45.003" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="4431" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4397" CreationDate="2010-10-30T21:24:56.603" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Figured I'd follow up my comment with an actual answer since I have the opposite opinion of Matt :)  I own 3 of the Canon tilt shift lenses (90mm, 45mm, 24mm II) and I owned the 17mm as will until last month.  The vast majority of what I like shooting is cityscapes/buildings and landscapes so the 24 TSE II gets a lot of use and its use isn't limited to just fixing lines in cityscapes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The ability to 'shift' the lens up to achieve a higher perspective w/out tilting elements in the foreground is very useful when shooting landscapes where you want a lot of sky in them &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; have tallish elements (trees, barns) in the foreground that you don't want to look funny.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As Matt mentioned its very useful to tilt the lens to the left and right to get 3 shots that are easy to stitch&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Like Jrista and I were talking about its very useful to be able to tilt the plane of focus so that everything from your feet to the mountains are in focus even at f3.5 in case the light is low&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Besides landscapes the 90mm has a very favorable magnification factor for pseudo-macro work with flowers and plants that have flower-heads or leaves on an off-plane of focus.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I find the 24L TSE II to be my go-to lens for photographing nature, I bring that and a 70-200L usually for 'nature/outdoors' photo treks.  A note on the 17mm, I found it to be &lt;em&gt;too&lt;/em&gt; wide, wider than 21mm is generally too wide for my taste.  Also the front element of the 17mm is domed and fully exposed to the elements, no hood and its not inset (which is kind of scary).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastEditorUserId="2110" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T12:01:33.550" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T12:01:33.550" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="4432" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4341" CreationDate="2010-10-30T21:25:15.613" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can also try Pixoasis.com. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1915" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T21:25:15.613" />
  <row Id="4433" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4422" CreationDate="2010-10-30T21:41:00.827" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Difficult to answer, I read a lot about LR but I don't recall an Adobe engineer commenting on that. However, from a software perspective, my answer would be no. I don't think LR is constantly monitoring performances; metadata changes when &lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt; make changes, at which point LR can decide: &quot;hey, these specific photos have changed, let me queue them up to see if some smart collections need to be updated&quot;. Every now and then, and/or at least in a &lt;em&gt;background thread&lt;/em&gt;, the queue would be processed and the smart collections updated. LR is heavily multi-threaded so my gut feeling is that you won't feel the update going on. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lightroom keeps metadata in its catalog (a SQLite database) &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; optionally in your DNG/JPG/RAW/XMP files if you either write them back manually or have instructed LR to do so for you automatically (not recommended for performance). With that in mind, your metadata may be altered when a third-party application modify your files outside of Lightroom. When that happens, LR will show a small icon next to your thumbnail telling you that the metadata in the file need to be synchronized with the metadata in the catalog. Unless I'm wrong, it's up to you to make that decision by manually selecting: &quot;synchronize metadata&quot; or &quot;read metada from file&quot;. When you do so, we are back to the situation above, I guess LR can decide to queue up the photos to see if smart collections need to be updated, in the background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T21:41:00.827" />
  <row Id="4434" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-30T22:46:32.707" Score="4" ViewCount="111" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for a place to get my 35mm film (color slide and B&amp;amp;W) developed and scanned by mail with a focus on &lt;em&gt;quality&lt;/em&gt;.  I have a good local shop about 10mi away from me that does great development but horrible &lt;em&gt;horrible&lt;/em&gt; scanning and its a PITA to drive up there.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I noticed another person asked about &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1066/inexpensive-35mm-film-developing&quot;&gt;online photo developing with an eye on inexpensiveness&lt;/a&gt;, but I'm looking for quality developing/scanning, something on par to if I did it myself with my Nikon 5000ED scanner (which I'd like to sell as I don't want to do it myself anymore).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T20:00:18.117" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T20:00:18.117" Title="Where is a really good place to get film developed by mail?" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;scanning&gt;&lt;developing&gt;&lt;scanning-service&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4435" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4416" CreationDate="2010-10-30T23:37:17.763" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you've answered your own question, it looks to me like contrast + split-toning + vignette + texture layer. Nothing really suggests to me the bokeh was faked, the photos were shot with a 50 f/1.8 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;vintage&lt;/em&gt; look as you put it is probably achieved by split toning, that is applying different colour shifts to the highlights and shadows. It doesn't take very long to do this sort of processing actually, and it can be very effective with this type if subject (it makes the make-up look a lot more convincing for a start). Here are some shots from a recent shoot where I did almost the same thing, except for the texture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://mattgrum.com/aaron/_M5M2778_preview.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/aaron/_M5M2937_preview.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These were done with Adobe Camera Raw (pretty much the same as LightRoom) so you could create a preset. I'll dig out the settings when I get a chance! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-10-30T23:37:17.763" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4436" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4418" CreationDate="2010-10-31T00:16:22.733" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that this is not the standard answer one would expect but get into Geocaching or waypointing.  The wife and I do this when travelling and it has led us to some of the most awesome hidden parks, trails, and local venues that you will never find on a tourist map.  Imagine finding old mills, hidden wildlife preserves, etc.  We don't do it so much for the Geocache itself anymore.  But we do love the hunt.  Once there, I take photos :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1856" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T00:16:22.733" />
  <row Id="4437" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4107" CreationDate="2010-10-31T00:42:03.333" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I keep a roll of paper table cloth on hand for things like this.  Another option is the really good butcher paper but it is not as wide.  Photoshop can take care of most of the blemishes that you might find on it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1856" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T00:42:03.333" />
  <row Id="4438" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4422" CreationDate="2010-10-31T00:45:57.890" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not sure about Lightroom 3 as I lost my last catalog and have not recreated it.  But in previous catalogs I had a bunch of Smart Collections and performance was not affected.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1856" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T00:45:57.890" />
  <row Id="4439" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4397" CreationDate="2010-10-31T01:13:48.317" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As mentioned before, tilt-shift lenses are very useful for landscape photography because of the ability to tilt the plane of focus. But be aware that internal metering tend to be inaccurate with more tilting/shifting, so use a light meter if you have one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally prefer the 24mm over the 17mm, mainly because I still shoot film and the 24mm allows the use of filters. If you don't need that wide a focal length, Hartblei also makes an excellent 35mm tilt-shift lens: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hartblei.com/lenses/lens_35mm.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.hartblei.com/lenses/lens_35mm.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1868" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T01:13:48.317" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4440" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3456" CreationDate="2010-10-31T01:16:43.733" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just got a Singh-Ray Vari-ND filter for taking longer duration images.  It is essentially what you want to do in a commercial setup.  The paperwork with it clearly warns of the color effects mentioned above that you may see on some lenses.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1856" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T01:16:43.733" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4441" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4400" CreationDate="2010-10-31T01:30:10.523" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A more expensive option is a remote trigger like the wireless pocket wizards and the cable for your camera.  I have them and love how they work.  But I also use them to slave strobes too so that helps offset the cost/need some.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1856" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T01:30:10.523" />
  <row Id="4442" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4434" CreationDate="2010-10-31T01:58:13.200" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've used &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aandi.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A&amp;amp;I&lt;/a&gt; a few times. They have a good reputation and I was happy, though I'm not a film expert by any means. I think you have to pay extra for good scans (the ones I got were fine but nothing special).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T01:58:13.200" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4443" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4445" CreationDate="2010-10-31T02:41:40.777" Score="10" ViewCount="684" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am just wondering how many of you do a heavy editing in Photoshop after taking those pictures. Do all or most professional photographers do that? Or they just do a simple cropping and adjusting a brightness and contrast compare to those doing like removing an object from a picture to make it perfect, etc.?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1786" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-08T15:12:06.820" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T15:12:06.820" Title="Do professionals all edit their pictures heavily?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;photo-editing&gt;" AnswerCount="7" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="4444" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4443" CreationDate="2010-10-31T03:19:09.663" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't speak for the pros, though I would tend to think that if they're selling it, they probably spend some time on it. Of course, if they're shooting for advertising, then it is pretty much assured that the image is going to see a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; of post-processing work...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For myself, it depends. In general, for most, I feel that if I have to spend more than a few minutes on the image, than I haven't taken a good enough shot. Usually I do some curve adjustments, perhaps noise reduction, sharpening (since RAW needs it), and maybe some minor saturation adjustments. Mind you, I'm not about to be featured in a photo magazine for my brilliance, so take my approach with that particular grain of salt. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, if I'm going for something &quot;artsy&quot; that just uses the image as a base, I'll spend more time on it, quite a bit sometimes. I didn't used to do that kind of thing, but then I came to the conclusion that I'm &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; a photojournalist, that I'm trying to create art, and so using one of my photographs as a base for that is just fine. I can't draw or paint, so I have to start from something!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T03:19:09.663" />
  <row Id="4445" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4443" CreationDate="2010-10-31T04:13:45.003" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Like John, I can't really speak for pros either. I think it really depends on the person, as some people like to do post-processing, and others are real sticklers about doing everything in camera, with minimal (if any) post processing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A couple landscape photographers I like span the range. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.josephholmes.com/gallery01.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Joseph Holmes&lt;/a&gt; is a great photographer who doesn't seem to do much in the way of post processing. A lot of his work is film, but is more recent stuff is digital. All of it looks pretty much the same (an amazing feat in and of itself to keep your digital work and film work similar.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.marcadamus.com/index.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Marc Adamas&lt;/a&gt; is widely considered one of the greatest landscape photographers of our time. It is quite clear from his work that he does some fairly ample post processing of his images, which these days are all digital. His work is excellent, and particularly saturated and vibrant. Some of his works are compositions of a few shots (such as his image of a high mountain river with the milky way in the background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my own work, I've gone through a couple phases. For about 6-8 months after I first started photography, I did some pretty heavy post processing. I would spend hours fine tuning each pick, even more hours trying to use HDR to create &quot;better&quot; photographs, etc. My tactics have changed entirely in my more recent work. I have switched to putting more time into each shot, making sure I am using the correct lens (often taking the same shot with a variety of lenses and focal lengths), making sure I have exactly the correct exposure (resorting to graduated ND filtration rather than HDR when a scene escapes the bounds of my cameras dynamic range), using live view and treating my camera like a large-format view camera to get precise composition and perfect focus, etc. My latest work requires FAR less post processing, and is notably better than my early work where I relied more heavily on post processing. Where I could spend days working an HDR image and its tone mapping to get an ok result, graduated neutral density filters eliminate the need, and produce more pleasing results strait out of the camera. I spend maybe 5 minutes or so figuring out what filtration to use, and getting it placed in front of my lens. Ultimately, I am more satisfied when I put the time in out in the field to work the scene, find my vantage point, and meticulously prepare and take my photographs. I also enjoy having more time on my hands at home since I am not spending hours working my images just to get them to look &quot;decent&quot;. I can now put that time into making them look like &quot;mine&quot;...a stylized, artistic signature of who I am and how I see the world. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A simple rule of thumb is, outside of basic exposure control and white balance, if you didn't get it right in camera, you generally can't fix it post-process. If your focus is off, if you blow out your highlights or block your shadows (or both in very high contrast scenes), if you didn't compose the scene properly, if you didn't even capture the most interesting scene (i.e. try different focal lengths), then there is little or nothing you can do in post processing to fix it. Basically, post-processing isn't a replacement for good camera work, although it &lt;strong&gt;can&lt;/strong&gt; often &lt;em&gt;enhance&lt;/em&gt; good camera work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, some things can't be done in camera. A lot of stylistic, personal trait, or artistic elements of a photograph can only be done during post processing. While certainly no replacement for getting proper composition and framing, focus, dof, etc. in camera, you have a lot of artistic freedom when working with your images on a computer. The possibilities are almost limitless, from simply pushing saturation to the limit like Marc Adamas, to moderate image cleanup that removes unwanted elements from an image (i.e. using Photoshop CS5 Content-Aware fill to remove unwanted or unexpected ugly objects from an otherwise great photo), to complex photomanipulation that takes elements of one or more photographs (and possibly artificial elements), and blends them together to make something entirely new and unique. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Post-processing is ultimately a personal choice, and a fundamental element of ones personal style. You can choose to put all your effort into capturing the perfect picture strait out of the camera, or you can put some effort into turning what you capture with the camera into a unique, stylistic work of artistic perfection that is readily and clearly recognized as &quot;your&quot; work. Neither is the &quot;correct&quot; way, neither is the &quot;best&quot; way, any route you take is simply a part of your personal style, a factor of your work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="609" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-07T23:01:57.567" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T23:01:57.567" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4446" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4484" CreationDate="2010-10-31T05:59:45.407" Score="5" ViewCount="163" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Lightroom 3, using the metadata filter with one of the columns set to Date in hierarchical mode, I can easily narrow down the date range.  I can easily get all photos from 2010, or all October 2010 photos, or all 31 October 2010 photos.  But how do I get all photos taken on 31 October regardless of the year?  The only way I could find is to manually click on 31 Oct 2010, then Ctrl+Click 31 Oct 2009, Ctrl+Click 31 Oct 2008, and so on.  Isn't there a faster way?  What if I want all photos between 30 Oct and 2 Nov on any year?  Ctrl+clicking all those dates would take forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T04:40:58.477" Title="Filtering by date in Lightroom" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;search&gt;&lt;date&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4447" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4443" CreationDate="2010-10-31T06:09:48.067" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The standard answer is &quot;it depends&quot;. Sometimes you get everything right and only minor adjustments are needed, and sometimes you want to make sure it's perfect in every way because you want to print it large. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me it depends on the nature of the photograph. I spend more time cleaning up portraits, and almost nothing if it's just a family snapshot. And by &quot;almost nothing&quot; I mean correcting white balance and cropping, and that really is minimal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do think that all digital pictures could always use some processing, even if it's a simple curves adjustment, to bring them to life. It is a major advantage of digital photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1868" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T06:09:48.067" />
  <row Id="4448" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4400" CreationDate="2010-10-31T07:51:50.487" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am very happy with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.phottix.com/wireless-remotes/phottix-plato.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Phottix Plato&lt;/a&gt; it is a wireless solution that is cost effective. I use it not just for the self-portrait projects like you have outlined, but also very useful for things such as using for &quot;bulb&quot; or long duration shots. I also very much like the feature of being able to have a 2 second delay between when you press the button on the remote and when it takes the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1901" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T07:51:50.487" />
  <row Id="4449" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4443" CreationDate="2010-10-31T08:16:17.300" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For me it really depends - I have been trying to improve my shots on camera and then the plan is only to heavily process a shot if I am looking for a distinctive look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do tend to spend more time cleaning up portraits, making sure the skin tone is even. Occasionally a spot of photoshopping to remove blemishes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I first started I used to think that heavily processing shots was cheating in a way - I now understand that it is a methodology for enhancing what you have already done. I wish my editing skills were better&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1907" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T08:16:17.300" />
  <row Id="4450" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4443" CreationDate="2010-10-31T08:55:21.150" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It will always depend on the type of photography, but I'd suggest there is a scale:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With virtually no post-processing (so maybe keywording, maybe lens calibration adjustments) you get the world of the Stock photographer - most agencies prefer unsharpened pictures, as it would be normal for their client to go on and make final adjustments ready for their media.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With a bit more processing (so we're adding in things like sharpening for final display, or tweaking levels for greater artistic expression) you get your landscape photographers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then you're into the realms of portraiture, which generally needs the most attention; Wedding shots must be colour corrected (there's nothing more embarrassing than a white wedding dress coming out cream, or the groom's white shirt appearing pink). Wedding shots generally have wildly changing lighting conditions whilst at the same time having to get the shots in quickly, so it's difficult to get this right in camera - personally, I always shoot weddings in RAW, and tidy up the white balance later when the camera gets it wrong. Some wedding photographers will also tidy up skin blemishes, or marks on the dress much like...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally you get your studio photographers, dealing with either inanimate objects (food/product shots/etc.) or models under controlled conditions - this means they can nail things like exposure and white balance &quot;in-camera&quot;, and focus post processing on getting the correct textures and sheens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a general rule, I, like many of the the other photographers I've spoken with, like to do most of the work &quot;in camera&quot;, as it is generally faster in the long run, and with better results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T08:55:21.150" />
  <row Id="4451" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4454" CreationDate="2010-10-31T12:18:35.750" Score="4" ViewCount="152" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't shoot weddings or enough events a year to warrant forking out the money for a full Quantum flash/battery yet.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am trying to decide if I should either go ahead and get the Quantum battery or use the Canon Battery pack CP-E4 to give me more power and battery life for when I do need it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 580EXII works well but is a bit underpowered sometimes with the 4 AA's in it so the recycle time is slow.  I have actually caused batteries to pop getting them too hot shooting fast in run and gun situations.   Luckily I cleaned out the battery acid before any damage occurred.  But it did scare me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My thought is that it would be better to use an external battery pack to drive the flash. If I bought a turbo I would eventually replace it with one of the Q series flash heads or something similar.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use the 580EXii and a 580 for off camera flash for remote outside portraits etc. when its not conducive to using something like my Alien Bees SB800's.  I also want to use whatever I choose with the MT-24EX for macro work too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not stuck on Quantum and I know that there are other brands.  I am looking for suggestions.  Go with the CP-E4 for now, get a true flash battery, etc.  Many Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1856" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-31T12:39:59.927" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T16:46:06.710" Title="More powerful battery for on camera flash on Canon 5dMkII" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;speedlite&gt;&lt;battery&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4452" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4107" CreationDate="2010-10-31T12:41:51.403" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I tend to use plastic table topping, it comes in wide rolls from most DIY stores and costs next to nothing. I have lots of colours that I use for backing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1907" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T12:41:51.403" />
  <row Id="4453" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4521" CreationDate="2010-10-31T15:18:29.993" Score="3" ViewCount="337" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm trying out Aperture; I have a hefty collection of photos in iPhoto, and for a few reasons, it's not cutting it for me anymore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recently started shooting RAW+JPEG on my camera. I see that Aperture copes with this quite well, and imports both images allowing me to choose one as the master file. iPhoto has no notion of this, and since I have imported many photos into iPhoto already, I have many duplicates in Aperture, with one being the RAW and one the JPEG.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to combine these individual RAW &amp;amp; JPEG photos in Aperture just as if I had imported them from the camera as RAW+JPEG, with the RAW as the master.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is such a thing possible? Is it even a good idea, or should I just trash any JPEG for which I have a RAW master in Aperture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1905" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T21:54:35.430" Title="Combine RAW &amp; JPEG after import" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;jpeg&gt;&lt;apple-aperture&gt;&lt;iphoto&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4454" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4451" CreationDate="2010-10-31T16:46:06.710" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I own both several Quantum T5Ds and one CP-E4.  My vote is get the CP-E4 for now, its almost 1/10 the price of a Quantum setup and will vastly improve recycle time.  Once you stick a CP-E4 on there the recycle time will essentially be instant, you'll no longer be thinking 'is the flash recycled?' you'll just keep shooting.  Also, getting the CP-E4 is a good investment either way since the Quantum recycles slower than a 580EXII + CP-E4 so if you have both options in your kit you'll be more versatile.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Quantums are amazing light sources, it really is like you have a studio quality light with you, wherever you go, including attached to your camera.  Its smooth, enveloping, &lt;em&gt;powerful&lt;/em&gt; lighting especially paired with a softbox.  But it has its downsides, its much bigger and much heavier and will recycle slower than a 580EXII + CP-E4.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I say get both and start with getting a CP-E4 now and perhaps try renting a Quantum setup down the road.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T16:46:06.710" />
  <row Id="4455" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4458" CreationDate="2010-10-31T17:11:41.700" Score="2" ViewCount="195" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, I know how to add an adjustment to multiple photos using the photos =&gt; add adjustment menu, and it works great for things like auto-enhance, but when I try to do the same thing with curves (I like to add a gentle, s-shaped curve to boost contrast), it only seems to apply to the last picture clicked.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Am I missing something?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="9" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T18:09:45.667" Title="Is it possible to add a curves adjustment to multiple photos in Aperture?" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;apple-aperture&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="4456" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4455" CreationDate="2010-10-31T17:39:35.673" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I also find this aspect of Aperture 3 confusing.  I expect, if I've got several photos selected that if I apply an adjustment then it gets applied to all the selected photos but instead its only applied to the 'selected' photo w/in the selection... That is except for certain adjustments which makes it all the more confusing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, the solution is to make the desired adjustment(s) to one photo then right click it and select 'Lift Adjusments' and select which adjustments you want to copy then select all the photos you want it applied to, right click again and click 'Stamp Adjustments' (or press 'Stamp Selected Images' if you still have the lift/stamp tool up.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T17:39:35.673" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="4457" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-31T18:06:18.153" Score="5" ViewCount="168" Body="&lt;p&gt;For example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://boston.craigslist.org/gbs/pho/2034483481.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this Craigslist ad&lt;/a&gt; is selling a Nikkor 105mm f/2 D/DC for $800; on the other hand, the same lens is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Autofocus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-NA06009041870N?r=FE&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;available from KEH&lt;/a&gt; for $890 - a discount of about 10% for Craigslist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you give up for this $90 price discount is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;return period&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(short) warranty&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ability to pay with a credit card&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;shipping anywhere (in the US, at least)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a known seller with a good reputation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me, 10% seems like not enough discount. But, I'm sure what is, and I wonder what others think. &lt;strong&gt;What is the right price discount for buying gear on Craigslist vs. from a reputable seller like KEH?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(By the way, please don't e-mail the Craigslist seller unless you want his lens. I'm not trying to pick on him.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; To clarify, the assumption here is that KEH/Adorama/etc. are setting prices that are more or less correct for the market. The question is: what's the right premium for the extra benefits you get from buying from a business instead of a private seller on a reputation-less but in-person service like Craigslist? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-31T21:46:35.907" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T22:38:12.007" Title="What's the right discount for used gear on Craigslist?" Tags="&lt;used-equipment&gt;&lt;subjective&gt;&lt;pricing&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="4458" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4455" CreationDate="2010-10-31T18:09:45.667" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think I've figured it out:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;You can add an adjustment &lt;em&gt;preset&lt;/em&gt; to multiple photos without lifting and stamping, even if it involves sliders or other analog variables, but not an adjustment  that isn't a preset, which will just be applied to a single photo.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to add a curves preset to a whole bunch at once, you create the edits you want on a picture, then go to the presets menu, and select &quot;save as preset&quot;.  Once you do that, you can select multiple photos, then pick &quot;add adjustment preset&quot;, and it'll apply curves or whatever to all of them with the settings you'd used when you saved it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The challenge for me was that it's not terribly intuitive that &quot;Add adjustment&quot; won't apply to more than one photo, but &quot;Add adjustment preset&quot; will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="9" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T18:09:45.667" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4459" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-10-31T18:31:09.173" Score="11" ViewCount="2179" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This article at Luminous Landscape&lt;/a&gt; claims that Nikon, Canon, and Sony silently boost ISO when their cameras are used with very fast lenses (f/1.2 and f/1.4 principally), the implications being that (a) you may as well use a slower lens and increase ISO yourself, and (b) this practice is shady.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm skeptical, but I had a hard time parsing the article. Are the authors on to something? Is this an unfounded accusation? Or did I misread the article in some other way?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T08:23:57.123" Title="Do DSLRs play games with ISO when used with fast lenses?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;iso&gt;&lt;fast-lenses&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4460" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4459" CreationDate="2010-10-31T18:51:37.433" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wonder why would camera manufacturers make things that complicated. If you're in Av mode with fixed ISO and fixed aperture, you can simply use shutter speed that would correctly expose the photo (including compensation of lower light transmission). There's no need to secretly raise ISO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T18:51:37.433" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4461" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4459" CreationDate="2010-10-31T18:57:11.507" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off, I am VERY skeptical of the results provided by DXO-Mark. I have never understood their numbers, and I don't really think their results reflect real-world performance or behavior. They are probably extremely accurate purely scientific results, relative to their own domain, but I don't think that is helpful to normal people doing normal photographic work. My own rather cheap Canon 450D, with its pretty basic, entry-level sensor, was rated as having 10.8 stops wroth of dynamic range, and 21.6 bits of color information. I know that neither of those facets of information are true, as I most certainly do not get 21.6 bits of color information, and I have to work pretty hard to barely get 9 stops of dynamic range...I usually get 7-8 stops at best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I started getting skeptical with the article when I read the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When you look at the structure of CMOS&#xA;  sensors, &lt;strong&gt;each pixel as basically a&#xA;  tube with the sensing element at the&#xA;  bottom.&lt;/strong&gt;  If a light ray that is not&#xA;  parallel to the tube hits the photo&#xA;  site, chances are the light ray will&#xA;  not get to the bottom of the tube and&#xA;  will not hit the sensing element.&#xA;  Therefore, the light coming from that&#xA;  light ray will be lost. It appears&#xA;  from this graph that when using large&#xA;  aperture lenses on Canon cameras,&#xA;  there is a substantial amount of light&#xA;  loss at the sensor due to this effect.&#xA;  In other words, the &quot;marginal&quot; light&#xA;  rays coming in at a large angle from&#xA;  near the edges of the large aperture&#xA;  are completely lost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Emphasis added]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Outside of considerably older digital cameras, all digital sensors these days use microlenses above their pixels. These microlenses are designed to direct off-axis light down into the pixel well. The &quot;marginal&quot; light rays coming from large angles are not completely lost. Some are reflected, some are captured. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For all of DXO's talk about the accuracy of their tests, and their down-talk of camera manufacturers &quot;cheating&quot;, they don't really tell their own customers how their own product really works. How exactly are they measuring this light loss? Is it truly accurate?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my experience, and admittedly I have only used Canon bodies, so I can't speak for others. If I set my ISO to automatic, I get some oddball ISO values in my pictures based on the EXIF data. ISO 160, 240, 320, 480, etc. If I set my ISO to a specific value, it is always that value in the EXIF data. Granted, it is certainly possible for a camera manufacturer to truly try and cheat, tell you it is using ISO 100 when in actuality it is using ISO 200, but it is a little hard to believe they would actually explicitly change the EXIF data to hide that fact from their customers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should also be pointed out that ISO &quot;settings&quot; and actual analog readout levels are never in sync in the first place. On a Canon body, an ISO 100 is close to that, but I've seen various tests that indicate the analog readout is anywhere from 80 to 120 depending on the sensor. There have been similar tests for Nikon sensors as well (which probably apply to all Sony sensors given thats what Nikon currently use.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think the story is as cut and dry as Camera manufacterers are gaming the system. There are physical difficulties in manufacturing sensors that prevent the analog readout from exactly matching the chosen digital ISO setting, fine microlens structures that mitigate a lot of this supposed light loss at the photosite, and fairly advanced algorithms that, to my knowledge, work to maintain the accuracy of the settings you have chosen, not the other way around. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[&lt;strong&gt;NOTE:&lt;/strong&gt; I would like to provide a more accurate description of what DXO-Mark actually does, however, predictably, their site is not accessible at the moment. I'll have to do some research to see if they do offer any detailed specifications or other information about exactly how their measurements work, to see if DXO-Mark are the ones trying to &quot;game the system&quot; as a marketing ploy.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T18:57:11.507" CommentCount="25" />
  <row Id="4462" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4465" CreationDate="2010-10-31T18:59:47.850" Score="2" ViewCount="517" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently lent my 50mm f/1.8 lens to a friend who owns a Canon EOS 1000D. Afetrwards he told me that the camera had deactivated autofocus when he switched back to his kit lens (18-55). Is this possible? It sounded very strange to me...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="332" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-31T19:43:41.003" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T19:43:41.003" Title="50mm f/1.8 Canon lens deactivates autofocus on Canon EOS 1000D" Tags="&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;canon-1000d&gt;&lt;50mm&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4464" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4457" CreationDate="2010-10-31T19:10:34.153" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've seen the same thing on ebay, and I've commented on a few &quot;what should I buy&quot; threads that the market for used photo equipment seems to be irrationally stout, all things considered.  It really seems like you could buy equipment brand-new and turn around and sell it for nearly what you paid for it, which is pretty great if you want to try equipment out, but pretty lousy if you're looking for a bargain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As another data point on &quot;non-new&quot; equipment, check out some of the refurbished equipment at Adorama (others may have these, too).  These, when available, often sell for the same price people are getting for used gear, and should be a safer option than buying used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prices you see on ebay, by the way, might be more reliable than what you see on CL, because you can't account for any off-list haggling (just because you see an $800 price doesn't mean that it doesn't end up going for less).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T19:10:34.153" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4465" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4462" CreationDate="2010-10-31T19:14:32.840" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Maybe he accidentally set the AF/MF switch to manual focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: It's not entirely clear what's happening here. In your title, you say &quot;autozoom,&quot; but the body says &quot;autofocus.&quot; I'm assuming the former is a mistake, and the issue is what you state in the content of your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you are asking is, &quot;is it possible for AF to be disabled when switching lenses?&quot; And the answer to that question is &lt;em&gt;yes.&lt;/em&gt; However, what I think you're &lt;em&gt;actually&lt;/em&gt; asking is &quot;My friend says the AF mechanism on his camera &lt;em&gt;broke&lt;/em&gt; when he used my lens. Is that possible?&quot; And the answer is that it's extremely unlikely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The AF/MF mechanism on that camera is controlled by a switch on the lens. Both the 18-55mm and 50mm lenses have these switches. The most likely scenario is that he simply bumped the switch when changing lenses, and it's in the MF position, in which case flipping it back to AF will solve his problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second-most likely scenario is that the contacts on either the lens or body are dirty, which is preventing the body from knowing what position the switch is in. And the least likely is that your lens fried the guts of his camera just enough to make AF stop working, but not enough to break anything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1905" LastEditorUserId="1905" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-31T19:29:42.450" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T19:29:42.450" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4466" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4459" CreationDate="2010-10-31T19:32:44.807" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a well known effect, called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vignetting&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;vignetting&lt;/a&gt;. It depends on lens construction (faster lenses suffer more), and also on how well is the sensor able to capture out-of-axis light rays. You can see the measurements in almost all lens tests, for example EF 24-70 f/2.8 can go &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/528-canon2470f28ff?start=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;as far as 2 EV&lt;/a&gt; on full-frame camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recent Canon DSLRs have a function called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&amp;amp;articleID=2027&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Peripheral Illumination Correction&lt;/a&gt;, which brightens the corners in post-processing. If you want you can interpret it as &quot;silently booting ISO&quot;, and if you don't like it you can turn it off in the menu.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T19:32:44.807" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="4467" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2010-10-31T19:44:17.077" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;For detailed information on how focus works, see the Imaging Properties section on this Wikipedia article: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_(optics&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_(optics&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A basic diagram of lens focus of points of light in and out of the plane of focus is demonstrated here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/C2Ray.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-31T19:44:17.077" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T19:44:17.077" />
  <row Id="4468" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2010-10-31T19:44:17.077" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="Focus is the mechanism of converging light from a point light source onto an imaging plane by a lens." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-31T19:44:17.077" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T19:44:17.077" />
  <row Id="4469" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4459" CreationDate="2010-10-31T19:53:52.630" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am also very skeptical about this article. If that was true, then&#xA;opening the aperture past a certain point should not make any&#xA;difference in the defocusing ability of the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I tried a small experiment: these are pictures of a couple of street&#xA;lights close to my home. I set everything to manual and used the exact&#xA;same settings for all the pictures: same ISO, shutter speed and&#xA;defocusing. Only the aperture was different from shot to shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://edgar-bonet.org/misc/apertures.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;blur discs&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see, the blur discs increase in size all the way to 1.4.&#xA;Additionally, the surface brightness is about constant, which would not&#xA;be the case if the ISO was changing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update 1&lt;/strong&gt;: To address che's point, I tried the same experiment, but&#xA;this time with the blur circles near the corner of the picture, instead&#xA;of at the center. This is intended to maximize the light ray's angle of&#xA;incidence. Here is a composite at f/1.4:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://edgar-bonet.org/misc/center+corner.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Composite of blur circles&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The angle of incidence is maximized in the far corner, because those&#xA;light rays come from the top-right edge of the aperture and fall on the&#xA;top-left corner of the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There seems to be a slightly lower brightness in the corner compared to&#xA;the center, but it is hard to say whether this comes from the sensor or&#xA;the lens (or the classical cos^4 illuminance law). Dubovoy's article&#xA;sounded like the sensor would be &lt;em&gt;completely blind&lt;/em&gt; past some angle. I&#xA;cannot assert from my experiments that there is no angle-dependent&#xA;sensitivity in the sensor, but if there is, then it is far from being as&#xA;strong as the article suggests. At least the claim that “the marginal&#xA;light rays just don’t hit the sensor” seems to be a gross overstatement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update 2&lt;/strong&gt;: I had some correspondence with the author of the article,&#xA;Mark Dubovoy (not Michael Reichmann, my mistake). After trying to&#xA;dismiss my evidence with bad arguments (and after my lecturing him on&#xA;geometrical optics, which got him upset), he now barely acknowledges&#xA;that&#xA;“&lt;em&gt;It may very well be that with your camera and with your lens the issue is negligible.&lt;/em&gt;”&#xA;But he still stands by his position, believing&#xA;this issue may still affect “&lt;em&gt;a significant number of camera/lens combinations.&lt;/em&gt;”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those of you who would like to know whether their camera and lens is&#xA;among this “&lt;em&gt;significant number&lt;/em&gt;”, here is the the way to do a quick test:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Look for a strong light source that is small and distant. A street&#xA;light can do.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Defocus the lens all the way to the minimum focusing distance. The&#xA;important point is that the blur disc must be &lt;em&gt;a lot&lt;/em&gt; larger than&#xA;the focused image of the source.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take a series of pictures at different apertures, keeping the exact&#xA;same settings of focus (most important!), shutter speed and ISO.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the blur discs increase in size with increasing aperture, then you&#xA;are fine. You should then notice that the discs have the shape of the&#xA;aperture (you can count the number of blades). If the size of the blur&#xA;discs stops increasing past a given aperture, then Mr. Dubovoy is right,&#xA;at least for your camera and your lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1730" LastEditorUserId="1730" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-03T21:03:31.333" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T21:03:31.333" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4470" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4459" CreationDate="2010-10-31T19:54:32.803" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I read that article, and I'm not sure I buy it. DxOMark provides some interesting numbers, but they don't mean a whole lot in the real world, I think, and without a lot more details on their testing process, we're as much taking their word for it. In any case, even if the camera makers are &quot;cheating&quot; a little, I'm not sure I care. ISO in digital is just like a marker on the dial for gain on the sensor and are, in some ways, a holdover that allows us to compare to film equivalencies. It could just as easily be a knob that we turn until we're satisfied with the exposure value. I can see that effect when the camera selects the ISO anyways as I too get some odd values.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have to wonder had film never existed, and we were just at the dawn of photography with digital being the option, would ISO even exist?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T19:54:32.803" />
  <row Id="4471" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2010-10-31T20:01:00.193" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depth of Field is a critical factor in photography. It is primarily controlled by the aperture of a lens and the distance from the imaging plane to the subject. Depth of Field can be a powerful creative and artistic element in a photograph, especially if the parts of an image that are outside of the DOF are nicely blurred into a creamy blend of colors and nicely formed circles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a technical standpoint, DOF is controlled by the distance to a subject, and the size of the aperture. At great distances, depth of field is large, possibly immense at &quot;hyperfocal&quot; distances. At close distances, depth of field can be quite small, microscopic at extreme macro distances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When a lens aperture is wide open, it lets in all the light focused by the lens for any given point light source. The light being focused by the lens can be viewed as a &quot;cone&quot; of light that converges to a point. As the aperture is stopped down, the cone of light that reaches the sensor shrinks, making use of more and more direct rays of light. In the case of focused points of light, they become sharper and more defined:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/AF0bm.png&quot; alt=&quot;DOF - In Focus&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of out of focus points of light, the circle of confusion created by the focused rays of light becomes smaller, as demonstrated by the diagram below. The aperture blocks part of the cone that is projected out of focus on the the imaging plane, reducing the area of the bokeh circle for that particular point of light:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/JnaOt.png&quot; alt=&quot;DOF - Out of Focus&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-31T20:01:00.193" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T20:01:00.193" />
  <row Id="4472" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2010-10-31T20:01:00.193" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="Depth of Field is the depth of a scene that is &quot;in focus&quot; as perceived by the eye." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-10-31T20:01:00.193" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T20:01:00.193" />
  <row Id="4473" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4457" CreationDate="2010-10-31T20:07:46.023" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To quote Publius Syrius: &quot;Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, for something that is fairly new and lightly used, I may be willing to pay something approaching 80-85% for it. It depends, if the specifications are comparable to something new that is in that ballpark, then it's got to be a lot cheaper than that. For something that is classic, hard to find, and in very good condition, I might well go over original market price. However, that's unlikely and I haven't hit it yet, it's usually substantially less.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T20:07:46.023" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4477" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4457" CreationDate="2010-10-31T21:17:15.823" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no one answer, it depends on how risk averse you are.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The greater your risk aversion the greater the premium you will pay to mitigate the risk.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;And your risk aversion will vary according to&lt;br&gt;&#xA;1. Your personality, to what extent are you a risk taker?.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2. Your circumstances, is this a large part of your remaining disposable income or do you live in a remote location where remedial action is difficult?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;3. The item, how important is the item to you?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T21:17:15.823" />
  <row Id="4478" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4457" CreationDate="2010-10-31T21:26:40.447" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;An advantage to Craigslist is going and checking out the gear, trying it out, etc. on your camera.  And of course no shipping/taxes, but you have to drive.  I've used it as an excuse to go out and take pictures before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T21:26:40.447" />
  <row Id="4479" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4457" CreationDate="2010-10-31T22:38:12.007" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4457/whats-the-right-discount-for-used-gear-on-craigslist/4473#4473&quot;&gt;John's&lt;/a&gt; answer nailed it. The price of goods and services are optimally set when price and demand meet. I think that's the gist of econ101.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the seller believes they can get $800 for that lens (a $280 price discount over a &lt;em&gt;new&lt;/em&gt; version), then obviously that's the right price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-10-31T22:38:12.007" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4480" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4493" CreationDate="2010-11-01T05:32:23.473" Score="9" ViewCount="427" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am planning to buy a Nikon 55-200mm lens and I was checking prices at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=nikon+55-200&amp;amp;ci=15492&amp;amp;N=4293919655+4277998921&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;B&amp;amp;H&lt;/a&gt; and there is a $30 difference (almost 15% of cost) between &quot;Imported&quot; and &quot;USA&quot; lenses. What is the difference between the two? Is there any drawback of buying the &quot;imported&quot; lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1932" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-01T12:42:40.527" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T17:12:27.017" Title="Is there a drawback in buying an imported (gray market) lens" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;gray-market&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4481" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4480" CreationDate="2010-11-01T06:39:13.200" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Typically the imported lens might need to be returned to the country of origin for the warranty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;i.e. if it was imported from the UK (I know highly unlikely) and there was a fault you would need to send the lens back to the UK for repair - if you wanted to claim under the warranty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1907" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T06:39:13.200" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="4482" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4480" CreationDate="2010-11-01T07:02:40.710" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biggest drawback is that Nikon and Canon USA do not provide warranty service for &quot;grey&quot; market goods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;B&amp;amp;H attempts to offset this by providing a &quot;matching&quot; warranty: BH matches up to one year of the original warranty, which ever is shorter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides the OEM warranty, you also give up the cc warrant. Little known by many, in the US when you purchase an item with a credit card, the credit card company will double the manufacturer's warranty. This does not apply to imports. YMMV outside of the US (I guess it's one benefit for being a society that finances it's lifestyle with credit-card debt).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, albeit minor, you may not get an english version of the instruction manual. I purchased the canon remote flash transmitter and it ended up being the canon.jp model. The seller did have an English manual avail in PDF, but is was a bit of a nuisance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-01T17:12:27.017" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T17:12:27.017" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4483" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4422" CreationDate="2010-11-01T07:24:53.553" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given that lightroom is implemented on top of a premier SQL database engine (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sqlite.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SQLite 3&lt;/a&gt;, that is), it is highly unlikely that Smart Collections have any performance consequence until they are referenced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The setup for a smart collection is just a friendly way to write a (possibly complicated) database query for photos that match the collection's parameters. SQL is &lt;em&gt;good&lt;/em&gt; at that kind of complicated query (its exactly what &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SQL&lt;/a&gt; was invented to do, after all), and it is unlikely that you can have enough photos in your catalog to make the cost of a single smart collection's query noticeable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="707" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T07:24:53.553" />
  <row Id="4484" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4446" CreationDate="2010-11-01T07:37:37.997" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have not found a direct way to do this, however using a Collection one can come pretty close. Using a Smart Collection one can create multiple rules to define what is included in a collection of images. To create a Smart Collection follow these steps:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In the Library Module press the +&#xA;(add) button in the Collections&#xA;section, typically on the left side.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;From the popup menu that appears&#xA;select &quot; Create Smart Collection...&quot;&#xA;(In my Mac version there is not a&#xA;keyboard short cut that I know of)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In the Name section of the dialog&#xA;box, enter the Name you want to use&#xA;to identify it&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Set dropdown box typically if&#xA;populated with Smart Collections by&#xA;default, but you can add additional&#xA;ones if desired.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Under the Match &quot;X&quot; of the following&#xA;rules dropdown box select &quot;Any&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;On the first rule field dropdown box&#xA;(typically defaults to &quot;Rating&quot;)&#xA;select &quot;Capture Date&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In the selection criteria dropdown&#xA;(typically defaults to &quot;is) either&#xA;specify that the capture date is&#xA;equal to or in a range of dates&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Enter the date information as&#xA;appropriate&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Then click the add button at the end&#xA;of the rule section click the add&#xA;button to add the next rule to&#xA;evaluate.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will have to add the rules for all of the years you are looking for to this Smart Collection, but once it is done once you have it for future use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other approaches but this one might be the least cumbersome to create.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1901" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T07:37:37.997" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4485" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3628" CreationDate="2010-11-01T07:59:03.237" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You may also want to consider using the Data Painter (not a formal name, just what I call it). In the Library Module at the bottom there is an icon that looks like an aerosol can (spray paint). If you click on that icon you will bring up a small menu asking you what you want to paint. From there you can select keywords, metadata,rating .. etc. Once the tool is active in a grid view you can quickly and easily just click to apply the data to that image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have found this tool to save me a large amount of time as opposed to clicking on an image, typing, going to next one, typing. Also the painter is adative. So if you add keyword &quot;Cat&quot; and then come back and paint &quot;Garfield&quot; it will not overwrite the data that is there it will append it to be &quot;Cat, Garfield&quot;. Applying the data to an image that already contains it, will erase it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1901" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T07:59:03.237" />
  <row Id="4486" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4480" CreationDate="2010-11-01T11:46:41.167" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;They are the same lenses, but the difference is in the warranty offered.  Nikon USA imports lenses and offers a USA warranty.  Similarly, Nikon Canada does the same.  They are different organizations.  I live in Canada, so my experience may not be as relevant to you, but Nikon Canada will not service or offer warranty on lenses that were not purchased through an authorized Canadian dealer.  On the other hand, Nikon Canada offers a 2 year warranty on cameras, and a 5 year warranty on lenses.  For me, that makes it worth the difference in prices.  (Similarly, Sigma Canada offers a 10 year warranty on lenses, compared to I think 4 years in the USA).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The term for merchandise imported and sold by a dealer not authorized by the local organization is &quot;Grey Market&quot;.  There's nothing wrong with the gear, it just may be harder to get it serviced and may have different warranty conditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also the possibility that some imported gear may be counterfeit or knock-offs of some kind, but I haven't run into that problem with camera gear yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="227" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T11:46:41.167" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4487" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4492" CreationDate="2010-11-01T12:01:12.757" Score="22" ViewCount="1077" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is it about wide-angle lenses that makes them so much more expensive than an equivalent-quality tele or prime lens?  Take the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-3-5-4-5-Lens/dp/B00065GZL2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1288612704&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF-S 10-22mm USM&lt;/a&gt;, for example.  RRP is nearly £1,000!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are they very much more difficult/expensive to make?  I'd dearly love to get into wide-angle photography, so how can I get the shots I want without having to pay such a large amount of money?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1194" LastEditorUserId="101" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-01T12:45:59.403" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T14:25:33.050" Title="Why are wide-angle lenses so much more expensive?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;wide-angle&gt;&lt;pricing&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="4488" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4487" CreationDate="2010-11-01T12:17:09.773" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Among other things, the most challenging is to make such lens with such factors:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;as good as possible sharpness on whole area&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;as small as possible barrel distortions&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;as small as possible vignetting on edges&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;reduce chromatic aberration to minimum&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So yes, it pretty hard to make such lens, and therefore is so expensive. Notice that even M42 ultra wide lenses are pretty expensive ($200-$400 and up!).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1681" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T12:17:09.773" />
  <row Id="4490" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4487" CreationDate="2010-11-01T12:21:57.513" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One reason is that the lens needs to be shorter in order to get a wide enough angle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;                  | ef-s 10-22                  |  EF 70-200 f/4 L&#xA;------------------|-----------------------------|--------------------------&#xA;Diameter x Length |    83.5 x 89.8mm            | 76mm x 172mm&#xA;Lens Construction |    13 elements in 10 groups | 16 elements in 13 groups&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you divide the lens length by the number of elements, you can see that you have 6.9mm per element in the 10-22 and 10.75mm per element in the 70-200.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is not necessarily the best way to compute the complexity, but I think it does show how much harder the engineers need to work in order to get the necessary elements into a tight space.  Besides that, the elements themselves need to be wider, which is also an increased cost, since fabricating wider glass is more expensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T12:21:57.513" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4491" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4487" CreationDate="2010-11-01T12:25:06.683" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think one of the main reasons for the cost of such rectilinear ultrawide-angle lenses is the fact that you're trying to get a very wide field of view with minimal distortion, which is quite a feat without adding lots of big glass, and thus make the lens an unwieldy tank to lug about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, as chills42 mentioned, you have to try and fit the lenses into as little space as possible, keeping them close to the sensor/film, or else you have to use really large diameter glass to fit the complete image described by such a large field of view in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="101" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T12:25:06.683" />
  <row Id="4492" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4487" CreationDate="2010-11-01T12:31:12.223" Score="60" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Firstly I wouldn't let the recommended retail price dissuade you — the 10-22 can be snapped up for &lt;strong&gt;£570&lt;/strong&gt; online. To answer the second part of your question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;how can I get the shots I want without having to pay such a large amount of money?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would look at the non-Canon brand wideangles, such as the &lt;em&gt;Tamron 10-22 f/3.4-4.5&lt;/em&gt; for &lt;strong&gt;£337&lt;/strong&gt; or the &lt;em&gt;Sigma 10-20 f/3.5&lt;/em&gt; for &lt;strong&gt;£372&lt;/strong&gt;. Also consider the used market - wideangle photography doesn't have to be as expensive as you think!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But yes, in general &lt;strong&gt;wide angle lenses are expensive&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is partially due to the design, and expectations placed on the lens. Any lens with a &lt;strong&gt;focal length&lt;/strong&gt; shorter than the &lt;strong&gt;flange-focal distance&lt;/strong&gt; (the distance from the back of the lens to the sensor, also called the registration distance, I think it's 42mm on a Canon) has to employ a &lt;strong&gt;retrofocal design&lt;/strong&gt;, which basically means it's a normal lens with a &lt;strong&gt;reverse telephoto stuck on the back&lt;/strong&gt;. The extra elements required adds to the cost and makes the lens more difficult to design and manufacture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compare the design of the EF-s 10-22 (top) to the EF 50mm f/1.8 (middle) and EF 100mm f/2.0 (bottom)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/ef-s/diagram/ef_s10~22_35~45_usm_bd.gif&quot;&gt;&#xA;EF-s 10-22&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/standard/diagram/ef_50_18_bd.gif&quot;&gt;&#xA;EF 50mm f/1.8&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/standard/diagram/ef_100_2_usm_bd.gif&quot;&gt;&#xA;EF 100mm f/2.0 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;em&gt;images copyright Canon inc.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 10-22 is by far the most complicated, and you can clearly see the retrofocal elements at the rear. The 50 is a simple symmetric design with only 6 elements. For completeness I've added the 100mm, as it's a &lt;strong&gt;telephoto&lt;/strong&gt; design which allows the &lt;strong&gt;lens assembly to be shorter than the focal length&lt;/strong&gt; (it's only 73mm long) for mainly practical reasons/cost. The reversed telephoto section of the 10-22 does the opposite and makes the lens &lt;strong&gt;longer than it's focal length&lt;/strong&gt; which makes room for the &lt;strong&gt;mirror&lt;/strong&gt; in an SLR see this question for more on telephotos: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3618/is-there-construction-agnostic-term-for-a-lens-with-a-long-focal-length&quot;&gt;Is there construction-agnostic term for a lens with a long focal length?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other part of the problem stems from what you're asking the lens to do — bend light from a huge number of different angles and focus it on a single rectangular plane. Any lens at the edge of the performance envelope, be it wide, long, aperture will be expensive. As different wavelengths of light bend at different rates you have to work very hard to avoid &lt;strong&gt;chromatic aberration&lt;/strong&gt; where the constituent colours of light split up and fail to align on the sensor. Combating this requires mutliple &lt;strong&gt;aspherical elements&lt;/strong&gt; (coloured green in the 10-22 diagram above. It's easy to grind glass into a sphere (simply spin it in front of a polisher) but to grind parabolic and other aspherical profiles is much harder (and therefore expensive). The design also employs ultra-low dispersion glass (blue) for sharpness and contrast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Telephotos can be just as expensive, but for different reasons. Light doesn't have to bend as far, so the design is simpler but this time the pure size of the glass elements required for a decent aperture (remember that f/2.8 means the [apparent] size of the aperture must be &lt;strong&gt;about one third of the focal length&lt;/strong&gt;, which becomes really quite large once you go past 200mm or so) makes the elements expensive to produce (at this size dispersion &amp;amp; scattering is a big problem so UD glass and fluorite have to be used) and creates engineering difficulties in moving them around (motors and lens barrels have to be larger and stronger).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;50mm is the sweet spot of lens design for 35mm SLRs, wide enough that the size of the elements required to maintain a wide aperture are still relatively small, but not so wide a retrofocal design is needed. This is why 50mm primes are such good value. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T14:25:33.050" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T14:25:33.050" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="4493" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4480" CreationDate="2010-11-01T12:41:10.650" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It goes beyond warranty; &lt;strong&gt;Nikon USA will not work on gray market lenses AT ALL&lt;/strong&gt;, regardless of warranty status and your willingness to pay. You have to find someone else to do it, or send it overseas to Nikon Japan (who won't honor the warranty but will at least take your money). Non-Nikon repair shops might be riskier due to parts availability and expertise issues (VR lenses are &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; complicated) and the fact that Nikon is pressuring (or wants to pressure) them into similar non-repair policies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thom Hogan has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/warranty.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;more detailed article&lt;/a&gt; about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T12:41:10.650" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4494" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4495" CreationDate="2010-11-01T14:07:42.023" Score="1" ViewCount="78" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there any lens protector that fits the Canon SX30?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where can I buy it? I need to order it via Internet and be sent to Argentina.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1939" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T15:22:15.753" Title="What kind of lens protector can I add to my Canon SX30" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="4495" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4494" CreationDate="2010-11-01T15:22:15.753" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Looks like the lens thread size is 67mm so any 67mm filter will do.  Annnd if you're looking for an inexpensive filter this question is discussing it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4417/where-to-buy-cheap-uv-filters-online&quot;&gt;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4417/where-to-buy-cheap-uv-filters-online&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T15:22:15.753" />
  <row Id="4496" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4498" CreationDate="2010-11-01T16:08:47.373" Score="0" ViewCount="289" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/383/what-are-the-must-have-filters-for-a-new-photographer&quot;&gt;What are the must-have filters for a new photographer&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm planning to order my first DSLR: a Canon EOS 550D with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens, and a 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS Telephoto Zoom Lens. My friend mentioned that I should buy a UV filter, although he couldn't really explain why.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why should I buy a UV filter or any other filter for that matter? And which ones would you recommend for the camera and lenses that I'm planning to buy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also have another question on accessories that I should be buying - I guess it's better to ask that as a separate question. Thanks for your answers and time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1567" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T17:36:18.803" ClosedDate="2010-11-18T13:06:15.623" Title="Which filters should I be buying for Canon EOS 550 D, 18-55mm and 55-250mm lenses?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;uv&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="4497" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="379" CreationDate="2010-11-01T16:21:12.243" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My own setting&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With my GF1, I set up the 2 custom modes :&#xA;on C1, my &quot;back to Leica&quot; setting :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dynamic B&amp;amp;W&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;400 ISO&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Manual focus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aperture priority; I Usually set it à 8 or 11 for street shooting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;on C2, my &quot;shoot without thinking&quot; setup :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;basically, everything AUTO, in RAW.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1945" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T16:21:12.243" />
  <row Id="4498" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="383" CreationDate="2010-11-01T16:21:25.867" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;So why should I buy a UV filter or any other filter for that matter?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You don't &lt;em&gt;need&lt;/em&gt; to buy a UV filter, or any other filter, here is why you would want to use a UV filter specifically:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_filter#Clear_and_ultraviolet&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_filter#Clear_and_ultraviolet&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I'd say 99% of people who put a UV filter on their lens aren't doing it because of that, they're using it as a layer of protection for the front element of the lens.  Its true, it'll prevent fingers jamming into the element and children's sneezes from getting all over it but there are also downsides which are illustrated in that wikipedia article.  Namely flaring and quality degradation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Me personally?  I don't use UV filters as all-the-time protection on my lenses anymore (don't want flaring etc), I got a stack of them collecting dust on a shelf.  I bust one out if I'm taking the lens to the ocean or something and anticipate spray but thats about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T16:21:25.867" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4499" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-01T16:48:12.970" Score="5" ViewCount="106" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a 420ex speedlight that sometimes won't start up. When it's not working, it behaves as if it didn't have any batteries in it... just totally dead. The odd thing is, it doesn't seem to be the batteries. The ones in it are fresh and metter well, I've removed and replaced them several times, even tried a completely new set of alkaline batteries (I usually use NiMh or Li rechargeable). It doesn't matter what I set the switches to, it doesn't matter of it's on camera (a 5d2) or not, it's just dead. But leave it sit for a few hours, and then it fires right up and is good to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This weekend is a perfect example, I tried to use it saturday night and it was totally dead. Swap the rechargeable batteries for a fresh set of alkalizes, thinking I had left them in too long between uses and they had evaporated, and it was still dead. Swapped back to the recharables after metering them and seeing they were pretty fresh and it was still dead. So I left it sitting on the dresser and shot with ambient light. Next morning, trying to shoot the kids, snapped it on my camera without thinking and it fired right up and worked fine... I got off 60+ shots and only missed flash 2 times because I was shooting too fast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyone got any idea what the problem might be or how I can correct it when it happens other than leaving the flash sit for hours? Or how to prevent it would be better. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-01T16:56:54.860" LastActivityDate="2010-11-08T15:24:24.107" Title="420ex sometimes won't startup" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="4500" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="383" CreationDate="2010-11-01T17:36:18.803" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Filters that are useful for digital photography:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Polarizing filter. This will cut through haze and reduce glare. Useful for landscapes as this will darken the sky by cutting out polarized light and also reduce haze making objects in the distance look clearer. Technically you need a &lt;em&gt;circular&lt;/em&gt; polazrizing filter if you want automatic focus and metering (most filters are this type).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;ND filter. Simply cuts out light, useful for increasing the shutter speed for artistic effects or flash sync or allowing wide apertures in bright daylight. Also available as a graduated filter (i.e. one that starts out clear and gets progressively darker, useful for taming scenes with high dynamic range, such as bright skies).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Infrared filter. Technically a visible light blocking filter. Allows infra-red photography using a standard DSLR. Requires very long exposures due to the camera's built in IR filter cutting out most of the incoming light, but can have spectacular results.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether you should buy any of these depends entirely on what sort of photography you plan on doing and what your budget is!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other popular filters for film use such as coloured filters have limited use in digital photography, see this question for more details: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/586/are-colour-filters-worth-using-with-digital-cameras&quot;&gt;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/586/are-colour-filters-worth-using-with-digital-cameras&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T17:36:18.803" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4501" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1373" CreationDate="2010-11-01T18:16:03.260" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have Canon S90, but it has been replaced by S95 (HD recording). These are awesome in low light with 2.0 AP. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T18:16:03.260" />
  <row Id="4502" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4416" CreationDate="2010-11-01T18:20:48.800" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;2 things have been done here; Just look up &quot;cross processing&quot; and &quot;adding texture&quot; to your pictures on google.. you'll find tons of tutorials on these 2 topics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="55" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T18:20:48.800" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4503" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4505" CreationDate="2010-11-01T18:22:02.497" Score="3" ViewCount="83" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm thinking of buying Adobe Lightroom through a student licence. Will I be able to buy an upgrade licence when I'm not longer a student? Or will I have to buy the full licence?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="332" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T18:38:21.657" Title="Lightroom upgrade from a student licence" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="4504" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4443" CreationDate="2010-11-01T18:34:06.840" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general, less is more is your friend. It is really going to depend on the type of photography you do. I shoot mainly events and portraiture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For events, beyond correcting white balance and adjusting crops (which includes leveling the photos at times) I do very little. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For portraits, after making selects, I will do some more post-processing, but in general less is more. I might remove minor blemishes, whiten the teeth and eyes a bit and adjust levels if my exposure was off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Something to keep in mind, post-processing a bad photo will not make it better. At best, it might elevate a mediocre photo to passable. Even with heavily processed HDR work, unless the composition is awesome to begin with, you're not going to make it awesome by doing tons of tone mapping. If you polish a turn until is shines, at the end of the day, it's still a turd.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1671" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T18:34:06.840" />
  <row Id="4505" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4503" CreationDate="2010-11-01T18:38:21.657" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, I bought Lightroom  as a student and I have been upgrading since version 1.0 without a problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1954" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T18:38:21.657" />
  <row Id="4506" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1373" CreationDate="2010-11-01T18:43:02.347" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Also, try to shoot in RAW photo mode to get better noise reduction in your post production software. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use Adobe Lightroom 3, and noticed a significant improvement over Lightroom 2's noise reduction. I was able to re-process older low-light photos (from the LX3) and enjoy the benefits of the improved noise reduction algorithms. I don't think this would have been possible if I'd shot them as JPEG straight on the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1953" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T18:43:02.347" />
  <row Id="4507" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1373" CreationDate="2010-11-01T18:49:33.280" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm a bit biased, but you might find my site, Snapsort useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a link to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://snapsort.com/explore/best-digicams/100-iso-low-light&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;best point and shoots for low light&lt;/a&gt; (based on actual benchmarks from DxOMark).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The S90 is at the top of the list, and the S95 (its replacement) seems to have the same low light performance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="934" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T18:49:33.280" />
  <row Id="4508" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1373" CreationDate="2010-11-01T18:56:30.183" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I prefer the Panasonic Lumix series because I like the tonal range and sharpness of the Leica lenses. (Be warned that not all Lumix lenses are Leica lenses.)  Look at the f/ stop and pick a fast lens (smaller number is better).  I recently bought my wife the FZ100 -- and she loves it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My wife also has an interesting requirement in that she wants to take movies and be able to use the zoom function.  (Meaning, continual AF + zoom.  She also wants good sound and video quality.)  The FZ100 meets her need.  Panasonic seems to have the edge when it comes to video.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have the GF1 because the micro-four/thirds cameras also can take my old (Leica) lenses.  This has allowed me to reuse some of my film cameras.  The GF1 is also pretty compact so I can easily take it with me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, I recommend a &quot;second&quot; P&amp;amp;S camera -- one that is water/shock/whatever proof.  Panasonic, Olympus and others make versions of these cameras.  I have an older Olympus that I hate (shutter delay is too long) and am looking to upgrade -- but I love being able to take it with me on the ski slopes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T18:56:30.183" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4509" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4453" CreationDate="2010-11-01T19:02:54.320" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You may try to automatically combine them in stacks, using the &quot;Auto-stack&quot; feature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can find it in Stacks &gt; Auto-Stack or by pressing Command - Option - A.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then you can select the time-difference in seconds between the photos, that need in order to be contained in the same stack.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having in mind that these were taken at the same time, then probably using the default 0:00 option will be ok with you, but you may also try increase it by 1 sec.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this helps! :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;George&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1956" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T19:02:54.320" />
  <row Id="4510" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4516" CreationDate="2010-11-01T19:10:41.420" Score="5" ViewCount="729" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the Singh-Ray Vari-ND variable ND filter sounds great, but is really expensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are way cheaper variable ND filters from some chinese sites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wonder: are the cheap ones worth the money? Is the vari-ND worth the premium you pay for it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or: what's the difference between cheap knock-offs and the Singh-Ray?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T10:56:56.367" Title="Whats the difference between Singh-Ray Vari-ND and cheap Fader-ND filters?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;neutral-density&gt;&lt;quality&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4511" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4443" CreationDate="2010-11-01T19:24:01.283" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not for certain type of Pro. Images represent the publications that they appear in and it is not usually up to the photographer to decide what level of manipulation is needed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is up to the photo-editor to decide when changes are acceptable and when they should be applied. Most of the time, it is limited to cropping to fit the aspect ratio of the required format. Contrast and colors are only touched to allow images to print correctly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In some publications were are not even allowed to edit (in the selection sense) which photos get seen by the photo-editor. They require all images to be handed-in and the editor chooses which part of the story is to be told. It is extremely important that the magazine can represent images as truthfully as possible as the reputation depends on this greatly. One manipulated photo may be all it takes to discredit a publication for years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T19:24:01.283" />
  <row Id="4512" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-01T19:34:31.133" Score="4" ViewCount="365" Body="&lt;p&gt;My wife does some photography on the side for a hobby.  She uses Lightroom for most of her editing and she also uses the &quot;Edit In Photoshop&quot; option as well.  I have no idea why she has to go to PS, but she does.  When she does this her original file seems to get copied and exported to a HUGE TIFF file.  These files are sometimes over 100MB each.  Is there some way around Lightroom creating this intermediate file to link PS &amp;amp; Lightroom?  She takes thousand of pictures and edits 100's of them.  My fileserver is 1.5 TB, but it won't be much longer and I'll be out of space.  Please help. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1963" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T03:49:02.730" Title="Tiff File when editing in Lightroom and Photoshop" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;tiff&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="4513" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4512" CreationDate="2010-11-01T19:51:10.700" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is how things work when the Adobe &quot;RAW Engines&quot; don't match.  Different versions of lightroom and photoshop have different internal engines, and when they match you should be able to seamlessly transfer the image back and forth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the engines are incompatible, it saves the in-memory version of the image to a tiff (in order to avoid losing data) and then loads it back in the other program.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should be able to use the direct transfer by updating both Lightroom and Photoshop to the latest versions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a little more information about this at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/round-tripping-with-lightroom&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;digital-photography-school.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-01T19:56:17.823" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T19:56:17.823" />
  <row Id="4514" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4510" CreationDate="2010-11-01T20:09:56.343" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_density_filter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_density_filter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;This can sometimes create color casts in recorded images, particularly with inexpensive filters.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't used the Singh-Ray Vari-ND but I do own Singh-Ray (and LEE) split neutral density filters and a B+W 10 stop ND filter.  I found the LEE SND filters gave just as good results as the Singh-Ray in my opinion however the Singh-Ray was larger and I could use it on my 4x5 lenses.  I did at one point buy a cheaper 10 stop ND filter and wound up getting kind of a murky yellow/brown/gray cast to everything while the B+W filter didn't add any casts.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I love the B+W filter btw.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a side note/opinion, given the extreme cost of Vari-ND filters I'd suggest looking at just getting a normal ND filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T20:09:56.343" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4515" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1373" CreationDate="2010-11-01T20:25:49.500" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pogue on the Canon s95:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/28/a-love-letter-to-a-camera/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/28/a-love-letter-to-a-camera/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think he likes it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1968" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T20:25:49.500" />
  <row Id="4516" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4510" CreationDate="2010-11-01T20:50:47.570" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The mechanism is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pixalo.com/community/cameras-lenses-accessories/variable-neutral-density-filter-11498.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;likely&lt;/a&gt; a combination of a linear polarizer and a circular polarizer (which itself is a linear polarizer followed by a quarter wave plate).  Thus the differences you can expect between high-quality and cheaper variable ND filters ought to be similar to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lenstip.com/115.3-article-Polarizing_filters_test_Test_procedure.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;differences found among polarizers&lt;/a&gt; which include flare, vignetting, inhomogeneity, and color shifts.  You can avoid flare in many cases by not including bright lights in the photo; vignetting can be compensated in software and sometimes is desirable; I suspect the inhomogeneities are usually not noticeable; but color shifts can be pronounced.  Typically a set of crossed polarizers (which is what you're using to get the heaviest ND settings) pass essentially no colors &lt;em&gt;except&lt;/em&gt; violet.  Therefore, I would expect cheaper variable ND filters to work OK except at the heaviest settings (more than about 4 stops) where the violet shift will become pronounced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see evidence of vignetting and a violet shift on &lt;a href=&quot;http://lightcraftworkshop.com/site/page9.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this dealer's website&lt;/a&gt;.  Compare the bottom two photos: the one taken with their ND filter has pronounced vignetting (many stops) and a strong blue cast.  In contrast, look at the photos on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.singh-ray.com/varind.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Singh-Ray site&lt;/a&gt;.  If you look closely you can see the vignetting, but there's little evidence of a violet shift: look at the grays of the rocks in the stream.  Maybe those were post-processed to remove the blue, so the comparison is not definitive, but these two sites nicely illustrate the difference we would expect between good and bad variable ND filters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I did a quick test using a high-end, top-rated Marumi circular polarizing filter and an old low-end Vivitar linear filter.  In combination they made a fine variable ND filter, although there were some color shifts (first to yellow, surprisingly), but below about 3-4 stops a yellow incandescent light started to take a distinctly blue hue.  At the maximum density, probably around 6 - 8 stops (I only looked, I didn't measure), only the light was visible and it was a brilliant blue, the color of a Wratten 80b filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your best bet for a cheap solution, then, is actually to look through one of the inexpensive filters and pay special attention to the apparent color at the densest ND settings.  While you're at it, look at a bright light through the filter to check for flare and scattering.  If everything's acceptable you probably have a great deal. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T20:50:47.570" />
  <row Id="4517" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4527" CreationDate="2010-11-01T21:11:07.963" Score="10" ViewCount="436" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've noticed a lot of my pictures look muddy. They don't have very high contrast. I know I can post process some pictures, but what is the secret to having nice contrast in a picture?&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/aDZWC.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1972" LastEditorUserId="1972" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-03T19:23:50.760" LastActivityDate="2010-11-04T05:31:44.703" Title="Why is my picture muddy looking?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="11" />
  <row Id="4518" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4532" CreationDate="2010-11-01T21:15:37.023" Score="5" ViewCount="664" Body="&lt;p&gt;My 35mm f2 canon lens's autofocus has stopped working. In manual focus mode the focus wheel is locked, and in autofocus mode the focus wheel spins freely but does not change the focus at all. In autofocus mode my camera recognizes when an object is out of focus and makes a single click noise, but the focus does not change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know what is wrong with the lens? I suspect it is the motor, but I cannot be sure. Is it possible/advisable to take it apart? I wouldn't mind taking it to a shop, but I want to avoid spending much money  repairing the lens (50 dollars max).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;edit: I bought it off ebay used, so I doubt it is under warranty. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1125" LastEditorUserId="1125" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-01T21:23:09.623" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T14:37:43.040" Title="How to fix a broken lens/autofocus" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;repair&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="4519" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4517" CreationDate="2010-11-01T21:35:45.923" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can you post an example? (even a text link to an image hosted elsewhere)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are a few common solutions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adjust the levels in photoshop or some other tool, using either auto-levels, or just manually pull the whitepoint down to the top of the histogram and the black point up to the bottom (for example: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/levels.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/levels.htm&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Local contrast enhancement: Use unsharp mask, amount: 10%, radius: 200pixels, threshold: 0 (for example: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/contrast-enhancement.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/contrast-enhancement.shtml&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aside from what you can do in post, I'd suggest look at the lighting you're taking pictures in.  Try taking pictures using window-light only, or on a cloudy day.  Avoid bright sunny days.  Colors really stand out on cloudy days I find.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="934" LastEditorUserId="934" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-02T02:10:18.500" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T02:10:18.500" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4520" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4518" CreationDate="2010-11-01T21:35:50.827" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sounds like something has entered the lens and jammed the mechanics somehow. It sounds like it's in need of professional attention, but you &lt;em&gt;might&lt;/em&gt; get away by gently tapping the lens onto a clean surface.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can afford to write the lens off, there's always the possibility of dissecting the lens and making some interesting shots of the lens internals that may even sell on a stock photography agency.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T21:35:50.827" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4521" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4453" CreationDate="2010-11-01T21:54:35.430" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You nailed it in your last question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The RAW file contains more information that the JPG does.  This means that Aperture is (non-destructively!) going to be able to create better images, have multiple variations, and do so all non-destructively.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you need JPG files, have Aperture generate them for you with any size or quality you desire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have the RAW, there is no need to keep the JPGs around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, why do cameras offer both?  Simple.  Some applications can't read RAW files and the JPG is a fall back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1416" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T21:54:35.430" />
  <row Id="4522" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4512" CreationDate="2010-11-01T22:57:45.590" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can change the file format passed back from Photoshop to Lightroom by changing Lightroom's settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Preferences -&gt; External Editing&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here you can choose file format, bit depth and colour space.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might be able to reduce the size of the resulting TIFF/PSD files by choosing 8 bit colour depth instead of 16 bit. If you want to use TIFF, select ZIP compression. It will make saving/opening the TIFF slightly slower but it is lossless compression and will save disk space without affecting your image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="847" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T22:57:45.590" />
  <row Id="4523" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4303" CreationDate="2010-11-01T23:14:11.650" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only way to do is to compare 2 specific lenses and read the data and MTF charts for each of those lenses.. I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://photozone.de&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photozone.de&lt;/a&gt; to get all my info for a price estimate, feature comparison etc before deciding on a lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="55" LastActivityDate="2010-11-01T23:14:11.650" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4524" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4517" CreationDate="2010-11-02T00:10:34.813" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Please, don't try to fix it later. Another teacher (where I teach photography too) says there should be no such thing as photo-correction, only photo-enhancement. Actually, I don't believe in the latter either ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have to be able to produce sharp pictures with good clarity and plenty of details straight out of the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are not, then hundreds of things can be wrong but without an example we cannot tell you what. Some of the most common problems:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Camera shake: You have to be above a certain shutter-speed (depending on your lens' focal-length and whether it is stabilized) or use a GOOD tripod.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Too high ISO: Cameras can reach very high-ISO nowadays but it does not mean they should, particularly small cameras with ISO above 1600 will make everything muddy. When lowering the ISO, take care not to use a too-slow shutter-speed though.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Noise reduction: Some cameras have noise-reduction enabled by default which causes details to show up as muddy. Among small cameras, particularly those with a lot of megapixels (10+) you generally don't even have a choice.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Out-of-focus: Your camera may tell you that things are in focus but it can still be wrong. If you are using an old-lens on a modern camera, this can happen quite a bit. Some high-end DSLRs allow you to correct this using 'focus micro-adjustments'.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Your camera or lens is crappy: The biggest mistake when buying a DSLR is spending all your money on the camera and then buying the cheapest lens you can find. I'd say all modern DSLRs are quite good now, but not so of all lenses. Tiny camera with too many megapixels.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T00:10:34.813" CommentCount="12" />
  <row Id="4525" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4517" CreationDate="2010-11-02T00:34:22.673" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Are you using flash? Pictures with harsh flash tend have a washed out look, with dark harsh shadows.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In my experience non-SLRs (Point and Shoot / pocket cameras) get terrible results in-doors without a flash, even in situations that seem well lit to the human eye. Photos may look waxy from too much noise reduction (which is necessary in low light to get a steady shot, hand-held).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A lot of the time the secret is to have good lighting in the first place. Sometimes a subject just won't look good no matter how good your camera is or how you set your camera settings, if the lighting is too harsh and shadowy. This can also happen in bright daylight, for example. The shadows show up black and the bright parts overexpose--- the camera may not be able to handle the dynamic range.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="109" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T00:34:22.673" />
  <row Id="4526" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-02T00:40:57.253" Score="9" ViewCount="211" Body="&lt;p&gt;I currently have Time Capsule backing up all of my photos but I'm looking for advice on how else to back them up.  I feel as though I should have an online back up along with Time Capsule or external hard drives.  What does everyone else do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1899" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T09:40:07.013" Title="Backing up files" Tags="&lt;backup&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="4527" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4517" CreationDate="2010-11-02T00:56:50.790" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Based on the photograph you posted, there actually is quite a bit of contrast. In general, I think the photo is pretty good, if a bit soft (from a lighting standpoint.) You noted that you shot the photo without flash on an overcast day, which is the primary reason for lack of any defining shadows or &quot;lighting contrast&quot;, if you will. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would recommend using additional lighting if your primary light is very diffuse (like an overcast sky.) Perhaps and off-axis flash or something. A strong enough light that comes from an angle to create shadows and bring out depth in your subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another word about contrast...it is not entirely tonal. Color also brings its own contrast, in a more complex form. With monochrome, you only have different levels of brightness to create contrast. With color, different colors of the same tone can also create contrast. Complementary colors, primaries, secondaries, split complements, etc. can all create varying forms of contrast in a scene, even if they are the same brightness level.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you intend to shoot monochromatic photos, you will be lacking the element of color contrast, and will need to find ways to enhance tonal contrast. In diffuse lighting, this can be difficult, and sometimes you just need to resort to handling it in post-process. A technique that can probably be very helpful without actually overdoing any contrast adjustments is &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/local-contrast-enhancement.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;local contrast enhancement&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. This is a technique that aims to improve contrast where it is necessary in smaller areas, without affecting what may be very good contrast from an overall scene standpoint. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a copy of your image with some local contrast enhancement, using Unsharp Mask @ Amount 18%, Radius 97, Threshold 0. The left half is the original, the right half has local contrast enhancement, for comparison:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NYST6.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-04T05:31:44.703" LastActivityDate="2010-11-04T05:31:44.703" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4528" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4526" CreationDate="2010-11-02T01:05:19.107" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have two hard drive backups but no online backup as my ISP counts uploads and I'd rather not spend mountains of time waiting for gigabytes of RAW files to back up. This, I suppose, would be a subjective preference, whereas hard drive backup is essential.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is my setup. The 1TB hard drive is backed up using Time Machine, and the 750GB is backed up using Carbon Copy Cloner. I've found in the past that Time Machine has skipped random important files or changes which should have been backed up, resulting in lost data, to which I responded by adding a second non-Time Machine backup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you really want, you could do a weekly offsite backup. Bring a large external in, do the backup then take to it a friend's or relative's place to store.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/YPH1J.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T01:05:19.107" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="4529" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4526" CreationDate="2010-11-02T01:32:36.557" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are three key risks to be concerned about when planning backups:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Computer breakage/failure&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Accidental deletion&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Theft, fire, or other destruction of premises&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to protect against all three, you need to have have an offsite backup. A simple solution on a Mac is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.shirt-pocket.com/SuperDuper/SuperDuperDescription.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Super Duper&lt;/a&gt; plus a pair of USB or FireWire drives, each larger than all of your active drives put together. Set up Super Duper to clone your disks nightly, and keep one at work or a friend's house. Weekly, rotate the drives - take one in to work and bring the other home (they should never both be at home, because then you have no offsite backup during that period). This plan should set you back around $250 and is pretty easy to follow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, you could use Reid's patented [1] mega-overkill backup scheme [2]:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;All hard disks are in RAID-1 mirrored pairs.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some partitions cloned nightly to other on-line partitions. [3]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Everything is cloned to an external E-SATA disk which is rotated weekly to work.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Some partitions burned weekly to DVD. [3]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;First DVD of the month goes into archive stack at home.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Second DVD of the month goes into archive stack at home.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Third DVD of the month is mailed to relatives in Arizona.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The MacBooks in the house use Super Duper over the network to create disk images on the server (above), to piggyback on this plan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is all coordinated automatically by &lt;a href=&quot;http://reidster.net/software/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a Python script I wrote&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[1] Not really.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[2] I actually do this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[3] Photos not included in these steps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T01:32:36.557" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4530" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4526" CreationDate="2010-11-02T01:38:12.897" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a very popular question and many common solution do not think through all the cases. Reid's answer actually lists the 3 main events which require backups. I wrote&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/article.php?id=digital-backups&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; about this recently which covers these and a few more cases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main point is that you have to spend effort in proportion to the safety you wish&#xA;to have and that backups need to accommodate multiple eventualities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T01:38:12.897" />
  <row Id="4531" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4512" CreationDate="2010-11-02T01:43:36.153" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;She goes to Photoshop because some of the tools in there are not available in Lightroom; I do a lot of heavy lifting in PS that LR is not equipped to, but if I don't need to, I won't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try updating the RAW engine as chills42 suggested, but I have to say that in exchange for the convenience and power of editing in the digital age, we get the bugbear of increasing storage needs in return. Management of file sizes is also getting more important. One way to minimise file sizes would be to flatten the PSD/TIFF files instead of saving the layers. This is useful for images that she feels are &quot;complete&quot;, ie there is no amount of work that can be done on it to improve the picture further.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The easiest way, however, is buy more storage space :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1868" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T01:43:36.153" />
  <row Id="4532" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4518" CreationDate="2010-11-02T01:46:37.600" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The safest way would be to send it to Canon Service Centre or a repair shop and ask for a quote on the repairs. Unless you're ready to write off the lens, or are feeling particularly adventurous, you can take apart the lens as Rowland suggested.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do, post some pictures :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1868" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T01:46:37.600" />
  <row Id="4533" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4534" CreationDate="2010-11-02T02:17:12.940" Score="11" ViewCount="211" Body="&lt;p&gt;See: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/levels.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/levels.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the examples on that page, the original image doesn't have any pure white or pure black in it, so contrast can be added by changing the white and black points.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its been my experience that many images that should/could have very bright/dark parts don't, and as such look better/more accurate after levels adjustment, but obviously there are images where this doesn't make sense (e.g. a picture of a seen that is mostly all greys, as an extreme example).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the question is how does a camera decide where to put the scene's dark/light spots in the histogram?  It could put them at either end of the histogram, which I'm sure it does in some cases, but in many cases this would be wrong, and vice-versa.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="934" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T09:32:25.003" Title="Why do cameras often produce digital images that benefit from levels adjustment?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;levels&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="4534" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4533" CreationDate="2010-11-02T02:44:38.217" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For the most part, it simply doesn't. The camera sets an exposure. At least in the simple case, it takes whatever amount of light is coming into the meter, and sets the exposure to make that into a fixed level somewhere in the vicinity of 18% grey. The more complex case is the multi-spot metering (goes by several names, but makes little real difference). Based on its measurements, it might decide to adjust the target exposure level to (say) 12% or 27% or whatever, but that's about it -- it's still only 1) measuring the light and picking some combination of shutter speed, aperture and (possibly) effective ISO to achieve the exposure it's picked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While most digital cameras do some post-processing, it's not (at least normally) adjusted based on the content of an individual picture -- it simply has a tone curve for a particular setting, and adjusts tones based on the curve you've selected (high contrast, portrait, scenic, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on the input you capture and the curve you select, that might be about the right contrast range, or it might be too little or too much. In theory, it could do quite a bit more, analyzing the histogram to decide on adjustments in roughly the same way as something like ACR does for its &quot;Auto&quot; exposure adjustment -- but at least in most digital cameras you don't get anything very similar to that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-02T03:15:02.670" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T03:15:02.670" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4535" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4512" CreationDate="2010-11-02T03:49:02.730" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whenever you choose to Edit with Photoshop, and the ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) versions do not match, you have the option of &quot;Render using Lightroom&quot;, or &quot;Open Anyway&quot;. The first thing to try is to update both Lightroom and Photoshop, and get the latest version of ACR for both. Once they are in sync, Edit in Photoshop should happen seamlessly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If for whatever reason you can not get synchronized versions of ACR for both applications, you still have a couple of options. The first option is to just &quot;Open Anyway&quot;, which will simply open the RAW image in photoshop as-is. Quite often, differences in ACR engines are minor, and only apply to certain image formats. The ACR version check does not check or care if the differences in versions actually has any impact on the RAW format for your particular camera, it just shows the warning anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If opening in Photoshop shows notable differences in appearance vs. Lightroom, then you might try manually selecting the RAW processing engine in Lightroom first. In Develop mode, under the Camera Calibration section, you can select the Process. You might try the 2003 process if you are using an older version of Photoshop, rather than the 2010 version. This will really only do you any good if your version of Photoshop/ACR is fairly old.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If all of these produce undesirable results, then your only real option is to &quot;Render using Lightroom&quot;, which will take the current snapshot and generate a TIFF file from it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, you might try investing in a bluray burner. I have a 4Tb NetGear ReadyNAS NVX on my network where I back up all of my content, however it is generally not wise to use a NAS raid device as your sole backup. I regularly burn &quot;archival&quot; photos to 25Gb bluray discs, and store them in a dvd jacket with multiple pages. I also try to create and print an index card that goes with each disc that identifies the photo sets burned to them. The archival lifetime of bluray is more stable and generally longer-lived than a network backup device, however every few years it is a good idea to re-burn the content onto new discs to make ensure longevity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T03:49:02.730" />
  <row Id="4536" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4533" CreationDate="2010-11-02T04:35:06.990" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer to this is fairly complex, and is often dependent upon features and hardware specific to camera brands and models, as well as the camera exposure settings chosen by the user. To keep it simple, what the camera &quot;sees&quot; and what it decides to expose is dependent upon light metering. Modern cameras have sophisticated metering devices built into them that measure the light coming through the lens. Depending on how you have your camera configured, the camera will use the metered light value(s) to set aperture, shutter, and possibly ISO. When a scene is properly metered, a camera in fully automatic mode will usually choose correct exposure settings, however some scenes need more care and attention when metering to assist the camera in its choices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Metering in most cameras is based on the ANSI standard value of &quot;12% gray&quot;. This value is considered to be the &quot;middle tone&quot; between pure black and pure white in terms of &lt;em&gt;luminance&lt;/em&gt; (light from a light source that is reflected off a scene or object in a scene). This means that the meter takes the average level of luminance of the area metered, and &lt;em&gt;assumes&lt;/em&gt; the average is 12% gray. For scenes that cover a wide range of tones, from deep blacks through middle grays to bright highlights, this works quite well. For scenes that do not evenly span the range of tones, such as high-key or low-key scenes, the camera's meter may make an incorrect assumption about a scenes luminance, and measure 12% gray even if it should have metered a higher or lower value. Without careful metering with the camera, and use of the proper metering mode (more on this in a moment), such photographs often require black and/or white point selection during post-processing for correction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most DSLR cameras have a variety of metering modes. The default and most automatic is a form of evaluative metering, which meters a variety of areas in your scene and tries to apply an intelligent algorithm to arrive at a correct value. This often works great, but sometimes it does not work quite so well. Alternative modes include center-weighted, partial, and spot metering. These options measure progressively smaller areas, usually centered, although some cameras like Nikon allow spot metering around the currently selected auto-focus point. Spot metering is fairly precise, using only a very small percentage of the scene around the metered spot, to determine luminance. When using spot metering, it is best to point the camera at an area of the scene that is as close to &quot;middle toned&quot; as you can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not every metering mode works for every scene, and it is important to use the correct one. When manually setting exposure, it is often useful to use the camera's built-in meter in spot-metering mode to meter various parts of a scene to determine the real contrast (dynamic range) of the scene you are trying to photograph. This can be very helpful in helping you determine if you need filtration, or whether you need to adjust your lighting if you have artificially lit your scene. If you spend the time to learn how to use your camera meter in its various modes, you'll be more capable on a shoot or out in the field, and your scene contrast problems will eventually be a thing of the past.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some useful articles on metering:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/introduction-to-metering-modes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Introduction to Metering Modes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/metering-modes-explained&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Metering Modes Explained&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-metering.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cambridge in Color: Camera Metering and Exposure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mansurovs.com/understanding-metering-modes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Understanding Metering Modes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metering_mode&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia: Metering Mode&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_meter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia: Light Meter (technical, discusses 12% vs. 18% gray)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NOTE&lt;/strong&gt;: Quite often, you may hear the&#xA;  value &quot;18% gray&quot; used as the luminance&#xA;  value that camera's meter at. Such a&#xA;  value is generally inaccurate if you&#xA;  wish to be precise, as 18% gray patch&#xA;  is generally considered to &lt;em&gt;reflect&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;  half the light that reaches it. There&#xA;  is no direct correlation between a&#xA;  camera meters &quot;12% gray luminance&quot; and&#xA;  prints &quot;18% gray reflectance&quot;,&#xA;  although I think generally speaking&#xA;  they can be considered roughly&#xA;  equivalent in their respective domains&#xA;  (i.e. One would expect a photo of a&#xA;  12% gray card should print 18% gray,&#xA;  which when illuminated and&#xA;  photographed should be correctly&#xA;  metered at 12% gray again.) More&#xA;  details on this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/graycards.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T04:35:06.990" />
  <row Id="4537" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4526" CreationDate="2010-11-02T05:49:56.697" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends. What are the photos worth to you?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My process lately is a bit, well, simple. It does not guarantee 100% recovery of every image should the worst happen. But I'm OK with that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I shoot raw to CF. Those CF are imported to LR and converted to DNG either on my laptop (away from home) or my desktop (most stuff).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In either case, the cards are NOT erased until later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once I have a working copy on my system, I make a second copy out to my Drobo at home. It is physically on the opposite side of the house, so something bad happening in my office won't impact it... but it is still in the same house.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anything that I worked with on the laptop is brought onto my desktop when I get back home. The desktop is both time machined (not to the drobo) and raided, so dataloss on it would require multiple independent disks to die at once.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only once I have those two copies (desktop and drobo), do I consider clearing the images off the card. Most often though, I don't until I actually need the card to shoot again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I process the images in LR and do my first pass cut at a minimum, usually I do 2 passes through. Any image that is even remotely usable, i.e. it didn't get rejected out of hand as bad focus etc, is then uploaded to the internet. (Specifically to private galleries on my SmugMug account - disclaimer, I work for SmugMug now, but I started doing this before then.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I continue with final processing (usually days later, I use an iterative processing approach) and upload the final keeper images to public galleries on SmugMug, with the raws (dng) vaulted along with the jpgs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, my best images are stored in several places:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;workstation: original raw in LR catalog, processed dng in LR catalog&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;workstation timemachine: same as above&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;drobo: original raw from the CF&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Amazon S3 (via SmugMug): display copies and (vaulted) raw&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That gives me the ability to undo any accidental errases (btdt) by pulling from time machine or the drobo, recover from corrupted LR catalogs (btdt) via the same method, plus the ability to get back my best images from the cloud if something bad happens at my house. For my family shots, my vacation snaps, even the scenics I try to sell, that's enough piece of mind for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conversely, a few years back I helped a friend set up her storage scheme for her studio shooting. Since these images are her paycheck, they mean a lot more to her. Here's what we setup: In the studio she has two macs that she and her assistant do editing on. Both machines have a large raid array attached... I forget how much space it was, but it's like 12 drives. Both machines are set to mount both raid arrays (one locally, one across the network). When she imports images into LR it automatically makes a second copy to the other machine's raid array. They burn a DVD (or 2) with the day's images nightly, those discs are stored offsite (in her house I think.) The flash cards don't get erased until the DVDs are off site. When they finish post processing the images the results are uploaded to the internet as well as burned to a cd. I think they're using backblaze now... originally it was to another large raid array at a local isp; that got too expensive. They delete content from the local raid array like 2 weeks after prints are delivered to the client, and from the online back up at a year or so. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T05:49:56.697" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4538" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4526" CreationDate="2010-11-02T09:18:15.920" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;After copying my photos from my memory card, I make a 2nd copy to an external hard drive (to protect against accidental deletion or hardware failure). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To protect against fire, theft, etc. I also use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.backblaze.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Backblaze&lt;/a&gt; for online backup. It's $5 per month for unlimited space, I have about a terabyte of images on there at the moment (and I've heard other folks having 3 or 4 terabytes), so they really do mean unlimited space. The first full backup took a while to complete (a few weeks) - but once that was done, keeping up with new photos as I add them is pretty quick (it's an app that runs in the background, watching for changes to backup). I've needed to restore stuff a few times and never had any problems with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mozy.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mozy&lt;/a&gt; have the same kind of service, which some people I know use - and they're happy with that as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the past few years I've had a couple of hardware failures, and one &quot;human error&quot; but so far I've never lost any images thanks to my backup strategy. So I'm pretty happy with it at the moment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="40" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T09:18:15.920" />
  <row Id="4539" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4533" CreationDate="2010-11-02T09:24:34.163" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The theoretical/philosophical answer would be that with each level setting you lose some information from your picture file.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Camera gives you pretty much fixed dynamic range, quantized (usually) over 3x256 levels. Would the range be incredibly wider, you would have the 'interesting' parts of the picture spanned over really small number of levels (the most obvious problem resulting from this is striping instead of smooth gradients). Would it be smaller (this is what you are asking for), you would lose some information from the edges of the interesting range, seriously limiting your ability to post-process the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to put it simply, treat the camera output as raw material, never as a ready-made product.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1774" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T09:24:34.163" />
  <row Id="4540" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4533" CreationDate="2010-11-02T09:32:25.003" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Part of the answer is that it is rooted in our preferences. Most people prefer images with a full range of tones that includes a small amount of full black and a small amount of full white. The original might not always be like this but most times we still prefer it to be adjusted to the full range of tones.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You ask 'how does the camera decide?' and there are some good answers above. But you should note that these methods are essentially rooted in film days when there was no other method.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today we have the histogram and this changes the equation completely because it is based on all the information in the image while the metering methods are based on only partial information.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The metering method gives you a starting point so that you can get a histogram that is reasonably close to what you want. Then by examining the histogram you can quickly decide on the optimum exposure. Most often that is by adjusting the exposure to move the histogram up or down until it is nicely centered without too much pure black or pure white, but that is scene dependent.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short this means you are taking control and can make more intelligent decisions than the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T09:32:25.003" />
  <row Id="4541" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4526" CreationDate="2010-11-02T09:39:06.343" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My own schema: &lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/qZLO4.png&quot; alt=&quot;backup schema&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;(drawn using &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gliffy.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gliffy&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This mostly comes out of the fact that I have a server running Linux at home, enabling me to use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nongnu.org/rdiff-backup/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;rdiff-backup&lt;/a&gt; -- a backup tool that keeps changeset information and is therefore able to restore old data in case I accidentally delete it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I like about this scheme is that I can back up everything with a simple command after downloading images from the camera, so by the time I'm deleting files from the card they are already backed up on the server.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T09:39:06.343" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4542" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4517" CreationDate="2010-11-02T09:52:38.340" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another cause might be your lens. Long zooms, with their large number of elements and multiple surfaces can significantly degrade contrast and colour. In my case when I moved from an 18-125mm lens to a high quality 17-70mm lens the images had significantly better contrast and better colours. It didn't hurt either that they were so much sharper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T09:52:38.340" />
  <row Id="4543" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4032" CreationDate="2010-11-02T09:58:01.933" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can give a try to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfilter.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Helicon Filter&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is a pretty simple photo editor where each tab represents a step in a workflow, in that way is it easy to use. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It cost $20 for one year licence and&#xA;$75 for lifetime (including upgrades)&#xA;It is currently in version 5.xx &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the version &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.heliconsoft.com/downloads/HeliconFilter4.93.2Free.exe&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;4.93.2 can be downloaded&#xA;for free (the most recent from&#xA;4.xx)&lt;/a&gt; from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.heliconsoft.com/filter_downloads.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;downloads section&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used it briefly a few years ago, and liked the intuitive interface and B&amp;amp;W settings - you could basically choose a look from a list of different types of B&amp;amp;W film. I am not sure how accurate that was but at that time I was happy with the results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T09:58:01.933" />
  <row Id="4544" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4548" CreationDate="2010-11-02T10:38:45.320" Score="3" ViewCount="201" Body="&lt;p&gt;Software for stitching photos together for panaroma view in Ubuntu ?&#xA;Any link where I can get proper installation guide ? I use GIMP and picasa.&#xA;Picasa doesnot seem to have much control in stitching photos , (may be thru collage) ,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gimp has something called Pandora which dint work !! or say I dint understand !! If someone is using GIMP for Panaroma , I would like to know how to use it properly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;then read about Hugin , dint get proper links(or guides) to install it !! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1980" LastEditorUserId="1980" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-02T17:58:54.653" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T17:58:54.653" Title="Panaroma software for ubuntu ?" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="4545" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4487" CreationDate="2010-11-02T10:51:07.430" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;All the answers rightly explain why it is costlier, so I wont repeat that. If you want to make a cheap wide angle lens, you can have a look here (DIY).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://aggregate.org/DIT/peepfish/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://aggregate.org/DIT/peepfish/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1980" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-02T10:58:46.387" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T10:58:46.387" />
  <row Id="4546" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4544" CreationDate="2010-11-02T10:54:21.157" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hugin is available in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://packages.ubuntu.com/lucid/hugin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ubuntu packages&lt;/a&gt; so you should be able to install it as you would any Ubuntu package (depending on the version of Ubuntu you're using). It's available in 9.04 and up as a minimum. The link I provided is for the latest and includes a link to the Hugin development site which has tutorials and guides on usage. Good luck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T10:54:21.157" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4547" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4510" CreationDate="2010-11-02T10:56:56.367" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't have any cheaper variable ND filters to compare with.  But I do have other filters including some smaller ND's from various brands.  I also have the Singh-Ray Vari-ND on my desk which I have not been able to use yet.  Just going on build quality I am in love with the Vari-ND.  It is well machined etc.  I do see a small amount of color shift when looking through the glass when held up to my eye.  But that is to be expected.  Another issue with the build quality of the cheaper filters is that the glass is sometimes loose.  You can feel it shifting in the holder.  Is it a huge problem?  no but I have seen them come apart over time.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason I went with the Vari-ND is its ability to be quickly opened up so that you can focus, compose etc. Then you can quickly stop it down for the shot.  I use all L series glass and most of it except the 24-70 are internal focusing as well as internal zoom.  So there is less likely to shift your focus when adjusting the ND.  But that is an issue on some lenses to consider.  When you add and remove filters you can shift things.  My idea was go with the variable to reduce the changes to a minimum. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why mention that?  Again part of it is the build quality.  Usually the cheaper brands are made of cheaper metals etc.  I have a few that were given to me that cannot be used any longer due to chewed up threads from where they were cross threaded, dropped, or just beat up from use.  The Singh-Ray seem to be more durable and, recessed past the edge of the filter for protection.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I may still have a lemon as far as shooting goes.  But I tend to buy decent quality gear first before spending a lot more money buying several of the cheaper knock-offs.  We will know more when I can get out and shoot with it.  Hopefully this weekend.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1856" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T10:56:56.367" />
  <row Id="4548" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4544" CreationDate="2010-11-02T11:35:32.010" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To support John's answer. Run Synaptic Package Manager and in the quick search field type Hugin. Select the packages shown and hit Apply. Hugin will be downloaded and installed. It couldn't be easier.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hugin is a very capable program for creating panoramas. So good in fact that it is indistinguishable from magic!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T11:35:32.010" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4549" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4544" CreationDate="2010-11-02T13:29:45.920" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two types of software for stitching panoramas: those that are easy and those that are not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The easiest and free ones are only available for Windows so far. The way I manage is to to run them in a Windows 7 VM under OpenSUSE, &lt;a href=&quot;http://cvlab.epfl.ch/~brown/autostitch/autostitch.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;AutoStitch&lt;/a&gt; works flawlessly that way. There is a paid Linux software using the same algorithms, its called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.autopano.net/en&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;AutoPano&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can use other software like Hugin but they are complex enough to turn most people off from doing panoramas. I have seen awesome results though from people who obviously got over the learning curve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T13:29:45.920" />
  <row Id="4550" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4551" CreationDate="2010-11-02T14:06:34.277" Score="7" ViewCount="260" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was just thinking about this problem and was wondering if anyone knew if/how to use a competing flash unit (EX or SB series) on a nikon or canon (respectively) camera.  I would assume a lot of the brand-specific flash features may not work (wireless for example) but would the manual flash-on-the-hotshoe work fine?  If it is possible, is there a list of what features are/are not available.  I was thinking about how, in a teaching situation (i'm not teaching this is more of a theoretical quesiton), you could use a single flash (i'm a nikon user) on both brands of camera.  thanks for any and all insight&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="274" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T15:35:45.027" Title="Can a Nikon/Canon flash be used on the other brand of camera" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="4551" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4550" CreationDate="2010-11-02T14:33:04.730" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, it will work, or at least, it's worked in the case I've tried (canon flash on a nikon body).  You're right that the specific TTL metering and the like doesn't work, but the flash definitely triggers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I remember it distinctly, because both of my flashes went down while shooting a large wedding and the primary had a spare canon flash.  She lent it to me, and it worked-- which produced a camera that looked exceedingly strange (what with both canon and nikon working together), but it worked in manual mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T14:33:04.730" />
  <row Id="4552" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4550" CreationDate="2010-11-02T14:36:20.210" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only brand which uses a physically different connector is Sony since they inherited it from Konica-Minolta. All other brands have the same connector and you can mount whichever flash fits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basic sync always works, meaning it will trigger at the right moment. Sophisticated metering and sync may not depending on the camera and flash combination. If you use the flash controls on the camera, many models will grey-out options which are not supported, for example rear-sync or manual-flash. You can still set manual-power and FC directly on the flash itself, of course it takes more work to figure out what is needed there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T14:36:20.210" />
  <row Id="4553" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4550" CreationDate="2010-11-02T15:20:35.130" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As others said, it will work.  In addition, if the flash has an auto-thyristor mode for metering (the flash meters with a sensor in the body), that will work, independent of a body.  It will even work off camera with some other trigger mechanism (optical, wireless, etc)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T15:20:35.130" />
  <row Id="4554" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4550" CreationDate="2010-11-02T15:35:45.027" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One word of caution, you should ensure that the trigger voltage for the flash doesn't exceed what your camera specifies. A pretty complete list can be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.botzilla.com/photo/strobeVolts.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;found on this site&lt;/a&gt;, though it is more Canon oriented, of flash trigger voltages to use as a reference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T15:35:45.027" />
  <row Id="4555" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4526" CreationDate="2010-11-02T16:03:59.027" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My primary backup is an external hard disk. Secondary is an offsite backup using Jungledisk. Third, I also synchronize files between my two computers. Three backups in different places.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I never format my camera memory card until I am satisfied with the resulting photos, and those files have been backed up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T16:03:59.027" />
  <row Id="4557" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4559" CreationDate="2010-11-02T18:22:44.653" Score="11" ViewCount="347" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm thinking of using &lt;a href=&quot;http://aws.amazon.com/s3/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;S3&lt;/a&gt; to backup my photos. Anyone have any experience with this? I'm wondering specifically:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cost: I know I can estimate the costs, but what are you paying?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Methods: FTP, scripts, plugins - how do you get the files to S3?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;General opinions on the service&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1994" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-02T18:41:15.193" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T21:23:33.850" Title="Methods/experiences using Amazon S3 to store photos" Tags="&lt;storage&gt;&lt;backup&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="4558" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4577" CreationDate="2010-11-02T18:35:20.720" Score="6" ViewCount="604" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have read a lot about the SB-800/SB-900 but I am on a low budget (around ~120$). Is there an external flash that I can have to start learning to use it? I do not want absolutely TTL compatibility so it can be an older model. I have a Nikon D5000.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1112" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T08:26:09.540" Title="What is the best external flash for Nikon beginner?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;off-camera-flash&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4559" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4557" CreationDate="2010-11-02T18:36:56.960" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;S3 (Amazon's Simple Storage Service) itself is more of a service backend for SaS and 3rd party developers. As a developer who's worked on S3 before, it isn't the ideal platform for an end-user back solution. If you are a developer S3 is great, considering the substantial cost savings you get over services that are built ontop of S3 (like Mozy).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Plus, you can ship them harddrives and they will upload it to S3, rather than spending time and bandwidth uploading the files directly--though almost all online backups don't charge for bandwidth, just storage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are 3rd party tools and utilities that make backing up to S3 more manageable, but if you're looking for a robust solution rather than a &quot;roll your own&quot; then I recommend going with a service that is built ontop of S3, rather than going to S3 directly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-02T19:19:08.793" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T19:19:08.793" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4560" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4557" CreationDate="2010-11-02T18:59:37.203" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.jungledisk.com/personal/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jungle Disk&lt;/a&gt; is one product I know of that can use S3 hosting. One other benefit it has is security, as it fully encrypts all data before it is sent to the host, which means that regardless of the security on the host side, no one can view your images without your password.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T18:59:37.203" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4561" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4558" CreationDate="2010-11-02T19:25:00.193" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the best manual flash options is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://lumopro.com/product.php?id=25&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LumoPro LP160&lt;/a&gt;, but it's a bit outside your price range at $199.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the other options that is well within you budget is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00004TVSP?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;tag=phot0b7-20&amp;amp;linkCode=as2&amp;amp;camp=1789&amp;amp;creative=390957&amp;amp;creativeASIN=B00004TVSP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Vivitar 285HV&lt;/a&gt;, which is a little older design, but a very good product.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You won't get any of the more advanced automatic options, but these should both work great as a simple external flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T19:25:00.193" />
  <row Id="4562" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4558" CreationDate="2010-11-02T19:42:19.483" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/sb400.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sb-400&lt;/a&gt; because of it's small size. Usually I can just put it in my pocket and attach it when required.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="16" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T19:42:19.483" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4563" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4487" CreationDate="2010-11-02T20:07:14.313" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not even going to try to compete with Matt's awesome answer for why they're more expensive. But there's a second part of your question that no one seems to have covered: how to get into wide angle photography without the huge up front expense. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a wide angle image I made using a fairly normal zoom lens, several exposures and a piece of software called &quot;auto pano pro&quot;. The software was far less than the cost of even a cheap ultrawide angle and you get a lot more control over the end results. (I do happen to own a couple of very wide lenses, and I use them... but I also use this technic on a pretty regular basis as well when I'm not dealing with lots of movement, people, fast action etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/2D2Vk.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;sample pano&quot;&gt;&#xA;(ugh, the color in the thumbnail they generated is kinda horrid... go look &lt;a href=&quot;http://smug.cabbey.net/Travel/Montana-09/9352838_GFzBD&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; for a better rendition of the color.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T20:07:14.313" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4564" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4565" CreationDate="2010-11-02T20:19:12.893" Score="10" ViewCount="530" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've become my family's un-official photographer, pretty much, and found myself in need of a better camera.  (We have a large local close young family, so 20+ running around the house occasionally — cousins, grandparents, nephews, etc.) I've recently purchased a Nikon D3100 with the kit lens.  It's pretty obvious that the kit lens isn't going to cover the variety of situations I'm going to need to shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Situations mainly fall into three categories, like most families:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Around the house when we're all just&#xA;hanging out. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Trips (mostly local —&#xA;zoos, pumpkin farms, etc. — not&#xA;exotic) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Portraits&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I feel like the kit lens will probably suffice for the first one, so its the second and third that I'm really after.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Research leads me to believe the Nikon 50mm f/1.8d AF is probably a good choice for the portrait lens.  I know the D3100 requires AF-S to autofocus, but the AF-S version is probably out of my price range for the moment (another $300 or so) considering I need another lens as well.  Since they would be staged portraits mainly, I feel like manually focusing, wouldn't be a big deal.  Does this sound correct?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the &quot;trips&quot; lens, I really would like something with a little reach to it since we're often spread out.  These would be mainly outdoors, catching the moments when they don't know I'm shooting.  I feel like the Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX would be good choice, but I'm not sure if I really need the VR shooting those kinds of scenes.  The 55-200mm version is much more in my price range, but experience with my P&amp;amp;S tells me I probably need a bit more range.  If I don't need VR, the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 SLD DG looks good, but with the crop factor, the 70mm seems a bit far on that end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm in semi-rural area and renting lens isn't really a great option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any advice?  Is there a reasonably price lens I'm overlooking that better covers both situations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE:&#xA;My concern on the range for the &quot;trip&quot; lens is based on my P&amp;amp;S experience, but I looked at the EXIF data from a fully zoomed picture on my P&amp;amp;S and it lists it as &quot;200mm (35 mm)&quot;.  At the 1.5 crop factor of the D3100, should I expect approximately the same distance from a 200mm lens like the Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR ?  If so, I'm probably leaning towards that and the 35mm 1.8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-06T13:48:50.223" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T02:33:50.717" Title="Which Nikon lenses for family photography?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;group-photos&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4565" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4564" CreationDate="2010-11-02T20:35:19.220" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll base my suggestions on a budget limit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to take more photo's inside of the house, the kit lens might be a bit to slow. I myself experience this and I've found that the AF-S 35mm 1.8f/1.4f is a very good way to avoid using a flash. The popup flash is not bad, but the results are very flashy, another way to solve this, is to diffuse the light, a nice working DIY solution for this is: &lt;a href=&quot;http://content.photojojo.com/diy/diy-film-container-flash-diffuser/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DIY diffuser using a old film canister&lt;/a&gt;. I have used this and am very pleased with the results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For trips I would say, get the AF-S 55mm-200mm VR, a very nice addition to your kitlens, and it is also very suited for creating portraits. In your update you mention you find the 350mm range important, and indeed, with the crop factor of the DX body, the 200mm will become 350mm. Another advantage you shouldn't forget is that the quality and amount of mega-pixels is high enough to do some serious cropping and still be able to print without visible loss of quality. The downside of this lens is that you have to switch your lenses for a wide shot, but the other option is to get the 18-200, but this is a much more expensive lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both these lenses are the &quot;cheapest&quot; AF-S with a very good reputation on several review sites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As already discussed in the comments, you're just beginning with DSLR photography, so in my opinion, try not to spend too much on a very high quality lens, but first try to find your personal style and preference. If you have this, you can base your next purchase not only on advice online, but also on your personal requirements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="245" LastEditorUserId="245" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-04T08:07:56.017" LastActivityDate="2010-11-04T08:07:56.017" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="4566" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4564" CreationDate="2010-11-02T20:35:46.203" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I'd recommend sticking with a lens that has autofocus.  Definitely if the portraits are staged that is an easier situation to manual focus in, but manual focusing with the D3100's small viewfinder might be trickier than you think, especially if there are kids in the photo and you need to grab it quickly :).-&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You might try the new 35mm AF-S f/1.8 lens for portraits, its not an ideal focal length for portraits, but it would get you some nice bokeh and allow you to shoot in natural light more often (the longer the focal length the nicer the compression and perspective for portraits, 85mm works well)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You'd need VR in situations where you don't have enough light to get a fast enough shutter, if you are shooting at 300mm, you usually need at least a shutter speed of 1/300s to avoid hand shake, if its too dark for that, then VR will help.-&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Did you consider Nikon's 18-200mm VR lens? I'm sure it compromises somewhat, but it would be really convenient to have wide and telephoto in one lens. The less stuff you have to bring with you the more likely you will bring it all, and if you can avoid changing lenses you'll have more of a chance of getting the photo.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;--&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="934" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T20:35:46.203" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4567" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4557" CreationDate="2010-11-02T21:23:33.850" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, &lt;a href=&quot;http://don.blogs.smugmug.com/2006/11/10/amazon-s3-show-me-the-money/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SmugMug uses S3 to store photos&lt;/a&gt;. Probably, they are not alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, S3 is not a file system, so you need some special software solution to organize such a hosting. I can think of two simple end-user solutions, both doable on a Linux system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Using s3fs&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;s3fs&lt;/code&gt; is &lt;a href=&quot;http://code.google.com/p/s3fs/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a user-space (FUSE) file system backed by Amazon S3&lt;/a&gt;. You can &quot;mount&quot; buckets to view and write them as if they were directories on your local system. &lt;code&gt;s3fs&lt;/code&gt; should work on Linux, and probably also on Mac.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also a commercially supported version: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.subcloud.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SubCloud&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Using s3sync&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://s3.amazonaws.com/ServEdge_pub/s3sync/README.txt&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;code&gt;s3sync&lt;/code&gt; utility&lt;/a&gt; transfers directories between a local directory and an S3 bucket. &lt;code&gt;s3sync&lt;/code&gt; should work even on Windows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Probably there are other tools.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then you only need to find a suitable generator of the static photo galleries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T21:23:33.850" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4568" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4558" CreationDate="2010-11-02T21:55:20.037" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use the SB400. It's a basic external flash that, despite being plain, is much more effect than the camera's onboard flash. The front of the SB400 can be tilted upwards at varying increments, enabling you to direct your flash elsewhere, or bounce it off a ceiling. The unit uses two AA batteries, and is compact enough to slip in a pocket until needed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are higher end units from Nikon, including the SB600 and SB900. They are bulkier, offer more options (e.g. horizontal pivot) and are progressively more expensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a beginner, the SB400 will be more than enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T21:55:20.037" />
  <row Id="4569" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4564" CreationDate="2010-11-02T22:01:40.257" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the 35mm 1.8 and its a great little lens - I have used it for portraits until quite recently when I bought a 2nd hand 35mm-70mm 2.8, this now lives on my camera for portrait work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 55mm-200mm is a good option for the range work&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1907" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T22:01:40.257" />
  <row Id="4570" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-02T22:24:22.630" Score="19" ViewCount="543" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find that I take a lot of pictures through skyscraper and vehicle windows (those that are impractical or impossible to open). There are all kinds of problems with taking photographs through windows: reflections from light inside, dirt on the window, etc. My technique mostly involves placing the lens directly on the window glass and shielding it from lights reflecting from above. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any non-obvious gizmos / techniques for easily shooting through windows? I've heard that a polarizing filter might be used in this situation, but I don't carry one around most of the time, besides most of the pictures I am interested in taking are in low light situations (at sunset or in a moving train, etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="215" LastEditorUserId="215" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-03T15:57:59.273" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T07:11:27.033" Title="Tips for shooting through a skyscraper, airplane, or train window" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;reflection&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="4571" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4570" CreationDate="2010-11-02T22:49:05.720" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A few shooting-through-window tips:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;shoot with the lens at a slight angle instead of being directly perpendicular to the window&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;if you know you're going to be shooting through a window, wear dark clothing, which will reflect less in the glass&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;as you mentioned, get your lens as close to the glass as possible&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;in Photoshop or other post-processing, adjust the Levels to remove the glare.  Usually the black point will need to be set to remove glare&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T22:49:05.720" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4572" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4570" CreationDate="2010-11-02T22:59:43.737" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There may be a handle that lets you open the window, have you tried that? ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other than removing the problem that way, what you are doing is pretty much the best options. By putting the lens close to the window you are getting any dirt on the window out of focus. Every part of the image usually passes through every part of the front lens, which means that the dirt have to be pretty severe to affect the image at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are third party lens hoods made of rubber, those might work well to make a seal that keeps light from getting in between the window and the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try to take pictures at a straight angle through the window if possible, if you take an image at a too great angle you will get light that bounces inside the window glass, causing a displaced ghost image. With double or triple glass windows this effect will be more noticable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A polarising filter can be used to reduce some of the reflections in a window, however it does also affect any light from the outside that is reflected somewhere. So sometimes you will not be able to keep the reflected light that you want from the subject while blocking out reflected light from the window.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-11-02T22:59:43.737" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="4573" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4564" CreationDate="2010-11-03T01:31:12.343" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't have a Nikon, but my DSLR is used mostly for exactly the type of pictures you're asking about - taking pictures of the family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a number of lenses, and try to use them all, but I think I get most of my favorite shots with one of two lenses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a 50mm/1.4 - this is great for portraits, and for taking pictures of the kids &quot;doing things&quot; using existing lighting.  The ability to take candid shots in low light without the distraction of the flash can't be understated.  Best $400 I've spent in a long time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other extreme, I have an old 80-320 zoom, which is great for taking pictures of sporting events, and &quot;sneaking&quot; shots when you're far enough away that they don't notice you.  Sometimes I'll use the 50-200 as well, mostly for sporting events, but that long zoom is really nice to have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="134" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T01:31:12.343" />
  <row Id="4574" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4446" CreationDate="2010-11-03T04:40:58.477" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bradford's anser is a good idea, so I accepted his answer.  But adding a separate rule for each year in Lightroom takes too many clicks for my taste.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've found that if I right-click on a smart collection in Lightroom 3 I can choose &quot;export smart collection settings&quot; to save the smart collection's rules into an &lt;code&gt;.lrsmcol&lt;/code&gt; file.  That turns out to be a text file that is easily edited with any text editor.  So I created a smart collection in Lightroom that selects the photos for 2009 and 2010, exported it, opened it in a text editor, copy/pasted additional critera for 2000 to 2008, and reimported it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The quickest way to make your own smart collection for filtering dates is probably to paste the code below into a text editor, search-and-replace &lt;code&gt;10-31&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;11-03&lt;/code&gt; with your own dates, save as an &lt;code&gt;.lrsmcol&lt;/code&gt; file, and import that into Lightroom.  I haven't tested whether Lightroom always uses the &lt;code&gt;yyyy-mm-dd&lt;/code&gt; format or whether it uses it because I have Windows configured to use that date format.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;s = {&#xA;    id = &quot;C6E098B5-18A6-409D-8920-068C94DC65B0&quot;,&#xA;    internalName = &quot;Date range every year&quot;,&#xA;    title = &quot;Date range every year&quot;,&#xA;    type = &quot;LibrarySmartCollection&quot;,&#xA;    value = {&#xA;        {&#xA;            criteria = &quot;captureTime&quot;,&#xA;            operation = &quot;in&quot;,&#xA;            value = &quot;2010-10-31&quot;,&#xA;            value2 = &quot;2010-11-03&quot;,&#xA;        },&#xA;        {&#xA;            criteria = &quot;captureTime&quot;,&#xA;            operation = &quot;in&quot;,&#xA;            value = &quot;2009-10-31&quot;,&#xA;            value2 = &quot;2009-11-03&quot;,&#xA;        },&#xA;        {&#xA;            criteria = &quot;captureTime&quot;,&#xA;            operation = &quot;in&quot;,&#xA;            value = &quot;2008-10-31&quot;,&#xA;            value2 = &quot;2008-11-03&quot;,&#xA;        },&#xA;        {&#xA;            criteria = &quot;captureTime&quot;,&#xA;            operation = &quot;in&quot;,&#xA;            value = &quot;2007-10-31&quot;,&#xA;            value2 = &quot;2007-11-03&quot;,&#xA;        },&#xA;        {&#xA;            criteria = &quot;captureTime&quot;,&#xA;            operation = &quot;in&quot;,&#xA;            value = &quot;2006-10-31&quot;,&#xA;            value2 = &quot;2006-11-03&quot;,&#xA;        },&#xA;        {&#xA;            criteria = &quot;captureTime&quot;,&#xA;            operation = &quot;in&quot;,&#xA;            value = &quot;2005-10-31&quot;,&#xA;            value2 = &quot;2005-11-03&quot;,&#xA;        },&#xA;        {&#xA;            criteria = &quot;captureTime&quot;,&#xA;            operation = &quot;in&quot;,&#xA;            value = &quot;2004-10-31&quot;,&#xA;            value2 = &quot;2004-11-03&quot;,&#xA;        },&#xA;        {&#xA;            criteria = &quot;captureTime&quot;,&#xA;            operation = &quot;in&quot;,&#xA;            value = &quot;2003-10-31&quot;,&#xA;            value2 = &quot;2003-11-03&quot;,&#xA;        },&#xA;        {&#xA;            criteria = &quot;captureTime&quot;,&#xA;            operation = &quot;in&quot;,&#xA;            value = &quot;2002-10-31&quot;,&#xA;            value2 = &quot;2002-11-03&quot;,&#xA;        },&#xA;        {&#xA;            criteria = &quot;captureTime&quot;,&#xA;            operation = &quot;in&quot;,&#xA;            value = &quot;2001-10-31&quot;,&#xA;            value2 = &quot;2001-11-03&quot;,&#xA;        },&#xA;        {&#xA;            criteria = &quot;captureTime&quot;,&#xA;            operation = &quot;in&quot;,&#xA;            value = &quot;2000-10-31&quot;,&#xA;            value2 = &quot;2000-11-03&quot;,&#xA;        },&#xA;        combine = &quot;union&quot;,&#xA;    },&#xA;    version = 0,&#xA;}&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T04:40:58.477" />
  <row Id="4575" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4576" CreationDate="2010-11-03T05:49:54.597" Score="9" ViewCount="310" Body="&lt;p&gt;I started using GIMP recently , otherwise Picasa does just enough useful things.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I came across an option called Curves under Colors menu. What is the significance of it and how to use it correctly.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I get some good colors if I make a graph in 'S' shape. But what exactly is the meaning of it ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If anybody has used it and have come across good tutorial about it , I would like to gain the knowledge too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1980" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-02T13:46:48.120" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T13:46:48.120" Title="Understanding curves option of colors in GIMP ?" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;open-source&gt;&lt;gimp&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="4576" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4575" CreationDate="2010-11-03T06:39:53.377" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The GIMP's curves tool is virtually identical to PhotoShop's Curves tool. Almost all photo manipulation tools have a way of doing that action.  There are a number of good explanations of it out on the internet if you look for photoshop: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;amp;q=curves+adjustment+in+photoshop&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;amp;q=curves+adjustment+in+photoshop&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;this one however is fairly thorough in it's explanation of what it's doing:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/photoshop-curves.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/photoshop-curves.htm&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(disclaimer, it's been a good 3 years since I've used the GIMP, it's possible they've changed it since then, but I highly doubt it since the curves tool is one of the more fundamental advanced editing tools.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T06:39:53.377" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4577" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4558" CreationDate="2010-11-03T08:26:09.540" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I also have the Nikon D5000 and have been very satisfied with YongNuo speedlight. I used YN-460II and recently bought a YN-560. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both are very good, with easy manual adjustment controls. The YN-560 is bulkier but have electronic zoom feature so this will let you do more experiment with your lighting setup. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found that I'm not missing the TTL feature as I can guess and required flash power and quickly fine adjust with the button control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;YN-460II costs $50 while YN-560 is $85, so you can get them cheap. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="128" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T08:26:09.540" />
  <row Id="4578" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4579" CreationDate="2010-11-03T10:46:15.557" Score="12" ViewCount="367" Body="&lt;p&gt;What does exposure compensation do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I take a photo with a given shutter speed, aperature, and ISO, and then take the same shot with +1EV or -1EV, what is actually happening?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this just a gain control on the sensor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you achieve the same thing by changing ISO?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="227" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T23:28:40.973" Title="What is exposure compensation?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;iso&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4579" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4578" CreationDate="2010-11-03T11:37:35.240" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Exposure compensation changes the target exposure.  Normally the camera is trying to work the settings to get about 18% grey (reflectance), but with exposure compensation of +1EV you are basically just saying to the camera &quot;I want to expose this scene 1 stop lighter than the normal average.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Changing ISO vs Exposure Compensation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Manual shooting&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Changing the ISO would have the same effect on exposure that Exposure Compensation would have in AUTO mode. However, so would changing your shutter speed or aperture.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Automatic modes&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The camera will change either ISO, aperture, or shutter speed as needed to achieve the correct exposure, so adjusting your ISO will only change the shutter/aperture that the camera sets. Changing the exposure compensation will change the target exposure.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-03T15:06:19.397" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T15:06:19.397" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4580" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4575" CreationDate="2010-11-03T11:51:58.457" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Curves is a powerful and very flexible tool, which allows to control brightness, contrast and color balance very preciesly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way I approach the curves tool, either in Gimp or in any other editor is two-fold:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(1) The curve defines &lt;strong&gt;how to change the intensity&lt;/strong&gt;. Its left side is for the darkest parts of the image, its right side is for the brightest part of the image. Where the curve is above the diagonal, the intensity is increased. Where the curve is below the diagonal, the intensity is decreased.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(2) The curve is the tool &lt;strong&gt;to redistribute contrast&lt;/strong&gt;. Ranges with steeper curve will receive more contrast, and ranges with flatter curve will look more dull.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;General tips&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Learn to read image histograms.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Keep the curve monotonically increasing. If you make part of the curve flat, you will loose all tone details in that range, and if you make some part of the curve with negative (inverse) slope, that tonal range will be effectively inverted. Usually you don't want that.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Move the beginning and the end of the curve inside of the range to stretch contrast (similar to changing black and white levels in the Levels tool).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Pull the curve up to lighten the image (similar to increased gamma), and down to darken the image (similar to decreased gamma).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Make the beginning (left end) of the curve slightly flatter to compress shadows (and make noise less visible). Pull the curve in the beginning (left end) up, if the image is underexposed.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Prefer slight changes if possible.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Gimp-specific tips&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When the curves tool is open, click on the image to see the position of this point on the histogram (a vertical line on the histogram will appear). This helps a lot to find which part of the curve to modify.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Don't stretch contrast too much. Current Gimp (version 2.6) represents images with 8 bit per color channel. Curves tool may lead to posterization (how to notice: the histogram will change from smooth hills into many spikes). Future versions of Gimp should support also 16-bit per channel. Now you better do only slight modifications, or use the curves tool of the RAW processing software (UFRaw, RawStudio, RawTherapee...), or use an editor with 16-bit color depth support (e.g. digiKam's built-in editor).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Increase window size of the curves tool. The larger the curves tool windows is, the easier it is to adjust them precisely.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Enable and disable preview to quickly view the image with the current curve applied and without.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Examples&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, let's consider a curve like this&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/DPqgB.png&quot; alt=&quot;A curve to make shadows darker and highlights brighter&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This curve will make the shadows darker and the highlights brighter; mid-tones will receive more contrast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On opposite, the next curve will make the highlights darker and the shadows brighter. Also, it will “pull” more details out of shadows and highlights (they will receive more contrast, at the cost of lost contrast in mid-tones):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/vmvY7.png&quot; alt=&quot;A curve to make shadows brighter and highlights darker&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastEditorUserId="1558" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-03T13:15:03.707" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T13:15:03.707" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4581" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4578" CreationDate="2010-11-03T12:08:03.537" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Exposure compensation only works in one of the [semi] automatic modes (Tv, Av, P etc.) it's usually used to account for the simplicity of the camera's metering system (the camera assumes everything you try and photograph is middle grey).  Using it will cause the camera to adjust the settings (shutter, aperture, ISO depending on your shooting mode) to either increase or decrease the exposure. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also times when you want to intentionally over or underexpose for example when shooting for HDR, or when you want to minimise noise (at the expense of highlight colour fidelity and detail) by exposing to the right (ETTR) and EC is a good way of doing this if you don't want to shoot in manual. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically don't think of EC as &lt;strong&gt;&quot;exposure compensation&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; think of it as &lt;strong&gt;&quot;poor in-camera metering compensation&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-03T12:25:56.543" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T12:25:56.543" />
  <row Id="4582" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4586" CreationDate="2010-11-03T12:49:19.210" Score="7" ViewCount="246" Body="&lt;p&gt;What technique should I be using to set a custom white balance i.e. white card, grey card, white balance lens cap etc or does it depend on the situation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="560" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T14:17:54.220" Title="Techniques to set custom white balance?" Tags="&lt;white-balance&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4583" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4570" CreationDate="2010-11-03T13:20:43.857" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use a polarizing filter. It allows to reduce reflections (or make them more visible, if you want).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shoot at wider aperture to make the dust on the window less noticeable. Stay close to the glass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T13:20:43.857" />
  <row Id="4584" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4582" CreationDate="2010-11-03T13:30:04.910" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've not used one of the white balance diffusers, and instead prefer to set or calibrate a custom white balance, from something of neutral tone (White/Gray/Black) lit under the same conditions as the eventual subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a lot of things that can be improvised with a known even tone, and it's one of the reasons I have my business cards on white card, and are a lot cheaper than having an expo-disc (or equivalent) for each filter size for all my lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T13:30:04.910" />
  <row Id="4585" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4578" CreationDate="2010-11-03T13:52:18.820" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Can you achieve the same thing by changing ISO?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No.   Changing the ISO doesn't change the exposure, just like changing the shutter speed and aperture don't change the exposure (unless you're in manual mode).  If you're in an auto mode, and you change any of those three, the camera will adjust one of the others to maintain what it thinks is correct exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Stepping back a second, the only things that the camera can change to change the exposure are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shutter speed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aperture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ISO&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you change the exposure compensation to +1 EV you're telling the camera to over-expose the image (compared to what it thinks the correct exposure is) by 1 f-stop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you've told it to over-expose, it will then change either the shutter-speed, the aperture, or the ISO to change the exposure. In aperture priority the camera will decrease the shutter speed, in shutter priority the camera will widen the aperture, in automatic it could do either.  If auto-iso is turned on, it might adjust the ISO. In manual mode, exposure compensation has no effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, if you were in aperture-priority, at f/4, and ISO 200, the camera might think correct exposure would be at 1/100s.  If you set exposure compensation to +1EV, you're telling the camera to over expose, so its going to adjust the shutter speed to 1/50s.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="934" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T13:52:18.820" />
  <row Id="4586" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4582" CreationDate="2010-11-03T13:54:34.543" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Buy a white-balance card. Make sure you place it in the same light as your primary subject. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use a plastic card which is white on one side and grey (for 18% metering) on the other. I bought it at a local photo store but I don't remember the brand and there's no markings on it, it simply fit the description of what I was looking for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our eye is terrible at discerning neutral colors in the scene, which is pretty much why we need white-balance in the first place. We don't see the true colors because our brains compensate and then we complain when the camera does not show us what we saw! So white-balance was invented. (OK, over-simplified but you don't want to read the full explanation do you? ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T13:54:34.543" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4587" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4582" CreationDate="2010-11-03T13:59:56.473" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most cameras can set a custom white balance by taking a picture of something white.  I used to do this all the time with my Nikon DSLRs, e.g. take a picture of a piece of paper, or a table cloth to set the white balance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I own a grey card, but never have time to use it or have it with me. Now I shoot RAW and fix the white balance in post).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="934" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T13:59:56.473" />
  <row Id="4588" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4582" CreationDate="2010-11-03T14:02:15.767" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For creative photography I dont bother. The &quot;correct&quot; white balance (if it even exists, many scenes with different coloured lightsources have no single white balance) is rarely the one that looks most pleasing so I pick the balance in post that looks best. White balance alters the emotion of a scene from cold stark blues to happy warm oranges and is part of your creative arsenal, not something to be trusted to an inanimate object.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It can be useful to shoot a custom WB to save time and get you close, and for this any fairly neutral constant tone object will do, white paper is usually the closest to hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;IMO it's not worth spending the money on specially made white balance solution once you realise that every single object in a scene reflects light onto every other object, meaning any white balance you get is aproximate. You'd be amazed how much better things look when lit by a single source of white light in a black studio which is free of the dirty mixed up secondary reflected reflected light! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're doing any sort of calibrated commercial or scientific project that requires accurate colour reproduction shoot a Gretag MacBeth colour chart in &lt;strong&gt;every&lt;/strong&gt; scene/camera angle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.warehouseexpress.com/webcontent/product_images/large/91/1011490.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is much more effective than a grey card as in addition to white balance it checks the full color rendering ability of the lightsource &lt;strong&gt;and your camera&lt;/strong&gt; and allows you to compensate for inadequacies in parts of the spectrum by building a custom colour profile. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-03T14:17:54.220" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T14:17:54.220" />
  <row Id="4589" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3695" CreationDate="2010-11-03T14:03:38.173" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Same here. Got same problem. Pretty sure that the Sigma AF 24-70 F2.8 EX DG has a bug that it won't work with D5000. And it might not work with other non-motor body, e.g., D3000, D3100, etc. However, when used with cheap extension tube to take macro, it works. Damned strange.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T14:03:38.173" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4590" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4582" CreationDate="2010-11-03T14:15:13.123" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depends on what you have on hand, and there are several methods. You can set it in camera if you are in a controlled or consistent lighting situation, like in a studio, using a grey card. You can shoot the card and set it in post-processing or in-camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1868" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T14:15:13.123" />
  <row Id="4591" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4518" CreationDate="2010-11-03T14:37:43.040" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've had a very similar problem with my Canon 50mm 1.4FL: manual focus was blocked, and auto focus would not work closer than 1 meter or so. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In layman's terms, the cause was that the ring or rail on which the lens rolls when making the focus was bent, blocking the motion. From what I've read, it's a relatively common problem if the front of your lens has a shock of any kind, especially with that specific lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My lens was still under warranty, so I had it repaired for free. I'm not sure it's something I'd try myself. It's probably not a very complex repair, but you'd need the correct part to fix it, and it's probably finicky to adjust it perfectly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edited to link to a Flickr thread discussing the problem I had: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/canon_50mm/discuss/72157623726450111/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="204" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T14:37:43.040" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4592" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4595" CreationDate="2010-11-03T14:53:23.850" Score="6" ViewCount="234" Body="&lt;p&gt;I took this photo recently w/ an old Pentax K1000, using 400 ISO film, and an f/1.7 aperture. Is this graininess just inherent to shooting w/ this sort of film / lighting? Or, is it partially/largely caused by the scanner that scanned my photo?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, is this just how it's going to be no matter who scans my photo? Or, should I be looking for a different place to get my processing done?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/mkelly32/5132829816/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Pumpkins by mkelly32, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4025/5132829816_d683a35a74.jpg&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;332&quot; alt=&quot;Pumpkins&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1793" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T08:29:23.043" Title="What's the most likely cause of grain in this photo?" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;scanning&gt;&lt;film-grain&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4593" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4592" CreationDate="2010-11-03T15:04:24.147" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd guess that 400 ISO film is grainy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I think it looks nice!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="934" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T15:04:24.147" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4594" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4592" CreationDate="2010-11-03T15:11:51.640" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the resolution you're scanning at? The issue really is this: no matter how high-res your scan is, a grain will always be smaller than a pixel, so for something that you want minimal grain, scan at the highest resolution the scanner can give. Also take note that contrast and sharpness adjustments in post tend to emphasise grain, so that's another thing to watch out for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did you push the film? I'm going to say that grain is a part of film and for 35mm negs, it is rather difficult to not have them when they are scanned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1868" LastEditorUserId="1868" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-03T15:17:31.370" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T15:17:31.370" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4595" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4592" CreationDate="2010-11-03T15:32:41.927" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;ISO 400 film is almost always going to have grain that's at least somewhat visible. I can't really tell if you underexposed the picture or not, but underexposure will generally make the grain &lt;em&gt;much&lt;/em&gt; more apparent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Different scanners show grain to (slightly) differing degrees.  Basically, the smaller the light source, the sharper a rendition of the finest details it'll give -- and the more apparent the finest details like grain will be. A larger light source &quot;softens&quot; the scan a bit, which tends to make grain slightly less apparent. Unfortunately, if you're getting the scans done commercially, you may not even be able to find out what sort of scanner they're using, not to mention getting them to select a different one that's more suitable for a particular picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T15:32:41.927" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4596" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4592" CreationDate="2010-11-03T15:43:34.080" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Scanners are effectively digital cameras so they do introduce noise but not very much, what you're seeing is the film grain. &lt;strong&gt;ISO400 film is very grainy when compared to ISO400 on a modern DSLR&lt;/strong&gt;. This often gets forgotten when comparing film to digital (resolution or otherwise). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Grain aside (which as already stated isn't always objectionable) the photolab scans are pretty poor quality all round. Getting a professional drum scan may not improve grain but will probably result in better colours, dynamic range etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T15:43:34.080" />
  <row Id="4597" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4578" CreationDate="2010-11-03T16:09:20.810" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What does exposure compensation do?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although I agree with the technical aspects of the other answers, I still prefer to explain &quot;exposure compensation&quot; in lay terms as a way to impose a disagreement with the camera opinion about the shot. :o)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Every time you point your camera to a scene, it tries to calculate how much light should hit the sensor in order to obtain a well balanced (again, according to the camera calculations) picture but allowing a fast enough shutter speed so the risk of blurring it due to vibration or subject movement is minimized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the progam mode (P) The camera uses something like this in order to decide the settings for a scene:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set the shutter speed to something fast enough (say 1/50s) and ISO to the smallest value (say 100).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Increase the aperture until there is light enough for the scene.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If it reaches the largest aperture then start increasing the ISO speed (assuming it is in Auto mode, not fixed by you) until there is light enough for the scene.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If it reaches the largest ISO then start slowing the shutter speed until there is light enough for the scene.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the aperture and shutter priority modes (A or Av, S or Tv) the aperture or shutter speed are set by you and the camera defines the other two parameters using the above logic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That means that if the scene has enough light you will end with sensible settings for the three parameters (ISO, aperture and speed) and things tend to work out well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But most of the times things are not that pretty. Either you get too much light (beach scenes, snow, backlights etc) or too little (dark places, night shots etc) and the camera calculations starts to work against what you may consider a nice shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is where exposure compensation can help you. By tweaking with it you can either explain to the camera that you want it to consider less light in the calculations (moving the compensation to negative values) or to consider more light (moving the compensation to positive values).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bottom line is, exposure compensation is an easy way for you to influence in the camera calculations in order to make it do things closer to what you want then what it would assume was &quot;correct&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If I take a photo with a given shutter speed, aperture, and ISO, and then take the same shot with +1EV or -1EV, what is actually happening?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that in order to set all the three elements (speed, aperture and ISO) you would have to be in Manual mode (M), where there is no exposure compensation controls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OTOH, if you fix one or two of them, the rules described above apply.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is this just a gain control on the sensor?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No, that would be the ISO. Exposure compensation is about how much light will make part of the picture, ISO is one of the ways to control that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Can you achieve the same thing by changing ISO?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only if you are in Manual mode, otherwise the change in the ISO would only alter the balance between the other two factors (aperture and shutter speed). In Manual mode the change in ISO would indeed change the amount of light captured, so it would impact in the brightness of the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastEditorUserId="46" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-11T23:28:40.973" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T23:28:40.973" />
  <row Id="4598" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4600" CreationDate="2010-11-03T16:18:12.360" Score="12" ViewCount="334" Body="&lt;p&gt;Distant landscapes often appear hazy, washed-out and blue due to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering#Reason_for_the_blue_color_of_the_sky&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rayleigh scattering&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What can be done to maximise the contrast range of the exposure when photographing such scenes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Would any sort of hardware, camera settings, or type of &quot;film&quot; (including digital) produce better results?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are there reliable ways to predict when haze will be lowest?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2016" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-03T20:26:19.607" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T20:49:07.863" Title="How to maximise contrast range of distant landscapes with blue haze?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;tips&gt;&lt;landscape&gt;&lt;haze&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="4599" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4578" CreationDate="2010-11-03T16:27:28.203" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;EV affects exposure in every mode but manual. It is extremely handy when working with advanced lighting systems that incorporate TTL. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Changing ISO won't make a difference, unless you push it beyond the range of the camera's ability to make a proper exposure. The camera will compensate with aperature or shutter speed (depending on your mode) countering your ISO  change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EV, in these modes, is THE WAY you control exposure. Very helpful on the fly. Some purists (myself, until recently included) think this is a cheat. Manual is the only way to fly. They are wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joe McNally, TTL super-star and award winning photog, likens this attitude to purchasing a Ferrari and driving it like a Volkswagen. TTL and EV allow you to move fast, concentrate on your subject, and deliver the same, if not better, exposure control as a full manual setup. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more info check &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.joemcnally.com/blog/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;McNally's site&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T16:27:28.203" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4600" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4598" CreationDate="2010-11-03T16:31:54.020" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You should be able to decrease the haze a bit using a polarizer or haze filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dslrtips.com/workshops/How_to_use_polarizing_filters/reduce_haze_deep_blue_sky.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Using polarizing filters to cut through haze and deepen blue skies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/filter/filter-UV.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;UV, Skylight and Haze Filters&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lens-filters.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cambridge in Color: Filters&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Additional Information on Haze filters&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A haze filter absorbs a greater about of UV light than a normal UV filter can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tiffen.com/filters.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tiffen Haze filters&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Haze 1 - Reduces excessive blue haze&#xA;  caused by UV light by absorbing 71% of&#xA;  UV.  Great all-around UV control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Haze 2A - Absorbs all UV light;&#xA;  reduces haze; maintains color and&#xA;  image clarity.  Best for high altitude&#xA;  and marine scenes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-03T18:30:09.887" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T18:30:09.887" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4601" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4598" CreationDate="2010-11-03T16:43:40.787" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I always use a polarizer when shooting landscapes. This helps straighten the light and &quot;clean up&quot; the haze. Utilizing the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;zone system&lt;/a&gt; is also helpful in increasing dynamic range. I find that &quot;haze&quot; is highest during the middle of the day, when the sun is closest to its zenith. Shooting during magic hour will give you less Rayleigh Scatter AND will provide better lighting conditions all around. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Happy Hunting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T16:43:40.787" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="4602" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4598" CreationDate="2010-11-03T16:56:02.677" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Apart from filters (which are the best way to minimise haze, chills' answer covers that base nicely) anything you can do to minimize noise (get as much light in as possible (e.g with a longer exposure), expose to the right) will help recover contrast lost to haze when post processing. This is because increasing contrast in post will increase noise, and the fact that noise and dynamic range are inverses of each other.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Whilst air molecules themselves produce Rayleigh scattering (making it unavoidable... on Earth!) airborne particulates can make it a lot worse. As such haze is often minimized after a storm or strong wind has cleared particles. Humidity can also be to blame as particles act as nucleation sites for water molecules to form around, so haze can be worse in humid conditions (so called wet haze). If you're watching the weather forecast look for high pressure immediately following a front. If the high sets in for too long haze builds up due to lack of wind. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your location will also affect haze (steer clear of large cities) shooting into the sun will also make it worse so plan your shoot around the times you expect the sun to be behind you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-03T17:17:48.033" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T17:17:48.033" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4603" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3946" CreationDate="2010-11-03T17:07:44.457" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just found it!!!! &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pixelgenius.com/downloads.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photokit&lt;/a&gt; by Pixel Genius. This pluging is awesome. Free for two months, I totally suggest checking this thing out. It does way more then just burn corners down (which looks way better then vignetting options I've seen) and everything is actionable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Happy Hunting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T17:07:44.457" />
  <row Id="4604" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4606" CreationDate="2010-11-03T17:48:03.767" Score="11" ViewCount="344" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've noticed that quite a few of my photos aren't terribly well-focused. This particularly happens at long focal lengths. I'm using a Canon 500D and (mostly) a Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 lens. I find it very hard to focus manually, mainly because I wear glasses and none of the settings on the little viewfinder-adjustment-wheel-thingy seem to be 100% right, so I use the auto-focus where I can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The page at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-autofocus.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-autofocus.htm&lt;/a&gt; suggests that it might be down to the combination of camera and f-stop (in particular, that at f/5.6 only the central focus point will work, and that f/6.3 none of them will).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Firstly, am I right, or have I misunderstood? And, if I'm right, do you have any tips for better focusing? Or do I just need a better camera and/or faster glass?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Edit: lots of useful tips below; thanks everyone! I suspect it's my technique that's at fault, rather than anything else. Time to go and practice some more...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastEditorUserId="206" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-05T09:32:05.660" LastActivityDate="2010-11-05T09:32:05.660" Title="How to improve focus accuracy?" Tags="&lt;focus&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4605" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4604" CreationDate="2010-11-03T17:55:12.120" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What auto-focus mode are you using? There are generally a few variables:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Single shot or continuous&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Single point or many points or closest subject&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you aren't already, I'd recommend you use single-shot only, and single-point, and set the point to the center-point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many of the focus points only have vertical or horizontal contrast detection, whereas the center point always seems to have both (higher end cameras tend to have more focus points with both).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="934" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T17:55:12.120" />
  <row Id="4606" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4604" CreationDate="2010-11-03T17:56:04.053" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Firstly I don't know about the 500D but you are probably right in that only the central point is working at f/5.6 as light is blocked to the peripheral points. You can get the camera to AF with smaller apertures (up to about &lt;strong&gt;f/8&lt;/strong&gt; if you're lucky) with the centre point if you trick the camera about what lens is being used by &lt;strong&gt;taping the contacts&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you post some images of the problem? Are the shots definitely front or back focussed instead of just soft? If so is there any consistency in the front back focussing? Sorry for the barrage of questions it's just difficult to diagnose the problem from description alone. This could indicate that the lens is out of calibration (focussing isn't a feedback loop, the AF takes a measurement and then tells the lens to go there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have you thought about manual focus with &lt;strong&gt;live view&lt;/strong&gt;? It may be tricky at the long end due to camera movement (a monopod/tripod will help here) but you should be able to view the screen from a comfortable distance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the end of the day, any lens with such a large zoom range will never perform as well as a dedicated telephoto so you will undoubtably benefit from upgrading to something faster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-03T21:10:31.627" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T21:10:31.627" />
  <row Id="4607" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4608" CreationDate="2010-11-03T18:03:42.373" Score="3" ViewCount="97" Body="&lt;p&gt;Posted for evaluation. Why is the sky so nasty? These images where shot at high noon with a polarizer. Is there a way to &quot;clean up&quot; the sky. Keep in mind also these have already been processed in post and I'm happy (enough) with skin tones. But the skies man, the skies. So green. My guess is Rayleigh scattering coupled with pollution. Any thoughts?&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/AJtXr.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fTYTi.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-03T20:25:38.950" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T20:25:38.950" Title="Haze, pollution and overhead light" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;filters&gt;&lt;haze&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4608" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4607" CreationDate="2010-11-03T18:43:01.090" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Under Rayleigh scattering the sky will look greener and then yellower the closer you get to the sun, however with the sun high in the sky I don't think that's what is happening here. I think pollution is a more likely cause, especially as it seems to exist close to the horizon. Filters (polarizing/UV) may make the sky a darker, richer tone, I'm not sure they would change the hue, though I suggest you try filtering if you have one to hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The white balance in the images is fairly warm, which looks good for the skintones but will always give a yellower sky than a cool balance. To maintain the skintones you can always adjust the hue of just the sky by a selective colouring tool in post, or boost the saturation of the blue primary in raw conversion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope you don't mind me editing and reposting the images, but here's the original first image, cooled down slightly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/OQpwg.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;cooled down&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And here's the original image with just the cyan tones shifted toward the magenta end of the spectrum in Photoshop:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/VItUm.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;cyans shifted&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally just to show you how far you can go with selective colour adjustments, here's the original image cooled down with the sky shifted and the grass made to look a little bit more alive!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/YW2y3.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;totally butchered&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the second image seems to display lens flare on the right hand side, is it a crop from a larger image? If not I don't know where the flare is coming from as you're not shooting that close to the sun. &lt;strong&gt;edit&lt;/strong&gt; It's probably just something white floating close to the lens, thus totally out of focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-03T19:30:48.227" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T19:30:48.227" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4609" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4607" CreationDate="2010-11-03T19:30:15.860" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A polarizer has its greatest effect on the sky around 45 degrees away from the sun. If you look at the sky on a clear day, the part of the sky that's already the deepest blue is also the part that's going to be deepened the most by a polarizer. If you look when the sun is nearly overhead, you'll notice that next to the horizon, the blue fades to almost neutral gray.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These shots have the sun almost straight overhead, but the part of the sky in the picture is right next to the horizon. At this angle, a polarizer will have only minimal effect on the color of the sky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T19:30:15.860" />
  <row Id="4610" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4517" CreationDate="2010-11-03T19:32:48.037" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Shoot with good/interesting light!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See the image below, the reason (ultimately) that the image has nice contrast is the original image has contrast on her face, e.g. once side is quite bright, and the other quite dark, because there is a window beside her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try: putting your subject inside, with the lights off, facing you parallel to a window, so the light from the window hits the side of their face.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I post processed this photo, adjusted the exposure (probably down), adjusted black and white levels etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/MmvSF.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a go at improving the image's contrast in post. Note:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It'd probably be easier to do this starting with the original image&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We're starting in a difficult spot, the shirt is very bright and the face has very little contrast on it&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Steps I took:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Used the 'curves' tool in photoshop to increase contrast every where except the shirt&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Used the dodge tool to lighten up the eyes (I'm not sure I did a great job of it)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Made it black and white&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Added some overall contrast with UnsharpMark (see LCE in my other answer)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ran the smart sharpen filter at 25% at 0.8 pixels for a bit of sharpening&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/QvELt.jpg-----&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="934" LastEditorUserId="934" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-04T01:37:23.400" LastActivityDate="2010-11-04T01:37:23.400" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4611" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-03T19:43:03.510" Score="9" ViewCount="952" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've got the Xrite Eye One Display 2, and tried the advanced calibration today for the first time.  It asked what white point I wanted, and had a default of 6500K.  I didn't realize that was up for discussion!  I would have assumed the daylight temperature, around 5500K, would be desired.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What temperature do I want my whites to be? Why can't white just be white?!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T20:32:40.580" Title="What white point temperature should I set my LCD monitor to?" Tags="&lt;color-management&gt;&lt;color-temperature&gt;&lt;display-calibration&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="4612" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4611" CreationDate="2010-11-03T20:06:53.110" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The ambient light temperature will effect how you perceive colours on your monitor --- since unlike a reflective medium the colour of light falling on it has no effect on the colour reflected. The colours of everything else you see around your monitor, and when you look away will differ though, and your eyes will adjust to the ambient colour. Hence the need to adjust colour balance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure about the exact values you quote -- I think 6,500K is pretty close to indirect sunlight, so it seems a reasonable default. I doubt many people use their monitors in direct sunlight!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2019" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T20:06:53.110" />
  <row Id="4613" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4570" CreationDate="2010-11-03T20:19:48.107" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Keep as close to the glass as possible, that's all there really is to it. (I don't find that a polariser helps much - by the time you are shooting at 30˚ to the plane of the glass there is so much internal reflection and distortion that removing reducing reflections a little doesn't make a huge difference.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This will make any artifacts/dirt in the glass less apparent as their effect is averaged out over the size of the front element of the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It will also reduce reflections unless you're in direct sunlight - since the front element itself won't reflect much, and when its up against the glass its reflection will fill the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2019" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T20:19:48.107" />
  <row Id="4614" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4611" CreationDate="2010-11-03T20:32:40.580" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This can be a complex answer, and quite often, the outcome is that it depends what you print on, meaning you might need to change it or recalibrate often. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;On White Point&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;White point from the perspective of the human eye is a very subjective thing, as the eye automatically &quot;recalibrates&quot; itself to differing white points depending on the kind of light that dominates a scene. To start the discussion, lets start in the middle: Sunlight has a white-point of about 5500k (although it tends to range in reality from between 5000k and 6000k). As you noted, most screens these days are calibrated by default to a white point of 6500k, which appears to be more white than lower values. Some screens often come with a built-in range of settings, such as 5000k, 5500k, 6500k, and some even as high as 7500k and 9300k or around there (which have a bluish tinge to them.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why Set a White Point?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key reason why we set a white point is not so that it appears &quot;white&quot; to our eyes. The main reason we set a white point is to match the &quot;white&quot; on screen to the &quot;white&quot; of the material and environment in which your photos will be viewed. There is no single correct, standard viewing environment, and depending on how you normally publish your images, the white-point you select may be different than other photographers. A couple of the most common viewing mediums are on a computer screen (i.e. you publish your work to Flickr, 1x.com, etc.) and print. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;White Point for Screen Display&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you really don't care much about print, and only really exhibit your work online, you might want to stick with a white point of 6500k. That is a very common white point, and the default for many computer screens, particularly lower-end ones. The color profile sRGB, a standard and very widely used color gamut, is also aligned to a 6500k white point. Most images saved for viewing on a computer screen should be saved using the sRGB color profile when possible (using a wider gamut, such as Adobe RGB, may be necessary if your image has very vibrant colors, particularly greens, but also reds and violets, as sRGB is a more limited white point. Adobe RGB also uses a 6500k white point.) Using 6500k will mean that what you see with your calibrated display will generally be very similar to what your viewers see when they browse your work online. There is no guarantee of this, of course, as screen vary in minute to major ways for a very wide variety of reasons, but it is a reasonable baseline. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;White Point for Prints&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Things get more complicated when you involve print. Papers tend to have warmer white points much of the time, so the common default of 6500k makes white on a computer screen look quite a bit whiter than it does on print. Papers also come in an extremely wide variety, from very very warm (4800k or sometimes even warmer), to very bright, almost blue white (7500k or cooler.) This is where screen calibration is really important, as having your screen matched as closely to the papers you print on will make it easier to generate properly calibrated and color balanced prints. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to paper, the story is extremely complex. Paper is a very old enterprise that extends back over 600 years. There are some general buckets that you can put papers into, however: fine art paper, canvas, and coated/brightened. For me, and for many photographers, there is nothing quite like a good fine art paper. These papers come in a huge variety, from many material sources, including the common wood, but also uncommon sources like cotton, bamboo, and sometimes even mixed blends that may include animal fibers. The tones and textures of fine art papers are amazing, and can have a huge impact on the appearance and appeal of a final print. Fine art papers tend to be warmer, and its best to calibrate your display to a white point of 5000k. Canvas is another type of printable paper these days. There are also a variety of canvas papers, however much less variety than fine art papers. Canvas is also a warmer type of media, and can range from 5000k to 5500k. The third major bucket of paper includes coated papers. Many fine art papers are uncoated, non-brightened, letting the natural fibers produce the tone and texture of the paper. Coated papers cover the natural fiber base with one or more coatings to provide a smoother surface, surfaces that are more receptive and ideal for ink jet printing (or other types of printing), and protected from the elements allowing a longer-lasting print. Coated papers often also include optical brighteners to make the white point of the paper brighter and &quot;whiter&quot;. Such papers often have much higher white points than natural papers, up to as high as 7500k or so. A white point of 7500k is extremely bright, bordering on blueish. Papers with optical brighteners are sometimes difficult to calibrate for, as the brighteners often depend on the type of light they are viewed with. Many brighteners use UV reactive components, and produce their brilliant white by reflecting UV rays from natural sunlight (or artificial gas lighting like flourescent tubes.) As such, their white point can change depending on the lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Choosing a White Point&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what should your white point be when you calibrate your display? It depends, and it may change frequently if you publish to a variety of media types. I myself use the DataColor Spyder3 system to calibrate all of my hardware. I normally calibrate to a white point of 5000k, for a few reasons. First, most of my work I print on my Canon 9500 II, on fine art papers. I am a big fan of Hahnemuhle, Moab, and a few others. All of the papers I use, such as Photo Rag and Canvas, have warmer 5000k white points. I also publish a lot of my work online, and every so often I recalibrate to 6500k to preview my images online and see how they look. (With the Spyder3 Pro, it is very easy and very quick to change white point and do a short recalibration that takes about 5 minutes.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another reason to use 5000k as your base white point is if you use Photoshop. Adobe Photoshop has its own color management system, and internally by default it is calibrated to a white point of 5000k (often abbreviated D50, along with D55/5500k, D65/6500k, etc.) By calibrating your display to 5000k, you sync your hardware to Adobe Photoshop's default settings, which makes it a little easier to convert and/or apply color profiles and see accurate results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the light you view your prints under has a direct effect on what &quot;white&quot; looks like. If viewing prints in sunlight, they will generally be lit by &quot;normal&quot; white light, at a temperature of around 5500k. Artificial lighting can vary. Common light bulbs range in temperature from about 2500k to 4200k, which is quite warm. Flourescent lighting, which is less common in homes, is hard to nail down. Often cooler, 6500k to 7200k or so, they also output greener or violet lighting. Sometimes they come in warmer variants that are more similar to standard bulbs. Calibrating to a warmer white point helps balance out differences between what you see on screen, and what you see in print.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;More to the Story&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The calibration story does not stop at white point. If you really want to have accurate color calibration throughout your entire workflow, there are additional factors, such as luminance (how bright your screen is), gamma, environment lighting, etc. If you have additional questions about calibration, feel free to ask other questions, and I'll see if I can provide a useful answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T20:32:40.580" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="4615" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4598" CreationDate="2010-11-03T20:43:49.413" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As has been mentioned here a few times, a UV/Haze filter or a Polarizing filter will help mitigate the effects of haze. There are quite a wide variety of UV/Haze and Polarizing filters, and there are several other topics here on Photo.SE that discuss them, their pros/cons, etc. so I won't go into that here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To take a different tack than everyone else, another option is to try to incorporate haze and the fading it causes as distance increases into your photography. While haze is often viewed as a detractor, if you use it as a tool, it can be very beneficial, and a powerful artistic tool. It can also help you find a better angle to photograph your landscapes at, bringing greater and more visible depth into more compositionally appealing scenes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, I took the shot below from about 13,500 feet up on Mount Evans, Colorado, shortly after Labor Day this year (2010). A couple days earlier, and continuing into that day, some bad fires had raged along the Colorado Front Range, putting a lot of particulate in the are that caused some terrible, thick haze that created a total whiteout during the day. I had to wait until just after the sun had set to cut through most of it, but the remainder I actually liked, as it helped add a needed element of depth and differentiation to the scene:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/JqtCC.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Mount Evans Vista&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While haze is normally a problem, and can often be from light dispersed so much that all you can capture on film is a frame of glaring white, with a little filtration and some artistic vision, you can incorporate even haze into your photography. Some of the toughest things about landscape photography are learning to wait for the right time, and to take what you get. When you turn the tables on haze, it can become a powerful artistic element in landscape photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-03T20:49:07.863" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T20:49:07.863" />
  <row Id="4616" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-03T21:34:37.900" Score="1" ViewCount="203" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to buy a new (or refurbished) DSLR from the US and get it here to India, because DSLRs are a good $200 cheaper in the US — around 10,000 rupees, not a small amount. I will not be able to utilize the warranty since I'll be using the camera over here; it's just going to be wasted, so I don't need it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe buying it in the gray market is cheaper, and also serves my no-warranty-needed deal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my questions are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are there reputed sites that sell gray market cameras and lenses?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is there anything else besides the warranty that I can give up to save a few extra bucks?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How about choosing the best deal using Google Products Search and buying from there?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1567" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T22:26:20.487" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T22:26:20.487" Title="Can I buy gray market camera equipment from reputable web sites in the US?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;gray-market&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4617" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4616" CreationDate="2010-11-03T22:28:50.547" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know if this is specifically Grey market, but FredMiranda &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/10&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;forums&lt;/a&gt; sell a lot of new and used gear at pretty nice prices. I have had very good luck with them thus far. The biggest difficulty is probably going to be getting stuff shipped there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T22:28:50.547" />
  <row Id="4618" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4604" CreationDate="2010-11-03T22:30:31.623" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hey Matt&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;from your question it's hard to know whether you're just not focusing right, or whether you just feel your pictures are quite sharp enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're just not focusing right then I can't help you..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;HOWEVER, if you're talking sharpness I've got plenty of advice!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Sharpness&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I'm assuming might be happening with you is that you're finding your pictures are perhaps lacking sharpness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Gear&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been quite interested in this subject myself, and asked a few question here recently about lens sharpness which I think might explain some stuff, check them out, you might not relate to the questions, but the answers are excellent:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2917/how-do-you-find-out-the-sweet-spot-of-a-lens&quot;&gt;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2917/how-do-you-find-out-the-sweet-spot-of-a-lens&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3370/with-all-other-things-equal-in-a-dslr-will-a-larger-sensor-produce-a-sharper-im&quot;&gt;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3370/with-all-other-things-equal-in-a-dslr-will-a-larger-sensor-produce-a-sharper-im&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Subject Matter&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used to alway shoot urban landscape stuff with my aperture wide open, simply because I needed the light. The pictures always felt a bit &quot;soft&quot;. I've come to understand that sometimes you just need to close that aperture!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, you may need a tripod, or a higher ISO in your case, or in my case a faster film, but especially when your focus is almost at infinity, and you're doing urbanscape/landscape consider upping your f-stop. If you've read my question on the &quot;sweet spot&quot; of a lens, you'll notice the sharpest option seems to be around the upper half of your lens f range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally experiment with your lens around f-11, f-16, see what you think of the results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Lighting Conditions&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider the lighting conditions you're shooting in. Usually, if the light is harsh and/or flat, like a sunny day around noon... it's gonna be hard to &quot;perceive&quot; sharpness in your image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, sharpness can be a relative thing. You'll notice that during the &quot;golden hour&quot; everything seems to have a sharper edge. This is because this softer, more horizontal light, is giving everything soft shadows, and is actually highlighting the &quot;depth&quot; of subjects. It's like how painters use shadows to give the illusion of 3D. This is true with photography too. It doesn't have to just be the golden hour though, notice night shots look more sharp too because of the quality of the light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;this question might help you too, it helped me! generally, trying experimenting with different light conditions, you'll find some will result in images which feel sharper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2166/how-to-deal-with-midday-light&quot;&gt;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2166/how-to-deal-with-midday-light&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="161" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T22:30:31.623" />
  <row Id="4619" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4604" CreationDate="2010-11-03T22:51:00.660" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Focus is retained while changing zoom with &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this is the case with your lens, and if you're keeping it reasonably static, you can reassure yourself of your focus by zooming in to a target point with clear contrast, focussing, and re-adjusting the zoom to where you want it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a common technique when working with 35mm movie cameras (where the camera is often statically mounted), though I don't know whether stills photographers use it much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2016" LastActivityDate="2010-11-03T22:51:00.660" />
  <row Id="4621" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4616" CreationDate="2010-11-04T00:14:48.823" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most grey market sellers are robbers. The will never sell you the camera, unless you agree to pay exorbitant prices for the accessories that should be included anyways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphoto.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;BH Photo&lt;/a&gt; is a reputable stored based in New York that ships internationally. They label some of their products 'Imported' and give a small discount for that. Those count as grey market, I think. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're lucky enough the warranty will be valid for you. That depends on the company. I once got a warranty card that said 'Export warranty, not valid in the country where purchased' (something like that).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-04T00:14:48.823" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4623" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-04T10:40:12.423" Score="5" ViewCount="110" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm getting a huge number of very soft images from my 24-105L using a 40D and I'm wondering if calibration would help. I can't micro adjust on the 40D itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have also yet to get around to setting it up on my tripod and doing a set of proper focus tests but in comparison to my 50mm and 10-20mm lenses, the 24-105L appears to be focusing quite badly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have tried combinations of focus points, focus modes, everything I can think of, yet I'm getting soft images (not all the time but a high percentage). This is with AF On of course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyone have any improvements in sending their lense off to Canon for calibration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2026" LastActivityDate="2010-11-04T12:53:24.900" Title="Soft 24-105L images" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;calibration&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4624" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4623" CreationDate="2010-11-04T10:56:12.087" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally, sending in both camera and lens for calibration should result in more accurate AF. I would suggest that you first do some focus tests with batteries or focus charts to determine if the lens is back- or front-focusing, or if it is inconsistent AF (indicating a possible USM issue), that way you can verify the results after the lens comes back from Canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1868" LastActivityDate="2010-11-04T10:56:12.087" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4625" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-04T11:11:57.083" Score="15" ViewCount="461" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apart from the strain they create by not sitting in one place while in photo shoot, kids do make nice subjects for pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have been trying various scenes, props, etc., to get the best out of my one-year-old son and ten-year-old daughter. Can I have something like &lt;em&gt;Dos and Don'ts&lt;/em&gt; for kids pictures? Are good pics taken outside the home or indoors? Should I wait for enough daylight or should I use artificial lighting. I have 14 megapixel digital camera. Is this camera enough for the shoot or should I try some another camera? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2027" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T11:56:29.900" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T11:56:29.900" Title="How do I manage good photos of babies and kids?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;technique&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;children&gt;&lt;baby-photos&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4626" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4623" CreationDate="2010-11-04T11:15:45.970" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are other types of calibration besides focus calibration - one of the elements could be out of alignment causing softness under certain conditions. This could be the result of a manufacturing defect or damage. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This happened to me when I dropped one of my lenses, I sent it to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fixationuk.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fixation&lt;/a&gt; in London (an official Canon repair centre) and that solved the problem. I don't know where your based but Canon could probably advise you of where to send it if it's not an AF problem. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-04T12:53:24.900" LastActivityDate="2010-11-04T12:53:24.900" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4627" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4625" CreationDate="2010-11-04T12:59:52.210" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When photographing kids, megapixels don't matter. What matters more is the ability to focus and take the picture before the child escapes from the picture. Generally DSLRs are better in this regard, but recent compact cameras might work well enough for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're shooting indoors an external flash might help to freeze the movement and improve lighting conditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding dos and don'ts: what comes to my mind is that it's better to shoot kids from their own eye level.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-05T23:25:59.340" LastActivityDate="2010-11-05T23:25:59.340" />
  <row Id="4628" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2544" CreationDate="2010-11-04T13:33:57.413" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On lighting: I've since learned from a professional food photographer that lighting for food is typically done from the rear or side.  If looking overhead with the camera at 6 o'clock, the main light is typically at 1 o'clock, with a reflector around 7 o'clock for fill.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2010-11-04T13:33:57.413" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-04T13:33:57.413" />
  <row Id="4629" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4625" CreationDate="2010-11-04T14:11:00.607" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You've got plenty of megapixels... don't worry about that.  Here are some other tips for photos of children:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;use props&lt;/strong&gt;: kids love to play with toys, balls, chairs, tables, etc.  In addition to helping to occupy their attention you can add an interesting visual element to the photo.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;shoot from their eye level&lt;/strong&gt;.  Far too many photos that parents take have the &quot;6 foot guy with a camera to his eye&quot; look.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;realize that your subjects have a &lt;strong&gt;short attention span&lt;/strong&gt;.  You won't be able to keep a young kid interested for very long.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I can't think of any lighting considerations that will be specific to children... indoors or outside, standard lighting suggestions are in effect.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;when photographing children playing outdoors, &lt;strong&gt;think about how you'll handle motion&lt;/strong&gt; as they're running around.  Are you going to try to use a fast shutter speed and freeze the action?  Do you want a shallow depth of field to keep the background out of focus?  Might you intentionally use a slower shutter speed to show the motion?  What about panning?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have fun taking photos of your kids... experiment and find what creates effects that &lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt; like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-11-04T14:11:00.607" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4630" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4625" CreationDate="2010-11-04T14:24:01.913" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shooting from their own eye level is good.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Get closer than you think you have to.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If your camera has a multiple shots mode and you're not using flash, then that can help alot.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The only reason megapixels can help is it might give you enough to crop a picture down to more of &quot;just the child&quot;.  You can shoot wider to catch them running and then crop it down.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bribes....&quot;you can have some chocolate if you stay there long enough&quot; - its starting to work on my two year old ;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Good&lt;/em&gt; flash freezes their motion and looks good to boot.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mind you, this is what works for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T05:13:22.873" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T05:13:22.873" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4631" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4635" CreationDate="2010-11-04T14:46:32.557" Score="7" ViewCount="236" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to know if there any good online resources for indoor product photography ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Preferably with a Table Top setup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Im looking for commercial grade product photography tutorials/resources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to add that I already own a Tabletop setup. It includes 3 Lights, a Cube box where the product is placed etc. I would be using a Nikon D90 camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2029" LastEditorUserId="2029" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-04T15:18:37.913" LastActivityDate="2010-11-04T16:46:12.297" Title="What are the best resources for Indoor Product Photography ?" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;nikon-d90&gt;&lt;tutorial&gt;&lt;studio-setup&gt;&lt;product-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="4632" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2544" CreationDate="2010-11-04T15:14:58.227" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find in food photography a good trick is to &lt;strong&gt;frame tightly&lt;/strong&gt;, so that some food or dish does not fit the frame entirely. It gives a a nice feeling of abundance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example (two random shots taken from the Flickr food group), for me this dish looks more attractive:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/_bittersweet/5145335127/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Shiitake Mushroom and Corn Quiche di Bitter-Sweet-, su Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4030/5145335127_79aa7ea013.jpg&quot; width=&quot;358&quot; height=&quot;500&quot; alt=&quot;Shiitake Mushroom and Corn Quiche&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this dish looks less interesting:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/_bittersweet/5145936082/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Banana Bread French Toast di Bitter-Sweet-, su Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4129/5145936082_186485e9d3.jpg&quot; width=&quot;360&quot; height=&quot;500&quot; alt=&quot;Banana Bread French Toast&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastActivityDate="2010-11-04T15:14:58.227" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-04T15:14:58.227" />
  <row Id="4633" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4631" CreationDate="2010-11-04T15:15:31.830" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A light tent is a good way to do it.  There are a few different designs, each of which have their own pros and cons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/how-to-make-a-inexpensive-light-tent&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;How to Make An Inexpensive Light Tent – DIY&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.studiolighting.net/homemade-light-box-for-product-photography/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Homemade Light Box for Product Photography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I like these two in particular, because they are easy to make, inexpensive, and fairly small, which allows for easy setup/storage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One good tutorial I know of is from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/product-photography.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ken Rockwell&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Summary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's all about the lighting.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You can put the item on a glass surface to reduce shadows.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use a macro lens, so you can fill the frame.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use a smaller aperture to increase the depth of field, so that the entire product is in focus and sharp.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-04T15:39:55.817" LastActivityDate="2010-11-04T15:39:55.817" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4634" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4005" CreationDate="2010-11-04T15:48:16.657" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it's worth mentioning that as much as specifying the dot for each color separately seems like &quot;cheating&quot;, this is also &lt;em&gt;exactly&lt;/em&gt; how the ratings for sensors have been done since day one in digital cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just for example, a 12 megapixel camera does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; have 12 million sites that each sense red, green and blue. Rather, it has (roughly) six million green sensors, 3 million red sensors and 3 million blue sensors, and some sophisticated software to put those together into (to use that magic word, &quot;effectively&quot;) ~12 million pixels, each containing red, green and blue information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference either way -- the actual number doesn't mean much of anything anyway. For the most part, it's a comparative measure so if one says 1.4 million dots and another says 2 million dots (for example) you assume (and hope) that the latter has higher resolution than the former. You only run into a real problem when/if different cameras are rated in different ways, so a particular screen is likely to be called 480,000 pixels on one spec sheet, and 1.44 million on another. Fortunately (?) for us, I'm pretty sure all the current manufacturers &quot;cheat&quot; in exactly the same way, so they're all going to give the same inflated figure for the pixel count, and comparing one to another is pretty straightforward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-11-04T15:48:16.657" />
  <row Id="4635" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4631" CreationDate="2010-11-04T16:46:12.297" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The book &lt;em&gt;Light Science and Magic&lt;/em&gt; is just about the best resource on product photography for beginners. It's about lighting in general but it's written by a product photographer and most of the material and importantly the examples relates to indoor small product photography (there's a bit on portraits later on).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's very easy to read yet in covers the vast majority of product shoots you're likely to come across, starting from basic principals (inverse square law, hard and soft light, specular and diffuse reflections) and then goes through each type of material (metal, glass, etc.) in turn, including a section on troubleshooting and emergency techniques for really difficult subjects. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second edition is available on Google books so you can get a taste:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=7NKCEt0-qlUC&amp;amp;dq=light+science+and+magic&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;ots=qxwqp00iGE&amp;amp;sig=UkfVy9dJeJwIc3YiijdhD0pRAis#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://books.google.com/books?id=7NKCEt0-qlUC&amp;amp;dq=light+science+and+magic&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;ots=qxwqp00iGE&amp;amp;sig=UkfVy9dJeJwIc3YiijdhD0pRAis#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you've got a spare $30 I'd highly recommend picking up a hard copy of the third edition. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-11-04T16:46:12.297" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4636" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4625" CreationDate="2010-11-04T17:11:32.563" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is what you need for shooting kids:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) Speed!  Kids move quickly, their expressions are mercurial.  A fast lens with a fast camera is a must.  So, an SLR, but instead of a kit lens (which is not a 'fast' lens), you'll need something like the 50mm f/1.8, a prime that's ~$100 on the major systems.  That lens is fast, meaning that it will find focus quickly and require less open shutter time (ie, take a picture faster), than a kit lens.  I'd stop down to about f/2.5 or 2.8 in order to make sure to get the plane of focus wide enough to get everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) Light!  A flash, either an external or on the camera itself, will be something of a help, but the problem is two fold: the fastest shutter speed is generally 1/250th of a second (1/500th for an older Nikon D70), which may be about the speed you want to be shooting, or you may want to go even faster.  The other problem is that flash can be harsh, and the resulting photos can have a look that you don't want.  So, it's better to be outside or to have lots of light inside to shoot kids, and use a flash as a backup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) Distractions.  You need to get the kid to look at you, so keys, shiny things, etc help for younger kids, or saying naughty words for older kids (whooo!  You said something you shouldn't have!).  When I was growing up, my dad used to say, &quot;say shiiiii...&quot; and we'd all have fits of laughter about that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4) Be patient, but be fast.  I find myself waiting for the shot as the kids are playing, waiting for that fleeting expression that I want to get.  Once it's there, the camera has to be ready to go, no shutter lag or the like.  That could be five minutes of waiting followed by a bunch of shots in a row.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, @ahockley's composition suggestions are good.  Don't shoot from your head height, shoot from theirs (or, to really mess with perspective, shoot from the ground up, to give them the Godzilla look.  Toddlers in particular like to think that they are huge, apparently).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-11-04T17:11:32.563" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4637" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4604" CreationDate="2010-11-04T19:00:00.857" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You say that the images are soft, not that the AF mechanism is hunting. If the AF can lock, then there's no reason for it to do so inaccurately in a way which would vary with focal length or aperture. It's either able to focus, and correctly calibrated, or it is not. Assuming your description is precise, then that suggests the problem is with your lens or your technique.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;gear&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;I have no experience of that gear, but it's &lt;em&gt;extremely&lt;/em&gt; hard to get high quality across such a large zoom range. I'd suspect that the lens is soft at full-bore. You can easily test this. Stick a target of some description on a wall and shoot it with the camera set on a tripod. Vary separately aperture and zoom and look at what you get. You should find a sweet spot for aperture, and you'll probably find that sharpness varies with focal length too. I had an L-series Canon zoom lens which when tested was so soft at full-bore as to be unusable (something I'd obviously noted in use, but it's nice to have the evidence for the lawyers).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;technique&lt;/strong&gt; At 270mm on an APS-C camera you'd be needing a shutter speed of about... 1/(270*1.6) or more than 1/400th of a second. What are you using? If you're trying to hand hold it at much less than that then you're not likely to get particularly sharp shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1055" LastActivityDate="2010-11-04T19:00:00.857" />
  <row Id="4638" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4639" CreationDate="2010-11-04T19:12:19.120" Score="4" ViewCount="177" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you watch the videos by Induro on their PHQ panheads &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.indurogear.com/products_details_PHQ1.html#specs&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, they sound pretty awesome. They really seem a lot more flexible than the standard ball heads that many people really push. However, I understand that they are going to speak very highly about their own products, so I am hoping to get a less biased perspective on this match-up. Also they don't much compare the head to Gimbal heads.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since I have yet to buy my first tripod head, but that day is approaching, I wonder:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What are the main pros and cons to these panheads in comparison to top of the line ballheads. In particular, that video does a nice job of showing the pros, what are some of the cons?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The same comparison for Gimbal heads.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that this question could devolve into arguments, so let's just skip all that and be realistic about the good and bad. In the past we have had great luck with not letting these sorts of questions implode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks a lot in advance&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastActivityDate="2010-11-04T21:04:13.620" Title="How does the Induro PHQ panhead Compare to the Manfrotto, Gitzo etc. Ballheads and Gimbals?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;tripod-heads&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="4639" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4638" CreationDate="2010-11-04T21:04:13.620" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently did a lot of research on tripod heads, which included Gitzo, Manfrotto, Arca-Swiss, Wimberley, Custom Brackets and Induro. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Induro heads are built pretty well, however in my experimentation in stores (which included the PQH line), they felt cumbersome from a usage perspective. Lots of knobs and locks and whatnot seemed to make things much too complicated and slow for my tastes. The Manfrotto heads also seemed similar, although not as complicated. One thing I will say for the Induro PQH heads is they are quite precise. If you really need extreme precision panning, in both the horizontal plane as well as the vertical plane and 45 degree planes, the Induro PQH is fairly unique. As a landscape photographer, I couldn't figure out any way to use that precision, and I certainly did not need it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ended up getting a Gitzo ball head for now, as it had only two controls: a knob to loosen the ball, and a flip screw to loosen panning. It is extremely nice, simple to use, and very light weight. It is a good head for basic photography, and the independent panning is very handy. The Gitzo head is also amazingly smooth in every respect, which was something I didn't feel in all but maybe Arca-Swiss heads.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to gimbal heads, I've only played with two. When it comes to freedom of movement, nothing is quite like a gimbal head. They are fantastic! The Wimberley head is very, very fluid, but very large and fairly heavy. It is not the best choice if you need to hike around with it and your gear. An alternative I came across on The Digital Picture was Custom Brackets. Seems CB is well-known for their flash brackets, and their gimbal head is somewhat unique. CB makes a modular gimbal head that, while when assembled is only slightly smaller than the Wimberley, is very compact when disassembled and packed away. Like the Wimberley, it is a very smooth, fluidly moving head. The CB gimbal also has numerous scale and guide markings on it, as well as a leveling bubble, which are all nice features (the Wimberley head is very simple and basic, lacking anything but the gravity-balanced mount and joint.) Since the CB gimbal is modular, it offers a variety of mounting options as well. You can attach the mounting base plate in a variety of ways with partial assembly, making it very flexible. There are several knobs that you use to lock or unlock degreed of panning and angling freedom, but unlike the Induro PQH head, there is plenty of room to use them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have not purchased one yet, but the Custom Brackets CB Gimbal is near the top of my list of camera gear, and will probably be one of my first purchases of 2011.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-11-04T21:04:13.620" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4640" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4643" CreationDate="2010-11-04T22:30:05.120" Score="3" ViewCount="187" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to know how to achieve those pictures in which texture shows up well. &#xA;I am specifically thinking of portraits of the elderly in which the skin looks very wrinkled and in B&amp;amp;W looks like paper. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am interested in both the manipulations that you can/should do in post-processing and in possible lighting techniques.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2039" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-07T16:00:29.503" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T16:00:29.503" Title="How can you show texture?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;texture&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4641" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4625" CreationDate="2010-11-04T23:22:23.580" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your mileage may vary, but I find that indoor kid photos with flash almost never turn out well. The foreground frequently gets blown way out, rendering the background extremely dark. A slow synchro can help, but if they move, you'll get some blurring.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good, fast lens is going to do far more for you than a built-in flash will. As long as there's enough ambient light, you should get decent results. As others have suggested, continuous shooting mode is also great — one of them is bound to turn out. I get good results with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00007E7JU?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;tag=atomized-20&amp;amp;linkCode=as2&amp;amp;camp=1789&amp;amp;creative=390957&amp;amp;creativeASIN=B00007E7JU&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 50mm f/1.8&lt;/a&gt; on my Rebel XSi.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other suggestion is to &lt;strong&gt;engage the kids!&lt;/strong&gt; If they're cooperative, you can get some good posed shots. I managed this ten-second exposure of my four-year-old a few days ago:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rIWFf.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Skeleton Child&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She was really cooperative and excited to help daddy out. You're not always going to get them in this mood, but it's worth trying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1905" LastActivityDate="2010-11-04T23:22:23.580" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4642" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4640" CreationDate="2010-11-04T23:50:01.107" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Basically it's high contrast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can increase the contrast with a harder light setting, i.e. a bright light source and low ambient light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In post processing you can increase the contrast setting. Adobe Camera Raw (and probably others) also has a setting called Clarity that can be used to increase the contrast locally to enhance details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using sharpening with a large radius is another way of increasing the constrast locally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's hard to do with color photos what you do to B&amp;amp;W photos. When processing a B&amp;amp;W you can use very high contrast (corresponding to a hard paper when copying), but if you use as high contrast in a color photo the colors end up totally unnatural. You can however lower the saturation somewhat to allow for a higher contrast without blowing out the colors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-11-04T23:50:01.107" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4643" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4640" CreationDate="2010-11-04T23:50:46.987" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Light matters, a lot, especially in how it's used. Harsh, direct on, light such as that from a camera mounted flash can flatten an image and lose texture. Softer, indirect light, can help bring out the texture. Learning to light well is as much an art as photography is as a whole and it's beyond me to describe it to you, especially here. Fortunately, there is an awesome resource: &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Strobist Blog&lt;/a&gt; to help get you started. The lighting tutorials are on the right side of the page.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, in post processing, there are some options...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photoshopfrenzy.com/?p=94&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dramatic Gritty Effect&lt;/a&gt; article describes a technique. You can tweak the guidance they give you to control the strength of the effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2008/archives/1094&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Getting that Cool Gritty Look&lt;/a&gt; article describes how to replicate the technique created by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.davehillphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dave Hill&lt;/a&gt; that a lot of people like. In my experience, it can have some pretty wild effects on clouds. For example, this picture of the CN Tower:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/si75H.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the original:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/KTaOM.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, those are some places to start, but the key to them all is really about contrast. Have fun!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-11-04T23:50:46.987" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4644" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-05T00:13:56.030" Score="3" ViewCount="195" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a D40 and would like to start taking pictures with the flash off the camera. The d40 doesn't have a commander in it. So what can I do? Do I need two flashes? One with a commander in it (SB800) and one without (SB600)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1972" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T22:07:15.617" Title="What is a good Off Camera Flash for Nikon D40" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;nikon-d40&gt;&lt;off-camera-flash&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="4645" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4646" CreationDate="2010-11-05T01:02:38.827" Score="15" ViewCount="551" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm new to photography and I see the term TTL all over the place. What does it mean? And how do I use it to make my pictures better?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1972" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-28T12:10:36.933" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T12:10:36.933" Title="What does TTL mean?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;metering&gt;&lt;ttl&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4646" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4645" CreationDate="2010-11-05T01:09:36.683" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It means &quot;through the lens&quot; and generally it hooks your flash into the exposure system of the camera since the metering of the scene is through the lens. This allows the camera to exert control over the flash, including power, distance, etc. based on the scene and focal length, if the flash supports that functionality with your camera. Usually true for modern flashes made by the camera manufacturer and some third party options such as Metz.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-11-05T01:09:36.683" />
  <row Id="4647" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4649" CreationDate="2010-11-05T01:28:12.113" Score="2" ViewCount="75" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Sunpak PF30x on a Nikon D40. I just put in new batteries and the flash worked great for two shots. After that, the flash doesn't pop. I tried turning the camera off and the flash off then turning them both on again. The &quot;test/charge&quot; light is lit up but no pop. Is it really chewing through batteries that fast?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update&lt;/strong&gt; I've notice if the camera sits overnight,I can get two pops out of the flash,then nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1972" LastEditorUserId="1972" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-06T22:41:00.390" LastActivityDate="2010-11-06T22:41:00.390" Title="My Flash doesn't Flash" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="4648" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4644" CreationDate="2010-11-05T01:33:39.050" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, using a SB800 and SB600 will work!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="934" LastActivityDate="2010-11-05T01:33:39.050" />
  <row Id="4649" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4647" CreationDate="2010-11-05T01:35:24.557" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a few possibilities that I can think of...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The flash overheated and just needs to cool. This is is very unlikely since you only fired off two.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You're above the sync speed on your shutter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The flash wasn't needed for the current exposure settings.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the test button trigger it? Does your built-in flash fire?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-11-05T01:35:24.557" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4650" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4640" CreationDate="2010-11-05T02:58:43.690" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Along with contrast adjustment, edge sharpening can also help emphasise texture. Give this one a try, even though it's rather old and is targeted at Photoshop CS2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-aperture.com/EdgeMaskSharpen.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.the-aperture.com/EdgeMaskSharpen.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1868" LastActivityDate="2010-11-05T02:58:43.690" />
  <row Id="4651" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4644" CreationDate="2010-11-05T03:04:35.603" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;An SB800 master and SB600 slave is one option, another is using radio triggers like PocketWizards (expensive) or PT-04s (cheap) and trigger the flashes. The former will give you ETTL capabilities, while the latter won't, unless you go for the newer PWs, the Mini and Flexes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another way is to use the pop-up flash to trigger a flash with a built-in optical slave. The Lumopro LP160 comes to mind, and I believe SB600s have the SU-4 mode which does the same thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And if you haven't read this yet, you should: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/&lt;/a&gt; The Lighting 101, 102 and On-Assignment posts have been tremendously helpful to me and a lot of other strobists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Off-camera flash is addictive; you have been warned :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1868" LastActivityDate="2010-11-05T03:04:35.603" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4652" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4640" CreationDate="2010-11-05T03:38:18.297" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Especially for skin, the main thing is the position of the light. Specifically, you want the light positioned so the direction of the light is almost directly along the surface of the skin. This creates very bright highlights on every protrusion and harsh, deep shadows in every &quot;valley&quot;, bringing the texture into dominance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-11-05T03:38:18.297" />
  <row Id="4654" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4645" CreationDate="2010-11-05T10:05:29.677" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As John says the term is usually used in reference to flash meeting. TTL meeting may improve your &lt;strong&gt;exposure&lt;/strong&gt; it won't necessarily make your pictures any &lt;strong&gt;better&lt;/strong&gt;! Basically the flash sends out a brief pre-flash and measures the amount of light reflected back off the subject &lt;strong&gt;through the lens&lt;/strong&gt;. This is used to judge the required flash power based on your camera settings, the amount of ambient light, subject distance etc. It's helpful when you're moving around a lot and don't have time to be shooting test shots. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It can also be used with multiple off camera flash setups where you can choose the lighting ratios and have the camera work out the flash power for you. Joe McNally is a strong proponent of this way of working. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But for all it's advantages it's ultimately away of determining the correct flash power - TTL alone won't make your photos any better, learning how to use light, blending flash with ambient and most importantly bouncing flash where possible will go further toward making your photos better. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-05T10:31:37.367" LastActivityDate="2010-11-05T10:31:37.367" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4655" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3982" CreationDate="2010-11-05T13:51:26.940" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unless you are on really good terms with your beer shop, I would have thought they would have frowned on you photographing dozens of beer bottles in their store without paying for them. Why not take the bottles home and use a non-portable setup? If you are on &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; good terms with your beer shop that they may be happy with you returning them (rather than cluttering up their store for hours). If not then how about buying the beer you want to photograph. Bonus - you get to drink the beer!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1546" LastActivityDate="2010-11-05T13:51:26.940" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4656" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4658" CreationDate="2010-11-05T19:01:13.353" Score="5" ViewCount="286" Body="&lt;p&gt;I got my Canon 50D over the summer, and it's been absolutely amazing! When I started taking pictures with it, I seem to recall the max burst number being relatively high in the display. However, for quite a while now, it has been saying 8. It seems to take many more pictures than just 8 before the buffer fills up, though. Is there a problem with the firmware? Am I the only one that's come across this problem here? I shoot only JPEG on high quality, no RAW. I also tend to shoot either using Program, aperture priority, shutter priority, or full manual. Other than this &quot;problem,&quot; the camera hasn't given me any trouble. Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Kyle&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Just for clarification, I can take many more than 8 pictures on max burst. Also, the 8 only shows up on the Program, Av, Tv, and manual modes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2051" LastEditorUserId="2051" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-05T22:43:57.100" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T20:32:53.190" Title="Why does my Canon 50D only have a max burst of 8?" Tags="&lt;canon-50d&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4657" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4656" CreationDate="2010-11-05T19:20:32.267" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 50D has a burst rate of 6.3fps up to 90 jpeg's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general the reason why you are limited is due to your CF card. If your camera can't empty out it's buffer fast enough, it will have to throttle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, the buffer should be able to hold more than 8 jpegs easily.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A couple of things to look at:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are you using a reputable branded CF card with a high write-rate? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What happens when you set the file size to small jpeg and shoot in burst?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are you sure you are shooting jpeg, and not raw+jpeg?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is the AF kicking in between each shot? What happens if you set your lens to MF?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would contact Canon and see about warranty service. 8 shots seems &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; low, even if you had &lt;strong&gt;NO&lt;/strong&gt; CF card installed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-11-05T19:20:32.267" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4658" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4656" CreationDate="2010-11-05T20:17:21.573" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi Kyle,&#xA;I just looked at my 5DmkII.  If I set it to 'RAW' it says I have 13 shots, if I set it to 'RAW+JPEG L' it says I have 8 shots.  I imagine that number must depend on what setting you have it on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was with a SanDisk Extreme 32GB 60MB/s UDMA card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/specifications.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/specifications.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;JPEG Large/Fine: Approx. 78 shots (Approx. 310 shots),&lt;br&gt;&#xA;RAW: Approx. 13 shots (Approx. 14 shots),&lt;br&gt;&#xA;RAW+JPEG Large/Fine: Approx. 8 shots (Approx. 8 shots)&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After some digging I found similar info for the 50D:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/200809/table1.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/200809/table1.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It shows 60/16/10 for bursts of JPEG/RAW/RAW+JPEG so its odd that yours says 8...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More info from BobAtkins (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_eos_50D_review_6.html):&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Dhcef.gif&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So your card must not be UDMA.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastEditorUserId="1819" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-05T21:57:43.880" LastActivityDate="2010-11-05T21:57:43.880" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="4659" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4662" CreationDate="2010-11-05T20:29:39.730" Score="6" ViewCount="171" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon 550D and when I look through my view-finder to take photographs, it displays all the current settings inside the view-finder itself like aperture value, shutter speed, ISO etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it also displays a number on the far right corner. That number is &lt;strong&gt;9&lt;/strong&gt;. It always is &lt;strong&gt;9&lt;/strong&gt; and I don't know what that signifies. Any clue?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One more thing, sometimes that number also has a dot besides it when the camera isn't focused properly on the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1485" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-05T23:52:59.827" LastActivityDate="2010-11-06T14:53:39.163" Title="What's that sign with a dot and a number in the view-finder?" Tags="&lt;focus&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;viewfinder&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="4660" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4659" CreationDate="2010-11-05T20:32:43.177" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That is how many photos the camera can 'burst'.  Changing the output file type (RAW, JPEG, RAW+JPEG) can affect this number.  The dot is focus confirmation, it shows when AF has locked onto something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See the 'Viewfinder view' here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/previews/CanonEOS550D/page5.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/previews/CanonEOS550D/page5.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastEditorUserId="1819" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-05T22:13:53.393" LastActivityDate="2010-11-05T22:13:53.393" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="4661" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4656" CreationDate="2010-11-05T21:11:18.027" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's take a look at in-camera image processing workflow&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;+--------+              +-----------------+           +-------------+&#xA;| sensor |   --------&amp;gt;  | image processor |  ------&amp;gt;  | card buffer |&#xA;+--------+              +-----------------+           +-------------+&#xA;                                                            |&#xA;                                                            |&#xA;                                                           \|/&#xA;&#xA;                                                         +-----+&#xA;                                                         |      \&#xA;                                                         |       |&#xA;                                                         | card  |&#xA;                                                         |       |&#xA;                                                         +-------+&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what happend is that your sensor (and mechanics) get data (with some max speed). Then these images are processed by the image processor and head towards the card. Since card writing speeds are limited, there is a buffer before the card to mitigate that problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before you shoot camera has no idea how fast is the card writing going to go, so the burst size it shows is based on two things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Size of in-camera buffer (fixed)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Expected size of one image (depends on your output resolution and quality)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, you're going to have much higher buffer count for JPEGs that RAWs, because JPEGs are smaller and more of them fit into the memory. If you record RAW+JPEG it's going to be even less files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have a fast card, the actual burst size will be higher than the shown number, because by the time you shoot the last image, the first few might be already written to card, so there's still space for more fast shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see this reflected in the counter -- the number goes down as you shoot pictures, and increases again when they are written.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-06T09:53:43.037" LastActivityDate="2010-11-06T09:53:43.037" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4662" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4659" CreationDate="2010-11-05T22:16:31.290" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The far right side of canon view-finder status bar is the camera's current burst capacity, basically how many shots you can take in a hurry before it blocks and can't take any more. If you put it into high speed shooting (sports mode for example) and watch that value as you click off shots in a hurry you'll see it go down as you fill memory in the camera with shots, then rise back up as you pause and it writes them out to the card. As Shizam mentioned, adjusting your file type can alter that since different formats take more/less memory. Other impacts on it are card speed and image composition. (Some images compress really well, so you'll get more images in memory before the camera stops taking pictures.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The green dot is Focus Lock. When it's ON the camera &lt;em&gt;thinks&lt;/em&gt; it has properly focused your image. Of course it could be total fail and it's focused on the background, but it doesn't know that. You might need to adjust your autofocus points that you're letting it use, or use the good old half-press, focus at center, recompose, shoot pattern.  The green dot is particularly useful if, like me, you've turned off the audible tweet announcing to the world that you're focused and about to take shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2010-11-05T22:16:31.290" />
  <row Id="4663" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4625" CreationDate="2010-11-05T22:56:05.700" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wise sage says, &quot;To photograph a child you must be as a child.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words you have to be able to communicate with them, at their level on their level. Have fun! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that your job is to direct the child in a way that doesn't feel like direction. Compose by moving around your scene in a way that feels like a game. Have your settings dialed in before you start. You'll need all your attention on your subject, there is no time to fiddle. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Play with them. Get on your knees, or your butt, or your tummy. Roll around with them. Let them engage you, show you things. This is easier outside of a studio setting, but can still be done. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond this, some of your best images will happen once they loose interest. Let them do their thing. Follow them. Be as curious as they are. Suddenly their world will unfold to you and you will have magic. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/JJCXv.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Happy Hunting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2010-11-05T22:56:05.700" />
  <row Id="4664" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-05T23:01:16.560" Score="0" ViewCount="112" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2108/best-practices-with-lightroom-libraries&quot;&gt;Best practices with Lightroom libraries&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or perhaps, how do you organize your photos in Lightroom 3?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I got a feeling that the way I do it is not very convenient. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The flow that I do on every new set of photos is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Copy the photos from the camera to&#xA;a new folder on the HD (e.g. to&#xA;C:\Photos\Bobs_bday_2010). &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Create a New Catalog, and save it to the&#xA;same directory where the photos are.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Import all&#xA;photos from the directory to this&#xA;catalog.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does it make sense? Should I use catalogs for photos organization, or should I rather use something else? Should I create a new catalog for each new set of photos, and where to save all these catalogs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="558" LastActivityDate="2010-11-06T08:27:49.253" ClosedDate="2010-11-18T13:05:50.647" Title="How do you use catalogs in Lightroom?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;organisation&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="4665" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2108" CreationDate="2010-11-05T23:03:58.617" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most people I've heard (and how I will do it once 2011 comes) uses one catalog per year.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way I have my folder setup is like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;~/Pictures/Photo Library/2010/10 October/18 MyBirthday&#xA;~/Pictures/Photo Library/2010/11 November/06 SomePhotoShoot&#xA;~/Pictures/Photo Library/2010/11 November/06 AnotherPhotoShoot&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-11-05T23:03:58.617" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4666" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4640" CreationDate="2010-11-05T23:19:37.797" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To put it plainly, lighting matters, because it brings up shadows that show the texture. I don't really know how to explain this in geometrical terms, so I'm going to present my T-shirt as an example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/T2L4Z.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;next to camera&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/yq9nY.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;45 degs&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/2KT3M.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;from side&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-11-05T23:19:37.797" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4667" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-05T23:36:01.507" Score="3" ViewCount="111" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've got a collection of photos that I need to rename, however I want to keep track of their previous filenames.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thinking the best way to do this copy the filename into the EXIF header, possibly in the comment field?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking for suggestions on the easiest way to do this - tried this with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2320034&amp;amp;postcount=3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a few&lt;/a&gt; of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://cpanforum.com/threads/5784&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EXIF command line tools&lt;/a&gt;, but find EXIF/IPTC a bit confusing and am not sure that it's working correctly - especially since some of these posts are old.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="172" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-05T23:51:57.003" LastActivityDate="2010-11-05T23:51:57.003" Title="Best way to hardcode filename into EXIF metadata" Tags="&lt;exif&gt;&lt;metadata&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="4668" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4667" CreationDate="2010-11-05T23:49:37.627" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you happen to use Linux, you can do this by running&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;for filename in *; do jhead -cl &quot;$filename&quot; &quot;$filename&quot;; done&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;in the photo directory. (Presuming you have &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/jhead/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;jhead&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any OS, you just need to find a some Exif command line tool and a way to script the operation. Proper arguments for the tool should be in its documentation. Regarding the script, you'll probably get better answers on &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackoverflow.com/&quot;&gt;stack overflow&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://superuser.com/&quot;&gt;superuser&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-11-05T23:49:37.627" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4669" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2108" CreationDate="2010-11-06T00:39:19.123" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would suggest use just one catalog for all your photos. I have 12,000 photos in a single V3 catalog and the performance is fine. I have read of people with many tens of thousands of photos in a single V3 catalog without any problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use my filesystem folders to break up by year and by month, similar to @Nick's setup. When I want to organise photos other then chronologically then I use Lightroom's collections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only time I use a new catalog is when I am dealing with a group of photos that I know I will not be keeping as part of my regular collection, such as a temporary project I will move to an offline archive as soon as it is complete.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's my understanding that some people using earlier versions of Lightroom did experience performance issues with very large catalogs but these issues have been resolved in later versions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="847" LastActivityDate="2010-11-06T00:39:19.123" />
  <row Id="4670" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2108" CreationDate="2010-11-06T00:44:34.193" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It took me a while to get organized and after having an idea I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.ericscouten.com/2009/09/lightroom-2-technique-how-i-organize-my-catalog-and-why-2009-edition/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; very useful. It is written by one of the engineers working on Lightroom. There are no one solution fits all but what I ended with is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One catalog for Everything.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;All imports are done in-place, without copying or moving any of my files.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The files themselves are organized in a hierarchical structure with each top-level&#xA;directory containing at most 4.5 GB, the size of a single-layer DVD. When it does&#xA;reach 4.5 GB, I create a new top-level. When my disk is getting full, I remove the&#xA;oldest top-level one. Each one of course is backed up with one local backup and one&#xA;in a safe at a bank.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Withing the top-level folders I got a split for Family and Photography. Under the&#xA;Family folder, there are folders per months for general photos and folders per event too. Under photography there are folders per assignment and subfolders per location in case an assignment spans multiple locations.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If there are files that do not stand as photos themselves, such as panorama pieces or HDR brackets, then they go in their own directory called 'Sources'.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If there are files which need to be modified for ANY reason, such as being cropped. They are also moved to a directory called 'PS' (for historical reasons since the first time I manipulated an image was in Photoshop) to indicate that these were not output directly by the camera.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-06T00:44:34.193" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4671" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-06T06:33:12.423" Score="1" ViewCount="1530" Body="&lt;p&gt;I need a camera mostly for shooting short videos. Which one is better for this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that the 500D does 1080 at 20fps, but would it make that much of a difference from the 24p in the D3100?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-12T14:46:35.850" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T14:46:35.850" Title="Should I choose a Canon 500D or Nikon D3100 for short video ?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;nikon-d3100&gt;&lt;canon-500d&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4673" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4671" CreationDate="2010-11-06T08:21:54.827" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd recommend reading an article from Philip Bloom, a professional filmmaker who uses DSLRs on a daily basis. Some time ago he reviewed a bunch of options &lt;a href=&quot;http://philipbloom.net/2010/08/19/whichdslr/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://philipbloom.net/2010/08/19/whichdslr/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have no experience with Nikons, but for Cannons, if you can, I'd go one model up - 550D. It has 24p and overall is a ridiculously good camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Difference between 20p and 24p is pretty big. You won't notice it in a talking head video but as soon as you start moving the camera it 20p does not look smooth. Moderately fast panning will look terrible already.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2059" LastActivityDate="2010-11-06T08:21:54.827" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4674" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2108" CreationDate="2010-11-06T08:27:49.253" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Even simpler in my case. About 50k photos stored straight in directory structure like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;photos/2010-08-01/&#xA;photos/2010-08-02/&#xA;...&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One catalog, backed up regularly to two external hard disk drives, one of which is stored at my house and another one at work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basic question here is: &lt;strong&gt;do I trust Lightroom to do the right job?&lt;/strong&gt; If I do, no matter how I store files I'll be able to find them by their tags. If I don't I need a fancy directory structure so that when Lightroom fails, I can still find my way through my photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I generally do trust lightroom, but just in case it failed, I keep track of when I went where to find my way through photos if it ever fails (hasn't happened yet).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2059" LastActivityDate="2010-11-06T08:27:49.253" />
  <row Id="4675" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2021" CreationDate="2010-11-06T08:44:05.170" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nobody seems to have mentioned &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photo.net&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photo.net&lt;/a&gt; yet (though I'm not sure whether you'd consider their photo critique forum a &quot;competition&quot; or not -- but it's on the same general order as photosig, for one example).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-11-06T08:44:05.170" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-06T08:44:05.170" />
  <row Id="4676" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3386" CreationDate="2010-11-06T11:48:09.340" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Panasonic have in the past issued firmware updates, the purpose of which was &lt;strong&gt;only&lt;/strong&gt; to stop 3rd party batteries from working.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2063" LastActivityDate="2010-11-06T11:48:09.340" />
  <row Id="4677" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4671" CreationDate="2010-11-06T12:19:19.953" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're primarily interested in video, the Nikon option offers 1080p and 24 frames per second with &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;autofocus&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. This exceeds the 500D all around, so if you have no lens investment in Canon, I'd have to advise the D3100.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-11-06T12:19:19.953" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="4678" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4659" CreationDate="2010-11-06T14:53:39.163" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This camera's &lt;a href=&quot;http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Owners-Manuals/Canon-EOS-Rebel-T2i-550D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Owners-Manual.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;user manual&lt;/a&gt; is available online.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On pp. 19 (overview) and 248 (quick reference) it shows the full viewfinder display with a gloss explaining every part of it.  In particular, the number on the lower right is labeled &quot;max. burst&quot;.  Additional information about this reading is found by searching the manual for &quot;burst&quot;; useful pages include 70, 72 (&quot;...maximum burst will vary depending on the subject, card brand, ISO speed, Custom Functions, and other settings.&quot;), 73 (explaining that the max. burst display cannot show values greater than 9), 102 (max. burst is less during WB shooting), 193 (with strong ISO noise reduction, max. burst will &quot;greatly decrease&quot;), p 220 (fine detail increases file size which can reduce max. burst rate).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this information we can infer that the burst rate bottleneck is due both to on-camera processing speed (depending on noise reduction and file size) and transfer rates to the card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, referring to your owner's manual will explain the focus lock settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can get a lot out of your camera by reading through this manual and referring to it often.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2010-11-06T14:53:39.163" />
  <row Id="4679" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-06T15:23:01.167" Score="14" ViewCount="328" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have read posts that alot of photographers are using RAW to store photos. But the problem I am having is that how do you people view the photos easily when you need them? In the beginning I have stored my photos in RAW but I realised its a pain when Windows doesn't shows any thumbnails and also cannot be used to open using Windows Photos Viewer. I have to use Photoshop to open and view it in RAW format. Is it okay to store it in TIFF format?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1786" LastActivityDate="2010-11-06T21:31:34.240" Title="Which is a better way to store your photos? RAW or TIFF?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;storage&gt;&lt;tiff&gt;&lt;thumbnail-preview&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="4680" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4679" CreationDate="2010-11-06T15:38:37.253" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Storing images as TIFF files is very space inefficient compared with raw, as TIFF images store three colours per pixel (at 8 or 16 bits per colour component, 24 or 48 total) compared to raw which just has the monochrome sensor data at 12 or 14 bits per pixel total. This monochrome data is interpolated into colour by exploiting the RGB colour filters placed in an alternating pattern over each pixel. To store the full range of colours available in the Raw you would need a 48bpp TIFF, which would take up about three times as much space (before compression). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also raw preserves the maximum amount of editing flexibility - you're not commiting to any particular white balance or noise reduction setting. TIFFs are better than &lt;em&gt;lossy&lt;/em&gt; JPEG images for archival purposes, but still not as good as raw.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I always keep the original Raw files, and keep a &lt;strong&gt;matching set of high quality JPEGs&lt;/strong&gt; for easy viewing. There are arguments for using TIFF for archival purposes as it's an older, better documented format, understood by a much wider range of software. However if you're concerned about future compatibility then you can losslessly convert your proprietary Raw format images to Adobe Digital Negative files, which is an open format more likely to be supported in the future. The redundancy in an uncompressed 48bpp TIFF will make it slightly more tolerant of data errors, however. As Reid states there are better ways to guard against data loss, such as a backup system with error correcting codes, mirrored RAIDs etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-06T18:44:48.253" LastActivityDate="2010-11-06T18:44:48.253" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4681" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4679" CreationDate="2010-11-06T18:14:33.353" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;TIFF is an image format, RAW is a data format. For longevity and to fight obsolescence, between the two, TIFF is the only sensible one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are better formats though from an efficiency point-of-view that also are lossless, which I assume is what you were concerned about. PNG comes to mind as one of the best choices (as Reid suggested).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OpenEXR is another open-format with high bit-depth support. JPEG-2000 would have been a contender buy high licensing costs gave it adoption problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-06T18:14:33.353" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4683" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4684" CreationDate="2010-11-06T18:31:08.577" Score="6" ViewCount="108" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recently, a camera with lens attached got knocked off a chair and hit the floor (not my gear, fortunately!). Following that, the lens would not focus properly, either with manual focus or auto. The manual focus just couldn't get quite right, and the autofocus wouldn't work at all. The zoom still works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The camera is the Nikon D40, and the lens is the 18-55mm included with the D40. The lens has the focus mechanism at the front end, and the lens did hit the floor. I'm inclined to think the hard impact may have fouled up the lens focus mechanism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible or even likely that the lens is damaged?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-11-06T20:14:05.030" Title="Can a hard impact foul up a lens' focus?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;focus&gt;&lt;equipment-damage&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="4684" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4683" CreationDate="2010-11-06T18:38:07.963" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes it's both possible and likely that the focus mechanism is broken! If you can't get a sharp image with manual focus one of the lens elements is probably out of alignment. I would normally suggest sending it to a Nikon authorized service centre for repair (Nikon customer service will be able to tell you where the closest one is, call the number in the manual or search online).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, as the lens is the kit one the repair + postage might cost more than the lens is worth so it might be time to consider an upgrade!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-11-06T18:38:07.963" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4685" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4683" CreationDate="2010-11-06T20:14:05.030" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, absolutely. One or more of the glass elements in your lens has been knocked off kilter. This is exactly why you can't find focus. You can take it to your local camera retailer and they will send it off to Nikon. Be warned though, Nikon repairs can get pricey, so I would get an estimate first (I had to repair a D2X awhile back and they will do estimates) and decide if you want to keep your kit lens or upgrade to some nicer glass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2010-11-06T20:14:05.030" />
  <row Id="4686" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4679" CreationDate="2010-11-06T21:31:34.240" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Storing your photos in RAW/DNG format preserves your ability to convert or 'develop' your RAW images in different or improved ways in the future.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the biggest single advantage of saving your images in RAW/DNG format.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Examples of this are&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- you can use a different or improved demosaicing algorithm&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- you can change the noise reduction&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- you can change the colour and exposure conversion profile&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- you can change the white balance&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- you can change the white point, black point and conversion profile  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The optimum place to apply these changes is to the original RAW data where there has been no information change or loss.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While RAW formats are proprietary, and this would seem to limit their usefulness in the future, you are in fact fully protected by the Open Source nature of the alternative conversion libraries provided by Dave Coffin (dcraw). I use the words RAW and DNG interchangeably here since many cameras will store in either DNG or RAW format.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-11-06T21:31:34.240" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="4687" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4694" CreationDate="2010-11-06T22:11:14.847" Score="23" ViewCount="676" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are Multi-Zone/Matrix metering, Center-Weighted metering, and Spot metering? What about Partial?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a good rule of thumb, or a few pointers, on when best to use each metering mode?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1493" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-13T02:00:28.217" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T17:59:28.560" Title="When best to use Multi-Zone/Matrix, Spot, or Center-Weight?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;metering&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="4688" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4745" CreationDate="2010-11-06T22:38:49.173" Score="2" ViewCount="103" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Sunpak PF30x on a Nikon D40. When I take pictures with the Sunpak flash, I notice the image data has &quot;Optional-TTL&quot; as the flash mode. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1972" LastActivityDate="2010-11-08T20:53:20.403" Title="What does optional-TTL mean?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4689" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4692" CreationDate="2010-11-06T22:44:56.277" Score="2" ViewCount="146" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to change the prefix of files on Nikon D40 to something different than DSC_?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="16" LastActivityDate="2010-11-07T00:07:53.487" Title="Change default file name on Nikon D40" Tags="&lt;nikon-d40&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="4690" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4702" CreationDate="2010-11-06T23:55:36.547" Score="8" ViewCount="337" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently purchased a Sony Alpha a33 and was told LightRoom was the only way to go for photo editing.  My photography right now is purely of our brand new baby right now, so I won't be profiting from any of the shoots as of now so any money I invest will not have a return.  With a brand new baby, we are trying to find was to do things for less.  Is there any tolerable alternative to LightRoom or an option for purchasing it for less than a whopping $300 + tax?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any help would be greatly appreciated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's worth noting, I've looked into Picasa, BlueMarine, and LightZone, but none of them really seem to compare.  Also, I found a couple of sites that have it for download for a much lesser price (http://www.activedownsite.info/index.php?main_page=product_info&amp;amp;cPath=21&amp;amp;products_id=53) but not sure if it's reliable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1746" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-06T23:58:15.933" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T02:16:14.937" Title="Affordable LightRoom" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4691" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4690" CreationDate="2010-11-07T00:01:20.773" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One possibility is &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibblelabs.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bibble&lt;/a&gt;. It's got some, er, quirks but it is fine and the Lite version is certainly cheaper ($100). Pro is $200 but I don't know how competitive it is with Lightroom. (I use Linux, where Bibble is really the only serious option; there's not Lightroom.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-11-07T00:01:20.773" />
  <row Id="4692" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4689" CreationDate="2010-11-07T00:07:53.487" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No it is not possible to change the file naming scheme on the D40. Very few cameras can do that but many importing software can rename on import. Lightroom for example gives you lots of choices such as sequential numbering, date-time, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: stackexchange software says that I should use 15 characters at least to say no :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-07T00:07:53.487" />
  <row Id="4693" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4690" CreationDate="2010-11-07T00:16:19.700" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Those who told you that were wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lightroom is great. It works both as a cataloging tool and a photo editor but as far as editing goes it is quite basic. What it does which is great in terms of editing is what is called 'non-destructive editing'. That means that it makes edits in a database rather than modify your files, so your originals can always remain intact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For editing, the best value is quite possible Photoshop Elements. Depending on where you are it may cost about $100 USD. This is a photo editor and not an organizer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are looking for an organizer, you can &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/article.php?id=dam-software&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;read this&lt;/a&gt;. It covers Lightroom and 4 other software, including Bibble Pro which is quite good (with exception to their support unfortunately, at least based on my experience).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-07T00:16:19.700" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4694" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4687" CreationDate="2010-11-07T00:22:33.353" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matrix is Nikon's multi-segment system, other companies call their versions Evaluative or something similar. It is the mode you use when you don't want to think about metering. It is very sophisticated and does a good job in most situations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Spot is used when you KNOW what part of the scene is going to be your midtone, that is the part of the scene that you want to show as 18% luminance. In that case you must point the spot meter at that part and lock the exposure using either the AE-L button or half-pressing the shutter (most cameras are setup like this initially but you can change that). Then you reframe (without releasing the shutter or AE-L button) and take your shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Center-weighed is basically the ancestor of Matrix metering. It tries to make the central part at least 18% bright but will vary the results depending on the brightness of the surrounding areas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your question:&#xA;- Spot metering when you know which part of the scene should be your midtone.&#xA;- Matrix otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-07T00:22:33.353" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="4695" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="831" CreationDate="2010-11-07T00:55:03.633" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you point the Image Capture tool to the same directory each time it will only pull the images that aren't already in that directory - not sure if that fits in your workflow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2072" LastActivityDate="2010-11-07T00:55:03.633" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4696" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4690" CreationDate="2010-11-07T01:14:50.100" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A cheaper option (free) is &lt;a href=&quot;http://picasa.google.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;picasa&lt;/a&gt; for organization and &lt;a href=&quot;http://gimp.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gimp&lt;/a&gt; for editing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a little clunky, as they don't fully integrate, but this is what I'm using until I can justify the cost of lightroom or aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-11-07T01:14:50.100" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4697" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4690" CreationDate="2010-11-07T01:17:13.513" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you own an Apple computer you can purchase Aperture 3 for $199, alternatively you can purchase an education version of Lightroom (or Aperture) at a discounted price if you know somebody who works in education or is going to college.  The license is a little different though in case you're using it professionally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2010-11-07T01:17:13.513" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4698" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4699" CreationDate="2010-11-07T02:03:01.073" Score="19" ViewCount="294" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whats the best what to get constructive critique of your photographs?  I'm thinking along what site or online community provides such things, but I'm open to all answers.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I have a photograph that I think is nice, what's an effective way to get somebody (apart from friends and family) to offer &quot;good&quot; advice?  Posting it to a site like this one with a general &quot;what can I do better?&quot; isn't helpful, and on sites like Flickr only the photographs that are already good get noticed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T03:00:29.670" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T03:00:29.670" Title="What's the best way to get constructive critique of your photographs?" Tags="&lt;photo-critique&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="9" />
  <row Id="4699" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4698" CreationDate="2010-11-07T02:34:14.970" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to recommend &lt;a href=&quot;http://1x.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;one exposure dot com&lt;/a&gt;. I recommend this for two reasons. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The critique is honest, harsh, informed, and deep. As a community, they strive very hard to give very in depth reviews and suggestions. They also have the added benefits of extreme honesty, which is sometimes hard to get. One thing I dislike about flikr is precisely the fact that you never get criticized, just complements. If you want to improve, I think that you need to take a little beating, and one exp will dish it out.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The photos are brilliant. This site has the absolute best gallery of any I have seen. Being a member of the community(free) will also provide you with wonderful inspiration, and help you improve in that way by giving you something to strive for.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastActivityDate="2010-11-07T02:34:14.970" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4700" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4698" CreationDate="2010-11-07T03:18:25.230" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, for Flickr, I'd say that the photographs that get noticed are often by people that are group active rather than necessarily all that good. Not to say that there aren't great shots that don't get noticed otherwise, but if you look at &quot;interesting&quot; you'll find some that aren't really all that interesting at all, just that they got a lot of group hits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of getting critique, the offline option is camera clubs. Some are better than others, but being in one or, if needed, forming one, is a good way to get good advice. For example, just today, I was testing out the focus tracking and burst capabilities of my new Pentax K5 with a friend in our local camera group (both of us have the K5). I posted a swan in flight, but I over-sharpened it and he called to let me know. I realized it shortly after posting, but having a good shooter call me to minutes after posting was a good thing and I appreciated it. He was even spot on for the reason, I pushed the clarity slider in ACR too much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, in my opinion, I like the face-to-face or phone call better for this sort of thing. Critique is hard in an online context, it can come across very harsh. I do a lot of code reviews as a software architect and, when I reopen tasks with review comments as a result, I almost always go over to the developer for a chat after because I want them to know and feel that it wasn't personal and I want to explain certain things verbally that just are too hard to make clear in an email. I see that as a way to make them better coders and I think it works, at least results are bearing me out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-11-07T03:18:25.230" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4701" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4687" CreationDate="2010-11-07T05:44:15.440" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know if the D60 has this option, but with the Nikon D300s, you can go into the menu custom settings, and set the AF ON button to focus, and the shutter button to meter. They are now separate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2075" LastActivityDate="2010-11-07T05:44:15.440" />
  <row Id="4702" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4690" CreationDate="2010-11-07T05:59:47.720" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short Answer&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Invest now, reap rewards later&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Don't have a short term financial plan, but have a long term requirements plan&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cheap can mean more expensive over a long period&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This is a lifetime investment and one day you may want to see a photo of your child at x months old&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Learn to research and budget so that you can aquire the resources as you grow&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My minimum requirements that should be attained to get the best possible returns from your investments:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Good catalog/basic photo editing package (eg: lightroom 3)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Good lens beyond kit lense (eg: 18-200 range to cover all possibilities)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Good flash that can be manipulated so light bounces of walls or ceilings&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;External storage with mirror capabilities (eg: WD mirror edition or dedicated NAS)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Long Detailed Answer&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lets be honest here. I have a two year old. My wife wanted top quality photos and we got charged over $1,000 for 12 photos on a burnt CD. This was a commercial company and the photos were good but we wanted something better. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So after some research I invested in a Nikon D90 with standard kit lens. After a thousand photo's later it become clear that I needed somewhere of organising the photos taken on the DSLR and the point &amp;amp; shoot that my wife uses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I invested in lightroom 3 as we are talking about a long term strategy and the investments that I make now should be reaped a few years into the future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then I invested in 2 lenses to improve photo quality: 18-200mm lens for all situations and a 85mm f/1.8 prime for specific portraiture work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next up is around $2,000 to by a NAS that has native ZFS support so that I don't have to worry about bit rot during long term storage. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With these investments, hopefully, when my daughter is 30, I will have all the requirements about getting the photos we need from our infrastructure. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My only concern would be the long term support of lightroom, but because I now use DNG, all my edits are stored in the DNG file so I can move to any other solution that has native DNG support.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know if this exactly answers your questions but may give you some food for thought from somebody who has been in your shoes and made the decision to think about the future and not now. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we cannot afford something right now we either budget for the purchase, or use the credit card and pay it off over a period of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastActivityDate="2010-11-07T05:59:47.720" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4703" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4688" CreationDate="2010-11-07T06:21:21.157" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Maybe because of how your model is setup? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This flash unit supports flash exposure compensation which allows you to adjust output independently of the i-TTL.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer: I don't have one of these units. Just what I noticed from a simple websearch about this product.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastActivityDate="2010-11-07T06:21:21.157" />
  <row Id="4704" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4687" CreationDate="2010-11-07T06:38:25.470" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is all to do with the brightness range in the scene you are photographing.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where the brightness range is 'normal', that is fits nicely in the range that the sensor of your camera can capture, then Matrix will generally do a good job, producing an exposure with a well centered histogram.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the brightness range of the scene is very small or very high there is a good chance the camera will wrongly position the histogram of the exposure. In this case, by using spot metering, you are telling the camera which part of the scene should be centered in the histogram. In some cases it is not obvious where you should spot meter and then center weighted metering is a good standby since that will tend to average a region.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same reasoning applies when the region of interest is close to either end of the brightness range, use spot metering where feasible otherwise use center weighted metering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-11-07T06:38:25.470" />
  <row Id="4705" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4746" CreationDate="2010-11-07T07:29:44.983" Score="4" ViewCount="256" Body="&lt;p&gt;The entry level DSLR from Nikon, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Digital-SLR/25462/D3000.html#tab-ProductDetail.ProductTabs.TechSpecs&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;D3000&lt;/a&gt;, supports a max framerate of 3 FPS in &quot;Continuous mode&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you tether the cam to click photos directly into a PC at such a high speed? (Continuous mode?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1628" LastEditorUserId="1628" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-07T14:45:27.313" LastActivityDate="2010-11-08T23:15:18.107" Title="Can you capture the Nikon D3000 in Continuous Mode into a PC?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;nikon-d3000&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4706" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4687" CreationDate="2010-11-07T13:57:13.603" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matrix mode is where the camera tries to match the scene against a database and make an intelligent decision. This is particularly useful for typical tricky situations, like  portraits with a bright sky in the background. Most modern cameras get this right. The problem is that it's a black box: you have no way of knowing what the camera is basing its decision on, and what it'll come up with. Since even the most sophisticated systems sometimes get it wrong, this can be frustrating. It's also hard if you want to do something other than the expected: if you want that backlit portrait to be a silhouette, you'll probably want to dial in some EV compensation to bring down the exposure. But, without a lot of familiarity with your camera's own matrix mode (which varies from model to model within the same brand), you can't know how much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Spot metering is most useful when you have time to take measurements of the different key areas in your composition and then consider the overall effect. It measures light in a very small portion of the area — 2%-3% of the frame. Take readings from the areas you care about, and then decide on an overall exposure which takes that into account. (The most simple situation, of course, being when you only care about one area and can let all the rest over or under expose.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Partial metering is like spot metering, but covers a larger area — typically around 10%. Some entry level cameras lack true spot-metering and offer this instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Center-weighted takes most of the frame into account, with less consideration to the edges. This may be because a too-bright sky at the top of the frame is a common situation, but I think it's probably simply because it's cheaper to do than complete, full-frame average. The disadvantage of this mode is that it's dumb -- if anything even slightly complicated comes up, you'll need to adjust EV compensation. But the advantage is that it's completely predictable, so you can easily learn to tell which situations require what kind of compensation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-13T02:03:15.953" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T02:03:15.953" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4707" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-07T16:02:55.380" Score="12" ViewCount="562" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that Photoshop is the dominant software in that space, however I am a hobbyist photographer and Photoshop is not cheap. Is there anything else that compares and that does not have such a high price tag. I heard Gimp could be a candidate, any one using Gimp or something else? What is your feedback?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;== Adding more info ==&#xA;What I am trying to do:&#xA;Ideally I would like to manipulate pictures to enhance them, crop, etc... and also have tools to merge new backgrounds, and tools to transform a pictures completely, e.g. transforming the picture so it looks like a painting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2082" LastEditorUserId="26" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-08T05:01:22.863" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T23:40:39.880" Title="What are the alternatives to Photoshop, anyone using Gimp or something else?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;gimp&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="4708" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4707" CreationDate="2010-11-07T16:10:49.770" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Photoshop Elements is $99 and is very close to Photoshop in terms of features for photographers but much cheaper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also free software that do basic image manipulation without being as complicated as GIMP. Try Google's Picasa for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-07T16:10:49.770" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4709" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4459" CreationDate="2010-11-07T17:03:49.360" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I suspect we have a software developer trying to make some noise to attract attention to their software - which I have found to be less than useful for my professional work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-11-07T17:03:49.360" />
  <row Id="4710" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4717" CreationDate="2010-11-07T17:39:53.090" Score="16" ViewCount="2294" Body="&lt;p&gt;Inspired by the question &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4416/how-do-i-achieve-this-post-process-effect&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; by &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/users/1273/sebastien-b&quot;&gt;sebastian.b&lt;/a&gt;, and the response to the subsequent &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.photo.stackexchange.com/questions/414/post-processing-tips-questions-allowed&quot;&gt;meta question&lt;/a&gt;. I would like to ask how to achieve a specific photo effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There may be more photographers that pull this off, but I know of two specific ones. The first is the wonderful photographer, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.davehillphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dave Hill&lt;/a&gt;. I know that he does lots of post processing, and his talent goes beyond a short list of tips that I can learn from a website, but I think there is something that I can hope to understand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What is the Dave Hill effect? I have heard people talk about it, but what is it actually and how does one achieve it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On his webpage, the &quot;Nerd ad&quot;, &quot;Allen Robinson&quot;, and &quot;Jon Heder&quot; shots give the subjects a specific skin tone/saturation. In general, his portrait shots are amazing. The detail and texture mystifies me. How can I pull this eerie feeling off?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the second photographer is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/30507491@N03/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;skylove&lt;/a&gt; from flikr. His shots are also extremely impressive. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Again, he is using some black magic to make skin tone amazing. His subjects look beyond real, and I love it. Three specific examples are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/30507491@N03/4980017601/in/faves-bbischof/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;energy&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/30507491@N03/4954420867/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;discovering&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/30507491@N03/5078984246/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;king to defeat&lt;/a&gt;. Looking at energy, beyond the absolutely phenomenal idea for the shot and execution, and just focusing on the subject, he has this plaster/grey look, and his skin looks wonderful. Similar things are true for those other shots I linked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some ideas I have had that might contribute to this are HDR or possibly just phenomenal lighting setups. I have watched the videos on Dave Hill's website, but they just make me think more-so that he sold his soul to Mephistopheles. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would appreciate any suggestions on how to achieve these results, or even some direction to go in this direction. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks so much! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-07T22:44:33.987" LastActivityDate="2010-11-07T22:46:28.477" Title="How to create this effect (Dave Hill et. al.) for portraits/action shots?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;tutorial&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="4711" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4715" CreationDate="2010-11-07T17:47:42.660" Score="5" ViewCount="155" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is any of the other major photosharing sites better than Flickr for the albums hierarchy? I mean the possibility to define a depth of more than two... If I'm not mistaken in flickr you can only define Collections and then Albums in those Collections, but you can't get any deeper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="332" LastEditorUserId="1819" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-07T18:31:56.067" LastActivityDate="2010-11-07T19:48:23.253" Title="Better than Flickr for albums hierarchy" Tags="&lt;flickr&gt;&lt;organisation&gt;&lt;sharing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="4712" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4711" CreationDate="2010-11-07T18:18:27.483" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.smugmug.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SmugMug&lt;/a&gt; allows for what is essentially three levels:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Categories&#xA;--Subcategories&#xA;----Galleries&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can completely customize the names of Categories, Subcategories, and Galleries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-11-07T18:18:27.483" />
  <row Id="4713" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4459" CreationDate="2010-11-07T18:42:13.107" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I suspect that the writer of that article does not take into account the fact that the irradiance on the sensor is realy proportional to 1/(4Fnum^2+1) and not to 1/(4Fnum^2).&#xA;This difference is negligible for Fnum&gt;=2.8 However, for smaller Fnum one must take it into account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ration (4Fnum^2+1)/(4Fnum^2) explains at least some of the difference between that the author expected and what was measured. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ofer&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-11-07T18:42:13.107" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4714" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4707" CreationDate="2010-11-07T18:57:17.367" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biggest competitor to Photoshop is GIMP.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other image manipulation tools include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.getpaint.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Paint.net&lt;/a&gt; A free .NET based image editing tool for Windows machines&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite/us/en/Product/1184951547051&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Paint Shop Pro&lt;/a&gt; A commonly overshadowed application&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Microsoft Paint. Newer versions have some basic tools like crop&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pixelmator.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pixelmator&lt;/a&gt; A lightweight but powerful Photoshop alternative for OS X &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://picasa.google.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Google Picasa&lt;/a&gt; which is a image library tool with some image editing capabilities&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://explore.live.com/windows-live-photo-gallery?os=other&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Windows Live Photo Gallery&lt;/a&gt; Similar to picasa, but it's MSFT&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-11-07T18:57:17.367" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="4715" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4711" CreationDate="2010-11-07T19:48:23.253" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Flickr does allow a collection to contain either sets, or other collections, giving you that hierarchy &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-11-07T19:48:23.253" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4716" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-07T20:05:42.133" Score="4" ViewCount="541" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for an iPhone app that features exposure compensation, any suggestions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="624" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T13:59:57.740" Title="iPhone photo app with exposure compensation" Tags="&lt;iphone&gt;&lt;exposure-compensation&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4717" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4710" CreationDate="2010-11-07T20:49:31.483" Score="38" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;It's all about the lighting!&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most people seem to think it's all done in 'shop but a lot of work goes into the actual setup. Many of the supposed &lt;strong&gt;&quot;Dave Hill look&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; imitations have just used HDR style tonemapping, and the results are &lt;em&gt;nothing like the work of Dave Hill&lt;/em&gt;. Compare this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=dave%20hill%20look&amp;amp;w=all&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=dave%20hill%20look&amp;amp;w=all&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;with this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.davehillphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.davehillphoto.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No simlarity at all! Yes there is a lot of post production in Dave's work, but you need to get close with the lighting in order to get the same look. Here is an example, showing what is possible with &lt;strong&gt;lighting alone&lt;/strong&gt;. The first image is straight out of camera:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/aaron/aaron_straight_out_of_camera.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/aaron/aaron_final.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...the second image is the final image after Photoshop, mostly saturation, contrast and a little high pass filter in an overlay blending layer. I should have pointed out I didn't set out to get the &lt;em&gt;Dave Hill look&lt;/em&gt;, I just wanted to play around and see what worked with the subject (the singer in a Ska band). I could have done more in post to get slightly closer to Dave's images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key to the look &lt;strong&gt;sculpted light&lt;/strong&gt;. This means large lightsources at oblique angles to the subject. I used two square softboxes right up close and a bare hotshoe strobe for the hair light. Here's how the lights were placed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/aaron/lighting_diagram.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The softboxes were brought in really close to maximise the &lt;strong&gt;softness&lt;/strong&gt; of the light, and angled toward the camera to increase the sculpting effect and falloff nicely across the face. Two &quot;gobos&quot; were used to stop flare interfering with the picture (the black lines in the diagram) which is &lt;em&gt;absolutely essential&lt;/em&gt; when angling the strobes toward the camera! The hairlight at the back was bare (i.e. no modifier) to really penetrate Aaron's hair and make it glow. As less power is required for an unmodified light I substituted a hotshoe flash for the big monolight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can replicate this look on the cheap with a couple of hotshoe flashes but softboxes are important. Something like an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lastolite.com/umbrellabox.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;umbrellabox&lt;/a&gt; is a good option if you're using small battery flashes. You just don't get the same effect with umbrellas as they spill too much light out the sides, and are in general harder to fine tune as you don't get a crisp edge to the light. The curved profile of the umbrella also makes it hard to get close. Getting close basically makes your softboxes bigger. Dave would have used huge octoboxes further away to give the model more space but he gets paid more than I do ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;edit&lt;/strong&gt; you can actually see Dave's setups in his behind the scenes videos (which I've just noticed you mentioned in your question!). And yup there's some big octoboxes! &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.davehillphoto.com/bts/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.davehillphoto.com/bts/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's another example of the same look in a group shot I did for the band Asking Alexandria. This one required a bit more post production (as lighting groups is much harder) so I'll take it step by step to show you what sort of post production you can do to push the look to it's limits. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/aa/pp/aa_straight_out_of_camera.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As before lighting is still very important. I used a very similar setup to the previous example but with the softboxes much more symmetrical. The models stood in a triangle pattern so the light hits everybody. The hairlight is also much higher this time as we're lighting the top of the head, not shining &lt;strong&gt;through&lt;/strong&gt; anyone's hair (which would have required three hairlights in this example). You can see the lightstand for the hair light in the straight out of camera shot, behind the guy on the left.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/aa/pp/aa1.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the image after Raw conversion in Adobe Camera Raw, where I added a little of the clarity slider, brought up the black point and used a lot of the fill light slider. I wasn't going for any specific look, just to get an image with detail and a good tonal range to work with. The background clutter has been removed by a manual selection. Also note I've made the image taller by adding more  black. I planned to do this so I shot the original very tightly cropped to make the most of my megapixels (I didn't do this with Aaron as some of the shots we took involved a lot of movement).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/aa/pp/aa2.jpg&quot;&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here I've faded a little of the ground into the image with a gradient mask in order to &lt;strong&gt;ground&lt;/strong&gt; the models and make them look a little less like they're floating in space!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/aa/pp/aa3.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next I went mental with the Photomatix tonemapping plug-in! With any sort of HDR work taste and subtlety is important. I find the easiest way to achieve this is to push it as far as I can and then fade it into the original at a very low opacity to retain some realism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/aa/pp/aa4.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here it is reduced in opacity to 30%. I actually lowered it to 15% in the final version, I just wanted to show the effect in bringing out the details in the legs and shoes that was lost due to the fact I concentrated on lighting the faces (and didn't have any striplights to hand). It's also done a nice job with the hair.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/aa/pp/aa5.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now here's pièce de résistance of the post processing. I've duplicated the original applied a high pass filter (which removes small details such as noise) and leaves large scale tone changes. The layer is blended back in at 30% with the blending mode set to &lt;strong&gt;overlay&lt;/strong&gt;, this is very important as it sort of amplifies the high pass by lightening the lights and darkening the darks. It's starting to look how I want it now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/aa/pp/aa6.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the final image after some fiddling dodging and burning here and there, some minor colour correction (I moved the jeans away from cyan and desaturated for a more pleasing look). Desaturated skin tones makes this lighting technique look better in almost all cases. Finally the image is resized and sharpening applied, leaving an image which I think captures the look you are going for based on the examples posted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's worth noting that you need a &lt;strong&gt;dark place&lt;/strong&gt; in order to pull this off otherwise you lose control over the light and you will have difficulties getting the deep shadows required for maximum contrast. The first image of Aaron was shot in a black walled studio, but if you don't have access to a studio you can get the same effect in any large space. The size is important as the light that gets reflected back from other objects falls off with the squre of the distance (double the space, 4x less light bouncing off walls), up to the point where it is totally overpowered by the subject and you get a nice black background. If you're looking for a large space, the great outdoors comes in very handy!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-07T22:46:28.477" LastActivityDate="2010-11-07T22:46:28.477" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="4718" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4719" CreationDate="2010-11-08T00:08:00.017" Score="10" ViewCount="397" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Panasonic Lumix GF1 with the kit 20mm f/1.7 lens. I put a UV filter on it (this one: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00004ZCJE/ref=oss_product&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00004ZCJE/ref=oss_product&lt;/a&gt;), simply as protection for the glass. I'm doing lots of theatrical shooting (bright lights, etc.) and I'm getting lots of lens flare in my shots. Here's an example: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/schof/5006914162/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/schof/5006914162/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I remove the filter, the flare goes away. Since I'm just using the filter to keep the lens glass clean and protected, is there another type of filter I should be using (or another brand of UV filter) to avoid this lens flare?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="397" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-09T19:09:14.393" LastActivityDate="2011-02-26T21:27:49.543" Title="Strange Lens Flare at bright lights when using UV filter" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;lens-flare&gt;&lt;panasonic-lumix&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4719" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4718" CreationDate="2010-11-08T00:39:30.837" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi Schof,&#xA;Thats actually a UV filter not an ND filter, very different filters :)  Anyway, lower quality filters flare more, if you want to continue to use a UV filter consider a multi-coated filter.  It seems other people who bought that same filter had similar complaints, see the 1st review:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;However, I had to return this item since they DON'T contain any anti-glare/reflective coating on them&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Se a similar post here re: UV filters:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/4417/1819&quot;&gt;Where to buy cheap UV filters online?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My advice though would be to just not use a filter, shooting directly at light sources like that is going to cause enough problems as is with flaring.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2010-11-08T00:39:30.837" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="4720" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4716" CreationDate="2010-11-08T01:06:14.317" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Camera+ claims to let you adjust the exposure (which is what exposure compensation does)!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://campl.us/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://campl.us/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="934" LastActivityDate="2010-11-08T01:06:14.317" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4721" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4718" CreationDate="2010-11-08T01:21:01.240" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The scene you were shooting (bright spot light + darkness) is actually one that's most prone to flares. This happens will all filters, but some have less flare because they have better coating. Lens construction and coating of its elements also matters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A simple comparison:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://vvv.mokrakocicka.cz/gang/filtry_nic.jpg&quot; /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;no filter&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://vvv.mokrakocicka.cz/gang/filtry_marumi_dhg_lens_protect.jpg&quot; /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;better filter (Marumi DHG Lens Protect)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://vvv.mokrakocicka.cz/gang/filtry_hama_70077.jpg&quot; /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;worse filter (Hama UV 0-HAZE M77)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-26T21:27:49.543" LastActivityDate="2011-02-26T21:27:49.543" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4722" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4716" CreationDate="2010-11-08T04:45:32.437" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;After purchasing a couple different &quot;camera apps&quot; for iPhone, I've discovered that none of them make the iphone's camera suck less. Save your money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-11-08T04:45:32.437" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4723" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4784" CreationDate="2010-11-08T05:25:51.003" Score="2" ViewCount="222" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dad has been a professional photographer, so photography comes in the heredity.&#xA;although I live far away from him so i can't be taught by him.&#xA;I enjoy photography and want to start with serious photography.&#xA;Any links, pointers, tutorials to something that helps building the essential concept which will further help me understand the terminology photographers use, will be very helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2089" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-08T13:28:15.833" LastActivityDate="2010-11-12T20:06:51.273" Title="Please guide a newbie" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;tips&gt;&lt;learning&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="4724" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4735" CreationDate="2010-11-08T05:47:45.557" Score="8" ViewCount="248" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard quotes which say &quot;If its not good, delete it.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I go by that advice, but sometimes you capture some precious moment but you see that photo is slightly blurred because of camera shake. I don't have an IS lens, and it's too late to somehow do it over.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What best one can do in post processing to improve the quality of the picture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ideally, I'd like to use Gimp or Picassa for this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1980" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-27T16:45:22.657" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T16:45:22.657" Title="How can slightly blurred photos be improved in post processing?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;blur&gt;&lt;camera-shake&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="4725" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4736" CreationDate="2010-11-08T05:49:23.497" Score="7" ViewCount="373" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have taken a picture of a person standing inside the house via a window.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;being outside, of course there is glare. I don't mind the glare as an artistic item, but wondered if there is a way to control the level of glare?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am using paint.net as my main &quot;power&quot; editor, but Picasa picnik also is an option.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/mHTvg.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2087" LastActivityDate="2010-11-08T13:49:01.387" Title="Reduce glare from glass (photo editing)" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;windows&gt;&lt;reflection&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4726" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4724" CreationDate="2010-11-08T06:47:27.700" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the photo is blurred due to camera shake, you really don't have many options.  While lots of things can be fixed after the fact in post-processing (such as white balance or exposure), camera shake can't be undone.  About the only option here is to apply a blur effect to more of the photo that &lt;strong&gt;might&lt;/strong&gt; make it look like it was intentional.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even without an IS lens, most newer DSLRs (and some of the high end point and shoot cameras) have great performance at higher ISO levels.  If you find yourself in a situation where you can't get as fast of a shutter speed as you need, bump up the ISO.  Sure, you might get a bit more noise in the photo, but noise can be addressed via software if you wish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-11-08T06:47:27.700" />
  <row Id="4727" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4725" CreationDate="2010-11-08T07:11:47.810" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you should try to reduce glare before taking the shot via a polarizer filter. Afterwards it's difficult to know what was behind the reflection as the image doesn't have that information...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="332" LastEditorUserId="332" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-08T12:08:42.510" LastActivityDate="2010-11-08T12:08:42.510" />
  <row Id="4729" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4723" CreationDate="2010-11-08T08:04:15.097" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;dpreview is a nice resource for anything DSLR-related, and has some good guides:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/learn/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/learn/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2025" LastActivityDate="2010-11-08T08:04:15.097" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4730" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4725" CreationDate="2010-11-08T09:03:24.593" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can reduce glare in post if it's a fairly constant tone, for example the white of the trellis. This is done by darkening / increasing the contrast to match the rest of the background and shifting the colour if necessary. However if there is detail in the reflection like there is in the area which covers the girl's face then it's going to be &lt;em&gt;a lot harder&lt;/em&gt; as you effectively have two images overlaid, and you're going to pretty much be redrawing one of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short with this image I would start again. See this thread for ways to reduce reflections from glass:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4570/tips-for-shooting-through-a-skyscraper-airplane-or-train-window&quot;&gt;Tips for shooting through a skyscraper, airplane, or train window&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-11-08T09:03:24.593" />
  <row Id="4731" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="483" CreationDate="2010-11-08T10:18:35.873" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Noise removal tools are mostly based on the wavelet denoise technique.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can get a good wavelet denoise plugin for Gimp&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://registry.gimp.org/node/4235&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gimp wavelt denoise plugin&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This allows you to independently adjust noise reduction in the Y, Cb and Cr channels&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-11-08T10:18:35.873" />
  <row Id="4732" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="483" CreationDate="2010-11-08T10:43:11.947" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lightroom 3 is pretty good lately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1681" LastActivityDate="2010-11-08T10:43:11.947" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4733" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4725" CreationDate="2010-11-08T11:33:56.333" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Shoot in a direction that provides a more consistent reflection. Upwards is a good option, because the sky is a reasonably constant background, which you could somewhat remove in postprocessing. Having the reflection of the photographer in a photo is never a good idea, unless it's intentional.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll echo Matt's sentiment that there is very little you can do to improve the image you already have here. Reshooting is the best option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2094" LastActivityDate="2010-11-08T11:33:56.333" />
  <row Id="4734" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3982" CreationDate="2010-11-08T13:03:38.917" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/how-to-make-a-inexpensive-light-tent&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this tutorial&lt;/a&gt; on digital-photography-school how to make a DIY light tent from a cardboard box. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could in theory scale this down to bear bottle size or make one on site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="560" LastActivityDate="2010-11-08T13:03:38.917" />
  <row Id="4735" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4724" CreationDate="2010-11-08T13:47:33.033" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I used to think that blurring was one of those things that was impossible to recover from in post. Amazingly enough it's possible to take an image that is blurred beyond recognition:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mathworks.de/products/demos/shipping/images/ipexwiener_02.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and recover &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; the original detail &lt;strong&gt;if you know the exact blurring function&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mathworks.de/products/demos/shipping/images/ipexwiener_03.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why isn't this done all the time? Well firstly you never know the exact blurring function so you can't create a perfect inverse filter, secondly if you have noise in the blurred image:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mathworks.de/products/demos/shipping/images/ipexwiener_04.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;this will &lt;strong&gt;totally&lt;/strong&gt; bias the outcome, as the inverse filter is unable to replicate it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://blogs.mathworks.com/images/steve/2008/regularization_v2_03.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;pseudo inverse filters such as the Wiener filter can cope much better with noise but you still get ringing artifacts like the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mathworks.de/products/demos/shipping/images/ipexwiener_06.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;image (c) MathWorks, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mathworks.de/products/image/demos.html?file=/products/demos/shipping/images/ipexwiener.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.mathworks.de/products/image/demos.html?file=/products/demos/shipping/images/ipexwiener.html&lt;/a&gt; for more detail&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a bit of a digression, but it shows that deblurring is at least possible &lt;em&gt;in principal&lt;/em&gt;. There are some very clever algorithms that outperform the Wiener filter by &lt;strong&gt;guessing&lt;/strong&gt; what parts of the original image looked like, in order to estimate and reverse the blurrig function, based on the statistical likelihoods of various light patterns existing. There are some Photoshop plugins that offer image deblurring using such advanced methods, you might want to take a look at the following (which offer free trial versions)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.focusmagic.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.focusmagic.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.oceansystems.com/forensic/forensic-Photoshop-Plugins/toolset.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.oceansystems.com/forensic/forensic-Photoshop-Plugins/toolset.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.humansoftware.com/pages1200/ApertureEdit/HSapertureedit111.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.humansoftware.com/pages1200/ApertureEdit/HSapertureedit111.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The results are never perfect but for shots that are irreplacable it's better than nothing!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-11-08T13:47:33.033" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="4736" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4725" CreationDate="2010-11-08T13:49:01.387" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This looks like an image that you can never take again, so the issue is not how to improve a retake, but to rescue what information you can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you could return to the scene under identical outdoor lighting conditions, with the same objects in the background, and from the same location re-shoot the window into an empty unlit room, then you could (a) register the glare in the new photo with the glare in the old and (b) subtract it from the original photo.  The result would be imperfect but it could reveal some details currently obscured in the center of the photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If perhaps you took more than one photo at that time and the subject in the window moved or changed substantially, then you might already have most of this information, because you could again (a) register the glare in one photo to that of the other, (b) compare the two images to identify changes larger than the registration error, and (c) subtract out the areas that did not change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2010-11-08T13:49:01.387" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4737" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4723" CreationDate="2010-11-08T14:22:24.913" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Once you get your feet wet, I'm personally finding &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0321678737&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Scott Kelby's Digital Photography Volumes&lt;/a&gt; very helpful.  They don't cover the technical lingo, so you'd need that first and to get out there with your camera a bit first, but after a short time I'm finding it a great resource.  He's got a great writing style and its an easy read.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm a newbie to photography as well, but nothing seems to help quite as much as just getting out there with your camera first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2010-11-08T14:22:24.913" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4738" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="483" CreationDate="2010-11-08T14:49:23.390" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've had decent results with DxO Optics Pro.  I hadn't heard of NeatImage, but that looks pretty good, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-11-08T14:49:23.390" />
  <row Id="4739" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4499" CreationDate="2010-11-08T15:24:24.107" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the flash unit feels hot it could be that the internal heat switch is activated.  This switch will shut down the flash when it reaches a certain temperature to protect it from burning up.  Just like a computer will shut down if it gets too hot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are using the flash in the manual mode and you are firing it real fast then this could be your problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-11-08T15:24:24.107" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4740" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4707" CreationDate="2010-11-08T17:06:16.043" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sumopaint.com/home/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sumopaint&lt;/a&gt; is a free online image editor with a Pro version that costs 19 euros.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1061" LastActivityDate="2010-11-08T17:06:16.043" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4741" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4742" CreationDate="2010-11-08T18:09:35.000" Score="16" ViewCount="806" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a photography newbie and have only a 18 - 135mm canon kit lens at my disposal. I wanted to take macro shots but can't really afford a macro lens right now. One very optimistic goal of mine is to capture a single snow flake this winter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any cheap(er) way to take macro shots? Also, any specific advice from anyone one how to go about photographing a single snow flake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NB - I guess the single snow flake was bit of an over-ambitious goal on my part. may be not this winter but I will get that some day. until then i'll keep on learning and getting better. but that aside I thank you all for your suggestions.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1924" LastEditorUserId="1924" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-08T20:10:22.633" LastActivityDate="2010-11-26T11:26:36.353" Title="Taking a macro shot without a macro lens" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;cheap&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="4742" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4741" CreationDate="2010-11-08T18:16:38.200" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes there are a couple of options for doing macro on the cheap. The most common is extension tubes which are hollow tubes which basically just move the lens further away, decreasing the minimum focussing distance in the process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're really stuck you can in fact just hold your lens in front of the camera focus and composure are a bit hit and miss with this method! See this link for more information:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://content.photojojo.com/tutorials/tilt-shift-and-macro-freelensing/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://content.photojojo.com/tutorials/tilt-shift-and-macro-freelensing/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another option is close up filters, which are additional screw on optics that go on the front of a lens in order to allow close up focussing. I haven't had any experience myself, and it's not the cheapest option. This post contains a good low-down on close up filters:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photography.timtrott.co.uk/closeup-filter-vs-macro-lens/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://photography.timtrott.co.uk/closeup-filter-vs-macro-lens/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally you can mount a telephoto lens in reverse! This can be the cheapest option of all (besides freelensing) as you can make a reversing ring out of a pair of lens and body caps, however with your 18-135 lacking manual aperture control you'll be stuck shooting wide open.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I were you I'd pick up a set of cheap extension tubes and go from there! As for photographing single snowflakes, I admire people with ambitious goals but I think you might be reaching too far here, as you've chosen something seasoned photographers with many years macro experience would struggle with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Typical macro lenses provide approximately 1:1 magnification, meaning the image on the sensor is life size. The sensor in your camera is about 22mm across so that's effectively the smallest thing you can image. To fill the frame with a snowflake you need to go supermacro, which as Shizam states is beyond these buget macro options. Depth of field is so small (like a hairs width) at these distances you need a very precise means to manoeuver the snowflake into shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I saw a great video showing how images of snowflakes are captured and the lengths required to go to, I'll see if I can find it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-08T18:31:42.600" LastActivityDate="2010-11-08T18:31:42.600" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4743" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4741" CreationDate="2010-11-08T19:10:13.147" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matt has already covered a number of options, which I won't try to repeat here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unless I missed something, he did miss one possibility though: this is  to use a relatively long lens on the camera, with a relatively short lens, reversed, in front of it. This is basically the same as the closeup-lens option Matt did mention, but instead of buying a new closeup lens to use, you use a lens you already have with a dirt-cheap reversing ring (basically, just a hollow tube with filter-sized threads on both ends).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Getting this to work well can be somewhat challenging, to put it mildly. In particular, it's often worthwhile to do a bit of experimenting with free lensing to find a combination of long and short lenses that happen to work well together, and only when you've found a good combination, buy a combination of reversing ring and (if necessary) step-up or step-down rings for that pair of lenses. Of course, it's also nice if you have two or three different lenses with the same size filter ring to use as the front element.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While this option does take more work than buying closeup lenses, it generally gives better results. A closeup lens is basically just a short focal length lens -- but the cheap ones are uncorrected single-element lenses, while the more expensive sets are two-element lenses to give marginally superior correction. Even those, however, generally have pretty poor correction compared to even a cheap 28, 35 or 50mm lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One other point: since you're using the front lens reversed and ignoring its normal lens mount, you do &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; need something that would otherwise fit your camera at all. A lot of older, manual-focus lenses work nicely, and can be picked up for next to nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-11-08T19:10:13.147" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4744" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4741" CreationDate="2010-11-08T20:49:20.007" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I started off with the Macro filters - I loved using them so much that I ended up buying a Macro lens..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My filters were about $10 for 4 different levels +1, +2, +4 and +10&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1907" LastActivityDate="2010-11-08T20:49:20.007" />
  <row Id="4745" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4688" CreationDate="2010-11-08T20:53:20.403" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Optional-TTL means you're using an accessory flash instead of the built in flash, but still using the through the lens metering to control it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2100" LastActivityDate="2010-11-08T20:53:20.403" />
  <row Id="4746" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4705" CreationDate="2010-11-08T23:15:18.107" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Shooting tethered seems to work very similarly to shooting with an SD card: the camera stores pictures in its internal buffer before transferring them to PC, and therefore can shoot as fast as the buffer can handle. (At least, I haven't noticed any slowness.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, don't expect to be able to shoot RAW photos indefinitely at 3 frames per second: your USB connection just won't keep up. I just did a little test with Aperture's tethering, and found that I can sustain a speed of roughly 1 frame per second shooting RAW.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2010-11-08T23:15:18.107" />
  <row Id="4747" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4707" CreationDate="2010-11-09T01:10:23.887" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've used Gimp and its high dynamic range fork, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cinepaint.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CinePaint&lt;/a&gt;, a lot in the past and I would say they're very capable packages in terms of functionality, but seriously hampered by their interfaces. I find I'm about half as productive in these as in Photoshop because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They don't have the extensive default keyboard shortcuts of Photoshop and the right-click menus are absurdly nested and frustrating to navigate.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The windows are not dockable. I spend a disasterous amount of time bringing up the tool options window, etc. when I need it, then minimising it or moving it when it's getting in the way.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Far too many operations launch floating windows to set the parameters.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was working in 3D animation, where the interfaces of many packages have been tweeked to the hilt to provide fast interaction and Gimp and CinePaint feel like molasses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had high hopes for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gimpshop.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gimpshop&lt;/a&gt; (a sort of Photoshop-skinned implementation of Gimp) but I don't find it any better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If functionality is your priority, I'd say dive into Gimp. If speed is important to you I'd advise you to save for Photoshop :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2016" LastEditorUserId="2016" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-09T12:38:27.967" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T12:38:27.967" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4748" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4750" CreationDate="2010-11-09T06:57:42.993" Score="10" ViewCount="485" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon 550D with 70-200 f4 and 50mm prime lenses. Although the camera has built-in 9 focal points, I sometimes face a strange problem. Here's a sample photo:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/srOiI.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;two people, one in focus&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In reference to the above pic, you can see that both of the faces are &lt;strong&gt;NOT&lt;/strong&gt; in focus. I used 70-200 f4 for this shot at max aperture. Still, I couldn't get both of them in focus. Why? I also try decreasing the aperture to attain a greater DoF but still, I couldn't get both of them into focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another thing: Although the cam has 9 focal points, why can't I use all of them to focus, say, 9 points in a portrait shot? In manual mode, it has the option to select one of the 9 focal points. And in auto mode, it sometimes select more than one focal points.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is just an example image. I've faced this problem zillions of times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1485" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T13:43:22.967" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T13:43:22.967" Title="How can I get everything in focus?" Tags="&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;focus&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;manual-focus&gt;" AnswerCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4749" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4748" CreationDate="2010-11-09T07:28:11.853" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have limited understanding on some of these aspects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I thought that with focal points you can only use one point to focus - i.e. that is why it is called the focal point. For the camera to be able to focus on multiple areas it would need to be a technical masterpiece.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are not happy with the autofocus - have you tried manually focusing? do you get shots you like when you manually focus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At F4 I would expect the main subject to be in focus and those behind to be out of focus, if I wanted to have both of them I would be changing the App to 6.3 or greater&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope someone who knows more can come along and help you more&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1907" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T07:28:11.853" />
  <row Id="4750" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4748" CreationDate="2010-11-09T07:39:33.977" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The auto focus points visible in your viewfinder approximate the key areas that the AF sensor is able to measure. The resolution that the AF sensor processes at is pretty low, and how it processes is not exactly how our eyes see focus, so what it &quot;sees&quot; as being in focus may or may not be entirely sharp in the final image captured by your sensor. As such, when the AF sensor detects things as being &quot;in focus&quot;, its reading is fairly general, and not as precise as one would expect or hope much of the time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See this for an explanation of &lt;a href=&quot;http://graphics.stanford.edu/courses/cs178-10/applets/autofocusPD.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Phase-Detection AF&lt;/a&gt; used in most DSLR's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding depth of field, that can be a complex topic. To start, if you use all of the available focus points with AF, and those points cover parts of a scene with significantly varying depth, then not all of them will necessarily be fully in sharp focus. With Canon DSLR's, when a set of points have &quot;focused&quot;, they tend to blink. It is pretty rare with any scene containing a measure of depth to blink every focus point...usually only a locus around the area that is mostly in focus will. If you focus on a flat surface, such as a wall, you should be able to see all focus points blink indicating all 9 points have detected in-phase samples of the image. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you need to have a very deep DOF, you have a couple of options. Obviously, tightening down your aperture will increase your depth of field, but within certain limits. The closer you are to the subject you wish to focus, the shallower you depth of field will be. At considerably great distances, such as you might encounter when photographing a landscape, your depth of field can be immense (but &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; infinite.) When simply stopping down is not enough (or stopping down softens the image too much due to diffraction), you can always opt for a different lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A wider angle of view (short focal length) will allow you to get extremely close to the key subject you want in focus, bringing with it a shallower depth of field. While you have a narrow depth of field, you will still be able to see the general shape and structure of the background, as wide angles tend to either 'decompress' the background behind the subject in focus, or at the very least leave it &quot;normal&quot; (i.e. with a 50mm lens on a 35mm sensor.) A narrower angle of view (long focal length) will allow you photograph the same scene from farther away, thereby extending the depth of field. With a narrower field of view, anything that is behind your subject will become more 'compressed' and blurred, further isolating your key subject. It is a very fine balance between depth of field, angle of view, and background compression. With the right range of focal lengths and a calculated approach, you can likely find the right focal length and distance to subject to frame your subjects as you desire while maintaining the proper depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important to note that there will always be a fairly thin plane within which everything is truly in perfect, sharp focus. Beyond that plane, things will begin to blur, although they may blur below the threshold where the human eye can see it. The larger you view the final image, the narrower that plane of true focus will appear to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the sample image you posted. First, what was the smallest aperture you used? You might be able to use a smaller one. You may also try backing up a bit to deepen your field, and crop during post processing to get the same framing. If you have already tried a smaller aperture, I would suggest trying a longer focal length. The two key subjects are relatively in a strait line from the center of the lens, so backing up and using a longer focal length at a greater distance should improve your depth of field without losing much in the way of subject framing. A longer focal length will narrow the field of view, so less of girl in the pink shirt will be captured, at a greater magnification. That will cause her to become even more blurred, possibly beyond the point of recognition (which may be desirable, as it would help isolate your forward subjects.) It may take some experimentation to find the right focal length, and a zoom lens (such as the excellent 70-200mm lens you have) that will let you vary the focal length would be most useful. I would try shooting near the 200mm end at a greater distance, with a moderate aperture of f/8-f/11, and see how things go. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, if AF isn't quite getting it, you should never be afraid to switch to manual. Sometimes AF just can't lock onto your subject, especially with the limited number of AF points in a lower-end body like the 550D. If you have a tripod, Live View zoomed in 10x can be the best tool to get superb focus. Just remember to use the DOF Preview button (small button, front of the camera, just below the larger lens mount release button.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some great articles on the subject of focus and sharpness:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/focus.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ken Rockwell: Focus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/unsharp.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ken Rockwell: Fixing Unsharp Images&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cambridge in Color: Depth of Field&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.outsight.com/hyperfocal.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Focus Pocus&lt;/a&gt; (Focus and DOF calculators)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-09T17:25:16.687" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T17:25:16.687" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="4751" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4748" CreationDate="2010-11-09T07:40:24.050" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;So there are two issues at play.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, the image isn't properly in focus. DoF has nothing to do with this. It's hard to tell, but I suspect the man's hair is where the focal point is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, as you mentioned, the DoF is too shallow, so the woman is blurred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 70-200 is a telephoto lens, and as such, unless you are shooting an subjects that are far off in the distance, you will still have too shallow of a depth of field to have subjects that are placed that far apart (just based on her knee, I'd say at least 2 feet behind the man).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With regards to your question about AF points, it's a little unclear what you are asking. Even in manual shooting mode, you can have all &quot;AF Points&quot; active, and the camera will attempt to determine which AF point should be used (I think this is what you are asking about).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are planning to continue to use AF mode, I would stop using any AF point besides the center point. The center AF point is a higher sensitive cross-type point (@f2.8 so not as good on your 70-200F4), and will give you better accuracy. You can use Focus-Lock/Recompose to frame your subjects as you need, without having to rely on the other AF points.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T07:40:24.050" />
  <row Id="4752" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4748" CreationDate="2010-11-09T11:32:18.540" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you really do want to focus at all 9 AF points, maybe try using the A-DEP mode on the 550D? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A-DEP stands for &quot;automatic depth of field&quot; - it works out the closest and furthest focus point, picks a focus point midway between them, and then attempts to change the aperture so that the depth of field is sufficient for all 9 AF points to be in focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I usually find that I don't really want &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; the AF points in focus - normally, at least one point is over some random thing in the background - so I can't say I use A-DEP much myself, but it's there if you want it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T11:32:18.540" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4753" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4754" CreationDate="2010-11-09T11:33:10.940" Score="4" ViewCount="69" Body="&lt;p&gt;I take a photo with the cap on, set to shutter priority mode and set to 30s.&#xA;After photo is taken and the NR job runs, I end up with a black picture and a red line/haze down the right side of the photo and across the top of the photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Should I suspect an issue with lens/body? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What would you do to diagnose the issue?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Am I over-reacting and this is just a known issue (only currently affects my astrophotography)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Equipment&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nikon D90, 18-200mm Nikkor lense or the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8g prime. ISO 2000+&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NOTE: Have not experimented to see how low of an ISO I can go before the artifact disappears&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="154" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-09T13:17:25.417" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T13:17:25.417" Title="Red Haze across right and top of photo" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;image-processing&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4754" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4753" CreationDate="2010-11-09T12:04:34.137" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it's quite normal -- especially if you are using a high ISO (sensitivity). It is something I experienced on my old D50.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that it is actually a sensor artefact caused by heat within the camera, rather than light leaking in somewhere, though that could also contribute.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that for long exposures you should cover up the viewfinder to prevent light entering from the rear of the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2019" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T12:04:34.137" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4755" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4707" CreationDate="2010-11-09T12:14:28.430" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Photoshop is very advanced tool. Its costly too. For who are just starting out, they can use Gimp, which is free. It doesn't replace Photoshop, but has the things you have listed. Also you can use online photo editing tools. Since I mostly prints them, I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.colormailer.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;colormailer&lt;/a&gt;. If you upload it to flickr, you can resize from there too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2112" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T12:14:28.430" />
  <row Id="4756" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4790" CreationDate="2010-11-09T12:27:26.497" Score="7" ViewCount="373" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are smartphones in the market that have a focus towards photography. Some are equipped with a Carl Zeiss lens. I have looked into wikipedia, which tells that they are a brand who produce lens. What make their lens so special?&#xA;What do you think about a 5MP camera in phones, one with Carl Zeiss, other one isn't? My device in mind is Nokia N900.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2112" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-09T17:08:56.793" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T21:54:17.530" Title="What makes a Carl Zeiss lens so special in a smartphone?" Tags="&lt;cameraphones&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4757" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4707" CreationDate="2010-11-09T12:34:46.957" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd also like to recommend &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shake_%28software%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Apple Shake&lt;/a&gt;. It's Mac only and it has been discontinued for a while but there are still retail copies available (check you're getting a big box full of manuals) on eBay for about $300 (less that a third of full-price Photoshop), and it's so brilliant I'd like to enthuse about it while it's still available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Features:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;High bit-depth support up to 32bit floating point, plus ability to edit images in logarithmic scale.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Non-destructive workflow: You never touch the original. It's like editing a macro that is constantly run over the image (and it's fast because the caching is good).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Everything is programmable: every parameter accepts expressions, which can refer to any value in your workspace; you can program your own filter nodes (may sound scary, but there are good examples to get you started); your workspace can be copied and pasted as ascii text for custom programatic editing; you can run it from the command line; there are &lt;a href=&quot;http://open.rsp.com.au/projects/pyshake&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;experimental 3rd party Python bindings&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Automatic multiple outputs: your workspace is just a series of connected flowing nodes and you can have as many outputs as you like. It's great if you want to export several different versions of your image whenever you save.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;All this for moving image - Shake was designed for movie visual effects :)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is one gocha: you have to alter a parameter in a buried text preferences file to open images larger than 4096px². I don't remember the details off-hand but I can look harder if anyone wants to know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's the best raster editing package I've ever used. It used to be obscenely expensive and now it's not. Anyone remotely interested should snap up a copy while they can!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2016" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T12:34:46.957" />
  <row Id="4758" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4756" CreationDate="2010-11-09T12:59:25.580" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a classic example of the power of branding and marketing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're a manufacturer that hasn't made a name for itself in optics (like Nokia), you can create the idea of a premium product by using a lens from someone who does (like Carl Zeiss).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T12:59:25.580" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4759" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4756" CreationDate="2010-11-09T13:17:41.297" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the one hand is the brand name as Rowland say, and because the sony and nokia and maybe other brands cant product their lens, maybe on the contract have to say that this lens are Carl Zeiss.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the other hand is the unique knowlege of the glass creation especial for the lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Every class is not made with the same procedure. Carl Zeiss claims that can create very clear, and solid high quality glass and lens that are so good/clear/bright so can be used on small deviced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am a fan of Olympus OM, and the old days the lens for the Olympus OM system called zuiko.  Zuiko was special small and compact high quality lens that was not only a brand name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="236" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T13:17:41.297" />
  <row Id="4760" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4786" CreationDate="2010-11-09T14:18:45.713" Score="5" ViewCount="248" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been looking into whether to use a regular UV or polarizing filter for a 16mm wide-angle lens and have found that a large number of people believe that you should never use a polarizer with a wide-angle lens. The reasoning seems to be that because of the sheer width of the image frame, the angle away from the sun can vary by such a large degree across the width of the frame that your picture will likely exhibit clear changes in saturation and brightness from one edge to the other. I can see why this might be the case and that for the most part that it might be undesirable, but is it really that much of a problem? Are there any examples of situations where this effect can be used to your advantage?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1749" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T00:18:18.117" Title="Is it wise to use polarizing filters with wide-angle lenses?" Tags="&lt;wide-angle&gt;&lt;polarizer&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4761" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4748" CreationDate="2010-11-09T14:18:55.980" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You've got some good answers already about how focus works but here's the answer to your focus-points question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The camera may have any number of focus-points (9, 11, ... 51, it does not matter) but focus is always at ONE focus distance (the distance in front of the sensor at which things are in perfect focus).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you are using one focus point (and you choose which one), the camera measures the distance at THAT point and sets the focus to the measured distance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the camera automatically chooses the focus point, it measures the distance at all points. It then decides which one has priority (depending on the camera, it could be the closest to the camera or the closest to the center) and sets the focus-distance based on that point. THEN it lights up ALL the points which are in focus, which always includes the chosen point but can include other too if they just happen to be in focus as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And to confirm what's already been said: Using the widest aperture you got shallow depth-of-field so not many points end up in focus. Use a smaller aperture and you'll get more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T14:18:55.980" />
  <row Id="4762" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4767" CreationDate="2010-11-09T14:30:12.690" Score="11" ViewCount="322" Body="&lt;p&gt;Found something that confused me and so I thought the crowd here can probably answer this one since its camera-related and technical at the same time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can dynamic-range be larger than sensor bit-depth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Someone sent me the DXOMark results for the Pentax K-5 which shows 14.1 EV of dynamic-range at its lowest ISO. However, given that the sensor is 14-bits, this does not fit with my intuition... It seems strange that a linear device like a CMOS-sensor can capture more DR than it has bits. Would it have a sparse dynamic-range, skipping EVs in the middle?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-09T17:06:27.637" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T11:29:46.330" Title="Dynamic-Range vs Bit-Depth" Tags="&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;dynamic-range&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4763" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4748" CreationDate="2010-11-09T14:36:28.973" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When all AF points are enabled the camera tries to take a reading from all points. Some of these points won't yield a reading if they don't correspond to an area of contrast in the image (such as a line or edge). Out of all the points that produce a distance reading the camera picks the &lt;strong&gt;closest one&lt;/strong&gt; and tells the lens to focus at that distance. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The depth of field extends both in front of and behind the plane of focus, thus for this type of shot you want to focus somewhere between the subjects. You tend to get more DOF behind than in front (which is why the camera picks the closest point) though it's about even for close distances e.g. less than 10m.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You can tilt the plane of focus using a special lens, you can shoot two images with different focus and blend them, and you can stop right down. None of these solutions are ideal, the first costs you money, the second time and the third light. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I would recommend you change the composition, place the subjects at the same distance (side by side) or include a background element in the picture so you can back off or use a wider lens and make it look intentional. At the end of the day this type of shot is very hard to get with a DSLR due to the shallow DOF that a large sensor provides.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T14:36:28.973" />
  <row Id="4765" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4762" CreationDate="2010-11-09T14:51:17.613" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Firstly to be clear, dynamic range has an inverse relationship to noise - low noise (all else equal) leads to a greater dynamic range. Noise comes primarily from the sensor electronics (read noise, dark current noise), from the discrete nature of light (photon/shot noise) and from conversion from analogue to digital (quantisation noise).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;DXO mark dynamic range scores are based on the difference between the light intensity required to saturate the sensor and the light intensity at which the SNR hits 1:1 (i.e. the point at which the signal equals the noise) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You would expect that in the absence of shot noise and readout noise that the DR of a sensor with a linear response would equal the bit depth. Given the K-5's score in the presence of these sources of noise indicates to me that the image pipeline has a moderate degree of nonlinearity (all sensors have some inherent nonlinearity), probably engineered that way to increase the dynamic range. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nonlinearity helps escape the bit depth limit, bit what you gain in gradations in the shadows you lose elsewhere in the tonecurve (albeit probably somewhere less important). There is no such thing as a free lunch! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With regard to the K-5, it's class leading at low ISO sensitivity, which is determined mainly by  read noise. It's really great to see the manufacturers turning their attention to this area and it thoroughly deserves the attention, however dynamic range at higher ISO sensitivities is dominated by photon noise which is only countered by capturing more light, so large sensors will always have an advantage here. As some people predominantly shoot ISO400 and above so it's worth bearing this in mind! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-09T15:46:40.647" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T15:46:40.647" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4766" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4741" CreationDate="2010-11-09T14:51:46.270" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can also consider M42 thread lens (pentax or zenith) + macro rings which may be pretty cheap solution. Of course then You need to buy also M42 thread mount for You camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cgi.ebay.com/HELIOS-44-2-58-M42-RUSSIAN-LENS-SLR-ZENIT-NO-RESERVE-/160501405424?pt=Camera_Lenses&amp;amp;hash=item255ea116f0#ht_943wt_1140&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://cgi.ebay.com/HELIOS-44-2-58-M42-RUSSIAN-LENS-SLR-ZENIT-NO-RESERVE-/160501405424?pt=Camera_Lenses&amp;amp;hash=item255ea116f0#ht_943wt_1140&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cgi.ebay.com/SET-THREE-M42-EXTENSION-RINGS-TUBES-MACRO-PHOTO-/110608445053?pt=Lens_Accessories&amp;amp;hash=item19c0c6ee7d#ht_1880wt_1140&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://cgi.ebay.com/SET-THREE-M42-EXTENSION-RINGS-TUBES-MACRO-PHOTO-/110608445053?pt=Lens_Accessories&amp;amp;hash=item19c0c6ee7d#ht_1880wt_1140&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://shop.ebay.com/i.html?_nkw=m42+adapter&amp;amp;_sacat=0&amp;amp;_odkw=m42+macro&amp;amp;_osacat=0&amp;amp;_trksid=p3286.c0.m270.l1311&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://shop.ebay.com/i.html?_nkw=m42+adapter&amp;amp;_sacat=0&amp;amp;_odkw=m42+macro&amp;amp;_osacat=0&amp;amp;_trksid=p3286.c0.m270.l1311&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am using it for Canon with EF-S mount, need some patience but it is really budget solution with relatively good results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1681" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T14:51:46.270" />
  <row Id="4767" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4762" CreationDate="2010-11-09T15:18:30.723" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Cambridge in Colour has a very &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;good article&lt;/a&gt; on this. If the sensor has a linear A/D converter, the bit depth would cap dynamic range at at 14 EVs as a theoretical limit. However, if it is non-linear, then the bit depth doesn't necessarily correlate. From that, I think we can determine that the sensor in the K-5 doesn't have a linear A/D converter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can say, from personal experience, that this sensor definitely has enormous dynamic range. I managed to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.grumpyjohns.com/index.php?module=article&amp;amp;action=view&amp;amp;article%3a%3aarticle%3a%3aid=182&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;recover&lt;/a&gt; an image that was close to 8 stops underexposed on the K-5.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T15:18:30.723" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="4768" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4762" CreationDate="2010-11-09T15:18:47.830" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How can dynamic-range be larger than sensor bit-depth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dynamic range is the logarithm of the ratio between the brightest and and the darkest &lt;em&gt;intensities&lt;/em&gt; on the linear part of the sensibility curve. There may be other definitions, but in general it is derived from the ratio of two intensities, objective physical properties of the scene. It is a real number.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bit-depth is the number of bits per channel used to quantize the continuous variable. More bit-depth gives more distinct shades of gray in between. It is purely a question of how an image is represented in computer memory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dynamic range reflects how much contrast the sensor can register. The bit depth reflects how many distinct colors the camera can “give names” to. Or into how many pieces the camera can divide the range. If a camera were a ruler, then the dynamic range would be the (logarithm of the) length of the ruler, and the bit depth would be the (logarithm of the) number of marks along its edge. And you can divide the length into as many pieces as you like. Similarly, the bit depth does not have to be the same as the dynamic range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If dynamic range is &lt;em&gt;S&lt;/em&gt; EV, and bit depth is &lt;em&gt;n&lt;/em&gt;, then it means that the camera can register scenes with contrast at least as large as&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=tx&amp;amp;chl=I_%7Bmax%7D%2FI_%7Bmin%7D%20%3D%202%5ES&quot; alt=&quot;E_max/E_min = 2^s&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Actually a little more if you use also the non-linear part of the sensor response curve). And you can theoretically distinguish &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=tx&amp;amp;chl=N=2%5En&quot; alt=&quot;N = 2^n&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;shades of gray.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I own a compact camera which can write 12-bit RAW. Inspite of the high bit-depth, its dynamic range is very modest. You can imaging an opposite situation, when the sensor can register a high contrast scene, without over- and underexposure, but if the bit depth is low, that scene will be represented with few intermediate colors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastEditorUserId="1558" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-10T11:29:46.330" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T11:29:46.330" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="4769" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4770" CreationDate="2010-11-09T15:44:58.323" Score="6" ViewCount="541" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have taken a portrait picture which has to look good. It does look good on the Dell 2410 I use for editing. On the garden variety Fujitsu I use as a secondary monitor, it is terrible. In the face, the highlights are yellowly-blown with a reddish halo and the shadows are greenish. Half of the auburn hair looks flat black, and the remainder is tinted orange. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that the Fujitsu isn't meant for picture work, but usually, when I look at a random portrait from the web, or at other portraits taken with the same camera and lens, I don't see such an extreme difference. There is usually loss of detail, but not this overcontrasted oversaturated monstrosity. I am not happy that it looks good on the Dell, because I expect most people who look at the picture to do so on an average monitor. Any ideas how to make it look good? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have no idea what causes the problem. It isn't overzealous editing, as the problem is already present in the NEF original. It has much more colour noise than my lens usually produces at ISO 400 (I don't know why it had such a bad day, maybe the green background), but reducing it with noise filters/scripts didn't help any, so this probably isn't the cause. Any hints are welcome. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to see it for itself, I uploaded it on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/28989244@N05/5160991505/sizes/l/in/photostream/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/28989244@N05/5160991505/sizes/l/in/photostream/&lt;/a&gt;. It was shot in AdobeRGB and converted in sRGB with ufraw. I use GIMP for editing, don't have access to expensive software like Photoshop and Lightroom. But if you know how to repair it in Photoshop, describe it and I will try to replicate the workflow in GIMP if possible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: Matt's answer wasn't full, but got me thinking in the right direction. I started from scratch. Just colour balance didn't do it, but sharply reducing the contrast got rid of the glowing patches on cheeks and brow, then changing the tone and saturation for each primary, once for a skin area selection and once for the rest, did produce something which looks presentable on both monitors. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/v5uPi.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2099" LastEditorUserId="2099" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-09T20:55:11.713" LastActivityDate="2010-11-11T20:45:31.733" Title="How to make an image apear OK on an average monitor" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;technique&gt;&lt;repair&gt;&lt;color-correction&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4770" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4769" CreationDate="2010-11-09T16:04:37.147" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My first instinct was a colour profile issue but then you said you converted to sRGB. To me the image has too much green in general, looks great on the foliage in the background but not in the skintones. The shadows will always have a green tint with this sort of image as any areas not directly lit will be receiving green light reflected from the nearby leaves. BTW I'm viewing your image on an average monitor right now! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would suggest you have another go at the white balance on you NEC, cool it a fraction and err on the magenta side. Apart from that there is no magic solution, as you have no control over the monitor - or ambient light conditions of an arbitrary web user! There is no &quot;average monitor&quot; profile, all non calibrated displays will be off by a random amount! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only thing you can do is reduce the saturation - this will at least limit how far off the colours can appear! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-09T19:05:51.770" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T19:05:51.770" />
  <row Id="4771" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4723" CreationDate="2010-11-09T16:12:44.733" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;ephotozine also is a good resource for anything photography:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ephotozine.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ephotozine.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lots to read and do there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T16:12:44.733" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4772" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4769" CreationDate="2010-11-09T16:14:54.990" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure if your monitor is to blame here. I think there is a (green) color cast in your photo, your white-balance is likely off. I dropped it in Photoshop Elements, and using Auto Levels or Auto Smart Fix I was able to achieve a more realistic skin tone. It seems Gimp &lt;em&gt;has&lt;/em&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://docs.gimp.org/en/gimp-colors-auto-menu.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an Auto menu&lt;/a&gt;, try &quot;Auto White Balance&quot; for kicks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the left, yours, then Auto Color, then Auto Smart Fix. There is a compromise to be found in there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/RQxp7.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think you mentioned that your monitors were calibrated, but that's really an important first step. Some decent colorimeters can be bought for cheap, I use an inexpensive &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Pantone-MEU113-huey-Pro/dp/B000OFC1YY&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;HueyPro&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as White Balance is concerned, you can either trust Gimp, Photoshop or Lightroom to guesstimate a better WB and fix the color cast, or you can help out by picking what you think &lt;em&gt;should have been&lt;/em&gt; gray in your photo using a WB picker (in Lightroom at least). Another option, you can buy an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-Premium-Reference-Quick-Release-Photography/dp/B001G04VJO/ref=pd_cp_p_1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;inexpensive set of grey cards&lt;/a&gt; and take a picture of the card under the same light conditions. This will give you the proper color temperature to use when you look at that photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-09T20:12:29.740" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T20:12:29.740" />
  <row Id="4773" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4760" CreationDate="2010-11-09T16:24:38.917" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question seems to answer itself :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you use a polarizer on a wide-angle lens you will most likely have an image which looks unnatural, except in circumstances where the polarizer has no effect of-course. This may occur when it is extremely overcast for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you know this, it is up to you to decide whether you want to create images that have that effect. Photography is art after all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T16:24:38.917" />
  <row Id="4774" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3410" CreationDate="2010-11-09T16:50:37.830" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I processed the DNG in RawTherapee. I tried playing with Local Contrast first, but then felt that usual curves work better, and the result looks more natural (though at the cost of the intensity of the sky). Click to see the original:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/4511/s-astanin.17/0_471ac_2c15a53f_orig&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/4511/s-astanin.17/0_471ac_2c15a53f_L.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Zero exposure compensation, black at 32, full highlight/shadow compression. Tonal curve is pretty aggressive. Using control cage mode:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/1e1HU.png&quot; alt=&quot;Tone curve&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sharpening with USM, R=0.66, Amount=110, Threshold=192, edges only. Camera white balance. Impulse denoising (50), Directional pyramid denoising (Luma=10, Chroma=30, Gamma=3). In chroma denoising you tradeoff skin saturation for somewhat smoother look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Complete post-processing profile: &lt;a href=&quot;http://ubuntuone.com/p/OVF/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;IMGP2325_skin_tone_example.jpg.out.pp3&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I said initially, you can have more intense colors if you use the Local Contrast tool. The price is unnatural HDR-like halos/shadows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1:1 crop:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5001/s-astanin.17/0_471ad_6f55b66e_orig&quot; alt=&quot;1:1 crop&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S. The file with parameters may fail to work with future versions of RawTherapee, because I used the development build (3.0 Alpha) of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T16:50:37.830" />
  <row Id="4775" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4776" CreationDate="2010-11-09T17:05:10.507" Score="6" ViewCount="376" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've seen several references to a loop lighting pattern, often in the context of portraiture lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is meant by the term?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-27T16:32:12.993" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T16:32:12.993" Title="What is a Loop Lighting pattern?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;lighting-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4776" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4775" CreationDate="2010-11-09T17:31:16.087" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.portraitlighting.net/loop.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;image (c) portraitlighting.net&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's where you have the lightsource above and slightly behind the subject so the light runs down the nose and creates a loop shaped shadow. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.portraitlighting.net/patternsb.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.portraitlighting.net/patternsb.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I don't like the shadow, I either go for something more dramatic and join the nose shadow to the unlit side leaving just a triangle highlight on cheek or go for a broad lighting setup if I want a flattering well lit scheme. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-09T17:37:44.707" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T17:37:44.707" />
  <row Id="4777" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4707" CreationDate="2010-11-09T17:35:40.333" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use Gimp as my primary editor. It is powerful and can do a lot. Also even if it may sound unexpected, I like the interface of some of its tools (e.g. I like its curves tool).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;What Gimp can do&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What I am trying to do: Ideally I would like to manipulate pictures to enhance them,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Levels, curves, brightness, contrast? — yes, Gimp can do it. Sharpen? — check (see Unsharp mask and Refocus, edge only sharpening is also available). Denoise? — check (not the best in the world, but Wavelet denoise is very usable). Remove red eyes? — check. Fix colors? — check (not the strongest side of Gimp, though, it's better to have a RAW file around).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;crop, etc...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, Gimp can do it. Also quality resizing, rotation, perspective correction etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and also have tools to merge new backgrounds&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, there are several ways to remove or replace background. There is also a special &lt;a href=&quot;http://docs.gimp.org/en/gimp-tool-foreground-select.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Foreground Select tool&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://docs.gimp.org/en/images/toolbox/FG-select-ex4.png&quot; alt=&quot;Foreground Select&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and tools to transform a pictures completely, e.g. transforming the picture so it looks like a painting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, sure. I never use them, but there are many filters like this and tutorials how to do it manually. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gimpusers.com/tutorials/oilpainting-from-photo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;how to reate an oil painting from a photo in Gimp&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gimp.org/tutorials/Sketch_Effect/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sketch effect&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.gimpusers.com/system/tutorial_steps/1484/1-preview.jpg?1285535309&quot; alt=&quot;before&quot;&gt; &#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.gimpusers.com/system/tutorial_steps/1491/8-preview.jpg?1285535310&quot; alt=&quot;after&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;What Gimp cannot do yet&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Current version of Gimp (2.6) doesn't support color spaces different from RGB (e.g. no CMYK or Lab images). But you can decompose the image into separate compontents, process them and re-compose them back. The future versions of Gimp will have a much more flexible color model: &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.mmiworks.net/2009/05/gimp-enter.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Plates&lt;/a&gt;. It will allow for arbitrary color representations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Current version of Gimp doesn't support color depth beyond 8 bit per channel. In practice this means that if you try to pull shadows up with the curves tool (and the curves tool itself is very good in Gimp), you may notice color banding and will see a spiky histogram.  It's unlikely to be implemented before Gimp 3.0, but the work &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.graphics-muse.org/artistsguide/?p=182&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;has started&lt;/a&gt;. I suppose contributions and donations are welcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastEditorUserId="1558" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-09T18:51:52.080" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T18:51:52.080" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4778" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4707" CreationDate="2010-11-09T18:00:31.527" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;definitely gimp.  I use it all the time.  Photoshop good too but not free.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T18:00:31.527" />
  <row Id="4779" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4781" CreationDate="2010-11-09T18:31:10.737" Score="5" ViewCount="249" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello,&#xA;And my apologies if this sounds a bit too basic but I can't get my head around this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a digital image I took with my camera. 4000x3000 pixels, and GIMP claims that its resolution is 72x72 DPI.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to print a &lt;em&gt;thumbnail&lt;/em&gt; of this picture in the highest quality possible. What I was told is that the printer which is going to be used works optimally with images set for 300 DPI.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the printed document, I would like my image to be exactly 166 pixels wide, or 3.32cm (as Microsoft Word sets it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And now to the question: how do I calculate how to resize my 12MP image, so when I take that image and import it into my word processor, it will end up printing the best?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My initial thought was this: Since the image on &lt;em&gt;paper&lt;/em&gt; is going to end up being 3.32cm wide (1.31&quot;), I should resize my image to be 300x1.31 = 393 pixels wide and set its DPI headers to note &quot;300x300&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I'm pretty clueless about photography in general so I'm afraid this sounds as if I'm smoking something cheap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Am I missing anything?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks,&#xA;Isaac&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2118" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T17:25:57.657" Title="Confused about DPI's: Large JPG file to print" Tags="&lt;ppi&gt;&lt;dpi&gt;&lt;thumbnails&gt;&lt;printing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4780" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4779" CreationDate="2010-11-09T18:43:48.837" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What you're suggesting in terms of resizing sounds correct, and you can use any number of tools to do it, if you're on windows you can use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.irfanview.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;irfanview&lt;/a&gt;, and naturally almost any of the pro line of tools will do it (such as Photoshop).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also worth noting that most of these tools will also let you set the width as a function of their physical size (cm, inches), and will calculate the dimensions in pixels using the DPI that is set in the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1094" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-09T19:03:19.617" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T19:03:19.617" />
  <row Id="4781" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4779" CreationDate="2010-11-09T18:47:26.947" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When it comes to print, terms like DPI, resolution, PPI, etc. get thrown around without much care or concern as to what they truly mean. So, before I send you off to a more in-depth answer about DPI, PPI, resolution, and print, a quick summary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;DPI: Dots Per Inch&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A 'dot' is a single element of a pixel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;On a computer screen, a dot is a single 'sub-pixel' element, and may be red, green, or blue&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;On a print, a dot is a single droplet of ink expelled by the print head&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;PPI: Pixels Per Inch&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A 'pixel' is the smallest element of an image, &quot;PIcture ELement&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;On a computer screen, every pixel is composed of three 'dots' or sub-pixels, one red, one green, one blue&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;On an ink jet print, every pixel is composed of numerous dots of varying ink colors, usually a mix of cyan, magenta, yellow, and black, although modern printers often have several other inks as well&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;On a dye sublimation print, every pixel is a single dot from a blend of varying in colors, such as cyan, magenta, yellow, and black.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Resolution: Variable meaning&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Regarding an image, the resolution usually means the width and height of an image in pixels&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Regarding a print, the resolution usually means the number of pixels in an inch (or cm, if you are from a country that uses metric.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Regarding a computer screen, resolution usually means the width and height of the screen in pixels, but can also mean pixels per inch (i.e. 72ppi is the common &quot;resolution&quot; of the average LCD screen, while higher end screens often have a resolution of 100ppi.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the rest of your question, I've written up an extensive article here on Photo-SE that answers that question in great detail: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1715/how-do-i-generate-high-quality-prints-with-an-ink-jet-printer&quot;&gt;How do I generate high quality prints with a ink-jet printer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-22T17:25:57.657" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T17:25:57.657" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="4782" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4769" CreationDate="2010-11-09T19:26:56.337" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off, I think you did the right thing by converting the image to sRGB. Most computer screens are designed to output in the sRGB color space. Additionally, few web browsers provide proper color management, so when they render images, they usually assume sRGB. An image from a different color space will usually render incorrectly on the average viewers screen due to these factors. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, you could have a few issues. First, I would make sure your image is properly color balanced (or white-balanced.) White balance is a key factor in achieving a color-correct image in a color-corrected workflow. Conversions between color space sometimes work around the white point. Luckily, AdobeRGB and sRGB both use the same white point (6500k, often abbreviated D65), so conversions between these two color spaces usually does not cause any color shift. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An important factor about color space conversions is the intent. There are a variety of intents, including Absolute Colorimetric (which shifts white point if there is a difference between the two color spaces), Relative Colorimetric, Perceptual, and Saturation intent. The two most commonly used are Relative and Perceptual. Relative attempts to maintain as much color accuracy relative to the original space as possible, however it will shift colors somewhat to compress them into a narrower gamut (since AdobeRGB is a wider gamut, Relative intent will &quot;compress&quot; colors into the sRGB space). Relative intent may introduce some color shifts when converting, since it is relative to the original space. Perceptual intent attempts to maintain as much color accuracy relative to how human eyesight perceives colors in relation to each other. While it will not preserve original colors relative to their original color space, it will usually produce an image that looks correct to a human observer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Color correction and color spaces aside, I think your image is just not properly color balanced. The kind of greenish/yellow tinting you see can be corrected with post-processing tools. I am not sure exactly what Gimp is capable of, or how accurate or reliable its ICM is, but I do believe it has color balance controls. Here is an example of your image that I have corrected using the Auto Tone and Auto Color correction tools of Photoshop:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/pWKBG.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a split sample of her face, showing the original image to the left, the image with simple tone correction on the right, and both tone and color correction in the center. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/G6Prh.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the fully corrected image from auto correction tools does not meet your needs, then you can always do some fine-tuning adjustments after the fact to perfect the results. Use the curves and levels tools, and possibly some slight saturation adjustments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T19:26:56.337" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4783" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4760" CreationDate="2010-11-09T19:37:32.033" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You've basically answered your own question. ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At wide angles, the greatly varying angle from the light source does indeed cause problems. Usually, you will see a large, darkening &quot;spot&quot; where you have the polarizer angled. This is due to the widely varying angles of polarized light reaching the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An excellent article that superbly demonstrates this nasty effect can be found at Cambridge in Color:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lens-filters.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Camera Lens Filters&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;However, polarizing filters should be&#xA;  used with caution because they may&#xA;  adversely affect the photo. Polarizers&#xA;  dramatically reduce the amount of&#xA;  light reaching the camera's&#xA;  sensor—often by 2-3 f-stops (1/4 to&#xA;  1/8 the amount of light). This means&#xA;  that the risk of a blurred handheld&#xA;  image goes up dramatically, and may&#xA;  make some action shots prohibitive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Additionally, using a polarizer on a&#xA;  wide angle lens can produce an uneven&#xA;  or unrealistic looking sky which&#xA;  visibly darkens. In the example to the&#xA;  left, the sky could be considered&#xA;  unusually uneven and too dark at the&#xA;  top.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;     - C in C&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T19:37:32.033" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4784" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4723" CreationDate="2010-11-09T19:43:38.763" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the best sites for a beginning photographers (as well as pros) is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cambridge in Color&lt;/a&gt;. This excellent site has some superb writers, and their articles are clear, concise, and thoroughly demonstrate their points with sample images, figures, and some basic math. You can learn a lot there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another great beginner site (and even for those who are decently skilled photographers) is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Photography School&lt;/a&gt;. This is a great site that is chock full of tutorials, tips and tricks, articles, and more. You can find an article for just about anything related to digital photography there, from choosing cameras, to learning about exposure and camera settings, to composition, to post processing techniques.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also numerous other sites on the net for beginners and experts alike. If you like the nitty gritty low level theory about everything photography, another excellent site is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/index.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luminous Landscape&lt;/a&gt;. The articles here are often fairly old and pertain to film, but the underlying theory is sound, and most of it still applies to digital photography today. Be ware, while this site has some fantastic articles regarding composition, exposure, etc, it also contains many heavy duty articles that discuss the low level theory of optics, film, sensors, light, etc. If you like mathematics, its a wonderful site. If you hate math, you can avoid the gritty articles and stick to the ones that discuss practical things like composition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T19:43:38.763" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4785" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-09T20:04:13.787" Score="4" ViewCount="117" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have some pieces of polarizing film from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.polarization.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;polarization.com&lt;/a&gt;, which are reasonably good and not too expensive, but I have some problems with them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They are too thick (only just fit in the filter slots), and probably related:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is significant loss of contrast and haze when a bright light is in the frame&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is no anti-reflective coating&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thickness is, in part (I think), because they have an extra layer of quarter-wave-retardation to make them circular rather than linearly polarizing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm particularly interested in using polarizing filters with my &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/105fe.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fisheye lens&lt;/a&gt;, for fun effects with sky and water, so thin, rear-slot solutions are the only option: glass filters would be ideal, but the glass from a normal polarizer is too thick for the rear slot, which is about .5-.8mm thick.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What other options are there?&#xA;Also, what about ND gels in this format?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2019" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-06-05T18:37:05.270" LastActivityDate="2011-06-05T18:37:05.270" Title="What is a source for small pieces of thin, high-quality, polarizing film for use with rear-filter lenses?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;polarizer&gt;&lt;gels&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="4786" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4760" CreationDate="2010-11-09T20:06:03.660" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's something to be aware of, but as long as you're aware of it, you can often still use a polarizer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've a 10-22mm UWA and I'm quite happy that I spent the money to get a polarizer for it.&#xA;A couple of suggestions for you:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You can often hide the variation across the image by e.g. including clouds in skies for example&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When you've rotated your polarizer to get maximum effect, rotate it back slightly to back off the effect, and you can still get some of the benefit of a polarizer.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shoot portrait instead of landscape.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Couple of examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;10mm:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/8dbrf.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;http://gallery.ildica.com/v/SpencerParkDayRace2010/2010-01-Sailing-073.jpg.html&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12mm:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/856QL.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;http://gallery.ildica.com/v/UKTrip2010/MiscUK2010/2010-09-UKTrip_amp_Stephen_sWedding-116.jpg.html&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1124" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T20:06:03.660" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4787" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16" CreationDate="2010-11-09T20:07:20.400" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The one that helped me the most and that I read the most times is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/article.php?id=ng_pfg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The National Geographic Photography Field Guide&lt;/a&gt;. Unlike most modern books it is about photography itself, not manipulating images. It also puts talks about techniques in context for different subjects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T20:07:20.400" />
  <row Id="4788" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-09T20:40:03.997" Score="3" ViewCount="212" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am looking for a new digital camera that doesn't break the bank.  I am certainly not a professional but I like my photos to look professional.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2121" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T03:58:46.187" Title="What type of digital camera should a novice get?" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="4789" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4788" CreationDate="2010-11-09T21:03:50.713" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You need to be specific at what you want to do with it. Just like I can't recommend you which car to buy without knowing anything about you, the same goes for cameras. We don't even know what 'break the bank' means for you, it is very relative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Definitely if you are looking for high quality, people will tell you to get a DSLR or interchangeable lens camera. The latter is smaller but also slower, if you don't shoot things that move, you won't care about that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My advice is to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/guide_camera_basics.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;read a buying guide&lt;/a&gt; that explains to you what the important points to consider are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't get fooled into thinking that you need a professional camera to make fantastic images. Take a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=317651&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this pro&lt;/a&gt; who takes a $150 digital camera when he goes on vacations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T21:03:50.713" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4790" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4756" CreationDate="2010-11-09T21:54:17.530" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Carl Zeiss is a very well respected lens maker, and very literally one of the reasons &quot;German engineering&quot; conjures images of precision and care. Camera phone manufacturers license the name (and, nominally, lens technology) from Zeiss in order to borrow some of that high-end image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This isn't necessarily all chicanery: companies who are doing this are at least somewhat interested in appearing to be high quality, and the name isn't completely diluted, so you have a reasonable expectation that if the lens says Zeiss, it's probably above run-of-the-mill.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of the N900, the lens is quite good for a smartphone, and more importantly, the sensor is relatively large. 5mpix is a decent resolution for that size of sensor -- at this point in the technology, you're not going to get a lot out of having more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-11-09T21:54:17.530" />
  <row Id="4791" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4760" CreationDate="2010-11-10T00:18:18.117" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on your image. The effect will be most noticeable if you are including clear blue skies in landscape mode, less so in portrait. It is less noticeable (to almost being a non-issue) if it is overcast, or if you just don't have much sky, if any, in your photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T00:18:18.117" />
  <row Id="4792" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4788" CreationDate="2010-11-10T02:50:03.250" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sometimes gear is not to be blamed for the photographs to come out &quot;unprofessional&quot;.. Before transitioning to an SLR three years ago, I had a really modest kodak camera and used to look at flickr's &quot;interesting&quot; pictures from that camera to get the needed result (by looking at the exif to check the modes they were using and the composition). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since you probably don't want to get neck deep into photography, nor want to lug a heavy camera around, I'd say grab a great well reviewed P&amp;amp;S camera like the G11 and use flickr to learn taking great pictures with it (http://www.flickr.com/cameras/canon/powershot_g11/)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="55" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T02:50:03.250" />
  <row Id="4793" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4788" CreationDate="2010-11-10T03:58:46.187" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question is quite vague, what does professional mean to you? What's your budget? Breaking the bank varies by person. The Pentax 645D at $10,000 breaks the bank for me, but the Canon 5D mark II at $2500 does not, but for someone else, $2500 is way off the line.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, the best way to approach the purchase is based on your needs and desires. To that end, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DP Review&lt;/a&gt; has a nice tool for plugging in what you're interested in and then recommending some options as a result. That's a place to start, but then you need to look at the potential options online, especially images. At which point, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/cameras/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr Camera Finder&lt;/a&gt; becomes handy for seeing the art of the possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, despite all of that, the camera is just a tool. Your pictures will look as professional as you make them, end of story. For some people, you could put the lowest specified camera into their hands and they will produce incredible photos that would make some of us drool. For other people, you could put a $42,000 Phase One camera in front of them and they'll produce a piece of junk. It's not the gear, it's the photographer. If you still don't believe that, consider this: some of the greatest photographs in the last 100 years were taken by photographers using gear that we would currently consider to be utterly archaic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Net effect, you need to figure out exactly what you want and then use that information to make a decision. Then, if you want professional looking results, you need to practice, practice, and then practice some more. Unless you do both, the camera you buy will not answer your question, regardless of what you choose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T03:58:46.187" />
  <row Id="4794" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4785" CreationDate="2010-11-10T04:19:31.267" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Warning: this is really more of a comment than an answer, but wouldn't all fit in a comment, so I wrote it here...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The quarter wave plate doesn't contribute significantly to the thickness -- by definition its thickness is roughly one quarter the wave length of light. Visible light has a wavelength between (about) 380 and 780 nanometers, so the quarter-wave plate is somewhere between 95 and 195 nanometers (normally close to the middle of that range).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the thickness is almost certain to be the substrate on which the optical layers are deposited, and a protective layer over the top. At least in a typical case, the polarizing layer and the quarter wave plate will be no more than a couple thousandths of an inch between them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T04:19:31.267" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="4795" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4459" CreationDate="2010-11-10T08:23:57.123" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I understand Mr. Dubovoy correctly, he forwards the idea that by increasing the aperture size, the incident angle on the sensor increases (faster lens w/same focal length).  With a larger incident angle the sensor detects is less intensity.  To suggest that the size of the aperture affects the incident angle at the sensor is technically incorrect - ridiculous.  The incident angle at the sensor is determined by the geometric relationship between the focal length and the sensor size.  The size of the front aperture has no effect on the incident angle (assuming equivalent focal length and sensor size).  If he is suggesting something else, the article is so poorly written that I have no idea what he is trying to say.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further he goes on to state that the increased angle causes ‘marginal’ rays to be lost off the sensor affecting the depth of field.  He states the loss of this information does not produce the desired out of focus blur.  Finally he says, considering all of this, one should just save the money and buy smaller lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Boy did I waste big bucks for that big glass.  All that increased bokeh that I thought I was seeing is just my failing eyesight.  I’ll blame Adobe for that.  Too much keyboard time and not enough time out in the uV rays.  Them (sp) uV’s scatter at the retina and produce great focus somehow, I’m sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If any of this off axis attenuation theory was true, it would be observed in increased vignetting with faster lenses as others have suggested.  Them (sp) sinister digital camera companies going around changing ISO without telling us.  Sue them for hurting our feelings.  Class action that’s the way.  Lawyers get big bucks while us minions get $1.50 after filling out a form and using a 44 cent stamp.  Oh, I forgot about the equivalent exposure tests I performed on film comparing my big class against old small lenses.  The ISO didn’t change with the aperture size – or did it?  The film must have molecules in it that determine the aperture size and compensate the ISO.  The film companies are involved in the conspiracy too.  Get them all - more money for the lawyers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;AxO Labs needs to be careful who they authorize to use their material.  I don’t understand their data and what it is supposed to prove.  I would think they would fully explain the data on their web site and clarify this article.  Until then I consider the third symbol in their name to be a zero.  That would make their name A times 0 or in other words, Zero Labs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2125" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T08:23:57.123" />
  <row Id="4796" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4798" CreationDate="2010-11-10T08:35:12.673" Score="5" ViewCount="260" Body="&lt;p&gt;Beam-splitters are used for 3D/stereo photography. Many kits are available for many types of DSLRs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want a kind of Inverted-Beam-Splitter, so that I can give the same point-of-view to 2 different cameras. I am experimenting with HDR these days and was thinking this will be a good way to do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any thing like this in the market? Has anyone tried this before?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1438" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T11:31:06.330" Title="Inverted Beam-Splitter?" Tags="&lt;hdr&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4797" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4803" CreationDate="2010-11-10T10:47:31.907" Score="15" ViewCount="295" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to make a list of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adobe Lightroom&lt;/a&gt; resources. Blogs, sites, tutorials,... Anything worth taking a look at.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="332" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-16T14:34:06.360" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T13:30:39.017" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-10T13:02:24.643" Title="List of Adobe Lightroom resources" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;software&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="16" />
  <row Id="4798" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4796" CreationDate="2010-11-10T10:51:58.890" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes it's been done, someone used a beam splitter to record to two 5DmkIIs in order to produce an HDR video:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/0bNw4.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;image(c) Soviet Montage&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vimeo.com/14821961&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.vimeo.com/14821961&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't quite look how I would expect, maybe because the camera isn't moving around much (due to the size of the rig needed to hold 2 DSLRs in place). Would also be nice to see what this would look like with a more conservative tonemapping approach, possibly in an area more deserving of HDR (like a forest with direct sunlight shining through). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having alternating pixels with different sensitivities like Fuji's EXR sensor sounds like a better way to do this, as it avoids the problems of registration necessary to align two images (as well the problem of buying, syncing two cameras). I guess things like bloom and lens flare ultimately limit how far you can extend the DR of a single sensor in this way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: omnivision have announced an HDR video sensor, while it's not DSLR sized they have made some interesting claims (100dB dynamic range, which I make to be 16.6 stops):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2010/04/omnivision-announces-720p-hdr-sensor.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2010/04/omnivision-announces-720p-hdr-sensor.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-10T11:31:06.330" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T11:31:06.330" />
  <row Id="4799" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4797" CreationDate="2010-11-10T11:03:39.953" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First what comes to my mind is: &lt;a href=&quot;http://lightroomkillertips.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://lightroomkillertips.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1681" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T11:03:39.953" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-10T13:02:24.643" />
  <row Id="4800" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4276" CreationDate="2010-11-10T14:40:25.390" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm the author of this plug-in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, just for reference the &quot;Test Mode&quot; in the logfile is controlled by a tickbox in the exporter. It's intended to let you run through the export and upload procedure without actually having to submit something to Alamy. It was useful to me during testing, and I left it there just in case people wanted to e.g. check the resulting exported images for themselves before submitting for the first time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Either way, it seems like you are rather gimped until you pay for a license.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not at all - the free version works entirely as the full (paid) version does, including uploading and downloading from Alamy, except that it will stop after the first three images. There wouldn't be much point in a trial that didn't let you try things out!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unless, of course, you mean &quot;unable to use the software, for free, for ever, with no restrictions&quot;. In which case you are, indeed, gimped.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cheers,&#xA;Jim&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2130" LastEditorUserId="2130" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-10T14:47:25.743" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T14:47:25.743" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4801" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4797" CreationDate="2010-11-10T15:44:26.753" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.ericscouten.com/2009/09/lightroom-2-technique-how-i-organize-my-catalog-and-why-2009-edition&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://blog.ericscouten.com/2009/09/lightroom-2-technique-how-i-organize-my-catalog-and-why-2009-edition&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That one help me settle on a workflow and understand the compromises and limitations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T15:44:26.753" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-10T15:44:26.753" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4802" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3053" CreationDate="2010-11-10T16:20:36.710" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many photographers (especially those with &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-frame_digital_SLR&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;full frame sensors&lt;/a&gt; or 35mm film cameras) opt for a 50mm prime lens because it is considered '&lt;strong&gt;normal&lt;/strong&gt;', i.e. not wide-angle or telephoto. Because these lenses are so popular, they are also produced on a relatively large scale, which also makes them &lt;strong&gt;cheaper&lt;/strong&gt; than other lenses of the same &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_speed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;speed&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that said, there is probably a deeper underlying question to be answered:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Why is a 50mm lens considered '&lt;em&gt;normal&lt;/em&gt;'?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are actually a few factors that contribute to this. If we look at a single human eye from a mathematical perspective (pun not initially intended), the focal length comes out to be around &lt;strong&gt;17.2mm&lt;/strong&gt;. [as a side note, its aperture is around &lt;strong&gt;f/2.1&lt;/strong&gt;]. Our eye is, indeed, a &lt;strong&gt;wide angle lens&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the eye's sensor size (the retina) is smaller than the 35mm film sensor that the '50mm normal' is based on. This will make the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_equivalent_focal_length&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;equivalent focal length&lt;/a&gt; of the eye longer, but not by enough to get it to 50mm, there is another factor at play...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The images that we take with our 50mm 'normal' lens are generally displayed on a screen, or printed (or developed) and displayed on a wall or in an album. Very rarely do we ever get so close to an image that it takes up our full Field Of View (if we did that, we would not consider the image we saw as 'normal' anymore). We generally hold a photo at a distance that makes it look 'normal' (optimally, at a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29#Photograph_viewing_distance&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;distance equal its diagonal&lt;/a&gt;). Because the image only takes up a portion of our FOV when viewed this way, we are adding an additional crop factor, making the equivalent focal length even longer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only when we consider all these factors do we come up with a 'normal' focal length value of about &lt;strong&gt;50mm&lt;/strong&gt;. And remember, that value is only when the image is projected onto a 35mm sensor! for other camera types you need to multiply the magic 50 by your sensor's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/crop-factor-explained&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;crop factor&lt;/a&gt; to get the 'normal' focal length for your camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Refs:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photosig.com/articles/585/article&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.photosig.com/articles/585/article&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2131" LastEditorUserId="2131" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-23T10:45:10.923" LastActivityDate="2010-11-23T10:45:10.923" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4803" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4797" CreationDate="2010-11-10T17:01:39.500" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are some sites you may find useful:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lightroomkillertips.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://lightroomkillertips.com/&lt;/a&gt; [Video tutorials, present tips]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.presetsheaven.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.presetsheaven.com/&lt;/a&gt; [1,000s of free presets]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lightroom-news.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://lightroom-news.com/&lt;/a&gt; [Latest news, releases]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/presets/discuss/72157612664073371/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/groups/presets/discuss/72157612664073371/&lt;/a&gt; [Impressive collection of user presets]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photoshopsupport.com/lightroom/tutorials.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.photoshopsupport.com/lightroom/tutorials.html&lt;/a&gt; [Tutorials]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/lightroom/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/lightroom/&lt;/a&gt; [Lightroom tips]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2131" LastEditorUserId="2131" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-10T17:47:29.973" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T17:47:29.973" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-10T17:01:39.500" />
  <row Id="4804" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4809" CreationDate="2010-11-10T17:24:58.580" Score="26" ViewCount="424" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a relatively new photographer. I have no problem understanding the technical side of photography (I am an engineer by trade), but I do struggle with the more 'artistic' side of photography (composition, symmetry, choice of color/B&amp;amp;W...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone suggest any reading material (either online or books) that could help improve my artistic side?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2131" LastEditorUserId="1901" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-23T03:20:30.243" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T03:20:30.243" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-11T12:09:15.693" Title="Books/resources on the artistic side of photography?" Tags="&lt;composition&gt;&lt;books&gt;&lt;artistic&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="29" />
  <row Id="4805" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4804" CreationDate="2010-11-10T17:34:33.243" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Kodak has a great book that I found at my library.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0867062118&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mastering Composition and Light&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T17:34:33.243" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-11T12:09:15.693" />
  <row Id="4806" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4797" CreationDate="2010-11-10T18:30:55.567" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the best tips I can offer is to use the help popup hotkey (which is sadly far under-publicized):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;ctrl&lt;/kbd&gt; + &lt;kbd&gt;/&lt;/kbd&gt; on Windows&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;⌘&lt;/kbd&gt; + &lt;kbd&gt;/&lt;/kbd&gt; on Mac OS&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You get a module-specific popup that shows all the hotkeys for that module. Once you learn the hotkeys, your workflow becomes much smoother and faster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="1913" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-10T18:48:02.117" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T18:48:02.117" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-10T18:30:55.567" />
  <row Id="4807" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4804" CreationDate="2010-11-10T18:38:04.077" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A few book recommendations:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1552636143&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photography and the Art of Seeing&lt;/a&gt; by Freeman Patterson&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1580081940&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tao of Photography: Seeing Beyond Seeing&lt;/a&gt; by Philippe Gross&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://ttp://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0321605020?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;tag=pp-gen-20&amp;amp;linkCode=as2&amp;amp;camp=1789&amp;amp;creative=390957&amp;amp;creativeASIN=0321605020&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Within the Frame: the Journey of Photographic Vision&lt;/a&gt; by David duChemin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T18:38:04.077" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-11T12:09:15.693" />
  <row Id="4808" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4804" CreationDate="2010-11-10T18:41:29.130" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;These are some quite advanced texts covering the artistic and cultural side of photography:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Batchen, G (2000) Over Exposed. London: The New Press&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Berger, J. (1972). Ways of seeing. London: Pelican&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Brittain, D. (ed.) (1999) Creative Camera: 30 Years of Writing. Manchester: MUP&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Burgin, V (1982) Thinking Photography. Macmillan Press (see Benjamin ‘The Author as Producer’.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Burke, S. (1998). The Death and return of the Author – Criticsim and Subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault and Derrida. Edinburgh: EUP&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Cotton, C (2004) The Photograph as Contemporary Art. London Thames &amp;amp; Husdon&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Evans, J ed. (1997) The Camerawork Essays. Rivers Oram Press&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Evans, Jessica &amp;amp; Hall, Stuart (1999) Visual culture: the reader. London. Sage&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Frizot, Michael (1998). A New History of Photography. Konemann&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Lister, M. (ed.) (2003) The Photographic Image in Digital Culture. London: Routledge&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mitchell, W.J. (1992) The Reconfigured Eye: Visual Truth in the Post-Photographic Era Cambridge, M.A MIT&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mirzoeff, Nicholas. (1999) An introduction to Visual Culture. Routledge&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Newhall, B (1982) The History of Photography. New York Secker &amp;amp; Warburg&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Newhall, B. (1980) Essays &amp;amp; Images. New York Secker &amp;amp; Warburg (See Strand essay 1917)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Payne, M. (ed). (1996). Cultural and Critical Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ritchen, F. (1999) In Our Own Image: The Coming Revolution in Photography. New York: Aperture&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Squires, C ed. (1990) The Critical Image. Seattle Bay Press&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Trachtenberg, A. (1980) Classic Essays on Photography New Haven, Conn. Leete’s Island&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Traub, C. (ed) (2006) The Education of a Photographer New York: Allworth Press&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T18:41:29.130" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-11T12:09:15.693" />
  <row Id="4809" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4804" CreationDate="2010-11-10T18:55:03.570" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the best books I can recommend is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.michaelfreemanphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Michael Freeman&lt;/a&gt;'s famous book:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0240809343&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Photographer's Eye: Composition and Design for Better Digital Photos&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This book is a rare gem, in that it does a pretty superb job of covering all the critical artistic topics of photography in a generally agnostic way. Michael Freeman is a talented photographer, and his communication of compositional aspects of photography is second to none. You may not learn everything about the artistic side of a specific kind of photography from this book, but you'll definitely learn the general basics that can be applied to most forms of photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two other books by Michael Freeman should also find their way into your collection:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0240811712&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Michael Freeman's Perfect Exposure:&#xA;The Professional's Guide to Capturing&#xA;Perfect Digital Photographs&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0240815173&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Photographer's Mind: Creative&#xA;Thinking for Better Digital&#xA;Photos&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These three books comprise my favorites out of my entire collection, and have been the most useful (and most used) over the two or so years I've been doing photography. They do not get into the specifics of any specific field of photography, so if you are looking for detailed information information about a single field, you will have to look deeper. I generally do landscape photography, and I can offer some superb books for that field that can help you expand your artistic horizons beyond the fundamentals covered in Freeman's books. For other fields, like portraiture, architectural photography, street, etc., others can hopefully help you find what you need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do landscape, nature, and wildlife photography, so most of my books are related to that area of photography. Here are some other great books that I found that have helped me learn the artistic side of things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1902538498&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Developing Vision and Style: A Landscape Photography Masterclass&lt;/a&gt;&quot; by Joe Cornish, Charlie Wait, and David Ward — &lt;em&gt;An excellent resource of other photographers' work. One of the best ways to learn the artistic side of photography is observe the artistic photographs of other great photographers.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Alain Briot's &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1933952067&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mastering Landscape Photography: The Luminous Landscape Essays&lt;/a&gt;&quot; — &lt;em&gt;Alain Briot has been a long-time contributor to the Luminous Landscape web site. This book is a more-thorough compilation of his works on that site.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;David Noton's &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0715328190&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Waiting for the Light&lt;/a&gt;&quot; — &lt;em&gt;Another excellent book for landscape photographers, this one explains how to find and use natural light.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to other types of photography, I don't have a whole lot to offer. I've perused some books on portrait and wedding photography, however I don't own any and couldn't offer much. Architectural photography seems to be an area that is fairly lacking in books. There do seem to be some great books from individual architectural photographers that showcase their works, and observing other photographers work is a great way to learn, but it is limited. Another field I have started to delve into is astrophotography. There do seem to be a few books and resources in that area: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0521700817&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital SLR Astrophotography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.astropix.com/BGDA/ORDER.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A Beginner's Guide to DSLR Astrophotography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/index.php/category-technical/145-long-exposure-astrophotography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Long Exposure Astrophotography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.astropix.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catching the Light&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the books I have learned from are for landscape and wildlife/bird photography, so I am not certain how useful they will be for you. I think the compositional concepts are very sound, and apply to more than just nature photography, however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.michaelfreemanphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Photographers Eye: Composition and Design for Better Digital Photos&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fantastic book on composition from a general perspective...definitely a must have if you need to learn more about composition&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0240809343&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Waiting for the Light&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Excellent book for landscape photographers, has some good tips on composition, but mostly about natural lighting, how and when to find it, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0240811712&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mastering Landscape Photography: The Luminous Landscape Essays&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Another excellent book that has some great examples of composition with visual examples&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0240815173&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;100 Ways to Take Better Nature and Wildlife Photographs&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mostly wildlife, however the compositional tips are superb&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1902538498&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Developing Vision and Style&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Not so much a book explicitly about composition, however it has a ton of example nature &amp;amp; landscape photographs from visionary photographers that make excellent material to review and learn from...some truly fantastic stuff. All photographs, their location, and the gear used to capture them is detailed in the back of the book. Each set of photographs from each interviewed photographer includes their sense of vision and style, which can be helpful.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1933952067&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Working the Light: A Photography Masterclass&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Good examples of quality composition, again, all landscape&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-22T05:14:28.190" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T05:14:28.190" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-11T12:09:15.693" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4810" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="118" CreationDate="2010-11-10T18:57:29.463" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a couple options offered by the photo hosting/gallery sites that allow for embedding of images within WordPress blog posts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tkqlhce.com/click-4126294-10814042&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photoshelter&lt;/a&gt; provides high-end (but very functional) photo/gallery hosting.  They offer the ability to automatically watermark images.  Photoshelter has a WordPress plugin that allows one to search/browse through their Photoshelter images and drop that image into a WordPress post.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jdoqocy.com/click-4126294-10402675&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SmugMug&lt;/a&gt; offers similar photo hosting services and also offers the ability to have images automatically watermarked for display.  While they don't offer a WordPress plugin, it's really easy to grab an embed code that will display the photo in a WordPress post.  I currently use SmugMug in such a manner on my photography blog.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've used both services in the past and can recommend them both as an affiliate.  Photoshelter is aimed more at the pro who wants to optimize for stock sales with great SEO; SmugMug is catered towards both pros and serious amateurs who want great-looking sites with minimal customization required.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T18:57:29.463" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4811" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4821" CreationDate="2010-11-10T19:01:19.450" Score="7" ViewCount="493" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use a few Smart Collections in Lightroom to automatically let me see things like all of my finished HDR images, sets of images uploaded to SmugMug or Flickr, and the like, but I'm curious what other ways folks are using Lightroom's Smart Collections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Share your best Smart Collections tips/tricks/formulas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T06:17:19.647" Title="Good Uses for Lightroom's Smart Collections" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;smart-collections&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="4812" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4811" CreationDate="2010-11-10T19:21:37.077" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Collections and Smart Collections are probably one of Lightrooms most powerful library features. My tactic with Lightroom is to import all of my photos into a single folder, and use the Lightroom catalog to tag them with keywords and metadata, and find them via Smart Collections and searches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A smart collection really is just a saved search. You specify the criteria you want to search by, and save the smart collection. You can quickly find any photograph that meets those criteria at any time simply by clicking on the collection. Even farther, you can nest smart collections in collection sets. This allows you to quickly find broader or narrower sets of photos in your entire library with a single click. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An example of some of the collection sets and smart collections I have:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Landscapes (set)&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mountains (set)&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Stormy Mountainscapes (col)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Clear Sky Mountainscapes (col)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sunset/Sunrise Mountainscapes (col)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Waterscapes (set)&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Standing (set)&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Large Bodies (col)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Small Bodies (col)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flowing (set)&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rivers (col)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Creeks &amp;amp; Brooks (col)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Waterfalls (col)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Skyscapes (col)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Astrophotography (set)&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Milky Way (col)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Constellations (col)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nebula (col)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have only begun to really use smart collections. My primary criteria is by keywords, as that is the easiest to filter on. You can use &quot;fuzzy&quot; keyword sets, by adding a single keyword rule, and separating the list of keywords by commas. This will include any photograph that has any one of those keywords. If you want an exclusive match, you can add a keyword rule more than once, with a single keyword in each. A blend of the two is possible by using multiple keyword rules that have comma-delimited lists of keywords. I recently explored them in quite a bit of detail, and they are far more powerful than just searching by keyword. You can use rating, flags, color tags, any IPTC or EXIF metadata, any camera or lens information, location data, and much, much more to build searches with. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have about 10,000 photos, so my library is big but not huge. So far, smart collections that just use keywords has been sufficient. I have recently started rating all of my photos, so I may add or modify my smart collections to include ratings (i.e. Rivers (All) and Rivers (Best), where the 'Best' collection is 4 or 5 starred.) The possibilities are nearly endless with smart collections. The key to them is realizing that they are really saved, dynamic searches that can utilize any criteria to find any photo in your entire library almost instantly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T19:21:37.077" />
  <row Id="4813" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="125" CreationDate="2010-11-10T19:56:17.943" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For a given concert, I usually look up the band web page and find the promoters or agents. I send them a quick email, and attach a few of my concert photos I consider &quot;the best&quot;. I assure them I will get in touch shortly after the concert with the photos (say, within 4 days), and that I won't use the shots for commercial purposes unless I have the appropriate permissions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we agree on something I close the loop a few days before the show to check that I am on the list; trust me, you don't want to be stuck at the door. I wrote some more at the end of &lt;a href=&quot;http://barre.me/2010/10/08/the-new-deal-at-northern-lights/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;that post&lt;/a&gt;. I advise you not to delete too many of your photos during post-processing, just in case the promoter gets back to you looking for a specific angle. Building a good relationship here is key, since that band may come back in your area in the future. Better yet, that band might later on open for a much larger, difficult to access band and provide you with a precious press pass...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ditto about the free/public concerts, it's a great way to build your portfolio.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T19:56:17.943" />
  <row Id="4814" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10811" CreationDate="2010-11-10T20:12:05.070" Score="9" ViewCount="205" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a way to add useful aspect-ratio search to Lighroom?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The present interface (LR 3.2) gives only 3 options: Landscape, Portrait and Square.&#xA;Those seem more like orientations than aspect-ratios to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to be able to see all the aspect ratios in catalog (3:2, 4:3, 2:1, etc) and filter by those. It is often the case that media requires a specific aspect ratio and this would make finding a matching image much more efficient. It is much hard to find an image that can be cropped to some specific ratio than one that was intended that way (I adhere to the 'fill-the-frame' principal, so I usually know in advance if I'm going to crop, and once its done, that's it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-12T15:28:51.773" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T15:28:51.773" Title="Is there a way to  search by aspect ratio in Lightroom?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;aspect-ratio&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="4815" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4817" CreationDate="2010-11-10T20:55:26.893" Score="5" ViewCount="328" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a picture that I shot in landscape (4x6 ratio) that I want to crop to portrait (5x7 ratio). I see how I can do a 5x7 landscape or a 4x6 portrait, but not a 5x7 portrait.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do you do this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-11-11T04:04:01.573" Title="How do you change from portrait to landscape in Lightroom?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;aspect-ratio&gt;&lt;cropping&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="4816" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4815" CreationDate="2010-11-10T21:45:06.617" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you drag the cropping handles far enough the aspect should automtically flip between landscape and portrait while retaining the aspect ratio.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="847" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T21:45:06.617" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4817" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4815" CreationDate="2010-11-10T21:46:57.287" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When you are in crop mode in development module, grab tool before Aspect text, click on the picture and draw in desired orientation.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/c97Aw.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This method is slightly different from the others and should work every time without problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1681" LastEditorUserId="1681" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-10T21:54:55.693" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T21:54:55.693" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4818" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4815" CreationDate="2010-11-10T21:48:06.033" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You should be able to just drag a corner handle over the top edge, and the orientation will change. It should be noted that Lightroom will not change the orientation if the crop box is too large to fit in a particular orientation. It is best to shrink the crop box small, reorient, then resize and pan as necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T21:48:06.033" />
  <row Id="4819" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4814" CreationDate="2010-11-10T21:52:49.990" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I totally agree, Portrait, Landscape, and Square are orientations, not aspect ratios. At the moment, through LR3, there is no way to filter by a specific aspect ratio. It is possible to search by whether an image is cropped or not (true/false), but not by the specific aspect ratio. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This may be due to the fact that Lightroom does not limit you to any well-known, fixed ratios like 3:2 or 4:3, etc. It is possible to crop to any dimension, as well as rotate cropped images, which could complicate any such search algorithm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T21:52:49.990" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4820" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4815" CreationDate="2010-11-10T22:39:44.457" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While you can drag corner handles and hope to get it right, the easiest way is to &lt;strong&gt;press the X key on the keyboard&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-11-10T22:39:44.457" />
  <row Id="4821" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4811" CreationDate="2010-11-10T23:07:49.207" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is a screenshot, hopefully you will find some inspiration here. The Meta collection set I expanded is where I put most of my smart collections (the &quot;Smart Collections&quot; inside is the default LR Smart Collections folder I kept around):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/kUt3C.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think they are self-explanatory, but if you have questions, I can give you the parameters used in the collection. Here is a bit more though:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flash: Flash State / is / did fire&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No Copyright: Copyright Status / is / unknown&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No Geolocation: GPS Data / is not / GPS Location AND Keywords / doesn't contain / not geolocated&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Noisiest: ISO Speed Rating / is greater than / 3200.0&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Panorama: Filename / contains / pano OR Keywords / contains / panorama&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Widest: Focal Length / is less than or equal to / 16 AND Camera / contains / 5D&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see, I rely on file naming and keywords for information that is not directly available in Lightroom. For example, since the aspect ratio is not a filter, I have to either put &quot;pano&quot; in my panorama filename or add the &quot;panorama&quot; keyword so that I can create a smart collection later on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-16T17:20:40.567" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T17:20:40.567" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4822" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="125" CreationDate="2010-11-11T00:16:55.513" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Go to smaller gigs within the scene that interest you.  Get to know the promoters.  Offer to take photos for the venue.  Expect to get in for free, but don't expect much payment - smaller venues (at least here in the UK) are mostly just getting by as it is.  Pass the photos to the bands for their MySpace / Facebook / whatever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From there, network!  If you're good, people will see your work and you'll build a portfolio.  Once you're confident you can get the shots, approach the bigger venues with the bigger names.  Try a local newspaper - if they run live music reviews, they'll have photo-passes pre-arranged.  Show them your portfolio and hope they put your name on the list.  Be available and reliable.  Don't be put off if the first one doesn't want you - they only keep so many on stand-by at a time.  Try again in a few months.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From there, the photos get easier because the bigger venues have better lighting and acts with money to put on a show, but there's more pressure.  If you come home without the shot don't expect another call any time soon!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's pretty much where I am at the moment, and it's fun.  Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1615" LastActivityDate="2010-11-11T00:16:55.513" />
  <row Id="4823" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1339" CreationDate="2010-11-11T01:11:45.840" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have 3 generic and one Canon for my 450D. Two years later, the generic ones still work, the Canon died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've never found any difference between them other than the Canon one dying (and well, all batteries die eventually, I'm not saying generics are better because of this).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I spent about $5 per generic battery on ebay &lt;em&gt;including delivery&lt;/em&gt;... frankly I can't see why I'd spend $50-100 on Canon ones when the generics are essentially identical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastActivityDate="2010-11-11T01:11:45.840" />
  <row Id="4824" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3053" CreationDate="2010-11-11T05:55:33.737" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is popular because of few reasons&lt;br&gt;&#xA;1. Bokeh , f1.8 , better than other lens(which are double its price) in low light.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2. Price of the lens to sharpness u get !&lt;br&gt;&#xA;3. Good for portrait.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;4. Light weight, I use as a walk around lens.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;5. Fills life to you picture .   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1980" LastActivityDate="2010-11-11T05:55:33.737" />
  <row Id="4825" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4826" CreationDate="2010-11-11T07:19:04.260" Score="7" ViewCount="268" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to experiment a little with fisheye lens and ultra wide angle. But I don't want to spend a lot of money on something I don't know if I will be using. Are this lenses OK for experimenting and get the taste of fisheye photography? Or should I save my money and get a real lens? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lens I'm talking about is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Opteka-Professional-Fisheye-Digital-Camera/dp/B001LZJB9Y/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_3?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1289459670&amp;amp;sr=8-3-fkmr0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;. I will be using it with a Canon EOS 550D with the 18-55 kit lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="332" LastActivityDate="2010-11-13T09:35:28.383" Title="Fisheye extension lens" Tags="&lt;fisheye&gt;&lt;ultra-wide&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4826" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4825" CreationDate="2010-11-11T07:24:56.047" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's probably worthwhile for experimenting, but it likely won't give you the same quality or experience as a regular fisheye lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One option if you're looking to minimize cost while you experiment is to rent a lens... most larger cities have at least one camera shop that does rentals and there are also online rental outfits such as LensRentals.com or BorrowLenses.com&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-11-11T07:24:56.047" />
  <row Id="4827" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3053" CreationDate="2010-11-11T07:50:05.510" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the 35mm 1.8 and the 50mm 1.4 - and for people wanting thier 1st fixed prime I always point them at the 35mm 1.8 1st. Its cheap, light and will work on your D3000.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1907" LastActivityDate="2010-11-11T07:50:05.510" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4828" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4825" CreationDate="2010-11-11T07:51:48.800" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've used one of those extensions lenses, don't expect any high quality images, but it can be fun to use and experiment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some sample pictures: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/davylandman/sets/72157624314644716/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/davylandman/sets/72157624314644716/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One important thing is to set the metering to the center, else your photo's will look strange, luckily I shoot raw, so I can correct white-balance afterward, but the exposure is something to watch while making a picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But sure, get one to try it out, watching ebay might even get you a cheaper version of the same filter. (I payed about €40 via ebay)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="245" LastActivityDate="2010-11-11T07:51:48.800" />
  <row Id="4829" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4276" CreationDate="2010-11-11T09:52:13.533" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi Rowland,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I'd been trying to Export using the&#xA;  right click -&gt; Export -- can these&#xA;  settings be changed (or even removed,&#xA;  as you don't get the option to change&#xA;  out of test mode)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, you can change the settings. In fact, you absolutely &lt;em&gt;need&lt;/em&gt; to change them. You'll need to export using the full dialog at least once though. The plugin comes with default settings &quot;Presets&quot; for each of the three export functions. You can remove these or edit them using the normal Lightroom functions in the Export dialog. Once you've done one export LR should remember the previously-used settings and use those in future. That will let you just use the &quot;Export...&quot; menu instead of the full dialog.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;FYI I don't normally monitor other forums; if you post something and don't get an answer please remember the &quot;Support&quot; links on my website.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cheers,&#xA;Jim&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2130" LastActivityDate="2010-11-11T09:52:13.533" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4830" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4804" CreationDate="2010-11-11T10:16:59.470" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You may also want to try the &quot;5 Photo Composition Hints&quot; series of web articles from ShotAddict.com:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.shotaddict.com/tips/article_5+Photo+Composition+Hints.+The+First+Element+-+Texture.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The First Element - Texture&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.shotaddict.com/tips/article_5+Photo+Composition+Hints.+The+Second+Element+-+Color.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Second Element - Color&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.shotaddict.com/tips/article_5+Photo+Composition+Hints.+The+Third+Element+-++Subject.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Third Element - Subject&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.shotaddict.com/tips/article_5+Photo+Composition+Hints.+The+Fourth+Element+-+Space.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Fourth Element - Space&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.shotaddict.com/tips/article_5+Photo+Composition+Hints.+The+Fifth+Element+-+Light.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Fifth Element - Light&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1681" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-11T14:53:13.307" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T14:53:13.307" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-11T12:09:15.693" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4831" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="706" CreationDate="2010-11-11T11:17:45.943" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the streets of Soho and Chinatown offer some of the best spots to take pictures in New York. I also agree with the Brooklyn Bridge recommendation. Check picaspot.com for more suggestions&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2141" LastActivityDate="2010-11-11T11:17:45.943" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-11T11:17:45.943" />
  <row Id="4832" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4833" CreationDate="2010-11-11T11:47:28.077" Score="11" ViewCount="344" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm interested to hear what exposure/metering techniques people use when taking out-and-about shots (no tripod). I almost always have my camera set to Aperture Priority mode, and I suspect most people do the same. I have been using &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&amp;amp;articleID=2286&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;back button focussing&lt;/a&gt; for a while now, so I am able to lock the focus point and exposure point individually before composing and taking a shot. I use a single, centred focus point and find that fairly straight forward to use. However, I really struggle with the exposure point. On my Canon 30D there are 4 metering modes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Evaluative (called Matrix mode on Nikons)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Center-Only (Partial Metering)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Spot (Center-Biased)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Center Weighted Averaging (Full-Frame Averaging)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of the 4, Evaluative is the most 'automatic'; the camera makes judged decision on exposure based on the whole scene. I wanted to try to avoid this mode because I thought I would learn more going for one of the more manual options. So I started using Spot mode for a bit, but most of my photos ended up either under or over-exposed. So I reverted back to Evaluative mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, after that lengthy introduction, my question is: &lt;strong&gt;do you have a good technique for getting the best out of your cameras metering modes?&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;Which metering mode(s) do you usually use?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2131" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T00:43:36.610" Title="Exposure techniques when out-and-about" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;metering&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="4833" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4832" CreationDate="2010-11-11T12:24:39.060" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It doesn't make a huge amount of difference what mode you use because if you want accurate exposures, 9 times out of 10 you have to correct it manually. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use AV (aperture value) and evaluative meeting, it gets the closest in the widest range of circumstances. Then I shoot and chimp (check the exposure on the rear LCD screen), I often have to adjust the exposure and short again. &lt;strong&gt;However sophisticated the meeting algorithm it's based around the assumption that everything you shoot is middle grey&lt;/strong&gt;. The camera doesn't know what you're photographing so it can't really decide what's over or under exposed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this sense all metering modes are &quot;manual&quot;, I prefer evaluative over spot as it's less likely to change due to slight composition changes so I can dial in the required &lt;strong&gt;exposure compensation&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However if I'm feeling lazy then it's a case of pointing the camera up to get more sky if the image on the LCD is underexposed or pointing it at the ground when it's overexposed (provided you separate metering and focus as you suggest). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is &lt;strong&gt;you&lt;/strong&gt; have to decide the exposure not the camera. Metering is however useful for getting you close, or for when you don't have time for a second shot! If you have time, &lt;strong&gt;always have a few goes at setting the exposure&lt;/strong&gt;, as digital film costs (approximately) nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-11T15:16:05.897" LastActivityDate="2010-11-11T15:16:05.897" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="4835" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4832" CreationDate="2010-11-11T13:16:08.200" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most of the time I am in Manual mode and Center-Weighted metering, but that's just what I am used to. I find that it's also easy to just follow basic exposure rules and use exposure compensation in AV mode, for eg, +1 EC for backlit subjects, etc, and a lot of it is down to practice and familiarity with your camera, as there are variances even within the same model. My 5D2 for eg tends to be a tad underexposed in artificial lighting but works out fine in daylight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where I can afford some time to be careful, I use Spot metering. This is done most often when I am shooting landscapes, where I can decide where and what I am exposing for in order to get the desired effects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Knowing your equipment, practice, learning to read the light, will all help you decide what to do. Once you get results you like then keep at it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1868" LastActivityDate="2010-11-11T13:16:08.200" />
  <row Id="4836" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4832" CreationDate="2010-11-11T14:28:38.700" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Evaluative (Matrix or Multi-Segment are all names for the same thing, depending on your camera) is a sophisticated mode that tries to find a good exposure based on the entire scene. That is the mode you should use when you don't have time to think about exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Center-weighed is basically a less sophisticated version of Evaluative. You can use it for general purposes too but since it is simpler it tends to miss more than Evaluative. On the other hand because you know it is biased on the center, it is more predictable. After using it for a while, you may be able to &lt;em&gt;know&lt;/em&gt; when your camera will miss and by how much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Spot is to be used when you know what your mid-tone is. That is, when you know which part of your scene should be shown as 18% luminance in your image. With experience I know some people who are very good at it (you can memorize some rules-of-thumb to help though). Personally, I don't find it that easy, so I use a grey-card to set as reference when needed. You basically put it in the scene, take a spot-meter reading of it and lock your exposure to that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, if you had an Olympus DSLR, you would have 2 extra modes: Highlight-spot and Shadow-spot. These will let you 'spot-meter' using a highlight (brightest area to show details) or a shadow (darkest area where you want details). These are easier to use than regular spot-metering because it is easier to see what part of your scene is brightest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All is not lost if your camera brand does not start with '0' since these can be emulated on most cameras. If you put your camera on spot-metering and set EC to +3 1/2 (more or less) then you have a Highlight-spot mode. Use -3 1/2 EC to get Shadow-spot. That way you can point the camera at a highlight or shadow, lock exposure (AE-L or Shutter half-press), re-frame and take your picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My preference is usually for expose based on highlights and let the shadows and mid-tones fall wherever they do... but that is up to you. Choose what do do based on the results you like! That's what the metering modes and manual mode is for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-11T14:28:38.700" />
  <row Id="4837" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-11T14:58:20.253" Score="7" ViewCount="143" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for the exact dimensions of the 110 film cartridge. I'll take any sort of information including the ISO whitepaper for it (which I would &lt;em&gt;love&lt;/em&gt; to read), or if someone already has it in AutoCAD that would save me all the trouble.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2144" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-12T14:09:11.437" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T14:09:11.437" Title="What are the  dimensions of a 110 film cartridge?" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;diy&gt;&lt;110&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4838" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="162" CreationDate="2010-11-11T15:24:53.090" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/film.vs.digital.summary1/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Film vs Digital article by Roger N. Clark&lt;/a&gt; answers exactly this question. Let me quote the chart from its summary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/film.vs.digital.summary1/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/J8CbP.gif&quot; alt=&quot;Megapixel equivalent vs Film ISO&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main point is that digital sensors have fixed resolutions and variable sensitivity, while films have fixed sensitivity and varied resolution. Overall, at high ISO (&gt; 400) most of the modern sensors provide higher resolution, and to match Velvia 50 you need at least 16 Megapixel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastActivityDate="2010-11-11T15:24:53.090" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4839" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4841" CreationDate="2010-11-11T15:39:32.170" Score="8" ViewCount="169" Body="&lt;p&gt;The other day I was wondering if there is an easy way in GIMP to choose the pixels that are part of a selected range on the histogram.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2146" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T18:04:22.017" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T18:04:22.017" Title="Is there an easy way to select by histogram range in GIMP?" Tags="&lt;gimp&gt;&lt;histogram&gt;&lt;image-manipulation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4840" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4837" CreationDate="2010-11-11T15:53:20.253" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ah my knowledge of the ridiculous and obscure may come in handy!&#xA;You want ISO 13450 (1996), which has all the juicy details on 110 film (size/shape of the cartridge, exposure area, speeds, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sadly I'm not sure where you can get a copy without forking over the Swiss Francs to the ISO folks - Perhaps someone else has a hook-up though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps also helpful - I &lt;em&gt;think&lt;/em&gt; 110 is just a smaller 126 cartridge (it's been a while since I shot anything that wasn't 35mm or sheets/plates - someone correct me if I'm wrong).&lt;br&gt;&#xA; If you can turn up a CAD document for a 126 cartridge you can shrink it 'till it fits...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2147" LastActivityDate="2010-11-11T15:53:20.253" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-11T15:53:20.253" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4841" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4839" CreationDate="2010-11-11T16:09:42.070" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, it's possible to select by pixels' intensity range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Step-by-step&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make a copy of the layer (Layer → Duplicate Layer)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Select the duplicate layer, apply threshold (Colors → Threshold) to select the range of intensities.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In Layer → Mask → Add Layer Mask (or right click in the list of layers). Select “Grayscale copy of layer” and “Invert mask”.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;idem: Mask to selection.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hide or remove the layer with mask.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;An example:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Original image. I want to select the circle:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/FkyGI.png&quot; alt=&quot;Original image&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Make a copy of the layer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/2Ak9z.png&quot; alt=&quot;Duplicate layer&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apply threshold. Note that the area to be selected is black:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/7Lxy8.png&quot; alt=&quot;Threshold&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Add Layer Mask using the grayscale value of the image:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/WSTdJ.png&quot; alt=&quot;Add Layer Mask&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now you've obtained an image with the mask. Everything except the black circle is transparent (we can see the bottom layer through it):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/oO6VS.png&quot; alt=&quot;Image with the mask&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Convert the mask to selection. Switch to the original layer. The circle is selected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/BogLR.png&quot; alt=&quot;Mask to selection&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastEditorUserId="1558" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-11T16:24:57.610" LastActivityDate="2010-11-11T16:24:57.610" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4842" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4839" CreationDate="2010-11-11T16:22:12.307" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a plugin called &lt;a href=&quot;http://registry.gimp.org/node/17513&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adagio Range Selection&lt;/a&gt; that does pretty much what you want. You can't select from the histogram directly, but you can select the upper and lower boundaries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Qju35.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2131" LastEditorUserId="2131" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-11T16:28:19.820" LastActivityDate="2010-11-11T16:28:19.820" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4843" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4832" CreationDate="2010-11-11T17:45:36.220" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Manual mode for me all the way.  Something a film professor told me that I follow (when doing film anyway, but i carry it over to digital) is &quot;meter for the shadows, expose for the highlights&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I figure out what I need for the shot, in regards to depth of field, meter in the shadows and shoot.  It works great for film, for digital im sure its just a small correction in post.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2144" LastActivityDate="2010-11-11T17:45:36.220" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4844" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4832" CreationDate="2010-11-11T18:53:01.497" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lot of good information on the other modes, but here is a great technique for using spot metering.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When using spot metering correctly, is the by far the most consistent and very easy to use.&lt;/strong&gt;  What you do, is you spot meter on your white point, the brightest part (ignoring specular reflections), and set your EV compensation to +X.X EV to push that metered gray point to the white point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More information can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://daystarvisions.com/Docs/Tuts/DCExp/pg3.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-11-11T18:53:01.497" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4845" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4847" CreationDate="2010-11-11T19:27:42.643" Score="5" ViewCount="289" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a friend/client (a jeweler) who needs to purchase a new camera. He has a nice lightbox setup (I think something specifically intended for jewelry use - he mentioned &quot;full spectrum lights&quot;, although I don't know a brand name or model for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His current pictures (shot with a cheap Fuji point and shoot) come out with a severe blue cast. Obviously, he needs something where he can set the white balance to compensate for that. Any suggestions for a good point and shoot that allows control of the white balance, and has a good macro mode? I suspect a Canon G series would be a good bet... thoughts on that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1180" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T00:39:22.080" Title="Good point and shoot for jewelry photography?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;white-balance&gt;&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4846" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4845" CreationDate="2010-11-11T19:33:11.477" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You really can't go wrong with any point and shoot these days, except for like &quot;My Daughters First Hello Kitty Camera.&quot; Almost any regular point and shoot will have a basic &quot;macro mode&quot; (also known as close focus mode), and white balance controls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-S95-Stabilized-3-0-Inch/dp/B003ZSHNGS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1289504248&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon S95&lt;/a&gt; is a full featured compact point and shoot, with great photo quality and a good set of features (including white balance overrides and macro).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-G11-Stabilized-articulating/dp/B002LITT56/ref=dp_ob_title_ce&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon's G11&lt;/a&gt; is a big step up, in price, and in size, but obviously has more features, more control etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can't go wrong with either; which to choose depends on any secondary features your friend might want (size, control).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally since both camera's are expensive enough, I would go with the smaller (but that might be because I have a large dslr).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-11T19:40:04.260" LastActivityDate="2010-11-11T19:40:04.260" />
  <row Id="4847" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4845" CreationDate="2010-11-11T20:01:38.333" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While the cameras that Alan suggested are good and I particularly like the S95... you can do better for jewelry photography by getting one that lets you get in much closer. Image quality will do in most cases because you should be shooting at a low ISO from a tripod and with white-balance properly set.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon has the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=199&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SX130&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=237&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SX30&lt;/a&gt; (as well as its predecessors) can focus to 1cm or 0cm, respectively. Fuji has a few ultra-zooms like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;HS10&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=67&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;S200 EXR&lt;/a&gt; which also get in to 1cm. The one thing to be careful is to make sure the lens does not make a shadow over the jewelry by moving your light appropriately. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-11T20:01:38.333" />
  <row Id="4848" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4769" CreationDate="2010-11-11T20:45:31.733" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you shot in raw, you have a mosaic file which is just a bunch of intensities: it has no colour space in the sense being discussed here. Any camera setting which says &quot;colour space&quot; is to tell the camera what to do when it does on-board JPEG conversions. It's not &quot;shot in sRGB and then converted to sRGB&quot;, it's shot in raw and then converted. There's a big difference, part of which is directly relevant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The interesting thing about that shot is that it's got two colours which look pretty much complimentary. So I think you'll find that colour balance is tricky. If you're trying to colour balance on the non-linear (jpeg, after conversion) image then it's especially so. There the balance control is extremely sensitive. That's because you're working with non-linear data. So the trick is to do the colour balance on the raw file, in the raw converter, if you can. It's much easier there as you have much finer control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1055" LastActivityDate="2010-11-11T20:45:31.733" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4849" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4845" CreationDate="2010-11-12T02:03:37.993" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Any Canon camera for which &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CHDK&lt;/a&gt; is compiled will give you a lot more options than any other P&amp;amp;S on the market, including RAW shooting modes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2094" LastActivityDate="2010-11-12T02:03:37.993" />
  <row Id="4850" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4851" CreationDate="2010-11-12T02:31:59.917" Score="6" ViewCount="185" Body="&lt;p&gt;I floated an offer to my family to photograph my neices and nephews for Christmas. Now, we're doing this with plenty of time for them to get professional work done if mine don't really come out great, but if they do it's a win for them and for me (since I get &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; size I want this time). So... Given that I've placed my photographic skills on the line, does anyone have some great tips (or sites) for:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Portrait photography of childen&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Christmas portraiture in general&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Gear suggestions&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I anticipate having some fun, regardless, they're all great kids. For help, the age range is 2 to 7 with 4 girls and 2 boys. I also have studio lighting and a backdrop stand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-11-12T06:14:35.273" Title="Portrait photography of children (Christmas)" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;studio-setup&gt;&lt;children&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="4851" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4850" CreationDate="2010-11-12T06:14:35.273" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been taking images of children recently and found that those closer to 2 have not wanted to pose in anyway shape or form!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My most successful have included setting up a studio area and defining where the children need to be, then letting them play with toys, dance to music and chat away to each other. In doing this I got some nice relaxed poses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think its key for you to define what you are looking for, is it a group shot, formal, relaxed, one or 2 children at a time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On my recent ones I have chosen to shoot with my 35mm-70m 2.8, this has produced some lovely tones. With a small amount of zoom on it, it helps with the fact that the children move around a lot! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My technical set up is normally 2 diffusers, white background, AP of 6.3 to 11 and shutter of 1/125&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the Christmas aspect -I am sorry but I havent done anything specifically for that - hopefully someone can help you on that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/2FzOX.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1907" LastActivityDate="2010-11-12T06:14:35.273" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="4852" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2362" CreationDate="2010-11-12T06:17:48.893" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just to add a different view - I am currently shooting portraits on a D90 and like you was looking at the 24-70mm 2.8 and was shocked by the price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead I found 2nd hand a 35mm-70mm 2.8 for about $300 and its great, has a nice range, autofocus's and copes with the light very well&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1907" LastActivityDate="2010-11-12T06:17:48.893" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4853" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4862" CreationDate="2010-11-12T07:33:27.730" Score="3" ViewCount="199" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi, I'm looking for a free alternative to &lt;a href=&quot;http://slideshowpro.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Slideshowpro&lt;/a&gt; for a client, preferable open source and a solution that doesn't use Flash, but rather use JavaScript with deploy similar techniques as on Flickr for protecting (c) material? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have taken a peek on &lt;a href=&quot;http://gallery.menalto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gallery&lt;/a&gt; which looks very interesting. Any other options?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="16" LastActivityDate="2010-11-12T17:37:33.410" Title="Free alternative to Slideshowpro?" Tags="&lt;photo-galleries&gt;&lt;slides&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="4854" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4878" CreationDate="2010-11-12T08:26:47.820" Score="5" ViewCount="382" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello,&#xA;I have a weird case wich I expect someone can solve. I have edited some photos in Lightroom and exported them to Flickr. When I download them in another computer and open them in the Windows Preview (don't know how it's called in English) I see them with a yellowish tint over them (as I would see with my sunglasses on :P). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suspect it has something to do with color spaces (sRGB, AdobeRGB,...), but I've never looked into that so I'm not sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any ideas?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/carlescs/5165576776/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Example&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update:&lt;/strong&gt; This is how I see it:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Be6bu.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it only appears like this with this program.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="332" LastEditorUserId="332" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-13T19:43:24.840" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T19:00:22.677" Title="Opening photos in Windows preview get a yellowish tint" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;windows-7&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4856" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4854" CreationDate="2010-11-12T09:46:31.757" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If it's the case that you edit the photos on one computer and then download them on another and see a yellow tint, the most likely cause is that one or both of the monitors are not calibrated and thus the colours in the image are not represented properly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It could be that the monitor you're editing on is showing too much blue so to get the photo to look normal you're actually adding yellow, or the monitor you're viewing it on has too much yellow. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Viewing conditions also play a part - if you're editing the photos in a room with an artificial yellow light you're eyes will adjust and cause you not to notice a yellow tint to the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However looking at the image myself it doesn't look overly yellow so I suspect it's the monitor you're downloading it on that has a problem. You can have a go a calibration it by eye but for best results you need a hardware colorimeter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Colour spaces can cause problems as you state, but it's typically programs which don't read colour spaces taking an AdobeRGB image and displaying it with the sRGB colour space. As the Adobe space is larger, the colours you typically get in a photo are further from the edges of the space (colours get more vivid toward the edge), so when you take the same numbers and &lt;strong&gt;interpret&lt;/strong&gt; them using the sRGB space, the colours appear muted. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;edit:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;I wouldn't expect to see a colour shift due to improper use of the sRGB and AdobeRGB profiles since white and grey tones are represented using the same numbers in both cases so those tones will always look the same no matter which of the two profiles gets applied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's possible you applied some other profile in Lightroom which is responsible. In any case your best defence is to &lt;strong&gt;convert&lt;/strong&gt; to sRGB in Lightroom (or specify this space when covering your Raw). This will solve most problems as apps which are unaware of colour profiles tend to assume sRGB (and those that are aware should load the embedded sRGB profile!) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-12T10:22:28.313" LastActivityDate="2010-11-12T10:22:28.313" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="4857" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4858" CreationDate="2010-11-12T11:25:50.500" Score="6" ViewCount="162" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there any problem in submitting the same photo both to macrostock agencies (Alamy, etc.) and microstock (Fotolia, iStock, etc.), assuming I have a non-exclusive agreement in all of them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T12:13:09.203" Title="Submiting same photos to macrostock and microstock" Tags="&lt;stock-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="4858" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4857" CreationDate="2010-11-12T12:17:53.390" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The obvious difference would be on the value of sales. If you've an exclusive or very high quality image, then you probably want to exploit its value, and sell for a higher price through a specialised agency.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conversely, if your image lacks exclusivity, (for example, two people in business suits shaking hands), then there would be a lot of competition on microstock already, so the client may not even look further than this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In real terms, this would mean that you'd be cutting your own margins by posting to the microstock; Instead you may get a better return by targeting your images on a per-image basis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-11-12T12:17:53.390" />
  <row Id="4859" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="377" CreationDate="2010-11-12T16:30:37.040" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;jrista&lt;/strong&gt; has given you a great answer already.  I shoot with a full frame Nikon so I can add a bit of Nikon flavour.  When I started to become interested in macro work I picked up a cheaper Tamron 90mm f2.5 MF lens which I used for many years.  It was a great lens and pretty good at portraits too.  It had two main draw backs - it only went to 1:2 with out adding an extension tube and its working distance was pretty short so insect photography was difficult.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Working distance is the distance from the focus point (the subject) to the front of the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I upgraded my gear in 2000 I replaced the Tamron macro lens with the Nikon 200 f4 micro.  I  am very happy with that lens.  It is really sharp and has a very good working distance and a very shallow angle of view.  The angle of view is important for controlling backgrounds.  The narrower the angle of view the easier it is to frame your subject with a nice background.  The longer focal length also makes it easier to have that background thrown out of focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In answer to your question the Nikon 105 f2.8 micro lens is excellent.  If  you want more working distance then the Nikon 200 f4 is the choice.  You can also consider the Nikon 70-180 micro but it is no longer made and it does not focus down to 1:1.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some further reading I would recomend:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/105AFSlens.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bythom.com/105AFSlens.htm&lt;/a&gt; (at the bottom of this there is information about the latest Tamron 90mm)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2155" LastActivityDate="2010-11-12T16:30:37.040" />
  <row Id="4860" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4716" CreationDate="2010-11-12T17:10:39.613" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know this is no quite about EC, but I thought this might be useful...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't have an iPhone myself (more of an Android person...), but I have a friend with an iPhone and he has the &lt;a href=&quot;http://eyeappsllc.com/Home.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pro HDR&lt;/a&gt; app. I must say I was quite impressed when I saw it work; you just click two positions on the preview of the image and it takes two photos, one after the other and then aligns and merges them. I wish someone would create such an app for Android :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It costs, ($1.99) so I would say that it's probably only worth it if you have a 3GS, because the cameras on the 3G and below are notoriously bad. And the iPhone 4 has &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.maclife.com/article/howtos/iphone_4_hdr_photography_tips&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;HDR built in&lt;/a&gt;!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For some examples look here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/prohdr/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/groups/prohdr/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2131" LastActivityDate="2010-11-12T17:10:39.613" />
  <row Id="4861" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2362" CreationDate="2010-11-12T17:25:00.223" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi, here in Poland where I live Samyang 85 f1.4 is quite popular as a lower-cost alternative to system lenses.  I didn't have chance to check it out myself but heard positivie opinions about it. Here's a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/483-samyang_85_14_5d&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;link&lt;/a&gt; to this lens review.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2156" LastActivityDate="2010-11-12T17:25:00.223" />
  <row Id="4862" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4853" CreationDate="2010-11-12T17:37:33.410" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a lot. Here are a links to a few pages of interest:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://planetozh.com/projects/lightbox-clones/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Lightbox Clones Matrix&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://nivo.dev7studios.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nivo Slider&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://galleria.aino.se/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Galleria&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://spaceforaname.com/galleryview&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;GalleryView&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://smoothgallery.jondesign.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SmoothGallery 2.0&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.e2interactive.com/e2_photo_gallery/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(E)2 Photo Gallery&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.devlounge.net/design/the-top-12-best-jquery-image-galleries&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Top: 12 Best jQuery Image Galleries&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://speckyboy.com/2009/12/03/20-professional-jquery-image-gallery-plugins/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;20 Professional jQuery Image Gallery Plugins&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2010-11-12T17:37:33.410" />
  <row Id="4863" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4723" CreationDate="2010-11-12T20:06:51.273" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi. There's a lot of books covering photography basics such as Michael Langford's &quot;Starting Photography&quot;. Try it out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in my opinion the best way to learn is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make 10 images&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Look at 1000 images&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make 100 images&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Look at 10.000 images&#xA;...&#xA;;-)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2156" LastActivityDate="2010-11-12T20:06:51.273" />
  <row Id="4864" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4804" CreationDate="2010-11-12T20:19:36.413" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a big fan of Freeman Patterson's books.  I started with &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/155263793X&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photography for the Joy of it&lt;/a&gt; and then &quot;Photography and the Art of Seeing&quot; already linked to by ahockley.  Then I added others of his:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1552636127&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photographing the World Around You&lt;/a&gt; by Freeman Patterson&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1552635988&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photography of Natural Things&lt;/a&gt; by Freeman Patterson&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2155" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-11T02:17:57.917" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T02:17:57.917" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-11T12:09:15.693" />
  <row Id="4865" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4825" CreationDate="2010-11-12T22:50:21.297" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you buy a fish-eye you &lt;strong&gt;will&lt;/strong&gt; use it, I promise!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I got mine just over a year ago, and contrary to popular opinion, I have not grown tired of sticking my (Nikon 10.5mm DX fisheye) lens 3cm from my subject, but still capturing the whole atmosphere of the scene!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I love mine so much: really really would recommend getting a 'proper' one!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2019" LastActivityDate="2010-11-12T22:50:21.297" />
  <row Id="4866" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="377" CreationDate="2010-11-12T23:52:18.520" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use the old 60mm AF-D micro Nikkor (on my DX format camera): it's a very well built lens and supremely sharp for general shooting, so it's pretty versatile.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd say for serious macro work you want something longer than 60mm though, because being so close to your subject means:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's very easy to accidentally shadow your subject&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bugs get scared away :)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2019" LastActivityDate="2010-11-12T23:52:18.520" />
  <row Id="4867" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4341" CreationDate="2010-11-13T00:40:36.647" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;ACDSee Pro comes with an online feature (ACDSeeonline.com) that allows you to share selectively and you can choose whether to allow downloads of images, etc. Unlike the other sites you can manage your photos online from within the app.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-11-13T00:40:36.647" />
  <row Id="4868" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="118" CreationDate="2010-11-13T02:10:04.667" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use NextGen Gallery for uploading and displaying photos with wordpress. It also has the functionality to add custom watermarks from text or from an uploaded image. It has a built in slideshow and can manage resizing/cropping once images have been uploaded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do a search for NextGen Gallery in the wordpress you will also find that it is well supported by other plugins that add extra functionality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2161" LastActivityDate="2010-11-13T02:10:04.667" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4869" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4825" CreationDate="2010-11-13T09:07:15.967" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Maybe not excellent, but good quality, well-built and really cheap lens is Samyang 8mm f3.5 Fish-Eye. As I say it's not as good as system fishes, but I think image quality will be better than with ultra-wide converter. Oh, and it's dedicated for APS-C sensors so it's fine for your 550D, but don't take it if you're planning to go FF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-FE8M-C-Fisheye-Canon-Black/dp/B002LTXQUE/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1289640640&amp;amp;sr=8-2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;link&lt;/a&gt; to amazon&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2156" LastEditorUserId="2156" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-13T09:35:28.383" LastActivityDate="2010-11-13T09:35:28.383" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4870" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4892" CreationDate="2010-11-13T16:04:27.360" Score="18" ViewCount="732" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been lucky on a few occasions, but I often struggle with capturing awesome sunsets. What can I do to remove the element of luck and get more consistent results?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt; Additionally, is it possible to tell is a sunset set is going to be particularly striking far enough in advance to plan to get to an &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/4418/21&quot;&gt;awesome location&lt;/a&gt; in time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-13T16:20:44.513" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T10:57:45.840" Title="How do you make the most stunning sun rise/set photos?" Tags="&lt;sunrise&gt;&lt;sunset&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="7" />
  <row Id="4871" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4870" CreationDate="2010-11-13T16:17:20.477" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;An awesome sunset means different things to different people, but for me, I have always found the sunset (or sunrise) itself boring without extra elements in the picture, so I usually compose with a striking element in the foreground, or at least a striking foreground. That way the sunset itself provides the context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two things I usually do:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Get a silhouette of a foreground element against the sunset:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/BTAQ9.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Use a GND filter to balance both sunset and a strong foreground (linked because the picture isn't mine): &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonians.org/dcfp/user_files/91748.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.nikonians.org/dcfp/user_files/91748.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, the sunset must be great to begin with, or it's an exercise in futility (and frustration!).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1868" LastActivityDate="2010-11-13T16:17:20.477" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4872" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4870" CreationDate="2010-11-13T16:19:52.310" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well part of sunset photography IS luck with the elements. But once you have a stunning sunset in front of you, it should NOT be luck from there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Things to consider:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Go manual or bracket your shots: Exposure is tricky depending on which part of the frame the sun appears in, you're going to have a very different reading.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bias towards darker exposures because that makes colors appear more saturated.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use a long lens if you want the sun not to be an insignificant part of the frame.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Include a foreground that is typical of the place where you are (think palm trees for the topics), otherwise it will look like a sunset anywhere.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-13T16:19:52.310" />
  <row Id="4873" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4870" CreationDate="2010-11-13T16:25:10.070" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To make the &lt;strong&gt;most stunning&lt;/strong&gt; sunset/sunrise photos you need at least some &lt;strong&gt;post production&lt;/strong&gt;. Be this in camera via picture styles, during raw conversion or in &lt;em&gt;Photoshop&lt;/em&gt; (or its cousins). You &lt;strong&gt;also&lt;/strong&gt; need the most stunning scenery/lighting - that should go without saying. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However the thing most often missing when I see people compare their work to others online is post production to push the image to it's limits, people often don't realise how much goes into to a typical sunset image. Check out the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=sunset&amp;amp;s=int&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;28 most &quot;interesting&quot; sunset images&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; on Flickr. Pretty much all of them display signs of editing that go beyond what you can achieve in camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taking multiple exposures to maximise the dynamic range of your camera, and give you the best raw materials to work with when producing a sunset/sunrise image. Also it doesn't even have to be sunset or sunrise, this was shot in the middle of the afternoon, just after a particularly heavy storm. Lots of post processing in &lt;strong&gt;Photoshop&lt;/strong&gt; yeided this &quot;sunset&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/castle3.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides that, all the standard rules of composition apply, and there's a lot to be said for picking the right subject. Atmospheric conditions play a large part but that's not really in your hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's no secret to it, really, you just press the shutter button and provided you have composed and set the exposure correctly there's nothing more you could have done &lt;em&gt;once you've maximised the scenery/lighting&lt;/em&gt;. Post production is where you have the greatest input. Yes luck is involved (with the weather etc.) but as a wise man said, the harder I work the luckier I get! Be tenacious and stick at it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;edit:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your second question, yes there are indications in the weather, basically you want the opposite conditions to when you're trying to &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4598/how-to-maximise-contrast-range-of-distant-landscapes-with-blue-haze&quot;&gt;avoid haze&lt;/a&gt;. You want a lot of particulates in the sky to shift the colours as much as possible, so you want the end of a high pressure system with low wind. Thin cloud low in the sky also looks very good in sunset/sunrise shots. Any extreme or unusual conditions are worth exploring, see the following link:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.livescience.com/environment/080903-volcano-sunsets.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Volcano's Eruption Colors World's Sunsets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-15T21:03:08.440" LastActivityDate="2010-11-15T21:03:08.440" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="4874" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4875" CreationDate="2010-11-13T17:00:39.500" Score="11" ViewCount="264" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've created a panormamic photograph from 4 separate shots using &lt;a href=&quot;http://cvlab.epfl.ch/~brown/autostitch/autostitch.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;AutoStitch&lt;/a&gt;. The panorama came out fine, except that the left side of the image is brighter than the right side:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/pLfCa.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;example pano&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What's the best way to fix this using Photoshop CS4? Alternatively, is there a different stitching program I could use that would handle the brightness problem on its own?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2164" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-13T17:20:43.673" LastActivityDate="2010-11-15T11:51:16.203" Title="Fixing the brightness level in a panoramic photo" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;panorama&gt;&lt;brightness&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="4875" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4874" CreationDate="2010-11-13T17:07:53.590" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Photoshop CS4 has an inbuilt panorama stitching function. Go to &lt;strong&gt;File&lt;/strong&gt;-&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Automate&lt;/strong&gt;-&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Photomerge&lt;/strong&gt; and follow the instructions - it's fairly easy to use. There is a check box labelled &lt;em&gt;&quot;[] Blend Images Together&quot;&lt;/em&gt; which evens out the brightness and does a pretty good job with panoramas such as the one you posted in my experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://ptgmedia.pearsoncmg.com/images/art_PSXCIB_Ch10/elementLinks/fig02.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Failing that, if you mask one half of the photo with a feathered selection you can usually even out the sky using a combination of the levels and hue/saturation/lightness tools (adjusting the brightness with levels tends to alter the saturation noticably, but that can be countered using hue and saturation). I wouldn't worry about this affecting the ground as slight changes of brightness are less apparent in areas with detail. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-13T17:13:57.967" LastActivityDate="2010-11-13T17:13:57.967" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4876" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4870" CreationDate="2010-11-13T18:10:34.133" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It may be obvious, but you need think about where the sun's going to be and how you're going to shoot it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I remember standing in Bryce canyon waiting for the sun to rise, and noticing a crowd of people away up on the canyon rim. The sun was going to come up behind me, and all the people were over there in front of me (probably within meters of their cars). So they'd maybe get something out of that, but they'd not see the colours of the sun on the canyon itself as they were on the side for the light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't really do sunsets/ rises, but here's a rise from monument valley. This time I wanted a silhouette, hence the positioning. Photoshop: no pixels harmed with that, this is how it looks (in the rain, and 04:30). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/N6U2y.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Monument Valley&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1055" LastActivityDate="2010-11-13T18:10:34.133" />
  <row Id="4877" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4874" CreationDate="2010-11-13T18:29:48.237" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Luminance blending is much better done with the appropriate panorama stitching tools. They read exposure values from the picture's EXIF data and do corrections. The best ones even read lens data and correct vignetting at the corners. Either the software you have used is not one of those good tools or you have missed an option there (can't verify, I use a mac). Most panorama blending tools will end up with a perfectly evenly lit panorama with no such gradients.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In case you have already end up with the image like this - you must use photoshop heavily to correct both luminance of the right part and then tune up the colors that would unevitably fall apart. Therefore see #1 and get back to better stitching.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="341" LastActivityDate="2010-11-13T18:29:48.237" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4878" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4854" CreationDate="2010-11-13T20:25:56.480" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This isn't exactly an answer, but since I have the same problem, I thought I would post with an example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, in the photo below, the top half is a screen capture of a photo displayed using Windows Photo Gallery.  The bottom half is a screen capture of the same photo displayed using Photoshop CS3.  Both were displayed on the same monitor (a Samsung Syncmaster 216BW).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Rmjtu.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice that the top half has significantly more yellow-tinge than the bottom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's where it gets weirder.  I moved the same two applications with the same photo to my secondary monitor (an Optiquest Q19wb), and took screen captures again.  Note that the difference between the top and bottom halves is much less.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/81jv1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would seem to me that Windows Photo Gallery is trying to do something with the white balance based on the monitor profile?  (BTW, Windows Live Photo Gallery does the same thing).  If I use Paint, it looks the same as Photoshop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't imported this photo into Lightroom V2.x yet, but from experience, it seems to me that Lightroom is trying to do the same thing as Windows Photo Gallery (that is, it makes the photo look yellower on my main monitor).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, this is not an answer, but maybe provides more info on the problem?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="227" LastActivityDate="2010-11-13T20:25:56.480" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4879" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4874" CreationDate="2010-11-13T23:07:58.863" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I used to use &lt;a href=&quot;http://hugin.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hugin&lt;/a&gt; which is open source project. It is able to find correct exposure for most cases, even if You weren't exposing separate shots in the same way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;F.ex. here I have made some basic RAW-&gt;TIFF processing and put it into hugin:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/SnI5P.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;On the way to Preikestolen&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1681" LastActivityDate="2010-11-13T23:07:58.863" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4880" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4894" CreationDate="2010-11-14T00:47:14.323" Score="5" ViewCount="1208" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recently, my family had some professional photos taken while vacationing at a resort.  The photos were given to us on CD in both &lt;strong&gt;.CR2&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;.jpg&lt;/strong&gt; formats.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While we can view the JPEG-format versions of the photos just fine, they had some effect and color filters applied which we'd rather not have for some prints.  Consequently, I'd like to open the .CR2 files myself to get at the original unmodified photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't own a recent Canon camera, so I don't have the corresponding Canon software that undoubtedly ships with their RAW-capable cameras.  I tried Corel Paint Shop Pro X2, but it didn't recognize the .CR2 files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, &lt;strong&gt;what is a cheap or free tool to view and convert .CR2 photos on Windows?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I &lt;em&gt;don't&lt;/em&gt; want to buy Adobe Photoshop.  I trust it would work, but I'm seeking a cheap or free solution, at this point... I'm not yet enough of a photo addict to buy expensive pro tools.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="396" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-11T18:53:05.873" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T18:53:05.873" Title="Cheap/free tool to view/convert Canon CR2 RAW format photo files on Windows?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;image-processing&gt;&lt;windows&gt;&lt;cr2&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="4881" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4880" CreationDate="2010-11-14T01:17:31.560" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure what you mean by 'cheap', but Photoshop Elements is under $100 online.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may also want to check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://software.canon-europe.com/products/0010834.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon's website for downloads&lt;/a&gt;.  They seem to have all the software that would come with a camera available to download.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think Picture Style Editor should allow you to open the CR2 files, and it seems the full program is available for download (rather than just an update).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="307" LastEditorUserId="307" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-14T01:56:36.190" LastActivityDate="2010-11-14T01:56:36.190" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="4882" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4886" CreationDate="2010-11-14T04:17:18.013" Score="4" ViewCount="295" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most Nikon DSLR have a tethered capture option, however I haven't come across any of them that controls the zoom of the DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess the zoom is controlled manually by rotating the ring on the lens.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;On the web I have come across several attempts of controlling the zoom by mounting a motor on the camera with a belt that wraps across the zoom ring.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Something like this. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/RFOq4.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My first question&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Are there any off the shelf solutions for auto zoom control ?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally I tend to shoot a lot of objects that are static but different in sizes. &#xA;Second question&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Is there a zoom to fit option available for DSLR's where I can autocompose and the object fits in the frame with the proper zoom level?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1633" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-15T03:23:34.070" LastActivityDate="2010-12-16T10:19:20.797" Title="Tethering to Control Zoom on Nikon DSLR" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;tethering&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="4883" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4880" CreationDate="2010-11-14T07:38:28.617" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lightroom is very good - and you can download a free 30 day trial - would this be enough time for what you need?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?product=photoshop_lightroom&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here is the link to the trial download&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1907" LastActivityDate="2010-11-14T07:38:28.617" />
  <row Id="4884" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3960" CreationDate="2010-11-14T07:43:41.667" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The D40 is still classed as one of the best Nikons for a long time - if you don't have a particular problem with your existing one stick with it and buy some nice fast lenses instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are having issues - I tried for D5000 and went for the D90 about a year ago. Although it has now been replaced by the D7000 it is still a very good camera for your money. I am shooting a lot of portraits with my D90 and a 2nd hand 35.70mm 2.8. I am still debating myself whether to go full frame as at the moment I am very happy with the images I am getting on my D90.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1907" LastActivityDate="2010-11-14T07:43:41.667" />
  <row Id="4885" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4880" CreationDate="2010-11-14T09:08:02.210" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon's own &lt;a href=&quot;http://software.canon-europe.com/software/0039356.asp?model=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Photo Professional can be downloaded&lt;/a&gt; from Canon, and that can be used to handle the conversion as well as tweaking white balance etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-11-14T09:08:02.210" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4886" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4882" CreationDate="2010-11-14T09:45:19.250" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a couple of factors that come into play here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding &quot;off the shelf options&quot;, I'd be surprised if there were any, as different lenses have differing dimensions, so you would need a different controller  &lt;em&gt;per lens&lt;/em&gt;. The other option would be for SLR lens to incorporate motors for zooming, but I'm not aware of any manufacturer with this feature at present.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Zoom to fit would require that the camera communicates with the zoom controller (admittedly, relatively straightforward, although there is currently no such connection point), but more importantly, the camera would need to decide whether it had recomposed to include the complete object; a task that with today's technologies, would only be possible with simple scenes with plain backgrounds - whilst composition &lt;em&gt;seems&lt;/em&gt; like a simple task, computer science isn't able to offer that level of decision making just yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-11-14T09:45:19.250" />
  <row Id="4887" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4888" CreationDate="2010-11-14T11:39:45.037" Score="6" ViewCount="65" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the 'flash mode' is saved in the image meta-data as a number, what does every value mean in words? How can it be parsed? is their any documentation for this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2167" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-14T19:17:51.570" LastActivityDate="2010-11-14T19:17:51.570" Title="image metadata - flash mode values" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;metadata&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="4888" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4887" CreationDate="2010-11-14T12:32:20.727" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Essentially, odd numbers meant the flash fired, even numbers (including zero) meant it did not. There are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.awaresystems.be/imaging/tiff/tifftags/privateifd/exif/flash.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;other flags&lt;/a&gt; in there as well, such as whether the flash was supposed to fire, and whether the returned light from a flash was detected. Different cameras support different flags, based on their capabilities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-11-14T12:32:20.727" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4889" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4880" CreationDate="2010-11-14T13:05:15.017" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Instant JPEG from RAW&lt;/strong&gt; is a free tool that let you extract the embedded JPEG preview from RAW files.  Just Right-Click on your CR2 files to extract the unprocessed JPEG preview.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rawworkflow.com/instant-jpeg-from-raw-utility/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.rawworkflow.com/instant-jpeg-from-raw-utility/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2168" LastActivityDate="2010-11-14T13:05:15.017" />
  <row Id="4890" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4880" CreationDate="2010-11-14T14:09:22.987" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Picasa from Google is free and will convert Canon  RAW to jpeg. It is also a capable tool for organising your photo collection and will perform basic photo editing operations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-11-14T14:09:22.987" />
  <row Id="4891" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3668" CreationDate="2010-11-14T16:32:05.620" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Even Adobe mentions that their import options allow previews to be generated based on &quot;the smallest previews embedded in the photos&quot;.  This is the JPEG image you see on the back of your camera.  Connor is correct.  There is a lot more information in a RAW/NEF image than just sensor data.  The preview JPEG is just one of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the OP's problem though, you can prevent this by selecting the &quot;standard&quot; option on the render previews pull-down.  The trade-off is your import time will increase.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-11-14T16:32:05.620" />
  <row Id="4892" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4870" CreationDate="2010-11-14T17:22:44.057" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've done well with the exposure rules from &quot;Understanding Exposure&quot; by Bryan Peterson.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, use manual exposure. You probably want everything in focus, so a high f/stop number (ie small aperture) will help you achieve that. That may mean you need a long-ish exposure, so a tripod would help (and will be essential if you want to use HDR techniques).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To set the exposure, choose spot metering mode, point the camera up at the sky, and set the aperture and time so that the sky is correctly exposed. Then recompose and take the photo. Review the picture and adjust the exposure if it is too dark or light for the effect you want. This photo was exposed for the sky:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/hf9Vu.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Sunset exposed for sky&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively, if there is a lot of water in the picture you may want to expose for that. Water will be darker than the sky, even with the reflected sunlight. So do the same as above, but point the camera at the water to set the exposure. This photo was exposed for the water in the foreground:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/N9DgE.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Sunset exposed for water&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which you prefer is up to personal preference and the objects you have to work with in the composition. On the non-exposure parts, I've nothing to add to what the others answers say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; I've decided there is one more thing to say. The light can change very fast, so if it looks beautiful take a picture &lt;em&gt;now&lt;/em&gt;. Then recompose and take another, or play around with your metering and take another. Or wait a bit and see how the light develops. But only &lt;em&gt;after you've got at least one shot of it&lt;/em&gt; - the light can go from stunning to boring in 30 seconds or less sometimes, so it's better to end up with a shot of the beautiful light caught in an OK way than a technically perfect shot after the light has died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="130" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-21T14:50:16.383" LastActivityDate="2010-11-21T14:50:16.383" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4893" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4880" CreationDate="2010-11-14T18:38:47.080" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A few of the free possibilities include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DCRaw&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.my-spot.com/RHC/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;RAWHide&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stepok.com/eng/raw_importer.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;StepOK raw importer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scarablabs.com/scarab-darkroom&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Scarab Darkroom&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gimp.org/windows/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gimp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;DC Raw is kind of the godparent of nearly all the other free/open source camera raw converters. It has code to convert data from almost any camera that can produce a raw file -- but only a command-line interface. Most of the others are basically graphical front-ends that either spawn a copy of DCRaw, or use Libraw, which is basically just the DCRaw code converted to library form. OTOH, many of them use the DCRaw code for little more than the most basic reading of the raw data, and handle most (if not everything) else from there, including more sophisticated demosaicing algorithms, etc. Of course they also provide GUI interfaces and most of the typical adjustments (exposure, contrast, etc.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;GIMP probably deserves separate mention: where the others are basically raw converters with some adjustment capabilities, GIMP is a full-blown photo editor with raw import capability (i.e., more like Photoshop, where the others are more like LightRoom).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-11-14T18:38:47.080" />
  <row Id="4894" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4880" CreationDate="2010-11-14T19:01:03.857" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can use any free (as in freedom) RAW processing software. I can recommend:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;UFRaw&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is a stand-alone RAW converter. Its interface is different from many other RAW converters, but I find it quite good. It easily integrates with Gimp photo editor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rawtherapee.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;RawTherapee&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is more like workflow software rather than just a RAW converter. One may consider its interface more friendly. Also, it allows to save the processing profile and quickly apply it to many photos in a series.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Either tool should handle CR2 files. On one hand, there are other free RAW converters to choose from, but most of them are directly or indirectly based on the same &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;code&gt;dcraw.c&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, as UFRaw is. RawTherapee, on the other hand, seems to have &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rawtherapee.com/RAW_Compare/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a different rasterizer&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastActivityDate="2010-11-14T19:01:03.857" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4895" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="327" CreationDate="2010-11-14T21:36:37.560" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lens is &quot;ultra-wide&quot; when you have to take care to keep major body parts out of the way :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2010-11-14T21:36:37.560" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4896" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3960" CreationDate="2010-11-14T22:18:33.767" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;We can't answer this without know what issue of limitation your are finding with your current set. Even then, it may not be the camera. A lens for example can have more impact on quality and versatility than an incremental camera upgrade.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you decide what you want to improve, you can start looking at different cameras and can even &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;search for cameras&lt;/a&gt; based on their features. For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Need to operate the camera faster? Look for one with dual control-dials.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Need to accurately frame your shots? Look for a 100% coverage viewfinder.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Need to shoot faster continuously? Look for higher frame rates.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Need to shoot in the rain? Look for a weather-proof mode.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;... The choices go on and on but they only start once you know what to improve.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-14T22:18:33.767" />
  <row Id="4897" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4870" CreationDate="2010-11-15T00:21:59.810" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When it comes to sunrise/sunset shots, a significant part of it is indeed the luck of the draw. It is possible to get just the right kind of lighting...if you have the patience. Many of the best landscape photographers will, quite literally, spend days, even &lt;strong&gt;weeks&lt;/strong&gt; simply waiting for the light they need/want/envision to occur. (A truly fantastic book about landscape photography and lighting is &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0715328190&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photography Essentials: Waiting for the Light&lt;/a&gt;&quot; by David Noton. David notes several times in his book how he would spend days or weeks camped in front of a landscape he KNEW had potential, waiting for the right kind of lighting that he envisioned to occur. The results are usually nothing short of stunning.) If you have the time to spend, it is usually worth it, however most of us do not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Getting a great sunset/sunrise shot when you can't wait around for days for it to occur requires a good visionary eye. You need to have the ability to &quot;see&quot; as the camera sees, and be able to envision what a particular vista may look like under better or even ideal lighting. That in turn requires that you find interesting vistas. A sad little fact that I am still trying to come to terms with myself is that a Landscape photographer spends far less time actually hauling out the camera and taking a photograph, than spending time driving around looking for interesting landscapes and trying to see them photographically. If you really want to get a stunning sunset, make sure you have the ideal setting, and can be there when there might be ideal lighting. The former can be controlled, the latter is up to nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being at a good location  when ideal light hits is often just luck, but you can be intelligent about choosing when you visit the location(s) you wish to photograph. A key factor in capturing good light is being prepared for it. You can't, for example, wait until sunrise to get a good shhot...you must be preemptive. Watch the weather forcast and be awake, geared up, caffeined-up, and ON SITE well before the sunrise hits. You will need time to find your perfect vantage point, set up your camera, finger on the cable release before sunrise hits. All too often, the best lighting doesn't last more than a few minutes, and sometimes a mere 30 seconds before that amazing beauty you set out to capture has faded. Sunsets can be easier in some sense, as you have existing light to find your viewpoint, set up, and focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sunrises and sunsets are the type of scene that just SCREAMS for Graduated Neutral Density filters. Depending on where you are in relation to the sun, your landscape may simply be a black silhouette, and if that is what you want, then you are good to go. In the event that you want to capture landscape lit by ambient light, GND filters to balance out the contrast in your scene will be essential. Not only are GND filters useful for balancing out contrast, they can help bring out subtle details in the bright sky that are otherwise not visible (such as small wisps of cloud that blend easily into the amber sky.) The worst thing that can happen after spending a lot of time scouting out landscape vistas, envisioning how they may look under ideal lighting, and getting out there in time to capture the shot...is not having the tools to capture the beauty that occurs. Always pack some filtration, and a broad set of hard and soft GND filters, as well as some tinted graduated filters (such as coral or &quot;sunset&quot; grads), only enhance your chances of capturing those awesome sunsets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding knowing ahead of time when to be where, thats a difficult call. It depends on what you've envisioned, and what you hope to capture. As a general guideline, a solid sky, especially a solid blue sky, makes for a difficult &quot;sunrise/sunset&quot; composition. They do happen, but they are not the most interesting. An interesting sky is often a complex sky. Lighter cloud cover often makes for some of the best sky, as they capture the rays of light at a different angle than the rest of the sky or the landscape, adding alternative hues to an otherwise monochromatic orangeish/reddish sky. If you want to capture sun rays, haze, fog, mist, etc. are usually essential. Sometimes, capturing the sun a few minutes after it has set can produce some of the most amazing rays in a hazy sky that you've ever seen. Sunrises and sunsets can be captures at almost any time, in a variety of weather. Even in a thick storm, the moment when the sun creeps over the horizon, or the moment it crawls back over it, can produce some of the most amazing sunsets you've ever seen, as the whole underbelly of the storm can light up like fire. The only real time when the weather won't permit a great sunrise/sunset shot is when clouds quite literally cover the sky from horizon to horizon, leaving no room for sunlight to penetrate. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Planning and preparation aside, it is possible to find and capture a beautiful sunset on the spur of the moment. Only two days ago, while hiking around the (absolutely FREEZING) Indian Peaks Wilderness in the Colorado Rockies, I came across this vista:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/OJEVz.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not the most stunning sunset vista ever captured. The foreground is very shaded, as the sun set behind the peaks, leaving little light to work with. The saving grace was the frozen (and rather intriguing) lake in the foreground that reflected the post-sunset glow in snow clouds from a brewing storm. Sometimes you just have to be in the right place at the right time, with your gear, to capture something amazing. If you wish to capture better sunsets, I wouldn't rely on the chancy nature of such lucky captures, and it is always better to know your vistas and be ready, camera on tripod, cable release in hand, waiting to snap a photo when good light occurs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-15T00:38:36.463" LastActivityDate="2010-11-15T00:38:36.463" />
  <row Id="4898" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4899" CreationDate="2010-11-15T02:26:15.060" Score="12" ViewCount="458" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are some good strategies/techniques for using a monopod while shooting sports?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm doing a lot of shooting of Figure Skating right now, and am finding the camera and 70-200mm lens is heavy enough that my wrist and elbow are sore at the end of each session.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm thinking that a monopod would help provide support and stability. However, I've never used one before, and am not sure how to shoot while using it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose also the monopod would reduce camera shake over hand-holding, but if my shutter speeds are 1/500s, will it make that much of a difference?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm guessing I need a ball head (or at least some kind of head) because mounting the camera/lens to the top of the monopod would be restricting for trying to track a moving target (panning and tilting).  However, if you use a ball head, do you give up stability for freedom of movement?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Updated&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I appreciate Alan's answer below, as it does answer some of my questions, but I was also kind of hoping for suggestions on technique (ie. how to use a tripod for support while tracking moving objects, and still get the benefits of stability and support).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="227" LastEditorUserId="227" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-16T01:01:38.927" LastActivityDate="2010-11-21T02:08:27.933" Title="Using a monopod while shooting sports?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;sports&gt;&lt;monopod&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="4899" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4898" CreationDate="2010-11-15T03:30:38.347" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes it will make a difference even at 1/500s. Sports shooters often use a monopod for the increased stability without the extra hassle of a full tripod setup, though they typically do so with longer heavier lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since your lens is on a single leg, there should be no issue panning. You can achieve some tilt as well, but a head would help with that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With regards to the ball head; any ball head that does not provide the same stability you would get by connecting directly to the leg(s) is either an inferior ball head or not designed to hold the current weight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you give up by using a ball head is actually mobility due to weight. A ball head can easily double the weight of your monopod. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It sounds like you need something to help prevent stress injuries, and help with fast shutter speeds. Do you really need the mobility of a monopod? Do you find yourself moving around a lot to get different vantage points? If so, a monopod makes sense. Otherwise consider alternatives, like a tripod, or a wrist brace, or even strength training.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-11-15T03:30:38.347" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="4900" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3383" CreationDate="2010-11-15T04:47:47.757" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Kodak made one, it's called the &quot;Film Drive&quot;, google tells me the model number was FD-300. I used one of these back in ~2001, and I'm pretty sure there was at least SOME metadata present in the file... I know the date taken at least was, because we used that on the paper routinely to tell which baseball game the shots we were looking at were from. It wasn't a &lt;em&gt;bad&lt;/em&gt; scanner for the day... but I wouldn't consider it a very good one either... it was middle of the road at best in terms of image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's one up on eBay at the moment: &lt;a href=&quot;http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-KODAK-ADVANTIX-FILM-DRIVE-SCANNER-FD-300-FILMDRIVE-/110610313293?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&amp;amp;hash=item19c0e3704d#ht_3388wt_1141&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-KODAK-ADVANTIX-FILM-DRIVE-SCANNER-FD-300-FILMDRIVE-/110610313293?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&amp;amp;hash=item19c0e3704d#ht_3388wt_1141&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2010-11-15T04:47:47.757" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4901" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4874" CreationDate="2010-11-15T11:51:16.203" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My suggested program is the fantastic &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ptgui.com/examples/quicktour5/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PTGui Pro&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1022" LastActivityDate="2010-11-15T11:51:16.203" />
  <row Id="4902" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-15T14:54:03.247" Score="0" ViewCount="2415" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the best memory card for Canon 550D if you are going to shoot HD video?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some SDHC cards don't accept the full HD video I was told.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="81" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-15T19:29:44.210" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T21:55:34.573" Title="Best card for Canon 550d (HD video)?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;memory-card&gt;&lt;hd-video&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="4903" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-15T15:36:53.723" Score="3" ViewCount="166" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am doing various export tests to get nice looking thumbnails for my photoapps.&#xA;My thumbs are 120 x 80.&#xA;So far the output sharpening from Lightroom looks the best, (sharpen for Screen, High) only problem is the filesize…&#xA;I can't get them under 25KB. My ideal filesize would be 10-12KB.&#xA;When I set the &quot;Limit File Size To&quot; to these numbers LR just does not care and goes again over 25KB.&#xA;Using a low quality number (like 40) and again 25KB very badly compressed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photoshop's &quot;Save for the Web&quot; gives me the desired filesizes, but I can't get the sharpening good looking like LightRooms.&#xA;In photoshop I resize to 120 x 80 (bicubic sharpener) and do &gt; unsharp mask, amount 50%, Radius 1.0, Threshold 0&#xA;Obviously using these defaults is not the best way to go. I think I remember something about smart sharpening or high pass sharpening?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I wanted to know what are the best sharpening techniques in PS to get great looking thumbnails?&#xA;Cheers&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2181" LastActivityDate="2010-11-18T08:37:40.783" Title="Output sharpening for thumbnails - keeping small filesize" Tags="&lt;thumbnails&gt;&lt;unsharp-mask&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4904" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="710" CreationDate="2010-11-15T16:01:24.653" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A class 6 card in theory should be more than enough bandwidth for HD (1080) video for the 550D (48 MBit).  Unfortunately some manufacturers do not not produce as high quality consistent memory as they should and thus most HDSLR folks prefer to use class 10 cards which should have enough headroom that you'll never see the buffer bars.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recommend not skimping on brand too much and going with a SanDisk class 10 - I have had no issues with mine on my T2i/550D or my 60D when shooting video.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="217" LastEditorUserId="217" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-15T16:09:02.963" LastActivityDate="2010-11-15T16:09:02.963" />
  <row Id="4905" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4903" CreationDate="2010-11-15T16:04:33.857" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many sharpening techniques (google &lt;em&gt;high pass filter&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;octave sharpening&lt;/em&gt;) as well as specialist tools, e.g.smart sharpen, and third party plugins e.g. SharpenerPro&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of these are overkill for thumbnails. I find unsharp mask does the job. When downsizing an image you end up with a lot of fine detail so you can use a very small radius and get good results. This also minimises &quot;halo&quot; effects which is a good thing when your images are small. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The settings I use are radius 0.2, strength 300, threshold 0&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's always a sharpness/filesize tradeoff with JPEG files as storing higher frequencies requires more space. You can reduce the strength value to reduce the filesize. Alternatively you can mask the thumbnail so the centre is sharper than the edges (assuming most of the important detail is toward the edges). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-11-15T16:04:33.857" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4906" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="710" CreationDate="2010-11-15T16:05:56.837" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some cards are too slow to accept an HD stream, so you need one that is fast enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since that camera uses the H.264 codec, it produces video at 5.5 MB/s at its highest-resolution. Some cameras used different codecs, so some models will even faster cards, particularly if using M-JPEG.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look for something that has a WRITE speed of 10 MB/s or more and you'll be safe. Sandisk specifies their write-speeds in MB/s as opposed to Xs (you would need at least 66X to get 10 MB/s) which makes it easier to choose the right one with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lexar Professional (20 MB/s) or Sandisk Extreme (30 MB/s) SDHC cards are currently top-of-the-line models with high durability. I use both of these as well as Kingston cards. High-end cards such as these come with a life-time warranty (at least here in Canada). I would not trust my images to cards which their own makers show less trust in them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-15T16:05:56.837" />
  <row Id="4907" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="597" CreationDate="2010-11-15T16:29:13.813" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To summarize the other answers (thus far): the primary reason for spot metering is situations with extreme contrast. The high contrast means that getting a &quot;reasonable&quot; overall exposure isn't likely to give (even close to) the correct exposure for the parts of the picture you really care about. That being the case, you need to meter those specific parts you care about, and expose specifically for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd disagree with one answer though: a spot meter is rarely useful for the moon. To shoot pictures of the moon, you're generally better off exposing manually. Even a spot meter will usually overexpose the moon &lt;em&gt;quite&lt;/em&gt; badly unless you use an &lt;em&gt;extremely&lt;/em&gt; long lens. Instead, you usually want to just open up about one stop from a normal daylight exposure (aka the &quot;loony 11 rule&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-11-15T16:29:13.813" />
  <row Id="4908" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-15T17:33:54.523" Score="5" ViewCount="270" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am looking for an image viewer for mac with the following characteristics:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lightweight - loads fast&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Full screen mode&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Magnifier&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Can load a directory for browsing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any suggestions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(iPhoto 11 has a full screen mode, but no handy zooming capabilities for individual photos as far as I know)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2182" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-15T19:30:06.707" LastActivityDate="2010-11-18T00:12:29.843" Title="Image viewer software for Mac" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;macintosh&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4909" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4908" CreationDate="2010-11-15T17:52:37.033" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To be honest I just use preview if I want a quick run through of images&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1907" LastActivityDate="2010-11-15T17:52:37.033" />
  <row Id="4910" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="710" CreationDate="2010-11-15T19:29:17.377" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You generally get what you pay for, but to take some of the pain out of it, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/camera_multi_page.asp?cid=6007-9424&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;there are benchmarks for memory cards&lt;/a&gt; online (although they're yet to test using the 550D). Whilst I've only experience of Compact Flash, I've always found Sandisk to be quick and reliable, and the benchmarks appear to back that up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-11-15T19:29:17.377" />
  <row Id="4911" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4908" CreationDate="2010-11-15T19:32:18.807" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been looking for a similar kind of an app recently and the best light-weight software I could find was &lt;a href=&quot;http://wakaba.c3.cx/s/apps/xee.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Xee&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Xee&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&#xA;It really fills the gap between the Quick Look and Capture One - the other image viewers I'm frequently using.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could find more alternatives from the alternativeto.net website. I spotted Xee there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1913" LastActivityDate="2010-11-15T19:32:18.807" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4912" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2735" CreationDate="2010-11-16T00:22:23.180" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That pretty much happened to me yesterday. Its possible that its a light leak in your camera, an advance error, or bad chemicals. Remember if your negatives are blank, then your pictures were very dark&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2187" LastEditorUserId="2187" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-16T01:19:40.190" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T01:19:40.190" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4914" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4908" CreationDate="2010-11-16T00:36:19.633" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd suggest preview. Its built in and the newer version (Leopard and up) is actually quite nice&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2187" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T00:36:19.633" />
  <row Id="4915" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4845" CreationDate="2010-11-16T00:39:22.080" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Any sony but the new nikon point and shoot with the flash mount=pretty cool&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2187" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T00:39:22.080" />
  <row Id="4916" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4832" CreationDate="2010-11-16T01:20:46.803" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;sunny f16 rule!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2187" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T01:20:46.803" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4917" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4919" CreationDate="2010-11-16T01:22:38.410" Score="5" ViewCount="277" Body="&lt;p&gt;ISO 125 or ISO 400 film: which should I use for studio shots?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the way, I am planning to shoot in black and white.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2187" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-25T02:10:35.117" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T14:06:53.153" Title="Is 125 or 400 ISO film better for black and white studio shots?" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;iso&gt;&lt;black-and-white&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="4918" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-16T01:31:36.237" Score="6" ViewCount="107" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm giving serious consideration to switching from primarily shooting film with a Pentax K1000 to a Canon AE-1 (and/or AE-1 Program).  Is anyone familiar with the model?  What are the popular fd lenses/accessories?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2188" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-16T16:57:02.383" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T16:57:02.383" Title="popular fd/canon ae-1 lenses/acessories" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;film-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4919" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4917" CreationDate="2010-11-16T02:05:48.890" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That would really depend on what kind of effect you are going for, and which format you shoot. Some can't stand the more apparent grain that comes with higher speed film, but I think it adds character. Then there is development and printing, etc. I personally find B&amp;amp;W ISO 400 film to suit my taste though, mostly T-Max or Tri-X with a side of Ilford HP5 Plus, and I use lower ISO film like Ektar and Sensia for colour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Either way, when it comes to film, it is largely a matter of taste. I have seen Tri-X pushed to 1600 for studio portraits to good effect, and some have done great work with Ilford FP4 (ISO 125), or even Agfapan 25. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have difficulty deciding, I suggest trying a roll each, then see which you prefer. Film is pretty cheap these days :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1868" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T02:05:48.890" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4920" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4418" CreationDate="2010-11-16T07:14:47.997" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Thanks for asking a question that I can help on.  I'm a photography beginner so I rarely get to contribute.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But to me, the answer seems obvious: &lt;strong&gt;ask the locals&lt;/strong&gt; :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Get to know your neighbors, and ask them where the best views are.  Some local interest groups could help - hiking, mountain biking, backpacking, boating, bird-watching, botany?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps your &lt;a href=&quot;http://scouts.org.uk/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;local scout troop&lt;/a&gt; would also have some ideas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, good luck in your search.  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2190" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T07:14:47.997" />
  <row Id="4921" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4418" CreationDate="2010-11-16T11:55:29.840" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Online mapping services are great for this, especially if you're just passing through an area on business, have maybe an hour to grab some photos, and don't want to waste your time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I usually use &lt;a href=&quot;http://maps.google.co.uk/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Google Maps&lt;/a&gt;, with &quot;Photos&quot; and &quot;Terrain&quot; both enabled. That gives you a good sense of the lie of the land, and shows what other people found worth photographing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're in the UK, then Ordnance Survey maps are great, and much more detailed than Google -- and they're now visible in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bing.com/maps/?cc=gb&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bing Maps&lt;/a&gt; (under &quot;Roads&quot;) if you zoom in far enough. They give you an even better idea of the likely views, because they show clumps of trees, church spires and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T11:55:29.840" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4922" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-16T12:36:05.170" Score="17" ViewCount="302" Body="&lt;p&gt;I guess this comes up for most of us that are known by friends as &quot;the photographer&quot;... I've been asked to be the official photographer at a wedding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think I have the equipment sorted. I have my DSLR, and am hiring a flash and an L-series lens. I have a list of &quot;formal&quot; pictures that the bride and groom want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What am I missing? Do you have any tips for how to &quot;manage&quot; all the guests without getting in the way? Are there any indispensable gadgets that I should consider?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe also relevant:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1789/tips-for-shooting-large-group-portraits-without-blinkers&quot;&gt;Tips for shooting large group portraits without blinkers&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/350/what-are-some-tips-for-shooting-in-low-light&quot;&gt;What are some tips for shooting in low light&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="999" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-06T13:46:45.560" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T13:46:45.560" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-16T12:40:14.850" Title="Tips for photographing a wedding" Tags="&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;wedding&gt;&lt;group-photos&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="4923" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4922" CreationDate="2010-11-16T13:07:24.167" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a difference in &quot;doing it as a wedding present&quot; (for friends/family) and &quot;doing it return for money&quot;. The &quot;must have&quot;s stay the same, but I would expect a professional to cover most of the &quot;should have&quot;s too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Having the right equipment&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are three main groups of kit, the &quot;must&quot;, the &quot;should&quot; and the &quot;nice to&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Must have&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Camera&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lens (Something like a standard or wide zoom would work; I've seen a lot of pros using Canon's 17-40/f4)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Spare batteries&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;About 4 times as many memory cards as you think you'll need&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Should have&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Spare camera&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Long lens (this is a stylistic point though, but good at getting natural shots of people enjoying themselves without being too &quot;in your face&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Neutral (and without pattern) golf umbrella &lt;em&gt;just in case&lt;/em&gt; it rains.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Separate flash (ideally one that can be angled and rotated to bounce off convenient surfaces&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Step stool/ladder to get that little bit of extra height.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Nice to have&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Eyes in the back of your head (or a second photographer) to pick up on some of the more informal details that the bride and groom might appreciate.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some kind of portable bench to provide somewhere for the bride and groom to sit and sip their champagne, whilst having their photo taken (etc).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Regarding crowd control&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there are ushers, make them earn their keep and try and get them to assist -- they generally will know who is family, who are friends, and whether they're on the bride or groom's side, and can usually be coaxed into helping (even if it's a gentle nudge along the lines of &quot;the sooner you help get these done, the sooner the bar can prop you up&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be assertive; Generally, guests are used to being corralled at weddings and are understanding that you're just doing you job.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Make sure you look around and pay attention to those that aren't aware of the camera - for example, children picking up confetti or the ushers chatting up the bridesmaids...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T13:07:24.167" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-16T13:07:24.167" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="4924" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4418" CreationDate="2010-11-16T13:10:42.900" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are never going to know for sure how a place will work until you're actually there, so of course the best way to know is through experience :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, for the rest of us who aren't old and gray, retired with plenty of time on our hands, or a professional who gets paid to sit and wait on a hill for the perfect shot... There are some good resources online to give you a decent idea what a location will be like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photoephemeris.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Photographer's Ephemeris&lt;/a&gt; is one of the best tools I've seen, combining Google maps with the sunrise/sunset information, which can help not only with location, but also the lighting at that location.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Like others have mentioned &lt;a href=&quot;http://maps.google.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Google maps&lt;/a&gt;, esp. with the terrain and satellite views.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bing.com/maps/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bing Maps&lt;/a&gt;, which has different sources, which may or may not be better than Google's for any given location.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/map/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr maps&lt;/a&gt;, which has image overlays on the map, so you can see the real views for a location.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.panoramio.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Panoramio&lt;/a&gt;, which is very similar to Flickr maps, but is focused solely on geotagged photos.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T13:10:42.900" />
  <row Id="4926" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4716" CreationDate="2010-11-16T13:35:07.770" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Technically the answer is &quot;there isn't one.&quot; The SDK does not allow much control over the camera so any apps claiming to do exposure compensation are just &quot;faking it&quot; by post-processing the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the built-in photo app, you can adjust the exposure by pointing at the part of the scene that it should take the exposure from (it also focuses on the same point). This works on the 3GS and above. This trick should work in any app that can take pictures, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="999" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T13:35:07.770" />
  <row Id="4927" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4918" CreationDate="2010-11-16T13:40:04.100" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Canon AE-1 and AE-1 Program are fine models that can be acquired quite cheaply today, although I do prefer the A-1 because it has Aperture Priority which I favor instead of Shutter Priority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;FD lenses are availabe everywhere, but do look out for the newer FD lenses that don't have the mounting ring like the older ones, they are not as swiftly mounted. I found the combination of a 50 F/1.4, a 28 F/2.8 and a 135 F/2.8 to suit my needs. Look out for the SC or SSC marks in the lenses, they signify later models with better coatings that can make all the difference in the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Batteries (the 4LR44) are also still plenty available, in contrast to some of the other manufacturer's models of that era.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="92" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T13:40:04.100" />
  <row Id="4928" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4952" CreationDate="2010-11-16T13:41:01.343" Score="10" ViewCount="469" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm aware that a teleconverter will reduce the amount of light reaching the film or sensor in a camera, and as such you hear people banding around things like &quot;With a 2x teleconverter this 300mm f/2.8 becomes a 600mm f/5.6&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the aperture isn't physically any different, I wonder how that affects depth of field (and associated effects like bokeh). It would make sense that the depth of field remains the same, and the image is merely cropped.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it just another one of these things that people say, that may be convenient for exposure calculations, or is there actually a change in the image produced?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-11-17T19:45:39.613" Title="How does a teleconverter affect depth of field?" Tags="&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;bokeh&gt;&lt;teleconverter&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="4929" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4928" CreationDate="2010-11-16T13:50:54.800" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The depth of field is that of a F/5.6 lens in the example you state.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, the aperture has not physically changed. However, the ratio of aperture to focal-length has increased.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, light rays reaching the sensor will be less oblique. That results in increased depth-of-field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T13:50:54.800" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="4930" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4928" CreationDate="2010-11-16T14:35:25.283" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can't add anything to Itai's excellent succinct explanation of what's going on, however I'll introduce a proof by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Reductio ad Absurdum&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose that using a teleconverter extended the focal length and as a result let in less light but &lt;strong&gt;without affecting the depth of field&lt;/strong&gt;. As well as making a 600 f/5.6 a manufacturer could take an existing a 300 f/2.8 design and incorporate some teleconverter optics but in the same body. They would then be able to offer two versions of the 600mm lens that behave exactly the same exposure wise but one would have the DOF of a 600 f/5.6 and one would have the DOF of a 600 f/2.8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They could also replace the 300 f/2.8 with a 150 f/1.4 with incorporated telecoverter, and be able to offer 3 versions of the 600 with different DOF et cetera et cetera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eventually you arrive at a lens with infintesimally small depth of field but still behaving like a 5.6, which is clearly absurd, thus the original proposition (that the DOF is unchanged by a telecoverter) must be false. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-16T14:51:04.850" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T14:51:04.850" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4931" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4922" CreationDate="2010-11-16T15:35:45.093" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Make sure the couple's expectations are realistic. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We asked a friend to photograph our wedding as a gift, and were delighted with the result, because we had very low expectations (mostly because I'm an amateur myself, and know how hard it is to get the perfect shot every time). Our friend did a great job, and we got several pro-quality pictures. But not for every critical moment (for instance, we don't have a good picture of the bouquet throwing, and our ceremony pictures needed a lot of post-processing because the lighting was suboptimal).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, do not forget to photograph a lot of the background elements and details. Table settings, rings, placecards, etc... And expecially anything homemade. These are easy to photograph beforehand, you can take your time composing a really good picture, and they make good album fillers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="204" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T15:35:45.093" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-16T15:35:45.093" />
  <row Id="4932" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4922" CreationDate="2010-11-16T15:46:10.607" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I were in your position I would have all of that &lt;strong&gt;plus&lt;/strong&gt; a written agreement stating that the couple understand that you are not a professional wedding photographer, you are doing this as a favour (and in the process saving them hundreds of dollars), and thus they cannot complain (or sue you) if the results are in any way not as good as they are expecting. Not that you can't get as good results as a pro or shouldn't try, it's just nice to have that piece of paper... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Regarding equipment, a monopod is &lt;strong&gt;very handy&lt;/strong&gt; in church if you can't get close to the couple (some ministers make you stand at the back) and have to use a telephoto. I'd also add a telephoto lens to the list. Regarding lenses you should he able to cover 24 - 200mm equiv. I've never shot a wedding where I &lt;strong&gt;needed&lt;/strong&gt; to shoot outside this range, sometimes it's nice to have the ability.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Regarding gadgets they don't have to high tech, I have a neck tie with a lens cloth sewn into the back for easy lens cleaning (pat pending). I also always carry: tissues, electrical tape, duck tape, cash, local taxi numbers, a swiss army knife. You never know when they might be useful (at one welding I had to fix the radiator in a 1930s Mercedes Benz in order to actually get the bride to the ceremony!) &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Regarding managing people, you need to &lt;em&gt;look and act like the official photographer&lt;/em&gt;. Wear a suit and tie, use a battery grip if you have one to make you camera look bigger (everyone at a wedding has a DSLR these days, but most are rebels with the kit lens, you need to stand out). Order people around, but be polite. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-16T16:04:36.830" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T16:04:36.830" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-16T15:46:10.607" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4933" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4908" CreationDate="2010-11-16T16:05:12.917" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've searched for something like this for a while as well and haven't found anything great. Depending on what I'm doing, I use a combination of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Picasa&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Preview&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Simple Comic (no really, you can page through a directory of images really easily, and has Loupe)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ACDSee (beta) It's not lightweight, though has lots of features (http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/4678/acdsee-pro)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seriously though, take a look at Simple Comic (http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/21987/simple-comic), it covers everything you asked for. If you keep it in your dock, you can just drag a directory icon onto it to view it (including subdirectories), keyboard shortcuts for fullscreen and image sizing, a Loupe magnifier, loads pretty quick, can view zip files. Best of all you can read comics with it as well. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2196" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T16:05:12.917" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4934" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4922" CreationDate="2010-11-16T18:09:56.270" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;talk to the couple about expectations - it being your first time you're bound to miss a few key shots, stuff up a few other ones etc, so if they really want all the key moments caught, getting a professional who is experienced is the only way to do it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;find someone to be your partner for the day. They don't have to be a photographer, but someone who is up for arranging people for group shots and is good at thinking ahead and being aware of the space and what will be coming up. And your partner should be someone who really will prioritise being with you for the whole day, even when they are missing out on other things because of that.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;talk through what shots the couple really want so you can prioritise them. Have a list of common wedding shots with you to cover the shots they may not have thought of. Ideally have your partner with you for the conversation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;go to all the venues before the day of the wedding to scope out the light, the seating, where people will be moving through and think about where you'll have to be to get the shots. Think about what lens you'll need attached.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;reading a few articles there seems to be a theme of getting spares of everything - body, batteries, CF card etc. You may want to rent extra kit, and if you do get it the day before so you know how it works. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some good articles for further reading:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3467/how-hard-would-be-photographing-a-wedding-with-just-prime-lens&quot;&gt;How hard would be photographing a wedding with just prime lens?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2010.07.25/fwigtew-and-other-first-wedding-acronymss&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2010.07.25/fwigtew-and-other-first-wedding-acronymss&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.weddingphotographyworkshop.com/blog/top-10-most-important-wedding-photographs&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.weddingphotographyworkshop.com/blog/top-10-most-important-wedding-photographs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rokkorfiles.com/Wedding101-page1.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.rokkorfiles.com/Wedding101-page1.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/wedding-photography-21-tips-for-for-amateur-wedding-photographers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/wedding-photography-21-tips-for-for-amateur-wedding-photographers&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christophermaxwell.com/wedding-photography-tips.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.christophermaxwell.com/wedding-photography-tips.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T18:09:56.270" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-16T18:09:56.270" />
  <row Id="4935" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="710" CreationDate="2010-11-16T19:12:14.943" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just bought this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Transcend-Ultimate-Speed-Memory-TS32GSDHC10/dp/B003P3MCXW/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1289934002&amp;amp;sr=8-3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;32GB Class 10 card&lt;/a&gt; for my Panasonic TM700.  I don't generally take 1080p60 video (only Class 10 cards are fast enough for that) but I may want to someday.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I didn't see much of a difference on Amazon, in terms of price, between Class 6 cards and Class 10 cards.   In fact some of the Class 6's are more expensive than the Class 10's from the same manufacturer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd say get a Class 10 card - even if your camera doesn't come close to using all the available bandwidth, the card will probably last long enough that you could use it in your next one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2190" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T19:12:14.943" />
  <row Id="4936" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="710" CreationDate="2010-11-16T21:55:34.573" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently got this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Transcend-16GB-SDHC-Class-Memory/dp/B002WE4HE2/ref=pd_bxgy_computers_text_b&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Transcend 16Gb Class 10&lt;/a&gt;. I haven't tested it thoroughly, but if it really is a class 10 (or close, as I know that not all class 10 are equal), it's quite cheap for it's size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="332" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T21:55:34.573" />
  <row Id="4937" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4945" CreationDate="2010-11-16T23:03:36.730" Score="5" ViewCount="708" Body="&lt;p&gt;so i want to jump into the world of DSLR and aside from being a crazy picture taker have no skills as a photographer. i take many shots and delete bad ones in the hopes that some will be really nice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;i do play with iso and shutter speed for night shots and do a little basic config to get some shots but typically shoot in auto mode with my cannon point and shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;i tired the D90 6 months ago and in auto mode the pix were amazing. i think with this camera all you need to do is rest the button and it will do the rest and make GREAT shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;i know the specs on the t2i are better and the D90 is a few years old...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;what would you suggest i do in my hunt to buy a great DSLR and get out there shooting???&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-16T23:39:52.410" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T08:32:50.423" Title="Canon t2i or new Nikon d90?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;nikon-d90&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4938" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4937" CreationDate="2010-11-16T23:29:49.210" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Either one.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unless you have any specific needs that you haven't mentioned, either one of those camera bodies will take really great photos.  If you're wondering more in general about &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/175/what-are-considerations-when-choosing-a-dslr-brand&quot;&gt;choosing a DSLR brand&lt;/a&gt;, hit that question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You did mention auto mode, if that's what you're really looking for you might look at whether you really need a DSLR.  Some of the point/shoots such as the Canon G12 will offer really great photos as well in a smaller/lighter package.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do want to get into the options and extensibility of a DSLR, get either one of those cameras, start learning about photography, and as you said at the end of your post... &quot;&lt;strong&gt;get out there shooting&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-16T23:39:12.880" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T23:39:12.880" />
  <row Id="4939" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4937" CreationDate="2010-11-16T23:58:41.527" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It really depends on what you want to do. Both brands make superb quality gear, both have broad support, and both have extensive online and offline communities dedicated to them. You can't really go wrong with either. Even though the 550D specs out a bit better than the D90, both are great cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get a little more personal, I'd cast my vote for Canon. When I went to purchase my first DSLR, I was looking at Nikon, as I'd had some glowing reviews of Nikkor glass from some friends and acquaintances. I would probably be a Nikon user today if it wasn't for the fact that all the Nikon gear I wanted was unavailable, had been, and was for some time before I finally chose Canon. When I started looking at Canon gear, everything I was interested was readily available and quite cheap, and I found that Canon offered some unique things. Nikon seem to suffer a little bit from supply problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, Canon offers a few fairly unique items in their lines of lenses, which you either have to go third party for with Nikon, or which are not available at all. If you are interested in extreme macro photography, Canon is definitely the choice. Their MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x zoom lens is the ultimate macro photography lens. It can focus about 1/2 of a foot from its subjects, and allows some of the most incredible macro shots possible. Such a lens is not available with Nikon, and the closest you may get is with a 105mm Macro lens and extension tubes. If you are interested in landscapes, portraits, weddings, or creative/journalistic photography, Canon also offers a line of tilt/shift lenses. These lenses offer classical movements originally available on larger format cameras (i.e. 4x5 or 8x10), allowing much greater flexibility and control than lenses that only offer focus control. Canon offers TS-E (electronic tilt/shift) lenses in 17mm, 24mm, 45mm, and 90mm variants. All are prime lenses, manual focus, and offer some of the most astounding optics in all of Canon's lens lineups (the 17mm and 24mm in particular.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have been extremely satisfied with my Canon setup. I do not yet own any, however TS-E lenses are the next on my list, starting with the fantastic 24mm TS-E lens. I've had a chance to experiment with it, and it is a truly amazing lens, and it is great fun being able to control your plane of focus and perspective normalization.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-11-16T23:58:41.527" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4941" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1066" CreationDate="2010-11-17T00:48:33.890" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cvsphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CVS/Eckerds&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://sites.target.com/site/en/spot/page.jsp?title=photo_center&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Target&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.walgreens.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Walgreens&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All very cheap, although I prefer Target.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2187" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-16T07:51:18.570" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T07:51:18.570" />
  <row Id="4943" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4944" CreationDate="2010-11-17T01:46:40.773" Score="9" ViewCount="164" Body="&lt;p&gt;Getting ready to do a series of head &amp;amp; shoulder shots for some corporate brass. Should be simple, though I don't want to forget anything basic. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Equipment list:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon D700&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;50mm 1.4&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;80-200mm 2.8 (I do have a nice long room to work with)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;CF cards&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;SB-800&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(2) SB-600's&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;24&quot; softbox&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;15&quot; soft box&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;3 light stands&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;backdrop stand and cross bar&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;7 backdrops&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;positioning stool&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;UV corrective gels&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;batteries&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;lens cleaner&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;water and granola bars&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;shooting schedule with names and room for additional contact info&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;pen&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that covers it. Planning on a simple 3 light set up: key, fill and rim (or splash). What am I forgetting?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastEditorUserId="1451" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-18T01:00:59.237" LastActivityDate="2010-11-18T01:00:59.237" Title="Shooting Corporate Brass, am I forgetting anything" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;technique&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4944" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4943" CreationDate="2010-11-17T02:14:07.593" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're missing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Backup camera. You absolutely need backup camera, and backup flashes if you can swing it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Immediate backup of images. You don't need to go hardcore here, a laptop will work, but you don't want to reshoot if your cards crap out.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Contract/Release paperwork. Make sure the terms of the shoot are laid out, and that you have secured the release to use any photograph as part of your own portfolio/advertising.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-11-17T02:14:07.593" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4945" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4937" CreationDate="2010-11-17T02:53:15.243" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no way to go wrong with ANY modern DSLR, however you should choose the one that best fits your needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know why you are comparing these two particular models. Between the 2, the Canon T2i is newer but the Nikon D90 is a more advanced model. In practical terms this means you get higher resolution in images and video with the T2i. But, you get a better user-interface with the D90 including dual-control dials and a larger viewfinder. The D90 also has a faster continuous drive with deeper buffer, but it only matters if those are important to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Between those two I'd choose the D90 because controls are more important to photography than megapixels. The most important thing you should consider is that each camera gives you access to a different collection of lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you prefer Canon lenses go with them. Over time lenses will take on much more value than your camera, so changing brands get harder for most people. You will easily be able to upgrade to a more advanced model later, if you can't do it now. The Canon 60D would be the latest equivalent in the category of the D90, previous models where the 40D and 50D and you may be&#xA;able to find them at a good price. Of those, only the 60D has a movie-mode, if that matters to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-17T02:53:15.243" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4946" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4937" CreationDate="2010-11-17T04:29:57.903" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not going to disagree with the responses, other than to suggest looking at the Pentax K-5 (I'm a Pentax shooter) as well. However, plug aside, if you do look at Nikon, I would suggest skipping the D90 and looking to the D7000 instead. The D7000 is an upgrade for the D90 and, with minor exceptions, carries the same sensor as the K-5, a sensor which is demonstrating remarkable dynamic range and high ISO performance, putting them in reach of full frame and medium format cameras, and some times exceeding them. The Canon 60D is also showing great promise in this arena, which I would choose over the t2i as a result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So... If I was to break down some suggestions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;High ISO - Nikon. It's a touch better than the Pentax option, but it's almost too close to call. However, for low light high speed photography, it's hard to beat Nikon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dynamic Range - Pentax. Pentax, for reasons that they only know, aim to the landscape photographer in a major way, something that dynamic range really helps and the K-5 not only sits on top of the heap for dSLR options, it also exceeds medium format as well. It is more expensive, but also carries some pro features the the D7000 and 60D don't. However, the D7000 is close as well, again just a touch difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Resolution - Canon. The 60D is a higher resolution sensor and can capture more detail. It's a hair more detail, but in the right conditions that can mean something. Samples I've seen put it close to the Nikon and the Pentax high ISO and dynamic range, helped by the resolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if you want to capture action in low light, go Nikon. If you want to capture strong detail and color in landscapes and nature, go Pentax. If you want to capture super-fine detail in controlled light subjects, go Canon. However, whichever you pick, you're only marginally giving up on the other two. Very likely, as it does with most of us, the camera will exceed the photographer anyways. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-11-17T04:29:57.903" />
  <row Id="4947" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4937" CreationDate="2010-11-17T04:56:06.073" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You might want to add some more detail about your budget, and what you plan to do with the camera.  Is video important to you?  If so, the T2i is a better choice than the D90.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Got lots of money?  The D7000 or 60D are newer, with better specs, but you can get a D90 body for $400 less than the D7000, and spend more money on lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon seems to be discounting the 60D a lot right now (in combination with the 17-85mm or 18-200mm lenses).  I think that's because the D7000 looks a lot better (on paper at least) for nearly the same list price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't care about video, and would have loved to get a D7000, but my budget was limited, so I ended up buying a D90 recently ($630 CDN for the body), and then bought a nicer lens (Sigma EX 70-200mm F2.8 HSM II) for shooting sports.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I didn't do any research on cameras other than Nikon or Canon, but as John points out there are other cameras you may want to look at too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Best advice I can give is don't spend all your money on the body, you will want to make sure you get a couple of nice lenses to play with too.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck, and have fun!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="227" LastEditorUserId="227" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-17T12:56:54.260" LastActivityDate="2010-11-17T12:56:54.260" />
  <row Id="4948" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4903" CreationDate="2010-11-17T07:22:56.830" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I create the images for my website (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.guffa.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;guffa.com&lt;/a&gt;) in Photoshop. My thumbnails are 100 x 67 and most of them are between 4 and 6 kB.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I resize them using bicubic, then use unsharp mask with settings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;amount: 50%&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;radius: 0.5&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;threshold: 2&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then I save them using Save For Web as JPEG with quality setting 60.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The radius is based on an average screen resolution of 100 PPI.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some examples:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/iUKN8.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Trees&quot;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/r3D9P.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Factory&quot;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NGiQl.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Cobble stones&quot;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NjX4K.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Bridge&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-17T07:31:24.893" LastActivityDate="2010-11-17T07:31:24.893" />
  <row Id="4949" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4953" CreationDate="2010-11-17T08:28:58.657" Score="7" ViewCount="816" Body="&lt;p&gt;I need to scan a large volume of book covers and even though the scanner (HP) most of the time scans/auto-sizes, many are left with white/grey space on the sides.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the best way I can automate the &quot;crop&quot; on these images?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there some software/tools that automate this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2207" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T12:47:37.237" Title="What is the best way to auto crop bulk images?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;cropping&gt;" AnswerCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4950" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4949" CreationDate="2010-11-17T09:41:43.333" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.faststone.org/FSResizerDownload.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fast Stone Photo ReSizer&lt;/a&gt; has always been my number one choice!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1485" LastActivityDate="2010-11-17T09:41:43.333" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4951" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4943" CreationDate="2010-11-17T10:31:32.717" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;How about an assistant / volunteer to test the lighting setups on before the big guns arrive so you're not faffing around?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh and gaffa tape for the lightstands and any cabling. Always bring tape to shoots.... and everywhere else you go in life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-11-17T10:31:32.717" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4952" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4928" CreationDate="2010-11-17T10:33:00.357" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;TL;DR version: Teleconverters don't affect depth of field at any given distance. They literally transform your 300 f/2.8 lens into a 600 f/5.6 lens. Any 600 f/5.6 lens, teleconverted or not, will have the same depth of field as a 300 f/2.8 lens.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a lot of confusion about the relationship between depth of field, aperture, f-stop, and focal length. In reality, it's all very simple:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Depth of field is determined by focal distance and the apparent size of the front element of the lens.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By &lt;strong&gt;apparent diameter&lt;/strong&gt;, I mean the width of the area of the front element that isn't blocked by the aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can actually see how big this apparent diameter is, by looking at the front of a lens while it's detached and the aperture is held open.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The relationship between f-stop, focal length, and apparent lens diameter is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Size of aperture in mm) = (Focal length in mm) &amp;divide; (f-stop)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The apparent diameter of a 210mm lens set to f/4.5 is 47mm,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The apparent diameter of a 70mm lens set to f/4.5 is 15.5mm,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The apparent diameter of a 70mm lens set to f/8 is 8.75mm,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;And the apparent diameter of an 18mm lens set to f/3.5 is a paltry 5.1mm.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, back to depth of field. Depth of field is the distance in front of and behind the focused distance that is still &quot;acceptably&quot; in focus. Since the level of acceptable blur differs from person to person, a better way to analyze depth of field is through the &lt;strong&gt;circle of confusion.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a handy picture from the Wikipedia page on Circle of Confusion:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/0HO15.png&quot; alt=&quot;A diagram explaining the circle of confusion&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The circle of confusion is the area on the sensor that is hit by light from a single point. If you're in front of or behind the plane of focus, then your circle of confusion gets bigger. At the plane of focus, the circle of confusion is (ideally, but never in practice) zero.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How quickly your circle of confusion grows as you move away from the plane of focus is a factor of one thing only: The angle between the widest converging lines&lt;/strong&gt; (the edge of your apparent lens size). Now, this means a few things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you are focused 10 times further away, you have to go roughly 10 times further from the plane of focus to get the same change in your circle of confusion&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Two lenses focused at the same distance, with the same apparent size, will result in the same change in your circle of confusion (and therefore the same depth of field.)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conversely, this also debunks several commonly held beliefs about depth of field:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Two lenses at the same f-stop do not necessarily have the same depth of field. The longer lens will have a shorter depth of field, because it has a bigger apparent size. (Sorry, Matt.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Teleconverters, cropping, and smaller sensors do not have any effect on depth of field at a given apparent size (f-stop and focal length).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take two pictures: one with a 35mm f/1.8, and one with a 210mm f/11. Now, crop the 35mm image to have the same field of view as the other image. They will have almost exactly the same depth of field. Here you go:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/GivON.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-17T19:45:39.613" LastActivityDate="2010-11-17T19:45:39.613" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4953" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4949" CreationDate="2010-11-17T10:57:49.073" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure there are any tools that will completely automate this process, unless you're willing to write a custom script.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I sometimes have to crop quite a few images at work, and one of the simplest tools that I have come across for this is a small image editor called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.irfanview.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;IrfanView&lt;/a&gt;. It's not the prettiest of programs, but can do a crop and move on to the next picture with one mouse drag and three keystrokes. Here's how:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Install IrfanView and run the program.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Open the 'Options' menubar and select 'Properties/Settings...'&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Select 'File Handling' from the list and uncheck the &quot;Display 'Save'-Dialog&quot; and  &quot;Ask to overwrite file for 'Save'&quot; options.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Next, open the first image you want to crop.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Drag a square around the section to crop.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Press Ctrl+Y, Ctrl+S and then hit Space to move to the next image.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Repeat &lt;em&gt;ad&lt;/em&gt; tedium.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2131" LastActivityDate="2010-11-17T10:57:49.073" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4954" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4949" CreationDate="2010-11-17T14:43:13.567" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xnview.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;XnView and NConvert&lt;/a&gt; are your friends. NConvert is a command-line tool to process images, with resize and crop functionality. XvView is a fast image viewer with batch processing capability. Once you do a crop in XnView, you can have it create a batch file for you that call NConvert on a bunch of images. It can do a lot more than crop at the same time, like resize and sharpen if you need it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-17T14:43:13.567" />
  <row Id="4955" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4949" CreationDate="2010-11-17T15:01:37.740" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If its the same crop, you can use software like Lightroom to copy the crop (and crop angle) to as many photos as you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-11-17T15:01:37.740" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4956" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-17T16:48:42.863" Score="6" ViewCount="370" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just bought a casio exilim h-10 camera and quite frankly I am disappointed.&#xA;The picture quality is very poor and the video (even if it is HD 720 P) is even worse.&#xA;I am really looking for a camera with:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a good optical zoom (8-12x)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;compact&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;6 Mp or more &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;makes clear picture &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;makes fine videos&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;responsive&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does that exist ? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks,  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Confused Lady.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2213" LastEditorUserId="4112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-11T19:12:52.620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T19:13:50.700" Title="Does a compact camera that zooms and performs well exist?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4957" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4956" CreationDate="2010-11-17T17:17:37.927" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www1.epinions.com/review/Canon_PowerShot_SX20_IS_Digital_Camera/content_487285558916&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;s20 IS&lt;/a&gt; Satisfies your request. I used to shoot with the older version of this, the S2 IS and was very happy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: The poster expressed that the s20 IS would be a bit too big. One can go smaller without a loss in image quality(in fact possibly an increase) by looking at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09081908canong11.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon G11&lt;/a&gt;. This camera is compact and takes amazing photos. Now, unfortunately this falls a little short of your zoom request. The G11 has a 5x zoom, which is not quite your lower bound of 8mp. But you should consider this option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastEditorUserId="988" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-18T16:07:08.103" LastActivityDate="2010-11-18T16:07:08.103" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4958" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4956" CreationDate="2010-11-17T18:08:48.177" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check out the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/review.php?id=240&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon Coolpix P7000&lt;/a&gt;. It falls just short on the zoom side of your request, with a 7X wide-angle lens. It has great image quality for a compact camera and plenty of features too. The only downside of these cameras is that they are on the slow side of things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want something faster and more complex to use, then the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/review.php?id=75&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fuji Finepix F300 EXR&lt;/a&gt; is another great choice. It has an ultra-wide angle 15X optical zoom lens, amazing image dynamic-range, very good image quality and is extremely fast at focusing when under typical conditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-11T19:13:50.700" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T19:13:50.700" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="4959" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4962" CreationDate="2010-11-17T18:10:20.063" Score="4" ViewCount="138" Body="&lt;p&gt;Usually my workflow involves 'picking/flagging' photos to edit and leaving the rest alone (RAW files that is).  However, sometimes I jump right in and start editing before rating/picking.  In that case is there a way to filter images based on whether they've been edited/cropped?  I haven't looked too hard, but nothing obvious stands out from the visible filtering options.  I appreciate any insights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="274" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-18T08:52:28.060" LastActivityDate="2010-11-18T08:52:28.060" Title="Sort Lightroom images by 'edit' status" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;workflow&gt;&lt;smart-collections&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4960" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4959" CreationDate="2010-11-17T19:02:08.390" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Create a smart collection based on &quot;Has Adjustments&quot; - that'll give you photos that have been edited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-11-17T19:02:08.390" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4961" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4949" CreationDate="2010-11-17T19:53:17.043" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Photoshop has a function exactly for that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scan your cover (you can even scan multiple covers in one scan)&#xA;In Menu: Automate &gt; Crop and Straighten Photos&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It automatically crop and fix the rotation of the photos in the current file.  If multiple photos are found in the image, it will automatically split in several files. If you have ton of them, you can create actions to have the &lt;em&gt;Crop and Straighten&lt;/em&gt; done on each of them in batch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1093" LastActivityDate="2010-11-17T19:53:17.043" />
  <row Id="4962" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4959" CreationDate="2010-11-17T21:12:58.883" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ditton on creating a Smart Collection, that's really the way to go. I'm wondering if &quot;Has Adjustments&quot; only applies to specific adjustments, i.e. will it catch if you just cropped the photo, for example? That's OK though, you can add the &quot;Cropped&quot; + &quot;is true&quot; rule to your collection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could also create a Smart Collection that will display recently edited photos. The rule could be &quot;Edit Date&quot; + &quot;is today&quot; or instead of &quot;today&quot; try &quot;is in the last&quot; + x + &quot;days&quot; (or &quot;hours&quot;). This can be combined with &quot;Has Adjustments&quot; of course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2010-11-17T21:12:58.883" />
  <row Id="4963" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4970" CreationDate="2010-11-17T21:44:21.130" Score="9" ViewCount="206" Body="&lt;p&gt;I scanned in an old B&amp;amp;W photo that has pen scribbles on it.  What's the best way to remove these marks and restore the photo?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are the examples:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/KDSDd.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Uj3b9.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't have access to Adobe photo software.  I do have Paint.NET.  And I'm willing to use any free software like GIMP to get the job done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1968" LastActivityDate="2010-11-18T13:04:56.603" Title="How to remove markings from black and white photo?" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="4964" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2888" CreationDate="2010-11-17T22:20:22.143" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are very lucky. My suggestion: Don't even try to use it. it would be better off as a piece of art or on a antique shelf.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2187" LastActivityDate="2010-11-17T22:20:22.143" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4965" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4963" CreationDate="2010-11-17T23:14:26.853" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think I would probably try to remove as much as I could using the colour information first. By using a filter to convert it to B&amp;amp;W, you might be able to reduce the impact of the cyan-looking pen from the photo. Of course, it will need quite a bit of tweaking to get the best setting. It is possible to do this in GIMP using the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gimp.org/tutorials/Color2BW/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;greyscale conversion tool&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After that it would be a case of touching up as best you can using the &lt;a href=&quot;http://manual.gimp.org/en/gimp-tool-heal.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;heal&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://manual.gimp.org/en/gimp-tool-clone.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;clone&lt;/a&gt; tools.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It can be very fiddly touching up a photo like this, especially when it is a face; any abnormalities really stand out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could always post the full version of the image... perhaps some post-processing wizard on here will be able to help you out ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2131" LastActivityDate="2010-11-17T23:14:26.853" />
  <row Id="4966" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4908" CreationDate="2010-11-18T00:12:29.843" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Preview is a good option, but &lt;strong&gt;you should consider Quick Look&lt;/strong&gt;, which offers almost everything you want, is built-in, and is available all the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It’s dead simple: Hit &lt;strong&gt;&lt;code&gt;Command-A&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; to select all the images in a folder, then &lt;strong&gt;&lt;code&gt;Command-Option-Space&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; to bring Quick Look up in full-screen mode. If you want to zoom in more, you can use the zoom feature which is built-in to Mac OS X: &lt;strong&gt;While holding &lt;code&gt;Control&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;em&gt;scroll up&lt;/em&gt; to zoom in, and &lt;em&gt;scroll down&lt;/em&gt; to zoom out. You &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; need to enable zoom in Preferences; I don’t recall if it’s enabled by default. It’s simple enough: System Preferences -&gt; Trackpad -&gt; Screen Zoom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quick Look can show you one image at a time, and it also has an Index Sheet mode, which shows you thumbnails of all the images you selected. You can navigate with the arrow keys, or with the usual swipe gestures on your trackpad or mouse. It even works with RAWs. Give it a shot! I think you’ll be very pleased with what it can do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1905" LastActivityDate="2010-11-18T00:12:29.843" />
  <row Id="4967" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4328" CreationDate="2010-11-18T04:30:47.280" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is unrelated to your question, but just in case any Canon users happen to be reading it...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Canon 50D had a problem with &quot;Err 99&quot; appearing. Allegedly, this was due to poor-quality gold in the contacts on some lenses causing timing issues. While this sounds far-fetched to me, a firmware upgrade (more tolerant with timing issues?) fixed the problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="160" LastActivityDate="2010-11-18T04:30:47.280" />
  <row Id="4968" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4971" CreationDate="2010-11-18T04:34:46.560" Score="9" ViewCount="387" Body="&lt;p&gt;I plan to use my Canon 50D in a studio, tethered to a PC.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would be great if it drew the power it needed from the USB bus rather than from the battery, so I wouldn't need to worry about changing batteries (and moving the camera) during the shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone please tell me if the Canon 50D will (or can be made to) draw power through the USB port?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="160" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T15:58:48.693" Title="Does a camera tethered draw power over USB?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;batteries&gt;&lt;tethering&gt;&lt;canon-50d&gt;&lt;usb&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="4969" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4956" CreationDate="2010-11-18T04:35:28.473" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Canon SX30IS (14.1MP Digital Camera with 35x Wide Angle Optical Image Stabilized Zoom and 2.7 Inch Wide LCD). It appears to be an incredible zoom: 35x (!) wide-angle optical zoom (24-840mm) with Optical Image Stabilizer, 720p HD video with stereo sound. May not be as compact as you want, but this is what I recommended to a friend recently for her trip to Africa.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10091411sx30is.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon introduces PowerShot SX30IS superzoom&lt;/a&gt; (Digital Photography Review)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-SX30IS-Digital-Optical-Stabilized/dp/B0041RSPR8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SX30IS&lt;/a&gt; (Amazon)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/digital_cameras/powershot_sx30_is&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Official page&lt;/a&gt; (Canon)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_powershot_sx30is_review/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Review&lt;/a&gt; (photographyblog.com) (link to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_powershot_sx30is_review/conclusion/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;conclusion page&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak04O3FHJYI&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Video&lt;/a&gt; of that world's longest optical zoom&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2010-11-18T04:35:28.473" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4970" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4963" CreationDate="2010-11-18T04:51:20.890" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can give you the instructions for Photoshop that maybe someone can translate to Gimp or Paint.NET&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/WHhfi.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;sample1&quot;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/kSGxc.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;sample2&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This method is done with selections, masks and adjustment layers with &lt;strong&gt;no manual brush editing required&lt;/strong&gt;. These simple examples take less than a couple of minutes to fix.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me know. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OK, so I've copped some flak for not posting a Photoshop solution, even though the OP said he couldn't use Photoshop. Here it is anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Settings provided are for the 2nd image using PS CS4...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Select menu -&gt; Color Range...&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Select: Samples Colors&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Localized color clusters: Off&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fuzziness: 163&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Create a new Hue/Saturation adjustment layer. This will take the selection and apply it as a mask on the adjustment layer.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Desaturate the color area (Saturation: -100)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lighten the dark area where the color was (Lightness: +74)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Add another Hue/Saturation adjustment layer and desaturate the entire image (Saturation: -100)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Optionally flatten all layers.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on the severity of the marks, you could optionally use the brush tool to modify the mask after step 2. You can also use the Dodge and Burn tools  after step 4.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="847" LastEditorUserId="847" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-18T13:04:56.603" LastActivityDate="2010-11-18T13:04:56.603" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="4971" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4968" CreationDate="2010-11-18T05:08:51.443" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Based on the reading of the battery spec, &lt;strong&gt;no&lt;/strong&gt;. The battery pack supplies &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/327022-REG/Canon_9200A001_BP_511A_Lithium_Ion_Battery_7_4v.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;7.4v&lt;/a&gt;, while USB can only supply &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus#Power&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;5v&lt;/a&gt;. However, you can buy the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-ACK-E2-Adapter-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000ELQT82&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ACK-E2 wall power kit&lt;/a&gt; to power the camera directly from a standard outlet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1905" LastActivityDate="2010-11-18T05:08:51.443" />
  <row Id="4972" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4968" CreationDate="2010-11-18T07:33:55.673" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;An USB 2.0 port can only supply at most 500 mA of power, and that is simply not enough to run a camera on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-11-18T07:33:55.673" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4973" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4903" CreationDate="2010-11-18T08:37:40.783" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find LR's output sharpening better than any techniques and settings I tried from PS:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;various unsharp mask settings (including the 2 mentioned here)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;sharpen &gt; fade sharpen&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;high pass sharpening&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Photokit's Output Sharpening&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nothing beats my LR output sharpening with &quot;Sharpen for Screen High&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have found out how to get them small.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Update LR to 3.2, this will improve LR's &quot;Limit File Size To&quot;.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;I used 20KB as target.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The last thing was quite a surprise for me.&lt;br /&gt;In LR I selected &quot;Minimize Metadata&quot; about the same as PS' &gt; save for web &gt; oprimized setting. LR seems to minimize.. not so minimal.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;So I had a look with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exiftool&lt;/a&gt; and there was still a bunch of metadata. When I deleted all metadata with Exiftool I shaved of 10KB!&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Off course by doing this command you will deleted also your ICC profile, copyrights etc, but you can also delete or add anything you want.&#xA;A command line I use (and converted into an service on OSX, so it's accessible from finder's context menu) is:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;_&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;/* delete all exit data except for the ICC Profile, add copyright, overwrite the original */&#xA;exiftool -all= --icc_profile:all -copyright='your copyright, name, website ect. here' -overwrite_original newfile.jpg&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All images resized from 3000x2000 to 120x80 in Photoshop &amp;gt; Save for the Web, quality 75, optimized&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No Sharpening: (12KB)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://immoshots.com/test/thumbnail-sharpening/_DSC5068-PS-SafeForWeb-NoSharp.jpg&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unsharp Mask, amount 300%, radius 0.2, threshold 0 (16KB)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://immoshots.com/test/thumbnail-sharpening/_DSC5068-PS-unsharp-300-0.2-0.jpg&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sharpen &amp;gt; Fade 50% (16KB)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://immoshots.com/test/thumbnail-sharpening/_DSC5068-PS-sharpen-fade-50.jpg&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Highpass technique (16KB)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://immoshots.com/test/thumbnail-sharpening/_DSC5068-PS-HighPass-0.9.jpg&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and finally LR + exiftool (8KB)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;LR, limit file size: 20KB, sharpen for screen High&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://immoshots.com/test/thumbnail-sharpening/_DSC5068-LR.jpg&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look at the blue stripe above the waterline, the greens, the diagonal lines running up the mast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just for reference I have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/antonputtemans/5148544487/sizes/l/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;higher res&lt;/a&gt; of the example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2181" LastActivityDate="2010-11-18T08:37:40.783" />
  <row Id="4974" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4963" CreationDate="2010-11-18T10:30:33.067" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;GIMP: Colors / Components / Channel Mixer&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I set to monochrome, and used red = -16.1, green = 109.6, blue = 3.8&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Got this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Uj3b9.jpg&quot;&gt; --&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Xjrys.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;new pic&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-11-18T10:30:33.067" />
  <row Id="4975" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3738" CreationDate="2010-11-18T12:45:12.110" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can use VirtualBox (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.virtualbox.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.virtualbox.org&lt;/a&gt;), free software from Sun/Oracle, to create an MS Windows virtual machine that runs under Linux. Inside the virtual machine you can install and run the camera specific tethering software.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have used this method to run the MS Windows specific software for my Garmin Forerunner GPS watch and to control a large, high speed Canon scanner, all from my Ubuntu Linux machine.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two points to note&lt;br&gt;&#xA;1. Under settings, remember to enable the USB 2.0 controller&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2. In the virtual machine, select Devices | Usb Devices and select the USB camera device so that it is made available to MS Windows in the virtual machine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-11-18T12:45:12.110" />
  <row Id="4976" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4977" CreationDate="2010-11-18T14:03:41.737" Score="10" ViewCount="352" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have observed that the wider the aperture, the more expensive the lenses are. However, I would like to know whether it really makes a difference in your photos or not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2107" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-17T15:22:32.223" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T16:46:42.463" Title="The bigger the aperture the better?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="4977" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4976" CreationDate="2010-11-18T14:12:19.417" Score="19" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, there are several reasons for this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Larger apertures allow for a smaller depth of field, and generally better bokeh.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Faster/more accurate auto focus, because more light is available to the focus system.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Much more versatility, because more light falls on the sensor at a wide aperture, which opens up your options in lower-light settings.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Better image quality.  This is a little more complicated to explain, but imagine you have an option between an f/2.0 lens, or an f/8 lens.  If you shoot the same scene with both set to f/8, the f/2.0 will almost always be sharper and have less vignetting.  This is because lenses tend to get soft when they are wide open, and by stopping down partially you can improve both sharpness, as well as decrease the light fall-off that creates vignetting.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-18T14:23:48.007" LastActivityDate="2010-11-18T14:23:48.007" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="4978" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4984" CreationDate="2010-11-18T14:49:21.807" Score="1" ViewCount="406" Body="&lt;p&gt;In photoshop 7, how do I change the font layer background color without rasterizing the layer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2227" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-18T16:40:56.473" LastActivityDate="2010-11-18T20:57:54.690" ClosedDate="2010-11-19T05:30:26.770" Title="In photoshop 7, how do I change the font layer background color without rasterizing the layer?" Tags="&lt;untagged&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4979" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2627" CreationDate="2010-11-18T14:49:24.763" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A take from a novice : &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;RAW is magic - I use it in iPhoto and it does wonders within seconds, I don't even have PhotoShop on my Mac! Adding Shadows, adding lighting, hues,... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;JPEG is, well nothing compared to RAw if you are serious about the end result of your photos. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;RAW takes a whole lot of room than JPEGs but in this day and age when a 16GB SDCard (10X or more) can be had for less than $30, RAw is a clear winner!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2226" LastActivityDate="2010-11-18T14:49:24.763" />
  <row Id="4980" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4976" CreationDate="2010-11-18T15:17:44.183" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Define better. ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Professionals tend to want to use lenses with larger apertures so they can either limit depth of field or work in marginal lighting. Because these lenses are marketed towards professionals they usually have a higher build quality, and so are heavier and more expensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also pros tend to want constant apertures in zoom lenses, which makes the zooms require more glass and more complicated lens groupings -- both of which increase the cost (along with the whole pro-build thing).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, there are plenty of medium and large format lenses that have a maximum apertures of no more than 5.6 -- and no one is complaining about the quality of those lenses. We aren't talking about that level of photography, but modern first party and major third party lenses should be of acceptable quality for most purposes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At a personal level, one of my favorite lenses is an old Nikkon 50mm f1.4 -- not the new G model. That lens doesn't really look all that great in lab tests at dpreview.com, but I'm very happy with the actual pictures I've taken. I've also taken some good pictures with a Canon kit lens (variable aperture zoom).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh boy, so subjective ... does this count as an answer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2228" LastActivityDate="2010-11-18T15:17:44.183" />
  <row Id="4981" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-18T16:15:16.017" Score="7" ViewCount="158" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apart from film and photographic paper, what are the most interesting photosensitive materials on to which photographic images can be successfully exposed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, the artists &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.artsadmin.co.uk/projects/artist.php?id=40&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Heather Ackroyd and Dan Harvey&lt;/a&gt; have made many photographic prints on panels of grass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please post any example images of your own experiments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2016" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T07:52:39.033" Title="Alternative photosensitive materials" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;printing&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4983" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-18T17:44:25.960" Score="2" ViewCount="175" Body="&lt;p&gt;A friend wants to buy her first DSLR, and has identified the Canon 1000D (aka Digital Rebel XS) as a good option.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She has asked my opinion.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I think it looks great for the money, but I would like to give a more balanced answer, so can you tell me what are the comparable offerings from Nikon - or other manufacturers (I hear that Sony are very good)? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many thanks!  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T19:01:41.583" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T19:01:41.583" Title="Which Nikon (Sony? Pentax? Olympus?) is comparable to the Canon 1000D?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;entry-level&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="4984" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4978" CreationDate="2010-11-18T18:45:23.150" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tough one, Photoshop 7 is almost 8 years old. I've to be honest, I'm not sure what you mean by font layer &lt;em&gt;background&lt;/em&gt; color (UPDATE: now I know). A font layer is transparent by default, and the only color you can change is the color of the text/font itself (but I assume you know how to do that). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Layer effects were introduced in PS6 if I recall, but that's not going to help either because they are only affecting the pixels in the layer (here, the text). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In later PS versions you can transform a layer into a smart object, and apply the Invert filter to that smart layer; e.g. a black text on white would become a white text on a black background. Unfortunately, I tried and while you can transform a text layer into as mart object, you can't apply an Invert filter on it. An Invert Adjustment Layer with a layer mask is not working either. The whole issue here is that I don't think PS gives you access to the bounding box of a text layer. If you Control+Click on the layer, it will select the outline of the text, not its bounding box.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-18T20:57:54.690" LastActivityDate="2010-11-18T20:57:54.690" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4985" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2157" CreationDate="2010-11-18T18:45:38.377" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Almost certainly overkill, but...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're happy to do a little programming you can make an infinitely configurable shutter control by cutting the connector off a generic remote shutter release and connecting it to an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.arduino.cc/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Arduino&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Arduino is a tiny programmable device for electronics prototyping. It'll run for a really long time on regular batteries, its timer is reasonably accurate and it can also accept input from a huge range of cheap electronic sensors - so you can also set it up to trigger photos based on light, sound, movement, rain, bluetooth control... whatever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I made one of these for my Nikon D90 after getting fed up with the ridiculous limits on number of exposures you get on most consumer intervalometers, and I love it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only downside is that it comes as a raw circuit board so you need to make some kind of robust protective case for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2016" LastActivityDate="2010-11-18T18:45:38.377" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4986" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4978" CreationDate="2010-11-18T18:57:01.820" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The text tool is not something I use that often in Photoshop so I may be wrong, but I always thought that the background of a text layer in Photoshop is always transparent - thus it's impossible to change it without rasterizing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that in Adobe InDesign you can set the text background to a specific colour, as I use that quite often for effect:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/text_bg.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming the above is the type of effect you're going for then I'm afraid I don't think it's possible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-11-18T18:57:01.820" />
  <row Id="4987" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4983" CreationDate="2010-11-18T18:58:16.537" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The closest equivalent from Sony in terms of features would probably be the A290, but the closest to the same price would be the A390. Looking at the A390:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon Advantages:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Larger lens selection&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Possibly better quality in low light&lt;br&gt;&#xA;(slightly) nicer optical viewfinder&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sony Advantages:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Better quality in good light (especially better color)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Stabilization of &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; lenses&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Better LiveView&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Arguably more beginner-friendly menus&lt;br&gt;&#xA;higher resolution (not that it's likely to matter)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-11-18T18:58:16.537" />
  <row Id="4988" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="118" CreationDate="2010-11-18T19:44:25.417" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would recommend to look at themes rather than plugins. I will have no doubt in recommending following wordpress photo blog them, which I am currently working on deploying for myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://allancole.com/wordpress/themes/autofocus/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://allancole.com/wordpress/themes/autofocus/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1606" LastActivityDate="2010-11-18T19:44:25.417" />
  <row Id="4989" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4983" CreationDate="2010-11-18T20:46:55.013" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Canon XS is a two-year old model. Not anything wrong with that, but it affects the comparison.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Nikon D60 would have been the comparable model at the time, but now it's probably the D31000.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Pentax equivalent would be the K-x, or new model K-r. These cameras are stellar in low light and particularly worth looking into if that's important to your friend. Pentax also offers some amazing and unique prime (non-zoom) lenses unlike anything made by Canon, Nikon, et al, which may appeal to her depending on her interest in photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-11-18T20:46:55.013" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4991" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4416" CreationDate="2010-11-19T00:21:09.117" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I left a message on Live Rasoloarison's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/imamtg/sets/72157625178716162/comments/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr photoset&lt;/a&gt;, asking him if he could answer this question, and he was nice enough to get back to me by email recently. Here is his answer, translated from French.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I first use Lightroom to work on my&#xA;  RAW photos. I apply a preset that I&#xA;  created specially for the Zombie Walk&#xA;  so that I can achieve a consistent&#xA;  &quot;cinematic&quot; look for a whole series of&#xA;  photos. I perform selective&#xA;  adjustments to tweak the brightness and&#xA;  exposure locally on faces and&#xA;  underexposed areas, then switch to&#xA;  Photoshop where I make more&#xA;  adjustments on colors and curves to&#xA;  get that cross-processing look. I&#xA;  apply some textures in overlay mode&#xA;  too (the choice of texture is pretty&#xA;  important). That's about it for the&#xA;  post-process. I'd like to add&#xA;  something about what you said on the&#xA;  forum: you mentioned that there was&#xA;  some fake bokeh at work here, but&#xA;  that's not entirely true :) There are&#xA;  indeed some duplications of the bokeh&#xA;  on some photos, not all of them. Because of the two&#xA;  black borders I add on top and at the&#xA;  bottom of the photo to achieve a&#xA;  16:9 aspect ratio, I sometimes&#xA;  need to replicate part of the&#xA;  background to &quot;fill in&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2010-11-19T00:21:09.117" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4993" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3435" CreationDate="2010-11-19T01:36:52.923" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I usually leave Active D-Lighting on at all times, though typically set to low or Auto. That extra 1/3 of a stop or so that the camera actively makes a decision to reduce tends to do well to preserve some of the highlight detail in bright scenes. The whole process is basically dynamic range compression and it does elevate a little bit of shadow noise, but I like the look of it. I have tried to simulate ADL in Lightroom and Photoshop, but it doesn't look as convincing. There's something particular about Nikon's curve that I haven't been able to emulate precisely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-11-19T01:36:52.923" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="4994" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4983" CreationDate="2010-11-19T01:48:00.377" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me preface this by stating that any modern dSLR from the last few years is capable of taking excellent photos and the limiting factor in quality is likely going to be the photographer. So, without question, the Canon Rebel Xs is going to be able to do the job until she grows into something bigger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, as mattdm mentioned, the Pentax option is likely the K-x, which is very highly regarded for its low light, high ISO, performance. Like the Sony option, Pentax is stabalized in the body and so any K-mount lens attached to it benefits. One thing that people often miss as an advantage of Pentax is the availability of some extremely high quality used lenses on the market as Pentax has a very long history of backwards compatability and you can put any of their long history of lenses on their cameras (m42 require adapters, mind you). As a K-5 shooter, I'm obviously partial to the Pentax line, but a quick Google of the K-x will demonstrate that my small amount of praise is the minimum you'll hear for this camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Nikon world offers up the D3100, another excellent camera. Like the K-x, the low light performance is very good, but I'd say the biggest advantage it offers is for video buffs as it will autofocus in video mode. Going Nikon shares much of the same advantages of going Canon: lenses, substantial growth path, and the like. Anyways, the D3100 looks like an excellent piece of kit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if she can get a good deal on the Canon Xs, it's a good camera to get rolling with. A little dated now, maybe, but it still takes a fine picture. The Pentax and Nikon suggestions are much newer and a little more feature rich, but will probably cost more and I don't know her budget. Regardless, I'd suggest that she head into a camera shop and try the options out, looking at things like feel in the hands, menus, speed, rear display, etc. Once she's handled a few, she may change her mind on what she ends up wanting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-11-19T01:48:00.377" />
  <row Id="4995" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5017" CreationDate="2010-11-19T03:26:50.477" Score="8" ViewCount="510" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've got a 7D with the LP-E6 battery that came with it, but would like to get some spares (along with a battery grip)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With my previous camera (450D) I used generic batteries (and generic grip) and had no issues with charge/usage, but apparently the LP-E6 batteries have a proprietary Canon chip in them, which means that there may be problems charging or using (in terms of battery metering) in a 5D or 7D body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the specific problems? And are there any 3rd party batteries that have the Canon chip or a reverse-engineered chip to avoid these problems?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastEditorUserId="3078" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-24T04:49:50.320" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T04:49:50.320" Title="What are the problems with using generic LP-E6 batteries with a 5D/7D (if any)?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;canon-7d&gt;&lt;battery&gt;&lt;generic-brand&gt;&lt;charger&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="4996" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4956" CreationDate="2010-11-19T03:48:12.680" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What about something like a Canon G11 or G12?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10091412canong12.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10091412canong12.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-11-19T03:48:12.680" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="4997" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-19T08:07:02.837" Score="1" ViewCount="380" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is known that professional photographers use SLRs &amp;amp; regular users use point &amp;amp; shoot camera. What kind of cameras do professional videographers use &amp;amp; whats the difference?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="977" LastActivityDate="2010-11-19T13:27:41.313" Title="Difference between a normal &amp; professional camcorder" Tags="&lt;video&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="4998" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4997" CreationDate="2010-11-19T09:45:08.440" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't do much in the way of cinematography myself, although it is a field that interests me, and one I hope to break into sometime in the future. I am primarily a photographer, and my first video camera will likely be a Canon 5D Mark III (once released.) The Canon 5D Mark II was one of the first DSLR's to add video capability, and combined with the advanced lenses available to such cameras, you can achieve some of those vaunted &quot;cinematographic&quot; effects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I can't offer any specific advice (hopefully another member will be able to answer and provide more useful information than I can), I can supply some very useful links. Here are a few that I have found helpful myself over the last couple months:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cinema5d.com/news/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cinema5D&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=1474&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cinema5D's &quot;Canon 5D Rig Review&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.videomaker.com/learn/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;VideoMaker.com's &quot;Learn&quot; Site&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Excellent general info about cinematography&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/camcorders/cam-cam.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luminous Landscapes Video DSLR vs. Camcorders&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Interesting article including info on how pros are starting to gravitate towards DSLR for video (particularly the Canon 5D Mark II), and what is missing from the DSLR (combocam) setup&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-19T09:53:12.380" LastActivityDate="2010-11-19T09:53:12.380" />
  <row Id="4999" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4997" CreationDate="2010-11-19T12:01:46.307" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd regard this as off topic as it concerns video cameras not stills, but anyway a lot of professionals use the Red series of cameras:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.red.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.red.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most popular being the Red One:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.redoneutah.com/images/red_one.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Benefits over consumer level video cameras nicely mirrors the difference between DSLRs and Compacts, namely:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The ability to shoot video in raw, for example using the proprietary RecCode format. This makes contrast adjustments, post production and grading easier.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A larger sensor, the Red One has a similar sized sensor to a DSLR (same size as super 35 film) this allows better low light performance and shallower depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The ability to have interchangable lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Higher resolution pictures (again to refer to the Red One it will output at 4k (4,096 x 2,304 pixels, which is at least four times full HD)).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Better build quality. All professional tools should be built to be packed up and shipped round the world and work first time on location.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other advantages specific to professional videography cameras, namely:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Higher framerates for [real] slow motion 24fps -&gt; 1000fps (some consumer cameras do this, but not very well)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Wider range of inputs for mics etc.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Wider range of accessories, HD out for live monitoring etc.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Record to multiple data banks, HDDs, flash memory etc. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another difference is that professionals will more often than not hire equipment as the cameras cost more than even the most expensive 35mm DSLRs, and they are typically only shooting for part of the year in intensive bursts. This also enables the use of specialist cameras (such as the Phantom 1000fps camera, which can only be rented, not bought).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's worth pointing out that DSLRs which shoot video offer many of the advantages posted above, but they lack the modularity and flexibility of output that you get with a professional digital cine camera. They are also limited in terms of shooting time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-19T12:18:31.400" LastActivityDate="2010-11-19T12:18:31.400" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5000" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4997" CreationDate="2010-11-19T13:13:11.240" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the big differences is manual control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many consumer video cameras don't let you disable automatic control of simple things like focus and exposure (or more often exposure compensation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that lots of cheap video hardware would be very capable of capturing clear and beautiful moving images if only one were able to control it more precisely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an example, consider that David Lynch's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0460829/combined&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Inland Empire&lt;/a&gt; was shot using &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_DSR-PD150&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;reasonably inexpensive but highly controlable DV cameras&lt;/a&gt;, and it looks great.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2016" LastEditorUserId="2016" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-19T13:27:41.313" LastActivityDate="2010-11-19T13:27:41.313" />
  <row Id="5001" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-19T15:43:16.160" Score="3" ViewCount="72" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recently bought a Canon Powershot A490 - which is a well priced camera that accepts AA batteries, with the familiar Canon UI which I like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking to pick up another Canon A series camera, but I'd like to confirm if any have an orientation sensor to tag photos so that they auto-rotate when viewing both on the camera and on most computers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's difficult to get confirmation on which models include this feature - I know the A490 doesn't but I'm wondering if the A480 or the A495 do.  Canon's website (and camera comparison tool) does not seem to provide this information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="172" LastActivityDate="2010-11-19T17:53:34.163" Title="Does the Canon Powershot A series have an orientation sensor?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5002" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-19T16:27:23.253" Score="12" ViewCount="797" Body="&lt;p&gt;A group of people and I are creating scientific posters for a conference.  The posters will be displaying multiple 5x7 photos.  There is minimal text on the poster.  With that being said, what background color should be used for the poster?  We want the focus to be on the photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2227" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T06:25:24.003" Title="What is the best background color to use when displaying images?" Tags="&lt;presentation&gt;" AnswerCount="9" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5003" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5002" CreationDate="2010-11-19T16:32:52.547" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general? I'd prefer to use white, but failing that, black. Basically, they're neutral and generally won't take the eyes from the images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-11-19T16:32:52.547" />
  <row Id="5004" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5002" CreationDate="2010-11-19T17:07:44.023" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd say they technically black would be the best as it adds no extra light to the photos, however if the poster is coming from an inkjet printer this can make large areas of black look like a murky dark green. In this case I'd stick with white or grey. The key is to be neutral so that the colour balance of the images is not thrown off by the eye accounting for the background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're mounting the photos by hand on to a backing sheet this would be better, however large sheets of black paper will be expensive, so once again white might be the most practical choice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another factor to consider is the image content, a very dark image might look better on black as there's less contrast with the background to compete with, so details should show up better. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-11-19T17:07:44.023" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5005" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5002" CreationDate="2010-11-19T17:08:45.533" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like what Microsoft did in the SkyDrive photo gallery. When switching to full screen mode, the background changes according to the colors used on the photo. When switching to preceding or next photo, the background smoothly changes to a new color, creating a nice visual effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if you don't want to spend time to choose colors for every poster, then John Cavan's answer is a way to go: use either white or black.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2236" LastActivityDate="2010-11-19T17:08:45.533" />
  <row Id="5006" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5002" CreationDate="2010-11-19T17:14:32.653" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I never found a definitive answer to that because I don't think there is one, as long as it's not a colored background. When displaying on a monitor:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lightroom, for example, presents you with a neutral &lt;em&gt;gray&lt;/em&gt; interface and lets you choose between different level of gray. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flickr default photosteam is on a white background, but their full-screen slideshow is on black. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The popular &lt;a href=&quot;http://bighugelabs.com/onblack.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;On Black&lt;/a&gt; front end lets you display Flickr photos on a black background, and so does &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fluidr.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fluidr&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Big Picture&lt;/a&gt; photo blog is on white, &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;...but New York Times's &lt;a href=&quot;http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lens&lt;/a&gt; is on gray; I pondered for a while, my &lt;a href=&quot;http://barre.me&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;own photo blog&lt;/a&gt; is on white. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Monochrome/neutral it is, then. When displaying on a wall, I usually mat on white, with a black frame, unless the photo is really really bright/white, in that case I mat on gray.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-19T17:21:29.577" LastActivityDate="2010-11-19T17:21:29.577" />
  <row Id="5007" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5001" CreationDate="2010-11-19T17:17:37.670" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had a Canon A540 and it &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; have an orientation sensor... images were oriented correctly both on the camera's display and on my computer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-11-19T17:17:37.670" />
  <row Id="5008" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5011" CreationDate="2010-11-19T17:35:09.973" Score="3" ViewCount="289" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why the lenses which are in a kit with DSLRs are generally low quality lenses, or at least rarely match the quality of the DSLR body?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, a new Nikon D7000 ($1100) comes in a kit ($1300) with a 18-105mm lens. Even if this lens can be great for general usage on a Nikon D3100, it is obviously strange to see a $275 lens on a $1100 body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It means that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;semi-professional photographers who will buy a D7000 - 18-105mm kit will need to replace the lens by a much more expensive 18-200mm VR2, or, if quality matters, a 24-120mm with, if need, wide-angle lens and telephoto lens.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;non-professional photographers who will spend more money for a D7000 - 18-105mm kit will not gain too much comparing to cheaper DSLRs with a separate 18-105mm lens.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what I'm missing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2236" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T08:48:35.110" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T08:48:35.110" Title="How kit lenses for Nikon's DSLRs are choosen?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;kit-lens&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5009" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5001" CreationDate="2010-11-19T17:53:34.163" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can find out my checking the exif data for pictures taken with the model in question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I looked on flickr for a sample image and found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/cameralabs/4524795412/meta/in/photostream&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;one taken with an A495&lt;/a&gt; that does have the orientation marked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This isn't a guarantee, as the data could be added later, but it certainly does make me believe that the camera does have an orientation sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-11-19T17:53:34.163" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5010" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4949" CreationDate="2010-11-19T17:56:54.963" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;ImageMagick, using the &lt;code&gt;-trim&lt;/code&gt; operator. See: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/crop/#trim&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/crop/#trim&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ImageMagick is free (and open source), and you can get pre-built binaries for Mac OS, Windows, or Unix from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imagemagick.org/script/binary-releases.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.imagemagick.org/script/binary-releases.php&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-11-19T17:56:54.963" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5011" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5008" CreationDate="2010-11-19T19:08:29.160" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think it's 100% universally true that all kit lenses suck (5D Mark II kit came with a 24-105F4 IS which is a high-quality zoom lens).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Much of it has to do with information, sales, and the psychology of money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Kits with 'low quality' lenses aren't targeted to semiprofessional/professional photographers. They are targeted to first time buyers who might not yet understand why a lens would cost more than a camera body. If camera kits only came with high quality lenses, first time buyers might balk at the nearly $2000+ price tag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Kit lenses also simplify the buying process. Imagine being a first time dslr buyer; how overwhelming all those choices are. Having a pre-packaged kit makes it easy for newbies to buy a dslr, which increases sales.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I suspect for many people, they are perfectly happy with the kit lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As photographers better come to understand the relationship between gear and results, it might be puzzling to us, why anyone would buy a cheap lens, but I do understand that not everyone is trying to take their photography as serious as we do. Some people just want to take photos. A kit helps them do that, in a cost-effective way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-11-19T19:08:29.160" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5012" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5008" CreationDate="2010-11-19T19:29:11.297" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 18-105mm is a great 'getting started' lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not as sharp as my 50mm, or as long as my 70-300mm, or as fast as my 24-70mm, but back before I had a feel for what I wanted, the 18-105mm did a reasonable job most of the time.  And I still use it when I don't know exactly what's coming and I only want to carry one lens (and it's not dark).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a recommendation to someone who's already traumatised enough by the options associated with buying an SLR body, without thinking about what they're going to put on the front of it.  If you don't need that, buy the body-only and negotiate with the shop for a deal if you need a specific lens!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think a D7000 + 18-105mm is still going to be significantly better than a D5000 or D3100 + 18-105mm.  The lens isn't going to be the limiting factor in many scenarios.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1615" LastActivityDate="2010-11-19T19:29:11.297" />
  <row Id="5013" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5008" CreationDate="2010-11-19T19:33:44.960" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Kit lenses exist to provide a &quot;ready to shoot&quot; package at the lowest cost as Alan states.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People new to photography expect to be able to shoot with a camera they just paid a relatively large amount of money for. People also expect to be zoom as every other camera they will have owned would have this feature and anything else would seem like a downgrade.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Kit lenses weren't always so poor optically - the standard kit lens shipped with film SLRs for a long time was something like a 50 f/2, which was a relatively large max aperture and very good stopped down. In those times pocket cameras (or point and shoots) rarely had a zoom function so it wasn't missed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's understandable that people new to photography wont immediately be able to appreciate the benefits of prime lenses, but it would be nice to see a fast 50mm or 35mm offered as a kit for those who do!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-11-19T19:33:44.960" />
  <row Id="5014" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5015" CreationDate="2010-11-20T00:31:43.573" Score="4" ViewCount="236" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to do some medium format work. What is a cheap but good camera to start with. I have several 120 cameras but which would be a good camera to use&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2187" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T10:36:36.977" Title="Affordable Entry Level Medium Format" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;medium-format&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5015" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5014" CreationDate="2010-11-20T00:50:42.507" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would say a TLR (Twin Reflex Camera) body is probably the most affordable medium format system available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can find a Rolleiflex and Seagull Camera bodies for under $300 USD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check out the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=TLR&amp;amp;w=getty&amp;amp;m=tags&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;TLR tagged images from flickr&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-20T01:19:52.453" LastActivityDate="2010-11-20T01:19:52.453" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5016" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-20T01:06:47.693" Score="0" ViewCount="137" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/5014/affordable-entry-level-medium-format&quot;&gt;Affordable Entry Level Medium Format&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Affordable medium format film SLR?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2187" LastEditorUserId="2187" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-20T01:52:42.147" LastActivityDate="2010-11-20T14:19:11.437" ClosedDate="2010-11-30T21:13:16.617" Title="Affordable Medium Format SLR?" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;slr&gt;&lt;medium-format&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="5017" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4995" CreationDate="2010-11-20T02:20:33.163" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I haven't yet found any third party batteries that has a chip in them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you say, using a battery without the chip doesn't provide the camera with power level metering. Not knowing exacly how much power there is left is of course a bit inconvenient, but that can also cause other problems. The camera uses the power level information to shut down safely when the level gets critically low, and without that information the camera might run out of power in the middle of an I/O operation. If you are shooting pictures the risk for that is not very high, but if you are shooting video when the power runs out that is quite likely to corrupt the video file. It may also corrupt the disk system data, which will make all the files on the card unreadable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The third party batteries I have seen comes with a special charger, as they can't be charged with the original charger. That means that you have to bring two chargers if you have both types of batteries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-11-20T02:20:33.163" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5018" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5014" CreationDate="2010-11-20T02:38:46.587" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For $250? I wish you luck, but I think you're in tough. Craigslist is a good place to start, though, but anything in that price range is likely to be a bit iffy. Don't forget that lenses would be your next stop and MF lenses can get expensive. I previously would have suggested digging up older Pentax 645 or 67 MF cameras, but with the arrival of the 645D, you may get the body, but the lens prices are going to jump and that will be where you really hit the cost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-11-20T02:38:46.587" />
  <row Id="5019" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5034" CreationDate="2010-11-20T05:19:42.217" Score="4" ViewCount="296" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lets  find out what plugins the community is using to enhance their photo's and why that plugin matters to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would be great to get a list of the most readily used plugins so please comment by adding the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is your favourite plugin for digital photography? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What are its strengths &amp;amp; weaknesses?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How does it fit into your workflow?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What application is it designed to work in? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please make all posts community wiki to allow updates and editing as required.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Current List (Alphabetical Order)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bibblelabs.com/products/bibble5/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bibble Pro&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neatimage.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Neat Image&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.niksoftware.com/completecollection/en/entry.php?view=intro&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nik Software Bundle&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.picturecode.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Noise Ninja&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ononesoftware.com/products/perfect-resize/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;OnOne Resize 7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.topazlabs.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Topaz Labs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;UFRaw&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://registry.gimp.org/node/4235&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wavelet Denoise&lt;/a&gt; (Gimp)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update #1 - We only have 3 suggestions? Maybe this is a topic that the community is not interested in......&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update #2 - From 3 to 5. I will start assuming that either the community is not interested in plugins for digital photography, or its something that this site does not need to cover. I will keep this page open for the short term but I think long term due to the way stack exchange sites work will need to pick an answer as accepted so monitoring is no longer required.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update #3 - Have accepted an answer so question is closed as its not something the community wants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="154" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-12T09:06:58.003" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T09:06:58.003" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-20T08:58:14.750" Title="Digital Photography Plugin List" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;plugin&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="5020" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5019" CreationDate="2010-11-20T05:27:18.137" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Plugin: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.niksoftware.com/completecollection/en/entry.php?view=intro&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nik Software Complete Bundle&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Applications: Lightroom / Photoshop (I purchased Lightroom version)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Workflow: Allows complete integration into my workflow as covers noise reduction, colour enhancement, effects, b&amp;amp;w conversion and HDR processing &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Strengths: It receives lots of praise from a lot of photographers in the commercial and prosumer world&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Weaknesses: Does not integrate into Lightroom like you would expect when using DNG/RAW processing as creates a new TIF file&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bundle is a fantastic one-stop-shop for most of your digital photo requirements. If you have the money to spend, the photoshop version may allow better integration into your workflow for non-destructive editing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastActivityDate="2010-11-20T05:27:18.137" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-20T08:58:14.750" />
  <row Id="5021" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5019" CreationDate="2010-11-20T06:17:43.767" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My fav used to be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.picturecode.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Noise Ninja&lt;/a&gt;, but the new noise reduction engine in LR3 rendered it obsolete. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2010-11-20T06:17:43.767" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-20T08:58:14.750" />
  <row Id="5022" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-20T07:08:09.320" Score="13" ViewCount="441" Body="&lt;p&gt;are RGB numeric values equal to CMYK percentages?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2239" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-20T23:41:32.627" LastActivityDate="2010-11-22T15:02:22.643" Title="are RGB numeric values equal to CMYK percentages?" Tags="&lt;color&gt;&lt;color-spaces&gt;&lt;rgb&gt;&lt;cmyk&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="5023" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5022" CreationDate="2010-11-20T09:15:38.580" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes and no. It is important to remember that RGB is an additive process, and CYMK is a subtractive process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, the yes; there are general mappings that can be done -- so the absence of green light means that you want to print magenta (which will reflect the red and blue portions).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a slightly more detailed level, you get the &quot;no&quot;; There is more than one RGB colour spcae, common ones include sRGB (which most digital cameras default to use) and Adobe RGB -- there are others, and your monitor may support a different colour gamut to the images captured by your camera; similarly, each printer vendor may use different combinations of inks which gives them a slightly different colour gamut, resulting in a fractionally different conversion between the two colour spaces.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When printing you are photos, I would advise to transfer them in a common format like sRGB or Adobe RGB unless you can get the colour profile for the printer that will be used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-20T17:18:14.620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-20T17:18:14.620" />
  <row Id="5024" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5022" CreationDate="2010-11-20T10:46:42.187" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but I'll try and cover all the bases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Firstly RGB values run from 0 to some arbitrary number depending on the colour depth - how many different colours your image format or editing program can store. A typical colour depth is 8bit per channel. Here the number of &lt;em&gt;red&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;green&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;blue&lt;/em&gt; values is two to the power of 8, which is 256 so the numbers go from 0 to 255.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if you were to convert the 0 to 255 value to a percentage with 0 = 0 and 255 = 100% then the numbers still wouldn't correspond because CMYK is a &lt;strong&gt;subtractive colour model&lt;/strong&gt; whereas RGB is an &lt;strong&gt;additive colour model&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;CMYK is subtractive because it is used for mixing inks which display different colours by &lt;strong&gt;absorbing light&lt;/strong&gt; whereas RGB is used by monitors which &lt;strong&gt;produce light&lt;/strong&gt;, which gets added together. White in CMYK is produced by the values 0%, 0%, 0%, 0% i.e. don't put any ink down to absorb light. White in RGB is produced by the values 100%, 100%, 100% i.e. output the full amount of all colours of light which mix together to give white light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;CMYK and RGB are thus opposites of each other. So to answer your questions the values aren't &lt;strong&gt;equal&lt;/strong&gt; because of this. But they are &lt;em&gt;directly comparable&lt;/em&gt; so you can convert approximately in your head, each C,M,Y, has it's opposite R,G,B, (I'll cover K later)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://computer.yourdictionary.com/images/computer/RGB.GIF&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;100% Cyan ~ 0% Red (+100% Green, +100% Blue)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;100% Magenta ~ 0% Green (+100% Red, +100% Blue)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;100% Yellow ~ 0% Blue (+100% Red, +100% Green)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;100% Red ~ 0% Cyan (-100% Yellow, -100% Magenta)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;100% Green ~ 0% Magenta (-100% Cyan, -100% Yellow)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;100% Blue ~ 0% Blue (-100% Red, -100% Green)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reality is however a little more complex as it depends on exactly what &lt;em&gt;shade&lt;/em&gt; or RGB and the corresponding inks is used as described by the colour space. Also due to the limitations of what inks can be manufactured not all RGB values can be translated into CMYK.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What about K then?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, another practicality, mixing all CMY inks together can yield a dirty dark greenish colour, not black. To combat this printers added another ink: Keyline (black). Now if you want black you just use 100% K. Simple. Not quite, you can make the black a bit darker by added a small amount of magenta, yellow, and a slightly bigger amount of cyan, giving so called &lt;strong&gt;rich black&lt;/strong&gt;. Using more ink makes it darker but risks oversaturating the paper or printing medium. This is not really relevant for Photography, I just included it for completeness. If you're not doing pagesetting work I would just leave the CYMK conversion to the printer who knows about all of this!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-11-20T10:46:42.187" />
  <row Id="5025" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5026" CreationDate="2010-11-20T12:19:14.173" Score="6" ViewCount="146" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've found out that some of photos take with my 5D MkII have more shadow noise than I like. I know there are some obvious settings that affect this, such as ISO a noise reduction settings. But there are some other image processing functions that probably raise noisiness of the images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/f8gAJ.png&quot; alt=&quot;sample pic&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was shot at ISO 400, and kind of underexposed. Other settings I believe might be relevant:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;High ISO NR: low&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Highlight tone priority: disabled&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Auto ligting optimizer: low&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Peripheral illumination correction: enabled&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, is there some kind of tuning of all this I could do to achieve pictures with which I can postprocess a bit without getting noisy results, or should I consider this normal and focus on taking pictures rather than thinking about chroma noise?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T17:33:53.467" Title="How much does in-camera image processing affect noise on Canon DSLRs?" Tags="&lt;image-processing&gt;&lt;canon-5d-mark-ii&gt;&lt;noise&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="5026" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5025" CreationDate="2010-11-20T12:37:14.817" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;HTP will increase noise as it underexposes the image in order to avoid possibly clipping the highlights. Noise reduction will obviously reduce noise, but at the expense of fine details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All other in camera processing may &lt;em&gt;reveal&lt;/em&gt; noise, but not create it. If you are concerned about noise then I would highly recommend shooting Raw and taking full control over the processing and noise reduction applied. This is especially true if you intend to postprocess!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How you shoot will influence noise far more than in camera settings. Basically you want to get as much light down the lens as possible. Don't shy away from using a higher ISO if you cant get any more light as this will help overcome read noise in the shadows. Exposing to the right will help reduce shadow noise, possibly at the expense of highlight detail and colour fidelity - everything is a trade off I'm afraid!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-11-20T12:37:14.817" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5027" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5029" CreationDate="2010-11-20T14:04:14.683" Score="12" ViewCount="422" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I am now looking for a decent polarizer for my 18-105mm and 50mm (Nikon D80) I realized how important they are for outdoor photography. So why aren't they directly hard-mounted on every modern lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(As a &quot;by-question&quot;, which polarizers can you suggest for the above lenses?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2244" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-30T02:43:50.073" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T02:43:50.073" Title="Why don't today's lenses come with a polarizer by default?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;lens-design&gt;&lt;polarizer&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="5028" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5027" CreationDate="2010-11-20T14:10:03.723" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I woudnt want a polarizer on my lens all the time - after all you are not always going to need one. You wouldnt use one when shooting portraits for instance (well i wouldnt)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1907" LastActivityDate="2010-11-20T14:10:03.723" />
  <row Id="5029" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5027" CreationDate="2010-11-20T14:12:27.383" Score="26" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A polarizer cuts out light — about one and a half to two stops, give or take. Additionally, one does not always want the effect. In wide angle shots, it can make skies look distinctively uneven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it makes sense to not include them by default.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;B+W and Hoya are good brands. It's worth spending a bit more a well-made one with good coatings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-20T17:51:08.630" LastActivityDate="2010-11-20T17:51:08.630" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5031" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5032" CreationDate="2010-11-20T16:31:37.840" Score="10" ViewCount="239" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've seen variants of this question covered on many sites but I can't find an answer specific to fine art sales. I know that I need a model release if my picture will be used as stock photography (promotion, advertising, etc). But what if I take a picture of a street performer and then want to sell that photo to someone to hang in their home or office? It wouldn't be used to promote a product but it would still be a commercial sale.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is a release needed for this situation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2249" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T23:09:23.470" Title="Is a model release needed for all commercial photo sales?" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;business&gt;&lt;model-releases&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5032" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5031" CreationDate="2010-11-20T18:35:29.530" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If there are people in the image that are readily identifiable, yes. This is true for any image that will be used in promotion of something else. In your case things become a little muddy and ultimately comes down to the, &quot;what-if?&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;What-if,&quot; the street performer walked into an office and saw a photo of him/herself and thought, &quot;I never signed a model release for that. Dang, I'm ticked off!&quot; and then proceeded to find a lawyer, hunt you down and drag you to court. Then the judge happened to be haunted by a terrible school photo from his early childhood and was like, &quot;this court finds that you owe street-performer cash for mental anguish!&quot; Probably will never happen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As photographers we are allowed to photograph anyone and anything we can see with our naked eye on or from public property. This law stems from the protection of press freedoms and extends through freedom of speech. &lt;strong&gt;In this regard, to make a photograph of a public performance artist in a public place and then charge money for prints, you do not need a model release. However, you should always have a model release with you.&lt;/strong&gt; You never know when you will find that amazing image that Coca-Cola wants to pay you 10k for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*of special note...when photographing a piece of public art wherein the art is the central focus of the image, you do need permission from the artist to resale the image. However, if the artwork appears in the image as a part of your composition, you're alright. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2010-11-20T18:35:29.530" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5033" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4995" CreationDate="2010-11-20T22:59:42.210" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;7D: $1600.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon battery: $60.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3rd-party battery: $40.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Difference as percentage of camera price: &lt;strong&gt;1%&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've seen several different investigations of generic batteries, and while many of them are quite good, the actual capacity varies wildly. In some cases, when you factor that in, you're actually getting more for your money for the brand-name batteries. It's an unfortunate situation and it's too bad there's not better standardization (and honest labeling), but I think it's best to just consider a few extra batteries to be an extra couple percent on top of the purchase price and, basically, just suck it up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-11-20T22:59:42.210" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5034" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5019" CreationDate="2010-11-20T23:59:34.600" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've become hooked on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.topazlabs.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Topaz Labs&lt;/a&gt; collection over the last little while. The two biggest I've put to substantial use are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Topaz DeNoise&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Strengths are that it's an excellent noise reduction package, especially if you follow their instructions in their tutorial videos. There are a number of reviews for this utility out there, so a quick Google search will easily find them. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/topaz.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luminous Landscape&lt;/a&gt; folks did a review on the previous version that convinced me to try it. I tried it and I stopped using Noise Ninja (which is also excellent).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I got to admit, I'm not finding a huge amount of weakness in it. It does precisely what it claims to do and it does it very well, hard to beat, though it doesn't have the brush feature of Noise Ninja for undoing noise reduction in spots. I'm using it a little less now, and lot lighter when I do, since I moved the Pentax K-5, but I'm still using it. Here's the outcome of an ISO 20000 (not a typo) shot of mine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/HF9sO.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;ISO 20000&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Visit my website (linked in my profile) to get a larger version of that if you want. Still shrunk for the web, but about twice the size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of software, it's a Photoshop plugin and covers from PS7 and up, 32 and 64 bit. It is compatible with other software that supports the Adobe plugin model.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Topaz Detail&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The plugin is primarily designed around bringing out image detail, but it does a whole bunch of stuff that I generally end up using it for more artistic outcomes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Strengths would be in the control, it ships with some nifty presets, but then you can tweak and fiddle with the outcome as much as you like. Weaknesses, well, again not a huge amount since it does what it claims to do. Basically, same requirements and limitations as Denoise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I &lt;em&gt;just&lt;/em&gt; bought Topaz InFocus (today) and so I haven't had it long enough to make comments. Preliminary reviews and some sample I saw convinced me to give a go and as they're offering an introductory price of $29.99 right now and really like the other two plugins, I figured what the heck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-11-20T23:59:34.600" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-20T23:59:34.600" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="5035" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4898" CreationDate="2010-11-21T02:08:27.933" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found a description of several different ways to hold the monopod while shooting at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonians.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikonians&lt;/a&gt; website.  Here is the direct link to the article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonians.org/monopods/what_monopod_3.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Monopod Technique&lt;/a&gt;.  I think there are some good ideas/suggestions there.  It is not specific for sports, and doesn't talk about panning/tilting, but it offers several different ways to place your feet for stability.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="227" LastActivityDate="2010-11-21T02:08:27.933" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5036" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5041" CreationDate="2010-11-21T06:37:59.363" Score="3" ViewCount="323" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm processing a batch of photos in Lightroom 3.2. They are all of a Fall nature, so I want to apply the &quot;Fall&quot; keyword to the lot (31 of them). When I select all of them (click, shift+click), then enter the keyword in the Keywording box (in Library view), &quot;Fall&quot; is only applied to the first image that I selected, not all of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I seem to recall this works in Bridge. Is there a different way to go about it in Lightroom?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-11-21T19:49:43.313" Title="Tagging multiple photos in Lightroom" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;tagging&gt;&lt;keywords&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5037" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5036" CreationDate="2010-11-21T07:11:17.850" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, it works like you say. Are you sure you have selected all the photos? When you select multiple photos and you add a keyword, Lightroom asks you if you want to apply the setting to all the selected photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="332" LastActivityDate="2010-11-21T07:11:17.850" />
  <row Id="5038" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5036" CreationDate="2010-11-21T12:00:33.107" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I do this in Loupe view, the keyword is only applied to the photo that is visible, even if multiple photos are selected in the strip at the bottom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I do this in Grid view, then the keyword is applied to all the photos in the grid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1326/developing-multiple-images-in-lightroom&quot;&gt;Enabling Auto Sync&lt;/a&gt; is for having settings you make in Develop mode applied to all selected photos.  I don't know whether it affects keywording in Loupe view.  (I'm away from my desk so I can't check right now.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2010-11-21T12:00:33.107" />
  <row Id="5039" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5036" CreationDate="2010-11-21T12:24:18.087" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can use &quot;Painting&quot; feature and &quot;paint&quot; keywords on the photos. To enable this function you can go to menu Metadata-&gt;Enable Painting (CTRL+ALT+K) or click on spray icon on the tab bellow list of pictures when in Library module, choose that you want to paint with keywords type keyword and start painting:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/f9k99.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1681" LastActivityDate="2010-11-21T12:24:18.087" />
  <row Id="5041" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5036" CreationDate="2010-11-21T19:39:41.193" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When bulk tagging, you need to make sure you are in library mode, AND that you are selecting photos from the main grid, not the film strip. I think this is a bug in LR3, however if you select multiple photos from the film strip, and then try to tag them, the tagging does not always take. It usually applies to the first photo selected, but not the rest. There seems to be a threshold to this...if you select only a few images in the film strip, it may work, but more than say 8-10, and it usually does not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Manual Tagging in Library&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/pNuDJ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When selecting multiple images from the main grid in Library mode, bulk tagging works fine. Just remember to hit the enter (return) key in the keyword box before moving on to make certain the update is actually applied to all of the selected images. In my experience, bulk tagging in the grid has always worked, while bulk tagging from the film strip has been sketchy at best, and generally never seems to work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Painting Tags in Library&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/qpj4f.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An alternative mode of tagging is to use the library painter. It is a small spray paint can icon next to the view mode icons below the grid in Library mode. Selecting this, it defaults to Keywords. Just enter the keywords you want to add, then click on the images you wish to add the keywords to. You can either click each image individually, or click and grad the spray can over multiple images in a continuous stream to &quot;paint&quot; on the new keywords. Click the icon below the grid again to disable paint mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-21T19:49:43.313" LastActivityDate="2010-11-21T19:49:43.313" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5042" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-21T20:46:26.243" Score="3" ViewCount="102" Body="&lt;p&gt;Metal or Plastic?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2259" LastActivityDate="2010-11-21T23:42:14.650" Title="What construction is the Velbon PH-159Q Head?" Tags="&lt;tripod-heads&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="5043" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4811" CreationDate="2010-11-21T21:20:46.993" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My best tip for using Smart Collections is to learn the use of the 'Alt' or 'Opt' key when setting criteria.  Holding down the Alt/Opt key when adding criteria changes the 'AND' function to an 'OR' function.  For example, you could create a Smart Collection where the criteria are 3 stars or better AND a Blue OR Green label.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mike.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S.  Links to over 150 sites with Lightroom tips, tutorials and videos here: &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bit.ly/LRTips&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://bit.ly/LRTips&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-11-21T21:20:46.993" />
  <row Id="5044" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5042" CreationDate="2010-11-21T22:01:47.793" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You would think Googling or looking up Velbon.co.uk would help, but not so much. The closest I could get was the specs of the PH-157Q, which is likely to be similar, and &quot;All die-cast metal construction&quot;.&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.velbon.co.uk/newvelbon/pages/proheads.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.velbon.co.uk/newvelbon/pages/proheads.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2010-11-21T22:01:47.793" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5045" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5042" CreationDate="2010-11-21T23:17:06.457" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Plastic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.velbon.co.uk/newvelbon/pages/quickrel.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this table&lt;/a&gt; the PH-159Q head is used among other on the CX-560 tripod. You can find some information for example &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod3391.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, where it says that major components is made out of plastic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some pretty good pictures in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-equipment-products-news-reviews/107308-velbon-cx-560-tripod-review.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this review&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-21T23:42:14.650" LastActivityDate="2010-11-21T23:42:14.650" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5046" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5047" CreationDate="2010-11-22T05:52:15.947" Score="24" ViewCount="594" Body="&lt;p&gt;(inspired by &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3067&quot;&gt;AJ's question&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's that time of year: family and friends are starting to ask what we want for the holidays. I usually try to have several suggestions at various price ranges. AJ's question had some great suggestions for under $50, but it seems that everything else in photography costs hundreds or thousands of dollars.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are some things that people can give their photographer friends (professional, hobbyist, or just starting) that costs between $50 and $100 dollars? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T07:52:55.880" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-22T17:35:53.110" Title="What are good gifts between $50 and $100 for photographers?" Tags="&lt;cheap&gt;&lt;gifts&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="5047" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5046" CreationDate="2010-11-22T06:30:26.323" Score="24" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Small accessories that will get the photographer trying out a new technique (though you should expect they might replace your gift if they really get into the technique), some examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A GorillaPod mini tripod (if they have no tripod or only a huge one)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A cheap tripod (assuming they don't have a Pro camera/lenses)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A shutter release cable&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A shutter release cable with inbuilt timers (for time-lapse or timed long exposure)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ND (neutral density) filter (or a set of a few they can combine)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any of these will allow/encourage some long exposure experimentation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Filters or flash accessories:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Circular polarizing filter&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Graduated ND filter&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;tinted or coloured filters&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;tinted/coloured gels for a flash unit&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;flash diffuser (maybe a simple one, maybe a nice Gary Fong or equivalent)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some filters are more useful, others are just novelty, but they can be fun to play around with. Flash accessories are also quite useful or maybe just a bit of fun. Either way it can encourage a bit of artistic messing around, outside the box of their usual photographic style.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cheap prime lens:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;50mm f/1.8&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know Canon &amp;amp; Nikon have pretty cheap 50mm lenses (around $100 or a bit over). They're very nice lenses if they don't already have a prime around 50mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A camera bag&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;First camera bag (how do they not have one?!)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A smaller, one-camera-with-lens bag (snout?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A larger backpack style (might break $100 though)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They might have a bag already, but perhaps they need a smaller bag for when they're just taking the SLR with attached lens or a bigger bag that fits their expanding collection (the latter is probably getting past $100 though).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specialist photog software, for example...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;HDR software (Photomatix?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Noise reduction (Noise Ninja?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Anything by Nik (there's a variety of apps)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Panorama stitching program&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not photoshop, but there's some good software around that'll do one specific technique very well. HDR is pretty fun and accessible and Photomatix is about the right price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second hand gear off eBay or from your own collection&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An old Film SLR + 50mm prime + some B&amp;amp;W film&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A DIY reverse-lens macro made from an old second hand manual focus &amp;amp; aperture prime lens, a body cap from their brand of camera, some glue/tubes/...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether its old gear (you can get some very good stuff for $50-100) or modded gear if you've got the skills, you could give them something fun to play with and learn from. There's a lot to be said for learning from prime lenses and B&amp;amp;W film photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And remember, these are things that'll inspire them to try a new technique. If they really enjoy it, they'll probably go and spend 10x what you spent on an upgrade to what you got them, so don't be too offended if a few months later they've replaced your gift (my mum was a bit miffed when I bought a carbon fibre tripod a few months after she gave me a GorillaPod).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-22T21:02:58.823" LastActivityDate="2010-11-22T21:02:58.823" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-22T17:35:53.110" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="5048" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5046" CreationDate="2010-11-22T11:39:30.403" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Books&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For someone just starting out there are plenty of options (see DrFrogsplat's answer) but for serious amateurs and professionals there really isn't much in that price range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another problem is that what is available in that range will be very basic / small. Case in point, the next accessory I'm after is a Really Right Stuff L-plate for a 1D, which is $180. Assuming you could stretch that high, it's just a bent piece of metal that doesn't seem very exciting for a gift.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the biggest problem I have, to non photographers everything is going to seem absurdly expensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Software is an option, but you have to imagine that a pro will have everything they need, and will have at least head of or tried anything that's new or exciting. Plus most of it is not available in a store or in a physical package so you can't wrap it up! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which brings me to books. Pretty much everything will fall under $100 unless it's out of print. For beginners you're spoilt for choice (I will update this answer with links to good beginners books). For experienced photographers instead of a book on technique you could get a biography, or something inspiring, like Taryn Simon's &lt;em&gt;An American Index of the Hidden and Unfamiliar&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The author/title is pretty unambiguous if you're giving a list to someone so can be sure of getting the correct one. And books are really easy to wrap :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-22T17:50:47.397" LastActivityDate="2010-11-22T17:50:47.397" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-22T17:35:53.110" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5049" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5046" CreationDate="2010-11-22T13:25:40.547" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cleaning Kit&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Invitation to a photo art gallery/seminar&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and some of items listed by drfrogsplat&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2272" LastActivityDate="2010-11-22T13:25:40.547" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-22T17:35:53.110" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5050" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-22T14:34:46.240" Score="4" ViewCount="293" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am new to DSLRs and RAW images so please bare with me if this is extremely amateur.  I keep trying to take RAW pictures but every single one of them shows up with an extremely blue &quot;overlay&quot; type layer.  Is there something I'm doing wrong?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am using a Sony Alpha a33 and I have used Picasa, Gimp, and Shotwell (linux).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an example: &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://growinupgracie.com/DSC03350.ARW&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://growinupgracie.com/DSC03350.ARW&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1746" LastEditorUserId="1746" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-22T15:05:47.337" LastActivityDate="2010-11-23T00:45:26.667" Title="Blue Transparent &quot;Overlay&quot; On All RAW Pictures" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;sony&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5051" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5022" CreationDate="2010-11-22T15:02:22.643" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Good explanations of additive versus subtractive color so far, I just wanted to clarify a few points...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, there isn't a single RGB or CMYK standard, both are device dependent (the colors vary based on what device is displaying/printing them), so already we have trouble.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A typical CMYK color space (a graph of all the possible colors of a given color space) is smaller than (and not 100% a subset of) most RGB color spaces. CMYK is also highly device dependent and the colors it can express can vary greatly depending on the type of printing, quality and finish of the paper, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So when Photoshop converts from RGB to CMYK the colors either are compressed or clipped (kind of like an audio recording) to fit inside the CMYK space. How much compression and clipping vary by the exact CMYK color space used and the settings used in Photoshop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, Photoshop will put amounts of K in a CMYK photograph -- normally to keep black areas looking really black -- but it can also be setup to print gray tones in the photograph as black ink as well (to save on color ink, at the expense of some color accuracy).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of this means there isn't necessarily a one-to-one relationship between a given CMYK value and an RGB value. You can convert RGB to CMYK, but you won't necessarily get back 100% the same pixels if you take that CMYK data and convert back to RGB.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, never convert to CMYK unless you know you need to and always keep the RGB version of the file, in case you need to make further edits or change the CMYK conversion settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2228" LastActivityDate="2010-11-22T15:02:22.643" />
  <row Id="5052" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5054" CreationDate="2010-11-22T15:10:08.253" Score="6" ViewCount="133" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to use a piece of fabric as an inexpensive reflector. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any way to find out if it is pure white, so that I can be sure it will not add a colour cast to the light it reflects?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-11-22T16:49:00.577" Title="How can I tell if a reflector is pure white?" Tags="&lt;color-temperature&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="5053" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5050" CreationDate="2010-11-22T15:31:16.090" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have you tried playing with the white-balance settings?  The default white balance might not be what you need for these shots, which can give the photos an off-color tinge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One good thing about shooting in RAW is that you can change the white-balance settings afterwards, so I'd give that a shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="307" LastActivityDate="2010-11-22T15:31:16.090" />
  <row Id="5054" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5052" CreationDate="2010-11-22T15:51:03.897" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a few things you could do:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Compare it with a reflector that is known to be pure white (a purpose made white balance card would be good for this).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take a photograph of it with a light source of (approximately) known colour temperature (e.g. the sun) and spectrum and do a raw conversion with this colour temp and look at the RGB values.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first method will probably be a lot more reliable as it won't succumb to lighting colour shifts or the vagaries of Raw processing. However, provided it's not massively off (in which case you'd be able to see that clearly) it probably doesn't matter if it's pure white.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Colour temp is relative so the only time it matters is if you're using it alongside other light modifiers which are pure white, so my suggestion, if this is the case, would be to try the first option and compare it to your other modifiers either by eye, or better by shooting images of them under controlled lighting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-22T16:03:41.547" LastActivityDate="2010-11-22T16:03:41.547" />
  <row Id="5055" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-22T15:57:21.093" Score="8" ViewCount="125" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://shop.the-impossible-project.com/shop/film/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Impossible Project&lt;/a&gt; produces &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-impossible-project.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;various instant films&lt;/a&gt; for Polaroid cameras at the original factory but using new chemicals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To those who have tried these (or other 3rd party options, if they exist), how would you rate the quality, tone and experience with these new films, compared with original Polaroid stock?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any surprises?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2016" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T23:22:17.243" Title="Experiences with 3rd party Polaroid film?" Tags="&lt;polaroid&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="5056" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5050" CreationDate="2010-11-22T15:59:50.150" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems to be a white balance issue, which may be compounded by a slight under-exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I opened the file with UFRaw (Gimp's Raw Conversion tool) and used the sliders to adjust the white balance and the green level.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a bit tricky as I don't really know what the room should look like, but I think It's probably close.&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/qNAuP.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good way to handle this is to set a custom white balance:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Custom white balance is set by&#xA;  selecting Custom Setup from the white&#xA;  balance menu, and pointing the camera&#xA;  at a neutral white or grey card under&#xA;  the lighting you'll be shooting in,&#xA;  filling a frame in the center of the&#xA;  display with the reference target,&#xA;  then pressing the Shutter button.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA33/AA33A5.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA33/AA33A5.HTM&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-11-22T15:59:50.150" />
  <row Id="5057" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5052" CreationDate="2010-11-22T16:02:08.177" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only way is to photograph the fabric reflecting the intended light source onto a typical scene you want to shoot.  This is because the color of something depends on the frequency spectrum of the electromagnetic radiation shining on it (including invisible frequencies such as near ultraviolet--think &quot;black lights&quot; and fluorescence) and the differential ways in which that reflector absorbs, scatters, and even polarizes the different color frequencies.  In particular, you don't necessarily need a &quot;perfect&quot; white: you only need a reflector that re-emits the incoming light.  If the ambient light does not include certain portions of the spectrum--and this is true of almost all lights--then your reflector does not need to reflect those proportions, either.  So requiring a &quot;pure white&quot; reflector is both unattainable and unnecessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Checking is a simple enough operation: photograph a neutral card with just the light and then illuminated as much as possible by the reflector (using the same light source).  Use the same white balance settings for the photos.  Visually compare the two images, or--for a more scientific approach--quantitatively compare their RGB histograms.  There will be a change in color, however slight, but you can decide whether it is important for the photography you intend to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2010-11-22T16:02:08.177" />
  <row Id="5058" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5052" CreationDate="2010-11-22T16:49:00.577" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;IMO, it's mostly a waste of time to even try. It's color is &lt;em&gt;going&lt;/em&gt; to shift over time, and if it's like most things that are &quot;white&quot;, it'll include some &quot;brighteners&quot; -- fluorescent dyes, so the ultraviolet content in the light makes it glow a bit. These mean the color of the fabric varies based in the light (specifically its UV content).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead, therefore, put your reflector under the intended light source, and use that to set your white balance. If you're shooting film, the equivalent is to take a shot of the reflector material under the intended light, about like you normally would of a grey card. When you print, adjust for that to be neutral, then use the same color balance for the remaining shots on that roll.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-11-22T16:49:00.577" />
  <row Id="5059" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5061" CreationDate="2010-11-22T16:52:47.883" Score="10" ViewCount="670" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a pair of pretty nice monitors (HP ZR30w) which I calibrated with a pretty good calibrator (i1-Pro) and after I calibrated both they still show colors every so slightly differently.  My left monitor has a little more magenta color to it in photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is monitor calibration only ment to get things 'close'?  Other people in the office have experienced similar issues with their pairs of monitors, both HP ZR30w and Dell 3007WFP-HC monitors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I can't even get colors to match between my two exact same monitors connected to the same computer I have little confidence that colors on my monitors will look the same on somebody else's calibrated monitor :p&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2010-11-22T23:30:59.087" Title="After monitor calibration colors on my two monitors are still different, why?" Tags="&lt;color-management&gt;&lt;monitors&gt;&lt;display-calibration&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="5060" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5050" CreationDate="2010-11-22T16:59:23.460" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The output you'll get from a RAW file is highly dependent on the tools you're using. For instance, when I open your RAW file in Preview on OS X this is the result:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/iduy1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No blue overlay. I would guess that the RAW profile (meaning the default output from a RAW file produced from a given camera) used by the tools you're using for your camera is not very good. Maybe try updating them, or if that doesn't work simply apply some temperature adjustments to all the images you process. You could always stick with JPEG if you're not going to be taking advantage of the increased adjustments you can perform with RAW images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2269" LastActivityDate="2010-11-22T16:59:23.460" />
  <row Id="5061" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5059" CreationDate="2010-11-22T18:04:03.807" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It &lt;em&gt;looks&lt;/em&gt; like the ZR30W uses a fluorescent backlight. Although it's a cold-cathode fluorescent, the color still changes a &lt;em&gt;little&lt;/em&gt; with the temperature. You want to be sure you let the display warm up for quite a while before profiling it to be sure the temperature is stable. The usual recommendation is something like 20 minutes as a minimum, but from what I've seen an hour is considerably better; if you have really good color discrimination, two or three hours wouldn't hurt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I should also point out that some monitors (even some that otherwise seem pretty &quot;high end&quot;) don't seem to have very stable backlights no matter how long you let them run. I don't know if I applies to your HP monitor or not, but (just for one example) at work I used to have an Apple Cinema display. I could run it for eight hours straight, profile it, and then profile it again 20 minutes later, and both the color &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; the brightness were quite noticeably wrong. OTOH, even though it also uses a CCFL backlight, I have a LaCie 321 that's so stable I can actually measure &lt;em&gt;seasonal&lt;/em&gt; variation. During the summer my office gets hot enough that its temperature shifts a bit, but when I re-profile it again in the fall, it goes back to where it had been a year before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-11-22T18:04:03.807" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5062" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-22T20:57:53.517" Score="8" ViewCount="650" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been starting at this Apple Image &amp;amp; trying to figure out how to get this glare effect (which can be seen on the monitor).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Someone knows?&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/n3zap.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2010-11-23T16:25:50.397" Title="How do I get this 'glare' effect" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;apple-aperture&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5063" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5062" CreationDate="2010-11-22T21:55:09.370" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I saw a great behind the scenes video from a product photographer hired to shoot similar images of the iPod Touch but I can't seem to find it now. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, you can never say for definite, but it's really hard to get a crisp clean highlight like that with a softbox, and really easy to do in Photoshop with an adjustment layer, so I'm going to go with the latter option. Just mask off the relevant area of the screen and apply a levels or HSL adjustment layer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-11-22T21:55:09.370" />
  <row Id="5064" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5062" CreationDate="2010-11-22T22:53:28.767" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The glare effect on the monitor itself is a digitized effect, it is not real. Technically speaking, it is near impossible to get a clear &lt;em&gt;photograph&lt;/em&gt; of a computer screen with the image it is displaying like you can see in that Apple example. What is generally done is a photograph of the screen(s) are taken while they are off, and the images that are supposedly being displayed on the screens, as well as the highlights, are added using Photoshop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It may be possible to get something similar to that using a very carefully crafted lighting setup, however it is highly doubtful that you would ever get such a clean highlight with such a crisp edge. Highlights in reality are reflections (usually specular) of light sources, so a rectangular light source with just the right shape and brightness would be necessary to generate a highlight like that. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't do much in the way of still object photography myself, I've only observed it being done. I have, however, done quite a bit of graphic design work, and the effect is a breeze to do using photoshop and a stock photo of a monitor (or monitors) All it really takes is a screen shot of the image you want the monitor to be displaying scaled, skewed, and rotated to fit the screen, and a translucent white gradient drawn at the appropriate angle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-11-22T22:53:28.767" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5065" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5046" CreationDate="2010-11-22T23:06:18.623" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two gifts I received recently myself included the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Control-Digital-Cameras-replace-RS-60E3/dp/B0031ZHN1K/ref=sr_1_20?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1290466700&amp;amp;sr=8-20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LCD Timer Remote Control&lt;/a&gt;: $50&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Intervolometer cable release, allows unlimited number of photographs to be taken at any interval from 1s to 100hrs&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/X-Rite-MSCCPP-ColorChecker-Passport/dp/B002NU5UW8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=electronics&amp;amp;qid=1290466760&amp;amp;sr=1-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;X-Rite ColorChecker Passport&lt;/a&gt;: $100&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A small-scale portable color checker card that may be used out in the field (or anywhere) to ensure correct white balance, adjustable white balance from cool to warm, and color checking&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other great items can include the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;50mm f/1.8 Lens: $100&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The de-facto standard lens, available for pretty much every camera, and super cheap&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Close up diopter filters: @$100&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;These simple filters allow you to focus closer to your subjects, allowing macro or near-macro photography on the cheap (great way to learn macro photography)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cleaning Equipment: $10-$50&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lens cleaning solution &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lens cleaning cloths or tissues&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Digital sensor cleaning equipment&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Books: $10-50&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There are some excellent books for photographers that teach exposure, lighting, and composition (the staples of photography)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0240809343&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Photographers Eye&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0240811712&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Perfect Exposure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0817439390&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Understanding Exposure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0240808193&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Light: Science and Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0715328190&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Waiting for the Light&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-11-22T23:06:18.623" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-22T23:06:18.623" />
  <row Id="5066" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5071" CreationDate="2010-11-22T23:10:36.187" Score="7" ViewCount="293" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm getting my D40 prepped to be sold, and I want to set the camera back to the original factory settings.  When I do the &quot;two button&quot; reset (holding the &quot;I&quot; and &quot;info&quot; buttons down for two seconds), the camera restarts, but does not reset my settings.  When I choose the menu option to do so (Menu-&gt;Custom Settings-&gt;Reset), this also does not reset my settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In either case, the camera still has my image comment; still has my optimization settings within the shooting menu, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a more aggressive &quot;factory&quot; reset that can be performed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1493" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-28T20:22:01.177" LastActivityDate="2010-11-28T20:22:01.177" Title="&quot;Factory reset&quot; for D40?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;nikon-d40&gt;&lt;body&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="5067" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5059" CreationDate="2010-11-22T23:30:59.087" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jerry Coffin's answer was excellent, and I can't add a whole lot more. One other possibility may be the calibration hardware itself. There are two fundamental types of calibration devices: Colorimiters and Spectrophotometers. A Colorimiter is a &quot;scientifically subjective&quot; device. It uses an approach to calibration called &quot;tristimulus&quot;, and is designed to mimic how the human eye perceives color. The human eye's cone cells are sensitive to specific peaks of color (blue, green, and two peaks of red), which when interpreted by the brain are combined to produce the range of color we can see. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most calibration devices are colorimiters, and while for any particular screen they will generally produce fairly consistent results, they are not guaranteed to always calibrate exactly the same, and will not necessarily calibrate each device the same. This is generally not a problem, as they work within the bounds of human perception (and in the same way as human perception...hence their slightly subjective results). Their slight variation is rarely detectable except when recalibrating and comparing before/after results. Combined with different kinds of back-lighting such as fluorescent tubes (which tend to oscillate at a multiple of the frequency of their power supply), and you have a system with a few variables that can cause different calibration results for different devices/different times. Some calibration systems, such as the Spyder3Elite v4.0, allow you to synchronize the calibration of multiple devices by creating a shareable profile that may be used to normalize the calibration of multiple, disparate devices to a common baseline.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Higher end (and usually more expensive) calibration devices are often spectrophotometers (usually in the form of a spectrocolorimiter.) A spectrophotometers is a truly scientific device, and is able to generate consistently accurate measurements at all times. Spectrophotometers can still be susceptible to lighting oscillations of fluorescent tubes, however most calibration devices that use spectrophotometry (and even most colorimiters these days) take that into account and are still able to produce consistent results. Spectrophotometers use mathematics to convert their light measurements into estimated tristimulus values. Since the final calibration results are estimated via mathematics, rather than directly measured, while calibration results may be scientifically true to the measured light, they often have a slight, but consistent, deviation from what you would expect. Again, these deviations are usually not detectable by the human eye when not comparing images from before/after calibration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you suspect that your calibration results either being skewed by the backlight oscillations of your screen, or by inaccuracies of the calibration device, you might want to look into a system that is designed to calibrate multiple devices to a consistent baseline. The DataColor Spyter3Elite with the v4.0 software offers this capability. It is able to generate a sharable calibration target that can be used to calibrate any number of devices, of varying types (LCD, CRT, TV, laptops, projectors, etc.) to produce consistent output. Calibration will obviously take longer when calibrating multiple devices, and you may need to do a couple re-calibrations of each device to get perfect normalization, but if you do regular multimonitor work and need accurate calibration across all of your displays, the investment in a system that can calibrate them all is worth it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-11-22T23:30:59.087" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="5068" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5050" CreationDate="2010-11-23T00:01:13.427" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Picasa, Gimp, and Shotwell all use dcraw to convert from raw.&#xA;I had off-colors because the version of dcraw included in my distribution did not yet properly support my camera (Canon G11).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I compiled dcraw myself, which is dead-easy. I put the binary in my path which solved the problem except for Picasa.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Picasa uses dcraw but brings its own version and I don't know if it is possible to replace it. Luckily for me the current version of picasa (3.8) had a recent version of dcraw.&#xA;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.webupd8.org/2010/04/how-to-install-picasa-36-in-ubuntu.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.webupd8.org/2010/04/how-to-install-picasa-36-in-ubuntu.html&lt;/a&gt; on how to install Picasa 3.8 in Linux.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;UPDATE:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I made a quick test with dcraw 9.04 and dcraw 9.05, see below:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Result from dcraw 9.04&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/f0q2c.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; title=&quot;Hosted by imgur.com&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Result from dcraw 9.05 (2010/11/11)&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/VhB0S.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; title=&quot;Hosted by imgur.com&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you need help compiling an setting up dcraw write a comment.&#xA;I can tell you what I did to get it working but I think it is off-topic here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2276" LastEditorUserId="2276" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-23T00:45:26.667" LastActivityDate="2010-11-23T00:45:26.667" />
  <row Id="5069" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5072" CreationDate="2010-11-23T01:13:51.650" Score="6" ViewCount="1277" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm fairly new to DSLRs and I've been exploring the functions on my new Canon 60D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a button to the side of the lens described as the &quot;depth-of-field preview button&quot;.  Based on the limited description in the manual, I thought this would give me a preview of how the photo would look in terms of what's in and out of focus when I'm using Live View.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I press it though, despite jerking as if it's processing something, I see no difference in the LCD screen.  I've played with the aperture with no discernible effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Am I missing something?  What should I be seeing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1655" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-23T14:18:30.243" LastActivityDate="2010-11-23T14:18:30.243" Title="What is the depth-of-field preview button on my Canon 60D supposed to show me?" Tags="&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;preview&gt;&lt;camera-controls&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5070" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5069" CreationDate="2010-11-23T01:40:23.877" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depth of Field preview is supposed to show you exactly that. The depth of field. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The easiest way to check, is to not use Live-View, and look through the view finder. If you stop the lens down to f8 or higher, and hit the DoF Preview button; the view finder will get noticeably darker.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not 100% certain about live view. In the 40D; DOF did not show in Live View because the sensor was not able to sufficiently show the image because the amount of light is so minimal. Based on your post, I would wager that something similar is going on here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-11-23T01:40:23.877" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5071" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5066" CreationDate="2010-11-23T04:09:14.903" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the manual for &lt;code&gt;D40&lt;/code&gt; the two-button reset does not affect custom settings (p38).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;code&gt;Custom Settings Menu&lt;/code&gt; has another &lt;code&gt;Reset&lt;/code&gt; option to clear them (p74).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;pp113-114 describe default settings and what gets reset with various reset controls.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;There is also a tiny low-level reset switch next to the USB port (p108) --&#xA;to be used when the camera completely stalls (freezes).&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="163" LastActivityDate="2010-11-23T04:09:14.903" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5072" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5069" CreationDate="2010-11-23T04:39:42.870" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;DoF preview is difficult to use well. The idea is simple, but application much less so. Without DoF preview, what you see through the viewfinder is shown with the lens &quot;wide open&quot; -- at its largest possible aperture. This provides no guidance about how much depth of field your picture will have, because (unless you happen to be shooting at maximum aperture) the picture you're seeing in the viewfinder won't be at the same aperture as the picture you take.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In theory, DoF preview is a simple answer to that: it just closes the aperture on the lens to whatever aperture you have set for the picture. If, for example, you were going to take a picture at f/11 using an f/2.8 lens, the DoF preview will stop the lens down from f/2.8 to f/11.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Difficulty in application stems from two facts. First of all, stopping the lens down significantly makes the view through the viewfinder darker. Second, and more importantly, the focus screen on most current cameras doesn't portray depth of field very accurately. A focus screen that transmits more light directly through gives a brighter view. Since most people depend on autofocus for focusing and don't worry much about DoF, this is the sort of screen used in most current cameras. A screen can be built to diffuse the light more. This doesn't give as bright of a view, but also makes the apparent sharpness in the viewfinder drop off much more quickly when things are out of focus. This makes the DoF preview in most cameras pretty inaccurate. What you see in the viewfinder will show a lot more DoF than the real picture regardless of the exact aperture the lens is set to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, to use DoF preview at all well, you just about have to do some testing to compare what you see in the viewfinder to what you get in the picture. The two &lt;em&gt;won't&lt;/em&gt; be the same (usually, anyway), and it's up to you to train your eye to compensate for the different between what you see and what you'll get to be able to compensate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One technique I've used with reasonable success is to take some pictures at a particular aperture (e.g., f/8) and set up a laptop screen next to the camera so you can quickly look from the viewfinder to a picture you just took. You can then adjust the aperture (with DoF preview) to get &lt;em&gt;close&lt;/em&gt; to the same DoF through the viewfinder as shows in the picture. What you really care about is how much difference you see between the two. Let's say the viewfinder at f/3.5 shows roughly the same DoF as the picture on the laptop that you took at f/8. That gives a difference of roughly 2.5 stops. From then on, you can use DoF preview to adjust the zone of sharpness as you see fit, and know that you'll need to open the aperture ~2.5 stops from there to get about the same DoF when you take a picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-11-23T04:39:42.870" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5073" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5079" CreationDate="2010-11-23T06:14:58.800" Score="14" ViewCount="340" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been trying to take some long exposure shots at night with my Canon 450D. The problem I'm having is that I can't seem to get a shot in focus. The low light conditions prevent AF from working at all, nor is there enough light for me to get the focus correct by hand. I've tried through the viewfinder and the LCD, but they're both so dark I can't tell if I'm in focus or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps this is a lens issue? I have the 18-55mm ƒ/3.5 kit lens and the 50mm ƒ/1.8 EF lens; neither of them have focus markings, so I'm not sure if I'm hitting ∞ or if my lenses are even capable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Thank you very much&lt;/strong&gt; for the suggestions. I’m not able to shine a light, as I’m hoping to get landscapes and night sky shots, and I don’t have anything powerful enough to reflect back. I tried focusing with the 50mm ƒ/1.8 wide open, but I couldn't see anything. I don't think lens speed is going to make a difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It sounds like trial and error is my best shot here, which is unfortunate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Side note: It sucks that the 450D has no way to display the focal length. This info is recorded in the image metadata, so it would seem like it should be available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have two more options that I came up with:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Set up during the evening, when there is enough light to focus, then take the shot at night. Potentially impractical due to time, but I see no reason it wouldn’t work.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Use another camera&lt;/strong&gt;. I tried again with my PowerShot S90, and got &lt;em&gt;significantly&lt;/em&gt; better results. I was able to manually set the focus to infinity, and the wider angle / smaller sensor meant that I didn't have to worry as much about depth of field causing blur. While the S90 only allows for 15s exposures, CHDK removes that limitation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1905" LastEditorUserId="1905" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-24T02:16:22.243" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T10:37:55.800" Title="Focusing for low light / long exposures" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;focus&gt;&lt;long-exposure&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5074" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5073" CreationDate="2010-11-23T06:39:58.153" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The value of this answer will obviously depend on what you're trying to photograph, but &lt;strong&gt;are you able to use an external source of light so you can manually focus first?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm assuming that you're taking long exposure shots of an object at a particular distance - therefore the focus needs to be accurate (and not ∞).  If you have a torch or other light-source, you could light up the subject to focus manually, then turn it off to take the exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1655" LastActivityDate="2010-11-23T06:39:58.153" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5075" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5073" CreationDate="2010-11-23T07:01:04.830" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To focus at night, you need a pretty fast lens. The 18-55/3.5 kit lens is definitely too slow to be of much use at night. An f/3.5 aperture is pretty small in that environment. The 50/1.8 is better for night use, but still not great. That lens has some pretty basic gear-based AF, so it is rather slow, and not particularly accurate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A better night lens would be the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 lens, which is about 2/3rds of a stop faster than the f/1.8, which is a fairly considerable amount of light. The f/1.4 also uses USM AF (ultrsonic motor), which is a better focusing drive that is faster and more accurate than what you get with the 50mm f/1.8. You are not guaranteed to nail every focus attempt with the f/1.4, but you should get a much higher hit rate. Anything wider than f/1.4 will obviously help, although once you get that wide, lenses get rather expensive. (For perspective, the Canon EF 50/1.4 is about $350, while the EF 50/1.2 L is about $1500.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other brands that make fast wide lenses as well. You might look into Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Zeiss, etc. to see if you can find a decent fast lens for a better price than the Canon 50/1.2 L. Suffice it to say, you need a &quot;faster&quot; lens to be more effective at night. I would say f/2-f/1.8 is probably the smallest aperture you could probably use at night to get any kind of shot, but if you need autofocus, at least f/1.4, with f/1.2 or even an f/1.0 being ideal (if you can find one...some older lenses exist at this extremely wide aperture, and some even wider at f/0.95 or even f/0.7...although they do tend to come for a price.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-11-23T07:01:04.830" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5076" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5062" CreationDate="2010-11-23T07:27:56.973" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You just use a gradient in Photoshop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's impossible to get a glare like that in a photograph, as the border of the screen and the screen area have different reflexive properties. The person that put the glare on those images didn't account for that, which is why the glare doesn't look real.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-11-23T07:27:56.973" />
  <row Id="5077" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5073" CreationDate="2010-11-23T10:46:30.250" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;What I do...&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do 2 things in this sort of situation (and I have a 3rd suggestion to try): &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Shine a light on the subject&lt;/b&gt;.  If the subject is close, a hand-held torch often works fine.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Focus manually&lt;/b&gt;.  This brings its own hazards, but if the machine can't do it then the man wil have to.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I have never actually done this, but in theory you could &lt;b&gt;focus based on the distance&lt;/b&gt; to the subject - if your lens has distances marked on it.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-11-23T10:46:30.250" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5078" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5080" CreationDate="2010-11-23T11:35:47.403" Score="5" ViewCount="139" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&#xA;1) There are enough details in the RAW files made by D40? (for one file HDR)&#xA;2) Is there a setting that I should consider when shooting raw files for HDR?&#xA;Thank you :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2284" LastActivityDate="2010-11-23T12:11:38.853" Title="Making HDR from D40 RAW files" Tags="&lt;hdr&gt;&lt;nikon-d40&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="5079" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5073" CreationDate="2010-11-23T11:57:28.210" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lots of good advice and things try here, but whilst faster lenses are generally good for night shots, you will get a limited improvement in AF performance so you will hit the point where it's too dark to AF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faster lenses will also give you a brighter viewfinder which enables better manual focus, but again up to a point, with the default focus screen you see no improvement past f/2.6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lighting the subject to focus is a good idea but not always possible, using the depth scale isn't possible in your case so I'm going to suggest something that's not been mentioned so far.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Focus bracketing&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as exposure bracketing uses multiple exposures to overcome metering problems, focus bracketing uses multiple shots to overcome AF problems. Start with your best guess for the focus and shoot two shots either side by moving the focus ring slightly and then examine the shots on the LCD. It's time consuming to work this way for sure, but it's a good technique to employ as a last resort. I only wish camera bodies included this as a feature as it would become faster and more accurate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this still doesn't work for you consider recomposing to increase your depth of field to give yourself a better chance! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-11-23T11:57:28.210" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5080" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5078" CreationDate="2010-11-23T12:04:10.530" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You cant create an HDR image from a single Raw file with any canera (since you can't magic dynamic range into existence) but you should be able to get the ultra contrasty tonemapped look from the D40 without difficulty. It's not the detail that matters for this it's the noise, and in favourable conditions (see next paragraph) the D40 is not noticeably worse than other DSLRs. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the best results you should aim to maximize the dynamic range of your single exposure which means minimizing noise. To do this you want to get plenty of light so you don't have to raise the ISO sensitivity. You should also try to underexpose a        little to be sure you capture the highlights. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could enable active D lighting to do the underexposure for you, but I would recommend paying close attention to the camera settings (esp. ISO) to ensure you minimise noise. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-23T12:11:38.853" LastActivityDate="2010-11-23T12:11:38.853" />
  <row Id="5081" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4870" CreationDate="2010-11-23T12:04:42.337" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Regarding your edited question - is the sunset in a particular location going to be good?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the day itself, use weather forecasts and/or look at the sky - clear skies are interesting but certain types of cloud that catch the colours of the sun are often better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, for longer-term planning, you can use a tool like &lt;a href=&quot;http://photoephemeris.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Photographer's Ephemeris&lt;/a&gt; which allows you to choose a geographic location, and it will tell you where the sun (and moon) will rise and set. You can also get it to find when the sun will rise from a particular angle from your viewpoint, which is useful to line it up with certain geographical features (or buildings). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2127" LastActivityDate="2010-11-23T12:04:42.337" />
  <row Id="5082" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5083" CreationDate="2010-11-23T12:14:40.987" Score="20" ViewCount="613" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to be able to capture a photo which shows light shafts coming through the window. A famous example is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/d6GKV.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Railway station with shafts of light&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm guessing this involves a tripod, a long exposure and strong sunlight, but presumably also some particulate in the air to catch the light? Is there a way to reliably replicate this effect in a building like a church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2127" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T20:50:38.357" Title="How can I get photos showing the &quot;shaft of light&quot; effect?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;technique&gt;&lt;sunlight&gt;&lt;composition&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="5083" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5082" CreationDate="2010-11-23T12:26:59.067" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You've pretty much answered your own question there (except that you don't absolutely need a long exposure, it depends on the situation). The key ingredient is obviously the particulates in the air to reflect the light, but in the shot you've posted also the extreme exposure difference between the incoming sun and ambient light. The greater the difference, the fewer particulates you need in the air as each one will be shining brighter, and the better they will show up against a dark background. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some post processing will probably help too. The photo you posted has always bothered me as it looks a little fake, I wouldn't be surprised if a little dodging went on in the darkroom to increase the brightness of the light shafts. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an example of the effect caused by haze and precipitation in the atmosphere which I enhanced a little in Photoshop to emphasise the effect:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/castle3.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To do this is a church you might need to ask them to turn the interior lights off to maximize the difference and then wait for the sun to shine directly through a window. Overexpose the shot to best reveal the shafts of light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To reliably replicate it, assuming you're already cut the power, most churches are quite dusty so you could run around, beat the carpets and pew cusions a bit. That ought to put enough dust in the air to get the effect you're after! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;disclaimer: don't acutally do that last part&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;edit:&lt;/strong&gt; You're still going to need a lot of dust or very strong contrast to get the effect you want in a church - here are a couple of shots from a recent wedding. Note how much brighter the light from the window is (I even had to darken it in the Raw conversion, the difference was greater than it looked) and yet it's not enough for any shafts of light to be visible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/2009-08-22-15h15m10%20_wedding_of_thalia_and_leo__small.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/2009-08-22-15h15m02%20_wedding_of_thalia_and_leo__small.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-23T19:02:03.337" LastActivityDate="2010-11-23T19:02:03.337" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="5084" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4870" CreationDate="2010-11-23T15:04:29.883" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I still think that a truly stunning sunset/sunrise photo is based on a lot of &quot;luck&quot; - there are things I've found that help improve your chances:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Carry a camera everywhere. As many times as I've seen a stunning sunset/sunrise, there are times I wish I had my camera handy. Without a camera, you can't capture the scene. :)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Start tracking or checking the sunset/sunrise times either where you are (for local shots) or where you want to capture a scene. Get there early, about an hour (for sunrises, sometimes more) or so, and track the color changes as you enter the sunset/sunrise. You might be surprised at what you'll see outside of the actual moment-of-sunset.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mapping tools / &lt;a href=&quot;http://photoephemeris.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Photographer's Ephemeris&lt;/a&gt; are great for finding locations and directions-of-sunlight, etc. Sometimes you have to find the right time-of-year, not just time-of-day for the sun to align correctly (Yosemite's Upper Falls come to mind).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Check the sky. You need something for the sun to reflect off, otherwise there's not much to see. Often, I've wondered about a possible good sunset, just to find out that there's nary a cloud in the sky - and the resulting sunset wasn't much to capture.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Speaking to post-processing, I think that the proper application of post-work can in cases help, but I don't think it's a requirement, as evidenced by the following shot, which is SOOC:&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/7ClMI.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Sunset, Walburg, TX&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes nature just cooperates more than others - the last few years have had more gorgeous sunsets than I can remember having seen before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2290" LastActivityDate="2010-11-23T15:04:29.883" />
  <row Id="5085" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-23T15:07:49.750" Score="13" ViewCount="188" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I am looking for web resources to help persuade someone that photography is not a suspicious activity and photographers should not be considered a threat.&lt;/strong&gt; Right now, the discussion is pretty cordial and I'd like to keep it that way, while still being persuasive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be clear, I'm not asking for clarifications of what my rights are (as &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1008/resource-for-photographers-rights-around-the-world&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; does), but rather I'm looking to persuade someone who hasn't thought much about it that photography is not suspicious and he should not worry about photographers on his  property, even if they don't ask permission first. (The property in question is a privately owned park, so arbitrary members of the public are wandering through all day long.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The intended audience is someone who's not hostile to photography, but doesn't really know anything about it. On the other hand, they do know the building security department reasonably well in a professional capacity; building security &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; hostile to photography. The intended audience has not had deep discussions about the matter with security (being busy with other things) and has simply accepted security's recommendations that photography needs to be restricted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some good clarifying questions in the responses; here are a few more details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What kind of place is it? It's an open space between a couple of office buildings, in a major US city. There are some areas with nice landscaping, and some gravel areas tables and chairs for eating. It gets a lot of foot traffic from people walking through it. At first glance you might assume it's public property, but I'm pretty sure it's private. It's correct that it's not quite a park; however, I'm not sure exactly what to call it. It does have some unique properties, but I'd prefer not to give too many details because the purpose of the question is not to call out the property owner in public (and I don't think they're important for answering).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What happened? I was in the space making photos (from the same places any passerby might be) and a guard came out of the adjacent office building and told me to stop, so I left. The park was empty at the time. I later dug up the owner and sent him an e-mail, receiving a very friendly reply a couple of days later. That's where we are now.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There is no policy posted. I have no idea if there have been previous complaints.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I'm not interested in quibbling about legalities or make any sort of legal fuss. If the property owner says no, I'll leave it alone. Any photos I make would publicize the place, so I don't want to do that if I'm being hassled, even if I'm right.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I want to persuade the owner that &lt;em&gt;anyone&lt;/em&gt; should be permitted to take photos whenever they want, not just obtain permission for myself (which would be easy).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-23T19:13:05.467" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T16:19:47.047" Title="Resources for persuading that photography is not a suspicious activity" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5086" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="164" CreationDate="2010-11-23T15:48:01.093" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the best way to learn to take good picture is to look at all the professional pictures first, then start learning how to frame a picture by taking a lot of pictures. After that, you learn the technical side. Practice is the only way to become better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2292" LastActivityDate="2010-11-23T15:48:01.093" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-23T15:48:01.093" />
  <row Id="5087" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5046" CreationDate="2010-11-23T16:15:53.493" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just ordered one of these Nikon lens mugs from Photojojo - &lt;a href=&quot;https://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/camera-lens-mug/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/camera-lens-mug/&lt;/a&gt;  I'm pretty sure any photographer/coffee/tea drinker would love them.  I know Canon had an L-series mug back during the Olympics, but the Nikon 24-70 actually zooms!!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="274" LastActivityDate="2010-11-23T16:15:53.493" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-23T16:15:53.493" />
  <row Id="5088" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5073" CreationDate="2010-11-23T16:16:06.053" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your camera supports manual focusing in &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&amp;amp;articleID=1766&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Live View&lt;/a&gt;&quot; mode.  Even with some very dark subjects the light magnification is enough to get excellent focusing.  This is one of the uses of Live View recommended by Canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2010-11-23T16:16:06.053" />
  <row Id="5089" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5062" CreationDate="2010-11-23T16:25:50.397" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want the glare to be &lt;em&gt;real&lt;/em&gt;, imagine the monitor as a mirror.  Position a white card so its reflection would be where you want the glare to appear.  Brightly illuminate that card with a light that would not be visible within the mirror and would not otherwise light the monitor itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In your left hand image, for example, locate the card off to the left and slightly above the monitor.  Illuminate it with a hard focused light from the right.  If necessary block part of this illumination so the monitor itself lies within its shadow.  This setup is not difficult or time-consuming to accomplish: you're not really worried much about matching this extra light's color with the ambient light, so it could be almost anything--a desk lamp even--and the only equipment you need is a stand and tape to hold the card (or a helper).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This technique and many other general principles of lighting are clearly explained and illustrated in Hunter &amp;amp; Fuqua's &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0240802756&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Light: Science &amp;amp; Magic&lt;/a&gt; book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2010-11-23T16:25:50.397" />
  <row Id="5090" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5085" CreationDate="2010-11-23T16:48:00.050" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Great question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the tone of your article is that you're looking to keep discussions cordial, refraining from using legal jujitsu to make your argument.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the park have an official policy regarding photography? Is it well defined, and obvious to any public passerby? If not, legally the park owners could be liable for any damages from a harassment charges brought on by John. Q. Photographer--if building security was there on the behest of the park owners, and there was no official photography policy, or it was not clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Has the park owner had any complaints by other patrons about photographers?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the most compelling resource would be an amazing photos shot while in his park. Perhaps even a nicely framed and mounted print as a gift. The park provides a beautiful space that is enjoyed by so many people; and photographers only add to that. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At any rate, keep us informed with how your discussions are going. I know I'm intrigued by this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-11-23T16:48:00.050" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5091" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5758" CreationDate="2010-11-23T17:31:10.790" Score="8" ViewCount="260" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a basic understanding of curves. That is, I know the mathematical concept behind them, and I have an idea what happens when I change them. But this knowledge came from sources which assumed that I am working with an image editing programm like Photoshop/Gimp. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sources also teach beginning enthusiasts like me to do as much as possible in RAW, to prevent information loss in the image. So when I saw that the raw tool I use has curves, I decided to try using them there instead of later in Gimp. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am however mystified by the presence of two different curves in ufraw. They are described as follows in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/Guide.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;user guide&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Base curve &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Base curve imitates the functionality of Nikon's tone curves. For Nikon NEF files you can choose Custom curve if you want to use the curve that is embedded in the raw file. Choosing Camera curve will enable the embedded curve only if it was enabled in camera. All camera users can load curves to apply custom curves to their images. The famous white wedding curve (V3.5) from Fotogenetic was applied to the image on the right. Move the mouse over the image to see the original image with a linear curve. A +0.5EV was applied to the original image to equalize the luminosity of both images. The white wedding curve adds some details to the dress. UFRaw can directly apply The curve from Fotogenetic to your images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The base curve is applied directly to every color channel. It is applied after the exposure and white balance setting so that it will effect each channel equally. It is applied before the gamma correction, meaning that it is applied on the linear data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and the second one &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The curve in the Corrections settings is applied to the luminosity channel in Lch(ab) space. The controls on the left of the curve editor are for controlling the black point. You will notice that they simply control the leftmost point of the curve. If your picture looks foggy, the auto black button Auto Adjust might fix it. The auto curve button Auto Adjust on the right tries to set a curve that flattens the histogram. It can add lots of contrast to your photo but sometimes the results look very artificial. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know where to get tone curves for my camera (a D90). I don't know how to make my camera embed a curve in the RAW file either. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question: When I want to change the way my photo looks, which curve should I use for what kind of change? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2099" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-02T01:22:59.927" LastActivityDate="2010-12-16T05:15:06.887" Title="In ufraw, how to use the two curves?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;open-source&gt;&lt;curves&gt;&lt;ufraw&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="5092" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5082" CreationDate="2010-11-23T20:23:35.583" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You don't need long exposure at all. What you need is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;smoke, dust or droplets of water in the air for the &quot;air to shine&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;rays of light that are significantly brigter than the surroundings to make it visible against the background (dark background really helps here)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have an example of this in church, but if there's strong interest I can try to replicate this with a flash and pot of boiling water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://vvv.mokrakocicka.cz/gang/0429_599402_pse.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;light in church&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;update: On the happy occassion of cooking potatoes, I have made two more examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;available light:&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/UGItR.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;cooking available light&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;gridded flash (in picture), exposure set to kill the available light:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/v7W2V.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;cooking with the flash&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this illustrates that if you have dust/smoke/etc to show, all you need for this kind of effect to happen is a dark background and the actual shaft of light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-21T20:50:38.357" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T20:50:38.357" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5093" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4870" CreationDate="2010-11-23T20:48:50.683" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found fantastic tool for your purpose. It will allow you to find out where and how sun / moon will perform. Taking into account heights of mountains and so on. Check it out!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://stephentrainor.com/tools&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://stephentrainor.com/tools&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1681" LastActivityDate="2010-11-23T20:48:50.683" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5094" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5109" CreationDate="2010-11-23T21:53:35.547" Score="4" ViewCount="668" Body="&lt;p&gt;In this image, I want to keep the drop shadow, but not the white background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/oJv2V.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2299" LastActivityDate="2010-11-26T10:30:24.600" Title="Turning white background transparent In photoshop, but keeping transparency?" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="5095" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5096" CreationDate="2010-11-23T23:04:19.363" Score="6" ViewCount="298" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am wondering if it is possible to take a stereoscopic image and sum them in such a way that makes it a monoscopic image, with the resulting viewpoint in the center of where the two viewpoints actually where.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, if I had two cameras about 1 ft. apart, each takes an image of a subject 3 ft. away at the same time, could I take the resulting images, process them, and make the resulting image appear as if it were taken from a 3rd camera placed in the center of the outer two?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there tools for this sort of interpolation?  I remember a couple scenes in the making of &lt;em&gt;The Matrix&lt;/em&gt; where they talked about filling in frames of rotating, and it only took about 4 or 5 cameras to handle the shooting.  (To be fair, I also remember the part where they had a whole array of cameras, each shooting one frame.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this possible?  If so, what tools would you use to do it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2034" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-23T23:10:08.200" LastActivityDate="2010-11-24T18:11:08.737" Title="Process stereoscopic image to convert from 3D to 2D" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;image-processing&gt;&lt;3d&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5096" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5095" CreationDate="2010-11-23T23:20:59.047" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could probably in most cases reconstruct an image that looks convincing, but you can't recreate what's actually seen from a point between the viewpoints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take for example an image that is taken right in front of a wooden fence, where the two viewpoints are each in the middle of a panel so that they both only see the panel. A viewpoint in between would see between the panels:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;    ^&#xA;    |&#xA;--- | ---&#xA; o  x  o&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's of course not possible to recreate what's seen between the panels from the two pictures of panel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In most pictures there would be certain angles that weren't seen from either viewpoint, but would have been seen from a viewpoint in the middle. A tool that would create a monoscopic image would have to guess what might have been seen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-11-23T23:20:59.047" />
  <row Id="5097" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5094" CreationDate="2010-11-23T23:26:47.907" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unless the drop shadow and the white background are on separate layers, then your only real choice is to make them both transparent, and then re-create the drop shadow.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember to create the new drop shadow on a separate layer, or you'll have the same problem again if you want to change the color of the background or the drop shadow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem you'll have is that the drop shadow is a mixture of both the color of the shadow (black) and the background, and they can't be easily separated.  So if you try to change the background to transparent or say, blue, what you'll be left with is the content surrounded by a grayish drop shadow, further surrounded by a blue background.  Yuck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But creating a new drop shadow is fairly easy.  (These are generic instructions as I use Gimp at the moment)   Use a selection tool to select the content that you want to cast a shadow, and copy it to the clipboard.  Create a new, transparent layer, and paste it into that later.  Turn all non-transparent pixels black (PS should have a &quot;paint whole selection&quot; function).  Use the blur functions to &quot;fuzz&quot; up the edges of your new shadow, use warp functions to bend the lower corners downward and the upper corners inward, and voila - a new shadow.  Now you have to create an Alpha channel for the drop shadow layer, and then create another layer that is the color for the drop shadow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again these are generic instructions but I hope they will illustrate the basic concepts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope that helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2190" LastActivityDate="2010-11-23T23:26:47.907" />
  <row Id="5098" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-24T00:26:02.480" Score="3" ViewCount="409" Body="&lt;p&gt;I used to use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photools.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;iMatch&lt;/a&gt;, then I moved to my own database for various reasons, but I've never had the time to get the GUI front-end working well.... now that I have my Mac, I figured I'd try out iPhoto (I have iPhoto '09). It seems to work very well, except I see two flaws:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't seem to support the kind of hierarchical tag structure that iMatch excels in, e.g.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;animals &#xA;  cats&#xA;    Siamese&#xA;    Maine Coon&#xA;  dogs&#xA;    poodle&#xA;    St. Bernard&#xA;    dachshund&#xA;    chihuahua&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;plus a good+quick GUI to edit them (iMatch had a tree-list checkbox).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I use Flickr as my online photo publishing. I would like to edit on a tool on my Mac and then push the photos + metadata to my Flickr account. iPhoto has a built-in flickr publisher, but if the same photo appears in two iPhoto albums, it gets published twice to flickr, and that's bad: the object graph of the exported photos+metadata should be the same, so if you have photos A, B, C, D and set AB = {A, B},  AC = {A, C}, BCD = {B, C, D}, and export them to flicker, you should get 3 sets pointing to 4 photos, not 7.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is Picasa better at this? Are there add-ons to iPhoto that will do what I want? I would like to get some pointers before investing a huge amount of time or $$$ in a tool only to have it be a dead-end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="530" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T06:16:16.497" Title="Picasa vs. iPhoto? (best w/ hierarchical sets + flickr)" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;flickr&gt;&lt;picasa&gt;&lt;iphoto&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5099" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3635" CreationDate="2010-11-24T02:27:33.400" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm colorblind too... I can't know what colors the things are in other than the blacks and whites and the blue sky... It's pretty sad cuz Im an artist, so pretty much of my drawings are black and grey shades though I don't have much experience in photography people tell me I'm pretty good at it though I cannot see anyother colours apart from black and greys...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-11-24T02:27:33.400" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5100" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5095" CreationDate="2010-11-24T04:25:52.163" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In many such cases, such as Guffa's wooden fence, it is impossible. In some other cases, such as an infinitely distant focus, it is trivial. For everything in between, it is just really really hard. There are pieces of software to do it, including the firmware on the Kinect. The trick is that you have to take the two views and use them to produce a 3d model of the world in front of the camera, then produce a view of that world from the desired point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With some of the current Kinect projects, you can move the virtual viewpoint arbitrarily, looking at the scene from above or from the side. The farther from the cameras you move, the more unavailable information there is, and thus the more gaps in the resulting picture there are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2094" LastActivityDate="2010-11-24T04:25:52.163" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5101" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5127" CreationDate="2010-11-24T04:49:36.080" Score="4" ViewCount="315" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just came across a great photographer on Facebook and I was literally stunned when I looked over his albums. He had some portraiture work that I would call as &quot;Freaking Awesome&quot;! Here's the gallery:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.facebook.com/album.php?id=48221579521&amp;amp;aid=191286&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Faces, by Chris Conway Photography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I would like to know is the technique used behind these kinds of amazing photographs. The light set-up and the post-processing tricks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1485" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-27T22:44:47.240" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T22:44:47.240" Title="High-Key Image Processing" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;studio-lighting&gt;&lt;high-key&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5102" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3635" CreationDate="2010-11-24T04:56:41.113" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the great things about black and white photography is that a very wide range of interpretations can be happily accepted as &quot;correct&quot; by most viewers, both in terms of how tones are assigned and the relationship between them. Your perception of real-world objects may differ from the typical view, but once you've rendered your work in black and white, that rendering will look the same to everyone — and (unless you want it to) it won't look &lt;em&gt;wrong&lt;/em&gt;. In this way, you can give an intentional interpretation of the way you see color in the world, without using color at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you work in color, you have almost the opposite effect — even if you profile your camera, monitor, and printer, and work carefully by number, your aesthetic choices will be informed by your perceptions, and therefore your work will be as you experience the world: different from the way it is experienced by people with a wider range of colors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It occurs to me that digital color photography, all of its colors made by blending red/green/blue primaries, must be particularly frustrating to those with tetracromatic vision, the very rare opposite case to color blindness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-11-24T04:56:41.113" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5103" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5118" CreationDate="2010-11-24T06:39:25.460" Score="3" ViewCount="97" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photoshopuser.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;National Association of Photoshop Professionals&lt;/a&gt; attracted my information recently. It seems a subscription provides access to the Photoshop User magazine, member-only forums and help, tutorials, and NAPP-exclusive discounts for hardware and software. There seems to Lightroom-oriented features in particular.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are any P.SE members NAPP subscribers? Would you consider the subscription worthwhile for a hobbyist photographer and artist?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastEditorUserId="26" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-24T16:25:35.903" LastActivityDate="2010-11-24T16:25:35.903" Title="Is anyone here a NAPP member?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="5104" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4870" CreationDate="2010-11-24T06:47:12.470" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Something no one seems to have mentioned is to shoot sunsets in RAW.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the biggest advantages of RAW is the extra dynamic range you get over the 8-bit JPEG, and a sunset will almost always go way outside even the RAW dynamic range (hence why you may want to step it up to HDR with exposure bracketing).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;RAW (and some fairly simple post processing in LR/Aperture) can save you from the sun looking like a big white blob even if you've got the surrounding colours looking good, and of course if the sunset is changing rapidly then it gives you a bit of extra room to make exposure mistakes (whether its you in M/spot or your camera in an auto mode, it's not trivial to get it just right when you're staring into the sun).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh and you might do well to use LiveView so you're not actually staring into the sun... (though staring at the sun can be bad for sensors as well, so best to give your eye/sensor regular breaks when shooting sunsets).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastActivityDate="2010-11-24T06:47:12.470" />
  <row Id="5105" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5098" CreationDate="2010-11-24T07:09:48.330" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would try &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lightroom&lt;/a&gt; + &lt;a href=&quot;http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/flickr&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jeffrey's flickr plugin&lt;/a&gt;. It's a little more expensive, but it's the best tool for what you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="332" LastActivityDate="2010-11-24T07:09:48.330" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5106" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3960" CreationDate="2010-11-24T08:07:43.010" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the excellent advice above... I have the D40 for 3 years now. Every time I get the urge to replace it, I search flickr for D40 and see the awesome pictures that are possible with this camera. That pushes me to get better at photography and be less concerned with gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-11-24T08:07:43.010" />
  <row Id="5107" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="886" CreationDate="2010-11-24T08:44:56.163" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One thing that I like better about film photography is, that you can shoot slides and project these in large scale with their original resolution onto a screen, or even just a smooth white wall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Digital projectors will never give your 12 megapixel camera justice--most digital projectors cannot display anything beyond the &quot;HD&quot; format, which is really only 2 megapixels (1,920 x 1,080 pixels).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe a lot of people don't realize the fact that while the 10, 12, 14 or whatever megapixel camera can capture tons of detail, the program that will display your images on screen will always have to recalculate all this detail and cram it into your screen--which most likely has a 2 megapixel resolution or even less. That's sad. But of course, the convenience factor of digital photography takes over most people for good reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But once you have seen a medium format slide projected onto a 8 x 8 foot screen, you may change your mind :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2308" LastActivityDate="2010-11-24T08:44:56.163" />
  <row Id="5108" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5110" CreationDate="2010-11-24T09:30:38.010" Score="6" ViewCount="194" Body="&lt;p&gt;We usually refer to the F number to compare how fast is a lenses with another one. I understand that the optic quality should help as well. So would a L series in Canon (or whatever is the equivalent in Nikon) be faster than a non L equivalent. We could consider the 100mm macro in Canon which exist both in L and non L. What about the Canon 24-104mm f4. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So would I gain 1 Stop with a L lenses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="219" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T03:48:50.500" Title="Would I gain 1 Stop with a L lenses" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;f-stop&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5109" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5094" CreationDate="2010-11-24T09:43:44.917" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is what I enden up doing instead after lots and lots of trial and error.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Duplicate the layer with the paper in it.&#xA;Invert the new layer. &#xA;Painting the &quot;paper-part&quot; clear white&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using the inverted layer as a mask on the first layer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Worked like a charm, perfect masking!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2299" LastActivityDate="2010-11-24T09:43:44.917" />
  <row Id="5110" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5108" CreationDate="2010-11-24T10:34:05.067" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;edit&lt;/strong&gt; Totally misunderstood the question, which was whether an L lens at the same f/ number transmits an extra stop of light by virtue of lower dispersion etc., the answer is no it won't be anything like a full stop, but there is probably a small advantage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our friends over at DXO mark test transmission of lenses, though only wide open, and they don't have a pair of L non L lenses at the same speed. What the results do show is that the wider the max aperture the more transmission you loose compared to the theoretical f stop. So the 50 f/1.2L is about a fifth of a stop further away from the theoretical value wide open compared to the 50 f/1.8 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since manufacturers (of SLR lenses) don't release t-stop information the data is scarce so most photographers refer only to the f stop value when they talk about lens &quot;speed&quot;. Cine lenses are often specified by t-stop is this is more important to film as you can't (easily) change the shutter speed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Old answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are right that the f/ number tells you how fast a lens is. The lenses designated &quot;L&quot; tend to be faster, but that's because of the lower f/ number, not the L!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Case in point, the EF 100 f/2.8L is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt;  faster than the EF 100 f/2.8 as they have the same f/ number. However the EF 35 f/1.4L &lt;strong&gt;is&lt;/strong&gt; a stop faster than the EF 35 f/2, because the f/ number is smaller.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The f/ number relates to how large the aperture is in relation to the focal length. f/2 means the aperture diameter is the focal length divided by 2. Wider aperture means you let in more light and get more background blur which is generally desirable. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being a stop faster means you let in twice as much light, which means the &lt;strong&gt;area&lt;/strong&gt; of the aperture is twice as big. Hence if you square the f/ numbers and one is twice the other one, the smaller one is a stop faster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-24T12:28:10.000" LastActivityDate="2010-11-24T12:28:10.000" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5111" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5095" CreationDate="2010-11-24T10:48:30.217" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.start3d.com/introduction&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Piku Piku&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I can tell, they use something like optical flow to find matching pixels in the two images, then use the depth information to make an interpolated view, with a simple nearest-neighbor guess for the missing pixels. It works pretty well on stereoscopic images I've tried it with, and gives an improved effect over &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy#Wiggle_stereoscopy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wiggle stereoscopy&lt;/a&gt;. You can see the filled-in pixels and some errors in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.start3d.com/en/7627124486/0001/6211165585725180&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this example&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general this is called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/#hl=en&amp;amp;source=hp&amp;amp;biw=1010&amp;amp;bih=871&amp;amp;q=view+interpolation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;view interpolation&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2309" LastEditorUserId="2309" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-24T18:11:08.737" LastActivityDate="2010-11-24T18:11:08.737" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5112" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5116" CreationDate="2010-11-24T13:22:23.400" Score="15" ViewCount="373" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have several computers (at work, at home, laptops, etc.) that all display my photos differently. Alas, it's time to get a colour calibration device — but which to choose?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am no professional, so cheap/imprecise/old stuff is perfectly OK. I have been looking at various online stores like eBay and etc., but it looks quite like a jungle, and good reviews seem to be scarce.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And a tricky detail: I am using Linux everywhere, so it must be compatible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="187" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-10T15:02:09.130" LastActivityDate="2011-04-10T15:02:09.130" Title="What cheap colour calibrators are available for Linux?" Tags="&lt;color-management&gt;&lt;linux&gt;&lt;color-calibration&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="5113" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5112" CreationDate="2010-11-24T13:51:52.397" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been using ArgyllCMS plus a Pantone Huey on Linux and it works. Argyll is no walk in the park usability wise (run a bunch of obscure command line programs in the proper order) but it does work and it claims to be more accurate than friendlier solutions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-11-24T13:51:52.397" />
  <row Id="5114" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5117" CreationDate="2010-11-24T14:11:58.753" Score="4" ViewCount="165" Body="&lt;p&gt;Five years ago I bought the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_s2is.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon PowerShot S2 IS&lt;/a&gt; and loved the pictures it took.  All pictures were very sharp and overall I was very happy with the camera.  Last year I &quot;upgraded&quot; to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Panasonic/panasonic_dmczs3.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS3&lt;/a&gt; but overall I have been disappointed with the pictures (they always appear grainy as if I am using a high ISO).  I have tried many different settings on the Panasonic DMC-ZS3 but I have not been able to take pictures with the same quality as the 5-year old Canon PowerShot S2 IS.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What feature or specification is missing on the Panasonic DMC-ZS3 that I had on the Canon PowerShot S2 that gave the much better pictures (and that I want when I purchase my next camera)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2248" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T11:00:50.267" Title="What feature in a digital camera do I want to give better quality pictures?" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;image-quality&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5115" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5114" CreationDate="2010-11-24T14:57:25.793" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think feature is actually &lt;em&gt;lower&lt;/em&gt; resolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm guessing that you're looking at the pictures &quot;full size&quot;, at 100% pixel-for-pixel view. The newer camera has just about twice as many pixels as the old one, and while these new pixels do have extra detail, except in very good circumstances they won't actually have &lt;em&gt;twice&lt;/em&gt; the detail. In order to compare fairly, make prints that are the same size, or scale the DMC-ZS3 pictures down to 2592*×1944 (using 'bicubic sharpner' in photoshop, or the equivalent).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-11-24T14:57:25.793" />
  <row Id="5116" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5112" CreationDate="2010-11-24T15:03:28.660" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://live.gnome.org/GnomeColorManager&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gnome Color Manager&lt;/a&gt; can use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.argyllcms.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Argyll CMS&lt;/a&gt;, but it also supports the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.argyllcms.com/doc/instruments.html#Huey&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pantone/X-Rite Huey&lt;/a&gt; natively. According to the Gnome docs, the profiles produced natively aren't great, but it's easy. So you can go with that as an easy first step and then migrate to the more involved Argyll CMS if it's not good enough for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update: I haven't looked at it yet, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://hoech.net/dispcalGUI/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dispcalGUI&lt;/a&gt;, a cross-platform GUI front end for ArgyllCMS, looks promising. (Thanks to PeterT, &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10757/why-not-use-a-camera-as-a-colorimeter&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-10T13:47:47.227" LastActivityDate="2011-04-10T13:47:47.227" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5117" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5114" CreationDate="2010-11-24T15:06:51.437" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you care about noise and performance at high ISO, than what you care about is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;sensor size&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. Or better the ratio between the sensor size and the resolution (mm²/MP). Additional megapixels can be harmful here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bigger the sensor, the larger is the area corresponding to one pixel, the more light it can get (assuming the same level of technology used), the better signal-to-noise ratio. Speaking about quality, there is less need to remove noise (in-camera or in post-processing), and thus more details are preserved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most digital SLRs have a sensor of approximately &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APS-C&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;APS-C&lt;/a&gt; size, 25.1 × 16.7 mm. Cameras of the Four Thirds system have a slightly smaller sensor (18×13.5 mm), and &quot;full-frame&quot; cameras have a slightly bigger sensor (36×24 mm).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compact cameras' sensors are an order of magnitude smaller (typically 7.7×4.6 mm). The difference is usually is related to different in-camera processing approaches used in different camera models. Some may do more noise reduction and produce a smoother image with fewer details, and the others may decide to do less noise reduction but preserve the details. Megapixel inflation is particularly harmful on compact cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The downside of the bigger sensor is, apart from the price, that it requires bigger and more expensive lens. So the camera itself tends to be bigger and heavier. You can get the best of the two worlds (the big sensor and the small camera size) if you choose one of the new &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrorless_interchangeable_lens_camera&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;mirrorless cameras&lt;/a&gt;. Sigma DP series, Olympus E-P series (Pen), Panasonic G series, Sony NEX, Samsung NX are some of such cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastEditorUserId="1558" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-24T15:34:35.963" LastActivityDate="2010-11-24T15:34:35.963" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="5118" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5103" CreationDate="2010-11-24T15:34:50.303" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A NAPP membership provides access to quite a few resources, most of which you've listed above.  You'll also get a discount to the Photoshop World conference which is held each year in both Orlando and Las Vegas.  Originally covering Photoshop, as you note the reach of the organization has now extended to Adobe's other primary tool for photographers, Lightroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's definitely a useful organization although I'd argue the value has diminished over time as other excellent online resources including blogs, forums, and even this site have made it easier than ever to learn about and get help with Photoshop and Lightroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it worth it?  That's a subjective question but I'd say if you're going to drop $300 on Lightroom and 2-3x that amount on Photoshop, spending $99 for the NAPP membership (at least for the first year) is probably a worthwhile investment in education.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-11-24T15:34:50.303" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5119" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5112" CreationDate="2010-11-24T15:43:10.310" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm using a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pantone.com/pages/products/product.aspx?pid=562&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pantone HueyPro&lt;/a&gt;, usually about $99.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2010-11-24T15:43:10.310" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="5121" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5122" CreationDate="2010-11-24T16:02:04.107" Score="2" ViewCount="523" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon 550D and in the SD Card I found a file \DCIM\CANONMSC\M0205.CTG&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is this file used for?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2047" LastActivityDate="2010-11-24T16:08:06.923" Title="What is CTG file in Canon SD Card" Tags="&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;file&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="5122" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5121" CreationDate="2010-11-24T16:08:06.923" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;.CTG files contain image catalog information that is used by the camera when managing and displaying photos.  You'll probably find a .ctg file for each set of images created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The .CTG files should get deleted automatically when the associated images are erased, although it seems that current best practices are to format the memory card often so I wouldn't worry about the .CTG files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-11-24T16:08:06.923" />
  <row Id="5123" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5108" CreationDate="2010-11-24T16:24:56.870" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Once a (fairly) long time ago, I found this interesting, so I did some testing. In my case, I was less concerned about whether something was labeled L-series, but about primes vs. zooms. Given the number of elements in many (most?) zoom lenses, I'd guess the light loss is even greater than differences in glass could account for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Due to the timeframe, I was doing the testing on Velvia -- high contrast slide film that was notoriously picky about exposure, which should have maximized visibility of exposure differences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The results varied somewhat. In a few of the best cases, I couldn't see any real difference between the zoom and the fixed-focal-length lens at all. In one case (an ancient hyperzoom, something like 50-250) there was probably about 1/4-1/3 stop loss at the center.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Toward the corners of the frame, the differences were &lt;em&gt;much&lt;/em&gt; larger. In fairness, however, this probably doesn't mean all that much -- to get to the same apertures, the primes were stopped down quite a ways whereas the zooms were being shot within a stop or two of wide open. Greater light falloff when the lens is wide open (or nearly so) is extremely common. Zooms are generally worse in this respect than fixed-focal-length lenses as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only way that's likely to apply in the case you care about is roughly the same one: at least in some cases, an L-series lens will be faster so to get the same aperture it'll have been stopped down further, which will usually reduce the light falloff at the corners. OTOH, this is primarily an issue when shooting full-frame -- if you're shooting APS-C, it's much less of an issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-11-24T16:24:56.870" />
  <row Id="5124" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5126" CreationDate="2010-11-24T16:31:50.180" Score="2" ViewCount="204" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon 550D and I have a THM for each picture that I have taken in my SD Card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is a THM file and what is it used for?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2047" LastActivityDate="2010-11-24T16:51:55.983" Title="What are THM files in Canon SD Card" Tags="&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;file&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="5125" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5124" CreationDate="2010-11-24T16:46:42.850" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just based on the &quot;THM&quot;, I'd guess it's a thumbnail of the picture. I haven't looked specifically at the 550D, but in the cameras I have looked at, it was really just a small JPEG with a somewhat unusual name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as what it's used for, the camera loads it when you're viewing pictures on camera. Only when/if you zoom in does it load the full-resolution version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-11-24T16:46:42.850" />
  <row Id="5126" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5124" CreationDate="2010-11-24T16:51:55.983" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a thumbnail file. Usually it's generated when you take a video, to give you a preview image on the LCD and to store the EXIF information for exposure, focal length, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can rename it to .jpg if you want to view it on your computer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastActivityDate="2010-11-24T16:51:55.983" />
  <row Id="5127" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5101" CreationDate="2010-11-24T19:20:34.717" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's a similar but not identical shot I did a while ago:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/bw_small.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The background is just a bare hotshoe flash pointing at a white wall, it's easiest to setup the background first, without the main lights:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/bg.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And then position the main lights, turning the background light off to check for interference from the main lights:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/fg.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see the main lights do spill onto the background (which is inevitable when lighting a small space) however the lighting is approximately constant across the background so I can account for it by turning the background light down a little. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the lighting diagram:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/lighting_diagram.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main difference with the lighting on the shot you posted is that I have an asymmetric setup with two main lights. The image you posted has a fairly symmetrical pattern with two kickers, probably small softboxes either side (similar to the right hand light in my shot) and a main lightsource coming from above to fill out any shadows in the face. From the long nose highlight I'd guess the main was a striplight in a vertical orientation. Possibly more lights for the hair or for additional fill. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for post processing, nothing too special here, slight curves adjustment, dodging and burning, most of the work is done with the lights. A B/W conversion using a lot of the red channel was probably used as this gives a nice bright look to the skin which you seem to be after. Here is a comparison of the three colour channels, from left to right, red, green and blue:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/channels.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-11-24T19:20:34.717" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5128" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5154" CreationDate="2010-11-24T20:20:38.967" Score="6" ViewCount="348" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am just post-processing some pictures I took last spring. On lots of them, I notice a halo around the edges of objects which are slightly outside the focused depth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I shot without a tripod, with the Nikon 18-200 lens, but had stabilisation turned on. Maybe the problem is that the camera trembled in my hands while shooting, but the focused objects look sharp enough to me. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think these can be removed in post processing, but if yes, I would like to hear how to do it. If not, I would like advice on how to avoid it next time I am shooting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The whole image: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/cc9Vz.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An edge sample at 100% scale. Note that the problem is present with the edges of the stem and the petals of the flower in the background, but not on the edge of the flower in the foreground. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/mX6gD.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The image has been through some heavy color post processing in raw, but no editing outside of that (especially no sharpening, which Google suggests as a common cause of edge halos). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: to make it clear, because most answers seem to assume that I don't like the fact that the background is unfocused because it is outside of the DOF. I am aware that the petal which is outside of the focused depth will always be blurred. But I was expecting a more gradual blur, not this &quot;second&quot; edge. An example where there is blur but no halo: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/eTEkk.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is from another photo taken in the same session. Again, there is a petal which is in focus and has no blur or halo, and a petal behind it. The second petal is outside of focus, so it is blurred as expected, but does not have this funny effect as in the first picture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2099" LastEditorUserId="2099" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-25T22:11:58.577" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T22:11:58.577" Title="How to avoid a halo around the edges?" Tags="&lt;bokeh&gt;&lt;shooting-technique&gt;&lt;error&gt;&lt;blur&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5129" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5128" CreationDate="2010-11-24T20:47:29.250" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the example here, I think you're actually at the limits of the depth of field, and the rear petals are actually out of focus -- I say this as the foreground petals don't exhibit the same effect, and the focus seems to be on the trumpet of the daffodil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A narrow aperture when shooting will increase the depth of field, and increase the area that is apparently in focus -- however, this also runs the risk that the background will appear to have less blur, which I'm guessing was an effect you were trying to achieve here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-11-24T20:47:29.250" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5130" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-24T21:22:00.703" Score="4" ViewCount="289" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi could you please tell me how to duplicate an image in Lightroom 3 as i wish to make different looks to the one image thanks leigh-ann&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-24T21:39:51.070" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T22:24:53.220" Title="Duplicating images in Lightroom 3" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;lightroom-3&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="5131" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5128" CreationDate="2010-11-24T21:33:20.477" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a super-zoom lens going all the way from wide angle to quite close. There's going to be some compromise, and having the out-of-focus areas be a bit less than ideal isn't really surprising.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-11-24T21:33:20.477" />
  <row Id="5132" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5130" CreationDate="2010-11-24T21:39:41.273" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Library module, &lt;strong&gt;right-click on an image and choose &quot;Create Virtual Copy&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;.  This allows two copies of the image to be processed independently (for example, one could be black &amp;amp; white and one could be color).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because Lightroom does nondestructive editing, you'll still only have one source file on disk (RAW, JPG, etc) but the editing changes will exist in Lightroom.  Of course you can always choose to export the &quot;finished&quot; versions of the images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-11-24T21:39:41.273" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5133" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5175" CreationDate="2010-11-24T22:54:24.937" Score="7" ViewCount="294" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am using the &lt;code&gt;convert&lt;/code&gt; tool from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imagemagick.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ImageMagick&lt;/a&gt; package to create the web versions of my photos. So far I have used something like &lt;code&gt;convert -resize 1024x1024&lt;/code&gt; for web versions and &lt;code&gt;convert -resize 300x300&lt;/code&gt; for thumbnails. However, many people seem to prefer adding a little bit of sharpening after resizing, and hence I have started to experiment with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imagemagick.org/script/command-line-options.php?#unsharp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;-unsharp&lt;/a&gt; option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have an &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1370/unsharp-mask-what-do-the-parameters-do/1377#1377&quot;&gt;excellent answer&lt;/a&gt; on this site that explains the parameters of the &quot;unsharp mask&quot; tool and gives some recommendations of reasonable values for web use. However, one of my problems is that the unsharp mask option in ImageMagick &lt;a href=&quot;http://redskiesatnight.com/2005/04/06/sharpening-using-image-magick/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;seems to be somewhat different from the unsharp mask filter in Photoshop or GIMP&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence the question: &lt;strong&gt;What are the recommended parameters of the &lt;code&gt;-unsharp&lt;/code&gt; option in ImageMagick for web use?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am looking for &quot;harmless&quot; settings that I can safely use in bulk conversions, without any significant risk of creating visible artefacts (e.g., halos). Of course for optimal results I would have to manually fine-tune the settings for each photo, but I am interested in a quick solution that I can use for a large bunch of photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Right now I am using the following values (which may or may not correspond to something like radius = 0.5, amount = 50%, threshold = 2):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;-unsharp 0.5x0.5+0.5+0.008&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This &lt;em&gt;seems&lt;/em&gt; to give reasonable results. The effect is very slight; it is barely visible in many cases, and it seems to be non-distracting in all photos that I have tried so far. Nevertheless, it helps a bit. But the question is: could I do better? What are &lt;em&gt;your&lt;/em&gt; favourite values of these parameters?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="247" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T23:49:28.403" Title="ImageMagick &quot;-unsharp&quot; parameters for web use?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;unsharp-mask&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5134" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5128" CreationDate="2010-11-25T01:04:14.730" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check out a Depth of Field (DOF) calculator like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt;, and you'll see that with long focal lengths your DOF will be very small, even at f/11 or f/16 when you're up close.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on your lens, you might find that you get a higher DOF (for the same subject magnification) if you go a little closer and reduce the focal length. This obviously depends a lot on the lens and its minimum subject distance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For these types of shots, it's very useful to have a good idea of how much DOF you can get from your various lenses at different ranges (at least at the shortest or most commonly used ranges) from various apertures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could perhaps make a small table of the various focal lengths your lenses offer (or their limits if they're not primes) and the DOF for a few different apertures at a few different distances. It's a bit hard given it's a problem with 3 dimensions (aperture, focal length, subject distance) and only a 2D table, but even just knowing the limits at a few different ranges will give you a fair idea before you take the shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T01:04:14.730" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5135" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5108" CreationDate="2010-11-25T01:23:01.890" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In short, as MattGrum says, no. Compare F-stop numbers for the amount of light (it's very close to the T-stop number which is the actual measure of the amount of light).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, one might consider an L lens to buy you an extra stop &lt;em&gt;if you're using lenses stopped down to get yourself a sharper image&lt;/em&gt; (i.e., instead of shooting at the widest aperture, you increase it a stop or two so that the image is sharper — not to be confused with increasing aperture to get a higher DOF).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A cheaper kit lens (e.g. Canon 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM) with a maximum aperture of, say, f/4 at a given focal length, will be much sharper if you stop it down to f/5.6 and slightly sharper again at f/8. An L lens in a similar focal range (say the 24-105 f/4L or 17-40 f/4L) will be sharper than the cheaper lenses for the same focal length and aperture, probably requiring one fewer &quot;stops down&quot; to get the same sharpness. &lt;em&gt;This is a rule of thumb of course, check &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slrgear.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SLRgear&lt;/a&gt; for actual blur index measurements&lt;/em&gt; from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1114/cat/11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;18-55&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/145/cat/11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;24-105&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/31/cat/11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;17-40&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T01:23:01.890" />
  <row Id="5136" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5108" CreationDate="2010-11-25T03:48:50.500" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The optical quality of a lens relates more to its resolving power and (lack of) distortion. An L lens is not faster than standard lens in traditional sense, but it is certainly better because it lets the sensor capture the image at better resolution and with less distortion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You would gain 1 stop only if for the given loss of light in the standard lens at a particular stop, it's output matches a stopped down L lens. This is not true - you can try both the lenses on your camera in a shop to understand this behaviour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Visually an MTF chart is a good summary of the optical quality of a lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2271" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T03:48:50.500" />
  <row Id="5137" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5130" CreationDate="2010-11-25T04:35:16.720" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Besides creating a virtual copy, if your special effects to the images fall in the same workflow, then you can just do Right Click&gt;Create Snapshot at appropriate points in the History palette in the Develop module.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://tv.adobe.com/watch/the-complete-picture-with-julieanne-kost/when-to-use-virtual-copies-and-snapshots-in-lr3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This episode&lt;/a&gt; from tv.Adobe explains the use of snapshot vs. virtual copies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2271" LastEditorUserId="2271" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-25T22:24:53.220" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T22:24:53.220" />
  <row Id="5138" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4880" CreationDate="2010-11-25T04:53:00.423" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You should consider using the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adobe DNG converter&lt;/a&gt; which is free to download and converts the CR2 files into digital negative format. DNG files are supported with almost all image editors, including Corel Paint Shop Pro X2 that you are using. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending upon your comfort level, you can also try GIMP for Windows to edit the photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2271" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T04:53:00.423" />
  <row Id="5139" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-25T09:36:00.970" Score="5" ViewCount="432" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm a very amateur photography who enjoys taking HDR and Panorama photos.  My biggest problem right now is that I don't have a tripod.  Many will tell me $75 is too cheap for a tripod, but I really don't photograph too often and don't want to invest too much. I ideally would like one that is full height (rather than those ones with the bendy legs that wrap around stuff -- GorillaPods?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2358" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-28T19:57:57.410" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T00:58:42.293" Title="Cheap Tripod (&lt;$75) for basic HDR / Panorama photos" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;hdr&gt;&lt;tripod&gt;&lt;panorama&gt;&lt;amateur&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="5140" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5139" CreationDate="2010-11-25T10:16:38.120" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In order to get something cheap and stable, I would go for a small tripod and mount it on a stable surface (a table, bench, car, ...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;b&gt;Joby GorillaPod&lt;/b&gt; would be a great example.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This will work find for HDR (using auto-bracketing on the camera and a remote shutter release of some kind), but will be tricky for Panos, because keeping the mount level is not the easiest thing in the world.  For this reason, I would consider using the &lt;b&gt;Joby Gorillapod Ball Head&lt;/b&gt; as well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... just a suggestion.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-29T09:57:15.147" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T09:57:15.147" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5141" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5139" CreationDate="2010-11-25T10:37:34.960" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For HDRs&lt;/strong&gt; you don't need anything special, just any tripod that can sustain the weight of your camera will do. So select by price, weight, robustness (choose any two). If you want to take panoramas too, consider buying a tripod with interchangeable heads.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the head. I find ball heads easier to use in most situations, you can compose quicker. But &lt;em&gt;ball heads&lt;/em&gt; are less precise, and they are definitely &lt;em&gt;not good for panoramas&lt;/em&gt;, because it's difficult to rotate around the same axis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For panoramas&lt;/strong&gt; you can use the same tripod, but you better use a two- or three-axis head or any head + rotator. And if you have more money to spend, the best you can do is to by a specialized panoramic head (e.g. one of the Nodal Ninja heads). They allow to adjust your camera's position in such a way, that the rotation axis passes through the pivot point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See this article to learn about the pivot point: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dougkerr.net/pumpkin/articles/Pivot_Point.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The proper pivot point for panoramic photography [PDF]&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Definitely, panoramic heads are beyond your current budget ($75), but there are some decent tripods with interchangeable heads (see, for example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3745/tripod-for-upto-100&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;). So you may buy a good tripod now, and buy a panoramic head later if you really want it (Or maybe you'll be satisfied with the standard head). Or you may save more and buy a lightweight tripod with a non-interchangeable head. In this case prefer three-axis heads if you are going to shoot panoramas. I used such a tripod (≈ $30) with a compact camera, it was usable but not perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastEditorUserId="1558" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-25T10:57:10.410" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T10:57:10.410" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5142" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1914" CreationDate="2010-11-25T10:51:00.443" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Usually these lenses questions are subjective, it has pretty much to do with the way you're planning to use it (which you haven't told). Personally I'd stick with the 17-35 for the extra light, I'm a bright lens fan and this would fit real good in my gear and rhe way I shoot. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS-If you end up selling it I hope I can grab it, I have it on my shortlist for some time &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T10:51:00.443" />
  <row Id="5143" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4870" CreationDate="2010-11-25T10:57:45.840" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Winter stormy skies&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Interesting foreground&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Keep it simple&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T10:57:45.840" />
  <row Id="5144" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5114" CreationDate="2010-11-25T11:00:50.267" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;mattdm and jetxee are right. Equivalent-sized prints (or crop, on screen) are the only meaningful comparison. A 100% view is completely misleading. Both cameras have OK lenses and tiny sensors, meaning the images will be similar, though the Panasonic's will have the edge just because it's newer technology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the end of the day the only way to get much better images is a bigger sensor, with a lens that can keep up with it! Something like the Panasonic LX3/LX5 is a step up from what you have, then the mirrorless 4/3 cams like the Panasonic GF1, Olympus EP-1 etc are next on the ladder, followed by DSLRs. With any interchangeable lens camera, be sure to budget for a couple of decent lenses or you won't get the best out of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2329" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T11:00:50.267" />
  <row Id="5145" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3960" CreationDate="2010-11-25T11:02:47.053" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Nikon D7000 is a hell of a camera, and the way to go if you're willing to get a more advanced camera, but micro 4/3 cameras (Panasonic GF1 or Olympus PEN) could be an interesting alternative (depending on how you use the camera): great image quality, small size and interchangeable lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T11:02:47.053" />
  <row Id="5146" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5085" CreationDate="2010-11-25T11:14:31.667" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't act suspicious. Don't hide that you're taking pictures and being sneaky, but don't try to draw attentions to yourself and keep a low profile. Don't shoot against people's will, a smile and some words can go a long way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T11:14:31.667" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5147" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5027" CreationDate="2010-11-25T11:20:43.580" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both those answers are good so I won't add to them except to remind you that a good quality 77mm filter plus step-down rings is a worthwhile investment that will likely fit every lens you ever own, even if/when you start buying pro lenses. I made the mistake of buying a 67mm CPL when I bought my first zoom and had to replace it a year later when I bought a lens with a larger filter thread.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2329" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T11:20:43.580" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5148" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5025" CreationDate="2010-11-25T11:28:02.580" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Shoot raw (plus jpg if you prefer) and &lt;em&gt;don't underexpose then try to compensate afterwards&lt;/em&gt;! When you process your raw file on your computer you can use Noise Ninja or similar, which is much more sophisticated than anything the camera can manage in the time allowed. An additional post-processing tip is to make a couple of layers with different amounts of noise reduction and use a layer mask to expose the more-agressively-reduced version in the troublesome areas. This is because all noise reduction has a tendency to reduce fine details, which is fine in flat areas of colour but can make e.g. hair look weird.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2329" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T11:28:02.580" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5149" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="471" CreationDate="2010-11-25T11:31:22.687" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another vote for Bibble. It can't do sophisticated layers and masks but for basic corrections, sharpening, noise reduction etc it's excellent, cross platform, and cheap (US$50 I think). It supports nearly all common raw formats too (though not the Sigma DP range as far as I can tell).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A combination of Picasa (which comes packaged with Wine), UFRAW and Gimp is a free - though not massively convenient - alternative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2329" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T11:31:22.687" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-10T15:23:42.103" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5150" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5027" CreationDate="2010-11-25T12:03:41.313" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's another layer of glass that reduces light that goes into the sensor/film and degrades sharpness, so it should only be used when necessary. This is the same reason why we should avoid to stack filters (polarizers, neutral density and gradient filters), something that is tempting to do in low exposures to reduce the amount of light into the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The less things you put in front of the sensor you may have better and sharper results. In the end this is one of the reasons why prime lenses have better image quality than zoom lenses, but that's &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/130/prime-vs-zoom-vs-macro-lens&quot;&gt;another discussion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastEditorUserId="938" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-25T14:15:26.890" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T14:15:26.890" />
  <row Id="5151" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4022" CreationDate="2010-11-25T12:09:09.783" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a (very old) &quot;Warthog&quot; pouch from Camera Care Systems&#xA;It's one of the models on this page: &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccscentre.co.uk/product_ranges/classic/slr_pouches.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ccscentre.co.uk/product_ranges/classic/slr_pouches.html&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has rings to go on a strap round your neck/etc. &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; a tunnel so you can attach it firmly to a belt/etc.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main barrel of the pouch is deep enough to keep some small kit at the bottom, unless I have a really long lens on.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T12:09:09.783" />
  <row Id="5152" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4857" CreationDate="2010-11-25T12:13:09.203" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;After further investigation: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The main issue could be if photos are submitted to a macrostock agency with a Rights Managed license, which is &lt;strong&gt;incompatible&lt;/strong&gt; with microstock's Royalty Free&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Even if a photo is submitted with RF license to microstock and macrostock you may find a clause in your contract that doesn't allow you to have it available elsewhere with a lower price, some agencies have it some don't. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T12:13:09.203" />
  <row Id="5153" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4785" CreationDate="2010-11-25T12:36:31.300" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm afraid the comment by Jerry Coffin regarding wave plates isn't true. Quarter-wave plates for a given wavelength of light can be a huge variety of thicknesses. Even strongly birefringent materials need several wavelengths before they can act as a quarter-wave plate. The cheap, strong, non-dispersive materials usually used in consumer optics are not strongly birefringent, so they are thicker still. They're thin, sure, but they're not microscopic! See this page for more info:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rp-photonics.com/waveplates.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wave Plates&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In answer to the OP, I think the partial polarisation of the light that you're trying to exploit is quickly destroyed by passing through the various elements of the lens, so filters on the front of the lens will have a much stronger effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2329" LastEditorUserId="2329" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-06T15:57:36.260" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T15:57:36.260" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5154" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5128" CreationDate="2010-11-25T12:47:54.273" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's called spherical aberration. As mattdm says, more complex lenses (especially superzooms) need more compromises than e.g. simple compound primes so they often show more defects. If you want 'better' bokeh you'll have to use a different lens. Personally I don't mind that effect much but the point is that it's intrinsic to your lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2329" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T12:47:54.273" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5156" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5128" CreationDate="2010-11-25T14:35:17.143" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As others mention, this looks like simply out-of-focus rendering. It is not a bad thing &lt;em&gt;per se&lt;/em&gt;. You can use this effect artistically. However, in macro shots the depth of field is very limited (depends on the aperture, the focal length and the distance to subject). So if you want to take a sharp image of a bigger subject, this may be difficult or impossible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there is a technique which allows to take a sequence of shots with different focusing distances and then merge them together in a single image with higher DoF. This technique is called&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Focus stacking&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is a post-processing technique used to increase the depth of field using several images. There is a number of software packages capable of &lt;em&gt;focus stacking&lt;/em&gt;. The free ones are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;enfuse&lt;/code&gt; with Hugin's &lt;code&gt;align_image_stack&lt;/code&gt;. Ascetic command line tools, but they should work. Check &lt;a href=&quot;http://photoblog.edu-perez.com/2009/01/greater-depth-field-macro.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this tutorial&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://auricle.dyndns.org/ALE/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ALE&lt;/a&gt;, synthetic capture renderer. Can do also focus stacking, according to Wikipedia.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/plugins/stack-focuser.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Stack Focuser&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://bigwww.epfl.ch/demo/edf/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Extended Depth of Field&lt;/a&gt; plugins for ImageJ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hadleyweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CombineZP&lt;/a&gt; (Windows only).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia reports that Photoshop CS4 can do it too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T14:35:17.143" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5157" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-25T15:05:41.287" Score="1" ViewCount="146" Body="&lt;p&gt;From my &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2973/insert-exif-dates-from-file-modified-date&quot;&gt;previous question&lt;/a&gt; I am using the following ExifTool command to add Exif Date info to some photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;exiftool -v &quot;-FileModifyDate&amp;gt;AllDates&quot; *&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, since we went back to GMT from BST, if I try use this on a photo which was taken during BST the Exif Dates are now all out by 1 hour. Photos taken after the switch are fine&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;e.g. after running ExifTool:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photo taken BST, modified time of 11:00, Exif DateTimeOriginal is 10:00&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photo taken GMT, modified time of 11:00, Exif DateTimeOriginal is 11:00&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this expected behaviour? Is there an override switch which will force exiftool to honour the exact modified date/time and ignore timezone differences?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: I'm using the Windows version of ExifTool&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="86" LastEditorUserId="86" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-25T23:39:26.433" LastActivityDate="2010-11-26T15:25:25.273" Title="ExifTool Dates and British Summer Time / Daylight Savings" Tags="&lt;exif&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="5158" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-25T15:13:53.840" Score="4" ViewCount="121" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lenspen.com/?cPath=&amp;amp;products_id=PN-1&amp;amp;tpid=286&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lenspen Panamatic&lt;/a&gt; of any real use for creating panoramic shots or is it a waste of money?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lenspen.com/403/381/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;More product details&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="86" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-08T17:06:28.920" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T17:06:28.920" Title="Is the Panamatic any good?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;panorama&gt;&lt;accessories&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="5159" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5158" CreationDate="2010-11-25T15:32:30.890" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've never used one, but as far as I can tell it's just a bubble level combined with a device to click through increments of 15 degrees or so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If my job was shooting panoramas all day long then it might make the process a little less laborious, but if you're taking time of the composition, lighting and camera settings for your panorama then lining the shots up shouldn't take too much effort. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I normally line up landmarks against the focus points to ensure a consistent overlap. Spirit levels can be useful, but if you don't have one shoot the first and last image of the panorama as a test to check your tripod is level.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-26T11:01:44.213" LastActivityDate="2010-11-26T11:01:44.213" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5160" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5085" CreationDate="2010-11-25T16:19:47.047" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I love your attitude.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess that in a similar situation, I would be asking the owner questions to understand what they are afraid of.  By asking them, I would hope to make them think about the (supposed) threats and realise that there aren't any.  I guess the first question is simply:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;What are you afraid of?&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xA; or&lt;br&gt;&#xA; &quot;What could I possibly do that might harm you?&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another tack might be to explain the difference between threats that building security are trying to prevent (theft, mainly - both physical and intellectual) and threats which apply to a park (hard to think of any).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope that helps.  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T16:19:47.047" />
  <row Id="5161" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5164" CreationDate="2010-11-25T16:26:41.317" Score="2" ViewCount="74" Body="&lt;p&gt;I saw somewhere that a large and heavy telephoto lens had an attachment for a neck strap, that replaces the neck strap for the camera body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was, I think, a Nikon 200-400mm lens. But I'm not sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In all cases, is there an attachment like this on a Nikon80-400mm?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2236" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T17:45:51.307" Title="Can a neck strap be attached to Nikon 80-400mm?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;telephoto&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="5162" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5173" CreationDate="2010-11-25T16:47:36.253" Score="8" ViewCount="343" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am looking around for a DIY project to work on over Christmas.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have seen lots of suggestions at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diyphotography.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DIY Photography&lt;/a&gt; and a few at &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Strobist&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(In particular, there are lots of light modifiers and different ways to mount lights - which is great, but I'm after more too).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I feel sure that this community can come up with some cracking ideas too, and I would love to hear about any projects you have &lt;em&gt;successfully&lt;/em&gt;(!) executed to build your own photo gear.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If possibly, please include links, photos, instructions, etc. so that others (including me) can follow in your DIY footsteps! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Edit&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I meant to flag this community wiki, but I can't see how to do it.  Am I going mad?  blind?  Can someone else flag it?  Thanks.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T18:58:38.937" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T18:58:38.937" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-25T19:18:44.120" Title="DIY gear successfully made and used?" Tags="&lt;diy&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5163" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5027" CreationDate="2010-11-25T16:59:56.290" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You'd pay the cost for each lens! Good polarizers are expensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually, I'd like to see someone build one into the camera. Using a button the camera would slip the polarizer in and out. You'd need an efficient interface to rotate it, like press the polarizer button and use the control-dial or a fly-by-wire ring.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would be really neat because you'd only pay the cost of the polarizer once and it would be for a small one since it would be at the back of the lens. It would save time too. I find screwing on filters rather slow (Why don't they make bayonet lens-filter connections? It made sense for lenses and hoods and so much faster).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T16:59:56.290" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5164" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5161" CreationDate="2010-11-25T17:45:51.307" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I often attach a strap to the tripod collar on my larger lenses.  For this I use those oversized idiot straps and just make a girth hitch through the threaded hole where you normally attach to a tripod.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it's great alternative to buying a dedicated collar which is going to be way overpriced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="907" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T17:45:51.307" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5165" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5166" CreationDate="2010-11-25T18:45:07.273" Score="7" ViewCount="107" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a way to know, what parts is a preset made of? (e.g. to see for a given preset that it is made of &quot;-10 Saturation&quot; and &quot;+20 Contrast&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="558" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T19:02:03.287" Title="Is there a way to decompose a Lightroom preset?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;presets&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="5166" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5165" CreationDate="2010-11-25T19:01:43.720" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes.  &lt;strong&gt;Find the preset file and open it in a text editor.&lt;/strong&gt;  You'll be able to see the adjustments applied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To find your preset folder, open the Lightroom preferences, click on Presets at the top, then click the Show Lightroom Presets Folder button.  This will open the presets folder, then you can go into the Develop Presets, find the one you want, and open the .lrtemplate file in a text editor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T19:01:43.720" />
  <row Id="5167" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5165" CreationDate="2010-11-25T19:02:03.287" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Right click on the preset, select &lt;strong&gt;Show In Explorer&lt;/strong&gt;. Then open the file in notepad or &lt;strong&gt;any text-editing program&lt;/strong&gt;.  It will list all the parameters and their values and you can edit this file at will, or create new ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T19:02:03.287" />
  <row Id="5168" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5157" CreationDate="2010-11-25T19:04:08.760" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On Linux, you can set the &lt;code&gt;TZ&lt;/code&gt; environment variable to GMT (or whatever), and that will be honored by every program. Either &lt;code&gt;export TZ=GMT&lt;/code&gt; in the shell before you run the commands, or else prefix each one — &lt;code&gt;TZ=GMT eduction -v ...&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This should work on Mac OS X as well. I only have a vague outdated notion of Windows, but documentation suggests &lt;a href=&quot;http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/tividd/td/BSM/SC32-9084-00/en_US/HTML/bsmd156.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the same thing should work there&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a shame the standard doesn't encode the timezone!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-26T15:25:25.273" LastActivityDate="2010-11-26T15:25:25.273" />
  <row Id="5169" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5170" CreationDate="2010-11-25T19:04:21.393" Score="4" ViewCount="83" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to submit a photo to the photo.stackoverflow.com header thread (like &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.photo.stackexchange.com/questions/488/weekly-featured-image-for-nov-29-2010&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;). They ask for a specific image size (375x210). Is there an easy way to resize and crop an image to this size using Lightroom? Or do I have to use another program?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="332" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T19:15:32.203" Title="Resize to the photo.stackexchange.com header photo size with Lightroom" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;cropping&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="5170" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5169" CreationDate="2010-11-25T19:15:32.203" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do this in two stages:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Crop to the correct aspect ratio (25:14)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Export to email, and change the dimensions to be 375px wide.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T19:15:32.203" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5171" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5162" CreationDate="2010-11-25T20:16:55.013" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I did a DIY &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.grumpyjohns.com/?p=104&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;shooting table&lt;/a&gt; for doing seamless background product shooting. It's much larger than the store options and uses clear plexi for under-lighting as an option. Anyways, total cost was about $100 and took an afternoon to build.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T20:16:55.013" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-25T20:16:55.013" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5172" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2064" CreationDate="2010-11-25T21:24:54.170" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/d_k_m/4488575096/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;it does&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It won't really create a visible hotspot, but will allow you to change the &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/07/lighting-102-unit-21-apparent-light.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;apparent size of the light source&lt;/a&gt; to get different effects independently from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/06/lighting-102-12-position-distance.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;light distance&lt;/a&gt;.  This allows you to control the highlight-shadow transition independently from the light fall off rate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if you zoom too wide, you will get light spill outside of the umbrella, which can reflect on to your background or your subject.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, the further back you are on the umbrella stem, the more power you will need, and the more stress there is on the stem. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-25T22:08:52.603" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T22:08:52.603" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5173" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5162" CreationDate="2010-11-25T21:32:09.143" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I built a gel holder/mount for my nikon flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, I went to my photo store and asked for the sample kit of gel for photo/flash.  It sells for about 3$ and it has a hundreds of colors and neutral density papers (including CTO).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used card board to build the mount.  I simply slide it over the flash head and insert the gel into a small slot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are examples : &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diyphotography.net/studio-diy-gel-holder-for-flash&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.diyphotography.net/studio-diy-gel-holder-for-flash&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://diyphotographystuff.info/734/diy-flash-gel-filter-holder-quick-and-easy/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://diyphotographystuff.info/734/diy-flash-gel-filter-holder-quick-and-easy/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, not related to photo, but more video: I build a steadycam to have more stable video when moving.  Search in google for : diy steadicam&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1093" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T21:32:09.143" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-25T21:32:09.143" />
  <row Id="5174" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4022" CreationDate="2010-11-25T21:42:27.623" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.it/search?hl=en&amp;amp;q=jimmy+bo+400&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jimmi Bo 400&lt;/a&gt; on my hikes. And I like it. It can be worn either at the waist (as a belt) or across the torso (as a usual bag). It can even be strapped on the hip (though this is not convenient, IMO):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://imgur.com/uuNuZ.png&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My Pentax K20D fits in nicely, either with the standard zoom or with a moderate telephoto lens. There is also a small department for filters, lens paper and the second battery. You can hardly find a smaller bag with the same capacity. The bag itself weights 428 g (15 oz).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, you cannot put the second lens inside.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T21:42:27.623" />
  <row Id="5175" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5133" CreationDate="2010-11-25T23:49:28.403" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, from what I can gather, the settings are equivalent to those in &quot;Photoshop&quot; units.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The radius seems to be specified the same way.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;For a radius less than 1 a sigma value the same as the radius is recommended.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;An amount of 50% is specified as 0.5.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The threshold is specified as the fraction of the max color value, so 2/255 ~ 0.008.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The settings that I recommended in the answer are chosen to give a moderate sharpness that rarely causes oversharpening effects. The radius is what's generally recommended for screen display, so that should normally stay as it is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could push the amount a bit higher, but that might cause halo effects in images with high contrast edges. It's a matter of what you want to risk to get sharper images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want the absolutely best result, batch processing won't do it. You will have to adjust the settings by hand for each image if you want the best possible result. Batch processing will always be a compromise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-11-25T23:49:28.403" />
  <row Id="5176" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2221" CreationDate="2010-11-26T00:34:56.697" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What flash unit(s) have you got, if any? A good flash with bounce capabilities, or better still one or more off-camera flashes can do a lot for your portraits. Photos in magazines will almost always be shot with multiple lights, so maybe its not a lens you want so much as a with bounce capability (Canon Speedlites 430 or 580), and maybe a remote trigger to get it off the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastActivityDate="2010-11-26T00:34:56.697" />
  <row Id="5177" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-26T00:49:08.280" Score="7" ViewCount="145" Body="&lt;p&gt;What tips and tricks do you use when you're forced to take photos with whatever you have available?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My personal favourite is for reducing the rabbit-in-the-headlights look with a point and shoot.  Use a piece of white paper or card to reflect the flash onto the ceiling.  It diffuses the light nicely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1655" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T03:02:20.233" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T03:02:20.233" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-26T04:10:11.087" Title="What are your favourite tips and tricks for when you don't have your gear?" Tags="&lt;tips&gt;&lt;diy&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5178" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5177" CreationDate="2010-11-26T00:54:30.073" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I always carry my cellphone so it's my default camera whenever there's nothing else, and take lots of shots with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another trick is to carry a slide frame in your wallet. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-11-26T00:54:30.073" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-26T04:10:11.087" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5179" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5177" CreationDate="2010-11-26T03:33:13.940" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fill flash: turn the flash setting to &quot;always on&quot; to fill in shadows. Great for sunny days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2010-11-26T03:33:13.940" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-26T03:33:13.940" />
  <row Id="5180" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5157" CreationDate="2010-11-26T04:20:16.950" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You know, I bumped into something like this a few days ago. &lt;strong&gt;I decided that from here on out, all my cameras will be set to UTC no matter where I am or whether it's daylight savings time.&lt;/strong&gt; Then, there won't be any need to figure out what time zone a given timestamp is in, or deal with changing the camera's clock when daylight time starts or ends. (FWIW, I went to make the latter change only to discover that it was still set to the time zone I had put in for a trip months ago. That's what prompted the decision.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-11-26T04:20:16.950" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5181" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="886" CreationDate="2010-11-26T09:13:34.577" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Film is good for some aspects of learning photography. The expense of it can be a good thing. When you have to pay a real cost for each picture, you wind up paying attention to what you're doing. It forces you to deal with your mistakes, look at them and learn from them. They're objects that you have to deal with, they cost you money, so you learn quickly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not being able to see the picture until a while later means that you have to have paid attention to what you shot while you were shooting. Film tends to concentrate the experience on the moment of shooting because everything leads up to that, rather than the shot being the start of an extended post-production process, the goal of which is usually to mimic something other than what happened at that moment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These goals tend to be suited to learning, and to art-oriented projects. The point is that they take advantage of the fact that film takes longer and is more expensive. What is learned can be translated to digital for commercial and professional work, where the goal is to be as cheap and fast as possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2349" LastActivityDate="2010-11-26T09:13:34.577" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5182" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5188" CreationDate="2010-11-26T10:12:35.677" Score="5" ViewCount="440" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to create a program that take pictures programmatically. The ideal setup would be to be able to see on a computer screen how the photograph would be before to take it. Therefore I need to use it as a kind of webcam, i.e. to get the video stream from the device and display it. I have a Canon 350D (and also a Canon Ixus 100 IS) to get the job done. I'm ok using any hacks or SDK to take control over it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any ideas?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2337" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-26T18:19:31.530" LastActivityDate="2010-11-26T18:19:31.530" Title="Using a Canon 350D as a webcam?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;tethering&gt;&lt;canon-350d&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="5183" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-26T10:25:39.410" Score="0" ViewCount="125" Body="&lt;p&gt;an image having blend mode as multiply,(its kind of reducing opacity) its showing its effect in adobe fireworks but its not showing the same effect,when overlapped on another image in browser.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2239" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T18:33:58.850" ClosedDate="2011-03-23T11:45:30.390" Title="adobe fireworks blend mode issue" Tags="&lt;fireworks&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="5184" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5094" CreationDate="2010-11-26T10:30:24.600" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;remove white as background layer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;u can select white area with the magic wand tool and delete the white area.hope it will work&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2239" LastActivityDate="2010-11-26T10:30:24.600" />
  <row Id="5185" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5182" CreationDate="2010-11-26T10:56:43.517" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whilst I don't think that you can get a video stream from the camera, CHDK allows custom scripting on Powershot/IXUS range of cameras:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CHDK&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2351" LastActivityDate="2010-11-26T10:56:43.517" />
  <row Id="5186" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4741" CreationDate="2010-11-26T11:26:36.353" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another tip could be using reverse rings, that allows you to mount a regular 50mm lens as a macro lens. I never used it myself, but know people that do and I it seems it's a bit hard to focus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alanwood.net/photography/reversing-rings.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.alanwood.net/photography/reversing-rings.html&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;http://www.diyphotography.net/diy_reverse_macro_ring&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Samples: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pbase.com/andydunn/d70_50mm_reverse_ring_shots&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pbase.com/andydunn/d70_50mm_reverse_ring_shots&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-11-26T11:26:36.353" />
  <row Id="5188" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5182" CreationDate="2010-11-26T12:46:31.807" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whilst there is support for using the Canon 350D in a tethered mode, with &quot;remote&quot; shooting, there is no control over the zoom other than manual intervention; as that camera does not support video, or even &quot;live view&quot;, or wouldn't be able to see how the photograph would look before shooting it -- depending on your scenario, you could just shoot and reshoot if required (for something like taking product shots), or take periodic shots (for something like a weather-watch webcam).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the IXUS, your chances are better, but you may have to install third party firmware, such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CHDK&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-11-26T12:46:31.807" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5189" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="238" CreationDate="2010-11-26T13:56:22.320" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;from your comment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I suppose that's all there is to it, they're like Folders&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But an image (unless I've missed something) can be in only one folder, whereas an image can be in several collections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, if you go on a vacation, you could have a collection in which you put your best photographs, another collection in which you have pictures of family members, another one with landscapes, etc. and there can be overlaps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="530" LastActivityDate="2010-11-26T13:56:22.320" />
  <row Id="5190" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5139" CreationDate="2010-11-26T18:10:34.067" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've got to point out this almost-classic article by Thom Hogan on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/support.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;how to save $700 on a tripod&lt;/a&gt;. It specifically mentions the $75 tripod as the first wasted money. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't really think that everyone needs the $1000 tripod that he suggests, but I do think that if you're planning to use the tripod for more than the occasional family-christmas shot, it's worth budgeting $200-300 to start. The plus side is that this will last a lot longer than any electronic gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-11-26T18:10:34.067" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5192" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5193" CreationDate="2010-11-27T00:46:17.450" Score="18" ViewCount="416" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have thousands of old pictures which were sitting in a photo album. Unfortunately, instead of the photo album protecting the pictures, the plastic coverings yellowed, and the pictures themselves had to be carefully extracted from the books. There is also quite a bit of powdered paper (the backings on the books pretty much fell apart while we extracted the pictures), and the fronts of the images are still a bit sticky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These pictures are 30+ years old, are often extremely faded, and were originally taken on (what I think is) &quot;110 film&quot; -- they are approximately 2.5&quot; squares.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, I need to scan all these images in to preserve them from further decay. Unfortunately, it's taking forever -- going through less than 100 images took an entire day, even if one discounts any time spent in Photoshop trying to remove some of the photo album's artifacts on the images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I really need is some method of scanning the images in &lt;em&gt;faster&lt;/em&gt;. Most automated solutions aren't going to work because they accept 4x6s as their smallest image size, and even if that was not the case, the adhesives still stuck to the prints would probably ruin any such device in 5 seconds flat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a better way of doing this (i.e. fast scanner?) that wouldn't take so much time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2361" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T16:05:27.593" Title="What's the best way to scan in hundreds of pictures?" Tags="&lt;scanning&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="5193" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5192" CreationDate="2010-11-27T00:50:17.917" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do you have money to throw at the problem? Because the fastest way is undoubtedly to &lt;em&gt;have someone else do it&lt;/em&gt;. And there are plenty of services just waiting to take your business. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scancafe.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ScanCafe&lt;/a&gt; is one, but there's others as well, almost certainly including your local photo shop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T00:50:17.917" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="5194" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5198" CreationDate="2010-11-27T01:41:44.383" Score="4" ViewCount="118" Body="&lt;p&gt;So I adjusted the Custom Function settings in the dial, and then I noticed that my Autofocus is now controlled by the CF button. I am using a Canon EOS 50, a 1995 film camera (not 50D).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do I turn off that Custom Function and go back to the normal autofocus behavior (a slight press on the shutter button adjusts the autofocus)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2362" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-27T21:08:29.283" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T21:08:29.283" Title="How to Turn Off Custom Functions in Canon Film SLRs" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="5195" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-27T05:12:18.843" Score="7" ViewCount="454" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have just purchased a new CF card for my DSLR. I tested it using Xbench (Mac OS X) and it performs as expected. However, I'd like to do a &quot;surface scan&quot; (moving platter tem) to check for &quot;bad sectors&quot;. I could bash script a processes using dd, but I get the feeling that there is a better way out there. My goal is to conclusively know that a memory card (CF, SD, etc.) is safe to use on a photo shoot, and that is doesn't need to be returned before the 30 day vendor policy window expires.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I definitely want Mac solutions given here. I would also like to get a few Linux suggestions. Let's even throw a bone to the windows users just so that this one question can meet everyone's needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2363" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T19:43:10.840" Title="How can I test a memory card for performance and bad sectors?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;memory-card&gt;&lt;hardware&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="5196" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="533" CreationDate="2010-11-27T05:34:15.463" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You picked a very good answer by @Rezlaj but I'd like to add one point. KEEP YOUR STORAGE MEDIA ON YOUR PERSON IF YOU FLY!!! I've had lots of friends lose their photos because their cameras get stolen. DO NOT put your media cards or external hard drive backups in checked bagage. If a bagage screener steals your gear, you can get the airline to replace it, but you can never get your photos back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've also heard of people backing up to DVDs and mailing them home. Since international shipping is so expensive, you can leave burned DVDs with the hotel and if you end up needing them [a reasonable time] later have the hotel ship them to you, otherwise discard them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2363" LastEditorUserId="2363" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-27T06:24:20.157" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T06:24:20.157" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5197" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-27T05:38:48.670" Score="1" ViewCount="102" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the best video editing software?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1439" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T05:38:48.670" ClosedDate="2010-11-27T08:06:03.353" Title="What is the best video editing software?" Tags="&lt;video&gt;" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5198" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5194" CreationDate="2010-11-27T08:12:51.337" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It sounds like you've changed the value for custom function 4 to &quot;1&quot; instead of &quot;0&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To change them, you should turn the command dial to CF, then turn the main dial to the relevant position, before pressing the */CF button to change the value -- then the */CF button should behave as exposure lock again in normal shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T08:12:51.337" />
  <row Id="5199" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5195" CreationDate="2010-11-27T12:58:41.110" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As the controller can move the blocks wherever it wants (see wear leveling), the only chance for a whole read/write-test ist to fill the disk up and then compare. Several times with different patterns of course to be sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And still you won't catch faulty regions, as they are hidden too by the controller as long as he has spares.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T12:58:41.110" />
  <row Id="5201" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5203" CreationDate="2010-11-27T14:10:17.710" Score="7" ViewCount="306" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi guys, I'm currently shooting with a 450D using mainly a 50mm f/1.8 and sometimes the kit lens, but am gonna buy a 85mm f/1.8 and a 35mm f/2. Thing is I want to upgrade my body as well as I found some rather good deals for a used 40D ($550) and a used 5D ($850). The types of photos I usually take are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Portraits&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Street&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Random objects here and there&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Occasional landscape when on vacation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the question is, which is better in terms of costs to value?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1635" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T11:23:28.250" Title="Canon 40D or 5D?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;used-equipment&gt;&lt;canon-5d&gt;" AnswerCount="6" />
  <row Id="5202" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5195" CreationDate="2010-11-27T14:13:19.927" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Linux, the command you want is &lt;code&gt;badblocks&lt;/code&gt;. There appears to be a port of this to Mac OS X as part of &lt;a href=&quot;http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2fsx/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this ext2-for-os-x port&lt;/a&gt; -- install the whole thing and ignore everything but the &lt;code&gt;/usr/local/sbin/badblocks&lt;/code&gt; command.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, this will help test, but I don't think it'll be conclusive, because first as Leonidas says, you don't really get raw access to the flash memory so it's hard to do a complete scan, and also because new failures could appear after the test, perhaps even triggered by it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T14:13:19.927" />
  <row Id="5203" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5201" CreationDate="2010-11-27T14:16:52.697" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jump on the 5D for that price. The 40D is a good camera too but the 5D is a huge notch above due to its full-frame sensor, particularly for your applications:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Portrait: Shallower depth-of-field which translates to more background blur.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Street: Higher ISO sensitivity lets you shoot at faster shutter-speeds to freeze street action, which is valuable since street photography is not usually posed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Random objects here and there: Better image quality&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Occasional landscape: Better image quality ;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The usual time when people prefer the cropped sensor (as in the 40D), is for telephoto work since you get more reach for the same lens. This is great for wildlife and bird photography as you'll save on big lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T14:16:52.697" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="5204" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5201" CreationDate="2010-11-27T14:23:24.273" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both of those models are older than your current camera, the 5D significantly so. Since they're higher-line cameras, there's still going to be steps up, but in some ways they'll also be steps sideways and even backwards. The physics of photography haven't changed, but Moore's law suggests that today's computer chips are roughly 10x more powerful than those in the 5D, and the processing parts of a digital camera are certainly affected by that, as well as by refinements in algorithms and firmware/software.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, given all that: since the 5D is full-frame and has pro-level controls and features, it's going to give you the more interesting changes, even though it's older. So if this is the route you really want to take, that's my recommendation. But I'd consider instead either 1) saving up for a more-current model (even used, but not 5 years old) or 2) investing in better lenses or lighting. (Do you have a nice flash you can use off-camera? That's the number-one gear improvement you can make for taking portraits.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-27T17:21:47.497" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T17:21:47.497" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="5205" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-27T15:48:08.917" Score="7" ViewCount="149" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been trying to take good photos of falling leaves but haven't had much success. Has anyone got any tips for me (exposure etc), or do I really need some specialist equipment? (I am using a Canon 1000D (Rebel XS in the US) and the basic kit lens). If you've taken a successful photo of this kind, please post it and the settings/equipment you used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1135" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T16:30:58.877" Title="What settings will be good for taking photos of falling leaves?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5206" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5205" CreationDate="2010-11-27T16:10:32.447" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, I have one picture with leaves, but I used flash to catch them mid-flight.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://vvv.mokrakocicka.cz/gang/1021_ba082d.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;pic w/ leaves&quot;&gt;&#xA;(shot on 1/250 sec, f/5.6, ISO 100, there was &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/946/how-do-i-use-gels-to-make-my-flash-match-the-color-of-the-ambient-light&quot;&gt;CTO-gelled&lt;/a&gt; flash on camera right)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously, we had to throw leaves in the air by ourselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't have flash, I'd suggest shutter around 1/250, open aperture as much as you can, focus to half a meter, and then throw leaves to that area. That might result in something interesting. (Just a thought.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T16:10:32.447" />
  <row Id="5207" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5205" CreationDate="2010-11-27T16:30:58.877" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it varies, depends on what you're trying to do. But my guess is you'll always need some kind of light: either flash light (as in che's photo) or back light (like I was trying to do in my photo) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/EOi0U.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;yes, there are leaves falling in this photo ;)&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T16:30:58.877" />
  <row Id="5208" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5201" CreationDate="2010-11-27T16:52:19.897" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Definitely get the 5D - the 40D will give you a more robust body, slightly better AF etc. but you will effectively be taking the same photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Due to the shallower depth of field and lack of a crop you can take photos that are literally impossible with the other two cameras. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;edit: To qualify the above, in the studio the detail and tonal range you get from the 5D is awesome, the files are great to work with:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/5d/dan_final.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an example of the detail you can extract from the Raw files, here is an extreme crop (1:1 scaled down to 60% to fit the div width):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/5d/crop_actual_pixels.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/5d/crop_60percent_of_actual_pixels.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/5d/crop_actual_pixels.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;click for 100% (actual pixels)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also great for street shots and candids thanks to the extremely shallow depth of field:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/5d/5d_wedding.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't let the age of the 5D put you off, it produces the best images of any DSLR I've ever used, including the 1D/1Ds series, per pixel sharpness, colour and contrast are simply top notch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-28T00:18:42.777" LastActivityDate="2010-11-28T00:18:42.777" />
  <row Id="5209" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="175" CreationDate="2010-11-27T16:53:34.763" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Agree with all of the above. Just another consideration to the mix:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have some close friends (close as in people who live within a few miles) who own DSLR's? Buying the same brand can help knowing the camera, specially for newbies, and may even give a chance to borrow different lenses&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T16:53:34.763" />
  <row Id="5210" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5201" CreationDate="2010-11-27T17:11:42.150" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although the 5D is a hell of a camera but and it could be a huge leap (and do you need a full-frame camera?); but on the other hand the 40D is a bit on the lower end. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have you tried to find an used 7D, it seems it's a better compromise for you, specially in street photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer: I'm a nikonian, so I might be wrong in a few things&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T17:11:42.150" />
  <row Id="5211" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5183" CreationDate="2010-11-27T18:33:58.850" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ah, okay. This is way more clear than your other phrasing of this same question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The issue is that the graphics formats supported by browsers do not enable fancy layer-compositing like this. GIF files have a very simple one-color-is-clear transparency, and the PNG format allows you to specify an alpha channel, which is a simple degree-of-transparency per-pixel. There's no browser magic which allows an image file to act as a multiply layer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question is really off-topic here; here's the same question on Stack Overflow: &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2958813/how-to-replicate-ps-multiply-layer-mode&quot;&gt;http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2958813/how-to-replicate-ps-multiply-layer-mode&lt;/a&gt; , which basically is answered with &quot;can't do it&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may, however, be able kludge do it with &lt;a href=&quot;http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2008/06/applying_svg_ef.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SVG and HTML 5&lt;/a&gt;. SVG has an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.w3schools.com/svg/el_feblend.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;feBlend&quot;&lt;/a&gt; element which has a &quot;multiply&quot; mode, and the non-standard behavior described in that mozillazine link may make it work in some cases, or may make it into future standards. I wouldn't hold my breath, though. Best to find some other way to accomplish what you're trying to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T18:33:58.850" />
  <row Id="5212" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5195" CreationDate="2010-11-27T19:43:10.840" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Flash memory does not work the same way as disks with platters. The concept of a &quot;bad sector&quot; does not really exist with flash memory. These days, with flash memory and SSD's, the built-in controller takes care of identifying and marking off unusable blocks of memory, dynamically moving data around to mitigate block write limitations, etc. These features are far more prevalent in SSD's, but some also exist in quality flash cards (such as SanDisk).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most file system checking tools either make specific assumptions about the physical structure of the storage device (i.e. platter based, with physical cylinders, sectors, clusters, etc.), or work at an abstracted level and make repairs &quot;virtually&quot; using file or directory tables. You would need a tool specifically designed to mark bad blocks on a flash memory device, as anything else is either going to cause more problems (by assuming it can fix the problems the same way it would with a platter-based device) or make virtual fixes that don't take into account dynamic hardware-level features of flash. Even if you could mark a particular &quot;sector&quot; or &quot;cluster&quot; as 'bad', it wouldn't necessarily do any good, since those physical concepts don't actually exist in flash memory. If the flash device is more advanced, and dynamically moves data around to automatically bypass bad blocks and mitigate write limitations, the physical location of data may reside in a bad block one moment, and in a good block a moment later. (Note that the idea of a &quot;bad&quot; block in flash memory is much fuzzier than it is with platter disks...a flash memory block tends to die slowly, rather than suddenly, and may &quot;flicker&quot; between readable/not readable a bit before it becomes entirely unusable.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, when it comes to flash, let the device manage itself from a bad block perspective. Different manufacturers structure and store data in different ways, and each may have different levels and amounts of dynamic behavior that moves data around to avoid some of the limitations of flash memory. Trying to manage it yourself is likely to cause more problems than it solves, and may render your flash disks useless in the long run.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you wish to avoid bad flash cards, I highly recommend using reputable brands. I have tried a variety of flash cards in the past, however SanDisk is the only brand that I have used that, at least to date, has never failed. I have several 4, 8, and 16 gig SDHC cards that I use quite heavily, and regularly take out of my camera and insert into my laptop or computer, and they are still working perfectly. (Some are several years old.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T19:43:10.840" />
  <row Id="5213" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5192" CreationDate="2010-11-27T19:49:39.973" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use a high speed page feed scanner like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/office/products/hardware/scanners/high_speed_document_scanners/imageformula_dr_2010c_compact_color_scanner#Overview&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DR-2010C&lt;/a&gt; from Canon. It can scan up to 20 pages per minute and automatically crops the scan image to the document size. You can get it from $370- from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-2454B002-imageFORMULA-DR-2010C-Compact/dp/B0010OSE62&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Amazon&lt;/a&gt; (amongst others)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have thousands of photos to scan it will be cheaper to buy this scanner than to use a service like Scancafe. 1680 photos at Scancafe will cost $370-. If you factor in your selling price your breakeven point will drop to about 1000 photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T19:49:39.973" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5214" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4564" CreationDate="2010-11-27T20:23:25.630" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have you considered the &lt;a href=&quot;http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/zoom/normalzoom/af-s_dx_18-105mmf_35-56g_ed_vr/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G&lt;/a&gt;? Is a pretty decent all-round zoom lens &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T20:23:25.630" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5215" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4316" CreationDate="2010-11-27T20:50:32.543" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Allow me to disagree. In any brand the 50mm is a reference because it matches the human eyes perspective, but that's only true when mounted in a &lt;strong&gt;full frame body&lt;/strong&gt;, something the 550D isn't. A 50mm mounted in a camera with a crop factor of 1.6 (like the 550D) becomes a 80mm which is great for portraits but loses some of the appeal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my pick for two lenses would be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a real &quot;nifty fifty&quot;: the Canon 35mm f2.0 (which becomes a real 50mm with the crop factor)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;an all round street zoom: the Canon 17-85mm would be a good choice, depending on how much zoom you'd need&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T20:50:32.543" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5216" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4316" CreationDate="2010-11-27T21:06:09.303" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd go with:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My rationale is that these two are both good enough for the start, cover all focal lengths, and are cheap enough, so you don't spend too much money without knowing what do you want to use your kit for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T21:06:09.303" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5217" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5226" CreationDate="2010-11-27T21:17:48.713" Score="10" ViewCount="657" Body="&lt;p&gt;My daughter is in 6th grade and wants a more professional camera than her current cheapo Kodak $99 camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should I get her an SLR?  What features should I look for?  Manual focus and aperture settings?  Should I get one that allows lenses to be changed?  What kind of camera setup can I get for under $500?  We would probably also use her camera as well sporadically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some used DSLR cameras I am considering: Canon D80 ($400 body); Olympus E-500 ($325 w/ lens), E-520 ($400 w/ lens), or E-620 ($675 w/ lens).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2371" LastEditorUserId="2371" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-27T21:57:11.457" LastActivityDate="2010-12-07T20:40:35.950" Title="What is a good camera for an aspiring young photographer?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="11" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="5218" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5217" CreationDate="2010-11-27T21:38:59.430" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If your daughter is interested in photography you should definitely get her something that will allow her to adjust exposure and play with the settings. All DSLRs can do this, but are a bit bulky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to get under $500, you basically have to options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;An upper-class compact like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/compacts/g12.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon Powershot G12&lt;/a&gt; which has all the manual controls as well, but is a bit smaller than an SLR, and costs &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-G12-Digital-Stabilized-Vari-Angle/dp/B0041RSPRS/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;about $500 at Amazon&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Entry-level DSLR (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/rebel-xs.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EOS Rebel XS&lt;/a&gt; if you're into Canon) with a kit lens. This is the bulkier option, but gives you the through-the-lens viewfinder and interchangeable lenses, as well as better pictures in low light and clear &quot;upgrade&quot; path -- for example you can then buy a fast 50mm lens for $100 and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/99827226@N00/discuss/72157621333701113/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;shoot completely different pictures&lt;/a&gt;. (The camera with kit lens also costs &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-XS-Digital-18-55mm-Black/dp/B001CBKJGG/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;$500 at Amazon&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For all the differences and explanations, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_Digital_Rebel_XS-vs-Canon_PowerShot_G12&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;comparison at Snapsort&lt;/a&gt;. You can get both of these types of cameras from other manufacturers, but the basic differences will be similar to these two.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-27T21:45:48.010" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T21:45:48.010" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5219" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5217" CreationDate="2010-11-27T21:42:08.283" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Photography is as much about having a good camera as painting is about having a nice set of brushes - it is an essential tool but less important than the artistic skill or in this case a good eye for composing shots. Since she is just starting, you should make her understand that more than the camera in hand, it is what is behind the camera that is important. She should spend next few years with a camera that will allow her to practise the basics of photography, grasp the workflow - as she is developing an eye for the necessary observation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;SLR would be an overkill right now - instead get her a versatile compact like Canon G11/12. It is a capable enough system that will allow her to go beyond the auto and learn about various modes (P/Av/Tv/M), shoot AEB etc. Another factor favouring a compact is that she can carry it anywhere and shoot more spontaneously. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Spend the spare money on some good photography books and find a good local photographer/photography club ready to give her some advice/lessons. Take her out for occasional photowalks and let her discover the joy of photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Few years down the line when she has found out the kind of photography she likes, she will tell you which camera you need to buy her!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2271" LastEditorUserId="2271" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-27T21:49:15.963" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T21:49:15.963" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="5220" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5217" CreationDate="2010-11-27T21:51:43.547" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;agreed on the G12 or similar style camera. At this point, I think spending money on an entry level DLSR is probably overkill. Get them a good higher end point and shoot. the G10/G11/G12 is one of the cameras professional photographers carry as their &quot;not carrying the big camera&quot; camera, or the own their spouses carry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One exception to this -- if your daughter is interested in photography that involves nature photography where a zoom is needed, the Canon isn't the right camera; the zoom there maxes out aorund 200mm (35mm equivalent), which if she's interested in birds and butterflies instead of people and portraits won't be enough. In that case, look at a camera like the Panasonic DMC-FZ35 or FZ40, which have optical zooms out to 400mm or so; we've used that family of camera fairly extensively and for that kind of photography is a better bet. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;also get them a few memory cards, and a tool to process the images on their computer (iPhoto on a mac, Lightroom on a PC), so they have everything to get going. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T21:51:43.547" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5221" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4316" CreationDate="2010-11-27T22:01:42.120" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me suggest considering something other than canon lenses. Since price is a consideration and this is a first camera, you can get really good lenses at a better price than if you buy Canon lenses. Get more with less, and the quality difference between a good independent lens and a Canon isn't that big.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I really like the Sigma 18-200 DC OS F3.5-6.3 as a good first lens. It covers the primary range you'll want and it's a solid lens. If he's just getting started, he'll probably find he can do almost everything with this lens, unless he has special photography interests like Birds or Macro work. He may not need a 2nd lens to get going, and he'll spend a lot less money than if he bought a similar Canon lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a second lens, depends on his interest. If he's not sure, just buy one and take pictures until he figures out what his second lens ought to be, but if he's interested in landscapes, I'd nudge him at the superwide Sigma 10-20. If his interest is shooting small things on the move far away, the Canon 100-400 (pricy, but you'll need something like it for birds or wildlife); or something like the Sigma 180 Macro if that's his interest. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T22:01:42.120" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5222" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5201" CreationDate="2010-11-27T22:04:56.983" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you can find a used 7d I'd jump on it, but chances are, you won't at a price oyu'll like. that body is still too new and too in demand. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but instead of a 40d, look around for a used 50d. It's a generation later and a much better body, adn the new 60d has put the 50d into the used market in some numbers. My wife just bought on to upgrade her 30d and loves it. It'll be a little bit more than the 40d, but worth it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I honestly don't find the 5d interesting at that price, given how far technology has come since it came out. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T22:04:56.983" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5223" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5224" CreationDate="2010-11-27T22:42:33.837" Score="8" ViewCount="170" Body="&lt;p&gt;So as a beginner self-studying photography, I have just recently used the metering scale. My first assumption is that the camera detects that the current exposure settings are the &quot;right one&quot; if the scale arrow points in the middle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I assume there would be times when you want to go above or below the middle point in the scale. The problem is, I do not know what those situations are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a side question, what does the -2.1 and +2.1 mean here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2362" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-03T00:21:06.353" LastActivityDate="2010-12-03T00:21:06.353" Title="How to Use the Metering Scale in Canon Cameras" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;metering&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5224" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5223" CreationDate="2010-11-27T23:10:38.247" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The metering scale you are referring to is used for two things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In manual mode (M), it indicates how far you are from what the camera &lt;em&gt;thinks&lt;/em&gt; should be the right value. It is the camera's guess (depending on the metering mode, see other questions in metering).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In all other modes, it is called exposure-compensation (EC) and is &lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt; telling the camera to adjust its measurement to something brighter or darker.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general the camera meters so that the scene is on average of average brightness. By doing over the metered value, you are telling the camera you want something brighter and by going under the value you are telling you want something darker.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The metering scale is measured in EV (Exposure Value) where each full-step represent a doubling of brightness. So +1 is twice as bright, +2 is 4 times as bright and -1 is half as bright, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-27T23:10:38.247" />
  <row Id="5225" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5217" CreationDate="2010-11-28T04:29:22.407" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want to take her from the point and shoot world up to the next level, then one option to consider is the bridge camera. It's basically a hybrid between a point and shoot and a dSLR and offers some of the benefits of both without commiting you to a system at this stage. With a bridge camera, you get a lot of the feel and handling of an SLR, but without interchangeable lenses. You get a lot of the ease of use of the point-and shoot world without giving up a lot of control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do go dSLR, there are a ton of very good entry level options. The optimal choices there really depend on what she wants to experiment with and so it can be tricky to advise. If I was to break down the classic three, then:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pentax&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; - Popular amongst landscape types. The entry version is the K-x and it probably stands as the best in class for high ISO performance which is great for low-light conditions. There's an added bonus with the K-x in that they offer a wide range of color choices for the body, your daughter may like that, and the body is very small for a dSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Canon&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; - Popular amongst the portrait types. There are a number of entry versions, but the T2i is probably the one I'd pick. Canon offers best in class resolution on their sensors, so they can oft pick out more detail at lower ISOs versus the competition. A big upside to Canon, shared by Nikon, is the availability of gear. They have lots and it is readily available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Nikon&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; - Popular amongst the sport shooters. Again, a number of entry versions are available, but the D3100 is probably a very strong choice. For one, it has the sensor performance of the K-x, but it autofocus performance and accuracy is probably the bigger win here. When it comes to action, Nikon is hard to beat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's the break out I've observed, but it is important to note that all three options are great cameras that can be used across the &quot;disciplines&quot; I described, it's just relative strengths and weaknesses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, whether you go bridge or dSLR, it is very important to first put the cameras into her hands before you buy. Tricky, I imagine that this is a Christmas present you're contemplating, but a very big part of what she will get from the camera will depend on how it handles &lt;em&gt;for her&lt;/em&gt;. Keep that in mind, how it handles for you, with your hands and eyes, is not going to be the same for her. I can't stress that enough, she needs to spend some time with the options.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, I think it's great that she's into, and excited by, photography. It's a great art and, in my opinion, you're never too young to start. Two of my neices are really getting into it, at ages 8 and 9, and I couldn't be happier. They're using point and shoot now, but if they continue to enjoy it, I'll probably be the one that puts an SLR in their hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-11-28T04:29:22.407" />
  <row Id="5226" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5217" CreationDate="2010-11-28T04:42:18.443" Score="20" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wow, do I disagree with the idea of a bridge camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your budget is $500, seriously consider an older model dslr with a 50mm f/1.8 lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Prime lenses force composition.  There's no other way around it-- in order to get the shots you want with a prime, you have to think about what you're doing.  Zooms offer a shortcut in this regard that is great if you know what you're doing or don't care, but if you're learning, a prime is essential.  With few exceptions, pocket cameras and non-dslrs do not have primes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Speed.  A DSLR is simply a faster, more responsive camera.  If your daughter is serious about this, serious enough to have you consider buying this much kit, then the shutter lag in a point and shoot (even a g12) that will happen in anything that's not broad daylight will be very frustrating.  DSLRs are simply more responsive, because of the way the focusing mechanism works.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Serious depth of field capabilities.  Apertures of 1.8 on a larger chip make for more background blurring and focal isolation.  It is possible to experiment with this kind of thing with a non-slr (for instance, with a canon s95), but having the entire range is extremely useful, especially for experimentation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Image quality.  A $400 slr, with its larger chip, should easily best a bridge camera or a point and shoot for image quality.  Cameras in this range should definitely offer RAW processing (which she'll want if she wants to experiment with the full range of image processing), but even so, the larger chip and pixel size in a dslr make it hands-down better than a same-generation point and shoot or bridge camera.  The exception to this would be something like the olympus ep-1, which has an slr chip in it and should give comparable quality (but is, I think, outside of the price range you want).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I taught a class recently filled with high school students who wanted to get into photography.  Those with SLRs could easily grasp the concepts of the lessons because these cameras, by and large, have the controls to manipulate image quality, and these controls tend to be very intuitively available, once the user knows what to look for.  Students with a point and shoot or a bridge would struggle to be able to set aperture, shutter, ISO, etc, because each camera manufacturer is different not all of them offer all the requisite functionality to really learn image capture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, go for the DSLR, 50mm kit.  Then she can save her pennies for other lenses or gear as she needs them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt; As for particular brand, it depends on whether or not this is a surprise.  If it's a surprise, any of those you've listed will work, though, as I pointed out, bypass the kit lens for the 50mm f/1.8.  If it's not a surprise, then have her try the bodies out in the store to see which ones fit her hands the best.  I personally dislike the entry-level Canon bodies because of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2001/8/29/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;my enormous hands&lt;/a&gt;, but she may like them for exactly the same reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastEditorUserId="266" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-28T20:20:48.087" LastActivityDate="2010-11-28T20:20:48.087" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="5227" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5228" CreationDate="2010-11-28T12:00:15.607" Score="7" ViewCount="294" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to take macro photos, but I have a problem with the focus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I put the object on a (light) table, I put my camera on my tripod and take a few shots. Since the depth of field is very small usually I realize that I have to change the distance between the object and my camera. Changing this distance is quite difficult if I have to put my camera 0.5mm closer. Is the a way to easily (and continuously) change this distance? Is there a tripod accessory for this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use a reverse ring and a prime lens, but the question probably applies for other types of macro photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="507" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T03:12:04.127" Title="Macro photography focusing" Tags="&lt;focus&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;" AnswerCount="5" />
  <row Id="5228" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5227" CreationDate="2010-11-28T12:26:33.227" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In this sort of situation, the normal approach is to use a focusing rail which allows fine and controlled adjustments to be made. There are several available on the market, with &lt;a href=&quot;http://amzn.to/gnoTAj&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;some under £50&lt;/a&gt;, but it would be possible to make one yourself, if you have the right tools.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-11-28T12:26:33.227" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5229" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5019" CreationDate="2010-11-28T13:04:39.340" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm a &lt;strong&gt;Bibble Pro&lt;/strong&gt; user and I installed a handful of plugins, but there are three that I use recurrently:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bibblelabs.com/products/bibble5/features/plugins.html?plug=gradfilter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;GradFilter&lt;/a&gt; - similar to the Gradient filter of Lightroom, very useful to correct lighting in some photos &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bibblelabs.com/products/bibble5/features/plugins.html?plug=zperspector&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;zPerspector&lt;/a&gt; - perspective correction (a huge flaw of Bibble of not having this by default)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bibblelabs.com/products/bibble5/features/plugins.html?plug=blackandwhite&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Black and White&lt;/a&gt; - simple but very configurable B&amp;amp;W convertion&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS - Also use &lt;em&gt;NoiseNinja&lt;/em&gt; a lot, but it comes bundled with Bibble&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-11-28T13:04:39.340" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-28T13:04:39.340" />
  <row Id="5230" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5232" CreationDate="2010-11-28T13:04:43.490" Score="12" ViewCount="251" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've read that it's not the quality of your camera, but the quality of the lighting that make pictures really good. That is probably not always true, though - there are many crappy cameras out there. ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, on my search to take better photos, I've read that one should invest in a good flash, and a &lt;em&gt;flash bracket&lt;/em&gt;. In other words, the flash should not just sit on top of the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is it so important to move the flash away from the camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also brackets (like the Stroboframe Quick Flip 350), which keeps the flash over the lens. Most seem to position the flash on the side - is it better to keep it over the lens? And in this case, what is the difference between this and mounting it on the camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1959" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T20:20:18.230" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T20:20:18.230" Title="Why is it important to move the flash away from the camera?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;off-camera-flash&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5231" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5230" CreationDate="2010-11-28T13:22:17.833" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is because the flash on the camera lights the subject from the same direction as the direction you are shooting from. This results in a lightning without shadows, which makes the subject appear flat. A lightning from the side or from above is better. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This doesn't mean that a bracket is the only answer. If you get a good flash unit, it will be quite strong. So you can point it at a wall and the reflected light will illuminate the subject much better. (You can do this with a weak flash too, but it probably won't illuminate enough). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The long answer: Wise people have explained it better than I ever could. You can read a good tutorial about flash, bouncing, brackets, etc. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-flash.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here.&lt;/a&gt; And their other tutorials might interest you too, I find them both comprehensive and useful. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2099" LastActivityDate="2010-11-28T13:22:17.833" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5232" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5230" CreationDate="2010-11-28T13:24:49.230" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Position of the flash (or light) in general is critical for the final look of your shots. If you you on-axis flash directly on camera, it usually creates dark shadows just behind the people or below their chins, which rarely looks flattering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/8Gost.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;direct flash&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;This is a photo taken with on-camera flash. From the shadow you can see that the camera was vertical, and you can also see there are some nasty shadows on the right side of crocodile's body. This would look even worse with integrated camera flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/4SRwb.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;bracket-like&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;This was taken with the flash raised to the top and bit to the left, to a position where flash bracket would probably put it. You can see that the shadow is now a bit lower and looks less distracting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/CkT3j.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;bounced&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;This final shot has flash back on the camera, but tilted upwards, so the light is bounced from the ceiling. Therefore this photo has the softest light fromt he three, and I belive it also looks the best (shadows are below the crocodile, much like how they'd look it you lit this just ceiling-mounted lights we're all used to in our homes).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, my advice is to get a good flash you can tilt and swivel and use the ceilings and walls around you to create the best lighting. In my opinion flash bracket is only useful when you want to shoot a lot in places where this is not an option (ball rooms with high ceilings, for example).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-28T15:20:39.397" LastActivityDate="2010-11-28T15:20:39.397" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5233" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5019" CreationDate="2010-11-28T13:29:51.700" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Probably the best noise reduction software I've used is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neatimage.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NeatImage&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. This may or may not be a plugin, I used the standalone version but there are plugins for PS and Aperture. Nowadays I have less need of this kind of software, but this one is top quality: it uses noise profiles, specific each camera, that you can create or download from the site &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-11-28T13:29:51.700" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-28T13:29:51.700" />
  <row Id="5234" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1373" CreationDate="2010-11-28T14:04:29.577" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Panasonic LX5 has really low f-stop, like most advanced compacts &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-11-28T14:04:29.577" />
  <row Id="5235" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5227" CreationDate="2010-11-28T14:08:55.553" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From my experience the easiest way to do this is moving the object while looking in the viewfinder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-11-28T14:08:55.553" />
  <row Id="5236" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5227" CreationDate="2010-11-28T19:05:16.730" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Macro focusing can be a difficult task, even with the proper tools, as DOF can be so thin (sometimes just millimeters thick, or with extension tubes, even thinner.) There are a couple techniques you can use to focus at extreme macro scales. The cheapest, and obviously the simplest, is to move the object if it is mobile. You can usually get a very fine degree of control over where your focal plane ends up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the event that you do not have the ability to move the subject, and moving the camera is the only option, a Macro Focusing Rail is the best option. A focusing rail is either a stand-alone device, or often a specialized tripod head, that mounts the camera and allows very, very fine control over your camera-to-subject distance as well as vertical camera height. A decent macro focusing rail is the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Adorama-Budget-Focusing-Control-Photography/dp/B0002ER2WI&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adorama Budget Macro Focusing Rail Set with 4 Way, Fine Control, Camera Focusing Rail for Macro Photography&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. It costs about $70. If you want to have the maximum level of control, higher build quality, etc. B&amp;amp;H has an entire category full of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/buy/Macro-Focusing-Rails/N/4277997923&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;macro focusing rails&lt;/a&gt;. Prices range from about $90 to several hundred dollars.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A macro focusing rail will really change the way you do macro photography. Once you have a smooth, multiplanar way to very finely adjust your focal plane, extreme close up macro photography where your DOF is millimeters (or less) in thickness becomes much, much easier.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, if you want even more control over your focal plane, you could try using a tilt/shift lens. I am not sure which brand of camera you use, however Canon makes the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-TS-E-90mm-f-2.8-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;TS-E 90mm f/2.8&lt;/a&gt; lens. This lens has additional tilt, shift, and rotate controls that give you far more control over your focal plane than standard lenses. Combined with a few extension tubes, the TS-E 90mm lens becomes a great macro lens that allows the focal plane to be adjusted, allowing you to bring the maximal amount of your scene into focus without the need to make extremely fine adjustments using a focusing rail. A focusing rail will still be helpful, however getting clean focus with a tilt/shift lens like the TS-E 90mm can change the way you do macro photography. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hartblei.com/lenses/general_info.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hartblei&lt;/a&gt; makes some tilt shift lenses that can be used on a variety of camera bodies. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-11-28T19:05:16.730" />
  <row Id="5237" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1373" CreationDate="2010-11-28T19:05:59.963" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You might want to consider an off-camera accessory flash which can be triggered remotely. Most of the old-time flashes that could do this are fooled by the preflash used by most digital cameras, but some, like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metz.de/en/photo-electronics/mecablitz-models/slave-flash-units/mecablitz-28-cs-2-digital/product-information.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Metz mecablitz 28 CS-2 digital&lt;/a&gt; are specifically designed to work with digital preflash. This will work better than even the best built-in flash, and will work with your current camera plus with whatever you eventually replace it with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-11-28T19:05:59.963" />
  <row Id="5238" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4316" CreationDate="2010-11-28T19:25:20.860" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're limiting yourself to two lenses, why waste one of those two &quot;slots&quot; with a cheap zoom? For Canon crop-sensor, I'd go with:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM (or f/1.8 if money is really tight or portability a must)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And then one of&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 (wide normal)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM (almost perfect normal)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM (ditto)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF 35mm f/2 (may feel a bit narrow)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;as your basic all-around normal lens. Depending on which you choose and how you work, you might want the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM instead of the 50mm f/1.4.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(My own two-lens kit is Pentax's 40mm and 70mm primes.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-11-28T19:25:20.860" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5239" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5139" CreationDate="2010-11-28T20:01:38.457" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;$75 really is too little for a reasonable full-size tripod, but not by a huge amount - you can probably do OK for under $100 or $150. This question comes up a fair amount; search on &quot;tripod&quot; to see others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-11-28T20:01:38.457" />
  <row Id="5240" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5217" CreationDate="2010-11-28T20:18:41.397" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You might also consider a film SLR: for the stated price, you can get a very nice used SLR plus excellent lenses, particularly if she's willing to do manual focus, and older mechanical SLRs have much more satisfying noises and feel than modern cameras. Of course, you have to put up with film developing, but you can have the film developed and scanned without prints if you prefer to have the images on the computer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-11-28T20:18:41.397" />
  <row Id="5241" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5242" CreationDate="2010-11-28T20:21:56.713" Score="5" ViewCount="194" Body="&lt;p&gt;Where can I develop 110 film from my pentax 110 slr&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2187" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-28T20:40:10.917" LastActivityDate="2010-11-28T20:40:10.917" Title="Where can I develop 110 film?" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;image-processing&gt;&lt;developing&gt;&lt;110&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="5242" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5241" CreationDate="2010-11-28T20:39:29.810" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I took mine (also from a Pentax Auto110!) to the local fancy camera store, and they couldn't do it. But CVS could! They sent it in to Kodak for processing, so it took a little while, but the results came back just fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-11-28T20:39:29.810" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5243" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-28T20:41:28.050" Score="7" ViewCount="169" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Nikkor 18-200mm VR lens creeps until fully extended if pointed vertically down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is preventing me from using it on a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostrum_camera&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;rostrum camera&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a piece of equipment or a simple (and non-destructive!) hack to hold the zoom in place?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://digitalphotographyblogs.com/2008/07/22/lens-creep-what-it-is-and-one-way-to-stop-it/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a blog post that suggests using a rubber band&lt;/a&gt; half-overlapping the zoom ring, but that doesn't sound very secure. I'm really after something that will hold it exactly where I put it for a really long time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2016" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T02:19:38.220" Title="How to prevent zoom-creep?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikkor-18-200mm&gt;&lt;zoom-creep&gt;&lt;rostrum-camera&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5244" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5227" CreationDate="2010-11-28T20:41:44.333" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to @jrista's detailed answer, you may also wish to experiment with &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracketing&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;focus bracketing&lt;/a&gt;.  This technique involves taking many photos of the same macro scene with many different focus points, and then composing a final, fully-in-focus-image from the images.  I haven't done it myself, but I imagine that it could be a very useful technique for your problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-11-28T20:41:44.333" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5245" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-28T20:44:06.270" Score="10" ViewCount="1086" Body="&lt;p&gt;Which lenses are &lt;strong&gt;must have&lt;/strong&gt; for a Canon user having photography as hobby.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please consider the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Praiseworthy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hobby use. All kind of photography: landscape, macro, portrait etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Answer one lens at a time!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2047" LastEditorUserId="2047" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-28T23:24:40.173" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T17:07:54.247" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-30T18:21:30.567" Title="Which are must have lenses for Canon?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;hobbyist&gt;" AnswerCount="18" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="5246" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5217" CreationDate="2010-11-28T21:10:51.043" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This may not be the answer you want, but I'd suggest a film SLR. A few years ago I was in sixth grade and wanted to move up from my cheapo radio shack digital point and shoot. My dad went into his closet and pulled out two minolta film slrs with lenses and gave them to me. Since then, I have become a much better photographer. If your daughter wants to see how she likes slr photography or wants to improve her photos and technique, I'd get her a film slr, coming from personal experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2187" LastActivityDate="2010-11-28T21:10:51.043" />
  <row Id="5247" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5245" CreationDate="2010-11-28T21:11:59.483" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depends on what you like to shoot. If you're into landscape, some sort of (ultra) wide-angle is a must have, but you also must know how to use it to its full effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a hobby photographer, I can highly recommend the 50mm/1.8, because it is ultra-cheap yet gives you some amazing pictures. You can, of course, spend more money and get the 50mm/1.4.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2379" LastEditorUserId="2379" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-28T21:40:58.143" LastActivityDate="2010-11-28T21:40:58.143" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-30T18:21:30.567" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5248" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5245" CreationDate="2010-11-28T21:20:56.313" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;None of them are must have. You can always swap every lens for something a bit different that will do the job as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-11-28T21:20:56.313" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-30T18:21:30.567" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5249" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5243" CreationDate="2010-11-28T21:23:45.903" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, other than a strong rubber band, the other alternative I can think of is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaffer_tape&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gaffer tape&lt;/a&gt; which, unlike duct tape, doesn't leave a residue. However, I think a rubber band will work if the band is good quality and thick and so I would go the rubber band route first, to find out, and failing that go with gaffer tape.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-11-28T21:23:45.903" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="5250" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5245" CreationDate="2010-11-28T23:24:49.123" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yeah not &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; sure what you're asking... Are you talking about what you should achieve as a hobbyist or what lenses you should get as a hobbyist? Because hobby just means shooting for yourself. It has no relation to where and when and what.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-11-28T23:24:49.123" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-30T18:21:30.567" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5251" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5252" CreationDate="2010-11-29T00:37:15.880" Score="5" ViewCount="213" Body="&lt;p&gt;Using Lightroom 2, I'm trying to filter by multiple keywords (aka tags) at once, using an AND semantic.  i.e. I want to find all pictures that have all of the specified keywords.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The closest I can find is to go to the Library Filter panel in Metadata mode and select multiple keywords, but that has an OR semantic, which is not what I want (and seems generally pretty useless!).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My other attempt was to use the Library Filter panel in Text mode and just search for the tag names, but that ends up finding a lot of unwanted things as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems like a very basic need, so I suspect I'm missing something obvious here. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2383" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T04:05:13.503" Title="Filtering by multiple tags in Lightroom" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;tagging&gt;&lt;search&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="5252" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5251" CreationDate="2010-11-29T00:43:54.473" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only way I know how to explicitly do this is with Smart Collections. With Smart Collections, you have the ability to choose either AND or OR semantics when configuring your criteria. There is another good thread on this subject here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4811/good-uses-for-lightrooms-smart-collections&quot;&gt;Good Uses for Lightroom's Smart Collections&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Outside of smart collections, you can use the &quot;Text&quot; search mode in the library module. If you select &quot;Keywords&quot;, and type in (separated by spaces) the keyword terms you are interested in, you can kind of get the behavior you are looking for, but it is not always ideal. This is because LR does a basic string search, and ANY term that matches will be included, regardless of whether it is a whole keyword, or just part of a keyword.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T00:43:54.473" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="5253" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5243" CreationDate="2010-11-29T02:19:38.220" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could try a rubber band plus one or more toothpicks or paperclips to catch the knurls on the zoom ring more exactly. Or if the rubber band isn't holding reliably enough, you could try a bit of hot glue to fix the toothpicks in place - hot glue generally scrapes off pretty well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively, depending on your budget, you could buy a manual focus prime lens of the proper focal length, which would be inexpensive. Since it's a static setup, the effort of setting the focus would be well amortized. (Of course, you might still need a rubber band to keep the focus from being bumped!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T02:19:38.220" />
  <row Id="5254" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5255" CreationDate="2010-11-29T02:31:37.077" Score="5" ViewCount="308" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hey guys I'm looking to purchase a new lens. The types of photos I take are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Portraits&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Candids&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Street&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Random objects here and there&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Architecture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Occasional landscape when on vacation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are ordered in descending order of preference and frequency. I know that the 85mm would be an ideal choice seeing that I love taking portraits, but the 28-135 seems to have pretty good review and it's definitely good for street, or any general walkaround when I don't want to change from prime to prime all the time. Of course I plan to get a 85mm eventually if I were to buy the 28-135, thing is which one of them would be a better investment for now given a budget constraint. (ie if I buy one I'll need to at least wait another year or so before I buy another)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that I already have a 50mm f/1.8 and am only a hobbyist photographer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;END EDIT&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1635" LastEditorUserId="1635" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-29T02:56:54.037" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T16:38:57.643" Title="Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM or Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5255" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5254" CreationDate="2010-11-29T02:48:47.053" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, a prime lens is usually much better optically than a zoom and usually has much better light gathering ability, which in this case is pretty clear. Having said that, the flexibility of a zoom is hard to ignore, especially if it is a good one, and your interests are spread about a bit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think, if you're not looking to sell your results professionally, then the zoom will give you more ability to cover the range of interests you have and do it quite well. Ideally, if money were no object, then a series of high quality of primes would be better option for professional work, but you'll be lens swapping more. So, given the circumstance, I would probably recommend the zoom and then recommend that you start to acquire some different prime lenses as the opportunity arises (either new or used, don't ignore the used market) and you find focal lengths from the zoom that start to interest you most.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the way, all that isn't to say you can't get professional grade output from the zoom. You certainly can, but the conditions under which you can do it are more limited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T02:48:47.053" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5256" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5245" CreationDate="2010-11-29T03:00:01.970" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For sports and general use a 70-200L f2.8 USM is a standard lens. Add a teleconverter, such as the 1.4x, and it'll still be sharp. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't particularly like the IS version unless you need it for slow-shutter non-moving targets, because IS adds weight and cost and complexity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They're pro-glass, but well worth the money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1514" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T03:00:01.970" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-30T18:21:30.567" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5257" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5227" CreationDate="2010-11-29T03:12:04.127" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A non-obvious answer is to increase the light. Because macro photography has such a small depth of field we're often forced to balance the aperture setting with avoiding camera vibration. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adding some off-camera strobe will nicely fix both problems. The burst itself will act as the shutter if you want it to, by getting about 5-6 stops between the flash output and your ambient light, completely ruling out vibration problems. Even a long duration burst will be a lot faster than you can get with a macro without supplemental light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, you can change your aperture to f18 or f22 with enough flash, extending your macro range as far as possible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Shaw shows some adapters he used in his landscape and macro books, also you'll see samples of macro work on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;strobist site&lt;/a&gt; where people have used small flashes to get great results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1514" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T03:12:04.127" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5258" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="377" CreationDate="2010-11-29T03:20:20.640" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Nikkor 105mm &quot;Micro&quot; lens is an awesome lens, considered to be one of the best out there. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had one for years before I switched to Canon, and loved it. It actually makes a great portrait lens too, though mine was a bit slow focusing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I would take a 105mm over any of the shorter lenses as the 105 gives you a bit more reach, which is really important when trying to shoot insects. A 50mm macro will put you a few inches away, where the 105mm will put you about a foot away. That can mean the difference between having a shot or just wandering the field hoping to get close. It can also mean not having shadows in your shot because the closer you are to the subject, the more likely you are to block your own light. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1514" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T03:20:20.640" />
  <row Id="5259" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5230" CreationDate="2010-11-29T03:38:36.817" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the biggest problems with on-camera flash is reflection from the retina of your subject's eyes. On humans, especially kids, you'll get red-eye. On animals you'll get glowing eyes. So, beyond controlling shadows, you have to control eye reflection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Camera makers try to help out by various &quot;red-eye reduction&quot; techniques, such as shining a light in their eyes, or firing a series of pre-flashes, hoping to trick the subject's pupils into closing down, but the tactic usually doesn't fix the problem entirely simply because the light is at almost the same angle as the lens, causing the maximum light from the flash to reflect back to the camera. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've used flashes on the camera, flashes on a good flash mount which raise the light about two feet above the lens, and then there's my set of six strobes on poles, which can light a football-field sized rodeo arena. I almost never get reflection with the big strobes because the angle between them and the lens is so great. The tall flash mount works great for people at weddings and parties but still has problems with animals. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what does that all mean? If you can get the flash off the body you improve your chances of NOT having reflection. Get an off-camera cord, or use some remote-releases and experiment with the flash on-axis with the lens, a foot away, two feet away, and at arm's length. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1514" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T03:38:36.817" />
  <row Id="5260" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4564" CreationDate="2010-11-29T03:48:32.927" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For family and individual portraits I love something in the 24-70 zoom range for a full or near-full frame camera body. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Kids are fast moving little critters and you need a fast focusing lens to track them. You also don't want to have to stand near them or they'll start mugging for the camera, which almost never turns into a photo you want to keep. The 70mm end of a lens puts you at a reasonable distance with kids and will work wonderfully for tight portraits of humans... err... adults. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used to shoot some events for special-needs kids, and they'd see a camera and concentrate on smiling instead of doing whatever it was that made it a good shot initially. After a bit I switched to a 70-200 f2.8 and worked from farther away. I could still pull them in for a full facial if necessary, but usually that was too tight so I'd shoot a bit wider to show their activity; To provide a &quot;sense of place&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first time I turned in photos from that event the heads of the organization were wowed. Everyone else shooting it tried to get in close with a short lens and never got the kids being themselves. Also, because it's a longer lens the backgrounds were soft (I shoot almost wide open), so each photo really isolated the subject from the background, making the photo very intimate. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, depending on what you're doing and the style of the shooting you need, I'd either recommend a wide-to-medium zoom, or a medium-to-long zoom. If you can handle buying both you won't regret it because you'll need the versatility. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1514" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T03:48:32.927" />
  <row Id="5261" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5251" CreationDate="2010-11-29T04:05:13.503" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have Lightroom 3, and here's how you do it there (perhaps someone with LR 2 could verify if this behavior is the same):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Library module, show the filter bar, choose Text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two dropdowns and a text entry box.  The first dropdown should read &lt;em&gt;Keywords&lt;/em&gt;.  Set the second dropdown to &lt;em&gt;Contains All&lt;/em&gt; (as opposed to simply Contains), and then enter your set of keywords separated by spaces into the text box.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T04:05:13.503" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5262" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2627" CreationDate="2010-11-29T04:51:47.877" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My guess is on most &quot;text&quot; images (photographs of documents, etc), the difference would be substantial because of jpg artifacts at the edges.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T04:51:47.877" />
  <row Id="5263" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2627" CreationDate="2010-11-29T08:17:47.297" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will add my own input. Doing this specifically isn't the reason to shoot RAW, it's just the primary reason why shooting RAW gives you fundamentally more headroom to work with when pushing pixels around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I took this shot at a show a mate of mine was playing at (in this actual band). 1/60th ISO 1600 f/2.8 on a Canon 50D with EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a JPEG version with 100% fill light and 100% recovery and even some negative tone curving applied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/yWLDF.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And here is the RAW version. There is &lt;strong&gt;mountains&lt;/strong&gt; more &lt;em&gt;accurate&lt;/em&gt; data available to use to adjust exposure, contrast and everything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/H9grM.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For reference, here is the actual edit I did on this for the shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/E8o78.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T08:17:47.297" />
  <row Id="5264" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4236" CreationDate="2010-11-29T09:18:20.100" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've had very good results with digikam and the resize plugin in Ubuntu.&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digikam.org/plugins.html#p5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.digikam.org/plugins.html#p5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T09:18:20.100" />
  <row Id="5265" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5254" CreationDate="2010-11-29T09:34:31.507" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm assuming you have a APS-C cropped sensor camera (e.g. 50D, T2i etc) rather than full frame (5D, 1Ds). In that case both the 85mm (a superb lens) and your 50mm (a very good lens) are fast short tele primes. The 28-135 is a normal-to-tele zoom. The 85mm is in some ways a 'better 50mm' for your camera. The 28-135 is more flexible. However, please consider a wide-to-normal zoom too. For example, the 15-85, the 17-55 f2.8, the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (non-VC) etc. The wider-than-normal viewpoint is worth getting to know, and 28mm on a crop cam is not wide at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do have a 5D/1Ds then 28mm is OK, though a 24-105 would probably do the camera more justice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2329" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T09:34:31.507" />
  <row Id="5267" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5217" CreationDate="2010-11-29T10:49:35.460" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Picking up on the good advice to get a basic camera with a 50mm ish (equivilant) prime, as well as the size / weight considerations for a young girl, one option you might want to consider is a first generation Micro Four Thirds camera with a 17mm or 20mm prime. These are smaller and lighter than a traditional SLR with a mirror and in most situations are every bit as flexible, and much better than a bridge camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll also get around a 40mm equivilant focal length, which is a really nice lense for natural looking photos that rely on good composition. As has been pointed out, a 50mm on an APS-C camera is around 80mm equivilant, which isn't as versatile, and you really should be looking at a 35mm or similar to get 50mm equivilant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because there's a new generation of Micro Four Thirds cameras coming out, you can pick up a Panasonic Lumix G1 (or a GF-1, if you really want to keep the size down) for good prices now, and spend the extra on a good prime. Of course, the same financial logic applies to getting an older generation APS-C with a more expensive 35mm lense, but they'll still be bigger and heavier than a Micro Four Thirds camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2336" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T10:49:35.460" />
  <row Id="5268" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5254" CreationDate="2010-11-29T11:49:22.627" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Usually a prime lens (85mm) is more suited for street photography: is smaller, lighter and can operate in low light. That zoom is a pretty nice lens, but with a f3.5 aperture you'd have to start to crank up the ISO when daylight goes down (usually a tripod is not an option in street photography). Someone could be tempted to use a lens at the lowest f-stop possible in low light, but keep in mind every lens lens has a lower image quality when operated with that aperture: the 85mm at f1.8 or the 28-135mm at f3.5 won't has has sharp and, if possible, you should use a slightly higher aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand 85mm may not be wide enough for street photography and the 28-135mm can easily be easier to use for streetphotography...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a matter of comprimise, choosing lenses is tough!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T11:49:22.627" />
  <row Id="5269" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5192" CreationDate="2010-11-29T13:25:19.133" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I did this last year, using equipment I already owned - tripod, DSLR and a macro lens - rather than buying a scanner. I used a little lightbox for negatives and soft diffused daylight for prints. I wrote up my experiences on a flickr thread that can be seen &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/canondslr/discuss/72157620448786604&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. I managed to get through about a hundred an hour without much difficulty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2329" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T13:25:19.133" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5270" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5217" CreationDate="2010-11-29T14:31:39.133" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my opinion, &lt;strong&gt;buying an &quot;advanced&quot; compact camera is almost always a mistake&lt;/strong&gt;. Especially for someone passionate and willing to learn about the photography. I did it myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Advanced&quot; compact cameras approach the prices of the DSLRs and the mirrorless cameras, but do not offer even comparable performance. Yes, you can get a compact camera with manual controls, but in the end after all the effort the user makes to take photos, the result is less than optimal. Paying more than $200 for a camera with a small sensor (anything smaller than 200 mm²) is not going to help to take better pictures. You pay for features which are not backed up by performance. And you do not have a way to upgrade.  Buying a compact camera is a dead end solution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, Canon G12 is currently 480€, and what you get for this money:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a small crippled sensor (43 mm², I expect bad low-light performance, grainy images, poor tonal fidelity, and the depth of field which is hard to control)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;probably a mediocre and &lt;em&gt;non-changeable&lt;/em&gt; lens (probably not good at all at some focal lengths and apertures)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;an electronic viewfinder (eye strain, especially in dark or very bright environments)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;slow operation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same time, an entry level Pentax K-x with kit lens is 460€ from the same merchant. And it is a very good camera. Good sensor, decent optics (and you can upgrade to a better lens), &lt;em&gt;optical viewfinder&lt;/em&gt; (the user can see how exactly the scene he is taking photo of is looking), manual controls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or Olympus Pen E-P1 with a pancake (17 mm) lens from the same merchant is 505€. Again, good and potent camera. Smaller than a DSLR at the cost of the missing optical viewfinder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I agree with the others, that starting with a fixed focal length is a good way to learn.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastEditorUserId="1558" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-06T11:37:46.580" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T11:37:46.580" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="5271" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="377" CreationDate="2010-11-29T15:47:27.000" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You may also want to consider the tamron 180mm 3.5 with a nikon mount.  It's much cheaper than the 200mm f/4, but about comparable quality.  I figured that out by writing a little program that sucks images down from pbase.com, which organizes images by equipment used to take them, and then scrubbing the equipment information and asking the rater to indicate the quality.  Neither I nor others who used this software could tell the difference between the tamron and the nikon.  The sigma in this category (180mm as well, I believe) was clearly lacking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T15:47:27.000" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5272" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3709" CreationDate="2010-11-29T16:43:50.973" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have about 10 years experience shooting pro-rodeo from inside the arena. The standard lens is a 70-200 f2.8 with high-speed focusing, either a Canon 70-200L f2.8 USM or the Nikon equivalent will be on 90% of the bodies. Rodeo action is extremely random and can change the distance to the camera very fast so having a fast focusing lens is essential. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found using the center focus sensor, which is a cross-pattern, to be the most effective, because the random motion played havoc with the focus speed. By studying the riders I learned what part of them to track to give the camera the best chance of staying in sync; Basically you want to locate the part of their body that moves the least, which usually will be the trunk, from the hips to the shoulders. Using the center sensor means you'll have to avoid zooming in tight so you have enough room to adjust for unexpected changes in direction while tracking. Our reactions will lag behind their direction change so the added room in the frame will help you still get an image if something good happens - think about pro-football players twisting to avoid a tackler - their bodies and the resulting shots look coolest because of the change of direction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to tracking areas on the subject that don't move quickly, you also have to be aware of what in the image the camera uses to track focus. It likes areas with lots of contrast under the sensor so it can find edges then it tries to make those edges as sharp as possible. Try focusing on a monochromatic (i.e. white, gray or black) wall and the camera has a hard time. Put a pattern of vertical or horizontal lines and it does better. Make the pattern into blocks/plaids/paisleys and it does it easily. So, you have to watch your subject and try to find areas where there is a good change in contrast that doesn't move fast. Gets challenging some times, especially if the light levels are low or there is lousy contrast. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An AF-S lens would be a lot better than a standard autofocus lens for action. There is a lot more sophisticated focus mechanism in the AFS lens allowing you to zoom as you focus. With the cheaper focus you will end up fighting the zoom which really affects your percentage of keepers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, while a prime is lighter and potentially able to capture more light because of a bigger aperture, they can be a pain for sports or fast action, especially when it's moving toward you. A good friend of mine has one of Canon's 200mm f1.8 lenses and we'd shoot side by side. I'd be able to pull out on the zoom and go to 70mm when he'd be stuck at 200mm shooting action moving toward us. He'd get a face or chest shot and I'd get horse and rider, or, I could selectively get the face. So, having the ability to zoom quickly and accurately maintain focus (because of the AFS or USM) was very important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding firing bursts to capture action - you'll find that the pros who are trying to get the peak action rarely rely on motor drive. It's ALL timing and knowing their sport. I have 9 FPS available on my Canon body and never use it except for messing around because it sounds cool. I've done tests to see what sort of granularity 9 frames a second gives me, and it misses a lot of motion. Figure it this way, 9 frames of 1/1000 second shutter speed gives 9/1000 of a second captured, leaving 991/1000 of the second missed. Your reactions are better than that, plus if you know the subject, you can really narrow it down. So, rather than mash on the button, study your subject, track it (panning) so you have the greatest opportunity for stopping the motion and being ready if something interesting happens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, aperture really has no bearing on how fast the camera can track focus in normal conditions, though it seems like it would. The camera doesn't stop down the aperture until it's ready to open the shutter, allowing it to have the maximum amount of light available to it to determine focus. You can test this by selecting a f22 aperture, then turning the camera around and looking down the barrel. You shouldn't see the blades closed down unless you release the shutter or press a depth-of-field preview button. Maximum aperture does come into play in low light. f1.8 is one more stop&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The focus drive (USM or AFS) makes all the difference. You pay more but you get more. The lenses are better built, can take more abuse and are a pleasure to use. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, when they act up they can REALLY piss you off, especially when you're expecting them to be working correctly, but we won't talk about that. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1514" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T16:43:50.973" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5273" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5274" CreationDate="2010-11-29T20:03:32.753" Score="42" ViewCount="3606" Body="&lt;p&gt;We don't get much snow in the UK, so I don't have much experience photographing it, and when I tried photographing falling snow last year I found it very hard to capture the snowflakes in the air — they either didn't show up or were just streaks. Is there a shutter speed that is best for this? I don't want to use flash to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any other snow photography tips welcome from those in snowier places!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;UPDATE&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a couple of shots that I got when I tried the techniques suggested. These were taken with a Panasonic Lumix G1, 14-45 lens at about 25mm (50mm equiv),  pop up flash, a plastic bag and an elastic band (to keep the camera dry). Also on &lt;a href=&quot;http://15years.aminus3.com/image/2010-11-30.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;my photoblog&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/bLhHK.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Snow pier&quot;&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/moVRn.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Promenade in the snow&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks to everyone for the help, definitely made the difference — the shots without flash are very boring; just looks like heavy rain. And I know the bench is out of focus in the second one — didn't set the focus point correctly and the DOF is wrong, but was starting to get so, so cold :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2336" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-29T22:44:19.303" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T22:44:19.303" Title="How should I photograph falling snow?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;shutter-speed&gt;&lt;weather&gt;&lt;snow&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="16" />
  <row Id="5274" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5273" CreationDate="2010-11-29T20:26:53.847" Score="39" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want them to stand out against the background, you need to use an flash.  On-axis will generally reflect the most light off the snowflakes to the camera and have them stand out more.  I used a cheap ebay plastic cover with a space for the flash for the picture below.  Otherwise, a fast shutter speed may make them visible, but it depends on the background and the lighting.  You would need some bright sun but a dark shaded background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5051/5442383132_9e03636b12_z.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-18T16:04:29.397" LastActivityDate="2011-03-18T16:04:29.397" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="5275" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5273" CreationDate="2010-11-29T20:30:25.400" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Snow will be just grey before other snow. So you have to find a background (beginning of snow falling), use a lightsource nevertheless (like a flash) or wait for a sun-snow-mix (seldom, but worth it ... the glittering flakes are precious, halos are sometimes an extra).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can understand that you don't like using flash (on the camera) as it highlights the flakes nearest to the flash. That doesn't always look good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T20:30:25.400" />
  <row Id="5276" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5273" CreationDate="2010-11-29T23:32:45.850" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This depends a lot on the size of the snow flakes and how fast they are falling. It also depends on lens (wide/tele). Regardless, I would not advise using a flash if at all possible, if you must use a flash use one off camera or bounce/diffuse the on camera flash.  Use a mid range aperture and a high shutter speed to stop the flakes. If you can do 125 or higher at 5.6 you'd be at a good starting point with most snow. 125th is about as slow as you'll want to go though. If using auto and an in camera meter you may need to over/under expose based on the scene and subject. a lot of white will throw a camera meter for a loop. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;though, don't be scared to go for the streaks of snow either, it can be a great landscape technique. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;good luck. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2403" LastActivityDate="2010-11-29T23:32:45.850" />
  <row Id="5277" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5254" CreationDate="2010-11-30T00:43:44.977" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Regarding the 85mm prime:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I own the 50mm f/1.4 USM and the 85mm f/1.8 USM, and I'd say the 85 is close enough to the 50 in most uses that it's probably not worth having both 50mm and 85mm lenses for most hobbyist photographers. I could easily do without the 85, but I'd never give up that 50. (My wife just got the 50mm f/1.2 L, but we're keeping the f/1.4 so we can both have 50mm lenses mounted to our respective cameras simultaneously.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do recommend, though, that you use the money instead to upgrade from the 50mm f/1.8 to the FAR nicer &lt;b&gt;50mm f/1.4 USM&lt;/b&gt; model (~$340). There's a huge difference in build quality and focus-motor speed, and small differences in optical quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For your zoom needs:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 28-135 is OK, but not amazing in optics or versatility. (I'm assuming you have a crop-sensor camera like the Rebel/50D/7D series, and not a full-frame 1Ds/5D-series camera.) As others have said, 28mm isn't very wide on these bodies, and with a walk-around versatile zoom, the wide end is often your limiting factor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may want to consider the &lt;b&gt;EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM&lt;/b&gt;, which is an amazing but expensive lens at ~$1000. This was my walkaround lens when I had a crop-sensor camera (I've since moved to the 5D Mark II, which EF-S lenses are not compatible with).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's far nicer, in my opinion, than the &lt;b&gt;24-105mm f/4 IS L&lt;/b&gt; that I got with the 5D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should also highly consider the relatively new &lt;b&gt;EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM&lt;/b&gt; (~$720), which I don't have any experience with, but is getting &lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;great reviews&lt;/a&gt; and looks like a promising alternative to the 17-55 but at a lower price, smaller size, and reduced weight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1802" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T00:43:44.977" />
  <row Id="5279" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5273" CreationDate="2010-11-30T01:51:51.183" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The exposure settings to stop moving objects depends entirely on how fast the objects are traversing your frame.  Falling snow falls at a variable speed depending on the particular storm.  The focal length of your lens will determine the size of your frame, so the answer is different for a 100mm lens and a 35mm lens.  Another factor is how far away the exposed objects are from you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One technique would be to measure the time it takes for an object to traverse the frame, and divide that by the relative size of the object to the frame.  So if it takes 2 seconds for a snow flake to travel from the top to the bottom of the frame, and the snow flake appears to be 1/100th the height of the frame, you would arrive at 1/50th of a second.  I would double or quadruple this, so you get 1/100-1/200.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But most likely you will be fighting the other aspects of the exposure.  I would crank up the ISO to the highest setting that is acceptable, open the aperture for the composition that you want, and see what the meter tells you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending upon the composition, you can also cheat by following the falling snow with the camera during the exposure.  This will blur the background, but if you are just looking to stop falling snowflakes and you don't have enough exposure breathing room, this might work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you posted some examples of prior failed experiments, folks here might be able to spot where the exposure went wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another thing to consider, snow is hell on a camera's brain.  White balance and exposure computations are nearly always off with snow.  If you can shoot in RAW, you can do the white balance yourself after the fact.  The best way to deal with metering miscomputations is to carefully review the results on the spot and adjust as needed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2413" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T01:51:51.183" />
  <row Id="5280" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5326" CreationDate="2010-11-30T01:56:33.470" Score="3" ViewCount="176" Body="&lt;p&gt;Where can i get a minolta fisheye lens (MD Mount) for around 150 dollars or less. Or can i get a lens that gives some of the distorted perspective of a fisheye lens for around the same price?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2187" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-30T08:33:08.507" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T23:33:13.817" Title="Fisheye Lens for Minolta MD mount" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;fisheye&gt;&lt;minolta&gt;&lt;md-mount&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="5281" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-30T02:23:36.430" Score="7" ViewCount="220" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are some of your favorite/most used lesser known features of the open source Canon firmware CHDK?  Have any helpful scripts you used?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2358" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-02T01:21:30.580" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T15:52:52.087" Title="Hidden features of CHDK" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;chdk&gt;&lt;open-source&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5282" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-30T02:26:24.633" Score="4" ViewCount="372" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard that Spyder3Express applies one calibrated colour profiles on multiple screens, hence they try to get you to upgrade to the Pro version and twice the price for that pleasure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can owners confirm if there is a way around this? For example, calibrate one screen, then rename the colour profile in the mac os x colour profile folder, then calibrate the second screen, hence the new profile does not override the old one... This is just a thought, I don't own a Spyder3Express yet, but I will only get if I know I can independently calibrate each screen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2419" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-30T03:34:36.483" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T13:33:11.860" Title="Getting Spyder3Express to work on a Mac OS X dual screen setup" Tags="&lt;macintosh&gt;&lt;color-calibration&gt;&lt;spyder3&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5283" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-30T05:32:23.963" Score="8" ViewCount="335" Body="&lt;p&gt;How to start learning photography?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2423" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-01T02:27:43.897" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T09:30:34.780" Title="How to start learning photography?" Tags="&lt;learning&gt;&lt;photography-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="5284" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5283" CreationDate="2010-11-30T07:30:40.043" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a number of options for how to start learning photography.  I suppose it depends on where you're coming from -- what you want to learn, where you live, how you learn... these sorts of things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few options for a total beginner:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Take a class or a workshop.  I took my first photo class when I was in middle school.  It was an after-school class, separate from the school proper.  During high school and college, there were classes offered by the schools directly.  Many junior colleges have photography programs, as well.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Books.  There are a multitude of photography books out there.  Go visit your local library or bookstore, and browse a few.  See which one(s) resonate for you, and take them home and give them a read.  Online bookstores are, of course, also an option, and you may find reviews helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Trial and error.  Especially if or once you have a few basics under your belt, there's a lot that you can learn just by trying things.  Changing settings on your camera, taking pictures, and seeing what happens.  And you have the option of going the scientific route: taking copious notes, comparing the notes with your results, coming up with guesses on what things mean, and trying to test your guesses (hypotheses)... or just trying things, and eventually building up a feel for what settings impact what features of your camera and/or the resulting images.  I personally have learned a lot of what I know from this route.  The classes that I started with, and some books, as well, helped a great deal, though -- they laid a foundation of basic theory upon which for my trial-and-error explorations to build.  I was thus able to use trial-and-error for figuring out which techniques worked best in a certain situation, or to get a certain type of result, rather than to figure out the basics of how my camera worked.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Internet.  There are many many many websites that talk about photography at various levels.  Some of them are bound to be oriented towards your skill level.  There are also sites like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;flickr.com&lt;/a&gt; (and &lt;a href=&quot;http://23hq.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;23hq.com&lt;/a&gt;, etc.) which provide an online community (or set of communities, really) around photography.  You can upload your images to the site, find a group to join that fits your interests, skill level, and/or geographic location, and submit your images to that group to get feedback on them, or ask questions in the discussion sections of the group.  There are also bound to be youtube videos, online courses (a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?&amp;amp;q=photography+class+online&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;google search for &quot;photography class online&quot;&lt;/a&gt; got me some promising-looking results), and any number of other resources.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Camera clubs and other photo groups.  In a lot of areas, especially big cities, there are bound to be numerous photography-related groups.  For example, in Seattle, among various others, the Seattle Flickr Meetups group (which exists both &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.meetup.com/SeattleFlickr/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;on meetup.com&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/seattlemeetups/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;on flickr.com&lt;/a&gt;) is a mostly-social group of flickr users, ranging from people who take pictures with their camera phone, and just have a vague interest in photography, straight through to some seasoned professionals, with a wide range (and many people) in between.  There are also various other groups in the area, with different focuses -- some catering to different skill levels, some catering to different types of meetings (e.g. image critique nights), etc.  I imagine that in most big cities, similar groups exist.  If you're further afield, they might be harder to find, but check sites like the ones I mention above, and/or just do a web search (e.g. on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Google&lt;/a&gt;) for photo groups in your area.  Some of these groups are bound to have options for people to learn the basics of photography.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So look around -- online, or in your area -- and see what's out there.  Then decide what's best for you...  or just jump in to whatever's the first or easiest thing you find, and see where it takes you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Happy shooting!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S.  there's a question on this site about &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/384/what-blogs-should-i-be-following-if-i-am-learning-photography&quot;&gt;which blogs to follow&lt;/a&gt; which you may also find (the answers to) useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastEditorUserId="2425" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-30T19:56:29.873" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T19:56:29.873" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5285" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5290" CreationDate="2010-11-30T07:34:52.890" Score="9" ViewCount="267" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm thinking of getting a new lens for my Nikon D200. The question is whether or not to get one with VR (Vibration Reduction). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for something for taking motor sport and wild life pictures. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any situations where the VR features cause problems? I've heard that if you want to take action photos that involve panning, then VR can be a problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2427" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T03:57:29.167" Title="Is a VR lens worth getting?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5286" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4981" CreationDate="2010-11-30T07:52:39.033" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, &quot;the most interesting&quot; is surely a subjective thing.  That said, here are a few things that either I've played with, or that I'm at least aware of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;potassium ferricyanide and mixed with ferric ammonium citrate (i.e. Cyanotypes)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Various UV-sensitive materials are arguably &quot;photosensitive&quot; -- the photons may not be in the visible spectrum, but the concept is the same.  A number of these materials harden when exposed, which can create interesting opportunities to make 3D &quot;photographs&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Infrared film(s) (Alas, many of these have stopped being produced -- but there are still plenty out there)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Holograph film (exposed with lasers... it's an interesting process!)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;color photo paper -- exposing it WITHOUT developing it can be interesting... though you need a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?q=six+month+exposure&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pretty long exposure&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;liquid photo emulsion -- this can be painted on to a wide variety of surfaces, so perhaps that's the winner, since you can choose your &quot;most interesting&quot; surface?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure there are numerous others, as well.  Especially with exotic light sources (the &quot;shadows&quot; created by a nuclear explosion could likely be argued to be &quot;photographs&quot;, right?  oy!  But even something more tame, like a laser or UV light.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if you can use grass, I imagine you could use human skin, similarly.  And probably other biological organs/organisms (algae? etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T07:52:39.033" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5287" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5305" CreationDate="2010-11-30T08:04:14.340" Score="13" ViewCount="279" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most, if not, all Nikon have a crop factor of 1.5, while a Canon has 1.6, does this mean that Nikons are closer to a full-frame, in terms of having a bigger sensor and all the benefits that comes with it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1635" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T05:14:31.023" Title="Difference between a Canon and a Nikon crop sensor" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;cropped-sensor&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="5288" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5287" CreationDate="2010-11-30T08:19:19.187" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The differences in crop factor between Nikon and Canon are fairly trivial. The Nikon sensors are a smidge larger, however it is nothing to be concerned about, and certainly nothing to base a buying decision on. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be precise, the Canon APS-C sensor measures exactly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22.2mm width x 14.8mm height&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Nikon APS-C sensor measures between:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23.1mm width x 15.4mm height &amp;amp; 23.7mm width x 15.8mm height&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not sure why there is so much variation in Nikon APS-C sensor sizes, but there it is. In addition to APS-C, Canon also make a few sensors that are between APS-C and Full Frame, called APS-H. These sensors are only found in the high-end, high-speed 1D series, and measure:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;28.7mm width x 19.7mm height&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference between a Canon and Nikon APS-C format is minor, less than a millimeter in either dimension, and with the wide variety of pixel densities, there is no decent comparison to make between sensors of any given physical dimensions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T08:19:19.187" />
  <row Id="5289" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5287" CreationDate="2010-11-30T08:19:46.097" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From what I've read and seen, I don't think there is any real significant difference between 1.5 and 1.6. Almost everyone tends to go with a camera make they feel familiar with. I have always used Nikons and like how they work, whereas my Dad always uses Canons and knows how they work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The pictures they both produce are equally as good, so I haven't seen any difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2427" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T08:19:46.097" />
  <row Id="5290" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5285" CreationDate="2010-11-30T09:09:52.810" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a variety of types of lenses with VR/IS capabilities. Many of the older, first generation versions have limited stabilization capabilities, and no way to restrict stabilization to a single plane of motion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Modern lenses with VR/IS capabilities tend to be much more advanced. They usually offer anywhere from &lt;em&gt;two&lt;/em&gt; to a whopping &lt;strong&gt;four&lt;/strong&gt; stops of hand-holdability in average circumstances. Newer lenses also tend to include a mode switch that allows you to disable stabilization in the horizontal plane, allowing you to pan the camera to capture sports or wildlife motion without stabilization interfering, while still stabilizing in the vertical plane.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Vibration reduction can be a considerable bonus with telephoto lenses when you can't afford a wide aperture. A 300mm or longer f/2.8 lens can cost a considerable amount of money, anywhere from $2000 up to several thousand for something in the range of 500mm or greater. For contrast, a Canon EF 300mm f/4 lens with Image Stabilization costs about $1200, while the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 lens (which also has IS) costs $4500. Similarly, the Nikon 300mm f/2.8 lens (with VR) costs about $5,900. Sadly, I don't believe Nikon has any non f/2.8 telephoto lenses with VR, all of their VR lenses seem to already be fast f/2.8 lenses (or f/4 once you pass 400mm, which is still a very wide aperture for 500-600mm lenses.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another interesting comparison can be made with telephoto zoom lenses. A comparable example would be Canon's 70-200mm lens line, of which there are four current models. Two f/4's and two f/2.8's. The prices break out as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;       | No IS |  IS&#xA;=======================&#xA; f/4.0 | $626  | $1200&#xA; f/2.8 | $1200 | $2300&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 70-200/4 IS costs about the same as the 70-200/2.8 w/o IS. The f/4 IS version brings to the table a whopping &lt;strong&gt;3-4 stops&lt;/strong&gt; of additional hand-holdability, which technically makes it a better low-light lens than the f/2.8 w/o IS...by nearly two stops. With good technique, you should be able to get shots with the f/4 IS lens that you could get with an f/1.4-f/1.8 Non-IS lens, which is pretty amazing. (A good hand-held technique would be required to get the full 4-stop benefit of this particular lenses IS, but with practice, I've heard many people state that they can easily get 4 stops lower shutter speed.) I believe Nikon has very similar offerings in the 70-200mm range with VR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Vibration Reduction/Image Stabilization can be problematic in some cases. Again, modern stabilization systems are a lot more advanced, and these problems are either non-existent, or very minor. Older lenses may have some issues when making large movements, or when mounted on a tripod. A common problem with stabilization is when it is used with a tripod-mounted lens and a cable release. It generally does not kick in until the shutter is at least partially depressed. When shooting hand-held, you should press the shutter button part way to enable stabilization, frame your shot, and fully depress the shutter button when you are ready to capture the shot. In this case, since VR/IS is already active, it doesn't change your framing when you fully depress the shutter button. With a tripod and cable release, you tend to fully depress the shutter button once everything is framed and ready to go. Stabilization will kick in at the last moment, and will usually change your framing or &lt;strong&gt;introduce&lt;/strong&gt; vibration or funky blurring due to its untimely activation. In these cases, it is best to disable stabilization. Modern lenses often have tripod-sensing stabilization, which will automatically disable it when it senses that it is mounted on a tripod (which is done by matching the patterns of vibration, which differ significantly when hand-held.) Even with tripod-sensing stabilization, some circumstances, such as wind, can hamper any automatic features. Generally speaking, it is best to disable stabilization when you use a tripod.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T09:09:52.810" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5291" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5282" CreationDate="2010-11-30T09:20:01.927" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't speak directly to the Mac OS X versions, as I am a Windows user. I have used both the Spyder3Pro and the Spyder3Elite, with the older 3.x software and the newer 4.x software. With all combinations, one thing I have noticed is that the Spyder software actually loads your profile when it starts. When possible, it actually loads and syncs the profile with whatever hardware devices support ICM directly, which seems to be the case with nVidia cards and my Apple CinemaDisplay 30&quot; screen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have manually set my color profile with the Windows ICM control panel, and the Spyder software always overrides it. In the case of my desktop workstation, the Spyder software loads and installs the profile instantly, so I rarely ever see the switch. With my laptop, however, the Spyder software seems to lag, and there can be up to a couple minutes of time between when Windows starts and the calibrated profile is actually applied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the Mac OS X version of the software works in a similar way, I would assume that manually setting the profiles would not work unless you also disable the software. The Spyder3 is an active calibration device, and if you keep it on your desktop, it will actively measure the ambient lighting and alert you when the profile is no longer accurate. The newer version of the device and the 4.x software also seem to actively adjust brightness to maintain your target screen luminance (I try to keep mine around 80-90 cd/m.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you really want to calibrate multiple devices, and have multi-device profiles, I highly recommend getting at least a Spyder3Pro (which isn't terribly expensive, around $140) with the v4.1 or later software. The new software brings a ton of new features to the table, making the Spyder3 competitive with much more expensive higher-end calibration systems like X-Rite's EyeOne (i1) system. The 4.x software does support multi-device profiles as well as multiple screen profile normalization, allowing you to create profiles for multiple displays (such as a workstation, laptop, projector, and TV) and ensure that your images look the same across all devices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T09:20:01.927" />
  <row Id="5293" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1783" CreationDate="2010-11-30T10:01:37.077" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A couple things I haven't seen mentioned in answers (though one of these was mentioned in a comment [EDIT: actually, I think the 1st was mentioned, too, I just mis-read it as talking about the focusing window.]):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;use a flashlight, spotlight, car headlights, or other form of light (polution ;) to illuminate something that's either in your frame, or a similar distance from what you want in your frame.  Focus on that (or on the light source itself -- for what it sounds like you're doing, this could be city lights of a (hopefully-distant) city (though ideally, you wouldn't have any), or... any number of things.  [EDIT: and then, of course, turn this light-source off, for your actual exposure.]&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Learn (more?) about Hyperfocal distance, how it relates to depth of field, and apply those concepts to the above.  (See definition 1 on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfocal_distance&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia's Hyperfocal distance page&lt;/a&gt;, or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?q=hyperfocal+distance&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lots of other resources&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Add that, of course, to the focus-once-and-then-leave-it-in-manual technique (or my preferred option -- configure the camera to not focus on half-press, but with the AF-On or some other button; details vary by camera, of course, but I know many SLRs have this option).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Trial and error with wide-open aperture and highest possible ISO is also a good technique, though that's been mentioned already.  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope you get what you're looking for!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastEditorUserId="2425" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-30T10:10:37.393" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T10:10:37.393" />
  <row Id="5294" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5285" CreationDate="2010-11-30T10:20:01.733" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For longer (more zoom) lenses is and if your planning to use it without tripod is worth it! For street zooms, with roughly a focal length roughly below 100mm you may get away with that, but for telephoto lenses is essential. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T10:20:01.733" />
  <row Id="5295" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5014" CreationDate="2010-11-30T10:36:36.977" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could try to find a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Yashica_Mat-124G&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Yashica-Mat 124&lt;/a&gt; on Ebay or on the cheaper side, but maybe prettier (as in if it breaks you can use it to decorate your office desk), a Czech &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Flexaret_VII&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flexaret&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T10:36:36.977" />
  <row Id="5296" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5283" CreationDate="2010-11-30T10:37:10.083" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take lots of photos&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Look at each of your photos and decide what you like / don't like about it&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Look at other people's pictures (e.g. browse &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Read the manual that came with your camera&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take more photos&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Have fun&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Show other people your photos (e.g. post them on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-30T15:17:33.027" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T15:17:33.027" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5297" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5073" CreationDate="2010-11-30T10:37:55.800" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You've mentioned that using a flashlight or similar isn't an option, because things are too far away.  However, with the effects of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfocal_distance&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;hyperfocal distance&lt;/a&gt;, I think you'll find that it may be more usable than you're giving it credit for.  According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this calculator&lt;/a&gt;, if you focus your 50/1.4 on something 28 feet away, and then expose at f/16, everything from 28 feet to infinity will be acceptably clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The laser pointer option mentioned in a comment has promise, as well... though I haven't used that myself, to attest to it.  And of course, try to keep yourself from shining it in the eyes of some random hiker that you don't realize is there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If shooting at f/16 (or f/22 or f/32 or whatever) is unacceptable for some reason, other things to try would be Live View with the ISO cranked up, and test exposures, likely also with the ISO cranked up, and the aperture wide open.  Once you've got at least half-way-decent focus, then you should have something good if you're shooting a few stops more closed down (f/5.6 on the 50, or f/8 on either lens).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, one thing that could help you get a focus point at a decent distance with a flashlight/torch is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;retroreflector&lt;/a&gt;.  These are special devices that reflect light back towards the way it came from, specifically.  So if your retroreflector is, say, 28 (or 200) feet away, and you put your light source close to your camera, shine it towards the reflector until it lights up, you then would have a nice high-contrast point in your viewfinder or Live View.  Now, I say these are &quot;special devices&quot;, but they're really quite common -- generally all the reflective things (signs, markers, etc) on roadways are retroreflective, as are many tail lights, license plates, and other night-time safety reflectors.  So there may well be some already in your environment (and remember that they needn't be in your frame to make use of them -- just aim at them, focus, and then compose your shot), and failing that, one can by retroreflective tape or other objects pretty easily.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope that helps...  Happy shooting!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T10:37:55.800" />
  <row Id="5298" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5273" CreationDate="2010-11-30T10:43:52.810" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Most important:  put your camera down for a while and make a snowman!&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But before that, here is one of my attempts from a couple of years ago: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/VgCLe.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am afraid that I just pointed and shot to get this one - but I like the effect - quite subtle - it's a picture of the subject on a snowy day, rather than a picture of snow.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, my advice: take lost of shots - experiment - have fun :-) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-01T19:54:10.880" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T19:54:10.880" />
  <row Id="5299" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5245" CreationDate="2010-11-30T10:45:04.293" Score="26" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;50mm f1.8&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or faster if you're rich!&lt;br&gt;&#xA;OK - so it's not literally a &quot;must have&quot;, but I don't know anyone who has one and doesn't rave about it.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;In terms of bang for your buck, you can't beat it.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I &lt;em&gt;love&lt;/em&gt; mine, and it is always attached to one of my bodies.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use this for everything, but especially for portraits with a blurred background.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-13T17:02:59.150" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T17:02:59.150" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-30T18:21:30.567" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="5300" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="377" CreationDate="2010-11-30T10:52:23.240" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just note that this lens (Nikon 105 macro) goes up to f/57 but the quality degrades very much after f/22&#xA;This lens does not have manual aperture control which means that you cannot use extention tubes. &#xA;I have this lens and it is very very good, but I also had a Sigma 150macro which was a bit better and a very old sigma 90mm which is better than this lens.. so considering the price differences I would suggest a Sigma lens. &#xA;And finally, the VR is not really useful in serious macro photography so there is no reason to pay extra for it...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T10:52:23.240" />
  <row Id="5301" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-11-30T11:01:05.863" Score="4" ViewCount="320" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am working on Digital Still Camera's. I need to computer the colour temperature of the illuminant(programatically using some algorithm, not using a third party tool - Adobe etc..) under which images are captured using my experimental/under development camera, when the illuminant is not standard illuminant with a known colour temperature. I need this for colour correction/white balancing.  So I am looking to estimate Colour Temperature(degree Kelvin) of a light-source illuminant based on some statistics of the RGB data or the Raw bayer data of the captured image of say a standard colour chart(24 colour patches) under this illuminant. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can I estimate the colour temperature? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any pointers or reading material or algorithm which talks about it would help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-AD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2438" LastEditorUserId="2438" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-30T14:47:23.663" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T03:03:45.710" Title="How to estimate colour temperature of the illuminant from the captured image data?" Tags="&lt;color-calibration&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5303" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2010-11-30T13:28:04.513" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would recommend:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://froknowsphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://froknowsphoto.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T13:28:04.513" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-30T13:28:04.513" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5304" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5285" CreationDate="2010-11-30T14:04:11.203" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Stabilization only works to counter your involuntary movements, never your subjects. So if you are shooting things in motion, it won't help you except for extremely long focals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are shooting a 200mm and you need at the very least 1/1000s to freeze motorized sports, then stabilization is not needed. You'll certainly be better of buying a lens with a wider aperture. For wildlife you could use stabilization to shoot them at rest, but those pictures may arguably be less interesting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having VR does not cause a problem because you can turn it off. It is recommended to do so when shooting from a tripod.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T14:04:11.203" />
  <row Id="5305" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5287" CreationDate="2010-11-30T14:19:58.140" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;We can answer this with math. :) The difference between 22.2×14.8 and 23.7×15.8 is 14% more area. That sounds like it might be a lot, but remember that in order to make one stop of difference, you'd need twice as much area. So, while the difference isn't zero, it's small enough that it gets lost in other factors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When one is trying to go ultra-wide, that extra 1.5mm of sensor width eeks out a few more degrees of field-of-view, and conversely the marginally smaller sensor gives you a more narrowed telephoto view, but again, this probably not enough to be significant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally, it means that the &quot;perfect normal&quot; lens for Canon is 26.7mm, while for Nikon it's 28.5mm. Given that these days people are hawking 35mm as the APS-C normal, I think we can discount that as significant as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-01T05:14:31.023" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T05:14:31.023" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5306" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5245" CreationDate="2010-11-30T15:23:03.833" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;24-105 f4 L&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is my second favourite lens.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;It almost always lives on one of my bodies. &#xA;It has a lovely range, and is beautifully clear and sharp.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;It's a good all-rounder.  A truly excellent walk-around lens.  I also use it for portraits.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is a bit on the pricy side (GBP 900 ish), but that's photography - the expensive glass is usually the good glass!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-13T17:02:20.803" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T17:02:20.803" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-30T18:21:30.567" />
  <row Id="5307" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1783" CreationDate="2010-11-30T16:28:37.837" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're using a tripod, set up your camera, then crank the ISO all the way up (I go 12800 while preparing for star-trail shots) and aperture wide open. Grab several test shots and you should be able to get a good indication as to where your focus point is. Adjust until you hit your proper framing and focus, and then you should be able re-adjust for your intended ISO, exposure, and time values. Just don't reset your focus to auto before you shoot!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if you're shooting into the sky without much or any foreground, infinity is a great bet. Take a shot in the light so you know which end of the focus ring you need to be at to hit infinity, then just compose your shot with your focus manually set there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2443" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T16:28:37.837" />
  <row Id="5308" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1783" CreationDate="2010-11-30T16:47:57.240" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most modern DSLRs autofocus use contrast to find an edge and range. If it's too dark... no contrast. I carry a small LED flashlight in my camera bag. Frame / focus with the light, half press to lock focus, recompose and fire. If your light source is too strong (and your not on manual) exposure can be an issue. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2445" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T16:47:57.240" />
  <row Id="5309" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5283" CreationDate="2010-11-30T17:00:09.967" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For me what work : &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.webphotoschool.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.webphotoschool.com&lt;/a&gt; (cheep&#xA;and really to the point)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Store that rent material (rent and&#xA;play before buy)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;RTFM of your camera... learn each function&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Never ever shoot automatic... go full&#xA;manual&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;take photo, check it out, and redo&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;read &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.strobist.blogspot.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.strobist.blogspot.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;read the forum of&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=photo+tutorial&amp;amp;aq=f&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;youtube&lt;/a&gt; (have LOT of good photo&#xA;tutorial)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;AND MY PERSONAL BEST...&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpchallenge.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpchallenge.com/&lt;/a&gt; (do&#xA;competition here) that force you to have idea, and compare to other... once i rank 4th !&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2446" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-01T03:33:39.350" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T03:33:39.350" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5310" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5245" CreationDate="2010-11-30T17:03:48.683" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;any lens that rate over 9.0, that's my rule... i have most of them !&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?perpage=24&amp;amp;sort=4&amp;amp;cat=27&amp;amp;ppuser=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?perpage=24&amp;amp;sort=4&amp;amp;cat=27&amp;amp;ppuser=&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2446" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T17:03:48.683" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-11-30T18:21:30.567" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5311" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5312" CreationDate="2010-11-30T17:09:37.573" Score="6" ViewCount="227" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have see/hear about a pc/unix (??) utility that go through ALL you jog/raw picture on your disk and show you on a graph&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;you most used lens, you most used zoom range, setting&#xA;flash etc... anything you can get from your camera data include in picture&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But a good utility that work on a mac...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2446" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-03T00:41:38.267" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T01:45:50.370" Title="Analyze and see your INSIDE photo info" Tags="&lt;exif&gt;&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;iptc&gt;&lt;statistics&gt;&lt;utility&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="5312" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5311" CreationDate="2010-11-30T17:30:59.717" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exposure Plot&lt;/a&gt; ExposurePlot on PC, it's pretty nice and free. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/vDd35.gif&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is your question that you are looking for one on Mac? Someone asked in &lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1017&amp;amp;message=22083403&amp;amp;changemode=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DPReview forum&lt;/a&gt; but not much came out of it. Someone elsewhere is using &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Parallels Desktop&lt;/a&gt; to run a Windows XP virtual machine and use Exposure Plot from it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-30T17:36:36.330" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T17:36:36.330" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5313" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5287" CreationDate="2010-11-30T17:35:31.773" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To add a bit more info about sensor sizes&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/wKgtS.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T17:35:31.773" />
  <row Id="5314" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5283" CreationDate="2010-11-30T18:04:19.450" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DPSchool&lt;/a&gt; is another great resource.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whatever the media may be (books, classes, internet) it's important to understand the basics: &lt;em&gt;Composition&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;Light&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;Colour&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T18:04:19.450" />
  <row Id="5315" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5311" CreationDate="2010-11-30T19:24:01.507" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not a program &lt;em&gt;specifically&lt;/em&gt; for that purpose, but Adobe Photoshop Lightroom allows for filtering by various bits of info including lens model, focal length, and so on.  It will allow you to see the number of photos for a particular bit of information although it's not presented graphically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T19:24:01.507" />
  <row Id="5316" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5281" CreationDate="2010-11-30T19:38:15.363" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bracketing is really nice. I just set it to bracketing on multi-shot-mode and only have to switch there.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Long-time exposure for night-shots.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't know how &quot;known&quot; that is. RAW is obviously known.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastEditorUserId="2317" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-30T19:54:11.933" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T19:54:11.933" />
  <row Id="5317" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5321" CreationDate="2010-11-30T19:52:30.600" Score="6" ViewCount="280" Body="&lt;p&gt;Flat tint have often damaged pixel in shade of color (e.g. with a 1920x1024px).&#xA;I use Photoshop CS4 and save with quality 2 (in order to have less than 300k) in standard mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.screencast.com/users/capsize/folders/Jing/media/f858e229-1f05-431c-98ce-5334918aa1f3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.screencast.com/users/capsize/folders/Jing/media/f858e229-1f05-431c-98ce-5334918aa1f3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2449" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-01T18:40:27.710" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T18:40:27.710" Title="How to avoid jpeg compression artefact for web resolution ?" Tags="&lt;jpeg&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5318" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5301" CreationDate="2010-11-30T20:28:20.427" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Am I understanding you correctly that the purpose of this is that you're building a new digital camera?  I.e. working on developing firmware, and that sort of thing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If so, there appears to be some good information on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wikipedia's Color Temperature article&lt;/a&gt;, specifically the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature#Calculation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Calculation section&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not something I've actually done before, so my knowledge is limited.  I should think, though, that a key part of this is knowing what the image is of.  So, shooting a white or neutral gray card, with even lighting, would be an obvious choice.  And your choice of a standard colour chart is also good, so long as your software knows which part of the card any given set of pixels that you're going to do calculations on is based on.  So if you're planning to do a bunch of shots of that card in different lighting situations, you'll want to either make some sort of a rig that can keep the card in the same place relative to the camera for each shot, or determine the position of the card (perhaps with &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_detection&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;edge detection&lt;/a&gt; and/or similar such methods).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, you'll also want to check your results against known values... a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorimetry&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;colorimetric&lt;/a&gt; light meter or other such device(s) may be required purchases to really do this right.  And there are different sorts... those meant for photographers (or videographers or motion picture photographers) seem to turn up with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?q=color+meter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;one google search&lt;/a&gt;, while ones that may be more oriented towards laboratory &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorimetry#Spectroradiometer.2C_Spectrophotometer.2C_Spectrocolorimeter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;also exist&lt;/a&gt;.  I know someone with a meter, for example, that has a little (1cm diameter, or so) sphere at the end of a rod, which then hooks up to a USB port on a computer, and measures intensity of light at various frequencies, giving a true spectrum analysis of a light source.  I'm not sure exactly what that device is called, but I could probably find out, if that's useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, those devices have to do it somehow, too, so maybe just learning the theory and math of it will do the trick?  :)  Various useful (and I'm sure some less useful) items can be found with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?q=measuring+color+temperature&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a google search&lt;/a&gt;.  I imagine you have some serious research ahead of you, beyond the scope of what you'll be able to get hard answers to here.  Hopefully this gives you some starting points, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T20:28:20.427" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5319" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5273" CreationDate="2010-11-30T20:55:26.750" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The one thing not mentioned so far that you will want to look at is to set your exposure compensation, especially for frames that are mainly snow filled. The automatic metering built into you camera will try and make the white grey, so adding a stop or two of exposure compensation will bring out the white again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It depends on your camera how you do this. If shooting RAW you can fix it up to a certain extent in post processing, but I think it is better to get the right exposure to start with if possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="425" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T20:55:26.750" />
  <row Id="5320" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4832" CreationDate="2010-11-30T21:17:45.607" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You asked, specifically:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;do you have a good technique for&#xA;  getting the best out of your cameras&#xA;  metering modes?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A lot of this has been touched on in other answers, so I'm just going to try to pull things together, to describe my personal technique:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I find that I get &quot;the best out of my cameras metering modes&quot; when I do two things: Shoot in manual, and use &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metering_mode#Spot_metering&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Spot metering&lt;/a&gt; &lt;em&gt;(note: &quot;center-biased&quot; strikes me as a misleading phrase to tie to (a true) spot metering mode -- spot metering meters (or should, in theory) &lt;strong&gt;only&lt;/strong&gt; what's at the very center of your viewfinder)&lt;/em&gt;.  Combine that with knowledge of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the Zone System&lt;/a&gt; &lt;em&gt;(as adjusted/adapted, perhaps, for a quite possibly decreased dynamic range in your digital sensor versus black-and-white negative film)&lt;/em&gt;, and what kinds of subjects are in what zone &lt;em&gt;(e.g. that caucasian skin tends to be zone 6)&lt;/em&gt;, and you can then pick specific items in your scene to meter off of, placing them not necessarily at the center, but in a specific place on your dial &lt;em&gt;(e.g. one stop above, or maybe 2/3 stop above, center, for caucasian skin)&lt;/em&gt;, and you can often &lt;em&gt;(with practice)&lt;/em&gt; get the exact exposure that you want on the first try.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;With practice&quot; is a key point, there, of course.  With practice comes familiarity, and with familiarity comes an ability to adjust for specific situations -- perhaps you're metering on caucasian skin, but it's in shadow, and not your main subject -- so you want it to read as a zone III, say.  Or you have a middle grey that you want to appear black, to get a starkly low-key image.  Or what have you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's how &lt;em&gt;I&lt;/em&gt; get the best out of my camera's metering modes.  Of course, &quot;the best&quot; is also subjective -- what I'm (usually) after is complete control of my exposure.  Sometimes, though, &quot;the best&quot; for a situation is to have the computer inside the camera do the math for you, and take its best guess -- any situation with rapidly changing lighting conditions where you want to be sure to get an &quot;OK&quot; picture every time, and that's more important (e.g. because your purpose is to capture every person at an event, say -- wedding crowd, birthday party, something like that) than getting a &quot;great&quot; picture, then evaluative meeting and aperture priority is probably getting &quot;the best out of your camera's metering modes&quot; for that particular situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way to truly get the best out of it, then, is to know when to use which modes, and how to use each one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At least that's my take.  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Happy shooting!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T21:17:45.607" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5321" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5317" CreationDate="2010-11-30T22:16:12.847" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you save a JPEG image with an extremely low quality level, you WILL get compression artifacts. Its just a simple fact of JPEG lossy compression. If you wish to avoid compression artifacts, use a higher quality setting than 2. You won't need to save at maximum quality, as most images can be saved with a fairly low quality setting without noticeable loss in detail or visible artifacts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing to note is that smooth gradients and JPEG do not mix well. JPEG compresses small blocks of the image, and when it comes to smooth gradients, it tends to make all the pixels in a block the same or very similar colors. This creates distinct banding (posterization) that can be quite visible. The only way around this is to use a higher quality setting, however that will obviously increase your file size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An excellent article that might be of help can be found here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/jpeg-quality&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;An Analysis of Lightroom JPEG Export Quality Settings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above is for Lightroom, however the fundamental concept still applies to Photoshop. The important point from the article above is that the lower range of quality settings for JPEG tend to have a minor effect on image size, and it is only when you get to the upper few brackets that image size starts to climb by any significant degree. I would suspect that you could change your quality setting from 2 to 5 and only incur a small hit to your image size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-11-30T22:58:58.007" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T22:58:58.007" />
  <row Id="5322" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5317" CreationDate="2010-11-30T22:17:06.310" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A quality level of 2 is going to create artifacts as JPEG compression is lossy and so the more you compress, the more you lose. Unfortunately, the only real way to avoid this is to minimize compression.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Photoshop (as of CS2) has an option to remove JPEG artifacts in the &quot;Filters-&gt;Remove Noise&quot; dialog. The success of it will, I suspect, vary somewhat, but it may help you cleanup the image. You will probably have to load the saved image into photoshop rather than use the one that is still there since it probably won't reflect the artifacts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T22:17:06.310" />
  <row Id="5323" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5317" CreationDate="2010-11-30T22:26:27.133" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In your specific example: bump up the quality, or shrink the image, and strip out all metadata (including color profile information).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You're taking a image that is roughly 8MB in size (raw pixel data: 1920px x 1024px x 32bpp / 8b/M) and trying to shrink it to less than 300k, which is a reduction of over 26 times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a difficult task to do without introducing some artefacts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T22:26:27.133" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5324" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5311" CreationDate="2010-11-30T23:01:51.203" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've used Aperture's &lt;strong&gt;Smart Albums&lt;/strong&gt; to get this information out, but you'll only get one data point at a time, so it can be a slow process if you want detailed stats.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can make Smart Albums that search for photos by any of the EXIF/IPTC data (camera body, lens, focal length, aperture, shutter speed, iso, ...) and see how many photos match the search.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T23:01:51.203" />
  <row Id="5325" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5281" CreationDate="2010-11-30T23:21:07.110" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Having only tinkered with CHDK a little bit, I imagine other answerers will come up with lots of interesting features to mention.  That said, the one that strikes me as a single feature that's likely the most powerful is just the very fact that one can write scripts for it, to do (almost) whatever you might want to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Granted, one has to have (or build up) some programming skills to really make use of this, but the fact that it's even an option to write an arbitrary script in &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/UBASIC&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;BASIC&lt;/a&gt; or (more to my tastes) &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/LUA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LUA&lt;/a&gt; strikes me as huge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, to be able to say &quot;Hmm, someone keeps knocking my trash can over&quot;, and writing a script to do motion detection and get a photo of the culprit (dang raccoons*! ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or perhaps you want to do focus bracketing... or some sort of strange time-lapse setup... or... &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/UBASIC/TutorialScratchpad&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;any number of things&lt;/a&gt; become possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for particular favorites, well... I'll have to use it more before I have the experience to add anything useful on that front.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Happy shooting! (and scripting!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;* Note: I'm saying this in jest, just for illustrative purposes.  I have nothing against raccoons, and my trash can has not been knocked over recently, by any one or any thing.  Just pointing out something that could be a &quot;helpful&quot; use of a &quot;lesser known&quot; feature.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T23:21:07.110" />
  <row Id="5326" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5280" CreationDate="2010-11-30T23:33:13.817" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One place I would suggest looking is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.keh.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KEH&lt;/a&gt;, an online used gear dealer.  A &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.keh.com/search?k=md-fisheye&amp;amp;r=SE&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;search for MD fisheye&lt;/a&gt; on their site currently (as I write this post) yields nothing in the price range you're looking for, but they do seem to have 4 16mm/2.8 lenses in stock, at higher prices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another option would be to go and check thrift stores or street/flea markets in your area...  This is an area where persistence can really pay off.  Maybe you'll get lucky and find something right away, or maybe it will take a while to find the thing you're looking for in this fashion.  Still, it's an option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another option is to search on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.craigslist.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Craigslist&lt;/a&gt; site for your area.  Yet another is &lt;a href=&quot;http://shop.ebay.com/?_nkw=md+fisheye&amp;amp;_sacat=See-All-Categories&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ebay&lt;/a&gt; -- I see a couple of options &lt;em&gt;close&lt;/em&gt; to your price range, at the moment (i.e. under $200).  Of course, with either of these, you'll want to be careful about who you're buying from, quality, etc.  The same goes with the thrift and market options too, I suppose, though perhaps slightly less so, since in those cases you can usually get your hands on the equipment before buying (also true with Craigslist, actually, but probably not Ebay).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Happy hunting!  Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2010-11-30T23:33:13.817" />
  <row Id="5327" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5317" CreationDate="2010-12-01T00:12:50.850" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The other answers (&quot;This is basically self-contradictory!&quot;) are good. However, I wanted to add something else you can try: you can apply a gaussian blur to the image after downsizing but before saving as JPEG. If you want to get fancy, use an L* a* b* colorspace and just blur the a and b channels, leaving L alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although it's true that JPEG can produce blocky, posterized artifacts at strong compression levels, generally it has to &quot;work hardest&quot; when there's a lot of fine detail, and especially when that detail has strong contrast between color channels. Take a picture of bright red fall maple leaves against a strong blue sky and I guarantee you'll find artifacts even with surprisingly high-quality JPEG settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, by blurring, you can reduce these details, and therefore reduce file size. This obviously degrades image quality, but you may find the result to be preferable to what you're doing now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T00:12:50.850" />
  <row Id="5328" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4832" CreationDate="2010-12-01T00:43:36.610" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is largely a duplicate of &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4687/rule-of-thumb-for-metering-when-best-to-use-multi-zone-matrix-spot-or-center&quot;&gt;Rule of thumb for metering?  When best to use Multi-Zone/Matrix, Spot, or Center-Weight?&lt;/a&gt;, and hopefully you can find some of the answers there helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if you're interesting in thinking about this kind of thing, I &lt;em&gt;highly&lt;/em&gt; recommend picking up a copy of Michael Freeman's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.focalpress.com/Book.aspx?id=5084&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Perfect Exposure&lt;/a&gt; and reading through it slowly. The book isn't your typical &quot;here's how to adjust your aperture and this is what shutter speed does&quot; deals — instead, it thoughtfully goes through a process for judging a scene and making an exposure decision which reflects your vision. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T00:43:36.610" />
  <row Id="5329" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-01T01:49:18.533" Score="19" ViewCount="576" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short version of the question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know of any good open-source photo management/editing suites, a la &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apple.com/aperture/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Aperture&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lightroom&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd want it to run on MacOS X, by the way, though options that are (more or less) cross-platform would certainly be welcome, as long as MacOS X is one of the supported platforms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know there &lt;a href=&quot;http://osp.wikidot.com/the-big-picture&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;is some stuff out there&lt;/a&gt;, but so far, I haven't run into anything that makes me particularly happy.  (Though I admit, I've only glanced at some of the available options, and probably done less than that, for others.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Going into a lot more detail (warning: the rest of this post is going to be long.  Feel free to skim -- I've made some things bold, to help with that)...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a bunch of things I'd like to see in such a program.  (Some of these may be &quot;in your dreams&quot; type features, but hey, that's in part what this post is about -- finding the software package I've been &lt;em&gt;dreaming&lt;/em&gt; of.  Which Aperture and Lightroom get kind of close to, but not quite there, for various reasons.)  (This post was inspired in part by &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4814/lightroom-search-by-aspect-ratio&quot;&gt;a question about Lightroom&lt;/a&gt;, which seems to highlight a potentially-missing feature.)  Such &lt;strong&gt;features might include&lt;/strong&gt; (and this is only a subset, I'm sure):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It needs to be fast&lt;/strong&gt; -- Aperture and Lightroom do a decent job (usually) at doing things quickly.  This would need to at least get close to their numbers, and preferably beat them.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Scriptability&lt;/strong&gt; -- It'd be really nice to be able to write little scripts to query a set of photos in various ways, and then act upon them -- whether that's to make adjustments, or to do a bulk export, or automatic additions of tags, or whatever.  This is really my #1 requirement, I think -- I'm particular about certain things, and currently have scripts that I run pre-import and post-export from Aperture or Lightroom.  It'd be nice to have those things integrated in.  To define what I'm looking for further, I'd like the ability to do things like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;mangle filenames during import, based on camera metadata&lt;/strong&gt;.  (e.g., change &lt;code&gt;[card]/DCIM/123CANON/IMG_4567.CR2&lt;/code&gt;, shot on my 30D, into something like &lt;code&gt;[datastore]/2010/11/2010-11-30-some_shoot/my30d-123-4567.CR2&lt;/code&gt;, where &lt;code&gt;some_shoot&lt;/code&gt; is something I'm prompted to type in during import, and the rest is figured out from the metadata and/or original filename.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;take that &lt;code&gt;some_shoot&lt;/code&gt; and also &lt;strong&gt;automatically apply EXIF and/or IPTC data during the import&lt;/strong&gt; based on it -- and/or other things I'm prompted for (where I can configure what things I want to be prompted for) or have configured (e.g. auto-adding copyright statements, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;automatic importing&lt;/strong&gt; -- doing all the above as soon as I insert a card, or, at my preference (in a setting somewhere), upon a single button-press or whatever.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;selecting images with arbitrary queries&lt;/strong&gt; -- something &lt;strong&gt;SQL-Like, perhaps&lt;/strong&gt;?  Though also different than that -- being able to create, say, a variable that's a collection of images, from which you can make further selections or take other actions.  Maybe something like (arbitrarily using &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ruby-lang.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ruby&lt;/a&gt;-like syntax for my pseudocode):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;lowlight = library.search(:iso =&amp;gt; 100,&#xA;                          :exposure =&amp;gt; '&amp;lt; 1/4',&#xA;                          :aperture =&amp;gt; '&amp;gt; f/16')&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;after which I could then do:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;thefunstuff = lowlight.search(:rating =&amp;gt; '&amp;gt; 3', # 3 stars or better&#xA;                  # must have all of these tags:&#xA;                  :tags =&amp;gt; [ 'beach', 'california' ],&#xA;                  # and any one or more of these:&#xA;                  :any_tag =&amp;gt; [ 'light painting', 'LEDs', 'fire poi' ])&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;after which I could then do:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;thefunstuff.add_tag('light painting') # make sure all have this tag&#xA;thefunstuff.export_to_flickr(:find_set =&amp;gt; 'Low Light',&#xA;  :create_set =&amp;gt; 'Light Painting on California Beaches')&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;changing settings&lt;/strong&gt; -- whether I'm working on the &lt;code&gt;current_photo&lt;/code&gt;, or &lt;code&gt;thefunstuff&lt;/code&gt; from above, having the ability to change various settings -- whether it's &lt;code&gt;adjust_exposure(+0.1)&lt;/code&gt;, or &lt;code&gt;set_whitebalance(5000, -3) # kelvin, tint&lt;/code&gt;, or &lt;code&gt;photoB.exposure = photoA.exposure&lt;/code&gt; or even:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;thephotosIwanttweaked.set(photoB.get_settings(:exposure,&#xA;  :whitebalance, :iptc =&amp;gt; { :tags, :copyright })&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;where &lt;code&gt;thephotosIwanttweaked&lt;/code&gt; is a variable containing a collection of photos previously obtained -- perhaps with a query as shown above, or perhaps via GUI-based selection (click an image, shift-click to select several more, then say &lt;code&gt;thephotosIwanttweaked = gui.currently_selected_photos&lt;/code&gt; or some such)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Keyboard-based interaction mode&lt;/strong&gt; -- As a programmer in a &quot;past life&quot; (surely obvious from the above), I find that I tend to like to keep my hands on the keyboard a lot of times.  GUI and mouse-based (or tablet-based, or what have you) interaction are quite useful when manipulating images, and I want that to exist, too.  I just find that typing &quot;select all&quot; at a prompt, or hitting &quot;command-A&quot; on my keyboard, or the like, is far quicker and easier (especially for some kinds of things) than doing it by the GUI.  (See the section above about selecting images with arbitrary queries, for example.)  Lately, I've been starting to use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;emacs&lt;/a&gt; for things (after switching from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vim.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;vim&lt;/a&gt; -- &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editor_war&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;editor wars&lt;/a&gt; aren't allowed here, right?  Oh, few of you even know what I'm talking about, huh?).  Having the ability to have actual emacs be part of this, and/or to have emacs able to talk to it via an API, would be way cool, in my book. (Of course, this would presumably mean that there'd also/instead be an &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emacs_Lisp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;elisp&lt;/a&gt; way to interact with this, rather than ruby, but whatever.  Or maybe &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.paulgraham.com/progbot.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a new language is invented, specific to the purpose&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Extensibility&lt;/strong&gt; -- this thing should have a nice API for writing anything from RAW import tools to fast image editing plugins to exporters for your favorite website.  Maybe face detection and such, too?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Real-time GUI manipulations&lt;/strong&gt; -- much like the UIs in Aperture or Lightroom.  Along with all the above, the standard GUI-based manipulation strikes me as quite important, too -- having real-time (or close to) feedback when making visual changes is key to visual things.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ability to identify objects/people in photos&lt;/strong&gt; -- One thing that I think is lacking in Aperture's new face detection stuff, and which could have been really helpful for me recently, is a way to identify (&quot;tag&quot;, whatever) people or objects within a photo.  Example scenario: I'm shooting a sporting event, and I want to go through and quickly and easily identify which players are in each photo.  I imagine me as a human doing a lot of the work on this, though automatic detection would be nifty, too... but the thing that I see as being different from existing UIs is a way to basically select a region of the photo that represents a particular player, and then do so for other players as well, and then go through in a second pass and try to tie them together (with the computer perhaps helping, along the way).  So like, maybe I select a player in one photo, and I don't know who they are yet, because their number is obscured... but later, I select what ends up being the same person in another photo, where their number is visible, and then, because of attire or whatever other distinguishing feature there might be, I'm able to tie the two together.  But I still don't know their name, necessarily -- but perhaps I have a roster, and that can get looked up.  This could also be useful in a variety of other situations, I imagine -- a studio shoot where you want to identify which props were used in which shots, say, so that you can later ask for a photo that includes the such-and-such prop.  Stuff like that.  Developing a good UI for this would likely be an interesting challenge, but I think I could imagine how it could be done that could make sense.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Photo and/or meta-data manipulation on multiple devices&lt;/strong&gt; -- Maybe the RAW files only exist on one device, or maybe they're on a network drive and can be accessed from multiple computers. But what if, also, previews and metadata were uploaded automatically to a web server somewhere, so that you could get access to them on your smart phone, say, and do ratings, tagging, and the like.  The data would get synced up (somehow), and could also potentially be shared to different people -- perhaps (if, say, this was being used at some sort of company) your event coordinator is better at doing the identification tasks, and your photographer is better at post-processing the image itself, and your graphic designer wants input on things, as well.  If all those people could access the same images, that could be really really useful.  (This could also apply to a photo business, with assistants and such.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, hopefully that gets the general flavor across of the kinds of things I'd like to do and see, though I'm sure I've only scratched the surface on what's possible, and that even a subset of this stuff would be useful to me.  &lt;strong&gt;Does anyone know of anything like this?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternately, &lt;strong&gt;would anyone be interested in possibly starting work on such a beast?&lt;/strong&gt;  I'd need a lot more experience with GUI programming, graphics manipulation, and the like -- not to mention more time and energy to work on this -- before I'd be able to do anything that even begins to be useful on my own... but I think if I had some people to work with, we might be able, together, to do something really really cool.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could imagine forming a company around it, too -- there might well be some hardware that could be useful to integrate with it, which could be the money-making piece.  Or it could all just be done as volunteer-done open-source software.  Either way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OK, I'm done rambling now.  I'm very curious to see what sorts of responses this question will bring.  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastEditorUserId="2425" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-01T08:52:37.307" LastActivityDate="2010-12-03T01:54:16.523" Title="Open-source, highly scriptable, photo management platform for power users? (like Aperture or Lightroom meeting emacs)" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;photo-management&gt;&lt;open-source&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="10" />
  <row Id="5330" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5329" CreationDate="2010-12-01T02:07:03.970" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wow, that's a long list.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think we can all be pretty safe in saying that there sure isn't anything like that now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the most interesting project that shares a lot of your goals is &lt;a href=&quot;http://f-spot.org/Goals&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;F-Spot&lt;/a&gt; -- you might want to look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://f-spot.org/Get_Involved&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;getting involved&lt;/a&gt; there. It's also worth noting that photo management features are on the &quot;long-term roadmap&quot; for the excellent raw converter &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rawtherapee.com/?mitem=1&amp;amp;artid=55&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;RawTherapee&lt;/a&gt;, so that might an interesting place to direct some energy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T02:07:03.970" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5331" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5333" CreationDate="2010-12-01T02:33:30.727" Score="6" ViewCount="196" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for a reasonably cheap point-and-shoot camera that can take a lot of abuse.  Think rain, mud, occasional falls from head height, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To make it easier, I really don't care too much about special features, zoom, or the quality of the photo.  As long as it's reasonably viewable at the end, that's good enough for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm aware of the Olympus µ cameras, but they still try to pack in the features and that drives up the price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any suggestions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1655" LastEditorUserId="1655" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-01T04:46:11.767" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T00:03:42.413" Title="Advice on an inexpensive but very hardy/tough point-and-shoot camera" Tags="&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;&lt;cheap&gt;&lt;tough&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5332" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5301" CreationDate="2010-12-01T03:03:45.710" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What your looking to do can be a very complex problem space. Color theory, color correction/white balance, etc. is a very complex field. To make sure I understand, you are trying to create an algorithm that can properly set the white balance of a scene based on the illuminating light source in the scene. It might be possible to do what you need to do, and many of the algorithms you would need to use should be available these days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some points to consider, and factor into your processing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No in-scene light source&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For example: The sun illuminating a scene from behind the photographer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Another example: Off-scene flash or other lighting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This is probably the biggest issue, and would make it pretty much impossible to do any light-source based color correction&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Multiple light sources&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is possible for there to be multiple light sources with the same color temperature&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Of more importance is multiple light sources with differing color temperature&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Key Question: What do you want to happen if a scene is illuminated with multiple light sources of differing color?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ambient vs. point light sources&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Example: The sun illuminating a room through a window, with additional lighting illuminating the shaded parts &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Key Question: What source do you want to white balance on?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Light sources of radical color&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sometimes you have scenes illuminated by primary light sources of radical colors&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For example: red, green, blue, purple, yellow, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Blue/Yellow/Red plane can be considered extremes of normal color temperature&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Green/Purple/Magenta plane could be considered the extremes of tint&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No saturated color, primary or secondary, makes a good target for color balancing a scene, as it would likely produce pronounced color cast in your image&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Key Question: What do you do when your scene has no common ambient or primary lighting, and is entirely or primarily lit by radical colors?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we exclude no in-scene lighting and radical colors from the problem space, it is probably possible to identify and measure the color temperature of in-scene light sources. There are some fairly advanced shape detection algorithms available these days that, provided you have a decent base or known light source shapes, would make it possible to identify all the light sources in a scene. Once you have identified each light source, you could probably use some kind of tristimulus calculation to determine the color temperature of the light source, taking the green, red, and blue subpixel values or RAW bayer pixel values with proper weights to generate your three luminance peaks. An average of samples from the area of the light source (as discovered by your earlier identification step) could produce a fairly accurate color temperature reading (but probably not entirely accurate, as digital data will always be less accurate than original analog data).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your algorithm becomes particularly complex when you involve non-standard or radical scene illumination. Extremely saturated light sources won't make good white balance targets, since they are far from the &quot;white&quot; range of a color gamut. It is very important to know what part of your scene is most &quot;neutral&quot; so that you can pick a proper &quot;gray or white&quot; to base your white balance on, as that is fundamentally how &lt;em&gt;white&lt;/em&gt; balance works. It may be possible to color balance your scene based on a different base color, such as red, however I don't know exactly how you would need to modify existing mathematical formulas to accommodate such an approach (there is a fair amount of complex math involved in color theory.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most difficult situation is when there are no in-scene light sources. If the scene is illuminated by an off-scene light source, it would be pretty much impossible to calculate its color temperature. If you wanted to take a fairly radical approach to camera design, you might put some basic light metering sensors on all sides of the camera body. That would allow light to be measured from all directions, however it would not be entirely accurate, and the gains for all the extra complexity would likely be minor. Another approach might be to create a hotshoe device that could connect to multiple spot meters that could provide accurate illumination readings to the camera for any light source you point a meter at. Scenes with multiple light sources or sources with radical color would still make for a very complex algorithm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Trying to determine the color temperature of your scenes light sources from a simple photo of a color correction card, for example, would be extremely difficult if not flat out impossible. You would have to make too many assumptions about, or you would have to know ahead of time, what kind of light was illuminating your scene. This is generally why white balance/color corrections are usually done by setting the scenes white balance based on a known neutral color in a scene. Photographing a landscape twice in the same lighting, once with and once without a color correction card, allows you to pick a valid neutral or pure white color during post processing, which will set proper color balance. I myself have the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport, which includes two rows of color correction swatches. One row is for landscapes and the other for portraits, and they progress from slightly cool to slightly warm color patches. I can set the kind of color balance that I want for my scenes, which tends to be warmer for landscape photography, and more neutral white toned (5500k-6500k) for things like wildlife or macro.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are doing something considerably more specialized, you may be able to define a smaller problem space within which you can create an algorithm that does what you need. The problem space would have to be fairly narrow, with rather well-defined parameters and limits, in order to generate enough well-known data to help the algorithm make the correct decisions when white balancing a scene. Any scene without primary light sources within the frame is going to be very difficult to do any automatic white balance or color correction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T03:03:45.710" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5333" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5331" CreationDate="2010-12-01T03:15:57.070" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;All of the major brands make a rugged camera, but since I'm a Pentax shooter, I might suggest the Pentax Optio W90. A quick Google search on it will turn up a number of reviews, but spec wise it's pretty good and it's designed to take abuse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T03:15:57.070" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5334" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5329" CreationDate="2010-12-01T04:50:27.540" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, it's safe to say there is no such thing (Update: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/5329/open-source-highly-scriptable-photo-management-platform-for-power-users-like/5339#5339&quot;&gt;look at that&lt;/a&gt;, there might be, but with the level of performance you are asking?). Even &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gimp.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gimp&lt;/a&gt; is not remotely close to Photoshop for advanced users, and the list of features you describe would put such an app in the &quot;advanced&quot; category. This is not true for all apps, Firefox was born after Internet Explorer and is definitely a competitor feature-wise. Photoshop is a monster though, and Adobe has tons of resources to throw at PS and Lightroom to make them the fantastic pieces of software engineering that they are. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moreover, the open source movement has Unix roots, and one old precept of that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy#Mike_Gancarz%3a_The_UNIX_Philosophy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;philosophy&lt;/a&gt; is &quot;Small is beautiful. Make each program do one thing well&quot;. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://osp.wikidot.com/the-big-picture&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;link&lt;/a&gt; you provided exemplifies it well. There is a ton of small tools that you can use and that can form a chain to get you there, but this is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; what makes Lightroom or Aperture attractive. The key to these applications is that they were designed by photographers for photographers as one coherent workflow. This lets you do 90% of simple to semi-advanced photo tasks from one single app using the same user interface. This saves people so much time!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I'm getting at is that this week you could get Lightroom for $150. This is &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; cheap for the time it will save you and the power behind that tool. If you are shooting RAW, this is hard to live without. This needs to be put in perspective too: it's half the price of my cheapest lens, and I have 3 lenses next to me that are almost 10 times the cost. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I work in the open source business, and this how I've made a living for more than 10 years. We create advanced software (scientific viz, biomedical, supercomputing), but not out of thin air, we have to fund them, we have to pay salaries. The community helps but when it gets pretty sophisticated like this the learning curve can be steep. I don't see any competitor to Lightroom showing up anytime soon just from volunteers working on their free time, &lt;em&gt;with that level of performance&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your first request, performance, is key for me here, because if it takes just 30% or 50% more time for me to process one photo, multiply that by 15,000+ pictures a year and the time I wasted completely justify buying a fast commercial app. I've seen open source apps focus on features, some on optimization/performance, rarely both (and I don't blame them). The race for Javascript performance in Firefox is pretty recent, for example. I pick (and support) open source software first, but when I need to get the job done and a tool has a clear lead, I (or my company) will put money to buy a reasonably priced shareware or commercial app. Pragmatism I guess. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now here is something I want to ask you honestly. How far did you use Lightroom? It seems you did, but I'm just asking. You mention that it is not up to what you want, but I'm a bit puzzled here: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It needs to be fast: LR is multi-threaded and uses multiple cores. I throw really big files at it (21MP) and I'm actually amazed its new denoise engine can work so fast. Advanced memory management, multi-threading, image processing, signal processing, you would need some serious fellows to beat that. I'm not saying it can't be faster (it's not GPU accelerated, to my knowledge), but if your app just chokes and page swap after 6MP, I've a problem.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Scriptability, Extensibility: the plugin framework in Lightroom is entirely scriptable. Plugins are scripts (it uses LUA).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mangle filenames during important, based on camera metadata: LR does a lot of that.  I have a precious preset that helps a lot, you can rename files at import by combining patterns and keywords that are replaced by metadata (unfortunately I don't see how to extract a substring of the original filename). See my &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8/how-can-i-organise-my-photos-better/2957#2957&quot;&gt;answer to another question&lt;/a&gt; for more info.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Automatically apply EXIF and/or IPTC data during the import automatic importing: again, LR can do that (I apply a ton of info at import time, automatically).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Selecting images with arbitrary queries: you pretty much described Smart Collections in LR. Lot to love here. See my &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4811/good-uses-for-lightrooms-smart-collections/4821#4821&quot;&gt;answer to another question&lt;/a&gt; for more info. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Keyboard-based interaction mode: there is a huge list of shortcuts in LR, it's actually a bit overwhelming. For even more flexibility, check &lt;a href=&quot;http://sites.google.com/site/dorfl68/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PADDY for Lightroom&lt;/a&gt;: free Key mapping, external keyboards, midi controllers, macros.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ability to identify objects/people in photos: not in LR, but in Aperture I think.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Photo and/or meta-data manipulation on multiple devices: I think the new &quot;Publish&quot; services in LR3 would let you do that (i.e. they are not just &quot;upload&quot;, they are more &quot;hey, did that photo change, if yes then I need to push/publish it to other services somewhere&quot;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-01T15:28:14.193" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T15:28:14.193" CommentCount="17" />
  <row Id="5335" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5331" CreationDate="2010-12-01T05:48:56.390" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I got my young daughter a cheap Olympus Stylus Tough 6000. It wins on cheapness (I paid $115, I believe) and on ruggedness, but the optics and sensor leave a lot to be desired. &#xA;I'd rate the photo quality somewhere around &quot;camera phone&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know about recent Pentax models, but (although I love my Pentax DSLR!) Pentax's record with P&amp;amp;S cameras has been lackluster. The one I used a few years ago was shockingly slow, and none to impressive with the results. Maybe newer models are better. If I cared about image quality, I think I'd spend a little more and get a Panasonic DMC-TS2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T05:48:56.390" />
  <row Id="5336" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-01T08:16:17.093" Score="4" ViewCount="221" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently bought a new Epison Perfection V330.  I have several old Magic Lantern slides which I would like to scan. Scanning them as a document creates shadows. I think they might look a lot better if I tried to scan them as film, but when I do that, my computer complains:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please remove the document mat and/or replace the document cover.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The document mat which came with the scanner is only for small, recent slides...not the big irregularly shaped glass ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There has got to be a way to mcguyver this or hack it so that it doesn't complain at me when I put my slides in and scan as film....Could anyone explain how? Is it light detection that is causing this error, or something mechanical? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2457" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T03:27:07.123" Title="Scanning Magic Lantern Slides and/or Scanning film with lid up on Epson Perfection" Tags="&lt;slides&gt;&lt;film-scanner&gt;&lt;scanner&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="5337" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5283" CreationDate="2010-12-01T08:49:45.370" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Learning Photography is equal parts theory and practice. The following book helped me in getting started - &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0817463003&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Exposure-Photographs-Digital-Updated/dp/0817463003&lt;/a&gt;. It has lots of excellent photographs to illustrate the finer points. This book should serve as a companion piece - &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0817463011&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Shutter-Speed-Low-Light-Photography/dp/0817463011/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other than that you should slowly add individual topics to your knowledge. White Balance for instance. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cambridge in Colour&lt;/a&gt; - is a good place for such topics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Read the detailed review on &lt;a href=&quot;http://dpreview.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DPreview&lt;/a&gt; to get a better idea of how cameras work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And be sure to put into practice what you learn!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2394" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-01T09:30:34.780" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T09:30:34.780" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5338" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5331" CreationDate="2010-12-01T09:33:37.787" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;open &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DPreview Compare&lt;/a&gt; (or any similar digital camera comparison page)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;fill the form with:&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Format = &quot;Compact&quot; or &quot;Waterproof&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Live View = &quot;Yes&quot; ()&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Image Stabilization = &quot;Yes&quot; (even if photo quality doesn't matter for you)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Only current = &quot;Don't mind&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;choose your one (there should be a few pages of comparison). Prices are listed there also.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I heard that Ricoh GR Digital Series (1-2-3) cameras are strong and good, but these are little bit expensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All opinions like &quot;Choose this one: YYY&quot; or &quot;Better to buy KKK camera&quot; I see useless, since you'll get tons of suggestions and anyway final choice will be something else. Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2272" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T09:33:37.787" />
  <row Id="5339" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5329" CreationDate="2010-12-01T10:02:46.010" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have you taken a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://darktable.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Darktable&lt;/a&gt; ? From what I can see, it seems like an open-source clone of Lightroom. Unfortunatly for me, it's Linux only. But if it's your kind of OS, well, lucky you !&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1697" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T10:02:46.010" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="5340" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2181" CreationDate="2010-12-01T10:26:44.337" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;if you want serious photo touch application then picasa  is no match for lightroom, light room has highly sophisticated but user friendly options that can make your image look more better, but if you are only concern to photo management and web publishing then picasa is good it is lightweight However you can directly upload picture to flickr through lighroom which will come in handy.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2459" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T10:26:44.337" />
  <row Id="5341" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5201" CreationDate="2010-12-01T11:23:28.250" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Itai pretty much answered your question, and Matt Grum and mattdm gave even more good arguments, so not much to add there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I'd like to respond to chuqui's remark that the 50D is a better camera than the 40D. It's not. It's not necessarily a worse camera either. In the Quest For More Megapixels, the 50D sensor pushed beyond what's a physically sensible pixel density, and because of that it's not that much of an improvement. I'll copy the &quot;cons&quot; from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS50D/page31.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DPReview&lt;/a&gt; summary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;High ISO performance worse than 40D&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reduced dynamic range in the shadow&#xA;areas compared to EOS 40D&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Per-pixel detail not as good as on&#xA;good 10 or 12 megapixel cameras&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;High-end lenses required to get the&#xA;most out of the camera&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Live view not as accurate as on 40D&#xA;(framing very slightly off-center, in&#xA;contrast detect AF mode not possible&#xA;to magnify right out to the extreme&#xA;corners)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A low-light photographer like me, who prefers a high dynamic range, good high ISO performance and good Live View (it's a great way to reduce camera shake and focus manually in the dark), prefers the 40D over the 50D. If you're more of a studio photographer it's a different story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the 50D has another thing working against it: because of the ridiculously high pixel density, you need really, really good lenses to actually take good advantage of the 50D's extra megapixels (the linked summary explains it rather nicely). If you don't have good glass, it's not really worth the upgrade.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same sense the 5D's age can actually be an advantage: because it has relatively few megapixels (12.8) on a full frame sensor it has a very low pixel density. That's the main reason it has such great tonal range, contrast, etc. It also means you don't require lenses with insane optical sharpness to make good use of the camera. Oh, and the RAW files aren't as huge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So given the kind of photography you do, and the fact that you don't have any L-lenses, I think the 5D has the advantage in this aspect as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2460" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T11:23:28.250" />
  <row Id="5342" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="96" CreationDate="2010-12-01T13:47:21.730" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Minolta DiMAGE Elite 5400. It has some very good features: a high resolution, good D-range, probably the easiest to use scanner software I've ever come across, and despite its age it has a USB 2.0 connection. I don't know if it's the best scanner out there, but I know how to use it properly, and that makes a bigger difference if you ask me. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Knowing how to scan properly is almost an art in itself, and every scanner has its own quirks. So I'll share my knowledge of &quot;my&quot; scanner with the world, in case anyone else ever wonders about what kind of scanner to buy ;). Btw, the 5400 II is almost the same scanner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, its biggest downside: it's no longer supported, so the lack of new drivers means it requires some trickery to get it to work in newer OS's. In Windows, you have to install VueScan, which has reverse engineered drivers for almost anything (the demo version will do). Then you can uninstall VueScan, and use the drivers to run Minolta's own software (which is easier and gives you more controll in my opinion).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has one great feature I've never seen in any other slide scanner: a manual focus dial (granted, I haven't ever seen any professional scanning equipment). Using it properly takes a bit of getting used to: you have to find a sharp edge in the preview scan, then click on that spot with the manual focus target. However, I can easily outperform the automatic focus of the scanner, or the auto-focus of the scanners at school (Nikon brand) in both speed an accuracy with this dial. If you have a lot of high-ISO film it makes the characteristic grain look much better, because on the whole gives the scans a much better per-pixel sharpness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, I like grain; if you don't and prefer to use grain reduction this feature is only useful with film that's a bit curved, so you have control over which regions are sharp and which regions are slightly out of focus. Speaking of grain reduction: dust removal is usually great, and saves you hours of healbrushing in Photoshop, but it introduces a bit of softness to your picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BTW, there's a problem I've come across with just about any scanner I've tried: sometimes you can see that there's much more detail in the negative that scanners will pick up with their regular setting. This is especially true with black and white pictures. Here's an example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/qpF2r.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;clipped highlights and shadows&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The picture itself isn't important; it's just a good example for it's technical difficulties. This is what the scanner makes of the negative when set to automatic. When I look at the negative there's detail in the face (highlights) and in the clothes (shadows), but the scanner doesn't have enough D-range for both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One option is to scan at different exposures and try to merge the scans in Photoshop. However, for black and white film I found a very simple and much quicker method: set the scanner to treat the black and white film as a color film, and use different exposure values for different channels:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/7g60A.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Untweaked exposure&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ywQt0.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Tweaked exposure&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A lazy conversion back to black an white already shows much more detail in the highlights and shadows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/HmCBl.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Fixed highlights and shadows&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With a bit more tweaking you can then fix the photo proper (it's just an example, so I didn't bother). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, you're scanning a HDR picture using the different color channels for different exposures. Here's the weird part: In a lot of cases it seems to work better than scanning at different exposures and then merging them as an HDR picture! For some reason, red seems to be good for capturing shadows, whereas blue seems to be good for capturing highlights. I'm sure there's an explanation for this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, another advantage to scanning hard-to-salvage black and white in color: the master exposure correction stacks with the exposure correction of the color channels, so you can correct by another 2... stops? It's probably optical density, but it's not explained in the manual).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The DiMAGE 5400 also treats exposure and exposure correction differently if you set it to automatic or manual exposure. The example here has automatic exposure that's tweaked afterwards. Without it, the strange cutoff in the red channel would disappear, but the contrast would be even higher.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;YMMV with this trick, because it depends on how much control your software gives you over your scanner, and on the type of film you use. I've used it to successfully scan film that was severely degraded over the years, or very poorly exposed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2460" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T13:47:21.730" />
  <row Id="5344" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5331" CreationDate="2010-12-01T14:07:30.837" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To follow up on Genius' reply, DP Review had a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q209waterproofgroup/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Waterproof Camera Group Test&lt;/a&gt; last year. It tells you a bit more than just the comparison page, and from there you can easily check how the new models since then have improved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've quickly skimmed the article, and it appears that John Cavan's suggestion of an Optio is quite a good one - the W60 is the runner up in the bunch (the review is biased towards picture quality, and not ruggedness), and the W90 is supposed to be a lot more durable. However, they warn that the W80 is actually performing worse than the W60 when it comes to the pictures, so take note to check how important pixel perfection is to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2460" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T14:07:30.837" />
  <row Id="5345" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-01T14:16:57.843" Score="5" ViewCount="218" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to use existing Canon EF lenses with a Leica body with an M mount? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've seen various discussions in the Internet on this combination, but usually the other way round (mounting a Leica lens on a Canon SLR body). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2464" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T19:30:46.933" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T19:30:46.933" Title="Mounting a Canon EF lens on a Leica M body?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;adapter&gt;&lt;lens-mount&gt;&lt;rangefinder&gt;&lt;leica&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="5347" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5345" CreationDate="2010-12-01T16:56:40.660" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/mounts-by-register.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This site&lt;/a&gt; lists the flange distances for most lenses.  Any lens system that has a flange distance greater than yours should be able to be adapted without extra glass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see that the Leica M mount is only 27.95mm and should be able to adapt almost any glass given the proper adapter.  If that adapter exists, I can't say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="217" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T16:56:40.660" />
  <row Id="5348" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5285" CreationDate="2010-12-01T17:42:55.970" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Others have done a decent job of addressing the good and bad points so I'll provide an example instead:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/r6RGQ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Strange food but an ordinary pic, isn't it?  This was taken with a Nikon D80 with the 18-200mm VRII lens--it's handheld, 1/2 second exposure time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(What happened is that with my glasses on my eyes are too far from the camera and thus I can't see the status info below the image in the viewfinder.  Without my glasses I can see it but can't read it.  If my eyes would ever settle down I would get a corrective eyepiece but since I have to get new glasses every 6-8 months I haven't done this yet.  I knew the light wasn't good and I hoped the lens would save the shot, I didn't realize just how bad it was until I took it.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also have an only slightly blurred shot with the same equipment that was handheld but braced, a 4s exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1843" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T17:42:55.970" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5349" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5368" CreationDate="2010-12-01T18:13:11.840" Score="6" ViewCount="194" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to place a small logo in the bottom of about 100 images at onces.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a cool, free and easy program I can download where I can do this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I basically want to place a signature watermark in all of the 100 images in 1 location.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advanced! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2470" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-01T18:19:29.347" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T07:13:14.867" Title="Free Batch Photo Watermaker?" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;batch&gt;&lt;watermark&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="5350" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5349" CreationDate="2010-12-01T18:18:47.710" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://picasa.google.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Picasa&lt;/a&gt; is probably the most popular program that can also do that. It has a simple GUI interface. &lt;a href=&quot;http://picasa.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;amp;answer=106193&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here is the Google help page on how to use it&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xnview.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NConvert&lt;/a&gt; with you own script or have &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xnview.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;XnView&lt;/a&gt; generate a batch file that will call NConvert for you. NConvert is command line, so you need to do the calculations for exact positioning (how many pixels to from edges).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T18:18:47.710" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5351" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5352" CreationDate="2010-12-01T19:52:46.933" Score="3" ViewCount="85" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Cry for Help&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have just mounted a large (24&quot; x 16&quot;) print onto mounting board using a spray adhesive.  This is for an exhibition in 3 days' time.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the adhesive got on the front of the print.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;This should not have been unexpected, as I am a complete clutz!&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Is there a way to clean the glue off the print?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To make this question more generally useful:  is there a good way to clean general dirt off a print?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many thanks for any help!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-16T22:18:19.977" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T22:18:19.977" Title="Is there a good way to physically clean prints if they get gunk on them?" Tags="&lt;cleaning&gt;&lt;printing&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="5352" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5351" CreationDate="2010-12-01T20:13:59.320" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It would depend what the print was created with. If the print was created with some kind of ink jet system, there is no way to clean it. The inks are soluble, and pretty much any cleaning agent will ruin the ink. The adhesive itself has also likely bonded to the ink particles, so trying to remove the adhesive will damage the print. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some forms of print are more resilient, such as laser or possibly dye sublimation. Generally speaking, I would assume that there are few cleaning agents that would allow you to remove the adhesive without also removing the ink or ruining the paper substrate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to board-mounted prints, usually after bonding the print to the base, you seal the print with some kind of spray-on sealant or laminate. If you use a print sealer, it might help mitigate the effects of the adhesive, as well as make your print resilient to any future damage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T20:13:59.320" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5353" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5329" CreationDate="2010-12-01T20:48:29.383" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not a complete answer, but Exiftool is a perl library/command line tool photo metadata reader/writer. Theoretically some of what you want could be scripted with it, especially auto-tagging images and setting file names and directories.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2228" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T20:48:29.383" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5354" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5273" CreationDate="2010-12-01T21:09:14.403" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Experiment and set exposure compensation at +1 stop. This worked for me yesterday!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2427" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T21:09:14.403" />
  <row Id="5355" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5357" CreationDate="2010-12-01T22:23:01.800" Score="9" ViewCount="369" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been trying to get a good shot out of direct sunlight but my shots just turn out dark, even if I set my shutter speed to the 1000-4000 range at ISO 200. Another odd thing is that even if my shutter speed is below the thousands range, they still turn out dark when sunlight is involved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What settings can I use to remedy this? I am using a Canon EOS 50 film camera, and I usually use ISO 200 films. I am at Manual Mode. What shutter speed-aperture combination can you suggest. ISO? or even lenses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: with no means to scan the photos, I guess I will just describe one of them in detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The picture is composed such that the camera is pointed at the sunlight, and a person is at the left side of the photo. The sun has just risen, about 7 am, and a little above the horizon. The output image is dark, so is the person, but the sunlight is beaming radiantly, forming some sort of a huge ball of light, and everything that's near the camera (the person, the plants around the person) is dark, and the sky is a bit dark too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If that did not help, I'll try to scan it :P&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2362" LastEditorUserId="2362" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-02T05:39:33.377" LastActivityDate="2010-12-03T21:03:35.097" Title="Effectively Photographing Direct Sunlight" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;film&gt;&lt;sunlight&gt;&lt;metering&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5357" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5355" CreationDate="2010-12-01T22:32:16.580" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi Ygam,&#xA;How are you metering the photograph?  There is no one aperture/shutter-speed/iso combo for any situation, you either need to get an accurate meter reading or 'guess'.  When I say 'guess' I mean use the Sunny 16 rule which is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In daylight, the appropriate shutter speed at f16 is 1/ISO&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if your ISO is 200 and your aperture is f16 then your shutter speed is 1/200 (or 1/250), from this you can figure out any other aperture/shutter-speed combo 'guess': f11 would be 1/400, f8 would be 1/800 etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given this starting point you can hold the camera up and get a meter reading to see how far off the guess is and adjust accordingly by looking at the meter in the view finder and changing your aperture/shutter-speed until it reads a good exposure.  You may also want to try changing metering modes to be tighter (spot) or wider (matrix) which has a pretty good discussion going here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/4687/1819&quot;&gt;Rule of thumb for metering?  When best to use Multi-Zone/Matrix, Spot, or Center-Weight?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT (given the OP's edit):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem most certainly is metering.  The camera is metering for the scene which sounds like its 90% The Sun and 10% your subject, you need to meter for your subject.  You can accomplish this in a variety of ways:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-You could switch to spot metering and take a meter reading off your subject first and then use that for the photograph&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-You could get really close to your subject and meter their chest/face such that they fill up most of the frame for metering and then go back to your original position and use that reading.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-You could look around near you for something in a similar amount of light (the ground in front of or behind your feet) and take a reading and use that&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-Get more light on your subject somehow&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-etc&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastEditorUserId="1819" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-02T15:12:17.733" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T15:12:17.733" />
  <row Id="5358" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5362" CreationDate="2010-12-01T22:38:43.850" Score="1" ViewCount="241" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to apply two adjustment layers to a parts of a photo. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The adjustment layers are masked to the same section of the photo; so I have to copy the contents of one layer mask to the other layer mask every time I edit it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a way I can link the two masks together so that when I edit one of them, the other changes with it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="150" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T02:15:32.167" Title="Linking two layer *masks* together in Photoshop" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;layer&gt;&lt;masks&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="5359" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2712" CreationDate="2010-12-01T22:55:16.760" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know its been a while and this question is already answered but consider a Canham camera, they're &lt;em&gt;beautiful&lt;/em&gt;, quite light and have a massive extension:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canhamcameras.com/4x5and5x7.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.canhamcameras.com/4x5and5x7.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I owned the 8x10 version and I almost wanted to keep it just to show it on a shelf.  For my 4x5 I went with a Toyo 4x5 field-camera though as they're a little more tougher.  Can't recommend Canham enough though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2010-12-01T22:55:16.760" />
  <row Id="5360" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5331" CreationDate="2010-12-02T00:03:42.413" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check out the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.goprocamera.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Go Pro cameras&lt;/a&gt;. They're marketed as wearable/mountable (e.g. on a surfboard, helmet, car, boat), waterproof sports cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A friend just got one for a trip to Antartica (I can let you know in about 3 weeks when he gets back if it survived ;). He's used it successfully in the surf and on a kayak and is generally pretty happy with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are technically limited in that they have a fixed focal length (170º FOV fisheye) fixed aperture (f/2.8) and fixed focus (0.6m to infinity). Sensor is 5 MP and it takes SD cards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if you want a more technically capable camera to get longer zooms and give you larger prints, then check out the usual brand-name water/shock resistant point &amp;amp; shoots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T00:03:42.413" />
  <row Id="5361" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5046" CreationDate="2010-12-02T01:16:21.893" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know a gift certificate can feel kind of lame, but I know I would be extremely happy to get a $50-100 gift certificate for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;B&amp;amp;H Photo&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adorama.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adorama&lt;/a&gt;. I really only need so many trinkets and knick-knack gadgets, but a gift certificate could go towards a larger &quot;dream&quot; purchase which I'd normally put off as too extravagant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-02T05:06:08.053" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T05:06:08.053" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-02T01:16:21.893" />
  <row Id="5362" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5358" CreationDate="2010-12-02T02:07:07.743" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, that's pretty easy. Let's assume your image in in the background layer. You need only one layer mask actually, and that layer mask will be in layer A, on top of the background layer. Put your other layer B on top of A. Now press the Alt key and move your cursor &lt;em&gt;right in between&lt;/em&gt; the two layers in the layers panel. The cursor should change to some kind of intersection symbol. Click. The top layer will be indented to the right, with a down arrow pointing at the bottom layer, indicating that the effect of layer B is now going through the mask of layer A.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Screenshots:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) You can see my photo in the background layer, and I added a layer A as an Exposure layer effect, with a simple circle as the layer mask. The exposure effect only applies inside the layer mask as expected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/FRk6D.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) My layer B is a Black &amp;amp; White layer effect, on top of A. Right now, by sitting on top A it actually applies to the whole image. Not what you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/3ZkgP.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) I Alt + Clicked right in between layer A and B, thus forcing B to use the layer mask of A. Now both the Exposure and Black &amp;amp; White effect only applies to the layer mask of A.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/1KtN1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-02T02:15:32.167" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T02:15:32.167" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="5363" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5281" CreationDate="2010-12-02T02:08:47.690" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've only used a few features. I've found the intervalometer and motion sensing scripts useful. I've used the RAW feature, and realized most P&amp;amp;S cameras don't include it because their memory can't handle it (unless you like waiting 10 seconds to take another photo). I also liked the ability to optically zoom while taking video. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1125" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T02:08:47.690" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5364" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5355" CreationDate="2010-12-02T02:45:53.260" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is your issue that your background is bright when compared to foreground (which is very dark)? If so, expose for the background and use a flash to fill light on the foreground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="55" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T02:45:53.260" />
  <row Id="5365" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5285" CreationDate="2010-12-02T03:57:29.167" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well if you're like me and don't like pushing towards higher ISO count but still want sharp photos in low light conditions, don't buy anything without VR/IS. Also depends on what you'll be shooting. If you mostly shoot landscapes and architectures you can use a tripod easily and in this case you don't need IS/VR (I turn IS off while shooting landscapes).&#xA;But overall, IS/VR is something very nice to have and will save you lots of trouble in cases. Try if you can get a lens with IS/VR from a friend and shoot with and without IS/VR. Things will be clear to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T03:57:29.167" />
  <row Id="5366" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5254" CreationDate="2010-12-02T04:04:54.043" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Considering the facts that you're not a professional, you already own a 50mm prime and your photography interests, If I were you I'd definitely go for the 28-135mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T04:04:54.043" />
  <row Id="5367" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5245" CreationDate="2010-12-02T04:15:55.057" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For hobby use, you dont need L series lenses. I suppose you already have a kit lens (18-55mm). A few nice to have lenses within budget are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 55-250mm f/3.5-5.6 IS&#xA;[With your kit lens and this, you can cover 18-250mm focal length with fairly good quality]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 50mm f/1.8&#xA;[Its a nice to have low-priced prime lens with amazing photo quality]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lensbaby Composer + Macro Extension + Telephoto Extension&#xA;[Gives your creativity a go!]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you're a landscape fan, get a Sigma 10-22mm [This is a little more expensive than the others I've mentioned]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There you go, already too much for a hobby photographer :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T04:15:55.057" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-02T04:15:55.057" />
  <row Id="5368" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5349" CreationDate="2010-12-02T07:13:14.867" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;FastStone Image Viewer&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Once you open the viewer (if you opened it in a single picture view - press &lt;strong&gt;ENTER&lt;/strong&gt; to open Manager), you can select any number of pictures you want&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Then follow the menu &lt;strong&gt;Tools&lt;/strong&gt; / &lt;strong&gt;Batch Convert Selected Images&lt;/strong&gt; (or just press F3)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Click &lt;strong&gt;Advanced Options&lt;/strong&gt; button&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Open &lt;strong&gt;Watermark&lt;/strong&gt; tab, and place a flag on &lt;strong&gt;Add Watermark&lt;/strong&gt; checkbox&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adjust it as you want and click OK&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In that window you can specify some other settings also&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Press &lt;strong&gt;Convert&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2272" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T07:13:14.867" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5369" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5377" CreationDate="2010-12-02T07:40:48.980" Score="6" ViewCount="287" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does center-weighted metering use the same camera/lens adjustments as spot metering with the exception of the focus which is in the center? Or is there a technical difference in the way center-weighted metering works as compared to spot metering? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance, i can get a vignette around my subject with center metering. Can spot-metering achieve the same by placing the viewfinder focal point in the center?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2478" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-02T13:34:15.993" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T13:52:35.563" Title="Is Center-weighted metering a type of spot-metering?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;technique&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;metering&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5370" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5369" CreationDate="2010-12-02T08:50:32.223" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not really. It's closer to evaluative metering, except that instead of taking most of the information from the points that are in focus, it instead always meters with a bias towards the centre. If you were using the central focus point (only) then I would expect you to get comparative results between evaluative and centre-weight metering modes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T08:50:32.223" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5371" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5369" CreationDate="2010-12-02T08:52:32.460" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The difference between center-weighted metering and spot metering is that the center-weighted metering still considers the entire picture (in varying degrees), while spot metering only considers an isolated part of the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Center-weighted metering is useful when you have a scene where it's possible to get most of the image well exposed, but there is a still a smaller main subject that is more important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Spot-metering is useful when you need the subject to be well exposed, and the rest of the scene is too light or too dark to be well exposed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T08:52:32.460" />
  <row Id="5372" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5355" CreationDate="2010-12-02T09:02:22.390" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With those sorts of settings, I'd expect the foreground items to be in silhouette - taking &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/ratarsed/5224613600/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an example shot at dusk&lt;/a&gt;, you can see from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/ratarsed/5224613600/meta/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the metadata&lt;/a&gt; that it was shot was comparable settings (although you didn't mention the aperture you were using).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you wanted the foreground to have a more balanced exposure, you'll need to use a neutral density filter (or a graduated version, if you prefer) to mask off the sky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T09:02:22.390" />
  <row Id="5373" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5385" CreationDate="2010-12-02T10:13:30.260" Score="2" ViewCount="414" Body="&lt;p&gt;I need to get a memory card for a Nikon D90 camera.  I think it needs to be class 6 or better so that camera is not slowed down by memory access.  Are there any other things to consider when getting memory for a camera?  What is a reasonable size to get?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2371" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T20:11:49.827" Title="Choosing memory card for Nikon D90?" Tags="&lt;nikon-d90&gt;&lt;memory-card&gt;&lt;memory-card-size&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5374" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5373" CreationDate="2010-12-02T10:23:23.447" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, I use a 15Mb/s Sandisk Ultra 16Gb (which is only a class 4 I believe) and I have no issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Burst mode and bracketing can have some issues while waiting for sync from internal memory, but I have yet to find a shot missing when doing an import.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are wanting consecutive high burst frames, then yes, you might want a faster card but then again, I believe the body is going to limit you and thats where the D300 and higher make some grounds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T10:23:23.447" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="5375" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-12-02T10:44:25.837" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had one of the &quot;better&quot; regular film cameras with advanced autofocus and digital picture count + macro modus from Braun. Can't remember the name, so I couldn't provide you a photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BUT, here is a sketch of the shapes I can remember!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/WXftI.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Very recognizable is the rounded square shape of the lense which comes approximately 1 cm out of the device when turned on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2479" LastEditorUserId="2479" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-16T10:20:33.993" LastActivityDate="2010-12-16T10:20:33.993" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-02T10:44:25.837" />
  <row Id="5376" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-12-02T10:57:36.630" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ah, great question. Mine was my father's &lt;strong&gt;Yashica Electro 35 GSN&lt;/strong&gt;, it's roughly as old as I and it still works!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/3gG1Q.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Yashica Electro 35 GSN&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T10:57:36.630" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-02T10:57:36.630" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5377" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5369" CreationDate="2010-12-02T13:52:35.563" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question mixes in several terms like focus and vignetting which I think show that you're making this more complicated for yourself than it really is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Metering is &lt;em&gt;just&lt;/em&gt; about determining the proper exposure for an image. It does this by measuring the light in a certain way, and computing an exposure value that matches the measurement. If you're in an automatic mode (P, Av, Tv, etc.), the camera will then adjust aperture, shutter speed, and/or ISO (all depending on the mode settings) to match the calculated exposure value.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference between spot metering and center-weighted metering is simply in what part of the scene is measured. With spot metering, it's only one very small part (almost always the center). Usually, this is about 4% of the frame, give or take a percent or two. Center metering takes the whole scene into consideration, but counts the broad middle with more weight. That means if there's something bright (like the sky) at the very top of your frame, it won't be factored in &lt;em&gt;as much&lt;/em&gt; into the exposure calculation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is often a third type available, matrix metering, where the camera tries to match measurements from all around the scene to a database of likely scene types. That's outside of your question but important to think about because of the next thing I'm going to say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None of this affects focus, which is a whole separate camera system. However, in some cameras (my Pentax K-7 is one, but other mid-range to advanced cameras will have similar features), the focus point selected can be used as data to influence the matrix metering, so that whatever you've selected to focus on is also given extra consideration in the calculation of exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, you mention vignetting. Vignetting doesn't come from metering or exposure changes except indirectly. There's three basic things that affect it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, something shading the actual edge of the frame. This could be a too-deep lens hood, or maybe a stack of filters. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, for whatever reason, you're using a lens that doesn't project an image circle big enough to cover the sensor. That's often the case with &quot;toy camera&quot; photographs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally, a problem unique to digital. When shooting at large aperture, and particularly with wider-angle lenses, the light rays striking the sensor are completely perpendicular in the center of the frame, but at a skewed angle at the edges. The photosites in (most) digital sensors face straight ahead, and so the off-angle light is simply not recorded. This causes shading in the far edges and corner of the frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is this third aspect which is linked to exposure, because a different exposure calculation can result in a larger aperture being chosen automatically, increasing vignetting. But it doesn't inherently matter which metering mode you've chosen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T13:52:35.563" />
  <row Id="5378" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5373" CreationDate="2010-12-02T14:16:44.930" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, you already know it has to be fast enough. When looking at speeds, make sure the &lt;strong&gt;write&lt;/strong&gt; speed is fast enough. Some manufacturers quote a very high number of read speed, which does not help much with the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reliability should be your next concern. The best brands such as Sandisk, Lexar and Kingston back their cards with a lifetime warranty, showing their trust in their product. Be careful, these brands offer different classes of cards. For Sandisk, you are looking for a card that is black or red, not blue. Lexar labels the high-end ones with 'Professional'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Size is a more personal choice but if you plan on doing video regularly, you'll need something rather big. Based on your shooting and workflow, you may want to have a card that's big enough for at least an entire day of shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However reliable these things are you should still download and backup your pictures regularly, don't wait for months until you card fills up just because you bought a huge card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T14:16:44.930" />
  <row Id="5379" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-02T14:30:26.867" Score="9" ViewCount="123" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?oid=21643926&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Epson Perfection 2400 PHOTO&lt;/a&gt; Scanner.  It has been a great device scanning both printed images and negatives.  It is about 5 years old.  Over time, I have noticed that the scanned image quality has deteriorated and it takes more and more work in Photoshop to clean them up.  But even after that, they just are not the same.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have obviously cleaned the outside flatbed glass and ensured the white background is clean.  After some research last night, I am reading that scanner quality can degrade over time, as the internals of the scanner are not truly sealed to the outside and dust can accumulate on the optics, sensors, and mirrors.  It sounds like this is what I need to clean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this sounds like a very risky endeavor.  They can easily be scratched, and opening the case and allow even more dust to get inside.  &lt;strong&gt;What tips and techniques should be used to clean the scanner components?&lt;/strong&gt;  I have read suggestions that you create a &quot;clean room&quot; in the bathroom by running a shower in which the moisture will &quot;sink&quot; the dust in the air.  &lt;strong&gt;What cleaning material and products should be used, if any?&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;strong&gt;Or should this only be done by a professional?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Where would I even go to get it professionally cleaned?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not a professional photographer by any means, so there is not much at stake here.  If I ruin the scanner, it is not a big deal.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2480" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T20:43:38.843" Title="how to properly clean inside a scanner" Tags="&lt;cleaning&gt;&lt;scanning&gt;&lt;negative-scanner&gt;&lt;scanner&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5382" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5192" CreationDate="2010-12-02T16:05:27.593" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another suggestion: &lt;strong&gt;wait until you have money to throw at the problem.&lt;/strong&gt; It's probably not too difficult to change the storage method now to minimize further deterioration, and then either save / wait until you have a better income / find a relative with money for the next few years and then do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T16:05:27.593" />
  <row Id="5383" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="725" CreationDate="2010-12-02T17:23:54.950" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;And the answer is this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/02/canon-will-now-add-locking-mode-dial-to-your-eos-5d-mark-ii-or-7/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon realized defectiveness of their design, and now offers a $100 option to switch to a better button&lt;/a&gt;. This sucks, but hey, what can I do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="215" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T17:23:54.950" />
  <row Id="5384" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-12-02T17:41:51.757" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nikon FE-2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/vehVI.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I worked in a camera shop from the age of 15 and always loved the manual cameras (Pentax K1000 was my first and I too had an Olympus OM-1 that I loved) but it was one of these I always lusted after, and when one came in second hand I snapped it up. Wish I'd kept it and had the money to build a system around it and pay for the processing to really find out what it was capable of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2336" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T17:41:51.757" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-02T17:41:51.757" />
  <row Id="5385" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5373" CreationDate="2010-12-02T20:11:49.827" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was using a D90 until very recently - I used the 30mbs Sandisk Ultra III (8gb was plenty). I never missed a shot and could take many high burst frames and not have to wait for very long.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Enjoy the D90 its a fab camera&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1907" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T20:11:49.827" />
  <row Id="5386" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5379" CreationDate="2010-12-02T20:43:38.843" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Scantips has some information on this: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scantips.com/faq3.html#clean&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;cleaning scanners&lt;/a&gt; (about halfway down the section) but in a nutshell, most scanners can have the top taken off to clean the underside of the glass, but how it comes off will vary from scanner to scanner. It also says, don't mess with anything else, which is probably wise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The article also has cleaning materials suggestions. That covers the extent of my knowledge...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T20:43:38.843" />
  <row Id="5388" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-12-02T22:07:03.373" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A Nikon EM, sort of a point-and-shoot beginner's SLR, that I got in high school (way back when ... mid 80s?). It was hard to control because the meter always set the shutter speed, but it was a 35mm camera so you could develop your own B&amp;amp;W film and make your own prints. And that started my love of the craft of photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2228" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T22:07:03.373" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-02T22:07:03.373" />
  <row Id="5389" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4644" CreationDate="2010-12-02T22:07:15.617" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recommend the SU-4 mode if you are going for the cheap and manual. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, going with SB-800 or SU or SB-900 with any slaves working with TTL also has its wonders. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A little out of the box suggestion, why not get a used D80? It's probably cost as much as a new SB-900 - but it has a built-in commander!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2010-12-02T22:07:15.617" />
  <row Id="5390" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-12-03T00:14:01.410" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My dad gave me his old Minolta X-570 and X-700s. Then I was given a Ricoh with the dual viewfinders and m42 and an m42 yashica and a ranger finder yashica electro 35 gs&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2187" LastActivityDate="2010-12-03T00:14:01.410" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-03T00:14:01.410" />
  <row Id="5391" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5223" CreationDate="2010-12-03T00:16:09.100" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Understanding Exposure&quot; by Bryan Peterson is an excellent read for understanding what your cameras light meter is actually representing and what situations it will lie to you.  Tons of good situational examples too; snow, forest, backlit etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0817439390&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Exposure-3rd-Photographs-Camera/dp/0817439390&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastActivityDate="2010-12-03T00:16:09.100" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5392" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3127" CreationDate="2010-12-03T00:24:08.243" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The colour shift is probably not related to the bit depth (8 or 16), but more likely to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamut&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gamut&lt;/a&gt; of RGB vs CMYK.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I'm aware, when Photoshop refers to 8-bit or 16-bit colour, it's talking about each channel, so 16 bits is &lt;em&gt;plenty&lt;/em&gt; for individual colour channels in RGB, and won't be the cause of changing colours (if it was 8-bits shared between the three channels, probably using a colour palette, it'd be ugly, but at least in my experience, Photoshop talks in bits per channel).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The CMYK gamut is different to the RGB gamut, and it's probably just the conversion between the two that causes the colour change. &lt;a href=&quot;http://dx.sheridan.com/advisor/cmyk_color.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This article on gamut&lt;/a&gt; is probably a good place to start understanding the concept. The basic problem is that the colour spectrum isn't really just combinations of R, G and B, and projected/printed colours can only cover a part of the actual spectrum that our eyes can see.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem with converting between CMYK and RGB (in either direction) is that there are some colours that can be represented in one, but not in the other. The strongest/brightest reds, greens and blues that can be shown on an RGB device or represented in an RGB format simply cannot be created from a CMYK device/format. Likewise, the strongest cyans, magentas and yellows from the CMYK gamut will not be accurately reproducible on an RGB device or in an RGB format.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you display a CMYK image on your RGB monitor, you're effectively limiting yourself to only the colours which &lt;em&gt;both&lt;/em&gt; gamuts can reproduce (the monitor cannot go beyond its physical RGB limitations, and Photoshop is algorithmically limiting the colours to the CMYK gamut).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if you're trying to apply a strong red, green or blue to the image, it simply cannot exist in the CMYK format and so won't show up as you expect on your screen, since Photoshop is converting the RGB colour you've picked to the nearest CMYK colour available. It's worth noting that if you print the image, it'll appear much like the CMYK version (you cannot print the strongest Reds, Greens and Blues your screen can show).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the image is only for on-screen viewing, then convert to RGB. If it's for printing (which I would assume is why its in CMYK format?), then you're not going to be able to print those colours outside the CMYK gamut anyway (unless you can print with Pantone colours instead).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastActivityDate="2010-12-03T00:24:08.243" />
  <row Id="5393" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5329" CreationDate="2010-12-03T01:54:16.523" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is my &lt;a href=&quot;http://reidster.net/software/ptp-acquire&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;import-and-mangle script&lt;/a&gt;; it's nothing special, but perhaps useful to look at. The mangling could be extended to include whatever exiftool can get its hands on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-12-03T01:54:16.523" />
  <row Id="5394" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5396" CreationDate="2010-12-03T02:02:23.597" Score="4" ViewCount="249" Body="&lt;p&gt;I received a batch of images from a photographer and I wanted to reduce the dimensions of a couple, so I opened them up in Photoshop. They looked fine - the color was good, but when I went to save for web, the preview was brownish...like much of the color is sucked out and the image is darkened and lifeless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been using Photoshop for web development and light editing for over a decade, but I'm not sure what is causing this. Perhaps some setting photographers use that I'm unfamiliar with?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the photo below you can see the original (within Photoshop) above, and the &quot;Save for Web&quot; preview in the forefront.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/3veO2.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Color settings can be viewed below:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/gXOKQ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2489" LastEditorUserId="2489" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-03T03:36:50.020" LastActivityDate="2010-12-03T03:36:50.020" Title="'Save for Web' in Photoshop Makes Photo Darker?" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="5395" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-12-03T02:07:58.643" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My first DSLR - a Canon 400D/XTi. After various point and shoots, it really showed me the depth of photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2490" LastActivityDate="2010-12-03T02:07:58.643" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-03T02:07:58.643" />
  <row Id="5396" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5394" CreationDate="2010-12-03T02:11:35.830" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is most likely due to a color space (gamut) change when saving for web. Photoshop is a fully color managed application, and uses ICM to manage color rendition and conversion. Most other applications, including many web browsers (most of the browsers in use today) do not support color management. Web browsers and operating systems tend to assume that the gamut used for an image is sRGB. When using the &quot;Save for Web&quot; feature of Photoshop, it saves the images as untagged, which are then displayed with whatever color profile the software displaying them uses as a default (which is usually sRGB). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your original image uses a wider gamut (such as AdobeRGB), you will want to convert to sRGB first. It is usually best to duplicate the image, convert to sRGB, then save for web. If you do that, the image should appear correctly in all programs, including those that support ICM.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-12-03T02:11:35.830" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="5397" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5282" CreationDate="2010-12-03T06:03:21.757" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the Spyder2Express and a dual screen mac. It's a bit of a pain in the you know what, but it is possible to calibrate both screens with it. The 3 and the new software adds a bunch of whizbang features that do all sorts of automatic magic to your display. That would probably break this process. But if you don't want all that, and disable all that stuff, then it will probably work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;run a calibration on whichever screen is your main display (it's the one with the menu bar and dock).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;go into the profiles directory ( /Library/ColorSync/Profiles/Displays/ ) and COPY the profile it just created. I rename mine with &quot;LEFT&quot; added to the end.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;go into the system preferences, display settings, and change which display is primary (arrangement tab, drag the white bar at the top to the other one)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;run another calibration. This time it will be on the other display.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;go rename that profile too.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;put your primary display back.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;in the color tab of the displays preference on each monitor, pick the profile you renamed with the Left and Right names. You can use the Open Profile button to bring it up in the ICC wizard to see which is which.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, that's what I do with the spyder2express and the previous level of software... YMMV with the 3 and the current stuff out of the box.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2010-12-03T06:03:21.757" />
  <row Id="5398" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5406" CreationDate="2010-12-03T06:32:48.063" Score="2" ViewCount="229" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do you create two layers in &quot;Gimp&quot; and merge them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, I would like to load an image, create two identical layers, edit each layer in different ways, then merge them into one final version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specific instructions for gimp are preferred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1667" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-07T16:05:48.800" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T16:05:48.800" Title="How to create two layers in &quot;Gimp&quot; and merge them back into one?" Tags="&lt;open-source&gt;&lt;gimp&gt;&lt;layer&gt;&lt;instructions&gt;&lt;keyboard-shortcuts&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="5400" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5355" CreationDate="2010-12-03T08:06:02.233" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From what you are saying it looks like this is the sort of image you are looking for:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dustinbess.com/Music/Paul-Cardall-Unlisted/11266875_JvFAn#1054484619_Yg7QZ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dustinbess.com/Music/Paul-Cardall-Unlisted/11266875_JvFAn#1054484619_Yg7QZ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This image was shot at 200 ISO for 1/500 at f/4.5 with fill flash camera left aimed at the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2496" LastActivityDate="2010-12-03T08:06:02.233" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="5401" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-12-03T08:38:12.450" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;--Kodak DX6340--&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And now: Nikon D40 with 35/1.8G&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2497" LastActivityDate="2010-12-03T08:38:12.450" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-03T08:38:12.450" />
  <row Id="5402" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5403" CreationDate="2010-12-03T10:21:59.627" Score="4" ViewCount="151" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I upload my images to flickr I upload them with full exif.  However when I use the sharing code the image seems to loose it's exif. Going to the image on flickr and then using the show exif works so it definitely made it to flickr.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this a &quot;feature&quot; because I have a standard non Pro account? Or do I need to turn something on somewhere?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The IPTC data seems to remain so at least it still has the byline, copyright and keywords.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am checking for the exif using Opanda on windows and also the EXIF Viewer extension for Chrome, both find no exif data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2498" LastActivityDate="2010-12-03T23:36:00.120" Title="Flickr removing exif from &quot;shared&quot; images" Tags="&lt;exif&gt;&lt;flickr&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="5403" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5402" CreationDate="2010-12-03T12:02:56.257" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately that's one of the many quirks of quirks of Flickr, along with censorship and others, check &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/04/22/flickr-and-facebook-still-strip-exif-data/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; for more info.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-12-03T12:02:56.257" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5404" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-03T12:27:17.880" Score="3" ViewCount="222" Body="&lt;p&gt;I saw video output (which looks like headphone output) on my Canon EOS 450D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is it for? Is it possible to record video through this output?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1896" LastActivityDate="2010-12-03T13:34:01.227" Title="Canon EOS 450D video out" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;canon-450d&gt;&lt;video&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="5405" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5404" CreationDate="2010-12-03T13:34:01.227" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 450D does not support video recording, but you can use the video out to display images on an external TV. You could use the live view mode of the camera to generate a live video signal, but you would need to encode this in some form yourself (as well as syncing with audio)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-12-03T13:34:01.227" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5406" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5398" CreationDate="2010-12-03T13:44:45.370" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is easy. First, if you don't have the Layers window open go to the Windows menu and choose it. You don't actually need that, but it's handy. It's a small &quot;utility&quot; window which typically floats near the right side of your screen. And open your file, if you haven't yet. With that window open, you can click on the existing layer in the image (probably &lt;em&gt;Background&lt;/em&gt;), and then click on the Duplicate Layer button below — or press &lt;code&gt;Shift-Ctrl-D&lt;/code&gt;. Then, to merge that layer back down again, go to the Image menu and pick Merge Visible Layers (&lt;code&gt;Ctrl-M&lt;/code&gt;). You can also use Flatten Image. Alternately, if you have more than two layers, there's Merge Down in the Layers menu, which does what it says.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gimp has completely customizable keyboard shortcuts, by the way. Look at the bottom of the Edit menu for Keyboard Shortcuts (may be mixed in with the Preferences in some older versions of Gimp). That way, if something doesn't have a shortcut, or you don't like the default, you can fix it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-12-03T13:44:45.370" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5407" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5355" CreationDate="2010-12-03T21:03:35.097" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not familiar with your camera, so I can't talk to you about possible metering modes, but there are two problems you are faced with:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) Cameras (generally, and especially older ones) don't know what they are looking at. All the light meter knows is how much light it sees through the lens. Light meters on cameras are calibrated so that they will produce a correct exposure for a &quot;normal&quot; scene, one with some kind of &quot;standard&quot; distribution of light and dark areas. If the scene isn't normal, the meter will not always give you the best exposure. For example, take a picture of a white cloth that covers the whole image area and most cameras will underexpose (making the cloth look grey instead of white), take a picture of a black cloth and most cameras will overexpose (making the cloth look grey instead of black). When you have the sun in the frame it is often best to set your exposure with the camera turned away from the sun, then turn back and make the shot. The sun may be overexposed, but at least you will be able to see the subject. By decreasing the light that is hitting the film (using a higher shutter speed, smaller aperture (but higher aperture number)) in increments you can try to balance the exposure of the sun and the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) Film and digital sensors don't adjust to light like the eye can, so we can't always achieve detail in both the dark areas and light areas of the picture at the same time. To combat this you would either need a flash to light up the subject -- so there isn't as much difference between the sun's brightness and the subject -- or a polarizing or neutral density filter to reduce the overall contrast of the scene (as others have mentioned).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And just in case there is some confusion -- note that higher shutter speeds and higher aperture numbers mean less light going to the film. Both combine, so F16 at 1/1,000 means very little light is getting through while F4 and 1/60 means a lot of light is getting through (relatively). In a true manual mode you have to control both yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2228" LastActivityDate="2010-12-03T21:03:35.097" />
  <row Id="5409" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5402" CreationDate="2010-12-03T23:36:00.120" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;These days, the metdata (EXIF, IPTC, XMP) inside of an image, particularly one that's resized for web display, can easily exceed the size of the photo itself.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not uncommon for photo services to strip some or all of the metadata out so the photos continue to load fast when they're embedded on a blog or something, but the good services typically leave the metadata intact on the original.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some services selectively remove the metadata, so they leave the lightweight EXIF fields, but remove the heavy ones.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1889" LastActivityDate="2010-12-03T23:36:00.120" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5410" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5450" CreationDate="2010-12-04T01:46:36.960" Score="15" ViewCount="483" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently started setting my DSLR to save RAW files, and using Adobe Lightroom to process them. I still, however, use my little point and shoot camera a lot which does not have an option to save RAW files. I've also noticed that in light-room the white balanced options are different with RAW files vs JPEG files. With RAW files you have the option of choosing from a number of white balanced settings (florescent, halogen, auto etc..), whereas with JPEG you do not. Why is this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1431" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T15:36:58.107" Title="Why can I adjust the white balance of a RAW file but not a JPEG file?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;white-balance&gt;" AnswerCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5411" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5410" CreationDate="2010-12-04T03:40:35.620" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's consider the image captured by the sensor (RAW) as calibrated and neutral.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The equation is the following to generate a color balanced JPEG is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;JPEG = RAW * T&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;where T is the &lt;code&gt;color balance transformation&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Normally to apply a different color balance to a JPEG, you would need to apply the inverse of as-shot transformation to the JPEG (to restore the neutral image)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;NEUTRAL = JPEG * 1/T&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;then apply the new color transformation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;NEW_JPEG = NEUTRAL * T2&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunatly, the JPEG image (at least those generated by my Nikon D50) does not include the temperature setting of the image as-shot.  So it means the T of the equation is unknown by Lightroom when you only have the JPEG image.   So it can't apply the inverse transformation to restore a neutral image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead it uses different generic transformations to transform the color balance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1093" LastActivityDate="2010-12-04T03:40:35.620" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5412" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5410" CreationDate="2010-12-04T04:09:51.493" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;decasteljau's answer is excellent on the technical workings. Let me add some fluff, though:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A RAW file has linear data from the sensor — more photons strike each photosite equals a directly higher reading. And that's split evenly into red, green, and blue. (Well, technically, twice as many green receptors in most sensors. But that's an implementation detail.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This isn't how the human vision system -- the eye and the brain -- perceives things at all, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, we perceive brightness in a non-linear fashion, which is why we are able to deal with bright sun and dark shadows all in the same scene without it looking weird. This is why curves are applied to a RAW image in order to make an appealing final output image. You could skip this and generate a linear JPEG, but it would look flat (no pun intended) and strange.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, we perceive color based on an inherent sense of what things &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; be colored, which is why they look normal to us under both cool and warm lights, and even, after a bit of adjustment, under very oddly tinged light. If the light is &quot;really&quot; strongly blue, we tend to not see it — but if you take a photograph, more blue photos will be recorded. An image file knows nothing of how things &quot;ought&quot; to look, and needs to have a white balance correction applied to make the image match our mental expectations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When converting from a RAW file, the converter is working from a known starting point. It either has a detailed profile for your camera model (or even one you've generated yourself), or at least a basic color matrix matching that camera's general output. So, it can go from that state to apply various adjustments — this is the &quot;RAW * T&quot; in decasteljau's answer, and if you change your mind, since usually the original RAW file is left unmodified, it can start again from that baseline and apply a different transform.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you have a JPEG file, that baseline is lost, and there's no known &lt;em&gt;from&lt;/em&gt; to start adjustments with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-12-04T04:09:51.493" />
  <row Id="5413" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5410" CreationDate="2010-12-04T04:17:32.733" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Decastlejau's answer provides some great technical insight for those like myself who love all things technical. For the timid of hart when it comes to mathematics, here is a less complicated answer. With RAW, you have original sensor data, which is generally stored as original red, green, or blue SENSOR readings for each pixel of a digital sensor, as well as other metadata such as exposure details, camera state (i.e. white balance), camera settings, and possibly a variety of additional data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A raw image is essentially a direct dump of data from a digital sensor, which are usually red, green, and blue light-sensitive pixels (photosites) arranged in a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;bayer color filter array&lt;/a&gt;. As RAW is original sensor data, you have the maximum amount of information available to you, which usually includes considerably greater bit depth (and dynamic range) than an image saved into another format. This is the &quot;neutral&quot; image that decastlejau mentioned...no adjustments or tone curves have been applied, it is truly original data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The pixels of a RAW image do not directly map to the pixels on a screen, and as such, they can not be viewed directly. To view a RAW image, this raw sensor pixel data must be passed through a rendering algorithm that takes the raw sensor data, and applies various adjustments and attenuations, such as a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.tutsplus.com/tutorials/post-processing/adobe-camera-raw-for-beginners-tone-curve/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;tone curve&lt;/a&gt;, white balance adjustments, exposure adjustments, etc. to generate screen pixels that each contain red, green, and blue elements. This algorithm must be applied any time any adjustment is made to a RAW image in order to view the final image on a screen. By working with RAW in this way, you maintain the original sensor data in a pristine state, allowing you to radically alter any of the adjustments in this &quot;processing pipeline&quot; at any time, and see ideal results in the image rendered to the screen. Most algorithmic processing of RAW data results in a LOSS of information in the final image to one degree or another. Applying a tone curve, for example, usually results in improved contrast, but a loss in dynamic range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A JPEG image, in contrast to a RAW image, is one that has already been processed by an algorithm that applies a tone curve, white balance settings, etc. to create a final image. Since a JPEG is already processed, the original sensor data is lost. The same would apply if your camera saved out a TIFF file instead of a JPEG...processing original sensor data &quot;freezes&quot; it into a final state. Processed images are not completely devoid of headroom, and adjustments can still be made. The higher the bit depth and wider the gamut you save to, the more headroom you will have, however you will never have quite the same amount of flexibility as you would if you were using RAW. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One example of the limited headroom is in the area of white balance adjustments. Each pixel in a JPEG now contains red, green, and blue color information. This limits the amount of white balance correction you can achieve without encountering odd color casts or color splitting, especially with larger adjustments. It is possible to take such adjustments farther with RAW since you can re-blend each pixel in the final image from original red, green, and blue sensor data, allowing you to eliminate color casts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-12-04T04:17:32.733" />
  <row Id="5414" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5426" CreationDate="2010-12-04T06:09:58.987" Score="15" ViewCount="223" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is fast becoming winter, and this will be my first winter that I have a decent camera, so I was wondering how to make the most of the seasons beauty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am wondering if there are any techniques that are good for capturing scenes that often occur during the winter in snowy areas. In particular, the terrain will be mostly mountainous, but not exclusively. Obviously there will be a lot of white, and during the day lots of reflection from the snow. I am interested in exposure technique, composition, and special filters. I currently use a circular polarizer, but I don't know what else is good in this situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would also be interested in techniques and such for icy water photos. Some of the locations I will be shooting at will be near lakes and streams, likely to be overtaken by ice this time of year.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/12/let_it_snow.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; are some very inspirational pictures, I thought I would share them. :D&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastEditorUserId="988" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-10T06:55:54.913" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T06:55:54.913" Title="Are there specific techniques/filters for snowscapes?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;weather&gt;&lt;snow&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="5415" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5422" CreationDate="2010-12-04T09:53:34.017" Score="3" ViewCount="309" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking to get a prime lens to go with the Nikon D-90 body.  I'm looking at 50mm or 35mm and f/1.8 or f/1.4 and AF or AF-S.  It appears that VR (Vibration Reduction) is not an option for any of these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should I care about AF (Auto Focus) vs. AF-S (Auto Focus silent)?  It appears that focus for AF-S is inside lens instead of rotation of outside manual focus ring.  Is that a big plus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is getting the extra aperture of 1.4 worth spending more on a lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a first lens, does a 50mm or 35mm make more sense?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I notice that the G (Gelded) means that the lens can only be used with newer cameras, should I care and avoid G, does it impact resale value?  It appears that the aperture ring is not on lens for G, is this a drawback I should care about?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2371" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-04T17:54:08.157" LastActivityDate="2010-12-04T17:54:08.157" Title="Choosing first lens for Nikon D-90 body" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon-d90&gt;&lt;prime&gt;&lt;f-stop&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5416" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-12-04T10:36:19.817" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon D50&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Best Qualities:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Wonderfully ergonomic: Fitted my hand like a glove --- I was never afraid about dropping it, so had the courage to stick my hand out all kinds of places, off the edges of boats, buildings, right down next to water... That kind of confidence leads to great pictures!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The&lt;/em&gt; introductory DSLR; it was really the one that kicked the whole business off, 'nuf said: reasonable price, decent resolution, and it worked with every nikon lens from the last 20 years.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/jMW4l.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Nikon D50&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2019" LastActivityDate="2010-12-04T10:36:19.817" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-04T10:36:19.817" />
  <row Id="5417" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5410" CreationDate="2010-12-04T10:43:20.193" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually you can adjust white balance from a jpg image. Only the results will be far inferior of the ones you can get from a RAW file.&#xA;As discussed much better on other answers, jpg files contains much less data than RAW ones, so there is no such margin to change color balance. The same is true for exposition and contrast settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Said that, is it possible anyway to slightly change the white balance of jpg images using other programs, but in Lightroom they decided that the poor results you can manage from jpg files won't be good enough for tipical Lightroom user.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note also that this is nothing to do with jpg compression techniques, only that jpg file format store less information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2507" LastActivityDate="2010-12-04T10:43:20.193" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5418" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5425" CreationDate="2010-12-04T11:31:13.943" Score="1" ViewCount="667" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello guys!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you please give me some advice about these video graphics cards:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;1. nVIDIA GeForce GT 320M&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2. Intel HD Graphics&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which one is better to use photoshop? Thank you in advance!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;There are 2 laptops. I want to buy one from them, can you please choose one?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;1. Asus K52F-SX039D&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2. ASUS K50ID-SX163D&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2509" LastEditorUserId="2509" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-04T12:57:52.493" LastActivityDate="2010-12-08T16:30:01.500" Title="Which graphics card for photoshop?" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="5419" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-04T11:31:14.250" Score="3" ViewCount="125" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd need a suggestion about camera to take pics of building roofs, my father's company installs domestic solar power plants and would like to take some pics of them to put in his website.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He tried with a Sony DSC-W300 and of course the results weren't great as it's not very easy to get a whole picture of the plant being too close to it (or sometimes &lt;em&gt;on it&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What should I be looking for in camera/lens datasheet?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;And please don't be vague with things like &quot;&lt;em&gt;you need a low xyz&lt;/em&gt;&quot; as I'm a total newbie and I don't know what high and low may be: numbers please :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you also suggest what model can I get with a moderate (like &lt;code&gt;&amp;lt;&amp;lt;$700&lt;/code&gt; ) budget? A compact would be great because of the size but you're the experts so I'll wait for your suggestions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2508" LastEditorUserId="2508" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-04T23:25:47.413" LastActivityDate="2010-12-04T23:25:47.413" Title="What do I need to take pics of building roofs?" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;wide-angle&gt;&lt;camera-suggestion&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5420" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5418" CreationDate="2010-12-04T12:54:02.010" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Far more important is the actual display itself, and how the signal gets there. If you're serious about photographic editing, you should at least be using a colorimeter to get an accurate colour profile for your display; better still, you'd be using a wide-gamut display, something like the NEC MultiSync PA271W which has a good reputation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-12-04T12:54:02.010" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5421" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5418" CreationDate="2010-12-04T13:59:25.710" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The graphics card is not that important - but if you want, of course the nVidia will have better support/software then the Intel. (Though I don't know why Intel neglected the field.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I won't check the Laptops, but look for dual core and a digital video out to connect to a proper high res and color stable monitor (LED lighting for semi-stable color, MVA/PVA/IPS-LCD-technology instead of TN) - as Rowland said, the monitor and how the signal gets there is much more important for good photo-work than the hardware in system. I'd guess the laptops have only a TN LCD display - colors will vary a lot with viewing angle, greyscale is not stable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastActivityDate="2010-12-04T13:59:25.710" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5422" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5415" CreationDate="2010-12-04T14:03:20.330" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer is that all the 35mm and 50mm prime lenses are good ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference between AF and AF-S, is that the AF-S has a built in silent wave motor (SWM), whereas the AF lenses require a motor in the camera body to drive the auto-focus.&#xA;The D90 has a built-in AF motor, so either AF or AF-S is fine.  AF-S might focus faster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Inside focus is nice if you are using a circular polarizing filter (CPOL) because focusing won't change the orientation of the filter after you have set it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Spending more for the F1.4 versions is really up to you, and how you plan to shoot.  If you are shooting in low light, and/or you want more depth of field, it might make sense to get the F1.4, but I think F1.8 is pretty good (especially for the money).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The D90 is a DX (cropped sensor) camera, so the effective focal length multiplier is 1.5x (meaning the 50mm lens is like a 75mm lens on an FX camera like the D3, and the 35mm lens would be like a 51mm lens).  Many people call 50mm a &quot;normal&quot; focal length, so on the D90, that leans toward the 35mm with its 51mm effective focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I bought the 50mm F1.8 for my D90.  It was really great, but I found that it wasn't as wide as I would like for what I bought it for.  I was taking Tae Kwon Do shots at my son's club, and I found that the club was small enough that I couldn't get far enough away to get them in the frame for some shots.  The 35mm would work better for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't worry about the G (lack of aperature ring) unless you plan to be using older cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Best of luck with your decision, and enjoy your D90!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="227" LastActivityDate="2010-12-04T14:03:20.330" />
  <row Id="5423" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5414" CreationDate="2010-12-04T14:11:46.437" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On a sunny day, take along ND-filters if you want to use a small F-stop/big aperture for a shallow DOF. Even a DSLR really fast hits the shutter-speed-barrier. If you want to take longer exposures to smooth out flowing waters, utilize an even darker ND filter and of course a tripod ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe use a grey card for setting white balance, if not, be sure to shoot in RAW too. Snow and sun often give a bluish tint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Very simple advice: thin gloves to be able to handle your camera for a longer time. Lost a fingernail once during skiing + taking photos. Not nice :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastActivityDate="2010-12-04T14:11:46.437" />
  <row Id="5424" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5415" CreationDate="2010-12-04T14:19:33.250" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've had a D90 for over a year now and I have the 50mm 1.8 and the 35mm 1.8 DX lenses.  I've got to say that for me the 50mm is almost always my go to lens.  I mostly shoot portraits though and find the extra mm help to separate the subject and the background.  I bought the 35mm to have a a little more FoV when I shot at parties and stuff in low light - it's good for that, but I really don't use it as much as the 50mm.  I think for the money, the 50mm 1.8 is about as good as it gets (you need to spend a lot more to get something close).  The 2/3rds of a stop that you get with the 1.4 might be useful some times and if you've got the extra $$ then go for it, but the 1.8f is a must have (unless you have a 24-70 or something) for the budget minded. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't speak to the AF vs. AF-s differences or D vs. G tho....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="274" LastActivityDate="2010-12-04T14:19:33.250" />
  <row Id="5425" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5418" CreationDate="2010-12-04T14:52:43.017" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're looking to use Photoshop CS5, which has the ability to use the graphics card for some of its processing, then the latest drivers for the nVidia GT 320M (for Windows XP and up) enable the support for it in the card. I've had a hard time finding out if that is also true of the Intel HD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So... If I had to pick, with all other things being equal, I'd go with the nVidia one. Now, I'm not sure if the two are otherwise equal (I didn't find English sites with detailed specs), so bear in mind that other factors may also play a role. Available RAM, number of cores, CPU speed, and a host of other factors do play into overall performance though you can ignore this if the two are quite close.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Final thought, the two previous postings have valid points. The notebook will give the horsepower you want, but the display will still be less than ideal for actual editing. You'll definitely want a good monitor when editing at home and you'll want to profile both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-04T14:52:43.017" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="5426" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5414" CreationDate="2010-12-04T14:54:22.970" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Set the exposure compensation to +1 or +2 (or shoot manual!) as snow reflects a lot more light than the 18% reflectance that the camera's metering system assumes.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Filters wise just what you'd use for landscapes, a graduated ND and polarizer are helpful. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Composition-wise, isolating details can be difficult if everything around you is white so you have to work a little harder sometimes.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Definitely shoot Raw, if you can, as Leonidas states. Colour correction is inevitable as snow strongly reflects the colour of the lighting. Shadows in particular will look very blue with clear skies as they are actually being illuminated by the blue of the sky.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Colour is also a very important tool for altering the mood of an image, an overall slight blue tint really emphasises the coldness of the scene, and to me looks more normal than a &quot;correct&quot; neutral white balance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other things to be aware of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Battery life can become significantly diminished in cold conditions. The best approach is to have two batteries, keep one in an inside pocket for warmth while shooting with the other and rotate often.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Bringing cold lenses into warm buildings can cause condensation inside the lens which is difficult to shift (and can grow mould if it happens often enough!) To prevent this place your camera and lenses in a plastic bag until they have warmed up.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-12-04T14:54:22.970" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5427" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5419" CreationDate="2010-12-04T15:08:53.447" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Principally you need a wide angle lens, this means you can get a lot of roof in, even if you're very close! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wideness is determined by the &lt;strong&gt;focal length&lt;/strong&gt; of a lens (which is to do with the optics and not necessarily the physical length of the lens). If you want numbers I'd say &lt;strong&gt;28mm&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;equivalent&lt;/em&gt; is a minimum (you'll be unlikely to find anything much wider than that in a compact). The word equivalent is important here, since the relationship between focal length and wideness depends on how big the camera sensor or film is. Equivalent focal length means the number is adjusted to match 35mm film/sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you get a DSLR (of which the entry level models such as the Canon 1000D or Nikon D3000 will do the job well enough for you) then you can go wider. There are other options I'm sure owners of other brands will chime in and offer you their opinions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get the equivalent focal length with these cameras you have to multiply by 1.5 (Nikon) or 1.6 (Canon) so to get the 28mm &lt;strong&gt;equivalent&lt;/strong&gt; focal length figure you need around a &lt;strong&gt;17mm&lt;/strong&gt;. The lens that comes bundled with these cameras should be about that length. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I stated getting a DSLR lets you go wider, Canon offer a very good 10-22mm zoom lens (16-35 equivalent) and Nikon offer a 10-24 which is a similar range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-12-04T15:08:53.447" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5428" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5414" CreationDate="2010-12-04T15:18:34.703" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Using the snow itself to set white balance works pretty well -- you want the snow to look white, so tell the camera that it &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-12-04T15:18:34.703" />
  <row Id="5429" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3828" CreationDate="2010-12-04T17:20:28.370" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lightroom operates in the ProPhoto color space and has built-in exporting to sRGB and AdobeRGB.  You can also export to any other ICC profile (for a home printer or other device).  Most photo labs require files to be in sRGB or AdobeRGB and sRGB is the color space of the web.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would imagine that if you need to convert to CMYK for printing, Lightroom would be only the first stop in your process.  You would likely finish in another tool like Illustrator or Photoshop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastActivityDate="2010-12-04T17:20:28.370" />
  <row Id="5430" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5415" CreationDate="2010-12-04T17:50:37.943" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have both the 50mm 1.4 and the 35mm 1.8 - I have just upgraded my D90 to a D700 and both of these lenses have always travelled with me&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an a few examples of the 35mm on my D90&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/V53as.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Nnsyd.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/HBKrX.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and a few of my 50mm - to give you a different selection&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/T3vgH.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ilnor.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/kfizo.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1907" LastActivityDate="2010-12-04T17:50:37.943" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5431" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5414" CreationDate="2010-12-04T17:55:32.383" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Great tips by @Matt Grum, and I'll add that if you have a Canon, your camera may have an &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Highlight Tone Priority&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; option that you can enable in the menus. Metering is tricky when a scene is very bright (snow, wedding dress). This option can help prevent blowing out the highlights in very bright areas. According to Canon: &quot;&lt;em&gt;Highlight Tone Priority mode gives wedding and landscape photographers the option to boost dynamic range for highlights when shooting above ISO 200 – reproducing more tonal detail from wedding dresses, clouds and other light colored objects...&lt;/em&gt;&quot;. It is said to provide up to an extra stop of dynamic range in the highlight region.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check more info and before/after comparisons here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_eos_40D_review_6.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A hand's on assessment of the new Canon EOS 40D&lt;/a&gt; (page 6)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digitalprotalk.blogspot.com/2007/10/highlight-tone-priority-image-salvation.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Highlight Tone Priority - Image Salvation!&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digicamhelp.com/camera-logs/canon-xsi-450d/highlight-tone-priority/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Highlight Tone Priority&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-05T00:47:56.130" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T00:47:56.130" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5432" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3319" CreationDate="2010-12-04T20:19:21.160" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you build on an image that someone else has generously placed in the public domain (assuming that it is really public domain), why would you want to own it? Surely you should equal the original act of generosity and make your derivative work public domain as well.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is this spirit of generosity and sharing that created the Internet which is based on open source software. As an example, the intent of the GPL software licence is to perpetuate the original licensing conditions to maintain the chain of sharing and prevent freeloading by derivative authors.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am aware that one cannot really equate software with photos and naturally I respect the right of original authors to choose the licensing conditions that suit their particular circumstances.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nevertheless it is worth remembering that the spirit of sharing, exemplified by the open source software movement has had an extraordinarily transformative effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-12-04T20:19:21.160" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="5433" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-04T20:45:29.783" Score="5" ViewCount="236" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a history of using analog Nikon camera equipment, owning a Nikon F601AF and a Nikon FG body plus these lenses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AF Nikkor 1,8/50&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AF Nikkor 3.3-4.5/35-70&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AI-S Nikkor 1,8/50&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AI-S Nikkor 105/2.5&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AI-S Nikkor 135/2.8&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;MF Soligor 28-200/3.5-5.3 (not on purpose, came with the FG)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I shot the last picture with this equipment about five years ago, gradually replacing the SLRs with digital P&amp;amp;S cameras, first with a Canon Digital Ixus, later replaced with a Ricoh GX100. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am a casual photographer, mostly doing family pictures and being interested in any sort of &quot;graphical&quot; structures. My eight year old son does Judo, so doing photos in a dim-light no-flash sports hall would be interesting as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the P&amp;amp;S cameras definitelly have their qualities, I am somehow missing working with an SLR. I would love having things I have been used to, like usable depth-of-field, decent metering, better image quality or even feeling build quality in your hand. Especially the 105/2.5 can do really great pictures if used properly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I am thinking of buying a used Nikon DSLR body in order to make use of the lenses again. Due to Nikon bodies lens mount &quot;evolution&quot;, I would need at least a semi-professional DSLR body for using the AI-S lenses with metering. Seems that the cheapest alternative would be a used Nikon D200, these come around 400 Euro/$500 on ebay. Newer models (D300, D700, D7000), even used ones, come at a much higher price which I am not really prepared to pay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the D200 is years old, this is probably ages in the digital world. So I am wondering if the D200's sensor is &quot;good&quot; in todays terms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do you think? Does it make sense to invest in this equipment? Is the D200 a sensible choice. Or should I abandon what I have and start over, probably with a different system?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2514" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T12:30:18.473" Title="Camera recommendation for existing Nikon lenses" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;camera-suggestion&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="5434" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5433" CreationDate="2010-12-04T21:08:40.847" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've used both the d200 and the d300 to shoot weddings, and the d200 certainly produces great photos.  The difference between the two cameras is that the d300 improved on all the rough edges of the d200.  Consider:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The D300 has one stop better noise handling.  I feel comfortable shooting up to ISO 800 on the d300, 1600 in a pinch.  Halve those numbers for the D200.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The D300 has the same basic controls as the d200 (ISO button, quality button, etc) but everything just felt far more streamlined.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;D300 has 'live mode' (which I very rarely use).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The D300 has much better battery life than the D200.  When I'm traveling, I can have two batteries for the D300 last for several days (3 or 4), which is handy when there aren't many outlets nearby.  The d200 batter lasts for maybe 1/3 the amount of time (meaning I need about triple the number of batteries to last the same amount of time).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said all of that, the d200 is a very capable camera, and a definite step up from the D70 I used before that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for starting over, well, I guess the important question there is budget.  If you're not comfortable going for a d300 in price, I'd imagine that swapping out your lenses for a new set of primes would not be cheap as well.  I would say that using manual focus lenses on a DSLR is not easy, because the crop factor makes it difficult (at least for me) to focus easily.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your son's judo is a priority, take a look at this question here:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3576/fast-prime-vs-expensive-zoom-for-indoor-sports-photograhy/3577#3577&quot;&gt;Fast prime vs. expensive zoom for indoor sports photograhy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on the lighting, the d200 coupled with your fast primes will almost certainly be able to handle the load.  Being able to shoot 5fps in burst mode also helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-12-04T21:08:40.847" />
  <row Id="5435" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5419" CreationDate="2010-12-04T22:31:26.237" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You might also get decent results if you try stitching your photos together to make a &#xA;larger panoramic photograph. Be careful when you are on the roof. It might be safer to be on a ladder or scaffolding and taking photo slices while sliding over for each overlapping photo. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2515" LastActivityDate="2010-12-04T22:31:26.237" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5436" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-05T00:01:23.317" Score="4" ViewCount="303" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi planning a web based searchable photo database anny suggestions. I've seen stockbox. i wan't an opensource community cms with the potential to add customised functions and fields to the dbase. Cheers Oyster&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-05T21:00:19.390" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T21:00:19.390" Title="Seeking open source online photo library/database system" Tags="&lt;open-source&gt;&lt;photo-management&gt;&lt;web&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5437" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5436" CreationDate="2010-12-05T01:23:30.757" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can you be more specific about your needs? Would &lt;a href=&quot;http://gallery.menalto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gallery&lt;/a&gt; work for what you want to do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-05T04:52:17.750" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T04:52:17.750" />
  <row Id="5438" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-05T03:31:57.837" Score="16" ViewCount="239" Body="&lt;p&gt;The few times I have tried to capture a rainbow the results have been washed out. Although I have found a polarizing filter to be very useful for sky photography, I'm guessing that it would wipe a rainbow out, since it is basically a scattered light phenomenon. What are the aperture/shutter trade-offs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any rules of thumb would be helpful, but I'm especially looking for the gotchas to avoid, since time tends to be limited when a rainbow makes an appearance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1091" LastEditorUserId="1091" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-13T12:57:39.497" LastActivityDate="2010-12-13T14:06:06.547" Title="What are some tips for photographing rainbows?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5439" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5438" CreationDate="2010-12-05T04:53:47.143" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would definitely remove the polarizer, and also try to set your white balance properly.  Because the rainbow is the entire spectrum of light, if your white balance is off, the rest of the image can look strange, or the rainbow can look strange, when you correct.  Also, other forms of color correction and the like (saturation adjustment, etc) will feel the same effect; essentially, since the rainbow contains all colors, emphasizing one color over the others results in odd final images because then the rainbow will be unbalanced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T04:53:47.143" />
  <row Id="5440" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5446" CreationDate="2010-12-05T05:41:12.750" Score="3" ViewCount="1807" Body="&lt;p&gt;Looking into these two lenses, I'm getting the impression that for my Nikon D-90 with DX camera sensor that the f/1.8d would waste light that is cropped by the sensor whereas the f/1.4g would not as it is designed for the DX style.  Further, the f/1.8d is not available as AF-S whereas the f/1.4g is AF-S.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is my analysis correct and thus the f/1.4g will perform better with the DX style camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2371" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-05T13:55:24.077" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T19:00:21.167" Title="Nikkor 50mm f/1.8d versus f/1.4g" Tags="&lt;nikon-d90&gt;&lt;cropped-sensor&gt;&lt;lens-design&gt;&lt;dx&gt;&lt;af-s&gt;" AnswerCount="8" />
  <row Id="5441" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5445" CreationDate="2010-12-05T05:44:39.720" Score="4" ViewCount="314" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that I should always use a filter on my lens to protect the camera lens, however, exactly what impact to the picture does using a UV filter have since that is the one most often used?  Do I recall that this only affects black-and-white photography?  Does the need for UV filter go away when you are not using film in your camera but a CCD sensor? Does the quality of the UV filter have a visible impact on your photos?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2371" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-05T13:51:26.140" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T13:51:26.140" Title="UV filter effect?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;uv&gt;&lt;black-and-white&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5442" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5440" CreationDate="2010-12-05T07:23:18.633" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The f/1.4g will perform better simply because it has a wider &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_aperture&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;relative aperture&lt;/a&gt; (f-stop), not because its image circle is smaller.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T07:23:18.633" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5443" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5440" CreationDate="2010-12-05T08:42:59.143" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One issue I heard many times about F/1.4G version is that on wide aperture (1.4) when shooting something with backlight of the sun it gives some anomalies, like blue spots on the middle of the picture. But not all the lenses produce this issue. So better to test it in that mode before purchase (F1/4 and point a camera on a subject with the sun as backlight)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2272" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T08:42:59.143" />
  <row Id="5444" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5440" CreationDate="2010-12-05T09:53:40.897" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;DigitalRevTV did a review and found the 1.4G to have a smoother milker bokeh where the 1.8D was sometimes a bit odd.  The 1.4 was found to be sharper also.  That said they also tested a Sigma 1.4 which was found to be the best of the 3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Youtube link: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfyrGfqZQ-A&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfyrGfqZQ-A&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2498" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T09:53:40.897" />
  <row Id="5445" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5441" CreationDate="2010-12-05T09:56:59.633" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A UV filter cuts out the ultra-violet part of the spectrum (which is almost all filtered out by regular glass any way). Digital camera sensors as well as film are sensitive to near visible UV light which shows up as purple in photographs. This isn't usually a problem as the amount of UV light in most cases is minimal. It can however be a big problem under certain conditions if you're very far north, resulting in a strong purple cast to images that is hard to remedy in post.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Digital sensors actually have their own UV filter which is usually sufficient, however there have been cases where filter wasn't strong enough, the most famous being the Leica M8, which resulted in Leica having to ship free UV filters to customers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/LeicaM8/Samples/IR/leica_m8_nofilter-001.jpg&quot;&gt;&#xA;Leica M8 without UV filter&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/LeicaM8/Samples/IR/leica_m8_withfilter-001.jpg&quot;&gt;&#xA;Leica M8 with UV filter&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;images copyright DPreview, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/page15.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/page15.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it affects both colour and black and white photography, in fact it's more noticeable in colour. A UV filter will also slightly darken skies by filtering out some of the UV from the upper atmosphere, which is generally desirable in landscape photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The quality of a UV filter affects images not in the ability to filter UV light but in the ability to resist flare. Cheap non multi-coated UV filters can introduce a lot of lens flare and reduce the contrast in images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally I dispute the fact that you should always use a UV filter to protect a lens. A good quality UV filter can cost about the same as having the front element of a lens replaced should it ever get badly damaged! And putting a cheap filter on an expensive lens makes no sense at all. Small scratches on a lens are inconsequential to image quality as this example shows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.10.30/front-element-scratches&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.10.30/front-element-scratches&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;IMO the best way to protect your lenses is with a proper photographers insurance policy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-05T10:03:53.590" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T10:03:53.590" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="5446" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5440" CreationDate="2010-12-05T10:15:25.847" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Nikon &lt;strong&gt;AF-S 50mm f1.4 G&lt;/strong&gt; is not designed for the smaller DX sensor and has the same image circle as the 1.8&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are you thinking of the &lt;strong&gt;AF-S 35mm f/1.8 G DX&lt;/strong&gt; which is designed for a smaller sensor compared to the &lt;strong&gt;AF-S 35mm f/1.4G&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case the size of the image circle is of minor importance to the light gathering ability - only the aperture matters, as Evan states.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Despite a lens designed for a smaller image circle letting in less light &lt;em&gt;total&lt;/em&gt;, it lets in the same light &lt;em&gt;per unit area&lt;/em&gt;, so if you swap one lens for another designed for a larger image circle, but the same f-stop then your exposure would be the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The previous paragraph ignores vignetting, or the tendency for brightness to fall off across the frame. This usually gives lenses designed for a larger image circle a brightness &lt;em&gt;advantage&lt;/em&gt;. There are other advantages to using lenses designed for the sensor you are using, such as sharpness, weight and better resistance to flare.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-06T18:50:53.900" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T18:50:53.900" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5447" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5438" CreationDate="2010-12-05T10:31:50.643" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think there's a lot you can do photographically, I think the quality of the photo will come down to how strong the rainbow is, and how you process the image (either by the choice of picture style/JPEG saturation level in camera, or Raw processing). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It takes a combination of factors which all have to come together to form a strong rainbow - you need strong direct sunlight, but the sun also has to be low in the sky, if it's above 42 degrees then the rainbow will fall below the horizon. Generally when the sun is lower in the sky it's not as strong. Midday in the winter, or morning/late afternoon in summer will give you the best strength to angle ratio, though it depends on your latitude. You also need an abrupt boundary between clear sky and rain, such as you get with a heavy thunderstorm. These also tend to bring wind, which desperses the could making the rainbow shortlived. This is why really good rainbows happen rarely as they require many competing factors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aperture/shutter speed aren't going to make a huge difference, provided your shutter is fast enough to avoid camera shake. You're going to need a fairly wide lens to capture a rainbow, so depth of field is not going to be a problem, I'd opt for an [usually] optimum aperture of f/5.6 (or maybe f/8). The main arc of a rainbow is always 42 degrees from the centre so you need an 84mm FOV to capture an entire rainbow, this corresponds to at least 20mm lens (full frame) or 12.5mm lens on a crop body. Rainbow light is strongly polarized so take off the filter as mmr states.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For post processing a contrast/saturation boost will help bring out the rainbow colours and give the image some punch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-05T10:39:41.703" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T10:39:41.703" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5448" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5452" CreationDate="2010-12-05T11:02:20.800" Score="17" ViewCount="297" Body="&lt;p&gt;Professional models know how to produce such expression at photographer command, normal people don't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still good photographer are able to get it from famous actors/politicians/sportsmen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been asked to do some portraits for a friend portfolio, what should I ask for? Of course I don't want to ruin our friendship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question is related to&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1039/how-can-i-get-my-portrait-subjects-to-look-natural-and-drop-the-cheesy-smile&quot;&gt;How can I get my portrait subjects to look natural and drop the cheesy smile?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but it's also different because I'm talking about formal portraits, so I don't want a &quot;natural&quot; expression but a meaningful one. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is also true for my own self-portraits...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2507" LastActivityDate="2010-12-18T07:53:28.853" Title="When doing portraits, how to get serious insightful expressions?" Tags="&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;models&gt;&lt;self-portrait&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5449" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5440" CreationDate="2010-12-05T13:47:01.820" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Were these lenses designed for different formats, like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10091511nikon35mm.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G&lt;/a&gt; vs. the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_35_1p8g_n15/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;AF-S Nikkor 35mm 1:1.8G DX &lt;/a&gt;, you would be right to a certain degree. But as others have pointed out, both the lenses you're talking about cover the same image circle. (&lt;code&gt;D&lt;/code&gt; is a different designation than &lt;code&gt;DX&lt;/code&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lens with the larger image circle has a lot more glass, and that extra bulk and weight get you something. It's generally true that the center of any given image circle is better than the outside, so when a lens projects a bigger image circle, you'll get more even sharpness across the frame and less vignetting at the corners. This advantage disappears as you stop down, but may be a factor shooting wide open. (That said, when shooting wide open, you may not really care about these things because of the nature of the composition. Factors like bokeh may be more important.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This isn't magically true if all other factors aren't equal, though. A nice lens designed for crop-sensor will handily outperform a cheap full-frame lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-06T19:00:21.167" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T19:00:21.167" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5450" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5410" CreationDate="2010-12-05T14:55:28.817" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The quick and short answer: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All images start as RAW files that must have colour balance applied to them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For jpeg images this transformation is done in the camera using the camera white balance settings. As mentioned above, Lightroom does not have enough information to undo this transformation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Saved RAW files have no transformations applied by the camera, allowing you, the photographer, to decide later which white balance transformation you wish to apply.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T14:55:28.817" />
  <row Id="5451" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5448" CreationDate="2010-12-05T15:05:17.417" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Know your subject and chat to him about matters that he can relate to. Then ask relevant questions that he needs to consider before answering. You need to show genuine interest in his domain so that he will make a considered effort to reply thoughtfully.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T15:05:17.417" />
  <row Id="5452" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5448" CreationDate="2010-12-05T15:12:04.380" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my experience it's much harder in a more formal studio environment, I've found it much easier in more natural settings. However, in both cases, engaging in a thoughtful conversation may trigger the expressions you're looking for more naturally because, in general, I find that asking people to &quot;look thoughtful&quot; results in a very exaggerated look just as &quot;look happy&quot; will do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As another suggestion, the angle of your shot is probably going to help this along alot more. If the shot is fairly direct, it won't look as natural, but a shot more to the side with the subject looking off to the distance a little will look a lot more thoughtful. You still want to see both eyes, so it's not necessarily a full profile shot. Something along this line, perhaps:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/D3kNj.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Serious&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That was a candid portrait of my neice back in the spring and, at the time, she was running around with a bunch of other kids collecting up hidden candy in the backyard! I just happened to catch her in a pause that looked more contemplative than excited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T15:12:04.380" />
  <row Id="5453" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5410" CreationDate="2010-12-05T15:36:58.107" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Great technical answers so far.  Here's a simple analogy that may not be exactly right but anyway:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A RAW file is like an film negative.  You can work with it in a darkroom (Lightroom) and print it (JPG).&#xA;A JPG is like a print.  Once printed, there isn't much you can do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2168" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T15:36:58.107" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5454" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-05T16:04:29.963" Score="5" ViewCount="164" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My father has been a professional photographer during all his life.&#xA;But in my country India, not many people explore photography as a profession.&#xA;That means, he started it all in the '70s with a Photo Studio, and has been doing a good job with portfolios and matrimonial photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He has also been actively involved in Video recording for journalism and record keeping purposes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But now, He has aged and can't be actively participating in such activities.&#xA;He's also suffering from heart ailments thus I can't take chances anymore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, I am searching for a legitimate online job related to photography or KPO related to the fields of photography, photography training.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you guys have any idea what I can suggest him to do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My profession is quite different from photography, I am an engineer, although I enjoy it very much but hardly get time to try it out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any help would be greatly welcomed.&#xA;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2089" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T16:56:14.787" Title="Searching for a good online Job for my father" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;stock-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5455" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5448" CreationDate="2010-12-05T16:07:07.770" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Taking a meaningful portrait is not easy, because some people are easier to shoot than others. Try to make everything as natural as you can, specially for people not confortable with the camera, which means following &lt;em&gt;labnut&lt;/em&gt;'s advice to engage a conversation to break the ice, but also to pay attention to every detail in your location that could that could make the subject less confortable (uncorfortable chair, too hot, too cold, too many people, etc.) and try to correct them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T16:07:07.770" />
  <row Id="5456" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5454" CreationDate="2010-12-05T16:19:29.677" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_photography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Stock Photography&lt;/a&gt; (or &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstock_photography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;microstock&lt;/a&gt;) could be an option, as an activity it's mostly performed online and it only requires some kind of small, basic studio (although that depends on what kind of photos your father would like to submit to stock). Stock isn't easy, as there are lots of agencies, licences to choose, understanding what sells and other issues to pay attention (&lt;a href=&quot;http://microstockinsider.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here's something to read&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another options could be selling prints online, using services like &lt;a href=&quot;http://fineartamerica.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fine Art America&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.redbubble.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;RedBubble&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T16:19:29.677" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="5457" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-05T16:53:19.090" Score="3" ViewCount="201" Body="&lt;p&gt;Test case:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Collection C1 contains photos {A, B, C, D}&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Collection C2 contains photos {A, C, E, F}&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I upload these from Lightroom to Flickr (whether at the same time or in separate uploads), I should get 6 photos uploaded in two Flickr sets. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead, the photos that are in more than one set are uploaded multiple times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know a bugfix or workaround? I've tried the builtin flickr uploader and Jeffrey's Lightroom Exporter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="530" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T06:39:45.703" Title="lightroom: how to upload photos to flickr and prevent duplicate uploads" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;flickr&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5458" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5459" CreationDate="2010-12-05T19:15:39.273" Score="3" ViewCount="86" Body="&lt;p&gt;I currently use a publish to hard disk publish service for exporting photos ready for upload to my website. I'd like to be able to be able to choose the filenames on the output files to be something different to the filename as it came off the camera. I'd prefer to keep the original file's name &quot;as-is&quot;, but is there any way I can influence the filename to be used when the file is published?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T20:20:49.500" Title="How can I choose the filenames when publishing from Ligthroom?" Tags="&lt;lightroom-3&gt;&lt;publish&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="5459" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5458" CreationDate="2010-12-05T19:36:19.497" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hit edit settings on your publish service, there should be a &quot;File Naming&quot; section (3rd down for me) where you can choose to rename the images as they are published. The drop down has a bunch of caned options, plus an editor that gets you access to a TON of variables from the catalog that you can build your own custom name up with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T19:36:19.497" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5460" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5469" CreationDate="2010-12-05T19:36:40.943" Score="6" ViewCount="999" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a dedicated RAID 1 (mirrored) volume for my photo library which is stored in Aperture 3 and one of the drives just died so I'm going to replace both.  Is there a noticeable performance improvement using 7200 RPM drives over 5400 RPM drives for photo editing?  I'm sure there is for video editing but don't know about photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T22:44:57.543" Title="Does a 7200 vs 5400 RPM hard drive improve performance for photo editing?" Tags="&lt;hardware&gt;&lt;computer-hardware&gt;&lt;performance&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="5461" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5460" CreationDate="2010-12-05T19:39:43.800" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I upgraded my laptop hdd from the slow drive apple shipped in it (4800?) to 7200 there was a noticable improvement in opening just about anything. Everything felt just a little bit zippier.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT TO ADD: In hindsight, the huge difference was probably more because the old drive was dying and there were a lot of IO timeouts waiting for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-05T19:58:20.767" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T19:58:20.767" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5462" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5440" CreationDate="2010-12-05T20:13:08.577" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;By the way: the AF-S 50/1.4G has more silent AF then the older 'normal' AF version, but it is not faster (rather the opposite).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was quite disappointed about the AF speed of my AF-S 50/1.4G and had to learn the 'S' does not stand for 'Speed' but for 'Silent' instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the rest the 1.4G is a very nice lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T20:13:08.577" />
  <row Id="5463" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5460" CreationDate="2010-12-05T20:15:12.920" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I work with 21MP photos and in an effort to speed up Lightroom on my desktop I looked at what I could improve and it seemed replacing the disks was the way to go. Unfortunately, I can't say about 5400 RPM vs. 7200 RPM but I replaced a pair of fairly zippy Hitachi SATA 15,000 RPM (!) drives by a pair of 160GB Intel X25G2 SSD. The improvement was noticeable, so my gut feeling is that anything faster does help. I don't edit photos on my laptop too much but I've had laptops in the past that I upgraded to 7200 RPM for work (compilation of apps), and I could also feel the difference. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My answer: yes, I think it will help. My advice: go for a SSD, besides memory this is one of the &quot;cheapest&quot; way to really improve your performances (short of buying a new computer). You don't need a big one, as long as you leave the Aperture/Lightroom database on this disk, and say, 6 months worth of latest RAW. If you don't have much memory, putting the OS page disk on the SSD can help as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T20:15:12.920" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5464" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5458" CreationDate="2010-12-05T20:20:49.500" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yup, check &quot;&quot;File Naming&quot; in the publishing options. As an example, I use a &quot;What - Where - When&quot; naming convention automatically generated by Lightroom. It looks like this for example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  St. Patrick's Day - Albany, NY - 09, Mar - 01.jpg&#xA;  St. Patrick's Day - Albany, NY - 09, Mar - 02.jpg&#xA;  St. Patrick's Day - Albany, NY - 09, Mar - 03.jpg&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I import my RAW files, I let Lightroom store them automatically in a RAW/year/year-month-day folder, based on the date the photos were taken on. I select all my RAW files, and update their metadata in one fell swoop by setting the Scene attribute to &quot;what&quot; the subject is (here St. Patrick's Day). I also set the Location attributes, i.e. the City, State and Country. The earlier you set this kind of metadata, the better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I'm done processing, keywording &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; geotagging my RAW files, I export or publish them to Flickr from Lightroom. My export/publish preset in &quot;File Naming&quot; automatically creates file names that follow the &quot;Scene - City, State - YY, Mon - Counter&quot; pattern, using the fields that I have filled by now (the date is found in the photo itself of course). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T20:20:49.500" />
  <row Id="5465" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5467" CreationDate="2010-12-05T21:04:35.423" Score="5" ViewCount="142" Body="&lt;p&gt;How can I find out how many pictures have been taken by a 40D?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T21:15:54.720" Title="How can I see the number of shutter actuations on a Canon 40D?" Tags="&lt;shutter-actuations&gt;&lt;canon-40d&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="5466" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5457" CreationDate="2010-12-05T21:13:05.307" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the workaround category, you could use smart collections to identify which images haven't been uploaded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In your example, you could create a smart colleection with the criteria of being in collection C2 and uploaded to Flickr being false.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not very graceful, nut it would solve your dilemma for a limited number of collections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T21:13:05.307" />
  <row Id="5467" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5465" CreationDate="2010-12-05T21:15:54.720" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're on a PC, you should be able to use &lt;a href=&quot;http://astrojargon.net/EOSInfo.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EOSInfo&lt;/a&gt; which supports retrieving the shutter count on cameras using the Digic III and Digic IV processors (except the 1D range). If you're on a Mac there is &lt;a href=&quot;http://astrojargon.net/40DShutterCount.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an equivalent tool&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T21:15:54.720" />
  <row Id="5468" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="887" CreationDate="2010-12-05T21:27:47.620" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;dcraw has wavelet denoise built in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2276" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T21:27:47.620" />
  <row Id="5469" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5460" CreationDate="2010-12-05T21:48:27.490" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, there is a noticeable improvement if you're using a DAM tool like Lightroom or Aperture. The bottle neck in such programs is the disk drive. To see this for yourself, import a set of files and then watch the Activity Monitor. With Lightroom, you'll see that the disk activity will hit 100% while thumbnails get generated. CPU activity meanwhile will be nowhere near 100%, especially if you have a fairly modern machine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2528" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T21:48:27.490" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5470" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5414" CreationDate="2010-12-05T21:52:59.313" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Manually set the white balance. If you leave the camera on AWB, your photos will appear too cool. Using the &quot;cloudy&quot; or &quot;shade&quot; white balance will give you much more pleasing results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2528" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T21:52:59.313" />
  <row Id="5471" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="887" CreationDate="2010-12-05T22:07:23.110" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can tell you a very simple trick that you can do it with any photo editing tool.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) Double your image size,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2) blur it a bit,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;3) bring it back to the normal size.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="236" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T22:07:23.110" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5472" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5460" CreationDate="2010-12-05T22:44:57.543" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to speak from personal experience here and apparently contrary to popular opinion.  I recently (within the last 3 months) switched from a 5400 rpm drive in my laptop to a 7200 rpm drive.  While the difference in many things was quite significant - I didn't feel my photo editing experienced much of a bump up.  I'm not saying that there wasn't a difference, it just wasn't very noticeable - for me.  I suppose this could be highly dependent on your specific workflow though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2010-12-05T22:44:57.543" />
  <row Id="5473" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1514" CreationDate="2010-12-06T03:52:37.330" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;f/1.4 is faster by about 2/3rd of a stop than f/1.8. This is calculated pi*(focal-length/ f-stop/2)^2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;50mm f/1.8 gives about 606mm² of light&#xA;50mm f/1.4 gives about 1000mm² of light&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It does not affect the image on the sensor, merely the size of the cone of light from a single light source (of which your entire scene is filled with).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T03:52:37.330" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="5474" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2157" CreationDate="2010-12-06T05:12:47.633" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In regards to the Vertical Battery Griper Timer (Intervoltometer) here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Studiohut-Professional-Vertical-Battery-Cameras/dp/B002SI6TKW/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1281280785&amp;amp;sr=1-2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/Studiohut-Professional-Vertical-Battery-Cameras/dp/B002SI6TKW/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1281280785&amp;amp;sr=1-2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I just emailed the manufacturer about the limit of 99 exposures and they said this: the battery grip can be set to take unlimited photos by setting it to &quot;--&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So that may provide a VERY useful tool as you have both a battery extension and an extensive timer. Both are going to be needed for overnight timelapses, or in colder conditions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2530" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T05:12:47.633" />
  <row Id="5475" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="887" CreationDate="2010-12-06T08:09:48.343" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;GREYC's Magic Image Converter (G'MIC) is a continuation of GREYCStoration. I'm not a fan of it, as I've found it to be very slow and there are loads of options to tweak. This means you could spend hours just tweaking the parameters to find an optimal set for a particular image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My personal recommendation would be Wavelet Denoise. It's fast, has few parameters and generally produces excellent results. The results are not quite as good as the commercial packages, but they're close enough that you won't notice the difference unless you're pixel peeping. For best results, I use the YCrCb colour space and apply noise reduction to the Cr and Cb channel. Go very easy on the Y channel (the luminance channel), because if you over do it you'll end up with a very &quot;plastic&quot; looking image. I normally leave the Y channel alone as I like a little bit of grain in my images. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2528" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T08:09:48.343" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5476" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5433" CreationDate="2010-12-06T08:17:09.943" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;At that price point, I'd avoid the D200 and go for a D90, you'll still be able to use all your lenses and the D90 has a built in AF motor. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Advantages:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Same sensor as the D300/D300s.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Smaller and lighter than the D300/D200&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Similar amount of control (ISO, WB, EV compensation, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Video&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disadvantages:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Not weather sealed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Plastic body&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2528" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T08:17:09.943" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5477" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5217" CreationDate="2010-12-06T13:09:05.510" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My suggestion is the cheapest SLR camera from Nikon or Canon and a good prime lens (at least f2.8).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can buy them used but not too old (2 years is fine I think). Older DSLR had several problems on the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Avoid the kit lens because their quality is really terrible for artistic/professional use. Nothing wrong for the casual tourist but a beginner could be depressed by their results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suggest also to buy some manuals but most important some photo book by famous photographer and try to reproduce their shots. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cameras are not important at all, lens are quite important but the critical element is the mk1 eyeball!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;good shots!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2507" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T13:09:05.510" />
  <row Id="5478" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5440" CreationDate="2010-12-06T13:20:12.813" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most of the lens give their best at f8. &#xA;Both f/1.4 and f/1.8 are very good lens, I don't expect to notice any difference between them in the &quot;normal&quot; range (from f/2.8).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the question is: &quot;is the range f/1.4-f/1.8 worth of the price difference?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me the answer is &lt;em&gt;YES&lt;/em&gt; I took very nice picture using the ultra shallow dof and the nice bokeh. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also useful for dark scenes, but considering the current VR technology I think a f/2.8 VR lens would be a better choice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2507" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T13:20:12.813" />
  <row Id="5479" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5433" CreationDate="2010-12-06T15:26:53.857" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer your exact question, the D200 is a very sensible camera. Just because something newer came along, does not immediately downgrade it. You need to look at what the differences mean to YOU. Would higher ISO help? Would you take advantage of the faster drive? etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me the most significant difference and the reason to pay at least $500 more for a D300, D300S or D7000 is that all these cameras have a 100% coverage viewfinder. Once you know you can see everything that will make it into your picture, there is no going back. Its a great relief to not have to worry about something entering the frame at the edge and damaging your composition. You can crop if you feel like it but that's more work and means you have to touch your images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T15:26:53.857" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5480" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5440" CreationDate="2010-12-06T15:29:37.320" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've owned and used both. I sold my 1.8, and wish now that I hadn't because it's not better/worse - just different.  Step back, and look at the bigger picture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The IQ on these two are just different (at least below 2.8).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Consider the 1.4g because it:&lt;br/&gt;&#xA; 1. doesn't require an in-camera motor to auto-focus.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA; 2. has different coatings/and aperture blade design.  (In my opinion) The 1.4g has a smoother bokeh, and seems to have improved color contrast and saturation.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA; 3. is a little faster (1.4 vs. 1.8) - and you'll use it.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA; 4. has that MA/M switch - I use it.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA; 5. has improved weather sealing (? verify this)&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;6. has a quiet autofocus&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Consider the 1.8 because it:&lt;br/&gt;&#xA; 1. is about $300 cheaper&lt;br/&gt;&#xA; 2. has very nice IQ, and maybe sharper compared to the 1.4g ... do some research online.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA; 3. has an aperture ring - you can use it on older camera bodies.  Can't do that with the 1.4G mount.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA; 4. can be mounted backwards and used as a macro.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;5. Seems faster to autofocus (but louder).&lt;br/&gt;&#xA; &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;If you're like me, you'll be very happy with both.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1676" LastEditorUserId="1676" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-06T15:34:48.173" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T15:34:48.173" />
  <row Id="5481" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5491" CreationDate="2010-12-06T15:48:32.810" Score="7" ViewCount="210" Body="&lt;p&gt;I currently use Aperture 3.1 for tweaks and library management and I'm happy with it for that purpose, but I am considering buying Photoshop CS5 for more extreme editing.  I was wondering if there was any advantage in migrating to Lightroom at the same time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does using PS+LR as a team enable features that PS+other can't support?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Are adjustments made in LR preserved as non-destructive edits (adjustment layers?) when a photo is exported to PS?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Does working with PS+LR require fewer intermediate files than PS+other?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Does Aperture support .PSD files, or do I have to convert to TIFF before I can archive my files in Aperture?  Does that mean losing editing flexibility?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NB: I'm not asking if LR is better than Aperture, only whether it integrates better with PS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1615" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T20:11:24.610" Title="Is there any advantage to using Photoshop and Lightroom as a team? (as opposed to PS with other library software)" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;apple-aperture&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5482" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5454" CreationDate="2010-12-06T15:51:54.563" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;He would struggle to compete online; it's a very competitive market. But my impression is that photography as a hobby is really taking off among the wealthy in India. Direct, one-to-one teaching in the customer's own language might be an option. Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2329" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T15:51:54.563" />
  <row Id="5483" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5414" CreationDate="2010-12-06T16:21:49.027" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A gray card for presetting/measuring exposure - otherwise your auto-metering will turn the snow grey ;) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1676" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T16:21:49.027" />
  <row Id="5484" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5454" CreationDate="2010-12-06T16:56:14.787" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Stock Photography is a crowded market but maybe if your father shoots Indian themes, he could provide something different and interesting to buyers.  Basically, there's no need to shoot another glass of red wine over a white background but there maybe a good market for great India photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2168" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T16:56:14.787" />
  <row Id="5485" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5481" CreationDate="2010-12-06T17:07:14.027" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You certainly get better multi-image integration btw LR and PS, HDR/Panos/Layers/Smart Objects can be sent to photoshop with one click by selecting multiple images and picking 'Edit In PS-&gt;'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/dqevS.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T17:07:14.027" />
  <row Id="5486" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5481" CreationDate="2010-12-06T17:53:21.850" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Are adjustments made in LR preserved as non-destructive edits (adjustment layers?) when a photo is exported to PS?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, and this is also true in Aperture. Both products support basic Photoshop integration; LR gives you the additional ability to Merge to Panorama, Merge to HDR, and Open as Smart Object.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a nice &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.oreilly.com/aperture/2008/04/working-with-external-editors.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article on O'Reilly&lt;/a&gt; that explains how Aperture integrates with Photoshop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2539" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T17:53:21.850" />
  <row Id="5487" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2010-12-06T18:44:55.510" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;For questions pertaining to photographic filters, which are usually glass or plastic accessories that are either screwed onto the lens or otherwise added in the optical path.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_filter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photographic Filters&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-06T18:55:25.973" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T18:55:25.973" />
  <row Id="5488" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2010-12-06T18:44:55.510" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="For questions pertaining to photographic filters, which are usually glass or plastic accessories that are either screwed onto the lens or otherwise added in the optical path." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-06T18:44:55.510" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T18:44:55.510" />
  <row Id="5489" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5490" CreationDate="2010-12-06T19:38:39.180" Score="10" ViewCount="273" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi all, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had an idea that will require suspending a small household object (a flashlight, in this case) off the ground.  It weighs only a few pounds but will be part of the shot so I can't put it on top of anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My questions: &#xA;  1. Will fishing line work for this?  I'm on a budget so if it will work, that would be perfect.&#xA;  2. What is the best way to light it to ensure the camera won't pick up the wire?  (Best angle, color of light?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another way to do it would be to cut a hole in the background and run a bar through the hole to the subject, in effect using the subject to hide the support bar.  Not only does this sound like a lot more work, it isn't an option because I'm trying to hide the shadows as well.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2190" LastActivityDate="2010-12-07T23:37:12.147" Title="How can I suspend something without seeing the wires?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;" AnswerCount="5" />
  <row Id="5490" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5489" CreationDate="2010-12-06T19:56:50.113" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd probably do it with fishing line (or other strong string) and then clone it out after the fact if any is visible in the final shot. As for lighting, I think clear stuff may actually reflect it more and so may be more visible. If you can get a matt finish, similar to the background, that's probably best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T19:56:50.113" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5491" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5481" CreationDate="2010-12-06T20:11:24.610" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a functional standpoint, as you probably know, LR and Aperture are very comparable. They both do the same job, and they both do it will. A key functional difference is their primary workflow. LR is modular, while Aperture is non-linear (you can do any action at any time without having to choose a specific module.) If you are used to the Aperture workflow, you might need to get used to LR's modular workflow. Modules do make it easier to do certain groups of tasks, but switching between modules can be a bit of a pain sometimes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a compatibility and integration with Photoshop standpoint, Lightroom does indeed have one advantage that Aperture does not. Photoshop and Lightroom use the same RAW processing engine. This may seem like a subtle difference, however the way RAW files are processed can have a significant impact on your workflow. Different RAW processing engines can (and usually do) process the original sensor data in different ways, apply different base tone curves, etc. When moving between Aperture and Photoshop when using RAW files, you may notice some slight (and sometimes not so slight) differences in how your photos appear. As you stack up edits, these differences in RAW processing engines may have a more noticeable impact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Adobe's RAW processing engine has very recently been updated with some pretty advanced algorithms that do a SUPERB job processing raw images, this might be a key factor to take into account regarding your cross-program workflow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T20:11:24.610" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5492" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5489" CreationDate="2010-12-06T20:14:24.017" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think most of the time these days, lines uses to hang objects in a scene are edited out during post processing. In particular, it is very easy to remove such undesirable content with features such as Content Aware Fill in Photoshop CS5 (or the GIMP equivalent if you can't afford CS5.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would recommend against fishing line, however. It is translucent, and will likely catch and refract light, making it more visible than something else. I would say use a dark line if your scene background is darker, or a lighter line if your scene background is lighter...preferably something similar to the primary colors of your scene. It may be that you do not need to do any post-process editing to remove it from your shots, but if you do, having something that naturally blends into the scene will make it easier to get rid of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T20:14:24.017" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5493" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5495" CreationDate="2010-12-06T21:39:07.570" Score="17" ViewCount="946" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi all, I'm new to photography and this site was recommend to me so I'll jump straight in! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm currently using a Canon 1000D with 18-55mm non IS lens and having great trouble trying to creating a blurred background effect in my photos. Now matter what aperture or shutter speed I choose, I'm not able to get it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a golden ruke to getting this effect? Any suggestions would be appreciated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks, David&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: Wow thanks for the amazing replies! :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hi, I have taken some pics of the same shot, one at 18mm and one at 55mm!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/eExAC.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Q2Bz1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2543" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-04T16:03:59.470" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T16:03:59.470" Title="How can I get dramatic shallow DOF with a kit lens?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;kit-lens&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="5494" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5489" CreationDate="2010-12-06T21:45:21.947" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fishing line would be easier, large sheet of glass is another option, though you have to be careful with the lighting direction to avoid picking up a reflection from the glass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you go the fishing line approach if you light it correctly it wont show up strongly in the images, though it might require minor retouching! The line will produce a strong specular reflection, so if you use a large soft lightsource you can light up your subject whilst avoiding the line lighting up by shining a direct light through it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T21:45:21.947" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5495" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5493" CreationDate="2010-12-06T21:46:36.140" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given that gear, you'll get the maximum bokeh effect by zooming out to 18mm, going aperture priority mode (Av) and setting the aperture to 3.5 which is the maximum aperture on that lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have a combination of a crop sensor (less bokeh) combined with a lens that maxes out at f/3.5 (less bokeh than lenses which go to a wider aperture).  That lens has a variable aperture, so as you zoom closer in towards 55mm your widest aperture will be further limited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're not satisfied with the amount of bokeh at 18mm and f/3.5, unfortunately this is one of those cases where better (/more expensive) gear is the answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T21:46:36.140" CommentCount="12" />
  <row Id="5496" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5493" CreationDate="2010-12-06T21:49:44.720" Score="19" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To get the effect you are after, you require either:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A very wide aperture, the 18-55mm lens you have is probably something like f/3.5, whereas you can get lenses with apertures of f/1.8 or f/1.4 which result in significantly more blur.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A very close focussing distance. Depth of field diminshes very quickly with focus distance, so much so that it becomes a major problem with macro photography getting a non blurred background (or subject!)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A long focal length lens. A long focal length will magnify the blur, allowing you to get a blurred background even with a small aperture, such as f/5.6&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With your current lens, a close focus distance is your only real option. However you can get a Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens for $100 which will make it much easier to get blurred backgrounds at regular focusing distances. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-06T21:55:11.610" LastActivityDate="2010-12-06T21:55:11.610" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5497" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5493" CreationDate="2010-12-06T21:50:23.767" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The more open your aperture (smaller numbers!), the less depth of field you have. That means more background and foreground blur, and &lt;em&gt;bokeh&lt;/em&gt; describes the quality of that blur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, longer focal lengths will generally make the difference between background and your subject more dramatic, so that will help a little bit. But really, it's mostly about the aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is difficult because your lens -- like pretty much all &quot;kit&quot; lenses -- aren't particularly fast. At the the wider-angle end, f/3.5 is the maximum, and when you zoom it, it gets worse, limiting you to f/5.6. So, while you can set the camera on aperture priority mode and see what that gets you, it's not going to be amazing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You don't need to spend a lot to play with this, though, because of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_50mm_f_1_8_ii&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF 50mm f/1.8 II&lt;/a&gt;. You can get this for under a hundred bucks, and it's wide enough to give you dramatic bokeh effects. (In fact, so much so that if you take pictures of people at f/1.8, you'll have trouble keeping both their nose and ears in focus.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-07T12:42:58.517" LastActivityDate="2010-12-07T12:42:58.517" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="5498" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5493" CreationDate="2010-12-07T04:51:39.760" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bokeh can be simulated in software if you have enough patience. You need to select the part of the image you want to remain sharp, invert the selection, and do a severe blur on everything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a plugin for Photoshop that does a nice job on the blur: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alienskin.com/bokeh/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.alienskin.com/bokeh/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an example I did in Paint Shop Pro for another forum a few years ago. The selection was combined with a gradient so the background at the top of the image (farther away) was blurred more than the foreground at the bottom. If I had been doing this on my own picture I might have done a more careful job, you can see artifacts around the boy. &lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&amp;amp;message=6494934&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&amp;amp;message=6494934&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="775" LastActivityDate="2010-12-07T04:51:39.760" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5499" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5502" CreationDate="2010-12-07T06:25:37.560" Score="4" ViewCount="281" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I take a seascape photo by hand, I often find that I had the camera angled ever so slightly.  If the picture wasn't meant to have such a perfect horizontal line (the horizon), then it wouldn't be noticeable, but I end up needing to rotate the image by a degree or two in Photoshop.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most often, this is the only tweak that I need to do in PS, and the other tweaking that I might want to do (cropping, adjust exposure, or apply a gradient filter) I can do in Lightroom.  It would be great if I could do the rotation in LR as well, since opening the image in PS takes a bit of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know how to rotate an image by 90 degrees in either direction in Lightroom, but is it possible to rotate by an arbitrary angle?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="307" LastActivityDate="2010-12-08T09:07:22.197" Title="Is it possible to rotate an image by an arbitrary angle in Lightroom?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;rotation&gt;" AnswerCount="5" />
  <row Id="5500" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5505" CreationDate="2010-12-07T06:28:14.283" Score="5" ViewCount="158" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am wondering if there are any tools (standalone, Lightroom/Photoshop plugins, or other) that can take a photo, look for lines that are almost vertical or horizontal (eg horizons, telephone poles, etc), and automatically rotate and crop the image?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a manual process for me right now, and it seems like something that could be automated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anything like this exist?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="307" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-07T12:44:50.747" LastActivityDate="2010-12-08T20:46:10.810" Title="Are there any tools out there to automatically rotate an image?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;rotation&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5501" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5499" CreationDate="2010-12-07T06:32:08.253" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Under Develop tab. Go to the crop function. Near the right and left side handles for cropping, if you mouse near it, you get a rotation option, you can just drag to rotate from here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastActivityDate="2010-12-07T06:32:08.253" />
  <row Id="5502" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5499" CreationDate="2010-12-07T06:34:46.973" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, you can straighten an image using the crop or straighten tool.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can read about the available methods here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://livedocs.adobe.com/en_US/Lightroom/1.0/help.html?content=WS365FDD4E-35AF-4304-9BF7-BBF6BC42FB3E.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Crop and straighten a photo &lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-12-07T06:34:46.973" />
  <row Id="5503" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5499" CreationDate="2010-12-07T07:22:46.353" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the above answers, here's a Lightroom rotation tip: after you've selected the copy/straighten tool, click on the image of a bubble level.  You can then drag a straight line on the photo and Lightroom will use that line to determine what is horizontal/vertical.  This works well if there's a known horizontal/vertical line such as a horizon, table, building, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-12-07T07:22:46.353" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5504" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2838" CreationDate="2010-12-07T09:45:16.293" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I faced the same problem earlier this year and ended up going with Big Ken's advice:&#xA;    &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d5000.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d5000.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're not a Pro photographer this is probably all you'll ever need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said that, since I bought my D5000 (which incidentally I love) the very wonderful D7000 has been released. Also the superb Canon 550D. If I had the extra $$ and it had been available, I would have gone with the 550D. But it wasn't. I'm not overly upset by this, the D5000 is an excellent bit of kit at a bargain price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2547" LastActivityDate="2010-12-07T09:45:16.293" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5505" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5500" CreationDate="2010-12-07T10:17:13.530" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There may well be programs that attempt to do what you descrive, but I'm doubtful it would be that effective. If the camera is pitched up or down slightly then you could have a perfectly level image, despite not having a single horizontal or vertical line. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason for this is that unless your camera is dead flat along the optical axis (that runs parrallel to the lens) then your telegraph poles etc. wont be veritcal in an image, even if the camera is level - the lines will all converge on an imaginary vanishing point in the sky. Likewise if the camera is not face on to a true horizontal line it wont be rendered horizontal in the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's possible to employ a more sophisticated approach, by either trying to identify the horizon in images, or even better grouping lines that share a common vanishing point, estimating the pitch angle and thus the correct angle to rotate the image, but such a process would be considerably more involved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-12-07T10:17:13.530" />
  <row Id="5506" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5500" CreationDate="2010-12-07T10:38:23.957" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDownload.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Faststone&lt;/a&gt; has a feature for batch rotating. It's free and easy to use (for me).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/5349/free-batch-photo-watermaker/5368#5368&quot;&gt;Here I advised&lt;/a&gt; to use this software for batch watermarking, but there is a Tab for rotating (second tab, instead of #4 in the instruction).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2272" LastActivityDate="2010-12-07T10:38:23.957" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="5507" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5508" CreationDate="2010-12-07T11:11:53.020" Score="6" ViewCount="357" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was used to put a Skylight filter to protect my lens, but last time the shop assistant recommended me to use a UV filter instead for Digital SLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I though they were the same, only different in &quot;strength&quot; but he told me no, Skylight would introduce false colors in digital sensors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it true?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What's the exact difference between them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2507" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-06T12:04:37.010" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T12:04:37.010" Title="What is the difference between UV and Skylight filters?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;uv&gt;&lt;skylight&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="5508" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5507" CreationDate="2010-12-07T11:25:08.110" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The difference is that a skylight filter is a basic colour correction filter with a slight magenta tint which has a similar effect on skies as a UV filter (which cuts out part of the spectrum), which is neutral coloured. The effect of a skylight filter is slightly warming, overcoming the blue tinge that you get in shadows from the light from a clear blue sky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The person is the shop is right that a skylight will affect colours but the effect is subtle, can be beneficial and can be largely reversed on the computer. However skylight filters are less common with digital given the ease with which you can apply colour correction in post production. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A more important question is why you are buying a filter. The common advice for protecting a lens doesn't make sense to me, given that filters can exacerbate lens flare and reduce contrast in certain circumstances. The price if a good UV filter can be about the same as a lens repair anyway... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-08T19:13:49.950" LastActivityDate="2010-12-08T19:13:49.950" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="5509" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5507" CreationDate="2010-12-07T13:18:05.767" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The skylight filter has a subtle color tone, but this will not really produce false colors in a digital camera, instead the white balancing will compensate for the color change and produce pretty much the same image as without the filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the reason for choosing an UV filter rather than a skylight filter is that the UV filter reduces specific wavelengths, which the camera can't compensate away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-12-07T13:18:05.767" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5510" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6467" CreationDate="2010-12-07T14:06:32.557" Score="5" ViewCount="123" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've bought a Nikon D7000 Kit (Nikon D7000 Kit AF-S DX 18-105 mm VR) that includes two Nikon branded SD Memory Cards. I've tried them and till now I have no complaints, but due to the lack of some well known high performance SD Cards, I can not compare them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anybody know how good those cards are and/or if it is recommendable to buy i.e. two SanDisk Extreme III SDHC Class 10 cards?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2549" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T21:12:46.480" Title="Nikon SD Memory Cards, are they good?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;memory-card&gt;&lt;sdhc&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5511" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5510" CreationDate="2010-12-07T14:30:31.560" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Rob Galbraith has put together an enormous database of CF and SD performance metrics in various cameras.  It starts &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; with an extremely thorough explanation of how the cards work, and then a database organized by camera.  I'm pretty sure you'll be able to see how your cards stack up to the others there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He doesn't have the D7000 up yet, but I'd suspect that a camera like the d90, which is also SD, would have similar performance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-12-07T14:30:31.560" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5512" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5493" CreationDate="2010-12-07T15:09:44.607" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Zoom in to 55mm&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Get close to your subject&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ensure there nothing close behind your subject (e.g. the background is far away)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;depth of field calculator&lt;/a&gt;, with your camera and that lens, at 55mm f/5.6, if you subject is 6ft away from you, your depth of field will be 0.76ft, and anything that is about half a foot behind or in front of your subject will be starting to be blurred!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="934" LastActivityDate="2010-12-07T15:09:44.607" />
  <row Id="5513" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5507" CreationDate="2010-12-07T15:13:35.870" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Using a Skylight filter is a pretty silly thing to do these days. On some cameras you will be worst off, as some have an external white-balance sensor (the Olympus E-5 for example) which won't see your filter and won't be able to correct for it. Others will compensate but only in AWB mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You're seriously damaging your colors with a Skylight filter. Glad the shop owner told you something sensible. The only skylight filter I ever had was bought accidentally, I asked for a UV he gave me a box saying 'skylight' and I asked if it was the same and he said yes. The store has since gone bankrupt. With service like that, I understand!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: I agree with Matt. I'm not saying not to buy the UV filter but only put it if the lens is in eminent danger (near salt water or flying sand counts), otherwise you can seriously destroy the quality of your images. In one of the photography classes I teach, one student had a UV filter which I had not noticed at first. Halfway through the shoot she asked me what was the strange things she saw on the screen and I made them go away be removing the UV filter. Problem solved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-07T15:13:35.870" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5514" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2838" CreationDate="2010-12-07T15:25:13.167" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If FPS is your top concern, take a look at the 4.7fps Pentax K-x or 6fps Pentax K-r. (These cameras are competitors to the D5000; if you're looking more at the D90/D7000 bracket, check out the 7fps Pentax K-5.) FPS isn't the only thing nice about these cameras, but since that and weight are the only things you mention, I thought I'd address those.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On weight: the Pentax cameras come in on the middle, but are quite compact. And Pentax offers a couple of unique serieses of small lightweight prime lenses, which can keep the total weight down. Sam Saffron mentions lenses as a key deciding factor, and I agree. Pentax is a good choice if you're intrigued by the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses/#DALimited20090216135719&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;jewel-like Limited lenses&lt;/a&gt;, but probably not the right choice if you're looking for a 70-200mm f/2.8 monster.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-12-07T15:25:13.167" />
  <row Id="5515" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2838" CreationDate="2010-12-07T16:46:50.737" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When you are buying a DSLR, the most important question is: are you already a DSLR user? If you are not, then take some time, a month or two or even more and learn about DSLRs and photography. The knowledge you get with learning will help you to decide which camera to buy. Read reviews, tests, check Flickr pictures. Go to the shop and take the camera in your hands. Repeat that a few times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And don't think this way: I don't need an expensive camera because I don't know anything about photography. You WILL know. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I own a D90. If I would buy a body today I would buy a D700 or at least D300s. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the best known advice is: buy the brand your friends are using. It is that simple. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2553" LastActivityDate="2010-12-07T16:46:50.737" />
  <row Id="5516" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4956" CreationDate="2010-12-07T17:32:11.663" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not sure if the question is still up, but if so your choices apparently came to these five:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon Powershot SX 210 IS&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fuji Finepix F70 EXR&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon Coolpix S8000&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Panasonic Lumix ZS3&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Panasonic Lumix ZS7 (aka TZ10)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I'm a big fan of Canon compacts, I'd suggest that you try the Lumix ZS7 due to its light weight, responsiveness and features balance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From my (small I should stress) experience with it, the ZS7 seemed a quite responsive travel zoom camera for its size. The fact that it includes the full PASM (Program, Aperture, Shutter and Manual modes) set and a GPS adds even more value to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just keep in mind that this is a very subjective decision and your best bet is to spend a few minutes with each one of the above cameras before deciding for one of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2010-12-07T17:32:11.663" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5517" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5500" CreationDate="2010-12-07T18:40:08.330" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I totally second what Matt Grum stated...trying to automatically &quot;level&quot; an image based on a purely logical algorithm would really only be effective in the ideal situation: Where you have a perfectly flat horizon in a properly centered image that minimizes lens and perspective distortions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider the scenario where you, as the photographer, did take a level shot of something, such as a lake, that does not have a perfectly &quot;horizontally flat&quot; shore...the shore curves around and eventually meets you. A computer algorithm may try to level such an image by making the shore of the lake as flat as possible...but that is incorrect. The shore of the lake should be tilted and eventually curve toward you. The human eye can detect such a thing, as it involves numerous cues from the whole scene, not just primary lines. Small things, such as how &quot;upright&quot; trees look (which can be a very ephemeral thing that would be difficult for a computer algorithm to accommodate).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this is one of those good arguments for doing the best you can in-camera, before you take the shot, to make sure your shots are level. Beyond the technical difficulties of accurately leveling shots with an automatic algorithm, non-90 degree rotations are one of the most destructive edits you can make, as it requires re-sampling each pixel in the image. If you can take your shots in-camera such that they are properly leveled, you won't have to perform any rotations causing that degradation in image detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-12-07T18:40:08.330" />
  <row Id="5518" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5499" CreationDate="2010-12-07T18:42:24.633" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Develop module, under &quot;Lens Corrections&quot;, one of the options is to rotate -- hovering over it will overlay a grid and allow you to assess how straight (or not) your image is -- you can also select a &quot;Constrain Crop&quot; which will do the minimum crop without going &quot;over the edges&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also carry out some basic perspective corrections here, if you choose, which can straighten converging verticals on buildings, for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-12-07T18:42:24.633" />
  <row Id="5519" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5217" CreationDate="2010-12-07T20:40:35.950" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's something to consider: the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-impossible-project.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Impossible Project&lt;/a&gt;, which makes new film for Polaroid cameras. So you could get a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/impossible-edition-polaroid/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;refurbished Polaroid camera&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://photography.shop.ebay.com/Film-Cameras-/15230/i.html?_nkw=polaroid&amp;amp;_catref=1&amp;amp;_fln=1&amp;amp;_trksid=p3286.c0.m282&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;get lucky on eBay&lt;/a&gt;. This combines some of the immediacy of digital with the concrete, physical results of film.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-12-07T20:40:35.950" />
  <row Id="5520" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5522" CreationDate="2010-12-07T21:03:28.143" Score="2" ViewCount="208" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the following harware:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 550&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF 50mm F1.4 lens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 580EX II&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the optimal manual setting when shooting portraits?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2047" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-09T17:05:39.793" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T17:05:39.793" Title="What manual setting for portrait?" Tags="&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;manual-mode&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5521" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-07T21:18:39.097" Score="1" ViewCount="151" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&#xA;I'm interested in doing some studio photography around Boston area. I would like to rent a space+lights(few strobes, lightbox, umbrellas) Does anyone have any experience with this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2556" LastActivityDate="2010-12-07T21:18:39.097" ClosedDate="2011-01-03T00:52:15.527" Title="Photo studio time for rent in Boston" Tags="&lt;renting&gt;&lt;studio&gt;" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5522" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5520" CreationDate="2010-12-07T21:19:18.410" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends a great deal on your environment (lighting, background, and the like), goals (formal, casual, artistic, action, other), etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I tend to like to shoot basic headshots at about f/4 or so -- that usually gives me sufficient depth of field to have the parts of the face in focus that I want to.  Shutter speed generally just follows what the light is, then -- I almost always am shooting at ISO 100.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If using lighting I can control, I'll most likely try to match it to the f/4 scenario, and go with 1/125 or so for the shutter speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But again, it all depends a great deal...  so...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tell us more about what you're after?  Even if the answer is &quot;general starting point guidelines&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2010-12-07T21:19:18.410" />
  <row Id="5523" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2782" CreationDate="2010-12-07T21:25:39.273" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Top 3: @Heninger, @TreyRatcliff, @Llywellyn&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some others: @strobist, @_davidjay, @vincentlaforet, @jasminestar, @gluwater, @muenchworkshops&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2010-12-07T21:25:39.273" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-07T21:25:39.273" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5524" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5489" CreationDate="2010-12-07T21:48:29.943" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;An alternative is a thin stick placed behind the object in the opposite direction of the camera, such that it is fully hidden by the object.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1296" LastActivityDate="2010-12-07T21:48:29.943" />
  <row Id="5525" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3857" CreationDate="2010-12-07T22:13:38.183" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not sure this is the right place, but I thought I would let you guys know that I went with the 5D Mark II.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The new body with a couple of L lenses (16-35mm f/2.8 L and 50mm f/1.2) and a Gorilla Pod did wonders (when compared to my previous photos) on my last vacation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I were to classify the importance of each of these factors in the improvement of the quality of my photos, I guess the order would be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tripod&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lenses&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Camera Body&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1457" LastActivityDate="2010-12-07T22:13:38.183" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5526" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5489" CreationDate="2010-12-07T23:37:12.147" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Magicians usually use black threads of the requisite strength and then a black background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1843" LastActivityDate="2010-12-07T23:37:12.147" />
  <row Id="5527" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5273" CreationDate="2010-12-08T06:42:26.467" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One thing I find I like, when there's a lot of snowflakes, is to use a very shallow DOF and focus it somewhere in the middle of the scene so that you have some up close blurry snow flakes, and some distance blurry flakes and something in the middle in focus with the flakes in that plane also in focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2010-12-08T06:42:26.467" />
  <row Id="5528" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2782" CreationDate="2010-12-08T07:58:15.270" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is great to find inspiration :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@dailyshoot : Daily shooting assignments to inspire and motivate you to practice your photography, and share your results!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="461" LastActivityDate="2010-12-08T07:58:15.270" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-08T07:58:15.270" />
  <row Id="5529" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5499" CreationDate="2010-12-08T09:07:22.197" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The quickest way is to press the R key on the keyboard, and then either click the ruler icon next to the left of word &quot;Angle&quot; in the upper right corder and draw a line on the image, or drag the slider to the right of the word &quot;Angle&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The R shortcut key activates the crop function in the Develop module regardless of which module you're in.  Since the angle function doesn't have its own hotkey, the R hotkey for crop mode is the quickest way to access it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2010-12-08T09:07:22.197" />
  <row Id="5530" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5520" CreationDate="2010-12-08T09:19:34.937" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As @lindes says, &quot;it depends&quot;, but... &#xA;I like to shoot:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;wide open (or almost) - around f/2. &#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;this blows out the background nicely.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the thing to watch for is blowing out some of the face, which is why I might not go all the way to f/1.4&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;at the lowest ISO my camera supports&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;this is not necessary, really, these days.  It's a hang-over from the old days, and - what can I say? - I'm old!.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;at a fast enough shutter speed to make a sharp image.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If I'm using strobes, this will be the fastest sync speed.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-12-08T09:19:34.937" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5531" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5520" CreationDate="2010-12-08T10:49:52.587" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the flash is your only lightsource (i.e. you're not balancing flash with ambient light) then your shutter speed is largely irrelevant so I usually go one notch down (to account for any small delay in triggering the flash) from the sync speed (in your case that would mean 1/160)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aperture depends on the look, f/5.6 or f/8 if you're very close or need everything in focus, anywhere down to f/1.8 if you want to blur parts of the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ISO to the lowest (or second lowest if your camera cheats on the lowest setting, so probably ISO200 for you) unless you run out of flash power, in which case up the ISO or reconsider the aperture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you &lt;strong&gt;are&lt;/strong&gt; blending flash with other continuous sources of illumination then that's really another question, but this is a good starting point on the subject:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101-balancing-flash-and.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101-balancing-flash-and.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-08T15:53:10.410" LastActivityDate="2010-12-08T15:53:10.410" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5532" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5560" CreationDate="2010-12-08T12:25:27.780" Score="15" ViewCount="408" Body="&lt;p&gt;Over the years, I've progressively inherited 4 different cameras from my father, the last one is a DSLR, so the three others are pretty much unused now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't bring myself to throw them away, but I'm not sure that there's anything more useful to be done with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any ideas?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;For the curious&lt;/em&gt;, in order &lt;a href=&quot;http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_W2DRhdPe644/SzVL6yUce7I/AAAAAAAACTA/fF2xojb32Wo/s1600-h/DSC03258.JPG&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;they are&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Miranda MS-1N&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Chinon CE-4&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pentax MZ-6&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the DSLR is a Pentax *ist DS&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1812" LastEditorUserId="1812" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-08T13:09:58.380" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T11:43:57.590" Title="What to do with an old film camera?" Tags="&lt;film&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5533" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5532" CreationDate="2010-12-08T12:51:09.850" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, if you can't part with them and you won't shoot film (you can share lenses between the *istD and the MZ-6, film isn't dead yet), then I guess you either box 'em up, put them on a shelf, or display them somewhere. However, one consideration for parting with them is there are often volunteer groups teaching poorer kids about photography that are grateful for any gear they can get, I've donated cameras and other equipment to such in the past.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, hopefully you're using the *istD, it still takes &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/cameras/pentax/ist_d/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fine pictures&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-08T12:51:09.850" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5534" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5532" CreationDate="2010-12-08T14:26:40.973" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sell the cameras on your favorite auction site. These cameras may be useful for somebody else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="507" LastActivityDate="2010-12-08T14:26:40.973" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5535" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5418" CreationDate="2010-12-08T16:30:01.500" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's so hard to decide which one is better, as they are both so bad... Just as a quick remark, Intel's graphics cards shouldn't be sold. They have 128 MB of RAM (compare, extremely low clock speed, and are just poor excuses for a graphics card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, I would go with NVidia. They are the world leaders in graphics cards. Truthfully, I don't get much of a boost with my Windows 7 desktop running Photoshop CS5 (I have a NVidia GeForce 9800GT, which was pretty top-of-the-line about a year or so ago). I personally use it for GPU computing, as it scales my processing power by a factor of 10. Adobe hasn't really done much in that field...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't get too frustrated about this matter, as you would need an &lt;em&gt;insane&lt;/em&gt; graphics card to really feel the difference with an application that doesn't seem to fully utilize the card itself. Truthfully, I would just build a nice desktop computer for $1,000 with adequate components to last you a decade, as constantly buying laptops is going to waste you tons of money, but that's a different topic ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I said before, you shouldn't really care, as those cards aren't going to give you a noticeable performance boost with Photoshop. If you absolutely &lt;em&gt;need&lt;/em&gt; GPU acceleration, get a decent card (I'm using a $150 GeForce 9800GT, originally purchased for gaming, but I retired from that).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope I rambled enough for you to see what I was getting at, as I have no writing skills whatsoever ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2566" LastActivityDate="2010-12-08T16:30:01.500" />
  <row Id="5536" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-08T16:48:49.020" Score="1" ViewCount="1318" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just got my Canon EOS 550D (T2i), and I absolutely love it. I've already wasted 16 GB of hard drive space in a week!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any useful hacks for this camera? Just curious, but:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Has anyone gotten CHDK or similar to work with it?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does anyone have a DIY remote trigger working with this model? My current setup is ridiculous: I have a gold-plated headset connector, and I have to &lt;em&gt;lick&lt;/em&gt; one end of it to get it to fire. It's so weird...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Any other notable hacks?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would love to use everything my camera has to offer, as it will be my camera for the next three years or more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2566" LastEditorUserId="2566" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-20T20:46:36.160" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T21:23:23.553" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-08T18:49:31.113" Title="Any useful hacks for a Canon EOS 550D (T2i)?" Tags="&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;chdk&gt;&lt;firmware-hacks&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="5538" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5542" CreationDate="2010-12-08T17:59:42.963" Score="6" ViewCount="338" Body="&lt;p&gt;My friend has an old Canon 300D which he recently inherited. I heard him take a picture with it and I noticed how &lt;em&gt;sluggish&lt;/em&gt; the mirror flipping sounded, even @ 1/250. Perhaps the sound is best described as using a toilet plunger: &lt;em&gt;*klllllluuunnnkkk....kllllluuunnnnkkk*&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, curiosity got me, so I opened his last photo with IEXif only to see &lt;code&gt;Image Count&lt;/code&gt; at &lt;strong&gt;1.15 million&lt;/strong&gt;! &lt;em&gt;Seriously?!&lt;/em&gt; He said his pictures were generally rather un-sharp too, though that could just be because he's still using the original kit lens, poor boy!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure if this belongs in a separate question or not, but I have some P&amp;amp;S (PowerShot) cameras which I use extensively for time-lapse projects. One of my cameras has 2.6 million actuations according to IExif and also &lt;em&gt;seems&lt;/em&gt; quite sluggish when taking pictures, but I've had the camera for so long I couldn't say if that's how it always sounded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anybody know if using a DSLR or P&amp;amp;S camera with such high actuation count will have any negative side-effects, aside from sounding sluggish?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2565" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T08:08:29.207" Title="Does using a camera with very high shutter actuations have any side effects?" Tags="&lt;shutter-actuations&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="5540" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5536" CreationDate="2010-12-08T18:37:45.323" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you shoot video you'll want to look into the Magic Lantern firmware.  It's still very much a WIP but they've added manual audio and meters and have zebras on the to-do list.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://magiclantern.wikia.com/wiki/Magic_Lantern_Firmware_Wiki&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://magiclantern.wikia.com/wiki/Magic_Lantern_Firmware_Wiki&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="217" LastActivityDate="2010-12-08T18:37:45.323" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-08T18:49:31.113" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="5541" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5538" CreationDate="2010-12-08T18:51:43.673" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sure -- it's entirely possible that the shutter is worn out in such a way that it's problematic, but still functions to some degree.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, a camera that's taken that kind of use may have other things out of alignment as well. Like, say, the reflex mirror mechanism could develop problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-12-08T18:51:43.673" />
  <row Id="5542" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5538" CreationDate="2010-12-08T18:54:36.933" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A few points on this one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Most P&amp;amp;S cameras don't have a mechanical shutter or iris so there are no moving parts and hence the number of images they can capture is practically unlimited (think how many &quot;images&quot; a digital video camera shoots in it's lifetime!)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Every Canon I've ever used has it's own very distinctive shutter noise, so it may be that the 300D (one of Canon's first DSLRs) has always sounded that way.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your question there are a few disadvantages to a worn out shutter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Increased noise (and possibly slower mirror movement hampering rapid fire).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Increased likelihood of the shutter giving up completely in the middle of a shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Loss of high shutter speeds. Basically the first and second shutter curtains can get out of sync, giving you unpredictable exposure times, the faster the shutter speed the more variation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The last one is important, when I've had shutters go the high speeds 1/4000 &amp;amp; 1/8000 went first and the 1000 - 2000 range became unpredictable, giving me a bit of a warning it was going to fail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said that, if it's still working then it's still working. The shutter shouldn't affect image quality - provided it's open at the right time! The sensor should be unaffected as it has no moving parts, if it fails I would expect an outright failure not a gradual degradation, though the number of hot/dead pixels may increase over time. It is possible, though very unlikely, for the sensor to have shifted out of alignment (which could, incidentally result in soft images). A knackered mirror assembly might affect the viewfinder image and AF (since light is directed onto the AF sensor via a second mirror which hangs down from the main one).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the end of the day, a shutter replacement on a 300D would almost certainly cost more than a camera upgrade so your friend might as well shoot it 'till it dies!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-08T19:00:48.973" LastActivityDate="2010-12-08T19:00:48.973" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5543" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5500" CreationDate="2010-12-08T20:46:10.810" Score="-3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;ACDSee is a verry simple/good tool. If you want some free software you can look into Paint.NET, XnView, FarStone Viewer, IrfanView.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-digital-image-viewer.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Best Free Digital Image Viewer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-digital-editor.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Best Free Digital Image Editor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2569" LastActivityDate="2010-12-08T20:46:10.810" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5544" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5536" CreationDate="2010-12-08T21:11:52.700" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;CHDK doesn't run on any of the Canon DSLRs, so I'm afraid that's out (though many of the benefits that it gives you are probably built in).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can get an IR remote that will actuate the shutter either immediately, or after a 2 second delay (so you have time to put the remote in your pocket for a self-portrait).  They are pretty cheap on amazon (~$15).  It might not be as fun as making it yourself, but I bet it tastes better!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="307" LastActivityDate="2010-12-08T21:11:52.700" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-08T21:11:52.700" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5545" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3751" CreationDate="2010-12-08T23:19:31.983" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I strongly suggest looking at Lightroom too. I've tried Aperture and for some reason the interface seems more distracting than the Lightroom interface. Lightroom places the emphasis on the photos being displayed smack bang in the center of your workflow and all the palettes surround it but in a more subtle way due to the consistent dark UI.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I run Lightroom in fullscreen and it's great as all of the control remains but you are 'sectioned' off from the rest of your distracting computer environment such as browsers and social networking apps etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-12-08T23:19:31.983" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5546" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5550" CreationDate="2010-12-09T00:19:41.507" Score="14" ViewCount="185" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can find microfiber lens-cleaning cloths on the web for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.shopmicrofiber.com/?page=Category.Browse&amp;amp;externalCategoryId=32412&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;less than $2&lt;/a&gt;, or pay $6 for a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Microfiber-Cleaning-Digital-Cameras/dp/B003G3QK4S&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Canon&quot; microfiber cloth&lt;/a&gt; (or buy at a retail camera store for $15-20).  Are all such cloths pretty much the same, or is there a reason to pay more?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="492" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T07:24:05.677" Title="Microfiber Lens Cloths" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;cleaning&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="5547" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-09T00:21:09.020" Score="0" ViewCount="134" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a way I can stitch the star maps found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=1052&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; together to make a really large one? I've opened the PDF's in gimp, saved them as PNGs, and have tried to change the perspective of each so that everything aligns, but haven't had much luck. I've also tried using Microsoft ICE to stitch them together, but haven't had any luck. If anyone has any suggestions how I can go about doing this, or has any idea as to where I could find a really large star map, please let me know :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2570" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T00:32:10.423" ClosedDate="2010-12-09T03:24:08.107" Title="Stitching star map images together" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5548" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5547" CreationDate="2010-12-09T00:32:10.423" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have you tried using a panorama tool such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://hugin.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hugin&lt;/a&gt; (free) or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.autopano.net/en/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;AutoPano&lt;/a&gt; (not free but demo version available) ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2565" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T00:32:10.423" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5549" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5520" CreationDate="2010-12-09T03:07:07.883" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since you will be using on-camera flash, try and bounce the flash off something (don't point it directly at the subject). Maybe a white wall to the side of the subject or even turn the head 180 degrees if there is a wall behind you to bounce off of. You will get a softer more flattering light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you bounce off a wall to the side, place a piece of white poster board (or something white/reflective) on the other side of the subject to fill in the shadow side.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other than that, use AV mode (aperture priority) and play with it (advantage of digital). f/1.4 all the way up to f/11. This will affect the background's clarity and give some dramatic effects. Depending on your situation, f/1.4 may not even need the flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2572" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T03:07:07.883" />
  <row Id="5550" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5546" CreationDate="2010-12-09T03:15:52.330" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't speak to the microfiber cloths specifically, but often the Canon/Nikon-branded small accessories like this really are nothing special. For example, I had some Canon lens cleaning fluid and it was pretty much crap. Stuff like this isn't actually made by them anyway - it's 3rd parties that license the brands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've not had great experience with microfiber cloths. For now, I'm trying disposable papers (Pec Pads). A lot of people like Kimwipes. (Oh, and I had some Canon lens paper that was pretty much crap too.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T03:15:52.330" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5551" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5532" CreationDate="2010-12-09T05:05:42.247" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hack one of them together with a slave flash, some ground glass, and a film positive, and project subversive messages onto popular tourist photography subjects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/06/and-now-few-words-from-tourist-standing.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/06/and-now-few-words-from-tourist-standing.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T05:05:42.247" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5552" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3348" CreationDate="2010-12-09T05:15:17.267" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jrista's article is an excellent explanation of the cost of making these prints.  It's actually quite a bit cheaper than I'd expected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm just starting to make my own prints using my new Canon Pixma Pro9000 printer.  I must say the results are stunningly beautiful and pop out of the printer with very little effort once I figured out how to load the paper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are a couple of notes on cost that are worth noting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, if you are willing to settle for the Pro9000 instead of the Pro9500, it can be had very inexpensively if you check the &quot;used&quot; area of Amazon.  Just look for the Pro9000 in Amazon and note the &quot;new and used from $199&quot; part of the page.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you will find is that there is a whole secondary market in these machines thanks to the $400 rebate provided with the purchase of the printer with a new Canon DSLR.  It turns out a lot of people want these rebates and then resell the printers once the rebates are collected.  So even if you are a Nikon shooter like me, you can easily buy these printers for about $250 delivered.  This makes the Pro9000, in my opinion, an unbeatable deal for anyone who has even a marginal desire to own a great photo printer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A major benefit of printer ownership is that the marginal cost of making a print goes way down.  Take Jrista's example of someone who buys the printer and uses it once a month.  His first print, including the monthly amortization of the printer cost, costs $10 (if we count the printer as costing $250 instead of $700+ as in his example).  But any subsequent print he wants to make costs only about $6 ($3 for paper and $2.80 for ink).  A print from a lab will cost about $13, so he is actually paying much less than what a lab would cost, as long as he makes at least one print a month.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A reasonable scenerio in my case might be to give prints as Christmas gifts to ten of my friends, and then printing one print a month for the rest of the year.  This would mean I would make about 22 prints in a year.  If I amortize my printer over three years, that's $83 a year, plus $127 for making the 22 prints.  So it costs me a bit over $200 a year, or less than $10 per print.  This is considerably cheaper than a photo lab, and my prints come out of the printer instantly, which is partiuclarly useful during the Christmas season when photo labs are bound to be very busy and thus slow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One really interesting consequence of purchasing your printer is that you should really act as though the printer didn't cost anything at all when making your calculations.  Why?  Because you should encourage yourself to make prints whenever you have even the slightest desire for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason for this is that if you leave your printer idle for long periods, you are risking ink clogging, which uses a lot of ink to resolve.  You would be better off using this ink to make prints!  Unless you are printing photos for a living, it's highly unlikely that you can overload your printer's duty cycle.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So don't say your print cost $10 including the cost of the printer.  Say it costs under $6, and make as many prints as you would want to have at that price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Incidentally, I found Canon's Photo Paper Platinum at $12.99 per 10 sheets, including shipping.  So my paper costs about $1.30 and my ink (presumably from his example) around $2.80.  So my 13x19 print costs only about $4.10.  Your mileage may vary, as always, but look around for deals and you may find photo printing considerably cheaper than you might think.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2573" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T05:15:17.267" />
  <row Id="5553" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5536" CreationDate="2010-12-09T07:06:43.453" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're new to photography, I bet you'll enojoy the custom bokeh shape DIY =) Easy to do, even easier to use. You didnt mention which lens you have. This DIY will give best results with lenses having around f/2.0. You can use it with 18-55 Kit lens as well, in that case, the shape you cut must be smaller.&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://thephotoguide.co.uk/diy/custom-bokeh/174-custom-heart-bokeh/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://thephotoguide.co.uk/diy/custom-bokeh/174-custom-heart-bokeh/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T07:06:43.453" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-09T07:06:43.453" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5554" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5493" CreationDate="2010-12-09T07:11:15.147" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because bokeh is the blurry portion of an image, it is directly related to depth of field, which controls how much of the image is out of focus.  A low aperture value produces short depth-of-field, and consequently a larger blurry portion of the image.  Also, the shorter the focal length, the greater the depth of field.  The last consideration in controlling depth of field is the lens-to-focal point distance.  A longer distance between the lens and the focal point creates a greater depth-of-field. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many beginning photographers always push for the lowest aperture available.  This is a mistake.  Often, the blurry portion of the photo is more aesthetically pleasing if enough detail is left in the background to make out some shapes or objects.  The first rule to better bokeh is to determine proper depth-of-field rather than always choosing the blurriest background available.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T07:11:15.147" />
  <row Id="5555" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5546" CreationDate="2010-12-09T07:24:05.677" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Microfiber clothes are built specially so that it doesn't leave any scratch while cleaning your sensitive lens/s. If I were you, I wouldn't take any risk which involves leaving a stubborn scratch in my lens or even a minor one, almost invisible to human eyes. These things are mostly cheap, and you can use any one of them available, not necessarily it has to be from your camera manufacturer. I use one which I got with my Sony VAIO for cleaning the LCD screen. Its better if you can ask a few friends what they use before buying one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And just so you know, for cleaning dust, its recommended to use blowers in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T07:24:05.677" />
  <row Id="5556" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5538" CreationDate="2010-12-09T08:08:29.207" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page5.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this page of this review&lt;/a&gt; you can find a sound recording of the shutter of a 300D to compare with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T08:08:29.207" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5557" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5563" CreationDate="2010-12-09T10:11:29.740" Score="26" ViewCount="595" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(Was: Help motivate me to go beyond being a point-and-shooter)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm aware of the existing 'getting started with photography' questions, but what I'm asking here is slightly different:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've had SLR cameras for years, but I've taken far more photographs with my trusty point and shoot compact, and even when I use an SLR, 99.9% of the time I have everything on automatic. &lt;em&gt;(I did use manual on the older SLRs where I had no choice, but that mostly consisted of twiddling aperture and exposure time till the green light came on).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I would find interesting is a progressive list of &quot;if you want to get this result, you'll need to use this function&quot;, to push me outside my comfort/lazy zone and &lt;strong&gt;get me using my SLR's manual mode&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt;: already lots of great answers, thanks! Just to clarify: my question is and was about using an SLR; when I said 'being a point-and-shooter', I meant that I am using my SLR exactly as I use my compact - all automatic: point, and shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1812" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-11T18:51:00.547" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T06:00:21.837" Title="Help motivate me to use my SLR's manual mode" Tags="&lt;manual-mode&gt;&lt;motivation&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="14" />
  <row Id="5558" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="641" CreationDate="2010-12-09T10:34:25.957" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a good free lighting diagrams software :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rienquepourlesyeux.free.fr/Lighting%20Studio%20Photo/studio%20lighting.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://rienquepourlesyeux.free.fr/Lighting%20Studio%20Photo/studio%20lighting.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can create, print, save, export in JPG your lighting diagrams with settings for all elements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;it is for information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2576" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T10:34:25.957" />
  <row Id="5559" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5557" CreationDate="2010-12-09T10:56:35.430" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Getting the Flash Off the Camera&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The image below isn't one of my best ever, but I think it demonstrates the value of getting the flash off the camera to add texture and character to a portrait.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Controlling Aperture to put the background out of focus&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The background is also pretty dark in this image, but by using a wide aperture (small f-number), I have also made it out of focus, to focus (pun intended) the viewer's attention on the subject.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/XHHnd.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-09T15:11:33.723" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T15:11:33.723" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5560" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5532" CreationDate="2010-12-09T11:08:06.220" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Attempt to Summarise (wiki)&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The options seem to be:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;1 Keep them for posterity&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See John Cavan's answer.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Personally, this is my favourite, because objects we think of as junk to be thrown away are really part of history.  I put this into practice often.  (My wife does not see things from quite such an historical perspective, however  ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;2 Give them to people who will use them&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See John Cavan's answer.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;This is probably the most constructive and generous idea so far.  It's definitely the one to follow if you havn't got the space to keep them for posterity, you don't need to sell them for cash and you don't have a project to use them in.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;3 Sell them on eBay&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See asalamon74's answer.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;This is a variant of 2, but with a little bonus for you.  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;4 Salvage what you can from them for other projects&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Evan Krall's answer provides an example.  I'm sure there must be other projects like this, but I can't come up with them.  This wouldn't be my choice, because I am a complete klutz, and totally incapable of projects like this!  ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;5 Keep using them&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As @lindes suggests, get some film and keep on using them.  Enjoy the deep colours, high resolution and all-round analogue awesomeness of the chemical camera!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-10T11:43:57.590" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T11:43:57.590" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-10T11:43:57.590" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5562" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5557" CreationDate="2010-12-09T11:50:49.600" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not sure if that is what you are looking for, but if you want to use a compact camera for night scenes (or low light), look for a way to set long exposure times on it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many but not all compacts have a way to define longer shutter times, either by offering a &quot;manual mode&quot; (where you can also set the desired aperture), by an &quot;speed priority&quot; mode (&quot;S&quot; on most cameras, &quot;Tv&quot; on Canons) or even by offering &quot;scene modes&quot; where you can choose &quot;night scenery&quot; or &quot;fireworks&quot; and thus obtain a similar result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this example I've used manual mode to set the exposure time for 15 seconds, which allowed me to capture a scene where there was quite little light:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/carregal/4376744379/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Faro Boat Line 2 | Linha de barcos em Faro by Andre Carregal, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4057/4376744379_5ce6be43b0_m.jpg&quot; width=&quot;240&quot; height=&quot;180&quot; alt=&quot;Faro Boat Line 2 | Linha de barcos em Faro&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another use for longer exposures is to show continous movement as in the shot below, where the water flow exposed for 1/4 of a second (that would already be considered long exposure) makes it look like a veil over the rocks:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/carregal/2773050606/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Water Flow 1 | Água em fluxo by Andre Carregal, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3256/2773050606_bedd953a75_m.jpg&quot; width=&quot;240&quot; height=&quot;180&quot; alt=&quot;Water Flow 1 | Água em fluxo&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally, you could go in the opposite direction and use really short exposure times in order to capture moving things as if frozen in time. This example is a quite cliche shot of a water drop (on my kitchen sink) taken at 1/1300 of a second (note that when using such high speeds, you will need a lot more light in the scene, so in this case I've activated the camera flash):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/carregal/3259441850/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Tabula Rasa 2 by Andre Carregal, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3110/3259441850_63c7785fd8_m.jpg&quot; width=&quot;240&quot; height=&quot;233&quot; alt=&quot;Tabula Rasa 2&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastEditorUserId="46" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-09T18:45:28.820" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T18:45:28.820" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5563" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5557" CreationDate="2010-12-09T11:50:50.837" Score="25" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Following the format you present of &quot;if you want to get this result, you'll need to use this function&quot;, here are a couple ideas.  I'll try to add to this list in the next day or so, if I think of more -- or perhaps I could be convinced to make this a community wiki answer.  Anyway, thoughts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If you want to&lt;/em&gt; do some &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_painting&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;light-painting&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;em&gt;you'll have to&lt;/em&gt; find and use your &quot;bulb&quot; mode, set your camera on a tripod (or other support), and do a nice long exposure, in a dark environment (indoors or out, as long as it's dark), and then &quot;paint&quot; with light using a flashlight, LEDs, or any other portable light source.  You can either &quot;paint&quot; the light onto an object, or &quot;paint&quot; in the air, so that the lens sees the light source directly.  Example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/lindes/284529599/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm1.static.flickr.com/119/284529599_26c94d66ae_m.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Resting, by Lindes&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If you want to&lt;/em&gt; do a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panning_%28camera%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;panning shot&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;em&gt;you'll have to&lt;/em&gt; set your shutter speed at somewhere in the vicinity of 1/15&quot;, either in Manual mode or Shutter Priority (often called Tv -- which is short for &quot;Time Value&quot;), and then track motion of (say) a bicyclist (or runner, or car) riding by you, opening the shutter as they bath.  Experiment also with other shutter speeds, especially for faster or slower objects.  Experiment with your camera hand-held, and on a tripod (making sure the axis for panning is unlocked and loose).  Example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/lindes/413718750/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm1.static.flickr.com/166/413718750_5769a23803_m.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Bus Patrol&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If you want to&lt;/em&gt; do (&quot;true&quot;) &lt;strong&gt;macro photography&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;em&gt;you'll have to&lt;/em&gt; turn off your auto-focus (manually setting the focus to the closest possible distance), and move the camera to adjust focus.  (You may also need to do other things, especially if you don't have a macro lens -- there are a couple of answers to &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4741/taking-a-macro-shot-without-a-macro-lens&quot;&gt;this question about macro on the cheap&lt;/a&gt; that could be useful (including in terms of helping you out of your lazy zone) if you don't have one.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/lindes/248114531/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm1.static.flickr.com/98/248114531_61aede24c0_m.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Chemical Reaction&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If you want to&lt;/em&gt; shoot &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-key_lighting&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;high-key&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-key_lighting&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;low-key&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; images, &lt;em&gt;you'll have to&lt;/em&gt; either use exposure compensation settings, or (better yet, in my opinion) shoot in manual mode.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If you want to&lt;/em&gt; get yourself to &lt;strong&gt;think carefully about your images&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;em&gt;you may want to&lt;/em&gt; set yourself a challenge to take, say, exactly one photo per day, for some amount of time (whether just one day, or a week, or a month, or a year or more).  No more, no less.  This can &quot;force&quot; you to think about it, because you'll (likely) want the one photo to &quot;count&quot;, and be good.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If you want to&lt;/em&gt; get yourself &lt;strong&gt;thinking (even) more about your images&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;em&gt;you could also&lt;/em&gt; set yourself the challenge of making sure that not a single thing in the frame is there without your explicit intention.  So, for example, if you were to take a picture of your desk (random example based on a specific image a friend of mine once showed me), you'd make sure that every book, every piece of paper, every everything that's in the frame, you have specifically chosen to place there.  Clear out the desk, and then add the things back that you want to be in the frame.  Or at least think about each and every item, and have a reason for having it be there.  (This concept of course can apply to any sort of image, the desk thing is just one possible example.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hopefully that gets you a start on a few things; I'll add more if/as I think of them, and I'm sure others will have other ideas posted in other questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;More&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm back, with a few more possibilities:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If you want to&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;get challenged with new ideas on a regular basis&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;em&gt;you might want to&lt;/em&gt; check out a website like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpchallenge.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DPChallenge&lt;/a&gt;, which offers new challenges each Tuesday (and occasionally at other times), which you have a week (usually) to complete.  They give you a theme, and it's up to you to figure out how to complete the theme... so this won't &lt;em&gt;require&lt;/em&gt; you to learn how to use your camera, but it may well &lt;em&gt;inspire&lt;/em&gt; you to do so, especially if you go regularly, vote on others' entries, and view the winners.  There are sometimes some pretty spectacular images there; to aspire to win could give motivation to learn your gear.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If you want to&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;get pushed to just shoot on a regular basis&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;em&gt;you might want to&lt;/em&gt; check out groups on flickr (and/or on other sites, or even other whole sites) which encourage/&quot;require&quot; you to shoot regularly.  There are many of these; here are a few examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/project365/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Project 365!&lt;/a&gt; group on flickr&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/project_365/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Project 365&lt;/a&gt; group on flickr (Not exactly sure what the difference is, here, between the above and this one.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/365days/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;365 days&lt;/a&gt; group on flickr&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://365project.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;365 Project&lt;/a&gt; - a dedicated site&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/52weeksproject/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;52 weeks project&lt;/a&gt; on flickr&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure there are many others.  Those are just a few I happened to know about and/or find quickly.  Many of these groups encourage critical feedback, as well, so you may find them helpful for getting to know how you're doing with things.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If you want to&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;really get to know your camera&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;em&gt;you may want to&lt;/em&gt; read the manual, cover to cover, trying out every single setting (or a reasonable subset, based on what you want to learn) as you go along.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If you want to&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;get to know how different exposure settings work&lt;/strong&gt; really well, &lt;em&gt;you may want to&lt;/em&gt; find some beginning photography exercises in a book or online, and challenge yourself to do them, even if you have nobody to &quot;turn them in&quot; to.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If you want to&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;have help keeping at it&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;get feedback on your progress&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;em&gt;you may benefit from&lt;/em&gt; joining a group, whether online or in person, that focuses on photo critiques.  There are a bunch of these on flickr, I know, though I personally find the in-person ones to be more rewarding.  I particularly like ones that meet regularly, with a small close-knit group, a la the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.groupf56.com/nwrg.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Monday Night Manifesto&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, or &quot;New Work Review Groups&quot;, described by members of one photo club I happen to belong to, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.groupf56.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Group f/5.6&lt;/a&gt;.  These can be tricky to find, but &quot;camera clubs&quot; can at times offer similar benefits, and there are surely myriad other groups out there, hopefully some of which are in your area.  And if not, or if you just prefer it this way, there's always online: I used to really get a lot out of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/weekly/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;WEEKLY&lt;/a&gt;; I haven't checked in there lately, though, to know if it's still such a useful group.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If you want to&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;keep finding ways to challenge yourself&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;em&gt;you'll have to&lt;/em&gt; just do exactly that!  Giving oneself assignments can be a great way to get things done.  Chuck DeLaney's book &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1581154054&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photography Your Way&lt;/a&gt; has some things to say about this (and other more-or-less related topics) that I found useful.  The bottom line, though, is just to challenge yourself.  And if you're taking any of the recommendations from any of the answers to this question of yours, you're already doing it.  :)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Happy learning; happy shooting!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastEditorUserId="2425" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-11T00:10:08.827" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T00:10:08.827" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="5564" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5557" CreationDate="2010-12-09T12:51:12.393" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A simple trick great for street photography: Rear Sync flash (some compacts have this)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-Set your flash sync settings to rear&#xA;-use a slow &lt;strike&gt;shitter&lt;/strike&gt; shutter speed (1/20, 1/30 should be fine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ou0mm.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(photo by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/alexanderbot/541333587/in/photostream/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;alexanderbot&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Works really well the places with lots ot light and movement&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More info &lt;a href=&quot;http://neilvn.com/tangents/2010/06/02/first-curtain-sync-vs-rear-curtain-sync/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update: had to correct my typo, but shitter speed is way too funny to delete it :D&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastEditorUserId="938" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-09T16:15:40.700" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T16:15:40.700" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5565" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5557" CreationDate="2010-12-09T13:51:00.673" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm coming dangerously close to duplicating @AJ Finch, but:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strobist&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His blog is a really fun and interesting way to learn how to make great pictures. He deals primarily in off-camera flash and manual mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T13:51:00.673" />
  <row Id="5566" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5583" CreationDate="2010-12-09T14:41:19.953" Score="13" ViewCount="278" Body="&lt;p&gt;I &lt;em&gt;already know&lt;/em&gt; what White Balance is (at least enough to get by!) I &lt;em&gt;already know&lt;/em&gt; what Custom White Balance is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of the pre-configured White Balance options on the Canon DSLRs have meaningful icons - pictures of the sun, clouds, tungsten and fluoro lights, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the Custom White Balance icon is a mystery to me. It is a round-corners black rectangle upon two white triangles. (There's a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alexismiller.com/phototips/whitebalance2.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;picture here&lt;/a&gt; from &lt;a href=&quot;http://phototips.alexismiller.com/2008/07/white-balance.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this site&lt;/a&gt;.). Update, here is the pic:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/f0TYC.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My idle thought after some late-night experimentation with white-balance is: What are these shapes supposed to represent?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Update: Originally I thought this was just Canon, but answers below indicate other brands use it too, including Pentax and Olympus. I checked quickly before originally posting, and Nikon have a different name for it (Preset), and no icon in the manual I checked.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="160" LastEditorUserId="160" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-12T22:11:06.017" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T02:07:26.240" Title="What does the Custom White-Balance *icon* represent?" Tags="&lt;white-balance&gt;&lt;camera-controls&gt;&lt;user-interface&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5567" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5566" CreationDate="2010-12-09T15:05:47.677" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I look at it, I see a person - head is the rounded rectangle, shoulders are the 2 triangles.  I think it's the photographer, so the implication is that the photographer is setting whatever s/he wants ??&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T15:05:47.677" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5568" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5557" CreationDate="2010-12-09T15:14:17.747" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;How about by trying the small next step: figure out how to take HDR photos. This requires bracketing your shot with multiple exposures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Trying to figure out how to navigate the menus to enable bracket exposure. How to position the camera for best bracketed shot, etc. This will get you out of 'just press a button' mode and will show you what the camera can do in other modes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, you can progress to other, more difficult, challenges.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2580" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T15:14:17.747" />
  <row Id="5569" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5575" CreationDate="2010-12-09T15:23:37.480" Score="12" ViewCount="220" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't understand how the camera can work out the white-balance to use in a given scene.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could see it working if there is an obvious colour-cast (for example: under fluorescent lights).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Does it compare the histograms from the different colour channels and try to make them match up to some degree?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Even then I can only imagine it working reliably in very well-defined circumstances.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can someone explain how it is supposed to work, and how well it typically works?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should this be 2 questions?  (Argh! That's a third question!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T19:04:00.323" Title="Does Auto White-Balance Really Work? How?" Tags="&lt;white-balance&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5570" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5557" CreationDate="2010-12-09T15:44:47.097" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm answering the original question here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The one thing you can never get out of a point and shoot is the ability to change lenses as per the demands of the situation. Need a long range shot? Use the telephoto (and I mean a &lt;em&gt;real&lt;/em&gt; long range one, not the ones you take with the 5x 'zoom' ). Wanna capture the bigger picture? Use a wide angle. This and some of the techniques of speed and aperture control can help you get better, much better images. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2581" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T15:44:47.097" />
  <row Id="5571" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2760" CreationDate="2010-12-09T15:52:55.933" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm new to this photography lark too - ken rockwell (kenrockwell.com) is currently 'my Captain, my Captain'. His site features some great articles and I find his writing is very accessible, practical and sensible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2547" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T15:52:55.933" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5572" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5566" CreationDate="2010-12-09T16:09:06.693" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To me, it looks like a person sitting for a portrait shot, with two lights in front of him/her - as viewed from the top.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(As a software developer I often have to design simple icons.  It's one of the hardest jobs I have.  I mean, how does one convey the word &quot;Re-synthesize&quot; or &quot;Writeback Cache&quot; in a 32x32 pixel icon?  No idea.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2190" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T16:09:06.693" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5573" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5566" CreationDate="2010-12-09T17:22:35.207" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not just Canon. Pentax's looks similar, although the rectangle doesn't have rounded corners and is more like a screen (or photo print with borders). And I've seen it in other brands too, although I can't find an example offhand. So, while I can't say what it &lt;em&gt;means&lt;/em&gt;, I can at least confirm that it's widespread, and that the center object probably isn't meant to indicate a person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ce6gC.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T17:22:35.207" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5574" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5566" CreationDate="2010-12-09T17:31:03.550" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To me the center rectangle represents the white balance itself, and the small triangles are &quot;cursors: (or sliders) that you would move to say: &quot;here is exactly where I want my custom balance to be, in between these 2 values&quot;. Cursors similar to what you have in a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/images?um=1&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;safe=off&amp;amp;biw=1341&amp;amp;bih=1127&amp;amp;tbs=isch%3A1&amp;amp;sa=1&amp;amp;q=caliper&amp;amp;aq=f&amp;amp;aqi=g10&amp;amp;aql=f&amp;amp;oq=&amp;amp;gs_rfai=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;caliper&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/bbNHL.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-09T20:10:19.980" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T20:10:19.980" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5575" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5569" CreationDate="2010-12-09T17:35:43.143" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The original assumption is that the average scene should be color neutral and therefore by computing the average color in the scene and then applying the same correction to every pixel you would get a scene whose average color is neutral which &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; have the correct white-balance. This will fail when there is a dominant color and the scene.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Algorithms got more sophisticated over the years with lots of technical papers and patents written on the subject. They added more intelligence like clamping to the set of know illuminants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The exact algorithm differs between cameras and it seems to work extremely well outdoors during the day, where there is little variation. Under artificial light there is much more variance and it is rather hit or miss. Older digital cameras were particularly bad but it has been improving on average.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The very best white-balance performance I've ever seen was on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=152&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;HP Photosmart R967&lt;/a&gt;. DC Resource noticed this and commented that they should win the Nobel prize! Several recent compact cameras do an excellent job as well. The advantage of a fixed-lens camera over a DSLR for this is that it can read data from all over the sensor. DSLRs can now do that in Live-View mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some DSLR use an entirely different approach which is to &lt;em&gt;measure&lt;/em&gt; white-balance instead. This is the case for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=239&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Olympus E-5&lt;/a&gt;. It has a dedicated 'external' sensor which measures the light falling on the camera. You can turn this off for cases when you are shooting from a different lighting than your subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T17:35:43.143" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="5576" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5569" CreationDate="2010-12-09T18:06:35.157" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The camera can't know what white balance to use, it can only make a guess based on the image data (or sometimes an external sensor, as Itai mentioned in his answer).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I for example take an image of a blue wall, the camera thinks that I have taken an image of a gray wall in blue light, and the image ends up gray instead of blue. (This is pretty much the same phenomenon as when I photograph a white or black wall with automatic exposure, and the camera sets the exposure so that both end up gray.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I always use automatic white balance, and adjust it manually when devloping from the raw image. My experience is that sometimes the automatic white balance is spot on, most of the time it's very close, and in some rare sitations it's way off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note also that the &quot;correct&quot; white balance setting isn't always the exact color temperature of the light source. Sometimes an image needs a slight color change to look natural, and some may even need quite a lot. An image taken in bright sunlight may need to be slightly more yellow, and an image taken in the blue hours may need a lot of blue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T18:06:35.157" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5577" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-09T18:16:52.670" Score="10" ViewCount="333" Body="&lt;p&gt;I realise that I am unable to just use an image willy nilly from the internet, but if an image is uploaded to a site like deviant art, am I able to use it on my site (not claiming it as my own, but as a background image)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2584" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-09T19:49:35.030" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T19:49:35.030" Title="Is it legal to use images found on the internet?" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;internet&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="5578" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5577" CreationDate="2010-12-09T18:36:58.900" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That depends on what the agreement is between the site and it's users, but generally you may not just take images and use on your own site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there isn't an agreement where the user specifically gives up the rights to the image, the author of an image still have all rights to the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T18:36:58.900" />
  <row Id="5579" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5577" CreationDate="2010-12-09T18:37:05.470" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sites like deviantART, flickr etc. will usually include the relevant copyright info with the images, look for one or more of the following symbols:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/icons/by/standard.gif&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/icons/nc/standard.gif&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/icons/nd/standard.gif&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/icons/sa/standard.gif&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have to say flickr does this considerably better than deviantART, and will let you search images which you are explicitly granted permission to use. If the license isn't stated clearly you have to assume that you do not have permission, though you can always contact the author.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Often the license is &lt;strong&gt;attribution&lt;/strong&gt; based, i.e. you can use the image (sometimes for strictly non commercial usage), if the author is acknowledged in a manner of their choosing. The precise wording is&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether that is the case will depend on the original image and will differ from image to image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/licenses/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://creativecommons.org/licenses/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-09T18:55:57.503" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T18:55:57.503" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5580" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5577" CreationDate="2010-12-09T18:44:02.340" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Legally -- In the US, creative works do not need a copyright notice to be protected by copyright. Unless there is text or mark along with the image explicitly allowing non-commercial use (assuming your website is non-commercial) the answer is no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Morally -- It isn't cool to represent someone else's work as your own and it isn't cool to put another person's name on your website (i.e. if you are giving them credit) without asking that person first. Don't do anything you wouldn't like done to yourself (I always think, &quot;What if BP Oil did to me what I'm about to do to this guy?&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2228" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T18:44:02.340" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5582" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5566" CreationDate="2010-12-09T19:04:40.463" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's probably meant to represent some piece of equipment that no longer exists:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://picol.org/images/icons/files/png/32/floppy_disk_32.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wonder how long it will be before people don't know what this icon represents!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T19:04:40.463" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5583" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5566" CreationDate="2010-12-09T19:51:28.570" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since the other white balance symbols are so literal, I'd say that the Custom one could be related to the activities involved in setting the custom white balance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You need to point a camera somewhere and register what is supposedly your reference point. Therefore the rectangle in the middle of the icon, supposedly representing the act of acquiring a color reference.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You can afterwards calibrate your color balance using two axes (Blue/Amber and Magenta/Green), therefore the two triangles in the bottom.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My 2c :o)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T19:51:28.570" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5584" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2760" CreationDate="2010-12-09T21:48:01.930" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only thing I could possibly add to Alan's answer would be to suggest finding a good used camera store with a staff that are photographers themselves and don't mind talking to newcomers (a college city would be a good place to look). Back when I was starting out, that was one of the best resources I could find (they didn't have the Internet back then). Get a camera you enjoy holding and that you can afford -- more expensive doesn't guarantee better results (trust me, I've taken lots of crap images with very upscale cameras).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2228" LastActivityDate="2010-12-09T21:48:01.930" />
  <row Id="5585" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-09T22:20:21.620" Score="-2" ViewCount="207" Body="&lt;p&gt;best digital slr with zoom under $600?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2589" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T00:33:14.820" ClosedDate="2010-12-10T09:37:06.433" Title="best digi slr under $600" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="5586" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5587" CreationDate="2010-12-09T23:27:36.353" Score="5" ViewCount="243" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I use a shutter speed below 1/30 on my Nikon P100, I get extremely dark images which are completely unusable. If I use the flash, it comes out fairly bright but just... not natural.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My camera supports shutter speeds as fast as 1/2000 and as slow as 8 seconds. How do I use them correctly? What should I take into account before shooting, what else do I have to configure or use?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2586" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-10T03:25:45.060" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T03:50:34.193" Title="How to use the different shutter speeds" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;shutter-speed&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="5587" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5586" CreationDate="2010-12-10T00:07:23.590" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off, using any on-camera popup flash is probably not going to give you a &quot;natural&quot; look. You'll need to either use natural light or move your flash off camera (which I don't believe your camera supports).  The popup flash (I'm assuming thats what you mean with just &quot;flash&quot;) is on the same axis as your lens and generally doesn't produce &quot;natural&quot; pictures (largely because our eyes don't typically see the world lit by a bright light shining from our forehead).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your shutter speed issue sounds like an exposure issue.  With a fixed amount of light, the brightness and darkness (exposure) of your pictures will be determined by three things: shutter speed, aperture, and ISO  -see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/learning-exposure-in-digital-photography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;exposure triangle&lt;/a&gt;.  (Mattdm points out in a comment below, that this may better be visualized as a rectangular prism.  See his comment - if you can visualize that, its even more useful.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By going below 1/30 on your P100 in whatever situation you have, your aperture isn't large enough and/or your ISO isn't high enough to compensate.  You'll need to try to open your aperture larger (lower f number) or increase your ISO (this is the light sensitivity of your sensor).   These should be settings on your camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its difficult to go into all the exposure details here, but there are several excellent books on the subject and many, many online sites.   Try &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0817439390&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Understanding Exposure&lt;/a&gt; for an excellent reference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-10T03:50:34.193" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T03:50:34.193" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="5588" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5585" CreationDate="2010-12-10T00:16:12.617" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since you want a good DSLR camera for under $600 look into used digital cameras and/or higher end models that are sightly out of date. As others said this is very subjective. You're probably not going to find a very good DSLR for under $600 that's brand new.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2591" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T00:16:12.617" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5589" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5586" CreationDate="2010-12-10T01:34:02.533" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The amount of light that hits your imaging sensor depends on two factors:&#xA;1) Shutter speed&#xA;2) Aperture&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The brightness of the resulting image also depends on a third factor,&#xA;3) ISO (Sensor Sensitivity)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, for a given shutter speed, a lower f-stop number (aperture number) will let more light in and a higher ISO will make the sensor more sensitive, resulting in a brighter image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have to take all three into account at the same time when thinking about the exposure of your image. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2379" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T01:34:02.533" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5590" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5586" CreationDate="2010-12-10T01:47:13.467" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Reading books such as Understanding Exposure certainly will help you a lot, but if you want some quick tips for using high speed shutter with flash on a compact camera, try playing with the flash intensity (if your camera allow this) or increasing the distance from the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At a bigger distance (which you can kind of compensate with zooming) the flash wont hit so hard your subject, allowing for a better light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've posted some examples of shots done with a compact camera and short (and long) exposure times on a recently posted question. If you check there ( &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/5557/help-motivate-me-to-use-my-slrs-manual-mode/5562#5562&quot;&gt;Help motivate me to use my SLR's manual mode&lt;/a&gt; ), the third photo is of a water drop on a kitchen sink. There I used a fast speed and flash, but positioned myself at about 1 meter from the kitchen sink in order to soften the light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T01:47:13.467" />
  <row Id="5591" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-10T02:46:04.727" Score="12" ViewCount="648" Body="&lt;p&gt;I read &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2108/best-practices-with-lightroom-libraries&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; that Lightroom V3 Catalogs can handle &lt;strong&gt;lots&lt;/strong&gt; of images, but the largest database anyone mentioned was 60k. Meh! ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I currently have over 300k RAW + 200k JPEGs (from days long gone) clocking in at around 3 TB and its growing rapidly. Everything is sorted into 14 catalogs (e.g. Finished, Light Graffiti, Photoshoots, Work, etc.) because way back when I switched from RawShooter to V2, I found that large-ish Catalogs were &lt;em&gt;wayyyy&lt;/em&gt; slow, even on a quad-core with 6 GB of RAM.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would &lt;em&gt;love&lt;/em&gt; to go back to the simpler days of 1 catalog, but I'm scared it's gonna get messy again... not to mention the import will take bloody forever ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does anyone have any real-world experience working with MASSIVE catalogs (&gt; 500k)&lt;/strong&gt; and can tell me what I can expect performance-wise? Are some operations meh, speedy or time for a coffee-break?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NOTE: I'm particularly interested in Windows 7 experiences, as it &lt;em&gt;seems&lt;/em&gt; to me that LR generally runs faster on Macs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2565" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-16T14:25:56.550" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T14:25:56.550" Title="Lightroom: How many images can a catalog really handle?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;windows-7&gt;&lt;lightroom-catalog&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5592" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5591" CreationDate="2010-12-10T03:07:53.397" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was told hundreds of thousands by an Adobe employee working on Lightroom.&#xA;So, less than a million.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lightroom 3 FAQ seems to support this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How many photos can I have in a&#xA;  catalog? There is no specific maximum&#xA;  number of photos you can store in a&#xA;  Lightroom catalog. Your computer might&#xA;  run out of address space for your&#xA;  photos between 100,000 and 1,000,000&#xA;  photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/333/333736.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/333/333736.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: Delete is your friend. Everyone says storage is cheap but the &lt;em&gt;cost&lt;/em&gt; of managing storage is not. Personally I delete 7 out of every 8 photos I shoot and my photo collection is nicer and more manageable because of that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T03:07:53.397" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5593" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5585" CreationDate="2010-12-10T03:30:21.053" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As mentioned above, the answer will change in 6 months, thus invalidating this question for future readers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regardless, here's my general advice to friends (and myself) when shopping:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Thoroughly read the &lt;code&gt;reviews&lt;/code&gt; section on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DP Review&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make a short list of cameras which have the most important features &lt;strong&gt;you need/reallywant&lt;/strong&gt; in the camera, e.g. video support.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Go down to a big electronics store and play with cameras. Find the ones that &lt;em&gt;feel&lt;/em&gt; good.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Don't buy the camera just yet!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Narrow down your list to your favorite 1-5 cameras.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Go online and use a price-comparison site such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://shopper.cnet.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;shopper.com&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pricewatch.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pricewatch&lt;/a&gt; to find a store.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NOTE: If you're in the U.S., some stores offer a &lt;em&gt;price match guarantee&lt;/em&gt; which basically says: If you find a camera somewhere else cheaper, prove it and they'll pay the difference!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also I should stress that AFAIK &lt;strong&gt;the most important aspect of your camera is the lens!&lt;/strong&gt; Don't skimp on your glass! The best camera with a crappy lens will produce crap. A crappy camera with awesome glass will produce, well, less bad crap ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, I'd recommend to shop &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; for the camera body. Then use a site like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fredmiranda.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fred Miranda's lens review forum&lt;/a&gt; to find the best lens for your budget. Of course don't discard kit lenses, sometimes suppliers ship some super sexy stuff!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2565" LastEditorUserId="2565" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-11T00:33:14.820" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T00:33:14.820" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5594" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5591" CreationDate="2010-12-10T03:34:07.783" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apparently, Adobe uses a SQLite database for the catalogs and that means it is subject to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sqlite.org/limits.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;limits&lt;/a&gt; of the database. Depending on how Lightroom uses the database, it could run up against these limits relatively quickly, it's not Oracle after all... :) So, yeah, big catalogs could suffer performance hits if your searches don't hit any indexes and, since I'm not sure how the database is indexed, I couldn't say how likely the miss is and what the frequency of full table scans is required as a result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, I expect choices such as this were originally based on general experience of film photography, for which I expect that zero people have reached multiples of a hundred thousand images on. However, digital is a different beast. Net effect, I think the smaller the catalog, the better Lightroom will perform, so if you can divide up your collection to hit 100,000 or so, it would probably be better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, if you're a techie and want to play, here's a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.assembla.com/wiki/show/truexposure/Hacking_Adobe_Lightroom_database&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;starting point&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T03:34:07.783" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="5595" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-10T03:46:30.103" Score="3" ViewCount="189" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm an artist, but I'm new to photo. I've found that the most important things for me are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Capturing a moment without any thought&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Getting accurate color&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Capturing the moment usually requires a fast shutter and good Auto. At the moment I use a Canon S3IS, and it seems to suffer from bad automatic judgement and super-high noise in broad daylight on a “sport” mode (which I use all the time for the fast shutter).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;QUESTION:&#xA;Which cameras have the best&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fast shutter + low noise&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Good and quick automatic ISO/aperture/gain judgement&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Color accuracy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Budget of $700. Don't care about size, low-light performance, features, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Anything that's an improvement in these areas over the S3IS.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;CURRENT CANDIDATES:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nikon D40&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nikon D50&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lumix DMC-L10&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2592" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-10T04:16:46.547" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T09:11:23.500" Title="Which Camera? Fast Shutter and Color" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;color&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5596" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1142" CreationDate="2010-12-10T04:10:38.390" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I thought digital had a greater dynamic range then film... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2593" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T04:10:38.390" />
  <row Id="5597" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5595" CreationDate="2010-12-10T04:28:35.543" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you go the dSLR route, then the color front is less an issue if you shoot raw and adjust the white balance to suit after the fact. Raw gives you the sensor data with some embedded &quot;hints&quot; based on the camera setting, but you can adjust to suit based on how you saw or visualized the scene. As an artist, I think shooting Raw is the only way to go if you want total control over the outcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the way, you mentioned that you don't care about low light performance, but you also mentioned low noise. Those are conflicting. Getting high speed shutter in darker conditions with low noise requires strong low light performance. Nikon, has been historically strong in this arena, but they get a super serious run for their money by the Pentax K-x in the price range you're talking about (they're taking the same in the higher end too, but the Nikon D7000, Canon 60D, or Pentax K-5 is out of the price range you listed). Net effect, if faster shutter is coupled with low noise, then low light performance matters and, at this point in time, the latest from Nikon or Pentax in the dSLR world take the crown.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So... breaking it down, I think you're really looking at a Nikon D3100 or a Pentax K-x. I'd advise, however, that you handle any of the options in the store and take some pictures. Comfort matters and, given that a lot of cameras are generally close in performance, that may well be what decides it for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-10T11:36:25.800" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T11:36:25.800" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="5598" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5595" CreationDate="2010-12-10T04:32:02.077" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The specific answer to this question is pretty highly time-dependent, especially in consideration of the several models you've put forth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I'm going to decline to comment on those, exactly, but will give some generalities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;With your budget of $700, you can&#xA;get either a new entry-level dSLR,&#xA;or a slightly older mid-range one.&#xA;This is probably what you want for &quot;fast&#xA;shutter&quot;, particularly because I think you mean &quot;fast shutter response&quot;, at which dSLRs traditionally stomp on P&amp;amp;S cameras. However, most high-end P&amp;amp;S cameras are very responsive too, these days.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Most modern cameras have pretty good auto modes. If there's a very specific concern you have that's probably best broken into a separate question.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Color accuracy can mean a lot of things. Do you mean good automatic white balance, or are you looking for more technical accuracy than that? For white balance, some cameras are better than others, but if it's your primary concern, you'll want to shoot in RAW anyway, which will reduce that to being a software problem.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T04:32:02.077" />
  <row Id="5599" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5595" CreationDate="2010-12-10T04:35:43.310" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your requirements point in the direction of a DSLR. Any DSLR will do, really.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key is that the higher ISO performance is not just needed for low-light but also to achieve a high shutter-speed to freeze action.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They also have the shortest shutter-lag which means the time it takes for the camera to take the photo after you've pressed the shutter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Color accuracy can be excellent on a DSLR and they all offer tweaking to set the color mode, saturation and contrast. Some of them have even more controls. You'll be able to get realistic colors like that or if you want absolutely perfect colors you can shoot RAW and create a camera profile using a color-chart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several models fall into your budget range, the Pentax K-x for example is one of the fastest in its category and regarded as having one of the best image quality. The important thing to consider is to budget for lenses too. A poor lens can ruin the quality of the DSLR at force it to user slower shutter-speed or higher-ISO to compensate for a narrow aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All the cameras you list are no longer in production, so I assume you are looking at used models, which is a reasonable thing to do. The Canon Rebel XSi is a very good performer too. Canon even has a cheap 50mm F1.8 lens ($100) which lets you shoot at faster speeds due to its wide aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T04:35:43.310" />
  <row Id="5600" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-10T08:17:09.803" Score="3" ViewCount="134" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://imgur.com/7gvYf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gold handprint&lt;/a&gt; that I want to set up as a spot for printing. Since it was done with one substance, it should be possible to convert the image to only the gold spot and black.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've searched for such a tutorial on the internet, but I just don't know how to separate black and gold as layers so that I can remove RGB/CMYK.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do I do this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="978" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T16:30:12.690" Title="How do I extract a specific hue into a channel in Photoshop?" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;color&gt;&lt;channel&gt;&lt;extract&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5601" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5600" CreationDate="2010-12-10T08:53:45.540" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Go to the &quot;select&quot; menu and click on &quot;color range&quot;. Here you can choose a specific colour and produce a selection based on that colour. You can sample different tones of gold and add them to the selection, and adjust the tolerance. What's even better is that you can preview your selection in realtime if you chose &quot;grayscale&quot; or &quot;black mask&quot; from the preview dropdown menu.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/r95hD.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here I am selecting just the gold colour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Press OK once you are happy and that will create a selection. If you save the selection to a channel, then copy and paste the channel into a layer you'll have a greyscale image representing the amount of gold. If necessary you can convert this to a pure black/white image using the threshold tool.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-10T08:59:26.973" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T08:59:26.973" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5602" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5595" CreationDate="2010-12-10T12:39:53.943" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You probably &lt;strong&gt;do&lt;/strong&gt; care about low-light performance, as that translates to less noticeable image noise at higher ISO settings. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As others have said, pretty much any camera should perform well enough for the scenarios you mention, as long as you use a suitable mode for the scene. Those with sensors larger than yours inherently perform better with less light available, so you may be right to look at DSLRs in general. As ever, it is often best to visit your local store, and find one that you can hold and use comfortably.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the question you've not asked; you may find your current camera performs better in some of the other modes -- sport modes will sacrifice image quality over shutter speed (and sometimes portrait mode will give faster speeds, albeit with a narrower depth of field). Sports modes often use a narrower aperture (requiring either longer shutter times, or higher ISO settings to compensate) to give a deeper depth of field, the logic being that the action will be moving so faster, that the auto focus may have to act predictively and needs a wider margin of error.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's always worth having a read of &lt;a href=&quot;http://files.canon-europe.com/files/soft28131/manual/PS_S3_IS_ADVCUG_EN.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the manual that came with your camera&lt;/a&gt; to get some tips on what sort of settings to use. You may find you get some better results using Tv mode (with a shutter speed around 1/200 - to 1/500 if you've zoomed all the way in) or Av mode (with a setting at the f/2.7 end of the scale -- only go away if you find the depth of field is not deep enough.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T12:39:53.943" />
  <row Id="5603" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5629" CreationDate="2010-12-10T13:19:28.487" Score="15" ViewCount="411" Body="&lt;p&gt;There must be a mathematical description of the difference that an extension tube makes to a lens -- is it something that can be easily described?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(For example, with teleconverters you can say things like &quot;a 2x teleconverter will turn a Y-mm lens into a 2Y-mm lens, and will lose you 2 stops.&quot; Is there something similar for extension tubes?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT 1: So it turns out there's nothing much you can say about magnification, in general. What about the change in closest focal distance? Is that also lens-dependent?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT 2: What about if we factor out the lens: is there any general way to compare the effects of (say) a 12mm and a 24mm extension tube on the &lt;em&gt;same&lt;/em&gt; lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastEditorUserId="206" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T09:35:30.597" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T09:35:30.597" Title="How can I calculate what the effect of an extension tube will be?" Tags="&lt;macro&gt;&lt;extension-tubes&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5604" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5603" CreationDate="2010-12-10T14:43:44.697" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it can be described, in fact &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_length&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; has the relevant formula:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;1/S1 + 1/S2 = 1/f&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where S1 is the distance from the subject to the front nodal point, S2 is the distance of the rear nodal point to the sensor, and f is the focal length. Since extension tubes increase S2, it then allows you make S1 smaller, thus you can focus much closer to the subject. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T14:43:44.697" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="5605" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5603" CreationDate="2010-12-10T14:59:33.687" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;edit&lt;/strong&gt; to respond to follow up questions given you know the effects of a tube of a certain length on a certain lens you can work out the missing values from John's equations you should be able to get an estimate of the effect of a different length tube. Again the values will be subject to the foibles of the lens focussing method, but should give you a good enough idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general no. There is a formula, of course, but you need to know the internal configuration of the lens and usually some elements of the lens design.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Extension tubes usually change the &lt;em&gt;effective&lt;/em&gt; focal length slightly (the actual focal length of the lens is a property of the bending power of the glass so doesn't change when you move it) but how much depends on the lens design. A lot of it is to do with the angle at which the light rays leave the back of the lens. If you take an object space telecentric lens (a special type of lens where the rays exit parallel to each other) then the distance to the film plane doesn't matter since the rays are parallel they wont converge or diverge any more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look at the back of a wide angle lens the rear element is very close to the rear of the lens. Now look at a telephoto lens, there will be a gap between the last piece of glass and the mount, as if the lens already has an extension tube. An extension tube will behave quite differently on these two different lenses. The method of focus (internal vs. external) also affects the results of adding extension tubes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in short I'm afraid there is no formula that's as simple as the one for telecoverters. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-10T19:48:16.223" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T19:48:16.223" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="5606" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-10T15:47:05.907" Score="3" ViewCount="436" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi there - I've just shot some video with the 550D in Full HD mode, 25 frames, with AWB on, but the reds are very red, almost bleeding. Admittedly what I shot was a Christmas play, with lots of red costumes and very warm stage lights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anything I can improve on for the next show?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&#xA;Jennifer&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2597" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T18:36:11.593" Title="dealing with very red images with Canon 550D" Tags="&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;white-balance&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="5607" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5612" CreationDate="2010-12-10T15:57:14.833" Score="1" ViewCount="646" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for a compact camera, and trying to figure out which of these 2 cameras to get.&#xA;I can't decide which one is better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&amp;amp;storeId=10151&amp;amp;langId=-1&amp;amp;productId=8198552921666077169&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sony DCS-HX5 Specs&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*I couldn't post the Sony Style links.. because I'm a new user to Stack Photo..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2596" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T18:11:24.410" Title="Sony DSC-HX5 vs Sony DSC-WX5" Tags="&lt;sony&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5608" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5595" CreationDate="2010-12-10T16:18:05.603" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is really sort of an interesting question.  There are certainly some reasonable &quot;wants&quot; in here -- fast reaction, low noise, and so on.  Any of the cameras you indicated (as well as the ones pointed out by others) are going to be an improvement over your S3IS, but I think it's also important to understand that you, as an artist, are part of the process here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me explain.  As a photographer, you're really painting with light on the sensor of the camera, and the camera gives you features that help with that.  Any camera is going to have a sensor of some sort.  It's going to use aperture and shutter speed to control how much light gets to the sensor, and it's going to use ISO to make the sensor effectively more or less sensitive to the light that's hitting it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More expensive cameras have a larger envelope of capabilities (larger / better sensors, higher ISO support with less noise, etc.), and they're generally going to have features that make &quot;automatic&quot; stuff easier or better.  A higher-end camera, for instance, might sample more points for autofocus or exposure calculations, which will help it perform these functions better and faster.  In that respect, a Canon 5D set on 'auto', will take better pictures than your S3IS on 'auto', all things being equal, because it's got a vastly larger performance envelope and the smarts to know how to use it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I'd argue that to look only at the capabilities of the camera is to leave out an awful lot of the &quot;art&quot; of photography.  &quot;Capturing a moment without any thought&quot; is an admirable goal, but you probably need to reflect a little on what it is about the moment that you're trying to capture, exactly.  I mean, are you capturing this for &lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt;, or for someone else?  What is it about the moment that you find worthy of picking up your camera in the first place?  What, exactly, are you trying to get someone to see in your photo?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to composition, I think you may find that there's a lot of artistic potential in post-processing, too -- especially if you start shooting RAW (which any of these DSLR's can do).  You'll end up with a lot of control over white balance and color, as well as noise levels, contrast, sharpness, and so on.  Chances are, you'll see better results with a cheaper camera and good post-processing than a (slightly) more expensive camera with no post-processing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe I'm reading way too much into your question in terms of the non-camera stuff, but as an artist, I think you should be able to appreciate the idea that a great artist is going to be more likely to produce great art with marginal equipment than the other way around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T16:18:05.603" />
  <row Id="5610" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5606" CreationDate="2010-12-10T16:52:33.653" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would seriously check out Magic Lantern if you will be doing any serious video with your T2i: &lt;a href=&quot;http://magiclantern.wikia.com/wiki/Magic_Lantern_Firmware_Wiki&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://magiclantern.wikia.com/wiki/Magic_Lantern_Firmware_Wiki&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the site:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Magic Lantern is an enhancement atop of Canon's firmware that makes your 5D Mark II into the 5D Mark Free. It adds new features like onscreen audio meters and zebra stripes, as well as disables the audio AGC. It is an open (GPL) framework for developing extensions to the official software, tailored for film making needs. It does not replace the existing firmware, but instead runs along side of it. There is no need to &quot;uninstall&quot; it -- simply power cycle the camera to reboot to the stock Canon firmware. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This also applies to the 550D, but it has not been completely ported to that camera (I'm quite sad, as I was hoping for CHDK-like functionality).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon's AWB for the 550D (at least) is a bit sketchy, at least for me. Whenever I'm doing a staged shot, I have to manually tweak it so that it works and looks well. In the later firmware updates, they have said that they fixed some problems with the AWB, but since I just updated yesterday, I haven't been able to see much change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2566" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T16:52:33.653" />
  <row Id="5611" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5606" CreationDate="2010-12-10T16:58:53.337" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes I believe video uses the current picture style, so setting the picture style to one with lower saturation should solve the problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a wider problem with DSLR video due to the lack of Raw. To overcome this, and preserve the maximum amount of colour contrast and brightness editability people have created custom picture styles designed for video.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See this post on DSLR videos and picture styles:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cinema5d.com/videolog/?p=709&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cinema5d.com/videolog/?p=709&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &quot;flat&quot; picture style will help prevent &quot;blowing&quot; one channel, such as the red channel, although it may mean the resulting footage needs some tweaking to look good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-10T18:36:11.593" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T18:36:11.593" />
  <row Id="5612" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5607" CreationDate="2010-12-10T17:32:24.277" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would choose the DSC-WX5 over the DSC-HX5 for these reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's newer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's cheaper&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It has a faster aperture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It has a better flash&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However it is important to notice that the HX5 has a 'better' focal range, 25-250mm versus the WX5's 24-120mm. If you feel you need this added zoom, then the HX5 is definitely the one to get. They both have a digital zoom feature as well but it's best advised to not use this as it just zooms into the image that's already there (i.g It's like opening a photo on your computer and zooming in on it past its resolution).  Another thing I noticed with the HX5 is that it has GPS which may be useful for geotagging your photos if you're into that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When choosing a point and shoot camera I generally go for whatever is cheapest since the cameras contain similar sensors. But don't just listen to me. Look for features you'll actually use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is really all about what &lt;em&gt;you're&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;  going to use the camera for and &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;  you're going to use it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S  Don't worry too much about the cameras' megapixels (resolution) you'll be able to get very large photos from both of these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="663" LastEditorUserId="663" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-10T17:54:24.740" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T17:54:24.740" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5613" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5606" CreationDate="2010-12-10T17:46:59.677" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the camera AWB balanced too warm you can't do a whole lot in post besides remove some of the saturation.  I've noticed on my T2i that it tends to balance very warm in incandescent light or when presented with large fields of warm tones.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the future use a manual WB setting or even better, use the custom white balance and a grey card to get accurate colors before shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a decent walk-through on the T2i:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.learningdslrvideo.com/custom-white-balance/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.learningdslrvideo.com/custom-white-balance/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="217" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T17:46:59.677" />
  <row Id="5614" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5595" CreationDate="2010-12-10T17:50:54.040" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since I cannot submit a comment to the question itself I will have to note this here:&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;The Nikon D40 and D50 share the exact image same sensor.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="663" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T17:50:54.040" />
  <row Id="5615" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5607" CreationDate="2010-12-10T18:11:24.410" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This might not help you tell which is better, but (my site) Snapsort can give you a break down of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://snapsort.com/compare/Sony_Cyber-shot_DSC-HX5-vs-Sony_Cyber-shot_DSC-WX5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;differences between the HX5 and WX5&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="934" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T18:11:24.410" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="5616" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5644" CreationDate="2010-12-10T19:02:52.330" Score="18" ViewCount="671" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm an amateur in photography (as hobby), but I have a lot of stuff: $1000 DSLR Camera, 4 lens, cool external flash, two tripods and umbrella. My friends and people who subscribed to my blog says I'm a good photographer (That I have my own taste and sense of photography). Of course not for professional work, but just for me and people around me. I was really enjoying it for a long time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But last 3 months I took the camera only one time and it was just casual picture of a crowd on friend's birthday. I'm not interesting in photo now, not in articles and galleries that I was looking a lot earlier. And it scares me. So what? Sell all the stuff and forget about the hobby at all? Or let it gather dust on a shelf?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question is: How can I determine that the photography is lost to me, and the muse will never return to me? What do you do to bring the muse back to yourself, and make yourself happy again from photography?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2272" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T17:26:07.010" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T17:26:07.010" Title="How to determine when I've lost interest in photography?" Tags="&lt;inspiration&gt;&lt;motivation&gt;&lt;muse&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="5617" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5595" CreationDate="2010-12-10T19:24:30.417" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What do you mean by &quot;speed&quot;? The rate at which you can take a photo, or time from pressing the shutter to taking a photo?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it's the latter then a DSLR may not be the best option. Instead a bridge camera like the Casio Exilim EX-FH25:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.exilim.co.uk/exilimhighspeed/exfh25/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.exilim.co.uk/exilimhighspeed/exfh25/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;May be better. The reason for this is that the camera records images constantly at a high rate and then deletes them after a certain time. When you press the shutter button, the camera stops deleting images and records them to the card. This means it's possible to get the image from a fraction of a second &lt;strong&gt;before you press the shutter!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The downside of this camera is the image quality is pretty mediocre in general, especially when compared to a DSLR, however if capturing the moment means more than image quality then this model may be worth a look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T19:24:30.417" />
  <row Id="5618" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5616" CreationDate="2010-12-10T19:30:43.407" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Only you can really say, it may come back, or it may be gone. Do you want to be interested in photography? Any way I will share the following, which I hope will be of use to somebody:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same thing happened to me in university, I had bought a camera, taken a lot of photographs over summer and then didn't touch it for months when term started. I felt like I had wasted a lot of money, so I decided to sign up for the university newspaper in order to force me to get out and use it! I got a lot of poor initial assignments, which I carried out through a sense of obligation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But then slowly I got to do more and more interesting work, more fashion/portraiture based. I was forced to develop new techniques, learn how to do proper lighting, and eventually discovered talents I didn't know I had which propelled my interest in photography, which has continued to grow continuously to the present day!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-10T20:01:15.110" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T20:01:15.110" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5619" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5616" CreationDate="2010-12-10T19:36:06.667" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sounds like you need a project.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first thing you give to show your prior interest is a list of gear. And photography can be a fine hobby for someone who wants to focus on accumulating gadgets -- but sounds like that doesn't really hold your interest for very long. (Isn't that always the case with tech toys? Gotta keep buying the new thing!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead, think about something that interests you in the &lt;em&gt;rest&lt;/em&gt; of your life; not photography for its own sake. Choose a different hobby you're involved in, perhaps, or something from your job. Or something technical: focus on a certain color, or an abstract concept.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Make a project to document whatever you choose from a unique perspective, with the aim of producing something at the end: a small cohesive body of work to display, or a small photobook (perhaps with text as well if you enjoy writing).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-10T21:04:28.230" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T21:04:28.230" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5620" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5616" CreationDate="2010-12-10T19:55:27.077" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Like people say, the only real judge about that is you, however like the two Matt's I'll give you my &quot;solution&quot; to the problem. The funny thing is, my experience is almost the reverse of Matt's, I got into photography as the editor of my college newspaper and then let it drop after I finished school. It was digital that got me back into it with my first real keeper of a dragonfly (practically a cliche now) shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, my solution... Try something completely different than what you've been doing. The approach I took, to get me to shoot more, was a Project 365 with an express goal of not having a lot of duplication. I'll be honest, I had duplication of subjects (I like water drop and smoke photography), but I also tried a lot of new things. I also wasn't always really motivated, every day, to shoot, but I did it anyways and so now, with less than a month to go, I'm almost there and I'm glad I did it. I think I ended up with some really good shots and some, well, not so good ones, but that's half the fun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, some of the new things that it got me to try were:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;street photography&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;landscape&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;long exposure&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;various strobe techniques&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;studio portraits&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;light painting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;more artistic post processing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also got me doing some DIY stuff for light modification, shooting arrangements, etc. It also got me to buy more gear (such as studio strobes, backdrop stands, etc.). There are days, during this project, that I've had more fun with photography than I have ever had, especially doing the Christmas portraits of my neices and nephews. So, while I'm sure that I won't shoot as much in the new year when this project is done, I'm pretty sure I'm still going to shoot a lot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the biggest reward, really, was the obvious enjoyment my friends and family got from the shots this year. I've had many ask me to continue, though they have no idea how much work it is. Anyways, it was a success for me personally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T19:55:27.077" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5621" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-10T20:07:38.040" Score="2" ViewCount="440" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can hear the noise when taking a video w/ NIKON D7000 w/ normal lens. Is there any way to get rid of the noise? Will shotgun mic help?&#xA;Thanks in advance!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2600" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T21:20:10.217" Title="How to eliminate auto focus noise in video mode when using NIKON D7000?" Tags="&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;nikon-d7000&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="5622" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5621" CreationDate="2010-12-10T20:14:49.783" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes and yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some lenses are quieter but even the AF-S ones make some noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The further you place the microphone from the lens, the less sound you will record.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can even use a wireless microphone with transmitter hooked on the hotshoe and the microphone close to your subjects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T20:14:49.783" />
  <row Id="5623" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5621" CreationDate="2010-12-10T21:14:36.337" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While some lenses will generate more noise than others, the only way to eliminate any focus noise is by using a detached microphone.  Any hard link between the camera and the microphone will transmit and amplify the vibration and noise coming from the camera body and the lens.  By using a a wire between the camera and the microphone, the noise will only transmit by the air witch will likely be unnoticeable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The analogy can be tested by pressing the camera directly on you head/hears while focusing.  The focus vibration and noise will have a direct link to your head and you should notice  is louder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, by using a directional microphone, it will only capture the sound in the direction you point it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1093" LastEditorUserId="1093" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-10T21:20:10.217" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T21:20:10.217" />
  <row Id="5624" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5616" CreationDate="2010-12-10T22:06:58.077" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Instead of suggesting you different ways to wake your muse, I'd say let her sleep! :o)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3 months is hardly a big period to assume your interest in something has gone. Photography (as probably all forms of expression) is highly subject to personal questions that certainly can make you go up and down for periods like that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know a bunch of people (me included) that stayed away from music for years, just to see everything come back on a sudden day. Of course when you play an instrument and stay away of it for years, your muscles are not the same and there is a recovering time before you get back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the recovery can, in some cases, even surpass the previous performance! Because during that time, even if you have not played (or photographed in your case) your senses were not turned off, so your perception of the world will have evolved and this will show on your new way to approach whatever you were doing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bottom line, relax, take a break, enjoy the view. It will pay later. :o)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastEditorUserId="46" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-10T22:15:53.063" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T22:15:53.063" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5625" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2021" CreationDate="2010-12-10T22:42:57.993" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Added &lt;a href=&quot;http://dgrin.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dgrin.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2010-12-10T22:42:57.993" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-10T22:42:57.993" />
  <row Id="5626" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-11T00:20:22.980" Score="1" ViewCount="829" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wish to upgrade my Nikon D80 but am undecided whether to upgrade to the Nikon D7000 or get a Nikon D90 and maybe another lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have read about some issues with 3rd party lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I predominately do landscape and wildlife photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I own &#xA;nikon dx 18-135  f3.5-5.6G&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;nikon af nikkor 50mm f1.8D&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;nikon af-s nikkor 70-300 mm f4.5-5.6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sigma 10-20mm  F4 -5.6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2603" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T02:44:07.200" Title="Nikon D90 vs Nikon D7000" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon-d90&gt;&lt;comparison&gt;&lt;nikon-d7000&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5627" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5626" CreationDate="2010-12-11T00:35:31.297" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't say much about the D90, but I think the D7000 is a pretty good camera. I shoot using the Pentax K-5, which shares basically the same sensor as D7000 and, IMHO, it may be the best sensor Sony has ever produced, the dynamic range is enormous and the high ISO noise is very manageable. Here's a couple of examples of what can be done with this sensor:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.grumpyjohns.com/?p=182&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;8 stop exposure correction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which goes from:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/SXxaA.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/8rPop.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then there's ISO 20000:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/AaJU9.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in my opinion, the D7000, by sharing this sensor, is a seriously good upgrade. Which, leaves you knowing where I stand on the decision point! :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T00:35:31.297" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="5628" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5626" CreationDate="2010-12-11T01:34:54.637" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The D7000 is pretty much a straight upgrade from the D90 which means it basically has everything equal or better (although someone can always find one thing that went the other way).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The better sensor was already mentioned, plus it's even higher resolution.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The 100% coverage viewfinder is enough to make it a no-brainer. Actually the D7000 is now the lowest-cost DSLR with a 100% coverage viewfinder, for that alone we should all thank Nikon.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is also faster in both maximum shutter-speed (1/8000 vs 1/4000) and in continuous drive (6 FPS vs 4.5).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It has more AF points, which only helps if you actually use them ;) I only use the center one but I don't think having more than you need harms in any way.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It does full 1080p HD instead of 720p, again if you care about those things.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, if you can only afford a good lens with the cheaper camera, you should still consider it as lenses have generally more impact an your photography than cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T01:34:54.637" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5629" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5603" CreationDate="2010-12-11T01:44:12.190" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do believe there are some formulas you can use. To Matt Grum's point, I have not tested these with zoom lenses, and to my current knowledge, they apply only to prime (fixed focal length) lenses. You did not specifically specify zoom lenses, so...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The simplest way to calculate the magnification of a lens is via the following formula:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  Magnification = TotalExtension / FocalLength&#xA;  M = TE / F&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To calculate the magnification with an extension tube, you need to know the total extension...that is, the extension provided by the lens itself, as well as that provided by the extension tube. Most lens statistics these days include the intrinsic magnification. If we take Canon's 50mm f/1.8 lens, the intrinsic magnification is 0.15x. We can solve for the lenses built in extension like so:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;   0.15 = TE / 50&#xA;   TE = 50 * 0.15&#xA;   TE = 7.5mm&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The magnification with additional extension can now be computed as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  Magnification = (IntrinsicExtension + TubeExtension) / FocalLength&#xA;  M = IE + TE / F&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we assume 25mm of additional extension via an extension tube:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  M = 7.5mm + 25mm / 50mm&#xA;  M = 32.5mm / 50mm&#xA;  M = 0.65x&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A fairly simple formula that allows us to calculate magnification fairly easily, assuming you know the intrinsic magnification of the lens (or its intrinsic extension.) If we assume the wonderful 50mm lens is the lens you are extending, to create a 1:1 macro magnification, you would need 50mm worth of extension. The problem here is that if you add too much extension, the plane of the world that is in focus (the &lt;em&gt;virtual image&lt;/em&gt;) might just end up &lt;em&gt;inside&lt;/em&gt; the lens itself. Additionally, this assumes a &quot;simple&quot; lens, one with very well-defined and well-known characteristics (i.e. a simple single-element lens.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a real-world scenario, having a clear understanding of any particular lenses characteristics is unlikely. With lenses that focus internally, or zoom lenses, the simple formula above is insufficient to allow you to calculate exactly what your minimum focusing distance and magnification can be for any given lens, focal length, and extension. There are too many variables, most of which are likely to be unknown, to calculate a meaningful value.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some resources that I have found that provide some useful information that might help in your endeavor:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/learn/optics/lensTutorial&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lens Tutorial&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some great mathematics for lenses, including MFD and Mag&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://eosdoc.com/manuals/?q=jlcalc&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lens Calculator&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A javascript based lens calculator that can calculate a wide variety of values for you&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Not really sure how accurate it is in the case of internally focusing &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnification&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia: Magnification&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?s=db4a5e69c3d67364b9a8aae039ad9733&amp;amp;p=104627&amp;amp;postcount=5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Forum Post about Extension, Magnification, MFD&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Limited applicability, assumes too much&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00IZwD&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Forum post about Extension and MDF&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Limited applicability, assumes too much&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-11T04:24:34.933" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T04:24:34.933" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5630" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5626" CreationDate="2010-12-11T02:44:07.200" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The D7000 looks to be a great camera, but so was (is) the D90, and the D90 is now almost $600 cheaper than the D7000 (at least in Canada).  For $600, you could pick up a nice lens, maybe even two.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if you are upgrading from a D80, I'm not sure how much difference going to the D90 would make (is it worth the upgrade?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I bought a D90, but I wasn't upgrading from anything other than a point-and-shoot (although a good one in the Canon G7).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would love to have got the D7000, but it wasn't in my budget this time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe you should keep the D80 (in what way is it limiting you?) and just buy some better lenses.  The lenses will still be good when the D7000 drops in price in a few months (or maybe a year or two).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="227" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T02:44:07.200" />
  <row Id="5631" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5336" CreationDate="2010-12-11T03:00:49.130" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To scan transparent material (such as a negative, or your lantern slide) you need to reveal the light source in the lid of the scanner, by removing the cover that provides the white background for reflective scanning. I think that is what the error message is telling you. Check the instructions in the manual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can simply rest the lantern slide on the glass of the scanner, somewhere near the middle. With luck, you will get the image in focus, since the thickness of the glass slide is about the same distance as the offset of the Epson film holders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why the scanner displays the error message: Whenever you initiate a transmissive scan, the scanner does a calibration measurement of the light source in the lid (the film holders have a rectangular cutout at the top for this purpose). If the scanner can't see the light (because the cover is in place, or the film holder is in the wrong place) it displays the error message and refuses to continue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I digitise lantern slides, I sometimes want to capture both the slide image and the detail of the glass mount. I make two scans without moving the original -- a reflective scan of the mount, and a transmissive scan of the image -- and combine the two in Photoshop. Like this example, for which I used an Epson Perfection 2450 Photo scanner: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.marquis-kyle.com.au/mt/000812.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.marquis-kyle.com.au/mt/000812.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2604" LastEditorUserId="2604" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-11T03:27:07.123" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T03:27:07.123" />
  <row Id="5632" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-11T04:23:49.757" Score="1" ViewCount="186" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just bought a Nikon D3100 to replace my D50.  I have several thousand pictures numbered DSC_XXXX.jpg from the D50.  The D3100 has started over from Zero.  How do I seed the autonumbers for the files to a higher number to avoid duplicates?  Is this even possible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2605" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T11:35:05.967" Title="Set the AutoNumbering on Nikon Digital SLRs?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;nikon-d3100&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="5633" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5616" CreationDate="2010-12-11T05:12:06.297" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Try different angles: you have 4 lenses, how about forcing yourself to use the lens you use less, to &quot;force&quot; your mind to see different perspectives. Last year I had to do so to &quot;clean&quot; my mind of using ultra wide angle lenses (I even loaned mine so I couldn't use it) and it brought me lots of different perspectives. Or shoot only with your cameraphone or a compact camera, and shoot often.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try different themes, even themes you don't like, that could bring challenges and different ideas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T05:12:06.297" />
  <row Id="5634" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-11T07:34:36.520" Score="13" ViewCount="404" Body="&lt;p&gt;This holiday season, I've made a project for myself in getting started with strobist photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So far, all I have in terms of strobist equipment is a Nikon D80 and a Nikon SB-800. I've previously used the flash off-camera by putting it on a table or another flat surface. However, after reading &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lighting 101 at Strobist&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;I want to make the jump to light stand and umbrella.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I'm just getting started, here's what I'm looking for in a light stand and an umbrella:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;cheap&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;portable&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;somewhat reliable&lt;/strong&gt; - doesn't haven't to be perfect, but should be stable&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any recommendations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="74" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-22T02:47:19.967" LastActivityDate="2011-05-22T20:30:55.580" Title="How do I choose a reliable, cheap, portable light stand and umbrella?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;strobist&gt;&lt;umbrella&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="5635" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5632" CreationDate="2010-12-11T07:36:36.550" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am not sure if you can do this on the D3100 - the way I avoided this when i switched cameras was to change the naming convention from DSC to another 3 character combination&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;on my Nikon - you can do this under the SHOOTING MENU, FILE NAMING&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;hope you have the same option&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1907" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T07:36:36.550" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5636" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-11T08:31:02.803" Score="9" ViewCount="439" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've got a good-old Pentax K100D body with a kit 18-55 and a couple of 50mm manual focus primes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to get back into photography, but slow (and some times lack of) focusing does not give me much motivation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've decided to upgrade the body, and here's my dilemma:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Option 1: Get a Pentax K5 kit (arguably the best body for the price at the moment) - $1,600&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Option 2: Get a used Canon 40D ($500) and 50mm F/1.8 ($100) + some other lens (if you think 40D is no longer relevant, I'd like to hear why)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;K5 is pushing my budget, but I'm willing to splurge given how good the camera is. I don't have that much of an investment in Pentax lenses, so I don't mind switching brands either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My problem with K5 is that I'll end up with a kit lens, and the cheapest prime (50mm F/1.4) is $360.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do mostly landscape and portraits, and I'd say fast focusing and IQ are the top priorities for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can recommend other bodies, please do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;p.s.: can anybody comment on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/40d/discuss/72157602780321680/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 40D auto-focus problems&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1834" LastEditorUserId="1834" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-11T09:36:04.057" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T08:58:50.697" Title="High-end body vs better lenses?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;pentax&gt;&lt;upgrade&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5637" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5636" CreationDate="2010-12-11T09:26:42.520" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Invest in glass. As you have found, old Pentax glass is cheap, built strongly, but usually lacks AF. Any prime lens is dear, some of the Pentax ones can make your eyes water - but so can the Canon-Nikon ones too.&#xA;Once you pick the lenses you want, the body will follow. Conventional wisdom usually says 70-105 for portraits and as wide as you can for landscapes. So check the lens offerings in all the major players, decide, choose, buy.&#xA;Or&#xA;Stick with the Pentax body and invest in some nice Pentax glass now, and save up for whatever comes after the K-5 - that way you get to use the nice glass now, and can anticipate the &quot;next big thing&quot; from Pentax.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't know if that helped, but I hope so :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2608" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T09:26:42.520" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="5638" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-11T10:55:59.090" Score="6" ViewCount="285" Body="&lt;p&gt;Currently I have a 7D and 2 lenses: a 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - which I use as a general purpose / go around lens - and a prime Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - mostly for concerts: indoor, low light scenarios (given the crop I prefer having a 30mm to a 50mm).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, lately I've been doing some hiking and I've been meaning to buy a longer range lens - the problem is which one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've considered these:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM Lens - ~380 GBP&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Lens - ~1300 GBP&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM - ~1000 GBP&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III Lens - ~100 GBP&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens - ~510 GBP&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS - ~150 GBP&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd also like to buy and play around with a polarizer filter (I've never had one) but I understand that for I'd need a lens with a front element that doesn't rotate (and on this list that's only the DO IS USM and L lenses). I'd also consider high end sigma lenses since I've had good experiences with their EX lenses (and not so much with the rest).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the rotation of the front element, is it a huge problem with the filter? Also the 70-300 IS USM rotates only a little bit while the 55-250 rotates alot - how aligned does the filter have to be? I'd also prefer an EF lens since I also own a non digital Canon SLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any tips? What would you buy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for the input :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2609" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-11T23:20:59.533" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T23:40:26.667" Title="long range canon lenses" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;filters&gt;&lt;polarizer&gt;&lt;telephoto&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="5639" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5638" CreationDate="2010-12-11T11:14:34.937" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem with the front end rotating is that you have to realign the polarizer every time you focus. This is annoying, but not a fundamental limitation. It depends how often you use the polarizer and what for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The better lenses tend to have rear focussing mechanisms for speed, I would look into the highly regarded Sigma big rooms, especially the 50-500, I believe it has rear focussing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T11:14:34.937" />
  <row Id="5640" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5632" CreationDate="2010-12-11T11:35:05.967" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's what I suggest - insert your SD card with your old images loaded. Let's assume that the last image taken on your old camera was named &lt;strong&gt;DSC_2455.jpg&lt;/strong&gt;. Insert that SD Card and only after that turn on the FILE NUMBER SEQUENCE found in the SETUP section of the menu (for d3100) to ON.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's described in detail here - &lt;a href=&quot;http://help.nikon.ca/app/answers/detail/a_id/16462/related/1/~/image-file-name%2F-numbering-sequence&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://help.nikon.ca/app/answers/detail/a_id/16462/related/1/~/image-file-name%2F-numbering-sequence&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hopefully, the file numbering sequence should then name the first shot on the new camera as &quot;DSC_2456.jpg&quot; and continue on until &lt;strong&gt;DSC_9999.jpg&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2552" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T11:35:05.967" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5641" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-11T11:38:42.550" Score="3" ViewCount="174" Body="&lt;p&gt;Greetings,&#xA;For a long time, I wanted to start as hobbiest photographer thus soon I will be taking a photography class in my city where I will be able to learn the basics of photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be honest, at this point my photography experience is very very crude, only used the camera of my cellphone to &quot;capture happy moments&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I will be getting more serious about my new hobby, I want to buy a new camera, my budged is around $1000 for this. I would like it to be portable and not very bulky as my main interest will be be human and environment photography while traveling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will be grateful for your suggestions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2610" LastActivityDate="2010-12-13T22:36:37.837" Title="Camera Suggestion for a Fresh Starter" Tags="&lt;camera-suggestion&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="5642" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5634" CreationDate="2010-12-11T12:31:00.723" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is the lightstand I use: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpex.com/browse.cfm/4,11667.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.mpex.com/browse.cfm/4,11667.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's pretty lightweight, collapses well, reasonable weight, cheap and air-cushioned. It's easy enough to stuff into a tripod bag with an umbrella swivel and an umbrella. For umbrellas, I prefer using shoot-throughs and the Westcott double-folds are what I suggest: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpex.com/browse.cfm/4,4643.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.mpex.com/browse.cfm/4,4643.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I don't have any affiliation with MPEX other than being a very happy customer, and you would've seen them on Dave Hobby's site anyway :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1868" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T12:31:00.723" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5643" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5638" CreationDate="2010-12-11T13:34:29.697" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want something nicer than the budget canon zooms, but aren't quite ready for the outlay of the longer canon glass, I recommend the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/150-500mm-f5-63-apo-dg-os-hsm-sigma&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 150-500&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have one, and I have been quite happy with it. The advantage of the 150-500 over the 50-500 is that the 150 has stabilization, which helps make up for the fact that it is a bit slow (6.3 at the long end). Anyways, it's certainly not cut out for sports photography, but I find it quite nice for nature photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imaginaryindustries.com/Gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=425&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/6dlCj.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imaginaryindustries.com/Gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=357&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/LlxSN.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Plus, (and it's incidental), the tripod foot is excellent, and actually makes a really nice way to carry the lens when hiking. I attach a monopod, and for walking you flip it over and tuck the extended monopod under your arm, while still attached.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2611" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T13:34:29.697" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5644" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5616" CreationDate="2010-12-11T13:56:25.807" Score="17" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm currently in a similar kind of a position (because of or despite the fact there is beautiful winter outside). And I think, as &lt;strong&gt;mattdm&lt;/strong&gt; said, &lt;strong&gt;project&lt;/strong&gt; is the way to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the &lt;strong&gt;hardest&lt;/strong&gt; part in having a project is &lt;strong&gt;starting one&lt;/strong&gt;. What helps me to get started is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Have a clean memory card, full battery and any lens attached to your camera.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Leave your camera in the place where you spend the most of the time, e.g. on your desk, so it is easy to reach and constantly reminding/nagging you of its existence.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Go through your own collection&lt;/strong&gt;: re-organize it or tag it or rate it or add more notes to photos if you have done the rest already.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Do not&lt;/em&gt; try to review your collection in one sitting. &lt;em&gt;Do not&lt;/em&gt; procrastinate your ideas because you are re-organizing your collection.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've found that going through your own gallery is one of the best inspiration methods, especially for semi-beginner hobbyist like me. What I look for is &lt;strong&gt;all the errors&lt;/strong&gt; I've made; especially in focusing and exposure, since I try to shoot in manual a lot. Also it helps to see my usual type of composition and noticing it is the most important part in breaking it in the future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you get enough &quot;I could do that better now!&quot; kind of thoughts: pick up your camera in the spur of the moment and go shooting; you can continue your re-organization later on, it doesn't go anywhere. Now &lt;strong&gt;your project&lt;/strong&gt; would actually be your blind spots you've noticed in your collection, and if you are as engineering-minded as I am, it could be mostly technical (rather than a theme/subject):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Notice you mainly shoot at small apertures outside? Put your lens manually to the widest and go out.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Notice you mainly shoot with flash indoors? Leave the flash!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Always shoot in color? Turn your camera on B/W and &lt;em&gt;do not rationalize&lt;/em&gt; you could do it in post-processing anyway.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Always zoom to get closer to subjects? Attach a prime lens and make your legs your zoom.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What also helps my creativity is &lt;strong&gt;giving strict rules how to photograph&lt;/strong&gt;. E.g. f4 100mm ISO1600 B/W, people outdoors, go! That forces you to think the photo more than the settings AND it is also inspiring if your rules are atypical for you. Follow your rules for a fortnight or for a month rather than few hours. After the period you probably have an interesting collection, which shows you the pros and cons of the settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So, in conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;: I think the best way to get back to shooting is to realize you have taken a lot of bad pictures and to realize you can always learn more from photography. It is nice to hear you have taken few good photos, but don't leave it there. Be your own most brutal critic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1913" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T13:56:25.807" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5645" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5641" CreationDate="2010-12-11T15:09:10.140" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On a photography course, you'll get a chance to find out what features you can't live without, and what features don't matter to you at all. You'll also probably get a chance to try out the cameras your fellow students have brought.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my advice would be: borrow a camera from a friend, take the course, and &lt;em&gt;then&lt;/em&gt; buy your own camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="206" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T15:09:10.140" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5646" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5636" CreationDate="2010-12-11T15:21:27.353" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Investing in a good camera body will restore your joy in photography. Good lenses will come later and the kit lens should not be despised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was my experience. I bought a Pentax K7. Photography suddenly became a joyous experience and I spent far more time taking photos, improving my photography greatly. Then my needs grew and I bought better lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T15:21:27.353" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5647" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5636" CreationDate="2010-12-11T15:43:19.770" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm a K-5 shooter, so I may be a little biased... :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, you already have a kit lens, so I would look to get the K-5 body only. The 18-55mm is a pretty decent lens and will do a decent job for you. That'll get you into the higher end of the Pentax line and I'll think you'll find that camera is a great deal of fun to use. I came to it from the K20D and, as much as I really liked the K20D, the K-5 is well beyond it for photography pleasure (not to mention image quality).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the K-5 sports a significantly better autofocus, you can then save a little bit and hunt Craigslist or eBay for old AF primes. Some of the earlier AF 50mm and the like from Pentax are extremely good lenses and you can save a bundle this route. The AF improvement in the K-5 is most noticeable on the body driven AF lenses, less so on the SDM ones, though it is seen there too. Anyways, I find that the focus hunting complaints with the K20D have disappeared for me, the K-5 is good at it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, if the option is open to you to go into the store to handle it, do so. Then try focusing on different things, in different light, and see if that helps you decide. The Canon 40D is a very good camera, no doubt, but it is a little long in the tooth now and missing out on a lot of substantial advancements in sensors and functionality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T15:43:19.770" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5648" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5638" CreationDate="2010-12-11T16:19:05.650" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Got already some good suggestions but one of the very best long range lens is the Sigma 100-300mm F/4. It is ultra-sharp and optically excellent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is on the heavy side, more than the Canon 70-200 F4 which is a shorter but excellent lens as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rest of the lenses you mentioned are variable-aperture ones which means you will lose at least a stop of light at the long end and you have to stop down further to get the its optimum quality. Since your existing lenses are like that too, you may not mind the difference but you should probably know that these are a class above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Sigma 50-500mm that someone mentioned is extremely popular due to its versatility but optically, particularly at the long end it does noticeably soft. I noticed it is the most popular lens among birders since it saves them from needing more lenses on treks to find all those bird.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T16:19:05.650" />
  <row Id="5649" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5636" CreationDate="2010-12-11T17:18:05.100" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a little curious why fast auto focusing is important for the two types of photography you listed: landscape and portrait photography. I am a landscape photographer myself, and I find that I usually (90% of the time at least) manually focus my shots with all of my lenses. I would also figure that manually focusing portraits would be ideal, as autofocus algorithms are generally somewhat &quot;fuzzy&quot;, and don't always lock on to the most ideal thing. In portraits, you really want the eyes to be in perfect focus, but you are not guaranteed to get that with autofocus, even with the best AF lenses. I guess if you are looking more for a &quot;shoot from the hip&quot; or fast studio shooting, AF would be a necessity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are plenty of great cameras out there on the market these days for under $1000, and you can usually get at least one, if not two, kit lenses with a decent DSLR camera body for that price. I am a Canon user myself, however Nikon, Sony, and others also make great cameras in the $1000-$1500 price range. Best bet, you could probably go with any entry or mid-range camera body (body only), and grab a fast 50mm lens (i.e. an f/1.4) for around $1600. You might even want to look into getting a great manual focus lens. Zeiss makes some superb fast 50mm portrait lenses with nice soft focus. Canon makes some manual focus tilt/shift lenses at 17mm (ultra wide, can't use filters), 24mm, 45mm, and 90mm that can do wonders for landscape photography, and bring a dynamic focal plane to your portrait photography (the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/tilt-shift-photography-80-beautiful-examples-tutorials-ultimate-guide/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;effect&lt;/a&gt; can be &lt;a href=&quot;http://seanflanigan.net/blog/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wonderful&lt;/a&gt;.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you insist on top of the line autofocus, you can get that too, although the best AF will cost. For landscapes, again, being a landscape photographer myself, I highly recommend going with manual focus. I have quite a few Canon L-series lenses with excellent AF, however when it comes to landscapes, your depth of field is often huge, and AF can only do so much. Manually tuning focus with the live view feature is the only way to get focus exactly how you want it with landscape photography. For portraits, there are usually great 85mm and 135mm AF lenses that will do the job, however you might need to spend a bit more on the lenses to get exactly what you want. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding camera bodies, they are &quot;a dime a dozen&quot;. A decent body today will be bottom rung in a year or so, and you may find yourself regularly upgrading camera bodies every couple years. Lenses, on the other hand, can last a lifetime. If you want to spend your money wisely, I would say there is more long-term value in lenses than in camera bodies...provided you stick with a single brand consistently. Quality glass can and will do wonders for your work. A new camera body every so often will provide you with a little more control and certainly more resolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you really want to nail those shots that need good AF, then putting some money into a decent camera body might be worth it. An example of a great high-performing AF body would be the Canon 7D. This camera has an amazing, cutting-edge AF system with adaptive capabilities and superb low-light, high ISO performance. This camera also has a more advanced, color metering system that should help you nail perfect color rendition without much effort. Combined with good glass, a Canon 7D will really help you nail those spur-of-the-moment candid portrait shots that you are looking for. The price point is certainly higher here...the camera body alone weighs in at around $1600 or so, and you would still need to get some decent glass, like the Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens and maybe the 85mm L-series lens (one of the best portrait lenses available from Canon, if not the best.) You might be looking at about $2000 for a decent Canon 7D setup, but the AF performance of a pro-grade body like this is nothing less than astonishing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-11T23:34:48.263" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T23:34:48.263" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5650" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5638" CreationDate="2010-12-11T17:37:17.237" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are looking for a lens to shoot wildlife and birds, I highly recommend the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS telephoto zoom lens. This is a superb lens, decently fast, and provides a great focal range for capturing wildlife and birds on the perch. It is not quite fast enough at 400mm to really help you capture birds in flight, however with good lighting and hand-held technique it can serve that role as well. The optical clarity of this lens is excellent as well. It does have IS, which can provide up to 3 stops of slower shutter if you &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fotohacker.com/2009/01/05/joe-mcnally-explains-his-slow-shutter-grip/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;use a good hand-held technique&lt;/a&gt;, and that offsets the slower aperture a bit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This particular lens uses a push-pull zoom, which some find a little odd. After using it for a bit, I have come to love that design for telephoto zoom lenses, as it allows much quicker adjustment of your focal length than a ring-style zoom. The 100-400mm does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; rotate when focusing or zooming, so it is easy to use with filters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to telephoto lenses, a key thing to understand is that even with 400-500mm worth of focal length, you still need to get fairly close to capture a good shot with nice bokeh. With wildlife, you can be up to a couple hundred feet and still get a decent shot. Frame-filling shots still usually require you to be within 50-100 feet of your subjects. With birds, you need to be within 10-15 feet usually to get a frame-filling shot, so the technique you use to sneak up on your subjects without scaring them away is critical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference between 400-500mm is small, but in the case of birds, useful. You get maybe 20% tighter framing and a little more reach. Sigma makes a couple lenses that reach 500mm, one of which is the 150-500mm OS lens. This lens has a pretty slow aperture, with the maximum being f/5 at 150mm, and f/6.3 at 500mm. Even with the image stabilization (OS), a maximum apertyre of f/5 is not ideal for working with birds. For wildlife, with good hand-held technique, this lens should be a decent lens. At its price point, some $2400 (cheaper street, probably around $2000-$2200), I would stick with the Canon EF 100-400mm, which lists for $1800 (street price is around $1600.) In almost every way, the Canon 100-400 is a better lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another alternative would be the Sigma 120-400mm OS lens. This is a very competitive lens, and compares very well with the Canon 100-400mm. It is a bit cheaper than the Canon, and uses rings for both focus and zoom (in case you don't like push-pull zoom.) It costs a bit less, as well, at around $1300. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding filters, like a polarizer. You can indeed buy screw-on filters for your lenses. However, if you begin to invest in a wide variety of lenses (which is ultimately inevitable if you stick with photography), you should look into a flexible filtration system. Both Lee and Cokin make great multi-filter holder systems that use adapter rings to connect to just about any lens with filter sizes from about 40mm up to about 100mm. The quality and versatility of filters available for a filter system like this are much higher than your average screw-on filter, and given that they can be used with multiple lenses, despite their higher up-front cost, they are much cheaper in the long run.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recommend Lee myself, as their quality is unsurpassed. They do have some supply problems, and it can be difficult to find their filters and kits at times. Cokin seems to be much more readily available, however the quality of their gear is a little lower. It is also possible to use third-party filters in both of these systems. An example would be the very high quality Singh Ray filters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-11T23:40:26.667" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T23:40:26.667" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5652" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5636" CreationDate="2010-12-11T18:59:30.363" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;before you do anything, you should decide which platform you want to use; canon or pentax. otherwise, if you start buying stuff and end up switching platforms, it'll get expensive. Now is a good time to figur eout if you want to stay pentax or no. A good way to do this at minimal cost is renting. Rent some of the gear you're thinking about switching to and use it; see if you get the results you want. that way, you aren't guessing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do decide to go canon, think about buying a new rebel body over a used 40d. the cost won't be that different, and it'll likely delay any thought of needing to upgrade the body for a while. As you wade deeper into photography, buying less expensive bodies and better glass will serve you well; the lenses you'll own for years, the bodies you'll tend to upgrade more frequently, adn until you advance in photography you won't really need the more advanced features. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T18:59:30.363" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5653" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5557" CreationDate="2010-12-11T21:10:30.727" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(Here's an answer I received by email from someone who hasn't signed up, yet...)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whilst it is true that a lot of compacts can do the clever stuff if you can find it, you learn a lot more with the SLR, and for my money the single most compelling reason for an SLR is taking a serious shot where you want to know exactly what's in the frame. You need a viewfinder for this. And a serious shot is when you deliberately want to  take a photograph for photography's sake. It may be only 10% of the time, and you use a compact (or even a phone, as I did today) for the rest. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is far more risk of getting a bum shot with an SLR, because instead of applying the law of averages to produce averagely exposed shots, they tend to do what you tell them, and even in auto mode, can expose conservatively (eg dark exposures) to allow you to work on them afterwards and get the maximum amount of detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most useful facility for me is to use the aperture/speed combination to choose depth of field. SLR allows you to play with this AND stop the lens down to see the effect. Or you can take a shot to find out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1812" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T21:10:30.727" />
  <row Id="5654" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5634" CreationDate="2010-12-11T21:46:27.800" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've used the cheap Impact Light Stands for a few years now and haven't had any real issues.  Here's links to a few sizes on B&amp;amp;H Photo: (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/262758-REG/Impact_LS_6B_Light_Stand_Black.html/BI/4500/KBID/4971&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;6 foot&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/253074-REG/Impact_LS_8A_Air_Cushioned_Light_Stand.html/BI/4500/KBID/4971&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;8 foot&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/253067-REG/Impact_LS10AB_Air_Cushioned_Light_Stand.html/BI/4500/KBID/4971&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;10 foot&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do a lot of headshots and use the Impact 32&quot; white umbrellas - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423636-REG/Impact_UBW32.html/BI/4500/KBID/4971&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here's a link&lt;/a&gt; (again to B&amp;amp;H) - other sizes are available as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T21:46:27.800" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5655" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5638" CreationDate="2010-12-11T22:38:34.060" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since nobody else has mentioned it (and I personally prefer prime lenses) you should look at the Canon 400mm L f5.6.  It will annihilate all the zooms you're currently looking at in terms of &lt;strong&gt;sharpness&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;focusing speed&lt;/strong&gt; which are important for wildlife.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The drawbacks are it doesn't have IS and it doesn't zoom but IS isn't always necessary (esp at high shutter speeds, moving targets or using a tripod) and zooming, well, thats a personal preference (and a different discussion :)).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2010-12-11T22:38:34.060" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5656" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5641" CreationDate="2010-12-11T23:35:50.240" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think @matt-bishop's answer really is an excellent one: Find a camera to borrow (or, if you must, rent) for the duration of the course, and then figure out what (if anything -- who knows, you may find you're not into photography?!) you want to buy afterward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I think it's worth expanding on this question -- perhaps even if you borrow or rent, you'll have choices to make, and want help narrowing those choices down.  And perhaps you have &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/neither-borrower-nor-lender&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;reasons&lt;/a&gt; to really want to go with a purchase to start off with?  :)  (Though I think, really, that quote may well refer more to money, than tangible things -- but there are other risks with borrowing tangible things.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, here are a few points that I would suggest you keep in mind:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Make &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;certain&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; that the camera you choose has the ability for &lt;strong&gt;full manual control&lt;/strong&gt; of exposure.  More than likely, your class will require this.  Even if it doesn't, it's something that will really make possible a deeper understanding of photography -- not to mention giving you the ultimate control you may want (at least in some circumstances) once you've mastered the basics.  In particular, you'll want to be sure that you're able to control:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_speed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Shutter Speed&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, so that you can have different amounts of blurring or stopping action;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Aperture&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, so that you can control your depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And you'll want to have the ability to control both, independently -- having neither be automatically chosen for you (at least having the ability to do this; which doesn't necessarily mean you'll always use it).  If you have those controls, you'll presumably also have the ability to control &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sensitivity (ISO)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (or if shooting film, to have the camera aware of your choice, if you meter in-camera; see below), &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_balance&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;White Balance&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, and more.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Taking this control even further, having a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulb_%28photography%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bulb mode&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; would be recommended -- this gives you the ability to leave the shutter open for an arbitrary length of time, which can be especially handy if/when you do any night photography.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In any (or certainly most) modern camera(s), there will be a built-in &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_meter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;light meter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.  If, though, you decide to borrow (or buy from a flea market or thrift store, or what have you) an old mechanical film camera, it's possible that you won't have one in-camera.  If so (and perhaps even if not, though it's probably not worth the expense starting out unless you need it), you'll probably really want to have a light meter.  There are some low-end ones (or perhaps used ones) that can be obtained &lt;em&gt;fairly&lt;/em&gt; inexpensively.  Most likely, though, you'll just have one in the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;While not strictly necessary, you'll very likely want to have &lt;strong&gt;interchangeable lenses&lt;/strong&gt;, thus making an &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-lens_reflex_camera&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SLR&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; the likely choice.  This can be handy for a number of reasons, but one reason is simply that, when learning, it makes it easier to inspect the inner workings of the camera (e.g. watching the shutter open and close, or examining the aperture) (note: be careful when doing this -- there are very sensitive parts inside a camera, especially the sensor on digital cameras, that you do NOT want to touch, or perhaps even expose to the air for dust reasons.  Still, I thought this worth mentioning.)  Other reasons include the ability to shoot with a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_lens&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;prime lens&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, which, while valuable for a number of reasons to the seasoned photographer, are valuable for the learner in part because they remove some complexity -- fewer controls to worry about, while also forcing you to pay more attention to such things as where you are relative to your subject, since you're unable to zoom in or out.  It's also likely difficult (though I doubt impossible) to get bulb mode without going the SLR route.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Having the ability to have some sort of &lt;strong&gt;remote mechanism for firing the shutter&lt;/strong&gt; (whether it's an &lt;strong&gt;infrared remote&lt;/strong&gt;, a traditional &lt;strong&gt;cable release&lt;/strong&gt;, a modern electronic cable release, or anything else that might exist) can be quite useful -- if you want to do self portraits, or when doing long exposures (to avoid camera shake).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You'll also want to think about what &lt;strong&gt;extra gear&lt;/strong&gt; you might want, in addition to the camera (and lens) -- tripod, cable release/remote, light meter... I haven't mentioned a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripod&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;tripod&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; before now, but it's another near-indespensible thing for night photography, and can be useful in many other situations as well.  So, be sure to leave some room in your budget for one -- even if you start out with something cheap and light (which can be nice, though you may want something heavier for added stability if you start using it a lot).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There may well be other things to look at, too, but I think I've covered most of the basics.  I consider point 1 to be especially important, so even if you ignore everything else, I recommend you heed that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck, and happy learning!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastEditorUserId="2425" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-12T18:46:37.100" LastActivityDate="2010-12-12T18:46:37.100" />
  <row Id="5657" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5659" CreationDate="2010-12-11T23:36:24.017" Score="5" ViewCount="474" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to know how do battery-powered system flashes compare to studio units in terms of light output.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alienbees.com/b400.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;AlienBees B400&lt;/a&gt; has 400 &quot;effective&quot; &amp;nbsp;Ws, and that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-580ex-ii-speedlite-flash-review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon Speedlite 580EX II&lt;/a&gt; has guide number 42 (meters) at ISO 100 and 50&amp;nbsp;mm zoom setting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But how do I compare these two? Is there any way to convert guide numbers to watt-seconds?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T11:52:15.210" Title="How many watt-seconds do regular battery-powered flashes have?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;strobes&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5658" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5770" CreationDate="2010-12-11T23:39:08.523" Score="4" ViewCount="289" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am organizing a group of old images on OS X. Many are JPEG and predate the EXIF tag for camera rotation. Of course, many tools &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;degrade the image&lt;/a&gt; (Question '10') if you edit the image. It is possible to rotate losslessly however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am considering writing a quick Automator action that will allow an image to be rotated -90 / 90 degrees based on seeing the image in the Finder and I would use either the Automator action or the command line &lt;a href=&quot;http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Darwin/Reference/ManPages/man1/sips.1.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sips&lt;/a&gt; to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So does anyone know if the &lt;code&gt;sips&lt;/code&gt; command or the Automator action rotates losslessly? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2319" LastActivityDate="2010-12-16T17:57:51.410" Title="Is sips lossless when used for JPEG rotation?" Tags="&lt;jpeg&gt;&lt;macintosh&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5659" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5657" CreationDate="2010-12-12T00:45:54.520" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, there is no way to convert guide numbers to watt-seconds. Watt-seconds is a measurement of how much energy is used by the flash, not how much light is put out. A significant portion of this energy is wasted as heat, infrared, ultraviolet, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A 4 watt-second flash that is 100% efficient will put out the same amount of light as a 400 watt-second flash that is 1% efficient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://light-studio./blogspot.com/2007/10/watt-seconds-vs-effective-watt-seconds.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Effective watt-seconds&quot; are ill-defined as well&lt;/a&gt;, so are basically just as useless as watt-seconds. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By contrast, guide numbers are fairly well defined. They can be directly compared at a given beam spread (assuming manufacturers aren't stretching a bit. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/sb600.htm#perf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ken Rockwell seems to think most flashes are over-rated by about a stop&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the most accurate way to compare two flashes is through an actual scientifically defined unit like the lumen-second. From &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumen_%28unit%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The lumen (symbol: lm) is the SI derived unit of luminous flux, a measure of the power of light perceived by the human eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As photographers, we're all keenly aware that time plays an important role in exposure. The longer the shutter is open, or the longer the light is on, the higher the exposure. Thus, lumen-seconds more directly translate to exposure than lumens do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alienbees.com/specs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;page from AlienBees' website&lt;/a&gt; which includes the specs on your B400 (7000 lumen-seconds) as well as a paragraph or two about how bogus &quot;effective watt-seconds&quot; are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Effective Wattseconds rating, however, is rather arbitrary and cannot be easily proven true or untrue, as it is merely used as a basis for inflated comparison of different flash systems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've looked around for a lumen-second rating of the 580 ex II, but can't seem to find one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt; David Hobby, master of the speed light, &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/05/choices-external-power-sources.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;keeps&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/10/brewer-bracket-obsoleted-by-new-monster.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;saying&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/04/overclock-your-speedlight-for-more.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;60 watt-seconds&lt;/a&gt;. (Note: that last link is an April Fools joke.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-14T06:53:41.823" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T06:53:41.823" CommentCount="18" />
  <row Id="5660" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2021" CreationDate="2010-12-12T01:16:31.630" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In redbubble.com you have a lot of challenges! You can even win vouchers for printing photos. Check this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.redbubble.com/challenges/open&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.redbubble.com/challenges/open&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1641" LastActivityDate="2010-12-12T01:16:31.630" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-12T01:16:31.630" />
  <row Id="5661" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5658" CreationDate="2010-12-12T01:24:47.850" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can rotate losslessly with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xnview.com/en/download_nc.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NConvert&lt;/a&gt; which is available for many platforms including the Mac. It is a command line tool, which is invoked similarly to this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;nconvert -jpegtrans rot90 DSCF0001.JPG&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a Mac, the syntax may be different, I don't know but if you can invoke a command line program from your Automator, then you're probably set.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BTW, XnView is an image viewer which an do batch conversions and output batch files that will invoke NConvert for you. This is not the answer you are looking for but you can consider it if you want less work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-12T01:24:47.850" />
  <row Id="5662" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5636" CreationDate="2010-12-12T05:44:28.583" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the Pentax K-7. The K-5 looks like a beautiful camera, but if you don't have any of the beautiful Limited prime lenses, you're really missing out on the strength of the system. (And something you just can't get with another brand.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited can be had new for $340, and it focuses quickly and has stellar IQ. (In fact, I'm pretty sure it's the fastest-focusing lens in the Pentax universe. And it's quite sharp wide-open, and better at f/2.8 than the 50mm f/1.4 is.) It's effectively a slightly-long normal, and can work well for both landscapes and portraits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The DA 70mm f/2.4 is beautiful, beautiful, beautiful for portraits, and shares many virtues with the DA 40mm. That's a little pricier, but it's one of those things you fall in love with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the DA 15mm f/4 is next on my own purchase list, and that'd go nicely with your landscape shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One could also go the f/2.8 zoom route with the DA★ 16-50mm and 50-135mm f/2.8 (weather-sealed!) lenses, but to me that really seems like a niche within a niche. It'll get you a cheaper all-weather zoom setup than you could get from Nikon or Canon, so that's something, but overall I think Pentax is at its most interesting when paired with the nice prime lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, my advice is: spend your money on some nice lenses now. Wait a year, and see what the K-5 is selling for then. If the past is any indication, it'll be cheaper by &lt;em&gt;at least&lt;/em&gt; the price of a nice lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, if the K100D is really starting to feel like it's getting in your way, don't hesitate to look at the K-7 (or maybe a used K-7 as people start to upgrade). I went from a K100D to K10D and that was a big leap up, and going to the K-7 has been another. Not only is the model more advanced, but Pentax continues to work on little refinements that make daily use of the camera more and more enjoyable. The high ISO performance is disappointing, but not as bad as the the-sky-is-falling crowd might have you believe. (I routinely make successful pictures at ISO 4000; sure, there's a little noise, but it's not ugly.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-12-12T05:44:28.583" />
  <row Id="5663" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5641" CreationDate="2010-12-12T13:52:15.517" Score="-3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nikon D3000 is the entry level DSLR cameara. I would recommend you to start your learning with this camera and as you go better and better .. you can go for costlier high end cameras. D3000 comes in your budget ... enjoy &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2477" LastActivityDate="2010-12-12T13:52:15.517" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5664" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5665" CreationDate="2010-12-12T17:37:33.230" Score="20" ViewCount="561" Body="&lt;p&gt;What temperatures can consumer-level DSLRs and lenses typically handle? Are there any precautions one should take too minimize potential problems (e.g. condensating water)? What about moving in and out of the cold multiple times a day?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2621" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T05:46:41.877" Title="Using DSLRs in cold weather" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;weather&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="5665" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5664" CreationDate="2010-12-12T17:45:16.487" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lot of dSLRs are rated to 0 degrees celsius or 32 faranheit, though some more pro ones are rated to lower temperatures. Most of this is about the battery life, it will suffer in the cold.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, in general, condensation is going to be your enemy when moving from cold back into warmth, so the best way to handle that is to put the camera and lens into a plastic bag and seal it before going inside and then leaving it in there until the camera comes up to temperature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, some good tips can be found here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.brighthub.com/multimedia/photography/articles/12476.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Protecting your camera in winter&lt;/a&gt; so go outside and shoot!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-12T17:45:16.487" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="5666" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5664" CreationDate="2010-12-12T21:57:37.370" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The other issue with cameras in cold weather is battery life. As the batteries get cold, they lose their ability ot keep a charge. This will be an issue while out shooting. The easiest solution here is to carry more batteries than you think you'll need, and keep them in an inside pocket or some place where they're kept warm by your body. Rotate them frequently, and the cold battery will revive as it warms up again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you normally carry two batteries, carry four. mark them so you can rotate them in sequence to maximize their life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the plastic bag trick works well to minimize condensation. Make sure you remove as much air as you can before going inside, and keep it sealed until the gear warms up. Make sure you remove batteries and memory cards before putting it in the bag so you aren't tempted to open it early. If you're going in and out muiltiple times, just leave it wrapped (or leave the gear outside) until you're done for the day. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-12-12T21:57:37.370" />
  <row Id="5667" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5664" CreationDate="2010-12-12T22:34:13.977" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;DSLRs are now commonly used by astrophotographers, where low temperatures are a good thing - indeed some even go to great lengths to keep their sensors at as low a temperature as possible to reduce thermal noise in their images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As others have already said, condensation and battery life are the main considerations - I've never heard any astrophotograher raise concerns about whether the camera would actually keep working!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2626" LastActivityDate="2010-12-12T22:34:13.977" />
  <row Id="5668" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5669" CreationDate="2010-12-13T00:12:13.900" Score="7" ViewCount="197" Body="&lt;p&gt;The trick to creating silhouettes in the field, as far as I know, is to use spot-metering and to expose for the background. However, this is a bit more difficult in a studio environment. &lt;strong&gt;What is the key to creating &quot;artificial&quot; silhouettes?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One solution that I'm considering is placing a bright flash directly behind the subject - would that work?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="74" LastActivityDate="2010-12-13T23:25:22.227" Title="Creating silhouettes in a studio environment" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;technique&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;studio&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="5669" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5668" CreationDate="2010-12-13T00:42:26.817" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The easiest way is to light the background, not the subject and meter for the background. It's really not all that different than doing it outdoors, it's just that you have to position the light(s) and make sure it's strong enough so that it does make your subject very dark. Obviously, this will work better if the background is very light in colour and there is no other ambient light. Also, be aware of the room size and light bounce, if the room is small, you may still end up lighting the subject more than you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your specific question, if the subject is small enough, a flash behind diffusing material, which is behind the subject, may do the trick for you with the diffusion material acting as the background. But if the subject is a person, it may be more difficult to do with a basic flash. Also, if you're remote controlling the flash with the onboard popup, make sure the onboard flash doesn't fire or you shield it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your light source isn't continuous, you may have to do a few test shots to get the exposure right. Which, with digital, isn't really a problem. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, if you get very close, you may be able to complete the effect in post processing with some exposure, curves, or black level adjustments if you shoot RAW (which I always recommend anyways).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-13T00:42:26.817" />
  <row Id="5670" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2459" CreationDate="2010-12-13T02:30:14.520" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am in the exact same situation now, I live in Australia and have been considering buying a brand new 5d mark 2. On ebay the prices range from 2.3k upwards, in stores the cheapest I can find is 3k. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As others have said, there are no free lunches. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These &quot;cheap&quot; cameras are actually overseas stock, usually shipped from Hong Kong, this mean all warranty repairs must be shipped to HK, which means it will take longer. Some of these sellers offer a &quot;free&quot; warranty repair pick up service, which can help a bit, still, do you trust they will be around when you need the repair?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The big reason I am opting against buying this off ebay now is the tax implications, all the sellers I contacted are not willing to provide me with a &quot;tax invoice&quot; that means that as a business you can not claim GST back and as an individual you can not claim it as a deduction that easily.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="230" LastActivityDate="2010-12-13T02:30:14.520" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5671" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5673" CreationDate="2010-12-13T03:01:34.973" Score="9" ViewCount="298" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My Nikon D7000 has a 16 GB SDHC card. The DSLR is configured to shoot in RAW only. When the card is empty, the camera displays that I can shoot 449 photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The size of RAW files vary from 17 to 22 MB. So 16384 / 22 gives 744.7, far from the displayed 449 photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why such difference? Is the maximum possible size of a RAW file made with this camera is 36.5 MB (16384 / 449)? Or will the camera use only 10 GB of memory (449 × 22)? If it's the second case, why is it using only a part of the SDHC?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2236" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T03:06:18.843" Title="How DSLRs calculate the number of remaining photos?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;nikon-d7000&gt;&lt;sdhc&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="5672" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5678" CreationDate="2010-12-13T03:04:34.550" Score="7" ViewCount="270" Body="&lt;p&gt;At a Synchronized Skating competition this weekend, I was forced to shoot through a mesh netting surrounding the ice (usually there to keep hockey pucks in the rink).  Of course, the netting created havoc on auto-focus, but I still managed to get many shots that were reasonably sharp.  However, on some shots that were otherwise clear, there are obvious artifacts from the netting visible in the pictures.  I was wondering if there was any way to &quot;save&quot; these marginal photographs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an example of the netting (and the AF getting fooled by it, nothing can save this, but have a look at the other shots):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/25bs3.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another picture where it focused (nearly) correctly, but the netting is still subtly visible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Bh0Sq.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A picture where the focus is good, but the netting is clearly visible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/2OOLT.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally, a picture where the netting is not seen at all (well, almost not at all, there are still some artifacts in the blue of the dresses):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/0nziZ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously nothing can save the out-of-focus picture at the top, but is there anything that can be done to save pictures where the focus is good, but where there are subtle (or not so subtle) artifacts from the netting visible in the photo?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="227" LastEditorUserId="227" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-14T00:28:54.283" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T14:40:03.970" Title="Can post-processing save these pictures? (shooting through mesh netting)" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="5673" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5671" CreationDate="2010-12-13T03:42:34.487" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only sure thing I know is that it will use most of the whole card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The number has to be an estimate since the size of files is variable as you noted.&#xA;They probably account for other issues too like fragmentation and prefer erring on the safe side.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you advance, the estimate usually gets better. You may notice that sometimes you take a shot and the counter does not decrease.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-13T03:42:34.487" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5674" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-13T03:45:04.763" Score="9" ViewCount="162" Body="&lt;p&gt;Looking for a camera for my six year old. We have one of the V-Tech child cameras, which he loves, but the pictures it takes are amazingly awful. Basically I am looking for a rugged point-and-shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2629" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T04:48:04.160" Title="Camera suggestion for a child" Tags="&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5675" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5674" CreationDate="2010-12-13T03:55:59.673" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=96&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Olympus Tough-8010&lt;/a&gt; is the most indestructible camera there is. It is point and shoot, shockproof, drop-proof, waterproof and freezeproof. My baby even managed to take a picture of herself with the predecessor model (Tough-8000) after biting it for a few minutes! Here's a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3kzRCaT8yA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;funny commercial for an older model&lt;/a&gt;, it gives you an idea of the 'tough' part.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-13T03:55:59.673" />
  <row Id="5676" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5677" CreationDate="2010-12-13T04:41:12.150" Score="13" ViewCount="389" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This spring, I want to do a few trips to mountains to take some shots of &lt;strong&gt;mountain landscapes&lt;/strong&gt;, including in sunrise/sunset environments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I already have a Nikon 18-200mm VR (3.5-5.6). I imagine that it would be better to buy one fixed-length lens with a larger aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it true?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If so, what are the most used fixed-length lenses for mountain landscape photography on a cropped sensor DSLR? 35mm? 50mm? Something else? I thought about 50mm f/1.4G, but I'm not sure if this length is appropriated for this type of photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2236" LastActivityDate="2010-12-15T00:17:28.227" Title="What fixed lens to use on a cropped sensor DSLR for mountain landscape photography?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;landscape&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5677" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5676" CreationDate="2010-12-13T05:27:42.080" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The lens you have should be perfectly fine.  For mountain landscapes, you'll want a wide angle lens so the wide end of your 18-200 should do nicely.  You'll want a lot of depth of field for these types of shots, so you'll actually want to stop the lens down quite a bit. So using a large aperture lens would probably be a waste.  Instead of getting a new lens, think about getting a tripod (if you don't already have one) - it'll allow you to stop down to get lot of depth even in low light (sunrise/sunset).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2630" LastActivityDate="2010-12-13T05:27:42.080" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5678" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5672" CreationDate="2010-12-13T05:55:00.703" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've never attempted this sort of fix myself, but a Fast Fourier Transform plugin for Photoshop or GIMP might do the trick here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wikibooks has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/GIMP/Remove_Coherent_Noise&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;tutorial on removing periodic interference with GIMP.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It might help to split the image into several sections, as the netting is not perfectly even.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I expect that this might help a bit, but without a lot of manual retouching, your image is not going to be &quot;perfect&quot;. This might help make the netting even less noticeable, however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(If you try this, let us know how it went.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2010-12-13T05:55:00.703" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="5679" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5676" CreationDate="2010-12-13T06:32:16.930" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;50mm on a cropped sensor won't be wide enough. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the 18mm should be good; the advice to stop down aperture is very good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to experiment with even wider lenses, consider renting something like the sigma 10-20 to go with your existing zoom. don't buy it until you use one and see if you think it makes sense adn you like the results. (generic recommendation; don't buy any lens until you rent it and try one out...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another option I'm using more these days -- multi-image stitched panoramas. Put the camera on a tripod, flip it vertical, and take a series of images and then stitch them together (I use photoshop for that). A lot of the best landscape pieces of george lepp are done that way, and I was having a terrible time figuring out how to emulate them until I had a chance to see him talk on the subject. That is in many cases a great alternative the &quot;must go wider&quot; school of buying ever more expensive lenses... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For landscape, IMHO you'll rarely be happy with the results handheld. You really want a high aperture to maximize depth of field. I ALWAYS put the camera on a tripod now when doing any kind of landscape, and I ALWAYS put a cable remote on it to eliminate camera shake from pushing the shutter button. I learned that one the hard way while shooting ice falls on yosemite falls in winter one time, only to find most of the images unusable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastEditorUserId="705" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-13T16:46:43.197" LastActivityDate="2010-12-13T16:46:43.197" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="5680" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5682" CreationDate="2010-12-13T06:32:18.100" Score="7" ViewCount="161" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that this function calculate the flash output required for a shot and store it in memory.  When and why would you use this function in the real life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-14T15:05:25.293" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T15:05:25.293" Title="When should I use Flash Exposure Lock (FEL)?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;flash-exposure-lock&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="5681" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5671" CreationDate="2010-12-13T07:38:14.673" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As the files vary in size, the camera can only guess how many photos there are room for, and different cameras of course have slightly different methods of guessing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I have noticed with my Canon DSLRs is that they use some kind of projected average size to calculate the number of photos left based on the memory amount left, and the average size is different depending on the ISO setting that you have chosed. If you choose a higher ISO setting, the photo count goes down somewhat. Generally the actual average size is somewhat smaller than the projected average, so the card ends up having room for a few more photos than the camera initally guessed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-12-13T07:38:14.673" />
  <row Id="5682" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5680" CreationDate="2010-12-13T09:06:39.743" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Same reason you'd use normal exposure lock - if you were to reframe the camera would recalculate it wrongly. For example, think of a photo of a person's face in the extreme corner of the frame, when the rest of the frame is dominated by snow further away. When you initally frame the shot with the face in the centre, the camera will focus on, and meter based on, that face. It will also choose the flash output. If you didn't lock those settings, then reframed, it'd recalculate them and the face would be overexposed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2329" LastActivityDate="2010-12-13T09:06:39.743" />
  <row Id="5683" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5676" CreationDate="2010-12-13T09:17:54.683" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you have a tripod, it doesn't really matter. As others have said, you can just use f/11 and any wide angle lens, no matter what its maximum speed speed (or indeed quality when wide open) will be fine. If you need a wider view, shoot several overlapping shots and stitch them later. So far so good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I suspect the reason you're asking is that you're worried about shooting &lt;em&gt;hand held&lt;/em&gt; in marginal light (e.g. at sunset) and don't think f/3.5 - even with VR - will be sufficient. In fact, the VR will be helping you nearly as much as a wide aperture, since you're talking about camera shake rather than subject movement. Honestly, shooting without a a tripod in poor light is always going to involve compromises like cranking up the ISO. Consider a beanbag or mini-tripod/Gorillapod if you don't want to carry the real thing, because nothing - not even a faster lens - will make the problems go away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2329" LastActivityDate="2010-12-13T09:17:54.683" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="5684" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5438" CreationDate="2010-12-13T14:06:06.547" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not much to tell about shooting rainbows, other than what's already written in the other questions, but most of a good rainbow photo is good composition a bit of luck of being on the right place. Still, you could try to slightly under expose your photo to boost the rainbow's colors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-12-13T14:06:06.547" />
  <row Id="5685" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5686" CreationDate="2010-12-13T15:08:48.750" Score="9" ViewCount="298" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am looking for a good advanced reference about photographic/cinematographic composition rules. I have already checked this post: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1557/good-books-to-learn-photographic-composition-from&quot;&gt;Good books to learn photographic composition from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but it doesn't to be useful for me. What I am looking for is a book that describes in details the following rules: Rule of Thirds, Diagonal Dominance, Visual Balance, Depth of Field, and the like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I already have a book about composition, Picture Composition for Film and Telivision, by Peter Ward, but it doesn't to be much useful. For example, he defines the rules this way: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The rule of thirds proposes that a useful starting point for any compositional grouping is to place the main subject of interest on any one of the four intersections made by two equally spaced horizontal and vertical lines.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously, this definition is a simplified one, because the rule of thirds also propose, for example, that prominent lines in the image should be parallel to the horizontal/vertical lines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Briefly, I want a book that contains every composition rule I can think of :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any suggestion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2641" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T19:37:29.597" Title="A Good Reference About Composition" Tags="&lt;composition&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="5686" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5685" CreationDate="2010-12-13T15:17:35.843" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have a look the Photographers eye. I found it superb and contains all the rules you can think of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1905814046&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Photographers-Eye-Composition-Design-Digital/dp/1905814046/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1292253318&amp;amp;sr=1-1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2642" LastActivityDate="2010-12-13T15:17:35.843" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="5687" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5685" CreationDate="2010-12-13T16:29:33.517" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While not directed for photographers, you may want to check Rudolf Arnheim's &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0520026136&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye&lt;/a&gt;, a book about the motives behind our perception of images and the way compostiom works from the observer point of view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2010-12-13T16:29:33.517" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5688" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5685" CreationDate="2010-12-13T16:51:32.960" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I enjoyed David duChemin's &quot;Drawing the Eye&quot; ebook.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Available here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://craftandvision.com/books/drawing-the-eye/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://craftandvision.com/books/drawing-the-eye/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-12-13T16:51:32.960" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="5689" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-13T17:17:51.200" Score="-3" ViewCount="369" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been trying to sell my Canon EF 70-200mm F/4.0 L IS USM Lens for ages now, but no one seems to want it. Could it be because the f2.8 is a better lens and people would rather pay the extra and get that rather that the f4?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2644" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-11T16:18:55.473" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T01:07:59.493" Title="Is the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS lens hard to sell because people would prefer the f/2.8?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;used-equipment&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="5690" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5689" CreationDate="2010-12-13T17:53:22.960" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since you did not tell us anything about how you are 'trying', I can't really give you a complete answer. Now, it is a good lens and has a nice price-point too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Things to consider:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Price. You need a to offer a discount compared to the lowest price from a reputable source. Check &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphoto.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;BHPhoto&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adorama.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adorama&lt;/a&gt; if you are in the US, otherwise the local equivalent.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Location: Craigslist, Kijiji and eBay are all places with lots of visitors.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Description: Make sure the description of the lens is accurate in your add. Don't complicate things but make it easy to find, specifying the range, full model name, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Patience: It takes me between 1 and 6 months to get a buyer sometimes on the listing sites. With eBay things are more pressing but it can take 2 or 3 tries.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Relative to that lens itself, it may be that this model being the middle of the line makes it less desired. The non-IS model is much cheaper and the F2.8 model is not that much more expensive. There is also competition from the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 (OS and not) as well which is a very good lens and is reasonably priced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-13T17:53:22.960" />
  <row Id="5691" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5689" CreationDate="2010-12-13T18:55:21.963" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is possible you simply haven't found the correct audience, or it could be that your price is too high.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally would be happy with a f/4 version because for what I tend to shoot, I don't necessarily need the f/2.8 version, and I'd prefer to save money and weight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you really want to sell it quick, you could go ahead and sell to a reputable dealer such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.keh.com/SellYourGear/sellyourgear-1.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KEH&lt;/a&gt;. They aren't going to pay as much as a direct buyer might because they need to make profit, but they will pay pretty well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the moment, (assuming &quot;Excellent&quot;, or 80-89% condition) it looks like they'd pay about $550.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-12-13T18:55:21.963" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5692" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5693" CreationDate="2010-12-13T20:05:26.160" Score="5" ViewCount="162" Body="&lt;p&gt;My dad has an old Sears KS-2 + 50mm f/1.7, which from a bit of research seems to use a Pentax K-mount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've looked around a bit and found a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003Y3EJMU/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_3?pf_rd_p=486539851&amp;amp;pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&amp;amp;pf_rd_t=201&amp;amp;pf_rd_i=B000YDC1W8&amp;amp;pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&amp;amp;pf_rd_r=18JCBK8RQ2A3KZ5MGQWC&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pentax to Canon adapter&lt;/a&gt;, which says it supports af-confirmation, and costs ~$30 US.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Has anyone tried using an adapter ring like this, and if so, would you recommend doing so?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am perfectly happy with shooting manual, but I'm curious about the quality of older lenses.  I'm assuming that if I use older primes the optical quality will be fine, and it looks like the build quality of the older lenses is much better that similarly priced new lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-13T20:10:38.047" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T17:44:20.133" Title="Pentax to Canon Adapter" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;pentax&gt;&lt;lens-mount&gt;&lt;adapter&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5693" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5692" CreationDate="2010-12-13T20:23:24.413" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use an older Pentax 50mm f/1.7 on my 60D and get spectacular results. I have the exact adapter shown in your post and it works great with barely any play between the lens and body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only problem with old glass is that it typically has poor handling of flare so be mindful of light sources and use a hood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="217" LastActivityDate="2010-12-13T20:23:24.413" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5694" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5674" CreationDate="2010-12-13T20:47:11.283" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It will really depend on how mature your kid is.  Even at 6 some kids could be trusted with a full SLR setup.  I was.  Thats why I am doing what I do today.   If the kid is good with their toys, do not be afraid to get them something with a bit more bang.  I bought 2 Canon PowerShot 1300s for my niece and nephew that are not much older.  Its a great hobby for them when they travel to document the trip.  If they get broken, it can be replaced.  But so far the kids have taken good care of their cameras.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1856" LastActivityDate="2010-12-13T20:47:11.283" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5695" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5641" CreationDate="2010-12-13T22:36:37.837" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I started with the Canon Rebel XTi, its a great starter camera that can handle (quite nicely) professional lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/content/rebelxti/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.usa.canon.com/content/rebelxti/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2649" LastActivityDate="2010-12-13T22:36:37.837" />
  <row Id="5696" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5680" CreationDate="2010-12-13T23:14:42.813" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;FEL is also a flash equivalent of partial (or spot) metering. While regular E-TTL flash uses some kind of matrix metering to evalate what is the correct flash exposure, when you use FEL it mesures just the area around center of the frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means you can successfully use FEL to meter just a face of a performer on black background, instead of trying to light up the black and overexpose the rest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would be an example of such picture:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/tEKqa.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;performer on black stage&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-12-13T23:14:42.813" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5697" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5668" CreationDate="2010-12-13T23:25:22.227" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't add much to what John says, basically light the background only (the best way of achieving this is with the flash behind the subject pointing directly at the background) and expose for that light, prevent spill onto the subject (easiest way to do this is to get the light as close as possible to the background) and you'll get a good crisp silhouette. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I thought I'd share a few examples I have. These were from portrait shoots, I wasn't aiming for a silhouette, but my process for lighting these is to start with the background light only, checking it doesn't spill onto the subject, then I shoot with the subject light only, checking it doesn't spill onto the background. This means you are lighting each totally independently, which reduces the number of variables you have to correct.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/silhouette1.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/silhouette2.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This last shot shows the foreground only and background only setups (same camera settings for each):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/planes.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-12-13T23:25:22.227" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5698" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5700" CreationDate="2010-12-14T00:45:43.700" Score="16" ViewCount="336" Body="&lt;p&gt;My (rural living) mother-in-law has recently been told by her local camera shop that they will soon stop offering processing and prints from film based cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm wondering if it is practical to get her a simple to use point-and-shoot, even though she doesn't own a computer?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bear in mind that she is not a photographer, just someone who takes pictures of family and friends on occassion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She could easily take the camera (or memory card) in to Walmart (or equivalent) and get prints of the shots she wants, and they can probably even burn a DVD or CD with the images on them (so she still has &quot;the negatives&quot; if she wants more prints later).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even that has to be better than shooting a whole roll of film and processing/printing the whole thing hoping that you got a good shot?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd be looking for a point-and-shoot that takes great shots in fully automatic mode.  I doubt she would ever try anything more complicated than turning off auto-flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Canon SD1300IS is available locally for under $100, and has stabilzation and a 4X optical zoom.  I've always liked the Canon P+S cameras, but would welcome any suggestions you might have (both for camera brand/model, and for your opinions on whether owning a digital camera is a good idea for someone without a computer).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="227" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T03:06:11.477" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T03:06:11.477" Title="Digital camera for someone without a computer?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;&lt;computerless&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5699" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5698" CreationDate="2010-12-14T00:59:13.210" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd go with the SD 1300, just check if you mother-in-law feels comfortable with its size. She may prefer having something with bigger buttons instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If that turns out to be the case, try to find something like the Canon SD880, a great camera with reasonably sized buttons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T00:59:13.210" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5700" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5698" CreationDate="2010-12-14T02:15:05.813" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off, I'll answer your last question: certainly. As you pointed out, prints can be made at places like Walmart (or even the place she is developing film now) using the card, so there's no barrier there to her getting the images out. The bigger difficulty may be her lack of experience with digital gear in general, a lot of people I know in this situation just keep shooting until their card is full and then become a bit lost about what to do about it. So, there's a learning curve there, easy enough to overcome if you're aware and can teach her and get her to take it in, back up to CD, and clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for cameras, there are a ton of them that will do the job and do it well. I don't think you can really make a mistake there with anything new. Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, and more produce very good point and shoot cameras and they're all basically similar in capability and performance. If you're comfortable with a brand, to teach with it, go for that. Otherwise, find a good price to performance option according to need and go with that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DP Review&lt;/a&gt; has a pretty good mechanism for finding cameras by feature. If you use that as a guide, based on what you know of her shooting habits, it may help you make a final selection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T02:15:05.813" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5701" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5685" CreationDate="2010-12-14T02:52:27.807" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ah, you may be barking up the wrong tree when it comes to understanding composition and images as, after all, there are visual arts that were here long before photography ever was such as: &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1581802560&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;painting&lt;/a&gt;. Ignore the title in that link, it's not what it seems, and the principles of composition for painting equally apply to photography, which is also true of drawing. The low-tech world of images has a lot of history on us photographic types, we have quite a few thousand years to catch up in experience... :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T02:52:27.807" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5702" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5674" CreationDate="2010-12-14T03:41:35.850" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd agree with Chris.  My daughter, now almost 12!, has been using my Canon 40D, with battery grip and 70-200, for a year or so without drama.  Although I couldn't stretch to another DSLR for her for Christmas, she is getting a SX120 as a stepping stone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2654" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T03:41:35.850" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5703" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5698" CreationDate="2010-12-14T04:28:53.837" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Definitely Canon cameras have some of the easiest interfaces out there, but unless she needs it to be tiny I would go with a compact rather than an ultra-compact as others have suggested.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=211&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon A3000&lt;/a&gt; for example. Its about $100 USD, stabilized and a 4X zoom too but the bigger body makes it easier to hold and operate. It is a P&amp;amp;S model, so no manual controls on this one either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of the workflow, she can go print her pictures from the camera but she may eventually lose the originals if you don't off-load and back them up for her when you visit. You could get her a digital photo-frame with built-in hard-drive and teach her which button to press to have the images copied to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since memory is so cheap the other option is not to teach her how to erase and let her buy a new 'digital film' each time. Any digital photo frame can be used to see the pictures from there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: As suggested in the comments, have a photo store copy the card contents to an optical disk is an excellent way to keep the originals. Just ask for a full-size transfer and not a Photo-CD which is much lower resolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/15/sandisk-introduces-write-once-worm-sd-cards/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;write-once cards&lt;/a&gt; exist already but are expensive and designed for a different type of application.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-15T16:40:47.953" LastActivityDate="2010-12-15T16:40:47.953" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="5704" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5674" CreationDate="2010-12-14T04:48:04.160" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I simply got a refurbished older model point and shoot for my 5 year old. The pictures aren't great, but they're worlds better than the V-Tech camera quality. For a little less than $50, it's not quite expendable, but it is replaceable, and she's been very responsible with it. It's been a year, and it's still working.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2100" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T04:48:04.160" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5705" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5658" CreationDate="2010-12-14T07:12:30.587" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll provide an answer for Windows users in case any come looking for an answer on Windows based on your question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the plugins that comes with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.irfanview.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Irfanview&lt;/a&gt; does lossless JPEG rotations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1124" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T07:12:30.587" />
  <row Id="5706" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3473" CreationDate="2010-12-14T08:41:21.487" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is what I encountered too.I recently bought a Nikon D5000 and the kit that comes along with doesn't have a lens hood. When I bought a lens hood, I tried shooting with it. Some shots that are zoomed out creates a black blurry dark object/shade on each side of the picture and it doesn't look good for me. I guess it is because of the lens hood. Do you think I got the wrong lens hood? it is a flower type/petal type lens hood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2656" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T08:41:21.487" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5707" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5672" CreationDate="2010-12-14T08:58:21.260" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a shooting suggestion how to max-eliminate netting on scene. Evan made a great suggestion how to remove it in post processing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first thing to know is to get as close to netting fence as possible and shoot from there (because it will make netting very out of focus - far from focused DOF). but on the contrary you may get smudges from the glass on your shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One more about periodic interference algorithms. You should try different shots with that post process. I'm a developer myself and I guess that semi-focused net would be easier to remove than the completely blurred one or the sharp focused.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2110" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T08:58:21.260" />
  <row Id="5708" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4949" CreationDate="2010-12-14T10:41:10.527" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;does anyone here know of a scanner that will auto-crop perfectly every time, without having to preview the image first or edit it afterwards? We need it for scanning large numbers of different books, which are never standard sizes, as quickly as possible. Surely such a scanner exists?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2659" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T10:41:10.527" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5709" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4949" CreationDate="2010-12-14T12:47:37.237" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another suggestion: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photobatch.stani.be/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Phatch&lt;/a&gt;, a photo batch processor that, among lots of other things, does cropping.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T12:47:37.237" />
  <row Id="5710" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5680" CreationDate="2010-12-14T13:13:14.457" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's good for blinkers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the metering pre-flashes give someone in your group enough time to blink, meter the flash in advance, then you'll only flash once when you take the shot, which doesn't give them time to blink.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1615" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T13:13:14.457" />
  <row Id="5711" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5672" CreationDate="2010-12-14T14:40:03.970" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While Evan's suggestion is quite good, there &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; a rather different possibility that can work well under the right circumstances. Specifically, if (for example) you were shooting from a specific seat number, and can get back into the same place when nothing is going on, and shoot basically the same shots, but &lt;em&gt;without&lt;/em&gt; the skaters present. Put the two shots onto two layers, align them, and from there it's a matter of picking the right blending options to remove the second from the first. It's not necessarily easy to make it work, but can be quite effective when it does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T14:40:03.970" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5712" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-14T15:38:51.940" Score="6" ViewCount="307" Body="&lt;p&gt;Am shooting camera RAW, but for some reason can't find out where to set the camera for 16 bits vs. 8 bits...now shooting 8 bits but want to change...thanks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2660" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T17:34:50.573" Title="How do you set the Canon 5D to 16 bits vs. 8 bits...am shooting camera RAW?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;canon-5d-mark-ii&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5713" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5712" CreationDate="2010-12-14T15:48:23.040" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi Kate,&#xA;The 5D's native RAW format is 12bit and the 5DmkII's RAW format is 14-bit, perhaps you are thinking of when you import the image into your image editor and you can select 8-bit or 16-bit editing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5D Specs:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page2.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page2.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5DmkII Specs:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091705canon_5dmarkii.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091705canon_5dmarkii.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T15:48:23.040" />
  <row Id="5714" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5698" CreationDate="2010-12-14T15:58:16.113" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's very hard to buy a bad point-and-shoot at the moment.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Certainly if her budget is a hundred dollars, all the major manufacturers have very good offerings.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing to bear in mind:  Go for a small number of megapixels to reduce the storage requirement.  If she is only going to have 5x7s or even 10x8s printed, then she won't need very high resolution.  I would have thought that 5MP would be enough.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T15:58:16.113" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5716" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-14T17:34:05.720" Score="1" ViewCount="107" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking to order a Better Beamer flash extender for my Sigma EF-530 DG Super flash however, I can't find which model would fit it.  Anyone can point me to the right model?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2168" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T17:57:11.860" Title="Which Better Beamer model for the Sigma EF-530 DG Super Flash" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;sigma&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5718" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5698" CreationDate="2010-12-14T17:41:17.060" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It might be worth finding out what kind of camera she already uses, and what she likes and dislikes about the interface. I'd also second the idea of something not too tiny. I don't know how her eyesight and hand dexterity are but they're often things that start to deteriorate in the over-60's age group which can make using an otherwise decent camera a fiddly, infuriating nightmare - and it'll get left in the drawer in short order.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2329" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T17:41:17.060" />
  <row Id="5719" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5692" CreationDate="2010-12-14T17:44:20.133" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bear in mind that the aperture will usually have to be set manually too. So you focus first, &lt;em&gt;then&lt;/em&gt; stop down, &lt;em&gt;then&lt;/em&gt; meter (if required) and shoot. The intermediate step can be a bit of a hassle, depending on your subject matter and the light levels. But otherwise it should work fine - I have a couple of Pentax and Zeiss lenses that I use on my EOS cameras with decent results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2329" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T17:44:20.133" />
  <row Id="5720" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5716" CreationDate="2010-12-14T17:57:11.860" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rpphoto.com/support/flashfinder/default.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this flashfinder&lt;/a&gt;, the FX-2 fits the EF-500 Super, but the 530 isn't listed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same site also has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rpphoto.com/flashextender/flashfit/default.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fitting guide&lt;/a&gt; that lists dimensions and measuring instructions, though, and these seem thorough enough to double-check the fit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note - the site is &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; slow, so be patient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T17:57:11.860" />
  <row Id="5722" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5685" CreationDate="2010-12-14T19:37:29.597" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;After reading some of the other answers and comments, I think what you need is actually &lt;em&gt;a library&lt;/em&gt;. Not just the books, but the services of a reference-desk librarian. Because, basically, librarians are awesome, and this is what they're there for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since this seems to be for a school paper, your university library is a great place to start. Even if they don't have the specific books you're looking for, they may be able to find some by inter-library loan, or they may even be able to provide just the references you need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T19:37:29.597" />
  <row Id="5723" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="24" CreationDate="2010-12-14T20:15:15.540" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nikon sells 2 versions of most their prime lenses. The 'G' version contain an internal engine that &quot;enable high-speed, extremely accurate and super quiet autofocusing&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/glossary.htm#swm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;according to Nikon&lt;/a&gt;. The 'D' version are more simple (the engine is in the DSLR) and usually cheaper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, it seems that most of the new &quot;low end&quot; lenses (IE 1.8 G) are for DX sensors only.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="765" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T20:15:15.540" />
  <row Id="5724" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5676" CreationDate="2010-12-14T20:39:14.430" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to what others have said about using a tripod, don't forget about lens filters!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get great blue skies with dramatic clouds in them, which always adds a great touch to mountain/landscape shots, you really should look to use a circular polarizer.  If you have a body of water in the shot, and want to smooth out the waves or river flow, a neutral density (ND) filter does a great job of allowing you to use a slower shutter speed (assumes you are using a tripod). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2669" LastActivityDate="2010-12-14T20:39:14.430" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5725" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-14T21:38:44.620" Score="6" ViewCount="226" Body="&lt;p&gt;For travel photography I am a fan of slideshows where you actually see where the picture was taken on a map and zoom to the next location.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I just found out that almighty Apple already did this in their iPhoto App (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apple.com/ilife/iphoto/#new-slideshows&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;see &quot;Places&quot; video here&lt;/a&gt;). I pretty much want &lt;strong&gt;exactly&lt;/strong&gt; that functionality (but I am on Windows). All my photos are geotagged, so it is just a matter of putting some nice labels on a map, maybe some symbols (like a plane flying to the next destination?) and the like and I should be done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would love something easy, but if it involves some video editing program like Adobe Premiere - I'm all ears. I just don't want to spend several weeks for creating a slideshow which is only supposed to show images (and the occasional video) chronologically on some nice animated map.&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt; There is a video of something I'm trying to achieve. iPhoto? &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVgzcEkQGg4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVgzcEkQGg4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2670" LastEditorUserId="2670" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-11T08:32:32.840" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T08:32:32.840" Title="Slideshow program to create map-based slideshow" Tags="&lt;video&gt;&lt;slides&gt;&lt;presentation&gt;&lt;geotagging&gt;&lt;gis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="5726" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5676" CreationDate="2010-12-14T23:13:56.993" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, let me start off by saying this: Don't underestimate the value of telephoto for landscapes. While wide angle has generally been the primary choice for people who wish to photograph landscapes, the telephoto range (70-80mm and up) has a LOT to offer in the way of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nd-magazine.com/articles/art6.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;intriguing landscape compositions&lt;/a&gt;. That said...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Primes usually offer better quality, and can (sometimes) be lighter than their zoom counterparts. If you want the utmost in quality, a prime will probably serve you well. Keep in mind that a prime will limit your compositional freedom, and you will have to physically move your camera to reframe. You can also use copious amounts of post-process cropping, but you lose resolution that way, so its not particularly ideal unless you have megapixels to spare. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These days, zoom lenses are very well built, and utilize a variety of special lens elements to correct various optical aberrations like chromatic aberration and whatnot. I find it useful to have a variety of lenses on hand for my landscape photography. I am a Canon user, however there are similar lenses for Nikon users. My two primary lenses are my EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II wide angle zoom, and my EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM telephoto zoom. These cover most (but not all) of my needs on most days. The telephoto triples as a landscape lens, a wildlife lens, and a birding lens. Excellent lens. Nikon has similar lenses, such as their 14-24mm ultrawide zoom and their 80-400mm telephoto zoom. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Between these two extremes, I also highly recommend some &quot;normal&quot; lenses. The standard 50mm is pretty much a given, as it is a great focal length that can be had for extremely cheap these days. If you really want to take prime lenses to the extreme, and really make your landscape photography stand out, I also recommend looking into tilt/shift lenses. Normal lenses provide one, maybe two controls: focus and zoom. A tilt/shift lens adds three more controls: tilt, shift, and rotation (-90 to +90 degrees, allowing you to control the plane of shift and tilt within a 180 degree rotation.) With these additional lens movements, you have creative control over your focal plane, which allows you much greater freedom over what parts of your scene are in-focus, and what parts are out of focus. For landscapes, you can either use this to easily bring your whole entire scene into focus without having to use an extremely small aperture, or use it to create non-planar focus in your scene (i.e. have one half of your scene out of focus from top to bottom, while the other half is in focus.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon offers tilt/shift lenses, or TS-E lenses, in several varieties: 17mm, 24mm, 45mm, and 90mm. I believe that Nikon offers a couple tilt/shift lenses, however I am not sure what level of quality they offer. There are also a couple third party lens manufacturers who make tilt shift lenses for Nikon, including &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hartblei.com/lenses/lens_35mm.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hartbeli&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hartblei.de/en/optics-by-carl-zeiss.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hartbeli &amp;amp; Zeiss&lt;/a&gt;, and a creative tilt/shift lens by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensbaby.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LensBaby&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding a cropped sensor, I think the best way to deal with that is simply apply the crop factor to the focal length. There are some general guidelines that can help you determine which focal length will be useful for particular types of photography. For Nikon, the crop factor is 1.5, so:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;                            | FF Focal Length |  Crop Factor Required &#xA;                            |                 |      Focal Length&#xA;-------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xA;&quot;Big&quot; Landscape             |  14mm - 24mm    |       8mm - 16mm&#xA;&quot;Close&quot; Landscape           |  24mm - 50mm    |      16mm - 35mm&#xA;&quot;Inside&quot; or &quot;Far&quot; Landscape |  85mm - *       |      55mm - *&#xA;-------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xA;Wildlife in Landscapes      |  24mm - 50mm    |      16mm - 35mm&#xA;Wildlife Portraits/Closeup  | 200mm - 600mm   |     135mm - 400mm&#xA;-------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xA;Birds Perching              | 300mm - 800mm   |     200mm - 550mm&#xA;Birds in Flight             | 70mm  - 500mm   |      45mm - 350mm&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the above chart is based on my own experience with focal lengths, my own 450D, and a borrowed 5D with a few lenses. Namely, the 16-35mm zoom, a 50mm prime, an 85mm prime, a 100mm macro prime, a 100-400mm telephoto zoom, and a 50-550mm superzoom. Note that for birds in flight or any kind of wildlife in motion, the lenses I have used barely cut it. The Canon EF 100-400mm is capable of capturing birds in flight when there is good lighting, like daytime sunlight or early sunset light on a good summer day. The Sigma Bigma (50-500mm) did not fare well for birds in flight, however it does a pretty decent job for perching birds and rather still wildlife. I know you only mentioned landscapes, however I thought I would throw the rest in there, as telephoto lenses can be useful for both landscape and wildlife...and the two fields of photography are natural extensions of each other (no pun intended.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-15T00:17:28.227" LastActivityDate="2010-12-15T00:17:28.227" />
  <row Id="5727" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5658" CreationDate="2010-12-15T00:07:17.240" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is sips lossless when used for JPEG rotation? &lt;strong&gt;No.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;sips&lt;/code&gt; doesn't modify the image in place but rather regenerates a new image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can use &lt;code&gt;sips&lt;/code&gt; with no compression, but the result file will be bigger than the source file. To set the compression off ie. to set the quality to 100 %, give the parameter &lt;code&gt;--setProperty formatOptions 100&lt;/code&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more &lt;code&gt;sips&lt;/code&gt; options, consult the manual page by typing &lt;code&gt;man sips&lt;/code&gt; in the command line.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(edited for clarity)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1913" LastEditorUserId="1913" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-15T23:25:09.200" LastActivityDate="2010-12-15T23:25:09.200" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5728" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5725" CreationDate="2010-12-15T02:36:59.733" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do not believe there is any automated way to do this on Windows. A lot of these kinds of things pop up on the mac first, as Apple has a huge team that works on their bundle of little iApps like iPhoto. It is a critical part of their platform, and fancy little tools like that help their bottom line.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to the big dogs in the photo editing software industry (or rather, big dog), Adobe has to divide its attention. There are quite a few demands for specific features and improvements in Lightroom and Photoshop, and a feature that lets you create a slideshow that involves flying around a map zooming into photos isn't something that is commonly requested by the primary user base of those tools.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The simplest solution to what you are trying to do would likely be some kind of mashup with Google or Bing maps, an online photo service (Picasa, Flickr?), and a good chunk of time spent wrangling clever JavaScript and JQuery. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I were to set off to achieve such a thing myself, I would resort to .NET 4, WPF and/or Silverlight 4, and some C# and XAML. Doing fancy 3D animations with a map and some photos is a perfect use of WPF's 3D and animation capabilities. Can't really say I could get it done in less than a few weeks, but it certainly isn't impossible to do. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-12-15T02:36:59.733" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5729" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5591" CreationDate="2010-12-15T04:37:51.013" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've got a lightroom instance with 211,489 images in it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's certainly a bit slower than sub 10K collections, but it is usable. It does take a long time to completely start, though, since LR seems to either insist on making sure all the library photo files are actually there when it loads the libraries, or doing some sort of library scanning something. Either way, it takes a few minutes until all the catalog is available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The GUI is responsive while it's scanning the libraries, so you can work while it's counting the files. Unless you want to work on a file it hasn't scanned yet, anyways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While this is off-topic a bit, the best software I've found for managing &lt;strong&gt;enormous&lt;/strong&gt; catalogs is &lt;em&gt;Picasa&lt;/em&gt;, of all things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Picasa manages a 600K image collection I have without any appreciable slowdown on start. It also seems to do dynamic loading of everything, so you get a low-res thumbnail almost instantaneously, which then improves as it loads the actual file.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I can say, about every platform I have tried, is that importing always seems to take forever. importing 100K+ images is 10 Hours +, if not &lt;em&gt;days&lt;/em&gt;. I would strongly recommend breaking the import up into sections, so if something dies/your computer accidentally goes to sleep/whatever, you don't lose all your progress.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2611" LastEditorUserId="2611" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-15T04:44:13.330" LastActivityDate="2010-12-15T04:44:13.330" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="5730" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5731" CreationDate="2010-12-15T05:18:07.533" Score="9" ViewCount="125" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just got a new Canon EF50/1.8 II lens.  Looking at the specs included with the camera there is a line that says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Filter Diameter / Usable Number      52 mm / 1&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does &quot;Usable Number&quot; mean? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="601" LastActivityDate="2010-12-15T16:48:29.193" Title="What does &quot;usable number&quot; mean in lens specification?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="5731" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5730" CreationDate="2010-12-15T05:31:56.860" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe this is referring to the maximum number of filters you can screw onto the front of the lens before suffering from significant vignetting.  Adding more filters, you get too &quot;tall&quot; of a stack, and the edges block corners of the frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastEditorUserId="2425" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-15T16:48:29.193" LastActivityDate="2010-12-15T16:48:29.193" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5732" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5725" CreationDate="2010-12-15T09:56:04.427" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.downrightkenya.org/map/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.downrightkenya.org&lt;/a&gt;.  A group cycled from the UK to Kenya and traced their progress by sending in photos/messages from their cell phones. It is based on Google Maps. Scroll your mouse to zoom in to the details and click on the map pins to see photos/text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-12-15T09:56:04.427" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5733" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5019" CreationDate="2010-12-15T09:59:47.477" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Gimp my favourite plugins are Ufraw and wavelet denoise. I have written (and published) my own plugin to do batch processing of raw images and this is certainly the plugin I use the most.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-12-15T09:59:47.477" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-15T09:59:47.477" />
  <row Id="5734" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-15T10:23:15.803" Score="2" ViewCount="211" Body="&lt;p&gt;We need it for scanning large numbers of different books, which are never standard sizes, as quickly as possible. Surely such a scanner exists but I cannot seem to find one? Everything seems to be based around standard paper sizes, high res scanning or quick document feeds - none of which we need. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We need a machine that can scan quickly at a low resolution (for the web only) and automatically detect the size of the object being scanned without doing an extra pass. Also the ability to constrain the proportions of images sent to the computer to say 400px wide would be good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2659" LastActivityDate="2010-12-15T11:17:18.647" Title="does anyone here know of a scanner that will auto-crop perfectly every time, without having to preview the image first or edit it afterwards?" Tags="&lt;scanning&gt;&lt;cropping&gt;&lt;scanner&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5735" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5734" CreationDate="2010-12-15T11:17:18.647" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the Canon DR range of page feed scanners will do the job. They come with CapturePerfect software and will crop as well as de-skew. There is a price to be paid though. You will need to guillotine off the book spine so that you can feed the pages into the scanner. Your neighbourhood printer will have a nice industrial size  guillotine that will make short work of removing the spine.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The alternative of using a flat bed scanner (to preserve the book) is simply not practical if you have a large number of books, it will take for ever. I have been down this route when I converted a client's large reference book collection to be stored on a server. A useful tip is to keep a bottle of isopropyl alcohol handy as from time to time you will need to clean the platens and rollers to remove residual glue that they pick up from the guillotined edges of the pages. The glue has a tendency to bleed away from the spine.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The software has an option of creating two images from one scan, allowing you to keep a high resolution as well as a low resolution image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-12-15T11:17:18.647" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5736" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5737" CreationDate="2010-12-15T14:58:02.910" Score="10" ViewCount="539" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've lost the install disks that came with my 500D and I was wondering if there was any better software for editing Canon RAW files. I Had a quick skim of the Canon website and couldn't find anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2680" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-16T03:15:15.073" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T15:46:40.330" Title="Good Free Software for editing Canon RAW files?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;raw&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="5737" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5736" CreationDate="2010-12-15T15:09:01.303" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rawtherapee.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Raw Therapee&lt;/a&gt; is an excellent piece of software and it's free.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-15T15:09:01.303" />
  <row Id="5738" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-15T15:10:22.610" Score="2" ViewCount="104" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are there any sites where studio backstage shots can be found? I speak about &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/89456253@N00/3808195326&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/89456253@N00/2471133513&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;. Not about rock-concerts, etc. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1290" LastActivityDate="2010-12-18T01:15:52.033" Title="Studio backstage shots" Tags="&lt;studio-setup&gt;&lt;backstage&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5739" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5736" CreationDate="2010-12-15T15:13:43.357" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;UFRaw&lt;/a&gt;, another classic free photography app&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2010-12-15T15:13:43.357" />
  <row Id="5740" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5738" CreationDate="2010-12-15T15:18:42.450" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best place to look may very well be flickr.  You might be best off looking in group pools, for example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/43292336@N00/pool/with/2471133513/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Studio Lighting&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/18233365@N00/pool/with/3808195326/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lighting and Posing Styles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/sets/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Studios, locations, backstages and sets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-12-15T15:18:42.450" />
  <row Id="5741" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5736" CreationDate="2010-12-15T17:41:09.467" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://darktable.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Darktable&lt;/a&gt; is a fairly new project but it looks very promising and has some great functionality already.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1131" LastActivityDate="2010-12-15T17:41:09.467" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5742" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5750" CreationDate="2010-12-15T17:55:29.837" Score="8" ViewCount="166" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know my D40 doesn't have a motor in it to auto focus lenses. What type of lens has the motor in it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1972" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-15T18:01:56.330" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T12:57:34.903" Title="What Type of Lens will Auto focus on Nikon D40" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;nikon-d40&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5743" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5742" CreationDate="2010-12-15T18:01:38.933" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you note, the D40 doesn't have an autofocus motor.  Nikon's designation for the lenses that have the motor include the &lt;strong&gt;AF-I&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;AF-S&lt;/strong&gt; lines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-12-15T18:01:38.933" />
  <row Id="5744" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-15T18:20:19.853" Score="7" ViewCount="124" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have recently obtained a camera that has a lens that was apparently left in the sun/heat, and now the plastic on the lens is sticky. I was wondering if there was a way to make it not sticky without damaging it any more than it already is?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2684" LastActivityDate="2010-12-15T21:55:14.153" Title="How do I make the lens less sticky?" Tags="&lt;old-lenses&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="5745" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5738" CreationDate="2010-12-15T19:00:53.720" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think generally these type of shots are referred to as &quot;setup shots&quot; or &quot;behind the scenes&quot; rather than backstage. Why exactly are you looking for them? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're looking for inspiration for DIY and amateur set ups I would add the following group to chills' list:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/552101@N22/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;S.U.M. (Setups Mandatory)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which contains both the set up and the final shot which is quite helpful for working out how things are done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're looking for something more &quot;pro&quot; then several photographers who are active on the net post really good behind the scenes videos, try:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2007/05/chase-jarvis-raw-ninjas/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Chase Jarvis Raw&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.davehillphoto.com/bts/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dave Hill behind the scenes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The F-Stop also regularly features set up shots and original images that are composited together, along with in depth interviews with the photographers/artists involved:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thefstopmag.com/?p=33&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The F-Stop&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-12-15T19:00:53.720" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5746" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5658" CreationDate="2010-12-15T19:09:18.243" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that whether a JPEG could be rotated losslessly depended on the exact dimensions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason being that a JPEG image is divided up into a series of 16x16 pixel blocks (or 8x8 without chroma-subsampling), each of which can be rotated individually without having to re-encode. The top left corner of an image must lie on a block boundary but the bottom right corner doesn't. Rotating an image whose size is not a multiple of 16 would cause problems as the top left corner would no longer be on a block boundary and thus all blocks would have to be recomputed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-12-15T19:09:18.243" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5747" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-15T19:47:07.257" Score="9" ViewCount="187" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to produce my own double-sided mini post cards/business cards from my photos at 3x4&quot; on 80 pound coated stock.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used to send them to a print shop with odd-number front page, even number back page, and then just ask for 5 copies of the file; but it seems quality had diminished, and I can print small runs on my home inkjet with better results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What program can I use that would dynamically generate this layout from a PDF?  I want 9 up front and back with crop marks so I can cut the 1/8&quot; bleed off easily.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps I'm looking for RIP software?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: Using another print service is not a solution, I need to print these myself or find a capable local printer with a 2-3 day turn around on orders from 200 to 3,000.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="624" LastEditorUserId="624" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-15T21:55:15.600" LastActivityDate="2010-12-15T22:43:21.040" Title="How to print photographic postcard/business cards" Tags="&lt;printing&gt;&lt;pdf&gt;&lt;post-card&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="5748" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5616" CreationDate="2010-12-15T19:47:42.853" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Take a moment to relax and look at other aspects of your life. Artistic creativity requires a certain peace of mind whether you realize it or not.  If there is something in your life that is stressing you out or otherwise distracting you it could be preventing your muse from operating so to speak.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One question to answer is if you've taken up an interest in something else in the three months.  If not, if you just feel &lt;em&gt;blah&lt;/em&gt;, it might not be photography specific.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2653" LastActivityDate="2010-12-15T19:47:42.853" />
  <row Id="5749" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5747" CreationDate="2010-12-15T19:57:22.260" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why not just go to a print shop that supports this, like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.moo.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;moo.com&lt;/a&gt; -- they allow you to do a range of business cards/postcards with small print runs, and differing images on one side (notionally the front). I had some printed by their UK branch recently for a project I'm working on, and have been overjoyed with the quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-12-15T19:57:22.260" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="5750" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5742" CreationDate="2010-12-15T20:42:08.820" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Nikon with AF-I and AF-S&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sigma with HSM (and older ones that&#xA;list as &quot;with motor for Nikon&quot; or the&#xA;like obviously)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Tamron with USD (and older ones that&#xA;list as &quot;with motor for Nikon&quot; or the&#xA;like obviously)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Tokina lenses specifically listing &quot;built-in AF motor drive&quot; as a feature&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="3478" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-04T12:57:34.903" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T12:57:34.903" />
  <row Id="5751" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5744" CreationDate="2010-12-15T21:41:24.957" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If it's older, and if it's not a substance (like soda) - then it could be either:&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;A chemical reaction with something like insect repellent(DEET) or sunscreen (??).  Certain ingredients in these products can react with polymers and paint. I don't know if it's reversible.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;OR, if it's old - it could be the polymers breaking down. Rubbery-type Polymers will also degrade over time (and with UV/heat exposure) and become tacky.  I was told by my former Plastics professor, that this was a very bad thing (it's a carcinogen).  Maybe look into getting those components replaced. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1676" LastEditorUserId="1676" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-15T21:55:14.153" LastActivityDate="2010-12-15T21:55:14.153" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5752" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5747" CreationDate="2010-12-15T22:43:21.040" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you intend to print them yourself, does it have to be done with PDF? I have used Photoshop myself to create a front and back image to print multiple business cards on cardstock with my own printer. I usually create the business card image itself in two PSD files, one for the front, one for the back, in exactly the right dimensions to print with some bleed, and include the crop marks in the image. It is then easy enough to copy this image, and paste it in an aligned array on a larger image that fits the dimensions and physical margin limitations of the printer exactly. I then just print the PSD directly. I don't have a workhorse printer, just a Canon PIXMA 9500 Mark II, but it got the job done. My volume is considerably lower, and I probably don't even print 200 at a time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you had a workhorse printer, like a Canon imagePrograph or one of the professional Epson Stylus printers, you should be able to crank out considerable volume in fairly short order yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-12-15T22:43:21.040" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="5753" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5754" CreationDate="2010-12-15T23:46:31.040" Score="7" ViewCount="131" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've had a Markins M-20 ball-head for a number of years now, it's been a great head but this winter it's started to become harder to adjust so I figure it's time to clean it (probably long past).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Markins has operating instructions on how to clean and oil the head:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.markinsamerica.com/downloads/Q-Ball%20Operation%20Instruction.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.markinsamerica.com/downloads/Q-Ball%20Operation%20Instruction.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However they say to use WD-40, and I was wondering if others had found an oil for ballheads that held up better to weather and use while maintaining lubrication, or if there were any tips around cleaning/disassembly I should beware of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2010-12-16T00:06:27.417" Title="Advice on cleaning/oiling ball-head?" Tags="&lt;cleaning&gt;&lt;tripod-heads&gt;&lt;ball-head&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="5754" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5753" CreationDate="2010-12-16T00:06:27.417" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard people speak of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.triflowlubricants.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;tri-flow&lt;/a&gt; as significantly superior as a lubricant to WD-40.  I don't have experience specific to ball-head maintenance, though, one way or the other.  They actually have various products... their &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.triflowlubricants.com/Superior_Drip/superior_drip.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;superior lubricant&lt;/a&gt;&quot; page claims to have a working temperature range of -60 to 475°F, though, which seems like it should work for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I imagine there are other options, as well... hopefully other answerers will touch on them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2010-12-16T00:06:27.417" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="5755" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4016" CreationDate="2010-12-16T01:19:21.553" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would say it really depends on if you have a SLR, DSLR or P&amp;amp;S (Point-and-Shoot) - and maybe even possibly it more (or less) depends if the sensor is CCD or CMOS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My own experiences says it doesn't occur with P&amp;amp;S cameras - ever. I have 4 cheap P&amp;amp;S (Canon PowerShot) cameras which I have used exclusively over the years for shooting time-lapse series (500 - 100k images per shoot) and all cameras have a minimum of 500k exposures according to Exif data. 2 of 4 have taken between 2 and 3 million images. Many of those sequences were shot during an entire day with complete and direct view into the sun (intentionally). Most of those were shot using a wide-angle or a 180-degree Raynox fish-eye adapter, though I would think that would compound the problem having more lens elements to refract the light?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oddly enough, all 4 cameras have never exhibited any loss of quality or showed any signs of damage from the sun. However, one with the most exposures has a big purple splotch that sometimes appears in images off to one side, although it seems to be more connected to the LCD screen as when I wiggle the screen it usually goes away (for awhile) - I attribute it to falling off a rock onto other rocks and once falling 2m into the bathtub (which incidentally cracked the fish-eye, so now it rattles when you tip it any direction but amazingly still works fine ;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also have a Sony DSC-R1 (a high-end CMOS-based P&amp;amp;S camera) and have accumulated easily over 200k on that one, of which many times I spent very long periods of time shooting directly into the sun in an attempt at making Photoshop-like solar flares ;) Again here I was never able to find any noticeable deterioration or difference between the first images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then again, maybe it was all just luck that nothing got burned ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2565" LastActivityDate="2010-12-16T01:19:21.553" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5756" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4016" CreationDate="2010-12-16T01:54:47.000" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you take a very quick picture of the Sun, it won't kill your camera, but don't point it in the general direction of the Sun at all for very long. Remember that exposure won't last for very long at all. Your CCD probably won't be damaged, but the lens might heat up enough to cause some damage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2010-12-16T01:54:47.000" />
  <row Id="5757" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5736" CreationDate="2010-12-16T02:01:53.250" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://picasa.google.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Picasa&lt;/a&gt; is a nice simple photo editor that's free, and it will take in RAW files. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2010-12-16T02:01:53.250" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5758" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5091" CreationDate="2010-12-16T05:15:06.887" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Base curve is used to alter how the raw light data is interpreted. You can think of this almost as the input curves in other apps, they control how the raw data in the file gets pulled into the image editing space. This is often where fancy curves are used to simulate different types of film and such... that's very much what it's doing, adjusting the response of the film to the light; only digitally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Corrections curves are used more to control how the image is rendered out to the destination. This is very much more like varying the type of paper you're printing on. (especially in the B+W paper world.) Since this is just the raw conversion step on the way into gimp, that analogy breaks down a little... maybe it's more like how your film is developed into a negative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In theory, both curves are capable of the same things. In reality, because of where they arrive in the pipeline, if you're doing ANY other changes with other tools in there, you probably want to do your adjustments with the Base curve, so that those other adjustments are applied after your curves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;disclaimer, I've not used ufraw in a long while, and the above is from memory.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;THAT SAID... personally, I would only apply curves in the input process to do very basic adjustments, or to perform camera correction. For example, I have a Canon 20D, it's known to over blow red and under count green... so the camera correction for it very subtly corrects those two flaws. There are actually a number of curves for it from Canon... one for &quot;natural&quot;, one for &quot;technically accurate&quot; etc... they've done testing in the lab and built profiles to do very specific things. I typically apply those at import just to normalize the image so that I know the image I'm working on is not tainted by what camera it was taken with.  Once I have the image in my editing app (LightRoom for me, Gimp for you) THEN I use artistic curves to adjust the image to the way I want artistically. Why? typically the raw converteres aren't built for artistic play and undo/redo experimentation... they are built to convert raw to something editable, with a minimal adjustment to correct for the deficiencies of the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2010-12-16T05:15:06.887" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5759" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5591" CreationDate="2010-12-16T07:00:22.183" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a fully featured trial version available on Adobe's website. I think you should just download it and test your library on your own computer to see the real performance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1519" LastActivityDate="2010-12-16T07:00:22.183" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5760" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4797" CreationDate="2010-12-16T08:28:14.320" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wade Heninger (formerly UI designer for LR) has a blog that he does weekly roundups of all things LR: &lt;a href=&quot;http://heninger.org/index_files/tag-lightroom.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://heninger.org/index_files/tag-lightroom.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2010-12-16T08:28:14.320" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-16T08:28:14.320" />
  <row Id="5761" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4882" CreationDate="2010-12-16T10:19:20.797" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lot of people who do filming with DSLR cameras, use some sort of follow focus system, maybe it's possible to use some of this stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a link to some examples: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lightsfilmschool.com/blog/dslr-follow-focus/597/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lightsfilmschool.com/blog/dslr-follow-focus/597/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2694" LastActivityDate="2010-12-16T10:19:20.797" />
  <row Id="5762" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-16T10:23:04.417" Score="4" ViewCount="219" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have just got a 550D and took some shots inhouse during daytime and the light is fairly good. images look good on computer after downloaded. but there is too much green in the prints. i believe there is nothing to do with printer. photos were shot under auto and portrait mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any idea? i am new to photography. thanks heaps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2695" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T22:30:52.477" Title="Canon 550D too much green in printed photos" Tags="&lt;canon-550d&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5763" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5762" CreationDate="2010-12-16T11:24:55.397" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Differences between what you see on screen and in print are most likely due to calibration problems. Not all monitors display the same colour value in an image file the same way! Assuming the printer is not the problem then it is likely that your monitor image has a magenta tint to it which is preventing you from noticing the green shift.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are tools available to calibrate your monitor so the colours it displays are more consistent, which can help with this sort of problem. See this question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2599/what-is-the-best-equipment-for-a-good-semi-professional-color-management&quot;&gt;What is the best equipment for a good (semi-)professional color management ? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second problem is that your images may have a green tint to them. All lightsources emit a slightly different colour light and the eyes adjust to it subconsciously so we don't notice. However the camera simply records the incident light and tries to make sense of it according to the current &lt;strong&gt;white balance setting&lt;/strong&gt;. This tells the camera what colour light source to expect so it can adjust accordingly. Most cameras have an automatic white balance setting which attempts to judge the lightsource, however these settings are rarely accurate in practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A green tint suggests the lighting was fluorescent (which is problematic for colour reproduction at the best of times). You can set the camera for a fluorescent white balance, a better approach is to shoot a &lt;strong&gt;custom white balance&lt;/strong&gt; by activating this mode on your camera and shooting a white or neutral coloured object close up so that it fills the frame. However if you have daylight coming in from the windows the lighting colour may vary from shot to shot as you move through the house. In short colour management is hard, ultimately it's best to learn how to correct colour after images have been shot (which is another topic all together). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are you printing at home or at a lab? The other side of the coin is that the printer could be miscalibrated, putting down too much green.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately colour reproduction is error prone, even if both screen and printer are calibrated the results wont match perfectly due to differences in the way the devices display colour, and differences in viewing conditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-17T11:14:29.227" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T11:14:29.227" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="5764" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2597" CreationDate="2010-12-16T12:56:35.940" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ufraw, either the stand alone version or as a plugin to Gimp, will do the job nicely.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-12-16T12:56:35.940" />
  <row Id="5765" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-12-16T13:20:52.040" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Linhof Kardan Color. I worked with this camera for three years.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;It is careful, painstaking work where you aim for the highest quality possible. It was a transformative experience.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/IW3Pm.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-12-16T13:20:52.040" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-16T13:20:52.040" />
  <row Id="5766" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5664" CreationDate="2010-12-16T13:26:21.083" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've seen and heard about DSLRs being used in very cold weather, without any negative problems other then the previously mentioned condensation and such. I wouldn't bring it down to extreme temperatures, but you're probably fine below freezing in most cases, except for the previously mentioned battery life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A tip to dealing with batteries is to keep your spare batteries inside of your coat/jacket, to keep them as warm as possible. The warmer the batteries are, the more power they will provide. You can even warm up a &quot;dead&quot; battery, and it'll work again for a while, if the battery died quickly due to the cold.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2010-12-16T13:26:21.083" />
  <row Id="5767" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5591" CreationDate="2010-12-16T13:49:59.213" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no specific limit, the limit is somewhere between &lt;a href=&quot;http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/333/333736.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;100K and 1 million&lt;/a&gt;. But in general you're going to have poorer performance the more photos you have, and it's going to be a non-linear decrease, ie, adding the 100,001th photo is going to make more of a dent in performance than the 1001th photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I imagine that alot of it's going to depend on how good of a machine you have. If you have a top notch machine, it's probably going to work better than an older machine might. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe you could try to do the importing at night or some other time you're not going to use your machine for many hours?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2010-12-16T13:49:59.213" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5768" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-12-16T14:37:03.603" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/minoltadimage5/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Minolta DiMAGE 5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My first camera, bought from 2nd hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/hPYOt.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="558" LastActivityDate="2010-12-16T14:37:03.603" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-16T14:37:03.603" />
  <row Id="5769" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5773" CreationDate="2010-12-16T16:53:48.587" Score="3" ViewCount="356" Body="&lt;p&gt;Greetings,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for DSLR and good portrait lenses. Budget - 2500$&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) Nikon D7000 + Nikon 85mm f/1.4D AF&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2) Canon 7D + Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM or Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM (Not very good for crop but reviews shows that IQ is better than 50mm)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for Canon 85mm II L, it is a little bit expensive right now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) Your suggestions....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was considering the 1st variant, but I was confused about D7000's sharpness. &#xA;Or is it better to find used FF: Canon 5D / Nikon D700 ? Any opinions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;UPD&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sorry, I should specify it more clearly, but &lt;em&gt;Shizam&lt;/em&gt; has a point. I'm looking for good portrait lenses with not very big budget [2.5k $]. I understand that it would be good to invest at least 1K $ more. But let it consider for the future. So the question may be interpreted as &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;what you can suggest for such sum of money?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;TIA&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1261" LastEditorUserId="1261" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-17T08:54:46.660" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T09:38:37.493" Title="What DSLR and good portrait lenses you can suggest for 2.5k USD?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="5770" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5658" CreationDate="2010-12-16T17:57:51.410" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Thank you for all the answers here, I really appreciate it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found a different solution that I wanted to share. &lt;a href=&quot;http://jpegclub.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jpegtran&lt;/a&gt; does lossless transforms of jpeg images. I discovered it when I installed ImageMagick and it is part of the tool set installed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To use, type:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;jpegtran -rot 90 DSC_0276.jpg &amp;gt; DSC_0276-rot.jpg&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then you can trash the original file. I wrote a script to allow me to click a rotate button in the finder and boom. Rotated and the original is sent to the trash (recoverable if there is an error)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imagemagick.org/script/index.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ImageMagic itself&lt;/a&gt;. ImageMagic has an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imagemagick.org/script/command-line-options.php#auto-orient&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;auto-rotate&quot;&lt;/a&gt; option that will read the EXIF header and rotate the JPEG image to the same as the camera's gravity sensor. The EXIF header is then modified. That command is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;convert -auto-orient DSC_0276.JPG DSC_ROT.JPG&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or use ImageMagic to rotate:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;convert -rotate &quot;90&quot; DSC_ROT.JPG DSC_ROT.JPG&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ImageMagic can work on the file in place; ie, &lt;code&gt;convert [options] INFILE OUTFILE&lt;/code&gt; where INFILE and OUTFILE can be the same name. jpegtran needs two separate file names and you need to have a script or other workflow to account for that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ImageMagic's -auto-orient is definitely lossless and I believe the 90, 180 ,270 degree rotations are lossless. I cannot guarantee that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;jpegtran only does lossless transforms. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.macports.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;MacPorts&lt;/a&gt; to install these. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2319" LastActivityDate="2010-12-16T17:57:51.410" />
  <row Id="5771" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5769" CreationDate="2010-12-16T18:43:06.560" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To start, any nikon or canon DSLR is a &quot;good&quot; dslr. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given your needs, I would say that the 50 f1.2L is overkill. The 50 f1.4 offers stellar performance for a fraction of the cost. I would say almost all photographers needing the 50mm focal range would be better off served by the 50f1.4.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I would opt for a FF body, having used one for a few years now, I find portraits are a dream when you have a larger frame to work with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A used 5D or even 5D mark II paired with the 85mm f1.8 would be a nice portrait kit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2010-12-16T18:43:06.560" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="5772" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-12-16T18:55:27.223" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A Kodak Box Brownie Vintage about 1948&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2703" LastActivityDate="2010-12-16T18:55:27.223" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-16T18:55:27.223" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5773" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5769" CreationDate="2010-12-16T18:56:27.733" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi Alexander,&#xA;Reading your question it looks like you're interested in portrait photography so some general body/lens suggestions for that type of photography would be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Full frame sensor body (Nikon D700/Canon 5DmkII or the like)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;FF will give a thinner apparent depth of field for a given aperture which is a desirable in many portrait situations&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;FF tends to have less pixel density which can give (among other things) smoother tonal transitions&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other things to look for in a body re:portraits :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flash sync port for studio strobes&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Live view, helpful for micro-focusing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;HDMI output, great for showing what you're doing live&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Built in flash IR/RF control so you can control off camera flashes wirelessly w/out extra gear&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for lenses 85mm and 135mm are the 'standard' focal lengths for torso and head &amp;amp; shoulders portraits respectively so a 70-200 f2.8 would work too.  If you're looking at environmental portraits that include more of the surrounding area consider a 50mm as well, lenses to consider:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;50mm f1.8 (or f1.4), 85mm f1.8, 135mm f2.0, 70-200 f2.8&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most work will probably be done around f8 but by having a f1.8 or wider lens, when you decide to go down to f2 or f2.8 for thin DoF you'll still be stopped down which will offer increased sharpness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To speak towards the canon 135mm vs 50mm, the 135mm f2.0 lens is a &lt;em&gt;stunningly&lt;/em&gt; sharp/contrastly/colorful lens, we have one floating around the office which I use for employee portraits and its amazing.  I use it for landscape too but thats a different story :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastEditorUserId="1819" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-16T19:44:38.970" LastActivityDate="2010-12-16T19:44:38.970" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5774" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5742" CreationDate="2010-12-16T19:05:01.627" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nikon Lenses with the designation AI, AI-S, E, D, AF will not work on your camera. Lens zCodes can be found here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dslrgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dslrgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2703" LastActivityDate="2010-12-16T19:05:01.627" />
  <row Id="5775" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-12-16T20:48:58.417" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A Voigtlander that belonged to my then-father-in-law. I don't know the model--fixed lens (Zeiss?), 35mm film and &lt;strong&gt;no&lt;/strong&gt; electronics. I estimated exposures using the guidelines on the (color print) film box, and estimated focus based on distance--and still managed to take some pretty decent photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;After looking at the company history (when I checked the spelling), I'd just about bet that that camera--if it still exists--is older than I am (but not by much...).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2706" LastEditorUserId="2706" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-17T23:54:55.367" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T23:54:55.367" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-16T20:48:58.417" />
  <row Id="5776" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5736" CreationDate="2010-12-16T21:51:01.933" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you can spare fifty quid Bibble is pretty amazing. If not, ufraw and Picasa should cover it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2329" LastActivityDate="2010-12-16T21:51:01.933" />
  <row Id="5778" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-12-17T02:18:53.487" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A blue and black plastic camera, almost a toy but a functional film camera, ordered with help from my parents and boxtops clipped off some some breakfast cereal.  This was in the 1960s, when I was maybe 6 or 7, maybe older.   No idea make or model, but if I had to bet a dollar, something Kodak designed to get kids interested in taking pictures (and pestering parents to buy film).   Well, it worked!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="637" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T02:18:53.487" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-17T02:18:53.487" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5779" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5784" CreationDate="2010-12-17T04:12:11.300" Score="7" ViewCount="472" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I understand it, halftoning is the process of taking an image with a given color range (as defined by the colorspace) and blending the colors to form an image with a smaller range of colors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How is this different from dithering? Or are the two essentially the same thing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="594" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T21:55:47.153" Title="What is the difference between halftoning and dithering?" Tags="&lt;color&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="5780" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5779" CreationDate="2010-12-17T04:34:20.603" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;They are, to some degree, very much the same thing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Halftone is single colour, usually black, dots which are sized and spaced appropriately to convey the tonality of an image and has been used in printing, especially newsprint, for a lot of years. Dithering is a way of combining a number of &lt;em&gt;differently&lt;/em&gt; coloured dots to convey colour using a limited set of possible options (the palette).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, yes, essentially the same in that the selection and placement of the dots create the impression of tone or colour, but they are different in that one is monotone and the other is not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T04:34:20.603" />
  <row Id="5781" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5788" CreationDate="2010-12-17T05:32:25.647" Score="5" ViewCount="295" Body="&lt;p&gt;I took a picture once in a beautiful location with an awesome background, and a cool location to get the shot. The problem is, the location of the subject had substantially less light then the background, giving a silhouette effect. Without using an external flash, and on a low budget, what could I do to improve this picture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, I shooting with a DSLR, outdoors. The DSLR has a small pop-up flash. The nearest good light source was maybe 5-10 feet away. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks guys!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2010-12-18T01:35:56.660" Title="How do you avoid a dim portrait with a bright background and no external flash?" Tags="&lt;background&gt;&lt;light&gt;" AnswerCount="6" />
  <row Id="5782" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5781" CreationDate="2010-12-17T05:39:18.480" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Try spot metering on your subject, it sounds like your camera decided to meter largely for the background.   This can happen using something like matrix metering - which is a common setup.  You should spot meter, lock the exposure settings, and recompose.  If you're shooting fully manual, try decreasing your shutter speed or increasing your ISO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your background is just insanely brighter, this could blowout your brackground too much but its worth a shot.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only other option I would see is to change the lighting somehow.  Either bring more light somehow or shoot at a different time of day when the sun may illuminate your subject more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T05:39:18.480" />
  <row Id="5783" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5664" CreationDate="2010-12-17T05:46:41.877" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As other answers have noted, cameras and lenses basically work pretty well in cold weather.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One extra precaution I'd be careful of during winter is to always make sure everything is sealed up - after you take a camera out of a bag, make sure to close the bag right away and only open it when putting things in or out.  It's all to easy for snow or ice to descend on you from above, either an awning or a tree and get inside a bag.  So always keep stuff well-sealed, the other persons advice about buying a good bag is a great idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should probably also carry some kind of larger cloth for wiping away snow in case any does get on the camera.  Even ordinary (non weather-sealed) lenses are generally fine with light moisture on them as long as you wipe it down fairly soon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T05:46:41.877" />
  <row Id="5784" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5779" CreationDate="2010-12-17T09:27:23.880" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I disagree with John's assertion that the difference depends on how many colours you use, I believe it's possible to dither using a single colour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Halftoning is a term used in the print industry to describe how to reproduce varying tones with significantly fewer inks. It's usually synonymous with &lt;strong&gt;amplitude modulation&lt;/strong&gt; halftoning, where a fixed pattern of dots vary in size in order to create the illusion of continuous tone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/dithering_vs_halftoning.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Left: two examples of monochrome dithering, firstly pattern dithering and secondly diffusion dithering. Right: two examples of colour halftoning by amplitude modulation, the first with a very large dot size, the second with a smaller dot size that is more convincing.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When colour halftoning, the grid of circles for each ink colour are set at different angles so they don't land on top of each other. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dithering is a more general term that refers to randomisation or perturbation of colours values or positions or intensity in order to simulate more tones than are available. Essentially both terms try to achieve the same effect, to fool the eye into seeing more colours than are there, and you could argue that halftoning is a form of dithering. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like all terms they are misused, but to me the difference is that you wouldn't usually talk about halftoning if you were working with images for display on a computer. Whereas, if you were talking about printing then you would usually use halftoning to refer to amplitude modulation (little circles), and dithering otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-17T12:57:49.100" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T12:57:49.100" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="5785" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5736" CreationDate="2010-12-17T09:30:08.403" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't forget the De-Facto raw conversion utility &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dcraw&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DCRaw&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; user unfriendly (read: command line only), but most available RAW converters are at least somewhat based on it, since it's open source, and largely BSD licensed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2611" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T09:30:08.403" />
  <row Id="5786" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5781" CreationDate="2010-12-17T09:33:35.280" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Some Ideas&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;use spot or centre-weighted metering.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;use exposure compensation to increase exposure.  Start by trying 1 stop. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;use the pop-up flash.  This is a situation where it might be just enough to lift the subject a little.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;move the subject (if that's possible) to a darker background&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;wait until a time of day when similar light is falling on the subject and background&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may have to look in your camera's manual for precise instructions on how to do some of these.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T09:33:35.280" />
  <row Id="5787" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5769" CreationDate="2010-12-17T09:38:37.493" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Definitely get a 50mm &quot;Nifty Fifty&quot;&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whatever camera, and whatever other lens(es) you get, you will never regret buying this one.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T09:38:37.493" />
  <row Id="5788" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5781" CreationDate="2010-12-17T09:55:46.330" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Metering from the background as rfusca suggests may not give you the results you desire - the background will likely be very overexposed spoiling the beautiful location. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One solution to that problem is to shoot two exposures and merge them. One exposure is optimal for your subject and one optimal for the background. If your subject remains relatively still merging them is not too difficult and there is a wide variety of software available to do this. Google &quot;HDR&quot; if unsure! One problem with this method is that if the background is significantly brighter than the subject then the shot exposed for the subject may have lens flare or other defects due to the strong backlight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However it's better to do it in one go if you can so I would say if you have no external flash then use the internal one! It may produce harsher shadows due to the position. The best way to avoid this is to diffuse (spread out) the light, using a sheet of paper, white t-shirt, whatever is at hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;edit:&lt;/strong&gt; che's suggestion of a reflector is a good option for the case when the sun is in the wrong direction, it's worth noting that it wont work if you're in a large shadow area, you need a line of sight to the sun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-17T13:37:29.440" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T13:37:29.440" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5789" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5781" CreationDate="2010-12-17T11:31:50.763" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can light the subject without a flash by using a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflector_(photography)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;board reflector&lt;/a&gt;. There's a guide about it &lt;a href=&quot;http://photography.about.com/od/photographyequipment/qt/Reflectors.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;at about.com&lt;/a&gt;, but basically it's about sticking a white (or silver or gold) surface to the path of the light and reflecting it to light your subject. If the conditions are favorable, you can replace external flash with umbrella or softbox with a reflector.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T11:31:50.763" />
  <row Id="5790" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5781" CreationDate="2010-12-17T11:36:18.060" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One option not mentioned by anyone is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rpphoto.com/howto/view.asp?articleID=1026&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;high speed sync&lt;/a&gt; if your camera supports it (you didn't mention brand) with the popup. This allows for a faster shutter speed to avoid overexposing the background while still filling in the subject with light. Basically, the flash is fired multiple times, at very low power, as the shutter curtain moves across the focal plane.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T11:36:18.060" />
  <row Id="5791" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5779" CreationDate="2010-12-17T14:50:16.317" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I work in the printing industry and my understanding of halftone mostly matches up with Matt Grum's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Creating a halftone involves breaking up an image into dots (or similar shapes) all of equal ink density but varying in size. The dots are arranged in a regular grid. A black and white halftone would consist of black dots with large dots for the darkest areas of the print and very small (or no dots) for the lighter areas of the print. A full-color halftone involves dots of varying sizes in the colors of Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black -- with the color inks being used to optically produce other colors (Cyan + Yellow = Green). As mentioned above this is an amplitude modulation technique.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Frequency modulation in printing normally means a pseudo-random pattern of dots where the number of dots in a given area is changed to make that part of the image darker, but the tone of all the dots remain the same. You can use frequency modulation for printing color images as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dithering has a specific technical definition used more in digital images instead of the printing world. According to Wikipedia -- &quot;Dithering is a technique used in computer graphics to create the illusion of color depth in images with a limited color palette (color quantization). In a dithered image, colors not available in the palette are approximated by a diffusion of colored pixels from within the available palette. The human eye perceives the diffusion as a mixture of the colors within it (see color vision). Dithering is analogous to the halftone technique used in printing. Dithered images, particularly those with relatively few colors, can often be distinguished by a characteristic graininess, or speckled appearance.&quot; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose that dithering could use FM or AM techniques, but Wikipedia's example looks more like FM (although the grid is regular in the example).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2228" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T14:50:16.317" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5792" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5793" CreationDate="2010-12-17T14:51:37.203" Score="6" ViewCount="216" Body="&lt;p&gt;In everyday work I use Ubuntu as main OS, but when doing graphic work or photo retouching I use a virtual Windows machine to run Photoshop (using Virtualbox).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now someone lent me a Spyder3 display calibrator and I managed to calibrate my monitors on Ubuntu, but then I was wondering if I needed to calibrate my Windows virtual machine too ..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any ideas ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2716" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T15:26:13.913" Title="Monitor Color Calibration with Virtualization" Tags="&lt;display-calibration&gt;&lt;spyder3&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5793" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5792" CreationDate="2010-12-17T15:26:13.913" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, you do not... Unless you did something wrong of course ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The importance is to calibrate your &lt;strong&gt;monitor&lt;/strong&gt; to sRGB color space. Once it is setup that way, then giving it a known input will result in a known color. My setup is OpenSUSE with Parallels Desktop and only the monitor needed to be calibrated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some people calibrate their &lt;strong&gt;graphics&lt;/strong&gt; cards instead of the monitor which can give &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.neocamera.com/?p=432&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;banding issues&lt;/a&gt; but should affect both your system and the virtual machine, unless the VM's machine bypasses the cards calibration. In this case I would not know if it works with your setup or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some applications can be calibrated themselves which makes them change the colors they send to the monitor in order to get the desired color. If you did that, then only that application would produce the right colors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T15:26:13.913" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5795" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5798" CreationDate="2010-12-17T16:25:33.743" Score="6" ViewCount="385" Body="&lt;p&gt;What things should I consider for buying a photo editing computer? Specifically, here's a few of my needs:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I will install Adobe Lightroom, and Adobe Creative Suite. I'd like to make sure all of those programs run alright. All of them are the newest versions (CS5 and Version 3 for lightroom).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I want to make sure it has Windows 7.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for the tips!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-20T00:39:23.043" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T04:10:46.150" Title="What should I consider for buying a photo editing computer?" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;lightroom-3&gt;&lt;computer-hardware&gt;&lt;adobe&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="5796" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5795" CreationDate="2010-12-17T16:56:55.577" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I the single most universal and important thing will be to make sure the machine has an abundance of RAM. Memory needs for photo (and, if you follow the market into this space, video) are significant, and the one thing you want to make sure you're not doing a lot of is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paging&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;paging&lt;/a&gt;, as doing a lot of that will wreak serious havoc on performance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, what is &quot;an abundance&quot;? Well, that's a moving target. These days, I think it's safe to say you'd want an absolute minimum of 4GB, but I'd recommend 8, or even more. And thanks to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Moore's law&lt;/a&gt;, and the side effects of that law on software, those numbers will keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are sure other things you'll want to consider, and I hope other answers will go into them. I think this is the single most likely to make a huge difference, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Happy editing!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T16:56:55.577" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5797" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5795" CreationDate="2010-12-17T17:05:55.253" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A computer with a good processor and a high amount of memory (4GB or more) should run Adobe software very well. You should also consider a graphics card. It doesn't need to be a high end card but it should have plenty of VRAM.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Details:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Processor speed is important because graphics editing software (anything that deals with graphics really) does a lot of math under the hood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;RAM is there to hold all the data you're working with. Plenty of RAM gives you more space to work in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, a graphics card may minimize some of the problems above, by providing what is called &lt;em&gt;hardware acceleration&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mathematical operations may be performed on the graphics card instead of your processor.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Data, specifically and most likely the images you load with the software, may be allocated on the graphics card's memory instead of your computer's memory.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It lessens the load on your processor and makes more of your RAM usable by other software. Do note, however, that it's entirely up to the software to use hardware acceleration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2586" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T17:05:55.253" />
  <row Id="5798" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5795" CreationDate="2010-12-17T17:10:32.030" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most important thing for photo editing is to get a good monitor, one that has a wide-gamut and can be color-calibrated. Those vary in price but can be gotten for as low as $450 USD for a new &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.necdisplay.com/Products/Product/?product=48cbd139-f704-486d-9be5-880367d76bfa&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NEC Multisync P221W&lt;/a&gt;. Can spend more and get a similar model up to 30&quot; in size but that depends on your budget.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NEC sells them with or without calibrator. What I did is buy the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.necdisplay.com/Products/Product/?product=4af7b335-9302-4429-8d73-74c35a363b57&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;30&quot; model&lt;/a&gt; with and two P221W without (Refurbished for $237 each!), since the solution is the same and the difference is relatively smaller on bigger displays.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I am not sure if you intend to buy a pre-built computer or build one yourself. Regardless, make sure you get one with a lot of memory, 4GB or more and make sure it is a 64-bit computer with a 64-bit version of Windows 7. Nowadays, almost all computers other than small laptops are 64-bits but they do not always install the 64-bit OS which gives application limited access to memory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You need to get a computer with a graphics card. Which one? Pretty much any will do but you have to have one. Cheap computers come with embedded graphics which is not as good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those are the basics but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/article.php?id=photography_computer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;read more considerations here&lt;/a&gt;. The exact parts have probably changed since the article is 1 year old but all the recommendations are still good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T17:10:32.030" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="5799" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5736" CreationDate="2010-12-17T17:41:09.850" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gimp.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Gimp&lt;/a&gt; is an excellent photo editor, but lacks support for RAW images. However, there is &lt;a href=&quot;http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a plugin&lt;/a&gt; you can get for it that will enable it to open the files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gimp.org/screenshots/linux_fullscreen.jpg?rand=424387499&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.gimp.org/screenshots/linux_fullscreen_thumb.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gimp.org/screenshots/linux_mixer.jpg?rand=240618396&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.gimp.org/screenshots/linux_mixer_thumb.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gimp.org/screenshots/linux_dualscreen_griatch_art.jpg?rand=566571263&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.gimp.org/screenshots/linux_dualscreen_griatch_art_thumb.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="594" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T17:41:09.850" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5800" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="606" CreationDate="2010-12-17T17:50:33.700" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Attempting a semi-generic answer (which won't match everyone's experience, to be sure, but hopefully will be more generic than some, allowing for less duplication of concepts -- if someone wants to turn this answer into a community wiki, please feel free):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The camera that made me fall in love with photography was the all-mechanical SLR (except for the electronic light meter, which you could use the camera without having batteries for) that my parents let me use.  In my particular case, it was a Nikon FM, but I think the same story could apply with any number of cameras (e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/606/what-camera-first-made-you-fall-in-love-with-photography/612#612&quot;&gt;another poster's Olympus OM-1&lt;/a&gt;).  The things that made the difference for me were:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It had a macro lens.  Being able to take a photo of something and have it appear life-size (actually slightly bigger) on the film was a wonder to me.  From pennies to human eyes to rainbows from a crystal window hanging, falling across the patterns of denim, this somehow got me excited about things (I'd later get into much more interesting macro subject matter than some of those).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;All mechanical.  There's a certain sound about things, as the other poster talks about, but also it allows for one to explore the workings -- to open up the camera and see what happens as you slowly re-cock the shutter, for example, or to find the little lever that interfaces between the camera and lens to cause the aperture to close when you fire the shutter or hold the DOF-preview button.  Not to mention the fact that it just sort of Always Works -- worst case, you stop having a light meter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It had interchangeable lenses.  In my case, besides the 55mm/2.8 macro, there was also a 70-200 zoom lens.  I've always liked telephoto, somehow, so having this was cool.  And having the old-school style where the outer barrel moved, and had the flaring DOF-guide, was just somehow satisfying.  (If anyone doesn't know what I'm talking about, look at the lens in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiUbC-4dtvc&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this video-explanation of DOF&lt;/a&gt;; he describes them about 1:45 in.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It was an SLR -- I was actually looking through the lens that the picture would be taken through.  This was magical to me, somehow -- and certainly an improvement over the alternative for doing things like macro.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It was what my mom was using -- and always nice, as a kid, to emulate mom and dad, right?  :)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I could do long exposures with it.  I think I'd used the camera before I really discovered the wonders of this, but BULB mode with a locking cable-release allowed me to take pictures that were unlike the world I saw with my naked eye, which was really neat to me.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Beyond just long exposures, it also just let me have control of exposure, and in particular exposure time.  When I learned that to get a good photo of a TV (classic CRT, of course, and NTSC in my case), you wanted a shutter speed of 1/30 of a second.  If you used a faster shutter speed, only part of the frame would be lit up.  Wow.  Only part of the frame is lit up at one time??  And that's not just something that someone has told to me in the abstract, but it's something I can actually take a photo to prove?  That sure got me excited.  And then I turned it around, and for a cell-animation of Snoopy, I ended up with a nice still image of the dog house, with four dancing snoopy poses ghosted on top of each other.  How cool is that?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The optical split-screen focusing screen, with a ring around that of (not that I knew the name at the time) micro-prism indication... having a way to really know when things were in focus: very handy.  But also fascinating -- &quot;hey, weird -- if I move my eye around, half this inner circle goes dark.  What's going on?  That's weird, but cool!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure there were other things, too, that I'm forgetting to mention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bottom line, for me, is that this was the camera that got me excited about photography.  As other answers have said, getting into the darkroom later was a very important step, as well.  But really, I was already hooked, thanks to this camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm even lucky enough to have had my mom give it to me, years later, when she got a DSLR.  As with other posters, I feel guilty at times for leaving it on a shelf.  But then, sometimes, I take it off the shelf, and shoot with it.  And it's still a joy to me to do so.  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hopefully others can relate to a similar experience -- again, feel free to make this a community wiki and add your own bullet points, or just add them in the comments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T17:50:33.700" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-17T17:50:33.700" />
  <row Id="5801" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5698" CreationDate="2010-12-17T20:59:10.453" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Something that hasn't come up yet, but probably should have: look for a model with an optical viewfinder or equivalent. Holding one of those newfangled digital P&amp;amp;S dealies with the fancy LCD at arms length might work well for you young 'uns, but we old fogies tend not to be so very steady -- having the face as an extra point of contact with the camera adds an awful lot of stability. The view through an optical viewfinder also tends not to require reading glasses (or, worse, that awkward search for the right angle through the transition area of bifocals). Even an electronic viewfinder you look at through a peephole usually has about a metre of virtual distance between eye and screen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T20:59:10.453" />
  <row Id="5802" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5795" CreationDate="2010-12-17T21:44:20.287" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;RAM and SCREEN. Those are really the primary needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The large screen iMacs are a joy to use for this. Granted, they don't come with Windows 7 installed, so you'd have to fork out for that separately which adds to the cost. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Otherwise, I don't think you need to over-think this. Get a relatively new PC with maxed out RAM and Video Card and put the rest of the money into one or two really nice LCD screens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;re: software...Photoshop is great, of course, but you pay a lot for a lot of features you may never use. Whether you go with Windows 7 or OSX or even Ubuntu, you might want to spend a bit of time looking at the alternatives out there. Might save you several hundred $$ that you could roll over into the monitor/hardware costs. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2722" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T21:44:20.287" />
  <row Id="5803" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5698" CreationDate="2010-12-17T21:48:16.960" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does she use a cell phone? If so, I'd suggest something like an iPhone or nice Android. The reason is that, at least for snap shots, these phones come with pretty amazing cameras now. As a bonus, they end up having giant viewfinders which may be nice for someone with potentially aging eyesight. Then, with a data plan, one can fairly easily upload these to any number of 'cloud' services such as Flickr or Facebook, which would give her access to instant backup, sharing, and easier printing through supported services. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's no DSLR, but my iPhone has pretty much completely replaced my Canon Powershot these days. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2722" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T21:48:16.960" />
  <row Id="5804" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5779" CreationDate="2010-12-17T21:55:47.153" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Halftoning is dithering on a line-based grid. Halftone resolution is defined as 'Lines Per Inch'. It's basically dots of varying sized aligned in a x/y grid. For color printing, as stated, the angle of the grid is altered for each color to help the eye blend the colors to gether.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dithering can be a number of things (like being a halftone) or pointillism (like Wall Street Journal portraits). In printing, the common dithering technique is 'stochastic' or 'Frequency Modulation' printing. This uses very small dots of the same size. The density of the amount of dots is what creates the shades of color.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The latter requires higher quality inks, paper and presses, but ultimately produces an image much closer to continuous tone (film) than halftone printing does. I believe some higher end ink jet printers can use the latter method. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2722" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T21:55:47.153" />
  <row Id="5805" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5762" CreationDate="2010-12-17T22:30:52.477" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem may be discontinuous-spectrum fluorescents. Without the bother (and expense) of going to a colour meter, try this: get a CD or DVD (as a computer user, you've probably got a bunch of one or the other that's pretty much toast for any real purpose) and look at the &quot;rainbow&quot; it produces in your light. If you can see a complete rainbow (assuming colourblindness isn't a problem), then you'll always be able to correct the colour balance on the workstation, no matter how far off your camera's auto white balance attempt was. If there are gaps in the spectrum, the chances are pretty good that the picture will never be a winner (although it may be a great documentary item). Keep the CD/DVD in your camera bag -- it'll tell you a lot about the lighting that your eyes will not. (And the difference between screen and print is the difference between additive and subtractive colours -- RGB vs CMYK. Even if you think you're working in the CMYK colour space on-screen, what you're seeing is RGB, and that tells you nothing about what will actually happen in print.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T22:30:52.477" />
  <row Id="5806" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5019" CreationDate="2010-12-17T22:56:37.747" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Even with pixel counts climbing to the skies, I still find a use for onOne Genuine Fractals Print Pro. It'll give you great enlargements -- a lot better than any of the native photo editor resize options I've used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2010-12-17T22:56:37.747" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-17T22:56:37.747" />
  <row Id="5807" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5810" CreationDate="2010-12-18T00:56:29.933" Score="-1" ViewCount="109" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know of a good tutorial for creating a rain effect? I have Photoshop Elements 8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2649" LastActivityDate="2010-12-18T02:44:51.710" Title="Add rain effect to a photo?" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;tutorial&gt;&lt;photoshop-elements&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5808" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5738" CreationDate="2010-12-18T01:15:52.033" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A great source, though not so very webby, is the series of articles Monte Zucker did for Shutterbug magazine over a number of years (certainly throughout the late '80s and '90s). There was rather a lot of detail about the setup, the whys and wherefores (complexion, clothing, tonal range, location constraints, that sort of thing). You may be able to find them archived in a local library, or if you know anyone who's been a shutterbug for a long enough time, they're likely to have something lying around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2010-12-18T01:15:52.033" />
  <row Id="5809" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5781" CreationDate="2010-12-18T01:35:56.660" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You basically want to &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101-balancing-flash-and.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;balance your key light with your ambient light&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your ambient light would be a very bright sun filling your background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your key light could be a number of things. A very powerful, controllable, and  off-camera external flash and would be best. Barring that: the pop-up flash on your camera would work, though it may not provide you with the power you need. A reflector (as che mentioned) would also help, though (as Matt Grum mentioned) you're dependent on the angle of the sun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you have enough key light on your subject, you can then reduce overall exposure to tame your overly bright background. Exposure compensation and spot metering will do the trick in automatic mode. In manual mode, boost your shutter speed. You may also want/need to close your aperture, but an open aperture gives you a shallow depth of field and a blurry background -- which you may want to take advantage of. If you want open aperture and you can't increase your shutter speed any more (due to flash sync), an ND filter will help a lot to reduce the overall brightness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2010-12-18T01:35:56.660" />
  <row Id="5810" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5807" CreationDate="2010-12-18T02:44:51.710" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A good place to start: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pxleyes.com/tutorials/photoshop/category/rain/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pxleyes.com/tutorials/photoshop/category/rain/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="659" LastActivityDate="2010-12-18T02:44:51.710" />
  <row Id="5811" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-18T02:45:34.677" Score="3" ViewCount="175" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I switched to Macs a few years ago, I started using iPhoto to manage all of my digital pictures. I then moved on to Aperture, and now I've just gotten annoyed with the single-file-library thing and I need to move on. Probably to Lightroom. I started uploading all of my images to Flickr as well and they all have the tag 'iPhoto Original' and the Faces feature from iPhoto tags.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What's the easiest way to strip out these tags without removing all the other EXIF information from a folder with 22 gigs of pictures in it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="834" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-18T20:57:34.423" LastActivityDate="2010-12-18T20:57:34.423" Title="Easiest way to strip 'iPhoto Original' and 'Faces' tags from photos`" Tags="&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;tagging&gt;&lt;photo-management&gt;&lt;iphoto&gt;&lt;batch&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5812" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5811" CreationDate="2010-12-18T02:55:48.650" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I haven't used these command line tools but they may be useful:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/jhead/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/jhead/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And here is a listing of other EXIF manipulation tools:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/exifsoftware/EXIF_IPTC_XMP_Software_Metadata_Readers_Editors_Extraction_Tools.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/exifsoftware/EXIF_IPTC_XMP_Software_Metadata_Readers_Editors_Extraction_Tools.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sorry for not being more helpful, but if you try some of the tools please let us know which one worked best for you. :o)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2010-12-18T02:55:48.650" />
  <row Id="5813" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5814" CreationDate="2010-12-18T06:19:14.573" Score="7" ViewCount="162" Body="&lt;p&gt;It looks like I may have the chance to go caving (just a tour) soon and I'd love to take my DSLR (Nikon D3100) ...however, caves are nearly 100% humidity and generally rather wet.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What kind of protection and steps do I need to take to protect my gear? If any?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T09:59:26.300" Title="Caves and 100% humidity..protection?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;protection&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="5814" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5813" CreationDate="2010-12-18T06:50:50.413" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Frankly, it'd be worth investing in one of those Ewa-Marine &quot;baggies&quot; if you're actually expecting constant wetness (they're around a hundred bucks). You can go for a stash of chammy-style wipes as well (the camera will be a lot easier to handle naked when you can), but they can only get you so far. Depending on the cave, there will be areas with almost constant dripping condensation, and it's not just water that's coming down; there is a lot of corrosive mineral content as well. It's easier to keep it out of the camera and lenses than it is to get it out after the fact. You won't need to go as far as a solid housing, but you'll probably want something studier than a sandwich bag and a UV filter (the McGuyver kit for ordinary rain).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, and a general tip: there's never enough flash for what you want to do. A couple of slave units never hurt anybody.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2010-12-18T06:50:50.413" />
  <row Id="5816" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5448" CreationDate="2010-12-18T07:53:28.853" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Back in the silver halide days, if you were shooting roll film, you'd pretty much plan to throw the first roll away (that is, you'd soup it, but you probably wouldn't expect a winner -- and that's a 12-exposure roll in general, either 120 format or a short roll of VPS 35mm). It's not that you'd want to waste film, but that you'd want to waste time, allowing the sitter to get over the anxiety of having their portrait done. The last thing you want is a pose; your job is to capture the essence of the person. Well, it is if you're going for more of a contemporary (say Karsh and onward) portrait than a daguerreotype, at least. These days all you'd be wasting is a write cycle on an SD card.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2010-12-18T07:53:28.853" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5818" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-18T14:38:15.057" Score="0" ViewCount="508" Body="&lt;p&gt;How to use Canon Powershot A3100 IS digital camera as a Webcam in Windows 7 PC?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastActivityDate="2010-12-18T16:30:59.390" Title="How to use Canon Powershot A3100 IS digital camera as a Webcam in Windows 7 PC?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;web&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="5819" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5818" CreationDate="2010-12-18T16:30:59.390" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, this is not supported on any operating system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not know of any recent camera to do that unfortunately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: Some people have hacked Canon firmware to do things that are not supported.&#xA;Whether it is possible or not, I do not know, but you can &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;check this&lt;/a&gt; to see.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-18T16:30:59.390" />
  <row Id="5820" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5273" CreationDate="2010-12-18T17:36:03.060" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I`m only an amateur photographer but I recommend using a short lens of between 20-80mm to avoid snowflakes near the camera ruining the photo. Also a fast shutter speed is important if you want a clear sharp photo. To get the right speed just think of how long it takes for the snow to move. 100th of a second is probably a good place to start. However I am thinking of taking a couple of long exposure shots of falling snow. Maybe about 5 seconds exposure. Would this work?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2725" LastActivityDate="2010-12-18T17:36:03.060" />
  <row Id="5821" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-18T21:54:28.133" Score="4" ViewCount="143" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have just started using Lightroom 3 after hearing a lot of recommendation from others. I have imported by originals (some RAW, some jpeg) into the Lightroom catalog and it all works fine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, since my laptop's harddisk space is about to run out I want to move those originals into an external harddisk while not changing my Lightroom catalog. Can I do it? Will I still be able to work with the images without having to connect this external harddisk? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I just need to know how this works and how do I do it safely so that I don't accidentally lose all the changes I made into the images in Lightroom. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1924" LastActivityDate="2010-12-18T22:09:23.410" Title="Storing Lightroom images externally" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;storage&gt;&lt;photo-management&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="5822" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5821" CreationDate="2010-12-18T22:09:23.410" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Move the files from within Lightroom. It supports this operations and will update its database automatically to reflect the change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also move the files outside of Lightroom and when you start Lightroom again there will be an icon next to each missing file in the Grid View. Clicking there will let you specify the directory where the file was moved. Lightroom will also prompt you if it should update all the missing files in the same folder at the same time. If you did not move too many folders you can do it this way but it will take longer than doing it in Lightroom. Beware that Lightroom will not find the moved images unless the name remains the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the external drive is not connected, the images on it will be findable and you will be able to assign them keywords and they will appear in filtered results. You will not be able to 'develop' them though since the data is not there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-18T22:09:23.410" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="5823" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5824" CreationDate="2010-12-18T23:28:23.770" Score="4" ViewCount="368" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a panorama created from three separate images.  As a result of perspective, there's an area that I need to fill seamlessly to match existing deep blue sky:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/VuIS0.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've tried content-aware fill but it doesn't really have enough to work with and pulls in pixel data from the building as well as blue sky.  I also tried using a gradient fill but there's enough variation horizontally at the sky edge that I can't get a good match.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone suggest how to fill the empty area so it matches the adjoining sky seamlessly?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="492" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T01:38:06.457" Title="Seamless blue sky fill with PS CS5" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;photoshop-cs5&gt;&lt;sky&gt;&lt;fill&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="5824" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5823" CreationDate="2010-12-19T00:04:44.927" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm guessing from your taks you are using Photoshop CS5. Doesn't photoshop CS5 have the nifty content aware deletion tool that works wonder with such things? Here's a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photoshopessentials.com/photo-editing/cs5/new-features/fill-content-aware/page-2.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;tutorial&lt;/a&gt; on using it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T00:04:44.927" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5825" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5823" CreationDate="2010-12-19T01:38:06.457" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not perfect but what I did was select a single line of pixels for the sky and stretched it to the frame boundaries. Then I simply brushed with the spot healing brush a couple of times to hide the compression artifacts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://img825.imageshack.us/i/93939553.jpg/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://img825.imageshack.us/i/93939553.jpg/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2728" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T01:38:06.457" />
  <row Id="5826" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4690" CreationDate="2010-12-19T02:16:14.937" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you look around, you can sometimes find Lightroom for cheaper. I managed to buy it on Black Friday for only $130 or so. Still, you can find it on &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003739DVY?tag=httpwwwpearso-20&amp;amp;camp=213381&amp;amp;creative=390973&amp;amp;linkCode=as4&amp;amp;creativeASIN=B003739DVY&amp;amp;adid=0DWTX33FNJQT1SNGSDC0&amp;amp;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Amazon for only $230&lt;/a&gt; or so now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Definitely get a student version if you qualify, it's the full version, just not licensed for commercial use. The exact quote from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://store1.adobe.com/cfusion/store/html/index.cfm?store=OLS-EDU&amp;amp;event=displayEduConditions&amp;amp;nr=0&amp;amp;promoid=FCRWP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adobe Website&lt;/a&gt; as to who qualifies is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;* University and college students - students enrolled at a higher education institution defined as an accredited public or private university or college (including community, junior, or vocational college) that grants degrees requiring not less than the equivalent of two years of full-time study.&#xA;* Primary and secondary school students - students enrolled at an accredited public or private primary or secondary school providing full-time instruction.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't qualify, go to your nearest community college, enroll in a photography class, and you'll probably still save money, not to mention learning more about photography;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T02:16:14.937" />
  <row Id="5827" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5636" CreationDate="2010-12-19T08:58:50.697" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I agree with jrista for many of his comments and the importance of a good fast USM based camera based on your description. I agree that the ultrasonic motor is much better than the gear focus. I have had the chance to borrow some higher end lenses from friends and was amazed at how much more precise its action was. I also learned that to help speed up the focus, I changed the focus selection setting on my camera. I went from the multipoint let the camera &quot;guess&quot; what you want in focus to center focus point only. I would then have the camera focus there, continue to hold the button to keep focus locked and then pan to frame the picture the way I wanted to. For me it is faster than always adjusting where I wanted the focus point using the menus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also recommend considering renting or borrowing a lens before spending big bucks. You might be able to make your current body meet your needs just by a glass update. I was amazed at just how much impact the borrowed lens made on my images. Since they were the only thing that changed, same camera body, same operator, same location on a few occasions, it was very clear how much the lens can change the characteristics of your photography. Not just image quality but also experience of operating the equipment&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck! Hope this helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1901" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T08:58:50.697" />
  <row Id="5828" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5595" CreationDate="2010-12-19T09:11:23.500" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I take it that by &quot;without thought&quot; you are more-or-less saying the same thing that Henri Cartier-Beresson called &quot;capturing the decisive moment&quot;. The trick will be to stop relying on the camera to do your work -- a DSLR or a high-end viewfinder camera with full manual control will do the job. You can use the &quot;Sunny 16&quot; rule to pre-set your exposure values or meter from a grey card every once in a while during the day and be pretty sure of being within a stop (usually less) of proper exposure almost all of the time (recording images in RAW will allow you to correct at least that much in post-processing), and you can do a pretty darned good job of pre-focusing as well if you know a little bit about depth of field. (There are good plugins, like Topaz Lab's InFocus, that will let you sharpen things up considerably, and you can always use the sharpening features in your image editing software if plugins aren't your cup of tea.) The point of the matter is that by learning a few simple things you can pretty much take the camera's response time out of the equation altogether. It isn't hard to learn, and it won't take more than a couple of days of experimenting to get pretty good at it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T09:11:23.500" />
  <row Id="5829" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4526" CreationDate="2010-12-19T09:40:07.013" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do an approach that is probably similar to Cabbey's except that mine does not involve quite as many computers. My only photo editing computer is my laptop so I do not have to transfer and sync to a desktop. However I also travel a bit for work so much of my process is aimed toward the issues and risks of traveling. My backup does not let me get 100% but it lets me save the important stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a blog post I wrote a while ago, here is my basic workflow:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Go out and take lots of images sometimes I use multiple cameras at the same location, a point and shoot, a DSLR, and even heavens no – a cellphone camera.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Return to the computer with flash cards full of images.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Load images into Adobe Lightroom, keeping the same file names the camera assigned.  However the images are grouped into directories by year – month – day.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If I have my external drive with me, copy originals to HD.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Using Lightroom upload all the images up to my SmugMug account in a non-public area of my site.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Start the culling and editing process&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Copy the keeper images to the public galleries&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Export the keeper RAW images to DNG files&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Upload the DNG images to my JungleDisk location. Not the backup service section but the Jungle Disk Network Drive so they are around even if I delete them off my local drive for space. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Through this new process I have accomplished the following relatively easily:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Copy JPG files to an offsite location that is in the cloud using Amazon’s S3 service (SmugMug).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Organized the images so I can find them again.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Copy DNG files to an offsite location on the Amazon S3 service (JungleDisk).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Not have to worry about the images being readable on the optical media I currently am using.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Got the backup and redundant copies out of my possession - on purpose.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The decision I made was that Amazon's S3 has a very (okay amazingly high) data durability rate so my confidence in them keeping my data accessible is much higher than anything I could come up with. I just decided for fiscal reasons that I would place some in SmugMug with unlimited JPG storage, but use JungleDisk for other formats rather than SmugVault. However the JungleDisk solution and SmugMug overlap to me, the only difference was the price per GB.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key is to know and understand what the difference is between backing up and archiving to make sure as you are pricing services you are getting the results you want. A friend of mine was using a service for backup and thought they could delete things without risk; just recall from the backup as it worked during testing. The problem moment came on day 31 after the deleting of the original file, the service purges after 30 days. So please make sure you are using and understanding the terms carefully.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My longer format thoughts on the subject are at &lt;a href=&quot;http://bradfordbenn.com/2010/05/data-backup-and-access/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://bradfordbenn.com/2010/05/data-backup-and-access/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope that helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1901" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T09:40:07.013" />
  <row Id="5830" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5813" CreationDate="2010-12-19T09:59:26.300" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Stan Rogers already covered the bags and cases quite well, so I'll just chime in for one little detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Make sure your gear is not colder than the air before you enter. If it is, water will be condensing straight from the air to all surfaces. And cars with A/C makes it really easy to artificially and accidentally &quot;cool&quot; your gear. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1420" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T09:59:26.300" />
  <row Id="5831" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-19T11:13:15.470" Score="1" ViewCount="152" Body="&lt;p&gt;can anyone recommend a wireless flash set up for Sony A200 camera/Sony F58-AM flash unit?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2258" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T18:50:05.683" Title="Looking for a remote flash trigger for Sony" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;remote&gt;&lt;strobist&gt;&lt;triggers&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="5832" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5833" CreationDate="2010-12-19T11:51:11.623" Score="23" ViewCount="297" Body="&lt;p&gt;When recycling, some flashes make a whistling sound, going from low to high frequency for a few seconds. More intensive was the emitted light, more intensive is the sound.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the source of this whistling?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2236" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T13:54:12.077" Title="Why flashes make whistling sound when recycling?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5833" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5832" CreationDate="2010-12-19T12:10:44.433" Score="23" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's an oscillator that creates AC current from the DC supplied by the batteries. The AC is needed to step the voltage up to the 300 or so volts that the flash tube needs, and that voltage is rectified back to DC and used to charge the capacitor (which can deliver a lot of DC current in a very short time). The sound you hear is mechanical vibrations caused in the transformer as the voltage is stepped up -- the transformer converts the low-voltage AC from the oscillator to changing magnetic fields, which, in turn, induce higher-voltage AC current in a second coil of wires on the transformer. The changing magnetic fields distort the transformer very slightly, and those mechanical distortions are what you are hearing. As for the changing frequency, that has to do with the amount of voltage (think of it as &quot;electrical pressure&quot;) the oscillator is working against, which changes the operating conditions of the oscillator circuit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T12:10:44.433" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5834" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5831" CreationDate="2010-12-19T12:44:50.333" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You'd use the pop-up as a trigger; it will provide TTL control of the F58-AM. The only thing you're missing, really, is the off-camera shoe (to mount it on a lightstand) and that's the same unit as the Minolta/KonicaMinolta OC-1, so you may be able to pick one up fairly cheaply on the used market. If you don't want the on-camera flash to influence the lighting, you can put a bit of card in front of it (it doesn't have to be white card) -- as long as even a little bit of light leaks from the pop-up, it should be enough to control the remote flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T12:44:50.333" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5835" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5832" CreationDate="2010-12-19T13:54:12.077" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you get a new high-end flash, such as the Canon EX 550 II, there will no longer be that whistling sound.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T13:54:12.077" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5836" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5019" CreationDate="2010-12-19T15:51:53.210" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For GIMP there is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.logarithmic.net/pfh/resynthesizer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Resynthesizer&lt;/a&gt; which basically does the same thing as Photoshop's content-aware fill. Only for free :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T15:51:53.210" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-19T15:51:53.210" />
  <row Id="5837" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-19T16:20:51.680" Score="2" ViewCount="176" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking at a 3rd party lens for my Nikon d5000. A friend of mine was shooting with a Canon and using a Tamron zoom telephoto lens (70mm - 300mm). The largest focal point I have w/ one of my lenses currently is 200mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have found this one:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300mm-4-0-5-6-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000EXOXVA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300mm-4-0-5-6-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000EXOXVA&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which is $160 (normally $360).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for something similar to the first party lens found here:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-5-6G-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000HJPK2C&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-5-6G-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000HJPK2C&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which is over $500 (normally over $660).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I need it to be able to auto focus (the Nikon d5000 body doesn't handle that, so the lens has to take care of that). Vibration Reduction is important too - I honestly can't tell if this lens has that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't mind paying a little more for a good lens (trying to keep it under $400), as long as it has VR, AF, and can go to at least 300mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there 3rd party lenses compatible with Nikon d5000 that can auto focus and also have vibration reduction?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are these lenses quality lenses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2730" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T18:21:21.750" Title="3rd party lenses - compatibility &amp; value" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;telephoto&gt;&lt;tamron&gt;&lt;nikon-d5000&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5838" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5837" CreationDate="2010-12-19T16:33:46.323" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are certainly very highly regarded third party lenses out there. Sigma uses the &lt;strong&gt;OS&lt;/strong&gt; (optical stabilisation) designation for lenses with vibration reduction, and HSM for a hypersonic focus motor (I believe all Sigma and Tamron lenses have built in motors of some form so compatibility is not a problem). Tamron uses the &lt;strong&gt;VC&lt;/strong&gt; (vibration compensation) designation for vibration reduction lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG OS ($399) is probably the closest you'll get to the Nikon lens:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-300mm-Multi-Layer-Canon-Mount/dp/B002M3SOQU/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1292776731&amp;amp;sr=8-4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-300mm-Multi-Layer-Canon-Mount/dp/B002M3SOQU/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1292776731&amp;amp;sr=8-4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Tamron lens you list doesn't feature any sort of vibration reduction. They do make a 28-300 lens with vibration reduction:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-28-300mm-Vibration-Compensation-Aspherical/dp/B000V6MSRG/ref=sr_du_3_map?s=electronics&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1292776917&amp;amp;sr=1-3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-28-300mm-Vibration-Compensation-Aspherical/dp/B000V6MSRG/ref=sr_du_3_map?s=electronics&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1292776917&amp;amp;sr=1-3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but it's $610 and if you don't need the wide angle all in one lens, then the Sigma will do you better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-19T16:41:36.740" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T16:41:36.740" />
  <row Id="5839" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5837" CreationDate="2010-12-19T16:34:28.163" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sigmaphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma Photo&lt;/a&gt; makes quite a few lenses for Nikon with those features. Their lenses range from consumer to professional grade, with corresponding price differences to go with them. As for quality, it does vary with them, but much less so than in the past and they're producing some very good optics these days, including some unique ones that nobody else has.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, they have a lens finder utility that can help you out there. However, optical stabilization does add to the price, so I don't know that you're going to easily find one new for under $400 like the Nikon one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T16:34:28.163" />
  <row Id="5840" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5837" CreationDate="2010-12-19T18:15:09.800" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My site (shameless plug) &lt;a href=&quot;http://lenshero.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://lenshero.com&lt;/a&gt; makes it easy to find lenses, for example here are 14 &lt;a href=&quot;http://lenshero.com/lenses/nikon-d5000-image-stabilized-built-in-focus-motor-lens-less-than-600&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lenses for the D5000 with image stabilization and focus motors&lt;/a&gt; for less than $600.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can then easily filter by brand/focal length etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="934" LastEditorUserId="934" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-19T18:21:21.750" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T18:21:21.750" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5841" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5842" CreationDate="2010-12-19T18:15:57.120" Score="17" ViewCount="250" Body="&lt;p&gt;Or rather:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What artistic effect does a high-contrast photo have on the viewer?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What artistic effect does a low-contrast photo have on the viewer?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How do I know when high contrast is &quot;too much&quot; or low contrast &quot;too little&quot;?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When should I be looking to increase/decrease contrast?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see various tips &amp;amp; techniques for &quot;increasing contrast&quot; and &quot;limiting contrast.&quot; The techniques are straightforward; knowing &lt;em&gt;when&lt;/em&gt; to use them isn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-19T20:14:37.827" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T20:14:37.827" Title="How much contrast should I have?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;contrast&gt;&lt;artistic-choices&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="5842" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5841" CreationDate="2010-12-19T18:24:59.407" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;At the end of the day it's just a matter of judgement - if there was a simple rule Adobe would have come up with a &quot;content aware contrast&quot; tool by now ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A very high level contrast is going to generate some instant &quot;wow&quot; factor that can be hard to resist when people are first learning how to edit images. Often the results come off as brash and overcooked. It takes time to develop a certain amount of subtly, and be confident that you don't need to crank the contrast up to 11.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would start by asking myself &lt;em&gt;is it even a good image?&lt;/em&gt; Will contrast enhance what's already there, or am I trying to compensate for failings in the lighting, subject matter or composition?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next thing I would be would be to experiment. Certain subject matters and lighting patters &lt;strong&gt;do&lt;/strong&gt; suit a large amount of contrast. Try out the various looks and see if you can make an informed decision on what is the best look. At the end of the day it's your image and your vision. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an example based on a portfolio shoot I did a few years ago. The model picked the following shot, which I had set up with a fairly dramatic lighting scheme which usually benefits from high contrast post processing. Here's the processed image:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/dan_contrasty1.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I was processing another image from the shoot for my own purposes I immediately went straight for the maximum punch Dave Hill-esque band promo look:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/dan_contrasty2.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But then something in me decided to see how far the other direction I could push the image. I could see quickly I was onto something, but it took me a little while longer to get it to look as good as I wanted. I think the extra effort was worth it, this image is now a benchmark I use when trying to decide whether to increase contrast. It looks a little flat compared to the other version, but if you come back and look at it in isolation I think it's definitely better, to me it looks more refined, and somehow more &lt;em&gt;expensive&lt;/em&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/dan_other.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I see various tips &amp;amp; techniques for &quot;increasing contrast&quot; and &quot;limiting contrast.&quot; The techniques or straightforward; knowing when to use them isn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's a very important point you raise there, and one reason I would advice against going to any one of the thousand websites that offer Photoshop tutorials for every effect under the sun. I think that by figuring out how to do things yourself you are more likely to develop a sense of when to apply certain techniques rather than how to apply them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-19T19:16:08.867" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T19:16:08.867" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5843" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5841" CreationDate="2010-12-19T18:34:31.447" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think there's really a pat answer to that question. My general take, and it's just a matter of opinion, is that many photos can benefit from some contrast adjustments and when to do them becomes a judgement call. For myself, I'll usually do some contrast adjustments, trying out various options on an image, as a seperate layer in Photoshop, and then see which &quot;looks&quot; better to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, high contrast images tend to a feel of more depth, more of a bolder look to them. Done right, the images can have a lot of punch in them triggering emotion. Low contrast images are flatter, more subtle and, when done right, can create a more subtle emotional response.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T18:34:31.447" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5844" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5831" CreationDate="2010-12-19T18:50:05.683" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your other option is a radio trigger like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gadgetinfinity.com/product.php?productid=17204&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cactus v4&lt;/a&gt; trigger with a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gadgetinfinity.com/product.php?productid=16892&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;hot shoe adapter&lt;/a&gt; to provide the interface. I don't know anything about the adapter, there may be others around as well, but the Cactus triggers are okay, not great, but okay, and generally work in a reasonable range for home studio fun (I have them and have used them on studio strobes).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T18:50:05.683" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5845" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-19T19:02:24.457" Score="4" ViewCount="205" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a low end Canon digital camera, and I found my dad's old Sears KS-2 with the standard 50mm lens. I don't know that much about manual photography. I feel like I should do some research and learn about the technical aspects of photography, but I don't know what I should learn prior to experimentation with the film camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, would it be worth it to buy more lenses for the KS-2, or should I save money for a newer camera? I have heard about adapters that I could use to connect the old K mount lenses to the newer cameras, but is it worth it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2729" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-16T06:11:33.153" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T13:40:48.803" Title="What research should I do before starting to photograph more?" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;film&gt;&lt;old-lenses&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5846" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5845" CreationDate="2010-12-19T19:31:20.253" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are new to photography, or just want to have a deeper and enriching look at the field, I believe you can do yourself a huge favor and buy and watch John Greengo's CreativeLive courses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://creativelive.com/courses/digitalphotography01&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://creativelive.com/courses/digitalphotography01&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://creativelive.com/courses/digitalphotography02&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://creativelive.com/courses/digitalphotography02&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before shelling out money on new gear, you will have a much sounder foundation for making your decisions. Not to mention the mind-opening effect of this course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am yet to see a better &quot;intro&quot; course on any subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T19:31:20.253" />
  <row Id="5847" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5845" CreationDate="2010-12-19T19:50:43.473" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My parents recently bought a Nikon P100, and I went through a similar experience of learning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the most important thing is to learn about &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_%28photography%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;exposure&lt;/a&gt;. Basically, you must understand three settings: Film speed, aperture size, shutter speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Film speed&lt;/a&gt; is a measure of how sensitive to light your film is. On newer cameras, it measures how sensitive the camera's sensor is, and can usually be configured on the fly. It is commonly referred to as &quot;ISO.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;High sensitivity means relatively less light is needed to register a picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture#In_photography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Aperture&lt;/a&gt; is the opening through which light passes. The aperture size regulates how much light is allowed through. It is usually specified as f-numbers. Lower f-numbers denote bigger openings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aperture also influences the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;depth of field&lt;/a&gt;, which is the area of the scene which will appear sharp on the photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_speed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;shutter speed&lt;/a&gt; controls how long your camera's shutter stays open. Smaller values are faster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Slower shutter speeds mean the shutter stays open for a longer time, allowing more light to reach the film or sensor. This can produce very interesting photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faster shutter speeds mean the shutter stays open for less time, which means less light will be registered by the film or sensor. You should adjust your aperture or ISO accordingly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you understand all that, you should learn about &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_%28visual_arts%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;composition&lt;/a&gt;. Start with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;rule of thirds&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the way, you should practice with a digital camera so that you can see the results of your experiments immediately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2586" LastEditorUserId="2586" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-20T06:29:41.640" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T06:29:41.640" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="5848" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5845" CreationDate="2010-12-19T20:00:27.567" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best way to learn &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; to start photographing more — both for the basics and for more advanced photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a particularly good answer to the &quot;should I buy more lenses for the KS-2&quot; question, because a lot of the answer depends on whether you find yourself really enjoying using it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, of course, film requires a greater time and patience commitment, and the per-shot costs (along with delay until you see results, and lack of automatically-recorded metadata) make experimenting a different process. That difference is not necessarily &lt;em&gt;bad&lt;/em&gt; — in fact, arguably &lt;a href=&quot;http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/05/a-leica-year.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;it's a great approach to serious learning&lt;/a&gt; — but it's not for everyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if you're going to spend some with film and aren't comfortable with the very basics, it's not a bad idea to make sure you understand what's happening with the basics of exposure — aperture, ISO, and shutter speed. There's dozens of books and web sites, and any of them can teach you about this, if you don't forget the key point, which is: the relationship is actually quite straightforward, so if you get confused, your teaching resource is probably broken in some way. (No problem: ditch that book or web site and pick up another.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, I find it nice to learn and mentally process &lt;em&gt;while&lt;/em&gt; I'm working, a little bit at a time. Make sure to make at least one picture every day, and make sure every week to look at the pictures you've taken. (If you end up taking lots, take that time to weed out the very best.) And, at the same time, find a good book, and read it just a page or two a day. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.michaelfreemanphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Michael Freeman&lt;/a&gt;'s books are well-suited for this; I just finished &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.focalpress.com/Book.aspx?id=5084&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Perfect Exposure&lt;/a&gt; in this way, and am about to start on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.focalpress.com/books/photography/the_photographer39s_mind.aspx?cat=98&amp;amp;sub=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Photographer's Mind&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So basically: don't let being worried about lack of knowledge keep you from getting started. Mistakes are great to learn from, and if you're busy researching, you can't make any.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-20T15:43:07.040" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T15:43:07.040" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5849" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5845" CreationDate="2010-12-19T20:15:23.350" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't worry about additional lenses and so forth. Several long and very distinguished careers in photography have been made entirely with a single format and the standard lens for that format (50mm for 35mm, 80mm for 6x6). Concentrate on getting the technical aspects together: focus; exposure; and composition. Learn to see what the picture will look like before you take it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have to go against the &quot;practice with a digital&quot; advice -- it's too forgiving, and there are too many things in the loop that will try to fix things for you. Those are hugely beneficial traits, but not if you are trying to learn control over the medium. You may want to use the digital camera to take important pictures until you have the film camera under control, but as long as you can afford the supplies and processing, make your mistakes on film if you can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The closer you can get to doing it &quot;right&quot; at the moment of exposure, the less damage you'll have to do to the picture in order to realise your vision in post-production. These days, you'd need to be a bit of an end-to-end fanatic -- that is, you'd do everything except manufacture the film (and maybe the paper) yourself -- to do serious small-format photography with film. Unless you're planning on moving to large format at some point, the economic reality is pointing at the probability that your film foray will be nothing more than an excellent training exercise for digital mastery. Film photography is going to become a &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; expensive niche in the not-too-distant future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T20:15:23.350" />
  <row Id="5850" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5852" CreationDate="2010-12-19T20:29:21.137" Score="-1" ViewCount="130" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wasn’t to get into photography; i have been plating with the manual settings on my canon point and shoot for a few months for various scene types and low light. Also a year ago i purchased a Nikon d90 but, but regretfully, lost my job soon after and gave it back due to finances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now things have stabilized and i want to get back on the hoarse. I know the d90 is a great camera but it’s kind of old and there have many new comers to the dslr game since then. I love the way the d90 felt as opposed to lower end dslr cameras that felt like plastic toys from a toy store.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should i get something now or my dream would be to get the d90 successor when it comes out... does anyone know when that will be?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also i want to have either a Nikon or cannon, no other make please.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;they type of shooting i want to focus on is low light, controlled depth of field, portraits, and family/ kids... that move fast so burst mode and sport mode is needed here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any thoughts?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="1819" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-19T20:44:10.143" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T21:16:17.310" Title="getting into photo- need cam. advice (1,000 - 1,500$)" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;low-light&gt;&lt;camera-suggestion&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="5851" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-19T20:34:44.773" Score="3" ViewCount="278" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am thinking about doing some more HDR photos and thinking about the software side.  I have CS5 but have never been happy about the speed or the quality of the final images.  I have heard about Imagematix and like what I see.  Any other ideas or suggestions for OS X?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use Lightroom for my primary editing so integration with it would be a bonus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1856" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-19T21:42:25.860" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T22:30:40.870" Title="What are the better HDR software apps for the mac?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;hdr&gt;&lt;macintosh&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="5852" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5850" CreationDate="2010-12-19T20:57:58.340" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A D90 already exists: it's Nikon D7000.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Burst mode is up to 6 shoots per second.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;39 points auto-focus is also much better than in D90.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Noise seems to be better than on a D90 when shooting at higher ISO, but you have to look at different reviews to compare both and find what to expect.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is that it costs approx. $1 100 - $1 200. You can buy it with a 18-105mm kit lens, but the lens quality is quite low. A 18-200mm VR2 is much better for D7000, but this lens is about $700.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My recommendation is to get a better lens with a cheaper body; so maybe a used D90 with a better lens is a way to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2236" LastEditorUserId="2236" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-19T21:16:17.310" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T21:16:17.310" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="5853" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-19T21:12:14.830" Score="5" ViewCount="151" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've just been given a Sigma EF-500 DG ST flash unit. I've not really had much experience using flash, how can I get started? Are there any good learning resources?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="482" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T18:14:46.640" Title="I've been given a flash head, how do I start using it?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5854" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5853" CreationDate="2010-12-19T21:30:56.227" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; some good learning resources. I'm sure others will point them out. :) I want, though, to give you some background on the flash you have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sigma makes flashes that are &quot;system dedicated&quot; — there's different versions made for Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Sigma, or Sony. You can use it on the &quot;wrong&quot; brand (Sony excepted — they're weird) but will only get the most basic functionality — it will fire at full power, or at ¹⁄₁₆th power, depending on how you've got it set. And, without specific-brand communication with the camera, it won't zoom (to deliver more powerful light at narrow focal lengths). Or, depending on the combination, it &lt;em&gt;might not fire at all&lt;/em&gt; -- a weird quirk of the Sigma &quot;ST&quot; models.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A more advanced model would give more manual control, but this is the entry-level model. On the plus side, Sigma's entry-level models are quite powerful (usually no less powerful than their higher-end models).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming you do have it matched to your camera, the camera does all of the intelligent work — tells it where to zoom, tells it how bright to be, and etc. If you want to leave auto modes, you're limited to that very simple all-or-¹⁄₁₆th manual choice (although the zoom should still work). And if you want to tell the flash to provide more or less light, you're limited to whatever flash exposure compensation settings your camera body provides.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's no fancy features like wireless or high-speed sync or stroboscopic effects, or even moderately-common wishes like second-curtain sync. And because of some design decisions, it won't work with many (most? all?) third-party radio trigger systems (or even simple remote cable solutions).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's nothing wrong with this — it's really a good entry-level flash — but you'll definitely benefit from understanding the limitations of what you've got. &lt;em&gt;(Revision: okay, actually, there may be something wrong with this, because it's not very flexible. It is very much an auto-mode flash, and is particularly poor as a manual-control flash, which means a lot of the standard basic flash advice doesn't apply. Particularly, it &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101-start-here.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;isn't very good for Strobist use&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, one more thing: if you have a recent camera model, you may need to send the flash back to Sigma for a firmware upgrade (free, but you pay to ship it there).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-20T18:14:46.640" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T18:14:46.640" />
  <row Id="5855" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5851" CreationDate="2010-12-19T21:35:15.267" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been using Photomatix Pro version 3 for a while. It's good, but a bit geeky and doesn't really help you find a good image. I've been experimenting iwth Nik Software's HDR Efex and it's a nice step forward but I'm not yet ready to commit to it. I'm just starting to test Photomatix 4 to see whether i'll move forward with it or Nik's software. Nik has a demo you can download and try out. I like it's integration with Lightroom, but on my Mac I found it a bit laggy. Probably not surprising given how much data is being manipulated,a nd less laggy than Photomatix 3. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Okay, just did a quick test with photomatix 4. Initial thought -- definitely a step up from photomatix 3; still kinda geeky. Faster than HDR Efex by Nik but not as user friendly. The program seems to turn out images more on the &quot;grunge&quot; side by default (not a suprise given Trey Ratliff is an advisor) but you can tone it down. I'm going to experiment more, but right now, I'm (surprisingly enough) preferring Photomatix over HDR efex. I'm a big fan of Nik's software, I didn't expect that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some quick samples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;unprocessed image:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/chuqui/5207965359/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/chuqui/5207965359/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;image out of HDR Efex Pro:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/chuqui/5208563906/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/chuqui/5208563906/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;image out of Photomatix 4:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/chuqui/5275434248/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/chuqui/5275434248/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;now, don't consider any of these &quot;final&quot; (and the subject matter isn't great, but it was handy). I tried to image them to the same general feel (i.e. &quot;my bias&quot; vs. the program's inate bias on how it ought to be rendered). comparing them, I think I desaturated the phtomatix more. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both are nice tools. HDR efex is more user friendly, I think the rendering tool in Photomatix is more mature, at least on initial tests, and faster. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastEditorUserId="705" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-19T22:10:06.423" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T22:10:06.423" />
  <row Id="5856" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5845" CreationDate="2010-12-19T22:39:59.093" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;kenrockwell.com has lots solid info about the basics, technical concepts and what kit to buy etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that although having the best camera you can afford is really helpful, you can learn to take good photos with even the most basic device. The skill of being able to compose the picture is the most important. The digital camera you have will enable you to gets of lots of practice doing this while you save up for the better camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2742" LastEditorUserId="2742" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-20T15:28:03.007" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T15:28:03.007" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5857" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5853" CreationDate="2010-12-19T22:57:50.083" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best place to start is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strobist&lt;/a&gt; website. I could spend hours and hours typing up stuff and giving you my experience, but the Strobist is the place to get started on. It's all free, with explanations, and &quot;assignments&quot; designed to help you learn. It's the best, free, resource I know of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T22:57:50.083" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5858" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5853" CreationDate="2010-12-19T23:14:02.683" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are probably better guides, but here's the very basics:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Get the flash off the camera, if at all possible. There are several ways to do this, that range from remote triggering systems to extender cables and poles, but get it off if possible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you can't get it off, try a technique called bouncing the flash. Basically point the flash straight up (Or at any other white surface), and it will give some interesting effects.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you are shooting in a situation where the flash is the main source of light, I suggest you shoot in manual mode, assuming your flash has ETTL or similar system (See mattdm's post). If you are shooting outdoors and want a fill flash effect, shoot in Av mode. Just be careful about the shutter speed;-)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope these tips help!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2010-12-19T23:14:02.683" />
  <row Id="5859" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5853" CreationDate="2010-12-20T01:01:45.233" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;@John Cavan pointed out the Strobist. I'd add Syl Arena's &lt;a href=&quot;http://speedliting.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Speedliting&lt;/a&gt;. You'll get great advise there as for flash techniques and accessories.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T01:01:45.233" />
  <row Id="5860" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-20T01:05:45.180" Score="-3" ViewCount="716" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am planning to buy an entry level DSLR . According to my budget, I was thinking about Canon T2i or Nikon 3100. Which is a better buy (based on price and performance?)? Saw an ad that has Canon T2i starter kit with EF 75-300 mm lens. So wondering about the extra lens- if it is a good lens than EF 55-200 mm.&#xA;Also was wondering about video quality too (which one has better performance).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2743" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T11:34:26.393" Title="Is Canon T2i better than Nikon 3100? Does EF 75-300 mm Canon lens have Image stabilizer quality? Is this is better lens than EF 55-200?" Tags="&lt;slr&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="5861" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5860" CreationDate="2010-12-20T02:03:19.327" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Differences between entry-level DSLRs nowadays are not very significant. The biggest issue is choosing which brand because that will tie you in to the lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other thing that is very important is handling, they each hold and feel different. I know the T2i is more advanced in many ways but personally the D3100 is more ergonomic to me, you may find out that it's the same or not for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my suggestion is to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Check which lenses each one has and see which ones you like better.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Try both in a store, shooting at eye-level.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, don't cripple the camera. Say NO to kit lenses. Choose your own, something that fits your needs and is of quality. You may want a fast portrait lens or a versatile zoom for travel, or something long... it depends on your style and subjects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When budgeting, you should have spend a good chunk on the lens. If you can't, get a cheaper camera. The worst mistake people do these days when buying a DSLR is not keeping enought money to buy a good lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T02:03:19.327" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5862" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5795" CreationDate="2010-12-20T04:10:46.150" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not most important, but definitely worthy of consideration is the harddrive where you want both lots of space and fast access.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If you have lots of RAM&lt;/em&gt;, an ideal disk performance/cost balance is to have a current generation SSD Boot drive (aim for 80GB+), and a larger spinning disk storage drive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;also more information on scratch disks (and other things) from &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/09/how-to-set-up-a-great-photoshop-machine.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Nack&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Disk: Use a separate disk for Photoshop scratch. If you spend a lot of time opening / saving large data files, another separate disk for data files will speed that up. Faster disks are better. RAID0 is faster. SSD is faster yet. RAID0 of SSDs is fastest but super expensive. If you have plenty of RAM (meaning your Efficiency readout is 95% or more), separate/faster disks for scratch provide minimal benefit. If Efficiency readout is low, a separate SSD for Photoshop scratch will be a big win. SSD boot volume will speed booting and app launch, but not Photoshop operations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="416" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T04:10:46.150" />
  <row Id="5863" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-20T04:37:56.473" Score="1" ViewCount="127" Body="&lt;p&gt;My wife has her heart set on the Nikon D3100, so I'm researching the best place to buy it, as well as what I should get with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003ZYF3LO?&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Amazon.com has the camera&lt;/a&gt; for $631.18, which is the best price I've seen to date, and they give a free camera bag of I dunno how good quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the essential accessories for someone getting their first DSLR? She loves taking nighttime photos with her current (point and shoot) camera so I'd like to get her a lens for that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should I be looking to get a service plan as well? The sales rep at the camera store tried pushing their 3 year warranty/service plan for something like $300 that'll take care of all repairs and maintenance of the camera, but for half the price of the camera itself, I'm not sure how worth it that is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for any pointers!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2744" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T04:46:26.033" Title="Where to buy a D3100" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;nikon-d3100&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="5864" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5863" CreationDate="2010-12-20T04:46:26.033" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You really have a few different questions here... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For &lt;strong&gt;accessories&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/172/what-are-must-have-accessories&quot;&gt;check out this post&lt;/a&gt; which has quite a bit of good information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for &lt;strong&gt;where to buy&lt;/strong&gt;, Amazon usually has great prices and is quite reputable.  Other popular online vendors include &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;B&amp;amp;H Photo&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adorama.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adorama&lt;/a&gt;.  Be wary of companies that offer deals that seem too good to be true - they often are.  There are a number of companies that offer gray-market imports at cheap prices but then forcefully try to upsell you on an accessory package.  If you end up looking at a vendor that you haven't heard of previously, do some research before giving them your credit card number.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to &lt;strong&gt;service plans&lt;/strong&gt;, it's a judgement call but I generally don't bother.  Any of the cameras will have a decent warranty and as a professional I have my gear insured against accidental damage.  Some folks like them for the peace of mind, but if you're looking at a $600 camera, paying 50% of that price for a warranty seems quite steep.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope she enjoys the camera!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T04:46:26.033" />
  <row Id="5865" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5845" CreationDate="2010-12-20T06:46:30.603" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer to a really good question is usually &quot;It depends.&quot;  It depends how serious you are, what kind of photography or art are you interested in ... is this personal, about connecting with Dad [through his old Sears KS-2 camera]?  For the most part, you need to take pictures in order to complement your serious research, not take them &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; your research.  A really good entry level DSLR [with sufficient memory so that you can take thousands and thousands of JPEG+RAW pictures] is the best way to learn before starting to photograph more with film, with classic gear and more exotic artistic methods. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Complement your experience from taking lots of photos with information from good books and websites, but there's really no substitute for seeing the results of lots of changes in your technique and lot of different settings and LOTS of pictures ... if you really get into it, you could learn more in a year with a DSLR than you'd learn in a lifetime of taking film pictures and waiting for them to develop.  A decent entry-level DSLR is not so much a camera as much as it is a photographic learning tool.  A DSLR  allows you gain to experience at a highly accelerated rate in an affordable manner. You will be better able to fully appreciate the artform that authors, teachers, other photographers, especially the old masters are trying to convey.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What's changed in the few months, is that it is now possible to get a pretty awesome DSLR and everything you need to get started for less than $1000 ... Amazon is pretty aggressive on prices, B&amp;amp;H Photo and Video in NYC probably can't be matched for depth of knowledge / service.  Before you drop a few hundred dollars and go down the wrong path with the wrong DSLR, do your homework, read as many &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/default.asp?view=rating&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;good, well-written professional reviews&lt;/a&gt; as you can.  A great entry level DSLR like the Canon EOS Rebel T2i is probably a good benchmark to compare others against -- this is not an endorsement; but it'd be tough to do a lot better than the T2i and you could do a lot worse ... the best advice is to check around and compare ... there are professional photographers who swear by other brands.  For example: you might want to spend some time reading what ChaseJarvis has to say on his blog about gear and workflows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hang on to your classic camera ... after you've mastered everything a DSLR can teach you, there are probably a lot of things you'll be ready to try with an older camera and older gear that might require some tweaking or repair, different techniques in the darkroom,  etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2745" LastEditorUserId="2745" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-20T07:15:35.830" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T07:15:35.830" />
  <row Id="5866" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5860" CreationDate="2010-12-20T07:05:03.300" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as the Canon vs Nikon debate, basically look at your friends, see what kind of a camera they have, and go with that brand. That way if you want to, you can borrow lenses, or get some help with things. The cameras are quite similar, so you're not going to find much of substance to make a decision. There are some fairly significant differences at the highest end, but that's minor compared to what kind your friends shoot with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 75-300mm lens is well known to be poor quality, stay away from it if you can. Get a 70-200mm L4.0 if you need zoom, I've got one and it's great! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T07:05:03.300" />
  <row Id="5867" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5879" CreationDate="2010-12-20T10:27:17.790" Score="7" ViewCount="413" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here in the Netherlands, it's been snowing quite a log the last few days. This is something special here, especially this time of year, so I went out and shot a few pictures. It was a cloudy, overcast, dark day, so the light was awful. The images I shot, therefore, are also a bit awful :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some samples of the pictures as I shot them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/gnDWb.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/1dkHV.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/1cmmu.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are the processed versions. My girlfriend says I've completely overdone it and the images look rubbish now. What do you think?:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Rn8tx.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/9Yaa0.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/LRygn.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How would you process them? If interested, the original raw files are here:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://emle.nl/forumpics/photoquestions/sheep_master01.CR2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;file 1, all sheep&lt;/a&gt; - &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://emle.nl/forumpics/photoquestions/sheep_master02.CR2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;file 2, sheep closeup&lt;/a&gt; - &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://emle.nl/forumpics/photoquestions/sheep_master03.CR2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;file 3, the lake&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: I've uploaded some more pictures on my blog. I've tried to process them using the tips here (which in most cases means turning down saturation quite a bit) but I still find it very hard to get a pleasing result. If time and weather permits, I'll do the same again, but on a less cloudy day. Oh, my blog about this: &lt;a href=&quot;http://emle.nl/2010/12/21/sneeuw-in-nederland/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://emle.nl/2010/12/21/sneeuw-in-nederland/&lt;/a&gt;  (in dutch)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2435" LastEditorUserId="2435" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-21T22:49:34.057" LastActivityDate="2010-12-23T23:18:18.180" Title="Post processing questions for difficult (for me) image" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;apple-aperture&gt;&lt;color-correction&gt;" AnswerCount="5" />
  <row Id="5868" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5860" CreationDate="2010-12-20T10:31:14.007" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I really, really like the T2i -- I agree with its stellar reviews.  You will find that the Nikon D3100 is really awesome camera, too.  I would I learn something if that anyone could explain to me why one camera is definitively better than the other OR why one brand/company is better than the other. You probably should look at the larger brand/company issue here because of the way lenses will tend to lock you into to one company or the other ... in the future, &lt;strong&gt;do you want to own several Canon DSLRs or several Nikons?&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not believe in the old adage that &quot;you get what you pay for&quot; anymore ... especially here .. these companies have a big incentive to &quot;buy the business&quot; in the entry-level DSLR segment, so price is not a good signal of value.  Technically, these are pretty equivalent cameras, so the &quot;performance/$&quot; edge would go to Nikon right now.  The parent companies are also pretty much equivalent as far as I can tell; I'm not sure who the long-term winner will be.  Canon Inc is a larger company with more of the global DSLR market  than Nikon Corporation, but until the T2i Nikon was taking market share from the stodgier Canon.  Financial performance of the two companies over the last decade has been roughly equivalent; it's not like choosing between Ford or Chrysler in terms of which company will most likely be around in 10 or 20 years.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For whatever it's worth -- Canon produces its own image sensors; while Nikon buys its sensors from Sony.  There can be advantages on either side of that.  Before the T2i, Nikon was more focused, executing better.  What seems clear is that Canon &quot;woke up&quot; and understood the need to use its scale to develop a better sensor and to launch cameras like the T2i at a price point that make their entry-level cameras better than Nikon.  In turn, Nikon has introduced a lower price D7000 (with its D3100) because of the success of the Canon T2i this year which was a reaction to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digitalphotographywriter.com/2009/11/canon-and-nikon-2008-market-share-past.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;several years of losing market share to Nikon&lt;/a&gt; especially in mid-range DSLRs.  After the introduction of the D3100, I'd be really amazed if Canon did not counter with a lower price on its T2i OR meet the threat with a technical improved &lt;em&gt;T2ii.&lt;/em&gt;  These companies must battle aggressively in the entry-level DSLR space because of what the customer's brand choice now means for locking that customer in [and maybe locking in a customer's friends/family members] for life.  If your particular purchase is price-driven, check the price or for a new EOS Canon offering when you buy -- don't assume that the current ratio will hold.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for HD video, I do not understand why either would have a noticeable edge. Both have a large enough sensor with sufficient depth of field to offer exceptionally high-quality digital video [better than HD video cameras].  That assumes that mobility and focusing / re-focusing of shots is not a consideration.  These cameras would offer great video quality for fixed shots (e.g. staged interviews) with camera on a tripod; they would not be so great for capturing the action where the videographer has to jump around and/or continually refocus to capture the action.  This could mean that ergonomics or comfort-level might matter a bit here, but I expect that set-up matters more -- each camera probably needs to mounted to a good tripod or or at least some sort of DSLR rig (from a vendor like Cinevate, Red Rock Micro and Zacuto) in order to get decent footage, really high-quality shots.  Canon's T2i could be perhaps infinitesimally better than the D3100, but only if Canon T2i is fitted with a better, more expensive lens that allows T2i to take advantage of its sensor's higher pixel count (i.e. pixel count can overcome noise).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Overall, I'd give an extremely small edge to the T2i for landscape or nature photos and a small edge to the D3100 for people and sports. I'd give another small edge to Canon as company [because it is the sleeping giant that finally &quot;woke up in 2010,&quot; stopped its market share slide with T2i, and it controls its destiny with its own image sensor development capability].  &lt;strong&gt;But if performance/$ matters [and it should for most people], I think the D3100 is the camera to buy right now.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2745" LastEditorUserId="2745" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-20T11:34:26.393" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T11:34:26.393" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5869" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5860" CreationDate="2010-12-20T10:38:14.047" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You should make a detailed comparison yourself, since  only you know what your needs and priorities are.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Go to Dpreview and study the following links  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Canon T2i&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_eos550d.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Specifications&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos550d/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Review&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Nikon 3100&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Nikon/nikon_d3100.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Specifications&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/previews/Nikond3100/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Preview&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This will give you enough information for you to make a choice that suits your needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T10:38:14.047" />
  <row Id="5870" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5867" CreationDate="2010-12-20T10:50:32.343" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think your first attempt is not to bad. Snow is always difficult in post processing and is similar to beaches. It's a bit of personal taste and perception, but snow usually isn't perfectly white and rather has a blueish tint to it since it reflects the sky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first thing I try to nail is the whitebalance when it comes to snow pictures. On top of that you're on the right way by tweaking the levels and contrast to give the pictures a bit more punch and make them look less dull.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This has nothing to do with the post and I don't want to be to judgemental, but I think the composition of the lake picture is not the strongest. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2642" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T10:50:32.343" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5871" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5867" CreationDate="2010-12-20T14:36:23.787" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lake:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I agree with haraldini that the lake looks good except for the tress are leaning a bit now. Did you &quot;correct&quot; the horizontal angle at all?  I think you should restore the horizon back to what it was - leaning trees cause a distraction.  I realize the angled lake shore does too but not as much as leaning trees:-)  This picture captures one thing I really like about winter pictures - the fact that there is colour - it is not all black, white and grey.  Your post processing on the reeds looks really good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sheep:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the sheep them selves look good too.  The show in front and behind looks a bit blown out.  Especially the foreground.  I would suggest applying a white balance adjustment to the whole picture.  Then adjust the levels for the sheep separate from the show.  For the snow you need to make sure you don't clip the highlights at all so you can still see the texture you have in the original image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2155" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T14:36:23.787" />
  <row Id="5872" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5867" CreationDate="2010-12-20T15:21:28.787" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One thing to consider when you have this kind of flat lighting and subdued colors is to go grayscale. Taking color out of the equation means you have the ability to control the contrast to enhance the textures and mood of the image without worrying about distorting the colors and worrying about the snow being too blue or yellow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, if you want to keep the color and the mood of cold, overcast day you could nudge the tones to enhance the overall blue cast (instead of trying to remove it) and perhaps consider even darkening the image a tiny bit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me, an important thing to remember is that you don't have to exactly reproduce what you saw -- if you want you can accentuate or create a mood with the toning and contrast of an image. And the most important thing to remember is that photography (lenses, software, cameras) isn't one thing that has to be done one certain way -- it is just a bunch of tools for you to use as you see fit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2228" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T15:21:28.787" />
  <row Id="5873" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5867" CreationDate="2010-12-20T15:39:57.930" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The amount of processing is always a matter of personal taste, you can see &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2010/12/on-assignment-brian-england.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;some people&lt;/a&gt; to prefer almost straight-from-the-camera images, while &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.cz/images?q=jill+greenberg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;others&lt;/a&gt; apply significant contrast changes to achieve their typical look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the matter of post-processing is always a matter of your personal taste (and of course how much do you want to go with what people around you prefer).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd personally like not so saturated colors, so my version of the sheep would like something like this:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/htB2D.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;sheep&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've kept the tone a bit cooler to leave the impressing of winter, and also removed the leftmost sheep as I felt it gives the image a bit more balance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And of course, the suggestion of your first two images was so strong I was not able to resist &lt;a href=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zAMaI.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; :-).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-20T19:55:02.753" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T19:55:02.753" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5874" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5851" CreationDate="2010-12-20T15:48:59.393" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://qtpfsgui.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luminance HDR&lt;/a&gt; is available for Mac as well as for other platforms. It is free and open source. The definition of &quot;better&quot; and &quot;quality&quot; may vary, but it doesn't cost money to try.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickriver.com/groups/qtpfsgui/pool/interesting/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr group with the samples&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T15:48:59.393" />
  <row Id="5875" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5845" CreationDate="2010-12-20T17:35:24.413" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For me the most impactful things I have done to improve my photography is talk with other photographers and exchange experiences. The best thing is to share an image to have critiqued and commented on. Digital makes this easier as you can post images and get comments on them, as well as having the EXIF info provide notes. Having said that taking good notes like Shizam said and then getting and viewing the pictures will help. If you are lucky enough to have a camera shop that does film processing (not a &quot;FotoHut&quot; a store with DSLR and the like) they will likely be willing to talk with you about your images if you phrase the question right. Such as, &quot;I was thinking of getting this image printed large when I took it, but now that I see it ..... what would you recommend to help?&quot; Some places will provide good insight as they know that having a customer that also sees the store as a resource they will keep coming back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope that helps. Also don't be afraid to take both a film and digital picture at the same time, great way to also learn the differences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1901" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T17:35:24.413" />
  <row Id="5876" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5877" CreationDate="2010-12-20T17:42:41.533" Score="3" ViewCount="327" Body="&lt;p&gt;i am set on getting a d7000 and am drooling already to get one. my only hurdle left is to determine whether the kit lens is good or if i should get the body only and put the 300$ difference between the body only and the kit towards a better lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the kit comes with a 18-105mm and from what i can tell is the same lens that comes with the d90 kit. i had the d90 kit and found i was not able to get good depth of field control!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;based on this i was thinking to get the body only and look at somethign like this 55-300mm for $350:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/729938-USA/Nikon_2197_AF_S_NIKKOR_55_300mm_f_4_5_5_6G.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;link text&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;also anyone have a suggestion for a versatile lens that's a step up from the kit lens i should look at. i want nice low light images and want a lens able to harness the iso range of the d7000 so that i can sit in my seat at a party and get nice shots close up to subjects on stage... as well as nice shots of my kids indoors and out, and portraits of my beautiful wife.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;thanks all !!!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T21:41:40.970" Title="im set on a d7000, now i need to figure out if i go kit or seperate lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5877" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5876" CreationDate="2010-12-20T17:49:44.963" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;55-300 is a telephoto zoom, not the most versartile lens for shooting indoors as it's relatively slow (doesn't let in much light). It's fine for outdoors/nature though. I would recommend getting something wider, especially if this is your only lens. 55mm on the d7000 is around a portraiture focal length, meaning it's usually used for close ups of people. If you attempt to shoot groups of people you'll find yourself backing off a long way to get everyone in!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately shooting parties and telephotos don't mix very well due to the combination of low light, small aperture, camera shake and limited flash range. I would definitely recommend you getting a 50 f/1.8 lens as well as / instead of the kit lens. The 50mm will let in about 8x as much light as the 55-300 or the kit lens (it's about three stops faster). This comes in very handy shooting at parties.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However the 50mm isn't the most flexible lens, it suffers the same problems as the 55-300 in that it's not wide enough for many uses. I would still get one if I were you, but pair it with a standard length zoom. I'm not that familiar with the Nikon range but I'm sure someone here could suggest a few options.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-20T17:56:44.317" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T17:56:44.317" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="5878" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1370" CreationDate="2010-12-20T18:18:17.557" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bojidar Dimitrov has a great article about unsharp mask &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.bdimitrov.de/essays/unsharp_mask/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. The article has example images and it also visualizes the parameters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="507" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T18:18:17.557" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5879" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5867" CreationDate="2010-12-20T18:27:28.653" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I cannot give an exhaustive answer for everything you could improve, but I think you have a problem I am frequently noticing in my own images: oversaturation. This is especially well visible in the third image - in my experience, dead reed does not have such a rich golden hue, especially on a cloudy winter day. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oversaturation happens frequently, because a) some tools are succeptible for it (darkroom + enhanced colour matrix on Nikon D90 images, but probably other cameras too), b) it is the side effect of some widely used techniques (changing your curve to an S-shape is usually recommended for correcting contrast, but it also increases saturation) and c) when you compare two images, which only differ in saturation, your impulsive preference is almost always for the more saturated one. (In case you ever wondered why TVs and monitors have such hideous colours when exhibited for sale, it is because traders turn up the saturation to max to exploit this cognitive defect). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Result: you run your image through your raw program, and it looks better. You run it through your image editor, change the curves, etc. Then take your result, compare it to the input, and like it more. But if open your own image after a week - or somebody else sees it - it looks completely unnatural. If you don't spot it outright, this may be, because your examples here are mild when compared to some of the transgressions I created before started paying attention. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cure: First, learn to look critically at your own pictures, explicitly paying attention to saturation. Some subjects can bear big deviation in saturation without losing their natural look. If an old house is made of reddish-brown stone, who is to know that the stone was more brown than red in reality? And sky often looks better with more saturation, because it often looks pale on pictures exposed for objects on the ground. On the other hand, there are some subjects which are sensitive to saturation differences. One of the best examples is human skin (or at least pink Caucasian skin, I don't have experience with other races). Oversaturate it, and the person will get a flushed red face with yellow blotches. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you decide that you want less saturation, just use the saturation slider (after you have applied other saturation-changing edits like curves). Here you have a problem: how much? Remember, with every decrease of saturation, your brain is telling it that the picture got more boring. So I find it best to use an objective tool. There is such a thing as a saturation histogram and when you oversaturate, it gets clipped on the right side, just like the RGB histogram gets clipped with overexposure. Get an editor which has this histogram (I find a linear version better than the logarithmic one, YMMV), and move the slider until it isn't clipped left or right. You cannot stretch it, so you probably want to put it as far to the right as possible without clipping, leaving the hole on the left. This is your natural look. Then think whether you want your picture to look like that or if you want to add some oversaturation for the image to be able to grab looks. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other things I notice beside oversaturation: An S-curve is generally suggested for images, because it emphasizes midtones and creates greater contrast, which is good for your typical gaudy image where a subject was exposed as 18%. This may work well in the second image, and the third definitely benefits from the increased  contrast, but it is a bad decision for the first. There you already have very good contrast between subject and background, no need to emphasize it further. But you are suffering from loss of details in both shadows and highlights.The shadows (the sheep's noses, and the wool of the black sheep) are not especially interesting in this image. So I'd just leave the shadows on their own, risking to drown them, and concentrate on bringing out more detail in the highlights (snow, which is very expansive here) at the expense of the midtones (sheep, which already exhibit lots of structural detail). I'd also up local contrast after that, so the wool doesn't get too flat (will help with the snow details too). If you have an equalizer, you can increase the middle-to-high frequencies too, but I don't think it is found in most editors. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a crude try on the first picture. The curve I used turned out to be quite strange, but it worked - you see the trampled snow behind the herd and the nuances in the virgin snow before them. I applied local contrast, but the equalizer crashed :( I also (sloppily) removed the distracting holes in the foreground, the sliver of puddle in the upper right corner and a suspicious dark spot from behind the herd (or do I spend too much time around male teenagers?). I didn't think to remove the left most half sheep by myself, but it turned out really good in che's version, so I shamelessly copied his idea. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the end, I'd say I got the snow better, che got the sheep better coloured, but somewhat dark for my taste, and your picture is not very natural, but well suited for advertising, or somewhere where cartoonish exaggeration is a plus. Pick your preferred look, or a combination of them, and make the picture the way you want it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/AnqaI.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;edit&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, you hooked me, I spent the evening playing with your pictures. BTW, it turned out to be a nice exercise - editing pictures when I don't know the intent with which they were taken. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So here is your sheep close-up. Not much changed, except they are now wool coloured, not rosy-peachy. (If your editor has options like vibrance, velvia, or natural skin tones, turn them off in the sheep pictures, they are meant for portraits) &lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/D4EAh.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And now my rendition of the lake. I am the first to agree that it is far from a natural look. But I loved the pattern in the water, and when I righted the trees and stretched the perspective to align the lake edge with the horizon, it got a much more prominent place in the composition. So I increased the contrast, smoothed the surface and fumbled with the tint until it had a dramatic steel look. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't expect everyone to agree with that last  proposal, it is quite radical. If you want to make this image natural, just reduce the saturation in what you've already done and cool the colour temperature back to what the camera measured, then you'll have a nice conservative edit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/o88Rv.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: a more detailed explanation on how I did the sheep. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;White balance: I set it to 5200 or 5300 K, I don't remember exactly which. If you think that makes it too gloomy, leave it at 5000 K. The warm look you have used is strange for an overcast winter sky. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Exposure: I turned it up as high as possible without clipping &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; channel, not just the combined RGB. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Curves: Here is where magic happens. This is a very close approximation of my curve. &#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Zl2RJ.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&#xA;There are two things to be said here. First, I custom-tailored the curve for the image, so please don't take this as advice how curves should look in general. Curves are one of the most important tools in photography, and if you want to be good, you have to understand them for both fine-tuning the S-curve for &quot;standard&quot; images and custom building a curve for difficult images like this one. I linked one of the best learning sources I know of in a comment below, read the part about curves (and if you don't know it, the part about histograms too). Second, the bump on the left is a &quot;kids don't try this at home&quot; kind of hack, you probably want to make the curve smoother there. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Exposure again. In theory, this shouldn't happen, but the Curves change was way too radical and made the image too dark. This time, I did it by image look, not by histogram, monitoring darkness vs. loss of snow detail and stopping at a point I could live with. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Local contrast (optional). This is not the same as Contrast. Not found in every editor. If yours has it, you can try it and look how it changes wool and trampled snow. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;(very optional) I think I applied a very slight graduated neutral density fake on the upper 30%, but don't remember for sure. Worth trying out for more detail, but can make it too gloomy. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Composition. I removed some distracting elements (in GIMP, not in the raw editor). If you don't know how, there are lots of tutorials on the web. It is probably best to choose one where the process is screencasted in a video. And while you are at removing, take away not just the big things, but also look out for some stray snowflakes on your lens which manifest as almost transparent grey spots. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's about it. I did not change saturation, but by the look of your images, it can be that your editor applies some saturation-related enhancements by default. If your sheep are orange instead of a muted beige, reduce the saturation using the slider. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2099" LastEditorUserId="2099" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-23T23:18:18.180" LastActivityDate="2010-12-23T23:18:18.180" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="5880" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5953" CreationDate="2010-12-20T18:31:58.190" Score="6" ViewCount="69" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm working on printing a number of lare, very bright backlight prints.&#xA;I need lots of lights that are affordable since I'll be needing quite a number of 'em.&#xA;My other concern is color reproduction, so I need light sources with a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_rendering_index&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CRI&lt;/a&gt; of 100 preferably. Any suggestions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2752" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-22T00:00:13.640" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T10:18:07.967" Title="Looking for affordable lights for a number of large, very bright light-boxes" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;hdr&gt;&lt;color&gt;&lt;backlight&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5881" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5876" CreationDate="2010-12-20T18:56:09.960" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have just upgraded from the D90 and the lenses that I used the most were:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) 50mm 1.4 - fabulous lens but as others have said limited if its your only lens&#xA;2) 35mm 1.8 - cheap as chips, quick and nice and wide -a very good alternative to the 50mm&#xA;3) 105mm 2.8 - wonderful macro lens, a touch too long for portraits&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and finally the one that lived on my D90 and also on my D700 - the 35-70mm 2.8. A great 2nd hand find, quick, great dof and is the lens I use the most in the studio&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 18-105mm is a good lens to start with, gives you a nice range but as you say it doesnt have a wonderful depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of telephoto's - I have a 70-300mm and probably used it only 3/4 times, I thought the extra zoom would be useful however I was very frustrated by the lack of dof - the only telephotos I have really liked so far has been the 70-200mm 2.8 (amazing but v pricey) and the new 28-300mm - has a better dof but is a pretty heavy lens for day to day usage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it was buying lens again - I would go for the 35-70mm and probably the 35mm 1.8&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;good luck :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;edited to add this link:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/5415/choosing-first-lens-for-nikon-d-90-body/5430#5430&quot;&gt;Choosing first lens for Nikon D-90 body&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1907" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T18:56:09.960" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="5882" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5884" CreationDate="2010-12-20T19:45:22.553" Score="3" ViewCount="183" Body="&lt;p&gt;im thinking about getting the d7000 body only and wanted to know how to tell an FX lens from a DX lens. I may upgrade in the future to an FX body and would like to have glass ready to go when i do. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;i was looking on the BH site and cant tell what lenses are FX and whats DX. any help on this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;i am an eager novice and lookign forward to learning and the future...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;thanks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T21:48:55.163" Title="how to tell a nikon or other dx lens from fx lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="5883" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5889" CreationDate="2010-12-20T19:49:46.387" Score="9" ViewCount="574" Body="&lt;p&gt;I basically decided on a whim (from reading this site, talking to some friends, and always admiring great photos) that I want to get into photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there disadvantages to starting out with a prosumer camera like the Nikon D7000? I know stuff will be more expensive, but will there also be greater frustration or complexity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I am the kind of person who tries to find reasons to justify the extra cost even when I know deep down that it's not necessary...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2746" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-17T19:37:26.767" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T03:34:30.370" Title="Are there disadvantages to a prosumer camera for a beginner, aside from cost?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5884" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5882" CreationDate="2010-12-20T19:51:10.883" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For Nikon, it will list with &quot;DX&quot; in the name, otherwise its a FX lens.  For example, on the B&amp;amp;H page, it lists the 35mm DX as &quot;AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX Lens&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Sigma lenses that work with Nikon, its the &quot;DC&quot; that indicates a DX sized lenses.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Tamron lenses that work with Nikon, its the &quot;Di II&quot; that indcates a DX sized lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it doesn't have one of those, its a normal, &quot;FX&quot; sized lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(And realize that FX lenses will work with the D7000, as well as the DX lenses) .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T19:51:10.883" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5886" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5882" CreationDate="2010-12-20T19:58:20.163" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;ps - there is normally quite a price difference as well :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;most of the FX lens have a better range of appeture as well - so its not a 1-2-1 match. however you can get a 55mm-200mm DX for about $200, the closest to that on the FX is the 70-200 2.8 and thats about $2500...so quite a significant difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1907" LastEditorUserId="1907" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-20T21:22:36.843" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T21:22:36.843" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="5887" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5876" CreationDate="2010-12-20T20:35:26.503" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Others have talked about various fixed focal length lenses that are good choices for depth of field control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of your requirements is a pretty tall order for a single lens. For flexibility consider the 16-85 lens.  That lens covers a lot of useful focal lengths.  However it does not satisfy your desire to have better depth of field control.  I personally have not used the 16-85, but on my film camera I used the 24-120 and the focal length range is really good for general shooting. You can also consider the 17-55 f2.8 which would give you better depth of field control and a pretty good focal length range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2155" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T20:35:26.503" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5888" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5883" CreationDate="2010-12-20T20:42:52.603" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While you'll likely spend more money with a DSLR system (if you get into it you'll end up spending more money on lenses and accessories than you do on the body), the only real disadvantage is probably the increased cost (when compared with a point-and-shoot camera).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another downside is that a DSLR has the potential to be more complicated, but I actually see this as a positive thing because you'll have the option to get into the various manual controls and learn more about the technical aspects of photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T20:42:52.603" />
  <row Id="5889" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5883" CreationDate="2010-12-20T20:43:32.773" Score="18" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On the contrary, I think these cameras are &lt;em&gt;better&lt;/em&gt; for beginners, if your intention is really to &lt;em&gt;begin&lt;/em&gt; — that is, to start from here and (as you say) get into photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lower-priced entry-level cameras concern themselves with automatic modes, and ways of making the camera work without any thought from you. The biggest example is scene modes, which basically say &quot;You want to take a picture of that? No problem! Turn the camera to &lt;code&gt;that mode&lt;/code&gt;, and I'll handle the rest.&quot; And then what they do is a black box operation, from which it's hard to learn.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the complexity in higher-end cameras is there to make it easier for you to tell the camera what to do. You get separate dials for aperture and shutter speed, and a quick way to set ISO. You'll get a top LCD screen so you can glance down to see settings without turning on the distracting, bright, badly-placed main rear LCD screen. You get an easily-accessible metering mode switch, so you can use the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4687/&quot;&gt;right metering mode for the situation&lt;/a&gt;. (On entry-level cameras, this is usually an option buried in the menu, making a set-and-forget thing.) There will be more settings you can customize, and one or more &quot;user modes&quot; which you can &lt;em&gt;define&lt;/em&gt;, rather than trusting the camera to guess.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And on top of all that, you get a more solidly-built camera, and a better viewfinder, and (depending on model) the ability fine-tune autofocus on a per-lens basis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, while it's certainly not necessary to get into photography, it's definitely &lt;em&gt;nice&lt;/em&gt;. And there's some certain threshold features that, once you're used to, you probably would never dream of living without. (The dual control dials, for example.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T20:43:32.773" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="5890" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5883" CreationDate="2010-12-20T20:43:52.467" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Other than all the normal caveats that apply to picking a platform (you'll probably end up spending more on lenses and accessories than you will on a camera body, so choose a body with that in mind), I can't think of too many pitfalls of starting with a prosumer body if you're going to go with a DSLR.  These cameras all have an &quot;auto-everything&quot; mode, and they'll do a fine job in that mode while you're learning about all the other options at your disposal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;About the only real detriment of these higher-end cameras is weight, so as always, it's best to go handle a couple of cameras before you make a decision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T20:43:52.467" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5891" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5895" CreationDate="2010-12-20T21:08:54.350" Score="25" ViewCount="2009" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tonight is the night of a lunar eclipse, and I'm curious, what kinds of tips do you guys have for photographing one? I'd like solutions for both consumer-grade equipment, as well as DSLRs, so that everyone can benefit from the information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those who would like to see the eclipse, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2010_lunar_eclipse&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T20:52:48.430" Title="How do you photograph a lunar eclipse?" Tags="&lt;astrophotography&gt;&lt;moon&gt;&lt;night-shooting&gt;&lt;eclipse&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="5892" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5876" CreationDate="2010-12-20T21:41:40.970" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want wide-angle, zoom, the ability to limit DOF and affordable all in the same lens, you'll probably have to go to a third-party aftermarket lens. You won't be able to get anything like the wide-open performance of a prime lens, but Sigma has a 24-70mm f/2.8-4.0 and a 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 that might come close to what you want. And if you don't mind &quot;breaking&quot; at the 50mm level, investing in an 18-50mm f/2.8 now and adding a 70- or 80-200mm later will get you a kit that will cover most of your needs. (That said, the 35mm and 50mm primes are well worth having.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T21:41:40.970" />
  <row Id="5893" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5882" CreationDate="2010-12-20T21:48:55.163" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My site &lt;a href=&quot;http://lenshero.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://lenshero.com&lt;/a&gt; (shameless plug) aims to make this easy, for example you can browse &lt;a href=&quot;http://lenshero.com/lenses/lens-for-nikon-fx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;all lenses for Nikon FX&lt;/a&gt;, or &lt;a href=&quot;http://lenshero.com/lenses/nikon-d7000-lens&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;browse lenses for the Nikon D7000&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="934" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T21:48:55.163" />
  <row Id="5894" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5883" CreationDate="2010-12-20T22:02:40.360" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The main disadvantage is that the best camera is the one you have with you -- if the camera you buy isn't something that is easy to carry around, you will tend not to. The ability to carry the camera with you is why (back in the film days) people stuck with rangefinder and even simpler cameras after SLRs became popular.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is even a photography book called &quot;The Best Camera Is The One That's With You&quot; that is filled with nothing but pictures taken by the author with an iPhone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also the &quot;EVIL&quot; class of camera: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrorless_interchangeable_lens_camera&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrorless_interchangeable_lens_camera&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Note -- I have a big, heavy DSLR but you did ask for the disadvantages)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2228" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T22:02:40.360" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5895" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5891" CreationDate="2010-12-20T22:19:15.383" Score="34" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've only shot one, and that was with my Canon 350D with only a 17-85mm lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that I didn't have a particularly long lens, I knew before I went out that I wouldn't be able to get any brilliant close-ups.  What I decided beforehand was that some of collage was the most likely option for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ended up with just over 20 individual frames of the moon at different stages of the eclipse, and then I used Photoshop to place all those shots in one image, showing the progression of the moon during the eclipse.  You can see the results here if you're interested: &lt;a href=&quot;http://gallery.ildica.com/v/Huntsbury/Eclipse/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://gallery.ildica.com/v/Huntsbury/Eclipse/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference in exposure between full moon and full eclipse is massive.  E.g. one shot of the full moon that night was 1/200, ISO100, F11, while one fully eclipsed was 4s, ISO800, F5.6, which was about as long an exposure as I wanted before the movement of the moon would be apparent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the exposure challenges, I'd recommend shooting raw, which gives you plenty of latitude for adjustments after.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/gXvqn.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1124" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T22:19:15.383" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5896" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5907" CreationDate="2010-12-20T22:27:51.040" Score="3" ViewCount="236" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am currently picking out a flash (speedlite) for Canon XSI. There is a number of third party flashes available from manufacturers other than Canon. They all claim to be Canon compatible but I have my doubts. I don't think any of those flash units work as great as ones made by Canon. I would like to know your opinion on the subject based on your expertise; what brands, models of third party speedlites work the best with Canon? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most important features for me, that the flash must support are auto mode, zooming and e-ttl. For comparison it should be close in features to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/speedlite_flash_lineup/speedlite_430ex_ii&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Speedlite 430EX II&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2755" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T04:28:41.100" Title="Third party Speedlites for Canon XSI" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;canon-450d&gt;&lt;speedlite&gt;&lt;third-party&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="5897" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5898" CreationDate="2010-12-20T22:44:10.473" Score="3" ViewCount="191" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to educate myself and am immersing myself in everything photography-related. I'm picking up the concepts fast because I was a physics major in college (and thus have some background in optics) and am good with math.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For practice I offer free event, wedding, whatever photography, and can't get enough, plus I make loads of people happy who would otherwise not have photos of their events.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to diversify my lens arsenal (fast), and wanted to know how I can best come up to speed on lenses, their various attributes, and what they mean as far as how they translate to real world photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone have a simple quick-start guide on the subject?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking to solve some holes in my photo-taking and am find conflicting info on the web. Some say 50mm is good for landscapes and portraits, others say 75-200 is their go-to for weddings and events. I'm trying to make sense of all this and get it clear in my head to the point I can make the correct selection in my next lens purchase.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mainly, I'm looking for in-home or restaurant events — so, low light, people, and motion are involved. I'm a Nikon D7000 user.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Help me help myself....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-12T14:40:10.017" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T14:40:10.017" Title="Anyone got some good, simple introductory lens guides?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;education&gt;" AnswerCount="6" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="5898" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5897" CreationDate="2010-12-20T23:30:43.063" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is one very simple way of looking at things: the picture you want is the one where your position in relationship to your subject and the background makes the subject look the way you want. The length of the lens can &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; change the framing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason why something in the 85-105mm range for a full-frame 35mm camera is &quot;good for portraits&quot; is that it allows you to be three to eight feet away from the subject (a natural distance for social interaction) and get a head-and-shoulders to half-height sort of framing. There's nothing magical about the lens -- you'd get exactly the same picture if you used a 50mm from the same position and cropped afterwards -- including having the same depth of field at the same aperture and distance (modulo the effects of the physical layout of the sensor elements, which &lt;em&gt;very slightly&lt;/em&gt; changes the game in the digital world). And you'd have to throw away a lot of data as well, whether you're working in the digital or film world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The upshot is that the &quot;right&quot; lens is the lens that lets you take the picture you want to take with minimum cropping after the fact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2010-12-20T23:30:43.063" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="5899" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3699" CreationDate="2010-12-21T00:15:29.343" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;MetadataTouch can edit PNG metadata, but it is not free.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2756" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T00:15:29.343" />
  <row Id="5900" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5901" CreationDate="2010-12-21T01:03:23.883" Score="4" ViewCount="143" Body="&lt;p&gt;I see many &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?_dyncharset=ISO-8859-1&amp;amp;_dynSessConf=1413825147949156033&amp;amp;id=pcat17071&amp;amp;type=page&amp;amp;st=d7000&amp;amp;sc=Global&amp;amp;cp=1&amp;amp;nrp=15&amp;amp;sp=&amp;amp;qp=&amp;amp;list=n&amp;amp;iht=y&amp;amp;usc=All+Categories&amp;amp;ks=960&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;extra lenses on bestbuy.com&lt;/a&gt; sold with the Nikon D7000 I am interested in buying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are any worth it? Are they any good? And, since they bundle them, is the price better then buying the &quot;extra&quot; lens later on?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T08:50:14.610" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T08:50:14.610" Title="Does it make sense getting any of these &quot;extra&quot; lens packages?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;kit-lens&gt;&lt;bundles&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="5901" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5900" CreationDate="2010-12-21T01:09:24.970" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Those 'extra kits' are indeed cheaper than if you bought the camera + lenses separately, what you have to ask yourself is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;do I actually want that lens or am I just buying it because it comes in a kit?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Saving $200 on a lens you don't actually want isn't a good deal :)  Weather or not said lens is 'worth it' is entirely up to you, they are all 'consumer super zooms' so image quality will be on the lower end of the spectrum (yea get what yea pay for).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T01:09:24.970" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="5902" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5897" CreationDate="2010-12-21T02:37:06.627" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/guide_lens_basics.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here is a lens buying guide&lt;/a&gt; that starts with the basics of lenses and explains how to chose a lens according to different needs. It's aimed at beginners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T02:37:06.627" />
  <row Id="5903" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5897" CreationDate="2010-12-21T02:53:17.993" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could check out my new site (shameless plug): &lt;a href=&quot;http://lenshero.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://lenshero.com&lt;/a&gt;, it lets you see all lenses compatible with a camera, and browse by type, for example &lt;a href=&quot;http://lenshero.com/lenses/nikon-d7000-low-light-lens&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;low light lenses for the D7000&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="934" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T02:53:17.993" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5904" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5891" CreationDate="2010-12-21T04:04:44.977" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Taking a high resolution or close-up photo of a lunar eclipse is bound to disappoint. There usually isn't enough contrast to get a good image. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.iceinspace.com.au/63-608-0-0-1-0.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This article&lt;/a&gt; provides a description of three methods you can use. I've taken out a few of the key points here for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Short focal length telescope view&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use a wide field of view eyepiece on your telescope to get the entire moon in the frame. You can attach your camera to the eyepiece using a special adaptor. I've had some success just holding the camera up to the eyepiece without an adaptor.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Long focal length camera view&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Set your DSLR on a tripod. Zoom in as close as you can to frame the moon in your picture. Your exposure settings will need to change throughout the viewing. During totality (when the moon is completely covered by the shadow of the earth), you will need to use longer exposures (a few seconds each). Only a fraction of a second is required when the Moon is mostly lit up.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Wide-field camera view&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This works nicely when you have a great foreground to include in the image (e.g. trees, interesting architecture, ocean, mountain). Use a slow focal ratio (e.g. f/9 or higher) to get both the moon and the foreground in focus. You can then take these images and overlay them to show the progress of the Moon through the sky.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2763" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T04:04:44.977" />
  <row Id="5905" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5900" CreationDate="2010-12-21T04:22:40.930" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Best Buy is generally selling consumer grade lenses because they sell to average consumers. The lenses are okay, because Nikon makes a good lens, but most of them won't be the best lenses because the buyers of those won't be shopping for them at Best Buy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, having said that, the question boils down to your skill. Anybody with enough money can buy top of the line gear, but are they able to use it? I'm not saying this to impugn your skill, but given your recent questions, you would appear to be a newcomer to SLR photography so you should take a hard look at that before making major investments in equipment such as pro-grade lenses. For the vast majority of us, it's not an expense that makes any sense, great pictures are still to be had from the &quot;lowly&quot; consumer glass out there. Heck, I consider myself a reasonably advanced amateur and the closest I have to pro-grade glass is a 30 year old Vivitar f/2.8 100mm macro (which is considered to be one of the best macro lenses ever made) that is entirely manual other than the aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, don't worry too much about the lenses, they'll probably do you fine until your skill increases. However, don't assume that Best Buy has the best price, there are a ton of sources for Nikon lenses and a little shopping around is going to get you a better deal much of the time. What's more important is to figure out the kind of pictures you want to take and to buy lenses that assist in that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T04:22:40.930" />
  <row Id="5907" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5896" CreationDate="2010-12-21T04:28:41.100" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sigma flashes will do as claimed, so I think you're safe there. The only downside, from my experience, is that the interface for them is less then stellar. However, other than that, the flashes are very good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another, which is a cut above Sigma, is Metz. If Metz has claimed support for Canon, the flash will do what is advertised for it, the company has a long history and produces good gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, caveat time, I don't shoot Canon, I shoot Pentax. However, I have a Sigma flash and a Metz ring flash and both work great for me. So, I am extrapolating the experience there, but given that, I have little reason to doubt either. Pentax is a lesser known quantity versus Nikon or Canon, so if they got P-TTL working, I'd imagine that the similar from the big two were less of a problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T04:28:41.100" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="5909" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-21T09:33:47.710" Score="8" ViewCount="364" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a question about photo editing : What would be a trick to reduce the visibility of the white stains of the skin due to &quot;vitiligo&quot; (Vitiligo is a strange illness(?) that make the skin been totally white @ some places).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The editing method will effectively depend on the real natural skin color. In fact, it's a quite personal request : It's about my wife and she has white skin... ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually what I am looking for is an &quot;how-to-use&quot; a tool like the &quot;Bucket tool&quot; to fill the &quot;blank areas&quot; or any other tool or tip to smooth or reduce the color difference between the skin areas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2771" LastEditorUserId="2771" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-21T11:00:49.830" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T09:32:24.677" Title="How can I edit pictures of people that have vitiligo ?" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;color-correction&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5910" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5913" CreationDate="2010-12-21T10:22:52.977" Score="21" ViewCount="718" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the 'old days' I sometimes composed my photos diagonally, but I've come a cropper doing that in the 'modern' era, because there's not really any nice way to present it digitally. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this kind of photo going to die out? Do you still take them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1812" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T06:24:56.673" Title="Do you still take diagonal photos?" Tags="&lt;composition&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5912" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5883" CreationDate="2010-12-21T11:15:49.797" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Contrary to others, I don't think that the fact that a camera is complicated is a good thing for a beginner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;First reason&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When comparing a DSLR with a point-and-shoot compact camera, I would recommend the first one for every beginner who may want to become a professional photographer one day, and a second one for every person who just want to take family photos, without having to think about what she's doing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, when comparing a basic DSLR with a more advanced DSLR, I would strongly suggest a basic one for a beginner:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To learn photography, you don't need a $6000 Nikon D3x. &lt;strong&gt;The most basic DSLR would force you to learn how to take photos&lt;/strong&gt;, how to choose the aperture and the shutter speed, what is ISO, how ISO affects noise, what is the difference between RAW and JPEG, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you start with a complicated DSLR, you may be &lt;strong&gt;quickly discouraged&lt;/strong&gt; by photography in general.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's like learning how to fly a plane. You never start with a Boeing 747. Because it's just too complicate. Because there are lots of control panels and buttons. Because it can discourage. And finally because just by flying a two-seat Cessna, you learn pretty everything about how to fly a plane.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Second reason&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;More advanced DSLRs are expensive&lt;/strong&gt;. It means that you spend a lot of money while you're just a beginner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you succeed well in learning photography, in a few years, you will notice that your camera is a bit obsolete, or you need more lenses. If you spent all your money for an expensive DSLR from the beginning, &lt;strong&gt;you will have less money to spend in future for lenses/new camera body&lt;/strong&gt;. If, on the other hand, you had a basic DSLR from the beginning, you may easily upgrade to a more advanced DSLR and buy more expensive lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;My experience&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My first DSLR was a Nikon D60 with a 18-55mm non-VR kit lens. Currently, I have a recent D7000 with a few more advanced lenses. I'm glad that I've purchased a basic DSLR with a basic lens first. &lt;strong&gt;The DSLR options were easy to understand&lt;/strong&gt;, letting you to do everything manually at the same time, so it was a good choice for a person like me who used only point-and-shoot compact cameras before. With a &lt;strong&gt;small and light lens&lt;/strong&gt;, it was also easy to &lt;strong&gt;carry it with me everywhere, without attracting too much attention&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I started my DSLR experience with my actual DSLR and lenses, I think I would abandon photography quickly. It's heavy and big, and it's really discouraging to attract attention when you're just a beginner. It also has a huge amount of options, so you have to spend some time digging in a manual, instead of taking real photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2236" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T11:15:49.797" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5913" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5910" CreationDate="2010-12-21T11:19:29.780" Score="20" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I still compose diagonally on a regular basis when shooting bands, I find this maximises what I can get into the frame, and the resulting images work both mounted diagonally and in a regular upright orientation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/girl_of_prey_BOB_finals_03.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/half_a_dog_BOB_finals_04_matt_grum.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/girl_of_prey_BOB_finals_05.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I agree that presenting other images like this wouldn't work, for example if you do a diagonal composition of a shot with a horizon it will just look wrong. However a lot of digital photographers still regularly print their photos, maybe not as often as they should. Perhaps if more people adopted this form of composition people would be more inclined to print.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Motorsport is another area where diagonal compositions can be made to work really well (someone else's photo for a change):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.plexiweiss.de/resources/img/automotive/audi-motorsport-050625-0741.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;image (c) plexiweiss.de&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-21T17:32:45.437" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T17:32:45.437" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="5914" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5910" CreationDate="2010-12-21T12:44:29.347" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Maybe this is not entirely related, but abstract shots fit quite well with diagonals... :o)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/carregal/3051080798/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Diagonal 2 by Andre Carregal, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3050/3051080798_87d84391c3_m.jpg&quot; width=&quot;240&quot; height=&quot;180&quot; alt=&quot;Diagonal 2&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T12:44:29.347" />
  <row Id="5915" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5910" CreationDate="2010-12-21T12:45:47.687" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I said in a comment, I don't think it has ever worked for me (viewing these types of photos).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All it has ever done has made the viewer tilt there head to see what's really happening in the scene.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Portraits in particular may be taken at a moderate angle as it may serve to balance the height of two different subjects or to capture the off angle of the subject (they may be leaning or something).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my own band photography as an example, I rarely put a &quot;roll&quot; on my photos as it puts me off whenever I've seen it elsewhere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take the example above and compare it to a shot where no tilt is (photo quality aside):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/1poVW.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Marty from Finabah&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now as an example (of course, my opinion), here is a portrait I've taken where a moderate tilt has helped to frame the subjects where the environment is only a secondary part of the photograph.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/S78Bv.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Portrait&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it really has to do with the subject, not just &lt;em&gt;throwing a 45 degree tilt in for the hell of it&lt;/em&gt;. Take this shot as example. I think this personally works great as the subject (guitarist) is framed vertically even though he is in fact leaning backward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/gkl6V.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Rapids&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in my opinion, large tilts never work unless they are done to keep the subject framed properly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;More:&lt;/strong&gt; I think it actually also goes against the natural tendency for humans to remain upright for the most part of our lives. Do I go to a concert (keeping with the band photography) and look at the band with my head tilted?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastEditorUserId="609" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-21T22:34:39.690" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T22:34:39.690" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5916" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5910" CreationDate="2010-12-21T14:49:56.213" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Other than the issue of presentation, there's another thing to consider in the digital age. If you want to print a slanted film photograph turned to be straight (or vice versa), the only loss is the cropped corners/edges. If you rotate a digital file by an arbitrary angle, pixels have to be re-interpolated, which is inherently a very lossy operation. It's like running a blur filter over the whole thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That doesn't &lt;em&gt;break&lt;/em&gt; shooting in this way, but makes it a bigger decision. Of course, one can always keep the digital file as-is and turn and crop &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; printing, but that different from the workflow many people who shoot digitally are accustomed to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In response to Matt Grum's comment below: the test of rotating and then rotating back by the exact same amount doesn't show the whole problem, in that the operation causes blur, but that blur is largely reversible &lt;em&gt;if&lt;/em&gt; you do the &lt;em&gt;exact&lt;/em&gt; same thing in reverse. If you just leave the image rotated and continue to do other things (like, say, print), the loss is made permanent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-11T13:42:58.063" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T13:42:58.063" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="5917" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5924" CreationDate="2010-12-21T15:06:02.160" Score="7" ViewCount="357" Body="&lt;p&gt;I read on a this site: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/guide_lens_basics.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lens Buying Guide&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Focal-length determines the&#xA;  angle-of-view seen through a lens for&#xA;  a given sensor-size. With a full-frame&#xA;  sensor a lens gives the same&#xA;  angle-of-view as it would on a 35mm&#xA;  film camera. With a smaller sensor,&#xA;  the angle-of-view becomes smaller. The&#xA;  crop-factor, also called&#xA;  FLM (Focal-Length Multipler), is the&#xA;  ratio representing the difference. Say&#xA;  a lens gives a 90° angle-of-view on a&#xA;  full-frame DSLR such as the Nikon D700&#xA;  Nikon D700, then the same lens would&#xA;  give an angle of view of 60° on a&#xA;  D7000 Nikon D7000 because its FLM is&#xA;  1.5X.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Short focal-lengths show a greater&#xA;  angle-of-view compared to longer ones.&#xA;  Lens focal-lengths fall into broad&#xA;  categories according to the&#xA;  angle-of-view they give depending on&#xA;  the camera's sensor size. There are no&#xA;  official numbers, the table below&#xA;  shows the ranges used here and typical&#xA;  uses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In layman's terms, what is angle-of-view? Is it the same as focal length?&#xA;If not, how is it different? How is it used? Why do I need to know about it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T22:34:49.977" LastActivityDate="2011-05-29T13:38:35.820" Title="What is angle-of-view in a DSLR ?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;focal-length&gt;&lt;crop-factor&gt;&lt;angle-of-view&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="5919" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5917" CreationDate="2010-12-21T15:23:16.133" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Focal length is the property of lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Angle of view is essentially what its name says - the subset of space you can see, and it depends BOTH on focal length and frame size used. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Angle of view is what actually matters in practice, lens focal length is just more convenient to use as an equivalent value when frame size is fixed and well-known (like the standard 35mm frame). As a logical consequence, these days sensor size is usually mentioned together with lens focal length in order to get understanding of the angle of view used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1774" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T15:23:16.133" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5920" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5917" CreationDate="2010-12-21T15:30:54.593" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The angle of view is related to the focal length, and the size of the sensor in use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, for a 50mm lens on a 35mm sized sensor (or film), you'd have a field of view of 46° on the diagonal. As the focal length doubles, the field of view halves, so a 100mm lens on a 35mm camera has a field of view of 24° on the diagonal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you use a smaller sensor, you're effectively cropping the image down, so whilst the lens may produce an image good enough for a 35mm frame, a smaller sensor will ignore the parts that fall off the edge. This crop factor divides the angle of view, so that 50mm lens would have a field of view of about 31° on the diagonal if you were using an APS-C sized sensor. Alternately, and how most people think about it is the &lt;em&gt;equivalent&lt;/em&gt; focal length, had you been using 35mm, which would be case of multiplying the real focal length by your crop factor, so that 50mm lens on a D7000 is equivalent to a 75mm lens on a 35mm camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T15:30:54.593" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5921" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5923" CreationDate="2010-12-21T15:40:47.000" Score="7" ViewCount="259" Body="&lt;p&gt;can anyone clarify foe me the various terms used to describe depth of field?&#xA;there are so many its hard without a photo dictionary to relate in my head whats actually being said to me about the matter...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;as i understand it here are the two extremes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;what terms are used for no depth of field images (where everything is in perfect focus)?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;what terms are used for super small depth of field (where the nose is in focus and ears are blurry, background blurry and some foreground if present is bury)?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and what lens settings are used to obtain these two effects?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;thanks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T23:30:06.107" Title="what does small depth of field mean?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;" AnswerCount="6" />
  <row Id="5922" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5921" CreationDate="2010-12-21T15:46:07.297" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The depth of field is based on the focal length of the lens, and the width of the aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key thing to think about is that the aperture size is inversely proportional to the depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, keep in mind that a &lt;strong&gt;smaller&lt;/strong&gt; aperture number relates to a &lt;strong&gt;larger&lt;/strong&gt; aperture width. See: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3262/what-does-the-f-stop-printed-on-the-lens-refer-to&quot;&gt;What does the f-stop printed on the lens refer to&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;great calculator&lt;/a&gt; available that can help you visualize the depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T15:46:07.297" />
  <row Id="5923" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5921" CreationDate="2010-12-21T15:59:14.400" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The focus distance is the distance from your camera's sensor in which everything is in perfect focus. Unless you use a specialized tilt/shift lens, there is only one such distance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Objects closer and further than the focus distance are out of focus by some amount. The closer to the focus distance, the more in focus they are.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Depth-of-field is the range of distances where things are acceptably close to being in focus. This is not absolute and is inversely proportional to viewing size. In other words, the same photo has more depth-of-field when printed smaller.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Shallow depth-of-field means the depth-of-field is small which implies that things get quickly out of focus. Depth-of-field is made shallower using larger apertures (denoted by small F/numbers), using a longer focal-length (more zoomed-in) and using a larger sensor (For example, full-frame vs cropped vs compact-camera sensors).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Hyperfocal distance is the distance at which you can focus your lens to make things acceptably focused at infinity while maximizing depth-of-field. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/article.php?id=depth_of_field&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This short article&lt;/a&gt; explains it and includes a calculator to compute the hyperfocal distance depending on your camera and lens.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T15:59:14.400" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5924" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5917" CreationDate="2010-12-21T16:15:16.500" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In layman's terms (assuming a layman who knows some very basic geometry), imagine your nose as the apex of a triangle. The left side of the triangle is the left edge of your peripheral vision, and the right side is the right edge. The horizontal angle of view is simply the angle between those edges. (And the vertical angle of view is the same thing for up and down.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a human eye, this happens to be about 95°, but since your eyes move around unconsciously and your brain fills in the details, it feels much wider than that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The terms field of view and angle of view are basically interchangeable — angle of view is one way of measuring the field of view. (One could also say something like &quot;10 meters at 20 meters away&quot;... this describes different aspects of the same geometry, and with basic trig one can figure out one thing from the other.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the text you've quoted says, &quot;Focal-length determines the angle-of-view seen through a lens for a given sensor-size.&quot; This is also basic trig, and you can actually plot it out on a piece of paper and measure for yourself. Obviously with a lens this is a three-dimensional problem, but we can just consider the horizontal dimension and reduce it to two. (Imagine this as a top-down cut-away view of the world.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Draw a line 23.6mm long — the width&#xA;   of the sensor in your D7000 — in the&#xA;   center at the bottom of a blank piece&#xA;   of paper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the center of that line, draw a light&#xA;   perpendicular line out from that&#xA;   center dot out towards the middle of&#xA;   the page, so you have an inverted T shape. (This is for&#xA;   convenience. Think of it as &quot;the line towards what you're pointing the camera at&quot;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/rf6oe.png&quot; alt=&quot;Step 1 + Step 2: aps-c sensor with perpendicular guide line&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Measure from your sensor along the center line you just drew. Put a dot at 35mm. Label this &quot;35mm lens&quot;. This represents the pinhole aperture of an idealized 35mm lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now measure from your sensor along the center line. Put a dot at 50mm. Label this &quot;50mm lens&quot;. (And of course this represents the pinhole aperture of an idealized 50mm lens.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/3oRrx.png&quot; alt=&quot;Step 3 + Step 4: dots for lenses&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With your straightedge, draw a line from the left edge of your sensor line through the 35mm aperture dot, and continue all the way through and on to the edge of the page. Then do the same thing from the right edge of the sensor line. This should produce a big &lt;code&gt;X&lt;/code&gt; shape. Label both lines of the top cone of the X &quot;35mm field of view&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/PonRf.png&quot; alt=&quot;Step 5: APS-C angle of view with a 35mm lens&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do the same thing with the 50mm lens dot. Label this, of course, &quot;50mm field of view&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Z67bn.png&quot; alt=&quot;Step 6: APS-C angle of view with a 50mm lens&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, you can directly see that a shorter focal length produces a wider field of view. Anything that's within those lines will be in your picture, and everything outside will be out of frame. Note that the lens may project a much wider cone light that doesn't fall on the sensor — the lines you drew ignore that, since light that isn't recorded doesn't really matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you measure the angle, you should see that it's about 36.5° for the 35mm lens, and about 26° for the 50mm lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, two further experiments:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Choose some different focal lengths (15mm, 200mm) and see what those give you.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Z69Qc.png&quot; alt=&quot;Step 8: a 15mm lens&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Increase the size of the sensor line to 36mm, as in Nikon's &quot;FX&quot; full-frame cameras. Keep the line centered on the same dot, of course. Use your &lt;em&gt;same&lt;/em&gt; lens dots but draw new X lines to the larger left and right edge of the sensor. It's immediately apparent that this makes the field of view of the same focal length much wider. Notice that the 35mm on your D7000 gives roughly the field of view of the 50mm on FX — this is why people talk about &quot;equivalent&quot; lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/H2RVE.png&quot; alt=&quot;Step 10: Full-frame&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see that the lines for APS-C 35mm and &quot;Full-Frame&quot; 50mm aren't right on top of each other, as one might expect for an &quot;equivalent&quot;. That's because this breaks down a bit at macro distance. If you move back a few millimeters, it'll line up correctly (but change perspective ever so slightly). The lines are roughly parallel, though, so those few millimeters are still just a few millimeters across the room, where they're inconsequential. If you draw this on a really big piece of paper instead of this little on-screen one, that'll become clear. (And of course, they're not exactly parallel, because the lenses don't quite match the crop factor — 32.7777...mm and 50mm would be more exact. Ah, the real world, always getting in the way of explaining things simply.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This neatly (I hope) answers the question of the relationship between focal length and angle of view / field of view, and also explains the effect of different sensor sizes — and, as a bonus, shows how cropping is interchangeable with zooming (if you don't mind using less of your sensor).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update: as &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/5917/what-is-angle-of-view-in-a-dslr/12461#12461&quot;&gt;greg g points out&lt;/a&gt;, the math in the quote you've found is wrong. If you do the exercise above, you can clearly see that 1.5× crop factor doesn't turn a 90° field of view into 60°. (And you can see &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt;, which is the beauty of actually sketching out geometric constructions.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-29T13:38:35.820" LastActivityDate="2011-05-29T13:38:35.820" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5925" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5921" CreationDate="2010-12-21T16:27:25.637" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depth of field refers the range of distances at which objects are acceptably sharp. To answer your questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When everything is in focus there is still a &quot;depth of field&quot;, thus they're not &quot;no depth of field&quot; images, it's just that the depth of field is very large. I know of no term other than &quot;large&quot; or &quot;infinite&quot; depth of field to describe such images.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;From the definition of depth of field it follows that &quot;small depth of field&quot; means small range of sharp objects. This is also referred to as shallow depth of field (the term Bokeh is often thrown around in relation to such images however that word refers to the quality, not quantity of the out of focus areas).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It irks me a little when I see people post comments on flickr like &quot;great DOF&quot;, yeah 86.3cm that's a really great depth!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T16:27:25.637" />
  <row Id="5926" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5921" CreationDate="2010-12-21T16:49:00.667" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For #1, &quot;no depth of field&quot;, you actually describe &lt;em&gt;infinite&lt;/em&gt; depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;field&quot; is the area considered to be acceptably in focus, and the depth is the distance that area covers. (Think &quot;depth&quot; in the sense of a deep closet or deep cabinet, not a deep ocean.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A perfect pinhole lens gives an infinite depth of field. A completely unfocused blur from an infinitely large aperture is the theoretical opposite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T16:49:00.667" />
  <row Id="5927" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5900" CreationDate="2010-12-21T16:57:50.617" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a difference between cameras with a kit lens, and camera kit accessory bundles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The former are from the manufacturer, and generally give you a good deal on a low-end wide-normal zoom. (Sometimes, it's even cheaper to buy a camera in this form than body only!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Camera accessory bundles are put together by camera stores, and include things like a cheap memory card, a crappy UV filter, and maybe a serviceable camera case and wobbly tripod.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are high-margin items which serve to increase the seller's profits and are generally not a good deal at all. These are often also sold with the term &quot;kit&quot;, probably in order to confuse people into buying them. You can tell you're shopping at  a skeevy merchant when they insist you need one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T16:57:50.617" />
  <row Id="5928" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5929" CreationDate="2010-12-21T20:55:50.570" Score="11" ViewCount="359" Body="&lt;p&gt;i get the basic idea of a lens hood after looking at mine and contemplating how to use it i get stuck on the same question every time...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;does it matter the orientation of the hood on the lens?&#xA;cause the hood has peeks and valleys, so how do you know where to best place either to reduce flare/ distortions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or am i over thinking this, and it has no effect how its fitted to the lens at all?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T06:09:51.153" Title="how to use a lens hood?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;lens-hood&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5929" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5928" CreationDate="2010-12-21T21:02:44.670" Score="20" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The hood has peaks and valleys because the image is rectangular and thus has a wider field of view horizontally than vertically. The cutouts are needed to prevent the hood vignetting (casting shadows) in the corners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically if you imagine a cone getting slowly wider, and then you punch the &lt;em&gt;view frustum&lt;/em&gt; through it (to prevent any occlusion of light making up the image)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.gamecareerguide.com/features/20050411/Figure2.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;then you get the shape of a traditional &quot;petal&quot; lens hood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The correct orientation is with the larger peaks at the top and bottom and the smaller peaks at the side&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You tend to see petal shaped hoods more on zooms and wide angle lenses. The reason for this is that the petal shape is more efficient compared to a traditional round hood. On a wide lens a round hood would have to be very stubby to avoid getting in the way of the image, whereas a petal can extend into areas which don't affect the image to offer additional shading. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Zooms, even in the telephoto range (such as the 70-200) usually have petal hoods for the extra efficiency as the hood on a zoom has to be designed to accommodate the widest focal length. Generally you want the hood as tight as possible without getting in the way of the image, thus a hood designed for 70mm is not as useful when you're zoomed in to 200mm, here the extra shading of the petal design helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prime lenses have hoods designed and optimised for a single focal length so they are as tight as possible, thus petal designs are often replaced by round hoods which are more compact and cheaper to make (unless they are really needed, in the case of wide primes).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-21T22:32:40.197" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T22:32:40.197" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5931" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5851" CreationDate="2010-12-21T22:30:40.870" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;At my point of view the best is the one included in Photoshop CS5 (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/photoshop/whatsnew/index_rr.html). It's precise and professional, you can also quickly reapply previous settings and the integration in the adobe suite is a must.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also try Hydra (http://www.creaceed.com/hydra/), it's integrate weel in Aperture like Photomatix.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1084" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T22:30:40.870" />
  <row Id="5932" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5909" CreationDate="2010-12-21T22:31:09.773" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depending on the extent of the bleached areas, you may find that something like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alienskin.com/imagedoctor/index.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Alien Skin's Image Doctor&lt;/a&gt; can do the trick without spending a huge amount of time on the cleanup. You can test-drive a limited-time trial of the software to make up your mind (click on &quot;Demo&quot; in the menu) before committing to any expense. My experience is that good plug-ins tend to be better at this sort of thing than the built-in tools, if only because they handle a lot of the details (feathering selections, matching surrounding reference areas, etc.) for you, and they usually have presets to handle your specific problem rather than making you work from the general case every time. I'm not a huge fan of spending money, but when balanced against the time it takes to do things with native tools in image editors like Photoshop, the GIMP, Pixelmator or Paint Shop Pro, it's often the lesser of two evils.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T22:31:09.773" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5933" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5921" CreationDate="2010-12-21T23:05:02.303" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A quick answer to the lens settings used for this effect, since none of the other answers seem to go into detail about this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A larger aperture (A smaller F-number) gives a shallower depth of field. Pictures with the eyes in focus and the tip of the nose and ears out of focus are typically shot at F/2.8 or smaller. From F/8 or larger (smaller aperture opening) large objects can be completely in focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2435" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T23:05:02.303" />
  <row Id="5934" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5921" CreationDate="2010-12-21T23:30:06.107" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Rather than a technical answer, here's an example.  Note that while the flowers themselves are clear and the small branch at the upper right is clear the branch coming from the upper left is not clear despite not being very far behind the flowers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the result of having a very narrow depth of field--this was taken at 300mm effective and the lens was wide open, IIRC f5.6.  As I wasn't carrying a tripod that day it was the best I could do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rHVvm.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1843" LastActivityDate="2010-12-21T23:30:06.107" />
  <row Id="5935" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-22T02:30:06.853" Score="8" ViewCount="490" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm visiting my folks in France and our new 80 years old neighbor mentioned today that she has a nice collection of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thescreamonline.com/photo/photo2-4/glass_slides/glass.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;glass plate negatives&lt;/a&gt; dating back 1875. I can only assume this is what the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collodion_process&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Collodion photographic process&lt;/a&gt; is all about. I've scanned &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/altuwa/sets/72157594507799908/with/4220465986/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;vintage film photos&lt;/a&gt; in the past to save family memories, but I've never handled glass plate negs. I told my neighbor I would have a look at them and see if I could develop/scan the plates to archive them digitally. I've only a short amount of time to dedicate to this task, and an Epson 3490 flatbed scanner. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What would you recommend I do? I'll obviously start by carefully scanning the plates then invert/clean/post-process them on my laptop, but is there any tricks you might think about? A different approach maybe? Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-03T18:10:43.993" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T19:56:12.007" Title="Easiest way to develop old glass plate negatives?" Tags="&lt;developing&gt;&lt;negative&gt;&lt;plate&gt;&lt;glass&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5936" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5940" CreationDate="2010-12-22T02:43:23.523" Score="19" ViewCount="544" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most people speak of the process of photography as &lt;strong&gt;taking&lt;/strong&gt; pictures. However, many serious photographers instead refer to &lt;strong&gt;making&lt;/strong&gt; pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One might be inclined to dismiss this as jargon, but there's clearly a difference in attitude. &quot;Making&quot; implies a creative process, whereas &quot;taking&quot; has negative connotations: appropriation, or even stealing. Or, not so negative: &quot;to capture the moment&quot;; the ability of a photograph to extract the essence of a scene, preserve it, and share it. But to flip back again, can one really do this well without also making something new? Even when the scene isn't staged, the photographer has some level of authorial responsibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the question: is &lt;em&gt;taking&lt;/em&gt; really so bad? Does it inherently mean thoughtlessness, and rapid-fire snapshots? Should every genuine photographer be encouraged to engage in &lt;em&gt;making&lt;/em&gt;? Or can taking photographs as observation alone be a valid, serious form of the art?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-15T21:41:44.803" LastActivityDate="2011-04-23T12:24:40.683" Title="Does a photographer *take* pictures or *make* pictures?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;art&gt;&lt;philosophy&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="5937" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5936" CreationDate="2010-12-22T02:56:57.850" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My answer is &quot;yes&quot;. There are pictures I take (things that I have the good fortune to be in the right place at the right time to record) and pictures I make (things I have the luxury of exploring or arranging). In both cases, they're expressions of myself. It may be easier to see that when I've gone to a great deal of trouble to arrange the picture, but even the reportage-type pictures depend on me inserting myself into a situation I think has photographic merit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On that note, there are two significant portraits made by Yousuf Karsh of Winston Churchill. Although the camera and lights were set up ahead of time, it's fair to say that the first (and certainly the more famous of the two, a picture of a scowling Churchill who had just had his cigar stolen from his lips) was &quot;taken&quot;, and the second, of a smiling, relaxed Churchill, was &quot;made&quot;. Karsh preferred the second; it's arguable that the first, by personifying British defiance, had enough propaganda value to launch lend-lease and keep the UK from being conquered. You decide which one was &quot;art&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T02:56:57.850" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5938" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5936" CreationDate="2010-12-22T02:59:06.443" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Personally, I consider these to be two different, both equally valid, activities. And while I say and mean &quot;different&quot;, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive to my mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To &quot;take&quot; a picture, as I think of it, is to capture something extant. Whether that's a facial expression, a pattern of movement (of anything, from flowing water to animals to various human creations)... Any moment (short or long) in time, that exists separate from the photographer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To &quot;make&quot; a picture, as I think of it, is to set up conditions under which an image can be captured that meets a particular vision (or pre-vision, if you will) of the photographer. This could include everything from the simple choice of camera position, angle, focal length, focus distance, and exposure settings all the way through the elaborate creation of a scene, set, lighting, and what have you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Often, a good photograph will have (in my opinion) been both. For example, an elaborate portrait setup - with a set (or at least a backdrop), lighting, costuming, hair and makeup styling, and the like, is a portrait that is made... But also, if the subject is given any control whatever over what they do within that setup, it is a portrait that is taken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other times, it may be closer to just one or the other, though I suspect it's almost always at least a little of each. A &quot;made&quot; still-life still &quot;takes&quot; from the objects arranged in it, and even a quickly &quot;taken&quot; snapshot has had choices &quot;made&quot; by the photographer, even if only where to aim and when to push the button.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There will be, of course, numerous opinions, often contradictory, on a question such as this. Having heard a number of them over the years, though, and giving it thought of my own, I hope that the above is an accurate reflection of the philosophy I have adopted with respect to this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this needs any clarification, please ask in the comments, and I'll do my best to update it to increase clarity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for asking an interesting question!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T02:59:06.443" />
  <row Id="5939" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5935" CreationDate="2010-12-22T03:09:09.347" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can see problems with &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_rings&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Newton's rings&lt;/a&gt; in your future. Give it a shot, but I don't think you'll find that the plates and your scanner glass are going to agree on what &quot;flat&quot; means. Short of using an oil interface (and I don't know if you can get hold of the kind of oil we used to use -- it had a index of refraction essentially the same as glass) your best bet would be to contact print the negs if you have a chance, then scan the prints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T03:09:09.347" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5940" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5936" CreationDate="2010-12-22T03:35:23.053" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think each process has equal merit, just based on my own experience of doing a Project 365. Doing that project, with an express goal of not being overly repetitive, I've had to do a lot of different things and that really means both taking and making pictures:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Taking&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This, to me, is the art of seeing the moment and &lt;em&gt;taking&lt;/em&gt; it. Perhaps the jargon doesn't really imply this, but that is how I see it. Henri Cartier-Bresson was the master of this sort of thing, holding onto ordinary moments in time in such a way as to enspire and educate us. He didn't create the picture, he saw it, and captured it. This, I think, is the essence of &lt;em&gt;taking&lt;/em&gt; a picture. Candid photography or photojournalism really falls into this and to master it means having an eye for the moment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the negative connotation on this would probably be the snapshot style, basically just capturing an image with out concept of framing, light, obstructions, etc. This is, in some ways, the classic tourist shooting I suppose and forms the basis for differentiating casual shooters versus advanced amateurs or pros.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Making&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this end of the spectrum, it's about putting the conditions in place for the image. It's about creating the lighting, or observing the lighting, and positioning for the image you know is to come. It can be as detailed and controlled as the almost cinematic work of Dave Hill or as studied and patient of the work of Ansel Adams. This is where the fine art, landscape, and similar works fall into and, to master this, you need to have the ability to envision the result and prepare for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For making a shot, the negative connotation, to me, is the complete setup does everything for you. For example, you can buy devices such as the StopShot that, once everything is set up, does &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; the work, including triggering the shutter. It's basically turn everything on and let it go to work and you'll see this often with water drops. Don't get me wrong, the images can be great, but to me it loses something when the finger isn't on the shutter, a machine is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I'm obviously not putting my meagre efforts into the same class as some of the masters I've listed, but I think I've tried to do both of these at various times. To be honest, I think I've had more success at making pictures, controlling the conditions of the outcome, but taking pictures is also fun and rewarding, the element of surprise can be a bonus. Exercising both modes can, I think, make you a better all around photographer. At the very least, I think it makes for more fun. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-22T15:32:49.210" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T15:32:49.210" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="5941" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5935" CreationDate="2010-12-22T04:31:08.340" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I remember my father dealing with glass plate negatives. In fact we even coated glass plates and took photographs with those fabulous old cameras. But back to your query, I certainly cannot say which is the best method, but the method he used was simply to get into the dark room and either make a contact transfer or enlarge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The contact transfer has the advantage of keeping the exact size specifications, while the enlargement probably gives you finer grain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Down side of course is that you need to have a dark room, the whole kit, and fiddle to get the right tonal curve. So depending how many you want to do it could take a while.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can then scan the paper version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2736" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T04:31:08.340" />
  <row Id="5942" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5936" CreationDate="2010-12-22T05:27:38.677" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Good question. I do both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I sometimes take &quot;snaps&quot; of anything that looks remotely interesting. In such a case, I don't care too much about the subject or the result. These pictures are mostly so-so, though I get the occasional gem out of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rest of the time (it's about half and half, I suppose) I actually put some thought and planning into my pictures. I look for interesting subjects, find an interesting perspective, check for colour and lighting, and then fire away. The results here are consistently good, rarely less than that. And I sometimes get particularly good (IMO) photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simply &quot;taking&quot; photos doesn't always bring reasonable results, though it may be necessary to capture spur-of-the-moment scenes. On the other hand, &quot;making&quot; photos, such as still life images, landscapes, and architecture take more time to set up for the best results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T05:27:38.677" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5943" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2838" CreationDate="2010-12-22T06:09:24.793" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently got my Nikon D5000 kit lens and after a month of using it. I thought of getting the D90 instead. I haven't actually tried to use a D90 but with it's other features that a D5000 doesn't have, I think it is okay for an upgrade. I am planning to sell my D5000, do you think it's worth it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2656" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T06:09:24.793" />
  <row Id="5944" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5928" CreationDate="2010-12-22T06:09:51.153" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As someone who's done years of in-arena Pro-Rodeo photography, I can give you another great use for a lens-hood: Protecting the lens element from fences, walls, gates, rocks and anything else the front of the lens hits as you're scrambling for safety. Once you've seen the paint marks appear on a lens hood after bouncing off something at a high rate of speed you'll be really glad it's on the lens. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Back to the shape: As @Matt Grum explained, the funky shape of the hood is to avoid vignetting with zooms. Put the hood on and twist it as far as it goes so the notches in the front of the hood match the corners of the frame of the image. You can prove to yourself that it's important by turning the hood 45 or 90 degrees, zooming out to your wide-angle setting and see if the corners of the image start to get darker. If so, that's the hood obstructing some of the image. Some lens/hood combinations have a little leeway and won't vignette but others will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1514" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T06:09:51.153" />
  <row Id="5945" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5947" CreationDate="2010-12-22T07:06:01.817" Score="16" ViewCount="363" Body="&lt;p&gt;I’ve heard people say “a good lens will last a lifetime” many times. &lt;strong&gt;Is this actually true of modern lenses?&lt;/strong&gt; More specifically, &lt;em&gt;will a good lens be &lt;strong&gt;usable&lt;/strong&gt; for a lifetime?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With an inexpensive adapter, I can mount up any M42 (Pentax) screw-mount manual focus lens to my Canon EF mount body. The same is not true of older AF lenses. The Canon FD mount lasted less then twenty years, and is incompatible with modern Canon bodies; this also seems to be the case with the earlier FL and R mounts. While the EF mount has lasted longer than the FD lenses, I have a 15-year-old Sigma lens which does not work correctly on modern Canon bodies due to electronic incompatibilities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, there’s the issue of Canon’s EF-S (APS-C only) lenses, which are incompatible with their full-frame DSLRs. If one wants to upgrade to a full-frame body in the future, any money spent on EF-S lenses is wasted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The situation seems to be better with Nikon’s gear. It’s my understanding that current Nikon bodies are largely backwards-compatible with lenses dating back to the ’60s.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1905" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-22T19:29:49.123" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T22:42:25.220" Title="Do good lenses really last a lifetime?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;old-lenses&gt;&lt;compatibility&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="5946" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5945" CreationDate="2010-12-22T07:23:26.583" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it would also be based on the construction of the lens too. A metal body lens with high quality and durable optics will likely last as long as it is not worn or damaged and it is compatible with a camera. If the AF motor dies, then it can usually still be manually focused.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T07:23:26.583" />
  <row Id="5947" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5945" CreationDate="2010-12-22T07:41:57.363" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In talking with a number of working pros, the general attitude tends to be that you buy lenses to keep and you buy bodies to upgrade. My personal planning mirrors this; I've tried to invest in higher quality lenses that i expect to own for a while (10-15 years) while given how body technology is changing, upgrading a body every 2-3 years doesn't surprise me. When I started, I bought the Canon 100-400, an inexpensive wide angle, and a Rebel XT body. I've upgraded the body 3 times (now I have a 30D and a 7D, and I'm starting to think about upgrading the 30d), and I've upgraded the inexpensive lens to a better but not high end lens, and honestly, I'm also planning to upgrade my wide angle lenses to &quot;keeper&quot; lenses over the next couple of years as I can. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So while &quot;last a lifetime&quot; might not be strictly true (but a co-worker of mine collects old camera gear, and we were working on an 8x19 lens made around the turn of the century a week or so ago; it still works...) it is true that if you buy more expensive lenses and less expensive bodies, it'll be a better long-term investment and you won't upgrade your lenses nearly as often as the bodies, adn they'll tend to last a lot longer with some care and maintenance. My upgrade model is 3-4 years for bodies and 10-15 years for quality lenses (such as IS style). Some regular maintenance doesn't hurt; many pro photographers I know send their lenses in once a year for pro cleaning and calibration... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T07:41:57.363" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5948" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5936" CreationDate="2010-12-22T07:44:30.327" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do both. but I'm putting more time and effort into making them, planning the trip, planning the images I want to acquire (subject and style) and understanding what I want to accomplish before I start, and then adapting to what happens once I get there and start working the location. There's a positive aspect to taking pictures and recording what you see; there's a quality and reliability advantage to putting in advance work to guarantee your time and energy isn't wasted and that the images you get are the ones you want/need and can use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T07:44:30.327" />
  <row Id="5949" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5945" CreationDate="2010-12-22T07:47:16.773" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon certainly pissed a lot of people off when they changed their mount going to autofocus, but they had what to them was a good technical reason for doing so: to make stupid-fast retrofocus lenses possible. Nikon already had a relatively large-diameter mount and so could opt to put compatibility first without sacrificing too much speed, but Canon was making their name with ridiculously fast lenses (the 50mm f/1.0 and 85mm f/1.2, for example) and expected that fast glass was going to be their competitive edge over Nikon. Their old mount would not allow truly fast wide-angle lenses without mirror lock-up and an auxiliary viewfinder. EF-S lenses are sold with a caveat (and, for the most part, aren't worth the paper they're made from anyway), so that's a bit of a red herring. As for electronics and third-party lenses, well, you can't blame Canon for keeping their cards close to their vest, can you?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T07:47:16.773" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5950" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5951" CreationDate="2010-12-22T09:12:33.690" Score="5" ViewCount="179" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a selection of photos on my PC that were taken in Landscape, but I want to make Portrait. The reason for this is so they can fit Portrait slots in a multi picture frame. I have chosen these pictures, as they have central focal points (such as a church), and nothing much at the edges of the pictures. The tools I have at my disposal are, Microsoft Office Picture manager 2010, and the photo printer at my local supermarket. I realise that I should only need to get the ratio correct, but is there an easy way to make sure my photos still look good once I have alter them? The pictures are of good quality and size (2048 v 1536), so the editing and stretching shouldn't mess up the quality when printed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2788" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-22T17:57:38.313" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T17:57:38.313" Title="Printing out a photo taken in Landscape, in Portrait" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;cropping&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="5951" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5950" CreationDate="2010-12-22T09:27:42.577" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your best bet is probably to crop the photos when printing, especially if you are unfamiliar with editing photos on your PC. Most of the photo terminals at supermarkets I've seen have had the ability to let you rotate and crop photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will lose resolution when doing this, to avoid pixelation when printing you really need 300ppi (pixels per inch) for a reasonable viewing distance you can get away with 200 or 150 &lt;em&gt;absolute minimum&lt;/em&gt;. At 200ppi you could print your images 10&quot;x7.5&quot; whereas cropped to portrait that goes down to 7.5&quot;x5.75&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming the images were sharp to begin with you should be able to get away with printing them 7x5.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only thing you need to do to preserve quality when rotating and cropping is to save the images back using the highest possible JPEG quality setting (as JPEG is a &quot;lossy&quot; format you lose data every time you save) or use a lossless format like PNG, TIFF (some labs wont support these however). That's one advantage of doing the rotation/crop yourself, as you have full control unlike the machine at the lab.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T09:27:42.577" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5952" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5950" CreationDate="2010-12-22T09:36:59.293" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could probably get them cropped at one of the in-store developing terminals, but to be sure, you can crop the images in most image editing software -- it might be advisable to pull in a favour from any local friends that are into photography, but you should be able to do this yourself using Microsoft Picture Manager, which you mentioned you have available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Microsoft Picture Manager, open the picture, and from the &quot;Edit Pictures&quot; task pane, select &quot;Crop&quot; - the aspect ratio should match your output format - it has some common aspect ratios used by print labs (and therefore by frame makers) which can constrain the image to make sure you get the right size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A simpler option would be to print them all so that they are big enough and trim them down with a craft knife and a straight edge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T09:36:59.293" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5953" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5880" CreationDate="2010-12-22T10:18:07.967" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're only going to get 100% CRI out of tungsten lights or special purpose fluorescent tubes. The tubes are going to be expensive, not to buy but to install seeing as you need special fittings with transformers, starters and chokes. You might be able to get a bulk discount on fittings designed for office buildings however the tubes are likely to be long to fit behind a print in any case. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best you will get out of a CFL (compact fluorescent lamp) is about 90, though I've heard talk of higher. That may be good enough for you, it would certainly be cheap to run but the bulbs aren't cheap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The final option is daylight balanced tungsten bulbs which will give you 100 CRI, will be cheap to buy &lt;em&gt;if you can find them&lt;/em&gt;. Which country are you based in? The EU is quickly making it illegal to sell tungsten bulbs but you can still find them in quantity with some retailers (at least this was the case last time I looked). This option will be most expensive to run, however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T10:18:07.967" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5954" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5958" CreationDate="2010-12-22T11:03:21.433" Score="12" ViewCount="161" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(I'm attempting to ask a 'useful' question which isn't too subjective nor specific.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When looking at cropping a photo:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;how do you decide whether to crop it or not (for starters)? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;what things should you take into account - both practical and artistic?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess that this question is really about composition 'after the fact'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a 'sample' photo which you can base your answers on, but my question isn't specifically about this particular photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/j8Dkj.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1812" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T13:36:32.027" Title="What things should one take into account when looking at cropping a photo?" Tags="&lt;composition&gt;&lt;cropping&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5955" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5954" CreationDate="2010-12-22T11:51:34.533" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A huge factor you should consider is how many print sizes will you end up making from the images.  If you decide on a single size, go ahead and crop the images exactly how you want using that ratio.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are planning to print the images to various sizes, consider the aspect ratio of each size.   It may be better to crop the images at the time you print so that each print size has enough image to work with.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see folks crop tight either while shooting or after the fact for artistic reasons.  What they fail to consider is that what looks good on a 4x6 may not work on an 8x10 due to the difference in cropping.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using your example above, for an 8x10 you would likely loose part of the top or bottom of the image.  Would you use the center, or crop out the dark area at the bottom?   The dark area to me artistically lends to the dreariness of the kid looking outside at the snow wanting to play.  If you crop out the shadows, it makes it a more lighter image and conveys happiness to me.  It boils down to what you want to convey, and what you are willing to give up on the printed image.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1856" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T11:51:34.533" />
  <row Id="5956" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5954" CreationDate="2010-12-22T12:44:44.547" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Usually, when cropping a photo, be it for print or other uses (like my blog), I look at a few things in the picture. Sometimes the picture contains unwanted elements; things I didn't notice when taking the picture, or, because my viewfinder only has a 95% coverage, things end up in the picture at the edges just because I couldn't see them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me, cropping is about achieving an artistic effect (very narrow or tall photos for instance) or just about removing unwanted elements. Looking at the picture above, I'd probably try to get rid of the thermometer at the top. Or maybe not, since the space at the top of the image is what gives it 'air'. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, I guess, it just depends on what you want to do with the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2435" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T12:44:44.547" />
  <row Id="5957" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11963" CreationDate="2010-12-22T13:33:02.130" Score="2" ViewCount="254" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know of a simple photo viewer that will let you quickly flip through a bunch of photos, and delete the ones you don't want, that will also (optionally) delete an associated RAW and/or sidecar file?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm thinking of an app that had a buttons for Delete JPG, Delete RAW, Delete Both, or that would mark them for deletion to perform before exiting the app, or something similar to that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: Windows Vista (soon to be Windows 7), camera is Nikon D90 (so .NEF raw files).  I have not instaleld the bundled Nikon software yet.  I've just been using the Windows photo import which just copies them onto the hard drive.  If I preview using Windows Photo Gallery, deleting the file only deletes the JPG, so I have to go back and delete the raw files manually afterwards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="227" LastEditorUserId="227" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-23T20:58:12.503" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T11:18:37.713" Title="Simple app for viewing JPG and then deleting JPG+RAW files simultaneously?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;preview&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="5958" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5954" CreationDate="2010-12-22T13:36:32.027" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When cropping a photo, I try to do/achieve several things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Center:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;the subject&lt;/strong&gt;, when it is slightly more on one side. Of course, in some photos, putting the subject in the corner is done to achieve an artistic effect, but I'm not talking about those cases.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;the scene&lt;/strong&gt;, for example when the horizon is too low or too high.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Remove:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;the &lt;strong&gt;elements which attract attention away from the subject&lt;/strong&gt; of an image. For example, if it is an image of a person in a street, and there are no other people except someone not very nice to see in the corner, it's better to crop the image.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;the &lt;strong&gt;unwanted elements&lt;/strong&gt;. For example, if there is a tree outside of the picture, but you see a part of this tree in a corner, there is a good reason to crop the image.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;the elements that show that the photo is not straight. For example, a tall building on a side of the photo can attract attention by the fact that it &quot;falls&quot; to the center of an image, due to perspective problems. Another example is anything straight in real life, which is shown as a curve on a photo, due to the lens distortion.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;the &lt;strong&gt;empty areas&lt;/strong&gt;, except when those areas add an artistic value. A block of brick wall &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; an empty area in this case.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To resume, I crop photos when either there are elements which must not be here or when there is nothing interesting on the sides of the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the sample photo, it's difficult to tell what was your purpose. If the subject is a young girl watching through a window, I'll probably crop everything except the girl's head, thus keeping a small margin around to show the snow outside and the black frame of the window.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2236" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T13:36:32.027" />
  <row Id="5959" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5945" CreationDate="2010-12-22T14:13:28.990" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't have much in the way of numbers to back this up, but I think a good quality AF lens should at least last 20-30 years, more with regular maintenance. I've been using some lenses released in 2000 and handled quite roughly (newspaper staff) but still perform well. I haven't seen any Mean Time Between Failure numbers for auto focus motors, but if a hard drive motor can last for 10+ years running nearly all the time then an auto focus motor ought to last much longer than that (understanding that the AF motor is pulling a heavier load and probably doesn't have as good a seal against the outside).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2228" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T14:13:28.990" />
  <row Id="5961" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5957" CreationDate="2010-12-22T15:21:26.203" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://geeqie.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Geeqie&lt;/a&gt; can do this -- turn on the &quot;Enable Image Grouping&quot; option, and files with the same base name will be grouped. (It doesn't do anything magic to link files by actual contents that I'm aware of, though.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should be able to install it with &lt;code&gt;yum install geeqie&lt;/code&gt; or &lt;code&gt;apt-get install geeqie&lt;/code&gt; on Fedora or Ubuntu. I'm not aware of pre-built packages for Mac or Windows, but in theory it should be possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T15:21:26.203" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5962" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5957" CreationDate="2010-12-22T15:29:00.400" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;a simple photo viewer that will let you quickly flip through a bunch of photos, and delete the ones you don't want&quot; - isn't this built in for every camera's bundled software? Canon's ZoomBrowser can do this easily, for jpegs and RAWs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the optional part - it can't, to the best of my knowledge, mark for later deletion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T15:29:00.400" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5963" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-22T17:39:35.790" Score="4" ViewCount="92" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for a metadata solution.  My environment is Windows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="196" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T19:44:37.313" Title="Like XMP facial tagging, is there a way to visually tag other areas of the image as non-facial... notes, other items?" Tags="&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;tagging&gt;&lt;xmp&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="5964" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5966" CreationDate="2010-12-22T18:39:52.753" Score="2" ViewCount="172" Body="&lt;p&gt;Newb question: How to simply adjust the temperature in Photoshop Elements?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2649" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-22T20:15:46.313" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T20:15:46.313" Title="Adjust Temperature In Photoshop Elements" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;white-balance&gt;&lt;photoshop-elements&gt;&lt;color-temperature&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="5965" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-22T19:00:08.830" Score="3" ViewCount="302" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can my Sigma UC zoom be used on my Nikon D3100?&#xA;It's a 70-210 4-5.6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2792" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-22T20:07:40.333" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T20:07:40.333" Title="Will a Sigma UC lens mount to a Nikon D3100?" Tags="&lt;nikon-d3100&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="5966" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5964" CreationDate="2010-12-22T19:02:57.830" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a walkthrough of the camera raw white balance feature on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://help.adobe.com/en_US/photoshopelements/using/WSDE17BC1A-EEBF-4118-B815-88C1F4D45DBB_WIN.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;adobe web site&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T19:02:57.830" />
  <row Id="5967" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5965" CreationDate="2010-12-22T19:07:33.710" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that this lens was offered with several different mounting options, so it depends which version you have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said... if you have the f mount model, then it should work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-22T19:13:25.173" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T19:13:25.173" />
  <row Id="5968" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5945" CreationDate="2010-12-22T19:22:34.200" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think this question boils down to a balance between backwards compatibility and technological progress. You can strive to maintain the ultimate in backwards compatibility, and never change a lens mount. Some camera manufacturers have succeeded in that, such as Nikon and Pentax, to a large degree. However, what is the long term cost of progress there? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon made a very explicit decision back in the late 80's when they created the EF mount. Their existing mount did not provide the capabilities that they needed to support extremely fast AF, so they made the decision to ditch FD and create EF. Despite ruffling feathers, from a business and progress standpoint, it was the best decision they could have made. The EF mount allowed them to create very wide aperture, VERY fast AF lenses that otherwise were not possible with the FD mount, and that rocketed them to the top of the list for huge numbers of photographers. The benefits of the EF mount and fast AF with very wide lenses was enough to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;eventually cause droves of photographers to leave their previous brand&lt;/a&gt; [look in the 1990's section] (which was largely Nikon at the time, I believe) and move to Canon. That little fact is not as obvious today, since we have had EF for around 26 years now, and Nikon caught up to Canon's AF many, many years ago.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes the question is not as simple as simply maintaining backwards compatibility or &quot;timelessness&quot; (as the FD mount was once called.) Sometimes the benefits of progress far outweigh the benefits of longevity, and a change needs to be made. It should be noted that not every single Nikon lens works perfectly with moderns Nikon DSLR's. Older, purely manual F mount lenses should work great, however older electronic F-mount lenses have been noted to have problems with modern DSLR electronics. Canon has had similar problems with some of their very old EF lenses from the late 80's when used on modern DSLR's. Such cases are rare, but they do happen...and its just the basic cost of progress.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of that said, the EF mount did not entirely make the FD mount moot and useless on modern Canon DSLR's. Adapter rings exist that allow you to use FD lenses on EF bodies. Some of them include a correcting lens (like a teleconverter) that preserves infinity focus, while others act like a very small extension tube, possibly eliminating infinity focus but allowing close or macro focus distances. Using an adapter, a very wide range of FD lenses can be used on modern EF camera bodies. The story does not stop there, either. Adapters exist for the EF mount that can adapt a variety of other brands of lenses as well, including the Nikon F mount, M42 lenses, and others. I believe that makes the EF mount one of the most versatile mounts available, and opens an incredibly large world of lens possibilities to Canon users that may not be as readily available for other brands or lens mounts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Canon user myself, I have always enjoyed knowing that I could pick up a small adapter and use the manual focus FD lenses, such as the FD 500mm f/4.5 lens which seems to be a superb birding lens. I also like knowing that I can get a Nikon F mount adapter and use their excellent 14-24mm ultra-wide angle zoom lens. I have also recently discovered the M42 mount, and the extremely wide range of manual lenses available for that mount, which can also be adapted to Canon's EF mount. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T19:22:34.200" />
  <row Id="5969" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5957" CreationDate="2010-12-22T19:48:38.140" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;All you need do is install the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonimglib.com/nefcodec/index.html.en&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon RAW codec&lt;/a&gt;, and you can then view thumbnails in Explorer, and double click to open a full size view. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It may also be worth having a play with the trial version of Adobe Lightroom, as it is awesome for keywording, and making minor adjustments - you don't even need to worry about it being in RAW or JPEG then, as it silently handles it (it also isn't limited to 32-bit installations, unlike Nikon's RAW codec)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T19:48:38.140" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="5970" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5957" CreationDate="2010-12-22T20:00:47.753" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With a NEF codec installed, the NEF files will show up in Windows Photo Gallery right along side your JPEGs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are on 64 bit Windows 7 or Vista, you may want to try out our commercial NEF codec, which is many times faster than Nikon's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A free trial is available.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ardfry.com/nef-codec&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ardfry.com/nef-codec&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2793" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T20:00:47.753" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5971" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5977" CreationDate="2010-12-22T20:24:30.077" Score="9" ViewCount="737" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/5493/help-with-getting-bokeh-effect&quot;&gt;Help with getting bokeh effect.&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to generate shallow DOF with a &quot;kit&quot; lens, and how?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my case, I have the Nikon D7000 with the 18-105mm f/3.5-/f5.6.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am exploring my new camera and learning photography as I go. I have a few things in my head i want to learn how to do early and one of them is take images where the background is blurry behind a subject, so to make super nice portraits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So far, all my initial shots have everything in focus. How do I get a shallow DOF effect?&#xA;Or can I even do it with the kit lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-04T12:37:25.123" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T12:37:25.123" ClosedDate="2011-03-04T14:33:37.817" Title="Can I get a shallow DOF using a kit lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;kit-lens&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5972" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5971" CreationDate="2010-12-22T20:32:21.530" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want a &lt;em&gt;shallow depth of field&lt;/em&gt;, you can increase the aperture width. The easiest way to do this is to switch to aperture priority mode (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/assets/37923.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A on the dial&lt;/a&gt;) and set the largest available aperture (smallest f-number).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like others have said, there are other factors as well, such as subject distance and focal length, but often you have less control over those, since they affect the framing of the shot. If you are able, you will get the shallowest depth of field by increasing focal length and aperture size, and decreasing the distance to your subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-23T16:05:54.067" LastActivityDate="2010-12-23T16:05:54.067" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5973" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5971" CreationDate="2010-12-22T20:34:04.577" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What you are after is a &lt;em&gt;lack&lt;/em&gt; of DoF. Get close (as close as you can without making the subject look weird), use aperture-priority or manual exposure and keep the lens as wide-open as possible (clearly, you're somewhat limited here by the maximum aperture of your lens) and try to keep some distance between your subject and the background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The field depth at any given aperture increases with the distance to the subject, so getting as close as you can without creating an unnatural perspective is key.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt; I should add here that the maximum aperture of your lens changes with the focal length as well -- it's significantly wider at the wide-angle end of its range than it is at the telephoto end. That adds to the &quot;get closer&quot; advice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastEditorUserId="2719" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-22T20:43:57.963" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T20:43:57.963" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="5974" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5984" CreationDate="2010-12-22T20:36:05.510" Score="7" ViewCount="467" Body="&lt;p&gt;Im looking to expand on my workflow after a shoot. &#xA;Today my workflow consists of moving images from my SD card to my computer, using Picasa in a very basic d way... (Crop, im feeling lucky and maybe warily to make people not look so pale, and the occasional BW or focused BW)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Upload to my Google web album and share with friends/ family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Copy my folder to an external drive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now take into account I’ll be shooting with my d7000 now mostly and not my point and shoot so i may (after i learn how) use RAW files. I want to keep the time down in post-production to as little as possible. And my workflow now is really fast, but then again i dotn really do much. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;what should i use, and what should i do and what tools do i need to have a fluid workflow that results in fast cleanup of images that get them looking their best, also i want to tag them for sorting as i want to see what focal length i use most to get a 2nd lenses more specialized for what i actually use. (I take shots of my wife, kids, pets, and friends all the time) but what concrete evidence about lens details before i drop serious cash on new hardware.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any help as far as giving me steps to follow or a workflow suited for DSLR images and step me up from Picasa monkeying around to the next level would be perfect. Tips, tricks, advice is always welcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks all&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-24T01:13:17.273" LastActivityDate="2010-12-24T01:13:17.273" Title="picassa vs lightroom vs photoshop or other? as part of fast workflow?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;workflow&gt;&lt;picasa&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="5975" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5971" CreationDate="2010-12-22T21:34:51.913" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, shoot at 100mm f/5.6, get close to your subject, ensure you have nothing behind your subject!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="934" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T21:34:51.913" />
  <row Id="5976" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5974" CreationDate="2010-12-22T21:49:00.420" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The benefit of Lightroom is very good, easy-to-use processing in a straightforward workflow environment with the ability to organize your photos in an intuitive way. Photoshop is a useful supplement to Lightroom for more complex, localized fixes, as Lightroom mostly works on the whole image at once (except for simple spot fixes). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Lightroom may not be for you. It sounds like you really don't want to do much processing, and you are happy with your current workflow. I assume you are also able to organize your photos adequately in Picasa. While I prefer Lightroom to Picasa, it also costs 250 dollars, vs free. Also, Lightroom can be much slower.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would advise you to try out the demo for Lightroom. My guess is you won't immediately get as much out of it as most of its users. That said, I believe processing is an important step in photography, and something simple like Picasa may be holding you back in this regard; maybe you don't like processing because you don't have the right software. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1125" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T21:49:00.420" />
  <row Id="5977" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5971" CreationDate="2010-12-22T22:12:32.580" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I gave pretty much the same answer before, but here it is again for completeness. To minimise DOF and get the blurred background effect you should: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Use as long a focal length as possible.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Use a wide aperture low f/ number (but don't zoom out increase the f/ number as the actual lens opening gets no bigger)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Use as close a focussing distance as possible (but don't zoom out to get closer). Depth of field diminshes very quickly with focus distance, so much so that it becomes a major problem with macro photography getting a non blurred background (or subject!)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Compose so that the background is as far away as possible. The further away objects are from the focussing distance the blurrier they will be.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-22T22:45:58.087" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T22:45:58.087" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="5978" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5945" CreationDate="2010-12-22T22:42:25.220" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ignoring issues of mechanical wear on lenses (which is difficult to quantify) and focussing on changes of format etc. the real problem is with changes to the registration distance, the distance from the film/sensor to the lens mount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Canon moved from the FD to EF mount the registration distance &lt;strong&gt;increased&lt;/strong&gt; and this made the FD lenses incompatible, when mounted on an EF camera they couldn't focus to infinity (or further than a few feet in most cases). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Making the registration distance &lt;strong&gt;shorter&lt;/strong&gt; is not a problem as old lenses can be mounted at the correct distance using spacers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the plus side for Canon, their registration distance is shorter than the Nikon F mount, so Nikon lenses can be mounted on Canons (albeit without AF, stop down metering) whereas the reverse is not true. So when someone tells you that you can mount old MF Nikkors from the 60s on their D90 you might point out that you can mount all the same lenses on your Canon too...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for future compatibility I can only see registration distances reduced as manufacturers do things like get rid of the mirror and viewfinder assembly. This has already happened with micro 4/3rds cameras from Olympus and Panasonic. The short registration distance makes these cameras very good for adapting lenses from other formats. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-12-22T22:42:25.220" />
  <row Id="5979" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-23T03:56:30.243" Score="4" ViewCount="129" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/978/what-are-good-photography-projects&quot;&gt;What are good photography projects?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am just starting to get into photography, and I know most of the basics of photography. I was just wondering what some easy projects are to get used to different settings. I use a lower end digital camera, and an old Sears KS-2. Neither is the best, but they are just for starters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it better to take multiple pictures that are inside with similar lighting and things like that, or is it better to experiment with different settings and situations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the manual camera, I am always a little scared that the exposure won't be correct, so I need to get out and take more pictures, but I don't know where to start.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any suggestions would be great! Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2729" LastActivityDate="2010-12-23T18:49:27.347" ClosedDate="2010-12-23T19:16:42.053" Title="What are some easy projects to start with?" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;project&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="5980" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5909" CreationDate="2010-12-23T05:24:55.487" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I guess this may be a bit of a naive suggestion, however I'll offer it anyway. Why not just use makeup? You can try to fix such a photo with post processing, however it will either take a lot of time to produce an ideal result, or it will never be quite ideal, and may look a bit odd in those spots. If you have your subject use makeup before taking the shot, you should be able to produce a natural matching skin tone in the necessary locations, and simply take a &quot;natural&quot; shot without the need for extensive and complicated retouching after the fact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-12-23T05:24:55.487" />
  <row Id="5981" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5909" CreationDate="2010-12-23T09:03:59.483" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not an expert at all, but I wonder if shooting in black and white might help to mitigate the problem. On the other hand it might just make it worse, but it would be interesting to experiment with different lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1812" LastActivityDate="2010-12-23T09:03:59.483" />
  <row Id="5982" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5974" CreationDate="2010-12-23T11:05:55.350" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Lightroom or Aperture&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I left Picasa for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/uk/products/photoshoplightroom/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lightroom&lt;/a&gt; a couple of years ago, and I haven't looked back.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're on windows then I can pretty much guarantee that you will love Lightroom.  It just brings loads of possibilities beyond Picasa, and all the editing is non-destructive, so you can always undo edits all the way back to the original RAW file (or JPEG).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're on mac, then you could also go for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apple.com/aperture/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Aperture&lt;/a&gt;.  I'm told that there isn't much to choose between Lightroom and Aperture - it's a matter of taste.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both products have a free 30 day demo.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2010-12-23T11:05:55.350" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5983" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5974" CreationDate="2010-12-23T15:49:41.833" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From your question, I am guessing that you and I have some similarities on workflow, so this may work for you as well. The basic assumptions is that I do as much photography as I can and I do as little as possible of everything else. Case in point, I crop less than 1% of the time and that is the most common adjustment I do. My &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neoluminance.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gallery&lt;/a&gt; only has 2 cropped pictures (one shot from a moving vehicle, the other required 0.5 degree of rotation) and a few panos (autostich, I would never deal with control-points or the like :) that did not some out straight out of my camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Turns out the best applications are on Windows, so I run them in a VM through Parallels under OpenSUSE. The workflow goes something like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Copy from memory card to a hard-drive using the operating system.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use PMView Pro to go through all the pictures extremely quickly and delete the ones that are not good. This is described in much &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.neocamera.com/?p=278&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;more details on my blog&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Go to Lightroom and Import IN-PLACE (Not moving or copying files) all the images that are left. On import, have Lightroom automatically put copywrite and author information.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rate the imported images in Lightroom. Add a color label for images that I wish to share (green = Flikr, Blue = Neoluminance). Then add keywords to those that need them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Select all files to be modified and go to develop module with only those in the filmstrip.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use Lightroom publish to Flickr. For publishing to Neoluminance, I export locally and have a plugin which lists the files that Lightroom exported, then a script reads that file and sends those after watermarking.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Silly stuff:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Speed is the most important to me, that's why I use PMView Pro. It's blazingly fast. Geegie is very close, it is free and with some custom configuration (binding keys to external utils, etc) can be almost as good.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I came extremly close to choosing Bibble Pro over Lightroom. Bibble is MUCH faster and extremely powerful. The ultimate reason why I did NOT choose it was that the version I evaluated (5) refuses to automatically import large panoramas AND contacting support multiple times did not get ANY response.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/article.php?id=digital-backups&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Backups&lt;/a&gt; are extremely important to me and my file organization is designed to allow quick, efficient and incremental backups to DVDs which are then distributed in various locations include one in a safe at the bank. As soon as it is no longer possible to buy a computer WIHOUT a Blu-Ray, I will probably go to Blu-Ray.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-23T15:49:41.833" />
  <row Id="5984" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5974" CreationDate="2010-12-23T17:38:50.387" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use Lightroom for my entire workflow now. One of the keys to remember about Lightroom (LR) is that it is more than just processing it is also a management program. So that not only does it allow you to process your images, it allows you to search your images later quickly and easily based on various criteria. I have been tweaking my workflow over the past few years and have come to a solution, especially with the new Publish feature in LR that seems to make this very quick and easy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A point to remember is that this workflow applies whether JPG or RAW as LR can handle both easily.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Below is an edit from &lt;a href=&quot;http://bradfordbenn.com/2010/10/2010-photography-workflow/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;blog post&quot;&gt;my blog post about my workflow&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Go out and take pictures. Sometimes I use multiple cameras at the same location, a point and shoot, a DSLR, and even heavens no – a cellphone camera&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Return to the computer with flash cards full of images.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Load images into Adobe Lightroom, keeping the same file names the camera assigned. However the images are grouped into directories by year – month – day. More about that later.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take the original JPG files and upload them to my SmugMug account in a non-public area of my site for backup/safety purposes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Convert RAW images to JPG with no processing and upload to SmugMug at high resolution for backup/safety purposes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Go through and start culling images in Lightroom. Do any needed processing, captioning, and keywording.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The keeper JPG images get published to SmugMug in the appropriate location using the service built into Lightroom typically.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The keeper RAW images are exported to SmugMug in the appropriate location using the service built into Lightroom typically.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The culling process is very quick as is the keywording. For that what I do is use the X key to mark something as a reject, P for a pick, U for unmarked and have LR set to advance after assigning a flag. This advancing can be done through a menu option or having the caps lock engaged.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For keywording, I use two approaches. If all the images are from the same event, I will have that keyword added during the import. If I want to tag people (you mentioned taking pictures of family and friends) I will then use the Paint Keyword tool in the Library module of LR to assign the keywords. This step while seemingly small means that in three years when I am looking for a picture I can use the search tools to find an image based on data, event, person, or other keyword.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lightroom will also display the camera information that is stored within the image, so you can search by that such as looking for all images taken in January 2009 of Chloe (our dog) with a PowerShot at the Dog park. Lightroom can then return that. In addition LR can print this information out on contact sheets or other prints if configured as such.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now in terms of processing there are some powerful features in there for assigning the same processing quickly to multiple images. The example I use is shooting something under fluorescent lights and not setting the WB correctly. In LightRoom I can adjust WB of a RAW image. I can then take that one image and apply the corrections I made to it to selected images. So if the entire batch of photos I just imported need the same correction I can do it once and apply across the batch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to do more retouching, such as cropping, red eye correction, spot healing ... etc. there are tools in there for that, as well as lens correction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Coupling that with the Publish features it has become almost transparent all the things that are actually happening. I don't have to think about publishing or deleting or updating photos on my SmugMug site, LR takes care of it when I say sync.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The biggest single suggestion I have is try the 30 day free trial and look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://tv.adobe.com/product/lightroom/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Lightroom TV&quot;&gt;Adobe's online help and video tutorials&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1901" LastActivityDate="2010-12-23T17:38:50.387" />
  <row Id="5985" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5987" CreationDate="2010-12-23T18:15:08.890" Score="5" ViewCount="479" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm still not quite sure I understand the way Aperture manages the library.  I've been telling it to put all the pictures I import into a specific directory in a new project-named folder, but if I understand correctly I &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; have all the files in that single library container (why I would want that, I don't know).  Add to that masters and stacks: Aren't all the images I upload masters?  I understand that the concept of a stack is the master and all it's versions, but why then can I &quot;autostack&quot; things I upload?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway...if anyone knows of a place where this all gets explained in an easy to understand manner, I'd appreciate it.  Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2779" LastActivityDate="2010-12-23T21:52:39.990" Title="Aperture 3 library management: Where can I find a good explanation?" Tags="&lt;apple-aperture&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="5986" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5979" CreationDate="2010-12-23T18:49:27.347" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best advice is, find something that you are interested in and can take a whole lot of pictures. Try different angles, situations, etc, but just take alot of pictures. The ideas listed in the above question, but the most important thing is, just take pictures, and lots of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2010-12-23T18:49:27.347" />
  <row Id="5987" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5985" CreationDate="2010-12-23T20:32:20.523" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a nice explaination of this and other related issues at &lt;a href=&quot;http://go-dslr.com/apple-aperture/aperture-3-file-management-part-1basics-aperture-3-file-management-made-easy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photograph for the Masses&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2010-12-23T20:32:20.523" />
  <row Id="5988" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5985" CreationDate="2010-12-23T21:52:39.990" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Having all the files in the one single container is easy when you want to move or copy your library to another system. Then there's just the library, nothing more. It's inconvenient however, if you want access to your files from other applications. I myself have all files in the single container, back from the days when I copied libraries back and forth between my MacBook Air and my iMac. I do keep multiple libraries however, one per year.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Stacks can be a master and all its versions, but you can basically stack any group of images you want. I typically use stacks if I take multiple shots of one subject (something the autostack function can do, based on time) or if pictures really belong together, like the shots that make up a panorama image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All the images you import into your library are masters. Versions are variations on your master. The master image is never altered; aperture just stores the adjustments you made to the master image. This is great for experimenting with your images without it costing tons of disc space.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2435" LastActivityDate="2010-12-23T21:52:39.990" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5989" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5991" CreationDate="2010-12-23T22:06:11.810" Score="6" ViewCount="299" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whenever I try to take pictures of actors in a stage show, the colors always end up looking wrong. I assume it's something to do with the abnormal lighting—we don't have peach, blue, green, and amber light shining on us in &quot;real life&quot;, after all—but I'm not sure how to compensate for the difference between what the camera expects and what it gets from a stage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I shoot in JPEG using a Canon PowerShot SD750. Not the most advanced camera in the world, but I have been toying with &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CHDK&lt;/a&gt; on it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="343" LastEditorUserId="343" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-23T22:35:52.720" LastActivityDate="2011-06-02T01:13:37.443" Title="How to photograph live stage shows?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="5990" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5989" CreationDate="2010-12-23T22:32:08.410" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best advice I can give is to shoot Raw. The white balance under theatre lighting is often so far from what you encounter with normal shooting that one of the colour channels (usually the red channel) clips (becomes overexposed) which prevents further editing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm afraid this approach will require more time in editing but there's not much you can do as the camera can't expect to do white balance by itself under these conditions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;edit&lt;/strong&gt; just read your comment. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without shooting Raw you don't have many options I'm afraid. You could attempt to set a custom white balance but the conditions will be constantly changing. You could also edit the JPEGs but you have limited ability  due to the problem of clipping colour channels due to extreme colour casts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-23T22:49:40.977" LastActivityDate="2010-12-23T22:49:40.977" />
  <row Id="5991" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5989" CreationDate="2010-12-24T03:54:02.433" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, stage lighting is tungsten in origin. As such, I recommend setting your white-balance to that. Sure, the gels are going to give all sorts of other colors, but if your settings match what the actual lights are, you'll have the best chances at a reasonable facsimile of what your eyes were seeing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And yes, if you can shoot RAW (with CHDK, in your case), that will help you be more able to fine-tune, handle the edges of the dynamic range, etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Happy shooting!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2010-12-24T03:54:02.433" />
  <row Id="5992" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5994" CreationDate="2010-12-24T04:39:05.233" Score="0" ViewCount="449" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am having trouble figuring out how to turn on the view finder display/ monitor on my d7000. the instructions are of no help and the web is no better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am fearing that the unit may be defective cause i have pressed all the buttons on the darn thing already and nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-28T16:25:58.537" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T16:25:58.537" Title="How do I turn on/off the d7000 view finder / monitor?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;nikon-d7000&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5993" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5996" CreationDate="2010-12-24T05:06:52.860" Score="6" ViewCount="214" Body="&lt;p&gt;How can you best photograph Christmas lights? I've had tons of problems, the auto-meters don't work at all, and I'm fairly clueless, other than to get a tripod and keep trying until something sticks... Any tips for both DSLRs and Point and Shoots?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-24T05:31:44.293" LastActivityDate="2010-12-26T16:46:23.910" Title="How do you photograph Christmas Lights?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;holidays&gt;&lt;christmas&gt;&lt;lights&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="5994" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5992" CreationDate="2010-12-24T06:37:26.113" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're talking about the video screen on the back for live view, I believe the D7000 has the little spring loaded toggle switch.  Its a small switch with a red dot button in the middle of it, towards the upper right hand corner of the screen.  Rotate it clockwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See the picture below with the &quot;Lv&quot; and the red dot on the button.  Rotate that lever.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/SncEz.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2010-12-24T06:37:26.113" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5995" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6004" CreationDate="2010-12-24T09:23:56.237" Score="3" ViewCount="207" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Tamron 70 - 300mm lens. I have noticed that the best focus I can achieve at the 300mm setting is not as sharp as the focus I usually get at a lower setting. Is this a common problem? Is there any way to work around this? The camera I use is a Canon 1000D. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2394" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-30T07:14:02.973" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T07:14:02.973" Title="Focusing problem with telephoto lens" Tags="&lt;focus&gt;&lt;telephoto&gt;&lt;tamron&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="5996" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5993" CreationDate="2010-12-24T09:28:13.797" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can see two questions here, &lt;em&gt;how do you set the camera up for Christmas lights&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;how do you creatively photograph Christmas lights&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the former I'd need more information on the specific problems you're having however shooting manual in low, challenging light conditions will be a process of trial and error I'm afraid. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the second question, &lt;em&gt;BBischof&lt;/em&gt; suggestion is a very good one. Here are a couple of examples of the use of tree lights out of focus to produce abstract photos:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3130/3151143676_44b4c218c1_z.jpg?zz=1&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3284/3151143672_44b4c218c1_z.jpg?zz=1&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to get this effect you need to either get very close or use a large aperture lens such as a 50 f/1.8. These were taken close up with a 100 f/2.8 macro lens. It should be possible to get a similar effect with a P&amp;amp;S camera using the camera's macro function.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For outdoor tree lights a technique I've found to be effective is to wait for a heavy frost and then get out early before the sun rises, the frost on the tree or other structure will reflect the lights giving you a very multicoloured subject!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2069/2107257640_78c4de00e4_z.jpg?zz=1&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A tripod and long exposure were required for this shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-12-24T09:28:13.797" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="5997" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5998" CreationDate="2010-12-24T11:45:04.540" Score="6" ViewCount="411" Body="&lt;p&gt;Very often, when people are talking about photography, they use the expression &quot;long exposure&quot;. Here's a quote from &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/5993/how-do-you-photograph-christmas-lights/5996#5996&quot;&gt;a recent answer&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A tripod and long exposure were required for this shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where do exactly long exposure begin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;At the moment when tripod is required to avoid blur, depending on the vibration reduction features of the lens and the focal length used?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Or at &lt;em&gt;n&lt;/em&gt; milliseconds shutter speed?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2236" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-15T21:42:51.073" LastActivityDate="2011-04-15T21:42:51.073" Title="What does &quot;long exposure&quot; mean?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;shutter-speed&gt;&lt;long-exposure&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="5998" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5997" CreationDate="2010-12-24T11:58:45.773" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Usually, long exposure photography is about capturing stationary scenes with elements of movement being blurred. For example, this shot I took in Rome:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Cauql.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, the exposure was 1.3 seconds. However, that definition isn't the only one, it's really just about capturing an image that will require a shutter speed that is usually too long to hand-hold. That doesn't mean you're on a tripod, you may be doing a long exposure shot hand-held for the effect, but under normal circumstances you would expect the need for a tripod.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, that's my take on it. Perhaps there's a more formal definition that one of our pros may offer up, but the first one I gave you appears to be the most common one for formal definition that I've seen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-24T11:58:45.773" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="5999" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-24T12:52:36.680" Score="2" ViewCount="152" Body="&lt;p&gt;This may be a Panasonic-specific question. My camera is a DMC-FT2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the memory card, apart from the JPG files a lot of other file types can be found. Do you know what they contain and what they are for?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;\DCIM&#xA;  \100_PANA&#xA;    +P1000001.JPG, etc.     photos&#xA;\MISC                       empty folder&#xA;\PRIVATE&#xA;  \AVCHD&#xA;    \AVCHDTN&#xA;      +THUMB.DTD            about 2MB, contains thumbnails of movies?&#xA;      +THUMB.TID            about 2KB, maybe some kind of index&#xA;    \BDMV&#xA;      \CLIPINF&#xA;        +00000.CPI, etc.    ?? 1 per movie&#xA;      \PLAYLIST&#xA;        +00000.MPL, etc.    ?? only a few, seems to group up several movies together&#xA;      \STREAM&#xA;        +00000.MTS, etc.    the movies themselves&#xA;      +INDEX.BDM            small file, probably index&#xA;      +MOVIEOBJ.BDM         small file, probably index&#xA;    \IISVPL&#xA;      +00000.VPL, etc.      ?? only a few, one per playlist&#xA;  \MODELINF&#xA;    +MODELINF.DAT           just contains one line with the name of the camera&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you know of any reference information that would explain all of this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2814" LastActivityDate="2010-12-24T13:40:53.260" Title="Panasonic: misc files stored on memory card" Tags="&lt;memory-card&gt;&lt;panasonic&gt;&lt;file&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="6000" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5997" CreationDate="2010-12-24T13:04:03.120" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think there is a fixed amount of time in the definition of long exposure, but I'd go with something involving &quot;blur&quot; as you mentioned. Just keep in mind that &quot;blur&quot; is subjective and can be a quite important part of the picture, or maybe &quot;unintended blur&quot; would be a better criteria for the definition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you take panning (following you subject with the camera) for example, it usually generates blur around the subject, but it is exactly this blur that make the subject more &quot;alive&quot;. On the example below, the exposure time is not that big (0.8s) but was enough to blur the background and let the running woman float above it. This shot was hand-held (as most pannings are):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/carregal/5279599821/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Follow That Bus! | Siga aquele ônibus! by Andre Carregal, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5004/5279599821_2e2c608575_m.jpg&quot; width=&quot;240&quot; height=&quot;230&quot; alt=&quot;Follow That Bus! | Siga aquele ônibus!&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, if you don't want the background to blur or need longer exposure times then hand holding the camera will certainly not work. But you don't need to necessarily use a tripod, just make sure the camera does not move.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For that you can use anything nearby that is stable. Here for example I used a rock on the floor for a exposure time of 3.2 seconds:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/carregal/2883372763/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Right Reflection | Direita by Andre Carregal, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3145/2883372763_18abe5dc39_m.jpg&quot; width=&quot;240&quot; height=&quot;176&quot; alt=&quot;Right Reflection | Direita&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And here I used the church door to help me hand hold the camera for 0.3 seconds:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/carregal/4741485411/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Front End | Parte pública by Andre Carregal, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4097/4741485411_a61ea5c903_m.jpg&quot; width=&quot;180&quot; height=&quot;240&quot; alt=&quot;Front End | Parte pública&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or even the subway bench can help you... :o)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/carregal/5268023139/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Not The Red One | Não é o vermelho by Andre Carregal, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5245/5268023139_75b1c30f25_m.jpg&quot; width=&quot;161&quot; height=&quot;240&quot; alt=&quot;Not The Red One | Não é o vermelho&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is, keep an eye for stable supports. Carrying a tripod is helpful, but not mandatory. One important thing though (at least for compact cameras) is to make sure you turn off image stabilization before taking a shot from a stable position (and make sure you turn it back on later).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastEditorUserId="46" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-24T13:17:45.407" LastActivityDate="2010-12-24T13:17:45.407" />
  <row Id="6001" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5997" CreationDate="2010-12-24T13:18:24.783" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To me a long exposure is anything of a second or longer (at least that's what I meant when I wrote the line the questioner quoted!). I also would associate the term long exposure with any expsosure that requires a tripod for all lenses (a 1/100s exposure might require a tripod for a 400mm lens, but not a 50mm lens, so I wouldn't call it a long exposure, however a 1 second exposire would require a tripod even for a wide angle lens).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Long exposures aren't only to do with getting subject blur, long exposures can be used when there is very little light or you need a large depth of field in low light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-12-24T13:18:24.783" />
  <row Id="6002" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5993" CreationDate="2010-12-24T13:24:24.517" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Any time you have a subject that is difficult to meter, it's time to start watching the preview and fiddling with the EV adjustment (exposure compensation). If the area around the lights isn't dark enough and/or the lights are washed out, go for a negative adjustment (less light to the sensor). If the lights are too dim and/or the area around the lights too dark go for a positive adjustment (more light to the sensor).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you have some experience, you will better know where to start on the adjustments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that changing the exposure compensation will change the shutter speed and aperture the camera is using (assuming you are on program mode). So you may need to recheck your shutter speed and aperture and make an adjustment with the program shift if you wanted a specific aperture or shutter speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2228" LastActivityDate="2010-12-24T13:24:24.517" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6003" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5999" CreationDate="2010-12-24T13:40:53.260" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The AVCHD directory is for video files. I asked a similar question on another site (can't find it at the moment though). But it looks like you've gotten the gist of what they do. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD#Overview&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia's page on AVCHD&lt;/a&gt; lists this structure as well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/E6ZyW.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not sure where there is an official reference though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="530" LastActivityDate="2010-12-24T13:40:53.260" />
  <row Id="6004" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5995" CreationDate="2010-12-24T14:19:52.820" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Every lense have a different sharpness. Some zooms are better at the begining of the range, some in the middle, some at the end. &#xA;Maybe yours isn't at it's best on the end.&#xA;Check online reviews, there sure be someone who noted that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If not, some other things can be checked : &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;sharpness change depending on the aperture size. How is the sharpness when closing aperture two or 3 stops down ? (going to f8 or f11 for example if your lense if max f4 ?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;at 300mm and more, any move can produce a slight defocus. What speed are you shooting at ? A basic rule is to use 1/zoom seconds. In your case, use a speed greater than 1/300 of a second. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;back or front focus problem : if the back/front focus is not correct, you will lose focus while changing the zoom factor. If you don't know what I'm talking about, check with a pro. Most of the time you can't do anything about it on your own.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2816" LastActivityDate="2010-12-24T14:19:52.820" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6005" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5995" CreationDate="2010-12-24T15:19:53.430" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is normal — lens design is an exercise in compromise, and making a lens zoom comes at a cost. That cost can be paid with size, weight, expensive exotic elements, or just plain accepting more image quality flaws.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to overall sharpness decrease, lenses often back- or front-focus on a given camera body differently at different focal lengths. With a prime lens this can be compensated for (by sending your camera and lenses for service, or on higher-end cameras through custom settings), but I'm not aware of any camera which has a per-lens compensation which can have multiple settings for different focal lengths of the same zoom lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-12-24T15:19:53.430" />
  <row Id="6006" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6019" CreationDate="2010-12-24T16:08:18.603" Score="-5" ViewCount="416" Body="&lt;p&gt;so I am trying to get DOF portraits of my daughter with my nikon d7000.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;as per my previous post:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/5971/can-i-get-dof-using-nikon-d7000-kit-lens-18-105-f3-5-5-6&quot;&gt;link text&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;i am zoom in in to 100mm or so and trying to get a large aperture but as i zoom in to 100mm the camera decreases f# to about 6.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;i dialed into aperture priority and still having problems getting this down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;can anyone give me Nikon specific instructions on how to get this done, or what I am doing wrong?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: strange but in questions that i post and get voted down, i get more and better feedback than those they age rated well. if i seem to be re-posting similar questions it is because I don't get the result desired and/or I didn't understand the responses posted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="2200" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-09T23:47:43.743" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T23:47:43.743" Title="How can i get bokeh with an aperture of 3.5 as my max?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;lens-design&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="12" />
  <row Id="6007" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6006" CreationDate="2010-12-24T16:26:20.803" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The aperture range on your lens indicates the maximum aperture at the shortest end to the maximum aperture at the longest end. So, at 18mm you can have f/3.5 but at 105mm you can only have f/5.6. That's pretty typical for a kit lens, the much more expensive zooms will offer a constant aperture across the entire range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-24T16:26:20.803" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6008" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6006" CreationDate="2010-12-24T17:05:40.553" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It all depends on the lens, not so much the camera. My suggestion, buy a better lens, there's several that'll do the trick for only a small amount of cash. Take a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Camera-Lenses/index.page&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon's Lens&lt;/a&gt;, and here's a few specific ones that might catch your attention. Sorry, I'm a bit more familiar with Canon's line-up, but they seem to be adequate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000EOSHGQ?tag=httpwwwpearso-20&amp;amp;camp=213381&amp;amp;creative=390973&amp;amp;linkCode=as4&amp;amp;creativeASIN=B000EOSHGQ&amp;amp;adid=1TD8SMCB9EKRXZNWMC7X&amp;amp;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon 105mm f/2.8G&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00005LEOH?tag=httpwwwpearso-20&amp;amp;camp=213381&amp;amp;creative=390973&amp;amp;linkCode=as4&amp;amp;creativeASIN=B00005LEOH&amp;amp;adid=0SCGT3NM5ZNCH3E2WQ7F&amp;amp;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00005LE75?tag=httpwwwpearso-20&amp;amp;camp=213381&amp;amp;creative=390973&amp;amp;linkCode=as4&amp;amp;creativeASIN=B00005LE75&amp;amp;adid=1F4VX0YZZ1PZTT4CZ9FB&amp;amp;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;AF NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8D&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00005LEN4?tag=httpwwwpearso-20&amp;amp;camp=213381&amp;amp;creative=390973&amp;amp;linkCode=as4&amp;amp;creativeASIN=B00005LEN4&amp;amp;adid=0KQS9WZKQ7G3QXQB96YD&amp;amp;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon 50mm f/1.8D&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001S2PPT0?tag=httpwwwpearso-20&amp;amp;camp=213381&amp;amp;creative=390973&amp;amp;linkCode=as4&amp;amp;creativeASIN=B001S2PPT0&amp;amp;adid=0FB6H8AZ25R2MKSM40EY&amp;amp;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon 35mm f/1.8G&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-24T17:48:55.523" LastActivityDate="2010-12-24T17:48:55.523" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="6009" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6012" CreationDate="2010-12-24T18:26:31.153" Score="6" ViewCount="403" Body="&lt;p&gt;Currently, the zoomiest lens I have is a Nikon 18-200mm. I want to be able to take photos of wildlife, or in most cases birds, which I can't do at 200mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a long time, I wanted to purchase a Nikon AF VR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED. It is very small and weights nothing; it's also really cheap (approx. $1000). On the other hand, I suppose that the quality of this lens is not very good, especially at 350 to 400mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nikon also has a big and heavy AF-S f/2.8G ED VR at +$9000, and an even larger and heavier AF-S 500mm f/4G ED VR at +$8000. Those two lenses are not a solution: they are too expensive for me, and their size and weight makes it impossible to take them in a bag for long walks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a lens somewhere between, compatible with Nikon D7000? In other words, is there a lens with a slightly better quality at 400mm or more (including fixed-length lenses) than a Nikon 80-400mm, but not as expensive as Nikon's 400mm and 500mm lenses and not as big and heavy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2236" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-25T02:30:55.443" LastActivityDate="2010-12-25T02:30:55.443" Title="What Nikon lens to buy to make photos of birds?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;telephoto&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6010" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6009" CreationDate="2010-12-24T18:53:46.470" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Taking a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Camera-Lenses/index.page&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon's Lens&lt;/a&gt; site, I see this as your best bet is &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.amazon.com/?tag=httpwwwpearso-20&amp;amp;camp=1&amp;amp;creative=4265&amp;amp;linkCode=as4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4D IF-ED&lt;/a&gt;. Aside from that, well, good glass costs lots of cash. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2010-12-24T18:53:46.470" />
  <row Id="6011" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6009" CreationDate="2010-12-24T19:18:30.093" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I own two Nikon long lenses; the 80-400 VR and the 500 f4 VR.  Both lenses take excellent photographs.  The problem with the 80-400 for shooting birds is the slow focus.  You will be very lucky to photograph a bird in flight with it.  If the birds are stationary, it will work just fine but it is not, nor was it designed to be, an action lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 500 is a great bird lens.  It focuses very fast and the picture quality is impeccable.  Plus, and this is a big plus, you can use with teleconverters.  I've used mine with both the 1.4 and 2.0 II's.  The 2.0 teleconverter slows the focus to a crawl so rules out action photos but you get the equivalent of a 1,500mm lens on a DX body.  the 1.4 teleconverter allows the 500 to focus just as fast as without the teleconverter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have also rented the 400 2.8 Nikon and it is a fantastic lens as well.  Two things held me back on the 400.  the first is that the lens is so fat, 2.8 you know, that it is hard for me to hand hold.  The other is the price which is quite a bit higher than the 500.  The 400 is probably the more versatile lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My smugmug account has several examples taken with both.  labboy.smugmug.com&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2819" LastActivityDate="2010-12-24T19:18:30.093" />
  <row Id="6012" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6009" CreationDate="2010-12-24T19:18:59.113" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's tough to get something ideal for birds that is both affordable and of quality. One of my favorite long zooms is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=407&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 100-300 F/4&lt;/a&gt;, it is not expensive and goes further than your current lens. Its also of excellent quality (certainly one of Sigma's best) but I honestly thing 300mm even on a cropped-sensor body can feel limiting for birds, then again it depends when and where you shoot birds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't want to pay the big bucks for something longer, then you're going to have to give up some quality and very importantly some light gathering ability. Luckily your cameras has a good high ISO performance. The most commonly used lens I see among birders (those who dedicate themselves to bird photography) is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=367&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 50-500mm F4.5-6.3&lt;/a&gt;. The quality is nothing great but you get awesome close shots. Remember that framing and composition make a shot much more than the ultimate quality of your less. Just make sure to select an ISO high enough to keep your shutter-speed at a level where you can freeze the bird's motion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nikon themselves make excellent telephoto lenses too, unfortunately you noticed the price is quite expensive. Sigma definitely carved itself a niche in super-telephoto lenses and offers a wide variety of lenses that reach out to 500mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-24T19:18:59.113" />
  <row Id="6013" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-24T19:43:26.290" Score="6" ViewCount="137" Body="&lt;p&gt;What two lenses should you carry to be able to take a majority of shots in a fast paced environment?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or more specifically: I just watched a documentary on PBS about Pete Souza, the current White House Photographer.  He's always running and having to take split-second photos of the president.  Does anyone know what he carries around?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2483" LastActivityDate="2010-12-26T17:17:16.440" Title="Lenses for fast-paced environment" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6014" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6013" CreationDate="2010-12-24T19:48:20.647" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I were photographing a President, I would want something that is very fast, has a reasonable zoom, and definitely image stabilization. That'd be the 70-200mm 2.8L with IS. As for a second, well, probably the 24-105 f/4 L.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that I don't own either, but they'd be what I would choose, if I had to, so...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2010-12-24T19:48:20.647" />
  <row Id="6015" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6013" CreationDate="2010-12-24T20:07:10.980" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many event photographers carry two primary lenses which cover most focal lengths needed for typical walkaround photos:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;24-70mm f/2.8&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;70-200mm f/2.8&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on what you describe, those would be my two go-to lenses.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-12-24T20:07:10.980" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6016" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6009" CreationDate="2010-12-24T20:25:58.597" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another option is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://ixbtlabs.com/articles2/rubinar/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;catadioptric lens&lt;/a&gt;, which utilizes a mirror in addition to glass optics. Very cheap, compact, and light for 500mm, 600mm, or even higher. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The downsides are numerous — fixed slow aperture (usually f/8), weird donut bokeh, no AF, and relatively low contrast. Image quality is not going to be top notch, but that might actually be because most such lenses are made to be sold cheaply. I don't think you'd want to use one hand-held, or to track flying birds, but I've seen &lt;a href=&quot;http://m.flickr.com/#/search/advanced_QM_q_IS_catadioptric_AND_ss_IS_0_AND_mt_IS_all_AND_w_IS_all_AND_s_IS_int&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;some impressive results&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-12-24T20:25:58.597" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6017" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6006" CreationDate="2010-12-24T21:14:09.927" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Frankly, I don't care if this gets downvoted (and it seems I'm headed in that general direction with this topic), but how difficult would it be to zoom out to 50-60mm and get twice as close? Just to run an empirical experiment, you understand. Yes, getting faster glass will help (a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt;), and there's no way you'll get nearly as shallow a depth of field with you current lens as you'd get with an f/2 or faster lens, but give it a shot. The only thing you can possibly lose is a bit of time. (It cost me a lot of money in film to learn what I've learned.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2010-12-24T21:14:09.927" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6018" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5997" CreationDate="2010-12-24T22:45:21.823" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To me, this is a sort of general term, whose meaning will change depending on context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Given no other information&lt;/em&gt;, I would tend to think of &quot;long exposure&quot; meaning about a second or more (and it could be a lot more -- hours, and beyond).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I think in certain contexts, even exposures that we'd normally think of as fairly short could be considered &quot;long exposures&quot; -- a 1/100&quot; shutter speed would be a &quot;long exposure&quot; for, say, a shot of a hummingbird through a 400mm lens... there'd be blur, even with a tripod, because the bird's movements are that fast.  Usually, though, 1/100&quot; is not something I consider to be a long exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, how to define it, that would give a general answer?  There are a variety of options.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_exposure_photography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia says&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Long exposure photography entails&#xA;  using a long-duration shutter speed to&#xA;  sharply capture the stationary&#xA;  elements of images while blurring,&#xA;  smearing, or obscuring its moving&#xA;  elements&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which I think basically meets what I've said so far, though perhaps makes the 1 second exposure not &lt;em&gt;necessarily&lt;/em&gt; count as a long exposure (a sentiment I'd agree with, frankly).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think what defines it for me is one of two things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;As described above, having motion blur (while, typically though I wouldn't agree always, also having stillness in stationary elements).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Leaving enough time to capture light that what the film or sensor captures looks significantly different from what the human eye can see, unaided.  This can happen because of point 1, but it can also happen independently of it -- e.g. in a very dark or very high-contrast scene, you can pick up details that you can't see with your eyes by having a long enough exposure.  &quot;long enough&quot; will vary from scene to scene.  Looking at a bright sky, trying to capture detail in something that looks silhouetted, it might be 1/100&quot; again; in a dark night, it might be 100&quot;... or any manner of other options.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hopefully this helps give you a sense of it.  For what it's worth, I agree with at least several of the other answers, I just thought I'd put a different perspective on it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2010-12-24T22:45:21.823" />
  <row Id="6019" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6006" CreationDate="2010-12-24T23:14:44.600" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can't zoom to f/3.5 at 100mm on your lens, your lens will do at best f/5.6 at 105mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can however get a shallow DOF effect quite easily, for example by shooting at f/5.6 at 105mm, with your subject quite close (say 6ft) and you background say 10ft behind the subject. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/noirs/sets/72157625541149359/with/5289107008/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;set of photos&lt;/a&gt; I took with a Nikon D70 (much older predecessor to the D7000!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see the shot at f/2.8 has a shallower depth of field than at f/5.6, but at f/5.6 you can clearly see the subject in focus and the background blurred, you can even see that at f/8.  (They aren't all sharp, I was on a tripod, long exposures, and caused the camera to move when I released the shutter, i used a 5s timer after that..!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At f/5.6 at 200mm the effect is even more pronounced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure at f/5.6 at 105mm you could do even better than I did, getting closer to the subject, and having the background further away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/noirs/5289106404/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;DSC_9335 by AlexBlack, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5123/5289106404_9bea3bd4d6.jpg&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;333&quot; alt=&quot;DSC_9335&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;f/2.8, 105mm&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/noirs/5289107008/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;DSC_9336 by AlexBlack, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5282/5289107008_442592ed7a.jpg&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;333&quot; alt=&quot;DSC_9336&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;f/5.6, 105mm&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/noirs/5289107568/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;DSC_9337 by AlexBlack, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5287/5289107568_ac1d72314e.jpg&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;333&quot; alt=&quot;DSC_9337&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;f/8, 105mm&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/noirs/5289108290/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;DSC_9341 by AlexBlack, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5285/5289108290_0a6ed29e4f.jpg&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;333&quot; alt=&quot;DSC_9341&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;f/5.6, 200mm&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="934" LastEditorUserId="934" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-24T23:20:08.963" LastActivityDate="2010-12-24T23:20:08.963" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6020" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-25T00:59:33.347" Score="1" ViewCount="183" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello! I am frustrated with my Nikon D5000. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I click 'Live View', there is a timer by the corner that limits it to 30 seconds only. After that, it automatically shuts off. This is frustrating especially for video recording. I looked through EVERYWHERE in the menu, and nothing. :| Can someone help? THANK YOU&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2821" LastActivityDate="2010-12-25T03:35:33.007" Title="How to turn off Nikon D5000 live view timer?" Tags="&lt;video&gt;&lt;viewfinder&gt;&lt;nikon-d5000&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="6021" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6035" CreationDate="2010-12-25T02:07:34.873" Score="3" ViewCount="124" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a layer that is at 50% opacity. But in certain regions, I want to use a paintbrush to bring the opacity higher. How can I do this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2823" LastActivityDate="2010-12-26T16:41:42.783" ClosedDate="2010-12-27T02:09:23.063" Title="How can I &quot;paint-with-opacity&quot; onto a layer in gimp" Tags="&lt;gimp&gt;&lt;layer&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="6022" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6020" CreationDate="2010-12-25T03:35:33.007" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If its anything like the D3100, there's a &quot;Timing&quot; menu under the shooting menu in setup and then its a &quot;custom&quot; timing mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2010-12-25T03:35:33.007" />
  <row Id="6023" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6021" CreationDate="2010-12-25T03:51:09.177" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I may be wrong, but I don't think that what you are looking for is feasible. The layer opacity is called that because it applies to the whole layer, and the only thing you can do is make part of the layer more transparent by increasing alpha, not less.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to modulate higher, then you must select either 100% opacity for that layer (probably the easiest option) or the maximum opacity you intend to use and make most of your image partially transparent with the alpha channel to reach the 50% you want in most places.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On this layer you then check the layer menu to add a mask (and transfer the existing alpha channel if there is one, such as after you have gone through this process once). When you paint in the mask, black makes the painted portion of this layer totally opaque, while white makes it totally transparent. Choose your tools to put the right shade of grey where you want and it'll give you exactly the alpha channel that you want. When done, go to the layer menu again, mask -&gt; apply the mask. You're done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this would give you the type of control you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2736" LastActivityDate="2010-12-25T03:51:09.177" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6024" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-25T09:13:28.780" Score="8" ViewCount="186" Body="&lt;p&gt;I travel a lot and would like to be able to edit tags and organize photos from two separate machines.  Sometimes my wife would be doing it from the home computer while  I would do it from a laptop while in a hotel.  We would both be online so I am not worried about editing offline.  We do minimal cropping and red eye reduction but I am more concerned about managing the thousands of photos than spending time on single photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have used adobe elements in the past and was annoyed as it seemed that our time spent tagging was tied to the proprietary software.  Seems odd that it is so hard to export these photos to offline photo book makers - but I guess that is a second question!  right now I use Picasa - if there was a way to automatically synchronize then it would be perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2824" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T06:06:36.377" Title="Amateur software for photo organizing / tagging across computers" Tags="&lt;workflow&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6025" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6024" CreationDate="2010-12-25T10:56:26.630" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One option would be to use an external storage service (like Dropbox) to store the photos. But you could also consider using a service like Flickr to store them and synchronize the photos with the two machines using Lightroom for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not saying that would be easy since I have not tested the scenario.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2010-12-25T10:56:26.630" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6026" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6027" CreationDate="2010-12-25T19:06:02.347" Score="8" ViewCount="298" Body="&lt;p&gt;From my understanding, if you want to do some macro photography it is better to have a lens that can focus when it is really close to the subject. Sometimes people buy extension tubes to help them achieve this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is: how do I tell before buying a lens how closely it can focus. This doesn't seem to be one of the standard properties listed in the lens name except for maybe when a lens says &quot;macro&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2746" LastEditorUserId="2746" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-31T05:45:18.307" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T05:45:18.307" Title="How close can a lens focus?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;focus&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;lens-design&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6027" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6026" CreationDate="2010-12-25T19:41:03.957" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is called Minimum Focusing Distance. It is measured from the film/sensor plane. Usually it's printed on the lens ( next to a flower icon ).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="507" LastActivityDate="2010-12-25T19:41:03.957" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6028" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-25T22:01:08.280" Score="3" ViewCount="293" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently got Adobe Lightroom 3, and I'd like to migrate my iPhoto 09 library. I'd like to know the best way to do this, with the corresponding tradeoffs between fuss and feature loss.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;iPhoto of course stores all my original photo files, and Lightroom of course can import them through File =&gt; Import Photos.... However, there's a lot of iPhoto features that, in an ideal world, I'd like to preserve/translate into Lightroom:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Events&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Non-destructive edits to photos&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Faces&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Places / geospatial information&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Albums, including Smart Albums and folders&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Keywords / tags&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is possible? What is easy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastEditorUserId="48" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-26T20:05:14.870" LastActivityDate="2010-12-26T20:05:14.870" Title="Migrating from iPhoto to Lightroom" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;photo-management&gt;&lt;iphoto&gt;&lt;file&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="6029" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6026" CreationDate="2010-12-25T22:56:58.050" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A dedicated macro lens will always be a prime lens, at least from Canon/Nikon, they will allow you to get really close. If you have a zoom lens that says Macro, it's only Macro to maybe a foot or two away, which isn't real macro. Most lenses have the minimum focal distance included somewhere on the lens, so keep an eye out for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-26T13:41:02.547" LastActivityDate="2010-12-26T13:41:02.547" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6030" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6026" CreationDate="2010-12-26T00:33:49.993" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Minimum focusing distance is useful to know, but it is only indirectly related to how much the lens will magnify an image.  More to the point is the &lt;strong&gt;maximum magnification&lt;/strong&gt;.  This figure is often available (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_50mm_lens&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; for an example) and is typically reported in two ways: in a form like &quot;0.2x&quot;, which means an object can be reproduced at 0.2 times life size on the sensor, or &quot;1:5&quot;, which means the same thing expressed in reciprocal form.  A true macro lens has a maximum magnification of at least 1x (or 1:1).  Many good general-purpose lenses have max magnifications around 0.15x to 0.5x.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes you have to hunt for this information.  With &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon lenses&lt;/a&gt;, for instance, the max. magnification is usually found at the end of the user manual (available online in pdf format).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2010-12-26T00:33:49.993" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6031" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4968" CreationDate="2010-12-26T04:59:23.773" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Mini USB won't give you any power to or for the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But when you have it hooked up, the camera's battery is used up much faster. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Three answers:&#xA;1. Canon ACK-E2 (Fake battery adapter). $60.00, but you have a cord.&#xA;2. Canon vertical grip. $300 and about a pound of weight &#xA;3. ATG AK1 Un-Tethered Systems. $500, very light. Image/Live-View/flash-wirelessly with many cameras!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2828" LastActivityDate="2010-12-26T04:59:23.773" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6032" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-26T08:35:29.227" Score="3" ViewCount="217" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have some photos shot in low light with a compact camera which exhibit significant chroma noise, which I’d like to correct as much as possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My searches turned up a technique called “chroma blur,” where, presumably, one or more color channels can be blurred to smooth out chroma noise. Unfortunately, I can’t locate this at all in Aperture 3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is &lt;a href=&quot;http://support.apple.com/kb/TA24526?viewlocale=en_US&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;mention of this on Apple Support&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.bagelturf.com/aparticles/adjust/adjustchroma/index.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an example of its use&lt;/a&gt;, but both seem to be for Aperture 1. This part of the RAW adjustments is not present in Aperture 3, nor does it turn up when I search the manual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I read, the available options in the RAW Fine Tuning adjustment can vary based on the camera and RAW file format. However, chroma blur seems like something that wouldn’t be dependent on specific RAW features, or even RAW in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have two other techniques I’ve been using for reducing chroma noise:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;For splotchy noise, adjust the noisy channel’s luminance &amp;amp; saturation until it matches a surrounding area of flat color. Example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/P6pDE.gif&quot; alt=&quot;Example of chroma noise correction&quot;&gt; Cycle of: Original RAW image data (100% crop); yellow channel saturation increased to show noise; corrected image.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;For grainy noise on a flat-colored area, brush in a color adjustment which drops the noisy channel’s luminance. Example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/edJlM.gif&quot; alt=&quot;Example of chroma noise reduction&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While these two techniques seem viable, they both involve much more by-hand correction than I’d like, and chroma blur seems to require less. Is chroma blur hidden in Aperture 3 somewhere? What other techniques should I try to reduce chroma noise?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1905" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T09:02:25.443" Title="Reducing chroma noise in Aperture" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;apple-aperture&gt;&lt;noise-reduction&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="6033" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2627" CreationDate="2010-12-26T11:40:13.053" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I capture everything both raw and jpeg, it gives you the best of both worlds. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take this original jpeg:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/jHt0e.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;original jpeg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Normally you would probably junk this shot, its totally overexposed. Correcting it in photoshop is not going to give you more detail:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/pCKj5.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;corrected in photoshop&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contrast this with the RAW shot, which was underexposed 1 and a half stops during post: &#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/SKdpf.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;RAW&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You get significantly better texture and details. Using RAW saved a perfectly good shot from finding its way into the bin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In particular notice the detail on the overexposed floor it is totally missing in the jpeg.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="230" LastEditorUserId="230" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-28T02:13:01.627" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T02:13:01.627" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6034" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2627" CreationDate="2010-12-26T15:56:35.127" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ok, I'll just update my example a bit as it seems to be of the pixel-peeping and ambigous kind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;CHDK-RAW has been discovered by me for my Canon compact camera a while ago. Did shoot some High-ISO (400 is max for the used A610). Blown out highlights in JPG, cropped&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/xHzFB.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;crop jpg edts&quot;&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the RAW there are some more details preserved (on my monitor I can still see the outlines of the drawn line on the parquet) but the color noise is not smoothed out and still present too: caveat 1 (CameraRAW does not like .CRW).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Later edit&lt;/strong&gt;: dcraw does produce nice 48-bit-TIFF from the .CRW, but they do not have more details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/aqs3b.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;crop raw edts&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I seem to love blown out pictures. Next one is from a wedding (D90), where I managed to take a photo of someone elses flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/IOYmx.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;crop jpg wedding&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ok, this photo was truly lost ... but the brides face was nice. I took a look at the NEF with CameraRaw and really managed to squeeze out some more details. But it did not save the day, as you can see (the face was still comical enough to preserve in the end, but only as an oversaturated joke).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fnZQZ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;crop raw wedding&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now for the miracle of the many stops that can be recovered. Here I aimed for the silhouette and the shot was great. Of course, no detail in the face, I can see a tiny bit of the scarf in the JPG, but that is all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/eAc6E.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;crop jpg icehotel&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I preserved the NEF (D90), I did tinker around a bit. And you can really make out some outlines of the face. But the color noise was horrible, so I had to soft out all detail with denoising.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ySlxP.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;crop raw icehotel&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My conclusion?  I wanted to show ambigous examples, because RAW is no miracle-worker and additionally costs money for a decent converter and time. RAW can save a picture, if the in-camera-JPG-conversion seriously misjudged the picture, as sometimes the case with extremes. But these extremes - in my mind - better should be noticed and compensated in-camera beforehand, even the best case of RAW-application: wrong white balance. jristas example of retoning his picture does remind me of the colour-differences with a CPL turned by 90° on a sunny day:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/irOen.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;crop GC1&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/vAftx.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;crop GC2&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I myself shoot JPG+RAW, because the one worthy picture in hundreds of bad that might be saved this way does cost me ... today nothing really (fast card+camera). But I look at the RAW only after all the good JPG are sorted and edited and ready for the &quot;customers&quot; (amateur) ... and only if I have the time left to play around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastEditorUserId="2317" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-14T06:35:01.220" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T06:35:01.220" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6035" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6021" CreationDate="2010-12-26T16:41:42.783" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set opacity to 100%.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Add layer mask.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fill the mask with 50% gray.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Draw into mask using black and white any way you want.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-12-26T16:41:42.783" />
  <row Id="6036" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5993" CreationDate="2010-12-26T16:46:23.910" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a post about this at Strobist:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/12/how-to-photograph-christmas-lights.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strobist: How to Photograph Christmas Lights&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Basically it's about waiting for the right time to balance christmas lights with outdoor ambient.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-12-26T16:46:23.910" />
  <row Id="6037" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6013" CreationDate="2010-12-26T17:17:16.440" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It really depends on the sort of distance you are at, but if you want to limit it to 2 lenses I would suggest zooms. For fast paced you would want fast lenses (small f number) so this would bring me to the 70-200f2.8 (available on both Canon &amp;amp; Nikon systems) and probably the 24-70f2.8 (also available on both systems). The only problem is that on a cropped sensor camera 24-70mm may not be wide enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However in this sort of situation I would use two bodies as wel as 2 lenses as you could easily miss the moment while you are changing lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastActivityDate="2010-12-26T17:17:16.440" />
  <row Id="6038" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6028" CreationDate="2010-12-26T18:15:00.863" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that all of the items you noted are stored in a proprietary format specific to iPhoto with one exception: location information can be exported.  Exporting the location information should write the GPS data to the photo's metadata; Lightroom should then be able to read this data on import.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-12-26T18:15:00.863" />
  <row Id="6039" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6057" CreationDate="2010-12-26T19:30:24.660" Score="11" ViewCount="314" Body="&lt;p&gt;During vacations and travel I tend to use my Nikon D90 and a 18-200 VR (image stabilisation) lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was very annoyed (and had no explanation) when I found images to be unsharp, which had be made in wide (20-30mm) and very fast shutter times (1/800s).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The images obviously had been unsharp from camera shake, but this was improbable if not impossible at 1/800s and 30mm using an VR/IS Lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later someone told me he read somewhere in the internet that VR lenses tend to blur pictures at very short shutter speeds like mine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I paid more attention to it, and my blur problems all are with VR lenses at very fast shutter speeds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I'd like to know: why to VR lenses blur pictures? At what speed do they ruin my pictures? Is there anything to do about this apart from disabling VR or better not buing lenses with VR/IS?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(interesting side note: as far as he told me only systems with VR/IS in the lens are prone to this problem. Systems with IS/VR in the DSLR Body do not have this problem).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T14:29:59.763" Title="Why is image stabilisation making images unsharp?" Tags="&lt;image-stabilization&gt;&lt;blur&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="6040" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6028" CreationDate="2010-12-26T19:36:09.293" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are moving from iPhoto to Lightroom, you might need to get yourself accustomed to a simpler form of organization. Outside of faces, which is currently lacking in any automatic form (you can manually add tags for people or families and search by those), it is one of the top requested features for the next release of Lightroom. For the rest, such as events, places, albums, and smart albums, you can use two existing Lightroom features for these: keywords (tags) and smart collections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keywording is the primary form of custom tagging, grouping, and searching in Lightroom. You can tag your photos with any keywords, you can create hierarchical keywords, and you can search by keyword sets, partial keywords, or words within the keyewords a photo is tagged with. You can easily add new keywords in a variety of ways (even paint them on with a tool in the library module), so managing them is pretty easy. Unlike iPhoto, which was designed for the average home user who needs more structure and form to their photo organization, Lightroom presents a very simple view of your photos. You don't have any special views.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With Lightroom, you can create things that mirror albums and smart albums...they are called collections and smart collections in lightroom. The concept should be pretty much identical. Collections are groups of images that you manually create from specifically selected photos, while Smart Collections are groups of images automatically created from a variety of search criteria, which can search keywords, EXIF metadata, or any other form of metadata like IPTC. Collections and smart collections can also be nested, allowing a high degree of organization.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for automatically moving your metadata from iPhoto to Lightroom, you might need to resort to some third-party plugins for this. I found one plugin for iPhoto called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/imaging_3d/metadataexportforiphoto.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Metadata Export for iPhoto 1.1.0&lt;/a&gt; that can export metadata to a variety of formats, including CSV, XML, XHTML, and a flat-file. I am not sure if it can export all metadata, or just some. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Lightroom, you can import the exported metadata using a plugin called LR/Transporter. It is designed to import from a CSV file, however I am not certain if it supports arbitrary formats, or a specific format. You may need to rework the file exported by the iPhoto Metadata Exporter a bit before importing. LR/Transporter has the ability to match up metadata with images in the Lightroom catalog, and that process is configurable. It should do the trick. You may be able to tweak the CSV file before importing to automatically add keywords for events, faces, and places as well. As for importing albums/smart albums...I am not sure it is possible to import that. You will probably need to recreate your albums as collections in Lightroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-12-26T19:36:09.293" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6041" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6039" CreationDate="2010-12-26T19:44:28.430" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Using lenses with IS can take a little practice to get used to and use effectively. There are times when IS/VR may actually add blur to your images, due to the way it functions. Generally, if you are using a lens with image stabilization, you need to make sure that IS is active and tracking before you fully press the shutter button. If you make the mistake of fully pressing the shutter from a fully depressed state, IS will kick in &lt;strong&gt;as the shot is being exposed&lt;/strong&gt;, which results in either blur, or possibly a slight double-image. This can occur at any shutter speed, slow or fast, since it is the lens group inside the lens itself that is causing it when it moves once IS is activated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The solution is to make sure you have the shutter button partially pressed when you are tracking and framing your shot. Use the IS feature to help you frame your shots hand-held, and when you have it framed, fully press the shutter without lifting your finger first. This will keep the IS active while the image is exposed, and only disable it after you depress the shutter button. If you are using a tripod, you may need to disable your IS/VR feature on the lens. Some lenses have tripod-sensing IS, or mutli-modal IS. If you have either of these, you should be ok to leave IS on while on a tripod, however it is best to take a couple trial shots to determine that for certain. If you have a modal IS feature, you may want to change the mode if there is a tripod-specific mode. If you have any blurring trouble while using an image-stabilized lens on a tripod, it is best to just disable it and go without IS. At times, you may find that you have trouble focusing a shot with a telephoto lens on a tripod, and that IS is the only thing that helps. I regularly enable IS to frame and focus, then disable it (carefully as to not change my composition) and use a cable-release to actually trigger the shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-26T20:35:39.570" LastActivityDate="2010-12-26T20:35:39.570" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6042" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6026" CreationDate="2010-12-27T00:14:33.733" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Any lens can be used for very close focus, using a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-up_filter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;close-up filter&lt;/a&gt;. If you already have a telephoto this might be your best option. For example, I took this photo using a 80–200 mm lens:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/SO7ia.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Swallowtail butterfly&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2269" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T00:14:33.733" />
  <row Id="6043" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5995" CreationDate="2010-12-27T02:22:11.123" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a common facet of zoom lenses. Unlike prime lenses, where all lens elements can be utilized to maximize the image quality at a single focal length, zoom lenses have to make trade-offs between image quality, focus, and various optical aberrations. Smaller zoom ranges usually tend to have better IQ throughout the focal range, while lenses with larger zoom ranges often have a sweet spot where IQ is at its best, which falls off as you move towards the extremes. Usually, lenses with less than 4x zoom difference between the minimum and maximum will offer better IQ, while lenses with more than 5x will usually have to compromise in one or more areas. IQ issues are usually compounded with off-brand lenses like Tamron when compared with similar brand lenses from Nikon, Canon, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that compromises are usually optical in nature, and lenses tend to experience their worst optical aberrations when shot wide open. If your lens is soft at 300mm, you can try to stop down the aperture a bit, and see if things sharpen up. You should usually be able to gain some improvement in sharpness by tightening the aperture a stop or two on most lenses. You might also want to make sure you are not simply experiencing some kind of front/back focus problem at 300mm. If your camera has any kind of focus fine tuning adjustment, you might try tweaking that a bit to see if it is even possible to get clear focus at 300mm. If so, you should either get your lens serviced, or exchange it for another copy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, it should be noted that as focal length increases, so does the effect of any amount of motion, either caused by holding or touching the lens or camera when taking a shot, or by motion of the object you are photographing. You will probably want to make sure your lens is on a tripod for best use at 100mm or beyond. If you can't stabilize the lens on your own, it might be a good idea to sell the Tamron and buy a lens with some kind of image stabilization in it, such as one of the Canon 70-200mm IS variants. IS can greatly improve the handholdability of a lens at longer focal lengths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T02:22:11.123" />
  <row Id="6044" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6457" CreationDate="2010-12-27T02:33:28.943" Score="2" ViewCount="186" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi there&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was new to this CLS technology from Nikon and wanting to make full use of this technology. Unfortunately recently I just bought a Sunpak ring flash and it does not support CLS function. May I know is there any extension modules to be able to use my ring flash as part of the CLS so it can fire off from my main camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1786" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T16:03:53.123" Title="CLS to work with third-party Ring Flash?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;speedlite&gt;&lt;ring-flash&gt;&lt;cls&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6045" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6048" CreationDate="2010-12-27T02:47:46.720" Score="2" ViewCount="272" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have had my Nikon D40 for a while, and some of the pictures are coming out distorted.&#xA;Two examples are below: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my questions are: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How do I fix them after the fact? - i.e. after they have been imported from the camera - if possible&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How do I prevent future pictures from being distorted like this?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ryq69.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt; and &lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/kM8qB.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2837" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-27T14:40:20.020" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T01:46:07.387" Title="Why do my images get distorted on my Nikon d40?" Tags="&lt;nikon-d40&gt;&lt;data-corruption&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="6046" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6044" CreationDate="2010-12-27T03:54:56.440" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, but both Metz and Sigma offer flashes which are compatible with the Nikon wireless flash system. They work differently — Sigma's acts as a controller, while Metz's works as one of the slaves, controlled by the on-camera flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think you're going to have any options with the flash you have. While there are now some radio triggers (from PocketWizard and maybe others) that can transmit Nikon's proprietary TTL protocol, they require the flash itself to speak the protocol already. And even if that would work, you'd end up with a rather unwieldy bunch of connectors plugging it all together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-27T15:38:55.767" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T15:38:55.767" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="6047" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6069" CreationDate="2010-12-27T03:59:14.410" Score="12" ViewCount="380" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can use a DoF calculator, or crunch the heavy math by hand if I &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; want to know &lt;em&gt;exactly&lt;/em&gt; what my DoF is going to be... but most of the time knowing exactly is actually overkill, and taking the time to pull out a DoF calculator is impractical. I'm wondering if anyone knows of a 'rule of thumb' that is common for quickly figuring out a rough estimate of what my DoF will be when I'm in the field...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-08T12:52:13.330" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T12:52:13.330" Title="Is there a 'rule of thumb' that I can use to estimate depth of field while shooting?" Tags="&lt;depth-of-field&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="6048" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6045" CreationDate="2010-12-27T04:50:10.733" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Likely culprits, in order of probability:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bad SD card (by far the most likely).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bad cable or card reader.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Something horribly wrong with the camera's electronics. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Something wrong on your computer.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;bad card&quot; scenario is, unfortunately, the most likely, and in that case the pictures are lost. If it is just the reader, transferring the files again might work — but you've probably already tried that. If you reformat the card, it &lt;em&gt;might&lt;/em&gt; work fine, but I sure wouldn't trust it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bad cards are a fact of life... I buy only brand-name pro-level cards. They're more expensive (possibly exploitatively so) but I think the extra quality guarantee is worth it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T04:50:10.733" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="6049" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5910" CreationDate="2010-12-27T04:51:51.373" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I tend to find that I'd rather shoot a picture 'straight' most of the time and introduce a rotation after the fact in post production, because that way I give myself the option. Of course I love spending time in post-production, so I do understand that my answer isn't optimal for a photographer that wants to do everything in camera in order to minimize time spent in post.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think there are certain types of shots that lend themselves well to rotation... shots that are dynamic in nature and/or are intended to convey a sense of movement. I also see a lot of '&quot;rotation for rotation's sake&quot; out of some photographers who don't necessarily have a great eye for composition, but think that it makes their shots 'better,' because photographs with severely dutched horizons has been a bit of a 'fad' in the advertising industry over the past few years...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I think that dutched composition is a tool in the toolbox to be used sparingly... Like a fisheye lens. The occasional picture shot with a 'specialty tool' can add life to a set, but if every picture is rotated it gets cliche real quick.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T04:51:51.373" />
  <row Id="6050" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6044" CreationDate="2010-12-27T05:05:58.893" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not sure if it would work for your situation... but I have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ray-flash.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ray Flash&lt;/a&gt; attached to my SB-600 that I fire off via CLS. The infrared signals are usually bouncy enough that the sensor can pick it up, even behind the &quot;down&quot; part of the Ray Flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T05:05:58.893" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6051" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6024" CreationDate="2010-12-27T06:06:36.377" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think another option could be to do management and tagging on the &quot;cloud&quot; and do edits just one at a time. The easiest solution that I can think of for this is to use a SmugMug account. One can edit keywords online, add captions, move to different galleries, place copies in different galleries, do smart galleries and collections ... and the list goes on and on. The ability for both of you to work at the same time should be fairly simple through either signing up as a Pro user and having an &quot;admin&quot; and an &quot;assistant&quot; account that would allow for multiple users. Or just sharing the &quot;admin&quot; account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basic things like cropping could be done online, however larger edits would require reuploading the files using the replace tool (http://www.smugmug.com/help/proof-retouch-replace)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now since you mentioned book publishing, I will say that SmugMug does have ties with various printers, including book publishers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am just a satisfied user which is why I recommended them. If you would like to try it out there is a free trial, you can even use my referral code &lt;a href=&quot;https://secure.smugmug.com/signup.mg?Coupon=D5I4bmVRNHNpU&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://secure.smugmug.com/signup.mg?Coupon=D5I4bmVRNHNpU&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use SmugMug quite a bit while traveling also as a method to backup my images, which could be beneficial.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1901" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T06:06:36.377" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6052" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6055" CreationDate="2010-12-27T06:08:36.967" Score="5" ViewCount="216" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am slightly confused as I have the budget for either but given that the 550D is newer model whereas 50D is better in the sense that it belongs to a higher series. &#xA;Are there any other deciding factors that I missed?  I am buying because I love photography and I won't be using it just casually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1209" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T22:28:44.383" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T11:28:55.440" Title="Which one would you suggest to buy from canon 550D and 50D ?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;canon-50d&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6053" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4811" CreationDate="2010-12-27T06:17:19.647" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My most recent use of Smart Collections has been to help with cataloging and backing things up. I wanted an easy way to place all my images using the Publish tool into my backup/storage solution, however that would easily overflow the collection size. I decided to create Smart Collections for each month since January 2000. This task might sound a little rough, but once the process was defined I quickly wrote a script to create the 132 rules.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what I ended up with was a collection that was listed as:&#xA;2000-01 January&#xA;2000-02 February&#xA;...&#xA;2010-12 December&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now when I am looking for something I can easily find it by honing in on the date. Yes, I could use the built in time tools in Lightroom, however that would not work for creating logical storage groups the way that using the Smart Collections would, since the Smart Collection works both in the library itself and in the publish section. It also means that my storage location is organized by year and month making it very easy to find what I am looking for when I am not using Lightroom, since my storage is in the cloud itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1901" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T06:17:19.647" />
  <row Id="6054" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5995" CreationDate="2010-12-27T06:55:25.450" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's a full-featured comprehensive review of the Tamron 70-300mm lens:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tamronlensreview.com/tamron70300vcreview&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.tamronlensreview.com/tamron70300vcreview&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a casual read it seems that the reviewer rated the center sharpness of the lens at 300mm as 'excellent' and the edge sharpness as 'great,' within the center range of the f-stops (f/4 to f/11). As mentioned by jrista, I would expect that the sharpness of the lens would drop off (probably considerably) as you work your way below f/4 and above f/11...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T06:55:25.450" />
  <row Id="6055" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6052" CreationDate="2010-12-27T07:39:09.453" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I own both, and while both are good cameras, to me the differences come down to whether you want to use a camera that is keeping with the form and functionality of Canon's 'professional' series of cameras, or you don't care about that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon 50D&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Feels more solid (more metal vs. plastic) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Screen on top  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2 adjustment wheels (550D only has 1)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;PC connector for a flash&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AF points are generally more responsive &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Brighter viewfinder (uses a pentaprisim instead of a pentamirror like the 550d)  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Higher burst rate (6.3fps vs. 3.65fps)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon 550D&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wider LCD screen &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;More megapixels (18 vs. 15.1) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;More advanced metering system (iFCL)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1080p video&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking the advice that I'd give is this: if you need to shoot video, or you &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; need the 3 megapixel jump up to 18mp, then go with the 550D... Otherwise, all things being equal, the fit, finish features and layout of the 50D are more in keeping with what is available on the higher-end Canon bodies As a 'non-casual' photographer over time you're more likely to migrate up to a body higher in the Canon food-chain, instead of down to a more consumer-oriented one, and with the 50D you'll already be used to the layout and operation of all the knobs and features of the 'pro' line of cameras (for the most part). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T07:39:09.453" />
  <row Id="6056" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6058" CreationDate="2010-12-27T07:57:24.753" Score="3" ViewCount="159" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are there any particular advantages to using the viewfinder for focussing instead of the lcd? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2394" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T10:20:25.297" Title="Focussing using viewfinder versus lcd" Tags="&lt;focus&gt;&lt;viewfinder&gt;&lt;lcd&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="6057" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6039" CreationDate="2010-12-27T09:03:29.320" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As it is when questions are burning me, I searched the web for more information about this and found a very good article by &lt;a href=&quot;http://bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Thom Hogan explaining the Nikon VR system (and it's limits)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His findings explain my problems: he says to be careful with VR with shutterspeeds of 1/500s and below, since these are prone to problems since they come too close to the sampling rate of the VR system.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Due to the pitfalls of the VR system he recommends disabling VR if you don't need it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The article is a very good read, it explains a lot of details of VR, the difference between normal and active VR, VR and the new VR II, how to use VR when panning or standing on a moving platform...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T09:03:29.320" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6058" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6056" CreationDate="2010-12-27T09:51:55.333" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general there are the following advantages of manual focussing via the optical viewfinder instead of the LCD:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The viewfinder image is almost certainly sharper than the LCD, when viewing the entire image. This makes it easier to judge when something is in focus for the times when you need to be able to see the whole image at once (e.g. for a scene that may change without warning)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The viewfinder image updates in realtime whereas the LCD has a small lag due to the need to read and process the sensor image, as well as the finite refresh rate of the LCD screen. This could have affect focusing speed as you can turn the focus ring faster using the viewfinder as you can see the changes in focus more immediately.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A viewfinder is easier to use in direct sunlight (though you can get a loupe/shades that make LCD viewing easier).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Viewfinders in SLRs have the option of using a split prism focussing screen which allows easy manual focussing on subjects with sufficient detail.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;DSLRs with live view limit the amount of time you can view the image live on the LCD as it can heat up the sensor. The time is quite long, however for all day shoots in hot conditions sensor overheating may be become a disadvantage of using the LCD screen compared to the viewfinder. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Similarly the shutter is open the whole time you are using the LCD so if you inadvertently point the camera at the sun (or worse put the camera down pointing at the sun) you can damage the sensor. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also many advantages of using the LCD instead of the viewfinder to manually focus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The flipside of the last point, if you point the camera at the sun using the LCD you'll only damage the camera, not your eyes! &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you don't need to monitor the whole image you can zoom the LCD image into the area of interest to see more detail than you can through the viewfinder.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The LCD image you see is always has the exact DOF you will get in the final image if you focus stopped down. Most laser etched focus screens in SLRs cut of light after about f/2.5 meaning the DOF will appear greater in the viewfinder when using fast lenses wide open.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;For compact cameras with optical viewfinders there is a paralax error meaning you see a slightly different image than you capture. Again DOF may be different. The LCD shows you the correct image.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Most SLR viewfinders only cover 95% of the image. If for some reason you need to focus on the extreme edges you need to use the LCD screen.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The LCD screen is more visible in the dark due to the ability to brighten the picture by increasing ISO. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-27T10:20:25.297" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T10:20:25.297" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6059" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6056" CreationDate="2010-12-27T10:09:40.427" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;And on top of Matt Grum's almost exhaustive list, viewfinders won't eat up your batteries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Except if the viewfinder is electronic, but that's luckily quite rare) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1420" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T10:09:40.427" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6060" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6047" CreationDate="2010-12-27T10:28:02.540" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depending on the brand and type of lens, it may be right on the lens itself -- there may be a set of lines between the aperture ring and the focus ring/focal distance indicator that will give you an indication of the &quot;acceptable&quot; circle of confusion range at various f-stops (usually at two-stop intervals). (It's sometimes called the hyperfocal distance indicator -- set the infinity mark at or within the range of the far-distance bracket, and everything should be more-or-less in focus from infinity to the distance indicated at the near-focus bracket for that f-stop.) If you are after a max DoF, there's good evidence supporting a strategy based on focusing at infinity and allowing the size of the aperture to determine the minimum resolved object size. F'rinstance, a 35mm lens set to f/22 and focused at infinity will adequately resolve objects to a resolution of (35/22=) 1.6mm. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/download.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Ins and Outs of Focus&lt;/a&gt; for details.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T10:28:02.540" />
  <row Id="6061" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-27T14:02:28.970" Score="16" ViewCount="443" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recently I found my old digital &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/cameraDetail.php?cam=395&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Konica Digital Revio KD-310Z&quot;&gt;3.2 MPix point &amp;amp; shoot camera&lt;/a&gt; which has been mainly just sitting on my shelf for the last few years. I'd like to get it back to use, but since it is rather bulky and underpowered in nowadays standards I could dedicate it to some experimental DIY photography projects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I am asking is: &lt;strong&gt;What good DIY projects &lt;em&gt;(which involves digital camera)&lt;/em&gt; do you know?&lt;/strong&gt; Do you have any experiences? How were the &lt;strong&gt;results&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is an old P&amp;amp;S, so I don't mind:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;tearing it apart and fiddling with its insides&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;using it in projects that carries a risk of the camera being destroyed (e.g. kite photography)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;salvaging it to as a part of my other gear  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some tangentially related questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/5162/1913&quot; title=&quot;Photography - Stack Exchange&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;DIY gear successfully made and used?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I'm looking for projects that concerns the camera, not the gear. Though I accept if the project modifies the camera to be part of the gear&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/5532/1913&quot; title=&quot;Photography - Stack Exchange&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What to do with an old film camera?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The question is about film cameras, and the answers aren't really project-oriented (with 1 exception)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/978/1913&quot; title=&quot;Photography - Stack Exchange&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What are good photography projects?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;These are more photograph&lt;b&gt;ing&lt;/b&gt; projects, though dedicating the P&amp;amp;S to one project might be a good idea (e.g. keeping it in the bathroom and taking a morning glory -shot every morning for a year. But this is a bit offtopic (not much DIY here).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've found some photography related projects at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.instructables.com/tag/type-id/category-technology/channel-photography/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Instructables - Photography&quot;&gt;Instructables&lt;/a&gt;, but they are also rather gear-oriented.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As this is a community wiki, please limit one project per post and give at least a short description. If you have your own results to show - even better!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1913" LastEditorUserId="1913" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T17:11:10.663" LastActivityDate="2011-05-01T12:52:38.960" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-27T15:44:11.957" Title="Good DIY photography projects for an old digital camera?" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;diy&gt;&lt;project&gt;" AnswerCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6063" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6047" CreationDate="2010-12-27T14:31:50.133" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think there is just a general rule of thumb because of the number of variables such as aperture, focal length, circle of confusion, etc. If the lens, itself, has DoF markings, that's great, but many do not. So, one option, is to do the basic calculations ahead of time for your favourite lenses and put them on a cheat sheet, maybe an index card for each lens, and then quickly refer to it as you need. If you have a few seconds to do a simple calculation, then you probably have enough time to do a quick reference if the appropriate card is kept handy. Heck, doing that may show a pattern for each lens that you can use to derive your own simple formula.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T14:31:50.133" />
  <row Id="6064" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6061" CreationDate="2010-12-27T14:38:31.363" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, if had an old point and shoot hanging around, I'd probably give &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=camera%20toss&amp;amp;w=all&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;camera tossing&lt;/a&gt; a go. You can get some interesting shots doing this. Alternately you could leash the carry strap and whirl it around. This is more fun if the camera has a built in intervalometer for taking snaps on time intervals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, marked my answer community wiki in anticipation of the question being so marked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T14:38:31.363" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-27T14:38:31.363" />
  <row Id="6065" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6047" CreationDate="2010-12-27T14:52:37.347" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's no simple rule of thumb due to the inhearent nonlinearity in the equations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The DOF marks on lenses are in my opinion a waste of time. First off they are based on an approximate formula that doesn't take into account the asymettric nature of dpeth of field (at close distances the DOF extends further infront of the subject and at larger distances it extends further behind). Secondly the distance scale is highly nonlinear and marked infrequently so you have to guess the distance which corresponds to the mark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So once you've guessed the distances you want in focus, and guessed what distances the DOF marks actually correspond to, and fed the guesses into an approximation, what you get back probably isn't a lot of use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With most things such as exposure I would also recommend avoiding rules of thumb and just shoot, eventually you will get a feel and be able to regularly get it close first time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;DOF is more complicated and in some cases downright deceptive. You will develop a rough idea but that's not usually good enough. Even now, if I'm concerned about focus I will check and reshoot. Every time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shoot an image review it and look at what is in focus and what isn't. &lt;em&gt;Why settle for guesses and approximations, when you can have the actual answer in front of you in seconds!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T14:52:37.347" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6066" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6061" CreationDate="2010-12-27T15:00:58.653" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could fix or just hold it to the top of a car and take some long exposure shots during night rides. Repeat it enough times and you may end up getting quite interesting results... :o)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This one used a 1/8 seconds exposure, the taxi was going around 70km/h.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/carregal/2930799004/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Car and Lights 2 | Carro e luzes by Andre Carregal, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3035/2930799004_32c579e679_m.jpg&quot; width=&quot;240&quot; height=&quot;180&quot; alt=&quot;Car and Lights 2 | Carro e luzes&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this one used a 0.6 seconds exposure, at 80 km/h and under rain. Note the absence of ambient lights, therefore the need of a longer exposure time which resulted in a increase in the blur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/carregal/3285909643/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Lightning Fast | Raios e coriscos by Andre Carregal, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3574/3285909643_83095e7099_m.jpg&quot; width=&quot;240&quot; height=&quot;220&quot; alt=&quot;Lightning Fast | Raios e coriscos&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T15:00:58.653" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-27T15:44:11.957" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6067" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6045" CreationDate="2010-12-27T15:39:02.443" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is one possibility and that is an operator error. Any one of these will do it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you took out the card from the camera before it was finished writing. In this case your pictures are lost since they were never stored correctly.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you took out the memory from the reader before it was finished reading (If you use Windows, you should use the 'Disconnect Removable Device' or similar icon and wait for the message that says it is safe to remove).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you disconnected the camera (and you were transferring via USB) before the file was completely read. In these two latter cases, the files may be all right on the card.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If none of this is the case, I agree than an the SD card is most likely dead. It can happen with any card, nothing is perfect 100% of the time but if you buy better ones the likelihood of failure is less. The best ones are usually from Lexar, Sandisk (Black or red, not blue) and Kingston.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T15:39:02.443" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6068" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6052" CreationDate="2010-12-27T17:13:50.557" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you don't care about video - undoubtedly go for the 50D. Once I moved from the Rebel XT (350D) to the 7D, I could not look back! The difference in the handling of the two bodies is really great. Not only the bigger body is much more convenient (at least for my hands) but the extra controls really make a difference. The higher resolution is BS b/c you will most probably be limited by your lens resolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, it seems like you can find some good deals on the 60D nowadays. It might worth the extra money for you so check it out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Last - I assume it is your first DSLR. If so, just consider the Nikon offerings before committing to Canon. That said, I love my Canons and think it is a good investment in the long term.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T17:13:50.557" />
  <row Id="6069" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6047" CreationDate="2010-12-27T17:15:39.350" Score="17" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field#Derivation_of_the_DOF_formulas&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Depth of field formulas&lt;/a&gt; are indeed complex and nonlinear, but they still afford useful rules of thumb.  For &lt;em&gt;medium subject distances&lt;/em&gt; (not too close to the lens, compared to its focal length, and not so far away that the DoF extends to infinity), &lt;strong&gt;the DoF is &lt;em&gt;approximately&lt;/em&gt; proportional to:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The f-stop.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The &lt;em&gt;square&lt;/em&gt; of the distance.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The &lt;em&gt;inverse square&lt;/em&gt; of the lens's focal length.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This assumes a given standard of blurriness (usually quantified as the diameter of the circle of confusion), which depends on your sensor, intended magnification of the ultimate images, your visual acuity, and many other things.  For this reason I'm not going to recommend one rule for everyone, but rather will explain how to develop your own rule(s) for your own purposes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To make this aproximation work, you only need to know the DoF for a standard f-stop, a standard distance, and a standard lens, chosen in advance by you.  For instance, let's set the diameter of the circle of confusion to 0.02 mm (a fairly small size, but not uncommon).  Then, using an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;online DoF calculator&lt;/a&gt;, we obtain a depth of field of 1.59 m = 5.2 feet for a subject at 10 meters from a 100 mm lens at f/4.  Using &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; these data (10m, 100mm, f/4, 5.2 ft), we can now anticipate the DoF for any similar exposure combination by making a series of simple adjustments.  For example,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Doubling the f-stop from f/4 to f/8 should &lt;em&gt;double&lt;/em&gt; the DoF from 5.2 to 10.4 feet.  (Actual value: 10.66 feet.)  Halving the f-stop from f/4 to f/2 should &lt;em&gt;halve&lt;/em&gt; the DoF from 5.2 to 2.6 feet.  (Actual value: 2.59 feet.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Now, continuing from f/2, halving the subject distance to 5 meters should &lt;em&gt;divide the DoF by four&lt;/em&gt;, giving 2.6/4 = 0.65 feet.  (Actual value: 0.66 feet.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Halving the lens's focal length from 100 mm to 50 mm should &lt;em&gt;quadruple&lt;/em&gt; the DoF.  Continuing from the previous result, it should go from 0.65 ft back to 2.6 feet.  (Actual value: 2.62 feet.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this example we have worked out the DoF at 5 meters for a 50 mm lens at f/2 using simple multiplications and divisions and we have made only an inconsequential error of less than 1% in our estimate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, if you choose a standard combination of focal length, f-stop, and subject distance close to those about which you are usually concerned, you need only memorize a &lt;em&gt;single&lt;/em&gt; DoF value which you can rescale as appropriate in the field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Typically, you might work out the DoF for a trial shot and then use this rule of thumb to &lt;em&gt;anticipate&lt;/em&gt; the effects of proposed changes (of distance to subject, aperture, and even choice of lens) on the DoF.  This needn't even involve a calculation.  For example, after examining an initial shot closely, you might decide you need twice the depth of field (even though you don't know exactly, as a number, what the current DoF really is).  Your options therefore include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Double the f-stop.  (Watch out, though, for diffraction blurring once the aperture gets smaller than a few millimeters!)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Move back from the subject to increase its distance to the lens by about 40% (1.4^2 = 2 more or less).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Use a lens of about 0.7 times the focal length (0.7^2 = 1/2 more or less).  &lt;em&gt;E.g.&lt;/em&gt;, change from a 50 mm to a 35 mm lens.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although the first option is so quick you might forgo any calculation and just try it, the next two could be sufficiently cumbersome or time-consuming that having this rule of thumb might just be useful ;-).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that the approximation breaks down for macro photography and landscape photography.  In both cases one usually has more time to prepare and test shots so perhaps having a quick rule of thumb is less important in those situations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T17:15:39.350" />
  <row Id="6070" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6061" CreationDate="2010-12-27T18:30:43.233" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first thing that comes to my mind is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.geektechnique.org/projectlab/254/how-to-turn-a-digital-camera-into-an-ir-camera.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;convert it to infrared&lt;/a&gt;. That way, you can take &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/images?q=digital%20infrared&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pictures unlike what your other cameras can get&lt;/a&gt; with it, returning it, potentially, to a place of prominence in your camera line-up. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?q=ir+conversion+diy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Many more pages about this&lt;/a&gt; exist. I picked one that seemed DIY and P&amp;amp;S oriented, but it may well behoove you to find one specific to your particular camera model, and/or to read a bunch of them before you begin.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastEditorUserId="1913" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-22T08:17:55.787" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T08:17:55.787" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-27T18:30:43.233" />
  <row Id="6071" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6072" CreationDate="2010-12-27T18:50:00.830" Score="1" ViewCount="152" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/496/what-do-all-those-cryptic-number-and-letter-codes-in-a-lens-name-mean&quot;&gt;What do all those cryptic number and letter codes in a lens name mean?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Nikon 50mm f/1.8D&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Nikon 35mm f/1.8G&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;what does the D and G distinction mean on these lenses and why does it matter?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T19:05:04.920" ClosedDate="2010-12-28T01:56:36.703" Title="whats with the nikor lens naming using the letters D + G?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6072" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6071" CreationDate="2010-12-27T19:05:04.920" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;G means &quot;gelded&quot; which means there is no aperture ring and so the aperture can only be adjusted on the camera itself.  D means &quot;distance information&quot; and helps the camera to know what it is focusing on based on distance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ehow.com/about_5385361_nikon-vs-lenses.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ehow.com/about_5385361_nikon-vs-lenses.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="706" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T19:05:04.920" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6073" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6075" CreationDate="2010-12-27T19:33:28.430" Score="2" ViewCount="162" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is length in a photograph proportional to angular distance in the &#xA;photographed scene? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example: I take a picture with the horizon vertically centered. In the &#xA;picture, I know that the point 1 inch above the center corresponds to &#xA;10 degrees above the horizon. Does that mean the point 2 inches above &#xA;corresponds to 20 degrees above the horizon? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If not, what is the correct formula? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm primarily interested in the answer for 35 and 50mm photographic &#xA;lenses, but a general formula (based on lens parameters) would be good &#xA;too. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Astrophotography makes me think that angular distance in reality isn't &#xA;proportional to linear distance in a photograph, but I wasn't sure. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2844" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T18:57:51.407" Title="Measuring angular distance with photographs" Tags="&lt;astrophotography&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="6074" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-27T19:43:39.253" Score="9" ViewCount="283" Body="&lt;p&gt;For a very long time I look for tutorials on the following type of post processing but haven´t been successful so far. To be more specific - I´m interested especially in how they get the colours and the whole atmosphere of the photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an example of the effect I want to achieve:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_yBOSRwI5Y9c/TReNP35ngCI/AAAAAAAAB9k/tfPN5wyAs1s/s1600/298.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;An example of the desired effect&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you know any useful resources? It doesn´t have to be only online tutorials. I´m willing to buy some DVDs or books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you in advance for your answer!&#xA;Jarka&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2843" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-08T16:54:07.747" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T16:54:07.747" Title="How to Do the High End Post Processing?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="6075" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6073" CreationDate="2010-12-27T20:09:39.737" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, it isn't. Distance in a photograph taken with a regular lens is (ideally) proportional to actual distance in the scene, not angular distance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the angle and the height above the horizon you can calculate the distance to the scene in the scale of the photo:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;y = x * tan(v)&#xA;&#xA;x = y / tan(v)&#xA;&#xA;y = 1&quot;, v = 10  =&amp;gt;  x ~ 5.67&quot;&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then you can calculate the angle for the other point:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;y = x * tan(v)&#xA;&#xA;tan(v) = y / x&#xA;&#xA;v = atan(y / x)&#xA;&#xA;y = 2&quot;  =&amp;gt;  v ~ 19.43&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you see, it's close to 20 degrees, but not quite. The longer from the horison you measure, the larger the difference gets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-29T18:57:51.407" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T18:57:51.407" CommentCount="11" />
  <row Id="6076" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6073" CreationDate="2010-12-27T20:10:42.723" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It won't be proportional because most lenses are designed to be rectilinear not equiangular. Add barrel distortion on top of that and now the relationship between location on the image and angular position becomes quite messy. These are the sorts of calculations that panorama stitching programs are based on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2139" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T20:10:42.723" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6077" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6113" CreationDate="2010-12-27T21:02:25.600" Score="7" ViewCount="220" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm wondering if one brand performs better or if they behave differently under different circumstances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do the same limitations &lt;a href=&quot;http://bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; apply to Canon IS? Obviously some of them do (like IS won't help you if your subject is moving) but I could imagine max shutter speeds varying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2746" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-11T18:49:52.577" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T18:49:52.577" Title="Are there practical differences between Canon's IS and Nikon's VR?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;image-stabilization&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="6078" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6073" CreationDate="2010-12-27T21:27:40.973" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Photographic lenses reproduce a scene in complicated ways due to their complex structure.  However, analysis of a simple lens gives reasonable guidance, at least as an approximation, except for specialty lenses (like fisheye lenses) and distances extremely close to a lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_%28optics%29#Imaging_properties&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;geometry of a simple lens&lt;/a&gt; is straightforward: when an object in a plane perpendicular to the lens's optical axis is projected onto an image plane also perpendicular to the axis (which is usually the case in photography except for tilting lenses), the image is geometrically &lt;em&gt;similar&lt;/em&gt; to the object.  Therefore, &lt;strong&gt;distances in the image are directly proportional to distances in the scene &lt;em&gt;as measured perpendicular to the optical axis&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt;  It also follows that the distance (in either plane) from the optical axis is proportional to the &lt;strong&gt;tangent&lt;/strong&gt; of the angle from that axis.  The constant of proportionality is the distance between the plane and the plane of the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T21:27:40.973" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6079" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6074" CreationDate="2010-12-27T22:01:25.757" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, outside of HDR (and I'm not sure that is the case with this image) one of these may get you close:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2008/archives/1094&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Getting that Cool Gritty Look&lt;/a&gt; from Scott Kelby (author of the various Photoshop for Photographer books). This does it Adobe Camera Raw.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photoshopfrenzy.com/?p=94&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dramatic Gritty Effect&lt;/a&gt; on Photoshop Frenzy. This does it in Photoshop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, the final image is pushing the blacks and contrast, so it's going to be along those lines that you want to experiment. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T22:01:25.757" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6080" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6077" CreationDate="2010-12-27T22:08:42.837" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, they're roughly comparable and slightly better than in-body options from Pentax and Sony though those two offer it on any lens. Both use basically the same technology, a floating lens element that is electromagnetically manipulated based on movement detected by gyroscopes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, I would expect any variance to be lens based, some better than others, across the two brands rather than anything specific to a system. Limitations and usage generally apply to all stabilization systems, there is a time and place for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-27T22:32:05.930" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T22:32:05.930" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="6081" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6094" CreationDate="2010-12-27T22:11:32.647" Score="4" ViewCount="132" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just received a 35mm prime lens for Christmas (Nikkor 35mm f/1.8) and it is painfully slow to take pictures at times.  Sometimes the shutter release is almost instantaneous, like with my other (kit and telephoto) lenses, but at other times it can take more than a full second to take the picture.  It doesn't seem to be &quot;searching&quot; for focus, and I don't think it's a low light issue (as in, it behaves the same with low light and normal light...though I haven't taken outside shots with it yet).  I'm wondering if the slow shutter release is a trade-off for the high aperture, or if I maybe got a defective lens that needs to be returned?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, I have a D3000 (no internal motor for focusing) and it seems to do only slightly better when using an external flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="706" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-27T22:25:09.333" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T02:39:46.473" Title="Is &quot;slow&quot; focusing/shutter release normal on a &quot;fast&quot; lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;shutter-lag&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6082" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6081" CreationDate="2010-12-27T22:14:04.950" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Slow shutter speed is definitely not a tradeoff of large aperture. The shutter and the aperture (iris) are different mechanisms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T22:14:04.950" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6083" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6006" CreationDate="2010-12-27T22:20:38.603" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depth of field for a portrait (which will be at a medium distance) depends basically on two things: the aperture and the size of the subject on the sensor.  Therefore, to minimize the depth of field you want to (a) get as close to the subject as possible without being so close that her features are distorted so that (b) you can get the widest possible aperture obtainable with this variable-aperture lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's still going to be a fairly wide depth of field with this lens.  For example, if you have to be zoomed out to 105 mm then your maximum aperture is f5.6.  Suppose the subject's near eye is 4.00 meters from the camera.  If you focus on that eye, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;calculated depth of field&lt;/a&gt; (using, for reference, a circle of confusion of 0.03 mm diameter) will lie at distances between 3.77 m to 4.26 m.  This will put her entire face and head in focus, with the near eye and the plane of the cheek the sharpest.  To make this depth of field shallower, &lt;strong&gt;just focus a little closer.&lt;/strong&gt;  (You will need to focus manually to do this.)  If you were to focus at 3.85 m, say, then the depth of field would range from 3.64 to 4.09 m.  If you have a clear line of sight to your daughter, everything from 3.64 to just under 4.00 m will be air, so this part of your DoF range is irrelevant.  The parts of your daughter in focus (back to 4.09 m) will include her face and any hair framing it, but everything behind that will be (relatively) out of focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The price you pay for this workaround, besides having to make the simple manual adjustment to the focus, is that no point on the subject's face will be perfectly sharp.  However, you will be able to visually isolate her face from the background better than before.  If the resulting image still does not meet your needs, you need to find a lens that offers a better combination of longish focal length and large maximum aperture (&lt;em&gt;small&lt;/em&gt; f-stop).  In the Nikon (and Canon) lines the least expensive options  are the 50 mm f/1.8 and 85 mm f/1.8 primes.  The former is quite cheap while the latter will attain half the minimum depth of field and is an excellent focal length for portraits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T22:20:38.603" />
  <row Id="6084" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="670" CreationDate="2010-12-27T22:45:13.730" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This article about Nikon VR&lt;/a&gt; suggests that not all forms of VR are best when taking photographs from a helicopter. Search for the word &quot;helicopter&quot; and note that it suggests you use &quot;Active VR&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, Active and Normal VR help with two different kinds of camera-shake. The former helps with camera-shake due to vibrations in your surroundings while the latter helps with unsteady hands. The lens uses a different algorithm based on the pattern of vibration in these different situations to stabilize the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Caveats (to my understanding):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The article is talking about using fast shutter speeds&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The article is really focused on Nikons -- I do not know if there is a Canon equivalent of &quot;Active VR&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The author of the article admits that there is controversy over the article and he doesn't seem to have any numbers or examples to back up his claims. That being said, he seems to know what he is talking about and I don't think it hurts to apply his techniques and see if you get better results :-).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2746" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T22:45:13.730" />
  <row Id="6085" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6086" CreationDate="2010-12-27T22:56:44.783" Score="4" ViewCount="375" Body="&lt;p&gt;There definitely aren't any Canon or Nikon lenses. I also have not seen any third party lenses. I can think of two reasons for this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is some technical limitation (which I tend to doubt since IS/VR is in a variety of lenses)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The companies feel the cost of the lens would be prohibitively higher and at f/2.8 it does not buy you much unless you're shooting in low light&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are either of these reasons correct or is there some other reason?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2746" LastEditorUserId="2746" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-31T05:46:31.660" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T05:46:31.660" Title="How come there are no 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses with image stabilization?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;image-stabilization&gt;&lt;lens-design&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6086" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6085" CreationDate="2010-12-27T23:24:31.257" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I offer up the following reason, which is pure conjecture on my part:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's not all that effective at those focal lengths and people with FF cameras know this and don't feel they need IS in any case.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;FF owners are more likely to have fast primes for the sort of situation when you need IS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I doubt it's a technical limitation given the existence of the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS. My gut feeling is the plethora of IS lenses designed for crop cameras are partially gimicks, or to placate those who are upgrading from compacts with IS who don't want to lose the feature as they would see it as a &quot;downgrade&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other option is the manufacturers simply haven't got round to it yet as full frame lens development isn't a priority. Time will tell if this is a the case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T23:24:31.257" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="6087" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6085" CreationDate="2010-12-27T23:33:44.007" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The last Nikon 24-70 has been added 2007. The one before is from 1999. I guess you fell into the tech-gap: Nikon does not feel it is worth the cost to update a lens this soon again and IS was not this much en vogue during its development up to 2007&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastActivityDate="2010-12-27T23:33:44.007" />
  <row Id="6088" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-28T00:42:18.123" Score="3" ViewCount="145" Body="&lt;p&gt;A friend of mine has recently acquired a Canon EOS1000D, his first digital SLR camera and would now like some good web resources to get the best out of his acquisition. Obviously, YouTube is the first port of call, but do Canon offer online tutorials for this particular model anywhere?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks and kind regards to all&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2849" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T21:47:50.443" Title="Newcomer to DSLR camera's - specifically Canon kit" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6089" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6088" CreationDate="2010-12-28T01:00:58.453" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Start with the camera manual, then look into these questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/5283/how-to-start-learning-photography&quot;&gt;How to start learning photography?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1928/what-are-the-best-online-photo-classes&quot;&gt;What are the best online photo classes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/384/what-blogs-should-i-be-following-if-i-am-learning-photography&quot;&gt;What blogs should I be following if I am learning photography?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/164/what-are-your-easiest-beginner-tips&quot;&gt;What are your easiest beginner tips?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T01:00:58.453" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6090" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6085" CreationDate="2010-12-28T01:36:30.037" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been frustrated by the absence of a 24-70 VR lens as well, since it's my main working range and I've lost a few irreplaceable shots to camera shake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For what it's worth, I've been looking at the Nikon 24-120mm f4 G AF-S ED VR lens, but on balance I think I'd just as well hold extra-still than sacrifice that extra bit of aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1615" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T01:36:30.037" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6091" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6085" CreationDate="2010-12-28T01:47:20.783" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The general notion is that at wider focal lengths, IS is not necessary as the effects of vibration of the lens itself are barely registered unless the movement is significant (i.e. a significant bump, vs. what is caused by hand-holding or manual focusing). This is because the amount of information captured by a lens at a wide focal length is quite tremendous, and magnification is lower. The magnification factor affects vibration as much as it does detail. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that, I do find it a bit odd that the 24-70mm lenses do not have some kind of image stabilization. While 24mm is pretty wide, 70mm is close to the point (100mm) where IS is certainly useful. I think it is only stranger that lenses in the 24-105mm range do seem to regularly include IS. In contrast, I am not surprised at all that ultra-wide zooms like the Nikon 14-24mm lens or the Canon 16-35mm/17-40mm lenses do not contain IS, as their widest focal lengths are still well within the range where IS would provide minimal improvement at best, and otherwise be rather useless and pointlessly costly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It may simply be that the benefit of IS at 70mm is just not enough to justify the additional complexity and cost. It is also possible that adding IS to such a lens would also reduce optical quality, again for minimal gain. I general, I think that brand-name 24-70mm lenses are some of the best quality zoom lenses money can buy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T01:47:20.783" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="6092" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6085" CreationDate="2010-12-28T01:56:21.103" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My theory, based on nothing other than my conjecture, is that we'll see IS/VR the next time that Canon and Nikon update their 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses.  IS/VR was not a widely-seen feature at the time those lenses were last updated... the rumor mill is that Canon will be updating the 24-70 soon and I wouldn't be shocked to see IS at that point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T01:56:21.103" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6093" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3843" CreationDate="2010-12-28T02:20:27.613" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have used Aperture since it came out, I also used Lightroom a lot in the early betas and off and on since then to see where it is going.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So far I've stuck with Aperture because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) The full screen editing is better - one key to go to a true full-screen.  The levels of &quot;lights off&quot; in LightRoom looks cool, but I find the frameless full-screen editing in Aperture nicer.  I've not tried that for a few versions so LightRoom might have that worked out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) I like being able to edit instantly, at any time - LightRoom has different &quot;modes&quot; that you are in, that determine what kind of editing you can currently do.  In Aperture for any image you can pull up an editing HUD and do any editing for a moment, then go back to what you were doing.  I find this lets me more easily refine images for specific uses around them time I need them, with general editing up front when I'm culling images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) I really like the organizational approach of Aperture, it just seems richer... I like (and use) stacks, folders, albums and smart albums all differently.  It also seems like Aperture may have a more advanced searching ability, though I'm not sure if that's true any longer.  But I really like how I can group projects related to one shoot under a folder, and then have albums under a different hierarchy by topic unrelated to specific shoots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4) I really like the book designer in Aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T02:20:27.613" />
  <row Id="6094" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6081" CreationDate="2010-12-28T02:39:46.473" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are four basic things that happen when you push the shutter button:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Metering&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Focusing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aperture stop-down&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shutter activation (and mirror flip, etc.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can isolate most of these things to see where the hangup is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Manual mode will eliminate metering.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Manual focus will eliminate auto-focusing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shooting wide open (f/1.8 here) will eliminate aperture stop-down.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A half-press of the shutter button will eliminate both 3 and 4.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, @mattdm has an important point w.r.t. a half-press vs. a full press of the shutter button. Typically when you push the shutter half way, things 1 and 2 happen (and can take a little while, maybe up to a 1/2 second or so, which is quite noticeable), and when you then press it all the way down, 3 and 4 happen (almost instantly - under 100 milliseconds on the D3000). (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3000/D3000A6.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;More timing specs&lt;/a&gt; on the 3000.) Generally, I do half-press when anticipating the shot and then the full press when it's time. (And my anxiety dreams generally involve a shutter that won't go.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, I have this lens and it's always performed very quickly on my D90, no slower than my other lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T02:39:46.473" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6095" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6085" CreationDate="2010-12-28T05:01:56.783" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I utilize the Nikkor 24-70mm F2.8 as well as the Nikkor 70-200MM F2.8 VR extensively and can say that the 24-70 does not need the VR as it would not make much difference at that low a focal length.  The VR on the 70-200 does come in use at the longer focal lengths but I rarely use it for the following reason ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photographers who buy the Nikkor F2.8 zoom lenses tend to be more on the serious to professional end of the industry as they have far superior optics as well as the wider apertures, hence the much higher prices.  Pros tend to do the vast majority of their work as tripod based to ensure maximum good results, hence when using tripod the VR is extremely rarely needed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the consumer lenses, the ones starting around F3.5 or F4 the VR is more useful as the lens needs a slower shutter speed to operate and is often used handheld.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1410" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T05:01:56.783" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6096" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-28T07:39:21.150" Score="9" ViewCount="313" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've had a lot of trouble working out how to pronounce &quot;bokeh&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Amusingly enough, I've thus far been unable to get any of the small handful of photographer friends I have to ever say it out loud, despite setting up a number of lead-ins like &quot;how do I get that nice blurred background... what's that called again?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So yeah, please, tell me! I already sound like enough of a spud when I'm trying to talk jargon with photographers without dropping a big fat &quot;bock-ee&quot; in the middle of an otherwise serious sentence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="672" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-31T01:33:41.417" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T01:33:41.417" Title="How do you pronounce &quot;bokeh&quot;?" Tags="&lt;bokeh&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6098" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6118" CreationDate="2010-12-28T09:56:13.397" Score="4" ViewCount="200" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm interested in pursuing a career in photojournalism but with no photography-based qualifications I'm wondering what I'll need to get into it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most places I've read suggest starting out in a local newspaper to build a portfolio to move onto national (if you wanted to) but even for local press what are the entry requirements?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've about a years photography experience and I live in Scotland, UK.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any info would be muh appreciated,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jonesy&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2533" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T19:57:54.847" Title="Tips on how to get into Photojournalism" Tags="&lt;photojournalism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6099" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6112" CreationDate="2010-12-28T11:13:55.577" Score="5" ViewCount="172" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually it's my dad's lens that he bought many many moons ago to use with his old Canon T70.  I dont have a flash but have borrowed his to try out, but he mentioned that some flashes will send too much voltage down to the camera and can damage the camera.. that's the last thing i'd want to happen to my new baby.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks all&#xA;Greg&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1455" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T18:06:54.510" Title="Can i use my old Canon Speedlite 2777T with my new 5D Mark II" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;compatibility&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="6101" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6096" CreationDate="2010-12-28T12:53:01.717" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do you pronounce &quot;bokeh&quot;? Well, I pronounce it &quot;bo&quot; &quot;keh&quot;, not &quot;bokay&quot; or &quot;bokee&quot; but in between, Bo-keh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I probably make no sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T12:53:01.717" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6102" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6096" CreationDate="2010-12-28T13:51:56.117" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The definitive answer for the word in English is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-04-04-04.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mike Johnston's article on the topic at Luminous Landscape&lt;/a&gt;.  Mike says &lt;em&gt;&quot;it is properly pronounced with bo as in bone and ke as in Kenneth, with equal stress on either syllable.&quot;&lt;/em&gt; He's the person responsible for the &lt;em&gt;h&lt;/em&gt; on the end in English — he thought it would ward off the most egregious mispronunciation, rhyming the word with &quot;poke&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T13:51:56.117" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="6103" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6098" CreationDate="2010-12-28T14:16:20.057" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's very difficult to get a job as a staff photographer these days, with the advent of digital photography, the traditional media relies more on contributed pictures from readers than they used to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photojournalism relies on a few basic concepts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Being in the right place, at the right time.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Capturing the image that sums up the story.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Getting it to the editor in a timely manner.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Probably your best bet would be to build a portfolio of images that you've contributed to the press that have been published - this is the sort of thing that you could whilst pursuing other avenues that will provide a revenue stream such as stock photography. some of the stock libraries, such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alamy.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Alamy&lt;/a&gt; (Who are fairly big in the UK market) have a dedicated stream for current affairs imagery, and it may be worth using that as one option, at least until you could secure a position as a staff photographer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T14:16:20.057" />
  <row Id="6104" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6096" CreationDate="2010-12-28T14:36:54.670" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3aIPA_for_English&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;IPA&lt;/a&gt; /bɒkɛ/&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bokeh&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wiktionary&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;edit&lt;/strong&gt;: It's worth noting that Wiktionary references &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/index.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luminous Landscape&lt;/a&gt; articles and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-04-04-04.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the other&lt;/a&gt; (which concerns pronounciation) is already covered in &lt;em&gt;mattdm's&lt;/em&gt; answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;edit 2:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Short IPA-guide (can also be found on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3aIPA_for_English&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;aformentioned IPA Wikipedia page&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xA;b   &lt;b&gt;b&lt;/b&gt;uy, ca&lt;b&gt;b&lt;/b&gt;&#xA;ɒ   l&lt;b&gt;o&lt;/b&gt;t, p&lt;b&gt;o&lt;/b&gt;d, s&lt;b&gt;o&lt;/b&gt;ng, d&lt;b&gt;o&lt;/b&gt;ll&#xA;k   &lt;b&gt;ch&lt;/b&gt;i, s&lt;b&gt;k&lt;/b&gt;y, cra&lt;b&gt;ck&lt;/b&gt;&#xA;ɛ   dr&lt;b&gt;e&lt;/b&gt;ss, b&lt;b&gt;e&lt;/b&gt;d, f&lt;b&gt;e&lt;/b&gt;ll, m&lt;b&gt;e&lt;/b&gt;n&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1913" LastEditorUserId="1913" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-28T15:25:56.443" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T15:25:56.443" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="6105" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3843" CreationDate="2010-12-28T15:02:48.807" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer: professional photo organizers like to be able to put images where they want abstracting storage mechanics, however you can override this if you like -- the &quot;penalty&quot; is that if you move the files, the software won't know where you put them and will have to ask.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Between the two, and I think the reasons are explained in other answers quite well, Aperture wins, but by a small amount -- both are very capable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1416" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T15:02:48.807" />
  <row Id="6106" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6099" CreationDate="2010-12-28T15:33:53.623" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, if it is an old flash, it is possible that the trigger voltage is around 200V. However, according to some information from Chuck Westfall (Canon USA official), all bodies since the EOS 20D should withstand this voltages (I don't have the link, but you can search Google and it will pop up in one of the many forums).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be on the safe side, you can get yourself a safe-sync device that decouples the electrical contact between the flash and the body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, if you want to be sure about the voltage, you can test with a multimeter. The problem is that most of them have a too-low input impedance so the reading is false. You need one with 10MOhm at least. I just got a cheap DMM from Walmart that was actually able to correctly measure the 190V on my old Sunpak flash, where 2 other meters failed and read around 6V. I &lt;strong&gt;know&lt;/strong&gt; it should be 190V b/c it was confirmed by an industrial FLUKE meter and later on by Sunpak representative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Walmart one is from the Automotive shelf and named INNOVA EQUUS 3300. It specifically mentions 10 MegaOhm in big writings on the package.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This post may help: &lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&amp;amp;message=26638040&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&amp;amp;message=26638040&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-28T15:43:49.103" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T15:43:49.103" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6107" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6110" CreationDate="2010-12-28T15:36:58.430" Score="1" ViewCount="200" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to buy good camera to start learning photography ... i have 30K(Indian ruppies) budget. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now i am confused whether i should go for the DSLR or for the New Performance series(High end compacts with great Zoom) like Nikon coolprix P100.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For DSLR(20-30K) i will have to buy expensive lenses(10-20K) to shoot for wildlife etc... subject where as high end compacts offer good zoom upto 20x that means no need to buy a lenses and stuff...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So does there high end compacts and DSLR makes different in shooting results or experience ? if yes upto what extent ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However i am &quot;very serious&quot; about the Photography. Unfortunate thing is currently i see it as hobby and not sure if i will go for some earning from this hobby.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please help me out... regarding what should i do &#xA;Thanks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2107" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T23:39:54.780" ClosedDate="2010-12-29T03:39:16.317" Title="Help me decide which camera to buy ?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="6108" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3843" CreationDate="2010-12-28T15:42:52.917" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes you can preserve your directory structures in Lightroom, even though it is database driven. You can actually make it more robust by relying on keywords and renaming patterns to let Lightroom create reasonable and predictable directory structures. Here is a real world example; it is a bit arbitrary but works for me as a hybrid between a keyword-based and a directory-based workflow management.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I do use metadata, keywords and smart collections, there is a drawback to them: what happens when I want to look at and &lt;em&gt;search for&lt;/em&gt; my files on a computer that doesn't have Lightroom installed for example? How can I share my photos on my network with new devices like modern video game consoles or old pieces of electronics that only support a directory-based structure, as opposed to a database? What if I need to quickly send my photos with my phone, or create a ZIP files for friends or clients?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my directory structure &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; database I keep track of both the RAW files &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; exported JPEG copies. The JPEG files are stored in a subfolder organized by broad category first (say Celebration, Concerts, Sports, Urban Exploration). At the second level I use a strict &quot;What - Where - When&quot; naming convention automatically generated by Lightroom (most DAM apps support this feature). The RAW files are stored by year, then by date with a short description.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is how it looks like from both the catalog/database/library point of view and a Windows File Explorer (this is only a subset of course):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Pictures/&#xA;    JPEG/&#xA;        Celebrations/&#xA;            St. Patrick's Day - Albany, NY - 09, Mar/&#xA;                St. Patrick's Day - Albany, NY - 09, Mar - 01.jpg&#xA;                St. Patrick's Day - Albany, NY - 09, Mar - 02.jpg&#xA;                ...&#xA;            4th of July - Albany, NY - 09, Jul/&#xA;        Urban Exploration/&#xA;            Hudson Cement Factory - Kingston, NY - 10, May/&#xA;    RAW/&#xA;        2009/&#xA;            2009-03-22 (St. Patrick's Day)/&#xA;                _MG_9046.dng&#xA;                _MG_9047.dng&#xA;                ...&#xA;            2009-07-04 (4th of July)/&#xA;        2010/&#xA;            2010-05-12 (Hudson Cement Factory)/&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is how I get there. When I import my RAW (CR2) files, I let Lightroom convert them to DNG and store them &lt;em&gt;automatically&lt;/em&gt; in a RAW/year/year-month-day folder, based on the date the photos were taken on. I manually add a suffix to that directory with a quick description (say St. Patrick's Day or Hudson Cement Factory, etc) for my own benefit. I select all my RAW files and update their metadata by setting the Scene attribute to &quot;what&quot; the subject is (here St. Patrick's Day or Hudson Cement Factory, which I conveniently had in my Copy/Paste buffer from the previous step). I also set the Location attributes, i.e. the City, State and Country. The earlier you set this type of metadata, the better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I'm done processing, keywording &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; geotagging my RAW files, I export sRGB JPEG copies (and upload them to Flickr from Lightroom later on). My export preset in Lightroom &lt;em&gt;automatically&lt;/em&gt; creates files that follow the &quot;Scene - City, State - YY, Mon - Counter&quot; naming convention, using the metadata fields I filled previously (the date is found from the photo itself of course). I finally use Lightroom to quickly move the files to a subdir under a broad category subfolder (Celebrations, Urban Exploration, etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At this point I have is a catalog/database that I can explore by metadata (date, location, scene, keywords) in Lightroom, as well as a reasonably clear directory structure that I can drill without Lightroom. This directory structure tells me &quot;what&quot;, &quot;where&quot; and &quot;when&quot; just by looking at the file names. My XBox will organize and present my photos the same way. A simple file search will quickly retrieve my photos based on these criteria.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This whole JPEG directory doesn't have to be managed by LR (i.e. be part of its catalog), but I found it pretty convenient since I still have a lot of JPG files that don't have a RAW counterpart. Why manage some, and not the others? Granted, keyword searching will return both the RAW file and JPEG file (since the JPEG file has the same keywords), but this can be easily worked out by adding a rule that will filter our either JPG or RAW/DNG files (in smart collections especially). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, this worked fine so far, but I have only 7000 photos in there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T15:42:52.917" />
  <row Id="6109" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6107" CreationDate="2010-12-28T15:53:25.643" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Anil, there certainly &lt;strong&gt;is&lt;/strong&gt; a difference in results, mainly in image quality. DSLRs do a much better work when it comes to IQ, due to larger sensors and better lenses (in general). Also, DSLRs are usually more controllable and configurable than compacts (and more expensive, duh...). You can see image samples of the models that are of your interest in the many review sites around the net (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dpreview&lt;/a&gt;, to mention just one).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, if you just start learning, a top of the line compact will definitely let you learn the basics. just consider that down the road, depending on your &quot;seriousness&quot;, you &lt;strong&gt;will&lt;/strong&gt; want to upgrade to a DSLR, so take this into account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T15:53:25.643" />
  <row Id="6110" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6107" CreationDate="2010-12-28T17:08:32.913" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recommend that you decide what &lt;em&gt;class&lt;/em&gt; of camera to buy (DSLR, compact, superzoom), then head over to &lt;a href=&quot;http://snapsort.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SnapSort&lt;/a&gt; to figure out the specific camera make and model you want. I cannot say enough good things about SnapSort; it’s an incredibly well-done and helpful site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don’t know what the prices are like in India, but I see that 30,000 INR is around $660 USD. It would be difficult to purchase a new DSLR system for that amount of money in the United States. You might try looking for a used DSLR body, then purchase some new lenses, if you want to go that route.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is definitely a difference between shooting with a DSLR and a compact, but it’s not as much as you might think. The most important part of the camera is the twelve inches behind it, that is, the photographer. As long as you get something with enough reach for the kind of photography you’re interested in, you should be fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1905" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T17:08:32.913" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6111" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6216" CreationDate="2010-12-28T17:57:10.130" Score="5" ViewCount="327" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a 1443x998 picture of the stars (taken w/ a 35mm camera and &#xA;then scanned) with the following stars at the following pixel locations: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Altair x=782, y=532 [19h50m46.9990s RA, +08 52'05.959'' DEC] &#xA;Sualocin, x=311, y=146 [20h 39m 38.287s +15 54'43.49'' DEC] &#xA;Denebokab, x=1023, y=815 [19h25m29.9005s +03 06' 53.191'' DEC] &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What mathematical function converts pixel location to RA/DEC and vice &#xA;versa? Notes: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Bright stars are blobs in the picture; the coordinates above are &#xA;roughly the center of the blob, but may be off by +-2 pixels. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I know I can rotate the celestial sphere so that the center of my &#xA;picture has polar coordinates 0,0. So the real question is &quot;how to &#xA;find this rotation&quot; (but see next point). &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If elevation/azimuth were linear in pictures, this would be &#xA;easy(er), but they're not: &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6073/measuring-angular-distance-with-photographs/&quot;&gt;Measuring angular distance with photographs&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I can provide pixel locations of more stars if that helps. I &#xA;believe 3 should be sufficient, but I could be wrong. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I tried to choose 3 stars that were &quot;spread out&quot; across the &#xA;picture (because I think that reduces error, not sure), but am not &#xA;sure I succeeded. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I'm doing this for several pictures and would like a general method. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Doing this will help me identify fainter stars/Messier-objects/etc &#xA;in the picture. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure lots of astrophotographers want to do this, but haven't &#xA;found any existing software that does this. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: Thanks, whuber! The gnomonic projection is what I was missing. I'd &#xA;already done this assuming a linear transformation: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;(* convert RA/DEC to xyz coords on celestial psuedo-sphere of radius 1 *) &#xA;radecxyz[ra_,dec_] = &#xA;{Cos[ra/12*Pi]*Cos[dec/180*Pi],Sin[ra/12*Pi]*Cos[dec/180*Pi],Sin[dec/180*Pi]}; &#xA;&#xA;(* I no longer have any idea how this works *) &#xA;astrosolve[x_,y_,z_,xwid_,ywid_] := Module[{a,m,ans,nullans}, &#xA;m=Array[a,{2,3}]; &#xA;temp=Solve[{ &#xA;m.radecxyz[x[[1]],x[[2]]]=={x[[3]]-xwid/2,x[[4]]-ywid/2}, &#xA;m.radecxyz[y[[1]],y[[2]]]=={y[[3]]-xwid/2,y[[4]]-ywid/2}, &#xA;m.radecxyz[z[[1]],z[[2]]]=={z[[3]]-xwid/2,z[[4]]-ywid/2} &#xA;}]; &#xA;ans = m /. Flatten[temp]; &#xA;nullans=Flatten[NullSpace[ans]]; &#xA;If[nullans.radecxyz[x[[1]],x[[2]]]&amp;lt;0,nullans=-nullans]; &#xA;Return[{ans,nullans}]; &#xA;]; &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;where x, y, and z were each 4-element lists consisting of a stars RA, &#xA;declination, x-coordinate on picture, and y-coordinate on &#xA;picture. xwid and ywid are the width and height of the picture. In &#xA;this case: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;astrosolve[ &#xA; {19.8463886110, 8.8683219443, 782, 532}, &#xA; {20.6606352777, 15.9120805555, 311, 146}, &#xA; {19.4249723610, 3.1147752777, 1023, 815}, &#xA; 1443, 998] &#xA;&#xA;{ &#xA; {{-2250.51, -1182.52, 385.689},  {-166.12, -543.746, -2376.73}},  &#xA; {0.480698, -0.861509, 0.163497} &#xA;} &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, referring to &quot;{-2250.51, -1182.52, 385.689}&quot; as $frow, &quot;{-166.12, &#xA;-543.746, -2376.73}&quot; as $srow, and &quot;{0.480698, -0.861509, 0.163497}&quot; &#xA;as $null, this PHP subroutine translates RA/DEC to xy coordinates: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;# radecxy(ra,dec): converts ra/dec to x,y using a quasi-linear transformation &#xA;&#xA;function radecxy($ra,$dec) { &#xA;    global $null,$frow,$srow,$xwid,$ywid; &#xA;    list($x,$y,$z)=array(cos($dec)*cos($ra),cos($dec)*sin($ra),sin($dec)); &#xA;&#xA;    $dotprod=$null[0]*$x+$null[1]*$y+$null[2]*$z; &#xA;    if ($dotprod&amp;lt;0) {return(array(-1,-1));}&#xA;&#xA; list($fx,$fy)  = array($frow[0]*$x+$frow[1]*$y+$frow[2]*$z,$srow[0]*$x+$srow[1]*$y+$srow[2]*$z); &#xA;    $fx+=$xwid/2; &#xA;    $fy+=$ywid/2; &#xA;    if ($fx&amp;lt;0 || $fy&amp;lt;0 || $fx&amp;gt;$xwid || $fy&amp;gt;$ywid) { &#xA;        return(array(-1,-1)); &#xA;    } else { &#xA;        return(array($fx,$fy)); &#xA;    } &#xA;} &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sadly, I no longer have any idea why this works, but using it + adding &#xA;known star positions yields tolerable results (use &quot;view image&quot; to see it full size): &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/RFuxW.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, as you can see, the results aren't perfect, convincing me &#xA;that a linear transformation wasn't the right answer. I think gnomonic &#xA;might be the grail I was seeking. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2844" LastEditorUserId="2844" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-03T05:57:15.807" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T05:57:15.807" Title="Pixel-to-RA/DEC mapping in digitized astrophotography" Tags="&lt;astrophotography&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="6112" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6099" CreationDate="2010-12-28T18:06:54.510" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 277T (I think you have an extra 7 in your model number) should be fine, as referenced in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.botzilla.com/photo/strobeVolts.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photo Strobe Trigger Voltages&lt;/a&gt;. If you're still not sure, you could always email Canon support to find out, but a quick Google check shows that it is being used on modern Canon dSLRs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T18:06:54.510" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="6113" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6077" CreationDate="2010-12-28T19:25:01.180" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a photographer I'm 'camera agnostic' and use both Canon and a Nikon systems on a daily basis, so I do have real-world experience with both systems. Both the Canon and Nikon stabilization systems are designed to perform the same function (stabilize the image from hand-held camera shake), and they do it in the same way (a floating element within a lens manipulated electromagnetically). In my experience, there is no appreciable difference between the two systems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To address your additional question, Thom Hogan's 'rules' as outlined in the the cited article will apply equally well to Canon's IS system and are more-or-less what I teach my students about image stabilization (though some of my students would probably say that Thom's article is more succinct than some of my rambling explanations!).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bottom line: Don't make IS or VR the 'deciding factor' if you're in the process of 'going Canon' or 'going Nikon,' for all intents and purposes the systems are equivalent in functionality, features, and operation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T19:25:01.180" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="6114" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2627" CreationDate="2010-12-28T19:25:20.337" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is a picture that I shot at Christmas of my 2 girlies and my nephew.  In the original, the image was overexposed and the glare from the window made it hard to look at without being blinded!  The first picture is the JPEG and the second is the edited RAW picture.  I was able to decrease the exposure and increase the highlight recovery to bring my daughter's face out of the glare, and the white balance made the whole thing a little less glowy.  Trying the same on the JPEG made everything have an odd color and didn't do much of anything about the glow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I should add that I'm pretty new to Lightroom, so someone with quite a bit of experience may have been able to do more with the JPEG.  But, that makes me even &lt;em&gt;more&lt;/em&gt; convinced that shooting in RAW is the way to go, as even with just a few tweaks I am able to salvage a picture that otherwise would have gotten trashed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Pr8k7.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;JPEG&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/cews0.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Edited RAW&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="706" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T19:25:20.337" />
  <row Id="6115" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6117" CreationDate="2010-12-28T19:37:06.833" Score="2" ViewCount="357" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to photograph some local gigs to build up a portfolio. Has anyone any tips on what kit, and techniques would give the best results? The gigs would be mostly rock bands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's my kit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon D70S&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AFS Nikkor DX 18-70mm 3.5-4.5&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tamron 70-300mm  4-5.6&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any help most appreciated,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jonesy&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2533" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T00:14:10.653" Title="Tips for photographing concerts and small gigs" Tags="&lt;tips&gt;&lt;low-light&gt;&lt;concert&gt;&lt;gig&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="6116" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6098" CreationDate="2010-12-28T19:46:00.127" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've only just started out as well, but I've found the entry requirements are having your own kit, having some photos that prove you can do the job, being reliable, fast, available, and (unless you're really good / lucky) free.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Starting with the locals is sound advice.  Try to find the contact details for the Picture Editor.  Send links to your stuff and hope that someone has recently dropped off their register.  Don't take it personally if they say no - they only need so many on their books at a given time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, &quot;f/8 and be there&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1615" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T19:46:00.127" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6117" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6115" CreationDate="2010-12-28T19:57:36.187" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given the equipment you have listed, I would say an entire kit replacement might be in order. The Nikon D70s looks like a decent DSLR, however it does not have the greatest high-ISO performance. Higher ISO capability with low noise would be a huge boon for photographing concerts (which tend to be quite dark.) Something that can handle ISO 1600, possibly even ISO 3200, without a lot of noise would be a LOT better for photographing dark scenes like concerts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neither of your lenses are very fast, with the fastest aperture being f/3.5 on the 18-70mm. I would highly recommend f/2.8 at at the very least, with f/1.8 or f/1.4 being far preferable. A 50mm, 35mm, or 24mm lens at f/1.8 at least, or f/1.4 if possible, would be fast enough for you to capture some decent concert shots. If you keep your existing camera body, I would say shoot for f/1.4 or f/1.2 if you can, as that should allow you to use ISO 400-800 (however, your shots are still going to be pretty dark.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you intend to photograph concert musicians up close, 24mm, 35mm, or 50mm lenses should suffice. If you think you might be photographing from farther away, or want to get closer shots with decent bokeh, 85mm, 100mm, or 135mm lenses would be better. Again, the fastest lens you can get would be ideal. At 85mm you should be able to get as wide as f/1.2, for 100mm anr 135mm you might be able to find lenses as fast as f/2, however f/2.8 should work. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lenses with wider apertures tend to have thinner DOF, which might pose a small challenge for getting perfect focus. A camera body with better ISO performance, up to ISO 3200, would greatly help in this area, as you could stop down the lens to increase your DOF. On the flip side, thinner DOF results in smoother background blur (bokeh). Not sure that bokeh will really be an issue for concerts...backgrounds will probably be all dark or black anyway. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-28T20:39:12.893" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T20:39:12.893" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6118" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6098" CreationDate="2010-12-28T19:57:54.847" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You don't mention whether your goal is to be a staff photographer (paid a regular salary to take photographs by a news outlet of some variety), or a freelance photographer who takes on journalistic assignments. Both routes are difficult, however becoming a staff photographer is the more difficult of the two routes... Even more-so in a recession, and in an industry that's in serious decline...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had a journalism professor who used to give his ironic/sarcastic 'four step formula for being a photojournalist' which went something like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Step 1: Get a full time job doing something other than photojournalism.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Step 2: Become friends with the publisher of the news source you want to work for and hope they give you a call. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Step 3: Spend 30 years doing the job in step 1. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Step 4: Retire.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've watched several of my students try to break into photojournalism over the years with varying degrees of success. In my experience breaking into photojournalism is a little like breaking into the record business... It requires a lot of hustle, a lot of unpaid hard work, some serious networking and schmoozing, a &lt;strong&gt;lot&lt;/strong&gt; of time, and a fair amount of luck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer: I'm in the US, not the UK. I kinda doubt there's a lot of difference, but just in case there &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;... You've been warned! ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T19:57:54.847" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6119" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6115" CreationDate="2010-12-28T20:01:19.103" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're not going to have much fun with those variable aperture lenses unless you're in really well lit venues.  Wide apertures rule in gig photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For smaller venues, a 50mm f/1.8 will get you started for about £100.  Next step would be a 24-70mm f/2.8 to give you a bit more flexibility (doesn't have to be Nikon - Sigma do a screw focus one for about £450), then you can add a wide angle and a longer tele for a bit of variety when you're ready.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For bigger venues, you'll need a 70-200mm f/2.8.  And a mortgage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then again, the D70S tops out at ISO 1600, and I'm not sure what sort of noise levels you get there.  You might be struggling with that.  On a good day, I work ISO 800 - 1600, but I'd be nervous about shooting a gig without having the option of going up to at least ISO 2500.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did I mention that gig photography is &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; expensive?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/125/how-do-i-get-a-photographer-pass-for-gigs-and-concerts/&quot;&gt;How do I get a photographer pass for gigs and concerts?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit:&#xA;Kelby Training have a training video on gig photography.  It's not mind-blowing if you've been shooting gigs for a while, but it'll get you up to speed fast.  Might be worth signing up for a month to watch it: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kelbytraining.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kelby Training&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1615" LastEditorUserId="1615" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-29T00:14:10.653" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T00:14:10.653" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6120" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6107" CreationDate="2010-12-28T21:36:42.690" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is important to first understand the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/guide_dslr_basics.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pros and cons of DSLRs&lt;/a&gt;. People will tell you that DSLRs give the best image quality and they are right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether you need that image quality depends on the type of shooting you do. Particularly if you print small or simply share your images on the web, you won't notice much difference until shooting in very low light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The MOST important advantage of DSLRs is speed. They respond faster which gives you much better changes at catching things that move fast like sports and action. No matter how small you print, if you miss the shot because the camera is too slow, you missed, period.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While DSLRs have the &lt;em&gt;ultimate&lt;/em&gt; flexibility (lenses, filters, flashes, etc), top-of-the-line fixed-lens cameras have awesome &lt;em&gt;immediate&lt;/em&gt; flexibility. With a single lens you can go from ultra-wide (24mm) to super telephoto (840mm) in the case of the Canon SX30 for example. You can also focus at 0cm from the lens which gives awesome macro capability which you would need a specialty lens for on a DSLR... and you get all this for under 2 lbs and never deal with sensor dust.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certain models from Fuji have excellent image quality for their class, even though I own several DSLRs and more lenses than I remember, I do own several fixed lens cameras with my favorite being the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=50&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fuji Finepix S100FS&lt;/a&gt;. The mechanical lens makes framing extremely precise and the zoom range is enough that I rarely have the 'wrong lens' for a quick shot I need. I certainly would not take this camera to shoot indoor basketball though, for that I use a Canon DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T21:36:42.690" />
  <row Id="6121" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6096" CreationDate="2010-12-28T23:33:32.373" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the best way to learn how to say a word is to hear it used, especially in proper context. This video is a great way to learn how to use the word &lt;em&gt;bokeh&lt;/em&gt; correctly, and entertaining to boot:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6lsFQGVUl0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Battle of the Bokeh: Nikon 85mm f/1.4 D vs Sigma 85mm f/1.4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As mentioned previously, and for everyone's edification in case the link goes down, the correct pronounciation is &quot;bo&quot; as in &quot;bone&quot;, and &quot;keh&quot; as in &quot;ken&quot;. Another way to think of it is like a flower &quot;bouquets&quot;, only with the long 'o' sound rather than the drawn out 'oo' sound. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T23:33:32.373" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6122" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6107" CreationDate="2010-12-28T23:39:54.780" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want to learn photography, almost any camera will do to start with. In some ways, the more primitive the camera, the more you will learn. I believe the most important aspects of photography are things like composition, framing, choosing the instant, making  the best use of ambient lighting and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have an inexpensive DSLR, I also have a high-end superzoom compact with the same zoom range as the lens I use most often on my DSLR. For photographing wildlife the DSLR wins every time, even though it's sensor has half the number of pixels. The DSLR wins in the following areas:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Speed of focus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ability for me to quickly choose focus point.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;shortness of interval between pressing the shutter and capturing the image.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lack of noise in the image, especially at high ISO.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Color reproduction (though this is adjustable in both cameras)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Range of controls that are instantly to hand (without moving eye from subject).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the things that really irks me is that even if I pre-compose the shot, when I press the shutter release on the compact, even if the subject is still in focus, it always takes a half second to focus back and forth before settiling on the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another thing that irks me is that if the compact focuses on a twig instead of a bird, there is usually nothing I can do about it in the time before the bird flies away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above may not hold true for some other pairing of DSLR and compact but I find it persuasive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2520" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T23:39:54.780" />
  <row Id="6123" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6115" CreationDate="2010-12-28T23:42:30.957" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon 50D and at ISO 1600 with my Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens I can barely push it beyond 1/80th to get enough light in for most of the venues I shoot at (most aren't amazingly well lit, that's for sure).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The unfortunate problem I face is that ISO 1600 is really as far as I'm aesthetically allowing myself to go. If I pushed it to ISO 3200 on f/2.8 with IS (which doesn't help subject motion blur), I might be able to achieve 1/125th or something but then the noise in the photo would start to ruin the benefit of a faster shutter speed. The noise would start to seriously degrade the detail in the photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately for you, I don't believe your gear is anywhere near even that which I have, which is probably the bare minimum to shoot low light venues anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your variable aperture lenses mean your shutter speed will have to slow down when zoomed in, something you want to do the opposite with. Those lenses are also considerably slower than even an f/2.8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At f/4.5, the 18-70mm is 1.6 stops slower than my lens at 55mm, meaning you shutter speed must be around 1/3rd the speed or your ISO 3 times higher. Rough calculations. I hate the stops math :P&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I fear you would likely get rather frustrated with the difficulty exposing the scene with your current kit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now if you had a full frame sensor you'd be able to push your ISO far beyond 1600 and be able to achieve a shutter speed within 1/250th if you wanted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2010-12-28T23:42:30.957" />
  <row Id="6124" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-28T23:56:14.573" Score="1" ViewCount="187" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which camera(s)/lens to buy if you want the most extreme possible zoom factor? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some variables for me:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do not need ultimate quality,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do not need video,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do not take photos in darkness,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do not take photos in short distances,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do not care about weight/size,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;May sacrifice image quality in favor of zoom level&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've seen some super zooms here &lt;a href=&quot;http://snapsort.com/learn/super-zooms&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://snapsort.com/learn/super-zooms&lt;/a&gt; but I want more zoom. Please don't point me to review articles, I don't understand the jargon (don't want really) and that's why I'm asking here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cheers&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2860" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T15:33:46.750" Title="Cameras with the most possible zoom?" Tags="&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="6126" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6124" CreationDate="2010-12-29T00:41:43.477" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The greatest zoom range of any camera is the Canon Powershot SX30 IS. It has a 35X optical zoom lens, equivalent to 24 to 840mm. The Olympus SP-800 reach just as far but does not start as wide. It's a simple search to find this out on Neocamera, just select the biggest value for the longest focal on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Camera Search&lt;/a&gt; page. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php?focaltele=840%3amin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This is the result&lt;/a&gt; which shows you both of these cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can do the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_lens.php?focaltele=800%3amin&amp;amp;by=feature&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;same search&lt;/a&gt; in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_lens.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lens Search&lt;/a&gt; page to find out that 800mm is the maximum focal-length available among major manufacturers. If you put such a lens on a Four-Thirds body it will be equivalent to 1600mm. You can always add a tele-extender if that is still not enough for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: Since you may not be familiar with what focal-length is, here are the specifics: From the lenses this means you would need the Sigma 300-800 F5.6 for Four-Thirds on a camera like the Olympus E-5, basically &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php?mount=43&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;any of these&lt;/a&gt;. Between the ultra-zoom and the lens+DSLR, the lens goes further but you are looking at $369 USD vs $8500+ USD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-29T01:05:09.213" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T01:05:09.213" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6127" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6074" CreationDate="2010-12-29T00:44:18.190" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am assuming that you are talking about the difference in highlights and shadows between those two pictures (the first had very blown out sky), and not the somewhat &quot;gritty&quot; effect of the latter. Aside from the obvious in-camera correction of reducing exposure (as the first image was certainly overexposed), which I believe would have had a very similar effect, there are multi-exposure blending techniques that can solve problems with scenes with high contrast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two primary ways where such images with broad apparent dynamic range can be created. The most common way is HDR, or High Dynamic Range, processing. HDR processing usually involves two or more exposures of a scene, but ranging up to perhaps a dozen, that are blended to create a single high dynamic range image that stores color information using floating point numbers, rather than integers. The dynamic range of a normal image is quite limited, however the dynamic range of an HDR image can be nearly infinite, and as it is &quot;dynamic&quot;, can be adapted to properly render just about any image. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Classically, HDR images are created by using the AEB feature, or Auto-Exposure Bracketing, of your camera to take several exposures of a scene. One at the exposure setting you (or the camera) chooses, one under exposed and one over exposed by the amount of stops specified in the AEB setting. These three images are then merged using a tool like Adobe Photoshop's &quot;Merge to HDR&quot; feature, or Photomatix (a program dedicated to HDR processing.) The resulting 32-bit floating point HDR image can be converted to 16-bit or 8-bit, and &quot;tone mapped&quot; to compress the very broad dynamic range of the HDR image (which is actually well beyond what any computer screen or printer is remotely possible of displaying) into the limited dynamic range of a normal image. This process is pretty manual, and can require quite a bit of fine tuning to generate a proper LDR (low dynamic range) image that &quot;appears&quot; to have a higher range of contrast than it actually does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A newer alternative to HDR is Exposure Fusion, or Enfusion. This technique is similar to HDR in that it takes multiple exposures and merges them. Unlike HDR, however, Enfusion is a far simpler process that uses a much more advanced algorithm to directly create an LDR image that looks &quot;correct&quot; without all the manual fiddling that is usually necessary with HDR. There are some options that can be used to tweak an enfused image, however most of the time they are not necessary, and when they are, the amount of fiddling is usually pretty minimal. There are two tools available today that can create enfused images...the original, free Enfuse tool, and Photomatix Pro, which also does HDR, but costs some dough. Enfuse is a command line tool, and if it produces an enfused image that you don't think looks quite right, it can be complex to figure out the right command line options to tweak. Photomatix, on the other hand, is all visual, and it is a lot easier to tweak when necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your question was about how to get the particular &quot;tone&quot; and &quot;atmosphere&quot; of the second image, and not about how to improve dynamic range, then that is a whole different story. I think that particular &quot;look&quot; is referred to as the &quot;gritty&quot; look, and there are countless tutorials and articles on the net that cover that, so I won't do into detail here. (Not to mention that I don't process my images that way anyway, and I'm not the right person to offer you any tips. ;))&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T00:44:18.190" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6128" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6135" CreationDate="2010-12-29T03:44:59.347" Score="1" ViewCount="151" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've recently switched from Picasa to Lightroom 3.3.  Upon importing my pics into lightroom, there were about 500 that appeared at the top when sorted by date, despite being older pictures.  Turns out that they had an incorrect &quot;date taken&quot; in the meta data.  (May 2011 instead of 2010)  So I sought a batch process to update those pictures - used jhead and it worked wonderfully.  Windows Explorer now sees the corrected date taken as does picasa. However when I open lightroom, the pictures all still have the old (2011) date in the meta data under the &quot;date time original&quot; and &quot;date time&quot; fields.  Is lightroom maintaining its own metadata separate from the embeded jpg file?  If so, how can I get it to sync up with what's in the JPG?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="652" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T13:19:08.753" Title="How can I get lightroom to sync datetaken meta data with other programs" Tags="&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;lightroom-3&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="6129" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6133" CreationDate="2010-12-29T05:43:27.110" Score="7" ViewCount="347" Body="&lt;p&gt;Image stabilisation is all the rage, and hardly a new lens from Nikon or Canon is missing this &quot;crucial&quot; feature. To me this seems to be the new megapixel race (like when the manufacturers tried to overdo each other with higher resolution, they now try to do this with more (useless) features).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Especially for wide angle lenses like the new Nikon 16-35 I can't really understand what the fuss with VR is about. As a rule of thumb you should use 1/mm as shutter-speed not to shake pictures, for 16-35 shutter times of 1/16s to 1/35s should be manageable without problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At shutter speeds like 1/16s your subjects will blurred due be moving. Even more so if you really take advantage of the &quot;4 more stops of light&quot; VR might bring you. People will be blurred, because they are moving, talking. Leaves in a tree will be blurred because wind is moving them. Water will be blurred because of motion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For almost anything below 200mm the only situation where IS/VR would be useful is some kind of still-life photography, like architecture. But this kind is better shot using a tripod anyway for maximum image quality and to help create a deliberate composition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course IS/VR can (and probably should) be switched off when you don't need it, but why pay a premium for a stabilised lens when you can only use the advantage in very few situations? Why lug around the extra size and weight of an IS lens? Why tolerate the extra battery drain of the VR-system?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same applies for IS-systems which are integrated into the DSLR body. I owned and used the Pentax IS system for a few years, and found it pretty useless in almost any situation I encountered since something in the picture always was moving and therefore being subject to motion blur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any real-world usage for IS below 200mm? Or is this mainly a marketing hype everybody is keen to attend?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course you can (and will) create some exotic settings where the extra stop of light is helpful, but do these rare settings justify the downsides?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T08:33:23.157" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T08:37:15.230" Title="How useful is image stabilisation below 200mm, really?" Tags="&lt;focal-length&gt;&lt;image-stabilization&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="6130" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6129" CreationDate="2010-12-29T06:07:28.280" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The benefit for wide lenses comes from shooting relatively still targets, things like landscapes. I always use the image stabilization when hiking, and it's helped to save many an image. It just depends on what kind of subjects you photograph. But I think you make an excellent point for people who shoot animals, people, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T06:07:28.280" />
  <row Id="6131" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6129" CreationDate="2010-12-29T06:21:08.177" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Though there's no doubt that virtually anything can be a bullet point in the useless features race, I don't think IS/VR qualifies.  While you're right that at wide angles you're not likely to need such a slow shutter speed that you can't handhold, there's a lot of room between 35mm and 200mm, and at many of those focal lengths you may have subjects that move sufficiently slowly that, say, a 1/60s shutter speed will pose no problems with motion blur, but if you're shooting at a 120 mm, without IS/VR you may get some shake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a fast, wide-angle lens I don't think you're going to get any real benefit from IS/VR, but step up to middle focal lengths, especially with narrower apertures, and I think it often has value.  Unless you always carry a tripod, I suppose -- and always have time to set it up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me the bottom line is that it reduces the number of shots I miss, and the number that I have to accept a little less sharpness or a little narrower DOF than I really want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2862" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T06:21:08.177" />
  <row Id="6132" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6128" CreationDate="2010-12-29T07:42:40.070" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lightroom maintains a catalog where it stores such information. From what I can tell you have two options -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Synchronize folders - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.image-space.com/Lightroom_Tips_Tricks/Library_Module_Tips/Synchronize_Folders/Synchronize_Folders.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.image-space.com/Lightroom_Tips_Tricks/Library_Module_Tips/Synchronize_Folders/Synchronize_Folders.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If that doesn't work, you could delete the catalog (usually located in My Pictures) and reimport the pictures. That should solve your problem.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2394" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T07:42:40.070" />
  <row Id="6133" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6129" CreationDate="2010-12-29T08:43:07.867" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you say, the old adage, that you'd use the reciprocal of the focal length to avoid shaking (at full frame) still holds without VR: means 100mm = at maximum 1/100s ... or a tripod. Or 1/16 to 1/65 for your example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't say 4 stops, but my experience with my Nikkor 16-85 (APS-C) says two stops. That makes at least 1/4 to 1/20 out of these numbers ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;... and sometimes, blurred movement is part of the idea (I carry a ND8).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;... and sometimes cranking up the ISO is not possible any more. If you want a deeper DOF and/or take photos at low light-conditions (night, an indoors party): unbearable without IS/tripod.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;... and often people do not move that fast, 1/30 would suffice and comply with your ISO, but the 100mm focal lengths do dictate 1/100 for the nice portrait at the wedding-ceremony. (I do have a 17-50 2,8 for parties, but that makes another lens. Additionally: wedding-ceremonys of non-famous-people are better without a lot of flashes.)&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(did you seriously put up the measure to 200mm and thus way beyond the portrait-focal-lengths?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;... and very, very often tripods/monopods can't be used where you would like to. Be it due to local customs, the lost moment, local security, your own baggage-limits or that you simply do not want to lug around another kilo of a decent tripod everywhere. (My wife often bears the burden :) )&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;... and sometimes you travel too and IS will certainly reduce this additional shake. See trains and ships and apply above ideas.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastEditorUserId="2317" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-29T08:54:17.040" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T08:54:17.040" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6134" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6129" CreationDate="2010-12-29T10:58:58.023" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my opinion IS is most useful in the range of about 50mm and above for two reasons, firstly there is the subject motion problem, which the questioner addresses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly I can't see IS being as effective with wide focal lengths as the corrective movements must be smaller and take place over a much longer period of time. Take a &quot;two stop&quot; IS system on a 200mm lens. Going by the 1/f rule, you ought to be able to handhold 1/50s exposures with IS on. The frequency of human camera shake will be much less than 50Hz so the IS system has to make a single movement to counteract the camera shake during the exposure, which will be approximately linear. Now take an 17mm lens with the same two stop IS system, you ought to be able to handhold a 0.24s exposure, almost a quarter of a second. During that time the IS correction group will probably have to oscillate back and forth to match the camera motion, instead of make one linear move as before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I posted in a previous question on the subject, it's always a mix of genuine advantage and a bit of marketing hype to sell new lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like someone with an 18mm zoom with IS post some example pictures. I have no doubt that there are some advantages to IS in wide lenses but the question is does it work as well as advertised and is it worth the cost?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T10:58:58.023" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6135" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6128" CreationDate="2010-12-29T11:24:00.567" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;An important thing to remember now that you switched to Lightroom is that you should try to do as much from there as possible. You will get used to it in no time. As you just found out, LR maintains a lot of information in its database and modifying the files on disc will put you out of sync. Another hurdle is to &lt;em&gt;resist&lt;/em&gt; the urge to move files around from Windows Explorer; make sure you do it from Lightroom or you will soon spend some quality time telling LR where to find your old files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, to solve your problem, select the files that are out of sync, right click and pick &quot;Metadata -&gt; Read Metadata from file&quot; from the context menu or the main menu. I'm pretty sure &quot;Synchronize Folder&quot; works if the &quot;Scan for metadata updates&quot; option is ON, but this would also import new images and you might not want that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This goes both ways of course. If you update some Metadata in LR and want to make sure it is accessible to third party apps, select your files and use &quot;Save Metadata to File&quot;. You are probably wondering if this can be done automatically for you, and the answer is yes, by checking the &quot;Edit-&gt; Catalog Settings-&gt; Metadata -&gt; Automatically write changes into XMP&quot; option if I recall but I would advise against it for performance reasons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-29T13:19:08.753" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T13:19:08.753" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6136" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-29T11:26:31.250" Score="0" ViewCount="97" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've read from many sources that film flashguns won't work with newer digital cameras due to voltage differences and timing differences (and trying may in fact damage my camera), however I have heard of people getting around this by using inexpensive remote flash triggers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a couple of old film flashes lying around and I wanted to experiment with some off-camera flash - I've found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Channel-Wireless-Trigger-Control-Remote/dp/B002G95FXA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1293621706&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this wireless remote&lt;/a&gt; but I wasn't sure if it would work with my older flash gun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Has anyone had any experience using older film-style flash guns with a digital camera in this way?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1522" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T13:27:50.133" Title="Using an older film flashgun with a modern digial camera" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;off-camera-flash&gt;&lt;flash-remote&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6137" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-29T11:38:04.987" Score="0" ViewCount="50" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to scan hundreds of old photo prints.  I've heard of scanmyphotos.com and scansafe.com but I'm hesitant about mailing my photos across the US and have them get lost or damaged.  So I would like to drop them off to a location to get scanned.  Can anyone recommend a scanning service in the NYC, NJ or southern CT area?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1968" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T11:38:04.987" ClosedDate="2010-12-29T12:32:26.133" Title="scanning services in the New York City or Northern New Jersey area?" Tags="&lt;scanning&gt;&lt;scanning-service&gt;" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6138" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4316" CreationDate="2010-12-29T11:57:09.097" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently bought myself the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-50-1-8-Lens/dp/B00005K47X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1293622459&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 50mm f1.8&lt;/a&gt; and I'm &lt;strong&gt;incredibly&lt;/strong&gt; pleased with the results - I previously had the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-3-5-5-6-Lens/dp/B000V9F3AW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1293622655&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 18-55mm&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-55-250mm-Telephoto-Selected-Digital/dp/B000V9D5LG/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1293622696&amp;amp;sr=1-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 55-250mm&lt;/a&gt; kit lenses, my original thinking being that this would give me a nice range of focal lengths, but at the moment &lt;strong&gt;I'm not sure if I'm ever going to use the 18-55mm again!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was impatient and paid £100 in Jessops, but its listed above for £85 and you can reliably get it new off eBay for £70.  At that price for me the question becomes &quot;What &lt;strong&gt;other&lt;/strong&gt; 2 lenses would I get for £400?&quot; - the only reason I can see for someone not getting this as at least one of their first lenses is because they want to get the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-Lens-50-1-4-USM/dp/B00009XVCZ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1293622989&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon f1.4&lt;/a&gt; version instead, but half of what makes me so impressed with mine is the fact that it was so cheap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thing that drew me to the 50mm was the aperture size - our house is relatively dimly lit and taking photos of the family in the evening with the kit lens was very difficult in the low light.  The 50mm has no such problems however, and also provides the pleasing out-of-focus background that I always struggled to achieve with the kit lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 50mm lens does also have better image quality - I've did some comparison shots (on a tripod, same aperture size etc...) and I can fairly easily see the difference in sharpness, but generally only notice it if I'm looking for it - as an amateur photographer the aperture size and the low light performance is the thing that has made the real difference for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1522" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T11:57:09.097" />
  <row Id="6139" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6136" CreationDate="2010-12-29T13:27:50.133" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Make sure to look for the flash on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.botzilla.com/photo/strobeVolts.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this big list&lt;/a&gt;, or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.botzilla.com/photo/g1strobe.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;measure the voltage yourself&lt;/a&gt;. If that's no good, the same site has &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.botzilla.com/photo/g1strobe.html#slave&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the info you want on slave triggers&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T13:27:50.133" />
  <row Id="6140" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6129" CreationDate="2010-12-29T14:14:46.537" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I conducted a large number of accurate measurements on a 50 mm lens on a Pentax K7.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The bottom line, Shake reduction/VR/IS (call it what you will) is very beneficial.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scribd.com/doc/27274532/Study-of-the-Effectiveness-of-Shake-Reduction-in-the-Pentax-K7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A link to the full study is on www.scribd.com (pdf)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The graph below shows the main results.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Motion blur, in pixels, was used as a measure of image stabilisation. The tests show that motion blur was kept below 0.5 pixel down to a shutter speed of 1/8 sec, whereas without image stabilisation the motion blur was 5.9 pixel at 1/8 sec.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scribd.com/doc/27274532/Study-of-the-Effectiveness-of-Shake-Reduction-in-the-Pentax-K7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;See the full study for test details (pdf)&lt;/a&gt;.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/wdf4U.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T14:14:46.537" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="6141" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6160" CreationDate="2010-12-29T14:21:16.977" Score="1" ViewCount="148" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm mainly asking about the film ⇒ negative process, not about making of prints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is the process automised?&lt;/strong&gt; With what kind of devices? Are the devices one-size-fits-all or is a different device needed for different types of film?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are the methods considered &lt;strong&gt;fail-safe? Why?&lt;/strong&gt; (I haven't heard that anyone's film would've gotten corrupted in the shop/lab.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And just curious: what does the equipment &lt;strong&gt;cost?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Or is the process manual as in homemade darkroom?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm mostly interested in the development and development hardware of 35 mm film. Yes, the process is different with B&amp;amp;W and colour film, but most shops/labs handle both (among others).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1913" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T19:10:05.043" Title="What kind of professional film developing equipment is used in photo shops/labs?" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;developing&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="6142" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6124" CreationDate="2010-12-29T14:26:49.663" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're looking for the highest focal length for the least money, I'm going to basically repeat &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6009/what-nikon-lens-to-buy-to-make-photos-of-birds/6016#6016&quot;&gt;an answer I gave just a bit ago&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href=&quot;http://ixbtlabs.com/articles2/rubinar/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;catadioptric lens&lt;/a&gt; utilizes a mirror in addition to glass optics, giving you high focal length (500mm, 600mm, or even higher), in a very cheap, compact, and light package. You can get an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/600861-REG/Vivitar_800MR_800mm_f_8_Series_1.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;800mm version&lt;/a&gt; which will work &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/683289-REG/General_Brand_ATM43_T_Mount_Adapter_for_Micro.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;with an adapter&lt;/a&gt; on a micro 4/3rds camera as suggested in Itai's answer, giving you the a 1600mm focal length lens for about $275. Pair that with a $400 micro-4/3rds body (whatever is cheap today...) and there you go, for way less than 8500 USD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T14:26:49.663" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6143" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6129" CreationDate="2010-12-29T14:37:16.133" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For sports or high action photography, not very useful... but there's a lot of photography styles that don't have fast moving subjects. You could equally ask how useful a tripod is...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shooting a wedding ceremony, inside, with a Canon 24-105 f/4L IS USM would let you shoot at 1/30 at any focal length (even on a crop sensor), which is often fine given people don't really move quickly at such events.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you've got a crop body and a Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM then you could perhaps go as low as 1/4 a second at 17mm for indoor architectural photos (and maybe to get some nice water blur on an outdoor landscape, though I guess you'd be more likely to have the tripod there). It &lt;em&gt;might&lt;/em&gt; be the difference between carrying a tripod everywhere and not needing one at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastEditorUserId="889" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-31T07:35:33.597" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T07:35:33.597" />
  <row Id="6144" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6145" CreationDate="2010-12-29T14:44:45.683" Score="5" ViewCount="193" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to get nice shots with ambient light (meaning the natural light in the room of restaurants, living room with x-mas tree lights only...) so I can catch the glow of light on people’s faces as they are illuminated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All I have is the kit lens for the Nikon d7000 for now... looking to get a 2nd lens to help with this after I can figure out what lens that will be. This is the cornerstone of my question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem I see with my current shooting is that when I shoot the shutter takes so re is blurred because the subjects (people) move. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;with my basic understanding of photography, I get that there needs to be sufficient light and with low light the shutter will stay open longer, especially since my aperture is not large at all with the kit lens - 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR ED Nikkor&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Am I missing something here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or am I correct in looking for a lens with larger aperture to get sharp low light images of moving subjects? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please let me know if I am off base, and if I should require a new lens, please also suggest the lens and reason to me (so I can grow my knowledge as well)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks all&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="2200" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-05T21:01:20.050" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T21:01:20.050" Title="help with low light subjects being blurry" Tags="&lt;low-light&gt;&lt;blur&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6145" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6144" CreationDate="2010-12-29T14:58:21.940" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unless your subjects are sitting still, slow shutter speeds are just going to have blur. As a general rule of thumb that I use, I tend to be 1/150 of a second or faster for normally moving people, but in indoor ambient light this usually means quite high ISO. Fortunately for you, the D7000 is excellent at high ISO, so the normal concerns with noise is substantially reduced. Because of that, I would suggest setting your camera to shutter priority (Tv), select a shutter speed, and let the camera pick aperture and ISO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T14:58:21.940" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6146" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-29T15:05:19.007" Score="3" ViewCount="153" Body="&lt;p&gt;I heard about camera firmware update. Is it recommended update the firmware? Why? Anyone knows which firmware improve camera performance (Canon EOS Rebel XS)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="869" LastEditorUserId="869" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-29T15:57:14.407" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T16:26:12.993" Title="Can firmware improve a camera?" Tags="&lt;upgrade&gt;&lt;firmware-hacks&gt;&lt;firmware&gt;&lt;performance&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6147" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6146" CreationDate="2010-12-29T15:24:48.513" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is, it depends.  Generally, firmware upgrades can &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Correct flaws in the original firmware.  For instance, if there were a metering mistake in the original firmware, that can get fixed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Expose new software functionality.  I'm thinking of &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CHDK&lt;/a&gt; here, that brings new functionality to canon powershot cameras (such as RAW shooting, timed shooting, etc).  For whatever reason, sometimes camera manufacturers leave out capabilities from their cameras that the camera can physically perform.  These kinds of upgrades can expose that functionality.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Importantly, firmware upgrades cannot add capabilities that the camera doesn't already have physically.  Firmware upgrades cannot increase megapixel count, lens characteristics, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, it's also possible for firmware upgrades to introduce new bugs.  These things are software, and as such, still need to be subjected to testing and debugging.  You may see multiple firmware upgrades for the same camera if one patch introduces a bug and another one removes it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for firmware upgrades that can improve performance, the one that comes to mind (other than CHDK, which really exposes functionality) was Sigma's upgrade for the DP2 camera.  The most recent upgrade reduced the lag of the autofocus algorithm in lower-than-sunlight light levels (though the camera still suffers in low light).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastEditorUserId="266" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-29T16:26:12.993" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T16:26:12.993" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6148" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6144" CreationDate="2010-12-29T15:27:39.173" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;or am i correct in looking for a lens with larger aperture to get sharp low light images of moving subjects?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By and large, yes. On top of everything @John Cavan said, you could get a lens with a larger aperture (I use a 35mm f/2). The larger aperture means more light coming in, which means you can compensate with a faster shutter speed in shutter speed priority mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T15:27:39.173" />
  <row Id="6149" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6124" CreationDate="2010-12-29T15:33:46.750" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The smaller the camera sensor size, the higher the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;crop factor&lt;/a&gt;, and thus the higher the effective focal length. So, getting a crop-factor camera like a Micro 4/3, Nikon DX (D90/D7000), or Canon 1.6x APS-C (Digital Rebel T2i) will help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They're also cheaper than full-frame cameras, so you can sink the extra money into a monster lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T15:33:46.750" />
  <row Id="6150" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6146" CreationDate="2010-12-29T15:57:32.457" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are reasons firmware upgrades are issued and that is to fix flaws (most of the time) or extend functionality (some times). In all cases, a firmware upgrade &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; never make things worst but it is just software, so it may happen, the firmware is programmed by humans too!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Manufacturers often put out a list of fixed issues but sometimes are very vague (&lt;em&gt;improves performance under certain conditions&lt;/em&gt;, huh?). I have seen firmware upgrades that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Improve focus speed, image stabilization, speed of operation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Correct problems with focusing accuracy, white-balance and metering.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Add customization options (new options for buttons and dials via the setup menu).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Add functionality like increase EC range, greater range of manual controls.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Correct typos in the menu system.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T15:57:32.457" />
  <row Id="6151" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6155" CreationDate="2010-12-29T16:04:08.597" Score="13" ViewCount="629" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find that taking pictures where the subject is in motion (people, pets, toy helicopters)&#xA;I get a blur where there is movement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand I see images of a drop of water in free fall in perfect clarity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How fast does the shutter need to be to capture action in motion with perfect crisp clarity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example I want to catch a dog shaking himself dry after a swim and not get a bury mess but to see the hairs flying and water frozen in the air as it flies off the dogs fur and makes a giant mist around the dog.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T15:34:09.023" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T15:34:09.023" Title="What is the shutter speed needed to stop motion?" Tags="&lt;shutter-speed&gt;&lt;sharpness&gt;&lt;motion-blur&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="6152" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6151" CreationDate="2010-12-29T16:23:08.433" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on what you're trying to get exactly, but in general, around 1/500 to 1/1000 is about the right amount, unless it's something really fast. Flash also works really cool for this kind of stuff, as the flash occurs completely in a single instant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T16:23:08.433" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6153" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6154" CreationDate="2010-12-29T16:30:49.513" Score="22" ViewCount="507" Body="&lt;p&gt;I own a Canon 550D, and I'm planning to do some time-lapse experiments this weekend just for fun. Will it cause any damage or reduce my DSLR's lifetime if I do too much of it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1567" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T18:43:46.580" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T18:43:46.580" Title="Will too much time-lapse photography reduce a DSLR's life, or cause any other damage?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;timelapse&gt;&lt;equipment-damage&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6154" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6153" CreationDate="2010-12-29T16:37:55.820" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The camera's shutter has usually a rating for 50,000 to 300,000 actuations, depending on the camera. For yours, I think it is closer to 50,000 but you should check the manual to be sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That means you can take that many pictures and still be within the manufacturer's life-expectancy for your camera. When you do time-lapse, you take a lot of pictures, so you are going to eat away at that number. How much depends on the time-lapse you expect taking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, the number of actuations is just the manufacturer's &lt;em&gt;educated guess&lt;/em&gt;. It can fail before or after, I have heard of people who managed to shoot 4 times more before the camera's performance became erratic. If it does fail before and you are within the warranty period, you can probably have it fixed at no charge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T16:37:55.820" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="6155" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6151" CreationDate="2010-12-29T16:56:48.550" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While you can get some freezing with speeds around 1/300 (see the first photo below), I would recommend going with faster shutter speeds if you want to take shots of water drops falling or moving away from wet dogs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing to keep in mind is that most flashes have a limit on their sync speed, which means that the use of flash will limit your fastest shutter time available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Example 1&lt;/strong&gt;: 1/320 speed, no flash:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/carregal/5268022013/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Gold Deliverer | Entregando o ouro by Andre Carregal, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5083/5268022013_9e12665573_m.jpg&quot; width=&quot;240&quot; height=&quot;218&quot; alt=&quot;Gold Deliverer | Entregando o ouro&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(as you see there's still blur on the water and a flash, even if able to reach the dog, wouldn't make much a difference if it wasn't able to go faster than 1/320)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Example 2&lt;/strong&gt;: 1/1300 s, using the internal flash of a Panasonic FZ18 and the ambient kitchen light:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/carregal/3259441850/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Tabula Rasa 2 by Andre Carregal, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3110/3259441850_63c7785fd8_m.jpg&quot; width=&quot;240&quot; height=&quot;233&quot; alt=&quot;Tabula Rasa 2&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here a smaller aperture and the ambient light allowed for a slight slower speed, but the shot is sharp enough for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Example 3&lt;/strong&gt;: 1/1600 s, using the internal flash of a Panasonic FZ18, no ambient light (shot in the dark):&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/carregal/4863625278/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Signs Of Movement | Sinais de movimento by Andre Carregal, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4101/4863625278_d4eeb0390f_m.jpg&quot; width=&quot;240&quot; height=&quot;140&quot; alt=&quot;Signs Of Movement | Sinais de movimento&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here the speed was enough to freeze the drop and the flash was set stronger enough to provide the needed reflections on the background (since there was no ambient light).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, if are into capturing water drops don't miss John Cavan's very good post on the subject - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.grumpyjohns.com/?p=147&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catching the Elusive Water Drop&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastEditorUserId="46" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-29T21:44:59.283" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T21:44:59.283" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="6157" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2156" CreationDate="2010-12-29T18:11:05.290" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.trust.com/products/product.aspx?artnr=15093&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Trust 61-in-1 USB2 Card Reader CR-1610p&lt;/a&gt; reads with 4.5 MB/s and writes with 3.5 MB/s.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.transcendusa.com/Products/ModDetail.asp?ModNo=220&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Transcend Multi-Card Reader P8&lt;/a&gt; (~15 USD) reads with 18.5 MB/s and writes with 10 MB/s.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both readers were tested with a 2 GB Kingston microSD card, in &quot;optimize for performance&quot; mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="420" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T18:11:05.290" />
  <row Id="6158" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6151" CreationDate="2010-12-29T18:30:25.600" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That depends on how fast the object is moving, and how far away it is. From that you can calculate how fast it's image is moving across the film/sensor plane.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It all comes down to having a shutter speed that is so fast that the image of the object doesn't have time to move across too many picture elements (film grains or sensor pixels).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, for objects at a distance you can get away with a shutter time like 1/100 s., while a closeup might need a shutter time like 1/1000 s.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T18:30:25.600" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6159" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6129" CreationDate="2010-12-29T19:04:09.367" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Re: Matt's request for examples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exposure time: .4 second.  (I believe I have previously posted this saying 1/2 second--this time I looked at the EXIF data of the original image to get the focal length, apparently I was wrong.) D80 &amp;amp; 18-200mm VRII lens.  27mm effective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I still don't know how they cooked this fish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/7RmdH.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1843" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T19:04:09.367" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6160" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6141" CreationDate="2010-12-29T19:10:05.043" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The process is automated (much like the roller-transport processors that used to be widely available for colour print processing in a home darkroom) and for the sake of chemical conservation, a lab usually has at least two processors (one for C-41 and another for E-6) -- load the film and push a button. Most current pro processors are multi-format (110/135 or 135/120/220). Push and pull processing usually require separate batch runs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are they fail-safe? Not really (that would be almost impossible, and certainly impractical, since it would mean yanking partially-processed film out of the soup, stopping whatever chemical process was going on, then later restarting at exactly the same point in the process) but processors are usually calibrated daily, have chemical-life monitoring and closely-regulated temperature controls. Because they use large amounts of chemicals, and chemicals are lifetime-limited after mixing (as well as being exhaustible by processing) they're not the sort of thing you'd want to use in a low-volume operation. There used to be intermediate-use processors (machines that used about a litre of each chemistry type) from companies like Durst that would be suitable for an individual pro's in-studio lab, but most of the companies that made those processors have either gone out of business or turned to other products since digital photography became &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; big player in small-format photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for price, well, somewhere between a low-end luxury car and a nice house is the kind of range you're talking about. For C-41, a full-blown minilab can be cheaper than a soup-only machine, just because they're easier to find (a lot of small operators have left the business behind in the past couple of years).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All that being said, unless you are planning to take in lab work from other photographers, then looking for a used intermediate processor -- one that uses essentially the same coil-in-cylinder system that you'd use for hand-processing, but does automated chemistry swaps and agitation -- is a much saner choice. New, they were in the $1-4K range ten years ago, but you ought to be able to find them considerably cheaper these days (the exception being that 4x5 and 8x10 accessories are still going to be in relatively high demand).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T19:10:05.043" />
  <row Id="6161" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6163" CreationDate="2010-12-29T19:52:13.503" Score="20" ViewCount="700" Body="&lt;p&gt;Under what circumstances would you use aperture priority vs. shutter priority and vice-versa?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I typically don’t use shutter priority (ever) and favor aperture priority to try to get a max aperture with the thinking that I’ll get more light and a better low light shot. But after getting almost all my shots being blurry and the help of a couple questions posted here I learned I should use faster shutter speeds to get clear shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What my question boils down to is me trying to get a firmer understanding when to use one over the other, and why.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-08T15:36:27.017" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T06:57:50.487" Title="When to use shutter priority instead of aperture priority?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;shutter-speed&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="6162" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6161" CreationDate="2010-12-29T20:12:23.670" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;General rule of thumb: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use Aperture priority if you are trying to get a certain DOF. This should probably be your main mode that you shoot in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use Shutter Priority if you are doing some kind of a motion blur, stop motion, or are shooting in a condition where you want the most DOF possible, but with no camera shake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T20:12:23.670" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6163" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6161" CreationDate="2010-12-29T20:16:08.320" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Shutter priority (Tv) gets used for a couple good reasons&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You want to control the shutter speed (obviously) and don't care about the aperture.  You'd use this to have &lt;em&gt;creative control&lt;/em&gt; over the shutter speed which mostly involves &lt;strong&gt;motion blur&lt;/strong&gt;. Some techniques that use this are 'dragging the shutter' with flash to create motion streaks and a final 'flash' to stop the motion.  Or 'dragging the shutter' while tracking action where you move the camera to follow a subject and keep it sharp while blurring the surroundings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You also use Tv with flash when you want to lock in a certain shutter speed (to avoid camera shake) while allowing the camera to control the aperture (and sometimes ISO).  Useful when you're, say, shooting with a 85mm lens and you know you want to have at least 1/100th shutter speed to not blur the subject and let the flash/aperture handle the rest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastEditorUserId="1819" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-30T00:14:41.843" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T00:14:41.843" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="6164" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6151" CreationDate="2010-12-29T20:20:05.853" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on the speed of the object you are photographing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The distance the object has moved from the time your shutter opens and closes will determine the amount of blur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if the object has moved a good distance while the shutter was open it will look quite blurry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You want the shutter speed to be fast enough so that by the time it opens and closes the object on motion has actually moved so little it appears to be still.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2777" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T20:20:05.853" />
  <row Id="6165" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6161" CreationDate="2010-12-29T20:32:22.110" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are probably more formal answers, but for me it boils down to what kind of shot I am looking for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If I want to register something in time (either frozen or moving) then shutter speed is more important than aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If I want to register something in space (meaning a deeper or shallower area in focus) then aperture is more important than shutter speed.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that this doesn't mean necessarily using shutter priority or aperture priority in either case. The point is determining what is more important in my vision of the shot, time or space, and then choosing the best camera mode for that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have to agree that &lt;strong&gt;S/Tv&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;A/Av&lt;/strong&gt; modes are easier to use when prioritizing speed or aperture, but once you get used to the relations between speed, aperture and ISO and the way your camera handles the exposure calculations, it is not that hard to use almost any mode (including &lt;strong&gt;P&lt;/strong&gt; - Program Exposure) to take your shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As lindes pointed in the comments, let's not forget Manual mode (&lt;strong&gt;M&lt;/strong&gt;) with its full control of the variables involved. Just keep in mind that when using Manual, the camera will not compensate any light changes that happens after you set the values, while the automatic and semi-automatic modes allow the camera to keep your desired exposure levels by changing the free variables (the ones not set by you).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastEditorUserId="46" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-09T12:08:44.180" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T12:08:44.180" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6166" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6169" CreationDate="2010-12-29T21:03:21.073" Score="11" ViewCount="1321" Body="&lt;p&gt;In looking at getting a 2nd lens in addition to my Nikon d7000 kit lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In trying to decide I want to know if it’s accurate to do the following for me to get an idea on focal length for a 35mm vs. a 50 mm:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am using my kit lens 18mm-105mm and setting it at 35 and 50 to get an idea of the magnification and field of view I would get with these two lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wanted to make sure this was curate because I know there is a crop factor with DX camera and I’m not sure if that is taken into effect with the kit lens or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So will the 50mm lens when on my d7000 produce images like when I have my kit lens on the body set to 50mm... Same for the 35mm?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for the help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="2200" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-05T20:45:27.747" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T20:45:27.747" Title="Choosing a prime lens for APS-C: 50mm or 35mm?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;prime&gt;&lt;focal-length&gt;&lt;crop-factor&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="6167" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6166" CreationDate="2010-12-29T21:14:39.070" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The field of view on the same sensor will be the same for 35mm on a prime or 35mm on a zoom, that's not specifically related to the crop factor unless your talking different cameras as well which you're not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for buying a 35mm or a 50mm, I'm of the camp that every camera bag should have a &quot;nifty fifty&quot; in it. So, I would be going for the 50mm before a 35mm, but that's just a matter of personal preference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T21:14:39.070" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6168" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6166" CreationDate="2010-12-29T21:15:40.177" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, the crop factor is not taken into account. There will likely be a small amount of error on the focal length indicator, but it'll be accurate enough for comparison. Given your recent questions, though -- particularly, the emphasis on people photography -- you'll probably find the 50mm more to your liking than a 35mm lens, particularly since you can get a Nikkor 50mm/1.4 lens for about the same price as a 35mm/2.0 -- that's a stop faster, a lot more suitable for typical portrait framing, and capable of giving both narrower depth of field and faster shutter speeds at the same light level and ISO settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T21:15:40.177" />
  <row Id="6169" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6166" CreationDate="2010-12-29T21:45:06.060" Score="21" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Focal length is focal length, regardless of sensor size or whether the lens is a zoom lens. If you have tried your kit lens at 35mm and 50mm, then the framing will pretty much be the same with prime lenses of those focal lengths. Prime lenses will offer a couple things your zoom lens does not, however. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For one, they should offer better quality, as prime lenses can be constructed to perfectly project the clearest image possible for the given focal length. There are degrees of optical quality within a given prime focal length, as a higher end lens will usually use better materials and lens elements. Generally speaking, though, primes offer better quality. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, prime lenses usually provide much wider maximum apertures. A 50mm prime can come in anywhere from f/1.8 through f/1.2, and older manual focus lenses may even be found with maximum apertures as wide as f/0.95. Wider apertures can be more difficult to use at times (due to extremely thin DOF), but they can provide some truly fantastic bokeh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding focal lengths on a cropped sensor, there is a fairly nice correlation between the 35mm and 50mm lenses and ideal portrait focal lengths on full-frame sensors. Nikon cameras have a 1.5x sensor crop factor. That means that a 35mm lens &quot;behaves as&quot; a 52mm lens on full frame, due to the difference in the field of view captured by the APS-C sensor. The 50mm lens behaves as a 75mm lens on full frame. As an additional lens, 85mm lenses behave like a 134mm lens on full frame. These focal lengths fit pretty well with the ideal portrait focal lengths on full frame cameras, which include 50mm, 85mm, and 135mm. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that 50mm lenses on 35mm film/full frame sensor produces a field of view that is very similar to the field of view of the human eye. The actual focal range for that falls between 45mm and 55mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, given all of that...you can make the proper decision based on what you really want to capture. If you want to capture shots that have a relatively &quot;normal&quot; perspective similar to how the human eye sees, you might want to grab the 35mm lens. On a cropped sensor, it would behave like a 52mm lens. If you want a narrower field of view with smoother background blur, a 50mm or 85mm lens would give you that deeper DOF and narrower field, similar to 85mm and 135mm lenses on full frame, respectively. Finally, if you want to capture a wider field of view than the human eye, or want to get really close and capture a lot of perspective, you could get a 24mm lens, which, intriguingly, behaves like a 36mm lens on full frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The beauty of primes is their field of view, or effective focal lengths, are easy to translate between APS-C and Full Frame. If you take the common prime focal lengths of 14mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and 135mm as used on full frame, you can pretty much simply &quot;shift&quot; them up by one place to arrive at the effective focal length ranges on APS-C. The exact focal lengths on APS-C, for reference, are: 21mm, 36mm, 52mm, 75mm, 134mm, 202mm. So long as you understand that about 50mm is the same field of view as &quot;normal&quot; perspective, it is fairly easy to determine which focal length to use to get the field of view/perspective you want in your photographs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T21:45:06.060" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6170" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6129" CreationDate="2010-12-29T22:17:58.770" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tripods are not always a practical accessory to bring, especially when travelling light. Moreover many places forbid them and forbid flashes as well. IS is the obvious solution in these cases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Spices in the Istanbul bazaar or Michelangelo Pieta in San Pietro Basilica don't move that much. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1296" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T22:17:58.770" />
  <row Id="6171" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6153" CreationDate="2010-12-29T22:53:14.127" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only think I could add to Itai's answer is that the shutter failing after X actuations doesn't mean the end of the camera, you can have the shutter replaced for around $250 at a Canon authorized repair centre.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bridge and compact cameras with electronic shutters are more suited to timelapses however, for this reason. An electronic shutter uses circuitry to stop/start the exposure meaning there are no moving parts. The number of images you can capture is practically limitless - think about how many individual frames a digital video camera will produce in its lifetime!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T22:53:14.127" />
  <row Id="6172" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6161" CreationDate="2010-12-29T23:23:55.303" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I shoot mainly in aperture priority because I'm generally most interested in depth of field. I will take a trial exposure in the light where I'm shooting, and see if the shutter's fast enough to get a sharp shot at the focal length I'm using (using the 1-over-focal length guideline), and if it's not, I change ISO, aperture, or sometimes both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So far as I know, no camera offers an &quot;try to keep the aperture I set, but if I'm going to be susceptible to shake, bump the ISO as high as X but no more, and if I'm still not shooting fast enough, open the aperture more, but only up to Y additional stops&quot; mode, which is what I really want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1490" LastActivityDate="2010-12-29T23:23:55.303" />
  <row Id="6173" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6153" CreationDate="2010-12-30T01:14:20.137" Score="17" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Great questions, great answers and comments!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I thought I'd offer a completely different, perhaps complementary way to look at this question:  There's more risk to more than 99% of the camera users out there of not using their cameras than there is of ever wearing their cameras out.  Use your camera! Break it if you have to!  But get it out of the case and learn something!  Don't get hung up on what you're going to do to the camera -- it's replaceable, Canon has a big factory -- if you wear yours out, they can make another one.  Give yourself a real reason to buy the next big thing from Canon in two years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Worry about doing this project right -- worry about how much you're going to learn from this, worry about getting the very most from your data and the time/effort it takes to do the set up right ... do a couple smaller trial runs to ensure that you are going to collect the best data possible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, look at the economics.  You can purchase a Canon T2i/550D camera body replacement for less than $700 (you won't have to; Canon will likely give you another if you wear it out doing this) $700 is less than a penny per actuation @ the quoted 100,000 actuation rating.  Your time to really review, process, edit and really get the most from the data from 100,000 actuation is probably worth several times more $700 ... if you spend just 5 seconds on average per actuation/exposure processing your data, you'd spend 500,000 seconds ... at 8 hours/day of full-time data analysis and editing, that's almost a full month of utilizing your photographic data ... my assumption is that your time is worth at least 10X more than what the camera body costs -- if I can assume that your time was what supplied the income the supported the purchase of a discretionary item like this DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[&lt;em&gt;NOTE:  As an engineer who's been involved in launching/testing similar products; I'd be slightly surprised if your camera  wasn't good for 250,000 or even 400,000 actuations if it's rated for 100,000 ... unless you've managed to somehow introduce some extremely fine powder or some other extra wear agent into the mechanism ... we typically test-to-failure and try to eliminate failure modes in the early failures; you be surprised how long it takes to get the last 95% of the population to fail ... yes, your camera could fail early; that's what warranties are for ... regardless of what the warranty says, the company is probably going to treat an avid user very well if the camera fails in the first couple months, i.e. Canon's cost per unit might not be zero, but it costs Canon a LOT, LOT less than $700 to replace the camera and buy an avid fan for life.  Canon understands the DSLR market share game well enough not be stingy on warranty replacements.&lt;/em&gt;]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2745" LastEditorUserId="2745" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-30T01:19:55.047" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T01:19:55.047" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6174" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6144" CreationDate="2010-12-30T02:05:01.623" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since most of your photography is of your wife and daughter (and not of, say, bands in a dimly lit bar), you could also think about getting an external flash.  As in, you either need to increase the low light capability of your camera (ie. get a lens with a larger aperture) or increase the light in the environment.  I've been using the SB-600, which is priced comparably to a prime lens (depending on the lens) and it has been giving me good shots in low light, where even my prime lens struggles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="706" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T02:05:01.623" />
  <row Id="6175" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-30T02:43:16.583" Score="1" ViewCount="79" Body="&lt;p&gt;ciao&#xA;I have a old Nikon Coolpix 7600.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once a time ago, I used true reflex film cameras.&#xA;Now I am on the digi side, it is more easy to carry around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am thinkb to buy a new, good performance / price digicam, faster than the 7600.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faster : for me it is, in full sun light at 4 meters, with the 7600 I cannot shot my daughter in the mid of a jump - feet in the air.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are the new entry level digicams faster ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, what about Coolpix S3000, Canon Ixus 120 and competitors ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many thanks, happy new year&#xA;Massimo&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2875" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-30T03:06:08.100" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T23:58:34.487" Title="under $199 digicam" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="6176" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6175" CreationDate="2010-12-30T02:58:13.430" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Obviously your budget is a limiting factor, I am sure you understand, but you are in luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fastest compact camera is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/review.php?id=75&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fuji Finepix F300 EXR&lt;/a&gt; which you can find for $199. This is one of only two fixed-lens cameras that use the same phase-detection autofocus system as DSLRs, everyone else uses contrast-detection which is slower. Other operations are quite fast too. There are a few CMOS based cameras which have faster burst modes but they are more expensive than your budget, still none focuses as fast as the F300.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Image quality is excellent too for this category, although there are a few models which cost about twice as much that do a bit better now at high-ISO. The lens on the F300 is really fantastic as well as it gives an ultra-wide field of view and a nice telephoto reach.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T02:58:13.430" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="6177" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6181" CreationDate="2010-12-30T04:46:10.790" Score="8" ViewCount="479" Body="&lt;p&gt;I’m looking to add a second lens to my kit lens I got with my Nikon d7000.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have read several reviews on both the 35 and 50 mm lenses made by Nikon in particular that said using either lens at the max aperture results in less than stellar images. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wanted to know from actual users who know what they are doing if this was in fact the case. This is because some of the reviews came from Amazon and more often than not bad reviews are caused not by bad product but rather bad users... not just of lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want a great lens for use in low light such that I don’t need to use a flash for indoor portrait work and can get high enough shutter speeds to stop peoples motions (dancing) without blur in the images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence I started looking at the 35 and 50 mm with f1.8, but after hearing its &quot;unusable&quot; at 1.8 and should be stopped down at 2.2 for clear images, I figured since this would seriously limit its function for my intentions I began looking at the f1.4 and saw similar reviews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If indeed this is the case then I would rather go with the 1.4 and stop it down at 1.8 to get a nice shot as a result.&#xA;Thoughts and experiences with this would help me make my selection. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="2200" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-05T20:56:29.900" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T20:56:29.900" Title="Will using a lens at max aperture (&quot;wide open&quot;) result in poor images?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;lens-design&gt;&lt;wide-aperture&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6178" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6177" CreationDate="2010-12-30T04:58:22.870" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8.  I think that, at least for me, the bigger issue with using the lens at max aperture in low light is that it's hard to get it to focus on the right thing.  With that shallow of a DOF, if your subject is turned slightly then only one eye will be in focus, which is the idea, but if they move before you get the shot taken you might get the nose instead.  Not such an issue in good light as the camera will focus much faster.  That being said, though, I have &lt;em&gt;plenty&lt;/em&gt; of great shots of my kids taken at f/1.8 in low light (you can see examples at &lt;a href=&quot;http://footedjammies.blogspot.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;my blog&lt;/a&gt;).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="706" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T04:58:22.870" />
  <row Id="6179" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6182" CreationDate="2010-12-30T05:09:42.343" Score="5" ViewCount="259" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am set to buy a 2nd lens to my d7000 kit lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I’m close to deciding between the 35 or 50 mm, I will likely go for the f1.4 version and wanted to determine if I would need or appreciate the G (missing aperture ring) or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am ok with setting the aperture on the camera body of my d7000 but feel there is more to this and wanted to dig deeper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it fast and simple to make frequent changes with the G version? Are there any differences in images? Lens build? Quality hardware?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I’m trying to get an idea what to expect from the G version as opposed to the non G version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="2200" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-05T20:57:58.103" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T17:10:01.863" Title="Nikon lenses: to G or not to G?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6180" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6177" CreationDate="2010-12-30T05:39:09.893" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general, most lenses don't work at their peak at maximums or minimums. That includes both aperture and zoom, and probably other things as well. Still, if that's the DOF you are looking for, then go for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T05:39:09.893" />
  <row Id="6181" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6177" CreationDate="2010-12-30T05:39:29.410" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Almost any lens will be less-than-optimal at its maximum aperture. That being said, there's a reason why the faster glass costs more -- a lot of work goes into getting that extra bit of glass at the edges to contribute as much as possible to image brightness while reducing the aberrations that contribute to overall image softness. That means, for instance, the use of aspherical elements and (often, but apparently not in the case of the Nikkor 50mm/1.4, which is not really pushing the speed limit) apochromatic correction (a technique to reduce colour fringing to ridiculously low levels, more often seen in telephoto lenses). The f/1.4 lenses are usually better at f/1.4 than, say, an f/1.8 (commodity glass) would be at f/1.8, and are almost always better at f/1.8 than the f/1.8 lens would be (there are older third-party lenses that are fast but otherwise abysmal performers all-around, and, quite frankly, the Canon f/0.95 was too mushy to use in anything but near-absolute darkness, but the Nikkors tend to be rather better than average).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will almost always find that by the time a lens is stopped down two stops or so, you enter the range of maximum sharpness and definition, and the lens will stay in that zone until diffraction becomes an issue (starting between f/11 and f/16). That doesn't mean you have to stop down to f/2.8 to make the f/1.4 lens work well, just that it won't reach maximum sharpness and contrast until you get into that area. You won't notice any problems until you compare the result wide-open to something stopped down a bit unless you are trying to shoot something with very high contrast and detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T05:39:29.410" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6182" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6179" CreationDate="2010-12-30T05:42:28.603" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since you are using a D7000 which allows you to set the aperture with the camera body, you will be fine. The real disadvantage to a G model lens is that you cannot use them with a manual focus camera because you will have no way to set the aperture. If you can't control the aperture on the camera then the lens will always shoot at the smallest aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are numerous sources online explaining the shortcomings of the G models, none of which apply to you. One such source is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm#g&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, which I read to double check and make sure I remembered what I read before :-). Note that it says &quot;G eliminates many features with &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;older cameras&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot; (emphasis added by me).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I should have added more info about the G vs the D lens. I thought you were just asking about whether &quot;G&quot; mattered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I were you, I would read this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikkor_AF-S_50mm/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;review from cameralabs&lt;/a&gt; which actually talks a little about both lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that the G model is also AF-S which means that it has the &quot;silent&quot; motor autofocus so it focuses quietly. The G model is also much bigger than the D model. Overall it seems to have better performance (although not in all situations) and I think I've read in multiple places that the bokeh is better on the G model (because it has more aperture blades?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2746" LastEditorUserId="2746" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-30T06:05:24.527" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T06:05:24.527" />
  <row Id="6183" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6179" CreationDate="2010-12-30T05:58:32.363" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The G is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor50AF-Slensreview.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;apparently quite a bit sharper&lt;/a&gt; wide-open than the D is. Is it $100-150 better? Over the long haul, you may think so. That's one of the problems getting into photography -- there's the &quot;getting your toes wet&quot; price level and the &quot;getting your money's worth&quot; price level, and there's often a big gap between the two. You can always opt for the D and trade in at a later date, though -- Nikon glass tends to retain a lot of its value. You may even find a used D at a reasonable price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T05:58:32.363" />
  <row Id="6184" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-30T06:16:22.800" Score="0" ViewCount="170" Body="&lt;p&gt;My rotating text in Photoshop cs5 was created to render against a transparent background but when rendered as a video it has a black background instead. This text is unusable with the black background. I need it with transparency for use with other picture backdrops. I have tried 86 links and forums but nobody knows how to solve this problem. Not much education out there - so far.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2878" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T06:16:22.800" ClosedDate="2010-12-30T06:43:37.707" Title="Photoshop CS5 transparency is black instead!" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6185" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6198" CreationDate="2010-12-30T06:19:05.217" Score="2" ViewCount="151" Body="&lt;p&gt;Possibly a quick question, but I thought I heard LR3 was supposed to have a feature for reducing camera motor noise.  Was I dreaming?  If not, what else can I use to reduce the all of that focusing noise?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2879" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T13:16:41.530" Title="Lightroom Camera Lens Motor Noise Reduction" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;hd-video&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6186" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6177" CreationDate="2010-12-30T07:30:52.643" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The performance of a lens at maximum aperture really boils down to two things: lens element material and lens element and group construction. A &quot;lens&quot; as we commonly refer to in the DSLR world is actually a collection of individual glass lens elements, often grouped into related sets. There are a wide variety of type of individual lens elements that aim to control optical aberrations and refract light appropriately so an image can be focused clearly onto the image plane. These lens elements include your standard convex, concave, and partial convex/concave lenses that normally refract light, apochromatic, achromatic doublet, and diffractive lenses designed to correct chromatic aberrations, aspheric lenses designed to correct spherical aberrations, high density glass or glass alternatives used to refract light with less aberration, ultra low dispersion glass to reduce dispersion (and therefor chromatic aberration), etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A cheaper lens will use cheaper lens elements, and have fewer correcting groups designed to eliminate optical aberrations such as chromatic aberration, spherical aberration, distortion, and a few others. For cheaper quality f/1.4 lenses, used wide open, you are most likely to encounter chromatic aberration, which usually presents as color fringing. You may also encounter focus shift problems as you stop down the aperture in a cheaper lens, due to spherical aberration. In some cases, spherical aberration is a desirable attribute, as it creates extremely soft bokeh (background blur circles). Such a trait is particularly desirable in portrait lenses. Simpler lenses with fewer elements have the potential to offer superior sharpness, as the more lens elements, the more compromises you will ultimately have to make. This superior sharpness is usually only realized when the lens is stopped down beyond f/2.8, however, due to the lack of correction for optical aberrations at wider apertures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A more expensive lens will usually use higher quality glass, and include elements with ultra high density/ultra low dispersion elements, apochromatic and/or apsherical lens elements, and possibly lens elements made of flint or flourite. There will often be more corrective groups in a higher quality lens to maximize control over how light refracts, disperses, and focuses. Lens elements in a high quality lens will also sport high quality multicoating to eliminate lens flaring and ghosting, which results in a sharper image than with lens elements that are not multicoated. (Cheaper lenses will usually include multicoated front and back lens elements, but may not include multicoated lenses for all elements.) A top of the line fast prime, while it will still exhibit some optical aberrations wide open, will usually be FAR superior to a cheap lens. The background bokeh of a quality lens is also usually much more desirable as the design of the lens diaphram is usually more advanced as well, with more blades, curved blades to avoid polygonal out-of-focus circles, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to lens quality, you ultimately get what you pay for. If you need top of the line, wide-open performance, you're going to need a top of the line lens that is designed to &lt;em&gt;deliver&lt;/em&gt; top of the line wide-open performance. This would be the case if you were doing portrait or wedding photography for a living, and needed that optimal bokeh at f/1.4 (or f/1.2 even) for superb facial portraits. If you need a fast lens, but will mostly use it for night photography or in situations where capturing supreme focus with ideal background blur is not key factor, then an f/1.4 that has moderate bokeh some chromatic aberration issues wide open will likely not be an issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These days, most f/1.8 lenses offer decent quality wide open, and pretty fantastic quality when stopped down past f/2.8 (and up the the diffraction limit of the camera, which usually falls around f/8 or so.) There are a variety of f/1.4 lenses from several brands, ranging from pretty cheap to really high quality. A middle-ground f/1.4 lens can be had for about $500 or so that will deliver very acceptable quality wide open, and better stopped down a bit (most lenses improve in sharpness when the aperture is closed down by a stop or two.) If you want the best quality as wide as you can get it, most big name brands like Nikon and Canon, as well as Zeiss, make very expensive, very wide lenses (as wide as f/1.2) that offer unsurpassed quality from their widest aperture through f/2.8, and possibly beyond. You'll have to pay for this quality, though, as these lenses usually roll in for around $2k.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An interesting consequence of achieving maximum wide-open quality, however, is often less than maximal quality through the &quot;middle&quot; aperture range, from f/2.8 through the diffraction limit. Compare a cheap $90 nifty fifty f/1.8 at f/4 to a $2000 f/1.2 at f/4, and the cheap lens will probably edge out the expensive lens in the area of sharpness. The additional and non-standard lens elements (like apochromatic, aspherical, etc.) can correct optical aberrations wide open, but usually at the cost of some sharpness. The higher quality lens, despite having slightly lower sharpness, will still usually provide superior color, contrast, and clarity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T07:30:52.643" />
  <row Id="6187" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6185" CreationDate="2010-12-30T07:37:28.823" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not camera &lt;strong&gt;motor&lt;/strong&gt; noise -- camera &lt;em&gt;picture noise&lt;/em&gt;. That is, there's a feature in Lightroom 3 to make your photos less &quot;grainy&quot;, which can happen under low-light conditions (higher ISO settings) or when using cameras with small sensors. If you are looking for audio noise reduction on recorded video, you're going to need to look at video editing software (and perhaps even stripping out the soundtrack and processing the audio separately).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T07:37:28.823" />
  <row Id="6188" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6201" CreationDate="2010-12-30T07:39:06.467" Score="16" ViewCount="370" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to convert all my ARW (Sony) files to DNG for several reasons, but the only thing keeping me back from doing it is the fear of losing useful metadata during the conversion. I know that the image it's self is completely safe during the conversion but what about proprietary maker noteS? Will those stay too? And even if they do, are they actually useful and can be actually used by something other then Sony's own RAW converter?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S. I'm using Ubuntu so I'd prefer to use KipiPlugins' DNG converter because from what I understand it does everything the Adobe converter does, but if I'm wrong I can use Adobe's instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It looks like the LensID does carry over!&#xA;With the ARW and the DNG files converted by Kipiplugins' built in converter, info is stored as &quot;Exif.Sony.0x___&quot;.&#xA;With Adobe's official converter, it moves the info to more logically named fields in the XMP, such as &quot;LensID&quot; and &quot;Lens&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that I've figured it out, I think I might use Adobe's Official converter, just because I prefer how it reorganizes the Exif Data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not fully convinced though and I'd like to hear others take on all this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2880" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-08T16:47:12.697" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T16:47:12.697" Title="Do I lose anything converting to DNG?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;dng&gt;&lt;file-format&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6189" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6032" CreationDate="2010-12-30T08:04:50.743" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not sure if this is what you mean or if it will help, but in Aperture 3, you can view more adjustment panels by clicking on 'Adjustments' in your inspector and then again on 'Adjustments right below that. You will notice that there is a Chromatic Aberration option.  If I understand your problem correctly, this should help to fix it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are ok with third party plugins, take a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.niksoftware.com/products/usa/entry.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nik Software&lt;/a&gt; they have some great plugins that help with stuff like this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apple support might be talking about Moire, which is a RAW edit, but that's about the closest thing to CA.  Would you happen to have a URL to the Apple Support page?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope all of that helps!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Kevin&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2881" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T08:04:50.743" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6190" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6032" CreationDate="2010-12-30T09:02:25.443" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd suggest downloading a free trial of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.topazlabs.com/denoise/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Topaz Labs DeNoise&lt;/a&gt; (and you'll need the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.topazlabs.com/fusion/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fusion Express&lt;/a&gt; plug-in host for Aperture as well). The program is $US80, so it's probably not something you'd want to buy sight-unseen, but the trial is a full-feature 30-day deal (the only limit is the time). I was able to completely remove the noise from your images with a single click in both instances (although I've probable overdone it -- I used the &quot;strongest&quot; preset):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/PHTMB.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NX17j.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can tone down the de-noising process quite a bit and adjust the detail recovery levels to make a pretty good silkish purse out of the muddiest sow's ear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T09:02:25.443" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6192" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-30T10:03:53.120" Score="5" ViewCount="152" Body="&lt;p&gt;i am planning to buy a Nikon D3100 camera in Germany, but i will be moving to India within a span of 3 months. As per the policy, there is only country warranty available, so i will not have a warranty once i am in India. &#xA;So suggest me if it worth buying the same in Germany?&#xA;What are the common possible damages that occur in the camera&#xA;After 1 year of warranty, are the services still the same?&#xA;Is there any model/part difference with respect to the country?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Kindly help me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Kale&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2884" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T14:05:12.040" Title="Nikon D3100 camera warranty" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="6193" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-30T12:07:40.377" Score="7" ViewCount="476" Body="&lt;h1&gt;Where can I get XYZ exotic film processed?  See below!&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Background:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've got a 4x5&quot; view camera, and I'd like to shoot some color negatives on it, for printing in a color darkroom that I currently have access to (that, alas, is slated to go away soon).  However, the local lab doesn't do C-41 sheet film, so... I'm wanting to figure out what lab(s) I might be able to send it to.  And I figure this is becoming a more and more rare thing, so, I propose that this question be treated as a clearing-house for information about places that develop color sheet film, or color infrared film of any type (if there still are such places -- I still have a roll or two in my freezer, but I don't think it's possible to get anymore, really), or what have you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Format:&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My suggestion is for someone to make this a community wiki (please; alas, I don't seem to yet have the rep to do that), with a summary of all the answers in the question, broken down by film type.  And then, the answers can be set up to be one answer per Lab that's relevant to any of the listed film types, with comments under that answer for people to share their experiences with that particular lab.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm assuming that many places at this point will be oriented towards dealing with mail-in submissions from around the united states or even globally.  Please specify the city, in case someone happens to be local to it, but also link to a website or provide whatever other contact info might be relevant, so that people can figure out mailing, etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;The info!&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;4x5&quot; Sheet film&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;4x5&quot; Black and White:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6193/where-can-i-get-xyz-exotic-film-processed-4x5-5x7-8x10-color-sheet-film-o/6194#6194&quot;&gt;Panda Lab&lt;/a&gt;, Seattle&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6193/where-can-i-get-xyz-exotic-film-processed-4x5-5x7-8x10-color-sheet-film-o/6196#6196&quot;&gt;LTI Photographic Services&lt;/a&gt;, New York, New York&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6193/where-can-i-get-xyz-exotic-film-processed-4x5-5x7-8x10-color-sheet-film-o/6195#6195&quot;&gt;Praus Productions, Inc.&lt;/a&gt;, Rochester, New York&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;4x5&quot; E-6:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6193/where-can-i-get-xyz-exotic-film-processed-4x5-5x7-8x10-color-sheet-film-o/6194#6194&quot;&gt;Panda Lab&lt;/a&gt;, Seattle -- will SOON be doing this.  They've gotten a machine from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rrcolor.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;R&amp;amp;R Custom Color&lt;/a&gt;, and they're working on getting it set up.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6193/where-can-i-get-xyz-exotic-film-processed-4x5-5x7-8x10-color-sheet-film-o/6196#6196&quot;&gt;LTI Photographic Services&lt;/a&gt;, New York, New York&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6193/where-can-i-get-xyz-exotic-film-processed-4x5-5x7-8x10-color-sheet-film-o/6195#6195&quot;&gt;Praus Productions, Inc.&lt;/a&gt;, Rochester, New York&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;4x5&quot; C-41:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6193/where-can-i-get-xyz-exotic-film-processed-4x5-5x7-8x10-color-sheet-film-o/6196#6196&quot;&gt;LTI Photographic Services&lt;/a&gt;, New York, New York&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6193/where-can-i-get-xyz-exotic-film-processed-4x5-5x7-8x10-color-sheet-film-o/6195#6195&quot;&gt;Praus Productions, Inc.&lt;/a&gt;, Rochester, New York&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the big question for me!  Anyone know of places on the west coast?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;120 Roll film&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm guessing this one is still a lot easier, but it's probably harder than some, so... Break this down by Country/State, and list labs that people might find to be relatively local?  (Do the same with other film types, as needed.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;California&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kspphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Keeble and Shuchat&lt;/a&gt;, Palo Alto -- processes B&amp;amp;W and C-41 in-store; will handle E-6, passing off to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.swanphotolabs.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Swan Labs&lt;/a&gt;, in San Clamente&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Surely lots of others, especially in SoCal.  Please add them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;New York State&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6193/where-can-i-get-xyz-exotic-film-processed-4x5-5x7-8x10-color-sheet-film-o/6196#6196&quot;&gt;LTI Photographic Services&lt;/a&gt;, New York, New York&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6193/where-can-i-get-xyz-exotic-film-processed-4x5-5x7-8x10-color-sheet-film-o/6195#6195&quot;&gt;Praus Productions, Inc.&lt;/a&gt;, Rochester, New York&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Washington State&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6193/where-can-i-get-xyz-exotic-film-processed-4x5-5x7-8x10-color-sheet-film-o/6194#6194&quot;&gt;Panda Lab&lt;/a&gt;, Seattle, handles B&amp;amp;W, C-41, and E-6.  They'll cross-process, push, and pull.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.capitolhillphotoseattle.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Capitol Hill Photo&lt;/a&gt;, Seattle, handles B&amp;amp;W, C-41, and E-6, as well.  Someone who's used them, please fill in further details.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rrcolor.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;R&amp;amp;R Custom Color&lt;/a&gt;, Spokane&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyone know of a place in Tacoma?  Olympia?  Others?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;B&amp;amp;W Infra-red&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6193/where-can-i-get-xyz-exotic-film-processed-4x5-5x7-8x10-color-sheet-film-o/6194#6194&quot;&gt;Panda Lab&lt;/a&gt;, Seattle&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Surely many more&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Color Infra-red&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anywhere?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Notes:&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please add more film types below the above if you're having trouble finding places that will process them.  Be as specific as you think is relevant to the level of difficulty (I'm guessing that 35mm C-41 will still be a while before it needs to be listed here, since many drug stores and such still process it, for example -- E-6 might be sooner, but even there, many drugstores will handle it for you, by passing it off to a lab on your behalf.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please make named links (see examples already existing), and if there's an answer for that lab, link to that answer, instead of the lab's website (linking to the latter from within the answer).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;This is (or should soon be) a community wiki, so please edit as you see fit to make it better!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please put a horizontal rule (three dashes) between major categories (types of film) only.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastEditorUserId="2425" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-11T07:13:35.623" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T23:21:05.097" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-30T16:31:33.357" Title="Where can I get XYZ exotic film processed? (4x5&quot;, 5x7&quot;, 8x10&quot; color sheet film, or other hard-to-find processing.)" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;developing&gt;&lt;business&gt;&lt;service-recommendation&gt;&lt;alt-process&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="6194" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6193" CreationDate="2010-12-30T12:13:26.670" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h1&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pandalab.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Panda Photographic Lab, Seattle&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Panda handles:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Roll film in B&amp;amp;W, C-41, and E-6.  Cross processing, push/pull, etc. all fine.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;B&amp;amp;W Sheet film (4x5&quot; through 8x10&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;SOON TO ADD: E-6 sheet film (4x5&quot;, at least) (Should be online c. January 2011?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They also printing, from both digital files (B&amp;amp;W and color) and negatives (black and white only, for darkroom prints).  They can scan to digital, as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Location:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;533 Warren Ave North&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Seattle WA  98109&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Phone:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;206-285-7091&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Website:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pandalab.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pandalab.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T12:13:26.670" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-30T12:13:26.670" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6195" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6193" CreationDate="2010-12-30T12:35:11.057" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.4photolab.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Praus Productions Inc., Rochester, NY&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Film processing&#xA; - E-6: 35mm to 11x14&#xA; - C-41: 35mm to 8x10&#xA; - B&amp;amp;W: 35mm to 11x14 &#xA; - push and pull processing available&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;B&amp;amp;W &amp;amp; RA-4 colour printing to large gallery sizes; digital scanning of chrome and negs; digital transfer to chrome; digital printing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Location/Mailing address:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Praus Productions, Inc.&#xA;176 Anderson Avenue&#xA;Rochester, NY 14607&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Telephone:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;(585) 442-4820&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fax:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;(585) 442-7124&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;email:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mailto%3ainfo@4photolab.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;info@4photolab.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T12:35:11.057" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-30T16:31:33.357" />
  <row Id="6196" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6193" CreationDate="2010-12-30T12:46:24.657" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ltiny.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LTI Photographic Services, New York, NY&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Film Processing:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;B&amp;amp;W, C-41 and E-6: 35mm to 16x20&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;push and pull processing available&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Printing:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Optical B&amp;amp;W and C prints&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Digital C prints&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Location:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;30 East 30th Street,&#xA;NY, NY 10016&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Phone:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;(212) 685-6871&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Email:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mailto%3ainfo@ltiny.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;info@ltiny.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T12:46:24.657" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-30T16:31:33.357" />
  <row Id="6197" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6185" CreationDate="2010-12-30T12:52:24.533" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some non-ultrasonic lens focus motors can produce RF interference when using servo mode which can produce image noise. This is different in character to photon/dark current noise (it tends to occur in distinct bands as has a regular frequency) and thus requires different tools for removal. I don't think LightRoom has any option to specifically remove this sort of image noise however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T12:52:24.533" />
  <row Id="6198" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6185" CreationDate="2010-12-30T13:02:32.210" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are looking for tools to reduce focusing noise (sound) in your videos: sometimes, when the noise becomes too unnerving I demux (separate video and audio) the video and use Audacity (free) for reworking the sound.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Audacity is not the best tool and you need a &quot;silent&quot; part to properly denoise but it helps a bit. The plus is, that if you already demuxed the video, you can convert to mp3 or other better compressed sound-formats.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other than that: (Windows-Tools) VirtualDub (free) is fine for basic video-editing and converting. Scriptable too. If it cannot read the input (H264 (lite)), look at AviSynth+ffshowtryouts (free; with AviSynth installed you create a file that serves as streaming file container for the video to be opened with VirtualDub, ffdshow does decode silently).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, video editing takes time, is tedious and ... if you are really into it, buy a professional tool: see Adobe Premiere for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastEditorUserId="2317" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-30T13:16:41.530" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T13:16:41.530" />
  <row Id="6199" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6192" CreationDate="2010-12-30T14:05:12.040" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nikon usually offers a 2 year warranty in India - so if you're likely to stay in India for the next 2 years (at least), get it from India.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikon.co.in/productitem.php?pid=1379-926225e57b&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;D3100&lt;/a&gt; is being sold in India with the kit 18-55mm lens + 4GB SD card + carry bag in most, if not all shops. Approx pricing is around 30-32K INR in Mumbai.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You haven't specified what you're likely to get if you purchase it in Germany.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether or not purchasing it in Germany is entirely up to you and your current photographic needs - if you have an event / occasion / holiday that you'd like to use it on, then by all means go ahead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've included an approx price so you can include that as a factor in your decision making as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2552" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T14:05:12.040" />
  <row Id="6200" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6144" CreationDate="2010-12-30T14:54:48.563" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been using a 50mm f1.4 (Canon, but I'm sure the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/1902/AF-NIKKOR-50mm-f%252F1.4D.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon&lt;/a&gt; behaves the same) for the same purpose - I prefer to avoid flash and when indoors this lens does the trick most of the time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some tips I've found useful:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you have light coming in from a window, make sure you are between the window and the subject (or you get backlit subjects)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you have light coming from artificial sources, spend the time to get to know what White Balance settings on your camera give you the best skin tones in your house for example.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Don't trust your autofocus fully - when your aperture is opened up to 1.4, you have a very shallow depth of field and your AF will find the first thing it thinks is the subject.  In many cases it's a nose - and a focused nose may yield eyes that are out of focus - go for the eyes instead using manual override.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Don't agonize over high ISO when shooting - better to capture the moment at 1600+ and live with some grainyness/noise than to miss it or have a very ungrainy but blurry picture.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Coach your subjects to not move too much, it can be a challenge with kids but they get the idea eventually.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Happy shooting&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2888" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T14:54:48.563" />
  <row Id="6201" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6188" CreationDate="2010-12-30T15:08:31.130" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your answer can be found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/dng-vs-arw_topic48936.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this forum site&lt;/a&gt;, but the short is, you will lose some EXIF information, the lens id in particular, but the normal EXIF will be there (IE, aperture, focal length, exposure time, flash firing).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T15:08:31.130" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6202" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6236" CreationDate="2010-12-30T15:26:04.807" Score="3" ViewCount="97" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently purchased Aperture 3 and am trying different things in order to find the best way to use it with my existing images. One thing I have noticed as I mess about with different file operations is that Aperture seems to &quot;miss&quot; files from time to time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some examples: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I import from a directory containing 1214 pictures, Aperture imports 1091 of them. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I import from a large directory tree like /year/month/event, and Aperture skips entire directories. (it imported every month except march and september).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I try to move files from Aperture to a new location (relocate masters). Some files are still left in their old location.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of this can be explained by user mistakes; I initially didn't realize that rejected files were excluded by default, for example. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am still trying to figure out if I am doing something wrong, but I would like to know if anyone else out there has noticed this behavior and if there is an explanation for it?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="722" LastEditorUserId="722" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-30T15:41:03.733" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T09:52:00.460" Title="Does Aperture have any known file management issues?" Tags="&lt;apple-aperture&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="6203" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5281" CreationDate="2010-12-30T15:52:52.087" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;IEEE recently released a &lt;a href=&quot;http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/hands-on/using-the-canon-hack-development-kit/?utm_source=techalert&amp;amp;utm_medium=email&amp;amp;utm_campaign=103012&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;very interesting article&lt;/a&gt; on this very subject, I thought some of you out there might find it interesting, and it does give alot of good ideas as to what you can do with the CHDK. They say, the real power is in writing your own scripts. Apparently it can do motion detection, which will leave to some absolutely stunning pictures. Makes me tempted to get a Canon Powershot, just for that purpose...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T15:52:52.087" />
  <row Id="6204" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6202" CreationDate="2010-12-30T16:07:12.417" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've never seen that behaviour myself, but do you have &quot;Do not import duplicates&quot; checked?  I don't know what the criteria for a duplicate is, but you might be running into it.  Try switching it off?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1615" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T16:07:12.417" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6205" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6177" CreationDate="2010-12-30T16:15:54.610" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is normal for lenses to become sharper as they are stopped down, as everyone already said so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What varies is the amount of softness at the wide apertures and what someone considers unusable. I do own certain lenses which I think this would apply but not all, some are almost as sharp wide-open as at their sharpest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When 35mm F1.8G is reasonably sharp wide-open and only improves noticeably by F2.8, still the difference is far from huge. This is a dedicated cropped-sensor (DX) lens, so that is the only story you'll get.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For an FX lens, there are always two stories because DX cameras like the D7000 use the best portion of the lens and so some of them like the 50mm F1.4G are terrible wide-open on a full-frame but reasonable on a DX body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T16:15:54.610" />
  <row Id="6206" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6188" CreationDate="2010-12-30T16:35:51.020" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;RAW is RAW. If you convert it to anything else, it is no longer RAW. Sure, you have more bit-depth than converting to an 8-bit format and you don't have an image yet (not all color channels are present at all pixels) but if you really want to keep your originals, you should keep your originals. Sorry if this goes against common lore but it can't be any other way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;DNG has been welcomed by many like a second coming when really it is just another proprietary file-format. It belongs to Adobe rather than a camera manufacturer. The only real benefit is that it is publicly documented.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The downsides are many because it is removed from the camera. Sure, it could &lt;em&gt;(but in fact it does not)&lt;/em&gt; contain all the data from the camera sensor but it does &lt;em&gt;know&lt;/em&gt; how the camera works. It has information on color primaries and special header fields to tell whether the sensor as a Fuji-style pixel alignment (pixels not arranged in a grid) but imagine all the present and future possibilities. The camera itself knows how pixels are arranged, how they respond to light (some may be more or less sensitive based on their position, some may be hot/dead, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Honestly, I'd rather see cameras produce a losslessly compressed high bit-depth image (say 16-bit PNG) in the camera than anything else. The output could then be unambiguously interpreted everywhere and would have been processed with all the camera knows about itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T16:35:51.020" CommentCount="20" />
  <row Id="6207" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6188" CreationDate="2010-12-30T16:39:32.590" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;DNG can be a rather complex beast. The file format is similar to TIFF, in that it is not specifically an image format itself, but more of a container. A &quot;normal&quot; DNG image will store metadata, the primary image in TIFF format, and possibly a thumbnail image. Depending on how DNG is used by any given program, the reality may differ. It is possible to store the original RAW image data in its native format inside of a DNG, and include the XMP sidecar as another file in the DNG container. Some programs store the original RAW, a TIFF version, and a JPEG thumbnail, along with some metadata. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The story is not particularly simple when it comes to DNG. Generally speaking, for compatibility purposes, DNG images store primary image data in TIFF format. As such, they are not truly RAW images, as original image data must be processed to create a common, interchangeable format in TIFF. Some cameras these days output their sensor data directly into DNG format, and such manufacturers prefer to call that &quot;true&quot; raw format, but the simple fact of the matter is that their raw sensor data must still be transformed into an RGB format that can be used by various image editing programs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want the benefit of RAW, you need to use your camera's native RAW format. The key difference between RAW images and their RGB counterparts is in the pixel data...a RAW image contains Bayer sensor array pixel data, rather than computer screen RGB triplet data. Bayer sensor pixels and computer screen pixels are not the same thing, and should be treated as distinct types of information to produce the maximum amount of quality when processing digital photos. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T16:39:32.590" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="6209" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6210" CreationDate="2010-12-30T17:34:04.497" Score="-4" ViewCount="146" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6179/nikon-lens-to-g-or-not-to-g&quot;&gt;nikon lens- to G or not to G?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G for $484&#xA;AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4D for $369&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;is the G worth 100$ more?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;also, i imagine that the G is somehow better to warrant the additional cost. can anyone explain how?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(this will be my 2nd lens to my nikon d7000 kit lens.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T17:45:26.190" ClosedDate="2010-12-30T18:23:25.550" Title="AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G or AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4D?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6210" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6209" CreationDate="2010-12-30T17:37:50.880" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The G actually makes it cheaper, the AF-S makes it more expensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="245" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T17:37:50.880" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6213" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6179" CreationDate="2010-12-30T17:55:47.783" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is an excellent guide to this at &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/equipment/nikon/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photo.net&lt;/a&gt;, here's the key parts copied. I'll let you decide from this information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;AF-S is &quot;silentwave motor&quot;. Old-style Nikon autofocus lenses did not have motors in the lens, but relied on a screwdriver blade in the camera body to turn the focus ring. An AF-S lens has a built-in ultrasonic motor, a technology copied from the Canon EOS system. When using an AF-S lens, the photographer can push the shutter release (or a button on the rear of the camera, if a custom function is set) and let the autofocus system do its best, then touch up the focus manually by twisting the lens ring. The AF-S lenses also focus faster and more quietly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;G&quot; lenses are Nikon's newest lenses. They don't have an aperture ring, which is a shame because it means that you are forced to adjust the aperture with a command wheel on the camera. The G lenses don't work on older bodies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T17:55:47.783" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6214" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6111" CreationDate="2010-12-30T20:46:42.517" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To do this with the same degree of precision that professional astronomers do it would indeed be difficult. It would require you to have extremely precise characterization of the distortions produced by your lens, and the imperfections in your camera's sensor. However, you probably don't need that degree of accuracy. It should be sufficient for you to assume that your lens does not introduce large amounts of distortion (which is a good assumption for a quality lens) and that your cameras sensor is pretty close to a perfectly regular grid (which is a very good assumption for even a cheap camera).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All that remains is to work out the coordinate transformation that describes the orientation of the camera i.e. the direction it was pointed and the degree to which it was rotated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you are looking for then,  is called an &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affine_transformation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;affine transformation&lt;/a&gt;, or an affine map. Which is just a fancy name for a matrix by which you would multiply your pixel coordinates to obtain your astronomical coordinates. In the case of an affine map, this transformation can include any degree of rotation, scale, shear, and translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The meaning of the rotation component is pretty obvious. The scale factor simply describes how much of the sky is covered by each pixel in terms of RA/Dec. Shear is a transformation that would make the image of a rectangle become a parallelogram, but there shouldn't be any of this effect in an image of objects at infinity (like stars). Lastly, the translation component simple adds an offset to account for the fact that the (x = 0, y = 0) pixel in your image probably does not correspond to (RA = 0, Dec = 0).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because you have 3 reference stars in your image, you have enough information to calculate the relationship between your pixel coordinates and the RA/Dec you are looking for. This would be done by linear least squares fit (not non-linear least squares as mentioned above) to determine the values of the matrix components that best match your pixel coordinates to the known RA/Dec of the reference stars. Once the matrix is established you can then apply it to the pixel coordinates of other stars to get their RA/Dec.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I could do this relatively easily, I'm unfortunately unsure how to help you do it. It would involve some mathematical skill that is a bit beyond the scope of photo.SE. I'm an optical engineer, but I'm not much of a photographer; the software I would use for this is designed for engineers to do heavy-duty numerical computation, and isn't really a photographic tool at all. There may be ways to do this using software packages geared towards photographers, but I don't know about them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2877" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T20:46:42.517" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6215" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6088" CreationDate="2010-12-30T21:47:50.443" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon has a website of tutorials for the Rebel series by Rick Sammon - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/content/Rebel_lessons/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I learned most of the basics by playing on my own and refusing to use automatic modes. It's digital after all, so the results of changing settings are immediately available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2873" LastActivityDate="2010-12-30T21:47:50.443" />
  <row Id="6216" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6111" CreationDate="2010-12-30T22:08:56.157" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will outline a rigorous approach and indicate what software can help with it.  Most of this will be tangential to the interests of the photography site, but because there are some useful insights that &lt;em&gt;apply to any circumstance in which locations will be estimated from measurements on an image,&lt;/em&gt; this site seems a reasonable place for such an analysis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taking an image (with a lens that has been corrected for distortion) projects the celestial sphere through the focal point of the lens onto the plane of the sensor.  This is &lt;em&gt;an oblique aspect of a &lt;a href=&quot;http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/IRASdocs/surveys/coordproj.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gnomonic projection&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mathematically, the conversion from (RA, DEC) proceeds through a series of steps:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Convert (RA, DEC) to spherical coordinates.  RA has to be converted from hours-minutes-seconds into degrees (or radians) and DEC has to be converted from degrees-minutes seconds into degrees (or radians), remembering that it is elevation above the plane, not angle from the north pole (which is the usual spherical coordinate convention).  Both conversions are simple arithmetic.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Compute (x,y,z) coordinates for the spherical coordinates of the stars.  This is a standard &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_coordinate_system#Cartesian_coordinates&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;coordinate conversion&lt;/a&gt; (involving simple trigonometry).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Rotate the celestial sphere to align its poles with the lens axis.  This is a linear transformation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Rotate the celestial sphere around its poles to conform to the camera's orientation (another linear transformation).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Placing the imaging plane at a constant height &lt;em&gt;z&lt;/em&gt; above the focal point, draw light rays from the stars at (x,y,z) through the focal point until they intercept the plane.  (This is the gnomonic projection and, by its nature, it is &lt;em&gt;projective&lt;/em&gt; and not linear.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/v588k.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[In the figure, which is intended to be a planar cross-section through the axis of the lens,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A is the focal point.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Semicircle BCD is the visible part of the celestial sphere.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AC points along the axis of the lens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;E, F, and G are star locations.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EE, FF, and GG are their corresponding locations on the (invisible) celestial sphere.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;E', F', and G' are their images on the sensor KL (so that EE', FF', and GG' are paths of light rays from the stars to the sensor).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AD is the horizon from which declination is measured.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Alpha is the declination of star E (or, equivalently, an angular coordinate of EE).  Stars F and G have similar declinations (not shown).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our task is to find the mathematical relation between the angular coordinates for E, F, and G--which are assumed known to high accuracy--such as alpha, and coordinates of their images E', F', and G', measured in pixels along the sensor.  Once found, this relation can be inverted as described below to estimate angular coordinates of celestial objects from positions of their images on the sensor.  Not shown, for simplicity, is the magnification of the lens.  With a distortion-free lens this will have the effect of uniformly rescaling the coordinates of E', F', and G' relative to the center of the sensor.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This procedure describes how the light gets from a star onto the sensor for a perfect simple lens.  It involves these (unknown) parameters, which will need to be determined:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Three angles in (3) and (4) describing the lens and camera orientation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A scale factor in (5) describing the combined effects of the sensor's size, distance from the focal point, and magnification of the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Due to the projection (5), this is a complex, nonlinear transformation in general, but it has a definite mathematical description.  If we let x = (RA, DEC) designate a star's position, let &lt;em&gt;theta&lt;/em&gt; represent the four parameters for the imaging process, and let y = (column, row) represent the pixel coordinates, then we can abstractly but more simply write&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;y = f(x, theta).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next--and this is highly important--we need to account for errors.  The imaged stars are not in precise locations.  Thus we have to include an error term in our formula and it's conventional (since about 1800) to model this error probabilistically.  The new formula is&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;y = f(x, theta) + e&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the lens is distortion free, the expected value of &lt;em&gt;e&lt;/em&gt; is 0 and its standard deviation (&lt;em&gt;sigma&lt;/em&gt;) measures the typical size of error.  It's reasonable to assume the e's are approximately normally distributed, with approximately equal standard deviations (which is not true, but for an initial analysis it's a reasonable assumption) and we can hope these errors are statistically independent of each other (which again is not true but it's a good starting assumption).  This justifies a &lt;strong&gt;least squares solution&lt;/strong&gt; using &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_likelihood&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;maximum likelihood&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.  Up to a universal constant, whose value we don't need to know, the log probability of any particular observation (x,y) equals&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-|f(x, theta) - y|^2 / (2 sigma^2) - 2 log(sigma).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(The absolute value bars denote Euclidean distance in the imaging plane, computed as usual with the Pythagorean Theorem.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By virtue of the assumed independence of errors, the log probability of the set of data for an image is the sum of these values.  This is the &quot;log likelihood.&quot;  The maximum likelihood (ML) estimates of the parameters &lt;em&gt;theta&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;sigma&lt;/em&gt; (five numbers in all) are those values that maximize the log likelihood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can, and should, go further.  The theory of ML also shows how to obtain confidence intervals for the estimates.  Intuitively, the errors in our observations create a little uncertainty in the joint values of the angles, the scale factor, and the standard deviation.  We need these values to estimate RA and DEC for any pixels in our image.  By using uncertain values, which is unavoidable, we will get uncertain results.  Furthermore, if we identify a pixel in our image by looking at a diffuse blob of light (scattered over approximately pi*sigma^2 pixels altogether), there will be &lt;em&gt;additional&lt;/em&gt; uncertainty in the pixel coordinates.  Collectively these two forms of uncertainty combine.  This implies &lt;em&gt;the net uncertainty in estimating the RA and DEC of any blob of light on the image is larger than you would guess.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, when you're taking a measurement off the image and using that to estimate the true coordinates of a star or celestial object, you are doing &lt;a href=&quot;http://alexandria.tue.nl/extra1/afstversl/wsk-i/thonnard2006.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;inverse regression&lt;/a&gt;, which is a form of instrument calibration.  Inverse regression is a procedure to account for the uncertainties I just described.  Its output of course includes the estimated star coordinates for any blob of pixels on the image.  It also includes &lt;em&gt;a ring of coordinates around that estimate that are also consistent with the location of that blob.&lt;/em&gt;  (This is a joint &quot;inverse prediction interval&quot; or a set of &quot;fiducial limits&quot; for the blob's RA and DEC.)  In practice, if you consult a catalog of celestial objects, you can use this ring to search for all known objects that are consistent with the information in your image.  Clearly this can be more valuable than a simplistic procedure that estimates--sometimes incorrectly--only one single set of coordinates.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In summary,&lt;/strong&gt; what is needed here is software to&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Perform the nonlinear optimizing required by ML.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Estimate standard errors in the estimates. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Perform inverse regression.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Expertise with appropriate software, such &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stata.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Stata&lt;/a&gt;'s ML command or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mathematica&lt;/a&gt;, is essential if you're coding this yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regardless of your expertise, &lt;strong&gt;here are some conclusions you can use&lt;/strong&gt; in your imaging strategies:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The accuracy of the image for getting a fix on any object can never be greater than the inherent imprecision in the imaging (as measured by &lt;em&gt;sigma&lt;/em&gt;, the typical size of a point of light on the image).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You can get close to this level of accuracy by identifying &lt;em&gt;many&lt;/em&gt; known stars, not just three.  This reduces the uncertainty in the sky-to-image transformation almost to zero if you have enough known stars located in the image.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is correct that you want the reference stars to be spread across the image.  It is also &lt;em&gt;crucial&lt;/em&gt; that they not be lined up (which, unfortunately, is the case with the three locations given in the question).  If you can afford to locate only three stars, get them in a nice triangle.  When the stars do line up, the statistical analysis indicates there is a &lt;em&gt;huge&lt;/em&gt; uncertainty about locations in directions perpendicular to the line.  In this particular example the estimated error (&lt;em&gt;sigma&lt;/em&gt;) is hundreds of pixels wide.  Having one more star to make a good triangle ought to reduce this error to one or two pixels.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some parting thoughts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is possible to detect and even correct lens aberrations by carrying out a more extensive statistical analysis.  The idea is to plot deviations between expected and actual locations of the stars on the image.  This is akin to &quot;warping&quot; or &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georeference&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;georeferencing&lt;/a&gt;&quot; map data.  As a quick and dirty solution, you can press &lt;strong&gt;GIS or image processing software&lt;/strong&gt; (such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ittvis.com/ProductServices/ENVI.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ENVI&lt;/a&gt;) into service to georeference (or astroreference) any image.  Such software usually does not carry out ML estimates of projective transformations, but it can do high-order polynomial approximations.  An order-2 or order-3 polynomial transformation might do a good enough job, depending on your application.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is possible to improve accuracy by combining multiple images of the same objects.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastEditorUserId="1356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-31T03:55:06.687" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T03:55:06.687" CommentCount="26" />
  <row Id="6217" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6226" CreationDate="2010-12-31T01:22:23.650" Score="22" ViewCount="506" Body="&lt;p&gt;The manual warns that you should turn the camera off to remove the lens, but it doesn't say why.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suspect this may have to do with dust, but I could imagine there are lots of other reasons. I'm hoping someone can tell me the reason for doing this, so it will help me to never forget :-).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2746" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T20:12:55.553" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T20:12:55.553" Title="What are the dangers of removing a lens while the camera is on?" Tags="&lt;equipment-protection&gt;&lt;changing-lenses&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6218" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6217" CreationDate="2010-12-31T01:33:09.003" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I change lenses with the camera on from time to time, but I also always run the dust removal function on the camera afterwards. Now, that may be camera brand specific (Pentax for me), so I don't want to assume it generally applies. The only time I absolutely make sure it is off is when I put a manual lens on because the Pentax SR function will ask for the focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T01:33:09.003" />
  <row Id="6219" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6217" CreationDate="2010-12-31T01:33:09.827" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've never bothered to turn off my camera before removing a lens, and so far I haven't broken one because of it. I have had dusty cameras, but I mostly suspect it might cause some electrical glitches somewhere, which is why they want you to turn it off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T01:33:09.827" />
  <row Id="6220" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6177" CreationDate="2010-12-31T01:41:33.447" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First point: it's pretty safe to say that even a &quot;really poor&quot; lens for a typical DSLR has higher resolution than (for example) most of the lenses used by Adams, Weston, etc. (though, of course, they were using a much larger &quot;sensor&quot;, so the total amount of information captured was still quite large). Even if we stick to small-format photography, some stunningly great pictures have been taken with lenses that would barely even qualify as &quot;poor&quot; today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second point: for portraits (in particular) &quot;soft focus&quot; lenses are quite popular (as are various &quot;filters&quot; and tricks to reduce sharpness). In short, maximum sharpness isn't necessarily a particularly desirable quality for this kind of picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third: I'd say at least 95% of the people who say a particular lens (or camera) is poor are basically making excuses for the fact that the pictures they take pretty much suck. In most cases the problem is about six inches &lt;em&gt;behind&lt;/em&gt; the camera, not in the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a technical viewpoint, it's true that nearly &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; lenses improve in quality when stopped down a bit (optimal performance is &lt;em&gt;typically&lt;/em&gt; around 2 stops down from wide open). In all honesty, there's usually a bigger improvement in coma and astigmatism than in sharpness, but there's usually an improvement in sharpness as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just for completeness, I'll mention one other option: at one time, Nikon made the 58mm f/1.2 Nocturnal Nikkor. This was optimized for use with the aperture wide open, and (by reputation -- I've never used one personally) had excellent sharpness and contrast, even at maximum aperture. This is a mostly theoretical option though: first of all, it hasn't been made in quite a while, so you can only buy them used (for around $3,000 the last I heard). Second, as 50mm lenses go, they're almost ridiculously big and heavy (and, as mentioned above, expensive).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is, however, a somewhat more reasonable alternative that bears mentioning: the Sigma 50 f/1.4 EX DG HSM is better wide open than most of the &quot;first party&quot; manufacturer's lenses (Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc.) Like the Nocturnal Nikkor, however, this is big, heavy, and relatively expensive -- though certainly to a lesser degree (in all respects). It also has the advantages of being autofocus, current, and easily available. Whether you would really benefit from spending extra money for this is open to question -- a lot of people use Nikon's f/1.4 lenses to produce very nice pictures (both wide open and stopped down), and I have no doubt at all that if you have sufficient skill, you can do the same. OTOH, if you really want optimal performance from a &quot;normal&quot; lens wide open, the Sigma probably provides the best optical performance you can get right now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: I suppose since I mentioned the Nocturnal Nikkor, I should give equal time, and correct that last statement a bit: I meant something like &quot;the best you can get for your Nikon&quot;. If somebody's truly fanatical about optimal performance and maximum aperture, there's also the Leica 50 f/0.95 Noctilux. For most people, this is impractical in too many ways to even think hard about it, but it's at least as practical a choice as the Nocturnal Nikkor (at least it's still in current production). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bottom Line: the lenses you're looking at are certainly usable, and capable of taking great pictures, wide open. When you do have enough light, the sharpness will generally improve by stopping them down somewhat, but (as with most lenses) the real limiting factor on picture quality will usually be how the lens is used, not the lens itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-31T01:58:38.007" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T01:58:38.007" />
  <row Id="6221" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6222" CreationDate="2010-12-31T01:52:50.053" Score="7" ViewCount="89" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm taking maternity photos for a friend tomorrow (first &quot;real&quot; photo shoot!) and I'm hoping to do some sillhouettes, but as far as I know she doesn't have a window that would work well for one.  Is there another way to use lighting to get a good sillhouette?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="706" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T02:00:08.337" Title="Is there a way to get a good sillhouette without a window?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6222" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6221" CreationDate="2010-12-31T02:00:08.337" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Light from behind, whether sunlight or articifical will do the trick. This an example I took using a softbox that was behind and to the left:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/3BlKl.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can accomplish the same thing with off-camera flash that is diffused or, if in a pinch, even bright home light sources with a sheet in front. Just expose for the background light rather than the foreground subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T02:00:08.337" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6223" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6217" CreationDate="2010-12-31T02:19:21.387" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The main reason to switch lenses while the camera is off it to avoid exposing the sensor to dust while it is charged as that increases the chances of dust sticking to it. It is really not a big deal but if you want to stack the odds in your favor, you know what to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is probably an infinitely small chance that turning the lens will cause a lens read error since the lens contacts move while the lens is turned to remove it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T02:19:21.387" CommentCount="11" />
  <row Id="6224" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-31T02:20:33.717" Score="3" ViewCount="168" Body="&lt;p&gt;I frequently take pictures for our Ping Pong activity, but I am a newbie at photography. &#xA;My pictures are mostly result like the following(the ball is blurry).&#xA;So I have few questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Does this have something to do with my camera configuration?&#xA;(I mainly use Canon EOS 50D and Sony W350.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If this happened, how can I use Photoshop to correct it?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/mWsls.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2896" LastEditorUserId="2896" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-31T03:44:28.587" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T04:29:50.260" Title="Quick Motion Capture" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;technique&gt;&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6225" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6224" CreationDate="2010-12-31T02:32:34.073" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can't use software, what you need to do is take pictures with a shorter exposure time. Check your EXIF for what you shot at exactly, but I'd try to reduce it by about 10 times. There is an excellent recent question on this subject, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6151/what-is-the-shutter-speed-needed-to-stop-motion&quot;&gt;What is the shutter speed needed to stop motion?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With your Canon 50D, I recommend you shoot in tV mode, probably around 500, maybe even 1000 or higher. You'll need a higher ISO then normal to correct for the motion blur and still have a decent DoF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-31T02:38:18.170" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T02:38:18.170" />
  <row Id="6226" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6217" CreationDate="2010-12-31T02:36:51.483" Score="22" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I get this question from my students, the underlying question is often based on the persistent myth that taking a lens off without first turning off the camera will 'fry' the lens, the camera, or both (depending on who you talk to).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With both Canon and Nikon cameras the leftmost pins on the body (when looking at the camera) are the VBat (6 volt lens power) pins, so when the lens is disengaged and rotated counterclockwise the first thing that happens is that power is removed from the lens. Since none of the other lens contacts sweep over the VBat pin, that scenario is actually physically impossible. Additionally, since the lens power is disengaged from the moment the lens is rotated, the lens is no longer able to pass information back through the communication (dcl and dlc) and clock (dclk) pins. Thus there is very little danger of bad data getting passed between the camera and the lens and somehow 'corrupting' anything unless you really &lt;em&gt;snap&lt;/em&gt; the rotation of the lens and there &quot;happened&quot; to be communication going on at just the right moment. In any case, simply turning off the camera and turning it back on would clear such an error.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I have no direct experience with the pin and contact patterns of other brands of SLR/dSLR, I would be very surprised if the others (Sony, Pentax, etc.) did it differently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-31T07:45:07.307" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T07:45:07.307" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6227" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6224" CreationDate="2010-12-31T02:52:50.650" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to @Pearsonartphoto's answer, you can use flash (either the built-in or better yet, an extarnal) to freeze the motion. You can actually shoot with relatively long exposure times (like what you currently have) and set the flash to 2nd curtain (or rear curtain; see your user manual for how to set that) and get nice motion effect, where the ball will have a &quot;trail&quot; of motion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T02:52:50.650" />
  <row Id="6228" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6224" CreationDate="2010-12-31T02:54:41.357" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Freezing motion generally requires one, maybe two things: fast shutter speed, and flash at the right time. If the shutter is open for a &quot;lengthy&quot; period of time, anything that is in motion will blur. The word lengthy there has to be put in context, as a ping pong ball in motion can move fast enough that a shutter speed as high as 1/100th of a second might not be enough to stop its motion. To freeze motion, I would start with a shutter speed of 1/125th of a second at a minimum. The faster the object or objects are moving, the higher a shutter speed you will need to actually freeze them in a frame. It is not unheard of to use shutter speeds up to 1/1000th of a second to freeze simple motion like a ping pong ball. If you want to freeze extremely fast things, a shutter speed of 1/8000th, or possibly even higher (if your camera supports it) may be necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to high shutter speed, you might also want to use flash to freeze motion. If you use a flash at the right power, with a shutter speed of 1/200th of a second, freezing a ping pong ball in motion should be a synch. The pulse of a camera flash is very quick, on average about 1/1000th of a second long. The illumination from that pulse is bright enough to freeze an object at that moment, and overpower any other residual exposure that may occur as the object continues to move over the longer 1/200th second duration the shutter is open. (Note, most cameras have a flash sync shutter speed of 1/200th or 1/250th, possibly 1/500th for more advanced/newer cameras, which is the minimum amount of time required to successfully synchronize the shutter actuation with a flash pulse.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using flash, you can also introduce some intriguing effects into your action shots. While synced flash photos are usually limited on the upper end to a shutter speed of about 1/250th of a second, you do have the option of using a longer exposure. Try shooting your ping pong scene with a shutter speed of 1/8th of a second, and configure your flash pulse to activate on &quot;second curtain&quot;. The resulting effect will show motion blur of the objects through the duration of the exposure, and the flash will &quot;freeze&quot; any motion just before the exposure ends, making the objects appear clearly at the end of their motion blur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding correcting motion blur with post processing, it is generally not possible with most common tools. Blur caused by object motion is a physical thing, not a digital or optical aberration. It is also highly random (across an arbitrary number of photos) compared to digital or optical aberrations that can be corrected with software. As such, it is very difficult to correct with software without extensive knowledge about exactly what motion was captured (i.e. object motion vectors, which objects were in motion and which were not, etc.) Given the proper information, correcting object motion blur with software might be possible, however generally impractical for real-world photography. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-31T03:27:04.010" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T03:27:04.010" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6230" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-12-31T03:25:53.817" Score="8" ViewCount="135" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am always on the fence between Lightroom and Aperture, but I am also thinking about the future, when new software shows up. Is there any way to export edits made in one of the programs and import it into another? I realize it can be tricky when edit tools differ, but transferring the standard RAW edits would be a good start.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2897" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T07:39:07.027" Title="Is there any method to transfer edits made in Lightroom to Aperture or vice versa?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;apple-aperture&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="6231" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6224" CreationDate="2010-12-31T04:29:50.260" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The ball's &lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&amp;amp;nav=messages&amp;amp;webtag=ab-physics&amp;amp;tid=2393&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;speed&lt;/a&gt; can reach 100 mph, about 150 feet per second (c. 45 meters per second). In this image the ball appears to travel about 0.1+ feet, implying it was exposed for about 1/1000 second (maybe 1/500 if the players aren't top-level competitors).  To make it sharper, do a combination of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Shorter exposure, either with shorter shutter speed or with a &lt;em&gt;low-power&lt;/em&gt; (and therefore extremely short) flash.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Aiming more directly along the line of the ball's travel.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the first case, note that you will want to synchronize the flash with the second curtain: otherwise the ball might look like it's moving backwards.  (See the paragraph at &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/index2.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;second curtain sync&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess this ball will look reasonably sharp if it travels less than 1/4 inch (0.02 feet) during the exposure.  That could require about 1/4000 - 1/8000 second, which is attainable without flash on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page2.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;recent digital cameras&lt;/a&gt;.  (Your 50D will go down to 1/8000 second.)  Because this doesn't leave much time for exposure, you will need a large aperture and/or very bright ambient lights and/or a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scantips.com/lights/flashbasics2b.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;high-speed sync (HSS) flash&lt;/a&gt;.  The large aperture will make for a shallow depth of field, creating a challenge for focusing.  Using a high ISO will help compensate, but experiment to make sure the noise is acceptable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Getting a good picture with a frozen ball would be an accomplishment.  Afterwards you might discover you actually like a little blur for the dynamic effect it produces.  Consider also taking your exposure times to the other extreme (around 1/50 second, or 2-3 feet of motion) to create a long trail for the ball.  It might look pretty cool...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T04:29:50.260" />
  <row Id="6232" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6166" CreationDate="2010-12-31T05:59:57.997" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My $0.02: go with the 35mm lens. I had both a 50mm and and a 35mm on my previous APS-C camera and I used the 35mm 90% of the time. The 50mm is a bit &quot;long&quot; on an APS-C sensor, especially for indoor shots. It's great for portraits though. It ultimately depends what you will be using it for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2898" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T05:59:57.997" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6233" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6230" CreationDate="2010-12-31T07:19:45.103" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately there's currently no 'painless/seamless/automated' way to make the switch...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you will have to do to push from Lightroom to Aperture is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In Lightroom select every RAW file you want to end up in Aperture.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Select Metadata &gt; Save Metadata to File (Or Command/CTRL + S). This will write an XMP file for each image.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Drag and drop the folders with images/XMP files into Aperture and you're on your way.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That will get you your RAW files, IPTC metadata, star ratings, and color labels. Any flags you have set in Lightroom WILL NOT transfer over. If flags are important to your organization system, then you will want to add keywords in Lightroom before you generate your sidecar files (Flag, NoFlag perhaps) so you can sort on it in Aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The process is more-or-less the same from Aperture to Lightroom:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Select every RAW file you want to end up in Lightroom&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Export from Aperture using &quot;Export Masters&quot; and make sure you've selected &quot;Create IPTC4XMP Sidecar File&quot; in the Metadata dropdown&#xA;2a. If you're exporting something other than a RAW file (jpegs or TIFFs) then you'll want to choose &quot;Include IPTC&quot; in the Metadata dropdown instead. Sidecar files will not work!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Import into Lightroom. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you've probably already guessed, you will not be able to pull files in either direction with edits intact. Your best bet will be to export anything you've made adjustments to as a 16 bit TIFF and then import them into your new chosen application. Again, by keywording the files before you generate sidecar files (Adjusted, or Modified, perhaps) you will at least be able to sort them by keyword once you've got them in Aperture or Lightroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously there's no way to know what products will be released in the future that have the potential to make the transition more seamless, but speaking as someone who spent a number of years in the software industry 'in another life,' my personal opinion is that I wouldn't hold my breath waiting, 'cause you will likely never see this transition be made any easier by either Adobe, or Apple... It's just not in either company's best interest or bottom line to make it easy to shift to a competing product, so there's just no real incentive to spend a lot of development time there... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2010-12-31T07:39:07.027" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T07:39:07.027" />
  <row Id="6235" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6217" CreationDate="2010-12-31T09:31:14.323" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been changing lenses with the camera on as long as I've been using DSLRs and I know a lot of other photographers who do the same. If there was a significant risk of causing damage the manufacturers would have had it in the neck by now as so many pros do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suspect this is another case of there being an astronomically small risk, but the camera manufacturers have nothing to lose by telling you to turn the camera off. It's the same as when the airlines tell you to turn off your Nintendo DS during takeoff/landing. You'd severely hope it takes more than a pocket games console to down an airliner, but instead of proving this, it's easier for them to just ban it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T09:31:14.323" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6236" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6202" CreationDate="2010-12-31T09:52:00.460" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I feel a bit stupid to have to confess this but I think all my issues are explainable by user error. There is a (very small) chance that there are others as silly as myself out there so for their benefit I can summarize what I have found: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Aperture seems to honor the &quot;reject&quot; flag during import even if it is set by &lt;em&gt;another&lt;/em&gt; image management application. I have tried different tools over the years and apparently used the &quot;reject&quot; function in those.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The reject flag seems to mean that Aperture ignores the file in all subsequent operations, export, relocate, consolidate etc. Which of course makes sense, really.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;don't import duplicates&quot; works and if you have had less than stellar control of your workflow in the past you may have dupes in your image file hierarchy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When you let the finder count your image items, it includes the thm-files from video clips, Aperture doesn't, of course. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;And finally, the most embarrassing one - when you juggle different disks and versions of your image tree (you have backups of course) make sure you are actually importing from the same tree that you are looking at in the finder!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So with a red face I will now just trust Aperture to do the right thing and retire to be one with my shame...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="722" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T09:52:00.460" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6237" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6177" CreationDate="2010-12-31T10:23:54.280" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Don't spend more on a f/1.4 lens if you only intend to shoot it stopped down&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tests indicate that the Nikon 50 f/1.8 is sharper at f/1.8 than both 50 f/1.4 offerings are &lt;strong&gt;stopped down to f/1.8&lt;/strong&gt;. This is the same situation with Canon so I assume it's to do with the design of the 50mm lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_50_1p4g_n15/page3.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_50_1p4g_n15/page3.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=30&amp;amp;fullscreen=true&amp;amp;av=1.667&amp;amp;fl=50&amp;amp;vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF&amp;amp;stack=horizontal&amp;amp;&amp;amp;config=LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=30&amp;amp;fullscreen=true&amp;amp;av=1.667&amp;amp;fl=50&amp;amp;vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF&amp;amp;stack=horizontal&amp;amp;&amp;amp;config=LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_50_1p4_n15/page4.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_50_1p4_n15/page4.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary get the 50 f/1.8, yes relatively soft wide open but it's also very fast and there are times when you need it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T10:23:54.280" />
  <row Id="6240" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2645" CreationDate="2010-12-31T14:43:42.113" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have had the 7D since November 2010 (a couple months) and I can not get a consistant good quality image from the camera.  I have read and read hundreds of posts about these issues, soft image and focus problems.  All the time I am reading &quot;user error&quot;, &quot;use different f-stop&quot;, &quot;get better lenses&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I bought the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM and this is still giving me the same results - rubbish.  I think my the camera suffers from focus problems and also has very soft image.  There have been times when I think there is a bit too much noise in the image when at ISO 100 (another problem I read about).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am thinking of sending it all to Canon and hoping for the best as I don't think I will be able to send it back to where I purchased now.  It's been driving me crazy and it's a real shame.  I have also seen some great images others have taken with the 7D so it's not all of them that have issues, but mine does and I am sure others also do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shawn&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2903" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T14:43:42.113" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6241" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6242" CreationDate="2010-12-31T14:45:13.653" Score="5" ViewCount="73" Body="&lt;p&gt;My camera ( Pentax K-x ) creates DNG files which contain two preview jpeg images. One rather small ( 640x480 ) and a full-size ( 4288x2848 ) image. The second one increases the DNG size by 10%.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should I remove the preview image to decrease the size of the file, or is it worth to keep the preview image? What is the advantage of the full-size jpeg preview image?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="507" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T14:49:51.610" Title="Is it worth to keep the preview image in the DNG files?" Tags="&lt;dng&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="6242" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6241" CreationDate="2010-12-31T14:49:51.610" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The preview image tends to be used as a thumbnail in the computer, it can be used to quickly glance at a bunch of files and figure out which is the one you want. It's up to you, but I recommend keeping the preview image. It doesn't need to be full sized, but the small image should be worth it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T14:49:51.610" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="6244" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6217" CreationDate="2010-12-31T15:24:13.987" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have never bothered to turn the camera off when switching lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I ever had any problems like a lens not working properly, it would easily have been fixed by turning the camera off and on again, and it can't have happened many times because I can't recall any incident. Besides, that could just as well have happened if I turned the camera off for switching the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Matt Grum pointed out that he couldn't find any instruction to turn the camera off in the manual, I checked the camera manuals for my EOS 300 and my EOS 5D mark II, and the procedure for attaching a lens doesn't even mention turning off the camera. I checked the manual for a lens also, and that doesn't mention it either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I definitely remember reading it somewhere, so it might be there in some manuals, but if there was a good reason for turning the camera off, it would be in every manual, both for cameras and lenses, and it would be hard to miss.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T15:24:13.987" />
  <row Id="6245" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="762" CreationDate="2010-12-31T16:53:23.543" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You missed some Casio models: FH100 &amp;amp; FH25&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a list of current DNG supporting cameras, it is any easy &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;search&lt;/a&gt; on Neocamera, just select the DNG check box. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php?outputdng=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here are the results&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T16:53:23.543" CommunityOwnedDate="2010-12-31T16:53:23.543" />
  <row Id="6246" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6247" CreationDate="2010-12-31T17:44:44.827" Score="3" ViewCount="95" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hey all,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.manfrotto.com/product/8374.31708.22608.0.0/486RC2/_/Compact_Ball_Head_With_RC2_Plate%28200Pl-14%29-_Holds_13.2lbs.&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Manfotto Compact Ball Head&lt;/a&gt; that I love but it is getting to the point to where I can't tighten it enough to keep my camera steady.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I tighten it, the joints of the tripod interfere with the lever, preventing me from really locking it down so the camera can't move.  Is there any way to adjust the position of the lever so that the locked position is different?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="907" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T18:11:39.913" Title="Tightening Manfrotto Ball Head" Tags="&lt;tripod&gt;&lt;tripod-heads&gt;&lt;ball-head&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="6247" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6246" CreationDate="2010-12-31T18:11:39.913" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Their site suggests that you can pull the lever outwards so that you can clear obstructions. Have you tried that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T18:11:39.913" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6248" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="65" CreationDate="2010-12-31T19:07:46.893" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Found this answer on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dofmaster.com&lt;/a&gt;, which in turn references &quot;How to Use Your Camera, New York Institute of Photography, 2000&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;... the hyperfocal distance setting ... is simply a fancy term that means the distance setting at any aperture that produces the greatest depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastEditorUserId="48" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-25T19:30:51.407" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T19:30:51.407" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6249" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2645" CreationDate="2010-12-31T19:42:21.923" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wonder if what you're seeing might be over-aggressive antialiasing. As resolution increases, moiré starts to become a real problem, so most camera manufacturers have opted to include an optical low-pass filter to get around the problem (Leica and Phase One being notable exceptions to the rule). I've noticed, for instance, that the Hasselblad 60 MP back produces images that are significantly less sharp than the Phase One 60 MP back, but the Phase One back is almost useless for portraiture and fashion because of moiré in fabrics. There would have been an antialiasing filter in your 20D as well, of course, but it would not have shown the same degree of spread as on the 7D (which has about half again as many pixels per linear millimeter as the 20D). It would be similar to the difference between shooting Tri-X and TMax 100 with a &quot;mushy&quot; lens -- the Tri-X picture would appear to be sharper because of the grain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T19:42:21.923" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6250" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6252" CreationDate="2010-12-31T20:13:02.133" Score="11" ViewCount="369" Body="&lt;p&gt;I current own a Nikon D5000 with kit lens (18-55mm f/3.5) and am looking to take better indoor photos of my fast moving 9 month old which sometimes come out blurred or not natural I use the on popup flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe to overcome these issues in an ideal world a fast prime and a directional flash would solve this however if I was to choose just one which would be most effective to capture the best look (understanding a wide aperture will result in blurred background)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="560" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-11T13:16:46.410" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T13:16:46.410" Title="Prime lens or flash: which upgrade will most improve baby photos?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;prime&gt;&lt;baby-photos&gt;" AnswerCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6251" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6250" CreationDate="2010-12-31T20:26:33.367" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I ended up buying both!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like you, I've got a D5000 and I am now the proud owner of a 35mm f1.8 and a SB-400.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I started with the lens, which has allowed me to take some really nice photos of my baby niece indoors. However, I found that I still needed a flash sometimes when the light really isn't that good. Bouncing the flash and/or using a diffuser makes a massive difference to photographs taken with flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="452" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T20:26:33.367" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6252" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6250" CreationDate="2010-12-31T20:40:43.037" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I agree that you'll probably eventually want both (no one said that this is a cheap hobby!), but I'd go with the flash first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's easier to use quickly, and works well when you have multiple subjects not necessarily side-by-side -- or when your kid won't stay within the in-focus area for for than a millisecond. With indoor lighting, even a wide-open fast prime is sometimes not enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nikon has a nice, simple, and affordable flash with bounce capability, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Flashes/4806/SB-400-Speedlight-Unit.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SB-400&lt;/a&gt;. They make a lot of great flashes, in fact, and you certainly wouldn't go wrong getting a higher-up model, but you'll also get a great improvement just from the very basic model. Plus, it's small, which means you can include it in a small camera bag without much sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ooh, one more thing: a flash lets you take fun pictures of babies knocking over towers of blocks, with the blocks frozen mid-air. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-01T05:10:03.293" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T05:10:03.293" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="6253" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6250" CreationDate="2010-12-31T20:57:45.950" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I tend to go for the prime before the flash, and here's why:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flash adds weight and bulk to your camera.  Once your 9 month old starts trying to grab the camera from your hands, better to have a lighter camera so that if/when s/he succeeds, they won't hurt themselves when they drop it.  They also have less handholds of things they can pull apart.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flash shots require more skill to do nicely compared to prime, in my opinion (or at least, I required more skill with a flash to produce shots I liked compared to shots I like with a prime).  With a prime, just set the focus point over the eyes and snap, and you've got a good chance of pulling off something decent at f/2 or f/2.8.  With a flash, unless you're bouncing off of a nearby wall, the shot can tend to look blasted out, with a light gradient across the image.  Prime = better chance of a good natural light shot.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flash requires batteries.  If my experience with my 2 year old is any guide, you'll be hunting for those for the next few years.  Prime = no batteries.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One trick with a prime that's harder to do without a more expensive flash (sb900) is burst mode.  Set the camera to rapid capture mode, and even with 1/30th or 1/60th shutter speed, chances are good that 1 out of the 5 or so in the burst won't be completely blurred out.  Sure, you'll have more shots to wade through and remove during post, but it's pretty easy to ditch the four bad ones in favor of the one good.  With flash, unless you set it on repeat mode (which, again, I know the sb900 can do, I'm not sure about the sb600 or sb400), you won't get a burst, and you won't get one faster than every five-ten seconds or so. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flashes can overheat, meaning that under certain conditions, you can only shoot for an hour or so (in burst mode) before the flash goes out.  If you're shooting with your flash this much, though, you might be overdoing it (or a wedding photographer).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said that, it also depends on your local lighting conditions.  If you're in a room that always has the blinds drawn and you're constantly shooting wide open with your current lens at 1600 iso and still requiring half a second of exposure, then the flash may be the better bet for you.  If it's dark, it's dark.  I tend try to shoot my son at 1/125th or faster if I can, so if your current metering requires a lot more light to get to that shutter speed, then you'll need the flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T20:57:45.950" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="6254" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6267" CreationDate="2010-12-31T21:36:14.317" Score="12" ViewCount="286" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am on the hunt for a great camera bag. Since it will be home to my pride and joy equipment that I hope to one day (soon I hope) accumulate I need it to be well made, and protective of the gear first and foremost. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next I need it to be usable and handy. To this end I was wondering if my intentions for aback-pack style bad is ok. I am skeptical because whenever I see photographers with camera bags they are always the hand held boxy type.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This may be coincidence and my perception only, or it may be a sign no one uses back pack style camera bags &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also since I have no idea what separates a great bag from the rest of the pack, some help pointing out thing I should look for would be great.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="2200" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-05T20:54:37.763" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T13:58:30.160" Title="What are the cons of a backpack-style camera bag?" Tags="&lt;camera-bag&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6255" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6254" CreationDate="2010-12-31T21:47:30.623" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can read about all the pros and cons of all bag types at the link below. Basically you must compromise size, weight, comfort and accessibility. No bag fits all uses. The more typical bag for photography is called a &lt;em&gt;messenger bag&lt;/em&gt;. Here are the cons of backpacks:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disadvantages:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Must be removed to access gear.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Working with gear is uncomfortable, usually requires bag to be put down.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gear is not in sight, higher risk of being robbed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rarely counts as a personal item for flights.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/article.php?id=camera_bags&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.neocamera.com/article.php?id=camera_bags&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T21:47:30.623" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="6256" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6260" CreationDate="2010-12-31T22:15:14.843" Score="7" ViewCount="695" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am trying to price out a 35 mm f/1.4 lens for my Nikon d7000 and am shocked to find B&amp;amp;H sells them for almost 2,000$. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where the f/ 1.8 sells for a couple hundred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Am I looking at the wrong things?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an example of the two I found... am i way off base? I am just trying to find the perfect 35mm f/1.4 for mt Nikon d7000&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;I ended up getting the sigma 50mm F1.4 and love it! Thanks for the help all. Holding both in my hand I felt the sigma to be much more substantial. Its way larger and heavier thank the Nikon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/606792-USA/Nikon_2183_AF_S_Nikkor_35mm_f_1_8G.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;low cost&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/735000-USA/Nikon_2198_AF_S_NIKKOR_35mm_f_1_4G.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;high cost&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="2200" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-09T13:59:59.840" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T13:59:59.840" Title="Really? Why does a Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 cost almost $2,000?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="6257" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6254" CreationDate="2010-12-31T22:26:30.190" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since I schlep around our city all day without a car, a backpack is my preferred way to carry camera gear. Sling bags and messenger bags, which go on one shoulder, can be tiring and make you feel lopsided after a while. I also prefer a design with separate compartment for non-camera items. This is particularly handy as a new dad -- you can put diapers and snacks and spare changes of clothes and whatever else in there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The major downside is access to your camera equipment. I currently have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.crumpler.com/us/Camera-Bags/Camera-Backpacks/Sinking-Barge-Deluxe.html?LanguageCode=EN&amp;amp;SKU=SI07A&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Crumpler &quot;Sinking Barge&quot;&lt;/a&gt;, which has a gusseted lower compartment for camera stuff -- this opens for easy access but won't spill everything out. You can kind of swing it around on one arm to do this without taking the bag off, but it's a pain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other downside is that a bag which will also include room for a laptop is usually unfortunately large, and can be unwieldy on a train or bus. The Crumpler is super-well made and very comfortable to wear, but it's huge -- and the model I have is the smaller one in its line.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Smaller backpacks exist, though. Before I had a larger laptop, I used a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tamrac.com/3548.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamrac Express Pack 8&lt;/a&gt;, and a shoved my &lt;a href=&quot;http://mattdm.org/u101/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sony Vaio U101&lt;/a&gt; into the top. Much more compact, and I still take that out when I don't need my laptop. It's small, but I can fit my Pentax K-7 with an attached prime lens and two other small primes into the camera compartment, and a flash and even a collapsible reflector into the top. The access is &lt;em&gt;definitely&lt;/em&gt; weird because of the flap pocket, but on the other hand that would provide some protection against theft if that's a big concern.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T22:26:30.190" />
  <row Id="6258" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6256" CreationDate="2010-12-31T22:30:09.620" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lenses come in all forms, even for the same focal length. Here are the available &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&amp;amp;N=0&amp;amp;Q=&amp;amp;InitialSearch=yes&amp;amp;A=endecaSearch&amp;amp;Ntt=NI3514%2a&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikkor 35mm f/1.4&lt;/a&gt; lenses at B&amp;amp;H online. There are two manual, and one AF lens, with the latter being the $1800 lens. It appears that the AF version is new, and contains some of the most advanced optics and multicoating available, which is probably why its price tag is so high. The wide aperture, which is pretty wide for a lens of that focal length, is also a significant contributor to the cost. If you want a lot of light with good wide-open quality, you need a lot of glass, and glass is expensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=NI3518%2A&amp;amp;N=0&amp;amp;InitialSearch=yes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikkor 35mm f/1.8&lt;/a&gt; lenses from B&amp;amp;H are about as cheap as you can get, running about $190. The f/1.8 is 2/3rds of a stop slower than the f/1.4, so for less than a single stop less light, you can save yourself $1600. The f/1.8 should offer acceptable quality wide open, so the question you have to ask is: do you need that extra 2/3rd of a stop worth of light?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For some contrast, here is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=CA3514LEF&amp;amp;N=0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L&lt;/a&gt; lens on B&amp;amp;H. Its been around for a number of years, yet still costs $1350. Thats less than $500 lower than the brand spankin new Nikkor 35mm f/1.4. Simply put, light costs. If you need a lot of light, you need to be prepared to spend the money for it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T22:30:09.620" CommentCount="16" />
  <row Id="6259" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6256" CreationDate="2010-12-31T22:49:42.923" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Remember, you were concerned about &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6177/&quot;&gt;getting great image quality wide-open&lt;/a&gt;? There's no such thing as a free lunch. And a cheap lunch may have adequate nutrition without being gourmet. More expensive lenses use exotic elements, and a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; more glass overall. Note that the AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G weighs &lt;em&gt;three times&lt;/em&gt; as much as the AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G, and is over twice as big. (The f/1.4G also covers a full-frame image circle, accounting for some of this.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Plus, the more expensive lens has a more solid build, more aperture blades, and is probably better sealed. It likely has a faster AF motor, too. It's a top-level lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T22:49:42.923" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6260" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6256" CreationDate="2010-12-31T23:06:27.567" Score="20" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Welcome to the wonderful world of retrofocus lenses. As difficult as it is to create any lens that focuses all of the wavelengths of light at the same point (and that gets more difficult as the lens gets wider in any case), there's more than that going on in most wide-angle lenses* for SLRs. Pentax offers a wonderful example of the transition -- they have a 40mm &quot;pancake&quot; lens that is about as small as a colour-corrected lens can be, and they accomplish that by restricting the maximum aperture to f/2.8 and choosing a focal length that almost exactly matches the distance from the film/sensor to the lens mounting surface.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the focal length of the lens gets any shorter than that distance, you actually need two different &quot;lenses&quot; -- one that acts like, say, a 35mm lens in front of the camera, and another that acts like a longer lens between the sensor and the wide-angle lens. Both of these lens groups require more correction the wider the lens gets (light rays refracted from the periphery of the lens are bent more than rays passing through the center, and are subject to more chromatic aberration, spherical aberration, coma, etc.). That means more corrective lens elements, often more complicated focusing mechanisms to change the relationship between lens elements/groups, more interelement relection (which means more and better coatings) -- it all gets to be pretty messy from an engineering sense. And yes, it costs more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6256/realy-a-nikkor-35mm-f-1-4-costs-almost-2-000/6258#6258&quot;&gt;jrista's advice&lt;/a&gt;: the f/1.8 is more than two stops faster than what you have now, and unless you find yourself really needing the extra 2/3 stop, keep the extra $1500. If you do need to upgrade, you can get a pretty decent trade-in on your f/1.8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*I say &lt;em&gt;most&lt;/em&gt; because there are some lenses (particularly older fisheyes) that actually require that you lock your mirror up before you install them. You're not likely to run into them anymore, but they exist nonetheless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T23:06:27.567" />
  <row Id="6261" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6250" CreationDate="2010-12-31T23:57:50.793" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd go for the flash.  Why?  You're indoors.  It is Winter.  It is dark.  A fast prime will give you 2 or 3 stops.  But a flash gives you the ability to take a shot in any conditions.  Sure, it will take some time to master.  But these are skills worth developing.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2909" LastActivityDate="2010-12-31T23:57:50.793" />
  <row Id="6262" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="65" CreationDate="2011-01-01T00:22:52.807" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To determine the hyperfocal distance, you can use WolframAlpha's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=hyperfocal+distance&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;formula&lt;/a&gt;, it requires 3 variables:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Circle of Confusion (CoC) in mm&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Focal length in mm&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aperture (f-number)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The aforementioned DOFMaster site has &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dofmaster.com/digital_coc.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a table with the different CoC values for various digital cameras&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2898" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T00:22:52.807" />
  <row Id="6263" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6254" CreationDate="2011-01-01T00:31:34.090" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For me, the biggest con to owning a backpack is that I can't hold as much stuff as I can with a 'standard format' square camera bag or camera case. Of course the flip side pro is that it's generally more portable than a square bag or hardshell case. For me I eventually ended up with a backpack, a square softshell bag, AND a hardshell case... Depending on what I am going to do, each have their place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T00:31:34.090" />
  <row Id="6264" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6256" CreationDate="2011-01-01T00:44:19.497" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Additionally, if you haven't already found them, there are a TON of lens review websites out there... Many that give incredibly detailed reviews on everything you'd ever want to know about a particular lens (and a lot you probably don't as well). Check out the community wiki post for a great cheat sheet for many of these sites:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1520/lens-review-sites&quot;&gt;Lens review sites&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-01T07:59:05.920" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T07:59:05.920" />
  <row Id="6265" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6284" CreationDate="2011-01-01T05:12:55.827" Score="8" ViewCount="194" Body="&lt;p&gt;What kind of &quot;New years resolutions&quot; do you have as a photographer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T04:22:30.073" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-01T08:38:52.110" Title="New years resolutions" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;project&gt;" AnswerCount="12" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="6266" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6265" CreationDate="2011-01-01T06:46:50.537" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm Starting one of those 365 projects. And I plan on sharing on my blog how I use digiKam and Rawtherapee in my &quot;workflow&quot; (Not sure if I'm qualified to use that term :P ). There doesn't seem to be much on the inernet on the subject of photography on Linux... besides allot of people who seems satisfied with just using UFRaw + Gimp. :/&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2880" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T06:46:50.537" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-01T08:38:52.110" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6267" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6254" CreationDate="2011-01-01T06:59:43.483" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I spend considerable time, up to 10 hours in a day, hiking around the rain forests of British Columbia as well as the streets and parks of Vancouver I use a backpack and definitely would not be without it.  I find it very comfortable to wear and holds my D300 with 7 lenses, 2 flashes and a few ancillary pieces.  The comfort of having a well made backpack with comfortable straps more than makes up for the slight inconvenience of removing it to change lens or access equipment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I chose my backpack I looked for the following items ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Padded compartment for DSLR with lens attached &amp;amp; at least 2 additional lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Separate compartment for personal items, which I sometimes use to hold additional lenses beyond the 2 or 3 in the main camera compartment.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ability to strap on a tripod, and this MUST be centrally mounted otherwise the pack weight is shifted off center and becomes uncomfortable.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Side entry to extract DSLR meaning I can swing the bag round on one shoulder strap instead of taking it totally off.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Built in rain cover - obviously to keep stuff dry in the 3+ meters of rain we get annually around the rain forests here, but also keeps stuff secure when hiking round town and protects the pack from wet ground when laying it down.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Internal pockets for memory cards, documents, cloths, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Additional external pockets and straps for attaching additional items like water bottles and rain jackets.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Proper adjustable and padded waist belt and shoulder straps with chest strap across the shoulder straps, critical to comfort when hiking a full day.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ALL&lt;/strong&gt; of these items were met with the &lt;strong&gt;Lowepro Primus AW&lt;/strong&gt; and as a bonus it is made from recycled material :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Last points to make are to spend considerable time trying packs on, take your gear and see how it fits, and don't settle for the first one you find ... this one was my third pack before I got the right one for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good hunting!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1410" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T06:59:43.483" />
  <row Id="6268" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6265" CreationDate="2011-01-01T07:12:28.220" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Look twice before pressing the shutter button in the hope that the results get that little bit better :) ... here's hoping!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1410" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T07:12:28.220" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-01T08:38:52.110" />
  <row Id="6269" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6265" CreationDate="2011-01-01T07:47:45.187" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think I'll start a 365 project again, I really need to start taking more pictures. And I really need to finish my A-Z project...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T07:47:45.187" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-01T08:38:52.110" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6270" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6265" CreationDate="2011-01-01T08:12:39.343" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't spend so much money on camera gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T08:12:39.343" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-01T08:38:52.110" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6271" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6166" CreationDate="2011-01-01T08:35:06.307" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, that's accurate, but instead of taking sample shots, why don't you analyze the shots you've already taken?  Make a graph of all your favorite (i.e. the ones you've kept or uploaded or e-mailed) pictures (using the EXIF data embedded in each file), plotting focal length vs. count-of-focal length.  Then just look for peaks.  If the majority of your photos are at 18mm, splurge on an ultra-wide (10-22 or thereabouts) lens; if they're near 35, 50, or 85mm then buy the appropriate fast lens; if they're all at 105 then treat yourself to a 135/2.8.  After all, if less than 5% of your favorite photos are in the 30-60mm range, you wouldn't want to buy a 35mm or 50mm lens: you'd never use it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T08:35:06.307" />
  <row Id="6272" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6250" CreationDate="2011-01-01T08:52:37.237" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am really happy with my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (on a Canon 30D).  It's a lot of fun to shoot with (mostly kittens, though, not babies), and although I eventually bought a flash I never use it because it &lt;em&gt;isn't&lt;/em&gt; fun for me to shoot with.  So in your position, I'd buy a fast lens!  But, a very fast lens won't just cause a blurred background (which is usually a good thing, by the way):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;your depth of field, wide open, will be very small.  As in, if you get one eye in focus (and your goal should be to get the eyes in focus), the other eye might &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; be in focus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;because of this, autofocus will probably miss most of the time: your camera will focus on the nose, or ear, or anything else, instead of what you want, and with that super-narrow depth of field, the picture just won't turn out.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;if you can't trust AF, and if you don't get a lens with an easy-to-use manual focus ring or you don't like using manual focus, you'll probably miss a lot of shots.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;even if you enjoy focusing manually, you'll miss a lot of shots because the viewfinder won't show the difference between f/1.4 and f/2.8 or so.  So you'll need to bracket your shots a lot (take a picture, make a miniscule adjustment to the focus, take another picture, repeat...) if you want to ensure you get good photos.  My keeper rate is around 5-10% because I just barely miss the focus a lot of the time.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said... I really love shooting with my 30/1.4, and when I nail the focus the pictures are absolutely amazing, with the subject popping clearly into view and the background fading smoothly away....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T08:52:37.237" />
  <row Id="6273" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6250" CreationDate="2011-01-01T10:29:27.903" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Flash for sure. You already got plenty of good answers and reasons here. It is just that for what you are seeking - flash will cover many more situations than a prime. Think of it - you can shoot your baby (photographically, that is...) in a completely dark room with a flash, but not with a prime. Plus, once you start using an external flash you may get curious about off-camera lighting and some creative lighting effects, and it may just be the beginning of a long and enjoyable journey...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T10:29:27.903" />
  <row Id="6274" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6294" CreationDate="2011-01-01T14:34:48.017" Score="10" ViewCount="163" Body="&lt;p&gt;My wife gave me a used Pentax 50mm f/1.7 SMC-M for my birthday. (I know some people get Leica 50mm f/0.95 Noctiluxes for their birthdays, but, y'know, kids to take care of and so on. And it's a very nice little lens!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The glass is in good shape, but there's a small amount of rust around the lens mount. I don't think this is really a problem, but I'd like to clean it. What's the best approach?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most rust-removal advice I've found online is geared towards much larger amounts of rust (cars!), and I'm concerned about affecting the plastic with an acid-based product.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or should I just not worry about it? I'm a software guy, so all this physical-world-stuff is all confusing to me. Is there any concern of it spreading or causing other damage?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-20T23:40:41.410" LastActivityDate="2011-03-20T23:40:41.410" Title="Removing rust from a lens's mount?" Tags="&lt;cleaning&gt;&lt;equipment-protection&gt;&lt;rust&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6275" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6274" CreationDate="2011-01-01T14:52:23.627" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've had great experiences with a product called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.evaporust.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Evapo-Rust&lt;/a&gt;. I haven't used it on lenses, but I have used it on a lot of other things that had wood, glass, rubber and plastic parts, and haven't noticed any weakening of glues or anything (well, except for wheat-starch paste, but that's water-soluble and an unspeakably stupid mistake on my part -- I almost lost a very valuable antique label). Unfortunately, the smallest container I know of is 32 fl. oz. (one US quart, though we don't consider that a quart where I come from), and all you need is a saucer full.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T14:52:23.627" />
  <row Id="6276" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6278" CreationDate="2011-01-01T15:42:19.463" Score="7" ViewCount="102" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to buy a secondary compact camera which is able to transfer photos immediately to my PC via WiFi/Bluetooth/anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't want to go through pressing 10 buttons to get 1 photo on PC. Just shot - and JPG is in a network shared drive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any options?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2911" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T15:57:24.500" Title="Are there any cameras which transfer photos to PC without interaction" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6277" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-01T15:56:22.237" Score="9" ViewCount="809" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm planning on starting photography as a hobby and I will be purchasing a DSLR very soon. Many of my friends have upgraded to DSLRs from P&amp;amp;Ss nowadays, but they all use different brands. Most have the Canon DSLRs, but two have the Sony Alpha, and another serious photographer friend uses a Nikon D5000. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I'm starting from scratch with no lenses in possession, which brand should I pick and why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1185" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-06-04T16:36:42.863" LastActivityDate="2011-06-04T16:36:42.863" Title="Which DSLR brand should I pick as a beginning photographer?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;digital&gt;" AnswerCount="12" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="6278" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6276" CreationDate="2011-01-01T15:57:24.500" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Basically, you just want to make sure that it supports &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.eye.fi/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Eye-Fi SD cards&lt;/a&gt;.  As long as it does, then the memory card will take care of the upload.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T15:57:24.500" />
  <row Id="6279" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6277" CreationDate="2011-01-01T16:04:45.947" Score="17" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given your situation, I would lean towards Canon, simply because that's what most of your friends have.  There are a few benefits in having similar equipment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You could share lenses (try before you buy)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;More specific advice, because different brands have different names for the same things (IS vs VR), so you'll be able to pick up the names quicker.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T16:04:45.947" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6280" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-01T16:36:26.773" Score="7" ViewCount="140" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking into getting a light system&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have been reviewing the light packages on the Elinchrom website. Really these two packages. &lt;strong&gt;D-Lite 4&lt;/strong&gt; vs &lt;strong&gt;Quadra Ranger&lt;/strong&gt;. Besides the prices being one difference I would like &#xA;to get any expert opinion on what are the major differences between these two packages. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would both units perform the same quality under the same condition?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Does it just come down the Quadra Ranger just has a better build quality then the D-Lite 4?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;It swivels better?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;It can be placed better? Is the light better on the Quadra then the D-Lite 4?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;D-Lite 4 To Go&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;www.elinchrom.com/sets.php?base_set=93&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Quadra Ranger RX&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;www.elinchrom.com/sets.php?cat=6&amp;amp;base_set=42#choice&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know the Quadra is a &quot;Pro&quot; series light system but what makes it so pro that the D-Lite 4 which is half the cost could not do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any insight would be deeply appreciated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2913" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T17:05:57.937" Title="Comparison of Lighting Systems" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;comparison&gt;&lt;studio-lighting&gt;&lt;light&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6281" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6280" CreationDate="2011-01-01T17:05:57.937" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Ranger series is a battery-powered power-supply-plus-head system; the DLite series is a  mains-powered monolight (power supply and flash head in one box).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unless you are doing location shooting and can't depend on mains power being available, the Ranger series is probably the wrong choice. Even if you are concerned about the weight of the DLite units for mounting, a mains-powered pack &amp;amp; head system would be a better choice for use in your own studio or if you can count on AC power being available. Batteries aren't forever, and mains-powered packs will recycle faster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, if you are shooting mostly on location and either need to be very portable or can't count on power being available, then the DLite series won't be of much use to you unless you also have a large generator handy -- a set of Elinchrom monolights can really guzzle down the power. (I always loved their recycle time -- the lights I had could keep up a pretty consistent 2 frames per second at half power.) This is where the Ranger series makes its wages, and it has some significant advantages (as a system) over competitors like Lumedyne and Quantum, where you'd need to mix and match with third-party equipment to get softboxes and other modifiers to work with the flashes. That's nothing against the competition's quality or versatility, it's just an easier task to put together a system with the Rangers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T17:05:57.937" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6282" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6277" CreationDate="2011-01-01T17:15:35.320" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon and Nikon are both so similar these days, it really doesn't matter much which brand you chose. Each has slight advantages over the other, but it really doesn't matter much. In general, take a look at what your friends have, and get the same kind. Canon therefor would be your pick.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to what equipment to buy, make sure you get a 50mm/1.8 lens, aside from that, just buy the best camera that you can. If you have enough cash (Ie, more that, say, $1000), then you might save some of that for a lens/flash, but other than that, this advice should hold.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T17:15:35.320" />
  <row Id="6283" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6265" CreationDate="2011-01-01T17:16:37.167" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Same as last year, increase the ratio of keepers without lowering my standards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The year before I has a 1:10 ratio (I deleted 90% of images I took) and I finished with about a 1:8 ratio (deleting now 87%). I want to eventually stop shooting the bad pictures by better previsualization and finding more creative to make things look interesting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm adding two this year:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Learn panning (might seriously affect my previous goal though ;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Try out high-speed photography (water drops and splashes mostly)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T17:16:37.167" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-01T17:16:37.167" />
  <row Id="6284" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6265" CreationDate="2011-01-01T17:32:11.230" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Learn off-camera lighting techniques.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I bought a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-SB-600-Speedlight-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0002EMY9Y&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;speed light that's way more than what I need&lt;/a&gt; a few months ago, and recently bought a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/CowboyStudio-NPT-04-Wireless-Receiver-cowboystudio/dp/B002W3IXZW&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;cheapo radio trigger&lt;/a&gt; for it. My goal is to learn as much as I can with one light before looking for an older manual flash for my second light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T17:32:11.230" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-01T17:32:11.230" />
  <row Id="6285" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6277" CreationDate="2011-01-01T17:33:22.723" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are right that thinking about the brand is important among DSLRs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason is all about the lenses, each brand gives you access to a different lineup so what you must absolutely do is check what current lenses exist in each brand. To see all the current lenses in one place go to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/list_lenses.php?show=none&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Neocamera's Lens List&lt;/a&gt; and click on each brand that interests you one at a time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A lot of systems accept lenses which are not in production anymore but I personally would not depend on them as availability will vary greatly. As someone pointed out, you can borrow friends' lenses if you use the same brands. You can also rent lenses, if you are lucky then you'll have a lot of options available to your but in some countries, only Canon or Nikon lenses can be rented.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondary there are key features you may want to look for but those depend on specific requirements which depend on your situation. Examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Full-frame upgrade path, in case you're planning to get more much more serious or deal with extremely low-light photography.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Weather-sealing, in case you plan shooting in the rain, snow (freezing temperatures), jungle (high-humidity) or sandstorms.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Built-in stabilization, for a potential cost-saving on the price of lenses.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mirrorless downgrade path, in case you want to move to a lighter system and keep your lenses fully functional.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;More... I'm sure someone can thing of more specific issues which will favor one brand over another.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T17:33:22.723" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6286" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6297" CreationDate="2011-01-01T17:50:50.103" Score="5" ViewCount="283" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apple Aperture has a function &quot;Show Focus Points&quot;. When I am using it with raw files from Canon 500D, it displays the pattern of focus points (just like the camera viewfinder) and highlights some of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First I thought that it would do the obvious thing: it would just show which focus points were active (either the focus point that was selected manually, or the focus points that the camera selected automatically).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the results did not seem to match the reality; there were some red rectangles, but they seemed to be in the wrong places. And then I had a bit closer look at the display and realised that there are (at least) &lt;em&gt;four&lt;/em&gt; different kinds of rectangles:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;thin white&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;thick white&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;thin red&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;thick red&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What do these different symbols mean?&lt;/strong&gt; Not all of them are visible in all photos, but I was able to find photos that actually had all four types of rectangles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would &lt;em&gt;guess&lt;/em&gt; that one of the following explanations is close to the reality:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;thick rectangles (both white and red) show the focus points&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;thick white rectangles show the focus points.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what do the colours mean, then?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; Here is a quick test shot that shows what I see. I had set the camera to automatically select the AF points. According to the flashing lights in the viewfinder, the camera selected the center point (= thick red) and the lower right point (= thick white). But then why is the rightmost AF point shown as a red box?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/FRDk2.png&quot; alt=&quot;example&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="247" LastEditorUserId="247" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-02T00:12:11.110" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T05:55:22.740" Title="&quot;Show Focus Points&quot; in Aperture" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;apple-aperture&gt;&lt;canon-500d&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6287" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6277" CreationDate="2011-01-01T18:04:10.643" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;built in stabilization is kind of nice, but i've found it's far inferior to the lens stabilization solutions.&#xA;I shoot Nikon, have been for 5 years, so I'm a bit partial to them. They're reliable cameras (my d40 bounced off concrete from a 6' tripod at a wedding more than once without breaking), and fairly versatile. My wife just bought me a d3000 body (refurbished, $300 on amazon for body only, $100 for an 18-55mm lens, putting a full package at $400), and I LOVE it. It's got a nice sensor in it, ISO drops down to 100 and goes up to 3200 (but turn noise reduction on, or it looks bad above 800 ISO).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It all boils down to how serious you think you're going to get. Currently, Nikon makes the best high end cameras (d3, d3s), but with technology, that can change at the drop of a hat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd seriously look at the different lenses; Nikon lenses are usually really nice, the high end ones have incredibly clear glass. I've shot with a 300mm f/2.8 Nikkor lens, and have to say it produced some of the clearest shots I've ever seen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do second the 50mm f1/8 lens, but, if you buy a cheaper Nikon, the 50 won't auto focus. Nikon leaves the autofocus motor out of the cheaper cameras, making you purchase the more expensive AF-S lenses. There is a 35, and I believe an 85mm AF-S f/1.8 lens, but no 50 (I bought the 50, been using it for over a year, and love it.) If you go with the d3000, it does have a digital range finder on all modes except manual, so it can help you dial in the focus a little easier, but manual only lenses are something I'd wait on until you have a year or two of shooting under your belt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have the money for the body, the d90 is AMAZING. It has the autofocus motor built in, and has quite a few features that you won't use for months (if not years) because of how deep they are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wound up picking Nikon over Canon because when I was looking at entry level dSLRs, the d40 blew the rebel out of the water in both focal length and clarity. Go to a local camera shop (or somewhere like a Cord Camera) and ask to shoot with some of the cameras in the store. Stay away from box stores like best buy and walmart, their cameras are usually broken and don't have extra lenses. Tell them you're really interested and want to see how they feel and the quality. Make your own decision, based on what you like. Remember, your opinion matters most.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2915" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T18:04:10.643" />
  <row Id="6288" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6286" CreationDate="2011-01-01T20:18:45.557" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've checked in both the Aperture help and in the Apple Aperture's Pro Book and there is no reference to focus points :-/&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On my side, as I'm only using a manually selected single focus point, I've always seen a single red (thick) square which is my focus point. All others are thin white. See below:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rNOxV.png&quot; alt=&quot;Aperture focus points&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Could you show us a picture where you have the four types on the same picture to see the pattern and try to understand?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2807" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T20:18:45.557" />
  <row Id="6289" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3388" CreationDate="2011-01-01T20:21:34.927" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want an first rate camera and are willing to only work with a normal lens try a rolleiflex TLR. They are built like tanks and the optics are first rate. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2916" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T20:21:34.927" />
  <row Id="6290" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6277" CreationDate="2011-01-01T21:24:17.613" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to all the other suggestions, the user interface and the general &quot;feel&quot; of the brands are very different. Since your friends have several brands, try them all out. One brand will usually just feel better to you than the others. It's very subjective. Maybe the grip on one is more comfortable, or maybe the button layout fits your hand better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have Canon bodies, and when my Nikon friends use them they are constantly muttering. It just doesn't feel right to them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So take some time and get what suits YOU. You'll be happier in the end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2873" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T21:24:17.613" />
  <row Id="6291" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6277" CreationDate="2011-01-01T21:34:23.497" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While there are a lot of ways to approach this question, the two things that stand out to me, in this modern and competitive market (where many of the brands are very similar in many ways, especially &quot;quality&quot;, however one chooses to define that), are these:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ergonomics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Different brands have different controls -- from the positioning and type of buttons and dials, to the &quot;UI&quot; (user interface) for the on-screen menu systems, to the shape, weight, and general ergonomic considerations of their products.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Camera models within brands will differ in these features, as well, though there tend to be some characteristics that tend to be more-or-less consistent within a given brand (e.g. the positioning of dials -- Canon and Nikon (and presumably the other brands, too, though I have less experience with them) place dials in different positions, which means finger positions are different for operating them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Things such as this are very much a matter of personal preference -- depending on obvious things such as the size of your hands (more likely to influence camera models within a brand) to subtle differences in how your hand operates that are hard to characterize (more likely to influence brand choice).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To evaluate the ergonomics of the cameras, my recommendation is very strongly to &lt;em&gt;try out the different brands you're considering&lt;/em&gt; -- hold them in your hands, shoot some photos with them, try changing various settings, etc.  Only through this sort of hands-on experience can you truly know if the ergonomics will &quot;work&quot; for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anecdote: a couple decades or so ago (well before the age of digital), I did some research when I was gearing up to buy my first SLR.  I'd liked my mom's Nikon FM (an old all-mechanical classic), and figured I'd buy a Nikon as well -- Nikon seemed to be the leading brand at the time, it was what my mom had, and various things pointed me in that direction.  So, I bought one (perhaps an &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F-601&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;N6006&lt;/a&gt;? I no longer recall), and was of course ecstatic to have my own SLR...  But I found that the feel of it somehow just &quot;wasn't right&quot; -- I didn't find the positioning of dials, settings, etc., to be intuitive to me, and I therefore ended up regularly fumbling with the controls.  One of my peers at the time had a Canon EOS-line camera, and I tried his out, and I found that it just seemed to &quot;fit&quot; me better.  The controls made sense to me, etc.  So, I returned the Nikon, and got a Canon instead.  I've primarily been a Canon shooter ever since, having re-evaluated my decision when I was first entering the world of digital, by trying out both brands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, lest you think this means my answer is &quot;go with Canon&quot;, let me just say: I've known others who have had the &lt;em&gt;exact opposite experience&lt;/em&gt; -- They've gone with Nikon specifically because the ergonomics &quot;made sense&quot; to them, and/or &quot;fit&quot; them better.  So really, it's an individual choice thing, and you need to try the cameras out to figure out which one you're likely to prefer.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;As has been mentioned in other answers, the ability to borrow equipment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I consider this to be by far a secondary factor to point 1, especially if you have a wide circle of photo-enthusiast friends (since in such circles, there are bound to be folks with various gear from any given make), but it is quite handy to be able to borrow a lens here and there, or a dedicated flash, or even a battery if yours runs dead while you're out with friends.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, this might lean you towards Canon, since you say more of your friends have them.  Still, I'd say ergonomics is a much bigger factor.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There used to be a 3rd point, too -- full frame sensors.  For a while, Canon was the only one doing them or planning to.  When I switched to digital, this was actually part of what kept me with Canon.  I wanted to be able to use the same lenses on my Canon film body and digital body, and wanted them to behave similarly.  I still have yet to actually purchase a full-frame body (though I expect my next digital will be one), but I knew I would want to one day (and I do, and I will do so, I'm sure).  At the time I was considering the switch, though, Nikon didn't have a full-frame offering, and as far as anyone could predict at the time, they never intended to.  Many of their lenses were different between film and digital, and this just seemed limiting to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, times have changed.  Nikon is now very much into the full-frame market, and Canon sells a number of lenses that are digital-only.  Still, something to maybe be aware of...  I haven't looked at Nikon's lens line-up closely enough lately to know if this would be something that would matter to me today if I were making the choice again (as for Canon, I generally don't buy EF-S (digital-only) lenses, because I want my lenses to work on full-frame and/or film bodies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this helps!  (And ooh, look, as I was writing this, another vote (answer) for ergonomics &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6277/beginner-photographer-which-brand-to-pick-dslr/6290#6290&quot;&gt;came in&lt;/a&gt;.  Ah well, still figured this was worth finishing.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And good luck on your entry into the world of DSLRs!!  May you get many years of enjoyment from it.  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T21:34:23.497" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6293" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6265" CreationDate="2011-01-01T22:29:14.227" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Get faster at post processing, I am currently about 2 months and 1000 pictures behind in processing, and I am currently on a Eurotrip racking up more, I need to get faster and picking keepers, and processing them for the web. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T22:29:14.227" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-01T22:29:14.227" />
  <row Id="6294" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6274" CreationDate="2011-01-01T23:15:17.483" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A few different things to try (in my order of preference):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Baking Soda&lt;/strong&gt;: Make a paste of baking soda and water. Spread it onto the metal and let it sit for 10 - 15 minutes (your mileage may vary depending on how deep the rust is. Reapply and let it sit longer if necessary). Wipe the baking soda away with a damp rag and gently scrub any remaining loose rust with toothbrush.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;White vinegar&lt;/strong&gt;: Use a Q-Tip to apply white vinegar to the rusted area. Wipe away with a damp rag. You may need to apply more than once.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sandpaper/steel wool&lt;/strong&gt;: My least favorite option in this case because you're working around optic elements and your lens isn't going to be too keen on small gritty dust getting into the cracks and moving parts, but sanding will work- especially if the rust isn't too deep, you go slow, and are careful with cleanup.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T23:15:17.483" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6295" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6175" CreationDate="2011-01-01T23:58:34.487" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For $179.99 from Amazon.com: &lt;code&gt;Canon Powershot SX130&lt;/code&gt;.  Have used myself and &lt;em&gt;highly recommend!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-SX130IS-Stabilized-3-0-Inch/dp/B003ZSHNG8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-SX130IS-Stabilized-3-0-Inch/dp/B003ZSHNG8&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Technical Details:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shoot &lt;strong&gt;720p HD video&lt;/strong&gt; with stereo sound while using the optical zoom&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;High-powered &lt;strong&gt;12x wide-angle optical zoom&lt;/strong&gt; with Optical Image Stabilizer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Scene modes&lt;/strong&gt; like Miniature Effect for Movie and Fisheye Effect; Advanced Smart AUTO&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;DIGIC 4 Image Processor, with &lt;strong&gt;12.1 megapixels; 3.0-inch wide LCD&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/XSi4T.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="880" LastActivityDate="2011-01-01T23:58:34.487" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6296" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6256" CreationDate="2011-01-02T00:31:20.270" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2593/why-do-some-lenses-cost-so-much/2595#2595&quot;&gt;I've said it before&lt;/a&gt; and I'll say it again:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's because it's what the market will bear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have no idea the R&amp;amp;D costs or the production costs into making such a lens--unless those people here who have speculated are, in fact, optical engineers involved in the development and mass production of such lenses, in which case I'll stand corrected.  We don't know if it costs a team of fifty engineers working around the clock for two years to squeeze out that extra two stops, or one engineer made it when s/he got around to it after all the other lenses got equipped with VR.  We can guess by reading between the lines in Nikon's financial statements, but we don't know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And how are such lenses produced?  Hand-made?  I doubt it, but it's possible.  I've heard anecdotally that Zeiss lenses are individually hand made and tuned, and it's that attention to detail that is reflected in their cost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So while @Stan Roger's answer provides some potential optical engineering challenges that have to be overcome for such a lens, we on the outside of the production facilities have no idea if those problems were the major ones, or if solving them warrants the price.  Other answers could also include interesting discussions about the exchange rates of yen to dollars, marketing projections, or other such topics.  All guesswork.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nikon feels that the lens should cost this much.  I, for one, think that they're overpriced.  If enough potential customers feel this way, look for price decreases in the coming months/years.  If the lenses sell at their current price, then Nikon priced them accordingly (and I'll be looking for another 50mm f/1.4 equivalent for my d300).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt;: Not to say &quot;I told you so&quot;, but, I told you so.&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://dpreview.com/news/1103/11030705samyang35mm.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Samyang just announced a 35mm 1.4 full frame lens&lt;/a&gt; that will retail for €379, a fraction of the Nikkor's price but with similar specs.  Will it be better or worse?  I'll wait until lens reviews come out.  But will it be &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; much worse as to justify quadrupling the price for the name of Nikon?  All discussions about the cost of the technology that goes into the lens, etc, are all justifications given by sales and marketing.  In the final analysis, if you have a competitor willing to undercut you by this much, the perhaps you have overestimated your market.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastEditorUserId="266" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-08T16:09:03.203" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T16:09:03.203" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="6297" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6286" CreationDate="2011-01-02T09:17:30.503" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While there is not a lot of information out there on this (and thus it is possible it is actually expected behavior), all official Apple sources describe the behavior of the &quot;Show Focus Points&quot; feature working as LudoMC describes in his answer, and nowhere can I find any reference to the feature working in any way like you're experiencing it. Based on that, and on forum posts elsewhere on the internet, such as this post over on dpreview.com:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1031&amp;amp;message=35694723&amp;amp;changemode=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1031&amp;amp;message=35694723&amp;amp;changemode=1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suspect that what you're experiencing may actually be an Aperture 3 bug related to the Canon 550D model camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T09:17:30.503" />
  <row Id="6298" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5909" CreationDate="2011-01-02T09:32:24.677" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;More than one of my &quot;old-timer&quot; photography mentors has given me this advice:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lighting an obvious flaw on a person (scars, skin problems, etc.) will de-emphasize that flaw and make it fade into the picture. On the other hand, pushing it into shadow will deepen and emphasize the flaw. It seems counter-intuitive (at least it did to me), but I've seen it work time and time-again in my own portrait work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;'Back in the day' photographers mostly had to get it right in-camera... Maybe what you're really looking for isn't a post-production tool at all, but a technique for photographing your wife such that you don't have to spend a lot of time after the fact correcting things. Just a thought...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T09:32:24.677" />
  <row Id="6299" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-02T11:27:45.643" Score="9" ViewCount="399" Body="&lt;p&gt;My main computer is a laptop, so disk space is at a premium. I have been taking RAW photos on and off for 18 months and I'm worried about disk space now. What options do I have for backing up my files? Burning the whole lot to DVD seems like a laborious process. I've had bad experiences with external harddrives. Are there other options I'm missing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Burning the whole lot to DVDs seems laborious and awkward&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;External hard drives look like a reasonable option, but I've had one break on me, so I don't want my only backup to be on the one drive. Two external harddrives?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Online backup seems like a possibility, but I imagine that it will be expensive to house ~40GB+ of photos.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there other options I'm missing? Within the above three categories, what advice can you give me about how to proceed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[edit: an ideal solution would be open source and work natively in linux]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2923" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-02T12:39:49.400" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T12:00:13.523" Title="What are backup options for the lazy but paranoid dSLR user?" Tags="&lt;open-source&gt;&lt;backup&gt;" AnswerCount="13" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="6300" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6299" CreationDate="2011-01-02T11:34:10.937" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My solution is to use Apple Time Machine, this way I haven't to configure anything else and the backup is up to date.&#xA;When I import my RAW files to my Mac, Time Machine makes and instant copy of them.&#xA;Tine Machine is a differentialn (or incremental) backup, so it only stores the new things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2924" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T11:34:10.937" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6301" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6299" CreationDate="2011-01-02T13:00:29.550" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd say that external hard drive and online backup are the only realistic options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;External hard drive - cheapest solution; note that even if the external hard drive does break, you will still have a copy of the data on your computer (costs about $50 for a 500GB drive).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Online backup - safest, but most expensive solution&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Dropbox: &lt;strong&gt;$9.99/50GB/month&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;$19.99/100GB/month&lt;/strong&gt; (i.e. &lt;strong&gt;20¢/GB/month&lt;/strong&gt;), handles incremental syncing automatically; see &lt;a href=&quot;http://dropbox.com/features&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;features&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://amazon.com/s3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Amazon S3&lt;/a&gt;: Starting at; storage:&lt;strong&gt;14¢/GB/month&lt;/strong&gt;, upload:&lt;strong&gt;10¢/GB&lt;/strong&gt;, download:&lt;strong&gt;15¢/GB&lt;/strong&gt;. Syncing must be handled by the user; no built-in syncing function.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My advice is to stick with an external hard drive; it pays for itself in half a year if you would otherwise be using Dropbox. Your previous bad experience is probably due to chance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a side note, you &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; look into &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/#q=RAID&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;RAID&lt;/a&gt;, although setting up a RAID array is quite complicated and will only be possible if your laptop has a second drive bay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're running out of space on your laptop's HDD I would recommend buying a bigger HDD for your laptop, then using your laptop's HDD as a backup drive. You can buy an enclosure for the backup drive for about $20. The process of transferring the data and the drives themselves is quite simple but will require some technical knowledge which you can find help with at &lt;a href=&quot;http://superuser.com/&quot;&gt;superuser.com&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're not willing to mess about with drives then you'll have to either buy &lt;em&gt;two&lt;/em&gt; external hard drives, or use an online backup service such as Dropbox.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1352" LastEditorUserId="1352" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-04T12:00:13.523" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T12:00:13.523" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="6302" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3537" CreationDate="2011-01-02T13:21:53.043" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not really here for self-promotion, but I would like to point out that I have put a lot of work into creating a website (&lt;a href=&quot;http://pttl.mattdm.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://pttl.mattdm.org/&lt;/a&gt;) specifically giving a detailed comparison of features of different Pentax P-TTL-compatible flash options, both from Pentax and third-party (Metz, Sigma, Promaster, Tumax/Generic).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hopefully this will be helpful to people!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't cover non-dedicated automatic and manual flashes which also work with Pentax, so in that sense it's not completely comprehensive, but for P-TTL, I don't think I've left anything out. Let me know if I'm missing something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T13:21:53.043" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6303" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6299" CreationDate="2011-01-02T13:48:07.347" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had the exactly the same problem - but with over 100GB of photos.&#xA;I used to keep backup on the external HDD but after fire alarm, I realized I want an off-site backup.&#xA;I've set up a server in another location and now I'm rsyncing photos. All my machines are running Linux - so far it works well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2926" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T13:48:07.347" />
  <row Id="6304" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6299" CreationDate="2011-01-02T14:06:32.783" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lets admit the fact that things fail, and if you really want a photo to last forever, then printing is the only option and another discussion about what type of printing lasts!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Short Term&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to build your own solution I would suggest one of the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Either&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1x White Box PC that is Dual Core and 2Gb RAM or higher&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1x500+Gb HDD for main OS&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Several 1xTB HDD for data repository&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With this you can now install GNU/Linux (or &lt;a href=&quot;http://freenas.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;FreeNAS&lt;/a&gt;) onto the primary HDD and then use ZFS (via fuse if using GNU/Linux) to setup the other HDD in &lt;a href=&quot;http://superuser.com/questions/9991/is-zfs-and-raid-z-worth-using-in-home-made-nas-freenas-for-example&quot;&gt;ZFS Raid&lt;/a&gt;. This gives redundancy and ensures that your photos are safe from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rot&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;bitrot&lt;/a&gt;, and is the most robust solution given current technology and options.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;OR&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thecus.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Thecus&lt;/a&gt; NAS that can take care of this for you and save you the headache of having to worry about building your own PC.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We wont worry about performance as we are more interested in ensuring a data is robust for the short term.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After you have this you now need a way of getting this data of-site for an extra redundancy plan. This essentially boils down to using any of the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Replicate afore mentioned setup and sync across the Internet (using a VPN of course!)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use a smaller external HDD (with mirrored drives for redundancy) to replicate to and rotate your offsite storage&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use Blueray DVD's to burn your catalog to and storing these off-site. Remember to always do a complete burn as this mediums life is probably around 2-5 years.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Long Term&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have no real answer here and its something myself that I am worried about. This is the problem with the digital age. In 25 years am I really going to be able to either access my data or even be able to read my data?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have no plan for this myself and am basically running on blind faith that holographic storage will be available before the end of my lifetime as anything magnetic/optical as a storage medium is vulnerable to the elements of a period of time&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T14:06:32.783" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6305" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6306" CreationDate="2011-01-02T14:11:05.500" Score="3" ViewCount="140" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi everybody. I would like to buy a second body, I currently have Nikon D40, which sadly doesn't have servo motor for lenses, so I can only use AF-S lenses. It also cannot do metering on non-AF lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm a hobbyist and my fiancee is too, but we'd like to have a second body so each of us can take one body if we want to go to separate places. I'd like to have an older body &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't have a lot of money in my photo budget (about 300 EUR = $400), so I was browsing ebay and local ads, and found these options (compared to D40):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;D80 - has servo, 10 MP, more solid plastic body, more focus points, 0.66 kg weight, same generation as D40&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;D100 - metal body, has servo, meters with a lot of lenses, but &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;D1X - huge metal body, 1.1 kg weight, supports and meters any lenses from AI up. Better viewfinder, and full-size sensor.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With D100 and D1 I could get bunch of old manual lenses. I actually have some old manual lenses, but they are very hard to work with on D40 (as it can't meter with old lenses)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that D1 is a boat anchor, but I've held it in my hands and it fits. It was kind of my dream camera since I learned about it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not going pro or anything, I have a job in entirely different profession. I only take pictures for the joy of it. I mostly don't need to shoot fast-moving stuff like sports, so using older, lower tech camera would be OK with me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What would you recommend?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2925" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T17:04:10.853" Title="D80 vs D100 vs D1X" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;comparison&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="6306" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6305" CreationDate="2011-01-02T15:03:38.550" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Firstly the D1X doesn't have a full size (35mm) sensor it's a 1.5 crop like the others. It's also getting pretty old now so unless you really need what it specifically offers (i.e. build quality) I would look elsewhere. Cameras have come on a long way in the last ten years, image quality wise I would expect it to be blown out of the water by the current entry level models. By image quality I mean resolution, sharpness, colour reproduction and noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Same applies to the D100 to an extent. You'd be surprised by what basic features are missing from even pro level bodies that are a certain age. I'm not a Nikon shooter so hopefully someone else can give you some other alternatives with regard to lens compatibility, but my advice would be to look for something released in the last four years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know you're only doing this as a hobby and so maybe image quality doesn't matter, however I speak from experience when I recommend you get the newest body you can. I recently upgraded from a 1D mkII to a mkIV, a gap of about 5 years in terms of camera developments. Instantly I found the new body is just so much nicer to use, the controls are laid out better and more logically, there are loads of useful settings that were missing before. The screen is so much better I don't know how I coped with the tiny low res screen on the mkII. Battery life is also better, partially because of newer technology and partially because the original battery is worn out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the end of the day a body that is pleasant and fun to use is the important thing. If the new body is a pain to use compared to your D40, you wont look forward to using it and wont get good pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-02T15:17:33.800" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T15:17:33.800" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6307" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6256" CreationDate="2011-01-02T15:12:52.727" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer, the 35 f/1.4 is more expensive than the 35 f/1.8 because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The f/1.4 lens is full frame lens, it projects a larger image circle, and also has a larger aperture so it's a more difficult lens to design and manufacture.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Lenses with higher optical performance also tend to have better build quality elsewhere (e.g. metal bodies) and last longer.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Nikon will sell fewer f/1.4s so they need larger margins to recover the R&amp;amp;D cost.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;People will pay the higher price.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T15:12:52.727" />
  <row Id="6308" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6299" CreationDate="2011-01-02T15:21:39.477" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two standard hard disks is the simplest and most economical backup solution. One disk is kept off site in case your house burns down, if you have somewhere to keep it at work taking the disk home as weekends to sync and then bringing it to work Monday morning is a good solution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Every 12-18 months replace the disks with new ones with double the capacity, to keep up with your expanding collection of photos. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This method works great under linux with a little shell scripting!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T15:21:39.477" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6309" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6299" CreationDate="2011-01-02T16:12:43.393" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While external storage might be a good solution, it is still in-house, if anything happens, you will still lose everything (having two disks and keeping them seperated still requires more work).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I made the decision to research online backup providers. I didn't need synchronization, so it's a little bit cheaper (bigger packages) in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it's just for home use I can recommend MozyHome. It will cost $4,99 a month, for unlimited storage (am now using ~80GB).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you decide on a backup solution, please let us know, everybody is always looking for better ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Kind regards,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthias Vance&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2927" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T16:12:43.393" />
  <row Id="6310" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6299" CreationDate="2011-01-02T16:41:47.690" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have to have an &lt;strong&gt;onsite solution&lt;/strong&gt; (easy, quick and cheap) and also an &lt;strong&gt;offsite&lt;/strong&gt; storage (if something happens to your house (flooding, fire, robbery), you lose everything).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The onsite solution is easy. As said, external drives are the best, you will then have tons of applications to help you synchronise this. Avoid manual backups as you'll end up forgetting this and realize it when you'll need to recover the files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the offsite solution, I went to &lt;a href=&quot;http://aws.amazon.com/s3/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Amazon S3&lt;/a&gt;. It's extremely reliable and quite cheap. Check &lt;a href=&quot;http://aws.amazon.com/s3/#pricing&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;their pricing&lt;/a&gt;. at the end, this small fee is nothing to keep your most important files secure.  From their monthly fee calculator, storing 40GB will be around 5$ a month. You'll also have to pay an even smaller fee for transfers (uploading a GB is 0.10$).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It will be the equivalent of a sandwich per month to keep your files secure and always available in case of issues with your laptop and onsite storage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2807" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T16:41:47.690" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6311" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6299" CreationDate="2011-01-02T17:00:54.647" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't consider online backup a realistic option at this point. the cost effectiveness for larger collections isn't there. If you stop and look at how long it'd take to restore after a catastrophic failure, the time aspect is a killer right now. Maybe some day. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;hard disk is your only realistic option, and is cost effective. Multiple copies, and offsite storage are your best options.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Iv'e written about this -- see:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chuqui.com/2009/11/more-than-you-wanted-to-know-about-backups/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.chuqui.com/2009/11/more-than-you-wanted-to-know-about-backups/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chuqui.com/2009/11/some-more-thoughts-on-backups/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.chuqui.com/2009/11/some-more-thoughts-on-backups/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chuqui.com/2009/12/following-my-own-advice-on-backups/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.chuqui.com/2009/12/following-my-own-advice-on-backups/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chuqui.com/2010/03/what-to-do-when-you-realize-youre-running-out-of-disk/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.chuqui.com/2010/03/what-to-do-when-you-realize-youre-running-out-of-disk/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;that last one talks about the specific situation -- sitting on a laptop and realizing you're running out of disk, and what I did about it. To protect yourself from serious data loss isn't difficult, but it means getting serious about doing something and building habits and a work flow that makes it happen. it's easy to get lazy and let it slide, and then realize you've got holes in the backups just when you need them... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T17:00:54.647" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6312" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6277" CreationDate="2011-01-02T19:40:19.417" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a lot of good common sense replies to your query already, however I haven't seen (maybe I missed it) probably one of the most important reasons to pick any brand - the lenses and your use for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You need to consider what you are going to be shooting &amp;amp; what your budget is and maybe let us know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are a sports shooter then you need fast AF and there Canon / Nikon rule the roost (not that other brands can't shoot sports and do it superbly too) and low light is becoming less of an issue nowadays as cameras can handle higher and higher ISO's which means less expensive lenses can also handle low light (e.g. at least an F2.8 300 was de riguor but now with high ISO capability an F4 300 - which is much less expensive - can easily handle the same shot).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For portraiture, street, landscape etc. then many other systems can offer you just as many options so don't rule out Sony, Pentax, Olympus etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For macro it's the lenses more than the camera that are important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe you need a light kit, something to take with you everywhere - in which case the micro 4/3 Olympus or Sony Nex are near perfect. Or a Canon G10 if you don't need inter-changeable lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you need full weather resistance (for shooting in inclement weather, in outdoor sports or on trips to challenging locations - arctic, jungle, windy and dusty / sandy environments) then take a very close look at Pentax for their superbly weather-proofed, but not expensive, bullet-proofed DSLRs. The Canon 7D would be another option, but full WR lenses are Pentaxes speciality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are on a budget but still want great glass then Pentax make wonderful lenses and virtually any lense they have ever made over the last fifty years will sit happily on their very latest cameras (although their fantastic primes cost a lot - though not compared to Canon L glass which are far more expensive for similar quality) and gain instant IS/VR/SR since Pentax (and Olympus) have the shake reduction built into their bodies - it may be better in-lense but those lenses are very expensive to gain only maybe 1 stop over on in-body option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Choose your camera by selecting your lenses first - by focal length, to suit your budget, type (zooms or primes) and by quality - and you won't go far wrong, cameras come and go but the lenses keep on going (and don't lose their value unlike cameras) !  Note that all of the good manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony &amp;amp; Olympus) have some wonderful lenses and probably more than enough in each range to suit your requirements now and in the future (unless you require long long reach then Canon / Nikon do that best - but in exceptionally expensive lenses costing in the thousands of dollars). There are also some fantastic lenses to suit all mounts from Tamron / Sigma &amp;amp; Tokina to name just three. Lenses that will in many cases out-perform even the camera brand's own more expensive lenses - but at a lower price point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also consider the crop factor (if wanting to shoot wide or have long reach is a major consideration) :&#xA;Canon x1.6, Nikon, Sony &amp;amp; Pentax x1.5 and Olympus x2 (great for reach not so good for wide).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some high quality &amp;amp; top quality (all APS-C not FF) cameras to consider : &#xA;Canon 7D &amp;amp; 60D, Nikon D7000 or 300s, Sony A55, Pentax K5 or Kr (both of these have the superb new Sony sensor - as does the Kx but without the latest tweaking - I believe the Nikon D7000 also uses the same sensor as the K5 too). All of these cameras have fantastic sensors capable of making high ISOs very usable (some even from 100 - 12,800) though the top end of 25,600 &amp;amp; 51,200 are not usable for most people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Probably the best value cheaper DSLR and kit lense set on the market is the Pentax Kx with 18-50 &amp;amp; 55-300. Roughly US$500- 600 if you want to save money and still get a great performing, low light, camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally I would not choose your DSLR just because your friends have the same brand. There is more than enough information on the web to tell you all you need to know, and answer all your questions, on the brand you choose. Every brand has excellent forum(s) where you can learn from experts and have your queries answered. Do your research, find out the strengths &amp;amp; weaknesses of each brand, and get your hands on the cameras first before making a decision !&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2891" LastEditorUserId="2891" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-02T19:57:46.413" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T19:57:46.413" />
  <row Id="6313" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6177" CreationDate="2011-01-02T20:20:24.780" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is true that the image at maximum aperture is somewhat softer.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;How much so depends very much on the lens in question.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The only way to answer the question properly is with careful measurement.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an example, the graph below shows the variation in edge blur (in pixels, near the center of the image) against aperture for a Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro lens.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a moderately priced high quality lens that delivers an edge blur of less than 1.5 pixel between F4.0 and F11.0, an excellent result.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;At F3.2 and 2.8 the image is a little softer with an edge blur of 1.8 and 2.0 pixels, respectively, which is not half bad. But this is for the center of the image, near the borders it falls off more sharply.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The measure of sharpness I use is edge blur, using the slant edge technique and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.quickmtf.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;QuickMTF&lt;/a&gt; program. Edge blur is used instead of MTF or lines/mm because it has immediate and intuitively obvious meaning.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://lh5.ggpht.com/_LFEMDNEmrkg/S4LHWeXtzmI/AAAAAAAAASc/Um9USX5z1o0/pentax_study_1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T20:20:24.780" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6314" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6321" CreationDate="2011-01-02T21:28:56.197" Score="0" ViewCount="113" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a list of photo filenames that I uploaded to Flickr before I got Lightroom, in this format:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;P2000518.jpg&#xA;P2000549.jpg&#xA;P2000577.jpg&#xA;[etc.]&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and I wondered: is there a way to tell Lightroom to import such a list and use it as a collection? (I've already imported all of my photos to Lightroom)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or do I have to add the photos to a collection manually? (I've done some heavy hacking to read data from the sqlite database of Lightroom, but I don't dare modify the database myself)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="530" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T23:13:04.513" Title="importing an external list of photographs to Lightroom" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;import&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="6315" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6316" CreationDate="2011-01-02T21:44:19.530" Score="1" ViewCount="112" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm referring to the layer &quot;Background&quot; that is automatically created. What's the purpose of this layer? Will I loose some functionality if I duplicate it and remove the original?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I feel this layer is very limited in comparison with &quot;normal&quot; layers; you can't apply layer styles or change layer properties.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2071" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T11:08:24.237" Title="Regarding the &quot;background layer&quot; in Photoshop" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;background&gt;&lt;layer&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="6316" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6315" CreationDate="2011-01-02T22:18:38.560" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Think of that layer as the actual 'image'. That is a simplification, but it serves a point. If you duplicate it, feel free to remove it. Or you could just drag the lock-icon to the trash-icon and edit the background layer directly. I usually duplicate the background layer and do my sharpening on the duplicated layer, so I can go back, reduce the sharpening and such without going back in my editing history. I like it that way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2017" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T22:18:38.560" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6317" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6314" CreationDate="2011-01-02T22:22:40.913" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd probably import the pictures manually and then create a set from the 'Latest import'-collection. Less hacking means less risk of shrewing up :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2017" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T22:22:40.913" />
  <row Id="6318" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6315" CreationDate="2011-01-02T22:27:28.937" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it's just there by tradition, a feature from the past, when adding layers was a new concept.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my opinion, there is no special need for this background layer anymore. You can delete it, or you can use it if you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2931" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T22:27:28.937" />
  <row Id="6319" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6265" CreationDate="2011-01-02T22:28:32.873" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm doing another project 365, just finished my first and it was really fun. And when doing it again, I'm planning to do more squares and other weird aspect ratios. Another goal is using my tripod more. And more portraits. That will do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2017" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T22:28:32.873" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-02T22:28:32.873" />
  <row Id="6320" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6254" CreationDate="2011-01-02T22:33:46.160" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use a nice everyday backpack, and keep my camera wrapped in a tshirt as far up in the backpack as I can. This particular backpack (a Haglöfs, a swedish brand) opens from the side, which means I can open it and remove my gear without taking it off, which is nice. I suppose a &lt;em&gt;real&lt;/em&gt; camera backpack would be even better, but I need to carry around everything else every day (no car, going to a university) so I haven't found any good camera bag yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2017" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T22:33:46.160" />
  <row Id="6321" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6314" CreationDate="2011-01-02T22:36:49.790" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, you can create a Smart Collection for these images. The process is no difficult but could take a little time to complete.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lightroom's Smart Collections exported definitions are simple text files. They are not difficult to dissect and recreate at all. Based on your description I would create a Smart Collection in Lightroom with the selection being that the filename contains &quot;p2000518.jpg&quot; or &quot;p2000549.jpg&quot; after that you could export the Smart Collection settings and open the resulting .smcol file in a text editor. It will likely look like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;s = {&#xA;    id = &quot;15D46923-B382-4322-A3B9-19347EBF7080&quot;,&#xA;    internalName = &quot;File Name Selection&quot;,&#xA;    title = &quot;File Named&quot;,&#xA;    type = &quot;LibrarySmartCollection&quot;,&#xA;    value = {&#xA;        {&#xA;            criteria = &quot;filename&quot;,&#xA;            operation = &quot;any&quot;,&#xA;            value = &quot;p2000518.jpg&quot;,&#xA;            value2 = &quot;&quot;,&#xA;        },&#xA;        {&#xA;            criteria = &quot;filename&quot;,&#xA;            operation = &quot;any&quot;,&#xA;            value = &quot;p2000549.jpg&quot;,&#xA;            value2 = &quot;&quot;,&#xA;        },&#xA;        combine = &quot;union&quot;,&#xA;    },&#xA;    version = 0,&#xA;}&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can then continue the pattern using copy and paste or a mail merge in your word processing program. I also delete the ID number and when it reimports it worked file. I created 132 rules to do smart collections by month for the past decade and it worked no problem. Since you said you had already gone into the SQL database I figure this idea should make sense. If you need more information let me know and I can flush it out more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1901" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T22:36:49.790" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6322" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4422" CreationDate="2011-01-02T22:43:45.450" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just imported/created 132 Smart Collections into a catalog of 13,000 images in LR 3.3 and there was no noticeable performance hit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1901" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T22:43:45.450" />
  <row Id="6323" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6299" CreationDate="2011-01-02T22:49:54.793" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I went through this question a while back and decided to go with offsite storage with a local convenience copy. I have a complete blog post about it on &lt;a href=&quot;http://bradfordbenn.com/2010/10/2010-photography-workflow/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;my blog&lt;/a&gt; but to paraphrase, my solution was the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take lots of pictures &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Import pictures into Lightroom Catalog called &quot;Originals&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In Lightroom use the Publish feature to upload the originals straight out of camera shots to SmugMug which has unlimited file storage size and is hosted on Amazon S3 servers.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Import and edit the photos in Lightroom Catalog called &quot;Working&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I have everything locally, I also have originals (JPG format) stored on SmugMug. For really great photos I keep the RAW files as DNGs on my JungleDisk site (also hosted on Amazon S3 servers).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One can just as easily do all of this using open source tools or just the web portals for SmugMug and JungleDisk. I have placed files offsite in case something really bad happens and have also made the accessible without &quot;my computer&quot; in case it goes kaploowe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1901" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T22:49:54.793" />
  <row Id="6324" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6314" CreationDate="2011-01-02T23:13:04.513" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure I understand. You say you want Lightroom to import a list, but you also say you already imported the photos? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming you have imported all your photos in Lightroom, and what you are trying to do is create a collection of photos that all start with P2000 (followed by 3 digits and .jpg), did you try creating a simple smart collection? The first and only rule of that smart collection would be &quot;Filename&quot;, the action &quot;Starts with&quot;, and the parameter &quot;P2000&quot;. Am I missing something?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or if they have been just recently imported, you have all of them in the Catalog section in the left panel in Library Mode, under &quot;Previous Import&quot;. Create another collection, say &quot;Foo&quot;, right-click, select &quot;Set as Target Collection&quot;, then go to &quot;Previous Import&quot;, select all, right click and select &quot;Add to Target Collection&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2011-01-02T23:13:04.513" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6325" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6327" CreationDate="2011-01-03T01:24:43.243" Score="2" ViewCount="205" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I put a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/1923/AF-NIKKOR-35mm-f%252F2D.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikkor 35mm f/2 FX&lt;/a&gt; lens on a DX camera, is it still 35mm f/2 or has the effective focal length / minimum aperture changed because it is being used on a smaller format than what it was designed for?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks,&#xA;PaulH&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2832" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T08:19:37.223" Title="Using FX lenses on a DX camera" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6326" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-03T01:32:06.870" Score="7" ViewCount="304" Body="&lt;p&gt;Over the years, I've accumulated a lot of pictures, across a bunch of different machines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think I've mostly kept them in a yyyy/mm/ directory structure, but especially with some of the older pictures, there seem to be a lot of duplicates.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What's the best way to identify the duplicates?  Are there good tools to do this, or am I going to have to write something on my own?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="134" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T03:45:29.460" Title="How can I identify duplicate image files?" Tags="&lt;photo-management&gt;&lt;duplicates&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6327" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6325" CreationDate="2011-01-03T01:41:39.343" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Aperture is unaffected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The field of view becomes 35mm x (the crop factor of your sensor), which is 1.5 in the case of Nikon DX cameras (It's also 1.5 for Pentax and Sony, 1.6 for Canon and 2 for Panasonic &amp;amp; Olympus).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So your 35mm Nikon lens has a 35mm x 1.5 = 52.5mm &quot;35mm equivalent&quot; field of view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that the &lt;em&gt;perspective&lt;/em&gt; doesn't change, just the amount of 'stuff' you can fit in the frame.  The image will still look like a 35mm image as shot on a full-frame sensor, but with the sides cropped in to give you the field of view of a 52.5mm lens on a full-frame sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Most people round that to 50mm &quot;35mm equivalent&quot; field of view, regardless of 1.5 or 1.6 crop factor)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1615" LastEditorUserId="1615" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-03T03:23:32.400" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T03:23:32.400" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6328" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5311" CreationDate="2011-01-03T01:45:50.370" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://shop.maccreate.com/products/Aperture-Inspector-1.0-%252d-Find-Out-More-About-Your-Photography.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Aperture Inspector&quot;&lt;/a&gt; extracts this information from an Apple Aperture library.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1615" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T01:45:50.370" />
  <row Id="6329" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6326" CreationDate="2011-01-03T02:40:38.257" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A number of programs can find duplicates based on image contents. Some asset management apps will do it and there are also dedicated programs. If you Google 'detect duplicate images' you'll see quite a few options. See which ones are available for your platform.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another solution is to simply import the files with the 'ignore duplicate option'. Picasa, which is free, can do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T02:40:38.257" />
  <row Id="6330" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6332" CreationDate="2011-01-03T03:17:28.473" Score="5" ViewCount="270" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the past, I've enjoyed practicing studio photography with an immediate display of the just captured image on a computer monitor. I've done this using Canon's capture software for my 20D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, I haven't done this in a while and I've moved to Win7 64 in the mean time. ie no support for Canon's software or the 20D driver (I've always preferred a cardreader for getting my shots)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was thinking of getting one of the EyeFi pro cards anyway and I'm thinking it may also enable this function.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;my Questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Assuming my wifi is in range of the card, how long after taking a shot does the picture file show up on my computer?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is there a program out there that displays the picture most recently added to a folder?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Maybe the EyeFi software already supports this?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="98" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T05:06:14.353" Title="Can I use an EyeFi card to get an immediate display of my shots on my computer screen?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;studio&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6331" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6299" CreationDate="2011-01-03T03:19:18.330" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're mixing up backups and a simple memory extension:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will need at least two copies of each file on separate devices to have what is called a backup. I'd recommend an external HDD for this. Your previous experience with an external HDD only confirms how necessary this is - internal hard drives are not technically different from external ones, so your internal one could fail just the same way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, in case you've got too little memory on your internal hard drive, you'll need two external ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2069" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T03:19:18.330" />
  <row Id="6332" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6330" CreationDate="2011-01-03T03:39:55.823" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You might have a hard time making that combination work at all and/or work reliably being as Eye-Fi cards are SD cards, and the Canon 20D takes CF cards. A few people I know have tried to use SD to CF adapters but their results have been mixed, at best. On the Eye-Fi site they say the following about using SD-&gt;CF adapters:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Eye-Fi does not support the use of SD to CF card adapters with the Eye-Fi Card. Eye-Fi has not tested the Eye-Fi Card in cameras designed to use CF cards and has no explicit knowledge to share about the success of these adapters when used with an Eye-Fi Card. We only support the Eye-Fi Card in cameras designed to use SD or SDHC cards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are aware that many users want the Eye-Fi Card functionality in their CF-based cameras and have opted to use a CF card adapter to get the functionality offered by an Eye-Fi Card. The following list of known issues with CF card adapters is a collection of information gathered directly from customer and blogger descriptions of issues they have experienced. By sharing this information Eye-Fi accepts no responsibility for problems encountered when using the Eye-Fi Card and a CF Card adapter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wireless range of the Eye-Fi Card is noticeably reduced.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Formatting the Eye-Fi Card in a CF adapter has caused the Eye-Fi Card to fail.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;File corruption of photos.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Eye-Fi Card will not work in Canon 20D, 30D and 40D cameras when used with an “SD/MMC” CF adapter. Use of the newer “SD/SDHC” CF adapters appear to work with the Eye-Fi Card in these cameras.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you need something more reliable than the 'it might work, but if it doesn't you're on your own' statements from Eye-Fi, and you have a stack of money to burn you can always go the route of buying the Canon WFT-E1 wireless transmitter... It's about as robust as a wireless solution can be, it's an official Canon product, so its supported by Canon, and it's about $900. Ouch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now if you're willing to set aside the requirement of 'wireless,' then it's actually relatively easy to get the functionality that you're after, and for a lot less than $900. A simple USB cable to tether your camera to your computer and Adobe Lightroom 3's tethering functionality will give you instant display of any image you take. You can get ~16 feet of play on that USB cable and the setup (assuming you're not already a Lightroom user) will run you about $10 for the cable, and $250 for Lightroom. If you need more than 16 feet you can buy cables with 'signal boosters' built in (such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.showmecables.com/viewItem.asp?idProduct=2475&amp;amp;gclid=CKixusvhn6YCFQQPbAod8RNZoA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this cable&lt;/a&gt;) which can get you even more distance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've used the Canon wireless transmitter setup in a friends studio and his feedback was that the system was great, but expensive and more 'fiddly' than he would have liked. I use the tethered setup I describe on a daily basis in my own studio and it is rock solid, easy to setup and maintain and super convenient. Soooo...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unless you absolutely need to be able to shoot 30+ feet away from your workstation you'll probably find the tethered solution to be more cost effective and reliable. On the other hand, if you've got a studio space that is large enough that you need to be 30+ feet away from your workstation than probably the $900 for the wireless option isn't that much of a stretch for you anyway... That and the assistant you'll want to hire to keep everything running smoothly. ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-04T05:06:14.353" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T05:06:14.353" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6333" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6193" CreationDate="2011-01-03T04:54:18.007" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.printspacenyc.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Print Space in NYC&lt;/a&gt; does dip and dunk C-41 processing up to 8 X 10 sheet film, at a very competitive price.  There are many 5 star &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.yelp.com/biz/print-space-new-york&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;reviews on yelp.com&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2932" LastEditorUserId="2425" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-03T20:07:23.600" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T20:07:23.600" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-03T04:54:18.007" />
  <row Id="6334" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6325" CreationDate="2011-01-03T08:19:37.223" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The above is a nice summary, but it contains a common misunderstanding - that the &lt;em&gt;perspective doesn't change&lt;/em&gt;, which it does. The angle of view of the lense is multiplied with ca 1.5 (or 1.6 if you use Canon, or 1.3 if you use an expensive Canon), which also changes the perspective as much as if you'd used a 52.2 mm lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used a Nikkor 35 mm f2 extensivly as a 'normal' lens, and it was really nice. Then I bought a Nikon 35 mm f1.8 and it was even better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2017" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T08:19:37.223" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6335" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6337" CreationDate="2011-01-03T10:30:34.140" Score="19" ViewCount="819" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm a newbie in the world of DSLR photography, having played around with my Canon 550d for few months. After posting my &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4333/sartorialist-like-street-photography-lens&quot;&gt;first question&lt;/a&gt; here and getting some superb advices I decided to buy Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens. My primary interest is a street fashion photography. Here you can find my initial results with this gear: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/55855659@N08/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;my Flickr page&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is: is it worth to upgrade the above mentioned lens to Canon 50mm f/1.4? Will the out-of-focus (DoF) area be significantly larger? Also, how much better are photos taken in dark light conditions? For example using my current lens, I rarely can use ISO lower than 800. It would be great to be able to use values as low as 400 or 200.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would really appreciate some real-world examples that compares those lenses:)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One more thing - if the answer is &quot;no&quot; - what would be your lens of choice that will nicely upgrade my setup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1860" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T22:22:15.957" Title="Is it worth to upgrade from Canon 50mm f/1.8 to Canon 50mm f/1.4 on 550d?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;street-photography&gt;&lt;upgrade&gt;&lt;50mm&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6336" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6339" CreationDate="2011-01-03T10:45:34.590" Score="5" ViewCount="102" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dear all, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;this may sound as a very stupid question so please don't laugh at me. My old digital camera (Nikon Coolpix s6) was recording the EXIF orientation tag in the JPEG file, so my picture viewer software was displaying all pictures properly rotated without any &quot;manual&quot; rotation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My new camera (Olympus) is not doing this job with the orientation tag and if I want to see my picture on the computer I have to manually rotate them (I'm using a lossless software for doing this).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But now comes my question. If I want to lab-print my pictures should I send out the original ones or also the rotated ones are good? In other word, will the software/hardware of the lab guess that the picture is not 4:3 but 3:4 and automatically rotate it back or not? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I didn't have this problem before because with the Nikon the display rotation was actually only virtual because the real file was not touched at all and was only a matter of displaying. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks a lot for your answer,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;toto&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2934" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T22:11:08.040" Title="Printing rotated pictures" Tags="&lt;exif&gt;&lt;printing&gt;&lt;rotation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="6337" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6335" CreationDate="2011-01-03T10:52:15.790" Score="26" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Having used both lenses I'd say no it's not worth the upgrade.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The f/1.4 version is two thirds of a stop faster, which means where you'd use ISO 800 before you'd theoretically be able to use ISO 500. However that's only in the centre of the frame, the corners get significantly darker wide open. That sounds good, however I rarely use mine wide open so for me there's no advantage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 50 f/1.4 is soft wide open. All high aperture lenses are but this one especially so. It also suffers from bloom and longitudinal CA, defects that make the images unacceptable to me. I had heard all this before buying the lens and bought three copies originally (from different retailers, different batches). All performed the same so I don't think there's anything wrong with my lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It improves stopped down to f/1.8 and is good at f/2. Conventional wisdom says that you'd be better using the 50 f/1.4 stopped down than the 50 f/1.8 wide open. This is incorrect. Whilst the 50 f/1.4 does improve stopped down, it starts off so soft that it is &lt;strong&gt;only equal to the 50 f/1.8 at f/1.8!&lt;/strong&gt; dpreview's lens tests actually indicate the the 50 f/1.8 is in fact &lt;em&gt;slightly sharper&lt;/em&gt; wide open than the other lens stopped down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_50_1p8_ii_c16/page3.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_50_1p8_ii_c16/page3.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_50_1p4_c16/page4.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_50_1p4_c16/page4.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another reason to upgrade is build quality. Whilst the 50 f/1.4 is built better, it's still not as solid as Canon's other mid range lenses. The fact is the 50 f/1.4 doesn't have proper ring type ultrasonic focus motor, it has a micro USM which is no better really than a standard focus motor (though it is a little quieter). Full time manual focus is achieved by a special mechanism designed for the 50 f/1.4 and doesn't feel nearly as nice as the focus rings on genuine USM lenses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't get me wrong, the 50 f/1.4 isn't a bad lens, I've taken many excellent image with it, it's just a pretty small improvement on the 1.8, and given the quality that lens produces compared to it's price tag, it's a bit of a marvel. That's why I'd recommend any Canon shooter to buy that lens even if they rarely shoot in low light. If Canon produced 50mm lens that was 3x better to justify the 3x price it would be one of the best lenses ever made for 35mm!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When compensating for focal length (to get the same field of view) a full frame 35 gives you a depth of field that is about 1.3 stops shallower, much more than the difference between f/1.8 and f/1.4&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In short, the 50 f/1.4 doesn't justify the price increase over the 1.8, the extra aperture range isn't that useful due to the softness, it's no better optically in the standard range (f/1.8 and up). Build is better but still not &quot;solid&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So having said no I'll offer the following recommendation, get the Sigma 50 f/1.4. It's a more recent lens, built from the ground up to combat many of the problems with fast standard lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It has a bigger front element to combat vignetting (dark corners).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's sharper wide open&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It has a proper ultrasonic focus motor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't comment on build quality as I've never handled one, but as a bigger lens all round I would expect it to be a bit more solid. I don't shoot at 50mm enough to buy this in addition to the Canon but if anything happened to that lens I'd get the Sigma in a heartbeat!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;edit: if you want to go down the shallow DOF / extreme blur subject isolation route then a bigger sensor may be a better investment than a wider aperture. Used 5D mkI are going fairly cheap these days and they make excellent portrait cameras. Here's an example of the difference, 30D on the left, 5D on the right:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/FF_vs_APS-C.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;P.S.&lt;/strong&gt; I looked at your flickr stream - I really like what you're doing with the 50mm f/1.8, esp the &quot;sunset&quot; one! I wouldn't say you needed to have a shallower DOF in any of those shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-03T12:56:34.187" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T12:56:34.187" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="6338" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6315" CreationDate="2011-01-03T11:08:24.237" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can hold ALT and double-click to convert the Background Layer to a normal layer.  But consider this:  If the first thing you do is copy that layer (Ctrl J) and do all your edits on this new and any subsequent layers you might create, then you'll always have the original as a reference point.&#xA;It can be useful to do a quick &quot;before and after&quot; by holding Alt and clicking the Background layer's &quot;eye&quot; icon which will toggle all the other layers on and off.&#xA;Also: what if you decide you've over-done an edit? You can always make a copy of the bg layer, move it to the top of the stack and use a layer mask, opacity and/or blend modes to &quot;reign-in&quot; over zealous editing.&#xA;That untouched background layer can prove to be a useful safety net.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2935" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T11:08:24.237" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6339" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6336" CreationDate="2011-01-03T11:30:24.960" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The machines auto crop the photos to the correct aspect ratio for the print (which annoys me when they don't offer the ratio the pictures were taken in!) so I assume they detect the orientation by looking for the longest side.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't say this with 100% certainty, but I think if this weren't the case I think there would be masses of complaints from people who had had their portrait photos cropped to landscape resulting in lots of headless photos!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;edit: I have actually printed both portrait and landscape shots in the UK without any problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-03T12:47:57.513" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T12:47:57.513" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6340" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6299" CreationDate="2011-01-03T12:53:56.120" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Backup is one of those things where everyone has a different strategy. For me burning DVD's isn't an option anymore because it's way too small (maybe if i got a blu-ray), so nowadays I have an hybrid of the other two options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;External drives: Automatically backup photos to external drives and I'm planning to create a small NAS/backup server at home to extend this.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Online storage: Regularly upload a smaller subset of my photos, usually the ones I picked to work on, things I uploaded to stock or prints&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But whatever your choice is remember: it must me an automated process and there should be several copies &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T12:53:56.120" />
  <row Id="6341" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6299" CreationDate="2011-01-03T16:33:45.663" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;An external drive that is a bit beefier and safer thank a single typical external hard-drive would be to have multiple disk drives cloned for redundancy. These come in pre-built units such as this buffalo model:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Buffalo-Technology-LinkStation-LS-WX2-0TL-R1/dp/B00365MF5E/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1294072210&amp;amp;sr=8-2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;link text&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also there is a great free software to automate copies or files/ folders to multiple locations. I use it in web server farms and its never let me down. Here is a link:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://allwaysync.com/download.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;link text&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T16:33:45.663" />
  <row Id="6343" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6335" CreationDate="2011-01-03T17:11:56.413" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another option might be a different focal length, to expand your options in a different way. On the affordable side, look at Sigma AF 30mm f/1.4 EX HSM DC for a bit wider — I notice a lack of feet in your Flickr stream :) — or the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM for tighter shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T17:11:56.413" />
  <row Id="6344" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-03T17:12:08.170" Score="7" ViewCount="180" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've just found an old disposable camera after a bit of a tidy up, no idea whats on it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the bottom it says &lt;code&gt;develop by 08/2010&lt;/code&gt; so its about 6 months overdue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Will the images still be OK to develop? i.e., does the film degrade after time? I am not looking for prints, just need photos onto disc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T19:53:10.953" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T19:53:10.953" Title="Do disposible cameras go bad if you don't develop soon after using?" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;developing&gt;&lt;disposable-cameras&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6345" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6344" CreationDate="2011-01-03T17:18:32.287" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As long as the camera has been protected from the elements, and stored in moderate conditions (ie, no extreme hot/cold/humidity), I think you should be fine.  Six months isn't that long, and the guidelines take into account that people might not be taking care of the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might see some degradation in the colors, but probably not much.  It's worth a shot getting it developed, and see what you get!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="307" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T17:18:32.287" />
  <row Id="6346" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7232" CreationDate="2011-01-03T17:24:28.193" Score="4" ViewCount="281" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hey all,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was wondering if anyone had suggestions for intervalometers for a Nikon D90.  The D90 lacks a remote port, so it has to be triggered either by USB or IR, which limits the 3rd party remotes it is compatible with quite a bit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&#xA;-J&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="907" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T05:16:48.443" Title="Intervalometer for D90" Tags="&lt;nikon-d90&gt;&lt;timelapse&gt;&lt;intervalometer&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6347" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6358" CreationDate="2011-01-03T17:25:45.400" Score="-4" ViewCount="149" Body="&lt;p&gt;Thanks to the new digital photography era, my computer is flooded with tons of photographs (like most photographers).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking at a software having the following characteristics ( &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; software )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Fast&lt;/em&gt; There is a lot inefficient Basic-like stuff on the Net. I want something that not only processes images in a fast  manner, but also a reactive interface&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Raw literate&lt;/em&gt; Able to read and decode the &lt;em&gt;raw&lt;/em&gt; format (of well known brands) with of course conversion to standard formats (jpg, png, tiff, ...)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;HDR able&lt;/em&gt; Not necessarily the 3-to-1 picture feature. A software that understands that HDR pictures (usually raw) own a huge transformation potential, and offer mathematical ways (tone mapping, curves, functions, masks...) to operate a conversion to other formats&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Macros? Script!&lt;/em&gt; PS macros are a pain. I want something that looks like a computer language. Of course, &lt;em&gt;script recording&lt;/em&gt; should be possible, and the &lt;em&gt;recording&lt;/em&gt; generated script editable, showing all the commands details (for instance, the masks values etc... all the parameters required to run the command that was recorded)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Image processing&lt;/em&gt; All the standard white-balance, hue, saturation, contrast, crop, resize, rotate...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Photos database&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The soft has to find all photos everywhere on my disk(s), then offers a review of each of them, Raws, Jpegs...: (All &lt;kbd&gt;keys&lt;/kbd&gt; could be different)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;the process can be done from the&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;keyboard&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;(i.e. not using the mouse)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pictures, say 7 of them, appear ~150x100px on a single line with the one is the center being selected.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;Enter&lt;/kbd&gt; would zoom to full screen (fit), twice would have it 100% (left/right arrows to navigate inside the pic), &lt;kbd&gt;ESC&lt;/kbd&gt; back to 7&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;DEL&lt;/kbd&gt; disables/delete the pic&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;Space&lt;/kbd&gt;To enter a comment / TAGs (tags are ordered by decreasing importance). &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Thumbnails are created automatically, (DB could be a disk tree that follows the tags (e.g. See House Family =&gt; path = .../sea/house/family/img_xgz2a_2121.jpg)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tags can later on be searched&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;On the Mac&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of this should be part of a unique software.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Current software that do &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; qualify: Gimp, Photoshop, ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;NB: please do not close as duplicate this question unless the other question covers (at least) the same software requirements&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2834" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-03T18:52:22.390" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T00:29:30.433" Title="What photograph-manipulation application matches my specific feature wishlist?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;image-processing&gt;&lt;organize&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="6348" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6344" CreationDate="2011-01-03T17:52:28.013" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unless you &lt;em&gt;seriously&lt;/em&gt; abused this film, there's no problem.  I have taken film of all types--B&amp;amp;W, color slides, color prints--on repeated long trips, including extended ones outdoors in the desert, developed it late--sometimes years late--and noticed no degradation at all.  The only exception was a roll I found last year (Ektacolor or something like that) which had been left almost 20 years in a camera (Nikonos V).  There was noticeable washing out of color around the top and bottom edges of the film, a slight loss of contrast, and a little blurriness overall, but even so the photos are serviceable.  Here's one from the middle of the roll, shown in full exactly as scanned by the processor (converted to JPEG by Picasa for upload here).  Consider it an extreme example of the degradation that happens to all film over time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rhdZ6.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T17:52:28.013" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6349" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3215" CreationDate="2011-01-03T18:03:56.420" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lot of lens names are a product of the overlap between the engineering and the marketing sides of the lens design process. The names themselves are created to sound appealing to customers, and many of them are variations on common terms in optical engineering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, it is common in optical design to use an existing lens as your starting point when creating a new lens. This is because, while there is a lot of science behind lens design, it isn't possible to simply look at the specifications you are trying to achieve, and then calculate the ideal form for a lens. Lens design is partially concrete and mathematical, and partially a creative process that depends on the lens designers experience and intuition. This means that it is much more effective to take an existing design that has similar properties to the lens you are trying to design, and make modifications to it, rather than start from scratch every time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The result is that you have lens families which are all descendants of a few classic forms that get used over and over again. A complicated zoom lens may start the design process as a Double Gauss lens, with 6 elements in 2 groups, symmetrical about the aperture stop; by the time the design process is done, the lens may have  over a dozen elements in a handful of groups, a few of which may move, and the aperture stop may be in a completely different location. An experienced lens designer would be able to look at that design and immediately see that it was probably produced from a Double Gauss.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When this happens with patented commercial lenses, like the Tessar for example, it is common for the resulting lens to be sold under the Tessar family name. Because it shares a lot of optical design traits, but also because it gives consumers an idea of what the lens is good at doing. Most lenses in a family will have similar characteristics and uses, in very general terms. You wouldn't start the design of a new wide-angle lens with a design form used for very long telephoto lenses; you would chose a similar lens to the one you are trying to produce, so the resulting families tend to be grouped loosely by their intended application.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, because this is tied to marketing, there will be exceptions. Lens designers don't name lenses, and if some marketing guy things that a lens will sell better if he gives it a particular name, I doubt anybody will care how much this irritates the lens designer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2877" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T18:03:56.420" />
  <row Id="6350" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5935" CreationDate="2011-01-03T18:10:31.373" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is where I'm at on this problem, pretty close I would say, short of looking around for a professional negative scanner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Flatbed scanner, lid open&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@Rafal first suggested I have a look at Alexey Alexeev's &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srTneleXIC0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Scanning Wet-Plate Collodion Ambrotype or Tintype Plate&lt;/a&gt;&quot; on YouTube. It certainly looked promising. Alexey's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ambrotype.ru/wet-plate-collodion/portraits/index_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photos are great&lt;/a&gt; by the way, check his work. He recommends leaving the scanner lid &lt;em&gt;open&lt;/em&gt; in his video. I gave it a shot but didn't achieve anything usable (see below), most likely because his plates are collodion ambrotypes/tintypes, not negatives. I contacted him and he confirmed that statement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/b1H14.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Flatbed scanner, lid closed&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next I tried closing the lid and scanned the negative plate that way, following the previously mentioned video to adjust the input and output levels. Here is what I obtained (below), without any cleaning involved. I was not convinced that's what I should expect though. Alexey confirmed this was not quite right, most likely because light was bouncing off the cover &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; the glass plate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/PaCHP.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Camera on a tripod, shooting down at a lightbox&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally my father and I built some kind of lightbox out of a small wine box, a light bulb, some cardboard, and Plexiglas. It's really just a fancy shoe box with one side replaced with a sheet of Plexi :) I used some tracing paper to provide diffusion and placed the negative plate on the box, the light shining from below. I'll post a picture of the contraption later. I setup my tripod on top of the box and my Canon 5D Mark II shooting down at the plate. I turned off all the lights and took a few pics at different parameters. I got the best result at f/8, 1/10th s. and ISO200. I used a 2 seconds timer and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_lock-up&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;mirror lock-up&lt;/a&gt; to reduce vibrations. I opened the photo in Lightroom, &lt;a href=&quot;http://digitaldailydose.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/inverting-your-images-in-lightroom/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;inverted it using a preset&lt;/a&gt;, fixed the white-balance, adjusted the levels and removed a few dust spots. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that's as good as it will get for this little vacation project. The box is easy enough to build, especially if your father is retired.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/MCtcP.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-03T19:56:12.007" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T19:56:12.007" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6351" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6346" CreationDate="2011-01-03T18:33:15.543" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Nikon D90 can in fact accept a wired remote.  It plugs into the GPS port which is the second rubber-covered area on the side of the D90.  While some cameras have separate ports, the D90 uses this single port for both purposes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are a couple options from Amazon:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://amzn.to/gwPy3g&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Satechi TR-M Timer Remote Control for Nikon D90&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://amzn.to/f6Tzv5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;GSI Super Quality Multi-Function Timer Remote Control Shutter for Nikon&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-03T18:39:52.413" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T18:39:52.413" />
  <row Id="6352" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6359" CreationDate="2011-01-03T18:57:51.577" Score="13" ViewCount="287" Body="&lt;p&gt;There will be a partial solar eclipse &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.eclipse.org.uk/eclipse/0122011/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;tomorrow&lt;/a&gt; visible from Europe, Africa, Asia. I'm looking for photography tips. Looking for ideas for a typical amateur photographer but also for someone having a telescope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Posting your photos after the eclipse would be a great bonus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="507" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T09:48:58.627" Title="How to photograph a partial solar eclipse?" Tags="&lt;astrophotography&gt;&lt;eclipse&gt;&lt;solar-eclipse&gt;&lt;partial-solar-eclipse&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6353" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6347" CreationDate="2011-01-03T19:04:03.803" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You've already written off the closest thing you're going to find to this requirement set in your answers above. I don't forsee there being anything actually that will meet your arbitrary &quot;one [piece of] software&quot; requirement, since good software engineering practices tend to prevent the development of such monolithic tools; instead the norm is a set of tools that each do one thing very well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T19:04:03.803" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="6354" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6299" CreationDate="2011-01-03T19:14:36.043" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Like others here I believe in layers of protection for my data&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;RAID - it isn't backup but reduces the risk of a device failure losing all my data&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Removable hard disk, local backup (2 TB)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Remote backup at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.crashplan.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CrashPlan&lt;/a&gt; ($3/month for unlimited storage - right now I have some 140 GB of data backed up)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At some point I plan on augmenting 3 by making use of the CrashPlan ability to back up to a friend's computer that also runs CrashPlan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two things that I think make CrashPlan worth looking at, beyond the low cost. They'll post you a blank disk (one TB ISTR) to perform an initial backup to, to avoid having to do that first backup across the Internet. Then they'll post a disk with your backups on it to allow you to recover faster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1969" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T19:14:36.043" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="6356" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6352" CreationDate="2011-01-03T20:02:32.103" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortuneatly, it'll probably be before you can get to a store, but you need a very powerful neutral density filter, so that you can point your camera directly at the sun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Around the time of the last total eclipse and also for the transit of venus in 2004 there were disposable &quot;glasses&quot; on several magazines that could be held in front of a lens for a cheap option - then you can cheat and use exposure compensation to get you camera to think the scene is darker than it is by a couple of stops (or use spot metering if your camera supports it)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T20:02:32.103" />
  <row Id="6357" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6352" CreationDate="2011-01-03T20:03:32.550" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You'll definitely want to get some type of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?q=Solar+Filter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Solar Filter&lt;/a&gt;, otherwise, since this is a partial eclipse, it could damage your eyes, camera, or telescope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2214" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T20:03:32.550" />
  <row Id="6358" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6347" CreationDate="2011-01-03T20:16:44.553" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm curious why you think Photoshop doesn't meet what you want, when it clearly &lt;strong&gt;does&lt;/strong&gt; match everyone of your requirements:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fast. How fast is fast? CS5 runs really well for me. This question reminds me of: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;RAW: Adobe Camera Raw is updated constantly to support the latest raw formats&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;HDR: CS5's HDR capability is fantastic (ihmo)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Macros: Photoshop supports VBSCript, Javascript, and AppleScript. Javascript has it's faults, but given how performant the stackexchange sites are, there is no denying in the right hands, it's incredibly powerful (LIKE A NINJA RIDING ON THE BACK OF A PIRATE)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Image Processing: It's photoshop.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Images Search tag, yada yada: Photoshop comes with Adobe Bridge with integrates seemlessly with what you want.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mac support: Yep. Runs on a mac.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suspect you are looking for something that is very specific to how you work, and it's very unlikely that you are going to find something. The good news is, if you're inclined, GIMP is open source, so you &lt;strong&gt;could&lt;/strong&gt; add the features you want to the source, and commit them for addition to the mainline.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-03T21:15:02.427" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T21:15:02.427" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6359" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6352" CreationDate="2011-01-03T20:34:46.873" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If you don't have a solar filter&lt;/strong&gt;, the standard way to protect yourself when viewing a solar eclipse is to &lt;strong&gt;project the image&lt;/strong&gt; via a lens or even a pinhole onto a suitable background.  Why not set up a rig in which you use, say, an old camera lens projecting the image onto matte paper in the back of a darkened box and photograph &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; image?  Fred Espenak briefly describes this approach in a &lt;a href=&quot;http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/SEphoto.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Web article on solar eclipse photography&lt;/a&gt;.  You can experiment today on an uneclipsed image of the sun.  On another site there's also a curious &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.suite101.com/view_image.cfm/1876048&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pinhole camera setup illustration&lt;/a&gt; that is provided without comments.  The &quot;lens&quot; is a precise pinhole in stiff metal foil mounted to a camera body cap.  It looks easy and cheap to make.  Starting out with a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.leefilters.com/camera/products/show/ref%3aC4B8F834D908E7/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dense ND filter&lt;/a&gt; in front of this rig (or maybe a crossed pair of polarizing filters) might be advisable to avoid damage to a digital sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T20:34:46.873" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6360" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6352" CreationDate="2011-01-03T20:45:39.917" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One really cool thing to do in a solar eclipse is look at the shadows cast from small dots, like the small gaps in leaves. Normally, they will be circle shaped, in an eclipse, they will look crescent shaped. Look for similar phenomena around you, and good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, definitely get a solar filter of some kind, if you can, or it could damage your eyes and camera...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T20:45:39.917" />
  <row Id="6361" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5891" CreationDate="2011-01-03T20:52:48.430" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Photographing the moon in general can be difficult, as at any reasonably long focal length that will capture useful detail, the moon literally races across the sky. Using a telescope with a camera adapter will probably provide better results than a telephoto camera lens, however both are options. A telescope on a proper mount will likely provide much greater stability and more framing/focusing options than a camera with just a telephoto lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best advice I can give if you use a telephoto lens is to use one with some kind of image stabilization. It will make the near-impossible task of framing and focusing fairly easy. Just remember to half-press the shutter to let IS activate before actually triggering an exposure...otherwise you are guaranteed to end up with ghosted or fuzzy shots. I also highly recommend using the live view feature of your camera, fully zoomed in, to do your focusing. Trying to clearly focus the moon with only the viewfinder can be extremely difficult, and its hit and miss at best. A long focal length, 300-400mm, will give you decent magnification that will capture useful detail. The image below was composed of shots taken with Canon's EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS L-series lens, at 400mm. Longer focal lengths magnify any kind of camera shake, so a cable release is pretty much a must have. The more stable your tripod the better, especially if there is any wind, as at 400mm, even wind vibrations can ruin a shot. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding exposure, you might have some trouble here. A partial eclipse will have a brightly lit sliver, and that is going to create a contrast problem. As you can see from the image below of the recent total lunar eclipse on this years solstice, the second exposure had to overexpose the sunlit crescent in the second exposure to show any kind of detail in the dark part of the moon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/xmozY.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Solstice Lunar Eclipse&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;Copyright © 2010 Jon Rista&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With a partial eclipse, you'll have to make the trade-off between exposing the eclipsed part, vs. exposing the sunlit part. If you have a camera with sufficiently high ISO performance, you might try shooting at &lt;em&gt;relatively&lt;/em&gt; fast shutter speeds, and do some kind of HDR or Exposure Fusion to get both the sunlit and eclipsed parts properly exposed. You would probably need at least 1/20th of a second exposure, spaced very close to each other, to achieve such a thing. (My camera has terrible high ISO performance, so I was unable to attempt any such thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, when photographing an eclipse, especially during winter, its best to have a lot of patience and a warm car. The night I took the eclipse shots above, there was a wicket wind chill. An eclipse takes a while to occur, and you'll probably want to take a good long sequence of shots to show the progression of the eclipse. You'll probably hop out of the car, frame, focus, and snap a few shots, then hop back in the car to wait a while before the next set.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And with that: Best of luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T20:52:48.430" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6362" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6326" CreationDate="2011-01-03T21:03:24.697" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Acdsee is a simple/popular photo browsing app that has this feature (Tools -&gt; Find duplicates).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1638" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T21:03:24.697" />
  <row Id="6363" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6368" CreationDate="2011-01-03T22:01:01.573" Score="3" ViewCount="607" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a D70 with the stock Nikkor AF-S 18-70mm 3.5-4.5G ED DX lens.  Im about to replace the body with a D7000.  I've found the 3.5 f stop a little limiting in terms of DoF - and having viewed some photos from a friend with an f2.8 lens am keen to get something that goes to this aperture/speed. Is the Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 G AF-S ED the lens to go for?  I mostly shoot my family in and outdoors and am really looking for some nice upclose head and sholder shots taken while kids play etc (Ie not posed).  Should I go wider eg 17-55mm f2.8 G DX AF-S IF-ED?  Later Id also be interested in the 70-200mm f2.8 G AF-S VR IF ED II zoom - which of the previous 2 would this go best with?  Are there any cheeper alternatives to these lenses (which are pretty pricey..).  Thanks all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: I should have mentioned that I have a Nikkor 50mm f1.8 AF prime that takes great shots - the issue here is that because Im shooting my family in action (kids at play, parties etc) I really need the flexibily of a zoom.  A prime maybe OK if say everyone sitting round a table but when kids are moving, running round and playing you just cant move fast enough to keep up and frame a good shot with a prime (well I can't).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1638" LastEditorUserId="1638" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-04T16:03:13.727" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T16:03:13.727" Title="Decent lens for a D7000" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;nikon-d7000&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="6364" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6336" CreationDate="2011-01-03T22:11:08.040" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Printing a photo is much simpler than displaying on a monitor - simply because the end user is free to rotate the paper in his/her hands (and in fact does this automatically naturally) - hence no need for EXIF orientation info (the best orientation is uniquely determined by image vs paper aspect ratio).&#xA;EXIF info is only useful when displaying on a monitor or divice you CAN'T rotate (easily).  Here you have to use software to rotate the image (either using the EXIF info or by you telling the software the correct rotation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1638" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T22:11:08.040" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6365" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6347" CreationDate="2011-01-03T22:34:09.190" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lightroom 3 with an HDR plugin is probably your best bet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Full cataloging system based on many different types of metadata&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Non-destructive (unlike Photoshop)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Relatively fast&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Very good RAW support&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Image development presets, export and watermarking automation, plugins&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;All the standard white-balance, hue, saturation, contrast, full on cropping mode (with golden section overlays), resize, rotate and more like grain, post-crop vignetting, tone curve, spot levels, brushes, spot removal tool, red eye removal, graduated filters.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a photo management and development suite, I swear by Lightroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastEditorUserId="609" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-04T00:29:30.433" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T00:29:30.433" />
  <row Id="6366" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6363" CreationDate="2011-01-03T22:42:48.990" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're wanting a fast lens, which it sounds like you are, there's nothing quite like a prime lens. Take a look at what kind of range you are shooting at frequently, but I suspect a 50mm would help you alot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T22:42:48.990" />
  <row Id="6367" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6363" CreationDate="2011-01-03T22:50:22.437" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're right that you should be looking at something with a wider aperture based on your observation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the angle-of-view, it is a really personal thing. It has to do with the way you see the world and express yourself photographically. Some people or more comfortable wider and others longer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is generally a preference for wider-angle for indoor shots since you can't move back so much to get more in your frame. Landscape sometimes is often with something wide but I've seen incredibly successful photographers who use a telephoto for most such work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, both the 17-55mm F2.8 and 24-70mm F2.8 are excellent lenses. The latter will let you upgrade to full-frame eventually and give you the field of view of the former, more or less. I recommend you go with the one of these two which corresponds to the focal-lengths you use the most on your current lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can keep that one as a backup in desperate cases or make a nifty coffee mug out of it ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After that I suggest you consider a bright prime (50mm F/1.8 or F/1.4) for portraits. The longer 70-200mm would serve better for street and sports, which as far as I can tell is not your priority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T22:50:22.437" />
  <row Id="6368" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6363" CreationDate="2011-01-03T22:54:57.327" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 G AF-S ED is a superb piece of kit, and priced accordingly.  If your livelihood isn't dependant on getting absolutely optimal quality every time, you could consider a third-party alternative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 Macro lens that's good enough 99% of the time, and costs less than half the price of the Nikon version.  You should check that a third-party lens works with the D7000 before buying one.  I've heard of incompatibilities between third-party lenses and cameras that didn't exist when they were produced but I don't know if there's any truth in that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 70-200mm f2.8 G AF-S VR IF ED II is the natural partner to the Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 G AF-S ED because one picks up where the others focal length ends.  It's probably one of the most common configuration in a pros kit bag (along with a wide angle and probably a 50mm prime, just in case).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you use the the 18-24 range of your current lens in your existing photos, you might consider another lens.  That's up to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I don't want to carry a 0.9 kg lens around with me all the time.  If I were you, I'd go for a Nikon 50mm f1.8 D AF.  It'll give you high quality images for a fraction of the price assuming you don't mind &quot;zooming with your feet&quot;.  That's what I use 90% of the time when I know I'm shooting people at a modest distance.  Spend some of what you've saved on an SB-700 flash, which will give you far more flexibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you find you need a bit wider (group shots or indoors?), there's a Nikon 35mm f/1.8.  If you need to shoot from further away (sports, or just less distracting?), there's a Nikon 85mm f/1.8.  Those will all work better in low light, and you can buy the whole lot for less than a Nikkor 24-70mm.  You lose the ability to go from one length to the other in a twist of the lens, but you probably know in advance what length you'll be shooting at in a given circumstance.  You save money and (more importantly) carrying weight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1615" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T22:54:57.327" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6369" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6347" CreationDate="2011-01-03T23:02:45.160" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For your &quot;photos database&quot; section: it sounds like you just described your file manager.  Turn on icon view, and make sure the default action for pictures is to open a simple file viewer, preferably one that has a keystroke to zoom to 100% and another keystroke to exit (I don't know what's available for the Mac, but Eye of Gnome uses '1' to zoom to 100%, 'f' to go back to 'F'it to screen, and Escape exits).  Obviously 'delete' will delete the image!  Your file manager also probably stores thumbnails &lt;em&gt;somewhere&lt;/em&gt;, but you'll have to look up where that is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as tags: I think you want to do some research into &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; you want your tags stored: in a separate database or saved as metadata inside each image file.  The first might help with searching, while the second is more portable to other programs.  I'm sure there are other options and plenty of pros and cons for you to investigate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's been a few years since I used a Mac, but once you figure out how you want your tags stored, couldn't you just write a short AppleScript and bind it to some key combination, so that you'll get a popup for the selected file and be able to enter your tags?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, it's not &lt;em&gt;quite&lt;/em&gt; what you are asking for, but I think you want to look up Image Magick (www.imagemagick.org) which provides command-line (and, therefore, scriptable) tools for image editing.  Among other things you can use it to create thumbnails or otherwise modify (rotate, crop, etc.) images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T23:02:45.160" />
  <row Id="6370" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5055" CreationDate="2011-01-03T23:22:17.243" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;TIP is the only third-party producer of polaroid intergral film. Fujifilm produces peel-apart film.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, the TIP film is still very much experimental. The film is still very tempreture and light sensitive during development. You can read all about this here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://shop.the-impossible-project.com/allabout/silvershade/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://shop.the-impossible-project.com/allabout/silvershade/&lt;/a&gt; and here: shop.the-impossible-project.com/allabout/colorshade/ (you'll have to add http yourself, as I can only post one hyperlink being a new user)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, if you're looking for original Polaroid like chracteristics, TIP film is not up to that, however they have come a long way and the film is Incredibly fun to use and can result in very nice pictures when used properly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2948" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T23:22:17.243" />
  <row Id="6371" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6363" CreationDate="2011-01-03T23:45:47.633" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the d7000 and find myself in the same boat as you. So much so that if you preview my question history you will find a wealth of information about me looking for a good 2nd lens to my d7000 kit. In particular I want something super fast and great in low light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have narrowed the field down to the 50mm f/1.4 ($450) or the 35mm f/1.8 ($200).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I still drool over the 35mm f/1.4 but its close to $2,000. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck and don't be afraid to ditch the zooms and try a prime.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastActivityDate="2011-01-03T23:45:47.633" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6372" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4375" CreationDate="2011-01-04T00:27:03.380" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As most other answers suggest using long exposure times, I'd like to add that this is very dependent on the number and intensity of the fireworks themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During bigger fireworks shows, 4 seconds of exposure (even with a small aperture) would probably be too much and render too long trails.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is one example taken this New Year's Eve (2011) in Copacabana where 1.6 seconds and a not that small aperture (4.5 on a Canon Powershot) were enough for a decent exposure, including the people in front of the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/carregal/5312151202/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Copacabana 2011, Orange Fireworks by Andre Carregal, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5250/5312151202_d0d11e2ba0_m.jpg&quot; width=&quot;240&quot; height=&quot;183&quot; alt=&quot;Copacabana 2011, Orange Fireworks&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is what would be my checklist:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;White balancing can be really trick, experiment with it before the fireworks begin if possible.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Turn off image stabilization.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Focus on infinity and use the lowest ISO possible.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The camera needs to be really stable (not necessarily using a tripod). Look for plane surfaces like tables or chairs, but a rock or trunk will do if you manage to align the camera correctly. Watch out for passing people and their interference.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you don't have a remote shutter release (as most compacts don't), use the camera timer (2 seconds are enough) in order to not shake the camera after pressing the shutter. This will make timing shots a lot harder, but still viable (see below).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try to take some shots before things start and the check background/foreground exposure, white balance and composition. It can be hard to setup things during the show and you may end up loosing a lot of shots during the process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After you've found one (or two at most) position that looks good, wait for the first few fireworks in order to estimate the time it takes from the launching sound (usually lower in intensity) to the blasting itself. This will give you a rough idea of when to press the shutter if you are using the camera timer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you feel the timing of the fireworks, fire at will. Just keep checking the results and adjusting the shutter time in order to get your desired trail length while keeping the exposure under control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my case, I started with a 4 seconds exposure and 8 aperture but found out that Rio's show was a lot brighter than expected and the fireworks were much faster too, so I had to quickly adapt and reduce the shutter speed while opening the aperture. :o)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T00:27:03.380" />
  <row Id="6373" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6363" CreationDate="2011-01-04T00:39:10.113" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For up-close portraiture, I would really look into one or more prime lenses, rather than a zoom lens. Zoom lenses are more complex, optically, and the widest aperture you can usually find for a zoom lens is f/2.8, maybe f/2. The quality you get from a zoom lens will usually be lower than what you can get from a prime, and often for a higher cost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prime lenses, or single focal length lenses, come with much wider apertures, as wide as f/1.2 (two and a half stops more light than an f/2.8 zoom lens, which is a lot!) You can usually find a 50mm f/1.8 prime lens for about $100 or so. Often referred to as the &quot;nifty fifty&quot;, this lens is pretty much a must have for anyones kit. The DOF at f/1.8 is pretty thin, but not so thin that you need special skills to make the most of it. It is also possible to find 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm lenses at f/1.4. Usually more costly than the f/1.8 variants, they can usually be found for anywhere as low a few hundred dollars, and as high as a couple thousand. The depth of field at f/1.4 can be truly superb, and makes for some very nice portrait lenses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When shooting indoors, the more light the better. Our eyes react automatically to the change in luminance between outdoor lighting and indoor lighting, so the difference (which can be considerable) is not as obvious to us. To a camera, on the other hand, the difference in light between an outdoor shot and an indoor shot can be quite large. Having an extra two stops worth of light with an f/1.4 lens will make it a lot easier to get low-noise, high quality portrait shots indoors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Common prime lenses usually come in a standard sequence of focal lengths, and a few standard apertures. These include 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm and 200mm (when used on a full-frame/35mm camera). Common apertures for prime lenses below 135mm include f/1.8, f/1.4, and f/1.2. Some brands may use a half-stop rather than a third-stop scale, so depending on your camera brand (or if you buy third-party lenses) you may also see f/1.7 lenses. For lenses up to 200mm, the widest apertures are usually f/2.8, or possibly f/2. Good portrait focal lengths are 50mm, 85mm, and 135mm. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that there are few full-frame digital cameras on the market, and most DSLR's are APS-C, or cropped sensors. The effective focal lengths on a cropped sensor can generally be shifted up by one &quot;step&quot;. For example, on a Canon entry-level or semi-pro (prosumer) DSLR, the sensor is a 1.6x crop APS-C size. A 24mm lens is effectively a 38mm on an APS-C camera. A 35mm lens is effectively 56mm lens. A 50mm lens is effectively a 75mm lens. Just multiply the actual focal length by the crop factor (1.6 for Canon, 1.5 Nikon) to determine the effective focal length. With this general rule of thumb, you can determine what focal length you need to get full-frame compatible framing. This can be helpful when reading articles or books about photography, as most of them tend to assume full-frame shooting (a lot of photography books are still based on the film world.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prime lenses are really great for portraiture, particularly the wider apertures and shorter DOF. They do limit you, however, in that if you need different framing/field of view, you need to change lenses to achieve it. Zoom lenses can be very convenient and are often far more versatile than a prime lens. What zoom range you need would really depend on what kind of photography you wish to do. Generally speaking, however, the same prime focal lengths that are ideal for portrait photography still stand for zoom lenses. Namely, 50mm, 85mm, and 135mm. A nice general-purpose zoom range is 24-105mm, which on an APS-C sized sensor is 38-168mm. You can usually find a decent 24-105mm f/4 lens with image stabilization for a decent price, however it would lack that wide aperture and narrow DOF. You can also find 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses (38-112mm effective on APS-C) that will give you decent DOF and great optics, but for a higher price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you choose will ultimately boil down to what you want to do, and how much you want to spend. Some key primes like a 35mm, 50mm and 85mm with an f/1.8 or f/1.4 aperture can be found for a decent price, and should service most of your portrait needs. They will provide the best quality, at the cost of a bit more hassle and lens changing. A quality 24-70mm f/2.8 lens will probably cost more than all three f/1.8 primes, but you will only have to deal with a single lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the 70-200mm focal length, that would effectively be about 105-300mm on a D7000. Thats a pretty narrow field of view range, and probably not really ideal for portraiture (outside of the 135mm focal length). That focal range would be great for reaching wildlife and birds, if that is something you would like to do. If your key interest is photographing family stuff indoors and outdoors, I would first recommend a few prime lenses at 35mm, 50mm, or 85mm, and second recommend the 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. I think those focal lengths will better serve your goals. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T00:39:10.113" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6374" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6363" CreationDate="2011-01-04T00:42:23.100" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question doesn't really have too much to do with camera make or model, and lens offerings change from year to year, so I'm trying to keep this general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key to limiting depth of field is to increase the apparent size of your aperture from the point of view of your subject. There are 3 ways to achieve this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use a lower f-stop, also known as &quot;relative aperture&quot;, e.g. f/2.8&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shoot with a longer focal length. Since aperture size is focal length (f) divided by your f-stop, higher f means a larger absolute aperture. For instance, a 200mm lens at f/4 has a 50mm aperture. A 100mm lens at f/4 has a 25mm aperture.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Move closer to your subject. To your subject, this makes your aperture look bigger.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your background will also blur more if it is further away from your subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to spend money to help achieve the effect, you're probably looking for a fast prime (with large relative apertures), a macro lens (which lets you get closer to your subject), or a telephoto (longer focal length). You can play with different f-stop/focal length/distance combinations in a depth of field calculator like [http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html](this one).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-04T01:18:48.640" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T01:18:48.640" />
  <row Id="6375" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2674" CreationDate="2011-01-04T00:48:19.010" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The big downside to snapfish is they really hammer you on the shipping. If you are a member then you are sure to get emails of special promotions like the one going on now that sells 99 4x6 prints for 99 cents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will take them on on that. I expect to pay about $6.00 in total but even with this it comes out to under 7 cents per print.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A more concrete example is I placed an order with snapfish where i was to get 365 prints for free after spending 10$. So I bought 10$ of prints at 9 cents each (that is about 110 prints). The total was in the ball park of 35$ because they claimed to have to pay a lot to ship almost 500 pictures. Indeed the package was heavy, but even still that came out to be about 7 cents a picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found with snapfish if you get a great deal or promotion it makes sense to order with them otherwise they will break the bank.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T00:48:19.010" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-04T00:48:19.010" />
  <row Id="6376" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6386" CreationDate="2011-01-04T00:57:10.663" Score="14" ViewCount="883" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I started researching gear to start my photography passion I fell in love with the large &lt;a href=&quot;http://images.bestbuy.com/BestBuy_US/images/products/9955/9955839_sa.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;iMac&lt;/a&gt; display. The large bright screen at the best buy was showing a sideshow if images that looked better than life and I was in awe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since I am a Microsoft developer, buying Apple would be very limiting. Are their other options for me to rival the Apple display but with a Windows machine?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do photographers use as displays?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mainly I want to see the images really pop off the screen and be really vivid. Spending is relative, so I could splurge and make a nice desktop workstation for myself that can double as a &quot;photo lab&quot; of sorts for my hobby. As for size, the larger the screen the better... I love the huge iMacs!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-31T22:23:28.350" LastActivityDate="2011-06-02T03:23:47.787" Title="Other than the iMac, what's a brilliant display for my images?" Tags="&lt;image-processing&gt;&lt;display&gt;&lt;computer-hardware&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="6378" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6376" CreationDate="2011-01-04T01:20:00.213" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 90 series from NEC is the benchmark for color-accurate displays. They are simply amazing, color-calibratable displays with wide-gamuts and excellent coverage of color-spaces like sRGB and AdobeRGB. Depending on desired size and budget you can get:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Multisync LCD3090WQXi - 30&quot; - That is the one I have and love it. According to NEC, I was the first one to import it into Canada :)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Multisync LCD2690WUXi2 - 26&quot; - This one is a bargain for such size and quality. Its about 1/2 the price of the 30&quot; with the same 98.7% coverage of AdobeRGB and complete coverage of sRGB.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If these are two expensive for you then the P/PA series is the best value of ANY color-accurate and calibratable displays among ANY brand. The P221W is a 22&quot; display with 96% coverage of AdobeRBG and is calibratable with a 10-bit LUT (Look-Up-Table). New it can be had for less than $459 USD. I own two of them which I bought refurbished for $237 CDN.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next up would be the PA241 and PA271 which I have not personally used but are expected to perform just as well (97% AdobeRGB coverage and 14-bit LUTs). I used to evaluate computer displays for cinema visual-effects professionally, so I have gone through rigorous testing of hundreds of displays over the years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T01:20:00.213" />
  <row Id="6379" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6383" CreationDate="2011-01-04T01:26:07.960" Score="8" ViewCount="134" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a print which has stuck to the the glass in its frame. I tried to pull it off, resulting in some small tears before we stopped. How can I remove it without damaging it further?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, we don't have the negative, so making a new print isn't an option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T17:19:17.910" Title="Rescuing prints stuck to glass" Tags="&lt;prints&gt;&lt;equipment-damage&gt;&lt;glass&gt;&lt;stuck&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6380" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6385" CreationDate="2011-01-04T01:31:42.673" Score="6" ViewCount="289" Body="&lt;p&gt;I moved from a point and shoot to a DSLR last year and I love to photograph nature in general.  I have a T2i/550D with the 18-55mm kit lens and was wondering if I would benefit from the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 beside the obvious better lens quality since this would be a significiant purchase for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2168" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T15:12:08.883" Title="EF-S 18-55mm kit vs 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 for nature photography" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6381" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6376" CreationDate="2011-01-04T01:34:16.297" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Look for non-TN screens (twisted nematics), best PVA/MVA or IPS. They are not that expensive today and display gradients better than the (gamer-)fast TN.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take into account that a glossy screen (like the Apple one surely is) might display the pictures more vibrant BUT will be difficult to use with any glaring lights, first and foremost the sun.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Maybe even plan for a colour proofing tool, be it a Spyder or a Quato or ... (there is an older test in a Mac Life, the outhor, UliZappe, wrote more in german in the Nikon Forum here &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikon-fotografie.de/vbulletin/computer-hardware-und-systeme/55208-squid2-oder-spyder-3-oder-14.html#post729242&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.nikon-fotografie.de/vbulletin/computer-hardware-und-systeme/55208-squid2-oder-spyder-3-oder-14.html#post729242&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There exist a couple of pages online with reviews of TFTs concerning colour-palettes, colour-managment, colour-spaces and so on. Just naming the two I used recently, others will add more. Both have an extensive FAQ and glossary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/faq.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/faq.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/faq.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/faq.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I bought myself a BenQ EW2420, 24&quot; with MVA to plug my laptop into and am happy at the moment. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastEditorUserId="2317" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-04T01:43:56.697" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T01:43:56.697" />
  <row Id="6382" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6376" CreationDate="2011-01-04T01:34:35.500" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;LCD displays actually use several different technologies. You can choose TN (cheap, crappy), IPS (expensive, looks great), or VA (in the middle).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can afford it, choose IPS. The most important advantage for photographers is that you don't get color shifts depending on viewing angle; IPS displays are also much easier to calibrate well. As a photographer, you're unlikely to be happy with a TN display, which is the most common technology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sadly, this critical piece of information rarely appears in display specs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;More info: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides/lcd-panel-types.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides/lcd-panel-types.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;List of IPS displays: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides/s-ips-lcd-list.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides/s-ips-lcd-list.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T01:34:35.500" />
  <row Id="6383" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6379" CreationDate="2011-01-04T01:49:13.747" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd recommend option 2: scan the picture in its frame or take a picture of the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the picture itself can be saved maybe also depends on the used paper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T01:49:13.747" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6384" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6379" CreationDate="2011-01-04T02:05:43.347" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could try warming the glass in the areas where the print stuck to the glass. Depending on the type of ink, it may not have permanently bonded, and a little heat might go a long way towards loosening the hold between the two. I would take it slowly, and with care, to avoid smearing or bleeding the ink too much. There might be some quality loss regardless, but if you have already torn the print a little bit, I can't imagine anything worse than that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T02:05:43.347" />
  <row Id="6385" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6380" CreationDate="2011-01-04T02:23:21.723" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Aside from the better quality of the EF-S 10-22mm lens, it offers a significantly wider angle of view. So much so that at 10mm, there is a fair amount of distortion. An ultra wide angle can be an extremely powerful tool, particularly when you want to get really close to a foreground subject, and still capture great breadth and depth to your scene. The 18mm wide end of your kit lens can't hold a stick to the 10mm wide end of the 10-20mm EF-S.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A simple comparison can be made between these lenses and their EF (full frame) counterparts, as well. Sometimes that can be helpful in making a decision. Since Canon entry-level DSLR's use APS-C 1.6x crop sensors, it is easy to calculate the full-frame equivalents. The 18-55mm EF-S kit lens behaves like a 28-88mm EF lens. The standard EF counterpart would be the superb 24-70mm L series lens. Similarly, the 10-22mm EF-S lens behaves like a 16-35mm EF lens. The direct EF counterpart for that would be the 16-35mm L series lens. Canon's EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM is one of their widest zoom lenses, with the only wider one being the new EF 8-15mm f/4 L USM FishEye lens. That should put the EF-S 10-22mm lens in perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some links to photos that make use of ultra wide angles to get extremely close to their foreground, while still encompassing great scene breadth and depth. I think the last link in this sequence particularly demonstrates the power of wide angle:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://klarens-photography.deviantart.com/art/TwilightFloatingMemories-190223875&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Twilight Floating Memories&lt;/a&gt;: 16mm/APS-C&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This is a little beyond the limit of your 18-55, for reference&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://erezmarom.deviantart.com/art/Down-in-Sinkhole-Land-III-185110744&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Down in Sinkhole Land III&lt;/a&gt;: 10mm/APS-C&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://tomaskaspar.deviantart.com/art/High-Tatras-national-park-187284917&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;High Tatras National Park&lt;/a&gt;: 17mm/Full Frame&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://dee-t.deviantart.com/art/A-small-oasis-178535828&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A Small Oasis&lt;/a&gt;: 10mm/APS-C&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://raymaker.deviantart.com/art/A-Break-in-the-Storm-177356177&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A Break in the Storm&lt;/a&gt;: 10mm/APS-C&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://marianne-lim.deviantart.com/art/Korpudalur-sunset-177917148&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Korpudalur Sunset&lt;/a&gt;: 10mm/APS-C&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T02:23:21.723" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6386" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6376" CreationDate="2011-01-04T02:42:45.013" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I guess there isn't much more I could say other than I own the Apple CinemaDisplay 30&quot; LCD screen, and I am a heavy duty Microsoft/.NET developer. I work entirely in Windows 7 on my custom-build PC (not a Mac), and this screen has been great. I purchased it quite a number of years ago, and it is still running strong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I was in the market more recently, I would definitely go for an LED LCD screen, rather than a CCFL LED screen. LED screens, particularly those with a clear/glossy screen, offer a much wider gamut, more accurate color rendition, and broader coverage of the AdobeRGB and NTSC gamuts than other screens. There are several manufacturers who make LED computer screens these days, including &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.eizo.com/global/products/coloredge/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Eizo with their ColorEdge&lt;/a&gt; screens, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?pid=11095&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LaCie with their new 730 model&lt;/a&gt; (one of the best photo editing screens on the market with the broadest gamut I've ever seen...my next screen if the Apple ever dies), as well as more well-known brands such as NEC (I'm having a hard time finding professional grade LED monitors from NEC right now), &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apple.com/displays/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Apple&lt;/a&gt;, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want a high quality, wide gamut screen that is designed for a photo editing workflow, I highly recommend looking into LED screens, particularly professional grade ones. NEC and Apple will have them at more reasonable prices, but with narrower gamuts than true professional grade LED screens. If you want the top of the line, with the widest gamut currently available, look no further than the LaCie 730. It covers 123% of the AdobeRGB color gamut, which is ideal for photographic editing. It is not quite as physically appealing as the Apple CinemaDisplay, but color-rendition-wise, it is fantastic. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T02:42:45.013" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="6387" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2674" CreationDate="2011-01-04T02:43:12.720" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been very happy with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.myphotopipe.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photo Pipe&lt;/a&gt;.  The print quality (in my opinion) is much higher than SnapFish or Shutterfly.  I never did try to opt out of SnapFish's &quot;color correction&quot; or whatever it's called, though, so maybe that was the problem.  Photo Pipe runs specials all the time for free shipping, % discounts on certain sizes, etc. once you sign up to receive their emails.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="706" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-04T03:49:00.063" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T03:49:00.063" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-04T02:43:12.720" />
  <row Id="6388" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6380" CreationDate="2011-01-04T02:50:34.783" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on what you mean by nature photography. I prefer a telephoto lens for nature photography, especially for photos of birds and other animals, but it sounds like you are interested in something wide. If you want to stay in the range it covers, the 10-22mm lens will blow the 18-55mm lens out of the water. I personally find wide-angle nature photography to be very pretty and immersive, but tedious/constraining in style. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1125" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T02:50:34.783" />
  <row Id="6389" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6326" CreationDate="2011-01-04T03:45:29.460" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Picasa&lt;/strong&gt; has a duplicate file finder but it's hard to tell what you are looking at: Run Picasa; click &lt;code&gt;Tools&lt;/code&gt; &gt; &lt;code&gt;Experimental&lt;/code&gt; &gt; &lt;code&gt;Show Duplicate Files&lt;/code&gt;. It &lt;em&gt;works&lt;/em&gt; but be careful about what you are deleting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another option is the &lt;strong&gt;free&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;Fast Duplicate File Finder&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mindgems.com/products/Fast-Duplicate-File-Finder/Fast-Duplicate-File-Finder-About.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fast Duplicate File Finder&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I liked about this is it allows to you preview the picture before deciding you &lt;em&gt;don't&lt;/em&gt; need the duplicate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/T7ve7.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That works fine as long as the files are &lt;em&gt;identical&lt;/em&gt;, but if you are looking for similar photos (e.g. same photo but resized, rotated, or manipulated), you may want to look into their upgraded version:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mindgems.com/products/VS-Duplicate-Image-Finder/VSDIF-About.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Visual Similarity Duplicate Images Finder&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't used this program but I used a very similar program (no longer made) and I found it very useful. They have a free download so it might be worth checking out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="165" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T03:45:29.460" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6390" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6418" CreationDate="2011-01-04T05:21:56.327" Score="0" ViewCount="349" Body="&lt;p&gt;So on adobetv I  found tuts on simple one image panorama creation like &lt;a href=&quot;http://tv.adobe.com/watch/photoshop-cs4-sneak-peek/enhanced-panoramic-photomerge/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; but I want to know how esely create panoramas like for &lt;a href=&quot;http://mrdoob.github.com/three.js/examples/geometry_panorama.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;such artworks&lt;/a&gt; (there were used images&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;('http://mrdoob.github.com/three.js/examples/textures/cube/skybox/px.jpg'), // right&#xA;            ('http://mrdoob.github.com/three.js/examples/textures/cube/skybox/nx.jpg'), // left&#xA;            ('http://mrdoob.github.com/three.js/examples/textures/cube/skybox/py.jpg'), // top&#xA;            ('http://mrdoob.github.com/three.js/examples/textures/cube/skybox/ny.jpg'), // bottom&#xA;            ('http://mrdoob.github.com/three.js/examples/textures/cube/skybox/pz.jpg'), // back&#xA;            ('http://mrdoob.github.com/three.js/examples/textures/cube/skybox/nz.jpg') // fron&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2952" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T18:33:59.027" Title="Where to get a tutorial on how to create full 3d panoramic cube images set with your camera and photoshop?" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;panorama&gt;&lt;tutorial&gt;&lt;panoramic-shoot&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="6391" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6286" CreationDate="2011-01-04T05:55:22.740" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;After messing around with some of my shots in Aperture, I think the meanings are highly camera-specific. For my 450D/Rebel XSi, they seem to mean:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Narrow white frame: Inactive focus point.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bold white frame: Not sure; see below&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Narrow red frame: Active, but unselected point.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bold red frame: Chosen focus point. More than one can be chosen.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whereas for three models of Canon P&amp;amp;S (PowerShots: SD900, SD1300 IS, and S90), bold white frames indicate primary focus points and narrow white frames indicate secondary focus points. Since these cameras don’t have fixed focus points, it makes sense that they wouldn’t have available-but-inactive points.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, they seem to ascend in certainty — the bolder the frame, the more certain it was to have achieved focus at that point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, the majority of my S90 shots have a single frame, even where there should be multiple, such as when it detects two or more faces. Perhaps it doesn’t record this when shooting RAW, or Aperture doesn’t understand how to pull that from RAW vs. the JPEGs shot by my earlier ELPHs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1905" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T05:55:22.740" />
  <row Id="6392" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6393" CreationDate="2011-01-04T06:01:34.497" Score="5" ViewCount="199" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi all,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;it might be me using the wrong term for what I have in mind, but I cannot find how and where I can (in Canada) have lenticular images developed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I mean those things that display two (or more) different images depending on the angle you look at it. Often, they are also holographic/3D. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A quick google search only revealed large printers that won't do anything below a certain quantity...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks,&#xA;Lagerbaer&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2379" LastEditorUserId="2379" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-04T06:06:46.213" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T03:28:27.230" Title="Where can I have lenticular images created?" Tags="&lt;printing&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="6393" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6392" CreationDate="2011-01-04T06:52:10.700" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do lenticular photography work for several of my clients on a regular basis. The phrase I believe you're looking for (at least here in the States) is 'Lenticular Printing.' When I did a Google search on the phrase 'no minimum lenticular printing' there were several outfits that claimed to be able to do short-runs with no-minimums... Is the problem that you've found these firms already but they won't work with you because you're in Canada? Or is it more getting the phrase 'lenticular printing' right so Google is able to return you good search results?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T06:52:10.700" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6394" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6352" CreationDate="2011-01-04T07:14:34.017" Score="-3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've made pictures of sunsets and sunrises, and never used a solar filter. As this is at least in Western Europe a partial solar eclipse, I'm wondering if you really need that much of a filter. I have a ND3 filter to use and my sunglasses for my eyes. Hope I'm right and that that's enough for a eclipse at sunrise. Well about 30 minutes to go, everything is set. Let's hope for the best!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2955" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T07:14:34.017" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6395" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6380" CreationDate="2011-01-04T07:40:00.017" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;agree with what jrista said. the 10-22 is a very interesting lens for some types of nature photography, but a very limiting lens that precludes a lot of potential images. I would not consider it as a primary (or only) lens. I definitely would want something like that in my bag -- but it'd be my third or fourth lens, not my first or second. Coverage of the 20-70 range would be the critical range for much nature photography, unless you want to specialize in animals/birds, and then something like the canon 100-400 would be my starting point. The 10-22 is more of a specialty lens that creates some interesting types of images, but it's not one that I'd ever see as my go-to. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me, the key ranges for nature photography are 20-70, then 100-200, then 300-400, then 10-20, then 500 and higher (until you run out of money). Below ten you're in fisheye range, you either get a kick out of working with one or not. Somewhere along the way a macro lens or two get added (I use a sigma 180). You'll cover 90% of your needs with 20-150, unless it's running away from you or flying, at which point the 100-400 becomes more important. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't forget that for very wide style landscapes you can do a lot with a normal lens and some stitched pano. I was going crazy for a while trying to figure out how George Lepp did some of his landscapes I loved, and when I finally got to talk to him, it turns out they were all done around 70mm vertical and stitched panos. he does a LOT of stitched panos in his work... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do primarily nature, and a lot of bird photography. I currently carry a 28-300 (which I'm going to upgrade, bought it as a street kit carry around and it's okay, but I really would prefer something wider and not so superzoom, because the superzooms aren't as sharp; nice lens, not killer lens), and my 100-400, which is my go-to. and a Sigma 180 macro, and a 300/F4 with a 1.4x tied to it most of the time. I use the 100-400 handheld, and the 300/1.4x on a tripod. It's sharper, but less flexible. There are times when I'd kill for a 10-20, but I've also found much of the time I can use my standard zoom and do panos... buying a 10-20 is on the list, but not near the top of it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T07:40:00.017" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6396" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6352" CreationDate="2011-01-04T07:53:05.513" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well if you use a telephoto lens the sunlight will cover most of the sensor thus imo you definitely need some sort of filter, since stopping down too much would induce errors.&#xA;Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2956" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T07:53:05.513" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6397" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6344" CreationDate="2011-01-04T09:57:57.853" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've seen the results of film that was developed after fifty years of living on a shelf. While it did take some special processing, the results were fabulous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few years ago, I found a roll of TMAX that I shot when I was a teenager (going on 20 years ago), and the lab was able to develop it just like it was exposed yesterday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've even seen unexposed film that was decades past it's expiration shot and developed perfectly fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In essence, unless you're dealing with Kodachrome, there's a good chance that any film you find can be processed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="52" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T09:57:57.853" />
  <row Id="6398" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2674" CreationDate="2011-01-04T10:49:01.300" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Netherlands I've always used &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.profotonet.nl/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;profotonet&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Decent prices, great quality prints, quick delivery times, and most importantly: the least hassle with payment ever. &lt;strong&gt;You don't need a credit card or paypall or similar for payment&lt;/strong&gt;. all that's required is a valid email address, mailing address and optionally a different billing address. They'll send you the bill digitally, and also a paper copy with the photo's and ask that you'll pay them through your banking account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They immediately start printing after you've uploaded your photo's. Usually you'll have them within two working days, sometimes even one (depends on time of ordering (before or after noon) and size; packages take longer than envelopes). Of course, they only deliver within the Netherlands, so I guess that's how they minimise their risk (you can be tracked down if you don't pay).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can upload via the browser (they even a plain old HTML 4 website for dire situations), or through a downloaded little program. Paper types that can be chosen are: glossy, matte, &quot;Fuji Digital Professional DP II Glossy Pearl&quot;, and for the black &amp;amp; white fans: Ilford glossy or lustre.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2460" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T10:49:01.300" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-04T10:49:01.300" />
  <row Id="6399" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6402" CreationDate="2011-01-04T10:58:55.317" Score="2" ViewCount="246" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been trying to shoot partial solar eclipse today with my Nikon D3100, and later noticed this spot on images:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://pix.academ.org/img/2011/01/04/70baea815d1557594f096a82ab05704f.png&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://pix.academ.org/img/2011/01/04/70baea815d1557594f096a82ab05704f.png&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not have special sun filter, but i tried my best to cover lens with disk from old 3.5&quot; diskette. &#xA;So now I'm unsure - did I damage my sensor? Or is it dust? Sensor cleaning function doesn't help and i haven't changed lens since i bought the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2922" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T18:47:00.523" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T18:47:00.523" Title="Is it sensor damage? Or dust?" Tags="&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;troubleshooting&gt;&lt;equipment-damage&gt;&lt;dust&gt;&lt;sun&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6400" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6399" CreationDate="2011-01-04T11:07:51.877" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems while i was writing this post,the spot had disappeared. The question still stands however - was it dust, or short term sensor problem? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2922" LastEditorUserId="2922" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-04T11:16:01.543" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T11:16:01.543" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6401" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6376" CreationDate="2011-01-04T13:43:32.177" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Great monitors like the NEC ones have been mentioned so far (+1 for the sync LCD2690WUXi2 for example), but if you are on a &quot;budget&quot;, look at some Dell monitors too. I bought a &lt;a href=&quot;http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&amp;amp;l=en&amp;amp;s=bsd&amp;amp;cs=04&amp;amp;sku=224-8284&amp;amp;baynote_bnrank=0&amp;amp;baynote_irrank=1&amp;amp;~ck=dellSearch&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dell Ultrasharp U2711&lt;/a&gt; recently and I'm pretty happy with it. It's solid: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFT_LCD#In-plane_switching_.28IPS.29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;IPS panel&lt;/a&gt;, 2560 x 1440 resolution, 16:9 aspect ratio, factory-tuned AdobeRGB (96%) and sRGB modes. Got some &lt;a href=&quot;http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/dell-ultrasharp-u2711/4505-3174_7-33913833.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;great reviews&lt;/a&gt;, and can be had in the US for $900.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no shortage of AdobeRGB monitors out there, but keep in mind that the color calibration chain on a PC is not as good as on a Mac. I would suggest you plan on budgeting for a good colorimeter. Do not expect all applications to display your photos accurately. It's all good with Adobe products (Lightroom, PS), but I gave up on Firefox a while ago (yes, I'm aware of the color profile options, and no FF doesn't work properly with all ICC profiles).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I'm concerned, my real issue was to find a &lt;em&gt;laptop&lt;/em&gt; (PC) with a great panel. Windows Laptops have &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.anandtech.com/show/3509&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;notoriously bad displays&lt;/a&gt;, rendering a smaller subset of the sRGB and AdobeRGB gamuts for example. It took me a lot of time to score one of the last infamous Dell Studio XPS 16 with a RGB-LED screen. It's not the best machine but the panel is fantastic, approaching &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.anandtech.com/show/3509&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;112%&lt;/a&gt; AdobeRGB and easily rivaling what I use for my desktop (see review &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.trustedreviews.com/laptops/review/2009/03/10/Dell-Studio-XPS-16-with-RGB-LED-Display/p1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2338322,00.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;). Unfortunately they were pretty expensive to produce and Dell has replaced the &lt;a href=&quot;http://superuser.com/questions/77104/how-to-find-out-if-the-screen-is-wled-or-rgbled-on-dell-studio-xps-16&quot;&gt;RGB-LED option with WLED&lt;/a&gt; since then. I bought mine refurb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T13:43:32.177" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6402" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6399" CreationDate="2011-01-04T14:28:16.027" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That looks like a typical dust spot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How blurry the spot is depends on the distance between the filter in front of the sensor and the actual sensor (which is constant for each camera model), and the aperture used. For a smaller aperture (higher f-number) the spot gets sharper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sensor cleaning function may remove some dust, but I read a test a while back that showed that sensor cleaning functions varied from pretty weak to completely useless...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T14:28:16.027" />
  <row Id="6403" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6399" CreationDate="2011-01-04T14:37:38.117" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can try this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;step down at max (eg. &gt; f/22)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;take an off-focus blurry picture of some uniform surface (eg. ceiling or monochrome wall). Best is when you can get rid of the subject grain itself, so look for slow exposures and manual out-of-focus!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the sensor is dusty you'll clearly notice spots. If you have scratches, you'll see them also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For your second question, I guess that such low-level electronics works or not. You'd get burnt photosensors that would show as pixels anyway, probably not blurred spots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2961" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T14:37:38.117" />
  <row Id="6404" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6421" CreationDate="2011-01-04T14:55:28.747" Score="6" ViewCount="242" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am trying to think of good techniques that can capture the full vibrant scene of outdoor night or poorly-lit events at wide angles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my previous experiences, flash fitted with wide-angle plate or diffuser is usually still not enough to illuminate an entire ballroom nicely, and certainly cannot brighten the outdoor environment. Depending on the size and configuration of a ballroom, i may still be able to get away with bouncing flash around walls or ceiling. But usually the far end of the background remains dark and poorly lit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternative attempts is to utilise 2nd/rear curtain sync and allowing the shutter go slower than the set flash sync speeds (typical Aperture mode). This allows the cam to capture dark/night scene as seen by human eye while lighting up the foreground subjects at the last moment to freeze their &quot;final state&quot;. Of course this is subject to plenty of handshake and motion blurs, and images won't be as sharp as with fast shutter speeds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are some other ways to capture decently stop-motion pictures in dark open spaces?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE - my operating style&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To better understand my situation I should explain my setup. To cover events with high mobility, I sling the BlackRapid DR-1 strap to wield two EOS 7Ds, one wide-angle with a 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 and the other telephoto 24-70mm f/2.8 or 70-200mm f/2.8 depending on environment size. I have 580EX II and 430EX II. I am not working as a professional. I also do not make use of any full-frame as I do not recognise any artistic progression I can get from that after putting in extra money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="802" LastEditorUserId="802" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-05T16:31:16.273" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T19:08:02.913" Title="Wide-angle flash for outdoor nights, or poorly-lit ballrooms" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;low-light&gt;" AnswerCount="5" />
  <row Id="6405" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6392" CreationDate="2011-01-04T14:58:49.197" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canada/ USA same pricing &#xA;contact me &#xA;www.3d-lenticular.com&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2962" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T14:58:49.197" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6406" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6404" CreationDate="2011-01-04T15:09:02.803" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With the second technique you mention (using rear curtain sync and using a slow shutter speed), you'll find your results will become much better if you &lt;strong&gt;use a tripod&lt;/strong&gt;.  This will eliminate the shake issue you mentioned and allow you to create significantly longer exposures that better capture the event with the ambient light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T15:09:02.803" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6407" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6380" CreationDate="2011-01-04T15:12:08.883" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 10-22mm lens is the perfect complimentary to the 18-55mm when it comes to nature and small room photography. The first time you'll look through your viewfinder at 10mm, you will make a WOW! and then you will understand what you have been missing all this time...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I purchased mine after a couple of years where my widest was the 18-55, and effectively not using it since purchasing the 28-135. The weekend after the purchase we were out to the White Mountains, NH for 3 days. Although having a nice arsenal of lenses in my bag, the 10-22 lens remained on my camera for the whole 3 days. I just did not feel the need for changing it on these circumstances. It covered scenic, portraits (to some extent), the visit to Storyland (a theme park in the area), and the best part - we hiked the Flume Gorge trail, which is a trail where most of it is in a tight small canyon. I was able to take great picture due to this lens, which I couldn't with the others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is expensive (surely relative to your current equipment), but if you are serious with your hobby and willing to shell the money - I promise you a great experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a comparison -I took these the day I received it in the office. Taken from the same spot in a small room. It shows the difference between the 28-135mm and the 10-22mm:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/n9DXY.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/U0WhA.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T15:12:08.883" />
  <row Id="6408" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6404" CreationDate="2011-01-04T15:14:39.043" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know about your equipment, but it sounds like placing multiple flashes around the room that remotely triggered may go a long way towards helping.  Basically the goal here is to emulate raising the ambient lighting.  So multiple flashes bounced off near the existing light sources should raise your light level while keeping the &quot;natural&quot; look of the scene as best as possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-04T15:37:49.943" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T15:37:49.943" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6409" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6404" CreationDate="2011-01-04T15:27:00.020" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is plain physics here - the inverse square law. When it comes to large halls or areas, and using an on-camera flash, there is no way for lighting the distant objects as good as the foreground objects with just one light. You just have to use additional lighting sources - be it remotely controlled flashes, the lights of the room you are in, the street lights when outdoors or the moon/starts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Needless to say that a tripod is required when using available light to light the distant objects. For short exposure times, I think your only option is the remotely controlled flashes located at strategic positions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T15:27:00.020" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6411" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6379" CreationDate="2011-01-04T17:19:17.910" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't say whether this will work for a print stuck on glass, but I recently had very good success separating a bunch of prints that were stuck to other prints by putting the brick of stuck prints in the freezer for about 1/2 hour.  I was floored when it actually worked, but I got every last print unstuck this way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T17:19:17.910" />
  <row Id="6412" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3215" CreationDate="2011-01-04T17:19:58.880" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Leitz/Leica designations refer to the maximum aperture rather than the overall lens design.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Noctilux lenses have at least a f/1.2&#xA;maximum aperture (the current model&#xA;is f/0.95)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Summilux lenses are f/1.4&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Summicron lenses are f/2&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Summarit lenses (current) are f/2.5&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Elmarit lenses are f/2.8&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Elmar lenses are between f/3.5 and f/4&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like the Carl Zeiss lenses, the &lt;em&gt;Vario&lt;/em&gt; prefix means it's a zoom lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T17:19:58.880" />
  <row Id="6413" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-04T18:14:54.653" Score="0" ViewCount="124" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1783/how-to-focus-in-complete-darkness&quot;&gt;How to focus in complete darkness&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon 20D, when I shoot outdoors at night I have a very hard time getting images in focus.  I primarily shoot landscapes, so my subject may be up to a mile away (so using a flashlight to help focus won't work.  I'm finding that cranking a lens to infinity takes the image out of focus and that I need to hit a sweet spot just a tad before infinity when focusing.  The problem is at night this is incredibly hard as half the time I can barely see anything through the viewfinder.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;My best solutions so far has been trial and error, checking the image on my iPad to see if it's in focus (the camera's screen is too small and distorts the image when zooming).  What are your tips for focusing at night?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2968" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T18:14:54.653" ClosedDate="2011-01-04T18:20:54.103" Title="Need help focusing at night with DSLR." Tags="&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;manual-focus&gt;&lt;night-shooting&gt;" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6414" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6415" CreationDate="2011-01-04T18:22:54.993" Score="10" ViewCount="618" Body="&lt;p&gt;While traveling by air here in India, one is instructed to remove all electronics like cell phones / media players / laptops and pass them thru the X-ray scanners separate from the rest of one's hand baggage (carry-on).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is a modern-day DSLR (specifically a Nikon D90 / D3100) and the SD card contained within affected? Is is safe to pass it thru or do I insist on a manual check and bypass the X-ray machine if possible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2552" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T04:10:00.530" Title="Are airport x-ray scanners safe for DSLRs / lenses / storage media?" Tags="&lt;travel&gt;&lt;equipment-damage&gt;&lt;camera-care&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6415" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6414" CreationDate="2011-01-04T18:25:55.087" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've done a lot of travel with dSLR equipment and cards, I've never had an issue, it's safe to send through. The issue, historically, was with film since x-rays are light and could affect the film.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-05T02:03:38.457" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T02:03:38.457" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6416" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3215" CreationDate="2011-01-04T18:27:41.373" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer the second part of your question, NO you should not care about the family name in itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When choosing a lens, look at the specifications (focal-length, maximum aperture, magnification, etc) to suit your needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then look at the MTF charts, sample images (full-size only) and reviews to know about quality. A goof place to look is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slrgear.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SLRGear&lt;/a&gt; which has excellent lens tests which show softness, vignetting at almost every combination of aperture and focal-length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you really care if that awesome MFT comes from a Double-Helix Inverted Ultra-Hyper-Glass design or from a Triple-Phase Super-Dupper-Luminomatic design?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hint: None of these have been invented yet and the future manufacturers will both patent this as the best lens design ever :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T18:27:41.373" />
  <row Id="6417" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6414" CreationDate="2011-01-04T18:30:01.747" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;YES it is complete safe, you have nothing to worry about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T18:30:01.747" />
  <row Id="6418" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6390" CreationDate="2011-01-04T18:33:59.027" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This could be split into two tasks, 1) making a 360 panorama and 2) using software to rotate the panorama around a central &quot;view&quot;.  In the link you provided the 2nd part is being handled by JavaScript from the three.js project.  Making images to work with three.js would require making a &quot;flat&quot; panorama first and cutting it into the right pieces.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;It's probably easier to just use software to do the whole thing.  This tutorial should help:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://matadornetwork.com/bnt/2006/11/26/what-is-a-360-degree-panoramic-photo-and-how-to-make-one/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://matadornetwork.com/bnt/2006/11/26/what-is-a-360-degree-panoramic-photo-and-how-to-make-one/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2968" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T18:33:59.027" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6419" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6414" CreationDate="2011-01-04T18:42:02.910" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's completely safe for the equipment.  From what I can tell, it's not really a question about the x-rays affecting the device, it's being able to determine if they are shells around bombs.  If I recall correctly, the Lockerbie bombing was done with a laptop shell around the bomb; other complicated electronics could also be used in a similar fashion.  By placing these devices separately from the rest of your luggage, the screeners have a better view of the equipment and its internals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T18:42:02.910" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="6420" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6335" CreationDate="2011-01-04T18:52:26.817" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I own the EF50mmF1.4, it is a good lens. However my Dad own the EF50mmF1.8 and there is very little between them when it comes to image quality. For build quality the f1.4 version just edges it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an alternative I would consider something like the EF85mmF1.8 in addition to your 50mm, it has the build quality of the EF50mmF1.4, but the image quality of the EF50mmF1.8 at a useful focal length for portraiture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T18:52:26.817" />
  <row Id="6421" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6404" CreationDate="2011-01-04T18:54:11.530" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 'rule of thumb' I've always taught is that the more space you're looking to illuminate artificially, the more expensive of a proposition it becomes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I often encounter large poorly lit ballrooms or outdoor spaces when I'm photographing weddings, and in order to better illuminate the spaces I use up to 6 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.qtm.com/?page=3201&amp;amp;qmode=c&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;QFlash T5d-Rs&lt;/a&gt; balanced for the environmental lighting and triggered remotely, and one &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.qtm.com/?page=3211&amp;amp;qmode=c&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;QFlash QF8C&lt;/a&gt; on camera. That's a lot of power, but by placing the T5d-Rs on tall C stands around the edges of the environment I'm able to light up full-sized hotel ballrooms such that I can shoot a wedding reception hand-held and give a look that's far closer to 'ambient illumination' than 'washed out by flash' in the process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T18:54:11.530" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6422" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6414" CreationDate="2011-01-04T19:08:18.997" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is quite safe, but only due to low-level-radiation digital X-rays on the scanners side and modern error-correction, fault-tolerance, sometimes chance on the users side. If you knock out a bit with X-Rays in a common picture-file today, you won't notice - one bit in four MByte-files will mostly be at a place where you'll never notice the difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Errors ARE introduced into flash and volatile ram, look for &quot;soft error&quot; if you want to know more, there are some papers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're paranoid: backup your files on to something magnetic or off-site and then just move on. If not, nevertheless do backup the files. As for the camera - if it is affected (settings scrambled), just reset it as you would without knowledge about the source. Its firmware is in non-volatile PROM and much harder to change (read: safe).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: The wish for removing the electronics and putting them separately though the X-Ray really stems from a better view. I was asked several times to separate my bag full of gadgets, as they could not identify anything in my three layers of laptop, palmtop, camera, power supplies and batteries. Two times now they also have mistaken a part of my side-bag of the palmtop (Psion) for a knife :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastEditorUserId="2317" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-05T04:10:00.530" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T04:10:00.530" />
  <row Id="6425" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5963" CreationDate="2011-01-04T19:44:37.313" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm having trouble finding a definitive answer to your question.  This may well be something that has yet to be properly addressed by the relevant standards bodies, and thus something you &quot;can't do&quot; (yet).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, here are some pointers to areas for further research.  I've investigated them somewhat (though in less detail than is possible, by a long shot), and will give notes on what I've found in each:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://metability.editme.com/mmf-scavenger-xmp-schemaex-MSPeopleTagging&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://metability.editme.com/mmf-scavenger-xmp-schemaex-MSPeopleTagging&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I got to this document by way of searches related to things I turned up in other documents, below -- It seems to be saying that the structure for tagging specific areas (or, in the terminology used here, &quot;regions&quot;) of a photo is based on a standard from Microsoft that's specifically intended for tagging people.  Of course, this doesn't preclude there being some other standard to do what you want... just a data point.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://u88.n24.queensu.ca/exiftool/forum/index.php?topic=1404.0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://u88.n24.queensu.ca/exiftool/forum/index.php?topic=1404.0&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Threads such as this one, showing the (partial) XML content of an XMP file, are how I found the search strings that got me to the above article.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://phoshare.googlecode.com/svn-history/r9/trunk/tilutil/exiftool.py&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://phoshare.googlecode.com/svn-history/r9/trunk/tilutil/exiftool.py&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Python script which also gave some relevant information for strings to search for.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/devnet/xmp.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.adobe.com/devnet/xmp.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Links to a whole bunch of technical documents (and SDK, etc.) about XMP.  In my skimming through a few of these documents, I had trouble finding anything that talked about region-based tagging (even of faces), though it's entirely possible that I was skipping over something because it used words different than what I was searching for.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/xmp/standards.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.adobe.com/products/xmp/standards.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another possible Adobe-based source for links to relevant things.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3490552/how-to-display-and-tag-a-region-of-an-image-with-python&quot;&gt;http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3490552/how-to-display-and-tag-a-region-of-an-image-with-python&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A seemingly-related question on StackOverflow.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cipa.jp/english/hyoujunka/kikaku/pdf/DC-008-2010_E.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cipa.jp/english/hyoujunka/kikaku/pdf/DC-008-2010_E.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EXIF specification document (perhaps EXIF could support it?  But I didn't find it there, either.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.iptc.org/site/Home/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.iptc.org/site/Home/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The IPTC standard can be downloaded from here, another possible place to look -- though again, I didn't find it there.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hopefully, this answer is somehow useful to you, and/or will help someone else find an even better answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the mean time, perhaps filing a feature request with the software provider for whatever piece(s) of software you're using, will help drive the changes necessary to make this possible??&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because clearly, it'd be useful.  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it &lt;em&gt;has&lt;/em&gt; been done, in ways...  e.g.: One option is that the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/services/api/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;API&lt;/a&gt; (and web user interface) offers a way to add &quot;notes&quot;, which have specific regions associated with them.  If doing the tagging on flickr would be of use to you, then you might try that -- look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/services/api/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;API docs&lt;/a&gt; for the various calls that start with &quot;flickr.photos.notes&quot;, or (depending on exactly what you're trying to do), just upload a picture, and then click-and-drag across it on its page, and it'll prompt you for adding a note.  There may be other programs, sites, etc. that have done this as well, I'm not sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T19:44:37.313" />
  <row Id="6426" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4656" CreationDate="2011-01-04T19:54:59.227" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;''EDIT: Just for clarification, I can take many more than 8 pictures on max burst. Also, &lt;strong&gt;the 8 only shows up on the Program, Av, Tv, and manual modes.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Kyle  '' &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have noticed the same today ! It is a completely different question than the targets of the answers above...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I tried with the early type 1 GB CF cards and UDMA 8GB , no difference, ** 8 only shown in certain modes (P,Av,Tv,M) 8 for all size pictures...**&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It only changes in modes other than P,Av,Tv,M&lt;/strong&gt;... with 8GB UDMA 8 changes into 47 for L size...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2970" LastEditorUserId="2970" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-04T21:30:04.663" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T21:30:04.663" />
  <row Id="6427" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6428" CreationDate="2011-01-04T19:55:09.697" Score="7" ViewCount="163" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi everyone,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm planning to go to Alaska to see Aurora Borealis and I have a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX35.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to get &lt;strong&gt;decent&lt;/strong&gt; pictures of Auroras using this camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are the specs of this camera: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/FX35/FX35DAT.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/FX35/FX35DAT.HTM&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it is not possible, which is the cheapest camera+lens setup I can buy to get a picture of an Aurora?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks,&#xA;Randall&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2971" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T20:16:44.130" Title="Is it possible to shoot an Aurora Borealis with a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX35" Tags="&lt;panasonic-lumix&gt;&lt;aurora-borealis&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="6428" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6427" CreationDate="2011-01-04T20:07:38.380" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is an excellent article entitled &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alaskaphotographics.com/how_to_photograph_northern_lights.shtml#gear&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;How to Photograph the northern lights&quot;&lt;/a&gt; that basically states with a point and shoot, it's very difficult to get good pictures. It looks like your camera is one of the higher-end, it should be alright, they have some specific recommendations that I've copied below. It also gives a list of cameras that might do the trick. Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have an digi cam with some advanced features, read your manual and see if it looks usable for aurora. You want:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;400 ISO, preferably 800 or higher&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;bulb mode&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;manual focus option&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;self timer release&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;wide angle lens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-04T20:16:44.130" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T20:16:44.130" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6430" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1103" CreationDate="2011-01-04T22:58:08.110" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;maybe more than you need, but this is a very good wireless remote, about £80 or $100:-&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hahnel.ie/index.cfm?page=dslrremotecontrols&amp;amp;id=60&amp;amp;pId=60&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.hahnel.ie/index.cfm?page=dslrremotecontrols&amp;amp;id=60&amp;amp;pId=60&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;good for time lapse and bulb-mode, very flexible&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2973" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T22:58:08.110" />
  <row Id="6431" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2174" CreationDate="2011-01-04T23:01:17.857" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;this remote:-&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hahnel.ie/index.cfm?page=dslrremotecontrols&amp;amp;id=60&amp;amp;pId=60&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.hahnel.ie/index.cfm?page=dslrremotecontrols&amp;amp;id=60&amp;amp;pId=60&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;from the faq&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;When using the timer functionalities, is there a limit on the number of photographs I can take?&#xA;You can set the transmitter function N (number of shots) to &quot;--&quot;. This then allows an indefinite amount of shots (above 99).&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2973" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T23:01:17.857" />
  <row Id="6432" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1789" CreationDate="2011-01-04T23:13:41.757" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Academic research has been done on this that won an Ig Nobel!!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;....&#xA;Piers then figured out how many shots I'd need to be 99% certain of getting a good one. He found that photographing thirty people in bad light would need about thirty shots. Once there's around fifty people, even in good light, you can kiss your hopes of an unspoilt photo goodbye. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Piers also came up with a rule of thumb for calculating the number of photos to take for groups of less than 20: divide the number of people by three if there's good light and two if the light's bad.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://velocity.ansto.gov.au/velocity/ans0011/article_06.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://velocity.ansto.gov.au/velocity/ans0011/article_06.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2973" LastActivityDate="2011-01-04T23:13:41.757" />
  <row Id="6433" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6435" CreationDate="2011-01-04T23:26:23.247" Score="11" ViewCount="282" Body="&lt;p&gt;How much of a difference does it make to use one of the extended colorspaces vs. the normal sRGB?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T00:14:33.660" Title="How much of a difference does different color spaces make?" Tags="&lt;color&gt;&lt;wide-gamut&gt;&lt;color-space&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="6434" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6433" CreationDate="2011-01-04T23:39:12.927" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd say that it depends on your output medium, or more correctly, the relationship between the object, the storage format and the output medium. The problem is that when working with an extended space, then at the last stage of actually printing or displaying your image, where the medium is more limited than the source, some kind of remapping needs to take place. In this process, artifacts may be introduced - either saturation of the extreme tones, or banding due to re-scaling of the color space.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I believe that you really notice these artifacts when the source is rich enough and on extreme cases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: to clarify the above - if the actual scene is narrow in its color span, then using a wide gamut actually decreases the image quality, because in the process of digitizing the scene, fewer colors out of the available space are actually used. In this case, it is better to use a narrower colorspace, so you'll have a finer color resolution of the sampled scene.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-05T00:06:27.980" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T00:06:27.980" />
  <row Id="6435" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6433" CreationDate="2011-01-05T00:14:33.660" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Color spaces, as ysap stated, can be a confusing issue. There isn't a single correct answer to this question, and what you intend to do with the &quot;final copies&quot; of your images will really dictate what color spaces you use and when you convert from one to the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I think it is getting a bit dated, sRGB is still the &quot;safest&quot; color space these days. Many professional printing services require sRGB for print (although that is changing these days, as many professional printing services now support AdobeRGB or even ProPhoto RGB). If you are publishing your images to the web, sRGB is also the safest color space to convert your final images to, as many web browsers do not support proper ICM, and default to rendering in the sRGB space.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What color space you use during your processing workflow, on the other hand, is a more complex story. First off, camera's see far more into the realm of green color than computers or printers can generally render. If you work in RAW, and want to preserve as much original color accuracy as possible throughout your workflow, it is best to keep your images in the widest possible gamut. If you are working with muted scenes, or scenes with limited color, particularly lower saturation, a narrower gamut will be ideal. Use of a wide gamut when processing RAW is usually done for you if you use a tool like Lightroom or Aperture, as those tools make the default assumption that RAW images will utilize a considerable amount of the ProPhoto RGB gamut...the only gamut that covers nearly the entire LAB space that represents human color perception. Converting from RAW to TIFF will, then by default, save TIFF images with ProPhoto RGB unless you choose otherwise. (When working directly in RAW, gamut is really not taken into account, as RAW images are generally not tagged with a gamut at all.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Modern professional photography hardware, both computer screens and printers, have all moved towards AdobeRGB as the base or reference gamut. Top of the line, and even middle grade, LCD screens like the Apple CinemaDisplay, NEC, Eizo ColorEdge, or LaCie 700 RGB-LED series monitors all support 98-123% of the AdobeRGB gamut. Modern printers from Epson and Canon, particularly the prosumer models, but now also the professional/commercial lines, also support 98% or more of the AdobeRGB gamut. Epson printers tend to cover more of the blues and violets beyond the realm of sRGB and AdobeRGB, while Canon covers more of the reds and greens beyond the realm of sRGB and AdobeRGB. Therefor, if your intention is to process your photos on a professional grade wide-gamut LCD screen and print your photos on a prosumer Epson or Canon printer, the AdobeRGB gamut is the ideal choice for your final images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Converting from a wide gamut to a smaller gamut can be a critical step in your workflow. There are a variety of &lt;em&gt;rendering intents&lt;/em&gt; when converting between color spaces. The two most common are Relative Colorimetric intent, which aims to preserve original color value accuracy at the cost of perceptual accuracy, and Perceptual intent, which aims to preserve perceptual accuracy at the cost of original color value accuracy. Converting from one gamut to another should be done as infrequently as possible. Ideally, you would work in RAW until the moment you generate a &quot;final copy&quot; image for a specific medium, at which time you would convert that final copy to the appropriate gamut. If you are saving for web, the best gamut is sRGB. If you are saving for print, I would choose AdobeRGB unless you are sending off to a print lab for print, and they require sRGB.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When converting, it is important that you have your white and black points, curves, and contrast set correctly for. If you are converting to sRGB for display on the web, white and black points are far less important. For print, it is best to try soft proofing your image and tweak white and black points first before converting to a final gamut. You should convert and compare the original image to the converted image, and make sure you have not lost vibrancy or saturation in key areas. When converting from a wider gamut to a narrower gamut, the key areas where you may lose color will be in the greens and deep blues. If the difference between a source gamut and destination gamut color is broad, especially if that particular color is found in gradients, you may encounter some posterization or clipping. In such cases, you may want to adjust saturation, white and black points to reduce the range of color you are utilizing in your original image. This will lessen the amount of compression of color into the destination color space, and mitigate or eliminate posterization and clipping.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a few general rules of thumb:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cameras &quot;see&quot; a much wider gamut with their sensor than computer screens or printers can render. Particularly greens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you shoot vibrant, saturated scenes, a wider gamut will preserve colors better.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you shoot muted or desaturated scenes, a narrower gamut will preserve colors better.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Most professional photography computer screens and printers support the AdobeRGB gamut.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Computer screens cover 98% - 123% or so of AdobeRGB&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Printers cover around 98% or so of AdobeRGB, with different brands covering extended saturation into blues, violets, oranges, reds, and greens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Saturated green is one of the primary colors lost when converting to a narrow gamut, with blue and red following.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The key difference between wide and narrow gamuts is their chromaticity.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Chromaticity generally refers to the hue and overall saturation of a color...its purity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wider gamuts reach greater chromaticity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Narrower gamuts reach lesser chromaticity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T00:14:33.660" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6436" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1789" CreationDate="2011-01-05T03:03:02.533" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;All flashes cause people to blink.  Because many TTL systems today use a preflash, manual flash is a great way to avoid blinkers that sync up with the preflash-mainflash delay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And to add to other techniques people have posted to get it in one shot, shoot several shots in burst and blending is a very seamless and easy way to get an immaculate result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-05T07:59:00.377" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T07:59:00.377" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6437" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6439" CreationDate="2011-01-05T06:17:37.243" Score="6" ViewCount="118" Body="&lt;p&gt;Aside from the number of frames available on a roll, are there any differences between 120 film and 220 film?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T06:30:04.217" Title="What are the differences between 120 film and 220 film?" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;medium-format&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="6438" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6277" CreationDate="2011-01-05T06:22:35.817" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was in the same position as you few months earlier while buying my first DSLR. I read a lot of reviews/discussions/comparisons, also asked a lot of friends but got no significant answer with valid reasoning. Canon users vouched for canon, Nikon users did the same. A friend even told me to get Nikon because it feels good! So I decided to buy the camera that offered me the most for my budget. I didn't care if its a Canon or Nikon. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can do the same. Take a look at all available models within our budget and check if you get any good deal/sale etc. That way you can decide yourself and thus be comfortable enough with your decision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you take suggestion from your friends, its a good thing but later you might start feeling &quot;I should've bought that one&quot; or &quot;I shouldn't have bought this one&quot;. Check what are the current DSLR models thats hot and will give you the most for your money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was stuck deciding between Nikon D3100 and Canon 500D for quite a long time, but in the end decided to go for Canon 550D/T2i and I must say, I'm very satisfied with the purchase. As it was my own decision, I got nothing to regret :D&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Educate yourself enough first, so that you can understand the features/specs of different models. A few things to compare would be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sensor Type&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sensor Size&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Megapixels (image size)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ISO&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Live view&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Retractable LCD&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Build quality, Weight&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lens and other accessories availability.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Stabilization mechanism, in body or in lens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Video shooting and quality&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Exposure modes and compensation/bracketing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;White balance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The list can continue. Once you start to educate yourself you'll be able to notice minor changes that makes the difference between models and can help you decide your one. Just remember, in the end, you get what you pay for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastEditorUserId="2476" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-05T06:31:47.410" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T06:31:47.410" />
  <row Id="6439" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6437" CreationDate="2011-01-05T06:30:04.217" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not much -- 220 film is twice as long as 120 film, so to put it on the same roller, they leave the paper backing off of the exposable film (or, rarely, use a much thinner protective backing). That means that your camera (or back) needs to have a pressure plate that can adjust to the reduced thickness in order to flatten the film properly, and that you can't use a camera or back that uses a window onto the back of the film to show the exposure number (a lot of very old cameras had a red-filtered window -- about twice the strength of a #25 -- that you could directly view the paper backing through, and film usually had frame numbers printed on the paper for 6x9 and 6x6).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[EDIT - ADDED] I should note that there is plenty of paper at both ends of the 220 roll so that loading and unloading film in the usual manner is as safe as it is for 120.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T06:30:04.217" />
  <row Id="6440" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6443" CreationDate="2011-01-05T06:55:00.393" Score="8" ViewCount="282" Body="&lt;p&gt;I see that according to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/microsite/d3s_d3x/en/reliability/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon's website&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;em&gt;&quot;the shutter of the D3S and D3X has been tested for 300,000 cycles&quot;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the same time, some professional photographers can make much more than one thousand shoots in one day (from several sources; alas I can't find any of those sources now), even if they don't shoot every day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does it mean that those people (or their company) spend six thousand dollars for a camera like D3X every two years? If yes, why there are no DSLRs with a higher number of shutter cycles?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2236" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-05T12:13:46.433" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T12:23:03.213" Title="Why is the number of shutter cycles so low?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;shutter-actuations&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6441" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6445" CreationDate="2011-01-05T07:07:50.947" Score="9" ViewCount="74" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am shopping around for a used medium format Mamiya RB67 camera to broaden my horizons outside of the 'work' photography I do with my Canons. When I'm looking at a used body what are some specific things I need to look for in order to help me determine the condition of the camera? Are there any good resources you can recommend to help me determine more-or-less what the going rate for a camera so I can determine if a sellers asking price is fair?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T07:39:33.693" Title="Tests to determine the condition of a used medium format camera." Tags="&lt;purchase&gt;&lt;used-equipment&gt;&lt;medium-format&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6442" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6440" CreationDate="2011-01-05T07:18:41.067" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A thousand shots in a day is, well, an unusually large number of pictures for anybody to be taking. That averages more than one shot per minute over a sixteen-hour work day with no time for meals or restroom breaks. A thousand-shot day is what a sports photographer does at a &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; full day of track and field at the Olympics -- ten or twenty minutes of nothing, then full-speed motoring for a few seconds, then another &quot;break&quot; while you scramble like hell to get to another shooting location. And yes, if you're going to be shooting pictures for money at that kind of rate, then buying a new camera every now and then is the cost of doing business. And the chances are pretty good that the photographer will be carrying more than one camera body as well -- when you can't afford to miss the shot, you can't afford to be without a camera even after falling down the stadium steps, etc., not to mention that swapping bodies is faster (and more sensor-hygienic) than changing lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T07:18:41.067" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="6443" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6440" CreationDate="2011-01-05T07:19:52.813" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, it doesn't mean that people have to buy new cameras every few years (at least for the reason of failing camera shutters! ;-) ) Keep in mind that shutters can be completely replaced/refurbished for significantly less than the cost of an entirely new camera. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As is mentioned elsewhere, it's important also to remember that these numbers are simply statistical estimations of how long a shutter mechanism will last. It is possible that a shutter could fail at 100,000 cycles, or at 500,000 cycles. Nevertheless, when you consider the cost of a $250 repair that works out to between 0.0025 cents and 0.0005 cents per actuation depending on how many actuations you get out of your camera...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T07:19:52.813" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6444" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6440" CreationDate="2011-01-05T07:23:58.350" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Shutter may fail long before this number of actuations or serve twice as long - there is no guarantee. It is just average &lt;em&gt;estimated&lt;/em&gt; figure. &#xA;Most likely it is determined by testing a bunch of shutter for a number of actuations and then studying how much wear their elements sustained. From that figure you can estimate how long shutter should last, but that is no more than estimation. The stated number is probably intentionally lowered, to reduce number of unsatisfied customers demanding refunds.&#xA;Also note, that shutter is perfectly replaceable, and not too expensive, especially  compared with high-end camera cost (and really only professional photographers are likely to use camera this much).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2922" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T07:23:58.350" />
  <row Id="6445" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6441" CreationDate="2011-01-05T07:39:33.693" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wish the Shutterbug Classifieds were still worth looking at. If you can find an old print edition in a library, it's worth a look -- their rating guide was pretty much the basis for the condition rating that retailers still use. Something rated at 8 or higher, for instance, can't have any mechanical or optical defects, and the cosmetic difficulties are restricted to that inevitable greying that the &quot;lizard skin&quot; acquires over the years and some minor brassing (the black paint or plating has worn through at the corners and in areas where you'd expect a lot of handling). Just about every brick-and-mortar photo retailer with a used department I've been to over the past twenty years or so sticks pretty close to the old Shutterbug guidelines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing you do need to pay close attention to with the Mamiyas (and with the Fuji 6x8), though, is the bellows. IIRC, you have a bit of time with view cameras, so you should be aware of what to look for (pinholes, light leaks, etc.). Make sure the body and back mate properly whenever you buy a back. And if you have the ability to check the shutters in the lenses for timing, that would be extra cool, but you can usually check the longer times pretty accurately and &quot;earball&quot; the rest (and like any mechanical shutter, expect them to be a little slow, but not outrageously so. You can always make up the difference in the aperture if you're within less than a half-stop.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T07:39:33.693" />
  <row Id="6446" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6440" CreationDate="2011-01-05T07:55:07.883" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Part of the reason the number of cycles is relatively low is that the shutter is a very high performance precision mechanism. The shutter on the D3X is one of the fastest around. It has to be able to complete it's operation of moving across the frame in a three hundredth of a second and be able to synchronise the movement of the first and second curtains to within one eight thousandth of a second. And it has to move a much larger mirror back and forth in this time. And then it has to be cocked ready to repeat all this work eleven times a second!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another reason 300,000 figure is approximate is that different patterns of use put different stresses on the mechanism. If you only shoot sports at 1/8000s at 11fps I imagine it might wear out before this figure. On the other hand, if you shoot landscapes at night at slow shutter speeds it may last longer. Temperature range and humidity will also play a part, as will manufacturing defects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T07:55:07.883" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6447" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6449" CreationDate="2011-01-05T10:47:32.027" Score="19" ViewCount="738" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm a massive Guinness fan and want to take a close up of the dark cloudy texture you get when you pour a glass. I've seen it in the adverts and just want to experiment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a limited-edition pint glass, and am imagining a shot with the logo on the glass to the left of the shot and the view of the cloudy Guinness strongest to the right of the logo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What sort of lighting and settings would be best for this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have no studio equipment, as I'm a newbie. Here's my kit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon D70S&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AFS Nikkor DX 18-70mm 3.5-4.5&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tamron 70-300mm  4-5.6&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2533" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-29T22:35:25.110" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T22:35:25.110" Title="How can I get an advertisement-like photo of a pint of Guinness?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;glass&gt;&lt;low-budget&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="6448" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6447" CreationDate="2011-01-05T11:36:32.320" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From my experience, when it comes to product photography, in order to make impressive images you really cannot end up using the available light - at least without modification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First thing I'd rule out is the on-camera flash (either built in or external). Forget about using it unless you want a flat and blah image. Then you probably want to take care for the background.  use of some flat white board behind the glass should provide a neutral background that will not blend in with the color of the beer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next, try to create some kind of back- and/or side-lighting environment. This is the harder part if you don't have an external flash, but you can try building some soft-box or light tent around your object, where using shades and reflective surfaces in the right places will direct the sunlight to the required ares. It is not going to be easy, probably.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively you can use (a) table lamp(s) together with longer exposure (on a tripod, of course) instead of the flash. Just make sure to balance your white temperature accordingly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try shooting with both lenses. Sometimes the shorter focal lengths give some nicer perspective on your subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-05T12:30:07.947" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T12:30:07.947" />
  <row Id="6449" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6447" CreationDate="2011-01-05T11:59:18.470" Score="41" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not going to lie to you -- food shots are &lt;em&gt;hard&lt;/em&gt;, and they generally involve a lot of lights (not power, quantity of sources). And one way or another, this is going to involve alcohol abuse*. Forget flash altogether unless you've got a friend who can lend you a set of studio strobes with modelling lights. You can use lamps (if you have a work light with a parabolic reflector or two, all the better) -- either incandescent or a good fluorescent will do. You can use waxed paper as a pretty decent diffuser to make the light softer (watch it if you're using incandescents).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You're going to have to spend some time looking at the shot as you set it up, adding reflectors and gobos (basically, bits of card to block light, usually matte black to minimize reflections). Most of this can be bits of card, perhaps with a bit of aluminium foil (if you have a ready supply of the embossed foil from the inside of a cigarette packet, that's a great, even reflector surface). Don't get too fussy making things that don't show in the image, but do worry about anything that will be reflected in the glass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll want to work with just the glass first to get the right highlight shapes. Then for the painful part -- you'll need Guinness &lt;em&gt;in&lt;/em&gt; the glass while you try to get the nectar to look like something other than a dark, dense gravy with mashed potatoes floating on it. That may mean throwing some light into the liquid from behind -- a small torch with a teeny, tiny &quot;striplight&quot; (a rectangular softbox) that can be hidden completely behind the glass might be appropriate. Take your time and play with the light -- you're not going to shoot the first pint since all the foam streams and the gentle collapse of the head only look right for a few precious seconds, and this is going to take many minutes. Have a less-than-perfect pint as a reward for all your effort, and make sure that if there are any little folk around, they've been adequately frightened of the consequences of touching anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take a break -- you will have been hunched over and unaware of how stiff you've become. Meticulously clean the glass -- like someone's critical surgery depends on it. Make sure everything is still set up properly. Now for the perfect pour, put the glass &lt;em&gt;exactly&lt;/em&gt; where it was during the set-up, and take a few shots (preferably bracketed -- mains power fluctuations can do strange things). This should take only a brief few seconds this go-around. And your reward awaits you again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*It's up to you whether than abuse consists of sacrificing perfectly good stout or getting yourself into a condition that isn't conducive to photography because you don't want to see it die an unnecessary death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T11:59:18.470" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="6450" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6440" CreationDate="2011-01-05T12:07:13.893" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The wording that Nikon use, 'tested for 300,000 cycles' is vague, misleading and contains too little information to make an informed judgement. It is typical marketing speak. In reliability testing we use more clearly defined terms like 'mean', 'median' or 'expected lifetime'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Presumably they intend this to mean the expected lifetime, or mean lifetime. If that is the case you can expect roughly an equal number will fail before 300,000 cycles and roughly an equal number will fail at greater than 300,000 cycles, depending on the failure distribution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if roughly half will fail earlier than 300,000 cycles the crucial question becomes how much earlier? This is where Nikon supply no information whatsoever. And it is this information which is of vital interest to the average camera user.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A more useful statement from Nikon would be one like this: No more than 5% of shutter mechanisms will fail in less than 100,000 cycles and the expected or mean lifetime is 300,000 cycles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Formal reliability testing aims to provide more meaningful information of this kind. It is certain that a company like Nikon knows a great deal about doing proper reliability testing so they will have the full information. But they (like other companies) have chosen to release incomplete and misleading information. This is deceptive behaviour bordering on the dishonest. Sadly it is the norm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Below is a short background to the kind of information they could provide.&#xA;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.weibull.com/basics/lifedata.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this link&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.weibull.com/basics/parameters.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this link&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reliability data is normally modelled by a failure distribution pattern called the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.weibull.com/LifeDataWeb/the_weibull_distribution.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Weibull distribution&lt;/a&gt;. It typically describes the failure patterns of complex systems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has three parameters called the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.weibull.com/basics/parameters.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Shape (beta), Location (gamma) and Scale (eta) parameters&lt;/a&gt;. Reliability testing aims to determine the value of these parameters. Once they are known one knows a good deal about the pattern of failures that will occur during use and allows one to make statements like &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;'&lt;em&gt;with a confidence of z% we can say that no more than x% will fail before y cycles&lt;/em&gt;',&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which is usually what we want to know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One can think of the location parameter as being roughly equivalent to the mean lifetime and the scale parameter as being equivalent to the standard deviation. But that is a very crude approximation that depends on the shape parameter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have gone on about this at some length because cameras are high value items that are critical to the professional life of many people. We have a right to expect honest and complete statements about their expected lifetime so that we can make informed choices and have reasonable expectations. Although I have mentioned Nikon in the context of this question it seems that all camera companies are equally guilty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-05T12:23:03.213" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T12:23:03.213" />
  <row Id="6451" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-05T12:24:42.083" Score="1" ViewCount="448" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm free transforming a small icon ( I work in 10x zoom mode). I stretch the image. When I press OK(submit transformation), the image is blured. I don't want this to happen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know the solution?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPD:&#xA;Here what I mean. I am stretching and  skewing an image. The pixels are moving somehow, that's ok. To apply the changes I must press a green button. and IN THE MOMENT I PRESS IT the blur is applied. Am I clear?&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ka6wc.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/YqUvk.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2981" LastEditorUserId="2981" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-05T13:19:10.260" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T13:54:16.767" ClosedDate="2011-01-05T15:55:09.687" Title="How to disable blur when free transform in photoshop" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="6452" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6451" CreationDate="2011-01-05T12:36:03.087" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I moved this part to the top b/c it is my ultimate suggestion: &#xA;Last thing: having this specific image as the source, I'd not even bother to waste more than 3 minutes on transforming. Rather, I'd do it manually. You can select one row at a time and manually move it in 0 or 1 pixels to the right, relative to the row below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How far are you stretching it? If it is to more than a few dozens %, then you can't resize without noticeable blur. There is not enough information in the original to construct a much higher resolution transformation and blending of adjacent pixel values must be performed to generate the interpolated pixel - which is the source for the blur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, when using such a high zoom ratio you are more likely to see the blurring of the stretched image than when viewing at 1:1.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT after seeing the images: It looks like the &quot;fuzziness&quot; you see is the inevitable result of the skewing. I am not familiar with PS as I mentioned earlier, but I can imagine that you have a anti-aliasing switch in the transform dialog. Try to turn it off and see what happens. Otherwise, you may be able to control the interpolation (sampling) algorithm (bilinear, biqubic, lanczos, etc.) If you can disable interpolation, it should remove this fuzziness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-05T13:54:16.767" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T13:54:16.767" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="6453" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6456" CreationDate="2011-01-05T12:44:28.573" Score="11" ViewCount="218" Body="&lt;p&gt;What adjustments do high-street photo labs make to a digital image when printing it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recently took some wedding photos which I adjusted in lightroom mainly using the histogram as a guide to ensuring that the blacks and highlights had plenty of detail. I also added the sharpening that I wanted. However when I had them printed at my local lab the blacks had completed blocked out and the images appeared over sharpened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that colour is a problem and there are plenty of questions on this site about colour management when printing but I havn't seen much on controlling exposure, brightness, sharpening etc when having prints made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any tips? Does anyone know of any UK labs that dont adjust before printing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="823" LastEditorUserId="823" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-05T18:24:19.497" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T19:11:40.570" Title="What adjustments do photo labs apply to a digital image when printing it?" Tags="&lt;printing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6454" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6451" CreationDate="2011-01-05T13:49:01.533" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's what you're seeing. When you are moving the preview around, in order to present the data in real-time, Photoshop doesn't apply any blending of pixels. It just approximates, with hard edges. If you could zoom 1:1 on that image, you would see that it actually looks quite ugly, with a lot of jaggies. This is similar to scaling an image without interpolation -- fast, no blur introduced, but the results are no good. When you press okay, it does a high-quality transform, with interpolated pixels. This inherently results in blur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure if there is a way to disable this (or to choose the algorithm used), but you probably don't really want to. You can (and probably should) apply an unsharp mask (selectively if need be) after rotating to get back the appearance of sharpness, and this will work pretty well. But overall, you have to accept that this kind of tranform is a lossy operation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T13:49:01.533" />
  <row Id="6455" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6453" CreationDate="2011-01-05T15:09:49.693" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It sounds like it's time to find a better lab.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many labs (especially those that cater to the consumer/prosumer audience) will apply color adjustments/sharpening by default, but &lt;strong&gt;any good lab should be able to honor your wishes to have the image printed as-is&lt;/strong&gt;.  Ideally you've obtained a color profile for the lab's printer from the lab and have used that in your color management workflow.  That should ensure that what they print is what you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T15:09:49.693" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6456" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6453" CreationDate="2011-01-05T15:51:59.643" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Comparing what you see on screen to what you see in a print is not nearly as simple as it may sound. Aside from color (or more precisely, chromaticity), another key difference between gamuts is the white and black point. Similar to the differences in chromaticity between gmauts, the deepest black and the whitest white also differ in extent. This is particularly true when moving between gamuts based on fundamentally different color models, such as screen and print. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A computer screen uses an additive model that blends light, and as such, a much purer black and brighter white point can be achieved. Print, on the other hand, is a subtractive model based on reflectivity of ink off a paper substrate, and as such, the purest white and purest black have distinct limitations. Namely, the brightest white and the temperature of white is specifically defined by the tone and color of the paper used. The purest black is defined by the particular blend of inks used to make black, and their density. Neither a paper substrate nor blend of inks can ever create a true, pure white or black, and will usually not reach the same extent as a computer screen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Soft proofing is the key mechanism by which you can normalize the differenced between gamuts in a way that preserves detail in the shadows and highlights. Lightroom currently does not offer any kind of soft proofing, however Photoshop does. With soft proofing, you can tell photoshop to render your image in such a way that it simulates the paper color, black point, and gamut of the printer, inks, and paper you intend to print on. When soft proofing mode is enabled, you will easily be able to see where your highlights and blacks bunch up and clip. An additional, complimentary mode will show you out of gamut colors. It is possible to edit an image while soft proofing, so white and black points, as well as out of gamut colors can be corrected for the particular device and paper you intend to print on. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Correcting gamut errors with soft proofing is pretty strait forward. White and black points can easily be adjusted with the levels tool. You can either directly set the white and black point by pulling their respective markers in toward the center of the histogram a little bit, until your highlights and blacks no longer appear clipped. You might also need to adjust the midtone point to rebalance the image and maintain the proper degree of contrast. It should be noted that your scene may look, on screen, like it is lacking some contrast when soft proofing, and it may appear that you are losing shadow detail in particular when adjusting black point. In general, the contrast range of print &lt;strong&gt;is&lt;/strong&gt; much lower than that of a computer screen, so this is normal. When you adjust your black point up, despite the lower contrast, you will actually be preserving shadow detail. You are essentially shifting shadow levels upwards, toward midtones, and making sure they will be visible in print (rather than simply being blotchy black spots.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Out of gamut colors can be trickier. Gamut overflow is usually caused by too much saturation, and can often be corrected by desaturating. If you enable the out of gamut comparison mode, and you only see relatively small areas or spatterings of pixels out of gamut, you can leave your colors alone. On the other hand, if you see large areas that are out of gamut, you will want to adjust your colors. If a broad range of color is out of gamut, you can simply desaturate the whole image a bit. If specific colors are out of gamut, you will want to use the color picker tool of the saturation adjustment tool to select the specific colors that are out of gamut, and desaturate them a bit. If you have to desaturate too much that you lose the kind of vibrancy you want, you can also try adjusting the hue or lightness of the out of gamut colors. Sometimes, a combination of slight adjustments to two or three of these will be sufficient to shrink or eliminate your out of gamut areas without eliminating essential detail and color contrast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Out of gamut color can be a tricky thing. It is very important to soft proof with the proper rendering intent. If you soft proof with Relative Colorimetric intent, and correct colors with that intent, then print with Perceptual intent, your print will most likely come out very wrong. Rendering intents may also be able to take care of out of gamut color for you. If you do not see any artifacts specifically caused by out of gamut colors, such as posterization, harsh saturation cliffs, blocked or clipped colors, etc. then you may want to leave color correction to ICM, and let your rendering intent shift out of gamut colors as appropriate for your target device and paper. If you have the option, printing a sample print on a smaller paper size of the same paper type to perform an actual hard proof will demonstrate exactly how out of gamut colors will look when printed. If the print has the same issues as your soft proof, then color adjustment will be necessary to correct those artifacts. Another option for correcting gamut conversion artifacts is to create your own print profile. This requires hardware, and your own printer, so it will not solve problems with third-party printers. The results with custom calibration can be stunning, and will often preserve a wider gamut than profiles generated by a paper or printer manufacturer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To specifically address your clipped highlights and blocked blacks problem, I would create a copy of your wedding photos, and soft proof them agains the ICM color profiles your third-party printer will be using. You will probably have to ask them what hardware they use, and possibly ask them for an ICM profile for the printer if you can not find it online. If the current prints you have appear to have correct color, I would not bother enabling the out of gamut warning mode, and simply adjust your white and black points. If your current prints do appear to have some out of gamut color issues, then you will need to be very specific about how you soft proof and correct that. You will need to know the rendering intent that your third-party printer will print at, in addition to having the necessary ICM profile. You will want to make all corrections in the correct rendering intent, if possible. The two most likely intents are Relative Colorimetric, and Perceptual, however there is also Absolute Colorimetric, which can be rather problematic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-05T19:11:40.570" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T19:11:40.570" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6457" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6044" CreationDate="2011-01-05T16:02:47.540" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've assumed that you're probably only talking about triggering as it's unlikely that there is anything out there that can do a CLS to generic TTL. You have several options depending on what other equipment you're shooting with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use a &lt;strong&gt;PC Sync cord to hotshoe adapter&lt;/strong&gt; from a PC Sync socket on your camera or flash that is being triggered by CLS.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use a cable such as the &lt;strong&gt;SC28&lt;/strong&gt; / &lt;strong&gt;SC29&lt;/strong&gt; to connect the sunpack to the hotshoe via cable. Ensure that you check that the voltage of the SunPack won't ruin your SLR first though. There are step down voltage converters that sit in your hotshoe for this.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use either an &lt;strong&gt;optical slave&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;radio popper&lt;/strong&gt; that attaches to your camera's hotshoe to trigger the ring flash. Often these allow a flash to be attached atop the trigger. Use a flash that supports being used as a CLS master (e.g. SB700, SB800, SB900) to trigger your other CLS flashes.&#xA;Search your favourite Auction or photographic supplier's website for cheap versions of these devices.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2985" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T16:02:47.540" />
  <row Id="6458" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6044" CreationDate="2011-01-05T16:03:53.123" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Will you be firing other flashes that &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; have CLS? If so, your best-bet answer is probably to get an &quot;optical slave&quot; trigger that you can plug in to the Sunpak. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a variety of options at a variety of prices... Here's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Optical-Slaves/ci/1736/N/4288586362&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;B&amp;amp;H's selection of optical slaves&lt;/a&gt; to give you an idea. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?q=optical+slave+trigger&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A quick search&lt;/a&gt; also turns up other sources and information... including options for about US$13. If you have a good (&quot;pro&quot;) camera store in your area, they're sure to have at least a few of these on hand, for significantly less than a pair of PocketWizards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some complications with this methodology, depending on your situation (read some articles from that search for full details), e.g. pre-flash triggering (some optical slaves claim to account for that), making sure the slave can &quot;see&quot; other flashes, etc. However, I'm guessing that for your situation, this could work quite well. I know I've had good luck with a little flash I have that has an optical slave built in, as long as I'm cognizant of positioning of its &quot;eye&quot; relative to my other strobes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, there are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?q=pocketwizard+alternatives&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;other radio slave options&lt;/a&gt; than PocketWizard. In some circumstances, and depending on your demands, at least some of them can be quite adequate. (That said, I've gone to PocketWizard, myself. So, your results may vary.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T16:03:53.123" />
  <row Id="6459" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6376" CreationDate="2011-01-05T18:03:28.853" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are alternatives to fighting your instinct to go with an iMac. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am a .NET developer and I use my 27&quot; iMac for my personal computing needs including photography. I use boot camp with Windows 7 and Visual Studio 2010 for development without any issues. I had previously used it with XP and VS2008 also with little trouble. I also use Cisco VPN client and MS Remote Desktop Client to remote into the Windows server for development and that is the best of both worlds, never leave Mac OS and fill the screen with Windows (without fear of BSOD). Using windows through bootcamp also allows me to use some windows based photo editing tools that are not available for the Mac.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Buying just a monitor can certainly be cheaper although to get a good one it is going to get costly. Getting a computer built into a fabulous monitor is worth it in the end for me. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2987" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T18:03:28.853" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6460" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1103" CreationDate="2011-01-05T18:21:09.673" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I bought a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.phottix.com/en/wireless-remotes/phottixr-cleon-ii.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Phottix Cleon II Wireless Remote N8&lt;/a&gt; for £30 on eBay, from Hong Kong Supplies about 6 months ago. I see they're listing them for about $50 right now, and another seller has them for $35.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I was looking I found that the &lt;a href=&quot;http://martybugs.net/blog/blog.cgi/gear/PhottixCleonIIWirelessRemote.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;reviews&lt;/a&gt; were positive and it has been a brilliant little unit. Much, much better than the little infra-red unit I used with my D80 - it has far more options, an unsurprisingly better range and no longer do I have to point it at the camera to take the picture (handy when you're in the picture).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1969" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T18:21:09.673" />
  <row Id="6461" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6463" CreationDate="2011-01-05T19:41:07.827" Score="3" ViewCount="157" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am looking to get a second SD card to fill both slots in my d7000. The card I have now is a remnant from my canon point and shoot that I am using in my d7000 now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have yet to try movie mode. And I have not yet tried to shoot raw images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The card I have now is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Transcend-Class-Flash-Memory-TS16GSDHC10E/dp/B003VNKNEQ/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1294250598&amp;amp;sr=1-2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;32 gig class 10 Transcend&lt;/a&gt; that has worked well so far. Also, I know some of you have mentioned to avoid them but for the price this seemed like a great value and has worked flawlessly for me for about a year now. And, i would wager not all class 10 cards are created equal. My feeling is some are faster than others even though they carry the same class rating.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have read many reviews on Amazon of various cards and find the sporadic user who sees HD video pause while recording. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;since I will eventually be using HD video recording and plan to try shooting in RAW this weekend at a wedding (not as a hired pro but just as a guest) I wanted to make sure if my current card is not fast enough that I get one that is in time for using it and not having problems when they can hurt me most.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What of the two actions is more taxing on the camera system HD video or RAW in burst mode?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And will my card be able to handle both?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="2200" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-05T20:49:15.083" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T21:27:38.493" Title="What is more intensive for the SDHC card- hd movie recording or shooting burst mode in RAW?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;hardware&gt;&lt;hd-video&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6462" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6461" CreationDate="2011-01-05T19:45:41.283" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your camera's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/noprint/D7000_ENnoprint.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;user manual&lt;/a&gt; recommends at least class 6 SD cards.  (It also lists &quot;approved&quot; memory cards.)  You have a class 10, which is faster.  So why not just shoot a few minutes of a movie right now and verify that it works fine?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T19:45:41.283" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6463" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6461" CreationDate="2011-01-05T19:53:54.573" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;HD video will be far more taxing than shooting RAW in burst mode. The reason is that the camera has to compress video constantly and write to the card nonstop for the entire time that you are recording video. If it gets behind, there's no break in the action for it to catch up. When you're using burst mode, eventually the camera will ratchet back your fps in order to attempt to catch up. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question for you is why aren't you testing yourself whether your card is able to handle both? Inside of 10 minutes you should be able to shoot a lengthy HD video clip and several RAW bursts in order to be able to get an idea of what your card is capable of handling reliably.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T19:53:54.573" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6464" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4656" CreationDate="2011-01-05T20:32:53.190" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have noticed that problem yesterday. Then I asked the same question, but today I solved the problem, now I am sharing the answer;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Custom Functions Settings, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In C.Fn II: Image,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If HIGH ISO NOISE REDUCTION LEVEL SELECTED AS &lt;strong&gt;STRONG&lt;/strong&gt; , we are having this famous 8 !!!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just try to select another reduction level ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2970" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T20:32:53.190" />
  <row Id="6465" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6047" CreationDate="2011-01-05T20:52:28.153" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you have a smart phone there are plenty of apps you can download and use. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Simple DoF&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;is a free app for the iPhone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T20:52:28.153" />
  <row Id="6466" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-05T20:57:00.817" Score="1" ViewCount="129" Body="&lt;p&gt;Where can I download the &lt;em&gt;Korean&lt;/em&gt; PDF Manual for the Nikon D3100?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was able to get the English manual, no problem. My wife is Korean and the D3100 is a beast to beginners like us! We tried looking on the Korean Nikon website but no success.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't need the PDF to be printable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2992" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T21:58:31.160" Title="Korean PDF Manual for the Nikon D3100?" Tags="&lt;nikon-d3100&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="6467" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5510" CreationDate="2011-01-05T21:12:46.480" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;4 GB Nikon SD (received with a D5000):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;read: ~7 MB/s&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;write: ~3 MB/s&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;16 GB SanDisk Ultra 100x SDHC:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;read: ~20 MB/s&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;write: ~12 MB/s&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 GB Kingston microSD:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;read: ~18 MB/s&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;write: ~10 MB/s&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both were tested on a Transcend P8 card reader, in &quot;optimize for performance&quot; mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="420" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T21:12:46.480" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6468" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6461" CreationDate="2011-01-05T21:27:38.493" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recording HD video is more taxing on the cameras image processor, whereas shooting Raw in burst mode is far more taxing on the file system / SDHC card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's easy to see why this is the case, the camera does very little work to encode the Raw data as no (or next to no) processing of the image information is performed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other side of the coin, your camera probably records HD video at about 5MB/s (ballpark figure based on my cam) whereas each Raw file will be around 20MB, so you only need to shoot one Raw every four seconds to match the rate at which data is written to the card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T21:27:38.493" />
  <row Id="6469" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6392" CreationDate="2011-01-05T21:40:19.377" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been doing lenticular imaging for years. I can make 1 piece or a million.&#xA;you can contact me at ryan@goingafterthemob.com   My office is located in richmond hill, Ontario.... CANADA  I can help you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2993" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T21:40:19.377" />
  <row Id="6470" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6466" CreationDate="2011-01-05T21:47:48.327" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi Richard,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After doing some searching it looks like you've posted your question far and wide across many different sites in hopes for an answer! :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although I don't speak Korean I did some relatively deep searching via Google for the D3100 manual in Korean (using things like limiting results to .pdf's in Korean, limiting results to the Korean Nikon site, phrasing my searches in Korean [thank you Google Translate!] with various advanced wildcards, etc.) and couldn't find a single usable result for a Korean Nikon D3100 Manual .pdf. This leads me to on of two possible conclusions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's not available on the web at all&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's only available in a 'walled garden' section of the Korean Nikon site for registered Korean D3100 owners which Google is unable to crawl.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Either way, at this point I'd have to agree with the answer posted by someone else on one of the other forums you posted this question at:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The best thing to do is contact Nikon 1-800-NIKON-UX (1-800-645-6689). Since they are the manufacturer, they would be the best place to go to get that information.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-05T21:58:31.160" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T21:58:31.160" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6471" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6473" CreationDate="2011-01-05T22:21:07.203" Score="61" ViewCount="4557" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not the most lean person on the planet, and many pictures seem to really point this out.  While I wish I was simply in better shape,  it is simply not the case for me or unfortunately, many people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there poses, lighting techniques, focal lengths, etc. that will work better to reduce some of the common overweight features (large stomach, double chin, etc.)?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update:&#xA;Ok, so I incorporated a few of the suggestions that I could into a self portrait in the limited space I have.  I didn't have suitable room or patience for a three-quarters shot, so here's just a headshot.  Some of the suggestions really, &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; made a noticeable difference.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zY9QO.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;improved picture&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its a picture of me I actually like! (I pushed the DOF a little shallow though, and the back of my ear is out of focus.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second Update:  So here's another shot that takes into account a few more of the suggestions yet (including Jay's suggestion of slightly rotating the light a bit more).  The only thing I think I'd additionally do is make sure to where a higher collared shirt to help hide neck rolls.  Also, I found straightening my back fairly rigidly helped a lot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/mdnBD.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;second improved picture&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in finale, here's a before picture of how bad it could look. This was taken about 30-40 pounds &lt;em&gt;lighter&lt;/em&gt;, by another photographer. (This is a lowres crop, unfortunately.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/vkPdQ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&amp;quot;before&amp;quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-27T16:31:43.550" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T16:31:43.550" Title="What are the best techniques for photographing overweight people?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;lighting-basics&gt;&lt;posing&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="29" />
  <row Id="6472" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6335" CreationDate="2011-01-05T22:22:15.957" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matt's analysis can't be beat, so I won't argue with the science.  Having owned both lenses (shot with the 1.8 for 3 years, then moved to the 1.4 for the past 4) I have to say that the 1.8 is the best value for your money.  However I did find the focussing speed and build quality of the 1.4 worth the move for me.  I don't mind a bit of softness when shooting portraits (my main subject - kids) but I have to say it's pretty sharp otherwise.  I've had it attached to extension tubes and the results are great (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/sushi-powered/3373252409/in/set-72157606637631695/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;example&lt;/a&gt;).  Either way you are going to have fun and get great results, I would not agonize too much over it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Happy Shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2888" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T22:22:15.957" />
  <row Id="6473" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6471" CreationDate="2011-01-05T22:48:13.917" Score="65" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not an odd question at all. As a large man myself, I constantly find myself on the lookout for ways in my portrait business to help people look their best (no particular order... just as they came to mind):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6495/in-portrait-photography-what-is-broad-lighting-what-is-short-lighting&quot;&gt;broad lighting&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt; This is a 'basic' for portrait lighting, but I'm always amazed when I see inexperienced photographers who simply throw light all over the place and don't seem to understand that broad lighting makes faces rounder and short lighting 'sculpts' the face...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rotate the subject 45-degrees to the camera.&lt;/strong&gt; This, in combination with short lighting can dramatically de-emphasize a person's size.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If the subject is sitting have them lean forward.&lt;/strong&gt; I always tell subjects to 'lean over their belt buckle.' This naturally de-emphasizes the belly, and provides elongation of the neck without specifically asking a subject to stretch their neck (that often causes subjects to &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; stretch, which always ends up looking awkward).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Arrange the legs.&lt;/strong&gt; There's a whole 'science' to positioning legs, but one of the most basic things to do for female clients is have them place one foot in front of the other, put all the weight on their back foot, bend both knees slightly and rotate one hip towards the camera. (Check out any picture of a female celeb on the red carpet to see this in action... They all do it. Good for you paying attention during media training, celebs!)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hide the gut.&lt;/strong&gt; Portrait photography has a long tradition of putting the more... rotund... subject behind something to hide the belly. Whether it's another subject (&quot;All them kids are finally good for something!&quot; Actual customer quote during a session of mine. All in good fun, of course... I hope.), or an actual object. Get creative.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hide the gut, Part 2.&lt;/strong&gt; Lay the subject down. Great/easy way to hide a multitude of problems.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The ol' vignette.&lt;/strong&gt; I find the vignette is a great post-production tool for directing the eye towards the most important part of the picture- the face.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The liquify tool.&lt;/strong&gt; If you're a Photoshop user, the Liquify tool can be great for shrinking muffin-tops, saggy arms, etc. Plenty of 'sin' is committed with the over-use of Liquify, but used subtly it can be a great addition to the toolbox.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Darkness favors the big subject.&lt;/strong&gt; I'm generally very hesitant to light a subject high-key if they're big... Unless the bigness is the point of the picture (A.K.A. you're photographing a pregnant lady, or a sumo warrior). Dark backgrounds and purposeful shadows can have a surprisingly large (har har) slimming effect.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Use the group to your advantage.&lt;/strong&gt; If you have a mixed group of 'average sized' people and 'bigger folk,' position the bigger people farther from the camera than everyone else... Instantly they will appear smaller. It's surprising how far back in the picture you can place people without it being obvious that they're farther back in the frame. Not such a great technique if your subject is big, but short, however. BONUS: This also works great if you need to shorten up a really tall person in a group photo. :-)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Lens choice.&lt;/strong&gt; Generally speaking focal lengths between 50mm and 85mm will give you the least amount of 'unexpected body part distortion' when taking pictures.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The clothes make the woman, or man.&lt;/strong&gt; In addition to the 'standard advice' you often hear about reminding clients not to wear horizontal stripes, wearing darker clothing, etc., many bigger people respond to being uncomfortable with their size or with being photographed by choosing to wear bigger/baggier outfits for the photo session. Typically this only serves to make them look even bigger in photographs... It is far better to recommend that someone wear properly fitted clothing (even if that means seeing a tailor to help) than to have to work around the fact that the client now looks even bigger because of their tent-like outfit.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Get A Little Closer. Don't Be Shy.&lt;/strong&gt; Try really pushing into the subject. Often times the most interesting shots are a bit 'closer than is comfortable,' and leaving things out of frame can 'cover over a multitude of sins' without having to use any additional techniques. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Focus, Focus.&lt;/strong&gt; Try widening the camera's aperture. An f-stop down in the 2s can help you make a portrait with a more selective focal point (which in portrait photography should almost always be the eyes) and as everything else is more out of focus the viewers attention will be drawn back to the important/in-focus parts, and away from the unimportant/out-of-focus parts.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Posture-perfect.&lt;/strong&gt; While not exclusively the domain of bigger folks, poor posture is something that a lot of bigger folks struggle with. A slouch can add apparent weight to a subject as it can make the stomach protrude even farther, so have the subject straighten their back, and also pull their shoulders back as well.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-24T04:14:44.287" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T04:14:44.287" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="6474" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1971" CreationDate="2011-01-05T22:50:54.140" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;look here &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photoshopderslerim.net/en/lessons/backgorund/50-arkaplan-yapalim.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photoshop dersleri&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2997" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T22:50:54.140" />
  <row Id="6475" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6471" CreationDate="2011-01-05T22:53:56.617" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, a couple of additional thoughts (from Jay's post) I would have on this would be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Shoot from above, even moderately so. This will tend to minimize certain features (especially under the chin, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Arrange legs and arms to &quot;screen&quot; a little. Consider, for example, a portrait where the subject is on the ground, you could have one leg pulled up and an arm across it. That would hide stomach area.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Clothing helps. First, certain types are more slimming, but also they can help to reduce/hide weight in general. Not suggesting a corset, but some control clothing can bring thing in a bit.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T22:53:56.617" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6476" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6481" CreationDate="2011-01-05T23:10:48.097" Score="3" ViewCount="231" Body="&lt;p&gt;What f/# do you use to photograph people, and why? I know this varies from shot to shot. Let's suppose that you are photographing either a single person or a couple, that it it outside on a somewhat overcast day. Feel free to give multiple examples depending on other conditions as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-06T03:27:09.367" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T03:27:09.367" Title="What f/# do you use to photograph people and why?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6477" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6476" CreationDate="2011-01-05T23:20:08.347" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tough question. Not sure that there's going to be a 'right' answer not because it varies from shot to shot, but more that it varies from &lt;em&gt;intention to intention&lt;/em&gt;. Do I want a background more in focus (great clouds and sunset along with an engaged couple in the foreground, for example)? Then I'm bumping up to f/8 or higher... Nondescript or uninteresting background? Then I'm shooting to keep only the people in focus while the background blows out to a pretty, out-of-focus backdrop? I'm shooting as close to f/2.8 as I can get away with... It all varies based on my intention with each shot, and there isn't a real 'rule of thumb' that I can apply...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T23:20:08.347" />
  <row Id="6478" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6476" CreationDate="2011-01-05T23:20:36.263" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I usually shoot portraits of family and friends using the 70-200/2.8 at f/2.8-&gt;f/3.5. My portraiture style tends to be head shots filling the frame, so I found out pretty quickly that my 50/1.4 is just too wide (meaning, too narrow a DoF) for this style. Some part of the face will always be out of focus when shooting wider than f/2.8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-06T00:39:26.017" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T00:39:26.017" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6479" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6471" CreationDate="2011-01-05T23:22:58.597" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wear black... black makes you seem thinner!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-05T23:22:58.597" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6480" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6492" CreationDate="2011-01-06T00:26:41.150" Score="8" ViewCount="175" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm interested in doing pano stitching digitally. There are several apps that look promising. I'm looking at learning Hugin (&lt;strong&gt;http://hugin.sourceforge.net/&lt;/strong&gt;), but before I start investing the time in it, I thought I'd solicit opinions on what a good beginner pano stitching app might be... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm intending to stitch together single row pano's so I don't think I'll be stressing the app too much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've used Hugin for a few months now: it's really easy to use (at least for the simple pano's I'm making). It has a few warts, but overall I can't imagine I'd want much more out of a pano stitcher. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2998" LastEditorUserId="2998" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-09T02:09:02.647" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T02:09:02.647" Title="Getting started with Pano software?" Tags="&lt;open-source&gt;&lt;panorama&gt;&lt;hugin&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6481" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6476" CreationDate="2011-01-06T01:03:19.387" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Totally depends on your goal. Think background first. What story do you want to tell? Epic background, big mountains. Looking to deliver a sense of grandeur with your subject. Go big! f/22 or higher if you have it. If you want to really isolate your subject and use the background as simple tone, a splash of delightful color, open up to f/1.4. Be careful here as you may have parts of the face go out of focus. Step back with a long lens and you'll eliminate that problem (by increasing the over all dof). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Save bet though, f/2.8 - f/5.6. This will give you moderate depth (keeping person in focus and throughing background softly out.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T01:03:19.387" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6482" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6476" CreationDate="2011-01-06T01:47:06.337" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I tend to shoot around f/3.0 or so, indoors or out. If there's a really cool background, I'll go up to f/10, but I find I don't like to shoot much in the f/22 range, no matter the target... It does depend a bit if I'm wanting to isolate the background, but I find that I sometimes struggle a bit with wanting to include it or isolate it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T01:47:06.337" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6483" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6480" CreationDate="2011-01-06T02:17:11.693" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well... I suspect that your probably more looking for FOSS applications, I will put in a vote for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ptgui.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PTgui&lt;/a&gt;. The thing I really appreciate about using it is although there's a lot of feature depth to the program if you want to dig in and get your hands dirty, it's super-simple to get started... you only have to be able to point to a folder with your initial photographs in order to generate a basic panorama. It's also a solid enough app that I feel comfortable enough using it for client work... such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.att.com/u-verse/explore/default.jsp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this pano&lt;/a&gt; that I shot for AT&amp;amp;T last year.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T02:17:11.693" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6484" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6487" CreationDate="2011-01-06T02:45:35.983" Score="6" ViewCount="80" Body="&lt;p&gt;Using a little Opteka fish attachment, I've gotten some very cool shots. The problem is that all shots get, of course, progressively less sharp as you move out from the center. I know that this is to be expected, especially with fisheye lenses and wide apertures. However, the blur is so bad that any photo taken with the attachment is completely unsuitable for printing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, here's the question: If I go buy a Canon/Sigma dedicated fisheye lens, how much better will the quality be? Worth the (steepish) price?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2861" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T03:19:38.513" Title="Fisheye Image Quality: Improves with Price?" Tags="&lt;focus&gt;&lt;fisheye&gt;&lt;image-quality&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6485" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6480" CreationDate="2011-01-06T03:18:06.550" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;THE beginner pano app has to be Autostitch. There is almost no interface, you open a bunch of files and select the output size. That's it! It does not get any easier than that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then there is also Microsoft ICE. It's the same principle in that it stitches without user input but it does let you tweak the horizon, center-point and projection interactively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Between the two, Autostitch does a better rendering job but run out of memory on very large panos before MS ICE does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By comparison, Hugin is complicated and it's interface is not the cleanest. It's enough to deter you from panoramas! (At least that's my impression after trying several versions)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T03:18:06.550" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6486" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6484" CreationDate="2011-01-06T03:18:39.280" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Um... yes.  You're comparing a cheap (a quick Google search shows around $35) aftermarket attachment to a dedicated lens from a major manufacturer.  Lenses are very often &quot;you get what you pay for&quot; but you're not even talking about the same category of glass here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any fisheye lens from Canon/Sigma is going to give you vastly better results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ArIre.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;From a Sigma 4.5mm fisheye...&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T03:18:39.280" />
  <row Id="6487" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6484" CreationDate="2011-01-06T03:19:38.513" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Adding an additional piece of glass to an already complex arrangement of elements is, at the very basic level, something that can degrade the performance of the lens. Adding one that is designed to optically alter the lens raises even greater risk, this is, after all, not explicitly designed to work with the lens. On that basis, you're already in the optical &quot;hole&quot; here as it were.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A dedicated fisheye lens is specifically designed to be such a lens and the combination of optical elements are there to handle the result of that. So, even the cheaper end of the fisheye lens options is very likely to perform better than your current combination. A better grade of lens is just going to be better in result. The same holds true for macro attachments and other forms of front or rear element items designed to change the essential optical properties of the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T03:19:38.513" />
  <row Id="6488" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6254" CreationDate="2011-01-06T03:25:04.143" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;After debating this question with myself for several weeks I finally settled on the &lt;a href=&quot;https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=lowepro+flipside&amp;amp;ie=utf-8&amp;amp;oe=utf-8&amp;amp;aq=t&amp;amp;rls=org.mozilla%3aen-US%3aofficial&amp;amp;client=firefox-a&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lowepro Flipside&lt;/a&gt; backpack. With this model the opening is against your back and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mmbk2lamHCI&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;is accessed&lt;/a&gt; by spinning the bag around to your front with the waist-belt buckled. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the three months I've had it I've been very pleased and I absolutely love hiking with the weight on both shoulders. My big fear when looking at backpacks was that I would be forced to set the whole shebang down in the dirt when changing lenses. The Flipside solves that problem admirably. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="139" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T03:25:04.143" />
  <row Id="6489" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6490" CreationDate="2011-01-06T03:29:11.143" Score="14" ViewCount="420" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6476/what-f-do-you-use-to-photograph-people-and-why/6481#6481&quot;&gt;this answer to another question&lt;/a&gt; Rob Clement wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Think background first. What story do you want to tell? Epic background, big mountains. Looking to deliver a sense of grandeur with your subject. Go big! f/22 or higher if you have it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that he's using depth of field to talk about keeping the background sharp. But even at a modest f/8, the hyperfocal distance for most common scenarios is only a few tens of feet... more than enough to get a mountain range in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also understand that wider apertures reduce sharpness... but a few stops down from wide open is usually enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And obviously, you can use a smaller aperture to reduce the light. But f/22 seems pretty tiny even for a bright day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what &lt;em&gt;other&lt;/em&gt; reasons for using a tiny aperture exist?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastEditorUserId="48" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-06T19:09:01.530" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T23:57:47.223" Title="What's the benefit of a tiny aperture?" Tags="&lt;aperture&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="6490" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6489" CreationDate="2011-01-06T03:34:30.330" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Those kind of apertures often show up in macro work because the DoF is razor thin, so every fraction of a mm you can get matters. However, you also can be diffraction limited at such a aperture and actually end up with less sharpness. Cambridge in Colour has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;good article&lt;/a&gt; on this very topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T03:34:30.330" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6491" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6489" CreationDate="2011-01-06T03:38:04.723" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Smaller aperture can be used for reducing lens flare. Ok, nothing I really ever did, but it comes to mind if you eliminate the other reasons ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T03:38:04.723" />
  <row Id="6492" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6480" CreationDate="2011-01-06T03:39:24.620" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only program I've used is Hugin, but I'm really happy with it.  I think it's pretty easy to use, and for the most part it's an automatic process.  You'll spend most of your time waiting for the software to process the photos, so your best bet is to just install some software and start using it so you can get your results sooner!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T03:39:24.620" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6495" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6496" CreationDate="2011-01-06T05:32:02.583" Score="30" ViewCount="826" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are 'broad' and 'short' lighting when it comes to studio portraiture, and when should I use each?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-10T20:20:37.077" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T20:20:37.077" Title="In portrait photography, what is 'broad' lighting? What is 'short' lighting?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;studio-lighting&gt;&lt;lighting-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="7" />
  <row Id="6496" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6495" CreationDate="2011-01-06T05:43:35.073" Score="28" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Broad Lighting: Is when a subject is posed such that the main light is directed at the side of the face that is closest to the camera. Broad lighting can add weight to a thin face, but it does this by 'adding' roundness/thickness to the face, so it is not a good style of lighting to use with bigger subjects (or even 'normal' subjects with rounder faces.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Broad Lighting Example:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/47L04.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Broad Lighting Example&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Short Lighting: Is when the subject is posed such that the main light is directed at the side of the face that is furthest away from the camera. Short lighting can help 'thin' a subject who is heavy, or who has a rounder face.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short Lighting Example:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/iQDAY.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Short Lighting Example&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T05:43:35.073" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6498" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6489" CreationDate="2011-01-06T07:39:38.567" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Larger aperatures (assuming you shorten the exposure time to compensate) tends to also lead to harsher light and shadows. This tends to only be noticable for very, very fast shutter speeds, and therefore only with wide-open apertures as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3008" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T07:39:38.567" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6499" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2224" CreationDate="2011-01-06T07:59:45.580" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hard question to answer, but I guess the only photo that I have bought and stuck up on a wall is by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.plisson.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Philip Plisson&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ne5C9.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Incidentally, his &lt;a href=&quot;http://sailracewin.blogspot.com/2010/09/fire-ravages-french-marine.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;warehouse burned down in September&lt;/a&gt;, together which many of his photos, apparently.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1812" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T07:59:45.580" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-06T07:59:45.580" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6500" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="295" CreationDate="2011-01-06T08:07:38.933" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Haven't used it, but just came across this Europe (France)-based site, no idea how good it is, but on first glance it looks like trying to reproduce SmugMug's success:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.darqroom.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.darqroom.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1812" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T08:07:38.933" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-06T08:07:38.933" />
  <row Id="6501" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6502" CreationDate="2011-01-06T09:50:58.630" Score="11" ViewCount="188" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently obtained a Rosco swatch book with about a million different speedlight-sized gels. However, the gels are hard to use while still attached. Before I break them apart, I want to make sure I can keep them organized. How do you store/carry your flash gels so that&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You can distinguish between them,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They don't get (too) crumpled, and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They don't disappear out of your bag?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: I like all the answers; too bad I can only accept one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-10T22:21:57.650" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T22:21:57.650" Title="How do you carry flash gels?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;gels&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6502" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6501" CreationDate="2011-01-06T10:49:03.500" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What I do is clip off the plastic brad that holds the book together, throw away the get colors/types that I will never use (about 90% of 'em) and simply thread a 'carabiner style' key chain ring such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.acehardware.com/product/index.jsp?productId=1288256&amp;amp;kw=key+ring&amp;amp;origkw=key+ring&amp;amp;searchId=53841853263&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt; through the holes of the remaining gels and their paper backings (so I can keep track of which gel variation is which). Makes pulling the gel I want out of the pack much easier, and makes it relatively quick and painless for me to put them back into the stack when I'm done with them. Toss the whole thing in the side pocket of my lighting bag and I'm good to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Over time I've migrated the useful gels from several swatch books into the stack so I have a number of each of the gels I use for the times when I need to gel up a number of strobes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T10:49:03.500" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6503" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6489" CreationDate="2011-01-06T10:49:13.017" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The usual answer from photo manual is to take panoramic pictures with tiny aperture to get the maximum deep of field, no flares and highest sharpness.&#xA;This is how the theory goes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reality is really different, I tried myself several shots with several &quot;semi-pro&quot; range lens (500-1000$ price range) with my Nikon 300D.&#xA;All of them showed a marked drop of sharpness after f16, with the best results at f8.&#xA;I think the problem is the irregular shape of the shutter hole when reduced causes many diffractions. I could be that with special or more expensive lens the problem is not present.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As results I'm using tiny aperture only if I need long exposures (and I don't have ND filters with me) or for high macro snaps (where dof is really important).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a side note, pinhole cameras with film are very funny to use, I bought mine for 20 pound and it's done of cardboard. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2507" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T10:49:13.017" />
  <row Id="6504" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="295" CreationDate="2011-01-06T10:53:23.517" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like &lt;strong&gt;PicsEngine&lt;/strong&gt;: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.picsengine.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.picsengine.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has a really slick iPhoto-like management interface, and nice galleries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3014" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T10:53:23.517" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-06T10:53:23.517" />
  <row Id="6505" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6489" CreationDate="2011-01-06T11:51:22.143" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A tiny aperture can be useful if you want a blurred picture of a bright waterfall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1296" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T11:51:22.143" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6506" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6501" CreationDate="2011-01-06T12:00:29.723" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I only use about three gels (CTO and 1/2 CTO mainly, occasional fluoro) which I keep - plus a spare of each - in an envelope, with velcro dots already attached; I have velcro felt on the sides of my flashgun. I don't have trouble telling which is which because I use so few.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2329" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T12:00:29.723" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6507" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6489" CreationDate="2011-01-06T12:06:37.987" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;f/22 is perfectly appropriate for medium format. In fact, f/64 was a common aperture for 8x10&quot; landscape shooters, hence the name of Ansel's group. For 35mm/full-frame you'll usually be at f8-f16 and for APS-c a stop or so wider is fine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At least, I assume that's what he meant. If you didn't have any ND filters handy you might use f/22 in dawn light to get blurred water, I suppose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2329" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T12:06:37.987" />
  <row Id="6508" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-06T12:25:10.413" Score="1" ViewCount="135" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are there any non-SLR digital cameras that come with a Standard or Telephoto lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3029" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T00:21:20.807" Title="Standard Lens Digital Cameras" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;&lt;digital&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6509" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6508" CreationDate="2011-01-06T12:30:40.970" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Welcome to the community.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many - virtually any point and shoot has standard zoom. Many (Canon SX series, for example) have telephoto zooms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also interchangeable lens cameras in the Micro 4/3 family among other mirrorless cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Medium format View cameras are a valid answer to this question as well, but I guess it is not what you mean here. &lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt; I just noticed you mentioned &quot;digital cameras&quot; so I guess the view camera category is not a valid answer, after all... but there certainly are some mediums with digital backs (a couple tens of thousands $$, though, and I am not completely sure they do not fall under the SLR definition)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-06T20:42:25.550" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T20:42:25.550" />
  <row Id="6510" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6501" CreationDate="2011-01-06T12:55:54.780" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I went ahead and bought the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002SWIOOM?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;tag=phot0b7-20&amp;amp;linkCode=as2&amp;amp;camp=1789&amp;amp;creative=390957&amp;amp;creativeASIN=B002SWIOOM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strobist Collection&lt;/a&gt; gel set from rosco, which doesn't have the holes and comes in a small plastic case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another great idea is to go with the solution &lt;a href=&quot;http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=683062&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;found here&lt;/a&gt;, which is to laminate the gels with specs, which makes them durable enough to toss in your bag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T12:55:54.780" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6511" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-06T13:41:20.923" Score="11" ViewCount="178" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many people recommend putting cameras in sealed plastic bags when coming from winter conditions back to normal room temperature – see, e.g., &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/5664/using-dslrs-in-cold-weather&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2379/special-care-for-my-canon-in-the-alps&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certainly the trick works, but when you fiddle with cameras and ziplock bags with freezing fingers, all kinds of improvements come to mind. Hence the question: do I really need a separate plastic bag, or could I simply use my camera bag?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not all camera bags are sufficiently tight to prevent condensation. But which bags are good enough? Are there any &quot;winter bags&quot; that work (almost) as well as the combination of a normal camera bag + a ziplock bag?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, Lowepro has some &lt;a href=&quot;http://products.lowepro.com/catalog/Waterproof,18.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;waterproof camera bags&lt;/a&gt; – are such bags sufficiently air-tight for winter use? Are there cheaper options? How far one can go with a normal camera bag + some silica gel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="247" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T00:07:59.250" Title="Camera bags for winter" Tags="&lt;camera-bag&gt;&lt;weather&gt;&lt;equipment-protection&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="6512" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6471" CreationDate="2011-01-06T13:42:39.057" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To add to what Jay Lance said (mostly different phrasing, but also comments on background &amp;amp; accessories)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My grandmother used to teach corrective posing &amp;amp; lighting years ago, and her short 2-page handout is in the back of &quot;The Art of Bridal Photography: Techniques for Lighting and Posing&quot;, which &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=nJvOqazkAEQC&amp;amp;pg=PA120&amp;amp;lpg=PA120&amp;amp;dq=anne+brignolo+lighting+brides&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=xD03ommSEw&amp;amp;sig=b7qIuXfdDNijjplGJZvOKrm0F68&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;ei=XsElTeP9GMH98Abfi5WSAg&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=book_result&amp;amp;ct=result&amp;amp;resnum=5&amp;amp;sqi=2&amp;amp;ved=0CDIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Google has conveniently scanned&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The relevent items are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Broad face : Turn face to three-quarter position ;; Use short lighting &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Double chin : Extend back of neck and bring chin forward; raise camera position ;; Raise main light&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Heavyset figure : Use dark clothes and dark background (blend tonality of clothes into back-ground); use V-necks, colors and jewelry to draw attention away from face ;; Use short lighting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, having the person turn their head back towards the camera some after having them turn their body 45 degrees can get them to tighten up the neck some, and they'll sometimes bring their head forward without realizing it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3032" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T13:42:39.057" />
  <row Id="6513" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6254" CreationDate="2011-01-06T13:58:30.160" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently bought the Kata R-103 backpack. So far, I am very content with it. What is especially nice is that you can access your camera without taking the entire backpack off: &lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/auJgN.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Kata R-103&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this gains out the biggest disadvantage of regular photo backpacks - hard accessibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that's not the only good thing about this bag. Just have a look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Kata-KT-R-103-GDC-Rucksack/product-reviews/B0009PYV6K/ref=sr_1_1_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;showViewpoints=1&amp;amp;qid=1294322136&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Amazon reviews&lt;/a&gt;. It is extremely stable and allows you to carry a laptop and tripod as well as the camera equipment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2069" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T13:58:30.160" />
  <row Id="6514" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3542" CreationDate="2011-01-06T14:01:34.587" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I see in your answer that you mentioned the Kata 3N1-30 bag. If this is the size you are looking for (it is BIG) than you should consider the 3N1-33 version which has a laptop compartment in its back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T14:01:34.587" />
  <row Id="6515" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6489" CreationDate="2011-01-06T14:14:14.563" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You know those shots of cars driving and the head lights are streaking all over. Well in order to shoot that you have to keep the shutter open very long. You would need a small aperture to cope with the long shutter in order to not overexpose the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2777" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T14:14:14.563" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6516" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-06T15:09:03.703" Score="2" ViewCount="124" Body="&lt;p&gt;My husband and I are expecting our first child, and I'm on the lookout for a diaper bag that could hold my SLR and maybe an extra lens, in addition to the usual baby stuff (diapers, changing pad, change of clothes) and purse stuff (wallet, keys, cellphone). How have other parents solved the challenge of combining both needs, without carrying both a camera bag and a diaper bag?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question is a bit similar to &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3542/camera-bag-with-extra-space-as-airplane-carry-on&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt;, but there are a couple of extra challenges. Preferably, I'd need a strategy to isolate the photo stuff from the potentially messy baby stuff (nothing like spilled milk - or worse - on a 600$ lens...). And of course, I don't need to carry a laptop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any ideas? Strategies?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="204" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T16:03:03.570" Title="Camera bag that could serve as a diaper bag, or vice versa" Tags="&lt;camera-bag&gt;&lt;children&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6517" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2011-01-06T15:20:53.073" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://goingpro2010.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://goingpro2010.com&lt;/a&gt; is an awesome resource as well, not so much for photography tips per say, but more for what you'd need to do to make money from photography, and what to do when you've got people asking you to take their pictures for some occasion or another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T15:20:53.073" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-06T15:20:53.073" />
  <row Id="6518" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6531" CreationDate="2011-01-06T15:23:54.563" Score="9" ViewCount="309" Body="&lt;p&gt;I own a 450D, and I am very satisfied with the image quality, features, a.s.o. The only thing that disturbs me is the viewfinder. I can barely see the whole image when looking through it (black blends in near the edges as my eyes focus the image) and as soon as I look through it slightly from the side, e.g. when I'm shooting near the floor, the whole thing gets to be controlled by luck. Manual focus is almost impossible to get right - especially with the crappy focus ring on the kit lense (it's slightly better with the 60mm/2.8). Later, when I view the photos on my PC, I can see details that I haven't noticed at all while using the viewfinder and therefore did not have control of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is: Am I the only one having these problems? Is there any possibility to improve my viewfinder's image without buying a new camera? And last but not least - which cameras do have good/big viewfinders? Does it have something to do with the size of the sensor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2069" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T19:36:46.233" Title="My viewfinder is too small!" Tags="&lt;canon-450d&gt;&lt;viewfinder&gt;&lt;full-frame&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6519" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6518" CreationDate="2011-01-06T15:27:12.603" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You might try a viewfinder expander, such as &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0028ZST1C?tag=httpwwwpearso-20&amp;amp;camp=213381&amp;amp;creative=390973&amp;amp;linkCode=as4&amp;amp;creativeASIN=B0028ZST1C&amp;amp;adid=0YYPKMGAQ48JH924PDWK&amp;amp;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt;. I've never used them myself, but I've heard good things about them in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T15:27:12.603" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6520" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6516" CreationDate="2011-01-06T15:30:46.487" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Kata 3N1-33 lets you store non-photo stuff in the upper compartment and a laptop in the back compartment. It is big, though, and intended for carrying a few lenses + flash + big DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T15:30:46.487" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6521" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6518" CreationDate="2011-01-06T15:32:17.953" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are certainly not the only one with this problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To your last point: EOS 7D has a big and clear viewfinder with a supposedly 100% coverage. It is certainly an upgrade from my Rebel XT. Obviously, it has nothing to do with the sensor size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T15:32:17.953" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6522" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-06T15:42:07.450" Score="1" ViewCount="146" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4203/digital-photography-tutorials&quot;&gt;Digital Photography Tutorials&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hey everyone,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I aquired this camera from my dad, as he got another model, and I have some lenses and the Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't used the camera much past 'auto' shooting which my non 'auto' shooting buddies always frown on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;7+ years ago in university I took a photography class (develop photos, dark room, etc) and just didn't apply any of that knowledge to my DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any site / tutorials specific to this camera? And how I can shed my 'auto' setting photo style? I really want to be more versatile and be able to take better photos, and understand proper aperature / shutter speed, etc.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks, looking for most informative answer to getting started with this particular model.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3036" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-11T19:50:01.590" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T19:50:01.590" ClosedDate="2011-01-06T16:09:09.120" Title="Learning more about using my Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi" Tags="&lt;tutorial&gt;&lt;canon-400d&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6523" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6516" CreationDate="2011-01-06T15:55:36.177" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My wife have the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Storksak-Gigi-Large-Diaper-Bag/dp/B002WN2OMA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Storksak Gigi Chocolate Diaper Bag&lt;/a&gt; for a year now and for the past few weeks I have added my Nikon D7000 to it when we go out to parks and outings. She has no problem packing away everything the baby needs in addition to me adding my camera with kit lens attached. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I just got a 2nd lens (the 35mm prime) and have any problem tossing that into the pouch inside the main chamber. I will of course use the lens bag case that came with it as an extra precaution and use the inner pocket inside the main chamber (see the fourth image on amazon). The changing pad that comes with the bag makes for a great cushion for the camera too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, its made well with each compartment able to contain any mess made inside. With plenty of compartments you can devote one to your hardware and the rest to baby food and drinks. In addition, since you can separate the hardware from the food and drink on either side of the bag the large main chamber will be more than enough of a precaution in keeping the two separated for sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an aside, my wife loves this bad for the baby and my understanding its super fashionable now Because Angelina Jolie uses it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T15:55:36.177" />
  <row Id="6524" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6522" CreationDate="2011-01-06T16:01:23.440" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Every camera works more or less the same. The most important, you already said it : Aperture, exposure, sensitivity, focus, etc. After you grasped enough of the theory, you may want to go out and try for yourself with your very own camera (whatever it is). Firstly, in aperture priority or time priority mode, you'll have less to care about yet enough to try and learn. Then, in fully manual. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3039" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T16:01:23.440" />
  <row Id="6525" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3542" CreationDate="2011-01-06T16:02:42.440" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not specific to photographic needs, but useful for travellers, the site &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.onebag.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;onebag.com&lt;/a&gt; helps people who want to travel light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1296" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T16:02:42.440" />
  <row Id="6526" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6516" CreationDate="2011-01-06T16:03:03.570" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;We use whatever diaper bag Kaiser gives you on your way out the door.  Pretty standard thing, one large main pouch with two dividers, one for diapers and the others for wipes.  Two outside holsters for sippy cups/lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there are spare clothes in the main pouch (and there often are!), then those act as decent cushions.  If you start storing food or juice in there, you may want to wrap your camera in something to avoid it getting spilled on.  The problem is that you'll just throw the sippy cup in there to get going, and not realize you left the camera in there as well.  So be cautious!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T16:03:03.570" />
  <row Id="6527" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6480" CreationDate="2011-01-06T16:12:40.523" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to picking your software, you'll want to remember a couple things while shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, always shoot in manual mode, and use the same exposure for all your shots.  If you let the camera adjust aperture and/or shutter from shot to shot, even the best stitching software will have a hard time avoiding a patchwork quilt look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, although I see PTGui's claim that your images don't have to be aligned, my experience with Hugin is that better inputs always help, so use a tripod if you can.  You can buy specialized pano tripod heads (as Jay mentioned in his post), but you should absolutely be able to get started without one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, when you're using Hugin, pay attention to whether you've got any lines in your photo that are supposed to be straight.  I've found that Hugin does a better job if you can point out some straight lines in your photo and let is use those to help with alignment.  Obviously, this won't work on some landscapes, but for scenery that's got buildings, docks, towers, etc., this can help avoid &quot;swimming&quot; panos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T16:12:40.523" />
  <row Id="6528" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4203" CreationDate="2011-01-06T16:19:30.067" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This site is actually a good place to begin learning!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, there are several tags that tend to cover a lot of the basic information, and if you can't find what you need, ask away and you'll probably get an answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beginner tags:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/photography-basics&quot;&gt;Photography Basics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/camera-basics&quot;&gt;Camera Basics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T16:19:30.067" />
  <row Id="6530" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-06T16:38:08.790" Score="0" ViewCount="203" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6534/converting-a-proprietary-raw-image-format-to-adobe-dng&quot;&gt;Converting a proprietary raw image format to Adobe DNG&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hello,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a raw bayer file captured from a digital camera. It's format is 16bit per color channel - GRBG mode. file extension is *.raw&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have dcraw installed on a Linux(Ubuntu).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can I convert/demosaic this raw file to bmp by doing dcraw supported AHD(Adaptive Homegeneity Directed) demosaicing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see that man dcraw says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;dcraw -q 3  should do it, but i get an error saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Cannot decode file chart_no_lights.raw.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1] Is it that dcraw currently does not have support for this kind of raw bayer data that I have and hence convert the raw bayer to a bmp using dcraw?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2] If so, is there any other raw decoder which has AHD as demosaicing supported and which will allow me to get a demosaiced bmp output file?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;thanks,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-AD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2438" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T16:38:08.790" ClosedDate="2011-02-01T18:52:27.713" Title="Using dcraw to perform demosaicing of raw bayer file" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6531" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6518" CreationDate="2011-01-06T16:58:07.143" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a few things conspiring against you. First is the fact that your camera uses a pentamirror rather than a pentaprism to orient the viewfinder image so up is up and left is left. Mirrors are nowhere near as efficient as total internal reflection within a prism, but they are a whole lot cheaper. And unlike a prism, they get worse rather than better the further away from the normal angle you get. (The 7D, 5D, 3D and 3Ds all use a pentaprism.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The focusing screen makes a difference as well. I don't know enough about the actual construction of the screens in the various Canon models to say for sure whether that's a contributing factor in your case, but I do know that back in the day the Minolta Acute Matte screen was brighter than other designs by a significant enough margin (nearly a full stop of apparent brightness compared to the screens Nikon and Canon were using) that Hasselblad licensed the technology for their medium format cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reflex mirror is only partially silvered these days as well (it used to be just an ordinary front-silvered mirror in the Dark Ages). Again, I don't know if there is a significant difference in transmissivity between the various models of camera, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The image erector, the screen and the reflex mirror (not to mention the optics used at the eyepiece) are all places where a camera maker can save a buck or two when making an entry-level camera&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T16:58:07.143" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6532" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6518" CreationDate="2011-01-06T17:20:37.687" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To me it sounds that you are not holding you eye close enough to the viewfinder. You should be able to see the edges of the image in the viewfinder clearly inside the frame of the viewfinder, as well as all the digits and indicators shown below the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The viewfinder has a rubber lining, so that you comfortably can press your eye socket against it to get your eye close to it, but you should still be able to see the entire image in the viewfinder even without touching the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos450d/page5.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this review&lt;/a&gt;, the viewfinder in the 450D is bigger and brighter than the one in the 400D, so there is nothing that suggests that your camera would have a particularly bad viewfinder. A camera with a full size sensor has a larger and brigher viewfinder, but you should certainly be able to get a good enough view in the camera that you have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T17:20:37.687" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6533" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6569" CreationDate="2011-01-06T17:41:42.403" Score="7" ViewCount="384" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon T2i for shooting artwork. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are your thoughts and experience with shooting artwork (2d) and will the standard lens be OK for this purpose? Or should I upgrade to the zoom lens package to save with having to move the camera distance all the time? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Short of a proper large format image scanning system I've heard the Canon EOS 5D Mark II with it's 22mp imaging is the next best photo option to capture Giclée quality prints. But that camera is out of my budget and renting one for just a week in my location will cost as much as this T2i!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;so I'm wondering your thought on using this T2i for top quality reproductions? This is for hundreds of artworks, mostly prints up to 24&quot;x30&quot;, and oil paintings on canvas and board up to 30&quot;x40&quot;. So no super large works, but large enough.. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other matter is that really we don't plan to make Giclée prints. We just really need to archive a lifetime's worth of works at the highest feasible quality, and do so as economically as possible. If they may be used to make reproductions too, great. It's a fine line between the budget and getting adequate quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taking aside the fact that proper glicee prints need to be compared and color matched to the original, etc. I realize that we'll not be able to quite get the quality on every image that would be ideal. Not to mention issues with lighting, tripod/camera table set up, etc. But if the eventual setup can do a consistent and adequate job, that should suffice. At least it should be many times better than the standard digicam shots we have now! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also if you have any thoughts or links that you recomend on photographing artwork please let me know. The camera is just one part of the set-up &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3043" LastEditorUserId="3356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-11T05:36:04.697" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T05:36:04.697" Title="Canon T2i for shooting artwork?" Tags="&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;artwork&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6534" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6539" CreationDate="2011-01-06T17:48:49.007" Score="1" ViewCount="249" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a proprietary raw camera image format taken from a Aptina camera.&#xA;It's raw file format is 16bit per color channel, 'GRBG' mode with file extension is *.raw. No headers nothing, just plan raw bayer samples. I want to convert this format to DNG, as none of the raw image decoders (dcraw,gimp,...) seem to support it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1] Is there any tool/converter which can handle Aptina camera sensor raw bayer format, and allow me to convert it to DNG format?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2] If not, I want to write a small C code to convert it myself. Where can I find the detail specification about DNG format, its structure etc. Any document explaining all this DNG format?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;thank you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-AD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2438" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T19:05:49.267" Title="Converting a proprietary raw image format to Adobe DNG" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6535" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6533" CreationDate="2011-01-06T17:56:26.490" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your best bet for high quality images on a budget is to shoot several images of each canvass and have some panorama software assemble the images automatically on your PC.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This will quickly turn your 18 megapixel images into 50+ megapixel images worthy of a medium format DSLR. You'll also be able to get away with the kit lens if you have enough light. If shooting indoors a sturdy tripod will be a must to overcome camera shake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As long as the canvas you're photographing is flat the software should have no problem assembling the images, though lots of overlap between images will help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have a look at this question for suggestions on panorama assembling software:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/230/recommendations-for-panorama-creation-stitching-tools&quot;&gt;Recommendations for panorama creation/stitching tools&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have photoshop CS3+ I've found the built in panorama assembly tool to work fine for what I've done previously.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other than that general tips for this sort of thing would be to shoot in aperture priority mode, use a small aperture (e.g. f/8) for maximum sharpness and DOF, a low ISO e.g. 100 and a tripod to steady the camera. Shooting Raw and setting your camera to Adove RGB will allow you to capture the greatest amount of colour information and give you latitude for correcting brightness or any other problems due to uneven lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-06T18:59:51.913" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T18:59:51.913" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="6536" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6511" CreationDate="2011-01-06T18:14:04.523" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You only need to protect your camera when coming in from the cold. If you seal up your camera perfectly airtight all the time you are outside, and then come in and open up the bag, you will still get condensation on it. If you like, carry a ziplock bag around with you, seal up the camera just before you come inside, and wait until it warms up. You should see no condensation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:As far as I can work out the amount of condensation is proportional to how much high-humidity air gets in contact with the camera before it heats up. Putting it in any bag before coming indoors will reduce that - a tightly zipped bag with little airspace will be better than a loosely closed one with lot of airspace; a watertight bag will reduce it more, and an airtight bag all but eliminate it. But only the period while the camera is warming is important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1546" LastEditorUserId="1546" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-22T00:07:59.250" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T00:07:59.250" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6537" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6534" CreationDate="2011-01-06T18:21:28.277" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are up for it, Aptina provides documentation of many aspects of the products, (I think) intended for manufacturers of add-ons.  But if you sign an NDA you can get access to the documentation library, where presumably you can learn what you need to write code yourself.  See their &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aptina.com/support/faqs.jsp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3045" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T18:21:28.277" />
  <row Id="6538" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6518" CreationDate="2011-01-06T18:26:03.817" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_rebel_xsi_ef_s_18_55is_kit#Specifications&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon web site&lt;/a&gt; includes the viewfinder specifications:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Type&lt;/strong&gt; Eye-level pentamirror&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Coverage&lt;/strong&gt;  Vertical/Horizontal approx.&#xA;  95%&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Magnification&lt;/strong&gt;  Approx. 0.87x (-1m with&#xA;  50mm lens at infinity)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Eye Point&lt;/strong&gt;  Approx. 19mm (from eyepiece&#xA;  lens center)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Dioptric Adjustment Correction&lt;/strong&gt; &#xA;  -3.0 to +1.0 diopter&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Focusing Screen&lt;/strong&gt;  Fixed, Precision&#xA;  Matte&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mirror&lt;/strong&gt;  Quick-return half mirror&#xA;  (Transmission: reflection ratio of&#xA;  40:60, no mirror cut-off with EF600mm&#xA;  f/4L IS USM or shorter lenses)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Viewfinder Information&lt;/strong&gt;  AF information&#xA;  (AF points, focus confirmation light),&#xA;  exposure information (shutter speed,&#xA;  aperture, AE lock, exposure level, ISO&#xA;  speed, exposure warning), flash&#xA;  information (flash ready, high-speed&#xA;  sync, FE lock, flash exposure&#xA;  compensation), monochrome shooting,&#xA;  white balance correction, maximum&#xA;  burst, SD memory card information&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Depth Of Field Preview&lt;/strong&gt;  Enabled with&#xA;  depth-of-field preview button&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the most important parts regarding your question are the coverage and eye point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The viewfinder on this camera is only designed to cover 95% of the area, so you &lt;strong&gt;will not&lt;/strong&gt; see the entire frame.  You have to keep that in mind.  Also, they specify 19mm as the eye point, so for optimal viewing, you should have your eye within 19mm of the eyepiece lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as what cameras have a good viewfinder... You generally need to step up to the professional line to get 100% coverage, but if you look at the technical specifications, they will tell you what type of viewfinder is used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ideally you would want an eye-level pentaprism, with 100% coverage and 1.0X magnification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to learn more about all of the components of the viewfinder, there is a great reference at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/viewfinders.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;luminous-landscape&lt;/a&gt; (the examples a a bit dated, but the concepts are accurate).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-07T19:36:46.233" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T19:36:46.233" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6539" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6534" CreationDate="2011-01-06T18:26:57.200" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;DNG files are based on the TIFF/EP standard, ISO 12234-2, (they're essentially bitmaps with extra metadata) so if you start out with an appropriate TIFF I/O library that will get you part way, but you'll need to fill in the extra data required by DNG, which could be tricky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Raw converters need to know more than just the pixel intensities. Other relevant information includes pixel shape and orientation, or the properties of the dyes (just knowing they go GRBG is not enough, you may need to know the precise shade (or more accurately the frequency response) of each dye to create the colour representation as this varies between manufacturers). I think DNGs handle this by means of an embedded &quot;camera profile&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;edit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's an open source photo management application called digiKam which can write DNG files, so your best bet would probably be to look through their source and try and rip out the DNG encoding functions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-06T18:54:47.157" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T18:54:47.157" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6540" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6501" CreationDate="2011-01-06T19:00:34.983" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just solved this problem for myself. Bought 2 &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thinktankphoto.com/products/pixel-pocket-rocket-memory-card-holder.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;thinktank&lt;/a&gt;&quot; CF card holders, gutted the seam in the middle and violá, gel carrying system. I've used this in the field numerous times and absolutely love it! Use a sharpie to label your gel pouch and you're good to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T19:00:34.983" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6541" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6534" CreationDate="2011-01-06T19:05:49.267" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DNG documentation&lt;/a&gt; is freely available from Adobe and they include an SDK, though I haven't checked the SDK for language options, very likely something like C or C++, but you never know these days... :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, the specification is open and freely usable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T19:05:49.267" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6542" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6404" CreationDate="2011-01-06T19:08:02.913" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Expose for ambient, use strobe to freeze subject or...&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Light entire scene and fire remotely. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 1st is the easiest and will give you nice motion. Hold your camera tight, use your elbows as a brace, become the tripod young Jedi.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second will render a more accurate image. Of course every scene is different, but you can usually light a room with four strobes, one in each corner, aimed towards the center of the ceiling. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for outdoors, unless you have a whole heck of a lot of firepower, you simply have to balance color temperature and output. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck and happy hunting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T19:08:02.913" />
  <row Id="6543" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="613" CreationDate="2011-01-06T20:47:59.707" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi, I made a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.workwithcolor.com/gray-card-6475.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gray card&lt;/a&gt; because I needed one quickly.&#xA;I think this is the best one can do. &#xA;You probably bought one by now - but just in case...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3055" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T20:47:59.707" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6544" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6508" CreationDate="2011-01-06T20:51:30.333" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is confusing, so I'm going to answer both way I can interpret it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are you looking for a bundle with a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera (ILC)? Seems pointless since you can get ANY lens you want, even if it does not come with it. If you really want a bundle, then many cameras come with 2-lens kits. The second lens is always a telephoto one and the first always covers the &lt;em&gt;standard&lt;/em&gt; focal-length. The catch is they those are often of poor quality which is why the bundles (called &lt;em&gt;kits&lt;/em&gt;) are quite cheap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...Or...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are you looking for a fixed-lens camera that covers either standard (They ALL do) or telephoto focal-lengths? Most modern cameras reach at least where telephoto starts and some, called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/list_cameras.php?type=ultrazoom&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ultra-zooms&lt;/a&gt;, go really far, up to 840mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you know what focal-length you want covered you can use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Neocamera's Camera Finder&lt;/a&gt;. Just put what you want in 'Widest Focal Length' and in 'Longest Focal Length'. It will find you all current cameras that match.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T20:51:30.333" />
  <row Id="6545" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3542" CreationDate="2011-01-06T20:57:32.607" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Lowepro Compurover should fit your needs. It has 3 compartments, one for a camera plus about 5 lenses (including the one on the camera), one for a laptop (16&quot; fits) and a third with interior pockets for misc items. It also has a fold-out tripod holder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do own that one but honestly hardly ever use it. I bought it to travel with one bag but is impractical for my style of photography which requires frequent lens changes and working quickly. Instead I carry a regular small backpack as my airline carry-on PLUS a camera bag that qualifies as a &lt;em&gt;personal item&lt;/em&gt;. In my case, it is a Lowepro Nova 200 AW. It fits 2 DSLRs and 6 lenses easily. This particular model is the largest I found to fit the &lt;em&gt;personal item&lt;/em&gt; limits based on the top 10 airlines I travel with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T20:57:32.607" />
  <row Id="6546" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6548" CreationDate="2011-01-06T21:01:17.940" Score="5" ViewCount="318" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Roscolux sampler pack contains several strengths of both CTO (Color Temperature Orange) and CTS (Color Temperature Straw?). The CTS seems to be a bit yellower than CTO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What situations would you use a CTS gel instead of a CTO? What types of ambient light match a CTS gel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T21:21:18.913" Title="When would you use CTS (Straw) gel instead of CTO?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;gels&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6547" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6518" CreationDate="2011-01-06T21:19:55.020" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/article.php?id=viewfinder_sizes&amp;amp;sort=size&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;list of DSLRs ordered by decreasing viewfinder size&lt;/a&gt;. You will see that yours is closer to the bottom than to the top which indicates it is on the small size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The larger the sensor, the easiest it is to make a large viewfinder. That is why the largest viewfinders all belong to full-frame cameras even though the quoted &lt;em&gt;magnification&lt;/em&gt; can be smaller. Among cropped-sensor cameras you can see that there are 4 cameras that tie for the largest viewfinder (Nikon D7000, D300S, D300 and Canon 7D).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T21:19:55.020" />
  <row Id="6548" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6546" CreationDate="2011-01-06T21:21:18.913" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The CTO and CTS series gels have the both have the same amount of color temprature correction power (e.g. a 1/2 CTO and 1/2 CTS gel will both convert 5000K to approximately 3800K), so they will both correct for Tungsten lighting casts equally well. The only real difference between them is that the CTO has a bit more red, and CTS has a bit more yellow... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a portrait photographer's point of view the practical usability difference is that CTO will tend to give subjects a bit of a tanned look (depending on the strength of the CTO gel), whereas a CTS will not. My personal 'rule of thumb' is to use CTO on pale subjects who I want to add a bit of 'healthy glow' to, and CTS on folks who already have a tan, and don't need any additional help in that department. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T21:21:18.913" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6549" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6560" CreationDate="2011-01-06T22:00:29.087" Score="2" ViewCount="166" Body="&lt;p&gt;So I understand how a single curve works:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If you create a curve such that R100 (in) becomes R50 (out), every pixel that has an R value of R100 becomes R50.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similar deal with the RGB curve:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;if you set RGB100 -&gt; RGB50 any pixel that has R or G or B of 100 becomes 50.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So my question is&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, I've set a RGB curve such that RGB100 -&gt; RGB50 and R100 -&gt; R125, the result is all R100 -&gt; R73.  If I reverse that so RGB100 -&gt; RGB125 and R100 -&gt; R50, the result is all R100 -&gt; R66.  If I set both RGB100 -&gt; RGB50 and R100 -&gt; R50, the result is all R100 -&gt; R19...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the interaction there (mathematically) between the RGB curve and R curve?  This is all on the same curves layer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastEditorUserId="1819" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-06T22:47:22.683" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T03:18:17.047" Title="How exactly do RGB curves work and interact w/each other in Photoshop?" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;image-processing&gt;&lt;curves&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="6550" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7928" CreationDate="2011-01-06T23:48:17.947" Score="8" ViewCount="335" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dye-sublimation_printer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dye-sublimation&lt;/a&gt; cassettes have CMYO (= cyan, magenta, yellow, overlay) panels.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Are there any cassettes designed specifically for black &amp;amp; white pictures?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;For example (and as &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/users/124/jrista&quot;&gt;jrista&lt;/a&gt; pointed out), some modern inkjet printers have additional black and gray inks to help to produce more accurate grayscale tonality &amp;mdash; could there be like black, gray, light gray &amp;amp; overlay cassettes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If not, &lt;strong&gt;how is the black &amp;amp; white performance with a regular CMYO cassette?&lt;/strong&gt; Do some cassettes tend to tint the black &amp;amp; white picture towards to some colour?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Are there any example scans around the web&lt;/strong&gt;, so I could judge by myself?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or would I get better results with a modern inkjet (photo) printer? (I'd also like to &lt;em&gt;see&lt;/em&gt; how they compare.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm having a hard time finding up-to-date information via Google. &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/users/3045/wallyk&quot;&gt;wallyk&lt;/a&gt;'s &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6550/how-a-dye-sublimation-printer-performs-with-black-white-pictures/6554#6554&quot;&gt;answer&lt;/a&gt; gave some clues, but as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/BW.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the comparison&lt;/a&gt; is from 2005, and (hopefully) both dye-sublimation and inkjet printing technologies have advanced, it could be taken as a rough estimate or merely as a starting point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1913" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-15T23:23:47.020" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T22:20:36.297" Title="How well do dye-sublimation printers perform with black &amp; white pictures?" Tags="&lt;printing&gt;&lt;prints&gt;&lt;black-and-white&gt;&lt;dye-sublimation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6551" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6555" CreationDate="2011-01-06T23:52:24.620" Score="13" ViewCount="243" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to print my photos, but &lt;strong&gt;I'd also like to see prints' colours stand time&lt;/strong&gt;. What good options do I have?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've considered the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Inkjet printers with good inks. For example:&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.epson-europe.com/internetLive/dctm/content/EU/en_GB/products/photo_inkjet_printer/EU_product_model_StylusPhotoR800_EN.inter.jsp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Epson Stylus Photo R800&lt;/a&gt; uses a &quot;Gloss Optimizer&quot; catridge in order to obtain consistent gloss and at the same time protect the print. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home/Product_Finder/Printers/Inkjet/PIXMA_iP4850/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon PIXMA iP4850&lt;/a&gt; which uses &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canon-europe.com/chromalife100/100plus/index.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;ChromaLife 100+&quot;&lt;/a&gt; inks&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dye-sublimation printers e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home/Product_Finder/Printers/Direct_Photo/index.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon Selphy&lt;/a&gt; -line&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Decent inkjet... and:&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;laminating the result&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;process the print with chemicals &lt;em&gt;(what kind?)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Other, what?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Models and brands are just examples&lt;/strong&gt;, especially with inkjets and inks. I'm more interested &lt;strong&gt;do the inks actually perform like they're marketed?&lt;/strong&gt; Gloss optimizer or similar overlay &quot;ink&quot; makes sense, but can same durability be obtained without it, like in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canon-europe.com/chromalife100/100plus/index.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ChromaLife's case&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most important is colour reproduction and durability. I'm intending to store the images part-time in an album and part-time on a display (framed under a glass). Black &amp;amp; white handling is a huge plus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good questions somewhat related:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/3348/1913&quot; title=&quot;Lab prints vs Printer&quot;&gt;Lab prints vs Printer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/1715/1913&quot; title=&quot;How do I generate high quality prints with an ink jet printer?&quot;&gt;How do I generate high quality prints with an ink jet printer?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1913" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T23:57:30.160" Title="How to make my digital photo prints to stand in the face of time?" Tags="&lt;printing&gt;&lt;prints&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6552" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6489" CreationDate="2011-01-06T23:57:47.223" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I realize the question pertains to selecting a particular aperture on a lens capable of, say, f/1.7 to f/22.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But another way of looking at it is &lt;strong&gt;What benefits might a photographer have if they only used tiny apertures?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One big advantage is that such lenses are much smaller and lighter.  The diameter of lenses is driven by the maximum aperture.  A lens capable of only f/16, f/22, and f/32 would be very tiny and light, perhaps using 5% of the glass of one capable of f/2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the choice of aperture is a balance between useful depth of field versus diffraction-induced fuzziness.  See &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture#Maximum_and_minimum_apertures&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3045" LastActivityDate="2011-01-06T23:57:47.223" />
  <row Id="6553" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6508" CreationDate="2011-01-07T00:21:20.807" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the mirrorless interchangeable-lens cameras, there are several non-SLR large-sensor compact cameras on the market which come with fixed normal-range (or slightly wide) lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.leica-camera.com/photography/compact_cameras/x1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Leica X1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.finepix-x100.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fujifilm FinePix X100&lt;/a&gt; (which I'm drooling over; not yet released)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sigma-dp.com/DP2s/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma DP2s&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sigma-dp.com/DP1x/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma DP1x&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T00:21:20.807" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-07T00:21:20.807" />
  <row Id="6554" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6550" CreationDate="2011-01-07T00:33:15.570" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is an uncited assertion in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dye-sublimation_printer#Comparison_with_inkjet_printers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt; that neutral color CMYO sublimation printers fall short of the ability of an ink jet printer to render black and white or gray scale images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found a nice side-by-side comparison of dye-sublimation v. ink jet printing for black and white &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/BW.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  I suspect you'll find what you are looking for there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3045" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T00:33:15.570" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6555" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6551" CreationDate="2011-01-07T00:33:54.157" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When you say stand in the face of time...exactly how long are you talking? Properly stored, a pigment based ink jet print should last some 150-200 years (according to independent high-intensity lab tests anyway) in great condition, without any extra special care or handling. Now, that does require proper storage, which means kept protected from light and chemicals, both liquid and aerosol, at the right temperature and humidity. Without proper storage, an ink jet print should still last for 200 years or so, however it will fade, possibly bleed, colors may shift...the regular boat that you see with any old photographs from the last 100 years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you mount a print for viewing, at the very least, it will be subject to light. Mounting behind glass will protect it from the majority of damaging radiation, however the ink will fade eventually, and well before the 150-200 year lifetime regularly quoted by printer manufacturers. Lamination is pretty similar to mounting behind glass, however I can't say exactly what kind of chemical interactions may occur over the long term between the inks and laminate in the presence of light, particularly UV light. It is probably not the best option for longevity. There are some specially formulated print sprays from paper manufacturers like Hahnemuhle that are supposedly designed to improve the longevity of a print. Such things haven't even been around for 50 years, let alone 100 or 200, so how well they perform over the long term can only be simulated or guesstimated at best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to material and ink types, the variations are huge. If you want to maximize the lifetime of your prints, you will want to make sure you use acid free papers. Acids, like moisture and light, are one of the enemies of longevity. The best archival papers will usually be the natural substrate papers that don't include any optical brighteners or ink jet coatings. For inks, modern pigment based inks will provide the highest longevity, as they are explicitly and specially formulated to maintain their color over long periods. Dye inks will not fare quite so well, and will probably top out at around 100 years at best, but depending on the specific formulation, they may not last more than 25 years. Dye sublimation inks are pretty on par with dye inks, although they are a bit more durable. I've heard 105 years a fair bit when it comes to dye sublimation longevity. The problem with dye sublimation is there tend to be a limited number of paper types and sizes available for such prints. I am not sure if the paper requires special chemical traits to support proper bonding to the inks or not, however whenever chemicals are involved, longevity is going to be compromised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To keep things simple, I would do the following for true archival storage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Always use acid-free, natural fiber papers&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Photo Rag, Bamboo, Natural Cellulose, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Avoid optical brighteners in paper&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They can fade much faster than the inks and produce odd color shifts&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use pigment inks rather than dye based inks&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ultrachrome K3+&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lucia/Lucia II&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Keep your archival prints properly stored&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Right humidity for both ink and paper&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Keep the temperature consistent and cool&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Low humidity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No light&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Avoid air-born chemicals&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above should net you near maximum lifetime with good color and low fading. If you want your prints to be admired, it can be much simpler, however you will have to accept a much shorter print lifetime:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mount behind glass&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Most glass will block around 80% of UV light or so&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Conservation&quot; glass specifically filters almost all UV light&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Museum&quot; glass is multi-coated (low glare) and also filters almost all UV light&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Keep some air space between print and glass&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Inks will, and often do, bond to glass if they touch&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mount out of direct sunlight&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This will improve longevity, but reduce vibrancy when viewed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Avoid chemicals and high humidity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unless you are sure that a print spray or laminate will truly protect a print without incurring any kind of chemical bonding with the underlying ink, I would avoid them. They can introduce additional viewing artifacts such as glare, bronzing, or even gloss differentials. Outside of laminating a print onto an art block, lamination really doesn't improve the print in any way, and will often degrade it if bubbles form. Uneven surface textures from papers or the mount base will also often show much more readily when a print is laminated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the last tip, and one that is not always so obvious (but critical to proper color rendition and longevity):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Let your prints properly dry before mounting/framing/storing them&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This can take up to a day, and proper color rendition may not fully take hold until drying is complete.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-07T00:41:10.313" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T00:41:10.313" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6556" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4203" CreationDate="2011-01-07T00:43:06.700" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;try these:-&#xA;photoblog for inspiration&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.wsj.com/photojournal/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://blogs.wsj.com/photojournal/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stuckincustoms.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.stuckincustoms.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;tips&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tipsfromthetopfloor.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.tipsfromthetopfloor.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/index.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/index.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=38/14993&amp;amp;pq-locale=en_US&amp;amp;_requestid=24062&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=38/14993&amp;amp;pq-locale=en_US&amp;amp;_requestid=24062&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tmelive.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.tmelive.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Online magazine&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.burnmagazine.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.burnmagazine.org/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blur-magazine.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.blur-magazine.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.exposure-magz.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.exposure-magz.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everything you want to about flash photography:-&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://strobist.blogspot.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2973" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T00:43:06.700" />
  <row Id="6557" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6564" CreationDate="2011-01-07T01:27:08.900" Score="5" ViewCount="547" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can I manual align photos for HDR? Photoshop CS5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit: Sorry about the vague question.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;I have 3 photos that I want to merge to HDR. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The photos are not aligning properly in when I go &lt;em&gt;File &gt; Automate &gt; Merge to HDR Pro...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to align the photos manually since auto align doesn't align them properly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2649" LastEditorUserId="2649" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-07T20:00:07.970" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T20:00:07.970" Title="HDR Merge - Manual Align photos?" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;hdr&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6558" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-07T02:08:27.850" Score="4" ViewCount="209" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am just leaning HDR in Photoshop CS5, can anyone recommend some good tutorials?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2649" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T23:11:26.273" Title="HDR Beginners Help : Photoshop CS5" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;hdr&gt;&lt;photoshop-cs5&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="6559" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6533" CreationDate="2011-01-07T02:12:51.563" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally, I think this camera should satisfy your needs, especially when you shoot pano as @Matt proposed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The more critical part here is the lens. The kit lens has a certain distortion at both the wide-angle and the tele end. You should remove this distortion during post-processing (in Lightroom e.g. this is a one-click process as lens profiles are included).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;With a prime lens, you would not have this problem and probably an overall better image quality (especially sharpness could increase, I'm not sure how good the kit lens is at 18mp). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2069" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T02:12:51.563" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6560" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6549" CreationDate="2011-01-07T03:18:17.047" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hokay,&#xA;Turns out I was over-thinking the problem (no way!).  The answer is values from Curve1 go through Curve2.  So on the RGB100 -&gt; RGB50 a R100 value becomes R50, then in the R100 -&gt; R125 curve the R50 value becomes R73.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Voila.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T03:18:17.047" />
  <row Id="6561" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6558" CreationDate="2011-01-07T04:51:39.333" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.graphicmania.net/how-to-create-hdr-photos-in-photoshop-cs5/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This is a tutorial&lt;/a&gt; is a good start, with explanations of some of the terms. I also think that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stuckincustoms.com/hdr-tutorial/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;basic HDR tutorials&lt;/a&gt; will also be of benefit, given that the concepts are the same between applications. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vanilladays.com/hdr-guide/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;You can find a myriad of HDR tutorials&lt;/a&gt; via web search that should apply to any HDR tool of your choosing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T04:51:39.333" />
  <row Id="6562" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6568" CreationDate="2011-01-07T07:07:16.897" Score="9" ViewCount="574" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use Lightroom for my workflow, and I tag photos with people's names so that I can find them faster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Lightroom doesn't have the &quot;Faces&quot; feature, I want to use Picasa's People feature for this purpose, but I don't want to work constantly with both of them. I'd rather use Picasa to tag the photos with the name tags every time I import new photos, and come back to Lightroom for the rest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I couldn't find a way to make Picasa actually &quot;tag&quot; the photos (in the EXIF) with the people's names. Is there any plugin / script / ... that can make this happen?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3063" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-07T15:14:35.657" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T17:09:50.347" Title="How to write/convert Picasa's People tags to the EXIF data" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;exif&gt;&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;picasa&gt;&lt;tagging&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="6563" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6558" CreationDate="2011-01-07T08:12:33.387" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;dpreview has recently posted the first in a series of articles on HDR photography&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Guides/The_art_of_HDR_Photography_part_1_01.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Guides/The_art_of_HDR_Photography_part_1_01.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This isn't a tutorial as such (specific techniques will be covered in subsequent posts) but it explains in detail the concepts of HDR photography and as such will increase your understanding of &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; you're doing HDR, no simply &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T08:12:33.387" />
  <row Id="6564" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6557" CreationDate="2011-01-07T08:23:49.140" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only way you can manually align photos using Photoshop's built in merge to HDR function is to load the images as layers, align them, trim so they are the same size and then save each layer as a separate file and then run the Merge to HDR option, making sure &quot;attempt to automatically align photos&quot; is not selected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's no way to merge to HDR images that are in memory, the function only works on files. You may get slightly different results using saved (converted) images than Raw files, I don't know how merge to HDR works internally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T08:23:49.140" />
  <row Id="6565" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6557" CreationDate="2011-01-07T08:39:35.367" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I sometimes due this, when I've shot my HDR hand-held, and want to use Photoshops align layers function, but use PhotoMatrix for tonemapping.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Workflow:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Apply the same changes (WB/Lens corrections) to all the photo's (for instance in LR)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Load all the files into photoshop (as separate files)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Automate -&gt; Load Files into Stack and choose to automatically align the opened images&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Crop the new image such that non layer has transparent parts&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Copy each layer back to the original image&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Crop it to the newly pasted layer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Save it as a TIFF&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Repeat this (5-7) for every layer/image.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Open the TIFF's in PhotoMatrix and disable the motion correction.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It takes a little more time, but the results are worth it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="245" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T08:39:35.367" />
  <row Id="6566" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6551" CreationDate="2011-01-07T08:48:47.617" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The signage printing industry face this problem as their signs must be fade resistant in the outdoors, when exposed to the elements. They claim a fade resistance of five years when mounted outdoors in direct light. Additionally the print is waterproof and abrasion resistant.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I have no way of knowing this for sure, but my guess is that when properly mounted indoors you will get a very long life.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;My panoramas are printed by a signage print company, &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3665/where-can-i-print-a-panorama/3684#3684&quot;&gt;see this link&lt;/a&gt; and I get excellent results. They print on self adhesive vinyl sheet and not on paper. And it costs less than my normal photographic printer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T08:48:47.617" />
  <row Id="6567" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6562" CreationDate="2011-01-07T08:56:59.887" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lightroom does have a &quot;people in photo&quot; metadata option, although you have to change to show the 'ITPC Extended' option for it to show.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T08:56:59.887" />
  <row Id="6568" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6562" CreationDate="2011-01-07T08:57:40.680" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Picasa stores faces information in the .picasa.ini files:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;[test.jpg]&#xA;faces=rect64(1eb1929f885e),15441a598f9f1866&#xA;backuphash=29866&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The id numbers can be found in the contacts.xml file which stores all the contacts of your pictures:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;&amp;lt;contact id=&quot;15441a598f9f1866&quot; &#xA;  name=&quot;Test Test&quot; &#xA;  display=&quot;Test&quot; &#xA;  modified_time=&quot;2010-05-13T17:19:46+01:00&quot; &#xA;  sync_enabled=&quot;0&quot;/&amp;gt;&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several programs can read these files and modify the EXIF accordingly. For instance:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.gregerstoltnilsen.net/2010/07/picasa-face-detection-to-lightroom/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;faceextract.pl&lt;/a&gt; ( command line perl script )&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.anvo-it.de/wiki/avpicfacexmptagger%3amain&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;AvPicFaceXMPTagger&lt;/a&gt; (GUI)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="507" LastEditorUserId="507" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-07T17:09:50.347" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T17:09:50.347" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6569" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6533" CreationDate="2011-01-07T09:04:14.417" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That is a good camera but you really should get a macro lens. This will give you two advantages&lt;br&gt;&#xA;1. a flat field with minimal distortion (important for photographing documents)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2. high resolution to get good quality images.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other important issues&lt;br&gt;&#xA;1. Use a good, sturdy tripod.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2. Pay a lot of attention to lighting, this may be your most important issue.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;3. Good colour calibration is vital, so shoot in RAW and tweak your RAW conversion profile.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I like Matt Grum's suggestion to make panoramic reproductions, I suspect it will be far too time consuming if you must photograph hundreds of artwork.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-07T09:10:33.237" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T09:10:33.237" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6570" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6557" CreationDate="2011-01-07T09:40:37.973" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://help.adobe.com/en_US/photoshop/cs/using/WS9ADF1895-A714-4f73-B91C-3A83ED225A77a.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this link from Adobe&lt;/a&gt; which describes how to automatically align layers.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;At the end they say&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&quot;After auto-aligning, you can use Edit &gt; Free Transform to fine tune the alignment &quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you really must align the images manually here is an effective way to do it.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Assuming your images are loaded as layers, hide all layers except two. One layer should have normal mode. Set the other layer to difference mode. Now if the images are perfectly aligned all you will see is a pure black image. If they are not properly aligned you will see the difference between the images. Use the cursor keys to shift the top image until you have pure black or until you have minimised the visible difference image.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Repeat as necessary until all images are aligned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T09:40:37.973" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6572" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6533" CreationDate="2011-01-07T13:41:02.087" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another consideration is lighting. Traditionally you would use studio strobes set at 45 degree angles from the artwork with polarizing filters on both the lens and strobes, the polarizing filters should be adjusted to reduce the glare on the artwork (might require some testing).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the lens, some people prefer to use macro lenses as they are adjusted well for focusing short of infinity and should have smaller amounts of distortion than other lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a good overview of one person's tests of different setups:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mcfineartphoto.com/art&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://mcfineartphoto.com/art&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2228" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T13:41:02.087" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6573" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6577" CreationDate="2011-01-07T13:47:41.960" Score="9" ViewCount="197" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for a remote flash trigger for my canon DSLR. I know that I'm going to hear Pocket Wizard or other similarly-priced options, but I'm looking for something a bit cheaper. At a minimum, I want the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cost less then $50.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Can transmit the information the same as if I had the flash directly connected to my camera.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I can later upgrade to a 2 strobe solution, or more, should I decide that one just isn't enough.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It should work outdoors.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what can you recommend?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[EDIT]. I now know just how hard it is to get both 1 and the rest of them. As an alternate, I'd like the cheapest solution that meets 2-4.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-07T15:35:18.220" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T16:18:08.537" Title="What remote flash triggers can you recommend, on a budget?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;off-camera-flash&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6575" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-07T13:59:17.437" Score="7" ViewCount="356" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I open raw/NEF images in Lightroom, they appear washed out as compared to viewing them in Picasa (same computer monitor). If I open JPEGs, they're fine in Lightroom. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyone know how to fix this? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3071" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T16:21:30.223" Title="RAW images appear washed out in Lightroom3" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;raw&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="6576" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6573" CreationDate="2011-01-07T14:08:52.360" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think you're going to get #1 (&lt;em&gt;Cost less then $50&lt;/em&gt;) in combination with #2 (&lt;em&gt;Can transmit the information the same as if I had the flash directly connected to my camera.&lt;/em&gt;) The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pocketwizard.com/products/transmitter_receiver/36/TT1-C/compatibility/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PocketWizard&lt;/a&gt; devices that send the full digital flash protocol information don't seem to be available in some cheap chinese knock-off version (yet, at least).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could go with flash units that use &lt;a href=&quot;http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/flash/wireless_flash.do&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon's optical wireless protocol&lt;/a&gt; (using the built-in flash as a controller on models 40D/50D/60D and up), but that leaves #4 iffy. (Can work, depending on the circumstances.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that's not what you wanted to hear, but there it is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-07T16:15:05.863" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T16:15:05.863" />
  <row Id="6577" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6573" CreationDate="2011-01-07T14:23:43.520" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gadgetinfinity.com/product.php?productid=17204&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cactus V4&lt;/a&gt; wireless triggers. They've been reliable for me and I use them both with hotshoe strobes and with Alien Bee's B800 studio strobes. Delivery, from Hong Kong, to Canada only took a couple of days and at the time I bought the transmitter with receiver plus two additional receivers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, bear in mind, these will not transmit the TTL information. As far as I know, you're into the more expensive options if you want that functionality. For me, anyways, it hasn't been an issue as I just manually set the strobes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note, based on your edit, the same source for the Cactus triggers also has a more expensive product ($150 vs $40) with TTL support for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gadgetinfinity.com/product.php?productid=17460&amp;amp;cat=317&amp;amp;page=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gadgetinfinity.com/product.php?productid=17458&amp;amp;cat=317&amp;amp;page=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon&lt;/a&gt; and the receivers have a PC port for bigger strobes. Now, I can't tell you anything about them since I shoot Pentax and these don't apply. However, if they're at least as good as the Cactus general triggers they'll do okay, though I seriously doubt up to the level of PocketWizard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-07T15:46:24.837" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T15:46:24.837" />
  <row Id="6578" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6575" CreationDate="2011-01-07T14:53:58.427" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is expected, because the raw image has had no corrections/edits made, which means you are able to do all the edits the way you want.  With RAW you gain control of the process at the expense of more post-processing time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Picasa &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Picasa/thread?tid=32286cf8b916f443&amp;amp;hl=en&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;will apply corrections on the fly&lt;/a&gt;, so you are seeing the auto-corrected version of the raw file in picasa, but the direct raw file in lightroom (as mentioned by Alan lightroom does apply &lt;em&gt;very minor&lt;/em&gt; corrections, but it is essentially just the image straight off the sensor).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The jpeg has had standard curves/color balance correction/sharpening applied in camera prior to the conversion to jpeg.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The &quot;Fix&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can use &quot;presets&quot; in lightroom to set the basic adjustments that you want to do.  These are sets of edits/corrections that are saved and can be applied as a group to any image. You can &lt;a href=&quot;http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Lightroom/3.0/Using/WS2A36C507-E076-4b14-AAC3-87852595D175.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;create your own&lt;/a&gt;, or search around and find presets that will create different looks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/exchange/index.cfm?event=extensionDetail&amp;amp;loc=en_us&amp;amp;extid=1651019&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lightroom Develop Presets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lightroompresets.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lightroompresets.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/presets/discuss/72157612664073371/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Presetting Lightroom's 180+ Free Presets Collection&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.prophotoshow.net/2007/11/09/lightroom-presets-the-ultimate-free-list/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;prophotoshow.net - Ultimate free list&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-10T16:21:30.223" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T16:21:30.223" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6579" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6573" CreationDate="2011-01-07T15:26:36.407" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll be very, very surprised if you can find something that meets #2 and the rest of the requirements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For cheap off camera flash solution I have the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.25931&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CTR-301P Flash Sync Trigger Remote Control&lt;/a&gt; . It has three-way triggering - radio, optical slave and PC-Sync. I used it indoors and it was reliable, and undoubtedly inexpensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: After reading your edit, letting go #1: Have a look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.radiopopper.com/px-system&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;RadioPopper PX&lt;/a&gt; system that gives you full E-TTL wireless control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-07T15:55:50.440" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T15:55:50.440" />
  <row Id="6580" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6581" CreationDate="2011-01-07T15:31:36.230" Score="19" ViewCount="497" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to take some pictures of a pair of mountains to my south. The distance is about 20 miles away. I'm running into the following problems, and I'm wondering what you guys might suggest to get around some or all of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If I try to photograph at sunrise/sunset, the mountains are much darker than the sky, and have little contrast within themselves.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If I tried a few hours after sunrise, the mountains appear blue, due to the distance and atmosphere.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;At noon, usually there is no contrast to speak of, not to mention the fact that mountains appear even bluer.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I can go closer, but the road isn't quite a straight way, and the mountains just look different from that different perspective.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the best picture from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pearsonartphoto.com/Landscapes/Arizona-Landscapes/10238520_8kh6d#590470178_afLt7-A-LB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;my site&lt;/a&gt; I've captured of the mountains so far, but they have snow right now on top of them and I'd really like to get something a bit better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/L6ThH.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Mt. Wrightson&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any tips? Thanks guys!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-08T18:29:24.003" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T18:29:24.003" Title="How to take pictures of far-away mountains to the South" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;landscape&gt;&lt;haze&gt;&lt;mountain&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="6581" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6580" CreationDate="2011-01-07T15:38:26.980" Score="18" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're not using a polarizer, try that first - it will often help to cut through some of the haze.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heres a link with an example close to what you want even: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dslrtips.com/workshops/How_to_use_polarizing_filters/reduce_haze_deep_blue_sky.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dslrtips.com/workshops/How_to_use_polarizing_filters/reduce_haze_deep_blue_sky.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-07T16:10:15.220" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T16:10:15.220" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6582" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6584" CreationDate="2011-01-07T15:39:07.773" Score="2" ViewCount="465" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've got an opportunity to buy a Nikon Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AF-D prime lens for £75.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Has anyone used this lens who could give an opinion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason I'm looking into buying it is that in an earlier question I asked about photographing gigs and someone recommended a lense like this as none of my lenses are really fast enough. - &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6115/tips-for-photographing-concerts-and-small-gigs&quot;&gt;Tips for photographing concerts and small gigs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd be using on my Nikon D70S.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2533" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-07T23:36:40.327" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T11:46:46.343" Title="Should I buy this Nikon 50mm f/1.8?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;low-light&gt;&lt;concert&gt;&lt;gig&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="6583" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6575" CreationDate="2011-01-07T15:52:43.300" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;RAW files are not images yet. They are usually missing color-components on each pixels, so to see a RAW file it must be converted into an image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Different software apply different conversions to show you the RAW files *as if they were image*s. That is why your RAW files appear different in Picasa and Lightroom. The software is pretty much free to do what it wants at that point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some RAW files actually have a JPEG embedded (for preview purposes). In this case it is easy for the software to show you something. This depends on your camera. Sometimes it is a small preview (thumbnail), other times it is a full-size image. When you have only the small preview, you will sometimes &lt;em&gt;see your images change&lt;/em&gt; in some software which loads the small JPEG as a preview and then uses the RAW data to render.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you ONLY shoot RAW and thought not to care about image parameters (WB, Color, Saturation, Tone, Hue, Contrast, etc... depending on your camera), then you should know that if your files have an embedded JPEG, they use those parameters anyways. These parameters are also often used as a default RAW conversion when displaying RAW files and importing them. Depending on those settings, then the preview for your RAW files can look drastically different that what you had in mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T15:52:43.300" />
  <row Id="6584" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6582" CreationDate="2011-01-07T16:02:09.003" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Nikon 50mm f/1.8 is a wonderful lens. It is also really cheap. So don't hesitate, go for it. That's the lens everybody should have in my opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="461" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-09T11:46:46.343" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T11:46:46.343" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="6585" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6582" CreationDate="2011-01-07T16:15:56.917" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can not go wrong with this lens. As &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/10-best.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ken Rockwell&lt;/a&gt; puts it, this is probably the best lens Nikon makes taking into account price, quality, dexterity...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, when I was selecting a fast lens, a few weeks ago, for low light shots in dining and concert halls I opted for the f/1.4 version to get more light in those dark situations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T16:15:56.917" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="6586" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6573" CreationDate="2011-01-07T16:18:08.537" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/CowboyStudio-NPT-04-Wireless-Receiver-cowboystudio/dp/B002W3IXZW&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CowboyStudio flash triggers&lt;/a&gt; got my attention because they are (a) cheap ($26 for trigger and one receiver, $22 for extra receivers) and (b) highly rated by users.  You have to run the flash on manual, but the transmitter is on the hot shoe, they're wireless (not line of sight), and support four channels.  There have &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/CowboyStudio-NPT-04-Wireless-Receiver-cowboystudio/dp/B002W3IXZW&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;been some complaints&lt;/a&gt; about the cheap plastic in the hotshoe base, but given the price...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T16:18:08.537" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6587" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6580" CreationDate="2011-01-07T16:31:43.580" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The contrast issue can be solved either with a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduated_neutral_density_filter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gradual ND filter&lt;/a&gt; which will darken only the sky, or by simply using layer masks in postprocessing to apply different tone curves to foreground, background and the sky. You can even join multiple exposures if camera's dynamic range is not enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't do this too much carefully, you might end up with something like this:&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/93ZBZ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;edited&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T16:31:43.580" />
  <row Id="6588" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6580" CreationDate="2011-01-07T17:28:05.180" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can get good results reducing haze by playing with the unsharp mask filter in the image editing software of your choice (Photoshop, GIMP, etc). Try using a small &lt;em&gt;amount&lt;/em&gt;   with a large &lt;em&gt;radius&lt;/em&gt;. You may want to use a selection to apply this only to the sky area if you find that it affects the foreground in a way you do not like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not a magic bullet but it can help when used in conjunction with other techniques.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2873" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T17:28:05.180" />
  <row Id="6589" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6580" CreationDate="2011-01-07T17:40:09.597" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would also consider enhancing the composition. Maybe use a longer focal length to compress the perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to stick with the wider angle maybe try to make the foreground more interesting. The bushes in the foreground are currently very repetitive and take away the attention from the mountains.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe try to find something that frames the composition. A branch of a bush from a lower perspective or shoot through a window or doorframe, just try to use different perspectives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2642" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T17:40:09.597" />
  <row Id="6590" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6582" CreationDate="2011-01-07T17:45:25.803" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Remember that the Nikon D70 has a 1.5x crop factor sensor. Therefore the 50mm becomes the fullframe equivalent of a 75mm lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This extra zoom will be an advantage for concert photography but might limit you somehow indoors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But it's a lens that belongs in everyone's collection, especially when considering the price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2642" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T17:45:25.803" />
  <row Id="6591" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="632" CreationDate="2011-01-07T17:52:53.463" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One option is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tetherpro.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.tetherpro.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3077" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-07T18:07:11.720" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T18:07:11.720" />
  <row Id="6592" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6580" CreationDate="2011-01-07T18:38:14.500" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Despite the wide use of wide angle lenses (sorry no pun intended) for landscape photography, they are not the only viable solution for landscape photography. I highly recommend trying out a telephoto lens for landscape shots like this. With a wide angle, you bring in everything, both foreground, bright sky, and everything inbetween. A lot of times, these extra elements are just undesirable and add clutter and noise that detracts from the overall image you are trying to create.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With a telephoto lens, you can reach past the foreground, and under the sky, and capture the key parts of the landscape. You have more power to bring out finer details, nuances of shadow and light, in just the mountains. You will have the ability to reduce the amount of sky in the shot, which can help you resolve those high contrast differential problems. If you still want to capture the full breadth of the mountain range, you can take a panoramic set with a telephoto, and stitch them together after the fact. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A telephoto lens with a lens hood can also improve contrast a bit in the face of haze. Part of the problem with haze is the contrast-reducing effect it has is due to the dispersal of light. A wide angle lens will pick up light from a high number of angles, enhancing the effect of haze. A telephoto lens will only capture light that comes more or less strait into the lens. Combined with a lens hood, a telephoto lens should help you cut through some of that off-axis dispersed light and capture a bit clearer shot. (This effect is not huge, but sometimes it can help produce a clearer shot.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you still have issues with contrast, a Graduated ND (neutral density) filter or set of GND filters can be used to reduce the brightness of the sky, and lowering the dynamic range of the scene. Combine some GND filters with a telephoto lens, and you should be able to capture some great shots of that mountain, despite its distance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-07T22:11:07.950" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T22:11:07.950" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="6593" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6580" CreationDate="2011-01-07T18:47:01.230" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given a couple of your problems are with color you could try removing that problem from the equation and see how it looks in &lt;strong&gt;B&amp;amp;W&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;IR&lt;/strong&gt;.  The foliage in the foreground could look good in IR and either way with some dodging and burning you could get some great contrast in the foreground, mountain and sky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T18:47:01.230" />
  <row Id="6594" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6580" CreationDate="2011-01-07T19:07:54.473" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You might want to consider a yellow or warming filter on the lens, and as mentioned elsewhere, take the picture into black and white if you can't control the colors. Ansel Adams worked a lot in this kind of environment (in black and white) and he actually used red filters at times to block out the blue haze.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another tip from Mr. Adams (not having anything to do with the haze) would be to elevate the camera when taking landscape shots like this. Just don't endanger yourself!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2228" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T19:07:54.473" />
  <row Id="6595" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6580" CreationDate="2011-01-07T19:16:31.173" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to using a polarizer, and maybe photoshopping your image I would recommend &lt;strong&gt;waiting for the right weather&lt;/strong&gt;. Haze is often minimized after a storm or strong wind has cleared airborne particles. Look for high pressure immediately following a front. If the high sets in for too long haze builds up due to lack of wind. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also this question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4598/how-to-maximise-contrast-range-of-distant-landscapes-with-blue-haze&quot;&gt;How to maximise contrast range of distant landscapes with blue haze?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T19:16:31.173" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6596" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6582" CreationDate="2011-01-07T19:40:15.950" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some gig pics with the 50mm 1.8 on a Nikon D90, three songs - no flash...  The EXIF data is left on for anyone who's interested.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dark with a stong back light, ISO 200 - ISO 2500, but mostly ISO 400: &lt;a href=&quot;http://gallery.scottc.net/main.php/v/gigs/theroxy/hd2-saras/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Hidden Door @ The Roxy Art House&quot;&gt;Hidden Door @ The Roxy Art House&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dark.  Just dark. And blown out on purpose - rock'n'roll :-) .  Warning: May contain male nipples, ISO 1000-1600: &lt;a href=&quot;http://gallery.scottc.net/main.php/v/gigs/theroxy/20101001-loyal/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Your Loyal Subjects @ The Roxy Art House&quot;&gt;Your Loyal Subjects @ The Roxy Art House&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And a few from a well lit venue (except for one shot with a tele-zoom and one with a wide-angle lens), ISO 1000 - 2000: &lt;a href=&quot;http://gallery.scottc.net/main.php/v/gigs/limbo/20101112-otw/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Over The Wall @ Limbo&quot;&gt;Over The Wall @ Limbo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not necessarily the greatest pictures in the world - picked mostly because they were whole sets taken in small venues almost entirely with the 50mm f/1.8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main reason not to buy the 50mm 1.8 @ £75 is that you can get a brand new one with a guarantee for £105.  But as long as front and back lenses are scratch free, and there are no obvious scrapes, I'd take it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also worth reading: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1060/what-should-one-look-for-when-buying-a-used-lens&quot;&gt;What should one look for when buying a used lens&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1615" LastEditorUserId="1615" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-07T19:47:19.817" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T19:47:19.817" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6597" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6580" CreationDate="2011-01-07T20:05:55.700" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's my very quick try of what I described in a comment to @jrista's answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ReeMy.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, just a quick and dirty attempt. You should do it with more attention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T20:05:55.700" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6598" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12441" CreationDate="2011-01-07T22:43:09.323" Score="36" ViewCount="932" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the exposure triangle? How do the &quot;sides&quot; affect my photographs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-08T20:19:26.340" LastActivityDate="2011-06-02T17:54:32.593" Title="What is the &quot;exposure triangle&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="15" />
  <row Id="6599" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6598" CreationDate="2011-01-07T22:44:30.420" Score="38" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The exposure triangle refers to the three major settings that effect exposure:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ISO&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Aperture&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Shutter Speed&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/i2k1R.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/learning-exposure-in-digital-photography&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/learning-exposure-in-digital-photography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Photography School&lt;/a&gt; has an excellent write up about this, but I will summarize as best as I can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the name suggests, each element effects image exposure, or how bright/dark the image is. Pick a side of the triangle, increase its value (aperture is special--a larger aperture corresponds to a smaller F-number), while holding the other sides constant, and the image will get lighter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So for example you have an ISO of 100, Shutter Speed of 1/250s, and Aperture of F2.8, simply increasing the ISO to 200 will double the amount of light in the image. Likewise increasing the shutter speed to 1/125s, while holding other values constant, will again double the amount of available light in the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now while, each of these three settings give you an &lt;strong&gt;independent&lt;/strong&gt; control (the sides are not explicitly linked) of how much light goes into your image, each has a secondary use, often used for the artistic purpose of the photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As shown in the image:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ISO&lt;/strong&gt; controls how sensitive the sensor/film is, which in turn effects how much noise/grain is in the image. For films, you could control the amount of grain in the image, usually for artistic effect. In modern digital camera's, ISO controls the amount of sensor noise comes from the camera sensor. While film grain was desirable in some situations, sensor noise is almost never desirable. So often photographers will pick the absolute lowest ISO setting they can get away with maintaining enough light to effectively shoot their images. The lower the ISO value, the less sensitive the sensore is, the more light required, and the less noise that is expected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Aperture&lt;/strong&gt; controls how large the lens opening is, allowing more or less light to come in, while also controlling the depth of field. The depth of field refers to the distance behind and in front of the focal point that is in focus. A shallow depth of field will &quot;blur&quot; out the background. This effect is often used for portraits to put more emphasis on the subject. The larger the aperture, the more light gets used, the shallower the depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Shutter speed&lt;/strong&gt; controls how long the camera's shutters are open, again allow more or less light to come in, while controlling motion. A fast shutter speed effectively stops motion. This is useful for action shots, like sports. A slow shutter speed lets motion blur, many times used for artistic effect, such as blurring flowing water. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T19:08:27.500" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T19:08:27.500" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="6600" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6551" CreationDate="2011-01-07T23:57:30.160" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, one answer is &quot;don't worry about it&quot;; bits don't change provided they're copied to new media periodically. You could just make new prints 20 or 30 years down the road, when printing technology may be significantly improved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Properly cared-for bits are going to last much longer than any physical object, and common image file formats (even raw files from major vendors) are well-known enough that they'll always be interpretable unless something pretty apocalyptic happens. You do, of course, have to care for the bits properly, but the same goes for a print.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2011-01-07T23:57:30.160" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6601" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6602" CreationDate="2011-01-08T08:12:32.577" Score="26" ViewCount="1608" Body="&lt;p&gt;I often hear studio photographers talk about 'Rembrandt Lighting' when they're setting up lights and doing studio portrait photography. What is Rembrandt Lighting, and when do I use it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T15:27:14.973" Title="What is Rembrandt Lighting, and When do I Use It?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;studio-lighting&gt;&lt;lighting-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="11" />
  <row Id="6602" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6601" CreationDate="2011-01-08T08:14:03.493" Score="37" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is Rembrandt Lighting?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rembrandt Lighting is one of the 5 basic lighting setups used in studio portrait photography. There are two things that make up Rembrandt Lighting… A light on one half the face, and a triangle of light on the shadowed side of the face (called a chiaroscuro, but only lighting nerds need to remember that… most of us just call it ‘the triangle shadow’). If it’s ‘real’ Rembrandt lighting, the triangle shadow should be no wider than the eye, and no longer than the nose. The thing that distinguishes Rembrandt Lighting from simple short lighting is the triangle of light (also see '&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6495/in-portrait-photography-what-is-broad-lighting-what-is-short-lighting&quot;&gt;In portrait photography, what is 'broad' lighting? What is 'short' lighting&lt;/a&gt;'). That’s the technical…&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the real world, when it comes to portrait photography, Rembrandt Lighting is often confused with Short Lighting and is used as loose shorthand for ‘using a single light source to light roughly half the face, while leaving the other half of the face in some level of shadow.’ This is because it can often be quite 'fiddly' to get the triangle of light just right on a subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rembrandt lighting at its most basic level is constructed with a  single light source placed approximately 45 degrees offset from the subject and a bit higher than eye level, lighting the side of the face that is farthest from the camera. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;One-light Rembrandt Lighting setup:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/7n75A.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Basic one-light Rembrandt Lighting setup diagram&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Fk9D4.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Basic one-light Rembrandt Lighting setup example&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Often times the single light source is augmented with a reflector or another light placed approximately 45 degrees offset to the shadowed side of the face and at ½ the power of the main light source (called the key light). This is used to lighten the shadows on the dark side of the face.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;One-light with reflector Rembrandt Lighting setup:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/st4cY.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Basic one-light Rembrandt Lighting setup with reflector diagram&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/prEC1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Basic one-light Rembrandt Lighting setup with reflector example&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When do I use Rembrandt Lighting?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the reasons many photographers use Rembrandt Lighting is that it is relatively simple to set up, and requires only a single light source (though it’s often supplemented with a reflector in order to bring detail back into the shadows on the subject’s face). This lighting pattern works well for subjects will full or round faces (because it adds definition and slims the face), but is generally not a good choice for narrow faces. Often times ‘old school’ photographers will refer to Rembrandt Lighting as ‘masculine’ and some &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; old school portrait photographers will insist that a woman should never be lit with Rembrandt Lighting. This seems to be a relatively arbitrary distinction, however, and since Rembrandt himself painted women using basic Rembrandt Lighting, it’s safe to say that this ‘rule’ is a ‘guideline’ at best, and is something that many photographers regularly ignore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-08T08:14:03.493" CommentCount="13" />
  <row Id="6603" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-08T10:24:56.157" Score="0" ViewCount="143" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/mU40B.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I received this old Minolta along with a lot of other camera related stuff that some friends weren't able to sell at a garage sale. I'm not really interested in using it, but I'm curious as to why the mirror is stuck like this. If I press down that little black tab sticking up, it goes down, but you can't make it stay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2880" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T20:00:55.650" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T20:00:55.650" Title="Why is the mirror on this old camera stuck halfway?" Tags="&lt;slr&gt;&lt;troubleshooting&gt;&lt;minolta&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6604" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6575" CreationDate="2011-01-08T10:34:27.110" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When importing pictures from my D7000 into Lightroom 3, I've found that I can get the same look in Lightroom as with out-of-camera JPEGs if I change the &quot;profile&quot; setting in the &quot;camera calibration&quot; section at the bottom of the develop settings.  E.g. if I took the shot with the picture control setting on the D7000 set to vivid, I need to change the profile in Lightroom to &quot;camera vivid&quot;.  One way to do this is to apply a develop preset during import.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2011-01-08T10:34:27.110" />
  <row Id="6605" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6611" CreationDate="2011-01-08T15:30:52.863" Score="21" ViewCount="632" Body="&lt;p&gt;See for example this photo:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/O8IIp.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Example photo&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From my experience, the longer the exposure the stronger can this effect be observed. Is this correct? Are there any other factors that influence the creation of these stars (is there a better word for it, by the way?) And what exactly does technically happen?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2069" LastEditorUserId="1356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-05T21:47:41.737" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T21:47:41.737" Title="Why do light sources appear as stars sometimes?" Tags="&lt;long-exposure&gt;&lt;light&gt;&lt;optics&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="6607" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6605" CreationDate="2011-01-08T16:00:43.020" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are filters, starlight, that are designed to do this, but without a filter, the effect is usually seen with tighter apertures on lenses that have straighter aperture blades. The straighter the blades, the more pronounced the effect. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what is happening is these bright and stationary light sources are having their light bent by the aperture of your lens and the star pattern is being created by the sharp points being defined by the hexagon from the six blades of your aperture. You'll notice that the star rays are all going in the same direction for the lights, that's because of the aperture blades.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the way, I like the shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-01-08T16:00:43.020" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6608" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6605" CreationDate="2011-01-08T16:01:34.043" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What you are seeing is the result of the shape of the aperture in your camera. If you put, say, a heart shape or other &quot;filter&quot; on the front of your camera, you'd see a different shape in place of those lights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You're almost correct in your guess that the longer the exposure, the stronger this affect can be observed. What's actually happening is the smaller your aperture, the more this affect will appear. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-08T16:01:34.043" />
  <row Id="6609" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6605" CreationDate="2011-01-08T16:22:38.623" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's due to diffraction where the aperture blades meet as stated by John and Pearsonartphoto. It's a neat way to test how many aperture blades you have!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your second question, the length of the exposure doesn't directly affect the effect. There are two main factors, the first is the size of the aperture (it needs to be small), and long exposures tend to go with a small aperture. The second factor is you need to be shooting into the lightsource. This tends to only happen at night with artificial light, so again people tend to wind up using long exposures. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an example (not mine!) of the effect with a very short exposure to demonstrate the point:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3243/3054211739_9841bddb71_z.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(c) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/photogeek133/3054211739/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photogeek133&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ok I lied it was a long exposure with moving flashes set to strobe, but each light was on for a very brief period. The other two ingredients - shooting into the strobes, and small aperture (f/14) are what is producing the star patterns.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-08T16:28:31.070" LastActivityDate="2011-01-08T16:28:31.070" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6610" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2754" CreationDate="2011-01-08T16:23:49.370" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This image looks an awful lot like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/burryport/4257267075/in/set-72157622887057435/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;one in which such &quot;ghosting&quot; was purposefully made&lt;/a&gt;: see the shadow-like images beneath the chair.  These ghosts have been attributed to internal reflections in the lens when a strong light source is present and the exposure is &quot;long.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only @Karel offered this solution and, until I saw this second picture, I did not appreciate what he was saying.  I have now upvoted his response.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I doubt your image is the result of the fly's motion while the flash is off: that would be a general blur, not a well-defined shadow-like image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2011-01-08T16:23:49.370" />
  <row Id="6611" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6605" CreationDate="2011-01-08T16:56:08.733" Score="26" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This appears to be a beautiful example of &lt;strong&gt;Fraunhofer diffraction&lt;/strong&gt;.  It is due to the wave nature of light.  The effect depends on the wavelength (that is, the color).  It is most pronounced when bright light from a practically infinite distance passes through narrow slits, causing the light to spread &lt;em&gt;perpendicular&lt;/em&gt; to the slits.  This spreads a point-like beam of light into a pair of streaks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using a small aperture creates slit-like situations at the corners formed by adjacent blades.  Thus, when you have a combination of &lt;em&gt;relatively intense, pointlike, monochromatic&lt;/em&gt; light sources in the image and a &lt;em&gt;narrow aperture,&lt;/em&gt; you should see a streak (of the same color) emanating from the points &lt;em&gt;in two directions&lt;/em&gt; perpendicular to the blades.  When your diaphragm is formed by straight blades, this will cause there to be &lt;em&gt;twice as many&lt;/em&gt; streaks as blades.  However, the streaks for parallel blades will coincide.  Thus, for a diaphragm with an odd number of blades (where no two blades are parallel) there will be twice as many radial streaks as blades but for a diaphragm with an even number of blades (where opposite blades are parallel) the streaks overlap in pairs, giving the same number of streaks as blades (&lt;em&gt;but each streak is twice as bright&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A classic example is shown in the first image in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article on diffraction&lt;/a&gt;, for Fraunhofer diffraction through a square aperture.  You see four well-defined streaks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The theory is further explained &lt;a href=&quot;http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/fraunhofcon.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  This explanation was published in 1967 by &lt;a href=&quot;http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9120/2/5/001;jsessionid=4DB3BC010B85607A134975C9FE3C5209.c3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CA Padgham&lt;/a&gt;.  Ken Rockwell mentions it in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;discussion of bokeh&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We should expect a certain amount of diffraction always to be present.  It is usually slight and averaged out in most pictures: it just contributes a tiny amount to the blurriness that is present in any image when looked at closely enough.  Only in images that bring together several factors--points of intense monochromatic light, small apertures, straight diaphragm blades--will it become prominent.  This information shows how you can make the stars more prominent or how you can suppress them, by altering these factors for your exposure (to the extent you can).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, length of exposure is related to the occurrence of this effect, as you have observed, but only because exposures with bright points of light are almost always made much longer than needed to record the lights: you're trying to see the rest of the scene, which is much darker.  The brightness of the diffraction streaks decreases so rapidly away from their sources that if you used a sufficiently short exposure to &lt;em&gt;properly&lt;/em&gt; expose the lights themselves, the streaks would be practically invisible.  For instance, there are dimmer but still prominent light sources in your background: they look like windows in the far distance.  They, too, must have their own streaks, but those streaks are too dim to see.  (Appropriate software filtering might be able to bring them out.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastEditorUserId="1356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-08T17:02:26.250" LastActivityDate="2011-01-08T17:02:26.250" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6614" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="49" CreationDate="2011-01-08T17:51:49.637" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Aperture&lt;/em&gt; simply means &quot;opening&quot;, and in photography we use the term to&#xA;refer to the diameter of the opening in a special adjustable diaphragm&#xA;within each lens. When this diaphragm is constricted, there's less physical&#xA;space for light to get in, so naturally the exposure is darker, and a&#xA;more-open aperture allows more light and results in a lighter exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aperture has another important property. When the aperture is very small,&#xA;the admitted light is highly &quot;collimated&quot;, which is a fancy way of saying&#xA;&quot;all the rays are nicely parallel to each other&quot;. This results in a sharp&#xA;focus for all the light that comes in. When the aperture is more open, only&#xA;the rays which closely match the focus point are collimated &amp;mdash; which&#xA;means that whatever you've focused on is sharp, but farther or closer parts&#xA;of the scene will be increasingly blurry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lens aperture is usually given as an &lt;em&gt;f-number&lt;/em&gt;, which is a ratio of the&#xA;focal length of the lens to the effective size of the aperture. This is more&#xA;convenient than using physical diameter, because it works out that the&#xA;actual amount of light gathered for a given physical aperture size depends&#xA;on the focal length &amp;mdash; so, if one uses the ratios, the exposure is the&#xA;same regardless of lens length. (The counter-intuitive side-effect of this&#xA;scheme is that &lt;em&gt;smaller&lt;/em&gt; f-numbers let in more light.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These f-numbers are used in photography in a sequence which may seem&#xA;irrational: &lt;em&gt;f/1.4&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;f/2&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;f/2.8&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;f/4&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;f/5.6&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;f/8&lt;/em&gt;, and so on.&#xA;However, these are chosen for a simple reason: each one has twice the area&#xA;of the previous, letting in twice as much light. (There's no mystery to the&#xA;numbers &amp;mdash; the area of a circle is &amp;pi; &amp;times; radius squared, and you&#xA;can quickly work out that to double the area, one must simply increase the&#xA;diameter by a factor of &amp;radic;2.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each step in the sequence is called &quot;one stop&quot;, presumably because on manual&#xA;lenses there's a physical catch which makes the dial which controls aperture&#xA;nicely &lt;em&gt;stop&lt;/em&gt; at each of these pre-defined points. However, the term &quot;one&#xA;stop&quot; is generally also used by analogy for shutter speed and sensor ISO &#xA;to mean &quot;the amount by which this factor must be adjusted to double or half&#xA;the recorded exposure&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An important thing to keep in mind is that while a small aperture excludes&#xA;non-parallel light rays, as the size of the aperture approaches the&#xA;wavelength of the light being captured, another effect comes into play:&#xA;diffraction, which is a bending and scattering of waves as they pass through&#xA;the aperture. In practical terms, this begins to affect APS-C form-factor&#xA;cameras at around f/8, and so stopping down much beyond that doesn't result&#xA;in increased depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-01-08T17:51:49.637" />
  <row Id="6615" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6620" CreationDate="2011-01-08T18:17:45.700" Score="42" ViewCount="1051" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is &quot;ISO&quot; in general, and how is the scale defined?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does the ISO scale for film speed differ from ISO sensitivity as used in digital cameras?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is lower ISO always better?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-08T16:47:56.080" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T19:31:02.493" Title="What is &quot;ISO&quot; on a digital camera?" Tags="&lt;iso&gt;&lt;digital-vs-film&gt;&lt;noise&gt;&lt;iso-noise&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="12" />
  <row Id="6616" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6644" CreationDate="2011-01-08T18:37:53.270" Score="-1" ViewCount="318" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to buy my first DSLR camera, and I want to make a good choise. Reading reviews and forums I have limited my choise to only 2 cameras: Nikon 3100d and Nikon 5000d. Which one is better?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since this question is subject to be closed without details, I will try to describe my priorities, one by one in descending order:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;quality of images (less noise, more details)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;speed of the camera (it should take a picture&#xA;when I press the button, and should&#xA;be ready to take next one as fast as&#xA;possible) &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ability to take pictures in bad conditions (dark rooms, night, direct lights, high contrast, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;accessibility of manual&#xA;controls (they should not be hidden&#xA;behind multilevel software menus)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2749" LastEditorUserId="2749" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-08T22:32:52.977" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T02:33:28.927" Title="how to choose between nikon 3100 and 5000?" Tags="&lt;nikon-d3100&gt;&lt;nikon-d5000&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6617" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-08T18:41:02.597" Score="9" ViewCount="808" Body="&lt;p&gt;My father recently passed away and left us with grocery bags, buckets, and 55-gallon drums full of photographs and negatives.  I'm guessing there are easily over 100,000 photos and 100,000 negatives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone have recommendations for getting these turned into a digital format before the degrade further?  I'm hoping there's a moderately priced (a few hundred dollars) photo and/or negative scanner that is automatic where I can toss in a handful of photos and have the fronts and backs scanned.  (We'd like to save the notes he wrote on the back of the pictures too.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it's two separate units (one photo scanner and a separate negative scanner), that's fine too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My day job is being a Windows and Linux admin, and I don't know too much about photography--so I probably couldn't tell you much about the pictures or negatives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for your time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3096" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-16T19:17:53.833" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T19:17:53.833" Title="Best auto-feed photo and/or negative scanner?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;negative-scanner&gt;&lt;scanner&gt;&lt;film-scanner&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="6618" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6624" CreationDate="2011-01-08T18:55:45.027" Score="3" ViewCount="316" Body="&lt;p&gt;When using Nikon D7000 with an off-camera SB600 (which cannot be used as commander) in TTL mode, the built-in flash must be opened to make it work (to serve as a commander), even if this built-in flash is set to off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This built-in flash does not trigger when taking a photo, but does preflash. Why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Searching for an explanation, I found that this is required to measure something. But what?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A shutter speed in aperture mode? In this case, the speed will be completely wrong, since during preflash, the scene will be lighter than when taking photo, since in this last case, the built-in flash will not trigger.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Built-in flash intensity? But why do we need it, since the built-in flash will not be used while taking photo?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Remote flash? Again, the measure will be wrong, for the same reason as in the first point.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I'm missing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2236" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-09T08:29:40.783" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T20:39:43.843" Title="Why is there a preflash from a built-in flash when using remote flash only?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;nikon-d7000&gt;&lt;off-camera-flash&gt;&lt;cls&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="6620" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6615" CreationDate="2011-01-08T19:13:48.420" Score="33" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In photography, ISO generally refers to a measure of &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Film Speed&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, which I use including reference to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed#Digital_camera_ISO_speed_and_exposure_index&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;digital sensor sensitivity&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, the actual letters ISO are a name for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for_Standardization&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;International Organization for Standardization&lt;/a&gt; (not, officially, an acronym -- &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for_Standardization#Name_and_abbreviation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;more information here&lt;/a&gt;), and in photography it refers to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed#The_ISO_12232:2006_standard&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the ISO 12232:2006 standard&lt;/a&gt; and other related standards: ISO 12232:1998, ISO 5800:1987, ISO 6:1993 and ISO 2240:2003.  (Links on the Film Speed page.)  Film historically has also used the  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed#Historic_systems&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ASA and DIN standards&lt;/a&gt;, the former using the same numbering system, and DIN using an entirely different scale.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The standards for film and digital are technically different (in ways I haven't investigated closely enough to report fully on), but generally they're similar enough that for practical purposes, they're essentially the same (notwithstanding &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_%28photography%29#Reciprocity_failure&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Reciprocity Failure&lt;/a&gt;, which many films are quite prone to, though digital generally is not).  So if you measure an exposure with your digital camera, you could use that exposure with a film of the same rating as the ISO setting you used in the digital camera, and expect to get a similar exposure (unless the shutter speed long or short enough for Reciprocity Failure to kick in for the film) (also assuming similar equipment otherwise -- no differences in filters, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In both digital and film, a higher number indicates greater sensitivity.  A number twice as high is twice as sensitive (e.g. 200 is twice as sensitive as 100, 400 twice as sensitive as 200, etc.).  So, when shooting in relatively low light, and wanting a relatively-fast (e.g. fast enough to stop motion) shutter speed, a higher sensitivity rating will be essential (so no, lower is not always better!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In digital cameras (and similarly but differently in film), higher ISO ratings tend to create &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_noise&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;noise&lt;/a&gt; (the related effect in film is increased &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_grain&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;graininess&lt;/a&gt;).  So, while it's not always &lt;em&gt;better&lt;/em&gt; (that depends on what you're going for), lower ISO ratings are always (or at least almost always) lower in noise, which may be desirable.  (In the case of low light photography where shutter speed is not a concern, long exposures mixed with lower ISO ratings will create a &quot;better&quot; image -- though it's conceivable that some may like the effects of the noise; certainly there's appeal at times to film grain.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for how the scale is defined, it is based on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed#Measurements_and_calculations&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;measurements of an image produced based on a certain scenario of illumination&lt;/a&gt;.  The details are complex, so I'll leave the details as an exercise for the reader.  A lay summary is that (for digital) it's a measure of how quickly the digital sensor becomes &quot;saturated&quot; with light.  (For film, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed#Determining_film_speed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;process&lt;/a&gt; is related but different.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary: higher ISO is more sensitive but noisier (but not necessarily worse), digital and film rated for the same ISO (or ASA for the film) will have similar sensitivity, and the scale is based on how quickly an image will become &quot;saturated&quot; given a certain amount of illumination. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NOTE: I'm gearing up to do some experimentation related to the controversial answer from Matt Grum.  &lt;em&gt;Hopefully&lt;/em&gt;, my results will create a nice clear noise-free answer to the important point he brings up: that a high-ISO image with a low amount of light will be less noisy than a low-ISO image &lt;em&gt;with the same amount of light getting to the sensor&lt;/em&gt;, which is later amplified in post-processing.  More to come, hopefully in... EDIT: Well, I've failed to make this happen for a while now.  I may still do it at some point.  In the mean time, I'll also point to &lt;a href=&quot;http://shootintheshot.joshsilfen.com/2010/05/13/canon-hd-dslr-native-iso/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; that talks about comparisons of native versus non-native ISO values, and amounts of noise in them, which, while the article doesn't exactly say so, I think is probably directly related to exactly this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastEditorUserId="2425" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-05T19:31:02.493" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T19:31:02.493" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6621" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6601" CreationDate="2011-01-08T19:14:04.127" Score="18" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One reason to use Rembrandt lighting is to contrast the subject lighting with the background to obtain a chiaroscuro effect (strong contrasts, shape defining light). The dark side of the face is defined in silhouette against a bright(er) background:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/rembrandt1.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here two lights are used, one for the subject and one for the background. The background light is placed close and to an angle so as to fade out across the subject. Here's the setup:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/rembrandt_lighting_diagram.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This can be done with one light if you place it just right so that the subject itself shades part of the background. Here's another example of the same set up:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/rembrandt2.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And for contrast, here is a Rembrandt setup with no background light, notice how the unlit side is not defined and gets lost in the background. This gives the photo a different appearance, less striking due to the lack of background contrast and more withdrawn as the subject fades out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/rembrandt3.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-01-08T19:14:04.127" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6622" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6615" CreationDate="2011-01-08T19:26:11.907" Score="20" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is lower ISO always better?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;No!&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a fixed amount of light coming into the camera, lowering the ISO will not result in a reduction of noise. The only way to reduce noise is to combine lowing the ISO with letting in more light by opening the aperture of leaving the shutter open longer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the amount of light you can let in is limited (you have hit the max aperture and can't use a longer shutter speed without introducing blur) then using the &lt;strong&gt;highest ISO possible&lt;/strong&gt; (without clipping highlights) will lead to the &lt;strong&gt;lowest noise&lt;/strong&gt; in the image. This is going to seem counter-intuitive and invite downvotes (seven so far!), so please let me explain (see my response to comments at the end).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;High ISO values don't cause noise, lack of light causes noise. The reason people associate high ISOs with noise is because when you increase the ISO setting in shutter or aperture priority mode, the camera either closes the aperture or increases the shutter speed to compensate, both of which &lt;strong&gt;decrease&lt;/strong&gt; the amount of light coming into the camera. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an explaination of why low light results in noise:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One important source of noise in images arises from the random nature of light and is called photon noise, or shot noise. Photons are emitted randomly from lightsources. If you collect a lot of photons the randomness averages out and you get almost exactly the same number emitted in each direction. If you collect much fewer photons the number collected in neighbouring pixels (that should see the same colour) can differ giving brightness variations referred to as noise or grain. This is how lack of light leads to noise. See&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another source of noise is read noise. Read noise happens when the analogue charges on the sensor are digitised (read out). Read noise is approximately constant with respect to the number of photons captured. Increasing ISO amplifies the signal, and thus the photon noise, but the read noise stays the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you use a lower ISO (with the same amount of light coming into your camera) you will get an underexposed image and when you brighten it in post you will amplify &lt;strong&gt;both the photon noise &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; the read noise&lt;/strong&gt;. Your total noise will then be higher.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an example of this effect in practice:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/ISOcomparison/ISO_100_vs_ISO_1600.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These images were shot with identical settings bar ISO, and processed in exactly the same way. The bottom one is clearly noisier, despite being shot at ISO100 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you were to plot noise vs ISO for every pair of shutter-speed/aperture, you'd find noise always increases (sometimes only slightly) as ISO &lt;em&gt;decreases&lt;/em&gt;. Therefore I don't see how you can argue that high ISO results in noisier images, given that when all else is equal lower ISOs give more noise!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;TL;DR&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To minimise noise, get as much light as you possibly can down the lens (since noise is mainly causes by low light levels) using the aperture and shutter speed settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And then whilst keeping these settings constant, &lt;em&gt;increase&lt;/em&gt; ISO as far as you can (without clipping highlights) as this will reduce the proportion of the signal that is read noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Response to comments&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sorry, but your explanation doesn't change the fact that your basic statement is wrong. What you normally want to use is the lowest ISO that will give proper exposure with a usable combination of shutter speed and aperture&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The method you use is of no real consequence, when you think about it using auto-mode and picking the ISO value that results in the shutter/aperture being as long/wide as you can get away with is equivalent to just setting the shutter/aperture to be as long/wide as possible in the first place and then setting the ISO to obtain the correct exposure. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I wasn't suggesting a shooting methodology, the point I was making was, to minimise noise, you want to let in as much light as possible, given that you have achieved this with shutter/aperture/flash or whatever, the ISO should be as high as possible (before highlights clip), as anything else will result in underexposure and thus more read noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;if you actually do change your shutter speed and/or aperture (following the law of reciprocity, as one would normally do), then guess what: you get more photons on the sensor for the same &quot;exposure&quot; (call it EV as adjusted for the ISO in question)! So, less noise!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes but you can't increase the ISO &lt;em&gt;and at the same time&lt;/em&gt; change settings to let in less light and then conclude you have more noise because you're using a higher ISO. Especially when you can show that if you increase the ISO on it's own you decrease noise!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's like buying a car with a smaller engine in order to reduce fuel consumption, driving everywhere with your foot flat to the floor and concluding that small engines increase fuel consumption! Change one variable at a time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-26T09:04:13.607" LastActivityDate="2011-02-26T09:04:13.607" CommentCount="35" />
  <row Id="6624" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6618" CreationDate="2011-01-08T19:38:52.370" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The popup flash is being used as the master to trigger SB600 which, when used this way, is actually being fired by the preflash of the popup. Basically, the SB600 detects the light of the master and when it does, it fires.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a note, there are radio based triggers that can do this without the need for the popup. Nikon is very well supported in this realm with one of the best being &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pocketwizard.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PocketWizard&lt;/a&gt; though there are much cheaper (and less reliable) options such as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gadgetinfinity.com/product.php?productid=17204&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cactus v4&lt;/a&gt; trigger set.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-01-08T19:38:52.370" CommentCount="11" />
  <row Id="6625" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6626" CreationDate="2011-01-08T19:40:48.200" Score="9" ViewCount="332" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to sell a picture of a piece of artwork for charity, and I'd like to photograph it. It's in a glass frame with lots of glare. Any ideas of what I can to to photograph it to look the absolute best? Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T02:39:25.723" Title="How do you photograph artwork in a glass picture frame?" Tags="&lt;glass&gt;&lt;artwork&gt;&lt;glare&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="6626" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6625" CreationDate="2011-01-08T19:49:33.143" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When it comes to glass it's all about lighting direction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You want to make sure that when you look at the picture through the camera neither the reflection of the lightsource &lt;strong&gt;or anything lit by your lightsource&lt;/strong&gt; is visible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hold up, I'll draw a diagram:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/lighting_glass.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Glass and other shiny objects reflect light back in one direction (like a ball bouncing off a wall). The painting, which is &lt;em&gt;diffuse&lt;/em&gt; reflects some light this way, and reflects some light back in every direction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the setup above, the light from a directional source hits the glass and carries on, missing the camera, thus the glass isn't visible! The same light hits the painting and some of it does get reflected into the camera so the painting does show up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The important thing is to use a directional source, as it's possible for light from your lightsource to bounce of a white wall, and hit the glass at an angle that does go down the lens, and this shows up as flare.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/lighting_glass2.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This often happens when you have a white wall behind the camera, as in the above example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The moral of the story is to make sure you can't see the reflection of the lightsource in the glass when stood behind the camera, and try to limit what the light hits (ideally it should hit nothing but the painting). You can make any lightsource directional by placing opaque objects around it to block the light in certain directions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-08T20:17:09.637" LastActivityDate="2011-01-08T20:17:09.637" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6627" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6625" CreationDate="2011-01-08T19:52:34.110" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The key to photographing this is about the angle of light(s) used to illuminate the surface of the art. It's all about angles and reflection and it's probably easier to illustrate this (pardon my poor Coreldraw skills).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/pVbJ9.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The dotted lines connecting the camera show the angles of direct reflection, so if the lighting is inside those lines, the glare will be very evident. What you need is diffuse reflection and to get that, you need to have the light outside those lines, to one side, but preferrably both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sorry, the reflection lines in the far sides of the camera are a bit faint...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-01-08T19:52:34.110" />
  <row Id="6628" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6629" CreationDate="2011-01-08T20:16:19.093" Score="17" ViewCount="291" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently upgraded from a standard compact digital camera to one of the newish &quot;halfway cameras&quot;, hoping to get a bit better at taking photographs through having a little more control over the settings.  Trouble is, the camera has so many settings that I'm having difficulty figuring out which to concentrate on learning about!  I think it's best to start with the basic settings, by which I mean those that actually involve something physical in how the photograph is taken, rather than with the vast array of post-processing that the camera seems capable of.  So, my question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Which settings on my camera are &quot;real&quot;?  Meaning that they have an effect on the information &lt;em&gt;initially&lt;/em&gt; read by the sensor, not post-processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I would be surprised if this varied from camera to camera which is why I haven't specified my exact camera.  Also, I'm not asking for an explanation of what the settings do, though a &quot;sound bite&quot; that I can easily remember when I'm out with my camera would be a welcome extra.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Standard apology: if this question has been asked before, I apologise and would appreciate knowing which question to look for the answers in.  Also, I didn't have a clue what to tag this!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1422" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-08T20:32:15.093" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T15:10:03.143" Title="What's &quot;real&quot; and what's &quot;virtual&quot; on a (digital) camera?" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6629" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6628" CreationDate="2011-01-08T20:27:02.387" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several things which are &quot;real&quot; by your terminology. I'll explain at the end why I thought it slightly odd, but... Anyways, they are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ISO&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aperture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shutter Speed (Or Time).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Focus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mirror Lockup (DSLR only)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Image Stabilization&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To learn what these are, please see the question: What is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6598/what-is-the-exposure-triangle&quot;&gt;Exposure Triangle&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everything else, sharpening, saturation, tint, etc is done after the shot is taken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The term virtual and real are a bad choice, because a virtual image is a specific optics term, I won't bother to explain here. It doesn't mean anything in photography, so... The term real is a counterpart. I got excited for a second when I saw the words real and virtual in a question, but somewhat sad after I realized that it wasn't quite the same...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-09T23:28:21.070" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T23:28:21.070" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6630" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6628" CreationDate="2011-01-08T20:30:06.883" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll expand on Pearsonartphoto's list, the following settings affect the raw data captured by the camera:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Camera:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ISO&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Long exposure noise reduction&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;shutter speed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;aperture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;mirror lock-up&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;image stabilisation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;flash&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lens:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;image stabilisation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;focus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;focal length&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There a whole lot of options that indirectly affect the above. But if you shoot in full manual that is pretty much all the input you have (there may be more, I'll add them as they occur to me)! The ambient temperature can also have an effect, as sensors pick up more dark current noise when hot. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-08T21:39:02.950" LastActivityDate="2011-01-08T21:39:02.950" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6631" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6628" CreationDate="2011-01-08T20:50:15.190" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;These settings directly affect the exposure:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shutter speed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aperture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ISO&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These settings affect the optics of the photo:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Focus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Zoom&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then there are more advanced features on some cameras, like image stabilisation, mirror lockup and different forms of automatic focusing, and there are filters that you can mount on the lens for different effects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-01-08T20:50:15.190" />
  <row Id="6632" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-08T22:07:15.300" Score="11" ViewCount="408" Body="&lt;p&gt;So I've got the basics down for the exposure triangle, but sometimes you just need to add more light to the room and the flash can be the most convenient way of doing that. The problem is that the exposure on the camera is not taking into account the extra light from the flash. I'm wondering if there is a way to tell the camera to predict an exposure based on the flash I'm using or if there are any rules of thumb I can apply.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the record, I only have a built-in flash on my Nikon D7000. (Although I want this question to apply to all dslrs in general.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;UPDATE:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an extreme case, is it possible to do this in a very dark room? I've found in that case the major problem is that the autofocus doesn't work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2746" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-11T15:40:15.857" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T15:40:15.857" Title="How do I predict exposure when using flash?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="6633" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6617" CreationDate="2011-01-08T22:18:30.967" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A cheap scanner will take about one minute per negative or photo: that's 3/4 year of full-time work to scan all this stuff, not counting the follow-on postprocessing needed to clean up the scans.  If you want to continue living your life, consider shipping this material off to a service, &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/2907/1356&quot;&gt;as suggested in a related thread&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1121/inexpensive-method-of-digitizing-large-numbers-of-35mm-slides&quot;&gt;another&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2965/any-experience-of-scanning-services&quot;&gt;another&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2011-01-08T22:18:30.967" />
  <row Id="6634" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-08T23:02:26.373" Score="5" ViewCount="312" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are lot of sites, which compare digital cameras by parameters, user experience and etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I looking for a website which has some kind of procedure to test image quality and compares digital cameras by the result. Are there any?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3102" LastEditorUserId="48" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T22:27:44.387" LastActivityDate="2011-04-29T08:39:02.867" Title="Are there websites which compare digital cameras based on technical image quality?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;image-quality&gt;&lt;web&gt;&lt;reviews&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6635" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6632" CreationDate="2011-01-08T23:03:43.877" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With continuous light (ambient light), your exposure is based on the amount of light, shutter speed, ISO, and aperture size. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6598/what-is-the-exposure-triangle&quot;&gt;What is the exposure triangle?&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, light from a flash is very brief; generally 1/10000 to 1/1000 second, depending on power level (more power, longer flash). This means that shutter speed, up to a certain point, shutter speed doesn't matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are 5 factors that affect how much exposure you get from a flash:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flash power. Scientifically, this is measured in lumen-seconds, but it's more practical to use Guide Numbers, which are given as a distance. More on guide numbers in a bit.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Distance from flash to subject. The intensity of the flash decreases proportional to the &lt;strong&gt;square of the distance&lt;/strong&gt; to the subject. This is known as the &lt;strong&gt;inverse-square law&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Your camera's aperture size. The aperture has the same effect on flash as it does any other light. Open up by one stop, say, f/5.6 to f/4, and you've doubled the exposure.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The ISO sensitivity of your film/sensor. Again, ISO has the same effect on flash as any other light. Double ISO, double the exposure.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The zoom setting, or beam spread, of your flash. This determines how concentrated the beam is. Zoom to 24mm, and you'll get a lot of spread, but the flash will be less bright. Zoom to 85mm, and the beam will be tight, and brighter.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your flash will give you a guide number, or GN, measured in meters and/or feet. On the D7000, your pop-up flash has a guide number of 12/39 (fairly typical for an SLR pop-up flash), which means 12 meters or 39 feet. This is measured at ISO 100.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guide_number&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;guide number&lt;/a&gt; is the distance at which you'd get a proper exposure if you used a full-power flash, ISO 100, and an aperture of f/1.0.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember the inverse-square law, which tells us that flash intensity falls off proportionally to the square of the distance? Conveniently, our aperture settings also follow a square law, since aperture size measures diameter, but the area, proportional to diameter squared, is what determines the exposure)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;To use a Guide Number to determine your aperture&lt;/strong&gt;, first set your flash power to full, and set ISO to 100. Divide the Guide Number by the distance between the flash and the subject. This gives you the f-stop that you should use to get a proper exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, if you're shooting a subject 8 feet away with a GN of 39, you need an aperture of f/4.9. If you cut the distance in half, to 4 feet, you need an aperture of f/9.8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cutting flash power by a factor of four cuts your guide number in half. Similarly, increasing ISO by a factor of four doubles your guide number. Changing the zoom setting on a speedlight will affect guide number as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All this math is inconvenient for the on-the-go shooter, and a lot of it goes out the window when you start using modifiers, bounce flash, etc, so the camera manufacturers came up with Through-the-Lens flash metering, also known as TTL. In TTL flash operation, your camera fires the flash at a reduced power before opening the shutter, known as a &lt;em&gt;pre-flash&lt;/em&gt;. The camera uses its metering system to determine how much flash power is needed while the shutter is open.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you mentioned, the camera doesn't try to &quot;correct&quot; the meter to take flash into account. This is actually a good thing, as it let's you know how much darker the background and any shadows will be, compared to your subject. With TTL flash on, assuming your subject isn't too far away, you always know that it will be properly exposed (at least, according to the camera's meter).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, since the shutter speed doesn't affect the brightness of the flash, you can keep your shutter open longer or shorter, depending on how much ambient light you want. Of course, you can get motion blur, etc. An excellent resource on &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101-balancing-flash-and.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;balancing flash with ambient&lt;/a&gt;, and all things flash, is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strobist blog&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-09T08:20:50.793" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T08:20:50.793" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6636" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6634" CreationDate="2011-01-08T23:49:50.453" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The website &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page37.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dpreview.com&lt;/a&gt; has detailed reviews that include sample images. You can preview sample images from various models to get an idea of the results each produce.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/cameras/nikon/d90/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;flickr.com&lt;/a&gt; you can see images sorted by camera that took them as well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(The links I provided are for viewing results for the Nikon D90)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastActivityDate="2011-01-08T23:49:50.453" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6637" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6634" CreationDate="2011-01-08T23:58:31.687" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dxomark.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;DXO Mark&quot;&gt;DxO Mark&lt;/a&gt; provide objective data on the output of camera and cameras in combination with lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The data comes from the testing they do on cameras and lenses for their RAW developing software &quot;DxO Optics&quot; so it should be fairly unbiased.  I don't know enough about the technical aspects of digital photography to comment on the validity of their methodology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1615" LastActivityDate="2011-01-08T23:58:31.687" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="6638" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6640" CreationDate="2011-01-09T00:07:32.607" Score="10" ViewCount="229" Body="&lt;p&gt;In pursuit of my low light photography passion I an considering purchasing a speed light. because I am so new to photography I am unsure of what the results will be using a speed light flash instead of the built in flash of the camera body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had been reading up on this and aside from the difference being like night and day I cant really find anywhere to quantify the results of using a dedicated flash instead of the camera's flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can any one with a dedicated flash chime in and explain the difference in image results and any differences in the act of taking pictures with a speed light?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T23:54:08.897" Title="What can I expect in upgrading from built in flash to using a speedlight?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;low-light&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="6639" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6634" CreationDate="2011-01-09T00:32:23.013" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It probably doesn't matter. Taking great looking photos has much more to do with the photographer than the camera. &lt;strong&gt;A good photographer can take great photos with any camera.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suggest you decide what &lt;em&gt;kind&lt;/em&gt; of camera to get based on the kind of shooting you do or intend to do, then visit snapsort.com to find a good model in that class. If you're going to take a lot of low light photos, get something with a fast lens; if you'll be shooting over a long distance, get something with a good zoom, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I agree with the suggestion to visit dpreview.com. They have extremely comprehensive reviews, which includes image quality and comparisons against other cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1905" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T00:32:23.013" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="6640" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6638" CreationDate="2011-01-09T00:34:47.050" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's basically 4 things you gain, 3 of the automatically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;More Power&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flexibility in the direction of the flash&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Control. You can adjust the strength of the flash, so as to add only a touch of it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The ability to move off camera, with am optional external trigger (Most Nikon and some recent Canon cameras don't require an external trigger, see your camera's manual)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With built-in flash, all you can do is light it full on. This leads to bland pictures, without much interesting going on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the dedicated flash and no external hardware, you can actually point the flash in a different direction. A common thing to do is to point it straight up. This will &quot;bounce&quot; the flash on your subject, giving them a much more natural look. It will also tend to light up the whole scene much better, and almost never produces red-eye. It also avoids weird shadows, as the shadows tend to be in the downward direction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These two shots, the fist one uses bounce flash, the second doesn't. Notice the second one has alot more reflections, is blown out in some areas, and generally has less detail. I think I used a diffuser for it, but it's still harsher then I would have liked, but sometimes you've just got a moment to get a shot, so...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/TxEE2.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Bounce Flash&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/vZMhX.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Direct Flash&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-09T00:54:05.497" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T00:54:05.497" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="6641" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6638" CreationDate="2011-01-09T00:35:51.483" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two key factors here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Power:&lt;/strong&gt; Even the most basic hotshoe flash will have 3-4x the raw power of the built-in flash. This allows light to cover more of the scene, making it all look better. A mid-range flash is 2-3x the power yet again, and so on.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Bounce:&lt;/strong&gt; a decent hotshot flash (including Nikon's entry-level SB-400) can tilt, allowing you to bounce light from the ceiling, giving a wide, diffuse light source, with no ugly shadows. This is where the &quot;night and day&quot; comments come in.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, beyond this, many mid-range and up flashes can be triggered (with full exposure control) via wireless optical remote. (Your D7000's built-in flash can act as the controller for this). That gives you even more control over how light falls on the scene, without the added bulk of a big shoe-mounted flash. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T00:35:51.483" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6642" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6638" CreationDate="2011-01-09T00:44:38.297" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biggest advantage that an on-camera speedlight has over the pop-up flash is power. A speedlight has enough power that you can afford to lose some of it trying to improve the lighting quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some things that you can do with a speedlight that are difficult to do with the pop-up flash:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bounce flash. Most speedlights have the ability to direct the light up or sideways to bounce off ceilings and walls.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Modifiers (there are many, but these are some of the more common ones):&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Diffusers, which don't really diffuse the light directly, but scatter it in all directions so that some bounces off of walls, ceilings, and objects before hitting your subject.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gels, to color the light, to match fluorescent or tungsten lighting.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bounce cards, which allow you to bounce off the ceiling, but also direct some light forward as an on-axis fill, to avoid the dark shadows under the eyes that can happen with bounce flash.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Off-camera lighting. You'll need more equipment for this, but a speedlight is the key part. You can't rip your camera's pop-up flash out and use that.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T00:44:38.297" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6643" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6615" CreationDate="2011-01-09T01:26:00.700" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ISO&lt;/a&gt; is effectively a sensitivity of the sensor, whether it be film or digital. In theory, ISO for a digital camera should be the same as for a film camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ISO on film is determined by the grain size of the chemical. What this will mean is that the resolution will be better with a lower ISO film. Also, because a film grain is all or nothing, this will lead to some spottiness, or noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way that ISO is achieved in a digital camera can help to understand why it is important, and why using a higher ISO isn't always a good thing. I don't know the way it was achieved in film, so I can't really speak to it, but I imagine it's using somewhat similar principals. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, Matt did an excellent job explaining the different sources of noise. What happens in a camera actually comes down to the following.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Light hits the sensor.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The signal on the sensor is passed through a gain circuit. The amount of gain depends on the ISO setting being used.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The signal value is then ran through an &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog-to-digital_converter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A2D converter&lt;/a&gt;. What this will do is map the amplified signal into a range from 0 to 255 (Or higher, depending on the number of bits in the converter), a digital signal.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The camera then may remove some of the basic sources of noise, especially the &quot;Dark current&quot; noise. That's the signal if you were to expose complete blackness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what actually happens when you turn up the ISO? There's basically two paths, which I'll cover below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the ISO is increased, and the shutter speed correspondingly decreased, then the signal level going into the  A2D converter remains the same. However, the amount of signal on the sensor is decreased. That means that any noise which is sensor depended will in effect be amplified. This includes things such as Shot Noise. Some other forms of noise won't be amplified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second option is if the original image was underexposed, but the ISO brings it to being correctly exposed. It is possible to contrast enhance the underexposed image to have the same max/min as the correctly exposed image. The signal coming out of the A2D converter will effectively have a smaller range. This will leave only a few light levels, leading to a much noisier looking image than the correctly exposed image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few other interesting things. Sensors tend to bleed if they are saturated to neighboring pixels. If an image is increased in ISO and decreased in shutter speed, then it will not be saturated on the FPA itself, removing some artifacts. This can lead to somewhat better performance when saturated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, high ISO on a digital camera will have less noise then the same ISO on film, due to a much better way to achieve high ISO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hopefully this wasn't too technical, but I'm just excited to share my knowledge of Electrical Engineering with the community:-) Let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll try and explain it even better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the second question, I'd say that lower ISO isn't always better, but in general, it's best to use the lowest ISO you can. If you are shooting indoors, for example, a higher ISO will allow you to use a shorter exposure time, leading to less motion blur. Usually I use the lowest ISO that will allow me to not be over the hand-limit of 1/lens_length shutter speed. But there are always exceptions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-09T15:52:22.780" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T15:52:22.780" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="6644" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6616" CreationDate="2011-01-09T01:57:26.667" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Website&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d5000/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;D5000&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3100/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;D3100&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Continuous Shooting&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;D3100 3 frames per sec&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;D5000's 4 frames per sec&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;D5000 is better for continuous shooting&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Video Shooting&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;D3100 shoots full HD (1080p)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;D5000 does not&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;D3100 is better&lt;/em&gt; for video shot from the camera&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Resolution&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;D3100 has a 14.2MP sensor (23.1 x 15.4 mm CMOS sensor)&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;4,608 x 3,072 [L]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;3,456 x 2,304 [M]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2,304 x 1,536 [S]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;D5000 has a 12.3MP sensor (23.1 x 15.4 mm CMOS sensor)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;4,288 x 2,848 [L]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;3,216 x 2,136 [M]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2,144 x 1,424 [S]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;No real winner here&lt;/em&gt;, higher resolution can mean more noise&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Age&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;D5000 launched around May 2009&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;D3100 launched around August 2010&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;D3100 has newer components&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Truth&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;f/8 @ 1/250 is the same on any camera!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Its the lenses that matter more than the body&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This is a personal decision&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What I Would Buy&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would opt for the D3100 if I was to choose between these two cameras. I believe the D5000 would be more aligned to my purposes but the fact the the D3100 is newer would sway me in that way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer: I own a D90 so actually would not think about purchasing any of these cameras as I would rather either a D7000 or a D300s&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-09T02:33:28.927" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T02:33:28.927" />
  <row Id="6645" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6778" CreationDate="2011-01-09T02:06:22.427" Score="2" ViewCount="340" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm seeing that Lightroom 3 has noise reduction capability, but I'm looking for a good tutorial or other in how to use it practically. Can anyone out there point me to a good tutorial, or provide one here, on how to reduce noise in an image using Lightroom's noise reduction tools? Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T13:18:39.633" Title="How can you reduce noise in Lightroom 3?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;lightroom-3&gt;&lt;noise-reduction&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6646" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6645" CreationDate="2011-01-09T02:10:57.663" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It looks like all that's needed to be done is raise the luminance noise reduction tool in the details section until the noise is gone. There's minimal increased blur, and overall, it's quite cool. I'm happy:-) Guess I should try experimenting before I go asking a question...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T02:10:57.663" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6650" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-09T02:41:44.007" Score="0" ViewCount="319" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can anyone give me some pointer tips or tutorials for creating a mist/fog effect in a photo using photoshop CS5?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to create a fake fog effect and add that effect to a photo. Is that possible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advanced!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2649" LastEditorUserId="2649" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-10T18:25:12.337" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T18:25:12.337" ClosedDate="2011-01-09T08:17:23.763" Title="Mist Photoshop CS5 Effect" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;photoshop-cs5&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6653" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6650" CreationDate="2011-01-09T02:58:39.560" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Create a new layer and create a square box with about 15 pixels feather (play with more and less to see what looks best) so the edges will be curvy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Color it in black and white (half and half but smudge the colors around with any brush. It doesn't matter what style just mess it up.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hit filter and different clouds. Click F5 like 2-4 times until you get something messy and then use line tool to go around it and make a wired cloud shape with a 15pixel feather yet again.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Cut it out and post it over your layers and change settings. If needed also change levels and boom.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T02:58:39.560" />
  <row Id="6656" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6659" CreationDate="2011-01-09T04:28:09.940" Score="10" ViewCount="332" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ok, so I got interested enough in the other lighting setups, what is split portrait lighting and when is it appropriate to use?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-09T07:49:23.217" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T00:57:39.803" Title="What is split portrait lighting?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;studio-lighting&gt;&lt;lighting-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="6657" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6658" CreationDate="2011-01-09T06:53:57.667" Score="12" ViewCount="327" Body="&lt;p&gt;Occasionally I see shots that have motion blur around the subject ... yet the subject is in focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are usually shoot at very slow speeds, sometimes they even have a 1 second exposure, yet the subject is in focus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this done mostly in post, or is there some sort of camera trick that can make this happen? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a shot I took today attempting this, it is however a very poor example. How do I improve this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/6d5YP.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;noa&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(f/2.8 1/20s ISO 100 - 24mm) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="230" LastEditorUserId="230" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-09T22:27:13.043" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T12:40:13.337" Title="How do you shoot still motion portraits" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;panning&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6658" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6657" CreationDate="2011-01-09T07:06:12.317" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a technique called &quot;panning&quot;.  You track the motion of the subject with the camera and follow the subject while pressing the shutter.  Its the equivalent of &quot;follow through with your swing&quot; in sports analogy.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Digital Photography School has an excellent resource at:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/mastering-panning-to-photograph-moving-subjects&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/mastering-panning-to-photograph-moving-subjects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Select a slightly slower shutter speed than you normally would; 1/30 second is a good start.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Position yourself with an unobstructed view of the path of the subject.  As the subject approaches track it smoothly with your camera. Being parallel to the path of the object is best.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;If your camera has automatic focus tracking, half press the shutter button; otherwise, pre-focus on the spot where you'll release the shutter.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Once you've released the shutter, continue to pan with the subject even after the shot is complete.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(Older digital cameras may have &quot;shutter lag&quot; that complicates this process)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've not seen it require anywhere around 1 second shutter, but typically 1/30th or so will produce a plenty noticeable motion blur in the background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anything too much below 1/20th or perhaps even 1/30th and you're going to start to see some camera shake on many focal lengths.  Doing this on a tripod is much easier for sports and such (its a common shot in Nascar and racing).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For young kids, while certainly not impossible, I've personally found it exceedingly difficult to get good panning shots because of the erratic nature of their movements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-11T12:40:13.337" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T12:40:13.337" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6659" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6656" CreationDate="2011-01-09T07:48:13.547" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is Split Lighting?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Split Lighting is one of the 5 basic lighting setups used in studio portrait photography. Split lighting at its most basic level is constructed with a single light source placed 90 degrees offset from the subject and a bit higher than eye level, lighting one half of the face, and leaving the other in shadow. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thing that distinguishes Split Lighting from Short or Broad lighting is the placement of the subject’s head- Split Lighting is always taken with the subject facing square to the camera, unlike Short, Broad, and Rembrandt lighting which all have the subject’s head angled in relation to the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;One-light Split Lighting setup:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/wREqs.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;One-light Split Lighting setup diagram&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/QIgy4.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;One-light Split Lighting setup example&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When do I Use Split Lighting?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Split lighting is a very ‘moody’ lighting option, so it is generally used when the photographer wants to create a strong sense of drama with the image. It is less frequently used in portrait photography because generally people want to see a subject’s &lt;em&gt;whole&lt;/em&gt; face in a picture, though it does go in and out of fashion for commercial and advertising photography every few years. This is often referred to as ‘the comic book villain’ lighting style, and indeed, many comic artists use this technique when they are portraying the bad-guy in their comic books. Whereas Short Lighting and Rembrandt Lighting are 'everyday' lighting choices and the vast majority of portraits will use one of these lighting setups, Split Lighting is an 'accent' lighting choice... A session with a small number of Split Light portraits can add some variety, but a little goes a long way and an entire session of Split Light portraits can become boring very quickly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-10T00:57:39.803" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T00:57:39.803" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6660" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6657" CreationDate="2011-01-09T08:35:33.903" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To add to what rfusca stated in his answer, you should look into using second-curtain flash. Flash is also a powerful action-stopping tool, but is often overlooked. When using flash, the pulse is only a tiny fraction of a second long, and usually occurs when the front curtain of the shutter opens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To capture motion blur, but also freeze the subject's motion, second curtain flash sync  can be used. Rather than firing the flash pulse when the shutter initially opens, using second-curtain sync will fire the flash pulse a moment before the shutter closes. When combined with &quot;slower&quot; shutter speeds, such as 1/30th of a second (or slower...depends on how much motion blur you want), the flash will freeze your subject clearly at the end of the exposure time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second certain flash sync is used to great effect in areas like sports. Most of us have seen those fantastic shots of a baseball player running for base, with a beautiful trail of motion blur behind them. Or of a basketball player flying in for the dunk, motion blur showing their trajectory. An excellent example of this is this cyclist racing around a corner (found via Bing...no reference site):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Uz0KZ.jpgere&quot; alt=&quot;Second Curtain Motion Freeze&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would give second curtain flash sync a try. If you are close to your subjects, you will probably want to dial down the flash power (flash exposure compensation). You don't really want the primary lighting to be from the flash...you just want to use it to freeze your subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some resources that might help you out:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/slow-sync-flash&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Slow Sync Flash&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Digital Photography School article&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.passingimage.com/clients/pc_class/Motion_Blur.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Motion Blur &amp;amp; Freezing Movement&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Excellent PDF reference document&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/syncspeed.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Importance of Flash Sync Speed&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ken Rockwell&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T08:35:33.903" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6661" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6161" CreationDate="2011-01-09T10:12:06.530" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;An interesting exercise is to shoot in Tv/S mode in daylight, say at 1/100. This will effectively give you very little control over the depth of field, which is the point. You need to find compositions that don't rely on blurring the background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T10:12:06.530" />
  <row Id="6662" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6657" CreationDate="2011-01-09T10:45:04.280" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;@jrista pointed it out pretty good already.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is another example I shot:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/kIlfc.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;BMX motion blur example photo&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;1/80s 33mm Crop&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see, only very small parts of the image are actually sharp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This photo is one successful shot among 125 barely usable ones. You can probably get a better ratio with more experience and maybe a mono- or tripod, but it will always require many many attempts to get this effect right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can of course only achieve this effect for clear movements in one direction. If the subject is coming closer, you could theoretically get a similar effect using the zoom - I think, however, that it's the easiest just to pan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2069" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T10:45:04.280" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6663" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6634" CreationDate="2011-01-09T10:45:25.127" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's impossible to objectively rate image quality, as image quality is quite subjective. You could look at example images, but they probably won't reflect the situations you would use your camera in. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thankfully, most modern cameras have excellent sensors that outresolve all but the most demanding of photographers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T10:45:25.127" />
  <row Id="6664" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3542" CreationDate="2011-01-09T10:54:02.763" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kata-bags.com/product.asp?Version=photo&amp;amp;p_Id=275&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kata R-103&lt;/a&gt;. It takes my camera and plenty of lenses or other equipment, a 15&quot; laptop and a tripod. If you need space for a bigger laptop, check out the bigger models in the Kata R series. You can easily change the compartments in the inside of the backpack. It is no problem to fit an apple and a book in there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The backpack has an extremely good quality and is very robust. Furthermore, you can access your camera without taking the backpack off:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ftrbq.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2069" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T10:54:02.763" />
  <row Id="6665" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6582" CreationDate="2011-01-09T11:04:46.937" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Nikon &quot;nifty fifty&quot; 50mm f/1.8 is a fine lens with great optical qualities. The only drawback is the lack of internal focusing motor which makes it a manual focus lens on Nikon's cheaper bodies. These only autofocus with AF-S lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T11:04:46.937" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6666" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6634" CreationDate="2011-01-09T12:30:04.373" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Comparometer&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This tool lets you compare reference images from digital cameras side-by-side. These images are JPEGs straight from the camera, and were taken under carefully-controlled conditions, to provide valid comparisons of camera capabilities in actual shooting situations. You can also download the images (using your browser's &quot;save image as&quot; function) and output them on your own printer, to see how the cameras involved will perform in your application.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3102" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T12:30:04.373" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6667" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6669" CreationDate="2011-01-09T12:33:49.997" Score="13" ViewCount="426" Body="&lt;p&gt;There have been many questions lately that focus on improving the quality of the image taken, where the answers circle around using a second-curtain flash to reduce blur and freeze motion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why not use second curtain-flash all the time? Are there down sides to second-curtain flash?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-10T17:39:26.933" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T20:36:00.620" Title="When should you use a normal flash vs a second-curtain flash?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;second-curtain&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6669" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6667" CreationDate="2011-01-09T12:44:17.877" Score="18" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Second curtain sync doesn't do anything more to freeze motion than first curtain. The reason to use second curtain sync is that the ambient light trails you get with a long exposure appear behind the subject (as the sequence is ambient first then flash) instead of in front, which looks a bit weird.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.shortcourses.com/images/b4ch6/curtainsync.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the top image (first curtain sync) the headlight trail appears in front of the train, in the bottom image (second curtain sync) the headlight trails burn in before the flash fires, so they appear behind the train.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can't think of a general disadvantage of second curtain sync (I use it all the time), except that not all cameras offer true second curtain sync. Canon cameras for example only send a signal on the first curtain. Second curtain sync is then achieved by sending the shutter speed to the Canon compatible flash which knows to wait the specified time before firing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One reason not to use second curtain sync might be that it's easier to frame a moving subject if you concentrate on where the subject is when you press the shutter, rather than where it will be when the shutter closes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-09T12:50:06.030" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T12:50:06.030" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6671" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6677" CreationDate="2011-01-09T14:07:49.223" Score="10" ViewCount="237" Body="&lt;p&gt;A friend of mine fell with my new Canon EFS 15-85mm lens - nothing happened to the camera, but the lens is... well see for yourself: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/szLPN.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Bent lens&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;As you can see the top part of the lens looks bent towards the right side. Autofocus doesn't work anymore and the manual focus ring is hard to move.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will send it directly to Canon for repair and see what they can do about it. I am &lt;strong&gt;hoping&lt;/strong&gt; that the top part of the lens above the base only &quot;slipped&quot; out of it's casing and all the repair guys have to do, is to screw the lens open and put the top part back into the right position - on the other hand something could be irreversibly bent inside.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question to you guys: &lt;strong&gt;What are your experiences with lens repairs in general?&lt;/strong&gt; When done by a professional will the lens be &lt;strong&gt;as good as new&lt;/strong&gt; afterwards or will it experience some kind of degradation (like a car, where value decreases with its accidents)? I mean: I will see about quality issues after the repair, but if the repair is like $400 I could probably start thinking about a new lens, hence my question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt; Just to let people know. I sent the lens to Canon for repair. It was about 260EUR for the repair (~350USD), which is quite expensive, but they had to change the ultrasonic motor, casing and some more stuff inside. The lens is as good as new (so is image quality), so the money was worth it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2670" LastEditorUserId="2670" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-11T18:28:23.983" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T18:28:23.983" Title="Experiences with lens repairs - Quality degradation?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;repair&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6672" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6667" CreationDate="2011-01-09T14:12:24.013" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A little bit esoteric, but second-curtain sync may not actually allow enough time for a complete flash discharge with some external (non-system) flash setups. This would occur mostly with battery pack-and-head systems with small flash tubes when using a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; of power (a Lumedyne setup with multiple boosters, for instance, or microphotography lighting) -- the resulting long flash duration usually means you'd need to set your camera to a shutter speed one or more stops slower than the X-sync even if you aren't looking for an ambient ghosting effect. That will work for front-curtain sync, but rear-curtain sync will not allow enough time for the extended flash. You could keep pumping up the flash power all day, but all you'd get is an overheated flash head.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T14:12:24.013" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6673" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6671" CreationDate="2011-01-09T14:16:17.157" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've had Canon lenses properly repaired (by Fixation in London) and there was no noticable affect on image quality or build of the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T14:16:17.157" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6674" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3542" CreationDate="2011-01-09T14:20:05.733" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I really rate the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fstopgear.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;FStop&lt;/a&gt; range of backs, the Tilopa is about as big as you will be able to carry on, with the interchanagble ICUs you can have a small section for camera gear and a larger one for your other gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T14:20:05.733" />
  <row Id="6675" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6693" CreationDate="2011-01-09T14:35:00.083" Score="-1" ViewCount="52" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_IR-500&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Olympus IR-500&lt;/a&gt; had a swiveling display which you could fold in a way so that the screen was protected when the camera was carried around. I find this feature to be very nice but the Olympus IR-500 is an old camera with outdated specs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does there exist a recent ultra compact point and shoot camera where the screen is protected in a similar way so you don't have to carry a bag with you for the camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3122" LastEditorUserId="3122" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-10T13:44:00.777" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T13:44:00.777" Title="Any recent camera with a multi swing display like Olympus IR-500?" Tags="&lt;lcd&gt;&lt;body&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="6676" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-09T14:47:07.743" Score="1" ViewCount="762" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have started to use my D3100 with my AE/AF-L button set to AF. So in other words I use this button instead of the half press shutter button to AF. I'm new to this technique and came across it here at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&amp;amp;articleID=2286&amp;amp;productID=329&amp;amp;articleTypeID=5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon website&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A problem with the D3100 is that the shutter will not activate if focus is not locked on. If I'm in AF-C using a single focus point and I want to recompose (as in point 1 of the article above) I should be able to just lift my thumb off the AE/AF button after focusing on my subject. Moving the camera slightly to the side I should be able to take the shot but I can't. It wont allow me to release the shutter as the new centre point is out of focus. To get this working I need to be in AF-S (which is fine) and then HOLD the AE/AF button while recomposing and taking shots. Does this not miss the point of the back button AF? In that article the author talks about taking his finger off the back button once focused and then shoots freely. Thats an advantage to me. Keeping my finger down is not. I only want to focus when that back button is pressed and to be allowed to shoot even if the new center point is out of focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3121" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T19:06:30.830" Title="Back button AF on Nikon D3100 of limited use?" Tags="&lt;nikon-d3100&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="6677" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6671" CreationDate="2011-01-09T15:11:49.647" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've had two lenses repaired. 10-22 which was obliterated by a skier on a half-pipe (it ended up looking very much like your lens) and a 50 f/1.4 which I dropped onto concrete. Both of which came back optically as good as before they were damaged, as far as I can detect. The 10-22 does however have a ski mark down the side which will probably reduce the value if I ever sell it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the last photo I got before impact!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/accident.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-09T15:24:05.897" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T15:24:05.897" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6678" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6676" CreationDate="2011-01-09T15:16:17.040" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you may be running up against a limitation of the specific camera. Pentax, and I suspect Canon, in some of their products have a menu option to disable requiring focus confirmation before shutter release in autofocus modes, the D3100 doesn't seem to have this according to the manual I downloaded. On page 55 of the manual, all three AF modes state that the shutter can only fire when the camera is able to focus, only manual focus can do otherwise. Normally you would use the AF-L button to lock focus in AF modes which should allow for recomposition and shutter release, but if you've repurposed the button, then this is lost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would be surprised if this was a limitation of Nikon in general, so I would have to think that it is specific to the D3100 being an entry level dSLR, it could be seen as &quot;helpful&quot; for the average consumer though irritating for somebody trying to do more than party photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, presuming that there isn't a hidden menu option that I didn't see in the manual and you still want to use the button this way, then one option in AF is to manually select the focus point off the center, targetted to the subject you want to have the focus on. That only works, of course, if that subject falls within the focal point selections. Alternately, you could autofocus on what you want, switch to manual focus, recompose, and then release. This should work, I would think, though a little tedious. The final option I can suggest is to manual focus entirely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Probably not what you wanted to hear... This is what I determined from the manual, though a D3100 user may have better information than I.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T15:16:17.040" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6679" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6675" CreationDate="2011-01-09T15:29:48.750" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, the Nikon D5000, for example, has a screen like that, as does the Canon 60D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I'd still want my camera protected in some way — the screen isn't the only fragile part of a camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T15:29:48.750" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6680" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6667" CreationDate="2011-01-09T16:13:11.320" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are actually &lt;em&gt;three&lt;/em&gt; possibilities here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Regular&quot; flash&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;First-curtain slow-speed sync&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Second-curtain slow-speed sync&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The last is also goes by a couple of other names: trailing curtain or rear curtain. Nikon, for example, calls it &quot;rear curtain + slow sync&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Normally, the flash is so bright that shutter speed has a negligible effect on the exposure — the exposure time is the length of the flash pulse, because the amount of light let in during the rest of the time the shutter is open is insignificant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Slow-speed sync modes combine a flash with a long enough shutter speed to also be recorded. This gives, in effect, a double exposure: a quick sharp exposure matching the flash pulse, and a long exposure matching the shutter time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference between first curtain and trailing curtain sync is simply when the flash is triggered in relation to the long shutter speed: at the beginning or end, obviously. (It's interesting to read up a bit and understand exactly how a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal-plane_shutter#Two-curtain_shutters&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;focal plane shutter&lt;/a&gt; works, but isn't necessary to the basic concept of using these modes.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The disadvantage of using a slow-speed sync mode in general is that you introduce the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1402/&quot;&gt;same difficulties of any long-exposure photography&lt;/a&gt;, where both camera movement and subject motion are significant factors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First-curtain sync has a distinct problem: since the motion-freezing flash pulse comes &lt;em&gt;first&lt;/em&gt; and the long exposure after, if the subject moves, you get a ghostly image moving &lt;em&gt;away&lt;/em&gt; from the sharp image. If you take a picture of a moving car, for example, the blurred line of the headlights will move in front of the camera. This looks weird to most people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rear-curtain sync avoids this, by capturing the trail first and &lt;em&gt;then&lt;/em&gt; the frozen subject. This is also good for, for example, people moving by firelight — the &quot;ghost&quot; appears to track their previous actions, which better matches our perception and memory of the flow of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;But there &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; a downside as well:&lt;/strong&gt; you have to anticipate the action by the chosen shutter time. If you've picked a two-second shutter speed, the flash exposure will come two seconds after you press the shutter button. This makes it hard to capture an exact moment intentionally, and you need better luck, anticipation skill, and planning (and even that might not be enough in all situations).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-09T17:15:09.457" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T17:15:09.457" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6681" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6684" CreationDate="2011-01-09T16:24:48.700" Score="14" ViewCount="415" Body="&lt;p&gt;The viewfinder on my camera has diopter correction, but is there a &quot;correct&quot; way to set it up? In the past I've just allowed the camera to auto-focus on a distant point, and then make sure that is as sharp as possible, but this seems to be prone to error, and reliant on the auto focus of the lens. Is there a better way?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-06T16:31:58.277" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T14:30:38.653" Title="How do I calibrate the diopter correction on my DSLRs viewfinder?" Tags="&lt;viewfinder&gt;&lt;calibration&gt;&lt;diopter&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="6682" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6681" CreationDate="2011-01-09T16:30:26.913" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Take a look at the focus screen in your camera. That actually has the same focus as the object in focus, and it's a lot easier to see. Adjust it until you see the thinnest lines possible, and you are set. Optionally, you can actually remove the lens to do this, as it makes it easier to not be confused by an object in the scene.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-31T14:30:38.653" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T14:30:38.653" />
  <row Id="6683" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6681" CreationDate="2011-01-09T16:31:30.590" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just look at the LCD display you get in the viewfinder (that tells you your shutter speed, aperture etc.) and twist the diopter nob 'till that is at its sharpest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T16:31:30.590" />
  <row Id="6684" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6681" CreationDate="2011-01-09T16:33:14.733" Score="30" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Remember that what you're looking at through the viewfinder is the image from the lens projected onto a ground-glass viewing screen. You want the diopter to be adjusted so you can see that most clearly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fortunately, this means that you can use the etched lines on the focusing screen, as well as the status information in the viewfinder, to adjust the diopter. Point the camera at a featureless bright-but-not-overwhelming subject (a white wall, say), and set the lens's focus such that the wall is just a blur. Now ignore that and set the diopter so the focus screen markings and indicator information are as sharp as you can get them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-09T16:42:06.833" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T16:42:06.833" />
  <row Id="6685" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6671" CreationDate="2011-01-09T16:41:01.593" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had a 70-200 f2.8IS repaired by canon and the repair was first rate. The lens fell out of a camera backpack and hit the pavement. I expected the repair to be extremely costly but was very moderate. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should be able to get a firm estimate from the repair depot before proceeding. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3124" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T16:41:01.593" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6686" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6632" CreationDate="2011-01-09T17:01:51.943" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Flash pulse has a very short duration, and, as long as you keep the exposure long enough not to interefere with your &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1615/what-is-sync-speed&quot;&gt;max. sync speed&lt;/a&gt;, so you can safely ignore shutter settings when it comes to flash exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you can do when shooting with flash is one of the two things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;ignore ambient light and just use the flash&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/5J4HT.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;flash only&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This way, all you want to do is shoot with flash, which usually sets its power automatically via E-TTL or something. So you set you &quot;usual&quot; exposure just so it does not get it the way. This means flipping to manual mode and setting:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;shutter: your max sync speed (usually around 1/200 sec)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;aperture: according to how much DoF you need. smaller aperture eats up more of your  flash power&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ISO: whatever you want, lower ISOs means you have to use more flash power, and you have lower noise&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously, if the resulting shutter/aperture/ISO combination is sensitive enough to catch any of ambient light that is already present in the scene, you'll have picture that has both. When you encounter that, you can either adjust aperture or ISO to kill it, or moving on to the next option&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;combine flash with ambient light&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/wyLKZ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;flash with ambient&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a bit more tricky, because you want both of these different lighting aspects to work together. Basically, you have four ways to alter exposure:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;flash power: this obviously changes just exposure of the flash, usually set automatically by camera. A lot of times you can alter it by flash exposure compensation and similar controls, or just flip flash to manual mode&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;shutter: as long as you don't run into sync speed issues, this does not influence flash at all, works the way you're used to and affects only ambient exposure&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;aperture: affects DoF and ambient exposure, also affects exposure of the flash, but if you have that on auto it just compensates it automatically&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ISO: well known effect on noise, similar to aperture in regard of flash exposure&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Knowing all this, you can switch to manual, and fiddle with it until you get what you want (above it's 400 ISO and f/3.5, 1/40 sec to get background exposed decently and flash exposure lock on the dog to get it flashed properly).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another option is to switch to aperture priority and ISO and aperture, which will make the camera auto-adjust shutter to get proper ambient exposure, and flash power to get proper flash exposure. You can then fiddle with AE compensation to alter ambient and with FE compensation to alter flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-09T17:31:53.980" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T17:31:53.980" />
  <row Id="6687" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-01-09T17:03:05.863" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pentax is a Japanese camera maker, founded in 1919. Since 2007, it is a subsidiary of Hoya Corporation. The company makes point &amp;amp; shoot digital cameras, APS-C dSLRs, and a medium format digital SLR, (the 645D).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pentax USA: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaximaging.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pentaximaging.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pentax Japan: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentax.jp/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pentax.jp/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Useful links:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bojidar Dimitrov's Pentax K-Mount Page&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://pttl.mattdm.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pentax P-TTL Flash Comparison&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pdml.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pentax Discuss Mailing List&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PentaxForums&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pentax Photo Gallery&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-09T17:08:17.310" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T17:08:17.310" />
  <row Id="6688" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-01-09T17:03:05.863" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="Pentax is a Japanese camera company which produces compact digital cameras, and APS-C and medium-format digital SLRs." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-11T20:00:54.767" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T20:00:54.767" />
  <row Id="6689" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6305" CreationDate="2011-01-09T17:04:10.853" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I upgraded from a D40 to a D200 (it didn't make me a better photographer, but that's another story...). I really enjoy using the D200, it's a very solid camera and had good image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I can see here in Sweden a used D200 will go for around €400 now. So saving up for some more time can really help! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T17:04:10.853" />
  <row Id="6690" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6179" CreationDate="2011-01-09T17:10:01.863" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On my D200, I used the setting that enabled setting the aperture on the lens when it has an aperture ring. I used it on my AF lenses. However, when I started using the 35/1.8 AF-S G I found it was easier to just set the aperture from the body on all lenses where this is possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a bit of an adjustment but you quickly get used to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T17:10:01.863" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6691" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2451" CreationDate="2011-01-09T17:16:48.363" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd get the 35/1.8 if you're on a DX camera (I own the lens). It's newer, lighter, has full-time manual focus override, 1/3 of a stop faster and is cheaper to boot. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I've seen on the used market it keeps its value quite well, so don't be afraid to buy it to try it out!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T17:16:48.363" />
  <row Id="6692" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6671" CreationDate="2011-01-09T17:20:20.613" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some people pay good money for a lens like this! See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensbaby.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lensbaby.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3095" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T17:20:20.613" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6693" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6675" CreationDate="2011-01-09T17:47:18.417" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php?displayattachment=rotating&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Neocamera says there are 27 cameras with rotating displays&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php?displayattachment=rotating&amp;amp;size=compact&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Two of them are compact&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php?displayattachment=rotating&amp;amp;ultrazoom=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;four are ultra-zooms&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anytime you are looking for cameras with specific features, it's an easy search. Just use the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Camera Finder By Specifications&lt;/a&gt; page.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In your case, select Display Attachment -&gt; Rotating and Size -&gt; Compact. You can then refine your results by clicking on features in the orange box on the left.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T17:47:18.417" />
  <row Id="6694" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6618" CreationDate="2011-01-09T17:55:44.593" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If your on-camera flash is affecting your exposure, you can use one of theses 'shields':-&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Flash-Couplers/4905/SG-31R-IR-Panel-for-Built-In-Flash.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Flash-Couplers/4905/SG-31R-IR-Panel-for-Built-In-Flash.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2973" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T17:55:44.593" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6695" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6618" CreationDate="2011-01-09T17:57:57.370" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, actually, the preflash is a &lt;em&gt;two-way&lt;/em&gt; dialog between the control flash (in this case, built in to the D7000) and the remote units. There used to be a great explanation of this at &lt;a href=&quot;http://waalsdorp.nl/~alson/CLS-wireless-protocol/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://waalsdorp.nl/~alson/CLS-wireless-protocol/&lt;/a&gt;, but that site appears completely down and I can't find a new home or a cached version. There's also a basic capture of the exchange at the (free-but-annoying registration required) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&amp;amp;forum=154&amp;amp;topic_id=38452&amp;amp;mesg_id=38452&amp;amp;page=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikonians Forum&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, the control flash fires a minimal pulse, which actually triggers a reduced-power response from the remote flashes. The TTL system in the camera measures this response, and uses it to calculate the right power levels for each. (This may or may not include the control flash.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, the controller flashes again with a reduced-power series of pulses which digitally encode instructions for the remotes, and in response every flash that's included in the exposure fires its main pulse. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of this happens so quickly that it's impossible (or at least extremely difficult) to observe it unaided.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the last control flash actually happens with the shutter open, so even though it's at low power, if you have a wide aperture, or if a reflection of the camera appears in the scene, it can actually be seen. I assume this is a necessity in order to get the timing to work out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(This works the same way for Pentax as well, although without separate control groups. I assume Canon and Olympus are basically the same but I don't know.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-09T20:39:43.843" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T20:39:43.843" />
  <row Id="6696" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-01-09T18:16:45.050" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Equipment recommendations &lt;strong&gt;are&lt;/strong&gt; allowed here, however we do prefer that they be specific enough to be answerable, yet general enough in the sense of overall information requested, that they are useful to the broadest audience possible. Questions about a specific camera for sale at a specific store or only available in a narrow locale would be off-topic, however questions about the most beneficial camera for general vacationing with friends or family, that is light enough to carry around everywhere, and that can be purchased within a certain budget, would be acceptable. The answers to such a question should provide useful insight to as many viewers as possible until the next round of new equipment is released from manufacturers, and for some time thereafter as bargain shoppers look at the same equipment for better prices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/faq&quot;&gt;the site faq&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.photo.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/equipment-recommendations&quot;&gt;discussion on meta.photo.stackexchange.com&lt;/a&gt; for more details about equipment recommendations here at photo.stackexchange.com. Despite the general sense regarding equipment recommendations and &quot;shopping&quot; on most StackExchange sites, here at Photo-SE we feel that equipment is a truly fundamental aspect of photography at large, and helping our members find the right equipment to best service their needs is important to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-06-02T04:21:11.053" LastActivityDate="2011-06-02T04:21:11.053" />
  <row Id="6697" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-01-09T18:16:45.050" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="Equipment recommendation questions should be specific about budget and goals, yet general enough to be useful to as many readers as possible. Equipment recommendation answers should be worded to be as useful as possible to the broadest range of readers, and when possible account for future price drops (for bargain hunters looking for a cheap &quot;older&quot; camera) to improve the longevity of such topics." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-06-02T04:21:11.083" LastActivityDate="2011-06-02T04:21:11.083" />
  <row Id="6698" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6676" CreationDate="2011-01-09T19:06:30.830" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Kevin your conclusion seems to be correct, the D3100 autofocus modes require the focus point to be in focus unless you hold the AF button.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On my Nikon D700 there is a menu setting to set the shutter to release on press or release on focus. There is also a second AF-ON button on the back.  I set a custom setting to release on press and a momentary press of the AF-ON button locks the focus and the camera will shoot after re framing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3129" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T19:06:30.830" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6699" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-09T20:08:34.173" Score="5" ViewCount="204" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've owned the 20D since 2004 and my main criticism is it's dynamic range compared to print film (which I preferred to slide film because of difficulties shooting dark/light scenes).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone tell me how much of an improvement the latest technology is (eg 7D) and whether full frame sensors are much better again? Using this site &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dxomark.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dxomark.com&lt;/a&gt;, it looked like there isn't significant improvement (not what i wanted to hear) so I thought I would ask people about real life usage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3131" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T22:03:23.310" Title="How much has dynamic range improved since the EOS 20D?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;dynamic-range&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6700" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6699" CreationDate="2011-01-09T20:57:23.820" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I guess you don't call 3 EV significant? I would say, it is, but it is subjective. Even&#xA;one EV is a big, step as it represents twice the contrast for each additional stop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;DxOMark says the DR of the Canon 20D is 11 EV while the Pentax K-5, which is the top model in terms of DR now, shows 14.1 EVs. There are a few models that capture above 13 EVs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt; With respect to full-frame vs non-full-frame, the current state is that besides the Nikon D3X, the top performers in terms of dynamic-range are either cropped-sensor (Pentax K-5, Nikon D7000, Fuji S5, etc) or medium-formats.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Side note: You may notice that it took years of improvements in conventional sensor design to catch up with the Fuji S5 Pro.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-09T22:03:23.310" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T22:03:23.310" CommentCount="13" />
  <row Id="6701" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6699" CreationDate="2011-01-09T21:53:01.190" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my experience, I've noticed much more fine detail in shadows and highlights when I upgraded from the 20D to the 5D mk II. Of course, the increas is only beneficial until you display the images on screen - whilst you consider the current range of sensors use 14 bit depth to capture the intensity of each colour component in the image, graphics cards only work to 8 bits per channel; obviously if you're printing, then you can use the luxury of 16 bits per channel, but you're stil going to be limited by the colour gamut of your printer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The extended bit depth is especially useful if you shoot in RAW mode, and you need to do some exposure compensation off camera. The later cameras are a lot more forgiving than the 20D is, but it is still better to get it right &quot;in camera&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T21:53:01.190" />
  <row Id="6702" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6725" CreationDate="2011-01-09T22:04:01.967" Score="10" ViewCount="245" Body="&lt;p&gt;In doing research prior to purchasing my first flash for my DSLR system I have come across a wealth of information, including this &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/570/what-attributes-should-i-look-for-when-buying-batteries-for-a-flash&quot;&gt;post&lt;/a&gt; that outlined many great points in selecting the best rechargeable batteries for use with the flash unit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since I will use the flash unit in far between outings I was planing to use regular batteries at first. I am still trying to decide if rechargeable batteries are justified for my limited use situation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since I have loads of batteries laying around to run my 2 year old's toys, I always have them on hand. I know they are not cheap and to make a sound decision, I need to know how fast or how many flash cycles I can expect to get on a set of batteries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To add some context, on a single night I can take anywhere from 500 to 1,000 photos. If half were to use flash would i last the night on a single set? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The flash I will probably purchase is either the Nikon speed light 600 or the new 700.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-09T22:52:21.537" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T18:42:51.457" Title="Does a flash work well with regular alkaline batteries?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;batteries&gt;&lt;alkaline&gt;&lt;lithium&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6703" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-09T22:08:37.457" Score="8" ViewCount="212" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does anybody have any recommendations for Photography Sites that give you some basic yet good instructions on shooting weddings? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3135" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-10T05:34:53.380" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T19:18:11.567" Title="Best Sites for Simplified Instructions in Taking Wedding Photos" Tags="&lt;tips&gt;&lt;web&gt;&lt;wedding&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="6704" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6706" CreationDate="2011-01-09T22:31:03.963" Score="0" ViewCount="161" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a SanDisk Extreme 32GB SDHC memory card from my Nikon D90 and when I plug it into my Windows XP machine it first asked for a username and password, and giving one, it now says 'Not accessible, The directory name is invalid.'  It shows as a drive named: canon_memory on '75822e000000'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please suggest how I can view my pictures on the computer.  I'm trying Nikon Transfer for usb connect, but would rather read the card directly if possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2371" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T23:06:48.063" Title="Why does SD card from Nikon D90 ask for user name and password on Windows XP?" Tags="&lt;nikon-d90&gt;&lt;sdhc&gt;&lt;windows-xp&gt;&lt;nikon-transfer&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6705" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6702" CreationDate="2011-01-09T22:50:47.047" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm guessing that by &quot;regular batteries&quot;, you mean run-of-the-mill alkaline cells, the typical Energizer, Duracell, etc. that you can buy in any grocery store. This chemistry does poorly in high-current situations; I'd think that recharging a flash would be that kind of load, so performance would not be too great. My &lt;em&gt;guess&lt;/em&gt; would be that you would need quite a few sets of alkaline cells to power a night of 250-500 flashes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't want to go rechargeable to start, you could try non-rechargeable lithium AA cells (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Energizer-Ultimate-L91BP-4-Lithium-Battery/dp/B00003IEME&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;e.g.&lt;/a&gt;), which are pretty widely available and support the high-current needs of a flash. In addition to better life, you'll also gain shorter recycle times and they are a bit lighter. They run about $10 for a set of four here in Boston.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T22:50:47.047" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="6706" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6704" CreationDate="2011-01-09T23:06:48.063" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ensure you have the current images copied off via Nikon Transfer with your D90 connected directly to your computer, then I would suggest using the D90 to format the entire memory card to remove any pre-installed software and/or directories.  This should resolve any access issues when putting the memory card in to a card reader.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the D90 there are two buttons used to format the memory card, the Metering button and the Format button.  Hold them both down together until the LCD screen flashes 'FOR', then release and push them together again, this will format the card ready for use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a habit I do this every time I start a shoot, just to ensure that any bad sectors are not used and that any old files are not taking space.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let us know how you get on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1410" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T23:06:48.063" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6707" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6703" CreationDate="2011-01-09T23:10:57.203" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have found the Digital Photography School site fairly decent for some tutorials and tips, here is a basic set of tips for wedding photography ... &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/wedding-photography-tips-to-get-you-started&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/wedding-photography-tips-to-get-you-started&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1410" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T23:10:57.203" />
  <row Id="6708" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6746" CreationDate="2011-01-09T23:15:57.747" Score="14" ViewCount="439" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just finished re-calibrating my display using ArgyllCMS and my Pantone Huey, and I would like to validate somehow that I've done it correctly. How can I do so simply, without buying more stuff?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I've done some Googling, which reveals tons of test images and instructions, and I'm having a hard time cutting through the pile.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't have a printer and use online services for printing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; I'm not looking for anything terribly precise, just a sanity check. For example, one test image says something like &quot;you should be able to distinguish all the blacks down to number N&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another way of expressing the question might be: is it worthwhile to download one of those test images, and if so, which one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-10T01:49:27.523" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T03:00:03.537" Title="How can I validate my monitor's color calibration?" Tags="&lt;color-management&gt;&lt;display-calibration&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="6709" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6708" CreationDate="2011-01-09T23:19:55.810" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For me, the best way to determine if I had properly calibrated my monitor was to print something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have a printer that's been properly calibrated, or isn't too far off from what the manufacturer expects, then you should be able to 'just print', and the print should look like the monitor screen (at least, in the same light that you calibrated the monitor).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't want to calibrate your printer, you're kind of shooting in the dark here, so to speak, and hoping that your printer is properly calibrated, such that the print looks like the monitor screen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another way to do this is to look on the same print on multiple different monitors all calibrated with the same tool.  Again, they should look very similar, although different monitors may display different gamuts and therefore lead to different appearances, despite all being calibrated by the same device.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2011-01-09T23:19:55.810" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6710" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6715" CreationDate="2011-01-10T00:07:52.610" Score="8" ViewCount="545" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am trying to get a shot of the subject that is a foot or two away from the background that I would like to have show as blurry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what I am going after. Notice how the face of the dog is in focus and his rump is already very blurry. &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/jessejames77/3525437289/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dog&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what I get at max aperture of f/1.8 with my 35mm prime lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: The items behind my daughter are about 2 feet from her. My guess is the dog's tail is about the same distance from his face and is way more blurry. What am i missing?&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/oBIbI.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I thought with an aperture of f/1.8 I would get a razor thin depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: Here is an image I took inches from my daughter and the bokeh is nice at the distance the TV is. I am about 10 inches from the subject and seem to get nice bokeh at about ten feet behind her (distance from her to the tv). I would love to be able to get that same bokeh at 1 foot behind her. Is that possible and what hardware would be needed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/HNLCH.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="2200" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-11T11:56:29.327" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T11:56:29.327" Title="What am I doing wrong that I can not get a shallow DOF effect?" Tags="&lt;depth-of-field&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="6711" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6710" CreationDate="2011-01-10T00:12:00.327" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The subject distance is much closer in the dog picture. DOF decreases rapidly with closer subject distance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Spend an afternoon on:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Trying different settings and you'll soon get a feel for how to minimise DOF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T00:12:00.327" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="6712" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6615" CreationDate="2011-01-10T00:12:51.873" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Regarding the statement: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is lower ISO always better?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There seem to be a variety of opinions on this topic, and while they may seem mutually exclusive, I am not certain that is the case. There is no cut and dry &quot;Yes, X ISO setting is always better.&quot; I think which is better is very dependent on context...on what it is you are trying to shoot, and what kind of light is available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The two points of view expressed so fare include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use the highest ISO possible to maximize saturation (and therefor minimize noise) without clipping highlights.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use the lowest ISO possible to minimize noise while using the correct shutter and aperture to achieve a proper exposure.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The general consensus is that opting for the lowest ISO possible to achieve a proper exposure is the best approach. That statement is heavily laden with hidden meaning, however, as the lowest ISO &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;possible&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; may not necessarily be ISO 100. You may be forced to use a higher shutter speed or a narrower aperture to achieve the necessary &lt;em&gt;creative&lt;/em&gt; effects you desire, forcing you to use a higher ISO to maintain proper exposure. You may also face issues with available light and reach the limits of your lens (i.e. maximum aperture) and be forced to use a higher ISO to achieve a correct exposure. I think that is the point Matt Grum has been trying to make. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Barring any specific creative needs (i.e. action-freezing shutter speed or large DOF via small aperture), the lowest ISO setting with the necessary shutter and aperture to produce a &quot;correct&quot; exposure (i.e. an exposure that is neither over or under exposed, or if you follow ETTR, one that has not blown out any highlights) is, still, the best practice. This can be easily demonstrated, as the sample shots below show. This set of examples is shot with several things in mind:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is no requirement for a short shutter speed, so it could be as long as necessary to get a correct exposure.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is no requirement for depth of field, so the widest aperture will do.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The available light is fixed, and can not be changed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A tripod and cable release will be used to eliminate any camera shake.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rVqx6.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The clearest shot is, as you can see, the ISO 100 shot. At maximum aperture, ISO 100 required a 0.6 second exposure time. This is pretty long, but since there was no motion, a lengthy exposure is not an issue. The ISO 1600 shot is still properly exposed, and used a shutter speed exactly four stops faster than the ISO 100 shot. Despite being properly exposed, there is obviously additional noise. The final shot was another ISO 100 shot at the same settings as the ISO 1600 shot, with the exposure value adjusted by +4EV in Lightroom. The noise level in this shot is obviously FAR higher than the other two since it has been digitally enhanced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given these examples, we can come to a few logical conclusions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Using the minimum ISO for scenes with no motion when shooting with a tripod will produce the lowest noise possible.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Common for landscapes and still life scenes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Uncommon for sports, wildlife, bird, or any other action photography.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Depends for things like portrait shots, however since you can usually control the amount of available light for portraits, a low ISO should usually be possible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Using the minimum ISO for a scene that allows you to expose correctly will minimize noise, but may not be the lowest possible noise.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you need to freeze action with a high shutter speed, or increase your DoF with a narrow aperture, you may need to increase ISO to maintain exposure.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shooting with the lowest ISO regardless of the situation is a bad idea.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This will often result in under exposure (possibly severe) when available light is not optimal.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This will result in considerably more noise when exposure is corrected in post processing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think a good way to learn what ISO settings are best for various scenes and lighting is to set your ISO to Auto, use manual mode, take a few shots, and review the results. The camera's automatic exposure metering will always try to create a &quot;proper&quot; exposure, and when you have a scene with a broad range of tones, it should choose the right setting most of the time. You can also try manually setting a higher or lower ISO than the one the camera chooses automatically, and re-take a shot to see the results. Outside of maybe landscape and still life photography, you probably won't find a single &quot;correct&quot; or &quot;best&quot; ISO setting. However, I do believe the general rule of thumb will always be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Use the &lt;strong&gt;lowest&lt;/strong&gt; ISO you can while&#xA;  maintaining a proper exposure for the&#xA;  type of shot you are making.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For still life, that will probably always be the minimum native ISO (not using any kind of ISO expansion). For landscape, that will probably be lower ISO's, such as 100 or 200. For action photography, including sports, wildlife, birds, kids, etc., the lowest ISO may change for every shot, and may vary from ISO 200 through ISO 3200 or beyond, and it will be very dependent upon available light. Lots of light will allow you to use lower ISO, less light will dictate higher ISO. Regardless of what ISO you use for action shots, another good rule of thumb is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Its always better to actually get a&#xA;  shot than miss one because you don't&#xA;  like the camera settings necessary to&#xA;  capture it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if you have to use ISO 3200 to get decent indoor sports shots with your f/1.4 lens, at least you'll get the shots. Those ISO 3200 shots &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;will&lt;/strong&gt; have &lt;strong&gt;lower&lt;/strong&gt; noise than&lt;/em&gt; the ISO 1600 shots that you underexpose then correct via post processing, as shown by the (rather extreme) example above. De-noising algorithms are also pretty advanced these days, and can greatly reduce the noise level of a high ISO shot to more acceptable levels. That again makes using a higher ISO that will ensure a correct exposure a better option than a lower ISO that will likely underexpose and require post-process correction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further investigations to cover Matt's assertions about ISO have lead to another sample image. The image below is split into four bands, two representing exposure following Matt's methodology, and two representing exposure where ISO is kept as low as possible. The assertion was that when trying to expose a scene, you set aperture and shutter then use the highest ISO possible without blowing out highlights, and correct exposure via post processing by reducing EV, to produce an image with the lowest noise. This contradicts the normal assertion that one should use the lowest ISO and adjust aperture and/or shutter to achieve a correct exposure to maintain the lowest noise possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Bfu5G.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Noise Test&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first and third bands in the image above were shot by choosing a specific shutter speed and aperture, then upping the ISO as far as possible without clipping highlights. The second and fourth bands in the image above were shot by choosing ISO 100 and a specific aperture, and adjusting shutter speed to achieve a correct exposure (no ETTR.) Both images were corrected in post production by using Lightroom's &quot;Auto Tone&quot; feature, which caused a reduction in the high ISO image's exposure by a little bit, and pretty much left the ISO 100 image the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a difference of three stops ISO between these two shots, and the increased noise level of the ISO 800 image is very clear in the shades. In the midtones, there is some observed increase in noise in the ISO 800 image over the ISO 100 image. In all tonal levels, fine detail has been lost to one degree or another in the ISO 800 image vs. the ISO 100 image. This can be observed by examining the remote control in its cradle, the fronts of the palm, and in any shadow tones. In the mid tones and highlights, noise levels are not specifically high enough to cause any significant degradation in print. The noise level in midtones and shadows is, however, likely to intrude onto fine details, such as one might pick up with macro photography or any photos that push the limits of resolution of a lens or sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While negative exposure compensation in post processing has indeed reduced the noise level of the high ISO image to more acceptable levels, there is no question that using the lowest ISO possible will result in lower noise than even post-process negative exposure compensation of a high ISO image. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The real question is, is it always appropriate to use the lowest ISO possible? If you &lt;strong&gt;can&lt;/strong&gt; expose the scene you are trying to capture without any undesirable side effects, such as blurring, underexposure, etc. then choose the lowest real ISO you can (expanded ISO settings usually achieve a lower ISO setting through digital, rather than analog, means...so using ISO 50 Expansion for example, should be avoided.) If you &lt;strong&gt;can not&lt;/strong&gt; expose the scene you are trying to capture without any undesirable side effects, which might be the case when photographing sports or wildlife, photographing concerts, or doing much of any kind of indoor photography involving any action, then increasing the ISO to the minimum acceptable level that will allow you to expose your scene properly (i.e. eliminate motion blur, expose at the right level, etc.) should be chosen. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have the headroom, overexposing by choosing the maximum ISO you can without clipping highlights, and applying some negative exposure compensation in post processing, can help mitigate the effects of noise of very high ISO, and will be a better choice than choosing an ISO that is too low, then applying some positive exposure compensation in post processing (which will just heighten the effects of noise.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-15T18:52:54.613" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T18:52:54.613" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="6713" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6710" CreationDate="2011-01-10T00:28:36.987" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Comparing specifically, here's the parameters on the dog photo:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;f/1.4 vs. your f/1.8&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;85mm lens vs. 35mm&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;full-frame sensor vs. crop sensor (maybe)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;subject may be closer (not 100% sure here)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All four of these things will lead to a shallower DOF if you have a crop sensor, and everything except #3 if you have a full-frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can plug these numbers into the tool Matt suggests to see exactly how much; I suspect you'll be surprised. At 1 meter to subject, just going from f/1.8 &amp;amp; 35mm to f/1.4 &amp;amp; 85mm will take you from a 60 cm deep zone of focus to 10 cm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, to get a really shallow DOF you want to use a long lens with a large aperture and get close to the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T00:28:36.987" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6714" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6708" CreationDate="2011-01-10T00:42:05.487" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's impossible to validate your color calibration without a 'real world' calibration source... Literally something that you're able to hold up to your monitor and saying 'yep, those colors on the screen are matching what I'm holding in my hand.' If you don't have a (reliable) printer in order to check your calibration, you can buy a calibrated color checker card such as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xrite.com/product_overview.aspx?ID=1192&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;X-Rite ColorChecker Classic&lt;/a&gt;. After you take a picture of the card you'll be able to hold the card up to the screen and verify whether or not the colors are correct...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; I realize that this doesn't fulfill your requirement of 'not buying something,' but short of a printer to generate that real-world source for you, you're probably stuck shelling out some $$$.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T00:42:05.487" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6715" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6710" CreationDate="2011-01-10T00:49:07.503" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the key difference here is subject distance. Depth of field is a function of aperture, subject distance, and focal length. The closer you are to your subject, the thinner your depth of field will be. That said, longer focal length is also a way to get the effect you are looking for as well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have the option, using a wider lens with a wide aperture very close to your subjects will produce that very nice, very thin DoF and produce that dreamy, creamy background blur. However, if you do not have the option of getting in real close, a longer focal length will also produce that dreamy bokeh. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You mentioned you were using a 35mm f/1.8 prime lens for the shot of your daughter. Try using a 50mm f/1.8, or even an 85mm f/1.8. Each one will successively narrow your field of view, but in doing so, they will also &quot;compress&quot; the background. That is, make it appear as though it is closer to the primary subject, and increase the amount of visible blur in it as well. You will want to shoot at the same distance as with the 35mm, however doing so will shrink the scope of the scene. With a 50mm, you might only capture the blue part of the ladder, and exclude that fantastically giant &quot;rubber ducky&quot;. At 85mm, you would probably narrow the scene down to just your daughter, and maybe a little bit of the ladder. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can, obviously, also reduce your DoF by getting closer with the 35mm, and keeping your aperture wide open. You might not get as much blur, however you would keep more of the background in the scene.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T00:49:07.503" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="6716" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-10T01:28:26.450" Score="-5" ViewCount="157" Body="&lt;p&gt;Which is the best Canon Macro len to use with a T2i ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3138" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-10T02:11:09.883" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T02:11:09.883" ClosedDate="2011-01-10T19:52:53.010" Title="Canon EOS Macro" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;macro&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6717" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6716" CreationDate="2011-01-10T01:48:42.230" Score="-5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Personally, I would say it's the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3139" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T01:48:42.230" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6718" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6716" CreationDate="2011-01-10T01:51:46.163" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on your budget really, but let me just explain the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/ef_lens_lineup/lens_macro_pro&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;macro lenses&lt;/a&gt; available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;50 mm - This one doesn't do 1x1 mapping, but aside from that, is alright.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;60 mm - This one is limited to the EF-s cameras (Crop sensor), but it does go all the way to 1x1. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;65 mm - This one is a manual focus, but will let you get really close, with a penalty of not doing non-macro. This will focus a grain of rice full frame at max zoom.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;100mm - There are two varieties, one with Image Stabilization and one without. Both are excellent lens, but if you can afford it, get the one with IS.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;180mm - This is a ways away, but still a great lens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The larger the focal length, the further away you can get from your target. If your target is flowers, get the cheapest one you can get. If your target is insects, you might consider getting the larger lens so as to be further away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Nikon users out there, there's a similar selection, with similar rules. Hope this helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I should say, the one that I'm planning on getting is the 100mm, with IS if I can afford it but without if I have to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T01:51:46.163" />
  <row Id="6719" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6716" CreationDate="2011-01-10T01:53:39.727" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Best is a very subjective term, and susceptible to both user bias and usage bias. There are a variety of macro lenses available for the EF mount, and they all serve different purposes and usage scenarios. Depending on what you want to do, a different macro lens may serve your needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The primary difference between macro lenses is their &quot;working distance&quot;. Generally speaking, a longer focal length will give you more working distance at the minimum focusing distance. This can be important when trying to photograph things like insects, which might get spooked and buzz off when you come around with and try to get your lens a couple centimeters from them. On the flip side, longer focal lengths have narrower fields of view, which may not be ideal for things like product photography. Shorter focal lengths widen the field of view, and can reduce the working distance. The closer you can get, the more detail you will ultimately be able to extract from a subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond the intrinsic capabilities of a macro lens, you should also think about extrinsic capabilities. Some lenses support extension tubes, which allow you to reduce working distance and get in closer. You can take a 1:1 macro lens, slap on some extension tubes, and gain even greater magnification (say 2x, or 2:1). Not every lens is compatible with extension tubes, however, as too much extension will put the focal plane right inside the lens, making it impossible to focus on anything. Some lenses also support teleconverters, making their focal length longer, and allowing a greater working distance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you need to really get in close, and magnify details as much as possible, for still life subjects, you will probably want a shorter focal length. If you need a large working distance, so you don't spook insects or encroach on the lighting of your subject (such as flowers), you will probably want a longer focal length. Canon offers macro lenses in a variety of focal lengths serving all needs:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-60mm-f-2.8-Macro-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Supports extension tubes&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;12mm -&gt; 1.28x magnification&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;25mm -&gt; 1.61x magnification&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does not support teleconverters&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Supports extension tubes&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;12mm -&gt; 1.19x magnification&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;25mm -&gt; 1.39x magnification&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does not support teleconverters&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-180mm-f-3.5-L-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L USM Macro Lens&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Supports extension tubes&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;12mm -&gt; 1.09x magnification&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;25mm -&gt; 1.21x magnification&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Supports teleconverters&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-MP-E-65mm-1-5x-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro Lens&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Specialty, high magnification super macro lens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Built-in extension allows 1:1 to 5:1 (1x through 5x) magnification&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does not support extension tubes&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does not support teleconverters&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T01:53:39.727" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="6720" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6716" CreationDate="2011-01-10T01:55:46.767" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As usual, this really depends on what you want to shoot, and your budget. If you are looking for the most powerful macro, then undoubtedly the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/mp_e_65mm_f_2_8_1_5x_macro_photo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo&lt;/a&gt; is the best. However, it is hardly usable for any non-macro work (it can't focus to infinity, for example). &quot;Best&quot; price-wise, probably the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_s_60mm_f_2_8_macro_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF-S 60mm f/2.8&lt;/a&gt;, which has great reviews and is intended for crop sensor. Otherwise, in the Canon line there are a few more options of various focal length - again, &quot;best&quot; is determined by what you want to shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T01:55:46.767" />
  <row Id="6721" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6708" CreationDate="2011-01-10T02:07:30.967" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you could just take a picture of something, making sure to calibrate the camera first using a white sheet of paper or something, and make sure the color looked right. If it looks the same on the monitor that it does in real life, it should be pretty closely calibrated. Short of that, well, I really don't know what you could do...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T02:07:30.967" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6722" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6702" CreationDate="2011-01-10T02:24:24.813" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Non-rechargeable Lithium batteries will definitely last longer than standard alkaline batteries... anywhere from 3x to 5x longer, depending on who you ask, and how it is measured. You will also get faster recycle times with non-rechargeable Lithium batteries as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two important things to know about non-rechargeable Lithium batteries before you dive in, though:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Alkaline batteries taper off in power over time so you can kinda 'see the end coming,' but when lithium batteries die, they die &lt;em&gt;quick&lt;/em&gt;. One shot you're at full-power, two shots later you're done. This isn't necessarily a reason not to use them, it's just something to be aware of because you won't 'just be able to squeeze a few more shots out of the batteries before you change them.' Most of the time you won't even see the end coming until the batteries are already dead. The old photographers adage of 'pack one more set of batteries than you think you'll need... and then pack 2 more sets' certainly applies here.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lithium batteries get hot from use if they're used constantly without a break. I mean like 'hey why is the plastic in my flash getting melty all of a sudden' hot. (Really. You haven't lived until you've experienced your on-camera flash literally start to &lt;em&gt;droop&lt;/em&gt; because the batteries have melted the plastic and fried the electronics) This is the primary reason you see warnings in the back of many electronics manuals that explicitly state that lithium batteries 'should not be used with this device.' It's generally the small print that none of us bother to read, naturally. :-/ This doesn't tend to ever be an issue with 'moderate use' shooters, &lt;strong&gt;but it &lt;em&gt;might&lt;/em&gt; be for you&lt;/strong&gt; if you're shooting '500 to 1,000 shots' and happen to be using higher power without giving the batteries enough chance to dissipate heat. It's important to note that Lithium &lt;em&gt;Ion&lt;/em&gt; batteries (rechargeable) do not have these same heat problems and are perfectly safe to use in flashes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your mileage may vary, but what works for me knowing the above is this... I use lithium batteries when I'm doing small/short shoots (2 hours or less) where I expect to be shooting less than 200 shots, or for slightly longer shoots when I know I'm going to spend most of my time using lower power flash pops. If I'm doing an all-day shoot, and/or I know there's a possibility that I'll be popping the flash a lot with the possibility of long stretches at high-power (at a wedding, for example), I use alkalines and carry a lot of spares. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't use rechargeables because I find the recharging process to be fiddly, and I've never found a good system for sorting out charged vs. need-charging, etc. Mostly I'm just lazy. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T02:24:24.813" />
  <row Id="6723" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6710" CreationDate="2011-01-10T04:14:17.190" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One thing you might also try is to &lt;strong&gt;position your subject further away from walls.&lt;/strong&gt; As you can see from playing with the DoF calculator that others have mentioned, distance from your subject increases depth of field. Practically, what this means is that you should be aware of the &lt;em&gt;relative distances between your camera, your subject, and your background.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a nutshell, &lt;strong&gt;the further away you are from your subject, the further the background must be from &lt;em&gt;them&lt;/em&gt; to be blurred.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By way of example, I take lots of photos of my daughters with a Canon 50mm ƒ1.8 Ⅱ lens on an APS-C Rebel XSi body. If I select ƒ4 and position my subject 10 feet away, the far limit of my depth of field is 11 feet. If I position my subject 20 feet away, the limit is 24.5 feet. &lt;strong&gt;An object at these positions will be &lt;em&gt;equally blurry&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You say that you cannot get closer to your daughter. That’s fine — what you &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; do is &lt;strong&gt;recompose so the background is further away from her,&lt;/strong&gt; which will have the same effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1905" LastEditorUserId="1905" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-10T05:48:06.927" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T05:48:06.927" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6724" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-10T05:23:00.923" Score="4" ViewCount="376" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've found it really difficult to pinpoint exactly what remotes are compatible with the Canon EOS 60D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The camera specifications say, &quot;N3 type wired remote control&quot; (which doesn't mean a lot to me).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://canon.com.au/en-AU/For-You/Digital-Cameras/EOS-Digital-SLR-Cameras/60D&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon's AU website&lt;/a&gt; has no remote accessories listed for the camera, and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canon.com.au/en-au/For-You/Accessories/DSLR-Camera-Accessories/Remote%20Control/TC80N3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;TC80N3 remote&lt;/a&gt; (which I &lt;em&gt;think&lt;/em&gt; might work) doesn't have the 60D listed as a compatible camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone give me any pointers as to which remotes are compatible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1655" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T07:55:25.813" Title="What remotes are available for the Canon EOS 60D?" Tags="&lt;remote&gt;&lt;triggers&gt;&lt;canon-60d&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="6725" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6702" CreationDate="2011-01-10T05:28:35.240" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nikon produces excellent manuals for their flashes, with a lot of great technical information (rivaled in this area only by Metz). The following is from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/Speedlights/SB-600.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SB-600 User Manual&lt;/a&gt;, page 19:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Alkaline-manganese | 3.5 sec. | 200  / 6-30 sec.&#xA;Lithium            | 4.0 sec. | 400  / 7.5-30 sec.&#xA;Nickel             | 2.5 sec. | 180  / 6-30 sec.&#xA;NiCd (1000 mAh)    | 2.9 sec. |  90  / 4-30 sec.&#xA;Ni-MH (2000 mA)    | 2.5 sec. | 220  / 4-30 sec.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first column is the type, followed by approximate time between full-power flashes (best case), followed by the number of flashes you can expect to get, followed by the typical recharge time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, on a further chart, Nikon recommends recharging your NiCds or NiMHs when the recycling time drops to 10 seconds, whereas it's suggested to keep your alkalines until they're taking a full half a minute between flashes. (It's worth noting that they give the 10-seconds-then-trash recommendation for Lithium primary cells too.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, you can see that while Lithiums last longer, it's not so much more than NiMH that it's really going to be worth it except in extraordinary circumstances (like, no access to power for weeks).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most important differentiator here, though, is the recycle time. It takes 50% more time to be ready to go again when using alkaline batteries. That alone is a reason to go with NiMH.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if you're not going through batteries constantly, I highly recommend low-self-discharge NiMH batteries like Sanyo's Eneloops — normally, NiMH batteries drain significantly just sitting overnight, and these don't, so you can charge them up and have them ready to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-13T18:42:51.457" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T18:42:51.457" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6726" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6710" CreationDate="2011-01-10T06:37:06.647" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have a specific &quot;effect&quot; you're looking for and while a calculator like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&lt;/a&gt; will tell you the DoF range given parameters, it won't tell you if the out of focus part is out of focus &lt;em&gt;enough&lt;/em&gt; for &lt;strong&gt;you&lt;/strong&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before you lay down another chunk of change on a lens, I'd strongly recommend you borrow, rent, or use in store a lens you're considering and put it to a realistic test.  (If you test one in store, realize the distance behind your subject may be much greater than normal and could vastly overstate your results).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T06:37:06.647" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6727" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2108" CreationDate="2011-01-10T07:31:01.260" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use a single catlog - nobody I've spoken to has noticed any problems with large catalogs in Lightroom, and having everything in 1 catalog makes it a lot easier to find your photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;You probably shouldn't store all of your photos in 1 folder however&lt;/strong&gt; - many file systems have performance problems with folders containing many files (for example NTFS is reported to see noticeable performance issues with folders containing in the order of 300k files or more).  Whenever I import my photos I tend to use Lightrooms &quot;copy into folder based on date&quot; which splits up my photos into a sensible structure without me needing to think too much about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When cataloguing my photos I try to use tags and other metdata as much as possible, and instead use Collections for grouping photos that I want to publish.  For example I often apply tags based on events such as &quot;Reading Festival&quot; or &quot;Jamies Birthday&quot;, this means I can easily find all the photos I've ever taken at Reading Festival, and then use dates to filter by a specific year (Events like &quot;New Years Eve&quot;, &quot;Christmas&quot; or Birthdays that I can remember don't get a tag!).  The location metadata is also great - want to find photos of the trip to America I took last year?  No problem!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I create collections when I want to work with or publish / show off photos, for example I might create a collection &quot;Best of 2010&quot; of my favourite moments of 2010 - Because I my collections list is usually pretty empty it means I can be fairly liberal about using collections in my workflow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm only an Amateur photographer, but I'm fairly certain that with discipline the same strategy could work even for people who take many more photos than I do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1522" LastEditorUserId="1522" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-10T07:50:17.460" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T07:50:17.460" />
  <row Id="6728" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3542" CreationDate="2011-01-10T07:31:48.110" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a variety of different camera bags, backpacks and so on (I have the Slingshot 300AW).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I have found works best for airplane travel if you're not willing to check a locked Pelican case, is a medium sized Eagle Creek cargo duffle bag, into which I can fit my Sligshot 300AW loaded with anything that can fit, and also a Lowepro Toploader AW 75 (the longest camera case they sell), AND a manfrotto 3051 3-section tripod (nowadays something lighter and a little smaller), plus a number of other things (like a ballhead removed from the top of the tripod).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The camera cases keep things padded, or I can also pad out a few other extra lenses with clothes (Galen Rowell recommended this travel technique even when checking lenses and cameras!!).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best part about a duffel bag is it looks inconspicuous, it doesn't seem like you have a lot of gear - but even better no-one questions its size to fit in overhead storage.  In particular I mentioned it was an Eagle Creek bag because that particular bag has been very strong, and has not had any issues with wear carrying all this gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And because you get a personal item in addition to the duffel, you can have a whole separate laptop case - I have a a pretty big bag that I can fit a 17&quot; laptop in, along with a ton of accessories and a few books and a compact external HD (really two, one for backup), as long as it looks like it will go under a seat you are fine.  On a regional commuter jet I remove the slingshot and Toploader case from the duffel to carry them on-board with my laptop (they can fit in the smaller overheads) and hand-check the duffle bag (this is the time where whatever is left need to have decent padding).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The downside of this whole system is: no wheels, you'll have to carry everything you can put into it.  That's why you should not get anything larger than the medium sized bag...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But again, to re-iterate - the upside is you don't look like you have a ton of photo gear and you'll never have anyone say &quot;that's too big to bring on board&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that's just for air travel, you also mentioned you'd like extra space to carry a guidebook and a few extra things while on location.  You could get the 300AW, that might have enough space for a guidebook too. Or you could get the long toploader case, a lot of books would fit in the side compartment and you can carry a camera with a lens, plus and extra lens under it if both lenses are not too long.  Or just get an iPod touch and use guidebooks from that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T07:31:48.110" />
  <row Id="6729" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2674" CreationDate="2011-01-10T07:46:05.607" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I strongly recommend Whitewall &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whitewall.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.whitewall.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A bit pricey for routine printing of snaps - but excellent value for those times you want a really good quality result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are particularly good for larger format prints and I was very impressed with a recent print mounted on Aluminum and under acrylic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A nice feature is that you are not confined to the standard dimensions for prints - you can crop to any aspect ratio.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3144" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T07:46:05.607" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-10T07:46:05.607" />
  <row Id="6730" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6724" CreationDate="2011-01-10T07:55:25.813" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;'N3' refers to the connector type for the remotes... It is a proprietary Canon standard, and Canon remotes which are compatible with the 60D have 'N3' in their model numbers, specifically:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon Remote Switch (RS-80N3)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Timer Remote Controller (TC-80N3)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also several companies that make N3 compatible wired remotes, including offerings from Adidt, Nova Photography, and Seculine. Generally speaking these tend to be cheaper (sometimes significantly so) but as you might imagine, quality can range from excellent to abysmal, so look for reviews before buying off-brand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T07:55:25.813" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6731" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-10T11:01:17.167" Score="-2" ViewCount="327" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are your reccomendations for the best extended-zoom digital camera? I am talking 20x zoom plus....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3148" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T17:21:32.990" Title="Best Long-Zoom Digital Camera" Tags="&lt;camera-suggestion&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6732" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6734" CreationDate="2011-01-10T11:14:02.790" Score="3" ViewCount="1720" Body="&lt;p&gt;As rumors predict the launch of the new version of a product &quot;soon&quot;, do you think it is interesting to wait for a few months before buying a new instance of the by-then &quot;old&quot; version of the product for its future hypothetical low price?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3149" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-12T17:17:18.553" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T17:17:18.553" Title="Should I wait for product version X to be released before buying the now-current version?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;pricing&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="6733" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6703" CreationDate="2011-01-10T11:47:39.437" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most important tip: if your friends did ask you to take photos of their wedding and you are entirely new to this kind of photography: &lt;strong&gt;DO NOT DO IT&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Really. Spare yourself and your friends (possibly they are not your friends anymore) the disappointment. Hire a professional (they are not this expensive) and take photos along with him (ask him beforehands, he'll tell you when not to distract the people/couple). Look at his style, learn from his style ... and then start looking at websites for the third or fourth wedding that you'll shoot on your own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-10T13:57:49.863" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T13:57:49.863" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6734" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6732" CreationDate="2011-01-10T12:35:17.063" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would say no based on past experience. I was in the same position with the mkI mkII and what I observed was the price of used 5D mkIs didn't drop when the mkII was announced, nor did they drop when the camera was released and actually started shipping! It wasn't until a while after.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many reasons for this, one being demand. There were many people who wanted better AF, speed and weather sealing from the 5D successor. What they got was mote megapixels and video. So many didn't upgrade because of this (or took longer to be convinced).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another reason is that people don't buy new cameras and sell their old ones right away, they wait for the price of the new cameras to drop a bit first. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;edit:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just realised you're talking about the new price not used. The same principles apply, price drops lag the release by some time. The price of mkIIs has been dropping since the release and are now way below the price point of new models. So even when the new one is released there will still be demand for the old one (because it is cheaper) hence the price of the old model is slow to fall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-10T14:00:18.317" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T14:00:18.317" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6735" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6732" CreationDate="2011-01-10T12:45:49.753" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That is a constant question in photography (and every other gear-infested hobby out there), and of course, it's not easily answered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd buy a 5D mk II today, it seems to be a &lt;strong&gt;great&lt;/strong&gt; camera which does everything and a lot more one could need. If you were a sports photographer I'd go with the 7D (higher FPS &amp;amp; the crop factor + sealing), but otherwise the 5D mk II is a solid choice. The ISO is crazy, you get out too many megapixels already &lt;em&gt;etc&lt;/em&gt;. It will continue to be a great camera for a lot of years. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(and if the next 5D has even better ISO, think back to the film days and how ISO was then, compare it to your 5D and be &lt;code&gt;^_^&lt;/code&gt; about it)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2017" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T12:45:49.753" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6737" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6708" CreationDate="2011-01-10T15:23:52.597" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do you have Windows 7? If so, it has a color calibration like &quot;set X until you distinguish the black lines&quot;, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Control Panel\Appearance and Personalization\Display &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3153" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T15:23:52.597" />
  <row Id="6738" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6742" CreationDate="2011-01-10T15:43:26.940" Score="6" ViewCount="293" Body="&lt;p&gt;I noticed that the Mac App Store offers Aperture at a significantly reduced price - £44.95 or $79.99 (depending on region). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know if there are any differences between this online version and the boxed version I bought last year, apart from the lack of physical media? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2127" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T16:04:20.157" Title="Is the version of Aperture on the Apple Mac App Store identical to boxed version?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;apple-aperture&gt;&lt;macintosh&gt;&lt;pricing&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="6739" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6741" CreationDate="2011-01-10T15:44:22.723" Score="6" ViewCount="172" Body="&lt;p&gt;I own a Canon EOS 40D (bought slightly used) and overall I'm pretty happy, but there's one thing that's not right: according to the specifications, the buffer for continuous shooting should be able to hold around 17 RAW pictures before continuous shooting slows down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With my camera, however, the slowdown hits after 7 frames. Does my camera for some reason have less than the usual 256 MiB of memory? Any suggestions on how I can figure out why I'm not able to use the full image buffer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ETA:&lt;/strong&gt; The buffer size indicator in the lower-right of the viewfinder &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; says 6 for me, although it should say 17 normally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2616" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-11T04:45:54.193" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T04:45:54.193" Title="Why does my 40D's buffer only hold around 6–7 images before shooting slows down?" Tags="&lt;canon-40d&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="6740" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6739" CreationDate="2011-01-10T15:47:14.563" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You should check the speed of your CF card. It may be the bottleneck. Also, I am not sure (don't have the manual in front of me now), but maybe the max continuous rate is for smaller RAW files, and not max size RAW?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T15:47:14.563" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6741" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6739" CreationDate="2011-01-10T15:49:25.823" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is due to the High ISO Noise Reduction and/or Highlight Tone Priority filter being set to on; if you turn this off you should get back to about 17 RAW frames in the buffer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00N3q6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2127" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T15:49:25.823" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6742" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6738" CreationDate="2011-01-10T16:04:20.157" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The software is the same.&lt;/strong&gt;  As you note, you won't have physical media.  In theory this shouldn't be a problem since the App Store will allow you to install it on any of your OS X computers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T16:04:20.157" />
  <row Id="6743" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6708" CreationDate="2011-01-10T16:05:05.507" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The online printing service that you use may be able to provide a calibration print. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, Photobox provides a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photobox.co.uk/content/quality-advice/calibration&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sample image&lt;/a&gt; which they tend to give free with your first order. I suspect any good printing shop would be happy to send you a calibration print for free or for postal costs. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you have this, just compare the print with the online version and try to adjust your monitor / colour settings appropriately. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2127" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T16:05:05.507" />
  <row Id="6744" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6747" CreationDate="2011-01-10T16:05:42.247" Score="15" ViewCount="281" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a variety of Nikon DX lenses that take differently sized filters. Most take 52mm filters, but there are a few that take larger 67mm or 77mm filters. The advice I've read most commonly online is to buy one filter size and get filter conversion rings to step up to that size filter. In my case, the largest size appears to be 77mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I walked into a couple local photo shops and asked about 52mm-77mm filter conversion rings and they looked at me like I had two heads. One guy suggested I stack a 52mm-67m and a 67mm-77mm. I have found 52mm-77mm rings online, so I know they exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this not a common thing to do? How does the stack exchange community handle the varying sizes of filters in their kit?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks,&#xA;PaulH&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2832" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-11T04:43:54.613" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T19:12:40.183" Title="How do you handle the varying sizes of filters in your kit?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="6745" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6744" CreationDate="2011-01-10T16:17:37.853" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cry a bit.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Buy a filter for 52 and one for 77mm.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Buy a step-up from 67 to 77.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Promise yourself to buy your lenses according to your filters, that is, once you have again enough money.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Repeat if you need more then one filter for all lenses.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(The common thing would be to buy the filter for the lens that needs it, if you want to avoid above. Which needs which is up to you - my large zoom with 52mm for example probably will never need the ND8 72mm I bought for the shorter lenses. A CPL though, will come handy for nearly all lenses once in a while.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T16:17:37.853" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6746" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6708" CreationDate="2011-01-10T16:28:37.257" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One way is to have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/2055/67&quot;&gt;test image printed by a reputable lab&lt;/a&gt; that supports ICC color profiles.  When you receive the prints, compare the image to your monitor.  If your monitor is correctly calibrated, then your print color should match.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The secondary benefit of checking using this method is that you are also verifying that your images will print correctly using your preferred printer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T16:28:37.257" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6747" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6744" CreationDate="2011-01-10T16:51:39.227" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I handle it by not handling it. By which, I mean, I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cokin.fr/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cokin filters&lt;/a&gt; so that all I need is the various adapter rings which are substantially cheaper than filters and so I can then re-use the filters from lens to lens. Alternative to Cokin are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.leefilters.com/lighting/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lee Filters&lt;/a&gt; which are generally regarded as a higher grade, though I find Cokin to be fine for what I want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, that's my approach.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T16:51:39.227" CommentCount="15" />
  <row Id="6748" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6755" CreationDate="2011-01-10T17:38:41.793" Score="4" ViewCount="236" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as image results go, what is the difference between a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Sto-Fen-Omni-Bounce-OM-600-Flash-Diffuser/dp/B000HDFXU2/ref=pd_bxgy_p_img_a&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;hard plastic diffuser&lt;/a&gt; and a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Adorama-Mini-Diffuser-Mount-Flashes/dp/B0027S6EG2/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1294681032&amp;amp;sr=1-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;soft material diffuser&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, as far as usability goes, does one last longer and/or create fewer problems than the other?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will be buying a flash soon and wanted to get all the trimmings while I visit the store because it’s not as easy for me to get to the city anymore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-11T01:44:35.833" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T01:44:35.833" Title="What is the difference between a hard plastic and soft material flash diffuser?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="6750" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6748" CreationDate="2011-01-10T18:18:55.247" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The relative hardness of the plastic has little to do with the end result. The difference between diffusers is due to the amount of light that is let through, as well as the size and shape of the diffuser. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The soft material diffuser that you listed is convenient because it can easily be folded up and stuck in a pocket, where as the Stofen (hard) diffusers, while small, can't easily fit in your pocket. Another (dis)advantage of the soft diffusers is they typically require velcro to attach to your flash, securing it in place, but requiring semi permanent velcro. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of general use, both diffusers produce about the same diffusing effect: they diffuse the light of the flash, which results in softer light. Shadows and highlights have much softer edges. &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6748/what-is-the-difference-between-a-hard-plastic-vs-soft-material-flash-diffuser/6755#6755&quot;&gt;As Matt's answer points out&lt;/a&gt;, the omnibounce changes your strobe into an omni directional light source (like the sun, or a light bulb). The folding diffuser is a directional diffuser restricting the light to a specific direction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Stofen diffuser is highly regarded, given it's functionality to cost. If you have the DIY inclination, consider &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diyphotography.net/homestudio/blz/soft-flash-diffuser&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;building your own diffuser using several items found at home&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-10T19:15:05.507" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T19:15:05.507" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="6751" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6732" CreationDate="2011-01-10T18:45:54.803" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're asking me, totally i will choose to wait for the Mark III version while we trust it is near to us that why you're here to ask this question. as you can see, how long period 5D Mark II is standing on the market and i trust there is something changing and improve. we're not getting at at very cheap price and able to throw it away while new version released as what happen to iphone. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;anyway, for photograph. it is not something rely on equipment too.., it is just your tools but what important is you skill. not meaning that 1D should beat 5D down, theory is around there =D&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3161" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T18:45:54.803" />
  <row Id="6752" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-10T18:48:46.443" Score="12" ViewCount="504" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/BoX6O.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&#xA;I used a tripod and remote shutter release. ISO:1600, F/3.5, Exp 46&quot;. I expected the flare and halo, but the ghosted spheres surprised me. Can you tell me what caused this and how to adjusting my settings?&#xA;Thank you &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3162" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-07T23:51:10.123" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T23:51:10.123" Title="My nighttime shots of the moon created trailing spheres" Tags="&lt;night-shooting&gt;&lt;moon&gt;&lt;lens-flare&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="6753" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6752" CreationDate="2011-01-10T18:55:01.177" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I suspect what's happening is one of the following things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lens flare. This occurs usually when you have a bright source of light off to a side, and makes some usually hexagonal shaped images appear in your light, as seen below. The cure is to keep the light from said external sources from reaching your lens, and to keep your lens clean. Using a lens hood is usually a good idea.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It could be dust on your sensor or lens. Cleaning each of these is the solution.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/dFv00.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Sun Lens Flare Example&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I really do like the way your picture turned out. I'm guessing that it is dust in some way or another, so I'd start there. Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-10T22:28:36.170" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T22:28:36.170" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="6754" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6752" CreationDate="2011-01-10T18:58:18.010" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well it looks like you've said that you did a 46 second exposure.  If thats true, the moon moves much to fast for that slow of an exposure.  You'll need to make your shutter speed faster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-10T19:51:03.737" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T19:51:03.737" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6755" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6748" CreationDate="2011-01-10T18:59:04.550" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Looking at the pictures those two items will actually have very different effects on the light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/osbNv.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Omni-bounce pictured above will send light out in every direction. This means it will bounce off the walls behind you, in front of you and to the sides etc. this light will then bounce again off the walls filling in shadows and giving you a very soft even lighting. However by sending light out in all directions it gets spread out so the intensity of the light drops off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/CiqJJ.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This mini softbox sends light out mostly forwards due to the opaque black sides. This will give you a harder look (though still a little softer than direct flash). The light will be more concentrated than with the omni-bounce so it will go further.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The effect is most pronounced in a confined space. If there are no walls or ceiling nearby to radiate the second bounce of the omnibounce then you wont really see a difference. In fact the omnibounce is only really useful in confined spaces, in a big room it will spread out your light too much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-10T19:04:25.513" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T19:04:25.513" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6756" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6744" CreationDate="2011-01-10T19:06:35.353" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, ideally buy each of your filters once and use step-up rings. It will save you lots of money (well, that's relative but to me $200+ for a single filter is not pocket change).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is &lt;strong&gt;only one important catch&lt;/strong&gt; with this approach and that is you cannot use lens hoods anymore except with the lenses that match your filter size. Personally I choose to live with that since it happens to be the case with my favorite 3 lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;second minor catch&lt;/strong&gt; is you cannot use your filters on certain lenses that have built-in lens hoods. In my case, this is rarely the case as it tends to be more specialized optics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I ended up with is two sets of filters, one 77mm set (which coincides to my largest lens at the time) and one 62mm set which is about halfway which helps me avoid stacking rings (may cause vignetting) and keeps the whole thing more balanced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Turns out I did lack foresight and I now have an 86mm lens. Instead of buying the whole kit again, I just decided this one only needed a polarizer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-24T19:12:40.183" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T19:12:40.183" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6758" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6748" CreationDate="2011-01-10T19:36:05.743" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As for usability, both will last long enough so that their price (per use?) is negligible. I have both and found the hard type to be much more convenient in terms of usage. You just snap it on your flash and forget it there. As cheap as these things are, don't bother to buy the &quot;brand&quot; name - go for one of the many the cheap replacements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;** the one reservation I have with my last recommendation is that a cheap one may change the color temperature of the flash in a way that the &quot;brand&quot; name does not - but I haven't encountered this problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-10T21:40:43.053" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T21:40:43.053" />
  <row Id="6759" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6752" CreationDate="2011-01-10T19:59:39.537" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The moon is a very bright object. Your image seems to be waaaay too exposed for capturing details on the moon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: seeing your posted image now, I believe that the &quot;ghost&quot; spheres are lens flare due to extremely brightly exposed moon, and maybe a nearby star.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-11T00:05:52.633" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T00:05:52.633" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6760" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6752" CreationDate="2011-01-10T21:00:04.960" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Exposing the moon for 46 seconds is an EXTREMELY long time. The moon is going to track across the sky during that whole time, creating a trail as it goes. Unless you have a tracking mount (either alt/az, which will track accurately for short periods of time, or a German equatorial, which will track for indefinite amounts of time), you can, at most, expose for about 1 second or so before the moon will start to blur due to its motion across the sky (both imparted by the rotation of the earth, as well as the motion of the moon on its orbit around the earth.) The length of time you can expose will also shrink as your focal length increases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, if you are using a lens with image stabilization, you should make sure that IS/VR has kicked in before you actually trigger the shutter. If you have IS enabled, and fully trigger the shutter without giving IS a moment to kick in first, you will often get a ghost due to IS activating while the shutter is open. This is a fairly mild effect, however, compared to what it sounds like you are describing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T21:00:04.960" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="6762" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6744" CreationDate="2011-01-10T22:06:23.937" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Like most others here, I keep a set of filters for each size of lens I own. This has encouraged me to think about what filter I really need to carry, and I've reduced that to two: circular polarizer and an ND. I currently use a 4xND, I'llprobably add an 8X to that at some point. I stopped carrying graduated NDs and Cokin because I can't think of a use case for them that can't be handled in post processing, which is untrue of those other two. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I keep two small filter packs that connect to bag straps; that way, I can easily make sure that the right filters are attached to the right bag that's carrying a specific lens, since I tend to mix and match a lot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2011-01-10T22:06:23.937" />
  <row Id="6763" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6703" CreationDate="2011-01-11T00:34:19.803" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have a look at these ideas from photographer Moshe Zusman:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhinsights.com/content/5-tips-create-drama-your-wedding-portraits.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bhinsights.com/content/5-tips-create-drama-your-wedding-portraits.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1015" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T00:34:19.803" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6764" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6731" CreationDate="2011-01-11T02:14:13.860" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're talking about SLR camera, i suggest Fujifilm HS 10 - which is stick with lens and able to zoom at maximum f=4.2 - 126.0mm, equivalent to 24 - 720mm on a 35mm camera. of course the quality will be a concern due to it is not a general focal length X.X &#xA;if you're talking about lens, try canon... &#xA;or you need to find a SLR to zoom into pluto ? XD, there is the only ONE available at canon HQ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Video - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRq18WpQZC0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;5200mm Canon Lens World's MOST powerful Super telephoto EF FD&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3161" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-27T17:21:32.990" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T17:21:32.990" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="6765" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6777" CreationDate="2011-01-11T02:29:30.933" Score="13" ViewCount="528" Body="&lt;p&gt;I bought an SLR, a Nikon D70, several years ago with the intension of eventually reproducing the smooth but crisp effect I had seen from my favorite portrait shots like this one from Declan McCullagh: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mccullagh.org/image/10d-2/steve-bellovin-1.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.mccullagh.org/image/10d-2/steve-bellovin-1.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately I've never really achieved my goal. I have to admit that my dedication to this has varied over the years but in recent days it's picked up again after seeing photos from Moshe Zusman's wedding photography business: &lt;a href=&quot;http://moshezusman.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://moshezusman.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, my question is, what steps would you take to reproduce the smooth but crisp effect of these portraits? Also, what are the top factors based on their impact to the quality of the photograph in the end?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My experiences thus far suggest that lighting and tripod may make the biggest difference when taking the shot and a handful of postprocessing steps such as sharpening and selective blurring/denoising may make the biggest difference after taking the shot. But like I said, I'm still not getting the results I'm striving for so I may be mistaken, maybe I'm not using the right approach, or maybe I just don't have the specific technique down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are you able to produce these characteristics? If so, how?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for your suggestions and advice!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a hard time explaining why these photos have a similar effect on me. I think there are some underlying qualities that they share, other than solid composition and interesting subjects, but I may be wrong. High local contrast maybe. I'm actually not trying to reproduce fashion photography. I'm trying to concentrate more on the smooth and crisp part. I put fashion into the question because the wedding shots reminded me of well staged magazine shots. Thanks again for your ideas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1015" LastEditorUserId="1015" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-11T13:18:10.793" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T19:58:00.837" Title="What goes into making smooth, crisp, fashion magazine worthy shots?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;sharpness&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="6766" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6765" CreationDate="2011-01-11T02:43:29.320" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is not a complete answer, but I wanted to point you to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com/&lt;/a&gt;. Benjamin Kanarek is a fashion photographer who has a lot of very interesting behind-the-scenes (technical and otherwise) entries on his blog. The site layout is a little busy, and honestly, I'm not a huge fan of his particular style (even though it's technically and visually amazingly good), but there's good stuff there. Particularly, look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com/category/photography/technical-discussions/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Technical Discussions&lt;/a&gt; category for some answers to questions you're asking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T02:43:29.320" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6767" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="493" CreationDate="2011-01-11T02:58:31.117" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The truth is that it gives you a compromise which may be what some are exactly looking for:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Motion panoramas are extremely easy to do, up to 360-degrees now. Within seconds you have a circular panorama right in the camera. You can try it as often as you like on the spot until you are happy with it or have reached its limit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The output (as already mentioned) is limited to a single row with a limited vertical resolution, usually between 1024 and 2560, depending on the camera. Stitching quality does not hold up to scrutiny and any of your movements will affect the final image with no option of correcting other than starting over. For example, I found it relatively difficult to keep the horizon perfectly straight and if it is bare (the ocean for example) it is easy to see the problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T02:58:31.117" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6768" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6744" CreationDate="2011-01-11T03:02:21.510" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I bought a set of step-up rings (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Anodized-49-52mm-52-55mm-55-58mm/dp/B001G445Q4/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1294714261&amp;amp;sr=8-5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Anodized-49-52mm-52-55mm-55-58mm/dp/B001G445Q4/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1294714261&amp;amp;sr=8-5&lt;/a&gt;) for around $15, and I just keep the portion of the set that goes from my smallest lens up to my largest filter (so, 52-77) in my bag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, it's certainly the &lt;em&gt;cheapest&lt;/em&gt; way to get filters for all your lenses, but it's hardly the most &lt;em&gt;convenient&lt;/em&gt;.  Every time you want to use a larger filter on a lens, you need to unscrew your stack of step-up rings, attach the rings to your lens, and attach the filter to the rings.  A lot of the time I don't want to expend the effort or the time, so I do something different instead of using a filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the step-up rings I got don't screw on to the lens as smoothly as the filters do.  It feels like they're grinding just a little bit.  So if you really like to baby your expensive lens, screwing some third-party step-up rings with cheap-feeling threads might be a little scary for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T03:02:21.510" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6769" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6774" CreationDate="2011-01-11T05:00:28.897" Score="29" ViewCount="759" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard much of Ansel Adam's Zone system, but I've never quite understood it. What is it, how and where is it used, and is it still useful with modern (digital) cameras? Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-08T16:32:38.053" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T16:32:38.053" Title="What is Ansel Adam's &quot;Zone System&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;zone-system&gt;&lt;ansel-adams&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="11" />
  <row Id="6770" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6765" CreationDate="2011-01-11T06:21:00.007" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first portrait can be achieved by lighting the subject with 2 strobes, one with less power than the other, and making sure the background is underexposed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've done this type of thing in a studio setting and the background might as well be white - the important thing is the relative underexposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T06:21:00.007" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6771" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6193" CreationDate="2011-01-11T07:32:31.590" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.citizensphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Citizen's Photo&lt;/a&gt;, in Portland Oregon, does C-41, and E-6 from 35mm through 8x10&quot;, and B&amp;amp;W from 35mm to 4x5&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Location:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;706 SE 6th.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Portland, Oregon 97214&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Phone:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Phone: (503) 232-8501&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fax (503) 233-4037&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Toll Free (1-800) 221-3267&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Mailing address (?):&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I'm not sure when you'd use this address versus the other... I'll try to find out and update this answer when I know.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.O. Box 14648&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Portland, Oregon 97293-0648&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Email:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[lest I worsen their spam load, I refer you instead to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.citizensphoto.com/index.html?page=main_contact&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the contact page on their website&lt;/a&gt;.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Web:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.citizensphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.citizensphoto.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T07:32:31.590" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-11T07:32:31.590" />
  <row Id="6772" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6773" CreationDate="2011-01-11T07:46:37.610" Score="15" ViewCount="616" Body="&lt;p&gt;I often hear the term 'Butterfly Lighting' used when discussing high-fashion and glamor photography. How do I set up Butterfly Lighting, and when do I use it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T16:15:30.903" Title="What is Butterfly Lighting, and When Do I Use It?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;studio-lighting&gt;&lt;lighting-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="6773" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6772" CreationDate="2011-01-11T07:47:15.207" Score="20" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is Butterfly Lighting?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Butterfly Lighting is one of the 5 basic lighting setups commonly used in studio portrait photography. It is also variously referred to as '&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6910/what-is-clamshell-lighting-and-when-should-it-be-used/6979#6979&quot;&gt;Clamshell Lighting&lt;/a&gt;,''Glamor Lighting' 'Beauty Lighting,' or 'Paramount Lighting.' At its most basic, Butterfly consists of a single light pointed directly at the subject straight on, and raised high enough to create a downward shadow on the subject. This causes a little ‘butterfly’ shadow to appear directly underneath the subject’s nose. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;One-light Butterfly Lighting setup:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/nNDxQ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;One-light Butterfly Lighting setup diagram&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/wmJci.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;One-light Butterfly Lighting setup example&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Often the Butterfly Lighting setup is augmented by a reflector or fill ight in front of the subject, underneath and just outside the frame of the shot to bounce some light up into the eyes because a light at such a high camera angle generally causes the eyes to go very dark without it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;One-light + reflector Butterfly Lighting setup:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/BeU9b.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;One-light + reflector Butterfly Lighting setup diagram&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/1rAWs.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;One-light + reflector Butterfly Lighting setup example&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When do I use Butterfly Lighting?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Butterfly lighting is considered the ‘fashion’ or ‘glamor’ lighting setup. Often times this is a flattering look for high-school and college aged girls. It is especially well suited to women with narrow faces and high cheekbones, but because there is very little shadow cast on the face it can add weight to the subject with a  rounder face. Additionally, the lack of shadows means that it is unsuitable for subjects who have skin problems, facial scars, facial hair, etc.. Although it is occasionally used as a fashion setup for men, it is so commonly used in women's fashion photography that it has become 'synonymous' with women's glamor lighting. So much so that even people who don't pay much attention to such things may still feel like a portrait of a man with Butterfly Lighting looks 'funny' somehow, even if they can't articulate why. Additionally, the lack of facial shadow that is cast by the light is generally not especially flattering unless the man’s features are somewhat feminine already.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-14T06:14:00.013" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T06:14:00.013" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6774" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6769" CreationDate="2011-01-11T07:49:40.137" Score="35" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I try to explain it with words, and add photos later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The base rule:&lt;strong&gt;All photometers are metering the exposure base on middle gray.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, let say that you have a scene with only middle gray luminosity color, and you metering an area of this scene, then you get on the picture what you see.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let say that you have a woman with a black dress, on a black background. If you measure this scene then the photograph that you get will be a gray dress - gray background. Why ? because the metering is giving you the exposure as for the gray !. (to correct this expose you need to add -2 stops on the measure)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same thing for white&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let say that you have a woman with a white dress, on a white background. If you measure this scene then the photograph that you get will be a gray dress - gray background. Why ? because the metering is giving you the exposure as for the gray !.(to correct this expose you need to add +2 stops on the measure)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now what is the trick. The zone system say &lt;strong&gt;that is up to you&lt;/strong&gt;, to determine how you like to photograph you scene, and its up to you to determine where do you like to give emphasis on your photo. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Its up to you to decide what is black what is white what is gray, and make the final exposure.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is that means. Let say that you have any normal scene. In that scene you have highlights, you have shadows, and you have other areas middle tone. &lt;strong&gt;All the range of this tones is break in light parts depending on the luminosity and you have the zone system.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let say now that you have 2 womens, with a black dress on a white background, the one is on spot light, the other is on shadow.! Its up to you to decide what woman have the black dress !. Both of them can not be black, only one. The full luminosity range of the picture is the zone system. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you make a measure on the womans black dress on the shadow and correct the exposure with -2 stops, then the woman on the spot light black dress is probably gets washed out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you measure the womans black dress on the spot light and correct the exposure with -2 stops then the woman on the shadow will be totally dark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you try to make them both appears then you get the average reading between the 2 blacks, and correct with -2stops, then no one will be totally correct.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To summarize.&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;You have to shot a scene, any scene have a range of luminosity, if you break this range in parts you have the zone system. Then its up to you to decide what is black, what is white, what is gray, and make your final photo.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I will have as reference the Olympus OM system that have still now the best and only multi-spot metering system, and I wish some one add the same multi spot metering system on all new digital cameras.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the olympus om 4ti manual I get the example photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;White&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A white example photograph.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.planethost.gr/olympusom/1.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;you have a white area, if you just metering as it is you get a gray results, but you decide that you like to make it white. You make a spot metering on white and add +2 stops and the results&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.planethost.gr/olympusom/2.jpg&quot;&gt;    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Black&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A black example photograph.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.planethost.gr/olympusom/3.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;You have a black telephone, if you just take the picture you get a gray telephone. You decide that you wish to see it black, you take a spot metering on the black spot on the telephone and you add -2stops, and the results is a real black phone&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.planethost.gr/olympusom/4.jpg&quot;&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Full range luminocity&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and a full zone system.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.planethost.gr/olympusom/5.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Here you have too many different point of luminosity. If you decide that wish to get a picture that the womans dress must be white, then you make a spot metering on white and add +2spot. On multi spot metering of olympus is more easy, you take 2 spots on white and on skin color, and you have a good average with a not so bright white dress and a good luminosity of the face. and the results&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.planethost.gr/olympusom/6.jpg&quot;&gt;      &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now to try to show the zone system, I make the picture pixelize and you can see the different luminosity rectangles. The zone system say that every scene have this range and its up to you to decide what luminosity you going to select on you shot. So you select a rectangle spot, you decide what luminosity this have (gray ? white ? black ? etc) you make the measure, correct the exposure and take the picture.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.planethost.gr/olympusom/zone.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;note on this example the womans dress, gets out middle gray, on the previous was an average metering, not a white dress metering, do not confuse the last two photos with the white dress that I am writing on comments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and is it still useful with modern (digital) cameras?    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes of course it is. The metering are the same, the scenes are the same, the technique is the same. I say it again, if the modern cameras have multi spot metering then we going to have a real tool for correct exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not only digital cameras use the same technique but adobe photoshop also use the same technique. Almost on all correction on the images you have see the 3 eyedroped tools. If you do not know why they are there, I tell you is there to help you correct the zone system of your photos. See this example and make later your test to find out how to use them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.planethost.gr/olympusom/pszone.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="236" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-11T10:50:48.570" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T10:50:48.570" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6775" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6731" CreationDate="2011-01-11T07:52:51.557" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't help you too much, because I've only used one super-zoom: the Canon SX10IS, which is now 2 generations old (the SX30IS is the current model).  I did like it a lot, and I learned a lot about photography while using it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When a camera has X zoom, that's really a comparison of the camera's longest focal length to its widest focal length.  So for example the Canon SX30IS, which has a 35x zoom, has a 24-840mm zoom range, and 840/24=35.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lower number in a zoom range (the farthest you can zoom &lt;em&gt;out&lt;/em&gt;), tells you about the camera's wide-angle abilities.  For reference: I've heard that 24mm is common for photojournalists.  28mm is generally considered &quot;wide angle.&quot;  Wide-angle photos let you distort the perspective a little bit, especially if you get the camera very close to the subject.  I'd recommend getting a camera that goes to at least 28mm, if not lower, just because my favorite pictures are usually wide-angle photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The higher number in the zoom range indicates the reach of the camera: so if you're frustrated because your current camera doesn't zoom in far enough when taking pictures, this is the number you care about.  Anything over 300mm or 400mm is really good.  With the SX10IS, I found that at 560mm I had a really hard time finding my subject: I had to zoom out about halfway, find what I wanted to take the picture of and center it in the display, then zoom back in.  If you want a camera with the absolute farthest reach, this is the number to look at.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a lot of other things that will affect how your pictures come out, including sensor size, aperture range, and ISO speeds.  But realistically, I wouldn't expect there to be too much of a difference in these categories between different cameras or brands.  Also, be prepared that the camera will probably have a lens cap that you have to manually remove, and not lose, and then put back on to keep the lens from being scratched (most point-and-shoot cameras have automatic lens caps, and having to keep track of the lens cap was one of the bigger challenges for me when I got my SX10).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should make sure that your camera has &quot;image stabilization&quot; or &quot;optical stabilization&quot; or &quot;vibration reduction&quot; or something similar: this will let you take pictures, in good light, while holding the camera in your hand (as opposed to requiring a tripod).  I would expect all the superzooms to have that feature, but you should make sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should plan to spend some money in addition to the camera itself to get some accessories: you'll probably want a good-sized memory card, a lens cloth to keep the lens clean, and you'll end up wanting a decent tripod (the super-zooms are too heavy for the little mini tripods that the little point and shoot cameras use; expect to spend between $20 and $100 for a solid-enough tripod) to help you get sharp pictures when you're zoomed in and it isn't bright out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are a couple features that I would consider important (though I'm sure other people have different opinions):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;a rechargeable, lithium-ion battery will be lighter and will last longer and work in colder weather than rechargeable AA batteries (though a replacement or a 2nd battery will cost more, and won't be available at every single convenience store; still, if you have a choice, I'd suggest getting a camera with a proprietary li-ion battery).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;a screen that flips out and swivels will help you take some more interesting pictures by letting you hold the camera over your head or down at ground level.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, one last plug for Canon: &lt;em&gt;if&lt;/em&gt; you enjoy hacking on your devices and know how to write scripts, you might look into CHDK.  It is a firmware extension that lets you extend most Canon cameras: adding features like full manual control (though the SX30, and probably most other super-zooms, already has that) and the ability to run scripts to control the camera (one motion detection script is fast enough to detect and take a picture of a lightning strike!).  It's available for the SX20IS (previous generation), and is in beta for the SX30IS.  So if you think you'd enjoy something like that, you might want to take a closer look at Canon cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T07:52:51.557" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6776" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="632" CreationDate="2011-01-11T07:58:51.527" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A &lt;strong&gt;free&lt;/strong&gt; option that has just been released in Beta is &lt;a href=&quot;http://nikonrumors.com/2011/01/10/nikontrol-3k-is-a-free-remote-control-pc-software-for-nikon-dslrs.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikontrol 3K&lt;/a&gt; based on the Nikon SDK. I have not personally tried it however it seems to be very complete from the description.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="560" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T07:58:51.527" />
  <row Id="6777" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6765" CreationDate="2011-01-11T08:10:19.097" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Smoothness often comes from a large lightsource (i.e. a softbox or umbrella) The first link you posted isn't what I'd call crisp fashion photography so I'm not entirely sure what you're after.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Crispness comes from the lens, and from post processing. The balance switches as you reduce the image size. &lt;strong&gt;Don't be swayed by sharp looking but tiny images!&lt;/strong&gt; For images downsized or the web e.g. 600x400px you can take an out of focus 16 megapixel image and make it look tack sharp!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;edit 3&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking at the NYE photos it seems you're after high contrast high key images. I was immediately reminded of this shoot:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/tequila_processed.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All you need for this is a bright source approximately dead on to the subject. The light I used was a small softbox which gives a softer look than the one in the gallery you posted. I also used a background light as the background was further away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the unedited version (note that you can get this look, or at least very close on camera by turning the contrast way up in the picture style or whatever the Nikon equivalent is!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/tequila_original.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;edit 2&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an image from a wedding which is at least similar subject matter to the Sardinia image. Here I have pushed the local contrast as far as I can:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/man_edited.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not as good as the lighting was totally different (direct late afternoon sun, vs. diffuse sunlight from above) but I am getting warm? Here's the original for comparison:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/man_unedited.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;edit&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this image: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pbase.com/compuminus/image/28657593&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pbase.com/compuminus/image/28657593&lt;/a&gt; it seems like sharpness and contrast is mostly what you're after. If so then post processing is the best way to achieve this, especially when you're downsizing images for the web. Here is an example of what you can do with sharpening:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an image reduced to 600 pixels and aggressively sharpened:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/sharp.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the same in focus 12 megapixel image with the same high quality macro lens and same complex lighting, but without sharpening:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/notsharp.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it fails to pop in the same way. In reality I would go &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/compromise.png&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;halfway between the two!&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for fashion photography, you can't say it's more about the setup/capture, or it's more about the post processing. The truth is you need both for fashion photography. If either is not there it's very hard to make it up with the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing to bear in mind, you need a lot of space! Cramped indoor conditions give you very little control over your lights. Light bounces off the walls/floor and you get a muddy light with lots of different colours in it. What you want is a nice directional white light. A black walled studio is ideal, failing that shoots outdoors in a large enough space will suffice!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-12T19:58:00.837" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T19:58:00.837" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="6778" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6645" CreationDate="2011-01-11T09:29:34.563" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The usual recommendation is to start with removing the color noise. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;So you would move the &lt;strong&gt;color&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;slider until you remove any visible&#xA;color noise, and not cause any color&#xA;shift to the photo.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Once you are happy with that step you can move to the &lt;strong&gt;luminance&lt;/strong&gt; slider and again adjust it to remove the luminance noise, - you need to remember that when the luminance noise is being removed the image becomes softer, so you need to find a balance between the noise and the image softness/sharpness&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many people use mostly the color noise removal as it removes the noise that is the most typical to digital photography. The noise that is left after that step can be somehow considered as an equivalent of film grain, and it is more acceptable for people used to shot analog&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T09:29:34.563" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6779" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6732" CreationDate="2011-01-11T11:14:42.177" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Go Ahead and Buy&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't heard anyone who bought a MkII who doesn't love it.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;(Myself included)&#xA;The question is:  what is a MkII worth to you now?  Is it worth the price?  If so, buy.  If not, wait.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T11:14:42.177" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6780" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6772" CreationDate="2011-01-11T11:46:01.303" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is an article on the subject from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/how-to-achieve-perfect-butterfly-lighting&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;digital-photography-school&lt;/a&gt; on butterfly lighting. And here is a nice &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00nY26l65CE&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;video&lt;/a&gt; on the subject as well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a note butterfly lighting typically works best with thin faces and is called butterfly lighting because of the shape of the soft shadow under the persons nose is shaped like a butterfly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope they help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-Cheers&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T11:46:01.303" />
  <row Id="6781" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6732" CreationDate="2011-01-11T12:51:50.653" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is one simple reason why you should buy whatever camera is around vs one that is unreleased: you can use the one that's available right now, and you can sell it and upgrade later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, there's no reason for Canon to release a 5D mkIII right now. It has the edge over Nikon in both megapixels and the ability to do 1080p video on a full frame sensor. It took 4 years for them to release the 5D mkII - soon after Nikon released a 5D competitor. There's no reason for them to go charging nilly willy into markets they already own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T12:51:50.653" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6782" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6671" CreationDate="2011-01-11T13:05:33.420" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The manual focus on my canon 24-105 f/4 L started feeling gritty, so I took it in for repair (to Jessops in London, but I believe they send it to Canon).  They charged me a fee just to have a look, but that was deducted from the final price.  In the end, it cost about GBP 200, but that saved GBP800 on a new lens!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The lens is now absolutely fine as far as I can tell, with no quality problems that I can detect.&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T13:05:33.420" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6783" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6250" CreationDate="2011-01-11T13:12:38.563" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have both the 35/1.8 and the SB-400 (however, no baby anymore). While I like both items I've been converted to the joys of a directional flash (like the SB-600) since getting old used SB-24s and shooting these manually. Being able to bounce a flash off a side wall or a wall behind you, with plenty of power, is very nice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T13:12:38.563" />
  <row Id="6784" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6708" CreationDate="2011-01-11T13:24:36.327" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Would something like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0036ZBUOG?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;tag=ajsstuff&amp;amp;linkCode=as2&amp;amp;camp=1634&amp;amp;creative=19450&amp;amp;creativeASIN=B0036ZBUOG&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;X-Rite ColorChecker Passport&lt;/a&gt; do it for you?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It probably (my research is underway) comes with test images.  (If not, take a picture of it yourself) load the test image up on the screen - see if it matches what's in your hand?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-11T16:10:09.417" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T16:10:09.417" />
  <row Id="6785" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6769" CreationDate="2011-01-11T13:41:10.860" Score="17" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Aristos' answer is incomplete, as the true power of the Zone system lays not only in effective spot metering (what Aristos described), but in the compression and expansion of the tonal range in development. I can't reply to posts, so I'll piggyback on his.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what a zone scale looks like (ignore the gray scale values):&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/mapAh.gif&quot; alt=&quot;Zone system scale&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By default, most B&amp;amp;W film will render the scene before us more or less as it exists. If there's a 1 stop difference in light between a highlight and shadow, that's what we'll see. But what if we'd like to boost that difference? Make the lighting more dramatic? We can do it in post processing, or we can do it right on the negative using the Zone system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Black and white film can be overdeveloped for an effect knowing as &lt;em&gt;pushing&lt;/em&gt;. It's a darkroom technique often used by photographers to compensate for underexposing film, and you'll often hear photographers say, &quot;I shot my ISO 400 film at ISO 800 and pushed it.&quot; That means they underexposed their roll by a stop and overdeveloped in an attempt to get a usable image. In practice, this develops the upper zones and leaves the lower zones alone, the science behind that is waaay out of the scope of this post. In effect, it changes the even tonal scale and increases effective contrast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That might sound kind of complicated, so I'll give you an example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagine you have a tree stump that we want to be a nice, brilliant white while the leaves on the ground should be dark, something to create a mood. We meter our leaves (per Aristos' example) and get a reading of 1/60 f/8. Since we want them to be dark - Zone III - we reduce our exposure by two stops and get 1/125 f/11 (one stop from each). That's going to be our exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We want a bright, brilliant tree stump (it's a birch) so we meter it as well. Since we have a reading for our Zone III (1/125 f/11), what we're looking for is &lt;strong&gt;how many zones away&lt;/strong&gt; our tree stump is. It meters to 1/125 f/11 - 'ah, so it's the same as the leaves' you think - but not quite. Our meter reads everything as Zone V, so it's actually 2 zones away. That's not much of a distance, and we want it to be all the way in our bright, brilliant zone - Zone VII. So we make a note that this image needs a bump from Zone V to Zone VII.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Open the shutter, expose, we have the image on film and it's off to the darkroom for the final step. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the film needs to be overdeveloped long enough to push Zone V into Zone VII. Again, this is because film development is an uneven process: shadows get developed first, and once they're developed they stay in their place. The higher up you go on that zone chart, the more time you need to develop, and the more &quot;movable&quot; the zones are. In effect, you're just scrunching up the higher zones like so:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/3YGKX.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Not really 1000% accurate, but close enough&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ta-da.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In reality, the Zone system is a lot of work. Every film with every developer gives a slightly different result/effective speed. You need to calibrate your exposure, check neg densities, do everything exactly the same time, and time and time again. It's also a system that thrives on large format, since you shoot every image on a different neg and develop each of those individually. The large negative also helps with the increased graininess that comes from pushing film. Most photographers I know who use the zone system shoot two negs: they develop one according to their charts, then they develop the second neg based on their results with the first one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this part of the Zone system transfer to digital? Sort of, but not really. Digital does much better in highlights than in shadows, and it's better to overexpose a scene then push it down in PP. Knowing how your camera records exposure is great, but remembering stuff like this is one of those times when I am really happy with the digital revolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastEditorUserId="3050" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-11T13:47:00.327" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T13:47:00.327" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6786" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6752" CreationDate="2011-01-11T13:45:28.580" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to guess... you have a filter on your lens. Probably a UV filter? In my experience, that's the number one cause of ghosting in nighttime photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T13:45:28.580" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6787" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6632" CreationDate="2011-01-11T14:51:53.603" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Do It By Eye&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;(?not for purists?)&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use off-camera flash quite a lot (I'm a fully &lt;strike&gt;brainwashed&lt;/strike&gt; signed-up follower of &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://strobist.com&lt;/a&gt;), so this advice might work differently for your pop-up...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are in a situation where you can take several shots, go by eye.  Pick a setting which might work and give it a go.  Check the results (pic and histogram) on the back of the camera and adjust the exposure (aperture) accordingly.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Typically, for doing walk-around candid portraits I might set: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;shutter: 1/200&#xA;apperture f/2.8&#xA;flash power 1/16 (can't remember the guide number on my strobes - they're Vivitar 285s).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll take a couple of test shots with a willing volunteer, and usually I'll adjust the flash power to get the right exposure.  From then on, I will usually control the amount of flash reaching the subject by moving closer to / further from them by a small step.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This works for me.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;If you try it a few times and you will get a feel for what works.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;(some of my shots taken like this are here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/ajstuff/sets/72157625381959500/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/ajstuff/sets/72157625381959500/&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T14:51:53.603" />
  <row Id="6788" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6791" CreationDate="2011-01-11T15:05:19.913" Score="6" ViewCount="96" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've upgraded to the new Aperture 3 and noticed that they've added the ability to save and apply your own presets. I understand roughly that presets are basically a saved set of adjustments meant to speed up your post-processing work. Thing is aren't they created based on average cases and thus the adjustments won't be ideal for different photos? Based on this why should I use them versus doing it manually by myself? Are the time-saving worth the compromise (assuming there is) in the end result? How many people actually use them and how frequently?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1635" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T15:22:57.550" Title="Why do I need to use presets?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;apple-aperture&gt;&lt;presets&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6789" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6628" CreationDate="2011-01-11T15:10:03.143" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Start With As Few Variables As Possible&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The trick is to ignore most of the settings most of the time.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you say, there are loads of settings to tweak, but the really really important ones are the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6598/what-is-the-exposure-triangle&quot;&gt;exposure triangle&lt;/a&gt; and focus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the purposes of getting a handle on what these all do, I would start by setting the ISO to the lowest normal setting (probably 100 or 200), then play with:&#xA; - Focus&#xA; - Aperture&#xA; - Shutter Speed&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess that it's pretty obvious when the focus is right.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Aperture and shutter speed now become a balancing act - as one goes up, the other needs to come down, and the combination of the 2 gives the overall exposure.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Spend a few minutes playing with those settings, and you'll be well on your way.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other settings either tweak these settings (e.g. the details of how auto-focus is going to work) or affect more obscure aspects of how the camera behaves (e.g. Mirror-Lockup to minimise vibration).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When starting out, it looks like there is a whole bunch of stuff to understand, but the camera will work perfectly well most of the time with the default settings.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T15:10:03.143" />
  <row Id="6790" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6792" CreationDate="2011-01-11T15:16:59.287" Score="8" ViewCount="288" Body="&lt;p&gt;Take this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-28-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-is-usm-lens-review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lens&lt;/a&gt; I have for example, it has red values on the distance scale (not sure what do you call it exactly) next to the focus ring. What does these values mean?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1635" LastEditorUserId="266" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-11T16:20:21.457" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T02:56:15.137" Title="What do the red values mean on the distance scale of a lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="6791" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6788" CreationDate="2011-01-11T15:22:57.550" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes! While a preset is going to adjust for a common average and will not be perfect in most cases, they can get you close, and can be seen as a starting point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take for example a wedding photographer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To greatly simplify things, you could say that there are a few basic shots that you take very often:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;posed with flash lighting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ceremony pictures with indoor ambient&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;outdoor lighting as the couple leaves&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could manually adjust each image, and you will get pretty good at making all the adjustments and knowing what it is you want... &lt;strong&gt;or&lt;/strong&gt; you could set a preset for each situation, and apply the preset when you encounter it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you treat a preset as a starting point, and not a final adjustment, then you will see the huge benefit here.  Instead of making the basic changes that you would make for every outdoor shot of a bride and groom as they leave, you apply the preset then make a few minor adjustments for the specific image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T15:22:57.550" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6792" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6790" CreationDate="2011-01-11T15:26:34.287" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDITED FOR 2 CASES&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If the markings show aperture values&lt;/strong&gt;, those are hyperfocal-distance markings. It lets you know where the hyperfocal distance is at each full F-stop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, one of the lines has a 16 in red next to it. That will let you set the focus to the hyperfocal distance at F/16.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do not know what the Hyperfocal-distance is you can read &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/article.php?id=depth_of_field&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this short article&lt;/a&gt;. It even has a calculator to calculate the distance for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If the markings show focal-lengths&lt;/strong&gt;, those are infrared focusing lines. They are used to adjust your focus for infrared photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-11T16:15:54.747" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T16:15:54.747" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6793" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6790" CreationDate="2011-01-11T15:29:20.183" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That seems to be a DOF-marker for the different focal lengths, like there used to be markers for the aperture. The longer the focal length, the shallower the DOF. &lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; (make that &quot;the shallower the relative DOF becomes&quot; (due to magnification, thx ysap)).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/28-135mm.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/28-135mm.htm&lt;/a&gt;, there you can see that it is &quot;28,&quot;, &quot;35&quot;, &quot;50&quot;, &quot;70&quot; and &quot;135&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt;: Jukka Suomela actually read the article (and did not only look for a clearer picture, like me) and pointed out that Ken mentions them as infrared focus markers. That clearly makes a bit more sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastEditorUserId="2317" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-12T02:56:15.137" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T02:56:15.137" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="6794" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6790" CreationDate="2011-01-11T15:59:30.337" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;IIRC, these are the focal length marks for IR (infrared) photography, but I can be terribly wrong...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: to be more precise, I think these lines mark the infinity focus for the different focal length (28-135) for IR photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T15:59:30.337" />
  <row Id="6795" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6708" CreationDate="2011-01-11T17:20:53.410" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Remember there's a difference between monitor calibration and printer calibration. I am not too clear on the specifics, so please correct me if I am wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strike&gt;The way I understand it is you want to edit the file on a calibrated monitor. Then when it's the way you want it, add the &lt;em&gt;printer's&lt;/em&gt; ICC profile to the file and send that to the printer.&lt;/strike&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most labs will provided you with an ICC file. Most Costco's in the US are helpfully kept online and recent &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. If everything is working correctly, then the printed output should match what you see on the monitor. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/profiles.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/soft-proofing.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; for info on soft proofing and how to do it in Photoshop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3156" LastEditorUserId="3156" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-12T03:00:03.537" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T03:00:03.537" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6796" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5025" CreationDate="2011-01-11T17:33:53.467" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;shoot RAW but be aware that the 5Dmk2 does not produce the cleaneast shadow tones, especially when under exposed.  Also HTP in my opinion is a waste of time and makes the noise worse for very little gain in recoverable highlights. I use mine a lot for landscape and its fantastic for that but when i shoot portraits i am increasing becomming dissapointed with the amount of noise in shadows and mid tones when they are brightened up in RAW regardless of the programs used.  NR can make a difference but it can kill some fine detail too. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3177" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T17:33:53.467" />
  <row Id="6797" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5883" CreationDate="2011-01-11T20:58:41.320" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another disadvantage is the 'wife' factor, especially if you are taking a lot of kid shots. You own a nice, expensive SLR, but &lt;em&gt;she&lt;/em&gt; doesn't want anything to do with it. I ended up with my SLR and a higher end point and shoot for her that I could at least do a little fiddling with when necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It can be frustrating for her when you have all the settings tweaked and are taking pictures then she wants to use it. She wants to use it now, &lt;em&gt;right now&lt;/em&gt;, not in a few seconds after I put it back in mostly auto mode (Canon full auto won't let you shoot RAW).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3156" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T20:58:41.320" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6798" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6814" CreationDate="2011-01-11T21:26:58.063" Score="9" ViewCount="272" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've read photographers write about using a cyclo wall instead of a seamless background. What is a cyclo wall?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T02:46:14.487" Title="What is a cyclo wall?" Tags="&lt;studio-lighting&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="6799" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6798" CreationDate="2011-01-11T21:48:06.800" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A 'cyclo wall,' also referred to in various combinations of 'infinity,' 'seamless,' 'cyc,' 'cyclo,' 'wall,' 'drop,' 'backdrop,' and 'background,' are all synonyms for the same thing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A backdrop which curves smoothly at the floor in order to eliminate the 'corner' where the wall meets the floor, thereby providing the illusion that the floor stretches on to infinity.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Visual top-down example of a 'cyclo wall:'&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/wfSHt.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Visual top-down example of a 'cyclo wall&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, a seamless background and a cyclo wall are different terms for the same thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-11T21:53:22.550" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T21:53:22.550" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="6801" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5557" CreationDate="2011-01-11T22:04:04.743" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The number one with a bullet absolutely best reason to use manual mode isn't any trick or gimmick, it's this: even exposure between shots while taking a series of pictures. Sometimes you don't need the best exposure for individual shots, sometimes you want to try and record the actual lighting conditions - things that are in shadows are darker, even when you shoot them up close. On overcast or cloudless days, the intensity of the sun doesn't change for hours on end, and that's when it's perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T22:04:04.743" />
  <row Id="6802" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3067" CreationDate="2011-01-11T22:44:36.263" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I really like my &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Wireless-Control-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00004WCIC&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon Wireless Remote Control&lt;/a&gt; RC1 for my Canon SLR. Im sure there's an equivalent for Nikon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T22:44:36.263" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-11T22:44:36.263" />
  <row Id="6803" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3067" CreationDate="2011-01-11T22:52:10.230" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000NFIW98?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;tag=httpwwwpearso-20&amp;amp;linkCode=as2&amp;amp;camp=1789&amp;amp;creative=390957&amp;amp;creativeASIN=B000NFIW98&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Westcott 301 Photo Basics 40-Inch 5-in-1 Reflector&lt;/a&gt;. I sure know I'd like to get one of them:-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T22:52:10.230" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-11T22:52:10.230" />
  <row Id="6804" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6558" CreationDate="2011-01-11T23:11:26.273" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;you could also just download the trial version of photomatix which is a popular HDR processor. You can just tell it what files to load and it will make the HDR image from it. then you can use the simple single-click presets to see various mappings to LDR output (i.e. tone-mapping). I found that just using the photomatix wizard prior to really learning the details of HDR was easy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hdrsoft.com/download.html#pmp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.hdrsoft.com/download.html#pmp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2998" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T23:11:26.273" />
  <row Id="6805" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="459" CreationDate="2011-01-11T23:32:28.027" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a thought: check the ISO, f stop, &amp;amp; exposure settings of a picture you want to emulate on flickr. At the top of the page, where it says &quot;This photo was taken on  using a &quot; click the camera brand. That'll give you all the exif info that that photographer used to get the picture you want. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That'll at least give you an idea of how &amp;amp; where other's have had success. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3182" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T23:32:28.027" />
  <row Id="6806" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6811" CreationDate="2011-01-11T23:36:38.360" Score="3" ViewCount="313" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to try my hand at off camera flash for some indoor portraits. How should I trigger the speedlite (Canon 550ex)? Should I go for wired/wireless? What's the difference between TTL cable an PC cable? What's the cheapest option to get me started?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-12T15:53:11.160" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T15:53:11.160" Title="What is the best way to trigger a canon 550 EX speedlite in a studio" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;speedlite&gt;&lt;off-camera-flash&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="6807" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="459" CreationDate="2011-01-11T23:45:18.433" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I took &lt;a href=&quot;http://bighugelabs.com/onblack.php?id=3774378955&amp;amp;size=large&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this picture&lt;/a&gt; of the moon with a DSLR in 2008. This photo was shot at 280mm with a Canon 70-200mm and a x1.4 extender. My settings were:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;f/8, 1/8 s., ISO200&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photo below a 100% crop out of 21MP. I'm not sure what you meant by &quot;nothing has worked so far&quot;, but that's how close I could get without spending too much time on it. Not super sharp I know. No filter was used, only some minor white balance adjustment in post.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides the settings you were inquiring about, I would suggest you try to be as stable as possible, especially at the long end of the zoom. A few tips:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;use a solid tripod of course,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;use a remote trigger if possible (either wireless, or a cable release), or even a timer to avoid vibrations,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;enable &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_lock-up&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;mirror lockup&lt;/a&gt; to reduce vibration-induced motion blur during exposure. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ZYPuk.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-12T17:18:02.100" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T17:18:02.100" />
  <row Id="6808" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5046" CreationDate="2011-01-11T23:47:59.680" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want to try macro (close-up) photography, you could try a set of extender tubes (like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-Focus-Extension-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0030C2W4C/ref=sr_1_6?s=electronics&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1294789295&amp;amp;sr=1-6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;these&lt;/a&gt; ones). They will open up a whole new world of picture taking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T23:47:59.680" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-11T23:47:59.680" />
  <row Id="6809" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5046" CreationDate="2011-01-11T23:55:18.673" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unless they already own dozens of them: a memory card or spare battery for the camera. Will only work once or twice, though. It's not actually an encouragement to try out new things, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2616" LastActivityDate="2011-01-11T23:55:18.673" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-11T23:55:18.673" />
  <row Id="6811" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6806" CreationDate="2011-01-12T00:23:22.370" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For off camera lighting with strobes there are several options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Radio Triggers&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Optical Triggers&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wired Setup&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;best&lt;/em&gt; solution in general is either the Pocket Wizard wireless triggers, or the Radio Popper wireless triggers. Both are highly regarded, used universally by pros and amateurs alike, incredibly reliable and perform very well. Newer systems preserve TTL data, passing the information from your camera to the strobe. Older systems were typically used with manual flash settings. These triggers also have multiple channels to prevent interference, and to create &quot;strobe&quot; groups. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, they're not cheap, nor are they really necessary for a single off-camera flash setup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So that leaves with some other options to try.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gadgetinfinity.com/product.php?productid=16766&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ebay flash triggers&lt;/a&gt;, that are roughly 10x cheaper that have okay performance, but lack the bang-bang-bang reliability, distance, and features of the pocketwizard/radio popper triggers. But, for someone who is just starting out, the price point is very good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;TTL cables allow you to transmit TTL data, where as the PC cable is just a dumb sync cable. TTL data contains data to for auto flash exposures. If you're looking to do manual flash settings, then a simple PC sync cable should work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon and the 550ex also support wireless IR triggering, when paired with the ST-E2 transmitter. Since this setup is IR based, it does require line of sight. It works relatively well indoors, but is not as cheap as ebay triggers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Optical slaves trigger the flash when it detects a flash pulse. This is of no use when you use a single strobe, but in multistrobe environments optical triggers are a cost effective way to trigger them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The big advantage to wireless is the freedom to reposition your strobes without worrying about cords. Wired setup is far cheaper, and more reliable than the cheaper radio triggers, but with the added hassle of connection. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I highly recommend heading over to &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;strobist and going through his lighting 101 series&lt;/a&gt; of posts. It's incredibly informative and gives great insight into how to get started using off camera lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-12T00:50:03.327" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T00:50:03.327" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6812" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6806" CreationDate="2011-01-12T00:33:02.460" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Alan's answer covers the wireless option (and was posted while I was typing) so I'll restrict this to the wired options.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's start with what you probably &lt;em&gt;don't&lt;/em&gt; want. The PC cable option is the cheapest possible -- until you take into account the flash-capable light meter you're going to need in order to make it work the way you'd like. There was a time when that would have been a reasonable option, back in the days when a good external flash could work in stand-alone auto mode. That is, the flash would have its own built-in meter, and as long as the film ISO was set on the flash and the meter was pointed at the subject you could more-or-less fire and forget. Your flash doesn't have its own flash meter; it only operates manually or using TTL metering (TTL means &quot;through the lens&quot;, so it's the camera that does the metering). A PC cord can only tell the flash when to start firing, but not when to stop, so you'd be stuck with manual mode (setting the power level on the back of the flash). Manual mode is the most versatile way to operate, but it does involve that rather expensive flash meter I was talking about earlier (or a lot of test exposures for every single setup you use).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A TTL cord lets the camera talk to the flash as if it were sitting safely in the camera's hot shoe. You get the same degree of convenience you'd get with an on-camera flash, but with the benefits that come with a different lighting direction. At one time, TTL cords were the only practical way to get TTL control with an off-camera flash, and they are still the most reliable if you are using a flash bracket. They are God-awful expensive, though (at least if purchased new with the Canon name on the box), and they tend to be a tripping hazard when they aren't acting like a short leash if you are using, say, an umbrella setup or a mini softbox on a lighting stand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T00:33:02.460" />
  <row Id="6813" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6806" CreationDate="2011-01-12T01:38:45.817" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you have a Canon EOS 7D, then the master is at the built in flash, and you can use the 550ex as a full ETTL off-camera wireless flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Syl Arena's &lt;a href=&quot;http://speedliting.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Speedliting.com&lt;/a&gt; has great information on all you wanted to know about controlling an aff-camera Canon flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I assume the 550ex has the slave functionality.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-12T01:44:03.967" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T01:44:03.967" />
  <row Id="6814" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6798" CreationDate="2011-01-12T02:46:14.487" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In a large professional studio (think of something that you'd bring a vehicle into to photograph) a &lt;strong&gt;cyclo wall&lt;/strong&gt; is a permanent installation that serves the same purpose as a seamless background paper setup. A &lt;em&gt;cove&lt;/em&gt;, or curved transition, is built between wall and floor (usually a bendable plywood over a rib form), and the wall, cove and floor are painted the same color, usually white. The wall stops short of the ceiling so lights can be fired from above and behind. Think of a light table (not a transparency viewer -- one of those deals with a plexi sweep) writ large. The idea, as with seamless paper, is to allow the subject to appear to float in space, often to allow the subject image to be &quot;keyed out&quot; later for print, although it is just as easy to create a gradient background with lighting alone. It is used mostly for large product photography (vehicles and major appliances), although something at a somewhat smaller scale would be useful for fashion (particularly catalog) shoots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T02:46:14.487" />
  <row Id="6815" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4698" CreationDate="2011-01-12T04:23:29.097" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One possibility: usenet-groups (no, not dead yet).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At least in the german-speaking space, a post with a link to picture(s) and maybe some explanation in news://de.rec.fotografie with the tag &quot;[BK]&quot; (bitte kommentieren = please comment) will yield some comments and/or criticism from a smaller circle of interested photgraphers. In German, that is ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I really don't know if the english usenet-groups are worth it (alt.photographie, free.uk.photographic, ...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T04:23:29.097" />
  <row Id="6816" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="459" CreationDate="2011-01-12T04:24:00.393" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The moon can be a tricky subject. It is a very bright subject compared to the rest of the night sky. It is also a moving subject, and it moves just fast enough that it can be problematic. Its luminosity changes depending on the time of the month. If you wish to capture any other elements in a scene with the moon, exposure can become fairly complicated. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/5cc4R.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above shot was taken this past November 8th, at about 7pm...a fairly new moon. It was shot with a Canon EOS 450D using the Canon EF 100-400mm L series lens @ 400mm, f/7.1 and ISO 800 for 1/2 of a second. That exposure time was necessary to expose the clouds enough to create a silhouette of the foreground treetops, and not overexpose the moon itself. It was a fairly tricky shot, and in the end part of the crescent did get a little over exposed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Determining which settings to use boiled down to a maybe two things. What I wanted to compose my scene with, and how much time I had to take the shot. At 400mm, the motion of the moon across the sky is heightened quite a bit, and at most you have about 0.8-1 second before that motion blurs detail. I wanted to expose long enough that the clouds obscuring the moon were bright enough to show silhouettes of the tree tops. I also wanted to get some earthshine on the dark part (a desire that was really pushing it...and, I ended up choosing an exposure that was a bit too high in this case, as 1/4-1/6th of a second would have probably been better, or perhaps ISO 400 rather than ISO 800.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no single correct set of exposure settings that will always expose the moon correctly. Its luminosity depends on a couple factors, primarily its phase, its position in the sky, and what exactly you want to expose (i.e. just the moon, or the moon with some earthshine.) Here is a table of base exposure for digital cameras, assuming an aperture of f/8, based on some of my experience (note that the difference between each phase is not exactly one stop, the scale tends to get skewed a bit as you reach full moon):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Base Aperture: f/8&#xA;&#xA;ISO  | Crescent | Quarter | Gibbous | Full Moon |&#xA;-------------------------------------------------&#xA;100  |    1/2   |   1/4   |   1/10  |    1/20   |&#xA;200  |    1/4   |   1/8   |   1/20  |    1/40   |&#xA;400  |    1/8   |   1/15  |   1/40  |    1/80   |&#xA;800  |    1/15  |   1/30  |   1/80  |    1/160  |&#xA;1600 |    1/30  |   1/60  |   1/160 |    1/300  |&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From that table, it is easy enough to make extrapolations for special scenarios. If you want some earthshine, you will want to expose for longer. I would say that getting even a hint of earthshine requires an exposure around 0.8-1 second. This often blows out the lit part of the moon, so its only really viable with a crescent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to capture any foreground details, you will usually also want an exposure time of around 1s for silhouettes, or longer for anything else (usually, you will want a double-exposure...one for the moon, one for the foreground.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Blue moons, orange moons in crescent hung just above the horizon, etc. will all be dimmer than a white moon in the middle of the sky. Slightly longer exposures, maybe by a stop or two, will be necessary to compensate. When it comes to exposing the full moon, however, the reverse tends to be true...shorter exposures by up to a stop may be necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To capture the full moon with that orange glow near the horizon, you will probably want to use the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ISO 200, f/8, 1/40-1/50s&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compensate as necessary for any other compositional factors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've recently been photographing the moon a lot. Having taken numerous shots of the moon, in its crescent, half, gibbous, and full phases, during eclipses and perigee, I think it is important to make a significant note: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The moon does &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; follow any&#xA;  specific pattern, and there are, in&#xA;  the end, few rules that you can follow&#xA;  to take a good exposure. The table&#xA;  above is a good baseline, and can work&#xA;  as a starting point, however as you&#xA;  expand your efforts and target more&#xA;  dramatic moonscapes, exposing the moon&#xA;  is much like exposing anything else:&#xA;  You need to get a feel for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Below is a link to a small video I've been working on, a composition of some of my moon photographs and time-lapse videos taken over the last six months:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://vimeo.com/21251761&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Moonscape&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-20T08:27:04.217" LastActivityDate="2011-03-20T08:27:04.217" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="6817" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4698" CreationDate="2011-01-12T04:30:22.970" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Digital Photography School &lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/critique/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;has a critique section, too&lt;/a&gt;.  I've found their critiques to be decent, though it seems like the pool of critics isn't huge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T04:30:22.970" />
  <row Id="6818" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6819" CreationDate="2011-01-12T04:46:52.540" Score="8" ViewCount="345" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why is it that pictures are taken with a subjects shoulders set at a 45 (or-so) degree angle to the camera in the vast majority of portraits?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am hard pressed to find portraits with the subject head-on, or at 90 degrees. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since it is clear that 45 degrees is the de facto standard pose for portraiture, what's the science or logic behind this? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-12T14:32:23.733" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T14:32:23.733" Title="Why are most portraits taken with the subject at 45 degrees to the camera?" Tags="&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;posing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6819" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6818" CreationDate="2011-01-12T04:54:09.010" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many, many portraits out there shot &quot;head on&quot; - fashion and magazine photos often use this kind of pose.  Frankly, their models can pull it off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the majority of people out there, a straight on pose will most often add a certain bit of weight to the face, whereas an angle to the face can reduce &quot;flabbiness&quot;.  Most people paying for a photo want to reduce their weight on camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, lenses that have significant barrel distortion will have an extra effect on the &quot;flabbiness&quot; when used head on.  This effect is more minimal at an angle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some people can pull it off, but its really about the lighting.  Its a decision you have to make as a photog - what looks best for &lt;em&gt;that person&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EXCELLENT references on the subject really include the recent questions and answers about broad, short, split, butterfly, and Rembrandt lighting (mostly by Jay Lance Photography) -which cover not just the lighting but the facial pose as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-12T05:47:03.643" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T05:47:03.643" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6820" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6832" CreationDate="2011-01-12T04:55:24.680" Score="8" ViewCount="378" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi all,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am planning to take a bunch of photos for time-lapse and it is easiest for me to setup with my XT; however, it will definitely require a bunch of shutter actuations which would ultimately kill my camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there anyway to disable mechanical actuations (ie. keep the shutter open for a set amount of time, but electronically turn it on/off?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively, what are some other good packages you recommend (point and shoot cameras, video cameras, etc.)?  The cameras have to support a tripod mount and preferably, I'd like to just get a bunch of jpegs that I can stitch together myself as opposed to a video directly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Walter&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3188" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T10:36:33.623" Title="Canon Rebel XT - do electronic shutter instead of mechanical?" Tags="&lt;timelapse&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6821" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6823" CreationDate="2011-01-12T05:10:34.070" Score="0" ViewCount="159" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2213/state-of-the-industry-distinction-between-amateurs-and-pros&quot;&gt;State of the Industry:  Distinction between amateurs and pros&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aside from the money, what is the difference between a professional photographer, and an amateur. Please include skill, training, techniques, gear, habits, or other specific information. Please don't include generalities, if possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-12T05:21:33.183" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T05:44:33.793" ClosedDate="2011-01-12T05:46:59.027" Title="What is the difference between an amateur and a professional photographer?" Tags="&lt;professional&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6823" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6821" CreationDate="2011-01-12T05:44:33.793" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not about gear, training, techniques or skill. A well-heeled amateur may have more and better equipment and be more technically adept than a working pro. An amateur may gather an immense amount of experience, either through years of work or through volume. Many amateurs are more artistically inclined and have a clearer &quot;voice&quot; than a lot of working pros. In this respect, you can treat most fine art photographers as &quot;amateurs with exposure&quot; -- they aren't doing the daily grind, and frankly any financial success they have is applause for effort they've done to please themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's about attitude and commitment. A pro will, within reason, get the customer's shot regardless of his or her technical or artistic reservations. The amateur is guided by his or her own interests, and can forego that architectural shot that's going to wind up badly distorted because it requires a stupidly wide-angled lens from an awkward position. He/she can choose the subject of a portrait &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; the representation of that person in the finished work. A pro needs to make the bride feel beautiful even if he's thinking &lt;em&gt;beached whale&lt;/em&gt; so that he can make her look beautiful. It doesn't mean stepping outside of your ethical bounds or taking on jobs that would muddy your brand, but it does mean making the best sort of silk-looking purse you can out of some pretty badly-chewed sows' ears sometimes. It was beyond me -- I could do the technically difficult, but I couldn't pretend beauty, elegance or strength were there when I couldn't see it, and that's all in a day's work until you have enough credibility and reputation to choose your clients.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T05:44:33.793" />
  <row Id="6824" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4157" CreationDate="2011-01-12T05:56:41.407" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Memorize a few starting points for common scenes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &quot;Sunny 16&quot; rule: in direct sun, your exposure should be close to ISO 100, f/16, 1/100s. Open up a stop for overcast days.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A well-lit indoor room should be somewhere around ISO 400, f/4, 1/40s. (Of course, I never seem to have photo opportunities in well-lit rooms; I always have to open up a stop or three.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From there, just use the LCD on the back of your camera. This is what histograms are for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T05:56:41.407" />
  <row Id="6825" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5557" CreationDate="2011-01-12T06:00:21.837" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are in any situation that requires the exposure to be the same across a number of shots, manual mode is great.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example: shooting in a studio with strobes. Or shooting a series of shots for a panorama.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T06:00:21.837" />
  <row Id="6826" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6820" CreationDate="2011-01-12T06:17:51.013" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;An expired shutter will likely not kill the whole camera. Shutters can be replaced independently, and don't cost terribly much...maybe $150 or around there. A decent point and shoot, or a camera with an actual electronic shutter, are likely to be far more expensive, to the tune of several hundred dollars to possibly a thousand or more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The XT's shutter is rated to last 50,000 shots. If you think it is already near that limit, I would replace it now. Unless you plan to actually make 50,000 shots for your time lapse project, the new shutter should survive fine. It should also be noted that those are fairly conservative estimates. Real-world usage statistics &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.olegkikin.com/shutterlife/canon_eos400d.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;indicate&lt;/a&gt; that shutters have a high rate of survival past their rated lifetime...sometimes well past. The 400D (XTi, next model after yours, same shutter) still has a 72% survival rate at up to 300,000 actuations. Many shutters fail before their time due to extreme usage, such as extremely cold weather, use in dusty or sandy environments without care, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T06:17:51.013" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="6827" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6820" CreationDate="2011-01-12T07:39:48.653" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you don't need DSLR quality or features, get a Canon P&amp;amp;S that can run &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CHDK&lt;/a&gt;.  Depending on what you're doing, that might be a lot easier to use than your XT, since CHDK gives you the ability to write and execute scripts (like, take a picture every x seconds or every time it detects movement).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T07:39:48.653" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6828" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5046" CreationDate="2011-01-12T07:52:55.880" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For photographers?&#xA;I have another good idea.&#xA;photographers usually shoot a lot of photos. after shooting, he/she may want to show the photos with a magic way.&#xA;Then how about making a 3d flash photo gallery with the photos by iFunia 3DGallery.&#xA;such like this one: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ifunia.com/3dgallery-column/create-3d-flash-gallery-with-music-on-mac.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;How to create 3D flash photo gallery with music on Mac&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3194" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T07:52:55.880" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-12T07:52:55.880" />
  <row Id="6829" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5897" CreationDate="2011-01-12T07:57:05.367" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One option is to get a (relatively) cheap lens with a really big zoom (e.g. the Tamron 18-200, which is about $300 right now on amazon).  It won't be good in low light and it won't take high quality pictures, but that's not what you want it for: you're using it to run an &lt;strong&gt;experiment&lt;/strong&gt;.  Take a couple thousand pictures with it, then plot the focal lengths of your favorite (top 10% or so) photos: wherever you see peaks or clusters, those are your favorite focal lengths, and those are the lenses (whether they're primes or zooms) you want to buy.  It's an expensive way to find out what you want, but no more expensive than buying a 50/1.4 and then learning that you don't like it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, when you're reading what other people have written about lenses and looking at their results, keep in mind that you have that crop sensor.  If they say they use a 70-200, but they use it on a full-frame camera, you should be thinking &quot;45-135&quot; in your head; if you get a 70-200 you won't get the same pictures they do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T07:57:05.367" />
  <row Id="6830" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6834" CreationDate="2011-01-12T08:25:00.433" Score="6" ViewCount="2494" Body="&lt;p&gt;Good day all.&#xA;I was almost decided on Canon 70-300 USM IS (non L) but recently came to know about the Tamron version (SP AF 70-300 F/4-5.6 Di VC USD) of this one.&#xA;Neither of these makes you a better photographer and the price is neck to neck as well. The Tamron version features a non rotating front element and full time manual focusing. Its VC is also slightly better reviewed than Canon IS. Sharpness is almost same. Color quality wise Tamron wins by margin, though it has CS issues. Tamron one is heavier and build quality is better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've found a few links which you can take a look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Canon 70-300mm USM IS:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Review:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-is-usm-lens-review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-is-usm-lens-review.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=294&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=294&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tamron 70-300mm USD VC:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Review and Sample Photos: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aputure.com/blog/2010/09/10/new-tamron-70-300mm-vc-sample-photos/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.aputure.com/blog/2010/09/10/new-tamron-70-300mm-vc-sample-photos/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aputure.com/blog/2010/08/11/new-tamron-70-300mm-vc-lens-pre-review/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.aputure.com/blog/2010/08/11/new-tamron-70-300mm-vc-lens-pre-review/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Side by Side Comparison:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=958631&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=958631&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you were given a 550D body and 500$ to buy a lens, which one of the above would you've bought?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And about type of photography I want to do, I was thinking birds mostly, but also anything good thats far enough! =)&#xA;Auto focus is also reviewed as faster in Tamron considering the time it takes to focus from MFD to Infinity. Focus is acurate and with the help of FTM, you can fine tune as well. (after all its their anniversary lens!). Its slightly sharper than Canon beyond 200mm but also slightly softer than Canon below 200.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I dont know much about sharpness of other lenses (I do not own any L series lens) or what you guys call sharp, but you can take a look at this full size bird photos and let me know if they are sharp or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/tamron/sp-70-300mm-f40-56-di-vc-usd/IMG_1307.JPG&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;300mm. f/5.6 1/400 ISO 400&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/tamron/sp-70-300mm-f40-56-di-vc-usd/IMG_1317.JPG&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;300mm, f/9 1/125 ISO 400&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/tamron/sp-70-300mm-f40-56-di-vc-usd/IMG_1363.JPG&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;300mm, f/10 1/400 ISO 1250&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All photos taken using a Canon EOS 50D with the Tamron 70-300 attached, Aperture Priority mode, handheld with the VC system On. More pictures taken by Tamron 70-300 can be found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/44148035@N08/5339927028/in/pool-1501295@N23/lightbox/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; (flickr).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-07T04:47:37.987" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T04:47:37.987" Title="Need help choosing between Tamron 70-300 USD VC and Canon 70-300 USM IS" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;tamron&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="6831" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6818" CreationDate="2011-01-12T08:44:55.113" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm sorry, but the premise of your question is just false. Most portraits aren't taken at a 45 degree angle, it's not just models, some of the most famous portraits in photography's history have been shot head on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look at the cover of any magazine, it's not just models, most &lt;a href=&quot;http://images.google.com/images?q=obama+cover&amp;amp;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;politicians&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://images.google.com/images?q=rolling+stones+cover&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;musicians&lt;/a&gt;, etc. that are shot head on. You do see the 45 degree angle in a lot of corporate/school/Sears-style portraits, but that's a small subset of photography and not really one you want to emulate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, faces shot at 90 degree angles tend to be rare, because you don't get to see the eyes, nor can you fake eye contact. The eyes are absolutely key in portraiture, leaving them out is extremely hard to pull off well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T08:44:55.113" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6832" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6820" CreationDate="2011-01-12T08:54:22.423" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately there is no way to turn off the shutter mechanism on the 350D (without some serious hacking, which would probably render it useless as a DSLR).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A DSLR is probably overkill for timelapses and not really simply the right tool for starting to learn how to shoot them, mainly due to the mechanical shutter. But also the major advantages of a DSLR:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;interchangable lenses&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;shallow depth of field&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;optical viewfinder&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;are not usually required for timelapses, except in rare circumstances. At the same time the disadvantages of P&amp;amp;S and bridge cameras:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;poor low light performance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;slow autofocus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;are largely mitigated by shooting timelapses on a tripod. Other advantages are that a smaller camera is easier to position, you can get away with a lighter tripod or a GorillaPod. It's also less likely to get stolen, and if it does it will be cheaper to replace. You don't need the latest and greatest, HD video is only equivalent to two megapixels! You don't even need manual controls or an intervalometer if you can a camera for which a custom firmware is available (e.g. it supports CHDK).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this the only timelapse you'll ever shoot? Or will you be planning to do more if it goes well? If it's the later my advice would be to stump up the cost of a compact now and it'll save you money in the long run. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The manufacturer's shutter ratings are conservative, and empirical data on shutter failure (such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.olegkikin.com/shutterlife/canon_eos350d.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this link&lt;/a&gt; that Joey posted for the) is very useful, but beware of the small sample size! There are a total of 10 people (out of 427 respondents) who claim to have taken the camera past 150k actuations. The 427 figure is also not representative considering the millions of 350Ds that have been sold worldwide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-13T10:36:33.623" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T10:36:33.623" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="6833" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5897" CreationDate="2011-01-12T09:07:17.467" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You definetly want to check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/&lt;/a&gt; where you can find out full-size sample photos from lenses. You can search pictures taken classified by lens model, focal length, aperture... and then compare them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3149" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T09:07:17.467" />
  <row Id="6834" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6830" CreationDate="2011-01-12T09:42:22.623" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What I'd probably do - and I don't suggest you follow it in this particular case - is get the Canon lens, given from your description that the lenses are a very close match. This is because I am (sadly) a lens snob... From reviews and other opinions I read through time I get the impression that the Canon (or Nikon for that matter) build quality tends to be better than the competition - or more correctly, it is more consistent. The chances of getting a good copy are greater with the Canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's not to discourage you from trying both and if you get a good copy of the Tamron and feel that the build quality is better (as you mentioned in your question), then by all means get it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the test images - compared to what I got used to see from photographers like Scott Bourne then no, they are far from being sharp. However, with the equipment that he uses you could buy a 50D+Tamron for each member of your family...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T09:42:22.623" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6835" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5897" CreationDate="2011-01-12T10:48:17.733" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I suggest borrowing a range of lenses and trying them out. Get a sense of how they work in reality; a theoretical understanding can only take you so far. Try shooting in different conditions (bright sunlight, low-light, subtle shades and vivid colours), and play around with the range of apertures and focal lengths available for each lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The easiest and cheapest way of borrowing lenses is to find a local photography group. Try &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.meetup.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Meetup&quot;&gt;Meetup&lt;/a&gt; or searching the net. Most photographers would be happy to lend their gear out for an afternoon or evening. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2127" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T10:48:17.733" />
  <row Id="6836" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6838" CreationDate="2011-01-12T10:53:24.413" Score="12" ViewCount="277" Body="&lt;p&gt;I currently am in Singapore for an exchange year. The architecture here is impressive, the lights at night are wonderful, but what I find to be the most interesting are the people. You can find people from all races, sizes and ages here. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would love to just ask some of them on the street, in the bus, in the MRT stations or in the malls if I could take a photo of them. However, I guess, a little preparation can't hurt as I'm not too experienced with portrait photography - especially with the lighting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you give me some tips on how to light spontaneous portraits? This means I can't put up a studio environment and don't have much time to adjust the lights. Furthermore, I'll have to deal with an array of different lighting situations (outside, sunny, cloudy, at night, in a mall, etc). Last but not least, I don't want to scare people away with huge amounts of equipment!&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Should I buy a flash, and if yes, which one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course other tips on both interaction with people and the technical side are welcome, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: My equipment is a Canon EOS 450D + EF-s 60mm / f2.8&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PPS: Thanks to everyone for your tips! Here is one of my first shots:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/elektrowolf/5358870849/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/UdXKf.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Voldepotter?&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2069" LastEditorUserId="2069" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-16T11:58:06.297" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T11:58:06.297" Title="How to light spontaneous portraits?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;street-photography&gt;&lt;spontaneous&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="6837" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6836" CreationDate="2011-01-12T11:16:08.977" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not a street photographer, but I imagine that for this kind of photography you are pretty limited to an on-camera external flash, if at all. So I'd more rely on a lens with a big aperture. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_50mm_f_1_8_ii&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF 50mm f/1.8 II&lt;/a&gt; of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_50mm_f_1_4_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF 50mm f/1.4 USM&lt;/a&gt; for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I'd prefer one of the good zooms (you did not mention your brand, I assume Canon), &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24_70mm_f_2_8l_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF24-70mm f/2.8L USM&lt;/a&gt; seems like a good (pricy) choice, but keep in mind that it is relatively big, and may be intimidating in some situations. A lighter alternative for crop-sensor would be the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_s_17_55_f_2_8_is_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for choice of a flash - the Canon &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/speedlite_flash_lineup/speedlite_580ex_ii&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Speedlite 580EX II&lt;/a&gt; is a great unit with lots of power on customizability, and can serve as a master or a slave (if you have a EOS 7D, that's all you need). But, it is BIG. I guess though, that for street snapshots the lower priced and smaller footprint &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/speedlite_flash_lineup/speedlite_430ex_ii&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Speedlite 430EX II&lt;/a&gt; is just fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since you are not looking for shooting in a controlled (studio) environment, one of the aftermarket, TTL compatible flashes will do just fine for less $$.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-12T11:29:01.100" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T11:29:01.100" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="6838" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6836" CreationDate="2011-01-12T11:40:41.173" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You light spontaneous portraits with available light. Sure, flashes, strobes, kinoflos, etc are great tools and really expand your visual vocabulary, but at the end of the day, nothing is as authentic and versatile as available light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Start observing light. Find a cool light source - be it a back lit outdoor ad, a store display, etc. Look at how it lights people. Go with a friend, ask them to move around the light as you watch them. See how the light breaks, how it changes their features. Have a couple go-to moves - a direct ceiling light from above, a shot incorporating street lights, maybe a shot in the shade with a blue sky in the background, the specifics don't matter. Just don't stop experimenting, there's so much awesome mixed light in most city environments, it's a shame to overpower it with strobes just because that's the easy out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you absolutely must buy gear, get a Speedlite - a 580, 430, doesn't matter - and a cable. Being able to remove the light from the camera and movie it around your model is absolutely crucial. Learn to control ambient via shutter speed and flash exposure via aperture, there's a lot of great info on doing that on &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;strobist&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And remember, there really are no correct answers, photography - especially non commercial photography - is all about expressing &lt;strong&gt;your&lt;/strong&gt; vision. Have fun with it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T11:40:41.173" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6840" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5433" CreationDate="2011-01-12T12:30:18.473" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I got a D200 specifically to be able to meter with non-AF lenses. While it's a nice feature, you can go a long way by setting the exposure manually and checking it on the rear LCD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The D200 and D300 are well-built and rugged, but that implies that they're rather large and heavy. There's also a wealth of options to be set that can be daunting for the casual photographer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd go for a D90 as cheapest body able to use screw-drive AF lenses&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T12:30:18.473" />
  <row Id="6841" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6645" CreationDate="2011-01-12T13:18:39.633" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When comparing noise in images, make sure you're comparing your final output format.  If you're exporting for the web, the reduction in resolution generally eliminates all noise.  You'd have to shoot at ISO values beyond those that your camera auto-selects to see noise in screen-sized pictures.  If you'll be making prints, make a few test prints.  A picture that shows some noise when viewed at 100% on screen may very well look clean when printed on a large desktop printer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have the auto-ISO on my D7000 limited to 1600.  I never change the noise settings in Lightroom.  When viewed at 100%, pictures shot at ISO 1600 have obvious noise.  When scaled to fit my full HD monitor or printed on A3 paper, those same ISO 1600 images show no noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your final output does have too much noise, adjusting for color noise and then for luminance noise as kristof explained is the way to go.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T13:18:39.633" />
  <row Id="6842" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6845" CreationDate="2011-01-12T13:24:42.487" Score="19" ViewCount="517" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found some nice images on Flickr using the advanced image search to show only those that are creative commons licensed; I want to use the images in a commercial website I am building.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the images can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomsaint/2672548658/sizes/z/in/photostream/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  The Creative Commons license that is linked to says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the Flickr page I don't see anything indicating &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; to attribute it.  Is it enough to give the photographer's name as a caption to the image?  Or as a comment in the source of the page?  I don't want the attribution to take up too much room or prominence on the site, as it's orthogonal to the purpose of the site (it's not a site about photography, it's a podiatrist's office).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to make sure to do right by the photographer, so any advice would be appreciated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3197" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-14T14:19:12.473" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T15:45:38.173" Title="How to attribute Flickr Creative Commons photos online?" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;flickr&gt;&lt;web&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;creative-commons&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="6843" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6842" CreationDate="2011-01-12T13:33:38.800" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it needs to be visible to the viewer.  So... putting it in the source is not really enough, since that's not really intended to be seen.  You could put a small caption beneath the photo, or perhaps include it in the &quot;alt&quot; tag for the image, so it would display if you hover over the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T13:33:38.800" />
  <row Id="6844" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6769" CreationDate="2011-01-12T14:14:26.987" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's important to realise two things. Firstly, Adams was exposing single sheets of film in his view camera - not rolls - so he could vary the development time per-negative, and secondly he pretty much always printed on the same paper, with the same gamma and tonal range. So his zone system was a quick way of mapping the tones in the picture that he &lt;em&gt;wanted&lt;/em&gt; as 'pure white', 'pure black' and all the zones in-between onto the final print, by &lt;em&gt;varying both the exposure and the development time of the negative&lt;/em&gt;. So by under- or over-exposing, and marking the single undeveloped negative appropriately, he could he could develop the negative to pretty much the optimum darkness without having to constantly inspect it under the safelight. It would have the correct tonal range for the paper he knew he was going to print it on, and from there it was 'only' a matter of tweaking the final print, at which he was also a master. It was his desire to consistently map the tonal range he was interested in, and 'pre-visualised', as he put it, onto his favourite paper, led to the zone system. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As others have said, it's not directly applicable in the digital era as there is no negative, just a raw file whose curves can be adjusted at will. But his basic insights about pre-visualisation, of actively deciding what tones in the photo will be pure black, pure white etc. in the final print, and both exposing and post-processing accordingly, are still valid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2329" LastEditorUserId="2329" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-12T17:45:08.993" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T17:45:08.993" />
  <row Id="6845" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6842" CreationDate="2011-01-12T14:20:00.713" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd suggest contacting the photographer to see what their &quot;specified manner&quot; might be, as a matter of courtesy. But the actual legal requirements are (by design) quite reasonable for reuse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you read the actual license terms &lt;a href=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;in their full, legal-language form&lt;/a&gt;, the key relevant point appears to be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, you can put the attribution with your other copyright notices and about-this-site stuff. You don't have to put it as a caption &lt;em&gt;directly&lt;/em&gt; with the image at all. (Although doing so would probably be nice.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking/Users&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Creative Commons wiki&lt;/a&gt; has a &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking/Users&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Marking/Users&lt;/a&gt;&quot; page, which specifically suggests that images used online should be put in a &quot;credit list&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The following is from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_I_properly_attribute_a_Creative_Commons_licensed_work.3F&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Creative Commons FAQ&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;How do I properly attribute a Creative Commons licensed work?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All current CC licenses require that you attribute the original author(s). If the copyright holder has not specified any particular way to attribute them, this does not mean that you do not have to give attribution. It simply means that you will have to give attribution to the best of your ability with the information you do have. Generally speaking, this implies five things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If the work itself contains any copyright notices placed there by the copyright holder, you must leave those notices intact, or reproduce them in a way that is reasonable to the medium in which you are re-publishing the work. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Cite the author's name, screen name, user identification, etc. If you are publishing on the Internet, it is nice to link that name to the person's profile page, if such a page exists. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Cite the work's title or name, if such a thing exists. If you are publishing on the Internet, it is nice to link the name or title directly to the original work. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Cite the specific CC license the work is under. If you are publishing on the Internet, it is nice if the license citation links to the license on the CC website. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you are making a derivative work or adaptation, in addition to the above, you need to identify that your work is a derivative work i.e., “This is a Finnish translation of the [original work] by [author].” or “Screenplay based on [original work] by [author].” &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case where a copyright holder does choose to specify the manner of attribution, in addition to the requirement of leaving intact existing copyright notices, they are only able to require certain things. Namely:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They may require that you attribute the work to a certain name, pseudonym or even an organization of some sort. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They may require you to associate/provide a certain URL (web address) for the work. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are interested to see what an actual license (&quot;legalcode&quot;) has to say about attribution, you can use the CC Attribution 3.0 Unported license as an example. Please note that this is only an example, and you should always read the appropriate section of the specific license in question ... usually, but perhaps not always, section 4(b) or 4(c):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In an awesome display of irony, the above text is marked as licensed under the &lt;a href=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License&lt;/a&gt;, but the page does not provide clear and concise way to provide attribution for &lt;em&gt;itself&lt;/em&gt;. It appears to be a collaborative work by &lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Frequently_Asked_Questions&amp;amp;action=history&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;these authors&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-13T15:41:19.280" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T15:41:19.280" />
  <row Id="6846" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6842" CreationDate="2011-01-12T14:52:35.150" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can tell you what I've done in the past, but I wouldn't consider this a definitive answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You need to decide two things: what is the text of the attribution, and where should that text be places.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, the photographer's Flickr handle is Rennett Stowe. Depending on space availability, I might write one of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Rennett Stowe@flickr CC-BY&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Photo by Rennett Stowe, &lt;a href=&quot;http://flickr.com/photos/tomsaint/2672548658/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://flickr.com/photos/tomsaint/2672548658/&lt;/a&gt; CC-BY-3.0&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Note that I've trimmed the URL down a bit, but it still works.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For placement, I like to put it in small text alongside the photo, as you might see on a book jacket or in some magazines. Examples include &lt;a href=&quot;http://reidster.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;my home page&lt;/a&gt; as well as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://magic.cyclopath.org/misc/maintenance.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;maintenance downtime page&lt;/a&gt; for one of my projects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it were me, listing the credit in an &quot;about&quot; or &quot;credits&quot; page would be acceptable, perhaps with duplicate credit in alt text as a supplemental bonus (since many people don't know about alt text), though a plain text attribution like the above would be the best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An example of the former is on my older trip reports (&lt;a href=&quot;http://reidster.net/trips/2005-escalante/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;e.g.&lt;/a&gt;), where I have a blanket attribution at the beginning and specific exceptions when needed at individual photos. For newer reports, each photo is attributed individually regardless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that all of these are hobbyist/nonprofit sites. For-profit institutions will get higher scrutiny.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BTW, IANAL and I'm sure that goes for everyone else here too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T14:52:35.150" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6847" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6842" CreationDate="2011-01-12T15:13:15.267" Score="-3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, I just read about a case of CC copyright infringement in Israel, in which the judge ruled ~$15,000 in compensation to 2 hobbyist photogs who posted their nature photos in Flickr and these photos were used, without permission or credits, by a publication of an Israeli travel guide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4012621,00.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The article&lt;/a&gt; is in Hebrew, maybe Google can translate it for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update: the lesson to learn here is that you better contact the photographer and ask explicitly for his terms before actually using the photos under any assumptions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-12T15:21:00.560" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T15:21:00.560" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="6849" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6836" CreationDate="2011-01-12T16:14:50.190" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I happened to just do a session like this... except that it was at night and in constant motion (as was I). Much of it was outside (in a downtown setting) or in dark rooms. As such, using only natural light wasn't really an option; everything would have been too dark/blurry. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ended up going with an on-camera flash (SB-600) in TTL mode with a Sto-Fen OnniBounce. At an angle, it gave me a relatively diffuse lighting, and it bounced a bit when indoors. (Most of the ceilings were high so this effect was limited). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I still attempted to use as much natural light as possible:&#xA;* I boosted ISO&#xA;* I opened up my aperture fairly wide (f/2.8) in aperture priority mode&#xA;* For the outdoor shots, I tried to wait until I had good lighting from street lights etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Overall, the light wasn't bad. It was pretty much all on-axis (which was less than ideal) but it served its purpose. TTL and aperture priority mode ensured that I got a correct exposure without fiddling with my controls too much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also had a somewhat wide lens (35mm/52mm EFL), which meant I was relatively close to my subjects. In turn, I was then further away from the background, which kept it from being lit by the flash. The resulting backgrounds were nice and dark, providing good separation for my subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The real boost came in post-production editing though. I had to tweak each photo to even out the lighting. (Lightroom's Graduated Filter and Adjustment Brush came in very handy.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T16:14:50.190" />
  <row Id="6850" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2251" CreationDate="2011-01-12T16:15:05.383" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;ya,i too agree with karel,i bought one in singapore in 1996,i do still use it some times,good one&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3199" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T16:15:05.383" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6851" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2251" CreationDate="2011-01-12T16:28:51.137" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There was apparently a page of information on this camera at:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cdegroot.com/cgi-bin/photowiki/Yashica_AF300&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cdegroot.com/cgi-bin/photowiki/Yashica_AF300&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but unfortunately currently (January 2011), that gives a 404 Error and the main page at cdegroot.com says the site is &quot;temporarily&quot; down. Having a lot of experience with &quot;temporarily&quot; down sites, I'm not terribly optimistic. However, &lt;a href=&quot;http://web.archive.org/web/20070502204815/http://www.cdegroot.com/cgi-bin/photowiki/Yashica_AF300&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a copy can be found at archive.org&lt;/a&gt; . (Thanks @whuber for encouraging me to look again!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another tidbit which might be useful for you — lenses for this thing &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-35mm/system-Yashica-Autofocus/category-Zoom-Lenses?s=1&amp;amp;bcode=YX&amp;amp;ccode=7&amp;amp;cc=56000&amp;amp;r=WG&amp;amp;f&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;look to be quite cheap&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-13T05:00:18.773" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T05:00:18.773" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6852" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3053" CreationDate="2011-01-12T16:57:44.617" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 50mm is &quot;standard&quot; because it's a cheap lens to produce, and in the era of slow films, having a fast max aperture for little money was a good thing for most photographers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many SLRs were sold with a 50/1.8 or 50/2 as a kit lens. When films became faster most consumers found a slower zoom lens to be more versatile.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe Oskar Barnack, the creator of the small-format camera (the Leica) chose 50mm as a standard lens because even if it was longer than the theoretical standard of 43mm it was easier to produce a good 50mm using the technology of the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T16:57:44.617" />
  <row Id="6854" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6860" CreationDate="2011-01-12T17:34:57.087" Score="23" ViewCount="438" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know a few people who carry around a dedicated light meter unit (such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://amzn.to/e8t2Pc&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this one by Sekonic&lt;/a&gt;) and use that to meter photos instead of using the meter built into their cameras (and these are relatively new mid-range DSLRs).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any good reason why someone would do this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T22:46:43.943" Title="Why use a dedicated light meter instead of the one built into the camera?" Tags="&lt;metering&gt;&lt;light-meters&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6855" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6854" CreationDate="2011-01-12T17:40:43.783" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The primary reason I can think of is to use it when scouting a location.  You may not want to lug around all your gear initially, but you want to have a good idea of the ambient light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This also would apply when you are doing a lot of lighting work, and you want to check the light levels as you go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T17:40:43.783" />
  <row Id="6856" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3053" CreationDate="2011-01-12T17:47:07.040" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's actually just happenstance. The 35mm film still format was developed from an existing 35mm cine format, shot &quot;sideways&quot; to increase the image size, and the 2-inch cine lens was a cheap off-the-shelf lens at the time. Both decisions were cost-saving measures; 35mm film allowed the use of film ends, the unexposed bits at the end of, say, a 400-foot roll of film, and the 2-inch lens (a common, simple, easy-to-produce design) had the needed image circle while still being cheap enough. All of these decisions were made before a 35mm rangefinder camera was made, let alone a SLR. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;50mm is actually rather long for a &quot;normal lens&quot;. Consider that a 35mm frame is 24mm by 36mm. A square medium format camera has a frame that is 56mm by 56mm, and the &quot;normal&quot; lens for that format is 80mm; 150mm is considered &quot;normal&quot; for a 4x5 (inch) camera (think Speed Graphic).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T17:47:07.040" />
  <row Id="6857" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6854" CreationDate="2011-01-12T17:51:39.303" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Getting the exposure right isn't easy with film, because there's no immediate feedback, so a light meter (intelligently used) is the way to go. With digital, a quick chimp at the histogram and blown highlight warnings, adjust, and you're ready to go. So no, I don't think it's valuable any more. In principle you could work without even a light meter in your camera if your estimation skills were reasonable and you were allowed to chimp once before every keeper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All this talk of chimps and keepers makes me sound like I work at the zoo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2329" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T17:51:39.303" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6858" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6854" CreationDate="2011-01-12T17:55:40.470" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although in camera light meters are reliable, and getting more so all the time, there is still room in your arsenal for the dedicated light meter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I find I use mine most often when developing multi-light scenarios, mostly in portraits and real estate shots. The main reason is actually simplicity and speed. Once I settle on composition, I don't want to break it to use my spot meter in camera. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words I find it much easier and quicker to settle on DoF, then walk around scene once or twice checking levels on my subject with my dedicated. I can do the math in my head and come back to camera with a better sense of my scene. Then, any micro adjustments I need to do are through camera/master strobe unit. This, I think, works better than firing off a bunch of test flashes while your subject just sits there and you chimp away at the back of your camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That, and you look cool doing it too. That said, there's also no reason not to check your histogram before you settle on exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T17:55:40.470" />
  <row Id="6859" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6861" CreationDate="2011-01-12T17:59:27.550" Score="9" ViewCount="417" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am looking for a 24-70mm f2.8 lens for general use and low light gig/concert photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 2 I am looking at are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-24-70mm-2-8-USM-Lens/dp/B00007EE8M/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1294854646&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-24-70mm-2-8-USM-Lens/dp/B00007EE8M/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1294854646&amp;amp;sr=8-1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM Zoom Lens  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Canon is almost twice the price of the Sigma.&#xA;Is it worth paying for for the Canon?&#xA;Which lens is best&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3201" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-12T19:26:43.490" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T15:04:38.067" Title="Is Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens that much better than Sigma 24-70mm f2.8" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;sigma&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="6860" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6854" CreationDate="2011-01-12T18:17:27.900" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not only are light meters more versatile, you can do a few kinds of metering with them that you can't with cameras (and vice versa).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The meter you've linked (and I happen to own) has two kinds of metering: reflective and incident. Also, light meters can meter for flashes/strobes, something you can't do with modern DSLRs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reflective metering in the metering you know from DSLRs; light is reflected off your subject and back into the camera. While this kind of metering has many advantages: you can meter from far away, you take into account the whole scene, etc., it has many pitfalls. A scene with lots of snow or a dark wall can fool it. I'm sure you have a some images that are poorly exposed for no reason, among a series of well exposed images - that's what happens when a reflective meter is fooled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Incident metering is a bit different; it allows you to measure the light falling onto a subject at the point of that subject. That gives you a &quot;truer&quot; exposure, one where dark material will come out dark and light material will come out white. Sekonic has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://english.sekonic.co.jp/meter_qa&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pretty good FAQ entry on the subject&lt;/a&gt;. When shooting people, you would &lt;a href=&quot;http://img1.photographersdirect.com/img/14505/wm/pd1158602.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;measure at the subject's face&lt;/a&gt; with the dome pointing at your lens, something you often see in movies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With a modern flash meter, you can also meter flashes and strobes. The meter you linked can either be hooked up to a PC sync cable, or can be set to react to a flash of light. This lets you measure the results of strobes you've set up without using a digital camera or a polaroid. It also lets you check that you have nailed your exposure, without checking your LCD a thousand times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to measuring the whole scene, with incident metering, you can measure the light from each of your strobes, and if you ever look at strobe notations, that's how they're usually recorded. This you measure at the subject, pointing the white dome at your various lights while firing them off separately. This lets you quickly jot down your &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-flash-2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;flash ratios&lt;/a&gt;, and that's extremely useful when recreating a look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, and the reason I often carry that Sekonic meter around: It's much, much smaller than my DSLR and I use it for my film cameras that don't meter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-12T22:46:43.943" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T22:46:43.943" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="6861" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6859" CreationDate="2011-01-12T18:35:18.443" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Absolutely. With most lenses, the old saying 'you get what you pay for' applies. If you want to buy a good Sigma lens (they have some excellent ones), you'll have to buy an expensive one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Between these particular models, the Sigma is much softer near the wide-angle end and has stronger fall-off as well. At the long end, it diminishes but you have to stop it down a few more stops than on the Canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Canon unit is also weather-sealed against the elements, dust, moisture, rain and snow, when used on a weather-sealed DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T18:35:18.443" />
  <row Id="6862" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6859" CreationDate="2011-01-12T19:02:39.490" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Compare the results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sigma:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/24_70_28_if_ex_dg_hsm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/24_70_28_if_ex_dg_hsm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;vs Canon:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_2470_28u&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_2470_28u&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, you may have different postprocessing, subjects, composition, etc, but these images are representative of what people can produce with the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T19:02:39.490" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6863" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6859" CreationDate="2011-01-12T19:09:48.317" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 which is an excellent lens, optically probably on par with the Canon in terms of sharpness etc. though the Canon is built better, is a bit wider at the wide end and has an ultrasonic motor compared to the regular focus motor in the Tamron.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't consider using mine for gigs though as the aperture is too slow...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T19:09:48.317" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6864" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6854" CreationDate="2011-01-12T19:13:22.590" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Cameras tell you what you they think you want to know. Light meters tell you exactly what you NEED to know to make a great exposure. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The camera's sole decision logic is based on reflectivity of the subject. It can only 'guess' as to how reflective your subject is. Conversely, a handheld meter measures, with impressive accuracy, the light &lt;em&gt;falling on&lt;/em&gt; the subject regardless of it's reflectivity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence, the meter is telling you what you &quot;need to know&quot; (actual light) VS guessing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if you are using your handheld meter in a 'reflective' or spot metering mode, you're making the final decision regarding a subject's actual reflectivity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've used Sekonic meters for nearly 15 years as a commercial photographer. Best metering device in my book. I don't leave home without a meter, it was the single smartest purchase in helping me diagnose my exposure errors. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, one excellent side benefit to using a handheld meter is you will begin to calibrate your eye to the light available in a scene. Soon, you will be able to walk into a scenario and just about nail the exposure without having to meter. Knowing how much light is available to a scene is a first step in getting a great shot. Everything is based on light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3203" LastEditorUserId="3203" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-12T22:17:29.227" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T22:17:29.227" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="6865" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6866" CreationDate="2011-01-12T20:21:41.530" Score="2" ViewCount="95" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am wondering if a DSLR can show what the shutter speed it will use prior to shooting. I was doing some shooting in a library this morning and was using aperture priority. My daughter was running around and i wanted to make sure the image would be crisp so i wanted to dial in the ISO such that the shutter speed would be fast enough to freeze my daughter's limbs. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was searching all over the camera and couldn't find a reading for shutter speed anywhere. Also, the manual was no help in this case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shouldn't the camera be able to tell the fastest speed to get a good exposure knowing the aperture and ISO I already set up, shouldn't it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T20:55:23.837" Title="Does the camera tell me the shutter speed it will use when in aperture priority and the aperture and ISO are set?" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;shooting-mode&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6866" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6865" CreationDate="2011-01-12T20:23:56.417" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depends on the camera, but most DSLRs that I've used indicate the metering information (shutter speed, aperture, and ISO) using visible numbers that appear inside the viewfinder.  When you half-press the shutter, the camera meters the scene and indicates the settings it will use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T20:23:56.417" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="6867" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6865" CreationDate="2011-01-12T20:31:12.910" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, the camera should definitely tell you the speed when it determines the correct exposure. Second, given an aperture and ISO, there is only &lt;strong&gt;one&lt;/strong&gt; speed for correct exposure (whatever that may be - but set in the camera - normally middle gray in the metered area).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T20:31:12.910" />
  <row Id="6868" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6865" CreationDate="2011-01-12T20:31:27.327" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Shouldn't the camera be able to tell the fastest speed to get a good exposure knowing the aperture and ISO I already set up, shouldn't it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is precisely the point of Aperture Priority. You set the Aperture (and ISO) and the camera determines the correct Shutter Speed. Vice-versa for Shutter Priority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As ahockley says, most DSLRs will display the shutter speed alongside the aperture setting, if not on the LCD then in the viewfinder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other point is that if you know you want to 'freeze the action', shutter speed is probably a better mode to be in anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T20:31:27.327" />
  <row Id="6869" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6871" CreationDate="2011-01-12T20:40:25.577" Score="0" ViewCount="116" Body="&lt;p&gt;My canon XTi has the following metering modes; Evaluative, Partial, and Center-Weighted Average.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the diference between these and what situations would you them in?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T20:49:41.797" Title="Difference between metering modes" Tags="&lt;metering&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6870" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6865" CreationDate="2011-01-12T20:47:47.343" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Any DSLR will show aperture and speed in the viewfinder and on the top LCD (if present)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming you are using the Nikon D7000 referred to in some of your other questions, have you tried using the &quot;scene&quot; selection on the mode dial and choosing &quot;child&quot; or &quot;sport&quot; modes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scene modes can be a useful starting point on a complex DSLR, you can review each of the setting changes that the camera makes for the selected mode - perhaps storing your preference in the U1 or U2 positions on the mode dial and making adjustments to taste.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2520" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T20:47:47.343" />
  <row Id="6871" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6869" CreationDate="2011-01-12T20:49:41.797" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The camera's meter measures the light reflected reflected from the scene in order to set the aperture/shutter speed/ISO parameters of the camera such that the total light read by the sensor is equal to a pre-set value. This value is set by the manufacturer and normally is middle gray (I think 18% gray). The different metering modes simply set the relative area from the scene from which the meter reads the light and averages it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the scene is very contrasty, then you may want only the important part of it (say, your subject's face) to be exposed correctly. In this case you will reduce the metered area to cover the subject's face.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In practice, this is done by choosing spot (you don't have this in your camera), center-weighted or partial, in increasing size order.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With Evaluative metering, the camera tries being &quot;smart&quot; and &quot;understand&quot; the scene to chose best exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that you can override the default average value by using exposure compensation. This way you can make a dark scene really dark and a bright scene really bright and not let the camera make it muddy gray.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T20:49:41.797" />
  <row Id="6872" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6865" CreationDate="2011-01-12T20:55:23.837" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Information while shooting&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Usually the aperture value, shutter speed, and ISO will be displayed in the viewfinder as you are shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Information after shooting&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After shooting, there are several ways to find out what settings were used. when you are looking at the camera LCD, all of the same info will be displayed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Otherwise, after you have transferred the image to a computer, you can view the EXIF data, which is where all the metadata is stored. This usually includes the camera/lens type, shutter speed, aperture, ISO, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most image programs can read the exif data, but there are also some others that are made specifically to read the EXIF data &lt;a href=&quot;http://regex.info/exif.cgi&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;including online apps&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Misc&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All that said, the issue at hand is better solved by using shutter priority or manual, since stopping action is the goal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T20:55:23.837" />
  <row Id="6873" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6874" CreationDate="2011-01-12T21:04:04.347" Score="9" ViewCount="128" Body="&lt;p&gt;Taking photos with my Canon XTi and 550ex. Camera exposure compensation did not seem to effect the exposures. I figured out I needed to use the on-flash exposure comp. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the flash output is controlled by the camera through TTL, why did the camera not boost the flash output when I asked THE CAMERA for increased exposure ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T23:31:39.450" Title="Why does exposure compensation have no effect with my hotshoe flash?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;off-camera-flash&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6874" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6873" CreationDate="2011-01-12T21:16:25.337" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On an intuitive level, you might think that exposure is exposure, and even though there are two different metering systems involved, they should talk to one another. That would be perfect if exposure was always either ambient or flash, but it stops short when you consider that flash is just as often used to augment ambient light, either to fill in shadows or to light a foreground subject in sharp relief against a darker background. Having the two systems work independently is a lot more useful in a lot more situations -- you may want to bracket the flash while leaving the ambient steady, or bracket the ambient with a constant flash, and so on. It does mean remembering that they're separate systems, but it really is better that way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T21:16:25.337" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6875" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6820" CreationDate="2011-01-12T21:22:20.303" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most dSLR cameras may be tethered to a computer.  This would allow the computer when to fire.  You would need to find software for your camera and computer but it is very possible.  Then you just leave your camera on with an external power connection and you should be good to go for your timelapse photos.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a note, I have done this with my Nikon (D50 and D60) Camera using Windows XP, Vista and 7.  (I did this with custom software tha I developed that I am not able to provide at this time.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As another note I have used my camera for over 10k photos each and have had no issues with my shutters.  If you are really using delayed timelapse photos I really don't think you will have an issue with shutter wear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="590" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T21:22:20.303" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6877" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2213" CreationDate="2011-01-12T21:35:29.243" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The distinction depends on the context, how you use use the words 'professional' and 'amateur'  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Used as a noun or compound noun&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;Professional&lt;/em&gt; means an activity that is one's &lt;em&gt;profession&lt;/em&gt;, i.e. carried out for reward&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;Amateur&lt;/em&gt; means an activity outside one's profession&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Since the words are nouns in this context they do not describe the degree of excellence.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Used as an adjective or adverb&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;That was a &lt;em&gt;professional&lt;/em&gt; job, meaning it was done excellently.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;That was an &lt;em&gt;amateur&lt;/em&gt; job, meaning it was done in a slipshod or careless way.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem arises because we use the same terms to convey very different meanings and must use the context to arrive at the real meaning.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A false dichotomy&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The issue is further complicated because the terms create a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;false dichotomy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;To illustrate this, photographers could also be classified as&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Serious photographers &amp;lt;--&gt; Casual photographers  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pentax, for example, state that their medium format camera, the 645D, is intended for &lt;em&gt;serious photographers&lt;/em&gt;, meaning competent photographers for whom photography is very important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-12T21:44:45.270" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T21:44:45.270" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6879" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-01-12T22:18:39.303" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program) is an open source, and freely distributed piece of software used for photo manipulation and retouching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is often compared to Adobe Photoshop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gimp.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.gimp.org/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-12T22:18:39.303" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T22:18:39.303" />
  <row Id="6880" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-01-12T22:18:39.303" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program) is an open source, and freely distributed piece of software used for photo manipulation and retouching.&#xD;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-12T22:18:39.303" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T22:18:39.303" />
  <row Id="6881" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6873" CreationDate="2011-01-12T23:31:39.450" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Canon XTi has something called FEC - Flash Exposure Compensation - that's what controls flash power when using E-TTL. Normal EC is for metering ambient light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/D5fdJ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T23:31:39.450" />
  <row Id="6882" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="597" CreationDate="2011-01-12T23:57:51.283" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find it very useful to us spot metering &lt;strong&gt;when taking photos of birds&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a zoo, this might be different, but when you want to capture them in their natural habitat, they often fly quickly and the background and surrounding areas change a lot from dark (such as a branch or tree in the shadow) to bright (such a branch or tree in direct sunlight).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I tend to get a lot more keepers when I use spot metering in these situations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="658" LastActivityDate="2011-01-12T23:57:51.283" />
  <row Id="6883" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6884" CreationDate="2011-01-13T01:33:18.510" Score="2" ViewCount="149" Body="&lt;p&gt;I might be mailing a large framed picture in the US, and I'm wondering, what's the best way to do so? Ideally it would be affordable, secure, etc. I'm looking for both the container and the transportation method. The print is approx 23x40 inches. Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T08:12:45.190" Title="How do you mail a large framed print?" Tags="&lt;framing&gt;&lt;mailing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6884" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6883" CreationDate="2011-01-13T02:09:11.550" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most important rule of shipping things, especially large, heavy, expensive things, is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Expect your package to be dropped from a height of at least five feet at some point in its journey.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I once saw a delivery guy drop a package containing a $30k camera from his chest height.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, with that in mind, protect your package.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Non-framed prints should be in a mailing tube.  Put two mailing tubes if the print is valuable or you're paranoid.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Framed prints should be wrapped in bubble wrap at least three times around (sharp corners = broken bubble wrap, if you don't have cardboard covers for the frame)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fill extra space with crinkled up paper.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make sure that there is at least an inch or two (preferably more) of space around the print itself, and that that space is filled with packing material.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do not let things shake around inside the box.  Contents have a tendency to shift during flight, but things that are locked down won't move as much, and therefore have less chance to break.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you're not confident in your packaging, insure it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you absolutely must have your package arrive safely, insure it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For that size print, I'd do these steps:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wrap the (framed) print in a single piece of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butcher_paper&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;butcher's paper&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wrap that package in several layers (four times around ought to do it) of bubble wrap.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Crinkle up some butcher's paper.  Put that into your cardboard box.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Place print into cardboard box.  If there is space on the sides, fill those spaces with more crinkled up butcher's paper.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Top off with butcher's paper.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use packing tape to close the ends of the box.  Make sure that you use enough; a single piece of tape around the edge is not likely to do it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe it's overkill, but doing this has made most of my stuff arrive intact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T02:09:11.550" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6885" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6887" CreationDate="2011-01-13T02:43:18.597" Score="9" ViewCount="227" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are some effective techniques for photographing subjects who wear glasses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am sorting out my collection of digital images as I install new software, and find there are many images that would otherwise be really nice, if it weren't for eyes being distorted, or even cut out of view, because of the glasses people wear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both my parents wear glasses, and asking them to remove them is not an option when most pictures are candid and shot in the moment. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there anything I can do to remedy this problem?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-13T05:39:20.420" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T05:54:11.410" Title="What are some effective techniques for photographing subjects who wear glasses?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;glare&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="6886" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6885" CreationDate="2011-01-13T02:45:29.277" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can use a polarizer to &quot;see-through&quot; the reflections in the glasses. It works for certain types of lighting (sunlight, for example), but not for all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T02:45:29.277" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6887" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6885" CreationDate="2011-01-13T02:51:37.030" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Posting some examples will help us identify your problem, but if you're getting distortion because they're wearing very thick, corrective glasses - there's not alot you're going to be able to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're getting odd angles of reflected light, either change the angle of the light by moving the flash or tilting the subject's head.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously you can also move the camera itself.  Its about changing that angle that the light is reflecting off the glasses into the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The strobist has an excellent article here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/04/lighting-101-lighting-for-glasses.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/04/lighting-101-lighting-for-glasses.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an example of changing the head's angle to avoid odd reflections from glasses:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/WCz7M.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an example of changing the light source (bounced off the ceiling here) angle:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/a81Uw.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Doing candid shots means this is obviously much harder, you'll have to be distinctly aware of the angle of the light and your subject.  It can be done, it just means putting a little more time into the shot when you have it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-13T05:54:11.410" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T05:54:11.410" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6888" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6885" CreationDate="2011-01-13T04:03:13.113" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can often fairly easily remove the glass from glasses. That can make it easy to get improved shots. The eyes will only appear distorted if at certain angles, it's something you've just got to look out for. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for candid shots, well, you've just got to pay attention, or make them posed candid shots, so...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T04:03:13.113" />
  <row Id="6889" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6885" CreationDate="2011-01-13T05:46:50.190" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Shifting the subject's head or shifting the camera (yourself) are both excellent options. If you run into a situation where you're not able to have the subject change the position or their head, or the camera's angle, a third option is to ask the subject to tilt their glasses a bit (by pushing the rims up off of their ears just a bit). This will angle the lenses downwards which can prevent many of the reflections that occur, and is unnoticeable in the pictures you'll be taking. The subject shouldn't have to angle them a lot; a small amount will often get rid of the reflections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T05:46:50.190" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6890" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-01-13T06:02:50.747" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Lighting basics is all about the 'rudimentary' techniques that photographers use to light their photographs. These are the sorts of elements that can be built upon to create more complex and artistic lighting scenarios. While this often includes the discussion of basic artificial lighting techniques, it is not a tag that is inherently &lt;em&gt;restricted&lt;/em&gt; to questions about artificial lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are 5 basic lighting setups that are used in studio portrait photography as outlined in the following questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6495/in-portrait-photography-what-is-broad-lighting-what-is-short-lighting&quot;&gt;In portrait photography, what is 'broad' lighting? What is 'short' lighting?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6601/what-is-rembrandt-lighting-and-when-do-i-use-it&quot;&gt;What is Rembrandt Lighting, and When do I Use It?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6656/what-is-split-portrait-lighting/6659#6659&quot;&gt;What is split portrait lighting?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6772/what-is-butterfly-lighting-and-when-do-i-use-it&quot;&gt;What is Butterfly Lighting, and When Do I Use It?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-03T05:39:28.730" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T05:39:28.730" />
  <row Id="6891" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-01-13T06:02:50.747" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="Lighting basics are all about the 'rudimentary' techniques that photographers use to light their photographs. While this often includes basic artificial lighting techniques, it is not in any way *restricted* to questions about artificial lighting." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-13T06:02:50.747" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T06:02:50.747" />
  <row Id="6892" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="597" CreationDate="2011-01-13T06:19:14.103" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've used spot metering in situations where there's a high range of light in the frame, and evaluative metering might get confused.  I meter off of something either relatively bright (so I don't overblow things too much) or whatever I want to focus on.  It might take some trial and error to find the right spot to get the effect you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're using spot metering and then recomposing the shot, you'll notice that the metering changes as you recompose even if you've got the shutter halfway depressed.  To solve this, use the exposure lock button; on my Canon DSLR, it's on the top right of the back of the camera and has a symbol like *.  Point where you want, press the shutter halfway down, press the exposure lock button, and it locks the exposure data it currently has, so you can recompose and shoot at will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3213" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T06:19:14.103" />
  <row Id="6893" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-01-13T06:27:25.710" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Studio lighting can range from the extremely simple single light or reflector setups, to extremely complicated multi-light, multi-phased setups. From simple to complicated setups, if it involves artificially lighting objects or people within the studio environment, it is generally considered to be studio lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;One-lighting setups:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6495/in-portrait-photography-what-is-broad-lighting-what-is-short-lighting&quot;&gt;In portrait photography, what is 'broad' lighting? What is 'short' lighting?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6601/what-is-rembrandt-lighting-and-when-do-i-use-it&quot;&gt;What is Rembrandt Lighting, and When do I Use It?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6656/what-is-split-portrait-lighting/6659#6659&quot;&gt;What is split portrait lighting?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6772/what-is-butterfly-lighting-and-when-do-i-use-it&quot;&gt;What is Butterfly Lighting, and When Do I Use It?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Two-light setups:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;TBA&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Three-light setups:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;TBA&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Beyond three-light setups&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;TBA&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-13T06:27:25.710" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T06:27:25.710" />
  <row Id="6894" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-01-13T06:27:25.710" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="From simple to complicated setups, if it involves the techniques and equipment necessary to artificially light objects or people within the studio environment, it is generally considered to be studio lighting." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-13T06:27:25.710" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T06:27:25.710" />
  <row Id="6895" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6897" CreationDate="2011-01-13T07:26:51.903" Score="2" ViewCount="125" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm working on a cmos image sensor that has a electronic rolling shutter, at this time I'm operating at 15fps and getting RAW data from it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was wondering how to combine a xenon flash with the rolling shutter operation, of what I understand regarding cmos image sensors is that they expose the sensor row by row hence all the pixels are not exposed at the same time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't found much reading material on this online and hence don't know when should I trigger the flash so that all the pixels in the sensor have even exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is xenon flash feasible at all with CMOS sensors with rolling shutters? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1633" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T09:57:43.357" Title="Xenon flash with rolling shutter" Tags="&lt;cmos-image-sensor&gt;&lt;xenon-flash&gt;&lt;rolling-shutter&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="6896" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6883" CreationDate="2011-01-13T08:12:45.190" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For all the prints I sell, they're wrapped first in heavy duty bubble wrap (as a rule of thumb, I try to use bubble wrap so that each bubble is no smaller than half the thickness of the item), making sure to overshoot the corners - I then double wrap in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Quality-Park-73803-Redi-seal-corrugated/dp/B0006HW0Q4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;corrugated cardboard wrap&lt;/a&gt; before applying a liberal amount of &quot;Fragile&quot; packing tape. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I'm sending more than one print at once, then each print is wrapped in bubble wrap separately, before getting a second layer around them all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would always advocate having as little spare space within the package for movement as possible, and this is why I do not use boxes. For smaller prints (less than A4), brown packing paper can replace the cardboard relatively safely, whilst still wrapping in bubble wrap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T08:12:45.190" />
  <row Id="6897" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6895" CreationDate="2011-01-13T09:53:46.047" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm afraid this simply isn't going to work unless your flash duration is longer than 1/15th of a second (very unlikely unless you're discharging a truly giant capacitor) , or you can pulse  the flash over the 1/15th of a second period.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason for this is simply that when your flash duration is shorter than the length of time it takes to sample the image then the flash output will have ceased by the time part of the image is sampled and thus it will appear dark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same thing occurs when using a mechanical shutter once you go above the sync speed (usually 1/250s). Beyond this point the shutter starts to close before it is fully open so there is no point in time where the entire sensor is exposed to the light flash so some of the image will be dark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T09:53:46.047" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="6898" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6895" CreationDate="2011-01-13T09:57:43.357" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The rolling shutter principle is similar to the focal-plane shutter mechanism. For high speed photography (= exposure times shorter than the sync-speed, about 1/250 sec for most SLRs), the sensor is not exposed in whole at the same time. Rather, the first curtain is opening and then the second curtain follows it to close the exposure in a delay equal to the selected shutter speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;High speed sync flash is able to fire continuously for the required amount of time while the open slit is traveling across the sensor. This is done by firing the flash at a very high rate (tens of thousands of fires a second), so effectively it lights the scene as long as the sensor is exposed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may be able to use similar mechanism in your case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T09:57:43.357" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="6899" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-13T10:30:40.257" Score="0" ViewCount="168" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sometimes when I take photos with a Nikon D300 I got the photos burnt. Does anybody knows a technique that helps to avoid this undesirable effect?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3218" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T10:45:06.750" Title="How to avoid burnt photos with nikon d300?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;white-balance&gt;&lt;nikon-d3000&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6900" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6901" CreationDate="2011-01-13T11:05:12.533" Score="16" ViewCount="329" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is &quot;reciprocity failure&quot; when used in the context of film?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T11:18:44.377" Title="What is &quot;reciprocity failure&quot;?" Tags="&lt;film&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="6901" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6900" CreationDate="2011-01-13T11:18:44.377" Score="19" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In short, reciprocity failure is how we describe film reacting unevenly to exposure. Usually, film's exposure is pretty linear: exposing film at f/2.8 for 1/60s will give you the same negative density as exposing at f/4 for 1/30s or f/2 for 1/125s. When you start to reduce the number of photons hitting your photosensitive material per second, though, things get a bit out of sync. You need more photons to get the photosensitive material to react, so you need to extend your exposure time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In practice, this means that for long exposures, you need to calculate in a reciprocity failure. How much for how long depends on the type of film you're using, here's an &lt;a href=&quot;http://home.earthlink.net/~kitathome/LunarLight/moonlight_gallery/technique/reciprocity.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;example chart for Kodak films&lt;/a&gt;. With black and white it's pretty simple: you just extend times and be done with it. With color film, because the different layers lose reciprocity at different rates, you'll often get a color shift and you need to correct for that with color filters. This is easily one aspect of photography that digital does better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing worth remembering is that reciprocity failure is a localized effect, not one across the frame. In certain situations, it can introduce a sort of contrast boost: when your shadows aren't reflecting enough light for proper exposure, while your highlights are, the shadows will be darker than they are in reality. Many guides for handling rep failure will tell you to pull the film in development.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T11:18:44.377" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6902" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6905" CreationDate="2011-01-13T12:03:51.850" Score="3" ViewCount="126" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon XTi (EF-S lens mount). Can I get an adapter to mount a Pentax M42 lens? If so, do I lose any functionality?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T15:16:40.150" Title="Can M42 lenses be mounted on Canon EF-S (with adapter)?" Tags="&lt;lens-mount&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="6903" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6842" CreationDate="2011-01-13T12:34:42.437" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the point is to have the copyright and CC-licence note in such place so that a viewer a) wouldn't mistake the image as yours, and b) would find the author if they look for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So just ask yourself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a) Are there places that might make someone think you've authored the images?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;b) Where would someone go look to see who created the work?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put the notice in those places. &lt;strong&gt;Usually this would just be the &quot;about&quot; section of the site.&lt;/strong&gt; But there are many cases where a site contains some content that's clearly attributed to a different author than the rest of the site (e.g. a news article). If the image is used in such context, then &lt;strong&gt;a small caption near the image or a note near the content author's name&lt;/strong&gt; is the way to go. Alt-text to the image is also a good option in these cases, but I don't think I would rely on it myself, because that sort of depends on whether the target audience understands that the image &lt;em&gt;might&lt;/em&gt; have a hover text - not all audiences do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: One possible source of mistaken authorship would be those silly &quot;(c) Someone 2011&quot; or such notices at the bottom of every page. So if you happen to have one of those, well, either just remove it, or add a notice like &quot;except some CC-licenced images&quot; there that then links to the page where you have the copyright information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, &lt;strong&gt;there's no need to contact the author for clarification.&lt;/strong&gt; The whole point of CC is to make fair sharing possible without contacting the author. When the author placed their work under CC, they directly made the choice for others to be able to use their image under the terms that CC defines - including how they are attributed. That said, the author might of course be delighted to know that you've decided to use their image, so no harm in it either if you want to. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1255" LastEditorUserId="1255" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-13T12:40:27.633" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T12:40:27.633" />
  <row Id="6904" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6902" CreationDate="2011-01-13T12:35:54.437" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, using a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002VSLKVC/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_2?pf_rd_p=486539851&amp;amp;pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&amp;amp;pf_rd_t=201&amp;amp;pf_rd_i=B000Z3W6W2&amp;amp;pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&amp;amp;pf_rd_r=1TYW6QN32ED7YCNRA80B&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;M42 to EF adapter&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will lose focus confirmation, unless you find &lt;a href=&quot;http://cgi.ebay.com/M42-Canon-EOS-Adapter-Focus-AF-Confirmation-/370132549030?pt=Lens_Accessories&amp;amp;hash=item562d9e7da6#ht_1340wt_905&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an adapter&lt;/a&gt; that specifically supports it. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/m42_eos_focusing_adapter.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;BobAtkins.com&lt;/a&gt; has a good article about this.  Also, the auto focus systems are incompatible, so you will only be able to use manual focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-13T12:41:55.777" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T12:41:55.777" />
  <row Id="6905" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6902" CreationDate="2011-01-13T12:38:43.813" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can use an adapter to mount a lot of lenses to a Canon EOS body, due to the short flange distance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will lose auto-focus, and the camera cannot set the aperture of the lens when taking the shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That means you will have to focus manually, and meter by stopping down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-manual-lenses/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;good introduction to using non-EF mounts on modern Canon cameras&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastEditorUserId="3114" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-13T15:04:46.663" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T15:04:46.663" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6906" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7040" CreationDate="2011-01-13T13:04:50.737" Score="5" ViewCount="184" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I consider buying split focusing screen replacing the original one.&#xA;I would like to use some split/microprism screen to ease the focusing of the manual lenses.&#xA;I own both kit lenses (18-55, 50-200) and two primes (50/1.7, 28/2.8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found three solutions for the problem:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Katzeye, this is the best one, although its quite expensive&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;focusingscreen.com, acceptable price, looks good&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;some cheap screen from Ebay, no quality info&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My main problem is that I would like to use it with both kit and manual lenses and I read that some of the screens have problems with autofocusing lenses. &#xA;Katzeye works fine although it's quite expensive.&#xA;Focunsignscreen.com screens also looks fine, but I could find any info about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in general I would like to get some basic opinions, experiences about focusing screens on K10d, mainly about focusingscreen.com type.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hubi&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3220" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T09:27:49.287" Title="Manual focusing screen on Pentax K10D" Tags="&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;manual-focus&gt;&lt;pentax&gt;&lt;focusing-screen&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6907" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6912" CreationDate="2011-01-13T13:41:06.483" Score="12" ViewCount="245" Body="&lt;p&gt;How does auto-focus work on modern cameras? How accurate is it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T14:52:20.927" Title="How does auto-focus work?" Tags="&lt;autofocus&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="6908" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-13T13:46:55.313" Score="2" ViewCount="2477" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have narrowed my search for a long zoom camera down to two cameras...&#xA;The Canon SX30IS &#xA;The Fuji HS 10 or the soon to be released HS 20&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Canon has a longer zoom (35 vs 30), articulating screen, and a rechargeable battery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Fuji has a CMOS sensor for better photos in low light without a flash, AA Batteries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would appreciate any insight anyone could provide as to the advantages of one camera over the other, I have done a lot of research and would love to hear from anyone with any experience with either of these cameras!&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Thank you all, &#xA;John B.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3148" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T04:32:58.740" Title="Canon SX30IS or Fuji HS 10 / HS 20 ?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6909" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-13T14:01:01.967" Score="0" ViewCount="177" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2136/tips-for-landscapestars-photography&quot;&gt;Tips for landscape+stars photography?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I need some tips and tricks for photographing long star trails.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the questions I am thinking about are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What aperture/ISO?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If combining multiple shots, how do you avoid gaps in the trails, especially if the camera is taking NR &quot;dark frames&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How dark should it be so that the twilight doesn't wash out the stars?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If taking super long exposures(hours), will my battery run out mid-exposure? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How to balance the exposure of the foreground and sky&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T02:54:37.617" ClosedDate="2011-01-14T08:01:21.530" Title="Tips for photographing long star trails" Tags="&lt;astrophotography&gt;&lt;long-exposure&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6910" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6911" CreationDate="2011-01-13T14:13:37.917" Score="7" ViewCount="396" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard of Clamshell Lighting. What is it, and when should it be used?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-28T19:34:38.250" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T19:34:38.250" Title="What is Clamshell Lighting, and when should it be used?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;studio-lighting&gt;&lt;lighting-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6911" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6910" CreationDate="2011-01-13T14:29:30.300" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://richimage.blogspot.com/2010/05/clamshell-lighting.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Clamshell lighting&lt;/a&gt; is a common way to photograph a head shot, often used in the fashion world. The general idea is you take 2 light sources, or a light source and a reflector. Both of them are roughly on-axis with the center of the person's face. You put one of them above pointed down, and the other lower pointed up. The end effect is that there are reduced shadows from any imperfections in a person's face. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lighting-essentials.com/clamshell-lighting-for-a-glamourous-headshot/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this site&lt;/a&gt; for an example setup picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reference I originally heard comes from &lt;a href=&quot;http://photofocus.com/2010/06/05/photofocus-podcast-episode-41/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PhotoFocus&lt;/a&gt; as a method of reducing wrinkles, scars, etc in a person's face.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T14:29:30.300" />
  <row Id="6912" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6907" CreationDate="2011-01-13T14:30:48.143" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;An AF system essentially consists of a sensor system that is linked (via the camera's processor) to the AF motor, which will either be in the lens or the camera body depending on the model.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are 2 kinds of autofocus. Active AF uses methods such as ultrasonics or infrared to measure the distance between the camera and the subject. A pulse is emitted from the camera, bounces off the subject, and returns. The time this takes is calculated in-camera and used to determine the distance. This kind of AF is independent of the lens/mirror system of the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Passive AF analyses the image in the viewfinder instead. 2 methods are used in Passive AF. The first is Phase Detection. Here the image is split into two in the camera and the different phases of the two images are analysed. It achieves range-finding by essentially comparing how the two images diverge on the sensor. This is the system most modern DSLRs use, as it is the most accurate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second passive AF system is Contrast Detection. This is most commonly used in video cameras, and in DSLRs when in live view mode (essentially the same as a video camera). It works by analysing the contrast between pixels; the better the image is in focus, the greater the difference in intensity between pixels. So the camera checks intensity, focuses a little, checks again, etc., until it achieves a focus that gives an acceptable (preprogrammed) intensity difference. There is no actual range-finding going on. Contrast Detection is generally slower and less accurate than Phase Detection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for accuracy, generally, if used correctly, AF systems are very accurate (Passive Phase Detection being the most accurate). However, they often have problems in low-light (hence the AF lamp that comes on when you try and focus in the dark). The user also has to make sure that they are focusing on the correct point (e.g. focusing on the subject not the background).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T14:30:48.143" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6913" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6907" CreationDate="2011-01-13T14:52:20.927" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is a good write-up on all things &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofocus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;auto-focus&lt;/a&gt;.&#xA;For a very complete review have a read.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T14:52:20.927" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6914" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-13T14:57:27.440" Score="7" ViewCount="419" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi all,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am shooting a time lapse and am doing some calculations beforehand to make sure I get everything right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am shooting a road trip from the west coast to the east coast and am planning to compress it down to about 4 minutes or 5760 frames at 24 fps (I was originally planning 30 fps, but blu ray is 24 fps).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am reading various articles online and have shot a few time-lapse sample videos myself.  The first video I shot recorded pictures at 1 frame / second with a variable shutter speed of 1/60 or faster.  The second shot at 1/3.5 second every 10 seconds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I stitched both into videos at a frame rate of 30 fps, the one shot at 1/3.5 second is much smoother than the one shot at 1/60 second or faster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;reference:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-lapse&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-lapse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What should my exposure time be if I take a picture every 10 seconds?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Should it be 5 seconds?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Should I take more pictures than 5760 over the entire length of the trip?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was thinking that I would shoot more than 5760 frames so that I have more pictures to choose from so the picture would be smoother.  Alternatively, I was thinking I could do a longer exposure to make up for the lack of total frames I would have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It looks like I will have to use my DSLR as I can't find an inexpensive point and shoot that I feel comfortable using.  I have looked at a JVC GC-WP10 (online), but I don't feel I would have enough control over the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Walter&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3188" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-14T04:37:54.563" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T04:37:54.563" Title="What are good exposure and timing choices for time lapse photography?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;timelapse&gt;&lt;roadtrip&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="6915" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6910" CreationDate="2011-01-13T14:57:36.103" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It’s called clam shell simply because you rig two softboxes as a giant gaping clam shell. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A common setup is to build you’re clam shell with a larger upper softbox and then a lower smaller stripbox. The upper softbox is about one stop higher than the stripbox. Using two softboxes gives you good control of the light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a link to the full article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://lightingforphoto.com/2010/04/20/clam-shell-lighting-setup-for-beauty-shots/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;clam shell lighting&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="2200" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-13T15:04:54.507" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T15:04:54.507" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6916" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6908" CreationDate="2011-01-13T15:12:28.493" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;give a thought about panasonic lumix fz-100 as well.. its beats canon sx30 anyday in photograpy and canon does not supports RAW&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3225" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T15:12:28.493" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6917" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6902" CreationDate="2011-01-13T15:16:40.150" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I'm aware, every M42 lens will fit an EF-S camera (i.e. one with a cropped sensor), but a few will not fit a full-frame camera like the 5D or 1Ds ranges because bits of the lens can catch on the (much larger) mirror as it flips up and/or down during an exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2329" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T15:16:40.150" />
  <row Id="6918" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6859" CreationDate="2011-01-13T15:20:27.450" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Take a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx&lt;/a&gt; and judge for yourself. The short answer is 'yes, the Canon really is far superior'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2329" LastEditorUserId="2329" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-20T15:04:38.067" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T15:04:38.067" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6919" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-13T15:33:01.047" Score="3" ViewCount="100" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been into photography for almost four years now and all this time I've been working with crappy TN-panel-based screens, namely a Sony SDM-S75D and a Samsung 206BW. After getting some prints that didn't look anything like what I saw on the screen, I think it's time to invest in a good screen (obviously taking into account that I'm a student and I don't do this for a living).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, I'm looking for a screen with the following props:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;FullHD, or 1920x1200 or higher resolution. At least 22&quot; desired (in order to keep my eyes' health)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;At least one HDMI (with DHCP) and one DVI.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Good panel, IPS or something like that - I don't know much about panels, other than TN panels are crap.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;[OPTIONAL] Maybe hardware calibrated? I don't think there are any screens under 350€ with this feature.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some time ago I did some research and found that the HP LP2475W was really hot, but calibrating it was essential as its factory defaults were very bad. I've also been looking at some S-IPS dell screens lately, and they look really good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, I'm looking forward to knowing your opinions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1063" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-13T16:00:50.403" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T16:00:50.403" Title="Computer screen for photography under 350€" Tags="&lt;monitors&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="6920" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6919" CreationDate="2011-01-13T15:47:37.900" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The cheapest color-calibratable display which has a wide-gamut which is essential to seeing colors accurately is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.necdisplay.com/Products/Product/?product=48cbd139-f704-486d-9be5-880367d76bfa&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NEC P221W&lt;/a&gt; and it falls very close to your budget. This is an excellent monitor, I own two of them, along with a larger 30&quot; model which costs a lot more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The wide-gamut aspect is truly important as it lets you see most colors in your images (this one covers all of sRGB and 98% of AdobeRGB). If you calibrate a monitor with poor coverage, what you see will truly be way off. It is also quite important that you can calibrate the display itself to preserve nuances and avoid banding which results when people calibrate their graphics card instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It satisfies most your requirements except its resolution is 1680x1050 and it has no HDMI port. You're going to have to give in somewhere. If you up your budget to $1000, then it will be easier to satisfy all your requirements. AFAIK the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.necdisplay.com/Products/Product/?product=5a6621b9-e9c4-4f02-8542-e6251364bf7c&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NEC PA241W&lt;/a&gt; gets awfully close, although I have not tried that one personally, I trust it will perform quite well. You can consider looking to see the price of this one as refurbished (I bought each P221 for $237 that way, the retail was $435).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T15:47:37.900" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6921" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6908" CreationDate="2011-01-13T15:58:42.633" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/review.php?id=2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fuji HS10&lt;/a&gt; is the one I would recommend, at least until the HS20 is available. Honestly, it really seems to be an awesome model but, if you need a camera now, it's the HS10 you can get.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The mechanical lens on the Fuji cameras is a pleasure to use, it allows completely precise framing, quick and silent. The Canon's may go a bit longer but unless you are photographing birds it should not matter that much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rest of the features are not that significantly different but in general the Fuji has the advantage. You can &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php?evf=1&amp;amp;ultrazoom=1&amp;amp;antishake=1&amp;amp;focalwide=24%3amax&amp;amp;focaltele=720%3amin&amp;amp;hotshoe=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;see all the differences here&lt;/a&gt;. Mostly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Slowest shutter-speed of 30s (vs 15s)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;10 FPS drive (vs 1.3 FPS)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1080p video (vs 720p)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T15:58:42.633" />
  <row Id="6922" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6914" CreationDate="2011-01-13T16:13:15.787" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As of question 2 - Your interval should be 10 sec. Your exposure time should be whatever is the meter reading for correct exposure (5 secs will get you overly exposed frames). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For 4 minutes video, you calculation of 5760 frames at 24 fps is correct. However this will get you 57,600 seconds (@ 10 sec per frame) which are less than 1 day. I don't see how you can conclude the trip in this time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The right calculation is to take the length of the trip (say, 10 days = 864,000 secs) and divide by the # of frames (5760) to get the interval between frames (around 2 minutes in this case).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may want to shoot in shorter interval and take more pictures so that you can make longer movie or have different fps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-13T19:58:09.843" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T19:58:09.843" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="6923" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6924" CreationDate="2011-01-13T16:41:37.817" Score="5" ViewCount="152" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been trying to take some self-portraits, but I often have to struggle with the auto/manual focus.  I don't miss by a lot, but I really want sharp focus in the eyes.  I'm using a 50mm/1.8 around 2/2.2.  What are some good techniques to get the camera properly focused when dealing with narrow DoFs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3181" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-13T17:07:51.890" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T15:21:11.430" Title="Precise focus in self-portraiture" Tags="&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;manual-focus&gt;&lt;self-portrait&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="6924" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6923" CreationDate="2011-01-13T16:56:49.697" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Having taken quite a few self portraits lately, I'd recommend the following...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you're trying for a shallow DoF to&#xA;blur out the background, increase&#xA;your aperture to 2.8-3.2 and move&#xA;further from your background - it'll&#xA;be it alot easier to nail the focus&#xA;on your whole face. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you have a&#xA;face detection in Live Mode, try&#xA;that. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Try setting just the center&#xA;focus point on the camera and line up on that.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make a mark where you're going to stand, pick an object you're always going to point your body towards.  Pick another object you're going to point your head towards, and then look at the camera.  Its probably going to take a few tries, so you want to be as consistent as possible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-13T17:02:51.910" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T17:02:51.910" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6925" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6923" CreationDate="2011-01-13T16:56:52.257" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Try placing some tall object, i.e. a lamp, where you plan on standing/sitting. Then, focus on the object, move to your planned position and take the picture. Be sure to have your eye pretty much exactly where the object was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3072" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T16:56:52.257" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6926" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6939" CreationDate="2011-01-13T17:06:52.657" Score="4" ViewCount="197" Body="&lt;p&gt;Due to some ambiguity, this might not make the best question, but I was curious if anyone with more experience could help identify the processing taking place in the examples below:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/_kane/4136206881/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Example 1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/_kane/5037189820/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Example 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/_kane/4831200629/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Example 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They seem to have a common trait, a smoothness and clarity to the images.  They seem flat (in a good way) as if details have been collapsed to remove some of that more raw photographic quality (I'm not doing the best job of describing my perception of this).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3181" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T18:01:49.137" Title="Identifying Post-processing technique" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="6927" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6946" CreationDate="2011-01-13T17:09:52.713" Score="2" ViewCount="105" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it only about semi and fully automatic mecanism ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3149" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T20:23:18.710" Title="What can justify the big price gap between a Leica M6 and M7 ?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;leica&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="6928" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6923" CreationDate="2011-01-13T17:13:52.633" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Firstly you need a long enough cable release so that you can activate autofocus whilst seated in your final position (focussing on a surrogate object is not accurate enough with this aperture), without having to stretch out an arm as this will make it difficult to remain still. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using a bit of trial and error you need to select a focus point that will cover your eye (or whatever you want in focus) having the camera display the focus point on the rear LCD image is good for this. &lt;strong&gt;Use your reflection in the lens front element&lt;/strong&gt; to make sure your head is in the same place each time when finding the right AF point to select.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, persevere as this type of shot is very difficult! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T17:13:52.633" />
  <row Id="6929" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5245" CreationDate="2011-01-13T17:18:29.580" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a superb lens for all kinds of wildlife and bird photography. It has great reach, especially on an APS-C camera (effectively 162-648mm field of view range.) It is clear, sharp (although a tad soft at the extremes), and not too terribly heavy for hand held use. It includes 2-3 stop IS (image stabilization), allowing you to capture quality hand-held shots as low as 1/25-1/30s at 100mm, or as low as 1/100s at 400mm. (If you have very steady hands, 1/15s@100mm or 1/50s@400mm is not impossible.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Highly recommended if you do any kind of wildlife photography. Also useful for birds that are not in flight. For birds in flight, good hand-held technique will help you capture even those shots...however a 400mm f/2.8 lens is recommended for better birds in flight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T17:18:29.580" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-13T17:18:29.580" />
  <row Id="6930" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5245" CreationDate="2011-01-13T17:23:22.743" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is an excellent wide-angle landscape lens. It fills two essential focal ranges, depending on the size of sensor you use. For APS-C cameras, it fills the critical 24-70mm range, as it is effectively 26-57mm on a cropped sensor. For Full Frame cameras, it fills the true ultrawide to wide angle range for those expansive landscape shots. Quality of this lens is superb, with very sharp pictures throughout the focal range. It gets a tiny tad soft at the 35mm end, but for landscapes, the loss of detail is rarely noticeable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Highly recommended for either APS-C or Full Frame users. The 24mm focal length is a key focal length for landscape photography, and this lens serves that position well at the 16mm end. The 16mm wide angle focal length really brings in breadth and depth on full frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T17:23:22.743" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-13T17:23:22.743" />
  <row Id="6931" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5245" CreationDate="2011-01-13T17:25:41.510" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This lens fills the essential ultra wide angle focal range for APS-C cameras (not compatible with full frame cameras.) Effectively  16-35mm due to the crop factor, this lens can help you capture those expansive landscape scenes with great breadth and depth to them. The aperture is non-fixed and rather narrow for a maximum aperture, however with landscape photography, this will usually not be a problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not recommended unless you only use APS-C cameras, and never intend to use a full frame camera. Useful focal range, but limited range of use due to aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T17:25:41.510" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-13T17:25:41.510" />
  <row Id="6932" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5245" CreationDate="2011-01-13T17:32:54.767" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 L II USM&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Probably the most ideal portrait lens Canon has ever made. The focal range is perfect for up close head shots, or at a distance full body portraits. The bokeh produced by this lens is beyond perfect, blurring into that perfectly smooth, creamy softness that many portrait photographers chase. While costly, the cost is well spent, with top of the line optics, sharp from its widest aperture down. Effectively a 138mm lens on APS-C, this lens can fill the role of a head shot portrait lens on cropped sensors. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Best used on a full frame for best effect and thinnest DOF, this lens is pretty much unbeatable for portrait work. (It has a cult following on many photography sites, with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/nubianeagle/sets/72157623301338295/with/4040912291/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;several&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/85-12open/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dedicated&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/472549@N23/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;groups&lt;/a&gt; on Flickr.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T17:32:54.767" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-13T17:32:54.767" />
  <row Id="6933" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5245" CreationDate="2011-01-13T17:36:54.843" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For macro photography, the 100mm f/2.8 macro lens provides the optimal blend of value and functionality. An ideal mid-range focal length for macro work, it offers a very useful moderate working distance from subject such that you are not too close that you scare off your subjects (like insects), and not too far that you can't frame properly. Its size is perfect for hand-held work. It has a very nice, well-damped, and VERY LARGE focus ring that makes manual focusing a breeze. Focus throw is a little short for some, however it is not too short that it is not useful. The bokeh from this lens is fantastic, and will really enhance your macro subjects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Useful on both APS-C and Full Frame cameras, this lens is hard to beat at $400 or so. It is effectively a 160mm lens on cropped sensors, which is similar to the Canon EF 180mm L Macro lens for full frame cameras. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T17:36:54.843" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-13T17:36:54.843" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6934" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6938" CreationDate="2011-01-13T17:37:52.497" Score="8" ViewCount="197" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard that if one is a professional photographer that it's bad to perform work on a &quot;work for hire&quot; contract.  Why is this situation unfavorable to the photographer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T19:18:22.577" Title="What are the dangers of doing photography on a &quot;Work for Hire&quot; contract?" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;work-for-hire&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="6935" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6926" CreationDate="2011-01-13T17:40:18.897" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it's a combination of a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nickgallery.com/web_pages/technical%208.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;soft-focus effect&lt;/a&gt;, and a bit of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duotone&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;duotone&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, they all seem to be fairly low-contrast, and very shallow depth of field (all f/1.8), which helps with the soft, flat feel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T17:40:18.897" />
  <row Id="6936" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6926" CreationDate="2011-01-13T17:44:50.717" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;He's got some Photoshop actions he sells on his &lt;a href=&quot;http://kaneactions.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;blog&lt;/a&gt;.  It looks like they mostly soften the photos, lower contrast, and maybe do some color mapping.  It looks like he uses those effects on a lot of his photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2214" LastEditorUserId="2214" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-13T17:55:39.367" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T17:55:39.367" />
  <row Id="6937" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6923" CreationDate="2011-01-13T17:47:03.870" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I have had minimal experience with portraiture myself, and only taking photos of subjects while I am behind the camera, you can take this with the appropriate grain of salt. ;) An off the cuff idea, however, might be to print out a sheet of paper with a scale on it. Perhaps just an inch or centimeter scale with fractional divisions (inches) or millimeters. A 2D scale that covers both dimensions of the page would be best. (If you can throw in a light graph across the whole page that matches your inch or cm marks, that would be ideal.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hang this paper on a string or attach it to a small stand, about where you want your head to be. Angle it 45 degrees across the plane of focus. Now you have a specific target to set your focus against. Adjust focus, set the correct aperture, and preview your DOF if your camera allows. Try to keep the middle point of your DOF (the focal plane) centered at the center point on your paper scale. Once your camera is set, it should be simple enough to sit down and position your face right next to the paper (without bumping it). I would try to line up your eyes with the center point of the paper. Once you are situated appropriately, take down the paper, and use a wireless remote shutter release to take your shot. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T17:47:03.870" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6938" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6934" CreationDate="2011-01-13T17:48:36.927" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am assuming that this is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;in reference to United States Law&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Under US law, a copyright is assigned at creation to the employer or person for whom the work is created if it is done as a &quot;work for hire&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means that you, as the photographer, are not the owner of the copyright.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you instead use a contract that gives you the copyright, you are then able to license the work, and you then have control of the work.  If you don't own the copyright to your works then you can run into situations where you would be required to obtain a license in order to make use of an image that you created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T17:48:36.927" />
  <row Id="6939" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6926" CreationDate="2011-01-13T18:01:49.137" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It looks like the post-production includes some sort of tonal compression techniques aswell as split-toning and maybe some blur. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to emulate this kind of look you can start with some basic curve manipulations in Photoshop. Tonal Compression works by clipping of shadows or highlights. You can achieve this by using the luminosity (RGB) channel within curves and making the curve 'less steep' (eg. taking the shadow point from input 0/output 0 to input 0 / output 18). That was probably done to Example 2 and 3, as you can see in the lack of really dark colors. Example 1 has been treated with a reverse treatment by clipping of the highlights making all the lighter colors grayish instead of full white, you can achieve this by taking the higlight point in curves (input 255 / output 255) and change it to eg. input 255 / output 214. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Split-Toning works in similar ways. Example 2 has probably been treated with the popular blue/yellow split-toning. It is achieved by manipulating the curves for the individual colors (RGB) in this case the blue channel. Switch to blue and pull the curve up in its left hand side (shadows), your dark colors should get a blue tint. Push down the curve in its right hand side (highlights), your lighter colors should get a yellow tint. You can do the same with the red and green curves to achieve different results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can look around the internet for different 'curve recipes', some artist share them freely. Look for example here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/rowenar/4929839059/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/rowenar/4929839059/&lt;/a&gt; -- The link also shows a picture what I have been trying to explain so it should become more clear (for GIMP not PS, but it works the same way). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many more ways of achieving a split toning look. You can search for 'Gradient Mapping' or using solid color overlays with different blend modes (try for example a solid light blue color overlay in exclusion blend mode with an opacity of around 30, change the color to get a feeling for different looks)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For final touch of softness you can consider actually slightly blurring the picture using the gaussian blur or lens blur Filters. Apply some grain afterwards to counter the relative visible loss of sharpness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You need to combine all these techniques in a skilled way to achieve a look like that -- or look for PS actions of which there are plenty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="445" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T18:01:49.137" />
  <row Id="6940" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6914" CreationDate="2011-01-13T19:08:36.457" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;What should my exposure time be if I take a picture every 10 seconds?&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your exposure time should be 'whatever it needs to be' in order to get as close to the 'proper' picture exposure for the environment you're in as possible. In practice this will be impossible to get completely correct (without the use of an external homebrew realtime light meter and intervalometer... which is what I use. Shoot me a message if you're a DIY electronics guy who is up for building your own equipment and I'd be happy to point you to some excellent resources...), because the light will be changing constantly throughout your trip, but you can set it so that the fluctuations aren't too extreme, and then adjust it throughout the day/trip as the lighting changes, paying special attention to dawn and dusk hours (or simply not taking pictures during those times of especially rapid light change).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Should it be 5 seconds?&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Possibly for shooting at night, but 5 seconds will almost certainly be way too long of an exposure for shooting during the day. Again, the specific choice of exposure time needs to be dictated by the actual conditions you're in when you're shooting the timelapse... Any answer to this question given here will be pure speculation at best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Should I take more pictures than 5760 over the entire length of the trip?&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the variables that you've provided...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes. If you can take more pictures, you almost certainly &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; take more pictures. My recommendation is to take as many pictures as you possibly can. In other words, work in manual mode, set your shutter, f-stop and iso, then simply have your intervalometer fire frames as fast as your camera can go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason for this is that it is &lt;em&gt;extremely easy&lt;/em&gt; to speed your timelapse up (by simply removing a given number of frames in post) if you need to, but it is &lt;em&gt;nearly impossible&lt;/em&gt; to slow a timelapse down in post (because there are no extra frames to add).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now this assumes that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You don't care about shutter actuations (And you shouldn't. Folks who worry about that are almost always being penny-wise and pound foolish with a part of their camera that can be replaced for about $200... Depending on the shutters expected total number of actuations this is between .004 cents and .00006 cents per actuation. Cheap!)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You have enough storage space (External large terabite drives can be purchased for under $100... This shouldn't be an issue)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You are in a position where you can dump your frames directly to your computer in realtime as the trip unfolds (Because you probably don't want to be frequently stopping in order to dump cards to your computer)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the above assumptions aren't true, then it becomes very easy to calculate for the total number of actuations that you want to 'spend,' and/or your total amount of HD space, and/or the number of times you want to stop to 'manage' your cards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-13T19:34:33.540" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T19:34:33.540" />
  <row Id="6941" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6914" CreationDate="2011-01-13T19:12:25.343" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first thing you need to figure into your calculation is total length of time your trip is going to take. I don't see that so forgive me if I missed it. If you're hauling butt and make the trip in 20 hours then you have 86400 seconds of driving time. At ten second intervals this would give you 8640 exposures which equals 6 mins of footage (1 frame=1 exposure). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*special note I like your decision to go with 24/fps, looks better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether or not you have 4 mins or 6 or even 12 isn't the real issue though. You can adjust the overall speed of your TL once compiled. Of greater note is logistics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Exposure time, under ten seconds, should be appropriate to correct exposure and aesthetic. Unless you are shooting at a very high speed, shutter drag will be apparent. Personally I think drag would look better in this case. It will enhance the sense of motion. I did something like that in the opening sequence &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rcvisualarts.com/multimedia&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Same as above. This is a personal choice. The actually length of the exposure will not effect the overall length of the TL. Of greater consequence is the processing speed of your camera. Can it handle a 5 sec exposure every ten seconds without filling its buffer? My D100 can not, though my D700 can.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Personally I would. Even with shutter drag, a 10 sec gap &quot;may&quot; be too much for the eye. In other words, you run the risk of creating a choppy experience. I would do a quick test on your local highway at cruising speed and see how it turns out. When I TL &lt;a href=&quot;http://rcvisualarts.com/artofpreparedness/2010/12/09/may-storm/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;clouds,&lt;/a&gt; I shoot every sec or two to minimize that gap. Certainly the prospective on clouds will be relatively slower than scenery on a highway. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope that answers some of your questions. Now here's a few other things to consider (from experience): &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-Power Supply; how are you powering your camera throughout the trip. That continuos draw on battery from shutter and processor will kill them off quick. Make sure you're plugged into your A/C adapter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-Mounting; your camera has to be firmly locked into the vehicle. The smallest bump (pulling into a gas station for example) can knock your camera off axis and then the whole last leg of the trip is for not. A bump of the camera, even the smallest one, is TL no-no. Also, you have to be able to move around your camera without bumping it. So make sure you have room to grab your munchies before your start your journey.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-At night; now that you have your mount squared away, what to do with your camera when you sleep. Nothing would be worse then to wake up to a broken window and stolen gear (again from experience). They are out there and they will steal your rig. Make sure your mount is secure enough that you can remove your rig in a way that allows you to precisely maintain your composition. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck and happy hunting. I'd love to see your finished product.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T19:12:25.343" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="6942" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6934" CreationDate="2011-01-13T19:18:22.577" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do 'work for hire' assignments all the time as part of my business. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the real 'danger' is not getting paid an appropriate amount in order to relinquish the copyright to my work. If you've set your payments appropriately, then work for hire can be extremely... and I mean &lt;em&gt;extremely&lt;/em&gt;... lucrative for a photographer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T19:18:22.577" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="6943" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6944" CreationDate="2011-01-13T19:36:52.867" Score="25" ViewCount="1753" Body="&lt;p&gt;What exactly, if anything, do I need to do in order to copyright my photographs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have done some research into this topic and find a wide range of answers. Some articles on the web are stating that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photosecrets.com/how-to-copyright-a-photo.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;no action is needed&lt;/a&gt; while others detail a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.weddingphotographydirectory.com/wedding-photo/for-wedding-photographers/professional-articles/photo-copyright-protection.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lengthy process&lt;/a&gt; in order to copyright images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another resources (I don't have the link) stated that I can include a &quot;© 2007 yournamehere&quot; as it tells everyone that &quot;yourname&quot; hereby declares copyright ownership of this photo since 2007.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not sure what to make of it all at this point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-13T21:21:54.810" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T00:58:08.317" Title="How do I copyright my photographs?" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="6944" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6943" CreationDate="2011-01-13T19:42:14.330" Score="25" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Simply put you don't &lt;em&gt;have&lt;/em&gt; to do anything to &quot;copyright&quot; your photographs, as the creator the image is yours, you automatically own the &lt;em&gt;copyright&lt;/em&gt;, which is short for &lt;em&gt;the right to copy&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can optionally &lt;em&gt;register&lt;/em&gt; your copyright (via the lengthy process in your link, varies from country to country). All this does is make it easier to claim damages if your copyright is breached.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adding &lt;em&gt;(c) yourname year&lt;/em&gt; is not strictly necessary but it&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Identifies you as the author.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Provides someone a means to contact you (or at least look you up) if they wish to license the image.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;At least reminds people viewing the image that it is subject to copyright.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-14T15:45:02.117" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T15:45:02.117" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6945" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6943" CreationDate="2011-01-13T19:48:38.320" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is one very important distinction to be made: &lt;strong&gt;Do you want to seek penalty damages for copyright infringement?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By US copyright law, any original content (and special derivative works of copyrighted material) are automatically copyrighted by the creator. There are specific instances in which even if you are the creator, the copyright is owned by someone else. For example taking photos of the lightshow on the Eiffel Tower, or taking photographs under contract in which the copyrights are assigned to someone else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this is the route you go, the law limits the amount of penalty damages you may seek for copyright infringement, while additionally making it harder (though not impossible) to prove that you are the original copyright owner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do register your images with the US Copyright offices (using the lengthy steps outlined in your question), you have the ability to seek much higher penalty damages for copyright infringement, regardless of their intent if it is determined that they infringed on your work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T19:48:38.320" />
  <row Id="6946" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6927" CreationDate="2011-01-13T20:23:18.710" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The M6 isn't manufactured anymore, so any M6 you would be buying will be used. That might be a large part of the price difference. The M6 successor, the MP, costs exactly as much ($4995) at B&amp;amp;H as the M7. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/Leica_M7.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;decent article of the M7&lt;/a&gt; (with comparisons to the M6) over at Luminous Landscape. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please do remember that with Leicas, just like all other cameras, the camera is 20% of the tool, the lens in the other 80%.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T20:23:18.710" />
  <row Id="6947" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5345" CreationDate="2011-01-13T20:24:28.770" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it possible? Yes. Will you be able to focus it... not really. You won't be able to step it down either. Really... this is probably the worst technically possible combo I can think of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T20:24:28.770" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6948" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6906" CreationDate="2011-01-13T20:52:16.733" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I got a KatzEye for my Canon 30D.  I used it for maybe a month or so, and ended up kind of frustrated and went back to the original screen.  It was a good experience, but I found that it prevented me from enjoying photography.  So here's my list of the problems I had (when I was investigating them I found lots of reasons to get them, and very few complaints about them; I assume you've found the same so I won't go into the pluses here):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Canon 30D isn't designed to allow the user to change focusing screens.  That made things a little tougher (I opted to install the screen myself instead of mailing my camera to KatzEye and having them do it for me); if the Pentax K10D makes it easier to install a focusing screen, you may have a better experience than I did.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I've never used a film SLR, and hence never used a manual focusing screen.  I found that the the extra lines on the focusing screen were distracting.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The viewfinder was just a little bit darker than the original, which made it difficult to use the bracket-focus method I used to use when manually focusing: I &lt;em&gt;had&lt;/em&gt; to use the split prism (it was fun using the prism to line up two edges, but it was sometimes actually more difficult than focusing with the original focus screen since the viewfinder was darker).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Since I had to use the very center of the frame to focus I ended up taking most of my photos with the subject still in the center of the frame, instead of (more pleasingly) to the side.  So taking photos with the manual focusing screen was negatively affecting my composition.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I opted to install it myself, instead of sending in my camera.  I was never able to get it to focus super accurately.  In tests (a ruler at a 45 degree angle at MFD and f/1.4) it was close, but not perfect, compared to auto-focus.  But in the field, I always ended up just missing focus.  Actually, I'm not positive that it was any less accurate than the original focusing screen, but I got used to bracketing focus a little bit at wider apertures with the original focusing screen to ensure that I ended up with good pictures, and I didn't do that as much with the KatzEye, so I ended up with fewer good pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I got a few specs of dust or scratches or something on the screen (as well as a small blemish on the mirror) when I installed it myself.  Whatever they are, they're not visible to the naked eye, but they show up as visible blotches through the viewfinder, which is kind of distracting.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eventually, all of this (the just-missed focus, the dust, and the extra detail on the screen and my poor composing) got to be too much and I switched back to the original (although it has some dust or something on it, too, now, which is visible through the viewfinder).  A lot of the problems were my fault, trying to install it myself, but even if a professional had installed and calibrated it, I think I still would have ended up dissatisfied with the 'noisy' viewfinder and the distraction of needing to center on the subject to focus accurately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T20:52:16.733" />
  <row Id="6949" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5245" CreationDate="2011-01-13T21:42:36.983" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This lens is capable of crisp and sharp images, with low light also.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Its quality is better than 50mm 1.8 and you can have it for a really low price.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I took many photos with this lovely lens, before thieves stole it. Yeah, it's definitely a &lt;strong&gt;must have&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(just my final personal thought on the subject: it's the photographer that makes the photo, not the lens)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3231" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T21:42:36.983" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-13T21:42:36.983" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="6950" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6952" CreationDate="2011-01-13T21:56:05.593" Score="3" ViewCount="124" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there any difference between using only the AF/MF switch on my camera (Nikon D90) or using the AF/MF switch on my lens (18-105mm)? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Could having autofocus on my camera switched to manual focus harm my equipment if the lens has autofocus turned on, or vice-versa?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3072" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T23:15:23.767" Title="AF switch on lens vs. AF switch on camera" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="6951" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6909" CreationDate="2011-01-13T22:23:48.263" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When photographing stars, you can either get a star &quot;field,&quot; a static snapshot of the stars as points of light, or star &quot;trails,&quot; where the stars' movements streak across the sky. How long you expose the image determines which you get. The first rule of thumb to remember is that the Earth rotates such that the light from a star begins to &quot;move&quot; after about 15 seconds. It's apparent movement is largely dependent on your lens—the longer the focal length, the more apparent the movement; the wider angle lenses won't show much movement till later because of the star point is so small. For comparison, a close-up photo of the moon can only be about 6 seconds before the Earth's movement blurs it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is an extract from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.danheller.com/star-trails.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;HERE&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-14T02:54:37.617" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T02:54:37.617" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6952" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6950" CreationDate="2011-01-13T23:15:23.767" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There isn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nope, it won't harm your gear - if either switch is set to off, your AF will be off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T23:15:23.767" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6953" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6943" CreationDate="2011-01-13T23:33:07.010" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Others have covered the difference between &lt;em&gt;having&lt;/em&gt; a copyright and &lt;em&gt;registering&lt;/em&gt; it. One advantage of registration is that it is considered &lt;em&gt;prima facie&lt;/em&gt; evidence that you are the owner. That means in court, you are considered the owner and the person bringing the claim against you must prove that you are not. Without registration, suing someone for infringing your copyright requires that you show that it is in fact your copyright.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1490" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T23:33:07.010" />
  <row Id="6954" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6960" CreationDate="2011-01-13T23:45:38.580" Score="4" ViewCount="336" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've seen references to f1.2 lenses. I was wondering are there any faster lenses available for a DSLR mount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T10:39:03.107" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-13T23:55:13.917" Title="What is the fastest lens available for a DSLR?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6955" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6954" CreationDate="2011-01-13T23:49:11.897" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Carl Zeiss 50mm f/0.7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/torek/3485651814/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/torek/3485651814/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Leica also makes a 50mm f/1.0 lens which is actually available it seems and might be more ...usable.&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lensbuyersguide.com/en/lens/show/Leica/NOCTILUX-M_50mm_f1.0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://lensbuyersguide.com/en/lens/show/Leica/NOCTILUX-M_50mm_f1.0&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T23:49:11.897" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-13T23:55:13.917" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6956" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6954" CreationDate="2011-01-13T23:52:15.380" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/images?q=rayxar&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rayxar&lt;/a&gt; makes lenses with f1/0.75 apertures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1296" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T23:52:15.380" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-13T23:55:13.917" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6957" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6954" CreationDate="2011-01-13T23:52:59.037" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, the fastest lens (that is actually availabe) is currently the leica 50mm f/0.95&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/lenses/5915.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/lenses/5915.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-01-13T23:52:59.037" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-13T23:55:13.917" />
  <row Id="6958" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6962" CreationDate="2011-01-14T00:09:26.697" Score="15" ViewCount="290" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a geek, photography is a great subject. Lots of gadgets, physics, electronics etc to debate, discuss and learn about. but how do you transition from being the guy who knows what all the buttons and dials do, to being the guy who takes great shots. Basically I'm asking how does the technophile develop a &quot;style&quot;, &quot;eye&quot;, or &quot;vision&quot;? I have always felt that my problem was one of lack of equipment. But I have spent a lot on film gear and even more on digital, but I still often feel like I have a point and shoot camera. Sure, I can get a perfectly exposed, sharp image. But they are usually flat &amp;amp; lifeless. I guess what I'm asking is what should I be thinking about when framing a shot other than f-stops and ISO?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastEditorUserId="3180" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-14T00:33:54.860" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T11:45:13.690" Title="I want to graduate from camera operator to photographer" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;artistic&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6959" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6958" CreationDate="2011-01-14T00:15:05.650" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have to learn how to express yourself through the subjects you capture, to have a story to tell or a point of view to deliver.  You have to empathize with your subjects, to overcome your rational side and trust your intuition.  You have to believe that you do have something worth showing the world, and then determine if the shots you take adequately express what you want to show.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Art is a spiritual journey, not a technical one.  Good art requires good technique (in my opinion, others will argue, probably), but good technique does not guarantee good art.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also look for art that is resonant with you.  That could be picking up a copy of Vanity Fair and looking at their portraiture (that's what I did), going to a museum to see the work of others, or going online and looking at Flickr's 'interestingness' tags.  Find the ones you like, and ask yourself what you can do to express the same sentiments, or to express your response to those pieces.  Some art is clearly in response to other art, some art is wholly original, and most lies in between (for me, anyway).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T00:15:05.650" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6960" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6954" CreationDate="2011-01-14T00:15:23.433" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;are there any faster lenses available for a DSLR mount?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your question, not really, though it's possible to argue based on your definition of DSLR and your definition of available. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you relax your definition of DSLR to digital rangefinders then yes you can include the Leica Noctilux which is still in production. And if you relax your definition of available Canon made a 50 f/1.0 for the EF mount which can be obtained second hand. There are also many more fast lenses that can be mounted via an adaptor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But practically, the fastest production DSLR lenses are the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L and EF 50mm f/1.2L and the manual Nikon Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AIS&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T00:15:23.433" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-14T00:15:23.433" />
  <row Id="6961" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6958" CreationDate="2011-01-14T00:30:11.837" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to sound like a shill for Michael Freeman. But really, I think these two books are exactly what you're looking for:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.focalpress.com/books/photography/the_photographer39s_eye.aspx?cat=98&amp;amp;sub=512&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Photographer's Eye: Composition and Design for Better Digital Photos&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.focalpress.com/books/photography/the_photographer39s_mind.aspx?cat=98&amp;amp;sub=512&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Photographer's Mind: Creative Thinking for Better Digital Photos&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T00:30:11.837" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6962" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6958" CreationDate="2011-01-14T00:48:28.330" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You, my friend, are staring down the barrel of four years of art school!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not really... Though I do often recommend auditing an art history class to my own students and I've never seen a student that &lt;em&gt;didn't&lt;/em&gt; improve as a photographer after taking one. But whether you take a formal class or not, you do need to become a student of art the same way you became a student of the technical aspects of photography. Studying the 'language' of photography, light, shadow, composition, subject, message... These are all aspects of photography that you'll want to delve into. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The books that mattdm suggests are excellent starting points, but I don't believe it's possible to become a really good photographer without frequent interaction with fellow photographers. I highly recommend finding a mentor, or a 'photography society' in your area. Ask for critiques- the more brutal the better. I know it doesn't &lt;em&gt;sound&lt;/em&gt; like a whole lot of fun, but believe me, the first time someone asks you &quot;what &lt;em&gt;were&lt;/em&gt; you thinking with that mess of a photograph?&quot; you will be changed. And later when someone asks you &quot;no really... what &lt;em&gt;were&lt;/em&gt; you &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;thinking&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; with a photograph and you actually &lt;em&gt;have an answer&lt;/em&gt;, you will be changed again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Give critiques. Even if you don't exactly know what that means. Learn to talk about what works or doesn't work for you when you see a picture. The more you interact, the faster you will become more than just a taker of snapshots with the most expensive camera in the room.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or you can do what I did and... go to four years of art school. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T00:48:28.330" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6963" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6958" CreationDate="2011-01-14T00:52:20.250" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The way I see things being a &quot;geek&quot;, &quot;technophile&quot; or other is not any sort of disadvantage when it comes to photography - don't let anyone tell you different or belittle you because you're from a technical background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Art and science are really two sides of the same coin and at the most fundamental level they have the same goals and maxims, they are both concerned with abstraction, symmetries and beauty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your question on specifically how to develop an &quot;style&quot; or &quot;eye&quot; it's can be based on analysis and perseverance. I guess most people do this subconsciously but the best photographers will be constantly analysing what they see, what they shoot and what others shoot. This is where technical abilities can pay off as you may be able to consciously break down everything you see whilst others do it without thinking. At the end of the day it's a similar process. So I can't tell you what to do, other than to emphasise perseverance and self belief. Don't think of yourself as a mere camera operator, keep at it and it will happen, in your own way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T00:52:20.250" />
  <row Id="6964" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6958" CreationDate="2011-01-14T01:05:45.737" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Composition: the classic here is the rule of thirds which, in a nutshell, is envision the scene divided into thirds horizontally and vertically and then place the subject on one of the intersections. However, there are other compositional &quot;rules&quot; that can be ascribed to that have come about over time as a result of visual arts. Wikipedia has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_%28visual_arts%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;great summary&lt;/a&gt; on a number of these with links into further detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason I bring up composition is that using these, consciously, is a great way to begin to frame much better, more dynamic, photographs. As you use them, and grow in them, you will eventually learn how and when to break them. That, I think, is when you achieve the real vision that you are after.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T01:05:45.737" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6965" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5657" CreationDate="2011-01-14T01:29:29.870" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;FYI, Paul Buff does list an approximate guide number on his &lt;a href=&quot;http://alienbees.com/specs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;AlienBees spec page&lt;/a&gt;. You would have to set your 580 to a similar angle of coverage to compare the two.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3237" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-14T11:41:40.033" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T11:41:40.033" />
  <row Id="6966" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6976" CreationDate="2011-01-14T01:37:57.280" Score="14" ViewCount="304" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I travel I take photos of a variety of subjects like waterways, buildings, cultural events, the local people, landscapes, conveyances, nightlife, myself and my wife, things I see around me -- pretty typical stuff. I rarely plan for photographs. Instead I just take the best shots I know how at the moment that I want to record a memory or otherwise see something beautiful. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know there are worse and better ways to compose shots (eg rule of thirds), better and worse ways to plan for and handle lighting conditions (eg magic hour), more and less interesting subjects (eg beautiful architecture). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I'd like know is what recommendations do you have to make travel photos more compelling? How do you move from moderately interesting shots to something really engaging? Are there photo principles that apply especially to travelling? How do you increase the likelihood of catching something really special? Are there any recommendations on post-processing hundreds or thousands of different subjects?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1015" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T20:20:55.823" Title="How to make travel photography captivating, intriguing, thrilling?" Tags="&lt;travel&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="6967" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6978" CreationDate="2011-01-14T01:47:52.157" Score="5" ViewCount="466" Body="&lt;p&gt;Team,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It takes me hours and hours and hours of manual work to do even simple post-processing changes on thousands of RAW photos taken on each vacation trip I take. I generally like to adjust the sharpness and exposure and sometimes also white balance, levels, and saturation/vibrancy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What techniques do you use in Aperture 3 to speed this batch processing along? Ranking down less than interesting shots and skipping them? Lift and stamp metadata on similar shots? What else? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1015" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T03:01:26.903" Title="Batch RAW processing in Aperture 3?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;apple-aperture&gt;&lt;batch&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="6968" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6958" CreationDate="2011-01-14T01:49:01.517" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard of 2 exercises that sound strange, but will exercise your creative brain. The first I have done, and it sure helped me!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take a letter of something that looks like every letter of the alphabet, the only rule being it can't actually be that letter.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take a picture from as many different angles, light sources, etc, of a basketball as you can.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T01:49:01.517" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6969" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6966" CreationDate="2011-01-14T02:25:50.107" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Personally, I think photographs look more captivating when zoomed in. This is a shot I cropped in a little tighter than usual in order to cut my wife out completely. It went over so well that now I am ordering 4 prints for all the family members that wanted it blown up for framing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/UqkD6.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/D3suj.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T02:25:50.107" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="6970" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6914" CreationDate="2011-01-14T02:27:54.940" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;About mounting the camera, how about something like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ram-mount.com/NewProducts/cellphonemount/tabid/3436/Default.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ram-mount.com/NewProducts/cellphonemount/tabid/3436/Default.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2781" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T02:27:54.940" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6971" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6982" CreationDate="2011-01-14T03:30:32.497" Score="5" ViewCount="502" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm planning a long road trip (east coast to west coast, about 45 hours of driving) and am thinking about shooting a time-lapse video of my drive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I can expect the light levels to change pretty drastically throughout the day (especially through sunset), how do I adjust my exposure to ensure smooth video?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I set the camera on a program mode, the camera will compensate for the changing composition, which will cause flicker.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if I set the camera on manual mode, I can only adjust periodically (gotta keep my hands on the wheel), so I'm expecting that the exposure might occasionally be off by more than the stop or two recoverable in post.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where's the middle ground? Should I just shoot in manual, adjust periodically, correct in post, and hope that I don't lose highlight or shadow detail? Should I shoot in a program mode and perform the same correction?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since I'm planning to shoot tethered, is there a way to control exposure with the computer? Can I get metering information from a tethered (Nikon) camera, so that I could find/write a script that would smoothly adjust the exposure?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-14T04:37:30.587" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T09:19:45.670" Title="Shooting mode for timelapse in changing light: Manual or (semi-)automatic?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;timelapse&gt;&lt;roadtrip&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6972" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6943" CreationDate="2011-01-14T03:40:13.763" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wanted to tack this as a comment, but I don't have enough reputation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You don't have to register with another party to get reasonable evidence for copyright - simply put all your images you want to protect into an envelope and post it to yourself. The postage frank date on the sealed envelope is normally sufficient to evidence priority. This is a trick I picked up from authors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2189" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T03:40:13.763" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="6973" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6971" CreationDate="2011-01-14T03:57:58.687" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would tend to go full auto. Even without the major changes in lighting throughout the day, you're going to be changing direction (and thus angle to the sun) and going trough areas of light and shadow (mountains, trees, vehicles) constantly. That'll be a lot to adjust on the fly; you pretty much can't do it while driving. Even if you control and adjust your manual settings regularly, you'll still probably end up with flicker from changing light... so why not go auto and save the hassle?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might want to do some tweaks as you go even while in auto, in particular to your ISO. That will be a good way to get the similar aperture/shutter combinations (both critical in a moving vehicle) as day turns to night. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T03:57:58.687" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6974" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6971" CreationDate="2011-01-14T04:09:28.490" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure if your camera has an equivalent mode, but on my Pentax K-7, I'd put the camera into &lt;code&gt;TAv&lt;/code&gt; mode, where I set the shutter speed and aperture but the camera chooses the ISO. (See comments: Craig Walker says that on the Nikon D90, you put the camera in manual mode — &lt;code&gt;M&lt;/code&gt; on the dial — and enable auto-ISO in the menu for the same effect.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, I'd a) set ISO to change in 1/3-stop increments so the differences are small and b) constrain the range of auto-ISO tightly, maybe ISO 200 to 1250. That still gives a couple of stops of latitude, but keeps exposure from changing too dramatically. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-14T05:17:34.203" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T05:17:34.203" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="6975" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6971" CreationDate="2011-01-14T04:17:13.473" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your answer might just come from post-processing. In Lightroom there's a feature called &quot;Match Total Exposures.&quot; I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://lightroom-news.com/lightroom-11-update/develop-menus/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this description on what it does&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You can use this command to match the exposures across a series of images that have been selected via the Filmstrip. Match Total Exposures will calculate a match value by analyzing and combining the shutter speed, lens aperture, ISO speed the photos were captured at, plus any camera-set exposure compensation. It then factors in all these camera-set values, combine them with the desired exposure value (as set in the most selected image) and calculate new Lightroom exposure values for all the other selected images. I find that it can often be used to help average out the exposure brightness in a series of photos where the light values were going up and down during a shoot&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer: I've never tried it. I just went poking through Lightroom for a feature that would help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T04:17:13.473" />
  <row Id="6976" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6966" CreationDate="2011-01-14T04:44:24.507" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The thing about travel is, you are someplace unique.  The thing to do is figure out just what is unique about where you are, and try to capture some aspect of it that means something to you.  For instance, in Amsterdam I saw bikes everywhere so I tried to get interesting shots involving bikes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/kigiphoto/4165886056/in/set-72157622827849667/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/kigiphoto/4165886056/in/set-72157622827849667/&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/i0BT2.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other thing to think about is that other people generally have an idea about what a place is.  So you can either try to show something similar to what everyone knows a place is about, but with little twists - like this shot of the many buildings of Hong Kong across the water plus the famous sort of boat they have, I bought a flower from a street vendor and carried it around taking pictures:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/kigiphoto/5197306319/in/set-72157625391550866/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/kigiphoto/5197306319/in/set-72157625391550866/&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/gYzUt.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which is a great way to meet people by the way.  People love anyone with a flower!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, you can just try to go for the most nicely done canonical shot of the place you are at, so people are just excited to see a really good example of what they are expecting.  For me Venice is canals and boats and I tried to find a nice atmospheric shot that would instantly say Venice to anyone viewing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pbase.com/kgelner/image/80167194&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pbase.com/kgelner/image/80167194&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/uVfOS.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it's also a good idea not to review too many images from the place you are about to travel to, so you don't get too stuck into thinking about getting a few particular kinds of photographs from a place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T04:44:24.507" />
  <row Id="6978" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6967" CreationDate="2011-01-14T04:52:07.703" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do a first quick pass looking for anything decent, even stuff that looks bad but can be possibly saved - I rate this all as one star.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then I work through those, quickly flipping through them and editing anything that interests me.  Those I rate as two.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After that I review all of the two stars and see if there's anything that really stands out, that is worthy of more attention - those I rate as three or higher depending on what I got.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do sometimes lift and stamp changes, mostly around white balance and metadata (don't forget to add yourself as the creator and a copyright notice to all images if you didn't do it at import!).  Sharpening I tend to like to only add to specific areas, if at all.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have also had Viveza 2 and the other Nik products for a while but only recently started using that more.  A separate tip for that is that I like to use Viveza 2 first to alter tones in an image (spotlight certain things, fill or darken areas as needed).  Then I duplicate that version and use ColorEFX and/or Nik Sharpening (SharpenPro) against the duplicate version, so I have three masters when I'm all done - but since you can't undo ColorEFX and SharpenPro, I like to have the &quot;clean&quot; Viveza image there to re-work from as a base (and that will also work out well if you need to upsample for larger prints and thus have to re-sharpen).  I also like to append to the second and third created master version names with the tool that helped to edit them (-VZ for Viveza, -CFX for ColorFX) but that might be placed better elsewhere since export to Flickr will change your version names.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ADDITION:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm adding one more thing.  Go back into your photos a week or so later, and do one pass through.  Especially if you have a lot of photos you can start to get more and more critical, or perhaps single-minded... in any case it always seems like looking back through images later one, I find at least one that I really love that makes me wonder why I left it down in the low-rating dungeon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastEditorUserId="1192" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-15T03:01:26.903" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T03:01:26.903" />
  <row Id="6979" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6910" CreationDate="2011-01-14T06:11:16.273" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, I'm afraid I don't have a snazzy diagram or picture for Clamshell Lighting... Because Clamshell Lighting = Butterfly Lighting, and thus the diagram is over on my &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6772/what-is-butterfly-lighting-and-when-do-i-use-it&quot;&gt;Butterfly Lighting question/answer&lt;/a&gt;. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I will say this, there are some who argue passionately that Clamshell Lighting and Butterfly Lighting are different because (so the argument goes) &quot;Clamshell Lighting MUST use two lights! One above the head pointing down at 45 degrees and the other below the head pointing up at 45 degrees. Clearly this is COMPLETELY different from Butterfly Lighting which uses a light above the head pointing down at 45 degrees and a &lt;em&gt;reflector&lt;/em&gt; down below pointing up at 45 degrees.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally that's too much stuff for my little head to contend with, so for me (and for a great many) photographers, since the &lt;strong&gt;setup&lt;/strong&gt; is exactly the same for Clamshell and Butterfly lighting, and the &lt;strong&gt;outcome&lt;/strong&gt; is the same as well... Clamshell Lighting = Butterfly Lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, I'll go one step further to alleviate (hopefully) all the synonyms... Clamshell Lighting = Butterfly Lighting = Paramount Lighting = Beauty Lighting = Glamor Lighting &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've updated the Butterfly Lighting article to reflect all the synonyms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T06:11:16.273" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6980" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-14T06:17:21.733" Score="3" ViewCount="87" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not long ago, my Pentax K1000 was damaged and I upgraded to the Pentax PZ10 (both film cameras). I feel lost with trying to get the right exposure on the PZ10; with the K1000 I used a third-party light meter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure that my inexperience with the PZ10 has a lot to do with this; what do you recommend? I read the manual, but I'm still a little foggy - the manual I've seen (PDF) is scanned badly and doesn't describe details well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the camera is a film camera, I'm not too keen on too much of the traditional bracketing - especially since there's no feedback as to what is right until I get the pictures back from the developer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3240" LastEditorUserId="3240" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-14T17:42:07.780" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T17:42:07.780" Title="Creating Proper Exposure with a Pentax PZ10" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;metering&gt;&lt;pentax&gt;&lt;film-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="6981" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6617" CreationDate="2011-01-14T06:38:01.027" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are looking at approaching some professional scanning service companies, you can consider ScanCorner (www.scancorner.com). They outsource the photo digitization and restoration work to India and thus offer quality digitization at prices as low as 20 cents. They have tie up with Fed-Ex for global shipment pickup.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3243" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T06:38:01.027" />
  <row Id="6982" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6971" CreationDate="2011-01-14T06:46:54.793" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;tl;dr:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;There is currently no 'foolproof/plug-n-play' solution to this problem (yet!). All of the currently available options have trade-offs which must be evaluated before jumping in.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a &lt;em&gt;huge&lt;/em&gt; problem which is frequently discussed in the timelapse community. As of this writing there are not 'foolproof' solutions, though there are a good number of us who are attempting to create various 'plug-n-play' solutions to the problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As stated elsewhere, all automated modes tend to introduce a rather annoying level of flicker, especially during dawn and dusk when the light changes especially rapidly. While to some extent this can be managed with software that 'equalizes' the light levels across multiple frames and reduces flicker in post production for a short timelapse, the longer the timelapse is, the more problems are introduced in that the level of computer which can accomplish this task without simply breaking down and weeping openly is quite expensive. Additionally, whether these types of software are capable of doing a 'reasonable' job at the task of removing flicker is hotly debated by some.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One solution that a lot of us have had success with is to take bracketed frames instead of singles. This gives the option of using fading in post production to adjust in a relatively seamless way for the extreme changes that can occur. Depending on your camera you may be able to adjust for up to +4/-4 stops, giving you an effective dynamic range of 8 stops (full day to full night is approximately 12 stops, YMMV depending on time of year, location on the planet, etc.). Shoot that in RAW (gulp!) and you can batch process to add stops even beyond that. You'd have to experiment in order to see if the motion of your vehicle causes too many syncing problems, but I suspect that since you'd be fading between large chunks of frames, the syncing problems wouldn't be that bad. Obviously this is less than ideal in other ways, namely file size, so as always there is a trade-off to be evaluated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe it would be possible to code a software solution to provide intervalometer functionality as you asked about. The problem that would need to be solved is that the software-based intervalometer would also have some sort of powered light sensor which would tell the computer what to adjust the shutter speed to. Either that or you could (hypothetically) build an algorithm that generates an appropriate curve to simulate the falloff of light as full-day goes to full-night. Then this algorithm could be used to automatically adjust shutter speed in a 'dumb' manner (e.g. it doesn't actually know what the light level is). All of this leads to the 'nuclear option' of options (at least as of this writing, anyway)...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I have chosen to do is probably even an order of magnitude more extreme than anything above... I built my own intervalometer which includes a built in light meter and can adjust the shutter speed shot to shot as the lighting levels change. This is- by far- the most reliable way I've found to handle changing lighting conditions, and with it I've been able to get flicker-free full-day to full-night timelapses. But naturally the trade-off is that this is a home-brew device, so an electronics background (or a willingness to learn), the ability to code, or re-purpose others codes, a couple-hundred dollars worth of electronics parts and a soldering gun is required for this solution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-14T09:19:45.670" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T09:19:45.670" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6983" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6980" CreationDate="2011-01-14T06:49:57.133" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hmmm. I'm not sure the PZ10 is really an upgrade. I've only seen the same scanned manual, but it looks like the camera is rather limited in control. It has:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Program AE mode, which seems to use a 6-segment matrix (in contrast, modern Pentax dSLRs use a 77-segment matrix). You can press the &quot;hyper&quot; button followed by the &lt;code&gt;+&lt;/code&gt;/&lt;code&gt;-&lt;/code&gt; buttons to adjust EV, but it's going to take some practice (and exposed film) to get a feel for what the camera &quot;wants&quot; to do in any given situation. And there appears to be no indication of metering at all in this mode (the indicators in the viewfinder are used to show whether EV compensation is active).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Metered Manual&quot;, which is limited by&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the metering only showing + or -, not any indication of how much &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;only using spot metering, which isn't right for most situations (and without any range in the +/- indicators, it's hard to use to measure a whole scene).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;HyperManual&quot;, which is a horrible name for a miserable approximation of Aperture Priority mode -- you set the aperture on the lens, and then press the Hyper button to set the shutter speed to match the (presumably, 6-segment) meter reading.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I guess the best thing to do is hold on to that third-party meter and use the manual mode. Or watch Craig's List for another K1000 to come by. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T06:49:57.133" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6984" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6617" CreationDate="2011-01-14T07:02:34.743" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Advice on your suspected degrading first: store the material properly and it is are more durable than any digital version you create today (the life-time of a harddisk is lower than the life-time of a negative). The only negative effect is that you won't be able to review them today on your PC. On the plus side - you can store them dry, cool and dark for years until you can afford to have them scanned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assumption second: I can only talk about scanning 135er film (24x36mm pictures, german &quot;Kleinbild). I literally have to take digital pictures of the few rolls of 120er film (6x6 cm) I shot in my childhood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I own an Nikon Coolscan V ED for scanning 135er-film. Works nice with stripes of ~5 pictures, as it has a feeder-unit. I use it mainly for my own pictures, as I shot analogue SLR until last year, but today I'm roughly in the same position as you - my father shot a lot of reversal film for projection (and I remember fondly glueing glass plates with the pictures together with him). There is no feeder for framed pictures for the Nikon V. But there is one for the Nikon 5000. Two warnings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;these scanners are not cheap (also, because they are not really sold anymore)&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;choose the cheap and it costs you more time / effort (been there ...)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the software (be it Vuescan or Silverfast or ...) costs too&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it takes (a lot of) time&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;to find the right settings (DPI, colour-curves (!))&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;to scan and store (with stripes, one starts the batch and ignores the program for 20 minutes (multi-scan))&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;to sort and post-process, if you are into quality&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you still want to scan on your own, I bought mine four years ago from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.filmscanner.info/en/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.filmscanner.info/en/&lt;/a&gt; - they have some nice reviews ... and a scanning service too ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: reminds me of the Vivan Maier - article (http://vivianmaier.blogspot.com/) about the young guy discovering an amazing street-photographer from Chicago. Don't know which question here linked to her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastEditorUserId="2317" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-14T09:15:27.873" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T09:15:27.873" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6985" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6908" CreationDate="2011-01-14T08:11:01.200" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I bought my SX10IS a couple years ago, I was really excited that I was getting a camera with AA batteries: a set of spare rechargeable batteries would be pretty cheap, and in a crunch I could buy another set at any corner convenience store.  But once I started using it, I learned a little more:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AA batteries are heavier than proprietary Lithium-Ion battery packs.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AA batteries, especially rechargeables, have a shorter life than the proprietary battery packs.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;NiMh (most rechargeables are NiMh) and Alkaline batteries don't do well (only last a few minutes) at cold temperatures (roughly freezing, or a few degrees above).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lithium (i.e. work-well-in-cold-weather) AA batteries are &lt;em&gt;expensive&lt;/em&gt; compared to NiMh or Alkalines.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One spare proprietary battery won't cost too much more than a charger and two sets of rechargeable batteries.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A set of AA batteries don't last for as many shots as a proprietary battery pack (rough guess: they last about 2/3 as long. I've never tried any sort of experiment, that's really just a gut feel).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I know it seems wrong, but a proprietary LiIon battery pack is actually &lt;em&gt;better&lt;/em&gt; than AA batteries (especially if you live somewhere that gets down to freezing temps in the winter).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(And on the Canon vs. Fuji front: I really enjoyed shooting with my SX10IS.  I can only imagine that the SX30IS is an improvement over it.  And if you're into hacking on your camera at all, &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CHDK&lt;/a&gt; will give you some added benefits, like scripting.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T08:11:01.200" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6986" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6899" CreationDate="2011-01-14T09:44:08.317" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To avoid blown highlights you can:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;use your camera's exposure compensation to set -1 or -2 stops of exposure.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;use spot metering on a lighter part of the image and use exposure-lock before re-framing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;use matrix metering (sometimes helps)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;alter the positioning of subject and/or camera to make better use of available light&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;use supplementary lighting to reduce the depth of shadows in the subject&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The range of light levels that can be recorded by a camera are much lower than those present in many real-life situations. One way to deal with this is to use &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;High Dynamic Range (HDR) Imaging&lt;/a&gt; techniques. Use the exposure bracketing features of the camera to make multiple images that can be combined using HDR software that compresses the dynamic range of the scene (using tone mapping) to fit within the range expressible in a displayed or printed image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/StLouisArchMultExpEV%2B4.09.JPG/120px-StLouisArchMultExpEV%2B4.09.JPG&quot; alt=&quot;overexposed&quot;&gt;&#xA;+ &lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/StLouisArchMultExpEV-1.82.JPG/120px-StLouisArchMultExpEV-1.82.JPG&quot; alt=&quot;underexposed&quot;&gt; = &lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/StLouisArchMultExpToneMapped.jpg/160px-StLouisArchMultExpToneMapped.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;HDR&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(creative commons images by Kevin McCoy via Wikipedia)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2520" LastEditorUserId="2520" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-14T10:45:06.750" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T10:45:06.750" />
  <row Id="6987" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6954" CreationDate="2011-01-14T10:30:44.927" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is also &lt;a href=&quot;http://noktor.com/products.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;50mm 0.95 lens from Noktor&lt;/a&gt; for Micro 4/3rds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/i20p5.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(photo from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://noktor.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;noktor website&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Micro 4/3rds is a mirror-less system so it is not a real DSLR lens as such, but it seems that there are also planning to make models for other mounts as on the main page there is a product survey: &quot;What mount would you like to see lenses designed for?&quot; with options:Canon EF,Nikon F,Four Thirds and PL Cinema Mount. Hard to say if they would manage to make it equally fast for other mounts&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastEditorUserId="115" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-14T10:39:03.107" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T10:39:03.107" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-14T10:30:44.927" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="6988" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6958" CreationDate="2011-01-14T11:06:00.227" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just for a while, try taking photos with something cheap and lo-fi, like a mobile phone or a second hand Olympus Trip 35, and experiment with black and white. You might find this liberating - you won't be thinking about technical quality, just the image content, and it'll be a chance to be more playful. I'm not suggesting you abandon all your lovely digital equipment, just have a holiday from it for a while and then return to it with what you've learned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3248" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T11:06:00.227" />
  <row Id="6989" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6958" CreationDate="2011-01-14T11:45:13.690" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It makes me so happy to see someone ask this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This might sound pretty artsy-fartsy, but my answer to &quot;what should I be thinking about&quot; is... nothing. Don't think about your image, try to feel it. Approach your photography not as a way of recording reality, but as if you were creating a painting. Go about creating your image as if it were on purpose, which is a lot harder than it sounds. Photography's siren song is that pushing a shutter release is so easy and so instantly rewarding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That would actually my advice for a lot of photographers: study painting, especially the old masters. Everything on their canvases was placed there by them, nothing is there by accident. Every composition is perfect. The best technique I've ever used to develop my sense of composition was tracing over paintings. Just some tracing paper and a pencil, a couple circles and squiggles. &quot;Through the arm to the eyes&quot;, as one of my lecturers used to say. Forget about &quot;rules&quot; of composition, they're for first year painting students. Composition is nothing more than creating a visual order, there are millions of ways to do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other practical advice that comes to mind (yes, I went to art school): &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The image is everything. Literally, nothing else matters, not the back story, not the context, not the accompanying paragraph of text. It's the image (or possibly, a series of images). Nothing else.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shoot a series.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Try to develop some distance to your own work. Stop taking pictures of things you care about, emotion will cloud your judgment. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pretty is not enough.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Work in black and white. Color makes it harder for you to judge your composition. Once you've nailed composition, you can reincorporate color into your work.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Look at light. If you find interesting light, study it, watch how it flows over whatever it shines on.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Study the best photography has to offer. Get off the internet, go to galleries, shows, visit the library to study albums. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take bad pictures. You know how to take technically perfect images, that's great. Now experiment outside of that. Shoot handheld at 1/8, underexpose, overexpose, fall down while shooting, shoot drunk, shoot with your eyes closed. Try everything, you can always go back to taking well lit, tack-sharp images.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shoot a wide angle at f/8. Shoot knowing everything in your frame will be in focus. Don't use shallow DoF as a crutch, compose with everything in the frame.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ask people whose work your respect (not people you respect or people whose work is pretty) for opinions on your work. Don't listen to what people who are emotionally connected to your subjects think about the work though, it's completely irrelevant to your photography.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Banality is art's greatest foe.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, there's so much more. Welcome to photography!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T11:45:13.690" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="6990" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5657" CreationDate="2011-01-14T11:52:15.210" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only worthwhile way to compare lights, IMO, is to place them at the same distance from a subject, turn them all the way up then measure their power with an incident meter. This not only lets your record their effective, useful (for a photography) power output, but lets you easily compare them to figure out flash ratios. You can even use this method with various modifiers, which is how strobes in the real world are usually used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T11:52:15.210" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6991" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6966" CreationDate="2011-01-14T12:08:13.683" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Looking at reference works like NatGeo or CNN Travel, there are two things that stand out as far as compelling photography: Things we don't get to see at home and places tourist don't tread.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Things we don't get to see at home tend to be, unfortunately, shot by most tourists and thus are cliched. Be it lederhosen at Oktoberfest, an untoucheable in India, Babushkas in Moscow, etc. This includes all the landmarks that are the cornerstone of most travel photography. I tend to avoid landmarks for a simple reason: it's been done, and much better, by hundreds of people before me. As a record that I went there and saw it, sure, I'll take a picture. As something I'll actually show other people? No way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Things that tourists tend not not to see are a lot more interesting. Early morning spice markets in India, salaryman karaoke in Tokyo, kangaroo hunting in Australia, etc. A lot of these things happen early in the morning or late at night, just like they do in your hometown. Your unfamiliarity with these things is a both a disadvantage and an advantage. You don't know about a lot of them, but they're fresh and exciting to you, you're not bored by them. It's also a great way to have adventures instead of just sightseeing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I find it a lot more interesting to see the people my friends meet in their travels and the experiences they had, rather than a catalog of things they saw and places they went. Pictures of them canonballing into a river at 3 in the morning are a lot more interesting than pictures of animals in a zoo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Really, there is no fundamental difference between travel photography and shooting at home. After all, you're still the one taking the pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T12:08:13.683" />
  <row Id="6992" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6966" CreationDate="2011-01-14T12:09:50.930" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think looking at other people's photographs really helps to get inspired. When you are a place you might remember a particular photo you saw and liked and you try something similar.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;However, I agree with Kendall that you should &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; look at too many pictures of that exact place you are going to visit. A bit is good, but too much just kills your creativity and open-minded-ness, IMO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taking the time to think about the subject before you take the shot is always a good idea. Don't just always take the shot from where you happen to stand at the time something catches your eye. Try different angles and techniques. Quality over quantity. Of course, don't overdo it and be sure not to stress your travel partner's patience too much. If you're unsure if your experiments will turn out well, just take the typical postcard shot, too. Just in case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I try to tell stories with my pictures, so I also try to capture pictures that document the day in a way I experienced it. Don't be too fixated on photographing only the obvious tourist attractions. Capture moments, paths you walk, streets, little details, people etc. Try to get a variety of subjects. (I think that's what you do already, and I think it's a good approach).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to post-processing, I apply star-ratings first (I use Apple Aperture and before that I used iPhoto). I narrow down the photos bit by bit until I have a reasonably small amount to choose from for the final selection. At the end of the rating process I try to have a variety of subjects and compositions that tell a story. I set myself a limit of max. 3-4 shots per subject.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Then I pick my final selection which narrows it down to the essential shots.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;After&lt;/em&gt; this I start processing and correcting (if needed) the photos from this selection. All other pictures stay untouched.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I find that rating pictures is a relatively quick process and a good way to get through hundreds or thousands of pictures.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;If you want to upload and share pictures while still on the road, I can recommend shooting in JPEG or RAW+JPEG. Using JPEGs shortens the whole post-processing workflow and so it's easier and quicker to share pics online.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="658" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T12:09:50.930" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6993" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6966" CreationDate="2011-01-14T14:27:53.940" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A series of posts by &lt;a href=&quot;http://thecareyadventures.com/blog/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Peter West Carey&lt;/a&gt; on Travel Photography has just concluded at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Photography School&lt;/a&gt;. These covered a variety of different subject categories that could be aimed for when taking photos while travelling. These were:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/travel-photography-subjects-water&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Water&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/travel-photography-subjects-old-people&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Old People&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/travel-photography-subjects-young-people&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Young People&lt;/a&gt;    &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/travel-photography-subjects-religion&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Religion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/travel-photography-subjects-sports&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sports&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/travel-photography-subjects-socializing&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Socializing&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/travel-photography-subjects-icons&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Icons&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/travel-photography-subjects-rich&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rich&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/travel-photography-subjects-poor&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Poor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/travel-photography-subjects-transportation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Transportation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/travel-photography-subjects-economy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Economy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/travel-photography-subjects-food&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Food&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/travel-photography-subjects-food-preparation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Food Preparation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/travel-photography-subjects-weather&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Weather&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/travel-photography-subjects-art&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Art&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/travel-photography-subjects-modern-vs-traditional&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Modern vs. Traditional&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/travel-photography-subjects-downtown&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Downtown&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/travel-photography-subjects-views&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Views&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/travel-photography-subjects-history&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;History&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/travel-photography-subjects-architecture&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Architecture&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/travel-photography-subjects-oddwhackyother-2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Odd/Whacky/Other&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These often feature the concept of trying to interpret these subjects and determine what makes them different in the current place. Including the local context makes them more interesting for the desired audience (e.g. someone who is not familiar with the area). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also trying to hit all of these subjects gives you a very rounded portrait of an area, including the landscape, the people and the culture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2127" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T14:27:53.940" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="6994" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6923" CreationDate="2011-01-14T15:21:11.430" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would try the following... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use manual focus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;stand on a mark&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;shoot, check focus and reshoot&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, try a smaller aperture - at f/2 the DOF really is very small indeed (as, I guess, you are finding out).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T15:21:11.430" />
  <row Id="6995" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6967" CreationDate="2011-01-14T15:33:57.133" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Take Out The Trash&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Excellent question.  I know what you're talking about - I have the same problem after every holiday (or even after a day out)!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most important (and sanity-saving) step in my workflow is a first pass through my pics to identify the outright loosers (out of focus, photo of my feet, flash didn't go off, etc...).  I will not admit in a public forum what proportion of my work goes this way!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My second and subsequent passes are to identify the absolute best images.  For me, this might be a couple of percent of the overall volume.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't do any more processing except on these pics.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't usually sharpen photos unless I am about to create JPEGs (i.e. I'm going to print them or put them on the web), so this only applies to a handful of images.  I use the default export sharpening.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;To Summarize&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't work on every image, work on the smallest possible subset - the few you want to share.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other tip is to work on getting it right in the camera.  This is a journey we're all on!  Hopefully as we improve, we'll need less post-processing - especially exposure and color-balance.  Hopefully (he says wistfully!).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(For the record: I use Lightroom, but I don't think that matters here since this isn't a technical answer). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-14T23:27:30.313" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T23:27:30.313" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="6996" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5736" CreationDate="2011-01-14T15:46:40.330" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer: RawTherapee&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rawtherapee.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.rawtherapee.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Almost everything uses DCRaw under the hood at least for reading in the RAW data.&#xA;The differences come with the demosaicing algorithms.&#xA;RawTherapee offers several such algorithms but the one to note is AMaZE, its the one you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The comparison page on RawTherapee's website doesn't contain the new AMaZE algorithm but this will show you the kind of differences you will see with different algorithms.&#xA;www.rawtherapee.com/RAW_Compare/&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;RawTherapee was free for a long time but now it is free and open source.  It is being actively developed in the open as I write this.&#xA;code.google.com/p/rawtherapee/source/list&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's someone's brief review of RT&#xA;stylepeterson.com/photography-articles/raw-therapee-a-brief-review&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have tried Bibble and while the interface and photo management aspects of it seem superior to RawTherapee I have never been able to get my RAW's to look as good as the jpegs that come out of the camera.&#xA;With RawTherapee it seems as though I can just adjust exposure, a little contrast / saturation to taste, and I'm there.... no suck luck with Bibble.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Give Bibble a try though.... they have a free demo you can download.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was my first post, so I could only create 1 hyperlink.  Sorry, you'll have to copy/paste them into your address bar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3239" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T15:46:40.330" />
  <row Id="6997" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6772" CreationDate="2011-01-14T16:15:30.903" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;@Jay Lance's lighting diagrams are nice, but they're top-down. That's what you want for most lighting diagrams (and hence that's how most software works). However, for butterfly lighting, the key is to position the lights vertically, &quot;on top of&quot; each other... and so a side-shot of the lighting setup is more illustrative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diyphotography.net/lighting-light-like-a-butterfly&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This page on DIYPhotography&lt;/a&gt; has a perfect example of how it's done:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/udijw/2044808038/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;butterfly_lighting_03 by udijw, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2389/2044808038_6478e1d1c1.jpg&quot; width=&quot;333&quot; height=&quot;500&quot; alt=&quot;butterfly_lighting_03&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T16:15:30.903" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="6998" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-14T17:40:48.460" Score="11" ViewCount="281" Body="&lt;p&gt;I bought 35mm dedicated film scanner (Nikon CoolScan III) and I'm planning to digitize old negatives and slides I found at home.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How should I store and preserve these slides and films after I cut them and scan?&lt;/strong&gt; How to choose best negative pages/sleeves, binders etc. and what to avoid?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2720" LastEditorUserId="2720" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-16T21:42:39.177" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T16:59:41.720" Title="How to store and preserve film negatives and slides" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;storage&gt;&lt;slides&gt;&lt;negative-film&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="6999" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6943" CreationDate="2011-01-14T17:58:46.587" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As some of the answers have indicated, a key issue in copyright is proving creation date and ownership of the original. This problem is especially acute with digital images.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a simple cost free solution.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;1. Create a Google account like copyright.your_email_name@gmail.com&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2. For every batch of images that you wish to protect, send an email to this address containing&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2.1 a small jpeg version of the original containing the exif data.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2.2 the MD5 checksum of the RAW original.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Google Mail is a trustworthy repository&lt;br&gt;&#xA;1. the date of the email is proof of the registration date&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2. the record of the MD5 checksum is proof that you own the original, since the MD5 will only match the RAW original in your possession and only you know the password to the email account. (including the RAW original might quickly exhaust your storage allotment in Google Mail)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are commercial entities that supply digital repositories intended to solve this problem. They all suffer from one acute problem - you have no assurance that they will still be in existence in say, 10 years time. If their business model fails your copyright proof evaporates. Currently, outside of national archive bodies, Google is probably our best bet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T17:58:46.587" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="7000" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6967" CreationDate="2011-01-14T18:32:18.247" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;+1 on the other two answers here. You want to &lt;strong&gt;make your strong images stronger&lt;/strong&gt; instead of making weak images good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My workflow is a little different. I import files, then swipe through them and reject anything that's unsalvageable. The Control-9 shortcut is great for this — it rejects the image and moves you forward to the next. Anything I see that looks great, I rate five stars, anything that’s okay but not fantastic is four stars, mediocre is three stars and so on. I rarely keep one or two star shots (I just reject those), but there are a few cases where there was a poor shot of a great moment that I’ll hang on to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After that, I run through the five star images and do whatever work they need. Then the four star shots. After that, I might stamp adjustments onto three-star shots taken around the same time. You can stamp metadata onto multiple images at once, so this is a great way to get those mediocre shots looking better without spending a lot of time on them. Make sure you remove any crop or brushed adjustments, since these almost never work right when stamped.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adjustment Presets can save you a bunch of time. If you find that you adjust the sharpness on nearly everything you import, &lt;strong&gt;make a preset&lt;/strong&gt; and use it when you import, so you don’t have to apply it by hand. They’re a rather blunt tool when applied to a large group of images like this, so don’t go too crazy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also &lt;strong&gt;a ton of keyboard shortcuts&lt;/strong&gt; that help when you’re picking your images. Open up the control bar (View -&gt; Show Control Bar, or press &lt;code&gt;d&lt;/code&gt;) and hover over the buttons — you’ll find a world of shortcuts to help you rate and navigate your images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1905" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T18:32:18.247" />
  <row Id="7001" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6998" CreationDate="2011-01-14T19:09:23.017" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can get a good overview of film sleeve properties from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.filmguard.com/polyguard/navigation.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;filmguard.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The key precautions are to store your films in a cool, dark, dry place.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;One way of doing this is to store your film in a sealed plastic box containing a layer of desiccant such as silica gel. Rent a safety deposit box at your bank and store the box there. Good banks have climate controlled vaults.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said that, I have found significant changes in the dyes of negatives/slides stored for 40 years in a dark place (admittedly at home). Your best bet is to scan them and take strong measures to preserve the digital versions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T19:09:23.017" />
  <row Id="7002" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6998" CreationDate="2011-01-14T19:56:34.040" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I made the 'final' switch from film to digital several years ago, here's the procedure I went through with all my slides and negatives (more than 50,000 frames in total):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Digitized every single slide and negative at the highest level of quality available at the time. My intention from the start was to hopefully never to have to break into the physical packaging ever again.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Put all the slides and negatives in polyester sleeves&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tagged and labeled everything into a spreadsheet on the off-chance I'd need to find a negative (or a session) again I wouldn't have to go through every single negative looking for the one I needed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Taped the sleeves onto archival quality (acid free) cardboard backing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Put the polyester sleeves + a silica pack into an archival grade vacuum seal bag (polypropylene) and used an industrial vacuum sealer to suck all the air out of each package (the cardboard was essentially in there so that the package wouldn't lose it's shape with the vacuum and crush my negatives).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The sealed packages were then placed in archival grade boxes, more silica packs were added to each box, I sealed each box with tape, and the boxes were put in a safety deposit box at a bank in my town with a reputation for keeping the ambient temperature and humidity at a rock-solid 55 degrees/50% humidity.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Overkill? Probably. Expensive? Definitely. Time consuming? It took nearly 6 months (I probably could have done it faster with some concentrated effort, but it was an 'assemble them while I sit in front of the TV during the down-times' activity)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My kids will probably simply throw them all out after I'm dead... It's not like I've got a bunch of 'undiscovered shots of JFK and Marylin Monroe' floating around in there... But I'm a worry-wart, and I just didn't want to keep myself up nights 'listening to my negatives turn to dust,' so I went for the 'nuclear option' of archival... Or at least as close to a 'nuclear option' as I could imagine at the time. I still occasionally think that it might have been better if I also vacuum sealed the boxes too... But I'm probably just being paranoid. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-14T20:24:59.090" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T20:24:59.090" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7003" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6966" CreationDate="2011-01-14T20:09:26.100" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I am going someplace new I always try to get in contact with a few people from the area (the internet is such a great tool for finding people to reach out to). My goal is to be able to ask half-a-dozen (or-so) locals the following question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;What's the most amazingly visual thing you can think of in your area that nobody else knows about.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not all of the responses pan out, but I always end up with a few 'hot tips' for really unique photography opportunities when I do this. I also make some new friends, which has come in really handy on any number of occasions in my travels...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other thing that I've gotten a lot of 'mileage' out of is the notion of taking my camera and just walking around a place for a whole day... I mean a &lt;em&gt;whole&lt;/em&gt; day... Sunrise to after dark. It's absolutely amazing the amount of cool stuff that can be found when you're just... walking around... with your eyes open to the possibilities of a place... With no particular place to go, no particular thing to see, and no particular schedule to keep. I will say this: this is more of a 'single persons' tip... I was able to do this much more frequently before I got married... and I expect that I'll have to set aside the practice completely when my daughter arrives in March. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T20:09:26.100" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7004" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6966" CreationDate="2011-01-14T20:20:55.823" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;All good answers here. Travel photography is all about seeing things in new ways but our background captures us and prevents us from seeing things differently.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an example, a geologist friend took photos while travelling in South America and India. It came as no surprise when his photos overwhelmingly showed stone artifacts and few people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second problem is that, even without thinking about it, we have an implicit audience for our photos, which shapes our photography.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good example was a recent tour by the China Photographers Association. Their exhibition was a stunning collection of all the best known tourist sites in China. But they were nearly empty of people. And if you have travelled in China you will know that the lively, bustling, crowded cacophony of people is the overwhelming impression.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So good travel photography means breaking free from your background to allow fresh new insights. It also means understanding what is challenging and interesting to your likely audience.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edward De Bono's book, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Thinking_Hats&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Six Thinking Hats&lt;/a&gt;, is a widely used tool, in management circles, to generate innovative approaches to problems. The approach of consciously donning different thinking hats is a powerful way to renovate one's thinking. What I am suggesting here is that you make a practice of consciously changing your &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.debonogroup.com/six_thinking_hats.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;thinking hats&lt;/a&gt; during your travel photography. This will break you free from being captured by your background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T20:20:55.823" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7005" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-14T21:51:24.840" Score="11" ViewCount="235" Body="&lt;p&gt;Having read a number of posts on here about the benefits of shooting in RAW as opposed to JPEG (for example &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2627/good-examples-of-raws-advantages-over-jpeg&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;), I'd like to have a go with it myself. However, I'm not really sure how to go about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can turn RAW mode on in my camera (that's easy!), but what do I do with the files when I get them on to my computer. I presume I need to process them to get the RAW data into something that I can work with, but do I need a specific tool for my camera (a Finepix S5100), or will something like the GIMP do what I want? I'm also a little confused about how I then take advantage of the abilities that RAW gives me when I'm processing it on the computer - do RAW processing tools have more processing options than standard tools?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3261" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T21:32:31.690" Title="How to get started with RAW photography" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7006" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7005" CreationDate="2011-01-14T22:02:54.553" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several programs that will allow you to look at RAW files. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1717/free-raw-editors-converters-on-windows&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; to see some free ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There aren't really any more options to a RAW photo editor than a normal JPEG editor. The main thing is you can turn the knobs further than you can with JPEG. There are a few things which depending on your editor you should do with a RAW file that you wouldn't with a JPEG. The most important is you should slightly sharpen an image, especially if you're using a more powerful photo editor like Lightroom. You'll probably need to do more photo adjustment as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T22:02:54.553" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7007" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7005" CreationDate="2011-01-14T22:02:55.790" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, any camera that offers users the option to record photos in RAW format also includes software to process those RAW files.  In most cases, this will give you a taste of what's possible with RAW.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you may have noticed, though, lots of people use software other than the stuff that came with their cameras to do RAW processing.  This is where you'll start to get into software like Photoshop (incl. Express), Lightroom, Aperture, etc.  Just as with equipment purchases, if you can spend a little time working with the stuff you've got before you run out and buy something else, you'll have a better chance of purchasing wisely.  In other words, all these other software packages promise to do the same RAW conversion that your included software does, but with more options, higher quality, and more control over the process, workflow, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T22:02:55.790" />
  <row Id="7008" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1270" CreationDate="2011-01-14T22:11:33.590" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Good question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a premise, I say that every opinion is obviously subjective. &#xA;What I consider &quot;wonderful&quot;, may be &quot;ugly&quot; for someone else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, I don't know if there's a website with such a comparison, but it's easy to make it: just do a search on Flickr or any other photo sharing service of the same subject with the same camera and gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, take:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;flickr.com/photos/anna_abramova/2351141120/&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;flickr.com/photos/chanc/4757005099/&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(sorry, can't post more than one link for this stupid spam filter)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's the Colosseum (an Italian monument, if you live on the Moon and don't know it :).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first was taken with a Canon 5D, one of the best cameras on the market, the second with the less powerful 30D. But, you see, the second photo is much more interesting and visually pleasing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or even, you can see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/abenedetti/5208326179/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; another interesting and suggestive shot.&#xA;And, believe it or not, it was taken with an Apple iPhone. That is just a cellphone, after all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in my opinion, you can take beautiful shots with simple gear and ugly ones with top-rated cameras. &#xA;It's the photographer that makes the photo, not viceversa.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3231" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T22:11:33.590" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7009" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-14T22:17:50.900" Score="6" ViewCount="286" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sometimes when attempting to shoot continuously (at high speed) with my Nikon D90, something appears to block the smooth interval between shutter releases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have it set up to take RAW and JPEG images together and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/d90/en/spec/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;specification&lt;/a&gt; suggests it can take 7 continuous shots (with the caveat that this &quot;may vary depending on conditions&quot;). I'd like to understand what these conditions are so I can attempt to minimise them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realise disk throughput is a big issue so I'm always careful to wait for disk access to finish before starting to shoot. Beyond that, I've observed the following phenomena when holding down the shutter release in continuous mode:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes it feels like the camera waits after each release until there is something either in focus or moving under the active focus area. I've tried setting focus (and everything else on the body and lens) to manual, but this still seems to occur.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes after the first shot is taken there is a long pause (20+ seconds) then the next 6 shots are taken in quick succession.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes it does exactly what I want and takes all 7 shots in quick succession at perfectly equal intervals (at roughly the 4.5fps quoted in the specification).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't tell what is causing these differences in performance. Can anyone explain?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2016" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T16:09:59.400" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T16:09:59.400" Title="What conditions hold up continuous shooting?" Tags="&lt;troubleshooting&gt;&lt;burst-mode&gt;&lt;continuous-drive&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7010" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-14T22:25:55.513" Score="5" ViewCount="157" Body="&lt;p&gt;Rangefinder, Single Lens Reflex, Electronic, LCD (TTL)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3262" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-14T23:50:29.873" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T03:04:02.497" Title="What is the difference between these types of viewfinders?" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7012" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7010" CreationDate="2011-01-14T22:53:48.203" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rangefinder&lt;/strong&gt;: The view you see is not 'Through The Lens', of the 4 view types this is the only one that isn't.  You're looking at a estimated view of what the lens is seeing, it may or may not include guides/crops within the viewfinder to indicate different fields of view.  One side benefit of this is there is no mirror between the lens and film to direct light to your eye so no mirror needs to flip up when you take a picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Single Lens Reflex&lt;/strong&gt;: The view you see is 'Through The Lens', a mirror is placed between the lens and film to direct light to your eye for you to view, there may or may not be another mirror or prism to direct the light again (to your eye).  The first mirror needs to flip up in order for the photograph to be taken.  There will be slight differences between what you see and the sensor actually captures.  Canon actually created a film SLR that used two prisms instead of any mirrors to speed up FPS by having no mirror slap, the EOS 1N RS, it got 10FPS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Electronic Viewfinder&lt;/strong&gt;: Provides a similar 'viewing style' as SLR but instead of using a mirror and prism to send the light from the lens to your eye a tiny LCD is place in the viewfinder and you're looking at exactly what the sensor is capturing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;LCD Viewfinder&lt;/strong&gt;: I assume you mean an LCD on the back of the camera, this eschews the viewfinder all together and has a large LCD on the back of the camera that shows exactly what the sensor is seeing.  You don't actually need to place your face to the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T22:53:48.203" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7013" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7009" CreationDate="2011-01-14T22:54:40.373" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My suspicion lies with your memory card. If you try it with another card, do you get the same behavior?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-01-14T22:54:40.373" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7014" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7005" CreationDate="2011-01-14T23:21:42.970" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I usually use the software that came with my Nikon camera (mainly because it's a combined raw file viewer/editor), but I like to use the opensource &lt;a href=&quot;http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;UFRaw&lt;/a&gt; program too (in fact, as far as editing functionality goes, I like it better than the free Nikon software).  UFRaw also comes with a GIMP plugin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One word of warning when using GIMP: you'll want to do any sorts of adjustments (i.e. to the tone curve) in the raw converter because GIMP is currently limited to 8 bits per channel.  8 bits per channel isn't enough when pushing the values around (i.e. applying a tone curve, exposure adjustments, etc.) as it results in rounding errors/loss of data which presents itself in the form of color banding in the result (as opposed to a smooth gradient).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2214" LastEditorUserId="2214" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-15T14:49:49.420" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T14:49:49.420" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7015" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7009" CreationDate="2011-01-14T23:24:39.513" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Memory write speed is one factor so any delays during writing and the camera will have to slow down as the buffer isn't cleared fast enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's worth noting that not all raws are the same file size. Nearly all manufacturers employ some form of lossless compression on raw files. The amount of entropy (randomness) determines how much compression reduces the filesize.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the filesize suddenly goes up the camera won't be able to write the file quick enough to clear the buffer before the next frame so shooting slows down. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course this doesn't explain a 20 second delay, this may indicate a genuine problem with your camera, or more likely the card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-15T02:42:54.353" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T02:42:54.353" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7016" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7028" CreationDate="2011-01-14T23:40:19.723" Score="5" ViewCount="172" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm considering buying a fisheye/wide-angle modifier. The brand-name modifier costs around £150 for a single wide-angle modifier which also requires an adapter ring. I've also seen, on ebay, kits comprising of &lt;i&gt;three&lt;/i&gt; modifiers plus an adapter ring for £80.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone have any experience of using these cheap adapters with this, or any other, compact or bridge cameras? Does the fact that you've put a cheap modifier in front of the lens detract from the good quality of the camera's optics significantly or is it actually a worthwhile purchase, considering that it might not be used every day?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3263" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-15T04:06:54.067" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T04:06:54.067" Title="Is it worth buying cheap lens attachments for my camera?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;wide-angle&gt;&lt;fisheye&gt;&lt;cheap&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="7017" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7016" CreationDate="2011-01-14T23:46:17.437" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In photography, as in everything, you get what you pay for. What you'll see from cheaper products in general is more chromatic shifting, loss of contrast, more blurriness, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it will still probably give you the desired effect, and if it's something you don't often use, you might consider it, so...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-15T01:24:13.223" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T01:24:13.223" />
  <row Id="7018" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6732" CreationDate="2011-01-15T00:08:58.187" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm in the same position and have decided to wait. It's a pretty stable rumor that the mk III will be out end of year. I'm an oddball in that I really want more megapixels because I print to digital negatives for platinum paper prints. More megapixels actually are not wasted on me as I print at 360 lpm. So say the mk III ends up at the rumored 28 megapixels. That means I can make a 12&quot;x20&quot; print at 360 lpi. That alone is worth it to me to wait. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I could afford it, I'd also look at the next-gen 1d/1ds that too which will likely have 35 megapixels (roughly a 14x24 inch print with that!) but that would also require me stepping up to a larger printer. Sometimes one wishes to be made of money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2998" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T00:08:58.187" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7019" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7023" CreationDate="2011-01-15T00:24:27.080" Score="10" ViewCount="1346" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, I understand that a tilt-shift lens solves certain problems with shooting buildings and getting straight lines and such, but what I've not understood is &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt;.  I'm looking for the technical reasons (maybe diagrams?) as to why tilting and/or shifting has this effect or other desirable (or undesirable) effects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-15T02:54:55.410" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T03:07:29.757" Title="How does a tilt-shift lens work, and why does it solve certain problems?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;tilt-shift&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7020" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7019" CreationDate="2011-01-15T00:31:45.390" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If your film plane is parallel to the subject then no lines on the subject are distorted.  Conversely if you angle the film plane so its no longer parallel to the subject, lines converge towards the further away edge of the film plane and diverge from the closer edge of the film plane.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using a tilt shift lens you can keep your film plane parallel to the subject and just move the lens about to change what is in the field of view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_control_lens&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_control_lens&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T00:31:45.390" />
  <row Id="7021" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7019" CreationDate="2011-01-15T00:32:48.017" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me first explain the tilt portion. An image is projected straight from the lens to the camera. If the lens is tilted relative to the sensor, then different parts of the image will be in focus at different lengths. The location in focus depends on 3 things. The first is the distance of the lens to the sensor. The second is the distance from the lens plane to the object of interest. The third is the focal length. What's happening in the tilt portion is that there is different lengths from the sensor to the lens plane. Thus since the focal length remains constant, the location of the in focus part must change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The shift part is a bit more difficult, but let me give it a shot. What happens is you are moving the lens up and down. This causes a different area to be in focus, but the lines still remain as you have it originally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T00:32:48.017" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7022" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7019" CreationDate="2011-01-15T00:39:13.000" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is my intuitive understanding of the shift lens, based on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilt-shift_lens&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt;, and especially the first diagram from that article:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's say we want to shoot a tall building, where we stand at the base level. Our field of view doesn't allow the whole building to be captured in the frame. In fact, when the camera is level, half of the frame is &quot;wasted&quot; on image of the ground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is obvious why, if we tilt the camera so we do capture the whole building, we get the converging vertical lines due to the perspective effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we had a bigger film (sensor), then the FoV was bigger and we could capture the whole building. So, shifting the lens up relative to the image center effectively &quot;extends&quot; the frame in the opposite direction, so now we have a bigger &quot;half frame&quot; and we capture the whole building while at the same time we reduce the other &quot;half frame&quot; and eliminate the ground!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the tilt part - consider that in optical geometry is more or less symmetrical around the lens center. Now the plane of sharp focus is parallel to the lens. So, when you shoot, say, the ground, which is not parallel to the lens, you see the effect of DoF. Now, if you tilt the lens, then the plane of sharp focus is tilted as well. This way, you get on the film a much deeper DoF from the non-parallel plane that you are shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-15T00:46:09.297" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T00:46:09.297" />
  <row Id="7023" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7019" CreationDate="2011-01-15T00:45:22.633" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You don't use the tilt element of tilt-shift lenses to fix perspective, only the shift element.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tilting tilts (or swings - that's the term for a horizontal tilt) the plane of focus. It's mostly used for increasing apparent depth of field. Imagine you're taking a picture of a football field. You want the entire field to be in focus but you're using a large format camera and you can't stop down too far. Thanks to movements (tilt/shift) you can tilt down your plane of focus, so instead of vertical, it's tilted forward covering the field. You lose focus on the sky, but that doesn't really need to be in focus anyway, right? What's funny is that although you tilt part of the lens, the scene you're framing never actually changes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All this is covered in this &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheimpflug_principle&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fine wikipedia article on the Scheimpflug principle&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shifting is pretty simple. Inside your camera, your lens works a bit like a projection lens works on a movie screen. This is why longer focal lengths give you more &quot;zoom&quot; - the same thing happens when you move your projector away from the screen. Your lense projects and image onto your sensor or film - just like you have it projected on a screen in a movie theater. With 99% of lenses, the position of the lens is fixed and the image shown on your sensor is just big enough to cover it... or sometimes, not, that's when vignetting happens. With shift lenses, your circle is much bigger, so when you shift, you really just move the lens around in front of your sensor, as if you were moving a projector.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shooting large format really helps you understand that a camera isn't a fixed object, it's really two planes that can interact with each other in a huge number of ways. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T00:45:22.633" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7024" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7010" CreationDate="2011-01-15T03:04:02.497" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You already got the exact answer to your question, but I think it is equally important to know what the benefits and issues are with each viewfinder type.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rangefinder:&lt;/strong&gt; View is approximate, coverage is incomplete and may be even off-center. No way to preview exposure, white-balance, depth-of-field. May have an indicator of focus but not exact. I don't have much experience here, so it may vary between models.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Single Lens Reflex:&lt;/strong&gt; (Often called Optical Viewfinder or &lt;em&gt;OVF&lt;/em&gt; for short): Shows either a complete (100% coverage) or partial (92-98% coverage) view through the lens, so coverage is always perfectly aligned (edges may be missing for partial coverage) and the focus plane is shown exactly.  Usually shows the view at the maximum aperture which means that DOF is exact unless the camera is equipped with a DOF-preview option. Keep in ming that Depth-Of-field is size-depending, so even with the preview there will be differences between the previewed DOF and visible DOF in the final image. An OVF does not preview exposure or white-balance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Electronic:&lt;/strong&gt; (Often called EVF): Nearly always shows an exact view of framing (100% coverage). Can (depending on the implementation) preview exposure, white-balance, depth-of-field and focus. Same caveat applies with DOF as with an OVF, it may not be the same in the final image because it is size-dependent. Focus checking is the biggest issue with most EVFs, since their relatively low-resolution is insufficient to show precisely what is in focus. Most EVFs have 200K-240K pixels but a handfull now reach 1.5 megapixels which is much better for focusing. Since the view is electronic, there is a short but sometimes perceptible delay between action and what is seen in the EVF, potentially making it harder to track moving subjects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;LCD:&lt;/strong&gt; (TTL or Display View): Basically a much bigger version of EVFs. All the viewing properties are the same except that its position make it susceptible to ambient light. So if you are in a very bright area, an LCD may become very hard to view due to reflections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Optical Tunnel:&lt;/strong&gt; A parallel lens located near the photographic lens. It usually zooms in sync with the other lens. It shows very coarse (60-85%) and off-center framing. Does not preview anything, no focus, no exposure, no white-balance, etc. Sometimes (as in most Canon G-series), you can see the camera's photographic lens through the optical tunnel. This type of viewfinder is disappearing but was in high-demand when cameras with LCDs only (no OVF or EVF) had poor anti-reflective coatings which gave poor outdoor visibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/article.php?id=viewfinders&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.neocamera.com/article.php?id=viewfinders&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T03:04:02.497" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7025" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7019" CreationDate="2011-01-15T03:07:29.757" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The other answers are great but I wanted to add one more thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can do the same correction in Photoshop or with various other tools (some panoramic tools can be used this way, such as Autopano Pro).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why bother with tilt-shift lenses anymore?  Because when you correct this in software, the results may leave some areas far less sharp than others - because when you correct distortion you are literally &quot;stretching&quot; some pixels greatly, and those areas will be much less sharp (while in other areas you are compressing pixels and throwing out detail).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look around you can find third-parry tilt/shift lenses for most mounts, if you really want to explore using one.  Or you might be able to rent one for your camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T03:07:29.757" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7026" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7009" CreationDate="2011-01-15T03:16:03.390" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 20 sec. delay sounds like a problem for sure. That aside, with all the options like D-Lighting, noise reduction and so on turned OFF, this is what the D90's buffer is capable of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;RAW +Jpeg fine = 7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;RAW = 9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jpeg fine = 25&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Anything smaller and you can shoot&#xA;  till the cows come home.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So basically, RAW + Jpeg is the worst setting for shooting bursts. Even with a really fast card (30Mb/s), your buffer will be full after a about 4 seconds and your continuous shooting will start to lag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;RAW + Jpeg is about 15Mo per shot, so your fast card can only handle about two of your 4 fps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, shoot in RAW only and it'll be able to deal with about 3, which will extend the time you can shoot for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in Jpeg fine you should be able to shoot till your card is full without lag if you have a fast card. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T03:16:03.390" />
  <row Id="7027" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7005" CreationDate="2011-01-15T03:16:18.120" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To get started, set up a few shots from a tripod and shoot them in both JPEG and RAW. Most DSLRs can do that simultaneously but I suspect your camera may not have that option because its writing pipeline is slow (it would otherwise lockup your camera for 20-45s IIRC).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then load the RAW into any conversion software and see if you can produce an image which YOU prefer to the in-camera JPEG. Play with the conversion controls: sharpness, saturation, contrast, curve, etc. Don't go with the default conversion unless you want to waste your time because that will almost always produce the same JPEG as the camera (some advanced programs will let you define your own conversion though which is usually called a preset).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;REMEBER: The RAW advantage is about what YOU can do with the image. Most mediums cannot even show all the nuances in a JPEG (nearly no LCD monitor can), so it is more about having control on the final image than about showing one with more color tones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After a few rounds, you'll be able to judge if it is for you or not. There will be a cost in terms of space, speed and workflow. Particularly since you do not have a DSLR, every time you shoot a RAW image, it will be a while before you can shoot again. Then you have to realize that if you don't take the time to make the output better than what the camera does, you're not getting much out of RAW. If you do, realize that you could have been shooting more instead. Ask yourself what you prefer and what is worth it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T03:16:18.120" />
  <row Id="7028" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7016" CreationDate="2011-01-15T03:55:13.817" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A camera lens is made up of a number of individual glass elements (lenses) which work together to focus an image onto the plane of a piece of film or a digital sensor. Each element in the 'stack' of a lens is either there specifically to make the image hitting that sensor more accurate, or to correct for some inherent deficiency that has been introduced as a result of an element within the overall lens. In general, the more expensive the camera lens, the more elements are in the overall lens and/or the better it has been engineered to produce accurate images and reduce deficiencies of the lens design. This is true even if you're using a camera that doesn't have the ability to change lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does adding a modifier- generally speaking a modifier of significantly lower quality than any other element likely to be used- to the front of the 'stack' of elements that makes up a lens detract from the quality of a lenses optics? Yes. Absolutely. Your picture will never be as sharp or accurate as if you hadn't added the modifier to the front of the lens. In fact, it will be &lt;em&gt;significantly&lt;/em&gt; degraded. Period.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it a worthwhile purchase? That depends on what you're looking to accomplish with your photography, and what (in general) you want your pictures to look like. If you like the 'lo-fi' photography look that can be achieved through the use of things like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensbaby.com/#0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lensbabys&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://usa.shop.lomography.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lomo cameras&lt;/a&gt;, then you're likely to think the look that comes from one of these modifiers is a great addition to your bag. If, on the other hand, you're hoping for performance that in any way rivals an actual fisheye or wide-angle lens, it would be better to avoid such modifiers because the quality of the images you'll be able to make won't even be in the same city as a dedicated lens would, let alone the same ballpark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T03:55:13.817" />
  <row Id="7029" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7009" CreationDate="2011-01-15T05:30:11.513" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You've set the focus to manual, that's good. Also set a quick shutter speed and full aperture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3270" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T05:30:11.513" />
  <row Id="7030" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-01-15T05:31:58.203" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;A professional is an individual who makes a living off of their trade. This included professional photographers who make a living by selling their photographic work, or offer their skill as a photographer as a service.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-15T05:31:58.203" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T05:31:58.203" />
  <row Id="7031" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-01-15T05:31:58.203" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="Professionals are individuals who make a living off of their trade, including professional photographers." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-15T05:31:58.203" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T05:31:58.203" />
  <row Id="7032" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-01-15T05:33:52.337" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Amateurs are individuals who perform a trade, such as photography, for purposes of entertainment rather than financial gain (in contrast to a professional.) Amateurs may enjoy photography as a hobby, simply because they are an enthusiast of either photographic work or equipment, or possibly as a means to another end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-15T05:33:52.337" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T05:33:52.337" />
  <row Id="7033" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-01-15T05:33:52.337" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="Amateurs are individuals who perform a trade such as photography for entertainment, rather than financial gain." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-15T05:33:52.337" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T05:33:52.337" />
  <row Id="7034" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5245" CreationDate="2011-01-15T13:16:13.510" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 USM&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the lens I use for 90% of the shots with my 40D. Despite its designation this is equal to an 'L' lens in terms of image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Useful zoom range, wide aperture, image stabilization. Much better than the kit lens, this is definitely in the 'you get what you pay for' category.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, because it's fixed aperture, there is one less thing to think about when shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main downside vs the kit lens is size and weight. This is a big, heavy lens but not any worse than other L grade zooms; depends on what you are used to. 77mm filter size too, so you know when it's pointed at you. It is not a discreet lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3156" LastEditorUserId="3156" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-31T14:25:13.143" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T14:25:13.143" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-15T13:16:13.510" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7035" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7037" CreationDate="2011-01-15T19:24:52.407" Score="7" ViewCount="398" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Sigma 50mm lens f1.4 and it has a lens hood that has a sine wave shape going around the perimeter of the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I imagine this particular shape is useful for getting a particular effect and wonder what that is and how it would differ from just a straight edge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2371" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T19:39:18.997" Title="What effect does the lens hood have on pictures and how does its shape impact that?" Tags="&lt;sigma&gt;&lt;lens-design&gt;&lt;lens-hood&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7036" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7035" CreationDate="2011-01-15T19:30:23.230" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Usually the lens hood is for stopping light from the sides to enter the lens and produce flare. It can also reduce illumination of dust or other dirt on the lens itself which manifests itself in the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The shape can be simply round and a tulip-shaped hood is usually only to prevent vignetting within the field of view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2616" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T19:30:23.230" />
  <row Id="7037" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7035" CreationDate="2011-01-15T19:31:01.833" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The reason for using a hood is to block light rays from elements outside of the actual frame (stray light) to enter into the lens and degrade the image quality (lowering contrast). Effectively, it &quot;shades&quot; the lens from these rays. Since a sensor is rectangular, valid light rays that fall on the corners arrive from angles larger than light rays that fall on the middle of the sensor's edge. This is why many hoods have the &quot;petal&quot; form. Otherwise you will suffer from either vignetting at the frame corners, or lower effectiveness in blocking invalid rays.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With increasing focal length, the petal shape becomes less required and there is a transition to circular shape. Another reason for circular hoods is rotating front elements of the lens, where the hood is mounted. When focusing, the element (and hood) rotates so if you use petal hood it will lose its alignment with the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-15T19:39:18.997" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T19:39:18.997" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7038" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7035" CreationDate="2011-01-15T19:32:03.110" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the already good posts, and likely forthcoming posts, I'll give one less common but equally important tip. Don't forget that using a lens hood will make it less likely that you'll cause damage to your lens, improving the quality with less dust and scratches on your lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T19:32:03.110" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7040" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6906" CreationDate="2011-01-15T19:52:14.133" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On the installation instructions at: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.focusingscreen.com/work/k7en.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.focusingscreen.com/work/k7en.htm&lt;/a&gt; there is the statement:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Penatx [sic] ISTD/K7/K10D/K20D change focusingscreen will not influence AF-Focus and focus point operate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it seems to be working with autofocus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="47" LastEditorUserId="47" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-16T09:27:49.287" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T09:27:49.287" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7041" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-15T19:59:32.010" Score="3" ViewCount="65" Body="&lt;p&gt;I started recently supplying Location metadata to my images (not geolocation, I do that in a few cases but hardly for all of them) and I thought »Hey, a smart collection that contains all images without location would be handy«. I then created one with&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Location | is |&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(the text box at the end is empty – not even whitespace) for lack of something like »is empty«. But now the collection shows no images at all, although I know there are still images with no location information there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a trick I just don't know or is it impossible to create such a smart collection? I noticed that the built-in smart collection that filters photos without keywords uses an »is empty« filter which exists for keywords but not for Location.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2616" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-15T21:56:48.107" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T21:56:48.107" Title="How can I create a smart collection that checks for absence of values in Lightroom 2?" Tags="&lt;smart-collections&gt;&lt;lightroom-2&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7042" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7005" CreationDate="2011-01-15T21:32:31.690" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since you are in the early stages of getting accustomed to using RAW images my suggestion is to use a tool that makes that as easy as possible.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Google Picasa is not only free but it quickly, easily and automatically converts from RAW format to a displayable format, allowing you to view your photos immediately. It makes using RAW images just as simple as using JPEG images.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has basic editing facilities which can be quickly applied and are adequate for the majority of every day photos. For the smaller number of photos where you want to perform more advanced editing you can call Gimp from within Picasa.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And for the even smaller number of cases where you want to take direct control over the conversion process you can use the Ufraw plugin in Gimp. This allows you precise control over the exact way in which a RAW image is converted to a displayable format.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you gain experience you might wish to upgrade to other tools with a greater variety of options but by then you will have gained enough knowledge to make a more informed choice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T21:32:31.690" />
  <row Id="7043" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7041" CreationDate="2011-01-15T21:40:22.313" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As we've discussed in the question comments, it's working for me as expected in Lightroom 3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I guess one &quot;answer&quot; is &quot;Upgrade&quot;. :-\ It's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;$99&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-01-15T21:40:22.313" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7044" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7046" CreationDate="2011-01-15T22:06:46.367" Score="14" ViewCount="460" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lenses like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/1935/AF-DC-NIKKOR-135mm-f%252F2D.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this one from Nikon&lt;/a&gt; have a &quot;defocus control&quot; feature which allows you to&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Control the degree of spherical aberration in background or foreground elements for more creative control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do these lenses work? The defocus control has settings measured in f-stops; is it some sort of translucent aperture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-01T07:26:32.660" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T07:26:32.660" Title="How do soft focus or defocus control rings work?" Tags="&lt;defocus&gt;&lt;soft-focus&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7045" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-15T22:47:50.450" Score="4" ViewCount="154" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think I know my Lightroom pretty well, but I couldn't find a way to create a smart collection that returns photos containing only &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; given keyword. Just one. Say, all photos containing &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; the 'foo' keyword, no other keywords.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only solution I found was:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;create a smart collection that returns photos containing that given keyword 'foo',&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;select all photos and add them to &lt;em&gt;another collection&lt;/em&gt; (say 'temp') for backup,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;remove the given keyword 'foo' from the photos,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;create a smart collection that returns the photos containing &lt;em&gt;no keywords&lt;/em&gt;: this should return all the photos that &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; had the 'foo' keyword before I removed it in the previous step. Unfortunately all photos that had no keywords &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; step 3 will be returned as well, but that's OK, I don't have such photos.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;do something with the photos returned by step 4, then go to the 'temp' collection and add the 'foo' keyword back.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tedious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T07:43:04.187" Title="How can I create a smart collection that checks for only *one* given keyword in Lightroom 3?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;smart-collections&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="7046" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7044" CreationDate="2011-01-16T01:03:30.390" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A soft focus lens is one that offers a photographer control over &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_aberration&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;spherical aberration&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, an optical effect caused by a spherical lens (which most camera lens elements are) such that light rays entering the lens near the edges are focused more tightly than light rays entering near the center. The result of spherical aberration is that the plan of focus is &lt;em&gt;curved&lt;/em&gt;, rather than flat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Modern lenses often try to correct spherical aberration with aspherical lens elements or other advanced optics. A &lt;em&gt;soft focus&lt;/em&gt; lens is a lens designed to not only keep spherical aberration, but allow the photographer to control the form of the out-of-focus blur circles created by the aperture. &lt;em&gt;Defocus control&lt;/em&gt; is exactly what it sounds like, a way to control the way your lens &quot;defocuses&quot; light. This is in addition to the ability to &lt;strong&gt;also&lt;/strong&gt; control the focal plane. &lt;strike&gt;The specific mechanics of how a soft focus/defocus ring works is unknown to me, however it could be implemented by a slightly movable diaphragm. It may also involve adjustable or movable special lens elements. (I have been unable to find any information on the subject, and the exact mechanics of it currently escape me.)&lt;/strike&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE: Found a PDF that describes the defocus control mechanism &lt;a href=&quot;http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/135mm-dc/patent-5841590.pdf?vid=USPAT5841590&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; Summary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;An aberration-controllable optical&#xA;  system has a large angle of view and&#xA;  is capable of continuously varying&#xA;  spherical aberrations from negative&#xA;  values to positive values, including a&#xA;  point at which a sharp image can be&#xA;  produced. A master lens group includes&#xA;  a furst sub lens group having a&#xA;  positive refractive power, a second&#xA;  sub lens group having a negative&#xA;  refractive power, and a third sub lens&#xA;  group having a positive refractive&#xA;  power in this order from the object&#xA;  side of the system. The converter lens&#xA;  group includes a positive lens element&#xA;  and a negative lens element in this&#xA;  order from the object side. The&#xA;  on-axis distance of the air gap which&#xA;  is formed between the positive lens&#xA;  element and the negative lens element&#xA;  can be controlled to mainly change the&#xA;  spherical aberrations in the system.&#xA;  When f&lt;sub&gt;m&lt;/sub&gt; is a master lens&#xA;  group focal length and f&lt;sub&gt;c&lt;/sub&gt;&#xA;  is a converter lens group focal&#xA;  length, the aberration-controllable&#xA;  optical system satisfies a condition:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;-1 &amp;lt; f&lt;sub&gt;m&lt;/sub&gt; / f&lt;sub&gt;c&lt;/sub&gt; &amp;lt; 0  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The master lens group can include a&#xA;  front group and a rear group. Focusing&#xA;  at a short distance may be conducted&#xA;  by moving the front lens group and the&#xA;  rear lens group independently of each&#xA;  other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/GPdZG.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By adjusting &quot;defocus&quot;, can control the shape of out of focus bokeh:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/VQhmD.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the image above (from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3aSpherical-aberration-disk.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;), you can see the effect of spherical aberration. The top row demonstrates a point light source that has negative spherical aberration, or blur circles with darker edges and brighter centers behind the focal plane and brighter edges and darker centers in front of the focal plane. The center row represents balanced spherical aberration, where focus in front and behind the focal plane is even. The third row represents positive spherical aberration, where blur circles with brighter edges and darker centers occur behind the focal plane, and darker edges and brighter centers in front of the focal plane.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With a defocus ring, you can choose how your camera &quot;defocuses&quot;, in addition to choosing how it focuses. You can make the bokeh in the background clear, sharp circles with bright rings, and the bokeh in the foreground smooth and soft like photonic butter. Or you can choose the inverse, whichever fits your fancy. With a thin enough focal plane, a soft focus lens can create amazing images like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/dulnr.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Positive Defocus&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;(Reference: David Pinkerton @ &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidpinkerton/5293619195/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above image was taken with the Nikkor 135mm f/2 lens with defocus control, set to REAR f/4. Note the dreamy effect of highlights right around the plane of focus, and the ringed background bokeh. Both are effects of positive spherical aberration caused by the brighter edges and darker centers of OOF blur circles. Foreground blur will be smooth and creamy without the dreamy effect. For portraits, the same effect can be used to give that dreamy glow to hair, earrings or glasses, anything that produces a bright specular highlight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The below image was taken with the same lens, but with defocus control set to center f/2. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/I2BIb.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Center Defocus&quot;&gt;&#xA;(Reference: David Pinkerton @ &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidpinkerton/5293619195/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-28T21:43:41.097" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T21:43:41.097" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7047" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6550" CreationDate="2011-01-16T01:48:49.040" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I can't specifically speak to dye-sub grayscale quality, many modern inkjet printers have features specifically designed for black and white or grayscale printing. Both Canon and Epson printers, such as the Canon PIXMA Pro 9500 II or the Epson Stylus Pro 3880, as well as both brands commercial lines, provide at least two level grayscale ink systems (black and gray), if not three level (black, gray, light gray). The tonal range possible with a modern pigment-based grayscale capable ink jet printer is unparalleled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond just inks, there are a variety of high quality, specially formulated and manufactured black and white or grayscale ink jet papers. All low acidity, natural fiber papers that range from ultra bright coated luster or gloss papers, to high birghtness pure white, to moderate brightness natural white. Ultra bright coated papers will offer the broadest dynamic range with the purest white and black levels, when viewed under the proper lighting. (Most optical brighteners used in such papers are UV dependent, and will only appear 100% correct under light that includes a certain amount of UV...such as sunlight.) High brightness papers offer a pure, neutral white tone, but don't include any optical brighteners. Fully natural papers offer a variety of white points, from neutral to various degrees of warm. Both of the latter types of paper are usually packaged as &quot;fine art&quot; papers, some specifically designed to maximize the appearance of grayscale inkjet prints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Between a multi-level grayscale ink system and special grayscale paper types, the quality of black and white prints that you can get from an ink jet system is second to none.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T01:48:49.040" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7048" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7052" CreationDate="2011-01-16T01:58:56.600" Score="5" ViewCount="284" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was trying to save some cash on a 50mm f/1.4 for my Nikon d7000. I see the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/1902/AF-NIKKOR-50mm-f%252F1.4D.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon 50mm f/1.4&lt;/a&gt; costs almost $400 USD. I thought a 3rd-party lens would be cheaper so I  checked out the equivalent &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/50mm-f14-ex-dg-hsm-sigma&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma&lt;/a&gt; and was shocked to find that it costs almost twice as much! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard with camera lenses the saying goes that &quot;you get what you pay for.&quot; So I was surprised by how expensive the Sigma was, because I thought Nikon glass was top-notch and third-party lenses were a way to sacrifice on quality and save some money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What's going on here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-16T06:03:54.670" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T11:01:49.580" Title="How come some 3rd-party lenses cost more than those from the manufacturer?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;sigma&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7049" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7048" CreationDate="2011-01-16T02:09:05.987" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am not familiar with the Nikon naming convention, but at least from the links you provided it looks like the Sigma has a 9-blade diaphragm vs 7-blade in the Nikon. There are more elements in the Sigma as well. Also, the Sigma site explicitly mentions Aspherical elements and an ultrasonic motor which the Nikon lacks to mention. This can be the cause to the difference in the price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: one more thing - the MTF chart of the Sigma definitely looks better than the Nikon's. This suggest a better optical quality overall which may justify the price difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-16T02:14:28.633" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T02:14:28.633" />
  <row Id="7050" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7048" CreationDate="2011-01-16T02:34:03.387" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The price reflect quality not brand, although brand name traditionally have the luxury of charging a premium, that premium is small in comparison to what they can charge for quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sigma has been managing very well because they are doing exactly the right thing to get a lucrative portion of the market. What the did was enter the market with low quality optics which undercut the cost of brand-name lenses. This is obviously a good market-acquiring strategy to get volume. Think about how many makers of low-cost electronics you have vs the high-end ones, they work because saving money is often prioritized over quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What they then did is invest profits into high-quality optics which allowed them to produce some excellent lenses. These lenses carry a high profit margin by commanding a price proportional to its quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bottom line is that good lenses are expensive, regardless of brand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T02:34:03.387" />
  <row Id="7051" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7048" CreationDate="2011-01-16T02:34:23.027" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Third-party lenses are not necessarily cheaper. They can even have better quality than the original lenses. In photography, third-party lens manufacturers aren't &quot;a cheap alternative&quot;, but rather a direct competitor to the original manufacturer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2069" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T02:34:23.027" />
  <row Id="7052" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7048" CreationDate="2011-01-16T02:50:17.273" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off, the Sigma doesn't cost double - it may LIST as double, but it runs closer to $500 US.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, as others have spoken, you're paying for quality.  You're also paying a combination of two other things - what the market will give and reputation.  The bokeh on the Sigma is well known to be extremely smooth and it considered an excellent portrait lens.  As an owner, this is very true to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its typically considered a much better lens than its Canon equivalent and at least or slightly better than the Nikon counterpart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also physically a rather large lens (front element is 77mm vs 58mm on the Nikon), well constructed, and is the EX series (their top of the line) of Sigma.  Larger materials cost more to buy, more to engineer, more to transport, more to build - just MORE.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You're paying for things that cost - but you get an EXCELLENT piece of glass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T02:50:17.273" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7053" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7109" CreationDate="2011-01-16T02:57:24.880" Score="7" ViewCount="337" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=148&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sony Alpha SLT-A55&lt;/a&gt; made its way to me and it has a built-in GPS. Each photo is marked with it GPS coordinates, elevation and orientation. I am aware the if I upload such a photo to Picasa or other web-service like Panoramio, then I'll be able to see a map showing the location where a picture is taken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is, what can I do with this locally? Meaning, on my own computer without uploading my photos anywhere. What kind of programs exist to use the location data in a meaningful or interesting way?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For my specific case, Linux and Windows software are fine (I run the latter in a VM under the former). Mac-only software won't be of any use to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T02:54:58.040" Title="What can you do with embedded GPS locally?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;linux&gt;&lt;windows&gt;&lt;gps&gt;&lt;location&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="13" />
  <row Id="7054" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7053" CreationDate="2011-01-16T04:03:19.647" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know what software is out there to do anything automatically.  But if the location data is stored as EXIF data, with 'exif' you could write some scripts to find photos taken at a certain location (e.g. at your house), or near a location (within say .01 or .02 degrees) or in a city.  I currently use exif to analyze my favorite focal lengths, with e.g. 'exif -m -t 0x920a filename'; you could do something similar then with location data.  After a couple years of data, you could graph number of photos per location (e.g. to .1 degree or whatever is appropriate) to see where you've taken your favorite photos, as an idea of where to take your next vacation.  If &quot;orientation&quot; is like &quot;pointing North&quot;, you might be able to see if there's anything interesting about time of day, or season, and direction (do you see a spike towards the west in summer evenings?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T04:03:19.647" />
  <row Id="7055" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7053" CreationDate="2011-01-16T05:21:28.920" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm glad to see they are including gps chips in cameras now!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know this doesn't directly answer your question, but I personally geotag my photos when I'm on vacation so I can remember where I went. I can create a high level view of the path I took through a city (on a day level) or a wider view during a whole trip. My camera doesn't geotag, but my iphone has software to create paths and I have a lightroom plugin to match up photos with a path (Jeffrey’s Geoencoding Plugin).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as offline software, I use picassa to see my photos on a map without uploading them. This still requires an internet connection to access google maps. Personally viewing photos on a map is the only use for geotagging I have thought of, and I would imagine it is the typical use case. I'd love to hear other ideas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1125" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T05:21:28.920" />
  <row Id="7056" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7048" CreationDate="2011-01-16T08:39:18.043" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This Sigma 50/1.4 costs ~600$ here in Russia. &#xA;And it costs more because it is better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is better than Nikon 50/1.4. It is better then Sony 50/1.4.&#xA;It would be silly for Sigma to release more expensive and worse lense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2911" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T08:39:18.043" />
  <row Id="7057" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7048" CreationDate="2011-01-16T09:22:07.130" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are other examples too, the Sigma 50 f/2.8 macro costs (slightly) more than the Canon 50 f/2.5 macro, despite the Canon being a third of a stop faster! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is there's more to lenses than focal length, badge and aperture. Had you read a review of the Sigma 50 f/1.4 you would have learned that it's an all new modern design optimized for shooting wide open, with an oversized front element designed to minimize vignetting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T09:22:07.130" />
  <row Id="7058" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7048" CreationDate="2011-01-16T11:01:49.580" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While most of Sigma/Tamron/Tokina's production is cheap(er) zooms, they are bo no means the only third party lens manufacturer out there. My personal favorite is Zeiss, who make lenses for pretty much every format under the sun, including a small line of 35mm SLR glass. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/662717-REG/Zeiss_1767_825_Planar_T_50mm_F_1_4.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ZF (Nikon mount) 50mm f/1.4 lens&lt;/a&gt; runs $725 over at B&amp;amp;H, while you can pick up a brand new &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/585343-USA/Nikon_2180_AF_S_Nikkor_50mm_f_1_4G.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon 50mm f/1.4 G&lt;/a&gt; for a touch over $400. That's quite a difference considering the Zeiss is a manual focus lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T11:01:49.580" />
  <row Id="7059" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1036" CreationDate="2011-01-16T11:31:24.383" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Personally I think if you are going to grab a 35mm SLR you are better of with digital. However if you want to have fun with film go grab something like a 4x5 large format or a Rolleiflex 6x6 Medium format TLR. IE try something very different. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both give a very different shooting experience. Oh and the quality you can get out of a 4x5 chrome is a amazing! Large format will also teach you to slow down and take your time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And hey you may even find that you think its fun. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2916" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T11:31:24.383" />
  <row Id="7060" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7127" CreationDate="2011-01-16T11:52:28.367" Score="3" ViewCount="298" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_leak&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Light Leaks&lt;/a&gt; normally occur due to low quality or damaged sealing in a camera so that stray light can come in and expose the film in unwanted ways. It shows up as a colored glare or discoloration in the image. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When trying to achieve a low-fi look for pictures I sometimes try to create an artificial light leak in post-production, like these: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/yyellowbird/5321645006/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/yyellowbird/5321645006/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/yyellowbird/5318085951/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/yyellowbird/5318085951/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/yyellowbird/5261705711/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/yyellowbird/5261705711/&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm aware of a number of techniques to achieve this, mostly relying on either overlaying the picture with images of real light-leaks, using gradients or brushes with blend modes. All of those however need a lot of work per individual picture to look good and even then don't look as real (at least in my tries) as in the pictures posted above. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However there seems to be a technique being used with good results in applications like &lt;a href=&quot;http://hipstamaticapp.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hipstamatic&lt;/a&gt; in a completely automated fashion. Is anybody aware of a similar technique that consistently produces good and natural results for the majority of pictures you apply it on?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="445" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T13:07:46.363" Title="What is a good technique for reproducing &quot;light leaks&quot; in post production?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7061" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7064" CreationDate="2011-01-16T12:30:27.423" Score="7" ViewCount="480" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Canon L lenses are much more expensive and presumably much better quality than non-L lenses. What makes an &quot;L&quot; lens? How much better are they over a similar length/speed &quot;ordinary&quot; canon lenses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T19:47:33.570" Title="What is the difference between Canon &quot;L&quot; lenses and non-L lenses?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="7062" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7061" CreationDate="2011-01-16T12:55:31.073" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no one definitive answer for that, as the differences are in a few areas. It is usually regarded as having a superior optical quality, but from reviews and sample images it can be seen that this is not always the case - at lease sometime you get results which you'd not expect from a &quot;L&quot;. Similarly, for a non-&quot;L&quot; lens there are examples of lenses giving &quot;L&quot; quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then there is a difference in build quality. Many, if not all, &quot;L&quot; lenses are weather sealed, which means that with a matching body, you can shoot even in light rain and expect no damage to your equipment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Targeted at the pro audience, there is no EF-S &quot;L&quot; lens, I guess b/c Canon assumes pros use only full frame (or APS-H) bodies. I wonder if this will change in the future as more pros are using a 7D as their tool.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, and one more thing - the L's have that sexy red ring...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I'd mention the white color, but not all of them are colored white - it is mainly kept for the longer ones).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T12:55:31.073" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="7063" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5845" CreationDate="2011-01-16T13:40:48.803" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some good references over on photo.net on the art of photography. But to be honest the best thing going in Ansel Adams' 3 Volume set &quot;the Camera&quot;, &quot;The Negative&quot; and &quot;The Print&quot;. Distilled wisdom from one of the best ever&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2916" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T13:40:48.803" />
  <row Id="7064" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7061" CreationDate="2011-01-16T14:15:29.413" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://web.canon.jp/imaging/l-lens/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;According to Canon&lt;/a&gt;, L lenses contain all their best technologies like ultrasonic focusing motors, florite and aspherical lens elements for best optical performance, and are built to survive being used by the pro photographers. Many times this also means sealing agaainst dust and humidity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's take these two lenses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/558-canon70300f456isff&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS&lt;/a&gt; - consumer zoom, costs ~€450&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/570-canon70300f456islff&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM L IS&lt;/a&gt; - pro zoom, costs ~€1500&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, the L version is much better built, 50% heavier, with better image stabilizer, more sophisticated optical construction, weather sealing, ring-type USM with full-time manual (consumer version has just micro-USM motor). Optically the L version performs better than the non-L, but not as good as EF 70-200 f/4 L IS, and nowhere as good as €400 EF-S 60mm macro lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, the L telephoto lenses are white, which is meant to reduce chance its insides overheat on the sun and tell everyone around you have a Canon L lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Overall: L lens will be heavier, optically and mechanically better, and more expensive than similar non-L lens. This does not mean it will outperform everything else regardless of lens type.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-17T19:28:57.560" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T19:28:57.560" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7065" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7068" CreationDate="2011-01-16T14:23:55.617" Score="6" ViewCount="317" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently got a new Hard Drive, much larger than my previous one. I'm wanting to move my entire library to the new HD, but I'm not seeing an easy way to do it. Can anyone out there offer me some help in achieving this? Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T12:27:59.450" Title="How do you move a Lightroom catalog from one HD to another?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;lightroom-catalog&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="7066" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6830" CreationDate="2011-01-16T14:31:23.740" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was recently faced with the same dilemma.  I needed a long lens for surf photography and animal shots (zoo with kids).  I have a 7d, and wanted a decent lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My budget was not an issue.  I was prepared to spend money for L glass.  I spent three weeks reading every review on the net; I read all the pixel peepers comments, other pro's, and buyer reviews.  After all my research it was evident that there was no perfect lens, and you can find negative reviews of even the highest critically praised L glass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ended up purchasing the tamron because of the full time manual focus (good for video), new usd, and effective image stabilization.  Additionally,  the reviews have been very strong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The value is unbelievable, as I have now had time to use and enjoy lens.  At the price of 399, nothing else even comes close.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3278" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T14:31:23.740" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7067" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7065" CreationDate="2011-01-16T14:45:30.870" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;After asking this, I decided to ask Google as well, and found an excellent article on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/moving-a-lightroom-catalog&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Photography School&lt;/a&gt; on the subject. Here is the basic steps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Backup your current catalog.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;With Lightroom closed, move the catalog into the new desired location.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Create a folder that has the new desired location, and copy at least 1 picture into it (Preferably not already in your catalog).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Open up Lightroom, and have it find the new location for it's catalog. It should work just fine, as you haven't changed any picture locations, yet.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Import the photo you put in the new desired photo folder in step 3.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Drag the photos from the original location to the newly desired location.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a few other gotchas that are included in the article, I'll let you see them if you want them, but this will answer the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T14:45:30.870" />
  <row Id="7068" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7065" CreationDate="2011-01-16T14:46:16.263" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The catalog itself is a single file. If you simply move it, you're done with the catalog moving. There is also a subdirectory with a gazillion files which is your cache, you do not need to move that since it will be recreated as needed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not clear if you want to move the images as well, if you don't you're done. If you do, then you can move them in Lightroom using drag-and-drop on the folder view in the left pane and Lightroom will adjust its library but it will be a very slow process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can move the files outside of Lightroom using the operating system. In this case, the files will have a question mark next to them in the grid view. Click on it and it will let you select the path where that files is. When it does the dialog will have an option to look for other files around it at the same location. Use that option, if you do not want to manually relocate each file.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T14:46:16.263" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7069" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7065" CreationDate="2011-01-16T14:50:41.680" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just move the catalog file and the image files in the Explorer/Finder. When you open the relocated catalog, LR won't find the image files at first, but will let you specify their new location. Once you've done that, you're finished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2069" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T14:50:41.680" />
  <row Id="7070" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7045" CreationDate="2011-01-16T15:38:38.770" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;@gerikson:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I'm sorry, I don't have an answer, I just want to say I wish more tools accepted real SQL as a query language ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But technically you &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; do this. The Lightroom catalog is an SQLite database -- try browsing it with Firefox's &lt;a href=&quot;https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/sqlite-manager/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SQLite Manager addon&lt;/a&gt;, and you'll see it's pretty simple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could do this in Lua by writing an extension -- alas, I haven't gone through that step so I'm not sure how to do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't need it to be an auto-updating collection the way smart collections work, but rather can deal with running a script every now and then, you could write an external tool to query the SQLite database the way you want, and create a smart collection xml file explicitly including the particular photos in question, and import that into Lightroom. (I needed to do this last bit myself -- see &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6314/importing-an-external-list-of-photographs-to-lightroom&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I just tried this select query and it works great: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt; SELECT &#xA;    img.id_local AS imageID, &#xA;    kwdef.name AS keyword,&#xA;    img.rootFile AS fileID,&#xA;    files.originalFilename &#xA; FROM AgLibraryKeywordImage kwimg&#xA; JOIN Adobe_images img&#xA;    ON img.id_local = kwimg.image&#xA; JOIN AgLibraryFile files &#xA;    ON img.rootFile = files.id_local&#xA; JOIN AgLibraryKeyword kwdef&#xA;    ON kwdef.id_local = kwimg.tag&#xA; GROUP BY kwimg.image&#xA;    HAVING COUNT(*)=1&#xA;      AND kwdef.name = ?&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;where you should either replace the ? with a keyword name (e.g. &lt;code&gt;'foo'&lt;/code&gt;) or execute as a prepared statement. The &lt;code&gt;GROUP BY&lt;/code&gt; clause does the magic: this groups the results by image, &lt;code&gt;HAVING COUNT(*)=1&lt;/code&gt; tells SQL to limit its output to images having 1 record.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This query probably won't work quite right for images that have stacks, in which case it needs to be modified to ensure all the &lt;code&gt;JOIN&lt;/code&gt;s are one-to-one (except for the keyword-image table)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="530" LastEditorUserId="530" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-16T15:57:56.953" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T15:57:56.953" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7071" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7072" CreationDate="2011-01-16T16:23:37.587" Score="6" ViewCount="192" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is a focus limiter and how does it work? What is the advantage of it? For instance &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Tamron-90mm-f-2.8-Di-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamron 90/2.8 Macro&lt;/a&gt; has a focus limiter. According to the documentation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the limit position, the Tamron 90&#xA;  will autofocus between 11.4&quot; and&#xA;  15.75&quot; (290mm and 400mm) or 17.7&quot; (450mm) and infinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How is it possible to choose between then 290-400 and 450-inf working mode? Does it affect manual focusing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="507" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T17:03:37.960" Title="What is a focus limiter?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;focus&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;focus-limiter&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="7072" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7071" CreationDate="2011-01-16T16:38:21.353" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A focus limiter simply restricts the range of distances the camera will attempt to focus at. This improves both the speed of focus and the accuracy (as it is assumed you are only interested in subjects within the range you have selected). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You tend to see them a lot on macro lenses, which can focus from a few centimeters up to infinity. Often a lot of travel in the focus mechanism is only covering the first few metres (you'll notice if you look at a lens with a distance scale that it is logarithmic). The limiter helps the lens behave as if it had a normal focus range when you're not shooting macro. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most cameras when they can't lock on focus will have the lens search through the range of focus distances until some detail is detected, this is sometimes called &quot;hunting&quot;. With a macro lens this can take a while. You also get limiters on telephoto lenses as most of the time you're using a telephoto because you're shooting something far away so can safely ignore the closer range. It can improve accuracy by preventing focus from accidentally locking on to foreground objects. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You select the modes via a switch on the side of the lens. The limiting is implemented in the communication between the lens and camera, it is not a mechanical limiter so it doesn't affect manual focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-16T17:03:37.960" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T17:03:37.960" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7073" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7053" CreationDate="2011-01-16T17:12:12.827" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been religiously geocoding my photos for a number of years - I find it handy for scouting locaitons -- so if I get a photo of some bluebells thta have gone past their best, I can know exactly where to go to get the shot for the next year's season.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T17:12:12.827" />
  <row Id="7074" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4687" CreationDate="2011-01-16T17:59:28.560" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&amp;amp;articleID=2666&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&amp;amp;articleID=2666&lt;/a&gt; also discusses this topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3281" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T17:59:28.560" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7075" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7065" CreationDate="2011-01-16T18:24:03.140" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To move an entire lightroom catalog, you can start by moving the catalog file itself. This is the .lrcat file. The catalog is a self-contained file, all of your edits, history, snapshot information, etc. is located within the .lrcat file. Usually co-located with the catalog is the thumbnail cache, a folder with the same name as the catalog, plus &quot; Previews.lrdata&quot; tacked on the end. You can move this if you don't want to regenerate your thumbnail previews. It can be quite large, however, and it might be easier to just delete the old one and let lightroom regenerate previews at the new location.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moving actual master photo files is also pretty easy. Assuming you wish to maintain the same folder structure in the new location, you can simply move your existing root photo image file folders from one drive to the other. Once moved, open Lightroom. In the Library module, under the Folders panel, right-click each root folder that is missing, and click &quot;Find missing folder...&quot;. You will then be able to find the new location of that folder on disk. Just pick the same root folder on the hard drive you moved your photo library to, and LR will instantly update the catalog. No need to manually move photos one at a time or anything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/yadXT.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T18:24:03.140" />
  <row Id="7076" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-16T18:39:11.893" Score="0" ViewCount="256" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am very seriously considering purchasing a Canon SX30IS 35X zoom camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would really appreciate any comments from owners/users of this camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The majority of my shooting will take place outdoors, but I would like to hear opinions of how it performs in indoors also...(low light shooting, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, if anyone would highly recommend something similar from another maker I am all ears!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks to you all, &#xA;John B.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3148" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-16T19:05:43.723" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T19:48:56.480" Title="Canon SX 30IS user opinions wanted" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="7077" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6703" CreationDate="2011-01-16T19:18:11.567" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Thank You ALL for your replies.  The wedding was 2 days ago and I applied alot of what I've read here and subsequent links and pictures turned out really good.  Again I appreciate your quick replies  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3135" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T19:18:11.567" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7078" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-16T21:21:10.977" Score="3" ViewCount="137" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am looking for a digital camera other than the DSLR types that have a remote shutter release.  My wife has reumatoid  arthritus and can's use a &quot;larger&quot; style camera.  What are some &quot;smaller type cameras that can use the remote shutter buttons?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3283" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T04:16:10.873" Title="cameras with remote shutter releases other than DSLR types" Tags="&lt;remote&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="7079" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7078" CreationDate="2011-01-16T21:44:42.043" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many of the Pentax compact cameras support IR remote. If you want a more rugged design, the Pentax Optio W90 has a waterproof remote available. For a more classic look, the Pentax Optio I-10 is a nice option and a remote is available. There are others as well, depending on desired features or taste.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't really say about other brands, though I'm sure that they have them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T21:44:42.043" />
  <row Id="7080" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7078" CreationDate="2011-01-16T22:19:52.847" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That is a good question and the answer is a bit tricky to find. You basically have to search for any other criteria you want using &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Neocamera's Camera Finder&lt;/a&gt; and then filter on either &lt;strong&gt;Wired Remote&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;Infrared Remote&lt;/strong&gt; towards the bottom of the orange box next to the search results. Then you need to either ignore the DSLRs that show up, or simply filter on the category you are looking for (Compact, Ultra-Zoom, Large, etc) near the top of the orange box.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The results show only the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=291&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Oympus XZ-1&lt;/a&gt; to have a wired-remote among compacts. There are also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php?size=large&amp;amp;remotewired=1&amp;amp;by=feature&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;9 large&lt;/a&gt; ones. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php?megapixels=8%3amin&amp;amp;remoteinfrared=1&amp;amp;by=feature&amp;amp;size=ultracompact&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Three ultra-compacts&lt;/a&gt; have wireless remotes too. Finally the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=150&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sony NEX-5&lt;/a&gt; also has a wireless remote.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: It does not take long to search for these things but when someone is looking for &lt;em&gt;NOT something&lt;/em&gt;, there is no easy way. I don't know of any camera site that lets you do that. So it is probably better to specify what you do want instead of a DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T22:19:52.847" />
  <row Id="7081" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-16T22:51:36.677" Score="3" ViewCount="255" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm thinking of buying a macro lens am considering the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2190/AF-S-DX-Micro-NIKKOR-85mm-f%252F3.5G-ED-VR.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 85mm f/3.5G ED VR&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this lens really good for portraits? Where can I find sample pictures taken with this lens? Is it a good choice for a &quot;two in one lens&quot;, for both macro and portraits? Are there any specific things I should know about this particular lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3151" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-29T20:48:07.173" LastActivityDate="2011-05-29T20:48:07.173" Title="Is AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 85mm f/3.5G lens good for both macro and portrait photography?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;macro&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7082" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7099" CreationDate="2011-01-16T23:04:33.307" Score="4" ViewCount="115" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most lenses  tend to be expensive because the lens needs to be very complicated in order to correct for various optical effects(aberration etc). is it possible to build a sensor and processor combination which would fix defects produced by cheap lenses? I'm assuming the processor knows exactly the parameters of the len's defects. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T14:46:11.393" Title="Is it technically possible to build a camera body to correct for lens defects" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;body&gt;" AnswerCount="6" />
  <row Id="7083" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7082" CreationDate="2011-01-16T23:15:25.883" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If it is possible in post-processing, then technically it can be done in-camera. Some defects are pretty easy to fix - like geometry defects, but other are very hard, if not impossible, to fix in software (soft focus [yes, you can to some extent generate a sharper image, but this is not really reversing the lens imperfection], chromatic aberrations, ghost images or flare due to uncoated elements, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T23:15:25.883" />
  <row Id="7084" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7082" CreationDate="2011-01-16T23:27:18.647" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a limited set of defects that can be corrected in software, lateral chromatic aberration, yes, but not longitudinal chromatic aberration. Lateral CA results in the component colours of light being displaced radially across the sensor. This can be corrected by simply warping each colour channel slightly differently. Longitudinal CA causes out of focus areas near strong lights to be tinted either green of magenta depending on whether they are in front of behind the plane of focus. This is much harder to correct as you need to know 3D information about the scene. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some cameras are now offering lens corrections based on a database of corrections tailored to each lens. I think these are limited to barrel distortion, lateral CA and vignetting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'd think the manufacturers would be the best source of this sort of information but I would image crowd sourcing the parameters on the net would be more effective as there are some very dedicated people around taking that sort of measurement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T23:27:18.647" />
  <row Id="7085" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2194" CreationDate="2011-01-16T23:34:41.990" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have Nikon D90 and 18-105mm lens and it is my first SLR camera and i faced the same problem but I actually got a long with reading its Manual and it really helped ..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3151" LastActivityDate="2011-01-16T23:34:41.990" />
  <row Id="7086" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7089" CreationDate="2011-01-17T00:39:02.363" Score="7" ViewCount="326" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have read some of the other questions about lens hoods (for example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/662/what-does-a-lens-hood-do&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt;) and I hope that this is specific enough to not be considered a duplicate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My understanding is that lens hoods block out &quot;stray light&quot;. I had my lens hood on when I was shooting indoors in relatively low light, and someone said to me that I shouldn't do that because it blocks out light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on my understanding, I would think it's fine to keep the lens hood on since it only blocks out light outside the frame. What do you say?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2746" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T16:22:30.610" Title="Is it ok to use a lens hood in low light?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;low-light&gt;&lt;lens-hood&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="7087" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7086" CreationDate="2011-01-17T00:46:49.960" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Certainly it's okay to use a lens hood in low light -- it doesn't block anything that would be involved in making the picture unless it's the wrong size or shape for the lens you're using. (In fact, it makes a better lens protector than the oft-suggested UV filter since it usually has a bit of give &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; doesn't degrade the image at all.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T00:46:49.960" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7088" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7053" CreationDate="2011-01-17T01:03:12.537" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Aperture 3's &quot;Places&quot; feature can show you your photos on a map:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/using-aperture-3%E2%80%99s-places&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/using-aperture-3%E2%80%99s-places&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apple.com/aperture/whats-new.html#places&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.apple.com/aperture/whats-new.html#places&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1015" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T01:03:12.537" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7089" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7086" CreationDate="2011-01-17T01:26:49.230" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It should be fine, but watch out for shadows if you are using flash. Wide angles lenses, particularly with APS-C / DX, tend to throw a shadow, especially with on camera flash. Having the lens hood on makes this shadow bigger since it's adding a few inches to the end of the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See Len Abrams answer below for the benefits of a hood in long exposure shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3156" LastEditorUserId="3156" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-19T16:22:30.610" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T16:22:30.610" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7090" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7081" CreationDate="2011-01-17T01:34:30.630" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a long tradition of using a medium tele macro lens as a portrait lens in the 35mm realm -- the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 Micro probably being the best example. The 85mm focal length is just about right for a reduced-size sensor (it's more-or-less equivalent to the 105 on a full-frame camera), and macros tend to have very good corrections. The only real problem with this lens is that it's right at the edge of an acceptable speed for portraiture, so you may not be able to isolate the subject from foreground and background elements in quite the way you'd like to. (Macro photography usually demands smaller apertures to get even a substantial part of the subject in focus.) For a dual-purpose lens and staying within the Nikkor line, you'd probably be much more satisfied with the 105. If you don't mind straying off-brand, both Tamron and Sigma offer &lt;em&gt;excellent&lt;/em&gt; lenses around the same price point as the Nikkor 85. Tamron's is the SP AF 90mm f/2.8 (I can personally vouch for this design) and Sigma has a 105mm f/2.8 that's within spitting distance price-wise. Either would be an excellent alternative, and you'll be thankful for the extra 2/3 stop wide-open for portraiture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T01:34:30.630" />
  <row Id="7091" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7082" CreationDate="2011-01-17T02:27:31.180" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a certain class, like things that can be done in software, but there isn't a magic piece of glass that could be added to a camera to make it perform better. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing that might be possible is to have lenses built in 2 part systems. The part closest to the camera might handle the more delicate lens corrections, and the further away part give the right range. Still, something tells me that while this might be possible, it would be more of a pain then it's really worth. Hmmm...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T02:27:31.180" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7092" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-01-17T02:49:38.027" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-17T02:49:38.027" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T02:49:38.027" />
  <row Id="7093" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-01-17T02:49:38.027" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="Flash is a device which provides additional light to a scene. It can be used to help fill in a dark area of a photo, to provide light if there isn't sufficient light to begin with, or it can help to improve the composition of a particular photo, by creating your own source of light." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-17T22:37:51.880" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T22:37:51.880" />
  <row Id="7094" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-01-17T02:54:17.257" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-17T02:54:17.257" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T02:54:17.257" />
  <row Id="7095" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-01-17T02:54:17.257" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="ISO is a mechanism in which the effective sensitivity of a camera is increased. It is one of the 3 mechanisms primarily responsible for a well exposed image (The other two being Exposure and Shutter Speed). Typically, a higher ISO for a correctly exposed image will result in the image being less noisy." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-17T02:54:17.257" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T02:54:17.257" />
  <row Id="7096" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-01-17T02:56:41.543" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lens hood has the following advantages:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Increased Contrast&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reduced Lens Flare&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lens and camera protection.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Lens hood can have the following disadvantages:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Can amplify a &quot;Flash Shadow&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Can shade the photographic target, if macro&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-29T18:43:38.750" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T18:43:38.750" />
  <row Id="7097" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-01-17T02:56:41.543" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="A lens hood is a device which sticks onto a lens, which helps shield the lens from stray light. They often have a flower-shaped design, which gives maximum protection while minimizing the vignetting on the image. " OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-29T18:43:38.813" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T18:43:38.813" />
  <row Id="7098" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7078" CreationDate="2011-01-17T04:16:10.873" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Either the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/digital_cameras/powershot_g11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon PowerShot G11&lt;/a&gt;, or the newly-released &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/digital_cameras/powershot_g12&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;G12&lt;/a&gt; may be what you need. While they are on the large side for P&amp;amp;S cameras, they are quite a bit smaller than a DSLR, and both support a wired remote shutter release.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another option is to &lt;strong&gt;use &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CHDK&lt;/a&gt; on a supported Canon compact camera.&lt;/strong&gt; One of the many features of CHDK is &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/USB_Remote_Cable&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a shutter release using the USB port&lt;/a&gt;. I have not used this myself, and it may be out of your comfort zone to get a non-official firmware running on your camera, build a custom cable for the release, and so forth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1905" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T04:16:10.873" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7099" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7082" CreationDate="2011-01-17T04:26:02.907" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not only is it possible, but it's becoming commonplace. The micro-four-thirds system makes extensive use of it, and some compact cameras now do too. (I imagine that if they don't yet, most super-zooms will within a few years.) Digital Photography Review has a good article on this at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/articles/distortion/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/articles/distortion/&lt;/a&gt; , and it's worth reading even if you don't like that site's reviews in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Correcting distortion and lateral chromatic aberration is an option in my Pentax K-7, but although it doesn't impact shot-to-shot time (unless you fill the buffer), it takes a few extra seconds per image. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T04:26:02.907" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="7100" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-17T05:46:01.820" Score="2" ViewCount="184" Body="&lt;p&gt;I need a program that will square an out of square photo&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3286" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-17T06:45:48.397" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T14:50:57.150" Title="Seeking software to make an image square" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7101" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7113" CreationDate="2011-01-17T06:15:06.400" Score="11" ViewCount="383" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are at a social event, such as a party, and someone wants borrows your camera to take a couple of photos (which will typically be of the photographer!), are you concerned about copyright issues?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Ignore for a second the many other issues, such as your fear for theft, damage, thumbprints on the lens, lost opportunities and your cynical doubt that anyone but you can actually take a reasonable photo.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I spoke to one (amateur) photographer recently, who said he flatly refused to let others borrow his camera, due to two fears:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They would claim copyright on the photos they had taken. I assume that is a low risk, but a fair one: Without any other agreement in place, the copyright belongs to the person who composed the shot, not the person who owns the camera, right? I could see some shared copyright in situations where the lighting has been set-up by one person, the composition by another, the subject created by a third, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They might (incorrectly) claim copyright on other photos that he had taken.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This sounds rather implausible to me. I would have thought the onus would be on the borrower to prove the photos were taken by them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Am I being naive? Has this happened to you and/or are you concerned about it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update: I assumes in this scenario, that there has been no agreement beforehand as to the disposition of the copyright.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="160" LastEditorUserId="160" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-17T12:56:14.840" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T00:45:02.060" Title="Ownership of photos taken on your camera" Tags="&lt;copyright&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="7102" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-17T06:31:50.940" Score="3" ViewCount="134" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a great passion for photography,i owe a normal canon digital cam about 10megapixel.&#xA;I like to learn more about the various techniques and hints you need to do while taking a picture.As i am not a professional i would like to be one. Please help with various views and helps about photography&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3287" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-17T06:44:54.147" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T19:38:28.673" Title="How to become a professional photographer" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;learning&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7103" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7100" CreationDate="2011-01-17T06:39:30.340" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If by &quot;out of square&quot; you mean non-square / rectangular:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;For cropping an image - virtually any photo editor (even Microsoft Paint) will let you crop or cut/paste your image to a square form.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;For transforming an image - GIMP (free) and Photoshop ($$) are two powerful but heavy options. Both will do much more than geometry transform or image crop. Well, MS Paint will let you stretch an image as well, but the results will be inferior to what you can get with the former two.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T06:39:30.340" />
  <row Id="7104" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7106" CreationDate="2011-01-17T07:06:58.567" Score="11" ViewCount="370" Body="&lt;p&gt;To be clear, I'm talking about the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;photographer&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; wearing glasses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wear glasses and I find that I continuously need to make sure my glasses are pushed up on my nose and that having things at the wrong angle can distort things. Some things I am wondering about that I would like incorporated into your answers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do you have trouble looking through the viewfinder?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do you prefer contacts over glasses?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do you find it harder to manually focus?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do you have a special viewfinder? (I think I have seen things online that are the equivalent of a prescription viewfinder?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the biggest issues with wearing glasses as a photographer and how do you overcome them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2746" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T12:23:29.110" Title="Does wearing glasses hinder one from becoming a good photographer?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;technique&gt;&lt;tips&gt;&lt;glasses&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="7105" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7009" CreationDate="2011-01-17T07:26:35.140" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are using the buildt in noise reduction this would result in less shots. It kicks in after ISO640 and uses a lot of the buffer memory for processing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3289" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T07:26:35.140" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7106" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7104" CreationDate="2011-01-17T07:37:53.160" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wear glasses, and I'm a good photographer (so I'm told).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do you have trouble looking through the viewfinder?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No. You get use to it after a while.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do you prefer contacts over glasses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have no preference when taking pictures, however my preference in general is using my contacts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do you find it harder to manually focus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not because of my vision, but because the default screen does not lend itself well for manual focus. A &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/cat--Canon-DSLRs--cat_canon.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;split focus screen&lt;/a&gt; will helps quite a bit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do you have a special viewfinder? (I think I have seen things online that are the equivalent of a prescription viewfinder?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No. Every DSLR body I've used comes with the ability to change the diopter of the viewfinder which may allow you to use your camera without your glasses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What are the biggest issues with wearing glasses as a photographer and how do you overcome them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me, the biggest issue was getting over trying to force the camera's body against my face while wearing glasses. This is extremely uncomfortable. Now I don't use as much pressure, and it's much easier to shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T07:37:53.160" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7107" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7102" CreationDate="2011-01-17T08:21:15.557" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Charging money isn't what makes you a pro; it's committing to the business and marketing of your photography and putting resources into generating sales. Anyone can create a website on smugmug that lets people pay for prints (I have!); that doesn't make you a pro, and it doesn't mean anyone will buy anything. the professional aspect is about doing the work and investing the time into generating sales. Which, for what it's worth, means you're probably going to do LESS photography, not more, because you're going to have to spend time selling what you've shot and building a client base and getting your work known rather than creating work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(that's one reason why last year I decided to not go pro, and instead continue focusing on the craft; I don't HAVE to go pro, I can look for opportunities when they arrive without spending a lot of time trying to create them, and I can spend more time with the camera than if I was trying to generate revenue. and if sales come along, great... if not, it's not a big deal at this point, so why add complexity to life?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T08:21:15.557" />
  <row Id="7108" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7101" CreationDate="2011-01-17T08:24:52.913" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my opinion, I think that amateur is being a little over paranoid here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems like it's a contrived situation. I don't know if I would lend my camera to a stranger, and I don't think I would be friends with anyone who would attempt to claim ownership of my photographs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for proving who took the photographs, if they are (as you said) of the photographer, it would be pretty evident that the photographer didn't take them--plus there would be a room full of documented people who would attest to the lack of a tripod/self-timer setup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I'm not concerned about who owns the photos; I let my gf use my spare body when we are on travel--she gets to learn more about photography, and I get some decent photos where I am in it. I do have an understanding with her that I am allowed to post the good photos she has taken on my photo page, with proper attribution. Aside from her however, I am pretty particular about my tools, and I'm not one to lend them to friends or family just because I feel like I'm the only one left on the planet who would properly replace something if it broke while in my possession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T08:24:52.913" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7109" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7053" CreationDate="2011-01-17T09:40:52.070" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Picasa has a Geo-Tag feature that allows you to use Google Earth to write EXIF location data. You get to see some small picture thumbnails on the Google Earth's map - it's nice to see photos you've taken while traveling to a certain area.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe this is possible with pictures already containing EXIF location data - check out this link: &lt;a href=&quot;http://picasa.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;amp;answer=43900&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://picasa.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;amp;answer=43900&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This does not involve uploading photos anywhere (note I'm not speaking about Picasa Web, but about the Windows-based client), but it does require Internet access.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1603" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T09:40:52.070" />
  <row Id="7110" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7101" CreationDate="2011-01-17T10:30:31.237" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It might seem paranoid, but under certain circumstances it can be a real issue.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagine for a moment that your friend picks up your camera and takes a photo of a social scene. That evening you put all the photos on your camera through your workflow  and out of curiosity examine your friend's photo.  To your amazement, in the background, you see a married and very prominent politician intimately cuddling a pretty teenager.(no prizes for guessing who this is)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Outraged by his duplicity and poor judgement you forward the photo to various newspapers and publish it on social sites.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next day you show it to your friend, telling him gleefully what you have done. To your astonishment he turns on you furiously, accusing you of stealing his copyright photo and costing him significant financial opportunities. Then he sues you for the loss of income.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is that it is easy to assume that a photo on your camera is your property. I know because my wife took a photo on my camera and I used it, causing her to be less than happy.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The answer is simple, only ever use photos that you clearly know you own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T10:30:31.237" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7111" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7060" CreationDate="2011-01-17T10:35:03.193" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, you can achieve something similar using photoshop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Open the photo in PS. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Goto Filter &gt; Render &gt; Lens Flare... &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Select 50-300mm Zoom or 105mm Prime from Lens Type section. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Position the flare at any corner of the photo.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adjust flare brightness to your taste. Ideally you'll need slightly higher brightness settings.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a quick sample:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Before:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Vstwt.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;After:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/mtMGq.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T10:35:03.193" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7112" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8823" CreationDate="2011-01-17T10:51:46.087" Score="10" ViewCount="313" Body="&lt;p&gt;A follow up to a comment in this &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1736/can-i-publish-photos-taken-in-public-legally&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt;;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;However, if you take a picture of a building which falls under trademark rules, then you would face problems. A very few buildings fall into this category - the tall pyramid skyscraper in California (San Francisco?) is in this category.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can you find out if a building falls under these trademark rules?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-17T16:02:05.520" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T21:46:35.973" Title="How can you find out if a building falls under trademark rules?" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;trademark&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7113" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7101" CreationDate="2011-01-17T10:55:40.040" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is a regular occurance that someone insists on taking a photo of me at weddings, saying &quot;you taking all these photos but I bet you never have any of you!&quot; when in fact I have a photo of me at pretty much every one! Here are some of the best ones:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/me.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I find it impolite to refuse, so I simply don't use the photos (they are usually out of focus anyway). In fact I actually quite like to have the photos to remember the event by, but in any case they very rarely end up in the album unless the couple request it. In the occasions where I've given my camera to someone I trust I'll usually shoot a photo of the floor before and after, and then if I do anything with the photos I'll add an appropriate attribution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only tricky case I see is when a stranger uses your camera at an event and produces a good image that you want to be able to send to the client, but you have no idea who actually took it. In this case you could probably get away with using it under the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;orphaned works&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; legislation, though if you really want to cover your back just don't use the image! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If someone does take a photo with your camera which turns out to be valuable that shouldn't be a difficult situation at all, you simply don't claim credit or profit from it! When I shoot with other people's cameras I will do my very best to obtain a copy of the photos on the day by whatever means possible. This prevents any disputes before they even start!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-18T00:45:02.060" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T00:45:02.060" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7114" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7112" CreationDate="2011-01-17T11:04:53.940" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Google finds over 900000 photos of the Transamerica building in San Francisco.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are planning to take a photo of a single landmark building, in a country where these trademark laws apply, and plan to use that photo &lt;strong&gt;commercially&lt;/strong&gt; in that country - you should probably approach the owner of the building and ask their consent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For important legal questions it is likely to be better to ask a lawyer than a photographer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2520" LastEditorUserId="2520" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-17T11:13:18.577" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T11:13:18.577" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7115" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7086" CreationDate="2011-01-17T11:06:00.487" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If anything using a lens hood is more important in low light than in normal circumstances.  I do a lot of low / available light photography with long exposures (20 - 30 secs) where glare and flare are often a big problem which you cannot easily anticipate as you do not 'see' these effects with the naked eye under low light conditions.  I always use a lens hood and sometimes have to go further and improvise with hand held shields to block stray light. Referring to the second sentence of your question - &quot;blocking out light&quot; from outside the field of view is precisely what you are trying to do.  If you are deliberately using available / low light to avoid some of the often intrusive and unwanted effects of flash, the shadow effects of the lens hood would not be a problem anyway. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3290" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T11:06:00.487" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-17T12:42:12.900" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7116" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7100" CreationDate="2011-01-17T11:33:02.507" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're referring to rotating a wonky image like I think you are then there are many tools available to you, a good free option being the Gimp (as suggested by Ysap) or ImageMagick if you want to batch rotate many images from the command line.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're talking about &lt;strong&gt;automatically rotating&lt;/strong&gt; images to straighten the horizon then I'm afraid the technology isn't quite there yet, see this question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/5500/are-there-any-tools-out-there-to-automatically-rotate-an-image&quot;&gt;Are there any tools out there to automatically rotate an image?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T11:33:02.507" />
  <row Id="7117" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7121" CreationDate="2011-01-17T11:42:17.583" Score="14" ViewCount="325" Body="&lt;p&gt;I apologize if this was asked before, but where can i find information about maximum allowed lens weight for my camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm asking because, i have an opportunity to get old Soviet build 80-200mm lens for my Nikon D3100 for a very attractive price. But then it occurred to me - the lens weights 960g (more than camera itself) and the camera has plastic body, so can it damage my camera?  Nikon website only list compatible types of lenses, but not maximum weight.&#xA;I'm pretty sure this particular lens will be ok, but this kind of information would be very useful when considering purchasing heavy lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While i'm asking about Nikon, i think the question will be relevant for any camera brand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2922" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-31T03:54:44.417" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T03:54:44.417" Title="Maximum lens weight for my camera?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7118" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7100" CreationDate="2011-01-17T12:12:42.583" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Gimp has a useful plugin that makes it easy to straighten and crop a misaligned photo (assuming that this is what you really mean)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://registry.gimp.org/node/18821&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;You can get it here.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;All you have to do is trace a line on the photo that should be horizontal and Gimp will rotate the photo until it is horizontal, and optionally crop it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T12:12:42.583" />
  <row Id="7119" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7117" CreationDate="2011-01-17T12:15:37.947" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;~= 1000g lenses are not so uncommon, so I would be surprised a common DSLR would not be built to such standards, or at least carry it's own weight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2025" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T12:15:37.947" />
  <row Id="7120" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7065" CreationDate="2011-01-17T12:20:27.990" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This may seem like an indirect answer to the question but it involves moving Lightroom catalogs and images between two hard drives, not on a once off basis but continuously - synchronizing two systems. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I work on Macs and use both an iMac desk-top and a MacBook Pro notebook.  I do a fair amount of travel photography and therefore have created a set-up where I run Lightroom on both systems and keep them synchronized.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This involved initially setting up a dedicated Pictures folder (which includes Lightroom Catalog files [not the program or execution files] and &lt;strong&gt;all&lt;/strong&gt; image files so that everything is 'in one bag') on one of the systems and making a complete copy of it on the second system.  I then use a neat little synchronizing program &quot;Synchronize X! Plus&quot; which I downloaded costing about $30.00 and keep the two computers synchronized.  A couple of tips I have learned from this:-&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make sure that you synchronize often.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Close Lightroom on both machines before you synchronize.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You will be copying image files and Lightroom files so it can take time - use a fast Firewire connection if you can. Working with Lightroom of course, you are not synchronizing the raw image files each time (apart from the initial uploading of new images), only the Lightroom data and preview files. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you work on the same images in Lightroom on both systems between synchronizing you are going to get conflicts (both systems will have updated files since the last synchronization) - the program does give you options but it can get confusing so avoid it if you can.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I find it useful to always place the two computers physically on my desk in the same configuration (eg notebook on the left, desktop on the right) so that in the preview list which the synchronizing program gives you, you have an intuitive 'feel' for which direction files are being copied, updated etc.  This is particularly helpful if you have deleted image files through Lightroom (not merely deleted the file from the Lightroom Catalog but deleted the image file from the hard drive.) - you do not want the synchronizing program to copy the files back onto the system you have deleted them from - I use the synchronizing program to easily identify and delete the files from the other system as well. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One of the most frustrating aspects of keeping two systems synchronized and the most common difficulty that I have had is the 'permissions' issue.  Copying folders or files from one system to another requires that each computer has 'permission' to read and write on the other system.  This is a computer software issue which is beyond the scope of this thread (I think) but it is not insurmountable as I have learned.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One great advantage of this is that you have a complete extra backup system of your images and Lightroom files.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;With everything set up right it takes me about 5 minutes to synchronize (depending on how many images need to be transferred).  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3290" LastEditorUserId="3290" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-17T12:27:59.450" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T12:27:59.450" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-17T12:20:27.990" />
  <row Id="7121" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7117" CreationDate="2011-01-17T12:33:49.740" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's strange but I can't find this data either, clearly there is a maximum load the mount can take but I can't find one for any manufacturer, even ones like Canon who have in the past manufactured a 16.5kg lens! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;edit&lt;/em&gt; In the manual for the Panasonic GH1 the maximum recommend lens weight carried by the mount alone was 1kg. The Nikon F mount is bigger than the m43 mount so I would expect it to take at least this figure if not more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can say however that you won't have problems with a 1kg lens as the mount will take this weight, people use this type of lens all the time without a collar (tripod mount for the lens). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a lens was shipped by the manufacturer without a tripod collar I would take this as indication that it is safe to mount this lens without a collar. The Canon EF85mm f/1.2L is just over 1kg is shipped without a collar so I would infer that this is well within the limit (though this is a short lens and so exerts a smaller moment on the mount).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that perhaps one of the reasons it isn't specified is that even when using a 1kg lens I've heard people report that it felt too heavy for the mount even when it wasn't, so they can rely on common sense provided the mount is stronger than it looks! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-17T13:49:53.687" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T13:49:53.687" />
  <row Id="7122" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7117" CreationDate="2011-01-17T12:42:52.277" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Nikon 500mm f4D ED-IF II AF-S Nikkor Lens is over 3kg, so your soviet lens should be OK. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T12:42:52.277" />
  <row Id="7123" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7082" CreationDate="2011-01-17T12:43:00.067" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Go look up &quot;Schmidt Camera&quot; which is a type of telescope for photographing wide areas of the sky. The optics create a spherical abberation, so the telescope curves the film to match. A schmidt camera can produce an image of the sky with pinpoint stars at f1.5, which is rather impressive. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2916" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T12:43:00.067" />
  <row Id="7124" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7117" CreationDate="2011-01-17T12:43:56.977" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Really, there's no such thing as maximum weight. As lenses get bigger, you just start supporting the camera by the lens and not the camera. Actually, this is pretty good technique to use with any lens. Anyway, even the Canon 85 f/1.2 weighs about 950g and you can easily hold a 5D by the body with it on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T12:43:56.977" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7125" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7117" CreationDate="2011-01-17T12:51:28.167" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There have been examples of camera bodies not being able to handle heavy lenses, I think the Nikon F90 (N90 in the US) was upgraded with a beefier lens mount in the F90X revision, due partly because it was bent out of true by heavy lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nikon doesn't say anywhere that heavy lenses can't be used with the smaller bodies (I used to own a D40). I expect they assume anyone who owns a heavy lens, such as the 400/2.8 AF-S to support it by the lens barrel and not just the camera body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T12:51:28.167" />
  <row Id="7126" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7117" CreationDate="2011-01-17T12:53:12.557" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You practically &lt;em&gt;can't&lt;/em&gt; hold a camera and aim while a 1Kg lens is attached. You &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; be holding the lens, so this is not a problem with hand-help shooting. On a tripod, when the lens becomes that heavy, most tripod heads can't support that moment and it will creep down, so you will end up attaching the system by the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One more thing - from Newton's 3rd law of mechanics, having a 1kg body attached to the lens is similar to having a 1kg lens attached to a body in terms of the strain of the mount. As modern bodies tend to be on the closer side to this weight, I don't see any problem in using that comrade on your Nikon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T12:53:12.557" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="7127" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7060" CreationDate="2011-01-17T13:00:39.790" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have found a &lt;a href=&quot;http://abduzeedo.com/photoshop-quick-tips-light-leaks-photography-video&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;video tutorial&lt;/a&gt; which goes through an approach for creating this type of effect. On the same site is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://abduzeedo.com/30-interesting-light-leak-shots&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;set of interesting photos&lt;/a&gt; which demonstrate the variety of different light leak effects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also other tutorials - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scottphotographics.com/quick-masking-soft-light-leaks-on-photographs-in-photoshop/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt; gives a relatively simple gradient based approach that looks fairly quick and easy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I'm not sure about how easy it would be to automate some of these workflows. I assume there are some plug-ins that would do this in a suitably random or controllable fashion but I've not found any yet! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2127" LastEditorUserId="2127" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-17T13:07:46.363" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T13:07:46.363" />
  <row Id="7128" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7101" CreationDate="2011-01-17T13:47:34.863" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, your friend would own the copyright but, it would be extremely hard for him to prove it. &quot;Your honor, all these pictures are someone else, except for these 5 critical ones, they're mine!&quot; Uh... good luck with that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T13:47:34.863" />
  <row Id="7129" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7082" CreationDate="2011-01-17T14:46:11.393" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know how many 'cheap' lenses are catalogued, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DXO&lt;/a&gt; does a very good job correcting lense-induced faults, in my experience. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a specific example, I used it to correct pincushioning on architectural photos taken with a Canon EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS USM at 28mm and the results were impressive (curved walls at the edge became perfectly straight).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3293" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T14:46:11.393" />
  <row Id="7130" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-17T14:48:17.180" Score="26" ViewCount="668" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I started with digital photography, I used to keep a copy of ALL the photos I took on a backup drive, &quot;just in case&quot;. As the years have gone by, I have become more ruthless, permanently deleting the very worst technical shots (severe focus &amp;amp; exposure problems), then deleting most shots that were not sharp, and then later I started deleting &quot;good&quot; photos because they were duplicates or uninteresting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apart from photos of family or maybe travel, etc., there are very few pictures that I ever go back to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realize this process is very personal, but are there any guidelines or rules of thumb as to deciding which photos to keep and which to trash?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A related and possibly even more inappropriate question; What percentage of photos does the typical serious amateur end up keeping?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-17T14:50:53.263" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T23:32:03.607" Title="How many photos should I keep?" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;subjective&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="9" />
  <row Id="7131" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7100" CreationDate="2011-01-17T14:50:57.150" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're looking to apply this cropping to a lot of images at once and are comfortable using the command line, then give &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imagemagick.org/script/index.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ImageMagick&lt;/a&gt; a try. It's a very commonly-used command-line utility for manipulating images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T14:50:57.150" />
  <row Id="7132" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7130" CreationDate="2011-01-17T15:06:35.557" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a lazy person. I find it tedious to delete photos... Actually since moving from JPEGs to RAWs last summer, I rarely even convert the photos to JPEGs and usually do it only on a need to basis. I don't think there is a rule of thumb here, as, as you mentioned, it is a very personal process that depends on many factors - including on how much storage space you have. I estimate my undeleted ratio to about 95%-99% of the image I ever shut.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T15:06:35.557" />
  <row Id="7133" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7130" CreationDate="2011-01-17T15:14:27.843" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I keep everything I didn't delete just after shooting. Just in case. Anyway, hard drives are cheap nowadays.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many of my pictures are artistically bad but are informative in some way. Bad colors but nice composition for instance. Or the subject has its place in a bigger story, despite its low quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Years ago I took a picture inside a church. The slide was strongly underexposed, mostly black in other words. Some months ago I decided to scan it. I saved most of the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1296" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T15:14:27.843" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7134" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7130" CreationDate="2011-01-17T15:15:50.027" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are right, that is a personal question and it will vary tremendously, some situations like fast-moving actions will often get a higher hit-to-miss ratio, so I do not think you can get a useful numeric answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My motto for this is 'Delete is my friend' :) I first delete anything that is not technically perfect (with extremely few exceptions, less than 0.01%) and then delete anything that has no point of interest or is too similar to another shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've also put myself on the challenge to simply not shoot the bad ones and its been working, so my deletion ratio is diminishing while the quality of my shots is augmenting. I'm now at about 87% deletion. From what's left, only 5% get shown, either off or on-line, and about 2% get sold as prints or licensed to publications.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most common reaction I get to this is that 'storage is cheap' and I agree, only I find the cost of managing storage is not (and my process is quite automated at that).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T15:15:50.027" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="7135" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7130" CreationDate="2011-01-17T15:16:09.383" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nice question. This is an issue we all face.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;My answer has two parts:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;1) keep as much as possible&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2) religiously tag your photos in an organized way.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) Why keep as much as possible?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Your perspective changes with time and 20 to 30 years later your photos acquire a historical value that transcends their artistic value. I discovered this when I started scanning my 40+ year archive of film.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) The bigger problem is being able to retrieve your photos and a good tagging system makes this possible and makes the number of photos less relevant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T15:16:09.383" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7136" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7130" CreationDate="2011-01-17T15:20:16.370" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm practicing this method: I leave almost 100% of the pictures I shoot (except really bad pictures). But sometimes we with my wife look through all the pictures that &gt;2 years old. And if a picture still not evokes any feeling, than this picture goes to Recycle Bin ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2272" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T15:20:16.370" />
  <row Id="7137" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7130" CreationDate="2011-01-17T16:13:03.417" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer part of my own question; Out of about 10000 photos I've taken, I think the number I would consider really worthy of keeping is in the few dozen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I talking here about photos I think are intrinsically good, outside of any personal meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T16:13:03.417" />
  <row Id="7138" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7112" CreationDate="2011-01-17T16:30:38.840" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I googled a bit about this (&quot;copyrighted buildings&quot; and &quot;trademarked buildings&quot;) but mostly got a bunch of forums posts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.danheller.com/model-release-copyrights.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this long article about photographing copyrighted and trademarked objects&lt;/a&gt; to be interesting. Maybe it may help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.danheller.com/model-release-copyrights.html#4.1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;section 4.1&lt;/a&gt; deals with the Transamerica building, and other subjects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-15T21:04:35.823" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T21:04:35.823" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7139" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7130" CreationDate="2011-01-17T16:48:09.743" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I (like others here) keep most of what I shoot unless it was deleted immediately after for some obvious technical detail (such as out of focus).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, when I post online (&lt;strong&gt;if&lt;/strong&gt; I post online) I choose only high quality photographs that don't expose more personal detail than I would like. Same thing for photo albums of whatever kind: I only keep all the photos for future reference or future editing, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3240" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T16:48:09.743" />
  <row Id="7140" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="856" CreationDate="2011-01-17T17:28:36.407" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most tasteful &quot;watermarks&quot; (if they can be called that) that I have seen are actually more akin to the postcard-style advertizing you sometimes see from studios. What I'm thinking of is a moderately translucent stripe that goes across the photo, often at the line 60% of the way down the photo - although a vertical stripe works too. The stripe is usually at something like 20% translucent (rather than the typical &quot;watermark&quot; which might by 90% translucent).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd be interested in other opinions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3240" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T17:28:36.407" />
  <row Id="7141" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-17T18:10:36.723" Score="6" ViewCount="91" Body="&lt;p&gt;I realize that everyone &quot;knows&quot; that photographers have studios and take portraits, but I've also been interested in other careers that are open to photographers. Specifically, what is required in becoming a crime scene photographer or a media photographer (or photographic journalist?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that on television, in many cases, there is no photographic specialist working for the police department: is this an accurate portrayal? CSI comes to mind in this regard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, journalism schools don't teach photography... do they?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, photographers don't make the kind of money a server administrator does.... do they?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3240" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T19:48:50.403" Title="Careers in Photography" Tags="&lt;photographer&gt;&lt;photojournalism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7142" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-17T18:17:40.983" Score="9" ViewCount="216" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to to create an portrait style avatar for use on my profile on stackexchange, facebook, and other social sites. Ideally the image should be a quality head shot, recognizable over a range of sizes, and still look good when scaled down to tiny thumbnails. Hopefully the image would stand out in an array of other avatars.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know this is a lot to ask of a couple of hundred pixels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any tips on preparing such a shot? Is there any particular lighting that works best? Are monochromes better for this task? what about cropping? Head and shoulders or face only?&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; the avatar should be recognizable as me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastEditorUserId="3180" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-17T18:53:52.903" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T00:18:22.260" Title="Tips for creating attractive and useful head-shot style avatars" Tags="&lt;portrait&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7143" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7141" CreationDate="2011-01-17T18:37:46.763" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I was at University I attended a talk from someone working for the North Yorkshire police's imaging unit. It sounded like a very interesting job, which ranged from crime scene photography, surveillance and promo work. This department was one of the largest and best in the country, and so regularly performed work for the other police departments, who presumably had their own photography capability but not to such a high level.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The forensic side mainly involved creating 360 degree panoramas of crime scenes so that officers could refer to those whilst investigating minimising the actual crime scene visits and disturbance. He didn't mention the IR &amp;amp; UV side of the forensics so I assume these were handled by a different department.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Surveillance was another aspect of the job. I guess it takes a certain mindset as it seemed to mostly consist of sitting in a van with a 1700mm lens (yes really!) here the goal was to be able to recognise people, not to produce high quality images. I was most surprised to find that the same photographers were producing promotional images &amp;amp; portraits for the press and internal use. This is much more similar to the sort of photography I do, but I would certainly enjoy the variety.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He saw the job advertised in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bjp-online.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;British Journal of Photography&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. I didn't offer any other tips to finding this sort of job, but I would expect I'd imagine qualifications in science to be a requirement. This would certainly be an easier avenue to pursue coming from a IT background compared to journalistic photography, which has a more established journalism school career progression. To answer your other question, yes you can study photography in journalism schools, at least in the UK. Here is a highly recommended course that I know people have done and gone on to careers photojournalism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sheffcol.ac.uk/index.cfm?ParentID=b4ec0424-ef60-4b23-a840-b9fc6ec0300e&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.sheffcol.ac.uk/index.cfm?ParentID=b4ec0424-ef60-4b23-a840-b9fc6ec0300e&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-17T19:48:50.403" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T19:48:50.403" />
  <row Id="7144" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7141" CreationDate="2011-01-17T18:38:31.330" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Surely you go to art school to get a degree in photography and not a journalism school?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know several Amateurs that have made the transition to becoming professional event photographers, I think it's a case of knowing the right people and being at the right place at the right time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've seen photography students who have asked venues for gratis work photographing concerts (sometimes as a 2nd Photographer) on the understanding that the venue can use any of their photos but they can be used to pad out a portfolio.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In some institutions I would assume it just happens that you are the person with a Camera. I don't know how the police recruit photographers I did a quick google for forensic photographer and came up with this link though:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.skillset.org/photo/careers/photographers/article_3424_1.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.skillset.org/photo/careers/photographers/article_3424_1.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;While most Lead Photographers in&#xA;  Forensic Photography Units will&#xA;  usually have a strong background and&#xA;  qualification in photography, most&#xA;  Forensic Photographers start as Crime&#xA;  Scene Investigators or Scene of Crime&#xA;  Officers (SOCOs) before specialising&#xA;  in photography and forensic imaging.&#xA;  While it is not necessary to have a&#xA;  formal photographic education in order&#xA;  to gain work as a CSI, some&#xA;  photographic qualification (e.g. BTEC&#xA;  National Diploma in Photography) or&#xA;  previous photographic experience will&#xA;  often enhance the chances of&#xA;  selection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;AS I said I think it's just a case of being the right person in the right place and having a camera in your hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2680" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T18:38:31.330" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7145" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7104" CreationDate="2011-01-17T18:46:03.027" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wear glasses and I find that they get in the way of taking photographs, I very often will just let the glasses sit on my forehead while a take the photo through the view finder. Most pro/prosumer cameras will have a little dial that lets you adjust the dioptre of the view finder. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nikon have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/953&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;chart that tell you the equivalent adjustment&lt;/a&gt; on their cameras for your prescription. I would assume Canon do too. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2680" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T18:46:03.027" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7146" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7142" CreationDate="2011-01-17T18:52:03.863" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do you want it to look like you or do you want it to be distinguishable as your avatar?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;zoom and crop don't really matter, so long as your head isn't tiny in the photo you should be okay. I've seen good profile pictures that have nothing but the eyes nose and mouth, and others that have the whole head and a background. if you do have a background make sure you can distinguish where your head end and the background begins, or not... to be honest, and I know this is a bit of a non answer, do something that looks good and experiment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Read up on portrait photography and anything you learn there will probably apply to your Avatar photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2680" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-20T14:53:26.380" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T14:53:26.380" />
  <row Id="7149" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5245" CreationDate="2011-01-17T19:29:32.300" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Prime lenses that have been mentioned are all good, but for a Zoom lens my favourite is my Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I got mine because my kit lens broke and it covers the range of the kit lens and has replaced my 70-300 as my zoom lens. Great walkabout lens and it's the only one I really use any more aside from my 50mm f/1.8&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to specialize I'd suggest investing in primes that meet your specialization, landscapes = wide angle lenses and portraits = 50mm 85mm or 100mm prime with as wide an aperture as you can afford.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2680" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T19:29:32.300" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-17T19:29:32.300" />
  <row Id="7150" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7102" CreationDate="2011-01-17T19:38:28.673" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are an awful lot of amateur photographers that charge money for their photographs. For me the dividing line between amateur and professional is a simple acid test: is photography how a person makes their entire living. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me this is a great test because if a person is making their entire living via photography, by necessity they're engaging in a whole host of activities and practices that make them a 'professional,' none of which have anything to do with the actual taking of pictures. Some of those things are tangible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Marketing their business&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Generating sales&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Paying business and employee tax obligations&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Being 'licensed and legal'&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But some are not:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Having daily 'office hours' that roughly correspond to 'normal' business hours&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Having a dedicated working space&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Business shows a &lt;em&gt;true&lt;/em&gt; net profit&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T19:38:28.673" />
  <row Id="7151" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7061" CreationDate="2011-01-17T19:47:33.570" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the improvements in build quality, performance and use of flourite elements mentioned above, another thing unique to the L series is that all L lenses come with a leather bag (or proper case for the super-teles) and a lens hood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So even though you just spent £700 ($1100) on the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS, you wont get a small plastic hood thrown in! (that will cost you another £20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T19:47:33.570" />
  <row Id="7152" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7101" CreationDate="2011-01-17T20:38:23.100" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I lend someone my gear for a few moments, it does not make me an author of pictures they take. Similarly, if I use rented gear, the rental shop does not take its cut from everything I produce.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I were shooting an event profesionally, I probably wouldn't let anyone borrow the camera because I'd be mostly busy using it myself. However, I still don't think it such a legal problem to let someone else take pictures, but I wouldn't deliver those to the client because then they might wonder why hire a pro when who gives them uncle Bob's pics. Matt's solution of shooting the floor before and after to identify such pictures is really helpful in this regard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think this would create any problem in amateur usage, and if I accidentally sold a picture from my archive that was shot by someone else, I'd try to reach some agreement about giving them appropriate part of the profit, provided they persuade me they really took the photo. Anyway, worrying about copyright when you're partying with your friends seems kind of awkward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T20:38:23.100" />
  <row Id="7153" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7163" CreationDate="2011-01-17T20:54:17.300" Score="2" ViewCount="152" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just bought Photoshop Elements 9, and have never used it before. One of its highly touted features is face recognition/identification. According to ads, if you tell the program that a particular face is, say, Michael, it will automatically label similar photos as Michael in the future to the best of its ability.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although I'm not a big facebook user, this reminds me of facebook's tagging feature. That feature doesn't remember faces in particular; it just lets users select an area of a photo that is linked to some friend's or user's profile.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is: should I &amp;#8212; or, at least, is it okay to &amp;#8212; tag all photos of people with Photoshop Elements's face tagging feature, regardless of whether their faces are hidden or blurry? On the one hand, it would be nice for me to be able to access shots of people more quickly through the photo tags, but on the other hand, I don't want to confuse the face recognition algorithm by entering too many &quot;faces&quot; that are actually jackets or backs of heads.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2452" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-25T18:47:32.447" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T18:47:32.447" Title="Should I tag faces in Photoshop Elements 9 if they aren't clear?" Tags="&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;tagging&gt;&lt;photoshop-elements&gt;&lt;face-recognition&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7154" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5162" CreationDate="2011-01-17T20:55:27.327" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Built remote shutter release for my Canon xti. Used the plug and cord form an old pair of headphones and hooked it up to an old toggle switch found in the back of a drawer. Took a few seconds of experimentation to figue out which which pair of wires switched the shutter. Five minutes is all it needed, including looking for a half remembered switch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T20:55:27.327" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-17T20:55:27.327" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7155" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7390" CreationDate="2011-01-17T21:14:21.873" Score="9" ViewCount="245" Body="&lt;p&gt;What resources are available online to give ideas for poses. Is there some type of catalogue of common poses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-17T16:20:38.500" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T16:20:38.500" Title="Online posing guides &amp; resources" Tags="&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;studio&gt;&lt;posing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7157" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7170" CreationDate="2011-01-17T21:42:16.393" Score="21" ViewCount="496" Body="&lt;p&gt;What do students learn in a photography degree that they can't learn by themselves? Most amateur photographers (and many, many pros) are self taught. &#xA;A bit of reading, experimentation, practice, practice, practice, and reflection goes along way in photography education. Does a photography degree just fast track you through the initial stages of the learning curve, or do you get something extra?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess that access to expert criticism is major part of photo school, which certainly can't be self taught, but what else does the formally educated photographer learn that is difficult to pick up on your own?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this doesn't sound like I am anyway dismissive of going to school, I'm just curious. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastEditorUserId="3180" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-18T13:41:06.733" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T19:06:48.523" Title="What do you learn in a BA in Photography that can't be self taught?" Tags="&lt;education&gt;&lt;school&gt;" AnswerCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7158" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7157" CreationDate="2011-01-17T21:57:33.707" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This same question could be asked of any college degree, and the same things usually apply.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A bit more credibility.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Experience with a variety of fields.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Honest Feedback.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;More knowledge of the professional language.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A bag of tools to use when you might least expect it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The ability to reason in the field.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, even if you should choose not to get a BA, I would recommend that you periodically take classes. They will give you many of the same things you'll get from a degree, but will cost less and be less of a time commitment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T21:57:33.707" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7159" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7104" CreationDate="2011-01-17T22:04:51.077" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wearing glasses will not hinder you from &lt;strong&gt;becoming nor being a good photographer.&lt;/strong&gt; What it can do is make it more difficult to &lt;strong&gt;operate your camera&lt;/strong&gt; under certain circumstances. If &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/blind_photographers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;blind people can be photographers&lt;/a&gt;, there isn’t a thing to stop someone who only needs glasses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, I prefer to wear contacts when I shoot with my DSLR, since it’s more comfortable to use the viewfinder without glasses. However, if you use the LCD on the back instead, this isn’t an issue at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1905" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T22:04:51.077" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7160" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7157" CreationDate="2011-01-17T22:14:58.943" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The fastest and best way to learn photography is through an apprenticeship.  One on one with a master.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3301" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T22:14:58.943" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7161" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7157" CreationDate="2011-01-17T22:17:57.280" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you boil it all down, the difference is ultimately a piece of paper. College degree or not, you still have to prove yourself in the real world through experience and skill. While a degree may give you more credence in the short term, in the long term there is little to no difference between someone who has a degree, and someone who doesn't. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What really matters in the end, particularly for artists and photographers, is their body of work. Your work will demonstrate your skill, which is what people really care about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T22:17:57.280" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7162" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7155" CreationDate="2011-01-17T22:23:50.983" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can find hundreds of poses &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.herrickphoto.co.uk/poses.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;HERE&lt;/a&gt;. Another good place for information is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/portrait-photographys-power-posing-part-i-the-components&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DPSchool&lt;/a&gt;. You can also find some tips &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stnphotography.com/tips.html#positioning&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, just scroll down some.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="2200" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-17T22:38:49.617" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T22:38:49.617" />
  <row Id="7163" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7153" CreationDate="2011-01-17T22:27:12.537" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This one is really up to you. If you think that blurry faces will be of help to you at a future date, go for it. If you're not so sure, well, it's okay to skip them as well. Do what you think will be best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T22:27:12.537" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7165" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7157" CreationDate="2011-01-17T22:30:25.500" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As someone who is a working professional photographer with a BA in Photography, here's my take on what you get from art school:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Learning through the repetition of taking thousands and thousands of photographs&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Thorough grounding in art history&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Access to expert critique&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Connections&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A student loan payment&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There isn't really anything that is learned through art school that can't be learned elsewhere, what art school does give you, however, is a concentrated 2-3 year 'platform' to eat, sleep, and breathe the honing of photographic skills. Depending on how seriously someone takes their schooling this can mean a ton, or nothing at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T22:30:25.500" />
  <row Id="7166" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7178" CreationDate="2011-01-17T23:03:41.743" Score="4" ViewCount="196" Body="&lt;p&gt;My Lightroom collection has previews and catalog on local hardrive and originals on external hardrive. I've lost external hardrive, what is the easiest way to extract preview images from local catalog?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Clarification&lt;/b&gt;: I'm using MacOS&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3302" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-18T19:04:55.967" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T19:04:55.967" Title="How to extract thumbnail photos from Lightroom 2 catalog" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7167" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4022" CreationDate="2011-01-17T23:05:06.480" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know it's not exactly what you were asking for, but have you looked at the Kata 3n1 range  of camera bags? It acts like a backback, to containing all your usual hiking gear, plus special compartments for your SLR &amp;amp; lenses etc. When you need your camera, the bag is designed to swing around to your from and there are special quick opening &quot;doors?&quot; to access your camera. This can happen pretty quickly when you've done ti a few times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see photos and video of the bag in action at the kata site &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kata-bags.com/productFRM2HS.asp?p_Id=432&amp;amp;Version=Photo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have the 3n1-30 bag and the only problem I have with it is that it is much bigger than I need (I don't have 6 lenses)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T23:05:06.480" />
  <row Id="7168" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7130" CreationDate="2011-01-17T23:32:03.607" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Personally, I keep 99% of the photos I take, and I keep them at the original quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I trash out just the ones that are really out of focus/blurred/underexposed/grainy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, even if I return on those that haven't been published online, most of them just aren't good for others to see :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, it's nice to turn back and see how and what you photographed months ago: it's a good way to learn from your errors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3231" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T23:32:03.607" />
  <row Id="7169" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7157" CreationDate="2011-01-17T23:43:59.633" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Theory. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes it can give you another way to look at things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3231" LastActivityDate="2011-01-17T23:43:59.633" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7170" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7157" CreationDate="2011-01-18T00:00:22.680" Score="19" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A fine art degree and a degree in a field such as Computer Science (CS) are not really the same. CS is a field where earning a BA is, to a large degree, a technical exercise. The technical aspects of photography are relatively limited, and you spend a lot more time learning to express yourself, which is a lot harder than it seems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing that frustrates a lot of technically minded people about photography is the lack of correct answers. You can't benchmark ideas or run unit tests against expression. There is a complete and total failure of metrics. Thus, what a good school gives you is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Completely removes you from your comfort zone. Suddenly, nobody who sees your photography has any interest in making you feel better about yourself.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An education in art in general, and in older and newer art photography.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The tools you need to define and express your vision.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How to talk about your work, accept criticism and criticize the work of others. The peer review aspect is absolutely critical. And, in the end, you learn how to defend your ideas and concepts.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Varying viewpoints from people who are absolutely not afraid to share them, your professors.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A community of photographers. This kicks your ass in a way not online community ever will because, after the first year, everybody is at least good and everybody knows how to talk about photography. Being able to discuss your projects with people who are able to &lt;em&gt;understand&lt;/em&gt; them is absolutely amazing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It forces you to take pictures that you would never take otherwise. I can't stress how important this is. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The internet suffers from what I describe as the photography echo chamber. People get waaaaaaay too caught up on gear and technical minutiae, on post-processing tutorials. Few of your forum peers will have looked at an album or a photography show that wasn't on the internet. For many of them, the best place to go for photography is flickr. Flickr's fine for what it is, but it's like learning about music by listening to local cover bands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides, people like to be nice on the internet, because if they're not &lt;em&gt;nice&lt;/em&gt;, they are often branded as trolls. For most of the photography I see online, there's no way to be nice without lying. Most pictures, even the ones people ask opinions on, are snapshots in the most derogatory sense of the word. You learn that fixing the technical problems with an image usually does nothing for the image, because most problems aren't technical, they're ones of vision (or rather, a lack of it.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I spent a good couple of years &quot;learning about photography&quot; online. Then I went to art school and 3 months in, I realized that I'd really spent 4 years learning about cameras and lenses. The two years I spent there taught me so much, I recommend some sort of formal training to everybody and anybody serious about expressing themselves through photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-18T19:06:48.523" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T19:06:48.523" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7171" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7177" CreationDate="2011-01-18T00:22:00.997" Score="5" ViewCount="83" Body="&lt;p&gt;I normally wouldn't consider this a question of photography, except for the fact that several answers on &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7157/what-do-you-learn-in-a-ba-in-photography-that-cant-be-self-taught&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; made note that art history was something important to the education they received in art school.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are important principles for a photographer taught through art history and what are resources (they need &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; be free or online) that I can learn them from (apart from art school - which will never happen for this working father)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-18T04:59:25.003" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T04:59:25.003" Title="Art history as it relates to photographs" Tags="&lt;learning&gt;&lt;books&gt;&lt;history&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7172" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7173" CreationDate="2011-01-18T00:42:05.373" Score="6" ViewCount="187" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently bought a manual-focus (since manual doesn't bother me) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adorama.com/SY100CA.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;100mm prime macro lens&lt;/a&gt;. However, I didn't notice at the time of purchase that it was an FD lens. (I'm a hobbyist; I didn't know Canon had actually changed lens mounts at some point.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the one hand, I kind of want to experiment with this guy. And quality FD lenses are relatively cheap on the used market, so if the adapters were worth it, I could probably get more (and more varied) glass. On the other hand, everything I read about the FD-EOS adapters is highly contradictory. As in, some people swear by them, and others think they're outright tripe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am still within the exchange period, and can easily exchange this lens for this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adorama.com/CA5018AFU.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;50mm prime&lt;/a&gt; that I'd been tossing up about buying anyway, as they are the same price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which would be the wiser choice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="108" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T05:19:38.143" Title="Is it worth it to buy an FD-EOS adapter, or is it better to exchange a misbought lens?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;adapter&gt;&lt;eos&gt;&lt;fd-mount&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="7173" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7172" CreationDate="2011-01-18T00:53:54.450" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally I'd say it's not worth trying to adapt an FD lens for the EF mount. The reason for this is that the EF mount has a larger registration distance, that is distance from the sensor the mount so that any simple FD to EF adaptor will act like an extension tube and you wont be able to focus beyond a few meters!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon produced an adaptor with a glass element which corrected focus distance but increased focal length by a factor of 1.1, could only be used with telephotos and decreased optical quality. This adaptor was mainly produced to placate those with a significant investment in long Canon glass and is quite rare. This is probably the reason people consider this type of adaptor to be &quot;tripe&quot;. There are also third party versions of this adaptor which are comparable to the Canon one (i.e. still not that good).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;However&lt;/strong&gt;, as the lens in question is a macro lens, you could use a simple mechanical adaptor and the result would be a &lt;em&gt;decrease&lt;/em&gt; in minimum focus distance, increasing magnification. So if you plan to use this lens for macro work then you should be able to adapt it no problem, however it wont be useful for anything else. A glassless adaptor wont compromise the optics so this is probably responsible for the mixed opinions on adaptors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the very least you need an adaptor with an aperture ring so you can stop down (almost essential for macro work) I think most of the glass ones do this, if you can't find a mechanical adaptor which will work the aperture for you, you can remove the glass from one of the other adaptors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Incidentally, that 50 f/1.8 is well worth the price so I would leave it on the shopping list even if you keep the macro, for when you can afford it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-18T01:10:45.910" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T01:10:45.910" />
  <row Id="7174" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7171" CreationDate="2011-01-18T00:54:33.807" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A course in art history is great the same way reading Shakespeare and the Bible is great when you decided to delve into literature: it gives you a foundation on which to base your understanding of modern photography, since so much of what we do now references what has already been done. You also learn about a rich language of symbology, about emotional expression and a lot of color theory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Painting is photography's close cousin and it has been influencing photography since photography was invented (and, lately, the other way around as well). Paintings are, in a sense, purer than photographs because everything they contain is placed there on purpose. The composition, lighting, aspect, subject matter... everything is there because someone took the time to paint it there. Painters work with multiple planes, they don't have hacks like shallow DOF. Happy accidents are very rare, and that's a great thing to learn from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do all these things translate to photography directly? No, you can't recreate &lt;a href=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/14/Picasso-Necklace.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Picasso's Nude Woman with a Necklace&lt;/a&gt;, but you can take a lesson from his use of color and positioning. You can learn poses, you can learn so much about light and expression. A painting like &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Boy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Blue Boy&lt;/a&gt; would work just as well as a photograph, don't you think?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to resources... this is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0810994429&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pretty decent book&lt;/a&gt;, but generally speaking, any album with paintings that you enjoy would be a great starting-off point. You don't need to buy it, scour your local library. I have a personal fondness for the old Dutch masters, if only because of their &quot;photorealistic&quot; approach to light. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T00:54:33.807" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7175" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7172" CreationDate="2011-01-18T00:58:14.037" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't even think about it, exchange it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Putting an FD lens on an EF body requires using either an adapter with an optical element (loss in image quality + focal length multiplier) or an adapter without an optical element (loss of infinity focus). Either way, if you want to use an old lens on your Canon, there is a huge selection of other cheap, decent glass - anything in an M42 mount, C/Y mount, etc. Just not Canon FD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T00:58:14.037" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7176" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6943" CreationDate="2011-01-18T02:21:59.250" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;HOW do you put the copyright image onto the photo that you are emailing to someone for review?  Or possibly is there a way to put a light watermark on each photo which may say &quot;proof&quot;.  The point is that they are not able to make copies or enlargements, which have to be ordered through me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3303" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-20T00:58:08.317" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T00:58:08.317" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7177" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7171" CreationDate="2011-01-18T02:41:02.897" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Having an art school background means that I've had to sit through any number (dozens, probably) of Art History classes... Some of the big 'principles' that come out of art history include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A strong sense of that which has come before. So many photographers approach photography in a vacuum... Having no idea (and often not caring) that art is built on the shoulders of who came before. Knowing something about Art History makes it possible to speak to whether a work is derivative (a capital insult in the art world), or homage (often a complement to both the person giving and getting the homage).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Beginning photographers (especially ones who've only been photographers in the 'digital era') often rely on luck, volume (quantity of shots taken), and post-production corrections in order to get good photographs. An Art History education really trains the mind to be deliberate in all aspects of photography (lighting, subject, background, DoF, etc.) This is because spending a lot of time looking at the different ways others handle those same problems heightens awareness of them in the work you're doing, and having a library of techniques to draw on to emulate will often strengthen the work.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reoccurring patterns and motifs are illuminated. To watch how (for example) art's portrayal of the devil over the course of 500 years has evolved can inform my own work. Maybe a less extreme example... It is possible to see something like 'short lighting' being &lt;em&gt;invented&lt;/em&gt; by observing painters draw inspiration from one another over the course of centuries.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;All of the above which leads to the 'big' principles of art history... A strong history of R&amp;amp;D in the art world- Rip off and Duplicate. Art evolves as the result of artists building liberally on other artists work over time, and there's no reason that Photography shouldn't draw from that well too.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of resources:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Crash on the floor in the Art section at a local 'big box' book store and leaf through all the big glossy books (and maybe you thought computer related books were expensive... I only manage to find $100+ books in the art section! I never buy, just look). &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The library can also great for looking at art. They also are less likely to frown at you if you spend hours looking but don't buy anything. :-) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Paradoxically I often find the internet to be a hindrance to actually studying pieces of art... But that just may be me. I tend to find that most of time the pictures on the internet are too small to really get much out of... On the other hand, its never been easier to read the written histories of great (and more obscure) artists, which can really add depth to the works as you view them. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Finally, there's absolutely nothing like actually viewing paintings (or photographs, for that matter) 'in person.' Visit a museum. Visit a gallery. Visit lots of 'em. If you're lucky enough to live somewhere that gets traveling exhibits that come to town, go see them, or go on vacation somewhere that has a reputation for great art.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T02:41:02.897" />
  <row Id="7178" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7166" CreationDate="2011-01-18T02:50:32.987" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For Lightroom2, consider using Jeffrey Friedl's “&lt;a href=&quot;http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/preview-extraction&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Extract Cached Image Previews&lt;/a&gt;” to do just that (works on any platform LR2 runs on, i.e. &lt;a href=&quot;http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/preview-extraction#comment-37394&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mac&lt;/a&gt;, PC).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;My “Preview Extraction” plugin for Lightroom 2 allows you to extract JPG preview images from a catalog's image cache. This might be of use if you have lost the original master images, or don't have them at hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also seems that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/codecs/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;FastPictureViewer&lt;/a&gt; (PC only) supports that preview format (e.g. all your .lrprev files in your &quot;Lightroom 2 Catalog Previews.lrdata&quot; directory).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This codec if part of v2.4.0.3 and let users browse the Lightroom preview cache (*Previews.lrdata) directly from Windows Explorer. Windows 7 and Vista users can also open LR previews directly in Photo Viewer or Photo Gallery. The codec was tested with LR2 and LR3 preview files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Lightroom3, consider using Marc Rochkind's &lt;a href=&quot;http://imageingester.com/LRViewer-info.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LRViewer&lt;/a&gt; (Mac, PC).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-18T05:58:10.983" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T05:58:10.983" />
  <row Id="7179" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7053" CreationDate="2011-01-18T02:54:58.040" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Answering my own question on behalf of a friend who showed me &lt;a href=&quot;http://geotag.sourceforge.net&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Geotag&lt;/a&gt;. This is a Java software that can show you any number of pictures on a map in a browser winder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No need to upload anything, it fetches the maps from Google Maps and uses a local http server to display them. So, it is one possibility that matches what I am looking for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It can show the point and direction where pictures where taken, although for some reason it does not get the direction information from the A55. According the spec, the camera records GPS position, elevation and orientation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What's missing is that I'd like to do the opposite, instead of going from image to location, to go from a location to images around it, given a certain proximity metric. That would require a software that indexes all my images like Lightroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T02:54:58.040" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7180" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6908" CreationDate="2011-01-18T04:26:11.113" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is my first SX30is Raw (DGN) file that I worked just a bit.  I then saved it under fairly heavy JPG.  I know the focus is not good but I think it still provides an idea of the image the camera can give.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://g2.img-dpreview.com/BB2CEE2928A34E4C9F69FEF0A0D34911.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Owl - Edited from RAW&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3306" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-27T17:14:28.583" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T17:14:28.583" />
  <row Id="7181" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7172" CreationDate="2011-01-18T05:19:38.143" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd recommend exchanging it.  I had a Canon FD 135/2.8, and it was a great lens, very light and fun to use, but I had to stop it down to f/8 to get sharp, CA-free pictures through the FD-EOS (with glass, for infinity focusing) adapter.  I got some good pictures out of it that way, but a 135/8 lens isn't all that interesting.  I kept an FD 35-70 f/3.5-4.5 to use as a macro lens with a glassless FD-EOS adapter, with extenders (as Matt Grum already suggested), and it works well although I'd prefer something with a wider maximum aperture to aid in focusing before I stop down to take the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So although that lens will probably work fine for macro use (though you may find yourself wishing you had an f/2 lens when you're setting up indoors), I think you'll be so disappointed every time you try to use it for anything else, that you'll be better off just getting a different lens.  Also, if you get it you'll probably want to get 2 adapters for it: one with glass and one without, so you're doubling your cost in adapters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T05:19:38.143" />
  <row Id="7182" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7157" CreationDate="2011-01-18T05:20:03.793" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The purpose of any education is to receive GUIDED instruction. You can teach yourself, but most curricula are setup to provide you guidance to maximize your learning and experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3308" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T05:20:03.793" />
  <row Id="7183" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7184" CreationDate="2011-01-18T06:28:47.043" Score="10" ViewCount="166" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was trying to capture a scene that was in a dark area with a bright background. There was faint steam that I wanted to be the focus of the picture. I tried first by having a very large aperture and quick shutter speed to capture the vapour as still as possible, but it yielded no results. I tried three other setups, including sensitivity increase by 4x, but I just could not capture the steam.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It later occurred to me trying to increase the sensitivity much more, but the scene was unavailable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is generally the best setup to capture steam or vapor in such a situation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am working with a Canon Rebel T2i.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2711" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-18T12:09:06.147" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T20:57:26.310" Title="Capturing vapour or faint steam" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;iso&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="7184" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7183" CreationDate="2011-01-18T07:35:29.427" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Without seeing the scene it's hard to know with &lt;em&gt;absolute&lt;/em&gt; certainty what you could have done differently, but for me the first 'red flag' in your question was your statement that there was a bright background. That doesn't make it impossible to get good steam, but it makes it a lot more difficult... Especially in uncontrolled lighting situations like the one you seem to be describing and even more-so if the steam was faint as you describe. The other thing to note is that on a scale of 'easy' to 'impossible,' photographing steam is a moderately difficult assignment, even under perfectly controlled studio conditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My thoughts would be these:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Change the camera position in order to get a dark background. This one is tough to work around... steam is light and wispy with no defined edges, thus it is very easy for it to get lost with a bright background.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use a fill flash positioned somewhere between 90 and 135 degrees perpendicular to the camera (It's a variable. Your light won't necessarily be in the same position shoot-to-shoot... Depending on how active the steam is, it may not even be in the same position shot-to-shot). This should brighten up the steam considerably with the goal being to separate it from the background.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shoot a ton of pictures. Steam is one of those things that you end up taking  lot of frames and hoping you get a couple that are great... There's certainly an element of luck or 'happy accidents' that play a part in capturing great shots of steam.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're looking for some practice, I'd recommend buying some incense sticks and working on getting great shots of that... You'll walk away from that practice with a much better idea of where you're going to need to place your lights in order to give yourself the best chance for getting a few 'winners.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T07:35:29.427" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7185" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7186" CreationDate="2011-01-18T07:41:42.153" Score="5" ViewCount="262" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi guys,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm newbies in the world of photography and also have a pretty tight budget, &#xA;has anyone try wide angle + macro lense converter/adaptor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Link:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/wide-angle-macro-lens/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/wide-angle-macro-lens/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;---http://www.fotomedia.com.my/forum/showthread.php?t=9273&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I see it something that we attach in front of our standard zoom / kit lens, and then we can view wide or macro without having to obtain specifically expensive macro lens or wide lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Link:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;----http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUmay6zQKRo&amp;amp;feature=related&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;----http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGNDoS7Y_S4&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My concern is, what is the effect towards our lens motor or something, i means could it damage our lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other concern is, how was the quality?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Glad if someone could share their experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3217" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T14:09:41.740" Title="wide angle and macro lens converter or adapter" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;fisheye&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7186" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7185" CreationDate="2011-01-18T08:56:36.610" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As for the effect on motor - as it screws onto the filter thread there is virtually no danger to the lens motor under normal operation. If you use a lens with a non-rotating front element (and filter thread), then only excessive force when mounting it may damage the thread.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If using a lens with a rotating front element (like the Canon 18-55mm kit lens), then you should set the focus switch to Manual (MF) before screwing the attachment, as you should do with any screw-on filter. Otherwise - some people claim that it can damage your autofocus motor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the image quality - I never used one of these so I can't comment directly, but in photography optics, you get what you pay for. For $50 a piece for two lenses (wide, macro) I would not expect a stellar quality, but OTOH, there are cheaper kits around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T08:56:36.610" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7187" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7190" CreationDate="2011-01-18T10:38:43.340" Score="12" ViewCount="491" Body="&lt;p&gt;In lighting, what is a kicker and when should I use it? (And is it any different from hair light?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T21:20:57.310" Title="What is a kicker?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;studio-lighting&gt;&lt;lighting-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="7188" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7187" CreationDate="2011-01-18T10:48:20.933" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When you say kicker, you assume that the light is placed at an angle behind the person, on the other side of the subject from where your key light is. It is usually placed out of the frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A hair light can be a kicker, but it can also encompass the entire head, be placed directly behind your subject.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/n1LXc.gif&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastEditorUserId="3050" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-18T11:20:58.760" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T11:20:58.760" />
  <row Id="7190" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7187" CreationDate="2011-01-18T11:29:46.243" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd usually use the term &lt;em&gt;kicker&lt;/em&gt; to refer to any highly off axis light which strikes a glancing blow on the subject. This creates a highlight or gradient over a small area of the image in order to accent the area, define shape.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I [over]use this type of light mostly in portraiture, where primarily it helps define the unlit side of the face. It also adds drama, gives the image a modern look, here's a comparison with and without the kicker:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/kicker_no_kicker.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It can be more subtle than this, as in the following image. I find a tiny bit of light on the off side almost always improves a shot:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://mattgrum.com/portfolios/portrait/images/amy2.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The kicker can have the effect of fattening the face a little so there are times when the standard short lighting pattern is preferable. Here's a not so subtle kicker using a bare strobe to the left:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://mattgrum.com/aaron/_M5M3020_preview.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The term rim light is also used for kickers though I find it's used more for the occasions where the light is so oblique that all you get is a strong highlight, as in the following image:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/self_with_camera.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jill Greenberg uses a pair of kickers &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&amp;amp;q=jill+greenberg&amp;amp;um=1&amp;amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;amp;source=univ&amp;amp;ei=TgE2TarYEYW5hAfwwN2XCw&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=image_result_group&amp;amp;ct=title&amp;amp;resnum=1&amp;amp;ved=0CDEQsAQwAA&amp;amp;biw=1280&amp;amp;bih=831&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;in pretty much every shot&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-18T21:20:57.310" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T21:20:57.310" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7191" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-01-18T11:56:57.550" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Workflow&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Workflow a term used to refer to the steps they typically go through to get an image from the camera into its final form.  The term emphasises the fact that each photographer usually has a set way of doing things - a path consisting of certain actions which are carried out one at a time in a particular order.  The &quot;work flows&quot; along this path, hence the term.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A typical workflow might look like this:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Copy image files from memory card to computer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Back up files&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Import files into organiser program (e.g. Lighroom, Aperture, Picasa)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Format memory card&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make first pass through images, identifying poor images for deletion&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make second pass through images, identifying good images for further attention&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Edit good images to make each one look its best&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make final selection of images to show to client&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Generate JPEG files from selected images&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Export JPEGS to preview website&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is just one possible list.  it is intended merely to give an idea of what workflow entails.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many possible workflows, depending on the hardware and software being used by the photographer, the final output medium (print, poster, website, JPEGs, etc.), the photographer's attitude to data-loss (how many backups to make), and other factors.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The workflow employed by a particular photographer is a matter of personal preference and experience.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-18T11:56:57.550" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T11:56:57.550" />
  <row Id="7192" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-01-18T11:56:57.550" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="Workflow refers to the actions a photographer takes to produce a finished product.  &#xD;&#xA;This includes the process from taking a file from the camera, through editing on a computer to printing the file (and more)." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-18T11:56:57.550" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T11:56:57.550" />
  <row Id="7193" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5245" CreationDate="2011-01-18T12:08:57.177" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have found this zoom lens to be absolutely amazing.  Obviously not as fast as a prime, but for general use (hobbyist or otherwise), I believe this lens gives you excellent bang for the buck.  For the things that I like to shoot (architecture, cars, people) I find this lens to give me a great range of shots with an unbeatable depth-of-field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3319" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T12:08:57.177" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-18T12:08:57.177" />
  <row Id="7195" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-18T12:22:06.210" Score="0" ViewCount="165" Body="&lt;p&gt;Anyone knows the Yonguo RF-603 release date and recommended retail price?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3320" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T12:22:06.210" ClosedDate="2011-01-18T12:33:11.220" Title="Yonguo RF-603 release date" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;wireless-triggers&gt;" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7196" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7104" CreationDate="2011-01-18T12:23:29.110" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am short sighted and have not found this to hinder my photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do you have trouble looking through &#xA;  the viewfinder?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do you prefer contacts over glasses? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If find that glasses make it harder to get my eye up to the viewfinder, while it is possible to shoot with glasses (either pressing my glasses up to the viewfinder or using the dioptre adjustment on my Canon SLRs) I much prefer wearing contact lenses when using my SLRs, as it allows me to get my eye up to the viewfinder without worrying about the dipotre settings dial having been nudged.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When using compact cameras where there is a screen instead of a viewfinder, either glasses on contacts are fine. I have not used an SLR with &quot;Live View&quot;, I imagine this would be the same as a compact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do you find it harder to manually&#xA;  focus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do you have a special viewfinder? (I&#xA;  think I have seen things online that&#xA;  are the equivalent of a prescription&#xA;  viewfinder?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As mentionned above I find that a split focus screen greatly aids manual focus, brighter focus screens are also available, they also help manual focussing, but still allow you to see the whole frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a slightly different note, my father is longsighted, his biggest difficulty is that he can focus fine with out his glasses, but he needs to wear his glasses to see the controls on his camera, so is constantly taking them on/off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T12:23:29.110" />
  <row Id="7197" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7183" CreationDate="2011-01-18T12:35:11.743" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lighting dust, haze, smoke and &lt;em&gt;mist&lt;/em&gt; (water vapour/steam technically refer to the gaseous state of water and is thus invisible, like air) is all a matter of &lt;strong&gt;contrast&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Jay states the problem lies with the fact the background is brighter than your subject. Here's an example of the opposite effect where the mist emerging from a chimney at York Minster  catches direct sunlight and is seen much brighter than the surrounflding walls (which are in shadow) and even the blue sky! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/krBVF.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can't engineer it so the the sun strikes your mist and not the background then a good alternative is to use an auxiliary flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The angle of the light is not overly important as mist is diffuse and so reflects light equally in all directions (so it will appear the same regardless of the lighting angle). The key is to get the light as close to the mist as possible, light diminishes in intensity with the square of the distance. This means that if your flash is 1 meter from the mist and 10 meters from the background the mist will receive 100 times the light! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important to angle the flash so that it doesn't shine down the lens, and not pointing it directly at the background will help contrast a little. You ought to be able to get a decent contrast with the onboard flash even if it is pointing towards the background if you shoot in twilight and use the fastest shutter possible (usually 1/250) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-18T20:57:26.310" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T20:57:26.310" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7198" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1757" CreationDate="2011-01-18T13:10:51.230" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most of the other answers here seem to be about artistic merits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a slightly more mundane level, I've used B&amp;amp;W to salvage photos in the following circumstances:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;beautiful photo of my baby daughter, with yellow stain on pink clothes: B&amp;amp;W didn't completely eliminate the stain, but made it unremarkable.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A series of shots of our family: the &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; one where everyone was looking at the camera, not blinking, squinting or fooling around, was the one that was all grainy. B&amp;amp;W made it 'look artistic'.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/D5XT7.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1812" LastEditorUserId="1812" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-21T18:54:06.340" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T18:54:06.340" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-18T13:10:51.230" />
  <row Id="7199" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-18T13:29:28.533" Score="8" ViewCount="199" Body="&lt;p&gt;[In the spirit of &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6471/photographing-overweight-people&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; question on photographing overweight people, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6885/what-are-some-effective-techniques-for-photographing-subjects-who-wear-glasses/6887#6887&quot;&gt;photographing people with glasses&lt;/a&gt;.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are some tips, tricks and things to look out for when photographing dark-skinned people, especially (but not exclusively) when lighter-skinned people are in the same frame?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1812" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-18T15:05:48.393" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T16:54:50.057" Title="Photographing darker-skinned people" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7200" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7157" CreationDate="2011-01-18T13:38:19.097" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depending on the school, you might also get a well-rounded education, including business, science, history, writing, etc. etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My opinion is that any college degree that focuses wholly or mostly on one subject (whether art or computer science or anything else) is of little value - the reason to go to college is to &lt;em&gt;learn how to think&lt;/em&gt;. On the other hand, a well-rounded education is extremely valuable because it better prepares you to deal with the huge variety of situations and opportunities that you will encounter in the real world. If you get some focused training in photography, that's a bonus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T13:38:19.097" />
  <row Id="7201" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7199" CreationDate="2011-01-18T13:48:50.250" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best way to do this would be to use a gray card to get the exposure just right. But it does depend somewhat on what you're photographing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're doing just a head shot, use a gray card if you can first, get the exposure right for that famous 18% grey, and then shoot away. If you're taking more of a full body shot, the skin color probably doesn't matter a whole lot, the cloths will occupy significantly more of the photo. Actually, the cloths can be a problem for anyone's skin color. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likely you will want to do some checking in post and make sure the skin tones are comparable to what they are in reality. But you should be doing this again regardless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T13:48:50.250" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7202" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7206" CreationDate="2011-01-18T14:02:39.403" Score="5" ViewCount="204" Body="&lt;p&gt;I dropped my camera while on holiday last Summer, thankfully my camera wasn't damaged but the kit lens has lost the ability to autofocus and the UV filter and 58mm to 52mm filter step-down (I use the to attach a fisheye filter to the lens) I had on the end of it are stuck on it and won't come off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've replaced the lens with an 18-200 zoom lens so I don't especially need it. I was wondering if it was worth getting the lens looked and and possibly repaired?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard many places will charge you £50 or so just to look at the lens and given the cost of the kit lens I'm not sure it's worth it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2680" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-21T09:57:48.027" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T09:57:48.027" Title="Is it worth repairing a broken kit lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;repair&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7203" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-18T14:04:05.957" Score="6" ViewCount="166" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for suggestions and advice on event photography software designed to help photographers sell prints on site using viewing kiosks and a main printing computer, hopefully staffed by one person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Currently, I use one computer, adobe bridge, and photoshop.  I find the bottle neck is finding images for customers to purchase while others wait in line.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you help?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="624" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T22:11:54.003" Title="Event photography software" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;business&gt;&lt;event&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7204" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7185" CreationDate="2011-01-18T14:09:41.740" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I got an Opteka Fish eye filter which is pretty much the same as this, it was fun to use but the images weren't very crisp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also I had it attached to my 50mm 1.8 prime and forgot to take it off before putting it in my bag, the extra torque from the length of the filter ripped the front end of the lens out of the lens, now it just falls out periodically and has issues auto-focusing. I know this was a rookie mistake but I was a rookie and I made that mistake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;if you can't afford the real lenses these will do for playing around, you might even get some good pictures, but the real deal costs a lot for a reason, if you want to go pro invest in some proper glass. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2680" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T14:09:41.740" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7205" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7202" CreationDate="2011-01-18T15:00:04.110" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most likely, your initial guess is correct. Very few of the kit lenses are worth much more than the repair cost, so unless it is in warranty, it's probably not worth it. Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T15:00:04.110" />
  <row Id="7206" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7202" CreationDate="2011-01-18T15:00:55.250" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Probably not - even if the repair were to cost less than the value of the lens it sounds like you're getting on fine without the lens, and are probably ready to move on to a better lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only reason you might repair it is to sell, but without a free estimate you're taking a risk that you will lose money through this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My advice would be to write it off and put the money towards a more interesting lens, maybe a 50 f/1.8 as you already have a superzoom. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T15:00:55.250" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7207" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7203" CreationDate="2011-01-18T15:04:35.600" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depending on what you're looking for, here's a few ideas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Have some sort of a display showing your images separate from the purchasing computer. It could be a laptop that's just showing pictures in some kind of a screensaver mode, a DVD player with a USB port that is cycling through pictures, or any other mechanism you can come up with, there's a bunch of them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pre-print thumbnails of the photos you are selling, get them laminated or something similar, and hand them to the people who are next in line, so they can take a look at them quickly. Make sure to have some kind of numbering system so that you can find it quickly in the computer.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neither of these is a software solution per say, but they should both help with your biggest bottleneck, and at low cost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T15:04:35.600" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7208" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7202" CreationDate="2011-01-18T15:26:14.810" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If it's a Nikon, you can try to sell it for parts. Some people buy trashed AF Nikkors to get the contact block - this can then be added to a old MF lens to &quot;chip&quot; it. I did this with my old 18-55.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[edit]: now I see the &quot;Canon&quot; tag. But the answer is still relevant to those whose trashed lenses are Nikkors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T15:26:14.810" />
  <row Id="7209" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7217" CreationDate="2011-01-18T15:30:22.673" Score="9" ViewCount="217" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had recently bought a Nikon CoolPix L110, which was stolen a few months later.  In searching for a replacement, I'd like to get something that takes better pictures in poor lighting.  The zoom on the L110 seemed to be overdone, as zooming would reduce the quality of the images.  I don't know much about photography, so could you tell me:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;what settings/properties of a camera affect how it takes pictures in poor lighting (avoiding blurriness and not too grainy)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;what kind of price range am I looking at?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think I let myself be sold on the L110 for its zoom (my previous camera only had 3x zoom), and then was constantly disappointed with the blurry indoor pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3322" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-18T16:50:51.583" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T04:21:29.890" Title="What are the properties of a camera that affect taking pictures in poor lighting?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;low-light&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="7210" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7209" CreationDate="2011-01-18T15:46:34.113" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If low light photography is priority, then i think you should consider getting a DSLR - because of their much larger sensor they have significantly less noise. You can also choose lens that suite you best, instead of using one build into compact camera.&#xA;The downside is that they are much heavier, bulkier and more expensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2922" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T15:46:34.113" />
  <row Id="7211" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7209" CreationDate="2011-01-18T15:47:32.693" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The thing that matters most for reducing noise in low-light photography is sensor size. Unfortunately, most point-and-shoot cameras have uniformly tiny sensors, so it will pretty much &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; be an issue. Sensor size is the most expensive feature on a camera; ones with a &quot;good&quot; size will run several hundred to several thousand dollars. Also, most cameras with larger sensors tend to be larger cameras (DSLRs, etc); that's probably not what you're after.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're less worried about noise and just want &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; sort of picture, look for a camera that has the highest ISO setting. But since you're trying to avoid &quot;grainy&quot; pictures this probably won't help you much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some cameras are better than others at reducing noise in their on-board processing. There's no magic number to look for there; you have to look for technical reviews that show test pictures. &lt;a href=&quot;http://dpreview.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DPReview&lt;/a&gt; is one good site for that; there are many others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T15:47:32.693" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7212" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7209" CreationDate="2011-01-18T15:51:05.853" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Any time you need to take pictures in low-light, what you need as a camera with good high-ISO performance. BTW, ISO is sensitivity to light. It is not enough the the camera to reach a high ISO, it has to show good image quality while doing so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best camera with high-ISO performance are DSLRs and SLDs (Also called Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Cameras). At the cheaper end, they cost around $400 for the camera plus more for the lens, which starts at about $100 and go way up. Expect to pay at least $1000 for a DSLR and a medium-quality lens. Those cameras are heavier and bigger than your L110, so it's not for everyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next step down is to get a compact camera designed for high-sensitivity. Those range from about $250 to $500. If you like a long zoom, you should seriously take a look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/review.php?id=75&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fuji Finepix F300 EXR&lt;/a&gt; which has amazing quality for its class with a few models doing very slightly better in terms of noise. It has a 15X ultra-wide angle optical zoom and is extremely fast for its class.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also consider the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/review.php?id=240&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon Coolpix P7000&lt;/a&gt; which has a 7X wide-angle zoom and is slightly less grainy than the F300 EXR but noticeable slower. Other contenders all have much shorter zooms, the Canon S95 and Panasonic LX5 fall into this category.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T15:51:05.853" />
  <row Id="7213" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7209" CreationDate="2011-01-18T15:52:27.113" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This doesn't relate to low-light performance, but it's still worth discussing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The zoom on the L110 seemed to be overdone, as zooming would reduce the quality of the images&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You're probably getting what's known as &quot;digital&quot; zoom. Digital zoom isn't a &quot;real&quot; zoom; it's using software to take your picture and enlarge it. However, there's no additional information in the picture available, so making it bigger brings a corresponding reduction in picture quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you want to look for is &quot;optical&quot; zoom; this uses your lens to enlarge the image rather than software. As you zoom, your picture gets &quot;bigger&quot; (rather, the angle of view you see is smaller), but the sensor is still capturing a full share of data, so the image quality is (mostly) the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When comparing cameras, forget about digital zoom entirely, and consider optical zoom instead. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T15:52:27.113" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7214" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7209" CreationDate="2011-01-18T16:20:44.340" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you can buy a good DSLR (Canon or Nikon, for example) for about 500$, and a fast lens for about 100$ (like Canon's 50mm 1.8).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my experience, DSLRs give much better results in low lighting conditions compared to both micro four thirds and compact cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3231" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T16:20:44.340" />
  <row Id="7215" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7199" CreationDate="2011-01-18T16:54:50.057" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most of my shoots occur in Africa and Latin America, so i deal with this all the time. Cameras auto expose for white skin tone. So, in whatever mode you shoot in, use your exposure compensation to add half a stop to one and a half stops over exposure. After you do this a few times, you'll just &quot;see&quot; where it needs to be. If you have a drastic mixture of skin tones, I'd recommend you do a similar method but maybe compensate on the conservative side. If you are shooting raw it is better to overexpose the the white skin a little so the shadows don't get noisy for the darker skin tones. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="786" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T16:54:50.057" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7216" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1757" CreationDate="2011-01-18T17:59:36.763" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I read a quite a while ago that I really liked, which is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Color is the enemy of shape&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A lot of B&amp;amp;W is all about shape (defined in part by tone), and so use of B&amp;amp;W can be good where those aspects are very important to the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't agree with the concept of B&amp;amp;W &quot;enhancing&quot; a photo though, to me it seems like either a photo is B&amp;amp;W or it's not.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T17:59:36.763" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-18T17:59:36.763" />
  <row Id="7217" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7209" CreationDate="2011-01-18T18:02:38.023" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What settings/properties of a camera affect how it takes pictures in poor lighting?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Size of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sensel&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sensels&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; the size of the sensor itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sensel size depends on the sensor size, the number of pixels, and some physical aspects of the sensor design.  For a given format--that is, sensor size--as the number of pixels goes up, the sensel size goes &lt;em&gt;down,&lt;/em&gt; making low-light pictures (and dark areas of other pictures) grainier.  Somewhat counterintuitively, then, one thing to look for here--all other things equal--is a &lt;em&gt;lower&lt;/em&gt; number of megapixels, not a higher number.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The maximum ISO (sensor &quot;speed&quot; or sensitivity) can be a crude surrogate indicator of better low-light sensitivity.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Best lens f/stop&lt;/strong&gt;.  Larger apertures let in more light.  Large apertures are indicated by &lt;em&gt;small&lt;/em&gt; f-stop values.  A value of 2.8 or less is often considered good for lower light, but there's no definite threshold.  F-stops are measured on a squared ratio scale, so f/1.4 is &lt;em&gt;four&lt;/em&gt; times as good as f/2.8 and f/2.8 is &lt;em&gt;four&lt;/em&gt; times as good as f/5.6 (even though it would seem 1.4 is pretty close to 2.8).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Watch out, though, in the point &amp;amp; shoot realm with long zoom lenses: typically, their best f/stop is achieved at wide angles and rapidly gets worse as you zoom into the telephoto range.  The Fuji FinePix 300 is a good example: its best f/stop of 3.5 isn't too bad but it quickly changes to f/5.6 as you zoom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For cameras with interchangeable lens systems you can often buy a lens that has a better maximum f/stop.  This can be costly (thousands of dollars instead of hundreds once you get below f/2.8 with good optics; notable exceptions are some 50mm and 85mm lenses for SLR cameras, where great optics at f/1.8 can be had for $100-$400 [plus the cost of the camera body]).  Lenses that let in lots of light have to be larger and heavier.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Image stabilization.&lt;/strong&gt;  This is found on some SLR and SLD bodies, and on some SLR and SLD lenses, but increasingly it is also available on P &amp;amp; S models like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/digital_cameras/powershot_s95&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon Powershot S95&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;IS inhibits certain forms of camera shake for hand-held pictures.  This lets you take longer exposures, letting in more light, improving the picture.  Typically it lets in 5 - 15 times as much light.  (The latter is the difference between, say, f/5.6 and f/1.4: that's huge.)  However, obviously IS cannot stop your &lt;em&gt;subject&lt;/em&gt; from moving.  It's great for landscapes, still portraits, and the occasional candid shot, but not for sports and action.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Auxiliary light sources,&lt;/strong&gt; like a flash.  On-camera flashes typically do not illuminate much beyond 10 - 20 feet.  A camera that has a hot shoe or otherwise can connect to an external flash will be capable of providing enough light to illuminate any nearby object (and do so very well if you &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;move the flash away from the camera&lt;/a&gt; with a cable or wireless device).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Size, mass, and shape.&lt;/strong&gt;  A larger, heavier body that you can grip well will often be steadier and reduce blur.  Such bodies usually appear in professional camera lines starting at $1000.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Noise reduction algorithms.&lt;/strong&gt; Most digital cameras can process low-light pictures to reduce noise and increase sharpness.  Some do so better than others.  Some give you an option to turn this off; some do not; some let you take &quot;raw&quot; pictures where you can apply the noise reduction in the computer later.  With a few, the noise reduction is not optional and is so aggressive in low light that you can lose a lot of detail.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Other vibration reduction capabilities.&lt;/strong&gt; These include a socket for mounting on a tripod (most cameras have this), remote-control triggers, and mirror lock-up (for SLRs).  To take advantage of these you need a tripod or equivalent stabilizing device.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Detailed, comprehensive reviews&lt;/a&gt; often cover the low-light capabilities of a body or lens.  Even some of the cheaper P&amp;amp;S models get reviewed.  They are worth studying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Overall, IS and a good flash may do the most per dollar to help you acquire good low-light pictures.  As others have mentioned, better sensors rapidly get expensive.  Better lenses do, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastEditorUserId="1356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-18T23:39:48.627" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T23:39:48.627" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7218" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7203" CreationDate="2011-01-18T19:09:23.593" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are a couple of software packages that I'm aware of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Express Digital Darkroom: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.darkroomsoftware.com/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.darkroomsoftware.com/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Krasbit Chamelion Series: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.krasbit.com/en/products&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.krasbit.com/en/products&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Express Digital Darkroom is the 'big dog' in the market, and it is priced accordingly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T19:09:23.593" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7219" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7220" CreationDate="2011-01-18T19:49:41.140" Score="8" ViewCount="243" Body="&lt;p&gt;In this &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7209/what-are-the-properties-of-a-camera-that-affect-taking-pictures-in-poor-lighting/7212#7212&quot;&gt;answer&lt;/a&gt; a reference was made to SLD cameras, also &quot;called Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Cameras&quot;. I realise that this is a synonym for &quot;EVIL&quot; cameras such as the micro-Four-Thirds cameras and the Sony NEX. But what does the acronym stand for?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T18:58:15.410" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T18:58:15.410" Title="What does the acronym SLD stand for?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7220" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7219" CreationDate="2011-01-18T19:52:35.877" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Single Lens Digital (more on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Lens_Digital&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;). It doesn't really make sense in the context of EVIL cameras, since these cameras have interchangeable lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T19:52:35.877" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7221" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7219" CreationDate="2011-01-18T20:02:00.573" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That would be &lt;strong&gt;Single Lens Display&lt;/strong&gt;, where the &lt;em&gt;D&lt;/em&gt; replaces the R as in SLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Olympus also used the same acronym as &lt;strong&gt;Single Lens Direct View&lt;/strong&gt;. Obviously there is implied that it is a direct view from the imaging sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I do see some references where &lt;em&gt;D&lt;/em&gt; stands for Digital instead, which I think is too broad since there are other types of cameras where it applies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Until Sony introduced its SLT models which use a translucent mirror, the category may have been named &lt;strong&gt;MILC&lt;/strong&gt; which stands for &lt;em&gt;Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera&lt;/em&gt;. but then it would have excluded this new type. Unsurprisingly, I've seen some sites and stores put the SLT models under the SLR category instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-18T20:09:56.207" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T20:09:56.207" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7222" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7226" CreationDate="2011-01-18T22:55:15.803" Score="11" ViewCount="975" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been given a long term loan of a 27&quot; iMac. Looking at my photos on flickr and iphoto, they look, eh, just better, they seem to pop more than they did on the other PCs. Why is that? The other computers I am used to using are a dell desktop with LCD and low end dell laptop. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastActivityDate="2011-03-20T19:48:09.990" Title="Why do my photos look better on an iMac?" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7223" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7222" CreationDate="2011-01-18T23:01:28.453" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 27&quot; iMac has a pretty mid-high end LED backlit S-IPS LCD panel. Your low end Dell laptop and LCD monitors probably use TN panels which are inferior in color reproduction, angel of viewing, saturation, etc. Most TN panels are only 18 bit displays, so they will interpolate the 24 bit color your graphics card is putting out, while IPS panels will give you the full gamut, along with a larger viewing angle that has no color shift (something very common in TN displays).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T23:01:28.453" />
  <row Id="7224" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2231" CreationDate="2011-01-18T23:15:39.247" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another consideration is the Sigma 8-16mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2490" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T23:15:39.247" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7225" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2231" CreationDate="2011-01-18T23:23:54.240" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I got the sigma 10-20 f5.6 several months a ago. And haven't taken it off since. I love the look of the photos, esecially shots of my kid messing around. Also great for interior photography where there isn't much room, although I often need to bounce my speedlite as the lens isn't particularly fast.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T23:23:54.240" />
  <row Id="7226" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7222" CreationDate="2011-01-18T23:29:46.243" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 27&quot; LED mac displays are &quot;full gamut&quot; displays, ones that cover around 98% of the Adobe RGB gamut. These are full 8 bit/channel (24bit) screens and offer a full 178° viewing angle. They are much higher quality displays than your average LCD screen, and specifically designed to output high quality, rich, saturated graphics. Additionally, Safari, which I assume you are using on the Mac, supports ICM. Browsers that support ICM will generally render photos with more accurate color than browsers that do not when an ICM profile is present in an image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your Dell computers are probably using much cheaper, 6 bit/channel (18bit) or 5/6/5bit (16bit) screens, and are likely not LED LCD screens but standard CCFL LCD screens. While these screens generally have higher refresh rates, and are great for gaming and movies, they do not reproduce color as accurately as diplays with higher bit depth and wider viewing angle. Contrast and color rendition on the cheaper Dell screens will generally cover the full sRGB gamut, but will fall quite short of the much richer and more saturated Adobe RGB gamut.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Apple screens are middle ground, though. They use standard yellow phosphor/blue LED backlighting, which over the long term will often result in non-uniform color shift as the LED's age. CCFL backlit screens are less likely to encounter such color drift over the long term. For LED screens, full RGB LED will produce much cleaner, more consistent results over the long term. High end RGB LED screens designed for photo and graphics editing work will render the richest color (sometimes covering as much as 123% of the Adobe RGB gamut for maximum saturation) and purest white (blending RGB to form white more accurate than converting blue LED light into white light via a yellow phosphor, and is less subject to color drift over the long term.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-20T19:48:09.990" LastActivityDate="2011-03-20T19:48:09.990" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7227" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7222" CreationDate="2011-01-18T23:56:44.073" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several reasons why you're pictures might look better. As a few answers have pointed out, iMac screen's are pretty decent for general color rendition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, by default Mac's have a different gamma than Window's PCs. Mac's had a gamma of 1.8, and PC's have a gamma of 2.2--however since 10.6 snow leopard, Mac's now have a default gamma of 2.2. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on the browser you use, you may or may not get color management. IE8 (the default windows browser) has no color management support; while Safari 5 (the default Mac OS X) does have color management. That means if your photos are tagged with ICC profile, the mac will likely render the color more accurately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2011-01-18T23:56:44.073" />
  <row Id="7228" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7222" CreationDate="2011-01-19T01:13:56.897" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe the iMac has a glossy screen, rather than matte which is more common and probably what you have on the two Dells. You get more &quot;pop&quot;; the downside is wretched glare under room lighting which is less than perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T01:13:56.897" />
  <row Id="7230" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7209" CreationDate="2011-01-19T04:21:29.890" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For doing low light work the two major things you will want are a fast lens (F2.8 or better, f1.4 would be best) and a heavy tripod. While many digital cameras have some fancy software to reduce image shake its better to simply put the camera on a solid platform!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have taken shots of the night sky where I exposed for 15seconds or more with a bogen 3036 tripod. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2916" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T04:21:29.890" />
  <row Id="7231" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7234" CreationDate="2011-01-19T05:02:32.320" Score="3" ViewCount="129" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a repetitive process I would very much like to automate in Photoshop, but I am afraid that it is just ever so slightly too complicated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have ~1000 pictures of a sunset, each taken a couple of seconds apart (think time lapse).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to take 4px wide vertical strips from each photo, and then paste them next to each other, so that as you move left to right across the image, the sunset gets further along.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the first 4 pixels of my final image are from picture 1, the second 4 pixels from picture 2, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't figure out how to create an action that is different every time, eg. select a 4px wide strip at registrations increasing by 4 pixels each time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any ideas?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="907" LastEditorUserId="907" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-19T05:15:36.417" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T15:38:54.197" Title="Automating Photoshop - Slightly Different Every Iteration" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;automation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7232" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6346" CreationDate="2011-01-19T05:16:48.443" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I ended up making my own using some slapped together electronics.  Personally I think this is the best option considering how overpriced everything else is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="907" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T05:16:48.443" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7233" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-19T05:42:18.853" Score="11" ViewCount="429" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are already &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/613/diy-gray-card-for-exposure-color-correction&quot;&gt;two&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1048/what-is-the-18-gray-tone-and-how-do-i-make-a-18-gray-card-in-photoshop&quot;&gt;questions&lt;/a&gt; on how to make a gray card, but unfortunately my ignorance goes deeper than that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do you use a gray card?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt; Thanks for all the answers. I realize that I'm going to have to brush up on exposure settings too!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1812" LastEditorUserId="1812" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-19T07:55:12.303" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T07:55:12.303" Title="How do you use a gray card?" Tags="&lt;gray-card&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="7234" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7231" CreationDate="2011-01-19T05:54:42.690" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're going to need to get into loops and variables within the script to do it. Assuming the files are named sequentially as most sane cameras would generate them, then it would look &lt;em&gt;roughly&lt;/em&gt; like this at the 50,000' elevation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;//control variable, counts which photo you're on&#xA;var lcv = 0;&#xA;&#xA;//how many photos are there?&#xA;var numPhotos = 1000;&#xA;&#xA;//used to track the name of the file in the loop&#xA;var filename;&#xA;//used to track the shape to cut in the loop&#xA;var shapeRef;&#xA;//used to track the left and right edges of the slice&#xA;var leftEdge;&#xA;var rightEdge;&#xA;&#xA;//main processing loop&#xA;for (lcv = 0; lcv &amp;lt; numPhotos; lcv++ ) {&#xA;    // process one image.&#xA;    filename = 'img_'+(lcv + 1234)+'.jpg';&#xA;&#xA;    //open the file here... get it ready to cut from&#xA;    ...&#xA;&#xA;    //create the selection box here, we'll use the LCV to control how far over we move&#xA;    leftEdge = lcv * sliceWidth;&#xA;    rightEdge = leftEdge + sliceWidth;&#xA;    shapeRef = [ [leftEdge, 0], //upper left&#xA;                 [rightEdge, 0], //upper right&#xA;                 [rightEdge, 3400], //lower right&#xA;                 [leftEdge, 3400] ]; //lower left&#xA;&#xA;    // use the above shapeRef to first cut from the above opened file, then paste it into your master file.&#xA;&#xA;    // close the file you opened above so we can move on to the next file&#xA;&#xA;}&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've made some assumptions above:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you're coding in JS&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;first image is number 1234, and they go in order, with names like &quot;img_1234.jpg&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the file is 3400 pixels tall.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you already know how to open the image, cut the slice out and paste it into another image. :)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the first couple aren't legit assumptions, adjust the code as needed. ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you need more help with the syntax of using variables, two references come to mind:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/devnet/photoshop/scripting.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adobe's Excellent intro scripting guides&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.w3schools.com/js/default.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;W3 school's JS resources&lt;/a&gt; or the &lt;a href=&quot;https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mozilla Developers Center's JS section&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-20T17:24:34.920" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T17:24:34.920" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7235" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-19T05:57:08.437" Score="0" ViewCount="96" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1687/monitor-for-photo-processing&quot;&gt;Monitor for photo processing&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After reading answers to this question &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7222/why-do-my-photos-look-better-on-an-imac&quot;&gt;Why do my photos look better on an iMac&lt;/a&gt;&quot;&#xA;I am wondering what should I be looking for when choosing a display for my PC for editing photos.  Something that would yield the same quality as a 27&quot; iMac.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="415" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T19:01:34.493" ClosedDate="2011-01-19T19:14:34.587" Title="What should I look for in a display meant for photo editing ?" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;display&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="7236" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7233" CreationDate="2011-01-19T06:01:49.147" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two ways to use a gray card that I'm aware of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;For exposure, put a gray card out in the scene you want to expose and then spot meter off of it.  Spot metering either automatically sets your exposure based on the tonality of the grey card when you're not in manual, or you manually adjust your shutter speed and aperture until your in camera exposure meter reads a &quot;correct&quot; exposure.  (Typically a little bar with the middle being &quot;correct&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;For post processing color correction, take a picture of your color card at the start of a session (or when lights drastically change) and then you have a 18% gray you can use to set all the &quot;correct&quot; colors during post processing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-19T06:13:11.943" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T06:13:11.943" />
  <row Id="7237" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7233" CreationDate="2011-01-19T06:04:39.267" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a few ways. Here are the main two I use:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;before you start shooting a scene/pose have someone hold the card in your primary light and hit it with your in camera meter. (in spot meetering mode, ideally with the card fully filling your spot meter area, even if that means zooming in.) set your exposure such that that is &quot;properly exposed&quot;. Now remove the card and shoot away. Your main light source should be properly exposing subjects.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;first shot of a session (or anytime you change the lighting substantially) slip the grey card into the shot in the main key light. Take a &quot;throw away&quot; shot with the card in it. If you have multiple light sources with radically different color temperatures, you'll want to shoot one with the grey card illuminated by each light source. When you're editing, use the grey cards in those shots to get your white balance adjustments, then mass apply them to the entire shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also the &quot;historical&quot; use with dark room printing... shoot a frame with the card in it, even if it's way off to the side out of crop, then in the enlarger, slide the film so that you can print that bit, do a test strip of the card, develop, match the box on the test strip to your grey card to get the initial printing time for the negative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;/me wanders off to FIND my old dektol stained gray card... been using a modern white/grey/black target with digital lately... not sure where it is. ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T06:04:39.267" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7238" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7233" CreationDate="2011-01-19T06:15:39.020" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to proper exposure (from the grey card) and post-processing colour correction (from a throw-away shot and white balance correction on your computer), some (most? all?) digital cameras also have a Custom White Balance setting. This is especially useful if you shoot JPEG and your images are under a common light source. (With RAW you can do it all in post, but JPEGs you'll get slightly better colour accuracy doing it on-camera).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You take a shot where some portion of the image is covered by the grey card (typically the centre region, perhaps 1/4 of the image area), making sure it's properly exposed and that the grey card is being lit by the light sources you're trying to account for.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Your camera will have an option to set the Custom White Balance based on an image (probably in the menu somewhere) which lets you configure the white balance that it will apply. You go into this menu option and select the photo you just took as the source for the custom white balance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Set your white balance mode to Custom WB and it will apply the measured white balance (from that photo) to photos you take in this mode.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's probably most useful if your lighting is constant, or if you're shooting with one particularly difficult light source (e.g. you can use Auto or a standard white balance on some photos, and the Custom WB on those under the particular light source).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you've got a bunch of different lighting sources, or a combination of two (so you get variations as you move around) you might be best shooting RAW and taking a few different shots of the grey card and applying the most appropriate WB correction in post processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T06:15:39.020" />
  <row Id="7239" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7233" CreationDate="2011-01-19T06:16:44.747" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Using a gray card, or even a color checking card or something like the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport, is pretty easy. Here are a few steps:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set up your scene, whatever it is, be it landscape, portrait, or still life.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Place your gray card or color checking card in scene.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Have your subject hold it, clip it to a tripod, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set your white balance setting as appropriate for your lighting.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use the closest fixed setting you can&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do not use AWB (automatic white balance) as that will produce inconsistent results&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Snap a &quot;calibration shot&quot; of your scene.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Meter off the card&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that you have a calibration shot, you can remove the gray card/color checker from your scene. Snap the rest of your shots for that particular lighting without the card in scene. It is important to note that, if for any reason, your lighting changes...you will need to take another calibration shot. Any change...this would include reorienting your camera or subject, changing the type of lighting, etc. Out in nature, changes caused by clouds obscuring sunlight would count as a change in lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you have all of your shots, you actually CORRECT your white balance in post processing. The simplest way on earth to correct white balance with a gray card or color checker is with Adobe Lightroom. In develop mode, there is an extremely handy little tool...a dropper tool (color picker tool) right next to the white balance sliders. Click this, then click on your gray card in the first shot. Lightroom will automatically correct your white balance for you based on the 18% reflectance emitted by the gray card (the ideal tone to balance color from.) If you used something like X-Rite's ColorChecker Passport, there are several warming/cooling &quot;swatches&quot; that you an pick from. The nice thing about these kind of swatches is you have the option of warming or cooling your picture as you see fit in a color-accurate way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do not have Lightroom, but do have Photoshop, you can use a similar approach. In the Levels tool, click the &quot;Set Gray Point&quot; dropper tool, and pick the gray card. Photoshop should make the same kind of adjustment as Lightroom. With Photoshop, unlike lightroom, you need to make sure that you pick the right dropper tool to correct color automatically, and you will only be able to use an actual gray card or white card, and use the matching &quot;Set XYZ Point&quot; option. Once you have set your color balance, &lt;strong&gt;save&lt;/strong&gt; the current levels settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The final step to setting correct white balance for all of your images is to apply the current settings for your calibration image to the rest of your images for that lighting. In lightroom, this is again rediculously simple. Simply copy the white balance setting (CTRL+SHIFT+C, Uncheck All, Check &quot;White Balance&quot;), select all your other photos for that lighting, and paste (CTRL+SHIFT+V). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With Photoshop, it is a little more complex. You need to open the Levels tool for each image, and &lt;strong&gt;load&lt;/strong&gt; the previously saved levels settings. I don't know of any batch way to do this in Photoshop, so it is rather time consuming if you have a lot of shots. Best to work your way through your shoot first, find and flag the keepers, and only work them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, forgot another option. Not quite as accurate, but an option if you don't have a tool that will let you set perfectly correct WB in post processing. Most cameras these days have a custom white balance setting. These are easy enough to set. Follow the four steps above, only in step 3, DO use AWB (auto white balance). Make the card cover as much of the scene as possible, illuminated by the same light as the rest of the scene. Once you have your shot, use the Custom WB tool, pick the image with the gray card, and set WB from that image. This will only really work with an actual gray card, a color checker card will not really produce the best results if you use Custom WB. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T06:16:44.747" />
  <row Id="7240" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5162" CreationDate="2011-01-19T08:26:36.377" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've built a clear body cover. It is a body cover, with the center cut out and replaced by a small uv protection filter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It serves two purposes:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Can be covered with foil with a small hole in it- safe way to make your camera a pinhole camera.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You can play around with home-made lens. Ever wanted to take a picture with a magnifying glass? Use a clear body cover to keep the dirt out. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example image using a clear body cover. Pinhole in aluminum foil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/awIlA.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3335" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T08:26:36.377" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-19T08:26:36.377" />
  <row Id="7241" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5162" CreationDate="2011-01-19T09:25:41.103" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A panoramic tripod head, used to make a particular lens/camera combination rotate around the lens' &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrance_pupil&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;entrance pupil&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is essential to be able to make seamless stitched panoramas that contain significant amounts of foreground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's quite easy to make and can be quite expensive to buy so I can recommend it for panorama shooters with a limited budget. There are several guides available from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stockholmviews.com/diyphotogear/pano_head.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;others&lt;/a&gt; who have made them &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I made mine for just one particular lens so it's not able to slide and adjust to different focal lengths, but it works well and is easy to assemble. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="722" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T09:25:41.103" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-19T09:25:41.103" />
  <row Id="7243" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7247" CreationDate="2011-01-19T11:56:19.310" Score="14" ViewCount="347" Body="&lt;p&gt;What tagging system do you use for your photo collection?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I ask because tagging is the only way I can make sense of my large photo collection and I am trying to improve the effectiveness of my photo tagging.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, do you simply tag on the fly, creating tags to fit the photo? Do you have a well defined set of tags? Do you have a hierarchical tagging system? Do you have rules for the way you create or assign tags? Is there a better way of organising my photos than using tags?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-19T20:33:44.050" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T20:33:44.050" Title="What tagging system do you use?" Tags="&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;tagging&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="7244" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7243" CreationDate="2011-01-19T12:07:06.587" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a hierarchical set of tags. I try not to create many new tags. I use one hierarchy for the year, another for the place, another for people,... This way, my tags are more organized (I think). I use Adobe Lightroom 3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="332" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T12:07:06.587" />
  <row Id="7245" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-19T12:13:15.847" Score="4" ViewCount="108" Body="&lt;p&gt;What do all the do all the develop settings mean in Lightroom?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, what does the &lt;strong&gt;Fill light&lt;/strong&gt; setting do, and how does this differ from the &lt;strong&gt;Brightness&lt;/strong&gt; setting?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can of course just play around with the settings and see what the effect is, but I've found that I get better results when I stick to the settings that I understand the theory behind (such as &lt;strong&gt;Exposure&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;White Balance&lt;/strong&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1522" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T13:26:00.573" Title="What do all the settings do in Lightroom?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;digital-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7246" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7243" CreationDate="2011-01-19T12:38:19.510" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use Picasa.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I import my images into a folder called &quot;YYYY-MM-DD &quot;. I don't usually use the actual date when the photo was taken, but use the date they're imported.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After I've done selecting the images I want to keep, I tag them with the lens used, person name, place, object etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These tags are then carried over when I upload to Flickr. Here's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/gerikson/tags&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;my tagcloud on Flickr&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I find tags great to use as you can be as descriptive as you like. I shoot a lot of manual lenses, so I find it interesting to keep that info in a tag. If I shoot a portrait, the most interesting thing there is the subject's name. I usually use a common tag across images if they're part of a &quot;set&quot; (holiday, birthday etc). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you only use one tag, let that be a name or place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastEditorUserId="3114" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-19T12:44:43.353" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T12:44:43.353" />
  <row Id="7247" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7243" CreationDate="2011-01-19T13:04:31.220" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I sometimes do a little bit of stock photography, where tagging is extremely important to get your images appearing in sales correctly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I aim to tag all of my stock photos by thinking about the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;People - who is in the shot?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Places - where was this taken? Include significant places, streets, towns, cities, countries, regions. Alternatively, use geotagging for this&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Subject - what is the subject of the photo? For a ham sandwich, we could use tags of &quot;bread&quot;, &quot;sandwich&quot;, &quot;meat&quot;, &quot;ham&quot;, &quot;food&quot; and so forth&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Photo type - is it portrait, landscape, macro, black &amp;amp; white, sport, street, abstract, or something else?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adjectives - for example, the colour of the subject, size, movement, etc&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Concepts - does the photo represent a particular concept? Examples include success, happiness, environmentally friendly, businesslike, and so forth&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I should arrange these in hierarchies but I've fallen out of the habit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, though, tags serve the user. If the user is you (i.e. you want to be able to find photos later on), think about how you might search and what kind of things you would need to find. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2127" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T13:04:31.220" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7248" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7245" CreationDate="2011-01-19T13:11:25.217" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;fill light&lt;/strong&gt; slider brightens and recovers detail from the shadows using an HDR style tonemapping operation. Used in moderation it can increase the apparent dynamic range and deal with large distracting overexposed areas. Turned up to 11 you will get a nasty overprocessed bright-everywhere image that will make people on Flickr go &quot;wow great capture&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;clarity&lt;/strong&gt; slider does something akin to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photoshopessentials.com/photo-editing/sharpen-high-pass/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;high pass filtering&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, basically increasing the contrast of large details without adding noise. Used in moderation it improves the, well, clarity of the image, especially when there is low contrast or flare. Also looks good on clouds. When overused it makes everything look a bit plasticy and fake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;vibrance&lt;/strong&gt; slider selectively boosts the less saturated colours. This increases the overall colourfulness without pushing existing colours too far (which can happen when you increase saturation). Again if used too much you'll get something that is painful to look at. You can combine increasing vibrance with decreasing saturation which evens out the colours even more, I find this helpful to boost blues and greens whilst keeping skintones in check.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are the main ones that are tricky in their operation, perhaps you could be a bit more specific about which settings you'd like to understand better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-19T13:26:00.573" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T13:26:00.573" />
  <row Id="7249" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7252" CreationDate="2011-01-19T13:14:52.783" Score="8" ViewCount="325" Body="&lt;p&gt;I stitch together a fair number of panoramas (using &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.autopano.net&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;AutoPano Pro&lt;/a&gt;) and I'd like a way to better organise them in Lightroom, in particular:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I want to mark the fact that a photo was taken as part of a panorama&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I want to mark the fact that an imported photo is a stitched panorama&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Finally I want to be able to link the stitched panorama to the original photos that it was created from, so when I find a panorama I want to edit I can find the originals.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The ability to launch AutoPano pro automatically with the selected pictures is an added bonus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm a programmer myself and the SDK seems straightforward enough, so if it comes to it I'll just write a plugin myself - I just wondered if someone else has already done one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1522" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-19T16:18:46.963" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T03:47:15.377" Title="Identifying and tracking Panorama photos in Lightroom 3" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;panorama&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="7250" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7254" CreationDate="2011-01-19T15:07:18.133" Score="4" ViewCount="196" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon use only 4 digits in the filename (eg: IMG_1234.jpg)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My camera has wrapped around the file numbering so that I now have 2 photos on the memory card with the same name. Picasa fails to import the newer photos with names that already exist on the card. I tried browsing the camera via USB with Windows XP and only one file is shown for the given filename (unsurprisingly). When I copy it onto the machine it is the older photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't want to delete any files from the card as it is a handy backup for me since I am 4 months into 12 months of travelling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't have EOS Utility installed and can't find it on Canon's website. Nor do I have a CF card reader.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any suggestions for how I can get my latest photos off my camera and onto my laptop?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks,&#xA;Matt&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T10:51:24.293" Title="How can I import 2 photos from my 7D that have the same filename?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;picasa&gt;&lt;canon-7d&gt;&lt;import&gt;&lt;filenames&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7251" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7243" CreationDate="2011-01-19T15:13:40.107" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Maynard's answer gives a lot of specific information he uses for tagging and I agree with it, but for me it all boils down to this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Try to think of every possible term someone might use when searching for which you think your image would be an appropriate result.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T15:13:40.107" />
  <row Id="7252" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7249" CreationDate="2011-01-19T15:37:41.973" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's a partial answer based on how I track my HDR photos (similar situation where an external app, in my case Photomatix Pro, creates the images and they are then imported to Lightroom).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I save the tonemapped images out of Photomatix to be imported to Lightroom, I include &quot;tonemapped&quot; in the filename.  I then &lt;strong&gt;use a Lightroom Smart Collection&lt;/strong&gt; to automatically identify my tonemapped HDR photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I solve the &quot;link the finished photo to the ones it was created from&quot; by &lt;strong&gt;using Lightroom's Stack feature&lt;/strong&gt; to group the HDR with the original source images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps this will help you begin some organization or at least inspire you as to possible solutions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T15:37:41.973" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7253" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7250" CreationDate="2011-01-19T15:49:13.307" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most cameras increment the folder number when the photo number wraps round. I'm sure the 7D does this. The FAT32 filesystem used by the camera doesn't support multiple files with the same name unless they are in different folders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;XP is fully compatible with FAT32 so if you plug the card in directly and it's on the card then you should be able to see it in Windows. Unfortunately Canon haven't made it so the camera acts like a USB mass storage device (like other manufacturers do) so you need a card reader to actually have full access to your photos!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-19T19:08:59.710" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T19:08:59.710" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7254" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7250" CreationDate="2011-01-19T15:49:39.750" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can confirm that the EOS utility does import the duplicate files without any problems (and, as a side point, faster than Picasa too).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For some reason the EOS utility is not on Canon's website and my CD is a few thousand miles away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luckily I've found a workaround:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Download EOS Utility updater from Canon's website&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Edit your registry (see below) to trick the updater into thinking you have already installed a version&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Run the updater.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I added the following registry entries for my system:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Canon\EOS Utility]&#xA;[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Canon\DPP]&#xA;[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Canon\ZoomBrowser EX]&#xA;[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Canon\PhotoStitch]&#xA;[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Canon\EOS Capture]&#xA;[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Canon\EOSViewerUtility]&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more info, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/install_canon_software.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the site that helped me&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If anyone has more info on the cause of my original problem or other solutions, I'd love to hear them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks,&#xA;Matt&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="190" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T15:49:39.750" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7255" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7249" CreationDate="2011-01-19T16:52:05.513" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've got the panoramas labelled 'panorama' and the sources labelled 'source' so I can identify in which category something falls but not which source made it into which panorama.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that it is not a one to one relationship because sometimes I take shots and form several panoramas from them, say one 360-degree, one stereographic and one more typical wide one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Someone suggested to me to use stacking to remove the visual clutter but I have not tried it yet since it is minimal because I have the sources and panoramas in different folders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T16:52:05.513" />
  <row Id="7256" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7257" CreationDate="2011-01-19T17:17:08.923" Score="2" ViewCount="106" Body="&lt;p&gt;I always have the setting &lt;code&gt;Automatically write changes into XMP&lt;/code&gt; enabled. Unfortunately as I'm still often improving/experimenting with my workflow, I tend to delete/create catalogs every once in awhile. For this reason, I also have refrained from using more of the collection-based features e.g. keywords because I'm afraid I may lose some data when deleting a catalog.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What data is stored &lt;em&gt;exclusively&lt;/em&gt; in a LR3 catalog? And if I delete a catalog, what data will I lose, if any?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2565" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-19T17:35:04.727" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T17:35:04.727" Title="Lightroom: What data is stored in a Catalog vs. What can be stored in a XMP sidecar?" Tags="&lt;lightroom-3&gt;&lt;lightroom-catalog&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="7257" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7256" CreationDate="2011-01-19T17:30:36.027" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The XMP sidecar will store data about a &lt;em&gt;specific&lt;/em&gt; image, such as (but not limited to):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;keywords&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;title&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;caption&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ratings / colors&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;geoencoding&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lightroom catalog file stores data about your &lt;em&gt;organization&lt;/em&gt; of images.  Such data might be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the file/folder locations for your images&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;collections / smart collections&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;stacks&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;workflow steps, such as whether an image has been uploaded to an online service&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;other data added to a catalog by third-party plugins&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hopefully this helps clear up what data can be stored in XMP vs. what needs to be stored in the catalog.  Of course, one big distinction is that data in the catalog is specific to Lightroom, while data in a XMP sidecar file can be read by any application which reads XMP.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T17:30:36.027" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="7258" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5082" CreationDate="2011-01-19T17:31:21.097" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the top photo it looks like long exposure was used, as you can see many 'ghosts' of people. I'm guessing that the light shafts were so pronounced due to cigarette smoke in the air.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3344" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T17:31:21.097" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7259" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7261" CreationDate="2011-01-19T17:39:13.063" Score="1" ViewCount="155" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am trying to use Applescript to automate a task in photoshop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When attempting to open a file:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;tell application &quot;Adobe Photoshop CS5&quot;&#xA;&#xA;    -- Open the first image&#xA;    set filePath to alias &quot;Users:jameshale:Pictures:DSC_1273.jpg&quot;&#xA;    with timeout of 5 seconds&#xA;        open filePath as Camera RAW&#xA;    end timeout&#xA;&#xA;end tell&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The result is an error:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;error &quot;Adobe Photoshop CS5 got an error: Can’t get alias \&quot;Users:jameshale:Pictures:DSC_1273.jpg\&quot;.&quot; number -1728&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What am I doing wrong?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-J&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="907" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T18:26:44.470" Title="Applescript, Photoshop, Opening Files" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;automation&gt;&lt;applescript&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7260" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7243" CreationDate="2011-01-19T17:50:21.063" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wrote mine up here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chuqui.com/2010/10/some-thoughts-on-lightroom-keywords/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.chuqui.com/2010/10/some-thoughts-on-lightroom-keywords/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;it's gotten really nice feedback and been pointed to by a good number of bloggers, and it works really well for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T17:50:21.063" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7261" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7259" CreationDate="2011-01-19T18:26:44.470" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Applescript in Photoshop CS5 is pretty broken according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.adobe.com/thread/632681&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this thread&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;tell application &quot;Adobe Photoshop CS5&quot;&#xA;    set theImage to &quot;/Users/jedrek/Pictures/temp.jpg&quot;&#xA;    with timeout of 5 seconds&#xA;        open alias theImage as Camera RAW&#xA;    end timeout&#xA;end tell&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T18:26:44.470" />
  <row Id="7262" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6998" CreationDate="2011-01-19T18:45:18.633" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First: DUPLICATE the important slides and/or negatives. This will give you a 'second chance' should anything go wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basic idea to preservation is keeping it in a cool, dark, dry location. Exposure to light will wear the ink and fade the images. This site: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.yesteryearmemories.com/store_negatives.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.yesteryearmemories.com/store_negatives.asp&lt;/a&gt; has a good explanation of film preservation techniques.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second: Ensure that whichever plastic you use to seal out the air is archival quality (NOT Ziploc). This means the acidity is nil and has a pH of 7.0. Exposure to acidic materials (like paper) can wear the film or photo over time&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-19T22:05:49.970" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T22:05:49.970" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7264" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-19T18:54:26.110" Score="1" ViewCount="215" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have a seldom-used D40 that I'd like to use for some timelapse projects so as no to burn out my new D7000. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The D40 doesn't have a built-in intervalometer, and tethering to a laptop, while possible, isn't terribly practical for the type of shots I'm planning. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm seeking either a wired, wireless or exotic firmware solution to adapt the D40 for this purpose. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Kris&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3224" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T19:33:01.160" Title="Intervalometer for Nikon D40?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;timelapse&gt;&lt;nikon-d40&gt;&lt;firmware&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="7265" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-19T18:57:31.990" Score="0" ViewCount="126" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a casual photographer who is considering migrating to Lightroom. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have my own photography library organized in folders: First, by years, then by themes. For instance:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2009&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Travel to Greece&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;0001.jpg&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;0002.jpg&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Spring&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;0001.jpg&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;0002.jpg&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mike&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;0001.jpg&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;0002.jpg&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2010&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How could I import my library automatically and get Lightroom collections that represent my old folder structure?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3347" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T14:12:16.433" Title="Migrating to Lightroom, how to recreate Collections from my old photo library" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="7267" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7265" CreationDate="2011-01-19T19:01:55.387" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can import that whole structure of files into Lightroom by starting with the parent folder (whichever folder contains your year folders) and Lightroom will bring the photos in and show the heirarchy in the &quot;Folders&quot; panel of the Library module.  That will let you keep using your current structure if you wish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why do you want to duplicate this hierarchy as a set of collections?  What advantage or benefit would that provide?  Collections are great in that they allow for an arbitrary grouping of files regardless of file/folder location.  Smart collections let you make this grouping automatic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're trying to use Collections just like Folders, you probably aren't getting the benefit of using Collections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T19:01:55.387" />
  <row Id="7268" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7271" CreationDate="2011-01-19T19:04:20.247" Score="12" ViewCount="264" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many people recommend a focal length of 35mm, 50mm, and sometimes even 85mm and upwards for those interested in purchasing a prime lens. I, however, would like to figure out what focal length(s) I use most often, and then purchase a prime with that approximate focal length.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a piece of software that will analyze thousands of photos and then tell me how many times I used a certain focal length?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3072" LastEditorUserId="1356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-19T20:00:31.617" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T03:43:32.053" Title="Software for determining most frequently used focal length" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;prime&gt;&lt;focal-length&gt;&lt;statistics&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="7269" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7268" CreationDate="2011-01-19T19:24:39.083" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe ExifTool (http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/) can be used to produce this kind of analysis, but it requires some technical command-line knowledge. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, see this: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/code_martial/3280664879/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/code_martial/3280664879/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1125" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T19:24:39.083" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7270" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7264" CreationDate="2011-01-19T19:33:01.160" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since you said you're willing to consider an exotic solution, I did some Googling and it seems there aren't any ready-made and readily-findable intervalometer options for the D40.  But there seem to be a lot of build-it-yourself folks who offer solutions &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.freekonline.net/2009/07/04/nikon-d40-intervalometer-project/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;such as this one&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T19:33:01.160" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7271" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7268" CreationDate="2011-01-19T19:37:09.300" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Someone referred me once to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exposure Plot&lt;/a&gt;. This is a &lt;strong&gt;free&lt;/strong&gt; Windows utility which is very simple. It shows you graphs of different parameters, one of them being focal-length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you already use image management application like &lt;strong&gt;Lightroom&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;Bibble Pro&lt;/strong&gt;, then you can also usually see that data in the &lt;em&gt;filter&lt;/em&gt; interface.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Lightroom for example, you need to activate the filter bar (/), select &lt;em&gt;Metadata&lt;/em&gt; and change one of the columns to show &lt;em&gt;Focal-Length&lt;/em&gt;. You'll get to see all the focal-lengths used and the number of photos taken at each focal-length. What's neat is that you can combine things like rating and focal-length, to find out which focal-length is used in your best images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T19:37:09.300" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7272" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7273" CreationDate="2011-01-19T20:41:42.917" Score="9" ViewCount="442" Body="&lt;p&gt;How can you tell when your images are being used without your consent?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, How can you find your images being used in the real world?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I imagine the most prolific medium using images irrespective of copyright would be the web, then print, and so on...  Are there ways you can detect your images' usage? If so, how do you go about it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-19T20:50:51.847" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T04:46:53.383" Title="How do you detect when your photos are used without copyright permission?" Tags="&lt;copyright&gt;" AnswerCount="6" />
  <row Id="7273" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7272" CreationDate="2011-01-19T20:44:28.613" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know about print, but for the web..&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tineye.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.tineye.com/&lt;/a&gt; is a reverse image search used for these kinds of purposes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T20:44:28.613" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7274" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7272" CreationDate="2011-01-19T21:54:12.640" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Other than &lt;a href=&quot;http://tineye.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tineye&lt;/a&gt; - which doesn't work all that well - you can't. The world is too big, and you're too unknown for your fans or representation to realize that your work was used at to let you know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T21:54:12.640" />
  <row Id="7275" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7272" CreationDate="2011-01-19T22:15:28.460" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard about a site called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imagerights.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.imagerights.com&lt;/a&gt; , it'll not only find your images, but it'll also help you to get paid (They take a cut, but it's not bad, so...) They'll let you use their finder service for free, they only ask that you use their recovery service as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T22:15:28.460" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7276" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7277" CreationDate="2011-01-19T22:25:55.800" Score="1" ViewCount="89" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi all,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I guess this is my debut question. I sure hope someone has had a similar experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been editing photos with LR 2.7 on 2 drives (a local MacBook Pro drive and an external Seagate formatted as NTFS). You might be wondering, &quot;Hrm, why is this guy using an NTFS drive on his MacBook if all he can do is read it.&quot; Well, that's the problem, I was using the external drive on another desktop for a while and then moved to using LR on my Mac without realizing that I was working with a read-only volume until just recently (the catalogs are being stored on the local drive). Ugh!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So here's the plan, and this is where I'd love some advice:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Copy all photos off of the external drive and onto another.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reformat the external drive as FAT32.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Move all the previously copied photos back over to the reformatted drive.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Open Lightroom, navigate to the drive, and PRAY TO ALMIGHTY GOD that it is able to match all the catalog data with the photos on the drive.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any thoughts on the last step? I'd love to hear from someone who has migrated their photos before. I'd love even more if someone could tell me exactly how the catalog matches the LR data (stored in XML file(s) right) to the filesystem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I'm a software engineer, so technical details are welcome :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks so much,&#xA;Adam&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1645" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T12:01:40.760" Title="How should I migrate photos so I don't lose my Lightroom edits" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;storage&gt;&lt;lightroom-catalog&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="7277" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7276" CreationDate="2011-01-19T23:13:29.453" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As long as you keep the folder structure the same, it shouldn't really matter. If the folders come up missing, you can always point LR to the correct spot. You could also use Lightroom to move the folders originally, then use it again to move it to the new drive (thus eliminating any possible issue at all).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3349" LastActivityDate="2011-01-19T23:13:29.453" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7278" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7282" CreationDate="2011-01-19T23:29:15.763" Score="10" ViewCount="510" Body="&lt;p&gt;Particularly with an emphasis on studio setups and portraits, what are the different kind of light modifiers (softboxes, umbrellas, etc) and what are they used for?   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For bonus points, what kinds of household items, if any, can be easily substituted (if even on a small scale)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: So, apparently this was broader than I realize (I knew I was casting a wide net, but I think I underestimated the knowledge and &lt;em&gt;gumption&lt;/em&gt; of our community).  I wouldn't hold it against anybody to just hit some &lt;em&gt;major&lt;/em&gt; ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="5080" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T12:24:43.103" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T12:24:43.103" Title="Different light modifiers and their uses?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;studio&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="7279" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7272" CreationDate="2011-01-20T00:21:55.143" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I asked David Hobby (of Strobist) fame, who has had several recent high-profile cases of infringement. He &lt;a href=&quot;http://twitter.com/#!/strobist/status/27864043565883392&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;replied&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Helps to have 500k pairs of eyes out there noticing things for you...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...which, I think, is a pretty good critique on the state of infringement detection for the masses. :-\&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T00:21:55.143" />
  <row Id="7280" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7276" CreationDate="2011-01-20T00:25:06.503" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have migrated my photos to a new install of lightroom a couple of times. In my experience lightroom intuitively figures out where the photos in its database are located. Keep your folder structure the same, and it will be able to locate the files and update its database. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1125" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T00:25:06.503" />
  <row Id="7281" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7278" CreationDate="2011-01-20T00:56:02.860" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wow, big question... Here's the parts that I know (or think I know &lt;em&gt;grin&lt;/em&gt;) anyways:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Softboxes&lt;/strong&gt; are a means of diffusing the light in a controlled manner, they effectively make a small light source, which tends to create hard shadows, into a large light source and that softens the shadows.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Umbrellas&lt;/strong&gt; are very similar in behaviour to softboxes and you can often use them somewhat interchangeably, especially when using a shoot through. However, there are some differences in behavior that kind of depends on the type. A bounce umbrella will spread the light quite a bit, making it less controllable than a softbox. A shoot through, and this more based on what seems to be the case for me, will lose more light than a softbox because it won't have the backing reflective.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Octabox&lt;/strong&gt; is very similar to a softbox, but the light spread is shaped differently and wraps around a subject a bit more.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Snoot&lt;/strong&gt; is used to concentrate the light. The longer the snoot, the more concentrated. Basically, this will take a larger light source and make it smaller, isolating the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Grid&lt;/strong&gt; is also used to concentrate the light, but not as sharply as the snoot will. You can use to isolate as well as to create sort of a &quot;spotlight&quot; look, especially when used in combination with an octabox.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Barndoors&lt;/strong&gt; are basically gobos that block the light from travelling in a certain direction. In some lighting setups, you might use a barndoor (or more) to avoid the light from the flash directly hitting the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reflectors&lt;/strong&gt; are used to bounce the light, sometimes operating as the fill light, reflecting from the key light. Different colors have different effects on the nature of the light and its strength. For example, gold will warm the light, silver will highly reflect it, and white would be less reflective and fairly neutral in temperature.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gels&lt;/strong&gt; are used to adjust the color and the temperature of the light. They either correct the light or radically change it, depends on what you want to do with it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now... A lot of these kinds of things can be made at home for very little. I have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.grumpyjohns.com/?p=154&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lengthy tutorial&lt;/a&gt; on doing a some of these for a speedlight, but those won't translate up to studio strobes, they're quite a different beast when it comes to heat and power, it's better to buy the gear there. Other people have done light diffusion using things like tupperware, paper, roasting pans, and more. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diyphotography.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DIY Photography&lt;/a&gt; site has tons of articles on this sort of thing, it's a gold mine of info (and you'll trip across my tutorial there which was flattering to me).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, that's my basic knowledge of the stuff. I'm sure much more detail can be added and there are a few that I didn't cover because I haven't used them. These are the mods that I personally have (for studio strobes and speedlights) and use, so my info is just my observations on them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T00:56:02.860" />
  <row Id="7282" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7278" CreationDate="2011-01-20T01:20:49.680" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wow, this is an extremely broad question, as there are dozens of light modifiers, but I'll cover the most important ones for strobe lights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, light modifiers are all about &lt;strong&gt;controlling light&lt;/strong&gt;. Whatever you decide to do with, you want to keep a reign on it. As such, we can split modifiers into two main groups: soft and hard modifiers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Soft modifiers&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Modifiers that soften light generally work by diffusing it - spreading it out over a large surface so that light rays are scattered. They are used anywhere you want to reduce shadows and make things look smoother. Their number one use is for key lights in people photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most popular of these modifiers are umbrellas and softboxes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Umbrellas include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/shoothrusm.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Shoot through umbrellas&lt;/a&gt; - these are semi-transparent umbrellas that you place in front of your light source. They work just like putting a lampshade over a lamp's bare bulb, you place them between the subject and the strobe. Imagine that they &quot;filter&quot; the light like a sieve.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alzodigital.com/images/equipment/umbrella_silver_black_backed_600w.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Reflective umbrellas&lt;/a&gt; - these are opaque, black outside and are usually silver, gold or white inside. These are placed open-side to the subject, with the strobe pointed away from them, straight into the umbrella. The inside reflects the light, scattering it in every direction. The various liner materials determine the color and quality of the light being reflected.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Umbrellas come in all shapes and sizes, from tiny ones to ones over 3 meters across, and are easily the most popular modifier you will find. Their main advantages are their small size, low price and versatility - you can shoot with a folded reflective umbrella for a very specific light quality. Their biggest disadvantage is a lack of control they give over light spills.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is really no home-brew solution for umbrellas. They are extremely cheap (&amp;lt; $10), which is about as much as a real umbrella you would have to hack up costs. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Softboxes include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3aANd9GcQw5tXbRBKdtgN-kkrO7h4kc637DPhBzXvs_1gJ3waCB0cmtIhelA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Softboxes&lt;/a&gt; - these are usually pyramid-shaped constructions, lined with a silver material, with room for a strobe at the top of the pyramid and diffusion cloth at the base. They come in almost all dimensions, from tiny inflatable(!) ones for speedlights, to huge, studio-only setups that require multiple light stands to hold. Their biggest advantage is their ability to control light spill and to accept modifiers. They are heavier, bulkier (even folded down), more expensive and take longer to set up than umbrellas. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://kaffebrus.com/manualer-p24.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Octas&lt;/a&gt; - there are two versions of the octa: either as a softbox with a octagonal shape, or as a hybrid softbox-umbrella, which is what I'll be writing about here. A strobe is placed inside something akin to a deep umbrella, then diffusing cloth is placed behind it. In practice, this creates extremely soft light as light is first scattered off the reflective material inside the &quot;umbrella&quot;, then diffused again by the cloth. With large octas it's difficult to support the entire modifier off the front of the strobe, so some manufacturers (Elinchrom, Profoto, etc) have octas that mount on the light stand and allow you to place the strobe inside it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Softboxes are what most people think of when they think of studio photography, so they make a good impression if someone's coming to pose for you. Using additional modifiers, like a grid, flag or filter on top of your softbox can give you even more control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key in softboxes is diffusion, you don't need to literally make a softbox, you can throw a bedsheet over a broomstick supported by two chairs and you'll make yourself an excellent, soft light source. You can literally make a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dphotojournal.com/images/tips/diy-softbox.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;soft box&lt;/a&gt; by lining a cardboard box with aluminum foil and pulling a sheet over it, but the comedic effect while shooting portraits might be a bit too much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hard modifiers&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hard light is the default with strobes - that's what we get when we fire off a speedlite or on-camera flash. A small point of light that brings out imperfections and coarse textures. Shoot it from the side and it'll make a child look like they have awful skin. Still, it's extremely useful to have controlled beams of light (think: rimlights/hairlights) and it's absolutely critical in product photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are four basic types of hard modifiers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photoflex.com/Pro_Products/Strobe_Flash_Lighting/Accessories/StarFlash_sup__reg___sup__7_inch_Reflector/1154552875_main6reflector.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Reflectors&lt;/a&gt; - these are the standard bowl-shaped accessory that pretty much every studio strobe sold today ships with. Their only use is to cut down light spill to the sides when using a bare bulb (which is rarely done) and when using umbrellas or grids. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://img3.prosperent.com/images/250x250/site.unbeatablesale.com/img071/bi1277.gif&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Grids&lt;/a&gt; - these are literally metal grids of various thickness and density. The black tubes they form work extremely well to stop scattered light rays coming from the strobe bulb, creating a thin, relatively soft beam of light. The quality of light is determined by the density of the grid, while the size of the beam (expressed in degrees) is determined by the thickness of the grid. Grids often also include gates, which are movable flaps on each side of the grid which allows for finer, tighter beam control. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://multiply.com/mu/mawnum/image/1/photos/8/500x500/19/snoot-accessoire-studio-photo.jpg?et=WbxMl5PJaPB7xTOrTXu%2CYQ&amp;amp;nmid=365419218&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Snoot&lt;/a&gt; - a very simple construction, this is usually just a slightly tapered tube of black metal. It creates a very harsh, small beam of light.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_a2DXd3J5wHw/TAssHzvx75I/AAAAAAAAM68/Cawv8tbpnQ0/s1600/beauty_dish_Med_1.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Beauty dish&lt;/a&gt; - this is the most complex and - in my opinion - nicest of the hard modifiers. A small reflector (usually silver, gold or white) is placed in front of the strobe, while a bowl-shaped reflector is placed around the strobe. This creates a very even, hard light with an extremely sharp drop-off. Used almost exclusively in people photography, it's extremely useful as a key light, especially for people with good, smooth skin (or makeup). As the name implies, it is extremely popular in beauty photography. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as DIY solutions, Strobist has a huge &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/search/label/DIY&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DIY section&lt;/a&gt;, but be warned: a lot of the store-bought stuff is a lot sturdier and gives better results than the DIY equivalents. You can fake a snoot on a speedlight using a cardboard tube painted black on the inside, but past that... just get the chinese knock-off. Again, instead of recreating these modifiers in a home setting, look at what they do with the light and try to emulate that. A single soft light source as a key, a big piece of white paper as a reflector will give you very nice results. You can always cut up the paper, replace part of it with aluminium foil, put a flag between your model's eyes and the light source, etc. The possibilities are endless. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;General observations&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember, light is just light, most of these modifiers can be (and are!) mixed and matched: grids on snoots, diffusion material on beauty dishes, grids on softboxes (these are almost always cloth), silver backs for shoot through umbrellas, etc. There are also tons of different names for everything I've listed above, I just used the ones I'm most common with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Three critical components of studio work that I didn't cover as they aren't strictly light modifiers, but are worth talking over: flags, scrimms and bounces. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flags - anything that's not a light modifier that blocks light. Professional flags tend to be black cloth or paper stretched on a frame that has a small handle protruding to make it easier to place on a stand. At home you can use pieces of black paper and just tape them where they need to go, or maybe black cloth if you need to stop a white wall from reflecting. Used mainly to control light spill and keep down highlights.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00F/00FOp5-28415384.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Scrims&lt;/a&gt; - these are panels covered in diffusing cloth, placed where light needs softened locally. You know those outdoor TV scenes where it's a bright, sunny day, yet all the actors are lit by nice, soft light? That's a huge scrim over their heads. At home, just use a piece of white cloth, you're good to go.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bounces - also known as bounce cards. Literally, anything that will reflect enough light to be useful, but usually opaque white, silver or gold material stretched out on a frame, but you you'll often see mirrors used for this. Usually used in contra to a key light as a way of lightening (or opening up) shadows created by the light. The type of material determines the light's quality, the distance from the subject and light determines the bounced light's intensity. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That should cover it, I'll update if anything else comes to mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T01:20:49.680" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7283" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7278" CreationDate="2011-01-20T01:59:35.937" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When discussing the effects of various modifiers, I find &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diyphotography.net/lighting-modifiers-cheat-sheet&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this cheat sheet from DIYPhotography&lt;/a&gt; to be extremely helpful, as it provides a visual language for the various options.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/udijw/4594949854/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Lighting Modifiers Cheat Sheet by udijw, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3311/4594949854_9346b5d3a2.jpg&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;480&quot; alt=&quot;Lighting Modifiers Cheat Sheet&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T01:59:35.937" />
  <row Id="7284" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7285" CreationDate="2011-01-20T02:05:40.980" Score="7" ViewCount="233" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi All,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To filling my appetite on camera things hunger I've came across to sigma website and found this 3 layer sensor stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone really explain this based on their experience or research about this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anybody has a hands on this sigma SD15 or sigma SD1 DSLR since I was only directed and influenced to the big brand in this industry?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3217" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-20T02:33:39.200" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T03:44:08.933" Title="different between mosaic and foveon 3 layer sensor?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;sigma&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="7285" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7284" CreationDate="2011-01-20T02:31:06.003" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bayer&lt;/a&gt; sensor used by the vast majority of cameras is basically a two-by-two grid of sensors with 1 blue, 1 red, and 2 green sensors known as a Bayer filter named after the Kodak Labs scientist that came up with it. The data from such a sensor then must go through a demosaicing process that converts the 4 data points into a pixel giving the result of the 3 color merge. The reason for 2 green sites is that the human eye is reported to be more sensitive to green and so the color is emphasized in the system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveon_X3_sensor&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Foveon&lt;/a&gt; model, which totally fascinates me, is an approach to follow a more traditional film style. In this context, the idea is that the three primary bands of light operate at different wavelengths and so penetrate the sensor material to different depths, the premise of color film. In this case, blue is the least penetrating and red the most, so by stacking the layers, they can detect at each photo site the level of each of the primary colors. The technology, as a result, eliminates the moire pattern than can result from the demosaicing algorithms associated with a Bayer filter and give a more accurate result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm really excited about the Foveon technology and I'm looking forward to seeing where Sigma takes it. They've finally produced and APS-C camera with this sensor, so when the reviews and samples finally hit, I'm going to be looking at them closely. Having said that, I think the camera makers have done a very good job with the Bayer model, it's a proven and well-understood means of image capture and that can be seen from the often stunning results. If the Foveon exceeds that, we're in photography nirvana. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, I linked some relevant Wiki articles on the two which I think will really help you see the differences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T02:31:06.003" CommentCount="35" />
  <row Id="7286" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7276" CreationDate="2011-01-20T02:39:16.307" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you lose the location of an image or folder, Lightroom will ask you to locate it and then will start finding the other ones from there. I have done this task moving from an 80GB to 500GB drive and it worked no problem. The key is to just keep the relative locations accurate - or at least for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1901" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T02:39:16.307" />
  <row Id="7287" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7272" CreationDate="2011-01-20T03:40:50.177" Score="-3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How can you tell when your images are being used without your consent?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;you can't&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many faulty systems that can check for image similarity, you've already got a variety of answers regarding their mixed results. Those systems don't take &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fair use&lt;/a&gt; into account anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're hosting images on the web, you &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; programmatically check for &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotlinking&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;hotlinking&lt;/a&gt;, but the damage is done. When you put something on the internet, you've lost all hope of ever keeping people from using your stuff,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;and that's the beauty of it all.&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's what the internet is all about, sharing stuff you made and letting other people share it. To think that you can &lt;em&gt;stop&lt;/em&gt; people is incredibly &lt;strong&gt;vain&lt;/strong&gt;. Not everyone lives in your country, and therefor not everyone has to comply with the copyright laws of your country.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you &lt;strong&gt;do&lt;/strong&gt; find someone using your work, ask them nicely if they'll at least cite their sources. It's the polite thing to do, and polite people will often comply.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2474" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T03:40:50.177" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="7288" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7268" CreationDate="2011-01-20T03:43:32.053" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For Lightroom users, Jeffrey Friedl's Data Plot plugin is great...&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/data-plot&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/data-plot&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What's nice about that is being able to filter your photos in Lightroom, keepers, 5 star rated, certain lenses, whatever, then seeing the focal lengths for just those photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="50" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T03:43:32.053" />
  <row Id="7289" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7249" CreationDate="2011-01-20T03:47:15.377" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many ways to do this in LR3 and it comes down to personal choice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the often overlooked sorting tools is assigning a color attribute to photos. I assign shots that are solely used as part of a pano to have a red attribute. Then I can filter my collections to exclude them automatically. This way only finished images including finished panos are shown. The underlaying images that make up the pano are hidden unless I specifically want to see them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The filtering can be done by making a preset (upper right corner of the grid display) and these presets can be locked so that they affect every module by default.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not claiming this method is the perfect answer, but it works for me and I think that's the point. Figure out what makes sense to you and your workflow - keywords, flags, color attributes, rating stars, stacking, filtering, collections, whatever. They can all be useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2873" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T03:47:15.377" />
  <row Id="7290" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7291" CreationDate="2011-01-20T04:18:52.543" Score="5" ViewCount="118" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am on a very limited budget (small start-up with little funding), and would like some stock images, whether photos or line-drawings, for a website and some brochures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I addition to the standard &quot;man with glasses starting intently at computer screen whose contents he does not understand&quot; and such-like business images, I need images in several fields:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;oil &amp;amp; gas (refineries, rigs, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;industrial-maritime (freight liners and the like)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;measurement&quot; which is sort of a vague concept, sorry&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;communication&quot; which is another. Latops/PCs communicating via WiFi, public 'phone network or satellite with a database&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of these are definite objects (large ship) and some are concept (network). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can someone recommend a good stock photo site for me? Thanks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3005" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-24T16:18:45.320" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T21:17:36.947" Title="Which stock photo site for industrial / maritime / communications images?" Tags="&lt;stock-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="7291" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7290" CreationDate="2011-01-20T04:37:57.867" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's a few good micro-stock sites I can recommend. I'm almost certain each site will have what you are looking for, at affordable prices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bigstockphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bigstockphoto&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://us.fotolia.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fotolia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dreamstime.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dreamstime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.shutterstock.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Shutterstock&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-28T19:39:08.197" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T19:39:08.197" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7292" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7272" CreationDate="2011-01-20T04:46:53.383" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is one service that I believe is definitely heading in the right direction, it adds a digital 'watermark' in to your images and then has a search engine constantly looking for them on the open internet.  You simply 'watermark' them before first posting on the internet and then is &quot;borrowed&quot; then they can be traced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This may not be perfect now, but if it grows then it's index of images will certainly be a basis for what is some sound technology.  Obviously this is only good for digital format where the image is indexable on the web, it won't find printed material .. the only way there is the 500k pair of eyes mention by another post.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Starting at $100 for a year of service with 2,000 images watermarked and searched for it is certainly within the reach of most serious photographers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.digimarc.com/DigimarcForImages/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://www.digimarc.com/DigimarcForImages/&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1410" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T04:46:53.383" />
  <row Id="7293" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7295" CreationDate="2011-01-20T05:20:20.837" Score="6" ViewCount="190" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just started experimenting with spot metering + exposure compensation. I'm wondering if it's possible to make adjustments during post processing to correct the metering. I'm &lt;strong&gt;pretty sure&lt;/strong&gt; (correct me if I'm wrong) this is not the same as adjusting the exposure during post processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, I try to meter off of someone's face and find that it is a little washed out (overexposed). I then increase the shutter speed a bit and take the shot again, repeating the process until it looks like I got the metering right. Can I just adjust the exposure compensation after the fact? If so, what should I be looking for (in programs like Aperture and Lightroom)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2746" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-08T16:30:54.167" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T16:30:54.167" Title="Can spot metering be corrected in post processing?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;metering&gt;&lt;spot-metering&gt;&lt;exposure-correction&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="7294" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7284" CreationDate="2011-01-20T05:35:28.427" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been shooting Sigma DSLR's for a number of years, since the SD-9.  I got into the system when I was moving out of film SLRs into digital and did a lot of research before I made the leap. I too came across the the Foveon chip and the design of it struck me as much more sound than the Bayer design on a conceptual level; plus I really liked the images I saw coming from the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way to think about the difference here is that a traditional Bayer sensor it really taking three separate photos - one green, one red, one blue.  For a 14MP Bayer sensor the green photo is has 7 million pixels, while the red and blue images have 3.5 million pixels of data.  None of that data spatially overlaps; that is to say if an object were just one pixel high as captured by the sensor it could vanish in any one of the images depending on color.  At any given spatial location 2/3 of the color data is discarded.  So while the output you get from a 14MP camera might have 14 million pixels in it, it's essentially a re-sampled and upsized version of the image with greatest detail - the 7 MP green image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the foveon side, there is no-where a color in the image can &quot;hide&quot; because at any given sensing location, the full spectrum of light is captured by the three layers of sensors and so there is not as great a need from input from neighbors to resolve what the sensor saw.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The end effect is that Foveon sensors will not be fooled into thinking fine detail is really some kind of color (color moire), and the level of detail captured is constant because no fine detail is accidentally discarded.  The bayer sensor discarding 2/3 of the light at any point can sometimes drop fine detail that the Foveon chip will resolve - again it depends on scene color.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because the level of detail in a Bayer sensor is variable, it can be very hard to compare with the Foveon chip as far as detail captured - but a rough rule of thumb is that a Foveon image will capture around the same level of detail as a Bayer camera with 2/3 of the Foveon MP rating (or sensor count).  So for example the upcoming SD1 has 46 million photosites (sensors) which means you can expect similar levels of detail to a 30MP bayer image.  But this is again an image without color moire, without an AA filter in front of the filter (when you don't worry about color moire you don't need an AA filter).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see some interesting examples comparing the original Canon 5D to the Sigma SD-14 here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Especially note what happens shooting color targets to get a sense of how detail can vary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So all the technical stuff aside, what does the sensor do well with?  Because it's capturing the full spectrum at every pixel and the same level of resolution regardless of color, I think it captures subtle tonal changes really well.  That means really nice skies, or anything else with gradual changes in color or tone.  As such they produce really nice images for B&amp;amp;W conversion also, because of the very smooth transitions between tones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pbase.com/kgelner/image/90304998&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pbase.com/kgelner/image/90304998&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/oMbmb.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/kigiphoto/5308324073/in/set-72157625711613108/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/kigiphoto/5308324073/in/set-72157625711613108/&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/WcwjQ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pbase.com/kgelner/image/108588990&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pbase.com/kgelner/image/108588990&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/i8wUP.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(full size versions of each of those images can be found at the links).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where the sensor has had issues, is with higher ISO - the current cameras can do ISO 3200 when asked:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/kigiphoto/4684772878/in/set-72157624236424558/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/kigiphoto/4684772878/in/set-72157624236424558/&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zO4V6.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but really 800 is more of a realistic limit to most shooting (unless you are shooting for B&amp;amp;W and then those images can hold up really well because of the nature of the noise). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Sigma cameras are not really oriented to people starting out with photography, because they don't offer a lot of assist modes or things of that nature... so be aware of that if you are thinking of getting into the system.  The easiest way to get into trying out the sensor for yourself is the Sigma DP-1 or DP-2, earlier versions of the cameras can be slower to use but all of them will give you a good taste for the detail and color the images capture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that I am obviously not an unbiased source, since I have enjoyed using the cameras for a long time.  So the other thing to do even before getting a camera is to go exploring images from the sensor in more detail.  I provides some above and you can explore my sites as I generally only shoot Sigma cameras, but you can find a ton of example images from all of the various cameras Sigma has produced here (also with full size images to be found):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also you can find a ton of great info at Carl Rytterfalk's blog:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rytterfalk.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.rytterfalk.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Somewhere in there he has sample RAW packs you can download, and various things talking about Sigma cameras, lenses, and the Foveon sensor.  He's a great photographer and very enthusiastic as you'll see if you watch any of his videos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:  Carl has just written a lengthy post of &quot;Why I use Sigma&quot;, which directly applies to this question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rytterfalk.com/2011/01/20/why-i-choose-sigma/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.rytterfalk.com/2011/01/20/why-i-choose-sigma/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The summary of his reasons are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nuances (in color)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Density&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Micro contrast&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;True sharpness&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dynamic Range&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which he goes into in more detail at the link, along with some more images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One side note I forgot to mention, that is not really directly about the sensor, but is about the Sigma specific DSLR's that house the Foveon chip - you can easily use them for IR work as well just by removing the dust protector on the camera (built to be user removable and reinstalls without any tools).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastEditorUserId="1192" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-22T03:44:08.933" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T03:44:08.933" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7295" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7293" CreationDate="2011-01-20T05:37:26.390" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's only one exposure level (ie: amount of light) per picture; spot metering just means that the &quot;target&quot; level is based off of a particular area rather than the average of the whole frame (or some fancier means such as matrix).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another means of setting the exposure level is through  your manual controls (shutter, aperture, ISO). If you're changing your shutter and getting a new (non-washed-out) exposure level, then it sounds like this is what you're actually doing -- not spot metering. (If you were changing your shutter and still getting a similar exposure, then you'd probably be in aperture priority mode, and the camera would be compensating; this could still be using spot metering.) Note that you can &lt;em&gt;base&lt;/em&gt; your exposure off the results of a spot meter, but the minute you change your dials you're effectively in manual mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can change your effective exposure in post-processing, and get similar results as changing it in-camera. Of course, the results may not be exactly the same: shutter speed will change your blur; aperture will change your depth of field, ISO will change your noise, post-processing could introduce all sorts of artifacts. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The nice thing about post-processing programs is that they will let you &lt;em&gt;selectively&lt;/em&gt; adjust exposure. You could change just part of your image area, or you could change the contrast, or change the brightness of one particular color. And, of course, you could undo and redo your changes without taking a new picture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly: note that if you overexpose your shot in-camera too much, you'll &quot;blow out&quot; the brighter part of your exposure and lose detail. This is difficult-to-impossible to fix in post production. It's also particularly a problem with digital imaging; film works differently in this respect. Most higher-end digicams will have a &quot;blinking highlight&quot; function that will show you when &amp;amp; where you've done this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastEditorUserId="48" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-20T05:45:38.293" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T05:45:38.293" CommentCount="11" />
  <row Id="7296" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7293" CreationDate="2011-01-20T05:43:54.127" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're shooting RAW, you may have a little (or alot on some newer sensors) of wiggle room with your exposure.  But, how your camera metered to measure the light to expose the scene in camera doesn't mean ANYTHING after you take the picture.  Spot metering is just how the light meter in your camera thinks it needs to expose the current scene (and for spot in particular, just the specific, very small place you indicate). You can check the exposure of your scene after the shot by reading the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/450/how-and-why-do-you-use-an-image-histogram&quot;&gt;histogram&lt;/a&gt; and your camera may have an option for blinking blown highlights (way over exposure and unlikely to be recovered).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fixing this is just the &quot;normal&quot; exposure adjustment during post processing.  While you may have some wiggle room when shooting RAW, its &lt;strong&gt;always&lt;/strong&gt; better to get it right &lt;em&gt;in camera&lt;/em&gt;.  You can darken and lighten the exposure in post with Lightroom using the &quot;Exposure&quot; slider for the whole picture, or selectively in areas by using the &quot;adjustment brush&quot;.  Adjusting too much this way is likely to lead to ill results though, such as artifacts or loss of contrast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-20T06:54:06.377" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T06:54:06.377" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="7297" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7300" CreationDate="2011-01-20T09:39:06.863" Score="4" ViewCount="299" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am purchasing a Canon 550d primarily to document my fiance's artwork for archival purposes.  I would like to know &lt;strong&gt;what lens&lt;/strong&gt; or lenses you would recommend in order to &lt;strong&gt;minimise distortion&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will be photographing the work indoors, using artificial light (thanks for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6533/canon-t2i-for-shooting-artwork&quot;&gt;suggestions about lighting and other technical matters&lt;/a&gt;).  The artwork is primarily 2D, up to 3 meters long on its longest size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We were considering buying a the kit EF-S 18-135mm IS lens as a versatile lens, however I suspect the ~$300 could be better spent on a more specialised lens.  While this is around the current limit of our budget, an initial purchase of this magnitude could be followed by later, more expensive lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have no existing system of SLR lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3356" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T13:03:25.190" Title="Lens for shooting paintings with Canon 550d" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;artwork&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="7298" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7297" CreationDate="2011-01-20T09:48:24.560" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You'd be best off getting a medium telephoto to minimise distortion - upwards of 80mm I'd say, with a cropped sensor camera. Sigma make an excellent, sharp 105mm lens, the 105mm EX-DG Macro f/2.8, which is about &lt;a href=&quot;http://camerapricebuster.com/Sigma_105mm_f2.8_EX_DG_Macro_pc.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;£350-£400&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'd need to set up the camera a fair way back from the photo, but should get good results with this sort of focal length. Make sure you stop down as much as is practical to ensure as much of the painting is in focus as possible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T09:48:24.560" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="7299" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7250" CreationDate="2011-01-20T10:51:24.293" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Take the card out and put it in an sd reader. You can pick up and SD Card reader for next to  nothing these days so cost should not be an issue. Just don't get one that is too cheap as it may corrupt your card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you browse the File System you will see that there are multiple folders in the DCIM folder, these folders roll over when your camera hits 9999 photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2680" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T10:51:24.293" />
  <row Id="7300" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7297" CreationDate="2011-01-20T10:54:19.767" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think a 50mm 1.8 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_50mm_f_1_8_ii&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_50mm_f_1_8_ii&lt;/a&gt; would be ok for your work, considering that you have pieces that are up to 3m long you will need a long room to fit the painting with a 105mm lens.&#xA;Also the 50mm is cheaper, sharp and you will have enough money left to invest in color management to render the colors of the artworks as accurate as possible, or, buy some lights. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3357" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T10:54:19.767" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7301" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7297" CreationDate="2011-01-20T10:57:50.277" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am new on this site and I can't post more than one link in an answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tools I use for colormanagement.&#xA;The RAW-Processing Accelerator&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.datacolor.eu/en/products/photo-color-tools/spydercube/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.datacolor.eu/en/products/photo-color-tools/spydercube/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;The spyder cube will help you a lot with the processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3357" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T10:57:50.277" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7302" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7324" CreationDate="2011-01-20T11:00:35.267" Score="14" ViewCount="442" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have read that longer exposure times lead to increase/improved saturation and that landscape photogs use ND filters to allow for longer exposures to get better saturation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this true and does this technique apply to both film and digital. If true for digital, why? Surely, the sensels receive the same number of photons for a particular EV regardless of the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, is the quality of increased saturation much different than what you would get from just pumping up saturation in PS?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T21:53:28.243" Title="Does longer exposure increase saturation?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;filters&gt;&lt;digital-vs-film&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7303" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7284" CreationDate="2011-01-20T11:01:00.697" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have lots of praise for Sigma for trying something different and innovative, and on paper the Foveon sensor is a very good idea. However I disagree with the way Sigma refer to their current model with 4.6 million photosites (each of which is sensitive to colour as well as intensity) as have a 14 megapixel sensor! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Multiplying the number of photosites by three to get the Bayer equivalent would be ok if the colour channels were uncorrelated with each other. However in real scenes the colour channels vary from mildly correlated to strongly correlated. Take this following example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have a 5MP Foveon sensor and a 15MP Bayer sensor. Each sensor has 5 million red pixels 5 million green pixels and 5 million blue pixels. You are photographing a grey cat sat on a big block of grey concrete. As the light coming from the scene is all grey, the red green and blue pixels in each sensor all receive the same amount of light. However in the Foveon sensor you end up with three identical readings on top of each other which is not very useful, giving only 5 million unique data values. In the Bayer sensor they are displaced laterally giving a potential 15 million unique values. The Bayer image would not even need demosiacing, so would contain a lot more detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a very contrived example, however correlated colour channels do occur quite often, and this is why Bayer interpolations works. When photographing a yellow object the red reading gives you information about what the green reading would be even though unlike the Foveon there is no green pixel there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In real world testing due to correlation the resolution is equivalent to just over 2x the Bayer, not the 3x Sigma claim. This means the current flagship Foveon model with 4.6 million photosites is roughly equivalent to a 10 megapixel Bayer (though they will still have slightly different qualities, lack of colour Moire in the Foveon for example). This leaves Foveon lagging a bit behind the 24MP 35mm DSLRs. The current Foveon also struggles in low light as light has to penetrate two layers above in order reach the final layer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Future:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So based on that my current advice would be to go with a Bayer camera, however it will be interesting to see what the future holds. After a long hiatus Sigma have announced the SD1 with a 15.4 million photosites. There's no release date yet but if they can pull this off in a decent body it would give the 24MP Nikon D3x a serious run for it's money! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other side of the coin Bayer resolutions go up at a steady pace and are backed by simply economics (more people are making Bayers in larger numbers). As sensor resolution increases, whithout corresponding improvements to lens sharpness, Moire and other Bayer artifacts become much less of a problem. Eventually a Bayer sensor with high enough megapixel count will give you the same effect as the Foveon, but with the pixels side by side not on top of each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T11:01:00.697" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="7304" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7297" CreationDate="2011-01-20T11:03:43.280" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Monitor Calibration&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.datacolor.eu/en/products/monitor-calibration/spyder3pro/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.datacolor.eu/en/products/monitor-calibration/spyder3pro/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3357" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T11:03:43.280" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7305" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7297" CreationDate="2011-01-20T11:09:08.383" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's hart to get a good lens in the $300 price range.&#xA;You can have good results with the 18-135 EF-S lens as long as you a have enough light to shoot at F8 and enough distance to have your focal length between 70 mm and 105 mm. This is your best option on this budget.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3358" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T11:09:08.383" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7306" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7302" CreationDate="2011-01-20T11:46:13.760" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know anything about this, I use ND filters for Waterfall shots and in the sun to get my aperture to f/8, f/11 where the lens is more sharp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I didn't notice any saturation improvement.&#xA;Maybe this rumor started from photographers that use cheap filters that will alter the color a little bit. I know this because in the past those ND filters where my only option :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3357" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T11:46:13.760" />
  <row Id="7307" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7276" CreationDate="2011-01-20T12:01:40.760" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make a backup of your catalog.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the pictures won't appear on lightroom after reformatting you can rightclick on the folder in library and relocate the folder.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also use lightroom to copy all the files to the new hard drive.&#xA;Make a folder in the new HD with a picture in it, import it into lightroom, now just drag &amp;amp; drop the folder from the NTFS HDD to the new folder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3357" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T12:01:40.760" />
  <row Id="7308" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7302" CreationDate="2011-01-20T12:17:04.420" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Firstly I can't think of any reason a longer (sunlight) exposure would affect saturation nor have I heard of this idea before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a couple of things that might be causing confusion here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Longer exposures can cause individual pixels to be saturated, in the sense that they can't store any additional charge. This is a totally different use of the word however.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Under artificial light a longer exposure can result in better colours as the spectrum emitted by incandescent and fluorescent bulbs varies over a 50Hz or 100Hz cycle and so you want to capture several full cycles. You wouldn't normally need an ND filter indoors though!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Landscape photographers make regular use of ND filters to get long exposures to blur water or other moving objects.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want really saturated colours you need to underexpose slightly. This is because with the RGB model as colours get more saturated one channel might hit the maximum possible value (and start clipping) before the others even though the overall tone is jot that bright. Also the colour gamut (the range of possible colours) is at its highest in the midtones (middle brightnesses) as you get brighter the number of colours, and their saturation decreases until you hit peak brightness, where there's only one colour (white) which has zero saturation! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So there are cases when you might use an ND to prevent overexpsoure (and thus desaturated colours) but it's got nothing to do with &lt;em&gt;exposure time&lt;/em&gt; (shutter speed). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-20T12:24:58.340" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T12:24:58.340" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="7309" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7265" CreationDate="2011-01-20T12:57:29.007" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I may be mis-understanding your question slightly (if so, please put me right in a comment).  I think that you are asking how to get Lightroom to replicate your existing folder structure so that your images in Lightroom are grouped together in the same way as they already are on your compluter's hard disk.  Is that right?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Give that, here's my best answer... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Lightroom organises images into folders&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These may or may not reflect the actual folder structure on disk.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;When you first import your images, you can tell Lightroom to leave them where they are and to use your existing folder structure as the Lightroom folder structure.  If you do this then you will see the same thing in Lightroom as you see on your disk.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Lightroom uses collections differently&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lightroom collections are different beasts (but very useful):  they allow you to group together images from different folders.  (e.g. you might want a collection of your best images in 2010, or all the pictures of your children).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I think your problem is already solved?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T12:57:29.007" />
  <row Id="7310" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7297" CreationDate="2011-01-20T12:57:39.380" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When photographing artworks for sale, I use Canon's 24-70 f/2.8, which is way out of your budget; However, the reasion I do this is that with a compatible camera body, it stores a lens profile in the image produced that can correct for distortions during post-processing. A list of &lt;a href=&quot;http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/846/cpsid_84666.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;currently supported lenses is available from the Adobe website&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You don't need a lens &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; expensive though; If you use the RAW mode on your camera and use Adobe Lightroom, then you can correct most distortions by hand, if a lens profile is not available. In which case, I'd probably look to recommend a lens that is going to be flexible and allow you to work in tight situations, such as in the artist's studio. You won't be needing a particularly wide aperture/narrow depth of field for this (otherwise the 50 f/1.8 is one of the best value for money Canon lenses), but you might need some fairly wide angles for some of the larger pieces, if you are in confined spaces, in which case, I'd probably err towards the 18-135 that you're already considering - it might mean a little more work getting the post-processing sorted, but it is a good all range for use as a general purpose lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-20T13:03:25.190" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T13:03:25.190" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7311" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7302" CreationDate="2011-01-20T13:26:49.903" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I always understood it to be that it was down to accuracy in timings of the mechanical shutter: If you consider that, in most modern cameras, a shutter consists of two moving curtains, there will be a time (albeit really quite short, but not perfectly the same every time) for how long it takes to release the shutter, and have each curtain start to move. For the sake of argument, let's say the random error introduced by this mechanical error is +/- 10 microseconds; If you then consider that at a really fast shutter speed of 1/8000 sec (so 1/8 ms or 125 microseconds) then you random error can account for being out by 8%. If you introduce a neutral density filter that takes the exposure down by 4 stops to give an exposure of 1/500 sec, then that 10 microseconds error is all of a sudden only 0.5% of the exposure time. A more accurate exposure time, is less likely to differ to the metered exposure and be over (or under) exposed&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-20T20:19:28.173" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T20:19:28.173" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7312" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7313" CreationDate="2011-01-20T13:51:03.807" Score="2" ViewCount="70" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I work on images in Photoshop, I normally do a number of adjustments (spot healing, dodge/burn, curves, etc) before I mess around with blending modes.  I then merge visible to a new layer and apply Soft Light.  I don't really like to do this though because I might then stack additional adjustment layers on top of this blended layer.  If for any reason I need to change the layers beneath this new layer, the Soft Light layer won't reflect the change.  Is there a way to apply blending modes without duplicating layers?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3181" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T13:59:30.940" Title="Soft Light Blending Mode without Duplication" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="7313" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7312" CreationDate="2011-01-20T13:59:30.940" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When you finish editing the picture, select all layers and convert them to a smart object instead of merging the layers.&#xA;Then duplicate your smart layer to apply the blending mode you want. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3357" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T13:59:30.940" />
  <row Id="7314" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7317" CreationDate="2011-01-20T14:04:55.150" Score="14" ViewCount="322" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a spot that I like to take sunset pictures. I find that the most spectacular moments last for only maybe 5-10 minutes. What I would like to do is know about a half hour before that a sunset is going to be spectacular, so I can grab my camera, tripod, walk 5-10 minutes to my sunset spot, set up, and have a few minutes to spare in case something happens. However, I've often missed really cool sunsets, because I just don't know when to photograph them. How can you tell beforehand when a sunset is going to be spectacular? Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T02:38:52.690" Title="How can you tell when a sunset is going to be spectacular?" Tags="&lt;weather&gt;&lt;sunset&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="7315" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7265" CreationDate="2011-01-20T14:12:16.433" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Simply import the root folder of your hierarchy. Do that multiple times if you have more than one &lt;em&gt;root&lt;/em&gt;. This will import everything in there. You will be able to navigate that old structure because Lightroom supports navigation by folders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may have been confused by some answers because in Lightroom there is a distinction between folders and collections but you can navigate both just as easily from the left pane in the Library view. The top structure represents folders, the bottom collections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Collections are more flexible than folders because they do represent a disk directory and images can belong to multiple collections. To preserve your folder hierarchy, you do not need to use collections, simply let Lightroom import folders as folders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is exactly as I work. Things get organized by folders and imported in-place. From the &lt;strong&gt;Import Dialog&lt;/strong&gt; make sure to choose the &lt;strong&gt;Add&lt;/strong&gt; operation (it says &lt;em&gt;Add Photos To Catalog Without Moving Them&lt;/em&gt; under that option when selected).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then you can also use collections to organize things in orthogonal ways at the same time. So you can have images you've taken over several years in the same place (which would be in separate directories in your folders) to show up in one collection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T14:12:16.433" />
  <row Id="7316" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7314" CreationDate="2011-01-20T14:24:40.847" Score="-3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/nature-photography-forum/000plC&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://photo.net/nature-photography-forum/000plC&lt;/a&gt; first answer&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3357" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T14:24:40.847" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7317" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7314" CreationDate="2011-01-20T14:57:41.477" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my experience, if there's lots of cloud overhead, but a break in the cloud towards the western horizon, then as the sun dips below it will illuminate pretty much the whole sky. Don't forget that the best lighting occurs AFTER the sun has actually set. Make sure you have some foreground interest too, if possible, just to add a bit of depth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T14:57:41.477" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7318" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7142" CreationDate="2011-01-20T14:57:44.737" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your Mileage May Vary, but here's what I have done: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fill or mostly fill the frame with your face&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use a darker, plain background to make your face stand out from it&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You might want to use a little touch of flash on you to achieve this&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Simplicity rules - complex images won't work at small sizes&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having written that, I can now see all the ways in which I failed to follow this advice with my own current avatar!  (&quot;New Avatar Pic&quot; added to the to-do list).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;update&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OK - now I've updated my gravatar.  I feel less of a hypocrite!  ;)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Thank you, @Ken - you have motivated me to action!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-20T15:06:05.007" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T15:06:05.007" />
  <row Id="7319" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7325" CreationDate="2011-01-20T16:15:54.293" Score="8" ViewCount="323" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm thinking of buying a telephoto lens for my Canon 550D (3x zoom isn't very helpful), but I won't be able to do very good macro shots with it. Since I do a lot of both, I would be switching lenses quite often, which isn't too good for the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, what should I do if I want to take different kinds of pictures and keep my camera clean on the inside? I was hoping that there exists a lens with over 12x zoom which can also do fairly good macro shots, but I might just be wanting too much ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2566" LastEditorUserId="2566" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-20T16:22:18.033" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T21:17:58.293" Title="What should I do to avoid switching lenses?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;telephoto&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="7321" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7319" CreationDate="2011-01-20T16:31:04.697" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Having the perfect lens 8-400mm F2.8 with no distortion, vignetting and as sharp as a razor doesn't exist and will not exist.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;So if you want to take pictures of subjects so different that you would need a macro lens and a telephoto, then it seems that you will have to get used to change your lens.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Better get used to do it properly to minimize the dust problem (you will end up with dust anyway, whatever you do), rather than miss some shots or restrict yourself to a given type of photography because you don't want to change your lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, an easy solution would have to have two bodies, each one with its own lens, but it's not really handy outside.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2807" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T16:31:04.697" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7322" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7142" CreationDate="2011-01-20T16:31:10.783" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You want to basically just treat an avatar as you would any other portrait, keeping in mind that you want it to me a very simple image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are several items to keep in mind to simplify the image:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Minimize the background details, making your subject(s) very clear&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Color contrast between your subject/background&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fill the frame with your subject (keeping in mind that avatar images are often 1x1 ratio)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shallow DOF which goes along with minimizing the background details&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Consider your lighting setup, using a lighting technique that makes the subject &quot;pop&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6601/what-is-rembrandt-lighting-and-when-do-i-use-it&quot;&gt;Rembrandt Lighting&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6656/what-is-split-portrait-lighting&quot;&gt;Split Portrait Lighting&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6772/what-is-butterfly-lighting-and-when-do-i-use-it&quot;&gt;Butterfly Lighting&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-20T16:37:57.123" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T16:37:57.123" />
  <row Id="7323" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7319" CreationDate="2011-01-20T16:47:22.243" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;It's a Choice - As Ever, Money Helps&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You're absolutely asking the right question.  Changing lenses as rarely as possible is the best way to minimise dust in the camera.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are a few of my suggestions to keep you shooting with different focal lengths without changing lenses:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Second body&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Have you got a few hundred $$ spare?  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Zoom with big range&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Some options:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jacobsdigital.co.uk/p-48936-jacobs-digital-canon-ef-28-200mm-f3556-usm.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;canon 28-200&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-28-300mm-3-5-6-3-Macro-Canon/dp/B0009XQPJ8/ref=sr_1_17?s=electronics&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1295541097&amp;amp;sr=1-17&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sigma 28-300&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-18-200mm-3-5-6-3-Canon-lens/dp/B0007U0GYS/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1295540767&amp;amp;sr=8-4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 18-200&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Screw-on adapter&lt;br&gt;&#xA;For macro shots, you can get great results by screwing an adapter &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B001QX3KMU/ref=oss_product&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;like this&lt;/a&gt; on the front of your lens.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The more money you can throw at this problem, the less you will have to sacrifice convenience and quality.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T16:47:22.243" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7324" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7302" CreationDate="2011-01-20T16:50:21.243" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What you may have heard is that you should slightly over-expose your digital shots with modern DSLRs when wanting better saturation.  Similar to film, where you'd under expose so that you don't &quot;lose data&quot;, if you over expose your digital shot, without clipping the highlights, then you'll have a better saturation without noise when you adjust it in post-processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reasoning behind this thought is that it reduces the noise is shadows since digital sensors are better at picking up information in the highlights than they are in the shadows.  Because of the heat and electrical interference within the sensor the lowlights and shadows will have random data picked up due to the sensors own errors.  This increases with the ISO setting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you under-expose a digital shot by 1/3 or 2/3 stop, like you would in film, then you increase your chance of having to deal with noise in the lowlights and shadows during post-processing.  This is a result of having to boost values, and therefore the errors already present from the noise, in the dark areas of the composition. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this reason, many digital professionals will tell you to over-expose by 1/3 or 2/3 stops so that you can then lower the stops in post production, since the sensor picks up more information in the highlights than it can in the lowlights and shadows.  This only really works with the newer cameras with 14-bit RAWs, otherwise you ran the risk of clipping the highlights and losing just as much information as you would if you under-exposed the shot.  This works because the highlights and actual like are strong enough, and the values are high enough, that it overrides and electrical and heat interference on the sensor.  But again, the results are going to vary based on the ISO and exposure length used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1141" LastEditorUserId="1141" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-20T19:59:09.820" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T19:59:09.820" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7325" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7319" CreationDate="2011-01-20T16:57:08.143" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Changing lenses is the single best thing about having a DSLR, if you want 12x zoom and macro ability without ever changing lenses you want a bridge camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Changing lenses often isn't bad for the camera per se, I go through days when I do 10 or 20 lens changes. The wear on the mount is totally negligible. Whilst you obviously want to keep the inside of your camera clean, never changing lenses isn't the best way to go about it....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm afraid there is already a load of dust debris, tiny bits of plastic etc. inside the camera from when it was manufactured. The body is also not airtight even when a lens is mounted, and moving parts wear over time shedding tiny particulates that all contribute to dust.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best way to keep it clean is to wipe the sensor with a special alcohol wipe when necessary. It's surprisingly easy (its worth noting that you're not wiping the sensor itself, but a hardened piece of glass that's stuck on the front. The need for this depends on what you're shooting - dust becomes more visible the more you stop down. I can go for months without cleaning if I'm mostly shooting in low light with wide apertures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's very hard for dust to irreversably ruin a photo (unlike a poor lens). It tends to only be visible against a plain background, which means it's easy to clone out in software. It's obviously better not to have the dust there, but the ability to get rid of it after a photo has been taken helps prevent me staying awake at night worrying about dust! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-20T17:21:49.927" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T17:21:49.927" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7326" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7328" CreationDate="2011-01-20T17:24:56.020" Score="9" ViewCount="352" Body="&lt;p&gt;What's the right way to use spot metering? Is it better to use in manual mode than one of the priority modes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are questions about when to use spot metering, but none that serve as a tutorial to describe &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; to use it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please address the issue of exposure compensation. I am under the impression that spot metering is hard to use in aperture priority because you can't (to my knowledge) over/under expose an image in these modes since the camera will adjust other variables to get the proper exposure. (So I need to meter off something that is gray-ish since I can't meter off something black and compensate?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question is motivated by &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7293/can-spot-metering-be-corrected-in-post-processing&quot;&gt;another one that I asked here&lt;/a&gt;. It became clear that I didn't really know how to use spot metering, and @rfusca suggested I ask a separate question about this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2746" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-08T16:30:12.407" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T16:30:12.407" Title="How do I use spot metering?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;metering&gt;&lt;spot-metering&gt;&lt;exposure-compensation&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="7327" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7326" CreationDate="2011-01-20T17:35:52.150" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A spot meter measures the brightness of a small circle in the center of the viewfinder. For example the Nikon D90 uses a 3.5mm diameter circle in the center of the frame, for 100% of the brightness measurement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The simplest way to use a spot meter is to measure a mid-toned area. Unlike a center-weighted meter, something as small as a person's face can be used. The disadvantage is that moving the camera a bit can cause a large change in the brightness reading. This makes the spot meter unsuitable for quick exposures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like a center-weighted meter, a spot meter can also be used to meter white clothing or snow (add +2 exposure compensation) or dark clothing (add -2 exposure compensation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;more on that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.suite101.com/content/how-to-use-digital-slr-camera-metering-modes-a217314&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="2200" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-20T17:47:53.697" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T17:47:53.697" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7328" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7326" CreationDate="2011-01-20T17:37:22.977" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wrote a tutorial about this very subject on my website. You can read it &lt;a href=&quot;http://nickminers.com/2009/05/the-zone-system/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To summarise, there are two advantages to using it in manual mode:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Once you've set your meter for the prevailing lighting conditions, you shouldn't need to worry about the exposure again (unless you need to change the aperture or shutter speed, or the lighting changes significantly)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Using manual mode allows you to move beyond the 2 stop range you get on most cameras with exposure compensation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Learn the zones (see link); then find something in your image that you want to assign to a particular zone. Spot metering is the best way to isolate a small part of your image without any extraneous elements getting in the way of the metering. I now shoot almost exclusively with manual spot metering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course there may be valid reasons why it's not appropriate to use manual mode - you may be shooting in rapidly varying lighting conditions, for example. But learning how to use spot metering in conjunction with manual mode will add another tool to your belt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T17:37:22.977" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="7329" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7319" CreationDate="2011-01-20T17:38:11.227" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;You can have both telephoto and macro&lt;/strong&gt; if you want: it's a wonderful combination.  Have you looked at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_180mm_f_3_5l_macro_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon's 180 mm f/3.5L macro lens&lt;/a&gt;?  Photozone has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/169-canon-ef-180mm-f35-l-usm-macro-labtest-report--review&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;review&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As always, &lt;strong&gt;there are trade-offs&lt;/strong&gt;: getting macro capabilities in a telephoto makes the lens longer and heavier, and it's pricier.  (You could get the beautiful &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_200mm_f_2_8l_ii_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;200 mm f/2.8L lens&lt;/a&gt; for about half the price and it's 330 g lighter.  Optically these lenses are quite similar, but there have been some complaints about the bokeh in the macro lens.)  This is useful to know, because it lets you see what it might be worth to you not to have to change lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your kit lens (the &quot;3X zoom&quot;) has a plastic mount and will be subject to wear and tear.  The better lenses have metal mounts.  They will last longer than the moving parts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It is worthwhile to develop a lens-swapping technique&lt;/strong&gt; that protects your equipment and minimizes the entry of dust and water.  Here is a simple routine that works in almost all situations:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Place the new lens face down (with cap still on) on a flat, horizontal, clean, dry surface (if at all possible).  Loosen, but do not yet remove, its body cap.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Loosen but do not fully release the lens on the camera after attaching its lens cap.  (On the Canon this means pressing the release button but not untwisting the lens yet.)  Keep your hand on the loose lens to make sure it doesn't fall off.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Holding the camera close to your chest with the lens pointing outward, lean over the new lens: this protects everything from direct sunlight, precipitation, and some dust.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Quickly but carefully remove the old lens from the camera, placing it cap down next to the new lens.  The camera will be pointing down at both lenses.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shift the body cap from the new lens to the old lens.  Don't bother to tighten it yet: at least the back of the lens is covered.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lift the new lens onto the front of the camera.  Still leaning, attach the lens.  Do this carefully and apply as little force as possible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tighten the body cap on the old lens and replace it in its bag.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With a little practice you can get very fast at this.  Neither the body nor either lens is uncovered for more than a couple seconds.  The camera, when open, is protected by your body and facing down to limit dust entry.  Perhaps mastering this technique (or any similarly careful procedure you find suitable) will give you the freedom to change lenses as often as you wish and maximize the utility of your equipment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T17:38:11.227" />
  <row Id="7330" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7326" CreationDate="2011-01-20T17:43:03.423" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Aperture and shutter priority don't determine the metering; they determine what the camera will adjust in order to get the correct exposure at the metering used. In other words, if it is possible to get the correct exposure using your selected aperture, then aperture priority mode and spot metering are perfectly compatible. And yes, exposure compensation is how you would adjust the &quot;zone&quot; or &quot;placement&quot; of the object you metered. For instance, if you meter a typical Caucasian skin, the meter will give you a value that will result in a photograph that will be about one stop under-exposed or so. In order to place the skin tone at the right value on the scale, you'd use exposure compensation to &quot;overexpose&quot; by one stop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use spot metering when you know where the object you're metering ought to fall on a tonal scale. Metering off of &quot;something black&quot; is probably not going to be a good idea as a general rule -- black velvet is almost completely non-reflective, and is not going to give the same reading as a black automobile, a black T-shirt etc. On the other hand, if you know where you want the darkest darks and the middle tones of your black car to sit on the tonal scale (and the car is what you are trying to photograph) then metering the car and &quot;underexposing&quot; by two or three stops will get the car right -- but perhaps at the expense of other things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's all about picking out what's most important and making sure that one thing is properly exposed in an automatic mode. In manual, you have the opportunity to meter several areas in the scene and come to your own decisions concerning where sacrifices need to be made when they need to be made (will you have to let the shadows block or the highlights clip, etc.). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T17:43:03.423" />
  <row Id="7331" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7326" CreationDate="2011-01-20T17:44:57.207" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For many scenes you cannot take a picture that will successfully capture details both in shadows and in highlights. Consider a man standing behind the sun. Either a man will be fine and the sky will be plain white or the sky will be great and the man will be plain black. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to correctly expose that picture you have to decide on the compromise between the light and the dark parts of the image and here's when &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adams' Zone System&lt;/a&gt; comes in. It divides the visible world into a count of exposure zones, each one exposure step apart of the other. Using the spot metering tool you can measure an &lt;strong&gt;exact Shutter/Aperture to expose the measured object in Zone 5.&lt;/strong&gt; Knowing that and the desired zone of the object you can make simple calculations to get a perfect exposure. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's say you measure the man against the sun. The face looks nice in zone 5, but you need to save some sky, so you shall expose him in zone 4, which is one step darker. So, if the spot metering gives you f11, you will have to subtract one exposure step and shot the man at f16. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This kind of metering is hard to get with matrix/centerweight metering, so this is why spot metering exists: for the sake of Adam's Zone System.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="341" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T17:44:57.207" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7332" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7326" CreationDate="2011-01-20T17:46:15.150" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You usually use spot metering along with exposure lock. You just point the center of the view finder at the object that you want correctly exposed (as the spot metering only measures a small spot in the center), lock the exposure, then compose the image and take it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How exposure lock is done differs between cameras. On some you press the shutter halfways, others have a separate button.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no problem using exposure compensation in any automatic mode, as long as the camera actually have a setting for exposure compensation. The camera will automatically expose according to the offset that you have chosen, not according to the correct exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(If the camera doesn't have any exposure compensation setting, your only chance to do that is to use manual mode, or measure the light on a surface that is darker or brighter to fool the automatic exposure.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T17:46:15.150" />
  <row Id="7333" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7319" CreationDate="2011-01-20T17:57:02.320" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your 550D vibrates the sensor every time you turn the camera on or off to help minimize the dust issue. I have found it to be very effective on my 50D; my previous bodies didn't have the feature and I had to clean the sensors every so often but I haven't had to clean the 50D at all yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Follow proper procedures for changing your lenses and don't worry about it so much. This is not as big a problem as you are making it out to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2873" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T17:57:02.320" />
  <row Id="7334" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6603" CreationDate="2011-01-20T18:05:44.257" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had this camera. It has this trouble with the mirror, once in a while it stucks at the top. What I did was manually moving it down and then it clicks and stays there. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note, however, that this is a useless item. Wasn't good at the time, now worth nothing, not even a collector's item. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="341" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T18:05:44.257" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7335" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7319" CreationDate="2011-01-20T18:15:50.917" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My first digital camera was a Canon Powershot SD500.  It's a small pocket camera; no interchangeable lens, so no dust problem right?  Wrong.  Somehow, over a period of several years, the thing got several specks of dust in it that got very annoying when taking pictures of anything where portions of the image had a uniform texture.  Since the sensor was rather &lt;em&gt;unaccessible&lt;/em&gt; it was next to impossible for me to clean it myself.  Having it shipped in and professionally cleaned was really not worth it (I was getting interested in buying a better camera by that time).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is, dust is inevitable.  You can do things to minimize the chances of dust but you probably will get dust on the sensor eventually.  With that in mind, ask yourself what kind of compromises are you willing to take to minimize that chance?  Are you willing to compromise your wallet and buy another camera body?  Are you willing to compromise quality and get a screw on macro adapter?  Or, are you willing to compromise a little convenience and just be extra careful when changing lenses and simply learn how to clean dust off when it gets to be a problem?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2214" LastEditorUserId="2214" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-20T21:17:58.293" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T21:17:58.293" />
  <row Id="7336" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-20T18:48:54.217" Score="2" ViewCount="90" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking to buy a flashgun for my Nikon D40 and wondered if anyone could recommend any. I'm on a budget and if I had the money I would go for the SB900, but is there a similar one for a smaller price?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;thank you&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1557" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-20T19:04:07.170" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T14:30:45.600" Title="Flashguns For Nikon D40s" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;off-camera-flash&gt;&lt;nikon-d40&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7338" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7336" CreationDate="2011-01-20T18:57:43.280" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nikon SB-600 is an excellent flash for the price (much cheaper than a SB-900) and I've been very happy with the performance of mine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're looking for TTL capabilties, then I've had decent luck with the Yongnou products and would probably recommend a YN-465 which is extremely reasonably priced (available on Ebay and Amazon typically).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're fine with a manual flash, try a YN-462, the more powerful YN-560, or the highly reputed Lumopro 160 (sold only through &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpex.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Midwest Photo Exchange&lt;/a&gt; I believe).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: I only have personal experience with the SB-600 and the YN-462.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-20T19:16:24.607" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T19:16:24.607" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="7339" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7336" CreationDate="2011-01-20T19:11:24.583" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have and like the SB-600 that @rfusca mentions, but if you're really on a budget then you should also consider the SB-400 as well. It's smaller, which may be good or bad depending on your circumstances. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/sb400.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ken Rockwell raves about it&lt;/a&gt;, make of that what you will.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T19:11:24.583" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7340" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7290" CreationDate="2011-01-20T19:42:27.623" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's well worth &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Ship&amp;amp;l=comm&amp;amp;ss=2&amp;amp;ct=0&amp;amp;mt=photos&amp;amp;adv=1&amp;amp;s=int&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;searching&lt;/a&gt; the Creative Commons licensed images on Flickr, I found a number of very strong images for a port website I recently designed (on a minimal budget).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="821" LastEditorUserId="821" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-21T08:32:47.137" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T08:32:47.137" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7341" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7336" CreationDate="2011-01-20T20:14:07.523" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the SB-400 and a couple of older SB-24's (won't TTL with any Nikon DSLR, but can be used in manual and A-mode). One thing that I appreciate with the older speedlights is the ability to rotate and tilt the head. The SB-400, while compact, can only tilt up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I'd go with a SB-600 (if you can find it, it's been discontinued recently) or the new SB-700 or a used SB-800.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T20:14:07.523" />
  <row Id="7342" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7293" CreationDate="2011-01-20T21:01:32.223" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, that's not possible. The exposure compensation affects how the exposure is measured, so it's applied before the image is taken, not afterwards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can adjust the image to a certain degree to make it appear correctly exposed, but that means that you are losing something else. If the image is too burnt out, you lose details in bright areas. If it's too dark, you will get a lot of noise when making it lighter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I'm pretty sure (correct me if I'm&#xA;  wrong) this is not the same as&#xA;  adjusting the exposure during post&#xA;  processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sorry, you are wrong. Although the information about the exposure compensation is recorded in the meta data, it's not used in post processing. There is no separate setting for exposure compensation in the post processing, you use the regular setting for exposure (which of course doesn't actually change the exposure, but adjusts the image to get the same lightness as an exposure change would have given).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T21:01:32.223" />
  <row Id="7343" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5536" CreationDate="2011-01-20T21:17:14.530" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can make a wired remote shutter release quite easily from a 2.5mm audio plug and a couple of switches, a 5 minute project suitable anyone. After I built mine, found this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dphotojournal.com/canon-hack-shutter-release-for-canon-dslr/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;diagram&lt;/a&gt;. (As i didn't initially have a diagram I just tested all 3 pairs until I found the correct one)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before I added the switches, I just dropped the exposed ends of the wire into a glass of water for long exposure astro-photography. Just pull the wire out when the time is up!!!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T21:17:14.530" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-20T21:17:14.530" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7344" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7383" CreationDate="2011-01-20T21:21:33.213" Score="7" ViewCount="504" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does the Nikon D90 have custom firmware? Doing a quick Google search didn't really warrant anything. And, along similar lines, is the D90 even capable of flashing its firmware? Or are we basically stuck with the stock firmware the camera comes with?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3367" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T08:47:01.373" Title="Nikon D90 Custom Firmware?" Tags="&lt;nikon-d90&gt;&lt;firmware&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7345" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5536" CreationDate="2011-01-20T21:23:23.553" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not T2i specific (works with any SLR body), make a tiny hole in the body cap for pinhole photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T21:23:23.553" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-20T21:23:23.553" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7346" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7314" CreationDate="2011-01-20T21:49:19.217" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You'd most likely be looking for a day with clearly-defined clouds (any amount is fine) that are high in the air, this way, when the sun moves underneath the cloud layer, you can photograph it. If you're lucky, you may even get some shots of sunrays poking through the clouds, as well. ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the more important aspect about this is not the weather, but the location. Bodies of water are spectacular for this type of shot, as are high points of ground (like the tops of large hills and small mountains) that overlook a lot of flat land and/or water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in a nutshell, I'd worry less about the weather and more about where, specifically, you want to take this picture. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3367" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T21:49:19.217" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7347" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7352" CreationDate="2011-01-20T21:50:52.897" Score="6" ViewCount="250" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whenever I view my 12MP photos on my computer at 100% zoom (they're roughly 4200x2400), there always seems to be a lot of grain and noise to the image quality. What, specifically, causes this and what can be done to fix it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Equipment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon D90&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;18-105mm Nikkor AF-S VR Lens (stock)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd prefer not to use any software like Photoshop to remove it (because it's more of a workaround than an actual fix, and Photoshop isn't really in my workflow).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3367" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T11:15:47.310" Title="Cause of grainy photos?" Tags="&lt;noise&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="7349" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7302" CreationDate="2011-01-20T21:53:28.243" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With regards to digital cameras, the only explanation of this thesis I could guess is when photographing in low light conditions. There you typically have two options: to increase exposure time or to increase the camera sensitivity (say, to ISO 1600). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although higher sensitivity often allows getting a sharp image when shooting handheld, the colors and dynamic range of the photo unavoidably suffer. &#xA;A long exposure photo taken at ISO 200 in the same conditions typically turns out much nicer -- with reacher colors, smoother tones and less noise. It does require a tripod, however. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3155" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T21:53:28.243" />
  <row Id="7350" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7347" CreationDate="2011-01-20T21:59:04.607" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most DSLRs are somewhat grainy at 100% digital zoom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use the same body and lens and the best thing you can do is set your ISO low (I keep mine around 200) to prevent noise. The D90 is also acceptable in noise up to 1600.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are having to digitally zoom on your computer to get the right composition you probably need a different lens. Maybe you should invest in a good telephoto lens like the a 70-200 2.8 or a teleconverter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3368" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T21:59:04.607" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7351" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7347" CreationDate="2011-01-20T22:02:02.897" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're shooting indoors, and not using flash, the kit lens is typically much to slow for many, many shots.  Your camera (or yourself) is probably raising the ISO and this is noise due to the increased ISO.  Either get flash, a faster lens, or shoot somewhere with more light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A certain amount of this noise is present in many normal, high quality shots when viewed at 100% - depends strongly on sensor, light, and ISO.  Unless you're printing at 100%, don't fall into the pixel peeping trap. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T22:02:02.897" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7352" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7347" CreationDate="2011-01-20T22:06:45.583" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What you are seeing is an &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_noise&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;image noise&lt;/a&gt; -- random fluctuations that affect sensor pixels and cause them to measure value a bit above or bit below light that actually comes to the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main factor that increases noise is how much is the signal from sensor aplified. There are two things that influence this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Size of sensor pixel: if you have 12 megapixels on 24×16 mm APS-C sensor, each photosite is smaller that it would be on say 2 megapixel APS-C sensor. Therefore is catches less light and needs more amplification. Similarly, 12 Mpix D90 sensor has significantly larger photosites than 12 Mpix compact camera sensor, and thus has less noise. This is one reason people buy DSLRs instead of compact cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;ISO setting on camera. Basically, ISO says how sensitive you want the sensor be, so higher ISO means more amplification. You'll find that lower ISO settings produce less noise in images, and on D90 noise probably won't be noticable at ISO 200 or so.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously, avoiding noise has it's drawbacks, because larger-sensor camera are bigger and more expensive, and using lower ISO might means either opening up aperture and losing depth of field -- provided that you have fast enough lens (fast lenses can also be expensive). The other option is longer exposure time that means risk of blur from camera shake or moving subjects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes, as &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7347/cause-of-grainy-photos/7351#7351&quot;&gt;rfcusa notes&lt;/a&gt;, in 12 Mpix images certain amount of noise only matters when you're examining it in 100% magnification on a computer. Unless you intend to produce huge prints, these viewing conditions happen very rarely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-21T11:15:47.310" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T11:15:47.310" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7353" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7203" CreationDate="2011-01-20T22:11:54.003" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know what your budget is like, but one option that I think would potentially work very well, and have a good &quot;wow factor&quot;, though I'm sure would be expensive, would be a custom solution from the likes of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.perceptivepixel.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Perceptive Pixel&lt;/a&gt;.  Their large multi-touch displays could surely be a great way for your customers to find photos of themselves (and/or their friends), and perhaps even place an order through the interface, to be confirmed and finalized by your staff member.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another option, too, though I don't know if it's readily extant/available, would be to have software that does face detection to match (via a webcam or similar) the person walking up to the kiosk with the database of the images you recorded.  Getting false positives or negatives would potentially be a concern, here, but it sure has the potential to make things quick -- and face detection has been advancing greatly in recent years.  I imagine the Perceptive Pixel folks might be up for implementing such a solution, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're not familiar with Perceptive Pixel, one good introduction would be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac0E6deG4AU&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the talk Jeff Han (founder) gave at TED in 2006&lt;/a&gt;.  It's an interesting talk, with some interesting ideas about the future of user interfaces.  If he's the kind of person you'd want doing your kiosk, then Perceptive Pixel is surely the way to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I am in no way associated with Perceptive Pixel -- I don't work there, I'm not a customer, I don't own stock -- I just have followed them somewhat since first running across the TED talk listed above, and thought of their solutions as being a good fit for what you're describing -- provided you can afford it, at any rate.  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T22:11:54.003" />
  <row Id="7354" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7395" CreationDate="2011-01-20T22:31:50.467" Score="8" ViewCount="231" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was wondering if there was any photo management software out there that could auto detect and &quot;rate&quot; images on how in focus they are.&#xA;This comes up for me quite commonly when i am looking through a large series of macro images of the same subject.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;In a perfect world, light room (or whatever program) could highlight in focus and out of focus ares the same way that it detects burned out areas of an image.&#xA;Also the algorithm i am hoping exists would be smart and would not be detracted by blurred backgrounds and only seeks that some sufficient area is in enough focus.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Anything like that out there?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As another thought for people talking about pictures being in focus on the wrong spot, and that camera focus models already look into this.&#xA;Another large factor for a lack of clarity in a macro image is blur from camera movement.  This damages all points on an image, and is not something the camera accounted for when focusing.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2836" LastEditorUserId="2836" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-21T05:19:54.440" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T11:20:34.430" Title="Auto detect image focus" Tags="&lt;photo-management&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="7355" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7354" CreationDate="2011-01-20T22:44:36.253" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What you are asking for is problematic in the sense that a software based focus detection will essentially use the same algorithm as a contrast based camera autofocus system uses. That means that you need to scan the image and look for the most contrasty place to determine the amount of &quot;focusness&quot;. However, it is possible you were shooting a low-detail (low-contrast) subject, so even though your focus is spot-on your target, still the software algorithm will determine a low focus or out-of-focus image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, how will the software know what was your actual intended focus point? If you're shooting a portrait, and the eyes are mis-focused, the software will detect perfect focus on the ear, but this really is a low-quality or unusable image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T22:44:36.253" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7356" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7354" CreationDate="2011-01-20T22:54:27.273" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a human, I would rather rate them myself with my subjective observation, seeing as I know where the focus should or shouldn't have been, but I suppose there could be a rough way to determine the focus quality of a shot based on the aperture, focal length, subject distance and focus/unfocused areas of the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, long focal length, small aperture, close subject means there is likely to be a small point of focus with a lot of bokeh (for common applications of this recipe).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, short focal length with a longer subject distance means there's likely to be more in focus areas than out of focus areas (think landscape or group shot).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess the &lt;em&gt;most important&lt;/em&gt; thing in any photo is, wherever the most focused area of a photo is, it's &lt;strong&gt;in focus&lt;/strong&gt;. This simple &quot;is the most focused point in focus&quot; check would be one I could possibly use as there's most commonly no point in using an out of focus or back-focused shot unless you think it will work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T22:54:27.273" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7357" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7347" CreationDate="2011-01-20T23:03:38.403" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The D90 (and other cameras as well) has a feature that will automatically boost the ISO in order to get the correct exposure. If you turn this off, then you can set the ISO manually and thus cap the noise levels. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, if you do this, you run the risk of not getting the correct exposure. But this is where a faster lens (as @rfusca mentions) helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T23:03:38.403" />
  <row Id="7358" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="234" CreationDate="2011-01-20T23:28:55.487" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have a look at the Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens, seems like the perfect zoom range for an ef-s camera. To my taste, the wider the better. I read try to keep up with new lenses from canon, but this on escaped me entirely until tonight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastActivityDate="2011-01-20T23:28:55.487" />
  <row Id="7359" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7362" CreationDate="2011-01-20T23:38:38.330" Score="10" ViewCount="533" Body="&lt;p&gt;Maybe this question should be on meta. I've just come across the Canon EF-S 15-85mm. Its been available since 2009. I'm just wondering why it has never been mentioned on photo_se_com or any of the other photo sites that I read. Granted, i've since found it on dpreview announced(not reviewed) and a few other places and it is available at amazon. But it never comes up in lists of &quot;what lenses should I buy&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me, this seems like the perfect walk-about lens (i like wide) for the casual photog and yes, it is a bit slow, and yes it is a bit expensive. My question is, are there any major problems with this lens that would justify its relative anonymity. As I said it's never been mentioned on photo_se_com, which seems odd for such a versatile range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastEditorUserId="3180" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-21T00:04:31.963" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T07:48:40.190" Title="What's wrong with the Canon EF-S 15-85mm?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7360" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7359" CreationDate="2011-01-21T00:01:17.397" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is not a proper answer but my mum has this lens and the barrel distortion is (to me at least) pretty objectionable at 15mm. It just seems like a bit of a nowhere lens, it's not a superzoom, nor is it a fast normal zoom, nor is it a dirt cheap kit lens, it's a compromise of all of the above. Maybe that's why I don't find it too exciting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T00:01:17.397" CommentCount="11" />
  <row Id="7361" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7359" CreationDate="2011-01-21T00:06:48.420" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's a review: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Appears to be a decent lens for the price, but for $700+ USD new, I'm sure for many, there are far more exciting lenses to spend their money on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1141" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T00:06:48.420" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7362" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7359" CreationDate="2011-01-21T00:10:27.183" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It doesn't provide too much advantage over a standard 17/18-55 kit lens: small, variable aperture (3.5-5.6), an only slightly wider wide end, and an only slightly longer tele end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unless you really need both &quot;just a little bit wider&quot; and &quot;just a little bit longer&quot;, you might as well spend your $700 on a lens that fits your needs better: perhaps a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-3-5-4-5-Digital/dp/B0002Y5WXE/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1295568345&amp;amp;sr=8-3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;10-22mm f/3.5-4.5&lt;/a&gt; or an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-18-200mm-3-5-5-6-Standard-Lens/dp/B001ET6QFY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1295568331&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;18-200 f/3.5-5.6&lt;/a&gt;, which would provide a faster aperture at 85mm than the 15-85 listed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I'd rather sacrifice the 15-17mm range, crop if I need 85, and get a faster standard zoom like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000EW8074/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1295568531&amp;amp;sr=1-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;17-55 f/2.8&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, it doesn't really fill any role (wide/long/fast) well; it's just a kit zoom lens with a little bit more zoom capability.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T00:10:27.183" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7363" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7359" CreationDate="2011-01-21T00:13:38.193" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon makes a lot of lenses, and I doubt all of them are discussed frequently. Why are you asking about this lens specifically? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My guess is that in this case is that the lens is fairly new so it doesn't have many owners yet. It overlaps with the kit lens quite a bit, so many people probably don't feel the need to buy it. It's sort of on the pricier side, not exactly a lens I would casually purchase without some research. Basically, I don't know many people who demand a lens with these specs and price. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;edit: I ended up buying this lens as a walk-around vacation lens because it is so versatile. While I believe it isn't truly great in any single respect, the fact that it is &lt;em&gt;good&lt;/em&gt; at almost everything is what drew me to it. It has a very useful range, is &lt;strong&gt;very sharp&lt;/strong&gt;, is not too heavy, has excellent technology including the best IS I have seen and very fast/silent USM focusing. The cons are variable aperture and price (I paid 700 USD, which is overpriced but justified because it will be for vacations).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would argue this may be the useful and versatile EF-S lens out there right now. The 17-55mm may be worth the additional money if you don't need the 56-85 and want a larger aperture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1125" LastEditorUserId="1125" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-14T07:33:44.167" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T07:33:44.167" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7364" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7142" CreationDate="2011-01-21T00:18:22.260" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, nice clear question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As has been mentioned, treat it like a portrait shot. If you want a basic face, then you will probably want a focal length above 70mm and a background at least 30cm away from the subject. And you want to basically fill the field with the subject. This is basic stuff, really, and a good starting point for taking a portrait of any type. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that I've said that, getting creative means knowing what breaking any of those guidelines means. A focal length of 20mm will produce a distinct effect, for example, which might be artistically desired. Putting the subject off-centre, so you get half their face in half the image would be a different artistic decision, but one that makes the background more important. And colour-casts (including monochrome) and other effects take artistic in yet another direction but do have the advantage of helping the image stand out amongst a lot of others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, it is possible for a completely non-portrait picture to work effectively as an avater image. Mine is one such. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3004" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T00:18:22.260" />
  <row Id="7365" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7367" CreationDate="2011-01-21T00:37:22.907" Score="15" ViewCount="618" Body="&lt;p&gt;Cheaper zoom lenes usually are faster at the wide end and slower at the long end(Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6). Constant aperture zoom lenses (i.e more expensive) lenses have the same aperture regardless (e.g.Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is; are these good lenses sandbagging at the wider settings or do they have a different optic system that allows them to maintain the same aperture throughout the zoom range?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-23T16:50:23.263" LastActivityDate="2011-04-23T16:50:23.263" Title="How do constant aperture lenses work?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;lens-design&gt;&lt;optics&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7366" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7365" CreationDate="2011-01-21T01:03:09.877" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a matter of having the correct combination of concaved and convexed elements in place to reduce the lose of light throughout the zoom's range.  While the f/4.0 might seem like your being cheated on the faster aperture, it's more a result of getting as sharp an image without chromatic aberration while keep a consistent timing and lighting throughout your zoom and focal range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon has some very good literature explaining all this, along with how Optical Diffraction &#xA;is being used in some of their newer lenses to counter all the prior downsides to regular optics.  I'll post it as soon as I find it again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1141" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-21T04:28:22.640" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T04:28:22.640" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7367" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7365" CreationDate="2011-01-21T01:04:41.300" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;They have different optics and are usually substantially bigger lenses for the same focal range (compare a 70-200mm f/2.8 to a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 and see that the latter is small in comparison). To get the constant aperture at the long end, you need to have a bigger barrel because the aperture is a ratio versus the focal length. However, if you do the math for your examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;18mm f/3.5 means a 5.14mm opening&#xA;55mm f/5.6 means a 9.82mm opening&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;17mm f/4.0 means a 4.25mm opening&#xA;40mm f/4.0 means a 10mm opening&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's clear that the aperture's physical diameter can be bigger in both cases. So, in either case, you would theorize that at the widest end you should be able to be f/2.0 or thereabouts and your sandbagging scenario would then apply to both. On the other hand, for the latter, the optics may be simplified and thus approaching prime quality in result. So... Tradeoffs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, zooms have pretty complex construction involved, much more so than a prime lens ever would, and so there are a lot of considerations around optical correction at various focal lengths, the effect of the aperture on that correction, and so on. It may be, given the lens design and costs associated, that attempting get wider on the short end would result in a hugely unacceptable softness in the image or some other forms of abberation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, for certain there are different optical constructions between the two. Heck, there's different optical constructions between lenses of the same configuration but different manufacturers. It all comes down to cost versus benefit and, in the end, what price the market will bear for a lens of a given construction. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T01:04:41.300" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7368" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="284" CreationDate="2011-01-21T01:44:25.607" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, if it gets you to be careful about where and how you change your lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No, if it prevents you from getting the shot you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it happens rarely that you see dust, have it cleaned, its cheap and safe to have it done professionally. If it happens often, learn to do it yourself. It takes a few tries but its not that hard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T01:44:25.607" />
  <row Id="7369" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="284" CreationDate="2011-01-21T01:49:20.577" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Naturally the answer is 'it depends.' What does it depend on? What you plan on doing with your camera. To take @che's example, often times newsguys treat their lenses and camera bodies like crap because they know that the pictures they take are often going to be printed in black and white and at a crap resolution anyway. The dust is never gonna show up or noticed!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, the photog who spends more of their time playing around with really wide open apertures, dust just isn't as big of a problem as it becomes when you're working with really small apertures. Ditto for photographers who mostly work in the studio. My primary work is as a portrait photographer and I manage to get around to doing some dust cleanup in my camera body about once every other month...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who spend more time outside, or in heavy weather have more to worry about, but even so I think we tend to baby our equipment more than we need to. I was chatting with a Canon rep at a seminar late last year and he talked about the filter that protects the sensor being 'quite a bit more robust' (his words) and scratch resistant than people give them credit for (especially in cameras that have come out over the last 2 or 3 years). His recommended method for cleaning was wrapping a microfiber cloth around the end of a pencil, rubberbanding it on there, and swiping around inside the camera to clean it out. This is from an official Canon guy. He went ahead and demonstrated on a 5DmkII that he had on the table!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know if I'd go as far as to recommend &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; DIY of a method, but I do think that in general it is easy to implement a cleaning protocol that doesn't involve paying a lot of money to have your camera sent out to be cleaned. There are a couple companies such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.visibledust.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Visible Dust&lt;/a&gt; which market 'safe' cleaning solutions. I use Visible Dust products since I got my Canon 20D about 6 years ago and have never had a problem... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T01:49:20.577" />
  <row Id="7370" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-21T02:26:25.240" Score="5" ViewCount="350" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just as the question says: How do you guys back up your images?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;CDs&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;DVDs&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;SD cards&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Internal/external HDD or SSD&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;USB flash drives&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cloud&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Floppy discs&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Other?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've got a ton of images and very little hard disc space, so I think I'm going to start backing up my images via DVD. I sorta wish I had enough money to buy a bunch of SD cards because I think that would be much nicer (and netbook friendly). I'd really like to hear what you do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Go ahead, what's your backup solution?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="663" LastEditorUserId="663" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-21T02:33:35.183" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T22:12:58.627" Title="How do you backup your photos?" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;backup&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="7371" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7370" CreationDate="2011-01-21T02:38:41.883" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;DVDs currently. Will move to Blu-Ray when it is impossible to buy a machine without a Blu-Ray drive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Optical disks are best because they are virtually indestructible, can be replicated and distributed easily and cheaply, have little value.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/article.php?id=digital-backups&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Read this&lt;/a&gt; if you want to learn more about backup photographs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T02:38:41.883" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7372" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7370" CreationDate="2011-01-21T02:39:23.730" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do all my editing on my laptop (with an extra screen attached). The products of the editing are synchronized to my netbook - even though I won't be doing any editing there, it's a &quot;live&quot; copy of the files, and a layer of redundancy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next redundancy is an external hard drive. I push backups to the drive on a regular schedule.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My third backup layer is Amazon S3, via JungleDisk. Set it and forget it! Costs a few dollars a month for the used space, as well as any additions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used to do backups on CD/DVD, but that was a clunky process, and the common wisdom is that such media can degrade over time, and may not be the most trustworthy. Hard drives are better in longevity, as well as capacity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Floppy discs - hah! I doubt I could fit more than a couple of photos on one of those! Seriously, don't even bother. They are small and error prone, and most computers these days don't have floppy drives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Flash drives are compact and inexpensive, true, and may be suitable if you do not have a particularly large volume of files to back up. But, again, for large capacities, hard drives are the way to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T02:39:23.730" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7373" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7370" CreationDate="2011-01-21T02:44:49.733" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a 2 tiered systems. I back up all of my RAW files on an external HD periodically. I also back up my favorite systems to an online backup system (&lt;a href=&quot;https://secure.smugmug.com/signup.mg?Coupon=cTxVErGafqbBk&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Smugmug&lt;/a&gt;, in case anyone's interested). I can only back up the JPEGs there, but I don't really mind that. In my view, it's alright to back up JPEGs, so long as I've done the best processing first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T02:44:49.733" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7374" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-01-21T02:50:14.830" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-21T02:50:14.830" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T02:50:14.830" />
  <row Id="7375" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-01-21T02:50:14.830" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="DNG is an open RAW format from Adobe, used by all Adobe product and is beginning to be used by additional products." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-21T02:50:14.830" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T02:50:14.830" />
  <row Id="7376" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7370" CreationDate="2011-01-21T03:05:50.417" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use my Windows laptop with a 500GB drive as the master. So far, 7200 RPM drives are increasing in size faster than I am filling them up with photos :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have several external USB drives at work (offsite backup) with at least one 3.5&quot; business class drive holding everything. The other retired old laptop drives hold either RAW images or the JPEGs depending on size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At home, I have a ReadyNAS duo with dual 1TB disks (RAID mirror) that is a copy of the laptop drive, minus the OS partition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use robocopy to synch the laptop to the external drives. For the ReadyNAS, I use rsync (via Cygwin) because I had issues with Samba on the ReadyNAS and file timestamps. About once every six months, I also run integrit on everything to protect against bit rot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3156" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T03:05:50.417" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7377" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7370" CreationDate="2011-01-21T03:18:10.460" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use 2 external HDDs.  One I keep at home.  The other I keep at work as my sort-of offsite home backup strategy.  I sync these 2 disks every few days.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I also host some personal websites with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dreamhost.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dreamhost&lt;/a&gt;.  As part of their hosting package, they provide up to 50GB of free backup space, so I also backup there as well.  If I didn't have that option, I'd probably go for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jungledisk.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;JungleDisk&lt;/a&gt; option as another poster suggested.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;As another poster said, CD/DVDs are too clunky once you start getting more than a few GB of images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1124" LastEditorUserId="1124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-21T03:50:33.320" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T03:50:33.320" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7378" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7045" CreationDate="2011-01-21T04:15:49.170" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi, all. I've found a way to do this. Not elegant, but it works quite well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, go to All Photographs in your catalog and select all of your photos. In the right pane, under Keywording, you will see a text box below Keyword Tags with ALL keywords found (most followed by an asterisk). Copy all of this text and paste it into a text editor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, remove all of the asterisks (I use find/replace to simplify this), as well as the keyword(s) you wish to limit your search to. Once finished, copy all remaining text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, create a smart collection. Add a rule for &quot;Keyword&quot; &quot;Contains&quot; &quot;Single or Multiple Keyword(s) you want to search&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next, add a rule for &quot;Keyword&quot; &quot;Does not contain&quot; and paste the edited text. Voila. Adobe really should have thought this one through, but it is Adobe...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3374" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T04:15:49.170" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7379" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1630" CreationDate="2011-01-21T04:38:46.040" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;At the risk of posting to an old, dead thread, I will say no matter what the technology, you get what you pay for. Especially as SDHC cards become common for SLRs and drive the price down even further, watch out for cheap cards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Buy from a reputable retailer, and don't always but the cheapest card. Especially, watch out for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.overclockers.com.au/wiki/Fake_Memory_Cards&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fakes&lt;/a&gt;. If the deal is too good to be true, it probably is!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3156" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T04:38:46.040" />
  <row Id="7380" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7314" CreationDate="2011-01-21T05:16:06.537" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the things I've learnt about shooting sunsets is do not try to guess when a good one is going to come or not ... if you've decided to go and shoot the setting sun then go and don't let the weather or other conditions deter you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good example of this is one day I was on the way to a chosen spot for a sunset session and a storm rolled in obliterating the light from the sky, I almost turned round and went home but decided if nothing else this would be good practice.  As I was setting up the storm opened a hole in the clouds and the light coming through refracted off the moisture and the resulting image is my most popular one to date! &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thetrueshot.com/Nature_Doesnt_Always_Play_Ball.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.thetrueshot.com/Nature_Doesnt_Always_Play_Ball.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some things you can look for to increase the chances of a good shot are clouds above the horizon that will catch the light on their edges just after the sun sets, also often the best light is 5 to 20 minutes after the sun sets so don't rush off just after the sun goes down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most important thing is simply being at the right place at the right time, the more times you shoot the sunset the more chance there is of having the camera setup with a spectacular light show in front of you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck with your favourite spot!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1410" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T05:16:06.537" />
  <row Id="7381" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7370" CreationDate="2011-01-21T05:24:53.837" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;All images are backed up on an external HDD. Many are duplicated on the desktop and laptop computers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T05:24:53.837" />
  <row Id="7383" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7344" CreationDate="2011-01-21T06:11:33.703" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no way to change the firmware of Nikon's cameras other than upgrades from Nikon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For some Canon digital compacts, there's an unsupported project called &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CHDK&lt;/a&gt; that can add certain features to the cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Allowing Random J Hacker to load weird firmware into his expensive camera is a customer support nightmare. For every person who knows what he is doing, there are 10 that will brick their camera, clog support channels, and destroy what already slim margins exist in the camera business. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastEditorUserId="3114" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-21T08:47:01.373" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T08:47:01.373" />
  <row Id="7384" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7314" CreationDate="2011-01-21T07:03:46.940" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are looking to capture one of those truly superb sunsets that you see from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.marcadamus.com/photo.php?id=3&amp;amp;gallery=favorites&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;many&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.johnfielder.com/fullview.php?id=0229&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;great&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.widerange.org/photo/uncompahgre-sunset/?gallery=favorites&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photographers&lt;/a&gt;, the trick is often to simply &lt;em&gt;wait for it&lt;/em&gt;. Great sunsets don't happen that often, and when they do, you may only have as little as 30 seconds to capture that single magic moment before it is gone. One of the tricks of many great landscape photographers is &lt;strong&gt;vision&lt;/strong&gt; and presence of mind: Being able to visualize ahead of time what a particular vista might look like with that perfect sunset (or sunrise) lighting, and having the presence of mind to BE THERE when it happens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An excellent book that discusses just this topic is &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.marcadamus.com/photo.php?id=3&amp;amp;gallery=favorites&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photography Essentials: Waiting for the Light&lt;/a&gt;&quot; by David Noton. David explains a few times in this book how he would scout out vistas, envision how they might look with the right kind of lighting, and wait for a days, even a week, to be there when that lighting occurred. A lot of landscape photography is seeing the &lt;em&gt;potential&lt;/em&gt; in a landscape when it is dull and lifeless. The rest is just being in the right place at the right time to capture what you envisioned. Since most good lighting occurs around sunrise or sunset, you can imagine how most of a landscape photographers life is spent chasing the perfect light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to provide a simple answer to your original question: You don't &quot;tell&quot;...you &quot;wait&quot;, with expectation, and capture the lighting you EXPECT. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T07:03:46.940" />
  <row Id="7385" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7045" CreationDate="2011-01-21T07:35:36.893" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In theory you should be able to do this with the &quot;starts with&quot; and &quot;ends with&quot; filters. Basically build it as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;matches ALL  &#xA;keyword  starts with  YourOneKeyWord  &#xA;keyword  ends with    YourOneKeyWord&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that doesn't seem to be working. :(&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-21T07:43:04.187" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T07:43:04.187" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7386" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7336" CreationDate="2011-01-21T07:49:05.820" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it depends if you want an on-camera or off-camera flash. If on-camera then I can recommend the Nissin DI-622 which I was given for Christmas (~£100 from Amazon). I was able to take some lovely casual portraits with my D60 and the flash in i-TTL mode. I believe a new version (&quot;mk II&quot;) has just been released with wireless capabilities which will cost about 50% more, but may come in handy in the future should you decide that you want more than one flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you already know you want off-camera flash then I would probably start with &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101-start-here.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101-start-here.html&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T07:49:05.820" />
  <row Id="7387" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7389" CreationDate="2011-01-21T08:28:39.433" Score="4" ViewCount="149" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi, &#xA;I have been invited to take some photos from an ensemble in a conservatory. I do photography a lot, but mostly outdoors and this is going to be my first experience.&#xA;I have a Canon 50D with 2 lenses: 1-50mm and 17-55mm IS(which is horrible ;) ). However, I am able to rent some lenses for that night. What do u think I should get? a telephoto or a wide or both and which model is preferable.Either way because this is going to be a classical concert then flashes are not welcome indeed, so the lens should be able to handle the lights there(i think the lights are sufficient). However, if there is any special flashes for this matter, which is not going to be really annoying, please let me know.&#xA;Please give me a few options of each.&#xA;I apologize for my non-pro literature.&#xA;Thanks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2582" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-21T10:01:09.920" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T21:54:05.790" Title="What is needed for a photoshoot in a concert?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;concert&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="7388" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7202" CreationDate="2011-01-21T09:09:04.203" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I also suggest selling it for parts, using as a pen/pencil holder or doing anything creative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3227" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T09:09:04.203" />
  <row Id="7389" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7387" CreationDate="2011-01-21T10:11:58.980" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you should go for a 70-200 f/2.8 or if to pricey the f/4.0 will do too.&#xA;Wide Lens can be cool too, if you're able to get near the artists, if not you can save on that.&#xA;I'd prefer &lt;em&gt;not to use a flash&lt;/em&gt;, if its to dark you have to go up to ISO800-ISO1600, at least the pictures &lt;strong&gt;should&lt;/strong&gt; be okay (don't know how the 50D performs on such levels) if you're not going above ISO2000.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depends on how close you can get but the 70-200 will work well here I think.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3369" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T10:11:58.980" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7390" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7155" CreationDate="2011-01-21T10:13:39.590" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Firstly:  I strongly second @kacalapy with his recommendation of &lt;a href=&quot;https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;amp;source=hp&amp;amp;biw=1680&amp;amp;bih=837&amp;amp;q=posing+site%3Adigital-photography-school.com&amp;amp;aq=f&amp;amp;aqi=&amp;amp;aql=&amp;amp;oq=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Photography School&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, here are a few sites I've found: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Free Digital Photography Tutorials have a couple of nice pages (lots of clear examples nicely explained &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.freedigitalphotographytutorials.com/advanced-tutorials/35-photography-poses-tips-tricks-guidelines-part-1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.freedigitalphotographytutorials.com/advanced-tutorials/35-photography-poses-tips-tricks-guidelines-part-2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jonathan Souer has a step-by-step guide &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jonsouer.com/posing.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I know this isn't online, but my go-to reference is actually a book on wedding photography, &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1584282517&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Master Posing Guide for Wedding Photographers&lt;/a&gt; by Bill Hurter.  He explains lots of principles and practice with plenty of example images.  Anything by Bill is worth considering in this area.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To answer your request for a catalogue of poses, another book: &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1584282495&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;500 Poses for Photographing Women&lt;/a&gt; by Michelle Perkins.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, I carry a cribsheet with me which contains the following advice: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Check BACKGROUND&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Stand subject THREE QUARTERS to light&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;WEIGHT on back foot&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;FACE 7/8 to camera&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;HEAD tilt slightly (near shoulder for ladies, far shoulder for men)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EYES -&gt; camera&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ARMS away from body (lift elbows / hold something / hands in pockets)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;SHOOT slightly down on subject&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope that's some help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-21T10:20:32.063" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T10:20:32.063" />
  <row Id="7391" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7405" CreationDate="2011-01-21T10:14:13.353" Score="2" ViewCount="238" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm about to buy a Nikon D3100 and can't decide which kit lens I should pick.&#xA;On the one hand there is the standard AF-S 18-55mm VR lens and on the other hand the AF-S 18-105mm VR.&#xA;A bit more zoom than the 55mm lens would be nice, but is the 18-105mm lens as quite as good as the 18-55mm at the same focal-lengths or do I have much more distortion and quality loss in wide angle?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3377" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-23T02:17:22.907" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T02:17:22.907" Title="Beginner lens decision" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;nikon-d3100&gt;&lt;kit-lens&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7392" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7391" CreationDate="2011-01-21T10:30:58.450" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Maybe you want to have a look here:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/234-nikkor-af-s-18-55mm-f35-56-g-ed-dx-ii-review--test-report&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/234-nikkor-af-s-18-55mm-f35-56-g-ed-dx-ii-review--test-report&lt;/a&gt; For the 18-55 but without VR (Don't know if the VR is much different to this one)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and here:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/410-nikkor_18105_3556vr&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/410-nikkor_18105_3556vr&lt;/a&gt; For the 18-200.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This should give you a good overview!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3369" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T10:30:58.450" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7394" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7359" CreationDate="2011-01-21T11:11:32.837" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the 15-85. I previously had the sigma 18-50 F/2.8 and have also used the standard canon kit 18-55, both with and without IS. Compared to both these I really like the 15-85.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main benefit is of course the range, 15mm is much wider than 18mm and 85mm is actually quite useable thanks to the IS. Optically I think it is quite nice as well, given the zoom range. There's the usual distortions for wide shots but it's surprisingly sharp and I like the image quality overall. Also the build quality feels like a huge step up from all EF-S lenses I have used, it's big, heavy and feels very solid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the versatility and quality combined makes it extremely useful as a general purpose lens. As far as I know there's nothing else out there that will give you 15-85mm range, and I think the image quality in the very competitive area between 18-50 is above average as well. In order to get better images in this range you'll need at least 2 other lenses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now to answer the actual question: what's wrong with it? I think it's simply a little too expensive for an EF-S lens. The people willing to pay this amount of money for only a lens are often already on full-format bodies, or planning to go there soon so they avoid EF-S entirely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="722" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T11:11:32.837" />
  <row Id="7395" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7354" CreationDate="2011-01-21T11:20:34.430" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's an interesting question. It's certainly possible for software to detect the parts of an image that is in focus, as it's the basis for focus-stacking software like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Helicon Focus&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Focus stacking is a technique used by macro photographers. The depth of field in many macro shots is very shallow, so to extend this it's possible to take a set of photos of the subject, modifying the focal point in each one. Helicon Focus takes the stack of photos and detects the most in-focus parts of each image, and blends them together to produce a result where the entire subject is in focus. It's also possible to do this with some of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photoblog.edu-perez.com/2009/01/greater-depth-field-macro.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;technology behind Hugin&lt;/a&gt;, but it's a bit more tricky to set up. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the difficulty in extending this for a general &quot;in focus&quot; check would be determining whether the subject is in focus - how do we automatically determine what the subject is? How much depth of field was required by the photographer? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2127" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T11:20:34.430" />
  <row Id="7396" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7222" CreationDate="2011-01-21T11:21:35.860" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to what others said about the display quality, I would like to mention that there is no need to switch to iMac to see nice colors. Dell itself manufactures several display models widely considered as good for color-sensitive work. They also have IPS panels and wide gamut at a lower price than the Apple product. See for example&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;DELL UltraSharp U2410 (24&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;DELL UltraSharp U2711 (27&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3155" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T11:21:35.860" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7397" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1630" CreationDate="2011-01-21T12:40:07.453" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;And since this thread has now been resurrected, I'd like to add another reason that I'm surprised nobody has mentioned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pro cameras tend to use Compact Flash because pro photographers prefer the size of Compact Flash cards. They're bigger, easier to handle with gloves on, harder to lose. They're also perceived as being tougher due to the size. Whether or not they are is irrelevant.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you're shooting day in and day out to earn a living these things really matter! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T12:40:07.453" />
  <row Id="7398" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7391" CreationDate="2011-01-21T12:48:08.077" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The quality of the optics on those two lens is fairly comparable and since, to my knowledge as a D3100 owner, you can't get a body only and a different lens - then get the longer focal length only if you think you need it.  Otherwise, take the price difference and put it towards something that will produce a &lt;em&gt;better&lt;/em&gt; picture for the kinds of shots you'll be doing.  DSLRs are &lt;em&gt;MUCH&lt;/em&gt; more fun when you have a better lens than the kit to play with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're going to be doing portrait, look at something like a 50mm 1.4 or a SB-600 flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're going to be shooting indoors, but mostly &quot;scene captures&quot; or such - the 35mm 1.8 is VERY reasonably priced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're going to be shooting landscape - a decent tripod, set of filters, or if you can spring for the 10-24mm lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T12:48:08.077" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7399" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7401" CreationDate="2011-01-21T13:01:05.313" Score="5" ViewCount="243" Body="&lt;p&gt;After selling my 1Dmk2 last year the time has come to get myself a new body, all along I'd decided that I wanted to do more &quot;wow&quot; pictures, big landscapes and do some more portait photography (up until now I had been doing mainly motorsport photography).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My budget is such that I can't afford a 5Dmk2, so the obvious candidate would be a 5Dmk1, its been around for a while and is famous for producing stunning images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the thought has crept into my head that a 7D might be a better option, it's had the benefit of 3 or 4 years extra development and the Dual Digic4 processors, but has this allowed the image quality to catch up with the 5D?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I'm trying to keep the question generic, but if you want to tailor your answer I use 17-40L, 50mm and 70-200f2.8L and I'm not bothered about shooting video)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-22T17:21:17.673" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T21:27:09.493" Title="Fancy technology cropped vs old technology full frame - Which will give better images?" Tags="&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;cropped-sensor&gt;&lt;full-frame&gt;&lt;aps-c&gt;&lt;technology-generations&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="7400" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7403" CreationDate="2011-01-21T13:08:58.783" Score="5" ViewCount="126" Body="&lt;p&gt;I used the term &quot;flash-gun&quot; today in front of some non-photographers, and they looked at me blankly.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Why,&quot; they wanted to know &quot;is it called a flash-gun, and not just a flash? How is it anything like a gun?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Ummm, I don't know,&quot; I replied, lamely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What should I have said?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="160" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T17:23:14.800" Title="Etymology of &quot;flash gun&quot;" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;terms&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7401" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7399" CreationDate="2011-01-21T13:12:50.837" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a former 5D owner I can tell you that using full frame, even on a camera as 'old' as that one, is a joy. The colours and image quality on that 12MP sensor are amazing. You will notice the benefits particularly with your 17-40mm lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I were in your position, I wouldn't hesitate to pick up a second hand 5D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T13:12:50.837" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7402" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7400" CreationDate="2011-01-21T13:21:46.990" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't have a definitive source referencing this term, but I believe that this terminology probably goes back to the early &quot;flashes&quot; where the light came from ignited flash powder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then in the late 1880s it was&#xA;  discovered that magnesium powder, if&#xA;  mixed with an oxidising agent such as&#xA;  potassium chlorate, would ignite with&#xA;  very little persuasion. This led to&#xA;  the introduction of flash powder. It&#xA;  would be spread on a metal dish the&#xA;  flash powder would be set off by&#xA;  percussion - sparks from a flint&#xA;  wheel, electrical fuse or just by&#xA;  applying a taper. However the&#xA;  explosive flashpowder could be quite&#xA;  dangerous if misused. This was not&#xA;  really superseded until the invention&#xA;  of the flashbulb in the late 1920s.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/lighting.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/lighting.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-21T17:23:14.800" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T17:23:14.800" />
  <row Id="7403" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7400" CreationDate="2011-01-21T13:38:24.050" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If your talking about a speedlite, it has a lot of characteristics of a gun;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you have to aim it  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;there's a trigger        &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;has a similar shape to gun&#xA;        (rotated 'L')&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;'fires' something&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the thing that's fired is really&#xA;quick&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;they both are loaded with small&#xA;cylindrical objects which are&#xA;disposed of later (maybe stretching&#xA;the analogy a bit here)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With so much in common it is only natural that we re-use the word gun for a flash making device.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastEditorUserId="3180" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-21T13:45:59.457" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T13:45:59.457" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7404" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7399" CreationDate="2011-01-21T14:05:39.093" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do you define image quality? Depending on the lens you may be able to get more detail out of the 7D, you may also get less noise and greater dynamic range (in good light, where read noise dominates and the extra light gathering ability of the FF sensor doesn't count as much). The 5D might have advantages in micro contrast and dynamic range in low light. It's hard to make definitive comparisons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What improvements in technology will not yield any time soon is the beautifully shallow depth of field you get with a FF camera, especially in wide angle views. Nor can technology replicate the large bright viewfinder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What technology could have addressed but hasn't is the lack of prime lenses designed for the APS-c sensor. So as it is FF has a sharpness advantage with most primes (at least in the centre). Lens hoods on EF lenses are also more efficient on full frame as they match the field of view properly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in short FF is about more than just image quality (which is subjective and hard to pin down anyway). As you mention landscape and portraiture I would definitely recommend picking up a 5D!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The biggest &quot;technological&quot; improvements on the 7D are video, live view, autofocus and continuous shooting speed. It sounds like you don't need these. In comparison improvements in image quality are more incremental.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-22T17:22:04.117" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T17:22:04.117" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7405" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7391" CreationDate="2011-01-21T14:07:44.713" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both of these lenses are plenty good enough; sure, there are differences, but particularly as a beginner, you won't notice them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would recommend the 18-105 because the flexibility of a bit more length is of great value to beginners, because it helps you figure out what focal lengths you prefer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T14:07:44.713" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7406" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-21T14:13:34.457" Score="17" ViewCount="571" Body="&lt;p&gt;For black and white photography, will there be any quality difference between using the built-in black and white mode, or shooting in color initially and then removing the color later using Photoshop (or similar application)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a high-end compact camera, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_S95&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon S95&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3381" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-01T13:13:34.630" LastActivityDate="2011-05-21T10:07:35.987" Title="What's the difference between using Black and White mode in-camera, and converting in post?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;black-and-white&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="7407" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7406" CreationDate="2011-01-21T14:17:39.447" Score="24" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, there is a huge difference: You cannot change your mind if you set your camera to B&amp;amp;W.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another difference is that there are multiple ways of converting to B&amp;amp;W, some people do not simply use luminance and will favor certain colors during the conversion. In the film days, it was possible to use a colored filter with B&amp;amp;W film to reduce the resulting look. Some cameras let you control this in-camera but you have a limited number of options (0-12).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then again, if you have complete confidence it's what you want and don't want to waste your time on a computer, it is up to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-21T17:27:19.637" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T17:27:19.637" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7408" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7387" CreationDate="2011-01-21T14:18:21.070" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another option could be renting a couple of prime lenses (specially if you're able to find another body), you'de loose the flexibility of a zoom but gain a lot in low light posibility. Probably a longer lens like an 85mm or 100mm would be a good choice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T14:18:21.070" />
  <row Id="7409" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7387" CreationDate="2011-01-21T14:24:57.550" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you can get to the venue ahead of time and scout it out, you'd probably have a better feel for what focal lengths you might need.  As others have indicated, a 2.8 or better lens will give you the best shot at maximizing available light, but if you can know ahead of time that you can get most of your shots with a 50, or 85, or 100, or whatever, you can probably rent a prime f/1.8 lens vs. an f/2.8 zoom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T14:24:57.550" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7410" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7406" CreationDate="2011-01-21T14:35:13.200" Score="21" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;In General&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is almost always better to convert to black and white in post, because you have much more control over the process. If you use the in-camera conversion, you get it the way it converts.  If you shoot in color, then you have many different ways in post to convert the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gimp.org/tutorials/Color2BW/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;overview for B+W conversion (in GIMP)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Another way to think about it:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose that you are told that you can have one free item from a candy counter. In camera conversion is like asking for the one in front without actually looking. Doing your own conversion is like looking through the selection and picking your favorite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;RAW vs JPEG&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I actually prefer to shoot RAW, so I &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; select black and white in camera, but that is because in RAW mode, the only difference is the mode that is listed in the EXIF data.  The actual image data is exactly the same as if I had selected color.  If I were shooting JPEG I would probably never select monochrome because I don't want to lose control of the conversion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-09T17:18:29.290" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T17:18:29.290" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7411" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7406" CreationDate="2011-01-21T14:46:30.010" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best for chimping is shooting in black and white, as you see the finished result directly. It's hard to see how a color image will look in black and white until you have converted a lot of images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best for post processing is shooting in color. You have a lot more options for how to do the conversion to black and white than the camera can offer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best of both worlds is shooting RAW in black and white. The camera shows the image as black and white, but as the image data will be saved with all color information intact, you still have all the control in the post processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T14:46:30.010" />
  <row Id="7412" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-21T14:57:54.123" Score="10" ViewCount="266" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a D40 camera. When I plan to take pictures that I want to be B/W, what is the best practice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The truth is that there is a &quot;command line&quot; in the &quot;tool menu&quot; of the camera that transforms the picture taken to B/W, but the result is really not nice. There is almost no contrast, etc... I doesn't look like a BW picture at all. So my guess is that there are some tricks to take pictures that will end in B/W, isn't it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2771" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-21T09:51:02.770" LastActivityDate="2011-05-21T09:51:02.770" Title="What's the best practice to take black &amp; white pictures with a digital camera ?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;black-and-white&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7413" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7412" CreationDate="2011-01-21T15:07:38.727" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best way to take a black and white picture in a digital camera is to do the following.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Find a nice scene to photograph. Ideally, especially in black and white, you want a scene that will have a good level histogram from completely bright to completely black, and as many colors in between as possible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take the picture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Convert the picture in post. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.niksoftware.com/silverefexpro/usa/entry.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nik Siver Effects Pro&lt;/a&gt; is the pro version, if you don't have the budget, try Picasa. One nice thing about these tools is they will let you put in a &quot;filter&quot; that will give you some of the same effects that a black and white film photographer could do. That's really the subject for another question, but...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T15:07:38.727" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7414" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7391" CreationDate="2011-01-21T15:07:40.597" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I bought the 18-105 with my D90, and in retrospect, I wish I hadn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I got the 50mm f1.8 soon after, and the image quality is leaps and bounds above the 18-105. So now, whenever I am taking something serious (portraits, etc), I use it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I then got the 35mm f2, which gives me a wider angle with better image quality. Now, whenever I need a wider angle than the 50, I use it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I find myself not doing much at all at the 105mm end of the lens. It's not really long enough for most times when you really want a zoom. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such: it now barely gets any use. And so I wish I spent the money on other stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 18-55 seems to be a really good focal length range; for &quot;real zooming&quot; I'd want something longer. In retrospect, I wish I'd gotten this lens instead... or simply gone without a kit lens entirely and gotten the 50 &amp;amp; the 35.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T15:07:40.597" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="7415" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7448" CreationDate="2011-01-21T15:10:14.760" Score="4" ViewCount="238" Body="&lt;p&gt;Okay, so I know that using a color filter can have some desirable effects, for instance, if you use a certain color filter, it will diminish the effects of any skin problems a person has. What color filters (Digital or analog) can improve the overall appearance of a photo in what kinds of situations? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T07:07:07.803" Title="How can using a color filter help to improve a black and white photo?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;black-and-white&gt;&lt;color-filters&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7416" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7400" CreationDate="2011-01-21T15:20:31.553" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;chilis42 is part-way there, but I'm fairly sure it wasn't gunpowder (magnesium, perhaps?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't recall the answer at present (and no rep to comment, unfortunately), however the answer (and history of flashes!) is detailed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/193395244X&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mastering Canon EOS Flash Photography&lt;/a&gt; - if I get a chance I'll update this when I get home and have it to hand. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3176" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T15:20:31.553" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7417" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7415" CreationDate="2011-01-21T15:23:37.557" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Filters for B&amp;amp;W photography are really only applicable for negative film. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/tipps/sw_fotografie_e.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here is a good short discussion about this&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have a digital image you can achieve similar effects in post by manipulating channels during the B&amp;amp;W conversion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T15:23:37.557" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7418" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7231" CreationDate="2011-01-21T15:38:54.197" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just for those interested here is the final script:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;-- Script to merge 1043 images into a single image by taking slices and&#xA;-- reassembling them&#xA;&#xA;-- Target Adobe Photoshop&#xA;tell application &quot;Adobe Photoshop CS5&quot;&#xA;    activate&#xA;&#xA;    -- Create the ultimate document&#xA;    set uDocRef to make new document with properties {width:2848 as pixels, height:4288 as pixels}&#xA;&#xA;    -- First image number of the series&#xA;    set firstNum to 868&#xA;    set lastNum to 1580&#xA;    set leftEdge to 0&#xA;&#xA;    -- Step through each picture&#xA;    repeat with currentNum from firstNum to lastNum&#xA;        -- Open the image&#xA;        if currentNum is less than 1000 then&#xA;            set tCurrentNum to &quot;0&quot; &amp;amp; currentNum&#xA;        else&#xA;            set tCurrentNum to currentNum&#xA;        end if&#xA;&#xA;        set filePath to &quot;.../DSC_&quot; &amp;amp; tCurrentNum &amp;amp; &quot;.nef&quot;&#xA;        with timeout of 300 seconds&#xA;            open alias filePath&#xA;        end timeout&#xA;        set wDocRef to current document&#xA;&#xA;        -- Make a selection&#xA;        set rightEdge to leftEdge + 4&#xA;        --              top left        top right           bottom right            bottom left&#xA;        set shapeRef to {{leftEdge, 0}, {rightEdge, 0}, {rightEdge, 4288}, {leftEdge, 4288}}&#xA;        select wDocRef region shapeRef&#xA;        copy&#xA;&#xA;        -- Paste the selection into the ultimate document&#xA;        set current document to uDocRef&#xA;        select uDocRef region shapeRef&#xA;        paste&#xA;&#xA;        -- Close the image&#xA;        close wDocRef saving no&#xA;&#xA;        -- Update the left edge position&#xA;        set leftEdge to rightEdge&#xA;&#xA;    end repeat&#xA;&#xA;end tell&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="907" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T15:38:54.197" />
  <row Id="7419" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-21T17:46:47.267" Score="7" ViewCount="141" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a graduate student studying history, and I am in the market for a new digital camera for the purpose of photographic images off of microfilm machines, and also old books and documents that I find in my research in archives. Many libraries charge an arm and a leg for copies--and often documents are too fragile to put into a copy machine or scanner--so the digital camera route is something that I am very interested in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have used Canon PowerShot cameras for many years, mostly to take pictures when I am on vacation, and I've been very happy with them. I am looking to make a long-term investment in hardware which I'll use for at least a few years, but I'd rather not pay hundreds of dollars for an SLR (I want it to be highly portable). Rather, if there aren't too many drawbacks, I'd prefer to use a point-and-shoot so I can use it both for my research, and when I go out with friends. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it reasonable to use a point-and-shoot for this purpose, or will it simply not work? What are some of the characteristics that I should be looking for in a camera/tripod combination for such uses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3382" LastEditorUserId="3382" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-21T21:33:17.107" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T02:05:15.390" Title="What should I look for in a camera/tripod for photographing microfilm machines and books/documents?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;tripod&gt;&lt;document-copying&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="7420" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7419" CreationDate="2011-01-21T17:56:15.643" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't even know if this exists, but try getting a tripod that can be outfitted with a boom arm: something that can extend your camera out over the surface you'll be working on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You're presumably going to want to keep the camera perpendicular to the book, and that book is probably going to be laid flat on a table or something similar. That means the camera will be angled vertically. I was doing this sort of shot recently, and it was a real pain trying to get the camera into the right position; the table was always where the tripod needed to be. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ended up having to extend the tripod to it's maximum height and then zoom in. This kept the parallax to a minimum, but made working inconvenient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can't get a boom working, get a very thin table/platform to hold your books; you can fit it &lt;em&gt;between&lt;/em&gt; the tripod legs and get beneath the camera. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T17:56:15.643" />
  <row Id="7421" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7419" CreationDate="2011-01-21T18:20:39.297" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Look for a tripod with a removable center column that can be mounted horizontally.  As an example, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000N7VPRW&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Manfrotto 190XPROB&lt;/a&gt; allows for the column to be extended and then swung down horizontally so that the camera can be mounted in a suspended position that allows you to shoot directly down onto the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Such a setup would look like this (photo by Shirley Buxton on Flickr, used under Creative Commons):&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/shirleyb/4912225084/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;New Tripod by Shirley Buxton, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4117/4912225084_8928de2f2e.jpg&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;331&quot; alt=&quot;New Tripod&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing I will note is that if you're looking to do this super-cheap, you'll probably be building some of your own mounting equipment.  The tripod I linked is over $100 and that doesn't include a head.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-21T18:41:43.597" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T18:41:43.597" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="7422" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7449" CreationDate="2011-01-21T19:25:46.637" Score="26" ViewCount="2309" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have seen some super macro photos of things like butterflies and bees that left me wondering how the photographer is able to get so close to the subject long enough to take a photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the time when I try sneaking up on a fly to swat it I get a few feet away when it flies away. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does macro photography mean having to set up your equipment pointed at a flower or otherwise enticing lure and waiting for the subject to fly in and pose? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-08T15:35:17.970" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T00:33:26.497" Title="What methods do macro photographers use to get so close to butterflies, bees, insects and the like?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;wildlife&gt;" AnswerCount="7" FavoriteCount="10" />
  <row Id="7423" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7422" CreationDate="2011-01-21T19:28:22.967" Score="19" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Long macro lens &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Patience&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ninja training&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Camp out a flower bed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most wild things in general (birds, animals, insects) will let you take better pictures if you just hang around the area long enough to become a normal part of their environment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit:  Ninja skills or not, I don't recommend camping out some areas...like say...wolves dens...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-21T20:04:38.710" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T20:04:38.710" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="7424" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7422" CreationDate="2011-01-21T19:49:38.087" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Insects are cold-blooded, so they slow down if the temperature is low. Taking photos early morning is easier.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An other option (I've never tried myself) is to catch the insect and put it into the refrigerator for a few minutes. It will also slow down them. Try not to kill the bug of course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="507" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T19:49:38.087" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7425" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7422" CreationDate="2011-01-21T19:59:17.220" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Thomas Shahan made a youtube video on using an 80 dollar reversed lens to take excellent macro shots of insects: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqRn3at0H60&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqRn3at0H60&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I like the top youtube comment: &quot;You're like the Bob Ross of macrophotography&quot; :) His macro insect shots are the best I have seen (http://www.flickr.com/photos/opoterser). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1125" LastEditorUserId="1125" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-21T20:04:32.970" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T20:04:32.970" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7426" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7428" CreationDate="2011-01-21T20:35:27.573" Score="2" ViewCount="140" Body="&lt;p&gt;In a couple of weeks, I'm giving a talk to my church photography group on &quot;The Basics of Exposure&quot;.  I'm trying to educate people on the very simplest principles of exposure.  After the talk, we'll have tome time for some practice / exercises.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The audience are people who are only just starting out in photography.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;My aim it to help my audience get over the initial confusion which many people encounter when they come up against all these mysterious numbers &quot;1/250&quot;, &quot;f/2.8&quot;, and so on.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any ideas for how to teach this? &#xA;Any suggestions for examples or exercises?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Anything I should avoid?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for any help!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T03:42:14.453" Title="Ideas for a talk on exposure" Tags="&lt;teaching&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7427" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7426" CreationDate="2011-01-21T21:02:42.760" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the are going to have their cameras with them, you can just tell them to set the to manual mode, let them take pictures at various settings and look how it effects the outcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, you can start with 1/50 sec, f/5.6 and ISO 400 (or whatever is the proper exposure at the spot), then stopping down to f/11 and seeing what does that do, then raising ISO to 1600 and comparing the results, then playing with exposure time, etc. I belive you can illustrate what each of these settings do and how do they relate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After that you can show them how to fix some of these setting using semi-auto modes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have some kind of projection screen, you can show photos takes with these setting live from your camera. Or you can do this without any cameras and just show examples of the results. But that will be less fun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T21:02:42.760" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7428" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7426" CreationDate="2011-01-21T21:33:38.303" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've taught a similar class at my church with a curricula built on the premise that light is like water; the longer you leave the valve open, the more water you get. Ideally, you want a glass that, when full, represents the perfect exposure. A smaller glass would be the equivalent of a higher 'film speed' and takes less water to fill.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed there are a few other factors that the water analogy helps illustrate. An incandescent bulb is like an eyedropper filling the glass. The sun, a fire hose. Aperture governs how much water the user lest through. The shutter is how long it's open...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You get the idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It makes a great visual point when you have a person with a pitcher filling a small glass while another students attempts to fill a container with an eyedropper. Makes the dry stuff more fun. No pun intended.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3203" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T21:33:38.303" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="7429" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7387" CreationDate="2011-01-21T21:52:23.537" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would support renting a 70-200/2.8 (IS or non-IS) lens. But more than that you'll need to keep your expectations of the images in check. You will be able to capture expression and emotion quite well in this scenario. Less likely though is the success at capturing action. The lighting in such a place is probably enough to get you a shutter speed of about 1/60 and any substantial movement (bowing a violin quickly, director's baton moving in an exaggerated fashion) will likely be a blur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, there's a benefit to that. Using your tripod, you'll be able to make an image with the musicians in total blur from action while the stage and its props are stationary. Make the best of the opportunity. Look for some unique angles and let the blur happen, artistically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the stage is of any substance, you'll need a 200mm or better to get any close-up images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't use a flash. The light coming from the stage lighting is, for all intents and purposes, orange. Your flash is a blue-ish color in comparison and will create a sickly color in the shadow areas. Additionally, if you're using a long lens with an on-camera flash you're prone to get red-eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regardless, try to have a good time. Don't get too worried about your limitations or lack of experience in this specific arena. They invited you for a reason...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3203" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T21:52:23.537" />
  <row Id="7430" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7387" CreationDate="2011-01-21T21:54:05.790" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unless things have changed an &lt;strong&gt;enormous&lt;/strong&gt; amount since I was a kid, you'll find that the mirror slap (and perhaps even the shutter, depending on the camera) are unwelcome noises and will severely distract from the enjoyment of concert attendees. Back in the day, we'd use something called a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_blimp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;blimp&lt;/a&gt; -- a soundproofing housing -- around the camera body, or opt for a rangefinder (Leica, Minolta or Mamiya 7) or TLR. We photographers often seem to forget that we're not the stars of the show.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T21:54:05.790" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7431" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7406" CreationDate="2011-01-21T22:57:43.410" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, there is a difference. When you use the black and white mode, the camera takes a regular picture and then applies its own algorithm to convert that color image to a black and white one. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Converting to black and white is just not about removing colors.. it is about highlighting certain elements of your composition and removing some away. Every artist uses their own secret sauce to do the conversion. For e.g. Check &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2010/12/tips-on-black-white/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; from Chase Jarvis' blog. No camera can do that on its own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="55" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T22:57:43.410" />
  <row Id="7432" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7442" CreationDate="2011-01-21T23:40:46.633" Score="13" ViewCount="300" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been asked to shoot a wedding for money, which would be the first time that I've had such an opportunity. I've taken pictures at three prior weddings, two as the main photographer, but not while getting paid. (For the two where I was the primary photographer, well, they really just didn't care much about their pictures, so...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, how does one go about figuring out a decent price to charge for a wedding? I should add that while I wouldn't mind doing this every now and then, I probably wouldn't shoot a ton of weddings, so I don't want to subscribe to some service to tell me how much I should charge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-09T18:40:02.637" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T18:40:02.637" Title="How do you determine how much to ask for when someone wants you to photograph a wedding?" Tags="&lt;business&gt;&lt;pricing&gt;&lt;wedding&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7433" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7432" CreationDate="2011-01-21T23:44:15.503" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My thoughts are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Figure out how much of a profit I want to make from the wedding, based on the amount of time that I'll be away, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Add in expenses. This includes travel, hotel reservations if far enough away, the cost of renting equipment (I need a backup camera, and possible some different lenses then I have now, so...). This should also probably include taxes, and some nominal charge for use of the equipment that I currently own. I should also probably toss in a few albums to the client, which the cost of printing them will fall into this budget.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some of the expenses might be negotiable, so I'd discuss with the client what they want, to determine what gear I need, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-21T23:44:15.503" />
  <row Id="7434" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7432" CreationDate="2011-01-21T23:50:35.097" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I suggest to look at how much other photographers charge, and then think about how would you position youself agains them. That should give you the idea of the price range that the client can be expecting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, as you correctly point out your fee should cover your expenses and some profit as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other way is to find out the budget for whole wedding and adjust your price according to that (for example, if they pay $1000 for flowers that are going to fade the next day, you should not get $700 for photos that will preserve the memory for a lifetime).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-22T00:23:58.827" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T00:23:58.827" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7435" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7422" CreationDate="2011-01-22T00:07:03.703" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the best things you can do to photograph any animal, whether it be a bird, insect, wolf, or for that matter, human, is to learn about your intended subject. I've gotten some great shots of bees by learning where they hang out around my house, and what time of year they hang around. I'll share a few pictures, and answer how I captured them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/xKLvs.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Butterfly&quot;&gt;&#xA;This picture came when I was studying out my neighborhood. I walked by a particular bush, and it was just full of insects, of at least 4 kinds. This is my favorite shot of the group, and one of the few butterflies in the scene.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/lvzfJ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Bee&quot;&gt;&#xA;Again, this shot came from knowing the time of year that bees are active in my area, and watching this one pollinate all of the flowers around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pearsonartphoto.com/Professional/Southwest-Desert-Photos-for/10070463_6xnnL#712013198_jzsrJ-A-LB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Black Widow&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;Sorry, it won't let me show the image to this one directly, but I'll just post the link... Anyways, this guy was on my front door. I caught her by simply paying attention to my surroundings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Macro photography does have some tricks, and does require some patience, but it's more about looking for the unseen things around you than it is about techniques. Good luck in your endeavors!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T00:07:03.703" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7436" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7432" CreationDate="2011-01-22T00:07:33.267" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With a nice leather bound album on metallic paper, a large print like 20 x 30, a medium 8 x 10 the photographers in the NY/ NJ area charge on average $1,500 just to give you an idea of prices. Some charge way more but have a following and may not be available on certain dates. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: that price is for 4-5 hours of shooting. i would imagine a wedding is a full loooong day event. so make sure you set expectations if you dont plan to get shots of them getting dressed, reception, after party, the wedding itself...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="2200" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-22T00:14:57.327" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T00:14:57.327" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7437" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7432" CreationDate="2011-01-22T00:10:23.713" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Put an add in craigslist in your area &lt;em&gt;requesting&lt;/em&gt; a wedding photographer for the type/level of wedding you would like to shoot (ie do you want to shoot $2000 weddings or $8000 weddings). And get a ballpark price from several photographers for what they offer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also highly suggest shooting as an assistant w/some local photographers and ask them how much they charge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T00:10:23.713" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7438" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7441" CreationDate="2011-01-22T00:16:31.377" Score="16" ViewCount="316" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ir's been quite foggy here for the last few days. The quality of light is different. Colour saturation is fairly low. Near the edge of the fog bank the sun looks great, as if there is a huge ND filter in front of it. Anyway, this weekend promises more fog. Are ther any particular tips to get great shots taking advantage of fog?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T04:15:16.210" Title="Tips on photographing in fog." Tags="&lt;technique&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7439" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7438" CreationDate="2011-01-22T00:30:35.170" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can wait till it gets dark, and street lamp create &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/5082&quot;&gt;shafts of light&lt;/a&gt;, and use those to your advantage. You can also backlight someone (for example with car headlamps) and him look like he's stepping out of a flying saucer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T00:30:35.170" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7441" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7438" CreationDate="2011-01-22T01:14:43.437" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are MANY links below...hover over each one to identify where they start and end, and view each example. ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For nature:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://sesjusz.deviantart.com/art/Poland-no-233-142408049&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Position your camera behind a lone tree or under a forest canopy&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://realitydream.deviantart.com/art/Lost-horizon-III-188556911?q=&amp;amp;qo=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;and let the filtered sunlight (or moonlight) create rays of light in the fog.&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://the-freak-nora.deviantart.com/art/Immense-181725997&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Capture trees&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://gwarf.deviantart.com/art/Last-Colour-68729629&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fading into the fog.&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://foureyes.deviantart.com/art/Guangxi-70563964&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Find a lake shore or some islands out on the water&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://the-freak-nora.deviantart.com/art/And-the-forest-began-to-sing-190618392&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;and capture the islands or far shore appearing out of the mist.&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://michaelanderson.deviantart.com/art/The-Gates-of-Calypso-II-173789776&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Elevate yourself above the fog,&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://rykardo.deviantart.com/art/Toscana-168087481&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;and shoot down into it.&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For City:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://oriontrail.deviantart.com/art/Bridge-in-fog-113747001&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Capture a bridge fading&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://oriontrail.deviantart.com/art/Bridge-in-fog-II-144548118&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;into the mist at night.&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://oriontrail.deviantart.com/art/Bridge-to-somewhere-144214790&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Frame a bridge head on,&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://greatnemo.deviantart.com/art/Bridge-89555403&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;and look into nothing.&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://dirt206.deviantart.com/art/Into-the-Fog-34547216&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photograph a building rising into nothing.&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://jez92.deviantart.com/art/Light-Show-140075685&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Capture city spotlights beaming into space.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tips:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use ETTR, but moderately, and don't worry about the low contrast (your histogram should have a peak near the right end, but not entirely there, and cover only a portion of your total dynamic range.) Fog will certainly reduce the dynamic range of most scenes, and can create very moody photos. Fog is a GREAT tool for night photography, as it enhances the illumination provided by street lamps, buildings, etc. Fog is also an excellent way to frame silhouettes of pretty much anything, especially if you put the light source directly behind the silhouetted subject...then you also get kind of a halo of light shafts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-23T04:15:16.210" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T04:15:16.210" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7442" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7432" CreationDate="2011-01-22T01:32:33.260" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NOTE:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;To some extent my answer is 'US-centric' being as I've never had to price my photography in another country. If you're not in the US, your mileage may vary.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Never, ever&lt;/em&gt; base your price on what other photographers in your area are charging. You have no way of knowing what their expenses are, and thus you have no way of knowing what their profit margin is. You can price yourself according to your competition and easily end up making zero profit, or even &lt;em&gt;losing&lt;/em&gt; money, because the numbers that your competition uses will not take into account &lt;em&gt;your&lt;/em&gt; expenses, your cost of goods sold, the value of your time, etc.! Do the math instead. It's not that hard, and that way you'll at the very least know what your time is worth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key with pricing for retail photography is to build in enough cushion to cover your time, expenses, &lt;em&gt;taxes&lt;/em&gt;, and profit. There are lots of 'slow and accurate' ways of doing this which I highly recommend you use if you're going to be doing lots of retail photography (because slow and accurate does a better job of taking time, expenses, and taxes into account and by doing that you generally end up with a more accurate appraisal of what your profit will be, and the ability to adjust your pricing accordingly). If you're &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; planning on doing a lot of retail photography there is a &quot;quick n' dirty&quot; formula that you can use in order to make sure you are more-or-less covering the basics:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;( T + G ) * P = Quoted Price&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;T = The cost of your time:&lt;/strong&gt; how many hours you expect to spend working multiplied by how much your time is worth. Make sure to consider &lt;strong&gt;all&lt;/strong&gt; the hours you will work... Taking pictures, editing pictures, making albums, ordering prints, etc. This is an 'all inclusive' number, and not taking into account &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; the time you will spend is the fastest way to screw yourself and ensure you lose money on the quote, so make sure to factor in &lt;em&gt;everything&lt;/em&gt; and then add a margin, just in case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;G = The wholesale cost of your goods:&lt;/strong&gt; simple addition of all the goods you are planning on offering your client, and any out-of-pocket expenses (hotel, batteries, etc.) &lt;em&gt;plus&lt;/em&gt; the sales tax rate on retail goods, if you are required to pay sales taxes in your jurisdiction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;P = The profit you expect to make:&lt;/strong&gt; This number should be no smaller than 3, and (unless your client is uber-wealthy) shouldn't exceed 4. These are 'generally accepted ballpark' numbers that are often used for 'quick estimation.' Technically speaking you can throw in whatever number you want, but if you go less than 3 (here in the US) you run the risk of not being able to cover the income tax hit (you &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; paying your taxes, right?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been shooting weddings and portrait photography for more than 15 years now, and I find that my 'quick and dirty' calculations get me within 10% of my 'slow and accurate' calculations without exception for anything less than about $10,000 in total fees. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-22T01:37:39.123" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T01:37:39.123" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7443" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7453" CreationDate="2011-01-22T01:39:04.177" Score="11" ViewCount="385" Body="&lt;p&gt;Okay, I'd like to get to know more about photography, but not in a super serious way. In particular, I'd like to find a few photographers that I could offer to be second shoot, so I can improve my skills. Ideally, I'd work an arrangement where I could use my best photos in a portfolio, but nothing else, and give the main photographer all of my prints. If they used any of them then I get some cash, otherwise, I get little/nothing. How could I go about such a thing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-28T19:33:25.820" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T19:33:25.820" Title="How to go about becoming a second shooter for a wedding photographer" Tags="&lt;wedding&gt;&lt;networking&gt;&lt;second-shooter&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="7444" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7443" CreationDate="2011-01-22T01:43:37.790" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Never tried that myself, but I would suggest sending them a link to your portfolio of relevant images and asking whether you can be their second shooter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T01:43:37.790" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7445" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7419" CreationDate="2011-01-22T02:05:15.390" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Others mentioned the 190XPROB with the arm that goes out 90 degrees but has a larger mounting screw.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;DSLR's and compact cameras have the same thread on the bottom.  Tripods like the 190XPROB have a larger thread, onto which you put some kind of head, and then you either screw that head into the camera or you get a head with quick-release plates, that you attach onto the bottom of any camera - large or small.  If this is mostly what you'd be doing you can get the cheapest head possible since it doesn't have to hold much weight or even be easy to adjust.  You might even be able to find an old head at Goodwill.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However for what you are doing, you may not even have to spend that much - find a really super cheap tripod, and then go to a hardware store and look for a ratcheting clamp.  Then you can lay the cheap tripod down on a table with the camera hanging out over the end, and put another somewhat lower table below the camera with a book.  For the microfilm you could find a small plastic stool or table and put a light under it to illuminate the microfilm and you'd probably get a good shot if the focus was good (try using a macro mode for that one I think).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T02:05:15.390" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7446" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5671" CreationDate="2011-01-22T02:07:31.120" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because the file size is variable, the camera can't calculate how many pictures will fit in the remaining card space.  In my experience with the Nikon D7000 and Olympus E-510, these cameras seem to devide the remaining space on the card by a predetermined file size that depends on the image quality settings (RAW, JPEG, compression, size).  This predetermined file size seems to be quite a bit bigger than the actual files sizes these cameras produce.  My guess is that camera manufacturers have their cameras overestimate the size of the images so that the remaining space indicator becomes an indicator of &lt;strong&gt;at least&lt;/strong&gt; how many images will fit on the remaining card space.  It would be much more annoying if your camera tells you it has room for 100 more pictures and then runs out of space after 80 shots than that it tells you it has room for 20 more pictures after you've taken 100 pictures.  Better to bring too many memory cards than too few.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T02:07:31.120" />
  <row Id="7447" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7443" CreationDate="2011-01-22T02:11:15.937" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Craigslist is how I found photographers to shoot with, I posted that I was looking to be an assistant and responded to ads for assistants.  That and forums like fredmiranda.com and dgrin.com, people post 'looking for assistants' there often.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T02:11:15.937" />
  <row Id="7448" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7415" CreationDate="2011-01-22T02:12:05.710" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't use real colored filters on a normal digital camera - for a 15MP bayer sensor camera with a red filter, you would actually be shooting a 3.75MP image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The exception is if you are doing IR or have a sensor modified to do only B&amp;amp;W photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general for modern B&amp;amp;W digital photography your equipment is shooting in color, and then you decide after that what mix of color channels you want to use, so it's really up to you to decide the balance that looks best. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One common filter choice that people use is a red filter to darken the sky and enhance clouds.  You can find pretty good descriptions of what filtering certain colors does for photography here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.camerafilters.com/pages/colored.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.camerafilters.com/pages/colored.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T02:12:05.710" />
  <row Id="7449" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7422" CreationDate="2011-01-22T02:14:43.543" Score="26" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a couple things you need to get great super-close macro shots of insects. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The first&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;em&gt;supremely most important&lt;/em&gt;, is patience. You are going to fail to get the shot FAR more than you will succeed when trying to get 1:1 or better insect macros. Over time, two things will happen: As you hang around a location, insects will become adjusted to you, and will be less likely to fly away. Over the long term, if you observe carefully, you'll begin to learn the patterns of insect behavior, which will lean in your favor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Second&lt;/strong&gt;, you will need to be out photographing at the right time. Insects are cold blooded, so morning is a particularly good time to find sluggish, sleeping insects. They need sunlight to warm up, so before those morning rays of sunshine start warming your subjects up is an ideal time. When you don't have the option of an early-morning bug-hunt, an alternative method of &quot;slowing&quot; critters down is &lt;em&gt;bait&lt;/em&gt;! Bees and many other insects love a sweet treat, and a drop of sugar water can give you the necessary time to frame and capture a bug out of bed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Third&lt;/strong&gt;, you will need the right lens for the job. Most camera brands offer true 1:1 &quot;Macro&quot; lenses. These lenses will magnify your scene at 1.0x size on the sensor (i.e. a bee 30mm in size photographed at MFD with a 1:1 macro will be projected 30mm in size onto your sensor.) More magnification will help you capture finer, smaller detail such that, when blown up in post processing, will exhibit more detail than you can see with the naked eye. If you own a Canon DSLR, you also have the option of using the MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro Zoom lens, which can give you up to 5.0x magnification (5:1). Extension tubes can also help increase magnification, especially with a true 1:1 macro lens, also giving you larger than life magnification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fourth&lt;/strong&gt;, a good macro ring flash will be extremely handy when trying to capture insects in less than ideal lighting. When out and about in nature, lighting can change often, especially if your subject is on the move. A macro ring flash is a hotshoe flash that mounts on the end of your lens (to the lens hood mount), and offers more pleasing illumination than a standard flash. It also gets that extra illumination exactly where you need it....right on your subject. There are a variety of accessories you can either buy or make for a ring flash as well, such as softening filters, or partial blockers to prevent flash from one side and keep it on another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fifth&lt;/strong&gt;, a nice macro focusing rail mount or tripod head will be a huge assist to achieving the right plane of focus. Sometimes you have no option but to go hand-held, and chase your subjects around. If you are lucky enough to be out and about at &quot;golden hour&quot;, sunrise before your buggy subjects have all warmed up started buzzing around, you will have more time to compose your shots and capture ideal moments. A macro focusing rail will help you maintain MFD (minimum focusing distance), without the hassle of manually moving your tripod or monopod around when recomposing. A good macro focusing rail will give you 4 degrees of smooth sliding freedom to frame and compose, without the composition-busting need to pick up the camera and move it yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another thing to be aware of when photographing insect macros is your DOF. At macro scale, depth of field can become vanishingly thin. Unlike portrait photography where you are always chasing that balance of widest aperture and ideal sharpness, in macro photography, you are always chasing the most DOF you can acquire without under-exposing. The sheer volume of fine detail available in a single insect eye is astounding, so noise and diffraction are your greatest enemies. Try to keep your ISO as low as possible, but don't be afraid at all to increase it beyond 100. You will often find yourself at ISO 400 or beyond, and a camera with good high ISO performance will make it a lot easier to get the DOF you need and still be able to expose correctly. For moving subjects, you may find that you use ISO as high as 1600. A ring flash is also a great way to help keep your ISO low and still be able to use motion-stopping shutter speeds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some macro shots from some of the great insect macro photographers on DeviantArt.com:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/cUhkD.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Buleria&lt;/strong&gt;: &lt;a href=&quot;http://buleria.deviantart.com/art/Tettigonia-viridissima-II-180595469&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tettigonia viridissima II&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Z9kPm.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Blepharopsis&lt;/strong&gt;: &lt;a href=&quot;http://blepharopsis.deviantart.com/art/I-ll-eat-your-soul-84140219&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;I'll eat your soul...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/PeJih.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Macrojunkie&lt;/strong&gt;: &lt;a href=&quot;http://macrojunkie.deviantart.com/art/butterfly-eye-at-5X-122941380&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Butterfly eye at 5X&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-22T02:26:53.990" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T02:26:53.990" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="7450" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5671" CreationDate="2011-01-22T03:06:18.843" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another factor is that you don't actually get the full 16GB; there's two reasons for this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Storage manufacturers often quote capacity where GB = 1,000,000,000 (10^9) bytes, while in many other uses GB = 1,073,741,824 (2^30) bytes. (Purists want the kilo, mega, giga, etc. prefixes to work strictly in powers of ten, proposing instead the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;kibi, mebi, gibi, etc.&lt;/a&gt; prefixes for powers of two.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There's nontrivial overhead consumed by the filesystem - the metadata used by the computer to organize the photos.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, one of my &quot;8 GB&quot; SDHC cards has a capacity of 7,960,788,992 bytes - 99.5% of 8,000,000,000 (8*10^9) bytes but only 92.6% of an 8,589,934,592 (8*2^30) bytes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T03:06:18.843" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7451" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7438" CreationDate="2011-01-22T03:46:38.307" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There will be no or almost no shadows, so textures will mostly disappear, you will have to work exclusively with colors and/or shades of gray.  You can use the fog to your advantage since it will very strongly separate objects that are close to the camera from the background. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As other have suggested, if you can get some light source, there is a lot you can do with light in a fog.  Shafts of light from street lights or sun beams in a forest, or, with a good lighting, you can make the whole scene look like it's softly glowing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2811" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T03:46:38.307" />
  <row Id="7452" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7443" CreationDate="2011-01-22T03:52:40.033" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's my perspective as a pro photographer who occasionally hires someone to second shoot with me.  There are two main factors in choosing an second shooter.  They are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Technical/artistic skill&lt;/strong&gt;.  This one's fairly straightforward, but I want someone who I trust enough that I know they'll be able to take technically correct photos and with a decent eye.  With someone I don't know well I mainly gauge this based on their portfolio.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Professionalism&lt;/strong&gt;.  This includes the ability to work with me and understand my directions as to what I expect from them and also the ability to look/dress/act in a professional manner with the clients.  &lt;em&gt;This is really freaking important&lt;/em&gt;.  I don't care if you take awesome pictures, if you're going to dress like a clown or make inappropriate comments to the guests at the event, you're going to make us both look poorly.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do I connect with other potential shooters?  Craigslist is one option (mentioned by another poster) but I find I meet most them by networking with local photography groups.  In my area there are a couple groups associated with professional photography organizations such as the PPA and ASMP, a group that are all Flickr users and have a local Flickr meetup, and an informal group that gets together for a photographer's happy hour once a month.  I've met lots of great photographers and made some excellent connections at these offline networking events that really lets me get to know people and works out better than just finding someone on Craiglist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-22T04:11:10.720" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T04:11:10.720" />
  <row Id="7453" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7443" CreationDate="2011-01-22T04:05:57.917" Score="17" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h1&gt;How to Find a Second-Shooter Gig&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;(A Brief Primer to the Somewhat harsh Realities of the Wedding Photography Industry)&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;No, Really... How do I Find a Gig?&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most reliable way to find &lt;em&gt;high-quality&lt;/em&gt; second-shooter gigs is to research the photographers in your area, check out their websites, and directly contact any photographers whose work you like to give them your information and let them know you're available. It is very common for wedding photographers to ask if you want to be an assistant and work your way into a second-shooter position. The right answer to this questions is: &lt;em&gt;&quot;Absolutely! What do you need?&quot;&lt;/em&gt; Be prepared to work a wedding or two for free doing the grunt work tasks (toting gear, getting coffee, assembling light stands, getting coffee, holding reflectors, getting coffee, herding family, etc.) in order for the photographer to 'build trust in you.' &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a somewhat shady, but &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; common practice in the wedding industry and I generally advise young photographers to simply 'go with it'... but only for a wedding or two with any given wedding photographer. If you haven't seen a 'promotion' to second-shooter, or some indication that one is coming your way after a wedding or two, you're probably simply being used as free labor and it might be time to have a frank conversation, or cut your losses. :-/ The rule of thumb whether assisting, or being a second-shooter is 'be the first to get there, last to leave, hardest working Johnny on-the-spot guy (or gal) in the operation.' That's what gets you to the top of a photographers list of 'people to call' when they need help. Keep your ears and eyes open and your mouth shut and you can find out a &lt;em&gt;ton&lt;/em&gt; about what to do (and what &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; to do) when you become a wedding photographer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Never&lt;/em&gt; use Craigslist to find second-shooter gigs. Almost without exception the folks who advertise for wedding photography on Craigslist are the ones who do low-quality, high-volume work. There will be very little (if anything) that you'll be able to learn about the &lt;em&gt;craft&lt;/em&gt; of wedding photography from them (very often they are just learning themselves and have nothing to teach) and most of the time they are the sort of people who work without contracts (see the last part of this answer for why this is terrible for you)...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What to Expect from the Legit Gigs you Do Find&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that out of the way... In my experience (and from the lead photographers point-of-view), 'second shooter gigs' tend to come in one of three flavors:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Flat fee:&lt;/strong&gt; The lead photographer pays the second shooter a set rate for their services. Most of the time flat fee second shooters are in a work-for-hire arrangement, and you can expect that (unless the photographer is a noob, or unusually generous) the photographer will insist that you perform your work in a work-for-hire arrangement. In other words, they get the pictures you take, can claim them as their own, and you cannot use them for your portfolio. This is &lt;em&gt;by far&lt;/em&gt; the most common arrangement for second shooters in the wedding industry, though more-often-than-not it is only offered to 'trusted associates' and people who have proven to the lead photographer that they can take 'client ready' photographs. It would be very rare to be offered this sort of arrangement in your first gig with a photographer unless you already come packin' a pretty epic portfolio of your own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No fee:&lt;/strong&gt; The lead photographer doesn't pay a second shooter, but they do get to use any pictures they take as portfolio pieces. This is almost never an option unless the lead photographer is fairly new and building his or her own portfolio, or is unusually generous. This is because most working wedding photographers who &lt;em&gt;aren't&lt;/em&gt; new would much rather pay someone a flat fee so they don't ever end up having to explain to potential clients why pictures from the wedding they 'supposedly' shot are also on someone elses website. In essence it is only someone who has either under-quoted their fee to their client (and as such cannot afford to pay a second shooter), or is new to the industry (and thus doesn't have enough clout or enough contacts to have a 'stable' of second shooters the use on a regular basis) who willingly chooses a 'no fee' arrangement. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Apprentice:&lt;/strong&gt; the lead photographer doesn't pay the second shooter (in fact, often the second shooter pays a fee to the lead photographer), and the second shooter is in a work-for-hire arrangement, so they don't get to keep any of the images nor use them in their portfolio. Why would anyone willingly choose this option when it seems like the 'worst of both the above options?' Generally this is the option that you end up with if you are absolutely new (e.g. easy to take advantage of because you've got nothing the lead photographer needs), or if you're more experienced but the lead photographer is very well known and/or the wedding is a large one, or for famous people... The assumption in this situation is that what you get out of the deal is the experience of tailing a well-known photographer, or the experience of shooting a wedding you may not otherwise be qualified to shoot... This arrangement is often the 'norm' in big cities, where photographers looking to break into wedding photography are a dime-a-dozen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;But What's in it for Me???&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now you'll notice that none of these arrangements (in general) favor the second shooter. Yep. Welcome to the bottom rung of the food chain (Well, second to the bottom... The assistants are below you) in the wedding photography industry. 'How to build your wedding photography portfolio' is another question entirely, but (again, generally speaking) most of the time 'go be a second shooter' is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; the way to do that. The above arrangements do offer you some value: experience, industry contacts, and sometimes cash, which is often the best deal to be made with second shooting. A common sentiment that often gets expressed by wedding photographers is 'go build your portfolio on your own dime, not mine.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you've been in the wedding photography business a while and you're seen more as a peer than a lackey the treatment is often better... Second shooting is done more as a 'favor/courtesy' for fellow photographers and they 'owe you one' and will (often) help you out when you need a second and they're available. Depending on where you live, if the professionals in the area are well organized and work together frequently this may make it really tough to 'break in' because why would someone want to take a chance on an untested noob, when they can just call in a pro who's work they already know and who (more importantly) already has a portfolio of their own so they won't come bugging them to 'just use that one shot I took that is soooooo awesome for my portfolio and website pleeeeeese?!' &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My only advice in these kinds of markets is to check in periodically with photographers (don't be a pest, though), and be patient until you get that first call... Then when you do get that call, work your @ss off like you've never worked before. Work hard and produce good pictures and word will get around. If you make someone look good and their business more successful, you'll get more calls. Conversely, if you make the lead photographer look bad, you force him/her to babysit you, you're generally annoying, a pain in the @ss, or you are sub-par in any way (regardless of whether it was your fault or not... Excuses don't play) you can expect to never get called again at best, or blacklisted at worst. Hey, it's a harsh world out there. If you wanted it easy you should have stayed in college and become an accountant like your momma told you to. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Danger, Will Robinson!&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whatever type of second-shooting situation arrangement you find yourself in, insist on a contract! Unless the photographer is brand-new (or not especially bright), they will have one... In fact, I'd be wary if any photographer who doesn't bring it up with you &lt;em&gt;first&lt;/em&gt;. :-) This will clearly define your responsibilities and the expectations that the primary shooter has for you, and will (if it's written correctly) indemnify you from a whole host of 'bad possibilities' that could happen as a result of working as a second shooter. Never work without it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of my photographer friends found himself on the receiving end of a lawsuit on the very first wedding he ever shot (as a second shooter) when the primary photographer skipped town without delivering a couple's wedding photographs. Since they couldn't find the primary photographer, who do you think got served with the papers? You guessed it. He weathered the storm and has been successfully shooting weddings for more than 5 years now, but all of that could have been avoided had he insisted on a contract (and the primary photographers shady nature probably would have been brought out up front, as he wasn't using &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; contracts)...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;A Final Note...&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As with anything in life, your mileage may vary. If you live and work outside of the US, none of the above may apply to you &lt;em&gt;at all&lt;/em&gt;, as the only experience I have is in the American wedding industry. Generally speaking in bigger American communities the above will hold 'more true' than in smaller ones (if anything some areas of the US can be &lt;em&gt;harsher&lt;/em&gt; than I've described... It can be an absolute soul-sucking bloodbath starting out in mega-big cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, and New York... 'If you can make it there you can make it... bla, bla, bla...') Conversely, if you live in a smaller community, or in a community with a photographer (or group of photographers) who really believes in teaching and training people to be better photographers, the atmosphere can be downright genteel. Having said all of this I'll leave it with this one final thought (also from personal experience)... If you think the wedding photography industry is harsh, you should try breaking in to Hollywood! &lt;em&gt;Yikes.&lt;/em&gt; Now &lt;em&gt;there&lt;/em&gt; is a chum filled shark-tank for you... Be grateful you've chosen an easy career-field to enter. ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-22T21:10:07.360" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T21:10:07.360" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="7454" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7456" CreationDate="2011-01-22T05:46:39.223" Score="9" ViewCount="151" Body="&lt;p&gt;What's the best way to come up with a monetary figure to charge someone who wants to license an image.  I've heard of software called FotoQuote - what other options are there and how might hey compare?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T09:39:08.137" Title="How do I know what to charge for licensing an image?" Tags="&lt;business&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;sales&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="7455" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7438" CreationDate="2011-01-22T06:54:07.197" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I shot a (relatively popular) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/altuwa/sets/72157622760234005/show/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;series of photos in the fog&lt;/a&gt; last year at night, feel free to check the EXIF info or the pics for inspiration. Essentially I was using my fastest lens, a 50mm f/1.4, hand held (this flash fog didn't last long, no time for a tripod). I relied on a lot of silhouetting, and city lights (naturally diffused by the fog). The light really had that color, this is not a white-balance mistake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zlyxb.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T06:54:07.197" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7456" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7454" CreationDate="2011-01-22T07:50:26.867" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The big question is do you license strictly for stock, or do you also license for assignment? FotoQuote (which is what I use) is 'the industry standard' (self proclaimed though that may be), and truth-be-told that 'fact' does on occasion enter into my negotiation process if I get a balky client:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;em&gt;Well, I don't know Mr. Hip Brand Manager, as you know we use FotoQuote because &lt;strong&gt;they are the industry standard&lt;/strong&gt; for pricing and it tells me that we should be charging a minimum of $4,000 for that image usage despite your desire to obtain an unencumbered perpetual worldwide usage license for all mediums for $1.42 and a stick of gum that you found in your couch this afternoon. I could maybe take 10% off that price because you're a valued client, but I don't think I could go any lower than that.&lt;/em&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's sorta like the Kelly Blue Book... Sure there are other car pricing guides, but there's a certain amount of 'weight' that comes with it being a 'Blue Book Value.' They also cover both stock and assignment, licensing, and buyout... So you'll have all your bases covered in a single resource.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said all that, if you only do stock, I have a photographer friend who swears by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hindsightltd.com/products/PriceGuide.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;HindSight's Photo Price Guide&lt;/a&gt; (unfortunately named, IMO). I have not used it, so I'm probably a poor salesman on the software, but as I understand it, it is cheaper than FotoQuote, they claim to have 'better' pricing models (whatever that means), allow you to add your own prices to their system, and they do offer a free trial so you can give it a test drive to see if it's to your liking (so does FotoQuote, btw).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the free department (and I suspect that the old adage of 'you get what you pay for' applies here), and again if you're only looking for stock pricing guide, you might try out the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photographersindex.com/stockprice.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Stock Photo Price Calculator&lt;/a&gt;. I have not personally used it, so consider it a pointer to a possible resource (if you're desperate and broke, I guess...), not a ringing endorsement. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you'd prefer a 'less automated' option, the organization &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apanational.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;American Photographic Artists&lt;/a&gt; (APA) has a business reference manual which provides a lot of really solid information and guidance on how to 'self-calculate' licensing and buyout fees across a variety of situations that you may encounter. The dues are relatively steep, so that may be something to take into consideration vs. simply springing for something like FotoQuote or HindSight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-22T08:36:51.880" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T08:36:51.880" />
  <row Id="7457" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7454" CreationDate="2011-01-22T09:39:08.137" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another approach that will give you a figure appropriate to your region/country (as prices will vary) is to contact several local photographers and ask them for a quote for the same terms on one of their images which is similar and then take the average.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T09:39:08.137" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7458" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7459" CreationDate="2011-01-22T11:49:10.300" Score="8" ViewCount="93" Body="&lt;p&gt;Among mains-powered lighting systems, you can either get a kit with a central power pack, and attached heads, or monolights, each with its own power supply.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the advantages and disadvantages with each system? Is one or the other suited specifically for certain purposes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T18:58:04.833" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T18:58:04.833" Title="What are the difference between using a pack and head system versus monolights?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;studio-lighting&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="7459" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7458" CreationDate="2011-01-22T11:56:51.460" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general you can pump more power through a pack and head system, they're also more versatile (lots of different setup options, you can mix and match). Monolights are lighter weight in total and more compact and so suitable for mobile shooting, they're cheaper and easier for beginners to use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a generalisation however, each system has it's own pros and cons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pack and head&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;+ The heads are easier to position as they are lighter than monolights&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;+ Can use the heads with different power sources i.e. mains and battery&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;+ Single power pack for multiple heads (modularity)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;- Single point of failure (the power pack)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;- Wires everywhere!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;+ You can control the power output centrally (instead of climbing up a ladder)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;- You tend to have less control in general (the older ones can't adjust the power to each head individually)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;+ You only need one radio trigger / sync lead per pack&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Monolights&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;+ Simpler, lighter, more compact&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;+ Usually cheaper&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;+ Each light can be plugged into a wall socket locally&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;- Limited to a single power source (mains)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;- Power output tends to be lower&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;- Have to adjust power output on the head itself, which may be remote (unless you have a newer head with remote power control)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;- Likewise each head must be triggered individually (though optical slaves make this easier)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see they are each useful in certain situations. A lot of people own / use both, for example the main lights might be powered of a single pack with a few monolight satellites which are further away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-22T12:08:14.440" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T12:08:14.440" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7460" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-22T12:07:35.907" Score="1" ViewCount="243" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am snapping a lot of pictures and lots of them I upload to Facebook. Is there any plugin out there to tag people in my catalogs? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3390" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-22T19:35:11.160" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T22:52:31.367" Title="Tagging people in Lightroom 3 before publishing to Facebook" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;lightroom-3&gt;&lt;facebook&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="7461" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7460" CreationDate="2011-01-22T13:18:59.190" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;At this moment I don't know any plugin that will do that.&#xA;You can combine Picasa and Lightroom... more information on google &lt;a href=&quot;http://lmgtfy.com/?q=lightroom+facebook+tag+people&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://lmgtfy.com/?q=lightroom+facebook+tag+people&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3357" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T13:18:59.190" />
  <row Id="7462" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7412" CreationDate="2011-01-22T13:27:38.380" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I want to take a B&amp;amp;W photo I set my camera on a BW picture style and shoot RAW.&#xA;Why?&#xA;Because I can see on the back of my camera how the picture might look like and later in lightroom or any other RAW processing software I can decide exactly how my picture should look in BW.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some other info here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/digital_black_white.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/digital_black_white.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3357" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T13:27:38.380" />
  <row Id="7463" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7426" CreationDate="2011-01-22T13:46:47.450" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When CreativeLive started out I started to take a look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://creativelive.com/courses/digitalphotography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://creativelive.com/courses/digitalphotography&lt;/a&gt; Fundamentals of Digital Photography with John Greengo!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I knew a lot about photography at that moment, but the way he explains it makes you rethink all you know :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe you will find some free clips on the internet with John Greengo&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way he explained shutter speed and aperture&#xA;Take a picture of a water stream at different shutter speeds and show that to your audience, do the same for aperture with the dof.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3357" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T13:46:47.450" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7465" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-22T16:26:02.110" Score="2" ViewCount="123" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Lightroom, why does a question mark sometimes appear the the upper right hand corner of an image? Can I delete them? Can I do a gang delete?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3394" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-22T17:44:02.083" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T17:44:02.083" Title="Why do I get question marks on my pictures in Lightroom?" Tags="&lt;lightroom-3&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7466" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7472" CreationDate="2011-01-22T16:29:23.927" Score="3" ViewCount="404" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm traveling now(I'm at Aruba) and I bought me a Canon 60D with the lens kit(EFS 18-55mm). I never used a camera that has removable lens like this one, my last one was a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ18, so I'm going to a lot of places to take some photos, but which is the best way to carry the camera and the lens on the case? My ideas:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Remove the lens and let the camera without any lens attached(just with the protector cover)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Let the lens on the camera as it is&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which one is correct? If I have more stuff like: More lens, flash and other things for taking photos, how should I carry them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3086" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-23T23:40:06.877" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T23:40:06.877" Title="Is it best to transport a camera with lens attached, or off?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;camera-bag&gt;&lt;travel&gt;&lt;equipment-protection&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="7467" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7426" CreationDate="2011-01-22T16:30:26.203" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm someone that just started learning all this stuff, and I've even tried to explain things that I have learned to some of my friends. Here are some points I would make:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pictures, pictures, pictures!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Show some example shots to illustrate what you are talking about. This is what Bryan Peterson does in &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0817439390&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Understanding Exposure&lt;/a&gt; and why I like it so much. Things you should definitely show:&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The same exposure with different apertures and shutter speeds&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;under and over exposed shots&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Using the shutter speed to stop motion or let it blur&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Using the aperture to take portraits and landscapes&#xA;At the end you want them to be able to look at two pictures and be able to articulate what settings probably changed to get the desired effect. When I started out I would look at pictures online and try to predict the exif data. Interact with them and let them try to guess.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Use the human eye as an analogy.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (This is how I have thought of it -- some people may like this better than the water analogy).&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The aperture is just like a pupil that you manually open and close more. When your pupil is open more, more light comes in.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The eye lid similar to the shutter. Imagine a closed eye, and depending on how fast the eye opens (and closes again) and how big the pupil is, a certain amount of light will get in.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ISO is a little tough to use in the eye (or water) analogy. But I find it is simple enough to explain it as something separate. The reason is that the other factors effect the &lt;em&gt;amount&lt;/em&gt; of light that enters the object (eye or camera). The ISO will tell you how a given amount of light effects the film/sensor. Lower ISO means you are more resistent to light so you need to hit it with more light to get the same effect as something with higher ISO. You can probably relate this to the retina and say that ISO changes how your retina and brain perceive the amount of light that enters the eye.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this helps. Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2746" LastEditorUserId="2746" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-23T03:42:14.453" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T03:42:14.453" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="7468" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7466" CreationDate="2011-01-22T16:37:42.713" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Keeping the lens on is usually fine, unless your luggage will be subjected to unusually rough treatment, in which case separating the camera body / lens and carefully padding each would be preferable. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For transporting multiple lenses, flash etc. a purpose built camera bag is the clear choice. These come in backpack and case forms. See also:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3542/camera-bag-with-extra-space-as-airplane-carry-on&quot;&gt;Camera bag with extra space as airplane carry on&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/191/which-camera-bag-for-a-single-dslr-camera-plus-2-lenses&quot;&gt;Which camera bag for a single DSLR camera plus 2 lenses?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3143/looking-for-a-discreet-camera-bag&quot;&gt;Looking for a discreet camera bag.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3484/how-do-you-carry-around-your-lenses&quot;&gt;How do you carry around your lenses?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T16:37:42.713" />
  <row Id="7469" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7466" CreationDate="2011-01-22T16:38:34.403" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Leave the lens on if you can, but don't sweat it if you have to take the lens off. The more you take off the lens, the more of a chance that dust will get into the sensor. But I know that I've sometimes had bags that I had to take the lenses off in order to fit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T16:38:34.403" />
  <row Id="7470" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7465" CreationDate="2011-01-22T17:06:29.577" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not really sure, but it could be that the program can't find the photo. If you try to zoom on it, do you see it pixelated? If so, I think the program has lost track of the photo location.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="332" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T17:06:29.577" />
  <row Id="7471" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7465" CreationDate="2011-01-22T17:21:28.610" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The photo was not found. It has even been delete or moved outside of Lightroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have delete the photo, then delete them in Lightroom as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have moved the photo, then you can click on the question mark and tell Lightroom where the photo was moved to. It will update its database and the question marks will disappear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If neither of those is the case then the drive with the photos has either been disconnected (unplugged external drive, media not inserted) or has been connected with a different drive letter or path then when Lightroom imported the photo. If you restore the drive or media to its original state, the question marks will go away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T17:21:28.610" />
  <row Id="7472" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7466" CreationDate="2011-01-22T17:32:05.003" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Take a look at this picture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/uqe5P.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;I am&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is how I carry my camera (Nikon D80), 2-3 lenses and a flash. Also a small tripod (not on this picture). Everything is easy and fast to access, and stay in safe while transportation in a backpack (I travel a lot on a bicycle - you probably know how these all shakes there).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bag for the camera is a Lowepro (don't remember a model, can look if necessary), and an Adorama Slinger lens cases (attaches to a camera bag on both sides).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everything is still working well (knock-knock on wood).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2272" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T17:32:05.003" />
  <row Id="7473" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1048" CreationDate="2011-01-22T17:50:34.697" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For the most part, standards aren't designed to explain theory.  Their purpose is to describe how to do something, determine film speed, calibrate an exposure meter, etc, and they are based on research which can be found in scientific papers in scientific journals.  Three papers that describe the theory of meter calibration are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Stimson, Allen, &lt;em&gt;An Interpretation of Current Exposure Meter Technology&lt;/em&gt;, Photographic Science and Engineering, vol 6, No 1, Jan-Feb 1962.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scudder, Nelson, Stimson, &lt;em&gt;Re-evaluation of Factors Affecting Manual or Automatic Control of Camera Exposure&lt;/em&gt;, Journal of the SMPTE, vol 77, Jan 1968.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Connelly, D, &lt;em&gt;Calibration Levels of Films and Exposure Devices&lt;/em&gt;, The Journal of Photographic Science, vol 16, 1968..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3395" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T17:50:34.697" />
  <row Id="7474" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7476" CreationDate="2011-01-22T18:14:10.877" Score="8" ViewCount="218" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently had an online lab print some of my photos and they all came out far darker than I was seeing them on my monitor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They also sent me a calibration print which I could compare to the same print on their website. I turned down the brightness on my monitor until the print matched the online version, adjusted all my images and then had them reprinted and they were fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, would a monitor calibration tool such as Spyder 3 Express perform this process automatically? or does it just alter the colour settings? The colours in the original prints were fine it was just that they were darker than I expected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="823" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T20:14:11.067" Title="Do monitor calibration tools adjust screen brightness too?" Tags="&lt;color-management&gt;&lt;hardware&gt;&lt;display-calibration&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="7475" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7474" CreationDate="2011-01-22T18:28:44.137" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Screen calibration is a process of getting the colours on the screen to match what was supposed to be displayed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As soon as you want to print, you need to understand the differences in colour gamut wit the profile of the lab (etc) uses; most allow you to download a colour profile (ICC file) or give you information on the equipment they use, so you can get the profile yourself. Once you have their profile, you can install it, and &quot;soft proof&quot; which emulates what it will look like when displayed (or printed) using that device.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T18:28:44.137" />
  <row Id="7476" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7474" CreationDate="2011-01-22T19:32:32.537" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Spyder 3 Pro, and it does not directly adjust the monitor brightness.  Near the beginning of the calibration process, you'll set your monitor brightness to a certain value, and from there forward the device will calibrate with respect to white point, black point, and color values but it doesn't generally affect the brightness of the monitor itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That will calibrate your monitor to a known set of colors; as Rowland noted in his previous answer, getting things to sync with the color profile of the printer is often done with an ICC profile from the vendor for the particular piece of hardware they use for printing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T19:32:32.537" />
  <row Id="7477" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7495" CreationDate="2011-01-22T20:07:21.437" Score="7" ViewCount="294" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon uses &quot;Av&quot; (aperture variable) for the automatic exposure mode that entails the user choosing the aperture and the camera body choosing the shutter speed. This mode is called &quot;A&quot; by Nikon, and I think other manufacturers (Panasonic comes to mind, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicgf1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this review of the GF1&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The mode generally called &quot;S&quot; (shutter priority) is called &quot;Tv&quot; (time variable) by Canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do any other manufacturers use the same designations as Canon?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-21T03:46:13.603" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T03:46:13.603" Title="Do any other manufacturers other than Canon use the terms Av and Tv?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="7478" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7474" CreationDate="2011-01-22T20:14:11.067" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This will depend on your monitor. Some color-calibration systems let you choose an initial brightness but it turns out that most monitors cannot maintain their full color-gamut at any level of brightness. So, you may end up with a choice between accuracy and desired brightness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On my NEC LCD3090WQXi, the brightness interface actually lets you know when you are skewing your colors. The display also monitors itself and adjusts the backlight and internal tables to keep the colors accurate as long as possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T20:14:11.067" />
  <row Id="7479" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7477" CreationDate="2011-01-22T20:26:18.560" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My first SLR was a Pentax MZ-50 (film camera). It used Av and Tv on the control dial. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T20:26:18.560" />
  <row Id="7480" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7477" CreationDate="2011-01-22T20:30:28.103" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that Pentax in general uses the same terms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxkx/page6.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pentax k-x review&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3398" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T20:30:28.103" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7481" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7484" CreationDate="2011-01-22T22:23:00.043" Score="7" ViewCount="260" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, that's right.  A friend has asked me to go &quot;spot-lighting&quot; with him, to photography some of the fauna in a local stream.  Not too hard during the day, but most of them don't come out until night.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll be shooting with my D90, 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 and SB800 flash.  I'll also throw my polarizer on to try and cut down on the surface reflections.  I do have a 50mm f/1.8 too, but no polarizer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The current plan is pre-light as much as possible; probably a hand full of torches, as we're a long way from mains power (though I may have access to some 300w tv lights which have battery packs).&#xA;I expect I'm going to have to find the right angle relative to the light, not so far off center that I lose light, and not too close so I get reflections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any other suggestions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2259" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T02:52:53.950" Title="Night photography of fish in a stream" Tags="&lt;night-shooting&gt;&lt;water&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7482" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7412" CreationDate="2011-01-22T23:21:53.673" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Best practice here is doing the conversion in post-processing, as you'll have the right controls to avoid the lame result you're getting in-camera. So, you will want to shoot in RAW and then find your way to &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3361/tips-for-making-black-and-white-conversions-in-post-processing&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T23:21:53.673" />
  <row Id="7483" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3319" CreationDate="2011-01-22T23:31:32.403" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the USA:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As others have explained, you can do this legally. You'll create something called a &quot;derived work&quot;. You own the copyright to the derived work, but not the public domain portion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, this is why you can't legally copy CDs of classical music performances. While the music itself is in the public domain, the particular performance is copyrighted by the performer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T23:31:32.403" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7484" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7481" CreationDate="2011-01-22T23:39:16.513" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some random thoughts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Keep in mind that illumination declines as the &lt;em&gt;square&lt;/em&gt; of the distance from the source. For example, a fish twice as far away from the light source will have 1/4 the illumination (2 stops). So, be prepared for a lot of contrast and inaccurate metering (if fish move between metering and exposure). This may also make it tricky to properly place the flashes, unless the have modeling lights.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Torches (flashlights) don't put out too much light. Bring the TV lights if you can.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You can probably arrange the lights such that there's no reflections striking the camera, eliminating the need for a polarizer.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Take a tripod.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Can you borrow or rent a long, fast lens? I suspect the 50mm may be too short and the 18-200 too slow.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Flashing lights may antagonize the creatures. Be humane.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2011-01-22T23:39:16.513" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7485" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7481" CreationDate="2011-01-23T01:20:46.810" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I haven't tried photographing fish at night, but I have been fishing in a stream with a hand net at night.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's possible to see the fish using a torch, but just barely. I can't imagine that you could get any good pictures that way. We used a kerosene lantern, which puts out a lot more light. Also, it doesn't need electricity (which was crucial as there was none at the fishing cabin).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(It should of course be a proper lantern, not just a lamp with a flame... Example: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VuXnf8uTmg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Primus 991&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T01:20:46.810" />
  <row Id="7487" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7488" CreationDate="2011-01-23T02:01:27.353" Score="9" ViewCount="224" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've seen the term &quot;dark field lighting&quot; a few times and was wondering why its used and how you do it?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An example (by one of our members no less) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/spqr_ca/5362714988/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/spqr_ca/5362714988/&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/55358132@N05/5381128505/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;My go at it&lt;/a&gt;, based on the answer (thanks!):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/qdTZf.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-23T19:59:40.457" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T19:59:40.457" Title="What is &quot;dark field lighting&quot; and why is it used?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7488" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7487" CreationDate="2011-01-23T02:52:49.350" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, since you used my shot as an example, I suppose I should answer... ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dark field lighting is about lighting glass, a subect that is both highly transparent and highly reflective. The idea is to catch the edges of the glass, creating form and definition without dominating highlights. To do that, you need:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Light source&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Black Gobo&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2 white reflectors&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, you can do all of that with a table lamp, a black bristol board, and two white bristol boards. The idea is that you set the light up &lt;em&gt;behind&lt;/em&gt; the black board or gobo and place the white reflectors forward and to either side. Like so:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/E2vp8.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Excuse my quick and dirty CorelDraw example... With this set up, basically, the light reflects off the white sides and defines the glass edges while the black card prevents direct light through the glass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a lot more information, on this and a whole host of other lighting techniques, check out &lt;em&gt;Light: Science and Magic&lt;/em&gt; in any book store you can get it in. It's probably one of the best books on lighting you can get and is my source for this technique.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T02:52:49.350" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="7489" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7481" CreationDate="2011-01-23T02:52:53.950" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You may want to try totally submerging a flash in the water, encased in plastic - either triggered as a slave flash or by radio.  Nothing too heavy-duty, as a really strong flash could easily put out enough heat to melt plastic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you use the in-camera flash try shooting at a 45 degree angle to the water with a polarizer (taking test shots to adjust the polarization correctly), although if the water surface is at all rough you'll probably get some reflections from the flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T02:52:53.950" />
  <row Id="7490" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7466" CreationDate="2011-01-23T03:03:00.087" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For a camera and just one other lens, I like to use a long camera bag meant for a telephoto (I use the the Lowepro Slingshot 75AW, but any long bag will do) - with normal size lenses you can usually keep the camera attached to a lens, with another lens under it - all of the long bags I think come with an internal padded divider that keeps the lenses from hitting each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A flash you could clip on the outside of a case like that, generally they have some way to attach other small bags.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also various belt systems made, with individual lens cases... a single bag looks more non-descript though and doesn't scream &quot;expensive camera gear&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whatever you do, it's better to leave the camera body attached to a lens if possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T03:03:00.087" />
  <row Id="7491" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-23T03:50:46.173" Score="7" ViewCount="541" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am thinking about purchasing a Canon 60D and selling my rebel XT and wondered if I would need to purchase new lenses? I only have two but as you all know, once you invest it is hard to not take those into consideration when purchasing a new camera.  Thanks in advance for any help you all can give me.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3402" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-23T15:36:08.220" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T05:46:21.810" Title="Are canon lenses interchangeable?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7492" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7491" CreationDate="2011-01-23T03:55:09.803" Score="25" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are currently two types of Canon lenses: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_lens_mount&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-S_lens_mount&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF-S&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The EF lenses will work on any modern Canon EOS camera (including both the XT and the 60D).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The EF-S lenses will work on &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; digital Canon EOS cameras, including the Rebel series, XXD series (including the 60D) and the 7D. You can see a full list of supported cameras on wikipedia's &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-S_lens_mount&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF-S&lt;/a&gt; page.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EF-S lenses do &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; work on the 5D or 1D series of Canon EOS DSLRs, nor do they work on the D30, D60 or 10D which are three of Canon's earliest DSLRs (not to be confused with the 30D or 60D, which both support EF-S lenses!).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to answer your question directly, yes, any lens that works on your Rebel XT will work on a Canon EOS 60D, since both support the exact same set of lenses (EF and EF-S only).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastEditorUserId="889" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-26T05:46:21.810" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T05:46:21.810" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7493" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7491" CreationDate="2011-01-23T04:16:24.107" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just in case the question comes up, Canon FD lenses are NOT interchangeable with the current Canon line. The FD is the previous generation, so...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, for a complete list of cameras that support the EF-s mount, see the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-S_lens_mount#Compatibility&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wikipedia page&lt;/a&gt;. Of note is that the 10D is not supported, or similarly old cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T04:16:24.107" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7494" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1441" CreationDate="2011-01-23T05:11:57.867" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just purchased a used Nikon D80 with a Nikkor 18-135 from craigslist for $500.  If cost is an important factor, I'd recommend looking used.  There are great opportunities out there.  You could even take the money you saved and spend it on extra lenses.  After all, DSLR bodies aren't like the old film cameras - they aren't lifetime purchases.  It'll become obsolete while the lenses will prove useful for much longer...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3403" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T05:11:57.867" />
  <row Id="7495" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7477" CreationDate="2011-01-23T07:30:56.757" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A quick review of photos of control dials shows the following:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tv, Av, P, M&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Pentax, Canon  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;S, A, P, M&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Ricoh, Samsung, Fuji, Sigma  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Leica has its own nomenclature.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I had always thought of Tv and Av meaning Time variable and Aperture variable.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T07:30:56.757" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="7496" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7491" CreationDate="2011-01-23T07:40:53.813" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the other good answers - You did not mention what lenses you currently have. Thus, my guess is that these are the (18-55mm) kit lens and the 75-300mm tele. This is a very popular combination with Rebel owners, including me. Once you consider changing your camera body to the next step in the line (xxD), you may also consider that relative to that camera's price, these lenses are relatively cheap, and together cost about $250 (which most of it can be even returned if you sell as used). So, upgrading from a Rebel may be a good time (maybe your last chance) to consider if lens compatibility really is an issue here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the particular case of the EOS 60D this is not really an issue, but if you ever considered a full frame body (EOS 5DmkII) or even converting to other brand, than lens compatibility should not hold you from doing this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T07:40:53.813" />
  <row Id="7497" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7498" CreationDate="2011-01-23T10:42:37.427" Score="6" ViewCount="521" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm correcting white balance issues for my photos in &lt;strong&gt;Adobe Lightroom 3&lt;/strong&gt;. The &lt;code&gt;white balance picker tool&lt;/code&gt; in the &lt;code&gt;Develop&lt;/code&gt; module lets me to pick a light neutral grey spot in the picture from which Lightroom automatically calculates the needed data for white balance corrections. I didn't had a grey card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Can I set the picker so I could choose a spot that &lt;strong&gt;should be white&lt;/strong&gt; (or black) &lt;strong&gt;after white balance corrections?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Or should I be just fine and &lt;strong&gt;consider the chosen neutral grey spot as underexposed&lt;/strong&gt; (or overexposed) &lt;strong&gt;white&lt;/strong&gt; (or black); since the neutral grey is &amp;mdash; well, neutral, and white balance corrects the white balance, not the exposure.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compare to e.g. &lt;strong&gt;Photoshop's&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;code&gt;curves&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;exposure&lt;/code&gt; tools which both have this feature (choosing either supposedly neutral grey, white or a black spot).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do have access to Photoshop and could correct WB with it, but I'd like to edit the photos non-destructively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: After a closer look, the &lt;code&gt;white balance picker tool&lt;/code&gt; doesn't ask for a &lt;em&gt;target neutral&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;grey&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; spot but just for a &lt;em&gt;target&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;neutral&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short: you must pick a spot which &lt;strong&gt;should appear as neutral&lt;/strong&gt; &amp;mdash; ie. where R ≈ G ≈ B &amp;mdash; &lt;strong&gt;after&lt;/strong&gt; Lightroom's automatic adjustments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it could be white (255,255,255), grey (128,128,128) or black (0,0,0), or any other neutral between.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1913" LastEditorUserId="1913" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-23T17:42:29.237" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T15:50:56.560" Title="Can I set Lightroom's white balance picker tool to choose a supposedly white/black spot instead of neutral grey? Or should I care?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;white-balance&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7498" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7497" CreationDate="2011-01-23T11:06:08.963" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the key point with setting (just) white balance is that you pick something where the colour channels should have, more or less, the same intensity. Therefore, picking something that is supposed to be white should also have the desired effect, although it's best to stay away from the &lt;em&gt;extreme&lt;/em&gt; neutral greys (white and definitely black). Using a specific tool to pick a white or black point is usually about more than just white balance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="452" LastEditorUserId="452" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-24T10:40:11.913" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T10:40:11.913" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="7499" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7500" CreationDate="2011-01-23T12:51:00.557" Score="14" ViewCount="313" Body="&lt;p&gt;With gigabytes of pictures accumulating over time, I'm wondering what systems (software, strategies, etc.) people are using to keep track of their collections? Let's say you remember a picture and you want to find the file on disk, how do you ensure that this will be successful?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2077" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-24T21:10:03.887" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T21:10:03.887" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-23T18:23:43.943" Title="How should one best manage large collections of photographs?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;workflow&gt;&lt;organisation&gt;&lt;curation&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="7500" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7499" CreationDate="2011-01-23T13:05:56.030" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm a fan of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adobe Lightroom&lt;/a&gt; - its way of working seems to fit my mental model so I find it fairly natural to use. That does depend on you tagging the photos with appropriate metadata of course and not everyone thinks the same as me, so you may not get on with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/picasa/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Picasa&lt;/a&gt; has matured nicely over the years and has a nice &quot;face finder&quot; that does a pretty reasonable job of auto-finding people in photos and matching them to people you've previously named. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Supporting this I have a fairly simple folder structure of&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;\photos&#xA;  \ shoot description&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because I rely on tags in the software I don't really need too much hierarchical organisation and IMO hierarchies are the wrong tool for the job anyway because a photo will naturally fit into multiple categories but a hierarchy only lets you express one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the short version of the answer is &quot;Tag everything&quot; - doing it on import isn't that painful and means you can finds it later, but going back through gigabytes of history to add the tags is a soul destroying task.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3407" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T13:05:56.030" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-23T18:23:43.943" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="7501" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7497" CreationDate="2011-01-23T15:26:33.967" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I frequently use the eye dropper to choose white objects, and I can tell you, it works well. In theory, black could be used, but it will have more noise, which will make it more likely to have issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, remember that clothing usually isn't pure white, but most other white objects are pretty close, so... Still, it'll get you most of the way there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T15:26:33.967" />
  <row Id="7502" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7505" CreationDate="2011-01-23T15:35:51.257" Score="9" ViewCount="183" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been looking at the Nikon AF-S 35mm f1.8 lens and it has two focus settings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Manual Focus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Manual-Priority Autofocus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is &quot;manual-priority autofocus&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2114" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T15:57:58.720" Title="What is manual-priority autofocus?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;manual-focus&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7503" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7499" CreationDate="2011-01-23T15:44:10.747" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another vote for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adobe Lightroom&lt;/a&gt; here. It combines the Adobe Camera Raw processing engine with a powerful backend database to allow you to store your images and more importantly find them again easily. A side benefit is even the processing is stored in the database, you only need to store one copy of each image (the raw) and the processing is applied on the fly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Mac users &lt;a href=&quot;http://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/aperture/id408981426?mt=12&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Apple Aperture&lt;/a&gt; does much the same thing, but Apple have chosen to price this at about 1/4 of the price of Lightroom, so that is worth a look. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a more consumer level option &lt;a href=&quot;http://picasa.google.co.uk/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Google Picassa&lt;/a&gt; also offers cataloguing as well as image processing, it works well, especially considering it is free software. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastEditorUserId="926" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-24T13:43:35.457" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T13:43:35.457" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-23T18:23:43.943" />
  <row Id="7504" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7502" CreationDate="2011-01-23T15:55:36.680" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If it's like Pentax's fulltime manual in autofocus then it's basically autofocus mode with the ability to manually adjust the result without switching out of autofocus. If you have a lens without this, then manual adjustments are bad for the lens when the body is set to autofocus and so you need to switch out of autofocus mode to adjust.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T15:55:36.680" />
  <row Id="7505" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7502" CreationDate="2011-01-23T15:57:58.720" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Manual-priority allows the lens to auto focus but still allows you to adjust the focus manually.  Many other lenses lock the focus ring when using auto focus to prevent damage to the internal motor. This lens is designed to allow full time manual override which is very useful to tweak focus without switching out of auto mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T15:57:58.720" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7506" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7497" CreationDate="2011-01-23T17:01:01.593" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You must take a sample from a place that &lt;strong&gt;should&lt;/strong&gt; be neutral, &lt;strong&gt;not something that already is&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It can be anywhere you know to be perfectly white. The best is a white-reference card inserted into the photo but if you have fabric or other object known to be truly white, you can use that instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lightroom will then compute how to make the selected color neutral white and adjust colors accordingly. Due to the way these things work internally, it will be more accurate if you choose something relatively bright but not close to being over-exposed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-24T15:50:56.560" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T15:50:56.560" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7507" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7499" CreationDate="2011-01-23T17:05:04.503" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before all this digital hype, I stored my slides in boxes after having numbered each of them (from 1 for the very first picture to more than 7000). In a simple text file I carefully noted the index of each slide, where and when it was taken and a little description of the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finding a picture was (and still is) just a matter of remembering some of these infos (where, when and what) and searching through the file.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my long process of scanning my slides, I continue to use this text file for feeding infos in the cataloguing software I use (this is iView Media Pro).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For digital photos I use both iView Media Pro and iPhoto.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1296" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T17:05:04.503" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-23T18:23:43.943" />
  <row Id="7508" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-23T18:15:17.017" Score="8" ViewCount="277" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know many of the members here develop their own web sites and that's fine if you want to invest the time. unfortunately, I barley get time enough to take photographs, so I would rather get something out of the box.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I came across a photographers website and found it was hosted on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wix.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wix.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After some digging, I found a nice template for a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wix.com/flash-templates/classic-portfolio&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photographer website&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone use this or any other resource that allows for simple and fast creation and administration of a website to display my photographs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: I use picasa for sharing with friends and family. This is more of a proper face to my photography where i can post select images and maybe flourish into a storefront down the road. A secure section for uploading client images would be great. Then that's everything I can ever need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-23T20:09:37.577" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T23:22:24.020" Title="what is a good website platform for displaying my photos?" Tags="&lt;web&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="7509" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7523" CreationDate="2011-01-23T18:19:58.157" Score="9" ViewCount="163" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am looking for a good test image to send to a print lab, to &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6708/how-can-i-validate-my-monitors-color-calibration&quot;&gt;test my system's color calibration&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll be sending my own photos too, of course, but I would also like to include one or two test images to exercise the process (and my knowledge of color and color problems) more thoroughly than my own photos might.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-04T11:29:28.123" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T11:29:28.123" Title="Good test image(s) to send to a print lab" Tags="&lt;color-management&gt;&lt;printing&gt;&lt;tests&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="7510" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7497" CreationDate="2011-01-23T18:20:58.053" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;code&gt;White Balance Picker&lt;/code&gt; tool in Lightroom 3 is designed to pick a &lt;strong&gt;neutral&lt;/strong&gt; color, not a color of a specific tone. The general idea with neutral tones is that all three color channels have the same value. If you pick a near-white color of R255 G252 B253, Lightroom will assume those colors should be &lt;em&gt;normalized&lt;/em&gt;, and average the individual color channel values out (the process is a bit more complicated, as it maintains perceptual neutrality, but thats the gist.). Lightroom can algorithmically determine how to adjust white balance based on the color shift to neutral of that one pixel, and will readjust the white balance of the entire photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the &lt;code&gt;white balance picker&lt;/code&gt; tool works off of the basis that whatever color you pick should become &lt;strong&gt;neutral&lt;/strong&gt;, regardless of tone. If you have a dark shade, middle shade, bright shade, or highlight tone that you believe &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;should be without any color cast&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, then you can pick it and LR will readjust the white balance of the whole image. It should be noted that it is a lot easier to identify neutral shades in the middle tonal range, than it is in the shadows. Highlight tones can also be used, but it is a little more difficult to identify color casts to highlight tones. It is easy to pick a color that results in a radical undesired color shift, either in the temperature plane or the tint plane.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T18:20:58.053" />
  <row Id="7511" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7508" CreationDate="2011-01-23T18:29:04.433" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr&lt;/a&gt;, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.smugmug.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Smugmug&lt;/a&gt; it's a lot nicer if you have the money... It's very nice and you can sell your images through their site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="332" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T18:29:04.433" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7512" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7508" CreationDate="2011-01-23T19:07:02.390" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I haven't used it before, but I have heard good things about pixelpost: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pixelpost.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pixelpost.org/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pixelpost is an open-source, standards-compliant, multi-lingual, fully extensible photoblog application for the web. Anyone who has web-space that meets the requirements can download and use Pixelpost for free!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1125" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T19:07:02.390" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="7513" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7514" CreationDate="2011-01-23T19:18:25.990" Score="7" ViewCount="152" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm doing a shoot for a friend in a couple of weeks (lucky me, she makes lingerie for a living) and I was wondering about backdrops. I'm currently considering various colours of seamless paper, but I was also wondering if the extra expense on the canvas/muslin side was worth it. In general, is there any major advantages/disadvantages to either option that people are familiar with? Other than cost, which is fairly obvious. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T03:08:48.387" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T03:08:48.387" Title="Canvas/muslin versus seamless paper" Tags="&lt;studio&gt;&lt;backdrops&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7514" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7513" CreationDate="2011-01-23T19:26:49.537" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A few random thoughts, from which you can draw conclusions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;seamless paper is cheaper but it's an ongoing expense, the cloth would be a one-time purchase&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the cloth backdrop requires being kept clean&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;easier to pull the seamless out a long way and run it curving down onto the floor and under your subject for, um, more seamless look, especially with a white background&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a cloth backdrop is a lot easier to ship/transport&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T19:26:49.537" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7515" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7508" CreationDate="2011-01-23T19:31:21.887" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I used to have my own CMS, which I wrote specific to my purposes, but ultimately decided to go with &lt;a href=&quot;http://wordpress.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wordpress&lt;/a&gt; in combination with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/nextgen-gallery/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NexGen gallery&lt;/a&gt; plugin. I've been happy with it and, if you don't have the hardware to host your own, Wordpress offers hosting. I'm running directly myself, easy as pie to maintain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T19:31:21.887" />
  <row Id="7516" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7499" CreationDate="2011-01-23T19:38:38.553" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, I think Lightroom is your power answer, but I'm similar in the old fogey category in that I structure on disk. Basically, my layout is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;year/#-month/day-subject&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, for example, one would be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;2010/10-October/21-Water Drops&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do the numeric/textual month thing for quick glance and sorting. It's been working for me, though it may start to fail if my memory starts to slide. ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T19:38:38.553" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-23T19:38:38.553" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7517" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7508" CreationDate="2011-01-23T19:57:16.840" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have used zenfolio for the last few months, its nice and easy to use and set up, clean templates and you can sell your images via them as well. I chose them specifically for the option to have protected galleries for clients.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1907" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T19:57:16.840" />
  <row Id="7518" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7513" CreationDate="2011-01-23T19:59:46.260" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been playing with these 2 options myself - so far I do find that the seamless paper is the better option, I find the canvas is a real pain to keep clean. However paper is heavy to keep around, bulky and needs replacing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also found lighting the paper easier - possibly my canvas wasn't opaque enough?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1907" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T19:59:46.260" />
  <row Id="7519" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7508" CreationDate="2011-01-23T20:08:17.360" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Based on your edit, it seems like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.smugmug.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SmugMug&lt;/a&gt; would be an excellent option.  They have easy options for setting up portions for client pricing and can handle alot of the backend stuff (printing, shipping, etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T20:08:17.360" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7520" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7522" CreationDate="2011-01-23T20:24:40.793" Score="15" ViewCount="513" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a change from the technical flavour of our questions I would like to turn to photography as an art, so I am afraid this is inevitably subjective.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which photographer, in your mind, is especially inspirational, why and if possible give an example of his/her work.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a continuation of a similar question asked last year by CodeToGlory &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2224/what-is-your-favourite-photograph&quot;&gt;(What is your favourite photograph?)&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get the ball rolling I will post an answer below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since this is now community wiki, I (@lindes) will add: one photographer per answer (and please look for that photographer in existing answers before adding your own), but you may submit multiple answers if you find multiple people inspiring.  (I think that's what makes the most sense for this type of question.  If others disagree, please edit this paragraph.  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="2425" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-24T18:14:43.683" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T17:09:54.297" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-23T21:42:47.723" Title="Which photographer do you find inspirational?" Tags="&lt;art&gt;&lt;inspiration&gt;&lt;photographer&gt;" AnswerCount="20" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="11" />
  <row Id="7521" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7520" CreationDate="2011-01-23T20:39:44.307" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find Vivian Maier's street photography especially inspirational.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/PDi9O.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Vivian Maier&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/dkz1T.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Over a period of some 40 years she took more than 100,000 photos, mostly street scenes in Chicago &lt;a href=&quot;http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/new-street-photography-60-years-old/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;See this link&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivian_Maier&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this link&lt;/a&gt;. She is remarkable for the single minded way in which she devoted her adult life to photography, spending her off duty hours walking the streets and taking photographs that showed a penetrating insight. Her obsessive devotion to photography, to the exclusion of all else, from the age of about 30, is probably an example of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;outsider art&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-23T20:53:59.020" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T20:53:59.020" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-23T21:42:47.723" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7522" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7520" CreationDate="2011-01-23T20:53:29.130" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gregory Crewdson&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/images?q=gregory+crewdson&amp;amp;um=1&amp;amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;amp;source=og&amp;amp;sa=N&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;tab=wi&amp;amp;biw=1277&amp;amp;bih=1939&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;) For the surreal mood and feeling he can craft in a photograph with his controlled lighting mixed with 'in situ' lighting.  That and the storytelling nature of the photographs that cause you to linger on the image, wondering what the subjects are doing... or have done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/An6Sr.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/W48Mt.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastEditorUserId="1819" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-25T19:21:00.237" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T19:21:00.237" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-23T21:42:47.723" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="7523" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7509" CreationDate="2011-01-23T21:11:24.747" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is the one we suggest using at SmugMug, the full sized image is available for anybody to use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cmac.smugmug.com/SmugMug/Test-prints/Calibration-prints/122238_UAxBs#5637776_3P7qj-A-LB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://cmac.smugmug.com/SmugMug/Test-prints/Calibration-prints/122238_UAxBs#5637776_3P7qj-A-LB&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/9NISR.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T21:11:24.747" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="7524" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-23T21:25:04.423" Score="10" ViewCount="301" Body="&lt;p&gt;If a photo is over or under exposed but not to the point of clipping (histogram does not reach the left or right side) is there any reason you couldn't just fix the exposure in Photoshop or Lightroom? Obviously you wouldn't ultimately want a photo that is to bright or too dark, but is any actual information lost if the original digital file is not at the correct exposure? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1431" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-23T21:47:55.693" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T16:25:07.297" Title="Can you fix incorrect exposure during post processing?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7525" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7520" CreationDate="2011-01-23T21:30:37.043" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll bet you 10 to 1 that I may the only one to post a link to an amateur, but I find the wife of a friend of mine to be one of the most inspiring to me. Her &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/38181551@N07/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photostream on Flickr&lt;/a&gt; is a big reason for it, but the biggest reason is that she only started shooting a couple of years ago, never held an SLR in her hands before, and this is an example of what she comes up with:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/YnijB.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Her stream is filled with image after image as impressive as this. She keeps it up and National Geographic will be knocking on her door. Hence, I'm inspired.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T21:30:37.043" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-23T21:42:47.723" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7526" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7524" CreationDate="2011-01-23T21:33:12.000" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, you can correct a little bit; That's what the exposure sliders in Aperture/Photoshop/Lightroom are for, and it's one of the reasons RAW can be a better choice than JPEG.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, some information is hidden by noise, and you're better off changing ISO in camera to get a proper exposure than underexposing and correcting in post. A 1/100, f/8, ISO 800 picture adjusted +2 stops in post will have more noise than a 1/100, f/8, ISO 3200 picture straight out of camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also see &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2946/how-is-iso-implemented-in-digital-cameras&quot;&gt;How is ISO implemented in digital cameras?&lt;/a&gt; for similar discussion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T21:33:12.000" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7527" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7524" CreationDate="2011-01-23T21:44:51.350" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer, yes, you're fine if there's no information lost, i.e. there is nothing significant in the scene which is too bright or too dark even given the exposure error.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One caveat is that small areas of blown pixels don't always show up on the histogram, so be careful for that. There is also the potential noise problem for underexposure, as Evan notes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously, it's better to have a good exposure in-camera, but that doesn't always happen for various reasons. If you're still in the field and can re-expose, do that rather than planning to clean up in post. Also, don't hesitate to bracket in tricky lighting, if you anticipate this problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T21:44:51.350" />
  <row Id="7528" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7520" CreationDate="2011-01-23T21:59:05.357" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My Flickr contacts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/people/mindazonaltal/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sarolta Bán&lt;/a&gt; - Why do I find her inspirational: the general &quot;surrealist&quot; mood in her shots, the composition and the creative elaboration are inspiring. I love post-processing my photos, and she is a master in this.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebba/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rebekka Guðleifsdóttir&lt;/a&gt; - Why do I find her inspirational: I love her &quot;twin&quot; and &quot;multiple-self&quot; shots. I love the fact she is an autodidact (I am one too). Generally, I love the incredible mood there is in her Icelandic photos.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/abenedetti/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Andrea Benedetti&lt;/a&gt; - Why do I find him inspirational: because he's a perfectionist. On one of his photos he says that he waited some hours for the sun to disappear behind a cloud to take the shot. This is a real photographer IMHO.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S.: ok, some shots to avoid the brutal downvote :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Andy's:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/mzr1V.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Sarolta (mindazonaltal):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/YUx1A.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From rebekka (but anything from her is fine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/u6jeQ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3231" LastEditorUserId="3231" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-24T18:41:24.170" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T18:41:24.170" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-23T21:59:05.357" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7529" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7508" CreationDate="2011-01-23T22:13:39.263" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been using &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photoshelter.com/referral/LE7CR52N8E&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photoshelter&lt;/a&gt; for the last few years, it isn't the cheapest solution out there, but I believe it is the best. The customer service is great and it makes it easy to sell your images as both prints and electronic files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T22:13:39.263" />
  <row Id="7530" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7508" CreationDate="2011-01-23T23:22:24.020" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Gallery, from &lt;a href=&quot;http://gallery.menalto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://gallery.menalto.com/&lt;/a&gt;, makes another good option. The 1.x versions had some scalability problems, and the 2.x series was a bit over-complicated, but the current 3.x version aims to be just right (and looks to do a pretty good job of it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T23:22:24.020" />
  <row Id="7531" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-23T23:32:29.900" Score="3" ViewCount="143" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for artwork that has already been produced by the artist.  Lots of artists have their own sites setup, but is there some kind of aggregator that has a bunch of them altogether?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3415" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T01:37:19.373" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-27T19:51:51.757" Title="What are some good places to buy photo prints online?" Tags="&lt;prints&gt;&lt;art&gt;&lt;artwork&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7532" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7520" CreationDate="2011-01-23T23:36:22.810" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A couple of the photographers who represent the fields I'm passionate about myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.joeyl.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Joey Lawrence&lt;/a&gt; - Fine art, editorial, commercial etc. Amazing work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.joaocanziani.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Joao Canziani&lt;/a&gt; - Similar work to Joey. Celebrities, people, editorial and commercial.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://flickr.com/photos/jaredpolin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jared Polin&lt;/a&gt; - Runs FroKnowsPhoto.com. Wedding, portrait, live music photographer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I never even realised they were all J's!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T23:36:22.810" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-23T23:36:22.810" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7533" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7520" CreationDate="2011-01-23T23:46:15.733" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pietro Donzelli, a photographer from the Italian Neorealism movement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1450" LastActivityDate="2011-01-23T23:46:15.733" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-23T23:46:15.733" />
  <row Id="7534" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7637" CreationDate="2011-01-24T00:08:01.963" Score="3" ViewCount="131" Body="&lt;p&gt;I’m looking for information on what factors to consider in deciding between a camera with a large sensor and low light sensitivity (for example, the Canon S95) and a camera with a good zoom (for example, the Lumx ZS7).  My main uses are for family events and vacations, so I am interested in a mix of indoor and outdoor events.  Sporting events aren’t an important use for me, but indoor occasions such as graduations and plays in the school auditorium are important.  For that type of use, low light capability is important, but an optical zoom to pick out my kid on the stage is also critical.  What factors should I be considering to decide?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3416" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T12:05:38.367" Title="What factors to consider in choosing between large sensor and good zoom?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;low-light&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="7535" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-24T00:08:14.617" Score="3" ViewCount="226" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Geotagging&quot; has been around for a number of years now. Why haven't the major camera producers (Canon, Nikon, etc.) gotten around to installing internal GPS systems in their point-and-shoot cameras to automatically geotag photos? Even more so, why not in SLRs which don't have the same size constraints?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3382" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T18:57:46.363" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T23:11:19.873" Title="Where, oh where, are the GPS Point-and-shoot cameras?" Tags="&lt;gps&gt;&lt;geotagging&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7536" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7535" CreationDate="2011-01-24T00:17:18.557" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are now 17 digital cameras with GPS. It's a simple search on Neocamera: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php?gps=1&amp;amp;by=feature&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php?gps=1&amp;amp;by=feature&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look at the Refine Results column (the orange box) in the above page, you'll see the break down by category (9 compact, 1 large, 1 SLD, 2 DSLR and 4 ultra-compact at this time).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nikon is still missing from there and it is mostly expected. Big players tend to play it safe and have less pressure to shake things since they already have a good chunk of the market. They do try sometimes though, as you may note from Nikon's two cameras with built-in projectors and one discontinued model with GPS (P6000).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon recently introduced the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=312&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Powershot SX230 HS&lt;/a&gt; which is has their first built-in GPS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-15T22:45:19.137" LastActivityDate="2011-05-15T22:45:19.137" />
  <row Id="7537" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7534" CreationDate="2011-01-24T00:24:32.450" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Honestly, I think you answered your own question :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Large sensor and low light sensitivity are best for indoor use and events in a school auditorium are most important to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that when it comes to large-sensors, you 98% get the ability to use interchangeable lenses, in which case you can buy any focal-length you want eventually. It will cost you over time but just because you get something with a large sensor doesn't mean you can't get a long zoom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T00:24:32.450" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7538" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7534" CreationDate="2011-01-24T00:26:50.810" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hey Will,&#xA;There are a lot of other differences between those two cameras to consider, top among them are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;S95 shoots in RAW&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;S95 has a minimum aperture of f2 (Lumix is 3.3)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;S95 can be set to ISO up to 3200 (Lumix can be set to 1600 but auto up to 6400)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lumix zooms to 300mm, S95 to 105mm&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lumix has GPS&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lumix has a faster drive mode&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lumix's wide end is 25mm (S95 is 28mm)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lots of differences:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&amp;amp;cameras=canon_s95%2Cpanasonic_dmczs7&amp;amp;show=all&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&amp;amp;cameras=canon_s95%2Cpanasonic_dmczs7&amp;amp;show=all&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, it sounds like for what you're shooting you don't care about long zoom (105mm is pretty tight), you care more about low light performance AND higher shutter speeds at low light (larger apertures).  Look at some other cameras that go down to f2 and have good low light performance too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T00:26:50.810" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7539" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7520" CreationDate="2011-01-24T00:35:43.470" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many awesome super-star photographers which I find inspiring such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jaymaisel.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jay Maisel&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dykinga.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jack Dykinga&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mangelsen.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tom Mangelson&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dnphotography.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;David Norton&lt;/a&gt;, etc. However I've personally found it easier to be inspired by less intimidating names.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/photos/wilsontsoi&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wilson Tsoi&lt;/a&gt; is an amazing photographer, he is equally capable to shoot awesome pictures with a compact camera than a DSLR. He has an amazing eye for composition and his love for night photography is comparable to mine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/about/michael1.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Michael Reichmann&lt;/a&gt; inspired me early on too as a master of composition simplicity. Amid the chaos of places like Bangladesh he still manage to capture simple yet powerful images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: Feel free to be inspired by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neoluminance.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;me&lt;/a&gt; too, it would be a pleasure ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T00:35:43.470" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-24T00:35:43.470" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7540" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7547" CreationDate="2011-01-24T00:43:48.317" Score="10" ViewCount="234" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are some good places to sell photo prints online? Is it possible? Is it depends on country, laws, copyright restrictions. Any comments are welcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3399" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-08T14:33:59.137" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T21:46:35.867" Title="What are some good places to sell photo prints online?" Tags="&lt;business&gt;&lt;artwork&gt;&lt;selling&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="7541" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-24T00:44:21.387" Score="8" ViewCount="441" Body="&lt;p&gt;As camera phones become more and more sophisticated, will they ultimately replace point-and-shoot cameras?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3382" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T21:04:25.827" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-24T15:13:56.760" ClosedDate="2011-04-20T08:49:28.077" Title="Will point-and-shoot cameras be able to compete with camera phones?" Tags="&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;&lt;cameraphones&gt;" AnswerCount="12" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7542" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7422" CreationDate="2011-01-24T01:06:03.530" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Look up Mark Plonsky (on your favourite search engine), who has info on his equipment setup on his website.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I first saw his photos a decade ago, and they were pretty dang amazing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3419" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T01:06:03.530" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7543" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7524" CreationDate="2011-01-24T01:14:09.663" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're shooting in RAW, &quot;correcting&quot; exposure is really not a problem so long as you find the result acceptable. Often despite shooting correctly, I will change the exposure in Lightroom a little to better suit the result I want, whether it's bringing the highlights back or correcting for slight underexposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Typically +/- 1 stop in a DSLR raw file is fine, at least in my experience. It will also depend on the ISO you shot the file at.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other reason to correct exposure is when you are deliberately &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposing_to_the_right&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;exposing to the right&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T01:14:09.663" />
  <row Id="7544" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7541" CreationDate="2011-01-24T01:15:44.500" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't believe that camera phones will replace true P&amp;amp;S cameras. The limitations of the phone form factor will be the barrier conditions. having the flush lens and small size requirements limit the image quality. It is not to say that camera phones will not continue to advance, it is more that the requirements of being a &quot;phone&quot; will outweigh the requirements for being a camera.  Just from looking at my phone with the small flash, the flush small lens, and the battery life of a gnat when shooting pictures I think it is not well suited to being used as a camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People will be willing to carry a camera for taking pictures on vacations and other events that provide more control than what the phone can do. It is not a question of the electronics being capable it is just how the technology is packaged and if it will be pleasing to the consumer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I still have separate music player and telephone as I find that a device can typically do one thing very well, or many things mediocre. I would prefer to have one device that does one thing very well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1901" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T01:15:44.500" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-24T15:13:56.760" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="7545" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7541" CreationDate="2011-01-24T01:17:57.023" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think there's any question that camera phones will take over mass-market point &amp;amp; shoot cameras. The question isn't really &lt;em&gt;if&lt;/em&gt;, but &lt;em&gt;when&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The iPhone uses a 1/3.2&quot;-format sensor (using the weird standard where 1&quot; = 16mm, so 15.5mm²). This is smaller than what's used in most point &amp;amp; shoot cameras (especially the good ones), but isn't so far off. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, take a look at the specs for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer/digital_cameras/powershot_a_series/powershot_a200#Specifications&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon Powershot A200&lt;/a&gt;, announced June, 2002. Sensor the same size as the iPhone, and a fixed-focal-length lens of around the same range. But, only 2Mpix, and ISO from 50 to 400 (and we can bet that 400 was pretty bad).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the iPhone isn't even state-of-the-art for camera phones — for that, look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://europe.nokia.com/find-products/devices/nokia-n8/specifications&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nokia N8&lt;/a&gt;, which has a 1/1.8&quot; (36.8mm²) sensor with max ISO of 1200 and apparently very nice optics to boot. This clearly competes with a lot of point&amp;amp;shoot cameras &lt;em&gt;now&lt;/em&gt;, at least on some levels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it's pretty clear that the best current camera phones handily beat at least some of the P&amp;amp;S digicam field from a decade ago, and I think it's reasonable to assume that in much less than another decade, phone cameras will beat today's crop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A larger form-factor may always have room for a level of quality that literally can't be squeezed into a camera phone, but from that direction, there's pressure from low-end dSLRs and especially mirrorless interchangeable-lens cameras. Right now, there's a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q42010highendcompactgroup/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pretty impressive bunch of high-end P&amp;amp;S cameras&lt;/a&gt; (more than I would have predicted), but I think it really can't last. Camera phones have two major advantages: 1) people have them already, and 2) the fact that they phones are now &lt;em&gt;software platforms&lt;/em&gt; makes them so superior in many ways. Not only can one fundamentally change the camera uesr interface, one can post-process in the field, and instantly share the results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So yeah: it'll happen. In fact, it &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; happening. &lt;em&gt;When&lt;/em&gt; is an open question, but mostly the discussion over which value of &quot;soon&quot; to pick.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update as of April, 2011: TechCrunch ran an article yesterday titled &lt;a href=&quot;http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/17/iphone-4-camera/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;iPhone 4 About To Be Flickr’s Top Camera. Point &amp;amp; Shoots? Pretty Much The Opposite.&lt;/a&gt; The title pretty much says it all. Of course, Flickr has an inherent bias, since the iPhone can automatically upload pictures with no extra steps, but still, I think it's plenty illustrative of future trends. As TechCrunch puts it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Six months ago, the data looked bad for point &amp;amp; shoots. Now it looks downright frightening. If the trend continues (and it’s actually speeding up), the point &amp;amp; shoot is finished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-18T13:39:37.567" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T13:39:37.567" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-24T15:13:56.760" CommentCount="12" />
  <row Id="7546" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7499" CreationDate="2011-01-24T01:21:28.970" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This management is exactly what Lightroom is designed to do. I used to be responsible for document control for a CAD department, and came up with lots of tracking and revision systems. I can say that using Lightroom is the easiest and best way to manage lots of images. I have over 40,000 images organized using Lightroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have mine setup to place the images in the following structure:&#xA;Year&#xA;   Month&#xA;      Day&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then I add lots of keywords. Using Lightroom I can find pictures quickly and easily. Including ones that are keepers and ones that the electrons can be recycled without missing anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lightroom has a 30 day trial for both Mac and Windows, so you can try it out and see what you think. Adding in the ability to do editing and management just adds to the power of the program.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1901" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T01:21:28.970" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-24T01:21:28.970" />
  <row Id="7547" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7540" CreationDate="2011-01-24T01:21:42.790" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends very much on what you are trying to accomplish. There are at least 3 broad categories, which I'll try and give some examples. Note that my examples are probably US centric, but the services might also have foreign affiliates, I haven't looked into them all, so...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Selling Prints to Clients&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/7hWkK.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Client&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Okay, so you've done a photo shoot with some clients, and they want to order prints from you. Where do you direct them? This will depend somewhat on what country you are in, but here's a few.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.smugmug.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Smugmug&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pictage.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pictage&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.shutterfly.com/selling_photos_online/professional_photography/sell_my_photos_sign_up.jsp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Shutterfly&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Selling prints to strangers&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/iwuxo.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Landscape&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, you took an awesome landscape picture, and now you want to sell a print to a complete stranger. You could use the above sites, but you might have more luck with a dedicated site. The truth be told, however, is that unless you already have a fairly well known name, you're probably not going to have much luck online from this type of picture. I don't have much experience here, but I'll post a few that I've heard of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cafepress.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cafe Press&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photoshelter.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photo Shelter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imagekind.com/sell/art-photography.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Image Kind&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Selling the rights to use your images&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ICGIS.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Wrong way rocket&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is also known as stock photography. These photos typically either sell a concept, have a type of photo illustrated, but can include landscapes and other general interest pictures. There are at least 2 sub-categories here, I'm more familiar with the micro-stock site. Specifically, you can look into sites such as those listed below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bigstockphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bigstockphoto&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://us.fotolia.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fotolia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dreamstime.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dreamstime&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.shutterstock.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Shutterstock&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-28T19:39:02.253" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T19:39:02.253" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="7548" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7541" CreationDate="2011-01-24T01:53:53.997" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually, the prediction is that within 5 years point and shoot cameras will start to fade in favor of camera's built into mobile devices (they will be less phone and more... well who knows whats going to be packed into them in 5 years). Personally, I think this may take a little longer but is inevitable with the amount of money the mobile market commands today and more importantly the growth it has seen in the past few months and years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After a fast search it would seem I am not alone in thinking this. See this article title &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gadgetteaser.com/2010/11/22/the-future-of-the-point-and-shoot-there-isnt-one/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The future of the point-and-shoot (there isn’t one)&lt;/a&gt; for more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T01:53:53.997" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-24T15:13:56.760" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7549" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7520" CreationDate="2011-01-24T02:15:41.153" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/TWkHQ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.michaelkenna.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Michael Kenna&lt;/a&gt; inspires me the most. You can see his work &lt;a href=&quot;http://trinixy.ru/michael_kenna.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;compilation&lt;/a&gt; here. There's a short &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3glZrvAFVUU&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;documentary&lt;/a&gt; on his techniques. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His work exudes sophistication through simplicity. You sense the solitude, the etherealness, and tranquility, as if you were in the scenes yourself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Six Sticks&quot; pictured above, is one of my favorites of his. I emailed him a while back asking what went through his mind when he took that photo. I totally did not expect a busy world-renowned photographer would respond. But he did:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As for what I was thinking…&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Perhaps it was an attempt to reduce&#xA;  the complicated, noisy, colorful,&#xA;  cluttered, busy, fast paced world, to&#xA;  something calm, simple and meditative.&#xA;  But I rather believe interpretation&#xA;  should be in the mind, heart and soul&#xA;  of the beholder. So, perhaps it is&#xA;  better that you think about it&#xA;  yourself : )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That earned me even more respect for him, not only as a photographer, but as a kind and humble person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T02:15:41.153" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-24T02:15:41.153" />
  <row Id="7550" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7520" CreationDate="2011-01-24T03:01:52.247" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_423787643_423771_david-lachapelle.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;david-lachapelle&lt;/a&gt; blows my mind. I am blown away some one can think up the stuff that goes on in hos photographs, let alone making such stunning images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another favorite is the one he has of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.staleywise.com/collection/good_humor/big_img/7_lachapelle_vincevaughn.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Vince Vaughn&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T03:01:52.247" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-24T03:01:52.247" />
  <row Id="7551" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7541" CreationDate="2011-01-24T03:17:39.417" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Contrary to looking at the problem from a &quot;when phones cameras will be comparable to P&amp;amp;S&quot;, which is inevitable advancement of the technology (although I won't commit to a 5 years time frame), there is another path - P&amp;amp;S cameras will become cellular enabled! I see no reason why a camera like the Digital Elph can't include a mobile phone chipset (kind of what MODU's vision was all about). Then, the above question will become meaningless, as now you &lt;strong&gt;have&lt;/strong&gt; a cell phone with P&amp;amp;S camera quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the bottom line, it does not matter what way you look at it - phones become cameras or cameras become phones. It is all about convergence and there is no doubt that this is the way of the consumer market future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T03:17:39.417" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-24T15:13:56.760" />
  <row Id="7552" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7541" CreationDate="2011-01-24T03:28:56.483" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to take a different tact from the other posters... I don't think it matters. There are some certain facts in all of this that are relevant:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cell phones and P&amp;amp;S cameras will improve.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some percentage of the population will be happy with the cell phone, some will not.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;World population is approaching 7 billion.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the above, both formats will, I think, do very well for any forseeable future. They compete, in a sense, but not entirely. However, I agree with ysap, the convergence is clear, but I do think that there will always be a segment of the population that wants the advantages of the dedicated hardware and, hence, P&amp;amp;S will persevere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T03:28:56.483" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-24T15:13:56.760" />
  <row Id="7553" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="124" CreationDate="2011-01-24T06:01:42.737" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The C mount may be universal, but they are made for a number of different sensor/film sizes.  This means many will not cover the entire 4/3 sensor.  This will result in vignetting or a dark circle, requiring cropping of the final result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A C mount lens designed for a smaller image circle than 4/3 (such as, one for a 1&quot; tube) may still cover the entire 4/3 sensor adequately, although this can depend on lens design and focal length - the longer focal lengths often have less vignetting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it pays to do a search on the various micro four thirds forums and see who else has experience using a particular lens on their micro 4/3 system.  I can't speak for its completeness or accuracy, but a glimpse at Wikipedia turns up this list of C mount lenses: &lt;a href=&quot;http://us.c-mount.passion.pro/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://us.c-mount.passion.pro/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another thing to consider is that the flange to focal plane distance of C-mount is a bit less than that of micro four thirds, which means that the back of the lenses will protrude back into the camera body a few millimeters.  This is not a problem usually, as micro 4/3 has no flip down mirror, but it does have some other delicate equipment and you should still exercise care.  It's not unknown for some C-mount lenses to need some protruding parts ground off their rear end to be able to fit safely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T06:01:42.737" />
  <row Id="7554" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-24T06:12:46.580" Score="1" ViewCount="72" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm trying out tethering for... not quite the first time, but the first time I'm taking it relatively seriously, and I'm noticing something that was not quite to my expectations:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I shoot in the tethering mode that's built into Aperture 3 (currently at 3.1.1) with my Canon 30D (Firmware version 1.0.6), the images are capturing (either when triggered from the camera, or from the computer) just fine, and being transferred just fine to the computer, but they're not being stored to the card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there some way I can get them to also be stored to the card?  I have some workflow around importing from the card that I'd like to still be able to use after a tethered shooting session... but I can't do it if it's not on the card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, granted, the images are on my computer... it's just that they're stored with different image numbers, and other little things that maybe don't &quot;really matter&quot;, but they matter to the particular way I do my workflow (lots of automation around things, very customized).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this possible?  What settings can I change, either on the camera or in Aperture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or perhaps there's an alternate piece of software that I can use (Canon's native software?  I haven't tried running it in forever, would it run in MacOS 10.6.6?) to do the tethered shooting, even if that means taking Aperture out of the picture until the later import?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any help would be appreciated.  Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T06:30:25.073" Title="Can I get my 30D to record to the card when shooting tethered (with Aperture 3)?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;apple-aperture&gt;&lt;tethering&gt;&lt;import&gt;&lt;canon-30d&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7555" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7524" CreationDate="2011-01-24T06:18:39.033" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For JPEG&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Correcting overexposure: usually not possible at all&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Correcting underexposure: possible, but will increase noise and possibly JPEG artifacts and banding&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For RAW&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Correcting overexposure: possible, usually only by around 1 stop or less&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Correcting underexposure: possible, but will increase noise&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exposing incorrectly and fixing in post-processing does indeed lose information in all the above scenarios, though as a rule of thumb:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;RAW generally penalises you a little bit less for over/underexposure.  It still won't be as good as getting it right in the first place, but you can get a nicer result after correction, and usually within +/- 1 stop is basically not noticeable.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;With JPEG it's better to err on the side of slight underexposure rather than slight overexposure, or take multiple different exposures when unsure.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-24T06:27:24.013" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T06:27:24.013" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7556" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7559" CreationDate="2011-01-24T06:25:52.397" Score="17" ViewCount="372" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for a reliable photo book printing service that allows the option of uploading a high quality PDF or Indesign file, but also prints using high quality photo prints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've used Blurb, but their print quality, even on the higher quality paper, is on par with a high quality magazine print.  While I'm not disappointed with the quality for the prices I've paid, I'm wanting to use a higher quality printer for my next project.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Has anyone found a service that does actual photo quality prints for their books, and still allows for completely custom books without using their custom software?  The other requirement is that they allow for small print runs.  I'm only wanting to have one or two books printed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1141" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T03:04:55.137" Title="High Quality Photo Book Service" Tags="&lt;prints&gt;&lt;publishing&gt;&lt;photobooks&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="7" />
  <row Id="7557" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7554" CreationDate="2011-01-24T06:30:25.073" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know of a way to do it with Aperture, but you might try playing around with Automator. It has a &quot;Take Picture&quot; action:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/CqXmc.png&quot; alt=&quot;alt text&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This has an option to Delete picture from camera after downloading, which you would want to disable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think you can avoid downloading the recently taken image with Automator, but at least you can leave it on the card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another option is to use &lt;a href=&quot;http://gphoto.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gphoto2&lt;/a&gt;, which is a library/command-line tool that allows for controlling a camera over USB. Just install gphoto2 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://macports.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;macports&lt;/a&gt; has a port for it which makes installation easy), and run &lt;code&gt;gphoto2 --capture-image&lt;/code&gt; to take a picture without downloading.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T06:30:25.073" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7558" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7415" CreationDate="2011-01-24T07:00:25.207" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Color filters help you to alter the way the various colors in a scene are translated to shades of gray.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a red filter means that the black and white image will be derived more from red light, which tends to make skin look softer and lighter.  It also makes a daytime blue sky darker, which can lead to a more balanced looking contrast.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;other colors and shades create other effects&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In digital photography, don't put a color filter over your lens.  You just decrease the light getting to the sensor, increasing noise for no good reason and decreasing the ability for the bayer interpolation to give you decent resolution.  What's more, if you leave your camera on auto WB, your camera's white balance is likely to try and boost whatever colors you try and cut too reducing the effectiveness of what you were trying to achieve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead, with digital you do this color filtering in post-processing.  It has the same effect, but it's more flexible and cheap.  For this you can use &quot;channel mixer&quot;, or you can use &quot;color balance&quot; or &quot;curves&quot; or other tools on individual color channels to alter the relative color makeup before converting to black and white.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;As others have said, there are certain limited situations where it may be desirable to use lens filters in digital photography, but it is usually for unrelated reasons than to affect the bias of colors for making a black and white image, which is what this topic is about.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-24T07:07:07.803" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T07:07:07.803" />
  <row Id="7559" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7556" CreationDate="2011-01-24T07:25:58.530" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You bet... two labs that I've specifically used for making custom photo books are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bayphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bay Photo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whcc.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;White House Custom Color&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They both have product lines that include a variety of different configurations (book size, # of pages, paper choice, cover options and materials, etc.), quantity of books ordered (1 or 2 is a common request), and will use 4-color or 6-color offset printing, so it will be much higher quality than Blurb, Cafepress, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want the absolute best-of-the-best quality, and money is no object, the other option I can think of is to look into wedding album manufacturers such as: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://asukabook.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Asuka Book&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://leathercraftsmen.net/joomla1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Leather Craftsman&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.la-viealbum.com/home.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;La Vie&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They may be 'wedding album companies,' but there's nothing saying you're only 'allowed' to create wedding albums... But you'll want to be prepared for sticker shock. The costs are &lt;em&gt;way&lt;/em&gt; higher than you'll pay through something like Blurb... On the other hand, the quality and customization are also top-notch, and the final product is going to have a 'look and feel' that Blurb simply will not be able to match. Additionally, these companies cater to businesses, not individuals, so you may have to jump through some additional hoops in order to use them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Full Disclosure&lt;/strong&gt;: I am a customer of all the companies mentioned above in my photography business, so I can personally attest to their top-notch quality... I don't get anything for mentioning them here, though, and there are other album manufacturers out there... These are just the ones I happen to be familiar with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T07:25:58.530" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7560" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7520" CreationDate="2011-01-24T08:23:00.417" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I started being turned on by the usual suspects -- Weston, Karsh, Adams -- but I'd have to say that the one photographer who really changed my mind about what the craft could be is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.shinsugino.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Shin Sugino&lt;/a&gt;. My first introduction to his work was an overview of his commercial work in the (absolutely gorgeous) Canadian magazine Applied Arts Quarterly (as it was then). From food to large products (like automobiles) his work was simply impeccable. Then I saw his personal work, and I understood that this medium is both art and craft, capable of conveying an intensity of emotion and subtlety of expression I had hardly imagined before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T08:23:00.417" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-24T08:23:00.417" />
  <row Id="7561" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7562" CreationDate="2011-01-24T10:29:48.177" Score="10" ViewCount="217" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since I am considering to buy the Nikkor 105mm micro VR, I wondered if the cropped sensor does affect the closest focusing distance of 0.31m?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thinking about this, the following additional (and theoretical) question came up:&#xA;I have a Nikon D7000 which has a 1.5 crop factor, so for my understanding the focal length multiplies with 1.5. Lets say a lens at 100mm results in 150mm focal length. In the EXIF data of the picture however the value of 100 is saved. Shooting the same lens with a film or full-frame camera, the focal length is 100mm and also saved as such. I was wondering why crop-sensor cameras do not use and save the &quot;real&quot; focal length to the EXIF data, so the picture data is comparable without taking camera and lens into account?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2549" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-24T22:01:23.943" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T08:09:19.010" Title="Crop Sensor, focal length in EXIF data and closest focusing distance" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;focus&gt;&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;focal-length&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7562" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7561" CreationDate="2011-01-24T10:49:39.370" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Focal length is a measure of the lens's ability to bend light. As such this figure doesn't change when you use a smaller sensor. What actually happens when you use a smaller sensor is that your field of view narrows. Field of view is dependant both on the focal length &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; the format (the size of your film or sensor). The ubiquity of 35mm film among amateur photographers in the last half of the 20th century effectively took format out of the equation and lead to focal length being used to categorize the field of view. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When digital arrived and suddenly all sorts of different sensor sizes were being used the idea of a crop factor was introduced to people relate to the field of view they expected from a certain focal length on 35mm. This is not a problem so long as you realise the focal length doesn't really change, the crop factor operates only on the field of view (a crop factor of 2 halves the field of view). I agree that it would be nice to have the field if view stored in the EXIF data, seeing as the camera knows both the focal length and sensor size! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The concept of crop factors (and the term &quot;full frame&quot; which I avoid using at all costs) is only really used by small format photographers - no-one using medium format refers to their camera as having a 0.7 crop factor! Likewise if you were to mount a 50mm medium format lens on a 35mm sensor DSLR, it will act just like any other 50mm lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly the minimum focus distance is a property of the lens (and distance to the sensor) and thus doesn't change when you use a different size sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-24T19:07:34.160" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T19:07:34.160" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7563" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="321" CreationDate="2011-01-24T12:08:42.013" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi Hamish Downer&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been using Linux longer than I've been using digital cameras and have tried serveral different programs to manage and edit my photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At first I used to manage the photos my self and edit them i Gimp and it worked ... but Gimp does/did not support Nikons RAW format NEF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today I use Shotwell (replaced F-Spot I think) to manage photos and have purchased LightZone for editing photos. LightZone works with Nikon RAWs NEF (and others Canon RAWs ect.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regards&#xA;   Sigersted&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3428" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T12:08:42.013" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7564" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="471" CreationDate="2011-01-24T12:19:21.813" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;HI&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've tried Bibble under Linux/Ubuntu but it was somehow annoying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead I was/am very pleased with LightZone and so much that I have purchased a license (US$99) a 3.9 version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regards&#xA;   Sigersted&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3428" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T12:19:21.813" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-10T15:23:42.103" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7565" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="321" CreationDate="2011-01-24T12:46:54.197" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Google's Picasa runs under Wine, it's seamless. I like it because I can use the same software under my home PC running Ubuntu and my work PC running Windows. The images are stored on Dropbox.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T12:46:54.197" />
  <row Id="7566" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7520" CreationDate="2011-01-24T13:09:01.457" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://garrit.deviantart.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Garrit Pieper&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I linked to &lt;a href=&quot;http://garrit.deviantart.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://garrit.deviantart.com&lt;/a&gt; and not to his own site (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.garrit.de&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.garrit.de&lt;/a&gt;) as it seems to be in redesign. Some work of him:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/drSi0.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;flowing&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/TrvYP.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;cold war&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and many more on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.deviantart.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;deviantart.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1510" LastEditorUserId="1510" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-24T14:10:05.137" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T14:10:05.137" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-24T13:09:01.457" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7567" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7531" CreationDate="2011-01-24T13:09:32.250" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can do this on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photoshelter.com/buyer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photoshelter&lt;/a&gt;, although it is only images from photographers who use their service.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T13:09:32.250" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-27T19:51:51.757" />
  <row Id="7568" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7497" CreationDate="2011-01-24T13:21:21.643" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The white balance of a photo is determined by comparing a portion of an image to the neutral color (white/grey/black) with the same luminosity value.  The difference between the neutral and the target area is then applied to the entire image, correcting the color cast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to get the best result, a grey is preferred, simply because you have a larger margin of error.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, suppose that you have RGB values (on a 0-255 scale):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Selection             | Neutral               | Correction&#xA;--------------------------------------------------------------&#xA;128 x 118 x 138 (384) | 128 x 128 x 128 (384) |  0 x -10 x +10&#xA;255 x 254 x 250 (759) | 253 x 253 x 253 (759) | -2 x -1 x +3&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you notice the difference here, the 1st example (a middle grey) has a significant correction, and the correction of the white is less drastic.  This &lt;em&gt;could easily&lt;/em&gt; be incorrect in the second case though because the red value could be significantly higher, but since it is at the max value in the sample (255) the rest could be clipped.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance, if the Red value needed a -20 correction instead of a -2, but the point selected clipped the highlight, then the selected point would be corrected and the rest of the image would have a red cast leftover.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any selected point &lt;strong&gt;can&lt;/strong&gt; be used to fix an image's white balance, assuming that the point is exposed well enough to contain valid data.  Since grey is centered in the exposure, a grey point will tend to be more accurate, and is therefore &lt;em&gt;preferred&lt;/em&gt; for white balance corrections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T13:21:21.643" />
  <row Id="7569" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7570" CreationDate="2011-01-24T13:26:43.123" Score="3" ViewCount="63" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hey guys, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am searching for something like a SD card with a second conectorto USB, so I can put the card into my Cam and plug the usb into my PC, so that I'm able to shoot some pictures directly to my HD (in PC).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before you ask: my cam isn't able to do this per usb, so I want the camera to &quot;think&quot; it has an SD card, but it is directly connected to my PC.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3430" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T13:36:41.747" Title="Usage of a PC as a SD Card with adapter" Tags="&lt;computer-hardware&gt;&lt;camera-controls&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="7570" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7569" CreationDate="2011-01-24T13:36:41.747" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whilst not a direct USB link, there is a product called an &lt;a href=&quot;http://uk.eye.fi/how-it-works/basics&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;eye-fi&lt;/a&gt; which allows your camera to send your photos directly to you computer, when it is within range of specified wireless networks. The 4Gb version retails around the £50 mark on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B003E47XIQ/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Amazon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T13:36:41.747" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7571" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1570" CreationDate="2011-01-24T13:41:59.167" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I came across this during my current camera search: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.steves-digicams.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Steve's Digicams&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3416" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T13:41:59.167" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-24T13:41:59.167" />
  <row Id="7572" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7531" CreationDate="2011-01-24T14:09:04.327" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a shopping mode available in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.deviantart.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.deviantart.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1510" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T14:09:04.327" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-27T19:51:51.757" />
  <row Id="7573" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="471" CreationDate="2011-01-24T14:54:16.670" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Geeqie&lt;/strong&gt; is a great viewer of RAW (and all other) file types.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It can thumb through your images at lightning speed, allowing you to delete the blurry ones quickly.  While many RAW viewers take 2 to 5 seconds to display each RAW image, Geeqie is basically instant (probably around 0.15 seconds).  Another neat feature of Geeqie is you can set it to retain the same zoom level and position as you go forward and back (PgDn/PgUp) through the images, which is great for checking focus of a bunch of shots of the same thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason it's so fast is that for RAW files, it displays the embedded JPEG instead of developing the RAW data.  All RAW files from a camera contain a high-resolution embedded JPEG which is what allows your camera to display and zoom into the image on its LCD while it's in play mode.  Geeqie is basically doing the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course you need separate software for actually editing/processing of RAW files, and I use Rawtherapee for that as I think it's the best quality available, but it's necessary to have a fast viewer, and fast is NOT Rawtherapee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-21T06:33:59.117" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T06:33:59.117" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-10T15:23:42.103" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7574" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-24T15:23:10.607" Score="8" ViewCount="281" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am looking for an online place to sell my photos. My requirements are slightly different to normal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Don't pay anything upfront. Only pay commission when a sale falls through.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;No filtering of images so if my images are rubbish I should still be able to have them for display to sell.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Don't sell prints, only electronic format of high resolution images.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically I don't want to pay any fees unless I am making a sale/profit ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2030" LastEditorUserId="4655" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-06-05T13:56:25.337" LastActivityDate="2011-06-05T13:56:25.337" Title="Where can I sell digital photos online without advance commissions or fees?" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;stock-photography&gt;&lt;selling&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="7575" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6601" CreationDate="2011-01-24T15:27:14.973" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Due to our wonderful population on photo.stackexchange, the above answers are comprehensive and extremely useful. I just wanted to chime in with the historical/etymological perspective.(mostly because Rembrandt is my favorite artist)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I just wanted to give a few striking examples of Rembrandt using this style in his paintings.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/6hyX6.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Self Portrait as a Young Man in 1629&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here you notice the single off-axis light source. Compare with the first of Matt Grum's photos. Same light pattern on the face, although in Rembrandts &quot;Self Portrait as a Young Man in 1629&quot; the background light shares a side with the face light. This works for Rembrandt because he allows this background light to stretch to the other darker side also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a second example &lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/cwwTf.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Self portrait 1657&quot;&gt; Here is an example from 1657 with the background light on the dark side, and a higher face-light. Similar to Matt Grum's second photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T15:27:14.973" />
  <row Id="7576" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7629" CreationDate="2011-01-24T16:04:24.427" Score="2" ViewCount="379" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pretty much as what the title asks. Any ideas anyone?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: Is there any particular, technical limitation for using this technology with CF cards?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-24T18:01:57.043" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T07:50:24.933" Title="EyeFi doesn't support CF cards. Are there any alternatives that do?" Tags="&lt;wireless&gt;&lt;compactflash&gt;&lt;eye-fi&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7577" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1570" CreationDate="2011-01-24T16:05:01.273" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends what you want to compare. I like measurable things but I do not think they are enough to justify buying one camera or another. I think if you look at:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://dxomark.com/index.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DxoMark&lt;/a&gt; you can get precise measurements of image noise, dynamic range and color-depth. This is mostly useful to judge whether you can upgrade between two similar models. For example if you have a K-7 and wonder about whether you should upgrade to a K-5, since the difference between such models if the sensor.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DPReview&lt;/a&gt;, which everyone seems to favor, is really good at describing a camera. If you're wonder what custom menu options a certain camera has or how long does it shoot in continuous drive for and you don't feel like or can't downloading the PDF manual, then DPReview will help.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Neocamera&lt;/a&gt; - has very powerful &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;camera search&lt;/a&gt; features and lets you compare specs side-by-side. It also has much shorter reviews (2-3 pages) which focus on usability and what a camera is good for. The goal is to relate camera features and performance to different photographic needs.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T16:05:01.273" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-24T16:05:01.273" />
  <row Id="7578" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7574" CreationDate="2011-01-24T16:12:47.757" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/sell-images.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Alamy&lt;/a&gt; will meet your needs; there is no fee to host your images, and as long as the images are sharp (in focus) and technically perfect (no blemishes, black borders etc, level horizon) and of sufficient resolution, they will take them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They ask for an initial submission of 10-15 images which they will run through a QC check; if they all pass then you will be added to their contributors. There is no minimum submission requirement and they take 40% commission from all direct sales (more if its through related third parties).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T16:12:47.757" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7579" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7587" CreationDate="2011-01-24T16:44:27.357" Score="5" ViewCount="231" Body="&lt;p&gt;My main focus area in photography is dance; and at that mostly social dancing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This usually means: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;spontaneous action, no way to stage anything or prepare beyond being &quot;in the moment and very observant&quot; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;low light and no flash allowed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;being unobtrusive to not disturb the dancers&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it also means:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;difficult choices when selecting how to take pictures, like, for example: motion blur (½ s) vs. as short exposures as possible (usually 1/60 or 1/90s)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;prime lenses with very wide aperture, but very shallow Depth of Field&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And there's probably more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I am looking for is inspiration in the form of&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;photographers who also specialize in dance photography&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;articles that talk about these &quot;extreme&quot; conditions&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;groups/forums to exchange ideas or have pictures looked over by the like-minded&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;any &quot;unusual&quot; pieces of advice that might not be obvious or would be overlooked by someone without years of experience. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3150" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T03:10:33.270" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T03:10:33.270" Title="Can you recommend any resources about dance photography?" Tags="&lt;prime&gt;&lt;low-light&gt;&lt;motion-blur&gt;&lt;dance&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="7580" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7576" CreationDate="2011-01-24T16:53:48.580" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Thus far, Eye-Fi does not support compact flash.  They have a page on their website that lists &lt;a href=&quot;http://support.eye.fi/product-info/camera-compatibility/compatibility/known-issues-with-compact-flash-card-adapters/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;known issues when using an adapter&lt;/a&gt;.  These issues include a &lt;strong&gt;reduced wireless range of the Eye-Fi card&lt;/strong&gt; as well as a &lt;strong&gt;potential for file corruption&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not aware of any competitor's products which offer similar functionality in a CF card.  I do note however that it seems DSLR manufacturers are starting to move to SD from CF, with newer models from both Canon and Nikon favoring the SD cards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T16:53:48.580" CommentCount="13" />
  <row Id="7581" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7579" CreationDate="2011-01-24T16:57:27.360" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I'm not aware of anything specifically about dance photography, the situations you describe are not limited to dance photos but are also seen in any sort of live-event, low-light photography situation including concert and event photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your best option is likely to be a camera with good &lt;strong&gt;high ISO performance&lt;/strong&gt; which will allow for you to attempt a faster shutter speed without flash.  You might end up needing to shoot at ISO 3200, 6400, or higher in order to freeze the motion using a fast lens.  As you note, lenses with wide apertures will help but you'll need to be cognizant of the shallow depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T16:57:27.360" />
  <row Id="7582" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7579" CreationDate="2011-01-24T17:10:41.747" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Like ahockley mentioned, a camera with high ISO performance will be very helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, go ahead and use a wide aperture.  That will give you a lot more control of shutter speed, which is really the most important aspect for dance.  A good dance photo &lt;em&gt;needs&lt;/em&gt; the right amount of motion blur, otherwise it just looks odd...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the wide aperture will probably come a very narrow DOF, but that is fine in most cases.  Just make sure that the dancer's eyes are in focus, and the rest can be soft.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T17:10:41.747" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7583" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7579" CreationDate="2011-01-24T17:39:24.873" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not strictly following your rules, but Richard Calmes produces stunning dance images. You can read an interview with him on the January 2008 PBase Magazine, and look at samples in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pbase.com/rcalmes/image/93150245&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PBase&lt;/a&gt; website. This may give you some insight on his methods that can help you with ideas of grabbing your images. He is not a professional photog (at least wasn't at that time), but it doesn't stop him from taking these pro-grade images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T17:39:24.873" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7584" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7574" CreationDate="2011-01-24T18:10:29.083" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have you considered a solution like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.instaproofs.com/home/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Instaproofs&lt;/a&gt;? They don't have a  setup fee, you can set your own prices, you can upload whatever you want to (it's designed as a professional photography proofing site), and they charge a commission only when a sale is actually made... The commission is kinda steep- 15% of the total order amount (although it is on a sliding scale, so if you hope to sell big-dollar amounts, the commission will end up being less). Sounds like it might be exactly what you're looking for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T18:10:29.083" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7585" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7574" CreationDate="2011-01-24T18:21:55.107" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If your volume is low enough, you could just handle everything yourself. Post low-resolution images on your website and let users contact you directly specifying which ones they want. You could accept Paypal, which has much lower fees than many photo-selling websites I have seen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1125" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T18:21:55.107" />
  <row Id="7586" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7520" CreationDate="2011-01-24T18:40:33.937" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although it is likely that most everyone is familiar with his work, I take great inspiration from the man who captured more dynamic, vibrant, striking detail in black and white than most of us are probably capable of in 16.7 million colors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ansel Adams - The Tetons and the Snake River&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/CK0Wq.jpg&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3440" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-27T17:06:09.560" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T17:06:09.560" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-24T18:40:33.937" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7587" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7579" CreationDate="2011-01-24T18:42:34.457" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've done a bit of dance photography, albeit under stage lights. A 50 f/1.4 (or f/1.8) is a very good idea as light is very limited. Shoot wide open and don't be afraid to push your ISO as high as it goes! I don't find the shallow depth of field a problem really, if you're shooting full length it's enough to get a whole person in focus on a crop camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I shot most of the following at f/1.4 ISO1600 (highest I could go at the time) and shutter speeds between 1/125 and 1/500 depending on the lighting. I was in TV mode as I wanted the shallow depth of field for effect, and I was aiming for little motion blur. Motion blur can really add to the sensation of movement in a dance shot but it's very hit and miss! No flash was used:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/dance/_MG_2237.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You say &lt;em&gt;&quot;spontaneous action, no way to stage anything or prepare&quot;&lt;/em&gt; however unless you're photographing some totally wacky freestyle routines the dancers are all moving to a rhythm that enables you to anticipate their movement and time your shots. The above photo was the slowest speed I used as the lighting was worst, at 1/125 you have to time your shots (and expect a lot of missed ones!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/dance/_MG_1543.jpg&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/dance/_MG_1882.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're photographing at a reasonable distance you should be able to get people's whole body in focus (though you may not get more than one dancer in focus unless they are in a line).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/dance/_MG_2082.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This shot was under a spotlight, so I stopped down for extra sharpness (and still mananged to overexpose!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/dance/_MG_2065.jpg&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/dance/_MG_2365.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-24T18:57:28.603" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T18:57:28.603" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="7588" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7579" CreationDate="2011-01-24T18:46:10.440" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My favorite photography happens to shoot dance photography from time to time.  He is a master of the craft, and I recommend you check his site out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.joemcnally.com/blog/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.joemcnally.com/blog/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T18:46:10.440" />
  <row Id="7590" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7520" CreationDate="2011-01-24T19:20:11.690" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One among many that's been hugely inspiring to me:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.twincitiesbrightest.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Twin Cities Brightest&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He's got some really interesting light-painting work, much of which has interesting conceptual components to it, e.g. his &quot;alien abductions&quot; series, including this one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/twincitiesbrightest/3390793987/in/set-72157613463800691/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;gallium antimonide by { tcb }, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3466/3390793987_b196f1fc51_z.jpg&quot; width=&quot;427&quot; height=&quot;640&quot; alt=&quot;gallium antimonide&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also frequently shows how he does what he's doing, which is another way he's inspirational to me, e.g.:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An image with Kaleidoscope imagery embedded into the frame:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/twincitiesbrightest/5259677172/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Untitled by { tcb }, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5286/5259677172_8000829d3a.jpg&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;333&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Behind the scenes of this technique (with descriptive text, if you click through):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/twincitiesbrightest/5111051858/in/set-72157625446859826/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;tricks of the trade by { tcb }, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1342/5111051858_a73abc6dc7.jpg&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;375&quot; alt=&quot;tricks of the trade&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/twincitiesbrightest/4025080130/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;AE-35 unit by { tcb }, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2731/4025080130_4ba21b3113_z.jpg&quot; width=&quot;427&quot; height=&quot;640&quot; alt=&quot;AE-35 unit&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... where not only can you see the tools that were used:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/twincitiesbrightest/4002694226/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;completed by { tcb }, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2659/4002694226_0209473170.jpg&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; height=&quot;333&quot; alt=&quot;completed&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;(See also: his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/twincitiesbrightest/3407987879/in/set-72157614710121405/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;cold cathode tutorial&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... but you can also see a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/twincitiesbrightest/4024324283/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;making-of video&lt;/a&gt;, to see how this exposure came together.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(And he has a whole set of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/twincitiesbrightest/sets/72157614710121405/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;tutorial stuff&lt;/a&gt;, too -- lots of good information.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Putting these things together -- interesting images, and good how-to information, I've found him to be one of the most inspiring photographers out there for me right now.  It may also help that he's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/twincitiesbrightest/archives/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;quite prolific&lt;/a&gt; -- he seems to be out shooting nearly every night -- which just amazes me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you like this kind of stuff, I also recommend the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/lightjunkies/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;light junkies flickr group&lt;/a&gt;, where he and others like him around the world keep pushing each other.  I just noticed there's also a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/lightpaintingcompetitions/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;light painting competitions group&lt;/a&gt;... more to explore (and inspire me to enter)!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T19:20:11.690" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-24T19:20:11.690" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7591" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7520" CreationDate="2011-01-24T19:40:50.250" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jeremycowart.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.jeremycowart.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lifefinderdvd.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://lifefinderdvd.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/MXm42.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/GlnZl.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/7xH4k.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/aCOHV.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/nAQn3.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3357" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T19:40:50.250" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-24T19:40:50.250" />
  <row Id="7592" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23" CreationDate="2011-01-24T20:06:20.950" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Spot metering and manual mode. For long I used mainly matrix metering together with exposure compensation, but started feeling it sometimes causes more problems than it solves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Say you're outside where the sky is usually the brightest area, and you know you want the sky be part of the picture and not become over exposed. Switch to spot metering and manual mode, set aperture to what you like, point the center of the frame to the sky (not to sun) and dial shutter speed such that the exposure meter in the viewfinder shows +2 or +3 so (optimum value depends on the camera but is easy to learn by experimenting).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tada! Now you get consistent exposures and you don't have to fiddle with exposure compensation every time you recompose so that the amount of sky in the picture changes radically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another example where spot metering might help is when you're indoors and want to include a computer monitor in the photo. Use spot metering and point the center of the frame to the monitor and expose to it, then recompose and shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matrix metering of course does a fine job most of the time, but spot metering is a good tool in certain situations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3442" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T20:06:20.950" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-01T18:55:11.547" />
  <row Id="7593" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23" CreationDate="2011-01-24T20:18:26.540" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I bought my Canon 30D, I couldn't figure out why the on-off switch had a third position.  Coincidentally, I also couldn't figure out why the control wheel wouldn't change aperture or shutter speed in Manual mode.  I still don't know why you'd go through the trouble of putting a great big wheel on the back of the camera, and then disable it unless you turn the on-off switch to &quot;really on&quot;.  Sigh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T20:18:26.540" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-01T18:55:11.547" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="7594" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7574" CreationDate="2011-01-24T20:55:21.967" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm pretty sure that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lulu.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lulu.com&lt;/a&gt; will do what you are asking of them. It's not a particularly well know site for selling digitial prints, but it will do the job.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T20:55:21.967" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7595" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7520" CreationDate="2011-01-24T21:21:41.697" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My vote: Paul Strand. Where the other photographers so far mentioned have yet to stand the test of time, Strand already has and is IMO just as relevant today as 100 some-odd years ago. His vision has been described as 'brutally direct' which I find accurate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Plus, he's got to get props for doing this with the primitive tools of the day. With our fancy-ass gear, we contemporary photographers aren't doing as well ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Strand&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Strand&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a few of his most inspiring images to me:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fEdcj.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Wall Street&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/LjOQb.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;still life&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/2zprl.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;portrait&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/kBhO8.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;portrait of girl&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2998" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T21:21:41.697" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-24T21:21:41.697" />
  <row Id="7596" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23" CreationDate="2011-01-24T21:46:39.330" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon E-TTL Speedlites are &lt;em&gt;fully automatic&lt;/em&gt; even if your camera is in the &lt;em&gt;manual&lt;/em&gt; mode!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can choose whatever aperture you want, a reasonable ISO (e.g. 100), a reasonable shutter speed (e.g. 1/100s), and just take a picture. E-TTL magic chooses the right flash power, and the shot is correctly exposed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can half-press the button in the M mode, and the camera tells how much the picture &lt;em&gt;would&lt;/em&gt; be underexposed &lt;em&gt;if&lt;/em&gt; you didn't have the flash. This way it is easy to make sure that you are using flash as your main light source, or you are mixing roughly 1:1 flash and ambient light, or whatever you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="247" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T21:46:39.330" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-01T18:55:11.547" />
  <row Id="7597" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7365" CreationDate="2011-01-24T21:47:26.897" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Simply put, the ratio f/4.0 means the effective size of the aperture is the focal length divided by 4 - for a 600mm f/4.0 this doesn't mean there is literally a 150mm hole where the aperture blades are, only that the lens behaves as if there is. (if you look at the design of the Canon 600 f/4.0 it's clear there isn't space for a 150mm opening in the middle of the lens).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the principle behind constant aperture lenses, the size of the &lt;em&gt;virtual aperture&lt;/em&gt; changes throughout the zoom range, despite the face the physical aperture clearly remains the same size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All zooms change the size of the virtual or effective aperture while zooming, &quot;constant aperture&quot; (really constant f-ratio) simply change the aperture enough to keep the aperture to focal length ratio the same. The design of &quot;constant aperture&quot; lenses is not radically different, just the degree to which the apparent aperture changes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To steal the numbers from John's answer (to save working them out again) the size of the virtual apertures for the two lenses mentioned are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 &lt;strong&gt;5.14mm @ 18mm - 9.82mm @ 55mm&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 &lt;strong&gt;4.25mm @ 17mm - 10mm @ 40mm&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the optics in the 18-55 made the virtual aperture 15mm at the long end it would be a constant aperture lens (@f/3.5) this would be very expensive however due to the [relatively] large zoom range, which is why as a cheap lens it remains f/5.6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no sandbagging going on in the constant aperture lens, at the wide end the lens is trying as hard as it can, it's just that it has been engineered to behave faster at the long end!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-25T12:07:36.713" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T12:07:36.713" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7598" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7422" CreationDate="2011-01-24T21:51:26.593" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best way seems to be to set up and then wait for the insects to come to you. Look at this image and see if you can guess how it was shot:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/moth_large.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer is rather mundane, I was sitting at my computer late at night and the moth came in and landed on my monitor. I left the monitor on and grabbed a macro lens and flash. The flash overpowered the monitor light so much that it appeared black, giving a nice reflection. The monitor light kept the moth placid and allowed me to keep snapping away for 15 minutes! Here's what it looked like by natural light:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/blogimages/spiders/blog_moth_setup.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T21:51:26.593" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7599" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7541" CreationDate="2011-01-24T21:54:40.273" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To take it in a larger context, the phones are starting to be called &quot;hand-held devices&quot;.  They are Turing complete and have specs that leave '90s desktop computers in the dust.  How long will it be until I come home, plug my phone/handheld/whatever-it-will-be-called into a a dock that has a power source, keyboard, speakers and monitor and use the processor on it to my web browsing and programming?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I said that so I could say this, low end point n shoots for simple snapshots will be integrated into that and the demand for cheap cameras will drop off, especially as the devices get smarter.  But I expect that major camera manufacturers will partner with handheld manufacturers to make a decent enough product.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't see the entire compact camera market going away though.  I like my 12x zoom.  I don't know if that can be out into a the same space as something I want to talk to pull out and start talking on.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But then, I go out with the specific goal of getting a few good pictures to show off.  I bought my compact for the specs of picture clarity at large sizes and lower light, the zoom, and the full manual settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One final thought:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I made handhelds, I'd figure out a way to make is easy to mount the thing on a tripod for group photos.  The typical screw on the bottom might be too costly in precious handheld device space.  ...maybe a special clamp?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3444" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T21:54:40.273" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-24T21:54:40.273" />
  <row Id="7600" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23" CreationDate="2011-01-24T21:59:56.187" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I discovered much too late that my D300 and my SB800 can be used without a cable via Nikon CLS and after I found out I bought an SB900 and yeah its just fun to shoot with flashes without any cables :D&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3369" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T21:59:56.187" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-01T18:55:11.547" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7601" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7604" CreationDate="2011-01-24T22:33:36.760" Score="12" ViewCount="321" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just got a Nikon 10-24mm lens that I'll be using on my D90 (DX) lens. I expect to be using it a lot outdoors for landscape shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, I know what kinds of filters would help landscape photography:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;UV/Clear, for general protection&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Polarizer, for cutting reflections / enhancing the sky&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Graduated Neutral-Density, for controlling sky brightness / enhancing the ground&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I'm also aware that vignetting is a problem with filters on wide-angle lenses like this one. I've read some posts that go as far as to claim that it's &quot;not compatible with filters.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What filters are worthwhile on this lens (especially for landscape photography)? What properties are more important as the focal length decreases?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T16:09:53.033" Title="Filters for a Wide-Angle Lens" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;landscape&gt;&lt;wide-angle&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="7602" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7601" CreationDate="2011-01-24T22:42:34.877" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can use filters on wide and ultra-wide angle lenses, but some produce undesirable results.  Fish-eye lenses on the other hand, depending on the element design, are not compatible with standard screw on filters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But generally, for wide angle lenses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;UV/Clear and solid colored filters are fine.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Circular Polarized filters will produce unevenly lit skies when shooting landscape shots&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Graduated ND can be used, but is some cases the filtering will be more noticeable and distorted&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Etched (star burst) filters will produce awkward bursts with distorted light sources&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Soften filters will work, but there will be some distortion and vignetting. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure there is more to be added, but that's all I know of and have experienced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1141" LastEditorUserId="1141" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-24T22:59:41.393" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T22:59:41.393" />
  <row Id="7603" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7576" CreationDate="2011-01-24T22:59:32.080" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesse Rosten talks about just this set up in his blog;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://jesserosten.com/2010/wireless-tethering-to-ipad&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://jesserosten.com/2010/wireless-tethering-to-ipad&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3446" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T22:59:32.080" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7604" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7601" CreationDate="2011-01-24T23:00:16.420" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a couple posts here already on what filters are available and why you would use them, having been around the block a couple times on filters used for outdoor photography I'll try for an answer from a different angle: what I actually wind up using.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Polarizing filters&lt;/strong&gt;: Loved them at first, never use them now because they give an unnatural look to wide angle photographs that include skys (giant dark blue gradient in skys) and cause problems w/stitched photographs.  Still nice for tighter focal lengths or shots w/out sky, especially of foliage but overall I just never carry one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Split ND filters&lt;/strong&gt;: Great idea in theory, kind of a pita to use in practice, &lt;em&gt;especially&lt;/em&gt; if your exposure differential isn't a straight line (flat horizon).  I'm sure these were more useful back w/film where you had to get it in one shot, but now I'd rather take 2-3 shoots and create the gradient in post, not necessarily HDR but thats an option too.  Plus cheap split ND filters are resin or plastic (who wants plastic in front of a $1000 lens?) and just one SND filter doesn't cut it, you usually need 2 or 3, so to get 2 or 3 nice glass ones plus a holder... $$$.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;UV/Clear filters&lt;/strong&gt;: never use these anymore because they're so prone to flare.  The only time I take one is if I'm shooting near something that might spray the lens (ocean).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ND Filter&lt;/strong&gt;:  This is the only filter I actually carry anymore because if you're already at ISO100 and stopped down to f16 or f22 and you still can't get a long enough exposure, this is the &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; way to do it.  Or if you want to shoot at a wide aperture in bright daylight this is the only way to reduce the amount of light.  I picked up a 10-stop ND filter and its awesome.  Another option is to get a Polarizing filter and just turn it till its polarization is 'off' and this'll give you 1.5-2 stops of ND.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My two cents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastEditorUserId="1819" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-25T16:40:48.673" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T16:40:48.673" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7605" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23" CreationDate="2011-01-24T23:07:18.890" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I discovered that there is a histogram mode in my Canon 20-D, and that it will blink if there is an area with blown highlights. All along I've been cursing this fact, and there it was, right in front of me the whole time... And the histogram is so useful too, I never realized just how badly I was exposing an image until I started to use the histogram... Sigh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-31T18:20:06.373" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T18:20:06.373" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-01T18:55:11.547" />
  <row Id="7606" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7576" CreationDate="2011-01-24T23:40:59.033" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I strongly doubt there's a technical reason. I'm sure that they just don't see offering a CF version as profitable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T23:40:59.033" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7607" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7520" CreationDate="2011-01-24T23:47:48.857" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Henri Cartier-Bresson. Another 'old master' who is just as relevant as today as 70 years ago.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Cartier-Bresson&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Cartier-Bresson&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/95sS0.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Oj7pK.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/WMPy1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2998" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T23:47:48.857" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-24T23:47:48.857" />
  <row Id="7608" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-24T23:51:01.707" Score="6" ViewCount="134" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a CVS drugstore on my commute, so it would be very convenient to stop in and pick up some prints that I've uploaded earlier. However, CVS is, shall we say, not terribly professionally oriented. I couldn't find any ICC files on their &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cvsphoto.com/home.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;website&lt;/a&gt; or anything else about color management.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't do quality-critical printing here; I'm just looking for a convenient place for casual printing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have people here had reasonable results from printing at CVS? If so, how do you avoid whatever color magic they apply to the files?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T15:21:13.017" Title="Digital prints at CVS - reasonable?" Tags="&lt;prints&gt;&lt;lazy&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7609" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3258" CreationDate="2011-01-24T23:59:36.693" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Copyright is implied on any works you produce and you don't need to &quot;copyright&quot; your IP. I would suspect that the painting is not illegal (since it is a creation based on your idea, not a copy of your creation itself). The altered photoshopped copy I would be illegal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-01-24T23:59:36.693" />
  <row Id="7610" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7608" CreationDate="2011-01-25T00:04:55.630" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This site has &lt;em&gt;a&lt;/em&gt; CVS Pharmacy's ICC profile, its based on the specific printer and paper they use:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/Profiles/Massachusetts_profiles.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/Profiles/Massachusetts_profiles.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looks like they have ICC profiles for all sorts of random print labs across the country.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T00:04:55.630" />
  <row Id="7611" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3258" CreationDate="2011-01-25T00:07:57.530" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;This may or may not be infringing, depending on the originality of the new work, but in most cases I would say it would be non-infringing.  Of course, the owner of the photo can still attempt to sue, but it'd probably be found to be non-infringing especially if the only connection to the original photo is that the artist saw it across the room while painting (and didn't do any cut and paste from it in Photoshop, did not use mechanical means to copy it, didn't lay a stencil over it, etc).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;This would certainly be infringing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Registering copyright on your pictures does not alter what people can and can't do with them, but depending on your country (ie the USA), can affect what you can claim if you successfully sue them in court.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a case of this actually happening with a painting published by the Toronto Star which was found to have been based on a photo by someone else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thestar.com/news/article/912094--streetcar-photo-raises-questions-about-inspiration&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here's the Toronto Star's side of the story&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/tdot/discuss/72157625664076550/#comment72157625665002892&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here's the author of the photo's side&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-25T00:15:30.143" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T00:15:30.143" />
  <row Id="7612" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7608" CreationDate="2011-01-25T00:24:06.733" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not less painful than the color matching problem, I find that the alignment of the printer is pretty random as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your question, as you say, I just don't do any critical print job there. For what I do print (at CVS and Walgreens), I find the colors reasonably satisfying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bigger problem for me happens to be that even though I prepare my files for printing using very precise file size (say, 8x10) and what I assume a good target resolution (I use 300dpi), then the images are always misaligned in a few mm's. This may not be such a big problem, but a few times I added thin frames to my prints. Due to the misalignment I had to trim out the whole frame after the production.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-25T01:52:55.970" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T01:52:55.970" />
  <row Id="7614" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7365" CreationDate="2011-01-25T00:42:23.253" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, neither the accepted answer nor any of the others seems to do more than hint at the motivation that might be involved in choosing to design one or the other. None of them really even hints at how fixed and variable aperture zooms really differ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; actually a fairly fundamental difference in the design. The diaphragm (the part that forms the aperture) in almost any lens is somewhere around the middle of the lens. In a fixed aperture zoom, only the elements &lt;em&gt;behind&lt;/em&gt; the diaphragm move around to do the zooming. In a variable aperture zoom, elements both behind &lt;em&gt;and ahead&lt;/em&gt; of the aperture move around to do the zooming.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At least in the usual case, the diameter of the aperture does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; change as you zoom. This is fairly easy to verify -- take pictures at different zoom ratios and maximum aperture with some out of focus highlights. At least with your typical zoom lens, the out of focus highlights will remain round at all focal lengths, indicating that the aperture is remaining wide open (where it's round). Stop down the lens a few stops, and you'll start to see the shape from the aperture blades closing (though lenses with lots of blades, especially rounded ones, will retain nearly-round looking highlights somewhat more than others).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When/if the elements in front of the aperture move around during zooming, you're changing the (effective) focal length of that part of the lens. You're then transmitting light through a fixed-diameter aperture, meaning the (effective) f/stop changes. Since it's only affected by the change in effective focal length of the elements in front of the diaphragm, the change doesn't (usually) correlate exactly to the change in overall effective focal length -- moving the elements behind the diaphragm changes the effective focal length without changing the effective aperture (e.g., my 28-135 has nearly a 5:1 zoom range, but the aperture only changes from f/4.0 to f/4.5).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T00:42:23.253" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7615" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7608" CreationDate="2011-01-25T01:27:40.033" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I actually use them from time to time, and they are always good. I do not print anything professional and my standards are of a normal 4x6 glossy print for use in an album or picture frame. For my requirements they were more than nice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the price is very good cause I print from snapfish and they have an affiliation with CVS and other large pharmacies so you can pick up orders instead of shipping.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T01:27:40.033" />
  <row Id="7616" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7619" CreationDate="2011-01-25T02:22:29.643" Score="8" ViewCount="281" Body="&lt;p&gt;I haven't seen an explanation on this site, and I think it is a good question to have here. Wikipedia says that the dynamic range is the &quot;ratio between the largest and smallest possible values of a changeable quantity&quot;. Ok, I get that. I suppose that's why HDR photos have a &quot;high dynamic range&quot; with respect to light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what else is there to it? What's the dynamic range of a camera? Just tell me everything that's important about it :-).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2746" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T01:39:26.143" Title="What is dynamic range and how is it important in photography?" Tags="&lt;dynamic-range&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7617" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7616" CreationDate="2011-01-25T02:39:31.493" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wow, rather open ended...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dynamic range, as Wiki states, is the range of values that can be captured and this not a fixed value across all cameras. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dxomark.com/index.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DxOMark&lt;/a&gt; is an organization that, amongst some other things, measures the dynamic range of various camera sensors and they define it as: &quot;A numerical value describing the ratio between the highest and lowest luminance values that can be accurately measured on a sensor.&quot; As you can see from the site, the range for cameras is quite wide from the low end to the high.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What this means, from a photography perspective, is that the greater the dynamic range of the camera, the more information you can capture, especially as colour and tonal ranges transition through the image. For example, the effect of this is that one camera may miss subtle shades of red while another captures that, providing information that would otherwise be missed. That gives you a lot of flexability in post-production conversion to JPEG or, even better, potentially improved prints if you work with software and a printer that can handle the range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also has a practical effect on dealing with exposure. I've posted my article on the Pentax K-5 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.grumpyjohns.com/?p=182&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;exposure range&lt;/a&gt; before, but I'll link it again because it's relevant to the question and the K-5 currently holds the dynamic range crown. This gives you a sense of the detail that may actually be in the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, this could be a treatise, it's a large topic, but the nutshells are covered. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T02:39:31.493" />
  <row Id="7618" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7616" CreationDate="2011-01-25T03:08:45.917" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two important dynamic ranges to be concerned about in photography. The first is the dynamic range of the scene you are looking at. The dynamic range of the scene, and that of your camera. Let me explain them in that order.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The dynamic range of a scene is the range from the brightest object to the dimmest object in that scene. Typically, this would be measured as a ratio of intensities. If you are photographic a evenly lit piece of white paper, then this range is low. If you are photographing a sunset, then this range is quite high.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second is that of your camera. I'm going to explain this in terms of a digital camera, because it's a bit easier to understand, but the same concepts apply in film cameras. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to explain, let me first explain something about digital cameras. Digital cameras record information as a number. Most cameras capture that information in a number from 0-255, so that the number can be stored in a byte (8 bits). Higher end cameras will have 10, 12, 14, or even 16 bits, and there are rumors of some magnificent cameras with 24 bits per color channel. Dynamic range then is the range from the dimmest non-zero value to the highest non-saturated value, or for an 8 bit camera, 1-254. (I should add that technically the dynamic range is the value of the max non-saturated intensity over the lowest detectable intensity. This comes into play more if the sensor is non-linear, which can happen)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is all of this important? A good photograph will match the dynamic range of the scene and of the camera. There is some room for creativity, but there is still this rule of thumb. A few additional points to keep in mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The human eye has a fantastic dynamic range, that far exceeds that of even the best camera.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One can increase the effective dynamic range through a technique known as &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7623/what-is-hdr-photography/7624#7624&quot;&gt;HDR, or High Dynamic Range&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sunsets are probably the highest dynamic ranges of any natural scene.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To help illustrate this, I'm going to include a few pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/kZmY7.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Low DR&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This picture has a low dynamic range. Most of the objects are about the same brightness, and it tends to have a dull look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/nl1DM.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Good Dynamic Range&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This photo has a better dynamic range. There is still some detail visible in the shadow, but there aren't any highlights being clipped.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/d8r84.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Very large dynamic range&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This image has such a large dynamic range that it's difficult to get the whole scene captured by my 8 bit camera. Note that the ground isn't lite at all, and it's really hard to see any detail in the cactus. It's hard to tell, but the red channel is actually saturated here, and there is little to no detail in the shadow regions. Still, I used my artistic choice to keep the sky in the range of the camera, and let the cactus be more of a silhouette. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-25T04:48:08.887" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T04:48:08.887" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="7619" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7616" CreationDate="2011-01-25T03:34:33.537" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Okay this may be very out of scale, but it's my best guess as a simple demonstration of light intensities. Also, the capabilities of the sensors might be less or more. But you'll get the idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/6tccU.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason why dynamic range is so important is because it defines precisely how much of a scene can actually be represented within the bounds of the image's &quot;black&quot; and &quot;white&quot;. The image above represents a very rough scale of how bright typical items in a scene are, whilst the 'brackets' on the right give a rough indication of how much of those intensities can be seen in detail at a given exposure. The shorter the exposure the higher your bracket goes (small exposure for bright clouds), the longer the exposure the lower it goes (longer for shadowed/night scenes).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course in real life there really isn't a black and white. Black would be the complete absence of light and white would an infinitely large amount of white light in all frequencies. But when it comes to photographing and vision, you're not working with such a high dynamic range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference? If you expose a point and shoot to have the same white clipping point within the scene's light intensity, the point where black occurs may be brighter than the blacks in a digital SLR's image. This is because the much larger sensor is able to capture a greater variation in intensity of light. It's white point is brighter and it's black point is darker than the point and shoot. It sounds as if you understand this part.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is it important? What happens when you wish to see both the bright clouds in a scene but also the dark shadow areas inside the house through the back door? In most cases either the clouds will turn out bright white and you won't be able to see any detail, or the inside of the house will simply be black (or very close). &lt;em&gt;For the camera&lt;/em&gt; it falls out of the current range of intensities you're exposing for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is one of the shortcomings of photography in relation to the performance of the eye. The human eye is typically able to see a far greater range of intensities than a camera, typically around 18 to 20 stops of intensity variation. We can see in the house and the bright clouds but the camera can only expose for one or the other. Most DSLR sensors can capture around 10-13 stops of dynamic range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Furthermore&lt;/strong&gt;, the format the image is captured in (for digital photography) can allow for a significant amount of the dynamic range to be retained when converting the image into a usable JPEG, as it is the most common &quot;final&quot; format a photo ends up in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With a JPEG, the format that a point and shoot will typically generate &lt;em&gt;for&lt;/em&gt; you, each component of red, green and blue can only store 8 bits of accuracy. Black is 0, white is 255. This means there are 256 &quot;steps&quot; between black and white. Conversely, with high accuracy raw capture, these are typically capturing 12 to 14 bits of information. For 12-bit raw, black is still 0, but white is 4,096. In 14-bit capture, the white point is 16,384. What this means is that the variations in intensity are captured orders of magnitude more &lt;em&gt;accurately&lt;/em&gt;. There are now up to 16,384 &quot;steps&quot; between the image's black and white points.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even though you typically end up exporting to this 8-bit JPEG format, this allows the photographer before hand to adjust exposure, fill light and recover blown highlights far more accurately than if it was attempted with the final JPEG image. Not only can this allow you to &quot;save&quot; photos from the bin, it can also vastly improve the result you get out of well captured photos. One technique exploiting this is &lt;a href=&quot;http://photofocus.com/2009/08/29/expose-to-the-right/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Expose to the Right&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Furthermore #2&lt;/strong&gt;: I think the biggest thing to note in relation to digital dynamic range is that for a given ISO setting, the SNR in a full frame sensor will be far greater than a point and shoot. At the same exposure, the &quot;big bucket&quot; photo sites in a full frame sensor allow more light to still fit into the range of the sensor. So +13 EV will still be registered whereas on a point and shoot it would simply be pure white, for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's like having a 1L tin to capture water instead of a 500mL tin in a point and shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Furthermore #3 (with added photos)&lt;/strong&gt;: Here is an example of just how limited some sensors can be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what my iPhone produced. The first I exposed for the dark area down on the street. The second is exposed for the bright buildings and the third is a &quot;HDR&quot; image produced by the iPhone. With some tweaking the shadow area can be made to approximate the dynamic range of what I actually saw, though it's still limited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly the dynamic range is too limited in the iPhone to capture all information you need at once. At one end, the whites just completely blow out and at the other, the shadows are almost completely black.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/yKWmF.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastEditorUserId="609" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-26T01:36:51.900" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T01:36:51.900" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="7620" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7616" CreationDate="2011-01-25T03:48:35.977" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In photography, &lt;strong&gt;dynamic range&lt;/strong&gt; is the relative difference in brightness between the lightest and the darkest detail that can be captured in a single photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you have a small dynamic range,&#xA;then the dark parts will retain less detail, and&#xA;the very bright parts are more likely&#xA;to clip (go as white as they can go).  Fine if you wanted a contrasty image curve anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A greater dynamic range means you can satisfactorily achieve a less&#xA;contrasty image, or affords you more&#xA;ability to selectively lighten/darken&#xA;certain areas in post-processing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unlike LCD screens where dynamic range is expressed as a (increasingly meaningless) ratio like 500:1, in photography it's expressed in stops, where each stop represents a doubling of the original (pre-gamma-corrected) light intensity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most digital sensors have at least 8EV (8 stops) of dynamic range which is plenty, and roughly equal to slide film.  For the most part it's not worth obsessing over dynamic range when comparing cameras these days.  Dynamic range is a technical measurement but since it's measuring the pre-gamma-corrected values it may be misleading as to the visible effect it may have on your image.  Beyond a certain point you simply won't see any difference as any further range is lost in the very darkest (or with highlight compression, lightest) values your monitor/printer can reproduce.  That extra practically-invisible range can be useful, however, when you want to selectively boost or cut (burn/dodge) brightness in areas or recover from heavy over/underexposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that different camera review places measure dynamic range differently - and I don't trust DxOMark's measurements at all - I think they used flawed methods (interestingly I find DPreview's measurements more reflective of reality).  Technically, the dynamic range should be measured from the highest values that can be represented down to the lowest values that aren't obscured by noise.  The noise is important:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As you raise ISO, you lose dynamic range.  It's simply because the noise level rises so you get less range in the shadows.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As you drop ISO, you gain dynamic range, but only as far as the camera sensor's base ISO.  Going below that (as some newer cameras allow you to do) and you start losing range in the highlights.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-25T04:14:09.877" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T04:14:09.877" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7621" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="321" CreationDate="2011-01-25T04:05:06.613" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find that a combination of different software works best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;gthumb&lt;/strong&gt; for browsing thumbnails and for general organisation, such as adding keywords into the image files, grouping them, moving/sorting them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Geeqie&lt;/strong&gt; for insanely rapid fast previewing of image files, including RAW, to quickly skip through see which ones are in focus/have other issues and delete them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rawtherapee&lt;/strong&gt; for all RAW development and exposure/geometry corrections, sharpening, colour management etc.  It's like Lightroom kinda.  Also works with JPEGs too, of course, but you lose quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The GIMP&lt;/strong&gt; increasingly I find I don't need to use this anymore as Rawtherapee does what I need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't like the viewers that force you to crawl your hard drive and then build an internal database of your images; I already have a database of my images and it's called the file system.  That's the reason I've so far avoided things like Shotwell.  Shotwell also has very poor RAW processing capability meaning you'd still need Rawtherapee, and can't display thumbnails of videos meaning you'd still need gthumb.  Digikam (sort of the same for KDE) is supposedly much, much better, but I recall it may also have been one of the ones where it keeps its own database of the images that departs from the file system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T04:05:06.613" />
  <row Id="7622" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7541" CreationDate="2011-01-25T04:36:09.117" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;lol no... P&amp;amp;Ss like G12 (bigger sensor), SX30 (35X zoom!) will always be better than any camera phones. And, I agree that camera phone are getting better with every new release, but so are the P&amp;amp;Ss!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If ever, any phone company can incorporate a DSLR within a phone, only that day they will overcome P&amp;amp;Ss :D&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T04:36:09.117" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-25T04:36:09.117" />
  <row Id="7623" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7638" CreationDate="2011-01-25T04:40:23.713" Score="2" ViewCount="208" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is HDR photography, and when might it be useful?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T12:52:09.400" Title="What is HDR photography?" Tags="&lt;hdr&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7624" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7623" CreationDate="2011-01-25T04:47:14.020" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;HDR is also known as High Dynamic Range. Usually it involves taking multiple pictures and combining them together, to increase the dynamic range of the camera. Specifically, a typical work flow is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Find a scene that has more dynamic range then your camera is capable of shooting (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7616/what-is-dynamic-range-and-how-is-it-important-in-photography&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; for when such cases might arise)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set up your camera on a tripod, or other firm surface.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take multiple exposures, with different exposure settings. Most DSLRs and some point and shoots will allow you to take bracketed exposures. You will want the aperture to remain constant, only changing the shutter speed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Combine the images into a single high definition image.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7630/what-is-tone-mapping-how-does-it-relate-to-hdr&quot;&gt;Tone map&lt;/a&gt; the image so as to be visible on computer screens and printers more easily.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more information on making HDR images, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6558/hdr-beginners-help-photoshop-cs5&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-25T12:52:09.400" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T12:52:09.400" />
  <row Id="7625" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7616" CreationDate="2011-01-25T05:09:52.130" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are already some good technical answers here. In terms of impact on photography though, the simple answer is that dynamic range is the reason exposure exists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is, exposure is the photographer's way of showing a &lt;em&gt;slice&lt;/em&gt; of dynamic range and therefore to choose which range of brightness values is important to his photograph, just like composition lets you choose what to include and exclude in an image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-26T01:39:26.143" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T01:39:26.143" />
  <row Id="7626" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7628" CreationDate="2011-01-25T06:24:14.670" Score="16" ViewCount="384" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was just chatting with a photographer friend of mine, and he mentioned wanting &quot;anti-newton glass&quot;... I didn't know what that was, so I did a google search.  I quickly figured out that it was something to help eliminate &quot;The Newton Effect&quot;, and I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://fpointinc.com/history.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;some information on the newton effect&lt;/a&gt;, from a source of anti-newton glass... this helps, but I noticed that a search for &quot;newton effect&quot; didn't turn up a whole lot of useful information right away, so I'm hoping this question can get some answers that will become a foundation for that, for future google searches by whomever.  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So... what is the newton effect?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[And, optionally: What can one do to prevent it?  And/or when would it be useful?  etc.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T02:41:39.140" Title="What is the &quot;Newton Effect&quot;?" Tags="&lt;scanning&gt;&lt;glass&gt;&lt;optical-quality&gt;&lt;optics&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="7627" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5457" CreationDate="2011-01-25T06:29:33.900" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While Jeffery's Lightroom Exporter does seem to upload multiple times when using the traditional export mode, it at least doesn't result in multiple copies on Flickr (assuming you've set it to remove older copies of the same image).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It'd be nice if it could recognize no further edits have been made to the photo since you last uploaded it, but aside from that, there are also sharpening and JPEG quality settings in the exporter to contend with as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It looks like the Publish service is able to handle this:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/flickr/publish#comment-40161&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/flickr/publish#comment-40161&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Granted, I wouldn't be surprised if you publish to one set first and then go back and publish to another it'd upload again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3354" LastEditorUserId="3354" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-25T06:39:45.703" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T06:39:45.703" />
  <row Id="7628" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7626" CreationDate="2011-01-25T07:25:53.243" Score="27" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You probably didn't find much because you were searching on the wrong term. The phenomenon isn't commonly called 'The Newton Effect,' it's usually called 'Newton's Rings.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Briefly, Newton's Rings are an optical property of physics that occurs between two pieces of glass when one piece of glass is convex and the other piece is flat and there is airspace between the two elements. Due to the particular way that that light waves diffract as they transition between the convex glass element and the air between the glass elements, a series of concentric light and dark colored rings can occur. As I spend my time trying to &lt;em&gt;avoid&lt;/em&gt; the effect, I don't have a good picture of it occurring that I can share myself, but a picture of this phenomenon 'in action' can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3aNewton-rings.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Newton's Rings can occur in any optics application that involves combining convex, flat glass elements, and air, but the 3 areas that are most applicable on photo.se.com are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Photography:&lt;/strong&gt; Sometimes you can cause Newton's Rings to occur when taking pictures by placing a filter in front of the lens (flat surface of the filter, convex surface of the first lens element). I have the most 'luck' in producing them when I'm shooting at night and pointing at bright things (street lamps, the moon, etc.) Often I can 'make' the phenomenon happen 'before my very eyes' by using a circular filter and rotating it slowly until the rings appear. My recommendation (which is blasphemy in some circles) is to not put filters on your camera unless you are doing it for a specific reason. In other words... Ditch the cheap UV filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Darkroom work:&lt;/strong&gt; This seems to be 'enlarger specific,' and while I can make some enlargers produce this effect consistently, others I can't ever get it to happen. Most of the time the effect will occur at the extreme ends of the enlargers zoom range, and it is more likely to occur with medium or large format negatives (because a larger negative is more likely to have a warp/convex shape to it) and/or when using a glass negative carrier. My recommendations are to not crank your enlarger in or out to its extremes, and if necessary/possible, eliminate the glass negative carrier.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Scanning:&lt;/strong&gt; If a film negative is in contact with the glass in a bed scanner, and there is a curl in the negative (again, more common with medium and large format negatives), this can cause Newton's Rings on a scan. Additionally, if the neg is in a glass carrier it can cause the phenomenon as well. This is where 'anti-Newton glass' can come into play. For scans where anti-Newton glass doesn't work (it happens), the next step is to eliminate as many layers of glass as you can (if possible), by taking the neg out of its glass holder. It is even possible (although you'll want to seek more expert advice before you carry this out so you don't damage anything) to immerse the negative in solution before scanning it in order to eliminate them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-27T02:41:39.140" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T02:41:39.140" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="7629" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7576" CreationDate="2011-01-25T07:50:24.933" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is the latest answer on CF adapters for the 5DmkII and the 7D, on our site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.eye.fi/viewtopic.php?f=8&amp;amp;t=1352&amp;amp;start=45#p13746&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://forums.eye.fi/viewtopic.php?f=8&amp;amp;t=1352&amp;amp;start=45#p13746&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thx,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ziv.&#xA;Eye-Fi co-founder&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3455" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T07:50:24.933" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7630" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7631" CreationDate="2011-01-25T08:50:03.317" Score="17" ViewCount="406" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whenever I read / hear about HDR (High Dynamic Range) photography, someone usually says something along the lines of &quot;Actually, you're talking about tone mapping, not HDR.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please can someone explain what Tone Mapping is, and how it relates to HDR?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T09:34:14.120" Title="What is Tone Mapping? How does it relate to HDR?" Tags="&lt;hdr&gt;&lt;tone-mapping&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7631" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7630" CreationDate="2011-01-25T08:56:14.510" Score="25" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;An HDR image has a high dynamic range, which means a very large ratio between the brightest and darkest parts of the image. An HDR image on a normal (low dynamic range) monitor will actually look very flat:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/hdr.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is because that huge range of brightnesses has to be compressed to fit into a much smaller range of brightnesses. This results in an overall lack of contrast, hence the flatness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This image has a split personality, the skies are very bright and the subject much dimmer, if we could use all the monitor's brightness range for the sky, it would look pretty good:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/top.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But we'd totally lose our subject. Likewise if you used all the monitors brightness range for the subject it would also look good, but we'd totally lose the sky:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/bottom.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would be great if we could combine them in some way, or carefully ration out the brightness range we have to work with so we make most use of it. This is where tonemapping comes in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What tonemapping does is instead of mapping the whole image into the monitor's brightness range in one go, it adjusts the contrast locally so that each region of the image uses the whole range for maximum contrast (there's a bit more going on here, it depends on the tonemapping algorithm used). Here is the same image tonemapped:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/tonemapped.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason that tonemapping is not HDR is that you can tonemap a single low dynamic range image in order to make it more contrasty. The result looks similar but with much more noise in the shadows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/tonemapped_from_single_image.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Disclaimer: for the love of God don't do this to your images!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is an demonstration of the fact that dynamic range and noise are opposites, in fact dynamic range is usually defined in terms of the noise floor of an image. This is because there is a point at which any tonal differences in an image get lost in noise, so this defines the darkest thing you can image (which in tern with the brightest thing, defined by the point at which the signal clips) determines the dynamic range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-25T09:34:14.120" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T09:34:14.120" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="7632" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7601" CreationDate="2011-01-25T10:45:59.327" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Of the ones you mentioned, UV/Clear filters really are generally rather useless, unless you actually make a habit of leaving greasy fingerprints on your front lens element. A hood gives good physical protection without any chance of compromising image quality, unlike a clear filter. I'd skip the UV filter, unless actually shooting on the beach on a windy day or something like that, where it would give protection the hood cannot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Polarizers must be used with care on ultrawide lenses, as noted by another poster. The darkening effect on the sky only happens in a very restricted set of angles vice the sun; an ultrawide catches so much sky that this will appear as a narrow dark blue band which looks extremely odd. Polarizers are still useful for cutting reflections off glass or water, and have surprisingly good effect on surfaces such as roof-tiles or stone. I'd get a polarizer, but be careful about how you use it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Graduated ND... the screw-in ones are a so-so idea generally speaking, they require you to place the horizon dead center which is rarely where you want it to go. The square ones  from Cokin or Lee or what have you that you mount in a frame in front of the lens can be very useful, but are a bit time-consuming to adjust just right... OK for tripod use but not for handheld. Solid ND filters on the other hand are good to have, either for dragging the shutter speed or for opening up the aperture in bright light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Re ultrawides: Some are absolutely not designed to be used with filters, ie the ones with protruding bulbous front elements like Canon's 14mm f/2.8L or the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8. The ones without such a front element do not pose this problem, but you should be aware that some filters can bee too thick, physically, so that the filter frame shows up in the corner of the image of an ultrawide lens. Not a good thing - on such lenses stick with the dedicated &quot;thin&quot; filters that are made for this purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T10:45:59.327" />
  <row Id="7633" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7639" CreationDate="2011-01-25T11:19:54.327" Score="6" ViewCount="155" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that my Canon 450D's (XSi/Kiss X2) passive autofocus system knows a spot in the view is in-focus when its nearby contrast is adequate. Then the camera blinks AF confirm lights to inform me which parts are in-focus (or if the chosen spot is in-focus).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have few older all-manual lenses, which I use with an adapter. &lt;strong&gt;Why the AF confirm lights won't blink when the spot is in-focus while using an all-manual lens with an adapter without any connectors?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; have an adapter which was marketed as &quot;AF-confirm&quot; and that it has a &quot;chip&quot;. With it the camera &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; blink the AF confirm lights. What I fail to understand is &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; the connectors are needed? What data the camera needs from the lens? Camera does record some EXIF information when using the &quot;chipped&quot; adapter, but for example the &quot;Lens&quot; field is &quot;1-65536&quot; so it really couldn't be much of an use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Added some specifics after &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7633/why-the-af-confirm-lights-wont-blink-when-the-spot-is-in-focus-while-using-an-al/7639#7639&quot;&gt;Staale S&lt;/a&gt;'s &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7633/why-the-af-confirm-lights-wont-blink-when-the-spot-is-in-focus-while-using-an-al/7639#7639&quot;&gt;answer&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/em&gt; Can I DIY-hack this around firmware/hardware/MacGyver wise so that the camera thinks a lens (any) is attached when triggering the AF?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1913" LastEditorUserId="1913" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-25T12:38:17.897" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T14:38:28.687" Title="Why the AF confirm lights won't blink when the spot is in-focus while using an all-manual lens with an adapter without any connectors?" Tags="&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;canon-450d&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="7634" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7541" CreationDate="2011-01-25T11:24:45.347" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There has been a trend towards multi-function phones that do everything possible. The thing is, people are starting to look towards &quot;appliances&quot;, which are devices designed to do one thing well, with the most simplistic controls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A point-and-shoot camera is simple. You switch it on. Point it at someone and press the big button.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a multi-purpose devices, the workflow cannot be this simple as you have to tell the device what function you want it to perform and then use one of the multi-purpose buttons to take the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ergonomically the multi-purpose device has to make similar compromises. People want slim phones, but it is easier to hold a chunky camera that gives you a steady grip. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2114" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T11:24:45.347" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-25T11:24:45.347" />
  <row Id="7635" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1421" CreationDate="2011-01-25T11:50:41.217" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I only apply some general noise reduction in Lightroom 3. Both in luminance and colour. The colour is the primary culprit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, I practically never shoot above ISO 1600 and to me ISO 1600 is often something I'm not really fussed about, at least with my 50D. In fact, I rarely skip a beat when having to dial up to ISO 1600. It's just part of nailing the shot with the right shutter speed and aperture in the given conditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With lower performance in the noise area however, I can see how you might be concerned. The problem really amounts to what &lt;em&gt;feels right&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you print an ISO 800 image, does the noise bother you? Do you apply any basic noise reduction?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This example, in particular is shot at ISO 1600. You and I can notice some noise but in no way does it really impact the photo at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/21bLO.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the 100% crop. Again, this is with some moderate noise reduction in LR3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/u9vCZ.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T11:50:41.217" />
  <row Id="7636" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7524" CreationDate="2011-01-25T11:51:00.613" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While shooting RAW: As long as the histogram doesn't clip at either end, the exposure is in principle perfectly correctible. However, in practice it is best to avoid underexposure like the plague, there be noise in dem dere shadows! Personally I &quot;expose to the right&quot;, as long as I don't blow any channels this gives the best signal/noise ratio and can work wonders especially at higher ISO settings. It might be argued that a &quot;to the right&quot; exposure is actually the correct one for RAW, it gives the most signal and the least noise in the final, corrected photograph.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For JPG, the situation is different. The JPG algorithm throws out bucketloads of data when cooking the image file, this is done based on various assumptions about what will and what will not be visible to the human eye, given that the exposure is the correct one. If you start fiddling with the exposure of the image after the fact, these assumptions are rendered invalid and data that the algorithm threw away as irrelevant suddenly becomes very important for the appearance of the final image. Enter aliasing, colour shifts and other nasties. Avoid this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence, for JPG, a &quot;correct&quot; exposure is rather important; for RAW, it is not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastEditorUserId="3458" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-25T16:25:07.297" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T16:25:07.297" />
  <row Id="7637" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7534" CreationDate="2011-01-25T12:05:38.367" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You say that you want reach &quot;to pick up my kid on the stage&quot;. Now, indoors the light is typically poor to say the least. This situation calls for a camera with good high ISO performance and/or a large lens aperture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While a camera with worse ISO performance and a slower lens, but with more zoom, will let you &quot;pick up the kid&quot; and get good tight framing at a distance, I submit that this will not help you at all if it forces you to use such a long shutter time that your hands will shake, or your kid move, during the exposure. I assume that you do not want a blurry photo? The built-in flash will not help, by the way, it is designed for use at very close range, two-three meters or so. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also keep in mind that a zoom lens usually has a larger max aperture at the wide end of the zoom than at the long end, a very useful f/2.8 wide end helps you very little if the long end is a more marginal f/5.6, which lets in only 1/4 the light of f/2.8. This bites you twice in fact, because you already need a faster shutter speed at max zoom than at max wide-angle because zoom magnifies the camera shake as well as the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you give up some reach at the long end for a faster lens/better sensor, it is always possible to crop the photo tighter on the computer afterwards. A blurry photo on the other hand cannot be fixed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T12:05:38.367" />
  <row Id="7638" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7623" CreationDate="2011-01-25T12:07:40.457" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;HDR (High Dynamic Range) can be called a technique where you take multiple shots at multiple exposures and combine them to get a perfectly exposed picture with best possible details. Its best applicable where the scene contrast is the most. For example, if you're taking a picture of the sky (bright) through the window of a dark room (dark), you have two options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You keep the sky perfectly exposed (with clouds and other details) but make the room/window underexposed (no details, almost black).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You keep the window/room perfectly exposed (with textures and other details) but make the sky overexposed (no details, almost white).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the workaround is, you turn on exposure bracketing (-2, 0, +2) of your camera, set the metering to evaluative and take 3 shots (continuous mode, self timer 2 second) of the scene from some steady place (tripod if possible). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The first shot should be overall underexposed and will keep the sky perfectly exposed with all details.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The second shot should be overall balanced in exposure.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The third shot should be overall overexposed and thus the details of the window/room will be there.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now if you use Photomatix or any similar software to merge these 3 shots into one, with minor adjustments you can get detailed sky as well as details window/room as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/jubWf.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here you can take a look at some amazing HDR photographs.&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stuckincustoms.com/hdr-photography/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.stuckincustoms.com/hdr-photography/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, this is a great tutorial for the beginners:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/high-dynamic-range.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/high-dynamic-range.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T12:07:40.457" />
  <row Id="7639" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7633" CreationDate="2011-01-25T12:18:49.020" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The AF gizmos won't do their thing unless they are told that there is a lens on the camera. (Remember that the EOS/EF lineup was designed from scratch to be the latest and greatest all-electronic autofocus camera system back in the late eighties. The legacy Canon lenses would not fit physically so there was no need to accommodate them at all.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When using the non-chipped adapter, the camera has no idea that there is a lens there, and the AF is not activated. The chip in the chipped adapter just tells the camera that there is something there, and - I think - that it has a certain focal length; this is enough to get the camera to play nice and activate the AF sensors. This may seem a bit pedantic of the camera, I agree, but let's be charitable and remember that they didn't have this scenario in mind when they designed the system :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T12:18:49.020" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7641" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7633" CreationDate="2011-01-25T14:38:28.687" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For whatever reason, the body needs to know information about the lens such as its focal length and aperture before it will activate the AF confirm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It does this by communicating with a chip in the lens, which has to contain appropriate information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Various makers sell lens adapters that contain a so-called AF confirm chip.  Actually that chip has been reverse engineered simply to act like some random digital lens, except that it reports bogus information, for example claiming to be at 50mm f/2.8 regardless of lens attached.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have such an adapter (and I don't) check out the EXIF information and see if you can see what it says about your lens - maybe you'll find this bogus info.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T14:38:28.687" />
  <row Id="7642" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7646" CreationDate="2011-01-25T14:41:53.610" Score="6" ViewCount="324" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been playing around with some time lapse sequences shot from the roof of our building in New York.  Its terribly windy and the resulting sequence exhibits some slight camera shake. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm seeking a software solution to align the images to compensate.  Note: I don't have PhotoShop. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks much in advance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Kris&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3224" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T08:14:19.710" Title="Seeking Software Solution to Remove Camera Shake in Time Lapse Stills" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;image-stabilization&gt;&lt;timelapse&gt;&lt;camera-shake&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="7643" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3258" CreationDate="2011-01-25T14:47:05.993" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Effectively you are asking, when is a derivative work legal?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two important tests to be applied are&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;1) Originality&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The derivative work &quot;must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote, uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work. The latter work must contain sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of originality.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2) Transformativeness&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&quot;Transformativeness is a concept used in United States copyright law to describe a characteristic of some derivative works that makes them transcend or place in a new light the underlying works on which they are based.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The use must be productive and must employ the quoted matter in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original. ...[If] the secondary use adds value to the original--if the quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings--this is the very type of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the enrichment of society.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using your example, where a photo is simply reproduced in another medium, such as oils, it fails both tests:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) Originality, it is a rote, uncreative variation of the original work.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2) Transformative,  it does not add new information, new aesthetics, or new insights and understandings.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All quotes taken from Wikipedia.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a further discussion see this very interesting article by Professor Stern&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/Lhooq0.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;L.H.O.O.Q.--Internet-Related Derivative Works&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-25T16:03:32.403" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T16:03:32.403" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7644" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7524" CreationDate="2011-01-25T14:51:37.463" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can, but there is only so much data, at some point you are going to hit the case where the light colors are all the same or the dark colors are all the same. To really understand this go look an Ansel Adam's &quot;The Zone System&quot; and understand what he was doing in B&amp;amp;W film 60 years ago. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2916" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T14:51:37.463" />
  <row Id="7645" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3258" CreationDate="2011-01-25T14:59:35.133" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Shepard Fairey and the Associated Press recently settled a law suit about derivative work. Fairey used an AP photo of Obama to create his famous poster before the 2008 election. You might find some pertinent legal information by reviewing a few articles on this. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/arts/design/13fairey.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/arts/design/13fairey.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1015" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T14:59:35.133" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7646" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7642" CreationDate="2011-01-25T15:11:55.917" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Aligning can be done for example with stitching-programs like Hugin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;add all you pictures to the hugin-project&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;let the pictures be analyzed/matched by &quot;align image stack&quot; (Images - Tab: Feature-Matching)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;add some points if needed (Control Points - Tab)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;set optimization to Position and Translation at the most (Optimiser-Tab)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Optimize (Optimiser-Tab)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;check with &quot;Preview panorama&quot; (button above)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;go to Stitcher-Tab, set Projection to &quot;Rectilinear&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;choose Output as &quot;Remapped images&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;stitch! :D&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will get your pictures remapped into several exactly overlapping ones in the choosen format/size (Stitcher-Tab: Autocrop can remove nonoverlapping borders). It's a nice side-effect and prerequisite of stitching, I used it to create ghost-images (people swinging down a slope: put them five times into one picture), just stitching them together later (using enfuse/enblend on command line).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hugin can do much more (like every decent stitcher, I guess), for example remove your barrel distortion and also vignetting. Look into optimizations for that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T15:11:55.917" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7647" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7608" CreationDate="2011-01-25T15:21:13.017" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do they provide reasonable results?  Yeah, sure... but reasonable is generally not what I'm trying for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm happy to use CVS/Wallgreens/etc. for snapshot printing, especially when I can get cheap/free prints.  That said, I don't expect quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I'm planning to do anything more than show off a stack of family photos to my grandmother or pass them around at a party, then I'm going to go with a lab that actually provides color profiles and will tell me their alignment tolerances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T15:21:13.017" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7648" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7649" CreationDate="2011-01-25T15:21:33.767" Score="7" ViewCount="633" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for a normal prime lens, desirably fast and not too expensive, for my 450D. 50mm seems to be the normal focal length on FF, thus for APS-C, I need about 30mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want it to be fast as I'm going to use it at night for available light photography. The most interesting candidates so far are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 28mm f/1.8&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sigma 30mm f/1.4&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've read a lot of stuff about both lenses and ended up confused. From my current understanding, the Canon's AF is faster than the Sigma's (the AF should be fast and reliable for street photography - however, I can't tell how big this difference is in practice. Maybe you can help me?) Also, I will be able to keep the Canon when I switch to full-frame. The only thing about the Sigma that keeps teasing me is the f/1.4. How much of a difference is there really between f/1.4 and f/1.8 (what exactly will the difference in shutter speed be)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today I got to try out the Canon in a photography store. I'm not experienced with testing and judging lenses though, so my judgement is mostly subjective. The unsharpness in the corners that everybody seems to mention was noticeable, but did not disturb me much (might also be because of the APS-C sensor). What bothered me far more were the purple fringes around bright objects (I tested it at f/1.8). Wikipedia says you can avoid those with a strong UV filter - is that true and does the usage of such a filter have any disadvantages?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Last but not least, if there are any other lenses you'd suggest or factors I missed out, &lt;em&gt;please tell me!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance for your advice :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: I already have the Canon 60mm f/2.8 Macro and am very content with it for portraits. It is, however, way too long for an always-on lens and the 2.8 is clearly too slow for shooting at night.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PPS: Thanks for your answers! Obviously, f/1.4 does indeed make a significant difference. What bothers me the most about the Sigma is that I can't use it on an full-frame camera, which I will definitely buy sooner or later. It is said that you can sell lenses very close to the new price. However, I've read that the Sigma wears out very quickly. Someone else in the same thread replied this was because of the use of suncream. &lt;em&gt;This happens when you read to much. Aargh!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PPPS: I bought the Sigma yesterday. From what I can tell after one and a half day of usage, it works pretty good. The AF needs a little adjustment, but that turned out to be no problem as I currently stay in Singapore where I can just visit the Sigma office personally and wait while they adjust the lens. I'll do that tomorrow and tell you if it made a big difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PPPPS: The lens was adjusted a couple of weeks ago so I've had some time to work with it. I have to say, the AF weaknesses &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; noticeable. However, one has to admit, the focus is required to be much more accurate on a 1.4 aperture. Also, it is an entirely new experience for me to work with such a fast lens so I also had to get used to it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I used the lens as an always-on for a few days and then switched to my Canon 60mm/2.8, the focus speed seemed incredibly fast. Hence, my conclusion: The lens can be great, if you know how to work with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2069" LastEditorUserId="2069" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-30T07:26:39.170" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T07:26:39.170" Title="Normal and fast prime lens for a Canon APS-C camera" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;prime&gt;&lt;normal&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7649" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7648" CreationDate="2011-01-25T15:34:59.930" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A few thoughts and links for your perusal:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Any reviews you're going to read will be subjective but they can be good data points.  Here's a &lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&amp;amp;message=26840166&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;thread on DPreview comparing those two lenses&lt;/a&gt; as well as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=22&amp;amp;sort=7&amp;amp;cat=2&amp;amp;page=2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;FredMiranda review page for the Canon&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You did the right thing by trying out the lens for yourself.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It seems that the verdict is undecided on whether a UV filter can reduce chromatic aberrations.  There is another question on this site about the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/57/downsides-to-using-a-uv-filter&quot;&gt;downsides to using a UV filter&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 is 2/3 of a stop.  You asked about how this would affect the shutter speed and this means that assuming all other conditions are the same, the faster glass (f/1.4) would allow for a shutter speed that's 66% faster than the slower glass (f/1.8). &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-25T15:51:55.097" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T15:51:55.097" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7650" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7648" CreationDate="2011-01-25T15:37:48.143" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd go for the Canon 28mm f/1.8 unless you're willing/able to pay for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_35mm_f_1_4l_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 35mm f/1.4 L&lt;/a&gt;.  Either of the two you mentioned will probably have a bit of chromatic abberation, which is annoying, but fixable in post (with a slight loss of sharpness).  If you're able to step up to the 35 L the fringing will largely go away. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference between the 1.8 and 1.4 is 2/3rd's stop, which means that you can cut the shutter speed nearly in half (a full stop mean's double the light), this is a significant difference, but you also have to keep in mind that all lenses tend to be a bit soft wide open, so you might end up at f/2 or so a lot of the time either way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are planning to switch to a full-frame in the near future, go ahead and get the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_50mm_f_1_4_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;50mm f/1.4 USM&lt;/a&gt;.  Optically, it's a great lens, it's &quot;normal&quot; on a FF, and it's comparatively cheap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-25T17:00:33.797" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T17:00:33.797" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7651" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7648" CreationDate="2011-01-25T15:38:58.760" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's quite a bit packed in here, so let me break it out a bit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The 50mm would be a perfectly fine lens to have. &quot;Normal&quot; is somewhat of a relative term, it just depends on what you are wanting to use the lens for really. 50mm is a great portrait lens on a crop sensor.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The purple fringes you noticed are called Chromatic Aberrations. There is no cure for them at all, except for paying more for a better lens. The UV filter might do something for film camera, but it's doubtful it would do much if anything for a digital sensor (Digital sensors aren't sensitive in the UV typically, so they won't make much of a difference).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There are some negative things associated with a UV filter, typically it will make your images have less contrast, might introduce some unwanted artificts, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The difference between a 1.4 and 1.8 is noticable, but I wouldn't make it the focal point of your decision.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-25T16:13:07.697" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T16:13:07.697" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7652" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7648" CreationDate="2011-01-25T15:51:04.070" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I haven't used either of the two lenses you mentioned, so I won't comment on those&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However you also asked about alternatives: &lt;a href=&quot;http://lenshero.com/lenses/35mm-f2.0-prime-for-canon-ef&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lens Hero&lt;/a&gt; has comprehensive a list of fast wide primes for canon ef/ef-s.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T15:51:04.070" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7653" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7695" CreationDate="2011-01-25T16:56:12.103" Score="2" ViewCount="395" Body="&lt;p&gt;I need to calibrate the display on my iMac and have got a Spyder 3 Pro to do this with. However, the standard brightness of the iMac screen is &lt;strong&gt;very&lt;/strong&gt; bright, do I need to turn the brightness down before calibrating?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realise I can pay £60 for an upgrade to Spyder Elite 4.0 which allows for screen brightness control, but I'd rather not spend the money if the Spyder 3 Pro can do the job as standard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T18:09:07.980" Title="Calibrate iMac - Spyder 3 Pro" Tags="&lt;display-calibration&gt;&lt;spyder3&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="7654" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7653" CreationDate="2011-01-25T16:59:15.473" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Follow the onscreen instructions.  I believe that the Spyder software instructs one to set the brightness to the midpoint (50%) level.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T16:59:15.473" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7655" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7648" CreationDate="2011-01-25T17:41:22.180" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Throwing my hat in to the debate I'd say get the Sigma. By all accounts it's a great lens for the price. In fact I'm planning to get one myself! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Sigma is a more modern lens designed for your sensor size&lt;/strong&gt;. You can therefore expect it to be a bit sharper - crop sensors usually have higher pixel densities whereas the Canon 28 f/1.8 was also released in 1995, before manufacturers started optimising lenses for digital. It also means the hood is optimized and is just the right diameter (the Canon hood (which costs extra) is designed for FF so will let in stray light which is very bad for street photography as you're frequently shooting into streetlights etc.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If and when you go FF you can sell it (it's a popular lens so you'll have no problems shifting it). You can reduce the loss by buying used now, treat the lens well and you may be able to sell it for what you paid. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;You can also use the Sigma on FF!&lt;/strong&gt;. Yes that's right it's an EF mount (unlike your EF-s 60mm macro) so it will go on a FF camera. You will just have dark corners, which you can either use for effect (might not be all that noticeable if your shots are dark anyway) or crop out!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You never know by the time you upgrade you light have got a promotion, won the lottery or become a pro street photographer. In the meantime it pays to be using the right lens right now. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh and definitely try one out.... you'll things that are never in the reviews, for example I find I don't really like the plastic finish Sigma use on their lenses!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-25T23:53:19.707" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T23:53:19.707" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="7656" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7688" CreationDate="2011-01-25T18:34:17.857" Score="3" ViewCount="281" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently got hand on some rolls of 35mm slide film (kodak ektachrome), and was planning on developing them at home (bad experiences with photo labs).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a basis of budget, i wanted to develop them along with my other C41 rolls,&#xA;so that i wouldn't have to buy two sets of chemicals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;so:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;1) will E6 rolls develop with C41 chemicals?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2) what kind of results should i be expecting? (colors, physical film properties, etc)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer: i am aware that they probably won't be properly developed, but i am also aware of techniques such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?q=caffenol&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;cafenol&lt;/a&gt; which i find quite acceptable, in terms of results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3462" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-25T18:48:14.850" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T01:05:36.807" Title="Developing Slide film (E-6 process) with C41 chemicals" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;developing&gt;&lt;35mm&gt;&lt;cross-processing&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7657" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7656" CreationDate="2011-01-25T18:42:11.860" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is actually quite popular and is know as cross-processing. It will usually result in wild saturated colors. Google has all the info (and I mean all the info, this is really big).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2948" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T18:42:11.860" />
  <row Id="7658" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7656" CreationDate="2011-01-25T18:46:42.013" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes it is possible, and this is referred to as &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_processing&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cross Processing&lt;/a&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the expected results, there is a good quote from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-41_process#Cross_processing&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Cross processing&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is also possible to cross-process&#xA;  slide film for the E-6 process in C-41&#xA;  , which yields negatives with a color&#xA;  shift and stronger saturation. (C-41&#xA;  also may be processed in E-6 yielding&#xA;  positive images with a strong green&#xA;  cast, caused by the orange mask.)&#xA;  Varying brands and film speeds yield&#xA;  different color shifts producing&#xA;  bright, saturated colors and high&#xA;  contrast. Many modern digital&#xA;  mini-labs will produce unsatisfactory&#xA;  results when presented cross-processed&#xA;  E-6 as the scanner will attempt color&#xA;  correction to &quot;normalize&quot; the final&#xA;  image; this can generally be overcome&#xA;  by using professional dedicated film&#xA;  scanners and disabling any color&#xA;  correction if scans or prints are to&#xA;  be made. C-41 film can be processed in&#xA;  standard black and white chemicals, to&#xA;  produce a monochrome negative image.&#xA;  The negatives will typically be of&#xA;  very low contrast, and cloudy, partly&#xA;  caused by the orange mask.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T18:46:42.013" />
  <row Id="7659" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7520" CreationDate="2011-01-25T19:00:06.633" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another old master: Alfred Steglitz. He's arguably the most important photographer ever for a myriad of reasons--much like Jimi Hendrix is the most important rock guitarist ever and Shakespeare is the most important writer in English letters. He defined the genere, he created many of the idioms of which we take as coinage today, and he inspired countless people to move the medium forward. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you aren't familiar with the dude, take a moment and read the Wikipedia article: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Stieglitz). Quote from that article:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Alfred Stieglitz (1864-1946) is&#xA;  perhaps the most important figure in&#xA;  the history of visual arts in America.&#xA;  That is certainly not to say that he&#xA;  was the greatest artist America has&#xA;  ever produced. Rather, through his&#xA;  many roles – as a photographer, as a&#xA;  discoverer and promoter of&#xA;  photographers and of artists in other&#xA;  media, and as a publisher, patron, and&#xA;  collector – he had a greater impact on&#xA;  American art than any other person has&#xA;  had.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically there are two epochs in photography: before him, and after him. He's inspirational to me both because of his willingness to take photography to places it had not been before (he was one of the first proponents of the hand camera and did a lot of work in New York at night and in bad weather), and as a life-long advocate. He just had so much energy for it. Dude was also a master craftsman who pulled his own photogravure plates among other technical feats. We all live in his debt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/LyUdn.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;The Steerage&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/33Tt1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/TsLAO.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/PGLDF.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2998" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T19:00:06.633" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-25T19:00:06.633" />
  <row Id="7660" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-25T19:15:19.637" Score="8" ViewCount="173" Body="&lt;p&gt;Folks,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wanted to ask for your advice on purchasing a digital camera for my grandpa.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My requirements are simple:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) The guy is BARELY comfortable with technology. He knows how to turn his computer on and off, and can reasonably browse the web. That's it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) I'd like the SIMPLEST POSSIBLE digital camera there is, no features, nothing, just a camera with a good &quot;fully automatic&quot; mode, where he can press 1 button and see the picture that he just took. That's it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) Ideally, I'd love it if I could pre-configure the camera to have it auto-upload the pictures that he takes to some website. I don't even know if this functionality is possible, just a thought.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any ideas? Thanks in advance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3471" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-25T19:38:55.337" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T14:08:52.590" Title="Digital Camera for Grandpa" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;purchase&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7661" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7660" CreationDate="2011-01-25T19:26:55.270" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd take a look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://store.kodak.com/store/ekconsus/en_US/list/Digital_Cameras/categoryID.28887600&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kodak Easy Share&lt;/a&gt;. I got one of those for my wife, and it passed her test. With a bit of setting it up, you can have it easily upload.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, take a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.eye.fi/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Eye-fi memory cards&lt;/a&gt;, they will see a wi-fi connection and automatically upload the contents of the card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T19:26:55.270" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="7662" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7660" CreationDate="2011-01-25T19:34:49.130" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;We got the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-Stabilized-2-7-Inch-Silver/dp/B0035FZJKI&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon SD1300&lt;/a&gt; for my Grandmother and she finds it plenty easy to use, despite having trouble with operating the microwave.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T19:34:49.130" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7663" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7665" CreationDate="2011-01-25T20:13:27.537" Score="9" ViewCount="222" Body="&lt;p&gt;Say you're in the mood to take some photographs. Where do you typically look for inspiration? I always find that I want to take photographs but don't really have anything to shoot, or can't find good, unique subjects. So what are some of your suggestions for those occasions when you want to shoot some pictures but can't find anything to photograph?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3367" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T19:40:48.290" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-25T20:31:31.240" Title="Where do you find the inspiration for your photographs?" Tags="&lt;inspiration&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7664" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7663" CreationDate="2011-01-25T20:21:38.717" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Various photo blogs on the web, photo sites (&lt;a href=&quot;http://flickr.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr&lt;/a&gt;, PBase, etc.), and sometimes photography books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, at work we have a hobbyist photo club. One of the activities we have is topical assignments. At the beginning of the year we set an activity calendar where some of the meetings are dedicated to assignments of various topics. Many times this requires some research for techniques and ideas which lead to inspiration and beautiful images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="3367" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-26T14:41:59.260" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T14:41:59.260" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-25T20:31:31.240" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7665" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7663" CreationDate="2011-01-25T21:12:37.253" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Look at as many other people's work as you can. Really look and then ask what you are drawn to, what fascinates you. You will be at the beginning of understanding the style and subjects that inspire you. Now set about unashamedly copying them. This will develop your skill in mastering the style and subject. From there it is a short step to developing your own original approach. Your search through other people's work will lead you to the subjects that inspire you and you will learn so much from them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another approach. Imagine you have a friend living in, say, rural Africa (or anywhere else for that matter). Now imagine how the region you live in would be fascinating and unusual to your friend. Look at it through his eyes. If he came to visit you, what would you show him and what would you tell him? Then set about creating a photo essay that would convey to your friend what is so fascinating, unique or unusual about the area where you live. Then make a photo book. Having a tangible goal like this will concentrate your mind and help motivate you.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have found this is a powerful technique for seeing my area with new eyes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T21:12:37.253" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-25T21:12:37.253" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7666" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23" CreationDate="2011-01-25T21:22:40.057" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found what 2 sec delay timer + bracketing in Canon 5d mark II  works not only in Av mode but also in M mode - a way to make panoramic HDR images. As far as I remember it didn't work this way in 5d mark I, and I didn't try on 5d mkII..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3475" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T21:22:40.057" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-01T18:55:11.547" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7667" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-25T21:34:04.543" Score="16" ViewCount="420" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many times (especially around midday) we encounter lighting situations where the contrast of the scene is too high to capture with a camera. What can we do to create a useful picture in such enviroment, besides completely blowing the highlights or shooting a silhouette?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/amSwk.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;silhouette&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;here i went with the sky&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T00:08:53.180" Title="How to cope with high contrast?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;contrast&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="7668" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7692" CreationDate="2011-01-25T21:35:16.867" Score="5" ViewCount="255" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a follow up to my first query about photographing artwork. There was a consensus that I go with a macro lens: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6533/canon-t2i-for-shooting-artwork&quot;&gt;Canon T2i for shooting artwork? &lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think I'm finally ready to purchase. I found this lens and I wonder if anyone has an opinion on it as a macro lens: Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Telephoto Zoom Lens&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;it has excellent reviews and is inexpensive. Or should I just get a standard non-zooming 50mm or 60mm macro lens? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And if you have any other thoughts in reguards to photograhing artwork please let me know. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3043" LastEditorUserId="3356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-16T17:18:47.023" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T17:18:47.023" Title="macro lens for artwork with the T2i" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;sigma&gt;&lt;artwork&gt;" AnswerCount="5" />
  <row Id="7669" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7667" CreationDate="2011-01-25T21:37:15.163" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The obvious (in the particular example you gave) is to use a fill flash. Then, I'd shoot RAW so I can preserve more tonal information for working on in post. Last, comes HDR, but I never did that myself. In the case of too bright skies, you can try to use a polarizer to reduce the amount of light from the background while still keeping the details (and even enhancing its looks).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can control the scene itself, move the subject to a different place maybe, where it is more lit and thus reducing the exposure difference to the background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-25T21:42:27.093" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T21:42:27.093" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="7670" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7668" CreationDate="2011-01-25T21:44:07.390" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/326-sigma-af-70-300mm-f4-56-apo-dg-macro-test-report--review&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the review&lt;/a&gt; it looks like while the Sigma is pleasantly clear of any weird distortions, it's not excellent in terms of resolution and color fringing. If you really want top quality I'd suggest to go with a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2149/what-is-a-macro-lens&quot;&gt;true macro&lt;/a&gt; like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/513-canon60f28apsc&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T21:44:07.390" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7671" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7668" CreationDate="2011-01-25T21:54:18.333" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have this lens in the Nikon mount and compared to my other lenses, it's INCREDIBLY soft.  I'm comparing this both to the 18-55mm kit lens and the Sigma 50mm 1.4.  It's the lens I &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; use when I just have to have the reach.  If I was getting it again - &lt;strong&gt;I wouldn't&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At 300mm, its quite soft and the pictures lack contrast.  Below 200mm, its significantly better, but still significantly lacking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My recommendation is to go with a real prime, 50-60mm. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And realize, the lens is only &lt;strike&gt;pseudo-macro&lt;/strike&gt; &lt;em&gt;larger-than-normal-magnification&lt;/em&gt; (1:2) at 300mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Also note there is an APO version and non-APO version of that lens, the APO is supposed to have much less chromatic abb.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-25T22:43:38.320" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T22:43:38.320" />
  <row Id="7672" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7531" CreationDate="2011-01-25T21:54:26.037" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;20x200 has a lot of nice stuff by emerging &amp;amp; established artists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also find lots of original prints (of varying quality) on Etsy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(sorry, can't post links since I have no karma yet).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3476" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T21:54:26.037" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-27T19:51:51.757" />
  <row Id="7673" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7660" CreationDate="2011-01-25T21:59:12.963" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Marco Arment (Co-founder of Tumblr, Creator of Instapaper), did a great &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.marco.org/782778775&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;write up&lt;/a&gt; on this exact topic. He settled on the Canon PowerShot SX120 IS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His Criteria:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It must be large enough to be held and operated comfortably.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It must have a very large screen.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It should have as few controls and on-screen indicators as possible. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It should use AA batteries.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It should be fast.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The whole post is essential reading, and characteristic of Marco's logical approach to design.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3477" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T21:59:12.963" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7674" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7667" CreationDate="2011-01-25T22:17:34.420" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fill flash can work although you should try and use a gel to balance the color of the light with daylight...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am partial to reflectors, because then you are using the same light.  Even just a small one might have worked for the shot you were taking there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also make sure to meter to the right, and as ysap noted use RAW... push the exposure as far to the right as you can and then you can usually recover a good deal of shadow detail using Photoshop or other editing tools.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastEditorUserId="1192" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-26T02:57:02.177" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T02:57:02.177" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7675" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7660" CreationDate="2011-01-25T22:27:18.430" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Think of it not from a technophobe's perspective, but from an accessibility perspective. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An optical viewfinder, reflex viewfinder or EVF will be far preferable to a bare LCD on the camera back. Not only is it easier to hold the camera steadily when it's in tight (and probably getting some extra support from the cheek), the image presented in an up-to-the-eye viewfinder will be at a virtual distance that means you're not going to need reading glasses (or bi/trifocal head gymnastics) to look at the finder. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Make sure the camera is big enough to be easy to handle -- even if the camera only has one button, that one button is useless if the user can't easily hold the camera and press the button. (I don't know about &lt;em&gt;your&lt;/em&gt; grandfather, but many men of that generation actually worked for a living, and have hands roughly the size of Rhode Island with, um... let's say &lt;em&gt;limited dexterity&lt;/em&gt;, shall we?) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A whole lot of buttons and dials and doodads really isn't a problem if you can say, &quot;just put it on 'P' and fire away.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I like the EyeFi idea, but most in-the-box software will pop up an import utility the moment the camera is plugged into the computer (Canon's utilities for its P&amp;amp;S cameras are pretty much idiot-proof, and I assume most included software these days is similar). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And yes, batteries can be an issue. I have no idea who thought it would be a good idea to force rechargeables (we always had that option with AAs), particularly non-replaceable lithiums, but they're the next best thing to useless for somebody who hauls the camera out every few months when it's time to take a picture since the batteries will be flat until after the moment has passed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-26T12:00:47.463" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T12:00:47.463" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7676" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7648" CreationDate="2011-01-25T22:33:26.283" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many image processing programs can deal with chromatic aberrations (of which purple fringing is an example) pretty well. Photoshop, Lightroom, Bibble, to my knowledge - maybe others too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used to own the Sigma 30/1.4 and loved it. I'm not going to tell you which to buy but remember that when the lens is wide open, central sharpness is far, far more important than corner sharpness, which is mostly irrelevant as those regions will be completely out of the depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2329" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T22:33:26.283" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7677" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-25T22:40:44.293" Score="1" ViewCount="109" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's easy to find people complaining about vignetting and poor fits, so what should someone know before buying the adapter and lens? Which C Mount lenses are a good buy? What are the likely focal lengths available? What are the apertures? What's got the best bokeh? What are the manufacturers worth checking into?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Part of the fun of the µ43 format is availability of lots of older lenses, but there's a serious dearth of centralized information on options to explore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3479" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T17:03:07.270" Title="What are some concerns for using C Mount lenses on a GF1" Tags="&lt;bokeh&gt;&lt;old-lenses&gt;&lt;micro-four-thirds&gt;&lt;adapter&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7678" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7520" CreationDate="2011-01-25T22:48:44.847" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two favourites of mine are Sebastiao Salgado and Steve McCurry: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.co.uk/images?q=sebastiao+salgado&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sebastiao Salgado&lt;/a&gt; - Salgado shoots technically superb, gorgeous black and whites, but he has a real social conscience and a need to document the hardships and abuses of the poorest people in the world. It can sometimes be hard to look at all the suffering underneath the flawless inky blacks and smooth tones!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stevemccurry.com/main.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Steve McCurry&lt;/a&gt; - McCurry shoots fabulous environmental portraits, with saturated colours and fast lenses. His Afghan girl is his most iconic image but there are many other breathtaking images.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2329" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-27T17:09:54.297" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T17:09:54.297" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-25T22:48:44.847" />
  <row Id="7679" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7667" CreationDate="2011-01-25T22:51:37.253" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depending on the scene, another option would be a graduated neutral density filter. For landscapes, in particular, this would allow you to decrease the intensity of the sky while maintaining intensity for the foreground. There are various strengths available, so the amount of filtering will depend on the actual scene, time of day, etc. This works well when the dividing lines are relatively even and can be lined up with the filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the example you gave, as others noted, it's a classic fill situation for a flash which would have no effect on the background, but would light the subject. Alternatively, a reflector can be used to direct the light on to the subject, a very common technique for staged shooting outdoors, but in most cases I'd suspect that you're more likely to have a flash available than a large reflector. Mind you, any light surface can potentially act as a reflector, so you don't necessarily need to a store bought one to pull it off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T22:51:37.253" />
  <row Id="7680" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7682" CreationDate="2011-01-25T23:08:12.947" Score="10" ViewCount="225" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've noticed that developed colour negatives usually have an orange layer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this an artifact of an old printing process, required by the chemistry, or is there some other benefit to it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3478" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T19:45:29.713" Title="Why does colour negative film have an orange mask?" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;film-photography&gt;&lt;negative-film&gt;&lt;negative&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7681" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7667" CreationDate="2011-01-25T23:14:21.240" Score="23" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As others have stated the main options are fill flash or multi exposure. I thought I'd post this handy example I shot recently where I tried both techniques:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the result of using fill flash:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/fill_flash.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The flash was off camera and to the left, near the ground. I was intentionally trying to get a very dramatic lighting effect, had I used the flash on camera the shadows would be less dramatic and the light more even. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the result of two exposures manually merged into one file:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/multi-exposure.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fill flash shot is more effortlessly natural looking but the multi-exposure (or HDR if you prefer) definitely has more detail and is more striking. It's worth pointing out that whilst I could have done better with the flash I could also have done better with the exposure blending, this is just a quick job to prove a point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general the pros and cons of each method are&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fill flash&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;+ Natural looking&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;+ Can be done with film&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;+ Can have movement in the scene&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;+ Minimal post processing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;- Only works for close subjects&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;- You may have to balance the colour of flash with ambient light&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;- Can be hard to get even lighting on your subject and avoid shadows&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;- Bright backgrounds mean you have to stop down lots or use an ND at you can't use a fast shutter (unless your flash has HSS)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Multi-exposure (HDR)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;+ More even lighting, no problems with shadows&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;+ Striking images&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;+ Can use any shutter speed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;+ Works with all subject, near and far&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;- Requires careful post processing to avoid halos, sickening contrast&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;- Other photographers will know you used HDR and secretly judge you ;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;- You can get weird colours in shadows due to secondary reflections.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This last point is worth expanding on. In my example the subject isn't being lit by direct sunlight. So where is the light coming from? Some of it is from other parts of the blue sky (refracting of particles in the upper atmosphere and turning blue), a small amount is bouncing off the clouds (which had almost gone by this point) but a significant amount of it is &lt;strong&gt;bouncing off the green grass in front of the subject&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you boost the shadows too much using HDR, you can get colour shifts, as the shadows by definition aren't lit by direct light, only by light that has already bounced off other surfaces and picked up their colours!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-25T23:34:21.307" LastActivityDate="2011-01-25T23:34:21.307" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="7682" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7680" CreationDate="2011-01-25T23:22:55.273" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Looks like photo.net has a really complete answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Why do negatives need an orange mask? The simple answer is &quot;impure dyes.&quot; This is generally true of all chromogenic photographic materials, where the dye molecules are made of a color coupler that is built into the emulsion, combined with the by-product of the development of silver by a color developing agent. With this kind of thing going on, the choice of dyes is a bit limited, and we end with dyes that are not as good as some others... &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/learn/orange-negative-mask&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(more)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastEditorUserId="1819" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-26T19:45:29.713" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T19:45:29.713" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="7683" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7677" CreationDate="2011-01-25T23:25:41.263" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This spreadsheet contains quite a bit of detail regarding C mount lenses: &lt;a href=&quot;http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p9kkgjwEQQQ-HJwvNDobeEw&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;G1 C Mount Lens Compatibility List&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3483" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-27T17:03:07.270" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T17:03:07.270" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7684" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="978" CreationDate="2011-01-26T00:29:43.747" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Open a dictionary, choose a random word, take a picture to &quot;illustrate&quot; it!&lt;br&gt;&#xA;This can be a complement of a 365 project.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3462" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T00:29:43.747" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-26T00:29:43.747" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7685" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="978" CreationDate="2011-01-26T00:38:03.997" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm beginning a project where i re-take very old photographs of my hometown. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I got some old photos on an old multimedia cd-rom and some blogs, and still are in the process of sorting and geotagging them. Later i will re-take the best ones!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The contrast and the changes in the streets and buildings are very interesting, i'm having a blast just going through all those old photos - and i recently found that the municipal archive has a lot more material than i can ever attempt to parse by myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll eventually make a blog or webpage with side by side comparison :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3462" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T00:38:03.997" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-26T00:38:03.997" />
  <row Id="7686" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7520" CreationDate="2011-01-26T00:42:24.800" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wrote mine up for my blog a while back, here with some details on why for those interested:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chuqui.com/2010/08/my-photographic-mentors-and-inspirations/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;My photographic mentors and inspirations&lt;/a&gt; - chuqui.com&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-27T17:07:50.027" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T17:07:50.027" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-26T00:42:24.800" />
  <row Id="7687" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23" CreationDate="2011-01-26T01:00:17.643" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Every current Canon EOS camera supports &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&amp;amp;articleID=2286&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;back-button AF&lt;/a&gt;, even if it doesn’t have a dedicated button for it. On my XSi, you can change the AE lock button to trigger AF by enabling it in Custom Functions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I enabled it on my XSi, and I’m extremely happy with the results — I rarely use AE lock, and the ability to prevent AF from locking on the wrong element during rapid shooting is invaluable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1905" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T01:00:17.643" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-01T18:55:11.547" />
  <row Id="7688" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7656" CreationDate="2011-01-26T01:05:36.807" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I worked in a professional photo lab for a number of years. Cross Processing was something that guys like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ridestudio.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Scott Clum&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.trevorgraves.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Trevor Graves&lt;/a&gt; were using for their photography back in the pioneering days of snowboarding. The effect produced is very striking. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most common characteristics of cross processing is contrast and extreme color crossovers. Crossovers are color shifts that can't be corrected out of an image by normal means. For instance, an image might have a strong blue cast in the shadows but a heavy yellow cast in the highlights. Since blue and yellow are opposites (roughly speaking) if you attempt to correct out the blue cast in the shadows it only intensifies the yellow problem in the highlights. Although this image was manipulated in photoshop to achieve the effect it is a good example. Cred: basic clothing &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biscaclothing.com/news/2006/07/cross_processing_in_photoshop_1.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;basica cross processing&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/TjikW.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Cross Processing Example&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On one occasion I inadvertently cross processed several rolls of E6 in the C41. It was a busy day and I simply walked to the wrong processor. I was mortified because the images were of a gentleman's mission trip to a remote part of the world. I was sick to my stomach. We ended up shooting copy slides and essentially re-cross processing the images. While it wasn't perfect the customer felt we had done our best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you decide to cross process be warned that getting reliable results in a positive image form are hard to achieve. Scanners and printers (as in photo lab printers) are designed to work with a negative that has a strong 'orange' substrate. Cross processing renders a negative without this baseline and the equipment rarely knows how to handle the extreme difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have fun! Cross processing is a blast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3203" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T01:05:36.807" />
  <row Id="7689" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="556" CreationDate="2011-01-26T01:24:22.470" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This may seem biased/unfair, but GIMP has awful usability.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer: i have used both, although recently i use photoshop much more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of functionality, GIMP doesn't tread much behind photoshop (for simple photomanips and adjustments - i don't do HDR), but layer manipulation and general use are tortuous (IMHO). I never couldn't do a task with GIMP, but i end up searching online how to do it, whereas in Photoshop i tend to find stuff on the menus or figure it out by myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And yes, i am aware that 600€ is quite a lot to pay for a small hobbyist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: (in reply to the comments)&#xA;Yes, awful is a bit vague.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wasn't really referring to the panel approach, it's slightly confusing but not as serious as the layer manipulation controls in an image, selecting, dragging, enlarging, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I didn't mean to bash, i learned the basics in GIMP, it's selection editing tools are fairly evident, but i didn't use many of GIMP's functionality (3+ layer composites, filters, color corrections) because i didn't know the name of what i was trying to accomplish, or simply because fell into dead ends (not being able to do something, not figuring it out quickly, getting frustrated, giving up)&#xA;Only after transitioning to photoshop, and learning those tasks, did i know what to look for in GIMP.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not sure if i made myself clear, i am referring to findability vs discoverability (&lt;a href=&quot;http://maadmob.net/donna/blog/2005/findability-vs-discoverability&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://maadmob.net/donna/blog/2005/findability-vs-discoverability&lt;/a&gt;). I defend that photoshop is a very much better learning tool because it enables its users to discover functionality that they didn't even know they could do in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose you COULD do them almost all in GIMP, after you know what to search for, and investing the time in learning it, but photoshop allowed ME to learn almost all that i know with almost no research at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Usability may seem something rather trivial or useless, but it really isn't. It is very complicated to get right, and is never ideal for everyone. But Adobe has obviously put a lot of effort into making Photoshop usable, and it shows. Also, i am aware of the difficulty for FOSS to engage in user testing and usability evaluation, because of the nature of the projects development structure (many developers, far apart, functionality oriented).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3462" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-26T20:14:24.363" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T20:14:24.363" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="7690" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7531" CreationDate="2011-01-26T01:37:19.373" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My friend Ed Riddell has started aggregating work by several fantastic photographers on his site &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lefotografie.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Le Fotografie&lt;/a&gt;, although I didn't send him any of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neoluminance.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;mine&lt;/a&gt; but feel free to shop there too ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T01:37:19.373" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-27T19:51:51.757" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7691" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="556" CreationDate="2011-01-26T01:42:41.583" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.basicphotoshop.com/tutz/pstutz53.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adjustment layers&lt;/a&gt;. No adjustment layers. One can live without, but they are nice. In some cases, &lt;a href=&quot;http://docs.gimp.org/en/gimp-concepts-layer-modes.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;layer blending modes&lt;/a&gt; can be used to a achieve similar effect, but they don't work the same way.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tutorial9.net/tutorials/photoshop-tutorials/correcting-exposure-with-the-shadows-highlights-tool/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Shadow/Highlight&lt;/a&gt; tool. There's several decent (free, of course) plugins which add this, but not as nicely as the integrated tool. (My favorite is &lt;a href=&quot;http://registry.gimp.org/node/116&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this simple one&lt;/a&gt;; there are others with more options that sometimes give better results.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9385/whats-the-difference-between-saturation-and-vibrance-in-lightroom&quot;&gt;Vibrance&lt;/a&gt;&quot; adjustment. Adobe uses this term for a special color tool which increases saturation in a gentle way, without overdoing normal tones, and specifically handling skin tones specially. That's very handy for photography, obviously. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9398/is-there-an-equivalent-to-adobes-vibrance-in-gimp/9466#9466&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt; for an approach for emulating this in Gimp — a lot more work.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH0aEp1oDOI&amp;amp;feature=player_embedded&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Content-Aware Fill&lt;/a&gt;. Gimp has actually had this for &lt;em&gt;years&lt;/em&gt; through the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.logarithmic.net/pfh/resynthesizer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;resynthesizer plugin&lt;/a&gt;, but that project is basically dead — it's a great start, but it's just not up to the level of magic that the Photoshop tool accomplishes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Denoise plugins. There's tons of proprietary ones for photoshop that give amazing results. The state-of-the-art for Gimp is a little more rough — see &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/887/&quot;&gt;this question on the topic&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fractal image saving and upscaling plugins. For whatever reason, there's no mathemagical upscaling software like &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genuine_Fractals&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genuine Fractals&lt;/a&gt; in the open-source universe. (That said, it may be no huge loss, as &lt;a href=&quot;http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/03/its-bigger-but.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the results aren't always better than bicubic scaling&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Action recording. Gimp has very powerful &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gimp.org/docs/python/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;scripting capabilities&lt;/a&gt;, which is great for those of us who are comfortable with that kind of thing, but no GUI-based record-and-playback macro system. This isn't strictly photography-related, but if you're doing the same thing to a lot of images as part of your workflow, it would be nice.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-06T05:42:29.137" LastActivityDate="2011-03-06T05:42:29.137" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="7692" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7668" CreationDate="2011-01-26T02:02:35.247" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Like any other zoom with the word &quot;macro&quot; in it's name, the Sigma is quite simply lying. No ifs, no buts. Misleading marketingspeak.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you were recommended a &quot;macro&quot; lens it was implicitly meant a prime lens that can focus to 1:1 magnification, or at least 1:2. Canon has these in 60, 100 (2 flavours) and 180 mm focal lengths, a 1:2 50mm &quot;compact macro&quot; that requires an extra doo-dad to reach 1:1, while Tamron, Sigma and Tokina will be more than happy to sell one to you in 60, 90, 105 or 150mm varieties. At least; those are the ones I remember off the top of my head. All of the above are quite splendid optically, focal length being the main difference. The Canon ones that are equipped with USM focus motors are probably a bit better than the third-party ones for all-round use simply because they focus faster. While macros are purpose-built for macro photography they also tend to be extremely well-behaved in other ways, such as minimal distortion, good sharpness and very flat field of focus, which makes them excellent for reproduction and other non-macro purposes as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T02:02:35.247" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7693" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7520" CreationDate="2011-01-26T02:04:22.993" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most of those who inspire me are already listed, bar one: Oleg Novikov. I've never been big on landscapes until I saw his photos, and now I'm smitten. He still shoots a lot of film, mainly Velvia and Provia, and he writes pretty well too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.olegnovikov.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.olegnovikov.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/UzmQe.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/wNuPp.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1868" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T02:04:22.993" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-26T02:04:22.993" />
  <row Id="7694" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7663" CreationDate="2011-01-26T02:52:32.700" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I usually go for a walk with my camera and I look at stuff, ordinary stuff, natural stuff, human made stuff, whatever...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ask &quot;what's interesting in shape, line, color and/or texture about this stuff that people walk past every day and never pay attention to?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having found something, I ask &quot;what's an interesting angle to view this from?&quot;, paying attention more to what's in front of and behind the main subject.  If the subject has strong lines, how does it look with parallel, perpendicular or other lines in the rest of the picture?  If the subject has an interesting texture, how does it look with no textures, similar textures, or different textures in the rest of the frame?  Is there stuff that forms a frame within a frame here?   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At this point I'm looking through the LCD and playing with the shutter speed and f-stop to see what features of the scene become prominent as I run my camera's contrast curve and over the scene.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By this time I have a few photos that I think are fairly interesting.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's one method.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3444" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T02:52:32.700" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-26T02:52:32.700" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7695" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7653" CreationDate="2011-01-26T07:51:01.233" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before you calibrate the monitor, set it to the brightness that you will run it at when you are using it for editing photos. If you find full brightness uncomfortably bright, turn it down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The important thing is just that it be consistent. (always edit your photos at the same brightness as it was calibrated for).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a Huey pro (same idea as the spyder), and use it for my MacBook Pro using this method. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3478" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T07:51:01.233" />
  <row Id="7696" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7668" CreationDate="2011-01-26T08:45:43.493" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have you considered the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-100mm-2-8L-Macro-Digital/dp/B002NEGTSI&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro IS USM?&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I own one, and it's a great lens.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1616" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T08:45:43.493" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7697" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7663" CreationDate="2011-01-26T10:19:10.147" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Great question.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I take my camera with me when we go anywere with our (or other people's) children.  They always provide great material.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I rarely come back without one shot that makes me smile - and that kicks my creative energy back into gear.  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T10:19:10.147" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-26T10:19:10.147" />
  <row Id="7698" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7668" CreationDate="2011-01-26T11:57:05.280" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As most people reccomend above, i would also suggest a true macro lens, preferably from Canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally i own a Nikon camera and read very bad reviews from generic lens manufacturers (Sigma, Tamron, etc). Most people recomend Nikon/Canon lenses for Nikon/Canon cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, recent cameras have built in lens faults correction (for aberrations and such), which only work with their specific brand of lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3462" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T11:57:05.280" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7699" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7601" CreationDate="2011-01-26T14:40:56.860" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can use p-series tiffin or cokin square sliding bracket filters which comes in over size. Vignetting is old story now. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3498" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-26T16:09:53.033" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T16:09:53.033" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7700" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7704" CreationDate="2011-01-26T15:12:14.103" Score="14" ViewCount="1200" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was browsing some great shots from Herb Ritts and came across this &lt;a href=&quot;http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3aANd9GcTKa_63alCDxSR74OFv86Bm7Jz8J4NG6hnziPFXILud8NDLt8K13w&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photo&lt;/a&gt; (NSFW). It seems like the legs of the woman appear longer in relation to her body. Is this an effect of the lens used? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since many of the women I photograph are short it would be great if I was able to mimic this effect to make them look taller. The image is especially curious to me because the woman subjects I shoot all happen to have short legs, so the 'lengthening' effect in the photo would be very welcome by them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyone got tips or ideas for this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: About using wider angle lenses... How wide would I need to go with an APC sensor? Does lighting play a role at all?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-26T17:44:04.833" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T14:24:27.053" Title="How can I make short people look taller in photographs?" Tags="&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;people&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7701" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7700" CreationDate="2011-01-26T15:43:24.907" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One thing you can use is a wide angle lens. This way, you shoot close to your subject and the other stuff in the frame gets smaller.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An example, shot @10mm on APS-C:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/7M6Cc.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-26T15:48:27.740" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T15:48:27.740" />
  <row Id="7702" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7700" CreationDate="2011-01-26T15:55:18.253" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm no expert, but it looks to me like the linked photo may have been taken low to the ground with a slightly upward angle. (Note that you can see the underside of her breasts &amp;amp; chin).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This, plus some sort of wider-angle lens (as @ysap mentions) would tend to distort the perspective to make her appear taller. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With a low shooting position &amp;amp; upward angle, as the point on her body gets higher, it also gets further away from the camera. This will effectively &quot;stretch&quot; the subject. A wide-angle lens will help enhance the effect to the point where it's just noticeable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Her head &amp;amp; upper body will also appear smaller. That's an important part of how human visual rangefinding works. There's possibly a psychological effect here on top of everything; we expect the proportions of head-to-legs to be one way (from a top-down &quot;eye level&quot; perspective), and changing that slightly is something we pick up on. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastEditorUserId="48" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-26T16:02:08.647" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T16:02:08.647" />
  <row Id="7703" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7700" CreationDate="2011-01-26T15:59:31.550" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several aspects of your example that work together:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Viewpoint: Get down lower so that the camera is looking slightly upward.  This will make your subject seem taller, and it also gives them a more powerful look.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Lens: Use a wider angle than you would normally use for portraits. Something in the 35-50mm range would probably be good.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Posing: In your example, there is much more focus on the legs than the torso.  The posing (wider stance, turned to the side), as well as the heels, help draw your eyes towards the legs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T15:59:31.550" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7704" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7700" CreationDate="2011-01-26T16:16:36.703" Score="24" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use a wide angle lens and position yourself low down, as others have stated:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3616/3441930940_49f0ee40bd_z.jpg?zz=1&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Giant legs on even the shortest subject guaranteed! This was shot with a 10mm, the effect is more subtle at longer focal lengths. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wide angle lenses accentuate perspective, they increase the distance in size between near and far objects. By getting low you are making the subjects legs the closest thing to the camera, thus they appear disproportionally larger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the same reason you should use a longer lens for regular portraits, a wide angle will make the closest parts of the face (nose, chin, forehead) seem larger which is not very flattering! Taking this advice to the extreme is why you see fashion photogs using 300mm lenses and directing their models using walkie-talkies! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-26T16:22:13.217" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T16:22:13.217" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7705" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7663" CreationDate="2011-01-26T16:24:22.997" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Maybe I'm the only one, but I generally find inspiration by doing a short hike &lt;em&gt;without&lt;/em&gt; the camera. It's almost inevitable that sometime during the hike I'm going to see something that makes me wish I had the camera with me. When it happens, I spend some time looking at it from different angles and such, trying to figure out exactly how I'd take the picture if I did have the camera with me...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T16:24:22.997" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-26T16:24:22.997" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7706" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7663" CreationDate="2011-01-26T16:36:00.990" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For me it's a combination of &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/978/what-are-good-photography-projects&quot;&gt;having a project to work on&lt;/a&gt;, and looking through other photos.  Often that just means glancing back through my library and trying to improve something I've tried before but didn't turn out how I wanted, but sometimes I look through other photographer's work to get ideas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7days/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr Last 7 Days&lt;/a&gt; - This is always a great source of inspiration, and it's always changing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.StaticPage_VPage&amp;amp;SP=photographers_list&amp;amp;l1=0&amp;amp;XXAPXX=SubPanel10&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Portfolios of well known photographers&lt;/a&gt; - Seeing different photographer's styles helps me to look at the same environment I'm used to in different ways.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/images?q=famous+artwork&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Famous Artwork&lt;/a&gt; - Looking outside of photography at other artwork provides even more different viewpoints.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T16:36:00.990" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-26T16:36:00.990" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7707" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7700" CreationDate="2011-01-26T16:53:27.607" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A number of answers have focused on the photographic side of things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another point is simply how the woman dresses. The more of the legs that are visible, the longer they'll tend to look -- just for example, the shorter of skirt she wears, the longer her legs will generally look. Regardless of whether they happen to be popular at the moment, swimsuits that are cut really high on the hip tend to have the same effect -- it tends to give the illusion that most of what you'd usually think of as &quot;hips&quot; are really part of their legs. Certainly in the picture you've shown, there's nothing covering up her legs (or much of anything else...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, almost anything that makes her legs look thinner will also tend to make them look longer. &quot;Skinny&quot; jeans (for one example) can do wonders, and some styles that &quot;flare&quot; out at the bottom can enhance the effect even more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, a lot depends on exactly what sort of photography you're doing too. If you're doing fashion photography where you have to show a picture of a particular set of clothes, most of this is irrelevant. If you're doing portraits or something on that order, there's generally a lot more flexibility about her wardrobe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T16:53:27.607" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7708" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7700" CreationDate="2011-01-26T17:08:07.220" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Make sure there is someone even shorter in the photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3503" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T17:08:07.220" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7709" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-01-26T18:16:52.527" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Questions regarding technique, as opposed to style, hardware, or software.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-26T18:16:52.527" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T18:16:52.527" />
  <row Id="7710" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-01-26T18:16:52.527" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="Questions regarding technique, as opposed to style, hardware, or software." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-26T18:16:52.527" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T18:16:52.527" />
  <row Id="7711" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7556" CreationDate="2011-01-26T19:22:21.293" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have worked with multiple publishers and Viovio has the best pricing and quality.  You can upload a high quality PDF directly to the site:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.viovio.com/products/pdf/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.viovio.com/products/pdf/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Best,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Amy&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3506" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T19:22:21.293" />
  <row Id="7712" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7663" CreationDate="2011-01-26T19:40:48.290" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Carpe diem&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Walk, ride, drive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just live in the moment and be wondered by the world like a child. Be connected to yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be conscious to where your eyes are drawn, be conscious to what you are feeling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then and only then, ask yourself how to communicate your current emotion to others by ways of a single picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe the Picture is not there yet, remember your emotion and come back later when the light is in harmony with the emotion. Or find another subject that carries that same emotion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Every sincere photograph is a self-portrait, whatever the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1296" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T19:40:48.290" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-26T19:40:48.290" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7713" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7717" CreationDate="2011-01-26T20:48:13.870" Score="3" ViewCount="354" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ok, here's my doubt. Suppose I want to get a certain exposure for an image. Keeping the ISO constant, there are two tentative possibilities here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Put the camera at f 1.4 (say) and at 1/1600 shutter speed (suppose).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Put aperture at f 8.0 (say) and shutter speed at 1/50 (suppose).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both would get me the exact same exposure. Yes, for the latter, I may have to use a tripod. But the question being, what would be the difference in the image thus obtained? I can fairly interchange the settings for the same shot (theoretically). Or can't I?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1485" LastEditorUserId="1485" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-27T16:08:17.423" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T16:08:17.423" Title="How do different aperture/shutter settings affect a photo with the same overall exposure?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;shutter-speed&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="7714" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7713" CreationDate="2011-01-26T20:52:54.800" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biggest difference by adjusting the aperture (f-stop) is that the depth of field changes, so whilst the exposure might stay the same, by setting the aperture to f/8.0 you'll get much more of the scene in apparent focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T20:52:54.800" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7715" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23" CreationDate="2011-01-26T20:55:36.480" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can use my lens hood to funnel light into a certain area of my picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3072" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T20:55:36.480" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-01T18:55:11.547" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7716" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7713" CreationDate="2011-01-26T21:02:27.643" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you shot at f4 and 1/200, the exposure would be the same as f8 at 1/50. However your images may not be identical for a number of reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Depth of field (as mentioned by Rowland Shaw's answer)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Movement of the camera or subject will be more pronounced at the slower shutter speed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Most lenses (especially cheaper ones) may be sharper at the narrower apertures.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shadows will be noisier for the longer exposure&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T21:02:27.643" />
  <row Id="7717" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7713" CreationDate="2011-01-26T21:04:49.307" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Different shutter speeds have an obvious different effect: more motion-blur. (That includes both subject motion and blur from any motion of the camera itself.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Different apertures also produce different results; most notably that depth of field increases as you stop down. So, f/8 gives you a much deeper in-focus area than f/1.8. This effect is lessened on a smaller sensor (or, if for some reason you just crop out the center part of the image and blow it up), to the point where it's basically a non-factor on most point &amp;amp; shoot cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But there are other effects of changing as well: lens sharpness, contrast, and vignetting characteristics change, usually improving significantly when you stop down a bit. (For a certain look, though, that technical improvement may not, in fact, be what you want.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's assuming perfect reciprocity — the idea that aperture and shutter speed really are perfectly interchangeable for exposure. With film that's not strictly true as you get to extremes — see &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6900/&quot;&gt;this question on reciprocity failure&lt;/a&gt;. But for digital, it's not meaningfully a factor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-26T21:18:06.017" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T21:18:06.017" />
  <row Id="7718" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7713" CreationDate="2011-01-26T21:08:46.963" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;1.8-&gt;2-&gt;2.8-&gt;4-&gt;5.6-&gt;8 = ~4Ev shift in aperture&#xA;You have to compensate it by shuter speed on the same number of stops in order to get same exposure i.e. 1/200-&gt;1/100-&gt;1/50-&gt;1/25-&gt;1/12-&gt;1/10&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So f/1.8 and 1/200s have the same exposure as f/8 and 1/10&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actualy you can choose from any of the following:&#xA;f/2 and 1/200,&#xA;f/2.8 and 1/100, &#xA;f/4 and 1/50,&#xA;f/5.6 and 1/25,&#xA;f/8 and 1/12 (probably this be 1/10)&#xA;...&#xA;- all these pairs gives you the same exposure, you can choose any of them, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;if you need shallow DOF - you'll choose pair with most open aperture(f/2 and 1/200), &#xA;if you need wide DOF - you'll choose pair with more closed aperture (f/8 and 1/10),&#xA;if you need to freeze movement - you'll chose pair with faster shutter speed (f/2 and 1/200)&#xA;you probably can't steady handheld camera with f/8 and 1/12 settings&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And yes aperture values are the same for different cameras/lenses combinations(if these calibrated properly). You can point two different cameras to some target(wall for example), measure exposure - they should show you the same exposure values.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3475" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T21:08:46.963" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7719" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7732" CreationDate="2011-01-26T21:34:31.513" Score="9" ViewCount="150" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, I'm in a pickle, on a whim I decided to email a model who lives in Bloomington, IN. Told her how I admired her work and how I would like to take some photos of her in the spring at the Indianapolis museum of Art and sent the email on it's way. I didn't expect her to email me back, alas she did. So now I who knows nothing about fashion photography in any shape form or function must figure out how to this sort of thing before some point to be determined in the spring. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, any tips for someone who knows a lot about landscape and flower photography but nothing about fashion photography? Oh and any books you could recommend would be stellar as well. Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3507" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-26T21:50:34.837" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T14:03:17.823" Title="Need help with fashion photography" Tags="&lt;tips&gt;&lt;advice&gt;&lt;fashion&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="7720" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7722" CreationDate="2011-01-26T21:54:30.907" Score="12" ViewCount="158" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dynamic range EV's are bandied about all the time and I get the feeling that a) they're not on the same 'scale' and b) they're misleading in what they're indicating so I'm hoping somebody can clarify.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Question of scale:&lt;/strong&gt;  MF body manufacturers often quote DR values in the 12-14 EV range while the numbers for 35mm bodies are in the 5-6 EV range, these obviously can't be the same 'scale' since DxO publishes that MF and 35mm bodies have similar values: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/%28appareil1%29/483%7C0/%28appareil2%29/485%7C0/%28appareil3%29/579%7C0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Canon/%28brand2%29/Nikon/%28brand3%29/Phase%20One&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(12-14 EV)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Question of wtf:&lt;/strong&gt; So what exactly are those two different measurements measuring?  Is this the indication of where you can stil find detail in the highest and lowest EV or where 'useful' data is?  If I created a scene and measured the brightest EV at +6 and the lowest EV at -6 would I be able to discern detail in the entire photograph or would I only notice detail between +3 and -3?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:&#xA;Also, for a camera with a DR of 12 vs a DR of 14, what exactly does that mean in real world terms?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T19:01:14.860" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T11:32:20.117" Title="When comparing sensor dynamic range, what are those numbers based on?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;dynamic-range&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="7721" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7719" CreationDate="2011-01-26T22:02:37.817" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've read that for fashion photography, natural light is important to make bright, colorful and clear pictures. You shoudn't focus too much on making the model do various poses, but rather on getting a shot from a great angle. Note that in contrast to portrait photography, fashion photography tends to require photos of the entire model, rather than just the head.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When working with a narrow DOF, always focus on the eyes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3072" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T22:02:37.817" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7722" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7720" CreationDate="2011-01-26T22:07:40.777" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem is dynamic range is subjective, seeing as the definition of dynamic range (at least in terms of sensors) is the difference between the brightest and darkest details the sensor can record.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The brightest value a sensor can record is easily found by looking at what point the sensor photosites become saturated and thus can't record any extra information. Dynamic range then ultimately comes down to what point all discernible detail is lost to noise. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The benchmarking site DXO-mark defines dynamic range as the difference between saturation of the photosites and the point at which the signal to noise ratio hits 1:1, that is where the signal and noise are equal. It's questionable whether any real detail is visible when the SNR is this bad, however it's a convenient figure to use and easy to measure. You can read about their definitions and test procedure here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Learn-more/DxOMark-database/Measurements/Noise&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Learn-more/DxOMark-database/Measurements/Noise&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;DPreview also measure DR in a similar way by finding the saturation point and then darkening the image until the noise reaches a certain level, but despite devoting an entire page on the subject, they don't mention what noise figure they consider to be the limit of the dynamic range!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/news/0011/00111608dynamicrange.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/news/0011/00111608dynamicrange.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given their DR scores are lower than DXO-mark I assume they are a little stricture and adopt a lower signal to noise threshold. As for the 5-6 EV DR stated for 35mm bodies, that figure will most likely be a qualitative assessment by photographers with a more conservative view on what is an acceptable level of detail. The marginal amount of shadow detail that is detectable by a computer program is unlikely to be categorized as &quot;usable&quot; by photographers. However when benchmarking many sensors you have to have a quantitative measure of at what light level detail is lost so the signal to noise ratio is used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While we're on the subject of dynamic range it's worth pointing out that the [measured] dynamic range of a sensor in good light will be greater than the dynamic range in poor light. This is simply a result of the fact DR is determined by shadow noise, as noise increases DR decreases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are however multiple sources of noise, in good light noise in the shadows is mostly due to the electronics, whereas in poor light noise mostly originates from the discrete nature of light (so called photon noise). Small sensor compact cameras with good electronics will thus have a very respectable dynamic range in good light. It's only when light levels fall that the ability of large sensors to capture more photons that gives them an edge when it comes to DR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-26T23:05:56.953" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T23:05:56.953" CommentCount="17" />
  <row Id="7723" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7370" CreationDate="2011-01-26T22:14:47.470" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use Mozy for automatic cloud storage. One feature I love is that on Windows you can ALSO configure and external hard drive so that Mozy will automatically backup to its servers AND to a local external hard drive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I want my backups to be automatic (like Mozy), I also like to manually check to make sure everything seems OK. I can easily do this by doing a folder compare of the Mozy generated external hard drive (since only files that were sucessfully backed up to the server appear there). For this, I use a wonderful piece of software called &quot;Beyond Compare&quot;. I go into more details about this on my website, happydigitalphotos.com&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3512" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T22:14:47.470" />
  <row Id="7724" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23" CreationDate="2011-01-26T23:00:18.413" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That my Cannon Powershot has a continuous-shooting mode. This made it much easier to shoot photos of fireworks. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3507" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T23:00:18.413" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-01T18:55:11.547" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7725" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7727" CreationDate="2011-01-26T23:03:19.380" Score="18" ViewCount="213" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are some internationally available magazines on photography that you would recommend to a photographer who's mastered the basics and is interested in widening his horizons, in terms of inspiration and technique?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Personally, I'm looking for something that does &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; focus on post-production or aquiring expensive gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3072" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-27T20:08:41.703" LastActivityDate="2011-02-13T23:34:09.463" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-27T00:12:31.103" Title="Recommended photography magazines" Tags="&lt;tips&gt;&lt;learning&gt;&lt;inspiration&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="7726" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7725" CreationDate="2011-01-26T23:19:59.940" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The canonical answer would be &quot;any photography magazine that doesn't have the word 'digital' in its title&quot;. That said, I have found the British magazines &quot;Digital SLR User&quot; and &quot;Digital SLR photography&quot; to be rather good. Either one, not both; they are rather similar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T23:19:59.940" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-27T00:12:31.103" />
  <row Id="7727" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7725" CreationDate="2011-01-26T23:26:05.470" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I agree w/Staale, and to add to that, avoid any magazine that devotes an inordinate amount of space to gear reviews and advertising... well maybe keep one gear one around cuz they're fun to read :)  But for mags that I actually derive inspiration:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.phototechmag.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photo technique&lt;/a&gt;: great photography, great tutorials and very informative in both inspiration and actual technique&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aperture.org/magazine&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Aperture&lt;/a&gt;: More of an 'inspiration' entry, its all photographs and artist's discussion on what they're doing and why&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bandwmag.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;B&amp;amp;W&lt;/a&gt;: Similar to Aperture but focusing solely on B&amp;amp;W&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T23:26:05.470" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-27T00:12:31.103" />
  <row Id="7728" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23" CreationDate="2011-01-26T23:53:55.597" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Rear curtain sync.. it makes all those dance/action pics so much more awesome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="55" LastActivityDate="2011-01-26T23:53:55.597" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-01T18:55:11.547" />
  <row Id="7729" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7667" CreationDate="2011-01-27T00:08:53.180" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is my attempt to summarize various ways this can be handled:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You can reduce the contrast by &lt;strong&gt;lighting up shadow areas by fill flash&lt;/strong&gt; (on- or off-camera). This required having a flash, and if you use on-camera one the resulting areas (faces) may look a bit flat if on-camera flash is the only light source. You also may run into color correction issues (neutral daylight flash vs. slightly orange evening sun). See &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7667/how-to-cope-with-high-contrast#7681&quot;&gt;Matt's answer&lt;/a&gt; for example.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A well-positioned &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflector_(photography)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;reflector&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; can light shadow areas with reflected light of your main source. For this you need a reflector and something/someone to hold it in place. &lt;sub&gt;[&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7667/how-to-cope-with-high-contrast#7674&quot;&gt;Kendall&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes it's best to &lt;strong&gt;change the scene completely&lt;/strong&gt; and perhaps shoot a portrait in the shadow instead of in the midday sun. Or wait for more favorable time of day. &lt;sub&gt;[&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7667/how-to-cope-with-high-contrast#7669&quot;&gt;ysap&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Especially in landscape photography, a &lt;strong&gt;graduated ND filter&lt;/strong&gt; can be used to darked top part of image with bright sky. &lt;sub&gt;[&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7667/how-to-cope-with-high-contrast#7679&quot;&gt;John&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Shooting RAW&lt;/strong&gt; might help use more of your sensor's dynamic range and later use some of the in post-processing. &lt;sub&gt;[&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7667/how-to-cope-with-high-contrast#7669&quot;&gt;ysap&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Finally, you can shoot several pictures, and combine them into one &lt;strong&gt;tone-mapped HDR photo&lt;/strong&gt;. This can be done either manually or with various automatic tools and settings. &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7667/how-to-cope-with-high-contrast#7681&quot;&gt;Matt's answer&lt;/a&gt; provides a tone-mapped alternative to fill-flash photo.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T00:08:53.180" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-27T18:37:57.047" />
  <row Id="7730" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23" CreationDate="2011-01-27T00:50:16.443" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;White and grey are the same color for the camera, grey is just darker.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This silly fact made me look too hard for a custom white-balance target since the manual of my first digital camera (circa 2002) said to aim the camera at a white-surface.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T00:50:16.443" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-01T18:55:11.547" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7731" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23" CreationDate="2011-01-27T00:52:32.353" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The flash can be used in bright light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used to be one of those who believed everything written in camera manuals was absolute. So, it took me years to figure out that flash is more useful (at least it results in more natural-looking images) outdoors in bright light and indoors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T00:52:32.353" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-01T18:55:11.547" />
  <row Id="7732" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7719" CreationDate="2011-01-27T01:03:52.647" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The practical answer to your question is to find some female friend to photograph in that same location first, perhaps reading some tips online about photographing models.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then you can see what works with lights, what poses look good, and practice asking for poses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also when you go out with the &quot;real&quot; model it would probably be good to take the same female friend along to make the model feel more comfortable, also they could hold reflectors or side strobes for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically you have the responsibility to try and produce some good photos for the model, it's great you are trying to get a good idea of what you should be doing but nothing beats practicing with a live person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T01:03:52.647" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7733" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7725" CreationDate="2011-01-27T01:12:29.623" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I quite enjoy &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.naturephotographermag.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nature Photographer&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.outdoorphotographycanada.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Outdoor Photography Canada&lt;/a&gt;. The former for it's all-about-nature approach, and the latter for being all-about-Canada. Both do some equipment reviews and the like, but place more emphasis on techniques and photography expeditions. I jump on these whenever there is a new issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.shutterbug.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Shutterbug&lt;/a&gt; for it's broader focus. Reviews and news feature more heavily here - as do the ads...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="26" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T01:12:29.623" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-27T01:12:29.623" />
  <row Id="7734" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7719" CreationDate="2011-01-27T01:16:55.860" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the best things you could do is &lt;em&gt;look at lots of fashion photos&lt;/em&gt;. Figure out what they're doing with framing and composition, what they're using to light the scene, be it flashes, soft boxes, natural light, look at how they've processed the image. The colours, the retouching etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that this form of learning works for me. Inspired and learnt from but not imitated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have a look through the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/fashionphotography/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fashion Photography&lt;/a&gt; group on Flickr. Even a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com.au/images?q=fashion%20photography&amp;amp;um=1&amp;amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;amp;source=og&amp;amp;sa=N&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;tab=wi&amp;amp;biw=1198&amp;amp;bih=616&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Google Search&lt;/a&gt; gives more immediate results of great fashion photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastEditorUserId="609" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-27T04:43:07.583" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T04:43:07.583" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7735" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7314" CreationDate="2011-01-27T02:38:52.690" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wait for the next big volcano eruption high into the stratosphere :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That will give you some good sunsets for sure, but you might have to wait some years (or at least travel near a smaller eruption)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T02:38:52.690" />
  <row Id="7736" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7700" CreationDate="2011-01-27T03:09:52.087" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Don't give a frame of reference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A short person only really looks short when you see them next to other, average sized people - or things which have a familiar height (doors, for example).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tom Cruise rarely looks short in his films, but at the same he's not constantly shown in &quot;funny camera angles&quot;.  He just isn't generally placed right next to tall people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes the use of camera angles (manipulating perspective) to make someone look taller can backfire, since the effect may be obvious and draw attention to itself when the subject's height may not otherwise have been noticeable.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Distort the frame of reference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hire a bunch of even shorter people to appear with the person.  They will seem tall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This trick is used a fair bit in films - think Lord of the Rings.  They hired some very tall actors, some actors with very large hands, some on stilts and more, to make the hobbits look small when they go into the inn.  Opposite with Gandalf.  The actor's just not that tall, but they used some very short stand-ins for when you see Bilbo, the Hobbits etc with the back of their heads to you.  Likewise they did this with over/under-sized set design/props too.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-30T14:24:27.053" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T14:24:27.053" />
  <row Id="7737" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="65" CreationDate="2011-01-27T03:18:56.023" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depth of field refers to the range of distances between which anything is in focus, or at least close enough not to look noticeably out of focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On lenses with mechanical focus rings (often older lenses), there are often depth of field markers showing you the near and far depth of field limits for each aperture.  It extends each side of your actual focal setting.  If you don't have these markers you can still do math or guesstimate to work it out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For any given aperture, you can turn the focus knob until the far limit of your depth of field sits exactly at infinity.  The &lt;strong&gt;hyperfocal distance&lt;/strong&gt; is whatever distance you need to focus to in order to achieve this.  It'll be different according to your aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everything between half your hyperfocal distance and infinity will then be within your depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-27T13:59:10.293" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T13:59:10.293" />
  <row Id="7738" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7725" CreationDate="2011-01-27T03:30:57.600" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The two magazines I renew my subscription on are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Outdoor Photographer&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/American-Photo/dp/B00007AV7N&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;American Photo&lt;/a&gt;. Both have some very nice articles and interviews, with occasional technical discussions and gear reviews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-27T03:38:51.900" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T03:38:51.900" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-27T03:30:57.600" />
  <row Id="7739" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="840" CreationDate="2011-01-27T04:03:51.210" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With Nikon at least, recently I've been disappointed with the range of DX-specific lenses available. It seems Nikon are treating DX more as a second class citizen.  When you look at the range of lenses available in DX and compare it to their FX range, the DX ones tend to be slower, more plasticky, and more zooms than primes - in other words, more targeted at amateurs.  There are of course exceptions like the good (and expensive) 17-55, but there are no fast normal primes or wide primes in DX-only, apart from one 35mm which is not a particularly good performer for a prime.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's fine if you only want kit lenses or inexpensive superzooms but this got me thinking about how with Nikon, I'd have to move up at least to FX lenses, if not FX all together (since FX lenses don't have appropriate focal lengths on DX bodies) if I really wanted to go further with my photography.  And I doubt that real photographers would want to pay good money for my DX lenses for that reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which ended up in me switching to Olympus/Panasonic, who don't treat their cropped sensor size (4/3) as a second class citizen and already have a number of high quality normal/wide primes for their sensor size, but that's another story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess my point is that the DX/FX issue is more an effect of who Nikon and Canon target these devices at rather than the techical merits of the sensor size.  DX (indeed, any APS-C or even 4/3) sensors themselves are technically excellent, it's just that Nikon/Canon target them to a lesser-experienced audience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T04:03:51.210" />
  <row Id="7740" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-27T05:47:48.540" Score="5" ViewCount="130" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking to buy a smallish light tent (1 or 2 feet on a side) and there seems to be quite an array of options. Are there any that are any better than any others? Or should I just go with whatever is cheapest? I used to go to the local photo store and look at this kind of thing, but it closed a couple of months ago :(&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3516" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T23:58:49.353" Title="Light Tent Recommendations?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;lighting&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7742" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7740" CreationDate="2011-01-27T08:54:48.517" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found these two pretty decent, with swappable backdrops. You can take a look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/60-Inch-Photo-Light-Tent/dp/B000UCOZP4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;60-Inch-Photo-Light-Tent&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/CowboyStudio-30-Photo-Soft-Light/dp/B001TKCZVM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LCowboyStudio-30-Photo-Soft-Light&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T08:54:48.517" />
  <row Id="7743" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7713" CreationDate="2011-01-27T08:57:29.847" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One thing which hasn't been mentioned in the other answers is that dynamic range often varies with the ISO setting.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More specifically, the dynamic range of the shot tends to decrease as ISO increases.  So, for example, there tends to be more dynamic range at ISO 100 than at ISO 400.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/dslr_reviews/478_canon_eos_7d?start=4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;interesting graphs here&lt;/a&gt;, showing range against ISO for various cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1616" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T08:57:29.847" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7744" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-27T10:40:41.883" Score="8" ViewCount="143" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my area, rural Ireland, there are still a few old style shops(stores). These places usually feature long wooden counters, glass fronted cabinets, mechanical tills! and floor to ceiling shelves. The shop are usually smallish (around 300sq ft), and fairly dark (the windows are usually full of merchandise) and the ceilings are often smoke stained wood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This type of business is &lt;strong&gt;rapidly&lt;/strong&gt; disappearing, being replaced with modern self service convenience stores, or not being replaced at all; having been driven out of business by a supermarket. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I wanted to do a project which would capture the inside of a few of these places for posterity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a few specific question about this project, but any other advice would also be welcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What's the best way of approaching the shop owners to ask for permission.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What about lighting? I have a speedlite. Or should I go with long exposure &amp;amp; natural light? I would like to capture the owner and maybe customers. Ideally I don't want to fool around with a complicated lighting setup and interfere with business.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lens: Wide angle seems like the only option for these small spaces?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/alexsegre/5312521822/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here is a photo by a flickr&lt;/a&gt; user of the kind of shop I am talking about. This shop doubles as a pub, this was pretty common in small towns.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz2-ukrd2VQ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This is a youtube video&lt;/a&gt; of a famous comedy sketch (very funny) set in a very old style shop. These kind of &quot;sell everything&quot; stores are very rare these days, if any one knows of any in South-east Ireland, let me know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastEditorUserId="3180" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-27T12:17:10.200" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T14:17:39.797" Title="Tips &amp; advice for photographing store/shop interiors." Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7745" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7740" CreationDate="2011-01-27T12:01:44.823" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would go with whatever the least expensive option is with the features and size that you want (e.g. interchangeable backgrounds, easy collapse, interior hooks, etc.). A light box is a pretty simple device and you can also easily make them yourself, you just require a reasonably rigid frame, some light white fabric for diffusion, and something like bristol board for the backdrop. There are a ton of examples on the web on how to do that and they work just fine though they don't shout &quot;professional&quot; if you're doing the photography for someone else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Either way, unless you have really special requirements for it, I doubt that you'd find much difference in any of the options out there in practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T12:01:44.823" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7746" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7744" CreationDate="2011-01-27T12:11:17.040" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ask the owner gently, don't forget to tell him its your hobby, not profession.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Don't use any external lighting directly, if you really want to use, either bounce them off, or diffuse them properly. You can also try HDR if suits you.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Go with the fastest lens you own, or hire a fairly fast lens. If you don't get a wide angle fast enough lens, get something fairly fast, stitch a panorama.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few more suggestions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Think of how you want to frame the shop beforehand.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Think what time of the day you might go there and get chance to shoot without drawing much customer attention. Its your place, you know the people better.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shot RAW!! and Shoot a LOT!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T12:11:17.040" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7747" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7744" CreationDate="2011-01-27T12:23:44.407" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most shop owners would be open to the idea, if you can explain it to them in advance, so I'd recommend just approaching them, possibly by giving them a call in advance to speak to the owner (assuming most of these are owner-operated).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With regards to lighting, I would suggest that using the ambient light where at all possible, as this will capture the atmosphere. You might need to use a wide aperture (which shouldn't be too much of a problem with depth of field, when using a wide angle lens) or bump the ISO up a bit. Of course, the ambient light will be better at different times of the day -- East facing will be better in the morning, West in the afternoon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T12:23:44.407" />
  <row Id="7748" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7749" CreationDate="2011-01-27T13:18:59.287" Score="13" ViewCount="502" Body="&lt;p&gt;A large percentage of my photos of my 2 year old appear to be blurred.  I know one of the problems is that she will not sit still for a second, but I am using a fast shutter speed.  Could IS be causing some of the blur?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am using a Canon 50D with 17-55mm f2.8 lens. Aperture set at f2.8 and shutter speed at 1/50. Keeping the ISO down to 200. I must add that most of my photos are taken indoors and I hate using the inbuilt flash!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3528" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-19T12:48:46.153" LastActivityDate="2011-02-26T14:25:47.860" Title="Should I switch off Image Stabilisation when photographing my 2 year old?" Tags="&lt;image-stabilization&gt;&lt;blur&gt;&lt;children&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="7749" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7748" CreationDate="2011-01-27T13:35:03.753" Score="17" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Unlikely to be Image Stabilisation&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@Dan, that's a good question. I suspect that most of us have a problem with blurry images more often that we would like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's unlikely that Image Stabilisation is causing this problem.  I have certainly never had this problem myself.  However, IS reduces camera shake - that probably isn't your problem.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;So, what could be causing it?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Shutter speed not fast enough&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rule of thumb often touted is that shutter speed should be faster than 1/focal length in order to avoid camera shake.  However, this may not be fast enough for a fast-moving child.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suggest that a speed of 1/250 or more may be necessary.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Autofocus not working for you&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It could be that autofocus is in the wrong mode.  Most DSLRs have several autofocus modes.  One of these will be &quot;single shot&quot;, where the camera focuses when you press the button, and keeps that focus until the photo has been captured.  This mode will often result in a blurry subject if the subject is moving towards / away from the camera.  Instead, consider a mode which is trying to track the subject.  Depending on your camera, this may be called &quot;AI Focus&quot; or &quot;Continuous&quot; mode.  (others are welcome to chip in / edit this answer to get the right terms used by different manufactures).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Try stopping down&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have enough light, you could try a using smaller aperture to give you more depth of field.  Obviously, this may slow your shutter speed, so there may be a trade-off to consider here.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Try Sports / Action mode&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, if you are using a compact camera, or a DSLR in an auto mode, check which mode it is in.  For children, sports or action mode is often best.  That should tell the camera to automatically use the highest shutter speed it can, and to prioritise freezing the action.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T13:35:03.753" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7750" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7748" CreationDate="2011-01-27T13:35:36.063" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as i know IS is only useful when shooting still subjects. It can compensate your movements, but not the movements of the subject. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure it can cause blurring on its own, but you should be easily able to switch it off and check the results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2922" LastEditorUserId="2922" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-27T15:41:54.500" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T15:41:54.500" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7751" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7744" CreationDate="2011-01-27T13:45:06.097" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;@Ken, great question.  It sounds like a lovely project.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Others have suggested using available light wherever possible, but I would like to add a slightly different take.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can use strobes sensitively, you can use them to enhance the atmosphere and feeling of a place so that some shots are capturing character rather than documenting in a purely journalistic fashion.  This probably wouldn't be appropriate for all images, but for a few I think it would add some depth to the project overall.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an example from David &quot;Strobist&quot; Hobby's site: &#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3792/2480/1600/rhinofoot.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;image balancing flash and ambient&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(The full page showing and explaining that image is here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101-balancing-flash-and.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101-balancing-flash-and.html&lt;/a&gt;).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T13:45:06.097" />
  <row Id="7752" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7725" CreationDate="2011-01-27T13:49:29.713" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have enjoyed &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photographymonthly.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photography Monthly&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(More than the magazine, I like their &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photographymonthly.com/videos-and-podcasts&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;podcast&lt;/a&gt;).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T13:49:29.713" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-27T13:49:29.713" />
  <row Id="7753" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7772" CreationDate="2011-01-27T13:52:50.240" Score="5" ViewCount="97" Body="&lt;p&gt;After a long time using my flash with rubber bands to hold flash accessories, I decided to try the Gaffer's tape method recommended by many photogs. So, I searched for that on B&amp;amp;H's website and got &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ns=p_PRICE_2|0&amp;amp;Ntt=gaffer+tape&amp;amp;N=0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;multiple results&lt;/a&gt;. Some of the results explicitly mention &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/724340-REG/Rosco_851422232425_Gaffer_Tape_1_x.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;no residue&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/20008-REG/General_Brand_Gaffer_Cloth_Tape.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;some don't&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the past I bought a &quot;painter's tape&quot; at Home Depot that supposedly leaves no residue as well, but this feature is limited to 14-days of contact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, any &lt;em&gt;particular&lt;/em&gt; suggestion for a &lt;em&gt;cheap&lt;/em&gt; non-residue gaffer's tape? Something that will tear off a year from now without leftover? I just need ~30cm, so spending $8-$10 on a full roll already seems excessive, so I more to the cheap side...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-27T16:48:34.860" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T16:59:27.753" Title="Choosing a Gaffer's Tape" Tags="&lt;gaffers-tape&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="11" />
  <row Id="7754" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7725" CreationDate="2011-01-27T13:53:06.417" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I subscribe to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bjp-online.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;British Journal of Photography&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is more about the business, politics and experience of practising photography professionally than about technique, but I find it useful to understand what's going on in the wider photographic world, to be inspired and to understand where professionals are coming from.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I realise this one isn't a good answer to your question, but I hope it adds a different slant which may be of interest to some).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T13:53:06.417" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-27T13:53:06.417" />
  <row Id="7755" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7748" CreationDate="2011-01-27T13:53:14.840" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On Canon DSLR lenses at least, the internal stabilization mechanism takes a half-second or so to whirr up to speed before it actually stabilizes. If you just jam down the shutter button without giving the IS this time, it can easily make the photo more blurry rather than less. I'd try switching it off - it will not do one bit of good anyway on a moving subject at shorter focal lengths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T13:53:14.840" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7756" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7748" CreationDate="2011-01-27T13:54:22.390" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's unlikely to be IS.  If it is, then IS is seriously broken.  It's generally safe to leave it on all the time except when you are using a (very firm) tripod.  That said, with a moving child from close range, IS really isn't likely to have much of an effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What it could be, from most to least likely:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Subject moving in and out of focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the time your autofocus has locked on to a fast moving subject and you click the shutter, she could be out of focus again.  You could try selecting the C-AF mode (Continuous Autofocus) but then you may find that your camera spends valuable time &quot;hunting&quot; focus (though a good DSLR will be better at this).  Another approach may be to make sure you can stop down the aperture a bit to increase the depth of field (you may need to be in brighter light eg daylight for this).  Then it'll be a bit more forgiving if she moves out of the focal plane a little.  Another is to move the camera with her, in such a way as to keep the camera a constant distance away from her while focusing and taking the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also possible that the autofocus area is letting you down; rather than let the camera guess what to focus on I tend to use a single autofocus area and point that directly at the subject I want in focus, though you can also use multiple areas and let the camera choose which one to focus on.  If using the former, it's very important that you line up the active focus area on your LCD/viewfinder with whatever you're focusing on.  Most important is to become used to autofocusing so it becomes second nature, and you can point, autofocus, then shoot nice and quickly.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Motion blur (subject movement).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the blur is motion blur, it indicates that your shutter speed is too slow for the amount your subject is moving.  Remember that IS does nothing to combat motion blur, only the shake of your own hands holding the camera.  To really freeze human motion, you'd ideally want 1/500 of a second, however at 1/250 or 1/125 you'll probably find a good proportion of your shots are still nice and sharp.  But once you get to 1/60, 1/30 etc it's too slow for human beings moving around.  Those speeds are fine for landscapes but not for people unless they're posing still.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that if you're indoors under artificial light, you will be hard pressed to be able to use shutter speeds that fast, and unfortunately you'll need to move into the daylight, use flash, boost the ISO level up very high, or buy a fast prime lens for your camera.  You could try and see what your camera does if you put it into shutter priority mode at 1/250 - if it complains it's too dark boost the ISO more.  See what happens.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check that the lens is clean and its zoom mechanism is not wobbly or loose.  Make sure you have a firm grip on the camera.  Etc&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-26T14:25:47.860" LastActivityDate="2011-02-26T14:25:47.860" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="7757" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7719" CreationDate="2011-01-27T14:03:17.823" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Last year, I was invited to shoot a wedding.  It was my first time as principle photographer.  Despite having some experience, I felt out of my depth.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My approach was: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Read&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I bought a couple of good books.  (I really like a lot of the stuff from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amherstmedia.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Amherst Media&lt;/a&gt;) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Look at other contemporary work.&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I bought a few wedding magazines - there are plenty of fashion mags to choose from, too.  I looked through the images they were publishing and took some influence from them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Practise&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually, since we're sharing with the group:  I should have practised more.  I blew a crucial shot (the kiss) because I was faffing with my gear.  Fortunately, I employed a backup strategy - I took 2 other photogs with me, and one of them got the shot  ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bride was happy with what I showed her, so I reckon this worked for me.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps.  Good luck!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T14:03:17.823" />
  <row Id="7758" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7660" CreationDate="2011-01-27T14:08:52.590" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Camera&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you/he can afford it, just get a &lt;strong&gt;Canon Powershot S95&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;Panasonic Lumix LX5&lt;/strong&gt; and be done with it.  You'll have no regrets.  Put it on full auto mode and tell him to be careful not to put his fingers on the lens.  If that's too expensive, get any of the Canon Powershot range; you won't be too disappointed.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Software&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I predict that he's going to have a lot more trouble with the computer side of things than in taking the photos.  Cameras work decently well these days no matter what you point them at, and nothing could be much simpler than turning it on, pressing the big button and keeping your fingers away from the lens.  By comparison, getting the files on the computer and then organising them, emailing them or printing them is going to be the hard part for a technically illiterate person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my experience, using the Windows/Mac/Linux built in functionality for getting pictures onto the computer and browsing through them is much easier and more user-friendly than any of the software supplied by the camera manufacturer.  If you have to use any software not built into the OS, Picasa is quite good on the usability front, but it's still not great and I like the well-integrated and thought out way that the OS itself usually does it.  Maybe not so much if you're stuck with WinXP, but more recent systems are decent.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T14:08:52.590" />
  <row Id="7759" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7700" CreationDate="2011-01-27T14:09:12.230" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Summary&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll attempt to summarise the points here&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wide Lens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Low Point of View&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Posing (maximise the legs, minimise body width)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wardrobe (dress the model in skinny jeans, slinky dress, etc.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Frame of Reference (avoid or distort)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I've made this community wiki, so jump in and edit if I've missed anything).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T14:09:12.230" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-27T14:09:12.230" />
  <row Id="7760" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7744" CreationDate="2011-01-27T14:17:39.797" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just a few tips.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Definitely use a tripod! For something like this, you want pretty much everything in focus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Get the widest angle lens you can. I would recommend nothing less than a 20mm equivalent lens, and less would probably be better.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ask the shop owner what a good time of the day to go is so as to minimize customers being in the store.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Be willing to wait a while, if possible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If there are costumers in the store, you might ask if they would be willing to be in your pictures. A human element would help alot. Ask permission from the store manager first.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T14:17:39.797" />
  <row Id="7761" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7365" CreationDate="2011-01-27T14:43:14.123" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;My question is; are these good lenses sandbagging at the wider settings or do they have a different optic system that allows them to maintain the same aperture throughout the zoom range?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that when using an f-number to represent aperture, it's expressed as a fraction of the focal length, so as you zoom, the same aperture &lt;em&gt;effective diameter&lt;/em&gt; is represented as a different number.  f/2.8 at 20mm is half the aperture effective diameter of f/2.8 at 40mm.  So your constant aperture zoom is not actually &quot;maintaining the same aperture throughout the zoom range&quot; as such.  In fact, a 18-55 zoom which maintains the same aperture effective &lt;em&gt;diameter&lt;/em&gt; throughout the zoom range would be something like f/3.5-10.7.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So neither type of zoom lens really maintains the same aperture effective diameter.  &lt;em&gt;Note that the effective diameter is not necessarily the true diameter of the aperture ring, either, since part of the zooming effect is that the aperture ring itself is magnified.  But the effective diameter is what is relevant&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lens designers battle to solve a number of problems including chromatic aberration, distortion, sharpness and vignetting.  With a zoom lens, this is all the more difficult because they have to solve these problems not just at a single focal length but throughout the entire zoom range.  However, all lens design makes compromises simply because there are so many opposing forces.  For a zoom lens, the lens designers decide what aperture they can get away with at each focal length in the zoom range, without too much softening or other issues such as vignetting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's desirable for a zoom lens to have a much wider aperture effective diameter at the telephoto end than at the wide end, because as the image is magnified you need more light for the same amount to fall on the sensor/film.  That is, you need it to be much wider just to reach the same f-number.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cheaper zooms often just make more compromise on speed at the tele end than more expensive ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Constant aperture zooms like the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L you mentioned make a different compromise; they put a lot more effort into getting a wider effective aperture at the telephoto end.  As a result, though, they use more glass and create a heavier lens.  Since everything is a compromise too, they don't want their effort into getting a wider aperture at the telephoto end to increase the softness or vignetting at the wide end, so that limits the wide end's maximum aperture.  So you get a different balance of aperture sizes compared to the cheaper, lighter &quot;variable&quot; (in reality actually less variation in terms of actual aperture diameter) aperture zoom and all it really depends on is what sort of trade-offs have been made in the lens design.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-27T14:48:15.770" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T14:48:15.770" />
  <row Id="7762" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7771" CreationDate="2011-01-27T16:17:04.813" Score="12" ViewCount="494" Body="&lt;p&gt;Often i see portraits such as the one below and like the way they look. I wanted to know can I get this look in my shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am sure there are professional materials you can get to outfit a studio that will deliver such results. I have no clue what these items would be, can i get clued in?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I was wondering if there is a DIY way to achieve this as well. Maybe with a black bed sheet or something?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to set something up in a room in my house for studio type shots. I am looking to get an idea of what items I need to get this done and how the setup should go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fcnmP.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;black background portrait&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/3KiBj.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-27T16:40:07.660" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T18:33:35.677" Title="What do I need to get photos with a unifom black background (not with post)?" Tags="&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;background&gt;" AnswerCount="7" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="7763" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7740" CreationDate="2011-01-27T16:32:07.767" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would recommend building one yourself, I followed &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pbase.com/wlhuber/light_box_light_tent&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bill Hubers' instructions&lt;/a&gt; on PBase last year to photograph Jewelry and the results were amazing.   One recommendation I took was to not fasten the legs or cross beams, by doing so it is easily collapsible for transport.  You can then also make interchangeable beams for additional box sizes as required.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3154" LastEditorUserId="3154" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-27T16:38:28.600" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T16:38:28.600" />
  <row Id="7764" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7762" CreationDate="2011-01-27T16:35:03.187" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What you need is a black seamless backdrop. You can buy a photo-oriented one or make one yourself (depending in the subject's size) from DIY art supplies. The seamless is usually long enough so it covers the floor as well as the back wall, and such that there is no &quot;corner&quot; in the connection between the floor and wall parts - just a smooth transition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, if you are shooting in a relatively dark space, using strobes or flashes, then the inverse square law comes to your help and you can do with a dark, but not necessarily black background if you place it far enough from your subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update - as for the material, really anything that is big and flexible enough can do. In the image below you can see a similar setup, only made with white background instead of black. The seamless was merely my window's blind...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/bBTx3.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-27T16:46:16.890" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T16:46:16.890" />
  <row Id="7765" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7370" CreationDate="2011-01-27T16:36:37.917" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi 에이바&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use 3 external harddrives and an USB/ESATA harddisk dockingstation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First harddisk:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Stored near by and the only one used to read from again (Ideally)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Second harddisk:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;br&gt;&#xA;Stored near by in a fire-resistant box and is only written to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Third harddisk:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;br&gt;&#xA;Not updated at often and is a copy of the second harddisk.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Stored in a different location (In this case my brother)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regards&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Sigersted&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3428" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T16:36:37.917" />
  <row Id="7766" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7762" CreationDate="2011-01-27T16:38:07.443" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm no expert in studio photography, but this look you are trying to achieve is all about lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recomend &quot;Light: Science and Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting&quot;. It will teach you the fundamentals to achieve this and much more.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I learned quite a bit with that book.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, some post work can't harm to improve results :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3462" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T16:38:07.443" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7767" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7762" CreationDate="2011-01-27T16:38:58.050" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The key is to light the subject separately from the background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can create a 2-3 stop difference between your subject and the backdrop, then the background will be dark no matter what color it is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To make things a little easier, a dark backdrop will decrease the difference that is required.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is actually very similar to creating a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4107/tips-for-an-inexpensive-white-backdrop/4111#4111&quot;&gt;white background&lt;/a&gt;, but instead of overexposing, you want to underexpose the background, while keeping your subject properly exposed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T16:38:58.050" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7768" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7762" CreationDate="2011-01-27T16:39:02.250" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That's just grey &quot;seamless&quot; paper (or, likely, vinyl in the case of the baby's picture, given both the apparent reflectivity and the propensity for subject leakage) with carefully controlled lighting. The dog picture looks like the background was lit separately with a &lt;em&gt;snoot&lt;/em&gt; (a cylindrical or pointy-end-toward-the-subject conical restrictor), probably with a grid. In the case of the baby, a &lt;em&gt;gobo&lt;/em&gt; (a card or opaque fabric flag) is keeping the light off of the background while allowing it to fall on the baby.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ADDED: &quot;Seamless&quot;, by the way, is an expensive photographer's word for &quot;big roll of construction paper&quot;, and for table-top shooting, it can be a whole lot cheaper to go to your local arts &amp;amp; crafts and pick up a sheet or two of the ordinary stuff (they come pretty big). And a cheap fleece blanket from the local bargain store makes a decent substitute if you don't need to go to the floor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastEditorUserId="2719" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-27T16:55:22.030" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T16:55:22.030" />
  <row Id="7769" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7762" CreationDate="2011-01-27T16:39:08.237" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Basically, anything black&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anything black should work fine for you.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't have to be totally black, just blacker than the subject by a few stops (off the top of my head, 3 stops might be enough, 4 would be better).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It certainly doesn't have to be expensive.  A length of black fabric from your local store will work fine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More expensive backgrounds are available, which may be more convenient to use, or more matt, but you can certainly get great effects cheaply.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T16:39:08.237" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7770" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7648" CreationDate="2011-01-27T16:40:05.197" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Sigma is a great lens. But, I have found that on my 40D, autofocus is hit or miss in low light. At f/1.4 there's not much room for error, so there are a lot of missed shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have had much better luck manually specifying a focus point. With the extra control dials on the 40D, this is not an issue. But on a 450D, this may be more difficult to do quickly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not sure if the Canon lens wouldn't have the same issues. Maybe it's worth renting each and trying it out yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3156" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T16:40:05.197" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7771" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7762" CreationDate="2011-01-27T16:43:20.683" Score="17" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To get a pure black background you need space, not material. The easiest way to get a black background is to shoot outdoors at night. It doesn't matter what your background is like, provided it's not too close and doesn't have it's own lightsources. This was shot in my garden:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/aa/pp/aa6.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Distance is always key. If you are working indoors, even with a specialist photographic black backdrop it's really hard to get it jet black in your photos. &quot;black&quot; objects still reflect some light so if lighting from the front if any of your key light hits the background the effect is easily scuppered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is where the inverse square law comes in, if the light is twice the distance from your background as it is from the subject, the background gets 4 x less light. Three times further away and it's 9 x less. This allows you to make a white wall turn black if it's far enough away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/elephant_white_bg.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above image was shot in front of a white projector screen! That's about as bright white as objects get. But due to the lighting being many times &lt;em&gt;closer&lt;/em&gt; to the grey subject, the background appears absolutely jet black.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/grey_bg.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the flash in the elephant example was extremely close, however the effect scales up to people, the above image was shot in front of a white wall, which although it doesn't go pure black it's suitable for most purposes (this was actually part of a multi light setup with the background light off, I could have move further from the wall).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/elephant_black_bg.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This image demonstrates the opposite effect - the background was substituted for a piece of black card, of similar reflectance to many commercial photographic backgrounds. Now enough light is hitting this &quot;black&quot; object for it to appear white!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an example of what goes wrong if you don't have enough space, even with the right gear:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/not_quite_black_background.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There wasn't sufficient space (or a large enough background) to have the background further from the subject, and the result is a not quite black background which shows up creases and other imperfections which need to be 'shopped out. Not ideal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now your actual question referred to creating a uniform background (not necessarily 100% pure black). Any black material could be used, but unless you get it jet black, the weave plus any creases are going to show up. This can be remedied by throwing the background out of focus with a fast lens. Unfortunately this also requires space (or a very big aperture) so ultimately I'm afraid there are few options for the space limited!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-27T18:33:35.677" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T18:33:35.677" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7772" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7753" CreationDate="2011-01-27T16:59:27.753" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For my flash I use the wide rubber band with Velcro on it approach to hold stuff in place. Something like this... (argh, hopeless URL; just google for the term &quot;flash velcro rubber band&quot; without quotes, the first one is a reference to a page with a Gary Fong whaletail setup which is the page I mean) It works well enough for me, though I haven't used it for anything heavy. Some quick googling did not look promising for you; &quot;Despite the claims they make about gaffer tape it will not stick very well in the cold and if you leave it on too long it will leave residue behind&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T16:59:27.753" />
  <row Id="7773" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-27T17:23:02.690" Score="0" ViewCount="88" Body="&lt;p&gt;I need to create a TV Studio for live broadcasting. Currently we have a newspaper and a radio broadcasting, so, the next thing is a TV channel. I own a signal, and we have transmited videos with a normal computer. We  connect our PC trough RCA to the equipment provided by the broadcast company  (over cable) and that's all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have read some things, but I'm looking for a book with concepts and other technical things. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm thinking in buy a NewTek TriCaster and some Sony cams. But what about lights? switches? monitors? gc? virtual scenarios?...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that this is a photography forum, but I know that you could help me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3537" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T17:23:02.690" ClosedDate="2011-01-27T18:18:22.617" Title="I need to create a TV Studio" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7774" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-27T17:50:43.653" Score="0" ViewCount="117" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just recently bought a Casio for my brother and now it it isn't taking good pictures at all they are fuzzy, whited out, grainy, make people look like they have a plastic face... I'm not dumb about camera's, but this one has me totally fooled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3540" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-17T19:38:38.560" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T19:38:38.560" Title="Casio Exilim EX-z2000 Taking unclear, fuzzy, grainy Pictures." Tags="&lt;troubleshooting&gt;&lt;picture-samples&gt;&lt;casio-exilim&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7775" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7781" CreationDate="2011-01-27T18:04:42.687" Score="9" ViewCount="338" Body="&lt;p&gt;Considering only the frame and it's content, putting the issues of color rendering, sharpness, exposition, brightness, contrast, optical aberration, unpleasant flash/noise aside.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Inappropriate depth of field&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Inappropriate focal point&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tilted horizon without interesting perspective&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Neglected background/foreground&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Distracting reflections&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Out of control lens flare&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The subject was cutting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An interesting part/element of the image was cutting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Something (finger/strap) is in front of the lens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;... &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to have an overall view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2449" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-27T18:14:30.783" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T19:45:42.530" Title="What are the main things to avoid in photographic composition ?" Tags="&lt;composition&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="7776" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7762" CreationDate="2011-01-27T18:08:04.537" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's something you can do, regardless of the background material.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Increase your shutter speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That can help remove ambient background light, assuming you're still using a strobe to light your subject. If a small aperture and 1/250s is still too slow to achieve that, a camera and flashes that do high-speed sync can make a bright background black.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An example...&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/carpeicthus/5079781743/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/carpeicthus/5079781743/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taken at 1/8000s at f/11 with a pair of SB-800s on full power. Of course, this is an extreme example that requires a lot power, but an indoor studio should be no problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="50" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T18:08:04.537" />
  <row Id="7777" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7775" CreationDate="2011-01-27T18:09:13.100" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You nearly covered everything. One thing I can think of that its worth paying attention to are distracting elements that have a strong symbolic character to humans.&#xA;This includes: Text, Signs, Arrows, Faces and Hands. The human eye is automatically drawn to them and they are a strong element in your composition, but can also divert the attention from your main subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2642" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T18:09:13.100" />
  <row Id="7778" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7775" CreationDate="2011-01-27T18:13:23.687" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two things, from the top of my mind:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Trees, lamp poles, etc, growing out of peoples' heads.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Putting your subject directly in the middle of the picture. Obviously, you can do this intentionally and it might look good, but many beginners simply align subject's face with center AF point and press the shutter. This is something that should be avoided.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: an example of the second thing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/alYGE.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;center&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;Centered. In my opinion, this picture doesn't use space very well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/0BThj.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;non-center&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;I belive this works much better than the photo above, and can bring us to some more things to avoid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Unless you have some special intentions, people should mostly look inside the frame, not outsize. (Although in this I can claim I am an artist and want to show the subject turning back to being photographed.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Generally you don't want to light the background in a way that makes it impossible to distinguish what is the subject and what is the background. Note that lower left part of the picture feels kind of weird.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In most photographic disciplines, you want the light to emphasize your subject's face rather than chest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-28T19:45:42.530" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T19:45:42.530" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7779" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-27T18:14:26.837" Score="1" ViewCount="233" Body="&lt;p&gt;The latest version of Adobe Photoshop Express for the iPhone allows you to add a border called Film Emulsion to your photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems like this should be something that can be easily done in the full version of Photoshop CSx, but the only way I can figure out how to do it is very manual and long for such a simple effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any ideas on how to do this quickly?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3541" LastEditorUserId="3541" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-27T18:26:45.613" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T14:50:04.677" Title="How to create a Film Emulsion Border using Photoshop CS" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7780" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-27T18:15:31.293" Score="5" ViewCount="399" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wanted to get some cheap old lenses to use on my Nikon DX DSLR (D3100).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Nikon has one of the greatest falange distances of all manufacturers, which means that most lenses i can buy (M42 mount, etc) will not focus to infinity. I saw some adapters with correction lens to allow infinity focus, but also read they worsen picture quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Has anyone here used this kind of setup?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;(&lt;strong&gt;M42&lt;/strong&gt; cheapo old lens + &lt;strong&gt;adapter to nikon&lt;/strong&gt; with/without infinity focus correction lens)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If so, what can i be expecting, quality-wise? I read M42 lenses are not that bad, and i only have DX lenses, so i would not be expecting heavenly performance.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Basically, i'd like a nice big tele lens (300mm+) and the ability to focus it to infinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example pictures would be awesome :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; Started bounty, i'd like to hear some interesting opinions COMPLEMENTED by example photos of the set up i'm talking about - a picture is worth a thousand words :P&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3462" LastEditorUserId="3462" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-22T00:06:43.757" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T00:06:43.757" Title="Old M42 lenses on Nikon camera?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;manual-focus&gt;&lt;old-lenses&gt;&lt;adapter&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7781" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7775" CreationDate="2011-01-27T18:17:20.463" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You need to avoid not thinking ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jay Maisel says &lt;em&gt;Everything in your frame either helps you or hurts you&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, to compose well you must make sure that everything in your image is part of what you want to show or say and that nothing in your image should distract from that. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jay also says not to include letters in your frames unless you want them to be read, otherwise they distract from your subject. There are no absolutes, even lens flare can be used creatively to reinforce a harsh environment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T18:17:20.463" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="7782" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7774" CreationDate="2011-01-27T18:30:03.870" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given the lack of sample, the only idea I have is that the camera is using a too high ISO (Either explicitly, on Auto ISO or because of a scene mode) AND that one of the beauty modes is on (soft skin, clear skin, beauty or whatever its called on that model).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the only way I know for a camera to produce a grainy image with people looking like they have a plastic face. This happens because ISO causes more noise (grain-like) and skin smoothing is applied over the image and works by blurring faces automatically. This causes noise to disappear, so you get the plastic look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you know how, you can look at the EXIF to verify the ISO. Overall fuzziness can be caused also by digital zoom which may compound your problem. You should be able to turn it off in the menu or least make sure you don't pass the indicator in the middle of the zoom &lt;em&gt;progress bar&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T18:30:03.870" />
  <row Id="7783" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7780" CreationDate="2011-01-27T18:38:02.113" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While i haven't used such lens myself, any adapter with optical element is going to degrade quality somewhat, just because you are introducing another element to optical system. Also cheap adapter is unlikely to have high quality lens, compounding the problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After reading various comments on Internet, main effect appears to be loss of sharpness. But i was unable to find example images. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adapter without lens should not impact quality, but will not give you infinity focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2922" LastEditorUserId="2922" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-27T18:46:06.737" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T18:46:06.737" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7784" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7790" CreationDate="2011-01-27T18:46:20.900" Score="19" ViewCount="494" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've tinkered with a bit of high speed photography (catching a water drop with low power flash in a dark room) and had success, but mostly through the volume of trials.&#xA;I've got a shot in mind (I'd like to drop an Oreo into a glass of milk), and I'd like to minimize the number of tries it takes to work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What techniques are there to help capture such shots? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE: Regarding the answers below, they touch on &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; to do high speed photography, but I was really hoping for a detailed technique for triggering the flash that was more than luck and at least more detailed than a link elsewhere.  I &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; be hoping for too much, time will tell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-31T22:21:31.313" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T22:21:31.313" Title="How do I trigger the flash in a way that takes luck out of high-speed photography?" Tags="&lt;high-speed&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="7" />
  <row Id="7785" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7784" CreationDate="2011-01-27T19:18:30.527" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For shooting an Oreo in milk you don't necessarily need a very high speed. In the image below you can see similar idea where the speed was 1/250sec (flash sync speed):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/iqyLv.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the past I tried capturing waterdrops. The problem was that with my older 380ex flash, when it was set off-camera it fired in full power, so the exposure was too long to get a real sharp, frozen drop. So my advice is to use a flash in manual mode, set to a low power so the exposure is as short as possible. Alternatively, you can use high-speed sync mode, if you can control your off-camera flash in this manner (unfortunately, the flash master in the EOS 7D does not allow for HSS when controlling the 580EXII using the built-in flash).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still for the Oreo shot, use a wireless trigger to trigger the camera while releasing the cookie into the milk. It took me a surprisingly small amount of trials to get to a good timing with the lemon splash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you feel inspired, you can build yourself a IR beam detector trigger that will trigger the camera once the cookie crosses the beam. UPDATE: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hiviz.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;HiViz&lt;/a&gt; is a good resource for HS photograhy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-28T00:00:19.770" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T00:00:19.770" CommentCount="23" />
  <row Id="7786" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7784" CreationDate="2011-01-27T19:26:48.043" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most common setup is the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Very dark room&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Long exposure ( seconds )&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Trigger the flash (low power flash for a very fast burst) at the correct time.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Flash can be triggered by sound ( useful if you want to take a broken glass picture) or laser sensor ( useful for moving objects ). Sometimes a small delay should be added. Often an Arduino board is used to control the electronics as described &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.glacialwanderer.com/hobbyrobotics/?p=11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diyphotography.net/high-speed-photography-let-arduino-turn-the-lights-off-for-you&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; for instance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="507" LastEditorUserId="507" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-28T07:22:27.933" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T07:22:27.933" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="7787" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4707" CreationDate="2011-01-27T20:01:43.370" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Gimp is the main tool for image/photo manipulation.&#xA;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://registry.gimp.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://registry.gimp.org/&lt;/a&gt; for addons and plugins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3543" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T20:01:43.370" />
  <row Id="7788" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6265" CreationDate="2011-01-27T20:08:44.797" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Huuu ... nice one! :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well here goes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Learn how to use a flash properly - maybe even a ringflash.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Make my own webpage to sell my photos.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Organize my growing photo collection better.   (a new years resolution last year also)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Maybe get a fullframe camera! :-)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3428" LastEditorUserId="1913" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-28T01:14:44.580" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T01:14:44.580" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-27T20:08:44.797" />
  <row Id="7789" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7775" CreationDate="2011-01-27T20:20:09.660" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that with the likely exception of &quot;finger/strap is in front of the lens&quot;, &lt;em&gt;none&lt;/em&gt; of these are Things To Avoid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are &lt;em&gt;things to be aware of when making a composition&lt;/em&gt;, which is very different. Depending on what you are trying to accomplish, they very well may be exactly what you want. Having an interesting part of the image cut out is a prime example: that may make the point of the image less immediately obvious, but that's often a good thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two different questions at work here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One is: &lt;em&gt;what technical mistakes should I avoid&lt;/em&gt;? For example: finger in front of the lens, focus not where you want it, exposure doesn't reflect your intentions. Those are generally &lt;em&gt;bad because they're not what you meant to do&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second  is &lt;em&gt;how do I manage tension and stability within my image&lt;/em&gt;? Balance is important in composition; too much balance is static and boring. A completely obscure subject doesn't interest the viewer enough to look at the image; a too-obvious one doesn't keep the viewer engaged. &quot;Distractions&quot; can detract from the intended subject, but they can also make the photograph more complex than a simple clichéd shot everyone has seen before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure you know the expression &quot;rules are meant to be broken&quot;. It's good to know the general expectations for &quot;proper&quot; composition, but it's also good to know when to follow a different path. I once saw a &lt;em&gt;great&lt;/em&gt; series of pictures containing the photographer's shadow in the bottom of the frame — generally, a tourist-snapshot mistake, but if that's what you want to work with, go for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T20:20:09.660" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7790" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7784" CreationDate="2011-01-27T21:49:01.940" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because I am sometimes asked to do these sorts of shots as part of my business, where 'trial and error' is often incompatible with 'client budget,' I use a programmable intervalometer with a variety of sensors which give me that ability to capture the sorts of pictures where 'timing is everything.' Among other things over the years I've used such devices to capture images of bullets being fired, arrows flying, explosions, water drops, things being dropped into various types of liquid, 'shy' animals, and to 'slow down' industrial machines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although I've used many different systems, currently I use the &lt;a href=&quot;https://bmumford.securewebsites.com/photo/camctlr.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mumford Time Machine&lt;/a&gt;, and I've been very pleased with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I realize that my answer may not appeal to everyone (DIYers, hobbyists, etc.), for someone with more money than time, or who is capturing these sorts of images professionally and doesn't have time to do it '600 times and pray one of them is usable,' there are definitely pro-level options that don't involve 'picking up a soldering iron.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T21:49:01.940" />
  <row Id="7791" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7775" CreationDate="2011-01-27T21:52:17.187" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi Capsize&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the more annoying things I noticed spoils my photos is&lt;br&gt;&#xA;the saying &quot;White attracts eye&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if the photo is otherwise spot on, a small bright/white object tips the &quot;balance&quot; of the photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bright/white object is mostly of-centre and in the background. This is something I've learnt to be aware of ... over the years. But I still make the mistake at times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Regards&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Sigersted&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3428" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T21:52:17.187" />
  <row Id="7792" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6265" CreationDate="2011-01-27T22:04:46.950" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take some walks to take some photos. &#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No, really, plan some more time to look for possibilites instead of taking pictures along on the walk to somewhere. Be it on bike or on foot, just go somewhere to explicitly concentrate on taking photos there.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Analyze my pictures from the last parties with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exposureplot&lt;/a&gt; and decide on ~50mm or ~85mm prime.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Buy a flash. Maybe. :)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T22:04:46.950" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-27T22:04:46.950" />
  <row Id="7793" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6265" CreationDate="2011-01-27T22:12:22.733" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For 2011 I've taken a step back from commercial work to focus on personal projects, but my main resolution is to print more black and white images, as most of my work has been colour the last few years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T22:12:22.733" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-27T22:12:22.733" />
  <row Id="7794" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4707" CreationDate="2011-01-27T23:35:27.003" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi supercobra&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although Gimp is one of the main photo-editing/creating programs I don't think its main strength is the kind of photo editing the photo- &quot;-prosumer&quot; / -professional or advanced amateur needs.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;For this kind of photo-manipulation I have found LightZone (Windows/Apple/Linux).&#xA;LightZone can handle an array of different RAW-formats.&#xA;It's interface is very user friendly and strait forward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if it is big alterations and/or abstract art you are looking for then Gimp will be the better choice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Regards&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Sigersted&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3428" LastEditorUserId="3428" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-27T23:40:39.880" LastActivityDate="2011-01-27T23:40:39.880" />
  <row Id="7795" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7796" CreationDate="2011-01-28T00:20:32.687" Score="3" ViewCount="176" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently took quite a few pictures at my brothers wedding, and when going through them in Aperture 3, I noticed a pretty apparent red pixel towards the bottom left of my images. I didn't notice this all that much before, but since a lot of these photos were taken indoors with darker colors (like everyone in tuxedos and suits), its easy to see. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I started going through many old pictures, and noticed the same dead pixel. And then again last night, while importing another set, I noticed another hot pixel, this time in the upper right. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I tried the common method described online, doing a 'Manual Sensor Cleaning' thats found commonly online (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mice007.hu/2008/06/a-way-to-get-rid-of-stuck-pixels-on-a-canon-40d/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;one example here)&lt;/a&gt;. I did this for about 30 seconds, but still notice them. I haven't tried longer yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When looking for other ways to solve this, I found that it also may a difference in the way Aperture and/or Lightroom and other apps display this. Supposedly Lightroom processes them for you, but I don't think Aperture does this. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the best way to handle these? I would obviously like to fix it in the camera if I can, but is there a better way to fix these in post processing when using Aperture - other than doing a small spot healing on every photo? I also usually don't shoot in RAW, just in JPEG.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-28T00:33:03.790" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T21:15:47.087" Title="How should one deal with 'hot' pixels on Canon T1i, either in-camera on in Aperture?" Tags="&lt;apple-aperture&gt;&lt;canon-500d&gt;&lt;dead-pixel&gt;&lt;pixels&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7796" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7795" CreationDate="2011-01-28T00:32:29.030" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A quick look around on The Googles seems to confirm that Apple Aperture doesn't have an automated way to deal with hot pixels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, I think the best way is to have the hot pixels mapped out in-camera at the RAW level. Some cameras can do this as a menu option, but unfortunately some manufacturers save this as a price-differentiation feature and don't put it in their entry-level models. (Doesn't help now, but it's something to look for next time you go to buy a camera!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it's not there as an option, it can certainly be done by by the camera service center, and in my experience they'll usually do this under normal warranty service. (If not, they shouldn't charge you much.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T00:32:29.030" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7797" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7798" CreationDate="2011-01-28T01:50:11.417" Score="3" ViewCount="239" Body="&lt;p&gt;What's the best way to do this, using free software?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to convert photos to line-drawings, maybe cartoons ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3005" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T02:41:03.173" Title="Seeking software tool to convert photo to line drawing" Tags="&lt;software&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7798" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7797" CreationDate="2011-01-28T02:23:34.247" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do you want a bitmap image that looks like a drawing or do you want to vectorize the image?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To create a drawing effect, there are several filters for GIMP that will do that into some extent.  Many simple photo manipulation programs have filters like that, too. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For vectorizing your image, you may want to try &lt;a href=&quot;http://potrace.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;potrace&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2811" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T02:23:34.247" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7799" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7797" CreationDate="2011-01-28T02:41:03.173" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to potrace/autotrace, you might want to look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://autotrace.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;autotrace&lt;/a&gt;. This uses a different approach than &lt;a href=&quot;http://potrace.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;potrace&lt;/a&gt;, which traces the outlines of polygons. Autotrace appears to be a kinda dead project, but it's worth trying in addition to potrace, because they both give different results and one approach may work better with your image than the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of this software is already packaged for Fedora or Ubuntu, so it's just a &lt;code&gt;yum&lt;/code&gt; or &lt;code&gt;apt-get install&lt;/code&gt; away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T02:41:03.173" />
  <row Id="7800" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7801" CreationDate="2011-01-28T03:14:29.137" Score="11" ViewCount="233" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's say I have a micro-4/3rd camera and a full frame camera, both set to 1/60 at f/2.8, taking a picture of the same scene in the same lighting. Will the exposure be the same across both cameras despite the different sensor sizes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason why I'm asking is because of the difference in depth of field between micro-4/3 and full frame sensors. I'm finding that, in order to take a picture of certain scenes with the full frame camera at the same depth of field as the micro-4/3rd camera, I have to increase the aperture, which in turn forces me to crank up the ISO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3549" LastEditorUserId="3549" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-28T05:48:18.680" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T14:08:30.483" Title="Do the same camera settings lead to the same exposure across different sensor sizes?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;shutter-speed&gt;&lt;full-frame&gt;&lt;micro-four-thirds&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7801" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7800" CreationDate="2011-01-28T03:27:34.377" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes. Exposure is based on the amount of light that hits any given point on the sensor (or film), not the total amount of light for the whole area. (The light hitting the corners doesn't have any effect on the light hitting the center, or anywhere else.) Or to put it the other way around, a full-frame sensor records more overall light, but for the same exposure, it's exactly as much more light as there is more sensor area.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think of it this way: if you take a full-frame image and cropped out a small rectangle from the middle, the exposure there (ignoring vignetting and light falloff) is the same as the exposure for the whole thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now instead of cropping, imagine replacing the full-frame sensor with a smaller one. Same exposure, just less of the image recorded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, yeah, you have to increase the ISO (or shutter speed) to get the same high depth of field on a larger sensor. But, assuming roughly equal technology, the larger sensor should give about the same amount of noise at that higher ISO as the smaller one did at lower sensitivities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In concession to the long comments thread below, I will add: if you're literally comparing two camera combinations in the real world, the exact exposure may vary for several reasons. One of these is the actual transmission of light for a given lens at a certain f-stop — the lens elements themselves aren't perfect and block some light. This differs from lens to lens. Second, the lens makers round to the nearest stop when stating aperture, and may not be perfectly accurate. Third, the accuracy of ISO varies from manufacturer to manufacturer — ISO 800 on one camera may give the same exposure as ISO 640 on another. All of these factors should be (even cumulatively) less than a stop. And most importantly, &lt;em&gt;these factors are all independent of and unrelated to the sensor size&lt;/em&gt;, which is why I left them out of the original answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-28T14:08:30.483" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T14:08:30.483" CommentCount="15" />
  <row Id="7802" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7800" CreationDate="2011-01-28T04:09:25.730" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Shutter speed&lt;/strong&gt; is an easy component of exposure to understand. Halve the shutter speed and you get half the amount of light striking the sensor. 1/50th on a small sensor yields the same amount of light per square meter as on a large sensor. The large sensor merely captures a larger area of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Field of view&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;aperture&lt;/strong&gt; is an interesting component of exposure. This is why aperture is a &lt;em&gt;relative size&lt;/em&gt; to focal length. If it wasn't, we'd need calculators in our pockets every time we changed it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagine you have an aperture diameter of 5mm (78.5mm² area) and you increase your field of view by a factor of two (30º to 60º). This now increases the amount of light striking the same area by a factor of four (pi.R²), which would mean either your ISO would need to come down a factor of four, or your shutter speed shorten by a factor of four.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, if you keep the physical aperture size directly proportional to the field of view (determined by focal length &amp;amp; sensor size) you are cancelling out the field of view component. This is where the &lt;strong&gt;f-stop&lt;/strong&gt; comes into play. All that matters now is the ratio. When your aperture is 1/2.8 the size of the focal length, for example, the same amount of light at a given shutter speed will strike the sensor regardless of focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means the aperture is getting physically smaller at wide angles (zooming out) and larger at smaller field's of view (zooming in).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does this work on small and large sensors? Well on a large sensor the same field of view (cone of light) is restricted the same amount by the lens's aperture, but it is expanded to cover a larger are on the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ISO&lt;/strong&gt; on the other hand is a standard. It determines a standard exposure at any given shutter speed and aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edited for clarification&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason why a large sensor is able to produce a less noisy exposure is because the area of each pixel is larger (sometimes significantly larger). What this means is that the level of signal (light) compared to the level of noise hitting each pixel is greater. Think of it as a bucket of water with the same amount of soot at the bottom. A 5L bucket will have more water than soot versus a 2L bucket, increasing the usefulness of that bucket.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). On a point and shoot, the ratio of signal to noise is considerably less. Doubling the ISO for all intents and purposes halves the SNR. Because of these big bucket photosites on a digital SLR, ISO can be expanded considerably higher and still achieve less noise than a point and shoot, despite the same volume of light striking the sensor chip.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Phew. That's confusing stuff.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastEditorUserId="609" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-28T05:07:00.893" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T05:07:00.893" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="7803" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6265" CreationDate="2011-01-28T04:22:30.073" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Build my reputation&lt;/strong&gt; by sticking to my guns about charging for shoots requested of me and nailing the shoots in the process. I've only been doing this for six months so it's vital people don't get the &quot;shoots for free&quot; reputation going around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Master&lt;/strong&gt; some general off camera lighting for said shoots, thus building my reputation of being able to deliver.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Check my framing&lt;/strong&gt; for tips of elbows, feet and even spacing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Amongst other things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T04:22:30.073" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-28T04:22:30.073" />
  <row Id="7804" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7800" CreationDate="2011-01-28T05:03:59.360" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let's say I have a micro-4/3rd camera and a full frame camera, both set to 1/60 at f/2.8, taking a picture of the same scene in the same lighting. Will the exposure be the same across both cameras despite the different sensor sizes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If it's the same lens or both lenses have the same transmission, and assuming that by saying &quot;same exposure&quot; you're using the same ISO rating (to even out differences in sensor efficiency) then yes.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Caveats:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;ISO rating doesn't take sensor efficiency into account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Different sensors operating at the same ISO level will capture different amounts of light but turn them into the same exposure.  However, even though the exposure is the same, the ability to resolve detail amongst the noise will be different.  The ISO rating system is designed to factor out differences in sensor efficiency so you can set any sensor regardless of size or efficiency to ISO200 and get the same exposure.  To achieve this, a full frame sensor working at ISO200 is gathering a lot more light than a 4/3 sensor at ISO200 for the same scene, and it is just internally applying a different amount of gain in order to translate the scene into the same brightness values.  All equivalent in the end result, except that the full frame will have lower noise levels since it started with more light information.  Note that there can be differences in efficiency between sensors of the same size, too; hence it's not related solely to sensor size, though that is the major factor.  In short, ISO 800 in FF is the same &lt;em&gt;exposure&lt;/em&gt; as ISO 800 in 4/3, but you'll get different noise and dynamic range on them since it's not the same sensor efficiency.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;F-stop doesn't take transmission into account&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The common method of determining how much light comes through the lens is an f-stop.  However, this measure is based on the diameter of the aperture, but does not take into account the transmissive properties of the lens elements.  All lens glass absorbs some light.  Modern lenses with multiple coatings absorb a good deal less, and it's not uncommon for a simple modern lens to transmit more than 99% of light.  Without filters, the effect of transmission loss in a modern multi-coated lens is so small that in almost all cases it can be ignored, making this little more than an academic exercise with little practical value.  Those cases in which it can't be ignored may include shooting for the cinema, where multiple consecutive shots should have the same exposure even though they may use a very different lens.  That's why t-stops were invented; they're like f-stops by they take into account transmission properties of all your glass.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-28T05:08:59.620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T05:08:59.620" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7805" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7780" CreationDate="2011-01-28T05:19:44.160" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;An adapter with a lens in it will degrade quality in some rather unfortunate ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason a modern lens has so many elements in it is to combat the effects of things like chromatic aberration, to make sure the corners are sharp when the centre is, etc.  You can't do that with a single lens, because different wavelengths of light bend at different rates, etc.  And you can't do it with a spherical lens, because it won't all focus on the same plane.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the optical lens element(s) in the adapter introduces a whole new lens assembly.  It would have to be pretty special not to introduce all these extra problems - namely, it'd have to have all its surfaces multicoated, and it'd probably also want an aspherical and a low-dispersion element in there somewhere.  But then you'd get more flare/contrast loss just due to having more reflective surfaces.  Not to mention more bulk and weight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My advice would be to stick to legacy lenses that can be adapted without adding more optics.  Unfortunately on a Nikon body, that doesn't leave you much choice because of the longer flange-focal plane distance, but why not pick up a new Pentax K-x or some Micro 4/3 body if you want to experiment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T05:19:44.160" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="7806" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7775" CreationDate="2011-01-28T08:12:39.563" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Clutter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my opinion, this is one of the most common defaults in family pictures. The subject is flooded by many background details (other subjects, various objects, colors, patterns, ...) and cannot be clearly identified as the legitimate subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that cameras take focus, exposure and even smile into account, clutter is more and more common.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A simple example: when taking pictures of kids, go down to their level. This way, you change the background from uninteresting ground to nice blue sky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1296" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T08:12:39.563" />
  <row Id="7807" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3" CreationDate="2011-01-28T08:15:52.717" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I really like the Nik HDREfx Pro plugin for HDR.  Out of the ones I've tried, it gives the most natural result so far (with a &quot;Natural&quot; setting applied, there are a large range of presets to choose from).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also one thing you can do is to finish and HDR and then overlay it with some opacity over an original middle-exposed version of the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T08:15:52.717" />
  <row Id="7808" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7811" CreationDate="2011-01-28T10:26:08.093" Score="11" ViewCount="204" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think I've more or less understood how AF works now. However, I'm not sure how the lens influences the whole process. In my recent research for my next lens I found reviews stating the one lens' AF is &quot;dead-on&quot; while the other one's &quot;often fails&quot;. Where exactly does it fail? Is the AF motor actually imprecise? Or does it relate to the optics?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know there are cameras have the AF built-in while other don't (AF motor has to be in the lens). It would be nice if you could explain if this makes any difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2069" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T14:16:16.263" Title="How does the lens influence the autofocus?" Tags="&lt;autofocus&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7809" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7808" CreationDate="2011-01-28T10:43:21.317" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have a lens that with aperture 2.8 or less, more light will be available for the focusing system on your camera.&#xA;The camera has a important role in this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now with the ultrasonic motors in many lenses, the focus is more fast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3357" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T10:43:21.317" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7810" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7808" CreationDate="2011-01-28T11:58:01.630" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually, the lens influences the focus in two ways:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) The speed with which it focuses (speed of its motor)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2) The amount of light it gathers (linked to f stop)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously, the faster the focusing motor and the more light a lens gathers, the faster it will focus. But the focus confirmation and seek is also dependent on the camera you use, which can bring inconsistencies between various camera+lens combinations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can fit a 24-70 f2.8 nikkor lens (damn fast lens) on a D40 which has about 3 autofocus points and a relatively simple focusing system, and it will still focus pretty fast; HOWEVER, it probably won't get the focus right every time, because of the simplistic nature of the camera's autofocus system.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you stick the same lens on a D300s or above, which has probably more than 50 autofocus points and a much better processor/system to make use of all of them, you will get much less badly focused ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Answering your question: AF lenses (Nikon) are lenses without autofocus motor, they focus by turning a screw on the lens mount - the camera does all this, and only the semi-pro or above models do it (d90 or better).&#xA;AF-S lenses have a motor built in, they autofocus on all modern cameras, even cheap ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know the precise differences between the performance of these two kinds of lenses, but as newer, and more expensive lenses all have dedicated AF-S motors, i assume that a dedicated focus motor improves performance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3462" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-28T14:16:16.263" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T14:16:16.263" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7811" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7808" CreationDate="2011-01-28T12:23:43.203" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because a &quot;lens&quot; is actually a complex collection of simple lenses which move in groups to perform functions of focusing distance and effective focal length, there are mechanical tolerances that affect performance. Choice of gear ratios, and the mechanics the the gearing become important to remove slack (play). With better quality machining, and design, the mechanical play can be minimised. Some still argue that because prime lenses do not have to worry about changes in effective focal length, the internal movements of the lens groups are simpler to control, with much tighter tolerances. These mechanical factors can affect both the accuracy of the focus, and the speed of the focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other and above the physical factors, the sheer amount of light that can get through helps with auto-focus sensors, as there will be a greater contrast (very light/dark vs. dim/dark) to get a confident focus hit -- this can affect the speed of finding the foccal point, as the camera searches for the highest contrast in the scene. The camera will always attempt to focus with the aperture wide open, and obviously, an aperture of f/1.8 is going to be able to get more light to the sensor than an f/5.6 lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T12:23:43.203" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7812" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7813" CreationDate="2011-01-28T12:23:45.790" Score="3" ViewCount="100" Body="&lt;p&gt;That is kind of a &quot;please proof-read an articles conclusion&quot;-question. Some time ago I found this page: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.4p8.com/eric.brasseur/gamma.html?&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gamma error in picture scaling&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I grasp the point, that the luminosity-curve is not linear and that some (most) software does assume a linear scale and thus resizes badly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But as I do not have so much experience in the field of image-manipulation / gamma / etc (just starting with the fine points of post-processing), let me ask you: is this guy right about this error during resizing? Is his method to determine erroneous software correct?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-28T14:11:44.817" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T16:15:54.770" Title="Is this article correct about gamma error in picture scaling in common software?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;resolution&gt;&lt;gamma&gt;&lt;rescaling&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7813" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7812" CreationDate="2011-01-28T14:09:04.630" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before even looking at the article, I say that there certainly is some amount of skew in levels when resizing a JPEG image. This is due to the fact that the RGB values are obtained from the RAW after a gamma (non-linear exponential) correction was applied to the RAW pixel values. Then, while scaling, values from adjacent pixels are averaged through some method (linear, cubic, lanczos) in a manner that is different from the specific gamma correction. This averaging is a linear operation by its nature, and applying it over the non-linear gamma correction introduces the skews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I think if you scale the RAW itself, assuming it's done properly &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; the gamma correction, you should be fine. I am not sure how the various software do it, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BTW, the RGB planes themselves are obtained by interpolation of near pixels on the RAW matrix - this is called the Bayer pattern demosaicing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-28T16:15:54.770" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T16:15:54.770" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="7814" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7779" CreationDate="2011-01-28T14:50:04.677" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's plenty of plugins and add-on scripts that do this. For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://sloppy.jamescookphotography.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://sloppy.jamescookphotography.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/products/all/vintage-film/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/products/all/vintage-film/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.autofx.com/products/ds2/effects/filmFrameArt.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.autofx.com/products/ds2/effects/filmFrameArt.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.liknes.no/photoshop/bordergallery.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.liknes.no/photoshop/bordergallery.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of these are free, some are priced highly enough to make me make kind of a funny face. But you can also take the long manual process and &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.epicedits.com/2008/03/07/how-to-create-photoshop-actions/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;roll it up into your own action&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T14:50:04.677" />
  <row Id="7815" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-28T15:17:48.950" Score="1" ViewCount="266" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Nikon D7000 and a 14-24 wide angle lens which I love, but it does result, often, in a great deal of barrel distortion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm seeking a software solution; ideally an Aperture plug-in, to correct barrel distortion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I do not have Adobe Photoshop. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3224" LastEditorUserId="3224" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-30T14:30:12.397" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T14:30:12.397" Title="Seeking Mac Software Solution for Correcting Barrel Distortion" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;wide-angle&gt;&lt;distortion&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7816" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7815" CreationDate="2011-01-28T15:37:21.260" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not an Aperture plugin and it's probably not the answer you &lt;em&gt;want&lt;/em&gt; to hear, but a quick search seems to indicate that there's an Adobe Lens Profile for this lens meaning that if you're using Lightroom 3 or Photoshop CS5, that'll take care of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T15:37:21.260" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7818" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7815" CreationDate="2011-01-28T16:20:47.580" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can use &lt;a href=&quot;http://hugin.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hugin&lt;/a&gt; to do these types of corrections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They also have a nice &lt;a href=&quot;http://hugin.sourceforge.net/tutorials/calibration/en.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;guide for lens calibration&lt;/a&gt;, which allows you to calibrate for the distortion of your lens, then save those settings to apply later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T16:20:47.580" />
  <row Id="7819" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3" CreationDate="2011-01-28T18:04:07.777" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The simple answer is in order to get non-fake looking HDR, or good looking tasteful HDR you have to put lots of work in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you entrust artistic decsisons to a computer program the quality is going to suffer. So expect to take a considerable amount of time in your tonemapping software adjusting the settings, and remember that's not the end of the process, you can further apply adjustments to contrast, colour balance and saturation to get the image how you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A simple way to stop HDR from looking too fake, is to pick the best single exposure back in afterwards, so you have say 50% of the tonemapped HDR multi-exposure and 50% natural looking single image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another way to get a more natural result is to do the exposure blending by hand. That is mask off the correctly exposed part of each image and layer them up. I know I've posted this example many times recently (as there seems to have been a lot of questions on HDR) but here it is again as it's a very good example of what I've described:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/photomatix.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try as I might I just can't get good looking results out of Photomatix, if anyone thinks they can do better I will provide the raw files!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/multi-exposure.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's what I produced relatively quickly by blending only two exposures by hand, as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/layers.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd advise anyone to try manually blending images. It works very well when you have a dark subject bright background (or vice-versa). It looks more natural as each part of the image is a standard un-tonemapped photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T18:04:07.777" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7820" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5989" CreationDate="2011-01-28T19:15:10.793" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, &lt;strong&gt;don't use Auto White Balance&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll probably want to go with tungsten, but even setting the white balance to flash or daylight will be better than auto.  Even if the color is a little off, if you've set the balance to something that is close, then the colored lights will have the correct effect, and the camera will not attempt to correct for the cast (that should be there).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course the best results will be from shooting raw, making minor corrections in post, but even then you will want to set the mode to the closest color for the ambient (non-colored) lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T19:15:10.793" />
  <row Id="7821" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7827" CreationDate="2011-01-28T20:01:37.583" Score="4" ViewCount="144" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a bunch of photos I want to print at the local costco. Many of them are not the standard 4x6, 5x7 aspect ratio.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I try to print them from the costco website, it insists on cropping the pictures to fill the paper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not what I want. I want to fill at much of the paper as possible and leave the rest white.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can I resize the files to create new image files with the proper ratio?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm using lightroom, but I'm fine with running some other utility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="98" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-28T20:12:27.447" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T22:27:39.790" Title="What's a good automatic way to resize square images for online printing" Tags="&lt;batch&gt;&lt;printing&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="7822" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7821" CreationDate="2011-01-28T20:13:25.197" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This should be pretty simple in most image editing software. In photoshop you can load the photo and then change the canvas size to be larger than the photo in the proportions costco wants. Make the canvas height the same as the original photo to avoid wasting space above the photo. I believe white is the default background color in photoshop, so you would have white bars on the left and right of your printed photo. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;edit: If you want to automate this, you can use photoshop actions, which are basically automated scripts/macros. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1125" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T20:13:25.197" />
  <row Id="7823" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-28T20:21:17.583" Score="5" ViewCount="154" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ok I used to live near this old junkyard and I always drove by it on my way home.  Almost everyday I would say the same thing to myself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;bring your camera tomorrow and take a picture!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well wouldn't you know, the city came by and cleaned up the yard and in doing so it lost all it's appeal.  Since that day I swore that I would never procrastinate if I saw a location that needed shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Until the other day when I drove by this tree during the Sunset, and I said to myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;bring your camera tomorrow and take a picture!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well I still haven't done that so I am wondering how many people actually stop, get out of their vehicles, and take a photograph spontaneously?  How many do what I have done but actually return?  Same day? Next Day?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I keep kicking myself over the Junkyard and I have only seen a similar sunset behind the tree twice now, so I might just have to keep my camera with me from now on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3154" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T20:35:21.177" ClosedDate="2011-01-28T23:19:52.860" Title="Stopping to take a Photograph" Tags="&lt;tips&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="7824" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7830" CreationDate="2011-01-28T20:31:52.977" Score="5" ViewCount="245" Body="&lt;p&gt;My friend has a Nikon 35mm DX lens that I want to use on my FX camera. If I use his lens on my camera in DX mode, does the effective focal length of the lens become &lt;code&gt;35mm * 1.5 = 52.5mm&lt;/code&gt;, or does it just take a crop of the center with an effective focal length of 35mm?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3549" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T23:00:07.247" Title="Does a Nikon DX lens on a FX camera get subjected to the 1.5X crop factor?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;focal-length&gt;&lt;crop-factor&gt;&lt;dx&gt;&lt;fx&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7825" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7823" CreationDate="2011-01-28T20:32:31.837" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I try to keep my camera in the car when I can (when temps inside a parked car allow), but I still find myself failing to stop because: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I don't want to cause a traffic hazard&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There's no good place to park&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I don't want someone getting upset that I'm taking a photo of their property&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I'm late&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's too cold outside&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's too hot outside&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It'll probably be there tomorrow (whatever it is)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for the reminder that the camera's not going to operate itself!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T20:32:31.837" />
  <row Id="7826" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7823" CreationDate="2011-01-28T20:35:21.177" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do this in &quot;vacation mode&quot; on road trips, but that's only because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I already have my gear with me&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's a place that I'll &quot;never go to again&quot; (even if I know I will)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I'm already in &quot;stop and smell the roses&quot; mode instead of day-to-day life mode.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this assumes I have time to do so / not on a tight schedule.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that though, I'm very guilty of this. Sometimes I consider picking up a point-and-shoot specifically for this purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T20:35:21.177" />
  <row Id="7827" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7821" CreationDate="2011-01-28T20:36:33.657" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imagemagick.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ImageMagick&lt;/a&gt;! There's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/thumbnails/#pad&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a bunch of recipes in the ImageMagick docs&lt;/a&gt;, but in short, something like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;convert input.jpg -background white -gravity center -extent 3000x2000 output.jpg&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;should do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To do a bunch in a loop, either wrap in a simple shell script, or if you don't care about preserving the original file names, just use a wildcard for input (&lt;code&gt;*.jpg&lt;/code&gt;, say) and you'll get multiple numbered output files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Match your height (above, &lt;code&gt;2000&lt;/code&gt;) to the actual height of your images, and the width to the corresponding width for the paper output ratio. If your images vary, you could read that from each image on the fly in your loop. There's very certainly some clever way to construct a clever single ImageMagick command line that does that, but I'd just go for a slightly longer bash script.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T20:36:33.657" />
  <row Id="7828" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7824" CreationDate="2011-01-28T20:47:53.957" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off, focal length is focal length is focal length.  The &quot;crop factor&quot; is totally unrelated to focal length.  It's just been confusing to us newcomers since DSLRs (well..digital cameras in general) hit the market with a myriad of different sensor sizes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have to realize that the 1.5 crop is just just cropping the middle out of what would otherwise be an larger image circle.  A DX lens just makes a smaller image circle.  On an FX sized sensor, there will be heavy vignetting where the image circle doesn't fully cover the sensor.  You can crop this image out, but &lt;em&gt;probably&lt;/em&gt; (though not always) at much lower resolution that it would be on just a DX sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-28T21:06:45.220" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T21:06:45.220" />
  <row Id="7830" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7824" CreationDate="2011-01-28T20:51:18.583" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nikon does this thing where when you mount a DX lens it (automatically if the Auto DX Crop option is enabled) uses a reduced portion of the sensor — the &quot;DX mode&quot; mentioned in the question. This addresses the image-circle issues raised in the other answers here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe this is unique to Nikon — because of physical limitations, you can't even mount the crop-factor Canon lenses on full-frame cameras. And Pentax doesn't have a full-frame offering. (Not sure about Sony.) Correct me if I'm wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, the lens is a 35mm lens and it always stays a 35mm lens regardless of sensor format, but the field of view on a DX (APS-C) camera is the same as the field of view through a 52.5mm (1.5×) lens on a FX camera. So good so far.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you use DX mode on your FX camera, the edges of the sensor are ignored, just as if they were cropped away. (In a way, this is exactly the same as it is on a DX-format camera, except on those it's &lt;em&gt;permanently&lt;/em&gt; away.) Since the sensor size is now for all intents and purposes the same as in a DX camera, this gives the same narrower field of view, again equivalent to an FX-format 52.5mm lens across the whole FX sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you use an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2198/AF-S-NIKKOR-35mm-f%252F1.4G.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;FX-format 35mm lens&lt;/a&gt; to take a picture, and then crop out the middle 2/3rds (that is, 1/1.5 — the crop factor!), the field of view of the resulting crop is that same 52.5mm. Or, if you force DX mode on with that lens mounted, same thing. No magic is happening — you're just discarding the edges of the field of view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-29T23:00:07.247" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T23:00:07.247" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="7831" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-28T20:52:28.060" Score="7" ViewCount="243" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a bunch of old black and white and sepia photographs from my grandparents' album that I scanned and would like to restore.  The photographs are generally in good condition.  there are some scratches and dust.  There are tears on a couple of them.  A lot of them will need a contrast adjustment.  Since there are a lot of photographs I can't devote a lot of time to each of them.  I am looking for a simple algorithm for restoring old photographs.  Perhaps some of you have done it before and can describe the process.  Perhaps you know of good articles describing the process.  Any help will be appreciated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have access to Photoshop CS4.  I am not an expert obviously, but I know my way around.  I also have no problem downloading and using Gimp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3559" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T16:04:28.050" Title="A quick way to restore old black and white and sepia photographs" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;tips&gt;&lt;black-and-white&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="7832" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7831" CreationDate="2011-01-28T22:19:47.500" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, anything you do that's completely automated is going to result in soft, blurry photographs. The best you can hope for, really, is something that's just barely adequate for web-display-sized images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are tools in Photoshop (the Healing Brush, the Clone tool, the Dust &amp;amp; Scratches filter in the Filters-&gt;Noise menu) that take most of the pain out of the process, but you'll need to spend time doing things manually to get anything like decent results. None of them, on its own, is adequate for everything you're going to face, and several of them only have any real meaning when applied manually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Really, it doesn't take too very long after you've done a few to get your technique down. The Healing Brush, in particular, really speeds up the process. (If you had access to CS5, the content-aware fill would probably make it faster still.) Figure an hour or two for the first couple of images, and something more along the lines of five to ten minutes for most of them once you get your workflow down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T22:19:47.500" />
  <row Id="7833" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7821" CreationDate="2011-01-28T22:27:39.790" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want to print them square with white borders, you can also use lightroom print module and print to JPG.&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lagemaat.blogspot.com/2007/04/printing-to-jpg-from-lightroom.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://lagemaat.blogspot.com/2007/04/printing-to-jpg-from-lightroom.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to fill the frame just use zoom to fill and position your image in the frame, use the same technique and print to JPG.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3357" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T22:27:39.790" />
  <row Id="7834" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7815" CreationDate="2011-01-28T22:48:27.443" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PTLens&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibblelabs.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bibble&lt;/a&gt; can both do these, and both support MacOS. PTLens can be used as an Aperture plugin. I kind of doubt that Bibble can -- it's intended more as a direct competitor to Aperture than a plugin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both come with large databases of lenses and the corrections they need. Both also read the EXIF data to see what lens you were using (and in the case of a zoom, what focal length you had it set for) and automatically take that into account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At a guess, PTLens is what you'd prefer -- and the price ($25) is hard to argue with as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-28T22:55:42.617" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T22:55:42.617" />
  <row Id="7835" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7815" CreationDate="2011-01-28T22:58:38.113" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You may want to look at FishEye-Hemi:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imagetrendsinc.com/products/prodpage_hemi.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.imagetrendsinc.com/products/prodpage_hemi.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not built around correcting specific barrel distortion, but instead is built to correct wide-angle (not just fisheye) distortion in such a way that lines are straightened and people look good - so it tries to take aesthetics into account when correcting images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They have a free trial download so you can see if you like the application, there are basically three different corrections to try so you can quickly see if it works for you.  It's available as a plugin for Aperture in addition to Photoshop and Lightroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When evaluating all of the software don't forget to look at the full-size image to make sure not too much data is dropped.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T22:58:38.113" />
  <row Id="7836" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1838" CreationDate="2011-01-28T23:34:48.583" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is possible. I did it with an F6. I used parts from a D700. Some dials do not work and you have to drill away for a larger LCD read out on top. I did it to prove that it can be done. The film back is larger and sticks out because of the added electronics. There is not viewing the picture because there is not enough room for the LCD preview. Compact flash card is external because I couldn't find room to put a drive there. It is just like using an F6, but I can download my pics without waiting for photo lab processing. No meues because no LCD. Its fun and can't wait till I do my F5. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3564" LastActivityDate="2011-01-28T23:34:48.583" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7837" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-28T23:51:40.353" Score="11" ViewCount="304" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm starting the switch from Canon to Nikon.   Having used Canon gear for 10 years I'm pretty familiar with their system.  As I move to Nikon, &lt;strong&gt;what things should I know that are different&lt;/strong&gt; and would be helpful to know ahead of time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(I don't know that my reason for switching is of too much relevance so I haven't gone into details about that).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One example I know: the zoom rings on Nikon lenses turn in an opposite direction compared to Canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T00:35:13.313" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-29T05:53:36.963" Title="What should someone know when switching from Canon to Nikon?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="7838" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7837" CreationDate="2011-01-29T00:04:33.680" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For one, Nikon has a smaller lens portfolio, and generally, more expensive. But I'm sure you knew that already...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T00:04:33.680" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-29T05:53:36.963" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7839" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7837" CreationDate="2011-01-29T00:15:27.867" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With APS-C the crop-factor is 1.5 for Nikon instead of 1.6 for Canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T00:15:27.867" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-29T05:53:36.963" />
  <row Id="7840" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1838" CreationDate="2011-01-29T00:15:39.420" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, the only 35mm film slrs that had an addon digital back were the Leica R8 and R9, both of which took the same 10mpx back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of the above have been discontinued, and were very expensive when new. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3478" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T00:15:39.420" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7841" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7837" CreationDate="2011-01-29T00:35:13.313" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;By default, &lt;em&gt;everything&lt;/em&gt; turns the wrong way on a Nikon if you are used to a Canon. Zoom, focus, shutter speed dial, aperture dial, even the light-meter is the wrong way around. On the more advanced models at least, it is however possible to reverse the direction of the on-camera dials and lightmeter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One caveat: On the Nikon-mount lenses without built-in focus motors that I have tried, focus speed was &lt;em&gt;extremely&lt;/em&gt; sluggish compared to my  Canon stuff. This on a D300 body, which is a rather beefy camera house. The Tamron 90mm macro can understand being slow compared to a 100m Canon macro with USM; the pro-level push-zoom Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 is quite another matter - my ca 1991 80-200 f/2.8L is so much faster focusing that it is not even funny! Just something to keep in mind if you intend to buy secondhand lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T00:35:13.313" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-01-29T05:53:36.963" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7842" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7831" CreationDate="2011-01-29T01:02:05.080" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you have the money, you might try hiring it out to a service like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scancafe.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Scan Cafe&lt;/a&gt;. I've heard good things about them, although I've never used the service myself. I hear rumor you can get a good discount if you look on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photofocus.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photo Focus&lt;/a&gt; as well. Their prices seem reasonable, but again, it depends on if you have a budget for this kind of stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T01:02:05.080" />
  <row Id="7843" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7845" CreationDate="2011-01-29T01:02:39.027" Score="4" ViewCount="184" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have created a video and exported it as individual photos. I currently have around 200 of them. I am looking for an editing tool that will automatically detect the face in each image and apply an effect to it (put something on top of it). Is this possible? If so how?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3566" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-29T16:06:36.423" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T16:06:36.423" Title="Photo editor to automatically detect image face and plant another image on top" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="7844" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7843" CreationDate="2011-01-29T02:10:59.610" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know one to do this, but using a few different programs and a lil' scripting, you could probably accomplish this with &lt;a href=&quot;http://picasa.google.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Picasa&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gimp.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;GIMP&lt;/a&gt; (or maybe even just &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imagemagick.org/script/index.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ImageMagick&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Picasa has facial recognition built in and and stores the facial rectangle in a hidden picasa.ini file in the same folder as the picture.  This file contains a line that looks like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;faces=rect64(328f08a1ae66e711),e5013ddaca3d0567&#xA;That number inside the rect64() is a 64-bit hexadecimal number and can be transformed into 4 16 bit bounding corners I believe.&#xA;You can take that information and transform it into a into a rectangle that defines the facial area.  Details on how to do that appear to be able to be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Picasa/thread?tid=36ae553a7b49088e&amp;amp;hl=en&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could then script ImageMagick or GIMP into overlaying the previously defined area in the picture with your desired image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are obviously not detailed instructions, but I don't think it'd be too difficult to hack together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T02:10:59.610" />
  <row Id="7845" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7843" CreationDate="2011-01-29T02:20:51.300" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do you mind doing some (simple) coding? The &lt;a href=&quot;http://opencv.willowgarage.com/wiki/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;OpenCV&lt;/a&gt; computer vision library includes face detection routines, and there's a Python interface.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And here's a quick howto on doing it with python, including sample code &lt;a href=&quot;http://creatingwithcode.com/howto/face-detection-in-static-images-with-python/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;showing someone doing exactly what you want&lt;/a&gt; — the image is the input, and then ImageMagick is used to draw a square around the face.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T02:20:51.300" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="7846" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7700" CreationDate="2011-01-29T03:03:00.983" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That particular model does have very long legs in relation to her torso, but that's not all that's going on there:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) The bathing suit cut above the hip adds to the length of the leg line considerably, as do the stiletto heels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) The shot was taken from considerably lower than most amateurs (and many neophyte pros) would take it. Collectively, I think we lost a lot when eye-level viewfinders eclipsed waist-level finders; most women tend to look better in full-body photos when shot from somewhere around their natural waistline, and most photographers would rather not crouch or kneel for some odd reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) Photoshop does wonders when truth-in-advertising statutes do not apply; a free transform can add an inch or two in a way you might not notice, particularly when the background can be distorted safely as well. It's easy to overdo the effect, so take it easy -- but I've yet to come across a woman who has either shorter than average legs or a longer than average torso who was put off by a little white lie told on her behalf. (Just make sure it never gets beyond the &quot;fib&quot; level.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T03:03:00.983" />
  <row Id="7847" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5098" CreationDate="2011-01-29T06:16:16.497" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Flickr &amp;amp; Picasa are good and I use both, however, SimpleViewer allows you to post Google ads on your site without hassle or fear of having your account deleted (flickr). If you use Picasa to embed a slideshow on your site, at the end of the slideshow, the big arrow in the viewer takes your viewers away from your site and to your Picasa Webalbum – and there’s no code to prevent this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.varsityphotos.net/brit/brit_main.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.varsityphotos.net/brit/brit_main.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3570" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T06:16:16.497" />
  <row Id="7848" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7850" CreationDate="2011-01-29T06:55:05.640" Score="8" ViewCount="360" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon SX210 IS. With CHDK, I usually take photos of more than 10 minutes at night (using tripod of course). I read somewhere it is recommended to turn off the mechanical image stabilization system on point and shoot cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't see the point of doing that (because the cameras is still), but I guess there must be something related to unwanted actuations of the IS system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you know something about this? Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for the responses. I noticed that if I turn off the LCD using the shortcut button, and then I move  the camera (so the sensors detect movement), the screen backlight goes back on. I think that shake (not small) could be the minimal motion to activate the IS system. I can also be wrong, but if that is true, there is no need to turn it off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1641" LastEditorUserId="1641" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-29T21:51:33.757" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T12:20:02.543" Title="Should I turn off optical image stabilisation when shooting long-exposure photos?" Tags="&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;&lt;image-stabilization&gt;&lt;long-exposure&gt;" AnswerCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7849" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7848" CreationDate="2011-01-29T07:08:40.780" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On a SLR with an IS lens mounted on a tripod, the IS reportedly will hunt, leading to blur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I never saw the point in leaving the IS on when I had my gear on the tripod, since the tripod itself was going to do all the stabilization I needed. Having the motor run at all seemed like needless wear and tear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Canon SX210 is a much smaller, and lighter, camera in comparison, so if you have a reasonably decent tripod I doubt you'll gain anything from the IS being on. IS in the non-SLR lenses doesn't work the same way so wear and tear probably isn't much concern, but the potential for any added vibration from hunting would make me turn it off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The simple answer is to try it with IS, and without, pull the images into your computer, zoom into some area with a lot of detail, and see if there is a noticeable difference. A good detail target is to tape a sheet of newspaper to the wall, and shoot it from five or ten feet away. Set up the conditions to force a multi-second exposure on your tripod and see what you get.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1514" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T07:08:40.780" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7850" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7848" CreationDate="2011-01-29T07:09:31.453" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no point in IS if your camera is mounted on tripod anyway, unless your tripod is placed on moving/vibrating surface. Some cameras even automatically disable IS if they detect being mounted on tripod - as you correctly stated this is to avoid false activations of the system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2922" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T07:09:31.453" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7851" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7848" CreationDate="2011-01-29T07:53:08.213" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On older IS lenses, the recommendation was to turn it off. On newer IS lenses, the IS can detect it's on a tripod and resolve the shake problem that can happen when the IS gyros feed back on themselves, but it takes some time for this recognition to happen, so I still prefer to just turn it off. But according to Canon, it's not strictly necessary any more. But probably a good idea...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(reference: &lt;a href=&quot;http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/image_stabilization_lenses.do&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/image_stabilization_lenses.do&lt;/a&gt;) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T07:53:08.213" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7852" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7370" CreationDate="2011-01-29T08:24:44.777" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you use Lightroom/Aperture/other photo management programs, don't forget to backup your &lt;strong&gt;image catalog&lt;/strong&gt; too! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me, I have Lightroom set up to make a duplicate copy of all imported images to a RAID5 NFS, and backup the Lightroom catalog to the same folder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then as the second level, I have a script that rsyncing the entire folder to my Dreamhost account. I have Gallery2 + dcraw (a RAW plugin) set up, so it's technically not a violation of their TOS. (To the word, at least.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking at getting backblaze to backup my desktop, in which case I'll have a third level of backup. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Deficencies in this are mainly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lightroom dumps all images into one folder. When I import them I have them separated by date on my desktop. But on the NFS, they just get lumped into one big folder. Problem if I ever want to find a photo in my backup on a specific date without knowing the filename.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The xmp files associated with the RAW images never see the NFS, because they're created on the local drive. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The solution to 1 and 2 would be to have rsync run on my desktop to transfer everything to the NFS and not have Lightroom do the backup. But... I have yet to get around to doing that, whereas the Lightoom backup was a &quot;Find folder in a directory tree&quot;. Good interim solution, bad long term.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, 3. I have no offline backup of anything. I'm planning on creating a DVD of my &quot;best&quot; photos sometime this year though...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3571" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T08:24:44.777" />
  <row Id="7853" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7648" CreationDate="2011-01-29T08:28:23.400" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although you'll be able to see the Depth of Field difference in your pictures, you &lt;em&gt;won't&lt;/em&gt; be able to see it through your viewfinder.  See &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4175/depth-of-field-preview-optical-viewfinder-canon-500d-large-aperture&quot;&gt;Depth-of-field preview, optical viewfinder, Canon 500D, large aperture&lt;/a&gt; .  I have the Sigma 30/1.4 on a 30D, and wider than f/2.2 I see &lt;em&gt;no&lt;/em&gt; difference through the viewfinder when I press the DOF Preview button.  Even at f/2.2 and f/2.5 the difference is &lt;em&gt;barely&lt;/em&gt; noticeable.  AF still seems pretty accurate at f/1.4, but at that aperture, if you're at all close to your subject, you will probably want to be using manual focus (I can vouch for the Sigma's easy-to-grasp, responsive, smooth focus ring!) to ensure that the part of the subject that you care about (e.g. their eyes) is in focus... and since the viewfinder is showing you essentially an f/2.2 or f/2.5 DOF, that is pretty difficult.  So while an f/1.4 lens will give you a &lt;em&gt;low light&lt;/em&gt; advantage, neither lens will be especially easy to focus &lt;em&gt;wide open&lt;/em&gt; (I tend to take a few pictures, slightly bracketing my focus, to ensure I end up with good results).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T08:28:23.400" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7854" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23" CreationDate="2011-01-29T08:37:32.563" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On my Canon 30D (and, I think, most crop-sensor DSLRs; described at &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4175/depth-of-field-preview-optical-viewfinder-canon-500d-large-aperture&quot;&gt;Depth-of-field preview, optical viewfinder, Canon 500D, large aperture&lt;/a&gt; although none of the answers explain how to choose a camera that doesn't show this effect) there's no difference, through the viewfinder, between f/1.4 and f/2.2, and very little difference between f/1.4 and f/2.8.  Until I learned this fact, I thought that the reason I just missed nailing the focus on many of my pictures at f/1.4 was due to my inexperience (not that I've entirely ruled that out yet); since shooting pictures with a very fast lens was about 25% of the reason I bought a DSLR, I was pretty unhappy when I learned about this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T08:37:32.563" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-01T18:55:11.547" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7855" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1838" CreationDate="2011-01-29T10:18:10.160" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Siliconfilm's efilm product was expected to cost $700, work in about six film-camera bodies, have 1.3 megapixels, a 30% of 35mm sensor giving a x2.58 crop-factor, hold 24 shots and have no on-camera LCD display for review &amp;amp; deletion. A huge amount of investors money was sunk into this product.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not a surprise that no business has seen this as a good area for product development.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2520" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T10:18:10.160" />
  <row Id="7856" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-29T15:47:11.200" Score="1" ViewCount="114" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why does the noise ratio increase when using high ISO speeds (e.g 320) when filming at night with a digital camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3574" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T16:08:32.763" Title="ISO when shooting at night" Tags="&lt;iso&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7857" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7856" CreationDate="2011-01-29T15:51:58.650" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With a digital camera, upping the ISO rating is achieved by aplifying the signal from the sensor. There will always be some random noise, and upping the ISO aplifies this, to the extent that it can start to become noticeable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Different cameras behave differently in this respect, with the general case that a larger, more modern sensor will have better results then an older or smaller sensor (So a full frame DSLR like the Canon 5D mkII will outperfrom an older Canon 20D or a smaller Canon IXUS)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T15:51:58.650" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7858" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7856" CreationDate="2011-01-29T16:08:32.763" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When you increase ISO you effectively increase amplification of the signal from sensor. There is &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; some noise present in signal, so when you amplify signal you also amplify this noise. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure, but i think amplification process itself may introduce more noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also at night there is little light, so signal to noise ratio is worse - so noise is going to be more noticeable. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Rowland Shaw stated above sensors differ in they ability to capture light and dealing with noise. In general larger sensors tend to perform better - they usually have larger pixels, which means each pixel gets more light. Manufacturers keep working on sensor technology so newer sensors also tend to perform better than older ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2922" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T16:08:32.763" />
  <row Id="7859" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7848" CreationDate="2011-01-29T16:58:01.603" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My feeling is that IS work very good but it's never 100% effective.&#xA;So having IS turned on the image still blur a bit, much much less than if you turn it off but still it's not perfectly still.&#xA;So if you mount the camera on a tripod, that is supposed to be perfectly still, having IS on could potentially slightly blur the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Said that, I tried on purpose and the differences very almost invisible with a Nikon 70-300 VR&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2507" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T16:58:01.603" />
  <row Id="7860" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7861" CreationDate="2011-01-29T18:03:17.087" Score="10" ViewCount="458" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been asked to take head-and-shoulders portraits of some people against a &quot;green screen&quot; - presumably to make it easier to then paste those shots into another picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've never done this before, so I'm wondering if anyone can offer any advice.  This will probably be done indoors, under florescent lighting.  I'm planning on using a tripod, and have some reasonably fast lenses available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should I use a flash, or use the &quot;natural&quot; light?  Would it be better to do it outdoors? (The temperature will probably be in the -10C range (15F).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it better to have a shallow depth of field, or a wider one?  Should the subject be right up against the background, or out in front of it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anything else I should know?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="134" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T22:44:36.627" Title="Tips for taking pictures against &quot;green screen&quot; background" Tags="&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;green-screen&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7861" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7860" CreationDate="2011-01-29T18:51:56.293" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use in my studio separate lights for the greenscreen and the subject,&#xA;the right way to do this is to have a uniformly lit greenscreen and no shadow of the subject on the greenscreen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can find more on youtube from the video guys, almost same rules apply to all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More info:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.5min.com/Video/Avoiding-Green-Screen-Mistakes---Chromakey-72086812&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.5min.com/Video/Avoiding-Green-Screen-Mistakes---Chromakey-72086812&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6brdwY-dvU&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3357" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T18:51:56.293" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7862" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7860" CreationDate="2011-01-29T19:43:24.573" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With a big green background it'll be reflecting the light and potentially messing with the color cast of the light on the subject.  You'll definitely want to either set a custom white balance in-camera or use a gray card and set the white-balance in post (be sure to shoot RAW).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T19:43:24.573" />
  <row Id="7863" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7888" CreationDate="2011-01-29T21:16:16.840" Score="3" ViewCount="750" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll be processing many images of artwork and saving files with various info like title and size and media.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand there are tethering options. I'm hoping I can hook the camera up directly from a laptop and record this info with the images directly. If I could also operate the camera, or even focus it from the laptop, even better.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does Canon provide this out of the box or do I need some special software or cable? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I spotted this but I think all this functionality will be too much and I'd prefer something that costs less($175): &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.breezesys.com/DSLRRemotePro/features.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.breezesys.com/DSLRRemotePro/features.htm&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3043" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T04:43:56.153" Title="T2i tethering operation from a laptop?" Tags="&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;tethering&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7864" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-29T22:15:12.330" Score="1" ViewCount="245" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would love to start playing around with long exposure photography, more specifically light painting. I sadly don't have any camera except the iSight built into my Macbook Pro and my mid-range Android phone (I'm in college. Money doesn't really exist for me). Does anyone know of a way to take long exposure photos using either a Mac or a good Android app that can?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1960" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-29T23:24:12.303" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T23:24:12.303" Title="Long exposure mac / android apps?" Tags="&lt;long-exposure&gt;&lt;macintosh&gt;&lt;android&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7865" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7867" CreationDate="2011-01-29T22:22:54.297" Score="2" ViewCount="743" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to get into doing some remote lighting, but really don't get the best way to do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've got a Nikon D3100, so no commander mode I understand.  My current external flash is a SB-600.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3575" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-29T22:46:10.820" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T22:46:10.820" Title="What Kit is Required to Trigger Remote Flash with Nikon D3100?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;off-camera-flash&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="7866" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7865" CreationDate="2011-01-29T22:38:35.260" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I'm not sure of the state of Nikon and remote flash support on the D3100 (though, for some reason, I think it does support it), there are a large variety of radio triggers available on the market ranging from the inexpensive &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gadgetinfinity.com/product.php?productid=17204&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cactus V4&lt;/a&gt; which work decently (I've used them with studio strobes) to the more expensive &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.radiopopper.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;RadioPoppers&lt;/a&gt; and a whole host in between, some of which will support Nikon TTL for flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, as you get into remote/strobist lighting, you'll probably want to move to radio triggers anyways, regardless of your camera support for wireless. The camera options are optical, so suffer from line of sight, distance, etc. Radio is the way to go if you really want control over position and distance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T22:38:35.260" />
  <row Id="7867" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7865" CreationDate="2011-01-29T22:42:55.330" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You've got a few options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You could use a few &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpex.com/browse.cfm/4,12111.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;universal translators&lt;/a&gt; and do it wired.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You could use a cheap radio trigger (I personally use the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002W3IXZW/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_2?pf_rd_p=486539851&amp;amp;pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&amp;amp;pf_rd_t=201&amp;amp;pf_rd_i=B0034WR19Y&amp;amp;pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&amp;amp;pf_rd_r=039TDV6VJ72N0FWVH1HP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cowboy Strobist&lt;/a&gt; with the D3100 and SB-600).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You could use the highly reputed classic &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/PocketWizard-PWP-TR-801-125-Transceiver-Black/dp/B000GHXMO8/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1296340872&amp;amp;sr=1-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pocket Wizard&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Or if you want wireless TTL, you could look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/PocketWizard-MiniTT1-Transmitter-Nikon-Flashes/dp/B001T9NX9Q/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=electronics&amp;amp;qid=1296340910&amp;amp;sr=1-5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;MiniTT Pocket Wizards&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You can use the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Wireless-slave-flash-controller/dp/B00007EDZP/ref=sr_1_fkmr2_3?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1296341010&amp;amp;sr=1-3-fkmr2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SU-4&lt;/a&gt; Nikon remote to make any body a Nikon CLS commander (but this is line of sight then).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You could use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Cowboystudio-SYK-3-Optical-Slave-Trigger/dp/B00357PCVC/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_0_0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;optical slave triggers&lt;/a&gt; and trigger with the onboard flash (but this is line of sight then).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've had good, reliable luck with the cheap Cowboy Strobist radio triggers and think they're a great way to get started.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T22:42:55.330" />
  <row Id="7868" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7860" CreationDate="2011-01-29T22:44:36.627" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, on the &quot;anything else I should know&quot; front... Make sure your subjects are not wearing green or something close to it. I know this sounds obvious, but you'd be very surprised at how many people miss the obvious there, thus creating the disappearing body part syndrome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, as others have noted, ensuring that the background is evenly lit and that your subject isn't casting a shadow on it are the other big ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T22:44:36.627" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7869" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7864" CreationDate="2011-01-29T23:00:49.480" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Looks like there is an app that allows you to control the exposure and shutterspeed of the iSight:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ecamm.com/mac/iglasses/settings.html#settings&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ecamm.com/mac/iglasses/settings.html#settings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2011-01-29T23:00:49.480" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7870" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-29T23:29:47.070" Score="3" ViewCount="269" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, somehow I managed to erase folders containing some pictures. Now that I'm over my own stupidity, I ask, is there a way I can export Lightroom's thumbnails whatever the resolution they are?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I usually import everything with full thumbs, so if there's a way, I should be able to at least have a record of what I've lost :(&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Edit] - It is a windows in NTFS. Thanks for the Idea, but these were deleted quite a while ago, I don't think I'd be able to recover the original files. I could just use a good program to read the lightroon's db files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have found the &quot;LRViewer&quot; somewhere here in the Q&amp;amp;A's but it doesn't manage to export many of the pictures for some reason. I'd appreciate more options.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;f.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1756" LastEditorUserId="1756" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-31T01:03:43.697" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T03:53:36.360" Title="Exporting hopeless previews in Lightroom 3." Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;backup&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="7871" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7873" CreationDate="2011-01-30T00:55:12.110" Score="1" ViewCount="236" Body="&lt;p&gt;With my Canon SX210 IS and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/UBASIC/Scripts%3a_Ultra_Intervalometer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ultra intervalometer script&lt;/a&gt;, now I'm able to capture take long time lapses with a series of photos. I have already tried shoting clouds in the sky, when the sun is setting down and the effect is very interesting, but I don't know any other situation where I could use the intervalometer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, it would be good to know some tips about the use of intervalometers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What ideas or hints do you have?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1641" LastEditorUserId="1641" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-30T03:18:12.097" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T04:43:15.977" Title="Intervalometer ideas?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;chdk&gt;&lt;intervalometer&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7872" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7876" CreationDate="2011-01-30T01:40:11.233" Score="4" ViewCount="203" Body="&lt;p&gt;Waiting for the exact moment to snap a picture can be very difficult especially when working with children or animals. I've read somewhere (can't find source) that every freeze frame from an HD video is essentially a high-resolution photo (is this even true?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the challenges, pros, and cons of selecting the best frame from a video as a way of taking still photos where timing is crucial?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3578" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T14:36:09.440" Title="high resolution photo from video" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;hd-video&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7873" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7871" CreationDate="2011-01-30T01:44:13.720" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Essentially it is a nice feature if you don't want to hang around your camera. The camera snipes away for some hours and you don't have to care except for the sorting afterwards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;combine with long-time-exposure and try to create a nightsky-shot (circling around polar star in the norther hemisphere)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;... or even a 24h shot of an location, like this guy here:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap110117.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;24h above planet Sounio&lt;/a&gt; (below is the link to his &quot;making of&quot; - he had to control the process all the time)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;if you only want to celebrate New Years eve and can live with the &quot;chance&quot;-shot: use it for fireworks&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;if you are into sports like skiing or sailing and do not have somebody like me [shutter-bugging you all the time], put it on the side of the slope/snowpark/sea (bonus: you know where to show the best tricks)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;put it on a kite and take some aerial photos of your own (actually ... my A610 starts acting up ... that sounds like a nice option ... thanks for the idea)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Same as the &quot;normal&quot; photography: your imagination is the limit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T01:44:13.720" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7874" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7879" CreationDate="2011-01-30T01:56:34.040" Score="2" ViewCount="462" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for a new general purpose walk around lenses for my Canon XTI Rebel. Right now I have a the original Sigma 17-70 f/2.4-4.5 that does not have image stabilization, and looking to upgrade to a lens that does. I'd like to stick with a lens the can open up to a 2.8 aperture, and a wide focal length (15mm-20mm)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been reading a lot of reviews and have narrowed my choices down to the Canon EF-S 17-55 or the new Sigma 17-70 that has IS (or what sigma calls OS).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On B&amp;amp;H the 17-55 goes for $1099 and the 17-70 goes for $449. That's almost a 150% increase in price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In comparison spec wise the 17-55 has a shorter zoom length, but also a constant 2.8 aperture and full time manual focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've also been looking at the comparison shots on the-the-digital-picture.com, which seem to show that the 17-55 is a little sharper then the 17-70, but I'm really no expert at looking at these test shots, but they don't seem &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; different to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398&amp;amp;Camera=474&amp;amp;Sample=0&amp;amp;FLI=2&amp;amp;API=1&amp;amp;LensComp=713&amp;amp;CameraComp=474&amp;amp;SampleComp=0&amp;amp;FLIComp=2&amp;amp;APIComp=2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398&amp;amp;Camera=474&amp;amp;Sample=0&amp;amp;FLI=2&amp;amp;API=1&amp;amp;LensComp=713&amp;amp;CameraComp=474&amp;amp;SampleComp=0&amp;amp;FLIComp=2&amp;amp;APIComp=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what I'm trying to figure out is if the Canon  is really worth the extra $650 over the Sigma? Both have image stabilization but is the Sigma version as good as the canon version? What about the Sigma USM auto focus? Is it as good as Canon's? The difference in focal length is not a big deal to me, but I would appreciate the constant 2.8 aperture and FTMF of the Canon although I'm not sure if that's worth and extra $650 to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a few graphs I generated by running &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ExposurePlot&lt;/a&gt; on my photos folder. As you can see most of my photos are wide angle, and wide aperture. Yet I also end up using a high ISO like 1600 a lot. I was hoping a lens with IS would allow me to handhold at slower shutter speeds and thus lower ISO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the answers so far it sounds like the Canon 17-55 might be worth the money over the Sigma. I've also been considering an L including the 24-70 and 24-105. But I honestly have no plans to upgrade to a full frame any time soon, nor require the build quality of an L.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/4kX6Z.png&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Full Size&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/4kX6Z.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1431" LastEditorUserId="1431" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-30T05:24:48.870" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T07:09:39.627" Title="Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC OS vs Canon 17-55mm IS USM" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;sigma&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="16" />
  <row Id="7875" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7872" CreationDate="2011-01-30T01:57:43.343" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll use my own camera (Pentax K-5) as an example (width x height):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Image resolution for a still photo: 4928 x 3264&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1080p (aka HD video maximum): 1920 x 1080&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I don't think it's a high resolution photo. Having said that, getting the shot at any resolution is better than not getting it at all. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T01:57:43.343" />
  <row Id="7876" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7872" CreationDate="2011-01-30T01:59:11.857" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The big pro to this is, as you say, the ability to take many pictures in a short period of time, allowing you to pick the best frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there are several cons to this approach:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lower resolution. Even &quot;Full High Def&quot;, 1080p, is only 2 megapixel (1920 * 1080 = 2,073,600). This would give you an acceptable print size of 6.4x3.6 inches, at 300 DPI. This might be fine for you, but if you want a larger print, you'll start noticing pixellation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Often, less control of settings like shutter speed, ISO, and aperture. Video also can generally deal with a bit more motion blur than still photos, and the camera may allow the shutter speed to drag longer than you might want.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Video compression artifacts. Aside from key frames, most frames in a compressed video are rendered by modifying a prior frame. This results in artifacts that may not be noticeable in a video, but will degrade the quality of your photo. This depends a lot on the codec and the bitrate of the video.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T01:59:11.857" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7877" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7874" CreationDate="2011-01-30T02:35:12.603" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not knowing anything about the Canon lens, I looked pretty hard at the Sigma lens when making my last purchase.  I ultimately decided against it because several reviews said that 2.8 wide aperture quickly shrunk and was more marketing than useful, except at exactly 17mm.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the wide aperture is important, I'd lean towards the Canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-30T02:44:41.597" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T02:44:41.597" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7879" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7874" CreationDate="2011-01-30T04:09:11.853" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Forget the Sigma for using it wide-open. From experience, the maximum aperture is more a last-resort kind of thing there. Mine was extremely soft at 2.8, so I basically considered it an F/4.5-5.6 lens! Really, without stopping down by at least one stop, it wasn't pretty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the Canon 17-55mm F/2.8 is really superb. Wide open it is good, and stopped down to F/4, it is extremely sharp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T04:09:11.853" />
  <row Id="7881" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7872" CreationDate="2011-01-30T04:56:31.573" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Take a look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.red.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Red&lt;/a&gt; cameras, if this is something that you really want to try out.  Their whole raison d'etre is to shoot at something like 5x HD, and each still would be a 10 megapixel shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, they aren't cheap, so it might be a better idea to get a camera capable of shooting, say, 8 fps for a few seconds and combing through those photos for that perfect moment.  I've found that 5-6 fps for 3 seconds is usually more than enough time to get a good shot, or at least, provides the maximum number of frames I want to look through per burst.  If you go full video rate, that is a lot of data to comb through for just one still.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T04:56:31.573" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7883" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2213" CreationDate="2011-01-30T05:15:50.827" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I definitely think that the line between professional and amateur should be drawn according to money, and not skill, training, or artistic merit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How about this: you can consider yourself a professional when your photography earns you more money than you've spent on gear and other costs (ie: you're turning a profit)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T05:15:50.827" />
  <row Id="7885" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7886" CreationDate="2011-01-30T06:32:37.767" Score="13" ViewCount="265" Body="&lt;p&gt;I often read about giving and getting critiques on a photograph or series of photographs. Specifically how do I go about giving a critique? What do I say, what points do I want to hit, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T06:50:38.453" Title="How do I give someone a critique of their photograph?" Tags="&lt;tutorial&gt;&lt;photo-critique&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="7" />
  <row Id="7886" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7885" CreationDate="2011-01-30T06:36:02.957" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;What a critique &lt;em&gt;isn’t&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There’s no better way to say it… A critique is rarely &lt;em&gt;short&lt;/em&gt;, because it is specifically designed to provide the artist with detailed, constructive feedback. It’s primary purpose is not to make the photographer being critiqued feel good (though that’s not to say that it can’t be a side benefit), or bad (though again, this can happen as part of a tough critique). With this in mind, it becomes clear why most photo sharing websites aren’t good places to get critique… A one-sentence ego-stroke &lt;em&gt;“that’s the most amazing thing I’ve ever seen!”&lt;/em&gt; or mean-spirited &lt;em&gt;“that’s the worst piece of trash I’ve ever seen!!!”&lt;/em&gt; on a forum somewhere isn’t capable of providing anything resembling feedback that is either detailed &lt;em&gt;or&lt;/em&gt; constructive. While a critique doesn’t have to be written, many critiques are. The main reason for this has to do with what a critique is…&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What a critique &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A critique is the giving of feedback after a &lt;em&gt;considered and measured evaluation of a photograph&lt;/em&gt;. When giving a critique it is valid to like a photograph, and it is also valid to not like it. It is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; valid to not be able to explain why you reacted the way you did to the image, and it is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; valid to not offer detailed feedback to the photographer to whom you are giving the critique. A written critique allows the 'giver' plenty of opportunity to both consider what he or she wants to express, and measure his or her words before presenting them to the artist. Generally speaking this is considered a ‘formal critique’ and is a carryover from the art world, where such critiques are often published in a similar manner that a wine reviewer would publish his or her reviews of a bottle of wine. A spoken critique is considered to be an ‘informal critique’ because it is harder to be considered and measured in the giving of the critique verbally (and often 'on the spot').&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that out of the way, it is important to consider a couple of things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does the photographer &lt;em&gt;want&lt;/em&gt; a critique?&lt;/strong&gt; Usually it’s best to only critique where you’ve been asked to critique. If you’re doing a ‘real’ critique this isn’t too hard of a guideline to follow, because critiquing takes a fair amount of time, and who wants to spend that time where it’s not going to be appreciated?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Can they &lt;em&gt;handle&lt;/em&gt; a critique?&lt;/strong&gt; Some people, even if they ask for one, aren’t ready for critique. It can be hard to tell if someone is ready (mature enough) or not, but I often start with an informal verbal critique in order to see how the person will react. If the response is anything more than a ‘thank you’ and maybe clarification on any of my points that weren’t fully understood (e.g. instead their response includes arguing, debating, general crankiness, or lack of appreciation at the critique) then I won’t go more in depth with more formal critique. As an aside, as an artist being critiqued, it is not necessary that you &lt;em&gt;agree&lt;/em&gt; with the critique for it to be valid. A grateful acknowledgement for the critique is not the same as an agreement with what was said. As I often tell my students: take what is helpful, discard what isn’t. Be a gentleman or a lady throughout. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;How do I give another photographer a critique?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether written (formal) or verbal (informal) I recommend using a system so that you’ll look at and critique photographs similarly each time you do. The system I use includes the following specific steps:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Take It In&lt;/strong&gt; Examine the photo as a whole. Take in the details of the photograph. If something stands out (either good or bad) take note of it, but don’t say anything at this point.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Interpret&lt;/strong&gt; This is your first ‘broad brush’ opportunity to respond to the picture. It’s a chance to talk in general terms about what the photograph makes you feel, what it says to you, what the photo is about (in your opinion), themes, symbolism, etc. Remember, it’s art, not something with a ‘right or wrong’ answer, so even if you see things that the artist didn’t intend, or feel things about the work that are unexpected (to the artist) that’s OK! (and can be extremely helpful for the artist to hear as well)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Technical&lt;/strong&gt; Here you’ll want to address the technical side of the photograph. Is it in focus? Do you see dust spots (more relevant to film)? How’s the contrast? Would the picture worked better with a smaller or larger aperture? Etc. Essentially if it has to do with the technical side of the photograph, this is the place to address it. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Artistic&lt;/strong&gt; And the other side to the ‘technical’ coin is to address the artistic. How’s the crop? Is the picture composed well? If it is in color would it have worked better as a B&amp;amp;W (or vice-versa)? Etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Good Points&lt;/strong&gt; It’s important to find some good in the photograph… This is easy when you like it, and harder when you don’t. The truth is that no photograph is irredeemable, and even if it’s a challenge to see it, there is good in there and you need to find it! The more specific the better. “I like the clouds” isn’t helpful. “I like the way the clouds draw the eye across the frame diagonally and pull me more into the frame” is much better. Put some thought into this section, but &lt;em&gt;especially&lt;/em&gt; put some thought into this section if you have a lot of things you want to say in the next section…&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Areas for Improvement&lt;/strong&gt; It’s important to remember that for the most part it’s difficult or impossible to ‘go back and do it again’ when it comes to photography. This means that it often isn’t very helpful (and can be quite frustrating) to provide criticism that can’t be acted upon (“I sure wish the tree was on the right side of the frame instead of the left”) I generally try to provide a couple of things that the photographer can act upon (crop the frame differently, and B&amp;amp;W would be better than color) and try to couch things that can’t actually be implemented as ‘things you may want to take into consideration for other pictures in the future.’&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Final Notes&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether you use the above steps specifically or not, the goal of a critique should be as mentioned at the top: &lt;em&gt;to give a considered and measured evaluation of a photograph or series of photographs&lt;/em&gt;. To give a critique is a real privilege, and should be treated as such. I rarely walk away from having given a critique without having learned something (sometimes a whole lot!) myself, and as such I believe that both giving and getting critiques are some of the fastest ways to improve as an artist...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-30T06:50:38.453" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T06:50:38.453" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7887" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7902" CreationDate="2011-01-30T06:39:40.723" Score="1" ViewCount="275" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anybody recommend a good compact camera that has a   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Good burst mode.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Low shutter lag.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know the DSLRs have these features and so do the micro four thirds.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;But the DSLRs are too bulky and micro 4/3s a little too expensive. Something in the range of 300$ to 500$ would be nice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1706" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T15:07:57.460" Title="Good compact camera with a good burst mode and a low shutter lag" Tags="&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="7888" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7863" CreationDate="2011-01-30T07:09:49.433" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You should be able to use the Canon EOS Utility that comes with the camera in order to shoot tethered right outta the box. Once you've installed the Canon EOS Utility (on the CD that came with your camera), then a simple USB cable (should have also come with your camera in the box, but you might want to get a longer one if you want to get farther from your camera) will connect the two, and you're off and running... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The EOS Utility will give you complete control over the camera from your computer... Essentially if you can adjust it via the camera, you will be able to adjust it via your computer (shutter, ISO, aperture, white balance,timer, etc., etc., etc.). You can even engage 'Remote Live View' shooting so you can see what the camera is seeing, and remotely take pictures as well as video, should you desire...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T07:09:49.433" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7889" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7870" CreationDate="2011-01-30T07:41:23.100" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lightroom stores data in two files: 'lrcat' and 'lrdata'. Depending on your operating system (Mac or Windows), you might be able to recover the images (previews) from the 'lrdata' file. For Mac, you can try software such as this: &lt;a href=&quot;http://echoone.com/filejuicer/formats/lrdata&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://echoone.com/filejuicer/formats/lrdata&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good Luck&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3265" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T07:41:23.100" />
  <row Id="7890" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7899" CreationDate="2011-01-30T07:50:05.537" Score="6" ViewCount="232" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to get into photography but I'd like to gather more information about the topic first. I'm thinking about buying a starter D-SLR camera, and am leaning heavily towards a Canon (most of my friends are using Canon). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Budget is important for me, so &lt;strong&gt;do think is it worth it to spend more money to a buy the Canon 500D instead of the Canon 450D?&lt;/strong&gt; I don't think I will use video feature...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any input would be appreciated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have gone with 450D due to budget reasons, thanks for all answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3427" LastEditorUserId="3427" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-08T12:31:00.160" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T12:31:00.160" Title="Canon 450D vs Canon 500D" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;canon-450d&gt;&lt;comparison&gt;&lt;canon-500d&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="7891" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7901" CreationDate="2011-01-30T08:15:22.543" Score="1" ViewCount="212" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to get into photography, and I'm thinking about buying a starter D-SLR camera (450D, 500D). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which &lt;strong&gt;Canon lenses&lt;/strong&gt; do think fit to my purposes as considering I'm a &lt;strong&gt;beginner&lt;/strong&gt; and my &lt;strong&gt;budget is very tight&lt;/strong&gt; for the moment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know this question will overlap some other questions, but my question is very specific.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3427" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-30T09:16:00.543" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T14:52:07.750" Title="Canon Starter Level Lenses" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;learning&gt;&lt;canon-450d&gt;&lt;low-budget&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7892" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7891" CreationDate="2011-01-30T08:45:40.770" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-50-1-8-Lens/dp/B00005K47X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1296377034&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 50mm f/1.8 II&lt;/a&gt; is really cheap and quite nice. It's construction is not top quality (in fact it looks almost like one of those lomo cameras), but it's image quality is good. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="332" LastEditorUserId="332" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-30T08:56:41.510" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T08:56:41.510" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7893" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7891" CreationDate="2011-01-30T08:46:24.857" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;OK. That's easy. The EF 50mm f1.8 offers the best bang for the buck on the market. I recently bought one for $128 new. It's fast, it's easy to use and the focal length has lent itself to many of the greatest images made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Down side? It's not a robust build. If you're roughing it, this lens may not handle the grind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3583" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T08:46:24.857" />
  <row Id="7894" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7891" CreationDate="2011-01-30T09:49:15.063" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The nifty fifty (50mm f1.8) will always be suggested as a &quot;must have&quot; lens in any camera kit due to it's great value. It's true that it's a great lens for the money. However as a beginner you may find it a bit too long for most situations(I certainly do). If you have the spare cash it's a no brainer, but if your on a tight budget I would go for something more versatile but unfortunately you'll end up paying a bit more. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastEditorUserId="3180" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-30T11:49:16.893" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T11:49:16.893" />
  <row Id="7895" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7890" CreationDate="2011-01-30T09:50:20.217" Score="-3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_450D-vs-Canon_EOS_550D&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_450D-vs-Canon_EOS_550D&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1485" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T09:50:20.217" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7896" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7863" CreationDate="2011-01-30T10:34:57.957" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Everything you mentioned are already doable using 'EOS Utility' (look in the CD that came with your camera). Once installed, connect your camera to your pc using the USB cable, open 'EOS Utility' and you're done!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T10:34:57.957" />
  <row Id="7897" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7890" CreationDate="2011-01-30T10:39:28.373" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There isn't anything 'Normal' which you can do with 500D but can't with 450D. 450D is a very good entry level DSLR. But I'd suggest, if you can, wait a little longer and buy 550D, definitely a bigger bang for your buck.&#xA;You can compare 450D and 500D here:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_450D-vs-Canon_EOS_500D&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_450D-vs-Canon_EOS_500D&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T10:39:28.373" />
  <row Id="7898" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7891" CreationDate="2011-01-30T11:32:05.983" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 18-55 IS kit lens is actually an excellent lens, especially for the money. It covers the normal walkaround range, is stabilized, and is surprisingly sharp. Getting this is a no-brainer. (Not getting its older brother, the 18-55 without IS, is equally a non-brainer; that was an absolute piece of dreck). Replacing it means spending quite a lot of money if you are going to get anything that is usefully better. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question then becomes what to get in addition to the 18-55. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 50 f/1.8 that others have suggested (a suggestion that I second, or maybe I should say fourth by now) will give you a very useable portrait lens for minimal money. It has a lot larger max aperture than the kit lens; f/1.8 vs f/5.6, which lets in about 10 times more light, which also helps for moving subjects in poor light. Or you could look at the 55-250 IS which will give you a cheap, useful telezoom to match the 18-55. The 18-55, 50 1.8 and 55-250 have similar build quality, or lack thereof, which is good enough for amateur use even if a pro photographer would wear them out quickly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I'd NOT get one of the 18-200ish superzooms. Yes, they are one-stop shopping solutions to all the needed focal lengths. But they are rather large, slow and frankly not very good optically. Any other lens with less zoom will do a better job within its zoom range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T11:32:05.983" />
  <row Id="7899" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7890" CreationDate="2011-01-30T11:59:36.087" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 450D is plenty camera for anyone taking up photography. I would spend the money saved on better lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T11:59:36.087" />
  <row Id="7900" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7891" CreationDate="2011-01-30T12:06:23.823" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming you have the 18-55mm kit lens:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;50mm f/1.8&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;55-250mm f/3.5-5.6&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These two are the most affordable lenses for the people in tight budget (like me lol)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T12:06:23.823" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7901" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7891" CreationDate="2011-01-30T12:15:34.673" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have all of my sympathy, because a few years back I was in the exact same position as you are (well to be honest, I'm still on the budget). So, with only some point &amp;amp; shoot experience, this is what I did. &lt;em&gt;This might be partially subjective rant, but I think it offers a good beginner perspective when considering the first lens.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After gazillion hours of reading through almost the whole Internet (it felt like it) I decided that 450D was the way to go (note: this was the Q1 of 2009). On the side I came to understanding that the lens is what matters more than just the camera body &amp;mdash; and usually the kit lenses are mediocre at best. So getting camera body and lens separately felt like it was the way to go. &lt;em&gt;Reading between the lines, I think you've stumbled into this same conclusion.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Two things&lt;/strong&gt; at minimum should be answered when searching for the appropriate lens:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What kind of pictures you want to shoot?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is your budget?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So what lenses to consider?&lt;/strong&gt; I had absolutely no idea. While our soon-to-get puppy was one of the primary reasonings for buying a camera, at the same time I wanted to shoot all the shots mentioned e.g. in &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2224/what-is-your-favourite-photograph&quot;&gt;What is your favourite photograph?&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7520/which-photographer-do-you-find-inspirational&quot;&gt;Which photographer do you find inspirational?&lt;/a&gt; questions. I really had no idea what I wanted to do with the camera. Also, with only some P&amp;amp;S background, I had no real experiences on focal lengths and what they would mean in practice &amp;mdash; and surely I didn't take e.g. the APS-C crop factor into account. I found myself sighing at the sample shots of different lenses. Like you didn't in your question, I couldn't answer the question #1.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; What I knew was that I didn't want to settle for one style only. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, after reading some experiences and technical details on different lenses I was trying to get some grip on what my budget should be. I grouped the lenses into three price-buckets:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Priced for the pros (e.g. Canon L -line), starting price near 1 k€ (1,3 k$)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Too cheap, price sub 320 € (430 $); would be good lenses for temporary use ie. replaced with better later on, but the resell price would be disappointing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sweet spot for hobbyists, in the middle. Not perfect, but very good and resell price is adequate.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I wanted was something from the &quot;sweet spot&quot;, but the problem was that they would at minimum double my budget. Sadly, I had to go with the cheap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I wouldn't wanted the versatileness of different focal lengths (or zoom, as I could'd said) I might've settled to the mentioned 50 mm/1.8. &lt;strong&gt;NB&lt;/strong&gt; Now that I have a 50 mm lens, I can say I would've got disappointed if it would've been my sole starter lens. 50 mm is rather long with 1.6 crop factor and too long for many situations when shooting inside our small apartment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The two answers so far&lt;/strong&gt; to my questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I don't know what I want.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Whatever I want, it is going to rocket my budget &amp;mdash; and as a beginner I don't want that, not just yet.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I slept on it and considered I should save money for a good lens; but then again I didn't want this to be a too big of an investment. I also didn't want to wait for another few months.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The sanest conclusion I personally came to was to go with the 18-55 mm kit lens.&lt;/strong&gt; I read another gazillion articles on it and accepted that while it was mediocre and probably sold at 50 € (68 $) on auction sites, it still is &lt;em&gt;OK for a kit lens&lt;/em&gt;. Also buying the kit wasn't too much more expensive than buying just the camera body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're on a tight budget and as beginner as I was, the kit lens is a &lt;strong&gt;good introductory lens&lt;/strong&gt;. While I am an engineering student and like the technical specs and quality over quantity, I think, based on own experiences, it is more important for a beginner to use a versatile lens, which has&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;varying focal lengths&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;range of aperture options&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;autofocus, which can be turned off&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;image stabilisation, which can be turned off.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are good to have, because they teach you how varying one aspect affects the whole picture. Getting to know these features will help you to decide what do you want from your &lt;strong&gt;second lens&lt;/strong&gt;: Do you like the versatileness of varying focal lengths? Do you mostly shoot in 18 or 55 mm? Would you like shallower depth of field in portraits? Can't reach the birds in the sky? Autofocus too slow? Do you want all the same features but just sharper pictures? Etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If you don't have any experience&lt;/strong&gt;, like I didn't, &lt;strong&gt;it is hard to even ask what to look for&lt;/strong&gt;. It is good to keep options open. Kit lens is the safest choice. Go and shoot! Reading reviews only makes you sad (made me).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bonus: After I got to know my camera and features of the lens, but still on a budget, I bought a couple of old film SLR all-manual lenses and adapters for them. Shame the 450D doesn't have a split-prism viewfinder&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, so the manual focusing is a bit tricky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;1) In my opinion, &lt;em&gt;this&lt;/em&gt; makes the question perfectly valid in its current form.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2) Well, it &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; be changed, but then the AF-lights won't blink anymore.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1913" LastEditorUserId="1913" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-30T13:06:56.320" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T13:06:56.320" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7902" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7887" CreationDate="2011-01-30T13:33:52.543" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;pro&quot; compacts such as Canon S95, Canon G12, Panasonic LX5, etc have decent low shutter lag compared to typical compacts.  It really isn't significantly more than Micro Four Thirds which you mentioned, and with some pre-focusing can be virtually instantaneous.  Try out a Canon S95 in a store to see.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The burst rate of these are pretty good too and will compare favourably with Micro 4/3 too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Olympus XZ-1 can do 7 or 15 fps in burst mode albeit at a smaller frame size than normal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my experience Micro 4/3 is not that expensive when you compare it to a similar setup from Nikon or Canon.  Nikon and Canon entry level kits are nice and cheap beating m4/3 but the DSLR price benefit goes IMHO away once you move on from the kit lens in both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T13:33:52.543" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7903" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7872" CreationDate="2011-01-30T14:06:24.983" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I've read somewhere (can't find source) that every freeze frame from an HD video is essentially a high-resolution photo (is this even true?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No, not a scrap of truth unfortunately :(  Here's why:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;First up, it's not high resolution.  Even 1080P (&quot;Full HD&quot;) video, which not all cameras can do, is only 2 megapixels.  That's a fraction of the sensor's resolution.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, video uses a much higher compression rate than still JPEG images, because video is bandwidth-intensive.  Additionally, in most video formats (including AVCHD, H.264/AVC, various MPEG/DivX formats, but not &quot;Motion JPEG&quot;), most video frames use &quot;inter-frame compression&quot; which means most frames are not &quot;key frames&quot; and less information about them is stored.  Inspection of individual frames will reveal they're lower quality where there is motion.  However this looks normal when viewed as part of the video.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In video, a certain amount of motion blur is desireable, but in stills you would not want nearly as much.  1/48 or 1/60 second is normal for 24P and 30P in order to have a natural feeling motion blur (the effect is called &quot;shutter angle&quot; after old movie cameras).  It is however possible for modern video to be shut at higher shutter speeds though.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Digital sensors can't provide such good quality image when they are in &quot;Live view&quot; mode, where there is no shutter but instead they're continuously fetching frames from the sensor.  In CCDs this manifests as vertical streaking; in CMOS there are other issues (one is waviness during camera motion).  The shutter that operates when taking stills enables the sensor to use a different mode where it doesn't have to reset so quickly and it can take a high quality image.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Video often has additional filtering applied than a still would, which loses some detail.  One major one is interlacing, which effectively throws away a lot of vertical resolution.  However, not many stills cameras with a video function would support interlacing.  However, a lot of video will have a software antialiasing filter applied and maybe even a low pass filter, which soften the image but can help with compression.  Depending on camera, video may also have more sharpening applied although nowadays with HD this practice is not so prevalent/detrimental.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What are the challenges, pros, and cons of selecting the best frame from a video as a way of taking still photos where timing is crucial?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unless you had no other method whatsoever, I wouldn't recommend it.  In fact I probably still wouldn't recommend it even if it was your only option.  But if you did go ahead with this then make sure you can do 1080P, set the shutter speed to fast enough as if you were shooting still, and use Motion JPEG format (not AVC or any of the other formats I mentioned above).  And realise that you're getting basically 2 megapixels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-30T14:36:09.440" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T14:36:09.440" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7904" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-30T14:28:29.433" Score="9" ViewCount="292" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a somewhat theoretical question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose I first take a photo of a subject using a full frame sensor DSLR, with a given lens (say 50mm prime lens at f/3.5).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now suppose I exchange the camera for an APS sensor DSLR (with a 1.6x crop factor). I keep the same lens (same focal length, same aperture) and I step back a few meters in order to maintain the field of view (at least keep the same magnification of the subject). I now take a second photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly depth of field will have increased between the 2 photos. However my question is about background blur (trees at infinity). Will I have the same amount of background blur, or will that have changed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have read somewhere that background blur depends on the physical aperture size. In this case the physical aperture (physical focal length divided by f/stop) stays the same. But should this number be taken in relation to the sensor size? In which case with the smaller APS sensor, the physical aperture will be relatively bigger, which would mean more background blur. This would be rather counter-intuitive as we usually consider it to be more difficult to get background blur on an APS...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If possible please give the reasoning behind the answer. I would answer the question myself using this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/bokeh_background_blur.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;background blur calculator&lt;/a&gt; but I can't manage to get it to run on my computer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2814" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-22T12:25:19.903" LastActivityDate="2011-04-22T12:25:19.903" Title="How does background blur (bokeh) in relate to sensor size?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;bokeh&gt;&lt;blur&gt;&lt;sensor-size&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7905" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7887" CreationDate="2011-01-30T15:14:22.850" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are quite a few of these models now. What you need to look for is a compact with a CMOS sensor. These can take burst up to 40 FPS, although most do 10 FPS, at full-resolution with an extremely short shutter-lag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Neocamera's Camera Finder&lt;/a&gt; and search for Compact AND CMOS sensor to get the full list. Today's results show 8 cameras: h&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php?size=compact&amp;amp;sensortype=cmos&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ttp://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php?size=compact&amp;amp;sensortype=cmos&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Casio Exilim EX-FC100 advertizes a shutter-lag of ZERO! It uses a trick called pre-buffering where it continuously captures images at 40 or 60 FPS and saves the one in its buffer when you press the shutter. You can even calibrate to match how quickly you press the shutter. Without that feature it still shoots at 40 FPS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-31T15:07:57.460" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T15:07:57.460" />
  <row Id="7906" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7911" CreationDate="2011-01-30T15:16:55.770" Score="6" ViewCount="289" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon 500D and am not overly a fan of portrait shots, but thought I might give it a go with a few simple setup scenes. External lighting would be useful, but the good stuff is very expensive, and as I'm only experimenting I don't want that. I've decided to get myself some wireless flash hotshoes which I now have 4 of and a trigger on the camera. I've a couple of basic cheap lighstands for putting any flashes on I get. Now all I need to do is work out what flashes to get.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My criteria are these:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I do not plan on using the flashes on the camera hotshoe and will not be requiring any compatible/fancy metering&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As I do not plan on using the flashes on the camera hotshoe of my camera  higher trigger voltage flashes aren't so much a problem&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The flash should be cheap and secondhand. By cheap I mean below £30-40 if possible, the cheaper the better.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The flash needs the ability to set the power output manually. Obviously the more settings/increments the better&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know I can't expect much for the cheap price, but I do not require any fancy settings, just the manual options. Whenever I have searched forums and websites online for cheap flashes with manual controls etc I find plenty of good priced flashes that are equivalent to the speedlites for cheaper, but these are all to be used on camera with metering etc and are therefore still far more expensive than what I am looking for. What I want is a cheap flash with manual controls, that could be decades old as long as it still works, with no need for fancy metering as it is just going to be used as a portable light source as opposed to a 'speedlite' equivalent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any help would be appreciated finding good brands and their models to keep an eye out for on ebay etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3584" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T11:40:26.197" Title="Cheap secondhand off-camera flash with manual power controls?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;off-camera-flash&gt;&lt;cheap&gt;&lt;manual-flash&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7907" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7906" CreationDate="2011-01-30T16:34:08.510" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check out Nikon speedlights from the 1990s: SB-24 and SB-26. The lower the number, the cheaper. The higher the number, the more features. The SB-26 has a broader manual range, and the SB-28 has a built-in optical trigger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They have manual control, hotshoe and PC sync sockets, and are broadly compatible with Canon and Nikon DSRLs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/04/steal-this-flash-nikon-sb-24.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strobist on the Nikon SB-24&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The excellent &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf4/flash/SB24/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photography in Malaysia page on the SB-24&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf4/flash/SB26/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SB-26&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf4/flash/SB28/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SB-28&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastEditorUserId="3114" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-30T17:26:36.490" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T17:26:36.490" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7908" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7904" CreationDate="2011-01-30T16:52:40.960" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Background blur depends on your depth of field. Depth of field (DOF) is the distance between the nearest and farthest objects in a scene that appear acceptably sharp in an image ([wikipedia][1])&#xA;Thin depth of field allows you to isolate your subject: the subject is in focus, and the background is blurred.&#xA;Depth of field depends on several factors:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Lens focal length&lt;/strong&gt; (35mm, 200mm, 50mm)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Lens Aperture&lt;/strong&gt; (f1.8, f5.6, f8)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sensor size&lt;/strong&gt; (APS-C, 35mm, medium format, large format)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Subject distance&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With (1), the longer the focal length, the thinner the DOF.&#xA;With (2), the larger the aperture (smaller number) the thinner the DOF&#xA;With (3), the larger the sensor, the thinner the DOF.&lt;em&gt;*&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;With (4), the closer the subject, the thinner the DOF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example: If you have a 200mm lens, at say, f2.8, on a 35mm full frame sensor, and the subject is near you (2-3m), you can blur the background quite a lot.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Inversely, if you have a 35mm lens, at f8, on a cropped dslr (APS-C), and the subject is 6m from you, the background won't really be blurred out.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;*&lt;/em&gt; I am not absolutely sure if this is correct in theory, but in practice, with the same setup on APS-C sensor and Full Frame, the FF picture has shallower DOF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Read more:&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3462" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T16:52:40.960" CommentCount="12" />
  <row Id="7909" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-30T16:59:14.460" Score="5" ViewCount="323" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am new to DSLR cameras and i have been doing some research on them from last few days and then i wanted to go for one of these model bodies: D90, D5000 or D3100 and i want to purchase the following lens for the dslr camera. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to purchase them separately and i am not sure if this lens works with any of the above cameras. My question is whether the this lens will works with any of the above models, if the answer is NO which camera works well with this lens. Thanks in advance!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3585" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T00:38:43.947" Title="Nikon 18-200mm lens work with either of these d90, d3100 or d5000?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon-d90&gt;&lt;nikon-d3100&gt;&lt;nikon-d5000&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="7910" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7909" CreationDate="2011-01-30T17:07:48.593" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That's a newer-technology (AF-S) lens and newer cameras, so they're all compatible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/slr-lens.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ninon SLR Camera to Lens Compatibility&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lens will work &quot;well&quot; on any of those cameras. They all have the same sensor size (DX), so you'll get the same field of view / effective focal length. Which is the &quot;best&quot; camera for you will depend mostly on other factors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nikon is very good about lens compatibility; they've been using the same mount since 1959. Occasionally, on some esoteric combinations of camera/lens, you'll lose some features like autofocus or manual aperture control, but it's uncommon, easy to check in advance, and reasonably simple to work around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastEditorUserId="48" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-31T00:38:43.947" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T00:38:43.947" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7911" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7906" CreationDate="2011-01-30T17:25:44.377" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You mention second hand, and I commend that choice, however I think it's worth noting that there are some at-least-relatively quite inexpensive (though perhaps over £30-40; I don't know the exchange rates off hand).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One is the Vivitar 285HV (or I guess now these are the Cactus KF36) (or an old higher-voltage 285 or 283, and perhaps other models, second hand - though I'm not certain which ones have adjustable manual modes), though be aware that for some reason this flash skips 1/8 power - it just has 1/16, 1/4, 1/2, and full (&quot;M&quot;) power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's also the Yong Nuo YN460, which is the cheapest full manual flash I know of that you can buy new - for as little as US$50 or so, supposedly. I don't have one of these, and haven't shot with one, but I've had one in my hands and played with the interface - it took me a minute to figure out, but seemed pretty straightforward from there. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Much more info (and links to flickr discussion threads) on both of these (and a third, sounds-a-lot-better-but-a-bit-more-expensive option -- the LumoPro LP120 -- which I have yet to actually have my hands on personally, so I won't say any more about) are on &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2009/03/manual-flashes-two-debuts-and-adoption.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a strobist post about cheap flashes&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the used market, I've used an old SunPak flash that worked decently (they also have the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sunpak.jp/english/products/pz42x/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PZ42X&lt;/a&gt;, which you could look for second hand, if its price tag is too high - note that I haven't used this one either). Or any of numerous options from numerous brands, I'm sure. (The Nikon SB-24 and 26 were made quite popular by the &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/05/for-few-dollars-more-nikon-sb-26.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strobist blog posts about them&lt;/a&gt;, which had the downside (from the buyer's perspective) of raising what they tended to sell for).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've also picked a few old flashes up from thrift stores and garage sales and such, some of which were as low as $1 (or even given to me), had a fixed output mode (which &lt;em&gt;sort of&lt;/em&gt; counts as manual, right?), and serve some purposes nicely (I've got one that's tiny (it takes 2 AAA batteries) and has an optical slave which I sometimes like to tuck into a corner somewhere, for example).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are definitely some options. I hope this helps you find what you're looking for!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastEditorUserId="2425" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-30T17:35:54.987" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T17:35:54.987" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7912" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7909" CreationDate="2011-01-30T17:41:02.440" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, it will work with any of this cameras. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In more details - Nikon AF lenses will only autofocus with cameras with in body motor, because there is no motor inside lens. Among cameras you mentioned only D90 has such motor. AF-S lenses have motor inside them, and body just controls this motor - any of cameras you mentioned will autofocus with such lenses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also note that AF lenses can be mounted on D3100 and D5000 - you can use them if you dont mind focusing manually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2922" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T17:41:02.440" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7913" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7917" CreationDate="2011-01-30T17:45:55.037" Score="8" ViewCount="256" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am looking for a new photo printer, something in the price range of Canon PIXMA Pro9000/9500 Mark II or Epson Stylus Photo 1400/R2880.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If I am using papers and colour profiles provided by the printer manufacturer, can I expect reasonably accurate and consistent colours without any colour calibration?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Or, put otherwise, would I get &lt;em&gt;clearly visible&lt;/em&gt; differences if I used a colour calibration system?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am currently using an old and cheap Canon PIXMA iP6000D, and the main problem is that the colours are inaccurate. Prints on a glossy paper have very different colours in comparison with prints on a matte paper (even though I am using Canon papers and the right colour profiles provided by Canon for this particular combination of paper and printer). Even worse, the results are not consistent: if I print the same photo twice in a row (using exactly the same settings), often the prints have noticeably different colours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to know if this kind of problems are &quot;normal&quot; and to be expected in any relatively cheap (&amp;lt; $1000) consumer-level printer, or if I would be better off by buying a now one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="247" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T00:28:59.810" Title="Photo printers that don't need calibration?" Tags="&lt;color-calibration&gt;&lt;printer&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="7914" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7890" CreationDate="2011-01-30T19:06:35.703" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As someone who owns a 450D myself, and who has a friend who owns a 500D, I would say the 500D is worth it. Functionally, there are few differences. The 450D has a 12.2mp sensor, while the 500D has a 15.1mp sensor. Not a huge difference, but enough to make a difference. The 500D supports two stops higher ISO (6400 instead of 1600...12800 is digitally enhanced, which you can do in post processing yourself). The higher ISO is a significant feature, as there are times when the 450D just can't get the shot, even with a fast lens. Another significant update to the 500D is HD video capability. That may or may not be a factor for you, depending on whether you are interested in video or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the more significant features of the 500D over the 450D is the LCD view screen. The 450D has a 230,000 dot 3&quot; screen, which is actually fairly low resolution by todays standards, and is rather dim at times. It can be difficult to read during the day when you are out and about. The 500D has a 920,000 dot screen, which is four times as high a resolution, and considerably brighter. Using the 500D in brighter conditions is a LOT nicer than using the 450D. The higher resolution also makes it a lot easier to review your pictures in-camera, as you can see a much finer level of detail. Trying to review pictures in the 450D can be frustrating at times, as you can really never tell if your sharpness and focus is acceptable until you view your images on a computer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All that said, the 550D is again another improvement on all of these features again, and brings some other new things into the game. The 550D has a much improved sensor with the same noise performance as the 7D. Additionally, the 550D brings full color metering to the Rebel line, which is a significant improvement over the previous metering sensors used in the 450D and 500D. The 550D also uses the Digic 4 image processor, so it is capable of outputting 14-bit RAW images, allowing for greater dynamic range and finer tonal gradations than the previous Rebels. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The price difference between a 500D and 550D is about $100, and I would say that the 550D is DEFINITELY worth it. If I had to offer up a recommendation out of all three, it would be the 550D hands down. The 500D does offer some useful improvements over the 450D, however 14-bit images, full color metering, and 50% more megapixels than the 450D make the 550D hard to beat for only $100 more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T19:06:35.703" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="7915" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7913" CreationDate="2011-01-30T19:19:45.790" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my experience, Epson's profiles are &lt;em&gt;quite&lt;/em&gt; accurate, and the results quite repeatable. Canon printers seem to me to place a greater emphasis on speed than quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: Canon only claims coverage of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/office/products?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&amp;amp;docId=0901e02480134553&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;90% of Pantone&lt;/a&gt; for Lucia EX inks. Epson Ultrachrome HDR covers &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.epson.com/_alfresco/proimaging/products/StylusPro4900/downloads/SP4900%20SRG%20Preview%20v4.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;98% of Pantone&lt;/a&gt; (and not just &quot;claims&quot; but &quot;is certified by Pantone.&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Attempting to claim either that Epson provides only about 90% coverage, or that Canon provides about 98% coverage are simply false. Canon has certainly &lt;em&gt;improved&lt;/em&gt; in this regard over the past few years. Nonetheless, Epson is clearly still ahead in this category.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those who care about print longevity, the story is similar. The newest Canon printers claim about 75 years, while the latest Epson printers claim around 200 years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simply put, while Canon's printers (and, perhaps more importantly, inks) have certainly become more competitive in the last few years, Epson's printers and inks remain measurably superior in a number of respects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-31T00:28:59.810" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T00:28:59.810" CommentCount="21" />
  <row Id="7916" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7906" CreationDate="2011-01-30T19:23:39.733" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If all you care for is the ability to control flash power (i.e, no zoom or fancy digital games like stroboscope), then there is another alternative to manual flash: use the cheapest flash you can find with ND gels! You can buy these gels in sheets and cut to the size of your flash head, and if the reduction is not enough, then stack a few of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adorama.com/ROSK.html?utm_term=Other&amp;amp;utm_medium=Affiliate&amp;amp;utm_campaign=Other&amp;amp;utm_source=rflaid63799&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strobist set&lt;/a&gt; has a couple of ND gels, and generally ROSCO makes these to order.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T19:23:39.733" />
  <row Id="7917" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7913" CreationDate="2011-01-30T19:30:46.007" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When printing with a custom ICC profile, you need to make sure that you &lt;strong&gt;disable&lt;/strong&gt; color correction in the printer driver. By default, the printer performs color correction on its own, and Canon printers tend to oversaturate prints. If you print from Photoshop or Lightroom, make certain that before you actually print, you configure the printer driver correctly each time. Make absolutely certain that the color correction setting is set to &quot;None&quot;, then manually select your ICC profile before printing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, glossy papers have a higher dynamic range than matte papers, so images that have a lot of contrast between the brightest and darkest shades will usually have smoother tonal gradations on luster or glossy paper. Glossy, semi-glossy, satin, and luster papers can all cause &lt;em&gt;gloss differential&lt;/em&gt; with ink jet printers, particularly with pigment based inks, but even so with dye based inks (like your iP6000D). Print color is based on reflected light and light wave absorption by inks (and to some degree, the paper substrate). There are several factors that affect the color and tone of light reflected by a paper. With glossy papers, particularly bright white glossy papers, there are often whitening and brightening agents included. Optical brighteners are usually most sensitive to UV light, so viewing a glossy and a matte print under indoor tungsten lighting will cause the color rendition to look different. Glossy papers with brighteners will look best when viewed in bright &quot;natural&quot; light, either produced by a bulb that outputs around 5000K with some UV component, or under actual sunlight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The color of the paper substrate itself will also play a role in how colors look. Glossy papers often tend to be on the cooler side of white, although there are some brands (Moab, Hahnemuhle, etc.) that offer some &quot;natural&quot; white gloss and luster papers. Most matte papers have a more natural white than bright white (although again, high quality third party brands like Moab, Museo, Hahnemuhle, etc. have some bright white matte papers). Natural whites usually range from very warm to natural warm, and will change the look and feel of a print in comparison with bright white glossy or luster papers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important to use the right paper for the job. Papers are by no means equal, and have more differences than just glossy or matte. The &quot;temperature&quot; of the paper itself, the purity of its white, the texture of the paper surface, the use or lack thereof of brighteners, the level and type of gloss, etc. all affect how a resulting print looks. Some things look superb on glossy paper, but lack depth and punch on matte. Some things have fantastic warmth and feeling on matte, but look unrealistic on gloss. You will need to experiment a bit to determine which of your photos look good on gloss, and which look good on matte. You might also want to try a few third-party papers, as they often have FAR more variety than Canon does. Most quality papers, like Hahanemuhle, offer their own custom ICC profiles that ensure correct color reproduction with Canon printers and their papers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my own experience, photo rag matte papers are FANTASTIC for landscape photos. They bring a warmth and texture that makes the best of expansive nature scenes. Luster papers, or soft gloss papers, bring out smoother tonal gradations and slightly more dynamic range for portraits. I generally try to avoid papers with optical brighteners, as their color reproduction changes depending on the light the print is viewed in. There are some quality bleached white papers from Museo that offer a middle or neutral white, brighter than the common natural white, that just makes the most stunning black and white prints. I highly recommend looking into Museo, Hahanemuhle, Moab, Ilford, and Breathing Color. Find the tones, weights, and textures that bring out the most in your prints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the question about your particular printer being lower than par for professional prints, yes, it is. That particular printer model is a consumer grade photo printer that is designed more for your average home user who just wants to spit out 4x6 or 5x7 photos of their family, friends, and vacations, or the occasional word or business document. It is not designed as a professional grade photographic printer. The Canon PIXMA Pro 9000 II and 9500 II are Canon's professional grade home photographic printers. The 9000 is a dye based printer, and the 9500 is a pigment based printer. Both of those printers can produce VERY high quality prints up to 13x19&quot; in size. The 9500 is comparable to Epson printers, although it is more tuned to saturated greens, blues, and reds (where as Epsons tend to cater towards more saturated oranges and magentas.) Unless you print a lot of prints with highly saturated magenta, a Canon 9500 or any one of the Canon imagePrograph printers that use Lucia or Lucia II pigment inks will produce the highest quality prints you can get from an ink jet printer these days. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-30T19:42:22.227" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T19:42:22.227" />
  <row Id="7918" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7904" CreationDate="2011-01-30T19:34:21.223" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on how large your &quot;infinite&quot; distance really is. When you move back from the subject to maintain the same magnification, the &lt;em&gt;relative&lt;/em&gt; distance to a background object becomes smaller, so it'll be less blurry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just for example, let's assume you start with the subject 10 feet away, and the &quot;infinite&quot; distance background is really 100 feet away. When you switch to the APS-C camera, you back up to 15 or 16 feet (depending on camera brand). In the first case, the trees were 10 times farther away than the subject (and focus point). In the second case, the subject is at 15 feet and the background at 115, so the background is less than 8 times as far away as the focus point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your &quot;infinite&quot; distance really is a lot larger, this effect can become too small to care much about though. If you start out with a background 10000 times farther away than the subject, then move so it's only 9999 times farther away, the difference will probably be so small you won't be able to see or even measure it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T19:34:21.223" />
  <row Id="7919" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7923" CreationDate="2011-01-30T21:20:04.817" Score="3" ViewCount="197" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have two camera bodies, I was shooting while on vacation, when I downloaded the photos to lightroom, one body was set to the correct date/time, the other was off by 722 days, 4 hours, 32 minutes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a tool available that can help me fix the date/time so that they appear in sequence while browsing my lightroom library?  I'd like for them to be as close to the right time.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was able to adjust created year, month, date, but it doesn't appear lightroom will allow me to adjust increments (only hour increments).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many thanks if you can help me in this task!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="624" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-31T13:08:09.533" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T13:52:25.347" Title="How to shift EXIF date/time created by time in days, hours, minutes?" Tags="&lt;exif&gt;&lt;time&gt;&lt;date&gt;&lt;shift&gt;&lt;change&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7920" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7919" CreationDate="2011-01-30T21:22:56.623" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you use windows, Windows Live Photo Gallery has this feature where you can 'move' the time of a group of photos by a certain period.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3589" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T21:22:56.623" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7921" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7891" CreationDate="2011-01-30T21:31:25.033" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you are on a tight budget, 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I find the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX to be the most used lens I have ever owned. It is fast, sharp and has the perfect focal length for almost all occasions for a non-full-frame camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I find the 50mm f/1.8 to be a bit too long and rarely end up using it, whereas the 30mm f/1.4 is absolutely amazing and useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3589" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T21:31:25.033" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7922" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-30T21:32:37.220" Score="4" ViewCount="644" Body="&lt;p&gt;My wife has a Canon 40D with a Sigma 17-70 DC (no image stabilizer) lens. She sometimes goes on shooting trips with a friend of hers who has a Nikon D90 and a AF NIKKOR 35mm f/2D (fixed focal) lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When taking a similar picture, using similar exposure settings and image quality, she notices the following differences:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;she prefers the colors in the picture taken with the Canon (more &quot;real&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the image taken with the Nikon is &lt;strong&gt;much&lt;/strong&gt; sharper than the one taken with the Canon.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just to confirm this impression, we borrowed a Canon 500D (with a Canon EF-S 18-135mm lens) and compared pictures taken with the 40D vs 500D, using the Sigma and the Canon lens on both bodies. The Sigma lens (on either body) was slightly sharper than the Canon lens, but both are way below the Nikon!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, having looked at pictures taken with another friend's Nikon D90 (unknown lens), his pictures again looked much shaper than similar ones taken with her Canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I have the following questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;is there a known difference in image sharpness between Nikon and Canon?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;could this be due to the post-processing algorithm?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;what can be done to achieve similar sharpness with a Canon body?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;would switching to a fixed-focal lens improve the situation?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update: all pictures were taken using a tripod, and she has been using RAW format.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3588" LastEditorUserId="3588" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-30T22:21:39.697" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T05:12:11.963" Title="Difference in picture sharpness between Canon and Nikon?" Tags="&lt;nikon-d90&gt;&lt;sharpness&gt;&lt;canon-40d&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="7923" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7919" CreationDate="2011-01-30T21:51:46.123" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just found the answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lightroom &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; change the date/time easily by selecting the image you know the proper time for, &lt;strong&gt;then select all others to be changed&lt;/strong&gt; - similar to how develop sync settings works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the selection is made, click &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Metadata -&gt; Edit Capture Time&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Select Change to a specified date and time&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Enter the proper date and time for that one image, Lightroom will adjust all other selected images based on the proper time you define you enter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="624" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T21:51:46.123" />
  <row Id="7924" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7922" CreationDate="2011-01-30T22:05:32.023" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a hard one to answer because there's so many variables: in addition to the different bodies, you are using different lenses and likely have different handholding technique.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming you are shooting JPEG, my &lt;em&gt;guess&lt;/em&gt; would be that the Nikon is using more aggressive sharpening.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Short answer, no, there's no real difference in sharpness between similar-generation Nikon and Canon bodies. Any difference you're seeing is attributable to lenses, technique, or processing. So those would be the things to look into.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T22:05:32.023" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7925" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7922" CreationDate="2011-01-30T22:05:55.570" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Without a doubt the fact that you're using a prime lens (fixed focal length) on the nikon is causing the difference in sharpness, especially if you're comparing it to the Canon 18-135 kit lens or Sigma 17-70 DC.  Not that those are horrible lenses but the gulf in sharpness between them and the NIKKOR 35mm f2 fixed would be &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; wide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm assuming you're performing these tests somewhere wider than f8, presumably around f8 the difference in sharpness would (mostly) go away.  As you suggest, trying out a prime lens on the canon (or a kit zoom on the Nikon) would level out the playing field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T22:05:55.570" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7926" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7922" CreationDate="2011-01-30T22:07:19.590" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The sharpness differences are probably due to the lenses, not the cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In general&lt;/strong&gt;, you will find that prime lenses are sharper than zoom lenses, and lenses with short zoom ranges are sharper than lenses with long zoom ranges.  So I'm not surprised that the borrowed 7.5x zoom lens is not as sharp as your 4x zoom lens, which in turn is not as sharp as the prime.  Lenses also tend to be sharpest when they are stopped down a stop or two from their maximum aperture.  So comparing the 35/2 at f/2.8 to the 17-70 at f/2.8 would probably give an added advantage to the 35/2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should look up reviews of those 3 lenses online to see how someone else has rated them.  Of course it would be best if you could find a site that lists all 3 lenses, so you get a consistent viewpoint, instead of having different reviewers with different techniques.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, more expensive lenses typically perform better than cheaper lenses.  So if you want a sharp picture, prepare to spend a lot more money.  Sharp primes cost as much as not-as-sharp zooms, and the really sharp zooms cost even more.  The notable exception, I've heard, is the Canon 50/1.8, which is just over $100, and everyone raves about its sharpness (I haven't used it, myself).  It's not as wide as the Nikon 35/2, so it would be tough for you to make direct comparisons between the two, but it would be a relatively inexpensive way for you to get sharper pictures, as well as allow you to take pictures in lower light (e.g. indoors).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's also the possibility that difference is sharpness is due to camera shake, which is causing blurrier photos.  If you want to do a good comparison, you should mount the cameras on a tripod and use a remote shutter release.  Otherwise, your camera-holding technique could be influencing the results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can get Nikon-to-Canon adapters, which would allow you to mount the Nikon 35/2 on your Canon; they run for between $10 and $40 on eBay, and if you don't mind focusing and setting exposure manually (you would lose the auto focus, and have to shoot in Av or M mode), it would be a cheap way for you to try out that lens with your camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've read that Nikon's philosophy is to have different lenses show colors slightly differently, so you choose a lens partially for how it will capture the scene, while Canon's philosophy is to have all the lenses capture colors about the same and do any color adjustment in-camera.  I don't know if that's still true, but here's a link that I used to learn how to change color settings in my Canon 30D; I assume there are similar settings in your 40D: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/30d/menus.htm#picture&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/30d/menus.htm#picture&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastEditorUserId="2910" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-02T05:12:11.963" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T05:12:11.963" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7927" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7919" CreationDate="2011-01-30T22:09:13.753" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A trick I use to sync different cameras used on a trip is to take a simultaneous photo - then you know exactly what the offset is and you don't have to guess. This is particularly helpful when some cameras are owned by others and they have no clue how to set the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've taken to setting all my cameras to UTC so there's never any question of what the &quot;correct&quot; time is, and it doesn't vary between time zones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T22:09:13.753" />
  <row Id="7928" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6550" CreationDate="2011-01-30T22:20:36.297" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that for e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/printers_multifunction/compact_photo_printers/selphy_es40#SuppliesAndAccessories&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon Selphy ES&lt;/a&gt; -line BWO (black, white, overcoating) cassettes are available. Also some fancy CMYO+Gold and CMYO+Silver options exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that those cassettes aren't available for the Canon Selphy CP -line of dye-sub printers &amp;mdash; but you've probably noticed that already, haven't you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And what comes to your question about adding additional gray inks to achieve more accurate grayscale tonality: it is not necessary. Dye-sublimation prints are not dithered and every panel in the cassette is used only once for a print, so additional gray panels wouldn't add anything to the print other than cost. At least in theory, as midlevels could ease the calibration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sadly, I haven't found any scanned examples of B&amp;amp;W dye-sub prints via Google neither up-to-date comparisons to inkjet prints. Those would be interesting to see, though. Not to mention that it would be interesting to see how white is the white-dye. (I didn't find any detailed specifications on the BWO-cassette, so I can't be 100% sure are the grays achieved by altering black levels or mixing black dye with white dye. Selphy ES40's manual states the ink type as &quot;BW&quot;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1913" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T22:20:36.297" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7929" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7933" CreationDate="2011-01-30T22:25:51.387" Score="11" ViewCount="369" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been doing time lapse photo shoots for a wee while not, and been watching tons of other neat videos on the net. I always find the most interesting ones are the ones that pan across the image to give even more of an illusion of motion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do the achieve this? I assume it's in some software (rather than turning the camera on the tripod) - what software can be used? I use a mac mainly, but could use windows if software wasn't available for mac.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3591" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T14:38:44.687" Title="How can I make a time lapse photo series that pans across the images?" Tags="&lt;timelapse&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;panning&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="7930" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7948" CreationDate="2011-01-30T22:28:17.370" Score="3" ViewCount="159" Body="&lt;p&gt;I saw some work at an art show last night that reminded me that I'm interested in trying out &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redscale&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Redscale&lt;/a&gt; at some point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And so I was browsing around online for redscale stuff today, and came across &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/xabl/3460019938/in/set-72157617002038119/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a neat comparison of different exposures&lt;/a&gt; for redscale.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in the description, the photographer mentioned trying to be quick about getting all the shots taken, so that other factors in the scene didn't change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And that's when I got to wondering:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know of any 35mm cameras that might somehow be controllable by a computer, such that a series of, say, 25 photos could be taken in very quick succession, but each with different shutter and/or aperture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(For that matter, is that &lt;em&gt;type&lt;/em&gt; of control even available on DSLRs, at, say, the maximum burst rate of the camera?  I know you can trigger the shutter, but haven't shot tethered enough to know if you can control settings -- I'm guessing so, at least with the camera manufacturer's software.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can think of a number of scenarios (redscale testing being an obvious one, but there are others) where it might be nice to control a camera in this way.  So, are there any cameras that do it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I can tell from their website, Canon is no longer making film SLRs (though see note below).  Nikon still has two offerings (the FM10, which clearly wouldn't do it, and the F6, which I don't see any strong indications would have this either, though that'd be the one that would, of the two), and I don't immediately see anything on Pentax or Olympus sites, either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh wait, but there is, perhaps, a Canon option!  I got to it circuitously, but the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer/eos_slr_camera_systems/eos_35mm_slr_cameras/eos_1v#DriversAndSoftware&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EOS-1v&lt;/a&gt; seems to have some software that comes with it, called EOS LINK ES-E1.  It's unclear to me, though, whether this could be used for the purpose I'm describing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It certainly looks interesting... I don't expect to buy that body for something like this, but I could see renting it, maybe (and my local camera store seems to have it available for that, at a price that strikes me as reasonable).  It'd be nice to know in advance, though, if something like this is possible.  And/or if there are any other cameras that might have a chance of having this feature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T18:18:24.923" Title="Are there any 35mm cameras that I could control with a computer?" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;tethering&gt;&lt;35mm&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;features&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="7931" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7919" CreationDate="2011-01-30T22:43:18.240" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can do setting, incrementing, decrementing Exif-Date (and File-Dates) with following tools:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;XnView (W32): [mark pictures to be adjusted], Tools -&gt; Change Timestamp&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;exfitool (Multi): exiftool &quot;-AllDates+=1:12:28 14:54:32&quot; -overwrite_original_in_place -verbose ./&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(+1 year, 12 month, 28 days, 14 hours, 54 minutes, 32 seconds)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;either list them, if-them (exiftool has an if-statement based on fields) or put them all in one dir&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Exifer (W32): [mark pictures to be adjusted], (fails with newer JPG) ... I don't remember the commands&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T22:43:18.240" />
  <row Id="7932" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7930" CreationDate="2011-01-30T23:02:20.383" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually, you don't need a computer for this. Take a look at the Promote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.promotesystems.com/products/Promote-Control.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://www.promotesystems.com/products/Promote-Control.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3583" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T23:02:20.383" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7933" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7929" CreationDate="2011-01-30T23:05:40.880" Score="17" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two ways to do this...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Method #1&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the &quot;easy&quot; way. Since HD is (by definition) a frame size of 1920x1080, using a bigger set of images than 1920x1080 means that you can pan around in that frame using your post-production software of choice. For example, I'll often take timelapses using Medium sized JPEGs (4080x2720 on my Canon 5DmkII) and that gives me all kinds of room to add movement in any direction (or multiple directions) as I see fit. The downside to this is that it isn't &quot;real&quot; motion, so to some extent it looks... well... fake. This is because with a real pan the foreground objects and the background objects would move at different rates (this is called parallax), and in this solution you're simply sliding a video with no motion around a frame. Many (if not most) post production video editing suites will be able to accomplish this without a problem... I do it in both Adobe Premiere and Adobe After Effects right out of the box.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Method #2&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the &quot;hard&quot; and &quot;expensive&quot; way. Simply put, you move the camera. There are lots of DIY solutions for accomplishing this, but (as of this writing) there is no out-of-the-box and off-the-shelf solution available. As the topic of building your own motion rig is a bit (OK, a lot) outside the scope of photo.se.com, I'll speak in general terms and say that you'll be using a combination of microcontroller-based stepper-motor control (such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.arduino.cc/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Arduino&lt;/a&gt;, or those produced by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.parallax.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Parallax, Inc.&lt;/a&gt;), sliders/dollys (such as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kesslercrane.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;amp;task=view&amp;amp;id=230&amp;amp;Itemid=82&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pocket Dolly&lt;/a&gt; by Kessler Crane), and/or pan/tilt heads in order to achieve motion. I've put more than $2,000 and hundreds of hours into the construction and programming of my motion control rig, so it's not an undertaking for the faint of heart. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The benefit of this method is that it is true motion. Parallax is present, and it looks &lt;em&gt;great&lt;/em&gt;. The downside (obviously) is that you need to have a fair amount of solid-state programming knowledge, be handy with a soldering iron, and have the money to put it all together. If you're interested in exploring this option further, there are lots of us over at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://timescapes.org/phpBB3/index.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;timescapes forums&lt;/a&gt; that are developing lots of different approaches to this method of motion control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T23:05:40.880" CommentCount="12" />
  <row Id="7934" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7922" CreationDate="2011-01-30T23:34:09.683" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As mentioned above, the largest difference is prime vs zoom. Beyond that (and the million other variables) is processing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they are both shot in RAW, then they are going to be processed by two different people with different styles. If you are shooting in raw and doing minimal processing and the other is shooting in JPEG then yeah, you're going to see a difference there too. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;if you really want to compare, you'd have to use the same lens (i.e. a sigma 50mm with canon mount and one with nikon mount) shoot raw and duplicate the post processing so that everything is the same. But at that point your particular lens, sensor, tripod, wind, cosmic radiation will have more effect than canon vs nikon. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, if you're comparing apples to cucumbers. Those of us who make a significant portion or all of our income from photography don't sit around talking about the sharpness of one body or another, we're to busy arguing over other stuff.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;btw, I shoot canon. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2403" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T23:34:09.683" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7935" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7848" CreationDate="2011-01-30T23:44:42.760" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Turn of all Optical or Digital stabilization for any long exposure work. True, some systems are sensitive enough to turn off automatically when mounted to a tripod i.e. most canon DSLRs, but if you're going to be shooting long exposures, you're still better to turn it off so it doesn't have to go through the detection step. you're images will be sharper and your battery alive longer with it off.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2403" LastActivityDate="2011-01-30T23:44:42.760" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7936" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7922" CreationDate="2011-01-31T00:26:35.843" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As others have noted the difference in lenses would matter quite a bit in this case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However it's also the case that Canon cameras have stronger AA filters in front of the sensors, which blurs images a little more.  Also they are more prone (and this is subjective) to applying noise reduction liberally, which can also reduce sharpness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But again, you'd really have to get a lens that had similar sharpness to do a proper comparison, Sigma makes really nice 30mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.4 &amp;amp; f/2.8 (macro) lenses, or I think Canon also has a nice cheap 50mm - but on today's DSLR's with cropped sensors, the 30mm is more of a &quot;classic&quot; view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T00:26:35.843" />
  <row Id="7937" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7942" CreationDate="2011-01-31T02:39:47.353" Score="14" ViewCount="664" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was using a Panasonic Lumix, now I finally got a Canon EOS 60D, but I was used to that 18x zoom that my old camera has, because you can't get too close from the birds to take pictures, since they fly away, then I want to know which is the best lens that I can zoom in from a good distance to shoot nice pictures of those adorable creatures :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I bought the EF 75-300mm/f4-5.6 III USM, as @ysap suggested: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhbPzuyMIIA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhbPzuyMIIA&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3086" LastEditorUserId="3086" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-17T15:42:52.787" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T15:42:52.787" Title="Best Lens For Taking Photos Of Birds" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;canon-60d&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="7938" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7937" CreationDate="2011-01-31T02:44:09.553" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;How much money do you have??? The answer to this question is highly dependent on the amount of money you can invest. For the low end, the EF75-300mm/f4-5.6 will get you a nice tele range in a relatively low price, but limited quality and low-light performance. Next step can be the EF70-300mm. Then, you enter the L lens domain, where the sky is the limit. Many pros use 400mm, 500mm and 600mm lenses which cost thousands of dollars.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T02:44:09.553" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7939" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7937" CreationDate="2011-01-31T02:59:43.500" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm guessing you had the Panasonic DMC FZ35?  It appears to be a 27-486mm (35mm equivalent).  So to get the same reach you had, you'll want a lens that will give you 486mm.  On a 60D, which has a 1.6x crop sensor, you want 486/1.6=303.75, or about 300mm.  @ysap already listed some zooms that reach to 300mm, and any of those should work pretty well for you; the more you spend on a lens, the better quality you'll get, but even the cheap 300mm zoom lenses should still give you a better picture than your Lumix did (because of the larger sensor in your 60D).  So, read some reviews (I have found the-digital-picture.com to be a good source for lens reviews and sample photos), and pick whichever one you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as choosing &lt;em&gt;which&lt;/em&gt; 300m lens: having IS (Image Stabilization) will help you by allowing you to hand-hold your camera more often, instead of requiring a tripod to get blur-free lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a side note: you can get better performance/price from a prime lens than a zoom lens, but if you're used to zooming you might find it difficult to find locate your target without being able to zoom in (try zooming all the way in with your Lumix, &lt;em&gt;then&lt;/em&gt; trying to frame your picture).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T02:59:43.500" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7940" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7937" CreationDate="2011-01-31T03:03:28.227" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It would definitely be this lens:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_800mm_f_5_6l_is_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 800mm 5.6&lt;/a&gt; Or maybe this one: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/300-800mm-f56-ex-dg-apo-hsm-sigma&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 300-800mm 5.6&lt;/a&gt;. Each of these is $10,000+ lenses. But seriously, it depends on how much money you have. Take a look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF lens lineup&lt;/a&gt;, and buy the longest lens you can afford. Take a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6l_is_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM&lt;/a&gt;, it's probably the best bet for your money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T03:03:28.227" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7941" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7937" CreationDate="2011-01-31T03:08:06.750" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That far end of your 18x zoom on your old camera probably translated to just under 500mm focal length in 35mm &lt;em&gt;AOV equivalent&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On an APS-C sized sensor like the 60D you'd want a 300mm focal length to get roughly the same reach.  It will be heavier and perhaps more expensive than your little one was, but you pay for the larger sensor as everything has to be scaled up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get the equivalent, you just need a tele zoom that goes up to at least 300mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're serious about bird photography and have quite a lot money to spend and don't mind a whole lot of weight, a fast telephoto zoom (f/4, f/2.8 etc) or prime will help a little bit in freezing fast motion or shooting in poorer light conditions compared to a cheaper/lighter f/5.6 or f/6.3.  In sunlight or bright overcast light don't worry about it though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T03:08:06.750" />
  <row Id="7942" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7937" CreationDate="2011-01-31T03:26:46.443" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll tackle this from the assumption you're looking for &lt;em&gt;the best&lt;/em&gt; lens, money no object (as you indicate).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The best&lt;/strong&gt; lens will be the Canon 500L f4 IS, 600L f4 IS or 800L f5.6 IS mounted on a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tripodhead.com/products/wimberley-main.cfm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gimbal mount&lt;/a&gt; on a very solid tripod rated in the 20+lbs area.  Which of these is the one for you comes down to a couple things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Focusing speed&lt;/strong&gt;:  The 800mm will have slightly lower focusing performance than the other two since its maximum aperture is f5.6 and less light will be hitting the sensor, especially an issue with a 60D (as opposed to a 1D series body).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Field of View&lt;/strong&gt;:  The 800mm will be &lt;em&gt;incredibly&lt;/em&gt; tight as far as FoV is concerned especially at 1.6x crop factor, it'll be great for capturing small birds far &amp;amp; really far.  The 500 and 600 will be a better bet to capture wildlife near &amp;amp; far.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Weight&lt;/strong&gt;:  The lenses weigh a fair amount 600mm (11.5lbs), 800mm (9.5lbs) and 500mm (8.5lbs).  If you plan on hiking at all with this lens consider that in the equation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Overall&lt;/strong&gt;:  I've found that most people shooting wildlife in general wind up getting the 500mm because it gets you awfully close, covers small &amp;amp; larger subjects, and is above all the lightest so you can hike into position with it.  Its more versatile.  However, I've found that people who are interested solely in birds favor the 600mm as it gets you that much closer to (much smaller) birds and deal with the added weight by just not moving around as much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having used and owned the 500 and 600 myself I found the 600 to just be way to effing huge, and the 500mm was the sweetspot but at the time I was shooting wildlife in general, not birds in particular.  I haven't shot w/the 800mm personally but looking at the specs and FoV I think I'd still pick the 500mm.  Though it should be noted I was shooting at 1x and 1.3x crop factors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Side note&lt;/strong&gt;:  Avoid zooms if you want &lt;em&gt;the best&lt;/em&gt;, zooms are not as sharp and focus much slower, the 100-400 in particular.  If you want something less expensive consider the 400L f5.6 or 300L f4 IS (the 400L 5.6 being sharper and focusing faster).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastEditorUserId="1819" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-31T03:37:11.490" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T03:37:11.490" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7943" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7870" CreationDate="2011-01-31T03:53:36.360" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lightroom previews should be stored as individual files in the &quot;Lightroom 3 Catalog Previews.lrdata&quot; &lt;em&gt;folder&lt;/em&gt;. This folder is kind of unruly, with two levels of folders...single hexadecimal numbered folders from 0-F, subleveled by quad hexadecimal numbered folders filled with folders that cover the parent folders hex value (i.e. folder &quot;0&quot; contains folders like &quot;00BC&quot;, while folder &quot;F&quot; contains folders like &quot;F0A1&quot;.) Within each subfolder is an .lrprev file. These files contain previews of various sizes, in JPEG format (at least, I've only ever seen JPEG). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can extract these images with the tool &lt;a href=&quot;http://mark0.net/soft-bitmaprip-e.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;BitmapRip&lt;/a&gt;. Simply copy all the .lrprev files into a temporary folder, say C:\LRPreviews. Copy the BitmapRip executable to this folder, and at a command line run the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;for %1 in (*.lrprev) do BitmapRip %1&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All previews should be extracted into the same folder. If you had full-size previews, you should have full-sized JPEG copies. Sadly, I don't think it is possible to retrieve RAW versions, and I have never seen any TIFF versions. But, at least you'll have some JPEGS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Original source for this technique: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/adobe_lightroom/discuss/72157603510380245/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/groups/adobe_lightroom/discuss/72157603510380245/&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T03:53:36.360" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7944" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7937" CreationDate="2011-01-31T04:11:42.007" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If cost really were no object, I'd steer you towards the Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 APO DG (with dedicated 2x teleconverter, making it a 400-1000mm f/5.6 as well), but at $30K you'd probably want to be making sure your bird pics were the source of a very tidy income before you went there. It's definitely not for hand-held use, and if you were to bring it into an area of political unrest, it would probably be mistaken for a large and nasty bit of ordnance, but for shooting from a blind you can't get better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the other end of the scale, if you were a Sony man I'd tell you to get the 500mm f/8 reflector and have done with it. I really miss reflectors (catadioptric lenses). I even liked the donuts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used to use a 400mm f/5.6 with a 15mm extension tube for most of my bird pictures. Most songbirds, at least, are really rather small, and even at 400mm you need to be close enough that you're often within the close focusing limit of a long prime lens. The extension tube (on my camera/lens combo) would let me focus between about three and thirty feet (infinity, of course, was out of the question with the tube in place, and thirty feet would have been as well except that really long lenses usually focus &lt;em&gt;beyond&lt;/em&gt; infinity to compensate for thermal expansion). In Canon terms, that would be just a hair over $1500 at street level, which isn't all that bad, but autofocus may be a problem in low light, and you may find a prime lens restrictive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An alternative might be the 200mm f/2.8 (or if you're really itching to get rid of excess money, the 200mm f/2.0) with 1.4x and 2x converters. That gives you a good close focusing ditance and three focal lengths to work with: a 200 mm f/2.8; a 280mm f/4; and a 400mm f/5.6. It takes time to change focal lengths, though, so it's not something you can do on the fly -- you'd pick a location and length and wait it out like we used to do in the Olde Tymes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best bang for the buck for you would probably be the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 zoom. It focuses in to just under six feet, it's not egregiously slow, and there's a large enough zoom range to give you some real compositional (and situational) flexibility. It's not cheap by any means, but at around $1500-1800, it's as close as you're going to come to a $300 dollar camera without all of the other compromises that a $300 camera forces on you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T04:11:42.007" />
  <row Id="7945" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7863" CreationDate="2011-01-31T04:43:56.153" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;But if you all would like to shoot wireless tethered &amp;amp; have wireless radio flash, then get the&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ATG AK1 Un-Tethered Systems&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;it's made in USA and mod for your camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2828" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T04:43:56.153" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7946" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7874" CreationDate="2011-01-31T07:09:39.627" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the Canon 17-55.  It replaced a Tamron 28-75.  Even discounting the IS feature (which I find helps in low light), 28mm the Canon is better than the Tamron was across the board.  If you get the 17-55 you won't regret the quality of the lens.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might wish it were a bit longer on the long side, but I wanted a wide fast lens and it sounds like you do too.  That's an expensive place to be.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;FYI: something else you might consider in this space are prime lenses (fixed focal length).  My favorite prime lens is a Sigma 30 f/1.4 (the Canon 28 f/1.8 is also very competitive). They are good lenses, a bit different for walking around, but lots of folks like them and use them for the walk around lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3596" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T07:09:39.627" />
  <row Id="7947" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-31T08:06:43.030" Score="0" ViewCount="217" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi all,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am finding it quite difficult to use my 70-300 Manual focus non-VR lens with D5000. Learnt it from experts that 70-300 non VR lens does not perform well with D5k though the lens mounts on this body!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My problem is, whenever I focus a subject, I feel like the subject is crisp and focussed. But while post processing, when I crop the subject to fill in frame, I find that the image is totally disappointing. The image now appears to be off-focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What might be the problem? Should I switch my lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks &amp;amp; Regards,&#xA;Raj&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2223" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T10:05:30.757" Title="Problem in using 70-300mm non VR lens with Nikon D5000" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;manual-focus&gt;&lt;telephoto&gt;&lt;nikon-d5000&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7948" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7930" CreationDate="2011-01-31T08:17:18.977" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's tackle your questions separately:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Film Camera&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The short answer is 'no.' There is no marketed utility that I'm aware of which would give you complete control over a film camera (even a relatively modern one). Now I can imagine a it would be possible (and even potentially relatively easy) to put together a DIY solution as long as the camera is recent enough that it uses an electronically-based remote shutter solution, but that would be far from &lt;em&gt;full&lt;/em&gt; control of the camera. Essentially you'd be able to kick the AF, trip the shutter, and perhaps program in intervalmeter functionality, but that'd be about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main reason for this is that film-based cameras, even the most 'modern' models produced by companies such as Canon and Nikon up until a few years ago are still more 'mechanical' than 'electrical' in operation... and what &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; electrical was not designed or intended to communicate via a realtime 2-way persistent connection 'with the outside world' such as would be necessary for this level of control. All of the realtime communication that is possible with today's modern dSLR cameras wasn't even a consideration &lt;em&gt;until&lt;/em&gt; dSLR cameras came along...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The EOS Link ES-E1 was not a utility which enabled anything resembling realtime control of the camera... It was designed to help the camera user adjust the custom functions of the camera, and it could export picture data (essentially a forerunner of EXIF data) from the camera. Again, nothing about the utility was realtime, and it certainly couldn't enable any sort of camera control. Additionally, the utility hasn't been updated for nearly a decade, and it was designed to run via Windows NT/Windows 98, or on a pre-OSX Mac, so you're likely to have quite a time getting it to run on anything resembling a modern OS, any way you cut it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I have no direct experience with Nikon's line of film cameras, I would be very surprised if the situation were different in the world of Nikon film cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;dSLR Camera&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a nutshell, it is possible to control every aspect of a Canon dSLR with the Canon EOS Utility that comes as part of the package with every Canon dSLR camera. Nikon provides a similar level of control for their dSLR cameras via their Camera Control Pro 2 software, but unlike the Canon utility which is free, Nikon charges around $150 for their utility. These utilities allow fine-grained control, and access to every aspect of the camera's operation, including the firing of the cameras in burst-mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The one thing that these utilities cannot do 'out of the box' is adjust settings automatically across a series of exposures without manual intervention, though I don't think it would be very difficult to script something to attend to this aspect of the tethered shoot if you were so inclined...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-31T18:18:24.923" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T18:18:24.923" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7949" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7937" CreationDate="2011-01-31T08:18:28.413" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My favourite lens for this kind of pictures is the EF 70-210 f/4. With a crop factor of 1.6, that becomes 112-336mm, and should be good to start with. It's an old zoom lens, you can find it probably only on eBay (I got mine for 67€).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's actually much better than the cheap 75-300 f/4.0-5.6, it's very sharp and fast, and relatively light-weight, but auto-focus is really slow, and noisy. If you use manual/assisted focus, this shouldn't be a problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have no problems with price or weight, go for an L lens, 300mm or more (if weight is a problem, the 400mm DO IS USM is a good solution).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3598" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T08:18:28.413" />
  <row Id="7950" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7947" CreationDate="2011-01-31T08:29:35.390" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have you tried shooting from tripod (or other flat and stable surface) ? If this solves the problem then the reason is camera shake.&#xA;Also it is rather hard to manualy focus using small viewfinder of entry level DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2922" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T08:29:35.390" />
  <row Id="7951" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7947" CreationDate="2011-01-31T08:38:02.093" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;How hard are you cropping? The D5000's image sensor is a small one. Its capacity for holding fine detail is limited, as is the case with all small sensor cameras when compared to the detail you'll pull off a full-frame sensor such as you'll find in the Nikon D3 cameras. Thus, the harder you the crop the image, the fuzzier it is going to look. Realise that when you crop an image, you subtract pixels. None are replaced. The image may scale up to the same size on-screen as the original image was but that doesn't mean any pixels are being re-scaled. You crop your image, you lose detail. It has ever been thus and always will be. On top of that, any lens with that kind of zoom range is going to suffer in the acuity stakes. When you say the image looks sharp through the viewfinder, you should remember that's because your eye, emotions and intellect are idealising the image. It's really not as sharp as you think it is, and I don't care what anyone says about the quality of a 70-300mm lens, it just ain't gonna cut it for fine detail capture in the same way as a prime lens at any equal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, if you're cropping too hard and expecting your image to remain sharp after shooting with a 70-300mm on a DX sensor, you're just asking too much of your equipment. Try getting closer to your subject instead.  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3583" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T08:38:02.093" />
  <row Id="7952" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6732" CreationDate="2011-01-31T09:57:00.677" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For now, the Canon 5D Mark II provides almost all functions you need in major part of cases. It is not so useful to wait for the next generation of 5D. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3600" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T09:57:00.677" />
  <row Id="7954" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7930" CreationDate="2011-01-31T10:04:05.203" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It shouldn't be too difficult for someone with a bit of mechanical and electronic ability to put together a rig to do something not too unlike that, but it would have some restrictions. The linkages necessary to actually change the shutter speed and aperture at the camera would be complex enough to put them into &quot;robotics hobbyist&quot; territory (and would need to be different for different camera models) but you can do a bracketing run without touching either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What's needed is a series of ND filters of different densities on a wheel in front of the lens, driven by a stepper motor. The wheel can (and probably should) be mounted in a housing that also acts as a bellows lens hood. You also need a camera with a motor drive or autowinder (and not all film cameras have them, or even have them available). Nearly all film cameras can be tripped by a good old-fashioned mechanical shutter release cable or a pneumatic bulb, and that can be driven by a stepper motor or a solenoid. Both can be controlled from a PC or a dedicated circuit (probably based on something like the Arduino controller board).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the exposure series you linked to, it appears that some of the desirable features of the technique rely on halation, and the strength of the effect seems to be tied more strongly to shutter speed than overall exposure. Finding the best shutter speed for the effect would take a bit of initial testing, but for a landscape or architectural picture, you can probably keep it relatively long. The aperture you'd probably want to set based on your desired depth of field. A rig like the one I've described would sort of be like exposure bracketing using only the ISO setting on a digital camera -- you set both the shutter speed and aperture, and the overall exposure is controlled in small increments by  moving successively denser filters in front of the lens and tripping the shutter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who knows? If you decide to build it (and do it right) it may become a sellable product with a niche market waiting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T10:04:05.203" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7955" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7947" CreationDate="2011-01-31T10:05:30.757" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Camera shake and cropping are definite candidates, but I would say that the most likely culprit is manual focusing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are you using the green focus indicator light to judge focus? If not then you will almost certainly be out of focus. I find it impossible to focus by eye through my D300. Digital SLRs' focus screens are designed to show as bright an image as possible, and unlike older manual focus lenses these focus screens are much more forgiving to the image being out of focus. So, unless you have very sharp eyes, I doubt you'll be able to focus reliably just by looking at the image in the viewfinder. (FWIW I also find the LCD on the back of the camera to be insufficient to really judge focus, even at 100% zoom)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I say, I believe, you can use the focus indicator light even with manual focus lenses (It's labelled 1 in the diagram here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond5000/page5.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond5000/page5.asp&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to check your lens, then put the camera on a tripod, focus on something stationary and bright enough to give you a good high shutter speed (say 1/500 of a second) and see what that looks like on your computer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3521" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T10:05:30.757" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7956" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7929" CreationDate="2011-01-31T11:22:34.970" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Gigapan&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have not used one of these myself, but I have heard many people raving about the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gigapan.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gigapan&lt;/a&gt;.  It is a kind of programmable robotic head which will do exactly what you want (if I understand your question correctly).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, it's not &lt;em&gt;cheap&lt;/em&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T11:22:34.970" />
  <row Id="7957" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7906" CreationDate="2011-01-31T11:24:29.227" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Vivitar 285&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use these, and they are not perfect but they are great for the money and I love them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T11:24:29.227" />
  <row Id="7958" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7906" CreationDate="2011-01-31T11:40:26.197" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Yongnuo YN460&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have to look out for build issues with these, but they should be available second hand for your budget.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a newer version, the YN560, which is a slight upgrade, and slightly more expensive (GBP 55+ new).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T11:40:26.197" />
  <row Id="7959" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7922" CreationDate="2011-01-31T11:41:43.417" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer to your question about differences in sharpness, between the Canon and Nikon cameras, can be found in dpreview.com's test results.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page28.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For the Canon 40D&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA; 2100 LPH  Horizontal&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  1800 LPH Vertical   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page35.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For the Nikon D90&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA; 2200 LPH  Horizontal&lt;br&gt;&#xA; 2150 LPH  Vertical  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is true that the Nikon has marginally better sharpness, in this case, but the differences are small enough that you are very unlikely to see any difference.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The tests were conducted with the best available prime lens in both cases, effectively eliminating the effect of lens quality..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-31T12:05:11.603" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T12:05:11.603" />
  <row Id="7960" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2973" CreationDate="2011-01-31T13:45:12.030" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the much-more-powerful exiftool, one can also use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/jhead/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;jhead&lt;/a&gt; for simple things like this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;jhead -mkexif -dsft *.jpg&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It will also handle renaming-based-on-time, so you can skip exifer entirely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T13:45:12.030" />
  <row Id="7961" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7919" CreationDate="2011-01-31T13:52:25.347" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/jhead/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;jhead&lt;/a&gt; is great for this. It has a simple adjust by-hours command, but for big changes it also has an old -&gt; new syntax which computes the difference for you (so you don't have to worry about leap years and so on). If you happen to have the wrong-set camera still at hand and still wrong, I find it handy to take a shot of a (time-synced) digital clock — then, take the date shown in the picture as &quot;newdate&quot; and the date in the metadata as &quot;olddate&quot; for the parameters below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the documentation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;   -ta&amp;lt;+|-&amp;gt;&amp;lt;timediff&amp;gt;&#xA;          Adjust time stored in the Exif header by h:mm backwards or  for-&#xA;          wards.   Useful  when  having taken pictures with the wrong time&#xA;          set on the camera, such as after travelling across  time  zones,&#xA;          or when daylight savings time has changed.&#xA;&#xA;          This  option  changes  all  Date/time fields in the exif header,&#xA;          including &quot;DateTimeOriginal&quot;  (tag  0x9003)  and  &quot;DateTimeDigi-&#xA;          tized&quot; (tag 0x9004).&#xA;&#xA;   -da&amp;lt;newdate&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;olddate&amp;gt;&#xA;&#xA;          Works  like  -ta,  but  for specifying large date offsets, to be&#xA;          used when fixing dates from  cameras  where  the  date  was  set&#xA;          incorrectly,  such  as  having  date  and  time reset by battery&#xA;          removal on some cameras&#xA;&#xA;          Because different months and years  have  different  numbers  of&#xA;          days in them, a simple offset for months, days, years would lead&#xA;          to unexpected results at times.  The time offset is thus  speci-&#xA;          fied as a difference between two dates, so that jhead can figure&#xA;          out exactly how many days the timestamp needs to be adjusted by,&#xA;          including  leap  years  and  daylight savings time changes.  The&#xA;          dates are specified as yyyy:mm:dd.  For sub-day  adjustments,  a&#xA;          time of day can also be included, by specifying yyyy:nn:dd/hh:mm&#xA;          or yyyy:mm:dd/hh:mm:ss&#xA;&#xA;          Examples:&#xA;&#xA;          Year on camera was set to 2005  instead  of  2004  for  pictures&#xA;          taken in April&#xA;&#xA;          jhead -da2004:03:01-2005:03:01&#xA;&#xA;          Default  camera  date  is  2002:01:01,  and  date  was  reset on&#xA;          2005:05:29 at 11:21 am&#xA;&#xA;          jhead -da2005:05:29/11:21-2002:01:01&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T13:52:25.347" />
  <row Id="7962" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-31T14:01:39.967" Score="12" ViewCount="616" Body="&lt;p&gt;A goal in most photography is to present a scene which resembles what a person who had been there at that moment would have seen. Even when intentionally working outside of that, human vision is the de facto baseline.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it seems useful to know something about how the eye compares to our camera technology. Leaving aside issues of psychology, pattern recognition, and color perception as much as possible (because that's a separate question!), how does the human eye compare to a modern camera and lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What's the effective resolution? Field of view? Maximum (and minimum) aperture? ISO equivalence? Dynamic range? Do we have anything that is equivalent to shutter speed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What structures are directly analogous to parts of a camera and lens (the pupil and iris, say), and what features are uniquely human (or found in cameras but not biology)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T11:48:30.090" Title="How does the human eye compare to modern cameras and lenses?" Tags="&lt;human-vision-system&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="12" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="7963" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-01-31T14:14:07.503" Score="5" ViewCount="204" Body="&lt;p&gt;When looking out at the world through our eyes, it's easy to take for granted that our perceptions are an absolute rendering of How Things Are. But in fact, things are not quite as simple as that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of our actual vision is done in the brain — the eye is really a rather mediocre optical device, but all of its quirks are processed out into a smooth, high-resolution, three-dimensional model of the world. An infinite number of wavelengths of light are resolved into the perception of specific colors. Faces and other special patterns jump out at us even when they're just suggested by an alignment of shapes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How, in a nutshell, does all of this work? And more importantly, what knowledge of this system is useful in composing photographs? What can we take advantage of, and what quirks present problems to be worked around?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T05:46:34.110" Title="How do quirks of the human vision system affect photography?" Tags="&lt;human-vision-system&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7964" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7963" CreationDate="2011-01-31T14:33:00.297" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several key points, of which I will pick my top ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The human vision system will re-focus very quickly, and only at what it is looking at in that moment. It is therefore difficult to look at a scene and see any kind of out of focus blur. This will cause humans to not realize the effect of certain areas being out of focus — you can't trust your eyes, unless you train very carefully for it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The human vision system quickly adjusts for contrast, making it difficult to see just how contrasty a particular scene is. Thus you can't trust the un-trained eye to get the right shot. It takes practice and skill to get the right dynamic range translated.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We see in 3 dimensions, which can sometimes be difficult to translate into 2.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Even though we have a uniform perceived field, actually the resolution in the central part of our vision is much higher than the edges. Also, the edge part of our vision is better at dark perception than the central part. Also, we tend to ignore things that aren't our key point of interest. What all of this translates to, when we are taking a picture: we don't see the trash can in the scene, or the pole sticking out of someone's head, unless we specifically look for them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We don't actually create a snapshot at any one time — we operate something like a movie camera, but each &quot;pixel&quot; operates independently. Still, our mind is able to make it look like we have a snapshot. It's therefore kind of hard for us to really understand shutter speed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-01T04:37:09.770" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T04:37:09.770" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="7965" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7891" CreationDate="2011-01-31T14:52:07.750" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My opinion is, for your first lens don't go the fixed ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can't know and be sure about the usage locations of your camera. Will you shoot birds ? will you shoot people ? are you working in studio or outside. At the begining you will do all of them and fixed ones will limit your camera or you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Going with general lenses like 18-70, 24-135 or similars you will start to learn the differences of focal lenghts, sharpness and your usage range. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After that you will buy a more specified lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, i used my 400d with it's kit lens and learned that 18-55 is not my type lens for daily use. Than i bought my Canon 7D with 24-135 and i didn't change it like 6 months. But when i started to shoot short films, i realized that i need 50mm f1.8 lens for sharpness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For general usage and travel photos i am still using the 24-135 for its wide and tele options. But in studio or movies, i use my fixed lens to maximize sharpness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2639" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T14:52:07.750" />
  <row Id="7966" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7962" CreationDate="2011-01-31T14:52:20.763" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;(With much help from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our eyes are a 2 lens system, the first being our outer eye, and the second being a lens just inside of our eye. Our eyes has a fixed focal length, of about 22-24 mm. We have significantly higher resolution near the center than at the edges. The resolution varies significantly based on where in the image you are looking at, but it is around 1.2 arcminutes/line pair in the central region. We have about 6-7 million sensors, thus we have 6-7 megapixels, but they are somewhat different. The pattern of color detectors isn't very uniform, there is different color detection capabilities in the center as compared to the peripheral vision. The field of view is about 90 degrees from the center.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One interesting point is the human eye doesn't ever form a complete &quot;Snapshot&quot;, but is more of a continuous system. It can be very hard to tell this, because our brains are very good at correcting for it, but our system is more of a leaky bucket approach to photography, somewhat but not exactly similar to a digital camcorder. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;Normal&quot; lens is usually chosen to represent the primary area of human focus, thus explaining their differences. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cameras have different kinds of sensors, but they are usually spread quite uniformly around the sensor. The sensor is always flat (Human's sensor is curved), potentially leading to edge distortions. The resolution is difficult to obtain in the same format as human vision is given, and depends somewhat on the lens, but it can be safely said that the human eye has more resolution in the center of it's focus, but less in the peripheral areas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T14:52:20.763" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7967" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7937" CreationDate="2011-01-31T15:25:16.930" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll throw one more into the equation, a 300mm F2.8 = 480mm (300 X 1.6) but it is incredibly sharp and one of the fastest auto focusing lens especially for birds in flight. You could than get a 1.4 extender and this makes it a 420mm = 672 F4.0 (300 X1.4 X 1.6). I have both the 300mm F2.8 and the 500mm F4.0, they are  fantastic lens equaly sharp but the 300mm is lighter and easier for tracking BIF. I have found a good monopod helps keep the weight off of me while waiting for something to happen and makes it pretty easy to throw it over your shoulder while walking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3605" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T15:25:16.930" />
  <row Id="7968" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7962" CreationDate="2011-01-31T15:50:39.327" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pixiq has a very interesting article on the subject, just released a few days ago:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pixiq.com/article/eyes-vs-cameras&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pixiq.com/article/eyes-vs-cameras&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They talk about the ISO equivalence, focusing, aperture, shutter speed, etc...  It's subject to discussion, but it's still interesting to read.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The eye itself is a good piece of tech, but the brain do much of the work in assembling the pieces together.  For example, we can perceive a very large dynamic range, but this is mainly due to the brain assembling the different regions together without us to realize.  Same for the resolution, the eye has good resolution in the center, but really under-performs everywhere else.  The brain assemble the details for us.   Same for the colors, we only perceive colors in the center, but the brain fools us by &lt;em&gt;caching&lt;/em&gt; color information when they go out of center scope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1093" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T15:50:39.327" />
  <row Id="7969" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7831" CreationDate="2011-01-31T16:04:28.050" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is a good book if you decide to tackle it on your own, Adobe Photoshop Restoration &amp;amp; Retouching (3rd Edition) by Katrin Eismann.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3605" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T16:04:28.050" />
  <row Id="7970" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7962" CreationDate="2011-01-31T17:13:33.967" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_eye&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_eye&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The basic accuracies of human eyes are: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Quick autofocus from distances of 10 cm (young people) to 50 cm (most people 50 years and older) to infinity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Angular resolution: 1-2' (about 0.02°-0.03°), which corresponds to 30–60 cm at a 1 km distance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Field of view (FOV): simultaneous visual perception in an area of about 130° × 160°&#xA;  Faint stars up to +6.5 magnitude under a modern dark sky&#xA;  Distance (Factor of Light intensity and light interference) the Andromeda Galaxy is visible at 2.5 million light years or 10 million trillion km.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Photometry (brightness) to ±10% or 1% of intensity - in a range between night and day of 1:10,000,000,000&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Symmetries of 10-20' (5–10 cm per 1 km) see the measurements of Tycho Brahe and the Egyptians&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Interval estimations (for example at a plan on paper) to 3-5%&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Unconscious recognizing of movement (that is &quot;alarm system&quot; and reflexes)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Visual perception allows a person to gain much information about his or her environment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;the distances and 3-dimensional position of things and persons,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;the vertical (plumb line) and the slope of plain objects&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;luminosities and colors - and its changes by time and direction&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3606" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T17:13:33.967" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="7971" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7993" CreationDate="2011-01-31T18:55:58.747" Score="1" ViewCount="86" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why does my D40 have a shutter lag when using flash in full manual mode?  There isn't a lag when shooting in any of the auto modes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:&#xA;I'm shooting in single shot mode.  It is a constant lag between shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3609" LastEditorUserId="3609" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-31T20:15:18.490" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T22:31:13.473" Title="Flash in Non-Auto Mode Slow" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;nikon-d40&gt;&lt;kit-lens&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7972" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-01-31T19:11:09.960" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many DSLR cameras today come with a lens when purchased. This lens is often referred to as the &quot;kit lens&quot;. The most common kit lens for entry and mid-level DSLR's is the 18-55mm lens, however professional grade cameras often include higher quality, professional grade kit lenses. An example of this would be the Canon 5D Mark II, which can be purchased with either the 24-105mm L IS series lens, or in some cases 24-70mm L series lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-31T19:11:09.960" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T19:11:09.960" />
  <row Id="7973" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-01-31T19:11:09.960" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="A &quot;kit&quot; lens is a lens included with a camera body at time of purchase." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-31T19:11:09.960" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T19:11:09.960" />
  <row Id="7974" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7977" CreationDate="2011-01-31T19:13:49.347" Score="10" ViewCount="429" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why is 1:1 desirable for a macro lens? I know it means that you can print a picture of something and it will be the same size on paper as it is in real life, but why is this such a desirable feature over, say, a lens that magnifies even more?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3549" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T19:57:57.270" Title="Why is 1:1 desirable for a macro lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;prints&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="7975" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-01-31T19:16:40.497" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The EXIF standard, or Exchangeable Image File format, is a metadata tagging specification based on JPEG, TIFF, and RIFF WAV formats. Exif allows metadata tags containing information about image capture time, camera settings and info, image preview thumbnail, and basic description and copyright information to be added to image files. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For further information, see the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchangeable_image_file_format&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-31T19:16:40.497" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T19:16:40.497" />
  <row Id="7976" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-01-31T19:16:40.497" Score="0" ViewCount="0" Body="EXIF is the EXchangeable Image File format, a metadata tagging specification." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-31T19:16:40.497" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T19:16:40.497" />
  <row Id="7977" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7974" CreationDate="2011-01-31T19:20:03.103" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're close on what 1:1 means but slightly off.  A 1:1 macro lens means that the size of the subject is projected onto &lt;strong&gt;the sensor (or film)&lt;/strong&gt; at the exact same size it is in real life.  You can blow up the print as large as you like :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ability to go to 1:1 is just a metric and there are a lot of compromises that come with being able to enlarge a subject to 1:1 the most obvious one being focusing speed since there is a larger range (distance) over which the lens can focus.  There are lenses that go even closer, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/mp_e_65mm_f_2_8_1_5x_macro_photo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;MP-E 65&lt;/a&gt; goes from 1:1 to 5:1 magnification, its a manual focus only lens though :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T19:20:03.103" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="7978" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7974" CreationDate="2011-01-31T19:21:27.617" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 1:1 designation means that the image of a subject projected onto the sensor (or film) is the same size on the sensor as real life, and is the minimum magnification to classify as true macro. There are lenses that do magnify more, such as Canon's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/product_finder/cameras/ef_lenses/macro_lenses/MP_E65mm_f2515x_Macro/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;MP-E 65&lt;/a&gt; which can magnify images between 1 and 5 times their real-world size. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The benefit of 1:1 magnification is that you can truly enlarge and enhance real-world detail in print. This is in contrast with normal lenses, which often only magnify 0.15x, or 1:6. A print would need to be enlarged &lt;strong&gt;six&lt;/strong&gt; times to present the same amount of detail as a 1:1 lens...assuming you could resolve that amount of detail in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-31T19:27:11.873" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T19:27:11.873" CommentCount="11" />
  <row Id="7979" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7974" CreationDate="2011-01-31T19:57:57.270" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is nothing &lt;em&gt;specifically desirable&lt;/em&gt; in a 1:1 magnification for macro. This is just a convention, where, as pointed out in Rawland's answer, to designate a &quot;true&quot; macro lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This does not mean that a lens with 1:0.9 max magnification cannot do a good macro work (if you can find such lens). I guess it depends on what exactly is it that you want to shoot. Depending on your subject's size, relative to the sensor's size, you can choose lenses with different max magnification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, for insects, a 1:1 is a good bet. For insect eyes or sugar grains (...) an MP-E 65 may be better. For flowers, OTOH, a non-&quot;real&quot; macro lens can do decent work as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T19:57:57.270" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7980" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7971" CreationDate="2011-01-31T20:01:03.837" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You did not mention if it is a constant behaviour, or if it happens on continuous shooting. If the latter, then the flash's capacitor needs time to recharge before you can shoot again. This is true for manual, as well as automatic modes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T20:01:03.837" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7981" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7984" CreationDate="2011-01-31T20:17:58.563" Score="1" ViewCount="219" Body="&lt;p&gt;I already learned that on raw images no white balance transformation has been applied yet. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) If Aperture develops the preview images (without manually setting the WB by the user) it has to decide on some WB. This means Aperture has to either use some kind of automatic white balance algorithm (like the camera dos) or use some fixed values?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) Can I somewhere see, which temperature and tint Aperture has automatically chosen to develop the raw image preview? The &quot;White Balance&quot; check box under &quot;Adjustments&quot; is per default unchecked and always contains the values &quot;2861&quot; and &quot;14&quot; for temperature / tint (which were obviously not used). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) The raw images metadata contains a field &quot;White Balance&quot; that is e.g. set to &quot;Auto White Balance&quot; - but it does not seem to contain the WB settings the cameras AWB algorithm has chosen. Does Aperture respect the WB metadata in any way?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3610" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T20:43:35.070" Title="How does Aperture 3 set the default White Balance when developing a RAW file?" Tags="&lt;apple-aperture&gt;&lt;white-balance&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7982" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7962" CreationDate="2011-01-31T20:38:30.930" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Its not so much that the outer eye is underperforming, its that its doing a different job. The center of the field of view is where we have fine vision, while the outer eye is better for things like low light situations. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2916" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T20:38:30.930" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7983" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7963" CreationDate="2011-01-31T20:40:28.093" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're very wrong about the human eye being a very mediocre optical device.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The brain processes the image, but your eye gathers and focuses the light, for being so tiny, and made out of flesh, it's quite amazing. So amazing, that scientists still haven't been able to replace it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The real quirk is to train your mind to think like the camera, and not the other way around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The camera see's &lt;em&gt;everything.&lt;/em&gt; So do your eyes. The difference, your brain filters out &quot;noise&quot; as meaningless information. It records it, but at a higher level it's discarded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's why two people can look at a scene, and when asked to describe what happened, will give two very different responses. Or why, when you go to review your photograph, you notice the powerline that was there, that you missed when taking the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your brain is great at filling in the information games, and great with filtering out information so you don't get overwhelmed. As you start to develop a &quot;cameras&quot; eye, you'll start seeing things as they &lt;strong&gt;actually&lt;/strong&gt; appear, and not as you think they do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T20:40:28.093" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="7984" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7981" CreationDate="2011-01-31T20:43:13.520" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Seems to me Aperture 3 does respect the WB settings of the camera. Shoot a scene with three different WB settings and you'll see three different results in Aperture previews. If you want to prove it further to yourself, or disprove my assertion, shoot with a manual WB and see if that passes through to your preview.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3583" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T20:43:13.520" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7985" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7981" CreationDate="2011-01-31T20:43:35.070" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't confirm this, but I would expect it to use the &quot;Color Temp As Shot&quot; or &quot;Color Temp Auto&quot; values recorded in the EXIF data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example: &lt;a href=&quot;http://regex.info/exif.cgi?b=3&amp;amp;referer=http://photography.chills42.com/2011/01/honey-whole-wheat-bread.html&amp;amp;url=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_nuoXbHJPJ9g/TTJ1OeDXEkI/AAAAAAAAC_E/KA82y0N_q8c/s1600/IMG_0990-741301.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Using Jeffrey's Exif Viewer&lt;/a&gt; look in the &quot;MakerNotes&quot; section.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T20:43:35.070" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7986" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7992" CreationDate="2011-01-31T21:05:00.627" Score="7" ViewCount="310" Body="&lt;p&gt;I own a Canon XTI, and it always seems my shots are slightly out of focus. I usual have my camera set to the center focus point, and usually half press the shutter button to establish the focus on the item I want to focus on before actually taking the shot. Yet I still seem to have a problem with a lot of my shots being out of focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was searching around and found out that higher end Canon DSLRs actually have an option in their menu to adjust the auto-focus, yet my XTI does not have this option. I searched around some more and found &lt;a href=&quot;http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&amp;amp;sl=fr&amp;amp;u=http://astrosurf.com/buil/autofocus/adjust.htm&amp;amp;ei=GiBHTcf9D4PSsAPY-Z3kAQ&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=translate&amp;amp;ct=result&amp;amp;resnum=1&amp;amp;ved=0CBwQ7gEwAA&amp;amp;prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.astrosurf.org/buil/autofocus/adjust.htm%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3D8og%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla%3aen-US%3aofficial%26prmd%3Divns&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this page&lt;/a&gt; on adjusting the autofocus on a 350D with an Allen wrench. I assuming there will be a similar screw in my 400D?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can someone tell me what this screw adjusts exactly? Is this something that typically needs adjustment? Should I even mess with this, or should I just send my camera/lens into Canon? I'm no stranger to opening up small electronic devices, so I'd rather not pay $100+ to have someone turn an easily adjustable Allen screw. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1431" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T23:17:01.710" Title="Should auto-focus need adjusting?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;canon-400d&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7987" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2724" CreationDate="2011-01-31T21:09:17.597" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on what type of images you are selling. Business, people and icon sets are good sellers online. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can find other image needs here. &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cutcaster.com/help/photography-shoot-ideas/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://cutcaster.com/help/photography-shoot-ideas/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3615" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T21:09:17.597" />
  <row Id="7988" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8049" CreationDate="2011-01-31T21:14:04.790" Score="10" ViewCount="190" Body="&lt;p&gt;Few questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is the best printer/plotter for printing large format images (best means best visual quality)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What material and inkjet is the most permanent?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm thinking of printing images and I want to get the best posibble quality. Image dimensions would be from 0.5m to 2m (or even more).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How about this printer:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/printers_multifunction/professional_large_format_inkjet_printers/imageprograf_ipf8300&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/printers_multifunction/professional_large_format_inkjet_printers/imageprograf_ipf8300&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...or similar ones? Do such printers provide the best print that is available on market?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Ile&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3614" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-01-31T21:43:29.943" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T16:58:44.487" Title="What is the best technology for large, permanent digital printing?" Tags="&lt;printing&gt;&lt;large-format&gt;&lt;ink-jet&gt;&lt;quality&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="7989" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7290" CreationDate="2011-01-31T21:17:36.947" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check out this collection of &lt;a href=&quot;http://cutcaster.com/browse/Science-and-Technology/2381-General/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Science and Technology pictures&lt;/a&gt; that cover your topics needed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope those help and please let me know what other image needs you have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3615" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T21:17:36.947" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7990" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7963" CreationDate="2011-01-31T21:19:30.133" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually, there is an aspect of the &lt;em&gt;subjectiveness&lt;/em&gt; of human vision that I would like to highlight. I said &lt;em&gt;subjectiveness&lt;/em&gt; because what a camera see (either digital or analog) is what goes on the photo-sensitive sensor/film, and the information is just what colour hit that surface.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In human beings, what actually &lt;em&gt;sees&lt;/em&gt; is the brain, rather than eyes. Human brain performs lots of adjustments and &lt;strong&gt;interpolation&lt;/strong&gt; to the &lt;em&gt;graphics&lt;/em&gt; (let me use this word) that come from eyes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;All&lt;/strong&gt; quirks in eye vision are &lt;em&gt;fixed&lt;/em&gt; by the brain&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Blind spot&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 2-eyes vision, each eye covers the blind spot of the other eye. In 1-eye vision (finger experiment) the brain will interpolate the visible part to form the invisible part of the blind spot, so that's why you ultimately won't see your nail but still see a finger&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Focus&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To quote &lt;em&gt;Pearsonartphoto&lt;/em&gt;, human eyes focus (and converge in stereoscopic vision) on what is being &lt;em&gt;looked&lt;/em&gt; by the brain. I believe that the speed in focusing is helped by 3D vision and shape recognition - yes, I'm talking as a computer science expert, which is what I am&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Centre-resolution&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, quoting &lt;em&gt;Pearsonartphoto&lt;/em&gt;. The central part of our retinas is higher in density rather than peripherical zones, and is &lt;em&gt;almost&lt;/em&gt; the only part being able to distinguish (actually, colours are worst distinguished the increasing distance from centre). So if you wanted to mimic human vision in a photograph, you would have to blur all what's not in the middle of image, but then you assume the viewer will look only at the centre (or to a specific object).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can clearly see what I'm typing in this line, but I can't distinguish the words 3 lines above this one, nor its very beginning!!!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A note about 3D vision: one mistake done by some 3D movie directors is to add focus to the 3D scene, actually forcing the viewer to look at the character that is speaking, or doing something &lt;em&gt;important&lt;/em&gt;. Sometimes, I would like to look at the fancy dress of the guy &lt;strong&gt;behind&lt;/strong&gt; him. What has this to do with photography? Simply that a photograph currently gives you freedom to look at what you want in the scene. Emulating quirks of human vision (like unfocusing a background object/character) is &lt;em&gt;realistic&lt;/em&gt; until you discover that you deprived the viewer from the freedom to look&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Shape recognition, noise reduction, vectorial storage (wow, I'm starting to be a computer paranoid!)&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that the most important quirk in human vision is that we don't store images in memory as for they appear, but for what they are. The opposite of this is enhanced in people with &lt;em&gt;photo-memory&lt;/em&gt;. Try to go on Facebook and pick up a random girl's photo (well... if you complain &lt;em&gt;par condicio&lt;/em&gt; let's say a boy's photo, as soon as he's haired enough) and look at her hair. Then search for another random girl with the same hair colour, without reading further. Try to memorize the two faces. The day after, come back here and answer my question: &lt;strong&gt;who has the darkest hair?&lt;/strong&gt;. When you see the two girls separately, your brain memorizes their hair colour as a &lt;strong&gt;stereotype&lt;/strong&gt;, so you'll remember to have seen two blondes, or two brunettes, etc. Even if you still remember them, you won't probably be able to perfectly compare their hair colour, while you could if you had their photos at hand and read my specific hair question. If you write a program that compares hair colours in photos, you will get always the correct result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The colour example was an example. What I said applies with objects, etc.: a photo stores the pixel matrix of colours that compose an object, your brain stores the object along with its attributes (a black and empty pen, a half-full bottle of milk...). When you &quot;recall to mind&quot; these objects, they are actually &lt;strong&gt;rendered&lt;/strong&gt; in your mind like if I was rendering a computer-generated scene of a video game. I just tried the experiment: I quickly looked at my desk, with my keyboard, my game pads, etc, and tried a few seconds later to &quot;recall it to mind&quot;: I forgot to &lt;em&gt;render&lt;/em&gt; my 3D glasses and my phone, and I &lt;em&gt;imagined&lt;/em&gt; the game pads in a different position rather their real one, and also thought that the right game pad had the keyboard attached (it was the left).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A photograph, on the contrary, in an undeletable snapshot of a &lt;strong&gt;continuous&lt;/strong&gt; (analog) or &lt;strong&gt;discrete&lt;/strong&gt; (digital) light signal. These signals are always affected by noise, that is removed by our brain. Look at an old videotape with some artifacts and try to remember the movie the day after: as soon as you don't focus on the artifacts (because I told you so) you'll probably remember the plain scene!.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, this question if fortunately not about computer vision, otherwise I would have started writing a book ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope my answer is comprehensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3613" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T21:19:30.133" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="7991" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2741" CreationDate="2011-01-31T21:28:08.853" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes but you need a wide and diverse portfolio, you need to be researching the market constantly and you need to make sure you upload new content regularly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3615" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T21:28:08.853" />
  <row Id="7992" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7986" CreationDate="2011-01-31T21:53:38.420" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have sometimes suspected that my Canon needed some focus fine-tuning, but when I use a tripod and take a picture of a ruler (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/pentax-dslr-discussion/35268d1243037002-auto-focus-adjustment-k20d-k20d4159-jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;like this&lt;/a&gt;) the focus always turns out to be dead-on; it's my shaking hands or a very shallow depth of field that's making my pictures un-sharp, not the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2312" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T21:53:38.420" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="7993" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7971" CreationDate="2011-01-31T22:31:13.473" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is highly likely due to the charging time of the flash. Depending on the camera, one of the following happens in manual (M) mode:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The camera always fires the flash at full-intensity.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The flash power is automatically set by the camera.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flash power is manually set between 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, etc of full power.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For #1, you will get the full recharge cycle of your flash every time. If you were in any Automatic mode, then the camera may not need to fully charge the flash and you would get a shorter lag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For #2, the flash recharge cycle will be depending on the aperture and ISO you set. Try the highest ISO and widest aperture you have and then the opposite, to see if this is the case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For #3, see the Custom Setting Menu on the D40, the lag will be depend on the manually chosen power setting. Try different power settings and you should see the lag change, particularly if you choose 1/32.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On some cameras, there is a setting in the setup menu which lets the camera take a shot even if the flash is not sufficiently charged. From memory, I do not recall the D40 having this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T22:31:13.473" />
  <row Id="7994" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8028" CreationDate="2011-01-31T22:48:26.033" Score="1" ViewCount="177" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm about to purchase:&#xA;Canon T2i with included EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens &#xA;Canon Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is for photography 2D artwork of different media and I've made this decision based on feedback from here&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6533/canon-t2i-for-shooting-artwork&quot;&gt;Canon T2i for shooting artwork? &lt;/a&gt; &#xA;and here&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7668/macro-lens-for-artwork-with-the-t2i&quot;&gt;macro lens for artwork with the T2i&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My only concern is that Canon doesn't call the EF 50MM a &quot;macro&quot;, but it is isn't it? It's also $300 cheaper than their EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro which has been recommended. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I just got to confirm the lens and I'm set. What do you think? Or any other comments before I purchase?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE. I went ahead and made the purchase but without the Macro Lens. It looks like the Compact Macro may be the one for me, though I want to fully understand all the answers and feedback before I decide. But so far I understand that this lens does give true 1/1 but is not necessarily great for 'macro', which should be fine for me. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is so much information and so much to learn about photography that I notice more than one entire 3rd party book devoted to the T2i alone. In this situation I do not have the adequate time to fully master everything I'd like too before I start photographing the work. I'll need to set up lighting and the entire studio, and I'll only have a couple days to experiment before I get to work. I appreciate the head start I've been given here. No doubt I'll be learning as I go. Thanks for everyone's help. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3043" LastEditorUserId="3043" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-01T22:10:54.043" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T22:10:54.043" Title="Am I making a good camera/lens purchasing decision?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;printer&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="7995" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7994" CreationDate="2011-01-31T22:58:47.007" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens &lt;strong&gt;is NOT&lt;/strong&gt; a macro lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T22:58:47.007" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7996" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5031" CreationDate="2011-01-31T23:09:23.470" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your photo contains recognizable faces or private property you must next attach a signed model or property releases if you wish to sell it as commercial stock photography. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3615" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T23:09:23.470" />
  <row Id="7997" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7994" CreationDate="2011-01-31T23:11:31.660" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not macro because the best magnification is 1:2. So items that are 1 inch in size, take up 1/2 an inch on the file (sensor).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By definition, macro starts at 1:1 magnification. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most people get confused because many point and shoots have a &quot;macro&quot; feature, which actually only allows a closer focusing, but not actual true macro magnification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;THe EF-S 60mm f2.8 is a &quot;true&quot; macro lens, with a 1:1 magnification ratio. It is roughly the equivalent of the EF 100 F2.8 macro lens, but for APC-S cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-01T02:15:03.033" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T02:15:03.033" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="7998" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7986" CreationDate="2011-01-31T23:14:45.777" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;small electronics are one thing, a digital camera is another. If you are concerned about focus problems, I suggest you send it to one of canon's authorized repair facilities. Yes for $100 they may only turn an allen-wrench to fix the issue, but they will also service your body, clean it out, and give it a good bill of health.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T23:14:45.777" />
  <row Id="7999" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8004" CreationDate="2011-01-31T23:25:00.207" Score="1" ViewCount="149" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/24/sd-cards-branded-with-an-upper-case-i-are-faster-yo/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;specification&lt;/a&gt; fof uhs 1 says that those card are able to transfer data up to 104 MB/s&#xA;I was wondering if a camera that support it (the D7000 for example) should be able to transfert data at the maximum rate ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Right now it does not seem like the D7000 does take &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photographybay.com/2011/01/27/sandisk-extreme-pro-uhs-i-sd-card-in-the-nikon-d7000/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;full advantage&lt;/a&gt; of the increase in speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1241" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T00:35:28.463" Title="what are the minimum requirements for the camera to be UHS 1 compatible ?" Tags="&lt;sdxc&gt;&lt;specification&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="8000" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7986" CreationDate="2011-01-31T23:29:00.810" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The menu option to adjust the AF is only meant to work as a temporary fix until you can get the camera and/or the lens to a workshop to get it fixed properly. It is there to allow a (pro) photographer to get the job done even if the equipment is a little off, but is not meant as a permanent solution to AF misalignment. It is a band-aid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cameras and lenses are manufactured to certain tolerances. Even if both are within tolerances as such, if the camera is at one end of its tolerance range and the lens is at the opposite end, the sum can be suboptimal autofocus accuracy. If either is outside of tolerance, so much the worse. For this reason, it is usual to send in both camera and lens(es) for adjustment so that they can be matched to each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T23:29:00.810" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8001" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7994" CreationDate="2011-01-31T23:33:20.080" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Canon 50mm Macro is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/ef_lens_lineup/lens_macro_pro/ef_50mm_f_2_5_compact_macro&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro&lt;/a&gt;, which only does true 1:1 macro with an extension tube. I think that people were agreeing that it would be good to photograph artwork, but not for use as a macro lens...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-01-31T23:33:20.080" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8002" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8003" CreationDate="2011-02-01T00:03:49.143" Score="3" ViewCount="136" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before I make a significant investment in hardware to get to 10-bit per color (10bpc) nirvana I want to make sure I understand the complete path from shutter release to enjoying my prints. I feel like I understand the PC hardware part of the equation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;10bpc capable:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;OS (Windows 7)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Display (HP zr30w)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Video Card (Quadro FX 580)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Drivers (Quadro FX 580 10bpc drivers exist)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cable (DisplayPort)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am a little less unsure about the application software but I think both Lightroom and Photoshop CS5 can handle 10bpc but there might be some initial configuration needed. Can someone confirm this for me? The part that I am completely lost on is the printing. I have googled my way around a bit but I cannot seem to find any info on equivalent bpc for printers or for print shops. So here are my questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are there any printshops you can provide 10bpc files?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Can you print 10bpc files to your printer and if so is there anything special you need to do to take advantage of 10 bits?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2757" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T00:50:24.640" Title="What are the ways to print my 10-bit per color files?" Tags="&lt;printing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8003" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8002" CreationDate="2011-02-01T00:32:12.327" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is possible to print with full 16-bpc color to printers that support XPS (Microsoft XML Paper Specification) drivers. I know the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer/printers_multifunction/pixma_pro_series/pixma_pro9500_mark_ii&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon PIXMA Pro9500 II&lt;/a&gt; has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://support-sg.canon-asia.com/contents/SG/EN/0100180001.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Windows 7 64-bit XPS driver&lt;/a&gt; that supports 16-bpc printing (vs. the current 8-bpc printing). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important to note that 16-bpc printing is only supported with XPS capable RIP software. At this time, I only know that the Canon Easy-Photo Print Pro software is capable of full 16-bpc printing. I've heard rumors of other RIP's that support 16-bpc XPS, but I have not found any specifics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, it should be clear that 10-bpc displays and 16-bpc printers are not directly linked in any way. You can process a 16bit per channel (48bit)  RAW or TIFF file on a normal display, and still print it to a 16-bpc printer. You can also obviously use 10-bpc displays with 8-bpc or 16-bpc printers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T00:32:12.327" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8004" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7999" CreationDate="2011-02-01T00:35:28.463" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The D7000 is, I think, much like the Pentax K-5 in this regards (the reviewer is incorrect on his assertion about camera support). The camera is compatible with version 3 of the SD specification (SDXC) but that doesn't mean that the camera has the necessary hardware to take advantage of the greater transfer rates, though it can take advantage of some speed gains since SDHC cards don't usually hit the max for their specification. SDHC devices can handle SDXC given the right drivers and software, but that doesn't mean that they can take full advantage of the specs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this, to some degree at least, bears out with the testing described in your links with some gain on the other card, but probably not enough for most shooters to spend the extra cash. Gotta love the transitional period, it leaves people unsure of what to buy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T00:35:28.463" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8005" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8002" CreationDate="2011-02-01T00:36:42.353" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I want to make sure I understand the complete path from shutter release to enjoying my prints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An important part of that path is the bit between print and enjoyment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming you are using a three-colour representation (RGB or HSV for example), a crude estimate would suggest that 10-bits per channel provides (2^10)^3 distinct color values. That is 1,073,741,824 values - over a billion. However &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/color.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;some say&lt;/a&gt; that human eyes can perceive  no more than 1,000,000 to 7,000,000 distinct colors under optimal laboratory conditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Current display and printer technologies are only capable of presenting a small subset of the gamut of colors that a human can perceive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This suggests that even if your software allows you to send 10 bits per channel of color information to a printer or display, most of that information does not end up being seen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a measure of perceived quality of color reproduction, I suspect that gamut is more important than number of bits per color-channel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2520" LastEditorUserId="2520" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-01T00:50:24.640" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T00:50:24.640" CommentCount="14" />
  <row Id="8006" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8098" CreationDate="2011-02-01T00:45:09.473" Score="6" ViewCount="221" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm making a time-lapse video in a place with very low light conditions. Each photo has an exposure of 20 seconds and my camera take 10 seconds more to process the image. This means, 2 frames per minute, and 120 per hour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I want a frame rate of 30 photos per second, I will only be able to make 4 seconds per hour of photographing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My camera battery will only last 2 hours as much, so the maximum lenght of the video would be 8 seconds. That is too few.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I tought I could make up frames between the real photos. If I make 1 &quot;inter&quot; frame, the total lenght of the video would be the double.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you know any software to do that easily? Is it possible to to that using &lt;strong&gt;imagemagick&lt;/strong&gt;? Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT* - In response to the comments&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;10 seconds (14 after I counted them) of processing time because my camera is not DSLR so the processor is slower (I'm actually using CHDK to increase the exposure time). I'm shooting in JPEG so the time to write in he memory card is less than a second. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;About the external power supply, how to do that in a SX210 IS? Better battery, no money right now (I'm in college). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want a video of at least 30 seconds (less is kind of boring). And I want a frame rate of 24 or more to make the video smooth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;About the inter frames, those would be the average between the frames in the left and in the right (it's fine because the subjects are mainly clouds).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Found out a great function of imagemagick&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;convert input1.JPG input2.JPG -average output.JPG&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT**&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks to jrista's answer, this is my last composition:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://vimeo.com/19379589&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://vimeo.com/19379589&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1641" LastEditorUserId="1641" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-05T21:25:49.027" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T21:25:49.027" Title="How to fill my time-lapse video with more frames?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;timelapse&gt;&lt;darkness&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="8007" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8006" CreationDate="2011-02-01T01:33:58.310" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One option might be to take more (shorter) captures at a higher ISO, and compensate for noise by averaging the past N frames together, effectively overlapping the capture of each frame. You might want to apply some basic noise reduction, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for generating intermediate frames after the fact, I've heard of a program called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.revisionfx.com/products/twixtor/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Twixtor&lt;/a&gt; which is supposed to do this intelligently. I've only seen &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?p=166366&amp;amp;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;one video done with it&lt;/a&gt;, but it looks like it does a reasonable job. As with any computer-generated content, your results will vary depending on the scene/video and how much information has to be guessed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T01:33:58.310" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8008" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8006" CreationDate="2011-02-01T01:46:09.233" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This may not be the answer you're wanting to hear, but if you're even a little bit handy, it can be quite cheap to build your own external power supply. It really seems like you're thinking about taking the hardest possible route with the least chance of success (resorting to software interpolation in post) to solve a very easily solved problem (battery doesn't last long enough).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I were in your shoes, I'd be looking at doing the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take a battery for your camera, pop it open (gently!), remove the actual battery and solder wires to the leads. Close the battery back up.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Get a cheap Radio Shack DC - DC regulator&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Solder the bare leads to your new regulator&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Connect the other end of your regulator to a bigger battery source (say a motorcycle battery), or even attach it to a cigarette lighter adapter and simply use your cars battery via the cigarette lighter...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Now you've got way more power than you'll ever use over the course of 1 nights timelapse photography.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Total cost for parts is going to be ~$20... Somewhat more if you go the route of buying a motorcycle battery. Of course the caveat is that you have to be the sort of person who is mildly handy (this is a pretty 101 level electronics project), and willing to build something. This is how I power my camera for my timelapses, and it's how lots of other people do it as well. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.timescapes.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=12&amp;amp;t=2163&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here's&lt;/a&gt; a thread with some more detailed descriptions (and pictures!) of a build similar to what I described above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-01T02:00:01.437" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T02:00:01.437" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8009" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7986" CreationDate="2011-02-01T01:50:16.053" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are you sure you aren't moving a little after holding down the shutter halfway? I noticed that I really had to watch myself because I was doing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hold down shutter halfway&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Now that it's in focus, shift a little forward or backward to recompose&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take out of focus shot :(&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It took some conscious work to break this bad habit. If you are doing this it's very easy to be slightly out of focus, especially at larger apertures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note, I am not talking about focus / recompose, where the movement is left-right, but more front back, which is more likely to cause focus issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3156" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T01:50:16.053" />
  <row Id="8010" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8016" CreationDate="2011-02-01T03:12:56.910" Score="13" ViewCount="272" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm starting to learn more about post processing my images, and I'm just wondering what are the first few steps I should take into post processing that would have the biggest effect on the photos I shoot? What are a few simple tips I can try in order to improve my photos? Is there any rule of thumb I should follow?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I mainly like to shoot travel and landscape photography if that makes a difference. Any advice would be appreciated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3591" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T20:47:21.027" Title="What are the first few steps a beginner should take in post processing?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;developing&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="8011" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8022" CreationDate="2011-02-01T03:36:38.797" Score="8" ViewCount="178" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's say I shoot with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-35mm-f-1.4-l-usm-lens-review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-50mm-f-1.4-usm-lens-review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 50mm f/1.4&lt;/a&gt;, and a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-85mm-f-1.8-usm-lens-review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 85mm f/1.8&lt;/a&gt;. Can these 3 primes be replaced with a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-24-70mm-f-2.8-l-usm-lens-review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8&lt;/a&gt; for the convenience of not needing to change lens so often?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also I just wanna clarify that when I'm comparing image quality I'm talking about what can be actually be seen in a 10R print, I don't need a pixel by pixel comparison. In addition I'm just a amateur shooter, mainly shooting portraits and street, with some landscape, architecture, and random things lying around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:&#xA;I shoot with a 5D, so 24mm is enough for my wide-angle needs. Also I'll still be using the primes when I have a specific thing in mind to shoot. I just prefer to shoot light when walking around in the city or when I'm travelling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1635" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T20:09:24.417" LastActivityDate="2011-04-02T07:29:01.960" Title="On smaller prints, will a high-quality zoom lens provide near equal image quality compared to primes?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;prime&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="8012" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8011" CreationDate="2011-02-01T03:53:38.950" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd say, based on your criteria, the answer is yes. However, the fact is, primes are usually a better option at a given focal length versus a zoom, a result of less complex optical construction. In terms of the lens range, it's good for portrait/street, but I think a little too long for landscape and architecture, though not terribly so, it rather depends on which Canon camera you actually have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, despite all that, the big advantage of an SLR, beyond sensor size, is the ability to change lenses for the scene. Don't get too caught up in the idea of a &quot;one size fits all&quot; concept on your lens, it's a compromise versus a prime and will, in the long run, be something you'll see. Changing lenses isn't that hard, after all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T03:53:38.950" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8013" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8006" CreationDate="2011-02-01T04:13:47.390" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've got a very simple solution, one that will work quite well, and won't cost too much. Buy a second battery. Good time lapse photograph just takes alot of pictures, and if you need to get some more, well, that's just what it takes, so...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T04:13:47.390" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8014" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8010" CreationDate="2011-02-01T04:15:23.477" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hard to know where to start with this question.  Depends on your choice of post-processing software to some extent, and that depends on your choice of operating system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Speaking for myself using Lightroom, with landscapes, here are a couple of things I quite often find myself doing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Drag a half-stop down graduated filter down across the sky&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use the HSL (Hue/Saturation/Luminance) blue Luminance slider down slightly to mimic the effect of a polarising filter&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sharpen the image using the default Scene or Landscape (can't remember what it's called right now) preset as a starting point.  In Lightroom this is sharpening in the Develop mode, not output sharpening.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Crop appropriately&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1124" LastEditorUserId="1124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-01T04:58:27.247" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T04:58:27.247" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8015" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8010" CreationDate="2011-02-01T04:27:34.757" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Almost every photo I process usually involves correcting the three repeating issues:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Contrast (corrected using Levels/Curves or exposure control)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sharpness (corrected using Unsharp Mask or Smart Sharpen)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Horizon (corrected using a number of different straightening methods)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've made references to tools found in PhotoShop, but most image editing tools have similar functions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3265" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T04:27:34.757" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8016" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8010" CreationDate="2011-02-01T04:32:48.370" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Don't overdo it. A light touch is often best.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Watch for destructive operations and decide if they're really what you want to do. Increasing contrast (or hitting &quot;auto&quot; in the levels dialog) can add a lot of punch, but comes at the expense of shadow and highlight details.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sharpen last, and with your final output medium in mind. Watch for halo artifacts!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you resize or rotate by non-90° angles, sharpening will be required, but again, don't do more than needed, and if possible save it until you know what the final output will be.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's best if you can work in a color-calibrated setup, and it's worth putting some time into getting there.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T04:32:48.370" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8017" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8006" CreationDate="2011-02-01T04:36:26.370" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://superuser.com/questions/224095/looking-for-temporal-upsampling-motion-interpolation-software&quot;&gt;This question/answer&lt;/a&gt; on &lt;a href=&quot;http://superuser.com/&quot;&gt;Superuser&lt;/a&gt; might be of interest to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://avisynth.org.ru/mvtools/mvtools.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;MVTools&lt;/a&gt; plugin for &lt;a href=&quot;http://avisynth.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;AVISynth&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;  performs frame interpolation. AviSynth&#xA;  (sourceforge) is a script based video&#xA;  editing tool. You define operations to&#xA;  perform in a script text file.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="847" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T04:36:26.370" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="8018" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8011" CreationDate="2011-02-01T04:58:31.550" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes. There is the general consensus now that it is &lt;em&gt;possible&lt;/em&gt; for a zoom lens to be equal or superior in quality to a prime, although some will contest of course ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note the word &lt;em&gt;possible&lt;/em&gt;. There are far too many factors to include either way in absolute terms. What you see now, is that a lot of professionals use zoom lenses for the majority of their shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether it actually is needs to be determined in a case-by-case basis. Meaning you're going to have to do some homework to find out: Check MTF charts, read review and look at full-res samples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For your particular example, I can tell you that the 24-70mm F/2.8 is extremely well regarded. I do not use it myself but several pro photographers I know do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T04:58:31.550" />
  <row Id="8019" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8011" CreationDate="2011-02-01T05:28:18.613" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Prime lenses are usually faster (f/1.4 and f/1.8 from your lenses) which lets you shoot in extreme low light conditions. Using f/2.8 in same scenario might require you to bump ISO by 1 stop or two. If that's not a problem (You're using 5D which performs very well even with high ISOs), 24-70mm is the way to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T05:28:18.613" />
  <row Id="8020" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7963" CreationDate="2011-02-01T05:35:55.030" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Regarding the latter part of your question, how our human vision and its &quot;quirks&quot; affect how we use a camera and how we photograph the world around us. I think the single most valuable piece of advice I have found regarding photography was from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/aesthetics-1.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an article&lt;/a&gt; on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/index.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luminous Landscape&lt;/a&gt;, part of the series &quot;Aesthetics and Photography&quot; by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/briots_view.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Alain Briot&lt;/a&gt; titled:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;How to See Photographically&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What I am talking about here is seeing&#xA;  photographically, or seeing like a&#xA;  camera. How to learn how to see like a&#xA;  camera is the purpose of this essay. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Creating photographs is all about&#xA;  seeing and in this sense it is no&#xA;  different from other two dimensional&#xA;  arts such as painting and drawing.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Creating photographs is really about&#xA;  studying and practicing &quot;the art of&#xA;  seeing&quot;.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The art of seeing, while it may seem mediocre and obvious, is not as easy as it sounds. As mentioned by the other answers here, the human eye and the brainpower behind our &quot;vision&quot; is a subjective engine, constantly and automatically working to make sure we see most clearly what we need and want to see, and pushing all the other &quot;noise&quot; in a scene to the background. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we look at a beautiful mountain vista with our own eyes, we see only the key things we want to see, or what we are drawn to see. The mechanics of our vision take care of &quot;eliminating&quot; the distracting and useless elements, and impose a vision of astounding beauty. The moment we take a photograph of the same scene and chimp it on site, were immediately confused at how boring and commonplace it looks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A simple analogy I've come up with since reading Alain's article is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The art of seeing is the seeing of&#xA;  art.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not enough to see a beautiful scene with our minds eye, and capture it the same way. You must &lt;em&gt;also&lt;/em&gt; &quot;see&quot; with the &lt;em&gt;camera's eye&lt;/em&gt;, and purposefully, explicitly compose the scene you originally envisioned with your minds eye. The latter is where artistic vision comes into play. This is the process of taking direct control of our vision center, seeing everything, and subtracting until our &quot;camera eye&quot; and &quot;minds eye&quot; match. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think a key distinction between the technological eye in our hands and the biological eye in our heads is that the former operates under a fixed set of algorithms, while the latter is adaptive and under the control of conscious thought. We can change aperture, focal length, and sensitivity with our camera, but we can literally change the vision of our mind to suit our needs. All thats needed to achieve that is training and practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few of the key factors in &lt;em&gt;seeing photographically&lt;/em&gt;, the factors that help you change modes from &quot;human sight&quot; to &quot;camera sight&quot;, include the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Seeing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Abstracting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Focusing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Composing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These aspects can be followed explicitly, in order as a sequence of steps, as a form of training. Approaching each scene this way can help you develop your own mode of &quot;camera vision&quot; to complement your normal vision, and bring a whole new level of &lt;em&gt;seeing photographically&lt;/em&gt; to your work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Seeing&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before you can work a scene, you must first see it. Not seeing like a human, but seeing like a camera. Looking at a scene, and reversing the automatic simplification your mind does to help you &lt;em&gt;abstract&lt;/em&gt; a scene and &lt;em&gt;focus&lt;/em&gt; on the important parts. Expand your vision and observe everything that is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Abstracting&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you see everything before you, you need to begin reconstructing what your minds eye saw originally. You need to abstract your expansive vision, separate the different elements, identify what is necessary, what isn't, what is primary, what is secondary. At the same time, recognize the non-visual elements of what you are experiencing...your sense of emotion, the physical feel of the scene, the sounds that are present. Even though they are not visual elements, they are factors of what you are &quot;seeing&quot;, elements of emotion that can still be portrayed via artistic license as you compose and eventually process the final image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Focusing&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that you have identified the elements of the scene before you, its time to contract, to zero in on the important aspects...to focus your vision on what matters and what draws your attention. Localize the abstracted elements of the scene that you wish to keep, and those that you wish to discard: What is interesting, and what isn't? What's important, and what is irrelevant &quot;noise&quot;? What can be done to interweave some sense of emotion into the scene?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Composing&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that you know which elements of a scene you intend to capture, you can finally begin to compose. Composition is framing the focus of your scene while discarding the rest. Composition is involving depth, perspective, and placement of key elements according to natural rules such as thirds or the golden ratio. Composition is the technological equivalent of everything your brain did automatically, in an instant, when your eye first caught a glimpse of that beautiful thing your now trying to photograph. You're now &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;seeing photographically&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;em&gt;artistically seeing the art before you&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;eye&quot; may be simple in the grand scheme of optical systems, it may be small, it may be rather mediocre by our considerably advanced technological standards...but it is still a truly, uncompromisingly amazing device that sees, abstracts, focuses, and composes a thousand times a second. It will let you make the decisions when told, see what you want to see. It is the best tutor your artistic side could ever ask for. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-01T05:46:34.110" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T05:46:34.110" />
  <row Id="8021" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8024" CreationDate="2011-02-01T06:28:05.263" Score="2" ViewCount="170" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon SX210 IS, which has not the possibility to plug-in a external power source.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of that, I want to make a connection to the pins where the battery usually is. I'm a little confused about what's the voltage needed because the battery says 3.7V and the base of the camera says 4.2V.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since I have a car battery and a 7805 voltage regulator I thought I could power the camera directly with the 5V the regulator would give me. But I don't know if it's safe to do that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may ask why would I want to power the camera with 5V instead of using 4.3 from a DC regulator. Well, I'm outside the city right now so there is no way to get a DC power supply like that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(don't ask where did I take the 7805 from).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've found out that my helicopter charger has a voltage of 4.2V and a maximum  current of 850 mA, but it's a typical switched power supply (like the cell phone ones). Is it dangerous to feed my camera with that? What about a little paralell capacitor to filter noises?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1641" LastEditorUserId="1641" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-01T22:58:45.420" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T22:58:45.420" Title="Can I safely use my camera with a external power supply?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;powershot&gt;&lt;power-supply&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8022" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8011" CreationDate="2011-02-01T06:30:04.620" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends heavily on what qualities in the final picture you care about. An f/2.8 lens won't simulate the depth of field of an f/1.4 lens -- ever. Even if the zoom was sharper, it still wouldn't give the shallow DoF of the f/1.4 primes. For portraits, that can (and often will) matter a lot. For landscapes, you'll typically use a fairly small aperture in any case so it's unlikely to make any real difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T06:30:04.620" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8023" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8021" CreationDate="2011-02-01T07:09:28.907" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't recommend doing this. You have no idea whether the 4.3v marking on the camera is some engineer being conservative (in which case the camera can probably take something a bit higher... maybe), or that there's a component in there that's gonna fry as soon as anything over 4.3v hits it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seriously, don't take chances unless you don't really care if the camera gets fried. If you can't afford to lose it then it's &lt;em&gt;way&lt;/em&gt; better to be right than to be fast before you connect anything up. The correct regulator is going to cost &lt;em&gt;much&lt;/em&gt; less than buying a new camera 'cause you fried it...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-01T07:27:06.693" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T07:27:06.693" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8024" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8021" CreationDate="2011-02-01T07:10:51.403" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I looked up an SX210 manual online, and it says that there &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; an external power port.  Look at page 156 of your user's manual; the online guide I found recommended the ACK-DC30 kit.  You plug a coupler (which has the same form factor as a battery) into the battery bay, and plug the AC cord into a slot in the battery door.  The ACK-DC30 is $50 on amazon; you can probably get an off-brand version for less, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T07:10:51.403" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8025" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8010" CreationDate="2011-02-01T07:40:58.227" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fisrt step: know your tools. You start experimenting, learn all shortcuts, filters, layer modes... and then try to use them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If all else fails, read the instructions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3598" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T07:40:58.227" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8026" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7988" CreationDate="2011-02-01T09:03:01.450" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I own an HP Z3100 44&quot; printer and the prints coming out are amazing.  The Canon you listed will also print out amazing images.  You just need to understand how to profile your paper/ink combination.  Custom profiles will help you get the most out of your printer especially when you start to print on non-Canon/HP/Epson papers (based on the printer you end up with).  I will put it this way.  I had a show and people would come into my tent and they thought that the prints were coming from a medium format camera and traditional dark room.  They were shocked when I told them the massive prints came from a 10MP camera and an ink-jet printer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moab, Hahnemühle, Harman etc will provide really good longevity. My printer output is rated at 200 years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing to look for is photo black vs. matte black carts.  The Epsons have in the past forced you to replace the cartridge and purge the ink out as you switch from matte papers to photo (glossy/lustre). If all you are going to print is matte or glossy/luster then it should not matter to you, but get ready to get mad if you want to switch the paper type.  I do not know if Epson has fixed this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3622" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T09:03:01.450" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8027" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6153" CreationDate="2011-02-01T10:17:30.147" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me spin it another way to worry you.  A prosumer Nikon D7000 shutter is rated for 150,000 actuations.  At 24 cinematic fps this is less than 2 hours of &quot;footage&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, this is a hell of a lot of interval footage (just ask Ron Fricke!).  Feature length time-lapse productions are rare and specific.  This fact, combined with the likelihood that YOUR shutter will live much longer works in your favor.  Or you could be unlucky!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tim Burton and Nick Park, on the other hand, shooting on the opposite side of the interval spectrum would probably go through your camera many times over in a stop-motion production.  But we're not worried...they could afford it. ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3624" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T10:17:30.147" />
  <row Id="8028" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7994" CreationDate="2011-02-01T10:34:12.433" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For your purpose, you do not actually want a macro for its macro capabilities, but because it has very minimal distortion and a very flat field of focus. The 60mm macro qualifies, as does the 50mm f/2.5 &quot;Compact Macro&quot;, but not necessarily the 50mm f/1.8. The 50 2.5 CM's lack of true-macro 1:1 magnification is not relevant in your case but its good flat-field and distortion features are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T10:34:12.433" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8029" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8040" CreationDate="2011-02-01T10:34:45.977" Score="16" ViewCount="737" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've recently started to use RAW with Lightroom. I'd like opinions on how I should make sure my images are readable (not necessarily editable) a few years hence. Heck, let's say &lt;strike&gt;a decade&lt;/strike&gt; some decades.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should I keep my archives in Nikon's raw format, in conjunction with the LR database? Should I convert them to TIFF? How about DNG?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastEditorUserId="3114" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-01T20:25:49.667" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T05:32:58.573" Title="How do I make sure my RAW files are readable in the future?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;backup&gt;&lt;archive&gt;" AnswerCount="12" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="8030" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8011" CreationDate="2011-02-01T10:36:44.193" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Besides the DoF that most people talked about, for the sizes you will be printing, i really don't think you will be noticing a LOT of difference in image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 24-70 will have more chromatic aberration and such, being a zoom lens, but it's also a 1200$ Canon L lens, it certainly won't be rubbish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And f2.8 gives a reasonably shallow DoF, it can be more than enough, if you use it well. And this goes to every lens: they all have limits, but when you get to know them and work around it, you get good (better:P) results!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd go for convenience and flexibility over sheer IQ everyday, especially for the range of hardware we're talking about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OR, alternatively, go with just one prime and Cartier-Bresson'it. :D&#xA;(this will probably be the cheapest solution)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3462" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T10:36:44.193" />
  <row Id="8031" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8010" CreationDate="2011-02-01T10:41:51.897" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;First thing to realise is that post-processing cannot work miracles.  For the most part, if you didn't get a photo quite right in-camera, you can't easily fix it in post processing.  This is especially true for out of focus pictures, motion blur, unflattering lighting, and the subject pulling the wrong face.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You said you were a beginner - this is something an absolute beginner should know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For post-processing to be worth it, you need to start from an image that is done very well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For landscapes in particular, you need a SHARP image to start with.  Presumably you know how to stop down a lens to its sharpest point (f/5.6 or something).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Always keep the original.  NEVER save over it.  Always think of post-processing as adding new layers to a photo, but you have to be able to start over.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To that end, once you are advanced enough you should learn to use &quot;layers&quot; in your application in such a way that it helps you be non-destructive to the layer below it - if you decide you've done something wrong to a layer you can always hide it and create a duplicate.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Some operations are a lot more destructive than others and should not be done until the very end.  Resizing/resampling and sharpening are included here.  The order you do them can make a difference; most prefer sharpening last (which would make resizing second last).  Remember to keep a copy prior to resizing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Be exploratory and creative.  Don't limit yourself just to following tutorials but play with all the filters and controls yourself to see what effect they have.  Endless experimentation will help you learn by doing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Learn how to read a histogram, especially what it looks like when you have clipped highlights or shadows.  Have the histogram permanently visible while editing.  When you perform any filter or transformation, watch that you have not destroyed any dynamic range by clipping inadvertently.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T10:41:51.897" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8032" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8029" CreationDate="2011-02-01T11:20:44.970" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Adobe's &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative_%28file_format%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Negative&lt;/a&gt; format is an attempt to create a free open &quot;universal&quot; format explicitly to solve the issue of long term digital archiving. It is used natively by some cameras but not yet by the big two (Nikon/Canon). It is however easy to convert from Nikon/Canon Raw to DNG. It make take a little more time to see if DNG will gain traction in the mainstream.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would certainly keep the original RAW files and also convert to DNG to hedge my bets. I think Nikon's RAW will be easily usable in 10-20 years, simply due to the sheer number of images images in the world. 100 years? Maybe not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastEditorUserId="3180" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-01T13:41:08.303" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T13:41:08.303" />
  <row Id="8033" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8029" CreationDate="2011-02-01T11:26:00.003" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a good question, unfortunately I do not know a good answer. My guess is that you are safe as long as Nikon exists and as long as they do not force you to buy a new camera or software ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, since NEF, Nikons RAW file format, is proprietary and Nikon's software does not offer DNG export - as far as I know - you will not have a 1:1 copy of the RAW file in DNG format. Furthermore we do not know wheter DNG will exist that long or reach a wide compatibility and acceptance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus what I am doing is, saving the final picture as a high res JPEG along with the RAW file. JPEG is around for a while and has, in my opinion, the longest expectation of life and acceptance from todays digital image formats.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2549" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T11:26:00.003" />
  <row Id="8034" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8029" CreationDate="2011-02-01T11:42:16.457" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While file formats may become obsolete it is not going to happen in one moment. After new format is introduced software will continue to support old one for some years - so you will have plenty of time to convert all your photos.&#xA;Also in worst case you can always install old software (and if software no longer works on your system you can use virtual machine) which supports your format.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2922" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T11:42:16.457" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8035" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7962" CreationDate="2011-02-01T11:48:30.090" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The human eye&lt;/strong&gt; really sucks compared to modern camera lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The human visual system&lt;/strong&gt;, on the other hand, far surpasses any modern camera system (lens, sensor, firmware).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The human eye is only sharp in the centre.  In fact, it's only sharp in one very, very tiny spot known as the &lt;strong&gt;fovea&lt;/strong&gt;, which is a spot whose diameter is less than one percent of our total angle of view.  So we have some serious corner softness going on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The human brain is able to correct for this, however.  It instructs the eye to make very rapid movements all around a scene so that the sharp part in the middle darts around.  The brain then has a pretty awesome in-body image stabilisation, because it takes all these rapid movements and stitches them together to make one, sharp scene - well, at least all the bits the eye landed on while darting around will be sharp.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The human eye is quite sensitive to light, but at low light levels no colour information is available.  In addition to this, the sharp part in the centre (the fovea) is less sensitive to light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Technically it's because the eye has separate photosites called cones for the three colours (red, green, blue), and another different type of photosite called rods that only captures black and white, but is much more efficient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The brain stitches all these together to create an excellent full colour image during the day, but even when it's really, really dark it comes up with a soft, colourless image made by all the rods.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The eye only has one lens element and it produces terrible chromatic aberration in the form of purple fringing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually, this fringe is all in the very short wavelengths of light.  The human visual system is least sensitive to these blues and violets.  In addition to this, it's able to correct for that fringing that does exist in a few ways. First, because the human vision system is only sharp in the middle, and that's where there is the least chromatic aberration.  And secondly, because our colour resolution is (outside the fovea) much lower than our brightness resolution, and the brain doesn't tend to use blue when figuring out brightness.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;We can see in three dimensions.  This is partly because we have two eyes, and the brain can do amazing calculations relating to convergence between them.  But it's also more advanced than that; as well as the &quot;3D effect&quot; you get from stereo vision, the brain can also reconstruct scenes in three dimensions even when looking at a two-dimensional photo of the scene.  It's because it understands cues such as occlusion, shadows, perspective and size clues and uses all these to put together the scene as a 3D space.  When we look at a photo of a long hallway we can see that the hallway extends away from us even though we don't have stereo vision, because the brain understands perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T11:48:30.090" />
  <row Id="8036" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7986" CreationDate="2011-02-01T12:14:08.023" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;you haven't said how out of focus, or what lenses or indeed focus mode you are using. Are the shots still out of focus when you manually focus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What it could be is that all lenses and cameras are slightly different due to build tolerances, usually this wouldn't be a problem, say your camera was front focussing by +5 and your lens -5 (back focussing) the focus should be spot on, however, if both are front focusing this could take you out of the acceptable tolerance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fix for this is to get both your camera AND lens calibrated together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T12:14:08.023" />
  <row Id="8037" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7848" CreationDate="2011-02-01T12:20:02.543" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In simple terms,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;For long exposures, you need a&#xA;tripod.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't make sense to use IS on a&#xA;tripod.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is it best to turn if off?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, for image stabilisation to work it needs to detect, at high speed, fine rotational movements.  However no such detection is ever 100% accurate - there's always an error margin which translates to very fine, low level movements.  This never matters in normal situations where you'd use it, because in reality holding the camera by hand at 1/250th or slower will always generate far, far more movement than any inaccuracy of the image stabilisation system.  So it's a net gain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the camera is locked down completely with a tripod, however, then there should be no movement of the camera.  So not only is IS not needed, but you wouldn't want the inaccuracy of its rotational detection system to generate tiny movements at all.  Even though any motion will be less than hand-holding at a normal shutter speed, if you had the ability to have less chance of blur, you'd take it wouldn't you?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some cameras are smart enough to detect they're likely on a tripod and won't move the IS system, just like some cameras will automatically turn off IS for shutter speeds of 1/500 and faster.  But it's kind of hard to find out this information about any particular lens or body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T12:20:02.543" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8038" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8010" CreationDate="2011-02-01T12:45:17.483" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Learn your color profile of your camera (or choose it) and find the tool which supports it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;i am using ProPhoto RGB generally for printing and lightroom supports it nicely. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if you going to show your work on web, for better browser support, you may want to choose sRGB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For better explanation and tips : &lt;a href=&quot;http://mansurovs.com/is-your-browser-color-managed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://mansurovs.com/is-your-browser-color-managed&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2639" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T12:45:17.483" />
  <row Id="8039" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7986" CreationDate="2011-02-01T12:48:53.190" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If your lens has anything like a flat field of focus (that is, if you can shoot a brick wall and the bricks in the corner are &lt;em&gt;almost&lt;/em&gt;† as sharp as the bricks in the centre), then focus-and-recompose except at telephoto-class angles of view is going to result in some amount of focus error. You aren't focusing according to the distance between the camera and the subject, but on the distance &lt;strong&gt;between the film/sensor plane and the subject&lt;/strong&gt;. When you focus then recompose, you are changing the angle of the sensor plane, and so you are changing the distance between the sensor plane and the subject.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/8804j.png&quot; alt=&quot;Exaggerated example graphic&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this exaggerated example, you move the camera to focus on the subject at the centre of the frame and everything looks hunky &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; dory. But when you recompose, your focus point lies on the red line, which is now &lt;em&gt;behind&lt;/em&gt; the subject. The wider your lens and the further from centre your subject is in the final composition, the worse this gets. With very long lenses and subjects that are not too very close, you'd hardly notice, but on a standard lens or wider it really gets to be a problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Somewhat counterintuitively, &quot;badly corrected&quot; lenses are going to be better-behaved in a focus-and-recompose scenario than &quot;high quality&quot; lenses. Their spherical field of focus means that you are more likely to be closer to being in focus after recomposing -- even if the brick wall shot looks horrible at the corners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have other autofocus sensors available that are closer to where the subject is going to be in the final image, use them instead. The less you can move the camera between focusing and shooting, the better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;† I say &lt;em&gt;almost&lt;/em&gt; because very few lenses, even those with very flat fields, can focus obliquely as well as they can focus normally, so some amount of corner softening is the usual case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastEditorUserId="2719" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-01T23:17:01.710" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T23:17:01.710" />
  <row Id="8040" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8029" CreationDate="2011-02-01T12:57:56.663" Score="19" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Having finished scanning 40 year old film I can assure you that you need to think longer term than 10 years, in fact at least 40 years.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To know whether there is an answer one must understand the problem. These things can happen:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;proprietary software makers stop supporting old formats, very possible after 40 years.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;proprietary operating systems stop supporting old photographic programs, also very possible after 40 years.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a copy of the 40 year old proprietary operating system will no longer run on current hardware, highly probable.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, there is a real possibility that in 40 years time you will no longer be able to read your RAW images, using proprietary software. This is not to criticise proprietary software makers. Their shareholders require them to generate profits and growth which can be incompatible with maintaining decades old software.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anything be done?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;store your images as DNG. Support is coalescing around this format, making it rather more likely to survive over the long term.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;store a copy as a high res jpeg. This will be readable for a long time.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;keep a copy of your operating system and programs in a virtual machine. For example, for other reasons, I keep a copy of Windows 98 in a virtual box, allowing me to run it under more recent operating systems, on more recent hardware.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, because I am involved in the open source world, I am confident there will always be an open source solution. I say this because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it is a requirement of the GPL licence to keep the source code available. This means you can always locate the relevant program and recompile it to run in the current environment (or somebody else will do it).  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;there is an army of open source programmers who delight in supporting even the quaintest and most esoteric things. An example of this is that, right now, Linux supports a wider variety of hardware devices than MS Windows.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;open source programmers are very active in supporting the various RAW formats.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may remember the Commodore 64. It was introduced in Jan 1982, 28 years ago, but was quickly obsoleted by the then new IBM PC. But even today you can run programs for that machine thanks to the Commodore 64 emulators developed and maintained by the open source world. This is evidence that we will be able to depend on open source solutions for a long time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1797" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-01T17:35:12.710" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T17:35:12.710" CommentCount="11" />
  <row Id="8041" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7986" CreationDate="2011-02-01T13:08:14.847" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's important to test that your camera and lens is actually setting the focus correctly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it's quite straightforward (if a little involved) to test this. What you need to do is the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set up your camera on a heavy tripod on a solid floor in a brightly-lit room&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Create a high-contrast detailed subject (perhaps a newspaper) directly in front of the camera, a short distance away (depending on the focal length of the lens). &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set your camera to auto-focus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Disable any image stabilisation (as this tends to make the lens or camera move slightly when on a tripod)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use the mirror lock-up mode, if available&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set the aperture to be mid-range (e.g. f8)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use the viewfinder or live view to confirm the subject is correctly positioned in the frame&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use a remote trigger of some sort (or a timer delay) to trigger the camera to take the shot, so that pressing the shutter button doesn't move the camera when it's taking the photograph&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can then examine the photo at 100% (i.e. at a pixel level) in the center of the short to see the sharpness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are still seeing blurry images, try using live-view (if available) in a zoomed mode with manual focus, to adjust the focus yourself. If you can get a sharper shot using this method, it's a problem with the autofocus. If not, it's a problem with the lens or camera that will need to be fixed or replaced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2127" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T13:08:14.847" />
  <row Id="8042" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-01T13:26:12.367" Score="0" ViewCount="41" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I just want to ask. Where do you recommend someone to take a &lt;strong&gt;Computer vision/Image processing&lt;/strong&gt; related degree ONLINE?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3625" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T13:26:12.367" ClosedDate="2011-02-01T13:56:13.963" Title="Computer vision/Image processing degrees" Tags="&lt;image-processing&gt;&lt;vision&gt;" />
  <row Id="8043" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-01T13:46:14.163" Score="16" ViewCount="740" Body="&lt;p&gt;How does the human vision system perceive color, and how can/should this be taken into account when taking and post-processing photographs (both in color and in black and white)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: I seem to have hit a bunch of confusion with this, so clearly I'm not asking well. The bit above is &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; question I'm asking; below are some follow-on musings exploring some of the question-space.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do the color receptors in our eyes relate to the RGB used in Bayer (and Foveon) sensors and in RGB color spaces? Do the R, G, and B primary filters used correspond directly to the different types of cone cells in the retina? If not, &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; not? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How is the color response of the eye interpreted in the brain? How do those three (overlapping!) wavelength-responses get translated into a full range of hues?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there certain areas within the color space which we perceive where we can distinguish more close-together gradients of color? Are there areas where we effectively have &quot;blind spots&quot; within the spectrum — areas of low discrimination even though the wavelengths of light vary significantly? Since I have no background in this, &lt;em&gt;have I got it all wrong?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How much does physiological color perception (the specificity of discrimination mentioned above, in particular) vary from person to person? Leaving aside color blindness, are our cone cells all tuned to exactly the same frequency? How important are differences in this area to overall color perception?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the mechanism by which our internal &quot;auto white balance&quot; works? (Is it based on learned knowledge about the way things &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; look, or is physiological?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we look at a black and white image, how does our memory of color affect our interpretation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am aware of and have read &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the Wikipedia article on human vision&lt;/a&gt; and on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;cone cells&lt;/a&gt; and some of the related articles one gets from following the wiki links. A summary of the basics is fine in the answers, but I'm really looking for aspects that are interesting for photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/users/269/&quot;&gt;D. Lambert&lt;/a&gt; adds in a comment to an answer below:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ok, so this is a pretty good&#xA;  biological introduction, but how do&#xA;  we, as photographers, make use of this&#xA;  info? Do we boost blues in our photos&#xA;  to compensate for low &quot;S&quot; counts? Is&#xA;  there something we should be doing to&#xA;  take advantage of the extra&#xA;  sensitivity for greens? Maybe there's&#xA;  something about the way our brains&#xA;  process color that accounts for the&#xA;  appeal of B&amp;amp;W photos in some cases. Is&#xA;  anyone aware of any work in this&#xA;  direction?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which is exactly the sort of thing I'm trying to get at with this question. Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found this quote to be interesting:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Our brains generate the colors we see for reasons of biological advantage, just as brains make up the qualities of all our other perceptions. If you have doubts about this assertion, consider the perception of pain. The sensation we perceive when we accidentally touch a hot stove is not a feature of the world but a sensory quality that leads to useful behavior. — Dale Purves, &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=j0tZ1aIyENwC&amp;amp;lpg=PA143&amp;amp;ots=yz1EPJUapU&amp;amp;dq=Our%20brains%20generate%20the%20colors%20we%20see%20for%20reasons%20of%20biological%20advantage,%20just%20as%20brains%20make%20up%20the%20qualities%20of%20all%20our%20other%20perceptions.%20If%20you%20have%20doubts%20about%20this%20assertion,%20consider%20the%20perception%20of%20pain.%20The%20sensation%20we%20perceive%20when%20we%20accidentally%20touch%20a%20hot%20stove%20is%20not%20a%20feature%20of%20the%20world%20but%20a%20sensory%20quality%20that%20leads%20to%20useful%20behavior.&amp;amp;pg=PA143#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Brains: How they seem to work&lt;/a&gt;, FT Press, 2010&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we take a color photograph, we are working with that &lt;em&gt;sensory quality&lt;/em&gt; in a unique way, different from how a sculptor or even a painter works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-23T19:23:02.750" LastActivityDate="2011-04-23T19:23:02.750" Title="How can knowledge of human perception of color be used in photography?" Tags="&lt;color&gt;&lt;human-vision-system&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="19" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="8044" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8010" CreationDate="2011-02-01T15:02:39.933" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As others indicated, make sure you've got a good backup first, then start experimenting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many post processing programs will have some sort of &quot;auto-fix&quot; or &quot;smart-fix&quot; mode.  As you get better at shooting and post-processing, it's likely that this mode won't really do what you want to do, but when you're starting out, this is a really good way to see your photo interpreted a little differently, and in many cases it'll give you some ideas for things to adjust.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes, that little jolt is enough to start developing your mind's eye so you can start to envision what your photo might turn into.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T15:02:39.933" />
  <row Id="8045" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8029" CreationDate="2011-02-01T15:13:13.860" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To be honest, I think this is a non-issue and the RAW formats will be supported a long time in to the future. Canon/Nikon RAW formats may be proprietary but there are many programs that can read and convert them into other formats, and I think there always will due to the shear number of files as @Ken stated. I think I would be more concerned whether the backed up media will last that long and still be readable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look at computing today, a lot of old computers from the 80's/90's have been emulated to run on modern hardware - I am sure in 50 years time our quantum computers/Matrix will be more than capable of emulating today's technology. Unless we have a nuclear holocaust, in which case we won't be too concerned about whether or not we can read our old files and be more concerned about surviving and stopping our limbs from dropping off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="358" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T15:13:13.860" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8046" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8043" CreationDate="2011-02-01T15:17:54.930" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The eye has two types of photoreceptive cells, rods and cones. Rod cells work in low light and are located toward the periphery of the eye and sense form and movement whereas cone cells are densely packed in the centre of the eye and sense colour but require more light. Think *c*one = *c*olour to help remember which is which.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are three types of cone cell L, M, S which sense different parts of the spectrum which broadly correspond to yellow (Long wavelengths) green (Medium wavelengths) and blue (Short wavelengths) of light. They are randomly distributed so they are more like colour film than the regular arrangement of colours in a Bayer sensor. Intermediate tones are interpreted by the relative responses of each type of cell in a manner loosely analogous to Bayer demosaicing, except cells are paired up so that a pair of L and M cells records the red/green axis of the incoming light colour and L/M pairs are paired again with S cells to record the blue/yellow axis. Thus we see colour in the L*a*b* space rather than the RGB space. This makes sense as L*a*b* was designed to better cover the colour gamut of the human eye which is fingerprint shaped than the triangle shaped RGB spaces.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Due to the closeness of the L and M frequency response curves, and the relative rarity of S cells (only 1 in 20) the eye is more sensitive to green &amp;amp; yellow wavelengths of light, and I have heard that this is why Bayer sensors have twice as many green pixels as they have red or blue. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would make sense from an evolutionary perspective since if you're hunting &amp;amp; gathering in dense greenery then being able to detect fine graduations of colour would help you find food. Blue is also rare in nature (among flora and fauna) which accounts for the lack of S cells.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe the frequency response of each type of cone cell are very similar from individual to individual, however the relative numbers of L and M cells can vary widely from 75 : 20 to 50 : 45 (I had to dive into Wikipedia for this) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The amount of light also drastically influences colour perception in humans. To the naked eye stars mostly appear white, due to the low level of incoming light, whereas in reality they are all different colours depending on the composition / age / velocity of the stars. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-02T13:55:38.267" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T13:55:38.267" CommentCount="14" />
  <row Id="8047" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8029" CreationDate="2011-02-01T15:58:09.827" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;TIFF is far more timeless.  In 10 (or 40 or 100) years it's just as likely software would be able to read your Nikon RAW file as a DNG file, so to expend the effort in conversion makes little sense to me as any conversion to a more homogenized format risks losing some data from the original file.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conversion into 16-bit TIFF files is your best option, to preserve as much tonal range from the image as possible.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not suggesting you delete the RAW files, you should always keep your RAW files as they are your &quot;digital negative&quot;.  This is true regardless of whatever format you convert to.  But TIFF as an alternate format will always be able to be read easily by pretty much any program that deals with images (even browsers can display a TIFF file).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastEditorUserId="1192" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-02T04:01:26.147" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T04:01:26.147" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8048" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8029" CreationDate="2011-02-01T16:28:31.077" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The file format is basically irrelevant&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What's much more important is the physical medium. Look at seven inch floppies, three inch, qic, sun scsi, pata, ... All these and more have gone and it will be more and more difficult to get drives, and even if you have drives, the interconnects for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will need to periodically update the physical media, then the files will almost certainly be readable by some piece of software or other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3629" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T16:28:31.077" />
  <row Id="8049" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7988" CreationDate="2011-02-01T16:58:44.487" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Canon iPF 8300 is one of the more advanced large-format, commercial printers available on the market today. It is indeed designed to produce the highest quality large format prints possible. The key thing about the 8300 is that it uses Lucia EX ink, which is a very new pigment ink formulation specifically designed to produce a wide gamut on print. Similar to Epson's Ultrachrome HDR ink, the solid color gamut reproducible by Lucia EX supports over 90% of the Pantone Solid Color matching system on supported paper types. The Epson 7900 and 9900 are Epson's counterparts, and offer up to 98% Pantone on a specific paper type and at maximum DPI.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ink is the primary factor that affects print output, quality, and gamut. If you intend to create prints that most accurately reproduce color and render fine tonal gradients smoothly, I highly recommend a Canon printer that supports Lucia EX ink, or an Epson printer that supports Ultrachrome HDR ink. For the widest gamut possible on a variety of unique paper types, such as metallic, you might want to look at the Epson Stylus Pro WT7900. This printer uses a new white ink, part of the Ultrachrome HDR + White ink set, which allows more control over highlight tones and possibly even white point. When it comes to HP printers, they are currently not as competitive in the area of ink as Canon and Epson are. Their Vivera pigment ink seems to date back to 2006, which is pretty old by current standards. Canon Lucia EX was released in March 2010, and Epson Ultrachrome HDR was released late 2009, so these brands have a considerable edge over the competition when it comes to accurate color reproduction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for which paper type is best...thats a much more subjective area. Both Canon and Epson wide-gamut, large format printers only support their maximum gamuts on a small range of their own brand of papers. A wide gamut is still supported for other papers, including off-brand papers, however they can't guarantee 90% Pantone Solid Color coverage on every paper type (at least, not yet.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several key factors in choosing a paper for your prints. Not every type of photography looks the same on any type of paper, so you need to choose paper types that compliment the type of photography you are printing. Some types look best on glossy or luster papers, some require bright white or pure white, other types look best on natural papers with warmer white points. Some experimentation will be necessary to identify which paper types, finishes, and white points best compliment the type of photography you are printing. In this area, Epson offers more brand name papers than others, however their papers are not necessarily the best, either. Canon offers a fairly broad range of paper, however much of it is manufactured by Hahnemuhle. There are also plenty of third party papers from manufacturers who have been in the business for hundreds of years, including Hahnemuhle (and Harman), Moab, Museo, Ilford, Breathing Color, etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certain factors of a paper affect the reproducible gmaut when printed on. One of the primary factors that affects gamut is the white point and white brightness of the paper. A &quot;purer&quot; white, one that falls around 5500K-6500K, will expand the reproducible gamut as well as maximum tonal range, as it is a purer, more &quot;white&quot; white. Cooler whites (that show up almost blue) or warmer whites (that show up with more orange or red) will reduce or shift the reproducible gamut, as the paper itself will affect color reproduction. Black and white prints tend to look best with a pure white paper, unless you want the artistic or warming effect of a &quot;natural&quot; white paper (which is what most matte fine art papers provide). The brighter the paper, the greater the tonal range is likely to be. Some papers include optical brighteners, which use UV sensitive material that absorbs UV light and emits light in visible wavelengths. Gloss, semigloss, luster papers often have optical brighteners, which can help improve gamut and tonal range...however since they have UV reactive components, they often require a specific kind of lighting to reproduce color correctly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another aspect of print quality is paper texture. Not all paper is equal in this regard, and there are a variety of materials, including wood, cotton, bamboo, sugar cane fibers, used to create the printable surface of a paper. Certain fiber types bring out the most in certain types of photography, and certain textures can help add a bit of artistic flare.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my personal experience, I've found that gloss or luster papers are best paired with portraits, pure white papers are ideal for black and white prints, and photo rag (cotton) papers with a natural white produce superb landscape prints. I personally try to avoid papers with optical brighteners, however such papers may serve your specific type of photography well, so I would experiment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T16:58:44.487" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8050" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5245" CreationDate="2011-02-01T17:07:54.247" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_28_135mm_f_3_5_5_6_is_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cannon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm actually surprised that someone else hasn't mentioned this one yet, but this is the second lens that I picked up (the first being the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_50mm_f_1_4_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cannon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM&lt;/a&gt;) and found the lens to be quite good for the following reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Flexibility&lt;/strong&gt; - For the hobbyist photographer it gives you a good range and while you might come to find it limiting over time, when you first start out it gives you enough options that you don't have to worry about swapping out lenses a lot.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Optics&lt;/strong&gt; - While it doesn't fall in to the same category as L glass, it gets the job done quite well and I didn't notice any issues with any of the photographs I've taken with the lens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Image Stabilization&lt;/strong&gt; - This point speaks for itself, IS will get you some shots that you might need a tripod for.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Price&lt;/strong&gt; - The price isn't too painful when buying the lens new on its own; however, since it was a kit lens for some higher end bodies, the secondary market is actually a bit weaker than for some other lenses and it isn't uncommon to find the used in like new condition for half price or less.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3630" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T17:07:54.247" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-01T17:07:54.247" />
  <row Id="8051" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8060" CreationDate="2011-02-01T17:26:46.800" Score="12" ViewCount="291" Body="&lt;p&gt;I hear people talk about 'building their photography portfolio.' What is a photography portfolio, and when would I use it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T08:23:43.503" Title="What is a photography portfolio, and when would I use it?" Tags="&lt;business&gt;&lt;portfolio&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="8052" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8029" CreationDate="2011-02-01T17:45:48.407" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only constant in life is change, so planning for that change is very important.  I have some negatives I inherited from my grandparents that are over 60 years old (circa 1948-1949).  These negatives are on a non-standard film (by today's standards), larger than 35mm but not quite medium format--127 format.  My scanner can still read the format, although I have to be careful handling it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You aren't going to find a single digital standard that is going to outlast the film, but there are still things you can do to hedge your bets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Store your image files in a vendor neutral, no-loss storage format.  TIFF files with 16 bits per channel (48 bits per pixel) will keep all the detail your camera can dish out.  Most sensors don't do more than 12 or 14 bits per channel in RAW.  Just be careful not to use JPEG compression in your TIFF files.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Update your stored files over time.  Sometimes a change to the spec has to be made that is not compatible with older versions to fix new problems.  By batch upgrading your digital files every 5 years, or every decade, you can stay current enough.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Be a ruthless editor.  Before you update your stored files, take the opportunity to weed out the pictures that just aren't important enough to keep.  Your daughter's birthday party may be an important event, but you don't need every single picture from it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The pictures you have that survive 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60+ years should be the ones with the most importance.  They can be historical, sentimental, or just really good timeless pictures.  Some pictures only have a very limited time of significance.  For example, I do sports photography at my alma mater high school, and the pictures I take only hold significance until the children in it graduate.  That's when I bundle them up, and give them to the kid's family.  (it's a small school).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another option to avoid digital obsolescence is to avoid digital altogether.  There are some services out there to convert your digital pictures to film.  Depending on the emulsion, film can resolve up to 2400 lpi (line pairs per inch), or roughly the same as 4800 dpi (dots per inch).  It's a big expense, so you should only consider it for the pictures you really want to keep long term.  It also takes up a lot of room, but it is an option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3631" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T17:45:48.407" />
  <row Id="8053" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-01T17:57:12.623" Score="8" ViewCount="336" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon's 50mm prime lenses are all non-IS (Image Stabilization) for some reason. Considering the popularity of these range primes, shouldn't Canon be interested in shipping a new, optically improved IS version? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2607" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T12:34:10.540" Title="Why there is no Canon 50mm *IS* lens?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;prime&gt;&lt;50mm&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8054" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8053" CreationDate="2011-02-01T18:07:47.300" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two main reason why there's little chance we're going to see 50mm IS lens in the near future:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;50mm lenses tend to be very simple and therefore cheap. Complicating its design with an image stabilizer group would push the price significantly higher, while the added benefit of IS wouldn't be that high at 50mm focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you want an expensive and light-hungry 50mm, there's already the huge lump of glass that is EF 50mm f/1.2L. There's not much point in having IS in such fast (and relatively wide) lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T18:07:47.300" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8055" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8058" CreationDate="2011-02-01T18:10:28.883" Score="13" ViewCount="267" Body="&lt;p&gt;While there was a good discussion of &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3348/lab-prints-vs-printer&quot;&gt;using a lab vs. a personal printer&lt;/a&gt;, I'm curious what folks see as the advantages to using a pro photo lab as compared to the local drugstore or supermarket.  Why should a photographer send files to someone like Miller's or White House Custom Color instead of just having images printed at the local WalMart or Walgreen's?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-27T20:14:28.020" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T20:14:28.020" Title="Prints: Pro labs vs. supermarkets - what's the difference?" Tags="&lt;printing&gt;&lt;photolabs&gt;" AnswerCount="5" />
  <row Id="8056" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8053" CreationDate="2011-02-01T18:11:51.177" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That is a question for Canon. Honestly, I would not expect them to answer anything about their reasons or plans for not doing something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you may note is that there are very few prime lenses with stabilization. If you look across ALL major brands, there are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_lens.php?stabilization=1&amp;amp;prime=1&amp;amp;by=feature&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;only 20 of them&lt;/a&gt; among 213!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One would assume the base logic is that prime lenses have wider apertures than zooms and so stabilization is &lt;em&gt;less&lt;/em&gt; needed. This is actually one reason I primarily shoot with Pentax and I enjoy using a F/1.8 lens with stabilization for extreme low-light shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There may be a technical answer, but I would just be guessing. Perhaps if you start moving lens elements, you may eat away at some of the quality advantage, or perhaps it is harder to stabilize at wider apertures? I'm curious too but don't really know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T18:11:51.177" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8057" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8055" CreationDate="2011-02-01T18:19:39.383" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a few key differences typically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The quality of the ink is higher, usually standing the test of time better.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The color gamut is usually higher, resulting in richer colors.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The paper quality is typically higher, resulting in both of the above. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even among the pro printers, there can be differences. See the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.smugmug.com/photos/pro-print-labs-test-results/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Smugmug Photo Lab comparison&lt;/a&gt;, for instance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T18:19:39.383" />
  <row Id="8058" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8055" CreationDate="2011-02-01T18:29:27.977" Score="22" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a photography business owner's perspective, the reasons I use a pro lab are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Paper selection&lt;/strong&gt; - My lab offers me literally a dozen options for paper.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Size Matters&lt;/strong&gt; - Try getting a supermarket to print you a 30x60. ;-) Seriously, though... I rarely print anything smaller than an 8x10, and most of the time bigger than that... Supermarkets are designed to spit out 5x7s or 4x6s by the hundreds, but anything bigger than that quickly gets expensive and slow... Or the answer becomes 'we can't do that.'&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Eyes on the Print&lt;/strong&gt; - At my lab a human reviews the images before they're printed on state-of-the-art color calibrated gear, and they're trained, competent and I trust them to make adjustments on the fly if need-be. Additionally I can tell them to print 'as-is' (e.g. don't touch or adjust anything!) on a print-by-print basis. At the supermarket whether I like it or not a computer algorithm is going to decide if my prints are too dark or too light and then monkey with the exposure in a formulaic way blowing out all my highlights, or muddying my shadows, without caring a bit for the artistry or intent of the pictures. And if anyone is looking at them, it's generally going to be a pimply-faced minimum-wager with no training to speak of.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What &lt;em&gt;else&lt;/em&gt; can you print on?&lt;/strong&gt; - Canvas wraps, albums, giclee prints. Try getting those printed at the supermarket.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When Quality Counts&lt;/strong&gt; - Better quality ink. Better quality paper. Better quality in general.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Brand that Sucker!&lt;/strong&gt; - At my lab I get a clearly printed copyright statement on the back of every print, and a gold-foil logo on the bottom right corner on the front.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I do realize that some of the above only apply to business owners, but in general even my students can see the benefit of #1, #2, #3, and #5 even for their personal projects and work that they just want to hang in their own homes...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-01T18:56:45.927" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T18:56:45.927" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="8059" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8029" CreationDate="2011-02-01T18:34:24.870" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One photo file format with good longevity prospects is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Network_Graphics&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PNG&lt;/a&gt;. PNG files can store images with 16-bit-per-channel color depth and lossless compression. Unlike the raw formats, PNG is an open standard, implemented by freely available software libraries and supported even by very basic editors like Windows Paint. Unlike TIFF, PNG is a relatively simple format that's easy for programs to support fully.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PNG is largely overlooked in the photography sphere, but I suspect that its openness and simplicity will lead it to be supported for a long, long time to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2312" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T18:34:24.870" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8060" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8051" CreationDate="2011-02-01T18:34:50.907" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A portfolio is a collection of your very best photographs. There are typically two modes for presenting a portfolio, namely online and prints. The use for them will depend on what you are wanting to use the portfolio, but let me give a few key pointers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The portfolio probably should not consist of more than 10 pictures, at least for an initial portfolio. It can be okay to have a slightly larger portfolio if a prospective client wants to see more of your work.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is more important to have consistently high quality of pictures than shear numbers. If a picture is not your very best, then don't include it. It's better to have 5 great photos than 5 great photos and 5 okay photos.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make sure your portfolio consists of photographs that you want to sell to your client. Don't include dog shots in a wedding portfolio, or wedding pictures in a landscape portfolio. It can be okay to mix slightly, such as portraits and wedding, but you might consider having multiple portfolios even then.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you print your portfolio, it is best to not bind the photographs.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you are submitting a portfolio to a business, then find their standards for making a portfolio and follow them &lt;strong&gt;exactly&lt;/strong&gt;!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just to help hone in a few more points, I have 2 portfolios, one of landscape/wildlife, and a second of portraits, to which I am including links. I welcome any feedback as well on the portfolios, email me at ben@pearsonartphoto.com. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pearsonartphoto.com/Professional/Packages/8369038_JhqkY#697978880_qDwrc&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Portrait&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pearsonartphoto.com/Professional/Southwest-Desert-Photos-for/10070463_6xnnL#712011934_uHtJC&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Desert Photos&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T18:34:50.907" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="8061" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8053" CreationDate="2011-02-01T18:36:16.427" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the oldest rules of thumb in photography is the &quot;Sunny 16&quot; rule. Essentially, it says that you can get a proper exposure using 1/(ISO linear rating) as the shutter speed at an aperture of f/16 in bright daylight conditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At an ISO setting of 100, then, a midday exposure would be 1/100 s (or, more practically on a film camera, 1/125 s for slides or 1/60 s for reversal films).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another rule of thumb for th 35mm format is that you can safely hand-hold a camera and get reasonable sharpness at a shutter speed of 1/(focal length of lens) in seconds. Anything from 1/60 s down is in the hand-held range for a 50mm lens on a full/frame camera, and 1/80 s and faster ought to be okay on a crop-sensor camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, not all pictures are taken at high noon on a sunny day. But ask yourself how many pictures you tend to take with your 50mm lens stopped down to f/16. Unless you keep your camera pegged at the hyperfocal distance for Cartier-Bresson-style &quot;decisive moment&quot; snaps, I'd be willing to bet that most of your small-aperture shots are either landscapes or architectural, in which case a tripod is hardly an annoyance. You probably use the lens opened up to f/8 or wider most of the time. And you've got a further couple of stops of ISO sensitivity to hand before picture noise begins to be noticeable to anyone besides pixel peepers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What all of this boils down to is that there would be a vanishingly small market for an IS 50mm once the added bulk and expense are taken into account. The only people who would really benefit from IS on a 50 are people like me (I have a chorea not unlike Huntington's disease) and a handful of photojournalists who want to work in available darkness but can't stand grain. Oh, and a few people who have money to spend and can convince themselves that the IS lens must be &quot;better&quot; because it's more expensive and has the letters &quot;IS&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T18:36:16.427" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8062" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8053" CreationDate="2011-02-01T19:08:23.373" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's an interesting idea. But I suppose image stabilization pays off the most on lenses that are slow (F/2.8 is slow-ish by prime standards) or long (100mm or longer) or both. A 50mm prime (which is usually F/2.0 or faster) just isn't a top priority for the IS treatment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While 50mm primes may be popular among photo enthusiasts, they may still be among the slowest-selling, least frequently revised lenses in a big manufacturer's line-up. Cheap kit zooms are certainly the best-selling lenses Canon or Nikon makes, and so are updated pretty often. Canon's current F/1.4 50mm lens design, on the other hand, is nearly 20 years old (circa 1993).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2312" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T19:08:23.373" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8063" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8029" CreationDate="2011-02-01T19:08:47.923" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't worry about it for several reasons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The history of computing shows an extremely strong tendency for backwards compatibility and the status quo. x86, a 33 year old computing architecture, has actually gained market share over time in personal computing despite many superior competitors. As long as this is the case, old software and operating systems can easily be made to run on new hardware. There are very few programs written in the past 30 years that I can't run on a month old computer with little effort and cost.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There has been an explosion in the number of RAW photographs. People are aware of this and do not want this information lost, especially because RAW formats are considered archival quality. People have learned from their past mistakes where proprietary formats have been forgotten. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;RAW formats are basic enough that they have been reverse engineered by anyone who needs to read them. What this means is that anyone who wants to display a RAW image can find open source software (which implicitly describes the format) that will do so. Even if through some catastrophic event this knowledge is lost (I would argue that opposite will happen: the major camera manufacturers will make the formats open in the future), people will be able to reverse engineer the formats again. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1125" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T19:08:47.923" />
  <row Id="8064" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8055" CreationDate="2011-02-01T19:21:49.443" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The big trade-off is quality for convenience.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Grocery and department stores (like Walmart and Target) are pretty common, so they are fairly convenient to get to.  Most of those types of stores are limited to prints that are 8x10 or smaller.  Their decent enough for family pictures and sharing physical pictures with your friends.  However, I find the quality to suffer.  The colors are flat, you're forced to buy glossy paper, the kid behind the counter doesn't always know what they're doing.  In some cases I've seen the focus on the picture get a little soft, and in other cases it was artificially over-sharpened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pro shops have a vested interest in keeping their professional customers happy.  They are going to make sure the machines are properly calibrated and color balanced.  If you are printing from slides (as I do often enough), they will ensure the colors match the slide as best they can.  You can choose several different paper finishes from matte to glossy and a few in between.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I'm printing a bunch of vacation photos for my wife to use in her scrap booking, I'll go for convenience and cheap.  At 4x6, or in a pinch 5x7, the grocery/department store prints are quite acceptable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;if I'm doing any critical work, or submitting something for a competition, I will go for quality and getting it done right.  My local pro shop will spend some time with me to understand what it is that I really need when I have special orders.  When I did a poster size enlargement, it was just right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3631" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T19:21:49.443" />
  <row Id="8065" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8055" CreationDate="2011-02-01T19:25:11.707" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The main difference is that the mass-market option is going to assume that the source is lousy. Every image gets the equivalent of the &quot;one click photo fixer&quot; option in mass-marketed image editors -- your contrast, sharpness, white balance, and so forth are going to be &quot;fixed&quot; for you. It doesn't do much if your image meets the limits of the histogram profiles they match against, but if you do high-key or low-key images, they'll &quot;fix&quot; them for you in most cases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, there are some outlets that have conscientious people working there who will override the auto settings on the equipment, but you'd probably have to shop around to find the Robin Williams guy/gal at one of your local minilabs -- and then there's no guarantee that that person will be doing the work next time around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, there are other benefits to professional finishing, as &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8055/prints-pro-labs-vs-supermarkets-whats-the-difference/8058#8058&quot;&gt;Jay Lance Photography&lt;/a&gt; detailed, that can mean a lot to somebody who wants to display or market their work, but even if all you want is a physical copy of your image for your own viewing, it's worth the trouble to get something that accurately reflects your work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T19:25:11.707" />
  <row Id="8066" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-01T19:39:36.530" Score="0" ViewCount="113" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since most of the studios around Bangalore stopped processing B&amp;amp;W film, I would love to develop my own. Anybody knows where can I get the film processing chemicals and equipments in Bangalore, or anywhere in India.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1050" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T18:55:42.200" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T18:55:42.200" ClosedDate="2011-02-02T08:51:20.647" Title="Where can I buy DIY Black &amp; White film development kit in Bangalore?" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;black-and-white&gt;&lt;film-photography&gt;" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8067" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8533" CreationDate="2011-02-01T20:08:10.047" Score="4" ViewCount="148" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have 20,000+ images in Expression Media, which I also use to store the caption information. This information is compatible with Photoshop's IPTC information and is available in XMP sidecar files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am working on a website and want to be able to include this information with the photographs on the website. Since I can import information from a spreadsheet, I am looking for a convenient way to extract the desired data from the XMP file. Is anyone aware of a way to automate such a process?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If so I am all ears!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3635" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-08T18:34:31.623" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T15:20:21.020" Title="Is there a good way to import XMP data into a spreadsheet?" Tags="&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;import&gt;&lt;automation&gt;&lt;xmp&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8068" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8029" CreationDate="2011-02-01T20:14:39.073" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Lightroom 3, when you are importing your files and converting them to DNG you have an option to embed the original raw file. This means that your original RAW file will be inside of your DNG file. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So you can choose this option if you want long-time &quot;compatibility&quot; and also saving your original RAW file. But this means bigger DNG files.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2553" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T20:14:39.073" />
  <row Id="8069" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-01T20:20:55.243" Score="1" ViewCount="90" Body="&lt;p&gt;I love Apple Aperture, but it seems to be missing a very important function I strive for.  I want to be able to lock a photo, meaning once locked I can no longer make changes to that photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Aperture it is so easy to make adjustments, add keywords, etc.  Especially when working with so many shortcuts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you have a method of organization to mark a photo as finished? (or ready to publish, etc)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Labels would work for this, but I use labels for other purposes.  But that still wouldn't prevent changes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would be nice to have a few lock mechanisms, such as lock meta data, lock adjustments, lock all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3636" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T04:13:02.710" Title="How do you mark a photo as complete and done with edits in Aperture?" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;apple-aperture&gt;&lt;photo-management&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="8071" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-01T20:43:30.043" Score="5" ViewCount="268" Body="&lt;p&gt;What kind of performance improvement should I expect on a Canon 500D with a class 6? Will a class 4 slow the writes/reads noticeably? I mostly take (low shutter speed) photos and occasional short videos. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2607" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T01:31:24.123" Title="What's the performance difference between a class 4 and class 6 SDHC card?" Tags="&lt;canon-500d&gt;&lt;sdhc&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8072" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8010" CreationDate="2011-02-01T20:47:21.027" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before you start processing your photos you should also consider to convert (import) your RAW files to DNG to make them readable for the future because you don't know how long will be your proprietary RAW format supported. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are using Lightroom the first thing you should do is making your photos to look morel like JPEGs. So you must use some profiles. To do this, go to the Develop module and under the Camera Calibration panel you will find a Profile menu. Try the profiles and choose the one that makes your photo best looking. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The advance of using profiles or presets is making your developing easier. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2553" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T20:47:21.027" />
  <row Id="8073" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8078" CreationDate="2011-02-01T20:47:59.433" Score="10" ViewCount="431" Body="&lt;p&gt;Title basically speaks for itself: How do you protect your equipment when you are shooting in severe conditions? Rain? Severe heat/cold? Snow? Fog? ... Other? What sorts of techniques do you use to produce great-looking photography when your camera (and all the expensive lenses, too!) are exposed to the elements?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3367" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T19:54:48.213" Title="How do you protect your camera when taking pictures in inclement weather?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;weather&gt;" AnswerCount="12" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="8074" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8071" CreationDate="2011-02-01T20:52:43.590" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SDHC#.C3.97_rating&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SDHC#.C3.97_rating&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Class 4 is 32MBit/s (4MByte/s) and Class 6 is 48MBit/s (6MByte/s). You probably shouldn't worry about this if you're just shooting JPEGs, but if you're going to take RAW shots in quick succession, or, as you said, take video, it may make a difference. I can't speak for all camera manufacturers, but if the write speed isn't high enough on the card, you may not be able to take the highest quality video your camera can offer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I would personally recommend you get the Class 6 SDHC card. You'll be able to shoot pictures faster, and you won't limit yourself in terms of video. In short, &quot;better safe than sorry&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3367" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-10T01:31:24.123" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T01:31:24.123" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="8075" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-01T20:59:53.603" Score="12" ViewCount="369" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been enjoying taking digital pics for about the last seven years with my trusty Olympus C50 compact and decided I wanted to take my efforts up a gear and get a 'proper' camera so recently bought a Nikon D5000 and stock 18-55mm lens kit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm very taken with it but over the last few months have realised that the fact that it feels so bulky (to me as a former compact camera user, anyway) means I've taken fewer and fewer pics and even when I do take it out with me the size of the camera, lens and the bag I have to keep it in means I can rarely be bothered to take it out and take pictures. It also makes me feel somewhat self-conscious whereas my C50 used to give me a confidence in taking street shots or pictures of crowds. Attempting to take photos of unpredictable and hyperactive toddlers is also fraught.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Has anyone got any suggestions for what I can do to resolve this - its a fine camera, but I'm getting to the point where I think I need to swap it for a high-end compact so that I'll have pics of my kids growing up. Is there some kit I can get (bags, straps, holsters?) that will help my camera become more portable/usable?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2547" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T22:11:32.550" Title="Help! My new DSLR Camera is affecting my ability to take snaps." Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;tips&gt;&lt;camera-bag&gt;&lt;nikon-d5000&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="8076" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8071" CreationDate="2011-02-01T21:10:20.777" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Cards of a particular class are not all made the same. Hence the preferred cards are the more expensive because they produce the best results in terms of speed and reliability. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-High-Performance-Card-SDSDX3-008G-P31/dp/B002GEQDK4/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1296594003&amp;amp;sr=8-2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sandisk&lt;/a&gt; models. They are very popular with professionals for the reasons mentioned above. Personally I took a chance on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Transcend-Class-Flash-Memory-TS16GSDHC6E/dp/B001ECQVTM/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1296594446&amp;amp;sr=1-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Transcend&lt;/a&gt; model to get more bang for my bucks. It provides 16 Gigs on a class 10 card and have no problems to report with it after almost a year of usage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T21:10:20.777" />
  <row Id="8077" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8073" CreationDate="2011-02-01T21:10:53.657" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use a large ziplock bag. Cut a hole in the bottom and poke the end of the lens out. Secure it with rubberband. Alternatively you can use a small umbrella.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3635" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T21:10:53.657" />
  <row Id="8078" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8073" CreationDate="2011-02-01T21:10:59.373" Score="21" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Using weather sealed camera bodies and lenses helps, but each condition has its own issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rain: in light rain you can probably get away without doing anything special, but in heavy rain, you'll need to wrap your camera in a plastic bag with an opening for the lens.  Dry it off well with a towel when you get inside.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Heat: Two separate issues... static and air conditioning.  In very dry climates (like the desert) you can have static buildup.  If you are using film, you might experience triboluminescent sparks which will partially expose the film.  Wind slowly.  Also when going in or out of air conditioning keep the lens cap on until the camera comes to ambient temperature, particularly in high humidity areas.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cold: Your battery life will be measured in minutes, so you might have to take along an outboard battery for longer shooting sprees.  If it gets cold enough, your digital camera won't even function.  If you have film, it will become brittle so wind slowly and compensate for exposure.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Snow: Same as rain.  As long as your camera is dry there is nothing to worry about.  If you drop it in the snow, wipe it off with a dry towel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fog: Nothing really needs to be done.  You'll experience the same issue as taking an air conditioned camera out in hot and humid air: condensation on the lens.  Fog can produce some fantastic pictures.  Wipe down the camera when you get inside, and clean the lens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Under water: Get a water tight case to put your camera in.  Their expensive, but open up the world of underwater photography.  NOTE: test the case with paper towels on the inside first.  You don't want to find out you didn't put the thing together properly with your expensive camera inside.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sand storm: stay inside.  Nothing like pitted lenses due to the natural sandblasting going on.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The good news is that the professional line of cameras and lenses tend to be sealed against the weather.  They can withstand dust, rain, and minor dips in water (not underwater photography though).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use common sense.  All electronics have operating conditions they are designed to work within.  If you exceed those conditions (extreme hot or cold) then the sensor won't respond or will be filled with lots of noise.  The good news is that most cameras have a wider range of use than you do.  All mechanical and film cameras tend to be able to survive even more extreme environments (hot and cold here) than the digital counterparts, but not without their own trials.  Too hot and the film will melt.  Too cold and it will become brittle and break in your camera.  Too dry and you have tiboluminescent streaks.  Too many XRays and you have weird sine waves across your film.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3631" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T21:10:59.373" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8079" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8075" CreationDate="2011-02-01T21:14:21.410" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The more accessories you take with you the less likely you are to take pictures. You best option is to keep the camera out and ready to use. Cameras, especially Nikons are much more durable than many people are inclined to realize. Also, if you have it over your shoulder you will probably take fewer pictures. Try carrying it in your hand when you wander around. It is true you don't feel as invisible when you carry as DSLR but the quality of the images makes up for that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3635" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T21:14:21.410" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="8080" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8075" CreationDate="2011-02-01T21:19:08.893" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't get tied down to thinking you only need one camera.  Each camera has its own unique benefits and drawbacks.  I highly recommend:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A small point and shoot camera for those always ready snapshots you want to take&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An SLR camera for when you need more quality and control.  You can capture motion very well with these things, and the control you have over exposure really can make or break a picture.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also have a large format camera that shoots 4x5 film.  I'm not recommending this for everyone, but it has a completely different style of taking photographs than either of the smaller cameras.  The quality and control I have with the large format camera is its major benefit, but the fact that it ways 12.5 lbs without the lens is one of its major drawbacks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At some point you will need to get over being self conscious with a camera.  I still deal with that myself.  The fact that you can't hide the SLR and it's always visible makes you more conspicuous.  However, in the right setting, I'm right at home to whip out the SLR take my pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3631" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T21:19:08.893" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8081" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8073" CreationDate="2011-02-01T21:19:37.690" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are shooting in inclement weather, the best thing you can do is use a camera that's built for it. Canon's 1D and Nikon's D3 have weather sealing that protects the camera's circuitry. This sealing explains part of their cost. The sealing doesn't make them submersible, just resistant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For inclement weather of the sort you often get when shooting soccer, I have a rain cover for the camera. It has three ports. One which fits with a velcro strap and vinyl sleeve to the lens, and two with drawstring vinyl covers for my hands. It makes shooting more difficult but shots of players with falling rain and flying mud are absolutely worth it. My rain hood cost AUD$100.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no shortage of waterproof accessories available from camera stores. Head on in armed with a fat wallet and let the sales staff fit you up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3583" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T21:19:37.690" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8082" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8075" CreationDate="2011-02-01T21:35:33.203" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are certain you want an SLR but feel that regular ones are too bulky, consider a micro4/3 camera such as the E-P1, perhaps coupled with a fast 20mm pancake lens. It'll be smaller, but still retain most advantages (most importantly the higher image quality) that SLRs enjoy over compacts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="745" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T21:35:33.203" />
  <row Id="8083" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8087" CreationDate="2011-02-01T21:50:06.870" Score="5" ViewCount="135" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've recently purchased a Canon 430EX II to use with my 550D and it's great but I'm having battery issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been trying to use 2× 800mAh Ni-Cd and 2× 2500 mAh Ni-Mh (all rechargeables, the 800mAh being a few years old) but I'm finding that if I charge the batteries the day before I intend to use them then flash won't fire (even the test flash).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I'm aware that the 800mAh batteries are probably too weak and worn out for usage in an external flash. But I don't know whether to buy a new charger and four high powered rechargeables or just keep buying named brand disposable batteries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1580" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-24T11:55:50.147" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T11:55:50.147" Title="Why does my external flash use Ni-Cd and Ni-Mh batteries so quickly?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;off-camera-flash&gt;&lt;troubleshooting&gt;&lt;battery&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8084" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8073" CreationDate="2011-02-01T21:59:05.583" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Moderate dry &lt;strong&gt;Coldness&lt;/strong&gt; is not such a problem anymore ... for the camera:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I carried my D90 in Val Thorens/Valloire (skiing resorts in France) several hours on the slopes  (-20/-10 degress Celsius). Carry a spare battery, change if the one in camera becomes too cold and weak.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problems starts when changing temperature/humidity. Enter a restaurant and you'll have your ice-cold camera covered in condensation in seconds. If you don't have a towel ready the camera won't dry before you leave, resulting in ice-frosted lens or filter. Bonus for a filter: you can remove the frozen thingy. Maybe the ziplock bag will help there. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other problem is the one you'll have handling the camera with numb fingers. DSLR can be handled with thick gloves, but not always gripped tight enough. Be sure to carry thin undergloves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't know if there were some good-looking pictures though ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T21:59:05.583" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8085" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8083" CreationDate="2011-02-01T22:00:17.937" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Get new rechargeables. Disposable batteries (alkalines) have much higher internal resistance, and they'll bring the recycling speed way down.(Okay, maybe not as far down as flat batteries, but slow nonetheless.) Disposable lithiums will cost an arm and two legs over time. They're great for something you drag out of the closet at Christmas for a half-dozen snaps and put away till next year, but if you use the flash with any regularity at all, they'll be the most expensive option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NiCds tend to perform better when new (they have a very low internal resistance, resulting in recycling currents that can actually harm some older flashes) but they have horrible lifetimes unless you are meticulous about charge/discharge cycles. NiMHs perform only slightly less well when new, and will both last longer per charge and last longer overall with less worry about things like charge memory. Lithiums are also an option, but your flash really needs to be built to accept them -- they have a high enough cell voltage and a low enough internal resistance to quickly fry a flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The upshot? New NiMHs will probably be your best bet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T22:00:17.937" />
  <row Id="8086" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8075" CreationDate="2011-02-01T22:11:32.550" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I wanted to take my efforts up a gear and get a 'proper' camera&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first question to ask is: &quot;Why isn't your compact a 'proper' camera?&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, more generally, &quot;what do you want to do that your current camera cannot?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your answer to this question very well might convince you to give up the DSLR &amp;amp; go back to your compact (or perhaps a newer compact). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But don't despair. Asking this question might &lt;em&gt;also&lt;/em&gt; lead you to appreciate the DSLR and forgive it's bulk.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance: once you snap a beautifully sharp photo in indoor lighting without a flash, you might have the &quot;ah-ha&quot; moment that makes carrying the extra weight worthwhile. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In that vein: give your DSLR a try for a while, and then switch back to your compact... and note all of the features of the DSLR that you miss. Grass is greener and all that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T22:11:32.550" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8087" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8083" CreationDate="2011-02-01T22:13:16.953" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not only do you need new batteries, but what you want is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_self-discharge_NiMH_battery&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;low self-discharge&lt;/a&gt; NiMHs. Like the name says, they have a better not-in-use retention of charge, reducing frustrations like this. They generally have lower capacity than &quot;regular&quot; NiMHs, but unless you're planning to recharge and then use them up immediately, it's worth it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The common brand name here is Sanyo Eneloop (I think they were first to market), but there's now lots of others as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also see (and vote up!) &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8083/battery-issues-with-external-flash/8100#8100&quot;&gt;Mike's answer to this question&lt;/a&gt;. You shouldn't mix battery types like that. (In fact, it's best to use a matched set that you always use and charge together.) I highly recommend &lt;em&gt;8&lt;/em&gt; new low-self-discharge NiMHs, so you can have one set in use and another ready to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-02T03:42:01.600" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T03:42:01.600" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8088" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-01T22:16:39.843" Score="6" ViewCount="235" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have taken a photo with my iPhone which i would love to use a my website background using jQuery to stretch it dynamically. However its obviously a fairly low resolution. Is there &lt;em&gt;anything&lt;/em&gt; i can do in Photoshop or something, to upscale the resolution at all?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3643" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-03T08:51:01.760" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T14:57:43.223" Title="Upscale iPhone taken photograph" Tags="&lt;resolution&gt;&lt;iphone&gt;&lt;pixels&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8089" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8088" CreationDate="2011-02-01T22:25:05.747" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a number of resizing plugins for Photoshop that doa much better job of guessing at the missing detail than Photoshop does (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ononesoftware.com/products/perfect-resize&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;OnOne Perfect Resize&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alienskin.com/blowup/index.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Alien Skin Blowup&lt;/a&gt; are two examples), but while they can give you a bit larger image that's smooth, they can't really make up for data that isn't there. Amazing as they are, they're best for already really good images that need to be printed very large but will be viewed from a distance -- they just make the image a little smoother at the target size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T22:25:05.747" />
  <row Id="8090" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7460" CreationDate="2011-02-01T22:52:31.367" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jeffrey Friedl produces a number of excellent Lightroom plugins and I notice he's got a new one for importing face data from Picasa:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/picasa-face-import&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/picasa-face-import&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't tried it though, so I can't say if it does what you're after, but it might be worth a look?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3644" LastActivityDate="2011-02-01T22:52:31.367" />
  <row Id="8091" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-01T23:11:26.600" Score="9" ViewCount="196" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm generating some large imagery and am trying to find a decent application that can handle these well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realize there are various flash based ones for viewing on the web but I'd ideally like an windows app.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any suggestions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3645" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-01T23:31:04.957" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T00:57:43.300" Title="What's a good application to view large images (100 to 1000+ megapixels)" Tags="&lt;large-format&gt;&lt;photo-viewer&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8092" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8104" CreationDate="2011-02-02T00:49:38.070" Score="6" ViewCount="368" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm shooting towards the sky to capture the stars. The exposure time is 15 seconds so I can see the stars still, without a trace. These photos are taken continuously one after the other because I want to make a time-lapse video showing the &quot;movement&quot; of the sky (it is the earth that moves actually).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Util here, everything's fine, except for one thing. If instead of taking all those photos, I would take just one with a exposure time that equals the sums of all those photos photos together (15 sec times the quantity of photos), I would see the trace the stars left in the sky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there anyway to &quot;create&quot; that photo, from all the &quot;short&quot; exposition ones?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1641" LastEditorUserId="2910" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-02T06:36:47.380" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T19:10:46.353" Title="How can I simulate a long exposure photo using a set of shorter exposure photos?" Tags="&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;&lt;timelapse&gt;&lt;composition&gt;&lt;chdk&gt;&lt;star-trails&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="8093" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8092" CreationDate="2011-02-02T01:07:42.330" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.startrails.de/html/software.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a free Windows application called Startrails&lt;/a&gt; that does exactly what you're looking for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you've got Photoshop, there are ways to build Photoshop actions to do the same thing. Basically, you combine images in &quot;Lighten Only&quot; layer blending mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2312" LastEditorUserId="2312" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-02T01:13:21.670" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T01:13:21.670" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="8094" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8096" CreationDate="2011-02-02T01:16:53.403" Score="4" ViewCount="120" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to know if converting my RAW files to DNG will improve the overall speed of Lightroom. The most painful issue is that it takes between 5 and 10 seconds to get my 1:1 image rendered when I zoom on it. I should add that my LR is configured so that it creates the 1:1 preview while the importation of the files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use a MacBook Pro, Canon's RAWs, Lighroom 3.2. Thanks :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3647" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T22:02:32.573" Title="Post-processing performance with DNG and LR" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;dng&gt;&lt;performance&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8095" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8069" CreationDate="2011-02-02T01:21:07.593" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why not use smart albums and keywords, add a &quot;finished&quot; keyword and have the working smart album exclude images with this keyword and have another smart album only show these &quot;finished&quot; files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't lock the files but removes them from view &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3648" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T01:21:07.593" />
  <row Id="8096" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8094" CreationDate="2011-02-02T01:42:13.283" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;All image previews are stored as JPEG files of various sizes inside of a .lrprev file. The loading speed of the preview images will likely not change much if you switch to DNG. The benefit of DNG is that it is an open standard format, and can keep the metadata in the same file as the image data, which simplified portability. On the flip side, you would incur not only the extra cost of generating 1:1 previews on import, but also converting from your native RAW to DNG raw. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You also have to consider that DNG stores image data in a specific way, using integer values for pixel data. That will generally work for most sensors, however there are some special sensors that use non-square bayer arrays, make use of extra luminance pixels, or might possibly use floating point numbers rather than integers to store individual pixel values. At the very least, if you convert to DNG, you should keep your original RAW images around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T01:42:13.283" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8097" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8091" CreationDate="2011-02-02T01:52:43.797" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I spend a lot of time experimenting and working with pretty high MP images, as I have been researching approaches and algorithms for extreme digital upscaling of RAW images. I regularly take my original 12.2mp images to multi-foot dimensions comprised of anywhere from 220 megapixels (55x44&quot; print @ 300PPI) to 2.4 gigapixels (96x72&quot; print @ 600PPI.) I use photoshop for viewing my work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my experience, with a system that has 12 gigs of DDR3 triple channel memory, Photoshop is able to handle images several hundred megapixels in size pretty darn well. When I get up to around 600-700mp or so, things start to slow down (this is when all my physical memory is consumed, and swap usage starts.) Working with gigapixel images ultimately means that you just start churning on disk more. I recently upgraded to an SSD drive for my primary/swap drive, and the performance of working with 800mp or larger images has improved considerably, however it is best if you aren't running other apps when working with gigapixel images. It should also be noted that any processing you apply to a gigapixel image is going to take some time, regardless of what that processing is...and even with a very fast system. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T01:52:43.797" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8098" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8006" CreationDate="2011-02-02T02:19:47.667" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When it comes to time lapse photography, unless you intend to capture thousands of individual frames, you generally don't get enough frames to fill minutes of 30fps content. If you look at some of the best time-lapse photography work, either on Vimeo or in big productions like &quot;Life&quot; and &quot;Planet Earth&quot;, you'll notice a common theme: Multiple time-lapse sequences are composed to create a full video. In the cases where you do have a time-lapse sequence that spans 30 seconds to a minute, it is usually created by setting up the necessary apparatuses and letting them run...for hours, days, even months.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I highly recommend taking a look at Tom Lowe's &quot;Timescapes&quot; videos. They are some truly superb time-lapse videos taken with a DSLR and a creative dolly system. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://vimeo.com/16369165&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;TimeScapes: Rapture&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll notice that none of his sequences are particularly long, but the it is still an interesting composition of multiple time-lapse sequences, creating a minutes long video.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T02:19:47.667" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8099" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8233" CreationDate="2011-02-02T03:09:05.603" Score="10" ViewCount="620" Body="&lt;p&gt;From my understanding, a fisheye lens usually has a coverage of 180 degrees or close to it. Given the extreme coverage and the availability of software that can turn fisheye images back to a rectilinear perspective, why are fisheye lenses not more popular, considering their usually much cheaper price compared to rectilinear wide angle lenses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3549" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T21:45:41.823" Title="Why don't more people use fisheye lenses as a cheap wide angle lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;wide-angle&gt;&lt;fisheye&gt;&lt;perspective&gt;" AnswerCount="10" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8100" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8083" CreationDate="2011-02-02T03:10:25.500" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One other thing - don't mix your batteries with different specs. In your case, mixing 2500mAh batteries with 800mAh batteries will be causing you problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3650" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T03:10:25.500" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8101" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8099" CreationDate="2011-02-02T03:19:31.807" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A few thoughts that come to mind: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the distortion in fisheyes is probably more difficult to correct due to the extreme distortion present;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;they may be more susceptible to flare (wider lenses usuallly are more susceptible than more telephoto ones); &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the optics may be generally of lower quality than ultra wides; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the front element will bulge out further so will be more susceptible to damage;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;good luck using filters with them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe you could go looking at some lens reviews. &lt;a href=&quot;http://phototozone.de&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photozone.de&lt;/a&gt; has some reviews of fisheye lenses among their large number of reviews they've done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3650" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T03:19:31.807" />
  <row Id="8102" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8088" CreationDate="2011-02-02T03:27:28.783" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A background image on a website doesn't really need to be larger than 1024 x 768. You're designing for the lowest common denominator. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And don't forget that the web browser has to suck down every byte you put up there. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a reference, I searched for &quot;web design recommendations screen size&quot; (without the double quotes).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So... if the image you took is already 1024 x 768, you probably don't need to touch it...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3650" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T03:27:28.783" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8103" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8088" CreationDate="2011-02-02T03:44:30.053" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I kind of dispute all the answers and comments about this subject, not just here, but on most forum discussions that cover this topic. I've done some fairly extensive work lately on digital upscaling, and when approached correctly, you can achieve some considerable upscaling without too much blurring, sometimes by as much as 20x or more. In my work on &quot;Iterative Bicubic Scaling&quot;, I've been able to take 12mp images from my Canon Rebel XSi (450D) up to some 200mp or more, print sizes of 55x44@300PPI or more. In more extreme experiments, I've scaled and image up to 96x72&quot; @ 600PPI, an ungodly 2.4 gigapixels (not recommended for home use.)  Now, obviously, the more information you start with, the farther you can push an upscale, so if you are only starting with 3mp worth of image information, you probably won't be able to achieve a beautifully detailed 55&quot; print. You should be able to scale up by a fair amount, however, using an iterative bicubic technique. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key factor in upscaling is the quality of information being scaled, and the amount it is being scaled by. You can obviously take a single 3mp image and scale it strait up to say a 100mp image, however regardless of the algorithm you use, you are going to end up with a pretty blurry result. This is because you are fabricating some 90% of the resulting image content, and blurring over the original content as it gets incorporated into the final image. Instead of scaling up in a single step, do it in many, much smaller steps. Scale up with a bicubic filter by 3-5% at a time until you reach, or more likely surpass, your target size. If you pass your target size, scale back once. In each iteration, you'll be fabricating less than 20% of the final image data, preserving more accurate image information at each step, which will ultimately produce a more accurate final image. I have a detailed writeup with visual examples here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1715/how-do-i-generate-high-quality-prints-with-an-ink-jet-printer/3985#3985&quot;&gt;Emprical Study: Extreme digital upscaling&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe the camera on an iPhone is around 3mp, maybe 5mp. You probably won't be able to scale up to 55&quot; print size, however you should be able to scale up to 8x10, 11x14, or 13x19 size without too much degredation of detail. If the final scaled image does not contain quite enough detail clarity, you can always apply a light &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1370/unsharp-mask-what-do-the-parameters-do/1377#1377&quot;&gt;unsharp mask&lt;/a&gt; to improve those fine details. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a sample demonstrating the detail preserved with Iterative Bicubic upscaling compared to Direct Bicubic upscaling, when blowing up a 12.2mp original image (14x9&quot; native print size @ 300ppi) to a 77.7mp image (36x24&quot; print size @ 300ppi):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rxdtq.gif&quot; alt=&quot;Direct vs. Bicubic Upscaling&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wait two seconds for the animated GIF above to switch from direct bicubic to iterative bicubic, for comparison. The improved detail and sharpness with the iterative approach should be clear as day. It should be noted that no sharpening of any kind was used on either version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-02T04:15:17.833" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T04:15:17.833" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8104" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8092" CreationDate="2011-02-02T04:01:18.627" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can do it with a script for The GIMP.  I did it a couple years ago, and got pretty good results.  Remember to keep the time between exposures as short as possible, otherwise you will get visible gaps in the trails.  That's why it's best to take a single dark frame at the end, and subtract that frame from the result (I had intended to incorporate that into the script, but never got around to it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My notes for the script:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xA;Combined with renaming the first to base.JPG, &quot;gimp -b -&quot; with&#xA;(let* ((filelist (cadr (file-glob &quot;IMG*.JPG&quot; 1)))&#xA;      (img (car (gimp-file-load RUN-NONINTERACTIVE &quot;base.JPG&quot; &quot;base.JPG&quot;))))&#xA;  (while (not (null? filelist))&#xA;    (let* ((filename (car filelist))&#xA;&#xA;  (layer (car (gimp-file-load-layer RUN-NONINTERACTIVE img filename)))&#xA;  )&#xA;      (gimp-image-add-layer img layer 0)&#xA;      (gimp-layer-set-mode layer LIGHTEN-ONLY-MODE)&#xA;      (gimp-image-merge-visible-layers img CLIP-TO-IMAGE)&#xA;      )&#xA;    (set! filelist (cdr filelist))&#xA;    )&#xA;  (gimp-file-save RUN-NONINTERACTIVE img (car (gimp-image-flatten img)) &quot;test2.jpg&quot; &quot;test2.jpg&quot;)&#xA;)&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For subtracting the dark frame, my notes say, &quot;I opened this as a layer on the composite image (the result of my gimp script), and set the dark layer's mode to Difference.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastEditorUserId="2910" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-02T05:07:08.383" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T05:07:08.383" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8105" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8099" CreationDate="2011-02-02T04:04:23.953" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it requires post-processing (extra time and work required for each picture)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it requires post-processing (can't see what the final result will look like when framing the scene through the viewfinder or on the LCD after taking the photo)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T04:04:23.953" />
  <row Id="8106" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8099" CreationDate="2011-02-02T04:05:55.607" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You lose a ton of resolution when you essentially crop a small portion of your image.  Also because of the curvature of the image retained resolution will not be even across the image, which can wreak havoc with apparent sharpness in a print (or even just a web image).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly it's a lot of post processing work you'd have to do for every image you care about. Life is SO much easier if you get things right in-camera first, or as close as you possibly can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T04:05:55.607" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8107" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8069" CreationDate="2011-02-02T04:13:02.710" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't really consider a photo as &quot;finished&quot; so much as refined for particular kind of output.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I stage ratings, starting with one start for any image I find might be workable, then graduating up the ranking scale depending on how much I like the image and while doing so make edits that end with an image that can be used on the web. So roughly anything that is rated two or higher I know is ready for web use; though sometimes I may do final tweaks when looking to re-use an older image (and since ease of spot adjustments are one of Aperture's strengths, I think it makes sense to take advantage of that).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For other uses, such as print, I generally duplicate a &quot;finished&quot; version, then make additional changes needed for output - like color adjustments tailored to a profile, upsampling and final sharpening.  The then encode all that into the version name with something like MYImage-360DPI-MPix-Sharp, and keep it stacked with the &quot;final&quot; version of the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T04:13:02.710" />
  <row Id="8108" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8099" CreationDate="2011-02-02T04:29:06.127" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, who said Fisheye lenses are cheaper than wides? Currently the old EF 15mm fisheye is sold for ~$650. The EF-S 10-22mm is slightly more than $700 now. You get all the advantages that @Mike listed from the UW, plus a zoom range. The EF 8-15mm Fisheye was just announced and I can't even find a price quote, but given it is an L lens, expect price &gt;&gt;$1,000.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, the amount of distortion is such that the correction in post will necessarily result mediocre rectilinear results. The outer areas are just too compressed (spatially) to be expanded while effectively retaining all the fine detail (the sensor's resolution is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; infinite!).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Last - who wants to have to deal with this software process every time a wide angle image is taken? It becomes tedious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T04:29:06.127" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="8109" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8116" CreationDate="2011-02-02T06:53:42.493" Score="15" ViewCount="365" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's suppose I'm on a tripod, photographing a perfectly still scene (also dark) and I take these photos:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;5 photos at ISO 3200 and 1s exposure&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 photo at ISO 100 and 5s exposure&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a common thing between the items, and it's the total time used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The EV of the first item is much higher, right? Now suppose I average the 5 photos at ISO 3200 to reduce noise, producing a single image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After that, I take the ISO 100 photo and I adjust levels (which would increase noise) to reach the same EV of the blended photo, in a way if I look these 2 photos from far away they'd look the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would the noise level be equal, comparing the blended photo and the levels adjusted photo?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope you understand my point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In response to drewbenn's commentary&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Also, I don't think that blending the 5 photos will reduce noise the way you think it will&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Blending photos reduce noise a lot, in fact here is an example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I took 20 photos of a tree with: ISO 1600, F4.1 and 2s exp. The upper image is showing how much noise any of those images have. The lower is showing the result of averaging the 20 photos in one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sory for the bad focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/y2NAJ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;100% view of the original image and blended one&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see, the noise gets almost completely deleted&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT2&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the ones who are asking, I used a very simply command of imagemagick to average the images:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;convert [input1.JPG input2.JPG ...] -average output.JPG&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I have some time later, I'll try to conduct one of those experiments you're talking about. I guess there is no a static pattern and it'll vary on each camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT3&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've also done a experiment a little more different:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the Scene:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/MZpWe.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Scene&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I've taken these set of photos (the aperture is always the same), I used manual mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;01 @ ISO 100, 0.6s&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;02 @ ISO 200, 0.3s (averaged later)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;04 @ ISO 400, 1/6s (averaged later)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;08 @ ISO 800, 1/13s (averaged later)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;16 @ ISO 1600, 1/25s (averaged later)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each set has the exactly same EV, these are the results, in the same order:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/HfmM2.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Experiment&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that a higher ISO, there is less noise but less details as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1641" LastEditorUserId="1641" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-02T21:14:18.220" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T15:39:33.310" Title="Is there any noise difference between averaged and long exposure photos?" Tags="&lt;comparison&gt;&lt;noise-reduction&gt;&lt;iso-noise&gt;&lt;levels&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="15" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="8111" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8109" CreationDate="2011-02-02T07:30:47.577" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A part of the Matt-Grum's answer &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6615/what-is-iso-on-a-digital-camera&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; would resolve my doubt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you use a lower ISO (with the same&#xA;  amount of light coming into your&#xA;  camera) you will get an underexposed&#xA;  image and when you brighten it in post&#xA;  you will amplify both the photon noise&#xA;  and the read noise. Your total noise&#xA;  will then be higher.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1641" LastEditorUserId="1641" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-02T07:38:00.393" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T07:38:00.393" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8112" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8109" CreationDate="2011-02-02T07:57:51.543" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Technically speaking, the EV of the two images is identical. You are maintaining the same exposure with both settings, the only thing that really changes is the level of noise. The amount of noise you will encounter with ISO 3200 is going to be fairly significant, and even blending all 5 images together is probably not going to produce an image with as low noise and fine of detail as a single 5 second exposure at ISO 100.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You quoted one of Matt Grum's answers in your own answer, however that quoted statement explicitly states &lt;code&gt;with the same amount of light coming into your camera&lt;/code&gt;. If you change from a 1s exposure at ISO 3200, to a 5s exposure at ISO 100, you are &lt;strong&gt;increasing&lt;/strong&gt; the amount of light reaching your sensor. With a still scene, ISO 100 is still most likely going to be the best option. You may be able to mitigate a certain amount of noise by blending 5 ISO 3200 exposures...but you are also compounding the amount of noise by five times as well! Not only that, but you are likely to encounter both luminance noise as well as color noise at such a high ISO, and color noise is more difficult to identify and remove without damaging color accuracy and detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only time when using a higher ISO would be better is when you physically do not have the option of doing so. If you were unable to take a 5s exposure, and were limited to 1s as your maximum, then using ISO 3200 is going to be the best option because it lets to expose correctly. Using ISO 100 and increasing EV with post processing at that point would digitally amplify the noise that does exist in the image...which while mostly invisible in an unmodified image, will be more intrusive than the ISO 3200 noise when you digitally increase exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T07:57:51.543" CommentCount="11" />
  <row Id="8113" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4314" CreationDate="2011-02-02T07:59:20.437" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I haven't personally used it but I have friends who use this lens. None of them could give me any good reason to pay four times more for this lens, so I'm still using 1,4. I've read many reviews about this lens and painful fact is that 1,2 is not as sharp as we would expect it to be (for that amount of money) when used at 1,2. If you are shopaholic or just want to have &quot;the best of the -bestest-&quot; than you will buy this one, but in my opinion, if you reasonably consider all facts then I'm pretty sure you would choose cheaper option which is definitely not 4 times worse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nowadays, you don't even need to hire these lenses, you can download many samples from internet and see the image quality for both of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing that I'm not experienced in is recording video. Maybe when recording video 1,2 is in advantage, but this is just an option to be considered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3614" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T07:59:20.437" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8115" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8071" CreationDate="2011-02-02T09:37:44.910" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon 500D and own a few Sandisk Extreme III's which are extremely fast and I'd generally recommend them... but essentially they outperform the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the time I use a couple of PNY 16gb Class 4's simply because of the convenient size when taken RAW's. The only slowdown I ever notice is that which is from the camera's buffer size and write speeds itself that is documented in the many reviews/specs rather than from the card itself. I've never had any slowdown issues from pictures or video on the camera from the card, but there may well be not so good quality Class 4's out there that will effect the use of the camera&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3584" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T09:37:44.910" />
  <row Id="8116" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8109" CreationDate="2011-02-02T09:57:23.127" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Provided your ISO100 image was not underexposed I wouldn't expect a noticeable reduction in noise (except maybe in the deep shadows) with the 5 1 second ISO1600 images blended together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the infamous other thread I demonstrated that a 1/30s ISO100 will contain more noise (lower signal to noise ratio) than a 1/30s ISO1600 image. Same amount if light but the higher ISO had less noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason for this was that the read noise is proportionally greater in the ISO100 image (as readout happens after amplification). In a &quot;correctly&quot; exposed ISO100 the read noise is so small compared to the signal that any reduction in read noise is probably not noticeable. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;edit: just did the experiment&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I shot one photo at ISO100 16 seconds, and 16 shots at ISO1600 but only 1 second. All images were well exposed. What follows are two crops, the top row is a single ISO1600 image, and the bottom two are the 16 ISO1600 images averaged in Photoshop, and the ISO100 image. I wont tell you which way round the bottom two are, to see if anyone can actually tell the difference - I certainly can't!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/iso_multi1.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/iso_multi2.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-02T20:09:19.037" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T20:09:19.037" CommentCount="12" />
  <row Id="8117" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-02T10:12:52.353" Score="6" ViewCount="266" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm creating a international portal about celebrities. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Where from can I get photos of celebrities without breaking copyright law? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is there a difference between publishing a photo of celebrity and a normal person, assuming I don't have written permission of any of them?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If I use photography of Steve Jobs, and modify it, adding horns and describing him as evil, can he sue me? And what if I make it on a humorous page?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course I know I can ask a lawyer, but I'm not interested in local law, but in international rules.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3654" LastEditorUserId="3654" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-03T13:41:23.557" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T13:41:23.557" Title="Celebrity photographies copyrights" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8118" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8117" CreationDate="2011-02-02T10:24:01.327" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know this probably isn't the answer you're looking for, but you should really consider consulting a lawyer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3176" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T10:24:01.327" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8119" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8092" CreationDate="2011-02-02T10:42:13.553" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you have Photoshop, you can &lt;a href=&quot;http://livedocs.adobe.com/en_US/Photoshop/10.0/help.html?content=WS1E389632-4B37-425e-8EAB-1384C0B432D3.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;create an image stack&lt;/a&gt;. This automatically aligns the layers, so this works hand-held, too. It's a nifty trick if you're shooting a static scene without a tripod and have some extra memory space.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I wonder if the auto-alignment would be fooled by star trails, as a significant part of the image will be moving in unison.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the before/after on a set of 12 pics I took:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ww0KC.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;The effects of averaging several frames in Photoshop&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On top, a scaled down &#xA;version of the whole thing. On the bottom, a 100% crop of the image. Left is one of the 12 original frames, and the right is the averaged picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although the original images were only 1/250s, making a total exposure time of about 1/20s, the wave motion is almost completely averaged away.  You can also see some horizontal blurring in the clouds as they move across the sky. This is because the images were taken with about 1s delays in between.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T10:42:13.553" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8120" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8117" CreationDate="2011-02-02T11:15:27.843" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general, the copyright is held by the photographer taking the photo (with a few minor exceptions, such as if they've a contract which transfers the rights to another person, such as their employer).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rights holder may choose to licence their work to you, either in exchange for a fee (something like a stock image library) or sometimes without a fee (such as projects like &lt;a href=&quot;http://commons.wikimedia.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikimedia Commons&lt;/a&gt;). Irrespective of whether a fee is paid or not, there may be further conditions attached to the licence, and to pick on the Image of the Day on wikimedia Commons at time of writing, it is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license -- in lay terms, this means that you can use the image without paying royalty as long as you attribute the original creator, and any derivative works are also licenced on the same terms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Over and above this, there are is the concept of fair use use which can allow you to use something that is otherwise copyrighted, and you should consult your local, friendly lawyer to understand what classifies as fair usage in your jurisdiction; my basic understanding allows fair usage to include (say) a photo of a book cover (a copyrighted artwork) if you're using it in a context of a book review, or in an online sales situation, for example. Some jurisdictions allow for satirical use, although that's more about infringing trade marks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is key to remember that not having to pay a royalty does not mean there are no restrictions, and also that copyright is implicit, so you should seek a licence to use content that you did not create; If you forget this key principle, you may end up in court.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T11:15:27.843" />
  <row Id="8121" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8109" CreationDate="2011-02-02T11:54:54.543" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a very nice question, but I fear that the answer is totally dependent on the performance of the sensor and its stimulus response curves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we think of the noise as the the error between the real colour and the measured colour, we can use an statistical model to find out how many samples with greater error we must take in order to have the same error as a single more accurate sample. But in order to do that, first we need:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The distribution function of the noise (it may be a normal distribution, but I don't know for sure, an electrical engineer that knows better how sensors work could throw some light into this matter). But recalling my statistic lessons, I think this doesn't matter at all in this case.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The function that relates the sensitivity to the noise (in a perfect sensor I think it should be linear, but I guess that in real world hardware, boosting the sensitivity yields much greater noise levels).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having that, it's easy to apply &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;some formulae&lt;/a&gt; to deduce how many pictures of a higher ISO you need to compensate the higher noise compared with a single lower ISO picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the linear sensitivity-to-noise scenario, with the same total exposure time the error should be the same... And seeing @Matt Grum's excellent answer, it seems that it is quite close to the real thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3525" LastEditorUserId="3525" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-03T15:39:33.310" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T15:39:33.310" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8122" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8053" CreationDate="2011-02-02T12:34:10.540" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Purely economic. Both Canon's and Nikon's kit zooms manage to include stabilisation and still cost almost nothing, so it's not the cost of including the mechanism, it's the cost of redesigning the lens. They'd do it if they thought there was a market, but they don't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I think they're missing a trick. I'd absolutely love a 35mm or 50mm prime with IS, even if it was f/2 as long as it was sharp wide open. I think we'll have to wait for Sony (ie Konica/Minolta) or maybe Sigma to do it. Nikon and especially Canon are pretty unresponsive to user demand. But if Sigma did it and it sold well, then they might be woken from their slumbers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2329" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T12:34:10.540" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8123" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8055" CreationDate="2011-02-02T13:05:39.127" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A while back I sent out the same image to about 10 labs, ranging from consumer to professional, with walk in and mail order labs at either end of the scale. Unsurprisingly, the pro lab images were much higher quality, but usually took longer to arrive (the cheapest lab had amazing service, but a rubbish image).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taking everything into account, including uploading images etc I ended up going for a pro lab in the next town, mainly for the reasons mentioned in by Jay Lance Photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my advice is to try a few options and see what works best for you!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T13:05:39.127" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8124" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-02T13:10:48.133" Score="9" ViewCount="187" Body="&lt;p&gt;Especially with regards to image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am particularly interested in when you expand to a lower ISO, say 50 rather than 100. Generally the standard high ISO is too noisy, with the expanded ISO even more so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T20:28:39.393" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T20:28:39.393" Title="What does expanded ISO mean?" Tags="&lt;iso&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;digital-iso&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="8125" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7937" CreationDate="2011-02-02T13:19:33.953" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;These are all great answers. I'd just add three things. 1) You can crop pretty aggressively on a modern DSLR so you don't necessarily need to fill the frame. 2) Prime lenses will in general be cheaper and lighter for the equivalent speed and image quality. Of course, the downside is convenience. With this in mind, the 200/2.8L and 300/4LIS are options. 3) Most of the sharpness benefits will be lost without good support - preferably a good tripod and head but at the very least a beanbag or monopod. Trying to handhold a big lens is usually a recipe for disappointment. Sometimes you have no choice, so by all menas improve your handholding technique, but if you're actually &lt;em&gt;planning&lt;/em&gt; to go shoot wildlife, think hard about support. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2329" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T13:19:33.953" />
  <row Id="8126" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4074" CreationDate="2011-02-02T13:34:31.800" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Basically all &quot;expanded&quot; means is that this is not part of the standard recommended range. Often the expanded ISOs are implemented in software rather than hardware (which is bad)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With ISO 50 you might be getting an overexposed ISO 80 (the native, unamplified ISO) so could end up with less dynamic range. This is done by metering for ISO 50 but actually shooting at ISO 80 (since you can't make the sensor be less sensitive than it's unamplified state) and then adjusting the figures afterwards. This will lead to clipping highlights sooner. At least this is the case with some Canon DSLRs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ISO 50 is only really useful if you absolutely need to use a certain shutter speed and don't have an ND filter. I wouldn't use ISO 50 for image quality reasons. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;edit: found the &lt;a href=&quot;http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0604/westfall.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;, from Canon rep Chuck Westfall:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There is about a stop less dynamic range in the highlights at ISO 50, which is the reason why this setting is normally locked out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-02T13:52:19.377" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T13:52:19.377" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8127" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8117" CreationDate="2011-02-02T14:17:23.327" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Rowland covers the ground very well on the issue of copyright and usage, but in terms your other two questions...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Public figures in many jurisdictions are a little easier to deal with in terms of the use of their image when taken in a public place. Most notably, a model release is not specifically required for many usages (though, be careful, not all usages) and you can use the photographs where, at least, it's not direct product/service advertising. So, in the case of your portal, I wouldn't expect you would have direct issues in that regard, especially if it's an image you took.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Altering the appearance of person won't necessarily run the risk of being sued, it's usually very contextual as to your risk there. This is done quite a bit, the well-known tech site Slashdot does this, even has a Bill Gates done up to look like a Borg. It's clearly parody and so, while Bill might not really like it (no idea, it may make him laugh), there's probably very little he can do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nevertheless, the general advice of consulting a lawyer when dealing with any of this is very relevant. It also gets a lot easier if the images are your own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T14:17:23.327" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8128" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8117" CreationDate="2011-02-02T15:08:34.127" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general, there are 2 types of licensed photos, which follow very different rules. What kind of a website that you will make will change what kind of a license you need. Specifically, the two types are editorials and Commercial. Let me break them down a bit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Editorial- These are for use in a publication of a newspaper or similar field, but they &lt;strong&gt;must not be advertising a product or anything similar!&lt;/strong&gt; They must be taken in an area that is reasonable to obtain a picture, ie, you can't photograph a celebrity in their home and use it, but if they are walking in a mall, you may.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Commercial- These can be used in endorsements, or really for just about anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I were you, I would look into one of the stock photo agencies. &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/users/2692/pearsonartphoto&quot;&gt;Take a look at my profile&lt;/a&gt;, or &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7290/which-stock-photo-site-for-industrial-maritime-communications-images&quot;&gt;look here&lt;/a&gt; for some agencies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T15:08:34.127" />
  <row Id="8129" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8130" CreationDate="2011-02-02T15:16:15.200" Score="11" ViewCount="185" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am currently working to design a flash virtual tour, but I know little about how the photographs are taken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ideally I'd like to be able to take a set of 6 shots from a single focal point, and be able to align them seamlessly into a cube form. The other solution is to take a special fisheye image, and stretch it dynamically in flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've seen examples of both as virtual tours, and ones formatted as a rotating cube are more responsive and have a higher image quality. The airbus and Cruden Homes are definitely in the cube format, I'm not entirely certain which format the New York VT uses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pixelcase.com.au/vr/2009/newyork/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New York VT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gillesvidal.com/blogpano/cockpit1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Airbus A380 VT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pikodesign.com/tour/cruden/genesis51/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cruden Homes VT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a set of questions, the first is the most important, the others may become separate questions if I don't get an answer here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How are those photos taken?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is there a specific mount that can be used?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How long does it take to set up?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How much post-processing is necessary on the images?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2474" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-16T22:05:41.283" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T22:05:41.283" Title="How are virtual tour photos taken?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;real-estate&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="8130" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8129" CreationDate="2011-02-02T16:15:52.550" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;These VR images are usually shot with standard camera as a multi image panorama, and then processed in software.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The easiest way is to use a special panoramic (sometimes called VR) tripod head which pivots the camera about the exact centre of the lens in order to ensure the photos line up and there's no paralax error. Shooting vertically with a wide angle lens, ideally a 20mm equiv. or wider, pan through 360 degrees, then take the camera off the tripod and shoot a single sky and ground image (i.e. straight up and straight down) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't have a wide lens you can shoot a two or three row panorama. This can avoid the need for a sky/ground shot, but you'll have tripod legs in your ground shot! There's no need to use a fisheye lens, a standard rectiliear lens will do, the software will do the rest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The images need to be assembled using a special piece of software which will stitch the images together to create a single 360 degree by 180 degree rectangular image, or a cube map if you prefer. PTGui is often recommended for this task. Other good panorama stitching programs should be able to do this as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's obviously quite a bit of post processing involved, but if you shoot with a good overlap between images the software should be able to assemble them with little interaction, though it might take a while to process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shooting multiple exposures in each position and creating a tonemapped HDR panorama is also commonly done, as it helps deal with large changes in brightness you can get planning through 360 degrees, especially outdoors in direct sunlight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-02T16:22:30.947" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T16:22:30.947" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8131" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8134" CreationDate="2011-02-02T16:45:59.600" Score="5" ViewCount="210" Body="&lt;p&gt;Currently debating which of these lens to get. The f/4 does have the advantage of being lighter, and there have been reviews that it's sharper than the f/2.8 wide open or with both at f/4. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather than try to tell me which is better for MY needs, I'd like to hear about your own experience with these lenses, what your requirements are of them, and how you feel they met your requirements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any comments about or experience with the 70-200/2.8 IS II is also more than welcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3663" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T17:31:51.263" Title="Canon 70-200/2.8 IS (mk1) VS 70-200/4 IS" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;telephoto&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="8132" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4074" CreationDate="2011-02-02T16:55:40.403" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's mostly marketing (at least IMO). On one hand, their advertising can brag about supporting a &lt;em&gt;huge&lt;/em&gt; range of ISOs -- but at the time time, if you try to put it to use and don't like the results, they can basically blame &lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt; for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seriously, there is a bit more to it than that -- they're trying to satisfy a wide range of photographers. Back in the film days, different photographers used different films. People who shot landscapes bought Velvia and/or Provia by the brick. Wedding photographers bought Vericolor the same way. Newspapers bought Tri-X in hundred foot rolls. They might all shoot identical cameras, but got results tailored to their own needs by picking their film.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Digital largely eliminates that tailoring, but expanded ISO ranges try to give it back to at least some extent. While it's a bit hard to define the exact &quot;look&quot; of reduced ISO settings (and varies with the camera) you can play with it and if you like that look, you can use it. At the same time, if you get blown highlights, well, they honestly did warn you...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T16:55:40.403" />
  <row Id="8133" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-02T17:09:50.453" Score="4" ViewCount="367" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am interested in taking the photo of spray of droplets. I also want to measure their size. I have captured a streak-type image of each and every water droplet coming from the nozzle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you observe by zooming it, you can get a blur or &quot;ghost image&quot; of each droplet. How can I reduce this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My camera is canon 1000D with 60mm macro lens and 430EX flash light. I kept the flash behind the droplets. My external flash is set to high speed shutter sync, so that I can capture at high shutter speeds also. Please help me to reduce the ghost behind the droplets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/hvy6y.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;water spray&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3666" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-10T15:44:10.887" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T05:20:32.840" Title="How can I reduce &quot;ghost images&quot; of water droplets?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;motion-blur&gt;&lt;high-speed&gt;&lt;ghosting&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="8134" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8131" CreationDate="2011-02-02T17:31:51.263" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although I cannot comment on the f/4 lens, I am absolutely in love with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. Since buying it last year, it became my preferred portrait lens, delivering beautiful bokeh and great sharpness (esp. when my reference is the 28-135mm kit lens). It certainly met my expectations. That said, I knew that it doesn't set a world record in sharpness, so I am prepared for some (very little, don't get me wrong) compromise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is considerably more bulky than the f/4 and I recommend you go to the photo store near you to see them both side by side.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T17:31:51.263" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="8135" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4074" CreationDate="2011-02-02T18:31:38.580" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With film, ISO is controlled by the size of the grain (there are other factors, but this is sufficient for this conversation).  In essence, the lower the ISO the smaller the grain.  The smaller the grain, the more detail the film can resolve, and the less you will see random variations between the grain.  In short, with film you can get more detail shooting ISO 25 film than you can with ISO 100 film--at least within the same brand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With digital, your resolution is fixed.  The only difference in quality is the amount of digital noise.  Digital noise is caused by heat, and there are two ways of increasing the amount of digital noise: amplify the sensor (higher ISO) and increasing exposure time.  With the normal exposure range of your camera, you shouldn't experience any issues due to accumulated noise.  It's the long time-lapse photography shutter speeds you have to worry about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today's digital SLRs have improved their digital noise performance so well that it is near impossible to tell the difference between ISO 100 and ISO 400.  In fact it is just about at the place where I would include ISO 800 on some models with that statement.  In short, there is no reason to choose lower ISOs for image quality reasons.  There are for artistic exposure, but not so much for noise performance issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3631" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T18:31:38.580" />
  <row Id="8136" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8099" CreationDate="2011-02-02T18:32:57.287" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apart from the issues everyone mentioned above:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Not everything looks good in fisheye. It looks good once in a while but you can't do too much with the extreme perspective distortion that comes with using a fish eye lens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Color fringing is another issue which keeps me away from fish eyes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="55" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T18:32:57.287" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8137" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8071" CreationDate="2011-02-02T18:51:25.947" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://sportsphotoguy.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sports Photo Guy&lt;/a&gt; regularly reviews different SD (and CF) cards and posts the real world results. I'd highly recommend reading his reviews since you'll find that there are some class 4 cards that are faster than supposed class 6 cards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1969" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T18:51:25.947" />
  <row Id="8138" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8099" CreationDate="2011-02-02T19:08:28.917" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some people do. &lt;a href=&quot;http://women-and-dreams.blogspot.com/2009/11/zenitar-16mm-f28-revenge-of-nerds.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here's a blog post from 2009&lt;/a&gt; about using the Zenitar 16mm fisheye lens and the ways the images it produces can be manipulated. Lots of pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2312" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T19:08:28.917" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8139" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8092" CreationDate="2011-02-02T19:10:46.353" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;ImageMagick:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;convert 1.jpg 2.jpg 3.jpg 4.jpg -average result.jpg&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="247" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T19:10:46.353" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8140" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8133" CreationDate="2011-02-02T19:55:40.580" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think HSS is the right approach for this. (I'm rephrasing some notes from &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7784/techniques-for-high-speed-photography/7785#7785&quot;&gt;earlier comments&lt;/a&gt; I made that maybe deserve to be a proper answer.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, the flash sync speed is the fastest duration for which the whole sensor is exposed with a focal plane shutter (as found in modern dSLRs). At higher shutter speeds, a slit made between the first and trailing shutter curtains moves across the sensor, exposing only part of it at a time. This is usually quick enough to not cause weirdness, but a flash pulse is even shorter. That means that without HSS, only the part of the frame exposed when the flash fires will be properly lit. Outside of that band, you'll get underexposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Leaving aside flash for a second, If your subject is moving very rapidly, the moving object may in fact become distorted, because the entire frame isn't moving at once. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_%28photography%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article on shutter speed&lt;/a&gt; has an example of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3aFocalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this effect on helicopter blades&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, while high shutter speeds can freeze motion, with a focal plane &#xA;shutter, they may do it oddly. It's better to use a fast flash pulse to expose the whole frame at once.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;HSS works with fast shutter speeds by pulsing very rapidly over a longer period of time, effectively emulating a continuous light. (And, importantly, this reduces the available power. More on that a few paragraphs below.) With fast-moving subjects, though, the fact that the HSS light isn't really continuous may, &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8133/how-can-i-reduce-ghost-image-of-water-droplets/8143#8143&quot;&gt;as John Cavan points out&lt;/a&gt;, be causing a multiple-exposure strobe effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But even not taking that into consideration, unless ambient light is overpowering, HSS does not allow you to shorten the effective duration of an exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Normally with flash, shutter speed has only an insignificant effect on exposure, because the flash pulse is so short and so bright relative to the ambient light. If your flash pulse lasts for ¹⁄₁₀,₀₀₀th of a second, it doesn't matter if the shutter is open for ¹⁄₃₀0th or ¹⁄₁₈₀th of a second &lt;em&gt;around&lt;/em&gt; that pulse — only the flash duration will have any noticeable effect. (Unless the ambient light is very, very strong.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;HSS changes this, basically back to the way it is without a flash. Since the light is on for the whole duration of the exposure, shutter speed determines both your motion-stopping ability and reduces the power available from the flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, why is this all important?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Primarily: the fastest shutter speed on your Canon 1000D is ¹⁄₄₀₀₀th of second, whereas at the lowest (non-HSS) power, the flash duration for your 430EX is about three times faster. Canon does not publish the specs, unfortunately, but this is typical for T.1 duration of this class of flash. (Since it's a steep curve, it's hard to decide exactly when it's meaningful to start and stop measuring — T.1 is the most useful standard, but T.5 numbers are usually quoted. This tangent is probably a whole separate question!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, the point is: if you want to freeze motion beyond ¹⁄₄₀₀₀th of a second, you need to use a flash strobe (at reduced power). If there's too much ambient light to do that, you're pretty much stuck — but HSS won't really help any.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me go ahead and show this with some numbers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At a normal-lens (50mm-e) field of view, your flash has a guide number of 34 meters — a decent amount of power. But just turning on HSS reduces this to 17. Since flash power is relative to GN squared, that means just using HSS has cut the flash's output level by two stops. Assuming aperture and ISO where already where you want them, you have to increase the shutter duration four times. This is clearly counter-productive to the goal of freezing motion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, it's worse than that! That guide number of 17 is only for a HSS flash duration matching a shutter speed of ¹⁄₂₅₀th. As you go faster than that, you cut out more and more of the &quot;continuous&quot; HSS light, reducing power further. By the time you get to ¹⁄₄₀₀₀th of a second, you're looking at a guide number of about 4! This is something like a tenth the power you'd get from using the camera's built-in pop-up flash, and _about what you'd get with your 430EX at its lowest manual setting of ¹⁄₆₄ power — which, again, gives a flash pulse about 3× faster than your fastest shutter speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So: that's a really long way of saying using HSS is not working in your favor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the ambient light is really strong and you need fill light in combination with a fast shutter speed for proper exposure, then HSS can be very useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-02T21:28:53.460" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T21:28:53.460" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8141" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-02T19:58:36.757" Score="4" ViewCount="165" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello, I was wondering if anyone has had experience with using the Alien Skin Bokeh application. Is it worthwhile, or it gimmicky? Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3668" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T23:05:44.917" Title="Has anyone used Alien Skin Bokeh?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;bokeh&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8142" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8145" CreationDate="2011-02-02T19:59:00.923" Score="27" ViewCount="2094" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a very common attitude among photographers that the appearance of a photo (ex: exposure) should be created using the features of the camera (aperture, shutter, etc; does not include the &quot;retouching&quot; features built into newer cameras' software) rather than post-processing (Photoshop and the like).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously, before the digital age, this was largely a matter of practicality. Now we have more tools at our disposal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the reasoning for doing things in-camera instead of in post-processing, given the current technology available?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T14:51:44.020" Title="Why &quot;Do It In-Camera?&quot;" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;technique&gt;" AnswerCount="14" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="7" />
  <row Id="8143" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8133" CreationDate="2011-02-02T20:04:21.820" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The freezing of motion has more to do with the duration of the light than it does with the speed of a shutter. Obviously, with a continuous source of light, the only way to reduce the duration of it is with your shutter, but when you do control the light, that's a very different story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The technique I use to freeze the motion of something like water requires a very dark room, a long(ish) shutter speed, and a very brief flash (usually off camera). My typical setup, for water drops, is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dark room, basement works well for this.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 second shutter speed at lowest ISO (100 usually, though my K-5 goes as low as 80).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flash set to 1/64th or 1/32nd power pointed at a background.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Radio triggers with a test button.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cable release for the camera.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I'll do then is trip the shutter and then manually fire the flash. It'll take a few tries, but generally I can get a very high success rate with the approach. An example of an end result can be seen on my &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/spqr_ca/5300606175/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr stream&lt;/a&gt; and I have a lot more details on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.grumpyjohns.com/?p=147&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;my site&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a note, I think HSS is actually making it worse for you. The use of HSS causes light pulses and, since the duration is what matters, you will have a bunch of durations recording on your image. That isn't going to help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T20:04:21.820" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8144" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8142" CreationDate="2011-02-02T20:08:54.247" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;quality&lt;/strong&gt; - often an effect can be achieved either in camera or in post and the quality is almost always better when exposed correctly in camera.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;time&lt;/strong&gt; - getting it right in camera is faster overall in almost every case.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;less to learn&lt;/strong&gt; - If you know how to get your exposure correct, you don't have to learn all the different ways to fix it later&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ego&lt;/strong&gt; - a lot of photographers simply look down on those who &quot;can't get it right&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-02T20:15:02.850" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T20:15:02.850" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="8145" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8142" CreationDate="2011-02-02T20:09:51.297" Score="49" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No amount of processing can add detail that isn't there to begin with.  If you greatly overexpose your picture, you cannot rescue the highlight detail lost.  The same with significantly underexposing your picture.  Additionally, attempting to fix some perspective problems will make the picture look unnatural and sometimes even cartoonish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Getting it right in the camera is still a matter of pragmatism.  It's a question of whether you want to spend several hours in front of a computer retouching the picture, or spend a couple of minutes getting your camera settings right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some things might be better done in post processing because you have more control, such as multiple exposures.  However, this class of post processing has more to do with special effects rather than proper exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm also of the opinion that you should never use &quot;I'll fix it in post&quot; to do a mediocre job taking your picture the first time.  An extra minute or two at the time of exposure is well worth saving hours in front of a computer.  As my college professor once said, &quot;No matter how much you polish a turd, it's still a turd.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3631" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T20:09:51.297" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="8146" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8142" CreationDate="2011-02-02T20:10:40.623" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The reasoning is &quot;purity&quot; in a lot of the cases I've seen, there are even Flickr &quot;as is&quot; groups for this. However, there are some practical reasons that I can think of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Getting it right, or very close, in the camera shot gives you substantially more latitude in post-processing for change, especially artistic change. Mind you, with raw, the biggest thing to get right is exposure, most others are stuff you can do yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;JPEG editing is generally destructive (there are, of course, work arounds to this) and it's a format that has already lost information.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Less post-processing, more shooting. :)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T20:10:40.623" />
  <row Id="8147" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8142" CreationDate="2011-02-02T20:21:34.800" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For me, the light went on when I read Matt Grum's &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4710/how-to-create-this-effect-dave-hill-et-al-for-portraits-action-shots/4717#4717&quot;&gt;answer&lt;/a&gt; to another &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/4710/2214&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think it's correct to insist that &lt;em&gt;everything&lt;/em&gt; should be done in camera (though some might take this stance), because it's really not about &quot;post-processing&quot; vs. &quot;getting it right in camera.&quot;  If you get the exposure, lighting, etc. as close as possible to what you want &quot;in camera,&quot; the end result is going to be much easier to work with (you may not need any post processing at all), and you want to work with the best possible image that you can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2214" LastEditorUserId="2214" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-03T14:51:44.020" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T14:51:44.020" />
  <row Id="8148" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8142" CreationDate="2011-02-02T20:25:07.767" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because it's more fun!  My goal is to get great pictures &lt;strong&gt;and have fun doing it&lt;/strong&gt;, not to get great pictures by whatever means are necessary, or fastest, or easiest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photography is a hobby for me, something I do for fun (so expect different answers from professionals).  Getting it all right in-camera is a challenge, and makes me prouder of the results.  That's why I enjoy using old (well, older than me, at any rate) manual focus lenses, too: I'm much prouder of a picture when I nail the focus without the little red lights in the viewfinder to help me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then again, I also love taking road trips because I enjoy the drive more than the destination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't have anything against someone who makes a great picture through the use of heavy post-processing (or someone who drives somewhere just to get there), it's just that if I did things that way, I'd be spending less time on the parts that I consider fun, and more on the parts that I don't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T20:25:07.767" />
  <row Id="8149" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8142" CreationDate="2011-02-02T21:22:42.830" Score="21" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Barring the egotistical types who need to feel macho because they are purist &quot;Do it in camera&quot; types, there is a lot of value in &lt;strong&gt;crafting&lt;/strong&gt; your photographs with just your own two hands, a camera, and possibly some filtration. For one, there is the aesthetic appeal to manually working a scene, carefully preparing your camera, and composing as idealistically as possible right there on the spot. Beyond that, here are some things that can't be corrected when post processing, or where you only have limited correction capability after the fact:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Composition&lt;/strong&gt;: The form of your photos.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fundamentally, composition is something done in-camera, rather than in post processing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is possible to &quot;crop&quot; while post processing, however the inverse, expanding your scene, is impossible after the photo has been taken.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Artistic expression and vision are firmly rooted in, and begins with, composition, so getting a scene composed correctly in camera is a critical factor in art. &#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It should be noted that Artistic expression &lt;em&gt;continues&lt;/em&gt; in post, as it is not necessarily purely an in-camera thing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Lighting&lt;/strong&gt;: The illumination and mood of your photos.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This is not referring to exposure, but the way your scene is lit.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The aspects of light and shadow only exist in the real world, and therefor can only be tweaked in the real world.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Focus&lt;/strong&gt;: The sharpness and isolation of your primary subjects.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Slight focus issues can be corrected in post with sharpening.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The artistic and compositional aspects of focus must be performed in-camera.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Artistic expression such as very blurry background bokeh require proper camera and subject placement, as well as wide aperture, in the real world to achieve.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exposure&lt;/strong&gt;: The proper recording of light.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is possible to &quot;correct&quot; exposure in post, with caveats.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Under-exposed images corrected in post will usually exhibit more noise than an image correctly exposed in camera.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Blown highlights mean you have permanently lost some image data, and that can not be recovered in post.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Emotion&lt;/strong&gt;: The feeling of a photographed scene.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Capturing the sense of emotion in a scene starts not only in-camera, but often in time.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Emotion is often portrayed by an expression in a portrait, dramatic sunset lighting in a landscape, or the sense of motion in a photo if city life. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Emotional aspects, like artistic expression, start in-camera. &#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Also like artistic expression, emotion can be enhanced during post processing, but if it is lacking in the first place...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T21:22:42.830" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8150" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8142" CreationDate="2011-02-02T21:38:11.047" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before digital age people had only one string to their bow. Now they have two. Why do you want to suppress one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Post processing gives far better results on a correct image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1296" LastEditorUserId="1296" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-03T05:38:35.893" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T05:38:35.893" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8151" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8141" CreationDate="2011-02-02T21:39:27.533" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've played around with it, but elected not to buy it. &#xA;I was fairly impressed with the results, when it worked, but found it only worked in a tiny subset of cases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;here is pretty much a best case example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/lytfyre/3559896971/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Bokeh Comparison by lytfyre, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3348/3559896971_ebf3e33b93.jpg&quot; width=&quot;372&quot; height=&quot;500&quot; alt=&quot;Bokeh Comparison&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the subject is pretty clearly defined from the background (decent shallow depth of field to begin with) and doesn't have long hair.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could not create a single example that I'd consider worth posting for any person with long hair, which was dissappointing. If you're willing to spend a great amount of time in photoshop tweaking the selection, perhaps you may do better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3478" LastEditorUserId="3478" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-02T23:05:44.917" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T23:05:44.917" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8152" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8157" CreationDate="2011-02-02T22:34:43.370" Score="10" ViewCount="423" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are some standard lighting setups for two or three people in a group?  I just can't think of non-complicated setups that would apply some previously discussed (short, broad, butterfly, split, etc) lighting setups to groups of people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-03T02:14:45.087" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T08:29:05.450" Title="What are standard lighting setups for 2-3 people?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;studio-lighting&gt;&lt;lighting-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8153" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-02T22:51:46.680" Score="0" ViewCount="79" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was almost going to buy SL50 but thought to hear a little from you guys. I am willing to pay up to $150. What is your recommended best P&amp;amp;S camera within this range?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3670" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-03T05:59:38.847" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T05:59:38.847" Title="What is your recommended P&amp;S camera compared to Samsung SL50? (I can add extra $50)" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="8154" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8142" CreationDate="2011-02-02T23:02:01.193" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I took up photography as a way of getting me out of the house and in touch with my world. I'd rather not be chained to my computer doing extra work to correct my images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3650" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T23:02:01.193" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8155" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8142" CreationDate="2011-02-02T23:13:56.147" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some things can't be practically done post-processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, if you have the focus wrong, no amount of Photoshop will bring the clarity and detail back. That's simple and obvious, but luckily your camera probably got that right to begin with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depth of field, is related to focus, but is more subtle and your camera can't guess what you intend. Even if the main subject is in focus, the depth of field may not be what you intended. If depth of field is too deep, you can simulate depth of field using blurring, but it will be very difficult and end up looking unnatural. Too shallow and you won't be able to add detail after the fact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The wrong exposure has similar problems. If you don't expose correctly, you will lose detail in the parts of the image that you care about that you will never get back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want a motion blur effect, say of a stream, it is easy to get by setting a longer exposure but again, you will have a hard time getting something realistic looking during post-processing. On the other hand if you want it to appear as stop-motion and you shoot to long of an exposure, post processing will never get it right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Same thing goes for getting correct perspective, composition etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luckily, cropping is more forgiving with modern super-megapixel cameras, but if you get these other fundamentals wrong when you take the picture, you won't be readily fix them afterward. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would take care to get things as close to perfection as you can in your camera and then fix them up in your digital darkroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3671" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T23:13:56.147" />
  <row Id="8156" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8073" CreationDate="2011-02-02T23:18:54.707" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're into DIY, maybe try &lt;a href=&quot;http://diyphotography.net/protect-your-camera-from-rain-using-an-old-pair-of-rain-trousers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; for example...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3650" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T23:18:54.707" />
  <row Id="8157" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8152" CreationDate="2011-02-02T23:42:19.510" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, there are two schools of thought on lighting setups for groups. I'll cover what you're &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; talking about (for completeness) before I talk about your question directly...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;School #1 - Light Individuals&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This school of thought essentially says that even in a group portrait, every subject is treated as an individual, and is lit individually. The pros of this method are probably obvious- fine-grained control over every single subject in the shot, and (if you do it right) amazing 'magazine-ready' shots. The cons, of course, are that it is expensive (because you need lots of lights, accessories, assistants, etc.), and time consuming (because you have lots of variables). These are the types of shoots that take 8 hours to set up, and 10 minutes to complete.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If done right, however, the results are unachievable by any other method. For the most part because of the cost and manpower involved in setting up shoots this way, it is exclusively the realm of advertising photography and magazine editorial shoots. I know several people who have 'begged, borrowed, and rented' their way into self-funding shoots like this for their portfolios, and the shots the captured instantly became the centerpieces of their work, because these types of shots look stunning, and there's really no way to 'fake' it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;School #2 - Light the Group&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the rest of us 'mere mortals' lighting groups (large or small) is often an exercise in compromise. The basic goal needs to be to evenly light each face in the group. Most of the time when lighting groups the 'artistry' of lighting setups takes a backseat to simply getting everyone lit with an 'acceptable' level of lighting. The easiest group lighting setups aren't much more than variations on the basic &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6495/in-portrait-photography-what-is-broad-lighting-what-is-short-lighting/6496#6496&quot;&gt;short-lighting setup&lt;/a&gt;, but widened out to fit the group. With a smaller group, this can often be accomplished with a single light source (whether natural, or artificial) and a reflector on the opposite side... Maybe with a light to separate the background and/or a hair light if you have enough light sources to accomplish it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/eoo8V.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Basic group lighting setup diagram&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Things like hair lights, rim lights, separations lights, kickers, etc. can be added over and above the key light and reflector, but those lights would comprise what I think of as a 'basic plus' lighting setup. For a group of 2 or 3, the bare minimum you'll need boils down to just a key light and a reflector. I know working professional portrait photographers who use this 1-light setup almost exclusively- it's a powerful setup, and can easily be the base setup for the majority of group (and even individual) portraits you are likely to encounter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For larger groups, this will almost always require a second lighting source opposite the key light to act as a fill and prevent shadows because more power will be needed than a reflector can provide. &lt;em&gt;(Note that extras like hair light and separation light have been omitted for clarity. They can certainly be added if you have the lights.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/lLCTI.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Larger group lighting setup diagram&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other thing of real importance when lighting groups is arranging everyone so that no person is casting a shadow onto another member of the group. This is sometimes easier said that done! Generally speaking, the more that you can bring everyone's faces onto a single plane (by, for example, having those in the back row lean forward), the easier this will be. With group portraits I generally find that it's best to slow down and spend the 5 or 10 minutes getting the arrangement right before beginning to take pictures, but 'arranging groups' is probably an entire topic in itself. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-03T08:29:05.450" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T08:29:05.450" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8158" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8142" CreationDate="2011-02-02T23:55:06.807" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a really good idea to go into a shooting situation with the idea of doing it right the first time, and getting the absolutely-best images you can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, if something goes wrong with an image, you can fall back on &quot;fixing it in post-production&quot;, which sometimes works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you go into it with the attitude you'll fix it in post-production, and I go into the same situation with the idea of getting right in camera, 9 times out of 10 my shots will beat yours because they will have less noise, will fill the frame better, will be color-balanced correctly, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used to do a LOT of outdoor action work with full strobes, lighting pro-rodeo arenas. You get ONE shot at perfect action, then you wait about one second while the heads recycle. There is no motor-drive, there is no auto-exposure. If your color balance or exposure is off you'll get to adjust every picture, and for each thing you didn't get right up front, you'll get to work that much harder later IF the picture is salvageable, because for each thing wrong, the odds go way up of it not being fixable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, when you spent several hours hanging lights and pulling power and setting up redundant remote triggers with sync lines, then shoot for three hours, then spend another couple hours tearing down, having to spend multiple hours fixing dumb mistakes in post-production is like self-flagellation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, take a word of wisdom from someone with experience, get it as right as you possibly can ahead of time because you might not be able to get the image back later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1514" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T23:55:06.807" />
  <row Id="8159" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8165" CreationDate="2011-02-02T23:55:50.143" Score="13" ViewCount="776" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the major (and perhaps more subtle) differences between the newer Micro 4/3s format in comparison to the well-established DSLR cameras? What are the pros and cons of the Micro 4/3s format, the camera body and lens capabilities and offerings, size/weight, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3591" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T02:55:48.563" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T02:55:48.563" Title="How do Micro 4/3s cameras compare with DSLR cameras? Pros/Cons?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;micro-four-thirds&gt;&lt;full-frame&gt;&lt;aps-c&gt;&lt;sensor-size&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="12" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="8160" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7740" CreationDate="2011-02-02T23:58:49.353" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My light tent was cheap - it required a box cutter and a cardboard box. And a band-aid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I got my ideas from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diyphotography.net/homestudio/super-simple-light-tent&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/2006/07/how-to-diy-10-macro-photo-studio.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. The band-aid idea came from first aid training. ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3650" LastActivityDate="2011-02-02T23:58:49.353" />
  <row Id="8161" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8159" CreationDate="2011-02-03T00:07:52.093" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Micro 4/3rds has a slightly smaller sensor than crop DSLRs, has slower autofocus, is more likely to get dust in the sensor, and depending on the camera, might not have a see-through lens. This would make taking picture outdoors very difficult.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With help from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Four_Thirds_system&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T00:07:52.093" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8162" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8159" CreationDate="2011-02-03T00:09:19.407" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, the smaller sensor is its biggest disadvantage. The smaller the sensor, the higher the noise. The smaller the sensor, the larger minimum DoF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's nothing &quot;holy&quot; in DSLR (FF or APS-C) form factor either. In terms of sensor size, these types are just two points in the continuum from digital medium format cameras to cellphone cameras. However, there is an expected level of attributes for each camera size. For example, DSLR's have optical viewfinder which sees &quot;through the lens&quot;. No u4/3 has an optical viewfinder that sees TTL.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-15T01:09:55.870" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T01:09:55.870" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="8163" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23" CreationDate="2011-02-03T00:13:26.943" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That you really, really, must, must, always check the screw valve on your Pelican case before you take your gear canoeing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3650" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T00:13:26.943" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-01T18:55:11.547" />
  <row Id="8164" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8159" CreationDate="2011-02-03T01:27:19.870" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;There is a disadvantage due to the sensor size, everyone will say that. While true, it is actually quite minimal.&lt;/strong&gt; Obviously, it varies between models but a recent m4/3 camera compares to a recent one with an APS-C within one stop in terms of noise, and it is rarely visible until ISO 800+. H&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/review.php?id=85&amp;amp;review=samples&amp;amp;seq=2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ere is how the differences looked last year&lt;/a&gt;. All these models had one successor since.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only &lt;strong&gt;serious&lt;/strong&gt; difference is actually speed. All the current m4/3 cameras use contrast-detect AF which is slower by a noticeable margin to phase-detect, which is used by DSLRs. There is a small but noticeable display lag as well because the LCD or EVF works electronically (not a the speed of light as with OVFs). With subjects that move slowly this is not a problem at all, but for action it can be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are obviously more differences but the remaining ones tend to be more specific to certain types of photography. Certain features are not available yet in m43 too, such as weather-sealing, sync-port, GPS, support for AAs, etc. You'll have to investigate which ones impact you depending on your photography style.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The number one advantage is reduced bulk&lt;/strong&gt;, so a smaller and lighter total system. Micro Four-Thirds camera are smaller than DSLRs but the savings also translate to lenses. Each lens is smaller, so the size and weight you need to get a comparable feature set.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that the lenses are smaller also lets them design &lt;strong&gt;lenses with a bigger maximum apertures&lt;/strong&gt;. This applies to full-size Four-Thirds and Micro Four-Thirds. The best example if the two Olympus F/2 zooms, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=101&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;14-35 F/2&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=103&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;35-100 F/2&lt;/a&gt;. To use these on a Micro 4/3 camera you do need a small adapter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Going back to Micro 4/3 specifically, the &lt;strong&gt;shorter distance of the mount to the sensor means that you can adapt much more lenses from other mounts to Micro 4/3&lt;/strong&gt; without losing focus at infinity.  A particularly interesting adapter exists that also adds a shift or tilt mechanism between the mount and the lens (sorry, do not remember who does this).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that those cameras were designed to show a live-image means that there is no cost to see a live-view compared to current DSLRs. As of today, no DSLR has a live-view that does not reduce its performance somehow (usually AF speed but Sony DSLRs compromise VF coverage instead). This is likely to disappear over time, but for now you can count on it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eye-level shooting of video is not possible with a DSLR since video requires a live-view feed. Several Micro 4/3 camera will provide this using an optional EVF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-16T02:30:03.707" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T02:30:03.707" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8165" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8159" CreationDate="2011-02-03T01:37:59.503" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first technical difference is the fact that the sensor is smaller to the most common DSLR sensor sizes (APS-C and larger), whilst it's going to be less optimal than an APS-C, full frame or medium format (very expensive) sensor, it's still going to be far better than compact sensors. Noise will be comparable to APS-C (1.6x), though probably not &lt;em&gt;quite&lt;/em&gt; as good, but this is also dependent on the sensor technology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second technical difference is that almost all Micro 4/3rds cameras currently use an electronic viewfinder, not SLR viewfinder. This means there is no phase detect auto-focus which is much quicker than contrast based auto focus. Phase detect AF can take less than a second in good light, whereas contrast AF can typically take 3-4 seconds and most often takes this long in any conditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another difference is that on a lot of Micro 4/3rds cameras, the manual controls for aperture, shutter speed and ISO aren't as accessible as an SLR camera. If you plan on shooting manual with a Micro 4/3rds camera you may have to look around for the one that won't hinder you. For example, Sony's NEX-5 (not Micro 4/3rds but similar) apparently are very fiddly and it's better to just use them in an automated mode like Program mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A major physical difference is the size. The camera body itself is typically no larger than a large compact. The problem with this though is that the lenses are still fairly large when it comes to portability. You probably wouldn't try putting one in your pocket unless you have both a large pocket and a very short lens attached.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastEditorUserId="609" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-03T22:37:16.740" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T22:37:16.740" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8166" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8142" CreationDate="2011-02-03T01:49:24.120" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I guess I read his question completely differently than everyone else. I read it as, &quot;Why not take the best photo possible and then do processing later instead of making a purposefully over bright or dark photo. Or a photo with blurs using exposure times.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T01:49:24.120" />
  <row Id="8167" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-03T03:49:29.420" Score="2" ViewCount="92" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi, I am looking for a company that does lay-flat photobooks in large sizes and large number of pages.  Thanks!!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3607" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T04:09:33.007" Title="Photobooks with lay-flat pages" Tags="&lt;photobooks&gt;&lt;printed-album&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="8168" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8167" CreationDate="2011-02-03T04:09:33.007" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While these are by no means the &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; companies who have lay-flat photobooks, they are some of the best-known, most-reputable companies who produce them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Marathon Press&lt;/strong&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.marathonpress.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.marathonpress.com/&lt;/a&gt; - Offset Printer specializing in professional photography products&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Bay Photo&lt;/strong&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bayphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bayphoto.com/&lt;/a&gt; - Genreal high-end photo and photo-product production lab&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;White House Custom Color&lt;/strong&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whcc.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.whcc.com/&lt;/a&gt; - Genreal high-end photo and photo-product production lab&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Leather Craftsman&lt;/strong&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://leathercraftsmen.net/joomla1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://leathercraftsmen.net/joomla1/&lt;/a&gt; - High-end album manufacturer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Asuka Book&lt;/strong&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://asukabook.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://asukabook.com/&lt;/a&gt; - High-end album manufacturer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously each company will have its own specific product lines, prices, policies, etc., so you'll need to contact them for further details specific to your situation. While I do have business relationships with each of these companies, I don't get anything for mentioning them... I'm just an 'average' customer who likes what each of these companies has to offer...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T04:09:33.007" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8169" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8153" CreationDate="2011-02-03T05:15:41.500" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can try Panasonic Lumix F3 or Canon A3100 IS. Both are around 100$ and great for casual photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T05:15:41.500" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8170" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="439" CreationDate="2011-02-03T07:28:52.013" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the previous version of the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 and rented the 1.4TC and found that it was a little soft for my taste.  Once you get used to f/2.8 and the creamy bokeh you can get its hard to drop to f/4.  I was glad that I rented it instead just to find out if I would have wanted it.  The extra reach was nice though. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3622" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T07:28:52.013" />
  <row Id="8171" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8142" CreationDate="2011-02-03T08:14:34.090" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For me it comes down to something extremely simple: when I do as much as possible in-camera I can (to some extent) determine whether I got the shot or not while I am still at the site. If I wait until I am back at my computer, I may very well detect that I didn't get the material I need, with no chance of correcting that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T08:14:34.090" />
  <row Id="8172" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8109" CreationDate="2011-02-03T09:01:54.650" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only real drawback to the multiple exposure tactic is a probable loss of sharpness, at least with a focal-plane shutter SLR and an ordinary tripod. Sensels are really tiny, and making sure they are at exactly the same location for every exposure is tough. Multishot backs (for medium and large format cameras) tend to rely on leaf shutters, mirror lockup that extends across multiple exposures and a camera stand (like one of the monster Foba units) rather than a tripod.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The kind of sharpness loss I'm talking about would be at the level of putting a much stronger low-pass (antialiasing) filter in front of the sensor. Call it a half-pixel blur (anything more than a half pixel can be minimized by shifting the images before averaging). You can regain some apparent sharpness by binning pixels (a down-scaling technique that treats pixel quads as a single pixel; a sort of special case of next-neighbor).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Long exposures for a single shot have their own noise problems, particularly at high temperatures. Shooting at ISO 100 sounds like a good idea, but if the exposure gets to be really long, there's still going to be thermal noise -- and with only one copy of the image, you're stuck with whatever you get. An actively cooled sensor (like on an astronomical back) will largely eliminate the problem, but that means specialized kit. However, you can be pretty sure that the sensor will stay more or less in one place while the image is being recorded, so you'll get better sharpness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Multishot techniques can result in less noise than single shot, especially with a good combining algorithm. If you have enough images, you can throw away the statistical anomalies before averaging at any given pixel. That's pretty much how high-res low magnitude astronomical pictures are done -- a star isn't a star unless it appears in a clear majority of captures, and its brightness is reckoned by averaging.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T09:01:54.650" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8173" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8159" CreationDate="2011-02-03T09:21:47.027" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One other potential issue with a m4/3 camera, is that's as large a sensor as you are ever going to be able to use.  With other DSLR systems you can potentially buy very nice primes that also work on larger sensor or even full frame cameras with the same mount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you someday decide you really need a full-frame camera, you may also just be able to sell the lenses and systems you have and start from scratch, but it's something to consider.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;m4/3 cameras are more compact so that's a great benefit to consider, especially when traveling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T09:21:47.027" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8174" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8142" CreationDate="2011-02-03T10:42:58.110" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To paraphrase Ansel Adams, it's because if you can't visualise exactly what the finished product is going to look like, then you're not ready to push the shutter. And if you can visualise it, then you know what can only be done in camera and what can only be done in pp. Sure, you can rescue a shot when you did something wrong, but why resign yourself to such mediocrity in advance? Have some pride in your work :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2329" LastEditorUserId="2329" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-03T10:53:05.867" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T10:53:05.867" />
  <row Id="8175" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8142" CreationDate="2011-02-03T10:44:09.653" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you do it in-camera (the things you mentioned), the exposure etc. is determined by optical factors, whilst everything post is done digitally. Since the light is natural rather than being calculated, setting your optical devices does produce a better quality image (which you still can postprocess if you like).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3685" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T10:44:09.653" />
  <row Id="8176" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8201" CreationDate="2011-02-03T13:26:24.487" Score="8" ViewCount="450" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to take pictures at home, but I don't know what can be a good shooting. Any ideas ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3689" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T15:38:30.130" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-03T17:43:41.220" Title="Do you have any ideas of photo shoot that I can do home with everyday things ?" Tags="&lt;shooting-technique&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8177" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8176" CreationDate="2011-02-03T13:30:46.060" Score="-3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Anything and everything if you have the eye&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3584" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T13:30:46.060" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-03T17:43:41.220" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8178" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4716" CreationDate="2011-02-03T13:59:57.740" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've used Camera+; Touch Exposure &amp;amp; Focus feature &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From site:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Set exposure separately from focus for the ultimate control of your shots… simply touch with a 2nd finger while focusing to adjust exposure until your shot is perfect.&#xA;iPhone 4 and 3GS running iOS 4 only&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It works as explained, but it's almost impossible to hold the phone, touch two spots on the screen and then touch the shutter icon. It's much more trouble than it's worth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the original Camera+ used the volume buttons as a shutter, and was pulled from the app store for failure to follow Apple guidelines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3691" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T13:59:57.740" />
  <row Id="8179" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8176" CreationDate="2011-02-03T14:08:07.080" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A fun thing to do is try to catch anything falling into water.&#xA;Here is a lemon example, made by @ysap, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7784/techniques-for-high-speed-photography&quot;&gt;some tips&lt;/a&gt; on how to create it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, shooting flames and fire is always a blast. If you don't have a fireplace use a candle. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ocklg.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-04T15:38:30.130" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T15:38:30.130" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-03T17:43:41.220" CommentCount="13" />
  <row Id="8180" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8088" CreationDate="2011-02-03T14:57:43.223" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you mentioned in a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8088/upscale-iphone-taken-photograph/8102#8102&quot;&gt;comment to Mike&lt;/a&gt;, you're looking at in-browser scaling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://srobbin.com/blog/jquery-plugins/jquery-backstretch/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jquery Backstretch plugin&lt;/a&gt; is designed to do exactly what you are looking for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the Backstretch page:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Backstretch is a simple jQuery plugin&#xA;  that allows you to add a&#xA;  dynamically-resized background image&#xA;  to any page. The image will stretch to&#xA;  fit the page, and will automatically&#xA;  resize as the window size changes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T14:57:43.223" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8181" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8176" CreationDate="2011-02-03T15:10:37.357" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A common maxim for writers is &quot;Write what you know.&quot; This applies to photography as well. Think of your interests, hobbies, job, or just plain daily experiences — at home or out and around — and find an element of that which has visual interest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T15:10:37.357" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-03T17:43:41.220" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8182" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8176" CreationDate="2011-02-03T15:25:34.603" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When practicing particular techniques, I often take pictures literally of whatever is in front of me at the time. So, for instance, when playing with depth of field, I'll shoot my water bottle on my desk so that I can see the blur in the plants in the background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Technically, it's a perfect photo. Aesthetically it's boring, so I never show it to anyone. I'll usually delete it and move on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want something to show people, then you start the same place you'd start with any other photograph: &lt;em&gt;what is your intent by making this picture&lt;/em&gt;? What story are you trying to tell? What effect on the user are you trying to achieve?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In your house, there's plenty of subject matter for this, just as there is outside of it. Any person can become a portrait; any object can become a still life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And any pet can get a &lt;a href=&quot;http://icanhascheezburger.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;capshun and posted to the Internet&lt;/a&gt;. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T15:25:34.603" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-03T17:43:41.220" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8183" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8184" CreationDate="2011-02-03T15:27:14.210" Score="7" ViewCount="468" Body="&lt;p&gt;People keep inventing different form factors and formats for cameras, but none seems to have hit on what seems (to me) like an obvious one. Why doesn't somebody build a camera with a sensor that has a 4x5 aspect ratio, but the diagonal size of the sensor the same as an APS-C and/or full-frame (35mm) sensor (and a mount compatible with their existing lens line)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maintaining the same diagonal size means this would remain compatible with (most?) existing lenses for the same mount. Since typical use would no longer involve cropping, a sensor with exactly the same number of sensels (and therefore, the same pitch/density/well size) as a current one would still have higher &lt;em&gt;usable&lt;/em&gt; resolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just FWIW, the sensor sizes seem to work out to around 18x23mm to work with APS-C lenses, and 27x34mm to work with full-frame lenses. Does anybody see a major downside to this idea?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="2200" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-03T16:23:42.943" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T22:59:51.493" Title="New DSLR format?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;format&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="18" />
  <row Id="8184" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8183" CreationDate="2011-02-03T15:40:30.760" Score="17" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The mirror has to be a lot bigger for 4x5, particularly at 90 degrees to the axis the mirror flips about. The shutter also gets bigger in the direction it has to move (there's a reason the shutter moves up and down not left to right). This means a slower moving mirror and shutter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another consequence of the bigger mirror is the lens mount has to be further away (greater registration distance), which gives you less space for the rear element and so you have to use a retrofocus design for normal lenses. You would also break compatibility with current lenses - despite the fact that the image circle is big enough, the mirror would hit the rear element! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Squarer formats are more common in medium and large format photography where more time is taken over a shot so a slow mirror/shutter can be tolerated (many use leaf shutters anyway) but anywhere where speed dominates, such as sports smaller and more elongated formats allow a little extra speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another area where you tend to find 4:3 sensors is in compacts  where you have no mirror to move. The only mass market 4:3 DSLR I can think of were the Olympus 43rds, and they're moving away from having mirrors...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look at the full frame Canon 5D, it has a slower max shooting rate and a slower sync speed (a measure of how fast the shutter curtains move) than the equivalent APS-c model. Although Nikon have a high speed FF camera, it's extremely expensive, and I bet it would go faster with a smaller mirror.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-03T16:31:05.310" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T16:31:05.310" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="8185" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8183" CreationDate="2011-02-03T15:41:26.727" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Why doesn't somebody build a camera with a sensor that has a 4x5 aspect ratio, but the diagonal size of the sensor the same as an APS-C and/or full-frame (35mm) sensor&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's cheaper to build one manufacturing line / format instead of two.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Consumers generally expect things to match history / preexisting standards.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of the reduced sales from #2, the costs of #1 are usually not worth it unless there's a VERY good reason to switch. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, even though there was no technical reason why digital sensors had to be a certain aspect ratio (at least not to my knowledge), they quickly settled on the 35mm film 3:2 standard, because that's what people were used to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The existing sensor sizes and ratios are &quot;good enough&quot; so there's little incentive to build a new one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The good news, when it comes to aspect ratio: today's DSLRs have so much resolution that you can crop the photo to whatever size you like. You don't have to wait for hardware to evolve to your liking; you can do it in software. You're wasting pixels, yes, but there's so many to loose that it's not worth worrying about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T15:41:26.727" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8186" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8183" CreationDate="2011-02-03T15:47:02.723" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think, basically, there's &lt;em&gt;not enough of a difference&lt;/em&gt;. These give you about 12% greater height in exchange for about 5% in the other direction. That's not worth the risk of putting something &quot;weird&quot; into the market.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T15:47:02.723" />
  <row Id="8187" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-02-03T15:49:53.747" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;See also the &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/post-processing&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'post-processing'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;post-processing&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/image-processing&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'image-processing'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;image-processing&lt;/a&gt; tags, which may be what you want instead of this one. While editing a photo is quite arguably what one does in a program like Adobe Photoshop, just as one edits text documents in a word processor, the line between editing in that sense and post-processing is so fuzzy that it's better to avoid the confusion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some existing questions with this tag which exemplify the way in which it should be used:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4268/attribution-in-a-digital-print&quot;&gt;Attribution in a digital print?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T03:19:05.823" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T03:19:05.823" />
  <row Id="8188" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-02-03T15:49:53.747" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Photographic editing is the process of reworking an original photo, either produced by film or digital, to create the artistic vision of the photographer." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-03T19:09:31.013" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T19:09:31.013" />
  <row Id="8189" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8190" CreationDate="2011-02-03T15:53:02.093" Score="1" ViewCount="317" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a problem with my D90 I'm unable to figure out. Whenever I take a long exposure with my D90 (say, for 10 or 15 seconds), when the shutter closes again, the info display on the camera reads &quot;Job nr&quot; and the camera is non-functional. If I turn the camera off and back on, it then &quot;saves&quot; the image normally, and pulls up the review photo on the display, as if nothing had gone wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what's going on here? I don't have any modifications on the camera, I shoot in programmed auto most of the time, and it's a stock 18-105mm lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3367" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T18:04:11.547" Title="Nikon D90 problem: &quot;Job nr&quot; error" Tags="&lt;nikon-d90&gt;&lt;troubleshooting&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="8190" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8189" CreationDate="2011-02-03T16:04:03.723" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;Job nr&quot; is not an error message, it's a status message.  You have enabled the in-camera long-exposure noise reduction - the &quot;nr&quot; part of the message.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With noise reduction enabled, after you create a long exposure, the camera takes about the same amount of time to process the image, apply noise reduction, and write image to the card.  If you're creating a 15 second exposure, expect about 15 seconds of &quot;Job nr&quot; while the noise reduction is applied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T16:04:03.723" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8191" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8189" CreationDate="2011-02-03T16:19:18.200" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Several weeks ago while researching astrophotography with DSLRs I ran across &lt;a href=&quot;http://astrosurf.com/buil/d70v10d/eval&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; about how to do astrophotography with a Nikon.  Basically what you are doing above is capturing a truly raw image from the camera (i.e. sans noise removal), as explained below:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The first part is identical to the&#xA;  MODE 2 (noise removal procedure is&#xA;  ON), but for going until the end, it&#xA;  is necessary to turning off the power&#xA;  switch some fraction seconds or some&#xA;  few seconds after the first&#xA;  acquisition phase, i.e. once that the&#xA;  shutter is closed and that the D70&#xA;  carrying out the dark frame. There is&#xA;  no risk to damage anything. The&#xA;  firmware of D70 automatically saves&#xA;  the image stored in the buffer memory&#xA;  on the CompactFlash card. It is a&#xA;  safety measure if the user cuts off&#xA;  the power supply without taking guard&#xA;  there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2214" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T16:19:18.200" />
  <row Id="8192" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8196" CreationDate="2011-02-03T16:36:01.103" Score="3" ViewCount="104" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the print dialog in Photoshop, there is an option for showing a simulated paper white in the little print preview.  Can I get the same preview effect in the fullsize regular workspace?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2733" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T17:41:01.403" Title="Photoshop: Preview image with paper white?" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;printing&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="8193" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8189" CreationDate="2011-02-03T16:40:52.870" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is noise reduction feature. Basically camera just takes another shot of the same exposure, but with shutter closed. Since no light hits the sensor, the only thing we get in this shot is noise - therefore we can substract this noise form earlier image, reducing total amount of noise. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is example - 2 shots taken with Nikon D3100 with and without NR at 10s ISO3200:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Na5Pb.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;with noise reduction&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/451b2.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;without noise reduction&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is clear that first image has significally less noise. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2922" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-03T18:04:11.547" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T18:04:11.547" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8194" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8176" CreationDate="2011-02-03T16:43:41.840" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A little inspiration from me: :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cl.ly/4NSD&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/wwEPs.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Cupstack&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2069" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T16:43:41.840" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-03T17:43:41.220" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8195" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8176" CreationDate="2011-02-03T17:16:57.717" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/householdobjects/pool/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a Flickr group called &quot;Household Objects&quot;&lt;/a&gt; that might offer you some inspiration. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could also try searching Flickr for the names of household objects you have on hand: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=pencils&amp;amp;w=all&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pencils&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/search/?ss=2&amp;amp;w=all&amp;amp;q=bottles&amp;amp;m=text&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;bottles&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/search/?ss=2&amp;amp;w=all&amp;amp;q=crayons&amp;amp;m=text&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;crayons&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/search/?ss=2&amp;amp;w=all&amp;amp;q=thread&amp;amp;m=text&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;thread&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/search/?ss=2&amp;amp;w=all&amp;amp;q=tools&amp;amp;m=text&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;tools&lt;/a&gt;, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2312" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T17:16:57.717" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-03T17:43:41.220" />
  <row Id="8196" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8192" CreationDate="2011-02-03T17:41:01.403" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check your options in &lt;code&gt;View&lt;/code&gt; &amp;rarr; &lt;code&gt;Proof Setup&lt;/code&gt; &amp;rarr; &lt;code&gt;Custom...&lt;/code&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;You can tune the display options there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/kZXNN.png&quot; alt=&quot;Customize Proof Condition&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To quickly toggle color proofing on/off choose &lt;code&gt;View&lt;/code&gt; &amp;rarr; &lt;code&gt;Proof Colors&lt;/code&gt;. You could also use the keyboard shortcut &lt;kbd&gt;⌘&lt;/kbd&gt; + &lt;kbd&gt;Y&lt;/kbd&gt; &lt;strong&gt;or&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;kbd&gt;ctrl&lt;/kbd&gt; + &lt;kbd&gt;Y&lt;/kbd&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1913" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T17:41:01.403" />
  <row Id="8197" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-02-03T19:18:22.407" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Color is the human perception of different wavelengths of light as having different hue. Hue is a progression from red to orange, through yellow and green, to blue and eventually violet. Additionally, color is often referred to in three-dimensional terms, involving the hue of a color, its saturation...or purity, and its luminosity, or lightness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-03T19:18:22.407" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T19:18:22.407" />
  <row Id="8198" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-02-03T19:18:22.407" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Color is the human perception of light as having different hue, from reds and oranges, through yellows and greens, to blues and violets. Color is a fundamental aspect of the arts and photography." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-03T19:18:22.407" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T19:18:22.407" />
  <row Id="8199" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8183" CreationDate="2011-02-03T19:19:55.057" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To address the OP's question about why these other aspect ratios not used in the small format line of cameras, all I can say is that they tried that already.  There have been several attempts at squeezing more pictures on a roll of 35mm film over the years from your square format (24x24mm) to a slightly compressed frame (somewhere between a 4:3 and a 4:5).  In all of these cases, the width of the film remained constant, as they were simply using the 35mm film.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For whatever reasons, those alternative formats just never took off like the ubiquitous 2:3 aspect ratio on almost every consumer and prosumer camera now.  It really had little to do with the mirror mechanics or shutter design.  That was a solved problem, since all they had to do was make it less wide.  In fact, because it wasn't as wide they could probably support faster frame rates for burst mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;About 60 years ago, they played around with the different aspect ratios.  The negatives I inherited from my grandfather proves this as I have everything from 1:1 to 4:2 represented in 127 film (4cm wide).  I wish I could point to the place in history where the common 2:3 format became the defacto standard.  Now the big companies just don't want to repeat history and risk losing money on something that didn't work in the past.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The shape and proportion of the DSLR sensor format is legacy from 35mm film, which is also 3:2 format.  There are medium format digital cameras which use a larger and different proportioned sensors.  One example would be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/h-system/h4d-31.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hasselblad H4D-31&lt;/a&gt; with a 4:3 sensor.  Another would be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/v-system/503cwd.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hasselblad 503CWD&lt;/a&gt; with a 1:1 sensor.  In case you were wondering, the mirrors on the Hassy's are huge, and mirror slap can be a real problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your treasured 4:5 perspective is the realm of large format photographers.  There are digital scanner backs for your 4x5 view camera, and these things need a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; of light.  It's not quite 4&quot;x5&quot; like the film you would normally use, but it is the same perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On both medium and large format cameras, they use leaf shutters at the lens rather than the curtain shutters near the film you see in almost all (D)SLR cameras.  The shear mass of moving a curtain 6cm (medium format) or 11in (really large format) doesn't make sense.  The leaf shutters just have to cover the aperture of the lens which is smaller than your 24x36mm curtain in the back of your SLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the folks who like trivia, Kodak's first consumer camera took circular pictures.  Getting the pictures developed required sending the whole camera in, and they would develop the used film and replace it with a new roll.  The format didn't catch on, as it was very difficult to use artistically.  Besides, most paper is rectangular.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the advantages of a square format is that you can make it any format you want.  You know you will be cropping and will shoot accordingly--but you won't ever have to tilt your camera.  Since the square format is currently the realm of medium format shooters, that's a real bonus (those cameras are big).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3631" LastEditorUserId="3631" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-03T22:32:44.453" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T22:32:44.453" />
  <row Id="8200" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8051" CreationDate="2011-02-03T19:21:33.447" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fine-art photographers  typically &lt;strong&gt;create a 'portfolio' on some thematic ground&lt;/strong&gt; or other--in this context, the photographs in it might in some ways play a part in the whole rather than being the very best the photographer has taken. This is sort of like a writer approaches a book--a meditation of sorts on some 'topic' that unifies the images. I use quotes on 'topic' to indicate that sometimes the &lt;strong&gt;unifying principle&lt;/strong&gt; of the portfolio &lt;strong&gt;isn't always immediately or literally apparent&lt;/strong&gt;... i.e. some 'fine arts' portfolios may be more literal such as, for example, 'the children of war' or 'the cascade mountains' or whatever, but sometimes it might be much, much &lt;strong&gt;harder to actually put into words what unifies the body of work&lt;/strong&gt; into a 'portfolio' and as such, it might not have a descriptive name (or, alternatively, a name that is somewhat obtuse or vague). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me, these 'portfolios' where you see, say, 10 photographs and you can &lt;em&gt;feel&lt;/em&gt; that they go together, but you can't easily articulate why, are the most interesting.  Photography is, um, a visual art, and as such, follows a logic that sometimes parallels the way verbal logic operates, but sometimes rolls on another level that would be reductive and inaccurate to verbalize--it has a different sort of logic. A portfolio as a somehow related set of images amplifies this concept: something in the unconsious tries to connect the dots and draw significance by marrying the photos together. &lt;strong&gt;Sometimes this juxdisposition can lead to interesting conclusions greater than the sum of the parts.&lt;/strong&gt; In short, the portfolio can be an extension of photographic 'reasoning'. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Another reason to make a portfolio is that it signals to the world that you are 'a serious photographer that serious people should seriously take seriously'&lt;/strong&gt; (and buy at a high price 'cos, you know, it's serious) .  By putting your work in an archival clamshell box you are telling the world you are a serious artist. It's just a sleight of hand that we all sorta fall for. For whatever reason, taking a photograph and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.putabirdonit.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;putting a mat on it&lt;/a&gt; not only makes it look better, but it makes it more legitimate. It's sort of like publishing in journals if you are an academic. It's just something that shows you belong to a specific crowd of special seers, etc. Very much worth the price, nudge nuge. Pro film/video types have 'reels'. still-folks have 'portfolios'. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we look back at the old masters (say Steglitz for arguments sake), it isn't that often when we even think in terms of 'portfolio'. now maybe image abc was part of a portfolio back in the day and maybe it wasn't. Who cares? On the other hand, I really like the 'portfolio' approach--it tells a story, it makes me think about the work taken as a whole, etc, on the other, it's just a silly (and stuffy) convention. However, having said that, Robert Frank's &lt;em&gt;The Americans&lt;/em&gt; is an example of a portfolio that stands the test of time as a unified whole. I don't think of Frank's work in terms of individual photographs. I think of the portfolio.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2998" LastEditorUserId="2998" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-16T23:44:11.153" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T23:44:11.153" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8201" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8176" CreationDate="2011-02-03T19:28:55.967" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Follow &lt;a href=&quot;https://twitter.com/#!/dailyshoot&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;@dailyshoot&lt;/a&gt; on Twitter.  I did that for about a month, and having a daily 'assignment' was a great way to get me to take a picture every day (practice makes perfect, after all!) and to learn and try new things (would you believe, that's where I learned about DOF/bokeh?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T19:28:55.967" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-03T19:28:55.967" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8202" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8254" CreationDate="2011-02-03T19:52:51.180" Score="1" ViewCount="89" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to get things in order to do real estate photography, and I'm trying to figure out some packages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For real estate photography, what should a basic package consist of?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the moment I'm thinking:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Outside Front&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Entry&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Kitchen&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bedroom&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Family/Living Room&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bathroom&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T12:01:13.197" Title="Standard Real Estate Package" Tags="&lt;business&gt;&lt;real-estate&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8203" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8176" CreationDate="2011-02-03T19:59:19.313" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My wife likes to do macros and light-paintings of flower bouquets. It's amazing what she can do with an ironing board with a black drop-cloth in a bathroom that has no windows plus a high-grade white LED flashlight and some colored gels or cellophane and a camera on a tripod.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also look into the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensbaby.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lens Baby&lt;/a&gt; lenses. They're a fun, primitive, not-too-expensive tilt-shift lens that gives a different view to anything you shoot with them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1514" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T19:59:19.313" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-03T19:59:19.313" />
  <row Id="8204" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8212" CreationDate="2011-02-03T19:59:30.967" Score="10" ViewCount="297" Body="&lt;p&gt;What equipment is &lt;strong&gt;necessary&lt;/strong&gt; for real estate photography, and what is &lt;strong&gt;preferred&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm starting into real estate photography, and I'm trying to figure out what I need and what I will want to plan on adding to my kit as I go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm thinking especially along the lines of lighting equipment and lenses (focal lengths).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, is an ultra-wide actually necessary? Or is a general walk around sufficient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-05T19:01:32.270" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T19:01:32.270" Title="What equipment is necessary/preferred for real estate photography?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;real-estate&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8205" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8210" CreationDate="2011-02-03T20:08:30.163" Score="7" ViewCount="631" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just ordered a D7000, the 18-200 Nikkor lens, and a SB-400 flash, and I'm now looking for a bag to carry just these items. I'd like an over-the-shoulder type.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would this work? I don't know if the flash will fit anywhere in there though....&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thinktankphoto.com/products/digital-holster-10-v2.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.thinktankphoto.com/products/digital-holster-10-v2.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any other recommendations would be appreciated! =)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3165" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T11:23:01.437" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T11:23:01.437" Title="Small Camera Bag to fit medium SLR, superzoom lens, and small flash?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;camera-bag&gt;" AnswerCount="7" />
  <row Id="8206" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8183" CreationDate="2011-02-03T20:22:49.143" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On the presumption (I'm still pondering) of essentially agreeing with other answers here (the problems of splitting a line up, possible mirror issues, etc.), what I personally would love to see is a set of viewfinder overlays (similar to the focus-point squares already extant) that can be turned on and off, and show cropping guides - which perhaps even crop (in camera) the file for you. These guides could just be lines (a la what's in the viewfinder of a Mamiya RB67), or they could be black bands, a la letterboxing. You could then have guides for 4:5, 1:1, 11:14, 5:7, etc., with the only changes being viewfinder overlay hardware, and UI, crop, etc. software. You do lose the advantage of more imaging sites, but perhaps once this is implemented, they could do that too, and just make 2:3 an overlay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another &lt;em&gt;possible&lt;/em&gt; concern: where do you then put all the readouts, if you go towards square? Currently, they take advantage of the space made available at the bottom of the frame. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T20:22:49.143" />
  <row Id="8207" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8205" CreationDate="2011-02-03T20:27:45.937" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The bag looks to small to carry the camera and the flash. Maybe the flash could fit in the attachment bag seen on one of the pictures. But in the bag itself isn't enough space in my eyes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would go for a slightly bigger (wider) shoulder bag. Personally I like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.crumpler.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;crumpler&lt;/a&gt; ones, because of their &quot;civil&quot; look.&#xA;But I'll strongly advise you to go into a shop and look at the bag of your choice in real. Because you can get the size of the bag just from the photo really wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3377" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T20:27:45.937" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8208" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8205" CreationDate="2011-02-03T20:31:30.820" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the ThinkTank Digital Holster 20 (a slightly larger version of the one you show) and when un-extended it can fit my 60D with Tamron 17-50 and the Vivitar 383 flash.  The flash is a bit tight; I can just barely fit it across the back of the camera in the bag.  I don't know the exact dimensions of your camera but it may be doable with the 20 but unlikely with the 10.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Extending the bottom however lets you move the camera down in the bag and might give you the space for the flash.  I don't like extending it; it makes the bag awkward to walk with though. The question then becomes if your flash is short enough to fit across the bag's width.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="217" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T20:31:30.820" />
  <row Id="8209" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8205" CreationDate="2011-02-03T20:46:17.850" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lowepro Exchange Messenger&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lowepro.com/exchange&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lowepro.com/exchange&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Less nerdy and conspicuous than a holster.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Big enough for a decent walk-around setup.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Small enough to not be annoying.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Less than $30.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They don't offer too much padding, but protection isn't its primary purpose. I'm pretty sure your D7000 with the mounted 18-200 will fit vertically, leaving room for the flash and still another lens. A nice bag for carrying around a minimal setup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="50" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T20:46:17.850" />
  <row Id="8210" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8205" CreationDate="2011-02-03T20:49:38.813" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.crumpler.com/US/Camera-Bags/Camera-Bags/5-Million-Dollar-Home.html?LanguageCode=EN&amp;amp;SKU=MDH000-B00P50&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;crumpler 5 million dollar home (aka - 5mdh)&lt;/a&gt;. It can fit a camera with lens on (can't go bigger than a 24-70mm f/2.8), extra lens and a flash. So it will fit your stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also nice because it doesn't look like a camera bag and it's over the shoulder like you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2746" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T20:49:38.813" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8211" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8213" CreationDate="2011-02-03T21:03:17.893" Score="10" ViewCount="408" Body="&lt;p&gt;My question, specifically, is why the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/s/finepix_hs10/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fujifilm HS 10&lt;/a&gt; is not an SLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2409" LastEditorUserId="1514" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-04T09:12:26.257" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T09:12:26.257" Title="What defines a camera as SLR" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;slr&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="8212" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8204" CreationDate="2011-02-03T21:04:54.550" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Necessary&lt;/em&gt;: Any sort of camera, including that on a phone. But then, I've seen some &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; bad real estate photos. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to me that a good proportion of agents &amp;amp; sellers simply do not care how their listing photos look. It seems crazy, given that a house is very visual and very expensive. When I was house hunting, I saw lots of low resolution, mis-exposures, poor color, bland lighting, flat angles, yuck. When I was selling, my agent snapped photos with a $100 camera from Best Buy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But consider that many (most?) listings have photos taken by someone with little skill or interest in making nice-looking pictures. And the agents aren't in a rush to spend money to improve upon that. So extra equipment would go wasted in those hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now... I'll assume that you're &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; working with agents like this, since you're talking about making it a part of your career. Presumably you're photographing higher-end housing, and so have higher-end skills and thus can make use of higher-end equipment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd recommend:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A (ultra) wide-angle lens, ideally zoom. Nothing makes the angles of architecture stand out like perspective distortion. It'll make the rooms look larger too, which is a big boost for real estate. A lot of times you'll be in close quarters too (think: closet) and this is what ultra-wide angles &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt;. I have a 10-24mm on my Nikon D90 (EFL 15-36mm) and it seems exactly right for walking around the house.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An off-camera lighting kit: Light stand, flash, wireless trigger of some sort, and probably an umbrella. Natural light might not always be in your favour, and on-camera flash looks flat and harsh. I'd go with a radio trigger so that you can hide the flash around corners without hassle. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A DSLR, so that you can use the wide-angle lens and off-camera-lighting to their fullest. However, there's not a lot of need to get fancy here; the camera will be tertiary to the lens and the lighting in order of importance. Remember that your photos are going to be shrunk down to fraction-of-screen-size (unless you're doing big prints or magazines; that's a different story); you don't have to be tack sharp necessarily. A non-DSLR (esp. micro-4/3) would be OK too, as long as it can support the lens and lighting. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, I don't think there's much else. A tripod might help but it's probably more hassle than it'd be worth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T21:04:54.550" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8213" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8211" CreationDate="2011-02-03T21:09:43.070" Score="25" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;SLR - Single Lens Reflex, meaning that there is only one lens through which the viewfinder and the film are exposed to the image. This is in contrast to other types of cameras, like rangefinders, where the viewfinder was a separated optical path than the film, usually in the form of a small lens on the top-side of the body. The Reflex part comes from the rotating mirror which is used to direct the image from the lens to the viewfinder. When the shutter is released, first the mirror goes up and clears the optical path to the film.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another characteristic of this class of cameras is interchangeable lenses. I am not sure, though, if historically all SLR's had this option, and probably some of our experienced forum members can comment on that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nowadays, with the DSLR technology, sensors replaced the film but otherwise the basic structure and principles remained the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Fuji camera in your link is not considered an SLR for the lack of the mirror, pentaprism and optical viewfinder. There, it is an electronic viewfinder, meaning that what you see is an image generated on a tiny LCD inside the viewfinder assembly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T21:09:43.070" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8215" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8204" CreationDate="2011-02-03T21:23:01.900" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I briefly flirted with doing real estate photography after we sold our house several years back (and I photographed it).  It came down to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;an ultra-wide &lt;em&gt;rectilinear&lt;/em&gt; lens&lt;/strong&gt; like the Canon 14mm L to capture an entire room w/out distorting it (much)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;a perspective correcting lens&lt;/strong&gt; for outdoors (24mm Tilt-Shift)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;a really tall tripod&lt;/strong&gt; for both indoor and outdoors to present a level (if not above) perspective&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can't comment much on lighting, and those focal lengths are based on full frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T21:23:01.900" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8216" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8204" CreationDate="2011-02-03T21:24:50.937" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One thing I think is a must-have is an Ultrawide lens. For shooting small spaces, the only alternative I can think of is making a stitched photo (pano style), but this requires so much pre and post work to get a good stitch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an example of a standard/small office taken from the same spot with 28-135mm @28mm and 10-22mm @10mm on APS-C camera:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/b21ce.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;28mm&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/GNddA.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;10mm&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T21:24:50.937" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8217" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8211" CreationDate="2011-02-03T21:31:14.503" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To-date, the moving mirror &amp;amp; viewfinder mechanism that @yasp described is sort of the defining characteristic of an SLR.  I think we're going to see this &quot;clean&quot; definition continue to erode, though, with new cameras on the horizon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other characteristics generally attributed to the DSLR format:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Larger sensor size than compacts or bridge cameras&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Interchangeable lenses&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Optical viewfinders&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are already Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens (EVIL) cameras such as Micro 4/3 cameras, that deliver many of the benefits of DSLR's without meeting this specific definition of DSLR, and more are on the horizon.  The new Sony A55 and A33, for instance, use a translucent mirror that doesn't move, and Nikon is rumored to be introducing a &quot;pro&quot; mirrorless camera soon, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As more of these &quot;not quite DSLR&quot; cameras enter the market, I wouldn't be surprised to see the traditional definition of DSLR become less important, if not less clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T21:31:14.503" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8218" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8159" CreationDate="2011-02-03T21:37:27.040" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just a clarification: the size of a Micro 4:3 sensor is the same as a normal 4:3 sensor (what changes is the distance from the focusing elements to the sensor plane). Of course the 4:3 itself is a little bit smaller than an APS-C, but not much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/PPHUz.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So do not expect worse sensor performance than in any Olympus or Panasonic DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Four_Thirds_system&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Four_Thirds_system&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Thirds_System&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Thirds_System&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3525" LastEditorUserId="3525" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-04T08:12:59.083" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T08:12:59.083" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8219" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8094" CreationDate="2011-02-03T22:02:32.573" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Adding to jrista's answer, you can always embed your original RAW file to the DNG file (in the Preferences dialog, under the tab File Handling). This way you can keep your original RAW files. Or you keep them separated, it is up to you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2553" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T22:02:32.573" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8220" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4314" CreationDate="2011-02-03T22:28:23.283" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The DxOMark people recently did &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Our-publications/DxOMark-reviews/DxOMark-review-Which-50mm-lens-for-my-camera&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a round-up report on 50mm primes&lt;/a&gt; for a variety of mounts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Our-publications/DxOMark-reviews/DxOMark-review-Which-50mm-lens-for-my-camera/Canon-Mount&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here is the Canon EF mount page&lt;/a&gt;, with figures and test results for four lenses. They liked the middle-priced Canon f/1.4 best, optically speaking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2312" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T22:28:23.283" />
  <row Id="8221" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8183" CreationDate="2011-02-03T22:59:51.493" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm glad square format (or closer to square - 5:4) hasn't become mainstream because honestly it doesn't fit well with me as a human being with horizontally panoramic vision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A square format sensor may be useful from an editing point of view, but I would still rather photos end up in 3:2 as it's ergonomic, you might say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T22:59:51.493" />
  <row Id="8222" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8205" CreationDate="2011-02-03T23:08:52.293" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check out the line from kata. This &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kata-bags.com/product.asp?Version=photo&amp;amp;p_Id=433&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;one&lt;/a&gt; is nice cause you can pull out your camera and start shooting without taking it off. look at image number 4. I am waiting to go on vacation to get their &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kata-bags.com/productFRM2HS.asp?p_Id=19804&amp;amp;Version=Photo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;bumble bee&lt;/a&gt; model. Its a lot smaller in size. Also, i just saw they have a new &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kata-bags.com/productFRM2HS.asp?p_Id=19803&amp;amp;Version=Photo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;bug&lt;/a&gt; model that is small and may be nice as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastActivityDate="2011-02-03T23:08:52.293" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8223" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23" CreationDate="2011-02-04T00:17:26.390" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The custom settings (C1, C2, C3) on my Canon 40D mode dial (and also likely on other cameras) is really handy for preset situations.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example C1 might be your Sunny 16 landscape settings, C2 with bracketing and large aperture for macro HDR, etc...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It makes it easy in the field to switch settings in bulk as the &quot;style&quot; of shot you're after changes&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T00:17:26.390" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-01T18:55:11.547" />
  <row Id="8224" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8073" CreationDate="2011-02-04T00:22:28.067" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mostly I don't bother too much unless it's a particularly inclement environment.  I use good quality bodies and lenses that are designed to resist some moisture/dust/shock/heat/cold etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For &lt;a href=&quot;http://roger.redbubble.com/sets/14281/works&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;particularly wet environments&lt;/a&gt;, I use a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fs%3Fie%3DUTF8%26x%3D0%26ref_%3Dnb_sb_noss%26y%3D0%26field-keywords%3Ddicapac%26url%3Dsearch-alias%253Daps&amp;amp;tag=photographrin-20&amp;amp;linkCode=ur2&amp;amp;camp=1789&amp;amp;creative=390957&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dicapac waterproof case&lt;/a&gt;, although quite often it's more for transport purposes than for use while actually shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T00:22:28.067" />
  <row Id="8225" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8227" CreationDate="2011-02-04T01:16:27.453" Score="7" ViewCount="164" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking at getting into IR photography, and am trying to decide what cutoff frequency filter to buy. Has anyone done a comparison of the same scenes using different filters?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3478" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T09:45:19.390" Title="What type of effect is caused by different cutoff lengths for IR filters?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;infrared&gt;&lt;wavelength&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8226" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8176" CreationDate="2011-02-04T01:28:10.883" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hmmm... Around the home and everyday things assuming that 'incense' is an everyday thing around your house... Shoot smoke pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Y7DJ3.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No two are every the same, and there are about a thousand interesting ways you can post process 'em to add interest...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T01:28:10.883" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-04T01:28:10.883" />
  <row Id="8227" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8225" CreationDate="2011-02-04T01:40:18.157" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, I haven't personally, but the folks over at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lifepixel.com/digital-infrared/samples.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Life Pixel&lt;/a&gt; have. In summary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;830nm&lt;/strong&gt; - Deep blacks. Very contrasty in B&amp;amp;W.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hoya R72/Wratten 89b /720nm&lt;/strong&gt; - The most 'common' choice. Good all-around tone range, but less saturated than a 665nm filter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;665nm&lt;/strong&gt; - More saturation and color range. B&amp;amp;W will be less contrasty than the 720nm.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;590nm&lt;/strong&gt; - Vibrant, intense colors. less over-all contrast. More possibilities for interesting surreal color shifting in post.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pictures of all of the above options can be viewed at the Life Pixel website. Full disclosure: I am a customer of Life Pixel, having gotten my Canon 20D converted by them a couple years ago (went with the 720nm, Hoya R72 equivalent and I completely love it!). I don't get anything for mentioning them... Just a happy customer. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T01:40:18.157" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8228" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-04T01:52:38.557" Score="11" ViewCount="278" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, let's assume I have taken some great shots, and secured a gallery presentation. I have shots of extremely varying aspect ratios, and many themes. Now I have to order prints. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What size should I print at?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am assuming that the shots were taken at a high resolution, so the prints can get pretty damn big before they lose quality, but there is a huge range of sizes I could pick below the maximum. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that this will depend on the shot, the space, the subject, the room lighting, and hell probably even the weather, but where to start? Is there some information written about how to make this decision, or can someone offer some rules of thumb or even suggestions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question seems overwhelmingly subjective, but I am hoping, somehow, that we can come up with some advice that is universally &lt;em&gt;useful&lt;/em&gt; at least.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I request this be made CW, I hope this is sufficient for assuaging the generality and non-SE-ness of the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for your attention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-04T02:12:20.203" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T23:51:10.443" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-04T02:11:13.933" Title="Print Size for Gallery Shows" Tags="&lt;prints&gt;&lt;photo-galleries&gt;&lt;art&gt;&lt;presentation-format&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8229" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8211" CreationDate="2011-02-04T02:02:27.133" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;SLR consists of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SL&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Single lens.&lt;/strong&gt;  That is, it does not have a separate lens for a viewfinder.  If it has a viewfinder, the viewfinder looks through the main lens.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;R&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reflex.&lt;/strong&gt;  This means it has a mirror that allows light from the main lens to be bounced upwards onto a ground glass screen.  Modern SLRs usually then use a pentaprism or pentamirror above this ground glass screen to allow viewing the image up the right way and from behind.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;SLR is a term that's pretty old now, and at the time distinguished itself from other camera designs which used a separate lens assembly for an optical viewfinder, such as rangefinders or twin lens reflex cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The benefit of having the optical viewfinder look through the primary lens is that you can change that lens and still see what the camera would see, without having to also change or somehow adapt the viewfinder lens.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The drawback is that the drop-down mirror assembly means there has to be a fairly long distance between the lens flange and the focal plane (film or sensor), which restricts lens designs, particularly making wide-angle lenses bulkier and more complicated.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Fujifilm Finepix HS10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;This passes on the &lt;strong&gt;SL&lt;/strong&gt; part, but fails on the &lt;strong&gt;R&lt;/strong&gt; part.  It has no mirror bouncing the image up to a ground-glass screen.  This is because it has no optical viewfinder at all, and even if it did it wouldn't have to be a through-the-lens one since the lens is not interchangeable.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The non-interchangeable lens and small sensor designate this as a &lt;em&gt;compact&lt;/em&gt; camera; though from looking at it clearly it is not very &quot;compact&quot; in the literal sense.  These types of compacts are often called &quot;superzooms&quot; because of their large zoom range, and to distract you from the fact that for a compact camera they're not very compact.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nowadays, there is increasingly less need for an optical viewfinder even on interchangeable lens cameras, since electronic viewfinders offer some unique benefits such as zoomed image previous, histograms etc, and their image quality is improving lessening the gap with a good ground glass screen (not that the Finepix HS10's electronic viewfinder is any good).  That's why you are starting to see &quot;mirrorless&quot;, yet through-the-lens, systems such as Micro Four Thirds and Sony Nex entering the market.  They can be made smaller and with a smaller lens flange to sensor distance, the lenses (particularly wide angle lenses) can be made smaller and lighter too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So far, all the mirrorless systems also use a smaller sensor size than full frame making DSLR (or rangefinders) the only options for those needing the characteristics of full-frame sized sensors.  Also, mirrorless systems typically use contrast detect auto focus (CDAF) instead of phase detect auto focus (PDAF).  Historically CDAF tends to be slower and PDAF tends to be less accurate but this is only a generalisation; CDAF is improving in the speed department and an expensive PDAF system will be accurate anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-04T02:34:17.877" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T02:34:17.877" />
  <row Id="8230" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8225" CreationDate="2011-02-04T02:10:09.147" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would go for the 720 nm, any longer (800s and you're limited to pure black and white - i.e. you get no colour response. Any shorter (500-600) and you start to lose some of the IR look, that is to say the very dark skies and glowing vegetation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A 720nm filter is a good choice for a first IR camera as you can get the look of any of the other filters (with a bit of extra post production) so you can decide which look you like best:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/IR_1.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a deep IR conversion, in monochrome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/IR_2.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here I've gone for a super vibrant colours look (for demonstration purposes ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/IR_3.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally here's the look I prefer, leaving a subtle hint of colour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These were all shot with a Canon 450D with 720nm conversion done by Protech in the UK. I was 100% satisfied with the service but it's worth pointing out that another company, ACS (advanced camera services) also do conversions though their prices are a little higher.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-06T23:04:04.907" LastActivityDate="2011-02-06T23:04:04.907" />
  <row Id="8231" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8228" CreationDate="2011-02-04T02:24:28.360" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a believer in presenting art in the size and aspect ratio that best compliments it. I know that we are a world of standards, and there are some very common and readily available aspect ratios such as 3:2, 4:3, 4:5, 1:1. While a standard set of well-established formats makes it easy to produce printers and papers that meet the average persons needs in a cost effective way...I don't really think it best services the needs of art itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have some great photos in an odd-ball format, I so go with it. Have a 1:8 size vertical image? Print it in a 1:8 format, and frame it as such. Have some complimentary 3:1 panoramic shots? Print em in 3:1 canvas, and display em in a vertical triptych format. Or, for that matter, split a single 3:1 panoramic into a 3 slice horizontal triptych. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If some prints look better huge, and others look better small, then display them that way. You can put your complimentary images together in a random collage, or you could even print complimentary images such that a variety of formats fit together into a cohesive whole. An example of this could be a 3:1 panoramic, a couple 2:1 rectangulars, and a couple 1:1 squares put together in a square composition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess my approach to displaying art is that the display is a form of art itself. There shouldn't be any specific rules that dictate what is or isn't appropriate for every photo you display. Every photo should, and probably will, dictate its own best form of presentation. Sometimes you need to experiment with a variety of framing and mounting options to find the form that best compliments each specific piece. Sometimes that means putting a photo in a nice frame with complimentary matting. Sometimes it means a simple frame with standard white matting. Sometimes it means canvas or triptych, and others it may mean art block mounting by laminating it strait to a piece of MDF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is probably also important not to overlook the effect of the display environment on the form of display. Some forms of mounting may not work well with a particular environment, such as a gallery. Some galleries may work better with consistent mounting, while others may lend themselves better to a variety of display forms. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-04T05:15:31.030" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T05:15:31.030" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-04T02:24:28.360" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8232" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8228" CreationDate="2011-02-04T03:35:48.190" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On the many sites I tend to read on the topic of photography, one of the things that becomes clear is that gallery prints are often done somwehere between 240 and 300ppi, with 300 being the desired end, which is why many art photographers lean towards medium format, the image sizes lend themselves better to such print resolution and very large outcomes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, smaller formats can produce stunning prints, but the key to that is viewing distance. One of my friends, recently, got a pretty good look at a billboard close up and was surprised at how &quot;bad&quot; it looked from that view. I wouldn't be surprised, the image is intended to be viewed from hundreds of feet away and printed accordingly, and that's the point. If you scale up an image to print on a larger medium that exceeds the 240 to 300 figure I mentioned, then the viewing distance has to grow with it. Hard to do in a gallery, but not impossible, and software is getting better with this as it progresses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T03:35:48.190" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-04T03:35:48.190" />
  <row Id="8233" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8099" CreationDate="2011-02-04T04:15:52.787" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When you correct the distortion in an image from a fisheye lens, you get undesirable side-effects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You lose a lot of LOT of diagonal angle of view from cropping, to get a rectangular image out of it.  See &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/learn/fisheye/fe06.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this first example&lt;/a&gt; (yellow indicates the largest usable rectangular area after fisheye to rectilinear conversion).  So after correction, you have nowhere near the angle of view you started with.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You lose a LOT of resolution on the corners of the frame.  For an example, look at the corners of the first example image (above).  They are really blurry the further you get to the corners.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A rectilinear image of such a wide angle of view makes things look very stretched at the edges, even though it's technically the same as the image a hypothetical rectilinear lens of that angle of view would create.  In other words, it'll still look distorted simply because of the extreme wide angle.  See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.danielbartel.com/fisheye/FisheyeExample1b.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this second example&lt;/a&gt;.  The pictures on the left and right look stretched, even though that's how they are supposed to look in a rectilinear image.  Also note how exaggerated the divergence of vertical lines is in the first example image, since the camera is slightly angled upwards.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-08T02:38:25.443" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T02:38:25.443" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8234" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8241" CreationDate="2011-02-04T05:06:43.460" Score="1" ViewCount="710" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to buy Canon PowerShot SX30 IS camera and also would like to buy a filter to protect it's lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to have complete set of filters ranging from polarized, starburst, UV, red one for sun shots. However i learn that they could be expensive. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also i would like to know whether after fitting the filter on top of lens does the lens cap still works  ? Or its like that i have to put on filter each time i remove the lens cap  ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please let me know which one i should buy and what options i have. Web links and information could be great help. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There appears to be two choices 67MM ring and 58 mm ring Does it fit and suited for this camera ?&#xA;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2107" LastEditorUserId="2107" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-04T05:39:04.187" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T08:59:04.120" Title="Help me for Canon PowerShot SX30 IS filters" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;filters&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="8235" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8228" CreationDate="2011-02-04T05:13:42.997" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That may be defined by where you show.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The last gallery I showed at had a very simple rule: Everything came in on 16x20 mats. period. They placed the mats in their frames which were attached to their rails. My handfull of images were then mixed around the gallery with images from a dozen other photographers. At the end of the showing, they boxed my mats up in the same shipping box I had delivered them in, even wrapped in the same craft paper, and returned them. Within those 16x20 mats I could pretty much do whatever I wanted. So one print was an 8x10 smack dab in the middle, another was two 4x4s and a 6x6 aligned in an interesting pattern for a triptych. By far the majority however, were 8x10s at a 90 degree angle and so called &quot;bottom weighted&quot; display (center the window, use the same width of spacing on the top as the two sides, let the bottom run with whatever is left (usually more)).  Why? because that's what I saw the most of when I went and walked through the gallery... it's what everyone there was doing, so I did it to fit in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By contrast, there's a gallery here in town that seemingly will take ANYTHING. Their walls are total chaos of images, sizes, frames, styles, everything. There used to be the most adorable little 3&quot; or so square print, centered in like a 10&quot; square plank of wood that filled the space between four huge canvases arranged in a square-ish-plus-shaped arrangement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are showing solo, or you are showing somewhere that will allow anything... then see jrista's answer. :)  Personally, I tend to go with what the image tells me it wants. This one for example kept telling me it wanted to be HUGE. So I printed it on a 30x40 gallery wrap canvas: &lt;a href=&quot;http://wall-art.smugmug.com/Featured/Impact/15105178_TeJix#1129060408_AyPvS-A-LB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://wall-art.smugmug.com/Featured/Impact/15105178_TeJix#1129060408_AyPvS-A-LB&lt;/a&gt; It was right, it's a huge impression... it needed to go big or go home.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T05:13:42.997" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-04T05:13:42.997" />
  <row Id="8236" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8242" CreationDate="2011-02-04T05:20:10.743" Score="22" ViewCount="719" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since moving from a 6 megapixel DSLR to a 12.5 megapixel micro-four-thirds, the much bigger file sizes (especially shooting RAW) mean that I can't be so open about keeping everything I shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I only have a 640GB primary drive for all my video and stills, and a 640GB backup drive - and they are getting fuller every day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But going through photos and deleting bad ones can be a tedious process.  I've slowly been going through old photos and pressing delete if they are obviously out of focus or have too much motion blur.  But it still leaves a lot of photos that just seem uninspiring, or where I have a lot of photos that are very similar, taking up space.  I'm too worried to delete them since they're actually usable, and I may find a use in future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What is a good process for choosing what to delete and what to keep?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;At what stage of the process do think it's best to do it?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-15T14:21:03.737" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T07:51:40.213" Title="What's a good strategy for choosing what to keep" Tags="&lt;storage&gt;&lt;photo-management&gt;&lt;keep&gt;&lt;delete&gt;&lt;curation&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="15" />
  <row Id="8237" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8234" CreationDate="2011-02-04T05:30:05.090" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Protection&lt;/strong&gt;: If you want to protect your lens&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, get an UV-filter. That only makes another pane of glass, not really filtering anything away that would not be filtered away in camera later anyway. Get a good one: every filter is also a pane of glass eating your light and adding refraction (you wouldn't take all your family photos through a window, would you?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Colour-filters&lt;/strong&gt;: For a digital camera they are more or less useless&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. You don't need to raise contrast like in BW-photography, you can play with the colour-channels later in any decent program. As it is a Canon, look in the menus, you can already adjust colours in camera AFAIK. If you really want to use colour-filters - set whitebalance on manual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Polarized&lt;/strong&gt;: look for CPL (circular polarized filters) [edit: drewbenn is right, a CPL might be necessary if your camera has dedicated focussing/light-measuring systems, as the SX30 should not have]. Dire warning: the effect isn't always really noticable on an electric viewfinder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where to buy? If you know that it has to be Hoya (Kenko), B+W or some other brand: use a trustworthy online-shop. If you do not really care, use Ebay ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a decent lens of a SLR you can but the lens-cap on the filter. Don't know for the SX30. Aynone else?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Protecting your lens only makes sense if you work in extreme conditions, for example in a desert with hard blowing sand or beside a car-race with small flying stones. The lens itself is coated and at least as hard/durable as any filter can be. If you want to protect against letting the camera fall: get a lens hood, that might save the lens then.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;Except if you know that the colour X is so extreme, that it better be filtered out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastEditorUserId="2317" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-04T08:59:04.120" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T08:59:04.120" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8238" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8029" CreationDate="2011-02-04T05:32:58.573" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;As long as open source software exists which can read it now, you'll be fine.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your files can be read by open source RAW software such as dcraw (or software that depends on it, like ufraw of RawTherapee), then you can breathe easily.  As open source, it can never be withdrawn by its vendor, and its source code is always available to others to build into new software, even when operating systems, file systems, hardware architecture etc change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a big tendency for backwards-compatibility in open source (in general, all software, but especially open source).  Open source comes with source code, and with source code you can compile for any operating system and hardware, even ones that haven't been invented yet, without starting from scratch.  So even if the original creator of the code is no longer around, you can bet that others will still use the code and publish (free) software to use it on any hardware and operating system that's popular.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you have software that can read some RAW format, it's easy to adapt it to read any new RAW format.  It doesn't require much extra code, as a lot can be shared.  So there is no reason to remove support for particular RAW formats from software.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T05:32:58.573" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8239" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8236" CreationDate="2011-02-04T05:58:36.873" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Deleting comes first in my workflow. As I mostly take photos during vacations, some many pictures add up. I have noticed that often the same process holds if I go shooting some special site/object only:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Deleting done&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;sometimes already in camera (you know when you f*ck up)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;at first review: I move everything I do not like into a deleted-folder&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;this way they don't distract me while editing the set&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;thus I can revive one of these after sleeping on it (seldom)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;during editing/second review: sometimes a picture that might have been worth it turns out to be crap (that is a real deletion then)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;really after I finished the set and reviewed the &quot;tagged as deleted&quot; another time (that might take seconds for a whole folder)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finding out which pictures are worth to keep, that is difficult. Methinks that will differ the most (I'm looking forward to the other answers).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I try to ask myself, if I'd show somebody this picture, if it is worthy showing. So, if I find the n-th picture showing the same setting without anything new, without anything exciting, without something better than the other, in short without anything keep-worthy: then I delete most of them. That means sometimes that the first review takes long, as I go back and delete.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;First-Review-Delete-Move-Algorithm works as following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;rescale pictures to full-screen size in another dir&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;review these smaller pictures, delete directly&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;compare directories, move everything that as been deleted to folder &quot;deleted&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T05:58:36.873" />
  <row Id="8240" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-04T06:02:06.083" Score="0" ViewCount="790" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6908/canon-sx30is-or-fuji-hs-10-hs-20&quot;&gt;Canon SX30IS   or Fuji HS 10 / HS 20 ?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am cought in the choice of Fujifilm FinePix HS20 16 MP OR Canon PowerShot SX30 IS. camera which on to buy ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After looking at the  canon i see lythium batter and no more AA + CCD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please help me out here. Any input will be highly appreciated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2107" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T06:02:06.083" ClosedDate="2011-02-04T17:37:13.093" Title="Help me choose between Canon SX30 and Fuji HS20" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8241" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8234" CreationDate="2011-02-04T06:19:03.850" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you need an adapter, like the one from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensmateonline.com/store/sx20sx10sx1.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lensmateonline.com&lt;/a&gt;, first (I got one for my SX10IS and was very happy with it).  There is a FAQ on that page that should answer most of your questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll probably need a new lens cap and lens hood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I'm not a fan of leaving a filter on the lens all the time to protect it; there are a lot of opinions either way on this subject, you could probably waste a lot of time reading about the pros and cons.  A circular polarizer and an ND filter (probably a 3-stop (sometimes called 8x)) are my two favorite filters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You do &lt;strong&gt;NOT&lt;/strong&gt; need a circular polarizer for your camera.  A linear polarizer will work fine.  You only need a circular polarizer if you have a DSLR (since the DSLR has a different light path to the viewfinder than to the sensor).  Learn from my mistake, where I spent an extra $20 to get the circular polarizer when I didn't need it :)  (Of course, now that I have a DSLR, it &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; useful).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T06:19:03.850" />
  <row Id="8242" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8236" CreationDate="2011-02-04T06:21:40.070" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know if this is a &lt;em&gt;great&lt;/em&gt; system, but here's what I do:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;After the shoot/session is done I immediately sort through every frame I took looking for the 'keepers.' I do it this way because for me it is easier to choose to keep the great shots than it is to delete the borderline shots... That may just be me. :-)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Next I sort through every frame I didn't put in the 'keepers' pile and look for anything that is bad enough to just trash immediately- usually there are a few out-of-focus or technically flawed photos that I didn't delete 'on-the-fly' which get taken out back behind the barn and put out of my misery.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I then look through the 'Keepers' and see if there are any 'holes' in the shoot that I will need to fill with the shots that weren't good enough to make my 'keepers' pile, but weren't bad enough to trash... Call it my 'marginal' pile if you will. If there are holes to be filled I then pick the 'best of the worst' to fill in those holes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I post-process all the 'Keepers.' If it's a personal session I post 'em, if it's a professional session I work with the client further from there to close the contract. For client contracts this is it. I keep both the 'keepers' and the 'marginal' shots forever and get ingested into my backup solution (which is an entirely different process).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;After some time has passed (I usually do this every month for any personal work that happened 3 months prior in order to allow myself a bit of perspective) I re-examine the 'marginal' pile to see if time has changed my initial impressions of those photographs... Usually there are a few in the 'marginal' pile that I like enough to keep. The rest are shown no mercy and get to go to the round file from there.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T06:21:40.070" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8243" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8099" CreationDate="2011-02-04T06:37:02.317" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Focal length not only affects field of view, but perspective and depth of field. Even a 50mm full frame shot will be different than a 32mm APS-C shot with the same framing and composition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Depth of field is different&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Perspective and warping is different&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pixel detail is different&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For an extreme situation such as that suggestion in the question, you would end up with a significantly &lt;em&gt;worse&lt;/em&gt; image than if you simply used the correct focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T06:37:02.317" />
  <row Id="8244" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8236" CreationDate="2011-02-04T07:36:35.720" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;1) Did you take a picture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) Keep the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take a blurry picture of your shoe by accident?  How do you know in ten years you'll not be into abstract shoe shots?  Or perhaps just want what happens to be the only image of what turned out to be your favorite shoes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is, there's no need to decide.  Just keep.  Over time review what you have and you might be surprised as you proceed with photography, what you passed over before...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Storage is cheap, and costs less than the time it takes to comb through photos actually deleting things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T07:36:35.720" CommentCount="20" />
  <row Id="8245" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8249" CreationDate="2011-02-04T07:40:26.490" Score="11" ViewCount="479" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know the origins of the term?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3337" LastEditorUserId="560" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-07T19:02:54.353" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T19:02:54.353" Title="Where does the f-stop name come from?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;f-stop&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="8246" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8236" CreationDate="2011-02-04T07:43:30.513" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would suggest, as my previous speakers too, to start with sorting out/deleting. I try to get down to one keeper per subject, though I do not force myself. Since I am shooting to get pictures it does not matter if there may be more than one keeper per subject. However, the goal of one keeper per subject, enforces me to just keep really good pictures of a subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general I keep the final picture as a JPEG in my library and save the RAW file on a external hard disk, the JPEG's use significantly less storage capacity on my computer an are fair enough for my day to day use. In case I need the RAW file later on, I grab it from the external drive. The downside here is that either your photo organization software has to be capable of this (RAW+JPEG association) or you need to have a strict concept by yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although sorting out pictures is a must in my opinion, storage is really cheap nowadays, why don't combine better sorting out workflow with a bigger (or additional) hard-drive?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2549" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T07:43:30.513" />
  <row Id="8247" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8228" CreationDate="2011-02-04T08:21:30.007" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ALERT ALERT rant warning&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally feel that an image hanging on a wall needs to be able to withstand three different viewing distances fairly well &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(1) too far (i.e. way past ideal--like 5 feet for a 4&quot;x5&quot; print)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(2) ideal&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(3) &lt;strong&gt;with a magnifying glass&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;probably most images will handle 1 and 2 fine. &lt;strong&gt;Nearly anything hung in a gallery looks freaking awseome when lit up and surrounded by beautiful people&lt;/strong&gt;. That's the function of a gallery, right? That and to confer the laurels of respect and therefore price. #1 and #2 have a lot of 'atmosphere' lent by the white walls, super cool concrete warehouse space, second glass of wine, etc. #1 in particular has a lot to do with just not messing up (i.e. hang the image straight on the wall) more than doing anything special.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally can't stand when supposedly 'professional' images can't deal with #3. I'm being a bit bombastic by saying magnifier close, but I am dead serious when I mean, really, really seriously looking at the &lt;strong&gt;physicality of the pigment on the paper&lt;/strong&gt; close. I mean, you are a serious photographer right? Now we are talking about galleries here, not billboards or some other commercial application where it's understood that the image is there to pimp something else and you as photographer don't get the final say so corners might be cut for the man. In a gallery, it's 'art'--photographer in complete control. No cutting corners. Full on 100% integrety to the 'work'. Sacred space, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me, if you are on a gallery wall, you are saying you are a pro, like the real thing and you take it seriously and sweat the details--like &quot;please, viewer, take a moment and really look, 'cos I worked really long and hard on this and thought about all the details and sweated mightly on this effort.&quot; So say you actually get someone who isn't just there as a pretense to pick up chicks, someone who is really engaging the work, who is willing to concentrate for like over a millisecond to really look at it. Well, you gotta meet that engagement all the way. And that to me means you gotta make the print quaility super mega high--magnifying glass close. &lt;strong&gt;It's just not meeting your end of the bargin to say it's only in bounds to stay 20&quot; away&lt;/strong&gt;. That's just not fair to those who are actually willing to focus. I mean, really? Diagonal of the print and no closer? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Back in the 'ol film days when it was unheard of for people to 'send out for prints', there was a lot of emphasis on really honing the print quality craft. Not easy. It doesn't seem like a lot of folks raised digitally are very aware of what it means to actually take an image to pigment on substrate. It's much harder to work that end of the craft when it just goes to a black box (the print house) and comes out the other side done. Not that I'm dissing on digital--just that there seems to be generally a lack of appreciation for the physical print quality given that a majority of images never make it onto paper. In other words, back in the bad old days of film and darkrooms, you basically only had a 'photograph' when you had a print (ok--some people worked in chromes so I'm cheating a bit here). So it was a significant part of becoming a photographer of any sort to actually get pigment deposited on a ground. Now that photoshop has overtaken (mercifully) photochemestry, a lot of really good photographer haven't a clue what 'a fine print' actually looks like &amp;amp; what it takes to make one. &lt;strong&gt;Printing is sort of an afterthought at best&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, to answer the question: &lt;strong&gt;you need to print at an LPI that can withstand the magnifying glass, which, in turn, will dictate the maximum size&lt;/strong&gt; a particular image can go before it falls to pieces. This site has some great threads on printing and LPI. I personally do not enlarge so my native uncropped 18MP file at 360 lpi to match my epson printer ends up with something like 11x15 prints, just as an example. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2998" LastEditorUserId="2998" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-16T23:51:10.443" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T23:51:10.443" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-04T08:21:30.007" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8248" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8245" CreationDate="2011-02-04T08:22:16.127" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The major settings (on the square root of two sequence: f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8 ...) used to be physical detents (stops) on the aperture adjustment control ring. Finer adjustments were always possible, but tactile feedback for settings in between traditional stops is a relatively new development.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;f&quot; part refers to the convention for naming the aperture-to-focal length ratio: f/2, f/2.8, f/4, and so on, where the variable &quot;f&quot; represents the focal length. A 50mm lens set to f/2 will have an effective aperture of 25mm diameter, while a 100mm lens set to f/2 will have a 50mm effective diameter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given equal transmissivity, the same ratio of aperture size to focal length will allow the same rate of light accumulation upon the film or sensor for lenses of differing focal lengths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Always&quot; is a bit misleading, I suppose -- back in the days when you actually had to install a different aperture disk, you would only have had access to whatever settings you had in your kit, and I've used antiques that only had the click-stops available -- the detent was strong enough that you couldn't use the tweens so you'd have to make fine adjustments in development or printing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastEditorUserId="2719" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-04T08:27:34.187" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T08:27:34.187" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8249" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8245" CreationDate="2011-02-04T08:50:31.260" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a matter of some debate, and the truth is that you can pick up any number of photography books (or visit any number of photography websites) and read a variety of answers to this question, the most common of which tend to be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/fstop-what-does-the-f-stand-for_topic51067_page2.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Focal Stop&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.life123.com/question/What-Does-the-F-in-F-stop-Stand-for&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Focal Ratio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tpub.com/content/photography/14130/css/14130_211.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Factorial System&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fractional Stop&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fractional Diameter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.acecam.com/message/3694.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Finestra Stop&lt;/a&gt; (Finestra is Italian for 'window')&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As with many historical 'facts,' the truth is quite a bit messier than many of these sources would seem to indicate, and the real reason that we use 'f-stops' today to some extent defies a quick explanation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia F-Number article&lt;/a&gt; actually has a rather complete (and well cited) history of how we got here, but some of the 'high points' are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In the late 1800's there were a variety of aperture systems which all operated more-or-less the way we are all familiar with, which is to say that the &lt;em&gt;concept&lt;/em&gt; of letting more or less light through a lens via an aperture system was being used extensively, even if the different systems used different naming conventions. (Well-known systems at the time included Sutton and Dawson's 'apertal ratio,' and Dallmeyer's 'intensity ratio')&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In 1858 John Waterhouse invents a system of metal discs with different sized holes to act as the aperture which literally get dropped into a slot in a lens. He called them '&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterhouse_stop&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Waterhouse Stops&lt;/a&gt;' because the discs were literally &lt;em&gt;stopping&lt;/em&gt; light from entering the camera. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;This is likely the first instance of the use of the word 'stop' as it relates to aperture.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In 1895 John A. Hodges first champions the 'fractional number' system (which he abbreviated to 'F-number') in defiance of the Photographic Society of Great Britan's use of the 'Uniform System (U.S.)' &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;This is the first recorded instance of the 'fractional number' and is likely the original meaning of the 'f' in F-stop.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In 1901 C. Welborne Piper first proposes a unified system of describing aperture marking called the 'f-diamater' (or fractional diameter) after observing similarities between a half-dozen of the more popular methods of the day.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;From the early 1900's through about 1920, the most common way to refer to Piper's unifying system was as the 'f-number.' &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In 1961 the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_National_Standards_Institute&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;American national Standards Institute (ASA)&lt;/a&gt; officially adopted the 'f-number' as the specification for photoelectric photographic meters. Essentially codifying the term and making 'f-number' the common phrase used to describe aperture for camera manufacturers of the day.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;While the phrase 'f-number' has morphed somewhat since 1961 to the now more commonly used 'f-stop' we use today, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;there is currently no standardized and generally accepted definition for the 'f' in f-stop.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; In fact, it has variously been referred to as focal, factorial, fractional, and many other designations by a wide variety of sources over the last 120ish years to the point where even though the system itself has been standardized, there simply is no singular recognized designation for the 'f' in f-stop.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-06T21:20:48.223" LastActivityDate="2011-02-06T21:20:48.223" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="8250" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8236" CreationDate="2011-02-04T10:01:22.393" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all my workflow is based on Lightroom, but I know other software allows you to work like this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I never delete anything on camera.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Import everything into Lightroom, I prefer not to skip any images at the import stage, this also means everything gets copied to my archive.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;First pass, in loupe view, image at full screen, I use the flagging system to set any OOF/poorly composed (I shoot motorsport, so a low keeper rate) etc shots to &quot;rejected&quot;, this is really easy using the X/U/P keys (handy hint - CAPS auto advances to the next image), at this stage anything that is an obvious keeper gets flagged as a pick.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Before deleting the rejects I have a quick scan through to make sure I don't want to keep any.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Delete the rejects (you can also use the &quot;Refine Photos&quot; command to delete rejects and move other images down one flag level).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I now have another scan through all the images to promote some to &quot;picks&quot; then review them, to come to the final selection.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Process the &quot;picks&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I use the colour labels to make images I have sold/sent to clients/uploaded to my website or the star rating system to mark any images I want to keep for my portfolio.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To tie in with my marking system I have a smart collection, which selects images that are over 1 year old, I have not assigned a color label or star rating to. Periodically I review these, rate any I want to keep and delete the remainders on the basis that if I've not used them or sold them after 12 months they're probably just clogging up my hard drive (they are still in my archive though).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T10:01:22.393" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8251" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8159" CreationDate="2011-02-04T10:53:04.220" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nobody mentioned the fact that micro four thirds cameras are very good for experimenting with old manual lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The micro 4/3 system is mirrorless, and has a very short falange distance (distance from sensor to lens), that allows it to use most lenses on the market, with an adapter (and there are lots of types of adapters).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the slow focusing speed is not an issue with manual lenses ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3462" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T10:53:04.220" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8252" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8256" CreationDate="2011-02-04T11:24:25.053" Score="2" ViewCount="156" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am using the Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF lens on my D40 and the photographs look excellent - I have to manual focus, but this suits me just fine for the portrait shots I'm taking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is that to use this lens on the D40 I am forced to lock the aperture at its highest setting (even in full manual mode).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2114" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T12:42:10.287" Title="Why Must I Lock The Aperture On My AF Lens On My Nikon D40" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;nikon-d40&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="8254" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8202" CreationDate="2011-02-04T12:01:13.197" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You should offer packages that consist of a number of photographs. They buy a 6-shot package and you give them the 6 shots of the rooms they want. You might want to shoot all the rooms and offer additional shots / differnt shots of the same rooms at a small additional.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2114" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T12:01:13.197" />
  <row Id="8255" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8236" CreationDate="2011-02-04T12:25:30.370" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Take Fewer Photos&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Slow down.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Be more deliberate.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Consider the &quot;why&quot; of each image before you capture it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, you could go back to your smaller camera!?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T12:25:30.370" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8256" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8252" CreationDate="2011-02-04T12:26:32.133" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 50mm f/1.8 AF will meter on the D40, it does have a chip. But it will not AF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have to set all[1] Nikkor lenses with aperture rings to the smallest aperture in order for Program and Shutter priority modes to work. The reason is that the camera body will set the aperture at the moment of taking the shot in these modes, and the aperture has to be in a &quot;known state&quot; for this to work. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lock is simply a convenience to avoid the aperture ring moving accidentally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look at Nikon's G lenses - the ones without an aperture ring - you'll notice the aperture blades are stopped down all the way when the lens is unmounted. This is the same principle at work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's been a while since I used the D40 but I do think you have to set the aperture on the camera body - press and hold the exposure compensation button and move the thumbwheel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[1] all lenses confirming to the AI-s spec (including AF lenses)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastEditorUserId="3114" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-04T12:42:10.287" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T12:42:10.287" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8257" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8228" CreationDate="2011-02-04T12:29:48.620" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;The size that feels right to you&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's your art, so start with what feels right to you.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;What size would serve to best present &lt;em&gt;your&lt;/em&gt; message in &lt;em&gt;your&lt;/em&gt; image?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I understand that this might be hard to establish before having the image printed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;As large as the gallery will allow&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't have any specific feelings on size then bigger is usually better.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... All just my opinion, but I hope it's helpful.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T12:29:48.620" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-04T12:29:48.620" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8258" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8073" CreationDate="2011-02-04T13:52:34.037" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A quick and free way is to use - wait for it - a shower cap!  Use the clear ones that you get in most hotel rooms.  The elastic rim keeps the plastic securely around the base of the camera so that any water falls off when it gets to the bottom rather than get onto the equipment.  These things are small enough to squish into your back pocket, ready to be whipped out and put into action at the first sign of rain!  If you're brave enough, shoot through the plastic for a different look!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Got me a good collection of the little boxes from hotel rooms whenever I travel and never leave home without one/two always in my kit bag! :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3706" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T13:52:34.037" />
  <row Id="8259" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8267" CreationDate="2011-02-04T13:56:45.467" Score="7" ViewCount="244" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there any way I can get rid of the smoke (or reduce it to a minimum) when photographing fireworks?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like a minimum distance from the event, position from the wind and surrounding lights?&#xA;Exposure tricks or even using a filter? How can people shoot smokeless fireworks?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not especially looking for post-processing tips, but if there's any I'd be curious to know how that works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2011-02-06T22:57:51.667" Title="Fireworks, getting rid of the smoke" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;tips&gt;&lt;fireworks&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8260" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8259" CreationDate="2011-02-04T14:35:09.593" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know if this is too obvious, however I'd simply suggest not shooting them from behind (or even from the side). Try to get on a building or something. (I haven't tried it myself, but logically thinking, that should avoid the smoke getting in your way as much as possible)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2069" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T14:35:09.593" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8261" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8259" CreationDate="2011-02-04T14:39:44.633" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Post processing is probably the only way to eliminate the smoke completely. Given that the fireworks themselves will be very bright in relation to the rest of the picture, you can just adjust the tone curve so all but the very brightest tones are reduced to black. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T14:39:44.633" />
  <row Id="8262" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8043" CreationDate="2011-02-04T15:01:38.430" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I honestly don't think the physical mechanics of the eye map to making better pictures, unless you are talking about 3D.  What's more important is the emotional response to the colors we see.  Art has more to teach us about color than science.  In short, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_theory&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Color Theory&lt;/a&gt; is what we should spend more time on, as that is a more practical discussion of the human perception of color.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We perceive &quot;cool&quot; hues (blues and purples) differently than we perceive &quot;warm&quot; hues (reds and yellows).  The quotes around warm and cool have to do with our perceived feeling when we see these hues rather than the purely Kelvin color temperature required to reproduce the hues.  The perceptions are ground into us by experience.  When the weather is cold outside, the sky is typically gray and we get less direct sunlight.  This in turn provides a bluer tint to everything we see.  Conversely, when the weather is warm outside and the sun is out, we get more direct sunlight which in turn provides a redder tint to everything.  Hence our perception of these hues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a wide range of emotions that are tied to the colors that we see.  A short list includes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Bright colors/high contrast&lt;/strong&gt;: excitement, stimulation, fun&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Cool/low contrast&lt;/strong&gt;: moody, depression, despair, reflection, cold&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No color&lt;/strong&gt;: introspection, separation, class, sophistication, masculine&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pastel/low contrast&lt;/strong&gt;: good mood, light feelings, care, feminine&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is by no means a comprehensive list, and there are exceptions to these perceptions as well.  The colors used in a photograph can play a big part in the emotional impact on the viewer looking at the photograph.  Another part of this is the paper used to reproduce the picture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Glossy&lt;/strong&gt;: provides punch to the colors, adds contrast by reflecting away stray light&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matte&lt;/strong&gt;: reduces contrast by refracting the light across its surface, more subdued&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Silk/Luster&lt;/strong&gt;: Provides a balance between the two aforementioned extremes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to black and white photography, color theory is equally important as it is our primary tool to control the contrast in the scene.  In this discipline, it helps to know about color filtration.  In essence, when looking at an RGB color wheel (primary colors of light as opposed to pigment), the color of a filter will block or reduce the color opposite of it on the wheel.  Common filters used in traditional black and white photography are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Yellow: blocks blue providing for a more dramatic sky, while leaving green vegetation alone.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Red: blocks both blue and green for even more contrast.  Also hides blemishes on skin as the reds and lighter skin tones merge (white becomes red and red remains unchanged).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Infrared: blocks everything except for low bandwidth reds, needed for infrared photography--produces a black sky, bright clouds, and bright vegetation.  Almost no atmospheric affects (haze does not reduce contrast)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on the scene, you also might use something along these lines:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Green: lightens vegetation and sky, emphasizes skin blemishes&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Blue: lightens sky while leaving vegetation alone&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3631" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-07T19:47:46.853" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T19:47:46.853" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8263" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-04T15:07:18.573" Score="3" ViewCount="443" Body="&lt;p&gt;Every so often I try to take a picture in low light, usually indoors and find that my camera attempts to focus, grumbles a bit and then refuses to take the shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is annoying, not least because I entered the bewildering and expensive world of dSLR photography precisely so I could get away from the 'point and shoot' paradigm and its restrictions and thought that a dSLR would give me total control over what I wanted to shoot. I might still want to take the picture whether I think the light is poor or not...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Am I missing something here - is there some kind of override setting or have i inadvertently snookered myself out of five hundred quid?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2547" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T03:11:26.510" Title="How to Force my Nikon D5000 to take a photo in low light?" Tags="&lt;low-light&gt;&lt;nikon-d5000&gt;&lt;manual-mode&gt;&lt;darkness&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8264" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8263" CreationDate="2011-02-04T15:13:48.240" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is probably because your camera can't focus. If you set it to manual focus, it will allow you to take the shot regardless. This of course introduces the problem of getting it right manually, which is another skill altogether! If you can, illuminate the scene first, focus using AF, then switch to manual, restore the dimmer lighting, and shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other suggestions would be to attach a flash gun with AF assist, even if you don't fire the flash it can help to focus, or use a lens with a wider maximum aperture to allow more light to get to the AF sensor in your camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T15:13:48.240" />
  <row Id="8265" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8263" CreationDate="2011-02-04T15:15:55.627" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do you have your &quot;low light focus assist&quot; turned on? It's a little light (between the shutter release and the lens on my D90) that illuminates the target area so that the autofocus can work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It does this because, as you've discovered, AF doesn't work in low lighting conditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's easy to check: point your camera in a dark spot (or leave the lens cap on) and click the shutter release halfway. If you see a bright light go on, you're set. If not, go into your menus and enable it. I'm not familiar with the D5000, but on the similar D90 it's in Custom Settings -&gt; Autofocus -&gt; Built-in AF-assist illuminator (a3). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T15:15:55.627" />
  <row Id="8266" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8263" CreationDate="2011-02-04T15:16:44.463" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is simply too dark for the camera to focus. And by default it will refuse to take the shot unless it has focused.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some possible workarounds:&#xA;- Some cameras can be forced to take the shot when you press the button, no matter what. The inevitable result is an unsharp photo. I don't suppose that this is what you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I assume that you are using the kit lens, an 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 kind of job? The downside to this type of lens is that it doesn't let in a whole lot of light, which makes the autofocus system's job more difficult. A faster lens, such as a 35mm or 50mm f/1.8 will do wonders for autofocus performance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Be aware that autofocus depends on focusing something that has a bit of contrast. If you point it towards a blank wall, it will most likely simply hunt and hunt and never lock on. Poor light makes this worse. Instead, point it at a part of the motive that has good contrast against the background, this will make the AF's job easier.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Manual focus. The viewfinder of the entry-level cameras tend to be tunnel-like but you will at least get a photo this way.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Use a flash, either the built-in one or an external one. External flashes, at least the larger models, can project a grid-pattern on to the motive to aid focusing. The built-in ones tend to strobe a number of times I think, which is not all about red-eye reduction but also helps focusing. (I am not familiar with your camera model but suspect that it does not have a separate autofocus illumination lamp and depends on the flash for this.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T15:16:44.463" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8267" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8259" CreationDate="2011-02-04T15:44:16.677" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a semi-famous trick known as the black hat trick. What you do is set your camera to take a long exposure, and put a black hat over the camera while you are waiting for the fireworks to burst. Then right before the fireworks burst, take the hat off. It should greatly reduce the amount of smoke you see in your images, and not show the rocket blasting off either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T15:44:16.677" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="8268" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-04T16:09:43.040" Score="8" ViewCount="315" Body="&lt;p&gt;We all know that photographic composition has certain rules like the rule of thirds, diagonal lines, etc. I am wondering whether those same rules can be applied in cinematography. Can they?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I discussed this with an artist in my lab and he said they can be applied. His argument was that a film is no more than a set of shots, so a rule applied to a film will have a similar influence to when it is applied to a shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am kind of hesitated to accept that argument for two reasons. The first is that many of the composition rules in photography have been established based on the assumption that we have to understand the scene through that single shot. For example, aligning an object with the diagonal lines of the shot gives the feeling that the object has some movement or dynamism. But in a film, it is easy to see the movement/dynamism in any object, simply because we can see how it moves. So where does the diagonal lines rule stand in this?!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, because in two of the books I have about cinematography, I didn't find any of the photographic composition rules.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So again, can photographic composition rules be used in cinematography? If not, is there any suggestion on how to integrate with minor modifications?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2641" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T09:14:28.727" Title="Composition Between Photography and Cinematography" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;composition&gt;&lt;film-photography&gt;&lt;cinema&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="8269" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="31" CreationDate="2011-02-04T16:25:05.420" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Its not exactly a tripod, but the mighty Gorillapod is back in an incarnation that can cope with dSLRs up to about 3kg. And, at under 170g, is well under your weight requirement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Joby-GP2-01P-Gorillapod-SLR/dp/B000HAVVFG&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Joby-GP2-01P-Gorillapod-SLR/dp/B000HAVVFG&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2547" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T16:25:05.420" />
  <row Id="8270" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8268" CreationDate="2011-02-04T16:46:59.483" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Absolutely&lt;/strong&gt; they can.  My roommate in college was studying film, and in the classes on cinematography they taught about compositional rules such as rules of thirds, etc.  The fact that the picture now has motion in it doesn't negate how we emotionally process a picture.  The feeling of dynamism is &lt;em&gt;enhanced&lt;/em&gt; when the camera is moving diagonally along a road that is also diagonal through the scene.  The same as the fact that the same effect is &lt;em&gt;minimized&lt;/em&gt; when the movement is horizontal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, in cinematography you have a few more compositional tools available to you.  There are two classes of shots:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Static camera with some elements moving on screen.  Common example would be dialog shots.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Moving camera with changing perspective.  Common example would be panning shots across the scene.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The static camera cases can directly apply the rules of photographic composition, which we in turn stole from the art community.  If you pay attention in most of the major films, you will rarely if ever see the speaking actor's head centered in the middle of the screen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The moving cases will provide some new compositional rules to apply, but the basics don't change.  In fact the static compositional guidelines provide a good framework to plan out moving camera shots before investing the film to see if they work out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A couple more thoughts about cinematic composition:&lt;/strong&gt;  I've seen movies where the diagonal was used for the path of actors.  For example battle scenes where two armies are clashing, and you can see the line of soldiers.  In other words, the action can be placed on the &quot;power lines&quot; that we might use in static composition.  The camera is still stationary, but the movement in the scene is more grand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, when you consider musicals and dance movies, that is where all the cinematic composition stops get pulled out.  We've all seen the aerial shot with the dancers making patterns on the dance floor.  That's using the compositional technique of repeating shapes to lend more interest applied to moving objects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I'm getting at is that while we photographers have to capture everything in one shot and &lt;em&gt;imply&lt;/em&gt; the sense of motion, cinematographers are not limited by that and can actually &lt;em&gt;capture&lt;/em&gt; motion.  The rules of composition can help with the staging and planning of the scenes.  It's not uncommon for directors to take input from their top cinematographers, knowing that if it doesn't look good on film people won't watch it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3631" LastEditorUserId="3631" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-04T19:50:45.273" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T19:50:45.273" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8271" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8268" CreationDate="2011-02-04T16:49:20.577" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are definitely some differences, but there are some similarities. Among them are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Keep the scene as clutter free as possible, unless there is a specific reason for the clutter. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Keep a tight focus on the subject in general works better than distant shots.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Alot of lighting tricks also apply the same in each realm&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rule of thirds is definitely a good thing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is alot more tools available, and as a result, cinematographers tend to focus on different elements than photographers, but many of the same rules still apply.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T16:49:20.577" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8272" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8204" CreationDate="2011-02-04T16:59:46.817" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Visit &lt;a href=&quot;http://photographyforrealestate.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://photographyforrealestate.net/&lt;/a&gt; and companion &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/photographyforrealestate/discuss/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/groups/photographyforrealestate/discuss/&lt;/a&gt;.  There are many answers to your question... but basically, wide angle lens is a must.  Tripod is a must if you will be blending images (HDR or fusion).  Flash (not your built-in flash) is a must (bounced off ceiling) to fill dark spots.  Off camera flash is an option, more of an advanced technique.  Where do you live, what services do the best real estate agents in your area use for photos -- tour company, or freelance photog?   scott@scottdphotos.com if you have other questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3708" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T16:59:46.817" />
  <row Id="8273" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8205" CreationDate="2011-02-04T17:23:55.490" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For a single body and one or two lenses setup I really like the Lowepro's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lowepro.com/slingshot&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Slingshot&lt;/a&gt; bags.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T17:23:55.490" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8274" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="31" CreationDate="2011-02-04T18:39:15.773" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do you need something that will put your camera a couple feet above the ground, or do you just want something stable and flat for your camera?  There are some bean bag tripods available, like at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thepod.ca&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.thepod.ca&lt;/a&gt;, that will give you a stable, level surface for your camera.  Those come with tripod mounts, and I've heard (my sister used one with her Canon G9) they work well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could go the DIY route, too; I've read online that some people just make a small pouch and fill it up with pebbles or dirt when they are ready to take a picture then set the camera on the bag.  That gives you an ultra-lightweight surface, since you only have to carry the outer material with you; although of course the tradeoff is the time it takes to fill the bean bag every time you want to take a picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T18:39:15.773" />
  <row Id="8275" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-04T19:36:07.050" Score="1" ViewCount="120" Body="&lt;p&gt;Which Canon lenses use a B size tripod mount?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3709" LastEditorUserId="3356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-12T19:15:30.293" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T19:15:30.293" Title="Which Canon lenses use a B size tripod mount?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;tripod&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8276" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8280" CreationDate="2011-02-04T19:53:27.537" Score="18" ViewCount="581" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to take some pictures of some crystals.  Being crystals, they don't move around much so I can set up my camera and lighting as I like.  I have a high-powered halogen light shining on them, and my camera on a tripod above them.  When I took photos in automatic mode, they came out being quite noisy, so I did some reading on this site and ... got incredibly confused.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what are my best options for taking these photos?  Given the set-up, I have no restrictions (that I can think of) on shutter speed, aperture (the crystals are pretty flat so no depth-of-field issues), or ISO.  I'm a little loath to do much post-processing to remove the noise since I want to see the fine detail on the crystals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the crystal with the automatic settings (f/9.0, 1/250sec, 3200ISO).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/xUXBf.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(The camera is an Olympus E-PL1 (a micro 4/3rds) and I'm using a 14-42mm lens on full zoom to get a decent size image of the crystal.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I strongly suspect that this has been asked before, but I couldn't track it down.  So if it gets &quot;closed as duplicate&quot; that'll be fine as it'll tell me where to look!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I clearly need to do a lot of experiments on this, but using a combination of the suggestions, here's a much better picture of a crystal:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ykb2N.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;better crystal&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get this, I shot it in daytime (benefiting from a bit more light) with ISO100, 1/4s, f/5.6.  I shot in RAW and did some post-processing (some adjusting of levels, a little sharpening followed by a small blur to reduce the little noise that was there).  As I said, many more experiments needed but at least I now know what to experiment with!  Many thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1422" LastEditorUserId="1422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-10T21:12:31.520" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T21:12:31.520" Title="How do I reduce noise, given that I have complete control over everything else?" Tags="&lt;macro&gt;&lt;noise-reduction&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="8277" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8276" CreationDate="2011-02-04T19:57:00.973" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Set your ISO to as low as you can.  And if you'd like, take multiple exposures and average the results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because you're on a tripod, the shutter speed won't matter so much.  One thing that will definitely help, though, is to use the timer function (ie, take the shot 10 seconds after the shutter is pressed) so that you're not touching the camera when the shot is taken.  This time will mean that any vibrations from you touching the camera to set everything up will be damped by the time the shutter fires, so the image should be sharp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T19:57:00.973" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8278" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8276" CreationDate="2011-02-04T20:00:10.753" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To minimise noise get as much light down the lens as you can. As you have a static subject using a longer exposure is probably the best option. Setting the ISO to the minimum value will help you let in more light. Select the aperture based on sharpness, I'd go for something in the middle like f/5.6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the ultimate noise reduction, consider taking multiple shots and then averaging in software. See:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8109/is-there-any-noise-difference-between-averaged-and-long-exposure-photos&quot;&gt;Is there any noise difference between averaged and long exposure photos?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here several short noisy exposures were combined to match the noise of single exposure with more light. However the methodology can be applied to several longer ISO100 exposures to further reduce noise!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/iso_multi1.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The top section was a 1 second exposure with a really small aperture so quite noisy. Averaging 16 such photos in Photoshop resulted in the middle section, with much reduced noise. The bottom image, for comparison was the result of a single long exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The last image was shot at ISO100 so I couldn't use a longer exposure without overexposing and clipping highlights (I could have closed the aperture further but that wouldn't have allowed any extra light into the camera). By combining several ISO100 shots of this length I can increase the amount of light, effectively simulating the result of using an ISO setting &lt;em&gt;lower&lt;/em&gt; than the camera could ordinarily produce.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A standard piece of advice for minimising noise to &quot;expose to the right&quot;. This means place the histogram as far to the right (highlight) end of the scale as possible, without overexposing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An article was posted in the comments to chills42's answer which claims:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Expose to the Right&quot; is just plain wrong &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the article&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-expose-to-right-is-just-plain-wrong.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-expose-to-right-is-just-plain-wrong.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I repeated the high ISO part of the experiment with a Canon DSLR instead of the G10 compact, and most importantly I &lt;strong&gt;turned off noise reduction&lt;/strong&gt; (the author let the G10 do it's own thing with noise reduction, with no attempt to keep it consistent).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The part I wanted to specifically test was the claim that by reducing ISO alone you could reduce noise equivalent to exposing to the right. I wanted to test this because this goes against both the theory of how noise originates and all my experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a close up of a photo of a colour checker chart, 1/10s f/5.6 ISO1600 :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/ETTR/standard_exposure.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And here is the result of reducing the ISO to 800 whilst keeping the other settings the same (1/10s f/5.6 ISO800):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/ETTR/lower_ISO.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It looks similar, but there's ever so slightly more noise (see the composites at the end).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally here is the result of exposing to the right, 1/5s f/5.6 ISO1600&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/ETTR/ETTR.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A clear reduction in noise results. Here are the same images, presented in the same way as the chromasoft article. Firstly the camera metered exposure with the lower ISO image offset in the centre:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/ETTR/lowerISO_vs_standard.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the camera metered exposure with the &lt;em&gt;expose to the right&lt;/em&gt; in the centre:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/ETTR/ETTR_vs_standard.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;QED&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally the article does have some useful things to say about exposing to the right causing problems with colours (you get loss of saturation as you approach the limit of the sensors saturation point). But on noise it is demonstrably wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-05T17:57:57.210" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T17:57:57.210" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="8279" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8276" CreationDate="2011-02-04T20:01:53.997" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Switch to an aperture priority mode, use an aperture between probably 8 and 16 to make sure the whole object is in your depth of field, lower your ISO to 100 (or as low as your camera goes), set it up on a tripod, and click.  You'll have a much longer shutter speed, so some stable surface will be necessary. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its mainly your high ISO on a smaller sensor thats killing you here.  Your camera doesn't know that its on a tripod and shooting a static object, so it thinks you need a reasonable shutter speed to handhold, so its increasing your ISO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T20:01:53.997" />
  <row Id="8280" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8276" CreationDate="2011-02-04T20:03:29.143" Score="28" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best way is to use the lowest ISO possible (100 is often the best), and slightly overexpose (without clipping highlights), then post process it back down.  This will help to decrease noise in the shadows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also shoot raw, so that any adjustments can be made before the conversion to jpeg.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T20:03:29.143" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="8281" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8276" CreationDate="2011-02-04T20:17:17.453" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Keep the temperature of your camera low to keep the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson%E2%80%93Nyquist_noise&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;thermal noise&lt;/a&gt; to a minimum. At the very least, this means not taking pictures after it's been busy for a while. Hot lights and hot rooms also work against you here. Things that draw a lot of power will generate more heat too. The LCD is a factor here; things like Live View (on-screen viewfinding) and video mode can heat up the camera faster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Noise from heat can increase the image noise significantly. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.zodiaclight.com/astrophotography/chipHeating5.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here's one experiment&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Cooling a Canon 350D results in less camera noise being present in raw images... For the cooled camera the measured noise level after 40 exposures was a &lt;strong&gt;whopping 40% less&lt;/strong&gt; than in the uncooled camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Emphasis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this isn't &quot;put the camera in the freezer&quot; cooling; the temperature was kept at a room-like temperature of 18C.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastEditorUserId="48" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-05T17:25:45.593" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T17:25:45.593" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="8282" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8276" CreationDate="2011-02-04T20:23:33.330" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two things cause noise in your pictures: amplifying the sensor (higher ISO), and longer exposures (&gt; 1 minute).  What you want is a good balance between them.  With the &lt;code&gt;Olympus E-PL1&lt;/code&gt;, you probably won't be able to tell the difference between ISO 100 and 200 but you will start to see noise start affecting your picture as early as ISO 400 (based off of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusepl1/page6.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DP Review&lt;/a&gt;).  Also, for some reason jpeg seems slightly less noisy than RAW, but jpeg will degrade with every edit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keep in mind that at close focusing distances, your depth of field is razor thin.  With the camera 10 inches away at 42mm and f/9 your &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;depth of field&lt;/a&gt; is .16 inches in front and behind the focal plane.  Where you place the focus can be critical with a picture like this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get optimal noise results with your camera, you want to put your camera at ISO 200, aperture priority or full manual, f/9 - f/11 and at least 12 inches away, and whatever exposure time is necessary.  If your required exposure is approaching a minute (the max on your camera), find some more light.  An effective way to add a lot of light is to use a flash, but you'll want it mounted away from the camera so you aren't bouncing light off the mineral into the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3631" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T20:23:33.330" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8283" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8073" CreationDate="2011-02-04T20:26:28.303" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For shooting in the rain, I bought an extra lens hood for each of my lenses. Then I glued a plastic bag to each lens hood, so that I could cover the entire camera with the bag, without having to futz about with getting the lens hole just right. When I'm not using the modified lens hoods, I fold the plastic up inside them and keep them in my bag, ready for quick deployment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3704" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T20:26:28.303" />
  <row Id="8284" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8236" CreationDate="2011-02-04T20:45:18.877" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I delete photos that are technical failiures - grossly out of focus, vastly misexposed, etc. Other than that, in principle I don't delete. Instead, I get a bigger harddisk once in a while.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With 640 gigs for photos &lt;em&gt;AND&lt;/em&gt; videos, you are in an eternal space crunch. Get more and bigger disks. Seriously. They are cheap. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are effectively burning your negatives because you can't be bothered to get more storage. This seems short-sighted to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T20:45:18.877" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8285" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8073" CreationDate="2011-02-04T20:53:59.860" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If it's just lightly raining or if it is snow I don't worry about it too much.  If I'm going to be out for a long time I'll use a small garbage bag with a hole cut in one end &amp;amp; a rubber band to hold it in place.  I have also used these cheap &lt;a href=&quot;http://flashzebra.com/products/0245/index.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;rainsleeves&lt;/a&gt;; they fit better than the garbage bag &amp;amp; look slightly less ghetto.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, don't forget that cloth diapers are a great way to dry your lenses!  It's probably more important to keep the front element dry than the camera body... Not because it'll cause damage but because water on the lens will distort your pictures!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1513" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T20:53:59.860" />
  <row Id="8286" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8276" CreationDate="2011-02-04T21:06:07.517" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There have been some great suggestions so far. I have a more off-the-beaten-path suggestion, however, in case you want to get the absolute maximum quality, clarity, and detail you can. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It looks like you are doing some macro work, so I understand that your DOF is very thin. At a wider aperture, you should be able to use ISO 100 at decent exposure times, at the cost of even thinner DOF. You can compensate for the thinner DOF by taking multiple exposures with an increasingly distant focal plane, and stitching them together with a depth of field stacking tool like &lt;a href=&quot;http://hadleyweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CZM/News.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Combine ZM&lt;/a&gt;. This is a common technique amongst macro photographers who use the Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x Zoom Macro lens, which has a DOF as thin as 0.02mm at maximum magnification AND an aperture of f/16.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T21:06:07.517" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8287" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8276" CreationDate="2011-02-04T22:13:06.197" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lots of good answers thus far but I did want to mention one other consideration: if photos with an absolute minimal amount of noise are critical, you might want to consider a different camera.  The larger the sensor, the less noise you'll see (all other factors being equal).  A micro 4/3rds camera has a smaller sensor than a APS-C (crop sensor) DSLR, which is smaller than a full-frame DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not suggesting you rush out and buy a new camera, but if low-light, low-noise photos are important the sensor size should be a consideration in your purchasing decision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T22:13:06.197" />
  <row Id="8288" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8043" CreationDate="2011-02-04T22:19:56.537" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Land's work (among others) pretty much proved that we can make sense out of just about anything. The human eye is, from an engineering standpoint, a mediocre device at best, but it's backed up by a pretty amazing processing system: the visual cortex. I've known people whose first indication of color vision deficiency was when the nice fellows at the recruiting station told them that they couldn't get into an electronics trade because they couldn't see the &quot;29&quot; on the PIPIC card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll assume that you aren't asking about using a luminance-only sensor (one that doesn't have factory-installed color filtration, like a Bayer matrix or a Foveon sensor), and so aren't too worried about how many exposures with how many filters it would take to make a color photograph.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the strictly bio-optical sense, all we need to worry about (assuming we have adequate color vision ourselves) is removing our own adaptation biases from the entire workflow. That means reasonably well-calibrated monitors (&lt;em&gt;critical&lt;/em&gt; calibration is only necessary when matching off-screen color references, like Pantone swatches or product samples; for most purposes &quot;close enough&quot; really is close enough) and examining output (prints or transparencies) under full-spectrum, daylight-balanced lighting (which will minimize intracranial post-processing -- our eyes evolved to work in daylight). It's a good idea, too, to take a break and revisit a picture with &quot;fresh eyes&quot; from time to time when post-processing -- we can easily fool ourselves into seeing more or less contrast or hue shift than is actually there due to habituation and concentration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because our eyes do not feature apochromatic correction, it would be a good idea to avoid hard color transistions (edges) that cause scintillation where possible, like red against blue. Since our eyes can't focus those two colors on the same plane, a two-dimensional representation of something that looks perfectly natural out in the real world (because the red and blue things are at different distances) will cause our autofocus to hunt and introduce luminance artifacts. Uluru (Ayer's Rock) at sunset from the sunlit side on a clear day is beautiful -- almost beyond imagining -- but a picture of it is really hard on the eyes. A few clouds or a less-saturated sky can largely eliminate the scintillation. (The Expressionists exploited this fact deliberately to make skies appear brighter than they could actually be painted. You can use scintillation in the same way, but it's an effect you'd want to avoid most of the time -- particularly when working in-studio.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our perception of color also depends on context. That is, we perceive a color differently depending on the colors around it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's much more of a problem for an artist trying to paint something realistically than it is a photographer's problem. For instance, if you're trying to paint a still life in a low-key old masters chiaroscuro style, that lemon will never look right until you stop trying to use the bright lemon yellow you &lt;em&gt;think&lt;/em&gt; you see and start using a muddy, toned-down yellow ochre. Most of the lemon will be a mid grey-brown barely biased towards yellow, but in the context of the surrounding colors it &lt;em&gt;looks&lt;/em&gt; bright yellow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, if you were to paint the same still life, but with a light background and in a high key, getting the lemon to look the same bright yellow would mean using a bright lemon yellow pigment (which is not just brighter, but cooler) for much of the body of the lemon, and shadow and highlight colors would need to be cooler as well. Context changes a lot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In straight photography, this is a self-resolving problem most of the time. If you get the exposure right, the colors will look right in their actual context. (There may be some issues because our eyes see a wider dynamic range than we can fit into the final color space, but that's not a &lt;em&gt;color&lt;/em&gt; perception problem.) You may notice some odd/unexpected colors popping up in your pallette when you spot the image in post, but as long as you're selecting from nearby it's not something you need to give a lot of consideration to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's when you want to make wholesale changes that contextual color shift comes into play in a big way. That big block of &lt;em&gt;OMG turn it down&lt;/em&gt; kindergarten-blocks orange in your original image becomes a weak, insipid pink or a dark, bloody crimson when you swap out the original background. It's something you'll notice right away. It may be a bit of surprise when you first see it, but it's not a &quot;real&quot; problem -- you're going to adjust the background color or the subject curves until the image looks right to you. (Color spill, where reflected light from the background becomes part of the lighting of the subject, is a separate issue.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only time context becomes a real problem is when you need to hit spot color targets for a client (real, or imaginary if you're trying to learn the craft), and that's usually a situation where you either &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;should be&lt;/em&gt; working with an art director who has at least half a clue, and the problems that arise are often not with the photography, but with the juxtaposition of your photography with other elements on the page/screen. Depending on the scene, you may have to make a choice between making the logo on the product package &lt;em&gt;look&lt;/em&gt; right or &lt;em&gt;be&lt;/em&gt; right. If it &lt;em&gt;looks&lt;/em&gt; right, you might have to arrange things so that it doesn't come too close to the spot-color printed logo (the location of which is often a part of the official corporate look; see the client's communications manual). If the main color of what you record needs to be an actual match to the Pantone process version of the official color (again, see the comms manual), then you may have some restrictions on how you shoot the scene and what else can be included in it. Again, you should be working with an AD (or someone who has the capacity to make decisions on behalf of the client), and you may have to tell them they can't have what they originally wanted due to some real technical limitations -- but you'll be showing them the problem on-screen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One last thing, mostly for interior/architectural photography: mixed lighting. Our eyes are pretty good at reconciling mixed lighting; cameras are not. There's a reason why you can get sort-of-nd, blue and amber gels (probably mylar or acetate rather than real gels) in large, wide rolls -- they're for covering windows. If you're shooting an exterior but want to show the interior lighting (and it's not dark out yet), you'd cover the interior of the windows with weak blue gels to cool down tungsten or warm-balanced interior lighting a bit (just a bit -- you probably want warm, but not bright orange). Shooting an interior during the daytime, you'd want to use amber on the window exterior if the interior lighting is tungsten or warm-balanced fluorescent. This assumes that you need, for one reason or another, to use the actual lighting in place -- either because it's a feature you want to capture, or because it's the only practical way of lighting the whole space. This is pretty high-end stuff, though; you need a gel budget and a crew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As diurnal critters, we are also biased towards color temperature. A warm (red/yellow) balance, as naturally occurs at the beginning and end of the day, tends to evoke a somewhat more relaxed attitude, while a cool (blue/green) balance puts us in a more serious mood (as it should if daytime food gathering is a priority). That being said, warmth plus very high contrast means firelight at night, which can either be intimate or spooky. In the natural world, we learned that bright colors mean either &quot;really dangerous&quot; or &quot;really good to eat&quot;; either way, they're meant to draw our attention, and still do. But that's about the end of the physiological and evolutionary stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the other effects of color are culturally and personally biased, and here you are stepping well out of the world of hardware into the world of software. It wouldn't matter a whit if humans had three or thirty-seven different classes of cones for data gathering if, culturally, red still meant &quot;stop&quot; and green still meant &quot;go&quot; and the two together still meant &quot;Christmas&quot; (which, in turn, means something completely different to those for whom Christmas invokes warm family feelings and to those who feel loneliness or cultural isolation at that particular time of the year).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are looking for universals, well, the best you can hope for is a sort of regional consensus, and straying too far outside of your own experience is going to be like speaking a foreign language -- you're probably going to miss a lot of the subtleties, nuances and connotations that a native &quot;speaker&quot; of that color culture experiences. Unlike language, though, you're probably not going to run across too many people who are willing to &quot;listen&quot; and try to make sense of what you're trying to say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even among people with a common culture, you can't count on common experience. Colors that are strongly evocative to you may be the next best thing to meaningless to the fellow next door, or you may find that your attempt to echo the little red wagon awakens memories of fire trucks, riots and looting among your not-so-suburban audience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All you can do is say what you mean to say in a way that makes sense to you. Others will see what they see, and you can't really force them to see what you do without the photographic equivalent of explaining the punchline. All art is abstraction; the meaning is up to the viewer. As an artist, you can only ever convey the most superficial meaning directly (what the subject &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; and what the subject is doing -- the journalistic aspects). Everything else is the audience participation portion of the program, and the audience will bring their own cultural and personal experiences and biases with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastEditorUserId="2719" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-07T22:01:33.463" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T22:01:33.463" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-07T22:01:33.463" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8289" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8275" CreationDate="2011-02-04T22:55:23.277" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm aware of these three:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...but that's today, and the answer could have been Googled faster than I can type it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T22:55:23.277" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8290" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8275" CreationDate="2011-02-04T23:01:02.103" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;well just to start: Canon EF 180mm f3.5L Macro USM, Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5L Macro USM, MP-E 65mm f2.8 1-5x Macro Photo and at least half a dozen others&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;go to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/Lens_Advantage_Select&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this site&lt;/a&gt; and look around for yourself&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3675" LastActivityDate="2011-02-04T23:01:02.103" />
  <row Id="8291" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8236" CreationDate="2011-02-05T02:04:36.607" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Delete is my friend and I use it frequently:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Delete immediately in-camera if I know I missed a shot. Things like people entering the shot at the wrong moment, forgot the camera was in MF, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Delete anything that is not technically perfect: sharp, focused, well exposed, well framed, correct WB, level, etc as a first pass on the computer, using PMVIew Pro on Windows or Geeqie on Linux.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Delete everything that is too similar, keeping the best of course. Pass 2.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Import into Lightroom, apply keywords and rank as the third pass. Here is the time where things that are documentary but not so interesting get ranked low:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A) Zero stars are reserved for things that are not pictures such as panorama pieces.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;B) Things that are technically perfect but not so interesting get 1 star. I try to crop them and see if they get more interesting, in that case they get upgraded to 2 stars. I ask myself why then I did not frame it like that in the first place. Sometimes I just was not paying attention, other times like framing fireworks, it was nearly impossible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;C) Technically perfect and interesting gets 3 stars unless:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;D) It is also evocative and deserves to be printed, in that case it gets 4 stars unless:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;E) There is NO way the picture could have been improved by a change of position, framing or camera settings. In that case, it gets 5 stars.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I try as a personal goal is to stop shooting the 1-3 stars shots, so my ratio is constantly improving. I always ask myself why something camera out poorly and what was I thinking when I took the shot. I tag anything that got cropped (or worse ;) so that I know the times when I failed to do things properly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Closing words from Jay Maisel:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;If you are not your own harshest critic, you are your own worst enemy.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T02:04:36.607" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8292" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8268" CreationDate="2011-02-05T02:07:25.887" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is probably most accurate to think of the basic composition rules of photography as a &lt;em&gt;subset&lt;/em&gt; of the rules that we use in cinematography. Examples of rules that apply to both photography and cinematography include things like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The rule of thirds&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Diagonal lines&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Geometric shapes&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Repeated patterns&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Non-standard angles&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Color palette&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Depth of Field &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Choice of lens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whereas there are many rules that only apply to cinematography because of the addition of motion, dialog, and story (not that photography can't tell story, but cinema can generally tell more lengthy and complicated stories). Examples of rules that apply only to the discipline of cinematography include things like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Camera motion&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The way objects and actors are placed in the frame &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cuts between shots/scenes&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Racking Focus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The really interesting thing is that in photography if you have poor composition, the picture will simply stink unless it contains something so compelling that it overcomes its lack of composition (tabloid photos are an example of lousy composition, but compelling content which allows people to 'forgive' the photographs shortcomings). In cinema there are plenty of directors who completely ignore the rules of composition but get away with it because they craft stories that are compelling enough that it often doesn't matter that the shots aren't very interesting. (See the collected works of Kevin Smith for examples of inept composition... But they keep giving him money because people spend money to see the &lt;em&gt;stories&lt;/em&gt; he tells...) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The really &lt;em&gt;great&lt;/em&gt; directors, on the other hand, are masters of the storytelling craft &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; the craft of composition. You can watch anything by Scorsese, Tarantino, the Coen Brothers, Capra, or Fellini (for example) and see composition in every single frame of their films and how it adds immense depth to the storytelling...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T02:07:25.887" />
  <row Id="8293" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8236" CreationDate="2011-02-05T02:12:25.463" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you've ever stood over a light table, not a light box, but a table that's 4'x4', covered with 35mm and medium format transparencies, you'd notice that some images jump out at you. Even with hundreds of shots in front of you, some grab your attention and others are invisible, even though, by themselves, they'd be great photos. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's why LightRoom, Aperture, PhotoMechanic, and other high-end editing programs have a gallery view, where you can see multiple images at once. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Switch to that mode, sit back, and look away for a while. When you look back, notice which images grab your attention immediately, then mark them. Scroll to another group of images, and look away and repeat. A day or two later, look through the first selects and do the same thing. When you're done, throw away the first group that didn't make the first cut. Do that a couple more times and you'll be down to stronger images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keeping every image makes no sense if there are minor differences between them. Find the strongest ones and toss the weak ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I learned to shoot with transparencies and went through grocery bag after grocery bag of slides. It was expensive and really annoying to toss out shots that didn't turn out, but there was absolutely no point keeping shots that weren't good enough to keep. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same applies now, even though you're &quot;only&quot; filling a drive with electrons. You'll still never use the images that are kinda-good-enough, and odds are good nobody else will ever see them or care. Be critical of your work and learn from your mistakes, and don't keep crap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1514" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T02:12:25.463" />
  <row Id="8294" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8268" CreationDate="2011-02-05T09:14:28.727" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not a movie critic and I don't shoot movies, either.  So if you think this is simplistic or misleading or just plain wrong, I can't offer up any defense.  Also, I'm assuming that you plan on watching some acclaimed movies to research how composition has been done well in movies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the most interesting things I've learned about movies (from a technical aspect) is that the director can choose between &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.projectorcentral.com/formats.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;several different aspect ratios&lt;/a&gt; when shooting their movie (a similar concept to when we crop photos or choose print sizes like 4&quot;x3&quot; (1.33) or 5&quot;x4&quot; (1.25)); a good director will choose the aspect ratio that helps them tell the story they want to tell, and then that aspect ratio will of course influence the composition of all the scenes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I wrote that paragraph to explain this paragraph: if/when you watch some well-crafted movies to see how others have composed their scenes, you need to make sure you watch the movie in the originally-filmed aspect ratio, not a pan-and-scan fullscreen (4:3) version, which will have cut out portions of the images at the sides.  And even more important than that: when you pick which movies you want to watch to understand how great directors composed their scenes, you need to remember that for the past several decades movies had to be shot with two aspect ratios in mind: the widescreen format in which they'd be shown in theaters and the fullscreen format in which they'd be viewed on video or TV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my advice would be to pick some great movies (like from the AFI Top 100 or some other curated list) that were created with a specific aspect ratio in mind (preferably the aspect ratio that you plan to use) and see how &lt;em&gt;those&lt;/em&gt; directors composed their scenes, keeping an eye out throughout for the photography rules you know and how they're used or broken.  That probably means either movies that pre-date TV or movies from the past couple years when widescreen TVs became more prevalent in the home.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T09:14:28.727" />
  <row Id="8295" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8276" CreationDate="2011-02-05T10:13:35.063" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Using a tripod allows you to use slow shutter speeds, thus allowing you to use lower ISO, resulting in less noise. More importantly, a good combination of your light and some reflectors will get you the best image that you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also consider software noise reduction in post processing if you're still seeing more noise than you find acceptable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3714" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T10:13:35.063" />
  <row Id="8296" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-05T16:29:33.253" Score="7" ViewCount="221" Body="&lt;p&gt;My extension tube set (Soligor for Pentax AF + P/KA) was not working correctly on my DSLR, so I checked the tubes, and found an interesting difference. It has three tubes (12mm, 20mm, 36mm).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a photo of the 20mm tube:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/jUb1k.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and this a photo of the 12mm tube (the 36mm is similar to this one):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/vVsFK.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note the difference of the third (from the left) pin. On the 20mm tube it is similar to the other pins, on the 12mm tube it is always recessed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/technology/K-mount/Ka.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bojidar Dimitrov's K-mount page&lt;/a&gt; this pin transfers the &quot;A&quot; aperture settings information:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On the body mount, the &quot;*&quot; contact is&#xA;  slightly recessed. On the lens mount,&#xA;  &quot;*&quot; is a small pin whose head can be&#xA;  raised or lowered depending on the&#xA;  position of the lens aperture ring.&#xA;  When a numeric f-stop is selected, the&#xA;  pin's head is lowered so that it does&#xA;  not make contact with body's &quot;*&quot;&#xA;  contact; when the &quot;A&quot; aperture setting&#xA;  is engaged, the pin's head is raised,&#xA;  and it makes electrical contact with&#xA;  the body's &quot;*&quot; contact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This explains the strange behavior of the extension tube. If I use the 20mm tube the camera always thinks that the aperture ring of the lens ( SMC PENTAX-A 50mm f2 in my test ) is set to &quot;A&quot; setting. It also explains why my camera+12mm+20mm+lens setup was not working the same way as my camera+20mm+12mm+lens setup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it some kind of bug (they mixed up the tubes)? Or maybe it's just an undocumented feature of the extension tube set to have different elements? Is there a camera+lens combination when the non-recessed pin of 20mm has advantages?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="507" LastActivityDate="2011-02-24T13:43:11.403" Title="Extension tube set elements" Tags="&lt;pentax&gt;&lt;extension-tubes&gt;&lt;k-mount&gt;&lt;soligor&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8297" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8298" CreationDate="2011-02-05T17:04:33.777" Score="7" ViewCount="218" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm just starting out with DLSR photography - I recently purchased a Sony A230 with the kit lens (18mm - 55mm). I know that the lens mount is compatible with Minolta lenses. These lenses were originally designed for film SLR cameras, and I'm wondering what impact that will have when I go to use them with my camera. Some websites advertise lenses for a Minolta mount that have the ominous warning &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bedfords.com/products/Promaster-Spectrum7-70%252d300mm-F-4.5-%252d-5.6-Multi%252dcoated-Autofocus-Zoom-Lens-for-Minolta-Mount.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NOT FOR DIGITAL SLRs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What am I getting myself into when I buy older film SLR lenses? I have heard that the effective length of the lens changes due to the different sizes of the image sensors, but how can I calculate this? Are any other lens specifications, like aperature size, that are changed? Will autofocus still work? Will my camera be able to read the lens? What would happen if I bought the lens that is linked above - would it really not work with my camera or give horrible results?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3719" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-05T18:17:38.487" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T19:04:14.153" Title="Using SLR Lenses on DSLR Cameras" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;slr&gt;&lt;sony&gt;&lt;minolta&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8298" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8297" CreationDate="2011-02-05T17:14:56.627" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Minolta, like Canon, changed their mount when they moved to AF in the 1980s. Only Minolta AF lenses can be used on Sony's Alpha mount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The field of view will be cropped due to the fact that the sensor in your camera is smaller than the imaging size of film. So a 50mm lens will have the field of view of a 75mm lens, as the crop factor is 1.5.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/139/what-is-the-difference-between-focal-length-and-crop-factor/294#294&quot;&gt;Here's a good answer about crop factor in DSLRs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aperture is unchanged. AF should work fine!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastEditorUserId="3114" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-05T19:04:14.153" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T19:04:14.153" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8299" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8297" CreationDate="2011-02-05T17:22:06.287" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi W5VO&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On thing is crop factor. This is not really a problem. One gets just more zoom and less wideangel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The real problem is flare from the sensor. Lenses made for digital SLRs have a coating that reduces flare; the older film-lenses do not have this - it was not needed when using film.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the lens can/will work and most likely take good images. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regards&#xA;   Sigersted &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3428" LastEditorUserId="3428" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-05T17:31:27.193" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T17:31:27.193" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8300" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-05T19:08:04.460" Score="11" ViewCount="356" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to start improving my photography - and I think that one way to do this would be to introduce some formal structure to the way I practice photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One idea I have is to only focus on one specific element of photography each day/week - and use that focus to explore each element in depth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;e.g. I'd either focus on a technical,&#xA;  compositional or content based theme;&#xA;  and would then taking a group of&#xA;  photographs that explore that aspect of photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is this: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;have any of you attempted something similar?  If so, did your efforts help your photography.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;do you have any examples of themes that would be worth exploring?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose what I'm actually asking for is similar to a syllabus for study - so if anyone has any links to relevant on-line resources I'd be very grateful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3718" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T22:51:20.023" Title="Ideas for Daily Exercises to Improve Photography Technique" Tags="&lt;learning&gt;&lt;theory&gt;&lt;discovery&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="9" />
  <row Id="8301" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8300" CreationDate="2011-02-05T19:15:22.140" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://dailyshoot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the daily shoot&lt;/a&gt;! Great ideas for each day, just like you want. Take a look at what other people are doing on twitter (after you do your assignment). Be critical of yourself and put time into thinking about your shots before you take them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should also try to get feedback from others. Tips on that &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4698/whats-the-best-way-to-get-constructive-critique-of-your-photographs&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. Also, &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7885/how-do-i-give-someone-a-critique-of-their-photograph&quot;&gt;some general tips that may help you be critical of yourself&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps... it might not be as formal as you were looking for, but I do think you will get better :-).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2746" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T19:15:22.140" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8302" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8300" CreationDate="2011-02-05T19:22:58.043" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is a link to a similar question that contains links to many resources.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4203/digital-photography-tutorials&quot;&gt;Digital photography tutorials&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think your idea has a lot of merit even though I can't directly answer it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T19:22:58.043" />
  <row Id="8303" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-05T19:29:05.503" Score="1" ViewCount="524" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've recently purchased a micro 4/3 camera (Panasonic GF1), and I'm aware that with an appropriate adapter, I can use a large variety of third-party lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm interested in experimenting with macro photography, and I'd like to purchase a reasonably inexpensive macro lens (2nd hand is fine) from ebay to allow me to get my feet wet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Are there any particular brands or models that would be worth looking out for?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Are there are any limitations with the micro 4/3s format, that I should be aware of when purchasing a third party lens?  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3718" LastActivityDate="2011-02-06T12:26:24.930" Title="Macro Lens Recommendations for a Micro 4/3 Camera" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;micro-four-thirds&gt;&lt;panasonic&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="8304" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8339" CreationDate="2011-02-05T19:30:00.317" Score="14" ViewCount="566" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've seen the term used, but what is a &quot;diffraction limit&quot;, when should I worry about it, and what undesirable effects are a result of it ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-23T15:55:35.453" LastActivityDate="2011-04-23T15:55:35.453" Title="What is a &quot;diffraction limit&quot;?" Tags="&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;sharpness&gt;&lt;optics&gt;&lt;diffraction&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="8305" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8300" CreationDate="2011-02-05T19:31:14.637" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard one strange but efficient advice for learning composition: read magazines upside down. That way, you are not disturbed by the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1296" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T19:31:14.637" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8306" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8309" CreationDate="2011-02-05T19:47:20.147" Score="4" ViewCount="393" Body="&lt;p&gt;A friend of mine has a NIKON AF-S DX 35mm F/1.8G lens and I would like to purchase something (at least) equivalent for my Canon, if possible at a similar price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I understand it, while 35mm still counts a &quot;normal&quot; lens for the Nikon D90, for my Canon 40D, it would be a tad too long. Something around 30mm would probably be more appropriate, right? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If looked at the following models:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;SIGMA 30mm F/1.4 EX DC HSM for Canon: sounds very good, but more then twice as expensive.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;CANON EF 28mm F/1.8 USM: maybe too short? Same price as SIGMA.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;CANON EF 28mm F/2.8: same price as Nikon 35mm lens, but only F/2.8.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;CANON EF 35mm F/2.0: too long? Slightly more expensive as Nikon but only F/2.0.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that an equivalent Canon lens will be around twice as expensive as the above Nikon. Is this correct? Or did I overlook something?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3588" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T00:05:36.963" Title="Canon lens equivalent to NIKON AF-S DX 35mm F/1.8G?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;prime&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="8307" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8306" CreationDate="2011-02-05T19:48:56.387" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You've pretty much hit the nail on the head.  Among Canon's current lens lineup, they don't have comparable lens at a comparable price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thats not to say some of the lenses you've listed above aren't good choices depending on your budget and situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T19:48:56.387" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8308" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8300" CreationDate="2011-02-05T20:05:42.140" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In art school we used to do 'true' exercise photography by doing things like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take &lt;em&gt;n&lt;/em&gt; pictures of a single object, making sure that no two were the same (&lt;em&gt;n&lt;/em&gt; was generally some large number like '100' or '250') - The exercise was designed to train yourself to begin to see the many ways it's possible to approach a subject...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Find an object and take the exact same picture of it every hour for 24 hours (generally an inanimate object... Humans won't stay still for 24 hours! Lol) - The goal was to see how even something that doesn't move changes quite radically depending on what is going on around it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One of my professors used to hate zoom lenses so much that his requirement for letting us use them was that we had to submit a picture at every whole f-stop for every marked focal length on the lens before we could use it for assignments - His intent was to train us to know the capabilities and differences of each focal length so that the zoom functionality didn't become a crutch when composing shots.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take 100 pictures of objects that have a common characteristic (they're all buildings, they're all less than 1 inch wide, they're all blue, etc.) - The goal was to learn how to find interesting pictures 'hiding inside' everyday objects.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take 100 pictures from a perspective you wouldn't normally think to take pictures from (lying down, under water, upside down, cropped to 1x6, etc.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an aside, I went to art school long enough ago that we were doing all of this on film. Even though I bought in bulk, used B&amp;amp;W film, self-rolled my film canisters, self-developed, and most of the time we only had to turn in contact sheets of our work (thank God!), looking back it was still an incredibly expensive thing to be a photography student...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T20:05:42.140" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8309" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8306" CreationDate="2011-02-05T20:13:24.243" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd worry less about &quot;what's comparable&quot; and worry more about &quot;what's right for you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference in the crop factor between the Canon 40D (1.6x) and the Nikon D90 (1.5x) is fairly small: 56mm EFL vs 52.5mm EFL. That's only a 6.25% difference. If you take a step or two backwards, you'll have the same effective field of view. Have a look &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;at the angle of view calculators here&lt;/a&gt; to get an idea. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly: the difference between f/2.0 and f/1.8 isn't huge: only 1/3 of a stop. It's some additional control over depth of field and low-light performance, but probably not enough to make a big deal over in practice. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DOFMaster&lt;/a&gt; for more calculations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on what type of photography you're doing, you could easily lean towards the 28mm f/2.8 over the 35mm f/2. For example, the former would be better for landscapes, because it's wider and the smaller minimum aperture doesn't matter as much. For indoor shots of people, the reverse would be true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's going to be differences between the lenses themselves too. Any of the lenses you mentioned might be (less) sharper than the others, or than the equivalent Nikon lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, of course, it all has to fit into your budget.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So: take a look at how much you want to spend and what you want to photograph, and then pick the most appropriate lens out of your options. Don't worry about what Nikon has; it doesn't really affect you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastEditorUserId="48" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-07T00:05:36.963" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T00:05:36.963" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8310" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8312" CreationDate="2011-02-05T20:22:25.263" Score="6" ViewCount="458" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that a 24 bit image dedicates 8 bit each for R, G and B. Is it just for RGB color space. In YCbCr color space for a 24 bit JPEG image, how are the bits distributed? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3720" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-07T14:28:33.240" LastActivityDate="2011-04-11T02:39:49.453" Title="How is the YCbCr color space represented in a JPEG image?" Tags="&lt;jpeg&gt;&lt;color&gt;&lt;ycbcr&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="8311" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8304" CreationDate="2011-02-05T20:52:38.800" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Diffraction happens. It's a fact of life. When lenses are used wide open, other lens abberations are far too prominent for you to notice a minor sharpness loss due to diffraction. Stop down a little bit, and those abberations are minimised -- the lens seems to just get better and better. Diffraction is there, but you still don't really notice it because light that is not passing near the edges significantly outvotes the light that &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; passing getting a little too close to the aperture blades.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At some point while you are stopping the lens down, the gains you make by eliminating the optical differences between the center and outer parts of the lens elements starts to go away -- there is no longer enough crisply focused light to drown out the out-of-focus image caused by light bending around the edges of the optical path (diffraction). The lens isn't going to get any better when you stop down anymore -- too much light is being diffracted compared to the light that's getting through the middle. From this point on, stopping down will make the image softer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point at which the lens is stopped down as far as it can go without increasing softness is the diffraction limit. On some lenses, that's as far as you can stop down -- Nikon, for example, has traditionally kept a relatively wide minimum aperture (f/16) on many of their designs. On other lenses (macros, especially) you might still have a couple of stops or more available to you; depth of field considerations may be more important than absolute sharpness in some applications.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of photography is a compromise. There may be times when you want to stop down farther than the optimum, but it helps to be aware of the compromises you're making. Stopping down is an easy answer to DOF, but if you're hooked on landscapes and taking them all at f/22 or f/32, it may be time to take a look at a tilt/shift lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T20:52:38.800" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8312" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8310" CreationDate="2011-02-05T21:05:18.560" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a few formats for YCbCr. generally speaking the eye is more sensitive to changes in luminance (Y, brightness) than to changes in chroma (Cb, Cr, color). Thus, it is possible to erase some chroma information while retaining image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, the most &quot;expensive&quot; format is 4:4:4, where for each luma (Y) component there are 1 Red difference (Cr) and one Blue difference (Cb) components.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, applying the principle I mentioned, there is 4:2:2 where for each 2 Y components there are 1 Cb and 1 Cr. And it goes even further to 4:1:1 and 4:2:0, etc. More info &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4:2:2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T21:05:18.560" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8313" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8300" CreationDate="2011-02-05T21:30:51.993" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the answers posted earlier, you can try participate in low-level competitions. I started out with &lt;a href=&quot;http://photofriday.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photofriday.com&lt;/a&gt;. Additionally, challenge yourself to get your work out there and seen by other eyes. Try running a photoblog and posting on a consistent basis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3721" LastEditorUserId="3721" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-05T22:51:20.023" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T22:51:20.023" />
  <row Id="8314" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8304" CreationDate="2011-02-05T21:37:29.317" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Think of a scene as comprised of many small discrete points of light&lt;/strong&gt;.  A lens is supposed to convert each point to another point at an appropriate place on the image.  Diffraction causes every point to spread in a circular wave-like pattern, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Airy disk&lt;/a&gt;.  The diameter of the disk is directly proportional to the f-number: that's the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction#Diffraction-limited_imaging&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;diffraction limit&lt;/a&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the f-number is increased from its minimum (a wide open lens), the light falling at a point on the image will come from a narrower region of the lens.  That tends to make the image sharper.  As the f-number is increased, the Airy disks get larger.  At some point the two effects balance to make the sharpest image.  This point is typically in the f/5.6 to f/8 range on SLR cameras.  With smaller f-numbers, overall properties of the lens (its aberrations) take over to make a softer image.  With larger f-numbers, the softness is dominated by the diffraction effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;You can measure this reasonably well with your own lenses and no special equipment&lt;/strong&gt;.  Mount the camera on a tripod in front of a sharp, detailed, well-lit flat target having lots of contrast. (I used a page from a magazine; it worked fine.)  Use your best settings: lowest ISO, proper exposure, mirror locked up, medium focal length for a zoom lens (or vary the focal length, too), middle distance, perfectly in focus, RAW format.  Take a series of photos in which you vary &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; the f/stop and the exposure time (to keep the exposure constant).  Look at the sequence of pictures at 100% on a good monitor: you will see where your camera's &quot;sweet spot&quot; is and you will see the effects of using wider or narrower apertures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The following sequence&lt;/strong&gt; is taken from a series for the Canon 85 mm f/1.8 lens, which is a pretty good one.  From top to bottom are 100% crops (converted to high-quality JPEG for Web display) at f/1.8, 2.8, 5.6, 11, and 22.  You can see the increasing effects of diffraction at f/11 and f/22 in the bottom two images.  Note that &lt;em&gt;for this particular lens&lt;/em&gt; used with &lt;em&gt;this particular camera&lt;/em&gt; (EOS T2i, an APS-C sensor), the diffraction softness at high f-numbers doesn't approach the softness seen with the lens wide open.  Having comparable information for your own lenses, which can be obtained in a few minutes, can be valuable for choosing exposure parameters in important photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;f/1.8 &lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/xlgMy.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;f/1.8&quot;&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;f/2.8 &lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/s30RC.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;f/2.8&quot;&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;f/5.6 &lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/7o0Yi.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;f/5.6&quot;&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;f/11  &lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/eXj44.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;f/11&quot;&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;f/22  &lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ob7kA.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;f/22&quot;&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-06T18:47:38.480" LastActivityDate="2011-02-06T18:47:38.480" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="8315" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8310" CreationDate="2011-02-05T21:42:42.320" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Approximately 8 bits for each channel, but there are several slightly different ways to do it.  The details are given in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YCbCr&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article on YCbCr&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T21:42:42.320" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8316" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8306" CreationDate="2011-02-05T21:57:08.537" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As said above, I shouldn't worry about the non-equivalence - just look at what you need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check out reviews for each of them, there are some great review sites out there. Might be worthing trying to hire one before buying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T21:57:08.537" />
  <row Id="8317" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8304" CreationDate="2011-02-05T22:00:20.120" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While the answers already here describe &lt;em&gt;diffraction&lt;/em&gt; well. &lt;em&gt;Diffraction limit&lt;/em&gt; is most often used to describe the point at which stopping down your lens does not give you more details in relation to the pixel-size of your camera's sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you have reached the diffraction limit of your camera, ANY lens stopped beyond that aperture will give you softer results. It is directly related to the size of individual pixels, not the sensor size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On modern DSLRs, the diffraction limit will be hit between F/11 and F/16. On cameras with small sensors, it may be F/8 or even less. You'll notice that most tiny cameras do not use apertures smaller than F/8 for this very reason. Some even use a fixed aperture (F/3.5 or so) and simulate less light coming in by slipping a ND filter instead of stopping-down. Unfortunately, they actually put the simulated F-stop in the EXIF, so you need to know the camera to realize it uses an ND filter rather than a normal aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T22:00:20.120" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="8318" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8303" CreationDate="2011-02-05T22:06:14.687" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, the only Micro Four-Thirds macro current is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=125&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Leica 45mm F/2.8&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The easiest thing to adapt to Micro Four-Third are Four-Third lenses, since they are designed to work in exactly the same way with an all-electronic interface. When you adapt other lenses, you will usually lose features like autofocus or stop-down metering. Here&#xA;are all &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_lens.php?mount=43&amp;amp;macro=1&amp;amp;by=feature&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;current Four-Third macro lenses&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=118&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Zuiko 35mm F/3.5&lt;/a&gt; goes for less than $200 which is generally cheap for a lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T22:06:14.687" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8319" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8310" CreationDate="2011-02-05T22:26:47.103" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Representing the chroma (Cb Cr) in separate channels from the luma (Y) has another positive effect on compression.  Most of the visible information is in the luma channel. Human eyes tolerate both lower spatial resolution and more aggressive quantization in the chroma channels.  So an aggressively compressed image can end up consuming about 10%  of the file space for chroma, and the rest for luma, and still look decent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the end of the day it's still lossy compression.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3722" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T22:26:47.103" />
  <row Id="8320" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8306" CreationDate="2011-02-05T22:48:15.913" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it's worth pointing out that the Canon 35 f/2.0 is a full-frame lens, whereas the Nikon 35 f/1.8 is an APS-C lens. That's almost certainly the primary reason for the Canon being more expensive, even though it's marginally slower. It's probably bigger and heavier too -- for exactly the same reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, in choosing between the two, there's an extra factor to keep in mind: whether there's any chance that you would/will want to switch to a full-frame camera sometime. If so, the Canon might be a better investment despite the higher price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T22:48:15.913" />
  <row Id="8321" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8259" CreationDate="2011-02-05T23:17:28.417" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The obvious tip is to check the weather report and plan to get a spot upwind.  Having smoke behind the fireworks is much better than blocking the view (it's also not fun when ash starts to blow in your face, eyes, lens).  If there is no wind, you'll want to be ready when the first few fireworks go off.  Have the camera set on all manual settings, a few stops under exposed (since the fireworks will be adding lots of light), manual focus at infinity, mounted on the tripod, etc.  The photos will get worse towards the end of the show, so trial and error is not your friend in this situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3723" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T23:17:28.417" />
  <row Id="8322" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8304" CreationDate="2011-02-05T23:21:43.733" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This page at the Cambridge In Color site&lt;/a&gt; has a detailed technical explanation of the diffraction limit. It's also got an on-line calculator for checking whether a particular combination of aperture, camera, print size, and viewing distance is diffraction-limited or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2312" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T23:21:43.733" />
  <row Id="8323" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8324" CreationDate="2011-02-05T23:33:07.077" Score="2" ViewCount="147" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just to let it be known, I want the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ETTL Support&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The lens has a 58mm thread.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't care alot about extra features, and for the flash, I don't mind getting any kind of an off brand. I don't want to spend the $500 for Canon's flash, as I just can't imagine it's worth it... Any suggestions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-05T23:40:57.477" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T22:11:53.823" Title="Any suggestions on a ringlight flash for my new Canon 100mm 2.8 macro?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;ringlight&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8324" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8323" CreationDate="2011-02-05T23:41:41.657" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My research has lead me to looking at a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/718743-REG/Zeikos_ZE_MR26EX_Digital_TTL_Macro_Ringlight.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Zeikon Digital TTL Macro Ringlight&lt;/a&gt;, please let me know if you think it'd do the trick.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T23:41:41.657" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8325" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8323" CreationDate="2011-02-05T23:55:21.097" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/flash/140ringflash.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma Macro EM-140 SG&lt;/a&gt; is a good alternative - it's pricier but it allows you to control the lighting ratio between the left- and right-hand-side bulbs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2011-02-05T23:55:21.097" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8326" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8304" CreationDate="2011-02-06T00:58:43.227" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Diffraction limit&quot; is used in x-ray diffraction- a common experiment in material science. The Bragg equation (sin theta = wavelength/2 x crystal spacing) determines the diffraction limit (angle theta) for a given wavelength. Thus the wavelength used will limit the d-value (spacing) which can be measured. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3725" LastActivityDate="2011-02-06T00:58:43.227" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8327" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8323" CreationDate="2011-02-06T02:17:06.653" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Metz-Mecablitz-Digital-Macro-Flash/dp/B001MYLCO6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Metz Mecablitz-15&lt;/a&gt; ringflash and I quite like it and it's a well known name in flash equipment. It supports TTL for a number of camera brands, including Canon, Nikon, and Pentax and comes with a 52, 55, and 58mm lens adapter. One of the things I liked about, and I shoot Pentax, is the cross brand support which means it's still good to go if I ever switch (which, admittedly, is unlikely).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of some feature notes, by the way...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The two sides can be independently controlled.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The flash is upgradeable via USB in the event that wireless protocols change.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Amazon is listing below $350. Okay, not specifically a feature, but a very good price for a very good device.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-06T02:25:08.037" LastActivityDate="2011-02-06T02:25:08.037" />
  <row Id="8328" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-06T03:59:55.783" Score="3" ViewCount="311" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am using my S95 to take photographs of LCD computer screens which are used to display Microfilm images related to my research. Unfortunately they aren't running a normal OS, so it's not an option to take screen-shots. So far, it's working decently well, though I am running into an issue where the computer screen is reflecting a good amount of glare from the library's lighting wherever there is a black space on the screen. I've tried to reduce glare in two ways:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Adjusting the camera's angle against the screen, and using a smaller aperture to increase depth of field so that more of the image is in focus even though the top and bottom are different distances from the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Adjusting the aspect ratio so that the camera's photo is the same shape as the page I am photographing, to reduce the black space on the computer screen.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I'd like to be able to further reduce glare issues. Outside of changing the library's lighting (which I can't do), is there anything that you would suggest that I do with the camera settings?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Below is an example of one of my early shots when I was trying it out that demonstrates the glare. Thanks in advance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/vnTqE.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Example image&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3382" LastEditorUserId="3382" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-06T04:09:08.907" LastActivityDate="2011-02-06T13:27:35.097" Title="Taking photos of computer screens - reducing glare with S95" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;technique&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;&lt;glare&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="8329" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8328" CreationDate="2011-02-06T04:53:40.187" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It probably will take another person to help, or you might get creative with gaffer's tape.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Drape a black sheet of cloth over the top and sides of the monitor so no ambient light can directly hit the screen. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fire away with a helper holding up the cloth so you can shoot under it. Creative use of gaffer's tape (it's like masking tape but leaves no residue) might allow you to do without the helper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another thing that will help reduce glare is to add a polarizing filter if you have one. The downside of that is polarizing filters cost you between one and two stops of light, so you might have to increase your ISO speed, use a tripod, or increase the monitor's brightness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1514" LastActivityDate="2011-02-06T04:53:40.187" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="8330" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8328" CreationDate="2011-02-06T11:04:09.180" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Polarizers and LCDs may not be the best idea; LCD displays &lt;em&gt;work&lt;/em&gt; by polarizing light†, so knocking back the glare may not even be possible without blocking the image altogether, depending on the screen's direction of polarization and the direction of the glare source.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A hood (suggested in Greg's answer) will be your best bet -- but you can use a box rather than fabric or spend ten bucks putting together a frame out of PVC pipe or a bit of wood molding. It should only take a few seconds to set up (and should be relatively easy to explain to librarians as well). That eliminates the extra person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for keystoning, taking the time to set the camera up parallel to the screen is your best option. That will also solve your depth-of-field problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;† The backlight is initially polarized in one direction by a full-screen polarizing filter. Black pixels are black because the liquid crystal is aligned to allow polarized light through at 90 degrees to the backlight polarizer. The liquid crystal in non-black pixels (or, rather, non-black pixel segments) are electrically aligned at some angle other than 90 degrees. There are a number of strategies for aligning the polarization of the pixel segments relative to the full-screen polarizer; they are out of scope here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-06T11:04:09.180" />
  <row Id="8331" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8303" CreationDate="2011-02-06T12:26:24.930" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Micro 4/3 sensors are, well, small. That means that a &quot;true&quot; (1:1) macro lens may be overkill; one of the less-pricey 1:2 (half-life-size) designs may be more than adequate. A 1:1 lens with a small, high-resolution sensor will get you images that would count as microphotography on a full-frame SLR if both are printed at the same size with the same resolution (or displayed on the same screen). If you're looking for a cheap alternative to a microscope, well, you have that option with a true macro lens, but if you're not going to be shooting insect eyes and so on, your costs may drop a little if you include 1:2 lenses in your search.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And something that applies to macro work in general: remember that the focal length will also determine your working distance. A 35mm macro lens will only be 70mm (a little over two and a half inches) from your subject at 1:1, which can make lighting a real pain in the patook. The lens (and the camera body if you're using off-camera lighting) gets in the way, leaving you with a choice between side lighting and back lighting. A longer lens will give you far more options at any given magnification factor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-06T12:26:24.930" />
  <row Id="8332" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8328" CreationDate="2011-02-06T13:27:35.097" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the light is directly behind you, then wear a black shirt and stand between the light and the screen.  If the light is overhead, you can prop something black over top of the screen.  A piece of cardboard may do, or you may be able to use a collapsible circular reflector that has a black side.  They even make the same thing for car windshields, so you may find it cheaper/faster from an auto store.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing to keep in mind, if that reflection is always on the same side of the monitor, no matter where you hold the camera, then it's possible it's the backlight of the LCD shining through.  If that's the case, no amount of shielding will help, and you'll just have to under expose the image a little and then correct it in a photo editor as best you can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3723" LastActivityDate="2011-02-06T13:27:35.097" />
  <row Id="8333" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-06T15:46:25.480" Score="5" ViewCount="280" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to grow my home setup some, and working on finding the right background since I like portraiture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was looking at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/191645-REG/Backdrop_Alley_BA004_58x120_Velour_Backdrop.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt; and stared wondering if I should consider anything in getting it... like, should it be portable, what size it too small or big, is DIY viable, and more of the same. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, should I consider a muslin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are some things I should look for in a background for a home setup?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: i just learned there is a distinction between the flat paper looking backgrounds and the ones you can stand on. Let me then add to this question that I need it to have the length so that people stand on it to get full body shots - including shoes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-25T02:08:48.503" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T02:08:48.503" Title="What kind of backdrop works best for a home studio setup?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;studio&gt;&lt;background&gt;&lt;studio-setup&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8334" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="817" CreationDate="2011-02-06T18:03:57.023" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hiya, a group who may be able to help are Photographers with Disabilities their website can be found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photographerswithdisabilities.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.photographerswithdisabilities.com&lt;/a&gt; they have a forum which is open to the public, why not ask your question there as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3732" LastEditorUserId="2425" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-06T18:34:57.080" LastActivityDate="2011-02-06T18:34:57.080" />
  <row Id="8335" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8323" CreationDate="2011-02-06T18:07:30.887" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ray-flash.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ray Flash&lt;/a&gt;, which takes a very different approach than a traditional ring flash. Instead of providing it's own light, it takes the light from your regular strobe and bounces it around until it comes out around the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming you already have an external flash (and you can find a Ray Flash that fits your camera/flash combination), then it's a &lt;em&gt;much&lt;/em&gt; cheaper alternative than any of the dedicated ring flashes; they &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&amp;amp;field-keywords=ray+flash&amp;amp;x=0&amp;amp;y=0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sell for about $200&lt;/a&gt;. It'll also work on multiple lenses without any adapters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-02-06T18:07:30.887" />
  <row Id="8336" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8236" CreationDate="2011-02-06T18:44:14.757" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;At events with a lot going on (races, air shows, sports games) reviewing in camera and being more considerate with your shots aren't always that practical. The latter comes with experience, but even when experienced you still want to be taking a series of shots in these scenarios (guaranteed you would end up with a silly facial expression or closed eyes if you only took 1 shot of everything).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My strategy for reviewing shots just involves several passes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Delete &lt;strong&gt;obvious&lt;/strong&gt; bin shots (wildly out of focus, poor exposure, unusable composition). This pass should be pretty quick as the aim is to get rid of the obvious rubbish. This can be sped by up marking them as 'rejected' using your software and you can delete them all in one hit at the end&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Remove slightly out of focus shots. This takes longer to find the slightly out of focus stuff as you need to be reviewing at 100% to see what is truly sharp. Again, flag as rejected and delete them all at the end. While doing this as you come across sharp images, mark them as passed for later review&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;!!!Back Up Your Work!!!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This is best done several hours / a day after step 2 to give you a cooling off period and to look at the images with fresh eyes. Go through what you were left with from step 2 and flag as pass or fail each shot appropriately. If it is uninspiring enough that you don't process it - be strict with yourself and bin it because you won't make an effort to come back for it if you can't be bothered to process it now as you will have forgotten about it&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;!!!Back up your changes!!!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Process your winning shots :)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;!!!Back up your changes!!!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not a perfect process and you do have to be hard on yourself but it can work pretty well :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastActivityDate="2011-02-06T18:44:14.757" />
  <row Id="8337" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8637" CreationDate="2011-02-06T18:53:27.167" Score="8" ViewCount="206" Body="&lt;p&gt;Where can you find a good place to set up a photo exhibition, and how do you go about getting accepted into that exhibition?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T06:36:07.383" Title="How do you find a location to set up a photo exhibition?" Tags="&lt;business&gt;&lt;selling&gt;&lt;exhibiting&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8338" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8333" CreationDate="2011-02-06T19:09:13.177" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Any of them are going to work fine for a home studio, presuming you have the space to set things up. Some things to consider, however, are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Stands to hold the backdrop. It may seem a little obvious, but if you want to have flexibility in your use of backdrops, at least a basic stand is going to be something to get.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Reuse of the backdrop(s). Fancier ones, with special designs and images, are probably going to get less reuse for non-professional work unless you want all your portraits to have much the same look and feel. Basic ones, in colours such as black, white, etc. are probably going to see a lot of usage because they are flexible.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Paper has the advantage of being low cost and, in some ways, low maintenance, but eventually you run out and have to replace it, but being paper you can actually do a lot of stuff to it (like paint it, draw on it, etc.). Fabric, on the other hand, has to be cleaned and maintained, but is going to last, and you can adjust the drap to create depth or additional texture. Either option, by the way, will allow for people to stand on it, it's the length that matters there.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Your space. Background widths vary, so do you have room for 8' or 5' or more or less? No point in getting a backdrop you can't fit in the space. Same goes for ceiling height, you don't want the stand top in the shot.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Lighting. If you're working with a basic one light setup, you may end up not even seeing the background in the result! Especially true of on camera flash, which is the worst option for this kind of shooting. So, do you have the means to light the subject and the background? It's a consideration, I wouldn't invest a lot in a background I won't even see in the shot.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Do you want to do chromakey (green/blue screen) so you can do background replacement? Cloth may be the best way to go there.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are probably a ton more considerations, but I think answering many of these will help you pick better options. Bear in mind, it's not as if you're stuck with paper or cloth, you can do both and both have their places.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;DIY is possible, to some degree, mostly around the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diyphotography.net/homestudio/blz/home-made-cheap-diy-backdrop-stand&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;stands&lt;/a&gt; and basic lighting. For fabric or paper, you're buying unless you have your own paper or textile mill. Now, you can get fabric from a lot of places, but large wide panels are much harder to find at consumer oriented fabric shops (I know, I've tried). You can sew panels together, but doing that seamlessly would be a serious challenge. All in all, in my own attempts, I just came to the conclusion that it's a lot less effort to just get it from a photography store.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-02-06T19:09:13.177" />
  <row Id="8339" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8304" CreationDate="2011-02-06T19:58:20.113" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There have been some very good answers, however there are a couple details that have not been mentioned. First, diffraction always happens, at every aperture, as light bends around the edges of the diaphragm and creates an &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Airy Disk&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. The size of the airy disk, and the proportion of the disk that comprises the outer rings, and the amplitude of each wave in the outer rings, increases as the aperture is stopped down (the physical aperture gets smaller.) When you approach photography in the way Whuber mentioned in his answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Think of a scene as comprised of many&#xA;  small discrete points of light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You realize that every one of those points of light, when focused by your lens, is generating its own airy disk on the imaging medium.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Regarding Image Medium&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should also be clearly noted that the &lt;strong&gt;diffraction &lt;em&gt;limit&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; is not actually a limitation of a lens. As noted above, lenses are always creating a diffraction pattern, only the degree and extent of that pattern changes as the lens is stopped down. The &quot;limit&quot; of diffraction is a function of the imaging medium. A sensor with smaller photosites, or film with smaller grain, will have a lower limit of diffraction than those with larger photosites/grains. This is due to the fact that a smaller photosite covers &lt;em&gt;less of the airy disk area&lt;/em&gt; than a larger photosite. When the airy disk grows in size and intensity as a lens is stopped down, the airy disk affects neighboring photosites. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;diffraction limit&lt;/em&gt; is the point where airy disks grow large enough that they begin to affect more than a single photosite. Another way to look at it is when the airy disks from two point light sources resolvable by the sensor begin to merge. At a wide aperture, two point light sources imaged by a sensor may only affect single neighboring photosites. When the aperture is stopped down, the airy disk generated by each point light source grows, to the point where the outer rings of each airy disk begin to merge. This is the point where a sensor is &quot;diffraction limited&quot;, since individual point light sources no longer resolve to a single photosite...they are merging and covering more than one photosite. The point at which the center of each airy disk merges is the limit of resolution, and you will no longer be able to resolve any finer detail regardless of the aperture used. This is the diffraction cutoff frequency.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/3RxZb.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Diffraction Limitations due to Airk Disk merger&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that it is possible for a lens to out-resolve an imaging medium. In the event that the airy disks focused by a lens cover only a fraction of a photosite. In this case, even if two highly resolved point light sources generate airy disks that merge over a single photosite, the end result will be the same...the sensor will only detect a single point light regardless of the aperture. The &quot;diffraction limit&quot; of such a sensor would be higher (say f/16) than for a sensor that is able to distinctly resolve both point light sources (which might be diffraction limited at f/8). It is also possible, and &lt;em&gt;likely&lt;/em&gt; that point light sources will NOT be perfectly focused onto the center of a photosite. It is entirely plausible for an airy disk to be focused at the border between two photosites, or the junction of four photosites. In a black and white sensor or foveon sensor (stacked color sensels), that would only cause softening. In a color bayer sensor, where a square junction of 4 photosites will be capturing an alternating pattern of GRGB colors, as airy disk can affect the final color rendered by those four photosites as well as cause softening or improper resolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My Canon 450D, a 12.2mp APS-C sensor, has a diffraction limit of f/8.4. In contrast, the Canon 5D Mark II, a 21.1mp Full Frame sensor, has a diffraction limit of f/10.3. The larger sensor, despite having nearly twice as many megapixels, can go an extra stop before it encounters its diffraction limit. This is because the physical size of the photosites on the 5D II are larger than those on the 450D. (A good example of one of the numerous benefits of larger sensors.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Wrenches in the mix&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may often come across tables on the internet that specify a specific diffraction limited aperture for specific formats. I often see f/16 used for APS-C sensors, and f/22 for Full Frame. In the digital world, these numbers are generally useless. The diffraction limiting aperture (DLA) is ultimately a function of the relation of the size of a focused point of light (including the airy disk pattern) to the size of a single light sensing element on a sensor. For any given sensor size, APS-C or Full Frame, the diffraction limit will change depending on the size of the photosites. An example of this can be seen with Canon's EOS Rebel line of cameras over the years:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Camera   |   DLA&#xA;--------------------&#xA;350D     |   f/10.4&#xA;400D     |   f/9.3&#xA;450D     |   f/8.4&#xA;500D     |   f/7.6&#xA;550D     |   f/6.8&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The story should be similar for film grain size. Films with finer grain would ultimately be more susceptible to diffraction softening at lower apertures than films with larger grains.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Diffraction Cutoff Frequency&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Diffraction is often touted as an image killer, and people talk about the &quot;diffraction limit&quot; as the point at which you can no longer resolve an image &quot;usefully&quot;. On the contrary, the diffraction limit is only the point where diffraction &lt;strong&gt;starts&lt;/strong&gt; to affect an image for the particular image medium you are using. The &lt;em&gt;diffraction cutoff frequency&lt;/em&gt; is the point at which additional sharpness is impossible for a given aperture, and this is indeed a function of the lens and physical aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The formula for diffraction cutoff frequency for (perfect) optical systems is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;fc = 1 / (λ * f#) cycles/mm&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This states that the reciprocal of the wavelength of the light being focused multiplied by the f-number of the lens is the number of cycles per millimeter that can be resolved. The diffraction cutoff frequency is generally the point where resolution reaches the wavelength of the frequencies of light itself. For visible light, λ between 380-750nm, or 0.38-0.75 microns. Until the cutoff frequency has been met for a given aperture, more resolution can be achieved. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Visual Examples&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whubers sequence of images above is a decent example of the effect of diffraction, as well as the effect of optical aberrations when the lens is wide open. I think it suffers a bit from some focus shift due to spherical aberration, so I have created an animated GIF that demonstrates the effects of changing the aperture of a Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens down from its widest aperture to its narrowest, in full stops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/2094/diffractionsample.gif&quot; alt=&quot;Diffraction Sequence&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Note: The image is large, 3.8meg, so let it fully download to see the comparison of sharpness at each stop.) The image exhibits marked optical aberration when shot wide open, particularly Chromatic Aberration and some Spherical Aberration (there may be some slight purple fringing...I tried to get focus dead on.) Stopped down to f/2, CA is lessened considerably. From f/2.8 through f/8, sharpness is at its prime, with f/8 being ideal. At f/11, sharpness drops ever so slightly, due to &lt;em&gt;diffraction&lt;/em&gt;. At f/16 and particularly f/22, diffraction visibly affects image sharpness. Note that even with diffraction blurring, f/22 is still considerably sharper than f/1.4 or f/2. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-25T07:08:50.903" LastActivityDate="2011-02-25T07:08:50.903" CommentCount="11" />
  <row Id="8340" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-06T21:52:39.023" Score="10" ViewCount="294" Body="&lt;p&gt;25 years ago my Minolta camera came with a standard case in two parts. the one part wrapped around the body and never left the camera unless you changed the film. It held on with it's snug shape and secured by wrapping two little faux leather strips around the strap links on the sides of the camera. Meanwhile the part that covered the top and lens just snapped on. When you wanted to take a picture you'd unsnap instantly and flip the cover off the lens and it would hang off the body cover below and you could operate all the functions. There was even a hole for the tripod so to this day I still have that case on the old camera. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I can't find anything like this for the T2i I just ordered? The nearest thing seems to be neoprene cases but I think you still have to pull the whole camera out? I know there is more buttons and the screen on the back, but it would seam easy enough to still create a similar case? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The nearest thing I found looks to be the green case for this Special Edition Jackie Chan T2i here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.mydrivers.com/1/162/162391.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://news.mydrivers.com/1/162/162391.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or will some of the ones that I think are simply covers do the same thing as my old Minolta cover? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3043" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T05:31:30.003" Title="Camera Holster. ( where are the cases that stay on the camera?" Tags="&lt;canon-550d&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8341" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8340" CreationDate="2011-02-06T22:05:53.307" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I suspect those went out of fashion when the standard kit lens went from a compact 50mm to a relatively bulky 18-55mm zoom. Additionally, modern cameras expect one to access whole bunch of controls (including a big rear LCD).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I did find this, though: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lenscoat.com/bodyguard-clear-backsuptmsup-p-1036.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;BodyGuard Clear Back&lt;/a&gt;. It's not exactly the same but seems to fill some of the same function. There's also a product called &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cameraarmor.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Camera Armor&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, although that seems more geared at extra protection than really replacing a case/bag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And of course, there's always &lt;a href=&quot;http://cloakbags.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-02-06T22:05:53.307" />
  <row Id="8342" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8340" CreationDate="2011-02-06T22:10:51.037" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Even if not exactly the same, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://optechusa.com/soft-pouch-digital-d-series.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Op/Tech Soft Pouch&lt;/a&gt; are the closest case that I know.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I have a neoprene strap from them and it's pretty good quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also had a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kata-bags.com/productFRM2HS.asp?p_Id=335&amp;amp;Version=Photo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Shutter M from Kata&lt;/a&gt; but my camera body doesn't fit in it anymore!&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Anyway, good quality also, as always from Kata but I find it less convenient that the Soft pouch as the camera is not attached to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2807" LastActivityDate="2011-02-06T22:10:51.037" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8343" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8345" CreationDate="2011-02-06T22:52:20.673" Score="3" ViewCount="346" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8. When I have the aperture setting on the lens to 22 I can take photos. But when I change the dial to anything other than 22(lowest f/stop) then I get a flashing fEE message and r09 where the number of exposure left is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't have the manual for this lens but am just wondering if anyone knows what the issue is here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My camera is a Nikon D70S.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Billy&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2533" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T18:29:40.397" Title="Nikon 50mm f/1.8 giving me fEE error" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;prime&gt;&lt;error&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8344" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8259" CreationDate="2011-02-06T22:57:51.667" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you know the area, and the generally wind direction, try to get a place to shoot from that's 90 degrees from the wind direction. That way the wind will blow the smoke out of frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-02-06T22:57:51.667" />
  <row Id="8345" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8343" CreationDate="2011-02-06T23:00:46.860" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lenses with the aperture ring were originally designed for older SLR's which did not control aperture via the camera body. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Newer SLRs and DSLR control aperture via the body, so these older lenses must be stopped all the way down in order to be used. Your lens is working as it should, and is not defective. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To select aperture using your camera, ensure the aperture ring is set at 22 and shoot in either aperture (A) priority or manual and use the command dial and LCD screen to select the aperture you desire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3265" LastActivityDate="2011-02-06T23:00:46.860" />
  <row Id="8346" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8343" CreationDate="2011-02-06T23:03:03.803" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no problem. Its because the lens is &quot;non G&quot; version. The non-G lens have a depth-of-field control. But newer cameras require F22 because the camera controls the depth-of-field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Great lens by the way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regards&#xA;  Sigersted&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3428" LastActivityDate="2011-02-06T23:03:03.803" />
  <row Id="8347" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8340" CreationDate="2011-02-06T23:25:29.913" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;And hang below your camera acting as a nice wind catcher, ruining your steady hand :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found them to be incredibly cumbersome and a pain in the backside personally and never used them :) I think the answer will be either fashion or the 'standard zoom' kit lens replacing the 50mm as said above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you did have one, I think that it wouldn't be secure enough given the cut outs for controls on the back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastActivityDate="2011-02-06T23:25:29.913" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8348" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8350" CreationDate="2011-02-07T04:15:16.677" Score="28" ViewCount="692" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure if the title of the question captures what I mean, but it's hard to be succint in the space allowed.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose you have a picture that is not as sharp as you think it should/could be.  (And, I'm not even sure that sharp is the right word here).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can think of a number of reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;out of focus (entire frame)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;depth of field (focus on wrong element)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;motion blur (not fast enough shutter speed)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;camera shake (hand-held, shutter too slow)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you tell, by looking at a photo, what the problem might be?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, I am shooting Figuring Skating with a D90, and a Sigma 70-200mm F2.8, usually at F2.8 and at 1/320s, with auto-ISO up to 1600 (based on lighting conditions in the rink).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, at F2.8, I sometimes have DOF issues (the auto-focus grabbed the wrong element, and the parts I was interested in are not as sharp as I would like).  I can usually tell this because I see the wrong elements in focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes, the auto-focus just wacks out (and focuses on something too close, like glass, or too far, like the stands).  I can tell this because the focus is really off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other times, it isn't as easy to tell.  When the photo is not sharp, I can't tell whether the focus is just off a bit, or if it is motion blur or camera shake.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At 1/320s, I would think that motion blur for Figure Skating wouldn't be too much of an issue, but then I wouldn't think that camera shake would be much of a factor at that speed either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes I feel like it focused correctly, but by the time the shutter is released, the subject has moved enough that they are no longer in perfect focus.  Is that possible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What would be telltale signs of bad focus vs. camera shake vs. motion blur?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there ways to test/compensate for this?  (I've just bought a monopod to try to reduce camera shake).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some photos of Synchronized Skating: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/seanmckinnon/sets/72157625797327942&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Winterfest 2011&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some photos of Figure Skating: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/seanmckinnon/sets/72157625931765778/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Celebration On Ice 2010&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an example of a &quot;bad&quot; photo:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/8raek.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an example of a &quot;better&quot; photo:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Oqxel.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neither are great shots, but the first is softer for sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="227" LastEditorUserId="227" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-08T00:56:55.013" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T00:56:55.013" Title="Focus problem vs. motion blur vs. camera shake - how to tell the difference?" Tags="&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;sharpness&gt;&lt;camera-shake&gt;&lt;motion-blur&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="8349" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-07T04:34:50.970" Score="1" ViewCount="103" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a way to get the component images corresponding Y, Cb, Cr in photoshop. I just need to combine them in layers to see how they form the original image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3720" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-07T19:36:48.127" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T19:36:48.127" Title="Get components stream Y,Cb and Cr in photoshop" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;jpeg&gt;&lt;ycbcr&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="8350" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8348" CreationDate="2011-02-07T04:49:08.183" Score="24" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both [subject] motion blur and camera shake will have a directionality to them. If you can see more than one direction of motion, it's you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Figure skaters can move pretty quickly, but 30mph is trucking along pretty darned quickly (even when setting up for something like a triple-triple combination), and at 1/320s, 30mph translates to just a little over one and a half inches of movement during the exposure. If the skater is moving towards you or away from you (within a few degrees), that doesn't translate to enough motion to give much of a radial motion blur (due to apparent size change) or give the subject enough time to escape your DOF unless you are framed very tightly. Overall fuzziness is more likely a focus error (or it's telling you that your camera's predictive autofocus is not up to the task).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looked at from the side, though, that one and a half inches is a lot of lateral displacement, and it will cause a significant blur -- but that blur will have an obvious directionality to it. The same thing applies to spins and jumps, except that you'll see the axis of motion staying relatively in focus while the distal portions of the skater blur a bit (which is an effect you probably want to capture a lot of the time). A camel spin is just about the only spin you can hope to freeze.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If linear motion blur is more than an inch and a half, or if it's got a &quot;hook&quot; to it, then it has to be camera motion. You just can't move that fast on picks, but at 200mm, a little bit of camera motion translates to a lot of linear motion at the subject plane. It could be from panning too quickly or too slowly, from the arena temperature, or from coffee used to compensate for arena temperature. (For those not familiar with the environment, community arenas tend to be cold throughout -- it's expensive to maintain a cold-on-the-ice, warm-in-the-stands environment.) And if my experience is still valid, figure skating tends to happen at ungodly times except when a major meet is scheduled -- it helps to be wide awake without being wired on caffeine. Your monopod will help a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T04:49:08.183" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8351" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8348" CreationDate="2011-02-07T05:03:31.353" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, you can tell what went wrong:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;out of focus (entire frame)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This can be a problem because of close-focus, i.e., the lens and camera never did find something to lock onto before you fired and was focusing ahead of everything in the scene. Sometimes this is because your lens focuses too slow, sometimes it's because there wasn't enough light to provide enough contrast to allow the camera to lock-on so it did it's seek-cycle, trying to find something, then gave up, AND then you fired. You'll KNOW if you did this, and will cuss yourself, but we all do it. Once. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a close subject, it might be too close and the lens can't focus close enough. Move back, or tell the subject to step closer to the canyon behind them. It &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; be the result of your lens being set to not allow it's closest focusing range because it slows the seek. Canon's 70-200L f2.8 has a switch to control that, and it occasionally caug... strike that. I never had that problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It can even be the result of a damaged body or lens mount, making the image never focus on the sensor/film correctly - I've been there and done that and it was really annoying to diagnose, then get fixed, and, with a pro-body and lens, can be very expensive. Uh. Yeah. I did that running to get away from a bull while shooting pro-rodeo and flipped over the fence. Broke my Nikon D1x and 70-200f 2.8 at the same time but the bull didn't get me. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;depth of field (focus on wrong element)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is easier to diagnose. Something in the image is in focus, but it's not what you wanted. Sometimes it's the result of having a different sensor chosen than you thought. My favorite stunt. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It can happen because you need continuous focus because your subject is moving toward or away from you, and the camera locked focus, instead of following the subject. This is a problem that bites all sports-action photographers periodically, usually after they have been shooting something else, or loaned their camera to their wife or girlfriend, who messed with the settings. And, no, I have NEVER experienced THAT. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;motion blur (not fast enough shutter speed)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Usually this shows up as the main subject is a streak in the scene, but could be that their extremities are blurred if they were moving hands, feet or maybe their head. The torso moves less than the other parts and usually is not (as) blurry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An alternate, but much more desirable result, is when you are panning with the subject, fire, realize the shutter is taking too long, but you keep panning. Your background will blur but the subject will still look good. I used this a lot for my sports photography - doing it deliberately, not like Peewee Herman, where &quot;I meant to do that.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;camera shake (hand-held, shutter too slow)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This occurs most when you're using a long-lens in lower-light. Generally the motion blur is equally squiggly all over the frame. If the problem occurs with a still-life or landscape and you have IS, you might be able to fix it by turning that on, unless it was already on. A tripod could help. Set up some big strobes and light the heck out of it. Increase your ISO, open the aperture more... do something to increase the available light hitting the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: Regarding learning how to pan&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Panning is really easy, it just takes some practice and knowing a trick. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a good way to practice: Set your camera to its shutter-priority mode (whatever it's called in your camera) and set 1/60 as your exposure time. Using a long-ish lens, in the 200mm range, stand a little ways from a busy road, maybe 50 feet, and as cars pass try to get a photo of a wheel or the door handle. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The trick to panning correctly is to sync to the speed of your subject quickly, so face the roadway, then pivot at your waist/hips to view the approaching vehicle. As soon as you see it, start tracking its motion, then, as it nears being right in front of you, fire and continue panning. You should see your target in the view finder before you fire, and it should still be there when the shutter opens again. If so, you were panning at the right speed for the subject and you should have little to no motion blur of the target. If the target wasn't in the same place as it was when the shutter released then you didn't pan smoothly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's important to stand in a balanced position, at least until you've been doing it a while and it's all second nature. Similar to shooting a rifle, you want your feet about as far apart as your shoulders. Face the road where you intend to release the shutter, not where you'll see the car first. You need to pivot smoothly from the hips as you learn, because swinging your arms or rotating your upper-body will make the camera rotate, leading to photos with verticals that are not vertical, leading to post-processing, which is no fun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, again, the goal is to have the target, whatever you're shooting, be in the viewfinder before and after the shutter opens and closes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1514" LastEditorUserId="1514" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-07T22:50:34.030" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T22:50:34.030" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8352" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8340" CreationDate="2011-02-07T05:31:30.003" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Searching the term &quot;leather&quot; and also &quot;ever ready&quot; (as suggested) has led me to find a few possible cases. The most plausible actually is from canon and listed as an accessory for the T2i. It is very highly reviewed, but it's expensive. I don't think it works quite like the old minolta case, but essentially it can be attached and not totally separate from the camera strap. Funny though  I can't find a single photo of one with a camera in it, or even open to see what the 'back' looks like! &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-2748B002-EH19-L-Semi-Hard/dp/B00130VLZ4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-2748B002-EH19-L-Semi-Hard/dp/B00130VLZ4&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And here are a couple more that look promising on ebay, but I've no idea if they are really workable, so purchasing would be a gamble: &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cgi.ebay.com/Leather-Camera-Case-Bag-EOS-550D-Rebel-T2i-case-/120647586855?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&amp;amp;hash=item1c17281427&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://cgi.ebay.com/Leather-Camera-Case-Bag-EOS-550D-Rebel-T2i-case-/120647586855?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&amp;amp;hash=item1c17281427&lt;/a&gt; &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cgi.ebay.com/Leather-Case-Bag-Canon-Rebel-T2i-T1i-XSi-18-55mm-BK-/230576474757?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&amp;amp;hash=item35af6dca85&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://cgi.ebay.com/Leather-Case-Bag-Canon-Rebel-T2i-T1i-XSi-18-55mm-BK-/230576474757?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&amp;amp;hash=item35af6dca85&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for all the comments and other product suggestions&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3043" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T05:31:30.003" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8353" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8358" CreationDate="2011-02-07T05:34:13.137" Score="1" ViewCount="94" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have an Epson v500 and whenever I go to scan negatives I turn digital ice on and press preview. After the preview is done digital ice gets automatically turned off. Is this normal and should I be manually re-turning on digital ice before scanning fullsize?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3744" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T07:55:06.553" Title="epson v500 digital ice turns off automatically." Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;negative-scanner&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8354" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8348" CreationDate="2011-02-07T06:00:39.593" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Out of curiosity, are you using any kind of Servo AF? When photographing moving subjects, particularly those that may move closer/farther away while you pan and frame the shot, you should be using an AF mode that continually focuses. (I think the D90 calls such a mode AF-C.)  Usually when using such a mode, the camera will lock focus onto something, then try to maintain focus on that subject so long as the shutter button is at least half down. This is either done with basic contrast and shape matching, or possibly more advanced AI algorithms. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Usually, higher end cameras, such as the Canon 7D or 1D series or the Nikon D7000 or D3X, will have much more advanced AF systems that are specifically designed to track and maintain tracking on a subject. These cameras come equipped with much higher AF points (the D90 has 11 w/ 1 cross type, while the D7000 has 39 w/ 9 cross type w/ 3D tracking, the 7D has 19 cross-type or 63 adaptive zones grouped into 5 selectable areas, the Canon 1D IV has 45 w/ 39 cross type, and the D3X has 51 w/ 15 cross type). More points, particularly more AF cross-type points (these detect phase in both the horizontal and vertical planes or in both diagonal planes, rather than just the vertical plane), contribute to AF lock-on performance and AF tracking performance. The more control you have over the selected point, the more you will be able to control how and where your camera locks onto focus. With an AF system like the 7D, you have the ability to select dynamic zones that will automatically focus on subjects only in that zone, or even adapt the zone as the subject moves. The Nikon D7000 has similar technology that it calls 3D tracking (although I am not sure if it has the adaptive zones.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The D90 has only a slightly more advanced AF system than my (now rather dated) Canon 450D, which has a 9-point AF system. While it does have &quot;3D tracking&quot;, with so few AF points, and only cross-type point (usually, only the center point is cross type), the success rate for AF locking onto the subject you intend it to lock onto, and maintaining that lock, is considerably lower than AF systems designed to lock onto and track the subject you intend to be in focus throughout the frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While it is possible to determine if an image has locked incorrectly, knowing that you missed a shot because AF missed its lock doesn't help you replace the lost moment. If you do a lot of action photography, shooting things like figure skating, you might want to look into a camera with a better AF system. You probably won't find a camera with such an AF system for less than about $1200, however if it means you nail those perfect shots far more frequently than you do now, and nail them with clearer focus than you do now, that $1200 may be well spent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T06:00:39.593" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8355" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8359" CreationDate="2011-02-07T06:22:47.793" Score="7" ViewCount="98" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently hired a friend to help me edit some pictures in Lightroom, but we need to use the same catalog. Is there a way for both of us to use the catalog simultaneously on two different computers, make edits, and have the changes synchronize between our computers?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3549" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T09:31:09.310" Title="Is there a way for two users to simultaneously use the same Lightroom catalog?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;workflow&gt;&lt;multi-user&gt;&lt;synchronize&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="8356" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8343" CreationDate="2011-02-07T06:32:42.937" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8252/why-must-i-lock-the-aperture-on-my-af-lens-on-my-nikon-d40/8256#8256&quot;&gt;my answer here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;TL;DR: the D70s can't read the aperture from the lens ring, it needs to have the aperture locked in a known setting so the body can set the aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T06:32:42.937" />
  <row Id="8357" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8310" CreationDate="2011-02-07T06:57:54.133" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A JPEG may start out with 8 bits per R, G and B channel, but when stored in the JPEG it is stored very differently, where there is no real &quot;bit depth&quot; but instead values are stored as frequency coefficients of a given precision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In JPEG what's more relevant is the &lt;strong&gt;quantization rate&lt;/strong&gt;, which affects how much information is thrown away during the quantization stage of compression and thus how precise each coefficient is.  This quantization rate is set by the &quot;quality&quot; setting when you save a JPEG in photoshop.  It is not related to the bit depth as in a raster image though, and you could even say that a JPEG image doesn't have a bit depth while in JPEG format, although JPEG encoders/decoders start with/end with a 24-bit raster image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other major factor relevant in saving a JPEG is the &lt;strong&gt;chroma sub-sampling type&lt;/strong&gt;.  In a JPEG, you have the option of halving the horizontal, or both the horizontal and vertical, resolution of the color (Pr and Pb) channels relative to the luminance (lightness) channel.  When decompressing, the color channels are interpolated and in most subject matter it doesn't make a huge amount of difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a rough summary of how an image gets turned into a JPEG.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;RGB values are converted to Y, Pb, Pr values.  The YPbPr color space is better suited for efficient compression because it keeps the luminance information, which carries the most detail, in only one channel.  This conversion is a simple arithmetic operation which is perfectly reversible, apart from if there is any rounding error.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If using any chroma-subsampling (in other words, using anything other than 4:4:4 mode), then the vertical and/or horizontal resolution of the Pb and Pr channels only are halved.  Thus these channels will have different pixel dimensions to the luminance channel.  This leads to permanent loss of resolution in the color channels.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;For each channel, the image is divided up into blocks of 8 pixels by 8 pixels, which gives 64 linear values for each such block in each channel.  If a channel is not a multiple of 8 pixels in either dimension, then the edge pixels are repeated (and will be thrown out when decompressing - thus JPEG compression is always more efficient with dimensions that are multiples of 8 pixels, or 16 if you factor in chroma subsampling).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The 64 values in each block undergo a transformation from the space domain into the frequency domain, in this case called a discrete cosine transformation.  You end up with 64 coefficients, each representing the amplitude of a particular frequency map over the area taken by that block.  The first value is the lowest frequency which is effectively the average value of all the pixels, right up until the last values which describe the highest frequency component of the block.  The earlier values all deviate a lot more, and are more important to the look of the final image than the later values in a block.  This operation is perfectly reversible as long as you use enough precision.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Then there is the quantization step, where each of the 64 coefficients you got to in the previous step is divided by some number (called the quantization factor), and the remainder is thrown out.  This is where the precision of the samples are affected the most, but it's where you get the huge space savings from JPEG compared to lossless compression.  Since everything is in the frequency domain since the previous transformation, this loss of accuracy does its best job at preserving perceptual image quality than simply reducing bit depth/accuracy of pixels would before this transformation.  The reverse of this procedure is simply to multiply by the same number you divided the coefficients by, but of course since you threw the remainders away you end up with less precision of the coefficients.  This results in permanent loss of quality, but not on a pixel-by-pixel basis but affecting the 8x8 block as a whole according to the frequency pattern of those coefficients.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;After this quantization it's typical for many of the later, less significant coefficients to be zero, so these are thrown out.  Then a (lossless) variable-length coding routine encodes all the remaining coefficients in an efficient way, even though each one may use a different number of bits.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's impossible to say that a certain quantization factor is equivalent to a certain bit depth since quantization does not give banding like when you reduce the bit depth, but instead gives an overall perceptual loss in detail, starting in the parts where you'd notice it less because it's of such low amplitude for its frequency.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-11T02:39:49.453" LastActivityDate="2011-04-11T02:39:49.453" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="8358" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8353" CreationDate="2011-02-07T07:55:06.553" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What type of film are you scanning?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ICE uses an infrared channel to detect defects, and some films (notably ALL traditional B+W films and kodachrome) won't work with the technology. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you've set the scanner to B+W film it may automatically disable ICE?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3478" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T07:55:06.553" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8359" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8355" CreationDate="2011-02-07T09:31:09.310" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, because of the internal database you can't really just merge the libraries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can export parts of the library and re-integrate that, it would be the way to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T09:31:09.310" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8360" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8225" CreationDate="2011-02-07T09:45:19.390" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use a Sigma DSLR for IR work, as you can remove the internal IR filter to allow IR wavelengths to pass and then use a filter atop your lens and then put it back when you want to switch back to color photography.  A suggestion I would make is to look first at using gels - they are very cheap flexible sheets that cut IR (I have a Wratten 89b gel), and you can use them in Cokin-P square filter holders which in turn are also very cheap (the gels may require some cutting down to fit in a holder).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also try shooting without any filters at all, it can be especially interesting around dusk to gain more light - here's an example which I believe used the camera with no IR filter whatsoever (no internal and no external filter):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ckpFi.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T09:45:19.390" />
  <row Id="8361" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1455" CreationDate="2011-02-07T13:14:19.363" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's what happens when you take a photo, and where RAW and JPEG fit in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The shutter opens and light enters the camera.  The light is filtered through a bayer color filter so each pixel on the sensor only receives either red, green or blue light.  This is required because without it the sensor is monochrome.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The light hits the sensor (often through tiny microlenses which help gather more light into the sensitive part of the pixel).  It's then converted into millions of analogue impulses, each one corresponding to a pixel.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The analogue impulses are amplified to the correct amount according to the sensitivity (ISO rating) selected and then they are converted into digital values using an analogue to digital converter, at a certain bit depth.  How this happens can depend on the type of sensor.    At this stage you have millions of (typically 12- or 14-bit) digital values in a stream.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The camera needs to determine the correct black level, since the sensor will not necessarily return zero for pixels that are black.  It often does this by reading sensor data from some edge pixels which are permanently covered so light can't reach them.  Then it subtracts an appropriate value from the other results.  It may do other corrections on the digital data - it doesn't try to correct for noise, other than background voltage generated by the sensor.  Sometimes the digital values may then further be multiplied or divided in order to reach the right sensitivity value, if the sensor cannot naturally apply that much/little gain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This is where RAW data is extracted.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you shoot RAW, all the steps below have to happen in your RAW software.  Otherwise, they're done by the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Each value is in fact either a red, green or blue value.  However, you need each pixel to have all three colours - red, green and blue - for the final image.  Therefore, a demosaicing algorithm has to guess the other two colour parts for each pixels, and it does this based on knowledge of surrounding pixels.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Red, green and blue in the bayer filter are not necessarily the same hue as red, green and blue in standard SRGB colour space.  The camera then does colour correction to convert the colours into the desired colour space, which is usually SRGB.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;White balance correction is applied to correct for different colour temperatures of light sources while taking the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Gamma correction is applied which converts from the linear values to gamma corrected values as required by digital image files.  This correction is not a straight gamma correction; a contrast curve is applied to ensure that highlights and blacks curve off nicely.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;An appropriate amount of sharpening and noise reduction are applied to enhance the image and try to suppress annoying noise.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The resulting image data is compressed as a JPEG.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This is where a JPEG file would be generated.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that within the RAW file, the camera embeds a whole lot of metadata, with all the information necessary to do the extra processing steps later according to the camera's settings.  RAW software can then choose to follow this or ignore it.  It also embeds a small JPEG file into the RAW file, which it can then use when playing back the image in the in-camera &quot;play&quot; mode.  This embedded JPEG adds a little to the size of RAW files but it means the camera doesn't have to apply all that processing every time the image is viewed in play mode.  RAW processing software on computers largely ignores the embedded JPEG, though some software may use it for a fast preview mode or for generating fast thumbnails.  It is generally a fairly low quality JPEG, good enough for previewing only.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-07T14:30:38.003" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T14:30:38.003" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8362" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8349" CreationDate="2011-02-07T13:34:34.900" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First thing to show up in Google was a link to a Gimp plugin called &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://docs.gimp.org/en/plug-in-decompose-registered.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Decompose&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.  You'll probably see an equivalent for Photoshop.  They have a corresponding recompose as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, there are two concepts to keep in mind: Image &quot;Mode&quot; and Layers.  The Image &quot;Mode&quot; has to do with whether the layers of your color image are split into RGB, Grayscale (one layer), CMYK, or YCbCr.  The first step you need to do is to change your picture's mode if necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After that, go to the Layers control panel and you will see three tabs.  You want the &quot;Channels&quot; tab.  That will have one channel per component with the slightly different look due to the way the channel is interpreted.  For example, you may find you get better results by applying curves to &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; the Y (luminance) channel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3631" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T13:34:34.900" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8363" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8276" CreationDate="2011-02-07T15:19:08.243" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know of only two ways to really control noise: correct exposure and more pixels. I know this sounds snotty, but it's true. Use logic when you set up. Correct lighting means bracketing; more pixels means framing: frame the shot, zoom the lens and shoot again, or better, if you can, move closer or further away. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3749" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T15:19:08.243" />
  <row Id="8364" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-07T15:35:21.883" Score="5" ViewCount="182" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I haven't imported my RAW files into Lightroom with the sidecar files attached, how can I save/export the file so that another person can open the file and not have to re-do all my work?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3751" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-07T16:49:01.967" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T07:03:12.193" Title="How do I export RAW files from Lightroom?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;raw&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="8365" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8364" CreationDate="2011-02-07T16:04:46.533" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Probably one of the easier ways is to convert the file to DNG, which will allow the changes to be embedded in the file. Adobe has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Lightroom/3.0/Using/WS0700C48D-7ACD-4639-9825-CCB6A22C0056.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;writeup&lt;/a&gt; on how to do it. It does mean, however, that the recipient must have software that can handle DNG, but there are both commercial and free platforms that can do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T16:04:46.533" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8366" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6061" CreationDate="2011-02-07T16:20:28.953" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I suggest removing the lens and using it for pinhole photography! There are many many sites that explain how to make a pinhole (needle hole through tinfoil + taping it to cardstock and the camera itself works well for my dslr).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be prepared to experiment with different sized pinholes and multiple exposure times. it's fun!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This technique can be coupled with some of the above, if by some misfortune you ruin the lens or focusing train when disassembling the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3462" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T16:20:28.953" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-07T16:20:28.953" />
  <row Id="8367" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6061" CreationDate="2011-02-07T16:48:39.737" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For an old film camera try star trails, if you have access to a good dark sky site. I have also had some fun taking night landscapes with the moon providing the light. When your exposure time goes past 20 minutes a film camera is a must! (no dark noise and no battery to die)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2916" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T16:48:39.737" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-07T16:48:39.737" />
  <row Id="8368" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8343" CreationDate="2011-02-07T17:00:41.960" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have the same lens; use it on my D70.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Answer is really simple -&#xA;The camera requires that any acceptable lens be set at the smallest aperture for automatic exposure. The camera will open the aperture as necessary. If you use the manual mode, you won't get the fEE error message at any aperture, but you won't get auto exposure either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3753" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T17:00:41.960" />
  <row Id="8369" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8073" CreationDate="2011-02-07T17:13:58.923" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As stage photog for a outdoor music fest, I've run into a lot of inclement weather. Tyler's answer is great if you've planned ahead. Similarly, I've used the plastic bag (gallon freezer bags are excellent, as are grocery store bags) approach in an emergency by tearing a hole in the bottom and sliding it over the lens and holding it place with the lens hood. The bag opening allows space to hold the camera while keeping it dry. If the bag extends slightly into the edge of the frame. I zoom out a shade to avoid vignetting the subject. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3753" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T17:13:58.923" />
  <row Id="8370" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8073" CreationDate="2011-02-07T17:31:59.297" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just to add to the above -- keep a stash of silica gel dessicants in your bag, next to your lenses and the camera body. Very handy to absorb moisture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3754" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T17:31:59.297" />
  <row Id="8371" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8394" CreationDate="2011-02-07T17:41:41.477" Score="9" ViewCount="713" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are hundreds of web sites with tips of building a DYI soft box or light tent, and it looks like people are using almost anything as the diffuser material, from white plastic bags to old t-shirts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I take a common household item that I might want to try to use as a diffuser, it is fairly easy to see how much it scatters light, how much it reflects light, etc. However, it is a lot more tricky to estimate how it affects the colours: if there is a slight colour cast, or if the diffuser blocks certain wavelengths. As we know, what looks like white to a human eye is not necessarily perfectly white...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore I would like to know: &lt;strong&gt;which materials are good as diffusers and which materials should I avoid&lt;/strong&gt;? Are there any useful rules of thumb in selecting the diffuser (besides experimenting with various materials)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In particular, if I wanted to actually invest $5 in a diffuser, what kind of material should I buy? I would prefer a paper-like material, something that resembles wax paper or tracing paper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="247" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T15:48:12.547" Title="Diffuser material for DIY softbox/light tent" Tags="&lt;lighting-modifiers&gt;&lt;diy&gt;&lt;softbox&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="8372" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-07T17:44:52.810" Score="2" ViewCount="137" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a couple of strobe packages on Ebay that I'm looking at. We have a budget, but don't want to have buyers remorse either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is between getting three 250W strobes or three 180W strobes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The application is in our basement (which doesn't have amazing lighting to begin with), but is in an enclosed area, so the light will be focused.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you have any suggestions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;EDIT:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://cgi.ebay.ca/750W-STROBE-STUDIO-FLASH-LIGHT-KIT-LIGHTING-PHOTOGRAPHY-/390169597745?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&amp;amp;hash=item5ad7eb9731&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ebay Item&lt;/a&gt; that I'm looking at. Since budget is the majority shareholder in this decision, unfortunately we can't be spending thousands on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1310" LastEditorUserId="1310" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-07T19:19:45.090" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T02:18:34.580" Title="Looking at Strobe Package on Ebay, Need suggestion on Strobe Wattage" Tags="&lt;studio-lighting&gt;&lt;strobes&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="8373" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8343" CreationDate="2011-02-07T18:29:40.397" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;All of the above are correct to a point. What you have to do is lock the smallest (in this case, f22) aperture in place using the tiny black slider switch on the right side of the lens (as you view the lens from the top when it is one your camera). That allows the camera to set the correct aperture when you are on auto, and keeps you from accidentally changing the aperture and causing an error message. When you want to control the aperture, as in the manual and aperture priority modes, just move that switch to the unlocked position.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3757" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T18:29:40.397" />
  <row Id="8374" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8348" CreationDate="2011-02-07T18:37:33.803" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You might also try a smaller aperture--it could be that your particular lens is not at its sharpest when wide open, and that could be worsened and made more evident by your trying to capture a figure in motion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3757" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T18:37:33.803" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8375" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6061" CreationDate="2011-02-07T18:37:37.237" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If it can be controlled with gPhoto: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gphoto.org/proj/libgphoto2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.gphoto.org/proj/libgphoto2/&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;you could do all sorts of fun stuff:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;make a photo booth&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;set it up for super long time lapse&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;turn it into a security cam&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if you've got a little extra money, get a gps unit and a weather balloon and send it into space!:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Camera-Space-Photos-Earth-Balloon,news-6255.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Camera-Space-Photos-Earth-Balloon,news-6255.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3744" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T18:37:37.237" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-07T18:37:37.237" />
  <row Id="8376" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8348" CreationDate="2011-02-07T18:48:00.947" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Camera shake is the easiest to narrow down with simple tests. Take test shots of a static subject with something that makes it easy to measure sharpness (books on a bookcase). Take bursts at decreasing shutter speeds and see how far you can get while maintaining acceptable sharpness. With a long non-VR lens you might be able to get down to 1/60s before shake is an issue. With a VR lens maybe down around 1/15s. Try it handheld and with the monopod, that will give you a baseline to go off of. If you are shooting faster than your baseline then you need to worry about motion blur and your focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3758" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T18:48:00.947" />
  <row Id="8377" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8372" CreationDate="2011-02-07T19:07:19.740" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can you give us an idea of your budget, and what you're looking at?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You get what you pay for holds true for strobes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a few caveats to strobes, which makes this a difficult question to answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Not all wattage ratings are the same.&lt;/strong&gt; Just because a strobe is rated at 250W doesn't mean it actually is. Especially when buying from Ebay only companies, there is no real way to verify the claim. If you plan on doing simple bang-bang shooting, you may find that 250W occurs only after a waiting a while. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Color consistency.&lt;/strong&gt; Cheaper strobes will not offer consistent lighting color from shot to shot. This makes it &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; difficult to take studio shots, because for each shot you will have different light, which makes post processing more time consuming. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Dangers of cheap equipment.&lt;/strong&gt; Many of the cheaper ebay only items are made in china with very little safety oversight. Strobes use a lot of power, and shoddier ones may present a major fire hazzard.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just for reference, I have 3 AB800's which are rated at 320 W/s which I use in my basement studio, and while they can get bright, there are some settings in which they can't get bright enough. Generally speaking, the more wattage you have, the further away you can move your strobes. For close placement strobes, 250 might be okay, but if you use a softbox, and/or move your strobes behind your camera, that wont be enough to illuminate your subject at low/iso, higher apertures. You can always bump your ISO levels up, but I really try to use my camera at the lowest possible ISO for my studio work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T19:07:19.740" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8378" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8372" CreationDate="2011-02-07T19:07:59.927" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not knowing what you are looking at doing, all I can do is refer you to this article:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-slr-guide.com/studio-strobes.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.digital-slr-guide.com/studio-strobes.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm thinking, based on the information in that article, that you'll want the larger 250W strobes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3631" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T19:07:59.927" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8379" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8364" CreationDate="2011-02-07T19:12:16.740" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My advice would also be to use DNG as DNG is a raw format.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I believe that it if you tell Lightroom to write the chances to XMP it will create the sidecar file if needed, so rather than exporting all you need to do is right click, then show in Finder (or Explorer if you're using Windows) and then find the sidecar file.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T19:12:16.740" />
  <row Id="8380" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8349" CreationDate="2011-02-07T19:13:13.853" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't believe so -- about the closest Photoshop supports would be CIE L*a*b* (aka CIELAB) color space. From a mathematical viewpoint, the numbers you get with them don't match up at all&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, but to simply look at it and get an idea of how those channels combine into a picture, it's probably close enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get to this, you'd start by going to &lt;code&gt;image | mode&lt;/code&gt; and selecting &quot;Lab Color&quot;. Then to view the individual channels, go to &lt;code&gt;Window | Channels&lt;/code&gt;, and you can click the &quot;eyeball&quot; next to each channel to make that channel visible or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;In CIELAB, the color space is treated as a cylinder. The three numbers define a coordinate as the distance along the cylinder from bottom to top, an angle of rotation around the cylinder, and the distance out from the center of the cylinder. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In YCrCb, the color space is treated as a cube. The Y coordinate defines the distance long the cube from top to bottom (almost identical to the L coordinate in CIELAB). Cr and Cb, however, define distances along the x and y coordinates of a plane at that height in the cube. This makes the numbers quite a bit different, even though the channels are otherwise roughly similar in nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T19:13:13.853" />
  <row Id="8381" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8371" CreationDate="2011-02-07T19:17:24.613" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;White tracing paper, or white tissue paper (used for wrapping) works really well. I found that tracing paper was more expensive than white tissue paper, so I went with the later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With regards to color cast, by using a greycard, and your camera's white balance setting, you can get around most basic color casts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The downside to paper is that it's very easy to tear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T19:17:24.613" />
  <row Id="8382" PostTypeId="6" CreationDate="2011-02-07T20:55:31.507" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll go ahead and nominate myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that I'm pretty well qualified, as I've been serving as a moderator pro tem through the early stages of the site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a moderator I try to stay out of the way and let the community take action in most cases.  That said, I also try to stay as active as possible on the site, and step in whenever there is a need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-08T13:08:56.007" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T13:08:56.007" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-07T20:55:31.507" />
  <row Id="8383" PostTypeId="6" CreationDate="2011-02-07T21:29:31.867" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll throw my lot in for moderator as well. I really love this community, and the people here. I like the atmosphere we've created, and the never ending technical and philosophical discussions. I hope to continue serving and nurturing this great, if small, community.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been moderating Photo-SE since it entered beta, and I am well versed in the community, its nuances, and the tools and tactics of moderating. I generally try to stay out of the way, however I will always respond in one way or another to moderator requests, even if I don't take any specific action. Just to keep the community or the flagger in the loop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also think it is important to nurture our membership, and I try on a daily basis to find newcomer questions and answers, and when they are deserving, help boost our new active members rep so they can become fully contributing participants of our community. Along the same lines, I try to withhold my own answers and give those active newcomers a chance to participate and gain some recognition. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-10T01:47:35.653" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T01:47:35.653" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-07T21:29:31.867" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8384" PostTypeId="6" CreationDate="2011-02-07T21:55:00.203" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As one of the serving &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.photo.stackexchange.com/q/223/21&quot;&gt;pro tempore moderator&lt;/a&gt; I would like to formally stand as a moderator in the 2011 elections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am one of the most active users on the site (I've only missed a single day since the beta started).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I try to maintain a civil and cordial tone at all times&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I have been keen to build the community having set up &lt;a href=&quot;http://twitter.com/photogangle&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the site's twitter account&lt;/a&gt;, achieved the site building tags like &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/badges/59/announcer&quot;&gt;Announcer&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/badges/44/electorate&quot;&gt;Electorate&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/badges/48/altruist&quot;&gt;Altruist&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I have almost all of the site-building badges (except for Electorate and Taxonomist; I'm eight days away from Fanatic)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I'm active over on &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.photo.stackexchange.com/users/21/rowland-shaw&quot;&gt;Meta&lt;/a&gt; and in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/14/photographic-memories&quot;&gt;Chat room&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-07T21:55:00.203" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T21:55:00.203" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-07T21:55:00.203" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8385" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7370" CreationDate="2011-02-07T22:07:31.113" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My back up routine is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Copy&lt;/strong&gt; all images from card to Lightroom (converting to DNG on the way). Copy means that if there is a computer/Lightroom problem I have a copy of the files until I next use that card.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Select the option to copy images to a second location, I used a NAS for this, this is my archive copy.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I have set Lightroom up so that it prompts me to check, optimize and &lt;strong&gt;backup&lt;/strong&gt; the catalogue each time I exit, this back up goes to my NAS.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I never delete any images on the Archive drive, but I process and clear down working images on my Mac, but this is continually backed up by Time Machine to a Time Capsule.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;After every big upload (or on Wednesdays) I sync my Archive to one of two external drives and use a separate back up application to back up my home folder to this drive. At least one of these drives are stored off site in case of fire/burglary etc. (I used to use Mozy for this, but my image library was getting too big for this to be feasible anymore.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;All of my important images (anything taken for a client or rated 3* or above in Lightroom) are exported to my website (Photoshelter) as a full resolution jpeg.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Overkill? Possibly, but I really don't like losing files!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastEditorUserId="2833" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-07T22:12:58.627" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T22:12:58.627" />
  <row Id="8386" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8323" CreationDate="2011-02-07T22:11:53.823" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are you sure you want a special ring or macro flash rig? Many photographers &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.inspiring-photography.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1399&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;get great results with an ordinary speedlight and a simple bracket to hold it in a strategic position&lt;/a&gt;. That arrangement may be cheaper than a specialty ring light and certainly is more flexible, as you can also use that speedlight to do anything else a speedlight is good for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2312" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T22:11:53.823" />
  <row Id="8387" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-07T22:50:58.813" Score="4" ViewCount="133" Body="&lt;p&gt;I pretty much use Manual mode (in my Nikon D40) and learning quite a lot from it. Though I understand &quot;Metering&quot; for correct exposure, I've trouble understanding it while using Flash (both in-built as well as external flash, SB-600)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Say in a medium size room having few friends of mine with single source of light, the meter says, exposure is underexposed. I bring it back to 'correct' position my tweaking ISO, Aperture and Shutter Speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that makes sense only with &quot;existing&quot; light in the room. But I'm going to take the photo &quot;with flash&quot;. How metering works on such scenario.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3761" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-07T23:47:39.037" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T23:47:39.037" Title="Metering - How to account for the light from the flash" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;metering&gt;&lt;manual-mode&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="8388" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8387" CreationDate="2011-02-07T22:59:02.473" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on a couple of things, but basically there are a few scenarios. I'll explain first what they are, and then why you might choose one over the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Using the Flash as a primary light source&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If flash is your primary light source, and you have ETTL (Or whatever Nikon's equivalent is), then what will happen is your flash will become your dominant light source, and the correct amount of flash will happen via the ETTL protocols.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Using the flash as a fill flash&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your image is already exposed properly, then your flash will simple give a taste of a flash so as to overcome the darker areas in the image. It's perfectly acceptable to use the flash in such a scenario, it will lead to a less contrasty image, and will probably look better with your friends, as there will be fewer shadows under the eyes and similar phenomena.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How to choose which mode&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, assuming you have ETTL, your image should be correctly exposed, so long as you aren't over exposed. The question then remains, what do you set your ISO, aperture, and shutter speed to? There are a few factors, so let me try and explain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you have distant, weak background light that you want to keep exposed, and if shutter speed isn't much of an object (IE, the subject won't move, or there is enough light to minimize any movement that might exist), then you probably want to use your flash primarily as a fill flash. If your subject is much darker than the background, then just expose for the background and set your flash in ETTL mode, and it'll expose it correctly.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aperture is an artistic decision, as always. Flash is just another knob, but it won't really change anything.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you want to light your subject, but don't care much about the background, or your subject is close to the background, then I recommend that you set your Aperture and Shutter Speed so as to minimize camera shake and get the desired affect, and let the flash light the scene. Look at other posts to see how to use the flash to light the scene, but that's the general idea.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the scene is &lt;strong&gt;very&lt;/strong&gt; underexposed, then the flash will cause the foreground object to be lit, but the background to appear black (Unless the background was brightly lit, or close to the subject and in the direction of the flash). The more underexposed, the more black the background will appear.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I usually set my camera to manual mode and intentionally underexpose when I'm indoors or outdoors at night, trying to underexpose by about 1-2 stops at most, unless it's a high light situation and I'm cranking up the ISO/Aperture to make sure I have enough light. I usually try to expose correctly when I'm outdoors, and just use the flash to fill in some shadows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-07T23:36:22.307" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T23:36:22.307" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8389" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8395" CreationDate="2011-02-07T23:04:23.410" Score="2" ViewCount="293" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to use the editor that opens in PS CS5 when you open a Raw file.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to use it on a jpeg file as I find it extremely useful to get the right colouring.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3341" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T00:23:14.513" Title="Photoshop CS5: Raw editor for JPG" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8390" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8387" CreationDate="2011-02-07T23:05:53.143" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Flash exposure is a more complex subject than I can answer but I believe the basics are that you mostly ignore ambient light when using flash as your main source of lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Either you use a dedicated flash that your camera communicates with, in which case your camera controls the flash exposure. For example, you'd choose an aperture and the camera will choose the flash interval.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For fully manual flash exposure you have to use the guide number for the flashgun. Older flashguns had a scale on the back which would tell you what aperture to use for any given subject distance at any selected ISO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's an article at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sublime-light.com/index.php/2007/07/18/portrait-lighting-for-beginners-metering-for-flash/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sublime Light&lt;/a&gt; which illustrates flashgun usage for beginners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2520" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T23:05:53.143" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8391" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-07T23:07:01.567" Score="7" ViewCount="272" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was recently joking around with some friends about building a small gingerbread town, and taking some macro shots of it. My friends came up with the idea of actually doing it, only instead of just taking some random still shots, they suggested creating a little time-lapse stop-motion capture video.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We decided to go ahead with it all, however I have one big snag: Lighting!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How exactly should I go about lighting such a small scene in a way that illuminates it enough for the purposes of creating a video, creates nice shadows, doesn't overpower any lighting we place inside the scene (i.e. street lamps, mini christmas lights, lights inside the gingerbread buildings), etc? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T08:15:00.043" Title="Lighting for stop-motion capture with a DSLR" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;stop-motion&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="8392" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8389" CreationDate="2011-02-07T23:07:29.360" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you're referring to Adobe Camera Raw. If so you can use this same interface for JPEGs but you have to use a round about method to do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only way I've found to open JPEGs in ACR is to use Adobe Bridge, right click on a JPEG and select &quot;Open in Camera Raw...&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/mJmlK.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The white balance controls will behave slightly differently (you specify relative rather than absolute values) but I still find it a very useful way to edit JPEGs if you're used to processing raws.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-07T23:13:07.437" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T23:13:07.437" />
  <row Id="8393" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8387" CreationDate="2011-02-07T23:08:25.840" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Basically, you expose for the ambient (&quot;existing&quot;) light however you want, and the flash will automagically provide the rest of the light needed for a proper exposure (for values of &quot;proper&quot; as decided by the vagaries of your camera's metering system). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your flash photo in effect consists of two separate exposures; one that sucks in the ambient light in the room and one that captures the light blasted out from your flash. The sum total of the two is your photo; how you balance them decides the mood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To take this to one extreme: If you do not want to use the ambient light at all, use a low ISO, a fast shutter speed, and a small aperture. The ambient part of the exposure will come out pretty much black, and you will have an almost totally flash-lit picture. (It will probably be rather sucky.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To take it to the other extreme: If you want to rely almost entirely on the ambient light, use a high ISO, a slow shutter speed and a large aperture. The flash will now only give a very little 'lift' to the total exposure of the photo, and you will get spades of atmosphere from your candle-lit dinner or whatever it is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Properly balancing the ambient part and the flash part of your total lighting is much of the trick of getting good flash photos!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T23:08:25.840" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8394" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8371" CreationDate="2011-02-07T23:33:01.823" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best diffuser I ever found was two-side-matte drafting film (either mylar or acetate). You get excellent diffusion and minimal light loss. The only problems with it are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;it burnishes, so you have to be careful with pressure and rubs when transporting or storing it; and&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;it's relatively stiff, so there are fewer options when constructing things out of it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another good material is frosted window film -- the sort of thing you'd use for privacy. You actually get a couple of different options here: frosted film gives very good, flat diffusion; while something with a micro-beaded texture gives a gradual radial fall-off with hotter highlights. This stuff is available by the foot at any home center.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want something that can be thrown casually into a bag without too many consequences, then a translucent white plastic shower curtain is a cheap option. It may be the last thing you want to have hanging in your bathroom, but it's good for photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd give muslins (beedsheets and so forth) a pass for most applications. Excellent diffusion, but they tend to block too much light. There's not a lot of point saving a couple of bucks on diffusers if you need to make up for it with tens or hundreds worth of more expensive lighting. That being said, it may be worth a trip to a fabric store to buy a couple of yards/metres of a white synthetic -- often they are woven of transparent yarns, and rely on the thread size/texture and weave density to give them the appearance of whiteness. Take a flashlight with you. You need to hit the right store at the right time of year, but you can often pick up something that's just as good as the expensive commercial products at a real bargain price in widths you can't get with paper products or drafting film. But if the fabric is in season or &lt;em&gt;en vogue&lt;/em&gt;, it'll be on the pricey side.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-07T23:33:01.823" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8395" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8389" CreationDate="2011-02-08T00:23:14.513" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, it's possible. I use it a lot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Open the settings for Camera Raw:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Edit &amp;gt; Preferences &amp;gt; Camera Raw&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;em&gt;JPEG and TIFF Handling&lt;/em&gt; section at the bottom you can change the setting for JPEG to &quot;Automatically open all supported JPEGs&quot;. Now when you open a JPEG file, it will open in Camera Raw.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T00:23:14.513" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8396" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8372" CreationDate="2011-02-08T02:18:34.580" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That system, if real, represents a &lt;em&gt;metric craptonne&lt;/em&gt; of bang for the buck. We're talking about &quot;sounds too good to be true&quot; territory -- not that it is too good to be true, necessarily, but there's some grain-of-salt stuff to go over.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first thing to notice is that the lights are rated at &quot;250W&quot;. That's 250 &lt;em&gt;Watts&lt;/em&gt;. The guide numbers they state (45 in feet at ISO 100 without a reflector) fall in line with what you'd expect for a monolight rated at 100-150 &lt;em&gt;Watt-seconds&lt;/em&gt; (joules). There is a chance that they are merely using very inefficient flash tubes, but it's a lot more probable that the rating means exactly what it says: the lights draw 250W while recycling (180W or so of recycling power, plus 70W for the modelling lamp). For comparison purposes, I had a couple of Elinchrom 250RS monolights a few years ago that had a true 250 Ws (joule) flash power, and I could only use one of them on any given household circuit -- they drew nearly 1800 watts while recyling (they could recycle to full power in just under half a second). They also had a bare-bulb guide number closer to 100+; I can't recall using them at anywhere near full power except in a large softbox or reflected from a full sheet of foamcore at my usual shooting apertures (they saw most of their use as auxilliary lights, though -- I tended to use the 500 and 1000 units for main lights).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So maybe you don't &lt;em&gt;need&lt;/em&gt; a true 250Ws, and these will do just fine in terms of their actual output. Now consider that they're giving you &lt;em&gt;three&lt;/em&gt; lights &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; throwing in two softboxes, two umbrellas, three stands, barndoors, gels, a case and a wireless trigger for that price. That gets my Spider-sense tingling. Okay, we'll accept that anything with the word &quot;photographic&quot; in the product name is going to come with a bit of a mark-up, but there's a point where you really have to start wondering how much can be saved in materials and labor without compromising the product. Are the lights electrically safe? (Is the CE sticker real?) Can the stands actually support the lights when extended? Do the lights stay at the angle you set them? Do the barn doors stay where you put them? Can you adjust the barn doors without ripping them off the frame? What about the softboxes and umbrellas -- do you really want the equivalent of a dollar-store bumberchute? How reliable can the wireless trigger be?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't take that as a &quot;don't buy it&quot; directive -- it's just stuff to carefully look at right away if you &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; decide to buy it. Take a good look at the vendor's return policy in any case. You never know, this could be one of those rare real bargoons in life, but you want to be covered in case it isn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the original question, a GN of 45 tells me that you want the higher-power version of the lights. They'll give you f/5.6-8 for most real-world shoots at max power and at a distance where the softeners actuall soften. (A softbox only gives soft light when set close to the subject -- within twice the diagonal &lt;em&gt;at the most&lt;/em&gt;. Beyond that distance, the highlights start to become specular, like you'd get from a normal hard reflector up close.) You can always turn a light down for a wider aperture, but it's really hard to turn it up past the max if the light needs to be further away than 4-5 feet or you need more depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T02:18:34.580" />
  <row Id="8397" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8391" CreationDate="2011-02-08T03:29:27.837" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For stop motion capture, I'd probably go continuous so that I could see the shadows. Stop motion is like video, you need to see the light before the shot. In fact, it really is video, you're just halting the frame advance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The structure of the light, however, will very much depend on the setting. If you're trying to emulate sun, then more focussed light, such as that from using a grid or a snoot is more comparable since the sun is actually a small, bright, light source from a camera perspective. If you're looking for more even lighting, then a softbox setup is probably the better option. Either way, you can find CFL based continuous lighting options for very low cost or you can roll your own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T03:29:27.837" />
  <row Id="8398" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8407" CreationDate="2011-02-08T03:37:59.800" Score="5" ViewCount="360" Body="&lt;p&gt;Okay, so I was watching a movie recently, and there was a night scene. The whole valley could be seen in light, and there were some stars as well, and the actors could be seen, but it just looked like it was night. How do you make a shot look like it was taken at night, especially if there is no signs of civilization around?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-08T15:37:16.003" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T23:42:07.720" Title="Making a shot look like it's night" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;low-light&gt;&lt;night-shooting&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="8399" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8409" CreationDate="2011-02-08T03:38:30.767" Score="2" ViewCount="150" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a follow up to a few other recent questions about shooting artwork including: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7668/macro-lens-for-artwork-with-the-t2i&quot;&gt;macro lens for artwork with the T2i&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I just received my T2i and tethered it to my laptop. With the stock lens it seems I can Auto Focus, and basically set up and take the pictures, all tethered the laptop. I'm very pleased! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Can I manually focus from the laptop (I wasn't sure how but sometimes that wil be needed)?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is the advantage that a USM lens would offer? Or is USM what I need to manually focus tethered?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It seems like I should go with one of these three lens:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro USM Lens, or &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro Lens (non USM)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The T2i says it is &quot;EF-S&quot;. Can I only use these lenses or are the EF ok too? &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The compact macro lens don't offer true 1/1 but they are cheaper and still remain distortion free. (as least that what I'm given to understand?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;But I was also wondering if there is a zoom lens that will offer a low distortion result? (Primarily the problem with artwork is the bending around the edges.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With about 1000 works to shoot I reckon it will be a lot easier If I didn have to reposition the camera for every shot. I'm hoping maybe to be able to zoom a little (not much) to each subject to make it fit nicely for full resolution. And if I can zoom and manually focus from the laptop it will obviously save a fair amount of effort. My primarily concern therefore will be making sure the subject is centered on the stand. And then I'll only have to move the camera when when I have a significant change in subject size. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this makes sense! Maybe I don't need USM? Maybe  zooming isn't possible tethered? Or maybe it is possible but will have too much distortion? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I do have some room, up to 10' from camera to subject. And the largest artwork I'm shooting is only 30&quot;x40&quot; (average is probably 18&quot;x24&quot;). Is there any advantage to going with a 100mm Macro Lens instead of the 50mm or 60mm? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3043" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T11:38:58.800" Title="True Macro Zooming Lens? + zooming and manual focus while tethered?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;artwork&gt;&lt;tethered&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8400" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8495" CreationDate="2011-02-08T03:47:21.843" Score="3" ViewCount="272" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello,&#xA;I am a guy who mostly shoot JPEGs even though I know the benefits of shooting RAWs. Its because I'm too lazy to process the RAW files. I am newish in Photography, I shoot a lot of pics whenever I'm outside but the number of keepers are low. So after shooting maybe 500 pics I luckily pick 1/2 from them. This is my main reason for shooting JPEGs. I just keep pressing the Right/Left arrow button in Pacasa until I see a pic which I can keep. RAW files takes longer to load and also lacks quick review because the viewer application doesn't support Right/Left arrow. So, I need suggestion on a better RAW viewing software, which:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Loads RAW files quick.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Support Right/Left arrow image switching and zooming.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I can delete the file if I'm not happy with it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Supports Canon RAW files (I'm using 550D)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Even if it doesn't have RAW processing capability, its okay, I can use DPP for processing, I just need it to preview RAW files.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is free to use/Open source.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance. I've tried two viewers so far, one that came with my camera CD and IrfanView. So, Please do not suggest anyone from these two.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: I'm using Windows Vista atm, but might switch to Windows 7 later this month.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastEditorUserId="2476" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-10T04:29:18.103" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T04:29:18.103" Title="Need suggestions on a good RAW Viewer." Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;photo-viewer&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8401" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8391" CreationDate="2011-02-08T03:50:24.510" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would do the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make the primary light source a bright, far away light. A spot light would be a good idea.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There should be some secondary light, very soft, to fill in shadows (And simulate the sky/clouds)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It really doesn't matter the brightness of the light, because you can expose the image for as long as you'd like.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;All in all, lighting on a tabletop with typical overhead lighting would probably give you about what you want, there will be some firm shadows, but there will be detail visible in the shadows. Of course, if you do this you'd be better off with one bright light instead of several dimmer ones.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T03:50:24.510" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8403" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8399" CreationDate="2011-02-08T04:01:17.043" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't answer everything, but... numerically:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Manual focus, by definition, is by turning the ring on the lens. So, I suspect you're actually asking if you can autofocus using software or fine-tune that focus. You can make focus adjustments tethered, but it's not enormous, it will depend a lot on subject distance and the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;USM is lens driven focus using what Canon calls an ultra sonic motor. It's usually faster and quieter, but I doubt it would matter much to tethered control of the adjustment. Does matter if you want to manually adjust on the lens since it allows full-time manual control in AF.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of the remainder of this rather exhaustive question, I don't think you can control of the zoom via software. I'm not aware of any lens that doesn't require physical adjustment to zoom. Having said that, a lens that gives you a range is going to be handy for varying art sizes, so it's a consideration. On the other hand, primes are usually sharper. In any case, Canon makes pro level zooms, with pro level quality, and a pro level price. That may still be a lot cheaper than a collection of primes in the same range and the minor quality trade-off may be such to make that call probably likely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the rest, I'll leave to the Canon experts... Or they can dispute my post as well. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-08T11:38:58.800" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T11:38:58.800" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8404" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8398" CreationDate="2011-02-08T04:06:38.507" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have seen scenes that appeared to be at night but when looked at closely, look like they would have been shot during the day and been filtered to a point where they appear like bright night time. The main issue you mentioned is stars. Unless it's cloudy, you won't be able to see any stars in the sky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as image manipulation goes, it's possible to simply shoot as you would in sunlight and post process the image to a point where it mostly appears to be night time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key factors in producing such an image are saturation, exposure / noise and blue tint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At night, our eyes don't see colour until there is sufficient light. The scene will typically be very desaturated to the point where the only colour is the typical &quot;blue&quot; of the moon light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, the camera &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; see colour in low light. I guess it depends on which you want to simulate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update&lt;/strong&gt;. My own examples. The top one is an example of where you would need to add stars to the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/THnWl.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/8trAh.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastEditorUserId="609" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-08T05:50:32.457" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T05:50:32.457" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8405" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8400" CreationDate="2011-02-08T04:12:14.523" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon makes available a raw codec that can be plugged into the Explorer functions of Windows Vista and above. This lets you use the standard Windows image viewer with the RAW files. Canon, as far as I know, makes this available, but digging for it may be a pain and I'm not sure about 64 bit Windows support.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another option is to pay a little, as in $15, and look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/codecs/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fast Picture Viewer&lt;/a&gt; which doesn't meet your free criteria, but at $15 is pretty darn close.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T04:12:14.523" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8406" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6908" CreationDate="2011-02-08T04:32:58.740" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I bought two Fuji HS10 cameras solely for their video capabilities... the video quality @ 1080p is STUNNING, even in low light. I also use the high speed video feature a lot (this feature is much better on the HS10 then the HS20). This is my 4th fuji camera. This camera is the only true all-in-one out there... I mean come on... a 24mm to 720mm lens?!?!? Takes decent photos too but with video that looks this good why would I take stills?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After 6 months of ownership I have only a few complaints... no manual mode while taking videos, auto only (pretty dumb not to give even a WB control) and there is significant pincushin distortion at full zoom. Other then that... I love em'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 24mm super wide lens is a two edge sword... I won't even consider buying another bridge camera in the future without this specification... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3766" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T04:32:58.740" />
  <row Id="8407" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8398" CreationDate="2011-02-08T04:59:50.677" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The effect is called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_for_night&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;day-for-night&lt;/a&gt; and it's particularly common in old movies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's often not very convincing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Often the best looking effects can come from artificial lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It's often characterized by a blueish hue - this can be achieved by white balance - and by underexposure.  Boosting the contrast may help too.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes, day-for-night involves very powerful lighting setups where the lights &quot;overpower&quot; the sun and can provide local highlights.  This can be quite effective if done well.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It's often better just to actually shoot at night, or at dusk/dawn, and use lots of side/edge lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Post-processing can be useful in dampening the bright sky (though it's often best to just avoid including any sky) and removing highlights from clouds, etc which are dead giveaways.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-08T23:42:07.720" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T23:42:07.720" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8408" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8400" CreationDate="2011-02-08T05:29:32.287" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If your on windows you can use arcsoft's raw thumbnail viewer. It enables you to view many popular raw formats in windows explorer so you can just flip through them there without having to open up a 3rd party app.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.arcsoft.com/estore/software_title.asp?ProductCode=RTV#submenu&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.arcsoft.com/estore/software_title.asp?ProductCode=RTV#submenu&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3744" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T05:29:32.287" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8409" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8399" CreationDate="2011-02-08T07:43:04.030" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your camera is built for EF-S lenses, but EF lenses will work just fine. It's going the other way (trying to use EF-S lenses on a full-frame EF-mount camera) that's fraught with danger. And unless you are shooting things that are less than three inches on the longest side, a 1:2 &quot;half-macro&quot; lens will work just fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason we kept hammering on about using a macro lens is because they are usually very good at making sure that rectangles remain rectangles -- they are corrected for rectilinearity, and usually don't have barrel (bulging) or pincushion (pinching) distortion that you can find without really accurate measuring devices. Zooms almost always have one or the other kind of distortion (and often both, one at each end of the zoom range). If you're taking pictures of &quot;stuff&quot; in the real world, you don't often notice a small amount of barrel or pincushion distortion, but when you are shooting rectangles it'll be apparent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Macros also tend to have very flat planes of focus (I mentioned that before) so you can set the aperture for the best sharpness the lens can offer and don't have to worry about depth of field. (With some lenses, you'd need to focus so that a circle of the artwork about 1/3 to 1/2 of the way out from the center is in sharp focus, then stop the lens down until the center and the corners appear to be in focus as well.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A zoom lens that is both well-corrected for geometric distortion and has a very flat field is going to be pricey (and price alone is no guarantee -- read any technical lens reviews you can find online). A good fixed-length (prime) lens is going to be a lot easier to find at a digestible price point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are not shooting the works &lt;em&gt;in situ&lt;/em&gt;, then a copy table/stand will help a lot with the workflow. A commercial copy stand can be expensive, but if you're handy at all (or know somebody who is) then building a version that is &lt;em&gt;better&lt;/em&gt; than what's commercially available isn't too terribly difficult or expensive. I can send you plans for one if you email me (put a period between my first and last names and send it to Gmail).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;lt;aside&amp;gt;I really need to post some of the DIY stuff I've created on a website sometime. When you build the stuff that you &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; build, you can save many thousands of dollars. I figure that I paid for my RZ67 and a couple of lenses with money I didn't spend on other gear.&amp;lt;/aside&amp;gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T07:43:04.030" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8410" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8399" CreationDate="2011-02-08T08:51:00.633" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you will be better off by cropping the macro shots a bit than using a zoom. No zoom is going to be anywhere &lt;em&gt;near&lt;/em&gt; a macro prime when it comes to lack of distortion and optical nasties.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T08:51:00.633" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8411" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8398" CreationDate="2011-02-08T11:25:19.520" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The colour of light is a strong visual cue that it is night time. Strong blues trick the brain and can make a well lit scene look like night. Making artificial lights extra warm (orangy) further enhances the contrast to the cool &quot;moonlight&quot;. Lighting obliquely also seems to help as it suggests the scene is darker whilst maintaining details. Here is an example: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/sleeper.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is easy to achieve when you control all the lights (e.g. in a studio) but you can still achieve the night look outdoors. It's important to realise that the sun and moon are both point lightsources, so give out the same quality of light, but in different colours and vastly different quantities. This means you can just underexpose and tinting your images. The one thing you won't be able to do is overpower the sunlight with artificial sources like you can with moonlight. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T11:25:19.520" />
  <row Id="8412" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8400" CreationDate="2011-02-08T13:07:06.147" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I actually use &lt;a href=&quot;http://picasa.google.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Picasa&lt;/a&gt; to pull files from the card and my initial look through, then switch to DPP or Gimp to do my actual edits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not a perfect program, especially since it likes to auto-correct for the thumbnails, but you can get a decent idea which shots that you want to take more time with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eventually I'm planning to switch to Lightroom or Aperture, but I haven't been able to justify the price yet, so this is my free solution (which works pretty well).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T13:07:06.147" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8413" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8371" CreationDate="2011-02-08T13:16:44.267" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've tried using tissue paper, and it worked well, but was pretty easy to tear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I later tried out a couple layers of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lowes.com/pd_16923-18632-RSCC403-50C_4294865824+4294833944_4294937087_?productId=3015402&amp;amp;Ns=p_product_quantity_sold|0&amp;amp;pl=1&amp;amp;currentURL=/pl_Consumer%2BSheeting_4294865824%2B4294833944_4294937087_%3FNs%3Dp_product_quantity_sold|0&amp;amp;facetInfo=Consumer%20Sheeting&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;plastic drop cloth&lt;/a&gt;. It works reasonable well, is durable, but doesn't diffuse the light quite as well as the paper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T13:16:44.267" />
  <row Id="8414" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8337" CreationDate="2011-02-08T13:26:15.647" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first thing to do is to think whether you want to do this as a commercial activity, or just for the joy of sharing your images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're wanting to sell the images, then you need to think about marketing, which means having a pitch with a portfolio to show to prospective venues -- it's then a case of legwork of visiting your local friendly galleries, cafés, restaurants, etc. It's worth investigating each venue first to see if they share common goals (for example, do they prefer contemporary works, or do they prefer something more generic?). Be prepared and consider issues such as managing stock, and commission levels that you're willing to give to the venue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're more interested in exhibiting for the fun of it, then it may be worth taking your portfolio along and approaching more cultural locations such as libraries or tourist information centres; If you group together with others in your area, there is the chance to hire a venue such as a town hall to run an exhibition yourself in the guise as a photography club (there was even the idea of there being an exhibition organised by this site at one point).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T13:26:15.647" />
  <row Id="8415" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-08T14:26:03.637" Score="1" ViewCount="189" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for a cheapish solution to triggering an off-camera flash. The camera is a Nikon D60 and the Flash a Nissin Di866 Pro.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So far I have not been able to find a suitable trigger. I'm hoping to pay &amp;lt; £40 (GB Pounds).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3770" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T14:42:05.583" Title="Cheapish wireless trigger for a Nissin Di866 on a Nikon D60" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8416" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8415" CreationDate="2011-02-08T14:30:08.120" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a pretty good chance that the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cowboystudio.com/product/c14/p140704-04.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CowboyStudio system&lt;/a&gt; would work for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While your flash is not specifically listed as compatible, the trigger voltage is 3.5, well under the 12 V maximum, so it should work just fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are not known to be as reliable as some of the top brands, but at the significantly lower cost, they are a great option, and tend to get good reviews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-08T14:42:05.583" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T14:42:05.583" />
  <row Id="8417" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-08T14:30:42.863" Score="0" ViewCount="38" Body="&lt;p&gt;I downloaded my LumixLX5 images to a location on my internal hard drive and imported them to Lightroom2. The files showed up in light room's left column, pictures in the center area as I expected. However when I returned to LR after quitting, the files were missing from the left column and I could not access the imported pix. What am I doing wrong? I have used lightroom1 a lot. My computer is a 2006 iMac.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3771" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T16:43:26.497" Title="Lightroom2 import question" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;lightroom-2&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8418" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7336" CreationDate="2011-02-08T14:30:45.600" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm using the Nissin Di866 with my D60, its supposed to be a cheaper version of the SB900 I think, and unlike the Di622 can be used with wireless triggers (although I've not yet found the best (cheap) trigger to use with it!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3770" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T14:30:45.600" />
  <row Id="8419" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8398" CreationDate="2011-02-08T15:41:27.403" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to take a stab at my own question, and see if I can get it right...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems like the best way to make it appear night in camera is to take a picture at sunrise/sunset, but in the opposite direction from the sun. This will give the minimal light, and the right color. Best is if the sun is down for maybe 20 minutes either way, so the light is a more dark blue color. Or alternatively, shoot on the night of a full moon, so you can use the light from the moon to give the desired affect. Also, it's probably a good idea to slightly underexpose the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as Stars, well, they just probably won't appear that much anyways. But I imagine that if it is dark enough outside, they will appear, if you have a sensitive enough camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T15:41:27.403" />
  <row Id="8420" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8371" CreationDate="2011-02-08T15:48:12.547" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want to test out a diffuser, there's a pretty simple way to do so. Just hold it up to a light source, and see what color it is, and how much light penetrates the surface. If you see most of the light on the back side of the object, and it's mostly white, then you're good. If you want to use some color of light as a creative affect, you are also good. If you see something you don't like, then it might be a problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, consider things like the strength of the material, how easy is it to tear, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T15:48:12.547" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8421" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6161" CreationDate="2011-02-08T16:29:32.803" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use Tv almost exclusively for my primary focus of performance photography. I am usually dealing with a very large contrast scene that is constantly changing (both in terms of subjects moving around and the light). I am not allowed to use flash or any active method of light control, so I have to use what is there. In almost all cases, it is better to have a slightly dark image than to have unintentional blur because the meter decided I needed a half second exposure at the exact time it metered. I get much more consistent results by setting a shutter speed where I think it needs to be, and letting the camera fine tune using ISO and aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3772" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T16:29:32.803" />
  <row Id="8422" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8417" CreationDate="2011-02-08T16:43:26.497" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you imported the files, they should be there.  Lightroom doesn't have a left column that lists files... my suspicion is that you're talking about Folders.  Use the Folders label on the left side and navigate to the folder that contains your images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T16:43:26.497" />
  <row Id="8423" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8429" CreationDate="2011-02-08T17:07:31.203" Score="9" ViewCount="173" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've read around a lot on the whole color-management thing. Gamut. Calibration...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How can I know what my monitor is capable of?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At home I have a Samsung 220wm and at work I have some older IBM ThinkVisions. I'm assuming that these are not wide-gamut monitors. How do I know if I care? Can I use the calibration profile to tell me? When I view some of the calibration images out there, I can see the greyscale steps just fine. The color transitions look pretty even.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me the whole point is to help me get prints that look good. Definitely not high end stuff; just shots to hang on my wall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a related question, I've seen videos and screenshots that visualize the color-spaces in a 3d graph. &lt;strong&gt;Is there such a visualizer that runs on win7?&lt;/strong&gt; If I understand everything correctly, I could view the profile of my monitor together with that of the local costco printers to see how I'm doing. Does this make sense?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="98" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T04:30:00.020" Title="How can I know the color capabilities of my monitors?" Tags="&lt;color-management&gt;&lt;monitors&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8424" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-08T17:14:19.087" Score="5" ViewCount="176" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&#xA;I'm looking for a lens for portraits and closeups (leaves, branches, icicles) that would be fast enough to get a blurred background. Any suggestions? I'd like to get something for $200 or less.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bruce&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3773" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-08T17:57:08.143" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T11:13:08.860" Title="Recommendation for low-priced faster fixed-focal-length lens for Nikon D50" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8425" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8432" CreationDate="2011-02-08T17:21:19.030" Score="3" ViewCount="759" Body="&lt;p&gt;After getting into a choice between two super zooms, the Canon SX30IS or Fujifilm HS10 / HS20, I have chosen Fuji. However, it uses AA batteries. When on tour it's so painful if AA batteries go out or low. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to have an additional good battery source (lithium, etc.) which can last a long time and can connect to tye Fujifilm HS10 / HS20 using a cable or something, so that even if the camera does not have AA cells it will still work? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps something which is there for old SLR cameras, or flashes that professional photographer use on wedding photography, or outdoors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2107" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-20T23:15:29.787" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T23:15:29.787" Title="Is there an alternative to AA cells for the Fujifilm HS20?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;batteries&gt;&lt;travel&gt;&lt;outdoor&gt;&lt;power-supply&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8426" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8425" CreationDate="2011-02-08T17:40:50.917" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;get yourself some good, rechargable NiMh-AA with low self-discharge (see extensive list here on &lt;a href=&quot;https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Low_self-discharge_NiMH_battery&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikpedia&lt;/a&gt;), at least two sets&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;buy a good recharger with discharge-function and peak-detection (delta-Voltage) like the Technoline BC 900&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Longer answer: you asked for energy-solutions people use for flashes: see the linked (and recommended on the side of your question) threads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6702/does-a-flash-work-well-with-regular-alkaline-batteries/6725#6725&quot;&gt;Does a flash work well with regular alkaline batteries?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/570/what-attributes-should-i-look-for-when-buying-batteries-for-a-flash/707#707&quot;&gt;What attributes should I look for when buying batteries for a flash?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and you'll be recommend NiMh-accumulators anyway. So buy yourself some sets of decent AA cells, like Eneloop (reducing self-discharge) and a decent charging device (I like my BC900) using an delta-U (peak) detection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your problem most certainly is not that AA accumulators &quot;go out or low&quot; but that your energy management is currently bad. If you (mis-)use an old or bad lithium accumulator, it will go out too (and that even faster). It is the same with your accumulators as with your memory chips: handle with care.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course the circular AA never will have an energy/mass-ratio as high as a proprietary lithium-ion, but I find this neglectable with big cameras. Most LiIon-accumulators have all the tech for preventing deep discharge and regulating charging packed away, but that is because they are more vulnerable (and tend to answer abuse with a bang) and because of that they cost more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bonus on AA is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you'll get replacement-accumulators anywhere on the world&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;there are some solar chargers too, if your trips really take this long&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I use it for my Canon-compacts for &gt;= 5 years. The money for a better recharger is a good investment, this unit eat 12V, has a 110-240V adapter with changeable plugs and a car-adapter. Reads as &quot;usable world wide&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edited&lt;/strong&gt;: mellowed the answer, thx @lindes ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastEditorUserId="2317" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-08T22:26:30.667" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T22:26:30.667" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8427" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8424" CreationDate="2011-02-08T17:54:24.497" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2137/AF-NIKKOR-50mm-f%252F1.8D.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikkor 50mm f/1.8&lt;/a&gt; is certainly going to be a great option, and is well within your price range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several other options, such as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/1931/AF-NIKKOR-85mm-f%252F1.8D.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8&lt;/a&gt;, but with a $200 max you're quite limited. and most are going to be out of your price range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-08T17:59:56.440" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T17:59:56.440" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8428" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8424" CreationDate="2011-02-08T17:56:43.853" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd highly recommend the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.8 (I own both). You won't sadly get the latter for under $200, but you will easily get the 50mm for under $150. On a D50 they'll work out as being the equivalent of 75mm and 127mm respectively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1969" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T17:56:43.853" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8429" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8423" CreationDate="2011-02-08T18:06:24.943" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Frankly, for most purposes, &quot;close enough&quot; really is close enough. If you are doing critical work it's usually for a good enough reason to make the cost of something like a Lacie Blue Eye monitor/calibration system just a part of the cost of doing business -- it'll pay for itself before too long. Or at least you'd be maintaining some hope that it will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For most hobby purposes, as long as there's a reasonable match between what you're seeing on-screen and on paper (no major surprises, like purple blues or orange reds, nothing is much darker or brighter -- you'll want to be close enough that it'll take some looking back and forth and hemming and hawing before you see really, really minor differences) you're good to go. You may not be able to satisfy an art director with a book of Pantone swatches clasped firmly in hand, but that was never the aim, was it? Most consumer monitors only cover the majority of the aRGB color space, and they're perfectly adequate for all but the fussiest work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your Samsung, though it is getting long in the tooth, supports 24-bit color (which is more than a lot of low-end LCD monitors really support these days). The contrast is a little bit low (critical calibration may not like it) and is probably lower now than when it was new, but it should be adequate for most work -- habituation will take care of the dynamic range (um, I mean your eyes will adjust). If you can see the difference between 255,255,255 and 254,254,254 and between 0,0,0 and 1,1,1 (put a square of one in the middle of a square of the other -- you may not be able to actually tell the colors apart, but you should be able to see the edges) then you've got enough to work with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The IBMs, though, are probably not up to the task. IBM has made some amazingly good imaging monitors, but they're not the sort of thing that ended up in a cubicle farm very often -- they usually wound up in medical imaging departments. Still, if you can empirically prove them to be &quot;close enough&quot;, then they are probably close enough. You never know -- you may have stumbled across a pair of the good ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are thinking about going pro, then those minor differences start to count. (You'll probably want to chose somewhere other than Costco for your printing as well.) You can start with a more sophisticated monitor calibration, like the Spyder 3 system. A wide-gamut monitor wouldn't be a waste of money either. If you're shooting advertising, then trading your car for a Lacie 30&quot; setup might actually be worth it. But unless you are what they (tongue in cheek) call a &quot;well-heeled amateur&quot;, there's no sense spending money where you don't have to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T18:06:24.943" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8430" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8424" CreationDate="2011-02-08T18:33:29.960" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're okay with manual focus, keep the 135mm f/2.8 AIS in mind. It's a little longer than the other suggestions, but:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;it's a very nice lens that focuses relatively close;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;the f/2.8 is wide enough to keep the DoF thin if the subject is close enough;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;the 135, though longer than the usual suspects, is not far off the 180-200mm range I found really flattering for head shots in full frame; and&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;the used market is lousy with them (most casual shooters who bought one ended up using a 70-210 or 80-200 zoom instead) and you should be able to pick one up well within your budget.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can find one that's optically good but shows a little brassing, you may even be able to throw it in your bag alongside a brand-new 50mm f/1.8 and still stay (barely) under budget. Some people seem to think that manual focus lenses have no value in the autofocus DSLR world, you see, so you may be able to pick it up at a &quot;useless old knick-knack&quot; price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T18:33:29.960" />
  <row Id="8431" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8425" CreationDate="2011-02-08T19:23:28.247" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are plenty of types of AA batteries that could be useful depending on what you want to do:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lithium AA batteries - Last &lt;strong&gt;ages&lt;/strong&gt; but they are expensive (usually more than the rechargeables each time you buy them) and single use.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;High power AA rechargable NiMh batteries - 2500mAh lots of power as long as you charge them before each use.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Always ready AA rechargeable NiMh batteries - Lower power, but they hold their charge for up to a year, brands to look out for are Sanyo ENELOOP, Panasonic Infinium, Uniross Hybrio, GP Recyko, Sony Cycle Energy, Duracell Active Charge, Hama Ready 4 Power and Camlink's Ready 2 Go. I always keep this type of battery in my camera bag as spares for flashes, but use the high power type as my main batteries.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, it goes without saying if you are using rechargeables get a high quality charger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T19:23:28.247" />
  <row Id="8432" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8425" CreationDate="2011-02-08T19:32:03.887" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I understand it, the OP is asking for an external battery pack to power his Fuji HS 10 / HS 20 so that he can get extended battery life.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To do this you need the following&lt;br&gt;&#xA;1. AC-5VX power adapter from Fujifilm and third parties.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2. CP-04 DC coupler from Fujifilm and third parties.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;3. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&amp;amp;sugexp=ldymls&amp;amp;xhr=t&amp;amp;q=external+battery+pack&amp;amp;cp=21&amp;amp;bs=1&amp;amp;um=1&amp;amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;amp;cid=1026100714074007193&amp;amp;ei=JoxRTeHWLoKq8AP3ucyjCw&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=product_catalog_result&amp;amp;ct=image&amp;amp;resnum=4&amp;amp;sqi=2&amp;amp;ved=0CEEQ8gIwAw#&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Duracell PowerSource Mobile 100 External battery pack + DC to AC power inverter - Lithium ion 4 Ah&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Duracell PowerSource has an AC power outlet(as well as two USB outlets!). Connect the AC-5VX power adapter to this. Then use the CP-04 DC coupler to connect the power adapter to the camera. One end slots into the camera's battery compartment.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now you have in effect an external 4 Ah battery which should keep you going for a good while, to say nothing of the benefits for your other devices.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The downside is that you will have a bit of a cable tangle to manage.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other external power supplies to be had. I merely use the Duracell one as a good example of the genre.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T19:32:03.887" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8433" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-08T19:35:47.520" Score="1" ViewCount="210" Body="&lt;p&gt;Got myself a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 lens. Its a big lens and I'm looking to find a comfortable case for it. I also have Nikon D90.  So preferably I can fit both body and lens into one case.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for something compact that I can easily carry around. Currently I have Lowepro100 (which fits my d90 + 18-200 lens) and I like it. Maybe something along those lines. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3774" LastEditorUserId="3774" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-08T19:59:53.397" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T19:59:53.397" Title="Advise on a bag for Nikon lens 70-200 2.8" Tags="&lt;nikon-d90&gt;&lt;camera-bag&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8434" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8043" CreationDate="2011-02-08T19:39:04.560" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some definite applications. Humans pay attention much more to differences than things that are alike. One way to highlight the subject is to make the subject a different color than everything around them, and that will make the subject pop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, Red is a color which Humans in particular are pre-programmed to pay alot of attention to. A red item will draw attention, and thus can be a powerful photographic tool.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another interesting point is that humans perceive less color in low light. Cameras are pretty independent, but they do tend to amplify the red somewhat in low light. Thus for an image to be taken at night to appear like a human would see it, it should have it's color saturation reduced somewhat. Humans can see some color in the dark, so full black and white is not required.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope some of this information helps!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T19:39:04.560" />
  <row Id="8435" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8423" CreationDate="2011-02-08T19:40:40.387" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Microsoft had quite a nice Color &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?familyid=1E33DCA0-7721-43CA-9174-7F8D429FBB9E&amp;amp;displaylang=en&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;control panel applet&lt;/a&gt; for Windows XP (that did include a 3D gamut display). With Windows Vista, however, they introduced the &quot;Windows Color System&quot;, and I'm pretty sure the XP applet won't work with any of the newer OSes (which really is too bad. Although Vista/7 now include a &quot;color&quot; applet out of the box, at least IMO, it's nowhere close to as good of a design (color management presented as a column of text instead of anything remotely visual? Did anybody really think at all about what sort of people would care about this?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are definitely tools that can show a 3D graph of a profile (or more than one profile at a time, for comparison) such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www2.chromix.com/colorthink/std/std_3D?-session=SessID%3aD1F869EC0514b19B66rQI11A7A75&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Chromix ColorThink&lt;/a&gt;. There's also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gamutvision.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;GamutVision&lt;/a&gt;, but AFAIK it hasn't been updated for anything newer than XP (though it might well still work...) Unfortunately, those aren't free and probably not worth buying if that's all you want (and, as implied above, I'm not at all sure GamutVision will work with Windows 7 anyway).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T19:40:40.387" />
  <row Id="8437" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7076" CreationDate="2011-02-08T19:48:56.480" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a great bridge camera, but it won't do anything that spectacular. Just be weary of the cruddy autofocus and grain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I got this camera to replace my dinky little 5MP point-and-shoot. It was a huge upgrade. The resolution was much better, it had more options, and it felt like a D-SLR. After I used it for a while, I realized that it was not really what I was looking for. Sure it looks nice, but the zoom isn't something to choose a camera for. The picture quality isn't the greatest (it just &lt;em&gt;loves&lt;/em&gt; to set it's ISO to 1600 each time, so expect noise galore in low light situations), but my main issue was the autofocus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The autofocus is really bad. I was taking pictures at a wedding, and they all looked nice and dandy on the LCD (that's one plus about it, though. That swiveling viewfinder is one thing I miss), but when I opened them up on the computer, they were completely blurry. It was pretty bad, and I managed to salvage only about 15 pictures from a 4GB memory stick.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure if bridge camera uses a different algorithm or method for autofocus than a D-SLR does, but I must say, it's really cruddy. The other reason I spent a few hundred extra and got the Canon T2i (the 550D) was because the SX30 IS didn't have a single remote trigger port. Sure is has BULB mode, but that feature is completely useless without a remote trigger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lesson I learned (twice) was not to buy a camera just because it has some feature you like. I got the T2i because if had 1080P video recording capabilities (and because it had everything the SX30 IS didn't), but to tell you the truth, I've only recorded only around 10 minutes of video over the past three months I've had this camera (but I've taken over 20,000 pictures!). I really should have gone Nikon, but it's way too late for that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also do a lot of shooting outdoors, but this camera won't do anything that spectacular. It's main limitation is the autofocus and grain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is just my personal opinion, so do what you want. Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2566" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T19:48:56.480" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8438" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8433" CreationDate="2011-02-08T19:52:27.530" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use Tamrac bags, and prefer the holster-style bags.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Their version that would fit a DSLR and 70-200 lens is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tamrac.com/5630.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pro Digital Zoom 10&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My favorite part of their system is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tamrac.com/g_modularaccessory.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;MAS Accessory system&lt;/a&gt;, which allows you to hook on extra lens bags.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T19:52:27.530" />
  <row Id="8439" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8440" CreationDate="2011-02-08T20:04:49.480" Score="6" ViewCount="254" Body="&lt;p&gt;I got just now my nikon remote.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I spent about 20£ on it over the cheaper chinese ripoffs only to find in the instruction manual (not really a &quot;manual&quot;, it's a leaflet) that according to State of California law, they warn customers that touching the cord on the remote exposes them to lead, that can cause birth defects, and other harm.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Actually, this only appears on the english version, the portuguese, italian, and apparently all others don't even mention it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;two part question:&#xA;a) is the threat true? or in the lines of &quot;don't eat the cd-rom, it may cause choking&quot;?&#xA;b) if the remote cord has lead, what about the battery case, the rubber on the grip or whatever else? i am slightly freaking out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I really like my nikon dslr, but i'd prefer that it didn't cause me cancer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3462" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T23:07:19.027" Title="Nikon MC-DC2 Remote dangerous?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;remote&gt;&lt;danger&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="8440" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8439" CreationDate="2011-02-08T20:32:24.610" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This warning is almost certainly related to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_%281986%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;California Proposition 65&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This state law says that a manufacturer is required to clearly label any product that &lt;em&gt;might&lt;/em&gt; contain one of the chemicals that is on the list provided by the state.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; mean that there is a high level of lead, but it might also just mean that they haven't taken the effort to find out what the level is, and are covering themselves just in case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end it's your choice whether or not to use the product, they are simply informing you of a &lt;em&gt;possible&lt;/em&gt; risk as required by California law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;My Opinion (but it's just an opinion, and you shouldn't do anything just because I would):&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't worry too much, there is probably some lead in the wire or other internal parts, but as long as you don't suck on it you're probably going to be just fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-08T22:01:59.397" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T22:01:59.397" />
  <row Id="8441" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8391" CreationDate="2011-02-08T20:49:26.660" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been involved in a number of stop-motion short films over the years. Here's some things I've found that you'll need if your goal is to have the best look possible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Continuous lighting.&lt;/strong&gt; Continuous lighting will allow you to shape your shadows before you shoot your scenes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Big lights.&lt;/strong&gt; With small lights it can be easy to end up with a situation where one part of the scene is 'dialed in' and looks right, but another part of the scene looks off. The bigger your light source is (or light sources are), the easier it will be for you to make every part of the scene look right.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Get them far away.&lt;/strong&gt; People tend to underestimate how far away their lights will need to be in order to not cast harsh shadows or have the lighting be 'right' in one part of the scene, but 'off' in another part. This can be offset somewhat by...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Add diffusion.&lt;/strong&gt; You'll probably want to diffuse the light in order to knock down the shadows, but also because unless you have a very large space with which to hang lights, you'll probably find that you don't have quite as much room as you'd like (do we ever?).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Watch  your shadows.&lt;/strong&gt; In stop motion it can be very easy to cast too long of a shadow, which can ruin the illusion (e.g. the shadow of the streetlamp in the scene stretches halfway down the block, which doesn't happen in real life and looks 'wrong'). The solution is usually to get the lights up high in order to shorten any shadows to a 'realistic' length. This is the real key to keeping up the illusion, and generally its the first thing you want to check for as you're building the lighting for your scene.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, 'house' lighting is potentially just fine as long as you can combine individual sources in order to create a larger level of illumination than can be achieved by just a bulb or two. The real key is knowing how to wire up enough lighting elements to get the job done. Where 'pro' level lighting will shine (har har) is in being able to illuminate a larger space with fewer total elements. This is important because unless you're using a warehouse or a large garage type space, you're probably going to start running into heat problems, so it potentially becomes a tricky balance between the level of light you need to have, and the level of heat that you can't afford to deal with (think melting sets, or melting crew members...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now having said that, I have worked on productions that have rented (or in one case owned) 'pro' level lighting equipment, and I've also worked on productions that have successfully used common halogen worklights such as those which can be found at a home improvement store and homemade scrim (halogens are &lt;em&gt;dirt&lt;/em&gt; cheap, but they throw a ton of heat, so you'll want to take that into account before going this route). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I won't claim that 'quality' light isn't important, in my experience it is far less critical than making it big, making it diffused, getting it as far away from your scene as possible, and engineering the angles to produce the most 'realistic' shadows. With stop motion it really is all about combining these variables to produce the most realistic shadows possible (either that or completely eliminate the shadows entirely) in order to preserve the overall illusion...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-09T08:15:00.043" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T08:15:00.043" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8442" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7540" CreationDate="2011-02-08T21:16:40.663" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would suggest you very strongly consider the pros and cons of the microstock model before submitting your images there.  Generally speaking, micro is a model that's much better for the consumers than the producers of content.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you'd prefer a more traditional stock photography model I would suggest you check out the Alamy agency: &lt;a href=&quot;http://alamy.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://alamy.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1513" LastEditorUserId="1513" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-08T21:46:35.867" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T21:46:35.867" />
  <row Id="8443" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7556" CreationDate="2011-02-08T21:31:16.753" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Popular Photography recently ran an article about this and they tested around ten photo book printers.  Their conclusion was that the Kodak books had the highest print quality and noted that they were the only ones of the group they tested who print on a traditional paper.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adorama came in second with regard to print quality, so they would also be a good choice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The article did not go into detail with regards to being able to upload a PDF to these services, so I can't help you there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1513" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-09T03:04:55.137" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T03:04:55.137" />
  <row Id="8444" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8446" CreationDate="2011-02-08T22:00:41.037" Score="4" ViewCount="152" Body="&lt;p&gt;Epson v500. when not using either of the film masks i get these blue blotches in the scan. I've tried epson scan and vuescan. Anyone know how to get it to scan without the blotches?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/nPRT1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3744" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T00:39:10.100" Title="Scanning to include sprockets. How do i get rid of the blue blotches?" Tags="&lt;scanning&gt;&lt;negative-scanner&gt;&lt;film-scanner&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="8445" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8391" CreationDate="2011-02-08T23:28:46.947" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hey, why not just use natural sunlight? How long is your video supposed to be? If not too long, then shooting in an open area (or near big window) in a partially overcast day should give you exactly what you are looking for - the natural look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-02-08T23:28:46.947" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8446" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8444" CreationDate="2011-02-09T00:39:10.100" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;the blue splotches are from surface contact with the negatives. If you don't want to use the film mask try putting strips of thin cardboard on either side of the film strip. Part of the reason for the film mask/carrier is to prevent just this thing from happening by providing space above and below the negative so there is no surface contact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3675" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T00:39:10.100" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8448" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8337" CreationDate="2011-02-09T01:47:30.277" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would totally agree with Rowland Shaw (above), but I would also add to check out markets and the like also. For example, every month is an arts &amp;amp; craft markets in my town, and it makes a good 'springboard' as it lets you get a feel for setting up for an exhibition. Essentially, it is all identical but on a smaller and slightly more informal scale. A market stall is more about experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After starting there, I would then look into any small exhibiton space. Do you have a TAFE, university or arts colledge nearby? They often have small exhibition spaces that they use for their students' end-of-year works, but are often hired out. It's also often far cheaper than a specialised space.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you have tried both of those, by all means, jump into a full space! Bring a portfolio (actually, you probably should have for the TAFE/Uni etc. above, too) and let them know what you are capable of bringing to show. They want something that will send crowd away in a good mood &lt;strong&gt;talking good things both about you and their space.&lt;/strong&gt; This is the important(ish) thing. Your exhibition will be a representation of their space. Don't do something controversial in a nun covenant's art exhibition hall. (If you were thinking of that :P)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3375" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T01:47:30.277" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8449" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-09T02:20:44.337" Score="7" ViewCount="220" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming you have a line of sight to all your flashes and both methods will trigger the flashes with 100% reliability, is it faster to use radio triggers or optical triggers to set them off? Or put in other words, how does the delay time for radio triggers compare to optical triggers, and does the delay, if any, have an appreciable effect on photos?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3549" LastEditorUserId="3549" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-09T02:45:27.403" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T17:25:12.283" Title="Which is faster for flashes, radio triggers or optical triggers?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;off-camera-flash&gt;&lt;triggers&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8451" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-09T02:44:14.380" Score="5" ViewCount="132" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that the aperture size has a direct effect on the depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, what about distance to the subject? Let's say I took two pictures, one at 24mm and one at 70mm, using the same lens and camera settings. In post-processing, I crop the 24mm picture so that it has the same field of view as the 70mm picture. Will both of them have the same depth of field and bokeh?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3549" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T03:14:30.433" Title="Is depth of field and bokeh influenced by distance to the subject?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;bokeh&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8452" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8449" CreationDate="2011-02-09T02:52:50.410" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What's better? That depends on a few factors... However, when considering the pros and cons, you have to look at a few different things. A couple that I found really relevant in this was:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;TTL support. The major brands offer this through optical control, in your camera, but that does mean your camera either uses the built in flash or a mounted speedlight to do that. Radio triggers offering this are much more expensive than the ones without, but gain by not requiring line of sight. That's the trade there, though you mentioned line of sight (which I think is actually unreasonable in a lot of shooting scenarios) not being an issue.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Separated control. I do some macro stuff, notably water drops, and my technique uses off camera flash and long exposures in a dark room. If the optical option is used, the flash fires when the shutter opens, but if I go radio, I can use the commander off the camera with the test button. Subtle, true, but actually quite powerful for the right application.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, these were the &quot;biggies&quot; for me and in the end, I found the radio option to be much more flexible in my usage than optical despite the fact that I couldn't get TTL support for Pentax. Individual mileage, however, may vary. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T02:52:50.410" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8453" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8451" CreationDate="2011-02-09T03:14:30.433" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In your example, assuming you kept the same distance to the subject, the 24mm picture would have more depth of field than the 70mm picture. To keep the same depth of field, you'd need to stop the 70mm lens down until it has the same absolute aperture diameter (so that 24/f-number = 70/other f-number).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/vB5wJ.png&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this picture, you can see that a 210mm f/11 lens has roughly the same depth of field as a 35mm f/1.8, when cropped to the same field of view and subject distance is kept constant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T03:14:30.433" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8454" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8449" CreationDate="2011-02-09T03:24:43.903" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Good radio wireless remotes, like PocketWizards, fire extremely fast, well within the time the shutter opens; I pushed mine a long ways past 1/1000 before I saw problems with a black bar beginning to creep into the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think they're both adequate for normal situations. It's when you get into adverse situations that you'll see one work better than the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're in an area with a lot of radio/electromagnetic noise or need to shoot through a metal mesh fence an optical trigger will probably blow away the radio trigger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're not line of sight, or dealing with dust, rain, snow or fog or at a distance that the optical can't cover, then radio triggers will win.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have PocketWizard remote triggers because I needed something to work in really lousy conditions outdoors. I've used them in the rain, dust, heat, cold, up in grandstands, running all over the place, without needing to worry whether I was where the trigger could see me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think reliable triggering for your shooting conditions is the most important thing, over speed or whether it's radio or optical. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1514" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T03:24:43.903" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8455" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8497" CreationDate="2011-02-09T04:08:54.210" Score="6" ViewCount="585" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am working on a small stop-motion video project, although I am sure this kind of lighting will work for individual still shots as well. I need some kind of broad, bright, &lt;strong&gt;continuous&lt;/strong&gt; lighting that will create nice, soft shadows for a small still life scene that will be used as the setting of a small stop-motion video. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am sure I could buy some fancy lighting, however I am interested in knowing if and how it is possible to build my own lighting rigs. As I understand it, I'll need some kind of soft box light that is bright enough to illuminate my scene, without being too bright or harsh that it creates hard, dark shadows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-16T11:24:32.487" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T11:24:32.487" Title="How do I build my own soft-box light for illuminating still or stop-motion scenes?" Tags="&lt;diy&gt;&lt;softbox&gt;&lt;stop-motion&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8456" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8455" CreationDate="2011-02-09T05:44:33.493" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;At its simplest... &lt;a href=&quot;http://lifehacker.com/#!5752697/turn-an-ikea-organizer-into-an-awesome-and-cheap-photography-soft-box&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;stick this thing from Ikea on your light&lt;/a&gt; and fire away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have no idea how well it actually works. However, it's probably quick and cheap enough that you could try it on a lark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to take a step up, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diyphotography.net/search/node/softbox&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DIYPhotography has a bunch of articles on exactly this topic&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I myself have made a PVC-and-cotton light tent &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pbase.com/wlhuber/light_box_light_tent&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;along these lines&lt;/a&gt;. It may be suitable for you. The nice thing is you can make it big enough and shaped to your liking. With PVC elbows it's super easy too: just cut your pipe, no drilling or gluing required. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastEditorUserId="48" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-09T22:19:32.343" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T22:19:32.343" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8457" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8424" CreationDate="2011-02-09T06:43:35.877" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With that budget, you definitely can't beat the Nikon 50mm f/1.8D. It is a fantastic lens that provides some great bokeh (blurred background).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3783" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T06:43:35.877" />
  <row Id="8458" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2" CreationDate="2011-02-09T06:49:56.850" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bokeh is controlled by depth of field, the shallower the depth of field, the more bokeh effect you will get. So how do you get a shallow depth of field? The quickest way is to move the subject further away from the background. Combine that with a zoom lens, which moves you further away from the subject and you'll start to see more bokeh. The ideal way, however, is to purchase a lens with a larger aperture (think f/1.2 - f/1.8). If you shoot Nikon and are on a budget, I highly recommend the Nikon 50mm f/1.8D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3783" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T06:49:56.850" />
  <row Id="8459" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6161" CreationDate="2011-02-09T06:57:50.487" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use shutter speed when motion is the biggest factor in the image. Faster shutter speed allows me to stop motion, say capturing a race car zooming by. Slower shutter speed allows me to illustrate motion; i.e. panning on a subject moving left-to-right showing the subject's motion in comparison to the surrounding environment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When using aperture priority, I am primarily concerned with depth of field; i.e. how much bokeh (bluriness) I want to apply to an image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3783" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T06:57:50.487" />
  <row Id="8460" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8364" CreationDate="2011-02-09T07:03:12.193" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your best best is to convert the files to Adobe's RAW format - DNG. This is a RAW format that keeps the edit information in the file itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3783" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T07:03:12.193" />
  <row Id="8461" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-09T07:43:08.823" Score="5" ViewCount="599" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi everyone!&#xA;Would need some advice on the types of lens that I should get for my Canon 60D. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am just another guy who just taken up photography as a social hobby who enjoys taking pics of everyday life, social events / parties &amp;amp; some portraits. Need camera for short overseas trip (2-3 times a year), maybe some landscape pics. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have done some research and have come up a list of main lenses that I am considering and hope you guys can offer some advice / comments to whether I should make those purchases. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Main reason why I chose &quot;third party lenses&quot; cos apparently they cost cheaper, newer and are &quot;award winning&quot; - so I don't see the point of spending more for the original canon lens (which some maybe quite old - ie 3-5 yrs).&#xA;1) Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC MACRO OS HSM Lens (day to day lens)&#xA;2) Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM (for portrait &amp;amp; bokeh effects)&#xA;3) Wide angle lens (any suggestions)&#xA;Main questions / comments please...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q1) What do you think of the lens choices that I have decided to build my kit? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q2) Any wide angle lens that you will recommend? (third party or canon) or should I get wide angle zoom lens ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q3) What are your thoughts that I chose all my lens from Third Party instead of Official Canon ones... is that a &quot;smart move&quot;? - Any official canon lens that you will recommend?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3784" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-09T12:33:14.953" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T15:35:45.390" Title="Third Party Lens vs Official Lens for Canon 60D" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;" AnswerCount="9" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8462" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8461" CreationDate="2011-02-09T08:05:22.853" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually older lens are reliable and you know they still works even after 3/4 years of usage. You always get what you pay for when it comes to photography gears. So, either you compromise image quality or build quality. Apart for some well reputed 3rd party lenses (f.e. Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f2.8, Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC from your list), its always good to use lenses from your camera manufacturer. Its because no one knows their camera better than who built them. 3rd party lenses generally have lower good copies so chances of getting a bad copy is high. If you really, again really in a tight budget, only then you should go for third party lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, about the lenses you've chosen, each of them are well reputed for their good image quality. So you're in the safer side. Some of them are very soft on the tele end though (Sigma 17-70mm specially). Just ensure you get a good copy. If you can, buy them from a physical store where you can check focus accuracy, sharpness etc. Even the sharpest lens doesn't perform well when it cant focus accurately and a lot of third-party lenses have this problem. Sharpness also varies from product to product, so try 2/3 different copies and take the top performer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can use this website to compare sharpness of a variety of lenses to another:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastEditorUserId="2476" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-09T08:17:04.683" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T08:17:04.683" />
  <row Id="8463" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8461" CreationDate="2011-02-09T08:41:38.680" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;'What do you think of the lens choices?'&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; It looks like you're missing something longer in your lens selections... Say a zoom that'll get you to 200mm or 300mm... Just something to consider. Obviously I don't really know what you plan on shooting so you may be fine, but I didn't think I'd ever have a use for a 70-200mm lens ('cause I'm a portrait photographer... Why would I ever need to go above 100mm?!?) until I used a 70-200mm lens. Over the last 5 years the 70-200mm has been my primary 'money making' lens, and I'd estimate that it's on my camera for about 75% of my client work. Again, just something to consider...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Any wide angle lens you recommend?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; It looks like you've already got a wide angle you're thinking about in the 17-70mm Sigma, unless you're looking to go fisheye, or you really want a prime.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is it a 'smart move' to consider 3rd party lenses?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; In general, as long as you stick with the 'major' third-party brands (e.g. not grabbing some no-name lens on a rock-bottom discount on eBay) you'll at least be able to find lots of in-depth reviews on most lenses and brands available so you can evaluate your options with lots (usually &lt;em&gt;lots and lots&lt;/em&gt;) of detail so you can make informed and objective decisions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Despite what some people will tell you not all 3rd party lenses suck (and of course the notion that all 3rd party lenses suck is generally perpetuated by the 'name brand' camera manufacturers, so you'll tend hear that 'fact' a lot). In fact 3rd party lenses have made major strides over the last decade and there are far more good 3rd party options than there used to be. There was a time not too long ago that all the 3rd party options were sub-par by comparison to their name-brand counterparts, but not any longer... The only reasons you might specifically want to stick with 'name-brand' are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the name brand lens is a 'class leader.' No point in buying a 3rd party lens that can't compete with the brand name purely because of the price. That's penny-wise and pound-foolish. In the long run it's far better to save into a lens, buy a well cared for used lens, or wait for its price to come down a bit, then to buy the cheaper but lower quality lens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In general, name-brand lenses hold their resale values better than their 3rd party counterparts. I've had several brand name lenses over the last decade that I've sold at or close to what I paid for them, but the same can't be said for the 3rd party lenses I've sold over the years, all of which have gone down in value, most of them relatively sharply. Depending on what kind of shooter you are, you may never sell lenses you buy, in which case brand-name doesn't matter nearly as much.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T08:41:38.680" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8464" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8400" CreationDate="2011-02-09T10:45:51.867" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://store.acdsee.com/store/acd/en_US/DisplayProductDetailsPage/productID.178981500?resid=TVJtGQoHAtYAADXAs@EAAAAA&amp;amp;rests=1297247513629&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ACDSee Photo Manager&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; - It's not free, but it has very good performance. It displays images faster than I have seen in any other viewer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to check it out, it has a 30 day free trial.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other functionality that is very good in ACDSee:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Calendar view (show images by date - no matter where they are located)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In folder view you can tick multiple folders from the folder tree and show the &#xA;images from all the ticked folders in one pane&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Powerful search functionality.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Batch functions:&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rename based on name template&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Change dates (set modified dates back to original metadate etc.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rotate (rotate all one direction, or set rotation from metadata)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you need more, you can also check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://store.acdsee.com/DRHM/store?Action=DisplayProductDetailsPage&amp;amp;SiteID=acd&amp;amp;Locale=en_US&amp;amp;Env=BASE&amp;amp;productID=156603200&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ACDSee Pro&lt;/a&gt; which also has advanced processing capabilities for RAW images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3785" LastEditorUserId="3785" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-09T12:11:25.707" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T12:11:25.707" />
  <row Id="8465" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8455" CreationDate="2011-02-09T11:45:02.670" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Hang a piece of white cloth in front of your light.&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The suggestion of an umbrella is spot-on, and I would recommend that as the first thing to consider.  In UK money, it would probably cost about 20 quid.  &lt;strong&gt;But&lt;/strong&gt; an &lt;em&gt;even&lt;/em&gt; cheaper solution would be to simply hang a handkerchief (or something similar) a few inches in front of your light.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-10T15:30:11.730" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T15:30:11.730" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8466" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8461" CreationDate="2011-02-09T12:48:32.037" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, there are good third party lenses and there are bad manufacturer lenses, so it's better to look at what type of lens you need, then research the specific options.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For wide angle, does your 60D have the kit lens? If so I would suggest sticking with that for a bit, then see how you get on, once you start to reach the limitations of the lens you will know what &lt;strong&gt;you&lt;/strong&gt; need to look for in the replacement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Sigma EX lenses to tend to be good, but if you are looking at the 85mm f1.4 I would also suggest looking at the Canon 85mm f1.8, it's a cracking lens and a lot cheaper too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As has already been mentioned you have a big gap above 85mm, maybe the Canon 55-250mm or a 75-300mm would be a good addition to your lens collection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't used the Sigma 17-70, so can't comment on it, but I do prefer fixed aperture lenses, but before recommending a wide angle I'd wait to see if you actually need one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T12:48:32.037" />
  <row Id="8467" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8469" CreationDate="2011-02-09T12:51:18.260" Score="11" ViewCount="479" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon EOS 550d with the 18-55mm IS kit lens. I have done &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/ab_aditya/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;quite a bit of shooting with it over the last few months&lt;/a&gt; (portraits, nature, night shots etc), and find the image quality to be pretty good. In fact most of the reviews have also been positive (at least in terms of image quality):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_18-55_3p5-5p6_is_c16/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dpreview&lt;/a&gt; Quote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;indeed Canon's main concern may&#xA;  ultimately become whether users have&#xA;  as much incentive to upgrade to more&#xA;  expensive optics as they did before&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Lens-with-Camera/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/158/%28lens2%29/169/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Canon/%28brand2%29/Canon/%28camera1%29/619&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DxOMark comparison to the Canon 17-55mm lens&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-3-5-5-6-Lens/product-reviews/B000V5K3FG/ref=sr_1_1_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;showViewpoints=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Amazon user reviews&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what are the key limitations of this lens (or any other similar kit lens) that would compel one to upgrade to a more expensive general purpose zoom lens (apart from the wanting to upgrade the zoom range)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1977" LastEditorUserId="1977" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-09T13:06:43.067" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T21:55:02.747" Title="What are the limitations of the Canon 18-55mm IS kit lens as a general purpose lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;kit-lens&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="8468" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8467" CreationDate="2011-02-09T12:57:55.447" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;optical quality&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;build quality&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Autofocus Speed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;manual focus ability is minimal (not USM, very narrow ring)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;rotating filter mount (bad for polarizer use)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key factor for me though, is the maximum aperture. Usually a kit lens is f/3.5-5.6, while a good zoom is f/2.8.  That difference is &lt;strong&gt;huge&lt;/strong&gt; when working in low light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-09T21:55:02.747" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T21:55:02.747" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8469" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8467" CreationDate="2011-02-09T13:07:58.603" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For general purpose photography for a general purpose casual user there probably isn't much reason to upgrade your general purpose lens. For everyday photos you'll be printing out on your printer or at the local lab/supermarket to 6x4or A4 etc to show friends and family I doubt you'll notice much of the quality difference between this lens and the more expensive ones. The only gripe you may have is wanting a shallower depth of field on people shots, or wanting a lower ISO when shooting in low light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's when you start wanting to view or print your pictures bigger than a screen/A4 that you may be wanting a better lens. When you start looking more closely at the pixels you'll notice some fringing/chromatic aberration around subjects. You can help minimise this by closing down the aperture but then that makes the lens less useful in certain lighting conditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also if you're doing some action shots you may want a lens with a quicker autofocus, or a quieter one for nature photos. You might want a slightly more robust lens if you're planning on hiking places and worried it might get knocked or dropped, or weather sealed if you'll be out in the rain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So as a general purpose lens it's great, but if you start noticing it's limitations in the kind of photos you want to be taking then that's when you realise you 'need' to be using a more expensive lens. If you don't notice any of these things in the photos you're taking, then there is probably little point in upgrading, and as more and more casual users are investing in DSLR's these days more and more people are going to be finding the kit 18-55mm lens more than adequate for their needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3584" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T13:07:58.603" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8470" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8461" CreationDate="2011-02-09T13:19:03.620" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;i wouldn't choose lenses based on year to year novelty value. While you will have to swap cameras in the next 4-5 years, or less (for more megapixels, sensitivity, noise handling, etc), good lenses last a lot longer.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;That is precisely why you don't see canon's 300d any longer for sale, but good lenses from that time are still good! (and expensive) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually, i read something on cheaper lens+camera combinations where the camera corrects automatically aberrations and lens defects (distortion, etc), so that the lenses can be lighter and cheaper. &quot;Old&quot; lenses, made for cameras without these features, will have less of these faults.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3462" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T13:19:03.620" />
  <row Id="8471" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8467" CreationDate="2011-02-09T13:25:31.053" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First and foremost aperture, as others have noted. And if you want to use a polarizing filter, the 18-55 is more or less useless because the front element rotates when focusing. A more expensive lens may give you better contrast and colour even if sharpness is not an issue... my advice would be to use the 18-55 until something about it really starts to annoy you, and then you will know exactly what to look for in its replacement!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T13:25:31.053" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8472" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8467" CreationDate="2011-02-09T13:49:05.887" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are different aspects. If you want to shoot a scenery where you are able to accommodate all your subjects of interest with a 18-55 mm lens, then you wouldn't need a better one. After all you can take very nice pictures even with a kit lens. But as you go along you would miss things like focusing on a subject from a little distance or taking in more subjects of interest into your photograph. For the former you would need a telephoto zoom lens (something in the range of 70-300mm, or may be even better still) and for the latter you would need a wide angle lens (something like a 10-20 mm). And obviously a specialized lens is expected to yield better results as it has specialized optics. With these factors already considered, there comes into picture the concept of fast lens. The lower the F number (e.g f 2.8/1.4) of the lens, the faster it is (means it will even be able to focus better under low light conditions). But usually a lens with a fixed F number across its focal range will be really costly e.g. A Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 lens costs 160K (INR) and a Nikon 70-300mm (keep in mind a better zoom) F4.5-5.6 lens costs 29K. So decide what sort of photography you find more interest in. If it's landscape go for a wide angle lens and if it's wildlife/ raw street etc. go for telephoto zoom and then if your budget fits go for a lens that is fast (in the range of F1.4/2/2.8).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3786" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T13:49:05.887" />
  <row Id="8473" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8424" CreationDate="2011-02-09T13:56:01.433" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can second the comments about the Nifty Fifty (or Thrifty Fifty). I use mine for band photos and it is wonderful, light, fast, and sharp. It's an amazing investment for very little cash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I'd argue that you can still get a nicely blurred background at maximum aperture on the D50's most common kit lens, the 18-55, if you're outdoors and taking photos of icicles etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3787" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T13:56:01.433" />
  <row Id="8474" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8461" CreationDate="2011-02-09T14:26:59.893" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi all,&#xA;thank u so much for your advice and comments, i have read them all and i appreciate your thoughts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Jay Lance Photography &amp;amp; LC1983 pointed out, yes, i think i am missing out a Zoom lens / more long range lens - i think i will get that later into the year...but in the immediate future. i think will just get the more normal day to day lens Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC MACRO OS HSM Lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;as some of you guys (shutterbug) pointed out there maybe some &quot;auto focus&quot; issues, and as a newie, i have no idea how to test that out...are there any clear signs/? worst case , i think i may have to bring along my frd who has more experience in finding out the &quot;lemons lens&quot;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3788" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T14:26:59.893" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8476" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8461" CreationDate="2011-02-09T15:22:10.310" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is not a direct answer to your question. However, I hope I can still help you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[...] so I don't see the point of spending more for the original canon lens (which some maybe quite old - ie 3-5 yrs)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3 to 5 years is not old for a lens. Unlike typical electronics, lenses do loose very little value over time and you can sell them used for a reasonable price even after decades have passed. Newer lenses will, by trend, have better image quality than older ones. However, this trend won't be noticable when looking at the last 5 or 10 years. I would rely much more on reviews and tests instead of the lens' age.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll be able to find discussions like &quot;Which wide-angle lens for a Canon APS-C camera should I buy?&quot; and reviews to the according lenses all over the internet, so I won't go into detail about the advantages or disadvantages of the single lenses here. Instead, I want to give you a far more general advice:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You seem to be not too sure about which lenses you actually need. Thus, I'd suggest you start with the kit lens and see what you need. This will give you a lot more personal and precise informations about your needs than anyone else can give you. Also, if you're a beginner, having too many lenses might confuse you. When finding out your needs by hitting the kit lens' limits you'll be able to explore the &quot;world of lenses&quot; much better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just one tip for your first lens: If you're really serious about learning photography, you might want to choose a normal (~30mm on APS-C) prime lens instead of the zoom lens that is usually included as a kit lens. Besides the better image quality a prime lens usually has, it will also help you to learn how to compose. Regarding the topic which prime lens to buy, you can have a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7648/normal-and-fast-prime-lens-for-a-canon-aps-c-camera&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; I posted recently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope I could help you with my not too straightforward answer!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2069" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T15:22:10.310" />
  <row Id="8477" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8461" CreationDate="2011-02-09T15:22:34.573" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Q1) What do you think of the lens choices that I have decided to build my kit?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think you're making it more complicated than it needs to be.  If you are indeed looking at photography as a &quot;social hobby&quot; that you're doing for fun, why make lens selection a major worry? Since you asked, here are my thoughts on your current kit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;17-70mm - A decent walk-around lens, but more limited than it needs to be.  I would replace this with an 18-200mm, giving you a very large zoom range and an obvious choice for travel/situations where you &quot;can only have one lens&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;85mm - Indeed, a good length for tight portraits (~135mm on 35mm).  You may find that a 50mm f/1.8 is a bit easier to walk around with and can still offer a very nice portrait perspective on your camera body.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Q2) Any wide angle lens that you will recommend? (third party or canon) or should I get wide angle zoom lens ?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've had both the Canon 10-20mm and the Sigma 10-22(?).  The Canon was a bit more solid, but both produced acceptable images.  The Sigma is significantly cheaper so I'd recommend it based on that alone.  I suspect the Canon has subjectively higher image quality, but nothing that makes a material difference at the hobbyist level.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This type of lens is worth having as it opens up a new, almost surreal world of compositions to you.  A zoom is your best bet since it will give you a chance to learn about how 10mm differs from 15mm, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Q3) What are your thoughts that I chose all my lens from Third Party instead of Official Canon ones... is that a &quot;smart move&quot;? - Any official canon lens that you will recommend?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At this stage there's no reason to worry about the name on the case. In skilled hands the 3rd-party lenses can be used to make some great photographs - holding an &quot;official&quot; Canon lens doesn't do anything to increase your skill. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, Canon's 50mm f/1.8 is a great, affordable lens.  They also make an 18-200mm that'd fit the bill for my suggestion above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Per my initial comment, don't over think this or pay too much attention to the wild claims on the internet. As a hobbyist photographer you should have fun taking pictures and learning - which can be done on &lt;strong&gt;any&lt;/strong&gt; camera/lens combo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you decide to take your hobby to the next level then you can start to pick up some superior glass.  Until that time spend your time taking pictures and your money on books about photography technique.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1513" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T15:22:34.573" />
  <row Id="8478" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8461" CreationDate="2011-02-09T15:27:54.210" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Good things are not cheap and cheap things are not good.&lt;/em&gt; This is true of lenses, no matter the brand. There is a small premium for the brand name, yes, but it is small relative to optical quality. A poor Sigma lens costs little and an excellent one costs much more. Same goes for Canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So choosing the brand of your lens should be more about needs than cost. It is possible that depending on what you need, you may need 3 lenses in one brand while only 2 will do of another brand. This will save you money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember to consider quality, the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; go to 2.8 but you really do not want to use that wide open, the quality is not there. Once stopped down to F/4 is gets acceptable but you need to stop down more to get good quality out of it. I'd go with a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=178&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 17-55mm F/2.8 IS&lt;/a&gt; instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I heard good things about the Sigma 85mm F/1.4, which I have no tried. One the wide side, Canon has an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=165&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;10-22mm F/3.5-4.5&lt;/a&gt; which is quite good and gives you an overlap with another of your lenses and diminishes the number of times you changes lenses. I suggest you look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=81&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8&lt;/a&gt; too, it is truly excellent for an ultra-wide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T15:27:54.210" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8479" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8484" CreationDate="2011-02-09T15:32:37.237" Score="3" ViewCount="151" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am trying to apply a Image sharpening 2D filter kernel(Laplacian) on a Image in my proprietary Image/Video processing pipeline(From Camera raw to final JPEG/MPEG). I plan to perform 2D convolution of this Laplacian kernel with the 2D image array to sharpen the image. My questions is :- &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the most suitable colour space to apply this image sharpening filter to get best output image quality&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a) Should I apply this filter on each component(R,G, &amp;amp; B) in the RGB space?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;b)Should I apply this in the YUV space and only on Y component (or should it be also applied on U and V components)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any pointers will be useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;thank you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-AD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2438" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T18:53:41.427" Title="Which colour space should I apply Image sharpening filter?" Tags="&lt;image-processing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="8480" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8461" CreationDate="2011-02-09T15:35:45.390" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi all,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively, what are your thoughts if i just have two lenses -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which combination would be better ? (can use for the widest range of photography - daily basis)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) &lt;strong&gt;EF-S15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (wide angle zoom) &amp;amp; Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;compared to&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) &lt;strong&gt;Sigma Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC MACRO OS HSM Lens &amp;amp; Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3788" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T15:35:45.390" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8481" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8479" CreationDate="2011-02-09T16:37:11.233" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That's a thoughtful and intriguing question.  However, because the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YUV#Conversion_to.2Ffrom_RGB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;transformation between RGB and YUV&lt;/a&gt; is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_map&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;linear&lt;/a&gt; and the Laplacian (or any kernel &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convolution&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;convolution&lt;/a&gt;) is also linear, it does not matter in principle which basis you use.  In practice there can be tiny differences due to the discretization of the values (which are usually represented as small binary integers).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you apply the filter only on the Y component you will get some sharpening, akin to a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.geosage.com/highview/imagefusion.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pan-sharpened satellite image&lt;/a&gt;.  But why stop there?  You might as well sharpen the U and V channels too, unless you are looking for this somewhat subtle special effect (of sharp luminance but relatively blurry chrominance).  Search Google Images on &quot;pan-sharpened&quot; or &quot;pan-enhanced&quot; to see examples of what these can look like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T16:37:11.233" />
  <row Id="8482" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5254" CreationDate="2011-02-09T16:38:57.643" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;You will never regret buying that 85mm&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T16:38:57.643" />
  <row Id="8483" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8486" CreationDate="2011-02-09T16:53:50.313" Score="12" ViewCount="456" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am told that certain (mostly older) DSLRs can sync (i.e. successfully work with flash) at shutter speeds faster than 1/250 of a second.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which makes / models can do this?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Update&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Thank you for all your answers.  Fantastic.  Keep them coming. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I am asking this because I want to be able to have more control of ambient light.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I don't really care how a camera manages to sync at a higher speed - just the effect.  (Some people seem to think I am only asking about electronic shutters, but I'm not: high speed sync is a great answer, as is anything else, no matter how esoteric).  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-10T10:26:36.753" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T11:36:04.877" Title="Which cameras can sync at faster than 1/250?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;sync-speed&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8484" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8479" CreationDate="2011-02-09T16:55:05.167" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on how your sharpening kernel works, if it just enhances the contrast either side of a boundary like an unsharp mask filter then you want to use the YUV (or LAB) space but apply the filter on the &lt;em&gt;luminance channel only&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason for this is that increasing the contrast of a colour boundary can result in odd looking colour shifts, i.e. in a pale red to pale blue boundary you could end up with yellowy-red line on one side immediately next to a strong blue line. Here's a somewhat extreme example (but using a real image. Can you guess the landmark?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/unsharpened.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;unsharpened image&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/all_channels_sharpened.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;all colour channels sharpened&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/luminance_only_sharpened.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;just luminance sharpened&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also you rarely see fine colour detail in images that's worthy of sharpening. Bayer interpolation / image compression both smooth colour detail. Also the eye isn't very sensitive to missing colour detail anyway (which is why compression removes it). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in summary sharpening all channels will be three times the amount of work, can introduce colour artifacts and if not it may make little difference as there is generally much less colour detail than luminance detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-09T18:53:41.427" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T18:53:41.427" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8485" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8483" CreationDate="2011-02-09T17:08:59.353" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have a look at this nice write-up by Ken Rockwell:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/syncspeed.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/syncspeed.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3113" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-09T17:44:01.960" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T17:44:01.960" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8486" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8483" CreationDate="2011-02-09T17:12:08.073" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Firstly it's important to know why sync speed exists, basically when you use a shutter speed faster than the nominal &quot;sync speed&quot; the shutter starts to close at the bottom before it's fully open at the top. Thus at no single instant in time is the shutter fully open so if you fire a flash part of the image will be dark. For most DSLRs this speed is 1/250s. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a couple of ways to exceed the 1/250s with flash. You can make the shutter move faster so it exposes the whole frame at once even at high speeds, or you can use electronics shutter to turn the sensor on and off simulating an infinitely fast mechanical shutter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think whoever mentioned fast sync with old DSLRs was referring to electronic shutters, as these are no longer used on DSLRs (but are still found on compacts). Reasons for the demise of electronic shutters on DSLRs are varied and there's little consensus though issues with image quality and consistency are often cited. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if you're using a mechanical shutter you can sneak past the manufacturer stated sync speed by timing the flash very carefully. The &quot;Hyper sync&quot; function on new Pocket Wizards allows you to tune the flash delay for this purpose. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a summary of the methods and speeds you can expect in practice:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fast focal plane shutter (available on some film SLRs) &lt;strong&gt;1/350s&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Focal plane shutter + careful timing (with pocketwizards) &lt;strong&gt;1/400s&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Leaf shutters (found in some medium and large format lenses) &lt;strong&gt;1/800&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Electronic shutters (found in older mostly Nikon DSLRs) &lt;strong&gt;1/1000s*&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Technically you can sync at any speed with an electronic shutter, however past 1/1000 the shutter duration is usually shorter than the flash duration so you start to lose power which halts your ability to overpower ambient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only models of DSLR I'm aware of with electronic shutters are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon D1&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon D1X&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon D1H&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon D70&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon D70s&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon D50 &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon D40&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 1D&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure someone here can fill any blanks from the other major manufacturers. It seems the only model from Canon with an electronic shutter is the original 1D, which is an ancient beast, though the newer 1D models can sync above 1/250s with mechanical shutters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in summary there are cameras with faster mechanical shutters / leaf shutters that can beat 1/250s but not by much. If you want crazy sync speeds electronic shutter is the way to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-07T11:36:04.877" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T11:36:04.877" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="8487" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8400" CreationDate="2011-02-09T17:13:26.213" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Again, not free, but Photo Mechanic is the fastest way to browse photos, before importing them into Aperture or Lightroom:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.camerabits.com/site/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.camerabits.com/site/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-- Fons&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3113" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T17:13:26.213" />
  <row Id="8488" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8483" CreationDate="2011-02-09T17:14:11.417" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know the Nikon D70/D70s is popular for this, a lot of action sports photographers keep them in their bag for this reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also a lot of medium format cameras Hasselblad/Bronica etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T17:14:11.417" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8489" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8483" CreationDate="2011-02-09T17:16:11.860" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are (at least) three separate kinds of answers to this. One is a special mode for the flash, in which it produces a flash (or series of flashes) that last long enough to provide coverage as the &quot;slit&quot; in the shutter moves across the focal plane. It's mostly related to the flash rather than the camera though. AFAIK, Minolta was the first to introduce this; Sony continues to provide it since taking over Minolta's camera business. I believe Canon and Nikon now offer similar capabilities as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second is simply shutters that move the shutter curtain faster to provide a higher sync with a normal flash. I believe there are really only two cameras with such shutters: the Minolta Dynax/Maxxum/Alpha 9xi and the Minolta Dynax/Maxxum/Alpha 9. Both of these provided X-sync at 1/350&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; of a second. They're both film cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, there are some medium format cameras (e.g., Hassleblads) that accept lenses with a leaf shutter. Unlike a focal plane shutter, a leaf shutter normally provides X-sync right up the top speed of which it's capable -- usually 1/500&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; of a second.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-09T17:22:50.323" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T17:22:50.323" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8490" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8467" CreationDate="2011-02-09T17:22:38.963" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a very subjective question, it depends on your photography style. You may not find any limitations with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My experience was with the original (non IS) version of the lens, I found manual focus difficult, and wanted something a better built since I was doing a lot of action sports photography. (I ended up going for 17-40L).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may find that it isn't long enough, but in that case I'd advise a 2nd lens rather than replacing the kit lens if you are happy with the performance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastEditorUserId="3101" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-09T21:44:09.437" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T21:44:09.437" />
  <row Id="8491" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8449" CreationDate="2011-02-09T17:25:12.283" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question is &lt;strong&gt;what's FASTER, radio or optical?&lt;/strong&gt;; the answer is that it depends on the trigger more than the mechanism.  Radio waves and light are essentially the same thing and therefore travel at the same speed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Radio triggers include more circuitry and processing since they often accept multiple channels, etc.  PocketWizard advertises that the response time of their MultiMax trigger is as low as 1/3000th of a second, due to their &quot;ultrafast microprocessors&quot;.  I had a hard time finding solid data on the response time of a typical &quot;dumb&quot; optical slave (like a Wein), but I saw commentary on it ranging from 0.1 sec to just 1-2ms.  So, in spite of the additional electronics it would seem that the radio option will be faster, but surely this depends a lot on what type of photodiode/resistor is being used in the trigger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;All that said, none of this likely matters unless you are attempting to capture something that happens incredibly fast and without warning.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Typically in high-speed photography applications you are triggering a flash pulse based on some event; often either sound or interruption of a beam of light.  Given that, you should be able to compensate for the 0.3ms delay of a PocketWizard simply by subtracting that time from your trigger... That'd be a matter of dialing it in if you're using something fancy, or if you're using a light/sound-based system just move the trigger ever-so-slightly closer to your subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, if you're triggering a flash based on the sound of a balloon popping, moving the microphone closer to the balloon will cause the flash to fire sooner since the sound has less distance to travel.  Sound being slow (relative to light), you wouldn't need to move it very far to make up for 1/3000th of a second... maybe a few inches?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second part of your question, &lt;em&gt;will it have an appreciable effect on photos?&lt;/em&gt;... Most likely not, since &lt;strong&gt;it isn't the response time of the trigger&lt;/strong&gt; that makes the image but rather &lt;strong&gt;it's the duration of the flash&lt;/strong&gt; itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1513" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T17:25:12.283" />
  <row Id="8492" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-09T17:28:36.633" Score="11" ViewCount="190" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I am using a Canon flash in the E-TTL mode, &lt;strong&gt;how can I tell which flash power the E-TTL magic chose&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, if I got a correct exposure in the E-TTL mode, can I easily choose the same flash power in the manual mode (without a lot of trial &amp;amp; error)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this information available anywhere (camera, flash, EXIF data)? Does it depend on the Speedlite model?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In particular, I would like to easily find out &lt;strong&gt;how close to the limits of my flash I am shooting&lt;/strong&gt;. If I noticed that E-TTL is using almost full power, then I might want to increase ISO to play safe and avoid underexposure if the conditions change a bit, and if I noticed that it is using very little flash power, I might want to decrease ISO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course I know that there is a green &quot;flash exposure confirmation&quot; LED. This way I can check that I had enough power in my flash – but by how large a margin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="247" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T04:17:45.837" Title="What was my flash power?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;manual-flash&gt;&lt;ettl-ii&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="8493" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8492" CreationDate="2011-02-09T17:50:11.840" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One way to see this is to use manual (M) mode when using a flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you adjust the aperture and shutter speed, the exposure metering will be displayed in the viewfinder.  If you are using ETTL, then the flash will make up for the difference between the metered exposure and the &quot;Correct&quot; exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you know what the difference was you can calculate when settings you should use in manual mode using the flash's Guide Number and the distance to the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know this isn't truly what you had in mind, but the flash power is not included in the exif data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T17:50:11.840" />
  <row Id="8494" PostTypeId="6" CreationDate="2011-02-09T19:14:02.453" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been a member of this site for 2 months, and have been among the more active members ever since, not missing one day in that period of time. I'm active in Meta, and in the chat, and I've been using the powers given by reputation to help the community as best as I can, including closing topics, fixing typos, etc. I've earned numerable badges to show my commitment to the community, including Civic Duty, Citizen Patrol, Sportsmanship, and Enthusiast. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-09T19:14:02.453" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T19:14:02.453" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-09T19:14:02.453" />
  <row Id="8495" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8400" CreationDate="2011-02-09T19:57:50.003" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Personally, I really like FastStone Image Viewer (and other products).&#xA;They are free and you can get them at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.faststone.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.faststone.org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have used this product to view my RAW files quickly, and based on the ones I like, batch-process them into jpegs to send and/or upload for others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is their blurb on the image viewer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;FastStone Image Viewer is a fast, stable, user-friendly image browser, converter and editor. It has a nice array of features that include image viewing, management, comparison, red-eye removal, emailing, resizing, cropping, retouching and color adjustments. Its innovative but intuitive full-screen mode provides quick access to EXIF information, thumbnail browser and major functionalities via hidden toolbars that pop up when your mouse touches the four edges of the screen. Other features include a high quality magnifier and a musical slideshow with 150+ transitional effects, as well as lossless JPEG transitions, drop shadow effects, image annotation, scanner support, histogram and much more. It supports all major graphic formats (BMP, JPEG, JPEG 2000, animated GIF, PNG, PCX, PSD, EPS, TIFF, WMF, ICO and TGA) and popular digital camera RAW formats (CRW, CR2, NEF, PEF, RAF, MRW, ORF, SRF, ARW, SR2, RW2 and DNG). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3793" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T19:57:50.003" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8496" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8492" CreationDate="2011-02-09T20:51:21.197" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think that data is available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I've found that you get a feel for good starting point just by using your gear.  Once you get to know your gear you can look at a situation and say to yourself, &quot;OK, I'm going to have my flash about 6' away, ISO 400 and f/5.6... I'll start with the flash at 1/8th power and adjust from there&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That kind of approximation is likely more useful than trying to use E-TTL to meter it for you - especially since it can be tricky to know that the TTL is metering the right area of your composition.  If you really need an exact reading you'd be better off picking up a proper light meter that can fire your strobes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1513" LastActivityDate="2011-02-09T20:51:21.197" />
  <row Id="8497" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8455" CreationDate="2011-02-09T22:40:13.590" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;[This answer is a work in progress at the moment -- illustrations will take some time. The illustrations that I have managed to include so far should be good enough to get going with -- the rest are just for clarity. But we're getting closer to a complete answer.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Umbrellas and scrims (suggested in other answers here) &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; work, but they leak light all over the place -- you need to add gobos to the mix to control the source. A shoot-through umbrella, in particular, is just a bounce umbrella that leaks -- you still need to control the bounced light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To make a cheap but effective overhead 40&quot; square cool-light softbox you will need:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;one (1) swag lamp socket-hook-and-chain kit (très passé for décor, so très cheap as well -- at least in my neck of the woods)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;four (4) or five (5) 32x40 inch sheets of 3/16- or 1/4-inch white fomecore -- thinner's better for weight, but one sheet should probably be thicker. You actually don't need a full sheet of the thicker stuff -- if you have enough lying around spare from another project for a 15-inch square or can buy a smaller board, you're golden, though two of those squares will make it sturdier. See the narrative for another alternative.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;three (3) Y-shaped two-to-one Edison socket adapters.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;enough cheap diffuser material (tissue paper or similar) to cover the front of the box with some overlap to fasten.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;tape of some sort to hold it together (it's light, you don't need anything very special). A wee bit of PVA glue (Elmer's) wouldn't hurt either.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;some thread/wire/dental floss/fishing line and a couple of pushpins/thumbtacks (that'd be your high-tech adjustment mechanism)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can make this as elaborate and professional-looking as you want (black vinyl exterior, reinforced seams, name blazoned boldly on the sides), but the basic McGuyver variant is operationally sound, and should weigh in at about $25 plus the cost of the bulbs. I made a variant of this that had a plywood box at the back and a tilt yoke with a socket for a light spigot, but that's an extra-cost refinement you don't need for a &lt;em&gt;get 'er done&lt;/em&gt; application. If it works well enough, it's easy enough and cheap enough to make a better version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The swag lamp kit is for overhead use with minimum mechanics. The chain will support the socket and lightbox safely without putting undue stress on the cord. You can hang it from the ceiling (if you have spousal or other necessary permission to poke holes in things) or you can hang it from the crossbar of a background stand, a boom, or some jury-rigged frame made of anything sturdier than Tinkertoy rods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put the three Y-adapters together -- the design usually allows good electrical contact with the four available sockets spread out evenly. There's no need to be too fussy, you just want to make the source as big as possible in this box design. If you have a &quot;filler&quot; type epoxy available to set the angle permanently, so much the better, but it's not really necessary. Once the bulbs are installed (not yet) you'll have a light spider that's about 16&quot; on the diagonal. Four 40W CFL bulbs will run comfortably (even though the lamp socket is probably only rated for 150W -- keep in mind that rating is not an electrical rating so much as a heat rating, and it's based on a single incandescent bulb). If you're uncomfortable with the 10W electrical overage, you can scale the bulbs back a bit, but don't go too low or you'll lose your ability to &quot;see&quot; the light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll need to make four of these (the whole sheet is a standard 32&quot; by 40&quot; fomecore board):&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/5qDMR.png&quot; alt=&quot;Basic fomecore cutout diagram&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cut completely though on the solid lines. On the dotted lines, cut through one side of the paper and the foam, leaving the other side paper intact. If you cut through, it's no huge disaster -- just tape one side back together. Both of these scoring cuts are on the same side of the board. You may want to run a dull blade (like a butter knife) across the other side to make the bend cleaner. Once the boards are bent, the way they go together is pretty obvious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tape the middle sections (the parts that form the 45° reflector) together on the inside. If you want the box to be collapsible for storage you can use velcro and tabs to hold the other bits together and the box, taped at only the middle sections, will store flat. For rough-and-ready, this-is-a-prototype, you can tape the other sections together as well. You should now have a box that looks like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ui7H6.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Basic box assembled&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(This is actually the 32-inch version from the cutting diagram below. It's only 64% of the area of the 40-inch version, and the &quot;mixing box&quot; at the front is much shallower, so the light will be &quot;hotter&quot;. It's what I needed, and with minimal control over my arms and hands, making things I don't need using a box cutter is taking an unnecessary risk.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can add considerable strength and durability to the basic box by taping the outside of the seams after assembly. To keep the box collapsible, tape them with the parts folded flat against each other, so that the tape goes into the seams.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The square of thicker material (two squares laminated together is better) forms the back of the enclosure. It'll need a hole dead center for the socket, which should be a tight friction fit. That way, when you tilt the box you will also be tilting the bulbs. In a more permanent version, you'd probably want to use something a bit sturdier and more heat-resistant than fomecore, but since this is something you're getting from some nut on the net, it's probably a good idea to test the concept first. There is, in practice, more than enough room between the fomecore and the ballast of the bulbs (the only part that generates any real heat) to prevent melting or a fire hazard, especially if you turn the lights off from time to time. An alternative is to use a couple of squares of 3/16 or 1/4-inch plywood separated by a frame of 5/8 or 3/4 molding around the perimeter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Woodworking diagram to come)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's almost as light, but it's sturdier, more heat-resistant and a whole lot less likely to deform in use. It's also something that takes real tools to make rather than just a box cutter and enthusiasm. If you have the wood and a hole saw, go for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The back can be glued or velcroed in place. If you are so inclined, you can line the interior of the box with something shiny and textured (you can do wonders with aluminum foil, a rolling pin and a heavy fabric) but white will do the job just fine. Now it's just a matter of installing the Y-adapter assembly so that the sockets point off to the corners, installing the bulbs in the sockets, and putting the diffuser on the front. The 45° reflector isn't optimal, but there's a sort of &quot;mixing chamber&quot; ahead of the angled part that evens out the lighting well when the diffuser is in place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now it's just a matter of hanging the light, turning it on, and steering. Keeping it pointed in the right direction is what the cord and tacks (or tape, if holes are going to be a problem) are all about. You'll probably want to formalize this arrangement for something better than a throw-away. If you do decide on a wooden (or sheet metal with a more industrial-type socket) back, building a tilt yoke is easy -- you just want to include enough of a counterweight at the rear that it balances well on a stand. Again, prove the concept with pocket change before moving on -- I'm just this guy on the web, and even I wouldn't take my advice blindly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that if you adjust the measurements slightly, you can make a 32&quot;-square softbox with a 12&quot;-square back, a 10&quot; reflector section and a 4-1/2&quot; deep &quot;mixing chamber&quot; using only two sheets of fomecore for the four sides, as below:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/aj7vJ.png&quot; alt=&quot;Cutting diagram for 16 inch box&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can make it any size you want -- as long as the cutout for the reflector section (the triangle that is 12.5&quot; by 17.5&quot; in the 40&quot; design) is in a 5:7 (5 units wide and 7 units long) ratio, that part of the assembled box will be close enough to 45° to satisfy anybody but the most pedantic geometrician.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Either design, by the way, works well with a speedlight poked in through a rectangular hole at the back and a &quot;bare bulb&quot; style diffuser attached if you want to go all Strobist with it. Two diffuser panels separated by a few inches work better in that case, one at the front of the 45° secion and one at the front of the box. And the &quot;waste&quot; triangles (the 5:7 ratio bits that were cut out to make the reflector section) fit perfectly to make the box a table-top lighting solution -- no stands required if you have furniture of the right height.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This picture was taken at f/4 and 1/60s at ISO 200 using the 32-inch version of the softbox:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/2MrMp.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;narcisistic self-portrait&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastEditorUserId="2719" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-04T07:57:48.240" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T07:57:48.240" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="8499" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-10T00:33:44.700" Score="4" ViewCount="329" Body="&lt;p&gt;Following on from an &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8075/help-my-new-dslr-camera-is-affecting-my-ability-to-take-snaps&quot;&gt;earlier post&lt;/a&gt;, I've decided to persevere with the behemoth for a bit and see where it goes. It may lead in the direction of a Canon G11/12 or S90/95 - only time will tell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the meantime, in an effort to cut some weight/bulk down I thought I might swap out the 18-55mm lens for a 35 or 50mm one. The choices are bewildering and at present &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ken rockwell&lt;/a&gt; is my guide. But he hasn't got a bad word to say about a single Nikon lens so I have no idea what to go for. Ideally I'd like something equivalent to the lens on the Canon S95 (28-105 mm focal length) - good for low light and fast. I'd appreciate your thoughts and comments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: Apologies - my mention of the S90/5 lens suggests I need zoom - I don't, as the 18-55 that came with the camera will adequately cover those scenarios. I just want a light, quick lens with a wider aperture that I can use for 'everyday' use (snaps of the kids, random life shots, mostly low-light, handheld) that won't make me look like a Paparazzo or peeping tom, won't break the bank and will make my dSLR &lt;em&gt;a bit like&lt;/em&gt; a compact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2547" LastEditorUserId="2547" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-10T09:35:39.793" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T18:07:55.847" Title="What's a Good All Purpose Compact Lens for a dSLR ...?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;nikon-d5000&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8500" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8499" CreationDate="2011-02-10T00:54:45.323" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If size is your primary concern, you may want to take a look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Voigtlander-Aspherical-Compact-Pancake-Digital/dp/B000ZNQUBU/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=electronics&amp;amp;qid=1297298697&amp;amp;sr=8-4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;voightlander 40mm F/2&lt;/a&gt;. or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Voigtlander-Skopar-Aspherical-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0000D81PX/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=electronics&amp;amp;qid=1297298797&amp;amp;sr=8-5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;20mm F/3.5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They're &quot;pancake&quot; lens design, so is about as small as you'll be able to find for a full DSLR. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In combination with the better low light performance of the D5000 over the S95, they'll both work very well for low light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The downside is that they are both manual focus, althought they fully support metering and all the other nice camera features.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both will be roughly half the size of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-35mm-AF-S-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001S2PPT0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1297298989&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;nikon 35mm F/1.8&lt;/a&gt;, or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-1-4G-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001GCVA0U/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1297299030&amp;amp;sr=1-2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;50mm F/1.4&lt;/a&gt; lenses, which will autofocus and are slightly better for low light. The Nikon 50mm F/1.8 will not autofocus on the D5000.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're looking for a 50mm, another alternative is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-50mm-Nikon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0018ZDGAW/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1297299185&amp;amp;sr=1-2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 50mm F/1.4&lt;/a&gt;, which is a fair bit larger than the Nikon version, but may perform better. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't believe Nikon makes a zoom lens smaller than the 18-55mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3478" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T00:54:45.323" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8501" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8499" CreationDate="2011-02-10T00:54:53.930" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no such thing as an all-purpose lens. That is why they sell more than one model.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you need is to look for one that suits you. If you want something lighter than the 18-55mm which weighs 265g, you do not have much choice: Here all all &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_lens.php?mount=nikon&amp;amp;weight=250%3amax&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon mount lenses which weight 250g or less&lt;/a&gt;. They are all primes and only 3 choices of focals, choose the one that you would use more. Personally, I would go for the 28mm, since it is easier to crop than to stitch when the angle-view is not what you need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some people &lt;em&gt;need&lt;/em&gt; a zoom, Nikon makes some versatile ones like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=75&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;17-55mm F2.8&lt;/a&gt; but it weighs 755g. It covers a nice wide-to-medium range and has a bright aperture for low-light and more control over depth-of-field compared to the kit lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T00:54:53.930" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8502" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8499" CreationDate="2011-02-10T01:51:33.313" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The equivalent to the S95's 28-105mm focal length would be an 18-70mm lens.  The already-mentioned 17-55/2.8 will probably be the closest you can get to that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The S95 can have a big zoom range with a physically small lens because it has a &lt;em&gt;much&lt;/em&gt; smaller sensor than on your DSLR, so it needs a smaller-diameter lens to project onto that sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, a wide-aperture (f/2), big zoom, lightweight lens does not exist.  In fact, you'll find that you have to directly trade off physical size and weight for wider apertures, and again you'll have to directly trade off physical size and weight for bigger zoom ranges.  So you'll need to narrow down your requirements to which single one matters most: wide aperture, zoom range, or physical size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want a physically smaller lens but you want to keep DSLR quality (i.e. large sensor sizes), you can look at Micro 4/3 cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T01:51:33.313" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8503" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8043" CreationDate="2011-02-10T02:16:55.423" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To raise my awareness of perceptual differences, I periodically browse examples at: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/index.html&lt;/a&gt; .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The site's title:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;89 Visual Phenomena &amp;amp; Optical Illusions&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Visual Illusion · Optische Täuschung)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;by Michael Bach&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3798" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T02:16:55.423" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8504" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8423" CreationDate="2011-02-10T04:30:00.020" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the monitor's controls don't allow an option to change from &quot;SRGB&quot; to something that sounds like &quot;Wide Gamut&quot; or &quot;AdobeRGB&quot;, &quot;ProPhoto&quot; etc, then chances are it doesn't support wide gamuts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No matter if your monitor supports wide gamuts or not, in 99.9% of situations I would recommend to set it to SRGB anyway.  And if your video card has a similar option, set it to SRGB too.  SRGB is the de-facto standard of colour spaces on a computer and if you used anything else, you'd probably find out just how ill-equipped computers are at supporting other colour gamuts: some applications will be able to take advantage of it with special configurations, most won't, and those that do might do it in different ways to each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The biggest thing you lose with SRGB when compared to print is a bit of texture detail in highly saturated blue-green colour.  Your eye probably can't see a lot of detail in highly saturated blue-green areas anyway.  And even if your eye can and your monitor can, your OS and software may not support it or may require endless fiddling with to get it right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't forget that if you are hell-bent on it, you can still edit photos in wider gamuts like AdobeRGB if you want to, even with an SRGB monitor.  A colour management system ensures that while it's on the monitor it's translated to SRGB in a pleasant/accurate way but still can preserve that colour detail in the file.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T04:30:00.020" />
  <row Id="8505" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8455" CreationDate="2011-02-10T04:51:50.223" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Think outside the (soft) box. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I was in school we had a really simple table top rig that was just 6 to 8 under cabinet kitchen lights from the local home store. Looks like homedespot has something very similar for about $20: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.homedepot.com/Kitchen-Kitchen-Lighting-Under-Cabinet-Lighting/h_d1/N-5yc1vZbn5uZ1z1159xZ1z13pe8/R-202024445/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&amp;amp;storeId=10051&amp;amp;catalogId=10053&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.homedepot.com/Kitchen-Kitchen-Lighting-Under-Cabinet-Lighting/h_d1/N-5yc1vZbn5uZ1z1159xZ1z13pe8/R-202024445/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&amp;amp;storeId=10051&amp;amp;catalogId=10053&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Really simple to assemble them into whatever configuration you want around the perimeter of the table, most common was standing upright on a simple 1x4 brace that was c-clamped to the table edge. Some folks got fancy and hung a longer piece of 2x4 above the table with them on the under side.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The advantage of these lamps are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;low temperature (so they don't spoil food, melt wax models, etc.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;fairly bright (you're using them in the 2-3' range, just like they were designed to be used in the kitchen... not 8' away like a normal ceiling light)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;very soft (even without the plastic housing that they come with, a 15&quot; long light source at that range wraps around objects like a point source just can't) add the plastic difusion hoods and it's like an instant cloudy day.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;low power (we ran them all off a single power strip under the table, though ours had more like 12' cords than the 5' ones listed there.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;cool temps (long hours working on getting just the right shot did not end with you sweating all over your product!)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;disadvantages&quot; were:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;color temperature... fluorescent; as long as you take it into account you'll be ok, but if you mix in any flash you have to filter it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;low power (these are only 15W bulbs here.... even with 8 of them you're only talking 120 watts of light... you're not going to be shooting iso 20 at 1/3000th with this rig.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it's NOT a single point of light. If you HAVE to have that look... get a strobe... this setup is not for you.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;if you have a reflective surface... well... it looks weird to see a bunch of light tubes standing around in the reflection. The best solution for that I saw was a tent (as discussed on several other answers)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;warm up time. (the lamps took 2 or 3 minutes to warm up and settle into their final color temperature, if you started shooting too soon, you would end up mis-correcting stuff.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get something like a &quot;single softbox&quot; we would simply put all of them (or as many as we needed) side by side by side, and if needed, throw a thin piece of white fabric over them. (I think a few folks got fancy and set a small board on top of the boards holding the lights to hold the fabric out a few inches from the lights.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that was a single rig that was intended to provide lots of flexibility for different folks to shoot all kinds of different things over the years... doesn't sound like you need that, but you could likely adapt some of those tricks to do what you need. Another option would be to look at larger kitchen fluorescent fixtures, though that would require a bit more framing and electrical work. They have a nice (cheap) round unit I'd honestly consider: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.homedepot.com/Lighting-Fans-Indoor-Lighting-Industrial-Shop-Lighting-Round-Fluorescents/h_d1/N-5yc1vZbvli/R-202373280/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&amp;amp;storeId=10051&amp;amp;catalogId=10053&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.homedepot.com/Lighting-Fans-Indoor-Lighting-Industrial-Shop-Lighting-Round-Fluorescents/h_d1/N-5yc1vZbvli/R-202373280/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&amp;amp;storeId=10051&amp;amp;catalogId=10053&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-10T22:07:42.080" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T22:07:42.080" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8506" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8499" CreationDate="2011-02-10T05:36:04.133" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately in the world of DSLR lenses, you really can't get past some graphs:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While this is not always the case, it's a basic idea of the trade offs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The longer the lens can zoom in and out, the more image quality problems arise (chromatic aberration, barreling etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More often than not, a higher quality lens will also have a larger fixed aperture (not applicable to primes) which contributes to weight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Higher quality lenses will then also be made out of metal for durability. In other words, when you want image quality, you'll likely end up with a heavy and/or large lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/93IkX.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By longer zoom range I don't mean, telephoto lenses, I mean large zooms such as the 18-200mm versus the 70-200mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T05:36:04.133" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8507" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8523" CreationDate="2011-02-10T07:31:50.023" Score="10" ViewCount="209" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to know if anyone has any advice or experience they can share about using a pair of zoom lenses that have overlapping focal lengths; or a pair of zoom lenses that have adjacent focal lengths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've narrowed down my next big lens purchase to a couple choices, one of which has a focal length range that overlaps a lens I already have and one that has a focal length range that sits next to it.  I can compare all their technical attributes through available review sites, but I don't have any experience with the overlapping-vs-complementary question and have read very little about it online.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The overlapping lens neatly encompasses my favorite focal lengths, but I'm concerned that if I buy it I'll use it to the exclusion of my current lens and as a result I'll grow to hate it because it means I leave a great lens in my bag or at home.  On the other hand, I fear that if I buy the complementary lens I'll have to change lenses for every other picture.  (Obviously there are a lot of pros to each, but its those cons as well as the ones that I don't know about that keep worrying me, so I have a hard time comparing them since I have no experience with this.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd love to know &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; you chose to go one way or the other, and what you thought after you used the lenses for a while.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit 2011-02-10:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;A couple answers mentioned the common weakness of lenses at the edges of their focal length ranges, which I think is the killer reason to get overlapping lenses.  After reading the rest of the answers, though, I see that I wasn't very clear in my question, and I think that using real lenses in my example was a bad idea.  Here's my attempt to clarify my question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose I have a DSLR whose sensor has some unknown crop factor.  I currently have a 20-45mm lens, and after trying some other lenses in the 20-200mm range I come to the conclusion that my favorite pictures are all in the 25-70mm range.  After investigating lenses I narrow down my choice to two lenses, a 35-85mm lens and a 45-85mm lens.  So the lenses in question look like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xA;                           1&#xA;  2    3    4    6    8    2&#xA;  0    0    0    0    0    0mm&#xA;==#====.====#====.====#====.==&#xA;  +----.----#+&#xA;  | current  |&#xA;  +----.-----+&#xA;     +-.----#----.--+&#xA;     | sweet spot   |&#xA;     +-.----#----.--+&#xA;          +-#----.----#+&#xA;          | proposed   |&#xA;          +-#----.----#+&#xA;             +---.----#+&#xA;             |proposed |&#xA;             +---.----#+&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly there's no do-it-all lens, but one, out of many, of the differences between the two lenses I am choosing from is that one overlaps my current lens and the other one doesn't.  I research both proposed lenses, let's call them Lens A and Lens B, and I rank all their attributes, like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xA;                       |      Score&#xA;Feature       | Weight | Lens A | Lens B&#xA;--------------+--------+--------+---------&#xA;Max Aperture  |   5    |    5   |    4&#xA;Size/Weight   |   4    |    3   |    4&#xA;IS/VR/OS      |   2    |    4   |    5&#xA;AF speed      |   3    |    4   |    3&#xA;Full-time MF  |   4    |    5   |    4&#xA;Brand         |   1    |    3   |    5&#xA;Sharpness     |   4    |    4   |    4&#xA;Flare         |   1    |    3   |    5&#xA;CA            |   5    |    4   |    5&#xA;Other stuff...|        |        |&#xA;Price         |   4    |    1   |    2&#xA;Overlapping   |   ?    |    ?   |    ?&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I'm asking you to help me answer those three question marks.  Is it &lt;strong&gt;better&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;worse&lt;/strong&gt; to have overlapping ranges, and &lt;strong&gt;how important&lt;/strong&gt; is that.  Once I know which option is better, I can give the two lenses their rankings (probably '1' and '5' to indicate they are on opposite ends of the spectrum) and then I can weight the subject based on how important I think that is.  Obviously these are somewhat subjective questions, but unlike everything else in the table, there has been very little written about this subject online, that I've found, so I don't have a lot of opinions to draw from.  That's where you come in :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(And please don't overanalyze the table, the numbers are all made up.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastEditorUserId="2910" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-11T04:16:51.560" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T04:20:57.363" Title="Overlapping vs. Complementary lenses" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8508" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8509" CreationDate="2011-02-10T07:37:44.870" Score="13" ViewCount="562" Body="&lt;p&gt;Somewhere I don't remember, I heard about the Brenizer method. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After reading a few sites, there is no consistent information about what it exaclty is and what are the procedures to apply it, so:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is its goal?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is it a merely post-processing job?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Can it be applied with any lens?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is there a preferred scenario?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope you can explain me a little more. Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1641" LastEditorUserId="1641" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-12T04:10:34.623" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T04:10:34.623" Title="What is Bokeh panorama (AKA Brenizer method)?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;technique&gt;&lt;panorama&gt;&lt;bokeh&gt;&lt;brenizer&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="8509" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8508" CreationDate="2011-02-10T08:10:40.163" Score="21" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's essentially a way of using image stitching so you can use a long lens to shoot a wide-angle image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As with a panoramic image, you shoot a number of pictures that will eventually become one image. The idea is to use a relatively long lens, like a &quot;portrait length&quot; telephoto or longer, so that you can get a very shallow depth of field on your main subject. You then shoot a number of images of the subject's surroundings, keeping all of the settings -- &lt;em&gt;including the focus point&lt;/em&gt; -- the same as the original image. This is a whole lot easier to do if everything, including focus, is manual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ordinarily, the primary subject is a person or a couple (Brenizer is a wedding photographer), and people move, their clothing shifts, etc. You want, then, to get a very tightly-framed picture of all (or at least most) of your main subject with the first shot. Sometimes you can cut them off at the feet and fill in the rest later, but if you're shooting people &quot;dressed up&quot; outdoors, the chances are that dress hems and trouser cuffs will go astray. Sometimes stitching makes up the difference, but not all of the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next shots will be of the surrounding area. Make sure there's a generous amount of overlap between images, and take enough pictures to completely cover the same field of view as the wide-angle lens you are trying to simulate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rest is post-processing: panoramic stitching and whatever retouching you may need to do to make the image seem like it was all-of-a-piece in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you are done, you will have created an impossible picture -- the equivalent, say, of shooting the image with a 24mm f/0.2 lens. That is, you'll get the field of view that a wide-angle lens will give you, but a razor-thin depth of field that a wide-angle lens can never give you. (Well, not any wide-angle lens that can be made with the materials and knowledge of optics that we're likely to have in the next century or so.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The optimum for ease of shooting would be one or two people and a static environment. The more moving parts there are in the scene, the harder it gets -- people will have to hold a pose anyway, and the more people there are, the less likely it will be that everyone will hold still while they're being shot. Dogs and kids? Maybe not a good idea most of the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T08:10:40.163" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="8510" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8507" CreationDate="2011-02-10T08:31:53.483" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, its better if you have a little overlapping focal lengths between your lenses. That way you can reduce the hassle of changing lenses every time your subject distance changes. I know it doesn't take much to swap lenses on the fly, but again you can wait to change the lens but the subject might not always.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, lets say you have 10-22mm and 70-300mm. Now you need a lens in between theirs length range. You can get 24-70mm to complement your existing one, but surely 24-105 gives you slight better flexibility on the longer end and 15-85mm gives you flexibility on both ends. Another positive thing is, while traveling if you want to go lightweight, you can pick anyone of the lenses having most versatile range without thinking much of missing a certain focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was in the same dilemma few months back. I was using 18-55mm and wanted to get 55-250mm which compliments the kit lens. But when I consulted a few fellow photographers, they all said complementary lenses are effective but not handy. So, I've decided to get 70-300mm and then upgrade my kit lens to 24-105. This overlaps about 35mm, but it also gives me equal flexibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I might suggest, if you can take a look back at all the pictures you've shot in past. Determine what were the focal lengths you used the most and get decided for prime lenses. Primes are usually sharper, in some cases cheaper and comparatively faster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, choices of lenses mostly depends on what you shoot, what lenses you currently have and what you're planning to shoot in future. If you can mention these, I'm sure you'll get much more precise answers than mine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastEditorUserId="2476" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-10T08:39:32.400" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T08:39:32.400" />
  <row Id="8511" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8499" CreationDate="2011-02-10T08:51:33.683" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can heartily recommend the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 AF-S. It's compact, lightweight and has great image quality. It's not very expensive either. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a counter-indication, it's pretty common on the used market around here (Stockholm, Sweden) which I take as an indication that it's not a lens for everyone. Personally I enjoy shooting with primes and this is a lens that fits my needs perfectly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T08:51:33.683" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8512" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8507" CreationDate="2011-02-10T08:52:08.800" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If those (17-55mm and 24-70mm) are the lenses under consideration and you have a 10-22mm, I'd go for the 24-70mm just to increase your versatility. There will be a &quot;hole&quot; in you arsenal, but not a huge one. All three lenses would be nice, but we're not talking about $39.99 bottle bottoms here, are we? (Both are f/2.8 constant-aperture lenses.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ideally, you'd like to have a bit of overlap, but an (eventual, maybe?) combination of 10-22mm, 24-70mm and 80-200mm will leave you with darned few pictures you can't take. The two shorter ones will make a reasonable, manageable walkin'-around kit that will get you everything but long shots. If you need something that looks like it was shot at 23mm, you can shoot at 22 and crop. (Same thing if you absolutely need the framing of a 76mm lens -- shoot at 70 and crop.) You won't be losing enough to really care about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T08:52:08.800" />
  <row Id="8513" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8516" CreationDate="2011-02-10T09:29:02.077" Score="18" ViewCount="767" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've recently heard about a photographic technique called 'freelensing.' How do I go about 'freelensing,' and what can I do with the technique?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-23T14:45:32.523" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T14:45:32.523" Title="What is 'freelensing'?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;technique&gt;&lt;freelensing&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8514" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8483" CreationDate="2011-02-10T09:34:25.737" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not a direct answer, I know, but I think this should be pointed out :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You rarely need flash sync speed higher than 1/250[s]. When using a flash, the action is frozen by the flash duration, much more than by your shutter speed. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="461" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T09:34:25.737" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8515" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8513" CreationDate="2011-02-10T09:46:43.393" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I can see from a quick google, Freelensing appears to be the act of uncoupling your lens from the camera body and hand holding it in front of the body. You then hand tilt the lens until you get a desired plane of focus (similar to tilt and shift) and take your shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, a good way to break something on your camera :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T09:46:43.393" />
  <row Id="8516" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8513" CreationDate="2011-02-10T09:57:25.497" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://content.photojojo.com/tutorials/tilt-shift-and-macro-freelensing/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Freelensing! Turn any Lens into a Tilt-Shift or Macro&lt;/a&gt; - includes sample images and various tips&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Freelensing isn’t as simple as just popping off any old lens: some lenses work better than others, and capturing your subject takes a bit of planning. It’s easy to make mistakes! Fortunately, we’ve been around the block with freelensing and over time have made every mistake a person can make so you don’t have to. These Photojojo-tested techniques will have you snapping successfully in no time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://gentlepurespace.com/blog/archives/freelensing-photography-technique&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Freelensing Photography Technique&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Above is a high definition video of him moving the lens around and focusing on things, and it kind of shows the exciting organic and hard to control effect it produces.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lukeroberts.us/2009/12/freelensing/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Freelensing - A visual guide&lt;/a&gt; - includes camera compatibility tips and sample images&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Photos taken with the lens detached from the camera but held in place and moved around to focus. This also lets extra light in sometimes causing light leaks and giving a vintage look and feel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Freelensing can also:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Give extra bokeh by shrinking the area in focus (aperture is 0)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Allow for super macro shots&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Produce ethereal lighting by allowing stray light to get in to the sensor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Make delicious light leaks&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Create tilt-shift effects&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/freelensing/discuss/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Freelensing forum on Flickr&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="420" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-23T01:13:34.997" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T01:13:34.997" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="8517" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8513" CreationDate="2011-02-10T10:01:49.023" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're familiar with reverse macro, I guess you already have the basic of 'freelensing'. This works the same way and you need to take your lens off the body, hand-held it to add dramatic effects to your snap. You can do tilt-shift, light leaks, macros and a lot of customized blurry effects. This requires a lot of passion, practice and in some cases specific gears.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But you also need to understand, by taking your lens off, you're exposing your sensor and lens mount to dust, mist and other potential risks. So, there's nothing better than a tilt-shift lens if you want to do tilt-shift or a macro lens for macro purpose. This technique is just a cheaper solution to some of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T10:01:49.023" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8518" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8520" CreationDate="2011-02-10T12:09:12.977" Score="5" ViewCount="205" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is somewhat a follow-up to my &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/8467/1977&quot;&gt;earlier question on the limitations of the kit lens&lt;/a&gt;. I have browsed through quite a lot of sites including this one for user opinions &amp;amp; reviews of different Canon lenses, but haven't found a comprehensive answer to the possible upgrade paths from the kit lens, particularly since I don't have a specific usage scenario in mind. Here are a few that I have found that answer the question partially:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cameralabs.com/features/Canon400D_lens_upgrade/page6.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 400D lens upgrade test on Camera Labs&lt;/a&gt; (Quite old)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/3569/1977&quot;&gt;Buying first lens after kit lens&lt;/a&gt; (for Pentax though)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/8499/1977&quot;&gt;What's a good all purpose compact lens for a DSLR&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/3506/1977&quot;&gt;Upgrade strategy for Canon EOS DSLRs&lt;/a&gt; (more about the cameras)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/4316/1977&quot;&gt;If you could pick two lenses as a starter kit which ones would you go for?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/7359/1977&quot;&gt;What's wrong with the Canon EF-S 15-85mm?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/4047/1977&quot;&gt;Is it worth to have a 50mm 1.8II canon lens.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this reason, I thought it would be useful to have a list of sub-$1000 upgrade lenses for the kit lens for APS-C format DSLRs (like the 550D, 60D, 7D etc), as a lot of people are upgrading to DSLRs nowadays. The key points that I seek are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pros\cons compared to the kit lens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Price&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Scenarios the lens is suitable for&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keep in mind that it is primarily for APS-C cameras, so, EF lenses meant primarily for the full frame cameras would end up with the magnification factor of 1.6x. Also, this is focused towards hobbyists &amp;amp; amateurs for which reason I've added the sub-$1000 bit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S. This question might be more suited for a wiki like article (albeit with user opinions included)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1977" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T07:30:44.293" Title="Lens upgrade paths (sub $1000) for the EF-S 18-55mm IS kit lens for Canon APS-C cameras" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;cropped-sensor&gt;&lt;upgrade&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8519" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8518" CreationDate="2011-02-10T12:19:13.330" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The obvious answer would be one of the f/2.8 lenses of similar zoom range. Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-50, Canon 17-55. With or without IS depending on how useful you find it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T12:19:13.330" />
  <row Id="8520" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8518" CreationDate="2011-02-10T12:46:04.013" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, upgrades depends on your need. Something what you consider an upgrade might not be the same for a lot of others. You need to think a few things and get decided on the specs you'd like the new lens on and make a priority list of the features.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What focal length are you planning on? Do you need a telephoto or a wide angle? If you shoot birds, you need something with a minimum 300mm on the longer side. If you shoot landscapes and sunsets, you'll need something around 10mm.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Typically when do you shoot? If you shoot mostly in broad daylight, there's no point buying a f/1.4 lens. But if you shoot in low lights, fast lens might be on top of your priority list.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do you shoot moving subjects at low-light? Get something with stabilizer, otherwise its a waste.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do you use CPL filters? If yes, get a lens which doesn't have a rotating front element.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do you plan to upgrade your kit lens in a sense that you want to replace its focal length with something having better image quality or you need a lens which complements your kit lens's focal length reach? I always believed, if you need a better performer in the same range of your kit lens, get 17-55mm f/2.8. If you need something to complement your kit lens, decide on the focal length you need, telephoto or wide angle.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you shoot macro, get a 1:1X macro lens. If you're a extreme macro user, get MP-E 65mm 1:5X macro lens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T12:46:04.013" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8521" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8518" CreationDate="2011-02-10T12:56:46.540" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you nailed the problem with finding good answer saying: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;but haven't found a comprehensive&#xA;  answer to the possible upgrade paths&#xA;  from the kit lens, particularly since&#xA;  I don't have a specific usage scenario&#xA;  in mind&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I this situation you simply asking &quot; I want to spent $1000 on a lens to replace 18-55 kit, what can I buy&quot; So any lens that covers 18-55 range and cost under $1000 meets your criteria.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each lens has many properties that can be considered pros or cons depending on the use scenario, also some may choose 2-3 primes in pace of zoom etc. There are so many options that  I do not think it is practical or even possible to list all of the scenarios here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1520/lens-review-sites&quot;&gt;sites that specialise in lens review&lt;/a&gt; so you could start there. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastEditorUserId="115" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-10T13:03:03.463" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T13:03:03.463" />
  <row Id="8523" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8507" CreationDate="2011-02-10T13:10:23.617" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While complementary lenses cover a wider range at a lower cost, you are giving up some flexibility and quality by going that route.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With zoom lenses, the extreme focal lengths on either end are often weaker optically then the center of the range, so with a 18-55mm and a 55-250mm you have covered the 18-250mm range, but you will probably be weak around 18-20mm, 50-60mm, and 240-250mm (just guesses, I haven't actually researched specific lenses).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, with overlapping lenses, you may have a 10-22, a 15-85, and a 70-200.  This way you have covered 10-200mm, and even though the 15-85 may be weak from 15-20, the 10-22 will cover the range quite well.  Also, you will need to switch lenses less often, meaning that you will have less issues with sensor dust. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T13:10:23.617" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8524" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8067" CreationDate="2011-02-10T13:34:51.320" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Try Phil Harvey's exiftool, which can extract not just Exif data but a lot of other data formats from image files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Download exiftool from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note the XMP documentation on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/TagNames/XMP.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/TagNames/XMP.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3804" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T13:34:51.320" />
  <row Id="8525" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8507" CreationDate="2011-02-10T13:43:21.303" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some legitimate reasons to want overlapping ranges.  One of the reasons you buy a zoom lens in the first place is to reduce the number of lenses (and lens changes) you need to cover a zoom range.  Even if you've got a 50 prime in your bag, for instance, it's a whole lot more convenient to take a quick shot with your zoom at 50mm if you've already got a 18-55 or 24-70 or something like that mounted on your camera, and the same idea goes for overlapping zooms -- it's really convenient to be able to cover wide-to-normal and normal-to-tele in a pair of lenses because either let you grab a shot in the middle of that range, and it doesn't mean that you'll necessarily be using one at the expense of the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In some cases, you may also have a zoom that's less sharp at one or both ends of its range, and this is also a great reason to overlap that part of the range with another lens (and hopefully, to upgrade the lens at some point).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as being afraid that you're going to like one of your existing lenses less when you buy a new one, I wouldn't worry too much about that.  After all, if your new lens ends up really being better than your old lens, then you've made a worthwhile upgrade.  Maybe you end up being able to sell that old lens and upgrade another part of your range.  If your old lens stands the test of time, though, you'll keep going back to it.  Don't be surprised to &quot;rediscover&quot; a lens at some point, too (ie, &quot;I'd forgotten how much fun it is to shoot with a 50 prime...&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T13:43:21.303" />
  <row Id="8526" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8518" CreationDate="2011-02-10T13:55:37.087" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The two &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; broad reasons to buy another lens would be to expand your focal length range or to improve some aspect of quality in a range you've already got.  For the purposes of this answer, I'll lump optical speed, optical quality, build quality, autofocus speed, etc., together as &quot;lens quality&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first point is pretty easy to understand -- if you've got an 18-55 kit lens and you want more reach, you go shopping for a lens with more reach, and vice-versa for a wide-angle lens.  In most cases, you'll get a zoom of some sort before you start buying primes (for range expansion).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second point &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; stem from your experience with current equipment.  If you're shooting with a kit lens and you notice softness in your photos, you might consider an upgrade.  If you want better low-light performance, you might consider an upgrade.  These upgrades can be better zoom lenses, but this is also a great time to consider primes.  Primes work great in cases where you know what focal length you're interested in, and you want the best quality you can get at that length. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to answer more specifically, you should have some specific objectives you're trying to achieve with the upgrade.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T13:55:37.087" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8527" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8532" CreationDate="2011-02-10T14:03:47.420" Score="8" ViewCount="270" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was wondering what, if any, are the technical differences between the two mounting systems. Does one auto focus faster? Can one hold more weight? Things along those lines that make them different.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3611" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T15:09:18.127" Title="What's the difference between the Canon and Nikon lenses mounts?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;lens-design&gt;&lt;lens-mount&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="8528" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8527" CreationDate="2011-02-10T14:39:34.470" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I suppose one of them is screwed clockwise, as usual, and ther other is screwed the other way, counter clockwise. But I don't know for sure, because I use Pentax K-mount...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seriously, though... they have different &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;flange focal distances&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF-S mount, 44.00 mm&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pentax K mount,   45.46 mm&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon F-mount,    46.50 mm&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It means, that through adapters you are can put a Nikon lens on a camera with smaller FFD, but not the other way (with Pentax or Canon lens for Nikon body you cannot focus to the infinity, or you have to use an adapter with corrective optics).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastEditorUserId="1558" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-10T14:46:33.040" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T14:46:33.040" />
  <row Id="8529" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8527" CreationDate="2011-02-10T14:40:36.733" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard that Nikon's mount is a bit too narrow to accommodate a really fast autofocus 50mm lens, like the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2. This is due to the fact that the lens contacts get in the way of the large exit pupil needed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T14:40:36.733" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8530" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8527" CreationDate="2011-02-10T14:44:40.647" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as i know they are different just because they were developed at different times, by different companies - other than that both mount do the same job. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Earlier i created question about maximum weight - and we found no clear data about it for both Nikon and Canon. I suspect it depends more on body construction, than on mount itself.&#xA;As for auto-focus - it depends on lens and camera AF system, not the mount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2922" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T14:44:40.647" />
  <row Id="8531" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8518" CreationDate="2011-02-10T14:47:34.963" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You've got already a good answer I voted up from ShutterBug. I would also like you to think of it differently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are correct to say that not having a particular usage in mind makes it harder. Typically usage narrows options.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you need to think about then is particular limitations. The kit-lens is pretty much the most limited modern lens you can get, so there are plenty to choose from:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Range: Do you keep wanting to go wider or longer.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Depth-of-field: Do you wish to take photos with less depth-of-field, aka more background blur.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Quality: Are you tired of your pictures looking like they were taken in a dark tunnel due to vignetting? Do you keep cropping the edges to avoid showing the degradation in sharpness? Do you photos look soft at print-sizes where you have enough megapixels?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Performance: Do you miss shots because AF is too slow? Even if you use a small aperture for a photo, AF is always done at maximum aperture, so having an F/2.8 or wider lens will improve things even if you shoot at F/8. USM lenses tend to be faster as well.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are so many lenses, I hesitate to list particular examples. Pretty much ANY lens will be an upgrade path from the kit lens to improve the factors listed above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T14:47:34.963" />
  <row Id="8532" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8527" CreationDate="2011-02-10T15:09:18.127" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Nikon mount is far older than the Canon one. Nikon have updated their old (OLD!) manual focus lens mount continously, adding new mechanical and electronic connections to it over the years to support new features. Canon started with a blank sheet of paper on their EOS mount in the late eighties and did not even try to maintain backwards compatibility. The main difference is that the EOS mount is all-electronic, there is no mechanical linkage whatsoever between camera body and lens. The Nikon mount has a mechanical stopdown linkage and a mechanical autofocus linkage to let an in-camera AF motor drive the AF mechanism in the lens, plus a full set of electronic linkages á la Canon. The consequence is that an old Canon manual-focus lens is now a useless paperweight while any old Nikon manual focus lens can, in principle (there are some gotchas), be mounted and used on the latest and greatest Nikon DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the Canon mount has a shorter flange distance and a wider opening. The short flange means that there is room for an adapter to fit lenses with other mounts, the wide opening means that making ultra-large aperture lenses like 50mm f/1 and 85mm f/1.2 is possible. Nikon only goes to 50/1.2 and 85/1.4... whether this difference means much in practice is debatable :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T15:09:18.127" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8533" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8067" CreationDate="2011-02-10T15:20:21.020" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I tried Phil Harvey's tool and I must admit that the beauty and functionality was lost on me. I suppose it is great if you are handy with the command line. This prompted me to look further and I finally found what I was looking for all along.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use &lt;strong&gt;Expression Media&lt;/strong&gt; for cataloging all my photographs and I finally found the feature that I needed in the beginning. Under &lt;strong&gt;Make&lt;/strong&gt; there is a feature called &lt;strong&gt;Text Data File...&lt;/strong&gt; In it you can select all the fields you desire to extract from and it outputs the results into a .txt or .csv file which I can then import into my website.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Problem completely solved. And I couldn't be happier about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3635" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T15:20:21.020" />
  <row Id="8534" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-10T15:24:43.390" Score="5" ViewCount="403" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've got three lenses with my T2i - the kit lens, the Canon EF 50mm II and Canon EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III.  I'm going to a high school play and would like to take some stills along with some short videos.  It will be a no flash environment, with the stage brightly lit. Any suggestions on lens and/or settings?  I've tried all three lens in the past and just put the camera on no-flash mode.  Some of the pictures aren't too bad so i can probably do that again.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="662" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T18:21:49.243" Title="How to set the Canon T2i for Low-Light" Tags="&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;low-light&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8535" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8455" CreationDate="2011-02-10T15:25:00.357" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The cheapest solution is to use a piece of foam core to bounce the light off of. &quot;Diffused&quot; light just means that your light source is large in comparison to your subject. A large soft box light becomes a point light source when it is moved far from your subject, making the shadows become hard. Imagine looking at the light from your subject's POV. How large does the light source appear to be?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Point your continuous light away from your subject. Then place a piece of white foam core in front of your light source. Allow some distance between the two to allow the light to spread. The foam core will now be your light source. You can control the size of this improvised soft box by changing the size of your foam core. You will need to have this rig very close to your subject. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3808" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T15:25:00.357" />
  <row Id="8536" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8534" CreationDate="2011-02-10T15:28:58.220" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your best bet is probably the 50mm.  Since the maximum aperture is f/1.8 instead of f/3.5 or f/4, it will work in significantly lower light.  This is because it is at least 2 stops faster (meaning 4 times as much light passes through the aperture when wide open).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, you will want to use a pretty high ISO, because a little noise is less of a problem than blur from a slow shutter speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T15:28:58.220" />
  <row Id="8537" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9041" CreationDate="2011-02-10T15:45:07.750" Score="6" ViewCount="379" Body="&lt;p&gt;As the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/727169-USA/Sigma_320101_85mm_f_1_4_EX_DG.html#ReviewHeader&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM&lt;/a&gt; was originally designed for Full Frame cameras, how would the performance be affected if I use it on Canon 60D (APS-C camera).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q1) I need confirmation that this lens can be used on Canon 60D ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q2) in the Sigma official statements &lt;strong&gt;&quot;When used on digital cameras with an APS-C size image sensor, the lens effectively becomes a 127.5mm F1.4 lens*&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can some kind soul here please explain to me in simple layman terms what does that mean?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;ie instead of telling people that i have a 85MM Lens, now, I have a 127.5mm lens&lt;/em&gt; - can i tell people that i have a 127.5mm lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q3) Will the perforamance of this lens suffer / be worse off since i am using a ASP-C camera instead of a Full Frame Camera in which this lens was designed for?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q4) Note! If the camera body does not support HSM, autofocus will not be available. &#xA;Does Canon 60D have this function?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am sorry that I have asked many questions but I do hope someone can please explain to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3788" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-10T15:47:57.940" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T18:37:22.023" Title="Performance of Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DGM on Canon 60D" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;sigma&gt;&lt;canon-60d&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8538" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8537" CreationDate="2011-02-10T15:49:40.980" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Any EF Lens will work on an EF-S (APS-C) mount without issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only difference is that the effective focal length will be 1.6 times the Full Frame equivalent, because the sensor size is smaller.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding HSM support, I believe that is in reference to a Nikon mount version of the lens.  Because the AF motors are in the lens for all Canon mount lenses specific body support is not needed.  For other brands the body may include an AF motor, so it would need to be supported.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T15:49:40.980" />
  <row Id="8539" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8534" CreationDate="2011-02-10T15:53:00.483" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bring a tripod or a monopod. It will help reduce camera shake blur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="332" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T15:53:00.483" />
  <row Id="8540" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8541" CreationDate="2011-02-10T16:13:00.023" Score="1" ViewCount="66" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon PowerShot A510, with a Kingston 2GB SD card. (actually microSD in an adapter)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;It worked perfectly until I formatted the card in my Mac, although I formatted it with MS-DOS Fat filesystem.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Now when I turn the camera on with this card, it doesn't recognize it (doesn's specify how many pictures left it can take with the current settings) and doesn't respond to any button, mode change, the shutter or even the turn off button.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The only way to turn it off is taking the batteries out.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;When I try my older SD cards of 16 and 156 MB, it works ok.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;And when I format the card, the mac reads it perfectly, then I put it in the camera, does that, then I put it back in the mac and it doesn't recognize it anymore, is like if the camera tried to format it and left it in an unconsistent format, then I have to format it again on the mac to use it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;PS: As this is almost unrelated to the art of taking pictures, excuse me if it's off-topic.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3809" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T16:21:02.200" Title="Canon A510, Kingston SD card makes the camera unresponsive" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;memory-card&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="8541" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8540" CreationDate="2011-02-10T16:21:02.200" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You've got a combination of less-than-ideal practices going on here.  In general, anytime you bring a card adapter into the situation you're risking potential trouble.  Furthermore, it's always recommended to format memory cards in the camera (rather than on a computer) since although in theory a formatted card is a formatted card, there's always a risk that something might go awry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that the A510 is a 6-year old camera and SD cards are pretty cheap, the easiest solution is likely to just purchase a 2GB SD card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T16:21:02.200" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8542" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-10T16:35:39.193" Score="9" ViewCount="338" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am using my S95 to photograph text documents (both paper &amp;amp; microfilm) for OCR. &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8328/taking-photos-of-computer-screens-reducing-glare-with-s95&quot;&gt;I have already asked about the problems of how to best photograph a computer screen for microfilm,&lt;/a&gt; but I've been thinking about the best way to photograph text so that the text comes out clear and crisp. Here are my current thoughts, but I would like to hear what anyone with more photography experience than me has to say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I am using a smaller # of megapixels (around 6-7MP rather than the S95's maximum, which is 10MP), so that the resulting PDF files don't kill my computer when I actually go to scroll through them&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Aperture - lower (e.g. f/6.3), so that if the camera is not exactly parallel to the page, the text will remain in focus&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Shutter speed - There's a tradeoff here, because libraries are generally lower-light, so I'd like to lower shutter speed increase exposure, but without a tripod, there is a chance of camera wobble&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;ISO - I am not really quite sure how this would affect it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;White Balance - Again, not really quite sure.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been experimenting with different settings on my camera, but I am just learning about photography and would like to know if anyone has any suggestions for how to best photograph text, from books or from documents, that is easy to read.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3382" LastEditorUserId="3382" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-10T16:50:51.237" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T00:47:16.143" Title="Best camera settings for photographing text?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;manual-mode&gt;&lt;shooting-technique&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="12" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8543" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8542" CreationDate="2011-02-10T16:51:29.700" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If your camera has a black and white mode, I'd try that to reduce your post processing time.  Additionally, many OCR programs I've worked with do much better in  B&amp;amp;W.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll want get as parallel to the page as you can, because in order to reduce camera shake when hand holding, you're probably going to need your widest aperture in order to maximum your shutter speed.  The small sensor on your s95 should increase your DOF enough that I'd open the aperture as wide as you can get away with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Considering you're just going to be running this through OCR, crank your ISO up to whatever gives you a proper exposure with minimal shake.  The OCR is much less likely to complain about the extra noise than blurry letters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;White balance, if you're just talking about text, should be for whatever your &quot;indoor&quot; setting for your camera is - but frankly, don't worry too much about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your megapixels may only matter if your document text is incredibly small and you'll need to clearly resolve that level of detail, but I would guess 6-7 is going to be fine for most things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T16:51:29.700" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8544" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8542" CreationDate="2011-02-10T16:56:50.847" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I assume you are converting JPEGs to PDFs.  I recommend capturing the maximum, and using a program to downsize to the 6-7 MP with sharpening applied after the downsize and before conversion to PDF.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;To clarify, you want a narrower aperture for wider depth of field, which is a higher f-stop number.  (e.g. you want f/8 instead of f/2).  With text for readability, try to have the camera pointed as perpendicular as possible so you don't need to worry about depth of field.  It is a good idea to stop down a bit from wide-open to reduce aberrations such as CA that you will see with black on white text.  The closer you are to the paper, the shallower the depth of field will be.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;This will probably have the biggest effect on readability if you are handholding.  If are handholding, you want to select a shutter speed such that it is faster than 1/(equivalent 35mm focal length), or even faster.  This depends on what zoom setting you are using on your P&amp;amp;S.  If you use the wide end, you can get away with longer shutter speeds, but may get barrel distortion. If you are photographing text documents and not a computer screen, I recommend trying a flash.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can, prop the document up (taped or something so it is flat) so you can rest the camera on something and get as long of a shutter speed as you want.  You can also use a beanbag or small objects to angle the camera as it rests.  Also, you can get waterbottle tripod adapters for a P&amp;amp;S.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Aperture, shutter speed, and ISO form an exposure triangle.  Read about it &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/learning-exposure-in-digital-photography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  The higher the ISO, the narrower aperture and shorter shutter speed you can use, but the image will be more noisy.  I recommend a low ISO (400 or less) for a P&amp;amp;S with text.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Select the white balance for your lighting situation.  If you have florescent, use that.  If you are using flash, use flash white balance.    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-10T17:20:29.077" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T17:20:29.077" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8545" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8542" CreationDate="2011-02-10T16:59:50.170" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You seem to have a good grasp of the settings already. Camera shake is going to ruin the readability of text more than anything else, so I would optimize that first. If you can't use a tripod make sure your shutter speed is at least 1 over your focal length (35mm equivalent). Zooming out will make this easier. Use image stabilization if you have it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aperture can be set fairly wide, just make sure you're parallel with the page. A wide aperture will help with the shutter speed, again blur due to wide aperture is nothing compared to blur due to camera motion! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ISO, whatever you need to get a good exposure. Noise shouldn't affect readability until it gets really bad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shooting a custom white balance based on the paper itself would be preferable, but the OCR software should be able to cope with an off white background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T16:59:50.170" />
  <row Id="8546" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8542" CreationDate="2011-02-10T17:06:15.190" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Some small suggestions, but I think your setup looks good&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Use a tripod.  This will remove any problems with camera shake, and allow you to use as long an exposure as you need.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Avoid light falling directly onto the paper at an angle that can reflect straight into the lens and cause a highlight where you don't want one.  This usually means making sure the light is coming from the sides.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;ISO: As a rule of thumb, you should err towards a lower value, but I am sure that any material difference will quickly become obvious.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apart from that, I can't think of any ways to improve on your setup.  To be honest, I think you've got it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T17:06:15.190" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8547" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8542" CreationDate="2011-02-10T17:19:46.317" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It sounds like you've got most of the answers already :-P I'll just add a few comments on your points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Resolution: you're right, you won't need a lot of resolution here, especially if you're just going to be viewing the images on-screen. I'd probably cap it at twice the max typical screen resolution myself.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Aperture: you're correct with selecting a smaller aperture to get a bit of depth-of-field wiggle room. However, you're probably not going to need a whole lot. Play with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;depth of field calculator&lt;/a&gt; for your focal length, figure out a reasonable DOF, and then go with the largest aperture you can. (However, make sure you're a stop or two under your max aperture for best sharpness.) You want the largest aperture so that you can have more room to play with shutter and ISO; see below.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Shutter: obviously you want this as fast as possible to reduce shake, while still getting enough light. I've heard various sources claim &quot;shutter speed equal to focal length&quot; to avoid shake; some claim double. So, if you're using a 50mm lens, try to keep the shutter speed between 1/50 and 1/100. Once you have that, try for the slowest speed to maximize the light.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;ISO: you should be able to boost this fairly high. The noise might reduce the look of the picture but probably won't degrade its readability too much. What's &quot;high ISO&quot; and &quot;too noisy&quot; depends on your camera. Experiment. This is probably the best way for you to get your correct exposure in low-light, compared to aperture and shutter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;White Balance: for you, it shouldn't matter too much. If your photographed paper comes out looking off-white, does it matter? (Different story if you're photographing books with full-color pictures of course). If you want to correct it in post, you'll have a relatively easy time, since you have lots of neutral-colored paper to work with. I'd probably leave your camera on Auto White Balance and forget about it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T17:19:46.317" />
  <row Id="8548" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8554" CreationDate="2011-02-10T17:22:24.517" Score="2" ViewCount="115" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can anyone recommend me a 12v/cigarette lighter charger for the Canon S95 please? It is very important that it does not catch fire. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively, a means to charge from AA batteries?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3812" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-24T11:52:59.867" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T11:52:59.867" Title="What 12 volt charger should I get for the Canon S95 battery?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;charger&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8549" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8553" CreationDate="2011-02-10T18:00:28.137" Score="4" ViewCount="272" Body="&lt;p&gt;My camera is from about 2001 and rather limited by today's standards.  5 megapixel, ISO400 at the most, f/8 is the smallest aperture, noise even in good light, a few hot pixels in the CCD, no raw data, etc.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've taken many nice photos with this, but can't do much with them.  Microstock (or even regular stock) might be a fun way to put the photos to use and earn a few bucks, but they want higher res and clean images.   Prints to be framed and shown can only be so big.  Unless I catch some big historical moment, these aren't going on any magazine covers.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the limited res and quality, what ways &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; these images be of use to others and earn me some extra money?  It'd be real nice to earn enough to by a serious new camera this year.  (And a lighting kit and filters and...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So far the most viable thing I've come up with is to do heavy image processing on up-sized photos, adding artistic effects to make digital art.  See for example &lt;a href=&quot;http://jeffcottwilson.com/Wilson.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://jeffcottwilson.com/Wilson.htm&lt;/a&gt;  The fine detail is mathematically generated (&quot;procedural textures&quot; in the computer graphics world) and noise actually helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps I can get rich and famous from the digital art work, but I want to know what other ways my camera can earn its keep.  Other photographers may have this same question but not interested in making digital art.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="637" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T07:02:58.220" Title="Using and earning money images from a 10yr old 5MP camera" Tags="&lt;business&gt;&lt;resolution&gt;&lt;marketing&gt;&lt;picture-sales&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8550" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8534" CreationDate="2011-02-10T18:21:49.243" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've never taken pictures of a play, but these general suggestions may be helpful:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To &quot;set the camera for low-light,&quot; shoot in Av (aperture-priority mode) and set the aperture to its lowest value (1.8 for the 50mm lens, and from 4-5.6 for the 70-300mm lens, depending on how far you zoomed in).  Then increase the ISO if your shutter speed isn't fast enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would highly recommend &lt;strong&gt;practicing&lt;/strong&gt; shooting in Av mode before going to the play if you haven't used Av mode before.  Then at the play, take some of your shots in this mode and some in your normal shooting mode (intermission might be a good time to switch modes).  This ensures that you will end up with some photos at the quality level you're used to getting, even if you completely blow every picture you take in Av mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Choose the lens you bring based on how far you will be from the stage.  If very close, the 50mm will be fine.  If far away, the 70-300 (but the 50 is pretty light, so maybe stick it in your pocket for pictures of the cast party).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that shooting with wide apertures (i.e. low Av values) you'll be at the narrowest Depth of Field for each lens, so it may be more difficult to maintain focus or keep the entire scene in focus.  Usually this is an (artistic) advantage, but it could cause problems for you (again, shoot half your pictures the way you're used to shooting, and you'll end up with at least half of your pictures at your known, expected quality).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T18:21:49.243" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8551" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8507" CreationDate="2011-02-10T18:30:34.147" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The notion of &quot;complementary&quot; lenses takes for granted that the focal length is the only characteristic that's different between the lenses in question. In reality, that's rarely the case (probably never, really).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To make sensible selections, you need to look at quite a bit more than that, such as speed, size/weight, optical quality (sharpness, aberrations, etc.), durability, and so on. Depending on what kinds of subject matter you shoot (and under what conditions), duplication at or near a given focal length can make a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; of sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just for example, I have an 85, a 100, a 28-135, and a 70-210 all in (or at least covering) the &quot;short telephoto&quot; range. Despite the near duplication, I use each of these lenses on a regular basis, and see no conflict between them at all:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The 85 is an f/1.4, two full stops faster than any of the others -- and with care, it produces truly &lt;em&gt;gorgeous&lt;/em&gt; portraits. At the same time (especially wide open) it tends toward flare and low contrast.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The 100 is an f/2.8 macro, which is certainly useful in quite a few situations where none of the others would work at all. It's extremely sharp, but the focusing is &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; slow (I usually focus it manually).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The 70-210 is also an f/2.8. It's great for sports and wildlife, but weighs about as much as all the others put together, and it's not the sharpest lens around by any means (especially close up).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The 28-135 obviously covers the widest range of focal lengths, but it's also the slowest, so it's the least flexible in terms of depth of field. Like most relatively wide-range zooms, it's also fairly flare-prone.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess I could settle on one lens for the range -- if I could find a 28-210 f/1.4 that focused to 1:1, with adjustable contrast, essentially instant focusing, no distortion, and was less than six inches long and weighed less than a pound.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Until I can find that, though, I think having multiple lenses at (or close to) the same focal length can be quite useful. You're looking at a different range, but you still need to look at a lot more than just the focal lengths to figure out which makes sense for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T18:30:34.147" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8552" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8549" CreationDate="2011-02-10T18:49:44.383" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;10 years is a very long time in electronics, even the pro level Canon 1D is bettered for resolution by a camera phone these days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's more to image quality than megapixels of course (I'm sure to get some flak in the comments for the 1D comparison) but I still think you'll be best served by getting a new camera, even if it's bottom of the range, chances are the screen/lens/sensor will all be better than what you have currently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Making money from stock is hard, even with the best kit. Whether or not you can turn images into digital art will depend on whether you have the artistic ability, which is something only you can answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there was an easy way to make money with 10 year old equipment which could be had for next to nothing on the used market I'm sure more people would be doing it! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-10T18:58:58.570" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T18:58:58.570" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8553" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8549" CreationDate="2011-02-10T19:12:26.383" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your only solution is to start an &quot;old digital camera&quot; movement where you espouse the virtues of the very digital look of the earliest digital cameras, and then put on a gallery show in New York with the images blown up to 4 feet by 6 feet to emphasize the very digitarianism they exude.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hey, if they can do gallery shows with iPhone images this should be a cinch to get rolling.  Don't sell the prints for anything under 20k.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may have to buy an even older digital camera to pull this off right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T19:12:26.383" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8554" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8548" CreationDate="2011-02-10T19:57:22.437" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd recommend going with a decently rated &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Delectronics&amp;amp;field-keywords=power+inverter&amp;amp;x=0&amp;amp;y=0&amp;amp;sprefix=power+inverter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;power inverter&lt;/a&gt;: One example would be this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Rosewill-RCP-E150C-Sized-Silence-Inverter/dp/tech-data/B003YMIUD0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;can sized&quot; version from Rosewill&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That way you can use it with the standard charger, plus it's not a single purpose item.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T19:57:22.437" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8555" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1520" CreationDate="2011-02-10T20:47:50.100" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://pixel-peeper.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pixel-Peeper&lt;/a&gt; is a great site if you want to look at pictures that other people have created with the lens.  It shows all the EXIF information with the picture, as well as the size in megapixels.  Unfortunately, some flickr pictures have been removed.  The best part, however, is you can get a history of the lens's prices from ebay, which is filterable by location and convertible in currency.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T20:47:50.100" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-10T20:47:50.100" />
  <row Id="8556" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1520" CreationDate="2011-02-10T20:51:38.020" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It isn't a lens review site per se... but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lenshero.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LensHero.com&lt;/a&gt; is a great tool for comparing lens options.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T20:51:38.020" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-10T20:51:38.020" />
  <row Id="8557" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8542" CreationDate="2011-02-10T22:04:18.647" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I agree with the suggestions for shooting in the highest resolution available and downsize in in computer.  Also, choose the highest quality jpeg you can get from your camera, or even shoot raw if your camera allows it, and convert to a tiff or png. Lossy compression in jpeg can create artifacts around the ink/paper boundary that could confuse your ocr software. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, what you want to do is use settings that will get the sharpest image you can get.  Things like contrast, white balance etc can be all changed in computer.  In fact, increasing contrast using the levels tool or the contrast/brightness tool in photoshop or GIMP could help you a lot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, converting to grayscale format will substantially reduce the size of your files. And if you do that, and increase the contrast, you don't really have to worry about the white balance.  You may experiment with the white balance, though, some settings may produce better contrast  then others (it depends on your lighting).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your computer can handle it, do all the adjustments (grayscale, contrast, brightness) before you downsize, and after downsizing, apply some sharpening filter to the image. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2811" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T22:04:18.647" />
  <row Id="8558" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8583" CreationDate="2011-02-10T22:50:17.217" Score="5" ViewCount="176" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have read &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8205/small-camera-bag-to-fit-d7000-18-200-nikkor-sb-400-flash&quot;&gt;This Crumpler post&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/191/which-camera-bag-for-a-single-dslr-camera-plus-2-lenses&quot;&gt;This ThinkTank post&lt;/a&gt; and I can't decide between the two of them. Can I have your opinion ? Any specific Pros and Cons ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I also read a lot of reviews, but the &lt;strong&gt;opinion of current users matters more to me&lt;/strong&gt;. The best way would be to try them a lot, but I can't)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3689" LastEditorUserId="1514" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-11T09:35:39.513" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T20:28:37.933" Title="Bag: Which one between Crumpler 5-6MDH and ThinkTank Retrospective 10-20" Tags="&lt;camera-bag&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="8559" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8563" CreationDate="2011-02-10T22:55:28.647" Score="13" ViewCount="406" Body="&lt;p&gt;Specifically, what's the best way to go about shooting photos that have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_faking&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fake miniature&lt;/a&gt; quality to them, which produces high-quality (and believable) images? Is there some special lens that you can shoot these kinds of photographs with, or is this entire effect achieved through software such as Photoshop? And (if it's within the scope of this website), how would one go about creating an image like that with software?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3367" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-11T18:01:47.573" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T20:23:26.633" Title="What's the best way to create a tilt-shift photograph?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;technique&gt;&lt;tilt-shift&gt;" AnswerCount="8" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="8560" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8559" CreationDate="2011-02-10T23:07:35.743" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia has a pretty in-depth article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_control_lens&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;perspective control lenses&lt;/a&gt; (AKA &quot;tilt-shift&quot; lenses), which allow you to tilt the lens from its usual mounting axis, changing the plane of focus. Perspective control lenses tend to be pricey.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are various &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/eos_macro_tilt_adapter.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;mount shims&lt;/a&gt; and other gadgets to get similar effects for less money. One example is the LensBaby line of products.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A no-cost alternative you can try with any SLR is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIiXoNPzCtY&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;free-lensing&lt;/a&gt;; shooting with the lens held off the camera, so it can be positioned along a different axis than the standard one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also possible to create a similar effect in Photoshop. The web is full of tutorials for &quot;fake tilt shift&quot; effects. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.visualphotoguide.com/tilt-shift-photoshop-tutorial-how-to-make-fake-miniature-scenes/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here's one&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2312" LastEditorUserId="2312" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-10T23:34:12.413" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T23:34:12.413" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8561" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8559" CreationDate="2011-02-10T23:09:29.510" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For cheap Tilt lens, check &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensbaby.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lensbaby&lt;/a&gt; and especially the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensbaby.com/lenses-composer.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Composer&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3689" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T23:09:29.510" />
  <row Id="8562" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8559" CreationDate="2011-02-10T23:22:53.760" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I also recommend the Lensbaby - but be aware that tilt shift is a much more challenging effect to achieve than you might think - even with a tilt shift lens I end up with 2-3x more throw awasy with tilt shift, but the keepers are worth it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also plenty of ways to DIY a tilt-shift lens&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.creativepro.com/article/build-a-tilt-shift-camera-lens-peanuts&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Build a Tilt-Shift Camera Lens for Peanuts&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lifehacker.com/#!5362745/diy-tilt+shift-photography-lens&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DIY Tilt-Shift Photography Lens&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3816" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T23:22:53.760" />
  <row Id="8563" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8559" CreationDate="2011-02-10T23:29:16.327" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best way absolutely is to use a dedicated tilt-shift lens. They are quite pricey, and manual control only, but that is the best option, and you asked for the best. For some examples, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/ef_lens_lineup/lens_tilt_pro&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon's TS lineup&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Camera-Lenses/Manual/Perspective-Control.page&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon's Perspective Control lineup&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming you don't have $1000 to spend (Or more), then your next best option is to try for something like a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensbaby.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lensbaby&lt;/a&gt;. They are somewhat pricey, but only a couple hundred dollars.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming that neither of these is in your budget, you could try some of the other suggestions have come up, I won't bother repeating them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You're going to be very hard pressed to find a software solution, because it's really difficult to change the focal point using software, and that's what a tilt lens does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T23:29:16.327" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8564" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8455" CreationDate="2011-02-10T23:36:07.173" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;lots of nice ideas in this topic :D&lt;br&gt;&#xA;i have personally used regular desk lamps with A3 white paper sheets as reflectors and diffusers. works allright for small, stationary stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But i have been thinking lately of something like a bedsheet hung on broomsticks and a 500W construction site lamp.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The bedsheet and the broomsticks are free, and the light goes for 5-10€ on a hardware/construction store. 500W is A LOT of light, and the lamp gets really hot, watch out :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively, 2 or 3 60'ish watt desk lamps can do the trick, and they are usually free (around the house).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3462" LastActivityDate="2011-02-10T23:36:07.173" />
  <row Id="8565" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8537" CreationDate="2011-02-11T00:31:35.200" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Q1 Yes&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q2 When used on an Canon APS-c sensor the lens &lt;em&gt;has the same field of view as an 136mm lens on would have on a full frame body&lt;/em&gt;. The focal length is an intrinsic property of a lens and so doesn't change when mounted on a different camera. However most people use focal length [incorrectly] as a measure of field of view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q3 There are pros and cons to mounting the lens of an APS-c body. An 85mm lens on an APS-c body will be more prone to flare than a 136mm lens on a full frame body (the reason for this is that a lightsource that is out of frame on a crop body will still be in the FF frame and so light will not be occluded and can cause flare). You would also assume a lens designed for a crop sensor would be sharper as for the same number of megapixels smaller sensors will have higher pixel densities. This is not a hard and fast rule however. Finally using the lens on a crop sensor will avoid the extreme corners where a lens will often vignette or lose sharpness. The Sigma 85 f/1.4 is quite long but also very fast so will probably display soft corners wide open.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q4 The lens will autofocus on the 60D (and all Canon EOS bodies).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T00:31:35.200" />
  <row Id="8566" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8296" CreationDate="2011-02-11T02:01:27.607" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've thought about this several times, and I'm going to recommend that you take the set of extension tubes back. At the very least, email the company that made them and ask if it's supposed to be that way. They do say that their &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.soligor.de/src/service.php?hp=4&amp;amp;action=agb&amp;amp;soligorSession=67006352c6d0fb08af5bed33c14fe8ff&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;products are guaranteed for 2 years&lt;/a&gt;. Their contact info is on the bottom of that page. I don't know where you bought it from, but if online, there should be a customer service that can help you, or just walk in the store. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T02:01:27.607" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8567" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6045" CreationDate="2011-02-11T03:12:43.207" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;marcamillion:&#xA; I have the same problem with distortion in my pictures. Funny thing is alot of my pictures showed up just fine in the transfer and then all of a sudden they are starting to go corrupt. Some of them happen in the transfer off the usb. Some of them happen with the sd card directly into the sd slot on the computer. And some of it happens when I use the card reader option. I have a Cannon Rebel XTI 400D series. I have also tried to print them at the store and they come back distorted like yours above but not all of them. I have had several SD cards that I have tried. I currently am using PNY Optima Pro UDMA 4gb &amp;amp; Sandisk ultra II 2.0gb &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anybody or can anybody seem to help me from losing all these memories? The people at the camera store can't even tell me what's going on. &#xA;Thank you in advance, Lore' &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3817" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T03:12:43.207" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8568" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6392" CreationDate="2011-02-11T03:28:27.230" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;World3d.com do excellent &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.world3d.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lenticular&lt;/a&gt; printing and have a client list to suggest they are the top in all things lentiuclar. World3d also offers lenticular printing in short runs as low as 1000. Their website is at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.world3d.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.world3d.com&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3818" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T03:28:27.230" />
  <row Id="8569" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6045" CreationDate="2011-02-11T03:42:11.027" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That is what a JPEG image looks like when the file is corrupted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By corrupted, I mean a data corruption problem: one or more bits in the file are not what they should be - zeroes becoming ones or vice versa.  JPEG is a lot more susceptible than any uncompressed format as a single wrong bit may make the bottom half of your whole picture purple or black or something.  In this case, the pictures are rotated so it's the same effect but sideways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The file is corrupted because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The SD card has gone bad.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The memory in the camera is bad.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Your SD card reader at your computer is bad or you have general hardware issues with your computer.  Is it self-assembled/do you overclock?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;or the Sd card writer in the camera is bad.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's most likely the first one, in which case it's an easy fix - throw the card out.  But before you do, try another card - of a different brand/batch - in the same camera and see if you get any of the same problems.  If you do, then it's time to look into whether the camera is under warranty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T03:42:11.027" />
  <row Id="8570" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8549" CreationDate="2011-02-11T03:50:29.617" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In a way, your camera may not be as limited as you think, or as camera manufacturers may want you to think.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First up, 5 megapixels is fine, and more than most people need.  Ever since we passed 2 megapixels it ceased to be the main thing determining image quality really, and unless you're doing some extreme cropping or printing literally &quot;poster size&quot;, the lower pixel count may actually help image quality, at least by having fairly decent (for its time) low noise.  Note that 2 megapixels is all James Cameron needed for &quot;Avatar&quot;.  Also note that 5 megapixels is 70% the resolution of a 10 megapixel camera: you'd have to go to 20 megapixels to double the resolution of 5MP.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your camera also has a fast f/2.0 maximum aperture lens - this is nothing to be sneezed at (today, you need to go for a &quot;pro&quot; compact like a Canon S95 for one of these, or get a DSLR and spend extra on replacing the kit lens with a faster lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have a small sensor, but at least the fast lens will go somewhere towards helping with low light ability.  But shooting indoors or in darker conditions won't be a strength of this camera and if so you'd need a DSLR or micro 4/3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that your camera is likely to be fairly slow.  If you're photographing toddlers or animals it may be a little too slow for you and again a DSLR is your best bet.  But the cheapest entry level DSLRs still won't be &lt;em&gt;awesome&lt;/em&gt; at this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not saying you can or can't do real work with this camera, but it may not be as limited as you think :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-11T07:02:58.220" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T07:02:58.220" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8571" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-11T03:52:00.927" Score="-1" ViewCount="157" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the same problem &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6045/why-do-my-images-get-distorted-on-my-nikon-d40&quot;&gt;as described in this question&lt;/a&gt; with distortion in my pictures. Funny thing is alot of my pictures showed up or posted on windows photo gallery or Picasa just fine in the transfer and then all of a sudden they are starting to go corrupt. Some of them happen in the transfer off the usb. Some of them happen with the sd card directly into the sd slot on the computer. And some of it happens when I use the card reader option. I have a Cannon Rebel XTI 400D series. I have also tried to print them at the store and they come back distorted like yours above but not all of them. I have had several SD cards that I have tried. I currently am using PNY Optima Pro UDMA 4gb &amp;amp; Sandisk ultra II 2.0gb&#xA;Pictures 1,2,&amp;amp; 3 were fine when I downloaded them, then over time went distorted while sitting on my computer. Pictures 4&amp;amp; 5 downloaded to my computer corupted from the get go. &#xA;Does anybody or can anybody seem to help me from losing all these memories? The people at the camera store can't even tell me what's going on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you in advance, Lore' &#xA;P.S. As a new user to this site, they would not let me post m&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3817" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-14T13:15:26.350" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T13:15:26.350" Title="Distorted or corrupt pictures" Tags="&lt;canon-400d&gt;&lt;distortion&gt;&lt;nikon-transfer&gt;&lt;data-corruption&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="8572" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8507" CreationDate="2011-02-11T04:20:57.363" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my bag I've got the Tokina 11 - 16 and Canon EFS 17 - 85 for my 450D. My 17-85 is mediocre at 17mm, giving me lots of wavy distortion - no good for straight lined things like buildings. It doesn't really improve will somewhere around 24mm. My Tokina however is wonderful at 16mm. If I had my time and money over again, I might have pursued the Tokina 12 - 24 in order to get better images (or at least simpler distortion - ie easier to correct). Hope this helps with an example. And as a few others have said, you don't need to change lenses so often.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3650" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T04:20:57.363" />
  <row Id="8573" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-11T04:36:30.833" Score="7" ViewCount="181" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm about to pack for an overseas trip soon and am looking for some advice on how to protect your gear, whether you take it as carry on or checked (or a combo) and what sort of gear you'd take.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll be looking to take one body, maybe one or two extra lenses, maybe a compact tripod (about a kilo), 430EXII flash, spare battery, charger and spare memory cards - oh wait, that's just about everything I own! I've got no idea if it will fit though may have to seriously edit my gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3650" LastEditorUserId="3650" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-24T22:40:25.597" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T22:48:24.700" Title="How should I pack my gear for an overseas trip?" Tags="&lt;travel&gt;&lt;equipment-protection&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="8574" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8559" CreationDate="2011-02-11T04:44:07.620" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lensbaby is a great product, but it's not technically a &quot;tilt shift&quot;. Lensbabys tilt, but they don't &quot;shift&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3095" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T04:44:07.620" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8575" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8573" CreationDate="2011-02-11T05:07:09.223" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently spent two weeks in Italy and took a ton of gear with me (camera, 5 lenses, extra batteries, etc.). Most of the gear fit in my carry on using the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thinktankphoto.com/products/airport-antidote-backpack.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Think Tank Airport Antidote&lt;/a&gt; which is designed to be used for carry on. I had no problems with it and it carried the camera, lenses, and other delicate items. I also packed a tripod, but that was tucked into my regular luggage and, again, no problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, if it's the camera or lenses, it's carry on for me. Pretty much anything else can be tucked in the luggage. There's risk there, obviously, but the worst that has happened to me is a luggage delay, not lost, so it's worked out. Besides, you can't get it all into carry on, even in first class (which is what I flew in to Italy), so you have to make some decisions. I made my decisions on how delicate it was and how easy it was to replace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T05:07:09.223" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8577" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8578" CreationDate="2011-02-11T05:28:42.850" Score="12" ViewCount="307" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a dSLR and I often find myself taking pictures of people in 'mixed lighting' environments (e.g. tungsten lighting and daylight, fluorescent and tungsten, or even the ‘nightmare lighting scenario’ of mixed fluorescent, tungsten and daylight). Since white balancing won't work (or at least it won't work &lt;em&gt;completely&lt;/em&gt;) to remove the color cast from these sorts of mixed environments, what can I do to manage the multiple types of lighting in my environment?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T20:05:14.170" Title="How do I properly white-balance my photographs when I'm shooting in mixed-lighting environments?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;white-balance&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="8578" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8577" CreationDate="2011-02-11T05:29:01.523" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is important to understand that different types of lighting will produce different ‘color casts’ to the light in a photograph. While the eye is great at correcting for color ‘on-the-fly,’ our cameras aren’t very good at the task of adjusting in mixed environments at all. This can result in severely yellow/orange pictures, or sickly green ones, depending on the lighting present at the location. Generally the approaches to correcting for mixed-environment lighting depend on how much control you will have over the environment. The solution isn't to do &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; of these things, but to know about each of them such that you can do one (or more) depending on the situations you encounter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Complete control&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(These solutions assume complete ability to control the ‘non-studio’ environment where the pictures will be taken. Because of the nature of completely controlling a location, to some extent it also assumes a large(ish) budget, and a good amount of time to engineer the environment.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Turn off the ‘contrasting’ light source(s)&lt;/strong&gt; - The first thing to look for is whether you can turn off one (or more) of the competing light sources. In terms of ‘easy solutions’ this is always what I look at first because if I am able to remove ‘offending’ light sources with the flip of a switch, I can often bring the color cast back to ‘normal’ (or close to normal anyway). On occasion I have even found myself turning off lamps and gaffers taping or clamping  my own flashes inside of the lamp to provide the illumination of the subject from an ‘correct’ direction (such as when the lamp is in the frame so having it on would be expected). &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Overpower the ambient lighting&lt;/strong&gt; - If you aren’t in a position to turn off the contrasting light sources, the ‘next best thing’ might be to simply overpower the offending light with your own light sources. This works best if you’re able to throw enough light to completely light the scene yourself (e.g. if you only have enough power to light the subject OR the background, but not the subject AND the background) this will be tough to pull-off. I’ve included this one because I know photographers who do the kinds of shoots where they have the time to engineer solutions like this. For those of us who work more ‘on-the-fly,’ or are hobbyists, it probably isn’t practical to completely engineer the lighting in this manner. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gel everything&lt;/strong&gt; - This is the ‘Hollywood’ solution for using practical locations and if you look at many ‘behind the scenes’ extras on DVDs you can often see combinations of gels being used everywhere… CTO gels on all the tungsten, CTG on the fluorescent, ND or CTB gels on all the windows, etc. While it often isn’t practical to gel everything, doing so will essentially ensure a proper color balance. I’ve included this one in the interest of completeness, but for ‘most of us’ this will be an impractical option short of working on a large-scale paid shoot (where this sort of thing is done all the time)…&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Partial control&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(These solutions can often work in situations where complete control of the environment is not possible, but you do have some time to plan your photography at least a bit ahead of time or prepare the environment)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gel &lt;em&gt;something&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; - If I’m in an environment that contains 3 different types of lighting I may not have the time, materials, or wherewithal to gel everything… But if given the choice I’ll often choose to gel &lt;em&gt;something&lt;/em&gt;. Generally speaking the thing that I try to gel is the fluorescents if possible because a picture with an orange color cast is easier to manage and looks more ‘correct’ to the eye. A picture with a heavy green color cast on the other hand… That only looks good if you’re in the Matrix.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Control the angles&lt;/strong&gt; - This will be situation dependent, but sometimes it’s possible to eliminate ‘offending’ light sources simply by not shooting in the direction of the light source. For example, I recently shot a wedding reception in a gym with lots of ugly fluorescent lighting up above, as well as one wall of the gym being all windows. The solution ended up being to balance for the fluorescents and simply not shooting anything with my camera pointing towards the windows (though admittedly not shooting towards the big bay windows was also because it was a daytime wedding and the daylight would have blown out all my pictures).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;White balance for the main subject(s)&lt;/strong&gt; - If ‘all else fails’ and you have no other options available, at least white balance for the subject. This will (more or less) get the color cast right for the skin tones, which are the most important element of most pictures. The rest of the colors in the photo may be off, but for some photos this will be forgivable, and in others you have a &lt;em&gt;few&lt;/em&gt; options still available to you in post.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;No control&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(Though these can been solutions that are arrived at ahead of time, since they are post production solutions they can also be used ‘last ditch’ efforts, where either no color control was taken during the shoot, or the attempts at color control were not successful.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Convert to B&amp;amp;W&lt;/strong&gt; - If you weren’t able to do anything to control the mixed lighting and/or the lighting came out in an unattractive way despite attempts to control it, one answer may be to simply make the picture black and white in order to remove &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; color cast.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;De-saturate in post&lt;/strong&gt; - This is especially effective in situations where tungsten lighting has made pictures too orange. Often it can be an easy fix to simply ‘desaturate to taste’ and add a bit of blue (to tone down the pinks that invariably result from the desaturation).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mask the area(s) with improper color cast and rebalance them&lt;/strong&gt; - Time consuming, but certainly an option if you have pictures that you need to keep, but the color cast is wrong. It is possible to come up with something relatively good looking by correcting the photograph for skin tones, and then using masks to further correct any areas where the remaining color is off.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T05:29:01.523" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8579" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8559" CreationDate="2011-02-11T05:30:13.883" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are cheaper tilt-shift options than the Canon/Nikon offerings, that are of higher quality than Lensbaby.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One idea is the Arax T/S adaptor for other lenses: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://vnm.fi/~ttv/oldies/TS_Review/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://vnm.fi/~ttv/oldies/TS_Review/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that adaptor, you put other lenses you already own on top and then it can tilt and shift - I believe the downside is that you cannot focus to infinity any longer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another is a somewhat cheap Russian T/S lens:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/mc-35mm-tilt-shift-lens.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/mc-35mm-tilt-shift-lens.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That can come in a mount for pretty much any camera you can think of. I'm not sure of the quality but it has to be higher than a Lensbaby.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T05:30:13.883" />
  <row Id="8580" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8573" CreationDate="2011-02-11T05:40:37.990" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On my trip abroad I carried all my photo related equipment except the tripod in my &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kata-bags.com/product.asp?Version=photo&amp;amp;p_Id=19773&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KATA 3N1-33 bag&lt;/a&gt;. That was the 7D body, 10-22, 28-135, 50, 70-200 lenses and the 580EXII flash. Additionally I put in the laptop, batteries, chargers, etc. Yes, it was heavy, but it all went on with me as a carry on. I just made sure to have the bag &lt;em&gt;on my shoulders&lt;/em&gt; while checking in, so it will be less susceptible to questioning and weighing by the stewardess. The tripod was checked in the baggage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The one very important thing is to have a customs release form &lt;em&gt;prior to your flight&lt;/em&gt;, to avoid the possible duties upon return. This is &lt;a href=&quot;http://forms.cbp.gov/pdf/cbp_form_4457.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CBP Form 4457&lt;/a&gt;. You should sign an individual copy for each one of the valuable items. You need to locate the CBP office, usually at the international terminal in your airport.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T05:40:37.990" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8581" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2224" CreationDate="2011-02-11T05:40:43.140" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/g8rQH.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracey_Moffatt&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tracey Moffatt&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/work/128-1996-3+useless-1974&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Useless&lt;/a&gt;, 1974, Photolithograph, 80.0 x 60.0cm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3356" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-11T22:13:09.620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T22:13:09.620" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-11T05:40:43.140" />
  <row Id="8582" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1520" CreationDate="2011-02-11T07:10:51.380" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is not a review site, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html&lt;/a&gt; may be of interest to Nikon users, since it lists the specs (from max and min aperture to physical size and weight) for every Nikon lens; linked pages even include information like the serial number ranges for each lens model.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T07:10:51.380" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-11T07:10:51.380" />
  <row Id="8583" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8558" CreationDate="2011-02-11T07:18:23.193" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;ThinkTank was started by a designer from LowePro, and caters to the needs of the pro-photographer. Their gear is extremely well designed, handles bad treatment, and will hold a lot more gear than the bags would seem to at first look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have never heard a bad comment about the company; To the contrary, they go way out of their way to make sure their customers are happy. I've heard of them sending out replacement bags because a zipper wasn't working right, and, when the customer got the original bag's zipper working they told him to keep the replacement. That is the way to get repeat business.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's the only line I'd consider if I was in the market for new cases, but my hardshell cases aren't anywhere near wearing out. Rats! :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1514" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T07:18:23.193" />
  <row Id="8584" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8518" CreationDate="2011-02-11T07:30:44.293" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a lot of good answers here of what to try if you &lt;em&gt;already know what you want&lt;/em&gt; from your next lens.  If you aren't sure yet, though, I'd recommend getting one of the superzooms, like an 18-200 or 18-270.  That would give you a lot more creative freedom (I know a lot of photographers learned with a single prime, which gives you a different type of creative freedom), and after you take a couple thousand pictures with it you'll be better able to graph your photos (as @whuber mentioned in his comment) to see what your favorite focal lengths are, and be able to make a more informed decision for your next lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T07:30:44.293" />
  <row Id="8585" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2224" CreationDate="2011-02-11T07:45:54.543" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not one image that inspires me most, it's the depth and breadth of variety that folks shoot. One of my favorit ways to see that, and get inspired is to look at the popular pages over at SmugMug: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.smugmug.com/popular/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.smugmug.com/popular/&lt;/a&gt; and Flickr's &quot;interesting 7 days&quot; page: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7days/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7days/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T07:45:54.543" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-11T07:45:54.543" />
  <row Id="8586" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8577" CreationDate="2011-02-11T08:09:16.207" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The one thing I always try to do is to note one thing in the main subject, or at least in the same light combination as the main subject, that is a &quot;neutral&quot; grey to almost white* according to my eye. It might be something small, like a button on a blouse or an iPod headphone cable. Then when I get home and have the image up in light room, I use the eyedropper to set the initial white balance from that. If that's not true to what my mind remembers, I'll adjust it from there, but usually it's just a matter of dialing down the shift amount (bring it closer to the middle) some, as this seems to result in too much shift on a regular basis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Jay Lance says, our eyes are really good at balancing out those color shifts, far better than our cameras, so no matter what you're going to get more pronounced differences in your images when there is mixed lighting. I've found that instead of desaturation, turning down the &quot;vibrance&quot; or &quot;clarity&quot; adjustments in LR can help filter out some of that and bring the image closer to what &quot;the eye saw&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*I say &quot;almost white&quot; because if it is truely white it's risky that it will get blown out on one channel and the white balance adjustment will go totally wonky when I try to use it. At least that's been my experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T08:09:16.207" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="8587" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8571" CreationDate="2011-02-11T08:34:51.250" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If these pictures are 'getting corrupted' just sitting on your computer and it's not an SD card error like on the previous question then either your hard drive is broken, some of the cables in your pc are loose, your motherboard is dying, or your RAM is faulty. All these things would casue a lot more trouble than just your pictures looking funny though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are the pictures still looking OK in camera after looking corrupt on the PC? If so get your PC looked at/fixed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh and make sure you have a current virus checker and have run a full check to make sure that there aren't any on your PC corrupting files&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3584" LastEditorUserId="3584" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-11T09:34:31.340" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T09:34:31.340" />
  <row Id="8588" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-11T11:50:51.633" Score="6" ViewCount="166" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a 500CM Hasselblad medium format film camera that I shoot with Kodak Ektachrome color transparency slide film. It seems to me that the best medium format slide scanner around is the Nikon Super CoolScan 9000 ED, which has been out for a very long time. Does anyone know of a newer\better medium format scanner in a reasonable price range? I am not interested in a drum scanner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3821" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T15:49:22.273" Title="Medium Format Scanner" Tags="&lt;medium-format&gt;&lt;film-scanner&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="8589" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-11T12:41:45.017" Score="6" ViewCount="300" Body="&lt;p&gt;A photo contains digital information about the make of the camera the focal length,etc. Does any software use this information and auto correct the lens distortion in the photo. I know that Photoshop CS5 does have an auto feature but the list of camera's in the auto mode are few.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any specialized software that can analyse the photo and do the same without user intervention. I currently own a Windows computer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3822" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T06:52:52.507" Title="Software to auto correct lens distortion based on photo" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;windows&gt;&lt;distortion&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="8590" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12" CreationDate="2011-02-11T12:58:52.803" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I'm downloading memory cards I give the sensor a brush with an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.visibledust.com/index.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Arctic Butterfly&lt;/a&gt; this seems to get the worst off , however when it has been &lt;strong&gt;really&lt;/strong&gt; bad I've used a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lenspen.com/?cPath=&amp;amp;products_id=SK-1-a&amp;amp;tpid=146&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LensPen SensorKlear&lt;/a&gt; (not the same as a lenspen!!!) but I have thrown those out after one use as I'm not too convinced by their self cleaning abilities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To test the sensor I've always just staken a shot of a plain white wall af the smallest aperture available and reviewed it zoomed in fully on the camera screen, scrolling to make sure the whole screen is covered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T12:58:52.803" />
  <row Id="8591" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8589" CreationDate="2011-02-11T13:13:39.867" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One that I know of is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_optics_pro/introduction&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DxO Optics Pro&lt;/a&gt;.  I've used the trial version of this software, and it seems pretty good.  Not quite enough additional value for me to get this on top of PSE at this point, but I was considering it instead of PSE for a while.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T13:13:39.867" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8592" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8589" CreationDate="2011-02-11T13:14:59.080" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lensfun.berlios.de/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lensfun&lt;/a&gt; claims to be such a free software but it has a beta version only. You may also use this software as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ufraw&lt;/a&gt; plugin ( they not suggest this for Windows)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lensfun.sebastiankraft.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;GimpLensFun&lt;/a&gt; gimp plugin.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="507" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T13:14:59.080" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8593" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8588" CreationDate="2011-02-11T13:31:30.187" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Out for a long time&quot; pretty much describes the whole field these days. Hasselblad took over the Imacon line (the Flextite series), which is pretty much the only desktop dedicated medium format scanner with any ongoing development. At $13-20K+, though, it's only &quot;in a reasonable price range&quot; for a very small segment of the market -- it's reasonable if it pays for itself; not so much if you are paying for the privilege.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Konica has gone out of the business altogether, as has Polaroid. Kodak will gladly sell you something that you can (and &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt;) build a business around. Epson and Canon are down to clamshell flatbeds (which may be perfectly adequate, if not quite as handy to use as a slot-loading film scanner). All of these had very good dedicated film scanners in the old days, but the preponderance of digital cameras (including medium format) in the industry has made it tough to commit to film scanning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The few people who still need but don't yet have a 4K or better scanner for anything other than, say, an attic full of 35mm vacation slides or a closetful of 35mm negs are a vanishing breed. There just aren't that many people lining up to pay for something to scan their old Brownie 620 negs at high resolution -- and that's the crowd you'd need to keep a low-cost medium format film scanner afloat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T13:31:30.187" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8594" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8589" CreationDate="2011-02-11T14:20:27.687" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you have a Canon camera, their DPP software that comes bundled with the camera does this. I believe Nikon's equivalent can, too, but this software must be bought separately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T14:20:27.687" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8595" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8596" CreationDate="2011-02-11T14:26:00.193" Score="12" ViewCount="355" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is a good and cheap solution for online backup of over 100Gb, probably growing to 200+ in about a year, and then no doubt more after that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am looking for something that can work in the background on a mac.&#xA;I am using Aperture 3.&#xA;The cost is the limiting factor. I have thought about an external HDD, but I want my data in another place to keep it safe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3802" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T13:03:25.860" Title="Online backup of data" Tags="&lt;backup&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="13" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="8596" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8595" CreationDate="2011-02-11T14:55:58.567" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are quite a few different online backup options, such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/4557/67&quot;&gt;Amazon S3&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mozy.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.mozy.com&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dropbox.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dropbox.com&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.carbonite.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.carbonite.com&lt;/a&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One of the better options given your information is an unlimited plan, these are getting harder to find, but &lt;a href=&quot;https://buy.carbonite.com/buy/index/4486&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Carbonite&lt;/a&gt; is one of the sites that does still offer this option.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T14:55:58.567" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8597" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8589" CreationDate="2011-02-11T15:10:53.547" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lightroom does this for selected lenses, or you can create your own profile if your lens isn't listed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mansurovs.com/lightroom-3-lens-correction&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This blog post&lt;/a&gt; explains how this works, both with respect to the built-in profiles, adjusting manually, or creating your own with Adobe's software utility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T15:10:53.547" />
  <row Id="8598" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8595" CreationDate="2011-02-11T15:47:00.297" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several services available. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mozy.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mozy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.carbonite.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Carbonite&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.backblaze.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;BackBlaze&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://crashplan.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CrashPlan&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dropbox.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DropBox&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sugarsync.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SugarSync&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a few reviews of these here: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.techradar.com/news/computing/apple/6-reliable-online-backup-services-for-your-mac-677218&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;TechRadar&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.macworld.co.uk/digitallifestyle/masterclass/index.cfm?articleid=430&amp;amp;sw&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Macworld&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's worth also checking if your broadband upload speed is fast enough. Using &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dslzoneuk.net/calculator.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this calculator&lt;/a&gt;, for a 512kbps upload speed 150Gb would take just over a month. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another check is that you don't get charged extra for large amounts of uploading, especially if you have a limit to the total &quot;downloading&quot; (also includes uploading!) you do each month on your broadband tariff. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2127" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T15:47:00.297" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8599" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8588" CreationDate="2011-02-11T15:49:22.273" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Welcome Tim,&#xA;Yes, the Super CoolScan 9000 ED is the best medium format scanner out there w/in reason, I owned one 2 years ago for my 500CM Hasselblad shooting and it was awesome (I since gave up MF for a Leica and changed to a CoolScan 5000 ED).  If you're looking to improve your scanning, and you haven't tried it already, get the fluid mount carrier for the Coolscan 9000.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only reason I'd consider switching up to an Imicon is for 4x5 shooting, and even then the price delta is so great that I just bought a Epson V750 Pro instead (works great!) and would rent the Imacon for a day if I desired it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T15:49:22.273" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8600" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8602" CreationDate="2011-02-11T16:26:45.660" Score="2" ViewCount="118" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can I use a full, non-graduated ND filter positioned halfway (or another appropriate distance) over the lens to approximate a hard-edge graduated ND filter, or will the transition be too sudden?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T16:50:09.710" Title="Can I use a full ND filter as a pseudo hard-edge graduated filter?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;neutral-density&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="8601" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8600" CreationDate="2011-02-11T16:30:06.413" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes you could do that, but it wouldn't really be a &quot;graduated&quot; filter, it would just be a partial frame ND filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would the transition be too sudden? Probably, but that is entirely dependent on the look you wish to achieve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keep in mind though, that this is not going to work well with round, screw in filters.  Also, even a &quot;Hard-edge&quot; graduated filter has a gradient, and will be a &lt;em&gt;much&lt;/em&gt; softer edge than you will get from a full ND.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-11T16:40:47.573" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T16:40:47.573" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8602" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8600" CreationDate="2011-02-11T16:39:51.630" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The edge will blur out pretty well -- the first Cokin grad ND filter had a hard transition, and I found it worked pretty well. The filter is so much closer to the lens than the subject (unless you're trying this with extreme macro work) that the edge of the filter will be nowhere near in focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem I'd be more concerned with is the potential for focus shift in the covered versus uncovered area. Using the old Kodak Wratten gels (paper thin, and at one time actual gelatin -- I don't know if they still make them or if they're still gelatin) there wasn't much to worry about, but the thicker plastic filters have a much longer optical path. Even clear glass often shows a change in focus or a difference in image size between the &quot;through&quot; and the &quot;around&quot; side of the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T16:39:51.630" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8604" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8595" CreationDate="2011-02-11T17:31:28.177" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For photos only, check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.snaphaven.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Snap Haven&lt;/a&gt;. It's $99 for an unlimited plan with images at full-resolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The membership supports the non-profit &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.datapermanence.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Foundation for Data Permanence&lt;/a&gt;, which is meant to protect your data in the event that SnapHaven goes out of business.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T17:31:28.177" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8605" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8612" CreationDate="2011-02-11T17:50:25.773" Score="9" ViewCount="245" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a 2GB SanDisk Extreme II (I think it's a II) CF card that I use as my main card in my Nikon D200.  I normally shoot, take the card out, place it in a cheaper reader, and copy the pictures to my NAS using my iMac.  I then format the card using the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've had the card around 3 years.  I'm not exactly sure how many writes it's seen (I use another card on occasion so I could extrapolate from the number of total shutter presses reported in a RAW file).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The symptom that I'm seeing is that occasionally I'll fire my D200 in high speed and on the second or third shot an &quot;Err&quot; message will appear and all pictures taken since I started holding the shutter are gone.  I doubt it is my camera as I've used my other card and it does not give the same error.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I tried formatting the card on my iMac using the disk utility and then reformatting it in the camera.  This seemed to make the error go away for one or two sessions, but it is now back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a way to verify that the card should be replaced? What is the normal life span for CF cards?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3805" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T05:15:45.943" Title="How Do I Know My Memory Card Is Dying?" Tags="&lt;memory-card&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8606" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8589" CreationDate="2011-02-11T18:16:16.297" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PTLens&lt;/a&gt; is software that corrects lens pincushion/barrel distortion, vignetting, chromatic aberration, and perspective. This is an amazing little software it removes the distortion automatically you don't have to add your camera/lens profiles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just adding to this list (&lt;em&gt;a software that I came across while randomly searching Google&lt;/em&gt;) although I'm yet auditioning most of these amazing suggestions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3822" LastEditorUserId="3822" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-12T06:29:42.080" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T06:29:42.080" />
  <row Id="8607" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-11T18:33:24.737" Score="7" ViewCount="6798" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the key differences between the Canon 60D and Canon 600D?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know the size is different and they are constructed of different materials, but in technical specifications and image quality, what are the differences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which one would you buy, considering the price difference is relatively narrow?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3825" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-11T18:42:16.867" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T21:02:10.473" Title="Difference Canon 60D vs Canon 600D, which one would you buy?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;canon-60d&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="8608" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8607" CreationDate="2011-02-11T18:44:42.200" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biggest difference is going to be in the build quality, as mentioned in the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 60D is a mid range &quot;Prosumer&quot; model, while the 600D is targeted at hobbyists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a good &lt;a href=&quot;http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-600d-vs-Canon_EOS_60D&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;comparison from snapsort.com&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Summary&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Reasons to consider the Canon 600D&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Around 20% smaller&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;More than 30% lighter       &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Reasons to consider the Canon 60D&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Has a pentaprism viewfinder&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;More than 20% larger viewfinder&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;More than 40% faster continuous shooting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;2x faster max shutter speed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The decision of which to buy is very subjective.  If it weren't, then they wouldn't produce different models. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-11T21:02:10.473" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T21:02:10.473" />
  <row Id="8609" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8607" CreationDate="2011-02-11T18:52:38.637" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is rarely a difference in image quality among such cameras, from entry-level to mid-range, they often use the same sensors. It is a common misconception that DSLRs differ in image quality based on price, at least not until larger sensors are used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most important difference is speed of operation. The 60D has dual control dials and more external buttons, this lets you operate the camera and get the shot you want faster, with less trips through the menu system. The viewfinder is also larger which makes it easy to compose and check focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second to that is speed, the 60D itself responds and shoots faster than the 600D. Thirdly, the 60D should be much more durable. If you actively take a lot of photos, the 60D can last longer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the last part, between these two, I would get the 60D without hesitating.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T18:52:38.637" />
  <row Id="8610" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8607" CreationDate="2011-02-11T18:56:43.247" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First note the ergonomics differences (from dpreview):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;60D on the right here&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/t6Ko4.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;600D on the left here&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ck1sP.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the 600D you got buttons instead of a dial which is &lt;em&gt;less&lt;/em&gt; useful and the mode selection knob is on the right next to the shutter button which makes it more cumbersome to use given that you have 2 hands to work with.  That and there are just fewer buttons to interact w/the camera and functions on the 600D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other differences:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Viewfinder&lt;/strong&gt; 600D:mirror, 60D:prism (brighter viewfinder)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Shoot speed&lt;/strong&gt; 600D:3.7FPS, 60D 5.3fps&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Custom functions&lt;/strong&gt; 600D: 34 settings, 60D: 59 settings&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Spot metering&lt;/strong&gt; 600D: 4%, 60D 2.8%&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exposure comp&lt;/strong&gt; 600D:2EV, 60D:5EV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the list goes on.  The 60D gives you more options and more/finer control.  Provided these things matter to you (and you have the means), the 60D is the one to buy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These findings can mostly be generalized to any Rebel (X00D/X000D) class body vs a prosumer X0D class body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastEditorUserId="1819" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-11T19:02:30.743" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T19:02:30.743" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8611" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8589" CreationDate="2011-02-11T19:16:26.477" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Non-automatic&lt;/strong&gt;. Hugin can be used to find out the parameters for lens-correction. See here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://hugin.sourceforge.net/tutorials/calibration/en.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tutorial Hugin Lens Calibration&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diy-streetview.org/how-to-lens-parameters/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;HowTo for obtaining lens parameters step by step for DIY Streetview&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, once obtained for a lens, the parameters stay the same and simply be loaded into hugin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastEditorUserId="2317" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-11T19:22:36.270" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T19:22:36.270" />
  <row Id="8612" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8605" CreationDate="2011-02-11T19:24:17.540" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The symptoms you have describe indicate a card you shouldn't trust any more. Bin it and buy a new one before you lose something important to you. The price of memory isn't high at the moment really so you might as well replace it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T19:24:17.540" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8613" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8605" CreationDate="2011-02-11T19:41:11.793" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's the system I used to answer that question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;mount the card in my mac&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;open console and have it viewing the system log&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;erase all it's contents. (from a terminal, &lt;code&gt;rm -rf /Volumnes/CF\ Card/*&lt;/code&gt; )&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;write data onto it until it's full. (from a terminal, &lt;code&gt;cat /dev/zero &amp;gt; /Volumes/CF\ Card/testfile&lt;/code&gt; )&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;when it stops with a &quot;disk full&quot; or &quot;no space left on device&quot; message, remove the test file (from a terminal, &lt;code&gt;rm -rf /Volumnes/CF\ Card/testfile&lt;/code&gt; )&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;look at the console, if there are ANY IO errors, toss the card.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-11T20:39:51.760" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T20:39:51.760" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8614" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8558" CreationDate="2011-02-11T20:28:37.933" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just received my Crumpler 5MDH and I love this bag, the neck strap is nice and thick, and the bag overall if very sturdy and supportive (I feel like I can swing it around and not worry about the protection of my D7000).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has a nice zipper mesh compartment on the flap and a front compartment that can store an external hdd for example. It looks like it can hold 2 lenses + 1 flash but depending on which lenses you own it may not be able to (I own a 18-200 nikkor which is longer and a sb-400 flash, and plan to get a 35mm f/1.8 lens here soon which will fit)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I have no experience with any other bag, this is my first DSLR and bag purchased.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I got mine on Amazon for $64, but the price went back up to the retail price ($82), not sure why.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3165" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T20:28:37.933" />
  <row Id="8615" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8605" CreationDate="2011-02-11T21:16:24.173" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since a card failure is catastrophic and the lost data is almost always unrecoverable (or you should assume it is!) -- and since it's most likely to happen in the field where you don't have many options, my policy on cards is simple:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I generally buy more, smaller cards rather than one larger. I typically buy a size or two below the largest generally available card. they're also a lot cheaper per megabyte than larger cards. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I always carry spares, never &quot;one&quot; card. These days, I carry 2 16 gig cards for my 7D (one in camera, one as a spare). I carry a half dozen 4Gig cards with my 30D since it's data requirements aren't as significant. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I always format the card in the camera before shooting. that also makes sure I don't start the shoot with the card half full and wonder where my space went. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I rotate my cards so they all get about the same amount of use, so you aren't wearing out one card while leaving the spare unused.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I always buy cards from major manufacturers -- I currently carry some from Kingston and Lexar. This is not a time or place to &quot;save a few bucks&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I typically retire a card at 18-24 months just as a precaution. No sense pushing to failure. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The FIRST time I get a corrupted image or some kind of read/format error on a card, it's retired and I replace it with a new one. period. exclamation point. Once it errors once, I won't trust it again. If I get an error in the field, it goes in the pocket immediately for data recovery, no more images written to it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I have not had a card failure or data loss on a card in over two years. for what it's worth. (knock on wood). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T21:16:24.173" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8616" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-11T21:18:07.197" Score="4" ViewCount="107" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am currently trying to broadcast live sporting events, and am having trouble with the settings on my camera. Whenever we point the camera towards the scoreclock (it's an old scoreclock, definitely not LCD but we believe it is LED), the numbers stay for a second, get brighter and bolder, and then fade out. The rest of the clock is there, but to viewers it seems as if the clock was turned off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have a Panasonic AG-DVX100BP. Using wirecast to broadcast video.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any ideas of settings we can change to get our video working? All help would be appreciated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3827" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T21:38:41.440" Title="Taking video of scoreclock...numbers dissappear" Tags="&lt;video&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8617" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8595" CreationDate="2011-02-11T21:20:53.887" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;not the answer you want, but I don't consider online backup to be cost effective yet. Costs are going down, but I find the annual cost is still more than it'd cost to buy a good firewire drive, copy the data, and store it in a drawer at a friend's house or some other offsite location.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And think about this. How long will it take to archive 100Gb of data onto an online service? I know when I experimented with this, a 50Gb set of data took weeks to get fully backed up online. And if you ever need to recover that data, how long will it take to download it again and get it back where it's available? Again, weeks. The cost of storing the data is one cost. The cost of the time needed to make the bakcup, and even more important, the cost of the time lost waiting to rebuild the archive off of the cloud, is a killer for me. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For relatively small, temporary backups I'll use dropbox. But for a permanent solution, it's multiple copies in multiple locations on multiple hard drives. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T21:20:53.887" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8618" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8616" CreationDate="2011-02-11T21:33:03.257" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Shutter speed or frame rate come to mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Possibly the board is refreshing it's elements at a different speed than the camera is capturing them. The two are out of sync so that you're catching the top of the cycle, then drifting slowly down the curve and eventually you'll make it back up on the next cycle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T21:33:03.257" />
  <row Id="8619" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8616" CreationDate="2011-02-11T21:38:41.440" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroboscopic_effect&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;stroboscopic effect&lt;/a&gt;.  The change from light to dark indicates the shutter speed is not slow enough to capture one refresh cycle in the scoreboard; the relatively slow rate of change indicates some integral multiple of the camera's frame rate is close to the scoreboard's refresh rate.  A slight change in your frame rate will only change the speed with which the image seems to fade in and out, but a substantial reduction in your frame rate, such as from 60 to 30 fps, might work fairly well, especially if you can keep the shutter open much longer for each frame.  If your slowest shutter speed cannot accommodate at least one entire refresh cycle you might still see a gradual lightening and darkening of the scoreboard but it won't go dark entirely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T21:38:41.440" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8620" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="444" CreationDate="2011-02-11T21:54:50.197" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have not seen anything quite like picnik.com. online. Photoshop.com is close enough. But picnik is the best of the lot. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One interesting use of online photo editors is that, you can edit anywhere, from your work or from your computer, or school, or even a library. So that is the greatest thing about that. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also you can use it kind of a temporary store in cloud. picnik lets you store upto 100 photos in its premium version, all with the history of edits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3828" LastEditorUserId="3828" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-11T22:00:41.543" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T22:00:41.543" />
  <row Id="8621" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8595" CreationDate="2011-02-11T22:30:56.343" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I used to use Mozy for online backups, but a combination of them upping their prices/cancelling the unlimited plan and the sheer amount of time that it takes to upload data meant I switched to a hard drive base solution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I also use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photoshelter.com/referral/LE7CR52N8E&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photoshelter&lt;/a&gt; to back up my processed jpegs (although they do accept raws/DNGs/PSDs etc) and run my website. It can get costly to store that much data, but you only have to upload once, or you can mail them a hard drive to get the initial upload sorted out without it taking a few weeks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T22:30:56.343" />
  <row Id="8622" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8573" CreationDate="2011-02-11T22:39:27.160" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As others have said, carry it on with you. If for some reason you cannot and you must take stuff with you - Storm cases look pretty tough:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwnAMja6A_I&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwnAMja6A_I&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A storm is the first tested in this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-idxvKuBuY&amp;amp;NR=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-idxvKuBuY&amp;amp;NR=1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T22:39:27.160" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8623" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-11T22:50:13.213" Score="4" ViewCount="145" Body="&lt;p&gt;So I decided on the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM for shooting the artwork. It is really nice and takes great shots with little distortion if any (haven't test it much yet). But I'm surprised how far away I have to be from the work. Even small work I'm set well back. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What would be the difference with the Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro? &#xA;It also has flat optics but shoots at 1:2. So does that mean the camera would be closer physically? Or should I be looking at the 100m Macro instead? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason I'm asking is I found a heavy duty tripod that can mount the camera upside down, so for a lot of the work I can set it up as a large copy stand. But with EF-S 60mm it would limit to mostly the smaller subjects, so perhaps the compact macro would be a better option?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said the EF-S 60mm Macro would be great for standard tripod shooting because it'll give me a bit more room front of the camera for when I have to maneuver and adjust lighting, etc.. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3043" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T11:45:47.180" Title="Macro vs Compact Macro," Tags="&lt;macro&gt;&lt;artwork&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8624" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8625" CreationDate="2011-02-11T23:16:38.093" Score="5" ViewCount="135" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm interested in putting together a list (as comprehensive as possible) of the different professional photography organizations that can be joined. The criteria is relatively simple:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An organization that caters specifically to some aspect of photography&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An organization which does not limit its membership to a single local community&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please list only one organization per answer, a link to the organization's website, and if an organization has a 'focus' (e.g. 'caters to photojournalists,' or 'caters to advertising photographers') call it out in the answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-13T09:17:42.937" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-12T00:05:28.523" Title="What professional photography organizations are available to join?" Tags="&lt;professional-organization&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8625" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8624" CreationDate="2011-02-11T23:19:32.863" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Organization:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ppa.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Professional Photographers of America&lt;/a&gt; (PPA)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Focus:&lt;/strong&gt; None in particular.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T23:19:32.863" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-12T00:05:28.523" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8626" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8624" CreationDate="2011-02-11T23:21:09.010" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Organization:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wppionline.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wedding and portrait Professionals International&lt;/a&gt; (WPPI)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Focus:&lt;/strong&gt; Wedding and portrait photography&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T23:21:09.010" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-12T00:05:28.523" />
  <row Id="8627" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8624" CreationDate="2011-02-11T23:22:57.260" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Organization:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nppa.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;National Press Photographers Association&lt;/a&gt; (NPPA)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Focus:&lt;/strong&gt; Press and photojournalistic photography&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T23:22:57.260" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-12T00:05:28.523" />
  <row Id="8628" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8624" CreationDate="2011-02-11T23:24:36.403" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Organization:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apanational.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;American Photographic Artists&lt;/a&gt; (APA)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Focus:&lt;/strong&gt; Advertising and media photography&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T23:24:36.403" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-12T00:05:28.523" />
  <row Id="8629" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8624" CreationDate="2011-02-11T23:28:06.133" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Organization:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thebppa.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;British Press Photographers' Association&lt;/a&gt; (BPPA)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Focus:&lt;/strong&gt; Press and photojournalistic photography&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T23:28:06.133" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-12T00:05:28.523" />
  <row Id="8630" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8624" CreationDate="2011-02-11T23:31:58.017" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Organization:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.capic.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canadian Association of Photographers and Illustrators in Communications&lt;/a&gt; (CAPIC)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Focus:&lt;/strong&gt; Advertising, stock and media photography&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T23:31:58.017" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-12T00:05:28.523" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8631" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8624" CreationDate="2011-02-11T23:33:37.797" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Organization:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nanpa.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;North American nature Photographers Association&lt;/a&gt; (NANPA)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Focus:&lt;/strong&gt; Nature photography&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T23:33:37.797" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-12T00:05:28.523" />
  <row Id="8632" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8624" CreationDate="2011-02-11T23:34:58.703" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Organization:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pacaoffice.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Picture Agency Council of America&lt;/a&gt; (PACA)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Focus:&lt;/strong&gt; Stock photography&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T23:34:58.703" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-12T00:05:28.523" />
  <row Id="8633" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="444" CreationDate="2011-02-11T23:45:09.177" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Picnik is integrated into SmugMug, so I've used them just because it was easily available when I was away from home and my real tools. At home, I'd never dream of using a slow web based service over my native tools on my mac when I have them available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've mostly used it to make simple tweaks to images I've uploaded from my phone while away from home. Stuff like cropping a shot tighter to remove someone from the background, or fixing the wild color cast because the iPhone got confused by the neon behind us. I'd love to do that on the phone, but have yet to find a decent tool to do it with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-02-11T23:45:09.177" />
  <row Id="8634" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-12T00:42:58.143" Score="1" ViewCount="88" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not much experience with Kino Flos...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Considering buying 4x of these: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/258311-REG/Kino_Flo_CFX_4804_4Bank_4_Fixture_Only.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kino Flo 4Bank 4' Fixture Only&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And am wondering if I could get away with only one ballast: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/393671-REG/Kino_Flo_BAL_450_M120_Mega_4Bank_DMX_Ballast.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kino Flo Mega 4Bank DMX Ballast (120V)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would I need additional connectors, cables or anything else in order to use the four fixtures with the selected ballast?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-14T12:52:56.117" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T12:52:56.117" Title="Kino Flo: should I buy 4 fixtures with one ballast? Would I need anything else?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;lighting-modifiers&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="8635" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8542" CreationDate="2011-02-12T00:47:16.143" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A few thoughts, which I haven't noticed elsewhere, to add to the mix:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you &lt;strong&gt;shoot&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;zoomed in&quot; (more &lt;strong&gt;telephoto&lt;/strong&gt;), it will cause you to shoot further from the page, which will then give you a more consistent image with respect to size-of-text (words in a corner will be closer to the same size as words in the middle; with wide-angle, you might get distortion with respect to this).  I'm not sure what the &quot;ideal&quot; setting is, here, and it's a trade-off against required shutter speeds, potentially, just something to think about.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You'll want to &quot;&lt;strong&gt;over-expose&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; versus what your camera probably thinks is right by default (unless it's smart enough to guess that this is paper -- I put that in quotes because you don't really want to over-expose it, just over-expose based on metering off of a white page), because the primary tone (the paper itself) will be the main thing the camera tries to expose for, and if you expose the paper as middle grey, you'll have a muddier starting point.  If you &quot;overexpose&quot; by a stop and a half to 2 stops (just don't go to the point of clipping highlights), the text should still be nice and dark, but the paper will be nice and bright, making contrast separations (and thus OCR) easier.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;try to have &lt;strong&gt;even lighting&lt;/strong&gt; -- if one corner of the page is a lot lighter or darker than another, this will make it harder to separate things out into the pure black and pure white that you most likely want for OCR purposes.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;a &quot;copy stand&quot; is ideal for projects such as this, though I presume beyond what you could easily have in the library...  However, depending on the way your library is configured, it's possible there might be somewhere (perhaps a shelf over the desk, or a rod that holds lighting or similar?) that you could place &lt;strong&gt;a super clamp with a ball head&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Ball-Camera-Support-Super-Clamp/dp/B001RPT6UW&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here's one&lt;/a&gt;, but any super clamp with an appropriately sized (depending on the head) &quot;stud&quot; and some sort of tripod head would do), and your camera then gets to be mounted over the desk (or whatever) surface, so that you can have consistent positioning, and stability in case you need longer exposures.  Basically, this would amount to a &quot;poor man's&quot; copy stand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may also want to use a short &lt;strong&gt;self-timer or remote&lt;/strong&gt; (I imagine your camera has a 2-second self-timer mode, and perhaps a custom one which could be even shorter), to avoid camera shake from pressing the button.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's all I'm thinking of for the moment.  Hopefully that's helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T00:47:16.143" />
  <row Id="8636" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8623" CreationDate="2011-02-12T01:58:21.107" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unless you artwork is minuscule, such as postage stamps, then the difference in magnification does not matter. It has to do with how small you &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; photograph.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In your case the artwork has a fixed size, so you have to set your distance according to the focal length. As Jukka points out in his comment, you have to be 20% further with the 60mm than with the 50mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That relation is fixed. To get closer to cover the same work, you need a short focal-length but keep in mind that shorter focal-lengths &lt;em&gt;tend&lt;/em&gt; to show more distortion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T01:58:21.107" />
  <row Id="8637" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8337" CreationDate="2011-02-12T02:15:11.397" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Answer from Comments:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Local Business&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;One obvious way are local coffeeshops. This may not be the style of exhibition you are looking for, but it is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Easy to set up&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Easy to get accepted&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gives a fair amount of exposure&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flexible pricing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;for these reasons, I think a coffeeshop makes a good &lt;em&gt;first&lt;/em&gt; exhibition. It gives you needed practice without too much stress. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, there are some disadvantages:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Prices should be lower to appeal to the market&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The work is in danger(could be bumped, touched, or splattered with espresso)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The environment is not ideal for viewing artwork, in particular because people's primary purpose for being there is not to view the art.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sometimes they will want to restrict the display(subject matter, size, arrangement, number, etc.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but if this sounds ok to you, I think its a good option. Also keep in mind restaurants and small theaters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Local Photo Contests&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another easy one is local photo contests. Usually you can only hang a few, but at least in my area there are two or three contests per year that let you hang up to three shots in an actual photo museum for the term of the contest. This is far from ideal, but it is a way to get some exposure, and you may even win! I was even fortunate to have one shot selected for their permanent collection after the contest, so there are definitely some benefits to entering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good Luck with your potential exhibition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/strong&gt; People seemed to be pretty please with the comments, so I though I had might as well add it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T02:15:11.397" />
  <row Id="8638" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8337" CreationDate="2011-02-12T03:14:14.083" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Rowland has some great points about things to consider before going into a potential venue, I just want to add another one to consider that I think a lot of people forget about: local furniture stores. Quite often they have large wall spaces in demo rooms setup with couches, chairs, tables, etc trying to make a faux living room or dinning room etc. Quite often they will have some tacky over priced bulk corporate &quot;art&quot; they bought site unseen from a catalog. They might well be very willing to either take some of your pieces on consignment, or just buy some prints outright for resale.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T03:14:14.083" />
  <row Id="8639" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8623" CreationDate="2011-02-12T03:21:34.473" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Macro lenses are intended to get close. Thus, you won't find many macro lenses with wide or normal focal lengths. If 60mm is too long for you, you might not need a macro. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, notice that while 50mm is a normal focal length on a full-frame camera like the 5D, it is slight telephoto on an APS-C camera like the 550D due to the crop factor of 1.6. A normal focal length on an APS-C camera would be 30mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2069" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T03:21:34.473" />
  <row Id="8640" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8645" CreationDate="2011-02-12T04:05:16.337" Score="6" ViewCount="424" Body="&lt;p&gt;My standard workflow is: take pictures in RAW -&gt; import into Aperture -&gt; append metadata info -&gt; go through shots and filter out the bad ones -&gt; do basic adjustments in Aperture -&gt; use Nik plugins or Photoshop if extra editing is required&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would my image quality improve by using &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&amp;amp;articleID=1228&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Photo Professional&lt;/a&gt; seeing that it's Canon's software to process it's RAW files? Are there any hidden advantages that I don't see in using DPP?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1635" LastActivityDate="2011-02-13T08:47:11.577" Title="Why pick DPP over Aperture?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;apple-aperture&gt;&lt;workflow&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8641" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-12T04:47:17.847" Score="6" ViewCount="135" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've taken many photos, gotten some favorable comments, and occasionally sell trade or give a few when it serves someone's need.  The emphasis is on the word &quot;few&quot;. Photography has been a serious hobby - I'd like to see if I can take it further, to do more business, more selling and knowing better what demand there is for what kinds of images, subject matter, and styles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, I suck at marketing and sales.  Really, I'd have trouble selling a chunk of warm beef with gravy to a hungry dog.   How might I find someone who can help me make business happen, to help define my market and find customers?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="637" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T17:39:12.350" Title="How to find a good marketing person?" Tags="&lt;marketing&gt;&lt;sales&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8642" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8605" CreationDate="2011-02-12T04:47:49.260" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Compact flash cards have wear-leveling schemes built-in, so that the pictures you take don't get written to the same memory cells every time. The MLC NAND memory used in these things is usually rated for 10,000 writes. You should be able to fill the card up completely every day for 20 years straight without wearing out the flash memory itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are probably other ways they can fail, though. The contacts could wear out. The bonding wires inside the chip or the solder outside could crack. I think you've pretty much answered your own question when you point out that your other card doesn't give you trouble.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2312" LastEditorUserId="2312" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-12T05:15:45.943" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T05:15:45.943" />
  <row Id="8643" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8623" CreationDate="2011-02-12T05:13:17.537" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're shooting '&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6533/canon-t2i-for-shooting-artwork&quot;&gt;mostly prints up to 24&quot;x30&quot;, and oil paintings on canvas and board up to 30&quot;x40&quot;,&lt;/a&gt;' then the &quot;1:1&quot; and &quot;1:2&quot; maximum magnification ratings are completely irrelevant for your purposes, since you're not remotely approaching those limits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As others note, the 50mm lens would allow you to place the camera very slightly closer to the subject. The 100mm lens would require the camera to be much further from the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 60mm you have, and sufficient space in which to work, is probably just about ideal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2312" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T05:13:17.537" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8644" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8640" CreationDate="2011-02-12T05:15:45.483" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The reason camera makers bundle software with the camera is to cover those that are not using tools like Aperture or Photoshop. This isn't to suggest DPP is bad, not at all, but it's basically there to help the basic consumer do what they need to do after the image is off the camera. Canon, and other camera makers, are not expending the same effort into software development as Adobe or Apple will, so I seriously doubt that DPP would provide gain or have some hidden thing that Canon wouldn't share with these companies. After all, if you want to sell your gear to pros, you'd best be prepared to play nice with the software that the pros will demand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T05:15:45.483" />
  <row Id="8645" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8640" CreationDate="2011-02-12T05:20:02.227" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Are there any hidden advantages that I don't see in using DPP?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It depends on whether or not you believe the 'Canon marketing pitch.' :-) The pitch is essentially that because Canon makes the software and the hardware, their RAW processing is better than the competitors will be. Having done side-by-side comparisons I can say this... In straight apples-to-apples RAW comparison (e.g. all settings the same) DPP RAW processing produces an initial output that is &lt;em&gt;slightly&lt;/em&gt; more contrasty by default. Is the output so much better than Aperture that it warrants a change? Are there hidden advantages to DPP? Well, I have two answers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Answer 1:&lt;/strong&gt; For me, the answer was 'not it isn't, and no there aren't.' I could slightly tweak my default processing settings in Aperture and get images that were indistinguishable from those made in DPP (unless, perhaps, you're a '&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pixel%20peeper&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pixel peeper&lt;/a&gt;'). The difference was not worth changing up my workflow (and in the 'workflow' department, Aperture has DPP beat in spades).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Answer 2:&lt;/strong&gt; Since DPP is free, and you already own Aperture, it wouldn't take more than installing DPP and doing some side-by-sides. I didn't see enough of a difference to warrant the change, but maybe you will? Just a thought if you're still on the fence after my first answer. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general my experience with Aperture is that it has better asset management, more features, and a better workflow through the product... But I to have to acknowledge that my feelings of a 'more intuitive' workflow may simply be due to my familiarity with Aperture, and relative lack thereof with DPP.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In many ways to me DPP felt like a 'lite' product, and Aperture was the 'full' version (as much as that comparison can be made for 2 different pieces of software from 2 different companies). The bottom line for me was that DPP wasn't a &lt;em&gt;bad&lt;/em&gt; product at all, but it didn't offer &lt;em&gt;enough&lt;/em&gt; of a difference or improvement to warrant shaking up my whole workflow over. But again I will say that if you still find yourself on the fence after my 'thumbnail opinion/review,' the good news is that it's free (except for the hour or two it will take to install it and play with it a bit) in order to test DPP out and see for yourself if it is better enough &lt;em&gt;for you&lt;/em&gt; to be worth making a change...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T05:20:02.227" />
  <row Id="8646" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8589" CreationDate="2011-02-12T06:52:52.507" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, a few more possibilities: Bibble Pro and Capture One Pro both also include lens correction capabilities. C1P supports manual adjustment (and/or fine tuning) in addition to automatic correction based on a lens profile. Bibble uses only the lens profile, so your choices are automatic correction, or none at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also worth noting that there are some fairly substantial differences in how much different programs automate the process. For example, with a zoom lens the distortion almost always changes depending on the focal length. Adobe's correction doesn't detect when the focal length has changed, so when you pick a correction for a particular lens, they will continue to use that correction even if the focal length changes (and with it the distortion). Bibble and PTLens (for a couple of examples) handle this better -- they'll take both the lens &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; the current focal length into account automatically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T06:52:52.507" />
  <row Id="8647" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8559" CreationDate="2011-02-12T08:18:17.103" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;best&lt;/em&gt; way is to use a view camera with yaw-free movements -- and there are a number of mini view cameras that use 35mm-format camera bodies as their &quot;back&quot;. What makes it the best way? The huge image circle of view camera lenses means you can go much farther with the effect than with a dedicated TS lens, and the multitude of movements (independent tilt and swing of both the lensboard and the back) means it's easier to find the geometry you want. At a $2500 entry fee (and you can spend an order of magnitude more quite easily) though, it's probably not what you had in mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other answers here have provided good hardware solutions, but haven't addressed the software issue. You can mimic the effect using something like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alienskin.com/bokeh/index.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Alien Skin Bokeh&lt;/a&gt;. Unlike the built-in blur options in Photoshop, plugins like Bokeh can perform gradient blurs, simulating the transition from a sharp plane of focus to the completely out-of-focus areas. In PS natively, that would mean slicing the image up into a whole bunch of sections and applying a progressively stronger blur to each segment as it recedes from the plane of focus, then blending the segments. I'm not going to say that the results will be identical to a hardware solution, or even satisfactory, just that there is a software option that might be worth trying (or at least &quot;trialing&quot; -- you don't have to spend a cent if it doesn't do what you want).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T08:18:17.103" />
  <row Id="8648" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8641" CreationDate="2011-02-12T09:28:23.140" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi DarenW&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A UI/UX friend of mine once recommended the following site to me: &lt;a href=&quot;http://freelanceswitch.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://freelanceswitch.com/&lt;/a&gt;. I never used it though. But I think that freelancer web portals are one way to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have a nice day&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Thomas&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3789" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T09:28:23.140" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8649" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8640" CreationDate="2011-02-12T10:34:21.220" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure that's a totally fair comparison to even ask.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's like asking &quot;switch blade or multi-tool?&quot; Sure both have a blade you can use to cut things, but one has so many more tools built into it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;DPP is the switch blade in the above analogy, it's very much a one trick pony. Yeah you can sort of play at some more advanced organization and tag/keyword/iptc/meta editing, just like you can in theory shave with a switch blade, but it pales in comparison to Aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Disclaimer: I'm a dedicated LR user, but have played with Aperture a couple times to see if it was worth switching; and from what I can tell, they're very very similar in their feature sets. DPP on the other hand is on my machine primarily so I could set the owner info into my new camera when I bought it... I've done a few tests with it, saw slight differences, but nothing I considered worth the hassle of using it's poor UI.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T10:34:21.220" />
  <row Id="8650" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8623" CreationDate="2011-02-12T11:45:47.180" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are looking to (almost) halve your distance to the subject, you might be interested in the little known &lt;strong&gt;Tokina 35mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX Macro&lt;/strong&gt;.  I don't own it, but there is a review at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&amp;amp;test_ob=158&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lenstip&lt;/a&gt;.  At &lt;strong&gt;$279&lt;/strong&gt; from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/554030-REG/Tokina_ATXM35PRODXC_35mm_f_2_8_AT_X_M35.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;B&amp;amp;H&lt;/a&gt; its a steal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3356" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T11:45:47.180" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8651" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8640" CreationDate="2011-02-12T12:54:55.313" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use DPP for a lot of my editing, but my alternatives are Picasa and Gimp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is a pretty good tool, but it shouldn't be compared to Lightroom or Aperture.  Either of those are better all around tools.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-12T17:04:15.850" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T17:04:15.850" />
  <row Id="8652" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8653" CreationDate="2011-02-12T15:10:29.463" Score="2" ViewCount="71" Body="&lt;p&gt;I performed astrophotography at the time where CCD were experimental devices. The world has changed, my immediate passions too, and today my camera is a compact (but enough for everyday use) consumer-level IXUS 70. Very soon I am going to the southern hemisphere for the first time, and I would love to have the chance of taking some pics of the sky there. How can I achieve something with such hardware ? Tips, tricks, hacks both pre and post-production are very welcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="587" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T16:32:16.887" Title="IXUS 70 and astrophotography" Tags="&lt;astrophotography&gt;&lt;canon-ixus&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="8653" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8652" CreationDate="2011-02-12T16:26:41.463" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Equipment:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case get the &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CHDK&lt;/a&gt;, a firmware-upgrade loading from SD-card every time at startup. With this nice software a longer-time exposure and bracketing, be it exposure or &lt;a href=&quot;http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap110211.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;aperture-bracketing&lt;/a&gt; will be available as will a RAW (you won't shoot fast so you won't care about the slowdown for this RAW). IXUS 70 is listed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A bean bag or gorillapod for stabilizing during the shots. Full tripod would be a bit of an overkill.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe a filter-adapter and ND8 if you want to catch landscape and stars in longtime-exposures, something like this picture of a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.panoramio.com/photo/34039559&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;slope at night&lt;/a&gt; (15s, only three stars to be seen).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Technique:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use manual exposure/aperture and delayed trigger (same reason as for the bean-bag/gorillapod) und manual setting of distance (avoids the endless focussing). Make yourself at home with using these controls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for what to combine (stars, moon, clouds, landscape) and what to take a photo of: your fantasy ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take a look at the right side of the page, there are some recommended questions with the same content, covering more aspects of astrophotography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastEditorUserId="2317" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-12T16:32:16.887" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T16:32:16.887" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8654" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7725" CreationDate="2011-02-12T16:30:22.977" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recently i purchased several magazines which i will like to recommend&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Super basic (Intro)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) Getting Started in Ditigal SLR Photography (Improve your phot skills and take better pictures) by MAGBOOK - UK magazine - ard 4-5 pound&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) The Essential guide to Portraits (Improve your photo skills &amp;amp; take your best ever images) - by MAGBOOK - UK magazine - ard 4-5 pound&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Monthly Issue&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) Practical Photograph - www.photoanswers.co.uk - 4 pounds &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4) Photoplus (Canon edition) also 4 pound - but i will strongly recommend this as it comes with a DVD *5hr !!! (not sure if it is a monthly bonus DVD intact)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;any other magazines that i have magazines that i have missed out or ones that you enjoy reading?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;cheers!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3788" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T16:30:22.977" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-12T16:30:22.977" />
  <row Id="8655" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-12T16:45:37.843" Score="8" ViewCount="166" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi Everyone!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am thinking of getting a small gift for my friend, preferably a small / medium size Photography Book (that can put on the coffee table) or for guests to boserse through - casual reading. My budget is less than US$50. The photography book can be a combination of works by several photographers or maybe a theme / just one famous photographer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any &quot;classic goodies&quot; out there?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;please free to drop any comments &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3788" LastActivityDate="2011-02-13T02:23:44.243" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-12T23:24:57.663" Title="Coffee Table Photography Book" Tags="&lt;books&gt;&lt;photographer&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8656" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8659" CreationDate="2011-02-12T17:25:10.520" Score="5" ViewCount="231" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've seen the cut and dried version of what Time for Print (also called 'Trade for Print' by many) means on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_for_print&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; I was wondering what it is and what it means for the photographer and model alike.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3507" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-13T05:36:23.267" LastActivityDate="2011-02-13T14:55:53.583" Title="What does Time for Print (TFP) mean?" Tags="&lt;models&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8657" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-12T17:47:30.923" Score="0" ViewCount="131" Body="&lt;p&gt;hi everyone,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;randomly came across this youtube video which i think it is really cool and neat and something which everyone can do ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj6fMcJ18aA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj6fMcJ18aA&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;just wondering are there any other websites that show case such &quot;tricks&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3788" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T17:47:30.923" ClosedDate="2011-02-12T18:19:34.087" Title="Neat Photograhy tricks (watch)" Tags="&lt;shooting-technique&gt;" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8658" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8655" CreationDate="2011-02-12T17:47:40.343" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;The Photo Book&quot; published by phaidon is a great collection 500 photos from the worlds mst famous photographers. It's a great book to flip through. The hardcover edition has become a bit if a collectors piece so you might have trouble getting it for you budget. The paperback is cheap but not exactly a coffee table book. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastEditorUserId="3180" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-12T17:52:43.177" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T17:52:43.177" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-12T23:24:57.663" />
  <row Id="8659" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8656" CreationDate="2011-02-12T18:04:26.920" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A big part of it, in both cases, is about portfolio building and exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Photographer&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Becoming established in the industry, especially when it comes to fashion or similar types of photography is challenging. Photographers without a strong collection of images will struggle to get gigs or get gigs that pay at all decently. So, for them, establishing this portfolio will help and so many will offer aspiring models a trade of images for their time in front of the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Model&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like the photographer, models need samples of their work to submit to various agencies or companies looking to do a shoot. These can be harder to come by when doing a professional work, and so cutting a deal with an aspiring, or even established, photographer for images and rights to use helps provide these shots for when needed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it means the same thing to both, really, just for different purposes. It's also, in addition to the portfolio benefits, and opportunity for both the photographer and the model to practice their trades without the pressure of a commercial shoot and other deadlines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, that's what I've managed to gather on the subject. We have a few pros on the site who may have done this and might be able to shed even more light on the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T18:04:26.920" />
  <row Id="8660" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8640" CreationDate="2011-02-12T18:27:01.473" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I guess there are two advantage of using DPP:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you are using 100% default settings, then the RAW files converted with DPP look nearly identical to the JPEG files produced by the camera. With third-party tools, there are usually slight differences. (Incidentally, I usually prefer Aperture's results to the results produced by DPP or camera.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The DPP version that you got with your brand-new camera supports the RAW files produced by the camera. With third-party tools, you might have to wait for 1-2 months before the support is implemented for new camera models.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I try to avoid using DPP whenever possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="247" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T18:27:01.473" />
  <row Id="8661" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8662" CreationDate="2011-02-12T19:06:53.730" Score="3" ViewCount="199" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a good combo of longer exposure/shorter exposure that I can use to get 2 photo's of the moon that I can then combine to show the sun-lit side and the earth-lit side together so I have one disk. What software post production will I have to do to reduce the glare on the earth lit side that comes from the sunlit side etc? I am using Aperture 3 and a Nikon D90&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3802" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T19:41:27.320" Title="Photographing a non-full moon" Tags="&lt;astrophotography&gt;&lt;night-shooting&gt;&lt;moon&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="8662" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8661" CreationDate="2011-02-12T19:41:27.320" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, I recommend you take a look at my answer to another question about photographing the moon here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/459/best-settings-for-nighttime-moon-photos/6816#6816&quot;&gt;Best Settings for Nighttime Moon Photos&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for your specific question, it would probably be fairly difficult to get two shots that you could merge together without a tracking mount. As such, my first recommendation is to either buy an equatorial tracking mount, or if you have a friend who has one, see if you can borrow it. With a tracking mount, you should be able to get the necessary exposures at low ISO without any blur from the motion of the moon, which should result in a decent combination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do not have access to a tracking mount, the best I can say is use the chart from my other answer linked above, and try to keep your exposure times as minimal as possible. A camera with very good high-ISO performance will make it easier to get a shot of earthglow with a short exposure, without losing too much detail. You might want to use ISO 3200 if you have it. Noise is a real moon detail killer, since your signal-to-noise ratio is pretty low to start with. Using higher ISO's and keeping exposure time faster than 1/15th of a second should do it, but you will experience some problems with noise. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T19:41:27.320" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8663" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8667" CreationDate="2011-02-12T20:13:28.077" Score="4" ViewCount="352" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am using snow leopard and mainly want it to automate the stacking as much as possible. I have seen that PixInSight looks pretty awesome, but that's not free, in-fact far from it, so I want something that is free that can do the same, or as much as possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3802" LastEditorUserId="3802" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-15T15:59:06.977" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T15:59:06.977" Title="Best opensource/ free stacking software for mac for astrophotography" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;astrophotography&gt;&lt;open-source&gt;&lt;macintosh&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8664" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8655" CreationDate="2011-02-12T20:49:48.480" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;'The Americans' by Robert Frank&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;'Workers' by Sebastiao Salgado&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;'Portraits' by Steve McCurry&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;'400 Photographs' by Ansel Adams&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The list goes on and on. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2329" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T20:49:48.480" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-12T23:24:57.663" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8665" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8640" CreationDate="2011-02-12T21:30:25.600" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can use both!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use a camera not supported by Aperture, so what I do is output 16-bit TIFF files from my RAW converter in a batch process (no adjustments) and then import into Aperture to do review and editing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's no reason you can't take that approach with any image though, even if Aperture supports it.  The thing to do would be to import a bunch of your favorite RAW files into Aperture, and then export 16-bit TIFF files from DPP and import those into Aperture too - stack them with the RAW files and then you can do side-by-side comparisons between them to see which seems to generally work the best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tiffs use more space but also offer some benefits.  One advantage you have in using a TIFF as a base in Aperture is that you can edit that tiff directly (by relocating the master outside the library temporarily) and then all Aperture adjustments you have on the image will be automatically overlaid atop your changes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-02-12T21:30:25.600" />
  <row Id="8666" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8663" CreationDate="2011-02-12T21:39:51.777" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hadleyweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CZP/News.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CombineZP&lt;/a&gt; should run fine on an Intel Mac (after you get rid of OS/X and install Windows).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: Since a lot of people seem to have missed the point and think this isn't helpful, let me try to put things more directly. I am reasonably certain there is not currently &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; free (in either sense) software for stacking that runs directly on MacOS and is anywhere &lt;em&gt;close&lt;/em&gt; to as good as CombineZP. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm relatively OS-agnostic -- I have two Macs (a 24&quot; iMac and a now rather elderly Macbook). For me, choosing between Windows and MacOS is mostly a matter of picking what works better. For stacking, I use CombineZP on a PC. I have not been able to find anything that runs directly on MacOS that produces nearly as good of results, or is nearly as easy to use (for this task). Hugin works quite nicely for stitching panoramas, but stacking isn't really its forte. It can sort of work, but it's semi-painful to use for the job (all the docs and UI are oriented toward stitching panoramas) and even with quite a bit of manual labor, the results from it are still inferior to what CombineZP produces entirely automatically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bottom line: A copy of Windows + CombineZP costs less and works better than anything you can get natively for MacOS. Sorry, but that's just how it is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-15T15:27:04.910" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T15:27:04.910" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8667" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8663" CreationDate="2011-02-13T00:31:57.777" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://hugin.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hugin&lt;/a&gt; might be your answer. At least it is available for the Mac and handles stacking of images (also into EXR-format), masking and distortion-correction of images. It is not per se meant for astrophotography, so you would have to know what to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for automation (of the aligning) - I put each of my Stacks/Stitches into separate directories and just let a script run over all these directories, applying &quot;autopano&quot; or &quot;align_image_stack&quot; on all files in the directory. You have to check and correct the ready .pto-file afterwards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastEditorUserId="3802" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-13T12:36:02.467" LastActivityDate="2011-02-13T12:36:02.467" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8668" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8655" CreationDate="2011-02-13T00:45:24.390" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Wide Angle: National Geographic Greatest Places&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Through the Lens: National Geographic Greatest Photographs&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both these books have &lt;strong&gt;504 pages&lt;/strong&gt; of absolutely stunning photographs. They have a mix of styles that reflect the magazines different photographers and times. I own both, among many others, but these two are my favorites. For what the cost, both these books are a fantastic bargain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The photographs from National Geographic almost all have a lot of depth to them, which makes looking at each photo quite interesting. I went through each of these several times and seem to often notice new details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-13T00:45:24.390" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-13T00:45:24.390" />
  <row Id="8669" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8655" CreationDate="2011-02-13T02:23:44.243" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0810972980&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Vanity Fair portraits&lt;/a&gt; book for my coffee table.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2011-02-13T02:23:44.243" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-13T02:23:44.243" />
  <row Id="8670" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-13T05:44:34.840" Score="-2" ViewCount="197" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just wondering which photography programs do you use and why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) Adobe Creative Suit 5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) Adobe Elements 9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) Adobe Lightroom&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4) Serif PhotoPlus x4&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;any other programs that i have missed out &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;any key differences ? which one will you recommend for a hobbyist ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cheers!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3788" LastActivityDate="2011-02-13T17:57:33.927" ClosedDate="2011-02-13T22:29:23.950" Title="Which program you use to process pics ?" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;digital-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="8671" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8670" CreationDate="2011-02-13T08:41:53.610" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use the GIMP software. First of all, because it is free. Then, you don't sacrifice much, if anything, for saving your money in this case. It is very powerful, lets you do advanced image processing and manipulation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The one thing I find it lacking sometimes is good documentation. Again and again I find myself going through a not-so-friendly online documentation for performing tasks that I am sure are there, but I could not figure out how to perform them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-02-13T08:41:53.610" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8672" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8640" CreationDate="2011-02-13T08:47:11.577" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because it comes for free and Aperture does not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-02-13T08:47:11.577" />
  <row Id="8673" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8670" CreationDate="2011-02-13T09:11:00.307" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use &lt;strong&gt;Photoshop&lt;/strong&gt; CS3. Its a very good tool and the best thing is, you have a world-conquering collection of tutorials. Theres isn't a single thing you can do in Photoshop but you don't have a tutorial. Also I found Photoshop adds less digital noises to your image comparing to some other editors. You can Automate/Batch processes using action scripts. You also have wild range of brushes available online to use in Photoshop. If you can manage to get a copy of Photoshop (preferably something latest), trust me, that's all you need for most cases. It covers very advanced tools which can be used for top-end industry level image processing. But &lt;em&gt;I dont suggest it for people who just started photography&lt;/em&gt;, is to me, its a little complicated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;For hobbiest, &lt;strong&gt;GIMP&lt;/strong&gt; is an obvious choice&lt;/em&gt; as its free! For someone who never used any other editorial tools (like Photoshop), GIMP is excellent! It allows you to do very complicated processing as well as templated processing. But if you want &lt;em&gt;something even less complicated, its &lt;strong&gt;Pacasa&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-02-13T09:11:00.307" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8674" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8624" CreationDate="2011-02-13T09:13:46.780" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Organisation:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ppoc.ca/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Professional Photographers of Canada&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Focus:&lt;/strong&gt; Professional ethics, business development, IP law&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-13T09:13:46.780" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-13T09:13:46.780" />
  <row Id="8675" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8624" CreationDate="2011-02-13T09:17:42.937" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Organisation:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://npac.ca&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;News Photographers Association of Canada (NPAC)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Focus:&lt;/strong&gt; Press and journalistic photography&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-13T09:17:42.937" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-13T09:17:42.937" />
  <row Id="8676" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8670" CreationDate="2011-02-13T09:28:11.097" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use Adobe Lightroom, for &lt;strong&gt;most&lt;/strong&gt; of my processing work as it is rare that I do any really involved processing and have a large catalogue of images to manage. This is where Lightroom excels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I do need to do some more hardcore processing, layers etc, I use Photoshop Elements (version 8 was the latest when I bought it, but I believe 9 is better) as I couldn't really justify paying 10x the cost for Photoshop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a hobbyist I wouldn't hesitate to recommend Photoshop Elements, the main bit for digital photography (Adobe Camera RAW) is the same as the full Photoshop and you need to be doing some &lt;strong&gt;seriously&lt;/strong&gt; advanced processing to run into its limitations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if your style of shooting is to take lots of images and you need to get them out of the door, to clients etc ASAP, or simply don't like spending time processing have a look at Lightroom, it's more expensive, but like L series lenses, it is a professional tool. If you are using a Mac, Apple's Aperture software does a similar job, at a bargain price if you buy it through the new app store.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also don't forget the DPP software that came with your camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastActivityDate="2011-02-13T09:28:11.097" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8677" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8670" CreationDate="2011-02-13T10:49:29.237" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bibblelabs.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bibble&lt;/a&gt;. It´s cheap and it supports a workflow that I like (background processing, easy to copy settings around similar images, reasonable retouching). My commercial workflow is RAW -&gt; Bibble -&gt; lots of proofs -&gt; client selects -&gt; intensive retouching in GIMP if required (generally not). Some use of pano tools. Bibble keeps getting better but the real core is the ability to pull in a bunch of RAW images and process them quickly. 2000+ bunches, run through and rank them, grab the top quality ones and apply the usual auto lens correction, colour balance, levels etc all in one hit, then crop and straighten each image before dropping it in the processing queue. It really makes a quad core with 8GB seem justifiable (1DIII has 12MB RAW files and they just fly through). Usually by the time I've finished the bulk of the proofs are generated. Currently they're playing with a photo library system in the product but I haven't found it especially reliable. So I don use it, I just pump image through it and use my existing library system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Previously I´ve used BreezeBrowser but the owner of that product shafted a bunch of early adopters (basically, take what you get now, promises of future support are not to be relied on). The product is pretty reasonable, again, for the price. I still use it occasionally for quick and dirty HTML page generation because it has a good templating system that I'm used to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would use Photoshop instead of the GIMP but I can't afford it for the limited use I make of it and I'm not willing to use a pirated version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3617" LastEditorUserId="3617" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-13T10:54:30.543" LastActivityDate="2011-02-13T10:54:30.543" />
  <row Id="8678" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8656" CreationDate="2011-02-13T14:55:53.583" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It can mean anything from a mutually beneficial bartering transaction to an ethical tarpit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As John noted in &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8656/what-does-time-for-print-tfp-mean/8659#8659&quot;&gt;his answer&lt;/a&gt;, both photographers and models (including actors, who are often part of a TFP arrangement) often have a need for a portfolio. Sure, it &lt;em&gt;would&lt;/em&gt; be nice to have tear sheets (examples of published work), but getting the kind of job that will get you tear sheets means proving that you can do it. A portfolio is a sort of resume of merit until you get tear sheets -- then it becomes a resume of experience as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I usually had a particular type of shoot in mind -- something that could get me work in a particular niche or fill a hole in a submission for juried professional accreditation (such as would be required for full membership in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ppoc.ca/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PPOC&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.capic.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CAPIC&lt;/a&gt;). For actual client work, I would always pay for models, but they can be pricey for speculative shooting adventures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was always my policy to make sure that the other party got something of real value. For models that had an actual chance of becoming working models, that meant putting together a decent comp -- not just throwing a couple of prints from &lt;em&gt;my&lt;/em&gt; shoot at them.&#xA;That, of course, meant shooting outside of my original idea, but a head shot and pics from a single shoot (same clothing, hair and makeup) aren't nearly enough to get an appointment for an interview with a real agency.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I saw a lot of sharks in the water looking for young girls with stars in their eyes in my day. As often as not, they'd wind up paying someone else for the privilege of appearing in low-budget porn mags without their knowledge. They always seem to be willing to believe that full frontal is just part of camera testing. I don't expect that the situation has gotten much better. I would much rather have done a bit of extra work and sent prospects with a chance to Ford or Elite (they were the only reputable agencies with local reps in Halifax at the time) with enough of a book to get in the door than to let them swim those waters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was shooting film and hand-spotting at the time, and I'd give them an eight-page 8x10 book (a small B&amp;amp;W head shot for a stats page, a full-page colour head shot, two full-page, full-length shots with different looks, and four composited pages -- there's a lot less retouching to do on small comps). That may have been a bit much back in the day, but in the digital world, there's no good reason to provide much less.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actors would get a number of headshots -- the requisite classic (3:1 Rembrandt for guys, 2:1 butterfly for girls) and a few with different lighting/moods. These were generally B&amp;amp;W -- the industry didn't go much for colour in those days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aspiring models who may have been right for my shoot but who didn't stand a chance in the fashion/beauty world would get a bit of a reality check up front, and the best pictures I could give them if they wanted to follow through anyway. I like to think that I kept a few of them away from the seamier side of the &quot;agency&quot; business. I often found that &quot;ordinary folk&quot; would get into the groove for a conversation piece to hang on the wall -- they may have had exactly the look I wanted, but weren't on the verge of having the slightest consideration of beginning to think about modelling. Throw in a couple of &quot;nice&quot; pictures for Mom, Gran and Grandma, and the deal is done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I never did time for prints for any work I expected to be able to directly profit from. That's my own personal ethic. It's one thing to do a bit of &lt;em&gt;quid pro quo&lt;/em&gt;, but if I know that my quid is worth money and your quo is little more than a lottery ticket (especially if I have a pretty good idea that it's a losing ticket)... well, my clock doesn't turn that way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-13T14:55:53.583" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8679" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8681" CreationDate="2011-02-13T17:43:38.367" Score="7" ViewCount="445" Body="&lt;p&gt;What's the maximum reliable length of USB cable that you can use when shooting tethered?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does it depend on the camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's lots of conflicting information out on the web; I'm hoping Photo-SE can provide some reliable info.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-15T18:31:10.303" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T10:20:52.280" Title="Length of USB Cord for Tethering" Tags="&lt;tethering&gt;&lt;usb&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8680" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8670" CreationDate="2011-02-13T17:57:33.927" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been using Adobe Photoshop Lightroom since it was originally in beta testing and spend 99% of my photo processing time in it. For me, it has been the best image management/editing application I have ever used. It has a very easy to understand interface.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3783" LastActivityDate="2011-02-13T17:57:33.927" />
  <row Id="8681" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8679" CreationDate="2011-02-13T18:00:07.993" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;USB 1.1/2.0 specifies a maximum cable length of 5 meters (~16 feet) as a function of a minimum required transmission speeds. That's pushing the limit, to some degree, and will be highly dependent on how well the cable is made, shielding, etc. If you're worried about reliability, I would go under that, probably no more than 3 meters (~10 feet).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;USB 3.0 doesn't actually specify a maximum length, but we're still talking copper here generally, and so the maximum practical length is probably around 3 meters to meet the speed requirements, so on USB 3.0, I'd go less than that again, maybe 2 meters (~6.5 feet).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My source for this is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_2.0#Maximum_Cable_Length&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; which is usually pretty good at explaining standards items. In this regards, I'd probably trust them. In any case, 10 feet is a pretty decent cable length, but if you need much longer, you can also get USB repeaters, bearing in mind that you often get what you pay for with these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in general, I think the limiter is most likely associated with cable quality as opposed to the camera. If the camera is truly specified to the USB 2.0 standard, going with a good cable smaller than the maximum, should be more than fine and use of a good repeater can help in extending that length as you need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-02-13T18:00:07.993" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8682" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8634" CreationDate="2011-02-13T18:51:43.697" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I can determine, you need one ballast per 4Bank (one ballast channel per lamp, four lamps per bank) and one cable to connect the two. So for four 4Bank fixtures, you need four ballast units and four cables.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kinoflo.com/Lighting%20fixtures%20with%20Remote%20ballast/4Bank,%20Double,%20Single/4bank%20select/4Bank.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;4Bank page&lt;/a&gt; at kinoflow.com for more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-13T18:51:43.697" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8683" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8686" CreationDate="2011-02-13T19:45:34.400" Score="5" ViewCount="89" Body="&lt;p&gt;I look at products like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fjwestcott.com/products/product.cfm?itemnum=4820&amp;amp;tbl=products&amp;amp;head=td5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Westcott's Spiderlite TD5 head&lt;/a&gt; and there looks to be less than $50 in parts (not including the light bulbs) in a product like this... I'm a 'handy guy' with a garage full of power tools so I've been thinking about simply building an equivalent and only buying the bulbs, effectively saving myself $200+. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Am I not taking into account some feature or function with this lighting head that might justify paying the extra $200+ to buy it instead of simply building something myself?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-13T20:02:44.830" LastActivityDate="2011-02-13T20:50:51.887" Title="Are there features to Westcott's Spiderlite TD5 that would be difficult to reproduce if I built a DIY version?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;diy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8684" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8693" CreationDate="2011-02-13T20:05:53.393" Score="10" ViewCount="508" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to take pictures of &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/4298/378&quot;&gt;the Milky Way&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/5891/378&quot;&gt;a lunar eclipse&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/8661/378&quot;&gt;earth glow on the moon&lt;/a&gt;, but I don't have an equatorial tracking mount, and don't want to spend that much money on one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can I get clear, low-noise shots of things in the night sky without noticeable motion blur, without spending too much money? Is it possible to build a DIY tracking mount? Are there other techniques or devices that could help?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T16:40:03.707" Title="How can I avoid star trails without an expensive tracking mount?" Tags="&lt;astrophotography&gt;&lt;long-exposure&gt;&lt;diy&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="8685" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8684" CreationDate="2011-02-13T20:20:31.293" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unless you have the technical prowess, the time, and yes...the money (as it would still be expensive) to build your own tracking mount, you probably won't be able to do long-exposure astrophotography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can avoid star trails, and do &quot;short-exposure astrophotography&quot; by using three things: Very short focal lengths, very fast lenses, and very high ISO. You should be able to expose up to around 25, maybe 30 seconds before you get noticeable star-trailing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Lens&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The wider the lens, the less star-trailing you'll get, since the motion of the stars across the sky accounts for less sensor space the wider you get. A faster lens, obviously, will help you expose a brighter image in less time. CA and other optical aberrations can really kill detail on lenses used wide open, so higher quality lenses that correct for optical aberration will be a huge plus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Camera&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, a camera with good high-ISO low-noise performance will be essential. A full-frame sensor is a big plus here, and the Canon 5D II is a big favorite of a lot of CMOS astrophotographers. ISO 1600 an ISO 3200 are not unheard of when doing short-exposure astrophotography. Just be wary of noise reduction in post...stars are true point light sources, and noise reduction algorithms can eliminate stars along with noise if you are not careful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Purpose&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on your goals, you may be able to get away with higher ISO than you might otherwise. If you are taking still shots, there is only so much you can do before you start losing useful detail. If you are shooting time-lapse, then you can probably get away with really high ISO without it being a huge problem, as the size and detail necessary for video is a lot lower than it is for stills. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you really want to get crisp, clear, saturated stills of the night sky, then you really need a tracking mount. The cheaper Altazimuth mounts will get you stable tracking for shorter periods of time, however the more expensive equatorial mounts are really necessary to get stable, lengthy tracking at the earths surface. Any exposures or stacked exposure sequences that span an hour or more will probably need an equatorial tracking mount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-25T16:40:03.707" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T16:40:03.707" />
  <row Id="8686" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8683" CreationDate="2011-02-13T20:37:26.053" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not a darned thing. It's just five Edison sockets mounted on a base. The only catch is that you can't make a homemade version for photoflood or halogen use unless you're handy with a welder -- any wood product will turn into kindling over time when exposed to enough heat, and the kind of sheet metal that can easily be finessed with what the average handyman has in his toolkit won't be up to the task of supporting large fluorescents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are using fluorescents (27s, 40s, 65s or 80s), then heat isn't a major issue. Ceramic sockets with a wiring pigtail run about $5 each (and will epoxy neatly into a 1-3/8&quot; hole -- assuming the standard North American base. E-27 European sockets are a little larger). To avoid electrical dangers, use code-approved metal circuit boxes for the connections (and use proper wire nuts/Marr connectors or, if you can find one, a bus bar), and make sure you use a three-pronged arrangement with the ground wire hooked to the boxen. I'd also use heavy-duty light switches (the soft-touch switches glitch too frequently) in separate, but ganged boxes (you'll need three doubles or five singles). A couple of thicknesses of 3/4&quot; MDF will be adequate for the socket substrate. You can box in the electricals to avoid that homemade look if you want to take it out for a fancy dinner somewhere (or have paying clients anywhere near it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just do it like you were wiring a circuit in your home and were waiting for the electrical inspector. It's not rocket science, but due care and diligence are always a good idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastEditorUserId="2719" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-13T20:50:51.887" LastActivityDate="2011-02-13T20:50:51.887" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8687" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8679" CreationDate="2011-02-13T21:02:13.540" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have 2 12' long active repeater cables and a 6' usb cable I have successfully daisy chained ONE of them from an actively powered USB hub to control my Canon 5Dmk2. As far as I can tell, you can't put a second one on the chain without another power source. I have seen 16' repeaters advertised for ~20USD. So in my successful setup it was:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mac -- 3' USB cable -- powered hub -- 12' repeater cable -- 6' usb cable -- camera&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;trying to put both repeater cables in at the same place the first was didn't work, but if you can put another powered hub in place you could probably string quite a distance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you need really long distance and don't mind a bit of expense, there's a MUCH better solution: USB over cat5. Example: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/IOGear-Ethernet-Extender-GUCE51-Black/dp/B000O2X2OA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/IOGear-Ethernet-Extender-GUCE51-Black/dp/B000O2X2OA&lt;/a&gt;  They say you can get &quot;close to 200'&quot; with that + a cheap cat 5e cable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A former co-worker uses these (I think that's the model he bought) to operate his telescope, one extends the USB connection on the scope base to his computer, and another extends the USB connection from the computer to the camera he has attached to it. he's using 75' long ethernet cables pulled through a conduit from his basement out to the slab in his backyard where he mounts his telescope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-02-13T21:02:13.540" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8688" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8691" CreationDate="2011-02-13T21:15:34.193" Score="2" ViewCount="346" Body="&lt;p&gt;trying to do some &quot;daily shots&quot; thing, and I was wondering what's the best setting for black and white portraits in areas that are well-lit and sometimes not (fastfoods, restaurants, malls)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to mostly do candid shots and I have with me a standard 35-80 zoom lens in a Canon EOS 50 film camera, the subjects often are friends and family so I can get as close as I need to (yep, I need to get so close sometimes because my lens, in a way, sucks).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to get a grasp of this aperture-DOF relationship, so shots that I usually do are focused subject with out of focus backgrounds, something like this:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/KD6g5.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;most recommend a small aperture (at around f/22 or f/19) but I often mess up my shutter speeds to the point that I usually get a lot of blown-up highlights. That often happens when I use the exposure meter in Manual Mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any suggestions for the settings?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;exposure meter&quot; must be light meter&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2362" LastEditorUserId="2362" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-13T21:49:47.117" LastActivityDate="2011-02-13T22:09:36.330" Title="Best Setting For Black and White Portrait Photography" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="8689" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8688" CreationDate="2011-02-13T21:35:11.627" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You want a small f-number, not a small aperture. Your lens is a variable-aperture lens, ranging from f/4 to f/5.6. That means you'll need to be pretty close to wide-open &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; pretty close to your subject to get a shallow depth of field (sharp subject, blurry background) at any focal length you have available. What settings to use depends on your film. If you're shooting a 100/125 speed film, you should have no problem with shutter speeds -- you'll be well within the camera's limit unless the sun goes nova. With a 400-speed film, you might want to use a heavy filter -- something with a filter factor of 4 or better, like a ND 0.6 or a 25A red, or a combination that add up to four or more -- in bright light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-13T21:35:11.627" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="8690" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8684" CreationDate="2011-02-13T21:50:18.070" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Are there other techniques or devices&#xA;  that could help?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another technique is stacking multiple short exposures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Pick a moonless night away from city lights.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Take many short 20-30 second exposures of the sky. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Use something like Hugin to align them. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Load them into Photoshop (or Gimp) layers and blend them together.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There looks to be a good write up of it &lt;a href=&quot;http://caindoherty.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/photographing-the-milky-way-with-a-standard-dslr-camera/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's nothing to say you can't combine this technique for longer exposures as well.  You could build a simple &quot;barn door&quot; mount, such as John Cavan recommends below, and then stack several 5-10 minute exposures (since the &lt;em&gt;simple&lt;/em&gt; barn mount as has a maximum tracking time of around 10 minutes).  Not sure if it'd be worth it, but it wouldn't hurt to try once.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE:  Since posting this, I've begun to use &lt;a href=&quot;http://deepskystacker.free.fr/english/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DeepSkyStacker&lt;/a&gt; - its a great program designed for this.  The UI takes a little getting used to but overall its much easier to use for these kinds of things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-25T15:39:35.833" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T15:39:35.833" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8691" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8688" CreationDate="2011-02-13T22:09:36.330" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are no &quot;correct&quot; settings. The settings you need will depend entirely on the lighting on the day, the subject you're photographing and what kind of photograph you are trying to produce. Therefore this answer can't be responded to with anything more concrete than general advice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It sounds like what you need is to expand on your base knowledge of photography and exposure. I would recommend that you buy a copy of Bryan Peterson's excellent &quot;Understanding Exposure&quot; which excellently explains the relationship between shutter speed, aperture and ISO and caters for both film and digital photographers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0817439390&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Understanding-Exposure-3rd-Photographs-Camera/dp/0817439390/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1297634656&amp;amp;sr=8-1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I shoot my Canon AT-1 with ISO400 all the time, you don't need heavy filters to achieve well exposed photos - you need to understand how to read your camera's built in light meter and how best to configure the settings to achieve the desired result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastActivityDate="2011-02-13T22:09:36.330" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8692" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7725" CreationDate="2011-02-13T23:34:09.463" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;UK magazine &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.greatmagazines.co.uk/store/displayitem.asp?sid=322&amp;amp;id=42697&amp;amp;os=Y&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Practical Photography&lt;/a&gt; is a close fit to your criteria: the articles focus on in-camera technique and they have a sister magazine dedicated to digital techniques which ensures a good separation of content.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastActivityDate="2011-02-13T23:34:09.463" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-13T23:34:09.463" />
  <row Id="8693" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8684" CreationDate="2011-02-13T23:44:38.313" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some DIY options out there, and not all that hard to make if you're willing to spend some time and have attention to detail. The simplest forms are the &quot;barn door&quot; mounts which are basically two pieces of hinged wood with a screw that it is turned on an interval to compensate for the Earth's motion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/MOUNTS.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catching the Light&lt;/a&gt; has a writeup of all the mount options, including additional details for the DIY inclined. The site, in general, is a very good resource for those into astrophotography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-02-13T23:44:38.313" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8694" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8695" CreationDate="2011-02-14T00:40:09.733" Score="7" ViewCount="125" Body="&lt;p&gt;Okay, so a friend of mine asked about photographing his dogs, and I realized that I really don't have much of a clue what are the best ways to photograph pets. I can take a few stabs at it, but I thought I'd ask if you guys have any tips. Some additional information:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This friend is married, and they have two dogs.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He told me today that the dogs are usually quite camera shy.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some things that I would like to know include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How can I work with a pet, knowing that their position might not remain constant.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Would indoors be better, or outdoors.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;With or without owners?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Any other tips you care to provide, I'd like to hear them all.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T20:33:35.403" Title="What tips can you offer to take pictures of pets?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;pets&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8695" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8694" CreationDate="2011-02-14T01:02:39.330" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are some things I try to do when I'm photographing dogs:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1. Bring an assistant, toys, and dog treats&lt;/strong&gt; - I often find that I don't have enough 'hands' to be able to get the dogs attention, direct their looks (as best I can) and also be looking through the viewfinder, composing, and taking the pictures. An assistant can help take some of the jobs off my hands so I can concentrate on getting the best shots possible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2. Wear 'em out&lt;/strong&gt; - I generally advise owners to wear their dogs out with a good walk, or whatever their dogs favorite activity is (chase, tug, wrestle, etc.) before the session. This helps the dogs to be more docile during the session.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3. Add some time&lt;/strong&gt; - Generally I try to give a half-hour before the session actually begins to 'bond' with the dog(s). I want them to get to know me and my voice, the environment where the pictures will be taken, etc. I often will take dogs on a walk (thanks &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesar_Millan&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cesar Milan&lt;/a&gt;!). I also let them 'explore' my equipment by showing them everything and letting them get their curiosity out by sniffing it... Once they know the smells and realize that the equipment isn't edible, they often lose all interest in it completely. Keep your lens caps on unless you want doggy nose smudges on your lenses, though! I find this can really help dogs to relax and can make them less curious about every little piece of equipment as I fiddle with things during the session.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4. Careful with Strobes&lt;/strong&gt; - If I can, I try to avoid strobes as the whine of them recharging can really cause problems. If I am forced to use strobes I do try to fire the strobe(s) a bunch of times in the dogs presence before the session begins in order to help them get used to the strange noise...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;5. Bring leashes!&lt;/strong&gt; - If the pets are &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; fidgety it can help get them into position. You can then edit leashes out in post... Or not. Usually I don't bother because people generally don't mind having their pets on leashes in pictures. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;6. Use a long zoom lens&lt;/strong&gt; - I usually shoot these sessions with my 70-200mm lens from relatively far away and cranked in to between 135mm and 200mm. This gives me the chance to get relatively nice bokeh without necessarily having to open up the aperture up all the way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;7. Try to take the pictures in an environment where you've got a a lot of depth behind the dog(s)/subjects&lt;/strong&gt; - I'll often do these sorts of shoots at parks, or in a backyard because having a lot of depth behind the subject allows from more possibility for a nice bokeh without having to crank the aperture open so far that you end up with lots of out-of-focus shots because the dogs are wiggly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;8. Invite the owners... Maybe&lt;/strong&gt; - For dogs especially they often are more in tune to their owners voices, know their owners commands, know their owners expectations, etc. This can be of great benefit as long as the owners understand that their job isn't to yell commands at the dog ('Look over here, Fluffy. Fluffy! FLUFFY! &lt;strong&gt;LOOK HERE!&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;HERE, HERE BOY, HERE!!!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;') These sorts of histrionics can often serve to either make a nervous dog even more nervous, or an excited dog simply uncontrollable. If an owner is simply unable to control themselves and speak to their dog with a normal tone of voice throughout the session I will generally ask that they 'give us a few minutes' to take some pictures without them around. The vast majority of the time these turn out to be the best pictures of a given session.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While 95% of the pets that I've ever photographed have been either a dog, a cat, or a horse, on occasion I will get asked to photograph other types of pets. In terms of other 'higher order' pets (horses, cats, etc.) with the possible exception of item 2, all of these tips will apply more-or-less as-is. For smaller pets (ferrets, rats, hamsters, turtles, snakes, etc.) no amount of preparation will help, so items 2, 3, 4, and 8 generally will apply less (or not at all), and for the most part you will be taking pictures of smaller animals with their owners, so the shoots become less about the animal and more about a standard portrait session with the owner holding their pet. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an aside, most of these also work great when photographing kids. Except for maybe the leash thing... On the other hand... ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-14T20:33:35.403" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T20:33:35.403" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8696" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8694" CreationDate="2011-02-14T01:08:30.893" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Be at the same height of the subject. Crawl or put it on a table or something. It make a use difference. Also, shoot a lot. They moves and you might get something you didn't expect, like an opened mouth..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be patient, feed them and enjoy !&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3689" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T01:08:30.893" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8697" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8694" CreationDate="2011-02-14T01:09:14.763" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the tips you've listed in comments:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Have the owners with the dogs. Dogs are pack animals, and they may be well adjusted but they might not be. My dog is people friendly, but behaves much better when I'm around&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For dogs, have the owners exercise them quite a bet before the shoot. The closer to being tired, the less active the dog will be, so it will be easier to shoot. As soon as I get down to dog's level, the dog instinctively comes up to me. If it's tired, it will be lest likely.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Have the owner withold giving the dog water before the shoot. That will make the dog pant, and more likely to have a smile on its face.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T01:09:14.763" />
  <row Id="8698" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8704" CreationDate="2011-02-14T02:45:02.543" Score="8" ViewCount="462" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm sort of confused between the 3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3165" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T10:56:17.663" Title="What is the difference between Project, Album and Folder in Aperture 3?" Tags="&lt;apple-aperture&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8699" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8716" CreationDate="2011-02-14T02:46:46.363" Score="19" ViewCount="708" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a beginner, should I still be shooting RAW?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3165" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T00:55:30.940" Title="Should I be shooting in RAW even though I'm a beginner that doesn't know how to retouch photos yet?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;" AnswerCount="12" CommentCount="14" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="8700" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8699" CreationDate="2011-02-14T02:55:36.707" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's so &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2627/good-examples-of-raws-advantages-over-jpeg&quot;&gt;many advantages to RAW&lt;/a&gt; its hard to say no.  The only concern is that it really easy to feel that you don't need to take the time to get it right in camera because RAW can be quite forgiving in post.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd still recommend it, really for all the same reasons in the linked question, but  remember you'll &lt;strong&gt;always&lt;/strong&gt; get a better product if you take the time to get it right in camera first.  Put the time into every shot, a little extra time up front can save much frustration later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T02:55:36.707" />
  <row Id="8701" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8699" CreationDate="2011-02-14T02:58:38.813" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think this is a case where you should clarify beginner a bit more.&#xA;Are you a beginner at photography, photo-editing or both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming you are both, I would not recommend shooting in raw, I would not recommend shooting in both jpeg and raw at this stage because it does not server any great advantage at the moment and can make file management more difficult.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most windows based operating systems don't support raw images and you require the utilities that are included with the camera to view and edit these files. Which when used with large amount of pictures can become a pain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However I would recommend you to shoot with both if there are shots that require great detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But as a beginner focus on the techniques of photography first, then you can think about using raw images and image post-processing (which should be your last resort)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3109" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T02:58:38.813" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8702" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8699" CreationDate="2011-02-14T03:04:56.523" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two years from now, when you're not a beginner any more, you may be able to go back to the shots you took in RAW and make them much better than you would be able to today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, two years from now you will be taking better shots and you won't care to go back over your earlier rejects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're in a situation where you're getting once-in-a-lifetime opportunities, take RAW+JPEG. Otherwise just settle for JPEG until you're at a point where you know what RAW will do for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="775" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T03:04:56.523" />
  <row Id="8703" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8699" CreationDate="2011-02-14T03:08:52.533" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a great question on here of a list of &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2627/good-examples-of-raws-advantages-over-jpeg&quot;&gt;the advantages of RAW&lt;/a&gt;, so I won't rehash them here.  That said, I'd &lt;strong&gt;definitely encourage you to shoot RAW even if you're a beginner&lt;/strong&gt;.  Here's why:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;shooting RAW vs. JPG won't change the basics of photography.  You'll still want to make the same considerations when in the field for choosing your exposure, lighting, composition, and so on.  If anything, RAW allows for a bit more room for error.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;all major photo editing programs, even those used by beginners such as iPhoto, Picasa, or Photoshop Elements, support RAW&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;even if you don't do much advanced editing now, &lt;strong&gt;you'll always be able to come back to your images in the future when you've honed your skills a bit&lt;/strong&gt;.  Perhaps you don't know enough now where the difference between RAW and JPG is that big of a deal, but six months down the road you might want to revisit some images and unfortunately if you didn't shoot RAW, that data is gone forever.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T03:08:52.533" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8704" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8698" CreationDate="2011-02-14T03:13:13.767" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Project:&lt;/strong&gt; Contains distinct photos/videos.  A given photo/video can't exist in multiple projects, if you drag a photo from a project to another project it &lt;em&gt;moves&lt;/em&gt; that photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Album:&lt;/strong&gt; Contains photos/videos from any number of projects but can only contain one instance of any photo or video.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Folder:&lt;/strong&gt; Contains Projects and Albums.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, &lt;strong&gt;Project A&lt;/strong&gt; can contain Photo1 and Photo2 and &lt;strong&gt;Project B&lt;/strong&gt; can contain Photo3 and Photo4.  &lt;strong&gt;Album A&lt;/strong&gt; can contain Photo1, Photo2 and Photo3.  &lt;strong&gt;Album B&lt;/strong&gt; can contain Photo2, Photo3, and Photo4.  &lt;strong&gt;Folder A&lt;/strong&gt; can contain Project A and Album B.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you drag Photo1 from Project A to Project B it becomes part of Project B and is no longer part of Project B, it has no impact on Album A and Album B.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you make a couple test case Project, Album Folders it'll become clear :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T03:13:13.767" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8705" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8699" CreationDate="2011-02-14T03:19:40.450" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Any beginner that would even bother to ask the question will benefit from RAW input.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd say that especially for beginners, RAW format makes things more forgiving. Beginners are more likely to get the exposure wrong. With RAW format, you can often recover from that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using the word retouching makes it sound complicated and advanced. To start, just load your raw files into Google's Picasa (it's free) and do some exposure adjustment. If your image is under or over exposed, this adjustment will have more to work with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're in the middle of bush country and you're really trying to stretch the capacity of your flash cards, I could understand not using RAW. Otherwise, bits are cheap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually, I just did a price check on flash cards. If you can afford a camera that has a RAW mode (and you're lucky enough to be visiting bush country), then you can buy a pocket full of cards that can hold more pictures than you could take.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, there's no reason not to shoot in RAW. It's just better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I like to make analogies. Say, in your area, a radio station is being broadcast on both AM and FM (NPR for example). Would you ever listen to the AM version?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="98" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T03:19:40.450" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8706" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8699" CreationDate="2011-02-14T04:00:13.800" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a beginner with my Canon 450D, I did an experiment shooting at dusk in RAW + JPEG. I found that while in areas where JPG files showed white (the remaining daylight) or black (shadow), the corresponding RAW file actually resolved detail. I also noticed colour differences between the two files. As a result, I basically never shoot JPG anymore. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even when shooting in continuous shooting mode, the 450D copes pretty well. I've never filled up the buffer on it, though I don't shoot many frames at once. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only problem with RAW, is that I can't just take my SD card out of my camera and pop into the TV for an instant slide show.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3650" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T04:00:13.800" />
  <row Id="8707" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-14T04:11:18.547" Score="6" ViewCount="231" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've read in several places (photo mags, websites, etc.) that there are third party (ie. not PhotoShop, Lightroom, Picasa, PaintShopPro,...) RAW converters around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question is what differences are there from one RAW converter to another and why would one want to use one? I mean, isn't a RAW file basically just recording each pixel and isn't the RAW converter just opening a file in a format your photo editor can use?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems I've caused some confusion as to what I meant by &quot;third party&quot;. To put things into context, I was reading an article in a photo mag recently about someone who was using PhaseOne for the RAW conversion process then doing additional work inside Photoshop. It's the use of the PhaseOne product that I was referring to as the &quot;third party&quot; software. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3650" LastEditorUserId="3650" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-16T04:36:44.893" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T03:44:25.867" Title="RAW processing software" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8708" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8707" CreationDate="2011-02-14T04:18:22.283" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are quite a few differences actually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the basic level, many vary with the number of &quot;knobs&quot; they give you to control the resultant image. As RAW has become more and more the defacto format for hobbiest and professional alike, more tools like Photoshop and Lightroom have expanded their RAW converter toolset. Before, RAW converters offered you the tools you needed to &quot;develop&quot; your RAW image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, the output of one raw converter won't necessarily match the output of another. The colors of say Canon's DPP would be more preferable to those of PhaseOne, while PhaseOne would have much more fine controls, and better over all workflow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T04:18:22.283" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8709" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8707" CreationDate="2011-02-14T04:32:18.333" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Of course RAW is &quot;just&quot; the pixels. But as a picture on your screen is more than &quot;just the pixels&quot;, there is room for differences in software, for example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;demosaicing algorithms (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://rawtherapee.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1451&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;RawTherapee thread&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;colour-temperature-correction (in-camera, auto, self-settable)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;denoising-algorithms (luminosity, colour)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;mapping-algorithms (10/12/14 bit data map to 8bit/channel (or 16bit, Photoshop), from linear to log-scale)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;removal of hot-pixels&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;different application of curves to the (raw) data (like you use the equalizer to enhance contrasts in sound)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If all software were alike, you wouldn't need RAW at all (except for pixel-peeping), as you'd just use the result of the software available in-camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastEditorUserId="2317" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-14T04:45:11.187" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T04:45:11.187" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8710" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-14T06:06:45.943" Score="3" ViewCount="272" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I look through the display, I see always a small grey circle at the same place. Also in the picture it's the same circle. When I change the lens, the circle is still there.&#xA;So I assume it's something with the sensor.&#xA;Has the sensor an error? &#xA;What could happened (spot wasn't always there)? &#xA;Is there a way to fix that (I used the lens cleaning program)? &#xA;Warranty case? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an example:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/aSD1E.png&quot; alt=&quot;Spot&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3852" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-16T07:30:26.990" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T12:54:35.317" Title="Sony NEX5: Why do I have a dark spot in my images?" Tags="&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;sony&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8711" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8699" CreationDate="2011-02-14T06:16:20.257" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I started photography, I was in the same dilemma and I chose to shoot JPEG over RAW.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had only one 8GB memory card and I could shoot 900 images in JPEG format while switching to RAW, I could shoot only around 250 shots. Its important for a beginner to shoot a lot of photos and get your hands free. The ratio of keepers will also be low for beginners and shooting RAW will just lower the number of keepers (as the total number of pictures you can take in RAW will be lower than you can take in JPEG). And also for beginners there will be a lot of photos which will be off-focused/wrong focused/missing subjects etc etc and you don't need to think twice before deleting those images so there isn't a point to keep large files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I were you, I'd concentrate more on learning and getting perfect images before I switch to RAW. Modern DSLRs produce good enough JPEGs these days and you still can do a lot of corrections on JPEG images, might not be as good as RAWs but not bad as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, my answer totally depends on which level of beginner you are. I'd suggest, shoot first 10,000 images in JPEG, learn from your mistakes and then switch to RAW.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T06:16:20.257" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8712" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8595" CreationDate="2011-02-14T06:30:45.770" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use both Dropbox and Safecopy backup at the same and they are all great backup services and i really love them so much.These two backup services really suit my backup services and with Safecopy backup,i'm glad i can backup multiple computers on a single account and they are fair at their prices.Well one can read more about Safecopy at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.backuplineup.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.backuplineup.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3853" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T06:30:45.770" />
  <row Id="8713" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8718" CreationDate="2011-02-14T06:53:00.327" Score="7" ViewCount="271" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a photograph (on paper) that needs retouching. I have an HP Officejet 5610 flatbed scanner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any software that will allow me to scan said photograph and capture it as RAW so I can use Lightroom 3 to perform some corrections on it? The default HP software merely scans it as JPG.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other options that will allow me to do the same also welcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2552" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T00:52:48.103" Title="Can I use a flatbed scanner to scan a photo into RAW format?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;scanner&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="8714" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8710" CreationDate="2011-02-14T07:10:41.783" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Try to take bulb and then blow off. It helped me&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3855" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T07:10:41.783" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8715" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8713" CreationDate="2011-02-14T07:16:53.027" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can open up JPG's in Lightroom and edit them in Lightroom just fine, or if you want, I suppose you can convert your jpeg into DNG (kind of pointless really). Just ensure that after you make your corrections in lightroom, you save the file in a lossless format (otherwise you risk double data loss do to recompression).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lightroom isn't specific to RAW files. It works on a myriad of image formats, including JPG's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;RAW itself is a binary dump of camera sensor data (insert technobabble about bayer patterns ad so forth). There isn't a way to take JPG data and dump it back to RAW, as RAW image data varies from camera system to camera system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T07:16:53.027" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8716" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8699" CreationDate="2011-02-14T07:24:48.997" Score="24" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Im going to go against the grain and say that you should shoot with whatever format you find easier to work with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The downside to raw is that it's a two step process. If you're a beginner, you might not have settled in on a workflow and may find that RAW files might be too cumbersome to work with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I prefer RAW, and I generally think it's the better choice, but as a beginner, there are far more important things that should take your attention instead of editors, and file formats.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A RAW file isn't going to save your images from being boring, from being out of focus, or for being just plain bad. If you spend your time trying to retouch so-so looking photos just because you can, you'll miss out on learning how to take good photos first!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Said another way, a properly exposed jpeg looks far better than a mediocre photo shot with RAW.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Learning proper exposure techniques, framing, subject, and artistry are so much more important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it's a fun exercise to go back and rework old images using new techniques, but I don't think its something that should be encouraged. Better to go out and take new photographs, than toil away and rehashing old ones. In my most humblest of opinions of course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T07:24:48.997" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="8717" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8710" CreationDate="2011-02-14T07:32:14.063" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most common cause of spots in pictures is dust stuck to your sensor, but it's also possible that your sensor or AA filter is damaged.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming that's a crop (not the whole picture), that looks like dust to me, though it could be something else (&quot;goop&quot;, as Stan mentions) stuck to the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/12/best-way-to-clean-the-sensor-on-a-digital-slr&quot;&gt;This question&lt;/a&gt; covers DSLR cleaning techniques, which should also apply to your mirrorless camera; you just won't have to worry about mirror lockup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6399/is-it-sensor-damage-or-dust&quot;&gt;tell the difference between damage and dust&lt;/a&gt; by taking two pictures of a flat scene (the sky works well): one with a small aperture like f/22 or so, and one with the widest aperture your lens supports. If the spot gets blurrier in the wide-aperture shot, it's dust, or something else stuck to your AA filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-16T07:29:08.023" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T07:29:08.023" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8718" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8713" CreationDate="2011-02-14T08:24:23.460" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There isn't really any RAW format for scanners, but the third party scanner program &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hamrick.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;VueScan&lt;/a&gt; for example does actually offer an option to save scans as RAW files. It's really a TIFF file that is saved with minimal changes from the raw scanner data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is of course also the option of applying some basic corrections in the scanner program, save that as a TIFF file, and do the final adjustemnts in Lightroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T08:24:23.460" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8720" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8595" CreationDate="2011-02-14T08:32:05.960" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am betting that if anyone wants cheap, secure online backup for multiple computers should go for Safecopy.com.  It's amazing bucking up my Mac and Windows and I can still add more computers at only $50/yr.  I like it. I do love Dropbox as well for large file sharing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3857" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T08:32:05.960" />
  <row Id="8721" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8699" CreationDate="2011-02-14T08:57:40.977" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No. Raw will clog up your computer with big files you (just said) don't know how to work with. Photos are not made to be looked at through a magnifying glass, so I wouldnt bother about a minimal loss in detail. Raw makes sense if: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you are a professional who can't afford losing a single shot because of a slightly off exposure, and probably you do still/landscape photography&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;when you shoot you already know what results you want to get. Photography at its finest is about shooting to the best and using the right tools not to further improve the results with random tinkering, but to get as close as possible to a mental image you have. This is no dogma, just a way great photographers who worked much with the image after shooting (e.g. Ansel Adams - and many others) saw (or see) things, and I personally agree to some extent. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, you should experiment with raw, but it's useless to do so as a habit unless you need to work heavily on every shot to get certain results. I often shoot at the lowest resolution of my 14Mp camera (i.e. 3.5 Mp), getting beautiful prints and flawless 100% screen visualization along with better sharpness and color than full resolution shots; all from files 1.2 Mb or less. My 4Gb SD card can hold more than 1600 shots this way. Of course this won't apply if you do poster prints of your photos, which is unlikely to happen very often.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;oh, edit: As a plus, in camera raw conversion is optimized to get the best results saving you and your computer a lot of work. When you have some free time try shooting raws of something in bad light, or something that has difficult white balance, so you can practice getting what you need out of raw files, then use what you learn when you need it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3364" LastEditorUserId="3364" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-14T10:20:20.470" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T10:20:20.470" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8722" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-14T09:26:52.010" Score="-1" ViewCount="185" Body="&lt;p&gt;Of course, it should be able to print pictures without an external printer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3860" LastEditorUserId="3860" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-16T04:17:10.623" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T04:17:10.623" Title="What's the best Polaroid camera and model right now?" Tags="&lt;printer&gt;&lt;polaroid&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8723" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-14T11:48:43.307" Score="8" ViewCount="417" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not entirely sure if this is the right place to ask this question, but I don't know of a better place. I need to set up a webcam to take a photo every minute for 24 hours, so that it can be compiled into a video that plays them at something like 20fps. However I don't know of software to do this - is there? I'm running GNU/Linux (ubuntu 10.10).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3861" LastEditorUserId="380" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-14T20:15:44.630" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T09:57:46.210" Title="taking one picture each minute for 24 hours." Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;timelapse&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8724" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8723" CreationDate="2011-02-14T12:29:07.607" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is plenty of software to do this in Ubuntu 10.10. I have not personally tried any of them so cannot vouch for which is best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One useful link looks to be&#xA; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://popey.com/blog/2010/12/20/my-ubuntu-webcam-setup/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;popey.com - My Ubuntu Webcam setup&lt;/a&gt; this is fairly command line oriented but Popey does give all the steps to make a video of the resulting images&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other possible packages looking in my software list on Ubuntu 10.10 (you will likely need to enable the Universe repository to get all of them)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;webcam&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;webcamd&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;cheese&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;kmotion&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you get stuck with Ubuntu specific issues you can always try the Ubuntu StackExchange site at &lt;a href=&quot;http://askubuntu.com/&quot;&gt;askubuntu.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1624" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T12:29:07.607" />
  <row Id="8725" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8727" CreationDate="2011-02-14T12:58:15.503" Score="7" ViewCount="150" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am wondering if there is a difference in the depth of field if I stand near the subject or far from it with the same aperture (like f1.4) ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for responses&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3865" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T19:24:39.990" Title="depth of field varies with distance?" Tags="&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8726" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8725" CreationDate="2011-02-14T13:02:44.653" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The depth of field is more like a ratio. so the further the focal plane is away from you the more area will be in focus.&#xA;A rough way to visualise this would be to imagine a bell curve with one of the lower points being attached to the camera and the top of the curve being attached to the focal point. A near object would have a steep curve, a far object would have a longer gentler curve. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3802" LastEditorUserId="3802" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-14T13:42:11.650" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T13:42:11.650" />
  <row Id="8727" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8725" CreationDate="2011-02-14T13:09:29.857" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Absolutely it does. Just to give you an idea, here's a few recent pictures of mine. The first was shot at f/14 with my new 100mm lens at a very close distance, the second was shot with the same lens at f/13, at a more typical distance. Note the huge difference in the DOF. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/tFpHW.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;F/14 at 100mm&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/FXegF.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Police cutbacks&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T13:09:29.857" />
  <row Id="8728" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1503" CreationDate="2011-02-14T13:19:19.330" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;UPDATE:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for the project status update! First of all the approach with the java webstart app is interesting - do you use different flickr api keys for each webstart instance or does flickr cap the api requests based on a api key/ip-address combination?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ran your webstart app and it yielded 0 serial numbers after scanning 50 photos. I haven't looked at your source code, but you should be aware that only a tiny minority of cams (mostly dslrs) write serial numbers into the exif metadata.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd recommend to download the sample images from &lt;a href=&quot;http://owl.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/sample_images.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Phil Harvey's Meta Information Repository&lt;/a&gt; and run &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;exiftool&lt;/a&gt; on it to see which models actually yield serial numbers. You can then narrow down your webstart app search to these models and thus improve the success ratio highly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I stumbled upon your question when I just started to explore photo.stackexchange.com.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 years ago, I had a very similar idea to stolencamerafinder and actually started implementing it in python. However I stoped it due to various reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The most of the camera serialnumbers stored in the EXIF data are editable and thus fakeable (at least with exiftool) --&gt; risk of false alerts or &quot;serial number spam&quot; (at least when the service starts to get popular)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Most people use image uploaders that resize their images and thereby often discard all or many parts of the EXIF data (Remember that the serialnumber is always stored in some proprietary exif makernote that is often dropped during image conversions) --&gt; low ratio of inspected images: extracted serial numbers.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;however I'm curious how your project has developed... could you give a short status summary?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3866" LastEditorUserId="3866" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-15T08:50:45.547" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T08:50:45.547" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8729" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="49" CreationDate="2011-02-14T13:49:37.320" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One thing to consider is that although some lenses do have low apertures, there can be aberrations at the lower f numbers, this is due to the lenses not being perfect so to get the best sharpness across an image a more midle range aperture may be ideal as it cuts out light that has passed through the slightly off perfection glass of the centre of the lens. It does it does depend on your subject if this matters to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3802" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T13:49:37.320" />
  <row Id="8730" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8699" CreationDate="2011-02-14T14:15:53.607" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Raw format help you to correct yourself in most of the cases but it eats a lot of memory ..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3868" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T14:15:53.607" />
  <row Id="8731" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8713" CreationDate="2011-02-14T14:27:52.297" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My guess is that you do not understand what RAW is. RAW files are not images. Information is missing from them to form a complete image and RAW-conversion software interpolates (intelligently guesses) the missing data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no such problem with a scanner since you have a complete image already. Therefore it makes NO sense for scanners to output RAW data like cameras do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you probably want is a high bit-depth to capture a more variations then JPEG files can contain. This helps when you are doing image adjustments (tone, contrast, curves, etc). In this case the scanner will usually produce a TIFF file, although other formats such as Cineon too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The scanning software usually has a setting interface somewhere when it asks you for different settings such as DPI. Look for one that says &lt;strong&gt;bit-depth&lt;/strong&gt;. If it says 24 bits-per-pixel (bpp) then that is equivalent to a JPEG. You can usually choose 36-bits which is similar to the color-depth found in RAW files (depending on the camera). On some scanners, there is also a 48-bit option which is beyond that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can scan to a bit-depth as high as you want BUT to make a difference, information has to be there. If you are scanning something that has only 6 bits of color-variations, then scanning at 36 vs 48 bits won't be of any use. The truth is that this relationship of color-depth from printers versus color-depth of digital cameras is an extremely complex subject better left for another discussion. Suffice to say that anything beyond 24-bits is probably overkill.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T14:27:52.297" />
  <row Id="8732" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-14T15:13:01.647" Score="0" ViewCount="76" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2624/what-are-color-profiles-and-where-would-i-find-information-on-using-them-properly&quot;&gt;What are Color Profiles and where would I find information on using them properly?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've seen choices either sRGB and AdobeRGB in my camera and a whole plethora more in Apple's Aperture? What exactly does this do? How do I pick the proper one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1635" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T20:22:35.900" ClosedDate="2011-02-14T20:12:23.760" Title="What is colour profile and how does one go about it in a digital workflow?" Tags="&lt;color-management&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8733" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8732" CreationDate="2011-02-14T15:21:16.473" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Color Profiles allow you to select a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamut&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;color gamut&lt;/a&gt; (think palette or range or colors), that the photo will be rendered in. sRGB is the basic standard, and it used in most cases, however, there are others, such as AdobeRGB, that allow for a wider range of colors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;In general, you should select sRGB, unless you know a specific reason to choose otherwise.&lt;/em&gt; The downside with selecting a non-standard profile is that you have to use properly calibrated monitors to view it correctly, and you also have to make sure that your printing service and photo software supports the profile you select. (Note that proper monitor calibration is recommended even when using sRGB).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T15:21:16.473" />
  <row Id="8734" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8723" CreationDate="2011-02-14T15:24:14.363" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Try gphoto2. It is available on the ubuntu repositories, and is a command line utility. it's very powerful, and allows you to use &quot;regular&quot; digital cameras, also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other choices would be VideoCapture module for python (assuming you know python).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3462" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T15:24:14.363" />
  <row Id="8735" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-14T16:31:33.390" Score="3" ViewCount="157" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to be able to shoot video footage in the best quality I can of vibrating grains on membranes (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymatics&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;cymatics&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm wondering if I should I swap my Canon 5D for a 5DmkII, buy the cheaper 7D, buy a different dSLR with video capabilities, or buy a good camcorder instead? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am concerned that a camcorder wouldn't be able to get close up video of the cymatic phenomenon... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3870" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-15T01:16:29.420" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T01:19:51.180" Title="Upgrade from a 5D to shoot video" Tags="&lt;macro&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8736" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-14T16:43:52.207" Score="11" ViewCount="386" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've had my camera for about a year, and having taken 9999 images the camera's file naming system has rolled over to 0001..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I usually import my photos to Lightroom, so Lightroom sorts them into different folders based on year..like 2010, 2011, and then into further sub-folders by date.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am doing some stock photography, so I am exporting all the final images into a same folder. Since some of the images will have duplicate names, there is a risk that I will overwrite files on export.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to know how you handle this situation? do you use a specific naming strategy, or just simply put everything into different folders on export?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3871" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-06-02T11:03:06.213" LastActivityDate="2011-06-02T11:03:06.213" Title="How do you manage images with duplicate file names in Lightroom?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;filenames&gt;&lt;naming&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8737" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8736" CreationDate="2011-02-14T16:51:04.350" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One good way to handle this is to add a date/time into the file name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;instead of &lt;strong&gt;IMG_1234.jpg&lt;/strong&gt;, have the file renamed to &lt;strong&gt;IMG_YYYYMMDD_1234.jpg&lt;/strong&gt;.  That way if later down the road you have another IMG_1234.jpg, the exported versions would be dated. So if the images were shot on Feb. 14, 2010 and Jun. 30, 2011 you would end up with IMG_20100214_1234.jpg and IMG_20110630_1234.jpg.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Lightroom, there are &lt;a href=&quot;http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Lightroom/3.0/Using/WS436CA8E4-7E7B-4b4c-B522-1449D8F21CE0.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;filename templates&lt;/a&gt; that can simplify this process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-14T16:56:07.763" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T16:56:07.763" />
  <row Id="8738" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8736" CreationDate="2011-02-14T16:52:29.950" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;File naming is one of those things where everyone has a personal preference, but here are a couple things that folks do frequently:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;rename the files to include the original shooting date.  So instead of IMG_0001.JPG you might end up with 20110214-0001.JPG&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;include a short shoot description.  Continuing my example, perhaps you'd have 20110214-smithheadshot.JPG&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you noted, this only becomes an issue if you try to put all of your files in the same folder; if you avoid this it won't be a problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The good news is that Lightroom can rename files automatically when you import; check out the File Renaming section of the Import screen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T16:52:29.950" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8739" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8735" CreationDate="2011-02-14T17:35:49.553" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;5D mkII is definitely overkill for what you're trying to do. It's main advantage for video is the shallow depth of field that a large sensor allows. For filming close objects a smaller sensor (APS-C) would be better as it gives you a little mote depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 7D is also higher spec than you need. The 60D is the best price/video quality trade off for what you want. The older xxxD models are missing full HD recording at 24p, but the 550D t2i and 600D t3i do. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-15T01:19:51.180" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T01:19:51.180" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8740" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8736" CreationDate="2011-02-14T18:11:12.893" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Honestly, folders are the way to.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are workarounds but do you really want 100,000 images in the same folder? It's going to take extremely long to open on some machines and hard to navigate when you have a tiny scrollbar and too many thumbnails being read or generated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can all &lt;strong&gt;root them in one main folder&lt;/strong&gt;:&#xA;/Pictures&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And &lt;strong&gt;divide into subfolders&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;/Pictures/2011/02/14/&lt;strong&gt;IMG_0001.JPG&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OR&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;/Pictures/2011/ValentinesDay/&lt;strong&gt;IMG_0001.JPG&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OR ... whichever breakdown is significant to you. Dates are good because they sort well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I have one level in between which makes sure that my second level folders never exceed the size of a DVD which is what I use for backups. So:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;/Pictures/&lt;strong&gt;V031&lt;/strong&gt;/Family/2011_02/ValentinesDay&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When &lt;strong&gt;V031&lt;/strong&gt; reaches 4.4 GB, I will create a &lt;strong&gt;V032&lt;/strong&gt;. It makes backups much easier and also easy to find off-line files since the DVDs are labeled with their Vxxx number.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T18:11:12.893" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8741" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8735" CreationDate="2011-02-14T18:37:34.453" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some DSLRs (like the 5DII and 7D) produce a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_shutter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;rolling shutter&lt;/a&gt; effect which might be detrimental to filming these vibrations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not sure which cameras would work the best for you, but you should keep this in mind when making your decision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="123" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T18:37:34.453" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8742" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8699" CreationDate="2011-02-14T18:57:41.153" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you don't use RAW - you'll miss out on a world of work you can do on your images and subsequently won't learn as much about what you can do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have 2 analogies here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is a bit like asking whether you should get a camera which produces prints only (something like a polaroid) and you never get any negatives. You get a usable result immediately but the quality isn't necessarily there and you are limited with what you can do after the photograph is taken. Remember jpg is a lossy format, so every time it is saved and altered, you lose quality through image compression. People demonise 'retouching' in photoshop etc as if it is the devil's own work - but remember, we played with the images in the darkroom too :) Granted you should get it as right as you can in camera but RAW gives you a little room to move on an image perhaps not quite there.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Would everyone recommend to a user to stay with automatic mode on their DSLR or would they suggest using manual? If you stay within the comfortable confines of automatic mode you will never learn how to use the camera in manual mode - the same is applicable here with post processing where a jpg is more or less like automatic mode.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unless I am working on a shoot which requires a very fast image turn around and have a decent day light wise I use the format which gives me the digital negative (which is effectively what a RAW file is). As said there are reasons to shoot straight to jpg but I wouldn't make this the rule, rather the exception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For you this enforces the learning curve (and the basics which get applied in camera on a jpg aren't rocket science anyway) rather than avoiding it. Subsequently, you will learn by doing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T18:57:41.153" />
  <row Id="8743" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8732" CreationDate="2011-02-14T19:09:18.553" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;sorry, my rep is too low to comment or to upvote chills42. sRGB all the way, main reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;adobeRGB wider gamut? make two prints, then tell one from the other!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;sRGB is a W3C standard and its used by web browsers and other software by default, so using other profiles (i.e. its most widespread peer adobeRGB) will often give ugly sad colors. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3364" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T19:09:18.553" />
  <row Id="8744" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8725" CreationDate="2011-02-14T19:24:39.990" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Even if you don't have your camera with you, you can experiment with a depth-of-field calculator (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;like this on-line one&lt;/a&gt;) to play with focal lengths, f-stops, and focus distances to see exactly how depth-of-field changes as those variables change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2312" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T19:24:39.990" />
  <row Id="8745" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8732" CreationDate="2011-02-14T20:09:12.500" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While jrista's older answer that's been linked to gives a lot of background, for most people who just care about producing good results, things can be simplified a lot. There are basically two possibilities that (IMO) make much sense. For lack of a better term, I'd call them the &quot;high end&quot; and &quot;low end&quot; options&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;High end: ProPhoto RGB working space, 16 bits per channel.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Low end: AdobeRGB working space, 8 bits per channel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In either case, you want to profile your monitor. IMO, if you care about color fidelity at all, it's worth getting and using a colorimeter. If you want to go for the &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; low-end version, Adobe includes a calibration program with Ps (and probably with Lightroom and such as well). I suppose if you really refuse to use a colorimeter, it's better than nothing -- though only a little bit, to be honest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From there, you can convert to sRGB (for example) when you're publishing something to the web or getting a print from Walgreens (or whatever). In a fully color managed work flow (e.g., a pro-level printer or doing your own prints) should go directly from your working space to the profile for the printer/paper combo being used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just in case that wasn't clear: sRGB (somewhat like JPEG) should &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; be used as an output format, and even then only in situations where the destination is unknown and uncontrolled. It's never really a &lt;em&gt;good&lt;/em&gt; choice -- but when/if the destination (probably) doesn't manage color at all, it's the least of the available evils.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Trying to mix these to get a mid-way point doesn't really work well. AdobeRGB with 16 bits per channel doubles file sizes without improving quality. ProPhoto RGB with 8 bits per channel will frequently result in visible &quot;banding&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-14T20:22:35.900" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T20:22:35.900" />
  <row Id="8746" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8736" CreationDate="2011-02-14T21:00:48.337" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I never keep camera-generated filenames. I use my own naming/numbering scheme which prevents from having duplicate filenames.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1296" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T21:00:48.337" />
  <row Id="8747" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8775" CreationDate="2011-02-14T21:10:57.890" Score="5" ViewCount="151" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm planning on converting a Nikon D50 to dedicated infrared, replacing the internal IR cut filter with one that will block visible light, and pass infrared.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Google has turned up a couple sites, and ebay has one listed. I'm wondering if anyone has done this, and can recommend one (or recommend against one)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3478" LastEditorUserId="3478" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-15T17:52:33.973" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T14:37:06.633" Title="What companies offer an IR camera filter?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;infrared&gt;" AnswerCount="5" />
  <row Id="8748" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8747" CreationDate="2011-02-14T21:44:48.370" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've used &lt;a href=&quot;http://maxmax.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;maxmax.com&lt;/a&gt; for a 5D and it came out great, no complaints.  I've heard of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lifepixel.com/affiliate/idevaffiliate.php?id=296&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lifepixel.com&lt;/a&gt; as well but haven't personally used them, their website certainly looks better :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastEditorUserId="1819" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-14T22:28:48.007" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T22:28:48.007" />
  <row Id="8749" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8753" CreationDate="2011-02-14T22:15:17.680" Score="7" ViewCount="782" Body="&lt;p&gt;I need a fast lens with autofocus for taking indoor shots with my Nikon D3000. I have been looking at the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 AF-S for a while and now that I am ready to get one they are next to impossible to find. Is this lens being replaced or discontinued? If so does anyone have a recommendation for similar lens in the same price range?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1031" LastActivityDate="2011-05-01T23:16:54.423" Title="Is the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 AF-S being replaced?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8750" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8749" CreationDate="2011-02-14T22:19:35.207" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure how rare they are - I just hopped over to Amazon and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-35mm-AF-S-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001S2PPT0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1297741445&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;they have them in stock&lt;/a&gt; (as of this time).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a bit more money, but the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=320&amp;amp;sort=7&amp;amp;cat=38&amp;amp;page=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gets decent reviews&lt;/a&gt; and gives you an wider aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-15T15:26:19.310" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T15:26:19.310" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="8751" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8749" CreationDate="2011-02-14T22:24:48.773" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's only a couple of years old, and it fits a very good niche (DX, small, cheap, fast, relatively wide). I really doubt it will get discontinued soon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I doubt anyone except Nikon has anything more than speculation on this topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similar lenses: You pretty much have to go with the 50mm to get anything with the same price point, speed, and quality. I'd recommend the 35mm f/2 AF-D (it's a very similar lens for not much more) except that it won't autofocus on your D3000.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T22:24:48.773" />
  <row Id="8752" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8749" CreationDate="2011-02-14T22:24:55.980" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This lens was &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikon.com/about/news/2009/0209_nikkor_01.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;launched just two years ago&lt;/a&gt; — it's unlikely that it'd be discontinued or replaced so soon. In fact, they've been selling like hotcakes ever since that launch, and it seems like they're always on the verge of being out of stock. I suspect you're just seeing that at work. I'd go ahead and preorder from one of the big reputable places; it shouldn't be too long of a wait.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T22:24:55.980" />
  <row Id="8753" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8749" CreationDate="2011-02-14T22:28:47.757" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a relatively new lens and popular lens, so it would shock me if it was being discontinued or replaced. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During the Christmas season, they became incredibly popular as presents and the supply dwindled (increasing the price considerably for a bit, even on Amazon).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;It's one of the cheapest lenses available for DX cameras and not too shabby either!  The stores are probably still behind on the stocking from the holiday season.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Either give it time, or check out the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or Nikon/Sigma 50mm f/1.4 - although these are more expensive. (Realize the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 won't autofocus on your D3000).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T22:28:47.757" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8754" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8736" CreationDate="2011-02-14T22:36:32.707" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are on a mac there is an awesome program called A Better Finder Rename &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publicspace.net/ABetterFinderRename/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.publicspace.net/ABetterFinderRename/&lt;/a&gt; and it will give you all sorts of options to prepend or add numbers, letters etc to giant groups of files. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I shoot as well and use it to give specific job titles to batches of files ex. beachname/client/# etc &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All the best &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-cd&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3875" LastActivityDate="2011-02-14T22:36:32.707" />
  <row Id="8755" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8735" CreationDate="2011-02-15T00:03:40.473" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My advice would be to hire or borrow a 5Dmk2, 7D or 60D and see how the video recording looks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 60D or 7D is probably the way to go as they let you record at 60fps (at 1280x720) as well as 30fps at 1920x1080. The 5DmkII doesn't go above 30fps. Depending on what it is you're trying to record, a higher frame rate might actually be quite useful, especially if combined with a macro lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this is the only thing you're using the camera for, just get the 60D (its articulated screen would be useful for recording macro video from awkward angles and it's slightly cheaper) but if you're going to be using it as a replacement for the 5D for photography as well, then the 7D might be a better choice (since it's not much more expensive).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T00:03:40.473" />
  <row Id="8756" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8757" CreationDate="2011-02-15T00:04:28.170" Score="10" ViewCount="253" Body="&lt;p&gt;Photography is one of my hobbies. I recently bought my first DSLR Canon 1000d. Looks complicated compared to my old point and shoot cameras but I am loving it. Unlike professional photographers I don't use my camera daily. I use it once or twice a week. Is it okay if I leave the batteries in the camera during this idle time? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2867" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-15T00:11:17.550" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T00:30:26.920" Title="Can I leave the batteries in my camera?" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;batteries&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8757" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8756" CreationDate="2011-02-15T00:06:46.920" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, that should be no problem. If you didn't use it for six months to a year, you might want to take them out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, the lithium battery pack used in your camera (like most current dSLRs) should hold its charge on the shelf fairly well, so you won't have to worry too much about it being drained just sitting there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(If you do need to shelve it for a long time, the battery will be best if stored at a little less than half full.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T00:06:46.920" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8758" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15" CreationDate="2011-02-15T00:10:43.650" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To paraphrase Mr Adams: The RAW file is the score, the JPG processed from it is the performance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3876" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T00:10:43.650" />
  <row Id="8759" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8749" CreationDate="2011-02-15T00:20:18.427" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;These lenses are built in batches. It's probable that we're simply between container-loads from China - the last lot are getting rarer or have completely sold out in some markets, and the next haven't arrived yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3876" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T00:20:18.427" />
  <row Id="8760" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8756" CreationDate="2011-02-15T00:21:38.907" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;if you're in a very humid environment ( New Orleans June thru August) I'd take them out if I was not going to use the camera for a couple weeks or more otherwise there shouldn't be a problem leaving them in for a few months.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3675" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T00:21:38.907" />
  <row Id="8761" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8756" CreationDate="2011-02-15T00:30:26.920" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As long as the camera is fully off, and the battery is not flat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is bad for Lithium batteries to be left unused for a long time (more than a few days) with the battery discharged.  That's why when you buy something new with a Lithium battery, it always has a little bit of charge on it.  In normal use the batteries prefer to stay topped up rather than run right down (that's an old myth).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you were leaving it for, say, 6 months, apparently it's best for their longevity if you leave them at about 40% charge or a little more.  I would also store it without the batteries in the camera.  It's very unlikely, but you wouldn't want a battery fault (or a buildup of humidity or condensation) to cause it to leak, melt, etc in your camera.  That's extremely unlikely to happen though, I probably shouldn't have suggested it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T00:30:26.920" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8762" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8722" CreationDate="2011-02-15T00:44:58.453" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is only one film-based &lt;a href=&quot;http://store.polaroid.com/category/0/354633/Classic_Instant&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Polaroid brand instant camera&lt;/a&gt; still sold by Polaroid.  They also sell &lt;a href=&quot;http://store.polaroid.com/products/0/354635/Instant_Film&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;film&lt;/a&gt; for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Comes in three fun colours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They also have &lt;a href=&quot;http://store.polaroid.com/category/0/266907/Polaroid_PoGo%26%238482%3B&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;instant digital cameras&lt;/a&gt; now with built in &quot;printer&quot;.  You don't need ink but you still need sheets of &lt;a href=&quot;http://store.polaroid.com/products/0/307287/ZINK_Photo_Paper&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photo paper&lt;/a&gt; for it.  Same thing but slower and more expensive (why would you bother?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T00:44:58.453" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8763" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8749" CreationDate="2011-02-15T00:48:57.793" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I got one a couple months ago, it's an amazing lens for the price. Like someone else said, preorder one and you'll be safe. If we consider the needs you mentioned, I'm afraid this is maybe the only match for a nikon DX for some simple reasons. It's also the best match, so cheer up! First, let's see the problem with alternatives: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;other good, fast and affordable nikon lenses around that focal&#xA;lenght won't autofocus on DX cameras (no internal motor)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;the sigma 30 f1.4, its main competitor, is freaking sturdy and sports a beautiful BIG front diameter, for me it was love at first sight! it has a&#xA;distance scale, but I would say it's optically&#xA;inferior (distortion, glare). The autofocus might be not as accurate&#xA;as with the nikkor (one could&#xA;expect that), it weights much more(well, that's about taste, but on super light DXs it can get you kinda unbalanced), no manual/auto focus switch(this is true only in the version for nikons, I wonder why), &lt;strong&gt;almost double the price&lt;/strong&gt;, a bit too wide for, say, portrait, architectural detail, still life (not that the nikkor is made for such things, but it's  a bit better - well, it's made for almost everything). The guy at the photo store even told me it's not as fast as they claim.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I used the nikkor 35 for a while and I'm really satisfied. At 800 ISO f1.8 I get decent handheld shots at night outdoor with street lamps neon signs etc, and perfect shots indoor in average artificial light or outdoor at dawn/sunset. The bokeh is much better than I expected from photos I'd seen around, really good! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;IMHO its main flaw is purple fringing, rarely visible at first glance, still it's easy to get. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, if I got back I wouldn't hesitate and I'd get it again. I'm sure with a bit of patience you'll get one, it's unlikely to be discontinued any soon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3364" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T00:48:57.793" />
  <row Id="8764" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8713" CreationDate="2011-02-15T00:52:48.103" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You don't need RAW when scanning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no Bayer filter on the sensor, and you can scan straight to 16-bit per channel uncompressed (eg TIFF) images and straight to your hard drive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore RAW wouldn't make sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T00:52:48.103" />
  <row Id="8765" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8699" CreationDate="2011-02-15T00:55:30.940" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have a play with it, try it for yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;As a beginner the most important thing to do is try things out for yourself.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T00:55:30.940" />
  <row Id="8766" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8747" CreationDate="2011-02-15T01:16:50.167" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You don't state which country you live in but Lifepixel is very popular in the states and probably do the widest range of conversions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the UK there is Advanced Camera Services, which are highly regarded but pricey and Protech which are a bit cheaper. I had a 450D converted by Protech (720nm) and was very satisfied: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/IR_3.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T01:16:50.167" />
  <row Id="8767" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-15T01:33:10.137" Score="0" ViewCount="193" Body="&lt;p&gt;Explain.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A two full F/stop change to either side of the starting F/stop will either double or half the amount of light from the original F/stop. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3877" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-15T07:08:55.917" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T00:29:55.657" Title="True or False: A two full F/stop change to either side of the starting F/stop will either double or half the amount of light from the original F/stop" Tags="&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;f-stop&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8768" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8767" CreationDate="2011-02-15T01:35:26.017" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;False. Going from f/2 to f/2.8 will halve the light; going from f/2 to f/4 will quarter it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T01:35:26.017" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8770" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8747" CreationDate="2011-02-15T02:17:38.730" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you don't already have the Nikon, consider buying a Sigma DSLR - either the SD-14 or SD-15.  They have an IR cut filter that doubles as a dust filter, that is really easily removed and put back in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the cut filter removed the camera is fully IR, you can then add something like a Wratten 89b filter to the lens to get the traditional IR look, or shoot a kind of &quot;full color&quot; IR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can probably get one of those cameras for less than the cost of conversion alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The earlier Sigma DSLR's also did IR, but the resolution is not as high and the dust filter required a screw to be undone to be removed, instead of being able to remove by hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T02:17:38.730" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8771" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-15T03:53:35.573" Score="15" ViewCount="391" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard some advanced photographers talk about using back-button autofocus.  As I understand it, this involves changing one of the camera's custom setting to engage the AF when a button on the rear of the camera is pressed (as opposed to half-pressing the shutter button).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the advantage to back-button autofocus?  Any suggestions on why one would want to switch to this method?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T09:57:54.713" Title="What is the advantage to back-button autofocus?" Tags="&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;focus&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="8772" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8771" CreationDate="2011-02-15T03:58:14.347" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The main reason I have used it is to separate AF from AE. Normally the shutter release button does both, but sometimes you just don't want that. So you move one (or the other, depending on what your camera is capable of) from the shutter release (normally 1/2 depressed will trigger it) to a back button, ideally one that's easy to get to, like under your thumb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T03:58:14.347" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8773" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8771" CreationDate="2011-02-15T04:04:22.023" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Cabbey said, it's to seperate engaging Auto-focus from actually taking the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Setting the focus, and taking the picture should be two distinct steps, and this configuration enforces that mentality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's advantages become even more apparent when doing &quot;Focus/Recompose.&quot; With a standard configuration, it's too easy to re-focus accidentally, and with a dedicated button, it's much harder. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T04:04:22.023" />
  <row Id="8774" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8771" CreationDate="2011-02-15T04:36:39.687" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The perks for decoupling autofocus from the shutter include prefocusing, selective focusing with moving action, priming the IS system, and recomposing.  It helps me think/experiment with focus and composition more.  Also, on Pentax, it lets me basically enable full time manual focus by pushing in the lens release button while in AF mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-15T06:12:29.277" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T06:12:29.277" />
  <row Id="8775" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8747" CreationDate="2011-02-15T05:40:19.103" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can put in a good word for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lifepixel.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LifePixel&lt;/a&gt;. I converted my Canon 20D about 18 months ago now... I actually did the conversion myself and I can attest to the quality of the tutorials they provide. Walked me through every step of the way and I had no issues whatsoever. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course if you're not into DIY monkeying with your camera, they'll do the conversion for you. I had a friend go this route and also has had no complaints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T05:40:19.103" />
  <row Id="8776" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8771" CreationDate="2011-02-15T05:40:59.383" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many years ago I tried splitting focus from the shutter because I was shooting action-sports. It took about a day to decide I liked it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the things we're supposed to do when we're shooting is keep both eyes open; That helps avoid fatigue from shooting for hours, but also lets us see what is going on around us. That is smart in case good action is happening to the side. It's also good because you might need to be aware of an unsafe condition unfolding while you're shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, after many years of using that sample configuration on my bodies, one of the things I enjoyed again and again was the ability to track some action, see someone or something about to get in the way, release the focus button so it wouldn't mis-track, then press it again as I panned past the intervening object. It was REALLY useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Otherwise, being able to tap the focus button to pre-focus was great. It also worked really well when using a tripod to shoot stills or landscapes, because I could focus then release the shutter without the camera trying to refocus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.siphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sports Illustrated has a site&lt;/a&gt; for their photographers that defines the camera settings they recommend for pro-am and pro bodies. Their settings specify what custom settings need to be set to enable the split functions. The specs are a bit old, but should be good enough to get you there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1514" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T05:40:59.383" />
  <row Id="8778" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8771" CreationDate="2011-02-15T05:45:58.970" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is one caveat to this. Many battery grips (my BG-E2N included) don't have the button that does this and therefore if you do a lot of battery grip portrait shots, this setting isn't really an option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T05:45:58.970" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8779" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15" CreationDate="2011-02-15T06:02:47.047" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the most important reason you would choose one over the other is what is required of you. I think the only real reason you would choose raw is simply if  you need to post process or not. The thing about most DSLRs is that you can choose styles (or custom styles) which &lt;strong&gt;do&lt;/strong&gt; boost contrast, saturation, treat in black and white and the like. It's perfectly capable of achieving a fantastic result in camera by manipulating the camera style settings. The problem is that when you have done this in camera, there is no option to go back and change it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the primary reason many photographers shoot in raw (I'm one of them). Raw allows the photographer to retain the &quot;digital negative&quot; and manipulate it to their liking time and time again. Shoot a photograph in raw and you can, at a whim, create a striking black and white treatment. Don't like it? Just go back to your editing suite and whip up a classic retro feel, or a full colour, vibrant contrasting treatment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What about dynamic range? Is the dynamic range so large that you need to bring back the highlights and bring out the shadows to &quot;compress&quot; the dynamic range into the final image and create a detailed lifelike result?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is one photo I took where I &lt;em&gt;had&lt;/em&gt; to use Lightroom. The highlights were too bright and the shadows were too dark. Using Lightroom I was able to compress the dynamic range into a smooth, highly detailed looking photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickbedford/5369220469&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/e88BZ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T06:02:47.047" />
  <row Id="8780" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8782" CreationDate="2011-02-15T06:13:36.590" Score="26" ViewCount="777" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/users/1514/greg&quot;&gt;Greg&lt;/a&gt; made an intriguing comment &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8771/what-is-the-advantage-to-back-button-autofocus&quot;&gt;in this answer&lt;/a&gt; (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;One of the things we're supposed to do when we're shooting is keep both eyes open&lt;/strong&gt;; That helps avoid fatigue from shooting for hours, but also lets us see what is going on around us. That is smart in case good action is happening to the side. It's also good because you might need to be aware of an unsafe condition unfolding while you're shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've noticed that my eyes go a bit wonky after shooting with only one open, so this is an interesting idea. I'd never heard of it until now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My main question is: how do you train yourself to do it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also: are there any other advantages? How prevalent is this among photographers?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-05T16:18:22.957" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T16:18:22.957" Title="How can one learn to shoot with both eyes open, and what are the advantages?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;shooting-technique&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="16" />
  <row Id="8781" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8780" CreationDate="2011-02-15T07:02:27.983" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Keeping both eyes open is common practice for biologists and others who peer through microscopes.  (Especially, of course for binocular microscopes, but I'm talking about the one-eyepiece kind.)  I learned that as a kid watching tiny pond water creatures.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is also recommended in astronomy, where amateur comet hunters and galaxy gazers spend prolonged times looking through telescopes, precisely to reduce eye fatigue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't paid attention to whether I actually shoot with my camera one-eyed or not, but it seems natural enough to me.   Besides being tiring to the eyes, squinting with one eye closed = muscle tension in my face and maybe therefore a jiggly shot.  I try to be relaxed when I press the shutter.  There's also the advantage of watching  my subject directly with one eye while maintaining good framing in the viewfinder with the other.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However odd it may feel at first for someone who's never done it before, it's just a matter of (not much) practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="637" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T07:02:27.983" />
  <row Id="8782" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8780" CreationDate="2011-02-15T07:09:27.023" Score="28" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of my professors years ago came from a photojournalism background and really drilled the 'both eyes open' ethos into our heads... and when I say drilled, I mean he would have us doing literal drills in order to get our minds around the idea and eliminate the 'bad habit' of closing one eye as soon as we put the viewfinder to our eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What he had us do started out pretty simple... Over the course of a quarter the progression went something like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Initially we just sat in the studio/classroom and practiced putting the camera to our eyes but NOT closing the opposing eye... I don't mean that we did that a few times... I think we spent 3 or 4 entire class sessions (the equivalent of nearly 3 or 4 hours) on the task. This was all about muscle memory, and in many ways it seemed very similar to the sorts of drills you'd see soldiers doing in boot camp as they learned to raise and aim their weapons with control and speed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The next thing he had us do was close our viewfinder eye and do all our aiming with the eye that wasn't looking through the viewfinder. We must have spent a week on that alone, and it felt really strange at first, but it really trained us to not simply ignore the 'non-viewfinder' eye as soon as the camera is up in our face.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Then we practiced aiming our shots with the non-viewfinder eye with both eyes open. It's really interesting to feel yourself mentally shift focus from one eye to the other, and after a bit it became an almost instant and unconscious action... Ultimately, that was really his point in having us do this exercise (and all of them, really).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;After that we spent weeks out on the quad taking pictures of people. He'd let us kinda be doing our own thing and then randomly he'd shout out to 'take a picture of the guy in the green hoodie' (or whatever the student he happened to be looking at was wearing). The instinct for most of us at first was to pull the camera away from our faces and look around for the person he was talking about... But over time we got good at swiveling around with our eyes up to the viewfinder and both eyes open searching for the photograph but never removing the camera from our eye... I'm sure it was quite a sight to see 25 photographers all simultaneously turn wherever they were and take a picture of a person. Later I found out that he actually recruited people to walk the quad during our classes, which I suppose makes sense in terms of not scaring random people walking to their classes. :-)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Finally, the thing he had us work on was putting it all together, that is getting to a point where we were composing shots &lt;em&gt;well&lt;/em&gt; on the fly, never removing the camera from our eye, essentially using our 'free' eye to find the next shot while we were still working on the current one with our viewfinder eye. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So that was the progression of drills he took us through, and it's a progression of drills that I still use with my own photography students (and I still drill myself... Mostly when I add a piece of new gear, a lens, or a new camera body). In terms of the advantages, certainly there's less fatigue in not having to shut one eye, but I think the real advantage is in having situational awareness and the muscle memory to compose  photographs happening around you very quickly and in a precise way. There are plenty of wedding photographs that I take 'on the fly' that I almost don't remember taking because I'm moving around the setting with both eyes so quickly, composing as I go, and capturing the moments...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an aside, all of this is made easier with the control that back-button focus gives the photographer, and I 'never leave home without it.' :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T07:09:27.023" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8783" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8780" CreationDate="2011-02-15T07:17:37.343" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is an idea borrowed from the world of target shooting where precision and observation are of paramount importance.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same concerns are far less important in photography and it is probably more important to do what you find natural and comfortable.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the reasons given for two eyed shooting are&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- facial muscles are more relaxed which improves vision and reduces fatigue&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- less variation in apparent brightness as your brain receives signals from both eyes&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- the closed eye does not have to re-adjust after being opened&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- you can see more around you.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main counter-argument is that by closing the off eye you are wholly entering the scene. This is important as it allows you to better visualize the end result. The final photograph will, after all, be free of the distracting elements that your open eye would see.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main argument for two eyed shooting applies in scenes with quick change where you need to rapidly recompose, for example sports. In this case it is important to remain aware of events outside the viewfinder.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another important reason for using two eyed shooting is in hazardous situations where you really need to be aware of your environment&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-15T07:24:51.687" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T07:24:51.687" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8784" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8771" CreationDate="2011-02-15T07:17:44.507" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I tried doing it for about 2 days and found that with heavier lenses on my camera I couldn't grip the camera as well having lost my thumb to the additional task of focusing. I have reverted to the traditional way of doing it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Best bet... give it a go for a day or 2. If you like it, brilliant, if you don't you don't :) I don't think it offers a distinct advantage, it is more of a preference than anything in my opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T07:17:44.507" />
  <row Id="8785" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8771" CreationDate="2011-02-15T07:41:26.393" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use the back button on my Canon 5DII in AF Servo mode. That way, I get the benefits of predictive autofocus when I need it (with moving subjects, for example), but the autofocus stops as soon as I release the button, so it's also somewhat like the &quot;OneShot&quot; autofocus mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I now have full control over metering, focus and the moment of exposure because they are on three different buttons instead of being mashed into a single one. Why should I let the camera second-guess me? Getting used to this is a matter of minutes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="225" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T07:41:26.393" />
  <row Id="8786" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8707" CreationDate="2011-02-15T08:43:57.177" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;At least one of the programs you've mentioned in your comments on other answers is something that does more than just RAW conversion (or &quot;digital development&quot;). Phase One's Capture One Pro and Hasselblad's Phocus, to name two, also do tethered operation of various cameras/backs. (Capture One can operate just about anything that interfaces via Firewire. I've only ever used Phocus with a 'Blad, but there's not a lot you can't do with it other than move the camera stand around the studio.) If you're a multiformat working photographer, you'll probably want to consolidate your workflow as much as possible (rather than learning a bunch of different tools).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And don't forget that UI preferences can have a lot to do with program choices as well. (For instance, I have the latest and greatest version of Photoshop and love it for photo retouching, but I still prefer PSP 9 for creating raster graphics out of whole cloth. Photoshop CS5 will, obviously, do everything PSP 9 does, but not in the same way, and it's a whole lot less friendly for numerical precision. Even the latest PSP feels foreign for that kind of use.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Straight-up converters -- the sort of thing that will let one correct contrast and white balance and simply save to another, more editor-friendly format -- have their place as well. They're often a low-cost (or no-cost) option for those who either can't afford or can't use an all-in-one converter/editor solution, usually because of OS incompatibility or hardware requirements. If the shiny new software requires a shiny new computer with a shiny new OS, it starts to get eat into the lens budget -- and who wants that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T08:43:57.177" />
  <row Id="8787" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8710" CreationDate="2011-02-15T08:54:19.580" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Thanks for the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, &lt;em&gt;that's&lt;/em&gt; not dust. That leaves goop (a highly technical term meaning &quot;a foreign substance&quot;) on the sensor, which may be removed with wet cleaning (solution and swabs) or sensor damage. Either way, it's worth making it someone else's problem -- even if it just needs a good cleaning, the home remedy should stop somewhere short of scrubbing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T08:54:19.580" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8788" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8707" CreationDate="2011-02-15T09:38:25.313" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is some confusion caused by your use of the term 'third party converters'  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You use it to mean an external RAW converter not built into your viewing software.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;But a better use of the term would be to mean RAW converters not supplied by the maker of your camera.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that in &lt;strong&gt;all&lt;/strong&gt; cases RAW conversion is done, either in-camera, by an external RAW converter or by a RAW converter built into your viewing software. The native RAW format is simply not useful 'as is'. That is why some people call RAW format a 'digital negative', since the negative of film days was also not directly usable.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So which one should you use?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;External vs built-in RAW converters?&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;External - more hassle but provides finer control over the conversion process.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Built-in - more convenience but usually less control over the conversion process. Picasa, for example, is fast and very convenient but gives you no control over the conversion process.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Manufacturer vs third party RAW converters&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Manufacturer RAW converters - conversion is done exactly as the manufacturer intended, this is often the most accurate.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Third party RAW converters - more conversion profiles are available and you have more control  over the conversion profile and usually more conversion options. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In-camera RAW conversion to jpeg&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Very convenient, no additional work, it looks exactly as the manufacturer intended.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;But, limited control over the result. Later editing of the jpeg has the potential to compromise the quality of the result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T09:38:25.313" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8789" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8723" CreationDate="2011-02-15T09:57:46.210" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Echoing &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/users/3462/josenunoferreira&quot;&gt;JoséNunoFerreira&lt;/a&gt; I would recommend &lt;strong&gt;gphoto2&lt;/strong&gt;.  I'm not in front of a Linux box to test it right now, but according to a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.linux.com/news/software/applications/126189-schedule-photo-taking-with-gphoto-and-cron&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;linux.com tutorial&lt;/a&gt; the following command should work:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;gphoto2 --capture-image --interval=60 --frames=1440&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The interval figure is in seconds, and &lt;code&gt;60 x 24 = 1440&lt;/code&gt; so it should take one photo every minute for twenty-four hours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3356" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T09:57:46.210" />
  <row Id="8790" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8771" CreationDate="2011-02-15T09:57:54.713" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want the camera to &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; engage the autofocus &lt;em&gt;every&lt;/em&gt; time you press the shutter button, by all means leave AF coupled to the shutter and think no more of it. If, on the other hand, you want a bit more control of precisely when and where the camera focuses, if at all (USM lenses with full-time manual focus override come to mind, especially macro ones), then decoupling it and using the separate AF button is the way to go. I did so years ago and now get slightly desperate whenever I am handed a camera where AF and shutter is still coupled!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T09:57:54.713" />
  <row Id="8791" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8780" CreationDate="2011-02-15T10:35:20.767" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both eyes open works for me with a Leica rangefinder, the 0.97.magnification viewfinder M3 especially, and was brilliant on a borrowed, clunky old Soviet-made Zenit SLR with a 58mm prime where the combination gave a perfect 1:1 magnification in the viewfinder, but for general SLR use it's a no go for me. The view through the lens is just too different from what the left eye sees for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T10:35:20.767" />
  <row Id="8792" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8749" CreationDate="2011-02-15T11:09:46.617" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just ordered one from Jessops in the UK. It was on backorder so I rang them and they said they were doing an of 1000 lenses, and I would get mine on Friday. So, I don't think it's been discontinued, but there may have been recent supply chain changes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3882" LastEditorUserId="3882" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-15T16:10:59.837" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T16:10:59.837" />
  <row Id="8793" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-15T11:12:46.083" Score="0" ViewCount="132" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is meant by a &lt;strong&gt;grey level value&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3883" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T14:27:13.583" Title="Grey level value" Tags="&lt;image-processing&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8794" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8424" CreationDate="2011-02-15T11:13:08.860" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A 35mm 1.8 AF-S may be a good option for you too. It's small and light with good optics and fast focus, but costs a little more than the 50mm AF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3882" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T11:13:08.860" />
  <row Id="8795" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8796" CreationDate="2011-02-15T11:47:50.613" Score="7" ViewCount="322" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do you go about getting great panning shots of things like cars and bicycles so that the background is nice and blurred but the target is sharp as can be. I have tried on many occasion to do panning shots and I just can't get the setup right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What lens setup, shutter speed would be a good place to start?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3802" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T21:18:28.020" Title="Panning shots of moving objects" Tags="&lt;blur&gt;&lt;panning&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="8796" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8795" CreationDate="2011-02-15T11:54:42.493" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find a long lens helps 200-300mm, as you have to move the camera more side to side, being closer and using a shorter lens will give you problems with the subject coming toward you and then going away. Being further away yields a more consistent side to side panning motion which is easier to perform consistently. A strong deliberate sideways motion also helps overcome any slight vertical motion that can blur your subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I get to lock my elbows at 90 degrees like a sort of tripod and move from the waist when doing this sort of panning. A long lens and fast subject requires fast panning so I use a shutter speed of around 1/200 - 1/250s for motorsports:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/panning1.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was shot @200mm, 1/200s, f/4&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/panning2.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another one @200mm, 1/250s, f/7.1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/panning3.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This one was done with a wider lens @75mm, 1/250, f/7.1 due to space. A longer lens would have given me more movement and better blur. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even with the best lens and technique you will probably still miss more often than hit, so it always takes time and patience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-15T21:18:28.020" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T21:18:28.020" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="8797" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8795" CreationDate="2011-02-15T12:21:07.177" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I used to shoot a lot of motorsports photography, cars mainly and my main advice is to &lt;strong&gt;practice&lt;/strong&gt;, lots!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is easier with a longer lens as you are less likely to get distractions in the background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This leads me onto my next tip, choose a location where the background is plain, a lone tree, or even worse a marshal in bright orange overalls can ruin a shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shutter speed is the key to controlling motion blur, so send your camera to shutter priority, as a beginner I would advise starting at 1/125th and adjusting from there, I find that unless you are dealing with something extremely fast 1/250th doesn't give enough motion blur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the technique I advise tracking the subject as soon as it comes into view, give the camera a chance to focus on it, press the shutter then continue tracking the subject as it goes away from you, this should be one smooth movement of the upper body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found that having second cameras and or camera bags on my shoulder got in the way of the smooth panning movement, so this is also something to bear in mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T12:21:07.177" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8798" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8795" CreationDate="2011-02-15T12:33:39.713" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You need to place yourself in a position that the object you wish to photograph passes in front of from one side of you to the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good starting setting (not essential or always appropriate but will help get things started) is to use shutter priority (named Tv on Camera dials). The shutter speed you select will determine how much background blur you get during the pan. The faster the object travels past you the faster your shutter speed can be and still detect movement in the background. There are other considerations when you select your shutter speed. When shooting propellor aircraft you have to be mindful not to freeze the propellor blades by selecting too fast a shutter speed, equally with vehicles, you don't want to freeze the wheel rotation as either of these make the aircraft / vehicle look stationary. Jet aircraft typically have no give away moving parts visible so you can get away with a slightly faster shutter speed (bearing in mind that you still want background blur)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For focus settings, set your camera to AI Servo (this is what Canon calls it, use the equivalent of your brand) and select a single focal point from your AF system which should be placed to cover the area of the frame you wish to keep sharp while tracking the object. The AI Servo setting will constantly adjust the focus of the moving object.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Metering settings will vary depending on the subject - if it is sunny and the subject has highly reflective surfaces (aircraft canopies etc), using spot metering is a risky option as you could meter off the glinting sun and your camera would expose for that rather than the whole scene, I tend to use partial center weighted metering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The challenge is to smoothly pan the camera along the path of the object without introducing any conflicting movements which will introduce motion blur in the final image. Improving this is down to technique and practice mostly although some lenses have 2 mode image stabilisers which stabilise only in the direction opposite to that you are panning (if panning left to right they stabilise for up/down movements and vice versa if panning down to up).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hand held:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your posture is quite important to provide a solid base on which to perform the panning movement. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Your feet should be facing forwards about shoulder distance apart throughout the pan.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hold the camera firmly with your shutter hand and the lens hand in a suitable place on the lens like you would hold a rifle&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tuck your elbows in rather than having them sticking out either side (this helps avoid upsetting other photographers / spectators by whacking them as you pan)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Start tracking the object as soon as it comes into view well before you want to start shooting (this allows the AF system to lock on nicely and start predicting the object's distance and allows you to adjust to the speed of the object smoothly) pivoting your upper body at the hips to keep your legs and feet in the same position&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fire the shutter when you see the image you want in the view finder and &lt;em&gt;keep tracking smoothly as you do so&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Keep tracking the item after you have finished taking pictures (which forces you to keep tracking while releasing the shutter)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tripod / Monopod supported:&#xA;You can buy specialised heads to assist with using supports (gimbal heads) but they aren't cheap. I never pan supported as I find it too restrictive in movement, especially when in a crowd of spectators, you will have to move around your tripod as you pan which a lot of time there just isn't room to do)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T12:33:39.713" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8799" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8736" CreationDate="2011-02-15T12:37:53.013" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My technique to handle duplicate file numbers is to spearate them into year/yyyymmdd folder format and keep the original names.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I export photos I always fill in the headline field on the EXIF, so add that to the front of the file name. Then it also gives the client some context of the files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T12:37:53.013" />
  <row Id="8800" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1503" CreationDate="2011-02-15T13:04:04.933" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As my first answer is more focused on technical details, I decided to open a second answer to give you some overview on my original &quot;camerafinder&quot; idea dubbed &quot;C.A.T.T.&quot; (Camera Anti Theft Tool). Feel free to use my ideas, but please credit me proberly...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contrary to stolencamerafinder, C.A.T.T. works on an opt-in-basis. As the owner of a camera, you sign up at the C.A.T.T. site, create a user profile and then register your cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To do so, you are required to take a picture of some randomly generated QRCode displayed on the screen. Then you upload the unmodified photo to the C.A.T.T. site. When the upload is complete, the server reads the metadata of the photo and checks for an embedded serial number. It also tries to decode the QRCode from the picture and compares it against a stored hash. This is to prevent that somebody can register your camera by just uploading an arbitrary photo taken with that camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When your camera gets stolen, you login at the C.A.T.T. site and mark that device as stolen. To trace the stolen cameras, we planned a client-side exif serial number parser in javascript as mozilla greasemonkey script (similar to your chrome extension). It should only execute on flickr pages containing original images (thanks to greasemonkey's url pattern support) in order not to slow down the browser too much. The script would contact the C.A.T.T. server on a regular basis to fetch a list of stolen cam serials. If the serial of the currently displayed image shows a match, it would display an alert.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I saw that your chrome extension follows a similar approach (although it just seems to collect the serials). In your case I would leverage the extension with the W3C File Api (currently Firefox and Chrome), so that the user can also inspect locally stored photos and not just those embedded in webpages. This will surely increase your &quot;serial number harvest&quot;, because no &quot;man-in-the-middle&quot; (flickr facebook etc) will strip out the exif data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an interesting &lt;a href=&quot;http://demos.hacks.mozilla.org/openweb/FileAPI/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mozilla demo on Exif Extraction with the W3C File API&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3866" LastEditorUserId="3866" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-15T14:07:53.917" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T14:07:53.917" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="8801" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8499" CreationDate="2011-02-15T13:36:28.050" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Go for NEX-5 with 16mm f/2.8 pancake. You cannot get a smaller form factor than this in APS-C format and 12800 ISO&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3886" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T13:36:28.050" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8802" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8736" CreationDate="2011-02-15T13:46:58.187" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How do you manage images with duplicate file names?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't!  :)  Instead, &lt;strong&gt;I avoid having images with duplicate filenames by renaming them before import&lt;/strong&gt;.  &lt;em&gt;That's it!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;[Actually, I use hard links, but it amounts to the same thing.]&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's really my whole answer, in its essence.  You're welcome to read on for more details on how &lt;em&gt;I&lt;/em&gt;, personally, achieve that, if you like.  If my answer gets confusing, though, just focus on the above concept -- there are lots of other ways to achieve the same basic concept.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: The rest of this answer is kind of UNIX-ish and geeky in some of its nomenclature.  The concepts are general, though, and surely this sort of thing could be done elsewhere.  If anyone has suggestions on how to improve the way I've written this answer, I'm happy to hear them.  I'm also writing this when tired, and I tend to be verbose, so...  hopefully this will all make sense, and if not, please let me know, and I'll do my best to clarify in an edit.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In particular, I have a script that I run called &lt;code&gt;import_card&lt;/code&gt;, which asks for a name for the shoot/session/whatever, and then does the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Make sure I'm in an appropriate directory for importing images into.  (This could be done a number of ways, but the way I do it is just to make sure that there's already a directory matching the current year and month, as YYYY/MM.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Look for one or more memory card(s) that are currently attached to the computer.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Scan the data on each card (looking at EXIF data), one-at-a-time, to figure out which camera the images were recorded from (by serial number), and what the most recent date was of an image within the card (if there are multiple dates, I go with the most recent).  (Note: there could be multiple cameras on a single card; I mostly try not to run into that case, but it's handled well if I do.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Copy the data (exactly) from my card(s) into a folder like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;./YYYY/MM/YYYYMMDD-cameraID-the_name_I_entered.in&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where &lt;code&gt;cameraID&lt;/code&gt; is a short name (e.g. &quot;30d&quot; or &quot;g9&quot;, or sometimes something longer to indicate a borrowed camera) that I've assigned to an individual camera (or multiple such IDs if the card was shot with multiple cameras) based on the serial number of the camera(s).  (For cases where the EXIF data doesn't include a serial number, I have some other heuristics I use to guess, which mostly works well for the limited number of cameras I use, but could break down for some).  This folder might have filenames within it like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;DCIM/123CANON/_MG_4567.CR2&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I primarily shoot Canon, but this could be done with other cameras, too, and my script handles a few different types of canon and at least one other brand of camera, as well.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Once that's done, do the renaming (really hard linking) using (and this is the key to this whole thing) &lt;strong&gt;the name of the DCIM subdirectories as part of the ID&lt;/strong&gt;.  So, a new directory gets created like &lt;code&gt;YYYY/MM/YYYYMMDD-cameraID-the_name_I_entered&lt;/code&gt; (without &lt;code&gt;.in&lt;/code&gt;) which takes the &lt;code&gt;123&lt;/code&gt; in &lt;code&gt;123CANON&lt;/code&gt; and the &lt;code&gt;4567&lt;/code&gt; in &lt;code&gt;_MG_4567.CR2&lt;/code&gt;, combined also with a (different) short(er) prefix identifying the camera (usually one-letter for my own cameras, and several letters for cameras I've borrowed) -- again, based on the &lt;strong&gt;serial number of the camera used for each image&lt;/strong&gt; (so if I've shot a card on multiple cameras, the individual files will get different prefixes, whether or not the numbering scheme is different between the cameras), creating files like (assuming a prefix of &quot;e&quot;, which is my current main camera, but it could be anything):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;e123-4567.CR2&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I then import the directory created in the previous step (i.e. &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; the one with &quot;.in&quot; in its name) as a new project into Aperture or Lightroom (I've used both at different times -- they each have their advantages).  From there, the &quot;Master filename&quot; and &quot;Version number&quot; (Aperture terminology, I forget what Lightroom calls the same concepts) has the unique-to-my-entire-library string &lt;code&gt;e123-4567&lt;/code&gt; in it.  When I then export images for whatever purpose, I include this in the name of the exported file, along with (sometimes) my name as a prefix (for images I'll be giving directly to others) and (frequently, especially for e.g. flickr uploads) some sort of descriptive title (matching the flickr title, so I can easily tie them together) of the image, and/or of the &quot;version&quot; of it, if I have different edits (the latter being something I store in the &quot;version name&quot; within Aperture).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Between all of the above, I get the following benefits:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I have an archive of the exact data from the card.  If I ever want to, I could put that data back onto a card, and the camera would be able to understand it as though it had never been removed.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The images I import have a pretty-much-guaranteed unique number.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(The caveat: If I ever roll past 999CANON for folder names, I'll have trouble -- and I am up to about 985CANON, but that's mostly because I used to share a card back and forth between a Canon 10D, which only put 100 images in each such folder, and a 30D, which puts basically 10,000, but took over numbering from where the 10D left off, and then the 10D would do silly things with that.  I've been at 985 for a while, and don't expect to exceed 999 before having a new camera body, which I will be careful not to pollute the numbering on, and thus will start with, I think, 100CANON.  If I ever do hit up against the 999 limit, though, I can just change the prefix for that camera, and all will be well.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The unique number is relatively short, so my filenames aren't too huge, usually.  (The directory (and therefore project) names are sometimes annoyingly long, alas, but I like having that info handy, so I deal with it.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know why Aperture and Lightroom and such don't allow putting data like this into the filename.  Especially the part of taking the number from the folder name in the DCIM directory.  Alas, they don't.  So far, anyway.  :)  I know Lightroom has some rules for renaming things during import, and you could probably achieve an alternate version of this idea using that (based on date, most likely), but it didn't have any way to extract the DCIM folder ID, last I looked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, I hope this is somehow helpful to folks.  My script is currently written in a way that's highly customized to my own needs, but I could probably be convinced to clean it up and release it as an open-source thing, if there's enough demand.  Or, if you're good with ruby, perl, python, or the like, you could write your own version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or you could bug Apple and Adobe to build something like this in to their products.  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T13:46:58.187" />
  <row Id="8803" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8808" CreationDate="2011-02-15T14:16:30.123" Score="21" ViewCount="691" Body="&lt;p&gt;I own a Canon 7D and a EF-S 15-85 IS lens and I keep the image stabilization turned on all the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recently, an &quot;established&quot; photographer told me that this is a huge mistake because it reduces image quality overall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Except the battery draining, is there any evidence that using IS the image quality will be reduced?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1956" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T17:19:41.750" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T17:19:41.750" Title="Should I keep Image Stabilization (IS) off when I do not actually need it?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;image-stabilization&gt;&lt;image-quality&gt;&lt;camera-shake&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="8804" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8811" CreationDate="2011-02-15T14:19:59.427" Score="3" ViewCount="202" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a way or place to get the color profile curves from film types and recreate them in Aperture 3 so that I can get a characteristic look from something that was shot with kodachrome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know there are presets that I can buy for only a few dollars, but I am more interested in working out the process and the places to get the information so I can easily create my own for a wide range of films, now and in the future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I can get the curve data I am pretty sure that I can recreate the curves in Aperture 3, assuming it is as simple as I think it is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3802" LastEditorUserId="3802" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-15T14:33:04.590" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T16:37:35.463" Title="Emulating film color profiles (for use in Aperture 3)" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;film&gt;&lt;apple-aperture&gt;&lt;color-correction&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="8805" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8803" CreationDate="2011-02-15T14:24:19.793" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Image Quality will not be affected at all. The light still passes through the same piece of glass whether it is on or off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might get a feedback loop if you have the IS on whilst tripod mounted (unless the lens can detect it is tripod mounted) where the vibrations of the glass being moved by the IS system cause further vibrations but this causes a motion blur type effect and still wouldn't affect the image quality, rather the quality of the image...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using IS in an environment where lots of vibrations are present (on an aircraft / car on a bumpy track) it can have an effect also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T14:24:19.793" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8806" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8793" CreationDate="2011-02-15T14:27:13.583" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This could relate to setting custom white balance where you use an 18% grey card (regarded as neutral) to establish the light temperature (a process described in the user manual of the particular camera model if setting custom white balance is supported). It can also be done by photographing an 18% grey card in the light you're workign in and then using software to set the white balance (if you shot RAW) later on in software.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T14:27:13.583" />
  <row Id="8807" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1736" CreationDate="2011-02-15T14:41:05.297" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would say that if it has been taken by google street view then you will pretty much be safe, but they may have deals, agreements and show credits for certain publicly visible property. But also be aware that google have blurred all faces and number plates, so if there is someone visible and they can be identified you will most likely need a model release.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the end of the day the safest option is to speak to a lawyer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3802" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T14:41:05.297" />
  <row Id="8808" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8803" CreationDate="2011-02-15T14:57:34.873" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know how it works with this lens, but I've seen charts for Pentax's in-body stabilization system where the data shows that contrary to conventional wisdom I.S. gives a (decreasing but still there) benefit up until rather high shutter speeds, at which point it doesn't matter (and doesn't make things worse).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have the camera on a very steady tripod, though, off is probably better. On a lightweight, wobbly tripod, it may be different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also important to keep in mind that the stabilization takes time to engage and &quot;settle&quot; — typically half a second or so after you half-press the shutter button. If you have it on, make sure to allow that time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update: I don't think these are the charts I remember, but they show the same thing and are quite well done: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1733/how-can-i-determine-the-minimum-shutter-speed-to-avoid-blur-from-camera-shake/10445#10445&quot;&gt;How can I determine the minimum shutter speed to avoid blur from camera shake?&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T17:17:44.513" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T17:17:44.513" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="8809" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8803" CreationDate="2011-02-15T16:02:28.967" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I heard about IS affecting the Bokeh. The reasoning seems sound to me: the optical path (optical IS) is varied or the lens plane is moved (sensor IS) leading to a different distribution of the typical &quot;lens sharpness&quot; compared to a non-stabilized lens. This will perhaps be more visible because you expect a uniform distribution of bokeh on a far-away background and at the edges.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would certainly be worth testing this in a controlled setup. No, I'm not going to do anything about it ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T16:02:28.967" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8810" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2194" CreationDate="2011-02-15T17:01:05.300" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been in the same boat as you for the past month or so, learning the basics of photography and my camera&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A couple of things/resources that I've taken advantage of and would recommend:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reading &lt;a href=&quot;http://amzn.to/eud65x&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Understanding Exposures, 3rd edition&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reading &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ken Rockwell's&lt;/a&gt; site&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reading &lt;a href=&quot;http://froknowsphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jared Polin's&lt;/a&gt; site (and going through his videos, he is an entertaining personality)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Purchasing Aperture 3 (or Lightroom) to help organize photos&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Taking lots and lots of photos in different times of the day and experimenting in A, S, M modes: go out to the park, take the dogs for a walk, etc. - prob the most important&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3165" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T17:01:05.300" />
  <row Id="8811" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8804" CreationDate="2011-02-15T17:22:55.840" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If all you are interested in is the color profiles (not the grain or other characteristics) of film, then understand that you need to measure the curves separately per channel.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/motion/education/kodak_color_films.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This article&lt;/a&gt; is rather informative about how film captures light, which is needed to know how to create the color profile.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, you are going to create a separate curve for each channel:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Red&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Green&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Blue&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to create these color profiles, you will need a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_calibration&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;standard target with known values&lt;/a&gt;.  You will also need the film in question to take a picture of that calibration target.  Assuming your scanner is accurate/calibrated, or you have a color densitometer, you will be able to extract the color profile from the differences in the target vs the film.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can imagine how tedious the whole process is, particularly for a large number of films.  Some films have been discontinued (like Kodachrome) and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dwaynesphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;are no longer processed&lt;/a&gt;.  You'll have to use a provided color profile for that one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3631" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T17:22:55.840" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8812" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8641" CreationDate="2011-02-15T17:39:12.350" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;How good is the photography scene or contacts you have at the moment? I'm only really able to provide anecdotal evidence as selling art and creative products is difficult everywhere. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have a thriving photography community, I suggest talking to them and going via word of mouth. Volunteer for free photography exhibitions, ask to be someone's assistant, find out if there's a good studio around where you live that needs a part time shooter or will let you rent the studio for a fee. If your stuff is good and you talk to people you should see an uptick in sales if you work at it long enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Submit your work for competitions and use that as a way of bolstering your reputation. Additionally the internet is a great platform for showing your work, flikr is good to start with. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember an agent is only going to be interested in your work for particular things. If you specialise in fashion photography that's going to be much easier than photojournalism, and weddings tend to be more regular than either of those. You're only limited by what you shoot so the decisions on where you take things will ultimately be up to you. Be aware that many professional photographers find their personal work hard to sell as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Happy selling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3890" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T17:39:12.350" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8813" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8803" CreationDate="2011-02-15T17:42:24.060" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What kind of images do you shoot?  If you always take pictures in bright light at 1/250 of a second or faster and you have very steady hands, then IS may not be helping you.  On the other hand, if you're usually taking pictures in low light (say 1/25 or 1/50 of a second or even longer) or you don't have a good stance, then IS is probably making your pictures a lot better.  If you are moving back and forth a lot between those two scenarios (I know I do), then just continue to leave IS on because, at least in my experience, the benefit to the low-light pictures is far greater than any potential harm to the brightly-lit pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, since you're getting conflicting advice here, I'd recommend running your own experiment.  On the next sunny day, go out and take some photos with the same settings (aperture, ISO, etc.; you'll probably get a more accurate test if you use your normal settings to figure out the exposure and then take the test pictures in manual mode, so exposure settings don't change between pictures) you normally use, both with and without IS, and compare the results (and please report back here when you're done!).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T17:42:24.060" />
  <row Id="8814" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-15T17:46:45.310" Score="15" ViewCount="436" Body="&lt;p&gt;Last night I was doing a product shot for an eBay listing of a black case that had been sitting around collecting dust for a while (hence the eBay listing). I used a normal dust cloth first to try to get the dust off it, and that removed a lot, but left trails of the dust behind that looked like scratches. It also generated bunch of static electricity that attracted all the cat hair in a 3' radius. So next I tried a damp towel, but that left bits of lint behind. In a moment of insanity/desperation/inspiration I grabbed a kandoo wipe. (For those not familiar, they're toddler bathroom training wipes... sort of in between baby wipes and toilet paper.) It worked perfectly! No dust left, no lint left, no cat hair left, and no static electricity generated. Now I'd never think to use one on my camera, but when it comes to wiping down black plastic objects for product shots... appears to be a winner!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That got me wondering what unusual/unlikely household items others have put to photographic purpose?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Let's Comunity wiki this... say one item per reply?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T14:18:04.060" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-15T17:58:28.697" Title="most unusual household item you've found useful in a photographic context" Tags="&lt;utility&gt;" AnswerCount="12" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="7" />
  <row Id="8815" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8816" CreationDate="2011-02-15T17:52:01.233" Score="0" ViewCount="145" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to stitch lots of photos together since getting my Sigma 10-20mm. I've got a couple of projects in my head I want to do as well. However, my experience using Hugin for stitching hasn't been wonderful (I'm probably just bad at using it) and RAW is far nicer to edit in. It's been particularly annoying to move out of lightroom, convert everything into TIFF and hope that it looks ok. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally are there any better recommendations people could give me on stitching software in general (doesn't have to be open source)? I'm aware that photoshop 3 has a stitcher but I'm still used to using lightroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3890" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T00:43:28.733" Title="Are there any open source programs that can use RAW for stitching photos?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;panorama&gt;&lt;open-source&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="8816" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8815" CreationDate="2011-02-15T18:07:03.033" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's unlikely going to be anything that takes several RAW photos, stitches them together, and then produces a RAW pano, which is what it sounds like you're after.  The Photoshop + LR (and other pano software that take RAW as an input) combo makes it seem like it may because it loads up your RAWs to use, but its still TIFF converting and you still end up with TIFF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;RAW isn't really a file format like you're thinking.  Its a collection of raw sensor data in a container.  By nature, running it through the pano process will make it &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; RAW.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use Lightroom to exposure balance your pano individual shots first, and then try Hugin with the TIFFs.  Personally, I've had reasonable success trying that lately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T18:07:03.033" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8817" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8499" CreationDate="2011-02-15T18:07:55.847" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the things you've said you wanted, I'd get a 50mm f1.4 or a 35mm. Do you need to zoom in on anything? I rarely do if I'm taking candid photos or doing everyday things. They're light, prime, work excellently in low light conditions and are bleedin' cheap. It's a basic go to lens for street photography and for a lighter camera as well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if you can try each of those before you buy. If you can get hold of one to borrow for a while or test it out at a shop then that would be the way to go. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3890" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T18:07:55.847" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8818" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8803" CreationDate="2011-02-15T18:28:33.870" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here is an interesting article about Nikon VR&lt;/a&gt;, but I think a lot of applies to image stabilization in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The author touches on the issues a little bit in the beginning, but his main rule is to never turn on VR when it's not needed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2746" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T18:28:33.870" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8819" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-15T18:53:44.473" Score="2" ViewCount="1019" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a D200 and a D7000.  The D200 triggers the SB600 in Commander Mode without any issues.  The D7000 on the other hand will not trigger the SB600 with absolutely identical settings in Commander Mode to the D200's.  Am I missing some secret/hidden setting?  All channels/groups are identical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3892" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-03T12:17:03.037" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T12:17:03.037" Title="Why isn't my Nikon D7000 in Commander Mode working with my SB600 flash?" Tags="&lt;off-camera-flash&gt;&lt;nikon-d7000&gt;&lt;cls&gt;&lt;sb-600&gt;&lt;wireless-flash&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8820" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8814" CreationDate="2011-02-15T19:59:24.490" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before I bought an external flash for my camera, I found that I can reproduce the same effect of flashing to the top by placing a card (for ex. credit card) below the internal flash. It looks like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/LOc5F.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Picture taken from itc.ua/articles/ukroshhenie_pyha_38463&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With increasing a flash power, ISO to high values (800+), and opening aperture, it allows me to shoot faces without a light reflection and ugly shadows. Cheap and strict ;) Only a lack is that the picture might be noisy&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2272" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T19:59:24.490" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-15T19:59:24.490" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8821" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8814" CreationDate="2011-02-15T20:49:56.350" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use a rubber bulb (sold cheaply for the purpose of lavage in local drugstores here) as a sensor cleaning tool. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T20:49:56.350" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-15T20:49:56.350" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8822" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8814" CreationDate="2011-02-15T20:55:30.777" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have used a washing basket from IKEA as some sort of light diffuser:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/L2QrH.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Combined with a few regular printer papers, manual white balance and manual exposure it serves as a pretty cheap and useful setup for simple product photography. The resulting image from the above setup:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/6M2eU.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T20:55:30.777" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-15T20:55:30.777" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8823" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7112" CreationDate="2011-02-15T21:46:35.973" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems other answers are discussing how trademark law works and advising that you consult a lawyer (not a bad idea), but &lt;em&gt;here's an answer to your actual question&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The US Trademark office has an &lt;strong&gt;online search form to search for trademarks&lt;/strong&gt; - it's called the &lt;a href=&quot;http://tess2.uspto.gov/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Trademark Electronic Search System&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, searching for Transamerica returns a result which consists of the trademark for &lt;a href=&quot;http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&amp;amp;state=4005%3astufib.3.2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the pyramid-shaped building you describe&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These results are US-specific.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T21:46:35.973" />
  <row Id="8824" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8819" CreationDate="2011-02-15T21:49:07.203" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've got the same setup working without any issues by following the instructions in the manual. But what is crucial, you have to &lt;strong&gt;open up the integrated flash&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My Settings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/PnNT8.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;SB600 Settings&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/qGICD.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;D7000 Settings&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2549" LastEditorUserId="2549" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-15T22:00:17.280" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T22:00:17.280" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="8825" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8892" CreationDate="2011-02-15T22:13:55.213" Score="5" ViewCount="236" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why does my slave flash at full power actually seem to darken the image?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The camera (Lumix G1) is set to M-Mode, forced flash at -2, f6, 1/30s.&#xA;I set my external flash (Nissin Di466 FT) to slave mode &quot;S2&quot; to ignore the first &quot;measure&quot; flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do an experiment with three shots:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) Slave flash off: Image is medium bright.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) Slave flash +0.5: Image is brighter&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) Slave flash +1.5: Image is really dark with a red tone&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can this be? Even if the slave flash has missed the right point in time, image 3 should still have the same brightness like image 1, since the camera flash is still on. Am I missing something?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(iExposure is off, and ISO is set to 200).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Edit: it turned out that on the Di466 &quot;S2&quot; is the mode that does NOT ignore the pre-flash. But I still do not understand the behavior.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3610" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-16T02:14:15.643" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T09:32:05.853" Title="Why does using my slave flash darken the image?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;off-camera-flash&gt;&lt;panasonic-lumix&gt;&lt;lumix&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="8826" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8803" CreationDate="2011-02-15T23:34:04.050" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As someone who uses the IS capability of the EF 100-400mm L series lens a lot, I can say that it is something you need to &lt;strong&gt;choose&lt;/strong&gt; to use. IS is a tool, and it is designed to solve a specific problem. Its not the ubiquitous hammer that can apparently solve every problem known to man, so you need to be explicit about the cases where you use it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;IS is intended to improve the performance of a lens when &lt;em&gt;hand held&lt;/em&gt;, in situations where hand-holding is either not possible, or difficult. If you have enough light to follow the &lt;code&gt;Focal Length Reciprocal&lt;/code&gt; rule, which states that a shutter speed of 1/FocalLength at a minimum (without IS) should be used to capture a sharp photo, then turn off IS. If you do not have enough light to capture a sharp photo at a proper exposure with the reciprocal rule, then you should enable IS before you increase the ISO. The IS system of the 18-55 might get you 1-2 stops of additional &lt;em&gt;hand-holdability&lt;/em&gt;, while better IS (such as that on the 100-400mm) may get you up to 3-4 stops additional &lt;em&gt;hand-holdability&lt;/em&gt;. That means you could reduce the shutter speed up to two stops lower than the reciprocal rule would dictate, and get a clear shot. At 55mm, that would mean a shutter speed of 1/15s (+2s tops) should be sufficient. At 400mm, that would mean a shutter speed of 1/100s (+3 stops).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are unable to get a shot by enabling IS, then its finally time to crank up your ISO. As a general rule, I try to keep my ISO as low as possible. In the case of shooting wildlife and birds, I tend to set my ISO to Auto, and unless I'm photographing in bright daylight, I turn IS on in mode 1 (stabilization in both horiz and vert planes.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-02-15T23:34:04.050" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8827" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8803" CreationDate="2011-02-15T23:36:15.280" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In most circumstances it's safe to leave it on all the time, particularly if it's implemented in a smart kind of way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For image stabilisation to work it needs to detect, at high speed, fine rotational movements. However no such detection is ever 100% accurate - there's always an error margin which translates to very fine, low level movements. This never matters in normal situations where you'd use it, because in reality holding the camera by hand at 1/250th or slower will always generate far, far more movement than any inaccuracy of the image stabilisation system. So it's a net gain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the camera is locked down completely with a tripod, however, then there should be no movement of the camera. So not only is IS not needed, but you wouldn't want the inaccuracy of its rotational detection system to generate tiny movements at all. Even though any motion will be less than hand-holding at a normal shutter speed, if you had the ability to have less chance of blur, you'd take it wouldn't you?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some cameras are smart enough to detect they're likely on a tripod and won't move the IS system, just like some cameras will automatically turn off IS for shutter speeds of 1/500 and faster. But it's kind of hard to find out this information about any particular lens or body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-16T00:14:48.760" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T00:14:48.760" />
  <row Id="8828" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8847" CreationDate="2011-02-15T23:51:26.690" Score="3" ViewCount="446" Body="&lt;p&gt;If one were to want to get started with studio photography (I'm thinking things like portraits, headshots, perhaps pets, etc) what would be the considerations in choosing whether to go with continuous lighting vs. strobes for the lighting equipment?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-16T01:51:09.003" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T09:24:55.163" Title="Choosing continuous lighting vs. strobes for studio photography" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;studio-lighting&gt;&lt;strobes&gt;&lt;hot-lights&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8829" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8803" CreationDate="2011-02-16T00:04:43.527" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you search around here and elsewhere you'll find lots of arguments for and against when one should/shouldn't use IS/VR/SR. The remarkable thing about so many words exercised is that it's so easy to test and decide for yourself, your own use, and your own standards. Take some pictures in the same way with and without it. Look at them closely. Can you tell the difference for better or worse? Do you care? There's your answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, I've tested a couple of my (Nikon) lenses on a tripod with VR operating, and not. Couldn't tell any difference at 100%. That's good enough for me. I still turn it off because the delay it causes can be a little annoying, but if I forget, no worries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And another thing, seeing as I'm here. That 1/focal length rule? Completely bogus. To think that so many variables involved in hand-holding steadiness could be reduced to such a trivial formula? It really doesn't withstand any scrutiny. Curiously, it's another myth that digital photography makes very easy to test for oneself, yet so few seem to. It's funny how the quoted rule didn't change when so many folks started using less than 'full frame' sensors, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3876" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T00:04:43.527" />
  <row Id="8830" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1901" CreationDate="2011-02-16T00:16:18.523" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Great article and advise.  I'm wondering if you know a good site for doing digital negatives on the Pixma 9500 II?  I've been hunting all over.  Thank you so much in advance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3897" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T00:16:18.523" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8831" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-16T00:20:09.113" Score="2" ViewCount="143" Body="&lt;p&gt;Digital negatives are used in making contact prints with an inkjet printer. How can I do this with a Canon 9500 II printer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3897" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-21T16:21:56.887" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T08:29:13.830" Title="How can I make Digital Negatives on a Canon 9500 II printer?" Tags="&lt;prints&gt;&lt;printer&gt;&lt;alt-process&gt;&lt;digital-negatives&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8832" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8767" CreationDate="2011-02-16T00:24:18.983" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;False.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;strong&gt;one&lt;/strong&gt; full f-stop change to either side of the starting f-stop will either double or halve the amount of light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why?  That's just the way f-stops were designed.  One f-stop means a doubling or halving of light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that when talking about &lt;em&gt;aperture&lt;/em&gt;, that is stated relative to its &lt;em&gt;diameter&lt;/em&gt;.  Each f-stop increases or decreases the diameter of the aperture by a factor of about 1.4 (which is root 2).  However, that causes a change in &lt;em&gt;area&lt;/em&gt; of the aperture opening, hence the amount of light being let through, to be by a factor of 2, since the area of a circle is relative to the &lt;em&gt;square&lt;/em&gt; of its radius.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So a sequence of full f-stops in f-numbers (for aperture) go 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8.0, 11.2, 16, etc with each stop letting in double the amount light of light as the previous stop, even though the diameter only needs to increase by about 1.4 each time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-16T00:29:55.657" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T00:29:55.657" />
  <row Id="8833" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8828" CreationDate="2011-02-16T00:41:32.220" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Overall light output vs rate of energy usage / heat output.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a reason hot lights are called &quot;hot&quot;; they put out a lot of heat per unit of light, especially compared to strobes. And heat doesn't do anyone any good. That's why strobes are more often preferred for still photography, and hot lights are more often used for video (where strobes aren't an option).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T00:41:32.220" />
  <row Id="8834" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8815" CreationDate="2011-02-16T00:43:28.733" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not possible for any software to do stitching while the image remains in the RAW domain, it always needs to be converted to a raster format before stitching can occur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While still in RAW format, the images are in a format where you cannot do any rotation or resizing, and you can't do any shifting up or down or cropping by anything other than units of exactly 2 pixels in either direction.  Panoramic stitching needs to be able to rotate images and to shift and crop them by precise, less-than-one-pixel amounts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In RAW, the image data is not yet in a rasterised form, where one pixel represents only one location on the image.  Instead, it is a matrix of values according to a Bayer filter, where at least four pixels in the RAW, representing different colours, are needed to determine the colour of any pixel in the output.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is, however, possible to do panoramic stitching on 16-bit-per-channel TIFF images, which will retain all the dynamic range you'd need to be able to perform the same sort of corrections you might otherwise perform in RAW.  Sorry but I don't know off-hand which open source software can do this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T00:43:28.733" />
  <row Id="8835" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8828" CreationDate="2011-02-16T00:50:18.573" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, I'd go with hot lights. Here's why, and some reasons why it might be better to choose strobes instead. Please notice I try some considerations partly supported by experience, still I can't claim even little expertise in real studio photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hot lights are quite easier, in that you can figure out the results before shooting; it takes a lot of experience and a flash meter to get what you expect with strobes. &#xA;Hot lights are softer and look more natural, so they're good for portraits, also because it's easier to try different settings whitout annoying your subject too much. &#xA;They are also recommended if you plan having a (even slighly) complex background to be lit gracefully, in fact that's what architectural photographers usually do.&#xA;It seems to me hot lights allow for a more relaxed and intuitive workflow and in the end I think this is some good reason. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Strobes might be needed for pets, to get better (somehow sharper) results with fur and also because they tend to move. Strobes are used by nature photographers for shots of exotic birds and flowers, lizards... against uniform dark backgrounds.&#xA;One downside of using strobes for, say, dogs could be you tend to get white eyes, that's harder to avoid than red eyes with umans. Animals could get scared.&#xA;Strobes are better than hots if you shoot food, because of the heat; they give a whiter neutral light compared to a relatively warm average hot light; they often give more light so one can stop down the diaphragm or use shorter shutter times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3364" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T00:50:18.573" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8836" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8828" CreationDate="2011-02-16T01:09:50.800" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll give you my experience...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I started out using halogen continuous lights because they were cheap, but they're very hot and draw a lot of power. Nevertheless, I could get some very powerful lighting though, mind you, I went the &quot;Home Depot&quot; route here. What I discovered, however, is that I had no real effective way of performing light modification (filters, gobos, grids, etc.) without some fire risk. So, then I got a very basic Westcott setup that used highpowered CFL bulbs. The set came with two stands, the heads, and softboxes. Not bad, it seemed, but to get a decent shutter speed for photographing children, I had to pump up the ISO way too much for my liking, I prefer low ISO in a studio setup. These two options also suffered from a lack of control over the quantity of light and the duration of it and these are important factors in freezing motion and getting creative with lighting. They do, however, unhook your camera from the light, giving you some freedom of movement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, all of those weaknesses led me, finally, to strobes. I purchased a couple of Alien Bees B800 strobes, with stands and umbrellas, then added a softbox, an octabox, and grids. With these I was able to get far more control of the light, especially the duration and intensity. I hooked them up with basic radio triggers and I got the freedom of cableless movement that continuous gives. They do cost quite a bit more, though not especially so when compared with highpowered speed lights, but the flexibility was worth it to me and, I have to say, my buying experience with Alien Bees was second to none, they have my consumer endorsement if they want it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, I still use the Westcott gear, it's actually quite handy for product type photography as well as background lighting and similar actions, I just don't use them as a key or fill light choice. The tungsten hot lights, however, are now back to general duty for a workshop, as I just wouldn't ever consider using them again. Admittedly, these were not dedicated for photography or videography, but I'm just not interested in pumping out that much heat for little to no gain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, just like the tripod trip from weak to strong, I suspect that if you start with the cheapest option, you will move up the chain and rapidly, and spend a lot for nothing along the way. If you're not willing to run out on the strobe cost right now, but you do have speed light of good power, you may actually want to start with reflectors to get bounce for fill and move up from there. At the very least, you'll still be using those reflectors when you do get the bigger guns which, I think, is inevitable if you enjoy the portrait process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T01:09:50.800" />
  <row Id="8837" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8825" CreationDate="2011-02-16T02:08:30.313" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your slave flash is not fully recharging before firing at the appropriate time and you're seeing the ambient light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's how it works; when your slave is set to a lower output it's actually firing twice because it's 'seeing' the 'pre-flash' from your camera and firing on the 'pre-flash' and the actual flash from your camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you crank up the juice on your slave it's firing on the 'pre-flash' and it doesn't have enough time to fully recharge before it's being asked to fire again (at the appropriate time).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the only thing that's left is the existing light in the room, likely an incandescent bulb which is casting a red/yellow cast on your image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: As a very unscientific test, you could darken the room completely, slow your shutter speed to about 3 seconds and as soon as you hear the 'shutter' open fire the flash manually (at the higher setting). If that produces a brighter exposure then you know the flash wasn't firing when it should have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT 2: After some looking around, I'm under the impression that a flash mounted on the hot-shoe will disable the pre-flash. If you have a spare that you can crank down to it's minimum that may do the trick.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3203" LastEditorUserId="3203" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-16T03:22:23.820" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T03:22:23.820" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="8838" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8595" CreationDate="2011-02-16T02:16:05.423" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am using a combination of JungleDisk and SmugMug to backup my data. My photographic data is backed up to SmugMug (unlimited storage for a flat fee starting at US$40/year). I have almost 12GB of data up there, admittedly it could take a while for your 100GB to upload. However being that one can use a web browser to upload images you can use a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th computer to upload. I am using JungleDisk for my data backup. It does a block copy instead of each individual files which makes it faster and taking less bandwidth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I like these services for the data durability as they both use Amazon S3 which has reliability that is almost unimaginable. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1901" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T02:16:05.423" />
  <row Id="8839" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8595" CreationDate="2011-02-16T04:56:42.743" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;So services are starting to drop unlimited storage and costs for a lot of storage are still prohibitive, yet mailing disks off to a remote site takes a lot of work and means you could lose months of works since it's not something done regularly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps a combo approach is best.  You could keep a few offsite hard drives around, with stuff that is a year older or more.  For anything newer than the archive drives, you use one of the services to back up through the year (or for a few months, depending on your image volume).  Then you update the offsite stores again, and wipe everything from the remote backup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's still more risky but it could be the only practical way to ensure you have time-machine like regularity to backup without breaking the bank.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T04:56:42.743" />
  <row Id="8840" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1066" CreationDate="2011-02-16T05:00:21.030" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Go to CVS! Very easy and the price is right. They always have deals on developing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3902" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T05:00:21.030" />
  <row Id="8841" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8843" CreationDate="2011-02-16T05:39:11.273" Score="1" ViewCount="89" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to know the diffences that are worth nothing when choosing between &lt;a href=&quot;http://store.polaroid.com/products/0/266909/Instant_Digital_Camera&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Polaroid Pogo&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://store.polaroid.com/category/0/354633/Classic_Instant&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Polaroid 300&lt;/a&gt;. Considering I am a newbie when it comes to cameras, especially Polaroid, I have no idea whatsoever between the advantages and disadvantages of having one over the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3860" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T07:16:19.847" Title="What are the notable differences between Polaroid Pogo and Polaroid 300?" Tags="&lt;polaroid&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8843" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8841" CreationDate="2011-02-16T07:08:51.073" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, I'd check out the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Polaroid-CZA-05300B-Instant-Digital-Camera/dp/B001RIYUJQ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Amazon&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Polaroid-PIC-300L-Instant-Analog-Camera/dp/B003B2GTY0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1297839402&amp;amp;sr=8-2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pages&lt;/a&gt; of each of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aside from price, the biggest difference is the medium: the Pogo is digital, and the 300 uses film. The Pogo will give you the ability to edit a little bit in-camera before printing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, $199 is a lot for a point and shoot with no optical zoom (digital only). 4x digital zoom on a 5MP camera leaves you with a pretty wimpy 0.31 megapixels, on par with 2005-era cell phone cameras. Perhaps a regular compact camera plus something like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-SELPHY-Compact-Printer-4350B001/dp/B003YL412A&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon Selphy&lt;/a&gt; (a portable, battery-powered photo printer) or even the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Polaroid-CZA10011-Instant-Mobile-Printer/dp/B001APNVTQ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PoGo Instant Printer&lt;/a&gt;, which uses the same paper as the Pogo camera, would fit your needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-16T07:16:19.847" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T07:16:19.847" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8844" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8828" CreationDate="2011-02-16T07:23:53.020" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The heat's one thing -- and you can get around that with cool lights (fluorescent, LED or HMI) -- but the biggest difference for me is that continuous lighting needs to be pretty darned bright in order to use relatively low ISOs and reasonable shutter speeds. That's just uncomfortable for everybody -- and it leads to squinting and those loverly junkie-style pinpoint pupils everyone loves so much. Sure, you can fix 'em in post, but why? The pupil size alone makes flash worthwhile for portraiture -- people come off looking a lot friendlier and more approachable with larger pupils.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Flash also lets you work with movement, whether that's to give life to hair or clothing or to capture the briefest expressions. You can do that with continuous lighting as well, but it either means cranking the levels up to solar surface brightness or dealing with noise in post (or grain, if you're shooting film). That depends on your shooting style as well, I suppose, but most of what I shot was at around f/5.6 or f/8 and tightly framed -- you don't need to be at f/1.2 to get a DoF that has the subject in focus with little or no background detail if the subject/bg separation is enough to light the background separately. (A fast lens, though, &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; make critical focus a lot easier to achieve provided that the lens doesn't shift focus.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Studio flash is more expensive at the entry level than continuous lighting, but it doesn't have to be outrageously so. There are a number of well-respected &quot;off&quot; brands (the only thing &quot;off&quot; about them is that they tend to be direct sellers rather than selling through retail outlets), like Paul C. Buff's AlienBees and White Lightning lines, as well as entry-level units from the &quot;names&quot;, like Elinchrom's DLite series, that will let you in the game at about the price of a decent zoom lens. They're often cheaper than equivalent &quot;name brand&quot; continuous lighting kits. The only drawback I know of is that it's really hard to double them up for video use (although if the modelling lights are bright enough...).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T07:23:53.020" />
  <row Id="8845" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="978" CreationDate="2011-02-16T08:05:06.963" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One passibility is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpchallenge.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DPChallenge&lt;/a&gt; -- the Digital Photography Challenge.  They post several new challenges each week on Tuesdays, and sometimes &quot;speed challenges&quot; (and other special challenges?) in between.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't participated much in a while, but I still check it frequently, and will sometimes shoot for a challenge if it inspires me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basic process is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;1st week: Challenge is open for submissions.  Generally announced at midnight Eastern Time (US) on a Tuesday night (Wednesday morning), the challenges are open to submissions which must be &lt;em&gt;taken&lt;/em&gt; with a &lt;em&gt;digital camera&lt;/em&gt; during the (usually) 1-week period that the challenge is open.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The following week (for another 7 days, exactly), there's a voting process, which you're highly encouraged to participate in, where you rate each submission on a 1-10 scale, and can optionally comment as well.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The following week, winners (1st, 2nd, and 3rd place) are announced, based on the top average score of all votes cast for each image.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The challenges tend to have a fair bit of latitude for interpretation, while also being somewhat specific in ways... so, it can get you thinking.  And I've seen some pretty amazing images come out of it -- the winners are often quite impressive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T08:05:06.963" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-16T08:05:06.963" />
  <row Id="8846" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="978" CreationDate="2011-02-16T08:14:26.360" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As others have said, constraints are frequently valuable in such projects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes, a set of constraints can spontaneously develop -- figure out that you're excited about taking pictures in a particular time/place/situation, pick some attributes of that, and repeat them.  For example, I did a series for about 15 months where I went &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/lindes/sets/1525925/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Downtown on the 1st&lt;/a&gt;&quot; -- I went to a specific corner in Downtown Seattle, and watched and photographed people passing by.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The original inspiration: It was snowing one day (a not-unheard-of but relatively-rare event in Seattle), and I happened to be downtown with a camera, and I decided I wanted to take photos of peoples' reactions to the snow.  So I wandered around until I found someplace that seemed to have a good vantage for some people-watching, and started shooting.  I later noticed that it had been the 1st of December when I'd done this.  And in so noticing, a project was born -- on the 1st of every month after that, for a little over a year, I went down to the same corner I'd ended up on, stood in the same basic place, and photographed people going by.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I made some friends during this process (street musicians, mostly), met some interesting characters, and took a whole bunch of pictures.  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My point with this answer, though, is not necessarily that you do a project like that (though you're welcome to), but rather that you might notice something specific that you're &lt;em&gt;already doing&lt;/em&gt;, and decide to push yourself to &lt;em&gt;replicate that&lt;/em&gt;, repeatedly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I'm not sure where best to mention it, so I'll just do so here: There's some interesting talk in &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1581154054&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photography Your Way&lt;/a&gt; about assigning projects to yourself.  Might be worth a read.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Happy projecting!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T08:14:26.360" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-16T08:14:26.360" />
  <row Id="8847" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8828" CreationDate="2011-02-16T09:24:55.163" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Studio strobes&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;+ More light means lower ISO, larger aperture etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;+ Can freeze motion&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;+ Can overpower the ambient light meaning you can leave the room lights on to see what you're doing &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;+ Greater choice of flash units / accessories / lighting modifiers&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;+ Can be used with battery pack for location shoots&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;- Have to be triggered somehow&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;- Need to use a flash meter, or test shots to set exposure&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;- Can be too bright (some have limited options to turn the power right down)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;- Can be more expensive to start off with&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Continous Lighting&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;+ Can be done on the cheap using gear lying around the house&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;+ Can use the camera's metering system&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;+ Can be used for video as well&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;+ No need to trigger&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;- Limited power output&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;- Can cook your subject&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;- High levels of ambient light can be undesirable when working&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;- Fire risk with homemade mods!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;- There can be colour issues with some florescents &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T09:24:55.163" />
  <row Id="8848" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="978" CreationDate="2011-02-16T09:50:53.307" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One thing I have tried is to go out with a friend who also likes photography and we set a challenge, such as 'best bokeh' and see who can get the best photo from the location. Then we go somewhere else and try something else. One thing I have though of doing for the next time we do this is writing down places on pieces of card and topics/subjects on pieces of cards and then picking randomly from each pile. You could even separate the 3. So it could be at 'the beach' shooting 'portraits' with 'lens flare'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3802" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T09:50:53.307" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-16T09:50:53.307" />
  <row Id="8849" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8851" CreationDate="2011-02-16T10:08:24.457" Score="3" ViewCount="190" Body="&lt;p&gt;I often have slight reflections in my lens when the sun (or another bright source of light) is directly in front of my camera. As a result of this effect I had to change the composition of my picture! What is the right way to avoid reflections when Sun is in front of the camera? Is there any way other than changing the composition?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1980" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-16T12:53:31.963" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T13:30:12.353" Title="How to avoid lens flare?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;lens-flare&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8850" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8855" CreationDate="2011-02-16T10:24:20.167" Score="4" ViewCount="156" Body="&lt;p&gt;Thanks to &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7297/lens-for-shooting-paintings-with-canon-550d&quot;&gt;previous advice&lt;/a&gt;, I'm going to start photographing my 2d artwork (not behind glass) using the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm operating in a room with no natural light so I have complete control over lighting.  Unlike &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6625/how-do-you-photograph-artwork-in-a-glass-picture-frame&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;, the artworks will not be behind glass.  I currently have no off-camera lighting of any kind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to know:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What sort of lighting set-up should I attempt?  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6533/canon-t2i-for-shooting-artwork/6572#6572&quot;&gt;One answer&lt;/a&gt; suggests &lt;code&gt;studio strobes set at 45 degree angles from the artwork with polarizing filters on both the lens and strobes, the polarizing filters should be adjusted to reduce the glare on the artwork&lt;/code&gt;.  This seems in accordance with how &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/6625/1356&quot;&gt;works behind glass should be photographed&lt;/a&gt;.  Are there other setups I should consider?  Should I reconsider and use another room that has natural light?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What exact products are we talking about here?  As someone starting from scratch and not loaded with cash, what do I need (e.g. lights, polarizers, stands, etc.)?  Specific product recommendations would be greatly appreciated, as I know nothing about lighting.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If I am using stobes or flashes, am I able to have tungsten ceiling lights on when taking the photo to aid focusing?  Otherwise, how do I go about focusing in a dark room?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3356" LastEditorUserId="3356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-16T11:49:54.493" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T11:43:34.253" Title="How should I light 2d artwork in a makeshift studio? What lighting products do I need?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;artwork&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8851" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8849" CreationDate="2011-02-16T10:24:58.667" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general a lens hood can help this, as can shading the lens with your hand (this if useful in the cases where the lens hood falls short of offering optimum flare protection, as is often the case with zooms, or full frame primes on APS-C). Shading only works when the lightsource is outside of the frame, however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course the best way of avoiding flare is by not shooting into the sun (or any other lightsource). But for the times when this is not possible, removing any lens mounted filters may help. Also when upgrading look at reviews that tell you how badly a lens flares, as some are much worse than others! Finally try and use flare as an artistic element in the picture! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-16T12:30:24.037" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T12:30:24.037" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8852" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8850" CreationDate="2011-02-16T10:37:21.470" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I actually used to do this all the time as part of my day job.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We had a camera mount onto which we fitted a 5&quot;x4&quot; bellows camera looking directly down onto the artwork. Either side of the camera we had on stands 1 strobe (1 strobe each side angled at 45 degrees) with a cone around it to direct the flash. These were powered from a strobe pack which was linked to the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The strobe equipment I can't really help you with (this was a while back - film and transparency :) and my memory has robbed me of power settings and the names of the flash units) but 2 normal remotely triggered flash units would do the job pretty well for reasonable sized art. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had studio sized equipment but I was photographing huge bits of artwork and sometimes 300 hundred or more at a time (endless endless trips to load and unload 2 sheet film 5 x 4 film holders lol)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastEditorUserId="3664" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-16T14:27:37.797" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T14:27:37.797" />
  <row Id="8853" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8850" CreationDate="2011-02-16T11:21:00.250" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;if your artwork is small, you could manage with small, portable flashes. they'll provide more than enough light for your needs!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;i don't know much about modifiers, can't help you with that. (but i'm sure there are speedlight-fitting modifiers available, to fit your needs)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3462" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T11:21:00.250" />
  <row Id="8854" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8849" CreationDate="2011-02-16T11:29:25.457" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some lenses are more resistant to this effect than others. Optical construction plays a large part - how many individual lenses are there inside, how are they shaped, how are they coated. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T11:29:25.457" />
  <row Id="8855" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8850" CreationDate="2011-02-16T12:43:29.673" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The lighting setup depends entirely on the type and qualities of the artwork you're trying to photograph. If the texture is important e.g. you want to be able to see the brushstrokes then oblique lighting (e.g. 45 degrees) with a bare lightsource would be best. If on the other hand you want to avoid picking up texture a frontal lightsource with diffuser would be best. Also is the artwork itself shiny? If so you might need to follow the instructions for shooting behind glass.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You don't necessarily need a lot of gear, if you're mounting the camera on a tripod a standard (non strobe) lamp could be used with a longer exposure (you'll want to stop down to f/5.6 for sharpness). Beware of fluorescent bulbs as these distort colours. Ideally you should be using a colour checker chart as part of a fully colour calibrated workflow. Using strobes would be more convenient as you can get shorter exposures and proper stands / accessories, but it depends on your budget.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If using strobes you should be able to keep the room lights on to focus as they'll be a hundred times dimmer so won't show up in the photos.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T12:43:29.673" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8856" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8710" CreationDate="2011-02-16T12:54:35.317" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Something is on your lens or sensor.  It looks pretty big for dust, unless that is heavily cropped.  Have a closer look at the lens and sensor, use a blower brush on the back of the lens and sensor (carefully) if necessary, check for trapped debris inside the lens etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I once had internal dust/debris in the lens of my compact Canon camera.  It looked just like your sample image (assuming that is not cropped).  You could see the dust speck when looking into the lens but it was trapped.  A few taps of the camera against the table dislodged it and fixed it.  Note that since it had such a small sensor, the tiny speck of something had much more effect - small dust particles inside a lens for a larger sensor will not usually affect the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T12:54:35.317" />
  <row Id="8857" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8849" CreationDate="2011-02-16T13:30:12.353" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This might be obvious but: don't shoot towards the Sun, what's not so obvious is the angle on which your lens &quot;is more sensible to capture the light to the lens flare&quot; varies a lot. Usually wide angle lenses are very prone to this, because they have a protuberant front element and smaller lens hoods  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T13:30:12.353" />
  <row Id="8858" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8861" CreationDate="2011-02-16T16:29:28.277" Score="4" ViewCount="157" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both are, in general, used to control the area that's lit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of both? When would you prefer one over the other?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T17:33:23.340" Title="Grids vs. Snoots" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;lighting-modifiers&gt;&lt;grid&gt;&lt;snoot&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="8859" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8804" CreationDate="2011-02-16T16:37:35.463" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Any of the Nik plug-ins for Aperture do what you would like. Silver FX pro is one of my favorites for recreating b/w film looks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3906" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T16:37:35.463" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8860" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8858" CreationDate="2011-02-16T16:49:56.510" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A snoot would have stronger edges on the shadow, but then it depends on the size of the grid also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can check this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bron.ch/visatec/tutorials/light-comparison/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;comparison of different light sources&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pbase.com/haverstick/image/97338725&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this nice setup&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3907" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T16:49:56.510" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8861" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8858" CreationDate="2011-02-16T17:33:23.340" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general snoots give more gradual falloff than grids. Grids are effectively a collection of very tight snoots next to each other, as a result they spill much less light at the end and give you a more direct narrower beam. They are used when you really need to control the light to highlight an object/detail and restrict it to a specific area.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to differences in the quality of light, shoots are much easier to manufacture in an emergency from objects you happen to have to hand! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T17:33:23.340" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="8862" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8864" CreationDate="2011-02-16T17:44:51.527" Score="4" ViewCount="338" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have bought a HOYA circular polarizer filter 58mm (CIR-PL) for the Canon EF 50mm f1.4 (said to be 58mm filter size). But the filter doesn't fit. Did I miss something? It doesn't even fit on a 18-55 kit lens (Yeah I know that filter isn't useful on that lens....but still). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2607" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T19:40:09.497" Title="A 58mm diameter filter doesn't fit on EF 50mm f/1.4." Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;filters&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8863" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8862" CreationDate="2011-02-16T17:56:44.900" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It should fit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Could you be attempting to screw it backwards or on the wrong side? One side has the thread to match your lens, the other (if there is one) is meant to screw another filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T17:56:44.900" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8864" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8862" CreationDate="2011-02-16T19:35:37.450" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I happen to own the exact same model of lens and filter, and they do fit.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Check the image to see if your equipment differs in any way, or if you are trying to attach it in any other way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Tqzky.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T19:35:37.450" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8865" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8862" CreationDate="2011-02-16T19:40:09.497" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mine (same lens and filter) works just fine BUT, its very picky about initially threading the filter onto the lens mount, the thread tolerances are very close. If you can't get it to screw on properly try another filter. If that won't thread properly get a magnifying glass and check both the lens and the filter threads to see if they're damaged/bent from cross-threading. If the lens mount has been crosstreaded you may be SOL for using filters on that lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3675" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T19:40:09.497" />
  <row Id="8866" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-16T21:06:25.873" Score="5" ViewCount="167" Body="&lt;p&gt;Besides &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.woot.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;woot&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chainlove.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Chain Love&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bonktown.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bonk Town&lt;/a&gt;, anything for photo?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1309" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T03:36:14.457" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-17T18:17:34.647" ClosedDate="2011-02-18T12:31:14.783" Title="Is there a woot style site for Photo Equipment?" Tags="&lt;purchase&gt;&lt;sales&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8867" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8948" CreationDate="2011-02-16T22:27:06.337" Score="5" ViewCount="94" Body="&lt;p&gt;When preparing a license for a photograph (for a rights-managed situation where the license will spell out the conditions and terms of use), what sorts of things should be specified?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Clarification&lt;/em&gt;: I'm not asking about specific rates, but what usage factors should be considered.  One example might be whether the photo is being used locally, nationally, worldwide, etc.  What other factors affect the rates?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(there's a &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7454/how-do-i-know-what-to-charge-for-licensing-an-image&quot;&gt;How Do I Know what to Charge&lt;/a&gt;&quot; question, but the answers don't really go into what factors should be considered)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-16T23:04:12.607" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T17:30:45.820" Title="What specifics should be included when licensing a photograph?" Tags="&lt;business&gt;&lt;pricing&gt;&lt;licensing&gt;&lt;rights-managed&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8868" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8867" CreationDate="2011-02-16T22:58:32.597" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think this is such a massive question that answering it in here may not be possible due to the vast nature of the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess the rates and associated licenses might differ between countries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will post this link which goes into licensing and pricing for different licenses in quite a lot of detail depending on usage, period of usage etc which might be worth a look:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://media.gn.apc.org/feesguide/index.php?language=en&amp;amp;country=UK&amp;amp;section=Photography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://media.gn.apc.org/feesguide/index.php?language=en&amp;amp;country=UK&amp;amp;section=Photography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Clarification - this website goes into different usage cases - be it for magazines, corporate shoots, newspapers, websites, size of image, length of use of image etc&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastEditorUserId="3664" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-16T23:08:00.530" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T23:08:00.530" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8869" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8439" CreationDate="2011-02-16T23:07:19.027" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For what it's worth, here in the Bay Area, almost every building has the California Proposition 65 placards installed, including the food stores.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1202" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T23:07:19.027" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8870" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8866" CreationDate="2011-02-16T23:08:33.987" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, I'm pretty sure the answer is &quot;no, there isn't&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-02-16T23:08:33.987" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-17T18:17:34.647" />
  <row Id="8871" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-17T00:37:15.690" Score="0" ViewCount="281" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/610/street-photography-hints-on-approaching-people&quot;&gt;Street Photography - Hints on approaching people&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I tend to see lot of possible subjects everywhere (streets, bus stations, garages, tech events...). Personally, I am a little wary to ask people if I can take their picture because they don't expect it and creates a bit of embarrassment for them. What's the best way to ask people for permission to take their picture? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2607" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-17T03:18:49.700" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T03:18:49.700" ClosedDate="2011-02-17T09:05:56.900" Title="How to ask permission from a stranger to take their portrait?" Tags="&lt;tips&gt;&lt;street-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="8872" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="610" CreationDate="2011-02-17T00:47:42.363" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my own opinion, this is a tricky question because :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you ask the person, you just change his mind set and the innocence of the picture is gone.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you take the picture, then ask the person, they can be mad at you to have taken such picture.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sadly, I think it's a case-by-case situation where you must figure out by yourself. But a good rule of thumb suggest that you just ask directly, &quot;Do you mind if I take a picture of you ? I can send it to you later on.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found out that offering to e-mail the picture disarm any bomb that can tick there. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, be &lt;strong&gt;direct&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;offer a sample&lt;/strong&gt; is my way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3689" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T00:47:42.363" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8873" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8875" CreationDate="2011-02-17T00:53:01.927" Score="2" ViewCount="114" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Nikon D3000 that I use frequently on my trips. It takes wonderful photos, but at times, especially in direct sun light, I see a flare showing up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Someone mentioned that a filter would resolve this. I am a complete novice when it comes to photography, and I know next to nothing about filters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What type of filter should I be looking for?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3910" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T02:34:42.610" Title="What type of filter should I be looking for to prevent sunlight flares?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;filters&gt;&lt;nikon-d3000&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="8874" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="610" CreationDate="2011-02-17T00:57:06.570" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the best thing you do is be honest, straight up and provide a way for them to verify and possibly receive the photo later on, watermarked, low-res or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've only actually done this once, but I explained precisely who I was, gave them my card and made sure to not include any identifying marks in the photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I took a long exposure shot of a neighbour's Christmas lights on their house from across the street and afterwards, knocked on their front door, explained I was a photographer that lived down the road and asked if it would be ok to use the photo of their house. Gave them my card too. They were fine with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not everyone is so sympathetic, so if they don't want you to use their photo, delete it in front of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most important thing for them is to trust that you're not some creep. One way is, as I've said, providing a business card with your website for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the bigger your camera the more &quot;pro&quot; you look :-P&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastEditorUserId="609" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-17T02:59:36.603" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T02:59:36.603" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8875" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8873" CreationDate="2011-02-17T01:00:17.253" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Honestly I would not expect any filters to help compared to not using one, since they add a flat reflection surface.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, some filters add more flare than others. A filter that is multi-coated or - even better- super multi-coated adds less reflections and therefore less flare.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To reduce flare if the sun is not shining directly into your lens, try a lens hood first. If it does not enough, then you need additional shading. Anything that does not obstruct the subject will do (hand, hat, a friend, etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keep in mind that if you use a full-frame lens on a cropped-sensor camera, the hood supplied with your lens cannot be adequate. This is also the case for a zoom lens at any focal other than its widest point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T01:00:17.253" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8876" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-17T01:49:35.833" Score="8" ViewCount="485" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to do a photo for my CV, and I was wondering of what I can do to make it look the best.  What are the important aspects to keep in mind?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Focal length&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lighting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Background&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Crop&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Edit&lt;/em&gt;: the original question asked about taking a self-portrait, which got some pretty strong &quot;don't do that&quot; responses. So, to expand the question: what if my friend took that advice against the DIY approach, and now I'm the one asked to take the resume portrait of someone else? How should I do it? Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3912" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-24T18:30:17.453" LastActivityDate="2011-02-25T14:15:57.913" Title="How do I take a good portrait for a CV or resume?" Tags="&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;self-portrait&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8877" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8878" CreationDate="2011-02-17T02:23:32.857" Score="12" ViewCount="544" Body="&lt;p&gt;My doubt is regarding , what should be my setting of my DSLR camera , which can emulate the scene exactly as I can see through my naked eyes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think its not possible to get the contrast and colors exactly as my eyes can see and it may vary from person to person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am more interested in focal length of the lens , If anyone can give more insight other than focal length , I will be glad to know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;e.g. I am standing on the seashore and want to capture the sunrise , what should be the focal length, so that I can cover the angle of view with which my eyes can see and size of the objects to be precise like my eyes perceives it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My camera is Canon EOS 1000D.&#xA;I have 50mm 1.8 and 70-300mm Sigma , Can it be achieved through these lens ? , Till now I have not achieved or satisfied with what I see and what I get :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1980" LastEditorUserId="1980" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-12T05:05:13.170" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T05:05:13.170" Title="How to capture the scene exactly as my eyes can see ?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;focal-length&gt;&lt;human-vision-system&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="8878" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8877" CreationDate="2011-02-17T02:29:48.437" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, I hate to break it to you, but you can't exactly emulate your eyes. There's a few reasons, let me explain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Humans see much higher resolution in the central fovia (center part of our eyes) than near the edges. Cameras have uniform resolution everywhere.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The dynamic range is handled differently between cameras and humans. I can't explain it, but a scene appears to have more dynamic range to a human than a camera, although technically a camera has more dynamic range.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Humans see in 3 dimensions.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Humans change their focal points very quickly, to the point that we don't actually notice the out of focus portions of most scenes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notwithstanding all of that, let me just say that it depends if you are wanting to focus on a specific area, or on the larger scene around. If you want the specific area, you probably should go about 150mm or so. As for a dramatic landscape, something more like a 24 will get your entire field of view. A commonly cited number is 50mm, which will let you see the higher resolution portion of your eyes and then some, but not the entire field, and is usually a good compromise. (All of these assume you have a full framed camera, if yours is a crop sensor, please divide by the appropriate factor)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-17T12:49:03.013" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T12:49:03.013" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8879" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8873" CreationDate="2011-02-17T02:34:42.610" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A polarizing filter may help in many situations. How to best use it is well beyond the scope of this answer block. But that's the only type of filter I would expect to be of any help. It wont eliminate a flare, but may reduce it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3914" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T02:34:42.610" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8880" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8825" CreationDate="2011-02-17T02:43:42.070" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My guess is that, on number 3, your slave firing on the preflash is making the camera's meter think there is way too much light and no flash at all is needed, so all you're getting is ambient.&#xA;Number 2 is a bit of a mystery though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3914" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T02:43:42.070" />
  <row Id="8881" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8866" CreationDate="2011-02-17T03:36:14.457" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;LensRentals.com &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensrentals.com/buy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;occasionally sells their old equipment for less than new prices&lt;/a&gt;.  This is not at all the same as Woot or, ... wow, any of those other sites that I haven't heard of.  But it does mean you can get deals on used lenses or equipment in good condition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3595" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T03:36:14.457" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-17T18:17:34.647" />
  <row Id="8882" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8884" CreationDate="2011-02-17T03:38:26.400" Score="5" ViewCount="474" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NOTE:&lt;/strong&gt; I'm in the United States so for me this question is mostly about 'is it legal' in the US...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I often drive down to one of the access roads outside the fence line of the international airport in my town and take pictures of the commercial jets taking off and landing, the control tower, the ground equipment, etc. Although my purpose is completely benign (just like aircraft and aircraft related things), I've done this on a number of occasions, and I've never had guys in black Kevlar with H&amp;amp;Ks show up to haul me in for threatening 'Homeland Security,' I have wondered if what I'm doing is actually legal, or if I just 'haven't been caught yet.' Thoughts?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming it &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; legal, if I were to do the exact same thing taking pictures of the military aircraft outside the fence line at the Air Force base in my town, can I expect a visit from FBI agents sporting black suits, dark sunglasses, and no sense of humor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T09:47:43.407" Title="Is it legal for me to take pictures of commercial/military aircraft taking off and landing?" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;" AnswerCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8883" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8803" CreationDate="2011-02-17T03:43:49.117" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only argument I've heard is about battery life -- if you don't need it, turn it off to save the battery.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3595" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T03:43:49.117" />
  <row Id="8884" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8882" CreationDate="2011-02-17T03:54:25.833" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's only one thing in this related field that is illegal, so far as I know. It is illegal to take pictures of a military base, even if it's from off that base (Unless there is a special event going on, like an air show). But if the area isn't a secure facility, you should be fine. My rule of thumb would be, if there's any buildings at all, you probably shouldn't be photographing, but if you can't see any buildings, you should be fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=rJHNqWYGJtIC&amp;amp;pg=PA44&amp;amp;lpg=PA44&amp;amp;dq=Legal+military+photograph+airplane&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=USvezgywXh&amp;amp;sig=aDmGfbyb3-SGGaWfUOW0n314pU0&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;ei=NptcTe-JH5L4swPx4qjlBQ&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=book_result&amp;amp;ct=result&amp;amp;resnum=2&amp;amp;ved=0CCsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images&lt;/a&gt; says that experimental craft and crashes might also be off limits. Actually, this handbook seems to be really good, I might have to buy that book... It agrees with everything I've picked up along the way, and has a lot more details as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as commercial facilities, there is no law prohibiting it at all, so far as I know. It wouldn't make much sense either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T03:54:25.833" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8885" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8882" CreationDate="2011-02-17T04:01:51.380" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As long as you are not on the base, it's legal. When I was in the navy working on ASW aircraft, we had nefarious characters taking photos of the planes taking off all the time to see how we were configured.&#xA;As far as shooting the base from off-base, there shouldn't be anything visible from off base that you can't shoot. ALL U.S. military installations require permission from the C.O. to take photos on base.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3914" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T04:01:51.380" />
  <row Id="8886" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8876" CreationDate="2011-02-17T06:35:58.550" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What you're looking for is most often described as either a headshot or business portrait.  While it's possible to create one of oneself, it involves knowing a lot about lighting and posing in addition to the in-camera technical aspects of photography.  It's hard for many photographers to guide a subject in posing and it's even harder to put oneself into a good pose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're not sure where to start, this would be a case where the best advice is to find a local professional portrait photographer and have them create a great photo of you.  You should be able to find someone who can do a standard headshot / portrait for a very affordable rate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T06:35:58.550" />
  <row Id="8887" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8337" CreationDate="2011-02-17T06:36:07.383" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One aspect of exhibits that I don't really see represented in the current answers is the concept of exhibits used for advertising and marketing. This is the cornerstone of my retail business and so I wanted to mention it briefly (even though it appears that your gig is selling &lt;em&gt;prints&lt;/em&gt; as opposed to selling &lt;em&gt;sessions&lt;/em&gt;). Hopefully it will help someone whose bread and butter is more in the portrait space than the landscape art space...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At any one time in the city I live in I generally have between 5 and 10 displays set up at various locations around town. The displays consist of 3 or 4 pieces of my work, sized large (24x36 canvas wraps generally) framed and placed on easels... In addition I leave a stack of 'take away' brochures with all my information. The pieces aren't for sale at all, they're simply to attract attention, get people thinking about photography, and hopefully contacting me to set up a session (or at least ask more about what we do, which opens up the sales dialog...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The size of the work is really important... The old adage of 'you sell what you show' is really true, but also it's a 'natural selection' move... If a person views my work and has no need (or can't afford) my large pieces they're less likely to call... Which means that a large chunk of my customers are 'pre-screened' before they even pick up the phone. Of course I also have a screening process during the initial call, but I get far fewer radically under-qualified solicitations this way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Getting the first display placed was the hardest part for me... Once I had the first one I used that as a building point when pitching to the next location &quot;I just placed a 1 month exhibit at XYZ Restaurant across town and they've been raving about it ever since.&quot; A surprisingly large number of establishments would love to have your work up... for a while. When I approach businesses I will often 'trade' a portrait session for the owner in exchange for one month of putting a few pictures in his/her entryway... These 'foot in the door' deals often lead to longer engagements for me because I rotate the work around so it's not always the same pictures for months on end, and because the work lends to the atmosphere. Getting into public spaces is even easier... Most locations have offices of public affairs, public relations departments, etc. They are often just &lt;em&gt;itching&lt;/em&gt; to have works to show off...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now in terms of who to approach, my strategy is to place it in upscale locations around town... Chamber of Commerce, City Hall, High end restaurants, hospitals (this was a huge find for me... You wouldn't believe how many doctors I have coming through my door because I set up displays in all 4 of my cities hospitals...), doctor's offices, libraries in 'upscale' neighborhoods... In fact, just about &lt;em&gt;anything&lt;/em&gt; in upscale neighborhoods works. Again, this is a 'screening' action... I want as many people as possible who pick up the phone to be able to afford what I sell, and I want them to already be predisposed to purchase what I'm selling (because the last thing I want to do is sell 5x7s).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can tell you that far and away this generates more business for me than anything else I do in the retail space... And at most it costs me a handful of portrait sessions given away to business owners every year. If I had to give up every form of marketing and advertising that I do except one, this would be the one I'd hold onto (yes, even above the internet).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, that's the 'nutshell' of my exhibit marketing strategy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T06:36:07.383" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8888" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8882" CreationDate="2011-02-17T07:31:46.347" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is perfectly legal as long as you aren't within the boundaries of the airfield, be it military or otherwise. Taking photos of the goings on inside the base probably isn't illegal either but I would avoid doing it personally - the aircraft are what you're after (including them taxying I guess). &lt;em&gt;This may not be true for bases in the US - certainly I know many do this in the UK but then these people are photographing the aircraft rather than pictures of hangars (hangars aren't a secret by the way :) )&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please do remember though, if you're parking on an access road to a crash gate NOT to block the crash gate itself! If the fire crew need to get through in a hurry they don't want to have to stop for a guy with a camera to move, typically they won't even stop to open the gate, they will just drive right through it if the emergency is pressing enough. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also bear in mind that the emergency vehicles are considerably larger than a normal vehicle (width wise) so what you might think is out of the way by being on the verge might not be - best to keep the vehicle completely out of the way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastEditorUserId="3664" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-17T07:37:08.277" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T07:37:08.277" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8889" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7561" CreationDate="2011-02-17T08:09:19.010" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;the focal length multiplies with 1.5&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is incorrect.  If your lens reads 50mm, it is a 50mm lens, even on a &quot;crop&quot; sensor.  However the field of view is different on an APS-C sensor, compared to a &quot;full frame&quot; sensor.  The only way to multiply the focal length of a lens is by using a teleconverter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3917" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T08:09:19.010" />
  <row Id="8890" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8882" CreationDate="2011-02-17T09:13:20.963" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have you considered contacting the military on the base and asking if they mind? What you are doing is probably legal but if you have their permission then it will also be a wieght off your mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3802" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T09:13:20.963" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8891" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8877" CreationDate="2011-02-17T09:23:03.243" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your brain can adjust to the signals coming from the light sensing cells in your eye so that you can have a higher dynamic range from your eyes than is possible from your camera cells. Until there are intelligent camera sensors that can shut off one they have had enough light on them you will struggle to get the range that you need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would suggest making a HDR of a scene, but only pushing the under and over exposure slightly so it still looks natural.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3802" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T09:23:03.243" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8892" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8825" CreationDate="2011-02-17T09:32:05.853" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You guys are on the right track. Here's what's happening in each picture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Slave flash off.&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Your camera fires a pre-flash&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The camera determines how much flash power it needs for proper exposure based on how bright the return flash is.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The shutter opens, and the camera fires its flash at the power level it just determined. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You get a medium-bright picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Slave flash at +0.5&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Your camera fires a pre-flash, which triggers the slave flash.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The camera sees a very bright return flash, so it decides to use very low power on-camera flash for the exposure.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The shutter opens, and the camera fires its flash at a very low power, which triggers the slave flash again. At only +0.5 power, the slave flash still has enough charge to fire again immediately.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although the on-camera flash was very dim, the slave is much brighter than is needed for proper exposure, so the picture is overexposed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Slave flash at +1.5:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Your camera fires a pre-flash, which triggers the slave flash.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The camera sees a very bright return flash, so it decides to use very low power on-camera flash for the exposure.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The shutter opens, and the camera fires its flash at a very low power. However, the slave flash, at +1.5 power, has already used more than half of the charge in its capacitors, so it can't fire again immediately.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the on-camera flash is dim, and the slave doesn't fire while the shutter is open, this picture is darker, and only consists of ambient light. Since your camera thought the scene was going to be lit mostly by flash, it balanced for xenon light. The ambient light (which is probably tungsten or tungsten-colored CFLs) is a much lower color temperature than xenon, so your picture has a red tint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T09:32:05.853" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8893" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8877" CreationDate="2011-02-17T11:13:46.233" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the issues with trying to emulate human sight in a photograph is the &lt;strong&gt;field of view&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The perspective we see, which is a function of relative focal length is by most accounts roughly the perspective of a 50mm lens on a full frame sensor or 32mm on a DX sensor, but then the problem isn't perspective, it's field of view. Think of the picture you see at 50mm and now extend the field of view such as you would when taking a panorama.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you took a &quot;human&quot; photograph, you would see almost 180 degrees horizontally and approximately 120 degrees vertically, yet still maintain the perspective of the medium focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take this crude diagram of the eye (green) and a digital SLR sensor (blue). You'll note that the focal length is exactly the same for both mediums, 17mm approximately, but the angle that the retina extends round to is much more than that of the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fxGqC.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Eye field of view&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It sees a larger field of view, with the same focal length. This is why a DX sensor equates to the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;field of view&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; 1.6 times smaller than that of the 35mm sensor, yet at the same focal length, the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;perspective&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; does not change. It simply captures a smaller area of the scene.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Panoramas are a way of emulating the field of view of something like the human eye whilst retaining the flatter and more realistic perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next issue is &lt;strong&gt;dynamic range&lt;/strong&gt;. An average dynamic range of digital SLR sized sensors is roughly 11 stops of light. This means it can record the difference between 11 &lt;em&gt;doublings&lt;/em&gt; in light intensity. 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc. How accurate is another story. 14-bits is better than 12 and 12 is better than 8 bits, but analog is even better than 14-bit digital.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whilst a full frame professional body capable of capturing up to and over 13 stops on a good day is considered impressive by modern standards, it doesn't even come close to the human eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The human eye is at times capable of distinguishing the difference between roughly 18 to 20 stops of intensity, in a very crude measurement. This means that the black shadow that your camera sees could be quite easily seen in detail by the human eye, &lt;em&gt;at the same time as seeing bright details in the scene&lt;/em&gt;. This is where the dynamic range of a digital sensor currently falls down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It simply cannot distinguish such wildly different light intensities at the same time. Sometimes it's so bad that you &lt;em&gt;have&lt;/em&gt; to either expose for the highlights or expose for the shadows and suck it up, even when your own eyes can see both fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;HDR is a way of emulating the dynamic range of the human eye, but is still limited by the mediums on which it is viewed as well as the way it is processed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another issue is that whilst it's a walk in the park for us as our brains are designed to see this way, only the &lt;strong&gt;fovea&lt;/strong&gt; sees in great detail. Peripheral vision is rather undetailed, and is primarily there to see motion, which can help us identify that things are happening around us or warn us of danger and trigger the fight or flight response.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you were to simulate this in a photograph, the image would have a small in focus area in the center and the image would quickly become blurred as you move toward the edges.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other issues which I have either not touched on or do not know about myself, but I think at the end of the day, a photograph is not really meant to &quot;emulate&quot; the human experience, it's meant to capture a moment, to create a response or an emotion, or to capture memories, or to get a big paycheque from a client :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastEditorUserId="609" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-17T20:55:30.907" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T20:55:30.907" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8894" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8899" CreationDate="2011-02-17T11:31:07.837" Score="5" ViewCount="173" Body="&lt;p&gt;My main flash is a Nikon SB-24, used on a Nikon D200. Hence, iTTL doesn't work. I've had no issues using A-mode (the thyristor in the flash determines flash output) or M-mode (manual on the flash) when shooting indoors, but I'm wondering how to use it for fill outdoors? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there some simple rules I can use to determine the settings for fill?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T13:49:29.993" Title="How do I manually calculate fill flash?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;manual-flash&gt;&lt;fill-flash&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8896" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8877" CreationDate="2011-02-17T11:55:54.950" Score="19" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;The eye moves&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to add to the answer of @Pearsonartphoto, that human eyes do not see a still scene, instead they scan it continuously, adjusting their “aperture” and refocusing as they scan it. So thanks to this scanning process we can &lt;em&gt;percept&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the higher dynamic range,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;an infinite depth of field,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a wider scene as a whole,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;much more detail than a “resolution” of the still eye can see.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what we “see” is the result of “post-processing” of a stream of images, 30-70 images per second. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_movement_%28sensory%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Eye movement&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The camera is still&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The camera cannot simulate what the eye sees, because a large part of what the eye sees is our process of seeing and thinking about the scene, and a lot of it happens in the brain, not in the eye alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But you can take photos which produce a certain, desired impression in the person who sees them. And this is &lt;em&gt;where the art begins&lt;/em&gt;, because you have to provoke certain feelings in another person by means of a flat coloured object.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Multiple image techniques&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S. Some popular techniques in digital photography actually try to recover more from multiple sequential images as the human vision does. These techniques include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;panorama stitching&lt;/strong&gt; (mosaicking multiple images to cover wider angle of view and increase resolution),&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;exposure fusion&lt;/strong&gt; and HDR techniques (stacking multiple images to increase the dynamic range),&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;focus stacking&lt;/strong&gt; (stacking multiple images to increase the depth of field) &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_stacking&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(more)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastEditorUserId="1558" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-17T18:21:39.447" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T18:21:39.447" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8897" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8595" CreationDate="2011-02-17T13:03:25.860" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know it's not an answer to the question as asked, but I too would go with a set of external drives kept off-site. Also, look at &lt;strong&gt;rsnapshot&lt;/strong&gt;. It's a rsync front-end, and I don't know how well it works on Windows, but on Linux and with file systems that support that, it uses hard links to minimize data duplication while allowing you to access old revisions of files by keeping a configurable number of backups around (rotating them automatically once the limit has been reached). Takes a little fiddling to set up but is pretty much set-and-forget, and you can copy any backup to another drive and be back where you were when that backup was taken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1772" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T13:03:25.860" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8898" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8894" CreationDate="2011-02-17T13:18:31.427" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dantestella.com/technical/fill.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;excellent guide to fill flash by Dante Stella&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The relevant parts for an SB-24 on automatic are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;An automatic flash is a great aid in&#xA;  doing fill flash, and it greatly&#xA;  simplifies things. First, set exposure&#xA;  for the background scene, using any&#xA;  shutter speed at or slower than the&#xA;  maximum synch speed. Next, choose an&#xA;  automatic mode on your flash that (a)&#xA;  matches your distance and (b) is one&#xA;  of the combinations that matches the&#xA;  background scene.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Flash has automatic modes of f/2-f/16&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Background exposure is 1/125 and f/16 (other choices were 1/60 and f/22; 1/250 and f/11; 1/500 and f/8; 1/1000 and f/5.6)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Set flash to f/16 mode (provided your subject is close enough)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Half Power Fill: pick an aperture/shutter speed that is one f-stop &lt;em&gt;smaller&lt;/em&gt; than the flash mode you are using. So if the background exposure is 1/125 and f/16, pick the flash auto mode for f/11.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are sections for doing it all-manual (you'll need to know the guide number) and other even more esoteric variations. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T13:18:31.427" />
  <row Id="8899" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8894" CreationDate="2011-02-17T13:49:29.993" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you understand exposure and the relationship between shutter speed/ISO/ and f-stop. You can follow this. If not, you'll need to learn that. You'll also need to understand how much a &quot;stop&quot; is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;SB-24 has an advertised Guide Number of 118 (ft) @ ISO 100.&#xA;Calculate settings for proper exposure and use that as a base. You can find TONS of info on the net on using guide numbers, but here's a quick down and dirty:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;note&lt;/em&gt; This is NOT as difficult as it seems here. It's just complicated to explain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Figure your exposure settings you want for the key.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Think about how much fill you want. Fill is generally either full exposure or up to one stop under the key.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3 Calculate flash setting using the settings you've chosen for your exposure and the guide number. &#xA;Distance = GN/f-stop&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4 Adjust to get the effect you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Say you're shooting at f/8 @ISO 200 (remember, shutter speed isn't as factor except that you need to stay below your flash synch speed) and you want your fill a bit lower than the key.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The calculation tells us to place the flash 14.75 feet away if we were at ISO 100. We're at ISO 200 so we can drop the flash down to half power or move it further away. This is for proper exposure. If we want our fill lower than the key, we can drop the power down a touch, or move it back a bit more. If you want the flash closer, drop the power even more. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When moving the flash around you need to consider the Inverse Square Law concerning light falloff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3914" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T13:49:29.993" />
  <row Id="8900" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8903" CreationDate="2011-02-17T13:51:40.820" Score="6" ViewCount="210" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use Picasa 3 to view my pictures, but today I just happened to open a picture in Microsoft Paint. MUCH sharper at ALL picture sizes (Zoom in and out). So I compared a few pictures in Paint to Lightroom 3.3 and ViewNX2. Same story. Is paint applying some sort of automatic sharpening? Paint seems to &quot;snap&quot; the pixels in place regardless of where you zoomed to. It just looks much better! If Paint had a slide show function I would start using it! Any idea what's going on here?&#xA;I'm on Windows 7.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3121" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-17T15:24:16.713" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T15:34:35.923" Title="Microsoft Paint renders pictures sharper than others." Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;sharpness&gt;&lt;microsoft-paint&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="8901" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8900" CreationDate="2011-02-17T15:24:43.077" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It can be due to the resizing algorithm. My guess is that Paint does not extrapolate, so it pixelize your image. This create a sharper view of the picture. If your are opening JPEG, you don't have a bitmap array of pixel, you must use an algorithm to create those from the JPEG compression. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's still a guess.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3689" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T15:24:43.077" />
  <row Id="8902" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-17T15:31:56.703" Score="7" ViewCount="252" Body="&lt;p&gt;Related to &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3504/spots-in-my-pictures&quot;&gt;“Spots” in my pictures. :-(&lt;/a&gt;, I've discovered these &lt;em&gt;lovely&lt;/em&gt; purple spots in all of my recent (1500ish) shots, but they're much different than his smudges.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm shooting with a Nikon D5000 + Sigma 10-20mm. Here's a crop from a random shot (edited in LR to make the dots more distinguishable):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/cCSyv.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;purple spots&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does it mean and what can I do about it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2565" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T04:32:38.977" Title="Purple spots in my shots!" Tags="&lt;nikon-d5000&gt;&lt;spots&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8903" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8900" CreationDate="2011-02-17T15:34:35.923" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whenever you see an image at anything other than 100% something called a filter must be applied to produce the pixels you see on the screen from the pixels in the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Different filters have different properties and performance. Some make images look sharper, some less, some work best for enlarging, some for shrinking. There are easily dozens of such filters (with variations) and the time it takes to apply them varies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A number of applications such as Geeqie let you specify which filter to apply as a compromise between quality and performance. When you resize (AFAIK not for zooming) and image in Photoshop there are also several options which you can try out to see the differences. Modern machines can also use the graphics card (GPU) to perform sophisticated filters extremely fast. Only some software take advantage of this (if the machine can do it) but more and more do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to answer your question, MS Paint seems to be using a filter with sharpening properties on your system. Note that things like sharpening and noise-reduction are also types of filters, the only difference is that they output the same number of pixels as they get.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T15:34:35.923" />
  <row Id="8904" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8902" CreationDate="2011-02-17T15:55:42.447" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;These are probably the result of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defective_pixel&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;defective pixels on the image sensor&lt;/a&gt;, and are commonly referred to as &quot;stuck&quot;, &quot;dead&quot;, or &quot;hot&quot; pixels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a common occurrence with image sensors.  There are several ways to deal with this problem:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Replace the camera - this is probably the most expensive solution&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Replace the sensor - this may be as or more expensive than replacing the camera&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sensor pixel mapping - this is often an option that can be used to avoid changing the hardware. If you send your camera in for support, the technicians can tell the software to ignore the dead pixels.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Software mapping - there are different &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pixelfixer.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;software tools&lt;/a&gt; that can be used to ignore dead pixels, but usually these work best if shooting RAW.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;fixing them by hand - this is time consuming, but you can just hand edit your images&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T15:55:42.447" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8905" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8902" CreationDate="2011-02-17T16:01:19.303" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;They look like stuck pixels, basically these sensor elements always output a high signal regardless of the incoming light. This is being incorrectly interpreted by the demosaicing algorithm resulting in purple spots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a sensor defect there is no &quot;fix&quot; as such but you can map stuck pixels in software which prevents them from contributing to the final picture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T16:01:19.303" />
  <row Id="8906" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-17T16:10:34.930" Score="10" ViewCount="297" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am taking a photograph course and the instructor, who repairs cameras, says it is extremely important to turn off the Image Stabilization on the lens before you remove it from the camera. He says turning it off &quot;locks&quot; things in place and prevents damage. Is this true? I have googled it and can't find any reference to this. I have a Canon 20D and Canon lenses. Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3921" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T20:11:09.143" Title="When removing a lens, does Image Stabilization need to be turned off on the lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;image-stabilization&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8907" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-17T16:12:34.673" Score="5" ViewCount="445" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have always seen advertisements / pictures with colour based such as this...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2011/02/000-rinspeed-bamboo.jpg&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.autoblog.com/photos/rinspeed-bamboo/#3891302&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Full Gallery&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a bit yellowish / retro feeling....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can I achieve such a picture? Is it a &quot;camera setting&quot; or do I have to do in post-processing with photoshop cs / elements?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are they any videos on youtube to show me the way? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a term of this type of pictures?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3788" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-17T16:17:06.687" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T16:04:51.510" Title="How do I achieve a picture colour like this?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;technique&gt;&lt;photoshop-elements&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8908" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8906" CreationDate="2011-02-17T16:22:59.527" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;the only time the IS elements are &quot;moving&quot; is during the focus process (when you have your finger on the shutter button and a couple seconds after) otherwise everything is locked in place. If this weren't true then moving the lens and camera with IS turned on would have the potential to damage the elements of the lens and that would defeat the purpose of the IS in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your instructor is wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Edit] from the EF 100-400 F4.5-56L IS USM manual (page E-9):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The image stabilizer continues to operate after you release the shutter button, as long as the metering timer displays the exposure value. Never remove the lens while the image stabilizer is operating, or you could damage the lens.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3675" LastEditorUserId="3675" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-17T18:00:42.200" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T18:00:42.200" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="8909" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4976" CreationDate="2011-02-17T16:46:42.463" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Interestingly medium and large format lenses are often slower. In general in a MF camera a fast lens will be f2.8. And in Large format good luck finding anything faster than f5.6 (and in general that will shoot at about f11 or slower).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2916" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T16:46:42.463" />
  <row Id="8910" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8907" CreationDate="2011-02-17T16:49:09.667" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think there are many ways to achieve this feeling...if I were to tackle it I'd do something like this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aside from the technical aspect of setting the scene I would shoot RAW with color balance somewhere in the range of florescent. I would then use a selective color treatment in photoshop to fine tune my colors. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I agree with Phillippe Lavoie on the &quot;highly photoshoped&quot; comment though. It looks like the car has been swapped out with the new image being heavily saturated. The original photo was probably shot with film, and a yellow or magenta filter was used, and maybe had a Volkswagen Beetle in it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T16:49:09.667" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8911" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8907" CreationDate="2011-02-17T16:52:16.123" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several presets for this type of effect, they're all basically trying to do the same thing: simulate an old print where the paper base under the silver has yellowed with age, so all the colors have shifted a bit higher in the yellows; and the dyes fading at different rates as Stan pointed out. &quot;Old Polar&quot; in Lightroom comes to mind, though clearly not applied full force. Though you can tell it wasn't applied uniformly to the layers.... Look at the sign and the boat... both have a very &quot;warm&quot; white, though I doubt either of them are naturally that warm. The car however, still has a bright crisp, almost cool white (around the headlights).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Avoiding the pre-sets, you could probably accompilsh this by just warming up the color temperature a slight bit in your white balance. Not too much, just a little bit... maybe 100 degrees or so. To simulate the dyes fading you could use LR's color saturation adjustment sliders to pull the magentas down a bit (actually probably desat the whole thing just a little, then the magenta a little more.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-17T20:51:50.550" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T20:51:50.550" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8912" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8906" CreationDate="2011-02-17T17:51:57.077" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is incorrect. Modern image stabilization is achieved through a lens element that is moved via electromagnets. Since electromagnets need to be powered in order to work, removing the lens (and the power source) will effectively lock the element in place rendering any movement impossible anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said that, there are a number of really 'old school' lenses that potentially &lt;em&gt;would&lt;/em&gt; be damaged if the image stabilization was not turned off first because they used gyroscopic stabilization methods instead of electromagnetic ones and the 'off' button literally locked physical elements of the lenses in place. Not locking the elements meant that they just 'rattled around free' in the lens housing. You don't have one of these lenses, however... They wouldn't fit on your Canon 20D (or any other modern camera)!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not trying to judge, but this &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; be a case of an instructor not bothering to learn about new technology advances and carrying forward bad advice because &quot;that's the way it used to be,&quot; which sadly happens quite a bit...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T17:51:57.077" />
  <row Id="8914" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8918" CreationDate="2011-02-17T18:36:49.783" Score="1" ViewCount="380" Body="&lt;p&gt;So I'm using the macro to photograph artwork with a T2i. I'm still just testing right now without studio lighting, but when I tried to zoom in (digitally) and focus with the camera display it seems to be such a fine adjustment. Not even the auto focus can get it right. Even if I get it right for one section manually there is no way to fully focus on other parts because if the painting is out of line by a millimeter it won't be in the same focus. It seems way too precise. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sadly I can't check full results on my computer screen as my main computer died. But all said and done, zooming in fully on the camera's screen, I seem to to be getting slightly better results from the stock zoom lens. I found if i set it at about 35mm the edge distortions are minimal, I'm able to be much closer to the artwork then the 60mm macro, and results seem to be tiny bit sharper. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I thought if I closed up the aperture on a camera (going back 20 years) it would increase the focus-able range, but I'm not sure how to do that? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure how the ISO and Aperture work if if they are one in the same. and I'm not sure if the 2.8 is a fixed setting or what. (sorry I've been overwhelmed trying to figure it all out). I've been inclined to go with 100iso because I understand that captures the most color. But even going up to 400+ doesn't seem to make much difference focusing. With the longer exposure and perhaps the extra length of the macro's distance from the subject, I fear even the shutter is causing micro movements on my budget tripod and perhaps the result is less sharp?  Maybe I'll have better results when it's properly lit? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, just so far the results seem better from the stock lens. But maybe I can make some adjustments to the macro? just because it's not focusing perfectly zoomed in on the screen probably is not why I'm seeing less than stellar results. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3043" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T15:42:44.353" Title="Focusing Macro at a distance... aperture settings" Tags="&lt;macro&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;artwork&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="8915" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8907" CreationDate="2011-02-17T18:38:00.713" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd try this: Curves adjustment layer. Increase the contrast (steeper curve) in the red layer. Decrease the contrast in the green. Maybe leave the blue linear. Play with it from there... Or, maybe just mess with warming things up (especially highlights) in the color balance dialog.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess you might be able to get something by messing with in-camera white balance, but it would be less controllable, much easier in post.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, and I agree, that picture has been seriously manipulated. I wouldn't be surprised if it were some sort of montage. I especially like how the woman has no shadow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3900" LastEditorUserId="3900" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-17T18:44:55.357" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T18:44:55.357" />
  <row Id="8916" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8914" CreationDate="2011-02-17T18:52:08.377" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;f/2.8 is NOT a fixed setting, it is the widest the aperture can open up. As you have found, closing it down a bit is usually a good thing. The kit lens has a max aperture of f/5.6 at 55mm, ie. closest to the macro's focal length, which is two full stops down which gives a lot more depth of field automatically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What mode is the camera in? Av, Green-square idiot mode, P?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now... if you are using a tripod, which you should be: Set the camera to M mode, this gives you full control over ISO, aperture and shutter speed. Set the ISO to 100 and the aperture to whatever you want, I suggest f/8 as a starting point for maximum sharpness. Now set the shutter speed to something that will give you a good exposure - since you are on a tripod you have a pretty free hand with the shutter speed. Adjust the shutter speed, and the shutter speed only, to give you the desired exposure. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T18:52:08.377" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8917" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8914" CreationDate="2011-02-17T18:56:03.490" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Remember that while you're focusing and composing your lens is wide open to give you the brightest viewfinder image it can. You can try pressing your depth of field preview button (which stops the lens down to the set aperture) but it will darken the viewfinder a lot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Macro lenses, when focusing at such close range have a tiny depth of field, that is just the way it is. Even f/16 or more is very very small.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good method of focusing is to switch the lens to MF and then set the focus to the nearest distance (if that is what you're trying to go for) Then move the camera back and forth to get focus where you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tripod mounted is another way to go, you can also buy macro focusing racks that allow you to wind the camera forward or backward on the tripod head in tiny increments to allow more precise focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T18:56:03.490" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8918" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8914" CreationDate="2011-02-17T18:59:34.440" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;ISO and Aperture are two totally different things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For your purposes, you need a greater depth of field (DOF), which means that you need to decrease the aperture diameter (higher f-number).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your ISO should be able to stay the same, assuming that you can increase the exposure time to compensate (this shouldn't be a problem if you are using a tripod).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using a Canon T2i, you probably want to use Av Mode (Aperture Priority), and set the aperture somewhere in the f/5.6-f/8 range. This will probably give you a good sharp image and better DOF. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-18T15:42:44.353" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T15:42:44.353" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8919" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8877" CreationDate="2011-02-17T19:05:01.097" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Capturing an image exactly as your eyes see it? No problem, but it's not all in-camera, you'll have to do some work in post. And it almost certainly &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; what you really want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, you'll need a circular fisheye lens that vignettes badly with which to take the picture(s). (You'll actually need several pictures and a viewing system with built-in eye tracking that can flip images as your eye moves.) Nobody makes a lens that works quite as badly as the human eye (at least, nobody makes one like that &lt;em&gt;on purpose&lt;/em&gt; and offers it for sale as a photographic lens), so the rest will have to happen in post.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, you'll need to cut off the image at the top. Exactly where will vary, but that's where your eyebrow gets in the way. Then you'll need to run an edge finder -- in Photoshop, the Sketch-&gt;Bas relief filter will do nicely. Put the result of that on a separate layer set to multiply -- you'll merge it down later, but you can hide the layer for now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next, select a section in the middle of the picture -- about one or two percent of the whole image -- feather the selection by twenty or thirty pixels, then copy that selection to a separate layer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now run a heavy blur filter over the original image. You want to be able to see the colours, but no real detail. Merge the bas relief layer down onto the blurred image. Then merge down the layer you made from the selection. You should now have a circular image with the top cut off, ill-defined edges, no real picture detail over most of the image, but with the edges of the original elements crying out for attention, and a small area in the middle (about ten percent of the width and height) in relatively sharp focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You're not done yet. You need to create a circular selection about half the size of the area that's in focus, just below and to one side, and overlapping the area of focus slightly. Feather the selection well, then fill it with black.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Create a new overlay layer, fill it with 50% grey and add about ten percent monochrome Gaussian noise, than give it a good blurring. Merge that down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You now have an image that approximates what you actually see with your eye fixed. It's actually a lot less distorted than what your eye sees, but adding all of the little convolutions that happen because of the differing thickness of the fluids on the surface of the eye at any given time is a lot of trouble to go through for this exercise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anything else that you think you see is coming from your brain, not your eye. That black spot? You have one in each eye, and your brain fills in the missing data. The vast sea of detail? Panoramic stitching in the visual cortex. Sharpness of any sort? Averaging of multiple &quot;exposures&quot;. We also have an automatic aperture system and do &quot;ISO shifting&quot; on the fly depending on what we're paying attention to at any given moment (our static dynamic range is not too terribly different from what the camera captures -- we do HDR &quot;in post&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you want is probably to capture what your mind sees, not what your eyes see, and that's different for every picture. That's why they make all of those different lenses. Sometimes you want to show a vast panorama because that's what you &lt;em&gt;saw&lt;/em&gt;. But even with a huge landscape, it may have just been a little copse of trees that caught your attention. A portrait may be a tight close-up, or it may involve the sitter's entire environment -- again, it all depends what you saw in your mind's eye, not what you saw with your actual eye. The same thing goes for depth of field -- were you looking at the whole scene, or just paying attention to one small detail within a larger context?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, this isn't a question that can be answered directly. The answer is, and always will be, &quot;it depends&quot;. Experiment. Practice. Get to know your tools and what they do, and eventually you will know exactly what you need to do to capture not what was actually there, but what &lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt; saw. Ansel Adams called it &lt;em&gt;previsualizing&lt;/em&gt;, and he spent a lot of time developing a formal system that would allow him to capture on film what he saw with his mind and his heart, not with his eyes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-28T04:25:37.277" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T04:25:37.277" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8920" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8907" CreationDate="2011-02-17T19:55:26.143" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just to add a bit that I haven't seen anybody else mention directly: the lighting on the car (whether CG or real) is from the top, left, slightly in front of the car (i.e., closer to us than the car itself).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note, for example, that the hood of the car shows a highlight on the left side, the front-bumper is highlighted where it's nearly horizontal, and the near fender is brighter where it faces closer to forward (which would be in the darkest &lt;em&gt;shadow&lt;/em&gt; if its light was from the sunset behind the car).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd agree that it looks like the car is probably computer generated though -- the curves on the top of the hood (for a particularly blatant example) have what looks to me distinctly like Gouraud shading (complete with slight color banding from the looks of things). Making something look like real paint on real metal is fairly difficult. Like lots of computer shading, this looks more like some sort of rubber or plastic. Note, for example, the complete lack of anything resembling a specular highlight anywhere on the car.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T19:55:26.143" />
  <row Id="8921" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2078" CreationDate="2011-02-17T20:12:52.707" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Taken from &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8902/purple-spots-in-my-shots/8904#8904&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt; to &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8902/purple-spots-in-my-shots&quot;&gt;my question about purple spots&lt;/a&gt;, if you're working with RAW files, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pixelfixer.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pixel Fixer&lt;/a&gt; can purportedly fix them up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2565" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T20:12:52.707" />
  <row Id="8922" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8902" CreationDate="2011-02-17T20:57:25.940" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are they always the same color? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are they always in the exact same location? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have you tried different lenses? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have you had the sensor cleaned?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3914" LastActivityDate="2011-02-17T20:57:25.940" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8923" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-17T22:48:50.200" Score="3" ViewCount="113" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a bespoke Image Capture &amp;amp; processing flow, wherein I do the following operations:- &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Capture Raw data--&gt;De-Bayer(Get RGB)--&gt;Color Balance--&gt;RGB-to-YCbCr--&gt;Image sharpening--&gt;Denoise filtering--&gt;YCbCr-to-RGB--&gt;Gamma correction(Gamma encoding)--&gt;Store the file as BMP. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But now as some new requirement, I need to store the final output file in YUV/YCbCr format.&#xA;So the new flow would be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Capture Raw data--&gt;De-Bayer(Get RGB)--&gt;Color processing--&gt;RGB-to-YCbCr--&gt;Image sharpening--&gt;Denoise filtering&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My questions is now where should I apply the Gamma correction, since there is no conversion back to RGB space after the image sharpening and denoise filtering in YCbCr space?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Will it yield same/similar image quality when viewed, if I apply gamma correction in RGB space after Color balance, before it is converted to YCbCr space and thus before Image sharpening and denoising?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any pointers appreciated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;thank you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-AD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2438" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T02:28:09.870" Title="Query about gamma correction?" Tags="&lt;image-processing&gt;&lt;gamma&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="8924" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8923" CreationDate="2011-02-18T00:34:38.967" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Gamma should be applied on luminance (Y in your case) as it pertains to contrast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There should be no reason to do it in RGB. I suspect many programs do it independently on each channel rather than on luminance to avoid converting back and forth. Results should actually be at least a little better doing it on luminance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-18T02:28:09.870" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T02:28:09.870" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8925" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8934" CreationDate="2011-02-18T01:18:41.577" Score="4" ViewCount="402" Body="&lt;p&gt;In looking at the user manual for a Nikon D7000, I see that the camera can create &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_exposure&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;multiple exposure&lt;/a&gt; images (where more than one image is exposed into the same frame) in-camera.  I don't recall ever hearing that was possible with my previous DSLRs (which have all been Canon).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do any Canon DSLRs offer the ability to do multiple exposures?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T06:16:10.383" Title="Can one create multiple exposure images with a Canon DSLR?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;multiple-exposure&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8926" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-18T01:22:15.490" Score="10" ViewCount="5554" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the big costs of ink-jet printing at home is the ink.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A quick visit to google shows that there are plenty of companies out there willing to sell ink cartridges and refills for the major printer brands. Many of these are way cheaper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, some local companies (like costco) will refill empties.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are any of these a good deal/value?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ages ago, I tried refilling myself with mixed success. Besides the ink on my fingers, I believe that the heads ended up clogged.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="98" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T03:05:09.723" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T03:05:09.723" Title="Are any of the generic/off-brand ink cartridges worth buying?" Tags="&lt;printing&gt;&lt;prints&gt;&lt;ink-jet&gt;&lt;generic-brand&gt;&lt;ink-refills&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8928" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8925" CreationDate="2011-02-18T01:30:20.160" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Everything I've read says you can't. Here's a few articles I found from researching. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.steves-digicams.com/canon-eos-dslr/136216-multiple-exposures.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://forums.steves-digicams.com/canon-eos-dslr/136216-multiple-exposures.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/004YCQ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/004YCQ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080820092042AA3hfY2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080820092042AA3hfY2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This last article is interesting, if you really want to do a multiple exposure image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.msjphotography.com/index.php/2010/07/photoshop-workbench-236-canon-multiple-exposure-script/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.msjphotography.com/index.php/2010/07/photoshop-workbench-236-canon-multiple-exposure-script/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T01:30:20.160" />
  <row Id="8929" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8925" CreationDate="2011-02-18T01:33:47.130" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I cannot speak personally for &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; models of Canon EOS cameras, but I do know that it's specifically not possible with the following Canon models:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1DmkIV&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;5DmkII&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;7D&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;50D&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;40D&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;20D&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on this pattern it'd be pretty easy to infer that the rest of the EOS line (and possibly other Canon lines as well) does not have this functionality. That is to say that it's 'not possible' in-camera without 'faking it' as outlined in @ieure's &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8925/can-one-create-multiple-exposure-images-with-a-canon-dslr/8934#8934&quot;&gt;answer&lt;/a&gt;. Obviously with the use of post-processing it's fully possible to make double (or triple, or more...) exposures. Also (probably obviously) it's &lt;em&gt;completely possible&lt;/em&gt; with any of the bodies in the EOS film camera lineup... But I know that's not what you're asking about... Just trying to be complete. ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-18T06:16:10.383" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T06:16:10.383" />
  <row Id="8930" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8926" CreationDate="2011-02-18T01:47:24.297" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In theory, one could make great third-party inks, but in practicality, I don't think any of them trade on permanence or color quality. They trade on &lt;em&gt;cheapness&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a friend who ran out of brand-name ink in a pinch on a project and ended up printing some of it with refills; at first, one had to know in order to tell which was which, but after a week, anyone could see.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've seen several articles on this over the years — here's one originally from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pcworld.com/article/111767/cheap_ink_probed.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pcworld, 2003&lt;/a&gt;. That's a long time ago in technology-time, but I don't think the landscape has really changed on this point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T01:47:24.297" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8931" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8925" CreationDate="2011-02-18T02:36:05.727" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are 23 cameras that do this and none of them are from Canon. There is no external interface to make this query as it is not a common request.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nikon has the most DSLRs which do that, followed by Pentax. Olympus has several models as well, most of them in its Micro Four-Thirds range. Fuji has a nice implementation where you can undo the last exposure and re-take it as often as you need to get it right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T02:36:05.727" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8932" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8958" CreationDate="2011-02-18T03:02:49.313" Score="10" ViewCount="253" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I have a lenses (or in my case extension tubes) that would allow the lens to magnify 1:1, does a 1.5x crop factor body make it really 1.5:1 ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-27T12:03:04.383" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T12:03:04.383" Title="Does a camera's crop factor apply to the magnification of macro shots?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;cropped-sensor&gt;&lt;extension-tubes&gt;&lt;crop-factor&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8933" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8932" CreationDate="2011-02-18T03:28:22.147" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I guess the answer is yes and no. Technically speaking, the image circle projected by the lens is 1:1, and your sensor is capturing a smaller part of the center of that circle...cropping it. This fits with the formula for magnification:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;M = (d&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; - f) / f&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where &lt;em&gt;d&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/em&gt; is the distance from the lens to the sensor, and &lt;em&gt;f&lt;/em&gt; is the focal length. Crop factor or sensor size is not taken into account when calculating the magnification of a lens. From this perspective, the &lt;em&gt;purely optical&lt;/em&gt; perspective...the answer is no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, when you factor megapixels and native print size into things, the answer is probably &quot;sort of&quot;. If you have an APS-C and FF sensor with the same number of megapixels, the final unscaled &quot;magnification&quot; of the image in print would appear larger with the APS-C for two reasons. First, it packs more megapixels into less space, and second, that greater number of megapixels represents a smaller portion of the image (narrower field of view), which increases the apparent magnification. You could make a larger unscaled print of a smaller part of your subject with the APS-C than you could with the FF. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-18T07:16:19.313" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T07:16:19.313" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="8934" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8925" CreationDate="2011-02-18T04:25:26.300" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer: &lt;strong&gt;no&lt;/strong&gt;. Longer answer: &lt;strong&gt;You can fake it, to a degree, with long exposures.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a nutshell, what you want to do start your exposure, expose the first part, then cover the lens with a dark cloth, reposition, and remove it to expose again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It’s not as precise, it’s more work, it works better at night, and it might not be worth it. That said, you can get some neat effects with the technique:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Bfxpt.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Example&quot;&gt;&#xA;(via &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/dreamsjung/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dreamsjung&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1905" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T04:25:26.300" />
  <row Id="8935" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8902" CreationDate="2011-02-18T04:32:38.977" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I agree with the assessment that they are stuck pixels. My S90 recently developed a few stuck pixels, and while I want to send it in for repair, I have worked around it in the interim with an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apple.com/aperture/whats-new.html#presets&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Aperture adjustment preset&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I imported a photo exhibiting the problem, then used the retouch tool to repair the image. I then selected Presets -&gt; Save As Preset and titled it “Fix S90 Stuck Pixels.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I import from that camera, I select that preset, and all my images are repaired automatically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1905" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T04:32:38.977" />
  <row Id="8936" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8907" CreationDate="2011-02-18T05:09:06.177" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;hi all &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;i think what he is trying to say is simply just: how to achieve the &quot;background&quot; colour - ie  be able to make those 1970s Retro look type of pictures...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;in layman terms - step by step - ie through youtube videos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;lastly, is there at theme to call these &quot;1970s retro look&quot; yelllowish type of photographys &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3784" LastEditorUserId="3788" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-18T16:04:51.510" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T16:04:51.510" />
  <row Id="8937" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8679" CreationDate="2011-02-18T05:41:37.977" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is a good resource I have used for tethering cables.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.shop.tethertools.com/USB-FireWire-Tethering-Cables_c4.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.shop.tethertools.com/USB-FireWire-Tethering-Cables_c4.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3934" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T05:41:37.977" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8938" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8926" CreationDate="2011-02-18T06:17:04.027" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are all kinds of arguments around the quality, the longevity, potential damage to your print head, etc. But those are kinda irrelevant for &quot;us&quot; here on photo-SE.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're printing pretty office charts and graphics, SURE. That's what most of those inks are built for... some even brag about a &quot;more vibrant red&quot; with their ink.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're printing pictures, on decent paper that comes with ICC profiles... &lt;strong&gt;nope they're not worth it at all.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is that all the profiles are built based on the original ink, you change to a different ink and the profiles are all wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now if you're printing ENOUGH volume, and you can find an ink vendor that's consistent, you could in theory pay to have your own profiles built for your printer, your paper and their ink. But you'll probably end up paying just as much for the custom profiles as you saved on the ink.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-12T15:38:13.997" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T15:38:13.997" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8939" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8944" CreationDate="2011-02-18T07:36:52.870" Score="14" ViewCount="604" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've seen quite a few people recommend the 50 mm prime lenses, in particular the sub $100 50mm/f1.8, as a starting lens for photographers (especially because they're likely to be using cameras with cropped sensors). From my experiences with the 18-55 mm kit lens (on a Canon EOS 550D), it seems that 50 mm is not really very suited for indoor flash-less group photographs where the wide aperture would be helpful. It is probably a good lens for portraits of 1 or 2 persons &amp;amp; some low light photographs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what are the advantages it offers over the kit zoom lenses (apart from the wider aperture), under what scenarios is it more useful and why would you recommend it as a starting lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1977" LastEditorUserId="1977" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-18T10:50:23.847" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T14:56:47.253" Title="Why do people recommend 50 mm or other prime lenses as starting lenses for learning photography?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;prime&gt;&lt;50mm&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8940" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3665" CreationDate="2011-02-18T08:01:31.193" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bayphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;BayPhoto&lt;/a&gt; can do actual silver halide photographic prints up to I think it's 30&quot; tall by like 12' long... (close to the 5:1 ratio you asked about) I have some über pano prints &lt;a href=&quot;http://smug.cabbey.net/Travel/Montana-09/9352838_GFzBD#650617366_K37vX-A-LB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;of this image&lt;/a&gt; that are about 13' long at 300ppi... they're sharp as a tack. You'll need to use their ROES tool and submit it as a special order.  Heh, I miss-read that as 1m on the SHORT side.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T08:01:31.193" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8941" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8943" CreationDate="2011-02-18T08:20:18.640" Score="8" ViewCount="327" Body="&lt;p&gt;What exactly is pinhole camera? The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinhole_camera&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt; says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A &lt;strong&gt;pinhole camera&lt;/strong&gt; is a simple camera without a lens and with a single small aperture — effectively a light-proof box with a small hole in one side. Light from a scene passes through this single point and projects an inverted image on the opposite side of the box.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can I make my dSLR into one? Is it safe to try this, since there will be no lens? Will the results be interesting?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1980" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T21:29:02.517" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T21:29:02.517" Title="Can a dSLR be safely made into a pinhole camera?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;lo-fi&gt;&lt;pinhole-cameras&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="8942" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8941" CreationDate="2011-02-18T08:35:12.533" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lots of people have tried it. Usually, a spare body cap is used as the &quot;lens&quot; -- a hole larger than you need is drilled in the centre, then covered with foil. The pinhole is made through the foil. You can create different focal lengths using extension tubes between the body and the body cap. There are even high-quality pinhole kits (very precise holes to minimize unnecessary diffraction and create a clearer image) available from a number of sources, including &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.edmundoptics.com/onlinecatalog/displayproduct.cfm?productid=2001&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Edmund Optics&lt;/a&gt; (formerly Edmund Scientific). (You would need a C-mount adapter for the Edmund products, or you can just use their pinholes on a homemeade body cap mount.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T08:35:12.533" />
  <row Id="8943" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8941" CreationDate="2011-02-18T08:35:37.840" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is it safe to try this setup on my DSLR(since there will be no lens), mine is Canon EOS 1000D?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is possible to make a pinhole from a DSLR. Basically, buy a &lt;em&gt;spare&lt;/em&gt; body cap, then make a small hole in its center. Don't destroy the only cap which comes with your camera, you may need it later. Google for &quot;DIY DSLR pinhole&quot; for multiple instructions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But you should remember that it is still a hole, not a glass, so some dust or liquids may come through it into the camera. On the other hand, when you change lens, even larger quantities of dust may come in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dust on the mirror or even on the sensor is not dangerous, but you need to be careful when you clean it later. Dust on the mirror does not affect the quality of the image, but it is visible in the viewfinder, and sooner or later it may reach the sensor. The dust on the sensor is not visible in the viewfinder, but it is visible on the shots with small aperture (large f-number) and, surprise, on pinhole shots. You should not touch the mirror when you clean it, it can be easily scratched; use only a special photographic air bulb to clean it. To clean the sensor you'll need to buy special cleaning kits and have enough patience, but sometimes the air bulb is enough. Sooner or later all photographers have to do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Has anyone tried it and got interesting result ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a whole group on Flickr dedicated to &lt;a href=&quot;http://flickriver.com/groups/95279410@N00/pool/interesting/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Pinhole Photography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;An alternative design: a pinhole box.&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They also suggest &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.foundphotography.com/PhotoThoughts/archives/2005/04/pinhole_camera_2.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an alternative digital pinhole design&lt;/a&gt; in the group description. It is safer, because doesn't require to open the camera and is compatible also with compact cameras:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/5KYEW.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;alternative digial pinhole design&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;A ready to use pinhole&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to spend some money, you may &lt;em&gt;buy&lt;/em&gt; a ready to use pinhole (f/177) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensbaby.com/optics-pinhole.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;from Lensbaby&lt;/a&gt; (you'll need to acquire their adapter too) or from other producers (see answers from @Jay Lance Photography and @Stan Rogers).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastEditorUserId="1558" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-18T11:04:16.247" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T11:04:16.247" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8944" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8939" CreationDate="2011-02-18T08:55:54.243" Score="27" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What people have generally suggested is to start with a &lt;strong&gt;normal&lt;/strong&gt; lens. On a full-frame 35mm camera, that role was generally filled by the 50mm lens. On a modern crop-frame DSLR, it would be closer to 30mm (for Canon APS-C 1.6x sensors) or 35mm (Nikon, Pentax, Sony) or 25mm (Olympus and Panasonic).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 50mm is usually suggested these days as the first good supplement to the kit lens. It doesn't really matter whose 50mm lens you're looking at, the design for the f/1.8 (or f/1.7) version has been around forever. They're all sharp to &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; sharp, lightweight and (most of all) &lt;em&gt;cheap&lt;/em&gt;. And as you pointed out, they'll function well as a shortish version of the traditional medium telephoto portrait lens. But as nice as the &quot;nifty fifty&quot; is, it's not a normal lens on a crop-sensor camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A normal prime lens is very versatile. You can step back a couple of feet and get a fairly wide image field. Step forward and you can fill the frame with a single subject of interest. Neither picture will be quite what you'd get using a wide angle lens or a short telephoto, but you &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; get a reasonably good picture either way. The field of view subjectively matches what you tend to think you're seeing in real life, so there are no major surprises or unintentional special effects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Working with a prime lens, though, helps you to become a better photographer. It forces you to change your point of view to find the best image rather than just standing in the easiest spot and turning a ring. You might get acceptable results using a zoom exclusively, but it's unlikely you'll get a spectacular result until you've forced yourself to take the rocky road for a while. You may decide to stick with primes (I have always had zooms, and shot an average of ten rolls of film a day -- or the equivalent -- for a couple of decades, and I bet I took fewer than two hundred shots with a zoom lens in all that time) but even if you use a zoom lens most of the time, you'll never use it in quite the same way after working exclusively with prime lenses long enough to change your habits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastEditorUserId="1558" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-18T13:24:43.940" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T13:24:43.940" />
  <row Id="8945" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8939" CreationDate="2011-02-18T08:57:21.057" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're right that 50mm on an APS-c is long for group shots but that's part of the reason I'd recommended it. Being restricted like that forces you to be more creative. If you've come up from compact cameras it can be hard to get over the idea that everything should zoom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good photography is all about compromises, you often have to compromise on the convenience of a zoom to work in low light or have a very shallow depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 50mm is the only f/1.8 lens you can get for under $100, or for under $200 for that matter! It's good because it's cheap, and very high performance in terms of aperture, and because you can create some really stunning images even when paired to the most basic camera! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-18T10:30:06.203" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T10:30:06.203" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8946" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8939" CreationDate="2011-02-18T09:04:20.030" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the advice to specifically use a 50mm lens is a hold over from 35mm film days, one of those things that &quot;has just always been the right answer&quot; for so long that folks don't stop to re-think it. The point is to start with a &quot;normal&quot; lens, of a fixed focal length. so that you learn to move around and reposition yourself to make a better shot. It's all about the mental task of trying to take a better picture before you even release the shutter. I've seen it taught more recently with modern kit zoom lenses that are simply taped to a fixed position with a loop of masking or gaffers tape so the student can't zoom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T09:04:20.030" />
  <row Id="8947" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8941" CreationDate="2011-02-18T09:28:49.893" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Wikipedia article you cited does a good job of detailing what pinhole photography is. To summarize in brief:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A pinhole camera is the first and simplest form of camera- essentially a lightproof box without a lens and with a hole on one side. The light from the scene the pinhole is pointed at passes through the hole in the box and is projected (in reverse) on the opposite wall of the box. If a piece of unexposed film (or a digital sensor) is what the image is projected on, the result will be a photograph.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is perfectly safe to use a pinhole setup with your dSLR. You can definitely make a pinhole from a camera body cap, and details of such DIY projects can be found in many tutorials and sites around the net such as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.camerahacker.com/EOS_Pin-Hole_Lens/index.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Making a Pinhole Lens for SLR Cameras&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.petapixel.com/2010/04/19/canon-coffee-cup-pinhole-camera-lens/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon Coffee Cup Pinhole Camera Lens&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your cup of tea (as it were) is to buy rather than make, I have used and can recommend both of the following manufactured options for build quality and usefulness (not getting anything for mentioning 'em... Just a happy customer who bought these products retail like everybody else):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lenoxlaser.com/index.php?dispatch=products.view&amp;amp;product_id=119&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lenox Laser Body Cap Pinhole Camera&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/skink-stainless-steel-pinhole-pancake-lens.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Skink Stainless Steel Pinhole Pancake Lens For Canon EOS DSLR/SLR&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both products are designed to fit a Canon EOS body snugly without modification, and while either option will 'get you there' in terms of creating your own pinhole images, the Skink pancake lens is an absolutely exceptional work of engineering which includes the option for differently sized pinholes to be inserted. It's made of stainless steel and brass, feels great, looks great, and produces amazing images in the 'lo-fi' tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, for lots of great examples of dSLR pinhole photography, you might try visiting:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/95279410@N00/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Pinhole Photography group on Flickr&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pinhole.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Pinhole Gallery&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T09:28:49.893" />
  <row Id="8948" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8867" CreationDate="2011-02-18T10:02:29.867" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You should specify the media allowed, the geographical distribution, the life of the license, whether the rights are first usage or not, the exclusivity or lack thereof and the period of exclusivity if there is one. The media may also be subdivided into genre -- be as restrictive as possible without hamstringing the licensee so your ability to further license the work is not impeded. If the licensee wants exclusive worldwide rights in all media, it's going to have to affect the price since it also affects your rights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should also be clear about usage rights for associated promotional material (where and how the image may be used, and the maximum resolution that may be used for any purpose other than the primary licensed use). Be as specific as you can with cropping, composition into a montage, and so forth. And be clear about subsidiary assignments -- that is, the ability of the licensee to allow reproduction of their IP that contains yours. Again, it's not about making life difficult for the licensee, but preserving the integrity and value of your image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's been a while since I wrote up a licensing contract, so I may have missed a detail or two, but these should be enough for a basic checklist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T10:02:29.867" />
  <row Id="8949" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8679" CreationDate="2011-02-18T10:20:52.280" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a 5 meters USB cable that was quite cheap and that I use regularly with my Nikon D700. No problem so far ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="461" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T10:20:52.280" />
  <row Id="8950" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8939" CreationDate="2011-02-18T12:07:51.720" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fast (in terms of allowing light in)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cheap (compared to most other lenses - hence good starter)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Portable (the 50mm is a tiny little beastie that doesn't add much to your SLR)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sharp (the reduced number of elements and size means this lens is super sharp)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bokeh (it's well recognised that because of the shallow DOF and the blades, that the 50mm produces superior bokeh to other lenses)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Good Field of View (for portraits and &quot;normal&quot; shots)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3265" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T12:07:51.720" />
  <row Id="8951" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8953" CreationDate="2011-02-18T12:14:27.347" Score="4" ViewCount="240" Body="&lt;p&gt;What tripod would be recommended that is sturdy enough not to wobble in the wind, yet is light enough and easily and quickly movable so that I can use it to trek up hills, through awkward places and generally easy to move from A to B.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the cheaper ones seem to look a bit flimsy. Ideally it needs to be to the cheaper end of the scale from $100 - $150 or under.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have already read this post: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3745/tripod-for-up-to-100&quot;&gt;Tripod for up to $100&lt;/a&gt; and it didn't answer what I needed to know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not interested in being able to use super heavy lenses (I don't have any) but it would be useful if it could support heavier lenses just in case!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am happy to try solutions that would have separate bodies and heads so I can taylor the tripod for future plans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3802" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-18T16:57:00.590" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T21:08:25.863" Title="Tripod that is mobile yet sturdy and light" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;tripod&gt;&lt;tripod-heads&gt;" AnswerCount="8" />
  <row Id="8952" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8951" CreationDate="2011-02-18T12:30:24.080" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A sturdy tripod is heavy, basically the heavier the better. On the other hand you want it to be easily moved, which means that it should be as light as possible. Naturally it can't be both, so you have to find a compromise between them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some materials that are relatively sturdy while being light weight, like carbon fibre, but they are also expensive, so that also conflicts with the price range that you desire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simply put, the heavy, light, cheap and expensive tripod that you would like, can't exist. You have to decide how important the different factors are in relation to each other to be able to pick the right balance between them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T12:30:24.080" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8953" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8951" CreationDate="2011-02-18T13:19:32.273" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;my choice is Manfrotto 055XPROB Pro Tripod Legs (Black)&#xA;see amazon&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Manfrotto-055XPROB-Tripod-Legs-Black/dp/B000UMX7FI/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1298034511&amp;amp;sr=8-8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;055XPROB&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been using it for 3 years and it handles all but my large lenses (its a little shaky for the 400mm) and it has a loop I can hook stabilizing weight to if I need it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check it out it may be a bit above your price range but it will serve you well for several years. I used to buy the cheap tripods for hoofing about in the woods but they rarely last a full season so I made the jump and haven't regretted the extra expense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3675" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T13:19:32.273" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="8954" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8951" CreationDate="2011-02-18T13:27:02.387" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sadly I think its a case of &quot;cheap, sturdy, portable... choose two&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I went with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.feisol.com/english/feisolen.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Feisol&lt;/a&gt; carbon fibre &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.feisol.com/english/CT3441S.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CT-3441S&lt;/a&gt; which both sturdy and portable (about 1kg and folds up quite small)... but around $500.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T13:27:02.387" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8955" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8939" CreationDate="2011-02-18T14:56:47.253" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A wide aperture is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; just about being able to take pictures in low light. It's about controlling the depth of field. Zooms tend to place all the emphasis on framing, and take away nearly everything else -- but the &quot;everything else&quot; is what generally separates a decent snapshot from a great picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As others have pointed out, there's also the simple fact that in terms of simple optical quality, a &quot;normal&quot; lens is (by far) the best bang for the buck on the market. Zooms that can even come close to keeping up are not only much more expensive, but also much larger and heavier.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T14:56:47.253" />
  <row Id="8956" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8951" CreationDate="2011-02-18T15:08:54.213" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For cheap, I have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Vanguard-MK-2-Tripod/dp/B00006JQLH/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=electronics&amp;amp;qid=1298041331&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Vanguard Mk-2&lt;/a&gt;. It's 0.9 kg (2 lbs), it's in aluminum, quite small folded, max height is just perfect for me (I am 6 feet tall). Fop 28$ on Amazon, it's hard to get better price for a small and light tripod. Cons, obviously it's lacking in sturdyness, but for long exposure, I use a remote controle like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Wireless-Control-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00007EDZG/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1298041679&amp;amp;sr=1-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon ML-L3&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vanguardworld.com/index.php/en/pv/products/photo-video/detail-1-4-171-458.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here's Vanguard Mk-2 official page.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3689" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T15:08:54.213" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8957" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8914" CreationDate="2011-02-18T15:11:05.883" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are you photographing paintings - relatively 2-d artwork - or sculpture? For paintings you will want to ensure the subject is perpendicular (flat-on) to the lens so that when one part of the painting is in focus, all of it should be in focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding your problems with getting focus - it sounds like the auto-focus might be failing due to it being too dark. If you can't change the ambient lighting try using a torch to highlight a spot in the center, then get your camera's center point auto-focus target to lock on using this spot. Assuming you have a static camera and tripod you can then switch to manual focus to keep this setting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, you need to read the manual for your camera to figure out how to set the aperture. Change to aperture-priority mode, set the aperture to something like f8 and see what kind of results you get. Digital film is relatively infinite so try playing around with the settings until you get something you're happy with. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2127" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T15:11:05.883" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8958" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8932" CreationDate="2011-02-18T16:10:06.923" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll just take this out into an actual answer, and the answer is 'NO', the crop factor doesn't make it a 1.5:1 ratio.  What it does change is the ratio of information &lt;strong&gt;per pixel&lt;/strong&gt; which would be an valid new designation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why?  Because the 1:1 ratio is a designation of how large the lens renders subjects on the focal plane whatever that plane is, it &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; an optical designation.  A 2cm square subject will be rendered as 2cm squared on either a FF sensor or a 1.5x crop sensor.  To suggest otherwise takes any meaning away from the designation since every body you put it on would effectively give it a different meaning.  A 1:1 ratio is still a 1:1 ratio on a 10D at 6MP or a 5DmkII at 22MP or a 1.5x crop body at 18MP.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It'd be like saying with film, if a different film emulsion had better resolving power it'd changed the magnification power of the lens, or that printing it on a larger print did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T16:10:06.923" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8959" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8960" CreationDate="2011-02-18T16:14:36.970" Score="7" ViewCount="154" Body="&lt;p&gt;I see tripods that are metal, carbon fiber, basalt, and even wood.  What are the features and/or drawbacks of each of these?  What factors should be considered when choosing what material they want in a new tripod?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-18T16:32:03.233" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T19:24:58.750" Title="What are the benefits/drawbacks to various tripod materials?" Tags="&lt;tripod&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8960" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8959" CreationDate="2011-02-18T16:34:17.037" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Basalt refers to the source of carbon fiber. So, I would bunch these two into one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Carbon fiber and basalt have an excellent weight to rigidity ratio&lt;/strong&gt;. In other words, it gives the same strength for less weight. The process of creating carbon fiber is complex and has to be woven into tubes using several layers (5-8). This gives it its main disadvantage which is cost. The second disadvantage is that in extremely cold temperature, carbon fiber shatters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Metal is relatively cheap to produce.&lt;/strong&gt; Very strong tripods can be made of metal but they will be quite heavy. There are variations among metals. These include aluminium (lighter) and magnesium (stronger).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also hybrids where some tubes are carbon fiber and some are metal and others where tubes are made of both materials. These are designed to offer a compromise between the two classes of materials.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In summary:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The more carbon fiber, the highest the cost.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The less carbon fiber, the lower the cost.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The more metal, the higher the weight.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The less metal, the lower the weight.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T16:34:17.037" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8961" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8951" CreationDate="2011-02-18T17:10:22.217" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's always the thinking outside the box crowd answer too:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://news.smugmug.com/2011/02/15/the-making-of-a-gigapixel-image/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://news.smugmug.com/2011/02/15/the-making-of-a-gigapixel-image/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He basically used a 5 gallon pail and some lumber to build a mobile platform for his camera. The results are pretty impressive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T17:10:22.217" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8962" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8951" CreationDate="2011-02-18T17:13:09.240" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you don't need &lt;em&gt;height&lt;/em&gt;, you could get a beanbag tripod, like from www.thepod.ca.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not positive, but I &lt;em&gt;believe&lt;/em&gt; this is the tripod I have: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Dolica-AX730P105-73-Inch-Proline-Tripod/dp/B001MYL1B0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/Dolica-AX730P105-73-Inch-Proline-Tripod/dp/B001MYL1B0&lt;/a&gt;  .  It is sturdy enough for me, and gets the viewfinder to within an inch of my eye height when fully extended.  If I don't extend the legs, it is fairly sturdy in brisk winds, but it wobbles a bit when I make it taller if it's windy.  I can tell it won't last forever, but I wasn't ready to spend $700 on a tripod when I got it (and I'm still not sure I'd really make use of a $700 tripod), so it seemed like the right choice for me.  I believe that you can take the head off and maybe even replace it with a different one, but I haven't really tried.  Also, it has a quick disconnect plate, which is pretty handy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T17:13:09.240" />
  <row Id="8963" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8951" CreationDate="2011-02-18T17:21:24.673" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could try the &lt;a href=&quot;http://joby.com/gorillapod&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gorillapod&lt;/a&gt; (it has been mentioned in the post you've indicated). You can fasten it to different surfaces &amp;amp; it is fairly steady from my experience in using one. It is ultraportable (in fact I can carry it in the small bag that holds my DSLR). There are quite a few varieties available too depending on the size of your camera-lens combination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the main limitation is that you need the surface to be at the right height &amp;amp; it is not very stable unless you fix it to a surface.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1977" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T17:21:24.673" />
  <row Id="8964" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8867" CreationDate="2011-02-18T17:30:45.820" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can get some pointers from the different &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_licenses&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Creative Commons licenses&lt;/a&gt; that are used on sites like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr&lt;/a&gt;. Some examples include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Attribution License&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Attribution-NoDerivs License&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Attribution-NonCommercial License&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Attribution-ShareAlike License&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1977" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T17:30:45.820" />
  <row Id="8965" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8985" CreationDate="2011-02-18T18:28:35.007" Score="26" ViewCount="1520" Body="&lt;p&gt;Somebody recently told me that I will be able to compose more pleasing pictures if I use the &lt;em&gt;Golden Ratio&lt;/em&gt; instead of the &lt;em&gt;Rule of Thirds&lt;/em&gt;, and that the Rule of Thirds was an inferior way to compose photographs. What is the Golden Ratio, how can I apply it to my photography, and why is it better than the Rule of Thirds?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-01T08:10:10.637" LastActivityDate="2011-05-01T08:10:10.637" Title="What is the 'Golden Ratio' and why is it better than the 'Rule of Thirds?'" Tags="&lt;composition&gt;&lt;composition-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="12" />
  <row Id="8966" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8951" CreationDate="2011-02-18T18:29:39.747" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I went with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fs%3Fie%3DUTF8%26x%3D0%26ref_%3Dnb_sb_ss_i_5_10%26y%3D0%26field-keywords%3Dgorillapod%26url%3Dsearch-alias%253Daps%26sprefix%3Dgorillapod&amp;amp;tag=bradfordbennc-20&amp;amp;linkCode=ur2&amp;amp;camp=1789&amp;amp;creative=390957&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Joby Gorillapod&lt;/a&gt; as a solution. It is small and light. When I want to take a picture I wrap/attach it to a sturdy object. Have worked well for me as a compromise when I don't want to haul around my heavy tripod (which isn't that solid but was cheap).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1901" LastEditorUserId="1834" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-19T21:08:25.863" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T21:08:25.863" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8967" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8965" CreationDate="2011-02-18T18:38:24.473" Score="18" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Essentially the Rule of Thirds is a simplification of the Golden Ratio. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;golden ratio&lt;/a&gt; is about 1.62, but for photography, we'd typically write its inverse, of .62. There is a whole host of stuff on this ratio, but let me just say that it's significant in terms of beauty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rule of Thirds actually comes from this same source, it's just an approximation of the Golden Ratio Rule. The rule of thirds would have a ratio of .67, which is pretty close to .62. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of the same tricks that apply to the Rule of Thirds apply to using the Golden Ratio.  Rather than explain them all again, I'm going to point you to &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/521/what-is-the-rule-of-thirds&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bottom line is, if you have an exact third line drawn, you should go slightly to the inside of it, and it'll be a slightly more pleasing location than the exact third point would be. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="3956" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-19T15:25:25.400" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T15:25:25.400" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="8968" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-18T18:56:35.373" Score="4" ViewCount="164" Body="&lt;p&gt;Over the past weeks, I've been trying to get all of my color issues worked out. Getting closer, but I'm not there. I've calibrated my monitor with a friend's calibrator and that helped. I'm using the profiles provided by the local processor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's close. How close depends on the viewing angle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I'm thinking IPS monitor might be a good next step.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Googling around, I see that I could get an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-TC-L32U22-32-Inch-1080p-HDTV/dp/tech-data/B00391Z83G&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;32&quot; IPS based TV for $400&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that IPS based 22/23&quot; monitors run $250-$300, this seems like a lot more monitor for not much more money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the faults in this logic?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="98" LastEditorUserId="98" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-20T07:03:21.277" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T07:15:02.527" Title="Could I use an IPS based TV to edit photos in a color-calibrated environment?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;monitors&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8969" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8968" CreationDate="2011-02-18T19:05:34.793" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The technology is much the same. LCD TVs usually have tuner circuitry (you probably guessed that part) and audio -- and are usually much lower resolution than an equivalent (or smaller) monitor would be. Televisions are usually 1080p max resolution (which, if I recall correctly, is 1920 by 1080 pixels). Smaller sets are often only 720p -- that's 1280 by 720 active pixels. Sure, they're big and bright and have wide viewing angles, but if you have to spend twice the amount of time scrolling (or can see only a small fraction of what you'd see on a computer monitor at the same zoom level) you lose a lot of utility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T19:05:34.793" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8970" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8980" CreationDate="2011-02-18T19:07:30.917" Score="8" ViewCount="404" Body="&lt;p&gt;Maybe I'm wrong, but I notice that Nikon's newer lenses don't have an aperture ring. For example, an older AF 35 mm f/2D is now replaced by AF-S DX 35 mm f/1.8G, or AF 50 mm f/1.8D is replaced by a newer AF-S 50 mm f/1.4G.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I never used a D-type lens, but I believe that it is much easier to rotate the aperture ring on the lens than pressing a specific button then rotating the wheel on the DSLR body when you need to adjust the aperture (and it always annoyed me to do it this way, since I often change aperture and I can't do it while keeping the camera at my face with a finger on a shutter button).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why is the aperture ring removed more and more from the Nikon lenses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2236" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-19T23:46:39.840" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T23:46:39.840" Title="Why aperture ring is removed from new lenses?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;lens-design&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8971" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8977" CreationDate="2011-02-18T19:08:55.770" Score="3" ViewCount="78" Body="&lt;p&gt;Using spot removal with 100 opacity, one can &quot;clone&quot; little disks out of troubled images. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a recent shot, I have a long thin line that needs cloned out. Doing this with Photoshop would be easy, but doing this using the remove spot in light room would be super tedious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is it possible to do this completely in light room without making a ton of little disks?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T19:20:38.457" Title="Is it possible to do non-disk-shaped clones in lightroom" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;post-processing&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="8972" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8965" CreationDate="2011-02-18T19:09:28.717" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a lot of &quot;magic numbers&quot; in math, lots of folks are familiar with Pi for example. In this case, the number in question is Phi. Where it comes into visual arts like Photography is that you can construct a very graceful spiral shape that mathematically approximates Phi. Since that curve is viewed as being very graceful and classically beautiful, the argument is that that ratio itself must be, so we should use it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Fibonacci_spiral_34.svg/500px-Fibonacci_spiral_34.svg.png&quot; alt=&quot;Fibonacci spiral&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;(public domain image from wikipedia)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So how can you use that ratio in your photography? Just like the RoT says to put interesting features of an image on the 1/3 marks of the image, here there is a magic mark you can use for composing your image, it's just a little more difficult to measure. It is easiest to see it in a simple 2D line:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/Golden_ratio_line.svg/200px-Golden_ratio_line.svg.png&quot; alt=&quot;line segment example&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;(another public domain image from wikipedia to explain the ratio in 2D line form)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The golden ratio works out as follows: A + B / A == A / B == 1.6180....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, in simple english: the ratio of the little part to the big part, is the same as the big part to the whole thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a SECOND way you can leverage the golden ratio, and that's by image AREA. There's a classical image that demonstrates this, but I can't find it online for the life of me, and there's just a ton of folks that tried to mimic it, but didn't understand it... so searching for the image with google image search is utterly pointless. But here's a thought exercise to explain it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The image is a simple leaf laying on the grass, or a brightly colored Koi swimming in a dark pond. Some small element on a larger area with a striking visual difference, be it color, texture, whatever. Let's use the fish as our example. Say that in the area of the print, the fish occupies 10 square inches total area. The rest of the image then would need to be sized such that it satisfied the above ratio. So let's say roughly 16 square inches. The two together then are roughly 26 square inches; so if you print the image as a 4x6.5&quot; print then your koi will occupy the golden ratio of the image and will be, in theory, classically proportioned and beautiful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;More reading on the ratio at wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-18T19:37:24.247" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T19:37:24.247" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8973" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8970" CreationDate="2011-02-18T19:12:03.113" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The aperture is controlled via controls built into the camera these days so it has become redundant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T19:12:03.113" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8974" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8970" CreationDate="2011-02-18T19:13:59.367" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is cheaper to omit the aperture ring.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nikon's higher end DSLRs have front and back control wheels, so you can have one dedicated to aperture (no need to press a button first) Even on their lower-end DSLRs, in aperture priority mode you can vary the aperture using the rear thumbwheel without pressing a specific button.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2520" LastEditorUserId="2520" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-19T19:39:52.720" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T19:39:52.720" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8975" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8965" CreationDate="2011-02-18T19:15:18.607" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The golden ratio being important to photography is a bit of a myth to be honest. The value is the only number whose reciprocal is exactly 1 less, and it has a few interesting mathematical properties see cabbey's answer for more details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Supposedly you find the golden ratio all over the human body, and the proportions of a &quot;beautiful&quot; face (Tom Cruise is often used as an example) all follow the ratio 1.61803399 but when you evaluate the results closely turns out that the features only approximately follow the ratio. And given enough measurements of any face you'll find lots of measurements that are about 1.5 times each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psychologists have done experiments where they have shown people rectangles with varying proportions and asked which they found more pleasing. Rectangles whose ratio was the golden ratio were not rated any more pleasing overall. I'll see if I can find the reference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="3956" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-19T15:25:32.327" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T15:25:32.327" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="8976" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8926" CreationDate="2011-02-18T19:19:09.190" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;We lost a Xerox 8550 to third party 'ink' actually wax.  Color reproduction was bad at best and the print heads were irreparably damaged... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3939" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T19:19:09.190" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8977" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8971" CreationDate="2011-02-18T19:20:38.457" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, what you're describing is not currently possible with the feature set in Adobe Lightroom 3.  The only cloning-type tool is the spot removal tool, which as you note, is a round shape.  One can change the size of the tool but it's always a circle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While Lightroom can (and does) handle a bulk of many photographers' editing functions, cloning is one of the the reasons why I'll pull an image into Photoshop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T19:20:38.457" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="8978" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8926" CreationDate="2011-02-18T19:20:47.553" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've an Epson C62 and can buy 8 cartridges (4 black 4 colour) for less than £20GBP inc p&amp;amp;p. I just pop them in and the Epson status manager moans because it wants Epson cartridges, I just ignore and merrily print away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've also got an HP C4480 and just waiting for the Think ink to become available for this...I hope!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3940" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T19:20:47.553" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8979" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8959" CreationDate="2011-02-18T19:24:58.750" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Carbon Fiber&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;rigidity: 3 (very rigid)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;vibration dampening: 3 (great vibration dampening)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;weight: 3 (very light weight)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;cost: 1 (very expensive)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Basalt Fiber&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;rigidity: 3 (very rigid)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;vibration dampening: 3 (great vibration dampening)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;weight: 2.5 (light weight)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;cost: 2 (expensive)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(The main differences between basalt fiber and carbon fiber is basalt is cheaper to produce, thus the tripods are less expensive, but not as strong as carbon so the tripods created using basalt are ever so slightly heaver and can hold ever so slightly less.  Though some of those tradeoffs are surely exacerbated by the manufacturer by having the overall build quality of the CF tripod be higher in order to justify the greater expense of the carbon fiber tripod)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Aluminium&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;rigidity: 2 (rigid)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;vibration dampening: 1 (bad vibration dampening)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;weight: 1 (heavy)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;cost: 3 (cheap)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Wood&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;rigidity: 1 (not rigid, but depends on wood)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;vibration dampening: 2 (ok vibration dampening)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;weight: 1 (heavy)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;cost: 3 (cheap)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as vibration dampening and rigidity in general, the more material used in the construction the more rigid and dampening it'll be, relatively.  Generally a CF tripod will be more rigid/dampening than an aluminium tripod but a 100lb solid block of aluminium with a head mounted on it will win that contest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T19:24:58.750" />
  <row Id="8980" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8970" CreationDate="2011-02-18T19:25:23.117" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's now more common to control aperture through the camera. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The mechanical aperture ring adds cost, mechanical complexity which can lead to equipment breaking, and it can be confusing to users (if it's set to something other than the smallest aperture many cameras will give a confusing error on a lot of modes). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also prevents Nikon from putting a seal on the lens mount, which helps weather sealing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3478" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T19:25:23.117" />
  <row Id="8981" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-02-18T19:51:36.933" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This tag indicates that the question is about a piece of &lt;a href=&quot;http://opensource.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;open source software&lt;/a&gt; such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gimp.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Gimp&lt;/a&gt;, or Linux. Or the author is specifically searching for an open source solution to the problem at hand, instead of using a commercial software product.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-18T19:59:07.583" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T19:59:07.583" />
  <row Id="8982" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-02-18T19:51:36.933" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Tag for questions relating to the use of free and open source software instead of closed commercial software." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-18T19:56:24.090" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T19:56:24.090" />
  <row Id="8983" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8577" CreationDate="2011-02-18T20:05:14.170" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I keep a setting of manual neutral (5000K) white balance for questionable lighting. This records what the camera &quot;sees&quot; without modifying the color. Then it's easy to adjust the white balance in the raw images. I realize this may not be conventional, but it works just fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T20:05:14.170" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="8984" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8906" CreationDate="2011-02-18T20:11:09.143" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Modern lenses are designed to be &quot;idiot proof,&quot; else they generate too many returns and warranty repairs. It's a bad idea, but I have seen (and even done, on occasion) lens changes while the camera is on with no ill effects. Image stabilization doesn't need to be turned off on modern lenses (unless specifically stated in the documentation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Panasonic released a Micro 4/3 macro lens last year that even rattles when not on the camera. Panasonic sent a notice saying not to worry, this is normal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T20:11:09.143" />
  <row Id="8985" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8965" CreationDate="2011-02-18T20:12:15.357" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several good and very thorough technical answers, so I'll try to provide some practical usage of these two guidelnes. Neither rule is &quot;better&quot; or &quot;worse&quot; than the other...both are simply general guidelines of composition. A simpler way to compare the two is as so:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Rule of Thirds is a grid division into even thirds (33/33/33).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  The Golden Ratio is a 60/40 division.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  The Golden Ratio leads to the intersection if important diagonals. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When composing a scene, there is nothing that says you can't apply both rules. Dividing a scene into 9 cells on a 3x3 grid is easy and quick, and many camera viewfinders/LCD's already present us with such a grid that we can work with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Golden Ratio is a little harder to use, however when you use it to align your primary subjects (such as a facial portrait), it can lead to the most pleasing compositions. To borrow from @cabby's fibonacci spiral image, you can also view it as so:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/E7CwT.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note the point of convergence of the red and green lines. That particular point is the key point when using the Golden Ratio in photography. The simple rule here is to start from one side of the image, and visualize a square starting from that edge. Bisect that square along a diagonal. Bisect the entire image from the opposing corners, and place the key element of your key subject at the intersection of those bisecting lines. In the case of a portrait (where this rule is commonly used), you would want to place the eyes right around the point of intersection. You can also use this rule to photograph still subjects. It should be noted that the Golden Ratio is infinitely divisible (as you can see in the spiral image above), so you could identify multiple points of intersection for sub areas of a photograph, and place key still subjects at those points. You also have the option of following the spiral, and placing key subjects at the intersection of any two lines and part of the spiral curve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T20:12:15.357" />
  <row Id="8986" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8803" CreationDate="2011-02-18T20:20:01.567" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Image quality can be adversely affected if the camera is on a tripod, or if the focal length is out of bounds of what the IS system &quot;expects.&quot; For example, some cameras and/or lenses recommend disabling IS for macro photography. But in the tests I've tried, it hasn't made a significant difference and it's usually hard to see &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; degradation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T20:20:01.567" />
  <row Id="8987" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2300" CreationDate="2011-02-18T20:44:39.660" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently a Rainbow Imaging wireless remote that works well on a GF1. I have not tried all the interval programming yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/RainbowImaging-Panasonic-DMC-FZ50K-DMC-FZ30S-DMC-FZ30K/dp/B003TE34U2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/RainbowImaging-Panasonic-DMC-FZ50K-DMC-FZ30S-DMC-FZ30K/dp/B003TE34U2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2011-02-18T20:44:39.660" />
  <row Id="8988" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8965" CreationDate="2011-02-19T02:19:59.710" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is a real world example. I took this shot last night and the way I framed it landed on the Golden Section. I have cropped both images to maintain the same field of view, as pictured. The original was slightly larger but still landed on the GS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/0PIrf.png&quot; alt=&quot;Golden Section Example&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now what happens when you crop to create a composition on the rule of thirds?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Y419U.png&quot; alt=&quot;Rule of Thirds Example&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me, both have merits, though I'm a sucker for the Golden Section. In the Thirds example, he's a little &lt;em&gt;too far&lt;/em&gt; left to really nail the composition. That's totally my opinion though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see that I prefer to frame my shots using the golden ratio even if it's competely in my head (maybe it's golden because it comes to me naturally haha). I think to compose with either isn't so much an issue of correctness, but more of personal taste.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ypaYM.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Sq5sZ.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the band, Amy Meredith, by the way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastEditorUserId="609" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-19T04:51:51.543" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T04:51:51.543" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="8989" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8970" CreationDate="2011-02-19T03:23:16.667" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am pretty sure that the initial motivation was cost reduction. Note that Canon has made that transition years ago (about 20), when the current EOS system was released with the EF lens mount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As mentioned before, except for the entry level DSLRs, there is a small wheel control next to the shutter button that lets you change aperture pretty fast and conveniently. One probably gets used to it very quickly, and it looks like it is actually easier to operate than an on-lens ring.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, a few times in the past I really wished Canon had left the aperture ring in place. This was when shooting macro using some of the cheap lens reversal/extension techniques. With these, the lens is not directly mounted on the EF mount, but rather mounted using non-electrical extension tubes, or even reversed. This way, there is no control on the aperture and the DoF is minimal and extremely difficult to work with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T03:23:16.667" />
  <row Id="8990" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9003" CreationDate="2011-02-19T04:54:05.197" Score="2" ViewCount="469" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just got a Canon 40D body, and was about to get &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-105mm-USM-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000AZ57M6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon's 24-105L lens&lt;/a&gt;. I hear people raving about the lens, and it all made sense until I saw a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon24105mmL_with_400D_XTi/verdict.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cameralabs' review&lt;/a&gt; of the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So don’t buy the EF 24-105mm expecting&#xA;  an upgrade in optical quality alone or&#xA;  you may be disappointed. Where this&#xA;  lens really scores over&#xA;  general-purpose EF-S lenses is in&#xA;  terms of build and mechanical quality&#xA;  ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I'm contemplating getting a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-18-135mm-3-5-5-6-Standard-Digital/dp/B002NEGTT2/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1298090253&amp;amp;sr=1-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;18-135&lt;/a&gt; for a 3rd of the price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd be interested to hear from somebody who had some experience with the lenses, and not just read some reviews (like I did).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1834" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T12:48:46.507" Title="IQ gain from Canon's 18-135 to 24-105L?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;image-quality&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="8991" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8941" CreationDate="2011-02-19T04:59:40.153" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're interested in the DIY route, I enjoyed this article, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/Canon_1ds_pinhole.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/Canon_1ds_pinhole.html&lt;/a&gt;, by someone who really went all out in creating their pinhole lens -- he even gave it a red &quot;L&quot; ring!  (From a more practical standpoint, his longer lens also keeps outside dust a little further from the sensor.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T04:59:40.153" />
  <row Id="8992" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2078" CreationDate="2011-02-19T07:11:18.983" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;the first time I noticed hot pixels in my camera (an old Olympus 3000Z) was in a night sky shot.  I never tested for the presence of dead pixels, but I assume it also has some too.  dead and hot pixels are present in all pictures my camera takes, and now that I know where they are, they are the first thing I see in some of my pictures.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that, in writing a tool that corrects then, one must use this knowlegde: location and intensity of dead and hot pixels in a set of pictures.  if I had to choose a tool, I would axpect it to let/require me (to) provide this information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the main problem I see in correcting non raw pictures is that jpeg compression induces compression artifacts around the defective pixels.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;IMO the compressing software in the camera is the best place where one has the chance to reduce the impact of defective pixels.  once the data has been compressed, the task is a lot more complex.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;still IMO, the second best place for dead and hot pixels correction is in the software you use to collect pictures from the camera on your computer.  this software &quot;knows&quot; the camera and &quot;knows&quot; that the pictures have exactly those defective pixels and are still unhandled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;so, if you don't want to correct defective pixels by editing each of your pictures by hand, file a feature request for the software you use to gather pictures from your camera.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;if you're using the GIMP, check for example this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.farcrydesign.om/GIMP/HotDot.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;hot dot fix&lt;/a&gt; script.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3952" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T07:11:18.983" />
  <row Id="8993" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4570" CreationDate="2011-02-19T07:11:27.033" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use a large aperture!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you get close to the window and focus far away but open the lens as wide as possible (I'm talking like f/1.4 here, not f/3.5) any dirt on the window will blur away, and may not even be visible depending on the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here I focused to infinity then stuck my thumb (which is hopefully a lot larger than the dirt on your windows!) in front of my lens and took consecutive photos at f/1.4 and f/4.  At the wider aperture you can actually see &lt;em&gt;through&lt;/em&gt; my thumb to the objects on the window sill.  This was on a crop body (30D); I imagine the effect would be even more pronounced on a full-frame camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/xwoJN.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;f/1.4 to f/4 comparison with object immediately in front of the lens&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This technique is less helpful with glare and reflections, though it will help a little.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, a fast, sharp-wide-open lens is expensive and is probably only available as a prime, which is the major downside to this technique.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Hint: this technique also works well on the baseball diamond: stick your f/2.8 telephoto right up to the chain-link fence (as close as you dare without scratching the lens).  At the widest aperture the chain-link fence will start to blur away, although it won't disappear completely; if you shoot centered in one of the diamond-shaped gaps in the fence, the blurred fence makes a just-barely-visible frame, like a setting-appropriate vignetting effect).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T07:11:27.033" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8994" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8996" CreationDate="2011-02-19T07:36:52.310" Score="13" ViewCount="413" Body="&lt;p&gt;On my camera, between the mode dial and the flash, there is a white theta symbol.  I've also seen it on review sites in pictures of other cameras, often in different locations but always near the pop-up flash.  Why is it there, is it useful, and if so, how?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fYoTa.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T07:43:30.277" Title="What does the theta symbol near the flash represent?" Tags="&lt;body&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="8995" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8997" CreationDate="2011-02-19T07:42:18.763" Score="9" ViewCount="322" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to get a really nice photo album for myself, without going through some middleman. Why do so many companies require that I be a &quot;professional photographer&quot; before they'll talk to me?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example of several I've found while searching:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://asukabook.com/prices.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://asukabook.com/prices.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.pictobooks.com/html/sign.php?menu=signup&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://www.pictobooks.com/html/sign.php?menu=signup&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lifetimealbums.com/contacts&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lifetimealbums.com/contacts&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this sort of a buddy thing, where they want to make sure the middlemen don't get undercut? Like maybe why would I pay my photographer $500 for an album, when I could buy it direct for $100?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-19T21:15:25.710" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T22:19:24.737" Title="Why do some photo albums companies only allow &quot;Professional Photographers&quot; to buy them?" Tags="&lt;professional&gt;&lt;printed-album&gt;&lt;flush-mount&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="8996" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8994" CreationDate="2011-02-19T07:43:30.277" Score="34" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This indicates the plane that the image sensor lies in, so you can use to calculate the exact distance between your subject and your &quot;film&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T07:43:30.277" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="8997" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8995" CreationDate="2011-02-19T07:55:40.483" Score="19" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They don't have the time/patience to deal with amateurs/brides.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They don't want to get in the middle of any copyright issues by dealing with images from someone who may not actually own the rights to have the assembled into a book.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I honestly suspect #1 is the prime reason. They price their services with the assumption that they have a very minimal amount of back and forth so they can get the images and design choices in a bundle, do the work and hand it back. They don't have the time budgeted to go back and forth with every random consumer that wants their one album. They'll happily invest the single time effort to train a pro how to submit work to them, knowing that once they've done it they'll be able to get album after album in from the pro in a consistent format and be able to turn it around in a set amount of effort that they built their pricing around. Pros that prove to not meet that expectation will get dropped. Either explicitly and directly, or just by having their work de-prioritized to the point they get the hint and go somewhere else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(disclaimer, I'm talking from a general feeling in the industry, not about those three in particular.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T07:55:40.483" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8998" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8990" CreationDate="2011-02-19T08:12:15.977" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have neither lens (feel free to downvote me since I'm not answering the question you asked, I won't mind, promise. But it's not clear to me that you're asking the right questions).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The paragraph above the one you quoted implied that shooting both at f/8 will show little difference in IQ.  This is true when comparing many (if not most) lenses.  But the only time &lt;strong&gt;I&lt;/strong&gt; shoot at f/8 is for waterfalls or scenic vistas; anything else within 100 yards I shoot wide open.  Are you the same (do you care more about wide-open performance or stopped-down performance)?  If so, is f/5.6 acceptable?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know this isn't a lens-recommendation forum, but... what other lens(es) do you have? What focal lengths do you prefer (do you ever shoot between 18 and 24? Between 105 and 135?)?   What apertures?  What weather conditions?  Why do you think you want IQ (large prints? pixel peeping? resized-for-the-web 1024x768 images?), and against what lens are you hoping to gain it? Have you thought about, in the same price range as the 24-105/4L, the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS, which I've heard is very sharp? The EF 24-70/2.8L? An EF 17-40/4L plus an EF-S 55-250/4-5.6 IS?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In defense of the decision you're considering: last summer I thought long and hard about getting a 70-200/4, with or without IS, then chickened out and bought the 55-250/4-5.6 IS.  It was a lot cheaper, and had IS, and wasn't big and heavy and white, and I don't make any money off my photographs, so it was a lot easier for me to justify the cheaper lens.  A lot of the pictures I take with it aren't nearly as sharp as I'd like, but some are, and (in bright daylight) it's taken a couple of my favorite pictures!  Still, though, I've looked at a lot of pictures that I've taken with it and wondered to myself, &quot;what &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; have been if I'd gotten a 70-200...?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T08:12:15.977" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="8999" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6352" CreationDate="2011-02-19T09:48:58.627" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you do not have a solar filter, you may stick a piece of 35mm film (or two pieces, if the sun is very bright) film in the front of the lens. This, however, means that you should not look through the viewfinder, as the film will not block the infrared radiation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using this method, I got the picture below (after a bit of color correction in GIMP).&#xA;I used Helios 58mm lens on a 1.6x crop DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/6008/5323417132f34aaf489b.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/6008/5323417132f34aaf489b.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3922" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T09:48:58.627" />
  <row Id="9000" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8990" CreationDate="2011-02-19T09:54:27.633" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've not got either lens, but I've been looking around for a while, as I'm after the 24-105 myself.  I've never heard the 18-135 described as much more than an upgrade for the kit lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some links from my favourite review site:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-24-105mm-f-4-l-is-usm-lens-review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-24-105mm-f-4-l-is-usm-lens-review.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only reason for getting the 18-135 over the 24-105 would be if you can't afford, or justify, the extra expense of the L lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3739" LastEditorUserId="3739" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-19T10:34:45.470" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T10:34:45.470" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9001" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8990" CreationDate="2011-02-19T10:32:24.770" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As always, comparing L lenses to &quot;normal&quot; lenses is a process that can lead to something called &quot;L-disease&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I would definitely go for the L lens. Not because it's &lt;em&gt;supposed&lt;/em&gt; to be better, but because it &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;. Whatever reviews may tell you (I especially like The Digital Picture, which you have links to in Poldie answer - but some may think it's too biased), the L lens will always have superior build quality, better bokeh, better sharpness and better contrast than a &quot;normal&quot; lens. This is going to be tough to see at, say, f/8, but at f/4 everything would be almost as clear as at f/8 in the L lens, while on the others maybe not (to see this, on the Digital Picture, there are tons of sharpness charts where you can compare your lenses at almost all apertures).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, as much as the 18-135 can be a good general purpose lens (wider range, probably lighter weight than the 24-105 L), that little L really makes the difference in the long run, especially in terms of build quality. Again, one might argue that a lens like the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a great lens and should be made L. But that's a whole new discussion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(In general, for lenses, the more you spend, the more you get)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3943" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T10:32:24.770" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9002" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8698" CreationDate="2011-02-19T10:56:17.663" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is a HQ &lt;a href=&quot;http://aperture.maccreate.com/2011/02/17/video-tutorial-aperture-3-library-fundamentals/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;video tutorial&lt;/a&gt; about Library fundamentals which will also help you understand the differences and possibilities of Project, Album, Smart Album, Light Table, Book and Slideshow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2807" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T10:56:17.663" />
  <row Id="9003" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8990" CreationDate="2011-02-19T12:48:46.507" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a 24-105 L and it is an excellent lens. The build quality is superb which makes it heavy but the L series lenses become an asset as a result of their build - it will last.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The image quality is also excellent. Check out the digital picture review linked to above. Whilst Andy says some will say he is bias (for a long time I think he has only reviewed Canon gear) - the bias is somewhat irrelevant when you're comparing Canon to Canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 18-135 covers a longer range, typically this isn't a good thing IQ wise in zoom lenses (with some exceptions). I haven't used this lens though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check out this link which contains comparison images of a lens test chart with both lenses. Set the focal lengths and apertures to comparable values. To me, at a quick comparison, the 24-105 looks to have significantly improved IQ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&amp;amp;Camera=453&amp;amp;Sample=0&amp;amp;FLI=0&amp;amp;API=0&amp;amp;LensComp=678&amp;amp;CameraComp=474&amp;amp;SampleComp=0&amp;amp;FLIComp=1&amp;amp;APIComp=0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&amp;amp;Camera=453&amp;amp;Sample=0&amp;amp;FLI=0&amp;amp;API=0&amp;amp;LensComp=678&amp;amp;CameraComp=474&amp;amp;SampleComp=0&amp;amp;FLIComp=1&amp;amp;APIComp=0&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My advice? Invest in the best quality lenses you can afford to. If you buy L or at least don't buy EF-S, they will last forever and transcend any bodies you own be they cropped or full frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T12:48:46.507" />
  <row Id="9004" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8995" CreationDate="2011-02-19T12:53:00.953" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a separate issue that &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8995/why-do-nice-photo-albums-require-professional-photographers-to-buy/8997#8997&quot;&gt;cabbey&lt;/a&gt; didn't touch on, and it is a common one in services to business -- hiding prices from consumers helps their business customers in a big way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If Company X will create an album for me at price Y, then why are you charging me so damned many Ws for the album?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All your customer can see is the cost to have the album produced. You might be able to get away with shipping and sales tax, but forget about cropping, resizing, retouching, colour correction, business administration time associated with the album or any of the other expenses you may have -- never mind the markup. With weddings in particular, the photographer's customer sees him/her snapping pictures for a couple of hours (even if you're there all day and well into the evening, it only registers as &quot;a couple of hours&quot;) -- nobody sees the week of work that goes into creating the package that's delivered at the end of it all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T12:53:00.953" />
  <row Id="9005" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9019" CreationDate="2011-02-19T15:54:23.413" Score="2" ViewCount="99" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2021/on-line-photo-challenges&quot;&gt;On-line photo challenges&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just wondering what are some online photography competitions ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3859" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T20:40:11.950" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-19T18:53:48.787" ClosedDate="2011-02-20T00:54:12.107" Title="what are some online photography competition" Tags="&lt;competitions&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9007" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9005" CreationDate="2011-02-19T16:38:38.610" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One that I know about is called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sharetheexperience.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Share the Experience&lt;/a&gt;, it's a contest by the National Parks Service. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T16:38:38.610" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-19T18:53:48.787" />
  <row Id="9008" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9009" CreationDate="2011-02-19T16:54:59.853" Score="23" ViewCount="3174" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a lens with a small but significant looking scratch near the center. But I don't see any difference in the photos. Where does the imperfection show up? How important is it to get the piece of glass replaced? (It's a Panasonic 14-45mm micro 4/3 lens).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T18:38:04.300" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T18:38:04.300" Title="What is the effect of a scratched lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-damage&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="9009" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9008" CreationDate="2011-02-19T17:14:54.540" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most of the time, the scratch will show up as a small and perhaps even unnoticeable amount of softening in the image. (It will largely be &quot;outvoted&quot; by the vast majority of the light, which is being focused properly.) In high contrast situations, though, or when the light is striking the lens directly, there may be a significant mount of flare washing out the image and reducing overall contrast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The scratch will probably also make the lens element more fragile, so it will likely to be easier to crack that lens element if the lens is dropped or given a good bump -- that depends on the type of glass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fixing it isn't a critical emergency unless it interferes with the kinds of pictures you want to take, but if you plan to keep the lens for a long time, it would be a good idea to get it repaired at some point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T17:14:54.540" />
  <row Id="9010" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9008" CreationDate="2011-02-19T17:17:43.577" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lens work surprisingly well with dirty or scratched front element. &lt;a href=&quot;http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is a very good article about it, someone deliberately ruined a lens to test this effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/PRnCe.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;REALLY ruined lens, we mean it&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Probably you'll see problems with lens flare, but the biggest disadvantage is the resale value, it will be more difficult to sell a scratched lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="507" LastEditorUserId="94" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-21T20:41:57.387" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T20:41:57.387" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9011" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9008" CreationDate="2011-02-19T17:42:28.217" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not as much as you'd think:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.10.30/front-element-scratches&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.10.30/front-element-scratches&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depends on the damage, and the aperture.  That's the reason I stopped using UV filters; I'd rather get the best IQ possible and risk damage which can be ignored or fixed if required.  Damage to your lens might affect the resale value; by the same token, as a buyer you could pick up a bargain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3739" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T17:42:28.217" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9012" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9005" CreationDate="2011-02-19T18:13:29.880" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Photography Review&lt;/a&gt; has a very active set of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;challenges&lt;/a&gt; with the winners chosen by the participants and other site members.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3486" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T18:13:29.880" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-19T18:53:48.787" />
  <row Id="9013" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4718" CreationDate="2011-02-19T18:17:29.130" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use a small aperture their is less chance of light bouncing around inside the lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3960" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T18:17:29.130" />
  <row Id="9014" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8926" CreationDate="2011-02-19T18:26:55.663" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have an Epson SX515W and an official Epson CMYK pack (one of each) is... £35! I bought 3 sets of CMYK for £12 and in terms of colour reproduction they were more than fine for my Graphic Design Degree printing. They were fine until yesterday when my printer decided it couldn't recognise them and wanted a real one. I think it was just the printer being funny.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-19T21:21:47.683" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T21:21:47.683" />
  <row Id="9015" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9005" CreationDate="2011-02-19T18:41:51.837" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpchallenge.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DP Challenge&lt;/a&gt; have regular competitions with a variety of topics to help you focus the type of picture you take.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3959" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T18:41:51.837" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-19T18:53:48.787" />
  <row Id="9016" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8814" CreationDate="2011-02-19T19:05:08.597" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When shooting close-ups of flowers, I sometimes use pipe cleaners to hold the flower in place, or to pull other flowers away from the subject flower.  They're flexible, hold their shape, don't damage the flowers, and they're cheap!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3486" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T19:05:08.597" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-19T19:05:08.597" />
  <row Id="9017" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8814" CreationDate="2011-02-19T19:42:15.600" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When photographing some insects that are dangerous(such as brown recluse spiders) I keep them in drinking glasses to allow me to light well, and restrict them. This works well because the camera can go into the glass also and get very close for macro. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, sometimes I want to do other than top down shots, so I have to set the glass on it's side and put the camera parallel to the table. This leaves a small gap, and certain adventurous critters can escape, crawling onto my camera and sometimes out. To avoid this I have used a dirty sock to wrap around my lens, making it closer to the width of the opening so the spider is sealed in. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another solution is to use a cloth coffee cozi on my lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will post a picture of the setup later, and a picture shot with it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T19:42:15.600" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-19T19:42:15.600" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9018" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9005" CreationDate="2011-02-19T20:02:48.663" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;ePHOTOzine (http://www.ephotozine.com/) has at least 1 photography competition every month with some pretty good prizes such as photography gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3962" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T20:02:48.663" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-19T20:02:48.663" />
  <row Id="9019" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9005" CreationDate="2011-02-19T20:40:11.950" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just a word of warning on online competitions, a lot of them are simply rights grabs, meaning they run the competition to simply get hundreds or thousands of photographs to use as they wish without paying for any rights or license fees :(  Most important thing is to &lt;B&gt;READ THE SMALL PRINT!!&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I entered an online competition with Microsoft and did not read the small print, the image I entered did not win anything, however Microsoft did use it in an email that went out to every Hotmail user world-wide, so several million people.  I got no tag line, no recognition at all and no compensation ... in the small print Microsoft now own copyright on my image to use as when they wish, how they wish, in any media and at any time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some online competitions are good and fair, just not many, so READ THE SMALL PRINT before submitting any entries to any competitions if you care about both your copyright to your images and your moral rights on the images too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1410" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T20:40:11.950" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-19T20:40:11.950" />
  <row Id="9020" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8814" CreationDate="2011-02-19T21:36:58.173" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've used black t-shirts as flags, when doing closeup work with off camera flashes, to help control bouncing light in a small apartment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1806" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T21:36:58.173" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-19T21:36:58.173" />
  <row Id="9021" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8995" CreationDate="2011-02-19T22:19:24.737" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I go through this question quite a bit at work (I am not a pro photographer), where we sell business to business not to end consumer. There are additional challenges as Cabbey outlined with doing work directly with the end consumer. The main one being the amount of training in the process that is needed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said that I can say that you can find some solutions that are still cost effective with a little looking around. Going to your local camera store, not a box store but a real camera store with accessories and tools for photographers, they can often provide some of these services. There are also online solutions that have some good resources for printing albums. My personal favorite is SmugMug as they have the tools to assist with the process as well as having options for what provider you want to use. You can check it out at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.smugmug.com/prints/catalog/AB#More&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.smugmug.com/prints/catalog/AB#More&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer - I am not a SmugMug employee just a very satisfied customer that knows a few of the employees. If you would like a referral code, just let me know I will share mine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1901" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T22:19:24.737" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9022" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9008" CreationDate="2011-02-19T22:59:38.730" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One point that hasn't been made is that it's pretty inexpensive to fix the front element of a lens, usually in the realm of $200. It's not a huge concern in general, but it if you are serious, it's worth getting fixed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T22:59:38.730" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="9023" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8932" CreationDate="2011-02-19T23:44:21.667" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Okay, after talking with Shizam in the chat room, I think I'm going to take a stab at this questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Really, this is a question of semantics. The most commonly used definition of 1:1 means that the size of the object is the size of the image on the sensor. With a smaller sensor, the object will thus be smaller. But it's still a 1:1 really by the definition that I've applied. It will appear like a 1:1.6 image would if a full framed camera were to take the same image. If the pixel size on a full framed camera were the same, then the image would appear exactly the same. If the pixels were larger on the full framed (Most likely), then the image resolution will be slightly higher on the crop sensor, but still look the same as if it were cropped. Really what happens when you are using a crop sensor is that you are throwing away the outer edges of a full framed camera, but aside from that, everything else remains the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The minimum focal distance will remain exactly the same on the cropped sensor, BTW. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-02-19T23:44:21.667" />
  <row Id="9024" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9027" CreationDate="2011-02-20T00:32:54.947" Score="12" ViewCount="277" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that when I want to calculate Depth of Field by hand one of the variable elements in that equation is the Circle of Confusion. In layman's terms, what is the &quot;Circle of Confusion,&quot; how do I calculate it, and is there any other ways that it applies to my photography aside from calculating DoF?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T01:11:40.910" Title="What is the &quot;Circle of Confusion?&quot;" Tags="&lt;optics&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="9025" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9028" CreationDate="2011-02-20T00:40:11.457" Score="9" ViewCount="79" Body="&lt;p&gt;There have been some recent discussions about a very similar subject in the chat room, but I thought I'd ask here. Are there any businesses that as a photographer you sign on with them, they do the marketing entirely for you, they find clients for you, they take a cut of your profit, and let you be on your way? Just curious if such a group exists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T01:58:56.250" Title="Are there any businesses that will do all of the marketing of photography for you?" Tags="&lt;business&gt;&lt;marketing&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="9026" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9024" CreationDate="2011-02-20T00:48:37.593" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;a lens is actually in focus at one point. as you move further from that point, the image blurs more. The amount of blur at a given distance from the focal point depends on focal length of the lens and the distance to the focal point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The circle of confusion is the largest area blur that is indistinguishable from a point. It's dependent upon sensor resolution and film acuity. It also depends on viewing conditions and print size. The numbers you see used in calculations are just accepted standards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It tends to be an easier concept for large format photogs as they deal with focal planes more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3914" LastEditorUserId="3914" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-20T00:54:10.597" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T00:54:10.597" />
  <row Id="9027" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9024" CreationDate="2011-02-20T01:11:40.910" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is often a source of confusion which most people get backwards, so understanding this is delicate:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When a light entering a lens is not in focus, a point on the subject is focused into a circle on the image plane (sensor/film). &lt;strong&gt;This circle IS the circle of confusion.&lt;/strong&gt; The more out of focus a point is, the larger the circle of confusion becomes. This &lt;strong&gt;depends on focus distance, subject distance and aperture&lt;/strong&gt;. It does not depend on the capture device resolution or viewing conditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The circle of confusion used in DOF calculations is the &lt;strong&gt;maximum allowable circle of confusion&lt;/strong&gt; which is considered in acceptable focus. This is &lt;strong&gt;dictated by the medium size and viewing distance&lt;/strong&gt; because of the way human vision resolves details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historically, most DOF tables use a standard COC which corresponds to unaided viewing of an 8&quot;x10&quot; at 14&quot; away for someone with 20/20 vision, although I am sure other magic numbers are used sometimes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T01:11:40.910" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9028" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9025" CreationDate="2011-02-20T01:29:16.567" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There sure are. There are literally hundreds of companies which perform these sorts of services, they're called 'Photographer's Agents' or 'Photo Reps' and they're analogous to agents and agencies that actors, directors, models, etc. would hire to manage their business for them.... In fact, a great many agencies 'overlap' between photography and filmmaking, so it's not unusual to see talent rosters that include both photographers and directors (and this is often how photographers such as Michael Bay and David LaChapelle make the transition from photography into the world of filmmaking)...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The one thing that these agencies won't do is your last point: 'and let you be on your way'... I've never heard of a situation (and doubt such a situation exists) where a photographer isn't exclusively tied to an agent or agency via a multi-year contract.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not necessarily a 'comprehensive' list (it's quite a dynamic industry and agents/agencies are always going under, merging, etc.), but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2008/01/15/photographer-agents-reps/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this list&lt;/a&gt; will give you a jumping-off point on the range of agents and agencies that are out there, as well as the level and quantity of talent that they represent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-20T01:58:56.250" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T01:58:56.250" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9029" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8814" CreationDate="2011-02-20T04:34:17.723" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Today's odd item to be used, an ironing board. I needed to adjust the height of an object to reduce the reflections from the room. Worked perfectly and relatively easy to work with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1901" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T04:34:17.723" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-20T04:34:17.723" />
  <row Id="9030" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8814" CreationDate="2011-02-20T05:48:09.980" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A bag of beans makes a good portable tripod.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T05:48:09.980" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-20T05:48:09.980" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9031" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-20T05:52:32.570" Score="0" ViewCount="169" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1783/how-to-focus-in-complete-darkness&quot;&gt;How to focus in complete darkness&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I take a photo of landscape (or something beyond the range of the focus assistance lamp) at night, it's hard to see when the manual focus is in focus. Are there any techniques for this that work well?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T05:52:32.570" ClosedDate="2011-02-20T09:22:04.803" Title="How do you focus in the dark?" Tags="&lt;focus&gt;&lt;night-shooting&gt;" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9032" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-20T09:24:11.507" Score="0" ViewCount="189" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/380/what-is-the-difference-between-ef-and-ef-s-lenses&quot;&gt;What is the difference between EF and EF-S lenses?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I read &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/496/what-do-all-those-cryptic-number-and-letter-codes-in-a-lens-name-mean/508#508&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;EF: Electronic Focus&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;EF-S: Short-Back Electronic Focus&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is the difference significant? How much will it matter in practical?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Background:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am trying to choose between the Canon EOS Rebel T2i options available on internet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003MAKXMA/ref=cm_sw_su_dp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Amazon&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&amp;amp;A=ShowProduct&amp;amp;sku=680673&amp;amp;is=REG&amp;amp;Q=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;B&amp;amp;H&lt;/a&gt; are way costly as compared to this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adorama.com/ICADRT2IK2B.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adorama deal&lt;/a&gt;, but it says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;... with EF 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Image Stabilized Lens&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="64" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T14:04:02.560" ClosedDate="2011-02-20T17:02:55.753" Title="What is the difference between a Canon EF and EF-S lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="9033" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="380" CreationDate="2011-02-20T09:37:52.347" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The EF-S lenses are specially constructed for cameras with smaller sensors, so it can't be used on a camera with a full frame sensor. That back lens of an EF-S lens is further back, so the mirror of a full frame camera would hit the back of the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An EF lens is made to cover the full frame, so it will also work on cameras with smaller sensors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The image circle of an EF-S lens is smaller than the one of an EF lens, to correspond with the smaller sensor. When you use an EF lens on a camera with a smaller sensor, you will simply use a smaller part of the image circle. This has the positive side effect that it will reduce the vignetting significantly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally an EF-S lens is cheaper than the corresponding EF lens, as it can be constructed with smaller optical lenses, and it can make use of the extra space inside the camera given by the smaller mirror.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T09:37:52.347" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9034" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="380" CreationDate="2011-02-20T13:14:57.153" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Small sensor Canon DLSRs will accept both EF-S and EF lenses, but canon made it physically impossible to attach a EF-S lens to the full frame cameras (5D &amp;amp; 1Ds) (due to mirror interference as @Guffa points out). This makes the Ef lenses more versatile as they will work with all canon EOS cameras. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If canon ever make full frame sensors standard on its DSLRs your collection of EF-S lenses will be worth a lot less. This is probably part of the reason that there is no EF-S &quot;L&quot; lens. The LONG-term resale value of EF-S lenses are a bit more doubtful than EF lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3180" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T13:14:57.153" />
  <row Id="9035" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="380" CreationDate="2011-02-20T14:04:02.560" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;EF-s lenses are a slightly different format whereby the rear element sits closer to the lens, this is possible due to the smaller mirror with APS-C sensor. The distance from the back of the lens to the image plane is known as the back-focus distance, hence the s in EF-S standing for &lt;em&gt;short back focus&lt;/em&gt;. Other manufacturers have lenses designed for smaller sensors with appropriately smaller image circles but they don't have a different back focus distance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having the lens sit slightly closer does make it slightly easier to design wide angle lenses, however I've heard the reason Canon introduced EF-S lenses was so they could &lt;strong&gt;scale down existing lens designs&lt;/strong&gt; as a base for the optical design to avoid having to start from scratch. Hence the EF-S 60mm macro is a 1:1.6th scale EF 100mm macro etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's often said you can't use EF-S lenses on a full frame body (such as the 5D, 1Ds) but this is not strictly true. Canon use a different shaped rear baffle to physically prevent you mounting as the mirror could hit the lens and cause damage. However this can be removed to allow mounting, and since the rear element moves when zooming there are positions that allow shooting. Vignetting is a problem as EF-S lenses project a smaller image circle, but again the image circle can get bigger while zooming so some focal lengths work ok. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using an EF-S lens on a full frame body would be extreme however the 1.3 crop APS-H sensor of the 1D line is quite amenable EF-S lenses, and the Canon EF-S 10-22mm in particular. Whilst you can't go wider than 12mm, you do get a 12-22mm providing a sorely needed ultra wide option for the 1D. You do get some vignetting at 12mm, which can be fixed apparently if you Dremel off the filter threads :-O&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T14:04:02.560" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9036" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9038" CreationDate="2011-02-20T17:14:07.230" Score="7" ViewCount="168" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's the scenario: every so often our garden plays host to some small deer.  Naturally, I try to take pictures of them.  From inside the house, I can get a decent shot with full zoom on my camera.  The difficulty is that the kids also like to see the deer and one particularly wriggly child needs to be lifted up to be able to see them.  So sometimes I'm trying to take a picture one-handed with a wriggly child in the other arm.  Not the best conditions for a steady shot!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My camera has enough resolution that I could take a photo with a lower zoom factor and then crop it later and still have enough detail for a decent photograph.  So, given the above circumstances, which is going to provide me with the least blurred photograph: full zoom or least zoom with later cropping (which is what I mean by &quot;digital zoom&quot; in the title of the question)?  Note that I'm only interested in the blur on the deer itself, I don't care about the rest, and (for the purposes of this question) I want to focus (ha ha) on blur from camera shake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, due to having small child under one arm, in this circumstance I have the camera on &quot;P&quot; mode, letting it select the best aperture and shutter speed.  I guess that this might make a difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1422" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T21:20:26.587" Title="Digital zoom versus optical zoom for minimising camera shake" Tags="&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;camera-shake&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9037" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9036" CreationDate="2011-02-20T17:30:37.767" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The cropped photograph might appear less blurry as you have a lower resolution. Technically, however, both pictures are equally blurry. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Go with the optical zoom to get the best resolution. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2069" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T17:30:37.767" />
  <row Id="9038" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9036" CreationDate="2011-02-20T17:34:33.100" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming you crop to the same area and print to the same size, the amount of camera-movement blur should be indistinguishable between the two cases. Using a shorter focal length will decrease the impact by exactly the amount you have to crop and enlarge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it comes down to other factors. The most important (from the narrow viewpoint of camera-shake blur) may be that your zoom lens may allow a wider aperture at shorter focal lengths, which would let you speed up the shutter, reducing blur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in real use, I don't think that's necessarily going to make up for the decrease in resolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think what I'd do is ask the kids to let you take turns taking pictures and holding them. They'll appreciate looking at the pictures, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-20T19:12:28.653" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T19:12:28.653" />
  <row Id="9040" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9036" CreationDate="2011-02-20T18:32:28.047" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The previous answers got the basic point that the blur should be the same. There is another factor, which is the ability of the Image Stabilizer, if there is one, to cope with vibrations at different focal lengths. My guess is that, the IS will not be a factor, and the blur will be the same, but I may be wrong. You can only determine this with a controlled experiment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-20T21:20:26.587" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T21:20:26.587" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9041" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8537" CreationDate="2011-02-20T18:37:22.023" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the Sigma 85mm lens and I am using it on a Canon APS-C sensor camera, the Canon 30D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q1 - Does it work?  Oh Yeah! I have been so impressed with the performance, I consider it the best lens I own right now. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q2 - If you put this lens on a &quot;full frame&quot; camera, you get the normal 85mm photo. If you put it on your 60D, you get what appears to be a larger picture. It is a picture that is equivalent to one that you would get if you put a 135mm (there is no 136mm lens which is the actually length) lens on a full frame camera (not your 60D). The way this is figured is to multiply the focal length of the lens times 1.6 (the crop factor). So 85 x 1.6 = 136 (not 127.5 - that length is correct for Nikon APS-C cameras)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q3 - No suffering will take place.. the photos are simply amazing!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q4 - The HSM is the same as USM on a Canon lens, and it works just fine on a Canon 60D&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a web site that I created because I love this lens so much.. &lt;a href=&quot;http://sigma85mm.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.sigma85mm.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3987" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T18:37:22.023" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9042" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8965" CreationDate="2011-02-20T19:34:50.217" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Gosh, a question I can actually make a contribution to!  I'm quite astonished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Background: I am a mathematician.  The golden ratio certainly exists mathematically, it does appear on occasion in nature (though not as often as people think) and when it does occur then there are proper scientifically falsifiable theories as to why it occurs (the spirals on a pinecone are one example, I believe, though the spirals on a nautilus are not).  However, it is equally well known that if you take enough different measurements then you will find any number or ratio that you want to find.  Simply finding the golden ratio somewhere is not anything exciting.  Explaining why it should be there is the important thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to its presence in art, I have nothing to say.  I'm a mathematician, after all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that's by-the-by and has already been adequately covered in all of the other answers.  What I haven't seen yet is an image with the direct comparisons.  So here is one.  In the upper picture, the green lines are a third of the way in from the top left corner, the &quot;golden&quot; lines are the appropriate version of the golden ratio in from the top left corner.  As many have said, there ain't a lot in it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bottom picture refers to something I'm a little surprised hasn't been mentioned.  That is that the sensor size, and the size of the &quot;standard&quot; photograph, aren't in the correct ratio for the golden ratio to be correctly applied!  For a photograph to be taken seriously as &quot;having the golden ratio&quot; property, then I'm afraid that it would need to be sized in the ratio of 1:1.6180...  The standard photograph should thus be 4 inches by a shade less than 6.5 inches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Speaking purely speculatively, and ignoring the &quot;nature versus nurture&quot; aspect of this, I'd say that the fact that standard photographs are 6x4 says that we tend to prefer things that are a bit rectangular, but not too much, and so I would go along with a theory that placing the object of interest appropriate to the picture size makes for a more pleasing picture.  But the fact that we're happy with 6x4 pictures and there isn't a huge clamour for 6.4721x4 pictures shows that we're actually not that fussy and can't actually tell the difference between 0.666666 and 0.6180&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the pictures:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/xFc6i.png&quot; alt=&quot;golden ratio&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1422" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T19:34:50.217" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="9043" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9036" CreationDate="2011-02-20T20:11:45.697" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do you have a tripod?  Does your camera have either a remote shutter release, or a continuous shooting mode?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could set the camera on a tripod (if it's a light point-and-shoot camera, you can get a useful, several-feet-high tripod or a gorillapod or beanbag tripod that would fit on the window sill for around $20 or less) and turn on continuous shooting mode and just re-direct the camera every half-minute or so.  When you're done, just delete all the pictures that didn't turn out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T20:11:45.697" />
  <row Id="9044" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9036" CreationDate="2011-02-20T20:25:35.127" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most cameras have a wider aperture possible at shorter focal lengths - and vice versa. So, when you are fully zoomed in, you are probably shooting at a narrower aperture, which means that your camera either cranks up the ISO, or slows down the shutter speed, or both to get the right exposure. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, zooming out and shooting with a wider aperture will certainly present you with a better ability to shoot with a faster shutter speed (given that ISO doesn't change, and your camera does move to a wider aperture).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you may want to do (when your kids are not around) is to experiment with your camera settings. If your camera allows it, the best mode would be to shoot on ShutterSpeed priority mode. This means that you set the shutter speed (choose the slowest which allows you to take a non-blurry photo while moving about a bit) that will ensure motion freeze - typically 1/focal-length; and then let the camera decide on aperture and ISO (by setting the ISO on auto, if needed).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like some of the others said, the question is not zoom. The question is shutter speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3989" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T20:25:35.127" />
  <row Id="9045" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9046" CreationDate="2011-02-20T20:26:29.030" Score="5" ViewCount="115" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like to include location data in my photos, but none of my cameras have GPS built-in. Since I shoot in a lot of the same locations (home, the park, my parent’s house), I was hoping I could create a metadata preset in Aperture which would include this location info to streamline the process of adding the location.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, I don’t see anything obvious in the metadata preset management interface. Presets I’ve created from photos with location information don’t have anything which looks like a location, and Google has turned up nothing on the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is such a thing possible? It would be a huge time-saver.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edited to add:&lt;/strong&gt; I’m shooting RAW, and importing to Aperture, so using external tools wouldn’t help. I do use Trails when I walk around to shoot, but want to speed up my workflow for frequently-used locations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best answer so far seems to be Shizam’s, so I’m accepting it, though it’s not quite what I want. I suspect that I have to write some AppleScript (yuck) to do what I want, even though the facilities for managing location via AS seem very weak.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1905" LastEditorUserId="1905" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-21T20:42:04.703" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T20:42:04.703" Title="Aperture metadata preset with location" Tags="&lt;apple-aperture&gt;&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;workflow&gt;&lt;gps&gt;&lt;location&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9046" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9045" CreationDate="2011-02-20T20:38:38.707" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;They cleverly hid this functionality, to do what you want:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Select &lt;strong&gt;Metadata menu -&gt; Manage My Places&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Add your new 'My Place'&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Select the photos you want to geotag&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Select &lt;strong&gt;Metadata menu -&gt; Assign location&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pick from your remembered locations or use a new one&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Voila, and in the future you can just use steps 3-5 to assign that location to any further photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T20:38:38.707" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="9047" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9045" CreationDate="2011-02-20T20:43:29.167" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depending on how you shoot (RAW vs JPEG) one of the best options is to carry a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2336989,00.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;GPS tagger&lt;/a&gt; around while clicking photos, and simply tag all your photos pre-post processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I shoot RAW, and I have yet to come across a decent solution for RAW photos (which doesn't require an extra post processing step using software - the link I provided is for a device which doesn't require any software - it works directly on your memory cards).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other thing I do is tag my photos post-post processing using something like Picasa which makes it very fast and easy to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3989" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T20:43:29.167" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9048" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9049" CreationDate="2011-02-20T21:00:08.677" Score="2" ViewCount="183" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have an old Minolta Maxxum 7000i AF-SLR camera from early 90s. I have a complete set of lenses, filters, etc., I found out that Sony ultimately ended up buying Minolta, and developing their alpha cameras from Minolta cameras.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know it is a fat chance, but was hoping to find out if anyone has tried using the Maxxum lenses on the new Sony Alpha series?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3990" LastEditorUserId="3990" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-20T22:16:20.890" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T22:16:20.890" Title="Using Minolta Maxxum lenses with Sony Alpha" Tags="&lt;sony&gt;&lt;minolta&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="9049" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9048" CreationDate="2011-02-20T21:13:18.317" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes and they should all work. All of mine certainly do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first thing Sony did when acquiring Konica-Minolta's camera division is release DSLRs with the same mount. These were named &lt;em&gt;Alpha&lt;/em&gt; which is the same name Minolta used in Japan, they used the &lt;em&gt;Maxxum&lt;/em&gt; name in North America and &lt;em&gt;Dynax&lt;/em&gt; in Europe. In other words, Sony Alpha mount IS the Minolta Alpha/Maxxum/Dynax mount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that Sony offers two full-fame models, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A900&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=139&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A850&lt;/a&gt;. With these models, the field-of-view of your lenses will match exactly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They also have cropped-sensor models such as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=145&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A580&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=144&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A560&lt;/a&gt;, etc. With these models the field-of-view is affected by the 1.5 crop-factor. So a 50mm on one of these, will show the same field-of-view as a 75mm on your film camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that Sony also has non-DSLRs that use the Alpha mount. These are cropped-sensor cameras with a translucent mirror and electronic viewfinder (EVF) which are lighter than DSLRs and have special features like full autofocus during video recording and during 10 FPS continuous shooting. The flagship of these models is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/review.php?id=148&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sony Alpha SLT-A55&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T21:13:18.317" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9050" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9048" CreationDate="2011-02-20T21:22:04.403" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Minolta Maxxum lenses will work perfectly -- the Sony SLRs &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; Minolta (Konica Minolta) cameras; that division of Sony was acquired from Konica Minolta.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are only a couple of caveats, which I don't think will affect you. First is that the xi series of lenses will not work completely -- there's no way to connect the zoom and autofocus in the digital SLRs to maintain subject size. The xi lenses will still function as autofocus lenses with a manual zoom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, some third-party lenses will not work properly. It depends how well the maker reverse-engineered the electronics -- the Tamrons and Sigmas all seem to work from what I've heard, but I know &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8297/using-slr-lenses-on-dslr-cameras&quot;&gt;there have been problems with some of the cheaper off-brands&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apart from that, you should have no problems. Even the venerable 500mm f/8 reflector autofocuses as it should. And the 135 SFT still doesn't autofocus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T21:22:04.403" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9051" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9054" CreationDate="2011-02-20T21:52:46.913" Score="9" ViewCount="278" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; an ISO number affects the film sensitivity or a digital image, but I'm curious where did the numbers come from?  How come we talk about ISO 100, 200, 400, and so on instead of ISO 1, 2, 4 or some other arbitrary sequence of numbers that indicates the relative differences?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T10:10:39.167" Title="Where do ISO numbers come from?" Tags="&lt;iso&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9052" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9048" CreationDate="2011-02-20T22:08:37.887" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As long as the lenses are real Minoltas, you should be fine. Oh, unless you have a 200 f/2.8, a 100 f/2 or the 3x-1x Macro zoom. If you have any of these, don't even try to mount them to the camera -- just send them to me, because they really, really won't work! Honest! Just send them to me. Really! :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T22:08:37.887" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9053" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9051" CreationDate="2011-02-20T22:30:23.400" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it's a case of inflation. Apparently original Kodachrome has an ISO (or, ASA, the older standard from which the current one is derived) value of 6. Yeah, 6. So it started out with a very small rational series of integers, and now we just happen to be at an era in technology where the baseline is in the triple digits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's another standard, the ISO log scale, which was taken from the German &quot;DIN&quot; scale, and that one counts by third-stops, so ISO 100 is 21°, ISO 200 is 24°, ISO 400 is 27°, and so on. Also somewhat arbitrary, but inflation is less of a problem — ISO 102,400 is just 51°.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a tangentially-related note, it's really time to drop the false precision, as we already do with shutter speeds and with f-stops. We don't say &lt;code&gt;f/11.3137&lt;/code&gt;, and instead of &quot;ISO 25,600&quot; we should just say &quot;ISO 25,000&quot;, maybe written &quot;ISO 25k&quot;. (And 50k, 100k, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T22:30:23.400" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9054" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9051" CreationDate="2011-02-20T22:30:25.100" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's start with a magical history tour: when the the system we've inherited as linear ISO speed designations (the former ASA speeds) was developed, 25-speed film was pretty cutting-edge, high-speed stuff. Kodak's Panatomic X (the &quot;X&quot; was for &quot;extra high speed&quot; -- and it was ASA 160) was still the stuff of science fiction. There were at least two 25-speed films (and one that was slower than 25 when exposed and developed for continuous tone) on the market at the tail end of the Age of Silver, all from Kodak: Ektar 25 (later sold under the name Kodacolor Royal Gold 25), Kodachrome 25 and Kodak Technical Pan, which was generally shot at 16 or 20 for continuous tone black and white. A scale based on multiples of 100 might seem arbitrary, but what you're seeing is the tail end of a lot of technological advancement. It would not have been unheard of to use a film with a speed of 6 in the early days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The speed of a film was determined by a standard process. The film was exposed to a scene with a known luminance range, then developed (in a standard developing chemical at a standard dilution for a standard amount of time at a standard temperature) to attain a standard contrast (density) range on the negative or transparency. That, of course, meant exposing the film for different lengths of times and at different apertures so that the developed image would eventually fall into the standard contrast range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The contrast curve of the film was then examined to determine the amount of light required to make the minimum visible contrast difference between unexposed film (the &lt;em&gt;fog density&lt;/em&gt;) and the darkest dark that was actually recorded. It is that amount of light (or, rather, the inverse of that amount -- 1/amount) measured in now-obsolete non-metric units, that determined the film's speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The process hasn't changed a lot. The calculations (for film) now involve a lot of conversion constants so that measurements made using current standard units closely match the speeds that would have been calculated using the older methodologies. You can't just obsolete all of the existing cameras and light meters on a whim, you know. And the results are rounded to the nearest standard film speed (based on the familiar 1/3 stop scale -- 100, 125, 160, 200, 250, 320,...).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Digital &quot;film speeds&quot; are calculated to adjust which data are used from the recorded data set, and match the exposure values (aperture and shutter speed) that you would have used had you been using film of that speed. The camera may do all kinds of mathematical trickery to increase or reduce the apparent contrast range when producing a JPEG to give a particular character to their &quot;film&quot;, and may (depending on the camera) do a bit of analogue amplifying and bit-shifting in producing &quot;raw&quot; output as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this comes close enough for government work -- I'd really prefer to avoid posting a bunch of graphs and equations if I can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastEditorUserId="2719" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-20T22:42:02.293" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T22:42:02.293" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="9055" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9058" CreationDate="2011-02-20T22:31:16.137" Score="2" ViewCount="178" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi there,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm about to buy a wireless remote shutter release. However, all shutter releases that I saw so far are attached to the flash shoe and cover the build-in flash. Are there wireless remote shutter releases out there that allow me to use an external or build-in flash?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks,&#xA;Ralf&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3991" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T16:17:51.570" Title="How to use a wireless remote shutter release with flash?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;remote&gt;&lt;wireless-triggers&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="9056" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2754" CreationDate="2011-02-20T22:32:24.397" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm having what seems to be a similar problem.  However, in my case, it cannot be due to the exposure time because we're shooting in a dark room, where the only light source is a very high speed flash.  Of those suggested here, only the 'internal reflection' suggestion seems to make sense.  Any ideas on how this could be prevented?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3992" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T22:32:24.397" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9057" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7477" CreationDate="2011-02-20T22:42:04.877" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ooh! Through the power of random Wikipedia link following, I came across an answer to this question. There was a never-caught-on system for calculating exposure called the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APEX_system&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;APEX system&lt;/a&gt;, which uses &quot;&lt;em&gt;Ev = Av + Tv = Bv + Sv&lt;/em&gt;&quot; — where Av is aperture value and Tv is time value.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the scale used by Canon and etc. now is not the base-2 log scale required by APEX. So, while it's &lt;em&gt;likely&lt;/em&gt; this is where the term came from, I think it's actually {{citation needed}} if one is going to get really picky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Wikipedia article refers to &lt;a href=&quot;http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/#APEX&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article by Doug Kerr&lt;/a&gt;, which provides some interesting reading.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T22:42:04.877" />
  <row Id="9058" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9055" CreationDate="2011-02-20T22:56:17.423" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;they're designed to fit on the hotshoe because that's a handy place. It's pretty much the only place to mount stuff on cameras. You don't HAVE to mount it there. Velcro, rubber band, straps, use whatever to mount it where ever. Depends on how you're mounting your camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3914" LastActivityDate="2011-02-20T22:56:17.423" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9059" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9055" CreationDate="2011-02-20T23:17:40.010" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many cameras have an optical wireless remote release sensor. An optical remote is just a couple of $$'s (like this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dealextreme.com/p/jianisi-digital-slr-remote-for-canon-5577&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;example&lt;/a&gt;) and requires no special receiver to be attached to the camera. Of course, you generally need line of sight to the camera, or at least a good reflection from nearby walls or ceiling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-21T16:17:51.570" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T16:17:51.570" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="9060" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-21T06:25:26.583" Score="1" ViewCount="302" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why are the frames jerking? What SD cards can I use that won't have this problem?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3996" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-21T09:47:19.233" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T04:17:16.713" Title="Frames are jerking/dropping on Canon 550D during full HD recording, using a class 6 card. Are there better cards?" Tags="&lt;canon-550d&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9061" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9064" CreationDate="2011-02-21T06:35:05.637" Score="8" ViewCount="380" Body="&lt;p&gt;Obviously there are differences in everything, both optics-wise and mechanism-wise, but&#xA;I would like to know:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Are the materials used to construct sensors (disregarding sensor size) different at any level ranging from entry-level to professional-level cameras?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What is the impact of sensor size: do larger sensor sizes result in higher-quality images?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Are image differences due mainly to optics or sensors?  I've noticed that pro cameras produce very vibrant colors and very sharp images: does the lens or the sensor have a greater impact?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;With high-quality lenses, can entry-level and professional DSLRs produce equivalent pictures?  Or is a professional body required for the best images?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1980" LastEditorUserId="2910" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-21T12:34:09.317" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T01:11:06.973" Title="Difference in Sensor compared to entry level DSLR with pro or semi-pro DSLR ?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;body&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9062" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9061" CreationDate="2011-02-21T06:52:41.457" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The difference in size does make a difference in terms of image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the largest impacts is on the noise that an image gets on different sized sensors. Generally, the larger the sensor the less noise it has.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3989" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T06:52:41.457" />
  <row Id="9063" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9061" CreationDate="2011-02-21T07:33:28.290" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The materials are most probably the same, certainly when talking about cameras from the same manufacturer (chips are fabricated in the same process). If any, there may be a difference in the filter(s) in front of the sensor, but I doubt that. As @Vaibhav said, the size does count for the amount of noise which in turn &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; contribute to image quality in terms of sharpness and color vibrancy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T07:33:28.290" />
  <row Id="9064" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9061" CreationDate="2011-02-21T07:38:28.133" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends where you draw the line. Many &quot;pro&quot; level cameras use full-frame sensors, which are about twice as big in area as the APS-C sensors common in lower (including mid-range) dSLRs. This gives an advantage, because surface area is the best way to get more light, and more light is never bad. So, more expensive cameras will have an image quality advantage there. (With the corresponding tradeoff in size and cost as well.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, the basic technology is the same. These days, sensors are usually CMOS — the other leading option is CCD. These have various trade-offs, but both can produce great images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even when you get down to point &amp;amp; shoot cameras, we're still really in the same ballpark — CMOS and CCD, almost all using the same Bayer pixel layout. The main difference is that those cameras use very small sensors, so the technology is focused on enabling that. Pixel density is higher (which is generally bad). There are some sensor tricks like backlit CMOS which only show up in these small sensors — probably because the quality gain isn't worth the cost on a larger scale. As those technologies mature, they may be available on bigger sensors too — or maybe not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The vibrant, sharp colors you've seen from pro cameras are probably mostly because someone put a lot of time into making those images look good (both in the field and in post-production.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T07:38:28.133" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9065" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-21T07:57:24.610" Score="0" ViewCount="107" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6943/how-do-i-copyright-my-photographs&quot;&gt;How do I copyright my photographs?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am a freelance photographer who wants to know how to claim ownwership of my photos..i.e: i have a portfolio of nature scenes if taken photos of..i want to post them but am concerned about protecting my work...how do I copyright or claim a photo ive taken?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3998" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T07:57:24.610" ClosedDate="2011-02-21T18:15:43.607" Title="I want exclusivity of my photography" Tags="&lt;copyright&gt;" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9066" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-21T08:26:36.113" Score="3" ViewCount="115" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm currently comparing &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Polaroid-CZA10011-Instant-Mobile-Printer/dp/B001APNVTQ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Polaroid CZA10011 PoGo Instant Mobile Printer&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-SELPHY-Compact-Printer-4350B001/dp/B003YL412A&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon SELPHY CP800 Black Compact Photo Printer (4350B001)&lt;/a&gt;. I was wondering whether there's a photo printer out there that is as portable as the PoGo Mobile printer that has the quality of Selphy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3860" LastEditorUserId="3860" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-21T11:16:00.180" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T18:36:28.017" Title="What's the best mobile/portable photo printer out there?" Tags="&lt;printer&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="9067" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9045" CreationDate="2011-02-21T09:19:52.107" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have also been doing the same, which is taking a long time to add places to all my old photos. I have been looking for some way to make a custom button/applescript so I can quickly assign my most used places but cannot find one so for any new ones I take I try to make sure that I log my location.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since my phone is with me all the time I use an app called &lt;a href=&quot;http://trails.lamouroux.de/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Trails&lt;/a&gt;, which can log a trip and then I can email the track to myself and import that into aperture. I then just select the photos and drop them onto said path and all the places are marked by matching the times up (make sure the time on your camera is correct).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/using-aperture-3%E2%80%99s-places&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here is a guide for the auto assigning of places to a trail&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3802" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T09:19:52.107" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9068" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8684" CreationDate="2011-02-21T09:54:32.623" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is one of those rare cases where DIY won't save you enough to be worth the bother even if you're pinching pennies. Whether or not something like the &quot;barn door&quot; arrangement suggested by John Cavan would be effective depends on how long you intend your exposures to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The principle is simple enough, but the parts aren't going to bring you in at substantially less than, say, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=orion_mounts/~pcategory=accessorysale8/~product_id=09011/~sSearchSession=8a642458-bfbe-42d2-8e07-d25ca5d986cb&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Orion EQ 1 mount/tripod&lt;/a&gt;  plus the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.telescope.com/control/celestron/celestron-accessories/eq-1m-orion-electronic-telescope-drive-system&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EQ 1M motor&lt;/a&gt;. You might be able to DIY something with the motor alone -- that's the hard part. After that, it's just gearing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For something that's going to bring up the fainter stars, galaxies or nebulae, you're going to need either a very long single exposure or a number of merely long exposures to add together, and something driven by a sidereal clock is really the only way to get there. Home-rigging a mount shouldn't be that hard (if you have a couple of tripods, you can set the head of one tripod to match the earth's axis and mount the other tripod's head on that, with the tilt locked and the pan driven by the motor), but it may be worth spending the whole couple of hundred bucks to make it easier on you and foolproof to boot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T09:54:32.623" />
  <row Id="9069" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9061" CreationDate="2011-02-21T09:56:16.773" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;While new technology usually gets applied in high end cameras first, there's not necessarily any difference in the technology (and thus materials) used in the sensors of high end and entry level cameras.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;sensor size can have a positive effect, but doesn't have to. While cramming more elements into a limited space increases noise, spreading them out too much to create a physically larger sensor has its limits too and can lead to pixelation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;optics are vital. Far more important than sensors. Of course high end cameras may have higher quality filters and other things that sit in front of the sensor as compared to entry level cameras. But again, these things trickle down the line over time so the entry level camera you buy now is actually a lot more advanced than the professional level camera costing several times as much you could buy 5-7 years ago.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;yes and no. The camera has things which influence what you can do with it. For example high end cameras have faster triggers, faster electronics, allowing them to react more quickly and take pictures at shorter intervals. They also typically have better metering and focusing sensors and motors, allowing for greater accuracy especially in tricky lighting. And they tend to feature more options for manual control, thus allowing the photographer far more freedom. But if you were to use only the functionality available on the entry level camera, there's no reason you can't get a result that's very similar to what a professional level camera could get using the same lens and operator.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, given the same lens, the camera limits the expert while the beginner limits the camera :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-21T13:10:38.263" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T13:10:38.263" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9070" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9060" CreationDate="2011-02-21T10:03:59.087" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;you mean it's skipping frames? If so the camera simply runs out of memory trying to buffer frames as it's shooting them faster than it can write them to the card.&#xA;Getting a higher speed card may solve that problem, but eventually you will run up against the maximum speed the camera can write at (which I do hope Canon engineers took into account when they designed the camera).&#xA;Slowing down the frame rate you're shooting at (if you can do that) is also an option, but will of course cause the recording to be a bit jerky if played back at normal speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T10:03:59.087" />
  <row Id="9071" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9051" CreationDate="2011-02-21T10:10:39.167" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Technically, calling these numbers 'ISO numbers' in the context of digital cameras is wrong.&#xA;The ISO (and DIN and ASA) standards for film sensitivity can't be applied to digital sensors as they're bound to the physical medium of photosensitive film.&#xA;Correctly, these numbers should be called EI (for Exposure Index). They're also not applied quite consistently between camera manufacturers (or even camera models for a manufacturer) and don't quite match up with the actual ISO sensitivity for photographic film (iow, they're just an indication).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it weren't for over 100 years of history of photographers haven gotten utterly familiar with the ISO, ASA, and DIN standards, a new system of numbers for EI might well have been adopted as you suggest as logical.&#xA;But we're a conservative bunch (why do you think we still want cameras to look like they did in 1950? It's not just because the ergonomics work so well) and asking us all to leave our old familiar systems behind isn't going to make you many friends.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T10:10:39.167" />
  <row Id="9072" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9075" CreationDate="2011-02-21T10:10:45.553" Score="6" ViewCount="218" Body="&lt;p&gt;I currently have the Canon EOS 550D with the 18-55mm IS kit lens. I am primarily looking for greater telephoto reach, as I have found the 55mm length to be quite limiting at times (the 18 MP sensor helps in cropping, but the result would probably be much sharper on a longer lens). To this end, I was considering the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-200mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;18-200mm IS lens&lt;/a&gt; which would be a good general purpose replacement for the kit lens, versus the &lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;55-250mm IS lens&lt;/a&gt; that would give slightly greater telephoto reach while complementing the kit lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the pros &amp;amp; cons of each like optical quality, effort in changing lenses etc, considering the fact that the 18-200mm lens is almost 3x as expensive as the 55-250mm one? Also, are there any other Canon lenses to consider in this situation, like the 15-85mm, 17-85mm, 18-135mm etc?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that it's highly unlikely that I'll be printing photographs larger than A4 size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1977" LastEditorUserId="1977" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-21T11:04:13.847" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T12:25:13.777" Title="Which is a better upgrade\complement to the Canon 18-55mm IS kit lens - the 18-200mm or 55-250mm?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;upgrade&gt;&lt;kit-lens&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9073" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3919" CreationDate="2011-02-21T10:15:49.737" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most Manfrotto 190 or 055 series should be sufficient (depending a bit on the head).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T10:15:49.737" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9074" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="613" CreationDate="2011-02-21T10:24:54.513" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, you need a gray card for exposure measurement &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; white balance correction. &#xA;If you are only interested in custom white balance, you may use a white piece of paper that is lit under the same condition as your subject. Sometimes, you may even use a thin piece of paper (white toilet paper) you put on your lens and take a picture you will later use for your in-camera or for RAW post-processing custom white balance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not know how a white piece of paper may help you in exposing properly, but I guess you may step up and get the same results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here you may find more info on this subject, including the stepping up the exposure and using the white card instead of a gray one:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=58677&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=58677&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3922" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T10:24:54.513" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9075" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9072" CreationDate="2011-02-21T10:41:35.283" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 18-200 might be more expensive, but I don't think I've ever seen a lens getting &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/400-canon_18200_3556is&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;worse&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_18-200_3p5-5p6_is_c16/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;reviews&lt;/a&gt;. (There are two reviews linked there, and they're two of the friendlier ones.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 55-250mm, on the other hand, gets rave optical reviews. The worst thing anyone has to say about it is that, well, is mostly plastic. Really good, solid, well-built plastic, but plastic. And there's some vignetting wide-open that's down to &quot;wont notice it in the real world&quot; levels once you've stopped down one stop. It's sharp, there's only the tiniest amount of barrel distortion at the 55mm end, chromatic aberration is at the sub-pixel level, and once you've taken the aperture off of &quot;full blast&quot; the light distribution is very even.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given a choice between the two, go for the 55-250mm, no question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T10:41:35.283" />
  <row Id="9076" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9072" CreationDate="2011-02-21T12:25:13.777" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are considering paying for the 18-200, I suggest you take a long hard look at the 70-200 f/4L instead. It is among the cheapest of the pro-level &quot;L&quot; Canon lenses, and is a very, very good piece of glass. The main drawback is the f/4 aperture; against this it is relatively small and light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T12:25:13.777" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9077" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9079" CreationDate="2011-02-21T12:29:22.423" Score="5" ViewCount="136" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon 1000d, and the standard lens EF-S 18-55mm. Recently I was out taking photos and I've noticed that if I zoom in fully, the lens can't auto focus. I can still take shots using manual focus at full zoom though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It will just try and find focus constantly buzzing back and forth for as long as I hold the shutter. I was in a bird hide and was holding the shutter and moving the camera around and it was doing it constantly until I pointed it at something nearby.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone have any idea on why this might be happening? I'm really worried that I've damaged the lens in some way. Or does my kit just need cleaning? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any advice would be great. My camera lives in a camera bag when not in use, so I don't think it could be dust. I also have a clear filter to protect the shooting end of the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2806" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T14:26:26.793" Title="Can't auto-focus at full zoom" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="9078" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9061" CreationDate="2011-02-21T12:39:11.030" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The sensor in a &quot;pro&quot;, top of the line DSLR camera is much the same as the sensor in the simple entry-level DSLRs. It it sometimes bigger, but this is very far from given, there are pro models with APS-C sensors and there are advanced amateur cameras with full-frame 24x36mm sensors too so sensor size is neither here nor there. They may be more picky in terms of quality control for the sensors that go into the most expensive cameras, that's about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The big difference is... well, everything except the sensor really. The pro camera body tends to be more solid, is better weather-proofed, has more buttons, wheels and knobs for immediate control, has more configuration options in its software, has a more sensitive (and more expensive) autofocus sensor array, has a bigger and brighter viewfinder and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T12:39:11.030" />
  <row Id="9079" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9077" CreationDate="2011-02-21T12:54:02.210" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are unable to focus on any subject at any distance when fully zoomed, then it could certainly be a hardware issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is more likely, however, that the autofocus is simply not able to find a clearly defined subject in the area where you are shooting.  This can happen for a variety of reasons, so I'll just list a few common ones:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;too close to subject - lenses have a minimum focus distance, which should be listed on the lens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;low contrast - the AF system needs to have a high enough contrast subject that it can tell where the edges of objects are&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;low light - this causes low contrast&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T12:54:02.210" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9080" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9061" CreationDate="2011-02-21T12:57:05.563" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1.Are the materials used to construct sensors (disregarding sensor size)&#xA;  different at any level ranging from&#xA;  entry-level to professional-level&#xA;  cameras?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The sensor materials are effectively the same among the different entry points in the camera market.  There are currently a few different sensor techs, but where you step into the market doesn't effect which one you end up with.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2.What is the impact of sensor size: do larger sensor sizes result in&#xA;  higher-quality images?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This is &lt;em&gt;THE&lt;/em&gt; big reason to choose a &quot;pro level&quot; camera for many folks.  The sensors are MUCH larger, allowing more light to hit the sensor and as a result higher ISO with less noise and generally MUCH cleaner images.  Weather sealing, ruggedness, ease of USE are important as well but don't effect image quality the same.  Additionally, alot of these other points are starting to show up at a lower price point like the Nikon D7000 which is much, much cheaper than their top of the line.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3.Are image differences due mainly to optics or sensors? I've noticed that&#xA;  pro cameras produce very vibrant&#xA;  colors and very sharp images: does the&#xA;  lens or the sensor have a greater&#xA;  impact?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Its a combination of the sensors, good lighting, expensive glass, &quot;vision&quot;, and post processing.  Adding additional lighting helps with the quality of your photos in MANY, MANY cases and should be on your list to investigate, assuming you're not a landscaper (in which case its about waiting for the right light).  The sensor helps -  but in the exact same, well lit scene (not dark), with the same lens, the difference in sensor may not be fully apparent.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4.With high-quality lenses, can entry-level and professional DSLRs&#xA;  produce equivalent pictures? Or is a&#xA;  professional body required for the&#xA;  best images?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In all but certain situations, yes - upgrading your glass is the best way to get amazing images (as far as things you can buy guys).  The difference between good glass and bad glass is FAR greater than the difference between entry level sensors and &quot;pro&quot; sensors (full frame) in nearly all cases.  Good glass and a good tripod (something I still wish for) will help get that high quality look your after.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other part of a &quot;pro&quot; level camera thats going to affect the sharpness of your image is the AF tracking system.  &lt;em&gt;Most&lt;/em&gt; pro level cameras have auto focus systems that track much faster so that if you're shooting a moving target, you're much more likely to nail the focus.  That said, even among the top level, there's still quite a bit of variance.  Camera manufactures make different models with different purposes in mind - as such, not every cool piece of super duper tech ends up on all their new - even new pro - cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-21T22:07:16.613" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T22:07:16.613" />
  <row Id="9081" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-21T13:05:51.520" Score="3" ViewCount="395" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am currently using Photoshop Elements 9 and the functions such as Lomo Effect and  Color Curves do not enable me to produce images with colour such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/wayden/3830730057/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this example on Flickr&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/villeda/2397992350/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is missing out on the function which you can adjust the individual colours, ie Red, Green, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone please suggest any free online programs which has &quot;Cross Processing&quot; function so as to produce vintage yellowish pictures?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe you can also give me a brieft description of the pros and cons of the program?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3788" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-19T02:56:40.940" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T02:56:40.940" Title="What is a good, *free* online &quot;Cross Processing&quot; Program?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;technique&gt;&lt;cross-processing&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="9082" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8814" CreationDate="2011-02-21T13:15:07.147" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Used the back of an ACDC poster, $2 plastic floor (from home depot) and an inverted stool to construct a lightbox for some quick product shots for a catalog :)&#xA;Have also used baking trays and car sun screens as reflectors.. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="55" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T13:15:07.147" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-21T13:15:07.147" />
  <row Id="9083" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9066" CreationDate="2011-02-21T13:50:53.140" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You might take a look at Zink printers. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.zink.com/buy-ZINK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.zink.com/buy-ZINK&lt;/a&gt; . They don't use standard paper, but it is a very good printer, and is ultra mobile.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T13:50:53.140" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9084" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9249" CreationDate="2011-02-21T13:56:31.647" Score="2" ViewCount="94" Body="&lt;p&gt;Take &quot;Auto Enhance&quot; found under &quot;Quick Fixes&quot; for example, I can only see that there's Enhance, Levels, and Edge Sharpen done, and no way to see the specifics, i.e. by Enhance are there any contrast or saturation changes, if so by how much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Am I missing something or is this just simply not possible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1635" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-21T17:29:38.510" LastActivityDate="2011-02-25T09:34:40.787" Title="How can I tell precisely what is being adjusted with a preset in Apple Aperture?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;apple-aperture&gt;&lt;presets&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9085" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8814" CreationDate="2011-02-21T14:01:49.230" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;they don't call a Swiss Army Knife a Swiss Army Knife for no reason, it really is :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tighten loose screws, cut bits of string, cut away a few blades of grass or dead leaves when shooting flowers and plants, etc. etc.&#xA;Or use it to clean the grime from under your fingernails before meeting a client.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't leave home without one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T14:01:49.230" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-21T14:01:49.230" />
  <row Id="9086" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9060" CreationDate="2011-02-21T14:23:13.443" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Honestly I would not expect this to happen. If the card is too slow, every camera I've seen it happen with simply stops recording.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In all likelihood, you are seeing dropped frames on playback. This means you computer (or some component of it like the graphics card, chipset, memory or I/O) is too slow. If you are trying to playback the movie directly from the card, then the connection will usually be too slow (unless you use a fast card reader).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a way to check: Do you notice the dropped frames when you play the video in-camera? If not, then it is your computer. If yes, then you should try multiple subjects, to see if it happens consistently or not. It may be possible that the encoding used on the camera does not have enough bit rate under certain conditions (movements with lots of fine details for example).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, on some Canon cameras you can take a picture DURING video recording. AFAIK, this always results in skipped frames, up to 1 second.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T14:23:13.443" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9087" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2946" CreationDate="2011-02-21T14:23:42.133" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;RAW is pretty much a direct dump of sensor output to storage, so #1 and/or #2 are the obvious choices (though I think Canon does some manipulation of data before writing their RAW, and maybe so do others).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good way to increase the sensitivity of a sensor is to increase the voltage applied over it. This both increases the output for given input, and increases noise (which are both indeed observed to happen when upping the EI on a digital camera).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've difficulty in envisioning how you'd apply some kind of light amplification before the sensor though that can be adjusted on the fly (sensors do have microlenses over each element to collect light to that element, which determines the element size and have a small, but fixed, effect).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Option 3 would modify the RAW data after collection, which is the same as modifying the RAW file after reading it from the camera.&#xA;Some cameras (see above) might attempt this, especially to filter out noise. Most will not and leave it to the user operator (in fact years ago there was a battle between Canon and Nikon where Canon seemed to produce much more vibrant images compared to Nikon, which were found to be caused by Canon applying in-camera manipulation to the RAW data, which caused quite some uproar from users who didn't want their cameras to do that).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mind all this is for mid/highend DSLRs, with entry-level models there's probably a lot of in-camera filtering and enhancement going on, but people using those aren't typically RAW shooters and their RAW modes may well be clean too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T14:23:42.133" />
  <row Id="9088" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9077" CreationDate="2011-02-21T14:26:26.793" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 18-55 is at f/5.6 at the long end. Not coincidentally, f/5.6 is the smallest aperture that Canon's AF system (except the top of the line models which keep going until f/8) will actually work at - officially, it simply quits trying if the lens is f/6.3 or darker. Some superzoom f/3.5-f/6.3 lenses cheat, and lie, and say that they are f/5.6 to keep the AF trying. In short, the AF does not have an easy time of it at f/5.6, and the 1000d is a low-end camera with a not particularly brilliant AF system. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A lens with a larger aperture, like a 17-50 f/2.8 style zoom, would give more reliable autofocus. A camera body with a more fancy autofocus system would have an easier time of it with the 18-55. As it is, you must simply deal with it by either supplying more light in the form of an external flash which will project a grid-pattern onto the subject to give the AF something to bite on (this only works at close range, obviously), or do your best to point the autofocus at something that is distinctive and has good contrast against the background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T14:26:26.793" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9089" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9060" CreationDate="2011-02-21T14:41:01.180" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In theory, a class 6 card should be sufficient, however, depending on the manufacturer, the ratings are not completely reliable.  If you use a Class 10 card, or a high quality class 6 card, then you should be fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T14:41:01.180" />
  <row Id="9090" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="867" CreationDate="2011-02-21T14:46:20.253" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Learn the system, it's a way of seeing. It'll make you a better photographer overall, even if you never shoot black and white.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Search Amazon, there are books about using the zone system with digital cameras and colour photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T14:46:20.253" />
  <row Id="9091" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9081" CreationDate="2011-02-21T16:16:57.247" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can use the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.pt/url?sa=t&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;cd=1&amp;amp;ved=0CCAQFjAA&amp;amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gimp.org%2F&amp;amp;ei=Io9iTY3OB8Wy8QPYt5nxCA&amp;amp;usg=AFQjCNHSDGuHdZTSGB1PiMFTSSn1zSDRCw&amp;amp;sig2=Fbt5H7E22fNY1G7hyIzx3g&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gimp&lt;/a&gt; - it's free software, but not a webapp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't have the great adobe usability experience, but if you know the specific adjustments you want to make, you can make it work for you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could also try paint.net, but i don't know if it has the degree of control you need. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3462" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T16:16:57.247" />
  <row Id="9092" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-21T16:56:56.843" Score="4" ViewCount="108" Body="&lt;p&gt;Which film developer should I use ? There is so many to choose from ! I started developing my own films about a year ago and I am having a lot of fun, but it is also quite confusing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I shoot black and white, I use mainly Kodak T-Max film, and some Ilford Delta 3200. I usually use Ilford Ilfosol 3 developer. I bought some Ilford Ilfotec LC 29 because I could not find which durations I should use to develop my Delta 3200 with Ilfosol 3. I sometime push my films 1 or 2 stops to get more contrast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now just looking and Ilford range of products, I get lost. Which developer should I use ? Is there much difference ? Should I use Kodak developer if I use Kodak films ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am sure that what you think is the right developper might not work for me, but at the moment I dont even know what to look for. And product descriptions are too confusing ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for your help !&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="461" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T18:53:35.780" Title="Which film developer should I use" Tags="&lt;developing&gt;&lt;negative-film&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="9093" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6998" CreationDate="2011-02-21T16:59:41.720" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To go for a slightly hobbyist related method:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've got all my slides in A4 sized archival slide wallets, in archival folders (labelled by year), but then they are just in a normal box along with some silica gel in my office.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have had all of the important slides scanned commercially (50MB files) and these are in my normal back up routine, I've not had to go back to the slides at all as I just use the digital files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T16:59:41.720" />
  <row Id="9094" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9092" CreationDate="2011-02-21T17:33:26.403" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;somewhat off topic but I've had an enormous amount of fun with Efke (Croatia) 25, 50 &amp;amp; 100 films and D76 developer (sometimes Ilford ID-11 or Microdol).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Efke is manufactured using the ADOX formulas introduced in 1950s - lots of silver and a very broad exposure latitude to experiment with - excellent for push processing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3675" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T17:33:26.403" />
  <row Id="9095" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-21T17:56:35.187" Score="11" ViewCount="386" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am trying to compose a shot using my Nikon D60 and 18-55mm lens towards a white wall in a auto-focus mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It looks like I am not able to take the photo. I feel the camera is not able to find any subject to focus. The camera has a 3 point autofocus system. Is this a normal behavior of auto mode? If so, how can I compose a shot like this?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is happening if I try to compose a shot with limited-color subjects — say, 2 color or single color subjects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any help would be helpful in my learning phase.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3932" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-21T18:12:44.137" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T19:44:33.307" Title="Why doesn't auto-focus work with an all-white subject (like a wall)?" Tags="&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;composition&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="9096" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9081" CreationDate="2011-02-21T18:00:05.733" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.picnik.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Picnik.com&lt;/a&gt; has a couple color related effect you can apply, including &quot;Duo-Tone&quot; and &quot;Cross Process&quot;. It's free to use, but some of the other effects require paying for access.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T18:00:05.733" />
  <row Id="9097" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9095" CreationDate="2011-02-21T18:04:55.777" Score="19" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is due to a lack of subject contrast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your camera's &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofocus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Autofocus system&lt;/a&gt; needs to be able to detect an edge in order to know where to focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T18:04:55.777" />
  <row Id="9098" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9095" CreationDate="2011-02-21T18:38:35.587" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's fairly simple. Like rangefinder, autofocus works with contrast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3689" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T18:38:35.587" />
  <row Id="9099" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8814" CreationDate="2011-02-21T18:41:50.777" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a lot of people, I use a business card to bounce my sb-600 flash. It's perfect and super cheap &lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/wj7qR.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3689" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T18:41:50.777" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-21T18:41:50.777" />
  <row Id="9100" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9105" CreationDate="2011-02-21T18:41:57.583" Score="7" ViewCount="229" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've become fascinated by the realm of 3D photography and would like to try my hand at making some 3D images. I have several related questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How do I go about taking the dual images needed to make a 3D image?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are there any special distances that I need to keep in mind (either distances between cameras, or distances between camera and subject) in order to maintain the illusion?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is it possible to use newer viewing methods to see the picture? (e.g. the glasses that look like sunglasses you get at the movies or with your 3D television, as opposed to the glasses that have red and cyan lenses)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What software can you recommend to prepare photographs for 3D viewing?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-05T13:55:28.920" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T13:55:28.920" Title="How do I go about creating 3D photographs?" Tags="&lt;3d&gt;" AnswerCount="5" />
  <row Id="9101" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9095" CreationDate="2011-02-21T18:48:58.010" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Back in the day, some early autofocus cameras shot an infrared light-beam at the subject and measured how long the reflection took to get back - an active autofocus system. This kind of system would have been able to AF in the situation you describe. Cameras today either use a phase-detection autofocus system (SLR's) or contrast detection off the sensor (pocket cameras), both of which depend on the subject having some contrast, neither is able to lock on to a uniform white surface.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T18:48:58.010" />
  <row Id="9102" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9092" CreationDate="2011-02-21T18:53:35.780" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are massive differences in film developers &amp;amp; techniques. You have a large topic to cover, my friend. Back in the day, film development was the most important step in getting good prints. It's also really freaking hard. If you are serious about learning about film development, then at some point you should start trying the various Pyro formulas. &lt;strong&gt;Pyrogallic-based developers are in a class all their own.&lt;/strong&gt;  They have been around since the bad old days--old masters (Stichen, Strand, Steglitz, etc) waxed poetically about them. I believe Ansel Adams used pyro as well but I can't remember. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyhow, &lt;strong&gt;Pyro interacts with both the silver halides AND the film gel the halides are suspended in.&lt;/strong&gt; It 'tans' the gel in proportion to the exposure, giving it a odd yellow-green cast which can make the most wonderful prints with subtle contrast gradients people swoon over. It's totally a singular experience in film development, and by the sounds of it, you like to experiment, so give Pyro a spin. There's plenty of info about the various Pyro formulas and techniques on the web. Point google at it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The last years of shooting film (for use to make platinum prints), I developed with a Jobo autolab using Pyro exclusively. I can't get digital negatives anywhere close in terms of local contrast and subtle luminosity (which might say as much as my incompetence with digital negative crafting as much as the strength of Pyro).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can get premix pyro at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/cart/home.php?cat=406&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/cart/home.php?cat=406&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or a photographers formulary I bet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2998" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T18:53:35.780" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9103" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9100" CreationDate="2011-02-21T19:13:06.607" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You can take the dual images just taking two photos, moving the camera sideways 2 or 3 inches between the photos.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You can move horizontally more than 2-3 inches to increase the 3D effect, but if you go too far the user won't be able to focus on the 3D result. You should make sure and not change the depth in the dual images.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Glasses with lenses polarized one direction in one lens and 90 degrees offset in the other lens work better than the colored lenses. For this you also need to be able to show the images in polarized light.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I don't know. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T19:13:06.607" />
  <row Id="9104" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9100" CreationDate="2011-02-21T19:33:55.983" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've &quot;done&quot; one recently by accidentally shooting two photos of a bench from slightly different angles. Upon going back and forth between the two in Lightroom, it reminded me of these Animated GIFs you see online that simulate a stereo effect from such a pair. A cheap way to create a form of 3D, for sure. Here is the result below, not that great, maybe they were too far apart. Sorry for the headache :) Check these much better ones here to get a feel for it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.well.com/~jimg/stereo/stereo_list.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Stereo Images - Time for Space&lt;/a&gt; (two thumbnails a tad NSFW)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.moillusions.com/2007/07/stereo-animated-3d-illusions.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Stereo Animated 3D Illusions | Mighty Optical Illusions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You create animated GIFs with a lot of apps, including Photoshop, here is a howto: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/animated-3d-stereo-photography.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Animated 3D Stereo Photography&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/WbF6C.gif&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-21T20:27:12.997" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T20:27:12.997" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9105" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9100" CreationDate="2011-02-21T19:34:36.660" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The easiest way is to buy yourself a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/review.php?id=60&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;3D camera&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This option has an excellent advantage: You can &lt;strong&gt;see the 3D effect while you compose&lt;/strong&gt; and when reviewing your images which lets you know if the shot you take worked to give the 3D impression or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Otherwise you have to take 2 nearly identical photos with slightly different viewpoints. There are three methods to do this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Take a photo, move the camera and take a second photo keeping everything constant&lt;/strong&gt;: Focus, DOF, exposure, ISO, white-balance. This is easier to do with a camera with manual controls, although I suspect you can use Panorama Assist mode of compact-cameras too. They key is to move the camera along a level path a relatively small distance. The ideal distance between the two shots depends on focal-length, focus distance and desired perspective.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Take two photos simultaneously&lt;/strong&gt;: Get two identical cameras and set everything including focus distance and focal-length to exactly the same settings. Triggering them simultaneously using an IR remote is ideal. You can get away with mechanically triggering them if there are no movements in the scene. You can buy a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.manfrotto.com/product/0/430/_/Long_Plate_with_Double_Attachment&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dual tripod plate&lt;/a&gt; which can hold two cameras to help with this.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_lens.php?by=feature&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Use an anamorphic 3D lens&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;: These lenses capture two images side-by-side on your sensor. You need special software (supplied with cameras that support this lens) to transform the resulting image into an actual 3D image.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The distance between the two shots has to be such that the &lt;strong&gt;objects in the plane of focus appear slightly different&lt;/strong&gt; but not too much. &lt;strong&gt;There is no ideal distance.&lt;/strong&gt; The further the subject you are trying to focus on appears, the wider apart the pictures must be taken. This should take into consideration actual distance and focal-length, so longer a focal-length requires less movement between the shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can view these images, which are actually stereoscopic images, by various means:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Many new &lt;strong&gt;HDTV support 3D HDMI&lt;/strong&gt; input which you can see using special glasses (not red-blue). Some display can also display the 3D effect without viewing glasses as long as you are standing with a certain distance and angle from the screen.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You can have your images on paper using &lt;strong&gt;lenticular printing&lt;/strong&gt; services. &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6392/where-can-i-have-lenticular-images-created&quot;&gt;See this question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Get a 3D Digital photo frame.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The software you need depends on your viewing device. If you have a 3D display device you have to make sure which format they use. So far, the MPO format is most popular, although Stereo JPEG (JPS) images exist. Fuji has software to convert between MPO and pairs of JPEGs. A number of free utilities exist but I have not much experience with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-21T19:46:58.327" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T19:46:58.327" />
  <row Id="9106" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9095" CreationDate="2011-02-21T19:44:33.307" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Autofocus systems look for lines. They move the focus of the lens as long as the line is becoming sharper. When the line dulls, the autofocus system winds the lens back and you have your focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagine you were doing this with a manual camera that had a split-horizon focusing screen. How would you know when you were in focus if you couldn't see any distinction between the top and bottom halves of the focusing screen because they're both just white?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also of interest: focusing points on autofocus cameras tend to have 3 distinct capabilities: horizontal, vertical, and diagonal lines. The center element can usually handle all three, but on multiple focus point cameras, you will often find the other points can only handle one or two of those line types.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To take your photo, I suggest these possible options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tape something to the wall, a string, whatever. Focus on it, then switch to manual focus and take away your string.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use an autofocus light aid. Canon Speedlites, for example, project a pattern of red lights in lines and focus based on those. You can use one of them, or you can strap a piece of paper with the edge blocking half of a flashlight beam. Laser pointers may also possibly work.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Manually focus based on range marks on your camera lens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2778" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T19:44:33.307" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9107" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9100" CreationDate="2011-02-21T19:44:54.320" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can get a very complete reply to your questions &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stereoscopy.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;at this web site (www.stereoscopy.com)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cyclopital3d.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here is a supplier of suitable equipment (www.cyclopital3d.com)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-21T20:27:47.950" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T20:27:47.950" />
  <row Id="9108" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9109" CreationDate="2011-02-21T22:00:18.427" Score="4" ViewCount="170" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking at getting a prime lens for my Nikon D50, I'm looking at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_AF_Nikkor_50_mm_f/1.8D&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;50mm ƒ1.8&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_AF-S_DX_Nikkor_35mm_f/1.8G&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;35mm ƒ1.8 DX&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I understand is that the 50mm will actually give me an equivalent focal length of 75mm, but am I right in thinking the focal length of the 35mm is 1.5x longer (52mm) even though it's a DX sensor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just wanting to understand this as best I can, don't want to spend out on a lens if it's longer than I imagined.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3811" LastEditorUserId="3811" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-21T22:06:26.893" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T08:29:32.930" Title="35mm prime lens on a Nikon D50" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;prime&gt;&lt;50mm&gt;&lt;35mm&gt;&lt;nikon-d50&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9109" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9108" CreationDate="2011-02-21T22:03:24.987" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are correct on both accounts, the 50mm will effectively have a 75mm Field of View (FoV) and the 35mm will effectively have a 52mm FoV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The DX just means that the lens should only be used on a DX body, not that its 'a 35mm FoV on a DX body'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T22:03:24.987" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9110" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9108" CreationDate="2011-02-21T22:09:53.213" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're mostly right. The 35mm will have an EFL of 52mm, just as your 50mm will have an EFL of 75mm. Everything gets multiplied by the 1.5x crop factor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When &quot;DX&quot; is applied to the lens, it means that it's designed so that it &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; puts light onto an area the size of a DX sensor. That means that, if you put it on an FX (full-frame) sensor-bearing body, only portion of the photograph will have an actual picture on it; the rest will be dark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In turn, many (all?) Nikon FX-based cameras have a &quot;DX crop mode&quot; where they shrink the size of the photo to avoid this. This effectively makes your camera a very expensive DX sensor, with the same crop factor/EFL/field of view. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conversely, your 50mm non-DX lens is &quot;wasting&quot; light on a DX sensor. I don't think there's any real downside to this besides lens size/cost. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't let this influence you when deciding between these two lenses though. Think about what you're going to be shooting, and then perhaps cost. The 50mm is better for portraits; the 35mm will be better (IMO) for everything else due to its wider viewing angle. I find 35mm to be a good general-purpose length; 50mm often is too tight for anything but head shots. They're both fine lenses though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastEditorUserId="48" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-21T22:15:02.907" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T22:15:02.907" />
  <row Id="9111" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9108" CreationDate="2011-02-21T22:23:05.780" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I got the 35mm for my D5000 just a few weeks ago.  Best advice I received when I was trying to decide what I wanted was to restrict myself to each on the kit lens.  Assuming you have the 18-55mm kit, restrict yourself for some period of time (say a week or two) to 35mm then switch to 50mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me 50mm seemed a little bit tight for most of the shooting I do (I mostly wanted the option to shoot indoors in lower light situations than the kit lens was really capable of), so I got the 35mm.  Some day I'll probably get the 50mm for portrait shooting, but in the mean time 35mm works fine for that purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2214" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T22:23:05.780" />
  <row Id="9112" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9117" CreationDate="2011-02-21T23:06:59.170" Score="6" ViewCount="243" Body="&lt;p&gt;Our photography group recently held a figure photography session, with a nude model. We want to share our photos, but don't want to fall foul of strict site rules regarding nudity. Normally I'd use Picasa, but after trawling through their FAQ I found that they &lt;a href=&quot;http://picasa.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;amp;answer=39524&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;explicitly forbid nudity&lt;/a&gt;. Where's the best place to share (tasteful) nude shots?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4014" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T16:29:45.870" Title="Figure photography - where to share photos?" Tags="&lt;models&gt;&lt;sharing&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="9113" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9112" CreationDate="2011-02-21T23:17:25.397" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're allowed to host them on SmugMug as long as its a non-public gallery (Note: I am affiliated w/said site :))&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T23:17:25.397" />
  <row Id="9114" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9201" CreationDate="2011-02-21T23:27:09.093" Score="17" ViewCount="379" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the best way for me to look into the feasibility of selling my shots (hopefully including some sort of feedback on my technique) and examples of places where I can have someone manage the selling/storefront?  I'd like to potentially expand my hobby to generate real income and rationalize new equipment purchases (real tripod, flash, etc.), so I want to see if it all makes sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I've gotten some great answers so far, and would normally have accepted an answer by now, but I'd like to hold out for some more people's input and experiences.  I'll give it a little more time and then I'll pick what I believe to be the most enveloping answer.  Great answers, all of you!  The effort is well appreciated, and I hope you're not all burnt-out photographers stuck in the financial spiral... :)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's some backstory for those interested:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have been shooting a Canon EOS 30D for almost 5 years now, and have amassed a collection of 5 lenses and additional equipment (see profile for more details).  I've probably put in about $3000 over the span of my ownership, and have taken almost 11,000 images (many are dups/trips for alternates, since I can).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not about to get rid of my equipment, but I'm looking for some rationale to help me feel like I'm getting something more out of this than great personal images and wallpaper.  I have so many friends tell me I take great shots (I consider myself a decent amateur with a slightly-better-than-average knack for subject and framing) and have suggested I get shots printed and try to sell them.  My shots are primarily macro and landscape, although with some of my lenses I've been able to dabble in portraits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Printing larger than 8x12 (with RGB laser only, e.g. Fuji Frontier, call me a snob) was prohibitively expensive the last time I researched it, and I still don't have a high level of confidence on the marketability of my shots.  Add to that the saturation of the field with low cost dSLR cameras and image sites like flickr, and I question if it's even worth it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the flip side, I hate going into photo galleries where the artist has over-saturated or otherwise over-manipulated the images to the point of nausea, and feel my shots are at least better in that respect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4002" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T03:20:59.567" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T03:20:59.567" Title="Hobbyist looking for income/rationale" Tags="&lt;business&gt;&lt;professional&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="11" />
  <row Id="9115" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4314" CreationDate="2011-02-21T23:42:27.150" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a zeiss 50mm 1.4 and I absolutely love it. great results wide-open for portraiture and nature photography but I've never tried it for astrophotography. A beautiful lens, far better than the canon 50mm 1.4 (which my friend has) and around the same price. you cant get a better 50mm lens unless you want to spend silly money on the zeiss 55mm 1.2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;.... $0.02 ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4015" LastActivityDate="2011-02-21T23:42:27.150" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9116" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9112" CreationDate="2011-02-21T23:45:39.480" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to SmugMug being a great host they also are involved with DGrin which has a Go Figure Forum that is a good place to get comments that are constructive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You also can try SmugMug for a 14 day trial if you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1901" LastEditorUserId="1901" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-22T01:06:08.537" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T01:06:08.537" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9117" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9112" CreationDate="2011-02-22T00:49:42.177" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photo.net&lt;/a&gt; allows them in public galleries. There are a lot of good pros there that show excellent work in all categories, including nudes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There paying and free memberships. The free membership limits the gallery size and number of uploads.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T00:49:42.177" />
  <row Id="9118" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9061" CreationDate="2011-02-22T01:11:06.973" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It goes without saying that sensor size has a major effect on performance, but when talking about cameras with the same sensor size, in most cases the higher models still have better performing sensors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It depends on the product/marketing strategy of the camera company.  And by &quot;better performing&quot; I mean they use newer or more expensive technology allowing for greater dynamic range, low noise performance.  Theoretically, there is no reason a camera company couldn't use the same top-notch sensor in all its cameras of the same sensor size, and make them different only in other features.  But this normally isn't the case, as they need to be competitive in the bottom of the market.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, Nikon's D7000, its top of the range camera with a DX sized sensor, has a much better sensor than any other camera it offers with the same sensor size.  Often it's because a camera company keeps older mid-range cameras (D90) around for longer and they become the new entry-level, or it just uses lower spec sensors (D3100, D5000) on the lower models.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll often find that most camera models in a range will use the same or similar sensor, but that there will be one or two models at the top which have a better sensor.  In Micro 4/3, virtually every camera available in this format has the same sensor, except for the top of the range Panasonic GH1 and GH2 with a much better performing sensor.  Not to mention the $5,000+ (body only) AF100.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for whether the differences in sensor performance matter, that's up to you.  They'll matter less than the way you use your camera, or your skill and experience, or your lenses, or your lighting and choice of subject, and often less than your choice of format (compact, 4/3, DX, FF).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T01:11:06.973" />
  <row Id="9119" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9112" CreationDate="2011-02-22T01:42:05.913" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want a very high quality gallery site, where artistic nudes are very appreciated, 1x.com is a great option. Warning: their standards are SUpER high!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T01:42:05.913" />
  <row Id="9120" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-22T02:20:00.187" Score="13" ViewCount="417" Body="&lt;p&gt;I keep reading articles about CCD vs CMOS image sensors. What is the difference between these two types? What exactly do these sensors do in terms of photography?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is a CCD-based camera going to be able to compete in the future? If I buy one, can I count on using it for some years or would it be better to upgrade to a camera with a CMOS based sensor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3932" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-11T12:49:12.307" LastActivityDate="2011-04-11T17:46:56.513" Title="What's the difference between CCD and CMOS image sensors?" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;cmos-image-sensor&gt;&lt;ccd-image-sensor&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="9122" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9120" CreationDate="2011-02-22T02:33:53.313" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both have strengths and weaknesses - some of the top ones involve video mode (or live view mode).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Vertical streaking&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In live view or video mode, CCD sensors exhibit vertical streaking, where bright points of light in the frame, even at the edge, can create a vertical bright line from the top to the bottom of the frame.  This is caused by current from a single pixel &quot;overflowing&quot; and leaking throughout the whole row.  Note that professional video cameras which use CCD sensors (and cost thousands of dollars) have circuitry to minimise this.  Also, when used for stills ie not in live view/video mode, CCDs operate in a different mode and don't usually suffer from vertical streaking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;CMOS sensors don't exhibit streaking at all, as each pixel has its own circuitry isolated from other pixels.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Rolling shutter&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;CMOS sensors exhibit a rolling shutter effect in live view or video mode.  Instead of capturing the entire frame at once, information is read from each row of the frame one after the other, top to bottom.  The whole process takes up to 1/30 of a second on most cameras.  This creates a jelly-like wobbling effect in recorded video when the camera is handheld or moves a lot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a given sensor, this rolling shutter happens equally regardless of the shutter speed, though with slower shutter speeds it may be less noticeable in subject movement due to the extra motion blur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;CMOS sensors capable of higher shutter speeds than 30 frames per second (and not just through repeating frames) will exhibit less streaking.  Hypothetically, if you had a CMOS sensor &lt;em&gt;capable of&lt;/em&gt; 48 frames per second (and not just through repeating frames) this would have about the same amount of rolling shutter effect as a 24fps film camera, which has an actual rolling shutter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;CCD does not suffer from the rolling shutter effect.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Noise / quality in general&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They'll both perform similarly.  Certainly for large sensors (DX, 4/3, FF) there is no practical difference apart from just individual differences due to the design of the sensor.  CMOS technology is moving quickly and while it was once inferior, it seems all the best sensors (for still cameras) in the last year or so tend to be CMOS ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For very small sensors such as in compact cameras and cellphones, CMOS sensors traditionally have poorer sensitivity, a result of making the pixels so small relative to the size of the circuitry on them.  However, most new tiny CMOS sensors employ microlenses, and in the future will employ back illumination, which makes up for the sensitivity.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Professional still cameras are increasingly using CMOS sensors these days, and the CMOS sensors you'll find in them are at least equal in performance to their CCD cousins.  It so happens that CMOS technology is moving quickly at the moment and many of the best sensors these days are CMOS. Unless shooting video, there's no reason to pick a camera based on whether it has a CCD or CMOS sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-11T02:47:21.243" LastActivityDate="2011-04-11T02:47:21.243" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9123" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9114" CreationDate="2011-02-22T02:56:41.643" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, making money on photography is something alot of &lt;em&gt;us&lt;/em&gt; wish we did, but its a tough field it seems, especially for landscape and macro work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I'll tackle the easy piece of your question first, selling/storefront.&#xA;Two options come to mind here, but there are certainly more:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Roll your own website and use something like Google Checkout to generate the invoice and process payment.  Printing will be left up to you but you ultimately have the most options here.  See &lt;a href=&quot;http://showhomeart.co.uk&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;showhomeart.co.uk&lt;/a&gt; for an example (built by one of our members Rowland Shaw).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Use something like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.smugmug.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SmugMug.com&lt;/a&gt; to handle the display, printing, selling, and shipping of your work.  Less flexible, but simpler.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other part of your question is basically &quot;How do I become a professional photographer, specially landscape and macro pictures?&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here you have a few options, you could try stock and micro stock, but its an extremely competitive and low paying market except for the few that thrive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After that, you'll could start talking to agencies, building a portfolio, and basically get &quot;discovered&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another options is to build a full time business specializing in &quot;special&quot; things (macro, landscape, timelapse, etc) and using portrait work to fill the gaps.  Its my understanding one of our users &quot;Jay Lance Photography&quot; does something similar to this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its a SUPER competitive market right as the cost of entry has been lowered due to easy of use of DSLRs and lower prices AND due to the economy in the US and many places around the world.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wish it wasn't so, but research of my own indicates that unless you're prepared to commit significant resources (both money and &lt;em&gt;TIME&lt;/em&gt;) up front to the &quot;business&quot; side of photography (advertising, studio equipment, agencies) , this isn't the right time to decide to go pro based on your love of photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:  In general...if you find out an easy way to make money off hobby photography, let me know...privately...and tell no one else. ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-23T18:43:16.200" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T18:43:16.200" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9124" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9060" CreationDate="2011-02-22T04:17:16.713" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I also found similar problem of frames skipping at small intervals. I could find the problem is neither with the computer or the camera. You must Quick Format your SD card before recording Video. It will solve the problem!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope it helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4018" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T04:17:16.713" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9125" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9126" CreationDate="2011-02-22T05:24:11.180" Score="6" ViewCount="104" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off I'm not sure if this is the place for this question, but it seems to be the closest fit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to buy a small camera sensor (like for netbooks/phones), from what I have read on wikipedia my target sensor is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12MP(not that important) &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;1080p recording &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;CMOS, preferably backlit &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Only have to buy one&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;now for obvious reasons I want to buy an OEM sensor instead of ripping one out of a camera, also if I where to hook one up to Windows CE, Android, Meego or Linux would I need to make a driver, and where could I buy a sensor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4020" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T04:46:49.770" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T04:46:49.770" Title="OEM Camera Sensors for a computer project" Tags="&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;diy&gt;&lt;electronics&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9126" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9125" CreationDate="2011-02-22T06:03:28.760" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hooking up a raw sensor is a monumental task (for a CMOS sensor, you typically have at roughly one line for each row/column, meaning ~3k x 4K connections stuffed into less than an inch on each side).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A typical netbook, cell phone, etc., uses a packaged camera module with some sort of serial connection to the outside world. You can get some primarily video (i.e., 1.3 - 2 MP range) modules from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sparkfun.com/categories/102&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sparkfun Electronics&lt;/a&gt; (low resolution, but cheap -- for only one, the shipping may be close to as much as the module itself). For higher resolution, you might consider &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.leopardimaging.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Leopard Imaging&lt;/a&gt;. They have everything from relatively bare modules to complete development boards (with matching version of Linux available for free download).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T06:03:28.760" />
  <row Id="9127" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9139" CreationDate="2011-02-22T06:43:56.197" Score="6" ViewCount="185" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a '5 Way Reflector' that I want to use in my photography, which includes the following 5 options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gold reflective&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Silver reflective&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gold/silver alternating pattern reflective&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;White&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Scrim/opaque&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Black*&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the basic effect that each of these surfaces produces, and what are some examples of when I would want to use each of them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T10:36:57.770" Title="What lighting effects do the various surfaces of a 5-way reflector produce?" Tags="&lt;studio-lighting&gt;&lt;lighting-modifiers&gt;&lt;lighting-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9128" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9130" CreationDate="2011-02-22T07:14:13.183" Score="8" ViewCount="193" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have gone through quite a few lens reviews and questions on this site that &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9072/which-is-a-better-upgrade-complement-to-the-canon-18-55mm-is-kit-lens-the-18-20/9076#9076&quot;&gt;recommend expensive lenses over their cheaper counterparts&lt;/a&gt;. From what I've seen in the reviews, there is a marked improvement in sharpness (esp. at 100%) for the premium lenses over their cheaper counterparts (E.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF-S 17-55mm vs 18-55mm&lt;/a&gt;). Besides this, many of the premium lenses also have a wider max aperture which may be fixed throughout its focal range, and this is a tangible benefit to composition. Build quality is another benefit, but that doesn't impact image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, my question is what other benefit does a premium lens provide over the regular lenses? Do premium lenses have any impact on image composition &amp;amp; photographing technique (I'd suspect that the added bulk can be a hindrance at times)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that I am not considering specialized lenses like 600mm and the likes which do not have any regular counterparts. Also, by counterparts, I mean lenses having similar focal length range and apertures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1977" LastEditorUserId="1977" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-22T10:06:23.690" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T15:28:04.610" Title="Aside from sharpness &amp; speed, what are the benefits to photo composition\optical quality provided by premium lenses over their cheaper counterpart?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;composition&gt;" AnswerCount="6" />
  <row Id="9129" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8968" CreationDate="2011-02-22T07:15:02.527" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes you probably can.  But you'll still need to calibrate it properly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An LCD television is pretty much the same thing as a computer monitor these days.  Differences are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Dozens upon dozens of gimmicky features that do nothing but degrade image quality.  You'll need to turn off edge enhancement, dynamic contrast, black level adjustment, dynamic backlight intensity or other &quot;Eco&quot; options, etc.  Sometimes these gimmicks don't turn on when you are connecting a computer to them, but at least on my Samsung TV they do, and you still need to adjust them.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;TVs are frequently factory set with contrast, brightness and sharpness set way too high, and you typically need to &lt;em&gt;cut&lt;/em&gt; these settings to get a properly calibrated display.  With a computer monitor, they're usually calibrated to sRGB out of the box, or have an easy preset allowing you to do this.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that not all panels are equal, even among the same panel type (ie, IPS).  While it has a good viewing angle, my IPS-based TV at home changes its black level and hence the blacks changes slightly when you are slightly off centre axis.  This is typical of many IPS panels, but for example my 20&quot; Dell Ultrasharp, also IPS, doesn't do this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T07:15:02.527" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9130" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9128" CreationDate="2011-02-22T08:04:39.070" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For one, Canon's premium lenses (&quot;L&quot;) will allow you (with a matching body) to shoot in environmental conditions that are considered harmful for the non-premium ones. In a way it will have an indirect effect on your composition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on the amount of post work you are (not) willing to do, the premium lens will get you better &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;color rendering&lt;/a&gt;, glare control, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-22T08:10:48.763" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T08:10:48.763" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9131" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9128" CreationDate="2011-02-22T08:05:27.090" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You've listed a number of advantages of the &quot;better&quot; lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;build quality&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;wider apertures&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;better optics (which leads to things like sharper images)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;About the only &quot;pros&quot; I could think of for the lower quality lenses would be&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;weight (usually lighter due to plastic build and/or less glass)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;cost&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Image composition (framing, positioning, etc) generally won't be affected by these things; shooting technique might be.  For example, smaller apertures means one might need to make alternate arrangements involving more light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I get the impression you're fishing for reasons why you shouldn't spend money on good lenses, but frankly I can't really give you good ones.  &lt;strong&gt;If you care about your photos&lt;/strong&gt; (and I suspect you do, or you wouldn't be on this site), &lt;strong&gt;buy the best lenses you can afford.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-22T08:13:43.943" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T08:13:43.943" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9132" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9128" CreationDate="2011-02-22T08:11:08.850" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The higher quality optics, higher spec coatings, fixed aperture, etc. etc. all impact the image directly.&#xA;Less distortion, sharper results, less colour haze caused by poor coatings, often 'better bokeh' (though that's highly subjective).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Combine with the better build quality and you have a far superior product.&#xA;I've had a cheap 70-210 Nikkor (plastic body, etc.). It slid from my bag on which it was resting, mounted on a camera, about 15 centimeters onto grass (so a soft landing).&#xA;It cracked, the aperture ring destroyed, it was dead.&#xA;A pro lens, with its superior quality, would have survived far worse than that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was cheap, so the financial loss wasn't great. But it's an inconvenience I'd rather not have to deal with when out in the boondocks with no dealer near to get a replacement when I'm on a shooting trip.&#xA;That alone makes the pro lens worth having if you're a serious photographer (unless maybe you never shoot outside major cities with dense dealer networks with guaranteed stock of anything you may need).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T08:11:08.850" />
  <row Id="9133" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9135" CreationDate="2011-02-22T08:14:57.993" Score="5" ViewCount="346" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have seen many camera review sites illustrate the effect of using different focal lengths on the same photograph using frames. There are also similar illustrations to compare different sensors (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Guides/dslr_buying_guide_01.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;full frame vs APS-H vs APS-C vs micro 4/3&lt;/a&gt;). I find this kind of visualization to be very useful in comparing the actual effect of the longer focal length\different sensor size. Of course the ability to do a wider focal length visualization would also be equally useful, but that's not possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any ready-made software or plugin that enables this? If not, is there any simple technique to visualize the effect of longer focal lengths on an image (one would of course have to use the zoom information in the image EXIF data to accurately represent this)? All I can think of is to use some trigonometry to do the necessary calculations for the frame sizes for cropping.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1977" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-30T11:30:15.343" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T11:30:15.343" Title="How can I visualize or simulate the effect of different focal lengths?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;focal-length&gt;&lt;visualization&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9134" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9120" CreationDate="2011-02-22T08:18:27.627" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't worry about the sensor technology, it's probably the least important thing to consider when deciding on your equipment set.&#xA;It'd be like thinking of whether Kodak or Fuji black and white film is &quot;best&quot;, without considering the camera you're going to use it in, the lenses you're going to use, or your skills as a photographer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think glass, not sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T08:18:27.627" />
  <row Id="9135" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9133" CreationDate="2011-02-22T08:23:09.927" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If using GIMP (and probably any other image editing software), then you could use the selection tool and set the size of the crop frame to a required size and aspect ratio. This way, you can see the relative sensor size superimposed on your image while letting you panning it around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that this technique is good only for smaller-than-the-actual sensor sizes, unless you &quot;cheat&quot; by stating the original was shot with a bigger sensor than actual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE: Unfortunately, using GIMP, you cannot simply set the &lt;em&gt;ratio&lt;/em&gt; of the size if the selection box to match the crop factor (or focal lengths ratio). As @Stan Rogers commented, you'll have to set the size in pixels based on the simple focal length ratio. Then you can move the selection box to the desired location and if you like, add a rectangular frame to the image itself, so you can compare several selection sizes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to add the rectangle, use the &quot;Edit&quot; -&gt; &quot;Stroke Selection...&quot; dialog. The default settings will stroke a solid rectangle on your image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-23T03:48:27.737" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T03:48:27.737" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9136" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9114" CreationDate="2011-02-22T08:25:24.760" Score="21" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;in fact I'd say that if you love photography and want to continue loving it, you might want to NOT go pro.&#xA;The few pros I know spend so much time on their business rather than photography, they don't do as much of it as when they were amateurs.&#xA;And a lot of them have come to HATE photography after going pro, as they no longer can choose what and when to shoot, how to shoot it, etc. but have to work to exact customer specs and timelines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More than a few wish they could stop but have no other source of income, so they must go on photographing things they don't want to photograph, running a one person business just scraping by knowing they'll likely never have more than a marginal income but if they stop they'll have nothing at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was considering going pro or semi-pro several years ago, but decided not to. The occasional sale to someone seeing a picture I made on some website and wants a print of it (or even wants to use it in some publication) is nice for vanity :) but doesn't come close to paying the bills, and I don't care. I'm just happy I have the freedom to shoot what, when, and where I so wish, without deadlines or customer requirements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T08:25:24.760" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9137" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9128" CreationDate="2011-02-22T08:27:18.757" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some of Canon's professional lenses are painted white.  When you take them out in public, you'll stand out more (whether this is a benefit or not depends on your personality and what you're trying to accomplish).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T08:27:18.757" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9138" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9108" CreationDate="2011-02-22T08:29:32.930" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Got me a 35mm f/2.0 Nikkor several years ago (before DSLRs), and I love it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And one thing: there's no &quot;equivalent focal length&quot;. It's still a 35mm, it's just a cropped image from a 35mm.&#xA;So the image will look like an image taken by the same lens using any other camera, but cropped by about a third.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's usually not a big difference, but things like DOF are impacted by this, as is telephoto compression (most important at more extreme focal lengths, obviously).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T08:29:32.930" />
  <row Id="9139" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9127" CreationDate="2011-02-22T08:29:36.400" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;white reflector&lt;/strong&gt; provides the softest, most natural-appearing light. The reflected light is very diffuse, and matches the colour temperature of the ambient (or main) light. Except when it is used as a main front light on a backlit subject (and similar situations) it doesn't add any noticeable highlights or shadows of its own, apart from a soft catchlight in the eyes (or other elements of the subject that have specular reflection). Used as a main light source, especially as a front light, it may be too &quot;flat&quot;. Its main failing, though, is that in order to provide enough reflected light for many shots, it needs to be very close to the subject in relation to its size. It may not be possible to both frame &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; light the shot the way you want using a white reflector.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;silver reflector&lt;/strong&gt; has a lot in common with the white reflector, except that it is more reflective and usually much more directional. The light from a silver reflector is &quot;hotter&quot; (it is more likely to cause noticeable highlights and shadows), but it also has a greater reach (the reflector can be farther away from the subject). You can get much lower lighting ratios (the range of light intensity falling on the subject) using single-light setups using a silver reflector than using a white reflector. Because of the directionality of the reflected light, it can reveal texture better than a white reflector -- but that's a two-edged sword, since it also reveals skin problems. Placement and aiming are also more critical than with a white reflector; outdoors it's almost always necessary to have an assistant hold a silver reflector rather than just clamp it to a C-stand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;gold reflector&lt;/strong&gt; had all of the lighting characteristics of the silver reflector, except that it radically shifts the colour temperature. In the film days, it would be used to give people a healthy tanned appearance, lke using an 81C warming filter, but without affecting the rest of the scene. It can still serve much the same function, but it will often look unnatural unless the overall light is balanced very cool (like &quot;north light&quot; -- indirect sunlight from a blue sky, which is often at 6500 kelvins or more). Note that the gold reflector will shift the colour temperature of everything it hits, so if you're photographing a model wearing white, and that white has to &lt;em&gt;look&lt;/em&gt; white in the final picture, you're just going to have to put things back the way they were in post anyway&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;zebra reflector&lt;/strong&gt; (the one striped silver and gold) is a better compromise for warming the colour temperature of the reflected light in many circumstances. It adds that glow of tan, but not to the same degree as the gold reflector.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;scrim&lt;/strong&gt; is not a reflector (although a white one can be used as a reflector in close if you're really in a pinch). They come in a variety of materials, each used for a slightly different purpose. A white, tight-weaved scrim (one you can't see through clearly when you hold it close to your eyes) is used most often to soften a harsh light source. Think of it as a shoot-through umbrella (or a softbox) for the sun. This is the type normally included in a multi-reflector kit. It will allow you to take pleasing pictures of people in lighting that would normally be far too harsh. (White scrims used in the movie industry can be the size of a large event canopy/tent, but are usually of a looser weave so the sunlight isn't comletely flattened.) It does, though, hold back a considerable amount of light, so you need to be careful balancing your subject and background (no scrim is &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; big).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's where the looser-weaved varieties of scrims come in. Often, they are black rather than white, and they are place behind the subject you are lighting. Think of them as a neutral density filter that affects only the background. (A white one will also brighten and reduce the contrast of the background.) It's not likely you'll find a black scrim in a 5-in-1 kit, but it's worth including for completeness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;black &quot;reflector&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; is quite emphatically &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; the same thing as no reflector at all. Its task is to prevent uncontrolled reflections from falling on your subject (or other elements in the picture). It is often used to increase contrast, but it can also keep that lovely mint-cream green wallpaper from giving your otherwise carefully-lit subject a sort of undead pallor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As always, I invite edits and suggestions for editing -- the point of the game is to have the best answer on this site, not reputation or self-promotion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastEditorUserId="2719" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-22T10:36:57.770" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T10:36:57.770" />
  <row Id="9140" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9128" CreationDate="2011-02-22T09:20:49.770" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Additionally the better lenses will be faster focusing.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Their auto focus is usually more accurate.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Their clarity and contrast will be better.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;They will be more durable.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Their handling will be better, usually easier and more precise.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;And in some cases they will be more weather resistant.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the face of it all of this has no bearing on image composition and photographic technique. But that is not quite true, for two reasons:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;1) using high quality equipment means there is less of a barrier between your intent and a creative result. This allows you to concentrate more on the goals of your photography and less on the equipment.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2) the joy and delight of using really good and responsive equipment makes photography a joyous experience. And this in turn is a powerful stimulant to your photography. Yes, I know there are hardy photographers who can make anything work but the majority of us are not possessed by an urge to work at a disadvantage. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T09:20:49.770" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9141" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9142" CreationDate="2011-02-22T10:03:49.090" Score="7" ViewCount="139" Body="&lt;p&gt;What kind of post processing, if any, would you suggest when printing images (besides cropping to the printing aspect ratio)? Would the post processing change depending on where the print is made (online service, home printer etc)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am mainly concerned with prints not larger than the A4 size and the images being 8 MP or higher in resolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1977" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T16:52:55.353" Title="Is there any post processing required for printing images?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;tips&gt;&lt;printing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="9142" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9141" CreationDate="2011-02-22T10:28:20.463" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The main concern with printing is colour accuracy. Not all printers, especially high street printers, will recognise advanced colour profiles such as AdobeRGB (1998) so I'd recommend converting your images to the sRGB colour space before exporting the JPGs, otherwise you may end up with unexpected results, e.g. prints being too dark. Make sure your JPG is of the highest possible quality (100%). I can't speak for Apple's Aperture, but in Adobe Lightroom there's an option to sharpen for printing when you export to a JPG.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T10:28:20.463" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9143" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9128" CreationDate="2011-02-22T13:01:37.263" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm seeing a few things that are missing from this, so I'm going to repeat a lot of what's been said, but add in a few extras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reduced aberrations. While this is related to added sharpness, it in fact is more than just that, it takes into account some weird artifacts that are on the edges of the images in particular.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Durability- The more you pay for a lens, the better off you'll be in this sense.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Increased Contrast/ reduced lens flare- Usually better lens will have better AR coating, which will reduce lens flare, and increase contrast.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF lenses can be used on all recent Canon cameras, EF-s cannot. If you upgrade to a full framed sensor some day, this might make a big difference. (Similar considerations apply to full-frame lenses from other brands as well.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Weather sealing - You are much less likely to get water, dust, etc leaking into a pro lens, because of additional protection against the elements. I would trust a L lens in a light sprinkling, I wouldn't trust a cheap lens...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Uniform max aperture setting- They tend not to change during their zooming range, making composition a bit better.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Faster focusing, not to mention quieter.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pro lenses tend to preserve their shape when zooming/focusing, making some things easier.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the other benefits somehow fit into the sharpness or speed categories you began with, so I won't include them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-22T15:28:04.610" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T15:28:04.610" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9144" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9133" CreationDate="2011-02-22T13:49:11.523" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This wont be an accurate visualization as it only crops the image. It doesn't show the perspective difference between lenses (WA distortion, image compression,...). I don't think any consumer software could do that. Maybe NASA has something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3914" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T13:49:11.523" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="9146" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9159" CreationDate="2011-02-22T14:01:47.537" Score="1" ViewCount="186" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have an old Canon A1 camera, and a 50mm 1.4 ssc FD lens for it. I also have a Canon 30D, but sadly no 50mm lens for it. I was planning on getting a (lensless) FD-EF adapter to use the 50mm on my 30D. I know that I won't be able to focus to infinity, but does anyone know what the maximum focusing distance actually is?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, is there a way to work that out if we assume the adapter to be an extension tube of a certain length?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2131" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T07:44:24.270" Title="Maximum focusing distance when using Canon FD to EF adapter?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;adapter&gt;&lt;focusing-distance&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9147" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9146" CreationDate="2011-02-22T14:41:20.000" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Mount-Adapter-Infinity-Focus/dp/B001D8X72G&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Mount-Adapter-Infinity-Focus/dp/B001D8X72G&lt;/a&gt; says that it's product will &quot;Focus to Infinity&quot;, so I think you'll be fine, if you buy the right product. Of course, the way that they manage to do this is with a slight optical distortion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively, you might just consider buying a 50mm 1.8, they aren't that expensive, and the quality is actually pretty good. It's only a little more than the FD-EF adapter is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T14:41:20.000" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9148" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9133" CreationDate="2011-02-22T15:24:02.410" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You don't actually need trigonometry — just basic arithmetic. The zoomed-in focal length gives a field of view as if you'd cropped the image by the ratio of the old focal length over the new: that is, if you have an image taken at 50mm, you can see the field of view of a 75mm lens simply by cropping by ⁵⁰⁄₇₅ths — which is ⅔.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This simple relationship is why the &quot;crop factor&quot; (sometimes, unfortunately, called &quot;focal length multiplier&quot;) works. If your sensor is ⅔ the width of a full-frame sensor, that's cropping by a factor of 1.5 (the inverse of ⅔). So, you get the field of view of a lens with 1.5× the focal length on full frame — a 50mm lens on APS-C gives you the same field of view as a 75mm lens on full frame. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To put some numbers to it: if your 50mm-focal-length starting point is a 6-megapixel 3000×2000 image, cropping it to 2000×1333 will give you the field of view of a 75mm lens: in pixels, 3000 × 50 ÷ 75 horizontally, and 2000 × 50 ÷ 75 vertically. (A tangent, if you pardon the trig pun: You'll notice that this is quite a big hit in resolution — you loose a number of pixels equal to the crop factor — the ratio between focal lengths — &lt;em&gt;squared&lt;/em&gt;. This is why optical zoom is &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9036/&quot;&gt;usually preferable to &quot;digital zoom&quot;&lt;/a&gt;, which is just cropping. And, generally, smaller sensors cram more pixels into the smaller sensor in order to compensate for the crop, which, depending on the level of technology used works to some degree. But that's &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7399/&quot;&gt;a whole different discussion&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can use simple (non-trig) geometry to demonstrate this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll need a ruler with millimeter markings, and a blank sheet of paper. I could make some graphics showing all this, but I really strongly believe that it's an exercise which works better if you actually go through it in on actual physical paper. So, if you will humor me and work along....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Along the very bottom edge of the paper, centered in the middle, draw a horizontal line 24mm long. This represents an APS-C sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Measure 50mm up from the very center of that line, and put a dot. This represents the gathering of light within an idealized 50mm lens. (Imagine it as a pinhole camera, if you like.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Now, draw a line from the left edge of the sensor through the &quot;lens&quot; dot, and continue up through to the top of the paper. Do the same from the right edge, giving you an X shape with the lens point at the center of the X. The top cone of the X represents the horizontal field of view of a 50mm lens on your APS-C sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You can measure the angle with a protractor, if you happen to have one — it should be about 27°. And you can measure the horizontal field of view in millimeters a given distance away from your &quot;camera&quot;, by measuring across the cone at the top of the X. (At 10cm away from the idealized lens dot, it should be about 4.8cm.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Now, measure up 75mm from the middle of your &quot;sensor&quot; line and put another dot, representing an idealized 75mm lens.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Draw an X from the sensor edges through this dot as well. If you measure this angle, it should be about 18.2 degrees, and again, 10cm up from the lens dot, if you measure across, it should be about 3.2cm. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;And hey presto: 4.8mm × ⁵⁰⁄₇₅ = 3.2mm. (Of course, your lines are not at the exact same distance from the sensor itself, since you're measuring from the dot representing the lens in order to get the math to come out so nicely. But here we're working with unusually close focusing distances — when you're talking about a subject at normal distances the difference is negligible.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;So anyway, you can then extend your sensor to be 36mm across instead of 24mm — changing it from APS-C to full-frame. Now, draw lines from that new larger sensor through the existing 75mm &quot;lens&quot; point.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Even without measuring, you should be able to see that the angle of view with the larger sensor through the 75mm lens is the same as that with the smaller sensor through the 50mm lens. So there's the &quot;crop factor&quot; equivalence right in front of you. Cool, huh? &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that this only covers angle of view. Perspective won't change, because you're standing in the same place, but depth of field (and the distribution of the depth of field) will. And of course actual real-world different lenses will have different properties (like distortion) which aren't modeled by this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in terms of field of view, that's all there is to it. Nothing beyond middle-school math required.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-23T19:33:48.473" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T19:33:48.473" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9150" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9146" CreationDate="2011-02-22T16:08:04.740" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the max focus distance winds up being a couple of feet so it's pretty useless with a glassless adaptor. I don't know what the quality of the cheap focus correcting adaptors is like but I'd guess it probably isn't worth it, given the cost of a good adaptor (the original Canon ones sell for about a grand).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;FD telephotos can be made to focus to infinity with a glassless adaptor but they have much more space behind the rear element than a 50mm lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T16:08:04.740" />
  <row Id="9151" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-22T16:35:44.727" Score="6" ViewCount="519" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have made a collage with 5120 x 2880 px size using picasa.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I want to order a print of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What would be the best option to make a canvas print or a poster print?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want the best size and picture quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And what can be the max size of my print in inches, considering the aspect ratio is intact... I dont want any cropping of my lovely collage. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second question... the collage is composed of many pictures of people on it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what would be more suitable, a print on canvas or on poster?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think a canvas is a cloth and poster is paper? Am I correct? and that canvas would give &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a rough finish and poster a glossy one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3110" LastEditorUserId="3110" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-22T18:19:39.067" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T19:43:50.110" Title="5120 x 2880 pixels jpg gives how big prints?" Tags="&lt;prints&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="9152" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9151" CreationDate="2011-02-22T16:45:25.977" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A common recommendation for printing is 300 ppi, so approximately 17x10 in. (16x9 is probably easier to find)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a poster or canvas you can often go a little lower, into the 200-250 ppi range without too much difference in quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you dropped all the way down to 160 ppi, then you could do a 32 x 18 in. print.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best path, however, is to ask your printer what they recommend.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In regard to printing on poster vs canvas:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this situation, it being a collage at an aspect ratio that you want to maintain, I feel that you will have better luck with a poster.  A poster will not have the texture that canvas has, but in this situation I think that would be fine.  Posters are easier to have &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.largeformatposters.com/Semi-Gloss-Posters.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;printed at a custom size&lt;/a&gt;, and you often have semi-gloss or high-gloss options.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-23T15:00:20.643" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T15:00:20.643" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="9153" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9151" CreationDate="2011-02-22T16:46:14.743" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want a big print, but aren't too fussed about viewing it close up you can print it at 180ppi (pixels per inch), so a quick bit of maths would give you: 28.4 x 16 (which isn't a standard size), so you could get a bigger print and trim it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would be fine viewed from a couple of feet away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, my best adivice would really be to speak to your printer and find out what they can do for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T16:46:14.743" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9154" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9151" CreationDate="2011-02-22T16:49:02.597" Score="-3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on the results you want. You can have it printed at Fedex Kinkos, 3 feet wide, at 600 dpi. This will look good from a 3-4 feet, but up close you will be able to see imperfections. At 1200 dpi, the pixels in the image will be the limiting factor until you get down around 2 feet wide. These numbers are very rough, and depend on the printer quality, paper, and image content.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your best bet will be to print a small sample at a few sizes to see what you're really going to get and how well it fits your needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T16:49:02.597" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="9155" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9141" CreationDate="2011-02-22T16:52:55.353" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9141/is-there-any-post-processing-required-for-printing-images/9142#9142&quot;&gt;what Nick said&lt;/a&gt;, you may notice that you have different expectations for printed images than you have for images displayed on a screen. Something that looks sharp and dazzling on the screen may look barely acceptable for a high-volume newpaper when printed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not all about resolution, either -- we tend to have different expectations about sharpness, contrast and saturation on paper than we have for screen images. How much adjustment you may need to do depends entirely on you, but you'll need to see the prints before you can make any real determinations. Once you know what you need in order to satisfy yourself, you can pretty much take it as read that the same adjustments will always be needed for the same combination of camera, lens and output device.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adequate sharpening for print, for instance, is very difficult to determine without printing. If you're zoomed out far enough to see the whole image on screen, the effects of sharpening will be lost. If you're zoomed in far enough to see the sharpening, you won't be able to see the effect on the whole picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T16:52:55.353" />
  <row Id="9156" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9114" CreationDate="2011-02-22T16:56:09.417" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The thing is there are loads of people who want to make money with their photography, however it can often boil down to who is the best marketing/sales person, rather than who is the best photographer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few possible approaches are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alamy.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Alamy&lt;/a&gt; (or other reputable stock agencies, not microstock) if your images are technically good, you &lt;strong&gt;may&lt;/strong&gt; be able to license some there, but it won't make you rich.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Selling prints, you can do this through a website, mine is powered by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photoshelter.com/referral/LE7CR52N8E&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photoshelter&lt;/a&gt; which makes selling images really easy (although they do take a cut). You can sef fulfil the images, or use one of their printers to fulfill directly (I use this but it is a company I have already used for years and trust).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing to bear in mind is that you don't really want to get to the point where trying to make money from photography detracts from the photography itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T16:56:09.417" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9157" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9151" CreationDate="2011-02-22T17:25:38.543" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;quick answer: As big as you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Useless answer: It depends.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've printed 2006x2507 at 16x20 and been happy with the results. There were two factors that allowed me to do this. First, the original shot was tack sharp. this meant that I could up-res a bit with minimal loss in quality. And, second, you don't view a 16x20 from 10&quot; away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Larger prints are generally meant to be viewed from further away so you can get by with less resolution. This is especially true of a canvas print, the maximum resolution of these depends on the weave of the canvas which is probably way less that 300tpi.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3914" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T17:25:38.543" />
  <row Id="9158" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="456" CreationDate="2011-02-22T17:53:56.277" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;jrista has the start of the formula, and it covers images viewed at arm's length quite well. But that 'conventional wisdom' devolves into unreasonable numbers as soon as you get to anything &quot;big&quot;, say even a 16x20... requiring 5-6000 px. And if you hit poster size, say 30x40... 9000x12000... 108 MPix?!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you're talking about really big prints, it's important to realize that the vast majority of folks want to view the entire image, they're going to stand back far enough that they can see the whole thing comfortably. At that distance, the human eye can't resolve 300ppi density. So you can easily decrease the density when you start getting bigger and bigger. You can find lots of discusion about the fidelity of the human eye and it's relation to viewing distance and quality of images if you google for &quot;apple retina display arc second&quot;, in particular, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kybervision.com/Blog/files/AppleRetinaDisplay.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article is a great intro&lt;/a&gt; to the concept.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many print vendors use this same reasoning to set their minimum print resolutions for larger print sizes, at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.smugmug.com/help/print-quality&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SmugMug our minimum values take this into account&lt;/a&gt;. (disclaimer in case it wasn't obvious, I work for SmugMug.) That's not saying you should print at those sizes, just saying that we won't let you print anything smaller.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an example, I have a 30&quot; wide shot that's printed at a mere 100 ppi density. (roughly, the file is like 3123px wide or so.) Being 30&quot; wide, folks don't hold it at arms distance to view it... they tend to stand 3 or 4 feet away and look at it on the wall. No one comments on the resolution. The exception is a couple of photographers that have seen it... and then it's only after they've stepped back to enjoy the scene that they step up close, like a couple inches away, and look at the image in a few key places to spot check the focus. On the bell curve of viewers, those folks are way way way outside the norm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T17:53:56.277" />
  <row Id="9159" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9146" CreationDate="2011-02-22T18:01:29.853" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You'll have to be within a foot or two.  I used a glassless adapter with my 30D and an FD 135/2.8 and had to be within roughly 6 feet to focus on the subject.  I have an FD 35-70, too; if you don't get an accurate answer by tonight I'll try to measure the exact distance for you with it at 50mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also have a cheap (I think it was $1 from KEH) off-brand adapter with glass in it.  I found that I had to stop down my 135/2.8 lens to f/8 in order to get good pictures.  I ended up selling the 135 (which was a shame, it was a fantastic lens, compact, lightweight, and well-built) and buying a Nikon non-AI 135/2.8 (also well-built but about 50% larger and heavier than the Canon).  It wasn't a very expensive tradeoff, luckily: the Canon sold for about $10 and I bought the Nikon for around $40; but a 50/1.2 lens is much more expensive, so if it's still around a 4x markup, you might almost be better off getting a micro-4/3 camera instead!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, and I also, sadly, found that my $250 all-plastic EF-S 55-250/4-5.6 is sharper than the Nikon at all overlapping apertures and focal lengths (i.e. wide open the cheap modern consumer 5x zoom is sharper than a 40-year-old near-professional fast prime).  Just something to consider if you are going to get into manual focus lenses: they are much more fun but, unfortunately, not as sharp as a lens with modern construction and coating.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit after performing the test:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used my FD 35-70/3.5-4.5 at 50mm, wide open (I guess that means f/4) with my glassless FD-EOS adapter (a generic one from eBay, $15 shipped) on my 30D.  I set up a ruler with the 0&quot;(inches) point at 6&quot; from the &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8994/&quot;&gt;plimsole line&lt;/a&gt; (heh)&lt;/em&gt; then took pictures of a pack of cards (1) just beyond what I would consider &quot;sharp&quot; focus, (2) in the middle, as near as I could tell, of the sharp focus range, and (3) just inside of what I would consider sharp focus (i.e. pictures (1) and (3) were somewhat blurry, while (2) should be sharp).  Picture (1) was at the 10.5&quot; mark of the ruler, (2) was at 9.75&quot;, and (3) was at 9&quot;.  I wasn't sure if that meant, with the narrower DOF of your 50/1.2, your maximum focus distance will be just under 16.5&quot; or at 15.75&quot;, so I stopped down to about f/8 and did my best with the reduced light to determine the maximum focus distance, and the threshold seemed to be about 10.5&quot; again.  &lt;strong&gt;So I think you won't be able to focus beyond about 16 inches&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not positive I set everything up at exactly right angles there, so you might be able to capture another half-inch or so, and maybe even another quarter-inch on top of that if your lens focuses to beyond infinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a 100% crop of roughly the center of the 15.75&quot;-from-the-sensor middle-of-the-focus-range capture.  Note that the books in the background are 14.5&quot; past the end of the ruler (32.5&quot; away from the sensor).  What I would normally call beautiful, buttery-smooth bokeh is, in this context, an incredibly-frustrating why-can't-I-focus-on-that &lt;em&gt;problem&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/UoeJQ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;100% crop of test image (2)&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I'm not entirely convinced the apparent CA on the black circle of the Ace is actually CA: upon very close examination of the box, that circle is actually a dark purple, and I can just barely see a tiny little leakage of reddish ink on the edges of that circle; that 100% crop is about 2x actual size so it's much more visible in the picture.  Of course, it could just be a characteristic of the lens, which is a consumer zoom &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; from the film era).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of which reminds me: your 50/1.2 would probably make a great macro lens!  I've been using the 35-70 with a cheap extension tube set (heads up: while off-brand air may be the same as Canon air, off-brand threads are &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; as smooth as Canon threads) as my macro lens, and at f/3.5 under anything other than bright sunlight (and even then, as the lens itself usually shades the subject) it's pretty difficult to figure out where exactly the focus point is.  Obviously you still have to stop way down to take the picture, but having eight times as much light would probably help you a lot when trying to center the focus on the middle of your subject!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastEditorUserId="2910" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-23T07:44:24.270" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T07:44:24.270" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9160" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9066" CreationDate="2011-02-22T18:36:28.017" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question you need to ask yourself is whether you'll be satisfied with 2&quot; by 3&quot; prints made on dye-incorporating paper (the ZINK technology) or whether you want larger (4&quot; by 6&quot;) prints made with dye-sublimation technology. If you want dye sub results, the printer needs to be bigger for any given picture size, and if you want 4x6, the printer will need to be twice as big (at least in two of its dimensions) regardless of the technology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both Canon and Sony offer very compact 4x6 dye sub printers. The Sony is not as tall as the flat Canon, but it is a little wider (and more expensive), but neither can come anywhere near the Polaroid/ZINK printer in terms of size. But then, they're meant for printing photographs, not stickers (which is one of the primary features of the ZINK paper).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T18:36:28.017" />
  <row Id="9161" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9176" CreationDate="2011-02-22T18:43:53.520" Score="2" ViewCount="135" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello everyone.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I'm looking for a camera that has all of the following traits :&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Wide Lens (28mm)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Socket for external power&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Controlled with software via the USB&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Cheap (older model ?)&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I want to do a time-lapse spanning many months.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I don't need a lot of MegaPixels, but I do need at least 2mp.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;And ideas ?&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Thanks,&#xA;&lt;br&gt;SW&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1636" LastEditorUserId="1636" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-23T03:33:35.200" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T04:38:15.593" Title="Which P&amp;S camera has wide lens, power adapter socket, and PC control via USB ?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;&lt;timelapse&gt;&lt;wide-angle&gt;&lt;usb&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="12" />
  <row Id="9162" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9163" CreationDate="2011-02-22T19:25:15.043" Score="3" ViewCount="168" Body="&lt;p&gt;What's the difference between Kodak Tri-X 400 and Kodak Tri-X 400 Pan?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't seem to find the difference anywhere, are they simply the same just re-branded?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/2qhJO.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Q9HjZ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3594" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T19:53:51.813" Title="Difference between Kodak Tri-X Pan 400 and Tri-X 400" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;35mm&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9163" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9162" CreationDate="2011-02-22T19:36:01.343" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is none, except the labelling. &quot;Pan&quot; is short for &quot;panchromatic&quot; which means that it can record visible light all the way from blue down to red. Amazing, isn't it? These days, it's the films that don't record the whole visible spectrum that get the special labels, like &quot;ortho&quot; (for &quot;othochromatic&quot; -- they don't record orangey yellows or reds, and can be worked with safely under fairly bright red darkroom lighting). There was even a time when ortho film was special new technology -- the earliest films only recorded blue light, which is why mid-nineteenth century landscapes have white skies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would expect that Pan X (or Panchromatic X), if it is still available, would still have &quot;pan&quot; in the name, since X isn't a recognizable brand name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T19:36:01.343" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9164" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9162" CreationDate="2011-02-22T19:42:08.277" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f9/f9.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;first hit I get on google&lt;/a&gt; for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?q=Tri-X+400+Pan&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tri-X 400 Pan&lt;/a&gt; tells me:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;KODAK TRI-X Pan Film has been replaced&#xA;  by KODAK PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 400 Film /&#xA;  400TX.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;second hit&lt;/a&gt; is about Pro Tri-X 400, and that says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Compared to KODAK TRI-X Pan and KODAK&#xA;  TRI-X Pan Professional Film, the newer&#xA;  TRI-X 400 and 320 Films may have a&#xA;  slightly different retouching “feel”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At a quick glance, I notice that the timings in development charts are slightly different. So, it &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; a slightly different film.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-22T19:53:51.813" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T19:53:51.813" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9165" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2605" CreationDate="2011-02-22T20:04:27.100" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AF-D and I've used it on my D5000 on a number of occasions. The focusing is a bit tricky and I've taken several dozen out of focus shots but then on the other hand I've taken several photos that I really liked. I basically treat the manual focus as a challenge rather than a limitation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4024" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T20:04:27.100" />
  <row Id="9166" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7399" CreationDate="2011-02-22T21:27:09.493" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I owned a 7D (I don't any more...), for big landscapes I would with a 5D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastActivityDate="2011-02-22T21:27:09.493" />
  <row Id="9167" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9161" CreationDate="2011-02-23T01:36:22.860" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been looking this one up a bit more, and I think what you really want is a high quality web cam, not the cheap kind that most of us get. I looked around, and found &lt;a href=&quot;http://askville.amazon.com/Low-Light-Webcam/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=3119967&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt;. The winner seems to be &lt;a href=&quot;http://amzn.to/eVcBzh&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DIGI INTERNATIONAL 301-9010-01 Watchport/V2 USB Camera&lt;/a&gt;. Granted, the article is a few months old, but I would hope it's still decent. This webcam is normally used for sensitive areas, like ATMs, surveillance, etc. The cost is a bit high, but not unreasonable, $142.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: Based off of your latest requirements, I'm going to change my suggest to the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800750504-USE/Olympus_262060_Evolt_E_500_Digital_Camera.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Olympus Evolt E-500, 8.0 Megapixel, SLR, Digital Camera Body (Black)&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800750504-USE/Olympus_262060_Evolt_E_500_Digital_Camera.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Olympus 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 Zuiko EZ Zoom Lens for Olympus Digital Cameras (Four Thirds System)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Get them together, it's around $300, but I can't see how you are going to get everything you are asking for for less than that. Plus you'll have a DSLR, which'll help you with a lot of things in the future. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I just can't find a better deal around, perhaps someone else will...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-23T03:48:36.857" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T03:48:36.857" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9168" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="706" CreationDate="2011-02-23T03:08:09.120" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Soho, chinatown. Check picaspot.com for more ideas&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4028" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T03:08:09.120" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-23T03:08:09.120" />
  <row Id="9169" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-23T03:37:59.427" Score="7" ViewCount="347" Body="&lt;p&gt;After playing around with macro photography on-the-cheap (read: reversed lens, rev. lens mounted on a straight lens, passive extension tubes), I would like to get further with this. The problems with the techniques I used is that focus is manual and aperture control is problematic at best. This limited my setup to still subjects (read: dead insects) Now, as spring is approaching, I want to be able to shoot &lt;em&gt;live&lt;/em&gt; insects. I believe that for this, autofocus and settable aperture will be of great help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, one obvious but expensive option is a macro lens (say, EF 100mm Macro) However, I am not really interested in yet another prime lens. An alternative is the electrical extension tubes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Except for maximum focusing distance, what am I losing when using tubes (coupled with a fine lens, say EF70-200/2.8) instead of a macro lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T15:11:03.270" Title="Macro lens vs Extension tubes" Tags="&lt;macro&gt;&lt;extension-tubes&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9170" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9194" CreationDate="2011-02-23T03:40:44.807" Score="2" ViewCount="102" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recall seeing years ago a device which you would attach two USB drives to, and it would copy files from one USB device to the other. Usually two flash drives, but it would also work with sd to USB adaptive, and USB hard drives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't find it again, and I want to be able to backup my photos by essentially duplicating my flash drives when they are full, and backing up to a larger USB drive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further, for a variety of reasons, I want to do this without using a computer. (speed, power consumption, target of theft, etc)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any recommendations or tips?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1216" LastEditorUserId="1216" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-23T14:19:25.437" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T14:38:05.463" Title="What devices transfer photos from one flash media to another?" Tags="&lt;storage&gt;&lt;backup&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9171" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9169" CreationDate="2011-02-23T03:45:33.630" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You'll also loose some light with extension tubes. Not to mention you'll loose the cool bokeh of the 100mm lens. Also, zoom lenses will do strange things with extension tubes, zooming out will dramatically change the focus, for instance. Also, from the experience of @rfusca, I understand that the range can be quite limited, maybe only a few inches, depending on the lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, the electrical connected ones can be a step somewhere between, and are much better than the screw on lenses that exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T03:45:33.630" />
  <row Id="9172" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9169" CreationDate="2011-02-23T03:50:49.410" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just got extension tubes, so here's the skinny.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...what am I losing when using tubes...?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A very considerable amount of light!  Increasing that distance from the end of the lens to the sensor can cut your light several stops.  Combined with the fact that you'll usually shoot stopped down - expect to need to increase your ISO &lt;strong&gt;considerably&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact the macro's are usually considered very very sharp, although I believe that 70-200mm 2.8 is supposed to be quite sharp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ultra low distortion typical of many macros.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't worry too much about the bokeh since the DOF will still be quite limited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Coupled on my 50mm, a full 60mm'ish extension tube results in a DOF of about a couple inches in front of the lens.  On my 70-300, its probably around 2-3 feet in front of the lens to about a foot in front of the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-23T04:24:19.260" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T04:24:19.260" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9173" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9170" CreationDate="2011-02-23T03:59:37.060" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure about a duplication of flash drives, but one commonly used option is something like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Foci-PST-251-Picture-Storage/dp/B00378KLFQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1298433424&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this hard drive that copies a SD card to it&lt;/a&gt;.  It doesn't take usb drives, but for photos it does take SD cards and CF cards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T03:59:37.060" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9174" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9169" CreationDate="2011-02-23T04:04:59.910" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Especially on internal-focus designs, you'll often run into problems with field curvature and longitudinal chromatic aberrations. (Every lens is slightly different, you'd need to test.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The field curvature may be no big deal -- it depends on the type of subject you want to shoot. With round or organically-shaped things, it's usually not a problem, but if you're the type who insists on photographing his stamp collection (I actually knew somebody like that) it can be hell trying to find a focus point that will allow DoF to bring the subject into focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;LCAs, though, can be truly annoying. Again, if your lens doesn't show much bad behaviour, go ahead and use it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I've been typing this, I've seen two answers come in to warn about the dangers of light loss. Again, don't worry about it -- it isn't unique to tubes. Any time you focus very closely, you are increasing the effective length of the lens, so you are also decreasing the effective aperture. At 1:1 magnification, you lose two full stops. That's a fact of life, and it doesn't matter whether you focused in that closely using tubes or using a macro lens. If you can meter through the lens, it's all taken care of for you. If you are metering manually, you'll need to compensate by the appropriate amount regardless of the setup you use. (Diopters are a special case, but they're also the worst way to go about it.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using a macro lens makes your life easier, and you know that a good macro lens is going to perform well at macro distances. The field is flat, and the CA behaviour has been tuned to give good performance at long rear focus distances. And if the cost of the EF 100 is a turn-off, take a look at the Tamron SP 90 f/2.8 -- it's a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;magnificent&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; lens at every distance from infinity to 1:1, and it's less than half the price of the Canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T04:04:59.910" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9175" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9169" CreationDate="2011-02-23T04:34:57.667" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, I think your quest to avoid macro lenses is misguided. The simple fact is, a true macro lens will be sharper, more versatile, and easier to handle than any of the alternatives to that. Either way, however, autofocus when dealing with a small subject and razor thin DoF is pretty much a non-starter, you'll need to get good with manual focus or you will have to deal with the camera hunting for focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, the downsides to the alternatives are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) Several stops of light. Extension tubes can cut a lot of light and some times that light is very important, especially dealing with small, and moving, subjects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) Sharpness. You're going to put either distance or glass between the lens and the sensor and either of these will impact the overall sharpness of the lens. This may be acceptable, but you should be aware.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, my experience says that if macro is something you really want to shoot, then you need to go to a proper lens, designed for this. Everything else is simply going to be a step on a path and will cost you more in the end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T04:34:57.667" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9176" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9161" CreationDate="2011-02-23T04:38:15.593" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;So,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;after digging around all day I found my camera :&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Canon S70.&lt;Br&gt;&#xA;It is the only camera that comes close to the requirement list.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;It is around 100$ on ebay.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;It does not have a power socket, but there is this :&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://sterlingtek.com/st10-trav---canon-powershot-s70-power-adapter.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://sterlingtek.com/st10-trav---canon-powershot-s70-power-adapter.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;On a side note, one of the reason I always preferred Canon was their &lt;br&gt;&#xA;free software SDK for camera control. Sadly, they have discontinued this&lt;br&gt;&#xA;feature after the G10 came out in 2008.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1636" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T04:38:15.593" />
  <row Id="9177" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1563" CreationDate="2011-02-23T04:42:32.827" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Older Canon P&amp;amp;S support remote operation via the USB and a PC.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Canon discontinued this feature after the G10.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1636" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T04:42:32.827" />
  <row Id="9178" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9170" CreationDate="2011-02-23T05:11:09.123" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know of any current devices that do 1-to-1 (and by that, I mean 1-to-1 &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt;), but I know of a bunch that will dupe anything with a USB interface 1-to-3, 1-to-7, 1-to-11, 1-to-20 or more. They're God-awful expensive, though -- they're meant for things like quickly producing USB keys of conference audio files and slides as soon as the speaker's finished. For 1-to-1 use, it's cheaper to use a computer even if that means buying a netbook (or something similar) to dedicate to the task because you don't want to occupy another computer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T05:11:09.123" />
  <row Id="9179" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9169" CreationDate="2011-02-23T05:19:23.077" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;as others have noted you lose light but with extension tubes you gain versatility that is sometimes not available with a EF 100.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a EF70-200/2.8 that I use with extension tubes (kenko 12mm, 20mm, 36mm) especially for taking photos of insects. &#xA;the Minimum Working Distance from the front of the lens to the subject with the lens zoomed to 200mm:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;58cm with 12mm extension tube&#xA;72cm with 20mm extension tube&#xA;86cm with 36mm extension tube&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;setting the lens to the 70mm position brings your MWD numbers down to the 30cm range&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have the EF 100 macro that I prefer using whenever its expedient but very often the bugs get nervous and skitter away when I get close enough to fill the frame with them. So I use the 70-200 with extension tubes so I can position the lens a couple feet from them and still get very sharp pictures of the bug.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I prefer to not use a flash to take pictures of bugs for a number of reasons consequently another problem with the EF 100 is that when I come in close I often end up blocking the light source or casting a shadow over the subject that changes the dynamic of the picture. By using the extension tubes and the EF 70-200 I can take advantage of a natural light source. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I do use a flash I use a Canon MR-14EX Macro Ring Lite (I tried a lot of other options and finally bit the bullet) mounted on the EF 100.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;as a side note, while purists will sniff disdain, I do stage shots with live bugs - usually what I do is capture several of them the day before and store then in Tupperware in the refrigerator overnight then bring them to the scene I want for a backdrop in a cooler. The cold doesn't kill them but it does slow them down quite a bit so you can stage the shot. Also butterflys are suckers for hummingbird feeder juice made with vodka - they drink some of it then they perch somewhere nearby and move their wings very slowly and don't seem to mind if you get real close to them. Of course if they drink too much and fall over on their side its not a pretty picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3675" LastEditorUserId="3675" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-23T15:11:03.270" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T15:11:03.270" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9180" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9183" CreationDate="2011-02-23T05:20:33.903" Score="5" ViewCount="117" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am in the process of building a controlled environment in which to edit photos. Other questions have addressed the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2624/what-are-color-profiles-and-where-would-i-find-information-on-using-them-properly&quot;&gt;gamut&lt;/a&gt;, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6376/other-than-the-imac-whats-a-brilliant-display-for-my-images&quot;&gt;monitor&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1687/monitor-for-photo-processing&quot;&gt;color calibration&lt;/a&gt;, but for the most accurate display of photos is there anything else I should be taking into account as I set up my physical environment? I'm thinking of things like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Color choice for wall paint?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What types of lights would I want to use?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How bright would I want the lights to be?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are there any other considerations I should be keeping in mind for the design of my physical environment for photo editing?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-23T06:07:59.600" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T06:34:03.157" Title="What should I consider when designing my physical environment for photo editing?" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;color-management&gt;&lt;light&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="9181" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9182" CreationDate="2011-02-23T06:13:05.500" Score="13" ViewCount="540" Body="&lt;p&gt;This may not be the best example but I liked the colors and angle. I have seen lot of similar photos. They look very colorful but not overdone (does it have any technical term) . Any suggestions for capturing these kind of pictures?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/apAu5.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;tray of colorful yummy food&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source : &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/32769813@N08/5462155930&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/32769813@N08/5462155930&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2867" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-31T15:30:53.070" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T15:30:53.070" Title="How can I make colorful, &quot;saturated&quot; photos like this example?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;color&gt;&lt;saturation&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="9182" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9181" CreationDate="2011-02-23T06:29:24.767" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the word you're looking for is &quot;saturated&quot;. In any case, this looks to me like it was taken with a fairly wide-angle lens from quite close up (note the rather exaggerated perspective of the tray). The saturated colors are largely a result of fairly careful lighting, in this case from the right of the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Especially if you're accustomed to on-camera flash, this can make a big difference. On-camera flash tends to show quite a few specular highlights. Since (by definition) a specular highlight doesn't show color, a lot of them have a tendency to give washed-out looking colors. Moving the flash 30-45 degrees (or so) away from the lens axis eliminates (or at least hides) a lot of those specular highlights, so you get much more saturated colors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T06:29:24.767" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9183" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9180" CreationDate="2011-02-23T06:34:03.157" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming there will be test prints involved (that is, you won't be working exclusively with the screen), you'll want the lighting to be full-spectrum and daylight-balanced. If it looks good &quot;in broad daylight&quot; it will look right under just about any lighting conditions. I figured that out the hard way when I was painting -- there's nothing quite like putting a couple of hundred hours into a work then finding out that the colours are all horrible everywhere but in your studio. Back then, it took a balance of fluorescents and tungsten to simulate the right light, but these days you can get some really excellent fluorescents. (My personal preference is Ott Lites -- Lowes carries them in a standard Edison-base spiral 25W version -- but there are other brands and other retailers.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll want it to be fairly bright, but not uncomfortably so -- you certainly don't want to overpower the monitor. You might want to have at least two lighting circuits so you can keep the level lower for heads-down computer work and turn up the volume a bit for examining prints. For critical examination of prints, the light needs to be brighter than you'd think a sane person would allow -- it's really the only way to judge values around Dmax. I can't give you a lux level, but I found that 100W (four 25W CFL bulbs) in a ten-foot-square room is just about right for viewing prints, while I can get by with one bulb during straight computer work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The walls should be as neutral as you can make them. White is good, but it can be a bit much to take all day, every day. A neutral grey (not grey card grey, just a titanium white &quot;tinted&quot; only with a neutral black to an &quot;off-white&quot; value) is probably never going to be high style in the decorating world, but it won't influence your print colours or make your eyes readjust their white balance when looking at and away from the monitor. A white ceiling can help to maintain the light level without the eyestrain that white walls would cause.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apart from that, make your workstation comfortable. Invest in a good chair -- you're going to be living in it for a considerable chunk of the day. If you don't have one already, get a tablet (like the Wacom Bamboo Pen or, better yet, a larger Intuos). Once you've used something that works on absolute screen coordinates (top left of the tablet is top left of the screen, bottom right is bottom right), you can never go back -- you'll really begin to wonder why anybody thought that pushing something like a bar of soap around the desktop with no reference points could possibly have been a good idea. If your monitor isn't hooded, you might want to build a hood for it -- it's really easy to get used to the slightest glare, but that glare affects your judgement. Oh, and did I mention that the workstation should be comfortable?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T06:34:03.157" />
  <row Id="9184" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9112" CreationDate="2011-02-23T06:56:42.130" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr&lt;/a&gt; allows nudes as long as you change the image's &quot;safety level&quot; so kiddos and people at work don't get them popping up on a search; you're perfectly within the ToS. You can also make groups and galleries private if you'd rather limit who can see the photos and/or comment on them...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-23T16:29:45.870" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T16:29:45.870" />
  <row Id="9185" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-23T07:46:01.997" Score="0" ViewCount="476" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello,&#xA;I'm confused as to go with the costlier body cheaper lens vice-versa,&#xA;I have a budget at around $1000, and i am looking at the canon 550d with the 50mm f 1.8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to get advice on the lens selection, the dslr will be used mostly for video.&#xA;Also is there a nikon alternative to the 550d?&#xA;Your answers are greatly appreciated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Options:&#xA;Sony A55&#xA;Sony A580&#xA;Canon 550d&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regards&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4031" LastEditorUserId="4031" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-23T07:54:28.583" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T14:10:52.837" Title="Canon 550d ideal for project documentary video production and lens selection ?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;hd-video&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9186" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8882" CreationDate="2011-02-23T08:14:15.090" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the United States it is completely legal to to take pictures of aircraft taking off or landing without asking for permission from anyone as long as you are on public property when you take those pictures. Pulled off to the side of the road, for example. It is also totally legal to take pictures of military aircraft taking off or landing if you are on public property (not on the base, in other words). Like others have said, it might be a good idea to get permission from the authorities on base if at all possible, though...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4032" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T08:14:15.090" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9187" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8051" CreationDate="2011-02-23T08:23:43.503" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If your area of expertise is photojournalism, you need a portfolio too, but the requirements are a bit different. You'll want your best photographs, just like others have mentioned, however you'll 'submit' them in the form of what are called 'tearsheets.' This is literally when you tear your picture (and often the article) out and put it in a portfolio binder of some sort. The goal is a little different with a photojournalistic portfolio, you're looking for a job instead of trying to get hired for a contract, but the principle is similar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4032" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T08:23:43.503" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9188" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9185" CreationDate="2011-02-23T08:49:58.523" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nikon hits both above and below the 550D (T2i), but not right at that level. There's the entry-level D3100, which is less expensive (and relatively new), and the recently-released D7000, which comes in at about $400-$500 more (but is very capable). At around the same price level as the 550D, there's the D90 -- but it was the very first video DSLR, so it's not quite up-to-date in terms of features or video resolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not a video person, so I can't tell you anything useful about the video features of either camera except that the D7000 seems to be pretty much feature-complete. The D3100 doesn't seem to get very positive reviews for serious video (major rolling shutter effect and short recording time being the major complaints), and the D7000 is more of a competitor to the Canon 60D than the 550D/T2i. The D90, as I said, is a bit of a black-and-white vacuum-tube television compared to anything more recent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;strong&gt;Rant Expurgated&lt;/strong&gt; -- but it felt good while it lasted)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastEditorUserId="2719" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-23T09:56:50.920" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T09:56:50.920" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9189" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9185" CreationDate="2011-02-23T09:28:58.820" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're all about video, Nikon D3100 (my friend owns) shall give you exact video quality as Canon 550D (I own) as well as can save a few bucks. Additional money can be used to buy a better lens f.e 28-135mm than the kit lens. 50mm f/1.8 is a very good lens for its price but not sure a prime could suffice you need for video or not. I'd prefer a zoom lens for better video framing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T09:28:58.820" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9190" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8882" CreationDate="2011-02-23T09:47:43.407" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's completely legal, both military and civil. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taking pictures of military aircraft being prepared for a mission might fall under the espionage act, but only if a prosecutor can prove you did it with the intent to distribute to foreign governments or their agents I think (that said, in the current USA, they'd just pack you off to Gitmo and let you rot there, never to be heard from again, under the &quot;Patriot Act&quot;).&#xA;But then again, such operations would usually take place out of sight of terrain outside the military installation, so you'd need to be breaking the law already to see them by trespassing on a secure installation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do of course always obey any traffic signs. Many airport perimeter roads have no-stop and no-parking signs, and people often get caught for violating those and sent away, then scream that their right to take pictures was violated.&#xA;Or they trespass on airport property and claim the same when arrested.&#xA;There's also a group who consistently damage airport fences to make holes for cameras, and/or place ladders against fences to look over them (and sometimes jump over them to get closer to the action, trespassing again). Both are of course reason to get arrested.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And do have the phone number of your lawyer with you. There's a lot of overly zealous rentacops working for airports who sometimes harass and even apprehend photographers on bogus charges and will try to destroy your photos and sometimes equipment unless they're given a legal talking to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T09:47:43.407" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9191" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9185" CreationDate="2011-02-23T14:10:52.837" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Normally, it is advisable to go with a better lens even if that means a cheaper body (due to budget constraints), as lenses make much more a difference than most modern DSLRs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since you are going for primarily for video, you need to consider &lt;strong&gt;audio&lt;/strong&gt; as well. There is no built-in microphone that is good enough for serious documentary, so you have two choices:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Buy a &lt;strong&gt;camera with a mini-jack&lt;/strong&gt; so that you can plug in an external microphone.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Buy an &lt;strong&gt;external sound recording device&lt;/strong&gt; and record sound separately. Merge the sound track from your recording with the video track using video editing software.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;second option is more flexible and also more costly&lt;/strong&gt;. As usual, you need to spend enough on a sound recording to get something good. Don't both using you cellphone's sound-recording function ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are very few DSLRs which will autofocus while recording video. It is often a concern for people buying cameras for home videos but for &lt;strong&gt;anything serious it does not matter&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do not go with one of the sound options above, then you will have to &lt;strong&gt;worry about the camera recording the sound of autofocus&lt;/strong&gt;. On the cameras I tried (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/review.php?id=15&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon D3100&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/review.php?id=148&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A55&lt;/a&gt;), it will make your sound track annoying to your audience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if you do use external audio, the contrast-detect autofocus system used by the D3100 causes the lens to move back and forth while focusing. This is easy to spot in videos and just does not look right. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/review.php?id=148&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sony Alpha SLT-A55&lt;/a&gt; and its sibling the A33 are the &lt;strong&gt;only cameras that use phase-detection during video recording&lt;/strong&gt; and avoid this particular problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If possible for the subjects you are documenting, &lt;strong&gt;you should use Manual Focus while filming&lt;/strong&gt;. This will let you decide precisely on what to focus, when to change focus and how slowly to do it. It will take lots of practice to get right, so try it on squirrels or whatever animal you have roaming around where you live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are filming things that move a lot or live-events (in which case retakes are not possible), then you may decide to rely on autofocus. You will occasionally end up with shots that are partially out of focus since sometimes the camera simply goes after the wrong thing. You can edit such parts out and move any relevant audio.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T14:10:52.837" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9192" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9210" CreationDate="2011-02-23T14:21:22.633" Score="8" ViewCount="248" Body="&lt;p&gt;The standard way to print photos is on paper, but I'm noticing in particular two alternatives that are starting to make a bit push, namely Metal and Canvas. So, my question is, why would I want to print on any medium besides paper, and what types of prints are suited for these and any other alternative mediums that might exist?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: I'm looking for something to hang on the wall, so feel free to ignore any kind of merchandise, cake, or whatever else might be around. Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-06T06:52:23.630" LastActivityDate="2011-03-06T07:16:36.773" Title="Alternative media for printing photos" Tags="&lt;printing&gt;&lt;canvas&gt;&lt;metal-print&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9193" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9192" CreationDate="2011-02-23T14:37:12.170" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canvas gives an &quot;arty&quot; feel to a photo, like someone took the time to make a very lifelike painting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another printed medium is cake, for birthdays etc. People print on cake so they can eat it. :-P&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T14:37:12.170" />
  <row Id="9194" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9170" CreationDate="2011-02-23T14:38:05.463" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Maybe you recall this one: &lt;a href=&quot;http://reviews.cnet.com/home-entertainment/belkin-usb-anywhere/4505-6449_7-31490968.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://reviews.cnet.com/home-entertainment/belkin-usb-anywhere/4505-6449_7-31490968.html&lt;/a&gt;, although I can not find it on belkin's site anymore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2549" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T14:38:05.463" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9195" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9192" CreationDate="2011-02-23T15:32:20.467" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;you can print on anything on which you can spread an emulsion. Paper is simply the most convenient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do a quick search for &quot;liquid light&quot; to get you started.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're asking about inkjet printing, I would think you'd need specialty printers and inks for different applications.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3914" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T15:32:20.467" />
  <row Id="9196" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9192" CreationDate="2011-02-23T15:38:40.353" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can also print on t-shirts, mousepads, jigsaws, tablemats...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of wall hangings the main options are canvas and acrylic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canvas suits more abstract photos and to some extent covers up for detail lost through enlargement etc. that is to say it's less demanding on sharpness to look good. You can also print on the sides and give the price a chunky 3-D quality. Being able to print right to the edge negates the need for a frame. The overall effect is very modern, quite unlike a canvas painting in fact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acrylic (plexiglas) prints are sharp and very vibrant which suit photos with saturated colours. They also go up with out a frame and have a crisp modern look. This sort of print also benefits from the fact it can be backlit for even more contrast / strong colours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T15:38:40.353" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9197" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9192" CreationDate="2011-02-23T16:06:18.060" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I print a lot on Canvas, with really thick frame using the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallery_wrap&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gallery Wrap&lt;/a&gt; approach.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;It looks great, in my opinion it is the best way to display photographs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1636" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T16:06:18.060" />
  <row Id="9198" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9192" CreationDate="2011-02-23T16:22:36.330" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To address the two specific materials you mentioned:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Canvas&lt;/strong&gt; is a great way to show larger works.  Canvas is often best viewed from a distance; the textured surface means that things will look a little fuzzy/funky up close.  On the other hand this can be a bonus in that a tack-sharp image isn't always necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Metal prints&lt;/strong&gt; work well for images of all sizes.  Unlike a large paper print that's matted and framed under glass, a metal print is usually done on aluminum and is very light weight even at larger sizes such as 16x20.  Metal prints are available in a variety of finishes including a high-gloss surface or a matte surface.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've recently started pushing metal prints for my friends/clients who want to do wall displays - they're light weight, don't require framing, and are pretty easy to clean (my Bay Photo rep indicated one can just use glass cleaner).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T16:22:36.330" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9199" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9216" CreationDate="2011-02-23T16:44:50.150" Score="11" ViewCount="415" Body="&lt;p&gt;I got my new tripod and 50mm F/1.4 sigma on my Nikon D7000 and was testing it out doing some shots of a flame on a candle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The below image is the sharpest i was able to produce. In review of my 50+ shots I noticed very many out of focus. This is the main factor I was trying to concentrate on to get a clear sharp picture of the flame. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Using Manual Focus&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few things I noticed and could use help with are the act of manual focusing on the flame. I would try to use my eye and view the flame in the eye piece. I would turn the auto focus ring back and forth dialing it in to a point in between both extremes until the flame looked sharp. I noticed there was considerable travel in the focus ring while still looking sharp to my eye. &lt;strong&gt;How can I tell when the flame is in focus? When and how do I detect where to leave the focus ring in order to get a crisp and sharp photo?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Using Auto Focus&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I took about half my shots using Auto Focus and found a great many of these shots were also not sharp. I guess the auto focus had a hard time with the only light being the candle. I turned on the lights and used a cardboard post to try to get the camera to lock cardboard and then turn off the lights and light the candle. This was also not a help and my attempts seemed very crude. &lt;strong&gt;Should I and how can I use auto focus in this situation?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I found it annoying that when I tried to get the auto focus to lock on a particular point on the cardboard the camera kept selecting some other point of focus on. At least this is what i gather was happening because the camera placed a black little square box on a section of the frame other than where I intended it to. &lt;strong&gt;How can I control this box so I can tell the camera what I want to focus on?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/0kjXy.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;candle picture&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-23T21:49:19.763" LastActivityDate="2011-02-26T12:27:02.597" Title="How can I improve focus using both manual and auto on a candle flame?" Tags="&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;focus&gt;&lt;manual-focus&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9200" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9199" CreationDate="2011-02-23T16:49:01.207" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would recommend getting the rim of the candle in focus, rather than the flame itself. The flame is going to waver and flicker, and it may move closer or farther from you as you are trying to focus. It is rather ephemeral itself, as well, and may not necessarily always have &quot;sharp&quot; edges. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you try to focus the left and right edges of the candle that are around the flame in the plane you want focused, you will probably have more luck. It should be easier to see when the picture is in focus as well, since the shape and sharpness of the candle itself are going to be static...unlike the flame. Once you have the candle in focus at the right depth, so long as your DOF is deep enough to include the whole flame, it should be &quot;in focus&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T16:49:01.207" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9201" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9114" CreationDate="2011-02-23T16:58:26.177" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you think you've got the stuff, you could try gaining exposure through a juried site like &lt;a href=&quot;http://1x.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Onexposure home page&quot;&gt;Onexposure&lt;/a&gt; (pronounced &quot;one exposure&quot;). It's not a point of sale &lt;em&gt;per se&lt;/em&gt;, but it &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; a place where you can get a relatively wide exposure to a discerning audience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will receive good critique if there's any real merit to your work (snapshots are simply dismissed out of hand) -- even if it's not accepted. There's no need to invest anything until you have at least one image accepted for display on the site (at which point you'd probably want to spring for the paid membership that allows you to set up a &quot;home page&quot; to point interested viewers to a place where they can see -- and purchase -- more of your work). And you get to see and critique the work of others as well, which can help you see your own images more critically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you see the quality of work already on the site, you'll understand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T16:58:26.177" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9202" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9199" CreationDate="2011-02-23T17:09:14.730" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You won't be able to manually focus properly at the widest aperture through the viewfinder (though I've been told you can with Live Preview).  You should read &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4175/depth-of-field-preview-optical-viewfinder-canon-500d-large-aperture&quot;&gt;Depth-of-field preview, optical viewfinder, Canon 500D, large aperture&lt;/a&gt; .  I was pretty disappointed myself when I learned about this on my Canon 30D + Sigma 30/1.4!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your D7000 has a Depth of Field Preview button, you can verify this for yourself by pressing the DOF Preview button at different apertures: you probably won't notice any difference in the amount of light coming through the viewfinder between f/1.4 and around f/2.5 or f/2.8 or so.  This means when you look through the viewfinder you are seeing the scene as if your aperture was set at f/2.5, not f/1.4.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: so if you shoot at f/2.8, what you see through the viewfinder will be what you get.  Try shooting at f/2.8 and see if the output is in focus like you saw through the viewfinder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I still love using manual focus with my f/1.4 lens, but I have learned to bracket focus (like you mentioned you are doing) and take several pictures so I'll get the focus right on at least one of them.  In other words, I change the focus just slightly between every single shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I &lt;em&gt;think&lt;/em&gt; that the actual focus point will be just slightly towards you from the center of the sharp focus region, but I could be mistaken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as AF: there should be a way to tell your camera which auto-focus point to use.  You'll have to check your manual for that, though, or get an answer from someone with a similar camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastEditorUserId="2910" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-23T17:54:37.107" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T17:54:37.107" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9203" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9192" CreationDate="2011-02-23T17:20:22.000" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can also print on self-adhesive vinyl, as the signage industry does.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3665/where-can-i-print-a-panorama/3684#3684&quot;&gt;See this answer for more details&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T17:20:22.000" />
  <row Id="9204" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9181" CreationDate="2011-02-23T17:41:06.357" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jerry's answer is spot-on, diffused white lighting with good white balance is essential.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next best opportunity for controlling your colour saturation is at the RAW to jpeg conversion. Your final opportunity is in Photoshop/Gimp but I have found it is best to do it at the RAW conversion stage.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my case, since I use Ufraw, these instructions are specific to that tool.  I select the Colour Matrix option and then increase the saturation slider above 0 according to taste and the end effect desired.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have one other option, and that is local contrast enhancement. This gives the image more 'snap' and boosts the colour a little.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These instructions are for Gimp, but Photoshop is quite similar. Create a duplicate layer and set the Mode of the duplicate layer to 'Soft light'. Now drag the opacity slider to somewhere between 0 and 100. I find that 40 works for me most of the time. Then flatten the layers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T17:41:06.357" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9205" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9199" CreationDate="2011-02-23T17:46:09.050" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The bigger and brighter the viewfinder image is, the easier it will be to focus manually. The D7000 at least has a prism rather than a mirror, but the crop sensor means that you're looking at an image on the focusing screen that's only about 45% of the area you'd be working with using a full-frame camera. Making the image large enough in the viewfinder means that the apparent brightness goes way down. (If you get a chance some day, try manually focusing a medium format camera at a camera shop -- even an old clunker with a plain ground glass screen and an f/4 or slower lens -- and you'll see what a difference in brightness and ease of focusing there is just from having a much larger screen.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You're also working with a plain screen -- we used to have focusing aids like split-image prisms and microprisms that helped a lot, especially in low-light or low-contrast situations in the manual-focus era. So there's another handicap into the mix.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That doesn't make it impossible -- just difficult. I was &lt;em&gt;eventually&lt;/em&gt; able to train myself to focus on the plain ground glass areas of a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_Auto_110&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pentax Auto 110&lt;/a&gt;, but it sure wasn't easy (and there was nothing I or anyone else could do to keep the pictures from looking like they were shot on 110 film -- but I was 17 and not completely unretarded at the time). It can be done, but it takes a little while to train your eyes to see extremely small differences in contrast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That all being said, and taking into consideration that buying a $40K Hasselblad to take a picture of a candle is perhaps not the most cost-effective approach, the simplest expedient is to focus with the lights on, then douse the lights before taking an exposure. That won't help you take pictures where you &lt;em&gt;can't&lt;/em&gt; control the lighting, but there's no sense in doing things the hard way if you don't have to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might find it helpful to use a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_camera#Operation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;dark cloth&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; or an accessory eye cup to keep stray light out of your eyes while focusing -- ambient brightness kills whatever contrast you have to work with on the ground glass, both by closing your iris down and by front-lighting the screen. Treat pictures like this one (and still lives and landscapes) as if you were using a view camera. Slow everything way down, be deliberate, and give yourself every advantage you can -- it'll make a huge difference in the final result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And yes, you can focus effectively with the lens wide open unless the lens exhibits significant focus shift (a phenomenon in which the focus point of the lens changes as the aperture changes -- something that shouldn't be a problem with the Sigma 50). The camera does it; why shouldn't you? DoF preview is another matter -- it can be very hard to determine what is an isn't in the range of acceptable focus once you've stopped down and made the image, say, 32 times as dim as it was wide open (that's f/8 compared to f/1.4). Maybe with a couple of long-range military searchlights...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if you are faced with focus shift, you can always &quot;focus bracket&quot; when shooting a subject that isn't going anywhere. (It's not like you're burning a ten-dollar sheet of 8x10 film every time you release the shutter.) Relax, take your time -- and cheat whenever you can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T17:46:09.050" />
  <row Id="9206" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9181" CreationDate="2011-02-23T17:48:54.633" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to what Jerry and labnut mentioned, you can apply so called S-curves in Photoshop's tone curve utility. Of course this also applies for the Gimp and many other tools. This will boost the contrast and saturation even more. It can be used as an alternative or alongside with the Soft Light layer technique described by labnut.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3789" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T17:48:54.633" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9207" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9199" CreationDate="2011-02-23T17:49:15.927" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How can I tell when the flame is in focus? When and how do I detect where to leave the focus ring in order to get a crisp and sharp photo?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general you know that the flame will be in focus when the wick is in focus, so I would tackle this as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set the candle in the location you plan on taking pictures of it. If possible set it in a location without a lot of air movement (a steady flame will be easier to take a properly focused picture of)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set your camera/tripod where you plan on taking the picture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;With room light on dial in your camera settings and AF on the wick. I'd shoot for an f-stop of 4 to 5.6 because the 'mid' f-stops on a lens will generally produce sharper results than f-stops on the extreme ends. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Turn off AF on your camera&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Turn the room light off and light the candle&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take the picture(s)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this'll give you the best chance for in-focus pictures with the least amount of 'fiddling' with it. As long as you don't move the candle, the camera, or change lenses (e.g. alter the variables), your shots should always be as in focus as they are going to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Should I and how can I use auto focus in this situation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you eliminate the need for the camera to focus 'on the fly' it almost doesn't matter any more. I'd say use the AF to get the wick in focus, and then turn it off as you won't need it again (as long as you don't move anything).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How can I control this box so I can tell the camera what I want to focus on?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this will become a moot point if you're 'pre-focusing' as I've described above, but in general it is possible to control which  AF point the camera uses. You'll need to check with your manual to discover the specifics of how to do this, though...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-24T01:25:18.627" LastActivityDate="2011-02-24T01:25:18.627" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9208" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9199" CreationDate="2011-02-23T17:50:41.650" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are you sure the real problem is with focusing? A flame is in nearly constant motion, and a typical candle does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; produce a whole lot of light. Unless you're shooting at &lt;em&gt;quite&lt;/em&gt; high ISO, you're likely to have a long enough exposure to show some movement in the flame. In that case, changing your focus point can't really do much good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Flames have a few other problems as well. The flame is heating the air around it, so you get a &quot;shimmer&quot; from the turbulence in the air where it's being heated from room temperature to 400+ (or so) degrees. You also typically have some smoke coming off of the flame -- even when it's not directly visible as a stream of smoke, you still have quite a few particles in the air around the flame. These cause both reflections and refraction that reduce sharpness still further.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's not to say you can't possibly do any better, or that it's not worth working on doing better. It does mean that you've picked a sufficiently difficult subject that having a small percentage of &quot;keepers&quot; should come as no surprise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T17:50:41.650" />
  <row Id="9209" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9151" CreationDate="2011-02-23T18:08:51.030" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There really is no &quot;optimal&quot; or &quot;best&quot; resolution or surface because there are several competing variables at play here.  You'll need to figure out what the values of some of these variables are before deciding what the resolution should be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Distance&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the main questions you'll need to answer is &quot;what distance will the image be viewed from?&quot;  If you print at very a high resolution, the individual images making up the collage will be smaller and anyone viewing the images will feel the need to get closer so they can actually see them.  For example if you print at 600 ppi, you'll have a very sharp image (indeed many people could view it from only 8-10 inches and still be unable to resolve the individual pixels), but the long side of your collage will only be 8.5 inches.  Each individual image in the collage will be smaller still.  If you hang such a print on the wall, many people wouldn't even really be able to view it well without getting fairly close to the image.  Depending on how you want to display the image, this may not be desirable (then again it may be exactly what you want).  On the other hand if people will likely want to get within 18 inches or so of the image, you'll probably not want to go below 200 ppi.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Paper Type&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, canvas is rough (textured).  If you print on a textured surface, you typically lose ability to resolve fine detail because the detail in the texture will interfere with finer detail in the print.  This isn't a bad thing, it simply means (as others have already pointed out) that you can afford to drop the resolution down a little bit and get a larger print.  It also adds a nice artistic effect that may be desirable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Eye Acuity&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As other's have pointed out, jrista gave a rather &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1715/how-do-i-generate-high-quality-prints-with-an-ink-jet-printer/1716#1716&quot;&gt;detailed answer&lt;/a&gt; explaining how the eye's resolving power influences the optimal printing resolution.  In jrista's post, he gave the resolving power of the human eye for a person with 20/20 vision as 1 arc-minute.  Doing some more research, I discovered &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=Vs2AM2cWl1AC&amp;amp;pg=PA94&amp;amp;dq=%2250+cycles+per+degree%22+acuity&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;ei=4itlTbPrAsHFgAftkJSuBw&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=book_result&amp;amp;ct=result&amp;amp;resnum=1&amp;amp;ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=%2250%20cycles%20per%20degree%22%20acuity&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a book&lt;/a&gt; that made a claim that appeared to suggest the resolving power was more like 1.2 arc-minutes.  Reading further, I found a certain &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/eye-resolution.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;R. N. Clark&lt;/a&gt; making a claim of 0.7 arc-minutes (i.e. 42 arc-seconds).  If you want to play it on the safe side, you could use a visual acuity value of 42 arc-seconds to find out the best resolution.  I used the basic formula below to get my estimates above (α is the angle of visual acuity (calculators typically expect this to be in radians), d is the distance from the image (in inches), and r is the resolution (in ppi)):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;r = 1 / (2 * d * tan(α/2))&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2214" LastEditorUserId="2214" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-23T19:43:50.110" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T19:43:50.110" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9210" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9192" CreationDate="2011-02-23T18:52:46.987" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Canvas&lt;/strong&gt; prints, sometimes also called Canvas Giclée, are very similar to traditional pigment on canvas paintings. So any time you're trying to fit into an &quot;old world&quot; type of environment, they are a very attractive option. The traditional stretched option lines up well for framing just like an old painting would, and the gallery wrap options mimmic more modern applications of canvas by painters. Plus the newer &quot;thin wrap&quot; style of canvas gives a smaller and lighter hanging/mounting option, while preserving the traditional canvas look. (In theory I suppose you could say it's comparable to the old masters that glued their canvas to planks of wood before painting them... so we've gone full circle.) I should also note that there &lt;a href=&quot;http://bayphoto.com/bayweb/pro_canvaswrap.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;are places that will transfer emulsion onto canvas as well&lt;/a&gt;, printing on paper, then wet stripping the emulsion layer and bonding it to a layer of canvas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9192/alternative-mediums-for-printing-photos/9198#9198&quot;&gt;ahockley&lt;/a&gt; noted, the ink bleed from the printing process can sometimes lower the sharpness of the image, so this shouldn't be used if you have to have an absolutely razor sharp image, especially up close or for a small print size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Metal&lt;/strong&gt; prints have a very industrial feel to them. One of the first places I've seen these become popular was in shops and garages of racing folks. When you think about it, they're very similar to a car body panel... thin metal (usually Aluminium) with a layer of image (special dyes instead of paint) covered by top coats of clear protectant (pretty much the same stuff the high end car painters use). In the US, &lt;a href=&quot;http://bayphoto.com/metalprints/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;BayPhoto&lt;/a&gt; are the masters at this IMHO, I have a few here in the house from them, have seen a number of them, and have sold a couple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They generally are &quot;ready to hang&quot;, you take them out of the box and put them on the wall. No framing, etc needed. Combine that with the very sleek industrial feel and they're quire popular with a lot of folks that don't want the same old same old.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a number of finishing options with metal prints, but to me, the &quot;prototypical&quot; example is the high gloss finish. This really gives a huge pop to high contrast images like fireworks, or deeply saturated images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another alternative &quot;media&quot; you didn't mention is &lt;strong&gt;Acrylic&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;a href=&quot;http://fotoflot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fotoflōt&lt;/a&gt; do these very well. It's kind of like the float mount metal prints above, in that it's a sheet of acrylic with your photo bonded to it and the edges laser cut. They have an additional flair in that the acrylic then is mounted to the wall with magnets. Now, having said all that... it isn't really an alternative media. At best it is alternative mounting/framing/presentation... as it involves printing on traditional emulsions on paper first. Then bonding that to the acrylic. But really, you'd never know it to look at it, and everyone seems to consider it a media. Personally, I don't own any fotoflōts, but the ones I've seen have really looked great, seemingly no mater what the image was. If it looks good printed it will look good mounted that way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A forth option, and I can't believe I didn't think of it before: &lt;strong&gt;duratrans&lt;/strong&gt; in a &lt;strong&gt;lightbox&lt;/strong&gt;. I believe &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpi-sf.com/specialty/lightboxes.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DPI-SF&lt;/a&gt; does the lightboxes at our HQ building, which includes a number of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.onedgephoto.com/Other/Smugmug-HQ/8839393_r9srR/2#585736915_9oYVf-A-LB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;amazing&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.onedgephoto.com/Other/Smugmug-HQ/8839393_r9srR/2#585737126_T4oiD-A-LB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lightbox&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.onedgephoto.com/Other/Smugmug-HQ/8839393_r9srR/2#775669339_kDsjP-A-LB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;images&lt;/a&gt;. This makes for literally glowing images. I'm not sure exactly what would be the ideal image profile for this, but lots of stuff seems to look good so far. (There's another lightbox at HQ that's even better than those three, but I can't seem to find a shot of it online.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-06T07:16:36.773" LastActivityDate="2011-03-06T07:16:36.773" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9211" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9151" CreationDate="2011-02-23T19:08:28.967" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you wish to produce a very large print with the maximum amount of detail, so that each image in your collage is as clear and detailed as possible, you should do a couple of things. First, the direct, &quot;native&quot; print size for an image 5120x2880 pixels in size, printed on a Canon or HP ink jet (native 600ppi resolution) at the &quot;standard&quot; 300ppi is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5120 pixels / 300ppi = 17.06&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  2880 pixels / 300ppi = 9.6&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conversely, on an Epson printer, which use a unique 720ppi native print resolution, the &quot;standard&quot; ppi would be 360, resulting in:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5120 pixels / 360ppi = 14.22&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  2880 pixels / 360ppi = 8&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a couple things to note here. First, if you have a collage with many images, neither of those two print sizes are very large. Second, if you really want to preserve the detail in your image, you will want to print at a higher resolution. Preferably, you would print at 600ppi for Canon/HP, or 720ppi for Epson. At maximum resolution, your physical print size drops considerably:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5120 pixels / 600ppi = 8.53&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  2880 pixels / 600ppi = 4.8&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5120 pixels / 720ppi = 7.11&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  2880 pixels / 720ppi = 4&quot;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you really want to print something poster size, you will need more resolution. It should be noted that when you print on Canvas, the maximum amount of detail that can be maintained will generally be less than if you print on another form of paper. You mentioned that you are printing a collage, which I assume means you merged together multiple images. If the original images are large, you might want to rebuild your collage at a higher native size. For normal papers, I would print at 600/720ppi, and for canvas, I would print 400/480ppi. For a very large print, say 48&quot;x27&quot; (thats four feet wide), you would need an image that was at least this large for normal paper:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;48&quot; * 600ppi = 28800 pixels&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  27&quot; * 600ppi = 16200 pixels&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;48&quot; * 720ppi = 34560 pixels&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  27&quot; * 720ppi = 19440 pixels&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or at least this large for canvas paper (note that, while these resolutions do not integrally divide into the native resolutions, they do divide &quot;nicely&quot; at 1.5x):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;48&quot; * 400ppi = 19200 pixels&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  27&quot; * 400ppi = 10800 pixels&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;48&quot; * 480ppi = 23040 pixels&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  27&quot; * 480ppi = 12960 pixels&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, for such a large print, I would recommend 300/360ppi. In the case of a collage, generated from other detailed images, however, I definitely recommend printing at a higher resolution. Every image in the collage can maintain quite a bit of detail, and while at first glance your viewers may look at the print from several feet and &quot;take it all in&quot;, there is a lot more detail that can easily draw your viewers in for a closer look. Detail that is not normally present in a poser-size print of, say, a landscape. If you have a physical print size in mind, you can determine how many pixels the image will need to have to print out correctly at that size, without loss of detail. Simply multiply the size in inches by the PPI you intend to print at, to determine the pixel size of your image:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;W&quot; * PPI = Wpixel&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  H&quot; * PPI = Hpixel&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, it is important to know the native resolution of what you will be printing with. In the ink jet world, Epson is unique with their 720ppi native resolution, and 2880x1440 dpi print heads. Canon and HP, two other common printer brands, have a native resolution of 600ppi, with either 2400x1200 dpi print heads, or in the case of some Canon printers (such as their professional PIXMA Pro9500 II 13x19&quot; printer) 4800x2400 dpi. Many dyesub (dye sublimation) printers have oddball native resolutions, which also usually match their dpi, which may be something like 320.19ppi/dpi. In the case of such printers, you will want to scale your image to exactly the correct PPI before printing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many professional print shops use commercial HP printers, while fewer use Canon or Epson. Regardless, you should try to find out what printers are used, choose a paper type, and scale or rebuild your image accordingly to get the best results. Make sure you manually scale your image to the right PPI and pixel size, to prevent the printer from scaling with unsightly artifacts. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-23T19:14:38.673" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T19:14:38.673" />
  <row Id="9212" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3418" CreationDate="2011-02-23T19:31:08.787" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One other option is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-FinePix-Digital-Camera-Optical/dp/B0035WTVZA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fujifilm FinePix HS10&lt;/a&gt;, which has RAW support.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4035" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-23T20:42:10.220" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T20:42:10.220" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9213" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8965" CreationDate="2011-02-23T19:32:20.597" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The rule of thirds appears to have been invented, or at least codified by, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Thomas_Smith_%281766-1833%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Thomas Smith&lt;/a&gt; in the 1797 book &lt;i&gt;Remarks on Rural Scenery&lt;/i&gt;, without regard to the golden ratio. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/521/what-is-the-rule-of-thirds/9239#9239&quot;&gt;my digging into that in a different q/a&lt;/a&gt;, if you're interested.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As normally applied, the rule is used for dividing compositions into logical sections both vertically and horizontally (as in division of sea, land, and sky), and also by using the intersections of the horizontal and vertical third-lines as placement points for objects of interest in the composition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This isn't necessarily &lt;em&gt;worse&lt;/em&gt; than the golden section, and, unless the object is very small, is generally close enough to the same that any harmonic/beautiful/mystical properties that apply to one might apply to both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When using a frame with a 3:2 aspect ratio — as in 35mm film or in most current dSLRs (the 4/3rds system excepted) — the rule of thirds &lt;em&gt;happens to hit another compositional technique intended to produce harmony, balance, and geometric &quot;satisfaction&quot; in the viewer&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the concept of the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;rabatment of the rectangle&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, or, the &quot;hidden squares&quot; of the rectangle. There are two of these hidden squares in every rectangle, corresponding to each of the two short sides. Take the length of a short side and measure that distance along the long side, and draw a line there, completing the square. (That line is the rabatment.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The argument goes that squares are such a simple, primal geometric shape that the brain automatically looks for them, mentally completing this rabatment whether it's made explicit or not. When a composition uses elements of the scene to match, the square feels complete in itself, producing a feeling of harmony. (And, because exposing &quot;secrets&quot; like this is mentally rewarding, a sense of success and satisfaction in the viewer.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your rectangle is twice as wide as it is high, the line is — somewhat boringly — right down the middle and the two squares are side by side. If the rectangle has wider proportions than that, the squares don't overlap. If it is narrower, they do. And in the case of a 3:2 frame, the rabatment lines happen to exactly correspond with the rule of thirds lines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, with a 3:2 frame, if you buy the theory that rabatment produces harmony, balance, and general satisfaction, the rule of thirds — at least along the wide dimension of the rectangle — may have a harmonic advantage over the golden ratio.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you take a look at the classic &quot;golden spiral&quot; image (shown in &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8965/what-is-the-golden-ratio-and-why-is-it-better-than-the-rule-of-thirds/8972#8972&quot;&gt;cabbey's answer here&lt;/a&gt;), you'll note that the aspect ratio of the frame is the golden ratio, and the spiral is produced by drawing the rabatment lines that match that ratio.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, &lt;em&gt;this&lt;/em&gt; may account for some of the feelings of balance and harmony ascribed to that shape — not the particular ratio chosen at all. If you look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8965/what-is-the-golden-ratio-and-why-is-it-better-than-the-rule-of-thirds/8988#8988&quot;&gt;Nick Bedford's answer&lt;/a&gt;, you'll find an example of a spiral inscribed in a 3:2 frame using the golden ratio rather than rabatment. To me, this spiral appears squished and non-elegant, and it was considering that &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8965/what-is-the-golden-ratio-and-why-is-it-better-than-the-rule-of-thirds/9042#9042&quot;&gt;along with Andrew Stacey's answer&lt;/a&gt; which led me to explore the idea of &quot;natural&quot; squares within rectangles, only to find out that it is in fact an established principle with &lt;a href=&quot;http://emptyeasel.com/2009/01/27/how-to-use-rabatment-in-your-compositions/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an official name and everything&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In investigating this, I was surprised to learn that there's surprisingly little hard evidence of the historical use of the golden ratio in art. While Euclid wrote about it around 300BC, he merely notes it as interesting mathematically. And it appears to have been lost in the dark ages, and doesn't resurface widely until Italian mathematician Luca Pacioli wrote a book around 1500 in which he describes the ratio and names it &quot;the divine proportion&quot;. (It wasn't called the &quot;golden ratio&quot; until some time in the 19th century, in fact; it got that name from German mathematician Martin Ohm in 1835.) Leonardo da Vinci drew illustrations for Pacioli's book, and so clearly he knew of the ratio, but he appears to espouse a different theory of proportion, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aiwaz.net/vitruvian-man/a6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Vitruvian system&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Pacioli onward, many works of art are &lt;em&gt;widely suspected&lt;/em&gt; to employ the golden ratio in their composition. But direct confirmation from the artists is surprisingly hard to come by. (I'd love to see some references if you can find them!). And since the elements of the paintings, sculptures, and etc. which are said to use the golden ratio in one way or another often line up only imprecisely, or when carefully selected, it's hard to conclusively demonstrate. In fact, even if we accept that the golden ratio does have a certain aesthetic power, perhaps the Renaissance masters simply used similar proportions unconsciously.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It turns out that it isn't until the 19th century that suddenly the golden ratio conclusively becomes important to composition. German intellectual &lt;a href=&quot;http://herz-fischler.ca/zeising.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adolph Zeising&lt;/a&gt; put forth a comprehensive system of aesthetics built around the ratio, and this appears to have caught the interest of a number of artists —  particularly, the Cubists found it interesting, and an artist named Paul Sérusier wrote about it in a book on composition in 1921.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, really, it seems that most of our modern conception of the aesthetic value of the golden ratio &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=mxV6AAAAMAAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA249&amp;amp;dq=%22golden+ratio%22&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;ei=OiRrTcfHMMSftweA0Z3mAg&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=book_result&amp;amp;ct=result&amp;amp;resnum=1&amp;amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;can be traced to Zeising&lt;/a&gt;! That, of course, doesn't mean that he was &lt;em&gt;wrong&lt;/em&gt; inherently. It's just very interesting to know where these ideas come from. Note that rabatment is also without a long, distinguished pedigree — while there's plenty of suggestion that the rule may have been used in some Renaissance-era compositions, the name seems to have been first applied by Charles Bouleau in 1963.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in summary: the golden ratio and the rule of thirds are different tools to help with placement of lines, divisions, and other elements in composition. They're similar, but aren't directly related. One isn't necessarily better than the other. With a 3:2 frame, the rule of thirds applied along the long dimension of the rectangle happens to match another harmonious geometrical aspect, which is nifty and may be useful in composition on its own — painters using this technique certainly aren't constrained to 3:2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-28T13:41:17.373" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T13:41:17.373" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9214" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3418" CreationDate="2011-02-23T20:31:39.600" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The traditional bridge camera is the ultra-zoom as you have been looking at. However, there are now more &lt;strong&gt;compact models with advanced photographic controls&lt;/strong&gt; that work even better (Well, they did exist for a while but until recently there were not much choice).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The trade-off is the more compact models actually use bigger sensors. This makes their &lt;strong&gt;image quality noticeably better&lt;/strong&gt;. Ultra-zooms use small sensors to achieve such long zooms with such small lenses :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=195&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon Powershot S95&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/review.php?id=164&amp;amp;review=detailed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Powershot S90&lt;/a&gt; are really awesome in this category. They are small but use a bright lens and have the most comfortable easy to use manual controls. You'll get the S90 for cheaper, since it shoots VGA movies compared to HD videos as the S95.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon also has a G-series (Currently G12) that some people prefer simply because it looks more serious. It has a hot-shoe, in case you care about external flash, but the lens is not as bright and the controls are not as ergonomic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nikon has the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/review.php?id=240&amp;amp;review=detailed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Coolpix P7000&lt;/a&gt; which is a big bigger but very nice to use. It has all the photographic controls and better image quality. The lens is not bright like the S95/S90 but has a longer zoom, if that is important to you. It also supports an external flash via a hot-shoe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those are not the only ones but I can tell you that these are excellent cameras for being creative with photography without going towards interchangeable lens cameras (DSLR/SLD).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T20:31:39.600" />
  <row Id="9215" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3418" CreationDate="2011-02-23T20:32:06.403" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've got a Panasonic FZ28, and I learned a &lt;em&gt;ton&lt;/em&gt; from that camera.  The feature list Rob put together is about right, though both the FZ38 and the P100 lack a hot shoe.  Using that camera, I was able to learn about the exposure triangle, quality trade-offs of different ISO settings, RAW processing, stop-action techniques, and so on -- just the sort of thing you're looking for, I believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the time I upgraded to a DSLR, I was already quite comfortable shooting in all the manual and semi-manual modes, and my learning curve with the DSLR was fairly short.  I'm keeping the FZ28, by the way as a lightweight substitute for my full DSLR setup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's enough room to grow with most of these cameras that if your brother wants to invest the time and energy needed to learn how to take good photos, he'll find a camera like the FZ38 or the P100 to be a worthwhile tool, and if he turns out to be a &quot;leave it on auto&quot; kind of guy, these cameras can still produce good results with a very reasonable investment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-02-23T20:32:06.403" />
  <row Id="9216" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9199" CreationDate="2011-02-24T00:09:43.373" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Theories have been advanced here concerning the lack of brightness of the flame, its flickering, small depth of field, air turbulence, and other things.  All are interesting and plausible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's check some of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Brightness of flame&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This image (unretouched; converted from RAW to JPG for uploading) was taken with a 50 mm lens at a distance of about 100 cm (3 feet).  The exposure was &lt;strong&gt;1/200 sec f/3.5 at ISO 1600&lt;/strong&gt;.  The flame is certainly bright enough!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/4s23N.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Flame at 1/200 sec exposure&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Flickering and air turbulence&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see even in this short exposure that the edge of the flame is soft.  This was a steady flame; there cannot have been much flickering in 1/200 second.  The softness is because &lt;em&gt;there is no edge to the flame&lt;/em&gt;!  The following is &lt;em&gt;the same image,&lt;/em&gt; brightened by 2 stops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/pdVR8.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Flame overexposed&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The enhancement shows a corona of light surrounding the flame.  It is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; a partially illuminated backdrop: it emanates from the candle itself.  The light is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;blackbody radiation&lt;/a&gt; from the combustion byproducts (soot and gases).  The transition from the burning (bright) part of the flame to the burnt corona is sharp, but not extremely so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The details apparent in the wick demonstrate the focus is spot on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Depth of field&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even at f/1.4 (where depth of field would be least), with a subject distance at 100 cm, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DoF&lt;/a&gt; is about 1 cm in front and behind the flame: more than enough to have the entire flame in focus.  (In this image, at f/3.5, the depth of field extends about 2.5 cm--one inch--before and behind the wick.) Thus, establishing a decent DoF is not a consideration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Softness at wide apertures, mis-focusing (solved by focusing on the wick), and movement of flame are much more likely causes of an unsharp image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Conclusions&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Candle flames are bright enough to allow adequate control of the exposure: you can take rather short exposures at moderate f/stops without using extremely high sensitivities.  However, as diffuse radiant balls of gas, they are inherently not sharp and will not appear to be so, no matter how well focused.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2011-02-24T00:09:43.373" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9217" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7748" CreationDate="2011-02-24T09:02:49.257" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have both the EOS 50D and the 17-55mm F/2.8 as my primary lens. I always have IS turned on, however it seems you need to lighten up on the ISO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 50D will produce a pretty decent image even at ISO 1600 (the limit for me).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even at ISO 800 your shutter speed is now a very usable 1/200th.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't be afraid to use a higher ISO. Alternatively, you could look at getting the cheap Canon 270EX flash and use it pointed at the ceiling to light up the scene quite nicely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickbedford/5080736906/sizes/o/in/photostream/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This&lt;/a&gt; example is at ISO 1600.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/cUjv2.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastEditorUserId="609" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-24T09:12:10.630" LastActivityDate="2011-02-24T09:12:10.630" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9218" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9084" CreationDate="2011-02-24T09:19:58.490" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If there are changes to any of the settings you should be able to see them on the panel. Some things like auto enhance will just be the the sharpening and contrast, whereas some more advanced ones will be also alter the colours and the curves and any of the others of hundreds of options. you would have to apply the preset and then have a look through all the options to see  what it has done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I understand, there is no way to easily see what has been done. I imagine that some of the adjustments are dynamic so will only adjust the curves to a certain level so that clipping is avoided etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@Shizam Could you post up some of the text file. It may be that it is just laid out in an awkward format.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3802" LastEditorUserId="3802" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-24T12:39:38.100" LastActivityDate="2011-02-24T12:39:38.100" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9219" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1790" CreationDate="2011-02-24T10:59:35.820" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The above poster is generally right, however most Sony Full frame DSLR's have a mode that allows you to use a DT lens with the full frame.  What it will do is crop out the black edges that Hamish is talking about, and half the resolution (megapixels).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the DT lens can still be usable if you upgrade your camera, but keep in mind the half megapixel thing.  eg. If you have a 24MP fullframe Sony Alpha, your images can only be a maximum of 12MP.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4038" LastActivityDate="2011-02-24T10:59:35.820" />
  <row Id="9220" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8296" CreationDate="2011-02-24T13:43:11.403" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've sent an e-mail to Soligor (as suggested by Pearsonartphoto) and their answer is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is not a bug, it is a normal&#xA;  feature. Why our manufacturer did it&#xA;  in this way, I don't know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="507" LastActivityDate="2011-02-24T13:43:11.403" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9221" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-24T13:53:40.563" Score="0" ViewCount="103" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8876/advice-to-do-a-good-photo-for-my-cv&quot;&gt;Advice to do a good photo for my CV&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hi everybody.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Quick question: How would you proceed for a resume photo? If you think something would be a good idea even if it's not the &lt;em&gt;standard&lt;/em&gt; way to do it, please contribute :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Every detail counts!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Focal length&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lighting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Background&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Crop&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="449" LastActivityDate="2011-02-24T14:00:12.027" ClosedDate="2011-02-24T14:50:27.133" Title="How to take a portrait for a resume?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="9222" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8876" CreationDate="2011-02-24T14:00:12.027" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/04/lighting-101-headshot-in-corner.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;strobist 101 &quot;headshot in a corner&quot;&lt;/a&gt; is a good start for &lt;strong&gt;lighting&lt;/strong&gt; a resume mugshot. For the lenses and all, I will let others add ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3907" LastActivityDate="2011-02-24T14:00:12.027" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-24T14:00:12.027" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9223" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9229" CreationDate="2011-02-24T14:32:30.897" Score="6" ViewCount="375" Body="&lt;p&gt;Correct me if I'm wrong:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I take a picture, the sensor gathers the light information &quot;as a whole&quot; during the exposure time and then saves it in the card.&#xA;When I make a movie, the sensor scans line by line and then saves the frame in the card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if this is correct, why does the camera switch from global shutter (as in photo mode) to rolling shutter (movie mode) when filming?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course there must be a technical reason, but why bother using a rolling shutter instead of a global shutter, which is much more convenient?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4039" LastEditorUserId="1356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-24T19:26:06.193" LastActivityDate="2011-02-24T19:26:06.193" Title="Why do DSLRs in movie mode have a rolling shutter instead of a global shutter?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;rolling-shutter&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9224" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9223" CreationDate="2011-02-24T15:05:45.197" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You may find this link useful:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dvxuser.com/jason/CMOS-CCD/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dvxuser.com/jason/CMOS-CCD/&lt;/a&gt; (by Barry Green /via@SFGPhoto)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a CMOS compromise: heat, power, slower refresh rate, cheaper than CCD.&#xA;CCDs are faster, but need more energy and cost more...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From my basic understanding of chip manufacturing, image sensors and processors are created using similar tech. Processor fabrication favours shrinking: smaller = cheaper. But photographers want BIG sensors. Can't have it both ways without it costing a lot more. Plus packing in lots of pixels into a sensor can be too much of a 'good' thing (less light etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@mogwailun&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4040" LastActivityDate="2011-02-24T15:05:45.197" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9225" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9226" CreationDate="2011-02-24T15:11:07.610" Score="2" ViewCount="240" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not a photographer but a graphic designer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In GIMP, I only discovered two methods of improving the quality of an photo:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Filters &amp;gt; Enhance &amp;gt; Unsharp Mask&#xA;&#xA;Noise &amp;gt; HSV Noise&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, I would like to remove some blurriness and 'fake' high resolution, if possible (I don't mind adding some noise).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I like this final result: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blog.spoongraphics.co.uk/about&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.blog.spoongraphics.co.uk/about&lt;/a&gt; (the guy in the picture).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any other suggestions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4041" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-24T16:07:38.857" LastActivityDate="2011-02-24T17:31:19.080" Title="How to improve quality of pictures that are already taken (if possible in GIMP)?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;gimp&gt;&lt;image-quality&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9226" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9225" CreationDate="2011-02-24T15:20:06.123" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many ways to improve an image, and sharpening and noise reduction are just the very start. These techniques are almost completely program-agnostic, and can be done using a variety of different tools, Gimp included.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In photography, this is a major portion of the work that is done, and has become known as &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/search?q=post+process&quot;&gt;Post Processing&lt;/a&gt;&quot; or simply &quot;Post&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Post-Processing Techniques:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Basics&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cropping&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;sharpening&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;white balance correction&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Contrast  enhancement&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;spot touchups/dust removal&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Advanced&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;noise reduction&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;cross-processing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;halftone/duotone&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;HDR&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These lists are by no means exhaustive, but merely show a few of the more common techniques.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/156/any-good-tutorials-for-learning-how-to-post-process-images&quot;&gt;quite a few tutorials around&lt;/a&gt; that may be helpful for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-24T15:28:02.560" LastActivityDate="2011-02-24T15:28:02.560" />
  <row Id="9227" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9223" CreationDate="2011-02-24T15:22:58.257" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When taking a still you have a physical shutter which controls light hitting the sensor. The image is still read line by line when taking stills but because of the physical shutter closing no extra light is recorded during readout.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The line by line readout is a consequence of the CMOS design found in large sensor cameras, and thus is unavoidable (until they find a way to make cheaper/bigger CCDs). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's worth noting that at shutter speeds faster than the cameras x-sync speed (usually 1/250s) the shutter starts closing at the bottom before it's fully open at the top. The result of this is that for really fast speeds like 1/4000s you get a slit that traversed the frame and gives you a similar rolling shutter effect for stills. However because the time to traverse the frame by the shutter (1/250s) is ten times faster than the time to read the sensor during video (1/25s) you need a really fast moving object to notice it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a very old photograph which demonstrates the effect well: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZoApFAh9Orc/TDi49eFQ9RI/AAAAAAAAAZk/3Y8fy3DGQ1w/s1600/HENRY_LARTIGUE_aberration_RACE+CAR.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The effect is also more noticable in videos if you pan back and forth, which doesn't happen with stills.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-24T15:28:46.127" LastActivityDate="2011-02-24T15:28:46.127" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="9228" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9225" CreationDate="2011-02-24T15:49:11.463" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It sounds like what you really want to do is increase the resolution (size) of the image whilst retaining as much quality as possible (and avoiding pixilation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you need for this is a fractal based resize algorithm, Genuine Fractals is a popular commercial solution, there doesn't seem to be a free alternative, so your best bet is to scale up using bicubic resampling (already supported in Gimp) and add some noise to give the appearance of detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the end of the day it is impossible in general to replace detail that was lost at the time of capture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-24T17:31:19.080" LastActivityDate="2011-02-24T17:31:19.080" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9229" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9223" CreationDate="2011-02-24T16:45:51.113" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In both cases, the actual reading from the sensor is done line by line. It's done that way (largely) because doing otherwise would be excessively expensive -- to read all the pixels in parallel, you'd need a separate connection from the sensor to memory for each pixel. 12 million connections (for example) from sensor to memory would be horrendously expensive -- and almost never provide any real benefit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to why there &lt;em&gt;appears&lt;/em&gt; to be a difference between movie mode and still mode, it's pretty simple: in still mode, you're using a physical shutter, and the read-out from the sensor to memory happens when the shutter is closed. As @Matt Grum pointed out, you still get some of the same effect above the X-sync speed, due to physical limitations on the shutter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason you don't use the physical shutter in movie mode is more of those same physical limitations. While the shutter can have a very short exposure time, there's a recovery time &lt;em&gt;between&lt;/em&gt; activations, so it becomes difficult to achieve more than about 10 frames per second or so. Getting to the 24 frames per second or so needed for video would, again, add a lot of expense with little benefit. Therefore, in movie mode the physical shutter remains open, and the camera uses an electronic shutter instead -- and once it does that, artifacts of the line-by-line readout from the sensor to memory can become visible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-02-24T16:45:51.113" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="9230" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9233" CreationDate="2011-02-24T18:12:21.113" Score="12" ViewCount="146" Body="&lt;p&gt;So I've seen bicubic and fractal listed as methods of upscaling photos.  What's the technical details behind how these work and why/when is one better than the other?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-24T19:58:34.697" LastActivityDate="2011-02-24T20:39:36.313" Title="Technical implementations of upscaling" Tags="&lt;rescaling&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9231" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8876" CreationDate="2011-02-24T19:02:28.420" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are looking for a &quot;headshot&quot;, or &quot;business portrait&quot;.  There are a few different characteristics that define the style, which I will touch on as I go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Focal length:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The standard &quot;portrait&quot; focal length is about 85mm, but any short-telephoto will be ideal.  The idea is that you want to 1) Get a nice closeup of your subject, and 2) Use a telephoto, which unlike a normal or wide-angle lens, will provide &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2548/what-is-background-compression&quot;&gt;background compression&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.  Basically, this will make the image feel a little flatter, so you can avoid the really long nose look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Lighting:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This depends on your subject, but usually, &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6601/what-is-rembrandt-lighting-and-when-do-i-use-it&quot;&gt;Rembrandt Lighting&lt;/a&gt; is a good option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is also dependent on your subject, but commonly, a dark, neutral  background will work well.  For some professions, such as an attorney, there is an expected background (bookshelves for instance), but most of the time, you want the background to be neutral and free from distractions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Crop:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The standard look is a portrait layout (taller than wide), with the subject centered in the frame, and eye-level &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/521/what-is-the-rule-of-thirds&quot;&gt;placed on the top third mark&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-25T14:15:57.913" LastActivityDate="2011-02-25T14:15:57.913" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9232" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9244" CreationDate="2011-02-24T20:14:20.850" Score="5" ViewCount="198" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am aware of what hyperfocal distance is and the general principles behind it. However, most of the tutorials I have seen and read regarding it make use of lenses with focus distance indicators. Unfortunately, neither of my lenses (Nikkor 18-55mm &amp;amp; 35mm f1.8) have indicators.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have read that you can 'cheat' and simply focus a third of the way into the shot (which I have done previously simply by spot-focusing on the lowest focus point in my VF). I also assume you could pace out the distance and note an object to focus on when you get back to the camera (though that might be easier said than done).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone have any suggestions on how to achieve maximum sharpness from front to back without focus distance markers. A new lens is not an option; global economic crisis and all that!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-24T21:01:24.900" LastActivityDate="2011-02-26T12:50:30.870" Title="Maximum DoF with no distance markers" Tags="&lt;focus&gt;&lt;landscape&gt;&lt;hyperfocal-distance&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="9233" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9230" CreationDate="2011-02-24T20:39:36.313" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off, image enlargement involves moving pixels apart by a fixed amount, and filling in the space between previously neighboring pixels with similar content. This can be done through basic pixel fabrication (bicubic filtering), or via more complex means, such as converting the image into a vector representation, and scaling in vector space.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bicubic filtering, along with Bilinear filtering, use a relatively simple function curve to blend the colors of neighboring pixels together when you enlarge an image. Bilinear uses a linear function curve, while Bicubic uses a cubic spline function curve (cspline). Bicubic filtration generally produces smoother results, however both algorithms are ultimately blending the values of neighboring pixels together via a function curve to &quot;fill in the gaps&quot; when enlarging an image. It should be noted that bicubic scaling is generally lossless, in that only the space between original pixels is really generated. Depending on the nuances of specific implementations, the original pixels may change slightly, however for the most part, original data is preserved and new data is fabricated to fill in as an image is scaled up. Excellent scaling can be achieved up to around 200% or so, however beyond that, visible edge softening begins to exhibit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fractal approach to image scaling takes an entirely different approach. More complex algorithms are employed to analyze the contents of an image, identify edges and &quot;objects&quot;, and ultimately convert the image into a fractal vector format. Once the image is vectorized, it can be scaled &quot;lossless&quot; in vector space, then re-rendered at a larger size. Fractal algorithms, such as Genuine Fractals, use a fractal vector algorithm to scale an image while maintaining smooth, sharp edges. This approach is useful when your image initially has sharp and recognizable edges as a key factor, and maintaining clear sharpness on those edges is important. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, Genuine Fractals attempts to maintain non-edge detail via the concept of &quot;self similarity&quot;, preserving detail by considering the image content to be fractal in nature, and re-rendering non-edge content from fractal algorithms. This has the presumed benefit of, rather than simply fabricating information from neighboring pixels, new content can be generated from patterns composed of many pixels. This approach can work great when upscaling by around 200%, however the fundamental vector nature of scaling becomes more apparent when scaling to larger sizes. It should also be noted that this scaling method is not lossless, and some fine pixel detail may be discarded as the algorithm tries to find &lt;em&gt;fractal&lt;/em&gt; patterns that can be replicated. Extreme upscaling can result in visible pattern replication, and fine edge detail may be wiped away in the effort to maintain smooth, sharp edges at all image sizes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BenVista also provides a proprietary algorithm dubbed S-Spline. There is little information about the specifics of this algorithm, however it does seem like another function curve based algorithm. The S-Spline Max scaling in PhotoZoom Pro, like Genuine Fractals, does a superb job maintaining edge definition. This algorithm is also capable of scaling to around 200% or so, however pushing this algorithm much farther results in visible non-edge detail degradation and smoothing. It seems the general compromise in scaling algorithms is either maximim edge definition, or maximum detail preservation. It should also be noted that most third-party scaling algorithms, including Genuine Fractals and BenVista PhotoZoom Pro, automatically apply an unsharp mask to the final image by default. Any comparisons between bicubic and a third-party algorithm should always be done AFTER applying a modest unsharp mask to the bicubic version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is possible to use bicubic in an iterative fashion. The fundamental crux of bicubic scaling is that it fabricates more information the larger you scale, at the ultimate cost of sharpness. By performing bicubic scaling in 3-5% incrments, you preserve far more original or near-original detail, and fabricate much less of the image at each step. The final results of an iterative (or stepped) bicubic scaling can maintain considerably greater edge definition, without losing fine detail. The cost, however, is far greater personal investment in scaling, as at the moment, there are no prefabricated applications that will do this for you. You need to manually calculate the new width and height of the image at each step by multiplying the previous width or height by your scaling percentage, and plugging that number into your image editing program's bicubic scaling tool. The end results can be superb, and as sharp as a bicibic image w/ unsharp masking. The limits for how much larger you can scale an image without visible detriment is much greater than other algorithms, at least 400%, possibly more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-02-24T20:39:36.313" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9234" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-24T20:59:52.170" Score="2" ViewCount="187" Body="&lt;p&gt;The closest I've found so far are a couple from Topaz Labs. They're not quite the same though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://docs.gimp.org/en/plug-in-retinex.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Retinex&lt;/a&gt; is awesome. Especially if the environments in which you shoot lead to lots of underexposures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3914" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-24T23:13:57.050" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T01:07:42.873" Title="Anyone know of a PS filter that's equivalent to the Retinex filter for GIMP?" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;filters&gt;&lt;gimp&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="9235" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9232" CreationDate="2011-02-24T21:07:09.930" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you already mentioned, it is pretty hard without focus distance indicators.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The only thing that comes to mind is using the stop down button on your camera while adjusting the focus manually. You might get better results with the live view on and zooming in. I use this technique to focus when I tilt my TS-E lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3789" LastEditorUserId="1913" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-26T12:50:30.870" LastActivityDate="2011-02-26T12:50:30.870" />
  <row Id="9236" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9232" CreationDate="2011-02-24T21:12:41.230" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your best bet is to find some kind of a chart that shows the maximum DOF. There is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dofmaster.com/charts.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;chart from DOF Masters&lt;/a&gt; which shows this quite well. Another good one can be found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/guides/dof/hyperfocal1.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;nikonians.org&lt;/a&gt;. In order to best determine it, you need to know your camera's &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9024/what-is-the-circle-of-confusion&quot;&gt;Circle of Confusion&lt;/a&gt;, but most such sites will help you to find out what your camera's Circle of Confusion value is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-02-24T21:12:41.230" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="9237" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="613" CreationDate="2011-02-24T21:21:15.053" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can use the color sample cards from paint companies. Just walk to the paint isle in local hardware store, paint store, Home Depot and such, and pick some of the sample cards, including some whites, grays, reds, greens, yellows, oranges, and blues.  Experiment with them, and write down notes on the back of the cards for future use.  You will be amazed, how you can create special effects, color corrections, compensations, etc.using those cards.  Follow your camera user manual to create closeups of the cards for future use.  Use custome white balance option in the camera.  You can create different light effects, e.g. a moon lit landscape in broad daylight, or sunrises/sunsets with pleasing colors, or snow scapes with beautiful blues or purples.  Just remember, the color you will see in the photograph as a result will be complementary to the color of the card you used. For example, if you used blue card, the result will have a colorcast of orange of the same intensity, if you used red card, you will have a green colorcast in the photo, if you used a purple card, you will have a yellow color cast, or vice versa, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4045" LastActivityDate="2011-02-24T21:21:15.053" />
  <row Id="9238" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="613" CreationDate="2011-02-24T21:43:59.417" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Be aware that there are gray cards that are only designed for exposure and not for white balance. These, along with the fore-mentioned paint color strips and other DIY solutions, are not guaranteed to be color-neutral.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Drop a couple bucks and get one designed for white balance if the accuracy is important to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3914" LastActivityDate="2011-02-24T21:43:59.417" />
  <row Id="9239" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="521" CreationDate="2011-02-24T21:45:00.323" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The rule of thirds is a popular and common compositional guideline for photography and for painting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In its most basic form, it suggests that dividing areas within the frame into thirds is more successful than an even division. For example, the sky should occupy the top third (or two-thirds) of the frame, rather than sharing the space evenly with the ground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A second use of the rule holds that objects of interest should be placed at the intersections of the horizontal and vertical third-lines. Proponents argue that these four points have a special strength.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because I tend towards obsessiveness, I did some research into the original source of this term. The first use appears to be in John Thomas Smith's 1797 book &lt;em&gt;Remarks on Rural Scenery&lt;/em&gt;. Since I work at a university, I have access to some very old books, and I've copied out the relevant passage for your enjoyment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Two distinct, equal lights, should&#xA;  never appear in the same picture : One&#xA;  should be principal, and the rest&#xA;  sub-ordinate, both in dimension and&#xA;  degree : &lt;em&gt;Unequal&lt;/em&gt; parts and&#xA;  gradations &lt;em&gt;lead&lt;/em&gt; the attention easily&#xA;  from part to part, while parts of&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;equal&lt;/em&gt; appearance hold it awkwardly &lt;em&gt;suspended&lt;/em&gt;,&#xA;  as if unable to determine which of those parts is to be&#xA;  considered as the subordinate. &quot;And to&#xA;  give the utmost force and solidity to&#xA;  your work, some part of the picture&#xA;  should be as light, and some as dark&#xA;  as possible : These two extremes are&#xA;  then to be harmonized and reconciled&#xA;  to each other.&quot; *&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Analogous to this &quot;Rule of thirds&quot;,&#xA;  (if I may be allowed so to call it) I&#xA;  have presumed to think that, in&#xA;  connecting or in breaking the various&#xA;  lines of a picture, it would likewise&#xA;  be a good rule to do it, in general,&#xA;  by a similar scheme of proportion; for&#xA;  example, in a design of landscape, to&#xA;  determine the &lt;em&gt;sky&lt;/em&gt; at about two-thirds&#xA;  ; or else at about one-third, so that&#xA;  the material objects might occupy the&#xA;  other two : Again, two thirds of one&#xA;  element, (as of water) to one third of&#xA;  another element (as of land); and then&#xA;  both together to make but one third of&#xA;  the picture, of which the two other&#xA;  thirds should go for the sky and&#xA;  aerial perspectives. This rule would&#xA;  likewise apply in breaking a length of&#xA;  wall, or any other too great&#xA;  continuation of line that it may be&#xA;  found necessary to break by crossing&#xA;  or hiding it with some other object :&#xA;  In short, in applying this invention,&#xA;  generally speaking, or to any other&#xA;  case, whether of light, shade, form,&#xA;  or color, I have found the ratio of&#xA;  about two thirds to one third, or of&#xA;  one to two, a much better and and more&#xA;  harmonizing proportion, than the&#xA;  precise formal &lt;em&gt;half&lt;/em&gt;, the&#xA;  two-far-extending &lt;em&gt;four-fifths&lt;/em&gt;—and, in&#xA;  short, than any other proportion&#xA;  whatever. I should think myself&#xA;  honored by the opinion of any&#xA;  gentleman on this point; but until I&#xA;  shall by better informed, shall&#xA;  conclude this general proportion of&#xA;  two and one to be the most pictoresque&#xA;  medium in all cases of breaking or&#xA;  otherwise qualifying straight lines&#xA;  and masses and groupes &lt;em&gt;[sic]&lt;/em&gt;, as&#xA;  Hogarth's line is agreed to be the&#xA;  most beautiful, (or, in other words,&#xA;  the most pictoresque) medium of&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;curves&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;* Reynolds's Annot. on Du Fresnoy. &lt;em&gt;[ed. Which, by the way, &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=0RMFAAAAYAAJ&amp;amp;dq=du%20fresnoy&amp;amp;pg=PA103#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;does not mention thirds&lt;/a&gt;, or for that matter numbers at all]&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It appears that Smith at least believes himself to be coining the phrase, and I can't find any earlier references (and, he does generally reference other works when he refers to them, as he does Sir Joshua Reynolds's essay).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The golden ratio is not mentioned at all, so the idea appears to be derived independently of that — although one of course could argue that it is the inherent power of that ratio which unknowingly lead Smith to a slightly-off conclusion. It's hard to back that up with facts either way, so it must be left as a matter of faith. In any case, Smith certainly argues that a ratio of ⅔ : ⅓ is &quot;much better and and more harmonizing&quot; than &quot;any other proportion whatever&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, Smith also doesn't provide much argument for his chosen proportion, simply declaring it to be the best. He says that an even split is too static, and a four-fifths division too strong, but doesn't appear to have any real basis for this particular number. It would be interesting to know what would happen if one of the &quot;gentlemen&quot; he speaks of would have explained the golden ratio to him; perhaps he would have been swayed. Ah, for a time machine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also interesting to note that Smith's version of the rule is much more general than the one in common use today: he initially applies it to division of areas within the total frame, but goes on to claim it as the best way to divide &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; line, group, or mass. That application certainly does not seem to have caught on. On the other hand, he does not mention at all the idea of attaching special power to the intersection of the frame's third-lines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(And, if you're interested, the mentioned &quot;Hogarth's line&quot; is explained in &lt;a href=&quot;http://raggedclothcafe.com/2008/02/21/hogarths-line-of-beauty/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; — it is a certain S shape, which I agree does look quite nice.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-26T16:21:48.877" LastActivityDate="2011-02-26T16:21:48.877" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="9240" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9243" CreationDate="2011-02-24T23:38:30.570" Score="12" ViewCount="417" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why is it that on compact digital cameras the aperture never seems to go any smaller than about F8 ? Even on high-end compacts such as the Cannon G10 or Panasonic LX5. Is there some practical or physical limitation due to the size of the camera or the CCD which prevents this from being possible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3263" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-30T21:04:43.017" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T21:04:43.017" Title="Why do compact digital cameras not have the aperture range of DSLRs?" Tags="&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;&lt;f-stop&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="9241" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9240" CreationDate="2011-02-24T23:50:22.713" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, it's a physical limitation due to the size of the sensor (and thus the size of the individual photosites) that means that diffraction becomes a limiting factor sooner than it does with DSLRs, hence the aperture doesn't go smaller than f/8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Older compacts do have a larger range, my old Fuji Finepix s602 went down to f/11&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;see also:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8304/what-is-a-diffraction-limit&quot;&gt;What is a &quot;diffraction limit&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-02-24T23:50:22.713" />
  <row Id="9242" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9240" CreationDate="2011-02-24T23:52:39.890" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biggest reason for smaller apertures is to increase the depth of field at a given focal length. Point and shoot cameras, with their small sensors, already have huge depth of field when compared to their larger cousins at any given focal length, so the smallest aperture is going to be selected to maximize depth of field and retain sharpness in the image (too tight an aperture leads to diffraction and loss of sharpness). So, it's a balancing act.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-02-24T23:52:39.890" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9243" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9240" CreationDate="2011-02-25T02:08:25.117" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although the relative aperture numbers — the ƒ stops — are the same regardless of format, the actual focal lengths of the lenses on small cameras are quite low: 5mm or 6mm at the wide end. That in turn means that the real aperture is small, which is why the diffraction limit kicks in sooner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The smaller format also means that depth of field is hugely increased — even wide open at f/2.8, a camera like the Canon G10 has an infinite depth of field if you're focusing farther away than a few feet. So, there's not much difference in that aspect of changing aperture, so from that point of view there's no point even bothering. And that's presumably why there's usually not many choices besides wide open and one closed-down stop like f/8. (Because everything is small, and competitive price pressure significant, adding the mechanics for more intermediate stops is easily deemed not worth it.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other aspect of a smaller aperture is, of course, controlling exposure in bright light, without artificially dropping ISO beyond the sensor base or using very high shutter speeds. At least one compact camera, the Nokia N8 (which happens to be a phone, but no matter), actually uses a dark neutral-density filter instead of closing down the aperture, specifically to avoid issues with diffraction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-25T17:42:09.997" LastActivityDate="2011-02-25T17:42:09.997" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9244" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9232" CreationDate="2011-02-25T02:32:43.537" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Take a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/download.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Ins and Outs of Focus&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; by Harold Merklinger (it's a free download). There's danger in believing everything you read, of course, but give his suggestions a try.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To summarize: when a lens is focused at infinity, the size of the smallest details that can be recorded at the plane of focus is determined entirely by the size of the aperture of the lens -- distance matters not a whit. If you are using, say, a 35mm lens at f/11, then anything 3mm (approximately) or larger will be recorded throughout the entire image depth. Obviously, for things that are very close to the camera, you would expect things much smaller than 3mm to be recorded before you would call it a clear image. But at 20 feet? A 35mm lens at f/11 is better than 20/20 vision at 20 feet and beyond, and at least as good as using the CoC at the inboard end of the distance supposed to be acceptable using the hyperfocal distance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastEditorUserId="2719" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-25T03:38:27.307" LastActivityDate="2011-02-25T03:38:27.307" />
  <row Id="9245" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9232" CreationDate="2011-02-25T03:12:58.083" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can't simply focus one third into the image because the hyperfocal distance depends on your aperture and focal length.  If you have a chart or calculator, learn to use it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best way would be learning to estimate distances and relative sizes with your eye.  One easy way is to walk around with a lens that does have a distance marker, guess what distance an object is, and focus on it.  Then see how far it is, according to the lens with the distance markings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2011-02-25T03:12:58.083" />
  <row Id="9246" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-25T03:36:28.540" Score="11" ViewCount="276" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metmuseum.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the Met&lt;/a&gt; tomorrow. What are some tips for photographing in a museum? I'm looking for technical aspects (I won't have control over lighting and can't use flash) as well as artistic aspects (like composition).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2746" LastActivityDate="2011-02-25T16:10:50.013" Title="Tips for photographing art (at a museum)" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;tips&gt;&lt;artwork&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9247" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9246" CreationDate="2011-02-25T03:50:30.123" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Right off the bat, you're going to want to have a fast lens, the faster the better. Light is going to be a major premium and having a fast lens will make a huge difference. Since wide open lenses can be soft, you can up your odds on a good outcome by going with a prime lens which is usually sharper than a zoom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, some of that depends on the camera you're using. The most recent dSLR options out of Pentax (K-5), Nikon (D7000), or Canon (60D) are really solid at high ISO, so you can get away with a slower lens. I shoot with the Pentax K-5, so I don't hesitate up to ISO 6400 and thus I have some latitude with my lenses. For older models, ISO 6400 may be too noisy for art, especially in the fine detail of a painting. Anyways, I noticed from your profile that you're shooting the D7000 and that camera is sharing the same basic sensor as the K-5, so you're in good shape.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, given a choice, this is probably where I'd bring in a &quot;nifty fifty&quot; and look to use a 50mm lens with an f/1.4 aperture. I haven't been to the Met, but if they're like many others, a tripod is not allowed, so a fast 50mm will give you a solid performance. By the way, you may be able to sneak in a monopod... Worth trying. ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-02-25T03:50:30.123" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9248" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9246" CreationDate="2011-02-25T09:09:30.110" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In this setting I find my slow, f/4 lens with stabilization much more useful that my fast f/1.2 glass. Paintings don't move, and the extra DOF is always useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-02-25T09:09:30.110" />
  <row Id="9249" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9084" CreationDate="2011-02-25T09:34:40.787" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use &quot;lift adjustments&quot; to see the details of any adjustments to the image. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, after doing &quot;Auto Enhance&quot;, the lift adjustments HUD shows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Enhance: Vibrancy (0.20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Levels: Auto Levels&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edge sharpen: Intensity (0.50), Edges (0.22), Falloff (0.69)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4048" LastActivityDate="2011-02-25T09:34:40.787" />
  <row Id="9250" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-25T09:43:06.423" Score="5" ViewCount="375" Body="&lt;p&gt;How is it that the FOV can be greater for the smaller resolutions in their camera, which has no zoom? I would expect a greater FOV when more of the sensor is used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From: &lt;a href=&quot;http://gopro.com/cameras/hd-helmet-hero-camera/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://gopro.com/cameras/hd-helmet-hero-camera/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Angle of View: 170º ultra wide angle in WVGA, 720p, or 960p mode&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Angle of View: 127º wide angle in 1080p mode&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can someone explain that in technical terms?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4049" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T23:22:11.393" Title="GoPro Hero HD field of view is larger at lower resolutions, how is that?" Tags="&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;field-of-view&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="9251" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9246" CreationDate="2011-02-25T10:03:28.627" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Avoid Glare&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try to position yourself so that the lights aren't reflecting directly off the surface of the artwork and causing a hotspot in the image.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A longer lens will make this easier than a wide angle lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(This tip cribbed from &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0240808193&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Light: Science and Magic&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Good question, by the way :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-02-25T10:03:28.627" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9252" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9240" CreationDate="2011-02-25T11:13:12.607" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;And don't forget that many of those cameras have no adjustable aperture at all. They're always shooting wide open, any adjustment that might happen being done through changing the sensitivity of the sensor, no moving parts required.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These cameras aren't designed for people with an interest in photography, so there's no need for things that can be adjusted by the operator. In fact your average user doesn't want to adjust anything, just point and click, and the cameras are designed with that in mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-02-25T11:13:12.607" />
  <row Id="9253" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9246" CreationDate="2011-02-25T11:16:58.843" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;And do ask permission before you even enter. Getting a written ok from someone at the ticket counter can prevent a lot of hassle with museum staff later on.&#xA;Also be courteous towards both staff and other visitors. They have as much right to look at the works as you do, and if you're monopolising a gallery(or even a single important work) for 20 minutes trying to get your pictures &quot;just right&quot;, preventing others from enjoying their visit, you're going to make museum staff angry which will harm not just you but future visitors wanting to bring cameras into the museum (I've seen this happen, photographers getting abusive towards other visitors who just want to watch something or walk through a room where the photographer is composing for ages and doesn't want anyone to walk through).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-02-25T11:16:58.843" />
  <row Id="9254" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9246" CreationDate="2011-02-25T12:19:40.160" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First thing first: check the museum photography policy.  It's usually available on the museum Website. Ususally, photography is permitted in the permanent collections but not in the temp exhibits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the MET Website &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metmuseum.org/visit/tips/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.metmuseum.org/visit/tips/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Photography&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Still photography is&#xA;  permitted for private, noncommercial&#xA;  use only in the Museum's galleries&#xA;  devoted to the permanent collection.&#xA;  Photographs cannot be published, sold,&#xA;  reproduced, transferred, distributed,&#xA;  or otherwise commercially exploited in&#xA;  any manner whatsoever. Photography is&#xA;  not permitted in special exhibitions&#xA;  or areas designated as &quot;No&#xA;  Photography&quot;; works of art on loan&#xA;  from private collections or other&#xA;  institutions may not be photographed.&#xA;  The use of flash is prohibited at all&#xA;  times and in all galleries. Movie and&#xA;  video cameras are prohibited. Tripods&#xA;  are allowed Wednesday through Friday,&#xA;  and only with a permit issued by the&#xA;  Information Desk in the Great Hall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For press and other special&#xA;  photography, including film and&#xA;  videotape projects, please contact the&#xA;  Communications Department during&#xA;  business hours by phone (212-879-5500,&#xA;  ext. 3441) or fax (212-472-2764). See&#xA;  The Image Library for more information&#xA;  about requests regarding photographs&#xA;  of works of art owned by the Museum&#xA;  for any purpose other than private and&#xA;  noncommercial.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Museum reserves the right, at its&#xA;  sole discretion, to withhold and/or&#xA;  withdraw permission to photograph on&#xA;  its premises or to reproduce&#xA;  photographs of objects in its&#xA;  collection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2168" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-25T16:10:50.013" LastActivityDate="2011-02-25T16:10:50.013" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9255" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9250" CreationDate="2011-02-25T13:00:57.613" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only thing I can think of is that the cam doesn't have the processing power to encode all the pixels in the sensor, so you can either crop the frame (which reduces the field of view) or you can use the whole sensor and subsample (skip pixels/rows like video DSLRs do), which reduces the resolution but maintains the full field of view. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;edit:&lt;/strong&gt; looking more closely at the specs, the HD hero takes 5MP stills so it must be a case of variable subsampling rates. Given this I can't see why they couldn't produce a 1080p signal by subsampling the whole sensor. I wonder if it's something to do with the lens, i.e. it's too soft in the corners for full HD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-28T18:28:04.293" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T18:28:04.293" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9256" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9246" CreationDate="2011-02-25T14:55:59.123" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was at the Met last week actually. A few people suggested you bring a fast lens, and that's very true, especially since flash is not allowed (not that I have one on my camera anyway).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So far the assumption is that you want to take picture of the art. I wasn't interested in that, there is just too much, and professionals are busy doing it much better than me (see below). I wanted to take a few shots of the space itself, and if that's your thing, do bring a &lt;em&gt;wide angle lens&lt;/em&gt;, some rooms are huge. I had a 24-105mm for versatility that day in NYC, but a 16-35mm f/2.8 would have been nice. For example (original &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/altuwa/5467601848/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NfVO1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your lens is not fast enough, consider going black&amp;amp;white, this can give an &quot;interesting&quot; look to the noise, in my opinion (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/altuwa/5467595582/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;see here&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just for the anecdote, here is one of the professionals I mentioned above, busy capturing the essence of a sculpture. That's a lot of gear (original &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/altuwa/5466999201/sizes/l/in/photostream/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/GcLxq.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-25T16:10:26.533" LastActivityDate="2011-02-25T16:10:26.533" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9257" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9259" CreationDate="2011-02-25T16:25:43.253" Score="8" ViewCount="323" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi, I heard a couple of years ago that only certain types of lens caused flare to appear, something related with the material and/or quality of the lens. Is this true? Which material/quality caused flare? Thanks in advance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3970" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-25T17:32:55.033" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T07:18:13.190" Title="What causes lens flare?" Tags="&lt;lens-flare&gt;&lt;optics&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="9258" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9257" CreationDate="2011-02-25T16:42:24.093" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lens flare is caused by a bright light source (such as the sun) shining into the lens (whether in the image or not) that has its light reflected and scattered inside the lens causing a wash out or a flare artifact. All lenses will be subject to this to a greater or lesser degree, but this most commonly manifests with wider angles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are mitigation steps taken with the lenses themselves and these include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Special lens coatings.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lens hoods. Always use one designed for your lens and, well, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;use&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; it!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gobos (go betweens that block the light at the side of the lens).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, higher quality lenses often have better coatings and more defense against lens flare. Also, it's sometimes desirable and can be used for artistic purposes, so it's not always a bad thing if you do it consciously. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-02-25T16:42:24.093" />
  <row Id="9259" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9257" CreationDate="2011-02-25T16:47:04.643" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Uncontrolled light causes lens flare. This can be light that's reflected from internal lens surfaces, or that's scattered by imperfections in the glass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the flare is badly controlled, it will produce the dramatic lens flare artifacts which you've probably seen. More controlled flare will be diffused over the entire image, reducing contrast but not producing other visible artifacts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Flare can be controlled in several different ways. A simple way is just to prevent non-image light from hitting the front element in the first place. Avoid putting bright lights (the sun, for example) directly in the frame, and prevent out-of-frame light from shining onto the lens. This is what a lens hood does — or, simply shading with your hand, in a pinch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there is a bright light source (the sun, for example) that you &lt;em&gt;want&lt;/em&gt; to have in your photograph, that's not going to help. That's a reason wide angle lenses are more susceptible to flare (and for the same reason, a lens hood can't be as useful, as a deep one would block the actual image).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On almost all modern lenses, special optical coatings are applied to the lens to help control the stray light. These are made of various metallic and mineral compounds which alter the way the lens transmits light, and they're specially chosen to reduce the unwanted scattering of light. More expensive lenses use more expensive coatings, and more expensive optical elements which have less of a problem in the first place. Lens also have internal baffles designed to reduce bouncing light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cheap filters often have cheap coatings, and since they're often more exposed than the front element was, they're more prone to catching stray light. That's why adding a UV filter for lens protection can reduce image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to answer your question directly: yes, it's true. Flare is caused by stray light, not by lens materials directly, but cheap lens materials can make it worse and high-quality ones can mitigate it. Even with a cheap lens, you can make things much better simply by using a lens hood or standing in the shade, and keeping the sun out of the frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-25T17:40:26.890" LastActivityDate="2011-02-25T17:40:26.890" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9260" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3418" CreationDate="2011-02-25T22:45:10.450" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not going to compete with the experts already answering here, but I wondered why you thought your brother was not such an expert as to buy a DSLR? You don't HAVE to ever change the lens, and entry-level DSLRs all have 'easy to use&quot; modes that are essentially the same as the compacts from the same manufacturers. Using a DSLR isn't much harder than a compact if you ignore the advanced features; plus he'll have a lot further to grow before he needs a new camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course there are other disadvantages apart from ease-of-use, mostly price and weight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1546" LastActivityDate="2011-02-25T22:45:10.450" />
  <row Id="9261" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-02-25T23:12:56.420" Score="1" ViewCount="106" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicates:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4203/digital-photography-tutorials&quot;&gt;Digital Photography Tutorials&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2760/how-to-start-the-basics-of-photography-which-is-the-best-entry-level-slr-camera&quot;&gt;How to start the basics of photography, which is the best entry level SLR camera?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I gave it all away in the title :D. I just enjoy clicking random photographs and uptil now I was using the novice point-and-shoot camera. I would like to step up my game and learn.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I recently bought a Nikon D-3100 with two lenses 18-55 mm and 55-200mm. However, I am stumped and would like to learn the basics of photography in order to get better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I particularly enjoy nature/landscape/skyline photography. Can someone point me in the right direction with some references ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure what else to include in the question. If I missed out on something, please leave me a comment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: Im just an enthusiast, doing it for fun and pursuing it as a hobby. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4058" LastActivityDate="2011-02-25T23:31:05.007" ClosedDate="2011-02-25T23:46:26.297" Title="Getting started - a photographer noob" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;learning&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9262" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9261" CreationDate="2011-02-25T23:23:42.490" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all you have to learn basics:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;exposure&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;f-number (focal ratio)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ISO&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;white balance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Google a bit, there are lot's of answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I started from manual of my camera. I've gotten answers for questions i wrote above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4059" LastEditorUserId="4059" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-25T23:31:05.007" LastActivityDate="2011-02-25T23:31:05.007" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9263" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9266" CreationDate="2011-02-26T00:29:48.867" Score="18" ViewCount="380" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why is it that the ISO level on most digital cameras doesn't seem to go lower than ISO 80?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand (vaguely) that the sensors adjust the gain in order to achieve the equivalent of a high ISO film and I can see why there would be a limitation to this, but don't understand why it would be so difficult to make the sensor less sensitive to light?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3263" LastActivityDate="2011-02-26T08:59:27.057" Title="Why can't the ISO level on most digital cameras be set below 80" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;iso&gt;&lt;digital-iso&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9264" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9263" CreationDate="2011-02-26T00:48:39.683" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If a manufacturer wanted to do that, they could.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, all sensors have a native sensitivity, usually ISO 100, 160 or 200. Gain is used to achieve higher sensitivities by multiplying the base signal. This introduces more noise, so if the base ISO was lower, them you would need to use more gain to achieve higher sensitivities and you would get more noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get lower ISOs without changing the base setting, you basically divide the base signal. This causes a reduction in dynamic range, which is why you rarely see ISOs less than 50. If the base ISO would be divided by a larger factor, then too much dynamic range would be lost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, there is not much reason to develop lower sensitivity sensors since it is easy to use an ND filter to reduce incoming light without affecting dynamic range. Several cameras from Canon, Nikon and Fuji have a 2 or 3 stops ND filter built-in for that effect. On a DSLR, you can buy ND filters with variable strength which makes things very flexible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-26T00:48:39.683" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9265" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9263" CreationDate="2011-02-26T03:56:59.190" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;but don't understand why it would be so difficult to make the sensor less sensitive to light?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's almost counter-intuitive to the concept of photography which, after all, is about the capture of light. Having said that, the CCD/CMOS is going to have a natural floor for the light capture so any less than that is going to require the deliberate discarding of information which, in general, is probably not going to be done to the satisfaction of photographers. Software, which is what would do this, is always going to be a compromise on various factors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, as Itai noted, there are other ways to reduce light. You can use ND filters, smaller apertures, faster shutter speeds, etc. If you shoot raw, then you can manipulate exposure even more. Net effect, going below ISO 80 is simply not likely to be worth it to manufacturers, they are much more interested about the other end of the range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-02-26T03:56:59.190" />
  <row Id="9266" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9263" CreationDate="2011-02-26T08:59:27.057" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two ways to reduce the base of native ISO (the lowest setting possible on the camera). One is to make the sensor less efficient, so that the less of the incoming light is captured. It is easy to see how this reduces the sensitivity. However, as already stated in other answers, this would only be of use to the minority people who regularly find that they have too much light whereas the majority of photographers struggle with not enough light for the most part!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However there is another way to reduce the base ISO and that is to increase the capacity of each pixel (referred to as the well depth) so that it can store more charge (and hence more light) before becoming saturated. &lt;em&gt;This method does have a genuine advantage at all sensitivities.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is a little trickier to see how this affects the base ISO, however you have to remember that whatever readings the sensor takes eventually get mapped to the range 0-255 either by the camera or a person during raw conversion (or 0-65536 for 16 bit images). Imagine two sensors A and B, A has twice the capacity per pixel. When you shoot an image with A at 1/30s shutter speed the highlights are just about to clip. Now when you use B, you have to use 1/60s because of the decreased capacity - if you used 1/30s you would overexpose the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whatever values the sensors record at the saturation point they still get mapped to 255 so will look the same. Given that with B you get the same image but with half the exposure time (all else being equal) this means B has higher sensitivity. If the base sensitivity of camera B is ISO100 then the base sensitivity of A is ISO50.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point of all this is that if you can reduce the base ISO by increasing pixel capacity then this is a &lt;strong&gt;good thing&lt;/strong&gt; as it allows you to have lower noise and greater dynamic range. To understand why this is the case, you first have to let go of the idea that increasing the ISO setting increases noise, it's simply not true, here's an answer I wrote on the subject: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6615/what-is-iso-on-a-digital-camera/6622#6622&quot;&gt;What is &quot;ISO&quot; on a digital camera?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The short version is that noise is mainly caused by lack of light (the less light you have the more random variations in photon emission show up in the image, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise&lt;/a&gt;) it just happens that if you increase the ISO setting of your camera other settings have to change which result in you getting less light and more shot noise. It's the lack of light that produces the noise, not the act of amplifying the signal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So even though we have to use amplification to get ISO100 out of camera A, we let in &lt;em&gt;the same amount of light&lt;/em&gt; as camera B shooting at ISO100 and thus can expect the same level of noise! So camera A is no worse, however we do have the option of going to ISO50, letting in more light and thus getting less shot noise! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also have the option of using ISO50 but with the same camera settings as B is using to shoot at ISO100, we let in the same amount of light so can expect the same level of noise, but if the scene suddenly gets brighter B with clip the signal whereas A will carry on with it's extra well depth, thus having higher dynamic range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These examples are a simplification, there are other sources of noise, but in general having a &quot;less sensitive&quot; sensor can be a good thing. It is difficult to engineer deeper electron wells however, which is why you don't see cameras go below ISO50. You do see differences in well depth though, for example the lowest ISO available to the 35mm sensor Canon 5D is ISO50 whereas the same generation APS-C sensor in the Canon 30D the lowest ISO is 100 this is due to the extra capacity in the larger pixels of the 5D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-02-26T08:59:27.057" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9268" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="487" CreationDate="2011-02-26T10:52:16.640" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a great question. I started with a Fuji FinePix years ago, then upgraded to a Nikon D40x. I'm afraid I caught the photography bug after that and have since upgraded to a Nikon D700, who know's what Camera I'll get next:-) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it's really just snaps, then I'd go for a Canon S95, it's the best pocket digital camera around, the same sensor as the G11 and G12 for much less money and a fast lense too taking wonderfully clear pictures at decent resolution. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All the best in your search.&#xA;Don.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2455" LastActivityDate="2011-02-26T10:52:16.640" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-27T21:12:27.193" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9270" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9199" CreationDate="2011-02-26T12:27:02.597" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have you tried shooting the candle flame tethered to a computer? It's easy to do and there are free apps that you can use to trigger the camera from your phone. I use an app from onOne software on my IPhone and it works beautifully. Just a thought, you'll see a much bigger image on the laptop screen than on the back of your D7000. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2455" LastActivityDate="2011-02-26T12:27:02.597" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9271" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9275" CreationDate="2011-02-26T14:39:15.580" Score="13" ViewCount="251" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know how to saturate in post-processing. But there are times of the day and the year when natural outdoor light is extremely saturated. Towards sunset in spring in southern England, for example. What is the physical quality that makes this light &quot;saturated&quot;? Is it a change in colour temperature? Or is there something else which affects perceived saturation? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4072" LastActivityDate="2011-02-26T23:14:49.277" Title="What makes some natural landscapes saturated?" Tags="&lt;light&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="9272" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9271" CreationDate="2011-02-26T15:30:42.207" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is usually due to a color temperature shift that occurs at certain points in the day, as the angle at which the light from the sun changes with the rising and setting sun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hour_%28photography%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Typically, lighting is softer (more&#xA;  diffuse) and warmer in hue, and&#xA;  shadows are longer. When the Sun is&#xA;  near the horizon, sunlight travels&#xA;  through more of the atmosphere,&#xA;  reducing the intensity of the direct&#xA;  light, so that more of the&#xA;  illumination comes from indirect light&#xA;  from the sky (Thomas 1973, 9–13),&#xA;  reducing the lighting ratio. More blue&#xA;  light is scattered, so that light from&#xA;  the Sun appears more reddish. In&#xA;  addition, the Sun's small angle with&#xA;  the horizon produces longer shadows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These times are often referred to as the &quot;golden hours&quot;, and there is an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.golden-hour.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;online calculator&lt;/a&gt; that can tell you the times that the light will be best in your area.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-26T15:37:14.700" LastActivityDate="2011-02-26T15:37:14.700" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9273" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="487" CreationDate="2011-02-26T17:52:56.810" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Digital, pocketable, $250-300?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would look into a used Canon S90 or spend a bit more and go for the S95.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why? They have larger sensors and relatively fast lens compared to most pocket cameras. This will give you better image quality and allow you to shoot in darker places other pocket cameras couldn't touch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: There are newer cameras entering into this space like the Lumix LX5, but I don't think they've been out long enough to sell as used in this price range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3984" LastActivityDate="2011-02-26T17:52:56.810" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-27T21:12:27.193" />
  <row Id="9274" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="487" CreationDate="2011-02-26T19:47:04.277" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://dpreview.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://dpreview.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take a look there, try to figure out what you'd want. Let us know if you need any tips for things to look for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-02-26T19:47:04.277" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-02-27T21:12:27.193" />
  <row Id="9275" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9271" CreationDate="2011-02-26T23:14:49.277" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think chills42 is correct, a few factors compound to create vivid colors when the sun is low on the horizon. This affects the actual scene, i.e. the actual colors we see.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But there is another dimension to the situation: what the photos we take look like. The dynamic range of the scene during the golden hours is usually lower, allowing the camera to capture colors more easily. This happens to me all the time; a scene in bright noon sunlight looks completely vivid and saturated (imagine a field of flowers on a sunny day with a blue sky), but there is no way to capture it on a camera with a single exposure. I can underexpose the sky to capture the vivid blues, but then the foreground will be underexposed. Or I can expose the foreground correctly and the sky will overexpose and look white. I think this tricks some people (when they are viewing their photos) into thinking the scene had less color than it did. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1125" LastActivityDate="2011-02-26T23:14:49.277" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9276" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9257" CreationDate="2011-02-27T08:10:40.463" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Basically, it's reflections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Inside a lens, you want the light to travel from the front of the front element, to the back of the rear element, without bouncing off any surfaces.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two main surfaces, however, that light may bounce off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The glass itself.  Glass is reflective, obviously.  Glass is shiny.  So some light bounces off the glass elements instead of going through.  Unfortunately if it bounces back again, toward the film or sensor, that reflection will become &quot;flare&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For decades now most proper camera lenses have had special coatings to reduce the amount of light that bounces off the lens elements, ensuring most of it just travels straight through.  Lens coatings work because the thickness of the &lt;em&gt;coating&lt;/em&gt; is half the wavelength of the light hitting it, so it creates two reflections half a wavelength apart that cancel each other out - due to the interesting wave-like properties of light this pretty much prevents it from reflecting.  Unfortunately a coating only prevents reflections of one single wavelength of light, and light is made up of many wavelengths.  So lens elements that use two or three layers of coating, called &quot;multi-coated&quot;, can prevent reflections of a number of colours at once.  When you look at a multicoated lens you'll see some dulled colours - maybe blue-green.  Those colours are just the wavelengths that the coating cannot stop reflecting.  There's no such thing as perfect coatings but they work very well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When light bounces off lens elements you get the characteristic ghosting of points of light, particularly the sun. To effectively reduce this type of flare, all surfaces between lens elements and air must be multi-coated.  This is typical in modern lenses except for really low budget ones.  When pointing your lens directly at the sun then you're likely to have a bit of flare regardless, because no coating is perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that lens filters that you stick in front of the lens will greatly increase your chance of flare, especially - but not only - if the filter is not multicoated, simply because it adds two more surfaces that can cause reflections back into the lens (glass can create a reflection as light enters &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; exits).  This is also true of filters or teleconverter glass that you drop in behind your lens - it'll add to flare.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Surfaces inside the lens assembly.  To minimise haze, the surfaces inside a lens assembly should not only be as black as possible, but should be matte textured.  Reflections off these surfaces reduce in an overall haze or reduction in contrast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A decent lens design will ensure these surfaces are black and non-reflective anyway, but as with anything there is no such thing as perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if you are using, for example, lens adapters, teleconverters, bellows or other things in between your lens and the camera, the inside coatings of these can add flare depending on their design.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether or not your lens' flare is noticeable depends not only on the lens assembly, coatings and filters, but also on the subject material you are shooting.  Where you are shooting near bright lights or direct sun, you're more likely to notice the flare.  This is particularly true if you point your camera towards light sources or the sun - even if they're not actually in the frame (you can use a hood to help reduce that particular problem).  If the lighting around you is more soft and diffused without direct sun, then you're less likely to see any noticeable flare simply because it won't be well defined compared to the rest of the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-27T23:20:54.730" LastActivityDate="2011-02-27T23:20:54.730" />
  <row Id="9277" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9278" CreationDate="2011-02-27T10:56:08.697" Score="23" ViewCount="695" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to travel individually in Sub-Saharan Africa where the crime rate is high. Most of the time I will do landscape photography and only a few shots in urban areas. I've been there already, but without valuable camera gear. I'm not sure if I should strip down my equipment to low budget but evidently suffer loss of quality and focal range.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;How do you pack your stuff when travelling such regions? What is your experience?&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3789" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T18:41:09.767" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T18:41:09.767" Title="Equipment for travelling countries with high crime rate" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;travel&gt;&lt;security&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="9278" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9277" CreationDate="2011-02-27T11:07:51.697" Score="20" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I live in a country where crime-rate is quite high but that doesn't prevent the photographers here from buying/using expensive gears. All you have to do is be a little more careful than usual. I'd suggest:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Avoid lone journeys. If possible gather a group of people.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use public transports as much as possible avoiding taxis.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Try to avoid late night and too early in the morning shootings.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Be as inconspicuous as possible. Prefer black lenses over the white ones!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ask hotel/resort manager about the place before going to shoot there.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If possible, ask someone local to assist/accompany you during your walks.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do not carry any company branded (Canon/Nikon etc) camera bag. Use something that doesn't make it obvious that you're carrying expensive gears.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of my friends once got in the hand of a group of thugs. He introduced himself as a journalist of a local leading newspaper and later successfully managed to escape them paying a few dollars only for their treat. Just in case, you might use the trick! =)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: It just came to mind, several companies offer insurance for your photographic equipments. If you're seriously worried, you can try reading through their offers and get a suitable plan for you. A simple google search helps!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastEditorUserId="2476" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-27T11:42:59.763" LastActivityDate="2011-02-27T11:42:59.763" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="9279" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9277" CreationDate="2011-02-27T11:21:50.777" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;People always say that the photos are important, not the equipment.  I guess if you're a pro or whatever then that's true, but I'd rather have the equipment - I can always take more photos.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd made sure you're insured, and perhaps not take your most expensive equipment.  Either the shots are worth risking the equipment for, or they're not. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3739" LastActivityDate="2011-02-27T11:21:50.777" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9280" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9277" CreationDate="2011-02-27T15:02:25.537" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;some things I use:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gaffers tape - if my bags, cameras, and my camera gear looks like it is being held together by gaffers tape people are less likely to steal it (doesn't mean they won't, just less likely). Nothing looks bright, shiny or new.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The equipment bags i carry in high crime areas look like something a homeless person would stuff their belongings into, shabby and torn on the outside, reinforced on the inside. All gear bag straps and camera neck or wrist straps are reinforced with wire so they aren't easy to cut with a knife.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I try to dress as much as possible like everyone else in the environment - don't stand out if you don't have to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Local currency in small bills, each one folded separately so when you do pull out money to pay for something you aren't flashing a handful of money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and if possible enlist an aide to keep an eye on your bags while you're setting up a shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3675" LastActivityDate="2011-02-27T15:02:25.537" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9281" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9277" CreationDate="2011-02-27T15:04:57.720" Score="20" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Interestingly I have a different perspective than @ShutterBug. I live in a safe country but travel often to ones that are not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main difference is that I do not blend in with locals. That means no amount of being inconspicuous, hiding company logos, etc will put me out of sight. Everyone nearly instantly knows that I am there. I've been followed and approached by friendly curious, unfriendly, aggressive and dangerous people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Avoiding lone journeys is good advice&lt;/strong&gt; and applies everywhere. I know that &lt;strong&gt;2 people together are 10 times more safe than one&lt;/strong&gt;. You cannot always be in a group, particularly for early morning and evening shoots. I have used a police escort in several countries, sometimes they do it for free, sometimes there is a fee and sometimes a tip will do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Public transport is very dangerous in many countries. I've been to places where the bus driver watches while someone gets assaulted in the back of the bus and he continues his job as usual to avoid problems for him. I've been always recommended to &lt;strong&gt;use official taxis&lt;/strong&gt;. They may cost twice as much as others but are worth it. You can usually get those from hotels, high-end restaurants and important business areas. &lt;strong&gt;They should have a traceable number and clear identification&lt;/strong&gt;. If you are worried, use a cell to SMS the identification to an email address.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A shot only matters if you can bring it back&lt;/strong&gt;. Shoot when you have too, unless you cannot do it safely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When asked, pay bribes quickly and move on. It's sad to have to do that but away from home, it can be much more problematic not to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My experience is that most &lt;strong&gt;danger tends to be concentrated around high population centers&lt;/strong&gt;. Also in outside areas of tourist interest, national park trails, known vista points, etc. In rural areas, there are usually less danger and people are more friendly and willing to help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer: &lt;em&gt;I've only been to 47 countries, so I may be wrong about the other 146.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: Just realized I did not answer the first part of your question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I pack my gear in a shoulder bag. It is a regular camera bag and I do not think what it looks like matter because the moment I take a picture, people know there is a camera in there. The most important is that I wear it across my body and always in front of me where I can see it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All my gear for a shoot fits in that single bag and I don't let it away from me anywhere. Backup gear remains in the hotel in a hard suitcase tied up to a permanent fixture with a special cable and lock. As much as possible, the primary and backup gear bags are kept separate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-27T20:51:38.920" LastActivityDate="2011-02-27T20:51:38.920" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9282" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9284" CreationDate="2011-02-27T17:37:00.100" Score="11" ViewCount="197" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am having a black and white digital landscape photo printed to frame and hang on the wall and one of the options on offer is 'metallic paper'. What is it and would it be appropriate in this instance?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="823" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T05:19:32.243" Title="What is metallic paper?" Tags="&lt;printing&gt;&lt;paper&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="9283" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9277" CreationDate="2011-02-27T17:43:09.667" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't overlook some of the upper to high-end pocket and point-and-shoot cameras. You can get very high quality glass on them, with a good wide-angle to long zoom lens. Something like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Compact-Digital-Cameras/26233/COOLPIX-P7000.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon's P7000&lt;/a&gt; would work really well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many pros keep those available for inconspicuous shooting, without seriously sacrificing the image quality, leaving their expensive gear for when it's safer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A small monopod or table-top tripod, and a couple flashes could fit into a tiny bag or even pockets in cargo pants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1514" LastActivityDate="2011-02-27T17:43:09.667" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9284" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9282" CreationDate="2011-02-27T18:02:33.150" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is like normal paper, except that instead of just paper or plastic backing, it has a sheet of Mylar between the paper and the emulsion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is high gloss, and high contrast, abolutely ROCKS black and white prints. Really gives them a lot of depth when they have a good strong light source.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-28T05:19:32.243" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T05:19:32.243" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9285" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9287" CreationDate="2011-02-27T19:55:32.923" Score="1" ViewCount="268" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had to shoot self-portraits today, and it didn't go well. I first tried shooting tethered, but it was so hard to get composition &amp;amp; focus right, that I just did it with a mirror. Which of course introduced a whole new set of problems. Not only is using a strobe with a mirror an extremely dumb idea (and I don't have real continuous lightning, so ended up using an anti-SAD lamp), but my infrared remote has to be pointed at the front panel of the camera. While I managed somehow, the results are far from thrilling. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I searched a bit and landed at good old DPS, which has an article about self-portraits. This includes following advice: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Shoot tethered; most digital cameras have a mini video if not a HD video out. I borrowed my son’s DVD player (the one he watches movies in the car with) on multiple occasions for the sole purpose of shooting self portraits. This is where the remote comes in great; you can fine tune the composition by watching that little monitor, without having to run back and forth. If you have a newer DSLR with an HD out then you could hook up your laptop or HD monitor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(source &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/self-portrait-photography-tips#ixzz1FBqKNMCi&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/self-portrait-photography-tips#ixzz1FBqKNMCi&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This made me wonder. I have a D90, which has both LiveView and a HDMI output. I have shot with it tethered using DarkTable, but I cannot see the image on the monitor the way I would be seeing it on the camera back in LiveView mode. Instead, I can just make some changes with the mouse (and that doesn't work perfectly, as some settings are overridden by the position of the controls on the camera) and then click on a button to shoot, effectively using the wireless mouse as a wireless remote. And then the picture is visible on the big colour-calibrated monitor. This is, of course, much better than shooting camera-only and later noticing that what looked OK on the camera back is not so hot at normal resolutions, but it still isn't enough for very demanding situations like self-portraits. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The quote from DPS, on the other hand, sounds as if it is possible to send a video to the monitor, which I imagine like a kind of LiveView on the monitor. Which would be, of course, perfect. So, is this possible, and if yes, which software supports it? (preferred platform is Linux with Gnome, but if there are Windows options, I want to hear about them too). Or did I just misunderstand the quote and does he mean that he is only tethering the same way as I do, but using a HDMI instead of a USB cable? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2099" LastActivityDate="2011-02-27T20:40:47.727" Title="Is it possible to shoot tethered with a preview on the screen?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;nikon-d90&gt;&lt;tethering&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="9287" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9285" CreationDate="2011-02-27T20:25:14.380" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nikon's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Imaging-Software/25366/Camera-Control-Pro-2.html#tab-ProductDetail.ProductTabs.Overview&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Camera Control Pro 2&lt;/a&gt; supports LiveView with the D90 on both Windows and Mac.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-02-27T20:25:14.380" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9288" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9285" CreationDate="2011-02-27T20:40:47.727" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Without any software involved you can connect most Live-View to a  display.&lt;/strong&gt; That is, you connect your camera to a HDTV, LCD monitor or even a projector. &lt;strong&gt;Anything with an HDMI input&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually, the &lt;strong&gt;same is true of the A/V output&lt;/strong&gt;. A special cable is included with almost every camera to connect it to an analog TV. Make sure to select the right one of NTSC or PAL in the setup menu, depending on where you live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You &lt;strong&gt;need a remote&lt;/strong&gt; (IR or wired) to trigger the camera and set it up first (focus, zoom, exposure mode) but it is very easy from this point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While doing so:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Prefocus where you will be&lt;/strong&gt;, if the remote does not trigger AF or using MF. Otherwise, you have to at least choose the focus point, so that the camera does not focus on the wrong place.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;On your camera, you can &lt;strong&gt;combine the self-timer and remote&lt;/strong&gt;. This will give you time to assume a more natural or relaxed pose.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Silly alternative to using a remote: Some cameras support time-lapse mode. Start it with the shortest delay possible, usually 1-10 seconds. And let it go for a while, framing yourself using an external display or TV through HDMI or A/V connection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-27T20:40:47.727" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9289" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9290" CreationDate="2011-02-27T20:57:21.690" Score="10" ViewCount="175" Body="&lt;p&gt;While comparing the features of Canon 400D and 1000D, I've noticed that Canon 1000D has an improved DIGIC III processor, over the DIGIC II for Canon 400D. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Wikipedia: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The DIGIC III Image Processor was&#xA;  advertised to deliver superior image&#xA;  quality, faster operation and extended&#xA;  battery life compared to its&#xA;  predecessor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Will a newer version of the DIGIC processor provide visible improvements of image quality? What about when shooting in RAW? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that newer versions may perform faster (when focusing, or a higher frame rate) and have features such as face detection and live view, but that is of no importance to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3922" LastActivityDate="2011-02-27T22:31:47.733" Title="Different versions of DIGIC processors, is there any difference in image quality?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;image-quality&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="9290" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9289" CreationDate="2011-02-27T21:03:38.897" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is Yes and No.  It will indeed provide improvements in image quality when shooting &lt;strong&gt;jpeg&lt;/strong&gt;, but the raw image is unaffected by DIGIC processing, it being the raw unprocessed data.  Here is an article produced by Canon about Digic processing A/D conversion and RAW files:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&amp;amp;articleID=2748&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&amp;amp;articleID=2748&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most importantly, the increase in Bit Depth of the DIGIC IV processor:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Equally important are the image quality benefits provided by the DIGIC 4’s integrated 14-bit Analog-to-Digital (A/D) converter...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately for your specific DIGIC III question its mostly about the advantages of DIGIC IV :p&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastEditorUserId="1819" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-27T22:31:47.733" LastActivityDate="2011-02-27T22:31:47.733" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="9292" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9277" CreationDate="2011-02-27T22:44:10.783" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm a fan of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pacsafe.com/www/index.php?_room=3&amp;amp;product_status=New&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pacsafe&lt;/a&gt; 'exomesh' bags when I travel. Both in terms of locking down camera gear that I'm leaving behind in the hotel room (where I can't necessarily trust the hotel staff to keep their hands off it), and also for putting around my 'walk-around' bags when I'm going out for the day. Obviously nothing replaces vigilance and situational awareness, but it does make me less of a target of opportunity due to being an 'easy, dumb tourist.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not getting anything for mentioning pacsafe, BTW... Just a fan of their gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-27T22:44:10.783" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9293" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9234" CreationDate="2011-02-28T01:07:42.873" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tl%3Bdr&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;tl;dr&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;Sorry, there is currently no exact Photoshop equivalent to GIMPs Retinex filter, though there are a few Photoshop plugins that claim to produce similar results.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those who may not know what Retinex is, or how it's different from other processing algorithms (I didn't), you can find a full treatise on the technology and it's applications from the technology's inventors here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.truview.com/press/nasa-techbrief.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Processing Digital Imagery To Enhance Perceptions of Realism&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To briefly summarize what is admittedly a rather dense white paper, Retinex, or more correctly Multi-Scale Retinex with Color Restoration (MSRCR) is an algorithm that automatically &quot;improves the perception of visual realism and the quantity and quality of perceived information in a digitized image.&quot; &lt;em&gt;(whew)&lt;/em&gt; In layman's terms, The algorithm at the heart of Retinex is able to take an improperly exposed photograph and enhance shadow and highlight detail in a natural-looking way and in a largely automatic fashion. The inventors of the algorithm claim that they are able to achieve consistently superior results- in terms of both quality and speed of processing- to other image manipulation algorithms on the market.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The algorithm was developed with a grant from NASA, and is a patented technology which was marketed by the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.truview.com/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;TruView Imaging Company&lt;/a&gt; under the product name '&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.truview.com/products.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PhotoFlair&lt;/a&gt;,' both as a standalone tool, a Photoshop plugin, and an Adobe Premiere plugin. I say 'was,' because for reasons I couldn't dig up in my searching the company abruptly ceased operation, distribution and technical support of its product line sometime in 2003. There is no indication, however, that TruView Imaging Company has released the patent on the algorithm, which leads me to surmise that the Gimp Retinex plugin is an approximation of the MSRCR algorithm, not the 'real thing.' Additionally, I can find no indication that anyone has made port of the GIMP plugin for use in Photoshop, thus the simple answer is that &lt;strong&gt;there is no exact Photoshop equivalent to the GIMP Retinex plugin&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are, however, a few different Photoshop plugins who claim to have surpassed the enhancement capabilities of Retinex, most notably is the '&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xtrasens.com/retina_adobe.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Retina&lt;/a&gt;' Photoshop plugin by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xtrasens.com/about_us.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Xtra Sens Software&lt;/a&gt;. As I have not used the product you would want to download their 30-day trial for further comparisons between the products.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T01:07:42.873" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9294" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9298" CreationDate="2011-02-28T03:36:26.110" Score="8" ViewCount="212" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Nikon D7000 and I see there are a couple remote release options from Nikon: the (wired) MC-DC2 and the (wireless) ML-L3 which is also about 40% cheaper than the wired remote.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any good reasons one would choose the wired remote instead of the wireless, especially given the price difference?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T03:40:01.063" Title="Are there downsides to a wireless (infrared) remote shutter release?" Tags="&lt;remote&gt;&lt;shutter-release&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9295" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9294" CreationDate="2011-02-28T04:02:07.710" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a wireless RF remote for my camera and now that I have wireless I would not do wired. The main reason is that there is less chance of tripping over the cable or having to worry about being tangled in it. Or if you are doing pictures with you in them you do not have to worry about hiding the cable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said that I would recommend RF (radio frequency) over infrared. The biggest reason is that you do not need to have line of sight to the camera using RF. In addition from previous experience not everything IR works outdoors in the sunlight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use a Phottix Plato &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.phottix.com/en/wireless-remotes/phottix-plato.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.phottix.com/en/wireless-remotes/phottix-plato.html&lt;/a&gt; as my wireless remote. It has worked very well for me. I will be the first to admit that I do not have much experience with photographic releases but it has met all of my needs and is a lower price than some of the manufacturer's units.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1901" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T04:02:07.710" />
  <row Id="9296" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9294" CreationDate="2011-02-28T04:59:09.113" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For these two specific units ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wireless ML-L3 - good for distance and convenience (for example it's easier to be in the shot yourself), but bad as needs line of sight and is unreliable in strong sunlight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wired MC-DC2 - good for the fact that you can lock it with the camera on bulb for exposures longer than 30 seconds, but bad as can only be used as far as it's cord of 1 meter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both can be used to fire the shutter without touching the camera so reducing camera shake, but beyond that they have their own specific purposes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather than ask which is good from these two you would be better to ask why you want a remote shutter and what you will be using it for, then find one to fulfill that need.  Personally I use two remotes, one infrared which has the capabilities of firing when the beam is broken and hence can be used to capture moving objects like animals.  My second one is off of eBay and is a wired remote that has intervalometer capabilities, for example it can capture one frame every 30 seconds for 900 frames, cost was under $30.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1410" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T04:59:09.113" />
  <row Id="9297" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9294" CreationDate="2011-02-28T05:00:05.280" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Disclaimer: I have not tried a D7000 yet, so I'm answering in general terms.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only downside I know of is for using &lt;strong&gt;Bulb&lt;/strong&gt; mode on some cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;With a cable release&lt;/strong&gt;: You press the remote button, hold it down and then let go when done. Some remotes have an option to keep the button locked down, but you have to release it at then end of the exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;With a wireless release&lt;/strong&gt;: The principle is the same except that you need to keep aiming at the camera's IR receiver. Otherwise, the camera &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; interpret the lack of IR signal as closing the shutter. If anything passes between the remote and the IR receiver, it may also happen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The exact behavior depends on the exact camera. The ideal is that you click once to open the shutter and click again to close it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On some, there is an option to control the behavior. I know both Pentax K-5 and K-7 (excluding original F/W) have that option. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T05:00:05.280" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9298" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9294" CreationDate="2011-02-28T05:02:07.847" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Infrared triggers can lose their minds when in the presence of sunlight or a strong IR source. The sun puts out &lt;em&gt;SO&lt;/em&gt; much IR the receiver can't see the signal unless its window is in shade or very close to the transmitter. They do work really well indoors or at night though, and cost less than the radio triggers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, just as a FYI, a toilet-paper tube taped over the window can help the receiver pick up the transmitter's IR burst when there is a lot of IR noise as it helps the receiver's &quot;eye&quot; see the right IR source.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For that matter though, even PocketWizards can get confused when in the presence of lots of radio noise or certain transmitters. I had a shoot where I had receivers on both sides of me lock-up multiple times. I'd used them in the same location several times before with no problems, and the only difference was the announcer was using a wireless microphone. I'd have loved to have wired up sync lines and turned off the wireless that night.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1514" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T05:02:07.847" />
  <row Id="9299" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9294" CreationDate="2011-02-28T07:17:15.093" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wireless:&#xA;- needs batteries (so more stuff to carry around, and something that's sure to be needed just when you forgot to bring a spare and are somewhere with no battery store in reach).&#xA;- easy to interrupt. Anything crosses between the remote and the camera, the remote won't work (as already stated, more of a problem when shooting in bulb mode).&#xA;- needs direct line of sight to the receiver, which may be a problem at times if you can't aim the receiver to where you will be standing, it has a very narrow opening angle on its sensor, etc. (mind, those are model dependent, I don't know the specific model you're interested in).&#xA;- as said already, can be fooled in direct harsh light.&#xA;- typically more expensive to purchase&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wired:&#xA;- most have shorter range (though very long cable releases do exist for some camera models).&#xA;- contacts can be fragile, and the protection caps for them are easy to loose (and can be expensive to replace, though my dealer has managed to get me replacements for free a few times, but he has a very good relation with Nikon).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T07:17:15.093" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="9300" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9257" CreationDate="2011-02-28T07:18:13.190" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;All lenses can flare, but some are more prone to flaring than are others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T07:18:13.190" />
  <row Id="9301" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9302" CreationDate="2011-02-28T08:52:28.917" Score="9" ViewCount="289" Body="&lt;p&gt;My &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-105mm-USM-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000AZ57M6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1298882390&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;24-105L&lt;/a&gt; is in the mail, and I'm looking for a filter to protect the front element. I've decided to go with B+W since they seem to have the best quality to match my L lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've narrowed it down to 2 77mm UVA Haze filters, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000BZLBQ/ref=s9_simh_gw_p23_d0_i2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&amp;amp;pf_rd_s=center-2&amp;amp;pf_rd_r=1XFD59DR9030BXNGBPN7&amp;amp;pf_rd_t=101&amp;amp;pf_rd_p=470938631&amp;amp;pf_rd_i=507846&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;one has MRC&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/11974-REG/B_W_65_070156_77mm_Ultraviolet_UV_Filter.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;another doesn't&lt;/a&gt;. The MRC filter is double the price, and I want to know if it's worth it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me get a couple of things out of the way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I'm not looking for an advice on whether to use UV filter for lens protection&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I don't mind paying extra $40 as long as I actually get something in return&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I'd prefer to hear from people who have one or both of these filters&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess all I'm looking for are the REAL LIFE benefits of MRC.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1834" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-10T00:05:28.097" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T00:05:28.097" Title="What are the real-life benefits of B+W's MRC?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;uv&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="9302" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9301" CreationDate="2011-02-28T09:05:46.153" Score="20" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;MRC coating is a good thing to consider if you want your filter to last long enough for your lens. MRC stands for Multi Resistant Coating is something like the weather seal for lenses. Its necessary if you tend to shoot in extreme conditions against mist/dust/water drops etc etc. MRC gives you a few benefits:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cleaning is easier.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;More resistant to mechanical scratches.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Water/Moist/Dust is repelled.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Overall my suggestion would be to get the one having MRC as you'll be pairing it with an awesome weatherproof lens, it deserves it ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T09:05:46.153" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9303" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9301" CreationDate="2011-02-28T09:06:05.027" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;and I'm looking for a filter to protect the front element&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't. Add a lenshood and keep the front cap on when you aren't shooting.&#xA;Any filter will compromise the optics of your expensive lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;I've decided to go with B+W since they seem to have the best quality to match my L lens.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's the right thing to do for any filter, especially if it's going to be mounted on some expensive glass.&#xA;A lot grade filter will turn that expensive lens into something that's no better than some cheap knockoff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put it like this:&#xA;A cheap UV filter is just a piece of thin windowpane. You're thus effectively shooting through a window.&#xA;An MRC version has a lot of the glare reduced that that produces, at the cost of some colour cast. It's also likely hardened so it doesn't scratch as easily (and those filters will scratch a lot easier than does your lens).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I use filters at all (and currently I use ONLY polarisers and the very occasional Skylight 1B) it's always the best grade I can get in the size I need. And if that's not the best on the market it gets marked for replacement by something better the moment I get it (thus I'll only buy cheaper versions if I need it urgently and can't get better).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T09:06:05.027" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="9304" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5507" CreationDate="2011-02-28T09:10:04.383" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the distant past UV filters were needed for some meters and films. This hasn't been the case for something like 20 years, so now manufacturers (and stores) are pushing them as &quot;lens protectors&quot;.&#xA;A lenshood and some care for your equipment does a lot more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You're shooting through window glass when using a UV filter, usually cheap window glass (especially when using cheap UV filters).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Skylight at least does something, even if it's minimal. You may not like the effect, but you're at least paying for something that actually does anything at all :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You need neither, buy a lenshood instead and use it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T09:10:04.383" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9305" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="439" CreationDate="2011-02-28T10:34:40.970" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Got me a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX with its paired Sigma EX 2x TC. Very good combo, extremely versatile.&#xA;Would I have liked a 70-200 + 200-400 Nikkors? Of course, but not at the price for them (which I simply can't afford, and if I could would still have considered excessive for what I use the lens for so wouldn't have purchased it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not perfect of course, the 200-400 can be used in lower light than my 70-200+TC for example, and probably is superior optically, certainly at the far end, but what I have is good enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T10:34:40.970" />
  <row Id="9306" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9309" CreationDate="2011-02-28T11:08:38.493" Score="8" ViewCount="218" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a feature I would love to have in a camera so I'm wondering if it even exsists in any avalible DSLRs. I'd basicly like to save a multiple profiles of all the settings in my camera and be able to recall them later. For example say I'm taking a low light shot on a tripod and therfore would want to enable mirror lockup, set a low iso, set the noise reduction, set a long exposure, etc..etc ..etc.. Rather then clicking through all those little menus I'd much rather be able to just pull up my saved &quot;low light&quot; settings profile and setup my camera in one step.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does something like this even exsist?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1431" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-01T12:30:59.503" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T12:30:59.503" Title="Do any digital cameras have settings &quot;profiles&quot;?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9307" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9306" CreationDate="2011-02-28T12:05:26.877" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some dSLRs have at least one user mode that stores user preferred settings. Some cameras will have a few of these, it varies a little. For example, the Pentax K-5 has 5 user modes and can store exposure mode, drive mode, flash mode, white balance, ISO, EV compensation, and a host more options. So, the simple answer to your question is yes, it can be done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-28T14:28:36.493" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T14:28:36.493" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="9308" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9306" CreationDate="2011-02-28T12:08:59.723" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The pro model Canons have this (the 7D has 3 such custom profiles). I'm fairly sure the high end Nikons do too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the 5D and 7D instead of having the various auto modes (like macro, landscape, sports, night-time, etc) there are three modes called C1, C2 and C3. You can set up the camera and then save all settings for those modes. The 1D has similar capabilities buried in the menu, allowing a larger number than just 3 settings, and storing them on your memory card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may end up making your own sports, landscape, night-time, etc, type modes, or you could do something a bit different. I have set mine to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;C1 - the controls set up better for use on a tripod (e.g. separating focus and exposure metering buttons)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;C2 - I guess is a sports / birds mode&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;C3 - 3-shot +/- auto exposure bracketing (useful for hand-held HDR with the 7D's 8fps)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-28T20:37:35.867" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T20:37:35.867" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9309" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9306" CreationDate="2011-02-28T12:10:27.753" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Does something like this even exist?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It sure does. Although there are exceptions and outliers, for the most part this functionality can be found on mid-range to pro-level dSLRs across a wide range of camera brands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On Canon cameras it's called 'Camera User Settings' and depending on the model of camera it may consist of selectable menu items, or with cameras such as the 5DmkII, and 7D you can store and recall up to 3 custom setups via the mode selection dial on top of the camera. Other models offer camera user settings only via the menu functionality of the firmware.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With Nikon cameras the feature is called 'Shooting Menu' and works in a similar fashion as on Canon cameras, allowing users to save (and give names) to their custom configurations. However (as of this time at least) most Nikon cameras do not have the ability to select custom setups via a physical knob on the camera in the way that Canon does, the exception being the most recently released models such as the Nikon D7000.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-01T00:51:21.100" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T00:51:21.100" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="9310" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9306" CreationDate="2011-02-28T12:13:28.120" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, some of the higher end cameras support this sort of thing -- as an example, and flicking through the manual for Canon's 5D mk 2 (p187, if you care) - you can configure all the custom functions, that you want to be set (or unset) for up to three different modes -- which can then be selected using the mode dial.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whilst I've picked on a single model, from a single manufacturer, I would expect this sort of feature to appear on comparable products from other manufacturers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T12:13:28.120" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9311" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9306" CreationDate="2011-02-28T13:25:10.280" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the DSLR's mentioned above, you'll also find a version of this on some P&amp;amp;S cameras.  I've got a Panasonic FZ28 that's got two &quot;Custom&quot; modes where you can set up these sorts of presets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T13:25:10.280" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9312" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8965" CreationDate="2011-02-28T14:25:58.737" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I've written two long answers on these topics, &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8965/what-is-the-golden-ratio-and-why-is-it-better-than-the-rule-of-thirds/9213#9213&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/521/what-is-the-rule-of-thirds/9239#9239&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, but I think there's benefit in a concise one as well. If you're interested in references, check those. But to get right to it:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The golden ratio and the rule of thirds are two similar but competing recommendations for dividing the frame of a composition (in painting, photography, film, and architecture). It's often also given that the intersections of these divisions may provide strong points for aligning objects of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The golden ratio suggests that the division of lines or of areas should be in the ratio of 1:φ, or approximately 1:1.618. The rule of thirds argues for ⅓:⅔, or simply 1:2. In either case, intersections of horizontal and vertical lines dividing the frame at the given ratio are often considered to be &quot;power points&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rule of thirds was codified by a minor British artist and commentator, John Thomas Smith, in 1797. He doesn't give a strong rationale for his choice. The primary argument is that evenly-weighted composition suspends the viewer's attention rather than leading it. He doesn't given a specific argument in favor of 1:2, but simply claims it to be &quot;much better and and more harmonizing&quot; than &quot;any other proportion whatever&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The golden ratio, as a tool for aesthetics, was popularized by a minor German intellectual, Adolph Zeising, in about 1854. The ratio itself was known to Euclid and in 300BC, but he simply noted its mathematical interest. Luca Pacioli wrote about it as &quot;the divine proportion&quot; around 1500 at the dawn of the Renaissance, but it didn't really catch on the way people now think it did. Much later, in Germany in 1835, the ratio got the name &quot;golden section&quot;, which Zeising picked up and expanded into a comprehensive theory of the universe. This theory is much more developed than Smith's rule of thirds, but ultimately it's an artifact of the Romantic Era, and hinges on the idea that elegance in pure mathematics &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; indicate some corresponding beauty in reality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So: while there's certainly plenty of experiential evidence that off-center composition works, the magic of these particular &lt;em&gt;exact&lt;/em&gt; rules is somewhat dubious. They may have special power — and certainly there's a wide body of 20th-century literature in support of that notion — but don't put too much stock in their precise values.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think people would really like to have a magic &quot;make this composition good!&quot; button — but there's really no such thing. Or if there is, we haven't yet found it in &lt;em&gt;these&lt;/em&gt; rules.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T14:25:58.737" />
  <row Id="9313" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="439" CreationDate="2011-02-28T15:08:47.707" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have owned the 70-200 2.8 VR and the TC-17E II for three years and while I don't use the telecoverter much, it comes in handy when I need that extra reach for photographing sports action or zoo visits.  There is no doubt that if you shoot with the t/c attached, wide open at f/4.8, and zoomed in all the way to 200mm that images are softer.  But, there is a way to get good performance out of this combo if you stop down a bit and/or zoom back a bit.  There is a website that explains this in much more detail, with photo examples, located &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.zaps21.com/photo/TC17tests/TC17tests.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't own the 1.4 t/c but I have heard that there is only a slight noticeable difference in sharpness between the 1.4 t/c and no t/c used, and the methods described above aren't that necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4094" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T15:08:47.707" />
  <row Id="9314" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9317" CreationDate="2011-02-28T16:18:08.717" Score="8" ViewCount="502" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to know how to achieve the effect of highly exposed pictures filled with light like the ones presented below:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://goo.gl/vMnpl&quot; /&gt;&#xA; &lt;img src=&quot;http://goo.gl/paOXa&quot; /&gt;&#xA; &lt;em&gt;unknown source&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://goo.gl/Sj6U8&quot; /&gt;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://dziecisawazne.pl/iza-faber/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://dziecisawazne.pl/iza-faber/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this possible using camera only, or do I need any additional light sources. What about post-processing, can I adjust pictures in LR or Camera Raw to get such effect?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any advice or tips are welcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4089" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-03T17:41:44.567" LastActivityDate="2011-03-03T17:42:39.917" Title="How to achieve pictures filled with light like these?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;light&gt;&lt;high-key&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9315" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9314" CreationDate="2011-02-28T16:30:53.907" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To me, they look like a mix of increasing exposure, brightness and tweaking the color saturation.  I'd try moving these around until you start to get the desired effect.  They also seem to have a soft focus filter applied.  There may be a free LR preset available to achieve this as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would not try to over expose too much on the camera, maybe +1 exposure but no more.  You don't want to burn out the image so much that you can't make adjustments in LR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3368" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T16:30:53.907" />
  <row Id="9317" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9314" CreationDate="2011-02-28T16:37:29.537" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is known as a &lt;strong&gt;high-key photo&lt;/strong&gt;, which basically means it is brighter than usual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The simplest way to go in that direction is to &lt;strong&gt;add positive exposure compensation&lt;/strong&gt; to make the whole thing brighter &lt;strong&gt;without overexposing any important areas&lt;/strong&gt;. Some cameras have a high-key mode that helps or you can tweak the brightness parameter (may be called differently depending on your camera brand).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This most likely &lt;strong&gt;won't get far enough&lt;/strong&gt;. If you look at the darker parts of the images you linked (which are NOT really dark), there is a lot of noise. This suggests that the photographer &lt;strong&gt;increased the levels&lt;/strong&gt; (Depending on the software: curves, shadows, fill) to bring what was originally very dark to a moderately bright level.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you must do is make the darkest parts more-or-less midtone and the brightest parts as high as you can. This will result in a low-contrast image where most tones are bright. After that you may want to adjust color saturation as generally brightening an image results in a decrease in color saturation. It is easier to make those adjustments in a software which has curves or a histogram which you can manipulate. Lightroom and Photoshop have this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T16:37:29.537" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9318" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9319" CreationDate="2011-02-28T17:08:29.957" Score="4" ViewCount="90" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know if the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_AV-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon AV-1&lt;/a&gt; works without a battery, by works I mean the shutter release, I know the metering system wouldn't work without it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3594" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-28T17:32:30.127" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T17:32:30.127" Title="Canon AV-1 battery information" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;batteries&gt;&lt;shutter-release&gt;&lt;canon-av-1&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="9319" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9318" CreationDate="2011-02-28T17:28:03.880" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Good 'ol mir had some info:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This camera will not function unless a battery is loaded&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/SLRs/av1/htmls/index2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/SLRs/av1/htmls/index2.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which I guess makes sense given that it has no manual operation at all, only aperture priority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T17:28:03.880" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9320" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9314" CreationDate="2011-02-28T18:00:13.613" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Besides the exposure settings you'll have to manage and the post-production adjustments  you'll have to make, though you may have to wrestle with only one or the other, not necessarily both, you should realize that your first and most fundamental task is to arrange an effective composition.  Use a white background, keep it out of focus, make sure your subject has accents or elements of high saturation or value.  These will emphasize the brilliance of the white or paleness that you want to capture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the composition properly devised, you should also mind your lighting.  Even if you want to shoot in natural light, you can still arrange it so that the light falls very strongly on certain surfaces.  If you have a flash or a lamp, you should use them to emphasize and brilliantly illuminate just the surfaces you want to make white or pale and leave the rest normal, that is, relatively dark.  Finally, you're ready for setting your exposure.  Depends on the medium, of course.  You're not shooting film, are you?  It depends on your situation, but, I'd guess 2-3 stops under to get this sort of white.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With all this, you can likely do this in the taking of the photo, and not afterwards in post-processing.  Even in the analog days of yore, however, there was plenty to be done in post-processing, in the developing and in the printing.  Indeed, darkroom skill was in those days just as indispensable as skill with a photo editor today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4096" LastEditorUserId="4096" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-02-28T18:51:55.437" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T18:51:55.437" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9321" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9314" CreationDate="2011-02-28T18:37:29.780" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While others have touched on it, I think it's worth emphasizing that these (especially the first two) have pretty clearly been modified &lt;em&gt;heavily&lt;/em&gt; after being taken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't get me wrong: You can certainly do high-key lighting without doing post-processing. For example, this has essentially no post-processing at all:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/onWOt.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also note, however, that it doesn't look much like the pictures you posted. Most of the difference between something like this and the pictures you posted is going to happen primarily in Photoshop (or Gimp, etc.) Based on the amount of noise in the shadows of those shots, I'd guess the shaded parts of the face actually started out considerably &lt;em&gt;darker&lt;/em&gt; than they are in this picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just for example, however, I doubt that it's possible to get eyes that look like the pictures you posted (at least the first and last pictures) just with lighting. Eyes just don't look enough like that to get that effect with lighting -- you &lt;em&gt;need&lt;/em&gt; to do heavy-duty post-processing to get them like that. Just for one example, the whites of real eyes aren't really that white, and while lighting can/will affect it to some degree, you can only get that by modifying the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I had to guess about the post-processing that was used, I'd say they de-saturated the green a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; (e.g., look at the green/grey stripes on the jacket), and the red somewhat less, but still quite a bit (e.g., the lips and red stripes on the jacket). Based on the washed out skin/hair, and considerably more saturated colors in the jacket, I'd guess they used the &quot;vibrance&quot; and &quot;saturation&quot; sliders in ACR (or something similar) with the &quot;vibrance&quot; set to something like -20 to &lt;em&gt;de-saturate&lt;/em&gt; all the areas that started out with low saturation, then turned the &quot;saturation&quot; slider &lt;em&gt;up&lt;/em&gt; quite a ways, to get a rather sudden transition to &lt;em&gt;much&lt;/em&gt; more saturated after the original saturation exceeded a certain level (so the saturation of the skin, for one example, is reduced, but of the jacket is probably increased).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-03T17:42:39.917" LastActivityDate="2011-03-03T17:42:39.917" />
  <row Id="9322" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9324" CreationDate="2011-02-28T21:38:30.103" Score="7" ViewCount="113" Body="&lt;p&gt;Where can I learn about techniques for matting &amp;amp; framing -- specifically, the artistic aspects (ie, not carpentry)?  I'd be happy to post questions like this one at a time, but if there's a one-stop place to learn about stuff like this, I'd be happy to go away and read for a while.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How should I choose a mat color(s) for color photos, B&amp;amp;W photos?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are there guidelines for mat size vs. photo size?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How should I choose a frame size / color / material?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Guidelines for matching mat &amp;amp; frame to photo vs. matching to the room where it hangs?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T02:22:04.587" Title="Matting / framing resources?" Tags="&lt;presentation&gt;&lt;framing&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9323" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9322" CreationDate="2011-02-28T22:16:22.427" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;These are all relative, idiosyncratic, aesthetic judgments.  What are the characteristics of beauty?  You can say that beauty's organization seems unified and that beauty imparts a feeling of transcendence.  How to achieve that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have you looked after books on design, say, home design, books about how to dress or what to wear?  There, you'll find examples of what shapes, patterns, textures, styles and colors go together.  Though you aren't likely to find hard and fast rules, you'll find what the authors learned in art school and in making a living.  You could go to a museum or a gallery to see how they present their photos.  You could seek out someone who mats images for a living.  They could tell you how they make a living at it, what they like and dislike.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I choose a mat, I either want to make the image stand out or make the whole framed construction stand out.  Sometimes I like it matching, sometimes contrasting, sometimes bold, sometimes understated.  You have to learn when one or another is called for and to what extent, same for frames, same for fitting it to a decor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You wouldn't want the photo to become lost in a sea of surrounding paper.  A suitable border sets the photo off, separates it from its surroundings.  For a B&amp;amp;W 14x17&quot; print, a 3.5&quot; border sounds OK.  Depends on the image, depends on the message.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4096" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T22:16:22.427" />
  <row Id="9324" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9322" CreationDate="2011-03-01T01:17:01.500" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This may not be what you're looking for, but I learned most of what I know about matting and framing (and I do a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; of matting and framing as part of my photography business... The 'carpentry' as well as the 'artistic' parts) by attending a few classes at the art supply store in my town. I think I took 3 or 4 of them, and they may have cost me $20 each plus materials.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my experience learning matting and framing on the internet is kinda like learning photography on the internet... You can get &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; of the theoretical stuff on 'teh interwebs' but unless you're actually out getting your hands dirty practicing the skills it's not going to mean much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said all that, if you're looking for a 'one complete resource' for everything related to matting and framing (yes, the carpentry, but &lt;em&gt;also&lt;/em&gt; a lot of detail on the art and theory behind how and why) then I'd recommend checking out '&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1589234227&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Complete Photo Guide to Framing and Displaying Artwork&lt;/a&gt;,' which, despite the rather unwieldy title, is one of the best references on the subject that I've come across.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T01:17:01.500" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9325" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9322" CreationDate="2011-03-01T02:22:04.587" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Art supply stores are one place to check for workshops or demos.  Better, if your town is big enough, is to find an artists' group, one that puts on art shows for the public (malls, special events, etc) and meets often.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="637" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T02:22:04.587" />
  <row Id="9326" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9327" CreationDate="2011-03-01T02:25:01.193" Score="11" ViewCount="513" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have 10 Canon 5DmkII cameras which I want to fire simultaneously... How can I accomplish this task repeatedly and reliably?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NOTE:&lt;/strong&gt; Although I mention 10 cameras, it will be a 'super bonus' if the solution is scalable to &lt;em&gt;n&lt;/em&gt; cameras...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-01T07:42:59.993" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T13:33:54.270" Title="How can I trigger multiple cameras to fire simultaneously?" Tags="&lt;remote&gt;&lt;triggers&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9327" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9326" CreationDate="2011-03-01T02:29:59.373" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pocket Wizards (as well as several other brands of remote triggers) can also be used to trigger remote cameras as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pocketwizard.com/inspirations/tutorials/remote_camera_trigger/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pocketwizard.com/inspirations/tutorials/remote_camera_trigger/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are you renting all of this equipment?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4098" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T02:29:59.373" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9328" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9326" CreationDate="2011-03-01T02:30:31.217" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is an extremely easy to do this. Simply use an IR trigger with both cameras facing the same way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've used this to trigger two Pentax K-7 for 3D photography (and once a K-5 and K-7). The 5D Mark II seems to support an IR trigger as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: For some reason, I read you had 2 cameras or maybe I thought you just wrote in binary ;) but you can actually scale this by buying IR Repeaters to repeat the signal for your remote to multiple cameras. You'll need to do a lot of assembling, but I suppose you have to do that to point 10 5D Mark IIs in the right direction anyways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-01T03:05:37.367" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T03:05:37.367" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9329" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9326" CreationDate="2011-03-01T03:14:30.713" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are 3 ways that I can think of to achieve this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most reliable way would be to rig all of the cameras remote shutters together, and trigger them off. This should work in any condition, but it would require some kind of custom gear, which knowing Jay, probably isn't what he wants to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The IR solution proposed could work, but it would likely take a lot of work, and probably wouldn't work well outdoors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The third way would be to connect all of the cameras to a computer, and use a USB control program. Of course, I don't know of many computers that have 10 USB ports, but I imagine that one could get a few hubs and probably get a manageable solution. You'll need some software, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sabsik.com/Cam2Com/06_working_with_multiple_cameras.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;there appears to be a program called Cam2Com that'll do the trick&lt;/a&gt;. Up to 127 USB devices could be hooked up together, but you'll probably have to count mouses and such, but over 100 is possible. This requires a lot of USB cables, but it shouldn't be too bad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck, let us know how it turns out!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T03:14:30.713" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9330" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9326" CreationDate="2011-03-01T03:15:25.453" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was in a friend's studio a few weeks back and he was firing a setup of 12 1Ds and 5Ds using &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/690443-REG/Pearstone_RW_C2_RW_C2_FreeWave_Wireless_Remote.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pearstone FreeWave Wireless Remote Shutter Release &lt;/a&gt; to trigger them all at once from 1 transmitter. He was doing still product shots where he set the cameras at various angles to the products and would get a bunch of angles at once with different length lenses so he could make it look like he did individual/varied setups for each product for his client. He said he had a working range of about 90 meters outside without the need for line of sight so cameras could be mounted behind sets, walls, etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being in a building with old freight elevators and 70 yr old unshielded wiring he had to tinker with several frequency settings before he got the setup to work without interference but it seems to work well for him and he was adamant about not lending the kit to me anytime soon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3675" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T03:15:25.453" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9331" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9326" CreationDate="2011-03-01T03:38:57.030" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Take a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AuyVz89AXg&amp;amp;feature=related&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this video&lt;/a&gt;, they synced 3 cameras with 1/3 sec delay, but you can fire them all at once with the same type of setup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1834" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T03:38:57.030" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9332" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9294" CreationDate="2011-03-01T03:40:01.063" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have both a wired and wireless remote for my Pentax K-7.  Aside from technical considerations mentioned in other answers, the Pentax wireless remote is very tiny and easy to misplace in the camera bag, while the wired remote is bigger and easier to find.  With Nikon or other brands, your mileage may vary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3486" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T03:40:01.063" />
  <row Id="9333" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9326" CreationDate="2011-03-01T03:47:57.460" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not going to rehash a few ways of triggering multiple shutters:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Radio frequency &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;IR remote with repeaters &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Split electrical wire&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if it need be exact, disregard the shutter speed because the mechanics of the multiple cameras could easily be slightly different.  You could treat it as a high speed photo gig and set up long shutters triggered by any of the above methods and light the subject entirely by flash.  By doing this you're sure that all the pictures will have the exact same moment.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could see something like this being used with 2 cameras to capture 3D waterdrops or such.  I don't know your exact requirements because of the NDA, but its an idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T03:47:57.460" />
  <row Id="9334" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9326" CreationDate="2011-03-01T03:49:44.347" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are you talking about something like this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.breezesys.com/MultiCamera/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.breezesys.com/MultiCamera/index.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T03:49:44.347" />
  <row Id="9335" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-01T04:54:26.270" Score="0" ViewCount="309" Body="&lt;p&gt;nikon D3100. can the continuous autofocus (on video) be turned off so that it operates similar to the cannon 500d? this is mainly to shut down the noise from the autofocus which i read in earlier posts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4099" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T05:30:15.737" Title="turning off continuous autofucus on nikon d3100" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;nikon-d3100&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="9336" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9335" CreationDate="2011-03-01T05:30:15.737" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two easy ways.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Turn your lens to Manual focus.  Nearly every lens has some kind of switch to toggle between modes of focus.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In camera, while in video mode.. press the &quot;i&quot; button, go down to where it says &quot;AF-F&quot;  (the fourth option down on your menu, under the ISO setting) and change to &quot;MF&quot; or &quot;AF-S&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T05:30:15.737" />
  <row Id="9337" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2366" CreationDate="2011-03-01T05:51:33.913" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think that it's the lens. I was having an issue where if the lens was set wider than about 50mm I would get the error99. I was also having issues with the shutter release button not taking the picture when pressed, sometimes it would fire about 2 seconds after being held down. I tried taking out the battery, taking off the lens and removing the CF card for twenty minutes. I even cleaned the lens contacts. Amazingly I was able to fire a couple of shots at 17mm and then the error99 came back. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I took the battery out and I also took out the little battery that stores the time and date. I had to reset the time and date but now my camera works like new. No error99 so far after testing with a couple of dozen pictures at every different focal length and it fires. I noticed before I took the little battery out that switching from Raw to large fine made a little bit of difference and it would have probably limped along. But I like shooting Raw, it's part of my workflow. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps someone else. I was about to take my camera to Canon and would have probably spent a couple hundred dollars easily.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4100" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T05:51:33.913" />
  <row Id="9338" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1838" CreationDate="2011-03-01T07:15:57.810" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Leica I know produced a digital back for their SLR range.&#xA;Nikon did the same with their F6.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There might be other examples, and I don't think either of these two are still in production (the F6 certainly isn't).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it's theoretically possible (because it has been done) but to the best of my knowledge there are currently no products on the market that allow it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T07:15:57.810" />
  <row Id="9339" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-01T08:22:25.873" Score="7" ViewCount="265" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm investigating the possibility of converting a DSLR (Canon T2i) to a &lt;strong&gt;infrared-only&lt;/strong&gt; body. I've seen several websites that offer this service, but man, considering they are tearing your camera apart right down to the sensor, this is something I'd want to ensure was done by qualified people in a cleanroom-esque environment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to hear the experiences of people who have actually had a DSLR IR conversion done? How do the various companies compare? I'd also like to know if you had a IR-passing filter installed (or just had the IR-block removed) and what wavelength you decided upon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd also be interested if your TTL AF and Exposure meters work ok after the conversion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I'd also love to hear experiences of anyone who has converted their camera themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2998" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-24T01:31:58.593" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T01:31:58.593" Title="Are infrared DSLR conversion companies safe? What about DIY infrared conversion?" Tags="&lt;diy&gt;&lt;infrared&gt;&lt;infrared-conversion&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9340" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9346" CreationDate="2011-03-01T09:30:59.210" Score="0" ViewCount="119" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm new to off-camera flash photography, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2991/is-it-ok-to-use-different-kinds-of-strobes-together&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; confirmed my guess that you don't have to have off-camera flashes of the same brand; but I need a bit more info.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've got a Canon 40D, Speedlite 430 EX II, and Sunpak auto 355AF (an old Pentax flash).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only setup I can think of to get both flashes to fire off-camera are 2 wireless receivers (hooked up to flashes) and 1 wireless trigger (on 40D).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to hear if there are any alternatives to set these 2 flashes up off-camera; and some wireless trigger/receiver recommendations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1834" LastEditorUserId="1834" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-04T02:37:52.297" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T02:37:52.297" Title="What's the recommended off camera flash setup for Canon and Sunpak flash combination?" Tags="&lt;off-camera-flash&gt;&lt;pentax&gt;&lt;speedlite&gt;&lt;canon-40d&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9341" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9344" CreationDate="2011-03-01T09:34:12.927" Score="2" ViewCount="188" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was wondering what are the alternative macro techniques people use to date opposed to buying an expensive optics. I know about single lens reverse macro technique, are there any other alternative techniques that allow you to do quality macro within a budget? If yes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is it called?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What equipment do you need and (if any) where to buy them?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does it support AF/Aperture dial?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What are the risks associated with it?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What are the disadvantages of the technique?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What are the Advantages in your opinion?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, let me post the first answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Single Lens Reverse Macro&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Any lens, the smaller the focal length, more magnification. Can be done hand-held, but its good to buy a reverse ring adapter from Amazon/eBay etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No control over the lens once you take it off the body.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Camera sensor and lens mount open to dust/mist particles.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Very shallow DOF, focusing is very hard even in higher apertures.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No cost setup. very good quality.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you all in advance. Feel free to add your own comments if you feel so following the points.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T17:31:13.723" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-01T12:33:27.427" Title="What are the alternative macro techniques to date?" Tags="&lt;macro&gt;&lt;alternative&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9342" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9339" CreationDate="2011-03-01T09:41:39.377" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had a Rebel XSi converted by ProTech in the UK, and could recommend their services. I went for a 720nm IR pass filter so I don't need anything on the lens. I'd recommend this wavelength for your first IR camera as you can produce both colour and contrasty B&amp;amp;W images:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/IR_2.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/IR_1.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not that difficult a procedure actually, Lifepixel sell kits for people to do this at home! Autofocus still works though I tend to manually focus with liveview when DOF is shallow as IR light focusses differently. Likewise metering works but can be unreliable due to the nature of IR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sensor cleaning didn't work after (they told me this in advance) as they had to cut the wires to the peizos which vibrate the LPF assembly. I wasn't bothered this feature is pretty useless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-01T09:47:05.350" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T09:47:05.350" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9343" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9341" CreationDate="2011-03-01T09:50:28.083" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Magnifying Glass&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since you see what the camera sees, you can just hold a magnifying glass in front of the lens.  I've done this with reasonable results.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's best to fix both the magnifying glass and the camera in place, and to focus manually.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(But not since going digital, so can't post any pics, unfortunately).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Equipment: Any magnifying glass / etc.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Autofocus: Yes (but you'll probably want to focus manually anyway).  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aperture: Yes  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Risks / Disadvantages: Typically poor quality around the edges / vignetting  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Advantages: Simple, cheap, portable.    &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T09:50:28.083" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-01T12:33:27.427" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9344" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9341" CreationDate="2011-03-01T09:55:58.787" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is it called?&lt;/strong&gt; Extension tubes&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What equipment do you need and (if any) where to buy them?&lt;/strong&gt; Extension tubes! (good camera stores/online will sell them)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does it support AF/Aperture dial?&lt;/strong&gt; Maybe, depends on whether the tubes maintain electrical contact&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What are the risks associated with it?&lt;/strong&gt; None that I can see&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What are the disadvantages of the technique?&lt;/strong&gt; Limited magnification increase, especially with telephotos, loss of light, possible loss of lens control.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What are the Advantages in your opinion?&lt;/strong&gt; Fairly cheap, multiple length tubes can be combined to give varying magnifications.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is it called?&lt;/strong&gt; Close up adaptors&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What equipment do you need and (if any) where to buy them?&lt;/strong&gt; Close up adaptors (mostly see these online). They are extra lens elements that screw onto the front of your lens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does it support AF/Aperture dial?&lt;/strong&gt; Yes&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What are the risks associated with it?&lt;/strong&gt; You could cross the filter threads if you're not careful&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What are the disadvantages of the technique?&lt;/strong&gt; Extra glass can introduce distortion, softness, CA, only work with one size filter diameter.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What are the Advantages in your opinion?&lt;/strong&gt; Cheap, easy to screw onto an existing lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;note this is a slightly more reliable way of achieving the magnifying glass in front of the lens technique&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is it called?&lt;/strong&gt; Freelensing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What equipment do you need and (if any) where to buy them?&lt;/strong&gt; Your hands&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does it support AF/Aperture dial?&lt;/strong&gt; No&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What are the risks associated with it?&lt;/strong&gt; Dropping lens, contaminating camera body&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What are the disadvantages of the technique?&lt;/strong&gt; Unpredictable results, limited repeatability, difficulty focussing/composing, limited increase in magnification, light coming in the sides.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What are the Advantages in your opinion?&lt;/strong&gt; No equipment required, fun, can tilt the plane of focus, unpredictable!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically freelensing is detaching the lens and holding it in front of the camera, as you are increasing the distance from lens to camera you can use this to shoot macro images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-01T15:08:15.737" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T15:08:15.737" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-01T12:33:27.427" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="9345" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9341" CreationDate="2011-03-01T10:07:02.430" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is it called?&lt;/strong&gt; Shrinking yourself and camera.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What equipment do you need and (if any) where to buy them?&lt;/strong&gt; Shrink ray (an expanding ray is helpful also), you can't buy these at the moment&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does it support AF/Aperture dial?&lt;/strong&gt; Yes&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What are the risks associated with it?&lt;/strong&gt; Insect predation, being stood on, getting lost.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What are the disadvantages of the technique?&lt;/strong&gt; It's not possible with current technology.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What are the Advantages in your opinion?&lt;/strong&gt; No modification required to the camera, no depth of field issues, can use any lens, framing is easier, great stories to tell afterwards, Nobel prize for Physics.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T10:07:02.430" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-01T12:33:27.427" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9346" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9340" CreationDate="2011-03-01T11:04:13.137" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Cheap Radio Triggers&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am using triggers similar to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Channel-PT-04-Wireless-Trigger-Receivers/dp/B002G90S00/ref=sr_1_14?s=electronics&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1298977329&amp;amp;sr=1-14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;these&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are cheap, and work very well (a few misfires / nofires, but still great for the money)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively, you can just use a sync cable for the sunpak and leave the 430 on slave.  (Check that the sunpack is low voltage first - i.e. it's safe to attach it directly to your camera).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T11:04:13.137" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="9347" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2366" CreationDate="2011-03-01T11:30:32.210" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It will most likely be the contacts on either the lens or the body. Make sure they are clean. If they are, send it off for repair / replacement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T11:30:32.210" />
  <row Id="9348" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-01T12:17:46.263" Score="3" ViewCount="684" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have used my first camera (Sony A-300) for 2 years already. It is okay but I want something new and better, and have a budget of between 1200 and 1300 euros. A couple months ago I talked to a local photographer, who suggested a Pentax K-5 and said that had not tried Nikon D7000 yet which could be competitor for Pentax K-5.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What other cameras within my price range should I consider?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4059" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-01T13:49:04.850" LastActivityDate="2011-03-02T11:01:37.337" Title="Nikon D7000 vs Pentax K-5 vs some other camera" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;pentax&gt;&lt;nikon-d7000&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9349" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9348" CreationDate="2011-03-01T13:35:00.913" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you already owned some Sony glass, you'd probably wanted to stay with Sony. As you don't want to stay with Sony, I assume that you don't own their glass yet. In this case you are still free to choose whatever brand you like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First choose the lenses you like.&lt;/strong&gt; Think about what lenses you want to buy in two or three years. Buy a camera body and a good lens that you really like. D7000 or K-5 alone will not automatically deliver better images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pentax Lenses&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Camera-Lenses/index.page&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon Lenses&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Choose Pentax if you want to use Pentax Limited fixes (really lightweight and small, good image quality), or if you are attracted to their DA* lenses (high IQ and weather resistant), or like their relatively cheap, but weather-sealed zooms (WR-series). Or if you like Pentax ergonomics in general (I happen to like it more than that of Nikon), or if you want to have built-in image-stabilization that works with any lens or use slightly higher ISO of K-5, or if you shoot mostly outdoors and need a weather-sealed body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Choose Nikon if you want to enjoy better retail experience (with Pentax you'll likely have to buy everything online) and have wider choice of glass and accessories. Choose Nikon if think about upgrading to a full-frame camera in the future (with Pentax the next step is middle format, a completely different system).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S. Consider spending this money on some Sony glass instead if you already own its body. You will be surprised how much better your old camera can do, if coupled with a decent lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastEditorUserId="1558" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-01T13:51:54.753" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T13:51:54.753" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="9350" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9348" CreationDate="2011-03-01T14:21:13.157" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;So as jetxee says so well :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Lens before body&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the rest, I compare that to religion. There is Nikon people, Canon people, Pentax people, Sony People, etc.. All my friend were Nikon's so I went there. I can try their lens and get specific tips. I guess if you are there, the question is &lt;strong&gt;Which religion ?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3689" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T14:21:13.157" />
  <row Id="9351" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9348" CreationDate="2011-03-01T15:18:29.950" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As other have said, glass is your best option at this point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I were you, I'd choose Nikon or Canon because they offer a very good upgrade curve for relative newcomers. Low end bodies are cheap but they're largely compatible with the entire range of lenses and flashguns. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because my experience is with Nikon, here are my suggestions: a second hand D90 or new D3100 for around €500 should leave you enough to get a couple of nice, second hand lenses. Just be aware that the lowest end Nikon bodies don't have focus screws (the D90 does but the D3xxx and D5000 don't) this might limit your buying choices to newer lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But there's no reason to be prudish about good second hand glass. A 5 year old lens with a little dust is easily restored and works as new for another 10 to 15 years. But people know this so it doesn't always save you a ton of money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And buy yourself a nice flashgun. The SB400 is great. The SB800 and SB900 are monstrous but insanely flexible. Lighting on its own will not only transform how good your photos are but will also expand the range of photos you can consider taking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4103" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T15:18:29.950" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9352" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-01T15:19:13.980" Score="7" ViewCount="186" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi&#xA;How is it possible to shoot different sized raw files, if, as I had thought,  that a raw file consisted of all data available and unprocessed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;regards&#xA;Tom Turner&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4104" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T20:00:58.333" Title="Shooting in Raw with canon 50d" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="9354" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3419" CreationDate="2011-03-01T15:43:17.503" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are referring to small variations in raw file size when shooting full resolution raws then the explaination is lossless compression. See: &lt;a href=&quot;http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/image_compression/lossless_and_lossy_compression.do&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/image_compression/lossless_and_lossy_compression.do&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is true that raw files contain all the data captured by the sensor but there can still be redundancies in the data that allow the camera to save space without losing any of the original information! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T15:43:17.503" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="9355" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9363" CreationDate="2011-03-01T16:13:59.797" Score="24" ViewCount="474" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9348/nikon-d7000-vs-pentax-k-5-vs-some-other-camera&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; and recalled how often I hear the advice &quot;choose your lenses and then choose the body that matches&quot; in the context of deciding on a camera platform (Nikon/Canon/Pentax/Sony, etc). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I shoot Nikon and so I study a lot about Nikon-compatible lenses. From what I see though, Canon seems to have an equivalent lens for most Nikon lenses. For example, there's the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5018af.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;nifty&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-50mm-f-1.8-ii-lens-review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fifties&lt;/a&gt; and the pro &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24-70mm.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;midrange&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-24-70mm-f-2.8-l-usm-lens-review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;zooms&lt;/a&gt;. On top of that, there's lots of lenses from 3rd-party manufacturers that come in versions for each system/mount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I agree that lenses are a more important investment than a body; they have a huge impact on image quality and a longer product life cycle. And there's lots of variation between lenses &lt;em&gt;within&lt;/em&gt; a platform's offering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is: how much lens difference is there &lt;em&gt;between&lt;/em&gt; the different platforms? Do you really pick the lens first and then pick the body that goes with it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-27T12:18:46.730" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T12:18:46.730" Title="How much do lens lineups vary across platforms?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;camera-systems&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="9356" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9355" CreationDate="2011-03-01T16:26:33.840" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, the short answer is, that most camera brands have comparable lenses, but there are some differences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon, from what I can tell, has the most lenses available of any of the major manufactures. Nikon has compatible lenses to most of Canon's, and has lenses that can cover the gap for the rest (Ie, Canon tends to have cheaper lenses, as well as the more expensive ones, Nikon tends to have only the more expensive ones.) Of course, one can find cases where the trends are reversed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The third party lenses also cover much of the same space, but they tend to better cover the cheaper lens gaps, and not so much the more expensive lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sony/Pentax/etc tend to not have the top of the line lenses, but the typical lenses used by most people, they have. Just don't look for a 800mm lens for one of these camera brands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for what brand to choose, well, as they are all really about the same, it's best to find out what your friends use, and use it. There's really not much of an argument one way or another to be made, so...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-01T16:33:15.347" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T16:33:15.347" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9357" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9355" CreationDate="2011-03-01T16:27:58.380" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I picked a brand first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I went and picked up several different cameras at a local store and compared them physically.  Since each brand has technically similar lines, I decided that the ergonomics were a bigger factor than the technical aspects.  For me, Canon bodies had a better feel.  I have a friend that chose Nikon for the same reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can see the argument for picking based on lenses, but that factor is negligible if you stay to larger brands (Canon, Nikon, and to some extent Pentax), as they all have an extensive lens selection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T16:27:58.380" CommentCount="11" />
  <row Id="9358" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9360" CreationDate="2011-03-01T16:29:59.707" Score="4" ViewCount="316" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just bought a 24-70 f2.8 which i will be using with D90 (normally it is not for D90 but i am planning to buy a D3 So i bought it in advance). And next week i have a studio photo shoot(this is my first studio photo shoot). Is it good to use 24-70 as my main lens. because my other lens or not that good :( (as i have 18-105 and 55mm f1.8). Any suggestions ? As i have no idea about portrait photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also i have a sb700. Do i need that in a studio photo shoot. because they are already having (scoro A4s with 3 lights, 3200 joules).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3868" LastActivityDate="2011-03-02T03:57:33.323" Title="studio photoshoot with 24-70 f2.8 and nikon D90" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;nikon-d90&gt;&lt;studio-lighting&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9359" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9358" CreationDate="2011-03-01T16:39:26.907" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but yes, that combo of camera/lens/lighting should work just fine for a studio portrait shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have specific questions, feel free to ask them.  I'd also suggest browsing around here &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/portrait&quot;&gt;in the portrait tag&lt;/a&gt;, or use the search function here or on Google to look for specific information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T16:39:26.907" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9360" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9358" CreationDate="2011-03-01T16:49:36.083" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are doing portraits (and it looks as though you are), then a 24-70 on a cropped sensor should be ideal, as it will be the equivalent of a short telephoto, which is generally recommended for portraits. I'm going to guess that you meant 50mm f/1.8, not 55mm? The 50mm is also a very good choice, and between those you should be good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as lighting goes, it won't hurt to have your flash there, so I'd take it, but you might not actually need to use it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T16:49:36.083" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="9361" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9355" CreationDate="2011-03-01T17:00:29.760" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is sort of a tangential answer, but I picked the &lt;em&gt;platform&lt;/em&gt; first, then specific equipment.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lenses are a huge part of the platform, to be sure.  The lenses offered by the camera manufacturers themselves represent the bulk of this portfolio, but you've also got third-party lenses from Sigma, Tamron, and others.  Out of this portfolio, you might find that certain lenses aren't going to work with certain bodies (EF vs. EF-S, or focus motors in lenses vs. bodies, etc.), so the portion of that portfolio that's really available to you might vary depending on your body choice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But when I picked a platform, I was also aware of the features of the body I was looking at, as well as the potential upgrade path for that body.  I bought a used Canon 30D knowing that I'd be able to start buying lenses, batteries, memory cards, etc., and I'd be able to use them with a 40D or a 50D later.  That was an important part of my &quot;platform&quot; choice (I've since moved up to the 40D, btw).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The choice for me ended up being not just about the specific equipment I was buying on day 1, but more about how much flexibility I could see in my future options.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T17:00:29.760" />
  <row Id="9362" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3032" CreationDate="2011-03-01T17:09:47.847" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Create a sense of movement in your photograph. Direct your subject to shift their weight back and forth from one foot to the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most people are uncomfortable in front of the camera (no kidding?). They’ll loosen up if you give them direction. Give them feedback and interact while taking pictures. The interaction will show in your photographs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The BEST Portraits are historically shot a couple of degrees above the subjects eyeline, but like all things break the rules and shoot from various angles too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3868" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T17:09:47.847" />
  <row Id="9363" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9355" CreationDate="2011-03-01T17:16:54.317" Score="32" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The lineups have a lot of overlap but there are considerable differences as well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon and Nikon have the most lenses by far, followed by Pentax, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic, in this order.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon has the largest range of focal-lengths, from 8 to 800mm. Nikon goes from 10 to 600mm. Pentax has the shortest, from 10 to 300mm.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon has the most weather-sealed lenses, the most stabilized primes and the most weather-sealed primes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pentax has most of the smallest lenses and most of those are of extremely high-quality. Pentax lenses can save size and weight since they only need to be designed for cropped-sensors, although legacy lenses have full-frame coverage.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specialty lenses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon and Pentax have the only &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_lens.php?zoom=1&amp;amp;fisheye=1&amp;amp;by=feature&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fisheye zooms&lt;/a&gt; among camera brands (Tokina has some too).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Olympus has the brightest zoom lenses, such as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=101&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;14-35mm F/2&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=103&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;35-100mm F/2&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon, Olympus and Pansonic have the widest constant-aperture rectilinear zoom lenses, in the form of the full-frame &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=30&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikor 14-24mm F/2.8&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=102&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Zuiko 7-14mm F/4&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=127&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Panasonic 7-14mm F/4&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon has the highest magnification lens in the form of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=214&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;MP-E 65mm F/2.8&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon and Nikon are the only providers of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_lens.php?tilt=1&amp;amp;shift=1&amp;amp;by=feature&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;tilt-shift lenses&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Panasonic is the only one with a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_lens.php?3d=1&amp;amp;by=feature&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;3D lens&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keep in mind that only Canon, Nikon and Panasonic need stabilized versions of their lenses, everyone else gets stabilization from the camera body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-04T04:20:30.973" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T04:20:30.973" CommentCount="20" />
  <row Id="9364" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9341" CreationDate="2011-03-01T17:31:13.723" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is it called?&lt;/strong&gt; Lens reversal on top of a straight lens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What equipment do you need and (if any) where to buy them?&lt;/strong&gt; lens reversal &lt;em&gt;filter&lt;/em&gt; ring. It is a ring with a filter screw threads on both sides, so lenses can be screwed &quot;head-to-head&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does it support AF/Aperture dial?&lt;/strong&gt; The straight lens is fully functional for setting aperture.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What are the risks associated with it?&lt;/strong&gt; Same as for single lens reversal, plus risk of damaging the straight lens if its mount is weak and the reveresed lens heavy.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What are the disadvantages of the technique?&lt;/strong&gt; Same as for single lens, but vignetting is much more severe, up to a point that the image circle is only a fraction of the frame.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What are the Advantages in your opinion?&lt;/strong&gt; The filter ring adapters are pretty cheap. The magnification can be higher than w/ single lens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T17:31:13.723" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-01T17:31:13.723" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9365" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9355" CreationDate="2011-03-01T17:49:16.767" Score="17" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're looking at generalities — are there normal-range primes, are there wide zooms, are there telephoto zooms — everyone has it covered. But if you start looking at specifics, there &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; meaningful differences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This comes out in three different ways:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;individual quirks of a certain brand's lineup&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;availability of niche/special-purpose lenses&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;lenses in different price brackets&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pentax is the poster-child of a quirky lineup. Particularly, since they're very committed to APS-C rather than full-frame (steering you to the 645D if you want to go up), many typical lens types only exist in their 35mm-e field-of-view equivalents. For example, there's no 24-70mm / 70-200mm f/2.8 pro lens pair — instead, there's the DA★ 16-50mm and 50-135mm. There's no 85mm f/1.4 portrait lens — instead, there's the DA★ 55mm f/1.4. And the entire DA Limited and FA Limited series of jewel-like primes, with odd focal lengths and max apertures, pretty much trades on quirky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Olympus and the Four-Thirds system is also this way, both for sensor-size reasons (there's no &quot;nifty fifty&quot;, but there's the form-factor equivalent), and because it's an all-new designed-for-digital system with no legacy considerations (or legacy designs to fill gaps). That last means it's a rather small lineup overall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But there's oddities in the Big Two's offerings as well. Canon doesn't have a 12-24mm f/4, for example. (There's decent third-party offerings like Tokina's, though. A point, I should add, which also goes for 70-200mm on Pentax.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, there's the issue of niche lenses. Nikon has three tilt-shift offerings, while Canon has four (including a 17mm); there's nothing in Four-Thirds, and for Pentax or Sony, only third-party options are available. On the other hand, if you want a super-compact and lightweight autofocusing &quot;pancake&quot; style normal lens (which, objectivity disclaimer, is what I use on my camera 90% of the time), Canon or Nikon are out and you need to turn to Pentax or Panasonic/Olympus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally, the price bracket distinction. Canon and Nikon have both the top and the bottom covered, from hundred-dollar 50mm f/1.8 lenses all the way up to the price of a new car.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seriously — the Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM is $11,900 from B&amp;amp;H, and the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 600mm f/4G ED VR is $10,300. Both brands offer half a dozen lenses over $2000, and another dozen-and-a-half between one and two grand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pentax doesn't have anything like that — the most expensive lenses they have for sale at B&amp;amp;H are the DA★ 60-250mm f/4 ED and the DA★ 300mm f/4, both of which come in at $1200. (You can order pricer lenses from Pentax Japan, as special build-to-order, but that doesn't really count.) The next-most expensive is the FA 31mm f/1.8, at $965.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sony is in-between here, with the 300mm f/2.8 G-Series at $6300, and then about a dozen lenses between $1000 and $2000. Olympus too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the bottom end, Nikon and Canon again have things covered — cheap primes and zooms for all occasions. Sony too, although the selection is smaller. Pentax doesn't really have that. With the exception of the new cheap-normal DA 35mm f/2.4, they've mostly let those lenses (like the FA 35mm f/2) drop from the lineup. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that's not the complete story — what Pentax has is a bunch of very nice &lt;em&gt;medium priced&lt;/em&gt; lenses, from $340 to $965. Some of these are almost legendary in their optical qualities (and not just among Pentax partisans), but they probably don't compete with the likes of the AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G. This may go back to &quot;quirky lineup&quot; overall, but basically they don't have super-cheap or super-expensive lenses, but the middle has some unique high-quality lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't mean to slant this &lt;em&gt;too&lt;/em&gt; personally (or to advocate my own choices for everyone), but on a personal note, lenses that cost over $1000 are nice to drool at, but practically speaking &lt;em&gt;might as well not exist&lt;/em&gt;. If this is your bread and butter and those lenses cover your needs, though, definitely make sure not to choose Pentax. Likewise, if you're only going to pick up a few entry-level lenses and don't want to spend $500 for a single prime, Pentax isn't a great option. (Unless you want to go all out collecting manual focus legacy glass — a different story altogether....) For me, it fits my (saving up a bit!) budget, and I'm not compromising on quality. So, Pentax for me, specifically because their lens lineup is a great fit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-01T18:19:29.220" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T18:19:29.220" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9366" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9348" CreationDate="2011-03-01T18:32:33.657" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pentax K-5 is a great camera (according to all the reviews), but for 1200 Euros you're looking at a kit lens setup with that body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I heard, kit lens does not do justice to that body, and you'd have to spend another 400+ Euros to get a good lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd recommend going with a USED body and a TOP OF THE LINE lens (that's what I did, and can't be happier)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1834" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T18:32:33.657" />
  <row Id="9367" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9355" CreationDate="2011-03-01T19:12:16.847" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're interested in older, manual focus lenses, and not just lenses that are still in production (either because you already have several or, like me, just think they're &lt;em&gt;fun&lt;/em&gt; and don't mind that they're typically not as optically sharp as modern lenses):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Canon's EOS mount only dates back to the mid-1980s; Nikon's mount and the M42 mount used by Pentax have much older lenses available.  So there aren't a lot of old Canon lenses that you can just mount on your Canon camera; there are plenty of old Nikon lenses you can put on your Nikon camera and M42 lenses you can put on your Pentax.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Canon's lenses sit closer to the sensor than M42 lenses, which are closer than Nikon lenses.  This means that Nikon and M42 lenses can be used on Canon DSLRs with adapters without compromising optical quality or losing infinity focus.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Micro four-thirds cameras have the shortest distance from lens sensor of all of them, and can (with mechanical adapters) use virtually any old manual focus lenses, including (I believe) rangefinder lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T19:12:16.847" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9368" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3419" CreationDate="2011-03-01T20:00:58.333" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In a nutshell: &lt;strong&gt;smaller &quot;raw&quot; files aggregate the sensor values within blocks of pixels&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance, Canon's RAW format conveys information about individual &quot;sensels.&quot;  Each sensel (or &quot;photosite&quot;) responds to a restricted range of frequencies (termed red, green, and blue).  Each one of these, when later &quot;developed,&quot; will be located at a single pixel site in the final image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon's sRAW format, however, conveys summary information about 2 x 2 blocks of sensels.  It reports brightness (luminance) data for each block, but &quot;decimates&quot; (skips over in a regular way) some of the color information.  As such, several important things happen:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The individual sensel data are no longer available.  (The sRAW data are indeed &quot;processed.&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The resolution of the image is reduced (it is halved, implying there are a quarter as many pixels).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The file size of the data is reduced approximately by two-thirds.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The sRAW data are &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; a &quot;subset&quot; of the RAW data.  &lt;strong&gt;They are a different encoding of the raw data, with less information&lt;/strong&gt;.  &lt;em&gt;No&lt;/em&gt; sensels are &quot;ignored.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Normally, reducing the resolution of an image by a factor of two will decrease its size on disk to &lt;em&gt;one quarter&lt;/em&gt; the original.  Here, though, the original sensels deliver about 14 bits of information, amounting to 56 bits in each 2 x 2 block in the RAW format.  In sRAW, each 2 x 2 block is encoded as three 8-bit pieces, or 24 bits.  The resulting data stream is therefore only 24/56 = about 1/2 the size of the original, and is reduced by another 1/3 by the decimation of the chrominance data, for a net reduction of 2/3.  Lossless compression is applied in sRAW, so the ratio may differ slightly.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This information was obtained through &lt;a href=&quot;http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles/sRaw.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;extensive reverse engineering reported last year&lt;/a&gt; by Douglas Kerr, whose report I have very briefly summarized here (without too much distortion, I hope).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T20:00:58.333" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9369" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9370" CreationDate="2011-03-01T20:12:03.850" Score="6" ViewCount="335" Body="&lt;p&gt;I used Lightroom for a while and edited some of my raw photos with it. Since Lightroom is non destructive the changes are not done to the raw images directly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While using Windows and Linux I looked for a similar software to Lightroom and found Bibble 5 which can be used on both platforms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is how can I migrate my photos including the editings from Lightroom 3 to Bibble 5. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The keywords / tags used in Lightroom aren't so imporant to migrate, because a have a good folder structure and can rebuild them easily, I just don't want to do the visual editings again for every photo. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have about 700 photos in my Lightroom library (not that big) and they are all NEF (Nikon raw) files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3377" LastActivityDate="2011-03-03T17:18:15.130" Title="Migrate from Lightroom 3 to Bibble 5" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;bibble&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9370" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9369" CreationDate="2011-03-01T21:53:22.910" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately there's currently no 'painless/seamless/automated' way to make the switch and &lt;strong&gt;you will not be able to pull your files over with edits intact&lt;/strong&gt;. Your best bet will be to export anything you've made adjustments to as a 16 bit TIFF and then import them into your new chosen application. By keywording the files (with the keywords Adjusted, or Modified, perhaps) and generating sidecar files you will at least be able to sort them by keyword once you've got them out of Lightroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously there's no way to know what products will be released in the future that have the potential to make the transition more seamless, but speaking as someone who spent a number of years in the software industry 'in another life,' my personal opinion is that I wouldn't hold my breath waiting, 'cause you will likely never see this transition be made any easier by Adobe... It's just not in the companies best interest or bottom line to make it easy to shift to a competing product, so there's just no real incentive to spend a lot of development time there... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-01T22:11:40.130" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T22:11:40.130" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="9371" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9277" CreationDate="2011-03-01T22:08:19.243" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One specific strategy is to have the strap be metal so it can't be sliced through easily - eg the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sun-sniper.com/en/the-steel.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sun sniper steel&lt;/a&gt;. Of course that particular strap is going to make you very conspicuous, so it will be suitable for some situations, but not all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2011-03-01T22:08:19.243" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9372" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9358" CreationDate="2011-03-02T03:57:33.323" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In terms of the lens, as others mentioned, the range is good. I don't see a problem there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of the studio lighting, it's clear they've configured for a traditional 3 light setup, so the questions to be asking for this are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Can you trigger the studio strobes with your camera? Nikon is very well supported in this area, but if they only supply the strobes and not the triggers/cables, then those strobes and the power pack are paperweights unless you have the required missing pieces. You may be okay, just check before you go, it's a little late once your're there.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Assuming you can trigger the strobes, the next question is do you need more light? I suspect you probably won't, but since a small hotshoe flash is easy to carry, I would bring it. However, if you intend to use it on your camera, then forget about it. Only bring it if you're prepared to use it off camera and are able to put it to work in combination with other lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For tips on the portrait side... This site has a lot and Google is your friend. Especially if you use terms like &quot;key light&quot; or &quot;portrait lighting&quot; or &quot;3 point lighting&quot; to get you going. I'd advise doing that if you really want to put those 3 strobes to work for you in a portrait setup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-03-02T03:57:33.323" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9373" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9355" CreationDate="2011-03-02T07:25:46.167" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With quality 3rd party lenses from Sigma and Tokina (mainly, there are a few Tamrons that aren't too bad either), you can cover most of the focal length range covered by the branded lenses using 3rd party lenses on any body almost (the ranges these brands offer on minor camera brands like Pentax and Olympus may be only a subset of their total lineup though, you'd have to check).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the smallest lineup of lenses for SLRs, that's probably Leica :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-03-02T07:25:46.167" />
  <row Id="9374" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9339" CreationDate="2011-03-02T07:54:02.730" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've done my own conversion on a Nikon D80, including cutting my own rectangular filter from a hoya 720 nm 77 mm round filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I did something a bit unusual and went so far as to remove the IR filter from the AF sensor module and meters, as well as the CCD itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Really, The pure CCD filter swap is pretty easy.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pulling the filter on the metering sensor is a bit involved.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Removing the filter on the AF sensor is a &lt;em&gt;nightmare&lt;/em&gt; - You have to take pretty much &lt;em&gt;Every other component&lt;/em&gt; out of the camera, as well as cut-apart several glued-together parts millimeters away from delicate circuitry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Retuning the AF is also pretty simple. Basically, there are three screws which adjust the distance and tilt of sensor mount. It just is a bit slow, takes a lot of exposures, and is rather fiddly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, I have an IR camera that AFs perfectly in IR &lt;em&gt;every&lt;/em&gt; time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The meter seems to work pretty well as well. I have to dial in a bit of exposure compensation, but I don't think I have actually changed it since. I believe that adding visible-light filters to the metering sensor (rather than just removing the IR filter, as I did) would probably fix the metering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Really, IR photography is really one of the most enjoyable things I have done. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to bring some of the art and imagination back to photography. You really have to think and imagine what your exposures will look like, since you can't really review them untill you get to a computer, to do some white-blance corrections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I took photos of the conversion process, including the internals of the camera:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imaginaryindustries.com/Gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=2246&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.imaginaryindustries.com/Gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=2246&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Note that the sensor filter is accessible very early in the photoset (_MG_1030.jpg, about 15 images in), and the process generally just involves taking the back of the camera, unscrewing a circuit board, and then unscrewing the sensor. The rest of the set is what is involved getting to the AF sensor (Namely, removing EVERYTHING from the camera body. It seems the AF sensor is one of the first parts installed during assembly).&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;I also tore down a Sony alpha A-200, though I wasn't able to do a IR conversion on it, since the filter is deposited directly on the CCD cover glass. The pictures are also on the above link, or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imaginaryindustries.com/Gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=2245&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I thought about decapping the sensor (removing the glass), or trying to lap the filter off (it was clearly vacuum-deposited on the surface), but I decided it wasn't worth the effort, and wanted to try a Nikon camera anyways. I still have a bag of cerium oxide around from experimenting with glass-polishing for the lapping process.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Results:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/HMWWM.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's my understanding that the really striking false-colour photos, as in Matt Grum's answer, generally take a 900+ nm filter (and &lt;em&gt;lots&lt;/em&gt; of post), rather than 720 nm. Also, the photo above has had no processing, excepting a simple click-white white balancing. The faint blue colors are from the sensor itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, I recently bought a Canon 5D, upgrading from a Canon 30D (The Nikon was an experiment, I decided I like Canon's UI much more), so I am probably going to convert the 30D to IR soon, since I have a lot of Canon lenses, while I have only 1 lens for the Nikon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2611" LastEditorUserId="2611" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-03T11:04:28.420" LastActivityDate="2011-03-03T11:04:28.420" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="9375" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-02T09:42:51.543" Score="4" ViewCount="218" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is is possible to export RAW files (or DNG files) including the flags from Lightroom to an external hard disk? I know how to export the files including all the lightroom manipulations, but cannot find how to include flags/stars etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4113" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T11:29:30.340" Title="Export/backup files from Lightroom including flags/stars/picks" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9376" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9348" CreationDate="2011-03-02T11:01:37.337" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Thank you all a lot. There are lot's of things I have to think about. Thanks again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4059" LastActivityDate="2011-03-02T11:01:37.337" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9378" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9375" CreationDate="2011-03-02T12:43:22.710" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe the &quot;Export to Catalog&quot; option includes all of the information available about your images, including stars.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-03-02T12:43:22.710" />
  <row Id="9379" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9375" CreationDate="2011-03-02T12:44:59.703" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Lightroom's Catalog options (I believe, I haven't got LR on this machine to check which menu) you can set meta data to be written to DNG/XMP files. This includes stars/picks/processing etc. I have this ticked all the time, but I believe you can set it on export, in the metadata panel it will tell you when the metadata on that image file was last updated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I prefer to use DNGs as they keep the metadata embedded in the file, whereas raw formats need to store the metadata in a separate XMP sidecar file, it is quite easy for these to get separated from the raw file.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastActivityDate="2011-03-02T12:44:59.703" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="9380" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9369" CreationDate="2011-03-02T12:49:59.887" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibblelabs.com/products/bibble5/features/pro-lite.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bibble website&lt;/a&gt; Bibble 5 supprts XMP files, if you set Lightroom to write changes to the XMP files that go next to the NEF files the changes should be in there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2833" LastEditorUserId="2833" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-03T17:18:15.130" LastActivityDate="2011-03-03T17:18:15.130" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="9381" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9384" CreationDate="2011-03-02T12:53:33.573" Score="3" ViewCount="349" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've got a 27&quot; 2.8 i7 iMac. I recently moved from iPhoto to Aperture for managing my photos, and am not all that happy with the performance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With a bit of diagnosis, I've seen that 4GB RAM doesn't really seem to be enough - I'm getting lot of virtual memory page outs. I'm going to go ahead and upgrade to 8GB.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would moving my Aperture library onto an external firewire hard disk improve performance? It seems like FW800 is fast enough to cope with modern hard drives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=firewire+800&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=firewire+800&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/bench_sort.php&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd love to hear experiences from anyone who has tried this, and anyone else who has some good advice for improving Aperture performance in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3882" LastEditorUserId="247" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-02T15:02:34.047" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T15:15:52.157" Title="Improving Aperture 3 peformance on an iMac" Tags="&lt;apple-aperture&gt;&lt;performance&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9382" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9381" CreationDate="2011-03-02T13:53:22.133" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A fragmented library can kill Aperture's performance, so try defragging. A program like iDefrag can defrag individual files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also do little tweaks like turning off Faces and Places.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Putting the library on a separate drive will obviously free up space, but any performance improvement you notice might well be down to the fact that it will defrag the library as you copy it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-03-02T13:53:22.133" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9383" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9381" CreationDate="2011-03-02T14:06:50.563" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;FireWire 800 is clearly slower than SATA. While, in practice, it should not slow you down too much, it certainly won't give you a performance boost. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, what should help a lot is installing an SSD in your Mac. It's not exactly cheap, though... Might be something to consider in future when the prices fall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2069" LastActivityDate="2011-03-02T14:06:50.563" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="9384" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9381" CreationDate="2011-03-02T15:01:26.997" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have tried Aperture on the same (low-end) machine with both 2GB of RAM and 8GB of RAM. The difference is &lt;em&gt;huge&lt;/em&gt;; with 2GB it is unusable, with 8GB it is OK.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I would suggest that you first go through the memory upgrade and after that see if you still need more power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="247" LastActivityDate="2011-03-02T15:01:26.997" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9385" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9386" CreationDate="2011-03-02T16:51:43.760" Score="18" ViewCount="477" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both options affect colors in a similar way, but I can't figure out the difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4039" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-03T03:56:13.953" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T00:30:46.120" Title="What's the difference between Saturation and Vibrance in lightroom?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;vibrance&gt;&lt;saturation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9386" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9385" CreationDate="2011-03-02T17:11:30.007" Score="24" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Saturation boosts all colours by the same amount whilst vibrance aims to boost the least saturated colours whilst leaving already saturated colours where they are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The intent of increasing vibrance is to increase the apparent colourfulness of an image without overdoing parts that are already saturated, e.g. skintones. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-02T17:20:48.583" LastActivityDate="2011-03-02T17:20:48.583" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9387" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9375" CreationDate="2011-03-02T17:47:28.813" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately there's currently no 'painless/seamless/automated' way to get all the information out of Lightroom...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will want to write your metadata out with your files by doing the following in Lightroom:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Select Metadata &gt; Save Metadata to File (Or Command/CTRL + S). This will write an XMP file for each image.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On export Lightroom exports RAW files, IPTC metadata, star ratings, and color labels. &lt;strong&gt;Any flags you have set in Lightroom WILL NOT be exported&lt;/strong&gt;. If flags are important to your organization system, then the only thing you can do is add keywords in Lightroom before you generate your sidecar files (Flag, NoFlag perhaps).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-03-02T17:47:28.813" />
  <row Id="9388" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-02T18:44:38.153" Score="6" ViewCount="233" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am trying to implement a blur detection algorithm for my imaging pipeline.&#xA;The blur that I want to detect is both - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Camera Shake: Pictures captured using hand which moves/shakes when shutter speed is less.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Motion blur:  Fast moving objects in the scene, captured using a not high enough shutter speed. E.g. A moving car a night might show a trail of its headlight/tail light in the image as a blur.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can one detect this blur and quantify it in some way to make some decision based on that computed 'blur metric'? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the theory behind blur detection?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am looking of good reading material using which I can implement some algorithm for this in C/Matlab.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2438" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-19T02:45:47.580" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T02:45:47.580" Title="Is there a theory behind 'Blur Detection'?" Tags="&lt;blur&gt;&lt;convolution&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9389" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9385" CreationDate="2011-03-02T19:43:26.663" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The easiest way to understand saturation is if you're familiar with the HSL (Hue, Saturation, Luminance) colour space. The easiest way to think of it is a colour wheel - the hue is how far around the wheel you are, Saturation is how far out from the center of the wheel, and luminance is how bright it is. Saturation adjustments push all colours further out from the center.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT - My understanding of vibrance was incorrect. See the other answer. Leaving it here for anyone else who shares my preconceptions&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Vibrance is a &quot;smarter&quot; adjustment, that only pushes already intense colours (bright reds, blues, greens, etc.) more saturated, while leaving skin tones, and other normal colours alone. This tends to produce more natural looking images. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3478" LastEditorUserId="3478" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-05T00:30:46.120" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T00:30:46.120" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="9390" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9388" CreationDate="2011-03-02T19:45:01.777" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To detect blur you want to detect the lack of sharpness, the easiest way to do this is to look at the first and second image derivatives as fine details will show up as strong gradient. I would have a look at using something like a laplacian filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to specifically detect motion blur you need to use an anisotropic kernel that will detect where there is detail in one direction but not the other (as linear motion blur reduces detail along a particular axis). Something like the Harris corner detector is good for this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both can (I think) be easily implemented by convolution, there is a function to do this in matlab I think it's called something like &lt;em&gt;conv2&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-02T19:52:04.737" LastActivityDate="2011-03-02T19:52:04.737" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9391" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-02T22:53:25.460" Score="2" ViewCount="330" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am going on a cruise to Greece and Italy this summer, I really wanted to buy a new Canon lens for my t2i but i am confused whether to buy the 17-40 f/4.0 or the 15mm 2.8 fisheye. Any help?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4122" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-02T23:04:25.687" LastActivityDate="2011-03-03T10:42:19.813" Title="What lens should i buy for my vacation?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;wide-angle&gt;&lt;fisheye&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9392" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9391" CreationDate="2011-03-02T23:03:43.410" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Those two lenses are going to give you significantly different results.  The big thing to note is that the fisheye lens is, well, a fisheye.  It'll create severely distorted images that can be &quot;straightened&quot; using software but it's going to have a distinct fisheye look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't look bad, but it's not what one would usually choose for a walkaround/vacation lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand the 17-40 f/4L is a well respected lens that covers a good wide-angle zoom range.  f/4 should be fast enough for outdoor scenes and well-lit indoor scenes as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd say unless you're specifically looking for the fisheye look, go for the 17-40.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-03-02T23:03:43.410" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9393" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9391" CreationDate="2011-03-02T23:23:52.837" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would say for a greater range of possible uses, it would probably be best to get the 17-40 over the fisheye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4124" LastActivityDate="2011-03-02T23:23:52.837" />
  <row Id="9394" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9391" CreationDate="2011-03-02T23:31:38.033" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 17-40 will take sharper pictures than the kit lens, but it doesn't have IS (Image Stabilization) so you may actually get blurrier pictures when you use it, in some light conditions!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are looking for a wide angle lens, either to fit more into the frame or to get a wide-angle perspective , you should read &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm&lt;/a&gt; which covers the subject well (I know, I know, KR this, KR that.  But it's a good guide to effective use of wide angle lenses).  Also, you should know that the 17-40 gives you only about a 6% wider view than the kit 18-55 lens!  So if you think you want, or have been told to get, &quot;a wide angle lens,&quot; you should look into the &lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;10-22 or its off-brand equivalents&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't already know that you want the fisheye, you probably shouldn't get it.  As others have mentioned, it's a specialty lens, and you should only get a specialty lens if you have specific uses in mind for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have you considered other lenses, like the 17-55?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, you are just going to be shooting things close-up, right?  Because neither of the lenses you asked about (nor any of the lenses I've mentioned) will be particularly good at capturing anything detailed more than a couple hundred feet away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-03-02T23:31:38.033" />
  <row Id="9395" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9391" CreationDate="2011-03-02T23:44:25.830" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been to both &lt;a href=&quot;http://photos.aballs.com/Travel/Greece-2009&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Greece&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://photos.aballs.com/Travel/Italy-2007&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Italy&lt;/a&gt; and I can say with 100% certainty that you will want the 17-40 over the Fish-eye. Of the two, the 17-40 is more versatile, and given that the T2i has decent enough high-iso capabilities, the overall usefulness of the 17-40 will easily compensate for the 1-stop light loss.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2011-03-02T23:44:25.830" />
  <row Id="9396" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9391" CreationDate="2011-03-02T23:57:10.373" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have a cropped sensor camera, I would consider an EF-S lens. These tend to be cheaper and lighter than similar quality EF lenses like the 17-40.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider the 17-55, 17-85, or 15-85. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1125" LastActivityDate="2011-03-02T23:57:10.373" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9397" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9391" CreationDate="2011-03-02T23:58:02.217" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Fisheye is a lens for special effects. You certainly &lt;strong&gt;don't&lt;/strong&gt; want to buy this as a lens for documenting your vacation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-03-02T23:58:02.217" />
  <row Id="9398" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9403" CreationDate="2011-03-03T00:04:21.403" Score="8" ViewCount="424" Body="&lt;p&gt;See: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9385/&quot;&gt;What's the difference between Saturation and Vibrance in lightroom?&lt;/a&gt;. In a nutshell, it's a &quot;smart&quot; color adjustment that increases saturation selectively, leaving skin tones and other saturated colors alone.&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9385/whats-the-difference-between-saturation-and-vibrance-in-lightroom/&quot;&gt;*&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm curious if there's any equivalent in Gimp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've found a couple of plugins and scripts that use the same &lt;em&gt;word&lt;/em&gt; &quot;vibrance&quot;, but in everything I see, they don't mean the same thing. Usually, it's &quot;super-saturation&quot;, as in &lt;a href=&quot;http://registry.gimp.org/node/107&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this script&lt;/a&gt;, which claims it's an &quot;implementation of a 'digital velvia'. I'm not looking for that. The Adobe feature seems to be a more subtle (and therefore more useful) tool for photo editing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If nothing exists, is there a convenient (or even less-convenient) way to emulate it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for the great answers so far. I've added a bounty to the question specifically for an answer to whether the Adobe feature does anything special with skin tones, and how to recreate that generically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-05T03:55:52.827" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T08:09:58.393" Title="Is there an equivalent to Adobe's &quot;Vibrance&quot; in Gimp?" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;open-source&gt;&lt;gimp&gt;&lt;color&gt;&lt;vibrance&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="9399" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9401" CreationDate="2011-03-03T05:18:01.790" Score="5" ViewCount="215" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going on a little photo vacation toward the end of March, and my lenses and body have outgrown my current camera and laptop bag.  Everything fits in my current bag, but it's not a solution that would allow for any degree of rapid storing or removing of any of the gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for a camera bag that will hold a D7000; a Nikon 24-70 and 70-300; and a Sigma 8-16.  One lens is always attached to the body.  Ideally, I should be able to get the camera and lenses in and out of the bag without taking the entire thing off.  I'm thinking that a belt pack might be my solution, but I've never tried one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone else with a similar collection (medium sized body, three medium size lenses) have any tips on a good in-the-field carrying solution?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1493" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-03T13:44:17.787" LastActivityDate="2011-03-03T14:55:44.180" Title="Tips on a non-backpack camera bag for body with lens attached and two subsequent lenses" Tags="&lt;camera-bag&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9400" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9399" CreationDate="2011-03-03T06:00:02.403" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do you have a price range in mind?  (always be wary of someone who starts by asking that question....)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you think the messenger-style bag would work for you (I've never used one before this bag, so I was a little leery but it's been comfortable) I could recommend the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001D5MXGK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Domke J-5XC&lt;/a&gt;.  It accessibly holds 2 mid-sized lenses, one attached to a body, and I think it would easily and accessibly hold a third if I set up the partitions better.  Right now I use most of the bottom space for accessories (like a blower bulb, 10' shutter release cable, and filter step-up rings) instead of lenses, but I often squeeze another mid-sized lens and another prime lens or two in there.  It only has three exterior pockets, none of which are particularly roomy, so those are always crammed full (battery+charger, lens caps, filter pack, gray card, pen, notebook, ziploch bags) but it is very well made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the main reason I bought it: it fit &lt;em&gt;inside&lt;/em&gt; my laptop backpack.  I picked this bag so I could have a single carry-on that held my backpack, camera equipment, and some other stuff; but I could pull just my camera bag out and take it for a walk (leaving the backpack with its heavy laptop in the hotel or at my friend's house or in the car while I go on a hike).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh and while there is some padding, it's not super-padded.  A fall from a high-enough height would probably break some gear.  I'm not the most precise person, but I don't consider myself clumsy, and I don't throw my gear around, so I wasn't too concerned about thick padding when I bought it.  Also, it's not set up to have a tripod mounted to the outside of the bag (I really wish someone would make a solid, 6-foot tripod that collapsed down to &amp;lt; 12 inches, fully extended in seconds, and cost under $100.  Well.).  Errr, and the velcro can be kinda loud; anti-sneaky-theft and anti-skittish wildlife, take your pick.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, even though I'm really happy with my bag I wouldn't recommend it without some reservations.  It's a high-quality bag, though, has plenty of room and lets you configure it however you wish, and it doesn't scream camera bag (no big, bright Canon logo on the outside).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-03-03T06:00:02.403" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9401" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9399" CreationDate="2011-03-03T07:07:37.073" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am really just recommending you what I use but the &lt;a href=&quot;http://products.lowepro.com/product/classified-140%20aw,2119.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lowepro Classified 140 AW&lt;/a&gt; is pretty great, and satisfies all those requirements. This bag is exactly designed for three lenses, where one is attached. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recently carried the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-Compact-Macro-Lens/dp/B00006I53V&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon Compact Macro&lt;/a&gt;, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/30mm-f14.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 30 1.4&lt;/a&gt;, and mounted the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-70-200mm-f-4.0-l-usm-lens-review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;70-200 f4 L&lt;/a&gt; on a Canon XSi in this case around Europe for 3 weeks. This was a bit heavy on the shoulder after a lot of hiking(as much as 30 miles per day), but switching shoulders usually was enough to deal with it. If you need more room, I recommend &lt;a href=&quot;http://products.lowepro.com/product/Lens-Case-9-x-13cm,2252,11.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the lens pouch&lt;/a&gt; which nicely fits on the side of the 140 AW. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 140 AW is a really high quality bag. The straps are great, the front cover is very water resistant(kept my shit dry in pretty heavy rain in Belgium), and I feel like the front of the bag was nicely designed for carrying other accessories. One last nice thing about this bag, is the strap has a torso strap, which is nice for keeping the bag from swaying back and forth while you walk.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck and enjoy your trip.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastActivityDate="2011-03-03T07:07:37.073" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9402" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9381" CreationDate="2011-03-03T07:07:58.790" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm also using Aperture on a 27&quot; 2.8 i7, but with 8GB of RAM, and I have experienced no performance issues, although that's no guarantee that you won't. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Particularly with large RAW files, more memory really makes a difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4048" LastActivityDate="2011-03-03T07:07:58.790" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9403" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9398" CreationDate="2011-03-03T07:46:55.990" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9385/whats-the-difference-between-saturation-and-vibrance-in-lightroom/9386#9386&quot;&gt;Matt's answer about the nature of vibrance&lt;/a&gt; is correct (and &lt;a href=&quot;http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Photoshop/11.0/WSC799D0E1-38B5-4edf-A136-2ABE147063AC.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the Adobe documentation agrees&lt;/a&gt;), you may be able to obtain a similar effect in GIMP. However, I don't have any Adobe software, so I can't judge how closely this actually matches Adobe's effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use Colors -&gt; Components -&gt; Decompose, decompose to Hue/Saturation/Value or Hue/Saturation/Luminance. Select the Saturation layer and use Curves to boost the saturation of the unsaturated parts of the image. (That is, the middle grays of the saturation layer. You may want to avoid boosting the saturation of the very darkest, least saturated parts of the saturation layer, because unexpected color casts can happen in areas that are very close to a colorless black, white, or gray.) Use Colors -&gt; Components -&gt; Recompose to apply the change to the original image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's pretty clumsy compared to using a slider, and it doesn't offer any smarts about skin tones, either. It may be possible for someone familiar with writing GIMP scripts (i.e., not me) to streamline and improve it, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a photo I tried this method with. I tried to get about the same increase in saturation in the grass with both the ordinary saturation control and by using curves on a decomposed saturation layer. You can see that in both adjusted pictures, the grass is much more saturated, but that the simple saturation control also puts the reds in the fence and in the dogs' fur way over the top, where the curves method didn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/wgEE8.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/htzlN.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/QxuIw.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2312" LastEditorUserId="2312" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-03T14:22:31.277" LastActivityDate="2011-03-03T14:22:31.277" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9404" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9399" CreationDate="2011-03-03T08:03:08.217" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bought me a &lt;a href=&quot;http://tamrac.com/frame_velocity.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamrac Velocity&lt;/a&gt; several years ago. Great bag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-03-03T08:03:08.217" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9405" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9399" CreationDate="2011-03-03T08:36:34.793" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; Ups, writing that answer I was sure you asked for a backpack not a non-backpack. However I leave the answer, maybe you like the bag nonetheless ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am carrying my Nikon D7000 with 3 lenses plus one attached lens in my &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kata-bags.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kata&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kata-bags.com/productFRM2HS.asp?p_Id=432&amp;amp;Version=Photo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;3n1-20 Sling Backpack&lt;/a&gt;. There is also an additional (top) compartment that may also take a 4th lens and also some further, smaller compartments. I will not go into details of the bags features since they are all very well described on Katas website. You can vary between several modes to wear it. This comes in very handy since you can wear it properly and comfortable for longer hikes as well-as in the city for quick access to your gear. You will not have to take it off to get your gear out. However, I like the concept and the quality of the bag and can really recommend it. The sole drawback is that it is clearly recognizable as a photo bag, so if you are looking fore something subtle it might not be the right choice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd recommend to try if all your gear fits in, at your resellers store.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2549" LastEditorUserId="2549" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-03T12:19:27.623" LastActivityDate="2011-03-03T12:19:27.623" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9406" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9398" CreationDate="2011-03-03T09:05:38.110" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are comfortable with writing GIMP scripts, you can modify the script provided in your link, to do the following operations:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Convert the RGB to HSV.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Transform the S plane with an exponential transform (similar to Gamma correction, but with exponent &amp;lt;1). This will enhance low saturation values while keeping high saturation values.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Convert back to RGB.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE: Just saw @Lyman Enders Knowles' answer. This is basically following the same steps programmatically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-03-03T09:05:38.110" />
  <row Id="9407" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9391" CreationDate="2011-03-03T10:42:19.813" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Without knowing what other lenses you have it's difficult to say what you should get, but if you want to take holiday snaps you want to take as versatile a lens with you as possible so the 17-40 is probably a better bet than the fish eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I have an 18-200mm lens which I use when I'm on holiday because it means I don't have to take any other lenses with me. I also carry about my 50mm 1.8 because it's awesome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unless you know you need a fish eye then you probably don't need a fish eye, you might be able to get similar a effect by getting a fish eye filter that screws onto one of your existing lenses for an awful lot less money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2680" LastActivityDate="2011-03-03T10:42:19.813" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9408" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9399" CreationDate="2011-03-03T14:55:44.180" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The ideal type of bag to go for when you want rapid access is a &lt;strong&gt;shoulder bag&lt;/strong&gt;. You can always &lt;strong&gt;access right where it is and you can move it out of the way&lt;/strong&gt; to sit, crouch and compose your shots (unlike a belt-pouch).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Among shoulder bags the best designed is &lt;strong&gt;Lowepro's Rezo series&lt;/strong&gt;. It comes in several sizes, the Rezo 190 AW being the biggest one and can accomodate 1 camera with lens attached plus a several more lenses (I've packed 4). You can probably fit your current stuff in the 180 but may want to leave room for expansion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best part of the design is that it &lt;strong&gt;opens away from you&lt;/strong&gt; and the main compartment opening is flush with the top, so you do not have to reach down between you and the bag. This makes it much easier to change lenses than with any other design. You open it and it stays open while you move the lens caps, swap lenses and change filters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This bag has a built-in rain cover which saved my gear. I wouldn't buy a bag that didn't protect from rain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Disclaimer: While I own one of these, I now use the Lowepro Nova 200 AW more because I often carry too many lenses for the biggest Rezo. I've reversed the strap and wear it backwards, so that it opens away from me. This makes it harder to open but at least I can swap lenses easily because the bag stays open while doing that.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-03T14:55:44.180" />
  <row Id="9409" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-03T15:41:18.817" Score="1" ViewCount="231" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to know how I could import a RAW file from an Olympus E-PL2 to Lightroom 3.3.&#xA;If not possible, how I could as least view this in Windows 7 and Vista?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I installed the Raw Codec from Olympus but am still unable to view it properly on Vista (on thumbnail). Is Adobe Camera Raw the solution? I downloaded the Cameraraw 6.3 update but don't know how to update it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4128" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-12T12:01:06.367" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T12:45:12.753" Title="How do I import Olympus E-PL2 raw files in Lightroom 3.3 for Windows?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;windows&gt;&lt;adobe-camera-raw&gt;&lt;olympus&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="9410" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9409" CreationDate="2011-03-03T16:19:09.423" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The E-PL2 is not supported by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adobe Camera Raw&lt;/a&gt; prior to version 6.4 (for Lightroom 3.4).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In order to import raw files for the E-PL2, you should first update to Lightroom 3.4 or later.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prior to Lightroom 3.4:&#xA;&lt;em&gt;One workaround is to &lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&amp;amp;message=37737802&amp;amp;changemode=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;change the exif data to show the camera as an E-PL1&lt;/a&gt;, but this may not actually provide perfect support, as it is possible that the format has changed slightly.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-12T12:45:12.753" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T12:45:12.753" />
  <row Id="9411" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9409" CreationDate="2011-03-03T17:15:46.960" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.phaseone.com/en/Software/Capture-One-Pro-6/About/Pro-Overview.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Capture One&lt;/a&gt; supports the E-PL2 as does &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibblelabs.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bibble&lt;/a&gt; though neither are free. Trial versions are available, though, so you can at least test them out. You never know, you may prefer them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suspect that your codec isn't working for one of the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Not 64 bit on a 64 bit Windows platform&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;E-PL2 format not actually supported&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did you get the codec from the Olympus website or did it come with the camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-03-03T17:15:46.960" />
  <row Id="9413" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9423" CreationDate="2011-03-03T21:59:45.347" Score="10" ViewCount="224" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just got a 28&quot; Westcott Apollo softbox. They don't sell a grid/egg crate for it, so I'd like to create my own, &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/09/150-no-way-diy-softbox-grid-for-under.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;similar to this&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My understanding is that the deeper the grid, the narrower the angle of light spill, which means a smaller area lit and thus more control over lighting. What I'd like to know is how do you determine the depth/angle ratio, besides trial-and-error.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I wouldn't mind any advice on what the most useful grid beam angles are. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastEditorUserId="48" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-04T20:06:54.197" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T20:02:37.617" Title="How does grid depth determine beam angle?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;diy&gt;&lt;softbox&gt;&lt;grid&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9414" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-03T22:38:45.373" Score="2" ViewCount="124" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking to buy Nikon SU-800 flash and I noticed that it uses CR123A batteries. I found a lot of options on eBay and Amazon but most of them have low or mixed reviews. Does anyone use these type of rechargeable batteries and chargers and have recommendations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4138" LastEditorUserId="3078" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-24T04:49:40.117" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T04:49:40.117" Title="CR123A rechargeable batteries and charger recommendations?" Tags="&lt;battery&gt;&lt;charger&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="9415" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9381" CreationDate="2011-03-03T22:39:58.010" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A great tip for speeding up performance in Aperture 3 is to turn of the Faces feature. I found this to be a substantial speed increase on a MBP i5 2.4GHz with 4GB RAM.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the Aperture &gt; &lt;strong&gt;Preferences&lt;/strong&gt; (Cmd+,) menu, click the &lt;strong&gt;General&lt;/strong&gt; tab, turn off &lt;strong&gt;Enable Faces&lt;/strong&gt;.￼&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4137" LastActivityDate="2011-03-03T22:39:58.010" />
  <row Id="9417" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9413" CreationDate="2011-03-04T00:36:30.743" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming square grid bins, the dimensions of each grid bin are WxWxD, where D is the depth of the grid and W is the square edge length. Then, using trigonometry, we know that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;tan(A) = W / D&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;where A is the beam angle (from center line - axis - to one side). But, when considering rays passing through the square corners, there are two more angles to consider:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;tan(A') = W / D' = W / sqrt(D^2 + W^2)&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;tan(A&quot;) = W' / D = sqrt(2) * W / D&lt;/code&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It can be seen that &lt;code&gt;A&quot; &amp;gt; A&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;A &amp;gt; A'&lt;/code&gt;, and thus &lt;code&gt;A&quot; &amp;gt; A'&lt;/code&gt;. &lt;code&gt;A&quot;&lt;/code&gt; is the largest angle and should be considered the beam angle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE: To clarify, by convention, the angle I calculate above is measured from the beam axis to its edge. Since the beam is symmetrical, then the spread is in both direction, and one should consider double this value when calculating the lit area.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/zQXpD.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-05T20:02:37.617" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T20:02:37.617" CommentCount="13" />
  <row Id="9418" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9419" CreationDate="2011-03-04T01:04:01.490" Score="7" ViewCount="172" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've done a series of chroma key shots of some co-workers for our website and generally everything came out great, except one of our guys is bald and, well, the green is reflecting onto his head. So, the question is, does anyone know of a good way to remove this sort of highlight in post-processing? I'm using Photoshop CS5.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-04T01:09:01.573" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T02:05:33.893" Title="Post-processing to remove background reflections on bald heads" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;chroma-key&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9419" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9418" CreationDate="2011-03-04T02:05:33.893" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's probably several different ways to skin this cat (there always are in Photoshop), and it's be easier to give specific input if there was a picture to look at, but in general I'd probably tackle the problem with something like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Create a Hue/Saturation Adjustment layer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Modify the layer mask such that only the area with bleed problems is selected&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pull saturation out of the green out slowly using mostly the 'Greens' channel (Alt+5) and a bit in the Master channel (Alt+2).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a 'future reference' thing, keeping subjects at least 6 feet from the backdrop will help keep bleed to a minimum.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T02:05:33.893" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9421" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9424" CreationDate="2011-03-04T04:43:04.510" Score="3" ViewCount="472" Body="&lt;p&gt;Today, I ended up in a site showing famous people faces in a very first plane. I just got impressed by the quality those photos had.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do you think are the factors you have to tweak to reach that quality?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, I think they've used a high quality prime lens with a very big aperture. The camera body must be also a important factor. But is there anything else? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What about the lighting in those photos?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the link: &lt;a href=&quot;http://community.livejournal.com/everyday_i_show/106914.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://community.livejournal.com/everyday_i_show/106914.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reagrds!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1641" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T08:46:58.067" Title="How can these photos have so high quality?" Tags="&lt;image-quality&gt;&lt;photo-quality&gt;&lt;optical-quality&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="9422" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9421" CreationDate="2011-03-04T05:00:41.623" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, the lighting in the photos look like lights on the background, and two relatively large lights illuminating their face (you can see the catchlight in the eyes), very possibly some rim light too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You're spot on about the large aperture, even the ears are out of focus.  However, considering how sharp the photos are, its possibly stopped down a bit (but not much at all) and the lens is close to the subject to decrease depth of field.  Since he's shooting 8x10 view camera, I imagine the depth of field can be pretty shallow when needed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as camera goes, who knows.  But you can get amazing results in a portrait studio setting because of the lighting with many, many cameras these days.  Given that he's shooting that many celebs though, I would imagine he could be using something like a medium format hasselblad - but frankly who knows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides all that...check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/08/behind-scenes-with-martin-schoeller.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this strobist post&lt;/a&gt; for a behind the scenes look at this photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:  That specific video shows the two large boxes like I said, as well as a beauty dish center and up.  It looks like he's shooting with a 8x10 view camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-04T05:08:21.790" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T05:08:21.790" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9423" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9413" CreationDate="2011-03-04T05:39:54.630" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Consider a 2D cross section ABCD straight through a cell of the grid, parallel to (and containing) the lighting axis.  AD = BC is the depth of the cell and AB = CD is the length of the opening (horizontally, vertically, or even at an angle).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/WH0Mh.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this diagram light can come anywhere from the left in any direction (created by your softbox or otherwise).  The illuminated subject is represented abstractly as the line JL.  Three of the possible light rays passing completely through the cell are shown: BL, AJ, and HK (a ray in a &quot;generic&quot; position).  Evidently all rays emanating from the cell (without any intermediate reflection) must land between J and L on the subject.  (This is obvious if you start at the subject and trace the light path back through the cell: only by starting between J and L will you be able to find some line that makes it back through the cell to the light source.)  The angle subtended by the lit portion of the subject is the angle JGL--the left tip of the yellow triangle--which is identical to the angle CGD.  You can compute it trigonometrically if you like: the tangent of &lt;em&gt;half&lt;/em&gt; this angle equals (CD/2) / (AD/2) = CD/AD.  But it may be good enough to note that the extreme rays, BL and AC, intersect in the center of the cross-sectional rectangle at G.  That gives you an effective way to visualize the angle of the beam and also shows that it's twice the angles you would measure across the cell at CBD or CAD.  In short, &lt;strong&gt;the beam angle is (at most) what would be observed were a tiny light source placed exactly in the (3D) center of each cell of the grid&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;it's (approximately) twice the angle you would estimate by going from any &lt;em&gt;single&lt;/em&gt; point on the back of the cell through the cell's opposite opening.&lt;/strong&gt;  This justifies your understanding--as the cell gets deeper, the angle at G must get smaller--and also quantifies it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This reasoning is enough to recover the entire 3D angle by considering different possible orientations of cross sections along the axis of the cell (the lighting axis).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's not the whole story.  The quality of the light depends slightly on the quality and extent of the source.  Most importantly it won't be uniform: even when the source is uniform and diffuse, the emitted light falls off substantially towards the edges (approximately linearly).  That should not be noticeable (except at the very edges of the total illumination) because the actual light is the composite of beams from all the grid cells, not just from one of them.  And the source won't always be uniform, either.  Lack of uniformity will tighten the beam angles, especially among the grid cells furthest (off-axis) from the light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T05:39:54.630" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9424" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9421" CreationDate="2011-03-04T06:07:13.173" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The lighting appears to be a single large roundish softbox (like the Elinchrom Octa) immediately behind the photographer/camera in most of the images. The shadow pattern is very similar to what you'd get with a ring light -- the outlines are darker than the center and there are no obvious shadows under the eyes or nose, etc. -- but softer. There is a vertical stripe &quot;missing&quot; from the lighting pattern, though -- and that'd be the photographer's position. The stripe is rather rectangular, though, which leads me to believe that the photographer has placed a gobo either behind -- or perhaps in front of -- the camera in order to keep the reflection out of the subjects's eyes. At least one picture, though (Paris Hilton) seems to have used a similar setup with either a large square softbox (Quadra, if we're actually in Elinchrom country) or two vertically-oriented rectangular softboxes (still huge) placed either side of the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The camera is definitely a view camera, very likely an 8x10 with a 210mm lens going by the perspective -- which makes these photographs essentially macro photos. The aperture setting could actually be quite small by 35m-format standards -- f/22 or smaller wouldn't be out of the question for the depth of field we're seeing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T06:07:13.173" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9425" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-04T06:22:31.110" Score="1" ViewCount="209" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicates:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/5971/can-i-get-a-shallow-dof-using-a-kit-lens&quot;&gt;Can I get a shallow DOF using a kit lens?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/5493/help-with-getting-bokeh-effect&quot;&gt;Help with getting bokeh effect.&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm an amateur photographer, just getting into photography. I read some things about lens but I don't really understand. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to take photos like this: &#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk154/fashiontoast/2-2011/lo1.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but with my current setup, which is the standard lens that comes with the Canon Rebel t1i, can't focus on the model at a distance very well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the model is in focus but the background is more in focus than I'd like. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What kind of lens should I get to achieve the effect in the image I linked above?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4144" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-04T12:30:14.553" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T16:08:45.673" ClosedDate="2011-03-04T15:59:32.890" Title="How to choose a lens to get a shallow DOF effect?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;shooting-technique&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="9426" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9425" CreationDate="2011-03-04T06:40:04.487" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You need a lens with a wide aperture, which is indicated by a &lt;em&gt;small&lt;/em&gt; f/stop value, and you'll need to take pictures with the aperture &lt;em&gt;open&lt;/em&gt; (the easiest way to accomplish this is to put your camera in Av (Aperture-priority) mode (instead of Auto, Program, Tv (Shutter speed-priority), or Manual) and set the aperture (f/stop) value as low as possible (like 1.8).  For example the &lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.8-II-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;50mm f/1.8&lt;/a&gt; is a popular, cheap (as lenses go) lens that has a wide aperture.  I don't have that lens, but a lot of people do and really like it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That lens will have the same &lt;em&gt;field of view&lt;/em&gt; as your kit lens when it is set to 50mm (the 50mm f/1.8 is a &lt;em&gt;prime&lt;/em&gt; lens, which means it doesn't &lt;em&gt;zoom&lt;/em&gt;).  If you don't think that 50mm is the right focal length for you, there are some other options but none as cheap, like the wider Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (which I have and like), the Canon 28mm f/1.8, and the longer Canon 85mm f/1.8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the way, the name of the effect you're asking about is a narrow &lt;em&gt;depth of field&lt;/em&gt;.  If you search the Internet for that phrase you'll find plenty more information on the subject!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastEditorUserId="2910" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-04T06:47:53.963" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T06:47:53.963" />
  <row Id="9427" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9421" CreationDate="2011-03-04T08:46:58.067" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Also, do not forget post editing. Slight sharpening, careful highpass filtering, to highlight all skin details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4149" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T08:46:58.067" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9428" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9425" CreationDate="2011-03-04T12:08:07.117" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Reading the EXIF info in that image reveals it was shot using a Canon 5D with a 70-200mm f/2.8L lens at 182mm&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 5D is a full frame body which gives a wider field of view at the same focal length. It also gives a shallower depth of field than an APS-C body like your t1i &lt;em&gt;when matching the field of view&lt;/em&gt;. So to replicate this photo as closely as possible on your camera with respect to field of view and depth of field you would need a &lt;strong&gt;113mm f/1.8&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Canon don't make a 113mm lens, you'll be able to get pretty darn close with the &lt;strong&gt;100mm f/2.0&lt;/strong&gt;, which is a very nice lens, though may be beyond your budget. To get a similar look without spending as much you could get a 50 f/1.8. However you'll have to be a bit closer and wont get the same degree of background blur. You can get very nice portraits with background blur with the 50mm but if you want to be able to do full length shots like the one you posted you need a longer lens, like the 100mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-04T13:48:43.537" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T13:48:43.537" />
  <row Id="9429" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9425" CreationDate="2011-03-04T13:19:51.500" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Simple Advice for a Beginner&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you for your question. I like it because it is clear and simple with a definite goal.&#xA;I'm going to give an answer which does not consider all the technical aspects in depth, but is some advice which I wish I had heard when I was starting out.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Get a 50mm f/1.8 lens.&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;f/1.8 is wider than most lenses will go, giving a nice shallow depth of field.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Certainly, for the price, the quality and DOF of this lens can't be beaten.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, there are other lenses which would work nicely for this sort of image (e.g. the 70-200 which was used to capture the example, as @Matt Grum points out).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Learn the Basics&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Kit alone will not help you in the long term.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I suggest that you find a good educational resource (browsing this site wouldn't be a bad start) and learn the basics of exposure, depth of field, composition and so on.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Feel free to post more questions here as you learn  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T13:19:51.500" />
  <row Id="9431" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9425" CreationDate="2011-03-04T13:52:36.777" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depth of field is a function of focusing distance, focal length, and aperture.  For the shallowest depth of field:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;zoom your lens longer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;open your aperture wider (lower numbers)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;shorten up the distance from camera to subject as much as you can for your framing while maintaining long focal length&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Buying longer lenses (50, 85, 100, 135, 200...) with wider apertures (f/4, f/2.8, f/1.8, f/1.4) will get you the ability to shoot shallower.  As noted by others, a fast 50mm f/1.8 is a great place to start learning, and they're relatively inexpensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another thing happening in the example photo - they shot with a longer lens, so the subject has a more distant and flatter look.  Had the shot been made with a shorter lens (50mm), the camera would have been closer for the same framing, a wider background would be included, and you'd feel closer to her as the viewer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1709" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T13:52:36.777" />
  <row Id="9433" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9434" CreationDate="2011-03-04T15:24:11.420" Score="3" ViewCount="108" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for some piece of advice from more advanced fellow photographers with regards to the artificial 'daylight' sources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to be able to some pictures of kids at home. Unfortunately the windows of my living room are to the North and West so there is no too much nice daylight to do sharp crisp images especially in winter when days are darker and evenings are shorter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was wondering about buying some external flash lamp for my DSLR. Can you tell if you think there are any other alternatives? Maybe I could by some other lamp that I could stick to the furniture or to some stand to get the good 'daylight'-like light source. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4089" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T16:31:12.277" Title="Flash gun or some other light source?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;studio-lighting&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9434" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9433" CreationDate="2011-03-04T15:38:56.060" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You want to use a hotshoe flash, a continuous lightsource would not be bright enough (unless you borrow some lights from a movie set) to give you a fast shutter speed / small aperture required for sharp photos of moving subjects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, flashguns are usually colour balanced for daylight. Angling the flash upwards to bounce off a white ceiling will give a very nice quality of light and get you as close as possible to natural window light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-04T15:45:07.620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T15:45:07.620" />
  <row Id="9435" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9436" CreationDate="2011-03-04T15:47:16.567" Score="4" ViewCount="106" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4115/problem-with-fluorescent-lighting-and-shutter-speed&quot;&gt;Problem with fluorescent lighting and shutter speed?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am shooting with a 5D MkII and a 50mm f/1.8 II. In the picture below you can see a really obvious green tinge on the top half of the photo, while another taken one second after, using the same composition and settings, is perfectly fine. The green tinge appeared in some of my other photos as well, sometimes horizontally while at other times vertically. My guess is that it could be reflection from all the green coloured chairs around and the green carpet, but if that's the case shouldn't it be consistent across all photos? I even have a quick burst shot where a green horizontal bar seemingly moved down the photo.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/VxzRK.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;photo with green tinge&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1635" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T15:54:43.427" ClosedDate="2011-03-04T18:25:09.540" Title="What is the green tinge in my photo?" Tags="&lt;color&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9436" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9435" CreationDate="2011-03-04T15:54:43.427" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is probably caused by fluorescent lighting, and the &quot;bar&quot; you see is due to a high shutter speed not being in sync with the lighting (60Hz IIRC).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T15:54:43.427" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9437" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9425" CreationDate="2011-03-04T15:57:54.657" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Looking at the picture, I can't help wondering whether at least part of what we're seeing may not be a result of post-processing rather than just shallow depth of field. Blurring that comes from being out of focus is basically progressive -- i.e., the farther something is from the focus point, the more blurred it gets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking at this picture, however, that doesn't seem to be the case. For example, if we look at the far left edge of the picture, we see that the details of the building are &lt;em&gt;quite&lt;/em&gt; blurred even though the geometry suggests that it's not much farther away than the subject. Compare that to the building at the far end of the street. Based on the geometry, that building must be &lt;em&gt;much&lt;/em&gt; farther away from the focus point -- but if anything, it appears &lt;em&gt;less&lt;/em&gt; blurred than the buildings at the edge that are relatively close to the focus point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, looking at the pavement (or whatever) near the models' feet, it looks like there's noticeably more depth of field to the left than the right, &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; the area that's sharp looks to me like it's &lt;em&gt;quite&lt;/em&gt; curved -- right in front of her, it gets quite blurry just a few inches from her feet, but off to the left and right stays sharper much closer to the camera. By the left an right edges, it's reasonably sharp right down to the lower border. While &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; curvature of field is common, this goes &lt;em&gt;far&lt;/em&gt; beyond what I'd expect from any lens, to the point that post-processing looks to me like nearly the only reasonable explanation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It looks to me like the photographer decided the subject wasn't sufficiently isolated as it was originally shot, and he adding some blurring of some of the nearer parts without doing blurring of the farther parts to match.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that I'm not trying to condemn the original photograph or photographer -- I'm just trying to point out that if you really want to duplicate the look of this picture, it may well take more than just selecting the right lens/body combo to reduce the depth of field. Of course, picking a good model helps too (and helps keep all but the most dedicated nutcases like me from paying any attention to the blurring of the buildings in the background...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-04T16:08:45.673" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T16:08:45.673" />
  <row Id="9438" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9448" CreationDate="2011-03-04T16:02:12.000" Score="1" ViewCount="118" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently got a 2 stop graduated ND filter to use with my Nikon D5000. I understand that you can use the DoF preview button to help you position the filter correctly. However, the D5000 has no DoF preview button.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any other way to position the filter relatively accurately, other than trial and error?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T02:15:02.263" Title="Positioning an ND Grad with no DOF Preview" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="9439" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9441" CreationDate="2011-03-04T16:23:39.770" Score="11" ViewCount="389" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've seen a number of people recommend that you apply sharpening as the last step in post-processing, and some seem to imply you should always do that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why? I tend to discard pictures that either are not tack sharp at the focus point, or at least good enough that I don't mind. If I think the result looks good enough, even at 100%, why would I want to apply sharpening, and why should it be the last step performed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2559" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T17:03:47.587" Title="Why should my last post-processing step be sharpening?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;sharpness&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="9440" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9433" CreationDate="2011-03-04T16:31:12.277" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You also want to read the &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Strobist.com Lighting 101&quot;&gt;Lighting 101&lt;/a&gt; on strobist.com about what all you can do with flashes. Soft/hard light, gelling for coloured light, whatever you want to know, it is on this page ;) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4149" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T16:31:12.277" />
  <row Id="9441" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9439" CreationDate="2011-03-04T16:34:35.633" Score="18" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, sharpening isn't (at least primarily) to compensate for pictures that weren't sharp -- it's primarily to reverse (or least ameliorate) the effects of interpolation that's inherent in converting the data from a typical Bayer-pattern sensor into a recognizable image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's also (at least typically) interpolation done when you resize an image. To compensate for that interpolation, you need to do the sharpening after the interpolation -- but you want to keep the image full size for as much post-processing a possible to maintain maximum quality in your editing. Therefore, you want to do all the other editing, then size the picture for the target, then do a final sharpening step to compensate for the interpolation in the sizing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might also want to read Patrick Lavioe's &lt;a href=&quot;http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00U/00Ua0l-175557684.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;paper&lt;/a&gt; on sharpening in three steps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T16:34:35.633" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9442" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9439" CreationDate="2011-03-04T16:45:29.837" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two reasons spring to mind: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you do any cloning / comping / resizing / rotation these can all reduce sharpness so you should leave sharpening 'till after all these other steps have been performed (which is usually the end of the post processing process).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Your sharpening method / amount ought to depend on the destination media. Print work requires different sharpening than web output. For this reason I save my images unsharpened, and then sharpen for the specific destination as necessary. Images can also take up more space after sharpening so this is another reason not to sharpen until you have to. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T16:45:29.837" />
  <row Id="9443" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9439" CreationDate="2011-03-04T17:01:04.040" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;It depends&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sharpening removes detail (discards information), so &lt;em&gt;if your editing is destructive&lt;/em&gt;, any editing done after the sharpening would have less information to work with than if it were done before the sharpening.  If your editing is non-destructive then I'm not so sure.  (I'm sure others can chip in here.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sharpening is the only (? I can't think of any others ?) edit which needs to be done differently depending on the target medium.  E.g. you would sharpen a 20&quot;x10&quot; print differently from a 640x480 pixel image for a web page.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-04T17:03:20.027" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T17:03:20.027" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9444" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9439" CreationDate="2011-03-04T17:03:47.587" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another reason why not to sharpen at the very beginning already is: The impression of sharpness also depends on the viewing distance. If you sharpen an image at full resolution and then scale it down to 1/4 of the resolution, e.g. for the web, then the effect of sharpening will hardly be visible anymore. For example, you have pixels with the following values:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;15 35&#xA;15 35&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which might look like this after sharpening (the local contrast increases):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;5 45&#xA;5 45&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then you scale it down to half the size, which would result in a single pixel with the value &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;25&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(mean of the above). This is the same result you get with the unsharpened image. The point is, you also get a «downscaled» version of your image when watching it from greater distance (here's the link now :)). If the image is printed with 600 dpi, but my eye can only resolve 150 dpi from the position I watch it, then it can be sharpened stronger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, sharpening is always a «lossy» operation, i.e. you try to guess what the original image looked like without really knowing it. And finally, sharpening can increase noise and compression artifacts, and it's usually a good idea to postpone all kind of quality loss as far as possible :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4149" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T17:03:47.587" />
  <row Id="9446" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9447" CreationDate="2011-03-04T18:11:41.187" Score="10" ViewCount="143" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9439/why-should-my-last-post-processing-step-be-sharpening/9443#9443&quot;&gt;an answer to another question&lt;/a&gt;, a statement is made:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sharpening is the only (? I can't&#xA;  think of any others ?) edit which&#xA;  needs to be done differently depending&#xA;  on the target medium. E.g. you would&#xA;  sharpen a 20&quot;x10&quot; print differently&#xA;  from a 640x480 pixel image for a web&#xA;  page.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What should be taken into account when sharpening for various output methods?  How would one sharpen for a print vs. an onscreen image vs. other uses and how does the final image size affect sharpening?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit/added: with printing, does the surface/material of the print (paper, metal, canvas, etc) affect how much one should sharpen?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-04T21:09:43.810" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T21:09:43.810" Title="How should one sharpen differently depending on the target usage for a photo?" Tags="&lt;printing&gt;&lt;sharpening&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="9447" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9446" CreationDate="2011-03-04T18:27:45.580" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's mostly the resolution of the image that affects the sharpening. When using unsharp mask, a radius of 0.1 mm is a good starting value. For an image displayed on a computer monitor at about 100 PPI, that translates to a radius of about 0.5 pixels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then there are also differences in the media that causes the sharpening to have varying effect. A printing processes may for example have a slightly blurring effect, so you would have to over-sharpen the image slightly to compensate for that. Some display screens are a bit blurrier than others (e.g. a CRT screen is blurrier than an LCD screen).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T18:27:45.580" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9448" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9438" CreationDate="2011-03-04T19:29:54.967" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your D5000 is a digital camera with a built-in image replay facility, right? You don't really need depth-of-field preview -- you have a &lt;em&gt;much&lt;/em&gt; more effective depth-of-field &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;postview&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; at your disposal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not like you have to waste film or wait for processing turn-around to see what you're doing -- you get immediate feedback, and you can simply delete any images that didn't quite work out. No matter how you look at it, it's a better solution than waiting several seconds for your eyes to adjust to the reduced brightness, then trying to convince yourself that you can see millimeter detail in a small, dim, far-away image on the focusing screen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T19:29:54.967" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9449" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9438" CreationDate="2011-03-04T19:45:22.283" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If your D5000's live view works anything like the live view on my D3100, then the aperture will stop down to whatever it's set to &lt;em&gt;when you switch it to live view mode&lt;/em&gt;.  While you're in video mode, changing the aperture won't alter it though.  Switch out, change the aperture, and switch back in to live view.  Look down the barrel of the lens and you should see the difference in your aperture.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At that point, live view acts like a DoF preview (change your aperture, press LV button, observe, press LV button to restore, andd repeat as needed) and previous advice should apply.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-05T02:15:02.263" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T02:15:02.263" />
  <row Id="9450" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9438" CreationDate="2011-03-04T21:27:28.580" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm curious why you think you need to have an &quot;appropriate&quot; DOF when positioning an ND Grad filter? I use ND grad filters all the time, and I've never needed to see the correct DOF to position them correctly. ND Grad filters are primarily contrast-balancing filters, and are designed to reduce the contrast differential in scenes with higher dynamic range than you can take with a single shot. Unless you are using a grad filter with a VERY hard edge, positioning is a rough process, not a precise one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't worry about using the DOF preview button to position your filter. Either with the viewfinder, or with Live View (I personally use live view, as it is a far more effective tool than the viewfinder, IMO), set your exposure (aperture, ISO, and shutter speed), and just slide the filter up or down WHILE metering, and leave it in place when your meter centers (or points to the right EV for the kind of shot you are taking.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T21:27:28.580" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9451" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1039" CreationDate="2011-03-04T22:12:25.340" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I always tell people to make the ugliest frowning face possible and make them hold it for a while. After about 30 seconds I say &quot;ok, now you can smile&quot; and the smiles that come out are usually great. But you have to be quick, the smiles will revert back to the fake smiles within seconds. This works on almost anyone, it must be the novelty of frowning in front of a camera, I don't know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1418" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T22:12:25.340" />
  <row Id="9452" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1039" CreationDate="2011-03-04T22:36:15.867" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A trick I've had used against me (I &lt;em&gt;hate&lt;/em&gt; being infront of the camera) was to shoot a shot, then say, &quot;ok, let's see how that came out...&quot; and trigger another shot mid sentence with a remote. It didn't bypass the cheesy smile, because I didn't have one on my face to begin with... but it did capture a much more relaxed image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've started to use that against my toddler, who DOES ham it up as soon as you point a camera at him, fire off a shot, then immediately fire another one when he relaxes thinking you're done. Lately I've had to take that second shot without looking through the view finder, as he doesn't relax until I start to take the camera down from my eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which leads me into a trick I've used a number of times to get a candid shot of my wife. I call it &quot;shooting from the hip&quot;. Basically any shot that's snapped when the camera is not at my eye. A perfect case in point from last year, we were out geocaching on a bike trial with her parents, I was 10 yards or so up the trail... set the focus for about that distance, set exposure, holding the camera by my side (I use a hand strap, so it's literally the same position as if I wasn't using it at all.) I called over to them to ask a question and fired off a handful of shots as they were turning to answer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T22:36:15.867" />
  <row Id="9453" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9454" CreationDate="2011-03-04T22:44:25.637" Score="1" ViewCount="360" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the point of buying the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002SQKVE4/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;85mm DX AF-S f/3.5G&lt;/a&gt; for 476$ versus the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0013A1XDY/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;60mm AF-S f/2.8G&lt;/a&gt; for 540$. It's 64$ to get f/2.8G over f/3.5G, it's close to be the same focal on a DX 85 vs 90 (1.5 X 60) and fit on a FX (if ever upgrade in the future)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, the only aperture point change my mind. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do I get it wrong ? I want your opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3689" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T23:08:36.117" Title="Macro Lens comparison : Nikon 85mm DX vs Nikon 60mm (FX)" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;dx&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="9454" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9453" CreationDate="2011-03-04T23:08:36.117" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 85mm lens will give you about half again as much working distance between you and your subject, which can be quite a benefit. You have latched onto the biggest downside of the lens, though, and that's that it locks you into the DX (crop sensor) format. On the other hand, a 60mm macro lens on an FX (full-format) sensor will leave you with some very small working distances, since the magnification factor needs to be 1.5x as high to make the &quot;same&quot; picture on the larger sensor. The reduced working distance makes lighting your subject (or just getting out of the way of the light that's already there) a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; harder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're not religiously fanatical about having the Nikkor name on all of your lenses -- if you're more interested in the images you can make than in creating a pristine collection -- then do yourself a serious favour and take a look at the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 DI Macro II. It's a wonderfully sharp, contrasty and distortion-free lens, it's full-frame (FX) -- and it's about the same price as (or less than) the 85mm Nikkor DX lens. I've owned it in several versions going back to the multi-mount Adaptall 2 version in the '80s, and it just keeps getting better and better over the years with improved coatings and so on while the original (excellent) optical design has remained intact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; want to keep to the Nikon in-house lenses, then I'd probably go for the 85mm and look at trading it in on a 105mm when you go to full-frame -- you'll likely find the 60mm less useful than you think on a full-frame sensor. That extra working room really counts for a lot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-03-04T23:08:36.117" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9455" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9463" CreationDate="2011-03-05T00:51:06.057" Score="6" ViewCount="306" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been taking a lot of photos at night, using an attached flash. The photos are generally pretty good, however I've noticed that there is quite a bit of glare on subjects faces (especially when they have been dancing and are a little sweaty). What are the best ways to cut down on this glare?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/dJzAJ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Example of glare&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm using:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon D70s&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;50mm 1.4f nikor lens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sigma EF-500 DG ST Flash&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3204" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-01T17:02:53.450" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T09:27:01.960" Title="How do I reduce glare on subjects during night flash photography?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;glare&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9456" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9455" CreationDate="2011-03-05T00:59:22.320" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I assume not using the flash is not an option you would consider, obviously that would do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can bounce the flash by angling it towards the ceiling or a neutral color wall. That will diffuse the light and reduce the directionality of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes this is not an option, such as for a high or colored ceiling. In this case you should probably add a diffuser to your flash (search for 'flash diffuser' or 'Gary Fong').&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-05T17:02:38.237" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T17:02:38.237" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9457" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-05T02:38:28.367" Score="0" ViewCount="101" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am trying to make better quality backups of my color slides using TIFF files instead of JPEG files.  I have several thousand color slides of trains and locomotives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I need to know the settings to use in Vuescan to scan color slides to TIFF files instead of JPEG.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4163" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T03:55:21.143" ClosedDate="2011-03-06T03:32:15.203" Title="How do you set up Vuescan 9 x32 (9.0.20) settings to scan to tiff files?" Tags="&lt;scanning&gt;&lt;slides&gt;&lt;tiff&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9458" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9457" CreationDate="2011-03-05T03:55:21.143" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unless things have changed and, judging from the website of the vendor, I don't think they have, then the answer to your question is to check the 'TIFF' option on the output tab in the Vuescan dialog. See their docs for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc32.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;details&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T03:55:21.143" />
  <row Id="9459" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-05T05:44:03.830" Score="4" ViewCount="88" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any good Photography DVDs that you would recommend?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ie inside the DVD, the photographer actually explains how certain pictures are been taken, the steps and settings behind it...and show the audience how the picture is actually been taken. And also Pitfalls and mistakes to aviod.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cheers!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3788" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T20:16:59.410" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-05T18:46:08.640" Title="Recommended Photography DVDs" Tags="&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;landscape&gt;&lt;dvd&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="9460" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9459" CreationDate="2011-03-05T06:03:10.967" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.karltaylorphotography.co.uk/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Karl Taylor's&lt;/a&gt; DVDs are great (and there are free videos on the site as well). I've reviewed them for friends who are new to photography. There's no outright misinformation, and there's a lot that transfers across genres. They're not particularly cheap, but I'd say they're a decent value (especially if you can split the cost among a few people).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kelbytraining.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KelbyTraining&lt;/a&gt; course videos are very good as well -- and some are really not so good. The ones I've seen with Jack Reznicki as the instructor (One Light Lighting, Photographing Children), in particular, are worth the trouble. Others have been a complete waste of time (or maybe they just covered something I think should be so blindingly obvious that spending an hour explaining it over and over again just &lt;em&gt;seems&lt;/em&gt; like a waste of time to me -- I don't have the advantage of actually being a neophyte).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're into studio portraiture, you can always cruise YouTube for name brand professional product videos. If you ignore the sales pitch aspect, there's often a lot of technical goodness to be had -- remember, these people want you to keep buying their stuff, and the only way to do that is to show you how to make the best use of it. Elinchrom's product videos, for instance, are great even if you don't plan to buy or use any Elinchrom gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T06:03:10.967" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-05T18:46:08.640" />
  <row Id="9461" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9455" CreationDate="2011-03-05T06:03:59.663" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do something to soften the flash output. Either put a diffuser in front of the flash or bounce it off of some sort of reflector (doesn't have to be fancy -- a sheet of copier paper can do wonders).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If at all possible get the flash off of the camera. Even a foot away can/will make a huge difference. A number of companies make brackets to hold the flash farther away from the lens. I'm not fond of them personally, but they're a lot better than nothing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T06:03:59.663" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9462" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9413" CreationDate="2011-03-05T07:17:17.360" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To complete the answer of whuber, the opening angle is α = tan⁻¹(2×diameter/length). My most often used grid is made of straws with a diameter of 5 mm and a length of 3 cm = 30 mm, resulting in an opening angle of approximately 20°, or a beam that gets wider by &lt;em&gt;about 33 cm after each meter&lt;/em&gt; (imho that's an easier way to imagine the opening angle). Latter is calculated by: 1 m × 2 × diameter / length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An interesting fact about grids by the way: The shape it throws on the wall is defined by the shape of the single elements. If you take a grid of squares, you (more or less) get a square pattern. With round straw the result is a circle. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I’ve written a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.granjow.net/grid.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Grid Spot Tutorial&quot;&gt;Tutorial about building a DIY grid&lt;/a&gt; with an online calculator for the beam width some time ago, perhaps this helps as well :) (It’s for small flashes though.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4149" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T07:17:17.360" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9463" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9455" CreationDate="2011-03-05T07:36:17.940" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, when people start to get all specular on you and the venue is large and dark (dance halls, large clubs, or outdoor venues with no way to use ambient lighting) there's no real substitute for size. What it boils down to is a choice between glossy-looking people or dorky-looking photographer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can improve the pictures &lt;em&gt;very slightly&lt;/em&gt; by using a small diffuser, but nothing that would allow you to be just a person in the crowd is going to be large enough to keep people from looking somewhat party-damaged. If you want them to look fresh, you need to use something big enough to overcome the specularity, and there's just no way to disguise something like that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are there specifically to take pictures, then you probably wouldn't look too very weird with a largish softbox on a flash bracket (and by largish, I mean something like the Photoflex Litedome or the Westcott Mini Apollo, both at 12&quot;x16&quot;). If you're out for an evening with friends, however, they're going to have to be the sort of friends who accept you for who you are &lt;em&gt;despite&lt;/em&gt; the unfortunate photography thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T07:36:17.940" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9464" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9398" CreationDate="2011-03-05T07:48:00.260" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Based on the your brief description of what Vibrance does, I'd approach this in one of two ways in GIMP.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Make a selection that excludes skin tones, shrink and feather than selection if need be, and apply saturation adjustment excluding that selection.  This is probably the simplest, but it would depend on how good you are at making selections (among other tools, you can select by color).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Using the Hue and Saturation adjustments, adjust different colours separately, applying next to no adjustment to the &quot;red&quot; colour.  Increase overlap between colours to 75% or so to avoid harsh edges.  This would be good if you want to increase saturation of all colours &lt;em&gt;except&lt;/em&gt; for red.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also do color/saturation adjustment in a non-destructive way by creating a new empty layer set to &quot;Color&quot; overlay mode and a lowish opacity, then using the airbrush tool with a large soft brush gently to just paint in some colour.  Or to do it more indiscriminately to all colours try the &quot;Saturation&quot; overlay mode and just painting in pure red (or green or blue, makes no difference as long as it's saturated).  You can use the eraser tool to gently reduce the effect in certain areas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T07:48:00.260" />
  <row Id="9465" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-05T07:51:45.283" Score="1" ViewCount="136" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8117/celebrity-photographies-copyrights&quot;&gt;Celebrity photographies copyrights&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My sister &amp;amp; I took a picture with  a pro bull rider, do I need their permission to share the photo on my blog? (I also included their names in the post)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4168" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T16:02:10.320" ClosedDate="2011-03-05T19:23:50.393" Title="If I took a photo of a celebrity do I need their permission to share the photo on my blog?" Tags="&lt;blog&gt;&lt;permission&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9466" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9398" CreationDate="2011-03-05T08:09:58.393" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matt specifically asked:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;whether the Adobe feature does anything special with skin tones&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've always thought it did, and Adobe come right out and say it does. But I wanted to test it before saying so. Here's the test I did: I took our standard calibration print, which was specifically built to cover a wide range of skin tones:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://smug.cabbey.net/photos/1206110539_dYUrs-M.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Original&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I gave it first a +100 saturation boost in LR3.3, just to see how bad it would look:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://smug.cabbey.net/photos/1206110478_gYAMk-M.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;+100 saturation&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then I undid that and gave it a +100 vibrance boost instead:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://smug.cabbey.net/photos/1206110482_c6PNY-M.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;+100 vibrance&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://smug.cabbey.net/Photography/exploration/16070990_RnNrk#1206110539_dYUrs-A-LB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;you can (AND SHOULD) go see them all big&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on that experiment, I do think vibrance gives skin tones &lt;strong&gt;a little bit of special dispensation&lt;/strong&gt;.  Now, Matt then followed up with:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and how to recreate that generically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I gotta tell ya, I'm an software engineer, and was a hard core Gimp user for a very very long time... and this had me stumped for hours. But here's a best guess at how you could accomplish it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;decompose the image into HSV layers in a new document.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In your main document, create a new layer, I called it &quot;faux vibrance&quot;, set it's type to Saturation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;on that new layer, create a mask&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;go back to the hsv layers document you created, select the saturation layer and copy/paste that layer into the faux vibrance layer you created in step 2.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;go back to the hsv layers document you created, select the hue layer and copy/paste that layer into the MASK on the faux vibrance layer you created in step 3.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;go into the &quot;faux vibrance&quot; layer and apply a curve to it, the other two answers talk about how to curve it. Personally I think this is a space for lots of trial and error, and there will be different curves for different images.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;on that layer, you now have what LOOKS like a saturation layer, but it's not usable with the Gimp's saturation layer control as is. Why? because every pixel on there has (roughly) the same saturation value. (5-8 in my experience.) Gradient map to the rescue. Set your foreground color to 0 saturation (black works well) and your background color to 100 saturation (I did red, but you can pick any hue, as long as sat is 100). Now select the &quot;FG to BG&quot; gradient and apply the gradient color map to the layer.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;go into the &quot;faux vibrance&quot; layer's mask and tone down the hues you don't want to be adjusted. Caucasian skin tones for example all appear to cluster around 340-40. So those areas of the mask you're going to want to drop down &quot;pretty low&quot;, everything else, you're going to want to push up to 100%. (I wouldn't go as far as a one bit &quot;on or off&quot; mask, I would feather it around the transitions, but not very much.) Again I suspect every image is going to benefit from a unique mask here, but I would probably create a custom gradient, then apply it with a gradient map. (to test this, I just did a simple, ugly, hand painted mask with two colors: white and 40% grey (V=15).) It was really surprising when I looked at the Hue layer just how OBVIOUS the skin tones were. The areas of the image that are skin were amazingly obvious on that layer.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That will give you the basic setup, once you have this working, the opacity slider on that layer is your &quot;vibrance&quot; control. To demonstrate what you'll end up with, here's a &lt;a href=&quot;http://screencast.com/t/QuGFL3oN8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;short screencast I made&lt;/a&gt; playing with the faux vibrance layer with an image of my son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T08:09:58.393" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9467" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9469" CreationDate="2011-03-05T08:52:08.477" Score="6" ViewCount="468" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a very good (I assume) point and shoot high end camera with me. Model is Panasonic Fz35. I think it has very nice features and using the camera in manual mode is nice too. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, with all the nice in-built features in my camera, can I say it's equivalent to any base SLR camera (ignoring additional lens for SLRs)? Can I use my camera as an SLR itself? If not, what basic things are missing from my camera to any basic SLR?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, what differentiates a high end point and shoot camera from an SLR?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1272" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-10T00:04:45.197" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T05:07:15.613" Title="What is the difference between point-and-shoot and SLR cameras?" Tags="&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;&lt;slr&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="9468" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9467" CreationDate="2011-03-05T09:04:50.083" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Basic definition: SLR means &quot;Single Lens Reflex&quot;. It's not a quality statement, or a measurement of how good a camera is... it's a definition of how the camera works. That it has come to be thought of as a quality indication is a side effect of the fact that typically SLRs are much more complex, so they tend to be made to higher standards. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is an overlap between really high end &quot;point and shoots&quot; and really low end SLRs. But if your camera doesn't actually have a mirror that folds up (that's the reflex part) to deflect the light from the (single) lens into the view finder instead of shining against the shutter, then no, it's not an SLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But from a usage perspective, that really doesn't matter... does it capture an image that is acceptable to you for the purposes of whatever artistic expression you want? If so, then use it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;update after looking at the specs for that camera... yeah, I think you could use that just as you would most entry level DSLRs. It seems to have all the controls that you would need. Note that not all SLRs have interchangeable lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;however, Matt makes a VERY good point about sensor size, an item I had forgotten to consider.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-06T07:37:53.417" LastActivityDate="2011-03-06T07:37:53.417" />
  <row Id="9469" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9467" CreationDate="2011-03-05T09:49:38.783" Score="22" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To be an SLR the camera has to have a mirror and optical viewfinder as cabbey states. The optical viewfinder has several advantages, namely a crisper image for easier manual focus (as you're getting the full resolving power of the lens, instead of a small LCD screen) and zero lag (as what you're seeing is happening in real time!) which can be useful for sports etc. There are a few disadvantages as well, you can't zoom an optical viewfinder, nor can you preview image settings (you can set an electronic viewfinder to show you the image in black and white for example).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whilst the viewfinder is the only difference &lt;em&gt;by definition&lt;/em&gt; there is another important distinction which impacts shooting, and that is that digital SLRs almost always have much larger sensors than compact bridge cameras like the FZ35. A larger sensor allows you to capture much more light giving the SLR much better performance in low light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To visualise just how much bigger the sensor is in an SLR here's a visual comparison between the FZ35 (which is typical of bridge and compact cameras) and the Canon 1100D, a typical entry level digital SLR:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/sensor_sizes.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some compacts do have SLR sized sensors (eg. Sigma DP2, Fuji x100), but they tend to have a very limited zoom range. You certainly wouldn't be able to get a 18x zoom on anything but a small sensor! The ability to produce small light zoom lenses is the reason manufacturers have stuck to small sensors. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to capturing more light, the larger sensor also gives you a shallower depth of field (when matching the field of view of a small sensor camera). This means the range of distances from the camera that are in focus is much smaller. This can be used to artistic effect allowing you to isolate the subject and blur out the background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only way to get blurred backgrounds with a small sensor compact is to use a long focal length (zoom in a lot), or get really close to a small subject (using the macro or close up function).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would say shallow depth of field is the biggest difference in terms of the images, as nothing can be done to replicate the look of an SLR when producing images with shallow DoF in certain circumstances (except by faking it in Photoshop which is difficult and time consuming). When I see an image with shallow depth of field, especially if it's a moderately wide angle I can tell instantly it's from an SLR not a bridge camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-05T10:17:23.077" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T10:17:23.077" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9470" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9459" CreationDate="2011-03-05T10:23:36.147" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The strobist lighting seminar DVDs are very good if you are at all interested in lighting (which all aspiring photographers should be in my opinion!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/05/now-available-strobist-lighting-dvds.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/05/now-available-strobist-lighting-dvds.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T10:23:36.147" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-05T18:46:08.640" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9471" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9467" CreationDate="2011-03-05T10:45:59.937" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Others have pointed out that an SLR has a mirror while a P&amp;amp;S does not, which is true. Another important difference is the autofocus mechanism; a P&amp;amp;S uses contrast detection off the image captured by the image sensor, an SLR has an entirely separate set of autofocus sensors that reads part of the image reflected off the mirror. This technical detail is important because the phase-detection focus system of an SLR can focus a lens almost instantly (given that the AF motor of the lens is up to it, which is sometimes true and sometimes not) while the contast-detection system relies on a lot of trial and error and can take a LOT of time to get into focus. This makes the SLR a lot more responsive, with less lag between pressing the shutter and actually taking the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T10:45:59.937" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9472" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-05T12:11:48.260" Score="5" ViewCount="360" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can anyone help?  I am using a nikon d7000 for sports photography. My husband kindly bought me a sigma 70-200mm telephoto lens 2.8 as I shoot a lot of low light indoor sports. I have only just started testing it but I am finding that it will not focus in some low light situations.  I am keen to know what the best settings to use would be for low light indoor sports. I often get a blur with my 3.5 lens.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4170" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T02:58:55.397" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T02:58:55.397" Title="How do I get the best results for sports with a 70-200mm f/2.8?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;sports&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9473" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9472" CreationDate="2011-03-05T12:37:15.510" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Indoor sports photography is a big challenge.  You're going to have to be shooting wide open likely in high ISO ranges.  If you can set up a remote flash somewhere to pick the scene up a couple stops you'll likely be better off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've got a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 and it was really tough to stop the motion (~1/500-1/1000) even at the high school level without getting up to 1600 ISO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4171" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T12:37:15.510" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9474" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9472" CreationDate="2011-03-05T12:48:32.460" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, the three values that matter are aperture, shutter speed, and ISO. All of these are in your control, but only if you know what they do for you. I apologize if you know all this, but others may ask the same question, so...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aperture - This is the ratio of the focal length of the lens to the diameter of its opening. The smaller the aperture number, the bigger the opening, the bigger the opening, the more light it gathers for any given shutter speed. However, typically the more wide open a lens is, the less sharp it is, there's a &quot;sweet&quot; spot that varies a little by lens and sensor size. In any case, in very low light, you're going to want to be wide open or very close to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shutter Speed - Well, this obvious, but it's important to note that when you do not control the light, then the shutter speed is what freezes motion. So, depending on the sport, you're probably going to be anywhere from 1/500s and above to freeze motion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ISO - The sensitivity to light of the sensor. Low ISO is less sensitive, but usually much less noisy. High ISO is much more sensitive, but also noisy. Nevertheless, in a low light situation, even with the lens wide open, the ISO is going to be at the high side. The good news is that the D7000 is very strong at high ISO, you can get very nice images at 6400 and not bad at 12,800 with a little work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So, as to specific recommendations...&#xA;  I would shoot using shutter priority&#xA;  or, more preferrably manual with auto&#xA;  ISO enabled. Ideally, I would want to&#xA;  control my aperture and shutter speed&#xA;  and let the camera pick the ISO if the&#xA;  light tends to change a bit (you do&#xA;  have a camera that gives you a&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; of latitude in ISO). If the light is constant, I might go fully&#xA;  manual and set all three values, it&#xA;  just depends.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-06T02:34:56.297" LastActivityDate="2011-03-06T02:34:56.297" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="9475" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9489" CreationDate="2011-03-05T15:32:06.010" Score="2" ViewCount="521" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a way to connect a Canon 5d MK2 to an iPad for copying the contents of the CF card especially in Raw format?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4173" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T23:26:20.983" Title="iPad connection kit and Canon DSLR" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;canon-5d-mark-ii&gt;&lt;ipad&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9476" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9465" CreationDate="2011-03-05T16:02:10.320" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you took the photo in a public place where cameras are allowed and you are not using the image for commercial purposes then I can't see any reason you couldn't post the image. If you are trying to sell it or use it to promote something, that would be entirely different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2873" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T16:02:10.320" />
  <row Id="9477" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9455" CreationDate="2011-03-05T16:12:35.540" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The power of the flash is adjustable - play around with dialing it back a bit so that you illuminate without being overpowering. A small diffuser (Gary Fong, etc.) is also very helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2873" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T16:12:35.540" />
  <row Id="9478" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9414" CreationDate="2011-03-05T16:36:23.630" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have used Tenergy Li-ion CR123A batteries in the past but that was a few years ago. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tenergybattery.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&amp;amp;flypage=shop.flypage&amp;amp;product_id=389&amp;amp;category_id=19&amp;amp;manufacturer_id=0&amp;amp;option=com_virtuemart&amp;amp;Itemid=27&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Link here&lt;/a&gt; They worked well and I never had any issues with them, but not having tried any other ones I cannot compare them to the competition for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2873" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T16:36:23.630" />
  <row Id="9479" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9475" CreationDate="2011-03-05T17:14:27.033" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Using &lt;a href=&quot;http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC531ZM/A#overview&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Apple iPad Camera Connection Kit&lt;/a&gt; you can connect your camera and your iPad. Since yor camera has a CF card you cannot use the SD card reader, you have to use the USB connection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/reviews/entry/apple-ipad-camera-connection-kit/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this review&lt;/a&gt; it may not work:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The iPad had no issue bringing in a&#xA;  huge group of 10-Megapixel photos from&#xA;  a Canon Powershot S90 camera, but&#xA;  repeatedly choked mid-stream when&#xA;  trying to import a bunch of&#xA;  21-Megapixel JPEG images from the&#xA;  Canon 5D Mark II. Some of the 5D Mark&#xA;  II pictures transferred without an&#xA;  issue, but the import process&#xA;  typically stopped abruptly after fewer&#xA;  than 10 images—an apparent bug.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="507" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T17:14:27.033" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9480" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9472" CreationDate="2011-03-05T17:31:06.933" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Autofocus on a camera requires enough light for the electronics to pick out distinct edges in the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In daylight it's pretty easy because the changes from shadows to lit areas, or patterns in clothing, or the difference in tone between the subject and the background, help the camera. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's easy to test how the camera determines how to focus by trying to focus on a monochromatic surface, i.e., one that has no changes in color. A smooth blank white wall can make a camera nuts because, if there are no changes or edges or shadows, it can't latch onto anything and will just seek a focal point then give up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, when the light levels drop it gets hard for the camera to find the edges, because the contrast has dropped too. New cameras use more sensitive sensors to pick up focus, but still, they get fooled once the light gets too low. At that point you can try to help the camera out:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Add a bit of artificial light. Some Nikon flashes will turn on a red beam in a vertical pattern, which helps the camera find the edges. Other cameras can turn on a white LED that adds a bit of light, helping it find the edges.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use a small flashlight to illuminate the subject quickly, for the above reasons. A red filter over the bulb might help protect your night vision, be less distraction to others, or might even make the subject stand out to the camera better - I doubt the focus sensor is color, so red might give it better black and white contrast to work from.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Focus on something that is well lit and the same distance from the camera as the subject then recompose your shot with the subject without refocusing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Focus manually.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The f2.8 lens gives you two extra stops of light when focusing, compared to a normal consumer lens which is f5.6. The aperture you have selected for the exposure won't matter when focusing because the camera has the aperture wide open until the shutter is released. At that point the aperture is stopped down, the shutter opens, the picture is exposed, the shutter closes, and the aperture opens to full again. You can prove this is what happens by setting a slow exposure, looking into the lens, releasing the shutter, and watching the blades of the lens close down. Once the shutter closes, the blades will reopen to the full aperture of the lens. If you have a depth-of-field preview button, you can press it while looking down the lens barrel and see the same thing occur. The camera does this so the full amount of light is getting down the barrel while you're setting up the shot and focusing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have shot a lot of fast action in lousy light, and acquiring and maintaining focus can be a real problem. I'm using a Canon f2.8 70-200 also, and had to figure out how to quickly find something on the subject that would help the camera acquire and track focus. Once I had focus I could fire, and my strobe system would provide enough light for the right exposure. There were plenty of &quot;hail Mary&quot; shots, where I hoped it had focus because I could barely see - I'd prefocus then wait for the subject to get to that distance then fire, which is an old trick from the days of manual focus. At least the exposures looked good because of the strobes though often the action looked horrible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a tough trade-off and the best answer is to practice with the camera in similar situations so you have your bag of tricks ready when you encounter similar problems while shooting for real.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1514" LastEditorUserId="1514" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-06T00:12:57.013" LastActivityDate="2011-03-06T00:12:57.013" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9481" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9459" CreationDate="2011-03-05T18:29:04.303" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have not seen many videos as good as Zack Arias' &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.onelightworkshop.com/DVD_Ordering.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;OneLight Workshop DVD's&lt;/a&gt;, which is based on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://zackarias.com/workshop/onelight-info/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;OneLight Workshop&lt;/a&gt;. Mr. Arias is a master in using one light source for creating superbly dramatic portraits and glamor shoots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://creativelive.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CreativeLIVE&lt;/a&gt; offers some fantastic videos of photography classes and workshops. The ones I have seen in full, and fully recommend are John Greengo's class for beginners, Tamara Lackey's workshop for children photography, Vincent Laforet's workshop on HDDSLR videography and David DuChemin's workshop on vision driven photography. I partially saw Zack Arias' workshop on CL, and from what I saw, it looks great as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T18:29:04.303" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-05T18:46:08.640" />
  <row Id="9482" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9459" CreationDate="2011-03-05T20:16:59.410" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Try checking out the web site of your camera manufacturer as some have very good video tutorials which are free to view.  An example of this is Nikon's Learn &amp;amp; Explore site ... &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Learn-And-Explore/index.page&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.nikonusa.com/Learn-And-Explore/index.page&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1410" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T20:16:59.410" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-05T20:16:59.410" />
  <row Id="9483" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-05T20:57:30.780" Score="1" ViewCount="206" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've found the following two pictures (particularly the first) that have a very high level of detail in the iris:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/stockrdb/2848444141/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/stockrdb/2848444141/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/francois/134041488/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/francois/134041488/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a d90, sb-600 speedlight and I use my Macro lens at full zoom. I also have kit lens and a 50mm 1.4d&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So… I am struggling to get this shot. Partially due to ISO. I've tried turning the ISO down to L10&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please advise :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4174" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-06T01:19:25.853" LastActivityDate="2011-03-06T01:26:38.123" Title="How do I get highly detailed iris photos?" Tags="&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;iris&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="9484" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9483" CreationDate="2011-03-05T21:13:38.177" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the original picture takers notes on Flickr:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Taken with three macro lenses stacked on a zoom lens on a Canon 40D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly you're not going to be able to accomplish such a close up shot without more magnification than you currently have available to you (or listed anyway). Without adding 'helper' optics in front of your current lens the best you'll probably be able to get is a 'close-up but not THAT close-up' version of the shot, which you may be able to crop into somewhat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also note that the DoF gets shallower with each optic element you add, so (as the original picture taker noted on Flickr) you'll probably end up needing to take a bunch in order to get 'the one' that has the focus just right...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T21:13:38.177" />
  <row Id="9485" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-05T21:33:45.493" Score="1" ViewCount="176" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whenever I purchase point and shoots I go in expecting them to be heavily used and abused, since we usually use them while going out to places where the likelihood of them getting damaged is high (nightclubs, pool halls, vacations, dinners at Applebees, etc)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I need to replace one that we actually lost somewhere.. what would you suggest?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3165" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T22:23:50.707" ClosedDate="2011-03-07T12:39:38.193" Title="Best point and shoot under $150?" Tags="&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9486" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="556" CreationDate="2011-03-05T21:45:18.867" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One item I don't see mentioned in other answers is performance. Especially on a Mac. Lightroom and Photoshop both crunch through adjustments and work MUCH faster than the Gimp does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T21:45:18.867" />
  <row Id="9487" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9485" CreationDate="2011-03-05T22:23:50.707" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, there are huge differences between point-and-shoot models but your budgets pretty much limits you to the nearly indistinguishable bunch of lower-quality ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is not much to do about losing a camera but for other obstacles you can get a rugged model. Most are drop-proof from 1 to 2 meters (about 6'), waterproof from 3-10m (10-30') and completely dust and moisture proof. There are a number of such models, which I believe the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=71&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fuji XP10&lt;/a&gt; is the cheapest and falls within your budget. Here is the list of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php?size=ultracompact&amp;amp;waterproof=1&amp;amp;by=feature&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;water-proof ultra-compacts&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get better image quality you will have to spend more. At least in $180 for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=56&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fuji Finepix F80 EXR&lt;/a&gt;. Fuji EXR models have excellent image quality and generally faster than most point and shoot. Better P&amp;amp;S will cost you much more for the technologies they use (larger sensors, CMOS, brighter lenses, etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T22:23:50.707" />
  <row Id="9488" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-05T23:21:54.747" Score="6" ViewCount="252" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello there. I have just purchased a Canon SX30 IS and though extremely happy with it I will need to use a polarizing filter due to the fact that I am travelling to Indonesia to do volcano photography/landscape and wildlife photography also. In the past I used to take my bulky Panasonic camera that was fitted with a circular polarizer and have had amazing success and great photos with it but had to sell it due to weight and size and lack of zoom power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence my question, I have been reading that you do not need a circular polarizer for the SX30 and that a linear will work just as well....but is this true? and how do linear polarizers give you the same effects that you can manually achieve with a CPF just by rotating the filter to get desired effect?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sorry to sound so novice but never used a linear polarizer and it is confusing to me...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look forward to your advice and help.&#xA;Cheers&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4175" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-06T15:41:12.467" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T06:05:57.100" Title="Why does a linear polarizer work as well as a circular one on a P&amp;S camera?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;&lt;polarizer&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9489" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9475" CreationDate="2011-03-05T23:26:20.983" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have done this with my iPad and the camera connection kit using a USB CF reader and the USB connector on the iPad. I found it was much faster using the reader than the camera. I was even able to upload some of the better pictures to my photo hosting account using a 3rd party app. I will say though to not use it as the only tool to decide if the color is image is worth keeping. On mine at least the color rendering is not as good for RAW as Adobe Camera Raw.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1901" LastActivityDate="2011-03-05T23:26:20.983" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9490" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9488" CreationDate="2011-03-06T00:11:34.360" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Circular polarizers are only necessary because of the type of autofocus detection that DSLRs (and autofucus film-based SLRs) use. The polarizer part is the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A circular polarizer is just a linear polarizer with a &quot;depolarizing&quot; filter behind it -- light has to be available to the phase-detection autofocus sensors in the polarization that they're oriented to. If you use a normal, linear polarizer, then the camera would only be able to focus when the filter is oriented close to vertical or close to horizontal (depending on the sensor orientation -- &quot;cross-type&quot; sensors would focus in either orientation). Anything too far from the sensor orientation, and there's no light left for the autofocus system to work with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contrast-detection systems (as in most point-and-shoot cameras) work differently, so they don't need the light to be depolarized after it passes through the polarizer layer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you know how to use a circular polarizer, you know how to use a linear polarizer -- the polarizer element is identical. The difference between them is in what happens &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; the polarizer has done its job.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastEditorUserId="2719" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-06T14:27:07.333" LastActivityDate="2011-03-06T14:27:07.333" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9491" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9483" CreationDate="2011-03-06T01:26:38.123" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As noted by Jay, the first photo you linked is using a very extreme level of magnification, and it appears as though it was &quot;focus stacked&quot; to achieve total clarity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is possible to get close-up eye shots like that (although not quite as magnified as the first shot) without that much extreme magnification. A 100/105mm macro lens can get you pretty close, however you will need a LOT of light illuminating the iris to allow you to keep your ISO lower, and still take a shot where noise doesn't interfere with fine detail. A macro lens with extension tubes will also get you in pretty close. Don't be afraid to use a moderately high ISO, so if you can't get enough light to get the shot at ISO 100 or 200, try 400 or 800. You need a willing subject as well, as you'll probably still be working with a fairly low shutter rate despite everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The closer you focus and the more you magnify, the thinner your DOF will get. Sometimes, even with a very narrow aperture, you just can't get enough DOF with a single shot. Use continuous shooting, and if you can, a cable release and tripod, and get several sets of sequences of shots. Adjust focus just a tad between each set of shot, pick the best one or two shots from each set, and use a program like &lt;a href=&quot;http://hadleyweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CZP/News.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CombineZP&lt;/a&gt; to stack the focus from those shots into a single photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-03-06T01:26:38.123" />
  <row Id="9492" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9493" CreationDate="2011-03-06T01:32:06.883" Score="9" ViewCount="213" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/wFPh6.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I took the image above yesterday in the afternoon somewhere outside. If you look closely, there are slight fringes of light all around the subject forming a thin kind of boundary which I find very very annoying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What caused the fringes on the first place?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Can they be removed somehow?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The camera used for taking this shot was Canon 550D with a 70-200 f4 lens at 200mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1485" LastEditorUserId="64" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-06T13:15:39.417" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T17:41:25.720" Title="What causes light fringes around objects in images?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;outdoor&gt;&lt;sun&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9493" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9492" CreationDate="2011-03-06T01:42:38.980" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's hard to tell for sure at that resolution, but it looks like overly aggressive sharpening (unsharp masking) to me -- you are probably taking JPEGs straight from the camera, right? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unsharp masking works by &quot;forcing&quot; the contrast at the edges -- it makes the darks slightly darker and the lights slightly lighter where they meet in order to increase the difference between them and make the edges more noticeable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can either shot in RAW format and take control of sharpening in post-processing or (and this should be possible with the 550D/T2i) go to the settings on the camera and reduce the amount of sharpening applied automatically to JPEG images (if you want to continue using JPEGs). I'm not familiar with that model's menu system, but the manual should tell you where you want to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-03-06T01:42:38.980" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9494" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9472" CreationDate="2011-03-06T03:54:32.483" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sigma 70-200mm is very inconsistent in the AutoFocus department and well known for major focus problems. Life is good when it focuses right, but a sharp lens will not delivery sharp images if not focused properly. You might consider getting another copy of the lens. If possible, get Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 which is more likely to solve your problem.&#xA;Just so you know, its okay for your camera to hunt a little bit in low light conditions unless you buy a top end piece of optics. In this case, bumping up ISO seems to be the best option for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: Bumping up ISO solely isn't gonna solve the issue, bumping up the ISO gives you chance to use smaller aperture and most lenses perform better when stepped down. I personally never used the Sigma 70-200mm but when my lens starts hunting, I generally bump the ISO up and use a smaller aperture, this solves the issue most of the case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks to rfusca for pointing it out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastEditorUserId="2476" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-06T07:27:57.530" LastActivityDate="2011-03-06T07:27:57.530" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="9495" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-06T05:46:04.860" Score="5" ViewCount="84" Body="&lt;p&gt;For some years I've been planning to scan a heap of old analog photos -- Kodachrome slides plus 35mm. color negs and a lesser number of b+w negatives -- and, maybe because I use Nikon, I've always planned to get a Nikon Super Coolscan V ED.  However few years ago I bought an Epson V350 scanner and, altho' I hadn't bought it for 35mm. work, found I got pretty good results from a few Kodachromes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I want to scan those old photos, in particular the 35mm. b+w negs., and I'd like to pass the results to Aperture -- maybe a hundred or two important b+w photos. But it looks like the only scanner Nikon now offers is their big expensive 9000. If this is so, should I look for a second-hand Coolscan V ED or will my old Epson V350 do as well?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's because I've almost no experience with 35mm scans that I'm asking this question. They're for publication and while perfection's always nice, 9 out of 10 good would be okay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4177" LastActivityDate="2011-03-06T06:57:49.393" Title="Do I need a new scanner, and if so what sort?" Tags="&lt;negative-scanner&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="9496" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9495" CreationDate="2011-03-06T06:57:49.393" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hmm... the 9000ED is a $8k beast, then you need to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scancafe.com/image-preservation/do-it-yourself&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;invest your time&lt;/a&gt; in doing all the scan work. By contrast for less than $1 / neg (way less for slides) you could have someone like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scancafe.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ScanCafe&lt;/a&gt; do it for you, on pretty much the same hardware. So do you have more than 8000 images to scan? If so it &lt;em&gt;might&lt;/em&gt; be cheaper to do it yourself, but honestly, I think the cost of the hardware is probably the lesser of the two expenses here. What's your time worth to you?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You mention you have no experience with scanning... they do. Lots of it. And they have done it for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scancafe.com/endorsed-by-pro-photographers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;some pretty high end pros&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;disclaimer:&lt;/strong&gt; I have no financial interest in scancafe, I haven't even (yet) used their services. But I recently contemplated the very same concept and came to the conclusion that doing it myself wasn't the right choice. Several of my coworkers have used their service, and the results I've seen have been quite stellar. I have a box on the shelf behind me that I keep adding negatives to. Eventually I'm going to send it to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-03-06T06:57:49.393" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9497" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9510" CreationDate="2011-03-06T09:21:39.447" Score="4" ViewCount="643" Body="&lt;p&gt;For some strange reason, Aperture 3 seems to shift the colors of the raw images, after importing them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, the reds become washed out and something not red. In the following example, the red of the sweater was pure red!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When viewed on Adobe Camera Raw, I get the correct color (the same one when viewed in the camera):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Kd18i.png&quot; alt=&quot;Screenshot from Adobe Camera Raw&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but when is imported into Aperture and the initial processing completes, the colors are not correct.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Rf0tR.png&quot; alt=&quot;Screenshot from Aperture&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only setting that has being applied by default to the image, is the &quot;RAW Fine Tuning&quot; from which I've removed the &quot;Hue Boost&quot; and the &quot;De-Noise&quot; from the default setting, because I think its messing up the photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The settings are the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/wYMbI.png&quot; alt=&quot;RAW Fine Tuning settings&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but I don't thing that these would make any change!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone knows how can I preserve the colors of the image?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1956" LastEditorUserId="155" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-07T17:35:12.570" LastActivityDate="2011-03-18T15:50:08.780" Title="Why is Aperture changing the color of my RAW photos?" Tags="&lt;apple-aperture&gt;&lt;color&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9498" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9497" CreationDate="2011-03-06T09:53:25.603" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;... from which I've removed the &quot;Hue Boost&quot; ... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;i think that is your answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and make sure that you are viewing the raw and not the generated jpg&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4179" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-06T11:06:58.470" LastActivityDate="2011-03-06T11:06:58.470" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9499" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9500" CreationDate="2011-03-06T11:12:53.637" Score="5" ViewCount="443" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have Canon 18-135 and 70-300 zoom lenses. People ask me how much zoom my camera supports.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What am I supposed to tell?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(135/18 =) &lt;strong&gt;7.5&lt;/strong&gt; and (300/70 =) &lt;strong&gt;4.2&lt;/strong&gt; ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="64" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T06:04:55.447" Title="What does 'how much zoom' mean?" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="12" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9500" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9499" CreationDate="2011-03-06T11:40:13.543" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you've pointed out, the question is meaningless in absolute terms. People whose exposure to photography starts and ends with point-and-shoot cameras don't really know what the term means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They'll be thinking in terms of compact cameras, and the &quot;zoom&quot; on those goes from a moderate wide angle (about the 20mm mark on your lens, which is about 32mm equivalent on a full-frame sensor) as &quot;1&quot; to some multiple. The long end of your telephoto zoom is 300mm, or about &quot;15x&quot; in terms they'll understand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they seem disappointed that all you get is &quot;15x&quot; with that &quot;huge&quot; lens, you can always mention that there's an accessory you can get to go to 80x (that'd be the 800mm f/5.6 with a 2x teleconverter, and together they're about the price of an &quot;entry level&quot; automobile, but you don't need to mention that part). That'll kill the disappointment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-03-06T11:40:13.543" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9501" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9499" CreationDate="2011-03-06T12:19:13.107" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Its the factor between your widest focal length and tele end. For example, you have 18-135mm lens. Your widest focal length is 18mm and tele end is 135mm. So your lenses 'zoom' is 135/18=7.5X, for your 70-300 its 4.2X. This is optical zoom, some camera supports digital zooms as well. Zoom doesn't necessarily mean longer reach, its means longer range. As you see, your 4.2X zoom lens have more reach than your 7.5X zoom lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compact cameras mostly have fixed lenses and zoom is used to denote the capability of the lens attached to it, but this isn't used for DSLRs as their zoom depends on the lens being used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing is, your 'camera' isn't limited to any specific zoom. &quot;how much zoom my camera supports&quot; is not a valid question. It depends on the lens attached to it. Your camera supports unlimited zoom as long as it has got a lens to support it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-03-06T12:19:13.107" />
  <row Id="9502" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-06T12:21:36.430" Score="1" ViewCount="183" Body="&lt;p&gt;I enjoy taking pictures for fun with my iPhone 3GS, but I've now reached a point where I would like to be able to zoom in a bit on my motives, and I don't like the digital zoom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I've seen that it is possible to buy small zoom lenses (so I can have them in my pocket all the time) that can be attached to the iPhone - &lt;a href=&quot;http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/iphone-telephoto-lens/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/iphone-telephoto-lens/&lt;/a&gt; - but before buying I would like to hear if anyone in here have experiences to share, and perhaps even recommend this or another product.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should I buy this item?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4181" LastActivityDate="2011-03-06T23:37:03.713" Title="Recommendations for zoom lenses for an iPhone 3GS." Tags="&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;iphone&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="9503" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9497" CreationDate="2011-03-06T12:29:10.727" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you're importing images using a different white balance setting than the image was originally shot with. For example, the image was shot in 'Cloudy' but when importing you're changing it to 'Fluorescent' or something. Just play with the settings and you'll know the correct settings to use. You can also try using another RAW converter and compare the output against each-other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aperture 3 is a well known software used widely, so its less likely to have a major problem like not-preserving original colors. Check the software help section.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its always best to use the software that came with your camera (DPP for Canon) when processing RAW images. No one knows their images better than who made them.&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT: After using Adobe Camera Raw, I must say it does slightly better job than DPP.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another thing is, when comparing colors between two images, place them horizontally, not vertically. Most LCD displays tend to show different colors vertically. So, place them side by side, not one on top of another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastEditorUserId="2476" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-08T05:37:46.967" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T05:37:46.967" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="9504" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9488" CreationDate="2011-03-06T15:39:35.977" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have an understandable misconception which is clouding the issue for you. The &quot;circular&quot; in &quot;circular polarization&quot; doesn't refer to the way the light is polarized in a different plane as you rotate the filter. It refers to the way the waves of light themselves are aligned. Check out this (public domain) illustration &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;from Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/1HIJ9.gif&quot; alt=&quot;illustration of circular polarization&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Trippy, huh? But really, this part doesn't matter. The problem is that &lt;em&gt;linearly&lt;/em&gt; polarized light might interfere with metering in an SLR camera. That's because the half-mirror used to direct light to an SLRs' metering and autofocus system &lt;em&gt;also&lt;/em&gt; has a polarizing effect. The concern is that certain alignments of incoming linearly-polarized light might get canceled out, affecting the metering and focus. Using circularly-polarized light bypasses this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, really, it's not this wacky radial polarization that's useful. It's the linear effect that's really desired — that's what keeps out light that's aligned inconveniently in your scene. So, why does a circular polarizer work anyway? Another picture (again, public domain &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarizer#Circular_Polarizers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;from Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;) makes this clear:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/okQSb.png&quot; alt=&quot;Construction of a circular polarizer&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see that the &quot;normal&quot; light coming in from the right side is &lt;em&gt;first&lt;/em&gt; restricted to being linearly polarized, and only after transformed into the convenient-for-metering circularly-polarized light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That was long, so here's the summary answer in bold: &lt;strong&gt;In &lt;em&gt;either&lt;/em&gt; a simple linear polarizer or a more expensive and complicated circular one, it's rotating the orientation of this linear polarization that gives the important effect.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your point &amp;amp; shoot camera doesn't use a half-transparent mirror to direct light to a dedicated set of metering and autofocus sensors, so there's no need to do an additional transformation to prevent interference. &lt;strong&gt;So you can just go ahead with the linear polarizer and it will work the same way.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(All of this said, I've seen pretty good anecdotal evidence that linear polarizers don't significantly interfere with metering or focus in most SLRs either. Presumably the polarization effect of the half-mirror isn't as strong as assumed by the circular-is-necessary theory.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-03-06T15:39:35.977" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9505" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9499" CreationDate="2011-03-06T15:57:28.253" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since your question is &quot;What am I supposed to tell?&quot;, I'm going to go a little bit off the literal math with my answer. What you should say is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The more &quot;times-zoom&quot; a lens has, the more compromise on image quality it has to have. Since my camera allows me to change lenses, I can have the flexibility of a huge zoom range without compromising on the results.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, I'd steer the conversation this way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;In fact, some very popular lenses for SLR cameras have no zoom at all, because they can be high quality and let in a lot of light without being expensive and gigantic. On the other hand, some lenses like my 18-135mm have a relatively high zoom ratio, allowing you to choose that convenience when you want it.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At that point, they may just smile and nod and back away. But they may also learn something. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-08T17:33:03.500" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T17:33:03.500" />
  <row Id="9506" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9509" CreationDate="2011-03-06T16:40:42.527" Score="1" ViewCount="166" Body="&lt;p&gt;Trying to decide which DSLR to buy as my first DSLR. I'd shoot macro, nature, landscape mostly but I'd like video occasionally when I travel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm very interested in the Canon EOS 7D but was told by a friend's who uses Pentax K-(9?) that it's inadvisable to use the 7D to shoot video as he had seen the mirror assembly may pop out from being held down in one position when shooting videos. Furthermore, he claimed it wasn't covered by Canon warranty and is expensive to replace. He's suggesting I consider Pentax K series which he claimed is using a different mirror assembly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I'm not very knowledgeable but still am very keen on Canon DSLR for photography (and occasional holiday HD video), I appreciate your suggestions on this, thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4083" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T05:10:11.560" Title="Is Pentax K- series DSLR design safer for photography and video compared to a Canon EOS 7D?" Tags="&lt;canon-7d&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9507" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9502" CreationDate="2011-03-06T16:45:33.863" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't have the lens, but as some comments above say - their sample images are quite telling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Their very best pictures they chose to share as sample images are quite blurry and on a real camera would probably be tossed as unusable.  (As best you can tell from their image sizes).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They show using a tripod and thats going to be needed in the majority of cases.  You'll probably not have a high shutter speed, an iPhone isn't built for steady holding, and you're lacking any real image stabilization.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unless you're taking &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; well lit pictures constantly (in order to get the shutter speed high), skip it and get a pocket-able real P&amp;amp;S camera or live with the existing iPhone limitations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-03-06T16:45:33.863" />
  <row Id="9508" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9506" CreationDate="2011-03-06T16:48:18.337" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've never heard of the mirror assembly popping out due to being held open, and to be honest I think the claim is ridiculous! The mirror assembly Canon use is the same design as their film cameras and is designed to be up for extended periods of time (long before anyone dreamedof shooting video with an SLR), in order to enable long bulb exposures. In the film days people used to have the shutter open all night to shoot star trials.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to this the 7D is very highly regarded amongst videographers! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-03-06T16:48:18.337" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9509" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9506" CreationDate="2011-03-06T17:12:56.090" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Over the last year I have shot several short films with the Canon 7D (and with the 5DmkII)- covering more than 5 hours of footage in total, including a number of interview-style segments where the takes were many minutes in length. I've never had a problem, and the 7D has performed beautifully throughout.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further, if there were this level of flaw in the Canon 7D, you would think that there would be a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; of information about it out on the internet, but there isn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bottom line, from someone who has used the 7D extensively for filmmaking: your friend is just plain wrong (and may not the most reliable source for videography information). :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-03-06T17:12:56.090" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9510" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9497" CreationDate="2011-03-06T17:43:32.677" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's really fairly simple: there's a direct trade-off between color accuracy and apparent noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To sense color, the sensor has a filter in front of each sensel. As it happens, the filter for the red channel cuts out the most light. This means when you're doing the conversion, you have to multiply the red channel by the largest factor&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; to achieve a particular color balance. When you multiply the data, however, you're increasing the apparent noise right along with the intended data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, to minimize apparent noise, the raw converter software wants to use the weakest multiplier on the red channel that it can get away with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It looks to me like Aperture is simply using a somewhat smaller multiplier on the red channel to reduce the appearance of noise. ACR apparently uses a slightly larger multiplier to give more accurate reds. Though it appears unlikely to matter much in this particular picture, it's probably fair to guess that when you have pictures taken in relatively low light that Aperture will do a slightly better job of suppressing noise without losing detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; In case you care about the details, the green channel is normally the &quot;baseline&quot; so we'll treat its factor as 1.0. The blue channel is multiplied by a factor of around 1.3 to 1.4, and the red by a factor of about 2 to 2.3. This varies with the camera though -- Sony, for one example, uses much stronger red filters than Canon, so their cameras reproduce saturated reds more easily, but also do relatively poorly in noise tests.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-03-06T17:43:32.677" />
  <row Id="9511" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9506" CreationDate="2011-03-06T18:08:48.650" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If anything, shooting video (or longer exposures, where the mirror is also held &quot;open&quot; for extended periods of time) probably &lt;em&gt;reduces&lt;/em&gt; stress on the mirror assembly. In normal shooting, the mirror needs to be accelerated fairly quickly to flip up out of the way, then be decelerated just as quickly to come to a complete stop, all in something like 50-70 milliseconds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By contrast, when you shoot video (or, equivalently, use live-view), the mirror flips up once, and then stays put for the duration. No acceleration, no deceleration, minimal movement of any kind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While it may be sincere on your friend's part (i.e., he may be telling you something he heard and believes to be true) I'd say that intentionally or otherwise, you friend is mostly spreading FUD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-03-06T18:08:48.650" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9512" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9467" CreationDate="2011-03-06T20:04:12.927" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Regarding features, an advanced fixed-lens camera (like yours, which is usually called a &lt;em&gt;bridge camera&lt;/em&gt; rather than a &lt;em&gt;point-and-shoot&lt;/em&gt;) &lt;strong&gt;generally covers the basic feature set found in DSLRs except for the ability to change lenses&lt;/strong&gt;. This includes manual exposure, metering options including spot-metering, custom white-balance, continuous drive, bracketing, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some such cameras (but not yours IIRC) also include &lt;strong&gt;connectivity for external lighting&lt;/strong&gt;. This is usually at least a hot-shoe but sometimes a sync-port as well. This lets you use additional lighting options, on and off camera using a remote-trigger or cord. For certain types of photography, this is an indispensable asset.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that &lt;strong&gt;bridge cameras often also have features not found&lt;/strong&gt; (or very rarely found) on DSLRs too. Continuous autofocus in video-recording mode is one example, very few DSLRs can do that. Sweeping panorama is another such feature. There are plenty more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many such features need an electronic shutter rather than a mechanical one. Most bride cameras actually have both but DSLRs almost always use mechanical shutters (except video and very rare exceptions). This lets some non-DSLRs reach a shutter-speed for 1/40000 (yes 4 zeros) which no DSLR can do. Continuous shooting up to 60 FPS is also possible without a mechanical shutter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An important difference comes from the lens. While &lt;strong&gt;a DSLR can do far more with all possible lenses&lt;/strong&gt; (fisheye, tilt-shift, ultra-wide angle, bright aperture), &lt;strong&gt;it can rarely do more with a single lens&lt;/strong&gt;. This has a lot of repercussions including cost, size and weight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-06T20:04:12.927" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9513" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9502" CreationDate="2011-03-06T21:14:33.490" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Part of learning about photography is learning to recognize and exploit the strengths and weaknesses of different cameras. The iPhone camera is very good for a phone, but &lt;strong&gt;telephoto shots are not its strength&lt;/strong&gt;, and never will be. No accessory is going to change that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have three specific recommendations for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use shoe-leather zoom: move closer to your subject.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Learn to love landscape shots. I have &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/ieure/4764846341/lightbox/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;taken several&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/ieure/5080357374/lightbox/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;very nice&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/ieure/4838178633/lightbox/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wide shots&lt;/a&gt; with my iPhones (both 3GS and 4). During the iPhone 4 keynote, lots of the shots they used were wide, such as the Golden Gate Bridge; these are the kinds of shots it is very good at. I don’t know if I’ve &lt;em&gt;ever&lt;/em&gt; shot a really excellent portrait with one. You might also want to look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0321684788&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Best Camera Is The One That’s With You&lt;/a&gt;, a book of iPhone photos, to get a better idea of what your camera is capable of.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you really cannot live without a zoom lens, buy yourself a dedicated camera. Either a nice compact (The Canon PowerShot S90/S95 are amazing; I &lt;em&gt;love&lt;/em&gt; mine) or a superzoom. You’d have to tote around a special case lens with the PhotoJojo setup, so carrying a separate camera wouldn’t be all that much worse. &lt;a href=&quot;http://snapsort.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SnapSort&lt;/a&gt; is a fantastic site for comparing cameras.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1905" LastActivityDate="2011-03-06T21:14:33.490" />
  <row Id="9514" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9525" CreationDate="2011-03-06T22:07:10.970" Score="7" ViewCount="134" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I press the AE Lock (*) button on my Canon XTI it will lock the exposure, but how do I un-lock it? I usually just end up turning the camera off and then back on. After playing with my camera a minute ago I found that if I wait 4 seconds the display inside the viewfinder turns off and when I wake it back up by half pressing the shutter button the AE lock indicator is off. So do I just have to wait? I know 4 seconds is not that long but it could also mean getting or missing the shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1431" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T07:44:15.187" Title="How do I clear an AE lock on my Canon XTI?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;canon-400d&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="9515" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9514" CreationDate="2011-03-06T22:15:40.410" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, you wait for the meter operating time to go off.... or you simply take a picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would be preferable if it turned off with another press, but it does not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not sure, but I believe changing the exposure mode (from A to P for example) also cancels it. You can try that too and it should be quick enough to just turn the mode dial and back when you want to cancel AE-L.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-06T22:15:40.410" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9516" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9502" CreationDate="2011-03-06T23:37:03.713" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's maybe a slightly different viewpoint to the general consensus opinion of 'this is a bad idea':&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Will adding a lens modifier- generally speaking a modifier of significantly lower quality than the lens itself- detract from the quality of a lenses optics? Yes. Absolutely. Your picture will never be as sharp or accurate as if you hadn't added the modifier to the front of the lens. In fact, it will be significantly degraded. Period.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should you buy this item? That depends on what you're looking to accomplish with your photography, and what (in general) you want your pictures to look like. If you like the 'lo-fi' photography look that can be achieved through the use of things like Lensbabys, and Lomo cameras, then you're likely to think the look that comes from one of these modifiers is cool! If, on the other hand, you're hoping for performance that in any way rivals an actual dedicated zoom lens on a 'real' camera, it would be better to avoid such modifiers because the quality of the images you'll be able to make won't even be in the same city as a dedicated lens would, let alone the same ballpark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I think this modifier looks like a heck of a lot of fun for use as a 'goof around' camera attachment, and at ~$35 it's a small enough investment that it seems like a bit of  'no-brainer' to give it a go...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-03-06T23:37:03.713" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9517" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9499" CreationDate="2011-03-07T01:41:54.783" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could just explain that the zoom factor (ie 3.5x, 10x, 20x) is just marketing babble and doesn't really make much sense for comparing different types of lenses, when you have the ability to change lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Explain that for a given camera, the focal length is what makes the difference to how &quot;zoomed in&quot; you are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then go on to explain that you could buy a 7mm lens for this camera, or a 1000mm lens.  If you own both these lenses that's a bit like having a 142x zoom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-31T06:04:55.447" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T06:04:55.447" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9518" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9488" CreationDate="2011-03-07T01:45:42.503" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To put it simply, the polarizing effect of a linear polarizer messes with the phase-detect autofocus systems used on DSLRs which uses polarization itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compact cameras and mirrorless cameras almost always use contrast-detect autofocus, where it doesn't matter how the light hitting it is polarized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-07T04:53:50.607" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T04:53:50.607" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9519" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9506" CreationDate="2011-03-07T05:10:11.560" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sounds like a load of FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) to me.  Your friend may have a chip on his shoulder against Canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe he's heard of this happening to someone; maybe this is an isolated fault with someone's camera.  If it is a fault with the mechanism I do not see any reason it wouldn't be covered under warranty since shooting video is one of the features of that camera.  That seems kinda far-fetched and maybe just a bad experience with some support employee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By all means go ahead and buy a Pentax camera if you want one.  There's some great lenses available for them, and they have decent sensors with in-built image stabilisation so you don't need to pay for it in every lens you buy.  It's your choice.  Maybe you can even share lenses/accessories with your friend.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But yeah, I think this issue is made-up, or at least beat-up - people do shoot video on Canon DSLRs and you should get one of you want one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T05:10:11.560" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9520" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9467" CreationDate="2011-03-07T05:21:39.680" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;There are other cameras than point-and-shoot and SLR.  Others include medium format, rangefinder, large format, mirrorless interchangeable lens, cellphone cameras, and more.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No matter what, the biggest differences between different types of camera, in terms of actual differences in image quality, will come down to two things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Size of the sensor.  The sensor on a DSLR is much larger - between 5x and 36x larger - than on a compact (or &quot;bridge&quot; or &quot;superzoom&quot;) camera.  Even more so between a DSLR and a cellphone.  This will result in greater sharpness, less noise at high ISO and therefore also better low-light performance.  You also get more control over depth of field, and more.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Interchangeable lens.  It means you can buy a better lens if you want, and buy lenses that work better in certain situations.  You're not stuck with one zoom lens, which tries to be do everything and as a result is not as specialised at any one thing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T05:21:39.680" />
  <row Id="9522" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9535" CreationDate="2011-03-07T06:37:19.600" Score="4" ViewCount="140" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi.  I'm looking to replace my older scanner, an Epson 2400 Photo.  I mostly scan in old photos and 5x7 art prints.  The scan resolution on this model (2400x4800) was good when purchased, but is now bested by even the cheapest Epson models (V30/V33).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is...what would be the best scanner for me?  A basic V33?  A higher up V500?  I can't really tell what the benefits of the higher models are besides a slightly better scan resolution, and the ability to scan slides and negatives.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't mind paying more it it'll be meaningful for my needs, but I need help figuring that out. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for any advice you guys might have.  I REALLY appreciate it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4187" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T16:12:29.410" Title="Scanner to replace Epson Perfection 2400 Photo?" Tags="&lt;scanner&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9523" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9528" CreationDate="2011-03-07T07:34:21.027" Score="5" ViewCount="246" Body="&lt;p&gt;In answer to &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4115/problem-with-fluorescent-lighting-and-shutter-speed/4141#4141&quot;&gt;another question&lt;/a&gt;, Adam Davis writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Your camera complicates this by using&#xA;  a rolling shutter above a given speed&#xA;  (usually around 1/200. This means that&#xA;  only a portion of the image sensor is&#xA;  exposed to the scene at any given&#xA;  time, so if the light changes during&#xA;  the exposure, the color change will&#xA;  only affect a portion of the image&#xA;  sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rolling shutters often are also mentioned in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9223/why-do-dslrs-in-movie-mode-have-a-rolling-shutter-instead-of-a-global-shutter&quot;&gt;context of DSLR videography&lt;/a&gt;.  However, I am yet to see a discussion of what a rolling shutter is, how it works and when it is important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is a rolling shutter?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the implications of using one for my photos?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3356" LastEditorUserId="3356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-07T07:49:14.293" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T01:11:19.987" Title="What is a rolling shutter? When do I have to be aware of it?" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;rolling-shutter&gt;&lt;shutter&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9524" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9523" CreationDate="2011-03-07T07:42:53.487" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Adam's terminology is slightly out - you don't get a rolling shutter above 1/200s or so, but one whose where the bottom edge starts to close before the top edge has fully opened, but the effect is the same (a rolling shutter implies the scene is constantly read out from top to bottom).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Effectively what you get at high speeds is a slit that moves up the sensor exposing one part at a time. This has implications for large changes in lighting during the exposure, such as flash, or in the original context florescent lights which vary during the AC cycle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lots of related questions for further reading:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9223/why-do-dslrs-in-movie-mode-have-a-rolling-shutter-instead-of-a-global-shutter&quot;&gt;Why do DSLRs in movie mode have a rolling shutter instead of a global shutter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1615/what-is-sync-speed&quot;&gt;What is sync speed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/836/flash-sync-speed-buying-decision-factor&quot;&gt;Flash sync speed : buying decision factor ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8483/which-cameras-can-sync-at-faster-than-1-250&quot;&gt;Which cameras can sync at faster than 1/250?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T07:42:53.487" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9525" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9514" CreationDate="2011-03-07T07:44:15.187" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the Canon article &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&amp;amp;articleID=2547&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Using Auto Exposure (AE) Lock &lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;h1&gt;Clearing a locked exposure:&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Once you’ve pressed the AE Lock button, the&#xA;  camera holds the meter reading in&#xA;  place. If you change your mind and&#xA;  want to totally eliminate AE Lock,&#xA;  don’t press the AE Lock button again.&#xA;  That simply takes a new meter reading&#xA;  and locks it in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When AE Lock is in use, an asterisk&#xA;  will be visible in the camera's&#xA;  viewfinder. Instead, either pull your&#xA;  finger off the shutter button and wait&#xA;  4 to 6 seconds, and wait for the&#xA;  finder display to go blank. Then,&#xA;  press the shutter button back down&#xA;  again. If you’re in a hurry and don’t&#xA;  want to wait a few seconds for the&#xA;  reading to clear, &lt;strong&gt;press the AF point&#xA;  select button (right next to the AE&#xA;  Lock button, on the back of the&#xA;  camera), and then immediately let it&#xA;  go and press the shutter button&#xA;  again&lt;/strong&gt;. You’re back to live metering&#xA;  that’s not locked in place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3356" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T07:44:15.187" />
  <row Id="9526" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9523" CreationDate="2011-03-07T08:24:40.393" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvZ6VujbhjM&amp;amp;feature=player_embedded&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;movie on youtube&lt;/a&gt; is the best explanation of this I've seen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I discovered it on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diyphotography.net/understanding-flash-sync-shutter-curtains-and-high-speed-sync&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this page on DYI photography site&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2481" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T08:24:40.393" />
  <row Id="9527" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9523" CreationDate="2011-03-07T09:02:33.387" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The shutter is actually two shutters, one that slides up and one that slides down. One is used to start the exposure and the other one is used to end the exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It takes a little bit of time to open a shutter, so if there was only one shutter there would be a difference in exposure time between the top and the bottom of the image. If for example the shutter needs 1/1000 s. to open, that would mean a 20% difference in exposure time between the top and the bottom when exposed at 1/100 s.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The term &lt;em&gt;rolling shutter&lt;/em&gt; is used when the second shutter starts to close before the first shutter has finished opening. In the extreme case this means that there is just a thin opening that rolls across the film/sensor. You could get the same function from a single shutter in the form of a curtain with an opening that rolls across the media, but that construction would give you less flexibility when it comes to exposure times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T09:02:33.387" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="9528" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9523" CreationDate="2011-03-07T10:40:03.253" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What Adam is referring to&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Adam is talking about is not actually a rolling shutter, it's just a focal plane shutter. It also does nothing special above 1/200, except that the effect of the shutter curtain has some interesting properties at higher speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal-plane_shutter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;diagrams on the wikipedia page&lt;/a&gt; (reproduced below) illustrate it best.  Essentially the shutter consists of two curtains which move from top to bottom (or in some film cameras, left to right) in quick succession.  The gap between them is what exposes the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/kUIG7.gif&quot; alt=&quot;Focal plane shutter, low speed&quot;&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Focal-plane shutter, low speed.  Black square is the sensor, red and green squares are the first and second curtains&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/aPaHw.gif&quot; alt=&quot;Focal plane shutter, high speed&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Focal-plane shutter, high speed.  Black square is the sensor, red and green squares are the first and second curtains&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the shutter speed is fast enough, the second one will start closing before the first one has fully finished opening, so the entire frame won't all be exposed at once.  Therefore, you get a situation where anything that happens really fast, like the flash of a camera or the oscillation of a fluorescent light, may cause light not to cover the entire frame but instead create bands or gradients from top to bottom where the light is different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What a rolling shutter effect is&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;rolling shutter effect&lt;/em&gt; as it applies to digital video is quite a different and quite unrelated effect to the one described above.  Actually, a rolling shutter effect does not actually involve a physical shutter, but it's called that as a convention because it is analogous to the way a film cinema camera has a shutter that moves across the frame.  In digital video, the rolling shutter effect is the result of the way a CMOS sensor is read.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;CMOS sensors exhibit a rolling shutter effect when they are in live view or video mode, in which they are being read for every video frame. Instead of capturing the entire frame at once, information is read from each row of the frame one after the other, top to bottom. The whole process takes up to 1/30 of a second on most cameras. This creates a jelly-like wobbling effect in recorded video when the camera is handheld or moves a lot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a given sensor, this rolling shutter happens equally regardless of the shutter speed, though with slower shutter speeds it may be less noticeable in subject movement because of the extra motion blur.  The effect is not usually noticeable when the camera is fixed on a tripod or panned steadily, but is more obvious when the camera is hand-held or during fast camera movements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;CMOS sensors capable of higher frame rates than 30 frames per second (and not just through repeating frames) will exhibit less rolling shutter effect because their sensors will have been designed to be read faster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;CCD does not suffer from the rolling shutter effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-09T01:11:19.987" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T01:11:19.987" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9529" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9497" CreationDate="2011-03-07T11:19:46.683" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Different RAW processing software will come with different default colour profiles for each camera.  Some colour profiles may boost saturation a little, or enhance particular colours like blue.  Some may even apply a curve.  Others may try to be more faithful to the source.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have your own ICC colour profile you can get better control over how the colours should look.  You can create these with various software either based on another profile or by calibrating your camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To my eyes, the top example is oversaturated and looks less realistic.  Something has boosted deep reds quite a lot.  Your personal preference may differ.  To me, the bottom image looks a lot more realistic, but then it is less flattering to the red jumper, showing it as slightly faded.  The bottom picture also reveals a difference in &quot;redness&quot; between the jumper and the red layer just visible underneath - in the top image this difference is lost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can always boost or cut the saturation for certain colours afterwards if you are going for a certain effect.  In this situation I can understand that if you want the red jumper to look newer, cleaner and less pink, you may want to boost the red and adjust its hue a bit so it starts to look more like the top picture (but maybe not as extreme).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-07T11:24:56.223" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T11:24:56.223" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9530" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9534" CreationDate="2011-03-07T12:47:30.877" Score="1" ViewCount="103" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've followed Canon photo products for years and I can't go past &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this great expert resource&lt;/a&gt; on Canon cameras, lenses and few other accessories photographer should know about and read before buying anything new.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used Canon non-digital SLR for years, and never really bothered to buy myself a digital version. But I decided to do so this spring.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thing is that I can buy second hand Nikon DSLR. I know the owner so I know that camera is tip top and not much used. But I'm hesitant on Nikon lenses. Which ones provide good value for the money etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;That's why I'm looking for similar web expert resources but focused on Nikon products.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2110" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T20:51:44.990" Title="Nikon web expert resources" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;web&gt;&lt;review&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9531" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9551" CreationDate="2011-03-07T12:49:02.560" Score="3" ViewCount="195" Body="&lt;p&gt;Please share your experience about:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lighting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Objectives&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Setup&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Colorimetry&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Photo-Editing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastEditorUserId="3356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-21T13:31:48.097" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T13:31:48.097" Title="What are the best practices for taking pictures of a canvas ?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;tips&gt;&lt;artwork&gt;&lt;canvas&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="9532" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9533" CreationDate="2011-03-07T13:13:53.653" Score="3" ViewCount="279" Body="&lt;p&gt;I got this Sigma DC 18-50mm f/2.8 EX MACRO HSM lens few weeks ago, but I noticed considerable sharpness problems with wide apertures. Until f3.5 (or even f4.5) this lens can't really be used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to know whether anybody else experienced the same issue? I've heared that Sigma lenses can be very inconsistent. You may bump into a very good lens or a lesser quality one (being the same lens type).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would also like to know whether Tamron's equivalent 17-50mm f/2.8 lens is any better?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here're examples of the same image taken few seconds apart. You can see the strange halo effect on the 2.8. Top part of both images is 25% original size (and cropped to fit size here), bottom part is 100% crop of strict lens centre.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;50mm f2.8 - 25% and 100% lens centre crop&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/qMV0G.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;50mm f2.8&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;50mm f4.5 - 25% and 100% lens centre crop&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/kuCJb.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;50mm f4.5&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One can of course see the difference in depth of field as well as focus issues I'm having with this lens. I wouldn't mind if it was soft on edges, but both of these images are lens centre crops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this normal or do you think that my particular lens has issues of its own (which are either general for particular Sigma lens model or are just issues with my lens)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2110" LastEditorUserId="2110" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-15T12:49:52.707" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T12:49:52.707" Title="Sigma DC 18-50 1:2.8 EX sharpness problem" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;sigma&gt;&lt;sharpness&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="9533" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9532" CreationDate="2011-03-07T13:29:50.527" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, this is normal. When a manufacturer undercuts price to give you a wider aperture, it is undoubtedly with a loss of quality, mostly at wide apertures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've seen this issue first hand with both Sigma and Tamron lenses that cost significantly less than brand name versions. Usually, I consider such F/2.8 lenses as F/4 lenses :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;You get what you pay for&lt;/em&gt; is true for lens, regardless of brands. Sigma has some superb lenses which they charge for accordingly. There is a premium for brand name but it is relatively small compared to cost of the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T13:29:50.527" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9534" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9530" CreationDate="2011-03-07T13:34:09.260" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Try &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Thom Hogan's site&lt;/a&gt;. He is a professional photographer who uses Nikon gear and writes a lot about them and I do mean &lt;em&gt;a lot&lt;/em&gt;. Unlike &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;another Nikon photographer&lt;/a&gt;, his opinions are usually very well balanced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T13:34:09.260" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9535" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9522" CreationDate="2011-03-07T14:24:37.247" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;How often do you scan at 2400x4800 DPI? My guess is that you don't -- ever, for any practical purpose. The simple fact is that virtually no input contains anywhere close to that fine of detail. Most photographic prints, for example, are only good for around 300 DPI &lt;em&gt;at most&lt;/em&gt; (and 150-200 is more realistic in most cases).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unless you're really using the highest resolution of which your current scanner is capable, you're unlikely to gain much (if anything) by buying a newer scanner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose, however, I should add that I'm on only my second scanner &lt;em&gt;ever&lt;/em&gt;. When I did replace my old one, it wasn't for higher resolution -- it was simply because the company that made it no longer provides drivers. While the scanner was/is perfectly good, it wasn't  good enough to convince me to run Windows 2000 or MacOS 9 for the rest of my life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T14:24:37.247" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="9536" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9530" CreationDate="2011-03-07T15:06:05.510" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Neither of these is &lt;em&gt;just&lt;/em&gt; Nikon (although DTown TV used to be), but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dpreview.com&lt;/a&gt; has a lot of good Nikon reviews and an active forum, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://kelbytv.com/dtowntv/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DTown TV&lt;/a&gt; is a nice place to pick up tips on gear and technique in a podcasts format. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3472" LastEditorUserId="2110" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-07T20:51:44.990" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T20:51:44.990" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9537" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9522" CreationDate="2011-03-07T15:44:51.973" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been using an Epson Perfection 2450 since they first hit the market - still works great -actually even better than new since I replaced the Epson Software with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hamrick.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Vuescan&lt;/a&gt; (which I do highly recommend especially for scanning old glass 5x7 negatives)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unless you are &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a) looking to expand your scans to add &lt;em&gt;&quot;the ability to scan slides and negatives&quot;&lt;/em&gt; &#xA;or&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;b) seeing the beginnings of the eventual lamp/stepping motor failure ( both the lamp and the stepping motor eventually will fail)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;c) the surface glass of your scanner is scratched enough that it impairs the image quality (100s of little micro scratches can soften the scan) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;d) looking for the features that newer software will provide (ICE or FARE - again look at Vuescan)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;then Jerry Coffin is correct (and as he points out its unlikely you are scanning at 2400x4800) - keep using what you've got that works for you as long as it DOES still work for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said I'd take a long look at the Epson Perfection V300 if you want an upgrade - the price is right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3675" LastEditorUserId="3675" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-07T16:12:29.410" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T16:12:29.410" />
  <row Id="9538" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9522" CreationDate="2011-03-07T15:56:19.587" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You need more than ~300 dpi for scanning photographic negatives or slides, especially in the common 24x36mm &quot;135&quot; format - for that you need as much resolution as you can get and then some. Or for scanning printed material where you want to avoid moiré interference between the scan pattern and the print raster, but your current 2400 dpi is massive overkill for this purpose. For scanning photographic prints 300 is quite enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T15:56:19.587" />
  <row Id="9539" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9497" CreationDate="2011-03-07T17:30:01.427" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As others have said, it's hard to have a &quot;correct&quot; colour representation of RAW data. However, it is clear here that there is a pinkish hue being applied. I think I've seen similar issues in Aperture 3 occasionally. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would suggest ensuring that your system is fully up to date using the System Update tool on the Apple menu, as sometimes Apple update their RAW converters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're already up to date, you can try manually adjusting the hue using the colour tool. If this is a common problem and this solution works, you could try saving this as a preset and adjust the configuration of the import tool to automatically apply this preset for all images on import.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It might also be worth raising a support ticket with Apple. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2127" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T17:30:01.427" />
  <row Id="9540" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9492" CreationDate="2011-03-07T17:41:25.720" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As the other answer states this is probably related to in-camera sharpening. On a 550D this can be changed by choosing or customising the picture styles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a detailed explanation check the manual. The basic explanation is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Choose the picture styles option (press the Down button, underneath &quot;Set&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Select a softer style (e.g. Portrait)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If this is still too sharp, you can press the &quot;Disp&quot; button while in the picture styles page to display the exact settings used. This allows you to adjust sharpness by hitting &quot;Set&quot; then using the left and right buttons to adjust the values. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2127" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T17:41:25.720" />
  <row Id="9541" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9562" CreationDate="2011-03-07T19:42:08.190" Score="7" ViewCount="317" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/12/best-way-to-clean-the-sensor-on-a-digital-slr&quot;&gt;Best way to clean the sensor on a digital SLR?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone offer me advice on how to clean my camera's sensor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Should I do this myself, or take the camera to a professional?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is it precarious, or easy with the right amount of care?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a Nikon D3000 that has a small dot off-center of the sensor. I believe it is dirt, and I would like to remove it. I'm tempted to use a cotton-bud, but I'm afraid that I might damage the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The dot appeared after a trip to a tropical area where the camera became wet. I took the lens off and a lot of moisture, and possibly some dirt, went into the camera. The lens became fogged-up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I returned from my trip I ran a hair dryer for (air only, without heat) 10 minutes through the battery compartment, believing this would circulate around and dry the camera. Consequently, I noticed many speckled dots around the sensor. I also believe there's a subtle but persistent haze when I look through the lens, but I could be wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's worth noting that the photos are fine, with no evidence of distortion or blurring. The camera is now dry and it's been months since this happened. But the dot on the sensor has been there since, like an itch I can't rub.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3910" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-08T12:37:31.793" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T14:32:22.633" Title="Should I clean my camera sensor myself, or take it to a professional?" Tags="&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;cleaning&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9542" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9545" CreationDate="2011-03-07T20:03:12.890" Score="2" ViewCount="102" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm currently in Rio de Janeiro for carnival where I will be attending carnival at the Sanbodromo. I have a Nikon D3000 with a 55-300 lens. I'll be around 50 to 100 meters away, overlooking the procession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm an amateur photographer, but I would be remiss to waste such a wonderful chance by setting my camera to auto. Can anyone offer me any tips on the type of settings I should be using to produce colourful, vibrant, and bright photos?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The procession is fully flood-lit, and the performers form a cacophony of bright, vibrant colours. On some occasions there will be fast movement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3910" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T20:41:22.317" Title="Tips for shooting a flood-lit, vibrant carnival procession" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;technique&gt;&lt;night-shooting&gt;&lt;shooting-technique&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="9543" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9532" CreationDate="2011-03-07T20:29:59.963" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I would also like to know whether Tamron's equivalent 17-50mm f/2.8 lens is any better?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We may compare their resolution tests made by the same people (photozone.de):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/289-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-canon-test-report--review?start=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical&lt;/a&gt; on Canon APS-C&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/315-sigma-af-18-50mm-f28-dc-ex-macro-review--lab-test-report?start=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma AF 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro&lt;/a&gt; on Nikon APS-C&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a comparable brand lens &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/pentax/405-pentax_1650_28?start=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pentax SMC DA* 16-50 f/2.8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a comparable brand lens &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/425-canon_1755_28is_50d?start=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a comparable brand lens &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/231-nikkor-af-s-17-55mm-f28-g-if-ed-dx-review--test-report?start=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikkor AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 ED G&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Resolution wide open (f/2.8) at short end, in line width per picture height:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;        Tamron @17mm   Sigma @18mm   Pentax @16mm   Canon @17mm   Nikkor @17mm&#xA;center  1923           2075          2085.5         2476          2114&#xA;border  1842           1882.5        1403.5         2169          1759.5&#xA;corner  1690.5         1254          1326.5         2055          1565&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and wide open (f/2.8) at long end (50 mm or 55 mm), in line width per picture height:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;        Tamron         Sigma         Pentax         Canon @55mm   Nikkor @55mm&#xA;center  1883.5         1804          1958.5         2261          1952   &#xA;border  1732           1709          1158.5         1983          1560.5&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So Sigma is not the sharpest of them, but it is comparable to the rest of the competition, and should be as usable as most of the other similar lens. Tamron, in particular, seems to be sharper at wide angle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S. As noted by @mattdm, the numbers cannot be compared between systems directly, because the size of the image is different. I think, that to compare them between each other, we need to multiply numbers on Canon APS-C system by 1.068, and on Pentax APS-C by  1.006, because sensor height on Canon is smaller.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adjusted resolution numbers for short end wide open, as if all the cameras had the same sensor size as Nikon APS-C:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;        Tamron @17mm   Sigma @18mm   Pentax @16mm   Canon @17mm   Nikkor @17mm&#xA;center  2053           2075          2099           2643          2114&#xA;border  1966           1882.5        1412           2315          1759.5&#xA;corner  1805           1254          1335           2194          1565&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastEditorUserId="1558" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-08T10:52:02.583" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T10:52:02.583" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="9544" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9530" CreationDate="2011-03-07T20:36:48.107" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://nikongear.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NikonGear.com&lt;/a&gt; has reviews and an active forum&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NikonCafe&lt;/a&gt; has very active forums and you can find reviews and comments on just about anything Nikon-related.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have to take some of his advice with a grain of salt, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ken Rockwell&lt;/a&gt; has a ton of information on Nikon equipment, sample shots, comparisons, history of various lenses, good explanation of all the Nikon terminology (AF-D, AF-S, AI-S, VR, IF, ED etc etc)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4191" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T20:36:48.107" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9545" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9542" CreationDate="2011-03-07T20:41:22.317" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lot of &quot;how to shoot it&quot; will be subjective based on the results you want, but if it were me I would consider the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You'll be shooting at night, but if it's flood-lit you might be able to use relatively short shutter speeds...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;...on the other hand, you might not want to.  Capturing some motion blur, especially with the vibrant colors, could be a great effect.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Camera stabilization is recommended.  A tripod would be best, but if that's not possible you should see if you can use something like a &lt;a href=&quot;http://joby.com/gorillapod&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gorillapod&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pay attention to the highlights in your photo.  With lots of lights and potential long exposures, the opportunity to blow out the highlights to white will be present.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/450/how-and-why-do-you-use-an-image-histogram&quot;&gt;Use the histogram&lt;/a&gt; to check your exposure.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T20:41:22.317" />
  <row Id="9546" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9541" CreationDate="2011-03-07T20:44:33.057" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The D3000 has a sensor cleaning function.  If that isn't working, you can use mirror lock-up, take off your lens, hold the camera pointing down and use a rocket blower to blow some air.  Nine times out of ten that will dislodge a speck of dust in my experience.  If not, read up on sensor cleaning in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/cleaning.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Thom Hogan's&lt;/a&gt; site&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4191" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T20:44:33.057" />
  <row Id="9547" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9532" CreationDate="2011-03-07T20:45:27.303" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As others have said, all lenses are less sharp wide open.  What do you mean &quot;can't really be used&quot;? Post some samples.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have this lens and find it quite good all around.  Many of my pictures from &lt;a href=&quot;https://picasaweb.google.com/johnnyz86/ChineseHotPot#&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this album&lt;/a&gt; are wide open.  Be warned, many are a bit out of focus from what would be ideal.  EXIF is on the right.  I also took all pictures from my one-lens challenge with this lens.  The shots can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/eruditass/sets/72157625739174569/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, though I believe most of those are not wide open.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, you might find &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pixel-peeper.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pixel-Peeper.com&lt;/a&gt; useful in comparing lenses (both ones you own and ones you don't own).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-08T06:17:03.660" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T06:17:03.660" />
  <row Id="9548" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9497" CreationDate="2011-03-07T20:45:40.393" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This has to do with Picture Styles, or whatever the equivalent is for your particular camera. When you first import images into Aperture, it will initially display as a preview a JPEG image which is actually embedded within the RAW file by the camera (which is always there, even when setting your camera to record only RAW files, rather than RAW+JPEG -- it's just a small preview JPEG, embedded within the one file). This embedded JPEG is produced by the camera at the time of initial capture, and has the Picture Style (or equivalent; from now on I'll just call this Picture Style, substitute as appropriate) applied to it. Then, as it has time, Aperture will replace its preview with one that it generates by processing the RAW file. As has been said by others, different RAW processing software will process the same file differently -- and this applies equally well to comparing Aperture against the built-in processor on the camera as it does to comparing Aperture to Adobe Camera Raw.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you change your Picture Style to one that reduces contrast and saturation, you'll find that Aperture makes it &lt;em&gt;more&lt;/em&gt; saturated than the initial preview. And if you set it to Monochrome, Aperture will make it be in color again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question that I have, that I have yet to dig into to find the answer to (though perhaps I will, now that this question has been asked), is whether Aperture has available to it the information of what the Picture Style settings are, so that it could apply those settings to your image, thus mimicking the camera's processing. If I remember correctly, Canon's utility does this, so I presume it is in fact possible; whether it's easy or not I don't know. What is empirically clear, though, is that this currently is not done. I wish it was - or at least that there was an option for that. Perhaps in some future version there will be. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At any rate, I think you will find that this is what's going on -- that Aperture is processing a file in a particular way, regardless of the Picture Style, but it displays the camera-generated JPEG preview as its initial preview. If you shoot the same scene with 5 different Picture Styles applied, you'll initially see five different looks, and then, as Aperture gets a chance to actually render its own previews, they will all end up looking the same. This is because Aperture ignores this JPEG preview once it has generated its own. The generated-in-camera JPEG is &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; used to allow for quick access to -some- visual preview of your scene (it's a &lt;em&gt;much&lt;/em&gt; less processor-intensive task to render that JPEG on the screen than to render a new preview from the RAW file).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So now it sounds like you'll want to find some settings that match what your Picture Style is, and save those as a preset. Or change your Picture Style to match Aperture better. ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a side-note, it's worth noting that the histogram that your camera shows you is generated from the JPEG preview, so changing your Picture Style will also give you different in-camera histograms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T20:45:40.393" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9549" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9550" CreationDate="2011-03-07T21:24:29.147" Score="5" ViewCount="472" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This is my &lt;em&gt;question&lt;/em&gt; in one huge breath:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What would be the correct size of an elliptic bokeh filter be to create a fake anamorphic distorted bokeh effect with a regular Canon 50mm f/1.8 II lens with a Canon EOS 550D (crop sensor of 1.6x, AF-S)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Say what, elliptic bokeh, fake anamorphic?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check &lt;a href=&quot;http://vimeo.com/16163158&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this video&lt;/a&gt; to see an example of the fake bokeh. Notice the bokeh appears to be stretched vertically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How can you make one?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check &lt;a href=&quot;http://vimeo.com/19646034&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this video&lt;/a&gt; for an example. The actual filter is shown at 0:36.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The basis is to draw an elliptic &lt;em&gt;&quot;slit&quot;&lt;/em&gt; on the filter. I'd take it a step further in cutting some vinyl and taping it to the filter, to get a clean edge and no leaking light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why do I need you in this process?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have no clue on what the &lt;em&gt;best&lt;/em&gt; dimensions of this ellipse would be. Trial and error could work, but to what extent? It's optics, can't this be calculated?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;You expect me to solve that just for you there?!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That would, of course, be great! Yet, I'm just as grateful for any and all pointers in the correct directions!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4192" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-07T21:31:46.773" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T04:25:07.427" Title="Anamorphic lens effect (stretched bokeh) -&gt; elliptic bokeh &quot;filter&quot;, but of what dimensions?" Tags="&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;bokeh&gt;&lt;distortion&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9550" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9549" CreationDate="2011-03-07T21:40:07.293" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Well &quot;best&quot; is an extremely&#xA;subjective term and will largely be&#xA;determined by individual taste.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In general, what you're describing sounds alot like a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bokehmasterskit.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bokeh Master&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Your cutout must be at least smaller than the &lt;em&gt;real aperture&lt;/em&gt; you'll be &lt;em&gt;shooting&lt;/em&gt; at (&lt;strong&gt;shooting at&lt;/strong&gt;, not the maximum for your lens).  This is because you need it to become effectively the new aperture shape. If you're shooting at 50mm f/2 - then it must be at least smaller than 25mm across.  If you have a 50mm f/1.8 and are shooting wide open, all the time - then its 50/1.8.  If you have a 50mm f/1.8 lens and are shooting around f/2.8, then its 50/2.8.  In order to keep as much light, you want it as large as possible without going over (focal length / f-stop).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-07T21:59:30.920" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T21:59:30.920" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="9551" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9531" CreationDate="2011-03-07T21:47:56.657" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a good book which indeed does talk about photographing a canvas. It is the first book I would recommend someone who wants to learn about lighting. It is called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.focalpress.com/books/photography/light_science_and_magic_4e_fourth_edition.aspx?cat=98&amp;amp;sub=114&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Light: Science and Magic&lt;/a&gt;. (At this point: Anyone wants to have the previous edition of it? I think I'll get the new one. ;) )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thing about the canvas is (I guess you have noticed so far already) that you've got tons of direct reflections, destroying all colour on the image. That's how this can look (I used spray paint in this example):&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/JpTkN.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Polarizers parallel&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now what you can do is put the light source to your right/left/whatever (just not directly behind you), so that the directly reflected light (angle of incidence) does not hit your camera's lens but the wall next to you. This only works though when the paint is flat, oil for example might fail. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The trick I used below (and which is also described in Fuqua’s book) is a polarizer. In fact, two polarizers. One on the camera and one on the flash (which is a SB-900 — &lt;em&gt;on camera&lt;/em&gt;). The polarizer on the flash must either be a linear polarizer (you can buy linear polarizer film) or a circular polarizer mounted the same way as if you would put it on the lens (front face facing the canvas). Then turn the polarizer on the lens until it is perpendicular to the one on the flash. How do you do that? Find a mirror, trigger the flash, and turn the polarizer, until you hardly see the flash anymore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, without touching the polarizer (take care with lenses that rotate when focussing) (btw, is «rotate» the right word here?), take a pic of your canvas. This is the result in my example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/LQpgK.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Polarizers vertical&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The physics behind is really hard (if someone understands it, please tell), yet basically what happens is that the linearly polarized light from the flash does not change its polarization when reflected directly (and not changing its colour), but &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; change the polarization (randomly) when passing the paint layer, getting colourized, and leaving the paint again, passing the polarizer on the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ah, and regarding colour. The above images are directly out-of-cam. DO use a grey card. Some polarizers tend to introduce a colour cast. My images taken at 5500 K (Camera setting) and flash are white. With polarizers, they are blue. You will notice that in the mirror, when searching for the correct angle, at the correct point the flash will look dark deep blue, as here (I love autofocus):&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Qkk5H.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Crossed polarizers&quot;&gt;&#xA;If not, then you are lucky and use very high-quality filters. In this case, please send me some :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the rest — Try to use a tripod, makes life a lot easier. Close the aperture to where it is sharpest (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lenstip.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lenstip.com&lt;/a&gt; e.g.). If you shoot at full flash power, use a remote control since the flash duration rises upto 1/200 s and more. Use a longer focal length to keep distortion to a minimum.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the way, you will notice the two tiny dots on the right of the image. These are magnets. I drilled holes above my door, put magnets in there, put some tape over the hole, and attach the paper with other magnets. Not the very best way since you see the magnets, but very convenient, and freaky :P &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have fun&#xA;Simon&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4149" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-07T22:13:49.070" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T22:13:49.070" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9552" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9532" CreationDate="2011-03-07T23:25:30.437" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Modern lenses from third parties are generally pretty good these days, if you are unhappy with sharpness check around for samples from other people and then go to the manufacturer (or exchange it for another wherever you bought it from).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If other test images look sharper, you should contact Sigma support and send it in, it's a good idea to send in test images with it.  It could be the case it's off-center, or that it's back/front focusing - try shooting a focus chart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T23:25:30.437" />
  <row Id="9553" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1663" CreationDate="2011-03-07T23:46:47.137" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My most used landscape lens is the Nikon 12-24mm f/4 (DX).  I don't think 18mm is wide enough for many landscape shots with a cropped sensor body.  You have the rest of the range covered already, and for landscapes you generally can use a tripod.  I don't see the point getting a 18-200 when you already have 18-70mm and 70-300mm.  The 18-200mm is a great walkaround lens but your 18-70mm covers most of the useful range for landscapes IMO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 12-24mm Nikon (or the 10-20mm Sigma) would give you something you don't already have, and a range that's very useful for landscapes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4191" LastActivityDate="2011-03-07T23:46:47.137" />
  <row Id="9557" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9577" CreationDate="2011-03-08T06:23:08.520" Score="1" ViewCount="122" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm unsure if I should buy a CF-SD adapter for my camera (replacing one that just died) or a CF-PCI adapter for my laptop and a new CF card.  Can anyone share any experiences or recommendations that might push me one way or the other?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I got my 30D a year ago, instead of buying a large CF card I bought a CF-SD adapter (allowing me to use SD cards in my 30D) so I could use one of my many SD cards with my camera.  Today (thankfully it was immediately &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; a photo trip rather than immediately &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; it) the adapter stopped working: the SD card I normally use, as well as another one, leave the card-access light on and ignore shutter presses for quite a while (in the 30-60 seconds range) and sometimes give an error on shutter press or Format Card (I think I've seen both 'CF Err' and 'Err 99', but I didn't write down the actual errors), while my backup 512MB CF card works just fine and my laptop has no problems reading the SD cards.  I can only conclude that my CF-SD adapter has died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had bought the CF-SD adapter because I have many SD cards, and they're generally cheaper than CF cards (at least, I believed that to be true one year ago), and because I have an SD reader in my laptop (so SD cards are much more convenient to read).  Now that the adapter has died (and I got almost a full year's use out of it, for under $20, so I'm certainly happy with it), I'm wondering again if I should get another CF-SD adapter or a large, fast CF card and a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Delkin-Devices-DDEXP54-CF-2-ExpressCard-CompactFlash/dp/B001R4BT8A&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CF-PCI adapter&lt;/a&gt; that I can put in my laptop's PCI Express slot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The CF-SD adapter is a little cheaper and I have plenty of SD cards around and would need to buy at least one CF card, so the CF-SD adapter wins on price; but when I did my original testing in-camera I found that the CF-SD adapter was &lt;em&gt;considerably&lt;/em&gt; slower than the CF card (if only an issue in burst mode when taking 10+ pictures), so the CF-PCI adapter wins on speed.  And I have experience with the CF-SD adapter but not with the CF-PCI adapter, so there's the &quot;known quantity&quot; factor there.  And obviously this decision will have some impact on the &quot;Should I buy a 7D or 60D?&quot; question that I will have to answer at some point in the future.  In case it matters, I run Linux, but the reviews I've read of CF-PCI adapters seem to indicate that won't matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T08:25:33.160" Title="CF adapter: SD vs. PCI" Tags="&lt;adapter&gt;&lt;sdhc&gt;&lt;compactflash&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="9558" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9557" CreationDate="2011-03-08T06:28:53.437" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your entire existing infrastructure is geared towards SD cards, so why change?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;CF cards are generally more robust, which may or may not be a factor for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I find a 1 year life for that adapter extremely short, for me it would be enough reason to not get another one (but maybe there are other makes and models out there that are higher quality).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T06:28:53.437" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9559" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6842" CreationDate="2011-03-08T06:30:03.530" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You don't need to take permission to use the Creative Commons image. The fact that the author has put it under Creative Commons is enough to take the image and use it. However you may need to ask the author what kind of credit does he require you to display for the image. This hasn't been properly documented.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4197" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T06:30:03.530" />
  <row Id="9560" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9497" CreationDate="2011-03-08T06:30:33.110" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The ACR output looks oversaturated to me.&#xA;The Aperture output looks like it has a slight colour cast (or maybe is somewhat undersaturated).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reality (whatever that is) is probably somewhere in the middle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T06:30:33.110" />
  <row Id="9561" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1663" CreationDate="2011-03-08T06:57:37.943" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;if you think the 70-300 is not good enough for your purposes (and I'd agree) you'll be disappointed with the 18-200 as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Getting dust into the camera when changing lenses isn't a problem if you take a little care.&#xA;Shield the camera from wind for example, or in extreme environments change lenses in a bag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want wider than your 18-70 can provide, look at the 12-24. If you feel the 70-300 isn't good enough, look at a 70-200 f/2.8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both are going to cost you though, quality has a price attached to it. Sigma EX lenses offer quality alternatives at a more friendly price (yes, some people will tell you to never buy anything but Nikon, but I disagree with them, Sigma gives better value for money unless you really need that 2-3% higher image quality that's theoretically possible with a top of the line Nikkor that costs 50-100% more).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T06:57:37.943" />
  <row Id="9562" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9541" CreationDate="2011-03-08T07:01:36.127" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Take your camera to an authorized repair center and have it thoroughly cleaned.&#xA;Sounds to me you've more than a small mote of dust in there, given where you've been and what happened I'd be worried about mold too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-08T14:15:19.117" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T14:15:19.117" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9563" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1663" CreationDate="2011-03-08T07:14:51.987" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would suggest the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 wide angle lens. It takes super wide angle shots, which is great for many landscape settings. It has a large depth of field so you get everything in focus. It takes super sharp photos even wide open.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was my first DX lens purchase besides the kit lens with my D7000 and it produced some wonderful landscape shots. Most of the shots I took for this photo book were taken with the Tokina lens: www.seaislandatnight.com&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4199" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T07:14:51.987" />
  <row Id="9564" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9472" CreationDate="2011-03-08T07:22:03.463" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Make sure you are using Continuous Servo AF, which is displayed as AF-C. That means it is continually focusing on a moving subject, instead of focusing once then waiting for you to take the photo. With AF-C, the D7000 will determine what the subject is, focus on it, and keep it in focus as it moves. This is especially important in sports photography where your subject is moving around alot. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4199" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T07:22:03.463" />
  <row Id="9565" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9081" CreationDate="2011-03-08T07:33:54.980" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;UPDATE&lt;/strong&gt;: After searching for similar answers I found a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6926/identifying-post-processing-technique&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt; on how to do cross-processing. This led to an answer with a link to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/rowenar/4929839059/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;instructions on how to do it in GIMP&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aviary has a set of free image/photo editing software available as a web app. However, if you really want to do cross processing, you should invest in software that will allow you to edit the color channel curves, such as Lightroom, Aperture, or Photoshop CS5. And there are many preset/filters/actions freely available for these programs that cross-process photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can try downloading free cross processing actions for Photoshop. Some may not work with Photoshop Elements 9, but I bet you can find some that will. Try looking here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://graphic-identity.blogspot.com/2010/03/20-lomo-cross-processing-photoshop.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://graphic-identity.blogspot.com/2010/03/20-lomo-cross-processing-photoshop.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4199" LastEditorUserId="4199" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-08T07:40:01.590" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T07:40:01.590" />
  <row Id="9567" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10893" CreationDate="2011-03-08T09:47:43.883" Score="13" ViewCount="257" Body="&lt;p&gt;I took thousands of photos for a book I want to publish. I am a graphic designer, so creating the layout of the book, pages, covers, etc is not a problem. I know how to process my images for print. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I don't know is how to get a book printed and bound with a dust cover for a reasonable price. Is it possible to self-publish a photography book? I define possible as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;get a print run of 1,000 to 5,000 books at first (maybe more later if demand is there)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;keep the cost of printing a book to less than $25 (half of the retail price of $49.99)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4199" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T20:09:24.750" Title="How can I self-publish a photography book?" Tags="&lt;printing&gt;&lt;books&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="9568" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9472" CreationDate="2011-03-08T10:02:07.030" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your lens is really good..its&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1.) Fast f/2.8 speed for low light, soft backgrounds and action-stopping shutter speeds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2.) Built tough: all metal except for rubber gaskets and bumpers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3.) Built to last: many markings are engraved to outlast all of us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4.) Fast, quiet AF with a silent wave motor. You won't scare sensitive subjects as other AF lenses might.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5.) Instant manual-focus override: just grab the focus ring at any time&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;6.) Vibration reduction so you can leave the tripod at home. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and longer focal length lenses make better portrait lenses because subjects appear thinner. For instance, many model shoots are done with 200-300 mm focal length (obviously high quality lenses though). Wide angle equals fat. The only drawback is the distance required for long focal lengths makes it difficult to use them in all instances. The 70-200 f/2.8 is very sharp and makes an excellent portrait lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3868" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T10:02:07.030" />
  <row Id="9569" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9567" CreationDate="2011-03-08T10:28:09.197" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;you can start at www.blurb.com where you can test your layout, and maybe a tryout for friends and family  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4179" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T10:28:09.197" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9570" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9567" CreationDate="2011-03-08T10:40:01.487" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have used &lt;a href=&quot;http://blurb.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://blurb.com/&lt;/a&gt; for several books and they are very good. I find that more sharpening is required than would be used for an ink jet print.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4204" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T10:40:01.487" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9571" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9567" CreationDate="2011-03-08T11:18:45.497" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lulu.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://lulu.com&lt;/a&gt; are popular for this sort of thing as they also handle selling and distribution of your books (though you have to pay for the print run upfront).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T11:18:45.497" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9572" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9532" CreationDate="2011-03-08T11:53:21.070" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I would like to know whether anybody else experienced the same issue?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer this question see the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/518483-REG/Sigma_582_306_18_50mm_f_2_8_EX_DC.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;customer reviews on B&amp;amp;H Photo Video&lt;/a&gt; for this lens with a Nikon mount.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are 69 reviews and the average customer rating is 4.5 stars out of 5 stars.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of the 69 reviews 3/69 noted that the lens was soft at maximum aperture at the edge. 1/69  complained that the lens was very soft and returned it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The comments make it clear that this is a highly regarded lens. The main issue reported is focus problems - 8/69  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I would also like to know whether Tamron's equivalent 17-50mm f/2.8 lens is any better?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer this question see the photozone tests conducted on these lenses, &lt;strong&gt;both on the same camera&lt;/strong&gt;, a Nikon D200 (so the results are comparable).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/315-sigma-af-18-50mm-f28-dc-ex-macro-review--lab-test-report?start=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 18-50&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/290-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-nikon-test-report--review?start=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamrom 17-50&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The results are reproduced below (all measurements in LW/PH ) &#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/xdWaV.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;From this it can be seen that at 17(18)mm and F2.8 the Sigma lens is much softer in the corners, but comparable elsewhere. At 17mm(18) and F4.0 the Sigma lens is also somewhat softer in the corners but is comparable elsewhere. In all other respects the lenses are comparable.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary then, customer comments indicate the Sigma lens is a highly regarded lens that has some focus problems. Measurements show that the lens is rather soft in the corners of the image at maximum aperture and short focal length. At other apertures and focal lengths it performs well and is very similar to the Tamron lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just to clarify things, the image below shows what photozone mean by their terms centre, border and extreme: (blue=extreme, green=border, pink=centre)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/SsHoP.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/lens-test-faq&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Image on photozone.com web site&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-08T20:48:20.207" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T20:48:20.207" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9573" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9567" CreationDate="2011-03-08T14:30:23.683" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several methods for publishing such a book, which I'll mention below. Note that there is an &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-publishing&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;excellent Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt; that explains more. I should add, be very cautious with these services. You can make a real profit, but they can also just be a drain on resources, and keep you out of traditional publishing. You might try contacting some of them, with a print out of your proposed book that comes from a local print shop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Print on Demand services&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The general idea of these companies is that you submit the book to them, with their layout, and they will print a copy of the book to anyone who orders it. You can set your selling point, and they will split the profits with you (I forget the ratio, but...) Some of the services that fall under this category are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lulu.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lulu.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blurb.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.blurb.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;Vanity Press&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems like what you directly wanted from your question. These companies operate more like a traditional publisher, but they will require you to pay for their services and for an upfront number of copies to be printed. I haven't looked extensively at this category, but here's a few sites that seem to fit this mold. Take a look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_press&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt; for some more help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chooseyourpublisher.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.chooseyourpublisher.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.selfpublishing.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.selfpublishing.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T14:30:23.683" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9574" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9541" CreationDate="2011-03-08T14:32:22.633" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since it's your first time with sensor dust, have it cleaned professionally to start.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then I consider it an issue of frequency:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you get dust only occasionally (every couple of months), go back to the pros. The job will be well done and the cost to you will be low.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you see dust more often or you happen to travel for extended periods away from a service center you trust, learn to clean it yourself. It is not difficult but is rather delicate, I've made it more dirty many times!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For self cleaning, there are a bunch of methods. I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.visibledust.com/products.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Visible Dust swabs and liquid&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T14:32:22.633" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9575" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6842" CreationDate="2011-03-08T14:34:24.127" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my opinion, the HTML snippet provided by Flickr itself is a good example of how to attribute CC BY photos online. Look:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;&amp;lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/username/...&quot;&#xA;   title=&quot;Work title by username, on Flickr&quot;&amp;gt;&#xA;   &amp;lt;img src=&quot;http://farm6.static.flickr.com/.../....jpg&quot;&#xA;        width=&quot;282&quot; height=&quot;500&quot; alt=&quot;Work title&quot; /&amp;gt;&#xA;&amp;lt;/a&amp;gt;&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It contains:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;a link to the original page&lt;/strong&gt; with the title, description, meta information and conditions of use&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;original work title visible on mouse-over&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;screen name* of the author visible on mouse over&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*screen name is not necessarily unique or real name&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose that linking to the original is important. And it is the preferred way to make references online. It allows the author to be &lt;em&gt;uniquely identified&lt;/em&gt; and easily found, it promotes the author and his other, often related, works, it allows the viewer to contact the author directly and search engines to see that the works of this author are used by someone else. It also allows the viewer to get additional information about the photo: read its description, meta information, e.g. see EXIF and geo tags, see the detailed conditions of use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Author's screen name in visible print next to the photo is &lt;em&gt;optional&lt;/em&gt;. Removing the link and leaving only the name next to the photo conforms to the letter of the CC BY licenses, but it is not in its spirit, and it is not good online: screen names are often not unique, and almost nobody will google for that screen name, check all would-be-similar Flickr accounts, browse through their entire archives just to look at other photos from the same series, for example. So just link to the page where you've taken the photo from, and it's enough for hypertext media.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastEditorUserId="1558" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-08T14:42:54.620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T14:42:54.620" />
  <row Id="9576" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9567" CreationDate="2011-03-08T14:34:45.487" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://pikto.com/books/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pikto&lt;/a&gt;. The have very high quality products and a variety of sizes and binding styles. All the samples I've seen where quite impressive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Current pricing is based on the size of the book and number of pages. They charge from $25 for a 40-page 6x8&quot; book to over $150 (Up to 12x18&quot;). There is a volume discount of 20% for 10 copies or more. You can probably get a bigger discount as your volume is much higher.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-08T17:27:35.347" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T17:27:35.347" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9577" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9557" CreationDate="2011-03-08T14:44:05.503" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found myself in the same boat about a year ago, and I considered picking up an SD-to-CF adapter to use SD cards in my camera.  All the research I did, however, showed really spotty results for these adapters, so I bagged that idea and bought a couple CF cards and a USB card reader for the CF cards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ultimate driver for me was reliability.  At the end of the day, the last thing I need is drama from my memory card while I'm trying to shoot a picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T14:44:05.503" />
  <row Id="9578" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6842" CreationDate="2011-03-08T15:45:38.173" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think we need to distinguish between 1) what is legally required, 2) what is good practice and 3) what is courteous.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Legal requirements&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The other answers have spelled out the legal requirements, which are simple. Creative Commons licences are, by design, meant to make the sharing of creative content easy and hassle free and not to need the intervention of a lawyer.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Good practice&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The print industry have long ago developed the simple practice of putting a line below/above or alongside an image that looks something like this (Credit Joe Soap, AFP, CC-BY), i.e. Author, Image source, Licence. This gives the photographer public recognition, which is what most photographers need. It is a public way of saying 'this is not my image'. People naturally assume that images without a credit are your own. For this reason hiding the credit somewhere else in some other page is not good practice (though perfectly legal). For the same reason pop-up titles, though legal, are not good practice. Good practice requires that credits be immediately obvious. The credit line should also be a link to the image source.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Courtesy&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;It is courteous to notify the author that you are re-using his image, to tell him where you are using his image and to thank him. This can be as an email, or a comment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T15:45:38.173" />
  <row Id="9579" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9567" CreationDate="2011-03-08T16:30:46.890" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have you looked into Amazon's self publishing service?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.createspace.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://www.createspace.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't spent a lot of time studying it yet, but it sounds promising. There is a cost per book calculator here: &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.createspace.com/Products/Book/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://www.createspace.com/Products/Book/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3472" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T16:30:46.890" />
  <row Id="9580" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9582" CreationDate="2011-03-08T16:37:14.317" Score="2" ViewCount="204" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Nikon D7000 and have tried &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8513/what-is-freelensin&quot;&gt;freelensing&lt;/a&gt; with my Rokinon 85mm f/1.4, Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX, and a zoom Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8 without much success. The problem is that everything is out of focus no matter what I set the lens' focus to. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any advice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4199" LastEditorUserId="4199" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-10T21:11:09.083" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T21:11:09.083" Title="What is a good freelensing lens I could use on my Nikon DX?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;freelensing&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9581" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9580" CreationDate="2011-03-08T16:44:34.527" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're holding the lens away from the body then you're getting the same effect as using extension tubes, namely that the min and max focussing distances get much closer, which is probably why everything is out of focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only way to achieve focussing at non-macro distances when holding the lens away from the mount you would need a lens designed to sit further from the film plane such as a medium format lens. As you don't need to worry about adaptors when freelensing you could pick up any cheap obsolete MF lens from &lt;a href=&quot;http://keh.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://keh.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-08T16:51:04.927" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T16:51:04.927" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9582" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9580" CreationDate="2011-03-08T21:06:29.360" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I researched and believe this is the best answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To do freelensing best, use:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a prime lens in the medium focal length range 35-85mm&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;large aperture to capture plenty of light&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;hard infinity-focus stop&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;for Nikon lenses, a non-G lens as the G lens stops all the way down when not attached to the body&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;for Nikon bodies, Canon lenses are supposed to work very well&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I've read on Flickr and dpreview, this is the best lens for freelensing: 50mm f/1.4 (for Nikon the non G version 50mm f/1.4 AF-D is best).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4199" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T21:06:29.360" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9583" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9580" CreationDate="2011-03-08T21:09:10.680" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm using a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 to do freelensing. I've had some success with it. I was able to get some nice macro effects going on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4024" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T21:09:10.680" />
  <row Id="9584" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9586" CreationDate="2011-03-08T23:03:21.723" Score="5" ViewCount="210" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've read &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/235/what-is-chromatic-aberration&quot;&gt;several&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/91/how-do-i-avoid-getting-any-chromatic-aberration-in-my-photographs&quot;&gt;informations&lt;/a&gt; here on Photo SE, as well as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt; on CA.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that it is inevitable that some amount of chromatic aberration shows up for a particular lens, especially on the extreme cases: high contrast of colors/luminosity, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I'd like to know if there is any&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;technique one can do to -minimize- this when some photo opportunity arises&lt;/strong&gt;;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;eg: if i'm visiting some place and want a picture of a building, for example. i can't go &quot;meh, too contrasty, results won't be good.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Would stop down the aperture help? I haven't tested it, but according to the causes of CA, it could help (bigger DoF, more things in focus, less specific color in different focus).  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Other than that, nothing comes to mind..&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I already got a prime lens for the extra oomph of image quality, but i want more :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;please no &quot;buy better gear&quot; of &quot;fix it in post&quot; answers..&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Obviously, i can fix stuff in post, AND I DO. But i'd like to make the most of my gear, and spend maybe a bit more time taking a picture, and less on lightroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3462" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T12:35:36.640" Title="Photographic techniques to avoid chromatic aberration?" Tags="&lt;shooting-technique&gt;&lt;image-quality&gt;&lt;chromatic-aberration&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9585" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-08T23:07:07.220" Score="0" ViewCount="47" Body="&lt;p&gt;Question here, not sure if it's the correct stack exchange site, sorry if it isn't. I have an After Effects project for school, and I've created a movie using JPEG sequences (10 @ ~100-200mb/each ). I have the output setting on the composition set to 640x480. I resized each JPEG layer via the fit to comp tool, but when I export the movie as a Quicktime movie, it is 1.1 gig for ~35 seconds of movie at 30fps. What am I doing so horribly wrong here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4207" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T23:07:07.220" ClosedDate="2011-03-09T03:32:26.203" Title="After Effects Question" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;resolution&gt;&lt;movie&gt;" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9586" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9584" CreationDate="2011-03-08T23:20:10.400" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think these are quite the answers you want, since all of them involve changing the composition in some form, and these are probably already obvious to you, but:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Wait until a different time of day (like evening or early morning or nighttime) so there is less contrast between the building and the sky.  Or wait until a cloudy day.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Move to a different position so there is less contrast between the subject and the background (for example, get above the building so the ground is the background, or move to the other side of the building so you have hills behind it instead of a bright sky).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;CA is generally worst at the edges of the frame.  Recompose your picture to put the object in the middle of the frame, and plan to crop the picture so anything at the corners with lots of CA won't be in the final picture.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I know you said you didn't want to hear this, but it might have the largest impact: some lenses handle CA better than others.  Get a different (typically more expensive) lens.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Plan to downsize the image or print it small, so the CA is less visible (CA a couple pixels wide might not be visible on a 4x6&quot; print but will be blindingly obvious on a 16x20&quot; poster).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-03-08T23:20:10.400" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9587" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9584" CreationDate="2011-03-09T01:50:46.863" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I know you said no &quot;fix it in post&quot;&#xA;  answers, but it is worth noting that&#xA;  this is something which can be&#xA;  corrected for reasonably well in RAW&#xA;  processing with a lens-specific&#xA;  profile. Some cameras will even do&#xA;  this as part of their in-camera jpeg&#xA;  conversion.  – @mattdm&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;i posted this as a response so it would get more prominence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My concern about this approach: i think it only corrects for lateral color fringing, something that is subject independent, and lens specific. it's great, and i agree, recent nikons (gen 2 cameras, according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/dslr.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ken rockwell&lt;/a&gt;) do this, as well as probably all raw developing software. However, for particular high contrast subjects, i am not sure it works!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(sorry about quoting controversial people like mr rockwell)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3462" LastEditorUserId="3462" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-09T12:35:36.640" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T12:35:36.640" />
  <row Id="9588" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9591" CreationDate="2011-03-09T03:12:55.890" Score="6" ViewCount="299" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some reviews say yes. But since it costs as much as an EF equivalent, why not name it as 'L'? Is there any better lenses in this range (EF or EF-S)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2607" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T09:37:00.057" Title="Is EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM really a 'L series' grade lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9589" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9588" CreationDate="2011-03-09T03:20:32.900" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon has never designated an EF-S lens 'L', perhaps for marketing reasons. But a more practical difference is that the 17-55mm lens is not weather-sealed (a must for L lenses). I believe in general the build quality of the 17-55mm is not up to par with the L lenses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 17-55mm lens is very well known for its image quality, which surpasses many L lenses, according to reviews. This is probably what people mean when they say it is an L grade lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1125" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T03:20:32.900" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9590" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9588" CreationDate="2011-03-09T03:31:09.797" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NO&lt;/strong&gt; its not is the simple answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just because it performs better than many other lenses optically doesn't make it better, following that logic you could ask 'Is the 50mm f1.4 really an L lens?', there is a bit more to it than that.  There is &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7061/what-is-the-difference-between-canon-l-lenses-and-non-l-lenses&quot;&gt;another post&lt;/a&gt; here that asks the question of 'what makes an L lens an L lens' and links to &lt;a href=&quot;http://web.canon.jp/imaging/l-lens/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; article by canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T03:31:09.797" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9591" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9588" CreationDate="2011-03-09T03:31:11.103" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I used this lens as my main walkaround lens and as a workhorse for event shooting for about 2 years.  The image quality was excellent and definitely on par with the most of the L lenses I've used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where this lens isn't &quot;L&quot; is in the &lt;strong&gt;build quality&lt;/strong&gt;.  Whereas most L lenses are primarily metal and weather-resistant, the EF-S 17-55/2.8 has a lot of plastic and feels like it's not quite as sturdy as L lenses such as the 24-70.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A couple other minor pieces of note: the lens does not include the hood in the package; it's a separate purchase (and a spendy one at that).  Also, it's an EF-S lens, and thus far only the EF lenses have been designated as L.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T03:31:11.103" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9592" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9593" CreationDate="2011-03-09T03:53:28.177" Score="1" ViewCount="175" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am confused about selecting a 70-300mm lens. I have 2 lenses to decide between, the 'Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5 - 5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR' and the 'Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG'. I hear lot of good things about the Sigma lens even though it doesn't have any VR and I wonder if the Nikon is worth the extra investment. I read lot of reviews about the Nikon too but not many seem unbiased.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I have a D7K.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Would appreciate your response.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: I am looking at this lens for a little bit of wildlife and some portraits but all outdoor. I would mostly be holding the lens but plan to get used to the tripod.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4209" LastEditorUserId="4209" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-09T04:48:36.350" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T06:49:15.447" Title="Which 70-300mm lens between the Nikon VR and Sigma?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9593" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9592" CreationDate="2011-03-09T06:02:49.343" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I have the Sigma 70-300mm APO DG.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's very soft in the 200-300mm range.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I find myself constantly having to use high iso to get the needed shutter speed for hand held shots, whereas VR would help with this.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It doesn't focus well compared to my other lens - its much slower (its not a USM type motor) and tends to hunt a bit.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shots lack contrast compared to my other lenses.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Its relatively sharp under 200mm for portrait work, but for portraits nearly any 50 or 80mm prime is a better buy.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd look at the Nikon or even the new Tamron with VC that recently came out before I got this again.  It &lt;em&gt;feels&lt;/em&gt; like a steal of a deal at the price, but for me its not.  If you're expecting sharp images in the 200-300 range (which you would want for wildlife shots), the Sigma isn't the lens for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a sample from the Sigma, note that the feathers just don't look sharp.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/gyy7F.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-09T06:49:15.447" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T06:49:15.447" />
  <row Id="9596" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9588" CreationDate="2011-03-09T09:37:00.057" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;An L-series lens also has one (or several) UD elements - see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/room/hotaru.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/room/hotaru.html&lt;/a&gt;. This 17-55 2.8IS &lt;strong&gt;does&lt;/strong&gt; infact have a UD element which many reviewers and the like are using to claim this as an L-grade lens, except it's the &lt;em&gt;wrong&lt;/em&gt; mount, being EF-S and not possible to use on Full-format models.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4216" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T09:37:00.057" />
  <row Id="9597" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9601" CreationDate="2011-03-09T09:53:20.970" Score="21" ViewCount="965" Body="&lt;p&gt;In this picture, we see that the sun comes out as a hexagon. I am sure it is not arbitrary. What does the hexagon tell us about the instrument that captured the image?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/i73wk.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;sunset @ pier39&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="64" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T18:49:44.340" Title="What does a hexagonal sun tell us about the camera lens/sensor?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9598" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9597" CreationDate="2011-03-09T10:12:54.737" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The shape of the lens flare is related to the shape of the aperture while the characteristics of the flare as a whole have more to do with the elements used in the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lens in that image would be using a six blade aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T10:12:54.737" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9599" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="471" CreationDate="2011-03-09T10:13:25.553" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Shotwell is a very capable package for processing and organising photos in Linux. It is now part of Ubuntu. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://yorba.org/shotwell&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://yorba.org/shotwell&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T10:13:25.553" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-10T15:23:42.103" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9600" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9584" CreationDate="2011-03-09T10:15:37.577" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer depends on what type of CA you're dealing with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Lateral CA&lt;/strong&gt; fix it in post. This is easy and effective, plus there's no shooting technique I know of to reduce it (other than zooming if the CA is worse at the wide end). &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Longitudinal (axial) CA&lt;/strong&gt; stop down&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Purple fringing&lt;/strong&gt; avoid strong contrasts, might help to underexpose to avoid sensor bloom.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T10:15:37.577" />
  <row Id="9601" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9597" CreationDate="2011-03-09T10:24:28.560" Score="35" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It tells us that the aperture contains either three or six blades and that where these blades meet there is a corner which results in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_diffraction&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fraunhofer diffraction&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also tells us that the lens was stopped down, as if it were wide open there would be no corners to cause diffraction, regardless of the number of aperture blades.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Incidentally the number of (distinct) points to the star is equal to double the total number of unique orientations* in the sides of the aperture shape i.e. three blades would be six points, six blades would also be six points as a hexagon has only three unique orientations in its sides.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;* a hexagonal aperture has six sides but only three unique orientations as there are three pairs of parallel sides.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-10T18:49:44.340" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T18:49:44.340" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="9602" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9603" CreationDate="2011-03-09T10:35:46.463" Score="8" ViewCount="239" Body="&lt;p&gt;I read once, in a book, about a lens that was an &quot;inverse fisheye&quot;.  Basically a hemispherical mirror mounted at one end of a glass tube.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't remember what it was called, nor can I find any record of its existance on the internet.  Sadly, I no longer have the book to be able to reference it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Has anyone heard of such a thing, and can name it, or better yet, got one, and some photos from it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ua1xq.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;here's a drawing&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="730" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T10:55:57.647" Title="Can anyone identify this lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;lens-design&gt;&lt;fisheye&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="9603" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9602" CreationDate="2011-03-09T10:55:57.647" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That's a one-shot 360° panoramic lens. There are a number of examples out there with different mirror shapes; two of the currently-active vendors are&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.eggsolution.com/new/product/egglens.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EGG Solutions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.0-360.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;0-360.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They use different mirror shapes -- the 0-360 version is similar to your drawing, while the EGG is more like what would be left after a circle is swept out of a cylinder, so the effect (as a flat picture) would be different. The EGG is the only current one I could find that didn't have the mirror exposed and at the end of a long, delicate-looking stalk, but since I'm not looking for such a lens myself, I didn't spend a lot of time searching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(When I wanted a 360° panorama in the film days, I rented a slit-shutter revolving camera. It opened the shutter and rotated the camera through a full circle while advancing the film -- sort of like a flatbed scanner for the world.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T10:55:57.647" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9605" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9597" CreationDate="2011-03-09T13:30:01.507" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The lens is using an aperture with six blades (or, theoretically, three - see comments); most probably six, since there are very few, if any, lenses with three aperture blades.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lens is stopped down, and the aperture blades aren't rounded (or not enough for this aperture setting).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OR someone is using a star filter (though probably not, they are not very widely used).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4223" LastEditorUserId="4223" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-09T15:27:20.273" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T15:27:20.273" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9606" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-09T14:42:53.650" Score="4" ViewCount="181" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have jpg photos with frames put on them which a friend made for me. I noticed when I open the jpgs though, that the image loads first and then the frame loads on top of it (that is, I can see the parts of the image which are hidden underneath the frame before they actually get hidden).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is confusing to me though, since I thought jpgs don't have layers and are flattened. Does anybody know what I'm talking about? Do jpgs actually have layers?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4227" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T15:52:44.290" Title="Do jpgs have &quot;layers&quot;?" Tags="&lt;jpeg&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9607" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9606" CreationDate="2011-03-09T15:30:26.387" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;JPEGs do not, to the best of my knowledge, have layers. They do have progressive encoding whereby a series of lower resolution versions are displayed as the data is arriving until all the data is there and the final full quality version is displayed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My best guess is that what you're seeing is an artifact from this process, though if you could post the image I could do better than guessing! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T15:30:26.387" />
  <row Id="9608" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9606" CreationDate="2011-03-09T15:52:44.290" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not really. Weirdly, &quot;jpeg&quot; is really the name of the compression and not the standard for the file format that bears the &lt;code&gt;.jpg&lt;/code&gt; name. There's various different container formats that can hold jpeg-compressed streams. The official one is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fileformat.info/format/jpeg/egff.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;JFIF&lt;/a&gt;, although by strict reading files containing EXIF data don't properly correspond to that spec. (Aren't standards awesome?) This format specifies a single frame of data. There's a new format called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cipa.jp/english/hyoujunka/kikaku/pdf/DC-007_E.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;JPEG Multi-Picture Format&lt;/a&gt; which can hold multiple frames, but those can't be read by normal JPEG viewers (and are apparently normally labeled &lt;code&gt;.mpo&lt;/code&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, regular JFIF/JPEG-EXIF files can use either a &quot;standard&quot; layout or a &quot;progressive&quot; one. In the progressive format, a lower-resolution stream is rendered first, and further data is filled in from later bitstreams in the file. It may be possible to abuse this such that the &quot;overlay frame&quot; is only in the final stream. But display of this would be strongly dependent on your viewer. On a fast system with the file cached, it'd basically all load at once.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T15:52:44.290" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9609" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9677" CreationDate="2011-03-09T17:16:55.173" Score="2" ViewCount="231" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've recently started using Lightroom 3 on my desktop computer, where I have all my photos on a large RAID disk (with regular backups!). Now, if I go on holiday I'll only have my laptop with me, which has only limited disk space. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to use Lightroom during vacation on my laptop and then transfer all photos (and metadata) to my desktop computer, when I'm back home?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4228" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T23:16:42.190" Title="Transfer photos from one Lightroom installation to another?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9610" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9643" CreationDate="2011-03-09T17:28:09.993" Score="10" ViewCount="304" Body="&lt;p&gt;Was reading &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9597/what-does-a-hexagonal-sun-tell-us-about-the-camera-lens-sensor/9601#9601&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt; (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It also tells us that the lens was &lt;strong&gt;stopped down&lt;/strong&gt;, as if it were wide open there would be no corners to cause diffraction, regardless of the number of aperture blades.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does &quot;stopped down&quot; mean?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2361" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-09T17:57:54.787" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T08:22:26.493" Title="What is the meaning of &quot;stopped down&quot;?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9611" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9610" CreationDate="2011-03-09T17:30:09.063" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Stopped Down&quot; simply means &quot;with a small aperture&quot;. The aperture is expressed as a fraction, for example, f/8 or f/2 -- f/8 (the aperture is physically an eighth as wide as the focal length) is smaller than f/2 (the aperture is half as wide as the focal length)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T17:30:09.063" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9612" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9610" CreationDate="2011-03-09T17:32:30.340" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It means the diameter of the aperture stop (a physical object in the centre of the lens which literally stops light to increase depth of field and decrease exposure) was reduced (by the photographer either via the camera body or directly on the lens) some amount from its widest setting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8245/where-does-the-f-stop-name-come-from&quot;&gt;Where does the f-stop name come from?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/594/what-does-f-stop-mean&quot;&gt;What does f-stop mean?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-09T17:58:29.140" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T17:58:29.140" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="9613" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9609" CreationDate="2011-03-09T17:50:26.703" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, you can (if i understood correctly)&#xA;Just export/import the lightroom catalog from the laptop to the desktop&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4238" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T17:50:26.703" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9614" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9609" CreationDate="2011-03-09T18:24:29.617" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do this quite a bit when I travel. How you do it is up to you, both have their advantages and disadvantages. You could keep a &quot;Travel Catalog&quot; on your laptop's hard drive and then import that into your &quot;Master Catalog&quot; on the RAID system. You also can just have your &quot;Master Catalog&quot; have multiple directories in it, some on your laptop hard drive and the majority on the RAID system. The catalog needs to live on your laptop though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have found that the more consistent system is to keep one single &quot;Master Catalog&quot; that has multiple directories in it. The reason I chose that approach is that I have found my keywording and labeling is much more consistent that way. Since I have one set of Keyword collections and one set of actions and preferences everything works the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key for this style to be effective is to do all of the file management and moving in Lightroom, none in the operating system whether it is Mac or Windows. Doing it all within LR keeps the locations and database synchronized. Yes, it is possible to manually locate the files if you move items outside of LR; however it can be irksome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I do is have a directory on my laptop hard drive called &quot;Lightroom Local Images&quot; I know creative name. When on the road and disconnected from my external hard drive, I import all my images in to there in the Master Catalog. I do a year&gt;month&gt;day folder structure but have previously used it with other structures as well. In the Master Catalog you will notice that the folder for the external storage will be listed but all the images will be unavailable with question marks. That is normal. When you reconnect to the external storage it will attach correctly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you are ready to move your images from your local drive to the external storage, within the Lightroom Module you can simply drag the directory from location to location. You will typically get a pop-up window that indicates and confirms the move you are doing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can provide more information or an example once I get connected to my external hard drive if you have more question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1901" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T18:24:29.617" />
  <row Id="9615" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9609" CreationDate="2011-03-09T18:27:56.990" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes.  If you want to simply use your laptop with Lightroom to manage/edit photos you're creating while on vacation, and when you return home you want to merge those into your main Lightroom catalog, do the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Install Lightroom on your laptop&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Create a new Lightroom catalog on your laptop&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;While on vacation, keep all of your photos in a known folder structure.  When I've done this in the past, I'll just create a single folder for these images, or perhaps a couple folder by location or day.  If you can create these folders so that they'll match your &quot;usual&quot; folder names, that's even better.  For example, put them all in a folder called &quot;2011-beachvacation&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When you get home:&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;move the 2011-beachvacation folder to its permanent home.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;copy the Lightroom catalog file (.lrcat) from your laptop to your main machine.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In Lightroom, go to File-&gt;Import from Catalog and browse to your .lrcat file&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The final step is to locate the folder of images.  In the Folder panel, find the grayed-out 2011-beachvacation folder, right-click and choose Find Missing Files... browse to the folder of images on your desktop's disk drive and you're set.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T18:27:56.990" />
  <row Id="9616" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9610" CreationDate="2011-03-09T20:16:59.900" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It does not mean &quot;with a small aperture&quot;; it means that the lens is at a smaller aperture than it is capable of. f/1.8 for example is not a small aperture; a 50 mm f/1.8 would be wide open at f/1.8 but a 50mm f/1.2 would be &quot;stopped down&quot; at f/1.8. Conversely, f/5.6 is really a rather small aperture, but an 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 would be wide open at 200 mm f/5.6; a 70-200 f/2.8 would be stopped down by two full stops at the same setting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Ah, crap. Was meant as a comment to another answer. But it works as an answer in its own right too so never mind...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T20:16:59.900" />
  <row Id="9617" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-09T20:17:23.283" Score="5" ViewCount="303" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can anyone please recommend free (preferably also portable i.e. no need to install) software for Windows XP or later to improve image quality of large (12 megapixel) terrestrial (not astronomical) photos, by deconvolution to reduce motion blur (preferably automatically)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've tried &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.zen147963.zen.co.uk/Unshake/Download.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Unshake 1.5 by M.D. Cahill&lt;/a&gt; but the result seems worse than the original (looks oversharpened) and it crashes on 12 megapixel images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4242" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-19T02:56:58.867" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T12:02:15.263" Title="Can anyone recommend *freeware* to reduce motion blur by deconvolution?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;image-quality&gt;&lt;motion-blur&gt;&lt;deconvolution&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9618" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9609" CreationDate="2011-03-09T20:29:56.083" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Make sure to tell Lightroom to create the optional XMP sidecar file for each photo on the laptop. Then you can just copy the entire file structure to your master computer when you come back home, import the photos into Lightroom on that computer, and you get all your edits, metadata, cropping, and what have you from the sidecar files automatically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I use the sidecar option on my main computer too. That way, even if something nasty should happen to the main LR database file and its backups, I can re-import into a blank database and everything falls into place automatically. It doubles the number of files on disk, and costs a few kilobytes of disk space per sidecar, but that is no big concern.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T20:29:56.083" />
  <row Id="9619" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="401" CreationDate="2011-03-09T21:07:10.053" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As for the filenames go, I think in the number ID 425-2556, &quot;25&quot; is repeated. So the number of the photo would be 42556. 100-0001 would be first, 101-0100 would be 100th etc. On some cameras the first three digit number are in the folder name (e.g. CANON-425) and the rest is in the filename (e.g. IMG-2556). There are only 100 photos per folder. So the folder number counts how many &quot;hundreds of photos&quot; have you made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4245" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T21:07:10.053" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9620" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9633" CreationDate="2011-03-09T21:10:01.767" Score="0" ViewCount="128" Body="&lt;p&gt;The vast bulk of fisheye lenses produced now are targeted at digital image sensors and so they aren't full frame on 35mm film. What are the best fisheye lenses that one can still buy reliably that are full frame on 35mm film? The particular measuring stick I care about would be how wide the aperture can be and maintain a good focus continuously from 1 to 5 feet (how wide can the aperture be and still have a 4 foot depth of field for very near subjects).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2451" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T01:38:25.667" Title="What are the best fisheye lenses one can still buy that are full frame on 35mm film?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;fisheye&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="9621" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9610" CreationDate="2011-03-09T21:37:43.480" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you have a typical lens which starts with Aperture of F3.5, then any increase in F stop, say to F4.5, would mean you are stopping down the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4246" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T21:37:43.480" />
  <row Id="9622" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="24" CreationDate="2011-03-09T21:43:22.760" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The ultimate difference is the price, but besides that, 1.4 has nicer bokeh&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4246" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T21:43:22.760" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9623" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9620" CreationDate="2011-03-09T21:47:11.930" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;razor sharp ! and works perfect on my 5DmII &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-15mm-f-2.8-fisheye-lens-review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-15mm-f-2.8-fisheye-lens-review.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4179" LastActivityDate="2011-03-09T21:47:11.930" />
  <row Id="9624" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9626" CreationDate="2011-03-09T21:52:21.650" Score="12" ViewCount="365" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's several questions here about &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/5921/what-does-small-depth-of-field-mean&quot;&gt;the definition of depth of field&lt;/a&gt;, about &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/37/how-does-zoom-focal-length-affect-depth-of-field&quot;&gt;focal length&lt;/a&gt;, and about &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8451/is-depth-of-field-and-bokeh-influenced-by-distance-to-the-subject&quot;&gt;subject distance&lt;/a&gt;. And of course there's the basic &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/49/what-is-aperture-and-how-does-it-affect-my-photograph&quot;&gt;how does aperture affect my photographs&lt;/a&gt;. And plenty of &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/5493/&quot;&gt;how do I get super-shallow d.o.f&lt;/a&gt; questions. There's related questions like &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9024/&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt;. But there's no be-all-end-all question asking:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What exactly determines depth of field in a photograph? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it just a property of the lens? Can lenses be designed to give more depth of field for the same aperture and focal length? Does it change with camera sensor size? Does it change with print size? How do those last two relate?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-03-12T05:48:17.193" Title="What exactly determines depth of field?" Tags="&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="9625" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-09T23:36:59.597" Score="3" ViewCount="286" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon XTI which I've been using for a few years now. Most of the time I'm been shooting in one of the &quot;semi-manual&quot; modes like aperture priority or shutter priority, but now I'd like to try using full manual mode. I should have a new EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 delivered when I get home today. Before I was using a variable aperture Sigma 17-70 which made manual mode more difficult with the aperture changing arbitrarily.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand the effect of changing aperture and shutter speed, but right now I'm accustomed  to only controlling one at a time. The camera is usually setting the other to get the right exposure automatically for me. So if I'm controlling both how do I know I have the correct exposure? I understand I need to use the metering in my camera but I'm not sure exactly how do do that. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First when should I be using each of the metering modes (Evaluative, Partial, Center weighted, or Spot)? These just change the area of the scene which is metered correct?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do I know what the meter should read off a specific object? Obviously if I just happen to be shooting a 18% gray wall then it should be at zero, but that can't apply to everything? If I'm shooting a black cat and take a spot meter reading off of the cat then the meter should read less then zero right? But how do I know how much less then zero? Are there rules of thumb I can follow? I've ordered a couple gray cards with my new lens. So experimenting with those should help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How often should I be changing these settings? Say I'm at a party indoors which is consistently lit. I should be able to set the aperture, shutter speed, and ISO and just forget about it unless the lighting changes correct? Does the same apply to outdoor scenes? I've been hesitant to use manual mode in the past because I felt like I was spending a lot of times messing with settings before each shot. But not I'm realizing that this is really only the case when the lighting changes, or I want a different style of photo such as a different depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, does exposure change with distance to the subject? For example say I want to take a picture of a statue with correct exposure using a gray card. I'd place the card on the statue, and while being careful not the block the light on the card find the correct exposure by spot metering the card. If I were then to step back 20' to get the whole statue in frame would I still have the correct exposure?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1431" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T02:15:09.393" Title="How do I know I have the correct exposure when shooting in manual mode?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;manual-mode&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9626" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9624" CreationDate="2011-03-09T23:59:41.777" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is an excellent question, and one that has different answers depending on context. You mentioned several specific questions each of which might warrant their own answers. I'll try to address them more as a unified whole here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Q. Is it just a property of the lens?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;A. Simply put, &lt;em&gt;no&lt;/em&gt;, although if you ignore CoC, one could (given the math) make the argument that it is. Depth of field is a &quot;fuzzy&quot; thing, and depends a lot on viewing context. By that, I mean it depends on how large the final image being viewed is in relation to the native resolution of the sensor; the visual acuity of the viewer; the aperture used when taking the shot; the distance to subject when taking the shot. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Q. Can lenses be designed to give more depth of field for the same aperture and focal length?&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;A. Given the math, I would have to say no. I am not an optical engineer, so take what I say here with the necessary grain of salt. I tend to follow the math, though, which is pretty clear about depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Q. Does it change with camera sensor size?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;A. Ultimately, it depends here. More important than the size of the sensor would be the minimum Circle of Confusion (CoC) of the imaging medium. Curiously, the Circle of Confusion of an imaging medium is not necessarily an intrinsic trait, as the minimum acceptable CoC is often determined by the maximum size you intend to print at. Digital sensors do have a fixed minimum size for CoC, as the size of a single sensel is as small as any single point of light can get (in a Bayer sensor, the size of a quartet of sensels is actually the smallest resolution.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Q. Does it change with print size?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;A. Given the answer to the previous question, possibly. Scaling an image above, or even below, its &quot;native&quot; print size can affect what value you use for the minimum acceptable CoC. Therefor, yes, the size(es) you intend to print at do play a role, however I would say the role is generally minor unless you print at very large sizes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mathematically, it is clear why DoF is not simply a function of the lens, and involves either the imaging medium or print size from a CoS perspective. To clearly specify the factors of DoF:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Depth of Field is a function of Focal&#xA;  Length, Effective Aperture, Distance &#xA;  to Subject and Minimum Circle of Confusion.&#xA;  Minimum Circle of Confusion is where &#xA;  things get fuzzy, as that can either be&#xA;  viewed as a function of the imaging&#xA;  medium, or a function of print size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several mathematical formulas that can be used to calculate the depth of field. Sadly, there does not seem to be a single formula that accurately produces a depth of field at any distance to subject. &lt;code&gt;Hyperfocal Distance&lt;/code&gt;, or the distance where you effectively get maximum DoF, can be calculated as so:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;H = f&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; / (N * c)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;H = hyperfocal distance&lt;br&gt;&#xA;f = focal length&lt;br&gt;&#xA;N = f-number (relative aperture)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;c = circle of confusion  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The circle of confusion is a quirky value here, so we'll discuss that later. A useful average CoC for digital sensors can be assumed at &lt;em&gt;0.021mm&lt;/em&gt;. This formula gives you the hyperfocal distance, which isn't exactly telling you what your depth of field is, rather it tells you the subject distance you should focus at to get maximum depth of field. To calculate the actual &lt;code&gt;Depth of Field&lt;/code&gt;, you need an additional calculation. The formula below will provide DoF for moderate to large subject distances, which more specifically means when the distance to subject is larger than the focal length (i.e. non-macro shots):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Dn = (H * s) / (H + s)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Df = (H * s) / (H - s)   { for s &amp;lt; H  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;DOF = Df - Dn&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  DOF = (2 * H * s) / (H&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; - s&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;) { for s &amp;lt; H  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dn = Near limit of DoF&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Df = Far limit of DoF&lt;br&gt;&#xA;H = Hyperfocal distance (previous formula)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;s = Subject distance (distance at which the lens is focused, may not actually be &quot;the subject&quot;)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the subject distance is the hyperfocal distance:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Df = 'infinity'&#xA;  Dn = H / 2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the subject distance is greater than the hyperfocal distance:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Df = infinite&#xA;  Dn = 'infinity'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The term 'infinity' here is not used in its classical sense, rather it is more of an optical engineering term meaning a focal point beyond the hyperfocal distance. The full formula for calculating DOF directly, without first calculating hyperfocal distance, as as follows (substitute for H):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;DOF = 2Ncf&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;s&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; / (f&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; - N&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;c&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;s&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we ignore print size and film, for a given digital sensor with a specific &lt;em&gt;pixel density&lt;/em&gt;, DoF is a function of focal length, relative aperture, &lt;strong&gt;and&lt;/strong&gt; subject distance. From that, one &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; make the argument that DoF is purely a function of the lens, as &quot;subject distance&quot; refers to the distance at which the &lt;em&gt;lens&lt;/em&gt; is focused, which would also be a function of the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the average case, one can assume that CoC is always the minimum achievable with a digital sensor, which these days rolls in at an average of 0.021mm, although a realistic range covering APS-C, APS-H, and Full Frame sensors covers anywhere from &lt;em&gt;0.015mm - 0.029mm&lt;/em&gt;. For most common print sizes, around 13x19&quot; or lower, an acceptable CoC is about 0.05mm, or about twice the average for digital sensors. If you are the type who likes to print at very large sizes, CoC could be a factor (requiring less than 0.01mm), and your apparent DoF in a big enlargement will be smaller than you calculate mathematically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above formulas only apply when the distance &lt;code&gt;s&lt;/code&gt; appreciably is larger than the focal length of the lens. As such, it breaks down for macro photography. When it comes to macro photography, it is much easier to express DoF in terms of focal length, relative aperture, and subject magnification (i.e. 1.0x):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;DOF = 2Nc * (((m/P) + 1)/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;N = f-number (relative aperture)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;c = Minimum CoC&lt;br&gt;&#xA;m = magnification&lt;br&gt;&#xA;P = pupil magnification  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The formula is fairly simple, outside of the pupil magnification aspect. A true, properly built &lt;strong&gt;macro&lt;/strong&gt; lens will have largely equivalent entrance and exit pupils (the size of the aperture as viewed through the front of the lens (entrance) and the size of the aperture as viewed from the back of the lens (exit)), although they may not be exactly identical. In such cases, one can assume a value of 1 for P, unless you have reasonable doubt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unlike DoF for moderate to large subject distances, with 1:1 (or better) macro photography, you are ALWAYS enlarging for print, even if you print at 2x3&quot;. At common print sizes such as 8x10, 13x19, etc., the factor of enlargement can be considerable. One should assume CoC is at the minimum resolvable for your imaging medium, which is still likely not small enough to compensate for apparent DoF shrink due to enlargement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Complex mathematics aside, DoF can be intuitively visualized with a basic understanding of light, how optics bend light, and what effect the aperture has on light. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How does aperture affect depth of field?&lt;/strong&gt; It ultimately boils down to the angles of the rays of light that actually reach the image plane. At a wider aperture, all rays, including those from the outer edge of the lens, reach the image plane. The diaphragm does not block any incoming rays of light, so the maximum angle of light that can reach the sensor is high (more oblique). This allows the maximum CoC to be large, and progression from a focused point of light to maximum CoC is rapid:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/a2AoE.gif&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At a narrower aperture, the diaphragm DOES block some light from the periphery of the light cone, while light from the center is allowed through. The maximum angle of light rays reaching the sensor is low (less oblique). This causes the maximum CoC to be smaller, and progression from a focused point of light to maximum CoC is slower. (In an effort to keep the diagram as simple as possible, the effect of spherical aberration was ignored, so the diagram is not 100% accurate, but should still demonstrate the point):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/PrKl7.gif&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aperture changes the rate of CoC growth. Wider apertures increase the rate at which out of focus blur circles grow, therefor DoF is shallower. Narrower apertures reduce the rate at which out of focus blur circles grow, therefor DoF is deeper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Proofs&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As with everything, one should always prove the concept by actually running the math. Here are some intriguing results when running the formulas above with F# code in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/cambridge/projects/fsharp/release.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;F# Interactive command line utility&lt;/a&gt; (easy for anyone to download and double check):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;(* The basic formula for depth of field *)&#xA;let dof (N:float) (f:float) (c:float) (s:float) = (2.0 * N * c * f**2. * s**2.)/(f**4. - N**2. * c**2. * s**2.);;&#xA;&#xA;(* The distance to subject. 20 feet / 12 inches / 2.54 cm per in / 10 mm per cm *)&#xA;let distance = 20. / 12. / 2.54 / 10.;;&#xA;&#xA;(* A decent average minimum CoC for modern digital sensors *)&#xA;let coc = 0.021;;&#xA;&#xA;(* DoF formula that returns depth in feet rather than millimeters *)&#xA;let dof_feet (N:float) (f:float) (c:float) (s:float) =&#xA;  let dof_mm = dof N f c s&#xA;  let dof_f = dof_mm / 10. / 2.54 / 12.&#xA;  dof_f;;&#xA;&#xA;dof_feet 1.4 50. coc distance&#xA;&amp;gt; val it : float = 2.882371793&#xA;dof_feet 2.8 100. coc distance&#xA;&amp;gt; val it : float = 1.435623728&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The output of the above program is intriguing, as it indicates that depth of field is indeed directly influenced by focal length as an independent factor from relative aperture, assuming only focal length changes and everything else remains equal. The two DoF's converge at f/1.4 and f/5.6, as demonstrated by the above program:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt; dof_feet 1.4 50. coc distance&#xA; &amp;gt; val it : float = 2.882371793&#xA; dof_feet 5.6 100. coc distance&#xA; &amp;gt; val it : float = 2.882371793&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Intriguing results, if a little non-intuitive. Another convergence occurs when the distances are adjusted, which provides a more intuitive correlation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;let d1 = 20. * 12. * 2.54 * 10.;;&#xA;let d2 = 40. * 12. * 2.54 * 10.;;&#xA;&#xA;dof_feet 2.8 50. coc d1;;&#xA;&amp;gt; val it : float = 5.855489431&#xA;dof_feed 2.8 100. coc d2;;&#xA;&amp;gt; val it : float = 5.764743587&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-12T05:48:17.193" LastActivityDate="2011-03-12T05:48:17.193" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="9627" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9625" CreationDate="2011-03-10T00:00:45.740" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to answer about exposing in manual mode, for metering, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4687/when-best-to-use-multi-zone-matrix-spot-or-center-weight&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, in tV mode, the camera uses a specific exposure value, a shutter speed, and sets the aperture. In aV, it takes the exposure reading and aperture mode, and sets the shutter speed. Manual lets you set shutter and aV, showing the resulting exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the bottom of your viewfinder, you will see the exposure setting. If the image is properly exposed, the arrow will be pointing at the zero. The correct exposure for the scene may be higher or lower than this, creative judgment will be required to know what that should be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An alternative to this involves using the histogram mode of your camera. Take one picture close to the correct exposure. Try to increase or decrease the exposure such that the histogram is shifted to the right as much as possible without actually touching the wall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The exposure does not change with distance to the subject, it only changes by the amount of light reaching the sensor. Basically the amount of light per given area remains the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And lastly, just to give a few ideas of when manual exposure is really helpful. First of all, if you have ETTL flash, the flash will automatically be set to match with the settings you have, ie, it'll be more powerful if you need it to be. Secondly, it is almost required for panoramic stitching, it's really difficult to match the exposure otherwise. Lastly, if you have a subject which is against a background of a very different color, bring your camera close so that only the subject is exposed, set your camera to the correct exposure, and then return to the original position. Take the picture, and you'll expose the subject perfectly, although the background might be bleached out. If that's okay, then you're set.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T00:00:45.740" />
  <row Id="9628" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9624" CreationDate="2011-03-10T00:08:08.363" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ok for a change I'm going to dispense with the formulas, photos of rulers and definitions of &quot;magnification&quot; and go with what you actually experience in practice. The major factors that actually matter to shooting are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Aperture. &lt;strong&gt;Wide aperture lenses give you a shallower depth of field&lt;/strong&gt;. This is probably the least controversial factor! This is important as some lenses have much larger apertures e.g. 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 vs. 50 f/1.8 &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Subject distance. This is a really important consideration. &lt;strong&gt;Depth of field gets drastically shallower when you start to get really close&lt;/strong&gt;. This is important as at macro focussing distances DoF is a major problem. It also means you can get shallow DoF regardless of aperture if you get close enough, and that if you want deep DoF in low light compose to focus further away.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Focal length. &lt;strong&gt;This &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; affect depth of field, but only in certain ranges, when maintaining subject size&lt;/strong&gt;. Wide lenses have very deep depth of field at most subject distances. Once you get past a certain point, DoF changes very little with focal length. This is important again because if you want to increase / decrease DoF you can use focal length to do this whilst still filling the frame with your subject.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sensor size. &lt;strong&gt;This affects DoF when you maintain the same subject distance and field if view between sensor sizes&lt;/strong&gt;. The bigger the sensor the shallower the depth of field. DSLRs have much bigger sensors than compacts, and so for the same FoV and f-ratio they have shallower DoF. This is important because by the same token cropping images increases DoF when maintaining the same final output size, as it's akin to using a smaller sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-10T11:02:20.843" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T11:02:20.843" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9629" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9625" CreationDate="2011-03-10T00:31:30.027" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A warning about the grey card.  An 18% gray card may not fall dead center of your camera's meter, and it will be highly dependent on the angle of the card and how it reflects light at your meter.  It's not a bad start, if you want to get an initial exposure, but do check your histogram.  If you don't have a grey card you can meter off green grass, blue sky or your subject's skin, which will be close enough to neutral for a starting point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way I usually shoot in manual mode is to start in Aperture priority, set my aperture, and use spot or center weighted metering on my subject and note the shutter speed.  Then set the exposure mode to manual and check that my aperture and shutter speed are set to those values.  Shoot a test shot and check the histogram.  I find that way easier than starting in manual mode and having to figure out which way to turn shutter speed and aperture dials to move the meter the right direction! You could also start in shutter priority mode if shutter speed is the more important setting for your shot.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a rule of thumb when metering a black cat, or white snow, and that is to adjust the exposure by about 2 stops.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4191" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T00:31:30.027" />
  <row Id="9630" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9624" CreationDate="2011-03-10T00:37:20.377" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;@Matt Grum's comment is quite good: you do have to be &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; careful to specify conditions, or you can end up with three people saying things that seem to conflict, but are really just talking about different conditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, to define DoF meaningfully, you need to specify the amount of &quot;blur&quot; you're willing to accept as sufficiently sharp. Depth of field is basically just measuring when something that started as a point in the original will be blurred enough to become larger than whatever size you've picked out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This typically changes with the size at which you print a picture -- bigger pictures are normally viewed from a greater distance, so more blur is acceptable. Most lens markings, etc., are defined based on a print around 8x10 being viewed at roughly arm's length distance (a couple of feet or so). The math for this works out fairly simple: start with an estimate of visual acuity, which will be measured as an angle. Then you just figure out what size that angle works out to at a specified distance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming we pick one number for that and stick to it, depth of field only depends on two factors: the aperture and the reproduction ratio. The larger the reproduction ratio (i.e., the larger an item appears on the sensor/film compared to its size in real life) the less depth of field you get. Likewise, the larger the aperture (larger diameter opening -- smaller f/stop number) the less depth of field you get.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All the other factors (sensor size and focal length being the two more obvious) only affect depth of field to the extent that they affect the reproduction ratio or the aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, even a really fast (large aperture) lens that has a short focal length makes it fairly difficult to high reproduction ratio. For example, if you take a picture of a person with a 20mm f/2 lens, the lens has to practically touch them before you get a very large reproduction ratio. At the opposite extreme, longer lenses often &lt;em&gt;appear&lt;/em&gt; to have less depth of field because they make it relatively easy to achieve a large reproduction ratio. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if you really do hold the reproduction ratio constant, the depth of field really is constant. For example, if you have a 20mm lens and a 200 mm lens and take a picture with each at (say) f/4, but take the picture with the 200 mm from 10 times as far away so the subject really is the same size, the two theoretically have the same depth of field. That happens so rarely, however, that it's mostly theoretical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same is true with sensor size: in theory, if the reproduction ratio is held constant, the sensor size is completely irrelevant. From a practical viewpoint, however sensor size matters for a very simple reason: regardless of the sensor size, we generally want the same &lt;em&gt;framing&lt;/em&gt;. That means that as the sensor size increases, we nearly always use large reproduction ratios. For example, a typical head and shoulders shot of a person might cover a height of, say, 50 cm (I'll use metric, to match how sensor sizes are usually quoted). On an 8x10 view camera, that works out to about a 1:2 reproduction ratio, giving very little depth of field. On a full 35mm size sensor, the reproduction ratio works out to about 1:14, giving a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; more depth of field. On a compact camera with, say, an 6.6x8.8 mm sensor, it works out to about 1:57.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we used the compact camera at the same 1:2 reproduction ratio as the 8x10, we'd get the same depth of field -- but instead of head and shoulders, we'd be taking a picture of part of one eyeball.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is one more factor to consider though: with a shorter lens, objects in the background get smaller a lot &quot;faster&quot; than with a longer lens. For example, consider a person with a fence 20 feet behind them. If you take a picture from 5 feet away with a 50 mm lens, the fence is 5 times as far away as the person, so it looks comparatively small. If you use a 200 mm lens instead, you have to back away 20 feet for the person to be the same size -- but now the fence is only twice as far away instead of 5 times as far away, so it looks comparatively large, making the fence (and degree to which it's blurred) much more apparent in a picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit2: Since I (sort of) persuaded @jrista to remove his diagram relating focal length to depth of field, I should probably try to explain why there's &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; a relationship between focal length and depth of field -- at least when you look at things the way they're normally measured in photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, a photographic aperture (nowadays) is universally measured as a fraction of the focal length -- it's written like a fraction (f/number) because that's what it is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, it's pretty well known that at f/1.4 you'll get less depth of field than at f/2.8. What may not immediately be so obvious is that (for example) a 50 mm f/1.4 lens and a 100 mm f/2.8 lens have &lt;em&gt;the same&lt;/em&gt; effective diameter. It's the wider angle at which light rays enter the 50 mm lens that gives it less depth of field than the 100 mm lens, even though the two have exactly the same physical diameter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, if you change the focal length but maintain the same photographic aperture (f/stop), the depth of field also remains constant because as the focal length increases the diameter increases proportionally so the rays of light are getting focused on the film/sensor from the same angles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's probably also worth pointing out that this (I believe, anyway) why catadioptric lenses are noted for their lack of depth of field. In a normal lens, even when you're using a large aperture some of the light still enters through the central part of the lens, so a small percentage of the light is focused as if you were shooting at a smaller aperture. With a catadioptric lens, however, you have a central obstruction, which blocks light from entering toward the center, so &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; of the light enters from the outer parts of the lens. This means &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; of the light has to be focused at a relatively shallow angle, so as the image goes out of focus, essentially &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; of it goes out of focus together (or a much higher percentage anyway) instead of having at least a little that's still in focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an aside, I think it's worth considering what an incredible stroke of brilliance it was to start measuring the diameters of lenses as a fraction of the focal length. In a single stroke of genius it makes two separate (and seemingly unrelated) issues: exposure and depth of field controllable and predictable. Trying to predict (much less control) exposure &lt;em&gt;or&lt;/em&gt; depth of field (not to mention both) before that innovation must have been tremendously difficult by comparison...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-10T05:27:41.350" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T05:27:41.350" CommentCount="12" />
  <row Id="9631" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-10T00:39:59.687" Score="2" ViewCount="147" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi All,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have the setup that is shown in &lt;a href=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/FaAJZ.png&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this figure&lt;/a&gt;. The view is from the top. I have a beam splitter which splits the light that is collected from a SLR lens. To be able to focus the light I have a diverging lens in front of the slr lens. I lose a lot of light with this setup. Are there any other options I have for focusing the light? Maybe a relay lens or some type of transfer optics? I don't want to reinvent the wheel. Thanks  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4248" LastEditorUserId="1356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-14T04:40:46.263" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T04:40:46.263" Title="Relay lens for beam splitter" Tags="&lt;lens-design&gt;&lt;optics&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9632" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9625" CreationDate="2011-03-10T00:46:38.843" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In sunlight, there is a very handy rule of thumb called &quot;sunny sixteen&quot;. It simply states that for photographing sun-lit objects, you should let the shutter speed equal the ISO you are shooting at, and the aperture should be f/16. This will give a correct exposure. In Northern Europe, read &quot;sunny eleven&quot;, in the Arizona desert read &quot;sunny twenty-two&quot;, but the principle remains the same. For shadow subject, open up two stops or so - &quot;shady eight&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your light-meter gives a reading based on the assumption that whatever you are metering is &quot;average&quot; in brightness; 18 percent gray or something like that. Most photographs are &quot;average&quot;, a good portion are not. It can be useful to know that green grass is &quot;average&quot;, point the light-meter at grass and you get a decent reading. Mediterranean skin is average also. Point the meter at something that is not averagely bright and you must start to think about what you are doing and compensate accordingly. The blue sky will often be a stop or so above average; snow is about two stops above. The same goes for sun-lit sand on the beach. Note that the camera has the same problem in the automatic modes, it is not unique to manual mode! This is why 99% of snow photos come out too dark, people trust the light-meter to get it right and by definition it will not - snow is not averagely gray but the light-meter assumes it must be. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, once you have set your exposure, you don't have to fiddle any more with it until the light changes. Check the histogram from time to time and you are golden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The metering modes vary in how much of the entire scene they measure. A center-weighted mode will look mostly at the center part of the photo, disregarding the edges. A spot meter will only look at the very small bit dead center in the viewfinder, disregarding everything else. Evaluative tries to look at the entire scene and be clever about it, comparing it to a stored database of photos and trying to find a match there... it can be a bit unpredictable. When it works it should be great, when it fails it isn't easy to understand why.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastEditorUserId="3458" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-10T02:15:09.393" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T02:15:09.393" />
  <row Id="9633" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9620" CreationDate="2011-03-10T01:38:25.667" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No camera brand was specified but here is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_lens.php?crop=1%3amax&amp;amp;fisheye=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;complete list of full-frame fisheyes&lt;/a&gt;. It's an easy search from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_lens.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lens finder&lt;/a&gt; and you can use the &lt;em&gt;Refine Result&lt;/em&gt; column (orange box) to get results for your mount. Note that there are not that many choices, only one for some mounts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you need to pay attention to is the row called &lt;em&gt;Min Focus&lt;/em&gt; for these lenses, since you want focus at 1 feet (= 30cm) and some lenses cannot focus that close at all &lt;em&gt;(EDIT: I see that all those actually do)&lt;/em&gt;. You can use the refinement column again to narrow your results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more depth-of-field, you want to stop the lens down to a small aperture (represented by a big number such as F/11 or more), so the maximum aperture won't matter. Another point is that fisheyes have (because of their ultra-short focal-lengths) a huge depth-of-field compared to other lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T01:38:25.667" />
  <row Id="9634" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9625" CreationDate="2011-03-10T02:00:29.390" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When in manual mode, the camera actually still meters using the set metering mode&lt;/strong&gt; (multi-segment, center-weighed, average, spot, etc). This is shown in the exposure-meter which usually displays EC. In manual mode though, the &lt;strong&gt;camera shows the difference between the metered exposure and the set exposure&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, if you change your exposure until the indicated difference is 0, you've missed the  point of using manual exposure. Well, in some cases, such as for stitching panoramas, this is actually useful, but generally manual mode is to decide your own exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The way you set it depends on the image you want to create.&lt;/strong&gt; Aperture controls depth-of-field, shutter-speed controls the rendering of motion, so set them as you need to realize the image you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you set the parameters needed (A or T or both), &lt;strong&gt;you need to figure out how to set the remaining parameters to create an image of acceptable brightness&lt;/strong&gt;. On some Pentax camera there is a semi-automatic called TAv which automatically sets ISO according to a set aperture and shutter-speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To set the remaining parameters, &lt;strong&gt;look at your subject and decide where to meter&lt;/strong&gt;. The most pleasing way of doing this is to &lt;strong&gt;meter on the brightest part of your subject&lt;/strong&gt; and add +3 (or so, depending on the dynamic-range of your camera) to make that part bright and everything else should fall in place. On Olympus DSLRs there is a metering mode called &lt;em&gt;Spot Highlight&lt;/em&gt; to do this automatically. If the results are too dark, then you've exceeded the DR of your camera and are going to have to blow some unimportant highlights (if there are any).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the action of metering you may be able to do it in manual mode using the AE-L button or the Green button (on Pentax). Otherwise you can use an automatic mode (P, A, S) and then dial in the same values in manual mode as a starting point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T02:00:29.390" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9635" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9636" CreationDate="2011-03-10T02:38:00.147" Score="0" ViewCount="101" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Katz Eye&lt;/a&gt; has replacement focusing screens for semipro Canon cameras, but they do affect the light meter in some situations. I am rather fond of using my spot meter, but am annoyed by the effects of not being able to properly gauge my focus with wide apertures. Are there any suggestions for coping with this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it would be the best outcome if there were some way to adjust the light meter in the camera, but I don't believe the camera software supports mapping the light meter readings (some situations have no change, some are positive, some negative).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2778" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T08:04:59.487" Title="Light meter adjustment for a manual focusing screen" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;manual-focus&gt;&lt;metering&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="9636" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9635" CreationDate="2011-03-10T03:34:51.900" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think it is possible to do this. The effect of the matte screen on the light by aperture is non-linear. Canon gets around this by having pre-programmed their cameras with the effect of the different Canon mattes at different apertures, so the camera can adjust accordingly... no such easy fix for the third party screens. On the upside - you have the ultimate metering tool available in the form of the histogram, even if it is after the fact. If you shoot in manual mode, in reasonably constant lighting, this is the final word on the matter and metering is not actually all that necessary. People lived quite well without in-camera light meters for better than a century, after all - the histogram is vast improvement upon this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T03:34:51.900" />
  <row Id="9637" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-10T04:43:08.987" Score="1" ViewCount="108" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Nikon 200 with the AF-S Nikkor 18-200mm and one SB-800 Speedlight. I'm wondering about how much I have to spend additionally if I sell this equipment to get something substantially better--i.e., with better specs and more advanced easier-to -use features that will carry me into the next few years of photography...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4249" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T14:19:05.297" Title="Future Utility of Nikon D200" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="9638" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9637" CreationDate="2011-03-10T05:18:13.000" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That all depends how you define &quot;substantially better&quot;, &quot;better specs&quot;, and &quot;more advanced easier-to-use&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The D200 was/is a nice camera and plenty of photographers have created lots of visually pleasing and revenue-generating images with that camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If you're learning photography, the D200 is quite capable and I'd focus on learning things about shutter speeds, aperture, lighting, and composition before spending more money on gear.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you understand those things and there are some specific features you desire or usability concerns that you have, provide a bit more information with details and we can probably address them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T05:18:13.000" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9639" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-10T06:25:13.563" Score="5" ViewCount="180" Body="&lt;p&gt;I came across the term &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofocus#Trap_focus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;trap focus on the autofocus page of wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, and it seems to be a very handy feature that triggers the shutter release when a subject moves into the focal plane. This feature seems to be built into only a small number of cameras though (possibly the ones with high FPS typically used for sports).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The wikipedia page also linked to an &lt;a href=&quot;http://eosdoc.com/manuals/?q=ATrapFocus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article called almost trap focus&lt;/a&gt; for cameras that don't support the feature natively. However, the steps described in the article seem to be more suited for macro or close-up photography, and that too using a FTM lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, is there any way to trap focus on DSLRs without the feature, and without using specialized equipment?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a reference point, I have the Canon EOS 550D with the 18-55mm kit lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: This feature could probably be enabled on P&amp;amp;S cameras using &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CHDK&lt;/a&gt; scripts (something along the lines of a &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/UBASIC/Scripts%3a_Universal_motion_detection&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;motion detection script&lt;/a&gt;), but I haven't come across any solutions for DSLRs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1977" LastEditorUserId="1977" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-10T10:07:08.243" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T19:24:03.890" Title="How do you trap focus on DSLRs without native support for it?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;focus&gt;&lt;shooting-technique&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9640" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9637" CreationDate="2011-03-10T07:19:15.340" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've had a D200 since a few weeks after it went on sale here, and I'm not planning to &quot;upgrade&quot; to anything any time soon.&#xA;It does what it needs to do and it does it exceedingly well.&#xA;I was at one point thinking up buying a D3 and relegate the D200 to backup duties, but concluded it wouldn't be a good way to spend my money, so I bought a D70s as a backup instead and used the rest of that money for more lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You sound like you're getting carried away in the upgrade madness that is the DSLR world, best you step back and consider exactly why the D200 doesn't do what you want it to do now, when it did do it yesterday.&#xA;You'll most likely conclude that it's a perfectly good camera that does everything you need it to do and more, that you've hardly even scratched the surface of its capabilities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anything you buy to replace it would have to be in the class of a D3 (or whatever replaces it), and won't be &quot;easier to use&quot;. &#xA;Those &quot;more advanced features&quot; are mostly/merely gimmicks for gearheads, things to put in a marketing brochure or website that have very little practical use. Remember that as long as the camera has a good shutter it's a good camera, and the D200 has an excellent shutter.&#xA;It also has an excellent light meter and AF system, not required to make a good camera but very handy indeed.&#xA;And then there's all the other stuff it can do that most people never use. While not as many gimmicks as the &quot;modern&quot; consumer cameras, those gimmicks are just that, baubles to lure the unwary who don't realise they're just gimmicks and not things of any practical use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You're far better off ditching that 18-200 and getting some quality lenses instead. It's not a bad lens, for a hyperzoom, but then again all hyperzooms are pretty shoddy overall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T07:19:15.340" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9641" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9637" CreationDate="2011-03-10T07:30:41.417" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;More advanced&quot; and &quot;easier to use&quot; are often, but not always in opposition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used to have a Nikon D40, and sold it to get a D200. The D40 was easier to use, and the results I got straight out of the camera were more pleasing to me then than the ones I got from the D200. The D200 images needed more post-processing to get to the same level that I appreciated then.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The things I appreciated (and still do!) with the D200 are: in-body AF motor, easier to change options like WB and ISO, and the back AF-ON button.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I think about it, I wish I had better high-ISO quality and full frame. But I've also realised that the things that hinder my photographic developtmen aren't the D200 or my lenses, it's the lack of time and the lack of commitment to photography. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to &quot;breath new life&quot; into your gear, I'd recommend getting the 35mm f/1.8 DX. It's available for about $200 and is an excellent lens with the D200.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To specifically answer your question, I'd say getting a Nikon D7000 would give you a leg up on features and also ease of use. According to Amazon, you'll have to pay $1,250 for the body, and you might get $400 for the D200 used. The lens and flash don't need to be replaced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastEditorUserId="3114" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-10T10:55:34.110" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T10:55:34.110" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9642" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9635" CreationDate="2011-03-10T08:04:59.487" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm guessing that Canon's spot meter can be set to any of the focus points. That's the situation with Nikon, anyway. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you know (or can measure with the help of the histogram) the effect the screen has on a &#xA;specific spot metering/focusing point, you can set a exposure compensation when using spot metering and only use that metering point. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T08:04:59.487" />
  <row Id="9643" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9610" CreationDate="2011-03-10T08:22:26.493" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This picture shows a lens at different apertures.  I used a manual focus lens (a Soviet-built 50mm f/1.9) because having aperture controls on the lens itself made it easier to take pictures of the lens at different apertures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/soZjV.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;composite of lens at different apertures&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the top third, the lens is &lt;strong&gt;wide open&lt;/strong&gt;, or at its maximum (widest) aperture (lowest f-stop value), in this case f/1.9.  The aperture blades are fully withdrawn into the lens housing and do not restrict any light from passing through the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the bottom right, the lens has been &lt;strong&gt;stopped down&lt;/strong&gt; about one stop to f/2.8.  It is no longer at its widest aperture: you can see the aperture blades have physically extended into the lens opening slightly, to restrict &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; of the light coming through the lens (if I understand correctly, one stop cuts the light coming through the lens by half; this lens has been stopped down by just &lt;em&gt;over&lt;/em&gt; one stop (from f/1.9 to f/2.8; normally one stop would be from f/2.0 to f/2.8) so the aperture blades should actually be covering just a little more than half of the area of the lens).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the bottom left, the lens has been &lt;strong&gt;stopped all the way down&lt;/strong&gt; to f/16, it's smallest aperture (and highest f-stop value).  This lens has six aperture blades; in this portion of the picture you can see three of them meeting.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I apologize for the different exposure of the bottom-left photo.  I was shooting in Av, not Manual; perhaps the different reflection of light from the fully-stopped-down lens convinced my camera to up its exposure by 1/3 stop.  I'll leave this as a reminder to readers to &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9634/&quot;&gt;shoot in manual whenever you're combining multiple photos&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a picture of the lens at f/16 to see what it looks fully stopped down:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/kbc2c.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;same lens at f/16 only&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T08:22:26.493" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9644" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9375" CreationDate="2011-03-10T11:29:30.340" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Put all files you want to export &lt;strong&gt;into a collection&lt;/strong&gt; (a folder is also ok).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Select the images and use &lt;strong&gt;save metadata&lt;/strong&gt; from the context menu (just to be on the safe side, probably not needed)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Then right click on the collection (or select images and use &lt;em&gt;File&lt;/em&gt; menu), and select &lt;strong&gt;export as catalog&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;check &lt;em&gt;export negative files&lt;/em&gt; and export to your external drive.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4254" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T11:29:30.340" />
  <row Id="9645" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-10T13:14:13.923" Score="3" ViewCount="313" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use to shot in raw and i would want to store the files in the cloud. which are the options?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4256" LastActivityDate="2011-03-13T13:59:09.640" Title="Is there any flickr/Picasa Web service to store and share raw files?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;flickr&gt;&lt;picasa&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9646" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9647" CreationDate="2011-03-10T13:43:17.127" Score="2" ViewCount="127" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All major manufacturers have there own raw file format but how many of them are? are there any similar information? any standard?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4256" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T14:19:38.633" Title="how many different RAW formats are there?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;file&gt;&lt;file-format&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9647" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9646" CreationDate="2011-03-10T14:09:19.077" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a lot of different RAW file formats, not compatible with each other.  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia page has a list&lt;/a&gt; of them.  Some manufacturers have used more than one format.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some things they tend to have in common.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of them are based on the TIFF file format.  The TIFF file format can contain various types of image data and metadata, and it has been adapted by camera manufacturers to carry the raw sensor data from the camera sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Almost all modern sensors use the same RGGB Bayer interpolation matrix.  While some may read in 12-bit and some in higher bit depths, the layout is the same.  This is often also compressed using a common type of lossless data compression.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;RAW files almost always contain a low-bitrate, large JPEG image stream allowing for fast previewing on the camera LCD, but with the ability to zoom in on detail too.  This is in addition to a small thumbnail in many cases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;RAW files need to preserve the same metadata streams as the camera would need to create the equivalent JPEG - this means EXIF/XMP data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The proliferation of mutually incompatible formats has led for the push to standardise, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative_%28file_format%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the DNG format&lt;/a&gt; owned by Adobe is one attempt at creating a (comparatively) open, manufacturer-agnostic format that can be shared.  However, the effectiveness of such a format is only as good as the manufacturers' support for it.  Some cameras do support the DNG format directly, but they are as yet in the minority.  In the meantime, open source code for reading virtually any RAW format is readily available, even though RAW files tend to include some encrypted data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lots more information about RAW formats&lt;/a&gt; is available on the Wikipedia page so I'd recommend it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-10T14:19:38.633" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T14:19:38.633" />
  <row Id="9648" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9645" CreationDate="2011-03-10T14:09:56.453" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's lots of options if you just want to store/backup RAW files:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dropbox.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dropbox&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.backblaze.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Backblaze&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://aws.amazon.com/s3/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Amazon S3&lt;/a&gt; with the right interface tool (of which there are many)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mozy.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mozy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first three I have personal experience with, and generally like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also see the related photo.SE question: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8595/online-backup-of-data&quot;&gt;Online Backup of Data&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dropbox and S3 will let you share RAW files, but not in the &quot;See My Pictures Online&quot; way that you're thinking of (like Flickr or Picasa). I personally do not know of any service that does that; perhaps someone else will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T14:09:56.453" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9649" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9637" CreationDate="2011-03-10T14:19:05.297" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A decent lens would be a good start. Any 18-200 superzoom tries to do all things, and ends up doing nothing particularly well. The Nikon 18-200 is a very good 18-200, but even so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd suggest something shortish and fast, a 35 f/1.8 or a 50 f/1.8 will do wonders for action and indoors, available-light photography. The D200 is a very capable camera still. And the fifty can be had for a song.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T14:19:05.297" />
  <row Id="9650" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9765" CreationDate="2011-03-10T14:34:41.093" Score="5" ViewCount="180" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've read that it is possible to have a lamp lit up when your picture is in focus when you are focussing manually. How do I enable this feature on a Canon 5D MkII?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1635" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T08:32:37.287" Title="How to I enable focus indication when focusing manually?" Tags="&lt;manual-focus&gt;&lt;canon-5d-mark-ii&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="9651" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9650" CreationDate="2011-03-10T14:39:09.897" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Should happen automatically, as far as I know. Unless you are using a third-party lens with an adapter, in which case the adapter needs to have a chip in it that talks to the camera's AF system. Not all do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T14:39:09.897" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9652" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="471" CreationDate="2011-03-10T14:44:21.623" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kphotoalbum.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KPhotoAlbum&lt;/a&gt; is a cataloging application that supports RAW files.  I use it to sort, preview, discard, and tag images before passing them to something else to potentially edit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3558" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T14:44:21.623" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-10T15:23:42.103" />
  <row Id="9653" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9650" CreationDate="2011-03-10T14:59:01.643" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Focus Confirmation is automatic, and should happen on a 5D with all Canon EF lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several situations, however, in which the confirmation light may not work. The focus confirmation uses the auto focus (AF) system, so any time that AF is not possible the confirmation light may fail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canon.co.uk/Support/Consumer_Products/products/cameras/Digital_SLR/EOS_5D_Mark_II.aspx?faqtcmuri=tcm:14-782570&amp;amp;page=1&amp;amp;type=faq&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;document that explains these situations in detail&lt;/a&gt; but I will list several common ones here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AF is not possible due to low contrast.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An extender/lens combination decreases the maximum aperture past f/5.6, which is beyond the limit for AF.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The shutter/AE Lock button custom function setting is changed, which can effect AF&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-10T15:05:49.543" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T15:05:49.543" />
  <row Id="9654" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9645" CreationDate="2011-03-10T15:25:49.560" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Researching a little bit it seems that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photoshop.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photoshop.com&lt;/a&gt; let to upload raw files and gives 2GB of free storage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4256" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T15:25:49.560" />
  <row Id="9655" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9617" CreationDate="2011-03-10T15:29:23.613" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could try Topaz in focus or Topaz detail both are extreemly good programs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4260" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T15:29:23.613" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9656" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9658" CreationDate="2011-03-10T15:45:05.237" Score="2" ViewCount="151" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sorry this isn't a clearcut question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been setting up to shoot artwork. I'm using the AV setting on my cannon which allows me to set a higher aperture (5.6) and set the ISO (100). The problem I'm worried about is the automatic exposure with artwork subjects that are of different brightness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The camera, (on tripod) automatically exposes long enough to capture the image. But for a brighter images with lighter colors won't the exposure take less time, and for darker images won't it take more ? (I think this was happening in my first experimental shots, but it could have been other variables). The results seem OK but I want to make sure. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to use an automatically exposure if I can. With the higher aperture and low ISO, even with studio lighting, an exposure can take a while. But I also want all the images to be consistent, and not have the darker ones over exposed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I also don't want to set different settings every time I photograph an image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should I maybe use a test pattern, or neutral gray to estimate the exposure length, then set the exposure manually for all the images no matter how light or dark they are? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or perhaps does the camera automatically know there really are just darker colors and will provide a consistent image no matter the subject?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or further should I just worry about this during the RAW image processing. (I read somewhere that RAW captures images at a different gamma level than your eyes naturally see). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NOTE, I'm using a Canon T2i, shooting RAW, with a 35mm Macro lens on a sturdy tripod, using the EOS utility to operate the camera from the computer.  I have a decent softbox light setup at 45 degree angles, though I may have to sometimes adjust them depending on the finish sheen and texture of the paintings. The experimental shots I've done using the automatic exposure seem pretty good so far. I just want to make sure I get a consistent shot for all the images. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4259" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T16:24:09.430" Title="Consistent image exposure using Canon AV (aperture priority) setting for artwork" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;artwork&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="9657" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9656" CreationDate="2011-03-10T15:53:05.980" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The light-meter in the camera has no way of knowing how bright or dark your subject is in absolute terms. It only sees what the camera lens happens to capture, and works under the happy assumption that what the light-meter sees will have the luminance of 18% grey (or perhaps 12%). Which is why relying on the automatic modes in a case like yours is perhaps not so great an idea if you want &quot;correct&quot;, consistent exposures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T15:53:05.980" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9658" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9656" CreationDate="2011-03-10T16:02:00.410" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want consistent exposures you should use manual mode. If you let the camera measure the light, it will compensate for lighter or darger colors and try to make the average of the scene standard gray.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively you could use spot metering, and use a gray card in front of the artwork, so that the camera will only measure the light that falls on the subject, not how much light it reflects. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the RAW processing you have some margin to adjust the exposure, but you should try to make the exposure as correct as possible from start. If you have to compensate too much in the post processing, you will get a noticable loss in image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T16:02:00.410" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9659" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9656" CreationDate="2011-03-10T16:12:48.233" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to what you describe in your question, then the only way to get consistent exposures on all artworks (that is, make lighter works look brighter than darker works) is to use manual mode. Set it to some average settings to make sure you are not saturating (over exposing) or clipping all of the artworks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T16:12:48.233" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9660" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9656" CreationDate="2011-03-10T16:24:09.430" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want to ensure that you don't have to retake all your pictures because you had your exposure off by 2/3 stop, you could take several pictures over a range of exposures for each piece of artwork.  It would take a few extra seconds for each set of pictures, and you'd have a lot of additional files to manage, but when you're all done if you want to move your baseline by 1/3 stop or more, you would be able to do that without re-taking all the pictures (and I'm assuming that setting up for each shot will be the bulk of the work).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T16:24:09.430" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9661" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-10T18:00:30.793" Score="7" ViewCount="121" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a good resource for listing local/regional photography clubs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1309" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-10T22:24:59.017" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T13:47:51.987" Title="How can I find a local/regional photography club?" Tags="&lt;clubs&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9662" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9669" CreationDate="2011-03-10T18:02:01.307" Score="1" ViewCount="154" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a good Nikon resource for explaining how to use after setting up the bracketing?  Do I set the shooting to single or continuous? If it's on continuous would it stop after the bracketing is over or does it continue on&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1309" LastEditorUserId="1309" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-10T19:34:40.477" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T00:37:32.000" Title="Nikon D200 Auto Bracketing guidance" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9663" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9639" CreationDate="2011-03-10T18:34:58.083" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Magic Lantern, a freeware firmware hack, is available for your camera and it supports Trap Focus. It's inside the Focus menu.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://magiclantern.wikia.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://magiclantern.wikia.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4039" LastEditorUserId="4039" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-10T19:24:03.890" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T19:24:03.890" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9664" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9645" CreationDate="2011-03-10T18:38:05.240" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Smugmug has an optional feature called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.smugmug.com/help/smugvault&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SmugVault&lt;/a&gt; (see also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.smugmug.com/price/smugvault.mg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;) which allows storage of RAW and other file types. I have not used SmugVault so I can't review it for you, but I am a longtime customer and I love their other services.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The files are stored on Amazon S3 servers.  As I understand it your RAW files are linked to your jpg files of the same name. So xyz.jpg showing in your Smugmug gallery is automatically linked to xyz.raw in SmugVault - for the owner's access only, of course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The cost they list is $0.22/month/GB for the storage plus $1.00/month fee; there's also a $0.30/GB upload charge and a $0.51/GB download charge. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2873" LastEditorUserId="2873" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-10T20:11:33.303" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T20:11:33.303" />
  <row Id="9665" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-10T18:45:42.427" Score="2" ViewCount="344" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have an old Nikon F801 35mm film camera with a Nikon SB-24 flash gun a AF Nikkor 70-210 mm 1:3.3-4-5 &amp;amp; a AF Nikkor 35-70mm 1:3.3-4.5 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am thinking of buying a new set up the Nikon D3100 with 18-55mm VR Lens will anything be compatible with the new set up. Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4264" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-10T19:29:40.547" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T22:40:00.620" Title="Will any of my old Nikon gear be compatible with a D3100?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;nikon-d3100&gt;&lt;compatibility&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9666" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9665" CreationDate="2011-03-10T19:07:46.480" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;All your stuff should be compatible in that it will allow you to take pictures and should meter correctly.  However, the D3100 lacks an in body focus motor and will not autofocus your two older lenses.  If that's important to you, consider the D90 or D7000 which have the required in body motor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T19:07:46.480" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9667" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9665" CreationDate="2011-03-10T19:08:27.477" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The lenses will fit but will &lt;strong&gt;not autofocus&lt;/strong&gt; as the D3100 does not have an in-camera focus motor and requires &lt;strong&gt;AF-S lenses&lt;/strong&gt; for auto focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you wish to use AF with your lenses, then you should consider the D7000 or a &lt;strong&gt;model with 1 to 3 numbers in its name&lt;/strong&gt; (D300S, D700, D90, D3S, etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that the angle-of-view of your lenses will be different if you do not go with a full-frame body (D3S, D3X or D700). So a 70-210mm lens will give you the equivalent angle-of-view of a 105-315mm lens on your film camera. You have to multiple by 1.5 which is called the focal-length multiplier.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The flash will probably work, but I'm just guessing!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T19:08:27.477" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9668" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9665" CreationDate="2011-03-10T19:10:20.750" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The SB-24 will fire but you will not be able to use the TTL-mode. Nikon changed their flash exposure protocol when they introduced the latest DSLRs. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A (auto) mode will work fine, as will M (manual).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T19:10:20.750" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9669" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9662" CreationDate="2011-03-10T19:17:22.320" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The user-manual :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Seriously, read the few paragraphs in the manual that tell you how to activate that feature first.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;IIRC you can assign one of the buttons in the front to activate bracketing and speed up access.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, you basically specify the number of frames (3-9) and step size (1/3, 1/2, 1) you want. There generally two common reason for using bracketing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;To make sure you get the perfect exposure:&lt;/strong&gt; Set the set size small, so that you do not miss it because it falls between steps. The number of frames should be set according to how confident you are about the meter.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For HDR / Exposure Blending / Simulating a Graduated ND-filter:&lt;/strong&gt; You want as large steps as possible to cover the broadest range. The number of frames depends on how contrasty the scene is. The more contrasty, the more frames are needed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt; - In response to question edits :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Continuous drive mode lets you shoot the whole bracket continuously and stops after that.&lt;/strong&gt; If you are talking portraits, action or anything that is fleeting, that is probably the best mode to use. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Single advance mode lets you shoot one image at a time.&lt;/strong&gt; If you are taking long exposures where the timing is critical relative to moving objects, people, passing cars, etc, then you should use this one. This applies for HDR too, where you need to make sure no objects are moving in your frame. For long exposures, you can let vibrations settle between each shot to improve sharpness.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-11T00:37:32.000" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T00:37:32.000" />
  <row Id="9670" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9662" CreationDate="2011-03-10T19:19:19.713" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Setting up bracketing on the D200 is easy. Press and hold the BKT button. Choose the exposure step (0.3, 0.7, 1 stop) with the front dial. Choose the &quot;pattern&quot; (below, above, or around 0) using the rear dial. The top LCD will show a graphic representing the pattern and step.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reset the bracketing with the rear dial.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T19:19:19.713" />
  <row Id="9671" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9645" CreationDate="2011-03-10T19:27:34.217" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the only reason you want to do this is for backup, then any number of backup services are available to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use Amazon S3 for all my backup needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3989" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T19:27:34.217" />
  <row Id="9672" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9661" CreationDate="2011-03-10T19:54:56.543" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One place you might find worth looking at is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.meetup.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.meetup.com&lt;/a&gt;. Of course, I can't make any guarantees about what (if anything) you'll find in your area, but it stands at least a decent chance of coming up with something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T19:54:56.543" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9673" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9661" CreationDate="2011-03-10T20:28:35.720" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;We have an hobbyist photo club at work. We meet every other week during lunch break and have various activities during meeting, usually following a calendar set once or twice a year. The activities include topical assignments, member shows, tutorials and gallery displays in our cafeteria.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See if you have something running in your workplace, and if not, found one! You may be surprised at how many people there find interest in sharing and improving their photography skills.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T20:28:35.720" />
  <row Id="9674" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9661" CreationDate="2011-03-10T20:35:08.537" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One good resource would be to check with local retail camera stores - they're likely aware of (if not directly connected with) local photography clubs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another resource would be tracking down the local chapter of the pro photo organizations such as ASMP.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T20:35:08.537" />
  <row Id="9675" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9661" CreationDate="2011-03-10T21:13:11.237" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Flickr has many regional groups with active participants. For example, I am a member of a bird photography group devoted to my city. Many members are willing to meetup and go on shoots together. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1125" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T21:13:11.237" />
  <row Id="9676" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9665" CreationDate="2011-03-10T22:40:00.620" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi Alan, If you can afford it, I'd go for the D7000. It has great specs and you will be able to use all your AF lenses too. Although the D3100 is a great camera, my son has just purchased one an it's awesome. However, good lenses are what really counts in photo taking. Keep and use your old lenses to their full potential. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2455" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T22:40:00.620" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9677" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9609" CreationDate="2011-03-10T23:16:42.190" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Thanks a lot everyone for your tips! I'm going to answer my own question, since none of the answers exactly describes my preferred workflow. So, here goes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Laptop: Create a separate folder for all pics of the vacation, e.g. &lt;code&gt;2011_03_01-07_Hawaii&lt;/code&gt; ;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Laptop: Import all pics from the camera into that folder. Create subfolders as necessary. Edit pics in LR as desired.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Laptop: In &lt;strong&gt;Library&lt;/strong&gt; &gt; &lt;strong&gt;Folders&lt;/strong&gt;, right-click on the folder and choose &lt;strong&gt;Export this Folder as a Catalog...&lt;/strong&gt; and choose a shared location (memory stick, network share, etc.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Desktop: Click &lt;strong&gt;File&lt;/strong&gt; &gt; &lt;strong&gt;Import from Catalog...&lt;/strong&gt; Choose the previously exported catalog on the shared location. In the import dialog under 'New Photos' choose: &lt;strong&gt;Copy new photos to a new location and import&lt;/strong&gt; and your preferred location.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4228" LastActivityDate="2011-03-10T23:16:42.190" />
  <row Id="9678" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-10T23:27:54.420" Score="0" ViewCount="155" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4804/books-resources-on-the-artistic-side-of-photograpy&quot;&gt;Books/resources on the artistic side of photograpy?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Okay. There are lots of books out there that are eager to tell people what is exposure, f-stops and talk about all the cool gadgets one can but for their DSLRs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, when someone grows up, might realise that all the photo geekery he's got didn't really help him to take better pictures (maybe &lt;em&gt;sharper&lt;/em&gt;, not really &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;better&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; though), but instead his photography sense and artistic development that really paid off and the well focused and pointed 18-55mm is actually great.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, after you reached that point, if you could tell your younger self to read a book, which one would be?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1756" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T14:40:20.383" ClosedDate="2011-03-11T01:09:05.723" Title="The best single photography book start point from the artistic point of view?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;composition&gt;&lt;books&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9679" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9678" CreationDate="2011-03-11T00:00:59.243" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is difficult to find a book that services the artistic side of every kind of photography. Different kinds, such as landscape, portrait, architectural, etc. lend themselves to a different artistic outlook and a different artistic flare. That said, one of the best photography books I've ever purchased (and read almost every word) is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.michaelfreemanphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Michael Freeman&lt;/a&gt;'s famous book:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0240809343&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Photographer's Eye: Composition and Design for Better Digital Photos&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This book is a rare gem, in that it does a pretty superb job of covering all the critical artistic topics of photography in a generally agnostic way. Michael Freeman is a talented photographer, and his communication of compositional aspects of photography is second to none. You may not learn everything about the artistic side of a specific kind of photography from this book, but you'll definitely learn the general basics that can be applied to most forms of photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two other books by Michael Freeman should also find their way into your collection:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0240811712&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Michael Freeman's Perfect Exposure:&#xA;The Professional's Guide to Capturing&#xA;Perfect Digital Photographs&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0240815173&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Photographer's Mind: Creative&#xA;Thinking for Better Digital&#xA;Photos&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These three books comprise my favorites out of my entire collection, and have been the most useful (and most used) over the two or so years I've been doing photography. They do not get into the specifics of any specific field of photography, so if you are looking for detailed information information about a single field, you will have to look deeper. I generally do landscape photography, and I can offer some superb books for that field that can help you expand your artistic horizons beyond the fundamentals covered in Freeman's books. For other fields, like portraiture, architectural photography, street, etc., others can hopefully help you find what you need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-11T14:40:20.383" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T14:40:20.383" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9680" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9662" CreationDate="2011-03-11T00:20:12.317" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Manual or Thom Hogan's guides are probably the sources I would suggest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your other questions:&#xA;press and hold the BKT button (upper back left of the camera)&#xA;Turn the rear control dial to select number of shots (2 with one below, 2 with one above, or 3, 5, 7, or 9 evenly spaced) and the front control dial to select the distance each shot should be from what the camera metered for the scene (1/3 to 1/1 EV).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would reccomend continuos, and yes, the camera will stop in continuous mode after the set is complete. To start another set release and then re-hold the button. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3478" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T00:20:12.317" />
  <row Id="9681" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9682" CreationDate="2011-03-11T03:32:59.990" Score="8" ViewCount="234" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to my knowledge Polarizing filters are mainly used to make sky appear more bluish in the day sunlight which gives more dramatic effect to your pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't have polarizing filters yet , But would like to know whether we can achieve same effect(making sky more blue like a polarizing effect) through post processing. If yes any link which explains it from scratch ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use GIMP and picasa (open source) in Ubuntu . Any easy solution using these Softwares ?&#xA;or is it better to buy a polarizing filter itself ! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use Canon EOS 1000D , and mostly use 50mm 1.8 and 70-300sigma lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1980" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-11T04:57:40.903" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T04:57:40.903" Title="Can the effects of a polarizer be replicated in post-processing?" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;gimp&gt;&lt;polarizer&gt;&lt;picasa&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9682" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9681" CreationDate="2011-03-11T03:35:56.793" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One result of using a polarizer is the deeper blue skies; that effect isn't hard to replicate using software such as Photoshop, Lightroom, Picasa, or the GIMP.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another important reason a polarizer might be used is to reduce glare and reflections.  The best example of this is if one is photographing a puddle or pond; without a polarizer the surface will reflect the sunlight and result in a lot of glare whereas a polarizer cuts down on that glare and the camera will capture an image that shows some underwater detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second effect (removing glare) is not one that can be replicated in post-processing and requires a polarizer to get it right at the time of capture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T03:35:56.793" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="9683" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9684" CreationDate="2011-03-11T04:29:11.833" Score="7" ViewCount="496" Body="&lt;p&gt;My wife's computer has probably 100 GBs of photos--thousands upon thousands of photos.  We've been using Windows Live Photo Gallery (Windows 7) and things have been pretty good.  The features and capabilities are there.  The problem is that, as the library has grown, WLPG insists on rescanning all photos in all directories.  We're at the point where even working with the application takes 100% CPU on her dual core machine for 5-10 minutes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've looked at Picasa but I didn't like it because it stored tags and other metadata alongside the photographs in a Picasa-specific database file instead of embedding the tags and other kinds of metadata &lt;em&gt;inside&lt;/em&gt; the photographs where they belong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know of any photo software, preferably Windows based that can handle tens of thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands of photos well and not suck the life out of a decent machine?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ideally everything would always be in the photo library, because the point of having them their is for them to be accessible.  If we have to &quot;archive&quot; them or move them somewhere else outside of the library, it kind of defeats the point of being able to tag them for quick retrieval.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not opposed to paying $ for some good software, but I want to hear about your experiences before plunking down cash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4268" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T11:12:59.197" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T11:12:59.197" Title="What's good photo management software for dealing with a huge library?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;workflow&gt;&lt;organisation&gt;&lt;curation&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="9684" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9683" CreationDate="2011-03-11T04:48:14.810" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately I had the exact opposite criteria as you :) &lt;strong&gt;I looked at every software I could which did NOT touch the files and stored the information in a central database.&lt;/strong&gt; The one constant is that having a central database makes it much more efficient to perform searches and filter your images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do have hundreds of gigs of photos and the &lt;strong&gt;most efficient software to do this is Bibble Pro&lt;/strong&gt;. They claim to be 20X faster than the competition and I measured at least 5X for most (not all, most softwares have perform well at least something) except for &lt;strong&gt;PicaJet FX which was close in speed&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;PicaJet actually stores EXIF/IPTC edits in its database AND the files&lt;/strong&gt;, so it may suit you. You can get a free evaluation copy. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.picajet.com/en/index.php?page=features&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Read about PicaJet here.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately I did not end up using Bibble Pro because it would not import my very large panoramas and PicaJet because it was destructive. I consider my files sacred :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I &lt;strong&gt;finally went with Lightroom&lt;/strong&gt; which is highly regarded. It is reasonably fast (still 5X slower than Bibble), supports non-destructive editing (so no need to duplicate storage to crop to different paper sizes!) and good support options and online resources. For about 280GB of images (44K) it starts instantly and finishes its 'refresh' (what the hell is it doing? I don't know) in less than 2 mins. Most simple (2-3 criteria) queries complete in under 1 min.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-11T04:54:39.983" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T04:54:39.983" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9685" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8099" CreationDate="2011-03-11T07:03:13.477" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Having only recently acquired a fisheye I'm having fun with it but I don't see it as a replacement for a regular wideangle lens.&#xA;I do see it as an alternative to the very heavy 12-24  zoom I'd otherwise buy (I've chronic back problems, the lighter weight was the deal maker for me to buy a 10-17 fisheye rather than a 12-24), but not a direct replacement (I already own a 20mm f/2.8 so wouldn't need the full 12-24 range anyway).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Tokina 10-17 has very profound curving at 10mm, reduced to barely visible curving at 17mm.&#xA;It serves its purpose as an ultra wide lens to give me reach beyond the 20mm I was previously limited to, while offering at the same time a nice toy to experiment and get strange visuals if I want to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And no, they're not cheap. The 10-17 cost me the same the 12-24 would have from the same product range (Tokina ATX-Pro). I believe Nikon and others have similar price simularities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T07:03:13.477" />
  <row Id="9686" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-11T12:26:46.260" Score="6" ViewCount="334" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have an Olympus FE-190. When I take a picture, with flash on Digital Image Stabilizer (DIS) mode, I get white spots in pictures. This doesn't happen always.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is only an option called Pixel Mapping, but I am not sure what it does. I have attached two pics, to give you an idea. The dots can be more prominent than what you see.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://picasaweb.google.com/thetuxracer/ForSE?feat=directlink&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://picasaweb.google.com/thetuxracer/ForSE?feat=directlink&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/P9kY3.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/pDwtq.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2310" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-11T17:17:34.667" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T16:16:58.383" Title="Why does using flash sometimes create these white spots in the photo?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;image-stabilization&gt;&lt;image-quality&gt;&lt;spots&gt;&lt;artifacts&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9687" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9686" CreationDate="2011-03-11T12:49:12.290" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This looks to me like it might be dust spots or speckles on the lens, which are getting highlighted by the reflection of the flash back onto the surface of the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obvious first step: try cleaning the lens with lens cleaning fluid / wipes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this doesn't work, we might need more information. You mention this happens when using the flash with the Digital Image Stabilizer (DIS) switched on. Does it stop happening when the DIS is turned off? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, do you get a similar effect when shooting towards a bright light?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2127" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T12:49:12.290" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9688" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9686" CreationDate="2011-03-11T13:47:56.093" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This isn't terribly likely but I'm going to put it out there: It is possible that there's a light leak inside the camera. Light from the flash is getting through a crack and hitting the back of the lens and bouncing around in odd ways, causing the weird artifacts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T13:47:56.093" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9689" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2078" CreationDate="2011-03-11T14:10:38.070" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some cameras have a menu option for pixel mapping, which runs an internal check for stuck-on pixels and maps them out (even from RAW files). This is the best and most convenient way to avoid this problem, since you basically don't ever have to worry about it again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, it appears that neither Nikon nor Canon make this feature user-accessible. Both of them, however, will provide the service for you if you send the camera in under warranty. (Or, I'm sure, for a charge out of warranty.) Several years ago, my Pentax K100D had half a dozen hot pixels, and I was very glad that I sent it in. (Having 6 pixels out of 6 million missing from the equation has no effect, but having 6 making bright red and blue dots was annoying.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Currently, I believe Olympus includes this on &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; of their cameras, even their cheapest point &amp;amp; shoot models. And Pentax now includes it on all of their dSLRs. Sony has a pixel mapping feature, but it's only for the back LCD screen, not for the sensor — although &lt;em&gt;rumor&lt;/em&gt; is that the camera automatically runs a sensor hot-pixel mapping  monthly. (If I were a Sony user, I'd contact tech support and see if I could get a confirmation of that in writing.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having the in-camera mapping is so convenient that it's on the &quot;plusses&quot; list for any camera I'd buy in the future. But since you can also send in the camera for it to be done for free (well, for the cost of shipping), I wouldn't rate it a deal-breaker. (The same goes for the ability to fine-tune auto-focus.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T14:10:38.070" />
  <row Id="9690" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9696" CreationDate="2011-03-11T14:11:58.490" Score="3" ViewCount="251" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am an avid &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/uk/products/photoshoplightroom/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lightroom&lt;/a&gt; user, but I recently came across &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibblelabs.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bibble&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am very glad to find another entry in this market place, and I'm especially thrilled to find an offering that works on linux.  (I'm on Windows at the moment, and one of the main reasons I'm not using linux is that Lightroom doesn't work there).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would take quite a lot to make me switch, but it's certainly not out of the question.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I would love to get some insight into how they compare in real world use.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone comment from experience of both apps?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;update&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have downloaded and run the free trial of bibble.  However, that can't compare with using the app for a long period of time - experience I couldn't really get unless I switch.  :-s&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-11T15:38:33.577" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T18:13:21.553" Title="How does Bibble compare to Lightroom?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;bibble&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="9691" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-11T14:12:18.040" Score="5" ViewCount="103" Body="&lt;p&gt;I read on 2 sites that pixel mapping should be done once or twice a year. But sometimes I end up doing it once a month. Will it have adverse effect on the CMOS?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2310" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T18:59:01.883" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T18:59:01.883" Title="Are there bad effects of frequent pixel-mapping?" Tags="&lt;hot-pixels&gt;&lt;cmos-image-sensor&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="9692" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9691" CreationDate="2011-03-11T14:19:17.813" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't imagine why. The actual operation is non-destructive — it just reads from the sensor when it should be dark (possibly multiple times), and records what is stuck on. Then that's put in a table — a map — which is used to mask out those pixels later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Updating that map can't really be destructive either. I mean, it's probably stored on flash which can only have 100,000 writes or so, but that'd only be a problem if you were doing it every second, not every month.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the advice for once or twice a year is because new defective pixels &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; crop up, but it's unusual, and shouldn't happen frequently. Running yearly or half-yearly should catch them on average. Of course, if you notice one before then, running the mapping right away is clearly the thing to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-11T14:25:36.683" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T14:25:36.683" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9693" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9695" CreationDate="2011-03-11T15:29:57.157" Score="3" ViewCount="193" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is considered an &quot;unmanipulated&quot; image? As defined by photo.net:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Unmanipulated&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;a single uninterrupted exposure&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;cropping to taste&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;common adjustments to the entire    image, e.g., color temperature,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  curves, sharpening,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;desaturation to black and white&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;dust spots on sensor cloned out&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/photodb/manipulation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://photo.net/photodb/manipulation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What else are you allowed to do to an image that falls under unmanipulated?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would selective sharpening using a mask be considered unacceptable?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4124" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-11T17:58:00.717" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T22:15:32.647" Title="Image processing &amp; editing: what is an &quot;unmanipulated&quot; image?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;ethics&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9694" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9693" CreationDate="2011-03-11T16:02:44.997" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To me it is an image that comes straight of the camera and has not been modified in any way by software. photo.net's definition does not actually qualify.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you shoot RAW, then obviously it is a grey area because you did not get an image out of the camera. I assume you would need to do a conversion that is possible in-camera or similar. If you do cropping or anything selective, then it would be manipulating.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some advanced cameras have a feature to verify that an image has not been manipulated by &lt;em&gt;digitally signing&lt;/em&gt; each image. It is supposed to make the image admissible as evidence in court.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many publications require submission of unmanipulated images (without requiring the digital signature as they trust their photographers). The editor can then change things slightly to match the format, colors and media of the publication.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T16:02:44.997" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9695" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9693" CreationDate="2011-03-11T16:08:34.257" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Considered by whom? This is both an issue that has intrigued and bothered people since the dawn of photography &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; a still-emerging topic that is far from settled. So, in a larger sense, there's really no meaningful answer, just a series of opinions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, in a specific sense, there certainly can be an answer. The definition you've taken above has a very specific use — it's the definition to use for photos in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photo.net&lt;/a&gt; image database. It's a pretty good, well-thought through definition and &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; be used elsewhere, but questions over details (like the mask-based sharpening you mention) can only be done in a specific context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The US-based National Press Photographer's Association has this in their &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nppa.org/about_us/governance/bylaws.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;code of ethics&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Editing should maintain the integrity&#xA;  of the photographic images' content&#xA;  and context. Do not manipulate images&#xA;  or add or alter sound in any way that&#xA;  can mislead viewers or misrepresent&#xA;  subjects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and a more-specific &quot;Statement of Principle&quot; on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/digitalethics.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Manipulation&lt;/a&gt;, which says in part:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Accurate representation is the&#xA;  benchmark of our profession. We&#xA;  believe photojournalistic guidelines&#xA;  for fair and accurate reporting should&#xA;  be the criteria for judging what may&#xA;  be done electronically to a&#xA;  photograph.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, the Canadian Association of Journalists, in their &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.caj.ca/?p=20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;statement of principles and ethical guidelines&lt;/a&gt;, says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Photojournalists are responsible for&#xA;  the integrity of their images. We will&#xA;  not alter images so that they mislead&#xA;  the public. We will explain in the&#xA;  photo caption if a photograph has been&#xA;  staged. We will label altered images&#xA;  as photo illustrations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fpr both journalistic associations, the focus is on &lt;em&gt;intent&lt;/em&gt;, and technical details aren't mentioned at all. It's probably fair to say that this is a far less strict standard than photo.net has, and, subjectively, that seems reasonable given the context. Note photo.net's &lt;em&gt;reasons&lt;/em&gt; for their standards: photos in that database are intended to help others learn, and it is helpful to know whether or not a high degree of post-processing was required.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're entering a contest, that contest should explain their rules clearly. For example, the 2010 National Geographic Photography Contest has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/photo-contest/digital-manipulation-notice/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;statement including a  list of okay and not-okay&lt;/a&gt;. This is summed-up as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Please do not digitally enhance or&#xA;  alter your photographs (beyond the&#xA;  basics needed to achieve realistic&#xA;  color balance and sharpness). If you&#xA;  have digitally added or removed&#xA;  anything, please don't submit the&#xA;  shot. We look at every photo to see if&#xA;  it's authentic, and if we find that&#xA;  yours is in any way deceptive, we'll&#xA;  disqualify it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For artistic and personal work, there's unlikely to be any expectation that your image not be manipulated, unless you create one — in which case, you have the opportunity to be as clear as you like about your process, and your views on photographic integrity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T16:08:34.257" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="9696" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9690" CreationDate="2011-03-11T16:22:32.547" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bibble Pro impressed me in many ways. I evaluated it, along with 5 other software early last year, giving them a catalog of 18000 and working with them over a 3 month period. The only two that were outstanding were Lightroom and Bibble Pro.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bibble Pro is considerably faster and with their search interface is it easier to create powerful searches. You can also work with unmanaged images with is a nice bonus for some tasks or when other people send you images to look or modify for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end I had two issues with it, one was some EXIF strangeness and the other was that it could not import large panoramas (a work-around is possible but time-consuming). The actual &lt;em&gt;showstopper&lt;/em&gt; for me was that they did not answer my support calls, emails and faxes, giving me the impression that they do not care much. This may be an isolated incident but something to consider.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally I choose Lightroom and I am happy with it. It is powerful, flexible and mostly intuitive. There is also a lot of information and literature on it as well. While I really preferred Bibble's interface, I cannot say there is anything truly problematic with how Lightroom works. The lack of a fit-to-full-screen view still bugs me though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that there are many features that I do not use and which I can therefore not compare: printing, slideshow, publish to website (once I did in Lightroom). I also only do extremely basic changes to my images, most cropping, some rotation and color changes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can read a basic overview of the DAM aspect of Lightroom, Bibble Pro (and a several other software) in my &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/article.php?id=dam-software&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DAM Software Article&lt;/a&gt;. It may help you compare them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-11T18:13:21.553" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T18:13:21.553" />
  <row Id="9697" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9686" CreationDate="2011-03-11T16:59:39.170" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's either a dirty lens, or particulate in the air (moisture or dust). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Image stabilization has nothing to do with this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4269" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T16:59:39.170" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9698" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9683" CreationDate="2011-03-11T17:51:12.633" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;WLPG stores data in the image, and in a database.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;High CPU usage may be a background process scanning images for faces. This can take quite some time (days). It's a low priority process, so (in theory) it won't slow down other applications; however, the elevated CPU usage will consume power (stay plugged in until it's finished).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you edit an image, be aware that the original is hidden under AppData. If you don't remember this when you move to a new computer, you will lose all your original images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To your original question, LightRoom is exceptional.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4269" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T17:51:12.633" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9699" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9683" CreationDate="2011-03-11T17:54:11.327" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You need a cataloging software. I don't know a better one than Adobe Lightroom. It is an extremely powerful program used by amateurs and professionals alike. Allows you to tag photos, export, import, and do processing.  A must program if you have 100s upon 1000s of photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4246" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T17:54:11.327" />
  <row Id="9700" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4854" CreationDate="2011-03-11T17:57:56.700" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The yellow background in Photo Gallery is telling you that color management is not being used. It's intentional, but unfortunately not very user friendly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;SeanMC is seeing strange behavior with his 2 monitors because one is running color management, and the other is not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You &lt;em&gt;want&lt;/em&gt; color management. It's the only way to know that the colors you are seeing on your screen are the same colors other people will see on their screens, or when the image is printed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4269" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T17:57:56.700" />
  <row Id="9701" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9693" CreationDate="2011-03-11T18:02:58.870" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Usually an un-manipulated image means that it is not airbrushed or underwent heavy processing.  All models in magazines are considered as manipulated (or photoshopped).  Post processing an image by applying sharpening and toning colors to reflect a natural look, is not really considered manipulation but rather adjustment.  Photographers may argue about the details, but as a general rule, a manipulation = heavy processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4246" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T18:02:58.870" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9702" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5002" CreationDate="2011-03-11T18:18:11.583" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;50% gray.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The area around your image is a light source (either emitted, or reflected). If the surrounding area is white, your iris will close slightly to accommodate the excess light. Your will perceive the image as darker than it actually is because your iris is a little too closed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the surrounding area is black, your iris will open up slightly to accommodate the lack of light. You will perceive the image as brighter than it actually is because your iris is a little too open. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This effect is most important when editing an image. The results of your edits must be applicable to the environment the image will be viewed in. If you can't control the environment your image will be viewed in, 50% gray is neutral ground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As LabNut points out, border size is also a factor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4269" LastEditorUserId="4269" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-16T00:01:08.390" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T00:01:08.390" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9703" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5002" CreationDate="2011-03-11T18:31:47.270" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's mid-tone grey.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is why photo software aimed at professionals such as Lightroom use a grey background. This has been used for over a decade with video edition software as well, long before Lightroom, Aperture and Bibble Pro were created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Someone suggested to look at publications but they have other concerns that just displaying photos and therefore the background color of choice will be influenced by graphic design, branding, etc. On the other hand, a software's UI is &lt;em&gt;less&lt;/em&gt; influenced by these things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T18:31:47.270" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9704" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4854" CreationDate="2011-03-11T19:00:22.677" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A quick search on Google for Samsung Colour profiles will turn up a lot of info on this topic. Mostly saying it's an issue with the Samsung colour profile. My Samsung Syncmaster T240 has the same problem. Photoshop particularly does not like the standard colour profile for my monitor. The quick fix for Windows 7 is to select Colour Management in the Control Panel and add the sRGB IEC61966-2.1 as the default profile for your Samsung monitor. This will cure the problem with the windows photo viewer and issues with Photoshop. I've not noticed any adverse effects from doing this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4271" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T19:00:22.677" />
  <row Id="9705" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9683" CreationDate="2011-03-11T21:11:04.897" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ACDSee&lt;/strong&gt; ( &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.acdsee.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.acdsee.com/&lt;/a&gt; ) might get you where you need to go. I'm using this currently. It stores data in its own DB for speed, but also allows you to write the data to the EXIF/IPTC data of the source files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another alternative might be IMatch ( &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photools.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.photools.com/&lt;/a&gt; ).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing I wish that ACDSee could do is the face recognition that Picasa features. It's a huge help in getting images tagged quickly. I've found a couple of tools that allow you to use Picasa to tag the faces, then export that data into the image files themselves:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AvPicFaceXmpTagger: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.anvo-it.de/wiki/avpicfacexmptagger:main&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.anvo-it.de/wiki/avpicfacexmptagger:main&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Picasa Face Embedder: &lt;a href=&quot;http://cris.lovell-smith.com/downloads/picasa-face-embedder&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://cris.lovell-smith.com/downloads/picasa-face-embedder&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4272" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T21:11:04.897" />
  <row Id="9706" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9693" CreationDate="2011-03-11T21:52:56.910" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;All photos are manipulated, simply because all photos are merely a piece of a larger picture, and by taking that piece out you lose the context they were taken in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean that we shouldn't make rules?  Well, no, obviously there is a code of ethics in certain cases (i.e. photo-journalism and documentary photography) where the point is to honestly tell as much of the whole story as possible.  In photography contests, like any other contest, entrants compete at the level of specific skills; the rules define what those skills are.  Just as it's appropriate to disallow road bikes in a foot race, in photography contests it's appropriate to define the skills contestants compete for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At this point I would like to take a quote from a very applicable blog entry by photographer &lt;a href=&quot;http://bryanfpeterson.blogspot.com/2010/06/every-photograph-is-lie-yet-within-that.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Brian Peterson&lt;/a&gt; that has some very good thoughts about photographic alteration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The debate over 'natural' or 'altered'&#xA;  images is really OLD NEWS! In fact it&#xA;  can be argued that every lens choice,&#xA;  every point of view, every 'creative&#xA;  exposure', every filter, to name a few&#xA;  from the list, are all guilty of&#xA;  'altering' an image. As far as I am&#xA;  concerned, you can even add the mere&#xA;  act of framing the image in-camera as&#xA;  another example of altering an image!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2214" LastEditorUserId="2214" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-11T22:15:32.647" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T22:15:32.647" />
  <row Id="9707" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9645" CreationDate="2011-03-11T22:12:29.307" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Raw files are minimally processed and are not commonly for viewing, I recommend using your application of choice to edit the images and output JPG files for viewing or printing. I personally use SmugMug for displaying images and have explored the idea of using them to also backup my unprocessed images. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I am currently of the opinion that a dedicated service like CrashPlan or Carbonite would be a better choice for off-site backup as it would be much easier and cheaper to retrieve my images from them as it is the focus of what they do. Plus you can store any type of file with them such as Lightroom library files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have done the most research on CrashPlan. For $125 they will send you a hard drive to copy all of your files to and send back to them so that your initial backup does not take months to complete, then for $288 you get 4 years of backup for all of the computers in your house with unlimited space. That feels like a big investment, but it works out to $413 or a bit less than $9 a month.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4273" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T22:12:29.307" />
  <row Id="9708" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9710" CreationDate="2011-03-11T22:54:14.497" Score="17" ViewCount="609" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have read that photographers are rarely the best editors of their own images. As digital cameras make it so easy to take hundreds of shots of a given subject, the challenge of sorting and ranking them to come up with the handful of great images to share/print/publish has become so monumental that it is almost hopeless. What tools and techniques do you use to perform this task of curating images?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4274" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-12T14:06:14.307" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T18:13:43.023" Title="How do you select the 10 best images from a set of 300?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;curation&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="8" />
  <row Id="9709" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9708" CreationDate="2011-03-11T23:01:41.983" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the toughest, but most effective, things to do is discard (I don't necessarily mean delete forever, just don't include it in that final 10) any image that isn't technically perfect.  So if you didn't nail the focus, or there's something distracting in the picture (whether it's litter or you didn't frame the picture right so there's a tree growing out of the person's head), or the picture wasn't level, or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.speedlighter.ca/2011/02/23/judge-not-that-ye-etc/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;any of a dozen other things that can go wrong&lt;/a&gt;, then don't share/print/publish the picture!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's tough because it means discarding a lot of pictures that are otherwise great: you perfectly captured the light, or the look in the person's eyes, or whatever else.  So share the picture with your friend who was there with you, or with the subject or their family, and they'll enjoy it, but don't share the picture with a wider audience because anyone who wasn't there or doesn't know that person will just be distracted by what's &lt;em&gt;wrong&lt;/em&gt; with the picture and won't enjoy it as much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T23:01:41.983" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9710" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9708" CreationDate="2011-03-11T23:08:39.187" Score="21" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's some of what I do:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Throw out the worst first. Blurry, blown out, excessively dark/noisy. Back-of-somene's-head is usually included here too.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Repeat the above rule a few times, raising the bar for &quot;worst&quot; so that it's relative to the new set.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Try to eliminate duplicates. This is an especially big deal when shooting in burst mode. Take X pictures that are very similar, keep exactly one. Picking the best 1 out of 5 is easier than picking the best 10 out of 50.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do a very brief pass over the remaining pictures, and assign some sort of rating (usually 3-5 stars by this point) based on a &lt;em&gt;very brief&lt;/em&gt; impression of the picture. You're looking for overall aesthetic impression here, and I find that it's best judged at &quot;first impressions&quot;. Don't think about this too much.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Depending on how you rate your photos and how many you have, you'll probably only want to share/publish a &lt;em&gt;fraction&lt;/em&gt; of your highest-rated photos. Less is more; even a dozen really good photos from the same scene can get boring. Throw out anything that's at all uninspiring.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Don't get bogged down by technical qualities: framing, exposure, contrast, colour, blemishes, depth of field. All of these can be fixed in post-production &lt;em&gt;if it's worth spending time on&lt;/em&gt;. Do pay attention to anything that &lt;em&gt;can't&lt;/em&gt; be fixed in post: focus errors, posing. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, the idea is to get really aggressive with throwing out pictures, and then spend time editing the keepers to make them awesome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adobe Lightroom makes this very easy; you can &quot;reject&quot; pictures (flag them as &quot;bad&quot;) with one key. If your filter is set right they'll disappear immediately from your working set. You can also change your filter to include them; nothing is ever lost/deleted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Getting good at culling the photographic herd means that you can let yourself take more shots on-site, which in turn increases your chances of getting that one &lt;em&gt;amazing&lt;/em&gt; photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-03-11T23:08:39.187" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="9711" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9708" CreationDate="2011-03-12T00:32:35.600" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have consistently found that an iterative approach leads to the best results. How you do the iterations depends on many factors, including what you mean by best, the % of good and bad photos you take, how many of your photos are technically ok (in focus) etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Either way, the goal is to eliminate more photos quickly in the early passes and pay closer attention to each photo in the later passes. In the first pass I eliminate maybe 75-90% of my photos (the obviously unusable ones, or the ones that are too similar to other photos). In the second, I start cropping some photos to get an idea if the composition works well. In this and later iterations I start rating my photos to get a general ranking. In the second or third I will start doing basic retouching. On the last couple of iterations the idea is to spend a lot of time on a few photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1125" LastEditorUserId="1125" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-12T00:38:10.400" LastActivityDate="2011-03-12T00:38:10.400" />
  <row Id="9712" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9708" CreationDate="2011-03-12T05:57:48.190" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have struggled with the same question on occassion. One of the first things to look at is how you are reviewing the images. There are various tools out there that can help with the task. For example there is Lightroom and PhotoMechanic to name two of the popular ones. These have rating tools, or flags for setting Pick or Reject. However this task can also be done with things such as Windows Picture Viewer and Macintosh Preview.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key I have found is to do a complete backup of my images before I start culling the images. The reason I find that to be helpful is that after that I no longer stress about, what happens if I reject a keeper. If I do, I go to my archive of the image and bring it back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other thing I do is not to look at all the images at once when starting. I look at one image at a time, so that I do not know if there is a similar image next in the collection I am reviewing. I also don't get overwhelmed. I quickly discard images, just simply out of focus, glare, not framed well, someone blinked, plane in the sky... etc. I go back and do it a second time as I have a little more perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the third time through I go back through and look at the whole gallery to start seeing if there are images I can group together to compare to one another. I do not try to compare three images to each other. For example if I have three images, A, B, C I do not look at all three. I pick the better image between A &amp;amp; B. I then pick the better image between the AB Winner versus C. I find it easier to just compare two items to each other than to try to look at three or more as the variables start to get larger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see where my count is after that first &quot;grouping&quot; through and repeat as needed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also take breaks between the review sessions as after a while objectivity gets lost. Everything starts to blur together and fatigue sets in for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1901" LastActivityDate="2011-03-12T05:57:48.190" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9713" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9683" CreationDate="2011-03-12T06:04:53.507" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can vouch for Lightroom being able to hold literally thousands of images, I had 45,000 images in one single catalog and it ran no problem. I have used it on both Mac and Windows with the same results. You do not need to move the images you can keep them in their original locations or allow Lightroom to move and manage your files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best thing is that there is a free 30 day trial and since it is non destructive assuming you don't delete any of the images. If you don't like it, nothing lost but a little time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However the key is to give it a good go and look at tutorials as even after three years I am still learning tips and tricks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1901" LastActivityDate="2011-03-12T06:04:53.507" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9714" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9414" CreationDate="2011-03-12T07:07:51.617" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem with rechargeable batteries is they are always &lt;em&gt;lower capacity&lt;/em&gt; and usually have &lt;em&gt;different voltage ranges&lt;/em&gt;. Capacity matters a great deal for high draw items like a flash. Voltage range tolerance depends on the specific equipment (manufacturers never specify). 900mAh seems to be the highest a rechargeable can get compared to the standard 1500mAh. That right there is worth a comparison during a long photo shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many rechargeable CR123As peak off the charger at over 4V. That could be a problem. While other batteries may not specify their peak voltage range, certainly a 3.6V battery will peak higher when fully charged. With some looking I've found 2 notable contenders, both of them boldly stating their &lt;strong&gt;safe voltage&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a 3.0V with 3.2V peak at 900mAh (Tenergy) *&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.all-battery.com/4rcr123a30v900mahrechargeableli-ionprotectedbatterieswithasmartcharger30202.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;winner&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a 3.15V - 3.25V ?mAh (Delkin)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't find capacity mentioned for the Delkin &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; it's more expensive so Tenergy is the winner. Note: there are two different Tenergy CR123A rechargeable batteries. One is lower capacity at 750mAh with a 3.2V nominal peaking at 3.9V. &lt;strong&gt;Avoid that one.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Last note: the linked site sells single batteries but also has a 4 pack, with charger and free shipping for $19 right now. Best choice and best deal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3078" LastActivityDate="2011-03-12T07:07:51.617" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9715" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9708" CreationDate="2011-03-12T07:49:11.643" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not sure that a picture with incorrect histogram, excessively dark/noisy or blurred should be removed immediately. Sometimes I see that even defective picture looks good after time. For example (as for me):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_LlG7_UzH8zw/TTSeH9limzI/AAAAAAAAD24/OWHd5d1wTQc/s288/DSC_7089.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;geniusua.livejournal.com (c)&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I found the best method to select the best pictures: &lt;strong&gt;I just show the pictures to my wife.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2272" LastActivityDate="2011-03-12T07:49:11.643" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9716" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9708" CreationDate="2011-03-12T07:51:21.900" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Delete the bad ones&lt;/em&gt; vs. &lt;em&gt;Keep the good ones&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Until some months ago I have always taken the usual approaches: Mark the ones which are not really good, delete them, and repeat this step multiple times. I found this was very time-consuming and at the end I still had a lot more pictures than I wanted to have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My new way is the opposite: &lt;strong&gt;Mark the images you want to keep.&lt;/strong&gt; After quickly going through all images to get an overview, I only tag the images where I really think: Wow, this looks cool, I have to keep this one. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This has two advantages: The first being that you can simply ignore the worse images. You spend extra effort on the &lt;em&gt;good&lt;/em&gt; images instead of on the &lt;em&gt;bad&lt;/em&gt; ones (tagging). The second advantage is that with the usual approach I tend to have lots of images like «yes, it is sharp … and the special thing about it is?». I.e. it is not a clear candidate for deleting, but not interesting either. These are the images I won't take a look at later anyway, and which don't pass the second approach (keep the good ones). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also it's faster and requires less iterations :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4149" LastActivityDate="2011-03-12T07:51:21.900" />
  <row Id="9717" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9686" CreationDate="2011-03-12T10:55:33.317" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Taking pictures with compact cameras using built-in flash often results in such bright spots. They are usually caused by reflection of the flash off small particles in the air (dust, water droplets etc.) I don’t think stabililization has any effect on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orb_%28optics%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Orb (optics) on Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It might also be caused by dirty lens or sensor, in which case, you would probably see similar patterns of those spots on all photographs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3577" LastActivityDate="2011-03-12T10:55:33.317" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9718" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9683" CreationDate="2011-03-12T12:51:13.053" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Get Lightroom. While it does not store its metadata within the original image file per se, it does have the option of storing it in a .XMP &quot;sidecar&quot; file as well as in the central database. Ie. for each *.JPG, *.TIFF, *.somekindofRAW that has been imported into Lightroom, there is a corresponding *.XMP file in the same directory which holds metadata from Lightroom in XML format. Twice the number of files, but it works quite well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-03-12T12:51:13.053" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9719" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9720" CreationDate="2011-03-12T16:44:18.440" Score="3" ViewCount="118" Body="&lt;p&gt;On occasion, the auto-focus system in my camera and/or lens just stops working.  I'll be holding down the shutter release halfway and tracking a subject and I can feel/hear the auto-focus system making adjustments, and then it just stops.  If I release the button and try to re-activate, nothing happens.  Essentially, auto-focus is dead until I turn the camera off, and then turn it back on again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am using a Nikon D90 with a Sigma 70-200mm F2.8.  Is the problem likely to be in the camera or the lens?  I also have a Nikon 18-105mm lens, but don't use it enough that I can recall experiencing the same problem.  I have taken over 10,000 shots with the D90/Sigma combo, and have had this problem occur 10-15 times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There might be a correlation with how long I've been shooting.  Often I will be at an event where I might shoot 500-800 shots in a day of shooting (say 6-8 hours), and it seems like maybe this happens more often later in the day than earlier.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both the camera and lens are still under warranty, but I'm not sure whether it is the camera or the lens, and don't want Nikon and Sigma pointing fingers at each other, and don't know who to contact first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Has anybody experienced a similar problem? or have any suggestions on a course of action?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks - Sean&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="227" LastActivityDate="2011-03-12T17:25:09.220" Title="Reasons for auto-focus &quot;freezing&quot;?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;sigma&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="9720" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9719" CreationDate="2011-03-12T17:23:58.273" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Everything I've read in the past and a quick Google indicates its been known to happen with some specific Sigma lenses, yours in particular.  But it's nothing more than anecdotal.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it only happens with that lens and internet anecdotes suggest its the lens, send the lens in under warranty while you still can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-03-12T17:23:58.273" />
  <row Id="9721" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9719" CreationDate="2011-03-12T17:25:09.220" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;IIRC the D90 AF motor is in the body, but the motor is only one possible cause. If it works immediately after turning the camera off and on again, it could be a problem with the connection between the lens and the body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ideally you need to try it with your other lens to narrow it down; if it doesn't happen at all with the 18-105, it's the lens. If it does happen, it's the body. Perhaps, rather than turning the camera off, try just disconnecting the lens (i.e. twist it without taking it right off) and reconnecting, to reestablish the CPU connection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-03-12T17:25:09.220" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9722" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9708" CreationDate="2011-03-12T22:06:00.657" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best for what, is always the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If something is going to be printed large or shown where you want people to admire both technique and artistry, then you start by removing technically flawed images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the image is going to someone who is not going to be primarily judging on technical merit, you probably want to look for the best composition or expression and lean on tooling to help recover an image that is technically flawed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Often you have to step outside yourself, and think about why someone besides yourself may like an image for reasons you would not consider personally important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-03-12T22:06:00.657" />
  <row Id="9723" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9727" CreationDate="2011-03-13T00:04:18.703" Score="4" ViewCount="127" Body="&lt;p&gt;I point and shoot series of noisy photos without tripod.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want one less noisy version, so I need average them down to one photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But details of them does not exactly match, so that naive attempt will lead to blurred/ghosted image, so I need to move/rotate[/scale/whatever] all images to match the first and then average them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How is it called?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adjusting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Stabilisation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Synchronising&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Converging&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Deshaking&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(some other term)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@related &lt;a href=&quot;http://superuser.com/questions/256787/how-to-adjust-and-combine-multiple-lower-quality-photos-into-one-better-using-fos&quot;&gt;http://superuser.com/questions/256787/how-to-adjust-and-combine-multiple-lower-quality-photos-into-one-better-using-fos&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4287" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-13T01:08:16.200" LastActivityDate="2011-03-13T02:51:30.113" Title="What is it called when multiple photos are adjusted for further blending?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9724" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9723" CreationDate="2011-03-13T00:14:01.160" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The essential concept is called, simply enough, stacking and averaging. The technique is often used in astrophotography where the photographer takes a long series of short exposures which are then combined to form the final, and somewhat smaller, image. The reason they do this is to handle the rotation of the earth without an equatorial mount and to reduce noise. You will also find it used in macro photography to increase the depth of field of the image, each layer providing a slightly different plane of focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why do I tell you this? Well, the software they use can be used by you to achieve a similar purpose. If you Google &quot;image stacking software to reduce noise&quot; you will find quite a few hits. Some will give you guidance for doing it in photo editing software, some will be dedicated software, etc. The dedicated options will usually provide some assistance in lining up the images which, I think, is the biggest problem you face.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-03-13T00:14:01.160" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9725" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9723" CreationDate="2011-03-13T00:36:17.600" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You might want to have a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.panotools.org/Panorama_tools&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Panorama Tools&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.panotools.org/Enblend&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Enblend&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However I have to disclaim any experience with those, I just know those tools exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2736" LastActivityDate="2011-03-13T00:36:17.600" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9726" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9723" CreationDate="2011-03-13T01:09:23.390" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the word you are looking for is &quot;aligned&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-03-13T01:09:23.390" />
  <row Id="9727" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9723" CreationDate="2011-03-13T01:18:24.787" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer you are looking for is &lt;strong&gt;Image Aligning&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you merge images for HDR on Photoshop, there is an optional 'Automatically Align Images'. The same option exist in several cameras with built-in HDR capabilities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also sometimes called &lt;strong&gt;Image Registration&lt;/strong&gt; but that term is overloaded as it has other meanings, for example relative to copyright.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Stacking, HDR Merging, Exposure Blending are what you do with images that are aligned already.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-13T01:18:24.787" />
  <row Id="9728" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9723" CreationDate="2011-03-13T02:51:30.113" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As @John Cavan, it's usually just called stacking. I've probably mentioned it before, but the software I'd recommend for the job is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hadleyweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CZP/News.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CombineZP&lt;/a&gt;. It's free, and at least for me has been completely reliable and trouble-free (well, some old versions had a few minor problems, but that was years ago, and even then they were pretty minor).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-03-13T02:51:30.113" />
  <row Id="9729" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9708" CreationDate="2011-03-13T04:29:04.717" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since some people in the question comments repeatedly told me it was rather trivial, I actually did it: &lt;a href=&quot;http://svn.lando.us/joey/Public/C%23/ImageCompare/ImageCompare/bin/Release/ImageCompare.exe&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;An application that sorts the images in the current directory by leaving the actual head-to-head comparison to the user&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Written in C# for .NET 2. Works on Mono (tested on Linux so far), too. Requires &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dcraw&lt;/a&gt; on the PATH (compiled executable for Windows or OS X can be downloaded &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.insflug.org/raw/Downloads&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Currently the user interaction is very rudimentary. This is probably subject to change. Also the code is an evil mess as usual with such a hack-job.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The application has to be started in a directory that contains the images to sort. It then proceeds to load all images it can find and handle (JPEG, GIF, PNG, BMP are supported natively, all other formats are either supported by dcraw or skipped if not). Keep the number of images reasonable, as every image is preloaded in memory to speed up display – I tried starting it on a folder with around 600 images and terminated it at around 2 GiB memory usage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After that you get a two-pane view with an image on the left and on the right. Click on the one that you consider the best of the two. You will then get two new images. Continue until done. You can close the program if you want, it will resume where you left off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/pj1Er.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Comparison view&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After all necessary comparisons have been done&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; the result can be seen:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Q9OIn.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Result view&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has the sorted list of images on the left with the highest-ranked at the top and the lowest-ranked at the bottom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Todo list:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Allow selecting the images to sort.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Solve the issue that portrait pictures are always displayed in landscape orientation (at least for raw images. dcraw allows rotation but cannot do so automatically and I don't see an easy way of finding that out externally).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reduce memory usage for large numbers of images.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shuffle the images beforehand so bursts of nearly identical images are less likely to be compared directly against each other.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Change synchronization between the sorting thread and the UI to no longer rely on &lt;code&gt;Thread.Sleep&lt;/code&gt; and polling but to use proper synchronization methods.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Add a 1:1 preview (or at least a larger one). Currently this cannot be used to judge things on the pixel level.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's 5:26 here, so I stop hacking on that now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source code can be found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://svn.lando.us/joey/Public/C%23/ImageCompare&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;my SVN repository&lt;/a&gt; and is released under the MIT license. I welcome patches ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Images in above screenshots are my own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Of course it wasn't as trivial as others would want to make me believe. After a long struggle with Libraw, I simply went the dcraw route. Not pretty, but works with minimal amount of code.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; This is in the order of &lt;em&gt;n&lt;/em&gt; log&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; &lt;em&gt;n&lt;/em&gt; where &lt;em&gt;n&lt;/em&gt; is the number of pictures compared – so, for 20 pictures you can expect something around 20 × 4.3 ≈ 85 comparisons – I know, it's not a small number. For the 300 images you mentioned you'd get around 2400. The actual number that has to be performed manually is (a) different (since complexities omit the linear factor) and (b) as far as I observed so far, smaller. To avoid inconsistencies the user will never be prompted twice on the same two images (either order) and never prompted with the same image on both sides.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2616" LastEditorUserId="2616" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-13T19:55:07.980" LastActivityDate="2011-03-13T19:55:07.980" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9730" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9733" CreationDate="2011-03-13T06:05:18.913" Score="5" ViewCount="132" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon 18-135 lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am looking into the cam viewfinder with my right eye and not at the view finder with left. I start from 18mm and keep zooming in till I see a particular object the same size with both the eyes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I read the focal length to be just above 50 mm (say 55mm). What is special about this 55mm with reference to the object I was focussing on?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="64" LastActivityDate="2011-03-13T20:10:12.747" Title="Object same size with eye and the camera viewfinder, what situation is this?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;focal-length&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="9731" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9730" CreationDate="2011-03-13T06:28:02.537" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, nothing. The viewfinder size depends on the camera so with a different body at the same focal length the object might have a different size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2069" LastActivityDate="2011-03-13T06:28:02.537" />
  <row Id="9732" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9730" CreationDate="2011-03-13T06:54:21.083" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard the human eye equivalent to roughly a ~45mm lens (on a 35mm camera).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4269" LastActivityDate="2011-03-13T06:54:21.083" />
  <row Id="9733" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9730" CreationDate="2011-03-13T06:58:47.810" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a specification on (d)SLR bodies called &lt;strong&gt;viewfinder magnification&lt;/strong&gt;; this refers to how large an object appears in the viewfinder when a 50mm lens is mounted and focused at infinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On mid-range DSLRs, which typically have around 0.95x magnification, an object will appear to be life-sized at 52.6mm. With entry-level DSLRs, you might have around 0.8x magnification, so you'd have to zoom in to 62.5mm to get a 1:1 magnification. I'm betting your camera has somewhere around 0.9 to 0.95x magnification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This has very little to do with the object, except that the front of the camera is slightly closer to the object. With far-away subjects (landscapes, etc), the distance between your eyes and the front of your camera won't matter much, but close subjects will appear larger to the camera than to your eye even with a 1:1 magnification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-03-13T06:58:47.810" />
  <row Id="9734" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-13T07:49:02.917" Score="2" ViewCount="134" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm new to Apple Aperture. I have noticed that when you right click and image and say EXPORT VERSION, sometimes it's nearly instant, other times it takes &quot;minutes&quot; to render.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Am I using this feature wrong? Is there a better way to export web ready images for uploading to flickr etc? (I stopped using Aperture to upload directly as deleting the preview in aperture removes the image from flickr - grr)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use the versions export because it lets you customise the color profile (set it to sRGB for most accurate representation on flickr/facebook in all browsers)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But it just seems so sporadic if it will export FAST or SLOW - and when it's slow, it pretty much makes the entire computer unusable  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;FYI: am on an iMac with 2.66 GHz Coure 2 Duo, 2GB RAM&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4290" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-13T09:09:14.880" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T00:26:47.190" Title="Am I using Aperture &quot;export versions&quot; wrong?" Tags="&lt;apple-aperture&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9735" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9617" CreationDate="2011-03-13T09:51:17.170" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To fix the crash of the Unshake Java software, you could try to expand the Java Heap space, the 128Mo default value seems to be too small. This can be done in the Java Control Panel or on the command line launcher of the application, if it has one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4291" LastEditorUserId="4291" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-21T07:19:54.177" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T07:19:54.177" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9736" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="471" CreationDate="2011-03-13T13:21:55.533" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most complete solution for processing raw images (not file/image browser) is &lt;a href=&quot;http://photivo.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photivo&lt;/a&gt;. Be prepared for a steep learning curve, it has a lot of options but for professional results, that's the price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4293" LastActivityDate="2011-03-13T13:21:55.533" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-13T13:21:55.533" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9737" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9645" CreationDate="2011-03-13T13:59:09.640" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to cite &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.sugarsync.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SugarSync&lt;/a&gt; here, the largest free cloud storage i've found (5Go+).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4291" LastActivityDate="2011-03-13T13:59:09.640" />
  <row Id="9738" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9740" CreationDate="2011-03-13T14:47:11.170" Score="10" ViewCount="362" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos550d/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This page&lt;/a&gt; compares Canon EOS 550D and Canon EOS 500D cameras and mentions&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18.7 million effective pixels&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;for 550D. However the best resolution possible using this camera is&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;5184 * 3456 = 17915904 ~ 17.9 million pixels&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are effective pixels, and why is that number greater than 17.9 million in this case?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="64" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T04:13:43.553" Title="Why are effective pixels greater than the actual resolution?" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;resolution&gt;&lt;marketing&gt;&lt;pixels&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9739" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9738" CreationDate="2011-03-13T15:01:07.610" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know why the term &quot;effective&quot; is used by DPReview, but there are a couple of reasons for the discrepancy between the number of photosites (pixels) on the chip and the size in pixels of the resulting images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some camera sensors have a strip of masked pixels down each side. These pixels are identical to the bulk of the pixels on the sensor except they receive no light. They are used to detect interference and subtract it from the signal produced by the light sensitive pixels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly [good] demosaicing algorithms use lots of &quot;neighbourhood operations&quot; this means the value of a pixel depends somewhat on the value of it's neighbouring pixels. Pixels on the extreme edge of the image have no neighbours so contribute to other pixels but don't add to the image dimensions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also possible that the camera crops the sensor for other reasons (e.g. the lens image circle doesn't quite cover the sensor) although I doubt this is the case with the 550D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-13T20:07:57.350" LastActivityDate="2011-03-13T20:07:57.350" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9740" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9738" CreationDate="2011-03-13T18:22:05.040" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Part of what we're seeing here is (I'm reasonably certain) nothing more than a simple typo (or something on that order) on the part of DPReview.com. &lt;a href=&quot;http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/9/0300004289/01/eosrt2i-eos550d-im2-en.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;According to Canon&lt;/a&gt;, [PDF, page 225] the number of wells on the sensor is &quot;Approx. 18.00 megapixels&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those are then reduced to the approximately 17.9 megapixels when the Bayer pattern inputs are turned into what most of us would think of as pixels. The difference is fairly simple: each well on the sensor only senses &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; color of light, but a pixel as you normally expect it in the output (e.g., a JPEG or TIFF file) has three colors for each pixel. At first glance, it might seem like that would mean a file would have only about one third as many pixels as there are sensor wells in the input. Obviously, that's not the case. Here's (a simplified view of) how things work:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/2Vot0.png&quot; alt=&quot;simplified Bayer pattern&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each letter represents one well on the sensor. Each box represents one tri-color pixel as it'll go in the output file.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the &quot;interior&quot; part of the sensor, each output pixel depends on input from four sensor wells, &lt;em&gt;but&lt;/em&gt; each sensor well is used as input to four different output pixels, so the number of inputs and number of outputs remains the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Around the edges, however, we have sensor wells that only contribute to &lt;em&gt;two&lt;/em&gt; pixels instead of four. At the corners, each sensor well only contributes to &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; output pixel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That means the total number of output pixels is smaller than the number of sensor wells. Specifically, the result is smaller by one row and one column compared to the input (e.g., in the example, we have an 8x3 sensor, but 7x2 output pixels).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-03-13T18:22:05.040" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9741" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-13T20:07:30.690" Score="15" ViewCount="943" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am trying to take pictures of my son (2.5yrs) and my other family members. They come out pretty well and sharp but when I see the portraits posted on Flickr and other sites, I have noticed that many of them have extremely sharp eyes. The eyes are the highlight of those pictures.. even in the kids pictures. I am never able to take pictures with eyes so extremely sharp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are they doing something different in the pictures or may be post processing? Not sure. I would love to know how to do that. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have Canon 350D with 50mm 1.8 II lens. I also have Canon 100mm 2.8 macro.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4194" LastEditorUserId="4194" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-13T21:12:21.040" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T15:54:46.020" Title="How do you get the eyes extremely sharp in the photo?" Tags="&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;people&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9742" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9730" CreationDate="2011-03-13T20:10:12.747" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Little beyond the fact that cameras are designed that way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They've chosen what they consider a normal lens, and adjust the viewfinder magnification so what you see with a normal lens will approximately match what you see without a viewfinder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With an APS-C camera, you usually get a magnification of about .9x. With a full (35mm) frame, it's around .75x. A 6x4.5xm medium format usually uses around 0.7x. As you go larger still, the ratio goes down (though larger cameras often have interchangeable viewfinders, often with varying degrees of magnification).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-03-13T20:10:12.747" />
  <row Id="9743" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9741" CreationDate="2011-03-13T20:11:59.123" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sharpness can be a relative thing, if you use a wide aperture to get a shallow depth of &#xA;field, the eyes will seem much sharper if everything else is blurred so you could try that, although it only really works with single subjects if the DoF is very thin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suspect the most eye-popping (pun intended) images on flickr have been sharpened in photoshop. They might have applied extra sharpening just to the eyes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-03-13T20:11:59.123" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9744" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9741" CreationDate="2011-03-13T20:12:17.557" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If your camera allows you to select the focus point, then focus for the eye, not just the face, or to the person. That should give you a crisp sharp eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4297" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-13T20:37:09.043" LastActivityDate="2011-03-13T20:37:09.043" />
  <row Id="9745" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9738" CreationDate="2011-03-13T20:40:59.717" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two reasons why the effective pixels are less than the actual number of sensor pixels (sensing elements, or sensels.) First, Bayer sensors are composed of &quot;pixels&quot; that sense a single color of light. Usually, there are red, green, and blue sensels, organized in row pairs in the form of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;RGRGRGRG&#xA;GBGBGBGB&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A single &quot;pixel&quot; as most of us are familiar with it, the RGB style pixel of a computer screen, is generated from a Bayer sensor by combining four sensels, an RGBG quartet:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;          R G &#xA;(sensor)       --&amp;gt;  RGB (computer)&#xA;          G B&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since a 2x2 grid of four RGBG sensels is used to generate a single RGB computer pixel, there are not always enough pixels along the edge of a sensor to create a full pixel. An &quot;extra&quot; border of pixels is usually present on Bayer sensors to accommodate this. An additional border of pixels may also be present simply to compensate for the full design of a sensor, serve as calibration pixels, and accommodate extra-sensor components which usually includes IR and UV filters, anti-aliasing filters, etc. that may obstruct a full amount of light from reaching the outer periphery of the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, Bayer sensors must be &quot;demosaiced&quot; to produce a normal RGB image of computer pixels. There are a variety of different ways to demosaic a Bayer sensor, however most algorithms try to maximize the amount of RGB pixels that can be extracted by blending RGB pixels from every possible overlapping set of 2x2 RGBG quartets:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rCqz8.gif&quot; alt=&quot;Bayer Demosaicing&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a sensor with a total of 36 single-color sensels, a grand total of 24 RGB pixels can be extracted. Notice the overlapping nature of the demosaicing algorithm by watching the animated GIF above. Also note how during the third and fourth passes, the top and bottom rows were not used. This demonstrates how the border pixels of a sensor may not always be utilized when demosaicing a Bayer sensel array.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the DPReview page, I believe they may have their information wrong. I believe the total number of sensels (pixels) on the Canon 550D Bayer sensor is 18.0mp, while the effective pixels, or the number of RGB computer pixels that can be generated from that base 18mp, is 5184x3456 or 17,915,904 (17.9mp). The difference would boil down to those border pixels that can't quite make up a full quartet, and possibly some additional border pixels to compensate for the design of the filters and mounting hardware that go in front of the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-07T04:13:43.553" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T04:13:43.553" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9746" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-13T20:47:42.090" Score="1" ViewCount="103" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I enter my name in google.com, at top of the page in Google Ads section there is a big stock photography company listed and the title of this advert is also my name. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am (actually I used it long time ago for a short time) member of this stock site, but my question is - are they allowed to use my name in marketing campaign?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;This link doesn't even lead to my profile on this site, but on main page.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you!&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Ilija&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3614" LastActivityDate="2011-03-13T20:47:42.090" ClosedDate="2011-03-13T22:16:32.660" Title="Is it legal to use my name in a marketing campaign (on google)?" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;stock-photography&gt;" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="9747" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9741" CreationDate="2011-03-13T21:07:43.970" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Matt Grum stated, sharpness is often a relative thing. I think a lot of really good head and shoulders portraiture is done with a very narrow DOF, so that focus blurs quickly as you move away from the front of the face. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, you can control exactly what is in focus if you wish. Auto focus is by default performed by testing multiple focus points, which can nail focus on &quot;the face&quot; as a whole, however it won't do so well if you need to focus on one small part of someones face, such as your son's eyes. You can take more control by explicitly selecting a single AF point, and by using &quot;focus and recompose&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its best to use the center focus point, as it is usually a cross-type focus point that can detect sharpness in multiple planes (usually horizontal and vertical, however some use the complimentary oblique diagonal planes). If you have the option, reconfiguring your camera to separate the AF trigger from the shutter button can also help. You can often redirect AF control to a button on the back of the camera, so it can be triggered independently of the shutter and meter. Place the selected AF point on an eye, find and lock focus, then recompose the scene the way you want it, and meter &amp;amp; expose with the shutter button. (If you do not have the option of separating your AF control from your shutter button, just depress the shutter half way when focusing, keep it half-depressed while recomposing, then fully depress when you are ready to take the shot.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I would like to support Jerry Coffin's comment to Matt's answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Many have not only been sharpened, but had the brightness and saturation &quot;enhanced&quot; as well. These don't increase sharpness, but can draw much more attention to the eyes.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   - &lt;strong&gt;Jerry Coffin&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sharpness is a factor of two things: contrast and acutance. Contrast itself can be a factor of two things: difference in brightness, and difference in color. Bright and dark areas of an image next to each other will create contrast, and at a fine resolution, can create sharpness. Complementary colors will also create contrast in their own right, even if they are the same brightness. Acutance is the harshness of edges, and is usually the way we adjust sharpness in our images during post-processing...by adding acutance along fine edges. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even without sharpening, you can enhance apparent sharpness by enhancing the color of your photos. This is usually done by boosting saturation, or, if you have it, vibrancy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-13T21:15:56.800" LastActivityDate="2011-03-13T21:15:56.800" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9748" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9708" CreationDate="2011-03-13T21:21:49.447" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some great answers so far, so I won't reiterate what others have stated. On a different level, I think it should be stated that there is not necessarily one correct, &quot;algorithmic&quot; way to do this. This process is one where the human mind truly excels, and where rigid algorithms and &quot;computers&quot; break down. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Choosing the top 10 &quot;best&quot; photos from a set of 300 is a very subjective, even emotional process, and one best suited to the individual. What may seem like a superb photo to one individual may seem like crap to another, and the factors that go into making such a judgment for each person are going to differ, possibly even be diametrically opposed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the best way you can help yourself figure out what images to keep, and what images to throw away, is to develop your sense of vision and style. Vision is your ability to &quot;see&quot; into a scene or photo shoot, and visualize what you want to get out of it. Style is formulating your own personal sense of aesthetic appeal and a pattern of consistency (or, even, lack thereof.) If you know what you want when you sit down to shoot, and understand what is aesthetically appealing to you, filtering through 300 photos to pick the top few that are keepers becomes a much simpler job. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It'll be an entirely personal process, one built on your own outlook on life, and possibly incompatible with many other people...but it will help you in more ways than simply picking the photographs you want to keep from a shoot. It'll ultimately help define who you are as a photographer in the end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-03-13T21:21:49.447" />
  <row Id="9749" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-13T21:37:34.927" Score="3" ViewCount="196" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've made a giant copy stand using an artist easel that slides up and down. It's working great, and after help on here I've decided to shoot my artwork archive project on manual (M) setting while having the light meter balance to a standard gray, that way dark subjects won't end up over exposed and light ones underexposed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm able to use a lot of natural light, but the EOS utility will now show me the meter indicator where to set the exposure. I can only read that from the camera. I'm a bit surprised as it seems to show virtually everything else. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes though the camera is far above my head, and I'll want to check the setting multiple times. I figured out one way, to reach up, turn the switch to AV, check live view on the eos utility and it gives automated exposure time, then turn back to M, and use the EOS utility to set that same exposure. Even though I won't have to adjust it for every shot I will want to check it pretty often as the weather and light can change. This is all still quite tedious though. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Could I just get a simple light meter, put it on my test gray, and calculate the proper exposure from there? I'm not sure how light meters work but I'm hoping I can put in my same settings, like ISO 100 and Aperture 5.6, and it will then tell me how long to expose the shot the same way the Av setting would... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if I balance to a gray, what gray should it be? Should it be a test pattern of grays, or one particular level of gray? Or will any old gray do as long as I stay with the same one? I'm using the spot meter by the way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, I do see the histogram in the eos utility and, after reading some other posts on here, should I use this as my light meter instead? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4259" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-06-04T12:46:12.193" LastActivityDate="2011-06-04T16:37:56.730" Title="Since I can't get a light meter reading in the Canon EOS utility on manual, what should I do instead?" Tags="&lt;metering&gt;&lt;histogram&gt;&lt;eos-utility&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="9750" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9741" CreationDate="2011-03-13T21:42:34.143" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No one has mentioned lighting yet: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.speedlighter.ca/2010/11/25/repeat-after-me-bright-pixels-are/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;bright pixels are sharp pixels&lt;/a&gt;.  Are you using an off-camera flash, exposing the subject and background properly, and capturing one round catch light in each eye?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastEditorUserId="2910" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-15T05:20:39.380" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T05:20:39.380" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9751" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9741" CreationDate="2011-03-13T21:49:17.223" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You should also consider the following mechanical factors which could be causing unsharp photos:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) subject movement, I am thinking of your young son in particular and your shutter speed might be too low.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) camera movement, your hand holding technique might not be ideal and the shutter speed might be low.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) inaccurate auto-focus, this is quite common and becomes readily apparent with shallow depth of field at large apertures.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can test for these  issues as follows:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;a) take photos with your flash on. This will freeze hand and subject movement. If it is still unsharp you may have an auto-focus problem.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;b) take photos with camera tripod mounted to test whether hand movement is causing the problem.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;c) take photos of a focusing chart to determine if your auto-focus is accurate.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A final note about camera movement. People often sway slightly forward and backward while composing the photo. In particular you might sway slightly after you have acquired focus lock. With the shallow depth of field at large apertures this can play havoc with the focusing. I say this with feeling because some of my photos have been ruined in this way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-13T21:55:24.427" LastActivityDate="2011-03-13T21:55:24.427" />
  <row Id="9752" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9741" CreationDate="2011-03-13T22:22:05.340" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Looking at the images you posted, the focus is not on the eyes.  The two images are really not that sharp in general. Who knows what the AF selected, but it wasn't the eyes unfortunately.  You need to do two things&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) When taking the shot, use a center focus point, focus on the eyes, then reframe and shoot.  I would suggest taking several shots to improve your chances of a nice sharp image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) In post processing, you can sharpen the eyes further (either careful use of a sharpening tool, or add a sharpening layer and a mask so that sharpening is selectively applied to the eyes, eyebrows, lips. )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4191" LastActivityDate="2011-03-13T22:22:05.340" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9753" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9775" CreationDate="2011-03-13T22:24:40.423" Score="0" ViewCount="188" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that WLPG embeds regular tags into the image files themselves, but does anyone know if &quot;people tags&quot; are stored in the photo as well?  If so, can you provide a link to some kind of documentation that shows this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4268" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-19T02:55:27.477" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T02:55:27.477" Title="Where are 'People Tags' stored when edited with Windows Live Photo Gallery?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;metadata&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="9754" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9741" CreationDate="2011-03-14T00:10:37.383" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My first bit of advice would be to get closer. These pictures have a lot of space around the subject. That's not necessarily bad, but if you really want to bring out the eyes, making them a larger part of the picture is a good first step. Finally, I'd mention lighting: light from above tends to leave eyes in shadow which tends to hide them. You just about need light at eye level to really show the eyes well. You want it off the camera though. If the light comes directly from the camera, all the texture is hidden. A large light source from somewhat off camera show a great deal more texture, increasing the apparent sharpness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just for fun, I did a bit of editing on one of your pictures. Firs, I cropped it a bit tighter. Second, I spent five minutes or so on one eye, but left her other eye alone, for easy comparison. None of it was done with a sharpening filter though -- the changes I made were all to things like brightness, saturation, etc. Her cheeks do look a bit posterized, but that was already the case. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/9qgQG.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-14T00:15:40.407" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T00:15:40.407" />
  <row Id="9755" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9741" CreationDate="2011-03-14T00:48:58.823" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I second the suggestion to improve the light. In your second photo, there is very little difference between the dark brown iris and the black pupil. You could try to bring them up in post, but you really want to get more light on the eyes when you press the shutter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other suggestion I have, which may not be relevant, is to &lt;strong&gt;stop your lens down&lt;/strong&gt;. I can't see what your aperture was, but lenses are almost always softer when the aperture is wide open. I like to shoot around ƒ4, which I find is a good compromise between speed and sharpness. If you’re shooting wide open (or close to it), you will lose a lot of sharpness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1905" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T00:48:58.823" />
  <row Id="9756" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7359" CreationDate="2011-03-14T03:41:09.413" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;15-85mm is a very good lens for the money but its not popular due to several factors:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Its not cheap as other kit-type lenses&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Its not fast (f/3.5-5.6)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Its an EF-S mounts&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Its relatively new&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It doesnt complement your kit lens, its just an upgrade if you want better image quality over your kit.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Its neither a super wide,nor a super zoom, its somewhere in the middle of these. However, 15-85 is one of the most frequently used focal range for many photographers.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But 15-85mm is a very good lens and its image and build quality can be compared with an L optics, if it were f/2.8 it would be priced somewhere down 1500US$. Currently, 17-55mm and 15-85mm are the two most quality lenses for 1.6X body. If you dont need extra focal length reach and want better photo replacing your kit lens, 15-85 is a great choice. I've this lens on my wishlist and hopefully will get one within a week. My planned buildup is Tokina 11-16mm, Canon EF-S 15-85mm, Canon 70-300mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T03:41:09.413" />
  <row Id="9757" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9741" CreationDate="2011-03-14T04:04:56.060" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NN7Y7.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Like this?&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this is the kind of thing you are going for:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Get close to your subject.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Get a light source behind you. It will be reflected in the eyes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The center focus point is special, it's more accurate. Use it to focus on the eye.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Open your lens up (all the way to 1.8). Shallow depth of field can help you bring the viewer's attention to what's in focus (ideally, the eyes).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shallow depth of field can make focus difficult: moving even half an inch can move your target (eyes) out of the plane of focus. Taking multiple shots can help ensure you get one shot in focus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The 50mm 1.8 is an excellent lens for this kind of shot.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This shot:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The only post processing is cropping. Edited version &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/tristanmoss/5402147024/lightbox/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lit with an open window which, she is facing and I am sitting in front of (you can see my reflection in her eyes).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's cloudy, so the light from the window is pretty even.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 7D, 50mm, F2.0, ISO 800, 1/320&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(This is largely a summary of what people have said above, so I upvoted those who already said these things).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4269" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T04:04:56.060" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="9758" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9753" CreationDate="2011-03-14T04:10:59.140" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From memory- yes, they are stored in the file as regions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4269" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T04:10:59.140" />
  <row Id="9759" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9760" CreationDate="2011-03-14T04:12:43.313" Score="12" ViewCount="244" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just got back from a trip in the Rockies. The tall and close mountains mean that the sun sets earlier than flatter places at the same latitude -- perhaps by an hour or so. The same applies to sunrises, depending of course on the precise location relative to the mountains.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although I haven't paid a lot of attention to it, it seems to me that the sunset light in the mountains looks different than that on the plains. I'd say it's more blue (vs. red/yellow), perhaps brighter, and perhaps more direct. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm thinking that this might have something to do with the angle of the sun at sunset (much higher in the mountains) and how it relates to the atmosphere (thinner at that angle).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this really exist (or am I making this up)? If so, how does it affect landscape photography, especially as it relates to the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hour_%28photography%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Golden Hour&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. Do locations surrounded by mountains even get a proper Golden Hour? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastEditorUserId="1356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-14T04:51:14.760" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T10:58:14.210" Title="How do mountains affect lighting at sunrise and sunset?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;landscape&gt;&lt;outdoor&gt;&lt;golden-hour&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="9760" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9759" CreationDate="2011-03-14T04:26:29.997" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're right. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The atmosphere has a prismatic effect, spreading white light out into its constituent colors. As the sun moves down to the horizon, you the viewer move into the orange-red band of light. The lower the sun can get, the more red the light will be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The atmosphere is also a diffuser. The more of it there is between you and the light source, the more diffuse (less direct) the light will be. The higher you are, the less atmosphere there is between you and the sun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4269" LastEditorUserId="4269" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-14T04:31:39.817" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T04:31:39.817" />
  <row Id="9761" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9759" CreationDate="2011-03-14T04:26:57.560" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mountains definitely affect the timing of sunrise and sunset.  As you mention the sun will drop below a mountain earlier (and rise a little later) than it would on a plain.  Still the light can be very beautiful.  I am not sure if the length of the good light is affected by mountains, but it is certainly worthwhile to arrive at your location about an hour before sunrise/sunset to make sure to capture the great light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4301" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T04:26:57.560" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9762" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9683" CreationDate="2011-03-14T04:31:36.120" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have had good experience with Lightroom.  I currently have 95000 photos in my library with no performance issues.  On top of the organization tools it has the some of the best raw processing and great Photoshop integration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4301" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T04:31:36.120" />
  <row Id="9763" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9708" CreationDate="2011-03-14T07:46:19.430" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your first hurdle here is to define what you mean by &quot;best&quot; in the context of that particular set of images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What's the purpose that collection of 10 is going to be put to?&#xA;Is it for submission to a photography course where they'll be judged on technical merits (and which?)?&#xA;Is it a wildlife shoot for National Geographic?&#xA;Is it for a wedding album of your niece?&#xA;Or maybe a wedding of a paying customer?&#xA;Is it simply vacation snapshots of you and your family?&#xA;Is it a submission to a themed competition?&#xA;Are they to be added to your personal portfolio to be used as a marketing tool for potential customers in any of the above or a dozen other categories?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each of those (and think up your own) scenarios will require a different (but maybe partially overlapping) definition of &quot;best&quot;.&#xA;Some of those criteria might be very easy to judge, some almost impossible without serious thinking about each image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I have typically no problem throwing out 50-75% of a shoot in a first sorting.&#xA;After that it gets harder as images now conform to the purpose of the shoot, and have to be compared to select which is of higher technical quality and/or better subjectively (and worse, has the best overall combination of the two, a technically inferior image might be so much more suitable for inclusion than a technically superior one on emotional or otherwise subjective criteria it does win out in the end).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T07:46:19.430" />
  <row Id="9764" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7359" CreationDate="2011-03-14T07:48:40.190" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Reviews? Here you go...&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a detailed review of the lens in question: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&lt;/a&gt; which also sets it very high in terms of quality and also price/performance rating.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;General purpose&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same page also recommends this lens (second place just after 17-55) for everyday walkabout lens: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-General-Purpose-Lens.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-General-Purpose-Lens.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2110" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T07:48:40.190" />
  <row Id="9765" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9650" CreationDate="2011-03-14T08:32:37.287" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Due to the fact that no answers directly solved my problem, and the right one being Matt Grum's comment, I've decided to just post it here as the right answer. All credit goes to Matt Grum:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think you have to be activating the AF function (i.e. by half pressing the shutter) as the AF system on a DSLR doesn't do anything until activated. – Matt Grum&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1635" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T08:32:37.287" />
  <row Id="9766" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-14T08:44:12.657" Score="12" ViewCount="162" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am about to have a digital image printed to be mounted and framed and hung in a fairly dark hallway that has very little natural light and only one light bulb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should I prepare the print in lightroom in a particular way to allow for this? Maybe increasing the contrast, brightness, saturation etc?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="823" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-14T19:38:49.430" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T19:41:31.517" Title="Should I adjust a print knowing that it will be hung in a fairly dark place?" Tags="&lt;printing&gt;&lt;framing&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9767" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9773" CreationDate="2011-03-14T10:34:00.567" Score="4" ViewCount="246" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does anybody know the exact chip which is built into the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4? I've done research on the internet already but couldn't found any exact specification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I need is the imaging area (width and height) of the cmos chip in mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4307" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T14:33:49.810" Title="iPhone 3GS/4 camera sensor chip" Tags="&lt;iphone&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9768" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9767" CreationDate="2011-03-14T12:12:05.033" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ok I managed to find some decent info on the iPhone4 camera, which uses an omnivision OV5650 sensor, according to a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chipworks.com/en/technical-competitive-analysis/resources/recent-teardowns/2010/06/silicon-teardown-of-the-apple-iphone-4-smart-phone/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;teardown&lt;/a&gt; of the device by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chipworks.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;chipworks&lt;/a&gt;. The sensor area measures 4.592mm x 3.423mm and each photosite is 1.75µm&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T12:12:05.033" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9769" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5910" CreationDate="2011-03-14T12:25:32.803" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have experimented in adding a frame within a couple of my photos to achieve just such a thing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ufUYR.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/QPBVT.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3147" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T12:25:32.803" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9770" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-14T12:47:24.750" Score="8" ViewCount="199" Body="&lt;p&gt;EDIT: As Stan Rogers pointed out below, there's a difference between truly scanning the grain of the film, and scanning the &quot;grainy&quot; character of film at lower resolutions. This question is about the latter, Stan Rogers explained how to do the first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm mixing analog with digital photography - I tend to take better photo's when I can't look at a small digital screen, unconsciously forcing me to take the picture before I shoot instead of checking afterwards if it succeeded. I also like the grain film gives me.  However, most shots aren't worth spending much time in the darkroom, and scanning them is a lot faster. &lt;strong&gt;I'm wondering how best to convert the film to digital.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scanning at lower than maximum (non-interpolated) resolution of my image scanner tends to exaggerate the contrast of the grain and screw up the mid-tones because of that.¹ On the other hand, the resulting size of the scans are major overkill in most cases (I don't print them at A0 size), so I want to downscale the pictures. However, the grain confuses most methods and results in loss of detail and/or loss of the characteristic grain. For example, bicubic sharper tends to result in a &quot;bigger&quot; grain than the original. Now, the best compromise I've found so far is simply using bilinear interpolation, but I doubt that this is the best method to preserve both overall details and the look of the grain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short: &lt;strong&gt;when processing the scanned negative, how do I &quot;best&quot; preserve both image quality and the characteristic look of the grain?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know &quot;best&quot; is subjective, but I hope people realise that this isn't meant as an inflammatory question; I'm just looking for alternatives to the standard photoshop options to try out. Is the fact that every film has a different grain characteristic a problem? Are customised advanced noise reduction methods perhaps an option?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;1. I'm using a Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400, using the software provided by Minolta.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT 2:&lt;/strong&gt; As requested, a scanned picture with different resise methods. Just scanned this, scanning a B&amp;amp;W negative to get better tonality range. Obviously, I turned off grain dissolver, automatic dust and scratch removal, etc, for obvious reasons. On the right the pictures are upscaled again with Nearest Neighbour. I set the 8 bit scan to 16 bits before downscaling, assuming it reduces risks of banding if I choose to mess with curves, channel mixers, etcetera. No other modifications (ususally I first retouch dust &amp;amp; scratches, and in the end channel mix the picture to B&amp;amp;W, then switch to 8 bits again).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note that the browser probably downscales these pictures yet again, click for full size!&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://fotocie.nl/tmp/All_Downscales.png&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://fotocie.nl/tmp/All_Downscales.png&quot; alt=&quot;The Different Scaling Methods&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://fotocie.nl/tmp/All_Downscales.png&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Direct Link&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2460" LastEditorUserId="2460" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-14T22:58:17.230" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T03:18:49.593" Title="How to preserve detail when downscaling scanned photos" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;film&gt;&lt;film-scanner&gt;&lt;film-grain&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="9771" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9766" CreationDate="2011-03-14T12:53:49.210" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe it would depend on the subject of the print. If the subject is dark and moody you may not want to make any changes, on the other hand if it is meant to be bright and shiny then you may want to lighten the mid-tones and increase the contrast. If possible I would print out a handful of tests and look at them in similar lighting conditions to see if making such changes helped the image tell its story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4273" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T12:53:49.210" />
  <row Id="9772" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9766" CreationDate="2011-03-14T12:55:26.227" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think you should treat it any differently. Human eyes automatically adjust to ambient lighting conditions so changing it in any way will only make it look odd.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How will you be printing the image? Be sure to check that the colour profile (Adobe RGB/sRGB etc) is compatible with the device that is printing; it would probably be best to convert it to sRGB if it's not already to ensure the printout isn't too dark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T12:55:26.227" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="9773" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9767" CreationDate="2011-03-14T13:05:28.967" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The iPhone 4 uses the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ovt.com/products/sensor.php?id=67&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Omnivision OV5650&lt;/a&gt;, and the 3GS uses either the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ovt.com/products/sensor.php?id=39&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;OV3650&lt;/a&gt; or a very similar model.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 3GS has a 1/4&quot; sensor, which, using the bizarre industry standard, means a sensor diagonal of about 4mm. The OV3650 has an array measuring 3.626mm × 2.709mm, giving a diagonal of about 4.5mm, so that fits the spec. (Presumably some small portion of the edge of the sensor is not used in imaging — see &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9738&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;). The overall iPhone 3GS sensor area is about 9.8mm².&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The iPhone 4 uses the much improved OV5650 sensor module, which is classified as a 1/3.2&quot; sensor, with measurements of 4.592mm × 3.423mm, again presumably not all used. The overall sensor area is about 15.7mm².&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, the number of photosites per cm² is about the same between the two — the iPhone 4's increase in pixels is just about exactly the same as the increase in sensor area. But the iPhone 4 sensor is constructed differently, using &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ovt.com/technologies/technology.php?TID=2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;backside illuminated CMOS&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, which is probably what accounts for the very dramatic increase in image quality between the two models.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-14T14:33:49.810" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T14:33:49.810" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9774" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9661" CreationDate="2011-03-14T13:47:51.987" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meetup.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;meetup.com&lt;/a&gt; is perfect for this! It's how I found the photography group that I participate in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4231" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T13:47:51.987" />
  <row Id="9775" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9753" CreationDate="2011-03-14T14:24:37.413" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, they are stored in the XMP data on the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See for reference this MSDN article:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee719905(v=vs.85).aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee719905(v=vs.85).aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2214" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T14:24:37.413" />
  <row Id="9776" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-14T16:24:08.020" Score="2" ViewCount="102" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a question for celebrity photographers. There are many online services now that market celebrity photos to media publishers.  One example is the site WireImages. I am wondering if sites like this offer pay in advance options and sends its photographers to events, Or it buys from photographers and then resells to media publishers.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4309" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T06:23:37.890" Title="How do media publishers pay professional photographers for their celebrity photos?" Tags="&lt;professional&gt;&lt;marketing&gt;&lt;publishing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="9777" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9770" CreationDate="2011-03-14T16:32:06.323" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since you are scanning traditional black and white film and want to preserve the grain, you need to scan at the highest native resolution your scanner allows. The problem is going to be preserving the grain -- your scan (assuming it is sharp) will consist almost entirely of either black or white pixels. Shadows and lower midtones will probably survive downscaling fairly well, but upper mids and highlights won't -- those areas are going to consist of individual or small groups of black pixels with relatively small white spaces in between. A single pixel doesn't scale well, and a black-white-black-white alternation scaled to 50% is going to result in two grey pixels (with the discernible grain gone) or, if you boost the contrast to try to &quot;recover&quot; the grain, two black or two white pixels, depending on where the grey falls in the overall tonal scale.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may find that creating a smooth greyscale image, scaling, then synthesizing the grain later is the only way you're going to be able to arrive at a reasonable file size. If you don't mind a larger file (and have a place to store large files) then you may be able to print the large files at a reasonable size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since you are printing a &quot;true&quot; balck and white picture (as opposed to a smooth greyscale), you can pretty much forget about the usual pixels per inch guidelines for printing. The normal rules of thumb assume that the printer needs a certain minimum quantity of dots per picture pixel to reproduce the tones accurately. You're not too tremendously worried about tonal range at every printed pixel -- each of them will be either black, white, or some transitional grey where the scan is getting the edge of a silver grain on the negative. One or two greys (or &quot;light blacks&quot; in printer ink-speak) ought to cover it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That still assumes a relatively large print -- 8x10 or larger. If you go too small, you're probably going to have to sacrifice the real grain, create a greyscale image from the scan (requires some blurring), then use one of the grain-simulating halftone plugins in your favorite image editor to simulate the grain. (At small sizes, it's going to look like at least an extra stop of push if you want to see grain -- printer dithering can only get you so far.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Added:&lt;/strong&gt; Given the example you posted, there's something just plain annoyingly geometric about the grain effect from the methods that left a significant grain pattern (next neighbor and bicubic sharper; bilinear is somewhat less grainy, but it still looks too regular). Playing around a bit, I noticed that if you take one of the smoother methods (bicubic smoother in particular), then add about 20% random noise to an overlay layer set to 50% opacity, you can generate some organic-looking grain patterns in the overall image. It's worth a shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastEditorUserId="2719" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-14T23:38:45.140" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T23:38:45.140" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9778" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9776" CreationDate="2011-03-14T17:04:12.043" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm sorry, I am not a full-time celebrity photographer but will try to help with an answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As stated on their web site, WireImages uses there &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wireimage.com/about.aspx?sk=AboutPhotographers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;own photographers&lt;/a&gt;. Other companies handle photos and photographers in other ways. Some services are going to focus on buying individual photos from photographers who they have relationships with and others are going to hire photographers to work for them full time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not believe there to be a large market for celebrity photos taken by unknown photographers unless they are sensationalistic photos that have a unique story to tell. Services are going to work with people they know and shy away from managing input from hundreds of photographers that may or may not supply a steady stream of photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4273" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T17:04:12.043" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9779" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9784" CreationDate="2011-03-14T18:06:17.980" Score="8" ViewCount="170" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that stock photography is a very challenging market right now but it seems that certain subjects and themes do well.  How would one know what sorts of stock photos are in demand versus what subjects are overshot and likely not to pay well?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(please, no doom-and-gloom-of-stock rants...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T07:40:03.390" Title="How would one find out what sorts of stock photos are in demand?" Tags="&lt;stock-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="9780" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9783" CreationDate="2011-03-14T18:12:54.290" Score="5" ViewCount="113" Body="&lt;p&gt;I see that the cables that support TTL offered by manufacturers such as Canon and Nikon for using a flash off-camera are fairly spendy and that there are some third-party cables at a fraction of the price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does one risk/lose in using a third party cable as opposed to the name-brand offerings?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-14T19:52:05.830" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T21:10:34.930" Title="Are there risks in using a third-party TTL cable?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;ttl&gt;&lt;cables&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9781" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9766" CreationDate="2011-03-14T19:27:26.510" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since in a hallway passer-bys would not be there long enough to dark adapt, it would probably be worth brightening the image.  Usually when printing to your own printer you can make a gamma adjustment which is a more natural brightening than just a simple &quot;brightness&quot; adjustment, a good thing to try would be a Levels adjustment where you adjust the center slider to push all the values to the right of the histogram.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try an 8x10 test print with the new brightness adjustments and see how it looks in the area under consideration, or in similar lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T19:27:26.510" />
  <row Id="9782" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9766" CreationDate="2011-03-14T19:41:31.517" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't necessarily say you need to prepare the image in lightroom in any particular way. More important than the RGB pixels would be the type of paper you print on. Some papers are manufactured with optical brighteners, which usually rely on there being some level of UV present in the illuminant to bring out the right color and tonal range from the paper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are printing your photo for viewing under artificial light in a hallway that does not generally receive natural light, I would specifically choose a natural paper, one that is guaranteed to not include any optical brightening. I would also avoid anything beyond a low level of semigloss/luster. Any shiny papers are likely to create pronounced glare when viewed under a single light source.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Natural fiber matte papers are probably the best choice. If the image has a fairly high dynamic range, or is particularly high or low key, you might want to carefully select your white and black points. Many natural fiber matte papers have more limited dynamic range than papers with optical brighteners and glossy papers. Black point is a particular sufferer, and if you use an unbleached paper, white pint can suffer as well. Adjusting black and white point in Photoshop while using print proof preview mode will ensure that you replicate as much detail as you can on the paper you choose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T19:41:31.517" />
  <row Id="9783" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9780" CreationDate="2011-03-14T21:10:34.930" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apart from the fragility of the worst of the knock-offs (which are likely to carry name-brand markings at a way-too-good-to-be-a-white-lie prices), my worry would be adequate shielding and twisting together of the appropriate wire pairs/triplets. That would show up as a smearing of the signals (you'd need an oscilloscope to actually see it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In functional terms, it could affect the WWT* signal on very short duration flashes (for &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; close work, near the flash's minimum rated range) and possibly the chatty control signals that go on during high-speed sync. At close ranges it could significantly overexpose; at longer ranges the extra microseconds won't make nearly as much of a difference. You can test HSS fairly easily -- if it doesn't work at high shutter speeds, you may still have a perfectly adequate cable for X-sync or longer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the cable is at all well-made, it should have no problem, but if it's more than a couple of feet long and is just a bunch of straight wires in a jacket, it &lt;em&gt;might&lt;/em&gt; show high-speed signalling problems. If things are really, really bad, your neighbor's garage door might open every time you take a picture -- and if that happens, it's worth hanging onto the cable just for that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*WWT is a TLA for the French Canadian exclamation, &quot;whoa, whoa tabernac!&quot; It's a common name for the shut-off signal in any piece of Canadian military electronics -- talking about the &quot;WWT strobe voltage transient&quot; is much more impressive to passers-by than talking about the off switch signal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T21:10:34.930" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9784" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9779" CreationDate="2011-03-14T22:12:54.367" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The microstock sites often provide charts of the most popular images or tags. Some examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://submit.shutterstock.com/top50.mhtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://submit.shutterstock.com/top50.mhtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.istockphoto.com/participate/contributor-lounge/trends&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.istockphoto.com/participate/contributor-lounge/trends&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's also highlighted images from agencies:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alamy.com/showcase/latestimagery.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.alamy.com/showcase/latestimagery.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some sites even explicitly say what they are looking for:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/training-manuals/photography/quality-standards-what-were-looking-for&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/training-manuals/photography/quality-standards-what-were-looking-for&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only issue with popular lists is that it shows what's popular. It might be more profitable to find a niche that isn't well represented - e.g. your local area, or somewhere with a good view that only you have access to, or your profession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Original or very good quality seasonal images can be more popular than you might think, as long as you upload them a few months before the season - e.g. Christmas related images in October. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2127" LastEditorUserId="2127" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-15T07:40:03.390" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T07:40:03.390" />
  <row Id="9785" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9788" CreationDate="2011-03-14T22:18:37.030" Score="7" ViewCount="428" Body="&lt;p&gt;What's the difference between different autofocus point types (cross vs point and such)?  Cross points seem to be a &quot;feature&quot; — why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-14T22:49:49.070" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T11:33:42.233" Title="What's the difference between cross-type autofocus points and regular ones?" Tags="&lt;autofocus&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="9786" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9785" CreationDate="2011-03-14T22:35:36.203" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Cross focusing points focus on contrast changes both horizontally and vertically (2 dimensional focusing) where as normal focus points work vertically only (single dimension).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cross points give a better chance of locking on to changes in contrast which is how AF works so your AF becomes more effective the more cross points you have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a good article here which explains in more detail about half way down the page:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-autofocus.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-autofocus.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T22:35:36.203" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="9787" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9785" CreationDate="2011-03-14T22:40:24.623" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Focus sensors work by looking for contrast. Cross type sensors can detect contrast vertically and horizontally. The central focus point is usually a cross type sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4269" LastActivityDate="2011-03-14T22:40:24.623" />
  <row Id="9788" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9785" CreationDate="2011-03-14T23:04:13.937" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Phase-detect autofocus sensors are basically tiny, simple rangefinders — light from each side of the lens is split into two paths, and the two paths are projected onto small linear sensors. The difference between the pattern of light and dark is analyzed, and the amount of front or back focus instantly calculated. (That's why phase-detect autofocus is so much faster than contrast-detection as implemented in most point &amp;amp; shoot cameras — with that, the lens has to seek back and forth to find the point of most contrast.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you've used a manual-focus camera with a split-prism in the center of the focusing screen, you can recognize same basic principle at work. As with that, the pattern you're focusing on has to be conveniently aligned against the direction of the split prism for it to be of any use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A cross-type sensor is simply two linear sensors crossing each other (making a cross shape), which is superior because it can work with both vertical and horizontal light patterns.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In manual split-prism focus aids, it's common to align the split &lt;em&gt;diagonally&lt;/em&gt;. This conveniently works with both horizontal and vertical lines/patterns. Some Canon cameras use a diagonal cross for their center sensor. There's other possibilities as well: the Sony A700 uses multiple crossed sensors in a # hash configuration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apparently some high-end SLRs use a rectangular autofocus sensor which basically is a small, low-resolution copy of the whole image — more like focusing with a real rangefinder camera. (Wikipedia tells me this is called &quot;Area SIR&quot;, for area secondary image registration.) That's out of my price range, though. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, it's worth noting that different sensors can have different sensitivities — more sensitive ones work more precisely at wider apertures, with the trade-off being that they don't work as well with lenses limited to slower apertures. That's probably a whole different question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-15T11:33:42.233" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T11:33:42.233" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9789" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8159" CreationDate="2011-03-15T00:39:19.310" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Kirk Tuck has a couple of nice writeups that talk about his experiences with the Olympus E-PL2, a well-regarded Micro Four Thirds camera. The brief summary is: he found the smallness and stealth of the camera quite compelling (e.g., it helped him to appear to be a &quot;hapless tourist&quot; rather than a serious photographer), and the usability and IQ good enough (when compared to DSLRs).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2011/01/olympus-epl2-first-installment.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Olympus EPL2 Review, first installment&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2011/01/olympus-epl2-final-installment-kirks.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Olympus EPL2. Final Installment. Kirk's Definitive Opinion.&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found these very helpful in understanding the tradeoffs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-16T15:24:06.273" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T15:24:06.273" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9790" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-15T01:20:38.587" Score="1" ViewCount="90" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;After a quick search found none, I thought I'd follow up &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8159/what-are-the-disadvantages-of-a-micro-4-3s-camera-versus-a-dslr&quot;&gt;IntuitionHQ's question&lt;/a&gt; with its opposite:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When comparing cameras to buy, what are the &lt;strong&gt;advantages&lt;/strong&gt; of Micro 4/3 cameras when compared with DSLRs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There has to be some advantages - what are the important ones?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T02:47:58.203" Title="What are the advantages of a Micro 4/3s camera compared to a DSLR?" Tags="&lt;comparison&gt;&lt;advice&gt;&lt;micro-four-thirds&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="9791" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9759" CreationDate="2011-03-15T01:24:21.473" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I live in Colorado, and spend a lot of time around the Rockies. While the mountains do indeed have an effect on the time and length of sunrise and sunset, I wouldn't go so far as to say they eliminate Golden Hour. The old adage that states golden hour hits its peak a few minutes after sunset holds truest in the mountains, although it may be more like 15 minutes after sunset rather than just a few minutes. Those brilliant, saturated yellow, orange, and red wavelengths will still illuminate the sky, and bring out all that brilliant detail in clouds, you just need to wait for it a little longer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To demonstrate, this was taken of the Rockies Front Range in February this year:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/F4OHL.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only modifications were a slight drop in the black level, to eliminate faint foreground detail that I didn't want. The rest, the color and saturation, is strait out of the camera. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T01:24:21.473" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9792" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10050" CreationDate="2011-03-15T01:33:56.563" Score="5" ViewCount="300" Body="&lt;p&gt;I currently have a Nikon D90 and a few DX and FX lenses. I am thinking about changing to Micro Four Thirds (as it's a drag carrying around a big DSLR all the time, and my most important shoots are on long hikes) and wondering if the mass and bulk savings is meaningful, and if so by how much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've done a little tinkering in a spreadsheet and am coming up with a mass savings of 30-40%, and I'm wondering what the real world is like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[In contrast with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8159/how-do-micro-4-3s-cameras-compare-with-dslr-cameras-pros-cons&quot;&gt;earlier question about Micro Four Thirds&lt;/a&gt;, which focuses on the sensor and IQ differences, here I'm more concerned about the (in)convenience level of transporting the gear. Earlier versions of this question were not so clear on that, and I am sorry for the confusion.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-15T12:38:40.697" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T02:21:54.907" Title="Is the smaller mass and bulk of Micro Four Thirds gear vs. APS-C DSLRs meaningful?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;micro-four-thirds&gt;&lt;aps-c&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="13" />
  <row Id="9796" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9770" CreationDate="2011-03-15T03:18:49.593" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know exactly what I would do, and in fact have done in the past, but my answer is likely to be useless to anyone here. You'll have to be an image processing math freak.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like others say, scan at the highest res possible.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd use high-power interactive math tools like Matlab or IDL to analyze the image into a high-frequency grainy part and a smooth part.  There'd be some complicated extra steps to make sure edges go into the smooth part not the grainy part.  So it's not just a case of Fourier transforms or some kind of linear filtering.   Ideally the grainy part would just be statistical noise with the right look of graininess but no hint of the original image.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: it may not be the case that the image analyzed into smooth &lt;em&gt;plus&lt;/em&gt; grainy; it might be a somewhat more complex combination as the statistical distribution of the graininess may differ between light areas and dark areas.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The smooth part can be downscaled easily.  That is then combined with the unscaled grainy part cropped to fit.   Optionally, some downsizing of the grain might look better.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The great thing about this method  is that you can apply bicubic to the smooth image, and bilinear to the grain (if you do downsize it), and you can just as well apply any image adjustment to the smooth part but different adjustments to the grainy part.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am quick to write an IDL or Python script full of heavy math;  I don't know if there's a Photoshop or GIMP plug-in that can do this kind of work for the non-insane.  I do know that Alien Skin makes some impressive plugins that create and alter film looks including graininess and various film stocks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="637" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T03:18:49.593" />
  <row Id="9797" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9792" CreationDate="2011-03-15T03:59:43.473" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just for what it's worth, there is an alternative: Sony's NEX series EVIL cameras are pretty much the same size as micro-4/3&lt;sup&gt;rds&lt;/sup&gt;, but have an APS-C sized sensor. They've recently signed up Zeiss, Cosina, Sigma and Tamron to build lenses and generally support the mount they're using, so while it may not have quite as many companies involved, it's still a fair number of solid companies that should provide a pretty reasonable range of lenses. At a guess, there's a pretty fair chance that at least one of those will start to build bodies as well. Like micro-4/3&lt;sup&gt;rds&lt;/sup&gt;, the flange distance is short enough to allow adapters for almost any existing interchangeable lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: I should add that IMO, the reduced size and weight of micro-4/3&lt;sup&gt;rds&lt;/sup&gt; is probably less a result of the format change that of eliminating the entire SLR mechanism. A pentaprism is a big, relatively heavy chunk of glass. The mirror and ability to flip it out of the way dictates a minimum distance from the lens to the shutter, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think, however, there's one more factor to keep in mind: micro-4/3&lt;sup&gt;rds&lt;/sup&gt; (and non-micro 4/3&lt;sup&gt;rds&lt;/sup&gt; before it) were/are originated primarily by Olympus. Olympus has been placing an emphasis on their cameras being smaller and lighter than the competition for decades. Even back when they were all building full-frame 35mm SLRs, the Olympus OM-1 (for only one example) was substantially smaller and lighter than the Canon F1 or Nikon F. Likewise, for decades Olympus lenses were generally the smallest and lightest in their category, but were still excellent both optically and mechanically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In APS-C SLRs, Pentax's line is rather similar. They're substantially smaller and lighter than almost anything else, with no compromise in either optical or mechanical quality. That's not to say that a Pentax SLR competes with micro-4/3&lt;sup&gt;rds&lt;/sup&gt; or NEX in size or weight, but it does show that size and weight can often be reduced without changing formats or losing quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit2: I have to disagree with the claim that NEX 5 lenses will &quot;necessarily&quot; be any larger or heavier than equivalent micro-4/3&lt;sup&gt;rds&lt;/sup&gt; lenses. At least based on current lineups, it looks to me like most weight differences depend more on features and construction than the difference in sensor size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, it's absolutely true that the Olympus 14-140 mm lens is considerably lighter than the Sony 18-200. It's also true that the Sony uses a metal body, includes image stabilization, and every review I've seen says the build quality is extremely good. By contrast, the Olympus uses a plastic body, lacks image stabilization, and about the best anybody seems to be able to say about its build quality is that it doesn't seem to cause any major problem in real use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want image stabilization and better construction you can get that in the Panasonic/Leica 14-150mm lens -- but it also weighs about the same as the Sony (a tiny bit more, AAMOF).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-15T19:23:38.803" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T19:23:38.803" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9798" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9776" CreationDate="2011-03-15T06:23:37.890" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just because there are &quot;many services&quot; doesn't mean they all have customers.&#xA;A lot of them no doubt are dreamers hoping to make a ton of money quickly leeching off a business model they think must be successful because so many others are doing it (thus inflating the supply market artificially without any demand market).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most tabloid publishing houses have their own vermin on staff full time whose sole job it is to stalk their targets 24/7 and come up with juicy photos and stories.&#xA;Respectable publications usually rely on official photographs released by the celebrities or their agents, and/or have their staff visit official events and have them on call for covering emergencies. They might also do business with established stock photo agencies, who typically buy only from known professionals with an extensive portfolio. Those professionals will often be under contract to supply a steady stream of quality images to that agency.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For John Doe with his brand new $500 camera, they have no need. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T06:23:37.890" />
  <row Id="9799" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5910" CreationDate="2011-03-15T06:24:56.673" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've never liked that style, so never used it.&#xA;And I still don't like it now :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T06:24:56.673" />
  <row Id="9800" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9779" CreationDate="2011-03-15T07:07:53.780" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The above answer is great, you will find that stock sites say what they need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Best types of shots are ones with faces, getting those shots with a model release. Sports are another type of photograph in demand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One factor that makes a big difference is your angle, and composition. Think stock when you are shooting. Think about leaving space in the image for text etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't waste your time with things like flowers, pets, gardens, and eye level photography&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4316" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T07:07:53.780" />
  <row Id="9801" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9803" CreationDate="2011-03-15T07:09:21.017" Score="5" ViewCount="163" Body="&lt;p&gt;I saw Fuji Instax 210 Wide Camera while looking for a good Polaroid and noticed that it behaves like a polaroid in a sense that you can print the picture right away. Is it both a lomo and a polaroid?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3860" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-15T10:58:00.297" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T10:58:00.297" Title="What is the difference between a lomo and a polaroid?" Tags="&lt;polaroid&gt;&lt;lomo&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9802" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9804" CreationDate="2011-03-15T07:12:31.607" Score="1" ViewCount="45" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure if this option is available for this particular camera. I can't seem to find it in the specs. I don't want to have to waste photo papers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Follow-up: can I store the captured pictures in a memory card for this particular camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3860" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T09:00:45.467" Title="Can you choose which pictures to print on a Fuji Instax 210?" Tags="&lt;polaroid&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="9803" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9801" CreationDate="2011-03-15T08:56:39.107" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lomo and Polaroid are both brands with products in the photography field -- Polaroid are known for their instant cameras, with the name becoming synonymous for a camera that produces photographs instantly. Lomo are a Russian company that have also made cameras, but have become more well known recently following marketing by Lomography who have sole rights for distribution of their cameras outside Russia; their cameras are typically 35mm film cameras, and tend to be fairly low-tech (so no options like auto-focus, or wind on) but are sometimes specialised in a single way (for example, there is a fisheye camera).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fujifilm is another brand, so that Fujifilm Instax 210 is neither a lomo or a polaroid - it just shares attributes that made those brands popular (i.e. specialised for a single purpose, and providing instant prints)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T08:56:39.107" />
  <row Id="9804" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9802" CreationDate="2011-03-15T09:00:45.467" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your choice is limited to when you press the shutter. This is not a digital camera, so there's no other review/print options other than the viewfinder/shutter. Given this is a film camera, there is no digital sensor nor memory card for review later - if you want to share your pictures online, you will need to scan them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T09:00:45.467" />
  <row Id="9805" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9741" CreationDate="2011-03-15T10:03:39.900" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've done some editing on your photo. Maybe it's more extreme as it should be but I wanted to point out what can be done in post processing in software like Photoshop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Original&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Except for the marks on her left forearm and a tiny spot on her cheek.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Haw2P.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Original&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Adjusted&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/h11Gw.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Adjusted&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What has been done?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are adjustments I've done in Photoshop&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Channel Mixer to adjust colour&lt;/strong&gt; because due to artificial light source your photo is way too green. The best indicator of how much white balance is off is to have some white/grey part in the photo. In your case it's the white wall behind the girl (or white table top under her arm). Adjust colours until the white/grey &lt;em&gt;thing&lt;/em&gt; gets into greyscale range.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exposure adjustment on the eyes&lt;/strong&gt; - I overexposed eyes only by +0.7 stop (just iris not whole eyes). This makes the eyes brighter which enhances eye colours&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Added sharp white marks on eyes&lt;/strong&gt; to artificially enhance light reflection in her eyes. This makes eyes seem more sharp as they actually really are.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Copied the image as a new layer, run filter: &lt;strong&gt;Filters &gt; Other &gt; High Pass (1px)&lt;/strong&gt; and then set layer mask to &lt;strong&gt;Overlay&lt;/strong&gt; and set transparency to 75%. Overlay masked High Pass filtering most naturally sharpens images. But don't exaggerate.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Adjusted histogram curves&lt;/strong&gt;, to lighten the whole image a bit to lighten the face, which is the focus of attention.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this helps tweaking your images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Everyone's free to comment on my editing&lt;/strong&gt; of course. Any input is always welcome!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The other image&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other image (posted by @Tristan Moss) is a much better example for eye sharpness manipulation because it really requires just a tiny bit of work. The image is for my taste a bit underexposed, so I adjusted exposure. But the best part is that &lt;strong&gt;eyes can really be edited to extreme sharpness&lt;/strong&gt; that actually pop out razor sharp (you can see both images here side by side for comparison).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/6sWXl.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Super Sharp Eyes&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(@Tristan Moss I hope you don't mind the adjustments on your photo)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2110" LastEditorUserId="2110" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-15T15:54:46.020" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T15:54:46.020" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9806" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9734" CreationDate="2011-03-15T10:10:52.343" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally the time that &quot;export version&quot; takes to render a final version of the image depends on the editing changes that have been made. However, a single image taking &quot;minutes&quot; seems wrong - the usual range would be between one and ten seconds. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Jukka has mentioned, your available RAM is rather small. If upgrading isn't possible, try to ensure that no other programs are running at the same time as Aperture - you can see a small &quot;light&quot; under any running programs in the Dock. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Aperture activity window will give you details of what is being done. Click on Window -&gt; Show Activity to bring it up. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, you can try looking at Mac OS's activity monitor to see whether your CPU or your memory is being heavily used. You can find this in Applications/Utilities folder. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fundamentally, to give you a better answer we still need to know if this problem occurs randomly on the same image, or if it's always images that have more editing that take longer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2127" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T10:10:52.343" />
  <row Id="9807" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9792" CreationDate="2011-03-15T13:28:15.253" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would just like to add to the NEX comment that while the body is smaller than current mFT cameras, the lenses are necessarily going to be larger and most likely also heavier than mFT lenses of equivalent focal lengths and maximum aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4319" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T13:28:15.253" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9808" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9813" CreationDate="2011-03-15T13:34:14.017" Score="6" ViewCount="460" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi, I own a DSLR for less than a year, currently shooting with my Nikon D90 and 18-70mm DX lens. Since the beginning of it, I am deeply in love with shooting landscapes photography: seascapes, skyscapes, cityscapes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am thinking of upgrade to what I believe the next best lens for landscapes photography: 10-24mm DX lens, but I received mixed messages makes me doubting and delaying my decision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I see in web posts/pages and discussion with friends, ultra-wide lens photography is not about &quot;fitting more in&quot; but &quot;putting subject into the picture&quot;: &quot;covering more into photo&quot; was what I after and this sounds like maybe this 10-24mm isn't for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an example photo of my photography style:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/VSLo8.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(More can be found in my flickr album:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/travaganza/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/travaganza/&lt;/a&gt; )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the question was, is an Ultra-wide lens going to enhance my landscape photography experience as I will be able to &quot;cover more into picture&quot;? &lt;em&gt;Or will I end up with an expensive specialised lens that I will be annoyed by amount of distortion on edges (and post-correction will end up 'zooming' the end product)?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;The question title is way to subjective.&#xA;I update the question title hopefully it points my question to a better direction :-/&#xA;The new question title is: &quot;Does an Ultra-Wide Lens &lt;strong&gt;perform&lt;/strong&gt; in Landscape Photography?&quot;, where &lt;strong&gt;perform&lt;/strong&gt; as it: &quot;whether it is designed for&quot;. Again, I'm fairly new to photography, don't be too harsh on me :S&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4320" LastEditorUserId="4320" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-15T14:31:17.473" LastActivityDate="2011-03-18T04:11:40.280" Title="Does an Ultra-Wide Lens perform in Landscape Photography?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;landscape&gt;&lt;dx&gt;&lt;ultra-wide&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9809" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-15T14:10:17.403" Score="4" ViewCount="91" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was wondering if anyone uses a labeling system like one of those hand held 'Brother' labelers and if they have an acid free option for sticking labels to media...?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This maybe better asked on an art forum, but in cataloging artwork of different media I can pretty much use anything to stick labels on the sides of canvas, or the back. But for drawings, prints and painting on board it is another matter. Ideally I could find a label as small as 1/8&quot; wide to label some of the smaller paintings on board and be able to view the label from the side. There will be some media though like drawings that I'd want to label on the front, off to the edge of course and covered by a matte, but still on the paper itself, so acid free and a temporary stick would be ideal. Even if we decide to label on the back acid free would be ideal. Another option is to put every single drawing in a sleeve, or keep a referral list with each portfolio. We just have so many of them it's easy to lose track. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a related comment: With taking pictures of hundreds of artworks I've been thinking about how to catalog and keep everything organized. I used to name images by their title, like: &quot;Winter Trees - 22x30 - Oil on Canvas.jpg&quot;.  But there is more information I need to add and instead I've decided to go with a catalog number for every item. My plan is to then create a database with with everything; catalog number, horizontal size, vertical size, title, medium, subject, year, even down to most used colors. Among other things a website will be created and all users will be able to search galleries for specific sizes, subjects, colors, etc...       That is the plan, but I thought I'd float it out there in case anyone has comments or ideas. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4259" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-15T15:39:33.907" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T20:12:48.820" Title="Are there acid-free labeling systems for archival purposes?" Tags="&lt;artwork&gt;&lt;curation&gt;&lt;archive&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9810" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9822" CreationDate="2011-03-15T14:12:34.087" Score="11" ViewCount="244" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been toying with the thought of starting analog (film) photography for a while. Buying a film SLR and the equipment to develop and print the photos doesn't seem to be too expensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now my question: Does it make sense to do this? Did anyone of you do this, too?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't really have a clue about the film equipment, as well as the development and printing processes. So if you have any concrete tips or know any tutorials that could help me, please post them!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2069" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-15T15:36:37.780" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T15:03:58.803" Title="(How) should I start with film photography?" Tags="&lt;film-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="9811" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9810" CreationDate="2011-03-15T14:23:32.837" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't jump straight in to developing personally. I would (and have) get a good film SLR (ridiculously cheap these days) and have the film developed at a good shop. That way if you decide film photography is not for you, you haven't wasted money on a load of developing equipment. If you enjoy it, go ahead and invest in developing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Film photography is well worth a go. It forces you to assess a scene more critically beforehand and think about your settings, rather than the shoot-and-adjust methods you can resort to with digital.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Otherwise, film photography is very similar to digital. The controls of a relatively modern film SLR will be very similar to their digital equivalent. My EOS film SLR has Scene modes as well as Av, Tv, P and M modes, various metering modes, various shooting modes, and exposure compensation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are not already familiar with it, you will need to pay more attention to the in-camera light meter, but that's about it. If you are lacking confidence, you can always take a shot with your digital, then match the settings on your film camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T14:23:32.837" />
  <row Id="9812" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9809" CreationDate="2011-03-15T14:28:39.067" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, Brother actually makes a line of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.officedepot.com/a/products/347695/Brother-TZ-AF131-Acid-Free-Black/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;acid-free label tape&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if you are planning on doing this on a large scale, you might be interested in a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16828113347&amp;amp;nm_mc=OTC-Froogle&amp;amp;cm_mmc=OTC-Froogle-_-Label+/+CD+Printers-_-Brother-_-28113347&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PC-connected label maker&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T14:28:39.067" />
  <row Id="9813" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9808" CreationDate="2011-03-15T15:11:55.807" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes and No.&lt;/strong&gt; That's the only true answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A lens has to be adapted to your vision and subject.&lt;/strong&gt; Landscape is a very broad category and I know fine-art landscape photographers who mainly shoot with wide lenses and others mainly with telephoto lenses (ex: 70-200mm).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The angle-of-view of ultra-wide lenses really emphasizes the foreground.&lt;/strong&gt; Moving back with a longer lens is not equivalent (as someone suggested) as it changes the relationship between of things at different depths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In some locations you end up very close to the scenic vistas (beaches, nature trails) and there are interesting foreground details which deserve emphasis (flowers, seashells, moss, etc) in which case a wide-angle be easier to compose with. Other locations, the interesting things are far and without a long lens is becomes difficult to make an interesting shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Regardless of what angle-of-view your lens is, you have to be able to fill the frame&lt;/strong&gt; with interesting things. Jay Maisel says &lt;em&gt;'Everything in your frame helps you or hurts you'&lt;/em&gt;. If I can crop an image without changing the aspect ratio of my frame, I consider that I failed to take the best shot possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take the shots from you gallery for example and imagine if there was more to the sides and above or below. Would the shot be more interesting? Or would people start wondering what its about?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SUBJECTIVE PART NOW :)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Honestly, I consider myself a wide-angle shooter, most of my photos are taken wide but I also know that it is much harder to make a wide shot work. That does not mean, I should just shoot with a longer lens because what I see in a scene is how things combine and contrast, some people see details more and that is simply a different way of seeing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T15:11:55.807" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9814" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9808" CreationDate="2011-03-15T15:43:43.973" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What this question boils down to, no matter how you phrase the title, is &quot;will buying a wider angle lens help me take the pictures I want to take?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of that discussion about &quot;putting subject into the picture&quot; is a bit of a red herring -- it really is about fitting more in. It's about getting all of what's &quot;out there&quot;, but also getting what's &quot;right here&quot; at your feet. The contrast of scale makes that vast space out there much more impressive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are couple of cheap and easy ways to tell whether you'd be buying a tool or a decoration. The more direct of the two is to rent the lens for a weekend (assuming you have a decent camera shop available -- here in Toronto, we're blessed with a couple of good retailers, Vistek and Henry's, that will gladly rent you such a lens because they know you're much more likely to buy it after using it than while it's just an abstract notion).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second is much cheaper -- all you need is a short ruler and a piece of cardboard with a 2-units by 3-units hole in the middle (4x6 inches or 10x15cm is a comfortable size to work with). Frame the scene through the hole so it looks the same as what you're seeing through the 18mm end of your lens and measure the distance between your face and the card. Carry the card and ruler (your viewfinder) with you for the next couple-three-four shooting expeditions. If moving the cardboard closer to your eye than the 18mm-equivalent distance makes a better picture often enough, your decision is made. (That technique, by the way, is how I used to decide which lenses/boards to bring with me when shooting 4x5 -- at something like five pounds apiece, mounted, you don't want to sacrifice film, at about a pound for every four exposures, to carry lenses you don't need when hiking.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T15:43:43.973" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9815" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9809" CreationDate="2011-03-15T16:07:45.737" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're working with original art, always take the most conservative approach. Right now, that means &lt;em&gt;no&lt;/em&gt; pressure-sensitive adhesives -- there are none that have been demonstrated to be conservationally safe and reversible over time. The standard is still rag paper and wheat-starch paste. Stamp hinges are probably the best low-moisture method for affixing paper labels to works on paper (although simply using a graphite pencil either in the undermatte area or on the back would probably be easier).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are affixing the labels to canvas stretchers or mounting boards well clear of the actual artwork, then you can get away with just about anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are going to build a comprehensive database, then all of the information you're talking about is going to be valuable over time -- particularly the list of materials used. It will make a conservator's job a lot easier if the work ever needs to be cleaned or restored. If you can include a list of pigments, that's great -- it can help in reducing chemical damage. More important, though, is the varnish (on oils and often on acrylics) if you know what was used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Added:&lt;/strong&gt; The best reference to consult is probably still Ralph Mayers' &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0670837016&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Artist's Handbook of Materials and Techniques&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (always the latest edition, since new materials are assessed as they become available). Yes, he's opinionated and conservative, but that's mostly in reaction to the short-lived disposable (but not inexpensive) art that was being produced when he wrote the book in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastEditorUserId="2719" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-15T18:42:19.943" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T18:42:19.943" />
  <row Id="9816" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9818" CreationDate="2011-03-15T16:09:51.897" Score="2" ViewCount="133" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to add either vertical or horizontal black bars to photos in Lightroom. I know I could export to Photoshop and do it there, but I'd prefer to quickly do it in Lightroom. Is this feature built into Lightroom 3 somewhere, or does it require a plugin? If so, what free plugin do you recommend?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example of what I'm talking about: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/4872f.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Example of what I'm talking about&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4199" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T15:44:00.747" Title="Can you add pillarboxes to a photo in Lightroom?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;lightroom-3&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9817" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9816" CreationDate="2011-03-15T16:19:25.403" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lightroom does not include a feature natively that would add the pillarbox bars to a photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not aware of a plugin but perhaps someone else can chime in if they are...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T16:19:25.403" />
  <row Id="9818" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9816" CreationDate="2011-03-15T16:49:41.493" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can use Lightroom's print module to do this by setting a custom paper size, setting the background to black and overlaying an image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mike.  (http://www.wolfnowl.com/2010/10/photo-of-the-month-triptychs-and-lightroom/ and &lt;a href=&quot;http://bit.ly/LRTips&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://bit.ly/LRTips&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4321" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T16:49:41.493" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9819" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9810" CreationDate="2011-03-15T17:19:34.870" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Oh, it may not &lt;em&gt;seem&lt;/em&gt; expensive right away, but every time you hear the shutter click it's costing you money. I had it really bad -- I had to start turning tricks (er, &lt;em&gt;shooting weddings&lt;/em&gt; -- it's the same thing as far as I'm concerned) to support my habit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, shooting film can be very rewarding. Or, rather, shooting &lt;em&gt;black and white&lt;/em&gt; film can be very rewarding. Colour makes you a slave to the process, and will make you intimately familiar with all of the nuances of meaning contained in the innocent-looking phrase &quot;reciprocity failure&quot;. (Want to make a one-second exposure adjustment in that print? It's going to take an hour of making test strips to figure out the new filter pack for the exposure, even if you have a dichromic enlarger. And burning and dodging colour prints is its own special little acre of Hell.) There is no real advantage to shooting 35mm colour film; digital gives you far more control over the end product without locking you into any decisions you make along the way. If you ever go to medium format, then it'll be a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; of lab and film charges before a used Bronica becomes anywhere near as expensive as a low-end digital MF back (Hasselblad and Mamiya both have &quot;entry-level&quot; cameras that only cost as much as an economy car, if you're interested).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With black and white, you really do need to go to the darkroom to make it worthwhile. It's the ability to adjust the contrast both globally and locally that makes the difference between a &lt;em&gt;photograph&lt;/em&gt; and the snapshot you'd get from turning your Brownie 620 film over to the druggist. A lot of the drama is going to come from film choice and the filters you use when shooting (and you almost always need to use some kind of a filter), but much more comes from the development of the negatives, the choice of paper contrast, and burning and dodging.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thing is that you can't just jump into pushing and pulling and so on with both feet -- you need to understand &quot;straight&quot; pictures first. That takes direct experience, and a bit of care and attention. It won't take you very long to figure out that &quot;straight&quot; pictures are almost always a disappointment (studio pics are an exception, since you can use lighting and filtration to micromanage the contrast and tonality at the time of the exposure). They'll either be flat and lifeless (just a page full of grey yech) or you'll run out of room and be left with either pure white, pure black, or both, in parts of the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh -- &quot;standard&quot; negative development is rarely satisfactory. Most B&amp;amp;W shooters have found that a slight &quot;pull&quot; (overexposing by 2/3-1 stop and underdeveloping by a few seconds) gives both smaller grain and a longer tonal scale to work with. If you want to do the Ansel Adams thing (as opposed to the gritty &lt;em&gt;Life&lt;/em&gt; magazine photojournalism thing), then standard souping is not where you want to go. But you have to know what to adjust and by how much, and that means starting with the standard and changing (and recording those changes for later reference -- you don't want every roll of film to be a science experiment).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, a pro lab won't leave you there (unless you give them clear written instructions to do so), but a pro lab isn't going to give you a 4x6 print for a quarter, either. You will at least want to look at a contact sheet (or, when you have enough experience reading them, the developed negatives) before making a print order. Unless you are expecting to do high-volume print production, it's almost always easier to do things yourself. Even if you are doing high volume, you'll usually want to make contrast, burning and dodging decisions for yourself -- you're the artist. You can't really make decisions about the process until you understand the process, and that means getting in there, experimenting, and making a few mistakes along the way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T17:19:34.870" />
  <row Id="9820" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-15T17:20:49.593" Score="9" ViewCount="281" Body="&lt;p&gt;A television show (sit-com) wants to use an image that I took of a model.  This image would probably be on screen for a few seconds and probably part of a portfolio book that is being looked through.  I want to charge something for the usage of this image.  Could anyone help me with information on what is a good rate?  Thank you for the help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4322" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-15T19:52:16.050" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T22:44:23.623" Title="TV show wants to use a photograph — what should I charge?" Tags="&lt;pricing&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9821" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9708" CreationDate="2011-03-15T18:13:43.023" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2011/03/photo-editing-101/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt; by Chase Jarvis explains his awesome workflow. He shows how he selects few pics to put on his portfolio and show to his clients from a set of about 15K clicks..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the summary:&#xA;There are 5 stars available in any workflow management s/w like bridge or aperture. He uses the stars in following manner to sort the pictures out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1* – Pace: Full Speed.  Main Criteria: Is it garbage? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2* – Pace: Full Speed.  Main Criteria: Does it look OK?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3* – Pace: Cruising.  Main Criteria: Is it pretty nice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4* – Pace: Calculated.  Main Criteria:  Is it nice when you look closely?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5* – Pace: Slow and thoughtful.  Main Criteria:  Is it outstanding? These are the winners. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should really read the article.. it has really helped me alot!!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="55" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T18:13:43.023" />
  <row Id="9822" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9810" CreationDate="2011-03-15T20:13:52.567" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It depends on what you are after from the experience.&lt;/strong&gt; Are you playing with it just to see what wacko images you can get that are 'different' or 'alternate' to digital? In other words, are you exploring film like you would a Holga, a pinhole, or a lensbaby? then don't bother reading on. If, on the other hand, you are exploring film because you want to understand the history of photographic processes, or you want a deeper understanding of how photons end up making images, then this answer might interest you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me, it only makes sense to even start doing film photography today (outside of simple curiosity) if you plan on going all the way: hand developing and printing. Else, it doesn't seem anywhere close to the bother. I'd actually advocate for the truly strong of stomach to go rent a 4x5 view camera and shoot a box of film and tray-develop it (maybe don't do this until you have done some 35mm or 120 film first). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;35mm film is just about the worst of all worlds&lt;/strong&gt; these days as far as actually doing real photographs, just about the &lt;strong&gt;only reason to do 35mm film is for the learning experience&lt;/strong&gt; of how film behaves and what the photochemical process do. For this didactic reason, there's a lot you can learn from film. But I'd argue that &lt;strong&gt;you won't get it by just shooting the roll and sending it out--you gotta hand develop&lt;/strong&gt;. Again, with 35mm, it doesn't seem at all worth it just to shoot a roll and send it out. The processing that 99.5% of all labs are going to do to that film is like D-76 or some other crappy film dev. That's just going to give you crappy film results so what would you learn from that? Then they will print it on some crappy paper and you won't get any understanding of the printing process either (else they send back scanned neg files). Doesn't make any sense to me--nowhere worth the hassle. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, if you take the time to learn what the old masters did (i.e. developing in ABC pyro film developer and printing on something like Elite Fine Art or better yet to hand-coated platinum), THEN you are making it worth your while. You get to &lt;strong&gt;experience the mercurial and arcane world of film at it's finest. This is NOT easy&lt;/strong&gt;, but you actually get something for your troubles. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in short, I'm suggesting that if you are interested in film photography, that you go all the way.If you are on a &lt;strong&gt;monastic quest&lt;/strong&gt; to 'get' film photography so you can become an overall better photographer or simply have a fuller appreciation for the medium, I'd suggest the following progression. Call it a &lt;strong&gt;auto-didactic degree curriculum in old skool photochemical techniques&lt;/strong&gt;. Note, I'd suggest NOT stopping at 101 if you bother starting. The really good stuff comes at 400. You can do the 400 level before the 300. If you complete the Ph.D. I'll send a picture to you of myself genuflecting to your greatness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Film 101 level course:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;get a cheap 35mm (borrow or buy) camera. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;shoot a few rolls of film &amp;amp; develop in a GOOD developer. See Adams &quot;The Negative&quot; or other zone system texts for descriptions of good film devs. D-76 is basically crap. don't even bother. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Print on some high quality paper. I don't even know what's available these days. Back in the dark ages, I used Kodak Elite Fine Art. Prob doesn't exist any more. If you can, buy a film/print darkroom setup on ebay. super cheap. else use college facility if available. Note: don't even bother with the cheap stuff. Doesn't make sense. You are doing this course for the learning, not because it's practical. Get full value out of your investment: &lt;strong&gt;buy the best softgoods&lt;/strong&gt;, rent the best film equipment. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Film 300:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rent/borrow a Hasselblad or comparable 120 roll film camera. There are some truly sweet 120 film cameras out there. repeat step 2 and 3. 120 film cameras are a world unto themselves, deserving contemplation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Film 400:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Rent/borrow a 4x5 view camera kit.  Get a good one if you can. using a 4x5 is a truly landmark experience for photographers. &lt;strong&gt;You will learn SO much about photography by using a view camera.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;shoot a 25 sheet box of 4x5 film. repeat 2 and 3.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Masters Level:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;learn an alternate/historic photographic printing process. Gum or Platinum/Palladium is a great place to start. Palladium is probably the best in terms of ease of learning and expense. contact print one of your 4x5 negs. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ph.D/fellowship:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photogravure.com/process/process.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wet plate collodian&lt;/a&gt; negative and print it with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photogravure.com/process/process.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photogravure&lt;/a&gt;. If you do this, YOU ARE A GOD.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Upon graduation, I fully expect you to have gained photographic &lt;strong&gt;insights comparable with forms of mysticism (trips to Mecca, fasts, prayer vigils, month long meditations).&lt;/strong&gt; You will also then have to resist the urge to make love to your digital camera, given your newly found respect for how freaking easy it is to use. Moreover, when you look at the stunning images of the old film masters, you will have a much better appreciation of how skilled and patient they were. Note that many incredible images were done with what I'm calling a Ph.D. level of knowledge. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2998" LastEditorUserId="2998" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-16T03:08:46.983" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T03:08:46.983" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9823" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9808" CreationDate="2011-03-15T20:31:36.513" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd just add one thing: if you like the wide look, then you are probably going to want to pony up to a full frame sensor. Crop sensors like on the D90 are less wide then full frames for a given lens size. So you are going to be limited to about a 24mm full frame equiv on any crop sensor camera. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With a full frame camera, you can get rectilinear lenses down to about 16mm that are high quality. You might want to take that into account as you shop for lenses &amp;amp; only buy full frame capable lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2998" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T20:31:36.513" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9825" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9820" CreationDate="2011-03-15T22:44:23.623" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pricing is all about the market; if the show is going to be syndicated nationally/internationally/etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't see anything directly relevant in my local friendly price guides, but had this been for TV advertising, then 985 USD would've been the price I'd have suggested.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It might be worth asking if they had a budget in mind, and start negotiating between there and what you think it's worth. Worth bearing in mind, with all photography shots, you'll need to stay below the cost of repeating the shot, if you want them to buy &lt;em&gt;your&lt;/em&gt; shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2011-03-15T22:44:23.623" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9826" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9859" CreationDate="2011-03-16T00:00:40.467" Score="4" ViewCount="283" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been using Lightroom for a few years.  At one point I kept keywords in a hierarchy, so I'd have something like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Animals &gt; Birds &gt; Eagles&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This worked well, I could include the option to export parent keywords and all was good.  Then I got lazy and started tagging things all over the place.  So whereas my &quot;Eagles&quot; tag is nicely under Animals and Birds, I might have a Falcons or Parrot keyword that stands on its own and doesn't have the parental structure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rearranging the keyword hierarchy within Lightroom is &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; time-consuming... dragging and dropping isn't so quick when there are thousands of items in play.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that Lightroom has the ability to export and import keywords, but I'm struggling with the best way to perhaps clean this up.  Is there a good way to manipulate the keywords externally and then bring that back into Lightroom?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-19T02:58:20.610" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T19:03:59.977" Title="How do I clean up keyword hierarchies in Lightroom?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;keywords&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9827" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9810" CreationDate="2011-03-16T00:08:06.197" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Film is worth doing, but not with an SLR IMHO. A film SLR does not give you anything a DSLR does not. A Leica, now, that is a different kettle of fish entirely! Corner-to-corner crispness from the lens (any lens, basically - rangefinder lenses are comparatively easy to build compared to SLR lenses and any cheap Voigtländer will give a top-of-the line SLR lens a run for its money) and with a good, low-ISO film it will rival or surpass digital in image quality. And all this in package smaller than an SLR with kit lens.  Given a good scanner and decent postprocessing, of course. On high ISO, forget it - digital is so much better than film in that regime that it is not even funny. A good 100 ISO slide film on the other hand - I am partial to Kodak's E100 series personally -  is at least as good as what my Canon 1Ds mk II can output.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T00:08:06.197" />
  <row Id="9828" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9734" CreationDate="2011-03-16T00:26:47.190" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No, you are not using it wrong.&lt;/strong&gt; I have seen wildly variable performance in Aperture, and I don’t have a solid understanding of why. I agree with Maynard that you should check the Activity window. I have noticed that Aperture will get stuck processing something, and canceling it can bring it back to normalcy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The #1 performance issue I have noticed with Aperture &lt;strong&gt;and every other OS X app&lt;/strong&gt; has to do with the Mac OS X IO scheduler &lt;strong&gt;being absolute crap.&lt;/strong&gt; Anything that has to hit disk will quickly grind your Mac down into a gelatinous beachballing mess. I strongly advise &lt;strong&gt;turning off Time Machine&lt;/strong&gt; or quitting similar disk-intensive applications while using Aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe Apple will fix their IO scheduler, or SSDs will become ubiquitous enough that it’s no longer an issue, but until then, the situation is miserable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1905" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T00:26:47.190" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9829" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5002" CreationDate="2011-03-16T01:43:18.490" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think this is very much a matter of style. Combined with the right complimentary design, you can present photos with light or dark backgrounds. You may even be able to use a colored background if it properly compliments the tone of the photos themselves. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have a very widely varying set of color and tone in your photos, you might want to stick with black. Its neutral, absorbs extra light, and can really help make your photos pop. An opposite case might be when you have lower-key black and white (grayscale) photos. A black background in this case will just drown the photos, and a lighter or white background will help make B&amp;amp;W photos pop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lighter backgrounds go well with &quot;soft&quot; photography, photos with a lot of out-of-focus blur, higher key, lighter tones and muted colors. Light gray or white will show off such photos nicely, and maintain the overall soft feel. Combining higher key, softer photos with a dark background can create too much contrast, and adds a harsher edge to an otherwise softer theme.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Colored backgrounds should be used when you have consistency in tone and color. An example might be washed out sepia tone monochromatic photos on a darker maroon colored background. Goldenrod highlights (i.e. text) is also a nice complement to both the background and photos in this case. You can always mis color compliments this way as well. Orange and/or yellow photos on a blue/light blue background, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When in doubt, avoid color and stick with the basics. If you really want to put the emphasis on the photos, pick a colorless background that will contrast with the photos. Black for random color photos or grayscale high-key; light gray/white for softer, lighter tone high key photos, white (or offwhite) for grayscale low-key photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I know you asked about print, here are some web site examples that demonstrate:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;High key, muted colors, light background:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/f3fvw.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://juliaparris.com/series/people&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Julia Parris&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Low Key, off-tone grayscale, white background:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/isH7O.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://nickbrandt.com/index.cfm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nick Brandt&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Low Key, black and white, white background:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/hZT0O.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.welovenoise.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;We Love Noise&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Colorful, black background:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/DeSdV.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pictorymag.com/showcases/in-deep/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pictorymag&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Colorful, dark/black background (my personal website):&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rQZI4.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photography.jonrista.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jon Rista Photography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-16T02:26:07.047" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T02:26:07.047" />
  <row Id="9830" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5002" CreationDate="2011-03-16T03:17:29.097" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like a very dark grey.  I prefer it to black as grey seems to make the blacks in the images look better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T03:17:29.097" />
  <row Id="9831" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9808" CreationDate="2011-03-16T04:15:09.727" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Looking at the picture you included here and the pictures I saw on your flickr page, I'd say that you'll really enjoy the ultra-wide lens.  What I think you'll find is that you'll have to get closer to your subject but you'll still get more into the frame at the edges.  So to get something similar to your example picture above, you'll walk right up to the edge of the water, hold the camera just a couple inches above the water (which will challenge you to keep it level (something that is much more important with the ultra-wide lens) (you might also want to get one of those little hotshoe bubble levels)), and you'll still get more of those banks to either side.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can handhold the wider focal lengths a little longer than you can longer focal lengths, which is really nice for those water-blurring pictures I see you like.  Not that you can really hand-hold a one-second picture, but you can make do holding the camera on top of a semi-stable rock.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will see some loss of detail in subjects that are farther away.  So that sign and... kayakers?... would likely be a little blurrier.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My Canon 10-22 has some CA in the corners wide open, but I don't spend any time thinking about that when I take the pictures, and it very rarely shows up.  It has a lot less CA than my 40-year-old manual focus telephoto lens or my consumer-zoom 55-250mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Haystack Rock is hardly the most original subject, but I think this shows a little of what the ultrawide will do: at 10mm, this picture is a little crooked because I was already backing away from the incoming waves and the camera was just below knee level, and I was so close that I still couldn't get away fast enough and my shoes got soaked.  If you can figure out how to download the original full-sized image from flickr, you can also see some of the worst CA I've seen with this lens, along the edges of other rocks.  If you tried to frame this with a longer lens you wouldn't have to risk getting wet (so not &lt;em&gt;nearly&lt;/em&gt; as much fun to use ;)), but the waves wouldn't be as prominent compared to Haystack Rock, and it might be difficult to avoid getting more empty beach in the foreground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5053/5530723189_6f8a0fbcc7_b_d.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Haystack Rock&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2910" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T04:15:09.727" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9832" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9808" CreationDate="2011-03-16T05:38:20.407" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Landscape photography can be a very broad field, and can make use of focal lengths anywhere from 10mm up through 400mm. Not every focal length will work for every landscape photographer, and what you define as your own personal style will ultimately dictate the kind of landscape photography you do. Ultra-wide angle, wide angle, normal focal lengths, and telephoto lengths can all work for landscape photography. Generally speaking, you use ultrawide/wide to get close to your foreground, while still capturing expansive depth in your scene. The more you zoom, the more you can focus on a specific element of a landscape scene, subtracting the unnecessary and zeroing in on the elements that matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a landscape photographer myself, I've tried not to limit myself. I have shots taken with 400mm telephoto, and shots taken with 16mm wide angle (its not quite ultra-wide on my camera, as I have an APS-C sensor currently.) I like many shots taken at 16mm/FF or 10mm/APS-C, as when done right, they can capture amazing close-up detail (such as pebbles under the water near a lake shore) while still bringing in the beauty of the surrounding landscape. I would say my favorite focal lengths are probably ultrawide (16/10mm FF/APS-C), 24/16mm FF/APS-C, 70/85mm FF, and 200mm FF. I think a lot of the best landscape photography rolls in around the 24mm (effective) focal length range, with the second most common being the 16mm (effective) focal length range. Those few very talented landscape photographers come up with amazing compositions at 180-200mm, however there are fewer such shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might want to look at my answer to the following question: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6380/ef-s-18-55mm-kit-vs-10-22mm-f-3-5-4-5-for-nature-photography/6385#6385&quot;&gt;EF-S 18-55mm kit vs 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 for nature photography&lt;/a&gt; I have linked several great landscape photographs shot with ultra-wide angle lenses to demonstrate the value of wide-angle lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T05:38:20.407" />
  <row Id="9833" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5002" CreationDate="2011-03-16T06:25:24.003" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I usually prefer black because it's the least distracting to me, but any colour can work as long as it doesn't draw attention away from the image.&#xA;For example if the image displays a red bird in green foliage, a background of the same green tone can work very well, better than black.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Grey or white are good alternatives over all for neutral tones, especially if (as you probably will) there's a need for large amounts of text around the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T06:25:24.003" />
  <row Id="9834" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9808" CreationDate="2011-03-16T07:36:21.413" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Until very recently my shortest lens was a 20mm. While I've always wanted something shorter, I never had the means to buy quality below that and still buy whatever else I needed more urgently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That out of the way, anything can work for landscapes. One of my best (IMO) landscapes was shot using a 500mm tele, another one I really like was shot using a 28mm wide angle lens (both on slide film btw).&#xA;I've used just about anything in between as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/pQeBz.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Grand Tetons at dawn, Velvia 50, 28mm&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/nfCZM.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Skyline at dusk, across the Ijsselmeer, Provia 100, 500mm&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T07:36:21.413" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9835" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8236" CreationDate="2011-03-16T07:51:40.213" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Everything I shoot goes, unsorted, nothing deleted except complete failures (like flash failed to fire, causing a completely black frame, shutter failure) on DVDs labelled with datastamps and project name.&#xA;Using 4GB CF cards helps, I just burn each card to DVD.&#xA;Each card then gets processed in turn, yielding a new (2nd) DVD with processed versions in TIFF and JPEG format of the useful images from that CF card (meaning anything good enough to consider for future use).&#xA;Per session, finally, there's one more DVD (usually, sometimes maybe 2) with the &quot;keepers&quot;, forming the end result of the session, which is a condensation of the 2nd set of discs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do go through quite a few DVDs :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In practice, the 2nd set of DVDs may never be created, instead only the first and last, leaving the partially processed images not chosen for the final cut to be deleted (they can of course always be recreated from the raw footage that does get retained, always).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T07:51:40.213" />
  <row Id="9836" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9837" CreationDate="2011-03-16T10:08:47.507" Score="4" ViewCount="217" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I'm on daytime cycling/walking tour (i.e. little time to compose or change lens) of external buildings and inside churches (no flash and no tripod), which lens is best to capture non-blur architectural/statue/painting/fresco? Attach my Canon EOS7D with a EF 24-70 mm L or EF 70-200 mm L both f/2.8?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What settings (e.g. shutter-priority AE? ISO? evaluative metering? etc) would you recommend as a default that I should program for C1, C2, and C3?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What others considerations should I be mindful of? Thanks very much in advance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4083" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-16T11:37:41.953" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T11:37:41.953" Title="For fast daytime shooting of external buildings and indoor art, should I choose 24-70 mm or 70-200 mm?" Tags="&lt;canon-7d&gt;&lt;presets&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9837" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9836" CreationDate="2011-03-16T10:37:45.117" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Without a tripod you will have to have a very steady hand to make real use of the length of your 70-200mm, so I would go with the 24-70mm. The wider end will allow you to take in the majority of buildings and the tele end will let you zoom in on features.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is little point in using Shutter Priority when photographing static subjects. You will be much better served by Aperture Priority. Open the aperture up when photographing, say, statues, to blur the background, and use a general aperture like f8-f11 for architecture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your ISO will depend on the light. If it is a sunny day, 200 is fine. 400 will give you more shutter speed leeway on an overcast day. You will very probably have to crank it right up to shoot inside a church without a tripod. You may have to improvise by resting your camera somewhere to take longer exposures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, centre-weighted metering is the best overall setting (in my opinion) for most situations. However, if you are shooting statues against the sky you may want to switch to spot-metering to avoid silhouetting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, all this is general: you can always change settings on the fly as and when you need to. If in doubt, try popping your camera into P mode, where the camera will make most of the decisions for you, but still leaves you control over most of the settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T10:37:45.117" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9838" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9836" CreationDate="2011-03-16T10:56:32.573" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the 24-70L, and its the best lens I have! But its &lt;strong&gt;heavy&lt;/strong&gt;! It has the nickname &quot;brick&quot; for a reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other downside is that on the 7D its not that wide!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With a 7D for architecture in and outside I would go for the 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM II as&#xA;its wider and with the same maximum aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4179" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-16T11:37:21.407" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T11:37:21.407" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9839" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9836" CreationDate="2011-03-16T11:11:20.907" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For Arch and indoors art? Definitely the 24-70. The 70-200 is great for indoor portraits and details of buildings, but for the whole picture, you need a wider one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T11:11:20.907" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9840" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="948" CreationDate="2011-03-16T11:36:32.047" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I rarely use bracketing, but not because I can fix it in post-production. It's because digital photography means I can take a test shot and check the exposure (including looking at a histogram) right there. With film, bracketing is a way to cover uncertain exposure situations; with digital, there's less uncertainty about what the result will be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T11:36:32.047" />
  <row Id="9841" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2940" CreationDate="2011-03-16T12:17:59.023" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you can probably try everything there if you're a representative of a major retail chain or a major wholesale company. As a consumer with no credentials and not looking like you've a few tens of thousands to spend and are seriously interested in buying, no.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That's not what they're there for. Maybe the above mentioned large accounts will get a show discount, or preferred shipping on newly introduced hardware, but that's it. And they might of course pass that on to you, the consumer, when you buy it in their own stores.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T12:17:59.023" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-16T12:17:59.023" />
  <row Id="9843" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9844" CreationDate="2011-03-16T15:55:26.373" Score="0" ViewCount="248" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4016/can-the-sun-damage-the-camera-sensor-under-what-conditions&quot;&gt;Can the sun damage the camera sensor? Under what conditions?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Title says it all...can taking a picture of the sun damage any of the components? And along the same lines, is it even possible to take a picture of the sun with a standard DSLR, or is the shutter speed too low?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I should clarify that I mean taking a &lt;i&gt;direct&lt;/i&gt; picture of the sun during the day, when it's brightest outside.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My camera is a Nikon D90 DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3367" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T16:09:48.543" ClosedDate="2011-03-16T18:25:44.377" Title="Will I hurt my camera if I take a picture of the Sun?" Tags="&lt;astrophotography&gt;&lt;sun&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9844" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9843" CreationDate="2011-03-16T16:05:53.757" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First and foremost, never, &lt;em&gt;EVER&lt;/em&gt; look directly at the Sun through your viewfinder. EVER.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, it is not a good idea to point your camera directly at the sun, whether you're looking through the viewfinder or not. This becomes more critical as your lens gets longer - a telephoto lens is essentially a telescope, so you'd be focussing all the light, heat, and UV radiation from the sun directly into your camera, which, to answer your question, will very likely damage it, especially if you actually make an exposure (thus letting the light/radiation hit the sensor).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can apparently achieve a quick and dirty protection system by stacking a couple of UV and skylight filters together. You can also buy special solar filters as well. However, all the advice I've ever read has always said that you shouldn't even risk that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only 'guaranteed' safe way to take a photo of the Sun is in fact to project an image through a telescope onto a piece of card, and take a photo of that. To be honest, without special equipment (e.g. a satellite), photos of the sun tend to be pretty dull anyway. The most you will see are a couple of dark patches (sun spots). The Moon is a much more interesting subject for beginning astrophotography, and it's also much safer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T16:05:53.757" />
  <row Id="9845" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9843" CreationDate="2011-03-16T16:09:48.543" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes you can certainly damage the camera internals. Light is radiation, it transfers energy. Lenses can concentrate light and thus energy. This energy gets absorbed and converted to heat which in turn can melt plastics and glue, warp metals etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can safely take photos of the sun (astronomers do thus all the time) by limiting the light coming in, the best way of doing this is before light even enters the lens by using a powerful ND filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T16:09:48.543" />
  <row Id="9846" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9848" CreationDate="2011-03-16T16:25:01.027" Score="3" ViewCount="234" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to buy a new SD-Card for my Canon EOS 1000D. Is it worthwhile to buy a high speed card? What is the speed limit of the controller in the camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4331" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-16T17:30:07.987" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T13:31:13.103" Title="SD-Card speed limit for Canon EOS 1000D?" Tags="&lt;memory-card&gt;&lt;sdhc&gt;&lt;write-speed&gt;&lt;canon-1000d&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9847" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9846" CreationDate="2011-03-16T16:52:49.380" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I did quite a bit of research and the consensus seems to be that a Class 6 card will be worthwhile (faster than a Class 4) but that going with a card that's faster than a Class 6 doesn't provide any meaningful speed upgrade.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T16:52:49.380" />
  <row Id="9848" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9846" CreationDate="2011-03-16T16:56:26.380" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Rob Galbraith did an experiment with a Canon 450D here which may be useful to you: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/camera_multi_page.asp?cid=6007-9424&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/camera_multi_page.asp?cid=6007-9424&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;He seems to suggest the camera will write at max of 11-14MB's. The 450D has a similar sized sensor (similar size photo) and the same image processor so your 1000D will be similar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you shoot in JPG a high speed card should not be necessary (the 1000D will shoot JPG continuously while writing to the card and never filling its internal buffer). But while shooting in RAW the cameras internal buffer will eventually fill up, a faster card will allow you to get back to shooting sooner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1580" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-17T13:31:13.103" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T13:31:13.103" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9849" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-03-16T16:58:14.927" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-16T16:58:14.927" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T16:58:14.927" />
  <row Id="9850" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-03-16T16:58:14.927" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Astrophotography is the type of photography specializing in celestial objects such as the sun, moon, stars, and sky." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-16T17:29:59.797" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T17:29:59.797" />
  <row Id="9851" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-03-16T16:59:50.670" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although &quot;photoshop&quot; is often used as a generic term for image manipulation, this tag shouldn't be used unless the question is actually specific to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adobe Photoshop&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that Photoshop questions relating to photo processing are on topic for the site, but general questions on using the software for image editing should go to other Stack Exchange sites &lt;a href=&quot;http://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;http://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://superuser.com/&quot;&gt;http://superuser.com/&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T16:46:50.990" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T16:46:50.990" />
  <row Id="9852" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-03-16T16:59:50.670" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Adobe Photoshop is a software tool used to manipulate images." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T16:47:04.890" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T16:47:04.890" />
  <row Id="9853" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9855" CreationDate="2011-03-16T17:03:25.703" Score="1" ViewCount="161" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's say we shoot with a DSLR camera and we have two interchangeable lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lens #1 has aperture f/X, X between 1 and 2 (see below).&#xA;Lens #2 is f/4.5. Same focal length and other characteristics as previous lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, we shoot using f/X lens at ISO=100, all manual controls.&#xA;Second shot, we shoot using f/4.5 lens, at the same shutter speed, same light, same settings, but higher ISO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which ISO will I need to set on the second shot to keep the same exposure as in the first shot?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I need a formula to calculate the dependency between the ISO number and lens f-number,&#xA;all other factors factor being equal, for f-numbers=1.0,1.2,1.4,1.6,1.8. Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4333" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-17T01:02:59.033" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T01:02:59.033" Title="What is the quantitative relation between f/# of the lens (aperture), exposure, and ISO?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;iso&gt;&lt;manual-mode&gt;&lt;optics&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="9854" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9897" CreationDate="2011-03-16T17:14:30.063" Score="4" ViewCount="140" Body="&lt;p&gt;I damaged some of my NEF-files by using a script using ExifTool on subdirectories: I copied the exif-information from the original JPG to created JPG, using &quot;-tagsFromFile -overwrite_original_in_place&quot;. Unfortunately I did overlook that the ad-hoc-script copied to NEF as well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Somehow the makernotes or whatever seem to be scrambled/removed, so that the higher-level-programs like AdobeRaw/Adobe DNG Converter, RawTherapee or RawDrop are stumped. RawTherapee just crashes on opening the file, CS4 tells me that it &quot;Could not complete your request as it is not the right kind of document.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not a tragic accident, as I already did create colour-corrected final JPG versions, but it unnerves me. Other programs like XnView and IrfanView still get along fine, I guess that they apply some inbuilt default. Picasa on the other hand produces  garbage, as RawDrop does: pictures are extremely dark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a solution to this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Concerning Backup:&lt;/em&gt; As the NEF still looked fine in XnView I did not notice them being damaged until after I overwrote the backup. Wanted to have a look at the capabilities of ViewNX concerning NEF ... and ViewNX did display nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Example:&lt;/em&gt; See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flunzel.de/pics/2010-12-26_12-07_Silvester2010_084.NEF&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt;: PS: I already tried removing all EXIF, did not help. Sorry, forgot to mention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastEditorUserId="2317" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-17T07:17:38.087" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T13:52:14.740" Title="Damaged RAW (NEF)-files: ideas?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;raw&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9855" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9853" CreationDate="2011-03-16T17:46:12.890" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For a fixed focal length, the size of the aperture (and therefore the quantity of light gathered) scales like the inverse square of F/#. So, if you double the F/#, you would need to quadruple the sensitivity of the  detector. In the specific case you describe, assuming that the scene lighting doesn't change, and the shutter speed is fixed, you would be able to calculate the correct ISO as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ISO=100*(4.5/X)&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where ISO is the new sensitivity setting, and X is the starting F/#.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: photography.SE doesn't interpret LaTeX like physics.SE. My mistake!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2877" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-16T18:40:22.080" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T18:40:22.080" CommentCount="13" />
  <row Id="9856" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-03-16T17:52:52.243" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-16T17:52:52.243" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T17:52:52.243" />
  <row Id="9857" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-03-16T17:52:52.243" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Flickr - at flickr.com - is a popular photo sharing and photography-based social networking website." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-16T17:55:25.867" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T17:55:25.867" />
  <row Id="9858" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9853" CreationDate="2011-03-16T17:54:41.307" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apertures work in steps of &lt;code&gt;sqrt(2)&lt;/code&gt; -- i.e., each time you increase the area of the aperture, you double the amount of light that can go through the lens in a given period of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For simplicity, let's start with, say, f/2 and f/5.6. The full stops in this case are f/2, f/2.8, f/4 and f/5.6. That means changing f/2 to f/5.6 decreases the exposure by three stops. To compensate for that, you need a change of 3 stops in the ISO or shutter speed (or a combination of the two).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ISO numbers and shutter speeds both work exponentially -- i.e., multiplying or dividing by a fixed factor changes the amount of light translated by a fixed number of stops. To use your example, starting from ISO 100, going to ISO 200 is a one-stop increase, to ISO 400 is a two-stop increase, and ISO 800 is a three-stop increase.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That leaves us with one minor detail to deal with: fractional f/stops, which are kind of a pain. f/4.5 is about 1/3&lt;sup&gt;rd&lt;/sup&gt; of a stop slower than f/4. If you started from f/1.4 and went to f/4.5, that would be ~3 1/3&lt;sup&gt;rd&lt;/sup&gt; stops, so you'd need to increase the ISO by ~3 1/3&lt;sup&gt;rd&lt;/sup&gt; stops to compensate. Starting from ISO 100, that works out to ISO 1000 (200[1], 400[2], 800[3], 1000[3 1/3]). Technically, ISO 1000 isn't quite right, but it's close enough for any practical purpose and it's what your camera will (probably) provide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-16T18:03:00.643" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T18:03:00.643" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9859" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9826" CreationDate="2011-03-16T18:22:32.547" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Like Sebastien mentioned, the library file is SQLite. I dug around in my own catalog and found that &lt;code&gt;AgLibraryKeyword&lt;/code&gt; table. There are three columns you care about: &lt;code&gt;id_local&lt;/code&gt;, &lt;code&gt;name&lt;/code&gt;, and &lt;code&gt;parent&lt;/code&gt;. As you might expect, &lt;code&gt;parent&lt;/code&gt; points to the &lt;code&gt;id_local&lt;/code&gt; of the parent keyword. In my library the &quot;root&quot; keyword has &lt;code&gt;id_local&lt;/code&gt; 73.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, assuming you had something like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  id_local | name    | parent&#xA;-----------+---------+--------&#xA;  12345    | animals | 73&#xA;  12346    | birds   | 73&#xA;  12347    | eagles  | 73&#xA;  12348    | parrots | 73&#xA;  12349    | falcons | 73&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could &quot;fix&quot; the hierarchy like so:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;UPDATE AgLibraryKeyword&#xA;    SET parent = (SELECT id_local FROM AgLibraryKeyword WHERE name = 'animals')&#xA;    WHERE name = 'birds';&#xA;&#xA;UPDATE AgLibraryKeyword&#xA;    SET parent = (SELECT id_local FROM AgLibraryKeyword WHERE name = 'birds')&#xA;    WHERE name IN ( 'eagles', 'parrots', 'falcons' );&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would end up as Animals &gt; Birds &gt; Eagles, Animals &gt; Birds &gt; Parrots, and so on. The table ends up looking like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  id_local | name    | parent&#xA;-----------+---------+--------&#xA;  12345    | animals | 73&#xA;  12346    | birds   | 12345&#xA;  12347    | eagles  | 12346&#xA;  12348    | parrots | 12346&#xA;  12349    | falcons | 12346&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not &lt;em&gt;as&lt;/em&gt; manual as doing it by hand through the UI, but it's still going to take some work. Should be just as functional though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I should note that while investigating this, I made similar changes a few times that didn't seem to take. I'd suggest saving your SQL to a file so you can re-run it if it doesn't seem to work the first time. And, of course, you should back up your library ahead of time :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4335" LastEditorUserId="4335" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-18T01:18:57.623" LastActivityDate="2011-03-18T01:18:57.623" />
  <row Id="9860" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8159" CreationDate="2011-03-16T18:28:13.033" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would say it is moderately meaningful, at least from a print perspective. The difference between APS-C and FF is around 1.5-1.6x, while the difference between 4/3rds and FF is 2.0x. The relative difference between APS-C and 4/3rds is about 1.25x (an absolute difference of around 0.4x). Not hugely significant, but significant enough to think about. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think more important than the difference in crop factor would be the format. There are fewer native papers that fit the 1.33 aspect ratio of a four thirds sensor (8x10&quot;/8.5x11&quot;, 11x14&quot;, and 17x22&quot; come to mind, although they are not ideal matches), while there are quite a few papers that exactly or nearly meet the 1.5 aspect ratio of APS-C sensors (which have a 3:2, rather than a 4:3, aspect ratio), which includes 2x3&quot;, 4x6, 11x16/11x17, 13x19, 34x22/36x24, as well as all the A-series papers, which have a &lt;code&gt;sqrt(2)&lt;/code&gt; ratio of 1.414. (Although I guess A-series papers are only slightly closer to 3:2 than 4:3.) You would have to ask yourself if you are ok either printing on papers that don't directly match your image sizes, and cropping the paper...or cropping the images so they match the papers you wish to print on. I myself print on 13x19&quot; most of the time, although I also print on 11x16&quot; and occasionally 8x10&quot; (although it is more of an ideal paper for 4:3 size images). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a demonstration of print margin, if you print a 4:3 image at the same resolution and minimal cropping as a 3:2 image:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ADpfk.gif&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think a 3:2 ratio image, on papers between 1.41 and 1.54 aspect ratio, tend to fit nicer and have nicer margins without any cropping of the original image. A 4:3 ratio, on the other hand, doesn't fit quite as nicely, as it has more of a square shape. You can either shrink it more so the margins lengthwise down the page fit better, however you end up with pretty fat margins along the opposite edges of the page. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T18:28:13.033" />
  <row Id="9862" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-03-16T19:00:19.003" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-16T19:00:19.003" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T19:00:19.003" />
  <row Id="9863" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-03-16T19:00:19.003" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="The Canon 550D is a popular DSLR camera that is part of Canon's entry-level &quot;Digital Rebel&quot; series.  Also known as the T2i." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-16T19:19:43.923" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T19:19:43.923" />
  <row Id="9865" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9866" CreationDate="2011-03-16T21:51:10.417" Score="3" ViewCount="158" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hey,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;my Pentax K-x is acting up :(  In low light scenarios I got heavy color banding and 'strange' image artifacts. You can find an example here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://imgur.com/v0lzP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://imgur.com/v0lzP&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I took it at ISO 400 and the color profile is sRGB IEC61966-2.1 according to the Mac Finder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I first thought it is the noise reduction, but the problems persisted also after I set the noise reduction to the least aggressive setting. Do you have any idea what could cause this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;p.s. sorry for the low aesthetic quality of the photograph.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;[update]&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EXIF:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;    File name:  IMGP1612.JPG&#xA;    File size:  2644725 bytes (3072x2048, 3.4bpp, 7x)&#xA;    EXIF Summary:   0.3s f/5.6 ISO400 47.5mm (35mm eq:72mm) &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Camera-Specific Properties:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Camera Model:   PENTAX K-x&#xA;Camera Software:    K-x Ver 1.00&#xA;Sensing Method: One-Chip Color Area&#xA;Focal Length (35mm Equiv):  72 mm&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Image-Specific Properties:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Exposure Time:  0.3 sec&#xA;F-Number:   f/5.6&#xA;Exposure Program:   Normal Program&#xA;ISO Speed Rating:   400&#xA;Exposure Bias:  -1 EV&#xA;Metering Mode:  Center Weighted Average&#xA;Flash:  No Flash, Compulsory&#xA;Focal Length:   47.50 mm&#xA;Color Space Information:    sRGB&#xA;Image Width:    3072&#xA;Image Height:   2048&#xA;Rendering:  Normal&#xA;Exposure Mode:  Manual&#xA;White Balance:  Auto&#xA;Scene Capture Type: Standard&#xA;Contrast:   Soft&#xA;Saturation: Normal&#xA;Sharpness:  Soft&#xA;Subject Distance Range: Distant View&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other Properties:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Chrominance Comp Positioning:   Co-Sited&#xA;Compression Scheme: JPEG Compression&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Some More Pulled Via &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;exiftool&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Quality                         : Best&#xA;Picture Mode                    : Program; 1/3 EV steps&#xA;Noise Reduction                 : Off&#xA;Dynamic Range Expansion         : On&#xA;Shadow Compensation             : Strong&#xA;High/Low Key Adj                : 4&#xA;High ISO Noise Reduction        : Medium; Inactive; ISO&amp;gt;800&#xA;Monochrome Filter Effect        : None&#xA;Monochrome Toning               : None&#xA;Cross Process                   : Off&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4337" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-16T23:34:14.073" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T14:00:52.497" Title="Why is my Pentax K-x producing artifacts and color banding?" Tags="&lt;pentax&gt;&lt;color&gt;&lt;artifacts&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9866" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9865" CreationDate="2011-03-16T22:13:22.550" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, my current working theory is that you're seeing a combination of these factors:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Underexposure: the image is set to a more-dark-than-average exposure (EV compensation set to -1).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dynamic Range Expansion is on. This increases shadow noise, because it works by underexposing by a stop and then pushing the exposure up while preserving highlights.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shadow Compensation set to &quot;Strong&quot;. This further pushes up all of the dark areas, which in this case are basically useless and full of noise. (Your camera has a good sensor, but it can't work miracles when everything is stacked against it.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Muted&quot; image tone curve. This drastically reduces sharpness, contrast, and saturation, which probably isn't ideal given all of the rest.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my experience with my Pentax K-7, the &quot;strong&quot; setting for Shadow Compensation is rarely useful, not just because it produces noise but because the results look unrealistic. A lighter touch in post-production is my preference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The good news is that if you're shooting in RAW+JPEG, you can fix some of this after the fact — at least the shadow compensation and the tone curve. But the dynamic range expansion and EV compensation can't be changed after the fact. Don't be afraid of increasing ISO when it's dark out — see &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6615/what-is-iso-on-a-digital-camera&quot;&gt;Matt Grum's interesting answer to this question&lt;/a&gt;, which argues that using the highest ISO possible actually reduces noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And maybe invest in a tripod, since clearly the SR wasn't enough for this shot. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-17T14:00:52.497" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T14:00:52.497" CommentCount="12" />
  <row Id="9867" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1661" CreationDate="2011-03-16T22:29:52.240" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Again this is probably obvious but make it very clear questions are welcome, perhaps by saying so at the start and asking at the end. You might be surprised how many people need a bit of a nudge before they'll ask a question!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1580" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T22:29:52.240" />
  <row Id="9868" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2296" CreationDate="2011-03-16T23:04:23.003" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That is like asking what makes a person attractive.. it is not a set science, although following the rules of composition etc, you can make it appealing. A person, who just had a kid, will always like a bad, poorly composed picture of a baby yawning than a great landscape picture (by say Ansel Adams)..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So as Jin said, it has to trigger an emotional response.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your question should be what differentiates 2 similar pictures (say 2 different ppl took the photograph of the same yawning baby).. in which case answers by Jrista and Alan are a good start to get a set of criteria.. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="55" LastActivityDate="2011-03-16T23:04:23.003" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-16T23:04:23.003" />
  <row Id="9869" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2296" CreationDate="2011-03-17T00:24:33.377" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The eye of the beholder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[filler to 30 characters]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T00:24:33.377" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-17T00:24:33.377" />
  <row Id="9870" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5" CreationDate="2011-03-17T00:59:19.693" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just to round out the entries here -- if weight is a concern (and not &quot;nopod&quot; zones), then you'd have to be pretty tight on the limits not to have room for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.zipshottripod.com/product.cfm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Zipshot&lt;/a&gt;. It's not something I'd use as an everyday tripod, but if you think of it as a stabilizer (you'll need to be hands-on in order to avoid mirror &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; shutter vibrations) it'll get you a couple of stops you wouldn't have otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I can tell, the idea came from those collapsible feeler canes for the blind -- it's essentially three of them attached to a mini ball head. It's a bit spindly, no question about it, and you wouldn't want to use it with a heavy lens, but it feels at least as good as the Cullman Magic 1 I used years ago, and at 11oz (312g) and 15&quot; folded it's certainly portable enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T00:59:19.693" />
  <row Id="9871" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9826" CreationDate="2011-03-17T01:37:40.503" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just nitpicking, but in your last table example, the parent for eagles|parrots|falcons should be 12346, not 12347.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4340" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T01:37:40.503" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="9872" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9854" CreationDate="2011-03-17T02:06:26.787" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Make a copy of the raw file and use ExifTool to manipulate the metadata until the raw file can be read by your preferred raw converters.  I would first try removing all the metadata to see what happens.  Maybe just removing the (possibly corrupt) maker notes data would work.  You may be able to inspect a non-corrupt raw file to see what's different in the metadata, and manually add, modify or delete tags using ExifTool until the metadata set looks correct.  I hope this leads you to making your raw file usable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3486" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T02:06:26.787" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9873" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2099" CreationDate="2011-03-17T02:26:20.700" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as &quot;professional&quot; goes, I think it's more clear than other users are trying to claim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A DSLR by nature is typically used by enthusiasts and professionals, not your average joe (even if this is changing lately).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A detachable lens is most often used in &quot;professional&quot; gear whether it be used by a hobbyist/enthusiast or professional.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose you might be able to get away with a compact-&lt;em&gt;like&lt;/em&gt; camera such as a rangefinder with a small prime lens, such as a Leica M9 or (more affordable) equivalent, but when it comes to DSLRs, you can pretty much say no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think there's a couple of other reasons to factor in the reasons why taking professional equipment is a no-no, as much as being a photographer myself, I wish didn't exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;You're there to enjoy the event,&lt;/strong&gt; not photograph the bands in high detail. There are photographer's explicitly hired or given media passes to do just that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;You're gear could be prone to damage.&lt;/strong&gt; I don't know about you but I wouldn't take my DSLR into a crowd of screaming fans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;They don't want to be held responsible for theft or damage.&lt;/strong&gt; Public liability can be a nightmare.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Individual artists may have guidelines that must be adhered to by professional photographers&lt;/strong&gt;. Take Lady Gaga for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure there's many more reasons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastEditorUserId="609" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-17T02:33:42.753" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T02:33:42.753" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-17T02:26:20.700" />
  <row Id="9874" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9816" CreationDate="2011-03-17T02:27:01.313" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can create a Graduated Filter that has a sharp edge such that it's not really graduated.  Here's how:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Click the Graduated Filter button in Develop mode.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Drag from the middle of the left edge of the image, toward the center of the image. Hold the Shift key while dragging to make it perfectly vertical.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set both the Exposure and Brightess&#xA;to the minimum (left-most) values.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Resize the Graduated Filter by&#xA;dragging from the right edge of the&#xA;filter (while the cursor looks like&#xA;a hand) toward the left until the&#xA;graduated effect disappears into a sharp transition from black to light.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adjust the width of the filter until&#xA;it's the right size.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3486" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T02:27:01.313" />
  <row Id="9875" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9877" CreationDate="2011-03-17T03:38:33.143" Score="9" ViewCount="251" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Background&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My digital pictures can be read into a computer program like Matlab or R as a m x n x 3 matrix where m x n is the number of pixels observed by each of the three (red, green, and blue) sensors, and each cell in the matrix has a number from 1-255 that reflects the brightness observed by the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to use this information to obtain an objective measure of greenness in a photograph, because I want to attempt to correlate greenness to plant growth (imagine one picture per day of a corn field).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.forest.sr.unh.edu/richardson/RichardsonOecologia2007.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Previous work&lt;/a&gt; in this direction has had some success by calculating an index of green either as &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;green % = green/(blue + red) or &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;green divergence = 2*green - red - blue &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;from webcam images for each of the m x n pixels, but there was no control over the aperture or incident radiation (solar angle).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;note that I am not looking for an 'absolute' measure of greenness, the scale and distribution of the number does not matter - it just has to provide a consistent relative measure of greenness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Question&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can I use my SLR to get a robust measure of greenness that is invariant with any or all of the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;cloud cover?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;time of day?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;day of year? (this is the only requirement)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;proportion of sky / ground in the background?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Current Status&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have come up with the following ideas, but I am not sure which would be necessary, or which ones would have no effect on the ratio of green/(red + blue)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;take a picture of a white piece plastic, and use this image to normalize the other values&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fix aperture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fix shutter speed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;set the white balance using a white piece of paper&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take all photos from the same angle&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take all photos at solar noon&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4341" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-19T02:44:16.410" LastActivityDate="2011-05-01T16:00:24.920" Title="How would I go about using my SLR to measure the 'greenness' of a photo?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;image-processing&gt;&lt;color&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="13" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="9876" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4016" CreationDate="2011-03-17T04:23:53.517" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Remember that with a SLR the mirror is down until immediately before the shutter opens. The mirror would reflect most of the light to the eyepiece and not to the sensor or shutter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the light would be directed through the mirror to the focus mirror, which is usually behind the main mirror and gets its light through a section of the main mirror that is partially reflective. So, potentially that sensor could get some light hitting it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually hurting the sensor isn't likely though. The light would have to get past the mirror and shutter, or, you'd have to take an extremely long exposure that held the mirror up and shutter open. In that case, odds are really good the photo would over exposed well beyond recovering. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, in any case where damage did occur, it would be pretty obvious to Nikon or Canon's repair shop what had happened because they've seen it all, resulting in a voided warranty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was a known problem with &lt;a href=&quot;http://nemeng.com/leica/025b.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;cloth shutter-curtain Leica's&lt;/a&gt; having holes burned in them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1514" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T04:23:53.517" />
  <row Id="9877" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9875" CreationDate="2011-03-17T05:26:23.187" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you can process the RAW files, you'll have a bayer pixel array comprised of RGRGRG and GBGBGB rows (or possibly RGBGRGBG rows.) You could ignore all the R and B pixels, sum up the G pixels, take the square root (since there are twice as many green pixels as there are red or blue), and divide by half the number of G pixels. That should give you the proper weighted average for &quot;green&quot; in your photo. You could then take the average of red and blue, and compute your green percentage from all three averages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be more accurate, you might want to factor in the proper weighting for red, green, and blue sensor pixels, since CMOS sensors have different sensitivities to each wavelength of light. The weights would depend on the sensor, generally. That would be the simple approach.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To account for color cast due to time of day, various types of artificial lighting, etc. then it might be more appropriate to preprocess each photo in a tool like Lightroom to correct white balance first, then perform your computation on standard RGB pixel images. Unlike processing RAW sensor data, you would want to weight your calculation based on pixel &quot;green purity&quot;, rather than average the green component overall. The more pure green a pixel is, the higher its weight vs. pixels that are more red or blue. Normalizing white balance before processing should eliminate any need to complicate an otherwise fairly simple computation with tangents designed to account for umpteen factors like cloud cover, time of day, season, etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might still want to account for large areas of non-incident pixels, such as sky. I can't really help you much in that area without knowing more about exactly what you are trying to achieve. Greenness of a &quot;photograph&quot; overall would probably be best served by computing the ratio of green to red and blue, which would include &quot;sky&quot; pixels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for your procedure, it should go without saying that if you take the pictures with the same camera settings, under the same illuminant (same intensity and color temperature), metered against a common baseline such as an 18% gray card, will obviously go a long way towards normalizing your results. With digital, any discrepancies can be corrected with RAW processing software and a basic white balance picker tool, so be sure to shoot in RAW.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To provide some more insight into calculating &quot;greenness&quot; of your photos. There are obviously the simple ways, such as calculating the weight of green bayer pixels vs. blue and red, or calculating green purity in relation to red/blue purity of RGB pixels. You might have more luck if you convert to a more appropriate color space, such as &lt;strong&gt;HSV&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;em&gt;Hue/Saturation/Value&lt;/em&gt;, sometimes called HSB, replacing Value with Brightness), and compute your green amount using a curve in HUE space. (NOTE: HSL is a different type of color space, and would probably not be ideal to compute how much &quot;green&quot; is in a photo, so I would use HSV. You can learn more about these color spaces &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSV_color_space&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.) Pure green (regardless of saturation or value) falls at a hue angle of 120°, and fall off from there as you move towards red (at 0°) or towards blue (at 240°). Between 240° and 360°, there would be zero amount of green in a pixel, regardless of saturation or value.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/cVmgp.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Hue Plot - Green Purity in Hue Degrees&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Fig 1. Hue Plot - Green Purity in Hue Degrees&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can adjust the actual weighting curve to meet your specific needs, however a simple curve could be similar to the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;range = 240&#xA;period = range * 2 = 240 * 2 = 480&#xA;scale = 360/period = 0.75&#xA;pureGreen = sin(scale * 120)&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The value for &lt;code&gt;pureGreen&lt;/code&gt; should be &lt;strong&gt;1.0&lt;/strong&gt;. A formula for computing &lt;code&gt;greenness&lt;/code&gt; could then be done as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;             sin(scale * hue)   } 0 &amp;gt; hue &amp;gt; 240&#xA;greenness = &#xA;             0                  } 240 &amp;lt;= hue &amp;lt;= 360 || hue == 0&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;code&gt;hue&lt;/code&gt; is the degree of color from your HSV color value. The &lt;code&gt;radius&lt;/code&gt; is the half of &lt;code&gt;period&lt;/code&gt; in which green is present to some degree. The &lt;code&gt;scale&lt;/code&gt; adjusts the sin curve to our period, such that &lt;code&gt;sin(scale * hue)&lt;/code&gt; peaks (returns 1.0) exactly where you would have pure green (ignoring that greens intensity). Since the amount of &lt;code&gt;greenness&lt;/code&gt; is only valid in the first half of our period, the greenness calculation is only valid when hue is greater than 0° and less than 240°, and its zero for any other hue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can adjust the weighting by adjusting the period, the range within which you define &lt;code&gt;green&lt;/code&gt; might be present (i.e. rather than from 0 to 240, you might set a constraint like &lt;code&gt;40 &amp;gt; hue &amp;gt; 200&lt;/code&gt; instead), and define anything outside of that range to have a greenness of 0. It should be noted that this will be mathematically accurate, however it may not be entirely perceptually accurate. You can of course tweak the formula to adjust the point of &lt;code&gt;pure green&lt;/code&gt; more towards yellow (which might produce more perceptually accurate results), increase the amplitude of the curve to plateau and expand the band of pure green to a range of hue, rather than a single hue value, etc. For total human perceptual accuracy, a more complex algorithm processed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CIE XYZ&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIELAB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CIE L*a*b*&lt;/a&gt; space might be required. (NOTE: The complexity of working in XYZ and Lab space increases dramatically beyond what I've described here.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To compute the greenness of a photo, you could compute the greenness of each pixel, then produce an average. You could then take the algorithm from there, and tweak it for your specific needs. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can find algorithms for color conversions at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.easyrgb.com/index.php?X=MATH&amp;amp;H=20#text20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EasyRGB&lt;/a&gt;, such as the one for RGB to HSV:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;var_R = ( R / 255 )                     // Red percentage&#xA;var_G = ( G / 255 )                     // Green percentage&#xA;var_B = ( B / 255 )                     // Blue percentage&#xA;&#xA;var_Min = min( var_R, var_G, var_B )    //Min. value of RGB&#xA;var_Max = max( var_R, var_G, var_B )    //Max. value of RGB&#xA;del_Max = var_Max - var_Min             //Delta RGB value &#xA;&#xA;V = var_Max                             //Value (or Brightness)&#xA;&#xA;if ( del_Max == 0 )                     //This is a gray, no chroma...&#xA;{&#xA;   H = 0                                //Hue (0 - 1.0 means 0° - 360°)&#xA;   S = 0                                //Saturation&#xA;}&#xA;else                                    //Chromatic data...&#xA;{&#xA;   S = del_Max / var_Max&#xA;&#xA;   del_R = ( ( ( var_Max - var_R ) / 6 ) + ( del_Max / 2 ) ) / del_Max&#xA;   del_G = ( ( ( var_Max - var_G ) / 6 ) + ( del_Max / 2 ) ) / del_Max&#xA;   del_B = ( ( ( var_Max - var_B ) / 6 ) + ( del_Max / 2 ) ) / del_Max&#xA;&#xA;   if      ( var_R == var_Max ) H = del_B - del_G&#xA;   else if ( var_G == var_Max ) H = ( 1 / 3 ) + del_R - del_B&#xA;   else if ( var_B == var_Max ) H = ( 2 / 3 ) + del_G - del_R&#xA;&#xA;   if ( H &amp;lt; 0 ) H += 1&#xA;   if ( H &amp;gt; 1 ) H -= 1&#xA;}&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-18T04:52:45.127" LastActivityDate="2011-03-18T04:52:45.127" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9878" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4016" CreationDate="2011-03-17T05:54:57.077" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, the sun can damage the camera sensor.  This is advantage of SLT cameras, they reduce the .sdkjh&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4343" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T05:54:57.077" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9879" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9880" CreationDate="2011-03-17T06:24:13.927" Score="4" ViewCount="145" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many public events such as sports, concerts, etc have restrictive policies that limit the ability of the audience to take photographs. These policies can vary from an outright ban to a ban on the use of 'professional' equipment. &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2099/what-makes-a-camera-professional-vs-amateur-hobbyist&quot;&gt;See also this discussion&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question is this: what gives the organising companies the right to enforce photographic restrictions on, what is after all, visible to a public audience?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I can understand their rights to make restrictions in purely private, by invitation only, events. But when any member of the public can choose to attend do the organisers still have rights to dictate the behaviour of members of the public?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T06:50:54.620" Title="Why do event organisers have the right to restrict the activities of photographers?" Tags="&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;professional&gt;&lt;amateur&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="9880" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9879" CreationDate="2011-03-17T06:44:01.677" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're entering into a contract - you agree to follow their rules, and they agree to let you into the concert. Any event that requires a ticket or is held on private property isn't truly a &quot;public&quot; event, and the property holders or event organizers can set their own rules.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's much like this website. Yes, you may use this website for free, and it's publicly accessible, but it does have &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/legal&quot;&gt;a legally binding contract&lt;/a&gt; that you agreed to when you made an account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;IANAL, TINLA&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-17T06:50:54.620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T06:50:54.620" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9881" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-17T07:10:01.713" Score="3" ViewCount="127" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am going on a trip with one memory card; should I buy another or would a USB flash drive be helpful for storing images?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4344" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-17T14:15:45.490" LastActivityDate="2011-03-18T02:00:53.640" Title="Should I use USB flash storage to supplement my memory card?" Tags="&lt;memory-card&gt;&lt;storage&gt;&lt;usb&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="9882" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9881" CreationDate="2011-03-17T07:54:41.267" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, memory cards and usb storage drives are pretty comparably priced. So the real question is which would you have more use for long term? And will you reliably have any way to transfer images from your memory card onto the USB drive? Usually that's going to require a computer, and well, if you have computer you have a number of other options, such as just storing them on the computer (assuming it's yours) or sending them along to some online storage (assuming the computer has reasonable internet capacity). Or a number of other options Itai lays out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, in that situation in the past, I voted for the memory card. It was about the same price as a USB flash drive of comparable capacity and speed, but it was far more convenient to just swap from one card to another. (I actually took 2... and still ran out of space and ended up ordering a 3rd from newegg while on the trip, delivered to where I was staying.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-17T16:06:27.347" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T16:06:27.347" />
  <row Id="9883" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9885" CreationDate="2011-03-17T08:10:41.203" Score="4" ViewCount="286" Body="&lt;p&gt;The guy from the photo shop pointed out to me that I need special filters if I want to shoot directly to the sun with long exposures in order to not ruin the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this the same when I shoot lighted candles or lamps or other light sources?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4345" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-28T04:20:37.373" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T12:58:48.717" Title="Do I need a special filter to shoot candles without damaging my sensor?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;long-exposure&gt;&lt;equipment-protection&gt;&lt;sunlight&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9884" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2296" CreationDate="2011-03-17T08:30:26.993" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A good photo has three essential elements:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a) the photographer has a special insight into the scene. He has seen something unique and meaningful that is not normally visible or obvious to the casual observer.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;b) through technical means he has captured and made that special insight visible to any viewer of the photograph.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;c) the captured version of his special insight provokes a strong emotional reaction in the observer, an 'Aha' experience, as the observer suddenly perceives the photographer's special insight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T08:30:26.993" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-17T08:30:26.993" />
  <row Id="9885" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9883" CreationDate="2011-03-17T08:41:37.137" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, you don't need a special filter for candles or most man madelightsources (in fact using a filter to shoot candles would likely result in a ghost reflection image due to the filter).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For shooting the sun a neutral density filter is recommended to cut out most of the sun's light before it enters the lens to prevent damage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A candle is so many times dimmer than the sun you do t have to worry. Any lightsource you can look at without hurting your eyes will not damage the camera. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T08:41:37.137" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9886" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-17T09:14:24.127" Score="8" ViewCount="866" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm purchasing a digital camera &amp;amp; it says, &quot;Effective pixels: Approx. 18.00 Megapixels&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is this compared to 12.00 megapixels?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4346" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-17T13:17:23.510" LastActivityDate="2011-03-20T07:57:13.247" Title="How does 18 megapixels compare to 12 megapixels?" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;resolution&gt;&lt;megapixels&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9887" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9886" CreationDate="2011-03-17T09:26:31.623" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A very rough guesstimate: 50 per cent more...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T09:26:31.623" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="9888" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9893" CreationDate="2011-03-17T10:11:43.220" Score="3" ViewCount="141" Body="&lt;p&gt;My understanding is that extension tubes increase the magnification of lenses by reducing their minimum focusing distance.&#xA;But I cant figure out how to calculate the change an extension tube makes on to the maximum magnification of a lens, is there a formula of some sort I can use?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1580" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T12:47:44.803" Title="How can I calculate the change an extension tube makes to the maximum magnfication of a lens?" Tags="&lt;macro&gt;&lt;extension-tubes&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9889" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9886" CreationDate="2011-03-17T11:13:03.260" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A camera with more megapixel's &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; take more detailed photos than one with less, because the resolution of the camera is higher in the same way a HDTV will look more detailed than a regular TV because the resolution is higher. These higher resolution photos can be printed larger or cropped to a further extent without looking blurred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 18megapixel camera should be the better camera (especially with it having a 50% higher resolution) however there are other factors in play such as quality of the lens, the sensors sensitivity to noise that will affect the quality of photos. This is much the same as engine size is a reasonable way to measure a cars top speed, it makes the majority of the difference but factors such as weight, quality of tyres will also affect the speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1580" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T11:13:03.260" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="9890" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9886" CreationDate="2011-03-17T11:16:12.057" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That means 22.5% more pixels in each direction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5196 x 3464 instead of 4242 x 2828. (The megapixel value is of course rounded, so the exact resolution varies between cameras.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the cameras are otherwise comparable, you get more details with highter resolution. However, 12 megapixel is good enough for most uses. If you for example make 4&quot; x 6&quot; prints, you can't see the difference between 12 megapixel and 18 megapixel. If you enlarge a part of the image, the higher resolution will allow you to enlarge it more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-17T11:22:07.637" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T11:22:07.637" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9891" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9892" CreationDate="2011-03-17T11:33:06.007" Score="1" ViewCount="91" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was messing around with a post-processed imaged and found that the Aged Photo preset in Lightroom did something fantastic to one part of my image.  But I don't care for the sepia-like coloring and I also want to restrict the effect to that one portion of the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can I replicate this effect using adjustment layers in Photoshop?  I can tell there's some vignetting.  I think it might be brightening the highlights.  But I'm not entirely sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3181" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-17T14:06:04.067" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T14:06:04.067" Title="Replicating Lightroom's &quot;Aged Photo&quot; Preset in Photoshop" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;presets&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9892" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9891" CreationDate="2011-03-17T12:38:18.697" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lightroom presets are no magic, they just change development settings. Aged Photo is really simple, some playing around with brightness, contrast, saturation and noise reduction. Switch to development mode and apply-undo the preset a few times, observing development settings. Should be really clear what it does. Also, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/5165/is-there-a-way-to-decompose-a-lightroom-preset&quot;&gt;Is there a way to decompose a Lightroom preset?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1774" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T12:38:18.697" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9893" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9888" CreationDate="2011-03-17T12:38:29.730" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a question that would have been simple to answer in the '70s, and there's still a relatively simple answer for &lt;strong&gt;unit focus&lt;/strong&gt; lenses (lenses where the entire optical group moves as a unit when you focus -- with, perhaps, the exception of one or two lens elements that float within the group to correct aberrations for close focusing). By far the vast majority of currently-available lenses, though, are &lt;strong&gt;internal focus&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Internal focus lenses actually change their focal length when you focus -- the lens gets shorter as you focus closer, so the front element(s) don't have to move. The closer the lens focuses, the shorter the minimum focal length of the lens becomes. You need to find out what the actual focal length of the lens you are using is going to be -- and unless it's pegged at infinity, it probably won't have much to do with the number printed on the lens barrel or the number you see on the zoom ring.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At a 1:1 reproduction ratio, the distance from the optical center of your lens to the sensor plane will be exactly one-half of the distance between your point of focus (your subject) and the sensor plane.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At magnifications other than 1:1, the distances can be calculated using the formula:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1/sO + 1/sI = 1/f&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;where &lt;strong&gt;sO&lt;/strong&gt; (displacement of the object) is the distance from the subject to the optical center of the lens, &lt;strong&gt;sI&lt;/strong&gt; (displacement of the image) is the distance between the film/sensor plane and the optical center of the lens, and &lt;strong&gt;f&lt;/strong&gt; is the effective focal length of the lens at the set focal distance, and:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;hI/hO = (sI-f)/(sO-f)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(the the ratio of the heights of the image and the object is the same as the ratio between the distances of the image and the object from &quot;infinity focus&quot; on either side of the lens)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They're simple enough formulas &lt;em&gt;if&lt;/em&gt; you know the focal length of the lens. With an internal focus lens, you either have to know it (that is, you can get the data from an outside source) or you can deduce it if you focus to the close focus limit on a well-defined subject (something with hard edges), measure carefully from the sensor plane marker on your camera body to the subject, then take a picture and count the pixels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The size of your sensor and the number of pixels horizontally and vertically are known quantities (they should be in your manual), and your measurement will give you the value of s1 + s2. That should be enough to figure out f -- and once you have f, you know what's really going on between the lens and the sensor, so you'll know how much extra magnification a given thickness of extension tube will give you at the closest focus point. At the furthest focus point (when the lens is set to infinity), the calculation is simpler because you can use the f value that's printed on the lens. It's probably the close focus distance/magnification you're interested in, though, and if you can't find the focal length data for your lens on the intarwebs, you've got to experiment. (And $_DEITY help you if your lens is both an internal focus &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; a zoom.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or you could just buy a set of tubes and try them out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastEditorUserId="2719" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-17T12:47:44.803" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T12:47:44.803" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9894" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9881" CreationDate="2011-03-17T13:01:26.820" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My rule of thumb for a multi-day trip is to use one card or less in a day so that if a memory card dies or is lost I will not lose all of my photos from the trip. It is rare for memory cards to die, but I have had 2 Lexar Pro memory cards corrupt images in the past 3 years. So a 10-day trip would require a minimum of 10 memory cards, my actual number is more like 14 cards because I am shooting RAW and my cards are 4GB each or less.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do have an external hard drive backup device that copies memory cards but I no longer use it. For most occasions I have a laptop with me and copy all of the images to the laptop each night for backup and a chance to look at the day's photos. But I do not erase/format the memory cards until after I get home and have all of the images backed up and verified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4273" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T13:01:26.820" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9895" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9881" CreationDate="2011-03-17T13:14:56.720" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A USB flash drive is a lot like a memory card except that you can't use it in your camera.  They both are small, have limited capacity compared to a hard drive, and are about the same price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A memory card will be much more useful to you as a photographer than a USB flash drive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since you suggested a USB flash drive I assume you are taking a laptop with you anyway (since you certainly can't use a USB flash drive directly from your camera).  If this is the case, why would you not just use the laptop itself as storage for the photos once you clear them off your card?  And if you need backup, you can invest in a portable hard drive as well.  This works out much cheaper per GB and you also get to have a backup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-18T02:00:53.640" LastActivityDate="2011-03-18T02:00:53.640" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9896" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9865" CreationDate="2011-03-17T13:48:56.350" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Edit: the below isn't correct, as seen in the full version NickR posted to dropbox — the compression of the original image is low, relatively high-quality and wouldn't cause this. But I'm leaving it because maybe it'll help someone else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The linked-to example shows very high JPEG compression. Was it recompressed for upload, or is that how it's coming out of the camera? I'm not certain that this is 100% of the problem you're seeing, but it's definitely a large contributing factor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do you have the JPEG quality set to? I would expect it to be better than that even at the lowest quality one-★ setting, but maybe not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check out page 175 in the manual for the steps to change this — in summary, push the Info button and change the number of stars up to ★★★. You also want to use the 12mpix option, because the reduced sizes will simply inflate the relative size of artifacts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even the ★★★ uses kinda-high JPEG compression. It's not awful, but it's more than some scenes really can bear. The higher-end K-7 and K-5 models have a ★★★★ setting, which I use when the scene looks particularly bad for JPEG. (Busy, high-contrast scenes. For example, a tree with red maple leaves with the bright blue sky between the gaps.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually, I shoot in RAW+JPEG and usually make that decision after the fact. You might want to consider doing the same thing — if you take a RAW file into a converter program and export as JPEG, you can choose an appropriate level.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(And, invest in some larger SD cards. &lt;em&gt;*sigh*&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T13:48:56.350" />
  <row Id="9897" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9854" CreationDate="2011-03-17T13:52:14.740" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've taken a look at your linked image.  The problem is that the following crucial information is missing from the NEF maker notes:  NEFCompression, ContrastCurve, LinearizationTable.  Presumably this happened because the maker notes were copied from a JPEG image, which doesn't contain this information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best you can do is to copy the makernotes from an original NEF image to replace the makernotes in the affected NEF's.  This can be done with the following command:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;exiftool -tagsfromfile good.nef -makernotes bad.nef&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After this, most of the maker notes of no longer correspond to the original image, but you can recover what you can from the JPEG version of the maker notes by executing this command afterwards:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;exiftool -tagsfromfile bad.nef_original -makernotes:all bad.nef&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This will copy the existing individual maker notes tags back again.  (Note that the 2 steps are necessary because maker notes tags may not be created individually, so copying the entire MakerNotes block was the only way to get the necessary tags back into the image.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you are done, you should have a usable NEF image, although the linearization may be slightly different so the levels might not be quite the same as they were originally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4336" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T13:52:14.740" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9898" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-17T14:12:58.210" Score="10" ViewCount="223" Body="&lt;p&gt;When preparing a photography contract, what should be included?  I'm sure the experienced shooters have examples of things that they &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; include in a contract or things that they omitted but later wished they had included.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are some must-haves or things to watch out for when preparing a contract for a client? I understand that answers may vary based on type of photography (events, portraits, etc) so noting that is probably helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T20:53:45.967" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-17T15:03:34.743" Title="What are some photography contract gotchas or must-haves?" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;business&gt;&lt;contracts&gt;" AnswerCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9899" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9881" CreationDate="2011-03-17T14:17:04.560" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not to supplement but perhaps to complement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming you don't shoot like crazy, &lt;strong&gt;try to get enough cards for the photo trip&lt;/strong&gt;. This should be your &lt;strong&gt;first copy of all your photos&lt;/strong&gt; and bringing. Do not offload photos if you do not have to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Then it makes sense to have an extra backup device.&lt;/strong&gt; Some people use a computer's hard-drive or an external one (possible inside an iPod or Media-Player), which comes to more or less the same. &lt;strong&gt;Your backup will be on a fragile and thief-tempting device.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using the computer, you can backup to those relatively cheap &lt;strong&gt;USB devices which are generally quite durable and easier to hide&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Even better, you can use your computer or an independent burner to copy your memory cards to DVDs.&lt;/strong&gt; Disks are extremely durable, extremely cheap and virtually no value to anyone but yourself. Normally I burn everything twice, keep one copy with me and mail myself the second copy. Replication and duplication like this greatly improve your chances of not losing anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T14:17:04.560" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9900" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9886" CreationDate="2011-03-17T14:24:36.703" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The resolution, by itself, doesn't mean much. For a meaningful comparison, you need to look at one camera versus another, not one resolution figure compared to another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming you're talking about an APS-C sensor, 12 MP is high enough that the sensor resolution is only rarely the limiting factor on the resolution of the picture you get. In a typical case, the lens (and your camera technique) will reduce the resolution below what the sensor can (theoretically) produce. That being the case, a higher resolution sensor will only rarely help much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the same time, I should also point out that if you do have at least one really good lens and (for example) use a tripod at least part of the time, there's a fairly reasonable chance that when you use that combination an 18 MP sensor really will produce pictures with slightly higher &quot;real&quot; resolution than a 12 MP sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also true that higher resolution in a fixed size of sensor is likely to imply smaller sensor wells, which will typically reduce light collecting ability. In theory that could lead to higher noise. Of course, there's a lot more to noise level than just sensor well size though. The difference in sensor well size is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; enough to say with any certainty that a camera with an 18 MP sensor will have higher noise than a camera with a 12 MP sensor (in fact, if the 18 MP sensor is newer, noise might well be lower). If all else was equal, the 12 MP sensor should have lower noise, but all else is almost never equal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get a meaningful comparison, you really need to compare one camera to another, not one sensor resolution to another. Sensor resolution &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; a factor to take into account, but it's only one of many, and it's not (IMO) a &lt;em&gt;particularly&lt;/em&gt; important one either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: Okay, after supper tonight I had a few minutes, so I wrote up a simulator. I'll add a few pictures here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lens resolution exceeding sensor resolution:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fdFug.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sensor resolution slightly higher than lens resolution:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/f5eHd.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sensor resolution much higher than lens resolution:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/GWVa4.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-19T05:49:12.820" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T05:49:12.820" CommentCount="27" />
  <row Id="9901" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9898" CreationDate="2011-03-17T15:06:47.003" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Model and or property releases are always nice to have, but depending on the type of shoot, they are absolute requirements.  For instance, you really want to have a property release if you're doing real estate photography to protect yourself from privacy infringement claims.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T15:06:47.003" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-17T15:06:47.003" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9902" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9898" CreationDate="2011-03-17T15:12:01.083" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Payment requirements, including amount, due dates, and late fees.  Late fees are often forgotten, but offer a little more protection if written in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T15:12:01.083" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-17T15:12:01.083" />
  <row Id="9903" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9898" CreationDate="2011-03-17T15:31:56.160" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Include a clause that outlines what happens if you (the photographer) get sick, get in a car accident, or are otherwise unable to be at the photography session.  Do you have alternates lined up?  I've seen language that indicates a client will receive a refund of the fee, but nothing more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T15:31:56.160" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-17T15:31:56.160" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9904" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9898" CreationDate="2011-03-17T17:20:22.670" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sales tax, if required (depends on your local laws and whether you're a registered business, etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it's an event, who can order you around.  For instance, if it's a wedding, I'll typically say that the bride and groom will have final say over where I go and what I do, and Aunt Millie isn't allowed to commandeer me for her own purposes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How the photos will be delivered and who has what rights to them.  Do I get to enter them in contests or use them in portfolios (yes, but that should be clear)?  Do they get to enter them in contests (no)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether or not a second photographer or assistant will be required.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether or not you get fed and how (very big for weddings; sandwiches behind the DJ booth while everyone else is chowing on steak is no fun, but may be the requirement from the budget).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Length of time for the event (if it's an event).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T17:20:22.670" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-17T17:20:22.670" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9905" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9875" CreationDate="2011-03-17T17:22:46.850" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://globe.gov/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;GLOBE project&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do not use a white piece of paper. These contain optical brighteners which convert some UV into blue light, causing incorrect exposure. This is why commercial graycards (as suggested by jrista) exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taking all photos from exactly the same place is certainly the correct approach. Regarding shutter speed and aperture, these should not matter. Shutter speed does not change colour at all, aperture blurs the image, but I think this effect disappears anyway when you sum up all pixel values. I would rather try to get a constant exposure. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the difference between clouded and not clouded, you may just want to run some tests. If the true amount of green does not change quickly (i.e. from today to tomorrow), then it should not do so either when examining the pictures. Perhaps an empirical approach might help there (e.g. if you find out that the greenness is always 10 % higher when it is clouded, you could compensate for that).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4149" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-18T10:31:11.273" LastActivityDate="2011-03-18T10:31:11.273" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9906" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9898" CreationDate="2011-03-17T17:45:22.210" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For events anywhere other than your studio, specify how venue restrictions will be dealt with.  Include language that indicates the photographer must abide by all restrictions imposed by the venue - if a bride is pissed because at the last minute the minister insisted that no flash be used, make sure the photographer still gets paid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T17:45:22.210" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-17T17:45:22.210" />
  <row Id="9907" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9886" CreationDate="2011-03-17T18:40:45.193" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two reasons in my mind why you might care about more pixels, one of which might apply to the average photographer, and one that would apply mostly to pros:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Retouching&lt;/strong&gt;. Pro photographers often use a medium format for the super critical mega dollar shoots. In these situations, a Phase One digiback (39 megapixels) or a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hasselblad.se/products/h-system/h4d-31.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hasselblad&lt;/a&gt; (31 mp) or some such would be typical--even when the final print will be magazine size. The reason why so many pixels are useful is for the post-process folks to have tons of extra data. When you zoom in at the micro-detail level to remove a wrinkle in the models face, the photoshop guru's can make a really convincing coverup when there is lots of pixels to blend (or whatetever they do--I have't a clue what tricks they use). Basically having a ton of extra detail pixels allows for more seamless retouching. Most mere mortals never have to worry about having this excess of pixels&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;High quality prints&lt;/strong&gt;. There are numerous posts on the details i/r/t getting the highest quality prints out of an inkjet. To simplify, basically for me I print 360 lpi. That means that my 18mp images are natively printing at about 9.3x14.9 inches at that print resolution (note I'm saying NATIVE--no enlarging). &lt;strong&gt;High Quality = magnifier close.&lt;/strong&gt; None of the namby-pamby 'diagonal viewing distance' stuff (I personally think that whole diagonal viewing distance rule automatically takes you out of the 'high quality' realm--even if it's perfectly fine for the application--it's just not the highest quality). Some people report that you can get as good of quality as native by enlarging. I haven't tried so I couldn't say, but there is surely a limit to how much you can enlarge before the image will be degraded so let's just for arguments sake say that for an 18mp image, the max high quality print size you can achieve is like 16x20&quot; (again this is just a rough estimate).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A 39mp image printed natively at 360lpi would give you a 13.7 x 21.9&quot; print. That's big, but not huge. So even with this lavish excess of pixels, you can see that if you are going to turn the quality up to 11 you are not printing billboards by any means. Even if you find that there is no difference by enlarging up to say 50% you can only get to poster size with 39mp--you aren't going to get a high quality poster out of 18mp. On the other hand, if you can stomach lower quality (and don't kid yourself, it's lower quality. It might be acceptable quality, but it's lower than maximum) then you can print as large as you or your client can accept.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2998" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T18:40:45.193" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9908" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9911" CreationDate="2011-03-17T19:18:44.007" Score="5" ViewCount="307" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi All&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want create software that can connect to a digital camera attached to my computer. Then control the camera. For Example Take A Picture or Record a Video.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Camera Can I Use?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;After Edit:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;I Want &quot;Live View&quot; On My Computer Screen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4351" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-18T18:13:26.170" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T10:21:59.893" Title="What Digital Camera Can be Controlled with a Computer" Tags="&lt;tethering&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9909" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9908" CreationDate="2011-03-17T20:10:13.957" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most modern dSLRs from both canon and nikon offer this capability, and have developer programs offering an API to help you with your code. There's such a wide range of options that you probably should start with some other criteria first, and come back and filter by this one later in the decision making process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T20:10:13.957" />
  <row Id="9910" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9753" CreationDate="2011-03-17T21:01:31.683" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes they are... BUT! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As mentioned above, People tags ARE embedded into the files using XMP. However, face recognition (and associated metadata tags) are a bit of a mess right now in the sense that there is little use of standard tags by different vendors. What that means is those tags are stored in your photos (great) but they are totally invisible to any other application other than WLPG (not great). The same goes with Face Recognition in Google Picasa and iPhoto/Aperture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The work around is to make sure you also add &quot;normal tags&quot; (keywords) with the names of the people identified through face recognition. That way, they are also embedded in the image metadata using a more recognized standard (like IPTC:Keywords and XMP-dc:Subject).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See the following link for the gory details on Face Recognition Software and metadata (http://www.happydigitalphotos.com/face-recognition-software). I also have a summary of what metadata standards are used in general by various software applications (http://www.happydigitalphotos.com/photo-management-software/metadata). If you find something different or wrong with this info - please let me know!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4352" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T21:01:31.683" />
  <row Id="9911" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9908" CreationDate="2011-03-17T21:26:52.910" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The feature you're looking for is called &quot;Tethering&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; and it's supported by many recent DSLR cameras from manufacturers such as Canon and Nikon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-03-17T21:26:52.910" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9912" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5883" CreationDate="2011-03-18T02:08:05.567" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No disadvantage at all - in fact, a huge advantage&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I gave a relatively high end camera to my GF who is a self-confessed beginner in photography (it was a body and kit zoom I wasn't using).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She finds the pictures it takes to be so much better quality than anything she took on her compact camera, and as a consequence of this she has started taking pride in her photos.  She has become so much more interested in photography now, and she takes (and prints) so many more photos - all because she reckons the photos are so much better in quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we go somewhere and take photos she is beginning to take almost as long as me to get a shot just the way she wants.  She also shows me the odd picture and asks &quot;what is the reason for this&quot; when referring to a certain blurriness here, a certain color cast there, or whatever.  She has taken countless photos of friends' kids and sent them prints as gifts, and is proud to show some of her better photos.  She asked me all about manual mode once.  I'm happy.  I believe the best way to be a better photographer is to take lots of photos and figure out why some are better than others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-03-18T02:08:05.567" />
  <row Id="9913" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9808" CreationDate="2011-03-18T04:11:40.280" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want to fit more in, and assuming you don't have &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenduncan.com/index.php/gallery&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ken Duncan's&lt;/a&gt; budget for a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.linhof.de/technorama-e.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Linhof panoramic camera&lt;/a&gt;, you may do well with photo stitching software. Canon ships software for this with its DSLRs. I believe PhotoShop will also help you do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An ultra wide like the Tokina 11 - 16 I use will lead you to a whole different approach as your foreground becomes more pronounced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3650" LastActivityDate="2011-03-18T04:11:40.280" />
  <row Id="9914" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5883" CreationDate="2011-03-18T07:27:03.790" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Only one possible disadvantage I can see (apart from the size/weight already mentioned, but if you're already considering the camera you've probably decided that's not a factor, and that's that it's easier to get swamped by all the options and capabilities it offers over more basic models, things you don't yet know how to make use of.&#xA;You have to consciously limit yourself from playing with the advanced stuff until you understand the basics, and a lot of people have trouble with that.&#xA;They get frustrated. With themselves for not getting the results they yearn for, with their equipment for not being as easy to use for them as they'd hoped, with their hobby for being frustrating. And then they put that camera back in its box and either shove it in the bottom of a drawer where it gathers dust for years until rediscovered by their children (this is how I got my first camera, teehee) or they sell it on eBay for a fraction of what they paid for it a few hundred photos before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-03-18T07:27:03.790" />
  <row Id="9915" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-18T13:19:02.030" Score="0" ViewCount="101" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2297/how-does-one-manual-focus-right-with-a-fast-aperture-lens&quot;&gt;How does one manual focus right with a fast-aperture lens?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 manual focus lens. I have had several people ask me on Flickr how I manual focus. I simply get close with my eye then adjust the focus ring slightly while taking a few shots to see where the focus is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a better way to manual focus a lens to get exactly focus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4199" LastActivityDate="2011-03-18T13:19:02.030" ClosedDate="2011-03-18T15:12:45.410" Title="How can you manual focus a razor thin lens like the Rokinon/Samyang 85mm f/1.4?" Tags="&lt;manual-focus&gt;" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9916" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9886" CreationDate="2011-03-18T14:02:25.033" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unless you are willing spend a considerable lump of money for the LENSES you will not notice any difference at all. As Guffa already demonstrated, 18 MPix gives you roughly 22% more pixels in either direction. However, if you want to max out the 3464 pixels available vertically you need, as a rule of thumb, a lens which resolves 1700 l/p (line widths/picture height) at MTF50. A (very) good kit lens usually resolves between 1000 and 1200 l/p, even more expensive lenses seldom reach 1700 on an APS-C sized sensor. So, on anything that is smaller than a full frame sensor, 18 MP effectively does not produce much usable additional detail at all. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to see it with you own eyes, then you should have look at dpreviews's exhaustive reviews which feature resolution chart tests for every camera. Here's the resolution of a 18 MP Canon 550D: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos550d/page18.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos550d/page18.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;compared to the Canon 450D: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos450d/page33.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos450d/page33.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3763" LastActivityDate="2011-03-18T14:02:25.033" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9917" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9497" CreationDate="2011-03-18T15:50:08.780" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;another small part in the equation is of course, calibration and how you view on your computer with onscreen proofing&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4363" LastActivityDate="2011-03-18T15:50:08.780" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9918" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9683" CreationDate="2011-03-18T16:36:28.183" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lightroom doesn't support PNG and GIF formats. I am a former Picasa customer, but sometimes ago I transferred my collection to PicaJet (mainly because it saves all the image annotations into IPTC). But a few months ago PicaJet v3 was released: &lt;a href=&quot;http://daminion.net&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://daminion.net&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best things I liked in Daminion are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Automatically sync database info with xmp/iptc (including hierarchical tags). &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Catalogs are single SQLite databases with Relative links to the files. So I can store my catalog along with the images on a removable drive.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;True multi-user support&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some disadvantages:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The only beta-version is available to download&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Multi-user feature supported by Daminion Server, but it's not released yet.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4364" LastActivityDate="2011-03-18T16:36:28.183" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9919" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9920" CreationDate="2011-03-18T17:08:02.760" Score="4" ViewCount="87" Body="&lt;p&gt;From what I've read so far, one the decision you have to make when interested in lighting work is either going with flashes or studio lights. &#xA;Can we use both at the same time ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1241" LastEditorUserId="1241" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-18T19:39:36.997" LastActivityDate="2011-03-18T20:07:25.527" Title="Is it possible to have a hybrid lighting setup with flashes and studio lights ?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;studio-setup&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="9920" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9919" CreationDate="2011-03-18T17:14:51.583" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, you can use wireless triggers, sync cords, optical triggers, etc. to trigger both portable strobes and studio lights.  If you are using (preflash) TTL instead of all manual, it will be slightly more difficult.  You will have to attach the wireless triggers/sync cords to the controller.  Or find optical triggers that ignore preflash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There may be a difference in color that you should be aware of (e.g. to correct with gels).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-18T17:20:08.397" LastActivityDate="2011-03-18T17:20:08.397" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9922" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9617" CreationDate="2011-03-18T18:56:11.457" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In case this is useful to anyone else, I found that &lt;a href=&quot;http://logicnet.dk/Analyzer/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Image Analyzer 1.33&lt;/a&gt; from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.meesoft.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;MeeSoft&lt;/a&gt; is a freeware claiming to do &quot;Deconvolution for out-of-focus and motion blur compensation&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4242" LastActivityDate="2011-03-18T18:56:11.457" />
  <row Id="9923" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9919" CreationDate="2011-03-18T20:07:25.527" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I read your question I think you're asking strobe/flash vs constant studio lights. If that's not what you mean, please clarify.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's possible to mix them, but honestly to do so you need pretty powerful studio lights, and pretty weak strobes. Otherwise the amount of light put out by the strobes in the fraction of a second they fire is going to pretty much wash out any light from the studio lights as as to make it pretty much irrelevant as far as the final exposure matters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a case in point, this is the sooc image:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://smug.cabbey.net/Other/Cory-Death-Sandman/IMG1500/913318957_Y2UAp-M.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;sample image&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I shot that there were two large softboxed strobes in front of her (basically I was shooting between them) and a third strobe with a grid overhead and camera right as a hairlight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the full sized 100% crop of her right eye, you can see the refelection of the softboxes pretty well, and almost make out the difference in the power levels (one was at 3/4 power, the other about 2/3 if I remember correctly... I had to turn them down so that the weaker strobe over head at full power gave enough light to the hair):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://img.skitch.com/20110318-ndckb62fyp6gh5ynhs2794x89e.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;detail&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally in the room, there was a fairly bright work light behind and camera left of her, that was our worklight so we could see between flashes. You'll note there is no hint of light from that side. In the 1/200th of a second the shutter was open, there wasn't enough light from that source to mater. (f/8, ISO 100 to complete the exposure data.)  I looked through my cull pile from the shoot, but I can't find any shots that showed the effect of that light... I suspect the one that would have would be one where the radio popper failed and the strobes didn't fire... but that probably got deleted. What I recall seeing was that her right shoulder had a serious edge light and it cast a shadow onto her neck from her hair. That light would be about as bright as any constant studio lights I've ever seen, and it just didn't compete with the strobes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;em&gt;In case anyone is curious, &lt;a href=&quot;http://cmac.smugmug.com/SmugMug/Support-Heroes-painted-faces/2504559_f3ta9#913307084_xXZRv-A-LB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here's the final shot after some TLC in LR&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-03-18T20:07:25.527" />
  <row Id="9925" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2297" CreationDate="2011-03-19T01:03:29.080" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the dioptric adjustment that Hamish mentions should be your first step.  If this gets improperly set, you'll have lots of issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, one technique that I've used, particularly for macro lenses is to get the focus close on the lens, and then move the entire camera closer or further from the subject to do the fine tuning rather than trying to get the focus ring perfect.  Pull the camera back a until you just notice it going out of focus, then move closer until you see it going out of focus on the other end of the range, and your target should be somewhere in the middle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you notice that the lens is out of focus with the dioptric adjustment at it's limit, you can use this technique to move the camera slightly closer or further depending on which direction you tend to be out of focus with much more control than trying to manually adjust the focus ring and remember which direction and how far to adjust.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3723" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T01:03:29.080" />
  <row Id="9926" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9944" CreationDate="2011-03-19T02:07:51.757" Score="7" ViewCount="196" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been shooting lots of studio portraits but I would like to learn how to shoot portraits outdoors in a photo-journalistic style. Can you recommend any books or other resources to learn this style?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4374" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-19T02:40:20.020" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T12:27:37.493" Title="How can I learn to take portraits in a 'photo-journalistic' style?" Tags="&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;photojournalism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="9927" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9926" CreationDate="2011-03-19T02:54:05.867" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;father&quot; of photojournalism and street photography is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartier-Bresson&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Henri Cartier-Bresson&lt;/a&gt; and the linked Wiki page I've provided leads to further information about him, his work, and his style. That's a starting point. Beyond that, there are numerous &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?q=street%20photography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flickr groups&lt;/a&gt; dedicated to the art and these will provide some inspiration, some guidance, and maybe even some instruction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, when it's all said and done, you learn by doing. Your camera is very likely digital, that gives you a massive edge over the past masters of the art when it comes to learning. For someone like Cartier-Bresson, film was the medium, the lessons of the street took much longer to learn and develop. You have digital, the feedback is in an instant and the incremental cost of a shot is basically zero. Use that to your advantage and experiment for your own style. What more do you need to know? You're probably your own best source. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T02:54:05.867" />
  <row Id="9928" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9926" CreationDate="2011-03-19T02:59:58.903" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Right now &lt;a href=&quot;http://creativelive.com/live&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CreativeLIVE&lt;/a&gt; is broadcasting the rewatch of day 1 of Bambi Cantrell's workshop. She related to photojournalistic style during the class.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T02:59:58.903" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9929" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9935" CreationDate="2011-03-19T03:21:20.793" Score="5" ViewCount="199" Body="&lt;p&gt;On my DSLR, there is a setting to adjust the LCD screen's brightness level. If I were to turn this setting up (make the LCD brighter), does this affect the quality of the picture? I would assume that something looks nice at a &quot;brighter level&quot;, is going to look darker than I expected once I transfer it to the computer. Is there an appropriate method to compensate for modifying the LCD brightness? (maybe turn the exposure down a stop?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4231" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-19T03:52:14.623" LastActivityDate="2011-03-20T10:03:30.813" Title="How does adjusting the brightness on my LCD screen affect the photo?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;brightness&gt;&lt;lcd&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="9930" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5883" CreationDate="2011-03-19T03:34:30.370" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I started out with a D3000 a year ago, because it was my first SLR and I wasn't sure that I would ever &quot;get it.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, a year later, I've got the D7000 and I'm very happy with it and its features make it easier for me to experiment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't regret buying the D3000, because there was no D7000 out at that time, but I'm really happy that I've go the D7000 now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm still a beginner, but at least I do know my way around the camera and the D7000's pro-like features are a real blessing for the experimenter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you, Nikon!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh and the low-light performance is light-years from the D3000 and that alone makes it worth the cost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4375" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T03:34:30.370" />
  <row Id="9931" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9929" CreationDate="2011-03-19T03:41:12.627" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The LCD brightness is in no way related to the photographs taken by your camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's usually just a way of saving some battery power as well as being able to bring down the brightness in dark locations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it may cause you to think your photo is unexposed when it potentially isn't, if used on a low brightness setting. In this case, it's better to check the histogram. Mine is at the default (halfway) brightness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T03:41:12.627" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9932" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9933" CreationDate="2011-03-19T04:41:04.517" Score="7" ViewCount="246" Body="&lt;p&gt;How can we create motion blur in daylight?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have Nikon D50.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4376" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-19T14:25:01.650" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T10:11:36.890" Title="How to create motion blur in daylight?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;shutter&gt;&lt;motion-blur&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="9933" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9932" CreationDate="2011-03-19T04:47:33.317" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The short answer is: use a long shutter speed.&lt;/strong&gt;  To control this, put your camera into Shutter Priority mode (indicated by a &quot;S&quot; on the dial&quot; and adjust the speed to a relatively long time - perhaps a half a second, a whole second, or perhaps longer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The longer answer for when it gets tricky:&lt;/strong&gt; You might find that during the daytime, things are so bright that when you set a long shutter speed, even at the camera's smaller aperture (biggest f/ number) you end up with blown-out highlights or overexposure.  In these cases, make sure that you're using the lowest ISO possible.  If that's not good enough, you might need to look at a neutral density filter, which is a filter that limits the amount of light coming into the camera.  These are often used for longer daytime exposures such as those seen with silky waterfall photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another tip that applies to long exposures at any time is that you'll want to stabilize the camera using a tripod or other device to prevent camera shake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T04:47:33.317" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9934" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9932" CreationDate="2011-03-19T05:01:26.380" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To extend the shutter speed in daylight use the following ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Lowest ISO possible to slow down the sensor sensitivity&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Smallest possible aperture to reduce light coming in (use aperture priority)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Use Neutral Density (ND) filters that reduce the amount of light entering the lens without changing the colour balance.  I use ND8 which slows down the exposure by 3 stops, to provide motion blur in daylight.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can even use ND10 filters to provide immense amounts of motion blur, right to the extent that any moving objects totally disappear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an example of my own, using an ND8 at sunset to lengthen the exposure and cause motion blur to the extent that the sea became a mist ... &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thetrueshot.com/Photographs/Pages/Sunset.html#26&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.thetrueshot.com/Photographs/Pages/Sunset.html#26&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1410" LastEditorUserId="1410" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-19T05:08:28.040" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T05:08:28.040" />
  <row Id="9935" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9929" CreationDate="2011-03-19T05:30:52.553" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;LCD brightness affects your perception of the photo, not the photo. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At worst, a poorly adjusted LCD will cause you to make bad settings decisions. Make your decisions based on data in the histogram to avoid such errors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The goal when adjusting brightness is that white areas emit as much light as a white object would reflect. This means the LCD should be dimmer in low light, and brighter in bright light. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Proper adjustment is difficult to maintain. It's impossible to perfect without hardware. Just stick to the histogram.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4269" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T05:30:52.553" />
  <row Id="9936" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9939" CreationDate="2011-03-19T06:50:27.090" Score="3" ViewCount="174" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are there any non-obvious advantages/disadvantages of setting my 7D to use small or medium RAW instead of large?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I seldom print pictures, and &lt;strong&gt;the way I take photos the sensor is almost never the limiting factor when it comes to resolution&lt;/strong&gt;. Hence I tend to use small RAW size, as that gives me more shots from the same CF and limits disk-guzzling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apart from the risk of missing out on some great shot that could've been even greater cropped or printed in large sizes, are there any technical considerations doing this? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theoretically, less pixels in the final image than in the sensor should leave room for noise-reduction through interpolation, but I guess that's not happening?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4156" LastEditorUserId="4156" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-19T20:43:30.813" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T20:43:30.813" Title="What are the advantages/disadvantages of sRAW or mRAW files compared to fullsize RAW?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;resolution&gt;&lt;mraw&gt;&lt;sraw&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9937" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9936" CreationDate="2011-03-19T07:05:50.640" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It sounds like you are already aware of the trade offs. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can't create the data later. Hard drives are cheap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4269" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T07:05:50.640" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9938" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9181" CreationDate="2011-03-19T07:11:37.247" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Type of light source is important. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You're looking for a light source that represents the full spectrum evenly. In short, never fluorescent, tungsten is OK, diffuse flash is good, diffuse daylight is good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4269" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T07:11:37.247" />
  <row Id="9939" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9936" CreationDate="2011-03-19T08:03:30.897" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You may be able to sacrifice a bunch of pixels before your final rendering of the image, especially if you're just going to display the image on the web. However, by choosing a smaller filesize in camera, you lose control over &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; those pixels are lost. There are many different ways to downscale an image (&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/9770/378&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; shows several); each has its own set of advantages and disadvantages; some are sharper for certain image types than others, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Probably the most useful way to throw away pixels is by cropping. You won't be able to crop as tightly and still have a sharp image if you're only storing half-size RAWs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T08:03:30.897" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9940" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-19T08:24:11.110" Score="3" ViewCount="145" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my lightroom library I organize my photos in the following way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-&gt; Photos&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-----&gt; year.month.day.CountryCode.City.Occasion&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-&gt; Photos&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;---&gt;   2010.11.07.NZ.Wellington.My_Birthday&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;---&gt;   2010.12.25.NZ.Wellington.Xmas&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since you can imagine the huge number of folders under &quot;photos&quot;, I am trying to put the year under photos, and then all folders from that year under that. Which might still be plenty, but I do not want to have several levels of folders to organize my photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a way to automate this operation so that I do not need to manually move each folder into another one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="38" LastEditorUserId="38" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-20T03:20:08.297" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T03:35:08.797" Title="How to change Lightroom's folder organization" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;organisation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9941" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9926" CreationDate="2011-03-19T09:52:50.800" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is one subject where you should start by examining the works of good photo-journalists. No amount of theory can substitute for that. Fortunately, by the very nature of photo-journalism, examples can be seen in most printed media(and the Internet).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good place to start is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://bop.nppa.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Best of Photojournalism&lt;/a&gt; site.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Here you will see some of the very best.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another good resource is &lt;a href=&quot;http://greatphotojournalism.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Great Photojournalism&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the New York Times is always a great resource. &lt;a href=&quot;http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;See their Lens blog&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then Google can turn up some great photos. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/images?q=photojournalism&amp;amp;um=1&amp;amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;amp;source=univ&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=p1mETfq0Hc6DhQeog-myBA&amp;amp;ved=0CFoQsAQ&amp;amp;biw=1280&amp;amp;bih=909&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Try this search&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But all of this begs the question of what 'portraits in a photo-journalistic style' means. First off I would guess this means that the portrait shows more than the person. It is set in a context which supplies meaning to the portrait. Secondly I would guess that there is an underlying narrative which adds meaning to the portrait and a caption is often useful to clarify the narrative. Thirdly I would guess that the narrative and meaning are not anodyne, meek or mild. It will probably be, for example, striking, forceful, emotive, challenging or provocative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I mention these points because it will be helpful to clarify your goals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-19T10:10:05.217" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T10:10:05.217" />
  <row Id="9942" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9936" CreationDate="2011-03-19T10:47:52.190" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You say 'I just want to know if I've overlooked something'.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is possible you have overlooked the fact that your needs and goals will change over time. As time passes your photos will acquire an additional emotional and nostalgic value. And this value increases with the years. You will then see your photographic imagery in a whole new way that will suggest new ways of using them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By capturing the highest quality images you retain the ability in later years to process them, re-interpret or print them in accordance with your changed needs and goals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T10:47:52.190" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9944" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9926" CreationDate="2011-03-19T12:27:37.493" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's really only one key difference between typical portraiture and PJ-style portraiture: &lt;strong&gt;context&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shoot close ups, where only the subject's face is in the frame&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use narrow selective DoF to isolate the subject from their surroundings.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Find natural subjects. If you want a picture of a doctor, find a doctor, don't find someone and dress them up as a doctor.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shoot wide. I don't mean wide angle (although W/As are much better for portraiture than most forum photographers think). You must give the viewer context for your subject. Is it someone who works in a steel mill? I need to see the steel mill behind them. If it's a street vendor, I need to see that they're selling goods on the street, it can't be a picture of them against a blank wall with the title, &quot;street vendor&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make it sharp. Not only must the eyes be in focus, the entire face needs to be in focus as well as our supporting items/backgrounds. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photojournalism, the awesome, documentary/humanist style of photography so many of us enjoy, is like most photography: much harder than it seems. You will often need to go back time and time again, make your subjects comfortable and happy to engage with you. I have a couple of PJ friends and they put in weeks, months or years shooting a series of pics. Some of the people they've had pose for them have literally spent months saying, &quot;no&quot; before finally saying, &quot;I'd like you to take my picture&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T12:27:37.493" />
  <row Id="9945" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9181" CreationDate="2011-03-19T15:21:32.873" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the real reason this image looks the way it does is by use of a high contrast and saturated processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take my own example. This is the default development settings for this raw file in Lightroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/5jbs7.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But by drastically increasing the contrast, the saturation, blacks and highlights pops out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ixZTv.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T15:21:32.873" />
  <row Id="9946" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9947" CreationDate="2011-03-19T17:37:38.417" Score="9" ViewCount="368" Body="&lt;p&gt;I made series of outdoor shots with Nikon D5000, with the 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6G VR kit lens&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On some shots, I see in the JPEG info &quot;f/11&quot;, and in another shot, &quot;f/9&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can that be, that f-number is greater than 5.6, when that's listed as the maximum in the lens spec?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4333" LastEditorUserId="4333" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-21T04:20:55.287" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T05:14:30.493" Title="How can aperture be f/11 on a lens with an aperture range designation of 3.5-5.5?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9947" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9946" CreationDate="2011-03-19T17:55:57.677" Score="23" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The aperture range on your lens only shows the maximum aperture for your lens at the extremes of the zoom range; i.e. f/3.5 at 18mm and f/5.6 at 55mm. There is nothing to stop you using a narrower aperture; remember a larger number is a smaller hole (the f number is the diameter of the hole as a fraction of the focal length). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T17:55:57.677" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9948" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9949" CreationDate="2011-03-19T18:13:35.547" Score="1" ViewCount="51" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've got various cameras that i use for different things.  For the purpose of organization I historically keep them in individual folders by camera.  I am trying to switch to using Lightroom to import the pictures for me (I current just copy/paste the files in Windows Explorer).  I see that I can choose an import location for my imported photos to go, but I don't see any way to change it by camera.  Is there any way to achieve what I'm looking for?  Or is it time to break this old tradition and just let Lightroom do it's own thing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4382" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T18:31:03.577" Title="Different Import Locations per Camera in Lightroom 3" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;lightroom-3&gt;&lt;import&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="9949" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9948" CreationDate="2011-03-19T18:31:03.577" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could simply create a different &lt;a href=&quot;http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Lightroom/3.0/Using/WS43660fa5a9ec95a81172e08124c124bb67-8000.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;import preset&lt;/a&gt; for each camera, and customize the import location and metadata settings for each.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is also very useful if you have multiple photographers (husband and wife for instance) sharing a catalog.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T18:31:03.577" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9950" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9940" CreationDate="2011-03-19T18:47:35.397" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi Pablo,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suggest you to write all of your image annotations into the image metadata (XMP) before undertaking any actions. Lightroom is a software program for image editing and management. And by management I meant logical organizing the files by metadata. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can use a small utility named RoboImport to re-organize your folder structure. The program has an option to preview the resulted folder structure before attempting the folder reordering and renaming actions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once reorganizing your file structure, you can import it to a new Lightroom catalog. I hope LR could recover your image annotations from XMP.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4383" LastEditorUserId="4365" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-21T10:27:48.813" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T10:27:48.813" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9951" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9826" CreationDate="2011-03-19T19:03:59.977" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi Ahockley,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope my answer will not be perceived as advertising.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recently our company released a new digital photo management software named &lt;a href=&quot;http://daminion.net&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Daminion&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Daminion and Lightroom can easily interact by XMP: both tools could read/write hierarchical keywords. But Daminion is a pure photo management software, so we focused on media management  tasks mainly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The program is free (because it's in a beta stage). I suggest you to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Write your keywords to metadata from Lightroom&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Import your folders with photos to Daminion&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Reorganize your keywords as you wish in Daminion. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Daminion will automatically wrote all of your keywords (as well as other&#xA;  30+ tags) changes back into the XMP&#xA;  metadata&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Return to LR and re-read the file's metadata&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4383" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T19:03:59.977" />
  <row Id="9952" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-19T19:11:45.903" Score="0" ViewCount="93" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicates:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6277/beginner-photographer-which-brand-to-pick-dslr&quot;&gt;Beginner Photographer - Which Brand to Pick? (DSLR)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2876/things-to-look-for-in-my-first-slr-camera&quot;&gt;Things to look for in my first SLR camera&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beginner :-&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have couple of Canon Camera's. I am interested to improve my photographic skills by purchasing a resonable decent digital slr camera. Which would be advisable for me to go forward?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4384" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T19:11:45.903" ClosedDate="2011-03-20T04:05:57.980" Title="How to choose a Digital SLR Camera for beginner ?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;digital-photography&gt;" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9953" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9954" CreationDate="2011-03-19T19:59:53.870" Score="2" ViewCount="86" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pentax offers two DA zoom lenses with a 50-200mm range:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses/smc_PENTAX_DA_50-200mm_F4-5.6_ED_WR/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;smc PENTAX DA 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED WR&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses/smc_PENTAX_DA_50-200mm_F4-5.6_ED/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;smc PENTAX DA 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only obvious difference I see between them is that one is weather sealed and the other is not. However, they each list for $249.95 on the Pentax web store. This leads me to suspect that there must be other differences to make the non-weather sealed lens competitive at that price. What am I missing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1480" LastActivityDate="2011-03-20T04:11:28.590" Title="What is the difference between the two Pentax 50-200mm DA lenses?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;pentax&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9954" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9953" CreationDate="2011-03-19T20:21:41.353" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;They appear to me to be the same optical design. Both have 11 elements in 10 groups, with one extra-low-dispersion glass element and two aspherical elements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have no idea why you'd buy the non-WR version when buying it separately — but, I think most people don't get it that way. I just looked, and both B&amp;amp;H Photo and Adorama don't carry it individually. You only get it as part of a kit with a new camera body. So, the question really is: why does Pentax USA bother listing in their web store?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can only guess, but my guess is: they have some in stock, so sure, why not list 'em, but they don't want to undercut the already-quite-low price of the WR version, so they just put it at the same price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T20:21:41.353" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9955" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9993" CreationDate="2011-03-19T20:48:28.577" Score="2" ViewCount="136" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a NAS where I store all my photos.  It's mapped to drive N: on Windows.  When I import my photos with Lightroom, it defaults to the last export location, which is usually my NAS.  So far so good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Occasionally my NAS will temporarily not be visible on the network.  When that happens, Lightroom picks a location on one of my local hard drives for the import, and then defaults to the local drive for subsequent imports until I notice.  Then I have to move the files to the NAS and make sure my next import defaults to the NAS.  Not terribly difficult, but if I don't notice for a few days, then I have a bunch of photos not on the NAS for awhile.  I want them on the NAS because it uses RAID 1 to help protect from data loss if a hard drive fails.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a way to make Lightroom NOT switch to my local hard drive if it temporarily cannot see the NAS, and instead give me an error message saying the import destination is not found?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3486" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T14:03:09.937" Title="How can I force Lightroom to always import to my NAS?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;import&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9956" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9946" CreationDate="2011-03-19T21:32:38.643" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When you buy a lens, the numbers on it describe the range of zoom, and the maximum aperture. If the aperture is listed as a range, it is the corresponding maximum aperture at the lowest and highest zooms. Minimum apertures are not usually described in a lens' name. Thankfully, my f/2.8 lenses can stop down lower, or I'd have some real depth-of-field issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your maximum aperture is 3.5 at 18mm, then the leaves on the aperture are fully open, and that's the maximum amount of light permitted. When you adjust it to be 55mm, and the aperture is 5.6, it is not the leaves that are the limiting factor, it is the construction of the lens body. The shutter leaves, even if fully opened to what would be the 3.5 position, still cannot let in more light than a 5.6 aperture because the shutter leaves are no longer the greatest constriction when your lens is zoomed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, setting an aperture of 5.6 will always result in a 5.6 on that lens, and the same goes for any higher setting as the aperture leaves are the greatest point of constriction in the path. The path of constriction would be roughly related to the cone formed between the front element and the rear element as related to the field of view (focal length). On narrower (and cheaper) lenses, this constriction is greater.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2778" LastEditorUserId="2778" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-20T14:26:42.433" LastActivityDate="2011-03-20T14:26:42.433" />
  <row Id="9957" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9953" CreationDate="2011-03-19T21:58:08.900" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The original version of the DA 50-200mm did not have the weather resistant feature - that came in a later version. It would be extremely odd to find the old one for sale as a new item, it was obsoleted by the WR. They have the same optical formula.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="775" LastActivityDate="2011-03-19T21:58:08.900" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9959" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9946" CreationDate="2011-03-20T01:34:31.430" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;F-stops are fractions, so (for example) f/2 is larger than f/4 in exactly the same way that 1/2 is larger than 1/4.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, f/3.5 &gt; f/5.6 &gt; f/9 &gt; f/11.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So there's no conflict. f/3.5 is the maximum aperture. f/9 is smaller.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2312" LastActivityDate="2011-03-20T01:34:31.430" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9960" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9972" CreationDate="2011-03-20T03:22:26.860" Score="3" ViewCount="59" Body="&lt;p&gt;I shoot with my Pentax K10d in the DNG format. The camera produces the files in an uncompressed format. I would like to save some disk space by compressing all in a batch process too in Lightroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can I compress all files in my lightroom library at once?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="38" LastActivityDate="2011-03-20T11:26:18.557" Title="Compressing DNG files in Lightroom" Tags="&lt;lightroom-3&gt;&lt;dng&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="9961" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9946" CreationDate="2011-03-20T03:30:25.733" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think this question may benefit from an answer that goes a little further back to basics than the answers I see so far.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word aperture literally just means opening. &quot;An aperture&quot; is a phrase that could be used to describe any opening.  In the world of photography, though, the word &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;aperture&lt;/a&gt; is usually used to refer to a very specific opening inside a camera's lens. What is it an opening in? Well, inside the lens, there are a set of metal &quot;blades&quot;, whic overlap each other. The opening, or aperture, can be opened and closed (in a roughly circular configuration - though it may actually be a pentagon or an octagon or other shapes, depending on the construction of the specific lens in question). The way photographers indicate how open or closed the aperture is is with an &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;f-number&lt;/a&gt;. Examples might be f/3.5, f/5.6, f/9, or f/11. You may notice I write these all as &quot;eff over&quot; something. The &quot;over&quot; is often left out of speech (one might just say &quot;eff five point six&quot;), but it is quite relevant. The number is actually an expression of the ratio between the focal length of the lens (&quot;f&quot;) and the diameter of the opening - so, for example, f/4 on a 100mm lens means that the diameter of the aperture's opening (possibly redundant phrase, but in this case I mean the mechanical blades as the &quot;aperture&quot;, which thus does have an opening) is 25mm. At f/8, the opening has a diameter of 12.5mm, etc. This also means that the same f-number on a different focal length lens will have a different opening diameter - while f/8 was 12.5mm for a 100mm lens, that same diameter will be f/4 on a 50mm lens, or f/2 on a 25mm lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, with a zoom lens, you get an interesting thing going on: if you leave the aperture blades in their same physical position, and zoom in or out, this has the effect of changing the f-number, without changing the actual aperture diameter. With many zoom lenses, including yours, the default way of operating is to do this when your aperture is set to be all the way open.  Some zoom lenses, especially &quot;fast&quot; and/or high-end ones, have a &quot;constant&quot; maximum (or &quot;wide open&quot;, i.e. the all-the-way-open setting of the aperture blades) aperture, which actually &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; change the aperture diameter as you zoom, even when wide open (even your lens, when set to a non-wide-open aperture like f/8, will change its aperture diameter).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, on your lens, the listing of f/3.5-f/5.6 is an indication of how wide the aperture is when all the way open. The aperture can still close down from that point, though. You may also find that the minimum (smallest opening, though that's the highest number) aperture also changes as you zoom - perhaps f/22 at the wide end of its range, and f/32 on the telephoto side of things. This would be an indication of the same sort of thing as on the other end, just in reverse - the blades are only able to close to a certain physical diameter, but that diameter yields a different f-number depending on the focal length of the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this all makes sense - I wrote it in small chunks over several hours from my mobile device. If anyone has any questions, I'll try to re-visit it and clean things up. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2425" LastActivityDate="2011-03-20T03:30:25.733" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9962" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9953" CreationDate="2011-03-20T04:11:28.590" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Obviously the 'WR' part is the headline difference.&lt;/strong&gt; The optical construction is the same though..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having held both for a while though, I can tell you that the &lt;strong&gt;WR version feels much more durable&lt;/strong&gt;. It has a more steady feel and very smooth focus and zoom. Not that the non-WR is poor but there is an easily notable difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can get the WR for the same price as the non-WR, buy it, smile and don't ask too many questions ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-20T04:11:28.590" />
  <row Id="9964" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9973" CreationDate="2011-03-20T06:03:24.273" Score="4" ViewCount="142" Body="&lt;p&gt;The D7000 has two options for NEF compression: &quot;Compressed&quot; and &quot;Lossless compressed&quot; -- the manual says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;NEF images are compressed using a non-reversible algorithm, reducing file size by about 40-55% with almost no effect on image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What kind of compression is used for this? What kind of artifacts can I expect to see in a lossily-compressed NEF?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T09:04:42.447" Title="What kind of artifacts will Nikon's lossy NEF compression algorithm cause?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;nef&gt;&lt;image-compression&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="9965" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="886" CreationDate="2011-03-20T07:10:51.267" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Cheap disposable film cameras are good in situations where you'd not want to risk with &lt;strong&gt;losing or damaging&lt;/strong&gt; your primary equipment, such as a day on the beach, horseback ride, a wild bachelors trip etc. I bought one with appropriate shell to try out &lt;strong&gt;underwater&lt;/strong&gt; photography, it was several times cheaper than a shell alone for my digital camera would have been.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A mechanical film camera would be handy anywhere you cannot or may not use &lt;strong&gt;power&lt;/strong&gt;, such as extremely cold temperatures or during plane take-off/landing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-03-20T07:10:51.267" />
  <row Id="9966" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9886" CreationDate="2011-03-20T07:57:13.247" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are asking this question, then you do not need 18mp :) I have a 450D and my friend recently purchased a 550D. We have done several 100%+ totally unnecessary pixel-peeping comparisons of real world scenes on tripods with physically the same lens, and the resolution increase is noticeable but not incredible by any means. For you to actually see a visible difference in a print, it would have to be upwards of 20x14&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, the noise performance of the 550D vs 450D is far more noticeable than the resolution. Yay for Digic4. Overall handling is nicer, and movies are fun to play with. However if you are just comparing 18mp vs 12mp, I would considering it null, buy whichever camera has other things that you want and ignore mp. 12mp is more than acceptable for probably 95% of all pictures taken in the world, 95% of which, probably will never see print anyway, so 3mp would have been enough :D&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4391" LastActivityDate="2011-03-20T07:57:13.247" />
  <row Id="9967" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7222" CreationDate="2011-03-20T08:07:52.767" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Save your photos with and without an embedded ICC profile. Try both sRGB and AdobeRGB. Open them up directly into your browser and compare them. You could also install a different browser or two on either system you use. Pretty sure there is a Windows version of Safari, and Firefox/Chrome are available for both. They all seem to handle color profiles different. Firefox is strange with color profiles. It is supposed to support them, but it always seems to oversaturate mine when I upload them with the ICC profile attached.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4391" LastActivityDate="2011-03-20T08:07:52.767" />
  <row Id="9968" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-20T09:36:09.743" Score="8" ViewCount="416" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there any plugin for Lightroom that enables face recognition (i.e. show me all photos where someone appears, and tell me which new ones you think the person is)? I've considered switching to Aperture just because of this feature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is Adobe considering that for a future release?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="38" LastEditorUserId="38" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-20T20:07:35.867" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T04:42:11.377" Title="Face detection plugin for Lightroom?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9969" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9929" CreationDate="2011-03-20T10:03:30.813" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While LCD brightness setting is not directly linked to exposure, it still may have some effect on resulting photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Brighter display uses more current, so the &lt;strong&gt;number of photos&lt;/strong&gt; that can be taken before depleting the battery will go slightly down with a brighter LCD setting. Or, if the display stays on during bulb exposure, the maximum shutter time will be shorter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By using a bright display in dim environment, you will effectively &lt;strong&gt;dazzle&lt;/strong&gt; yourself by looking at it and this will negatively affect your ability to compose (and manually focus) a shot for a short period of time after that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A display too dim may let some &lt;strong&gt;problems&lt;/strong&gt; (e.g. wrong focus, distracting elements, blur) on photo &lt;strong&gt;stay unnoticed&lt;/strong&gt;; this is especially a problem when using Live View to compose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-03-20T10:03:30.813" />
  <row Id="9970" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9964" CreationDate="2011-03-20T10:54:32.200" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The compression is done by reducing the bit depth in a non-linear way so that detail is mostly lost in highlights of the image, where small differences in intensity is less visible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You would possibly see artifacts in the form of banding if your picture contains a bright smooth surface, and if you process the image with a high contrast to bring out the structure of that surface.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-03-20T10:54:32.200" />
  <row Id="9971" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-20T10:57:03.530" Score="0" ViewCount="245" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am an enthusiastic hobbyist who uses the camera for social events/parties once or twice every week. My current kit is Canon 60D and for close up portraits, I am using Sigma 85mm F1.4 and for my day-to-day bring everywhere lens is Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM, which I think an excellent lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am thinking of taking some wildlife animals (birds &amp;amp; reptiles) pictures and my current 17-70mm is unable to capture images further away. And that is primarily the reason I am considering adding a telephoto lens to my kit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to get a telephoto zoom lens and I have narrowed down to two models and would like to seek your advice / views. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tamron SP 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di VC USD&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pros&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Very Afforable pricing, USD 450&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I believe 300mm would quite sufficient for me.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EISA Best Product Zoom lens 2010-11 award &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Cons&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Not as sharp at the 300mm &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM lens&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pros&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;F/2.8 (beats Tamron) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Cons&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pricing (USD 1399) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Max at 200mm (lose to Tamron 300mm) – I am not sure if I require the additional 100mm…. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know these are lens are very different “animals” and it is like comparing oranges to apples... but still would like to hear some of your opinions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which one should I consider? (I don't think I can afford the Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 L Lens)&#xA;Or other models / makes that you will suggest?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4176" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-21T17:17:59.373" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T17:17:59.373" Title="Which Telephoto Zoom Lens ?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;telephoto&gt;&lt;sigma&gt;&lt;tamron&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9972" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9960" CreationDate="2011-03-20T11:26:18.557" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://attilaacs.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/compress-your-native-pentax-dng-photos-after-import-into-lightroom/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Attila Acs&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can compress new DNGs:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;if I import them using the Lightroom “convert to DNG” command, &#xA;they are compressed&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also compress DNGs already in your Lightroom database:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Select the photos in your catalog and choose&#xA;“Metadata -&amp;gt; Update DNG Previews &amp;amp; Metadata”&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="507" LastActivityDate="2011-03-20T11:26:18.557" />
  <row Id="9973" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9964" CreationDate="2011-03-20T11:46:45.230" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In a normal RAW image, the data is stored as linear values.    However, this is very inefficient.  We don't see light linearly, which is why gamma correction is needed from the RAW values to get the values you would output to a raster image, or to screen, etc.  Vast amounts of values are allocated to the lightest areas where, after gamma correction, most detail will be thrown out simply because we don't allocate brain space to it.  The gamma correction, however, retains a lot of information from the lower, darker values, where detail is more important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, a lossy RAW compression basically does a sort of gamma correction to the RAW value, then reduces the bit depth.  For example, the data from a 14-bit sensor might be gamma corrected then reduced to only 13 or 12 bits per sample.  This has the effect of reducing bit depth, but the reduction in bitrate will only negatively effect the higher values, where the extra detail would not have been used after gamma correction anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gamma correction is not only done when the output format is 8 bits per channel - if you're outputting to 16-bit TIFF it'll still undergo gamma correction which crunches the highlight values.  However, it is when using 16 bits per channel and doing a lot of work on highlights (eg the sky) such as heavily boosting contrast that is pretty much the only way you could notice the difference between the lossless and lossy RAW.  This is really very extreme stuff - you would have to specifically be enhancing detail in clear sky that you could not otherwise see with your eyes.  I'd be surprised if it ever made a difference to any photographer other than one setting out to prove there's a difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-28T09:04:42.447" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T09:04:42.447" />
  <row Id="9975" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9971" CreationDate="2011-03-20T12:34:23.940" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wait a little bit more, gather more funds and go for native: Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS. It has new optics, that's much sharper than the old Canon 70-200 f/4 L (non-IS) and is often sharper than old Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might also consider &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/162616-USA/Canon_2577A002AA_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6L_IS_USM.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 100-400L IS&lt;/a&gt; for birding. It's optic performance is very good and you get excellent reach!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3019" LastActivityDate="2011-03-20T12:34:23.940" />
  <row Id="9976" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9971" CreationDate="2011-03-20T12:50:38.050" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For birding, you'll want the &lt;strong&gt;longest&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;fastest&lt;/strong&gt; glass you would ever afford, otherwise you'll be upgrading very soon and end up paying more. You'll want the lens to be long because birds are small and tend to stay far away, and fast to be able to add teleconverters - while you could boost up shutter speed with ISO, higher sensitivity won't save you from being unable to nail focus with a lens significantly darker than f/5.6. With a tele-converter, your aperture will be smaller by the same multiplier your focal length is longer - e.g. 70-200 f/2.8 with 2x teleconverter becomes 140-400 f/5.6.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, Thom Hogan writes so much better about it in his &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/lensweek.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Thom Hogan - Lens Week Recap&quot;&gt;Lens Week Recap&lt;/a&gt;&quot; (search for &quot;wildlife&quot; if in hurry).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-21T05:22:02.170" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T05:22:02.170" />
  <row Id="9977" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9971" CreationDate="2011-03-20T12:54:44.677" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For birding if you use a 300mm/400mm lens, you'll need to push it towards tele-end most of the time. So you need a lens with best sharpness at 300mm/400mm end as you'll most likely need cropping. Considering all those, you can take a look at the following lenses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 300mm f/4.0 ($1300ish)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 400mm f/5.6 ($1300ish)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 ($600ish)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-03-20T12:54:44.677" />
  <row Id="9978" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9749" CreationDate="2011-03-20T15:29:51.273" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Gray cards typically have &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_card&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;18% gray tone&lt;/a&gt;, because this is what the light meter is calibrated to prioritize in many cameras. You can get cheap, durable gray cards at pretty much any photo outlet. Some also feature a black card and a 90% white card, although I've never found use for those in practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The gray card will help you with the color balance, but I believe you should use the histogram function instead to ensure you get the proper exposure. The histogram will tell you if you're clipping the highlights or loosing too much information in the dark areas of the photo. Put another way, The light meter just provides a guess before you take the picture, whereas the histogram tells you exactly what you got.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your light metering strategy depends on the subject and how the light varies across the subject. Again, you might find that you can ignore the meter altogether and rely on the histogram instead to adjust the exposure time, especially when shooting a static setup with the camera on a tripod.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2559" LastEditorUserId="2559" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-21T03:55:44.570" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T03:55:44.570" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="9979" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9971" CreationDate="2011-03-20T17:42:03.093" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are serious about birds and reptiles both lenses you suggest will frustrate you: 200mm even on a cropped sensor is not close enough for most wildlife encounters. 300mm gets you closer but still wont get you good close ups.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most people shooting birds use lenses which reach at least 400mm on a cropped sensor. The most popular with non-professional birders is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=366&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 50-500mm&lt;/a&gt;. It is dim at the long end (F/6.3) and softer which is why most professional wildlife photographers use primes (500mm, 600mm) or a really expensive zooms (ex: 200-500mm F/2.8) instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are always exceptions. If you go to the Galapagos, you can shoot birds really close with a normal lens. The same is true for reptiles in Komodo. If you go on a tour, they sometimes offer a goat to a dragon and you can shoot the spectacle up-close.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-20T17:42:03.093" />
  <row Id="9980" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10001" CreationDate="2011-03-20T18:37:44.713" Score="5" ViewCount="337" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to show following by using a point-and-shoot camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;shallow depth of field&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;deep depth of field&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2398" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-21T13:10:00.547" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T00:28:31.953" Title="What are the depth-of-field capabilities of point &amp; shoot cameras?" Tags="&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9981" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9980" CreationDate="2011-03-20T18:44:27.907" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No for shallow depth of field under most common circumstances.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;It is possible for at very short focus distances, at least less than 1m (3').&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes for deep depth of field.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In case you are curious, this is an indirect result of the small sensors they use. Smaller sensors require short focal-lengths which give more extensive depth-of-field for the same angle-of-view. So even though a point and shoot can have a 28-140mm equivalent angle-of-view, for example, the actual lens can be a 4-20mm lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A few advanced compact cameras&lt;/strong&gt; (they have full manual controls, not just P&amp;amp;S) now use slightly larger sensors and have F/1.8 lenses which helps have a relatively shallow depth of field but does not compare to what you can get on a DSLR. See for example the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/review.php?id=291&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Olympus XZ-1&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/review.php?id=319&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon P300&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-22T00:28:31.953" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T00:28:31.953" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="9982" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9980" CreationDate="2011-03-20T20:19:01.333" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Shallow&lt;/strong&gt; depth of field is hard to achieve with most point-and-shoots for most shots, since their sensors and lens focal lengths tend to be small. There are some exceptions though, based on a fast lens and film or bigger sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if the point-and-shoot has &lt;strong&gt;macro&lt;/strong&gt; capability (i.e. is able to focus very close) or has some way to attach a &lt;strong&gt;close-up lens&lt;/strong&gt;, a shot focused very close (a macro shot) will have quite shallow depth-of-field.´&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since &lt;strong&gt;deep&lt;/strong&gt; depth of field can be achieved simply by focusing to infinity, there are hardly any cameras which cannot show it. Even fixed-focus point-and-shoots are focused so that infinity is reasonably in focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-21T05:34:26.523" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T05:34:26.523" />
  <row Id="9983" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9971" CreationDate="2011-03-20T20:21:06.403" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the choice is between those two lens, get whichever is sharper at the longer range - so probably the Sigma (the 70-200 2.8 also makes a great lens for concerts, portraits, astrophotography, and other types of photography) - because &lt;strong&gt;neither lens gets you close enough&lt;/strong&gt; for frame filling shots without &lt;em&gt;extra&lt;/em&gt; measures.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm just getting into birding myself, and while a long lens is useful - setting up the proper environment is much more likely to yield good, closeup results.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For birds:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Setup a blind (a hiding spot).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Setup food a few feet from the blind.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Setup flowing, shallow water.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Setup a single perch near the food and water, birds will often land here first and this is where you take the shot.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The 70-200 will take a teleconverter, the 70-300 might (but depending on the TC it might not even mount) but you'll likely lose autofocus on your 70-300 (if it works) as your max aperture becomes too high (depending on which strength TC you get).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Setting up an environment for reptiles (rocks to bask on, a little water, etc) is the same concept.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have to be &lt;strong&gt;MUCH&lt;/strong&gt; closer than you think for frame filling shots of medium to small birds - unless you have VERY long glass.  Consider methods of getting closer (like the above) if 500mm+ length is not in your budget.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If those are your options, get the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-20T20:29:22.340" LastActivityDate="2011-03-20T20:29:22.340" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9984" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-20T21:40:15.713" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h1&gt;Moire Fringe Method&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use Bart van der Wolf's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4708&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;moire fringe method&lt;/a&gt; (also explained &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/1ds3_af_micoadjustment.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.komar.org/faq/camera/auto-focus-test/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20090531160226/http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4708&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;archived here&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It works by exploiting the&#xA;  interference patterns or moiré between&#xA;  the R/G/B LCD elements and the&#xA;  camera's LCD elements when directly&#xA;  viewed with Life View &lt;em&gt;[sic]&lt;/em&gt;. With good&#xA;  optics and perfect focus, the moiré is&#xA;  maximized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Compared to focus charts&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Pros:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Much more precise.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Unaffected by tungsten / incandescent lighting, which causes front focus. (I'm not positive if extreme monitor color temperatures affect it.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Easier to line up 100% perpendicular, yet less affected by it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Doesn't require taking a picture: liveview is sufficient with magnification.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Cons:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Without liveview, I'd imagine it'd be tedious.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Can't calibrate for tungsten lighting. (Though you can use a focus chart to supplement, and estimate the offset you'd need to give it for tungsten)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Target Pattern&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Load &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/down_sample/down_sample_files/Rings1.gif&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this file&lt;/a&gt; (or from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.komar.org/faq/camera/auto-focus-test/micro-auto-focus-test-2.gif&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this alternate location&lt;/a&gt;). It's a black-and-white image of concentric rings which get increasingly small and close as the they get further from the center circle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's nothing particularly magic about this image: anything which produces a moire pattern on an LCD screen should work, but this one is designed to give good results in many situations. Bart van der Wolf also produced an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/OPF/MicroFocusAdjust1.gif&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;earlier moire target design&lt;/a&gt; which some people apparently find works better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Steps&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Setup and familiarization:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Load the target patter at 1:1 / 100% view in any image viewer — your web browser will do, but make sure it's showing the image unscaled.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set up your camera on a tripod perpendicular and at the appropriate distance away from the screen&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Camera-to-subject distance should ideally be no less than 50 times the focal length of the lens. For a 50mm lens, that would be at least 2.5 meters (25m for a 500mm)  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Turn on liveview and magnify until the image is close to filling the screen&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In manual focus mode, adjust the focus distance and become familiar with the maximum interference pattern&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Method 1:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Go to the point of maximum interference.  You do this by manual focusing (contrast detect may not be as precise but you can try)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Switch to phase detect and push the AF button&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the focus changes, dial in microadjustment in the correct direction and repeat.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Method 2 (more accurate, in my opinion):&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set focus to infinity or closest focus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Autofocus using phase detection.  Some cameras let you do this while in liveview.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In liveview, manually adjust focus to see if it was front or back focused.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If so, adjust and repeat.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Troubleshooting&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can't see a moire effect, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=41375&amp;amp;postcount=16&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;these tips&lt;/a&gt;, which are in summary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the focus is too far off, it won't work.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You could be too close for the focal length.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You could be too far away for the focal length.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The lens has poor resolution.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The lens's manual focus control is too course to nail the spot.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-24T20:30:10.263" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T20:30:10.263" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="9985" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9968" CreationDate="2011-03-20T21:47:51.833" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is nothing that exist within Lightroom, though a lot of people are requesting it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, you can use Picasa to do the face recognition and tagging: see &lt;a href=&quot;http://creativetechs.com/tipsblog/add-face-recognition-to-lightroom-with-picasa/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/picasa-face-import&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2011-03-20T21:47:51.833" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9986" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9749" CreationDate="2011-03-20T22:59:28.303" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am not sure if you are trying to meter exposure, or tune white balance. If you are shooting on manual, then the meter is not going to do much for you, really. Under a standard illuminant with fixed exposure settings, you should be able to photograph any of your pieces of art at the same settings, and have all of them expose properly. With a digital camera, it is easy enough to use a little bit of trial and error to get the exposure you &lt;em&gt;want&lt;/em&gt; (vs. the exposure the camera may tell you is correct, which is based on a set of immutable rules that do not always reflect reality as closely as they should.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are trying to tune white balance and/or check the color accuracy of the photographs once they are imported into your computer, then you can do one of two things. First, you could stick with your gray card. Include the gray card in one shot, then take a second shot without the gray card. During post processing in a tool like Lightroom, you can use the white balance picker tool to select the gray card, and the rest if the picture will be adjusted accordingly. Simply copy the white balance (temperture on the blue/yellow-orange scale AND tint on the green/magenta scale) to the second shot to get a properly color corrected image without the gray card in the scene. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to not only calibrate white balance, but also check color reproduction, you can use a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/465286-REG/X_Rite_MSCCC_Original_ColorChecker_Card.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;color checker card&lt;/a&gt; (originally GretaMacbeth, however it is now owned by X-Rite). A standard color checker card has a set of 24 standardized, specifically formulated colors that have a specific base tone and color under a specific illuminant (usually D50, I believe). To archive artwork with maximum color reproduction accuracy, you would want to set up your illuminant to the same color temperature as that used for the color checker card, which is going to be much more of a natural, normal white than the standard tungsten type of lighting. (I would avoid illuminating your scene with flourescent light, as there are inherent problems with such lighting.) A daylight balanced bulb (which is what a D50, D55, or D65 bulb would be) can be expensive...however its light is more pure and better for color accurate color reproduction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When doing color checking, you will not only want to adjust your white balance on an 18% gray card, but you will also want to compare the colors of the swatches in your photograph with that of the real color checker card. Make sure you correct white balance first. Any perceptually significant deviation in any individual color on the card in the photograph will be fairly easy to spot. If there are any significant deviations, you can either try to correct them with some fancy curve work in Photoshop (or Gimp), or find a way to illuminate your scene with a purer white (i.e. switch to a daylight balanced bulb from a standard tungsten bulb.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-03-20T22:59:28.303" />
  <row Id="9988" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9946" CreationDate="2011-03-21T05:14:30.493" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How can that be, that f-number is greater than 5.6, when that's listed as the maximum in the lens spec?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because you've misinterpreted the lens spec.  When it says f/3.5 - 5.6, it means the widest aperture (wider = lower f-number) is f/3.5 at one end of the zoom range and f/5.6 at the other.  The narrowest aperture is not usually quoted, but is usually something like f/22 or thereabouts, and is the same throughout the zoom range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T05:14:30.493" />
  <row Id="9989" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="235" CreationDate="2011-03-21T05:21:34.450" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When light enters or exits glass at an angle, it bends.  But the different colours in the light bend by a different amount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lenses try to correct for this by sandwiching together different densities of glass, but they have to take compromises - there's no such thing as perfect as it would compromise on something else.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So you may still see colour fringes, particularly at the edge of your frame (where the light hits your lens at a greater angle) in some conditions (typically high contrast).  The colour fringes will often be blue (or purple-ish) as blue light bends (refracts) more than other colours.  You may also see colour fringes in out of focus areas (bokeh).  Different lens designs will show this up differently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-21T05:27:41.353" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T05:27:41.353" />
  <row Id="9990" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3840" CreationDate="2011-03-21T05:37:52.303" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.twam.info/software/read-out-canon-eos-7d-shuttercount-on-os-x&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt; claims to provide a method for getting the shutter count for the 7D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, you install &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gphoto.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gPhoto2&lt;/a&gt; and run the command:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;photo2 --get-config /main/status/shuttercounter&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know you're asking about the 500D/550D, not the 7D, but I've had a read through the source code (there's some specific info for the 500D &lt;a href=&quot;http://gphoto.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/gphoto/trunk/libgphoto2/camlibs/ptp2/cameras/canon-eos500d.txt?revision=13435&amp;amp;view=markup&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;) and it would appear that there's code referencing that shuttercounter parameter for the 500D, 7D and 60D (no sign of the 550D or 1100D in the code as of 25th March 2011).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it would appear there's a good chance it works on those as well (I don't have either to test). I that, since the 500D, 550D, 7D, 60D and 1100D are newer than the latest version of EOSInfo Utility, so it might just be that the developer has yet to update for the newer cameras (though it would seem perhaps &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gphoto.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gPhoto2&lt;/a&gt; has been updated for some/all of these?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastEditorUserId="889" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-23T04:31:48.700" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T04:31:48.700" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="9991" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-03-21T06:55:06.750" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sony is a manufacturer of optical equipment, and particularly cameras and lenses. Their main DSLR and SLT photographic line website is at: www.sonystyle.com/Alpha&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="4396" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-21T10:27:52.170" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T10:27:52.170" />
  <row Id="9992" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-03-21T06:55:06.750" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Sony is a manufacturer of optical equipment, and particularly cameras and lenses. Their main DSLR and SLT photographic line website is at: www.sonystyle.com/Alpha" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="4396" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-21T10:27:54.383" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T10:27:54.383" />
  <row Id="9993" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9955" CreationDate="2011-03-21T11:31:26.973" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As cabby said I don't believe there is a way to alter Lightroom's behaviour in that way.&#xA;Have you considered importing them onto your local disk and setting up a scheduled task to synchronize them across to your NAS?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Micrsoft provides a free powertoy called SyncToy &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SyncToy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SyncToy&lt;/a&gt; which might be worth investigating, you could import them locally and setup a regular task (say every 30minutes) to move them onto your NAS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1580" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T11:31:26.973" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="9995" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-03-21T11:57:45.110" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-21T11:57:45.110" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T11:57:45.110" />
  <row Id="9996" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-03-21T11:57:45.110" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="A tripod is a piece of photographic equipment designed to prevent camera movement and support the weight of a camera. A tripod consists of 3 legs(compared to a bipod or monopod) which stand on the ground and have a camera mount on top." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-21T11:58:47.033" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T11:58:47.033" />
  <row Id="9997" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9617" CreationDate="2011-03-21T12:02:15.263" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;have a look at ImageJ: &lt;a href=&quot;http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4394" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T12:02:15.263" />
  <row Id="9998" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-03-21T12:03:48.413" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-21T12:03:48.413" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T12:03:48.413" />
  <row Id="9999" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-03-21T12:03:48.413" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Metadata is additional data related to a photo, this is usually written by the camera into the image file at the time of shooting but can be edited later. This metadata includes information such as the time and date of shooting, equipment involved and settings used." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-21T12:04:06.150" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T12:04:06.150" />
  <row Id="10000" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-21T12:11:28.123" Score="3" ViewCount="52" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe ICC profiles are mostly used for color equalization; and I wonder whether they can be used to correct spatial differences within the images (e.g. vignetting).  I would like to know if the ICC standard supports this, and if so if there are any application to create ICC profiles with spatial information (per-zone characteristic).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4399" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T14:05:31.460" Title="Do ICC profiles support for different color characteristics for different parts of the image (i.e. near the edges)?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;color-calibration&gt;&lt;vignetting&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="10001" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9980" CreationDate="2011-03-21T13:01:21.530" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll offer a (partially) dissenting opinion.  Point and Shoots, it's true, don't have the ability to shoot as narrow a DOF as most DSLR cameras, both because of the sensor size and the aperture of their lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That doesn't mean you can't get the effect you're looking for in your photos, though -- it just means you've got to be a little more deliberate in setting up your shot.  The following shots were all made with P&amp;amp;S cameras:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/dglambert/4257879462/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;758717370_Vz9St-X2 by dglambert, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4022/4257879462_cb606419e9_m.jpg&quot; width=&quot;240&quot; height=&quot;180&quot; alt=&quot;758717370_Vz9St-X2&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/dglambert/4257120801/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;vinyard by dglambert, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4052/4257120801_1391783b0f_m.jpg&quot; width=&quot;240&quot; height=&quot;180&quot; alt=&quot;vinyard&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/dglambert/3664637494/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;P1010339 by dglambert, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3540/3664637494_462f99a5f8_m.jpg&quot; width=&quot;240&quot; height=&quot;180&quot; alt=&quot;P1010339&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All three of these had some things in common -- they were zoomed in, and they were all subjects that had some physical separation from their backgrounds.  This allows even a P&amp;amp;S to show some background blurring, even if it's not the super-creamy bokeh of a 50mm f/1.2 or a 70-200 f/2.8 on a full-frame DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(edit) - For a more detailed look at DOF on a P&amp;amp;S, look at this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;online DOF calculator&lt;/a&gt;, which will let you select your camera from a list and shows actual DOF at various apertures &amp;amp; focal lengths.  The basic idea here is that even though P&amp;amp;S cameras don't have the performance envelope that a DSLR generally has, all of these cameras have DOF capabilities that you can exploit if you understand how DOF works.  You can use your camera controls and compositional techniques to make the most of whatever envelope you've got once you understand the formula.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastEditorUserId="269" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-21T15:02:06.560" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T15:02:06.560" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10002" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9980" CreationDate="2011-03-21T13:46:59.717" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is it possible to show following by using a point-and-shoot camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;shallow depth of field&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/shallow.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;deep depth of field&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/deep.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only caveat is that to get shallow depth of field with a small sensor you need to be focussing relatively close (which only works for small subjects) or be at the long end of a superzoom lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T13:46:59.717" />
  <row Id="10003" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9955" CreationDate="2011-03-21T14:03:09.937" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One option would be not to use export but hard drive publishing together with published smart folders. Target directory is 'hardcoded' there, so it should not change even when the disk gets detached temporarily. Alas, usefulness of this depends heavily on your workflow, but I have managed to give up exporting (almost) completely and I do all my exports via hard drive publishing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1774" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T14:03:09.937" />
  <row Id="10004" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10000" CreationDate="2011-03-21T14:05:31.460" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No. ICC profiles are only interested in color response (which affects overall contrast too) but nothing spacial.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, a number of software such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dxo.com/us/photo/dxo_optics_pro/introduction&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DxO Optics Pro&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibblelabs.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bibble Pro&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adobe Photoshop Lightroom&lt;/a&gt; support &lt;em&gt;Lens Profiles&lt;/em&gt;. Each software comes with a number of them already made but there is also sometimes a tool to create one of your own. &lt;a href=&quot;http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lensprofile_creator/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here is the one for Lightroom&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T14:05:31.460" />
  <row Id="10005" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="327" CreationDate="2011-03-21T14:10:12.287" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On DX body with crop factor of 1.5x&#xA;I would say anything below 16mm are ultra-wide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4402" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T14:10:12.287" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10006" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9971" CreationDate="2011-03-21T14:15:49.877" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Go for the 70-200.&#xA;If you choose the 70-300, you will probably end up selling it later on and upgrading to the 70-200 anyway...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4402" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-21T17:14:25.417" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T17:14:25.417" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10007" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9686" CreationDate="2011-03-21T16:16:58.383" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it would also be interesting to share some ideas on avoiding those spots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the spots are in different places on each frame as it seems to be, it's &lt;strong&gt;dust in the air&lt;/strong&gt; combined with a &lt;strong&gt;flash too close to lens&lt;/strong&gt;. The strong light near the flash makes the particles visible and the closeness to lens front makes them very out-of-focus and therefore blurred bigger than they really are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using an &lt;strong&gt;external flash&lt;/strong&gt; would avoid the spots, unfortunately most compact cameras do not have any means for connecting one and while using one off-camera is still possible (by using manual mode, an optical slave and shielding the on-camera flash), it's too awkward and inconvenient in social situations where a compact camera is typically used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes it might be possible to find another place with &lt;strong&gt;less dust&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;more light&lt;/strong&gt; so that flash would not be needed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could try holding a credit card between the flash and lens as a &lt;strong&gt;shield&lt;/strong&gt; keeping the flash from lighting the immediate front of lens; when doing so, check that the lower part of photo is still correctly illuminated. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Bouncing&lt;/strong&gt; the flash away (using a reflective surface) or using a &lt;strong&gt;diffuser&lt;/strong&gt; might also help. In those cases, maximum reach for the flash will be shorter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T16:16:58.383" />
  <row Id="10008" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9455" CreationDate="2011-03-21T16:42:29.123" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would advise to find a surface to &lt;strong&gt;bounce&lt;/strong&gt; the flash from. Ideally it would be ceiling; if it's too high, then a nearby neutral-colored wall / piece of furniture / window / your sleeve / another dancer next to you (please avoid bouncing from someone's face, okay?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would stress the importance of &lt;strong&gt;shielding the flash&lt;/strong&gt; with a &lt;a href=&quot;http://neilvn.com/tangents/2009/11/21/the-black-foamie-thing/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;black foamie thing&lt;/a&gt; or at least a black card so the dancers would not be exposed to any light coming directly from flash, &lt;strong&gt;only bounced light&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll find the bounced light more natural when it is &lt;strong&gt;directional&lt;/strong&gt;. For that, try to find a bounce surface that is not directly in front of you, but slightly on a side; sometimes using a snoot or even maximum zoom of flash might help to keep the bounce area from spreading to wide (which would lose the directionality).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-21T16:48:16.953" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T16:48:16.953" />
  <row Id="10009" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-21T16:43:50.593" Score="5" ViewCount="116" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm planning a trip to Venezuela in August and wanted some insight from photographers who have traveled through there recently.  Does anyone have any experiences they can share with me in regards to safety, dangers, security of photography equipment, and locations worth venturing to?  Any tips and information would be greatly appreciated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4322" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-21T17:15:54.600" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T00:59:48.817" Title="Planning a trip to Venezuela — What are potential dangers and can't-miss locations?" Tags="&lt;travel&gt;&lt;locations&gt;&lt;danger&gt;&lt;venezuela&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="10010" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10009" CreationDate="2011-03-21T17:23:14.913" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Always carry photography gear in carry on luggage, no-one treats your luggage like you do!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1580" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T17:23:14.913" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10011" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10009" CreationDate="2011-03-21T18:13:07.943" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For the dangers, i would recommend the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.voyage.gc.ca/countries_pays/report_rapport-eng.asp?id=313000&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Venezuela Travel Reports offered by the government of Canada&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are normally up-to-date and contains lots of important information about the precaution to take in this country.  The Venezuela report also contains a regional warning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some Canadian specific info, but most of it is general for anybody in the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Try not exposing too much your photographic equipment, bring the minimum of equipment (ideal would be a small camera you can carry in a pocket or in a small bag: small DSLR with compact lens, high end compact or APS-C compact (aka mirrorless)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Avoid traveling the night for safety reasons&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You will be traveling during the rainy period (May through November), so bring the necessary to protect your equipment from the rain&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, read and bring 1 or 2 Venezuela travel guides (For example: lonely planet).  They list and recommend hotels and restaurants, and they will help you finding the spots to visit and hopefully take good pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take care!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1093" LastEditorUserId="1093" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-22T13:24:47.267" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T13:24:47.267" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10012" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3840" CreationDate="2011-03-21T18:20:34.970" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the 550D you can use &lt;a href=&quot;http://magiclantern.wikia.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Magic Lantern&lt;/a&gt;. Just install it, press MENU and then DISP. The shutter count will appear in the bottom of the screen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4039" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T18:20:34.970" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10013" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-21T18:44:57.820" Score="2" ViewCount="151" Body="&lt;p&gt;1) I dont know how to write a watermark, like a copyright notice, on a photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) I have a folder of photos which I wish to watermark with the same watermark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How should I write a watermark on a folder of photographs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4384" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-21T20:42:51.150" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T17:53:10.833" Title="How to watermark a folder of photographs?" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;watermark&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10014" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10013" CreationDate="2011-03-21T18:57:47.263" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;1) This is simply a matter of adding your watermark on a separate layer above your photo and any adjustment layers. It can be text or a logo - anything you like. Then simply lower the opacity so the watermark isn't too prominent. You can also change the Blending Mode of the Layer to something like Overlay to help it blend in a little.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) The simplest way is to record step 1 as an action, then use File &gt; Batch to apply the action to a collection of images. Bear in mind that this doesn't give you any control of the placement of the watermark in every image: if you recorded the action to place the watermark in the centre of the image, it will be in the centre of &lt;em&gt;every&lt;/em&gt; image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T18:57:47.263" />
  <row Id="10015" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10013" CreationDate="2011-03-21T18:59:27.637" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can automate this using a Photoshop Action.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically you want to add a text layer, then set the layer opacity down to level that looks good (test on light and dark images).  You can add layer style &quot;bevel and emboss&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This looks to be a pretty good tuturial on the subject:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpchallenge.com/tutorial.php?TUTORIAL_ID=64&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpchallenge.com/tutorial.php?TUTORIAL_ID=64&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4191" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T18:59:27.637" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10016" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10013" CreationDate="2011-03-21T19:07:18.427" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since you seem confused, &lt;strong&gt;I suggest you use &lt;a href=&quot;http://picasa.google.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Picasa&lt;/a&gt;. This is a free software from Google. Once you have in installed, follow &lt;a href=&quot;http://picasa.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=106193&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;these simple instructions&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This can be done in Lightroom very easily and in Photoshop with a few more steps but it is overkill to spend money on an expensive software just for watermarking. Some people even do it from the command line using a shell command and free &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xnview.com/en/nconvert.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;nconvert&lt;/a&gt; utility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One extremely important thing to pay attention to is to &lt;strong&gt;watermark on export&lt;/strong&gt;. Most people do not watermark their original files, that would not be reversible in case you need one day to make a print or a different watermark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T19:07:18.427" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10017" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10013" CreationDate="2011-03-21T19:33:28.573" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For this, I think I'd use ImageMagick. It's free and oriented primarily toward batch operations like this. The ImageMagick web site has &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/annotating/#watermarking&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;samples&lt;/a&gt; for doing watermarking. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: As @Sean pointed out, it is worth noting that ImageMagick is a command-line based tool, so to use it you need to create the right command line. It may not be the most suitable tool for beginners, especially those who've never used command-line based tools.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-21T21:55:25.520" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T21:55:25.520" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10018" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8492" CreationDate="2011-03-21T20:15:18.180" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can get a rough gut feeling by judging &lt;strong&gt;how long&lt;/strong&gt; it takes your flash to &lt;strong&gt;restore charge&lt;/strong&gt; after the pop. For calibrating, set your flash into manual mode, full power, pop a shot and see how long it takes to become ready for next pop. All my flashes have an indicator light to tell when they are &quot;ready&quot;, so I assume other flashes have some indication also; some flashes &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/5832/4390&quot; title=&quot;Why flashes make whistling sound when recycling?&quot;&gt;whistle during recharge&lt;/a&gt;. Whenever it takes about as long to recover you were running close to full power (assuming the batteries aren't close to empty). If the flash is immediately ready after a shot, it was working on low power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T04:17:45.837" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T04:17:45.837" />
  <row Id="10019" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6638" CreationDate="2011-03-21T21:30:33.980" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to add some things not yet mentioned in other answers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a pop-up flash is often &lt;strong&gt;obstructed&lt;/strong&gt; by tele lens or a big lens hood; a speedlight is positioned much higher and therefore this problem will not occur.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;distance further away from lens means also that &lt;strong&gt;red-eye effect&lt;/strong&gt; will happen rarely, if ever&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;speedlights often offer &lt;strong&gt;features&lt;/strong&gt; not found in camera menu, such as&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;rear curtain sync&lt;/strong&gt; - flash fires at end of exposure, so moving objects will be frozen in front of motion blur&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;strobe light&lt;/strong&gt; - multiple flashes per shot&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;high-speed sync&lt;/strong&gt; - use flash at shutter speeds faster than max sync speed, which is usually around 1/250 seconds&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;zoomable flash head&lt;/strong&gt; for efficient use of flash power and/or selective lighting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;separate power source&lt;/strong&gt; for flash - faster recovery, flash will not drain camera battery&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ability to pop the speedlight &lt;strong&gt;multiple times&lt;/strong&gt; from different angles and locations during a shot with long shutter speed (at least several seconds), creating a photo that looks like one made with many light sources&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;some entry-level cameras use strobing light from pop-up flash as AF assist light; the &lt;strong&gt;AF assist beam&lt;/strong&gt; built into some speedlights is much more discrete&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also some negative aspects for speedlights:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;more batteries&lt;/strong&gt; and backup batteries are needed, perhaps even a separate &lt;strong&gt;charger&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;need to remember actually &lt;strong&gt;charging&lt;/strong&gt; the flash batteries before going out to shoot&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you'll have &lt;strong&gt;more stuff&lt;/strong&gt; to lug around&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;if you envy point-and-shoots for their small size, your camera will be even &lt;strong&gt;bigger&lt;/strong&gt;  and &lt;strong&gt;heavier&lt;/strong&gt; with a speedlight attached&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;some flashes, especially cheaper ones, may make an annoying high-frequency &lt;strong&gt;whistling sound&lt;/strong&gt; while switched on; good luck finding that from tech specs&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;more possibilities implies that usage is more &lt;strong&gt;complicated&lt;/strong&gt; than for pop-ups&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you might soon want to have several speedlights, remote triggers, lightstands, modifiers, studio strobes etc. therefore causing &lt;strong&gt;marital problems&lt;/strong&gt; over the budget and/or space requirements&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you will loathe photos you make with pop-up flash :)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-21T23:54:08.897" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T23:54:08.897" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10020" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10024" CreationDate="2011-03-21T22:20:50.320" Score="8" ViewCount="134" Body="&lt;p&gt;With some effort, it's possible to find out which camera models and lens have weather sealing. However, there seems to be little information available on weather-sealed flashes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3842/picking-a-hotshoe-flash/3844#3844&quot; title=&quot;Matt Grum: Picking a hotshoe flash&quot;&gt;another answer&lt;/a&gt; I got a hint that Canon 580EX is weather-proofed. Are there any others known?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T20:00:21.353" Title="Which flashes are weather-proofed?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;weather&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10021" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-21T22:54:53.833" Score="1" ViewCount="37" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am looking to get some Video Sequences(Any video format - MPEG4,H263,MPEG2,H264,Raw YUV) which have noticable amount of flickering present in them. I searched, but could not find any such videos. I need this to try out test some Flicker removal setup I have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BTW are there known Video post processing tools which allow flicker removal?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any pointers would help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;thank you.&#xA;-AD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2438" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T23:49:50.320" ClosedDate="2011-03-22T02:48:27.607" Title="Where can I get some Video sequences which have Flicker ?" Tags="&lt;video&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="10022" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10035" CreationDate="2011-03-21T23:21:40.240" Score="7" ViewCount="109" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to get a wedding photographer's perspective on videography. It seems like there can exist a natural tension between the two, as they are both under pressure from the bride to shoot the same once-in-a-lifetime experience and the presence of another person vying for the same camera angles can complicate matters. Specifically, how do you as a wedding photographer interact with and share the same space with a videographer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, what advice do you have for photographers and videographers to make the best of working together and maybe even cooperating to helping each other out?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1480" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-22T01:26:33.310" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T05:47:06.463" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-22T03:12:31.843" Title="Suggestions for photographers / videographers to best work together at the same event?" Tags="&lt;video&gt;&lt;business&gt;&lt;wedding&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10023" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10027" CreationDate="2011-03-21T23:27:09.097" Score="3" ViewCount="622" Body="&lt;p&gt;My Nikon D3100 photos are not coming up on photoshop why I try to edit them. What should I do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3841" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-11T12:05:55.373" LastActivityDate="2011-04-11T12:05:55.373" Title="Why can't my Adobe Photoshop CS5 read RAW photos saved in .NEF from my new camera?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;nikon-d3100&gt;&lt;photoshop-cs5&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10024" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10020" CreationDate="2011-03-21T23:29:55.350" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;AFAIK, it's the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/speedlite_flash_lineup/speedlite_580ex_ii&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;580EX II&lt;/a&gt;, to be specific. None of the others in the current Canon lineup appear to have that. Nikon, Pentax, and Sony don't appear to have an option, though Nikon offers a water guard for their flashes. That seems like more of a compromise than anything. On the 3rd party front, Sigma is out (I have one and know) and I can't find any evidence that Metz has a weather sealed option and I know the current top of the line doesn't, so that also indicates.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, I don't know, but that covers a lot of ground. Net effect, I think that if you want to seal it, it's the old plastic bag for the vast majority of them...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T23:29:55.350" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="10025" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6511" CreationDate="2011-03-21T23:38:39.970" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For what it's worth, my laptop and photography equipment comes into room and warms up in a regular laptop backpack with its zipper closed. Winter temperatures were around -20°C (-4°F).  I think the necessary part is to keep your equipment from contacting huge volume of room air from which a noticeable amount of humidity could be gathered on cold metal surfaces, but absolute airtightness is not necessary - small amounts of warm air oozing in over long time do not contain enough water to cause trouble. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I would trust a tight (closed with zipper or similar) camera bag. Throwing in a small pack of silica gel just to feel sure sounds like a good idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T23:38:39.970" />
  <row Id="10027" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10023" CreationDate="2011-03-21T23:55:51.627" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;(Upgraded from a comment, since it's really an answer.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have you updated Adobe Camera Raw? Run Adobe Application Manager; the D3100 is a fairly new camera and it's likely that your version of ACR doesn't support it yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-03-21T23:55:51.627" />
  <row Id="10028" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10022" CreationDate="2011-03-22T02:08:28.453" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I fully understand that my method probably is less 'working together' than you might be interested in, and this may not be exactly what you're looking for as an answer, but as a working wedding photographer, my take on wedding videography (the blunt version) can be boiled down to: &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;stay out of my shots, don't get in my way, and photography always takes precedence over video, so if we're both wanting to be in the same spot to get a shot, I always win.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mostly I enforce this view and this precedence by calling these things out in my contract, and it is a big chunk of the 'frank discussion' that I have with the bridal couple before paperwork gets signed (other items in my 'frank discussion' list include what happens if 'Uncle Bob' shows up and wants to play 'amateur professional' photographer, what happens if they're planning an outdoor wedding with no backup location for rain, etc.) If the bride doesn't have the same priorities for photography over videography it is a sign to me that I probably shouldn't be working with that couple, and since we've talked about it up-front we don't move forward in signing a contract. I have only had to walk away from one contract over the years due to not seeing eye-to-eye on photography vs. videography, but- both for me and for them- I'm glad that I did... We clearly weren't a good fit for one another!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the bride has hired a videographer I don't go out of my way to 'work with them' in particular (though despite how my above statements may sound, I also don't try to &lt;em&gt;thwart&lt;/em&gt; them either!)... Since I will have previously asked the bride to discuss the 'pecking order' for the day I simply 'check in' with the videographer to make sure we've got an understanding, and then I am cordial and professional as I am to all the vendors that the bride has chosen for the day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-22T02:25:15.490" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T02:25:15.490" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-22T03:12:31.843" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10029" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-22T02:26:17.577" Score="6" ViewCount="346" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm using the cs5 suite and trying to upload all of my pictures to facebook... and .NEF files are too large to upload, any suggestions? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3841" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-15T20:12:56.483" LastActivityDate="2011-04-15T20:12:56.483" Title="Is there an easy way to convert all my photos from .NEF to .JPG for upload to Facebook?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;nikon-d3100&gt;&lt;batch&gt;&lt;facebook&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10030" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10029" CreationDate="2011-03-22T02:45:47.330" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, Facebook isn't going to handle NEF anyways. However, if you have CS5, that means you have Adobe Bridge and the batch functionality to perform image conversion from there. The short example would be...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Open bridge and find an image directory to work on.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Select the images to modify.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Select on the menu: &quot;Tools -&gt; Photoshop -&gt; Image Processor&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is going to run Photoshop. From there you will be presented with a dialog that provides a number of options for batch processing including using the first image as the basis for further changes, file type to save as, etc. You may want to experiment a little with a small set of images, but be aware that Raw conversion to JPEG is seldom, if ever really, a consistent change. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I would never do this for final images. I've only ever done it for proof images where I've totally controlled the light used in the shoot, but for anything else, including images I intend for display on the web or in print, the editing is done image by image. This is generally because white balance changes, sharpening changes, and a host of other little tweaks that vary as a result of settings, light, and more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the way, if you haven't a lot of Photoshop experience with photographs, I'd recommend Scott Kelby's &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0321703561&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Adobe Photoshop CS5 Book for Digital Photographers&lt;/a&gt;&quot; as a good place to start (Google if the link doesn't work). There are a lot of other resources, but he covers a lot of ground and does it with some style, so worth the rather small price of admission.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T02:45:47.330" />
  <row Id="10031" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="327" CreationDate="2011-03-22T03:57:53.137" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Michael Freeman's &lt;em&gt;The Photographer's Mind&lt;/em&gt;, he mentions that consumer-level ultra-wide angle lenses (which he defines as 24mm and below) for 35mm cameras started being widely produced in the 1960s. This fits with what I can see from researching lens history — the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4487/why-are-wide-angle-lenses-so-much-more-expensive/4492#4492&quot;&gt;retrofocal lens&lt;/a&gt; was imported from cinema use (where it had been invented in the 1930s) in about 1950, and over the next decade became widely available from different manufacturers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 1958, the journal &lt;em&gt;Photogrammetric Engineering&lt;/em&gt; has an article where, in the context of aerial photography, &quot;ultra wide-angle&quot; is defined as having angular coverage greater than 120°. That'd be something like 12.5mm on the 35mm film frame, or about 8mm on APS-C. But that's a technical application. As the marketers starting trying to sell wider-angle lenses to consumers, the numbers crept up considerably, and I found several instances of companies calling 28mm lenses ultra wide-angle — this &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=OsNTAAAAMAAJ&amp;amp;q=28mm++ultra-wide&amp;amp;dq=28mm++ultra-wide&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;ei=6xyITYOBDMqjtgfywPn8DQ&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=book_result&amp;amp;ct=result&amp;amp;resnum=7&amp;amp;ved=0CEUQ6AEwBjge&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Minolta book for beginners&lt;/a&gt;, for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also found numerous other references to 24mm as being the cut-off point (like this excerpt from &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?ei=IxyITYW0BIagtwfQ--H8DQ&amp;amp;ct=result&amp;amp;id=0H1qAAAAMAAJ&amp;amp;dq=28mm++ultra-wide&amp;amp;q=below+25mm#search_anchor&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Time-Life's &lt;em&gt;The Camera&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;). So, while &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_wide_angle_lens&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt; doesn't (currently) give any sources for its claim, it looks like there's pretty broad consensus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-23T03:46:36.813" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T03:46:36.813" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10032" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10029" CreationDate="2011-03-22T04:13:25.847" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Speaking of Scott Kelby (if you're a neophyte photographer and you've never read his books or visited his site, you're cheating yourself) the tool he recommends for the job is the JPEG extractor utility from &lt;a href=&quot;http://mtapesdesign.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Michael Tapes&lt;/a&gt;. It works with the embedded JPEG in the RAW (NEF) file, so it won't give you the quality you'd get with a proper &quot;development&quot; in Adobe Camera Raw -- but if you're uploading to Facebook, you don't get to keep your glorious high resolution anyway. &quot;Instant JPEG From Raw&quot; is a free download -- the email download code thing is just Tapes' way of keeping his server bandwidth reasonable (a minor inconvenience is an absolute brick wall to a lot of people).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T04:13:25.847" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10033" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10022" CreationDate="2011-03-22T04:23:29.367" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Each time you walk past the videographer, mumble quietly about how glad you are that your post-processing will be really quick compared to his/hers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T04:23:29.367" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-22T04:23:29.367" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10034" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1017" CreationDate="2011-03-22T04:59:04.390" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, it sounds like you are comparing Picasa with your camera's JPEG generator, so I'll talk about what your camera does first, and the I'll talk more about how Picasa works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A typical camera will take an image on the sensor, and it'll be some kind of a RAW image. As it takes an insane amount of time to write an image out, most of the time the conversion to JPEG is done using a specialty chip that handles the conversion. They typically have a few settings, like sharpness, contrast, white balance, etc, but the control is fairly minimal, and you're stuck with whatever comes out the other end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Picasa will do some preliminary processing on all RAW images upon import. Picasa, like most serious photo editors, doesn't actually change the RAW image directly, instead, it contains a sidecar file that lists the changes that have been done. There are a few exceptions with Picasa, namely when you do spot removal, or red-eye removal, a JPEG is created, but otherwise, the only changes occur in a sidecar file.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Picasa does out of the box isn't completely clear, but it is clear that it does some kind of auto contrasting. I've noticed that when I've used it, the highlights are almost always over exposed, where in camera or using Lightroom, I don't see the same problem. Of course, you can fiddle some with the dials to try and improve the performance, with limited success.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Picasa, for it's price, is a great program, but like most things, you get what you pay for. I do recommend it as a whole to a beginning photographer, but if you're the type to spend hundreds on a camera or lens, you should consider a few hundred to get a better post processing program.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T04:59:04.390" />
  <row Id="10035" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10022" CreationDate="2011-03-22T05:47:06.463" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I work as a professional photographer AND as a professional videographer. I have worked with other photographers and other videographers on a shoot. There is more than enough space at a wedding for everyone to get the good angles if you have a shooting plan and discuss it before the event. Decide who will be where at which moment and stick to the plan.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What photographers don't get is that for video you need to maintain good framing and smooth movements the whole time you are recording. It is therefore much more difficult to move around. When I shoot photography it is the simplest thing in the world to move and shoot. I can crouch under the video camera or shoot around it without having to worry about my movement affecting the shot. We can EASILY stand next to each other in the aisle to get the ring shots etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ultimately, the client doesn't care about the technical difficulties. She has hired 2 people to do a job for her. No vendor is more important than another. We are all equally responsible for providing the best possible product to the person that hired us. This means you need to have the inter-personal skills to negotiate the shooting plan so EVERYBODY wins and the client gets what they paid for. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar... and do you really think a bride is going to enjoy working with a pompous ass who thinks he is running the show? Do you think the bridesmaids will hire that guy for their wedding? Do you think the other vendors will recommend them to future clients? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4409" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T05:47:06.463" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-22T05:47:06.463" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10036" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="733" CreationDate="2011-03-22T06:12:48.313" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For any noun X, adding &quot;photography&quot; after it gives you a potential category. Thus you can find all potential categories by taking a dictionary and filtering out any word that's not a noun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of those may in practice overlap of course, and some might be so obscure that noone practices them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T06:12:48.313" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10037" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="237" CreationDate="2011-03-22T06:49:07.650" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One thing that is great with Sigma lense is their after market service. You can get a free check up of your lense every year ... as long as you keep the black card that was in the original package.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="461" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T06:49:07.650" />
  <row Id="10038" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10023" CreationDate="2011-03-22T07:51:26.873" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Upgrade Adobe Camera RAW (it will be free). If that doesn't work, get Adobe DNG Convertor, also free, which converts NEF to DNG, a 'universal' RAW format.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T07:51:26.873" />
  <row Id="10039" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="237" CreationDate="2011-03-22T08:39:19.790" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've had a lot of Sigma lenses in recent years and all have been pretty damn good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The 12-24 EX is a great lens and&#xA;about as wide as you can go on full&#xA;frame. I currently have the 10-20,&#xA;which is nice and sharp and has the&#xA;advantage that it can take filters&#xA;whereas the 12-24 cannot.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I have the&#xA;50mm f/2.8 macro mentioned above,&#xA;this is a super sharp lens and a&#xA;macro at a unique focal length.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The 150mm macro is a legend and rightly&#xA;so, a superb lens and I find also&#xA;does well as a medium telephoto lens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I had a 70-300 sigma which was&#xA;actually pretty good looking back. &#xA;-I had but then sold a Sigma 70-200&#xA;f/2.8.  This lens was too soft for me&#xA;wide open, but it was significantly&#xA;cheaper than the Nikon equivalent.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure none of sigma zooms match up to the 2.8 &quot;pro&quot; Nikon lenses, but then most are 1/3rd the size, weight and price, which is a Good Thing in my book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2802" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T08:39:19.790" />
  <row Id="10040" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10029" CreationDate="2011-03-22T08:50:32.923" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;NEF is Nikons Raw image format, which thends to have a size over 10MB.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To display a picture on the internet, mainly embedded into a website like facebook or email, you need to use a compatible image format that is displayable by the browser (client). Most compatible image formats are JPEG, GIF and PNG.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Image sizes commonly used on the internet are below 300KB, which is a fraction of the size of a NEF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your NEF's will have a dpi higher that 72. For displaying images on a screen 72 dpi is sufficiant, so you might want to reduce dpi as-well, additional to scaling the image (length or height around 1000px is a good starting point).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You need to convert the NEF into a format and size explained above. As already said by others, you can use any RAW converter to do the job. I would recommend to use Nikons own software like Caputre NX, which offers batch processing, or the View NX, that most probably came with you camera and offers batch processing as-well afaik.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just a note, be aware what you upload to the internet, especially to facebook ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2549" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T08:50:32.923" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="10041" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-03-22T09:18:27.513" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-22T09:18:27.513" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T09:18:27.513" />
  <row Id="10042" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-03-22T09:18:27.513" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="A backup is a duplicate intended to be kept in case of problems with an original. Such as a backup camera or a backup copy of some images." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-22T10:31:28.073" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T10:31:28.073" />
  <row Id="10043" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="306" CreationDate="2011-03-22T09:30:03.347" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can tell you that the B+W 10 stop ND filter is a great piece of glass.  I've only really used it in dark overcast winter days for slowing water down.  If you want to use a filter on a bright sunny day I think you can do a lot worse than this filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a knack to using it though, which I've written up about here:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://fwgx.co.uk/2009/12/30/what-i-use-for-long-exposure-shots/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://fwgx.co.uk/2009/12/30/what-i-use-for-long-exposure-shots/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's another example of  using it:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://fwgx.co.uk/2009/12/30/woodland-gardens-long-exposure/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://fwgx.co.uk/2009/12/30/woodland-gardens-long-exposure/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2802" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T09:30:03.347" />
  <row Id="10044" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-03-22T09:50:27.737" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://facebook.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Facebook&lt;/a&gt; (stylized facebook) is a social networking service and website launched in February 2004, operated and privately owned by Facebook, Inc. As of January 2011, Facebook has more than 600 million active users. Users may create a personal profile, add other users as friends, and exchange messages, including automatic notifications when they update their profile. Additionally, users may join common interest user groups, organized by workplace, school, or college, or other characteristics. The name of the service stems from the colloquial name for the book given to students at the start of the academic year by university administrations in the USA to help students get to know each other better. Facebook allows anyone who declares themselves to be at least 13 years old to become a registered user of the website.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="2337" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-22T10:31:56.903" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T10:31:56.903" />
  <row Id="10045" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-03-22T09:50:27.737" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="a social networking service and website launched in February 2004" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="2337" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-22T10:32:14.937" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T10:32:14.937" />
  <row Id="10046" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10049" CreationDate="2011-03-22T09:57:30.697" Score="7" ViewCount="149" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the context of fine art photography, with some subjects or themes, working out where the series begins and ends is quite simple. Especially if it has a documentary slant on it or is defined by time or geography or both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But as fine art photographers, some of us probably have subjects we keep coming back to again and again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes street photography falls into this category, where there is no end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In these cases, have any of you ever struggled with how to close a work, to say, ok, it is done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm struggling because I feel my subjects are so personal that they will never end...? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="161" LastEditorUserId="161" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-22T12:36:28.767" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T19:24:12.857" Title="What are approaches for defining the scope of a photographic project?" Tags="&lt;creative-process&gt;&lt;fine-art&gt;&lt;series&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="10047" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3840" CreationDate="2011-03-22T15:42:06.127" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For Mac:&#xA;&quot;This works on any of the Canon DIGIC III/IV DSLRs except the 1D* series. This means it will work for the 40D, the 50D, the 450D, the 500D, and the 1000D&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.astrojargon.net/40DShutterCount.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.astrojargon.net/40DShutterCount.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have used this successfully on both my 40D and 500D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3908" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T15:42:06.127" />
  <row Id="10048" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2467" CreationDate="2011-03-22T16:55:36.377" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Late to the party, but the obvious choice is the Tokina f2.8 11-16mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cheaper, faster, and sharper (really!) than anything in that focal length except for the Nikon and Canon 14mm primes (which are rather expensive for most people).  Ken Rockwell did a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fairly detailed review&lt;/a&gt; of it.  I certainly like mine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4412" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T16:55:36.377" />
  <row Id="10049" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10046" CreationDate="2011-03-22T17:08:37.957" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;'How do I know when I'm done' is almost as important of a question as 'what do I take pictures of,' and it's a question that most fine art photographers I've ever met or worked with struggle over. There's a certain 'luxury' sometimes to having a client attached to a project because it forces completion (you're on their deadline and you don't get paid if you don't finish!), but when it's a project with no 'end-user' it can breed things like endless fiddling while trying to get every image 'just right,' seeking out 'just one more' to add to the collection,' and hating the work because it never quite matches up with what the artist 'imagined' it would all look like. In fact it is a common enough dilemma that many of my professors at art school talked about strategies for overcoming the somewhat natural tendency for artists never to finish what they start.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The three techniques that I come back to time and time again in my own work are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;On The Clock&lt;/strong&gt; - Setting a hard deadlines is the primary thing I do to keep myself on task... and I set lots of deadlines. My total project deadline may be 3 months, my session deadline may be 2 hours, and my deadline for finishing the post production on the photo I'm currently working on may be 20 minutes. The key is to set the deadlines, and honor them... Yes, they're artificial, but I treat them as if they're not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Your own best advocate&lt;/strong&gt; - Another thing I frequently do is to enlist someone to be the 'gatekeeper of done' for my work. This is someone I trust completely who I can show my work in progress to and discuss it openly. This person (actually I have a few) is able to tell me when they think I've moved from productive work on a project to simply 'spinning my wheels.' In essence I grant them the power to tell me it's time to stop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tell the world&lt;/strong&gt; - There's nothing like a show or an 'unveiling' of some sort to light a fire and switch me into 'just gotta get it done' mode. Because I'm not famous enough to be able to call up fancy schmancy galleries in order to have a &lt;em&gt;real&lt;/em&gt; show, I often set up shows at my house and send out invitations to folks over to look at my work, have cocktails, etc. Turn it into a fun evening. I've even seen this work successfully as a 'virtual show' where someone tells their group of friends/family that they'll be releasing a website of a project on a certain day... Although for me personally there wouldn't be the level of motivation necessary to &lt;em&gt;get it done&lt;/em&gt; in a 'virtual' release like that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now obviously the one big thing an artist needs in employing any of these techniques (or others you may come up with) is the integrity to stick with the commitments you make &lt;em&gt;to yourself&lt;/em&gt;, even in the face of the variety of emotions that artists go through regarding their work: not feeling like the work is done, any good, worth showing, etc. For me part of the 'exquisite pain' of being artistic is realizing and accepting that I'm probably rarely (if ever) going to be &lt;em&gt;completely&lt;/em&gt; satisfied with anything I ever do... That dissatisfaction is usually at the heart of me not getting things &lt;em&gt;finished&lt;/em&gt; and once I acknowledge that fact it is often easier for me to simply let things go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-22T18:38:15.943" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T18:38:15.943" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10050" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9792" CreationDate="2011-03-22T18:33:57.467" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question still has no accepted answer, so let me try to answer it more concretely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes, it is.&lt;/strong&gt; Now, I am sure there are multiple ways of measuring, so observations may vary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If you are aiming for the least possible weight, each Micro Zuiko lens is usually lighter than nearly all APS-C compatible lenses given an equivalent field of view&lt;/strong&gt;. There are exceptions on some focal-lengths (like the Pentax 21mm F/3.2) but, when considering a whole set, the size difference is significant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For an article I am writing, Olympus sent me &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/list_lenses.php?brand=zuiko&amp;amp;mount=m43&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;all their Micro Four-Thirds lenses&lt;/a&gt;. So here is a shot of lenses covering the &lt;strong&gt;9 to 300mm&lt;/strong&gt; (18 to 600mm equivalent) next to a 300mL juice (for scale):&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/CyRxg.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Micro Zuiko Lenses covering 9 to 300mm&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lenses here weight a &lt;strong&gt;total of 865g&lt;/strong&gt;: M.Zuiko 9-18mm F/4-5.6, M.Zuiko 15-150mm F/4-5 and M.Zuiko 75-300mm F4.8-6.7.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To cover the equivalent field of view on an APS-C camera, lenses covering 12 to 400mm would be required. The lightest ones I could find weight a &lt;strong&gt;total of 1824g&lt;/strong&gt;: Tamron 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5, Tamron 18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 and the Tokina 80-400mm F/4.5-5.6.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, this is not an exact match. There are slight differences in focal-lengths and maximum aperture. A closer match may be possible (perhaps with small gaps in the range) but I doubt that much coverage can be obtained with lenses taking up about the same space as two 300mL juice bottles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-23T02:21:54.907" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T02:21:54.907" />
  <row Id="10052" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9898" CreationDate="2011-03-22T20:53:45.967" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Include an artistic license clause that gives the photographer the right to alter images prior to delivery as well as the right to only deliver images which you've selected.  This provides insurance against a client who insists on seeing every single photo, or photos directly out of the camera without any editing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T20:53:45.967" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-22T20:53:45.967" />
  <row Id="10053" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10046" CreationDate="2011-03-22T20:53:47.903" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jay gave a good answer for bringing projects to an end by imposing deadlines using one or more of three techniques.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am going to give a different kind of answer where you define the contents, i.e. the scope and the end point falls out of that.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So this is how I do it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Give your project a title and a one sentence description.&lt;/strong&gt;  Just do it and don't sweat the details. You will come back later and update this. This forces you to clarify somewhat where you are trying to go.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Do some preliminary or exploratory work.&lt;/strong&gt; In the process of doing exploratory work you will discover more about the project. This unstructured, exploratory work will allow you to discover the potential scope of your project. You will uncover aspects that you had never thought about. Once again, just do it and explore freely. Try not to limit your ideas.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Re-do your title and project description.&lt;/strong&gt; By now you will know much more about the potential of your project and this will probably require you to refine your project title and description.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Use mind mapping tools to outline your project structure in detail.&lt;/strong&gt; You will have developed a clear idea of the project as a result of your exploratory work. Commit this idea to paper by using mind mapping tools. Mind mapping is a great tool for taking vague or incomplete ideas and developing them so that they have a clear and detailed structure which covers all possibilities.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The mind map defines the project scope and plan.&lt;/strong&gt; You can tick off the bubbles as you complete them until finally you complete the project.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Have a well defined deliverable.&lt;/strong&gt; This can be a photo book, a web gallery, a presentation to some audience. But you must have a deliverable that you produce as a result of the project that finally signals its completion.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Arriving at a quality result is an iterative process&lt;/strong&gt;. So build this into your expectations of when you will finish the project. You should review the project after taking a short time out. The break gives you a chance to view your work from a fresh perspective. My rules of thumb are that the normal project goes through one review and iteration whereas a special project will go through two reviews and iterations, but never more than two. The law of diminishing returns applies after that with a vengeance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-23T19:24:12.857" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T19:24:12.857" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10055" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10029" CreationDate="2011-03-22T22:36:18.623" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use picasa for that. All you need to do is create google account (probably you have it) and &lt;a href=&quot;http://picasa.google.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;download Picasa&lt;/a&gt;. When you'll run Picasa it will find .NEF files. Clicking upload button this soft will upload them to your free picasaweb album. After you can download them. It will take few minutes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS. While uploading (original, 1600, 1024 or 640px) picasa will convert them to .jpg&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4059" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T22:36:18.623" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10056" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6193" CreationDate="2011-03-22T23:21:05.097" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;LIGHT WAVES PHOTOGRAPHIC&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;   San Francisco, California&#xA;   415-431-9651&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Professional dip and dunk processing&#xA;E6     C41      B&amp;amp;W&#xA;35mm through 8x10&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;www.lightwavesimaging.com&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4416" LastActivityDate="2011-03-22T23:21:05.097" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-22T23:21:05.097" />
  <row Id="10057" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10009" CreationDate="2011-03-23T00:59:48.817" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm sure you've heard of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isla_Margarita&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isla Margarita&lt;/a&gt;. Also, I wouldn't miss the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/images?q=andes+venezuela&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Andean region&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="323" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T00:59:48.817" />
  <row Id="10058" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9792" CreationDate="2011-03-23T01:24:25.980" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I personally do not think so (based on your description considering mainly bulk and mass).  In the film days I had an Advantix DSLR, which was a smaller body that had smaller lenses.  While it was lighter and more compact than the more traditionally sized DSLR I have today, I found that generally anything that needs a case means you have around the same level of bulk to deal with around you.  For longer hikes weight can certainly be an issue but bulk I think is more of a problem for most people in day to day use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is not to discourage you from getting such a system, I just did not find that I ended up carrying a smaller camera system around more often than the larger system I have now, again the savings are mainly in reduction of weight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T01:24:25.980" />
  <row Id="10059" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10062" CreationDate="2011-03-23T03:27:25.213" Score="8" ViewCount="309" Body="&lt;p&gt;I own an aging Nikon D40 and recently picked up a new telephoto lens: the Nikkor 55mm-300mm f/4.5-5.6. I've noticed that when I zoom in on subjects, the color in my photos often looks washed out. Here is an example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;55mm:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/F0i03.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&#xA;1/800 sec, ISO 200, f/4.5 (aperture priority)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;300mm zoomed in on the brick building to the back/right:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/lhs8F.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&#xA;1/640 sec, ISO 200, f/5.6 (aperture priority), &#xA;and yes, that is the old Natty Boh factory in Baltimore, MD if you were interested ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT (a crop of the 55mm version was requested):&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/9sfTw.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 300mm one seems like it is too bright, and the colors are not as vibrant. Is this a fault of the lens, or the body? Or do I just need to fiddle with the settings some more? Any suggestions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(more exif data from the above pictures can be supplied if requested)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4231" LastEditorUserId="4231" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-23T04:04:49.647" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T04:26:31.330" Title="Why do my photos looked washed out when using my telephoto lens?" Tags="&lt;telephoto&gt;&lt;color&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10060" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="912" CreationDate="2011-03-23T03:30:11.000" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Sigma DSLR cameras do straight IR work without long exposures or altering the sensor - all you have to do is remove the dust protector (which takes a moment and requires no tools, and is easy to put back).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At that point you can do what is called a full-color IR where you capture the other portions of the spectrum but extend into IR, or you can use an IR-Cut filter like the Wratten filters (87b being an example of that).  I have a Cokin-P filter holder, that I use with an IR-Cut Wratten gel - that way I can frame and focus and quickly drop the IR filter down into place before shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can find a number of images taken with an older version of the Sigma DSLR here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/all_infrared&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/all_infrared&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An Example:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/E88hi.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T03:30:11.000" />
  <row Id="10061" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9940" CreationDate="2011-03-23T03:35:08.797" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Lightroom Import there is a way to set the import options to import into specific folders as you outlined. You may also want to consider nested folders which it does as one of the defaults. For instance my settings is that it is imported as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Year&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Month&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Day&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This setting is done on import, so moving forward that is one solution. I then put the events and other descriptions into the keywords. That way I can search for time period or event. So for instance I can search for Birthday, and it will find all the Birthdays which I can then filter down to just the specific one either by what folder I am looking in or through other search terms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that if one imports from an existing catalog to a new catalog that the images can be moved to the folder structure if desired.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sorry, I am backing up the drive at the moment or I would test it out for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1901" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T03:35:08.797" />
  <row Id="10062" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10059" CreationDate="2011-03-23T03:37:29.810" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Try taking some pictures from a little closer, and see if the problem doesn't go away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's quite normal for almost all pictures taken at a substantial distance to look somewhat washed out. The dust/haze/smog/pollution/heat waves/etc., in the air reflect and refract light enough to reduce the contrast and wash out colors. This tends to be at a minimum after a large rain fall, which tends to &quot;wash&quot; a lot of the dust and such out of the air. Nonetheless, you're only minimizing the tendency, not removing it completely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for comparing to the shorter lens, it's pretty simple: with the short lens, most of what you're seeing clearly is a lot closer. As things &quot;fade&quot; into the distance, they also get smaller in a hurry, so the lack of detail and washed out colors aren't nearly as apparent. At the same time, if you look in the first picture, and compare the factory in the distance to the buildings at the bottom of the frame, it's still quite apparent that the closer buildings show much richer color.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: doing a quick look at the &quot;levels&quot; in the picture reveals a great deal of the problem almost immediately:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/V44At.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is somewhat overexposed -- the whites look a bit clipped (the spike at the far right) and there's nothing even close to a true black. Simply picking a reasonable black level makes the picture look much more &quot;zippy&quot; (though I may have gone a bit overboard in this case):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NyWHx.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Doing this on a JPEG inevitably loses some quality, but if you have a raw image, you &lt;em&gt;probably&lt;/em&gt; have enough extra data to do this adjustment with less (or no) quality loss.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the original lack of contrast &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; almost certainly due to atmospheric effects -- but as you can see, a minor adjustment gets a lot closer to what you probably want. Nonetheless, I'd say the original exposure looks a bit off -- it's open to question whether you're seeing a symptom of a real problem, or just an isolated incident.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-23T04:10:40.730" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T04:10:40.730" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10063" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10059" CreationDate="2011-03-23T03:46:05.433" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The haze or smog in the atmosphere can't really be avoided and for that particular scene, you can see the haze around the area that you then zoomed in on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, it appears you haven't looked at processing the image. Do you shoot raw? If so, you should boost the contrast, possibly the saturation, adjust the white balance and more and you should have a lot of room to work that seemingly dull photo into something more vivid and clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As well, you might want to use lens correction to counteract the moderate vignetting in the zoomed in frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T03:46:05.433" />
  <row Id="10064" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10059" CreationDate="2011-03-23T04:26:31.330" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some lenses have more inherent contrast than others. It usually won't vary due to the zoom factor of a lens, because it's more dependent on the glass and number of elements in the lens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A UV filter or other protective filter can reduce the contrast of a lens. If you're using one, try taking it off. A polarizing filter is the only one that might be of benefit, but you should still experiment with it both ways.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Atmospheric haze will degrade the contrast of an image. Waiting for the right atmospheric conditions or lighting will definitely help.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Post processing can overcome much of the problem. Here's an example of what a couple of minutes can do; I did this with Paint Shop Pro, but you should be able to get similar results with your favorite image editor.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/YXy0T.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Post-processed&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="775" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T04:26:31.330" />
  <row Id="10065" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-23T12:47:09.840" Score="1" ViewCount="238" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi all,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Currently, I am using Photoshop Elements 9 and there are no HDR features in it (other than the Photomerge Exposure tool which can combine two pics - mini HDR function).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photoshop CS5 is way too expensive for me and the other two possible choices are Photomatix Pro 4 and HDR Efex Pro. (which still cost close to USD $200)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to ask if there are other free HDR programs available via internet download which I can use? I just want to try out the effects and see what HDR effects can do to my photographs. Can you also give me a brieft explanation of the pros and cons of the programs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4423" LastEditorUserId="2127" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-24T16:37:10.317" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T16:37:10.317" Title="What are the free HDR programs available for download?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;hdr&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10066" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10065" CreationDate="2011-03-23T12:58:14.070" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Try &lt;a href=&quot;http://qtpfsgui.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luminance HDR&lt;/a&gt;. It's free (open source).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/qtpfsgui/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This flickr group&lt;/a&gt; can also show you some examples of HDR being used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;PROS&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Its Free!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Its open source&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It works across multiple OS's&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;CONS&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Well, have not used it so cannot update this here. Others can comment and I will update as appropriate&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="154" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-24T13:00:28.733" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T13:00:28.733" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10067" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10069" CreationDate="2011-03-23T14:20:25.153" Score="5" ViewCount="194" Body="&lt;p&gt;Specifically, I might be taking pictures inside of a house that's for sale. I want to make them look as best as possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I think it'd be nice to have general answers, let me just give you some of my gear, that I think would be the best I have towards photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 20D&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;580 EX II Flash&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;28-135mm lens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm interested in both gear and in general advice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-23T15:00:25.117" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T19:01:52.460" Title="What tips can you offer for indoor architectural photography?" Tags="&lt;architecture&gt;&lt;indoor&gt;" AnswerCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10068" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10067" CreationDate="2011-03-23T14:27:02.043" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;An ultra-wide angle is very handy as it'll make spaces look bigger. Something like the Canon 10-22 would be ideal, or the Tamron/Sigma/Tokina version would also do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;28mm is very long on a crop body for indoor architecture, and is going to make rooms look small. If you can't get hold of a wider lens then you might be able to get away with using the 28-135 and shoot panoramas to extend the images widthways, but other than that 28mm wont cut it unless the house is huge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A lot of the time you'll want to blend natural and artificial light in a high-key scheme to give a bright spacious feel. Well done HDR shots can work very well in this regard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case you'll want to stop down for sharpness and depth of field so a tripod is usually required, though you'll sometimes have to get creative with how you use the tripod as backing into corners is frequently called for to get everything in shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T14:27:02.043" />
  <row Id="10069" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10067" CreationDate="2011-03-23T14:51:25.187" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Architecture photography often involves shooting large buildings and interiors without the ability to move back so &lt;strong&gt;wider lenses&lt;/strong&gt; increase your chance of framing enough to show your subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What also happens is that you often end-up tilting your camera upwards which causes converging verticals. The typical and expensive solution to this is to use a &lt;strong&gt;tilt-shift&lt;/strong&gt; lens. There are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_lens.php?mount=canon&amp;amp;shift=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;3 current Canon tilt-shift lenses&lt;/a&gt;. The &lt;em&gt;shift&lt;/em&gt; part is is the one that lets you keep your camera level while shifting the optics upwards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Less expensive options require some creativity. One easy way is to use a &lt;strong&gt;stand-alone ladder&lt;/strong&gt;. You just have to climb up to get the framing you want while keeping your camera level. For exteriors, you can instead climb (or use a conventional way of going up) neighboring buildings (with permission).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your camera or tripod do not have a built-in level, you buy a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=3+axis+level&amp;amp;N=0&amp;amp;InitialSearch=yes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;3-axis level for your hot-shoe&lt;/a&gt;. These are great because they let you measure tilt independently for each axis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-23T17:34:01.683" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T17:34:01.683" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10070" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10067" CreationDate="2011-03-23T15:39:43.010" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As mentioned before, you better do with a wider lens. The 10-22mm is perfect, while a much cheaper alternative, which is still better than the 28-135mm is the 18-55mm kit lens, used at the 18mm side. Normally, indoor pictures for selling properties are not required to be hi-res, so the (not-so-bad) quality of the 18-55mm should be just adequate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A tripod is a good idea for taking long exposures in small apertures. Then, you may want to use the Av or Manual mode, even when using flash, in order to blend the naturally looking outdoor view which is seen from the windows, especially during the golden hour, with the flash or lamp internally lit space. With a tripod, I think using the apartments light fixtures and not the flash may be preferable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-23T16:35:37.303" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T16:35:37.303" />
  <row Id="10071" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2467" CreationDate="2011-03-23T16:02:11.627" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://lenshero.com/lenses/wide-angle-lens-for-nikon-dx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon DX wide angle lenses&lt;/a&gt; at &lt;a href=&quot;http://lenshero.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://lenshero.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="934" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T16:02:11.627" />
  <row Id="10072" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10067" CreationDate="2011-03-23T17:33:07.003" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Stitched panorama photos can add dramatic impact to your indoor photography. They are not difficult to do and have the following advantages:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a) they can give a field of view that no lens can achieve.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;b) panorama software can compensate well for convergence problems, making  tilt-shift lenses unnecessary.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;c) you can produce large prints which are pin sharp.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will need a panorama head for your tripod and good panorama software. I have used Hugin which has worked very well for me despite the initially steep learning curve. Hugin even does a good job of stitching together hand held shots so on occasion you can make do without a tripod, though there is no doubt that a tripod gives the best results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-23T17:39:31.460" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T17:39:31.460" />
  <row Id="10073" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-23T18:48:36.690" Score="5" ViewCount="291" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the difference between using a motor on the camera body and the motor build into lenses? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aside from how both compare in terms of speed, what differences would I notice if I use a body with a motor and motor-less lens, and a lens with motor on a body that lacked one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A comparison chart outlining the various lens motor types would be a great help as high end USM motors for Sigma lenses are faster then their regular versions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-23T23:18:57.840" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T15:29:26.477" Title="How do camera body motors compare to in-lens motors for focusing?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;hardware&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="10074" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10082" CreationDate="2011-03-23T18:53:55.027" Score="3" ViewCount="134" Body="&lt;p&gt;If both a camera body and lens have motorized autofocus, would one be used over the other or would both work in tandem to speed the focus process along?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2200" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-24T00:46:13.517" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T02:48:30.603" Title="What motor gets used if both lens and camera body have a focus motor?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;hardware&gt;&lt;body&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="10075" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10067" CreationDate="2011-03-23T19:01:52.460" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To shoot interiors a wide lens is key...as said above the wider the better. However...&lt;em&gt;this does not make for good &quot;architectural photography&quot;.&lt;/em&gt; One very important, key and integral element to shooting architecture is the ability to stay true to reality. Using an ultra wide lens as Matt Grum suggests, &quot;is very handy as it'll make spaces look bigger,&quot; but takes you out of the realm of Architectural Photography. Just because it's a picture of a building...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To begin, you have to keep your vertical lines straight. Any wide-angle distortion and you're out. Use a shift/tilt lens to correct. If you're shooting for a magazine, you need BIG PIXELS. Somewhere in the 20's is a good place to start. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Back to your question: thanks to digital you can shoot multiple frames to adjust exposure for high-key elements like windows and lights and shadows. Good news there. Makes your lighting package a lot smaller. Can combine images through clever layer masking or HDR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bottom line, if you're using your 28mm, pano's are probably absolutely necessary to get the job done. That or rent an ultra-wide and be okay with heavily distorted images. Good luck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T19:01:52.460" />
  <row Id="10076" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10078" CreationDate="2011-03-23T19:04:57.810" Score="7" ViewCount="169" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have seen color temperature mentioned with regard to white balance, mixing different sources of light, etc., but I haven't come across a clear explanation of what it means to talk about the 'temperature' of light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does  the color temperature of my light sources effect the images I capture? Are some color temperatures inherently better than others?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1480" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-21T23:43:19.657" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T23:43:19.657" Title="What is color temperature and how does it affect my photography?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;white-balance&gt;&lt;color-temperature&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="10077" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10074" CreationDate="2011-03-23T19:24:43.353" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The lens. In every case like that I've seen the spot on the mount where the body motor would engage the gearing in the lens, there's nothing there for it to connect to, just empty space.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T19:24:43.353" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10078" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10076" CreationDate="2011-03-23T19:26:47.120" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Color-temperature is a way to describe the color of light&lt;/strong&gt; along a spectrum that goes from warm colors (measured as having a lower temperature) to cool colors (measures as having a higher temperature).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Color-temperature is measured in Kelvin degrees and corresponds to the temperature at which a certain metal must be heated to emit light of that color.&lt;/strong&gt; That is why lower temperatures (say 3000K) give off warm (yellow-organge) light and that high temperatures (9000K) give off color (blueish) light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;White-balance is the process of canceling the effect color-temperature in a photograph.&lt;/strong&gt; This is because our brain corrects what our eyes see to let us see white as white, although it may be tinted by the color-temperature of light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If the color-temperature of light is known, then its effect can be mostly canceled.&lt;/strong&gt; Automatic white-balance guesses at that temperature (&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/5569/does-auto-white-balance-really-work-how&quot;&gt;see this question&lt;/a&gt;). Preset white-balance use mostly fixed known temperatures (6500K for daylight, 9500k for cloudy, 3000k for tungsten, etc - actual values vary between cameras).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For custom white-balance the camera uses a sample that is known to be white and deduces the color-temperature of light from that.&lt;/strong&gt; Some cameras actually report the measured color-temperatures when using custom white-balance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that for light sources that are mixed or simply way off from typical lighting conditions (sodium vapor lights, some fluorescents) it is not possible to cancel the effect because some parts of the visible spectrum are missing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since colors affect the mood of a photograph and how we perceive images, so does color-temperature. It is known that &lt;strong&gt;warmer color-temperatures are generally perceived as more pleasant&lt;/strong&gt; and some photographers purposefully set the white-balance wrong to convey a certain mood. &lt;strong&gt;Cool temperatures are associated with night and mystery&lt;/strong&gt;. Neither is better, it must simply fit the photo and how you intend viewers to perceive it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T19:26:47.120" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10079" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10121" CreationDate="2011-03-23T19:47:05.433" Score="6" ViewCount="235" Body="&lt;p&gt;If APS-C and similar crop-sensor digital cameras have a focal length multiplying effect such that a 50mm lens has an apparent focal length closer to the field of view of an 80mm on a full frame camera, and yet at the same time the depth of field for the smaller sensor camera is more like the depth of field a 50mm lens would produce on a full frame camera (using the same aperture), then this would seem to suggest the concept of an &quot;aperture dividing effect.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, a 50mm f/1.8 lens on an APS-C camera would act more like a 80mm f/2.8 (approx. 1.8 * 1.6x) lens in 35mm equivalent — for depth of field, not considering exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can someone with a better understanding of the physics involved clarify this for me.  I've never seen this concept explicitly mentioned anywhere, so I am a bit suspect of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1480" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T04:17:13.980" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T13:35:10.410" Title="Can a smaller sensor's &quot;crop factor&quot; be used to calculate the exact increase in depth of field?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;optics&gt;&lt;crop-factor&gt;" AnswerCount="5" />
  <row Id="10080" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-23T19:48:56.473" Score="1" ViewCount="127" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon Digital EOS 400D (XTi) and am looking into purchasing my first tripod. I was wondering whether the Manfrotto 190XPROB would be a good choice as a first tripod and what head I should get to go with it. Thank you,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Miriam&#xA;Photography Student&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4429" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T00:04:33.290" Title="Manfrotto 190XPROB" Tags="&lt;tripod&gt;&lt;canon-400d&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10081" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10074" CreationDate="2011-03-23T19:54:52.807" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the lens has it's own focus motor it likely isn't capable of being driven by the camera motor so it'll be the lens motor getting used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="540" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T19:54:52.807" />
  <row Id="10082" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10074" CreationDate="2011-03-23T20:08:56.430" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The lens.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two cases to consider, assuming a built-in focus motor in the lens:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The lens does not have a mechanical link for the in-camera focus motor&lt;/strong&gt;: In this case, the camera motor cannot focus the lens at all. This is the case for the vast majority of lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The lens has a mechanical link for the in-camera focus motor&lt;/strong&gt;: In theory any one motor could do the job but camera makers assume the in-lens motor to be better, so they use the lens' motor. It has been requested to have a camera setting added to change this in case of a failure of the in-lens motor but no camera provides this yet AFAIK.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-24T02:48:30.603" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T02:48:30.603" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10083" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10079" CreationDate="2011-03-23T20:17:04.020" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The bigger the sensor, the smaller the depth of field for a specific aperture, assuming you are filling the frame with the subject. This is because you either need to use a longer focal length or get closer to fill the bigger frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to get the same depth of field with a full frame camera as you do with a cropped factor, you need to multiply both focal length and aperture by the crop factor, so to match a 35mm f/16 on a Nikon APS-C (crop 1.5), you'd need a focal length of 53mm and an aperture of f/24.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T20:17:04.020" />
  <row Id="10084" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10079" CreationDate="2011-03-23T20:34:18.453" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just as using a crop camera doesn't alter your focal length (that being a property of the lens, not camera) but does alter the field of view, there is no &lt;em&gt;aperture dividing effect&lt;/em&gt;, a lens with aperture f/2.8 lens is still behaves like a lens with aperture f/2.8 lens for metering purposes, however when matching the field of view of a full frame sensor the depth of field will be the same as a lens with aperture ratio (f/ value) multiplied by the crop factor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-23T20:40:11.693" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T20:40:11.693" />
  <row Id="10085" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10065" CreationDate="2011-03-23T21:26:00.940" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can produce HDR images by manually blending multiple exposures in any competent image editor, such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gimp.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gimp&lt;/a&gt;. It's more time consuming but usually produces much nicer, more tasteful and visually appealing results. See&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3/how-can-i-stop-my-hdr-shots-looking-so-fake&quot;&gt;How can I stop my HDR shots looking so fake?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3394/hdr-processing-on-moving-subjects&quot;&gt;HDR processing on moving subjects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T21:26:00.940" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10086" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10080" CreationDate="2011-03-23T22:46:04.623" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the Manfrotto 190XPROB and it is very good. Obviously it is quite heavy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I bought a mini ball head which isn't strong enough, I regret not spending enough on the head.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4204" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T22:46:04.623" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="10087" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10073" CreationDate="2011-03-23T22:58:13.697" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For me, the most noticeable difference is the louder &lt;strong&gt;acoustic noise&lt;/strong&gt; during focusing when using body motor because &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;transmission&lt;/strong&gt; elements that lead rotations from motor to coupling and from coupling to focus mechanism make some additional noise due to friction and slack;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a body motor has to be made &lt;strong&gt;strong enough&lt;/strong&gt; to move some larger lens than the one you usually might have on; a stronger motor will be make more noise;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the coupling has to be openly on lens mount, therefore the motor is not acoustically &lt;strong&gt;sealed&lt;/strong&gt; as well as a motor in lens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That noise might catch the subject's attention before getting a picture of them acting natural or scare away the animal you are trying to photograph. As a workaround, manual focus could be used in such situations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Body motor is a &lt;strong&gt;cheaper&lt;/strong&gt; design because you won't &lt;em&gt;need&lt;/em&gt; to hide a motor in every lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I recently learned, there's an exotic tele-zoom Sigma 200-500 f/2.8, a huge beast, where the glass is so heavy that an in-lens motor with a dedicated in-lens battery is used even during manual focusing. I suspect most body motors would burn themselves trying to push those glass walls around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-03-23T22:58:13.697" />
  <row Id="10088" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-23T23:19:00.553" Score="0" ViewCount="117" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not talking about chimping in particular.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm talking about how some photographers will post their photos only to look for compliments and they'll show it to people who usually just tell them they really like the photo or the people in the photo (especially when it's a self portrait). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a term for this type of compliment whoring and the people who submit the compliments?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4140" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T04:31:18.303" ClosedDate="2011-03-24T04:34:29.347" Title="Is there a term for the people who always compliment your work?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="10089" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10080" CreationDate="2011-03-24T00:59:32.247" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm quite happy with mine. I have an 804RC2 head which is good for panning, however a ball-head or trigger-grip head would allow for faster repositioning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 190XProb isn't a full-height tripod, though it is tall enough and steady enough for most uses. It is also a very versatile tripod because the legs can be individually adjusted to different angles and the column can be placed horizontally - which is useful for photographing documents or other objects on a table, the floor etc. It is heavier than cheap aluminium tripods I have used, but much more rigid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2520" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T00:59:32.247" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10090" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10088" CreationDate="2011-03-24T01:25:11.723" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd call them enablers or co-dependents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T01:25:11.723" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-24T01:25:40.567" />
  <row Id="10091" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10029" CreationDate="2011-03-24T02:31:05.630" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Create a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTtWEtN06EI&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;batch process&lt;/a&gt; to convert from .NEF to .JPEG with Photoshop. Don't forget to include closing the picture in your recording as Photoshop does have a finite limit on number of open files. This solution is ideal if you took your photos in the same lighting condition so corrections, if any, are the same. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For corrections: at the very least, you need to reduce your file size (i.e. change dpi, dimensions) to meet Facebook's restrictions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4414" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T02:31:05.630" />
  <row Id="10092" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-24T03:01:23.620" Score="5" ViewCount="187" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am wondering whether there is a kit for making software improvements to the Pentax K-x camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I'm after is something akin to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CHDK&lt;/a&gt;, which is a firmware enhancement for many Canon point-and-shoot models.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4432" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-24T20:40:09.293" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T20:40:09.293" Title="Is there an enhanced third-party firmware for Pentax SLR cameras?" Tags="&lt;pentax&gt;&lt;chdk&gt;&lt;firmware&gt;&lt;firmware-hacks&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10093" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10094" CreationDate="2011-03-24T03:59:02.107" Score="4" ViewCount="150" Body="&lt;p&gt;Instead of looking up &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sekonic.com/support/support_2.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a chart&lt;/a&gt;, how can I calculate Lux from EV? Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3494" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T04:19:10.017" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T04:19:10.017" Title="How to calculate Lux from EV?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;metering&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="10094" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10093" CreationDate="2011-03-24T04:16:52.353" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the chart you link to, that looks really easy: 0 EV is 2.5 Lux, and each +1 EV doubles Lux. So, 2.5 × 2^EV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value#EV_as_a_measure_of_luminance_and_illuminance&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wikipedia article on EV&lt;/a&gt; and on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_meter#Calibration_constants&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the article on light meters&lt;/a&gt; gives some helpful background information. The chart and that equation are only valid for incident-light meters, and the value of 2.5 is correct for flat sensors (it's a common choice out of a valid ranges of about 2.4 to 4, as recommended by the ISO standard). This constant is called &quot;C&quot; in the standard, and obtained through empirical testing. For a hemispherical sensor, values of 3.2-3.4 are apparently used. (As below, the actual standard uses 100× that value, but that's just a matter of decimal places.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When measuring &lt;em&gt;reflected&lt;/em&gt; light, as with a camera's built-in light meter, a different equation is required, and a different constant. This constant, &quot;K&quot;, is expressed as numbers in the range 10.6 to 13.4 in the standard, but it hurts my brain less to think of them as fractions 0.106 to 0.134 when working out the EV-at-ISO-100 math. Canon, Nikon, and Sekonic use the value of 12.5, which is conveniently ⅛, which, since we're working in powers of two, is -3. So, &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; formula is L = 2^(EV-3) — which you can get from the Wikipedia article, but it took me a bit to figure out where the -3 came from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Kenko and Pentax apparently use 14 instead of 12.5, which is a difference of almost exactly ⅙ of a stop, and giving an approximate equation of L= 2^(EV-2.84).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a very important thing to note, though — the units aren't the same, because something different is being measured. Lux measures &lt;em&gt;illuminance&lt;/em&gt;, the perceived brightness of the light on a surface (like, your incident-light sensor). But since we're working with reflected light, L is &lt;em&gt;luminance&lt;/em&gt;, which is the light leaving the measured surface in a given direction (i.e., towards your meter). This is in candela per square metre (cd/m2), or &quot;nits&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At this point, I am going to stop answering, because I haven't properly wrapped my head around the difference there. In fact, I'm off to ask that as &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10112/what-is-the-difference-between-luminance-and-illuminance&quot;&gt;a new question&lt;/a&gt;....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is, though: if you're using the camera's built-in meter, you're measuring something different from what Lux measures, so even though you can easily figure out an EV number from aperture and shutter speed, that number won't necessarily translate into Lux in a meaningful way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-24T21:27:20.767" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T21:27:20.767" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10095" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10088" CreationDate="2011-03-24T04:22:18.467" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;yes man/woman&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;flatterer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;fawner&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;follower&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;footlicker&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;lackey&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;yea-sayer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;easily-amusedist&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;lowered-expectationist&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;nice guy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;virgin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-24T04:31:18.303" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T04:31:18.303" />
  <row Id="10096" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-03-24T04:34:09.843" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-24T04:34:09.843" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T04:34:09.843" />
  <row Id="10097" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-03-24T04:34:09.843" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="A prosumer DSLR body from Nikon; the D90 was the first Nikon DSLR camera to include video" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-24T04:34:49.173" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T04:34:49.173" />
  <row Id="10098" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10100" CreationDate="2011-03-24T05:32:41.407" Score="5" ViewCount="111" Body="&lt;p&gt;I’m wondering if there is a term for the kind of photos where the subject and the background together form an optical illusion that they are connected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The classic example is a photo of a person holding their hand out so that it looks like they are holding a large structure in the distant background in their palm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a term for this type of photograph?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1607" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T05:55:18.563" Title="What is the Term for “Positional Photography”?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10099" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10098" CreationDate="2011-03-24T05:47:55.590" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?q=perspective+photography&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;prmd=ivns&amp;amp;tbm=isch&amp;amp;tbo=u&amp;amp;source=univ&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=49qKTfTDK42qsAOblNSKCg&amp;amp;ved=0CDEQsAQ&amp;amp;biw=1124&amp;amp;bih=1110&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Perspective Photography&lt;/a&gt;, or, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.instantshift.com/2010/08/24/88-brilliant-examples-of-forced-perspective-photography/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Forced Perspective Photography&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/catching_sun/pool/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;flickr pool&lt;/a&gt; with many many examples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.learnmyshot.com/Forced-Perspective-Technique-for-Still-Life-Photography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This is a good starting point&lt;/a&gt; if you're interested in learning how to apply this technique with your own photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-24T05:55:18.563" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T05:55:18.563" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10100" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10098" CreationDate="2011-03-24T05:55:11.547" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The term you're looking for is '&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_perspective&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;forced perspective photography&lt;/a&gt;.' It's essentially a technique that exploits the limitations of human visual perception, thus creating an optical illusion where objects are made to appear to be a different size than they really are, or a different distance from the camera than they really are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to the more 'gimmicky' uses of forced perspective in photography, it is a technique that is frequently used in architectural photography in order to create scale, such as a real estate photographer making the rooms in a small house appear larger than it actually is, or a photographer making a space seem more 'epic' than it may actually be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though it's slightly off-topic for photography, I'll also mention that forced perspective is a frequently used technique in film and can be observed quite readily in most action movies as the technique is used to make the actors appear closer to danger (such as punches and explosions) than they really are. One of the more 'well known' uses of this technique in recent history is in Peter Jackson's 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy, where the director cleverly used forced perspective to make the actors playing hobbits appear smaller than the other actors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T05:55:11.547" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10101" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10092" CreationDate="2011-03-24T07:19:45.027" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've also tried to find a CHDK-like software for Pentax, probably the best Pentax firmware hack project is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentax-hack.info/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pentax Hack&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They were able to decrypt several Pentax firmwares, and modify a few things, like turning on debug mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although the project supports several Pentax DSLRs, unfortunately it does not support K-x. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="507" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T07:19:45.027" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10102" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10079" CreationDate="2011-03-24T09:13:35.443" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The smaller sensor doesn't change the focal length or the aperture, it just captures only the center part of the image - it's almost the same as taking the full frame image and cropping it to leave only the center.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you take only the center of the image it looks like you zoomed in - so the field of view of a 50mm lens on a 1.6 crop sensor look like a 80mm on a full frame sensor - but it just looks like that because you only see the center of the 50mm image, the focal length is still 50mm and the image you get is equivalent to the center of a 50mm image not to a true 80mm lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same goes for aperture, a 50mm image taken at f/8 on a crop sensor is the same as the center of a 50mm f/8 image on a 35mm sensor, it is not the same as a 80mm image taken at f/12 (also not the same as 80mm f/8 obviously)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2481" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T09:13:35.443" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10103" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1100" CreationDate="2011-03-24T09:48:15.153" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You don't actually need tilt for perspective correction, only &lt;strong&gt;shift&lt;/strong&gt; is relevant here. There are some &lt;strong&gt;shift adapters&lt;/strong&gt; offered to go between a DSLR body and a medium format lens, these would help out as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An option for getting a better perspective optically without specialized gear is to use a &lt;strong&gt;wider angle&lt;/strong&gt; lens. Hold the camera so the lens is horizontally level (perhaps in portrait orientation) so the building fills upper half of the frame, take the picture, and &lt;strong&gt;crop&lt;/strong&gt; later. That's roughly how shift lens works anyway, only now you'll waste about half of your megapixels because image circle of a non-shift lens is smaller and fixed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whatever method of perspective correction is used, a &lt;strong&gt;slightly leaning&lt;/strong&gt; building will look more natural in photo than one with perfectly parallel lines, at least as long as we don't learn hovering in the air all day. This tip does not apply to photos meant for an architecture magazine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-24T15:38:06.733" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T15:38:06.733" />
  <row Id="10104" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10106" CreationDate="2011-03-24T11:00:02.623" Score="7" ViewCount="231" Body="&lt;p&gt;Over the next few months I'm going to be spending weekend time documenting a number of demos and rallies here in the UK. They events are to be held outdoors, during the day and &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; become confrontational (a number of often-violent/aggressive right-wing groups are likely to attend). There are likely to be many thousands of people attending. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I've snapped this sort of thing in the past I used my trusty Olympus C50 compact, but I upgraded to a Nikon D5000 + stock 18-55mm lens kit last year so this is what I'll be taking with me. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I'm looking for is tips (equipment, technique, composition, general survival tips) from those of you with experience of shooting under less-than-placid conditions. I don't, for example know whether I should take my tripod, whether I should keep the camera in a case or just wear it all day, whether I should take a fixed lens with me, what I'll do if my battery runs out during a day's shooting etc. etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone advise me?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for reading.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: Just a couple more examples of areas I'm ignorant of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is there any legal stuff I need to&#xA;think about when shooting members of&#xA;the public, Police officers and so&#xA;on?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do the authorities have the authority&#xA;to confiscate my equipment?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Great answers, many thanks to you all, have accepted an answer at random as they were all good and I couldn't decide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=342964&amp;amp;id=627799975&amp;amp;l=f54baad087&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;trial run&lt;/a&gt; on Saturday's national demonstration against the cuts to the UK's public services.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2547" LastEditorUserId="2547" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-28T08:44:17.037" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T08:44:17.037" Title="Tips for Shooting Crowds, Political Demonstrations, Rallies and other 'Lively' Events" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;tips&gt;&lt;equipment-protection&gt;&lt;outdoor&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="10105" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10104" CreationDate="2011-03-24T12:13:51.847" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are better off with a zoom lens of some kind as you will want to be able to switch from wide-angle to zoomed-in relatively quickly. You don't mention whether you have other lenses; the 18-55 will do in most circumstances but something longer would be very useful to avoid having to get too close to any unsavouriness! An 18-300mm or thereabouts would do the job nicely - you can pick up a reasonably good Tamron 18-200mm for £180.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unless you are lucky enough to have a safe position overlooking the whole area, a tripod will be pretty much useless. Demos and protests are fluid, fast moving events, and you will need to react quickly - breaking down a tripod is not a fast process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the same reason you will probably want to keep your camera out of the case at all times. There are several products that can make this a more comfortable situation. Hand grips are a cheap and useful way of keeping hold of your camera, and they allow you to keep your neck strap in place as well. Assymmetric straps like those supplied by Blackrapid are more comfortable than a neck strap but are a bit pricey (around £70). Or you could get a belt clip system for arond £60.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Battery life &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; be ok; I have used my D5000 on entire holidays without charging the battery once. However, if you are firing off lots of shots or plan on using your on-camera flash, it might be wise to invest in a second battery and keep that in your pack.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for technique, that's a creative choice. Manual mode is too slow to be of much use, so you will want to use either A or S priority (the latter to freeze action or facial expressions). Consider even using P mode, which will let you just capture the action without worrying about settings too much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will probably want to get a mix of overall, wide angle scenes showing the amount of people involved, the clash of protesters vs. police (unwanted but inevitable unfortunately) etc, and close-in shots of placards, shouts etc. This is why a versatile zoom lens would be really useful. You may need to get some elevation to get the wide angle shots; try to avoid climbing on lampposts and the like. Instead see if you can get into surrounding buildings (ask permission of course).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of safety, exercise common sense, don't get caught between conflicting groups, and don't get so caught up in the viewfinder that you find yourself surrounded by violent idiots. The best shot in the world isn't worth getting smacked about. Oh, and you may want to get a cheap UV filter to protect the lens from anything being thrown about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T12:13:51.847" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10106" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10104" CreationDate="2011-03-24T12:20:31.857" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are some easy tips from my experiences as a parade and convention photography and what I learned from a conference on war-time journalism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Get more batteries&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Get more memory cards, many medium sized ones are better than one large one&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Get a faster lens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Get an outer garment that identifies you front and back as a photographer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take just the camera body, one lens, memory cards, batteries, and a cleaning cloth for the lens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do not let go of the camera unless you are falling&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Along with a firm grip, keep the camera strap around your neck when the crowd gets rambunctious&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do not interact with the crowd but make eye contact with authorities and do what they say immediately, but do not stop shooting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do not take a tripod or monopod, the movement of the crowd makes it dangerous and the sutterspeed will negate the usefulness of one&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Keep shutterspeeds above 1/100 and try for 1/250 or higher&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shoot at between f/2.8 and f/8 concentrating on f/8 to get the action in focus only use 2.8 when you have time to compose and really think about the image&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Keep moving, following other photographers around a little is cool, but your images will be more unique when you are on your own&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4273" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T12:20:31.857" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10108" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10110" CreationDate="2011-03-24T12:57:43.570" Score="6" ViewCount="126" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm beginning to work on understanding and hopefully effectively using different metering modes in my photography. I have done some reading and understand the benefit of using spot and partial metering in portrait photography. I am using a Canon 500D for reference, but I imagine it would be the same for most DSLR cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is this: When I set the camera to spot metering, find the location in the frame which is the &quot;most important&quot; and let the camera meter that spot, will the camera always set the exposure with the assumption that the location I metered has 18% luminance?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To this effect, if I'm shooting a portrait and focus on the forehead for example, I can assume the camera set the exposure as if it were neutral gray, and then increase the compensation for lighter skinned people, and decrease compensation for darker skinned people? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4440" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T05:12:59.570" Title="Does spot/partial metering always assume 18%?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;metering&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10109" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1293" CreationDate="2011-03-24T13:00:12.277" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Try &lt;a href=&quot;http://qtpfsgui.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luminance HDR&lt;/a&gt;. It's free (open source).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/qtpfsgui/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This flickr group&lt;/a&gt; can also show you some examples of HDR being used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;PROS&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Its Free!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Its open source&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It works across multiple OS's&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;CONS&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Well, have not used it so cannot update this here. Others can comment and I will update as appropriate&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T13:00:12.277" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10110" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10108" CreationDate="2011-03-24T13:41:33.957" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, that's how it works. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This can be helpful when you want to ensure that some subjects are to be exposed correctly. For example, meter off a white shirt and open up 1.5-2 stops to ensure it's not blown out. Another classic example is a black leather jacket. Metering off it and then stopping down 1,5-2 stops will ensure it looks black without losing detail. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T13:41:33.957" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="10111" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10108" CreationDate="2011-03-24T13:42:31.070" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In short, yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All metering modes on the 500D assume 18% luminance, the different modes just let you choose the area and optionally different weightings for different parts of the area.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is true for &lt;em&gt;most&lt;/em&gt; cameras... except that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As Itai and others point out in the comments below, some cameras have highlight and shadow spot metering modes (that are used somewhat like the method described by gerikson, though on these other cameras its perhaps a little more 'automatic'), and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Apparently some of the newer DSLRs claim to be considering colour when metering (rather than assuming 18% luminance), however I'm not sure if the 500D is such a camera, nor whether they've allowed colour to make much difference.&#xA;(I can't actually remember or find where I saw the colour metering info, but I'm pretty sure it was a DSLR released in the last year or two that claimed this)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastEditorUserId="889" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T05:12:59.570" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T05:12:59.570" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="10112" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10183" CreationDate="2011-03-24T18:18:22.537" Score="9" ViewCount="281" Body="&lt;p&gt;The more I read about this, the more confused I become. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Illuminance&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, as I understand it,  measured in &lt;em&gt;lux&lt;/em&gt;, is the perceived brightness of light on a surface. It's what you'd measure with an incident light sensor. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Luminance&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, then, is how much reflected light you'd perceive looking at that surface. This is what the light meter in a camera measures. Am I correct so far?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In both cases, the word &quot;perceived&quot; is important, because the scales are weighted using a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminosity_function&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;luminosity function&lt;/a&gt; to map wavelengths to &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7963&quot;&gt;the human eye's particular sensitivities&lt;/a&gt;. However, in the case of illuminance, there's only &lt;em&gt;actual&lt;/em&gt; perception if your &lt;em&gt;eye&lt;/em&gt; happens to be the surface in question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can basically grasp this, but then I come across charts saying things like &quot;family living room: 50 lux&quot;. Wait, hold on! Does that really mean that the typical lights in a house are that bright, or is it just confused and wrong, or am &lt;em&gt;I&lt;/em&gt; confused and wrong?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're not taking pictures of light sources directly, why would an incident light meter reading ever be useful in photography? Reflected light recorded on film or by a sensor is usually what makes a photograph. So, if I have an incident light meter, &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; does that reading relate meaningfully to my camera settings?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since incident light meters &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; sold and used, this implies that there must be &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; useful conversion. &lt;em&gt;But this is where my brain explodes.&lt;/em&gt; Google tells me that 1 lumen equals 1 candela, so therefore 1 lumen/m² (i.e. 1 lux) must equal 1 candela/m2 (i.e. 1 nit). But clearly something is missing from this. There's something called a &quot;steradian&quot;. Cones are involved. I'd never heard of this before; how does it fit in? I can see how it might be determined when calculating the usefulness of LED home lighting, but for a photo, I'm at a loss.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some part of my (exploded, from the last paragraph) brain is trying to relate this to the difference between flash metering with TTL and with an incident meter. But how can the incident meter work without knowing the reflectance properties of the objects in the scene? Is this what the &quot;C&quot; in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10093/how-to-calculate-lux-from-ev/10094#10094&quot;&gt;incident light meter lux→EV standard&lt;/a&gt; is all about? Is it just an average-this-probably-will-work value, or is there more to it than that? And if it is just an average, what knowledge is necessary for compensating for off-averages scenes? (As with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1048/what-is-the-18-gray-tone-and-how-do-i-make-a-18-gray-card-in-photoshop&quot;&gt;K constant and 18% gray with reflective metering&lt;/a&gt;, where the photographer simply judges if the scene should be rendered brighter or darker than the average given by the meter.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So yeah, so much confusion. In short:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What's the difference?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Can one meaningfully convert between the two?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When and how are illuminance / incident light measurements useful for photography?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update: I appreciate Stan's answer, which covers the third point of when and how pretty well. And I think I've &lt;em&gt;basically&lt;/em&gt; got the first point figured out, as described above. But I'd appreciate some answers covering the issue of conversion as well, both in the mathematical abstract and as the practical for photography. And I wouldn't mind more why and how, either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T04:53:58.167" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T08:40:52.863" Title="What is the difference between luminance and illuminance?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;metering&gt;&lt;light&gt;&lt;science&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10113" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10112" CreationDate="2011-03-24T19:07:45.373" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You've got the problem space pretty much pegged. Incident light metering measures what's falling on the subject independent of its characteristic reflectivity, etc., while reflected light metering measures what's being reflected from the subject, independent of the characteristics of the incident light. The recording medium in the camera, as you pointed out, records what's reflected from (or, if a light source is included in the image, what it transmitted by) the subject. No matter which type of metering is used, the object of the game is to record the light coming from the subject appropriately for the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's easy to picture what's going on with a reflected light meter, whether that's the in-camera meter or a separate hand-held spot or average meter. Incident light metering is just a little more difficult to picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most incident light metering is done with a dome-type &lt;strong&gt;invercone&lt;/strong&gt;. Essentially, you have a hemispherical diffuser over the light-sensitive element that accepts light from 180 degrees (90 degrees off of the axis in all directions), and transmits 18 percent of that light to the light-sensitive element. (The element can usually be used as a reflected light meter as well, sometimes requiring accessories for the meter.) You can measure light sources separately, either by shading the dome from individual sources, or by selectively turning the sources on and off (as with studio lighting) to determine lighting ratios (the difference in illumination between areas that will be highlights and shadows on the subject).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the method of working is different, what you are accomplishing is almost identical to placing a grey card at the subject position, angled to be tangent to the subject, and talking a spot meter reading of that grey card. It tells you nothing about the subject -- but that can be a good thing. If your metering depends on the subject, then you need to know what the subject's reflectivity is (or, in Zone System terminology, where to place the subject on the exposure scale). Without that bit of knowledge, you won't be able to tell the truth about the subject using only the meter reading -- you may be able to capture the whole range of tonalities perfectly, but that may mean, say, severely under- or over-exposing the one thing you were really trying to capture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's why there's such a divide between incident and reflected light metering. You'll see incident light metering used most often in the studio, but often in location portraiture or fashion/product work as well. There is usually something in the image that needs to be absolutely bang on, and that's best achieved by leaving it out of the equation altogether when metering, then letting its actual reflectance and color characteristics fall where they may on the sensor. The rest of the scene is atmospherics -- you can play with them to your heart's content, and as long as the subject is correctly lit and exposed, the picture will be what you want it to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Working in less controlled environments, especially when shooting things like landscapes, you generally want to get it all in (so to speak) without worrying too much about the &quot;truth&quot;. In these cases, the &quot;truth&quot; is more subjective, and you are looking to collect the data that support your version of the truth. That may mean making that painfully bright highlight a citizen of Zone VII or forcing the inky blackness up into a barely dark lower midtone in order to preserve the detail that's important to you. But you have to know where things go in your version of the world. Or you can let the camera's scene-recognition algorithms make that determination for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In either case, though, the meter is just the starting point. It gets you into the ballpark, then your experience and vision will let you adjust the objective reality to meet your subjective requirements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T19:07:45.373" />
  <row Id="10114" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9809" CreationDate="2011-03-24T20:12:48.820" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;there are a few databases you might want to look into like a company artsystems or artbase. they do labels, barcoding, everything you are looking for and FAR more plus website management, clients, sales and more!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4446" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T20:12:48.820" />
  <row Id="10115" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8573" CreationDate="2011-03-24T22:48:24.700" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Post Mortem...&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm posting this in the hope that it helps someone else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks to all for your advice on this. In the end I took just the kit lens (Canon EFS 17 - 85mm), my Canon 430 EXII flash, a compact tripod and my netbook computer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was concerned about weight and in the end it was justified. Melbourne Airport (Australia) is really particular about weight. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wish I had more reach as I've got lousy photos of the orang utans in Borneo, I used the external flash once, though I should have used it more, and I used the tripod once and want to replace the head with something more secure. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Occasionally, I struggled to keep my shutter speed up. The Canon 450D gives disappointing results at ISO 1600. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I didn't miss my ultra wide as I'm just photo stitching - the Canon supplied software is pretty good. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So some lessons for next time perhaps...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An 18 - 200+ might be nice&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The 430 EXII flash was a bit of a waste of weight - with batteries, it had to be a good 500g. Perhaps something smaller but more powerful and flexible than the onboard flash would be more convenient.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If I insist on going without an external flash, better high ISO performance would be handy. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3650" LastActivityDate="2011-03-24T22:48:24.700" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10116" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10104" CreationDate="2011-03-24T23:05:50.767" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer the edits you've added:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Is there any legal stuff I need to think about when shooting members of the public, Police officers and so on?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's been a bit of a legal tussle about photographing police officers in recent years in the UK. The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 included clauses about collecting information that could be useful to terrorists, and police have hassled photographers multiple times using that law as a basis for it being illegal to photograph police. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bjp-online.com/category/rights/street-rights&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;British Journal of Photography has a street rights section&lt;/a&gt; which covers the ups and downs around these issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Met (the police force in London) have &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photography advice on their website&lt;/a&gt;, though this is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/27/met_police_stephenson/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;not always followed by officers&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/29/police_photo_bother_romford/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;example&lt;/a&gt;). Urban 75 also have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;section for legal advice for photographers&lt;/a&gt;, including &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographing-protests.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;specific advice for photographing protests&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Do the authorities have the authority to confiscate my equipment?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Possibly - see the various pieces of advice above. But ultimately, there's always the chance you'll be cornered by some aggressive cops who will seize your equipment and delete your images. This has been reported on multiple occasions and probably happened on many more occasions. You are pretty much guaranteed to get it back at some point, but not your images. If they went over the top you could take it to court and you might get some compensation, but it's a lot of work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; To answer the comment about keeping images safe, one option is to have multiple memory cards and swap them during the day. You can either secret them around your person, or give them to a friend. If they are just on your person then they may still be found if you are arrested or a full stop and search is done, but you will probably be safe if they just take your camera off you and delete the images they can see.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="130" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T11:20:50.270" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T11:20:50.270" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10117" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-24T23:44:34.477" Score="2" ViewCount="96" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon 1Ds Mark II with various lenses but none of them are very heavy. I  usually shoot in indoors  where tripods / monopods (church, weddings etc.)  are not allowed. There are enough chairs, small fences, wall decorations, small cabinets etc. that may be used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't use flash as much as possible, so I'm searching for a camera stabilizer - perhaps something like a bean bag. For the time being I found three possible solutions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thepod.ca/black%20pod%20page.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Black Pod&lt;/a&gt; with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thepod.ca/THE%20cube.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Cube&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Pocket-Adjustable-Camera-Support-System/dp/B004DP4UE0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Pocket Pod XL&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kirkphoto.com/Omni_Pod_Only.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Omnipod&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps someone has anything to comment to the above solutions which is better and why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also if someone has a better suggestion, feel free to jump in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="952" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T01:57:42.650" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T01:57:42.650" Title="I need a good camera stabilizer/pod in church, indoors etc. What should I choose?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;tripod&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10118" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10108" CreationDate="2011-03-25T01:38:53.370" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not actually that the &lt;em&gt;object&lt;/em&gt; has 18% luminance, but that &lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt; want it to have 18% luminance in the exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what cameras do when they set (or suggest, such as in Manual) the exposure setting to use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you point the spot meter at a person's face, you are telling the camera to expose so that the person's face and any areas in the scene equivalent in luminance are exposed to be 18% in the photograph.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you are shooting manual and you meter the scene and it says you are one stop under exposed, this means that it's taken the reading and calculated that the exposure for the metered area would be under 18%.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T01:38:53.370" />
  <row Id="10119" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10117" CreationDate="2011-03-25T01:40:31.060" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Never heard of any of those but I support my cameras in such places with a &lt;a href=&quot;http://joby.com/gorillapod/slrzoom&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gorillapod&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are small flexible tripods that are easy to tie on poles, benches, stop signs, tree branches, etc. They come in versions supporting different weights. The one I own is the &lt;strong&gt;SLR-Zoom which supports 3kg&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am a maniac of precise framing and cannot stand a camera without a 100% viewfinder so I got frustrated at first with the Gorillapods because they are not easy to control precisely since they work by being highly resistant to movement. To cope with this I have added a &lt;strong&gt;Manfrotto 484 Mini-Ballhead which can support 4kg&lt;/strong&gt;. From what I see looking at the products you suggested, they look very hard to precisely adjust too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T01:40:31.060" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="10120" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10073" CreationDate="2011-03-25T01:55:14.073" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Honestly, whenever you are comparing entire categories of things (are pancakes better than waffles?) there is little chance of finding an answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From my observations, having the &lt;strong&gt;in-body focus motor means that most of your lenses move at more-or-less the same speed&lt;/strong&gt;. The time it takes to determine focus though will normally vary according to the maximum aperture of the lens though. Even when buying a third-part lens, the focusing speed stays more or less constant between lenses with the same maximum aperture. It is possible that upgrading your camera makes all your lenses focus faster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Having the in-lens focus motor means each lens has its own focusing speed.&lt;/strong&gt; I found that third-party lenses, even ones with great optical quality, often skimp on the focus-motor and move noticeably slower than the brand name ones. Focusing speed is much more likely to vary between lenses. Some very cheap plastic-mount kit-lenses are extremely slow (like the 18-55mm that comes with the Nikon D3100). To improve AF speed you will have to do it one lens at a time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do agree with @Imre and that &lt;strong&gt;in-body focus motors are usually louder&lt;/strong&gt; but there are exceptions. Some non-supersonic in-lens motors are loud.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I agree with this is a small sample but with about 40 or so DSLRs, I have never seen an in-camera focus motor fail. With a similar number of lenses, I have seen 2 in-lens focus motor fail. Maybe the motors that one can fit in a lens are more fragile?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T03:59:55.560" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T03:59:55.560" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10121" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10079" CreationDate="2011-03-25T02:22:31.047" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9624/what-exactly-determines-depth-of-field/9626#9626&quot;&gt;answer to another question&lt;/a&gt; goes into detail on the math behind this. And there's a Wikipedia article with a section specifically about &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field#.E2.80.9CSame_picture.E2.80.9D_for_both_formats&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;getting the &quot;same picture&quot; with different camera formats&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;strong&gt;In short, it is &lt;em&gt;approximately&lt;/em&gt; true that adjusting both the focal length and aperture by the ratio of the format sizes (the crop factor) will give you the same picture.&lt;/strong&gt; ¹&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this breaks down if the subject is within the macro range of the larger-format camera (focusing really close). In this case, magnification (and therefore actual sensor size) becomes crucial to the DoF equation, messing up the equivalence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, the Wikipedia article casually mentions but does not elaborate on another important point. The assumption is that for the same print size, the acceptable &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9024&quot;&gt;circle of confusion&lt;/a&gt; (roughly, the acceptable blur level still considered in focus) will scale exactly with format size. That might not actually hold true, and you might hope (for example) to get greater actual resolution from your full-frame sensor. In that case, the equivalence also isn't valid, but fortunately in a constant way.  (You simply have to multiply in  your &lt;em&gt;pickiness factor&lt;/em&gt;.) ²&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Footnotes:&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[1]: in fact, by changing the f/number, what you are doing is holding the &lt;em&gt;absolute&lt;/em&gt; aperture of the lens constant, since the f/number is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3262/what-does-the-f-stop-printed-on-the-lens-refer-to&quot;&gt;focal length over absolute aperture diameter&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[2]: this factor breaks down too, as you approach the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/65/&quot;&gt;hyperfocal distance&lt;/a&gt;, because once the smaller format reaches infinity, infinity divided by anything is still infinity.&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-16T13:35:10.410" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T13:35:10.410" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10122" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10073" CreationDate="2011-03-25T02:35:45.350" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From my limited experience, the in-lens motor pros tend to speed and sound.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there is one con that I haven't seen mentioned yet, and that's if you use an extender or other device between the camera and lens.  Depending on the in-lens focusing system, it's quite possible that it will continue to focus as if it's mounted directly on the camera body, so autofocus will be completely out of focus.  In that case, you have to either manually focus, pick a lens that uses the camera body motor, or do without the extender.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3723" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T02:35:45.350" />
  <row Id="10123" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10073" CreationDate="2011-03-25T02:46:32.597" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sometimes&lt;/strong&gt; the AF motor in a lens is a screw and gear type, and in that case it's really not much different to an in-body motor except that it actually has the &lt;em&gt;disadvantage&lt;/em&gt; of being more bulky.  This is the case on many lower cost lenses (including many kit lenses).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;At other times&lt;/strong&gt; the AF motor in a lens is of the ultrasonic motor type, which uses no gears and is superior to a screw and gear type for several reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is very quiet (often called &quot;Silent Wave Motor&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It can move fairly quickly&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It can be less bulky&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It can allow manual focus override without disengaging autofocus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasonic_motor&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Wikipedia page on the ultrasonic motor&lt;/a&gt; (which was apparently pioneered by Canon) is quite interesting and has diagrams.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As mattdm has helpfully pointed out in the comments, some newer screw and gear type autofocus drives are being marketed by Canon (deceptively? some may think so) as &lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&amp;amp;message=15260787&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Micro USM&lt;/a&gt;.  Unfortunately these still have gears so they don't have the advantages listed above - they are only able to be called &quot;USM&quot; in the barest technical sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A lens motor in your camera body only adds a small amount of bulk, and means that your lens selection is a little better and you can AF with some of the cheaper lenses.  If you think you'll be served fine by lenses with in-built motors, it doesn't matter so much whether you have it in the body.  Obviously, the ultrasonic motor or SWM lenses are the better technology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As has been answered before, if both your camera body and lens have an AF motor, the lens one is used.  And that's the way you'd normally want it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T15:29:26.477" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T15:29:26.477" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10124" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10079" CreationDate="2011-03-25T06:30:42.827" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no &quot;focal length multiplier effect&quot;, period.&#xA;The focal length of the lens does NOT change magically because you use a smaller or larger sensor, it stays exactly the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All you get is an image that's cropped from the one you would have gotten had you used the same lens to record an image on a larger size sensor.&#xA;The DOF will thus be the same it would have been had you used that larger sensor as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T06:30:42.827" />
  <row Id="10125" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1306" CreationDate="2011-03-25T08:29:47.257" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you have iOS or Android mobile phone, you can use much cheaper option, that to buy dedicated device. There are apps for it, that works as a GPS datalogger. For example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.geotagphotos.net&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Geotag Photos Pro&lt;/a&gt; is for both Android and iOS and has also free desktop application, that geotags even photos in raw file formats.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are more apps for both Android &amp;amp; iPhone, you search in AppStore / Android Market.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4454" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T08:29:47.257" />
  <row Id="10126" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-25T09:26:25.697" Score="2" ViewCount="136" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to start experimenting with off-camera flash and have a Nikon SB600 + D3000. I plan to upgrade my body in the next year so would like to purchase something which is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a) wireless, and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;b) will be compatible if I upgrade to a D7000 or the D300s/700 replacement when it comes out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any recommendations appreciated. Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1270" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T11:52:09.943" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T16:08:38.613" Title="What off-camera flash solution should I use with an entry-level Nikon?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;off-camera-flash&gt;&lt;wireless&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10127" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-25T09:47:05.837" Score="2" ViewCount="67" Body="&lt;p&gt;A friend is interested in formally studying photography, and has asked me about photo schools.  Can anyone recommend any in or near London?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wonder if there is more information I should be supplying, so if the question is too broad, please leave a comment and I wil try to clarify.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T18:28:18.137" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T18:28:18.137" Title="I am Looking for a good Photography School / College / Course in London" Tags="&lt;service-recommendation&gt;&lt;education&gt;&lt;school&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10128" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10129" CreationDate="2011-03-25T09:51:11.867" Score="6" ViewCount="104" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been taking a few astro photos on a very high ISO, and have found what I think to be a few hot pixel. I though at first that I had managed to get a few very sharp pic of some red and blue stars. But now I have tried doing some stacking It seems that they are static to the rest of the moving sideways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thing that may have thrown me is that I thought that a 'hot pixel' was just that. A pixel, but it also seems to bleed outwards to make a small circle of a few faded pixels either side. Here is what I mean:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitpic/photos/full/263787358.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJF3XCCKACR3QDMOA&amp;amp;Expires=1301049641&amp;amp;Signature=xgTHJpe7s%2F36h5vGrDKKBmNeIZU%3D&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The image was saved as 'fine' quality on a D90 on a 2500mm telescope (1250mm with 2x teleconverter).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So are these hot pixels?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3802" LastEditorUserId="3802" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T10:24:52.027" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T10:24:52.027" Title="Are hot pixels just one pixel?" Tags="&lt;astrophotography&gt;&lt;iso-noise&gt;&lt;hot-pixels&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10129" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10128" CreationDate="2011-03-25T10:19:30.180" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A hot pixel is actually one or more hot photo sensors. Most camera sensor chips are made up of red, green and blue photo sensors, usually placed in a pattern similar to this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;RGRGRGRGRG&#xA;GBGBGBGBGB&#xA;RGRGRGRGRG&#xA;GBGBGBGBGB&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each of these photo sensors ends up as a pixel in the final image, but as each photo sensor only has information about one color component, information is used from the surrounding sensors. That is why a single hot photo sensor bleeds into several pixels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T10:19:30.180" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10131" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10126" CreationDate="2011-03-25T12:57:27.183" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a few options for that. You need to figure your budget first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) On the cheap side of the scale, there are the &lt;a href=&quot;http://flashzebra.com/opticalslaves/index.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;optical slaves&lt;/a&gt; that can trigger an off camera flash when detecting another flash fires.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) Similarly, there are cheap radio triggers that let you connect a transmitter to your camera's hot shoe and trigger a flash that is mounted on the receiver.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dealextreme.com/p/ctr-301p-flash-sync-trigger-remote-control-25931s&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CTR-301P&lt;/a&gt; combines both, plus a PC-Sync connector for wired off-camera flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) More expensive is a branded flash for your camera can give you I-TTL support for the off-camera flash (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-SB-600-Speedlight-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0002EMY9Y/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1301058188&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SB-600&lt;/a&gt; or similar)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.radiopopper.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Radio Poppers&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pocketwizard.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pocket Wizards&lt;/a&gt; are considered advanced and reliable radio triggers, with some models supporting I-TTL.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-27T05:23:09.947" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T05:23:09.947" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10132" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10126" CreationDate="2011-03-25T13:00:02.393" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have a number of choices depending on the way you want to trigger the flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Optical&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cheapest: buy simple optical triggers that are attached to the flash shoe and are triggered by the built-in flash on the D3000. Cons: you can't use the E-TTL flash protocol.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More expensive: buy the SU-200 commander flash unit. This can be used to trigger and control higher-end flashes through TTL. You'll have to read up on the SB-600 to see if it's compatible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The D7000 and D300/D700 have command mode built into  their pop-up flashes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Wireless radio&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are any number of cheap radio triggers floating around on Ebay. The basic ones can't use E-TTL.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More expensive: Pocket Wizards! There's a lot going on there regarding E-TTL compatibility, and there are issues concerning which wireless bands are in use in the US and the EU. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T13:00:02.393" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10133" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-25T13:12:39.953" Score="0" ViewCount="100" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have an old digital camera (A Fuji Finepix 6900Z) that, in automatic mode, tends to produce extremely blurry images, especially under slightly darker lighting conditions, &lt;em&gt;most of the time but not all the time&lt;/em&gt; - in the example below, nine out of ten shots came out blurry, and one half-way okay (I was moving while taking the images). I did not use a Flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The less light there is, the more consistently bad the quality becomes, always with the characteristic blurring as if a huge exposure time were set. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Blurry example: &lt;a href=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ac1It.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://i.imgur.com/ac1It.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fine example &lt;strong&gt;(Edit: turns out this was with Flash - sorry. I'm leaving it in place so you can see what the book cover is supposed to look like)&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/s3J0K.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://i.imgur.com/s3J0K.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am positive that this has not been this way all the time, and began at some specific point a few months ago; however, I didn't change any settings, and with the camera being in automatic mode, I seem to have no further options that I could influence. The behaviour occurs in all image resolutions and qualities. As far as I can see, the camera has a &quot;reset settings&quot; function only for administrative functions (like date/time).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Might anybody with experience be able tell whether this is a common sign of decay in aging camera hardware, or name some typical misconfiguration that could be the culprit?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1413" LastEditorUserId="1413" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T15:56:43.893" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T16:02:27.033" Title="Camera producing blurred images under average lighting conditions" Tags="&lt;image-quality&gt;&lt;hardware&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="10134" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10133" CreationDate="2011-03-25T13:42:31.163" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Despite what you have said, from your photos it looks like the second one used flash. You can see there's a dark, harsh shadow to the left of the book, which is absent in the first picture. It doesn't take a huge shutter speed to introduce camera shake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastEditorUserId="456" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T15:56:33.140" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T15:56:33.140" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="10135" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10127" CreationDate="2011-03-25T14:05:48.367" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I took classes at Zoom In in Oval, they're a charity, so in addition to your fees being pretty cheap, they spend your money on helping others : )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I started on a basic digital course with a guy called Adrian, fab tutor, and went on to do some advanced stuff, but they have a darkroom too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The web address is: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.zoom-in.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.zoom-in.org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4458" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T15:05:52.910" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T15:05:52.910" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10136" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10126" CreationDate="2011-03-25T14:19:31.980" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your SB-600 is already compatible with Nikon's CLS wireless (infrared) flash control system. It's a pretty good system to build around; you get TTL (ie: automatic exposure), multiple flash capability, and remote control of your flash level. I own one of these flashes myself, and it's definitely a nice option to have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, your current D3000 body doesn't support CLS. (My D90 does, as does any of the bodies you mention in your upgrade plans). You can buy an add-on adapter (Nikon SU-800)(http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Flashes/4794/SU-800-Wireless-Speedlight-Commander.html) that will act as a &quot;Commander&quot; for your CLS-enabled flash. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I &lt;em&gt;personally&lt;/em&gt; wouldn't spend money on it, depending on how soon you plan to upgrade. CLS is nice, but there are downsides:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon-only. You generally can't use 3rd-party flashes with it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Preflashes. The flash flickers a couple of times before the actual exposure happens. This introduces a delay, can potentially trigger blinks in people, and can interfere with optical triggers (which other posters have discussed).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Need line-of-sight, which won't work in all lighting situations.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If these aren't a big deal to you, then you might want to build around a CLS system. If that's true, &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; you want to go off-camera right away, &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; you don't mind spending some extra money, then the SU-800 is a great way to start. Note that it will be &lt;em&gt;compatible&lt;/em&gt; with your new body. It'll be &lt;em&gt;unnecessary&lt;/em&gt; (since those cameras use the built-in pop-up flash as a CLS commander), but still useful (you get extra control options on the standalone commander unit).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T14:19:31.980" />
  <row Id="10139" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10133" CreationDate="2011-03-25T16:02:27.033" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To add to the previous answers and comments, note that contrast based auto focus detection system has a much difficult time focusing correctly while in low light situation. This too can explain the difference between your first and second images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T16:02:27.033" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10140" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-03-25T16:09:30.023" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Software questions represent a large area of activity on this site, but aren't of interest to everyone — and are of particular interest to others. (We have a lot of &quot;computer people&quot; in the active user base.) Tagging such questions with &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/software&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'software'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;software&lt;/a&gt; helps people find or ignore them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T16:10:51.630" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T16:10:51.630" />
  <row Id="10141" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-03-25T16:09:30.023" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Software is inherently required for digital photography, and opens up options for post-processing film as well. Questions related to the tools used for digital image editing, processing, organization, and presentation should have this tag." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T16:10:53.517" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T16:10:53.517" />
  <row Id="10142" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-03-25T16:11:18.103" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T16:11:18.103" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T16:11:18.103" />
  <row Id="10143" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-03-25T16:11:18.103" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="The use of extra lights, often flash units, in order to make up for a lack of light or to gain more creative control over the image." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-24T21:51:05.223" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T21:51:05.223" />
  <row Id="10144" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10170" CreationDate="2011-03-25T16:11:42.803" Score="1" ViewCount="120" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I intend to take raw images using a Canon which gives *.CRW and DNG format raw images.&#xA;I have below question regarding processing of those raw capture&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1] What all tools(I am ready to purchase/freeware) would allow me to process these raw images. The Image processing features I am looking to be able to run on these raw images is as follows:- &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;False Pixel Correction, Green channel noise removal, Black pixel clamping, Debayering, Color Correction,Auto White balance, Color Conversion(to YUV space), Image sharpening filter, Lens distortion correction, Vignetting correction, color fringing removal,Gamma correction, De-noise filter,Contrast enhancement,  Deblurring. and allow to store a &lt;em&gt;.BMP/&lt;/em&gt;.YUV processed output file.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would Adobe Photoshop CS + Lightroom do most/all of these features?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2] Would a Canon/any other camera,  allow to capture in raw video mode? i.e. a Video sequence in raw format?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any pointers would be useful to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;thanks,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-AD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2438" LastEditorUserId="2438" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T16:21:22.793" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T01:20:32.983" Title="Raw Captured Image processing" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;image-processing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="11" />
  <row Id="10145" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-03-25T16:13:58.057" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Post-processing is a process by which a photo is reworked to produce the artistic vision of a photographer. The term &quot;post&quot; implies that this work is done sometime after the photograph is taken, not &quot;in-camera&quot; — although some post-processing may be done very shortly after, still in the field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Analog and chemical processes are used to work film, while digital processes and tools are used to work digital images. For many photographers, reproducing the original scene exactly as it was, with as much natural color accuracy as possible (or tonal accuracy in the case of black and white photography), is the holy grail. For many others, post-processing is the chance to add unique style and flare to a natural scene, finger-printing their work. This can involve conversion to black and white, tone mapping, duo-tone conversion, contrast adjustments, and the application of creative color shifts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T02:04:02.653" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T02:04:02.653" />
  <row Id="10146" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-03-25T16:13:58.057" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Post-processing is the process (and art) of adjusting a previously-captured image to obtain a desired look. It encompasses everything from simple whole-image adjustments to detailed per-pixel touch-up work." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T16:47:15.077" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T16:47:15.077" />
  <row Id="10147" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-03-25T16:24:31.623" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Related tags: &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/aperture&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'aperture'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;aperture&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/shutter-speed&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'shutter-speed'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;shutter-speed&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/iso&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'iso'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;iso&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/exposure-compensation&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'exposure-compensation'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;exposure-compensation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T16:46:30.613" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T16:46:30.613" />
  <row Id="10148" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-03-25T16:24:31.623" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Exposure is the total amount of light allowed to fall on a sensor or film during the taking of a photograph. This is determined by the exposure time (shutter speed) and amount of light admitted (lens aperture). Today, sensor/film sensitivity (ISO speed) is often also considered to be part of exposure." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T16:46:09.820" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T16:46:09.820" />
  <row Id="10149" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-03-25T16:33:59.090" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Be careful of this tag. While it's more specific than the &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;discouraged &quot;meta&quot; tags&lt;/a&gt; like &lt;code&gt;&quot;beginner&quot;&lt;/code&gt; or &lt;code&gt;&quot;subjective&quot;&lt;/code&gt; (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.photo.stackexchange.com/questions/244/dealing-with-meta-tags&quot;&gt;discussion here&lt;/a&gt;), it should only be used on questions which are &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; about the fundamentals of the way cameras work and are used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Particularly, it should not be used to tag questions where the questioner should have looked in the manual for their particular model — the question and answer might be basic, but it's not &lt;em&gt;camera&lt;/em&gt; basics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T16:45:51.503" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T16:45:51.503" />
  <row Id="10150" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-03-25T16:33:59.090" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Camera basics are the timeless and generic aspects of cameras; even as technology evolves, these things will remain essentially the same." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T20:16:51.540" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T20:16:51.540" />
  <row Id="10151" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-03-25T16:46:20.257" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Digital photography is a form of photography where image capture is facilitated by electronic devices such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_pixel_sensor&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CMOS&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled_device&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCD&lt;/a&gt; image sensors, rather than an analog device like film. Digital photography is the dominant form of photography in modern times, with digital cameras available in a wide variety of formats from simple &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-and-shoot_camera&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Point and Shoot&lt;/a&gt;&quot; cameras that anyone can use, to cameras built into smart phones, to professional &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_single-lens_reflex_camera&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital SLR (DSLR)&lt;/a&gt; cameras, to advanced high-resolution military and industrial cameras used for things like photographing the earth from space, imaging atoms, or serving the needs of military.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T17:09:21.663" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T17:09:21.663" />
  <row Id="10152" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-03-25T16:46:20.257" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Digital Photography is performed with CMOS or CCD sensor cameras rather than film to capture an image, and is the primary way that photographs are generated in our modern age.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This tag doesn't need to be on everything that is digital, but can be used when the question is specifically about the technology involved." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-02T17:28:59.620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-02T17:28:59.620" />
  <row Id="10153" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10144" CreationDate="2011-03-25T17:12:20.657" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;1.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no raw image converter/editor I know of which provides all of those features, though you can do all that with a combination of Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop and some scripting. The only one I'm not sure about is deblurring, depending on what you need it for the smart sharpen might work for you. Oh and you might have to do the hot pixel mapping yourself, don't think there's a filter for that though you might get by with a custom action. I could probably offer a better answer if you could let us know what your ultimate goal is, from the requirements it sounds like you're doing some sort of batch processing of raws to create a [timelapse?] video.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;2.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's no way to get raw video from a Canon camera presently, this may be unlocked with a firmware hack at some point but I wouldn't count on it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T17:12:20.657" />
  <row Id="10154" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10020" CreationDate="2011-03-25T17:55:14.167" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps an overkill, but &lt;strong&gt;underwater strobes&lt;/strong&gt; should be more than weather-proof. They don't seem to be mountable on hotshoe (which seems to be hard to make waterproof), so they are for off-camera use only (intended for use on bracket). Some of them support TTL.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nikon &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonlinks.com/unklbil/speedlights.htm#sb102&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Nikon Speedlights&quot;&gt;SB-102, SB-103, SB-105&lt;/a&gt; and SB-104 seem to be discontinued.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.inon.jp/products/lineup.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Inon&lt;/a&gt; S-2000, Z-240, D-2000 seem to be currently offered universally TTL-capable models. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.seacam.com/en/products/flash-unit&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Seacam&lt;/a&gt; 150D supports Canon e-TTL and Nikon i-TTL. Olympus  has &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/198_ufl-1_underwater_flash.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;UFL-1&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/198_digital_slr_ufl-2_19296.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;UFL-2&lt;/a&gt; capable of wireless TTL with Olympus cameras. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sealife-cameras.com/accessories/digital_pro_flash.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SeaLife Digital Pro&lt;/a&gt; has an Auto Mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Underwater Photography Guide has an extensive &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.uwphotographyguide.com/underwater-photography-strobes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Underwater Strobe Chart&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-02T20:00:21.353" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T20:00:21.353" />
  <row Id="10155" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4434" CreationDate="2011-03-25T18:35:17.530" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been looking for film developers, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I stumbled upon Ken Rockwell's recommendation of North Coast Photo &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.northcoastphoto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.northcoastphoto.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't used them myself.. so can't speak.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3754" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T18:35:17.530" />
  <row Id="10156" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10161" CreationDate="2011-03-25T18:45:26.087" Score="3" ViewCount="73" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question was inspired by the recent question about &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10104/tips-for-shooting-crowds-political-demonstrations-rallies-and-other-lively-ev&quot;&gt;Shooting Demonstrations and Political Events&lt;/a&gt; and the older &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2823/how-do-you-protect-yourself-at-protests/&quot;&gt;How do you protect yourself at protests?&lt;/a&gt; question. It was originally posted as a comment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Has anyone come across an approach for making wireless, real-time, remote backups of images? Perhaps something along the lines of using an Eye-Fi card to send pictures to a cellphone that uploads them to a website? Or really any method that could prevent loss of images in the case of deletion or damage to equipment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1480" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T20:11:55.710" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T20:11:55.710" Title="Methods for wireless real-time remote backups of images?" Tags="&lt;backup&gt;&lt;photojournalism&gt;&lt;wireless&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10157" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10156" CreationDate="2011-03-25T19:11:30.973" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, Eye-Fi do a card for Apple users that automatically upload images to iPhoto via wi-fi, but that of course requires a wi-fi connection near the camera. There are also apps that automatically transfer photos from your iPhone to a nearby Mac. However, as yet there is nothing that unifies the process and takes images straight from your camera to Cloud-based storage. Time to fire up the iOS SDK!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T19:11:30.973" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="10158" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10160" CreationDate="2011-03-25T20:03:00.167" Score="5" ViewCount="227" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it true that '80s 35mm photofilm had quality corresponding to 24 megapixels? Somebody told me so today, and I find it surprising.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4333" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T20:06:42.827" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T20:56:40.727" Title="Is it true that '80s 35mm photofilm had quality corresponding to 24 megapixels?" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;digital-vs-film&gt;&lt;resolution&gt;&lt;35mm&gt;&lt;megapixels&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10159" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10158" CreationDate="2011-03-25T20:24:40.387" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Conventional wisdom says about 6 MP at around IS0 200 when looking at overall image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although film works very differently then digital images, so some people point out that the finest film grain is much smaller than a pixel on a 6 megapixels DSLR. I suspect this is why someone told you 24. While it is can be true, one pixel captures way more information than one grain of film. Film grains on the same frame also are not all the same size, unlike most pixels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As soon as you boost ISO, then most comparisons become moot. Today's DSLRs wipe the floor with most 35mm film when it comes to the ability to resolve details in low-light. ISO 6400 is extremely usable on many recent DSLRs. That can be hardly said of ANY 35mm film, regardless of its age.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are probably similar measurements with regards to dynamic range, with probably one way saying that film is better and vice-versa. Although given a whopping 14 stops of DR on modern DSLRs, I doubt film can compete in practical terms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T20:24:40.387" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10160" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10158" CreationDate="2011-03-25T20:32:14.433" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been using various Kodak E100 series slide films (100 ISO) in a Leica, with good optics, and the detailing that my Nikon Coolscan V gets out of these is absolutely absurd. I'd say about 20 megapixels' worth of detail, give or take - easily as good as my 16.7 mp 1Ds II anyway. Given a good exposure and focusing in the first place, of course. How this compares with 80s films I do not know. And once you go to 200, 400, 800 ISO (negative) films digital wipes the floor with them, no question about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T20:32:14.433" />
  <row Id="10161" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10156" CreationDate="2011-03-25T20:46:10.660" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;An &lt;strong&gt;Eye-Fi card in the camera&lt;/strong&gt; coupled with a &lt;strong&gt;phone that can act as a wireless hotspot&lt;/strong&gt; should do the trick.  The Eye-Fi card will (based on your configuration) automatically upload the photos to a service of your choice such as Flickr, and the portable hotspot means that you'll have connectivity as long as you have cell coverage.  For a hotspot there are several Android phones that offer the feature as well as the iPhone and standalone hotspots like the MiFi.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T20:54:48.013" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T20:54:48.013" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10162" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10158" CreationDate="2011-03-25T20:56:40.727" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is &quot;it depends&quot;. With some films, the limitation was the lens for all practical purposes, just as it is with the extreme-resolution DSLRs today. Kodak Technical Pan shot at ISO 16 (yes, 16) could easily resolve 150 line pairs per millimetre, which would give it a Nyquist equivalent of just under 80 MP in the 135 (35mm) format. Kodak's Ektar 25 colour print film (shot at 20) and Kodachrome 25 slide film (shot at 32 or 40) would easily beat a 24MP sensor if all else were equal -- but all else isn't equal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that those amazing, digital-ain't-there-yet resolutions are all coming from films that are, well, slow as molasses in January. And that every single one of those films has been discontinued. At ISO 100, even with the best, most-lauded films, it's a coin toss -- you can get a better tonal scale with film (analog response does that for you) but sharpness is already going to the digital camera (as long as the antialiasing filter, if present, isn't too strong). At speeds over 100 (for an equivalent-sized sensor/film cell), things are already beginning to go firmly in the direction of digital. 400-speed (colour) film was something a pro would use to get a grainy, romantic, sentimental look. ISO 400 is just another setting on a DSLR, with noise just beginning to be noticeable to people who are specifically looking for it (and that noise can be removed rather cleanly from the images most current-model cameras produce). And you don't need to spend five grand on a Fuji enlarger lens to print a decent 11x14 -- an Epson or Canon printer costing around 300 bucks will probably do a better job.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So yeah, digital isn't quite up to the best that film could do yet. But then film is no longer up to the best that film could do either. If ultimate resolution and smooth tonality are &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; important to you, you can always sell your house, move into a trailer and buy a Phase One IQ180 (it's only 50 grand, but you'll probably want a camera body and at least one lens to go with it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T20:56:40.727" />
  <row Id="10164" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-25T22:58:34.120" Score="0" ViewCount="82" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4870/how-do-you-make-the-most-stunning-sun-rise-set-photos&quot;&gt;How do you make the most stunning sun rise/set photos?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to take a picture of a sunrise, and want to see the outline of the sun clearly. What focus and exposure would you recommend? (as I am new to this, I would appreciate a bit more info)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4468" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T00:05:06.440" ClosedDate="2011-03-26T00:40:20.100" Title="What are the best camera setting to take a sunrise?" Tags="&lt;sun&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="10165" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-03-25T23:36:19.497" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-25T23:36:19.497" LastActivityDate="2011-03-25T23:36:19.497" />
  <row Id="10166" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-03-25T23:36:19.497" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="A portrait is a portrayal of a person. Beyond a snapshot or a photograph which happens to include a figure, a portrait tells something about the subject." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T00:51:46.723" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T00:51:46.723" />
  <row Id="10167" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10080" CreationDate="2011-03-26T00:04:33.290" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your first comment on &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10080/manfrotto-190xprob/10089#10089&quot;&gt;RedGrittyBrick's answer&lt;/a&gt; fills in some much-needed detail. One of the main features of the 190XPROB is the center column's ability to go horizontal (for shoot-down capability). It &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; a good set of legs, but you do pay a premium for that one feature. The same legs without the trick center column (the 190XB) is $40-50 dollars cheaper if you don't need the feature. Nobody, though, ever got fired for buying Manfrotto (or Bogen/Avenger, when the American version carried a different brand), and you won't feel like you've settled for something less than you deserve if you get either of those sets of legs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, don't let your own height dictate your tripod's height. You can make more interesting pictures from unusual points of view than you can from a mechanically-assisted version of &quot;just standing there&quot;. Granted, getting down low is often more important than getting up high, but I don't think I'd ever be satisfied again with a tripod that wouldn't let me (1)get up on a step-stool for a look down on things, or (2)let me work on uneven terrain with at least one leg extended far beyond where it would have to be on level ground. Induro (AT213) and Benro (A297EX) (among others) offer tripods at about the same price level as the 190XB that are every bit as sturdy, but nearly a foot taller. Of course, they're heavier as well (as is Manfrotto's 055 model) if that's a concern -- they're not nearly as heavy as a commercial-quality video tripod would be, but they might be just a bit much for a long hike.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Disclosure: I'm using an Induro AT213 at the moment -- well, not at &lt;em&gt;this&lt;/em&gt; moment, obviously, since I'm sitting at the computer typing, but... -- and could only be happier when my Benbo #2 is back in action. The Benbo is an acquired taste, and I've acquired it badly. It'll go to over eight feet tall, and I can put one leg on the floor, one on the ceiling and the third on a wall if I have to. I've also been the happy owner of a number of Manfrotto 'pods over the years -- the only thing I've ever disliked about Manfrotto is that they don't believe in the ArcaSwiss QR plate system, so I either have to use someone else's head or put adapters on all of my favorite accessories. If you've ever used an L-plate, you'll never use the 90-degree tilt feature of a tripod head voluntarily again.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T00:04:33.290" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="10168" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10164" CreationDate="2011-03-26T00:05:06.440" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most likely that is not possible. The sun is so much brighter than anything else in the picture, so if you expose as to avoid getting the sun too overexposed, the rest of the image will be very dark, or even completely black.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have a bigger chance to do that with a sunset. The particles that fills the air during the day will filter out a lot of the sunlight, which also turns it into the characteristic red colour. In the morning there is much less particles in the air to filter the sunlight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T00:05:06.440" />
  <row Id="10170" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10144" CreationDate="2011-03-26T01:20:32.983" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off, I do not believe there are any Canon cameras that produce a DNG directly. You would need to convert your .CRW/.CR2 files to DNG if thats what you want to store/archive your images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the feature requests:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I do not believe there is any single tool that does everything you are asking for. I am a heavy Lightroom + Photoshop user, and as far as I know, those two support the following:&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Noise Removal: Lightroom 3.x has &lt;em&gt;amazing&lt;/em&gt; noise removal capabilities, far superior to any other product outside of a custom deconvolution algorithm. You can apply judicious luminance noise reduction, and maximum color noise reduction, and get near perfect results. Lightroom 3.x's noise management tools can easily correct for stuck/hot/false pixels, and it usually doesn't need that much correction to eliminate them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lens distortion correction: Lightroom 3.x also brings lens profiles to the table. There is a pretty large out-of-the-box library of profiles for common lenses from Canon. It is also possible to create your own profiles for other lenses. This feature can also remove color fringing, as well as correct for a variety of other optical aberrations.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Color &amp;amp; Exposure tuning: Both Lightroom and Photoshop w/ ACR offer extensive tools for color correction, white balance (automatic, preset, or selected from pixels in the image), exposure control (exposure, highlight recovery, black level/clamping, and fill light adjustment), contrast/brightness control, as well as vibrancy/saturation control (either overall, or for several key color channels.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Vignetting: Lightroom has some very convenient vignette tools that allow you to either correct for mechanical vignetting, or add your own post-crop vignetting for artistic effect.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Image sharpening: Photoshop has a fairly extensive set of features that can help with image sharpening, including the Unsharp mask, noise-based sharpening, and the ability to use layers and masks to achieve various forms of sharpening or contrast enhancement. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Debayering: I think you are referring to demosaicing here, in which case when working a RAW file in Lightroom or Photoshop+ACR, this is done automatically for you when you save to a non-RAW format. Generally, RAW editors simply apply your edits in a non-destructive fasion directly over the raw bayer pixel information, and only demosaic upon final output to print or another image format. If you want more control over the demosaicing algorithm, you might look into some OSS programs based on DCRAW. Another tool that offers some useful low-level demosaic tuning is Deep Sky Stacker, an astrophotography stacking tool. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Color space conversion: Photoshop is an excellent tool for color management. It does not directly support YUV, as far as I know, however it does support editing in L*a*b* space. I am less familiar with YUV space, however I do know that it is similar to Lab space as both are Limunance/Chrominance color spaces. You can definitely save to .BMP format, as well as .TIFF or even .PSD if you need to store more than just pixel information. You may have to look at custom file format plugins to save to a .YUV file, or look into third party/OSS programs to handle YUV space editing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;RAW video capture is a very new concept. I do not believe that any off-the-shelf DSLR cameras support RAW video capture yet. The rumormill has it that the Canon 5D III or Canon 1Ds IV will be the first DSLR to offer full-frame RAW video recording...however it is just rumors at the moment. Canon has supposedly demonstrated prototype full-frame RAW video in Europe somewhere, however I have not seen any real evidence of this yet.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T01:20:32.983" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10171" PostTypeId="3" CreationDate="2011-03-26T02:36:07.897" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T02:36:07.897" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T02:36:07.897" />
  <row Id="10172" PostTypeId="3" CreationDate="2011-03-26T02:36:07.897" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T02:36:07.897" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T02:36:07.897" />
  <row Id="10173" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-03-26T02:41:39.217" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T02:41:39.217" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T02:41:39.217" />
  <row Id="10174" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-03-26T02:41:39.217" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="A term for a compact camera that is designed for use without needing to alter various settings, hence it's as simple as pointing and shooting." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T02:50:12.697" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T02:50:12.697" />
  <row Id="10175" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-03-26T02:44:27.527" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T02:44:27.527" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T02:44:27.527" />
  <row Id="10176" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-03-26T02:44:27.527" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="The process of managing color settings on various viewing/output devices (computer monitors, projectors, printers, etc) so that colors appear the same regardless of how an image is viewed." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T02:49:35.380" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T02:49:35.380" />
  <row Id="10177" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-03-26T02:57:37.753" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T02:57:37.753" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T02:57:37.753" />
  <row Id="10178" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-03-26T02:57:37.753" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Advice is the main thing that happens on Stack Exchange. There is no need to tag questions with very general concepts like this." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T03:18:42.127" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T03:18:42.127" />
  <row Id="10179" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1504" CreationDate="2011-03-26T03:34:00.450" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check out the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tamrac.com/g_express.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamrac Express Series&lt;/a&gt;. This is a line of camera backpacks and bags with a non-photo-bag styling. They're padded and designed for cameras, but don't scream it out loud. (They do bear the Tamrac logo, for discerning thieves — same issue as with the Crumpler bags.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tamrac.com/3548.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Model 3548 - Express Pack 8&lt;/a&gt;, and I like it very much. I have the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/equipment/bags/sinkingbarge&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Crumpler Sinking Barge&lt;/a&gt; (non-deluxe version), and while it's very well made with excellent features, it's &lt;em&gt;way too huge&lt;/em&gt; for the city.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Tamrac Express pack isn't huge. It's not going to hold all of your gear. However, it's got re-arrangeable padding, and I can fit my moderate-size Pentax K-7 with three prime lenses, plus a Metz flash, extra batteries, and memory cards and sundries, &lt;em&gt;plus&lt;/em&gt; a small netbook.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only downsides are: not as sturdily made as the Crumpler bags (although it's held up well), no good place for a water bottle (or anything else held outside), and the front flap/pocket is a little, well, &lt;em&gt;flappy&lt;/em&gt; — it holds things secure when buckled, but is kind of strange.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T03:34:00.450" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-26T03:34:00.450" />
  <row Id="10180" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10196" CreationDate="2011-03-26T04:59:57.897" Score="2" ViewCount="68" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to learn more about the design of digital cameras in general, and DSLR in particular, from optics to sensors to mounts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you know any up-to-date resources (other than Wikipedia) where I can find some information about those subjects?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1241" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T17:28:03.457" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T19:27:59.847" Title="Resources for learning about digital cameras technical design?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;lens-design&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="10181" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10203" CreationDate="2011-03-26T06:04:08.553" Score="8" ViewCount="191" Body="&lt;p&gt;For the last fifteen years, sRGB has been the primary standard for computer monitors (and for consumer-level printing). That's changing now, as wider-gamut LED-backlit monitors become common. Usually, photographers use these  with a color space like aRGB, which is semi-standard — my camera can save JPEGs in that space natively, for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But there's a new standard widely pushed in the AV industry to replace sRGB. This is IEC 61966-2-4 — xvYCC (or &quot;x.v.Color&quot;, for marketing purposes). This color space has a gamut 1.8× larger than sRGB, covering 90% of the color range of human vision (instead of the uninspiring 50% covered by our current common denominator). Read much more at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technology/technology/theme/xvycc_01.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sony's web site on the xvYCC&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The important point, though, is that this isn't theoretical. It's part of the HDMI 1.3 standard, along with a specification for color depth of 10 to 16 bits per color (&quot;Deep Color&quot;, that's called). Unlike aRGB, which is basically a professional niche thing, there's broad support in consumer-level-gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's the background. The question is: given that this is widely catching on, and that we're all likely to have computer (and TV!) hardware capable of supporting it in the next few years, why is this being sold as basically &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; a video thing? It seems like the camera industry would be happy to get on board.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sony is big into the idea, and launched video cameras supporting it four years ago now. The Playstation 3 supports it, for goodness's sake! Why not put it in the Sony Alpha dSLRs as well? And Sony's not alone — Canon has video cameras supporting it too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, if you're shooting RAW, in-camera support is un-important. It's the converter software people who would have to get on board — why isn't their a push for this? As I understand it, xvYCC is an extension of YCbCr, which is &lt;em&gt;already used in JPEG&lt;/em&gt; files. But as I read the literature, I find lots of mentions of updated MPEG standards, but nothing about still photographic images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why can't &lt;em&gt;we&lt;/em&gt; have nice things?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T23:13:47.930" Title="Why isn't the xvYCC color space seeing uptake for still photography?" Tags="&lt;color-management&gt;&lt;color-spaces&gt;&lt;srgb&gt;&lt;xvycc&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="10182" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10180" CreationDate="2011-03-26T06:08:33.933" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This site right here! Stack Exchange sites aren't really very well suited to &quot;list o' resources&quot; questions. Google is better for that, and always will be. But Photo-SE is well-suited to &lt;em&gt;being&lt;/em&gt; such a resource. In fact, that's exactly what it's for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have actual questions about specific things which aren't answered here already, please ask them (as individual new questions), and you should get good answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T17:30:08.883" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T17:30:08.883" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10183" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10112" CreationDate="2011-03-26T07:15:18.640" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Stan's answer is excellent in explaining metering from a practical standpoint. You also seem to be asking what the specifics are, particularly around &lt;em&gt;steradians&lt;/em&gt; and conversion from Lux to EV. Using the Wikipedia articles you have linked, and a few child links from there, I believe I can explain a few things, and leave the rest up to extrapolation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First off, &lt;strong&gt;steradians&lt;/strong&gt;. Strange term, and odd concept, however once you understand what it really is, things start to make more sense. To take a step back, lets talk about &lt;em&gt;radians&lt;/em&gt; first. A radian is an angular measure, which simply put means the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One &lt;em&gt;radian&lt;/em&gt; is an arc that is equal&#xA;  in length to the radius of a circle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A radian is measured in the two-dimensional plane. A steradian is similar to a radian, only measured in three dimensions. The definition of a steradian is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One &lt;em&gt;steradian&lt;/em&gt; is a circular patch on&#xA;  a sphere's surface who's area is equal&#xA;  to the square of the radius of the&#xA;  sphere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A steradian is an odd &quot;projection&quot; of a 2D subtended angle into three dimensional space, or what is called a &lt;em&gt;solid angle&lt;/em&gt;. The intersection of the 2D angle with the sphere's surface intersects a circular patch (which is itself bisected by the radian arc.) Another term for it is &lt;em&gt;squared radian&lt;/em&gt;. The solid angle that represents one steradian is computed as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;θ = A/r^2&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which, intriguingly, is simply r&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/r&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, or has the units &lt;strong&gt;m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; * m&lt;sup&gt;-2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, which makes a steradian, like the radian, a unitless specification describing a fixed area on the surface of a sphere relative to the sphere's radius.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To complete the definition of a steradian in relation to a sphere:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The solid angle of an entire sphere is&#xA;  equivalent to 4π sr.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One might look at that another way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The surface area of a sphere has the&#xA;  unit 4π sr.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that the definition of a steradian is out of the way, we can come to a clearer understanding of the relationship of a &lt;em&gt;lumen&lt;/em&gt; to a &lt;em&gt;candela&lt;/em&gt;. According to the linked wikipedia article:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 lm = 1 cd sr&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, &lt;em&gt;one lumen&lt;/em&gt; is equal to &lt;em&gt;one candela steradian&lt;/em&gt;. A candela steradian is the luminous power of light emitted from a steradian, which as we now know from the discussion above, is the area of a circular patch on a sphere equal to the square of the radius of that sphere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we bring a light source into the discussion, to make things more real, that would translate into the following. Assuming we have a light bulb with a 1.5&quot; radius, that meters at 1 lumen, could be described as emitting 1 cd from any area on the surface of that bulb measuring 1.5&quot;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; (2.25&quot; total area).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The full light bulb is actually emitting a total of 1 cd 4π sr, or a total of 12.57 lm from all angles. The light meter will not measure 12.57 lm though, because it is only measuring from one angle to the bulb, not all angles to the bulb. If we assume our light meter is effectively sensitive to roughly one steradian, then it will measure 1 lumen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Further Questions?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q: One may ask, why equate 1 lumen with 1 candela steradian, rather than just 1 candela? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A: The answer is &lt;em&gt;geometry&lt;/em&gt;. Describing a candela is useful in telling us an amount of light, but not necessarily its concentration or the shape and size of the emission. The purpose of bringing steradians into the mix is that it involves a specific geometric shape and area to the light source emitting a lumen of light. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to wikipedia, one &lt;strong&gt;lux&lt;/strong&gt; is the measurement of lumens per square meter. In unit terms, since &lt;em&gt;one lm&lt;/em&gt; is equal to &lt;em&gt;one cd sr&lt;/em&gt;, then:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;1 lux = 1 cd sr/m^2&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I understand correctly, that could be read as 1 lux is equivalent to the amount of light received on a surface illuminated by a light source with a radius of one meter that emits 1 cd sr of luminous power towards the surface measured.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The conversion of lux to EV is a fairly simple one that involves a constant C. I can't say specifically how C is derived, however if we assume that the &quot;common&quot; value of 250 is accurate, a simple formula for converting from &lt;em&gt;lux&lt;/em&gt; to &lt;em&gt;EV&lt;/em&gt; would be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;EV = log&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;(E*S)/C&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where S is the sensor ISO, and E is the illuminance in lux. If we assume a scene is illuminated with 1 lux, and our ISO is 100, then (long hand, translated to base ten logarithm for computation on a common calculator):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;EV = log&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; (1 * 100) / 250&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  EV = log&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; 100/250&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  EV = log&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; 0.4&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  EV = log&lt;sub&gt;10&lt;/sub&gt; 0.4 / log&lt;sub&gt;10&lt;/sub&gt; 2&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  EV = -0.398 / 0.301&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  EV = -1.322  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A pretty low exposure value, however that would be expected for the measly illumination provided by 1 lux. To go the other way, and figure out how much illumination you need to support a specific EV, we can rearrange the conversion between EV and E (long hand):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;EV = log&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; (E*S) / C&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  2&lt;sup&gt;EV&lt;/sup&gt; = 2&lt;sup&gt;log&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; (E*S) / C&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  2&lt;sup&gt;EV&lt;/sup&gt; = E * S/C&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  2&lt;sup&gt;EV&lt;/sup&gt; * C/S = E * S/C * C/S&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  2&lt;sup&gt;EV&lt;/sup&gt; * C/S = E&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  E = 2&lt;sup&gt;EV&lt;/sup&gt; * 250/100  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That brings us to a nice simple formula to compute &lt;em&gt;lux&lt;/em&gt; from &lt;em&gt;EV&lt;/em&gt; (when ISO is 100):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;E = 2&lt;sup&gt;EV&lt;/sup&gt; * 2.5  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If our target EV is 1, then we compute lux as so:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;E = 2&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; * 2.5&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  E = 2 * 2.5&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  E = 5  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For an exposure of one EV, we need exactly 5 lux of illumination, or 5 cd sr/m^2, or 5 lm/m^2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Further Questions?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q: One may ask, why measure lux, which are lm/m^2, rather than simply measure lumens? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A: The answer would be &lt;em&gt;units&lt;/em&gt;, or more specifically, units of area that a human can readily recognize. A candela steradian is useful in telling us amount and geometry, however a steradian is unitless itself. It purely defines geometry, but does not specify any specific area. A steradian is a steradian, regardless of the actual radius of the sphere. A &lt;em&gt;candela steradian per meter squared&lt;/em&gt;, however, brings in enough unit specificity that we can more clearly understand exactly how much light 1 lux actually is (which, quite frankly, is not much at all.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T08:40:52.863" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T08:40:52.863" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10184" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10181" CreationDate="2011-03-26T08:31:47.147" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To start simply, the answer is &quot;It is used for still photography!&quot; I'll explain a little more in a bit, and its use is fairly niche at the moment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The roots of xvYCC&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The xvYCC encoding is, as far as I can tell, a modern enhancement to YCC encoding, or in its long form, Y'CbCr (or YCbCr, which is slightly different.) The YCC encoding is part of a family of luminance/chrominance color spaces, which are all largely rooted in the L*a*b* ('Lab' for short) color space formulated by CIE back in the 1930's. The Lab color space is also a Luminance/Chrominance color space, wherein the luminance of a color is encoded in the &lt;strong&gt;L*&lt;/strong&gt; value, while two chrominance axes of a color are encoded in the &lt;strong&gt;a*&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;b*&lt;/strong&gt; values. The a* value encodes one half of the chrominance along the &lt;em&gt;green/magenta&lt;/em&gt; axis, while the b* value encodes the other half of the chrominance along the &lt;em&gt;blue/yellow&lt;/em&gt; axis. These two color axes were chosen to mimic and represent the four color primary sensitivities of the human eye, which also lie along a red/green and blue/yellow pair of axes (although true human eyesight involves a double-peak red curve, with the smaller peak occurring in the middle of the blue curve, which actually means the human eye is directly sensitive to magenta, not red...hence the green/magenta axis in Lab.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The YUV Encoding&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Y'CbCr is probably most prominently recognized in the form of YUV video encoding. The YUV encoding was specifically designed to reduce the amount of space necessary to encode color for &lt;em&gt;video transmission&lt;/em&gt;, back in the days when bandwidth was a rather scarce commodity. Transmitting color information as RGB triplets is wasteful, since R,G,B triplets encode color with a fair amount of redundancy: all three components include luminance information as well as chrominance information, and luminance is weighted across all three components. YUV is a low-bandwidth form of Y'CbCr luminance/chrominance color encoding that does not have the wasteful redundancy of RGB encoding. YUV can consume anywhere from 2/3 down to 1/4 the bandwidth of a full RGB signal depending on the subsampling format (and, additionally, it stored the full detail image in the distinct luminance channel Y, which conveniently supported both B&amp;amp;W as well as Color TV signals with a single encoding format.) It should be clearly noted that YCC is not really a color space, rather it is a way of encoding RGB color information. I think a more accurate term would be a &lt;em&gt;color model&lt;/em&gt; than a color space, and the term color model can be applied to both RGB and YUV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the reference linked in the original question, it appears that xvYCC is an enhanced form of Y'CbCr encoding that stores encoded luminance/chrominance color information with more bits than YUV. Instead of encoding luminance and chrominance in interleaved sets of 2-4 bits, xvYCC encodes color in modern 10-bit values. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Use in Still Photography&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Intriguingly enough, there is one DSLR camera brand that does use something very similar. Canon added a new RAW format to their cameras in recent years, called sRAW. While a normal RAW image contains a direct bayer dump of full sensor data, sRAW is actually not a true RAW image format. The sRAW format does not contain bayer data, it contains processed Y'CbCr content interpolated from the underlying bayer RGBG pixel data. Similar to the TV days, sRAW aims to use more original signal information to encode luminance and chrominance data in a high precision (14-bpc), but space-saving, image format. An sRAW image can be anywhere from 40-60% the size of a RAW image, and the gains are realized by a similar interleaving and sharing of luminance information amongst multiple chrominance pairs (similar to how RGBG bayer pixels are shared to generate actual RGB pixels.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The benefit of sRAW is that you maintain high human-perceptual color accuracy in a compact file format, and make better use of the RGBG pixels on the bayer sensor (rather than overlapped sampling that produces nasty color moire, sRAW performs non-overlapped chrominance sampling and overlapped/distributed luminance sampling.) The drawback is that it is not a true RAW format, and color information is interpolated and downsampled from the full bayer sensor. If you do not need the full RAW resolution of the camera (i.e. you only intend to print at 8x10 or 11x16), then sRAW can be a real benefit, as it can save a lot on space (as much as 60% savings over RAW), it saves faster than raw providing a higher frame rate, and makes better use of color information captured by the sensor than full resolution RAW.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T08:31:47.147" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10185" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10193" CreationDate="2011-03-26T09:30:40.607" Score="1" ViewCount="80" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a total newbie I made a mistake when I ordered a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-WB600-Digital-Camera-Optical/dp/B00361EC9A&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Samsung WB 600&lt;/a&gt; with a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Velbon-V20324-CX-586-VIDEO-TRIPOD/dp/B000KHTB7G&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Velbon CX-586 tripod&lt;/a&gt; that is designed for video cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can I use them together at all? Do I have to return the tripod?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4347" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T14:52:14.167" Title="Can I put a compact camera on a video tripod?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;tripod&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="10186" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10185" CreationDate="2011-03-26T09:33:07.160" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes you can put your camera on that tripod as it has a standard mounting screw. Video tripods are broadly similar, the main difference is that video tripod heads are designed for smooth panning which is relatively unimportant for still photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T09:33:07.160" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10187" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1286" CreationDate="2011-03-26T12:19:40.663" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use a specialist insurer who cover me in places the household won't (in the car, live side at airfields etc) and who fully understand the gear they are insuring (and will appreciate the subtle differences between certain bits of kit).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you offer any prints for sale (even if you haven't sold any) this will often give Amateur or Household policies a get out clause for covering your gear as you intend to make money with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Proper insurers will often cover you for public liability and other such things which are worthwhile being covered for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are only ever using your gear as an amateur your household policy will probably cover it but be sure to check with them specifically how you are covered when you are away from the house.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regardless of pro or amateur: Photograph all your gear laid out so you can clearly see all of it and keep a spreadsheet detailing replacement costs and serial numbers (and for things like memory cards, quantity).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T12:19:40.663" />
  <row Id="10188" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10181" CreationDate="2011-03-26T12:22:57.003" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll add a couple of notes around Jon's...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The color space is meaningful in a camera context only when talking about JPEGs because, for Raw images, the color space is a choice in the &quot;development&quot; phase. Some cameras (Pentax semi-pros for certain) allow the choice of sRGB or aRGB for the JPEG development, so perhaps they may add a third (or fourth for ProPhoto). Then again, for most professionals, they'll pull in the image in the desired color space for their intended output medium.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The viewer (and/or device) must also be aware of the color space and be able to handle it. While wide gamut monitors are becoming more common, they're ery likely still a massive minority and it will take a while to catch up. Heck, I know quite a few people who still have old CRT monitors hooked up to otherwise decent computers.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T12:22:57.003" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10189" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10194" CreationDate="2011-03-26T13:37:19.177" Score="3" ViewCount="184" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm researching DSLRs for an upcoming purchase, and my budget will be around $1k for a camera body and kit lens. One area where it's difficult to find information: How do I learn more about the OS's user interface? The person I'm buying for is an experienced photographer who's found herself without a camera for several years, and will definitely appreciate a camera with a good OS. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are, of course, many other calls I have to make, such as lens availability, but what brands of SLR come with a reliable, well-designed OS with a good software UI? I'm talking about the built-in camera software, not the bundled software for your computer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: A &quot;good&quot; UI, to my way of thinking, is one that's consistent, and one that, once you learn a few basic concepts, is easy to learn. Eye candy is also nice (as in OSX), but not necessary. Perhaps what I need to do at this stage is eliminate camera brands that use very bad UIs. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3376" LastEditorUserId="3376" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-26T14:59:42.383" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T04:36:24.900" Title="Brand of DSLR with a well-designed software UI?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;firmware&gt;&lt;user-interface&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="10190" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10189" CreationDate="2011-03-26T13:48:22.063" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given the form factors and displays are pretty consistent between the brands, I would hesitate to really compare them as one better than the other. In a lot of ways, it's what you're used to as the form and layout is often a personal preference. So, for me, personally, I find the Pentax UI to be really good and easy to navigate, others may have a different opinion on the subject. Nonetheless, they're all somewhat similar and so should probably amongst the last of the things to consider when buying a camera. I might add, if your friend is an experienced photographer, it is entirely possible that she already has a brand preference. You may want to know what that is as a starting point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a side note, the point and shoot realm has UIs that are all over the map and some offer touch screen and more. These are much harder to pin down and are a lot less consistent in their look and feel and so that may carry much more weight. I know you're looking dSLR, but I figured I'd mention this for others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the way, a site to get a good look at the menus ahead of time is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DP Review&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T13:48:22.063" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10191" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10189" CreationDate="2011-03-26T13:49:39.317" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;DPReview always does a really good job of documenting UI's on its full reviews (not so much with previews), so that might be a good place to start.  If you can go lay your hands on a couple of examples, though, there's no substitute for seeing the UI in action.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as specific brands, Nikon's UI's seem to do a good job of being approachable for new users without getting in the way of more experienced users.  I use a Canon, which is very good, but comes with a little bit of a learning curve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T13:49:39.317" />
  <row Id="10192" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10189" CreationDate="2011-03-26T14:11:01.520" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You should be going to stores and trying the cameras out in any case. I saved up, researched everything online, made up my mind on a Canon, then when I went to the store and tried a couple out I switched to Nikon: it just felt more solid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have to go in and physically try each camera out. That includes the UI.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T14:11:01.520" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10193" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10185" CreationDate="2011-03-26T14:52:14.167" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes.&lt;/strong&gt; Tripods are nearly always compatible and when they are not, there is usually an extremely cheap screw adapter to fix the difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Video tripods&lt;/strong&gt; (technically video tripod heads) are designed for &lt;strong&gt;smooth motion in one direction at a time&lt;/strong&gt;. This is actually &lt;strong&gt;good for panoramas&lt;/strong&gt;, as you want to pan without changing tilt or pitch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most common &lt;strong&gt;photo tripods use a ball head&lt;/strong&gt; which once you loosen move freely in all directions. This makes &lt;strong&gt;pointing the camera much quicker&lt;/strong&gt;. While filming though it is very hard to make smooth steady motions with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many &lt;strong&gt;ball heads also have a separate panning control&lt;/strong&gt; mostly for doing panoramas. It allows you to pan without loosening the ball part of the head. Some tripods have a circular center column which does the same movement as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should probably get a tripod with a panning ball-head if you plan on using it regularly for photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T14:52:14.167" />
  <row Id="10194" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10189" CreationDate="2011-03-26T15:27:45.430" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You've already gotten some good advice such as going to a store and checkout DP Review. They do enumerate all the menus and all, so it is the closest to knowing how the UI looks without going to actually see the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However I will point out that there are more aspects to consider:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Great cameras are designed to let you do as much as possible without dealing with the screen-based UI.&lt;/strong&gt; Buttons are faster and more efficient than delving into the menu system.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A corollary of the previous point is that ergonomics of the camera (its shape, buttons and dials) has more impact on using the camera than its UI.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A &lt;strong&gt;UI must be efficient to use first&lt;/strong&gt;, looks are secondary.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An intuitive UI is great for learning the a new camera but no matter how twisted the interface seems at first &lt;strong&gt;you end up learning it&lt;/strong&gt;. Some UIs seem bizarre at first until figure out that they are designed for efficiency (some are simply twisted for no reason).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SUBJECTIVE:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Despite all you can learn from by reading first. There are things that you will learn to appreciate later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After almost 6 years of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;reviewing cameras&lt;/a&gt; (with major emphasis on usability) and trying nearly every camera (I teach photography in a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photoservice.ca&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;camera store&lt;/a&gt;), I firmly believe Pentax to offer the most thought-out usability experience. This does not mean it does everything in the best possible way, no one does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just one example of something well designed on Pentax DSLRs: the 2s self-timer which is used to reduce vibrations for tripod photography automatically performs mirror-lockup and turns off image stabilization. This saves the time to do it and to undo it later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, great usability is sometimes not enough if you have special photographic needs. I use several brands DSLRs for my professional photography and even different ones for family pictures. Sorry I probably made you more consused ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-27T01:24:29.727" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T01:24:29.727" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10195" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9816" CreationDate="2011-03-26T15:44:00.747" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can do this by adding a border with the LR/Mogrify plugin:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/lrmogrify2.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/lrmogrify2.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3775" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T15:44:00.747" />
  <row Id="10196" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10180" CreationDate="2011-03-26T19:27:59.847" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The website &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cambridge in Colour&lt;/a&gt; has a series of tutorials that cover everything from camera basics up through some more advanced topics on optics and sensors. Their focus is on providing education to help improve photographic skill, but they lay a good technical foundation in the process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1480" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T19:27:59.847" />
  <row Id="10197" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1048" CreationDate="2011-03-26T19:38:57.620" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The OP asked: why does the standard grey card have a reflectance of 18%?&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The short answer is that a significant number of manufacturers calibrated their light  meters in the belief that a standard scene averages 18% reflectance.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The following manufacturers work to 18% reflectance:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://ca.konicaminolta.com/support/manuals/photometers/Flash_Meter_VI/meter_FM_VI_om_e_f.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Minolta&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sekonic.com/images/files/L-398M.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sekonic&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/manual/SpotmeterV.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pentax&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cameramanuals.org/flashes_meters/gossen_ultra_pro-1.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gossen&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenko-tokina.co.jp/e/kfm1100/1100e_10_11.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kenko&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This information was taken from their light meter manuals. Follow the links to see my references.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The following are believed to work to 12% reflectance, though I was unable [to confirm this. Information derived from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_meter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;light meter Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt;. See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/digital-camera-forum/00VbZV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article from photo.net&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Canon&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Nikon  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I have no information for Olympus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So the next question becomes: why do some manufacturers choose 18% and others choose 12%?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer can be found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=7690&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ISO 2720&lt;/a&gt;, which states that:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The constants K and C shall be chosen by statistical analysis of the results of a large number of tests carried out to determine the acceptability to a large number of observers, of a number of photographs, for which the exposure was known, obtained under various conditions of subject manner and over a range of luminances.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means that each manufacturer is free to determine by measurement what the average grey level of the standard scene is. Given that they have used independent measurements of the  calibration constants (K and C) it is surprising (and gratifying) that there is so much agreement.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;K and C are the calibration constants for reflected light and incident light meters.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;K has recommended values of 10.6 to 13.4&lt;br&gt;&#xA;C has recommended values of 320 to 540  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now it turns out that the two groups of manufacturers, though their own testing, have arrived at different values of K and C. And these values, through the simple application of the laws of physics, result in either 18% or 12% reflectance for the standard scene.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the interested, the formulas can be found in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_meter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Light Meter Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt;, so I won't repeat them here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So what is the 'correct' value? 18% or 12%?&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a) you don't have much choice but to work with the value your manufacturer has chosen.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;b) the difference is small enough to have little practical effect.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;c) it seems no one has noticed the difference anyway.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bottom line is that the 18% or 12% values for average reflectance were arrived at by measuring the average reflectance (photographically) of a large number of scenes. So these are numbers that were arrived at experimentally and it is not surprising that there are some differences.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is there any way to arrive at the number theoretically?&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lab_color_space&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lab colour space&lt;/a&gt; L* (brightness) can range from 0 (black) to 100 (diffuse white). I choose Lab colour space because it is designed to approximate human vision. If one makes the assumption that average brightness falls mid-way between these two extremes then one has a starting point of L* = 50.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, using Bruce Lindbloom's excellent &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?ColorCalculator.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CIE Color Calculator&lt;/a&gt;, we can calculate the corresponding luminance and the sRGB pixel values. This gives values of 18.4% luminance (Y on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CIE XYZ scale&lt;/a&gt;) and 118.9 pixels for sRGB.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/lut2C.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, to say that the average scene's average brightness is mid-way between white and black is a big assumption and over simplifies the real world. One really needs some kind of experimental basis for this assumption. But it is certainly interesting that this calculation arrives at a result close to that of many manufacturers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-27T14:59:40.873" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T14:59:40.873" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10198" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10181" CreationDate="2011-03-26T20:17:01.083" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have things almost completely backwards. This is not a case where still photography could/should &quot;catch up&quot; with video -- quite the contrary, this is a matter of video having finally caught up to (roughly) the capabilities that TIFF (for one example) provide a couple decades ago (or so).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While you certainly didn't &lt;em&gt;see&lt;/em&gt; very many 16 bits/channel TIFFs 20 years ago, the capability was already there, and 16 bits/channel (in TIFF and various other formats) is now fairly common. At the same time, I feel obliged to point out that most people seem to find 8 bits/channel entirely adequate. Just for one obvious example, JPEG2000 supports 16 bits/channel and better compression than the original JPEG -- but has nowhere even close to the use of the original JPEG spec.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Around the same time (actually, a bit before) xvYCC was working on (roughly) catching up with the capabilities of TIFF, the openEXR file format was being developed. It supports up to 32 bits/channel. While it's not in all that wide of use yet, I'd expect it'll be a bit like TIFF, and will come into wider use eventually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as color space goes, it's true that the larger number of bits/pixel if xvYCC supports a larger gamut than sRGB. Again, however, ProPhotoRGB (for one example) provides a much wider gamut -- and (in all honesty) it's open to some question whether there's much need for a larger color space than ProPhotoRGB already provides (roughly 13% of the colors you can represent in ProPhotoRGB are basically imaginary -- they go beyond what most people can perceive).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The advantage of xvYCC is in reducing the amount of data needed/used to represent a given level of quality. For HD video (in particular), minimizing bandwidth is extremely important. For digital still cameras, however, bandwidth is a much smaller concern -- while it would certainly be nice if (for example) I could fit twice as many pictures on a particular size of CF card, it's not a &lt;em&gt;particularly&lt;/em&gt; serious problem. Relatively few people use the largest capacity of CF cards available, nor is the cost of CF cards a substantial part of a typical photographer's budget.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bottom line: in terms of technical capabilities, xvYCC provides little that isn't already available. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: I should probably add one more point. LCDs started to replace CRTs for most monitors about the time digital cameras came into wide use -- but consumer-grade LCD monitors are only now starting to exceed (or really even approach) 8 bits/channel color resolution. It was hard to worry much about having 10 or 12 bits/channel when a typical monitor could only display around 6.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's also the minor detail that a lot of people just plain don't care. For them, photographic quality falls under a pass/fail criterion. All most people really ask for is that a picture be reasonably recognizable. I suspect people are &lt;em&gt;slowly&lt;/em&gt; starting to expect better, but after years of Walgreens (or whomever) turning their red-headed daughter into a blonde (etc.) it takes a while to get used to the idea that color can be accurate at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: There is actually another step beyond JPEG 2000: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-T.832-200903-I/en&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;JPEG XR&lt;/a&gt;. This supports up to 32 bits/channel (floating point) HDR. It also specifies a file format that can include all the usual EXIF/IPTC-type data, embedded color profile, etc. Relevant to the question here, that includes a value to specify that a file should use the xvYCC color space (a value of &lt;code&gt;11&lt;/code&gt; in the &lt;code&gt;TRANSFER_CHARACTERISTICS&lt;/code&gt; syntax element, table A.9, in case anybody cares). This doesn't seem to be in wide use (at least yet) but does directly support xvYCC color space for still images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-02T23:13:47.930" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T23:13:47.930" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10199" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-26T21:58:16.737" Score="5" ViewCount="112" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-28-135mm-3-5-5-6-Standard-Cameras/dp/B00006I53S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1301176520&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;28-135mm Canon lens&lt;/a&gt; that I picked up a few years ago for $200. The zoom has started sticking in the last couple of days. It still focuses fine, but can be annoying trying to zoom in/out (sticks in the middle). Should I look for a replacement or a repair?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4476" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T18:38:58.733" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T18:38:58.733" Title="Should I get a lens repaired or buy a new one?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;repair&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="10200" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10199" CreationDate="2011-03-26T22:39:54.223" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two ways to look at it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;This is the perfect excuse to upgrade to a newer and better lens.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You really love this lens and that is the one you truly want. Fix it. Generally charges for this should be around $150 which is less costly than a new one.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-26T22:39:54.223" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10201" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10207" CreationDate="2011-03-26T23:32:20.730" Score="1" ViewCount="72" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the photopic luminous efficiency function?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it actually a &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt;, or are there multiple such functions? Is it an absolute fact of nature or simply an agreed-on standard? If the later, &lt;em&gt;who says&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How is it used in color spaces used in digital photography and image manipulation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does it affect the values (lux and candelas) used in exposure metering? *&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;* This is where I first came across the term: it seems that these units are by definition adjusted by the function. I assume that this means that the standard EV levels are inherently graduated for human perception regardless of the color of light, which makes perfect sense (and raises the idea that aliens, or even, y'know, super-intelligent-mouse photographers) would need different exposure meters. &lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-28T03:06:56.830" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T03:06:56.830" Title="What is the photopic luminous efficiency function?" Tags="&lt;metering&gt;&lt;color&gt;&lt;human-vision-system&gt;&lt;color-spaces&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10202" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10205" CreationDate="2011-03-27T03:02:10.147" Score="0" ViewCount="70" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to buy &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Manfrotto-732YB-482K-Tripod-Backpack/dp/B004C2KDFE/ref=lh_ni_t_&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the Manfrotto 7320YB M-Y Compact Tripod Kit with Ball Head/Backpack/Gear Bag bundle&lt;/a&gt; for my Canon 60D&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/3iEZ1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want a weather proof or resistant bag since my camera is not weather sealed. I cannot find any information stating if it is or not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2777" LastEditorUserId="3356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-27T11:43:33.430" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T11:43:33.430" Title="Is the bag in the Manfrotto 7320YB M-Y Compact Tripod Kit with Ball Head/Backpack/Gear Bag bundle weather proof?" Tags="&lt;tripod&gt;&lt;camera-bag&gt;&lt;weather&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="10203" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10181" CreationDate="2011-03-27T03:36:12.423" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, to answer my own question a bit after some research:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While it isn't xvYCC, for reasons that really still elude me (since JPEG encoding uses a similar older scheme), there &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; appear to be some encouraging moves on the &quot;we &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; have nice things!&quot; front, because it appears that at least &lt;em&gt;Microsoft&lt;/em&gt; cares about wider color gamut and better bit-depth in still photography — at least a little bit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They have been, slowly but surely, pushing for a new file format standard called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XR&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;JPEG XR&lt;/a&gt; (formerly called Windows Media Photo, and then HD Photo). It's an interesting move forward from the &quot;traditional&quot; JPEG, offering better compression at the same image quality, and (to the point of this discussion) higher bit-depth support.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;JPEG 2000 does this too, but it's been largely a flop, possibly because of concerns with patents covering the wavelet compression it uses, or maybe something else. The important point is: Microsoft is promoting JPEG XR now, featuring it in a lot of their software, including &lt;a href=&quot;http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Graphics/ImageSupport/Default.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Internet Explorer 9&lt;/a&gt;. As of 2009, it's an &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.msdn.com/b/billcrow/archive/2009/07/29/jpeg-xr-is-now-an-international-standard.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;official real international standard&lt;/a&gt;, and is covered by Microsoft's &quot;Community Promise&quot; to not enforce their patents in a hostile way against implementations. So that's pretty good for future uptake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, along with that, they're pushing the idea of more-bits-per-channel as &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.msdn.microsoft.com/PDC08WhitePapers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;high color&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, (which is funny to me, since in my mind that's still the old 16-bit-for-&lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt;-channels video card mode). As part of this, they've got a possibly-ridiculously-large &quot;intermediate&quot; color space called scRGB — &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.msdn.com/b/billcrow/archive/2007/10/25/hdr-and-color-spaces.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;read a nice detailed account of it here&lt;/a&gt; — which is supported by JPEG XR, if you want. It might not be particularly useful as a &lt;em&gt;final&lt;/em&gt; colorspace, since most of its colors are in the &quot;imaginary&quot; area outside of &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8043/how-can-knowledge-of-human-perception-of-color-be-used-in-photography&quot;&gt;human perception&lt;/a&gt;. But anyway, the point is, Microsoft &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; integrating higher-bit-depth standards into the Windows operating system, and still photography &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; part of that. From a slightly-old-now &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-9808742-39.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CNET interview&lt;/a&gt;: &quot;I absolutely expect scRGB support in cameras to accompany JPEG XR.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that was in 2007. Four and a half years later, we're still not seeing cameras supporting JPEG XR, let alone fancy wide-gamut high-depth color spaces. But, maybe I'm just being impatient. As the other answers here note, display hardware that supports wide gamut is just becoming available, support in the world's most popular OS is pretty recent, and the first web browser to support it was released &lt;em&gt;this month&lt;/em&gt;. As that catches on, and is hopefully eventually picked up by &lt;a href=&quot;http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=56908&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Chrome&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=500500&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Firefox&lt;/a&gt;, image processing programs (including RAW converters) will gain support, and actual direct output from cameras will follow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or the whole thing will flop. Time will tell. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T03:36:12.423" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10204" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1048" CreationDate="2011-03-27T03:45:05.803" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On how to print an 18% card, with no theory or rationale as to why 18 not some other number...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Following any theory or advice on setting RGB values in a graphics program isn't reliable. Monitors and printers are designed to make graphics look good and fall short of scientific accuracy.  Even if your whole system is calibrated - well, I never quite trust such things to be accurate, especially not for physical optical properties of printouts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, you'll have to make a big gray rectangle of some chosen RGB value and print it out.   How to know what RGB value?   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First use your graphics program to print a fine grid of black squares on an empty white background.  Make the squares cover 18% of the area.  The gap between squares should be 1.59 times the width or height of the squares.  Make this grid small but large enough to have good control over accurate geometry, and make it cover a whole page.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With good dark ink in the printer, the white will be almost 100% reflective and the black almost 0% (but nothing is perfect) so the overall reflectance averages out to 18%.  Photograph this black &amp;amp; white printout out of focus, letting the camera do the averaging.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Guess an RGB value, make the whole page that value of gray and print it out. Photograph it, out of focus, next to your black and white grid.  Based on whether it's lighter or darker than the grid, refine your RGB guess.  Repeat until they match.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be careful to have uniform lighting and avoid vignetting effects in the optics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="637" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T03:45:05.803" />
  <row Id="10205" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10202" CreationDate="2011-03-27T03:52:22.697" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think a good rule of thumb for features like this is: if it doesn't proudly declare it, the answer is no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adorama.com/BG732YB482K.html#ProductReviews&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Reviews of the bundle on Adorama&lt;/a&gt; contain one which complains that the backpack has a &quot;poor build&quot; and that the fabric that used is &quot;really thin&quot;. So that doesn't sound so hopeful. On the other hand, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/730062-REG/Manfrotto_732YB_482K_7320YB_M_Y_Compact_Tripod.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a reviewer on B&amp;amp;H Photo&lt;/a&gt; notes: &quot;the bag seems to be constructed fairly well. [...] And there seems to be some weather sealing for the tripod pocket zipper.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that's a far cry from &quot;weather proof&quot; or even resistant. I think you probably should look elsewhere for that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T03:52:22.697" />
  <row Id="10206" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10189" CreationDate="2011-03-27T04:27:03.630" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To &lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&amp;amp;message=33202013&amp;amp;changemode=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;quote&lt;/a&gt; some photography teachers (granted, on a Pentax forum):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I teach photography for several years now, both in free university as in my own company. I see all brands and user combination, and therefore have a good experience how people learn and got to know there camera. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Canon has by far the steepest learning curve.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Nikon is a mixed bag: with those nested menu's (but again more pretty). &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Olympus is also not that easy because they don't use colors for different menu tabs, etc... The info screen is also more complex.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Pentax and Sony are almost exclusively the ones which don't need extra help from me as teacher.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Pentax are by far the easiest in concept. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The Canon system is OK once you've come across it a few times&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;some of the Olympus and Nikon cameras are a nightmare.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for Pentax, I think user interface and menu system got even better after the K-m/K2000.  They are built around one handed operation, with no buttons to the left of the LCD.  Other than that, between brands, I find button placement and ergonomics being mostly personal preference.  Just try them am all out.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-27T04:36:24.900" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T04:36:24.900" />
  <row Id="10207" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10201" CreationDate="2011-03-27T05:08:18.913" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Photopic luminous efficiency is more simply stated as the spectral response function, normally of the human eye (though in photography it &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; also refer to spectral response of film, sensor, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several -- in fact, if you want to get down to it, there really millions -- every person's spectral response is probably (minutely) different from every other, and an individual's spectral response varies over time as well (though it's pretty standard to ignore things like spectral response when the eye isn't adapted to the current lighting).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nonetheless, there's a CIE standard for the &quot;average&quot; person's response. Actually, there have been a couple of standards -- the version produced in 1931 was officially current for decades (up until 1988). It was disliked almost from the beginning (literally -- even the chairman of the committee that produced it said rather nasty things about it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was replaced in 1988 with a newer one that shows more response to blue light. The official story is that this is to take the extended spectral response of younger people into account. The unofficial by widely accepted story is that the original was based largely on measurements made under extremely warm incandescent light, which under-rated nearly everybody's blue response, for the simple reason that the light being used contained almost no blue to start with. In reality, most people do lose some color acuity with age. Cataracts can cause severe loss of color vision, but otherwise it's generally fairly minor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, the standard defines a curve that's supposed to roughly characterize average human spectral response. It's open to argument that the current standard still doesn't do that as well as you might like, but at least it's not quite as obviously problematic as the 1931 standard. OTOH, given the three colors of sensors in the eye, what you have in reality is a curve with five peaks (three primary peaks for the wavelengths of the &quot;filters&quot; on the individual cones, plus two secondary peaks where they overlap) -- and that structure doesn't show up in the CIE standard at all. Instead, you could almost mistake it for the standard bell curve:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/2lz75.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for how it's used:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In color spaces, it's taken into account to some degree -- the limits it defines correspond reasonably closely to the limits defined for things like the normal CIE xyz color space, which is used as the basis for nearly all other color spaces.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The increased response toward the middle of the curve is the reason that most color spaces use a gamma factor -- the gamma factor serves to concentrate more of the color numbers near the middle of the space, and fewer toward the edges where the eye is less sensitive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not really taken into much account in exposure metering -- it's related to spectral response, and exposure metering is (normally) &quot;color blind&quot;, accounting only for intensity, not color. About the only thing they do to take it into account at all is specify a color temperature of the light you should use to test/calibrate a meter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As noted above, since it's basically the spectral response of the eye, there are millions (if not billions) of separate functions involved -- but for the most part, it comes down to a lot of really minor variations on a few main themes: basically normal color vision, and the various forms of impaired color vision (protanopia, deuteranopia, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-27T07:15:45.030" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T07:15:45.030" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10208" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10365" CreationDate="2011-03-27T07:22:24.453" Score="10" ViewCount="519" Body="&lt;p&gt;How many distinct colors, shades, hues, and tints can the average person distinguish in a single scene? In other words, what's the theorectical bit-depth required to be sure of recording a photograph with all of the visual information a human would perceive, assuming perfect equipment?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've seen answers ranging from 200,000 to 20,000,000, and it's hard to sort out authority. And the term &quot;color&quot; is ambiguous — is just hue meant, or are differences in saturation and lightness also included? (For the purposes of this question, everything is needed, although it'd be cool to have them separately. And since we're &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8043/how-can-knowledge-of-human-perception-of-color-be-used-in-photography/8046#8046&quot;&gt;more sensitive to green and yellow&lt;/a&gt;, should more bits be devoted to those hues in some way?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference in possible answers is staggering — two hundred thousand can fit nicely in 18 bits — or just six bits per channel, which is obviously a lot less than the ubiquitous eight-bits/channel image formats today. (Are these formats just using an inefficient encoding? It seems like that answer must be too small.) But if it's 20 million just including hue, and we take one of the upper numbers for distinguishable luminosity levels, that's about 37 bits. (Which in turn raises the question: are formats which use 48 bits, 16 per channel, actually way bigger than necessary?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, does the number of &lt;em&gt;perceivable&lt;/em&gt; colors significantly differ from the maximum number visible &lt;em&gt;at once&lt;/em&gt; under ideal conditions? (For example, due to dynamic range limitations, or to our natural tendency to &quot;auto white balance&quot;?) If so, could this simply be encoded as a scene-wide compensation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I realize there may be reasons for having more bits in an input or working space than needed for distinguishing colors in the final output. That's probably a whole different question.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-30T00:33:08.330" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T12:39:23.990" Title="How many colors and shades can the human eye distinguish in a single scene?" Tags="&lt;color&gt;&lt;human-vision-system&gt;&lt;bit-depth&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10209" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-27T11:20:27.460" Score="1" ViewCount="320" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am new to photography. I have Canon 1000d (with 18 -55 mm lens). My basic interest is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;wedding&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am planning to get a prime and a telephoto lens. So, my dilemma is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Should I go for 50mm f/1.8 or 50 mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.8&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;For a telephoto zoom... should I consider 55-250mm IS??&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;kindly suggest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ps: Please note that I am mainly interested in shooting weddings....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4481" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-27T18:00:55.780" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T23:39:05.297" Title="What Canon lenses for wedding photography on a tight budget" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;wedding&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10210" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10209" CreationDate="2011-03-27T11:24:45.740" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As your question is very subjective, I'll refrain myself from suggesting any other lenses. It seems you're in a tight budget, so considering those, 50mm f/1.8 and 55-250mm IS is the best deal for you.&#xA;But both of these lenses are not ideal weeding lenses and more specifically I'd not recommend 55-250mm IS to anyone other than who are in a very very tight budget.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T11:24:45.740" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="10211" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10209" CreationDate="2011-03-27T12:21:16.323" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can see that your budget is rather low. But if weddings are in question it would still be much better to get one of the first two zooms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Zooms:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF 24-70/f2.8 L USM lens - this is &lt;strong&gt;the perfect wedding lens&lt;/strong&gt; with excellent sharpness and contrast, but lacks IS&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF 24-105/f4 L IS USM lens - the downside of this one is that it needs a bit more light than the first one, but has a great IS function, which makes it comparable; exposures will be longer but IS will make sure they're sharp&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;as a third option I'd suggest the EF-S 17-55/f2.8 IS USM lens - very sharp but non-pro lens (non L); prices somewhat similar than previous two; this is a strictly cropped factor lens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;as the backup option (in case you're really tight on money) I'd suggest the &lt;strong&gt;EF-S 15-85/f3.5-5.6 IS USM&lt;/strong&gt; lens which &lt;strong&gt;costs less&lt;/strong&gt; (about half the money compared to the first one), but it produces rather great photos for its cost; since you're using 1000D I guess this is the lens for you; not exactly a wedding lens but still very good value&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Prime&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To complement indoor wedding happening it would be great to complement one of upper lenses with the widest open made-for-portraits lens EF 85/f1.2 L II USM. Huge glass, but it may be very much out of range for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of those primes that you mention I'd go with &lt;strong&gt;EF 85/f1.8 USM&lt;/strong&gt;. It will give your subject a bit more room (on your camera this is actually a 136mm lens) and the lens is still fast enough for indoor portraits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But &lt;strong&gt;I wouldn't recommend buying 55-250&lt;/strong&gt; because of its rather low quality. After a while (when you earn enough) you'll rather get a pro EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM lens if you find out you actually need it. A 24-105 zoom may be enough for what you'll need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Optimal single lens solution for starters like yourself&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's also one single lens that you may very well consider (and &lt;strong&gt;suits your camera and to some extent also your budget&lt;/strong&gt;) and that's the &lt;strong&gt;EF-S 18-200/f3.5-5.6 IS&lt;/strong&gt;. It has huge zoom range but it performs quite well despite this huge zoom range. It also doesn't have USM which means it will focus a bit slower, but therefore it also costs less. Since its IS is &lt;strong&gt;very good&lt;/strong&gt; this means that even though it doesn't open as much as others, it will be possible to make good shots even inside. For a person getting into wedding photo this will be it. It's very wide for those group shots and whole scene shots, and also very narrow with IS that will produce satisfactory portraits. It costs about 600$ but you could get away with a single and very versatile lens that is much better than the 55-250 on the longer end. &lt;strong&gt;Much better&lt;/strong&gt;. It won't be as sharp as your 85 prime (at same focal length), but you could work with this single one for some time before earning enough money to buy yourself better ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;One last opinion&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're mainly shooting wedding photography and if you do/will get paid for it, then I would suggest you buy yourself a great lens. You will earn money with it and the better images you get out of it, the more satisfaction your clients will get and more business will be there for you (if you can also make great intriguing photos). It will definitely pay itself off in rather short time. It all depends on the amount of weddings you shoot. I know that a wedding photographer in my country costs anywhere from 400€ and up. For about 800€ you get very excellent results and higher prices then depend more on prominence and photographer. But the difference between 400€ and 800€ is sometimes staggering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2110" LastEditorUserId="2110" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-27T14:16:56.363" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T14:16:56.363" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10212" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10126" CreationDate="2011-03-27T16:08:38.613" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You may also want to take a look at Strobist &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1901" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T16:08:38.613" />
  <row Id="10213" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10355" CreationDate="2011-03-27T18:43:36.313" Score="5" ViewCount="127" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently imported a large library into Lightroom, I've been going through it and have found several duplicates of the same pictures. They might be in different folders as well. Is there an easy way to remove duplicates? Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T20:12:46.977" Title="How do I remove duplicates of the same image in Lightroom?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;lightroom-3&gt;&lt;duplicates&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10214" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10217" CreationDate="2011-03-27T19:59:01.780" Score="3" ViewCount="126" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm wondering about 50mm f/1.4 for Nikons. The Nikon 50mm f/1.4D has a 52mm filter size. The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 has a 77mm filter size. There's a lot more glass in the Sigma.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, does having a larger filter size mean that a lens will collect more light, and therefore produce better photographs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4199" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T21:24:28.917" Title="Does a larger lens filter size imply more light and better photos?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10215" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10209" CreationDate="2011-03-27T20:03:38.980" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd (strongly) consider renting a lens or two:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Try them out and figure out what works for you.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You can afford to &lt;em&gt;use&lt;/em&gt; better lenses than you can afford to &lt;em&gt;buy&lt;/em&gt; right now.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that even though you're just starting out at this, and may not have the money to buy the best lenses, the people getting married will only (we hope) be doing this once. At least in my opinion, when you're shooting a wedding, it's a moral obligation to turn down the work unless you're honestly prepared to do the job right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Along with the lenses, I'd point to having a spare camera body as essential for a wedding. If nothing else, I'd pick up an older film body and at least a half dozen (or so) rolls of something like Vericolor (film specifically intended for portraits). Even if you're not &lt;em&gt;as&lt;/em&gt; proficient with it, having &lt;em&gt;something&lt;/em&gt; to ensure you don't miss truly crucial shots is a lot better than nothing (and you can pick up mid-range film bodies &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; inexpensively any more). Again, you might consider renting a spare body instead, at least for the first few times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T20:03:38.980" />
  <row Id="10216" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10209" CreationDate="2011-03-27T20:12:54.463" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The previous comments very nicely describe the many technical characteristics, benefits and deficiencies, of these very useful lenses.  I want to add a comment from a more abstract level.  Ask yourself what sorts of photographs you will have to take and what sort you may want or like to take.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have to have the ability to take superior portraits, individuals, couples and groups, both large and small.  You should get the sharpest lens you can manage for these shots.  You are likely to to shoot some artistic compositions in natural light and low light, too.  For example, imagine shooting a portrait in the light of a large stained glass window, or catching the lights reflected off the water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You also will shoot large groups, e.g., multiple whole families.  For that, you should have a quality wide angle with a flat field of view.  For many years, my primary lens was a Nikkor 35mm, a rather expensive lens in its day.  Of course, it worked well for sizable groups, but, also, I learned how to get close enough to people to get good close-in results with it.  That's a social, not a technical skill, and you should appreciate the extent to which such skills underlie your technical decisions. You may shoot such large groups or shoot in such confined spaces that you'll need a 24, but such a lens is not likely to be worth it for you as you begin.  Just avoid such shots.  Similarly, I hardly ever used a telephoto, just a 105 for portraits, but I expended effort to make a telephoto unnecessary for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you're trying to capture dynamic events, dancing, partying, so forth, you have to be able to get a well-framed shot quickly, thus, a zoom is invaluable.  Nevertheless, you can always resort to post-production to enhance the photos you manage to get.  Post production takes time and costs you money, however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4096" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T20:12:54.463" />
  <row Id="10217" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10214" CreationDate="2011-03-27T20:15:45.587" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, a designation of f/1.4 implies the same ratio between focal length and aperture in both lenses. So if you're shooting the same scene, both lenses will give you the exact same shutter speed wide open (unless you vary your ISO...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I've read on the Sigma, the larger opening diameter means less vignetting wide open. I haven't observed this first-hand as I don't have either lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're shooting a crop digital body, this is moot as you're not going to get the corners where vignetting is visible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T20:15:45.587" />
  <row Id="10218" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10209" CreationDate="2011-03-27T20:26:49.153" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While the 85/1.8 is a great lens, I'd suggest something shorter for a first prime, 85mm is quite a tight focal length on your camera. Which means one of the fifties. Personally I don't consider the 50/1.4 worth the price premium over the 1.8 version; I've had one but sold it and later got the 1.8. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the tele zoom lens you are quite frankly in a bit of a bind. I'd not want to touch indoors tele photography with a barge-pole if all I had was a slow (ie. non-f/2.8) zoom. IS is well and good in and of itself, but quite useless for people photography in low light; IS freezes camera shake but does nothing at all to freeze a moving subject! So - in my opinion it's a 70-200 f/2.8 (or equivalent; perhaps a 50-150mm f/2.8) or nothing. Anything slower forces you to use a flash. Do you have one? The internal flash will not be enough! As a budget(ish) two-lens setup I'd look at a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 as a normal zoom paired with a Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 as the long zoom. (Yes, I know it may exceed your budget.) Plus an external flash, a Canon 430EX at a minimum, 580 if possible. Throw in the 50/1.8 and you should be prepared for most situations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, frankly, if you are going to charge people money for wedding photography, as opposed to doing it as a hobby, you absolutely have to have a second camera body. Just in case the first one fails for some reason - the advantage is that you can have a different focal length on each body and not have to waste time changing optics in the heat of battle. A wedding is one of those things that absolutely cannot be re-shot if you mess up the photos then and there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T20:26:49.153" />
  <row Id="10219" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10429" CreationDate="2011-03-27T20:40:46.550" Score="4" ViewCount="254" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can someone try to help me how to shoot and edit photos to have similar result as the fourth photo on this page? &lt;a href=&quot;http://daniellestahl.com.au/blog/tag/sydney/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://daniellestahl.com.au/blog/tag/sydney/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there some fast way how to do it or will I need to add contrast and then mask the areas where I don't want it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4484" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-31T23:02:29.927" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T00:22:26.253" Title="How do I get a portrait with sharp, sparkling, high-contrast eyes as in this example?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;contrast&gt;&lt;eyes&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="19" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10220" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10214" CreationDate="2011-03-27T20:47:14.987" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The focal length and aperture of the lens are all that really matter in this context. In both cases, the focal length is 50mm and the aperture is f/1.4 which means that the opening that is allowing the light through is approximately 36mm wide. This is true no matter how large the lens barrel is and so the lenses will collect the same amount of light given equal scenes with the same shutter speed and ISO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of better, that's much different. There are a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; of factors that go into make one lens better than another, but some things are valid considerations in the absence of charts to look at...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Prime lenses are usually sharper than zooms (not so relevant in this case).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Less glass usually means sharper as more glass usually means more correction needed and that degrades the image quality. Whether you can reasonably perceive this or not in everyday shooting is another discussion.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Faster lenses (e.g. the f/1.4 vs f/2.0) usually means better quality and sharper earlier. Most lenses will sharpen up when stopped down from maximum aperture by a few stops, so when you start from a much faster lens, you can get sharper images with more light.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Number of blades, and their shape, for their aperture. More, and rounded, blades give a more circular appearance which helps with improved bokeh (out of focus appearance of highlights... does it look like a circle or a stop sign?).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, these are a few factors to consider. Of course, when weighing the difference, price must also be considered and that means, get the best all around value for the dollar. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T20:47:14.987" />
  <row Id="10221" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-27T21:14:21.733" Score="3" ViewCount="38" Body="&lt;p&gt;For a casual photographer and non-technical person, who has some capacity and interest to learn but correctly recognizes she needs simplicity more than she needs a wealth of capabilities, for a person who's happy to pay for the device that will best suit her, what simple camera with these characteristics will qualify for her consideration? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Believe me when I tell you I tried to search for this myself.  I found so much ambiguous, even conflicting information, I just gave up looking at the varying, sundry Google results and came here to ask.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She wants a good zoom length and a sharp image, so, that means a good CCD and good optics are important to her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She wants a long battery life.  When she picks the camera up, she wants it to be ready even if the last time she took a shot was months before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The camera should be easy for her to handle.  If only she could set it to &quot;take a great photo that we'll all like&quot;.  Short of that, she wants to not have to be consumed with multiple settings and a jungle of menu commands.  It would be great for her to have on-screen directions.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Physically, the camera should allow her small hands to confidently hold, support and manipulate it.  You may not be able to suggest the right sized camera, but please warn her away from those that are too large or too small, too light or too heavy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She wants to be able to transfer the photos to her computer without complication.  The last camera she had, years ago, was inexplicably and frustratingly difficult to download.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She wants to be able to capture video, too, as much and with as high a quality as possible.  I reminded her she's researching a still camera, but she countered, what is the best video available to me?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps even the simplest DSLR would be more than she wants.  Probably, she has to veer towards a point-and-shoot.  Is there anything in between?  Thanks a lot for sharing the benefit of your experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4096" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-27T21:28:37.323" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T21:32:48.193" Title="How can I select a simple camera?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;&lt;video&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10222" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10214" CreationDate="2011-03-27T21:24:28.917" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The larger front element doesn't translate directly to a faster aperture -- since they're both rated at f/1.4, they theoretically collect the same amount of light. At least in most tests I've seen, it appears that the Sigma does vignette less than the Nikon though. It also retains relatively round out-of-focus highlights toward the edge of the frame, where most of the competitors start to get fairly elliptical toward the edges.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The real question seems to be quality control. When DPReview tested it, they found it distinctly better than either the Nikon or Canon counterparts. When Photozone.de tested it, they found quite poor resolution, especially toward the edges. This &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; be a problem in testing. It's also possible that photozone.de simply got one after it had been dropped, or otherwise abused (test lenses often get passed around from one tester to another, and some may not be as careful as they should be).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have taken a few shots with one, and found it quite impressive -- but I have no idea whether that's typical, or my friend just happened to get a particularly good copy. None of the pictures I took would really qualify as serious stress testing either, so while it did well, under the same circumstances, I'd be a bit surprised at anything doing particularly badly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T21:24:28.917" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10223" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10221" CreationDate="2011-03-27T21:32:48.193" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A &lt;strong&gt;bridge camera&lt;/strong&gt; sounds like the right choice for you. As the name suggests, these are halfway between a point-and-shoot and a DSLR. They are also called &lt;strong&gt;compact system cameras&lt;/strong&gt;. They generally have longer lenses (i.e. 'more zoom') which are also better quality, and, as well as the usual auto modes, plenty of manual settings. These allow you to experiment with taking more control of the camera, as you would with a DSLR. They generally look like an SLR, but smaller and more compact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are generally a little larger than a point and shoot, but not as big as a DSLR, so you should have no problem using them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of your worries may be based on preconceptions born from not owning a camera for some years. Battery life is generally much better nowadays, with the advent of Lithium Ion batteries (though few batteries last months if you leave them in the camera; the charge will 'trickle' out. Just take the battery out if you don't plan on using it for a while).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Transferring photos is also very simple nowadays. Most, if not all, cameras have a simple USB connection; plug the camera in, and the computer recognises it and will ask if you want to transfer - and away you go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Almost all bridge cameras have a movie function; nowadays they are usually HD as well, and can yield very good results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many bridge cameras on the market. Budget is the first factor to help you narrow down the range; from there you can decide on features etc. Perhaps the most popular camera in this category is the Panasonic Lumix. It is &lt;em&gt;almost&lt;/em&gt; an SLR, in that it has interchangeable lenses, but also has more user-friendly features like touch screen controls. There are various others: all the major manufacturers have their own versions. Canon have the SX and Powershot series, Nikon the Coolpix range. Sony, Samsung and Olympus are also major players.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have a look at Amazon, as they generally have a good range and lay out the main specs logically. The review system is also useful. However, don't go ahead and order anything without first going to a store and actually handling and using a few cameras; this is the only way to be really sure of getting the camera you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck, and don't forget, if you get your camera and have any questions about using it, this is the place to come!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T21:32:48.193" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10224" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10225" CreationDate="2011-03-27T21:46:21.963" Score="4" ViewCount="51" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I remove the rechargeable BP battery from my Canon EOS 50D for an extended period of time, will the internal lithium battery preserve all of my settings (including custom functions, date/time, etc.)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4485" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-27T22:22:54.257" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T22:24:30.043" Title="Will a Canon dSLR retain settings if the battery is removed for an extended period of time?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;batteries&gt;&lt;canon-50d&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10225" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10224" CreationDate="2011-03-27T22:24:30.043" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All modern canon dslr's have a small lithium battery (similar to the one that is used to power your computers CMOS) that powers the internal memory that retains the settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2011-03-27T22:24:30.043" />
  <row Id="10226" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10322" CreationDate="2011-03-27T22:56:52.067" Score="2" ViewCount="136" Body="&lt;p&gt;I spend a day in and around Verona, Italy past weekend and was shooting around with a lent Nikon D80. I used a 2G SD card for storage. I was shooting FINE/L JPEG photos. When it got to 161 photos before it was full I started getting a CHR/CHA (since it's digital display I can't really say whether it's an A or an R) reding on the mono display. Anyway. It was blinking and after every shot the number increased back from 160 to 161 so I realised that something has been going on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I tried replying my photos but camera wouldn't show me anything. Anyway. For the last 30 minutes of shooting I changed SD card to at lest be able to continue shooting but the shocker came afterwards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I inserted the SD card in my computer it started behaving badly because I wasn't able to get any photos off of it. When I tried to do a disk error checking, it dis something quickly and now when I try to put the card it it says it needs to be formatted before it can be used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm afraid all my photos are now lost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I wonder whether you're ever experienced anything similar? Which camera did you use and were you ever able to recover those photos you've taken?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It wasn't something so very important but I wonder what I would do if I took some photos of something I know I'd do only once in my life like a super special vacation somewhere and then loose all photographic memories?! I hope this kind of thing never happened to any of those wedding photographers. &lt;strong&gt;What an embarrassing moment that would be!&lt;/strong&gt; Saying: &quot;&lt;em&gt;Would you please do the whole day again please, because I lost your photos?&lt;/em&gt;&quot; is probably out of the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2110" LastEditorUserId="2110" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-27T23:21:20.970" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T12:23:09.297" Title="Lost photos on my SD card while shooting with Nikon D80" Tags="&lt;sdhc&gt;&lt;nikon-d80&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10227" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10229" CreationDate="2011-03-27T23:31:25.593" Score="6" ViewCount="399" Body="&lt;p&gt;In times of film photography there was a rule to either use ISO 100 film (or even great Velvia 50) which usually had considerably less grain noise than ISO 400 film. So 100 for outside or well lit subjects and 400 for indoor everyday photography. It was also considered that ISO 200 film was a bad choice because it provided no obvious advantage over 400. It had more noise than 100 and was slower than 400.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What's up with ISO 200 these days on a digital camera? Can same rules with 100 and 400 still be applied to DSLRs or have times changed considerably and nowadays even 200 gets used lots?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disadvantagaes/advantages in terms of colours, contrast, noise and any other factors. What ISO settings do you usually use?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I'm talking here about cropped sensor DSLRs (Canon and Nikon brethren).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2110" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-28T02:53:11.893" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T12:04:39.907" Title="Is ISO 200 still considered to be a bad choice, on digital cameras?" Tags="&lt;iso&gt;&lt;digital-vs-film&gt;&lt;comparison&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10228" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10227" CreationDate="2011-03-28T00:29:17.780" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;These days, digital sensors are far exceeding the capabilities of film when it comes to light sensitivity. Some of the newest sensors, such as the one sported by the Pentax K-5 or the Nikon D7000, are essentially noise free to ISO 1600, unheard of in film. So, what does that really mean to you? Well, the major camera brands offer some form of automatic ISO selection with various shooting modes and, for the most part, you can safely select that and feel confident that the image itself will show little to no noise within the range of ISO that film was generally available in. Get beyond that, it varies to some degree, but even then it's becoming less an issue and you can always do a little work to clean it up, like this ISO 20000 (yes, 20000) shot of mine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/SkrBE.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in my humble opinion, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot ISO 200 in the slightest... Heck, at this point (since I do use a Pentax K-5), I don't hesitate through ISO 6400. Beyond that, it's just down to get the shot or no, as that one was, and work on it. I'll just decide if it's worth it, as it was for this one. However, I'll do all that through setting the shutter speed I want and the aperture I want, and then letting the camera do the ISO selection. I only go totally manual in a studio set up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T00:29:17.780" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10229" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10227" CreationDate="2011-03-28T00:29:41.150" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it's still generally true that one tends to either use lowest-possible ISO in bright lighting, or else higher-than-200 ISO settings in darker situations. But I wouldn't say I'd &lt;em&gt;avoid&lt;/em&gt; ISO 200; it just often doesn't seem to be convenient. If I'm in the sun, there's usually no need for it, and if I'm indoors, I'd often rather get a little more depth of field or a faster shutter speed than worry about keeping ISO down. But if ISO 200 fit the exposure and aperture+time I want, I'd not think twice about using it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One reason is that changing ISO is trivial now; I can choose ISO 200 for a particular shot with the press of a button and flick of a dial (or going into a menu), rather than &lt;em&gt;committing&lt;/em&gt; to it until I change film. I can even let the camera automatically use it whenever it fits best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another other consideration is that modern digital SLR cameras, especially of recent vintage, have really very good high-ISO capabilities. The noise might not be attractive as film grain sometimes can be, but there's much, much less of it. So rather than going to ISO 400, one might not think twice about ISO 800, 1600, or beyond. I think you're right, though, that ISO 200 is still left in an awkward spot — if ISO 1600 looks great, why &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; use that instead?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On some cameras, though, there is a reason where ISO 200 is actually technically preferred over ISO 100. This is because on these cameras the &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3333/what-is-meant-by-the-native-iso-when-talking-about-dslrs/3342#3342&quot;&gt;base iso&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; of the sensor is 200, and going &lt;em&gt;below&lt;/em&gt; that is actually worse, since it reduces dynamic range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, one might want to use a highlight-preserving mode, if you camera offers it. Because digital sensors clip highlights in an ugly way rather than the graceful analog response of film, having blown-out bright areas is particularly bad. Some cameras offer a mode where they actually underexpose by one stop and the adjust upwards — you get more protection for highlights at the cost of increased shadow noise. And since each shot is really exposed one ISO step down, the bottom of the scale — ISO 100, on my camera — isn't an option. So, when I turn that on, ISO 200 becomes the lowest setting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, overall: I don't think there's a special problem with ISO 200, but I do think it tends to fall kind of in a less-used middle point. If you're using a camera which, for technical reasons, makes ISO 200 a good choice, don't be afraid of it. If you're using a small-sensor point &amp;amp; shoot camera where ISO 200 is worse than 400, there may be times when it makes a good compromise setting, but on cameras which exhibit less noise at higher levels, you'll probably just use those instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T00:29:41.150" />
  <row Id="10230" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10227" CreationDate="2011-03-28T00:32:43.920" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With the addition of this applying only to cropped-sensor dSLRs, the answer is pretty simple: at least for any that's even reasonably close to current, ISO 200 is about as close to noise free as the camera can manage. At least in &lt;em&gt;most&lt;/em&gt; cases, dropping to a lower ISO (e.g., 100) doesn't reduce noise much, but often makes exposure more critical (i.e., you're more likely to get clipping with even minor over-exposure).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One minor note: Though it has limited relevance in the case of ISO 200, some cameras (e.g., many with Sony sensors) apparently have two separate amplifiers, one of which works only in full-stop sizes, and the other in fractional stops. The fractional-stop amplifier seems to be much lower noise, so (for example) there's very little change in noise going from ISO 100 to 160, but then a substantially larger jump going from 160 to 200. Again, going from ISO 200 to 320 adds very little more noise, but going to 400 adds quite a bit more noise again. As such, with these cameras you almost always want to use a setting that's 1/3&lt;sup&gt;rd&lt;/sup&gt; stop under the &quot;obvious&quot; settings (so you generally want to use 160, 320, 640, etc., rather than 200, 400, 800, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T00:32:43.920" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10232" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10300" CreationDate="2011-03-28T01:15:00.537" Score="13" ViewCount="603" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I learned the term, a high-key image is one where the shadows are effectively eliminated, and the mid-tone detail pushed into brighter zones. My question is simple: is this an accurate definition, or is it too simple (or just plain wrong)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've seen the term used to describe photos which just happen to have a lot of light, but also have significant areas of deep shadow, and a lot of detail in the mid-tones. I've also seen it to simply mean a photo where the exposure decision is slightly higher than typical. Are these uses &quot;within bounds&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, it may be obvious, but: is low-key the direct opposite of high-key, but dark instead of light, or is there something more subtle?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know very much about studio lighting; I've heard that there's something called a &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/633/what-is-the-proper-key-light-placement-and-size-for-portraits&quot;&gt;key light&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, and these terms may relate. Do they, and how? &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-key_lighting&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia says so&lt;/a&gt;, but I'm not sure I believe it. I always assumed that the term came by analogy with music*. Is it possible that the terms &quot;high-key lighting&quot; and &quot;high-key photograph&quot; are subtly different? (That is, does high-key lighting always result in high-key photographs, and can high-key photographs be made without a specific studio lighting set-up?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;* &lt;em&gt;&quot;those songs which are made for the high key be made for more life, the other in the low key with more grauetie and staidnesse&quot;&lt;/em&gt; — 16th-century Composer Thomas Morley&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T20:39:26.343" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T13:16:05.780" Title="What does it mean for a photograph to be &quot;high key&quot;?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;art&gt;&lt;high-key&gt;&lt;low-key&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10234" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6045" CreationDate="2011-03-28T01:46:07.387" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your shutter speed is messed up. It appears that the shutter closed before it captured the whole picture. Your camera should have a shutter speed setting, you should try to adjust it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4486" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T01:46:07.387" />
  <row Id="10235" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10433" CreationDate="2011-03-28T02:11:40.727" Score="6" ViewCount="200" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Canon 5D Mark 2 with the 50mm Canon 1.4 USM lens has a pretty odd shape.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is really short and really wide. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As it turns out, from my visit to two photography stores yesterday, not too many companies make camera bags to fit this configuration properly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am looking for a bag that will fit and weather protect my camera and lens (and nothing else).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any ideas?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="230" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T15:07:36.603" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T12:09:28.180" Title="A small  bag for a large pro camera body with a small lens?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;camera-bag&gt;&lt;equipment-protection&gt;&lt;transport&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10236" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-28T05:10:06.197" Score="2" ViewCount="163" Body="&lt;p&gt;As an upgrade from kit lens 18-55mm, which would be a better GENERAL purpose lens? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4489" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T07:51:59.337" Title="Upgrade general purpose lens for canon from 18-55 kit lens" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;upgrade&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10238" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9549" CreationDate="2011-03-28T06:24:41.417" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The CineMorph filter does this elliptical bokeh method and also adds a streak element for flares on a rotating frame. There is a lot of footage and some &lt;em&gt;with/without&lt;/em&gt; &amp;amp; &lt;em&gt;before/after&lt;/em&gt; videos on the site here: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vid-atlantic.com/cinemorphic&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.vid-atlantic.com/cinemorphic&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Originally designed for Run N Gun&#xA;  shooting where regular anamorphic&#xA;  lenses could not go! These filters&#xA;  will NOT stretch or squeeze to create&#xA;  a true anamorphic image. It keeps the&#xA;  image at 16:9 and you can crop in post&#xA;  at any ratio you choose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It mimics characteristics of&#xA;  anamorphic lenses such as the flare or&#xA;  streak and vertically stretched bokeh.&#xA;  It's very easy to use and allows you&#xA;  to rack focus your photo lens like&#xA;  normal. This is a HUGE plus as&#xA;  shooting with real anamorphic&#xA;  attachments requires you to focus both&#xA;  the anamorphic lens and the&#xA;  photographic lens, making run and gun&#xA;  shooting pretty much impossible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4490" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-07T04:25:07.427" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T04:25:07.427" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10239" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-28T06:36:06.443" Score="2" ViewCount="91" Body="&lt;p&gt;Which laser printer models have the widest Pantone color gamut? -- old or new models are acceptable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2592" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T18:43:02.423" Title="Laser Printers: Widest Pantone Gamut?" Tags="&lt;color-management&gt;&lt;printer&gt;&lt;wide-gamut&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="10240" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10227" CreationDate="2011-03-28T07:03:39.370" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What ISO you choose should be based on your camera and how large you plan to print. If you never print your pictures larger than a standard 4x6&quot;, it probably won't even matter. I have a canon Rebel XSI, and have printed several pictures of dark scenes with lots of solid blocks of color (areas where noise shows strongest) shot at ISO 1600 and you can't even see the noise. My camera is almost three years old, and is a very low end DSLR. A D7000 has easily double, maybe triple the usable range of ISO. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When out shooting I will use 400 without concern if necessary, but I tend to carry a tripod and just use 100. For non-serious pictures of friends or at parties I just set it to 800 or 1600 and ignore it. I know the largest they will ever be printed is perhaps 8x10, and that is pushing it. It also depends on if you shoot in RAW and process them, or shoot JPG. If you shoot raw, you can probably get at least one more stop of no noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're trying to print large - 13x19&quot; or larger - then yes it will will become a factor. But at that point you should probably be on tripod for maximum sharpness, unless its bright daylight, in which case you wouldn't need high ISO anyway :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4391" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T07:03:39.370" />
  <row Id="10241" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10236" CreationDate="2011-03-28T07:51:59.337" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;If you only want to carry one lens,&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and want your new lens to have at least the same capabilities as your kit lens, you have two basic options: a fast zoom, or a superzoom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Fast zoom&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would cover a very similar focal length range as your kit lens; generally 17-50mm or 17-55mm, but have a constant aperture of f/2.8. Not a big deal at the wide end, but that's two stops (4 times) faster than your kit lens all the way zoomed in. This would let you take pictures in lower light without extra noise, and can have shallow depth of field. Some examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425812-USA/Canon_1242B002AA_EF_S_17_55mm_f_2_8_IS.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 17-55mm f/2.8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689620-REG/Sigma_583101_17_50mm_F2_8_EX_DC.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/670047-REG/Sigma_668101_17_70mm_F2_8_4_DC_Macro.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423714-REG/Tamron_AF016C700_17_50mm_f_2_8_XR_Di.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/652136-USA/Tamron_AFB005C700_SP_AF_17_50mm_f_2_8.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC&lt;/a&gt;, which has image stabilization&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/498661-REG/Tokina_ATX165PRODXC_16_50mm_f_2_8_AT_X_165.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Super zoom&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A superzoom is a lens with a very long zoom range, covering both wide angle and telephoto. Your kit lens has about a 3x zoom; superzooms have 10x-15x. Generally, these aren't any faster than kit zooms, with a typical aperture range of f/3.5-f/5.6. These let you change composition without changing lenses, but won't generally win any awards for sharpness, low light abilities, or distortion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/582444-USA/Canon_2752B002_EF_S_18_200mm_f_3_5_5_6_IS.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/703488-USA/Canon_3558B002_EF_S_18_135mm_f_3_5_5_6_IS.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/549240-REG/Sigma_853101_18_125mm_f_3_8_5_6_DC_OS.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 OS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/373747-REG/Sigma_777101_18_200mm_f_3_5_6_3_DC_Lens.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/485226-REG/Sigma_888_101_18_200mm_f_3_5_6_3_DC_OS.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 OS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/609113-REG/Sigma_880_101_18_250mm_f_3_5.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 18-250mm OS f/3.5-6.3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/363593-REG/Tamron_AF014C700_18_200mm_f_3_5_6_3_XR_Di_II.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/747927-REG/Tamron_AFB008C700_AF18_270mm_f_3_5_6_3_Di_II.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 VC&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/652835-REG/Tokina_ATXAF635DX_16_5_135mm_f_3_5_5_6_AT_X_DX.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tokina 16.5-135mm f/3.5-5.6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;If you're willing to carry more than one lens,&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;you can get more of a specialty lens, that solves one problem very well, instead of the very general-purpose lenses above. You've got 3 basic options for this: a wide zoom, telephoto zoom, or a fast prime.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Wide zoom&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A wide zoom will let you get a much wider angle than the 18mm widest setting on your current lens, such as 10mm or 12mm. Some of these will be fisheye lenses, which produce &lt;a href=&quot;http://images.google.com/images?q=fisheye&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;severe distortion&lt;/a&gt;; others will be rectilinear, which means they produce a &quot;normal&quot; image, where straight lines in the world are straight in the image. Some fisheye lenses can provide a 180° (or more) field of view. Wide angle lenses often suffer from noticeable distortion, chromatic aberration, and vignetting, but this is usually better with a moderately stopped-down aperture and at the less-wide end of the zoom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/351542-USA/Canon_9518A002_EF_S_10_22mm_f_3_5_4_5_USM.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732107-USA/Canon_4427B002_EF_8_15mm_f_4L_Fisheye.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 8-15mm f/4 Fisheye&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/633609-REG/Sigma_202101_10_20mm_f_3_5.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/381610-REG/Sigma_201101_10_20mm_f_4_5_6_EX_DC.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689635-REG/Sigma_203101_8_16mm_F4_5_5_6_DC_HSM.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6&lt;/a&gt; (Rectilinear, amazingly.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/302698-REG/Sigma_200101_12_24mm_f_4_5_5_6_AF_Lens.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/755357-REG/Sigma_204101_12_24mm_f_4_5_5_6_II_DG.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 II&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/583991-REG/Tamron_B001C_700_SP_AF_10_24mm_f.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/554035-REG/Tokina_ATX116PRODXC_11_16mm_f_2_8_AT_X_116.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Telephoto zoom&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A telephoto zoom would have a &quot;wide&quot; angle of somewhere around 55-75mm, and a long end of 200mm or more. Telephoto zooms can be sharper, less distorted, cheaper, and have faster autofocus than a superzoom with the same reach, but you have to switch back to your kit lens if you want to zoom out far enough. You can also get telephoto lenses with faster apertures, like f/4 or f/2.8, but these can get pretty expensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/169267-USA/Canon_6473A003AA_75_300mm_f_4_0_5_6_III_Autofocus.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/169269-USA/Canon_6472A002_75_300mm_f_4_0_5_6_III_USM.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 USM&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/680103-USA/Canon_2751B002_EF_70_200mm_f_2_8L_IS.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/457678-USA/Canon_1258B002AA_EF_70_200mm_f_4L_IS.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/622383-USA/Sigma_686101_50_200mm_f_4_5_6_DC_OS.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 50-200mm f/4-5.6 OS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apparently, Sigma also makes a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/682764-USA/Sigma_738101_50_500mm_f_4_5_6_3_DG_OS.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;50-500mm f/4.5-6.3&lt;/a&gt; lens, which I guess would be a telephoto superzoom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Fast prime&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fast primes are the kings of low-light photography. These generally have apertures of f/1.4 to f/2.0, though there are some f/1.2 and faster lenses out there. A basic fast prime like a 35mm or 50mm is a great second lens to get; they can be pretty affordable, and can be 8-16x faster than your kit lens at its telephoto end. Because they don't zoom, these can be incredibly sharp, have low chromatic aberration, and have very low distortion. The very wide aperture can create a very shallow depth of field, leaving everything but your subject out of focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12142-USA/Canon_2514A002_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_8.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 50mm f/1.8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12140-USA/Canon_2515A003_50mm_f_1_4_USM_Autofocus.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 50mm f/1.4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/457680-USA/Canon_1257B002AA_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_2L.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 50mm f/1.2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/162614-USA/Canon_2512A002_Wide_Angle_EF_35mm.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 35mm f/1.4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12119-USA/Canon_2507A002_Wide_Angle_EF_35mm.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 35mm f/2.0&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/560577-USA/Sigma_310_101_Normal_50mm_f_1_4_EX.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 50mm f/1.4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/676623-REG/Voigtlander_BA229DC_Ultron_40mm_f_2_0_SL_II.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Voigtlander 40mm f/2.0 Manual Focus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/381615-REG/Sigma_300101_30mm_f_1_4_EX_DC.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 30mm f/1.4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/102851-USA/Canon_2510A003_Wide_Angle_EF_28mm.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 28mm f/1.8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/590449-USA/Canon_2750B002_EF_24mm_f_1_4L_II.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 24mm f/1.4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/217794-USA/Sigma_411101_Super_W_A_20mm_f_1_8.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 20mm f/1.8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12182-USA/Canon_2519A003_85mm_f_1_8_USM_Autofocus.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 85mm f/1.8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423691-USA/Canon_1056B002AA_EF_85mm_f_1_2L_II.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 85mm f/1.2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/727169-USA/Sigma_320101_85mm_f_1_4_EX_DG.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 85mm f/1.4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note: This isn't an exhaustive list of lenses; I tried to give a representative sample of the lenses you might look at in each category, but I left out many lenses. Also, I shoot Nikon, so I can't personally recommend any of these lenses. I suggest you &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1520/lens-review-sites&quot;&gt;research each lens you're considering&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T07:51:59.337" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10242" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9883" CreationDate="2011-03-28T08:00:34.133" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Candles are fine. I took some pictures of an electrical arc that did not damage my sensor. I used a very small apeture (f/22 perhaps? it was years ago) to limit the amount of light coming in as much as possible. It was also only a split second spark, it just tripped the breaker instantly each time :P&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4391" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T08:00:34.133" />
  <row Id="10243" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2274" CreationDate="2011-03-28T08:08:39.573" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm pretty sure there is no lens on the planet with the price/performance ratio of that kit lens. They can also be had for less than $80, almost brand new on ebay. For a general walk around lens, vacation (where pictures are not the focus), pictures of friends/family, parties, etc, it is fantastic. It weighs virtually nothing, and the pictures are plenty sharp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, it has a horrible time isolating anything well due to the wide focal length and large max aperture, and it does not do well in low light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4391" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T08:08:39.573" />
  <row Id="10244" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7642" CreationDate="2011-03-28T08:14:19.710" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you end up uploading the video to youtube, you may use the build-in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/editor&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;video editor&lt;/a&gt; of the site. There is a 'stabilize video' effect there. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.labnol.org/internet/fix-shaky-videos/18956/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; you can find a more detailed description with a sample video.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course the Hugin-based solution described by Leonides will most likely give you a better result, but this solution is much simpler.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="507" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T08:14:19.710" />
  <row Id="10245" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2274" CreationDate="2011-03-28T09:08:21.707" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I personally think that for the price 18-55IS lens is a good lens and it is good to have that range covered. The kit lens would work fine as a walk-around and would be great for you to learn what focal range works for you best. Is not going to work for motor sports of course and if you are on a budget you can try ef-s 55-250IS. Sometimes their are sold in kit with 18-55is and 55-250is.&#xA;Both of those lenses are good in focal their range &lt;strong&gt;for the price&lt;/strong&gt; if you are on budget&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 50mm 1.8 is a must if your wife is into portrait. It is excellent starting point on the crop bodies, and I am sure your wife will be happy with the results, shallow depth of field and low light capabilities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it sum up I would recommend getting 18-55is, 55-250IS kit plus 50 1.8 lens&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those are recommendation assuming that you are on the budget and want to start shooting straight away all the subjects that you are interested in (instead of waiting till you save money for a better lens)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later on if decide to upgrade in any of those focal range, you should not have problems selling any of those lenses and you should not lose any money really as their are usually  cheaper in kit than when sold separately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some reviews of the lenses I mentioned&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/404-canon_1855_3556is_50d&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/160-canon-ef-50mm-f18-ii-test-report--review&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/194-canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f4-56-is-test-report--review&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastEditorUserId="115" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-28T09:13:40.080" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T09:13:40.080" />
  <row Id="10246" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10208" CreationDate="2011-03-28T10:10:04.560" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;150: the number of hues that the eye can discriminate in the spectrum.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;1,000,000: the number of colors (combinations of hue, saturation and brightness) that the eye can discriminate under optimal laboratory conditions.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/color.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;visualexpert.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this seems to be a controversial subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2520" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T10:10:04.560" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="10247" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10239" CreationDate="2011-03-28T10:22:33.347" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Printerinfo.com seem to measure gamut in their printer reviews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example they say the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.printerinfo.com/content/HP-Color-LaserJet-3600n-Laser-Printer-Review/Photo-Performance.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;HP CLJ3600n&lt;/a&gt; &quot;is not meant to print photographs, and this clearly shows.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2520" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T10:22:33.347" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10249" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10252" CreationDate="2011-03-28T10:58:57.383" Score="4" ViewCount="82" Body="&lt;p&gt;Walk around any home store such as IKEA and you will find a wide range of photos for sale, from landscapes to still life. Where do these stores get these photos? Is it straightforward stock buying, or is it more specialised?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T12:08:44.503" Title="Where do stores get their photographs/prints?" Tags="&lt;stock-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="10250" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10235" CreationDate="2011-03-28T11:44:39.183" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Caselogic-SLRC-200-Camera-Holster-Black/dp/B002DW96M6/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1301312174&amp;amp;sr=8-3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Caselogic SLRC-200 SLR Camera Holster&lt;/a&gt;, I have the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Caselogic-SLRC-201-Zoom-Holster-Black/dp/B001TZUS98/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1301312174&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Caselogic SLRC-201&lt;/a&gt; just a little bit longer. I think these bags have very good protection for your camera. The 201 has an suspension so that the lens cannot touch the bottom of the bag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3865" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T11:44:39.183" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10251" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10227" CreationDate="2011-03-28T12:04:39.907" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given that entire generations of digital cameras had EI200 as the lowest value they could use, and create quite good images at that setting, I seriously doubt you can consider it a bad choice :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to film, I used to normally use either 50 or 200, rarely 100 and 400, and never regretted it, until Fuji released Velvia 100 which is the last film I used in bulk, and never regretted the choice.&#xA;Knowing your chosen film inside and out is more important than minor differences in characteristics (of course that goes for shooting hundreds of rolls of the same film per year). Knowledge can compensate for those, and more than.&#xA;And the same is true now for digital cameras and their sensors.&#xA;Those using a camera for years and getting to know how to exploit its strengths best can get far better results with a 5-10 year old camera than those buying a new one every few months because &quot;it's better&quot; and never getting to know it at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T12:04:39.907" />
  <row Id="10252" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10249" CreationDate="2011-03-28T12:08:08.870" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For large multiple retailers, there is ultimately one of two things that go on -- Either a photographer has licensed the work as a stock image, or the manufacturer has commissioned the work. Given the nature of the photos, I'd be surprised if they commissioned them, themselves. They've then printed up thousands of copies for the retailer to distribute and sell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Smaller retailers sometimes act like galleries and will accept finished works from photographers and sell them on a commission basis. The one I'm involved with has even gone the other way, and approached photographers on sites like Flickr to see if they'd like to try and sell images for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T12:08:08.870" />
  <row Id="10253" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10249" CreationDate="2011-03-28T12:08:44.503" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Stock agencies, house photographers, contracting directly with professionals, competitions among staff and/or customers.&#xA;All kinds of ways to get photos to sell or display, any or all could be used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T12:08:44.503" />
  <row Id="10254" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-28T12:08:51.740" Score="2" ViewCount="161" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to but a Canon 1100D, but I have no idea between these kits:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon 1100D IS&#xA;Canon 1100D IS II&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The site is in Germany, so I couldn't understand very well, but when I&#xA;tried to translate, I didn't see any difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the IS:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fotovideoplus.ch/index.php?dbc=268f1ca2a07f912abb34ec3d856e2aca&amp;amp;page=1753&amp;amp;productNo=106235&amp;amp;pageType=&amp;amp;dbc=268f1ca2a07f912abb34ec3d856e2aca&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.fotovideoplus.ch/index.php?dbc=268f1ca2a07f912abb34ec3d856e2aca&amp;amp;page=1753&amp;amp;productNo=106235&amp;amp;pageType=&amp;amp;dbc=268f1ca2a07f912abb34ec3d856e2aca&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And here is the IS II:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fotovideoplus.ch/index.php?dbc=268f1ca2a07f912abb34ec3d856e2aca&amp;amp;page=1753&amp;amp;productNo=106236&amp;amp;pageType=&amp;amp;dbc=268f1ca2a07f912abb34ec3d856e2aca&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.fotovideoplus.ch/index.php?dbc=268f1ca2a07f912abb34ec3d856e2aca&amp;amp;page=1753&amp;amp;productNo=106236&amp;amp;pageType=&amp;amp;dbc=268f1ca2a07f912abb34ec3d856e2aca&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sorry, the links was not working, but now they are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4495" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-29T07:51:11.243" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T07:51:11.243" Title="What is the difference between these two Canon kit lenses?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;kit-lens&gt;&lt;canon-1100d&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10255" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2138" CreationDate="2011-03-28T12:15:45.043" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;far more important than the storage media is the catalogue system used to actually know what's stored where :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've yet to find one that works for me, is both flexible enough to allow me to create the categories and subcategories I want, works across mediums (digital, slides, negatives, prints), and is easy to use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T12:15:45.043" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-28T12:15:45.043" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10256" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10254" CreationDate="2011-03-28T13:17:01.793" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The second one gets you the newer version of the kit lens. Both have the same zoom range, aperture, min focus distance, filter size, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The new version (II) has a improved version of the stabilizer and automatically recognizes motion in the panning direction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T13:17:01.793" />
  <row Id="10258" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-28T15:36:04.183" Score="5" ViewCount="286" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been playing with various options, tried various tutorials.. but I never get the &#xA;post processed image I am looking for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tried using ligthroom presets, but the result is always a very artificially made up picture and an eyesore, with uneven highlights/contrasts and even uneven sharpness :( :( (I varied all sliders to make it look sober, but in vain).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I like my pictures to resemble something like this (basically Indian wedding)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.facebook.com/album.php?id=383945828208&amp;amp;aid=310488&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.facebook.com/album.php?id=383945828208&amp;amp;aid=310488&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;does anybody has an idea how to get these golden/reddish sheer yet very soothing picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4481" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-29T02:33:02.327" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T13:12:53.183" Title="How do I achieve these golden/reddish Indian wedding effects using Lightroom 3?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;wedding&gt;&lt;presets&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="10259" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6277" CreationDate="2011-03-28T15:47:44.950" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know if this has been suggested yet but we just bought a Sony A55 and I love it.  I'm am absolute newbie to photography but it was pretty quick to learn.  Even before I opened the manual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The GPS was a big deal to me and it has it.  I took a picture of our cat from across the room (well, 4-5') and was amazed at the clarity the &quot;stock&quot; lens had.  In fact, the details on the cat's eye was so good that it kinda grossed me out.  LOL&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The weather is pretty bad this week but I hope to really start testing this thing out this month when the weather gets better.  But so far, it seems like a great camera for the features/price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4498" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T15:47:44.950" />
  <row Id="10260" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2117" CreationDate="2011-03-28T16:12:26.347" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been quite impressed by some videos made with &lt;a href=&quot;http://gopro.com/products/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;GoPro&lt;/a&gt;'s line of cameras and their mounts meant for this kind of usage. The cameras have a water- and shockproof casing. If the &lt;a href=&quot;http://gopro.com/camera-accessories/replacement-hd-housing/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;casing&lt;/a&gt; breaks, it can be replaced separately. There is a wide selection of mounting options available, including &lt;a href=&quot;http://gopro.com/camera-mounts/handlebar-seatpost-mount/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;handlebar/seatpost mounts&lt;/a&gt; and two kinds of helmet mounts - for &lt;a href=&quot;http://gopro.com/camera-mounts/helmet-front-mount/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;regular&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://gopro.com/camera-mounts/vented-helmet-strap-mount/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;vented&lt;/a&gt; helmets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;HD Hero 960  is a decent 5MP model with an attractive price. HD Hero, the flagship, adds slightly fancier video options and possibility to attach an extra battery or LCD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T16:12:26.347" />
  <row Id="10261" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3730" CreationDate="2011-03-28T16:54:18.920" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ocean Conditions&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This may only be a Isolated problem, however I shoot a lot of sea scape shots. The house is of course air conditioned. When the camera and equipment is moved from the house to the area where I am going to shoot I find that condensation will built up in the equipment. This cost me a great deal to repair after a spotting issue developed on the inside lens and view finder. Avoid drastic changes in temperatures and moisture contents in the air where possible. Even if the equipment is &quot;Weather Sealed&quot; or not.  Condensation develops behind the weather sealing rendering the seals useless. Best bet is a secure place that is well ventilated and out of the sun and  the air temperature are ambient. The answer for me, was a unused bathroom that had a window in it, that I could raise an allow the outside air in. I stored the equipment there without having a problem with condensation build up when the equipment was transported to be used at the shoot location. Sounds a bit far fetched but having the condensation spots in the photos was a real let down, and cost me a bundle to have repaired, nearly wiping out a expensive lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4499" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T16:54:18.920" />
  <row Id="10262" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10258" CreationDate="2011-03-28T16:59:18.870" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you will want to use the split toning section in the develop module to adjust the color.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a decent tutorial on split toning at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/split-toning-in-lightroom-coloring-to-advance-your-images&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;digital photography school&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T16:59:18.870" />
  <row Id="10263" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10232" CreationDate="2011-03-28T17:33:54.673" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;edit&lt;/strong&gt; it seems the same term is used to mean two different things (see mattdm's &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10232/what-does-it-mean-for-a-photograph-to-be-high-key/10300#10300&quot;&gt;excellently researched answer&lt;/a&gt;), the following has been updated to reflect this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;High key lighting is a scheme which aims to reduce the dynamic range (ratio between dark and light areas) by means of flooding the scene with a very bright main (key) light(s).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As with many terms in photography it's usage is inconsistent. Most of these uses refer to images for which the histogram is shunted way over the right, meaning the vast majority pixels fall in the upper end of the brightness range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People use high key to describe such images regardless of the means used to achieve the effect, e.g. high key lighting, massive contrast boost in photoshop, simply overexposing the image etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if you subscribe to the view that words are defined by their usage, then all the images you mention in your question are indeed high key.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;edit: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;in fact a quick google image search for &quot;high key&quot; [you might want to turn safesearch on] mostly results in images which are massively overexposed, or images for which the contrast has been increased (ironically the opposite of what you would get with a high key lighting scheme).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;example of an image referred to as high key (I'd call this overexposed):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.sxc.hu/pic/m/v/vi/vierdrie/893002_high_key_close_up.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is an image of a scene with a high key lighting scheme (the set from Friends):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://ittle.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/picture-39.png?w=450&amp;amp;h=340&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-31T12:57:28.903" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T12:57:28.903" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10264" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10209" CreationDate="2011-03-28T17:44:53.617" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wedding is a special occasion and you should not really skimp on the lenses. If you are just getting into wedding photography, find the best lens you can, rent it out for a day(for a relatively cheaper price e.g. in US borrowlens.com/ziplens/local brick&amp;amp;mortar stores).. and use the money you get from shooting weddings to buy the lens you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which lens you get depends on the photographer, I've seen awesome wedding pics with ultra wide angle lens and with telephoto.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="55" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T17:44:53.617" />
  <row Id="10265" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-28T17:47:45.407" Score="7" ViewCount="186" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What are ways to get a trouble-free photo-quality image on a large hard surface?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's been a while I am considering selling panoramas between 6 and 12 feet wide on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neoluminance.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Neoluminance&lt;/a&gt; but I have been troubled by difficulties creating a product that is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Photographic quality equal to professional prints.&lt;/strong&gt; At least 240dpi with a full color-gamut and tonality range.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rigid&lt;/strong&gt; but not too heavy for easy hanging and handling.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Smooth and bubble-free&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Durable&lt;/strong&gt; as professional prints.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of my efforts involve getting a print done by a large-format printer and fixing it to corrugated plastic, acid-free foam-core, cardboard and the like. Troubles spots:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fixing the photo perfectly to the backing without creating bubbles or folds.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Insufficient rigidity. Corrugated plastic was good, the other backings no.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Too heavy. Lamination is not available at the needed sizes, but already too heavy at smaller sizes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some places were not capable of cutting to exact dimensions and only supplied fixed aspect-ratio media.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T01:34:01.517" Title="How to produce a huge photograph on a hard surface?" Tags="&lt;printing&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10266" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10265" CreationDate="2011-03-28T18:08:44.347" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You might want to look into &quot;Art Block Mounting&quot; or &quot;Plaque Mounting&quot;. Both are different forms of hard surface, laminated art mounting, wherein the print is glued to the smooth (nearly polished, but not quite so) surface of MDF (Medium Density Fiberboard), then the whole print is laminated to seal it and provide some permanence. The print itself should be whatever you want it to be...so you should have the freedom to print at any resolution. Printing at 240ppi should be perfectly doable for a 6x12 foot print, but anything from 150-720ppi, depending on the printer, should be possible as well...since you are simply laminating a print to an MDF base. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a few professional landscape photographers I know of (can't remember their sites at the moment, I'll try to dig up the links later today) that only provide their prints mounted in this fashion. It works for very large prints (I've seen 4x5&quot; large formats for sale up to around 6 feet or so, however I don't see any reason laminated MDF mounting wouldn't work up to 6x12 feet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't really know of any professional print labs that actually do the MDF laminating for you, that part, as far as I know, is up to you...unless you can find a print shop that does offer such a service.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for your requirements. A laminated print mounted on MDF should be fairly bubble free, however there is always the chance of a few small bubbles when laminating. At 6&quot; x 12&quot;, an MDF base is going to be fairly heavy, unless you choose one that is very thin (less than 3/8ths of an inch), and you are going to lose some rigidity that way. The panoramic nature of your prints is going to make it difficult to find any kind of ideal balance between weight, rigidity, and safety...thats a monstrous print. Most of the time, I think these art block type prints are hung from wires in the ceiling and hooked to maintain the right amount of support.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T18:08:44.347" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10267" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10232" CreationDate="2011-03-28T18:17:47.943" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The term &quot;high key&quot; has become a bit overloaded these days. Generally speaking, &quot;key&quot; refers to the kind of lighting that primarily illuminates a scene...wherein &quot;high key lighting&quot; is bright light that thoroughly and fairly evenly illuminates a scene, and &quot;low key lighting&quot; is a configuration of light that illuminates specific portions of a scene, or illuminates it in such a way that it remains darker, rather than brightly, evenly lit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a raw technical standpoint, a &quot;high key&quot; image is one in which the histogram is fairly low and flat in the mid and darker tones, then peaks in the highlights. Such an image will be bright, maybe even over-exposed to a certain degree, and usually evenly lit. Contrast tends to be low, so the full histogram may be largely devoid of tones in lower-key areas. Conversely, a &quot;low key&quot; image is one in which the histogram is fairly low and flat in the highlights and mid tones, and peaks in the shadows to low mids. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that high-key lighting will usually lead to high-key images...however sometimes high key lighting is used to create small areas of harsh contrast. In such a case, you might have histogram that bumps in the shadows, few mid tones, and peak in the highlights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T18:17:47.943" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10268" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10258" CreationDate="2011-03-28T18:32:32.767" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off, while Lightroom is a fantastic program, it does have its limitations. Creating photos like the ones you linked might require some work in Photoshop to get the full effect. Photoshop supports reusable actions as well, which would make it possible for you to create an action that gives you this specific look, and reuse it over and over to create photos like this in a few seconds each. That said, here are some options with Lightroom:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Drop the Vibrancy setting a bit, and increase Saturation a tad. &#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The photos you linked seem to be saturated in some channels, while desaturated in others. They are not completely devoid of color, and they seem to have a spread of color, so I wouldn't use the split toning feature (which will literally reduce your photo to two color grades).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Push exposure up a bit, or push the brightness setting up a bit. &#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Most of the photos you linked look like they are close to being overexposed, but not actually overexposed. By increasing the exposure or brightness setting, you can get that high-key look. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Manually tweak the saturation and lightness of individual color channels. &#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lightroom offers low level control over individual color ranges, such as reds, oranges, blues, violets, etc. you can selectively reduce the saturation in certain range, shift the color of one range towards another, etc. You should be able to achieve a wide variety of creative tone and color in your photos this way.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T18:32:32.767" />
  <row Id="10269" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10239" CreationDate="2011-03-28T18:43:02.423" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Laser printers are not really known for their photo print quality or gamut. Ink jet printers have completely dominated this arena, and currently offer far wider print gamuts than you can get from other print technologies (especially from Epson and Canon). Current ink jet printers using UltraChrome HDR or Lucia EX support wide gamut up to Adobe RGB area, and cover over 90% of the Pantone solid color set.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you absolutely must use a laser printer, then you will probably have to deal with a pretty small gamut, I would say sRGB range at best, but likely smaller than that. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T18:43:02.423" />
  <row Id="10270" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3323" CreationDate="2011-03-28T18:44:56.090" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had an SD card go bad during a vacation to Disney World.  The camera said the card was unreadable.  And the computer said the card was blank.  When I knew I had 100+ pictures on there.  And this was before I got back to the hotel to back them up.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I remembered this un-erase program called &quot;Recuva&quot; (Windows only) that scans a volume (hard drive, flash, etc) looking for deleted files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sure enough, it found every single one of them and I was able to restore them all.  Best of all, the program is free.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So Google &quot;Recuva&quot; and try it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4498" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T18:44:56.090" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10271" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10276" CreationDate="2011-03-28T18:45:12.657" Score="5" ViewCount="78" Body="&lt;p&gt;I got a free lens-cleaning kit with a lens I bought the other day. It has a small bottle of alcohol lens cleaner, but I'm not sure how to use it, should I apply it directly to the lens, or onto a cloth or tissue? Should I use tissue/cloth or is either ok?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4014" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-28T19:19:30.497" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T19:19:30.497" Title="How should I use lens cleaner?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;cleaning&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10272" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10275" CreationDate="2011-03-28T18:47:33.123" Score="8" ViewCount="114" Body="&lt;p&gt;See this article for a fascinating discussion of inattentional blindness: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/inattentionalblindness.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Inattentional Blindness and Conspicuity&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It says in essence that our mind discards the majority of things we perceive before they reach the conscious mind so that our conscious mind is only presented with relevant and important information. The problem though is that sometimes we miss the important even though it is in plain view and the article gives many examples of this. This is called inattentional blindness.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question is this: does the same thing happen to photographers and does the same process prevent us from seeing fresh photo opportunities. If so, how can we break through this barrier so that we keep our vision fresh and alive?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-28T19:05:37.297" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T04:00:29.317" Title="Does inattentional blindness prevent us from perceiving fresh photo opportunities?" Tags="&lt;human-vision-system&gt;&lt;perception&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="10273" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10265" CreationDate="2011-03-28T18:54:21.387" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Go to the signage printing industry&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes technology intended for one industry is perfect for another industry and this is a case in point. Find a small business near you that specialises in printing large vinyl signs for the advertising industry. Their rates are usually significantly cheaper than photographic printing and the results are every bit as good. And they have some advantages. The printed surface is waterproof, abrasion resistant and fade resistant in direct sunlight for five years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Normally printing is done using a printer such as the Roland Versacam 540 on self adhesive vinyl rolls, from a company like Oracom, with a peel off backing layer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once printed, the backing layer is peeled off and the print is adhered onto a suitable substrate. I mount my panoramas on white 0.9 mm ABS plastic. This is commonly used in the advertising industry for mounting large display adverts. It is easily cut and mounted. This avoids the formidable costs of framing and mounting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The scary part is trying to adhere a self adhesive 2m long panorama without wrinkles or bubbles. In fact it is amazingly easy once you know the tricks of the trade. Your signage company will be happy to show you. In outline, you peel away the backing and spray on a very dilute water/detergent solution (very dilute!). The adhesive is no longer sticky and you can easily position the print on your mount. Now you squeegee the excess water out until you have a wrinkle and bubble free result. The print is now firmly bonded to the substrate. Oracom make an excellent fabric squeegee and this is what makes all the difference, don't use anything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I printed and mounted many large panoramas in this way (to the dismay of my wife who is reluctantly conceding all the wall space) and can attest to the fact that it is inexpensive, quick and simple to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T18:54:21.387" CommentCount="11" />
  <row Id="10274" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10271" CreationDate="2011-03-28T18:59:49.540" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, &lt;strong&gt;Get a light ultra-soft brush.&lt;/strong&gt; My favorite is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lenspen.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lens Pen&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You goal is to use the brush to remove ALL particles from your lens surface. The last thing you want to do is rub a particle of something hard over your lens while trying to clean it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If the lens is still dirty, then comes the wet-clean&lt;/strong&gt;. Spray a little liquid on the lens and use the supplied lens tissue to wide the glass in circular motion. Repeat as needed, discard the tissue after each use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Lens Pen linked above have a special liquid (more like moisture, it does not make anything wet) with a micro-felt opposite the brush, use it after the brush and only go for the wet-clean if that did not work either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T18:59:49.540" />
  <row Id="10275" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10272" CreationDate="2011-03-28T19:05:19.573" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Absolutely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was actually just noticing this yesterday. I was comparing my photos I take now from those I took 2 years ago. Aside from the obvious stuff, like different location, better technical skills, etc, I was trying to figure out what I used to do differently. I was better then than I am now of paying attention to tiny details that make interesting photographs. An unusual looking rock on the dirt. Branches that look different than the surrounding land. Stuff like that. I now have a name to go along with that capability.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the biggest ways to see fresh opportunities is to go somewhere you normally don't go, or do something you normally don't do. If you're a landscape photographer, go to a park and photograph random people. If you are a fashion photographer, go photograph plants. Do something you aren't used to. This will get you back into looking for those unusual opportunities, both in your new area, as well as in an older area.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another good idea is to take someone that you normally don't take when photographing. Kids work really well for this, they'll give you a very unique perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-28T21:07:14.820" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T21:07:14.820" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10276" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10271" CreationDate="2011-03-28T19:16:42.820" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have cleaned some very dirty lenses (acquired from careless friends) and this works every time.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;You need:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;a) a bottle of pure isopropyl alcohol&lt;br&gt;&#xA;b) a box of good quality cotton buds of the type used for babies.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This is the procedure:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;a) dip the clean cotton bud in the isopropyl alcohol, let the excess drain off.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;b) apply the cotton bud at the center of the lens and gently wipe in a spiral motion that works towards the outer edge of the lens.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;c) at the same time rotate the cotton bud so that a fresh clean surface is always presented to the lens. When you have rotated the cotton bud once discard it so that you don't re-use the dirty portion of the cotton bud.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this way dirt is picked up by the wet cotton bud but never rubbed against the lens surface. In the same way you can gently polish off any drying marks that may form by using a dry cotton bud. Altogether you will use several cotton buds for just one lens surface.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T19:16:42.820" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10277" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10278" CreationDate="2011-03-28T19:27:28.447" Score="1" ViewCount="536" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm just wondering wither there is any &lt;em&gt;big(ish)&lt;/em&gt; reasons I should get the Canon 600d and not the Canon 550d. I'm interested in the difference in video quality and low light performance (if there is any) and obviously intersected in difference of all round image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4299" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-29T07:50:41.167" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T18:55:33.920" Title="Canon 550d vs Canon 600d" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;canon-600d&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="10278" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10277" CreationDate="2011-03-28T19:43:21.237" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The performance of these two is expected to be pretty much identical since they share the same sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you get the cheaper one (550D) then you should invest the difference towards a better lens. This will have much more impact on your photography than anything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt; To answer comment. Compared to the 550D, the 600D:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lacks an Eye-Start sensor, you have to manually turn on or off the status display.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;New 'intelligent' mode added to Auto &amp;amp; Scene modes. More 'artsy' filters.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Live-View can shoot at different aspect ratios, basically an automatic crop.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;LCD can be rotated outwards and titled.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Can control flashes wirelessly.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-28T19:59:29.927" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T19:59:29.927" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10279" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-28T19:56:00.397" Score="1" ViewCount="112" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just recently bought Aperture 3 and I already have iPhoto 11.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My iPhoto has thousands of pictures.  Many are dupes.  Many are low quality from a 1MP (yeah, remember those?) camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I have recently upgraded my camera (Sony A55) and I have an iPhone 4.  What I am thinking of doing is using iPhoto as a &quot;catch all&quot; to import everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then use Aperture for picking the &quot;best of the best&quot; out of iPhoto.  Aperture would also be used for greater photo editing once I learn how to use it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this logic seem good?  Or would you point Aperture to the existing iPhoto library to save space?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4498" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-28T19:59:50.017" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T20:22:14.353" Title="iPhoto and Aperture — Good workflow?" Tags="&lt;apple-aperture&gt;&lt;workflow&gt;&lt;organisation&gt;&lt;iphoto&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10280" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10282" CreationDate="2011-03-28T20:06:39.677" Score="1" ViewCount="110" Body="&lt;p&gt;What Nikon is comparable to the Cannon 550d or 600d and what drawbacks (or good points) does it have compared to the canon?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4299" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T20:17:52.797" Title="Comparable Nikon to the Canon 550d" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="10281" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10289" CreationDate="2011-03-28T20:06:47.800" Score="2" ViewCount="76" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The background&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;In 2004 DxO released DxO Analyzer. It pioneered a new measure of lens resolution that it called BxU or Blur Experience Unit. Luminous Landscape reported on it (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/dxo-explained.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DxO Explained&lt;/a&gt;) and Imatest commented on it (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imatest.com/docs/blur_mtf.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Blur MTF&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;More information about the product can be found here (&lt;a href=&quot;http://info.dxo.com/demokit_analyzer/page3.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DxO Analyzer&lt;/a&gt;).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is a form of SFR Slant Edge test that uses solid circles instead of 5 deg slanted edges. Like the SFR Slant Edge test it calculates edge blur which it presents in units of BxU (Blur Experience Units). The SFR Slant Edge test though uses the edge blur to calculate MTF.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An argument for this measure is that it is a concept that is easy to grasp and seems natural. Essentially it measures sharpness by the number of pixels that an edge is blurred.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The principle argument against this measure is that DxO never disclosed their algorithm, keeping it proprietary.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, I now see very few references to this method, though DxO still sell their product. To make it even more confusing, on their web site DxO Mark, they report resolution in standard MTF20 lp/mm.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question is this: Is the BxU measure of lens resolution still used by anyone? Has it been discontinued, has it fallen into disuse or is it simply ignored?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-10T11:57:22.550" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T11:57:22.550" Title="Is the BxU measure of lens resolution still used by anyone?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;resolution&gt;&lt;mtf&gt;&lt;dxo&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="10282" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10280" CreationDate="2011-03-28T20:17:52.797" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Nikon D5000 is roughly equivalent to the 550d. The Canon has a higher megapixel rating, but most other specs are pretty similar. The D5000 has now been superceded by new models: the D3100 and D7000.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reams and reams have been written on the Canon vs. Nikon debate, and I'm not about to add to that (other than to say, GO NIKON!); try visiting DPReview.com for in-depth, impartial reviews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T20:17:52.797" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10283" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10279" CreationDate="2011-03-28T20:22:14.353" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would definitely point Aperture to the iPhoto library. In fact, I'd ditch iPhoto altogether and just use OSX's Image Capture to import my photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T20:22:14.353" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10284" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-28T20:35:43.913" Score="3" ViewCount="200" Body="&lt;p&gt;Now a days, almost every DSLR camera comes with many focal points 9, 11, 22 etc. Many of them provide us with settings to chose manual focus point while shooting images, apart from the auto-selection of focus point based on the in-device calculations.&#xA;What I want to ask here is, can we select multiple focus points while shooting something, say portrait? That said, in the current scenario while I have control over a single point (which we, or the camera can stress upon) and having a shallow DOF, if I focus on the nose, the eyes get blurred slightly. Of course, I can always increase the DOF, but here I don't want to. I want to select multiple focus points. This sounds a little kinda against the rule of optics though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: I have a canon EOS 550D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1485" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T21:06:27.627" Title="Can more than one focus points be selected?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;focus&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10285" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10213" CreationDate="2011-03-28T20:39:21.327" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My go-to method of finding exact dupes is this command line on windows with cygwin or linux.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;find /path/to/files/ -name &quot;*.file-extension&quot; -exec md5sum -b {} \; |sort|uniq -w 32 -c|sort -n&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bottom of the list will show the dupe md5 hashed with the path to the first instance of the file. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can find all copies of that file with:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;find /path/to/files/ -name &quot;*.file-extension&quot; -exec md5sum -b {} \;| grep &quot;MD5HASHCODEHERE&quot;&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where MD5HASHCODEHERE is the 32 char long code.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I once did this on 650,000 files to find all the version of the same 8 gif files and it took less than an hour. I don't know if OSX has md5sum installed by default. I can offer a OSX version if needed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No idea if this is helpful. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2484" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T20:39:21.327" />
  <row Id="10286" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10284" CreationDate="2011-03-28T20:42:21.410" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is kind of &quot;against&quot; the rule of optics, in the sense that there can be exactly one perfectly focused plane in the image.  Anything else &quot;in focus&quot; is just within an acceptable depth of field such that your eyes don't know different.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know any cameras that offer multiple selection points in the sense that you're imagining.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can always focus stack if you can multiple images with different focus points and it MIGHT get the effect you're looking for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T20:42:21.410" />
  <row Id="10287" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10277" CreationDate="2011-03-28T20:42:30.013" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You might want to check DPReview.com for a detailed hands-on preview and comparison with the 550D:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos600d/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos600d/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2168" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T20:42:30.013" />
  <row Id="10288" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10284" CreationDate="2011-03-28T20:50:38.697" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you suspect, it's impossible. The lens can only be focused at one distance. Essentially, there's no need for multiple focus points because aperture control achieves the same thing more easily.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the example you give of a face, closing the aperture by only a third of a stop should give you enough depth of field to capture both the nose and eyes sharply while keeping everything beyond them out of focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T20:50:38.697" />
  <row Id="10289" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10281" CreationDate="2011-03-28T20:53:46.760" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SLRGear.com&lt;/a&gt; publishes what they call &quot;blur units&quot; (and sometimes &quot;Blur index&quot;) in their tests. These seem to be DxO BxUs (aren't TLAs wonderful?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T20:53:46.760" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10290" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10293" CreationDate="2011-03-28T20:59:13.033" Score="0" ViewCount="242" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm a beginner at photography, I'm looking at buying my first DSLR (currently the Canon 550d looks promising) so I'm wondering if I should buy the camera with the kit lens (EFs 18-55mm IS) or buy just the body and a different lens or buy the kit with two lens (EFs 18-55mm IS and EFs 55-200mm IS)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4299" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T01:41:40.373" Title="Canon 550d Kit Lens or not?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10291" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10284" CreationDate="2011-03-28T21:06:26.920" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Offhand I don't remember the model, but if memory serves Canon did build at least one model of (film) EOS that allowed you to select a number of focus points, and it would then select the aperture necessary to assure that those all fell within the depth of field. I'm not aware of their ever having done the same in a digital camera though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T21:06:26.920" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10292" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10284" CreationDate="2011-03-28T21:06:27.627" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With current cameras, you cannot force choose two specific points to be in focus, however there are a couple of options that can help you out:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Allowing the camera to choose focus points will highlight all those in focus (although it may cause the lens to hunt for focus more, and possibly pick something other than what you'd like). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other option is the &lt;code&gt;A-DEP&lt;/code&gt; mode which I believe is available on the 550D - this allows the camera to adjust the aperture to get as many points as possible in apparent focus - this may end up with the background more in focus than you'd intend, and can take some getting used to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T21:06:27.627" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10293" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10290" CreationDate="2011-03-28T21:14:21.593" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on A) your budget and B) what kind of photography you plan on doing. The longer lens (55-200) will be useful for wildlife and sports shots, but if you're not bothered about those, why spend the money on it? You could get yourself a decent tripod and bag for the same amount, which you will probably have much more use for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I started off with just an 18-55mm and happily used that for well over a year - they're very good beginner's lenses as they cover everything from landscapes to portraits. Once you've got used to your camera and discover what you really enjoy, you can look at investing in a new, appropriate lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One final tip, that I've given a few times this week, is not to just go with online reviews when buying your camera: go into a store and try a few out. Not just the Canon: try a couple of Nikons, Sonys and Pentax cameras too. Then you can be sure you're getting a camera you like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T21:14:21.593" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10294" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-28T22:51:08.553" Score="1" ViewCount="71" Body="&lt;p&gt;Working on some scholastic sports mutlimedia pieces, finished project to go on DVD. Last season (the one the got all the parents stoked) I didn't do conversions, thinking they would just go on computers. Well, some go on TV too. NO complaints, which is a good thing, but in the pursuit of awesomeness I'd like to have a TV and computer option. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, does anyone remember/know the math to squish the pixels?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1451" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T03:33:51.250" Title="Correct conversion formula for photos to NTSC?" Tags="&lt;hd-video&gt;&lt;ntsc&gt;&lt;formula&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="10295" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10294" CreationDate="2011-03-28T22:58:07.637" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are trying to encode everything yourself, then I think you need to convert to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YIQ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;YIQ&lt;/a&gt; format. This is very similar to YUV, both of which are forms of YCC encoding. I would be surprised if you need to write the encoding algorithm yourself...is there some reason you can't just use an existing program that can generate an NTSC compatible DVD for you?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T22:58:07.637" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10296" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10226" CreationDate="2011-03-28T23:31:59.497" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've had this issue twice, once using a Canon IXUS 2 and once using a Canon 1000D. On the case of the 1000D it was with a cheap ebay card (which I promptly threw away) and I was out walking so I retook the photos. On the other day was a college event, I don't know what caused that but luckily others had similar photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As with the answers mattdm linked above there are ways to recover these photos in most cases, but as a matter of habit I use multiple smaller cards now. I suppose I'm more likely to lose a card or drop my camera while changing a card, but atleast then it's in my hands and if an error does occur I can swap in another card without worrying about causing further damage to a corrupted card!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1580" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T23:31:59.497" />
  <row Id="10297" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10209" CreationDate="2011-03-28T23:39:05.297" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I realise you've asked about lenses and you're on a tight budget, but to emphasise something Staale S mentioned, strongly consider an external flash such as the 430EX or the 580X!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regardless of the lens you use due to the nature of their architecture, many wedding venues (churches especially) have large areas of shadow which will require artificial lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1580" LastActivityDate="2011-03-28T23:39:05.297" />
  <row Id="10298" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10299" CreationDate="2011-03-29T00:48:39.627" Score="3" ViewCount="224" Body="&lt;p&gt;I took a picture of the sun today, and I was thinking about how the sun can damage your eye, I was wondering if the camera or lens could get damaged by this, or get burn in like some screens do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2777" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T18:44:15.053" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T18:44:15.053" Title="Can a camera or lens get burn in?" Tags="&lt;equipment-protection&gt;&lt;equipment-damage&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10299" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10298" CreationDate="2011-03-29T00:56:43.297" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, it can.  You should generally try to avoid direct pictures of the sun, especially for any extended period of time.  It can (and will) damage the sensor.  I shouldn't damage the lens however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, you should avoid looking through the viewfinder at the sun as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2089/how-to-fix-an-image-sensor-damaged-by-long-sun-exposures&quot;&gt;check this question&lt;/a&gt; on somebody who had that problem!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-29T01:44:12.227" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T01:44:12.227" />
  <row Id="10300" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10232" CreationDate="2011-03-29T01:23:20.653" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h1&gt;Short answer&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, not being quite satisfied, I did some research. Here's the &lt;a href=&quot;http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/tldr&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;tl;dr&lt;/a&gt; answer, but I hope you find the rest as interesting as I did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In painting and in photography, the &quot;key&quot; of an image is the overall tendency of its tone scheme towards brightness or darkness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the key is bright, the image is high-key, and when it is dark, the image is low-key. Some more strict definitions require &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; tones of an image to match this bright or dark key, although generally it's a matter of the overall arrangement of the work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is &lt;em&gt;distinct&lt;/em&gt; from high-key lighting, and the term predates cinema, and in fact predates artificial lighting. This is discussed further below, but it's important to realize that the effect of high-key lighting is not necessarily a high-key image, and that the effect of &lt;em&gt;low-key&lt;/em&gt; lighting is something altogether different from a low-key image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many early sources use the term &quot;pitched&quot; in combination with key, suggesting that the analogy with music is at least not far off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally, high-key refers to an overall scheme of &quot;high-pitched&quot; color, and implies some nuance in the high tones. However, an image which is bright overall because of blown-out overexposure would also qualify as high-key — just maybe not terribly attractive high-key. An image which is pitched in a high-key overall but which has strong elements of dark contrast may be considered high-key, but it may be more proper to consider it as using high-key technique in combination with a high-contrast graphic style.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Example&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This image demonstrates the delicate, ethereal quality possible with the technique. Color is present, but the predominant tones are light; even areas of darker contrast are in the mid-range. The subject is rendered in light-keyed tones, not outlined by dark shapes, and detail and form are softly retained.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/u9Xlq.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Voile 2, by Howard Worf&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/hinfrance/3203702931/sizes/o/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Voile 2&lt;/a&gt;, by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/hinfrance/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Howard Worf&lt;/a&gt;. Used under &lt;a href=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CC BY-SA 2.5&lt;/a&gt; license with permission from the artist.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Usage in Artificial Lighting&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An element of confusion is brought by the usage of the cinematic terms &quot;high-key lighting&quot; and &quot;low-key lighting&quot;. These terms come from the studio-era of feature film production in Hollywood, and like so many things from cinema, have application in still photography as well. They refer to the ratio of the main (&quot;key&quot;) light on the subject to the rest of the light in the scene. A high-key lighting setup generally diminishes or reduces shadows, making every part of the image visible; a low-key lighting setup features strong contrasts between pools of light and areas of darkness, often giving a three-dimensional &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiaroscuro&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;chiaroscuro&lt;/a&gt; effect to the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One can see from this description that it's useful to make a distinction between these terms and those from traditional two-dimensional art. As is apparent when comparing the image above to a typical sitcom set, or a low-key photograph to Rembrandt, the visual effect is quite different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;High-key image&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;: ethereal, delicate, dream-like&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;High-key lighting&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;: cheery, upbeat, energetic&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Low-key image&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;: somber, restrained, depressing&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Low-key lighting&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;: dramatic, mysterious, taut&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, when considering emotional effect, it seems like high-key &lt;em&gt;lighting&lt;/em&gt; and low-key &lt;em&gt;images&lt;/em&gt; are almost polar opposites, while high-key images and low-key lighting (while very different in mood) both provide a more stylized and dramatic interpretation of a scene.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;The background:&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;From some modern sources:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;HIGH KEY Describes an image composed of mainly light tones. Although exposure and lighting influence the effect, an inherently light-toned subject is almost essential. High-key photographs usually have pure or nearly pure white backgrounds. &lt;em&gt;[...]&lt;/em&gt; The high-key effect requires tonal gradation or shadows for modeling, but precludes extremely dark shadows.&#xA;  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=CU7-2ZLGFpYC&amp;amp;lpg=PA350&amp;amp;dq=%22high%20key%22%20photography&amp;amp;pg=PA350#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Focal Encyclopedia of Photography&lt;/a&gt;, edited by Leslie Stroebel and Richard D. Zakia, &lt;em&gt;Focal Press&lt;/em&gt;, 1993)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is basically the definition I had learned (and gave in the question above). But, I searched for some multiple references as well, just to be sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Many people think that high-key lighting means overexposure, but that's not the case. Overexposure is an entirely different tool. &quot;High key&quot; simply means that the vast majority of tones in the image are above middle gray, including any shadows. Excluding specular highlights, such as catchlights, there is usually detail in even the brightest areas. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=ddokilaXrcQC&amp;amp;lpg=PA77&amp;amp;dq=%22high%20key%22&amp;amp;pg=PA76#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Master Lighting Guide for Portrait Photographers&lt;/a&gt;, by Christopher Grey, &lt;em&gt;Amherst Media&lt;/em&gt;, 2004)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Grey also addresses low key, a few pages later, saying &quot;The obvious opposite of high-key, low-key lighting does not imply underexposure or rampant darkness. It simply requires that the majority of tones be below middle gray.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;High-key photography makes use of a restricted tonal and color range. The image tends to display a delicate, ethereal, two-dimensional quality and is predominantly made up of light tones. This should not be confused with a high-contrast image, which can include both pure black and pure white tones in the shot. A high-key image has a squashed tonal range of predominantly medium to light grays and whites. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=PZ_He_3n5xEC&amp;amp;lpg=PA45&amp;amp;dq=%22high%20key%22%20photography&amp;amp;pg=PA45#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Landscape Photography&lt;/a&gt;, by Tim Gartside. &lt;em&gt;Cengage Learning&lt;/em&gt;, 2003)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's more, and the continued section suggests — in some contrast to the previous quote — that the background should not only be bright but even overexposed. It also notes that &quot;it is often possible to&quot; combine elements of high-key with elements of high-contrast, giving a predominantly light photo with small areas of dark tones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;High key means an image composed in the upper bracket, featuring whites and near-whites. It involves what in ordinary circumstances would be considered over-exposure. &lt;em&gt;[...]&lt;/em&gt; As almost all hues weaken with increasing brightness, and certainly the primaries red, green, and blue, color plays very little part in most high-key images. Even so, there is scope for having an overall pastel tint, and also for judiciously introducing a single spot color that gains even more attention from being alone. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.focalpress.com/books/photography/michael_freeman39s_perfect_exposure.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Perfect Exposure&lt;/a&gt;, by Michael Freeman, &lt;em&gt;Focal Press&lt;/em&gt;, 2009)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Freeman has a whole section on high key, and it (along with the entire book, actually) is well worth reading. Although the quote above suggests overexposure, the accompanying images show that he intends that in a subtle, soft way, not harsh highlight clipping.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Freeman also notes that the term &lt;em&gt;should not&lt;/em&gt; be confused with the cinematographic use of the term, where key and fill lights are balanced equally. Since Wikipedia implies (without references) that the term &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; come from television and cinema, I figured it was time to turn to the Pages of History — that is, Google Books and the Harvard University Library.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;History&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, the Oxford English Dictionary, which simply offers up these two quotes and dates:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1918    Photo-Miniature XV. Mar. (Gloss.),   *High-key, a style of photographic print (portrait or landscape) consisting entirely of light tones, differing little from each other in depth.&#xA;  1919    Brit. Jrnl. Photogr. Alm. 250   Photographs consisting almost entirely of light tones are said to be high-key.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those are journals I can dig up, but Google Books turned up much older references. First, an &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=76dAAAAAYAAJ&amp;amp;dq=photograph%20%22high%20key%22&amp;amp;pg=PA267#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;editorial from The Photographic News, Volume 52&lt;/a&gt;, from 1907:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Low Key and High Key&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The expression &quot;low key&quot; may be taken to indicate that the most prominent features in the picture and the general scheme are in subdued tone; the lighting, for instance, may be delicate. Strong and powerful lighting effects but lack of strong shadows are generally inseparable from compositions in a &quot;high key.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This essay is a little boring, but the magazine as a whole is &lt;em&gt;awesome&lt;/em&gt;. It's full of articles like &quot;Practical Points for Picture Makers&quot;, &quot;Artificial Light Photography, and Some Notes on the New Jupiter Lamp&quot; , &quot;Simplified Factorial Development: A New System of Factors&quot;, &quot;My Best Picture, and Why I Think So&quot; — in short, it's exactly like a modern photography blog. Except older.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More straightforwardly, from the same year, a &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=CfdIAAAAMAAJ&amp;amp;dq=photograph%20%22high%20key%22&amp;amp;pg=PA13#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;glossary in The American Amateur Photographer and Camera and Dark Room&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Key. A picture is in a high key when all its tone values are of a light color, and vice versa. A tone is in the wrong key when it is either too light or too dark for the rest of the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But so much for the 20th century. Check out this 1899 &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=ULoaAAAAYAAJ&amp;amp;dq=high-key%20photograph&amp;amp;pg=PA439#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article in &lt;em&gt;Wilson's photographic magazine&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. Like the 1907 magazine, this bit is absolutely worth reading in its own right, because it's about how to make money as a professional photographer, and given a change of a century or so, wouldn't be much out of place on Photo-StackExchange:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Another idea is to introduce a novelty in style, such as a portrait thrown into high relief by suitable lighting against a light ground and in a high key throughout; make only one print (no duplicates), and charge from $3 to gs for it. This specialty can be profitably worked on sitters who come for the ordinary dozen cabinets. Satisfy their desires first and then work the specialty. Take the &quot;special&quot; negative on your own responsibility; say nothing of it to the patron. Make your print and finish it as if ordered. Send it home with the order for cabinets, and a note or leaflet of explanation that only the single print is obtainable, negative destroyed, price so much, if approved; if not approved, print to be returned. The average, if the work is right, will be most profitable. The returned prints will supply the best class of specimens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, really, the entire essay is an entertaining read. But moving back to 1893, from the &lt;em&gt;The American Amateur Photographer&lt;/em&gt;, from &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=W13QAAAAMAAJ&amp;amp;dq=photography%20%22high%20key%22&amp;amp;pg=PA487#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an account in the &quot;Society News&quot; section of the showing of slides&lt;/a&gt; at a club meeting:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John C. Brown's Alaska slides were quite successful in suggesting the scintillating brilliancy of the great glaciers. Most of his slides were pitched in a very high key, and very properly; for we must recollect that besides the intensity of the sun's light we are surrounded by thousands of tons of transparent ice crystals polarizing the rays of white light by refraction, by reflection, and by interference; that we are fairly revelling in the most delicate colors of the spectrum, and that the eye is dazzled with the play of white, and blue, and rose, and pale orange yellow. It is a question whether even the longed for photography in colors would afford full satisfaction as a reminiscence of Glacier Bay; the beauty is in the kaleidoscopic changes and prismatic tints, not in their appearance at any given instant. Mr. Brown has given us the grotesque forms of the icebergs with the feeling of a sculptor, together with some idea of the effects of the northern atmosphere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Really, mostly including that to note the historical comment about &quot;&lt;em&gt;the longed-for photography in colors&lt;/em&gt;&quot;. But it's also interesting to note the use of the musical word &lt;em&gt;pitched&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, continuing on, I came across &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=Lsg-AAAAcAAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA51&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Memoirs Illustrative of the Art of Glass-Painting&lt;/a&gt;, published in 1865, which uses the terms high-key and low-key to distinguish between lighter and darker styles in church windows. Interesting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The earliest reference to photography I can find is in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?ei=n-GQTfSjCM-10QHOv8StCw&amp;amp;ct=result&amp;amp;id=HMwwXpEv7tIC&amp;amp;dq=photography+%22high+key%22&amp;amp;q=%22high+key%22#search_anchor&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Photographic Journal, Vol 83&lt;/a&gt; of the Royal Photographic Society of Great Britain, from 1853. Unfortunately the full text isn't online, but the volume includes the term six times, and one excerpt gives high key as an example of &quot;shadowless photography&quot;. And it seems to use the term easily, as if the reader would be familiar. I don't know the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/lighting.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;exact history of photographic lighting&lt;/a&gt;; it'd be interesting to figure out what kind of lighting set-ups were common (or even possible) 158 years ago.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that's not the end of it! As the article about glass suggests, the term appears in art outside of photography. Not surprisingly, since we've inherited a lot of things from painting, it's used there too, or at least was. This is from &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=Q6axt1o1w4oC&amp;amp;pg=PA130#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an article in the February 1865 issue of The Atlantic Monthly&lt;/a&gt; about landscape painter Washington Allston (after whom the Boston neighborhood where I lived for several years was named):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whoever has made pictures and handled colors knows well that a subject pitched on a high key of light is vastly more difficult to manage than one of which the highest light is not above the middle tint. To keep on that high key which belongs to broad daylight, and yet preserve harmony, repose, and atmosphere, is in the highest degree difficult; but here it is successfully done [...].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, the musical term is used in the description. That doesn't mean at all that the term &lt;em&gt;comes&lt;/em&gt; from music, but it is definitely evocative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But to my surprise, looking back &lt;em&gt;way&lt;/em&gt; further, I found this, from 1783:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If to these different manners we add one more, that in which a silver-grey or pearly tint, is predominant, I believe every kind of harmony that can be produced by colours will be comprehended. One of the greatest examples in this mode is the famous marriage at Cana, in St. George's Church, at Venice, where the sky, which makes a very considerable part of the picture, is of the lightest blue colour, and the clouds perfectly white, the rest of the picture is in the same key, wrought from this high pitch. We see likewise many pictures of Guido in this tint; and indeed those that are so, are in his best manner. Female figures, angels and children, were the subjects in which Guido more particularly succeeded; and to such, the cleanness and neatness of this tint perfectly corresponds, and contributes not a little to that exquisite beauty and delicacy which so much distinguishes his works. To see this stile in perfection, we must again have recourse to the Dutch school, particularly to the works of the younger Vandevelde, and the younger Teniers, whose pictures are valued by the connoisseurs in proportion as they possess this excellence of a silver tint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is from Sir Joshua Reynolds's &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=0RMFAAAAYAAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA104#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Notes on The Art of Painting of Charles Alphonse Du Fresnoy&lt;/a&gt;, which made me blink, because this is the exact work (although not the same section) to which John Thomas Smith refers when he &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/521/what-is-the-rule-of-thirds/9239#9239&quot;&gt;apparently coins the phrase &quot;rule of thirds&quot;&lt;/a&gt;. (Reynolds does not appear to be inventing any terminology here, though.) Anyway, he doesn't say &quot;high key&quot; exactly, but &quot;key, wrought from this high pitch&quot; at least implies it strongly — and reinforces my original thought that there's an analogy with music.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Reference for the Lighting Terms&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly, there's a meaning that pre-dates cinematic lighting. It's possible that the term &quot;high-key lighting&quot; in the film industry grew hazily from the traditional visual arts, or it may simply be that &quot;key&quot; has so many meanings that it was bound to eventually attract more than one even in the same field — in this case, the key light as opposed to the key &lt;em&gt;tones&lt;/em&gt;. Anyway:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The terms &lt;em&gt;low-key&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;high-key lighting&lt;/em&gt; originated in the studio eras of feature film production in Hollywood. They seem counterintuitive — that is, the terms mean the opposite of what we think they should mean. Low-key lighting refers to the minimal use of fill light — that is, a relatively high key-to-fill ratio. This kind of lighting creates pools of light and rather harsh shadows. &lt;em&gt;[...]&lt;/em&gt; Low-key lighting evokes a rather heavy and serious mood or feeling that enhances the emotional atmosphere of certain types of films. Low key lighting is similar to an effect in painting known as &lt;em&gt;chiaroscuro&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;em&gt;[...]&lt;/em&gt; High-key lighting presents a brightly lit scene with few shadow areas. &lt;em&gt;[...]&lt;/em&gt; The light, happy atmosphere simulated by high-key lighting contrasts with the somber, mysterious, or threatening atmosphere of low-key lighting. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=10KzsPD0xMUC&amp;amp;lpg=PR3&amp;amp;pg=PA245#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Introduction to Media Production: The Path to Digital Media Production&lt;/a&gt;, by Robert B. Musburger and Gorham Kindem, &lt;em&gt;Focal Press&lt;/em&gt;, 2009)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I agree with &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10232/what-does-it-mean-for-a-photograph-to-be-high-key/10263#10263&quot;&gt;Matt Grum's assessment of Google searches&lt;/a&gt; that in common use, the term today seems to often mean highly overexposed images where the remaining detail has been pulled back to be very dark, giving a highly graphic style with strong contrasting lines and shapes. I'm not going to argue too much with the evolution of language, but I think that in terms of  technical and historical vocabulary, that usage is wrong. However, that's not to say that common usage has completely changed the meaning of the term — most of the super-exposed, cranked-up images at least loosely fit, even though they might not really be using the style to best effect. (Fitting with &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sturgeon's Law&lt;/a&gt;, not necessarily a change in meaning.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I also agree with Michael Freeman that it's better to keep the term from the traditional two-dimensional arts distinct from the lighting vocabulary from cinematography. Both have their uses in photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-04T13:16:05.780" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T13:16:05.780" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="10301" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10265" CreationDate="2011-03-29T01:34:01.517" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You might want to check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whitewall.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;White Wall&lt;/a&gt;. They can print to these hard surfaces, in wonderfully large sizes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I originally found out about this site from &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2674/what-is-the-best-site-for-ordering-prints-online/6729#6729&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T01:34:01.517" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10302" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10290" CreationDate="2011-03-29T01:41:40.373" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The EF-S 18-200mm is another option. It kind of combine the 18-55mm and the 55-250mm into a single lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a review:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-200mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-200mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2168" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T01:41:40.373" />
  <row Id="10303" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10277" CreationDate="2011-03-29T02:00:28.687" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I really think there is no significant change in image or video quality. Physical changes have occurred, but I wholeheartedly agree with Itai on this one. It is such a good idea to invest in that better lens than deal with a mediocre kit lens. I like Canon's quick upgrade, but I really think the changes are minuscule. Plus, it's the glass (lens) that matters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4505" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T02:00:28.687" />
  <row Id="10304" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10254" CreationDate="2011-03-29T02:29:13.590" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The IS II version has cosmetic changes in order to reduce costs such as a painted, not plastic moulded, lens mount alignment mark.  There are no changes to the optical formula or Image Stabilizer.  See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos600d/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Canon Rebel T3i / EOS 600D Hands-on Preview at DPreview&quot;&gt;Canon Rebel T3i / EOS 600D Hands-on Preview at DPreview&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4506" LastEditorUserId="4506" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-29T02:48:07.660" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T02:48:07.660" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10307" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10272" CreationDate="2011-03-29T04:00:29.317" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most of us develop favorite subjects or activities after shooting a while and we gravitate to the same lens to do it. That leads to a rut. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Break up the routine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adjust your camera to shoot black and white in-camera. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Refuse to use your &quot;go-to&quot; lens and go wide-angle or grab a macro lens. Spend several hours exploring things close up. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Get a tilt-shift or a LensBaby - they'll make you think differently. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Leave the SLR at home and shoot artistically using a point-and-shoot or your camera-phone.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Get a good LED flashlight, find some interesting objects, and spend time working on light painting in the closet or somewhere equally dark.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1514" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T04:00:29.317" />
  <row Id="10308" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-29T04:35:08.857" Score="3" ViewCount="84" Body="&lt;p&gt;My Canon 60d is not recording photos to my sd card.There is 1 CTG file that doesn't open. I formatted the SD card. I have  tried to shoot in RAW and JPEG.Help me! Help Me please! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4507" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T06:28:01.987" Title="Canon 60d is not recording photos to my sd card." Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;canon-60d&gt;&lt;sdcard&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="10309" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10308" CreationDate="2011-03-29T06:28:01.987" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The CTG file is an internal catalog file created by Canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's very possible that the SD card is bad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try reformatting the card in windows, via a card reader. Make sure you don't enable the &quot;Quick Format&quot; option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If that doesn't work, try a different SD Card. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If that doesn't work, contact Canon for service.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T06:28:01.987" />
  <row Id="10310" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6277" CreationDate="2011-03-29T06:45:59.580" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;try different brands and models and decide for yourself.&#xA;They're (at least the majors) are so similar in quality and features (despite the morass of different names and acronyms for things, in the end they all do the same, they just use a different name for is) that it hardly matters whether you use Canon or Nikon (and to a lesser extend Sony, Pentax, Olympus) except for the ergonomics of the individual body.&#xA;With quality 3rd party lenses from Sigma and Tokina you can even get what's essentially a very similar lineup of optics for each brand (though each has some specialties, those aren't really an issue for most amateurs, if you have very special requirements that might be different).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ergonomics are vital of course. If the camera is not intuitive for you to use, if you can't hold it and can't properly access the most used controls easily and quickly while doing so, you won't like using the camera and it'll end up gathering dust.&#xA;If you have friends who can let you borrow cameras of different brands and models for a few days or weeks each so you can try them for yourself before deciding on what to buy, that's great.&#xA;Most of us had to decide from pictures in catalogues and fumbling a few bodies in camera shops with eager salespeople looking on, trying to push their current favourite (meaning the one they make the most profit on) on us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I prefer the Nikon design philosophy over that of Canon, in no small part because it's similar to the old designs Minolta produced in the 1980s and '90s which I grew up using (so the switch, when I decided to get all new equipment after most of my old Minolta gear was stolen, was an easy one).&#xA;But many others are very happy with their Canons, so there must be something good about them .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just be prepared for a lot of evangelism from fans of all brands. Some people get very emotional talking brand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T06:45:59.580" />
  <row Id="10311" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10298" CreationDate="2011-03-29T06:50:25.443" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As answered elsewhere, the sensors can get damaged (as can your eyes, which is far worse as you can replace a camera, you can't replace an eye!).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd not expect modern lenses to get damaged before that happens, but the extreme heat could in theory cause damage to plastic parts inside the lens (and camera) and possibly even to lens coatings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, avoid pointing your camera directly at the full sun for more than a few seconds at a time it takes to quickly compose and take a picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T06:50:25.443" />
  <row Id="10312" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10318" CreationDate="2011-03-29T07:52:33.670" Score="6" ViewCount="387" Body="&lt;p&gt;DSLRs often have the ability to store both a JPEG and a raw file.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-are-the-pros-and-cons-when-shooting-in-raw-vs-jpeg/115#115&quot;&gt;primary benefit of in-camera JPEG over raw&lt;/a&gt; is the smaller filesize, and that JPEG+raw is going to store even more data than raw alone, it seems like you're just wasting space on your card and &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/4453/378&quot;&gt;making your workflow more complicated&lt;/a&gt; if you store both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why bother storing both JPEG and raw in camera, instead of just a raw file?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T00:31:37.497" Title="Why store both JPEG and raw?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;workflow&gt;&lt;jpeg&gt;" AnswerCount="7" />
  <row Id="10313" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10312" CreationDate="2011-03-29T07:59:42.207" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a couple of benefits that spring to mind, especially for portraiture work:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Speed of generating proofs - if a client is only going to pick 5% of shots for final use, there's little point in going through and white balancing everything, and then batch processing them to JPEG for the client to peruse.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Instant back-up - if a card starts to fail, you might lose a file, and you instantly have a second backup, albeit with different fidelity (admittedly the 1D allows you to write files to two different cards at the same time)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T07:59:42.207" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10314" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10312" CreationDate="2011-03-29T08:04:36.810" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Usually people do store in both formats to save their time (as they think), in case if JPEG is ok.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I prefer to store only in RAW. All pictures without any problems (WB, expo, contrast, etc..) I convert in batch processing, in one-two clicks. The benefits are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I don't need to spend some time on filtering &quot;JPEG or RAW&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I always keep a chance to change something&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I don't spend much time to process well-shooted pictures (thankfully to batch processing)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I save more space on my card in camera&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2272" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T08:04:36.810" />
  <row Id="10315" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-29T08:12:37.400" Score="2" ViewCount="157" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the main problems when taking photo of interior is how to handle outdoor light, or to be more precise, how to handle outdoor light which is showing up in frame. Ideal time for taking photo would be in blue hour, but this period is very short and is often not long enough to make pictures of all rooms and details. If we have to make photo of interior at midday and if there are lot of windows in the frame, then this can be really big problem. Cheapest solution would be to make multi-exposure shot and make HDR photo which would contain all details from inside and outside. But, these photos usually look unrealistic and if frame wasn't static, it can be a problem to stitch these photos. At midday, (on-camera) flash is not strong enough to equalize indoor and outdoor light strength. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An expensive solution would be to use professional lighting. As I don't have experience with it, my question is if this option is really the best and is it able to equalize indoor/outdoor light strength? In how big spaces can it be used? What do people who have used this solution think about it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3614" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T08:52:48.033" Title="Interior/architecture lighting solutions?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;hdr&gt;&lt;outdoor&gt;&lt;architecture&gt;&lt;indoor&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="10316" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10315" CreationDate="2011-03-29T08:51:31.773" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The other alternative is, rather than go down the true HDR route, to just take 2 exposures, one for the indoors, one for the view out of the windows. This should be easy with auto-exposure bracketing and continuous shooting mode, even if you are hand-holding your camera (though really you should be using a tripod for any indoor shots). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to be really precise, simply use spot metering and meter both areas properly, but unless the view is an integral part of the shot, you could probably get away with a rough 1 or 2 stop bracket.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you have the shots, you can just blend them in Photoshop. This will yield a more realistic result and is much quicker to implement than full HDR; windows have a sharply defined edge which make them easy to mask.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T08:51:31.773" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10317" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10315" CreationDate="2011-03-29T08:52:48.033" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The normal professional solution is to place gels (big plastic filter sheets) over the external windows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the actual interior lighting is usually a feature of architectural photos, additional lighting inside is normally balanced to whatever the existing lighting is (often tungsten or &quot;warm white&quot; fluorescents). If you are adding additional light, that usually means using a CTO (Color Temperature Orange) gel on your flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Natural lighting outdoors is not only too bright at midday, it's also usually way cooler (a higher color temperature) than the lighting indoors. To compensate, you'd tape or tack CTO gels (which are available in large rolls) to the exterior of the windows, often along with a neutral density gel (or a combined CTO/density filter). Depending on the time of day, and on whether it's north or south light, you'd need to use a different &quot;cut&quot; of CTO (a different strength of orangeness).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If that sounds like it's troublesome, expensive (in terms of man-hours) and would go much faster with a color meter and a production crew, you're right. It's a lot easier to go the multiple exposure route -- just make sure that you are using a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;good&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; tripod (or two -- one on the lens and one on the body if the lens has its own ring; the second tripod doesn't need to be heavy-duty, since it's just a stabilizer), a remote release and mirror lock-up. Current good HDR-capable image processing programs should be able to do the pixel matching, but you'll likely have some color correction to do to make the exterior exposure match the interior.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T08:52:48.033" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10318" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10312" CreationDate="2011-03-29T09:12:14.597" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am an amateur photographer going semi-pro and even though I still only use RAW I have come across a few occasions where RAW+JPEG was needed (or at least would be a great convenience):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ready to email files&lt;/strong&gt; (like @rowland-shaw wrote) - some times you need to get your photos out there as fast as possible&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;lite&lt;/em&gt; photo files to browse through&lt;/strong&gt; - given that your workflow might include taking a look in your photos from a not-so-capable computer (or other device) before importing them or even during the shoot, it is faster to load a 1.2MB JPEG than a 15MB RAW file&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;timelapse&lt;/strong&gt; - ok, this is an overkill but when shooting timelapse I want to have a bunch of small JPEGs ready to be opened in QuickTime to check the result and then go through the RAWs&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, &lt;strong&gt;JPEGs are for fast preview&lt;/strong&gt; on other devices (other than your camera) while &lt;strong&gt;RAWs are for editing&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3340" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T09:12:14.597" />
  <row Id="10319" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10341" CreationDate="2011-03-29T09:38:56.007" Score="7" ViewCount="423" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several white balance settings on the Nikon D80 including one that is automatic. I normally don't use it although I wonder what settings others use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So the question&lt;/strong&gt;: What are advantages/disadvantages to use auto white balance compared to manual modes? And what do you usually use and why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2110" LastEditorUserId="4125" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-29T14:22:22.313" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T02:17:53.817" Title="When should I use manual white balance settings?" Tags="&lt;white-balance&gt;&lt;nikon-d80&gt;" AnswerCount="7" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="10320" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10319" CreationDate="2011-03-29T10:11:09.150" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Automatic white balance usually performs poorly as the camera doesn't know the difference between a yellow object under white light and a white object under yellow light. All it can say is that if the image as a whole contains a lot of yellow tinted colours then that may be the result of a yellowish light and so set the WB accordingly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This scheme is easy to confuse when you have lots of strong colours in the objects you are photographing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to automate your white balance, buy/make a grey card and shoot a custom white balance image with it - that way you have removed one of the unknowns from the equation leading to much better results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only advantage of automatic white balance is that you don't have to do anything yourself. The principle disadvantage is that it has to rely on assumptions and guesses as there is not enough information to distinguish between object colour and lighting colour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's worth stating that camera white balance settings are only really important for people who shoot JPEG, if you shoot raw you can choose the white balance later when you're at your computer. It can still help to shoot a grey card when working with raw however. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-29T13:16:23.310" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T13:16:23.310" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="10321" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10312" CreationDate="2011-03-29T10:48:25.917" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since jpeg is a lossy format, raw allows you to have a lossless version of the file. Also I think RAW format doesn't store only just RGB data, but also other data your camera can acquire, maybe exposition or other photo-ish stuff I don't really know about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Often those additional parameters helps clean or edit the photo for better quality, stuff that your camera cannot really performs correctly when it store as a jpeg, simply because it either doesn't have enough computing power, or to let choice to the photographer who is probably aware of what he wants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photography today can get quite technical and theorical...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4510" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T10:48:25.917" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10322" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10226" CreationDate="2011-03-29T11:31:59.657" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Making this an answer by request. This post is basically a duplicate, although &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/65314/&quot;&gt;that's not necessarily a terrible thing&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Earlier questions are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1125/recover-deleted-photos-from-an-sd-card&quot;&gt;Recover deleted photos from an SD Card&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3323/recover-photo-files-in-corrupt-filesystem-cf-card&quot;&gt;Recover photo files in corrupt-filesystem CF card&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T11:31:59.657" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-30T02:21:52.583" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10323" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10312" CreationDate="2011-03-29T11:49:19.557" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I shoot JPEG + RAW because my camera produces &lt;em&gt;really good JPEG output&lt;/em&gt;. It has flexible control over tone curves, color, and contrast. I'm not usually interested in producing HDR-compressed images — in fact, I often prefer a high contrast look which reduces dynamic range. If I get the exposure and other settings right, I really don't benefit much from RAW.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I make a mistake with white balance or am in a tricky situation, I have the RAW file to take advantage of. Most of the time, I develop that in-camera, using the built-in tools to do so, but in the cases where I'm not satisfied with that, I use RawTherapee. (My camera allows adjustment to the color of the LCD; it's not completely color profiled, but it's basically neutral, so I can trust my eye well enough.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that some cameras only allow highly compressed &quot;Basic&quot; JPEG in combination with RAW; mine lets me save JPEGs of any quality, and in fact, I usually use ★★★, only increasing to ★★★★ when the scene needs it or when the image appears particularly special.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, in fact, in the interest of keeping my lifetime data load sane, I only keep the RAW files for those particularly special images. I know this is verging on sacrilege against the conventional wisdom, but I haven't regretted it yet. If I had &lt;em&gt;paying customers&lt;/em&gt;, I'd definitely archive it all, just in case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-29T12:13:20.557" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T12:13:20.557" />
  <row Id="10324" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10319" CreationDate="2011-03-29T12:11:50.043" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The auto-white balance algorithms in most cameras handle some situations very poorly. As with metering, the camera can't really know how the scene is &lt;em&gt;supposed&lt;/em&gt; to look; it can just guess. Or rather, not even guess, but apply a simple algorithm. The one used in Gimp is &lt;a href=&quot;http://docs.gimp.org/en/gimp-layer-white-balance.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;like this&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;discard the outliers — the far extremes — in each color channel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;stretches each color channel as far as possible to the edges&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's not very smart, but tends to work surprisingly well. The auto-WB algorithms in cameras are probably more sophisticated but I expect they use the same basic idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in some situations, the camera can get it really, really wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the colors in the actual object are strongly shifted in one channel, that can introduce a cast in the opposite direction.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For some reason, auto-WB generally works best under hotter color temperatures, and breaks down with the cooler temperatures of warm-colored * incandescent lighting.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fluorescent lights tend to have very odd, spiky spectrum, with very specific color peaks depending on the gasses used in the tube. This can create weird green and magenta casts.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In these cases, setting the white balance manually can help. However, they can be &lt;em&gt;too&lt;/em&gt; strong, and produce casts that you didn't mean. (One can actually use that for artistic effect.) Setting the WB manually against a gray card (or something neutral in the scene, in a pinch) is ideal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another important use is when there's mixed lighting and you need one part of the scene to be right. This is a hard situation where it's impossible to do the right thing across the frame, and so it's nicer to be in control of the decision yourself rather than doing whatever the camera works out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My camera (the Pentax K-7) happens to have one of the best auto-WB systems available. It's amazingly good. It may be because it has an actual-light-color sensor used in autofocusing — it's unclear whether this is used in WB or not, but it seems like it might be. Either way, auto-WB generally works so I well that I don't have to think about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, sometimes it goes wrong. As I just answered &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10312/why-store-both-jpeg-and-raw/10323#10323&quot;&gt;in another question&lt;/a&gt;, this is one of the reasons I shoot JPEG + RAW. Then I can go back and fix anything that didn't come out right. Generally, I do this right in camera later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;* oh, that's confusing, I know — high color temperature is of course more blue and less yellow, whereas the opposite is used traditionally to describe the feeling of different hues. Red, orange, yellow are warm colors, but a low color temperature.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-15T17:01:49.763" LastActivityDate="2011-05-15T17:01:49.763" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10325" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10319" CreationDate="2011-03-29T12:20:47.067" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To extend Matt's reply, a lot depends on your camera. As Matt says, the automatic white balance on many cameras performs poorly. On the other hand mine, like many other cameras, performs very well.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in my case, I normally keep my white balance on automatic but switch to manual in tricky situations like:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- mixed lighting such as incandescent and fluorescent&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- the scene is meant to have a colour cast, a disco comes to mind&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- an uneven lighting distribution that from experience I know won't be rendered well&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- product shots in a light box where I must get the colours absolutely true to the original.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since I shoot in RAW I always get a second chance during RAW conversion.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The problem with manual white balance is that I keep getting caught with the previous white balance settings that get applied to the current shoot. Automatic white balance frees me from this worry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T12:20:47.067" />
  <row Id="10326" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10226" CreationDate="2011-03-29T12:23:09.297" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although the above answer covers the recovery perfectly - I'd add that after recovering any images from this card, &lt;strong&gt;I'd destroy it and be very careful regarding replacement&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have seen cheap cards that mis-report their capacity: They say they are 2 gig, they are actually 1 gig, once you write more than 1 gig - they start from the beginning again, wiping the initial data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have seen cheap &quot;no name brand&quot; cards that just plain failed (sadly, this was an actual case of losing almost all the &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; set of pictures from a wedding - I kid you not).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in any case, I wouldn't ever trust those cards again with any images that were worth me firing the shutter hence destroying the card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would then be sure I bought a genuine, big-name (Sandisk, Kingston etc.) replacement from a reputable source. Think what you are risking for the sake of a little extra cash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once it arrived, I'd see if I could register it using the serial number on the manufacturer's site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;SandDisk allow you to do this for example. Though it's a little obscure, so here's how:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Create an account at &lt;a href=&quot;http://kb.sandisk.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://kb.sandisk.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Go to &quot;My Sandisk&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Then to &quot;Register/Update your product&quot; and register the cards (a&#xA;magnifying glass is handy here!)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I am now so paranoid (after seeing the above incidents for myself) that I always fill up a new card (by plugging it into a card reader attached to a computer and dragging images onto it) and then do a disk check (in Windows that's under; right-click -&gt; Properties -&gt; Tools -&gt; Check now...).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4502" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T12:23:09.297" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10327" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10328" CreationDate="2011-03-29T12:36:50.460" Score="3" ViewCount="82" Body="&lt;p&gt;this is really frustrating me, I know there has to be a way to do this.  HELP!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4512" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T12:41:03.617" Title="How to I export Jpeg's from LR without the grey/black box around each picture?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="10328" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10327" CreationDate="2011-03-29T12:41:03.617" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Select the images in the &lt;em&gt;Library&lt;/em&gt; module and click &quot;Export...&quot; in the lower left.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It sounds as if you might be using the &lt;em&gt;Print&lt;/em&gt; module to export to files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T12:41:03.617" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10329" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10312" CreationDate="2011-03-29T12:43:37.797" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In the RAW+JPEG workflow, JPEG is what you shoot for. RAW is the safety net.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The primary benefit or JPEG is not smaller files (that's the second), it is that &lt;strong&gt;JPEGs are actually images&lt;/strong&gt;. Images have advantages over RAW files, already mentioned by others: quick preview, ready to email, no processing required, etc. Once the shot is taken you are done if you did things right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T12:43:37.797" />
  <row Id="10330" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10319" CreationDate="2011-03-29T13:03:12.960" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;White-balance options can be divided into 3 groups:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Auto:&lt;/strong&gt; Let the camera guess.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pro: Nothing more to do.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Con: Camera may get it wrong.&lt;/strong&gt; How often and how wrong depends on your camera. Modern ones almost always get it right under daylight and do OK under artificial lighting.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Presets &amp;amp; Kelvin:&lt;/strong&gt; Tell the camera what you know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pro: Quick to set.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Con: Differences between artificial light means you can have a slight cast left.&lt;/strong&gt; For example, not all bulbs emit the same color (white, cool white, warm white, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Custom:&lt;/strong&gt; Make the camera measure it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pro: Perfectly accurate on most cameras.&lt;/strong&gt; Unfortunately some cameras get it slightly off.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Con: Takes time and must be repeated as often as the light changes.&lt;/strong&gt; Not just each time while changing environments but even if the cloud cover changes, you move between light and shadow, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I do not bother much with the presets:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Generally shoot on Auto&lt;/strong&gt;, checking the first shot at each new lighting condition. If the camera gets it, keep shooting.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Always use Custom WB for controlled conditions.&lt;/strong&gt; Studio, product shots, the WB is set once and I keep shooting.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Go to custom when Auto fails.&lt;/strong&gt; My main camera does well on Auto, so I rarely need to do this for typical conditions but I shoot a lot of city night scenes where lights are very colorful.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T13:03:12.960" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10331" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6277" CreationDate="2011-03-29T13:19:16.757" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;All modern DSLRs from the major manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus and probably a few more I forgot) are amazing - even if you pick one at random you'll be fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You want to spend your time taking pictures not researching cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is my fast-decision method:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Make a list of your must have features (example: if you plan doing bird photography you want a camera with a super-tele lens available, if you plan doing any video you need a camera that can shoot video, if you want really wide availability of lenses and accessories you might want to stick to only Canon and Nikon, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Take the cheapest camera that meets your criteria, go to a camera store or borrow it from one of your friends, hold it in your hand just to make sure it's comfortable and you can reach all the buttons and dials.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Buy it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2481" LastEditorUserId="2481" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-06-02T21:34:54.213" LastActivityDate="2011-06-02T21:34:54.213" />
  <row Id="10332" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-29T13:28:00.137" Score="2" ViewCount="115" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is anyone aware of a site that offers bulk download of public domain images? I'm working on an image processing machine learning project, and I need a ton of photos to train and test my algorithm with. I've found several &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sites&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://gimp-savvy.com/PHOTO-ARCHIVE/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;offering&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3aPublic_domain_image_resources&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;free public domain&lt;/a&gt; images, but they're all simple webpages, requiring you to navigate to each image in order to download it. I could potential write a script to crawl and download all images, but I'm hoping someone knows of a similar resource that simply has images available via an FTP share, ZIP archive, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4513" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T14:23:30.143" ClosedDate="2011-03-29T14:44:41.700" Title="Bulk Download of Public Domain Images" Tags="&lt;photo-management&gt;&lt;picture-samples&gt;&lt;public-domain&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="10333" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10332" CreationDate="2011-03-29T14:02:28.857" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Even if you found a source, how'd you ascertain that the images are indeed free to download?&#xA;I've found a lot of sites offering icon collections for download for software development for example that claim to be public domain but I had to discard them all because the actual icon collections contained a lot of icons stolen from existing applications (or containing trademarked images).&#xA;I'd expect any collection of &quot;free&quot; images to be no different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At best you can try to contact some photographers through their websites and ask for permission to use some of their imagery for your test.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T14:02:28.857" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10334" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10332" CreationDate="2011-03-29T14:23:30.143" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can use wget to easily retrieve images from any web page or recursively from a hierarchy of web pages. So you need not restrict yourself to FTP sites, although wget works fine with FTP sites as well.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;See the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gnu.org/software/wget/manual/wget.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wget manual&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gnu.org/software/wget/manual/wget.html#Types-of-Files&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This page&lt;/a&gt; describes how you can filter by any type of file you wish to download.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;You will in all probability get a few extra graphics files used for page decoration that you will have to manually screen out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a more general note, if you only use the images for training your system and don't publish, re-distribute or create derivative works then you can use pretty well any image on the Internet under the fair use interpretation of copyright law. Merely viewing the image already creates a copy on your hard disk. Now this note is sure to incite a few dissenting voices and we will have an interesting debate. Use your own judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T14:23:30.143" />
  <row Id="10335" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10346" CreationDate="2011-03-29T15:27:57.817" Score="7" ViewCount="287" Body="&lt;p&gt;There a user on Flickr who posts a lot of photos that have been processed to movie look and feel to them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/djpoe/5549522425/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/djpoe/5549522425/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's obviously been some Photoshopping done to the pictures, but I'm having trouble replicating it. Does anyone have any idea what adjustments you'd need to make to get this look and feel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="697" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-29T15:32:43.680" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T20:41:10.710" Title="How to create a cinema/movie feel?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;cinematic&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="10336" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10335" CreationDate="2011-03-29T15:34:32.237" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your example doesn't really look like anything more to me than cropping to that aspect ratio and putting the black boxes on top and bottom.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't have the right lens and camera (in other words, not a Point and Shoot), you may have difficulty with the relatively shallow depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T15:34:32.237" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10337" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10340" CreationDate="2011-03-29T15:52:16.090" Score="10" ViewCount="431" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a very cool effect, dramatic and not your usual basketball image: &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/photos?gameId=310328018&amp;amp;photoId=1226220&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photo by Nathaniel S. Butler/NBAE via Getty Images.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; There are other examples like it in the linked gallery. My question is how this was achieved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My guess is some sort of very strong, focused strobe - almost like a spotlight - that is pointed straight down a few feet in front of the middle of the foul line. Butler exposes for this overpowering light resulting in the rest of the court basically disappearing into shadow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this is true, wouldn't this look strange on TV (kind of like lightning) and also wreck a few shots for the other pros shooting the game? Is it unusual for a photographer to be able to set up his own lighting like this for a professional sporting event?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2873" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-29T16:45:58.993" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T18:57:34.403" Title="How was this dramatic lighting of an NBA game achieved?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;technique&gt;&lt;sports&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="10338" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10319" CreationDate="2011-03-29T15:57:03.027" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Like usually in manual vs auto choices, manual gives you &lt;strong&gt;control&lt;/strong&gt; over the final choice. In auto WB, the camera evaluates scene for each individual image and tries to adjust colors so the tonality of light would not affect how subject is shown on the  photo. This is convenient, but unsuitable if the WB estimate &lt;strong&gt;fails&lt;/strong&gt;, does not match &lt;strong&gt;your vision&lt;/strong&gt; of the desired tonality or you need &lt;strong&gt;constant setting&lt;/strong&gt; for a series of images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A classic example where auto WB has a different vision than the photographer is &lt;strong&gt;during sunset or sunrise&lt;/strong&gt;. While the human finds the overwhelming warm tones pleasing, the auto WB will work hard to &quot;balance&quot; the colors by reducing the red and boosting blue, resulting in a bland grayish picture. Using custom WB with a gray card would have similar effect - the camera would try to show the gray color &quot;as usual&quot; and hide the specific tone of light. By forcing the camera into some preset (my preference: &quot;daylight&quot;), the picture will be more like what the photographer perceives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have often found &quot;&lt;strong&gt;cloudy&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; to be a handy preset when taking photos outside. It gives neutral colors in overcast situations, warm colors in sunshine and slightly cool colors in shadow. While these colors might be unsuitably off for a fashion magazine, I find they pretty well convey the &lt;strong&gt;feel&lt;/strong&gt; of the light and scene.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using a &lt;strong&gt;flash&lt;/strong&gt;, the auto WB might decide to go for preset &quot;flash&quot; balance. This is certainly not what you want if you have correctly &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101-using-gels-to-correct.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Strobist: Lighting 101: Using Gels to Correct Light&quot;&gt;gelled&lt;/a&gt; your flash to match the ambient light. With mixed lighting of flash and ambient light, a quick snap with &quot;daylight&quot; WB and flash off will help you evaluate &lt;strong&gt;which gel to use&lt;/strong&gt;, and after that use either custom or preset WB according to the light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When shooting in RAW, WB is mostly irrelevant as the setting is only used for preview and as a &quot;starting offer&quot; in post-processing. So you might be okay with auto WB, or you might prefer to use WB preset &lt;strong&gt;UniWB&lt;/strong&gt; (if supported by camera). That one is optimized to give you colors in preview unadjusted as they were captured by sensor, thereby making your color histogram more closely match the data that is actually saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I usually set WB as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;cloudy&quot; when moving around outside during day - to convey feeling in colors&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;daylight&quot; for&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;shooting scenes illuminated ONLY by flash - no gelling needed for neutral colors&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;test shot before gelling flash (with flash off) - to see what color the ambient light is&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;night scenes NOT dominated by orange street lights - I like the results&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;shots during sunset and sunrise - I like the results&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;tungsten&quot; &#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;in most indoors places with yellowish lighting, often accompanied by flash with CTO gel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;night-time city shoots to somewhat adjust for the nasty orange streetlights&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;custom WB in places with weird lighting, or when having a longer session of the same scene&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;auto WB when putting the camera away - in case I need to be able to start shooting quickly or just forget to set WB next time&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-11T16:10:28.267" LastActivityDate="2011-04-11T16:10:28.267" />
  <row Id="10339" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10337" CreationDate="2011-03-29T16:14:23.310" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would imagine it is a wireless off-camera flash mounted up on the backboard support, manually set so he could control the ambient (background) light with aperture/shutter speed and thus create the spotlight effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Someone more familiar with flash photography might well prove me wrong though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T16:14:23.310" />
  <row Id="10340" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10337" CreationDate="2011-03-29T16:15:13.497" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Its almost certainly a strong strobe like you suggest and exposing for it will indeed darken the background.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as looking strange on TV, unlikely.  Its a blazing fast blink of light not targeted at the audience or the cameras but only at the court.  Lightning as a light source is much more omni-directional. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many large courts even have these strong strobes built into the court that an official photog can use.  Courts vary on their lighting policies somewhat so its strictly a case by case basis.  And yes, it could conceivably mess somebody else up, but we're still talking about a light burst of 1/10000th of a second that they would also decide to shoot - so its unlikely. EDIT: Technically, that's not quite true - the main strobe need only fall within their shutter speed (so closer to 1/200th of second possibly) to mess them up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Strobist discusses &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/02/on-assignment-speedlighting-college-gym.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; about his lighting of a gym and mentions these large lights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-29T18:21:19.707" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T18:21:19.707" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="10341" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10319" CreationDate="2011-03-29T16:47:56.703" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For all the discussion about which camera white balance setting to use, I think it is important to note that, if you are shooting RAW, the simple answer should usually be &quot;Always use AWB&quot;. The reasoning for this is because white balance is an easily correctable thing in post processing when you shoot in RAW. Even if you do use the &quot;Manual&quot; or &quot;Custom&quot; white balance setting of the camera, the camera is still making an educated guess...it is just making a more informed guess. Custom WB can still result in incorrect color balance, and there are times when it can be as off as AWB.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast, using AWB in camera, and correcting white balance during post processing with RAW, gives you &lt;strong&gt;FAR&lt;/strong&gt; more control over the final white balance than you can possibly get by working with in-camera tools. When using a tool like Lightroom or ACR+Photoshop, you have the option of using a &quot;white balance color picker tool&quot; to select the area of your image that actually &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; white, and the software will correct the rest of the image from there. It is difficult to get more accurate than that. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, if you take a &quot;white balance baseline&quot; photo wherein you include a gray card in your scene, then remove the gray card and take the rest of the photos for that particular lighting scenario, you have even more accurate control over white balance during post processing. Simply use a white balance picker tool, select the gray card. Copy the white balance setting from that initial baseline photo (after its been corrected) to the rest of the photos shot under that lighting to apply the correct color balance (in bulk, if you have a tool like Lightroom.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The case where AWB won't necessarily work all the time is when you can't or don't shoot RAW, and use JPEG instead. Correcting white balance in a JPEG during post processing is difficult at best, and can be impossible at worst. In such cases, you might try to use a custom/manual WB setting. If your camera supports it, you may also want to tweak the custom WB offsets (color temp. along the blue/yellow axis and color tint along the green/magenta axis) to improve the results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T16:47:56.703" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="10342" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-29T17:40:21.250" Score="1" ViewCount="118" Body="&lt;p&gt;The stock lens on my Canon T2i (18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS) does a good job; as good as the two much more expensive Macro lens I've used. The trouble is that it's very plasticy  and flimsy. I have to set up about 500 shots with a polarized filter and every time I move the filter the whole things sort of shifts/ not something I have a problem with on the macro lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is all in regards to shooting artwork. I had some great help on here which advised me to go with a Macro lens for the flat optics. I found a great 35mm one by Tokina that allows me to get closer than most other macros. However I also found the stock lens took great photos too (just as sharp and indistinguishable from the Tokina) from the 35mm to 55mm setting. This I found to be ideal because it meant I didn't have to move the whole camera for every shot. I could just zoom in a bit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, zooming out, anything lower than 35mm, I start to notice the distortion (fisheye, or bubble effect). This in itself is correctable, but if there is a lens that can zoom that minimizes this that would be ideal too. I have no idea if this is possible though as I'm sure zoom lenses will always have distortion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ideally I'd take all the shots with the 35mm macro. But with the amount of work I have to photograph and the time it takes to adjust the copystand, well it's just not worth the extra effort, when software can easily make some minor adjustments.. I know not all will agree with this, but I'm not unhappy with the results even from the cheap stock lens. So if I can minimize issues then great. Another  good lens will be worth the investment for this project. I'm not sure if there is an advantage to going USM. I don't' need quiet, I just need to be able to micro focus from the computer with the Canon utility, and that I can easily do fine now with all the non-usm lenses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My results have been quite sharp, but if there is a lens that can get even sharper I'd like that too. Plus, my copystand is limited and if I have larger works I have to get on a ladder to check the settings and polarizer filter on the 35mm setting, and this is just not feasible. With the zooming lens I can take photos of all the work from a much closer distance. I don't' need quite as far as the 18mm setting but a lens that starts not much higher than this would be ideal. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A couple other things of note for anyone photographing artwork. I did receive a lot of great help here. I went an got a nice light kit and set it up at 45degree angles, etc... But no matter what I did I could not cut the glare of the light off the canvas and colors were washing out. I had read about cross polarization but frankly in all the help I received no one mentioned it. I can tell you now that if you are photographing oil paintings, or anything with a moderate degree of reflectivity, you have to have cross polarization. This isn't just the filter on the camera, but also the lighting has to be polarized too. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You actually need to block out virtually all other light in the room. You then need linear polarizing filters for the lights (I found some that covered my softboxes entirely) as well as a circular polarizer for the lens. I must say, it's like magic how it makes the light disappear before you very eyes, yet still lights the subject!  I actually found a great post on here discussing cross polarization and how it works for artwork, but I can't find it now! However this blog posting by artist Mike Sass has a couple of great examples of the cross polarization results: &lt;a href=&quot;http://sassart.blogspot.com/2010/08/photographing-artwork.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://sassart.blogspot.com/2010/08/photographing-artwork.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On top of that I was put in touch with a photographer from a major auction house who photographs artwork every day. In a nutshell, they go with a wide angle lens and shoot as far away from the subject as possible (I was surprised but that helps keep everything in focus). They shoot at as high an f-stop as possible, with 100 iso and long exposures with strobes, with only polarized lighting on most oils. They always use software to make corrections, from lens distortion to color, as polarizing filters do certain things to certain colors. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They also keep their tripod on a track so it's always centered. In a way I'm glad I didn't' get all their advise ahead of time because I would not have had the studio to make it happen, nor the time. Doing the copystand approach means I can photograph all the various work laid down and easily centered, in the same profile, and I don't have to hang anything. And this means I can do the mass amount of unframed work too. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also to note for anyone that's doing a similar project, I'm taking pictures with a gray balance card and a color balance card in every shot, so no matter how off the original RAW captures might be for these 1000 or so photos, I'll be able to correct them in the future. You wouldn't normally have to do this for every shot as you can create a profile with just one, but as my lighting sometimes has to change, or with adjustments to the size of the work, whether it's polarized or not, etc... it just is easier to leave the balance cards in each shot next to the subject. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, sorry to ramble on, but this project is overwhelming my life! I knew there was no way to really learn without doing it, but now I've confirmed it! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4259" LastEditorUserId="4259" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-29T17:48:41.400" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T20:28:51.423" Title="In need of a quality close zooming lens with minimal distortion (canon)" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;artwork&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10343" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10342" CreationDate="2011-03-29T18:17:49.553" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm afraid your requirements make it quite difficult to recommend you the perfect lens. The 18-55mm has just about the largest maxmimum magnification of non macro lenses on this canon list:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/lens/EFLensChart.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/lens/EFLensChart.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;The list is slightly outdated now but I'm not aware of any lenses which change this. You could buy a macro lens but as they're fixed focal length you'd have to move your equipment if it's not setup just right(fixed focal length lenses also have less barrel distortion). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm left to suggest you consider the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/184-canon-ef-24-70mm-f28-usm-l-test-report--review&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM &lt;/a&gt; as it has a similar maximum magnification to your current lens (very slightly higher) but is built rather sturdier. Also the front element doesn't rotate while focusing (making some polarising filters a lot less trouble):&#xA;. &#xA;Hope that helps&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1580" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-29T20:28:51.423" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T20:28:51.423" />
  <row Id="10344" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-03-29T18:32:53.643" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-29T18:32:53.643" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T18:32:53.643" />
  <row Id="10345" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-03-29T18:32:53.643" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Sigma are a Japanese company which produce cameras, lenses and flashes. They're most widely known for their selection of lenses which are compatible with cameras from other manufacturers." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-29T18:49:36.720" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T18:49:36.720" />
  <row Id="10346" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10335" CreationDate="2011-03-29T18:35:56.763" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;So there's the obvious stuff: cropping and letterboxing to the right aspect ratioS. (Note: both aspect ratios are important: 4:3 for the overall image, letterboxed down to 1.85:1 (the US &quot;standard&quot;) or 2.75:1 (theatrical &quot;wide screen&quot;) inside it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But there's also the not so obvious stuff. And here it's going to depend on what kind of movies you want to replicate, because different DoPs and different colorists will do things differently. These days they have as much control over a movies color as we do over a still photo's color.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sample images you showed here look very &quot;gritty real life&quot; style, as opposed to the poppy fields and rainbows style of say Wizard of Oz, or the &lt;a href=&quot;http://theabyssgazes.blogspot.com/2010/03/teal-and-orange-hollywood-please-stop.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;turquoise and orange&lt;/a&gt; theme that it seemed every movie was graded with in 2009/2010. (haven't seen any movies in 2011 yet, I'm hoping that trend is DEAD by now.) If I had to guess, I'd say they pulled the saturation down a little bit, and flattened the contrast in a few images. But not by much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@jrista also adds a great point about the DoF control in his answer. Movies tend to shoot with larger apertures due to the need to get a couple dozen frames per second, traditionally with old mechanical film cameras this pretty much required big glass and large apertures... or lots and lots of light. Modern optics mean they &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; stop down to get more DoF today, but just because they can, doesn't mean they do. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-29T20:41:10.710" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T20:41:10.710" />
  <row Id="10347" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-03-29T18:36:33.360" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-29T18:36:33.360" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T18:36:33.360" />
  <row Id="10348" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-03-29T18:36:33.360" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Timelapse photography is the process of taking a series of photos at a set interval with the intention of playing them back at a much shorter interval. This gives the appearance of exaggerated movement, such as in the growth of plants." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-29T18:50:03.693" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T18:50:03.693" />
  <row Id="10349" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10337" CreationDate="2011-03-29T18:57:34.403" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Life is truly strange -- back in (much) younger days, I helped shoot some of the games at the college my brother was attending. We hand-built a couple giant softbox-like contraptions specifically to &lt;em&gt;eliminate&lt;/em&gt; lighting like this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lighting like this is easy: a reasonably power strobe pointing straight down, mounted on the ceiling, about halfway between the basket and the free throw line. Normally you want it on a radio slave, so it only goes off when the &quot;right&quot; people shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;softbox&quot; in question was only vaguely like a normal one, but still worked reasonably well. Basically, the strobe was still mounted on the ceiling pointed straight down, but something like 3 or 4 feet below that, we suspended about a 3x3 foot piece of plywood covered on the top with somewhat crinkled aluminium foil to reflect the light back upward. On the ceiling around the strobe was a considerably larger square of crinkled aluminium foil (probably 8x8 feet, or so, if memory serves). Then, probably seven feet down from the ceiling was a frame built out of PVC pipe (probably something like 12x12 feet), with white cloth stretched across it on the bottom. Canvas on the sides with still more crinkled aluminium foil kept all the light going where we wanted it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With these, we got pretty even lighting almost where most of the action took place, at least in basketball. It wasn't quite so good for volleyball, where the action is mostly at mid-court, but even for that it wasn't too bad (a lot better than its predecessor, anyway). FWIW, I believe they stayed there in regular use until a new gym was built something like 15 years later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T18:57:34.403" />
  <row Id="10350" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10342" CreationDate="2011-03-29T19:04:50.823" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are looking for a higher quality lens that will provide a much sharper image and better color reproduction than the 18-55, then a very good option is the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. It's not an L series, so it doesn't have the build quality, but it is on par optically with an L series.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides the optical differences, the 17-55 also has a non-rotating front element, so you won't have to worry about a shifting polarizer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a very good &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-s-17-55mm-f-2.8-is-usm-lens-review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;review at The Digital Picture&lt;/a&gt; that shows the difference between the 17-55 and 18-55.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T19:04:50.823" />
  <row Id="10351" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10342" CreationDate="2011-03-29T19:26:09.263" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you really want to maximize the sharpness and quality of your photos in tight spaces, you might want to look into a Tilt-Shift lens. Tilt/shift lenses give you the most control over focus, DOF, focal plane, amount of light and sharpness. With tilt, you control the plane of focus. If you are stuck in a tight spot, and can't get a piece of artwork properly angled such that part of it is not fully in focus, you can use the tilt feature will allow you to change the plane of focus instead. With shift, you can adjust the perspective of the scene being imaged, and correct for distortions caused by shooting angle. A third feature, rotation, allows you to rotate the lens and change the planes that tilt and shift work in. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most tilt/shift lenses also offer greater sharpness than any other lens from a manufacturer. One such lens from Canon is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-24mm-f-3.5-L-II-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L II&lt;/a&gt; series lens. With this lens, you should have a wide enough field of view to capture your artwork in close quarters, be able to shoot wide open, and have perfect, precise control over your focal plane and depth of field. You won't be able to get better shots than with the TS-E 24mm. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll say up front, this is an &lt;strong&gt;expensive&lt;/strong&gt; lens, but its quality is unsurpassed by pretty much any other Canon lens save maybe the 24mm or 14mm primes. The TS-E 24mm is also a manual-only, prime lens, so it does not zoom, but its focus ring is very smooth and has a wide throw, so it will give you very precise control that you won't find on AF lenses. You'll get the clearest, sharpest, best oriented photos with the most precise focus of any other lens with a TS-E lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the TS-E is out of the question, then there are a variety of lenses that might work. For the T2i, the best lens I can think of would be the &lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens&lt;/a&gt;. This is not an L-series lens, however it is one of the sharpest lenses for APS-C cameras like the T2i that Canon makes. It has very low distortion and has a nice, wide maximum aperture. This lens is also fairly expensive, priced like an L-series lens at around $1200. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens&lt;/a&gt; is another very high quality, fast lens that only costs about $1300, and is a professional grade lens. It is better suited to full-frame cameras, and does not have IS, so the 17-55 is probably still a better bet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-29T19:31:32.647" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T19:31:32.647" />
  <row Id="10352" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10335" CreationDate="2011-03-29T19:37:16.933" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to what @cabbey stated, I think a significant factor in that cinema/movie feel is depth of field. If you watch movies closely for the cinematography aspects, focus, shift in focus, depth of field, and quality of bokeh is a VERY critical factor in movies and getting that &quot;movie feel&quot;. When I watch a movie where the photographers did not pay much attention to those little focus details, the result is bland, there are often too many distracting elements, and I just don't &quot;feel&quot; the movie as much. On the flip side, you can really tell when a movie was filmed by a talented photographer, as all those small focus details are PERFECT, with focus shift timed perfectly, depth of field is superbly crafted, out of focus highlights, particularly bright lights, look fantastic (usually with some spherical aberration), etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the photo you linked, outside of the &quot;gritty&quot; tone that cabbey mentioned, the key thing that makes it look cinematic to me is the depth of field...which is quite nicely done. It seems there is a very slight amount of spherical aberration, the plane of focus is precisely placed, and DoF is just right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T19:37:16.933" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10353" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-03-29T20:10:45.853" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-29T20:10:45.853" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T20:10:45.853" />
  <row Id="10354" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-03-29T20:10:45.853" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="The process of creating a physical printed image from a photograph." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-29T21:19:55.717" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T21:19:55.717" />
  <row Id="10355" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10213" CreationDate="2011-03-29T20:12:46.977" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whilst I can't recommend this personally, I did stumble across this Lightroom Plugin the other day:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lightroom-plugins.com/DupesIndex.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lightroom-plugins.com/DupesIndex.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1580" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T20:12:46.977" />
  <row Id="10356" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-03-29T20:14:40.857" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A strip of plastic coated with an emulsion containing silver halide; the primary method for capturing images prior to the invention of digital cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T18:57:26.893" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T18:57:26.893" />
  <row Id="10357" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-03-29T20:14:40.857" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Questions regarding photography using film." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T18:57:26.927" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T18:57:26.927" />
  <row Id="10358" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8559" CreationDate="2011-03-29T20:23:26.633" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tiltshiftphotography.net/photoshop-tutorial.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this tutorial&lt;/a&gt; that explained how to fake it in Photoshop to be very helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2777" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T20:23:26.633" />
  <row Id="10360" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10362" CreationDate="2011-03-29T22:43:05.000" Score="1" ViewCount="84" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to be able to take pictures like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/7Ez5C.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;macro bug picture&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was taken at 2×, but the lens costs over 1000 and has no autofocus. Is there a lens that can take pictures like this for less money, preferably with autofocus? It doesn't have to be &lt;em&gt;as&lt;/em&gt; high quality but they still need to look sharp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My camera is a Canon 60D&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2777" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-29T23:00:21.793" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T23:54:52.577" Title="Are there any inexpensive 2x AF macro lenses for Canon?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;macro&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="10361" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10360" CreationDate="2011-03-29T22:51:24.447" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you get a Sigma 105mm EX-DG macro, which is around £300, you'll be able to get 1:1 magnification, and as your camera is a cropped sensor model, you'll get the benefit of that. Cropping the image further in post will allow you to fill the frame with smaller subjects, enabling you to get similar results to your example. The AF on the Sigma is quite slow, but the Canon equivalent costs &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod1205.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;twice as much&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T22:51:24.447" />
  <row Id="10362" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10360" CreationDate="2011-03-29T22:58:59.327" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can answer questions like this by going to one of the major online camera sites, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;B&amp;amp;H Photo&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://adorama.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adorama&lt;/a&gt; and using the lens-browsing tools they provide. Here's a search that gives you a list of current offerings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?mxp=1000&amp;amp;ci=274&amp;amp;mnp=100&amp;amp;Ns=p_PRICE_2|0&amp;amp;N=4293344976+4291570227+4277998926+38&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?mxp=1000&amp;amp;ci=274&amp;amp;mnp=100&amp;amp;Ns=p_PRICE_2|0&amp;amp;N=4293344976+4291570227+4277998926+38&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, you've got a ~ $300 option, a $450 option, and a $600 option, all of different focal lengths. The cheapest one offers 1:2 magnification and the others 1:1. The more expensive models are also nicer in other ways — for example, the 60mm has a circular aperture, for nice bokeh stopped-down. &#xA;All three autofocus, but for real macro work, you probably want to focus manually very carefully anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are not 2:1 lenses, but you can get good results even with 1:2, and even without a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/dcr/dcr150/indexdcr150eg.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;macro converter&lt;/a&gt; — I've not used one of those, but reports I've seen show that you can often get better results just cropping extravagantly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But there's another possibility which may be even better and quite likely cheaper — &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2669/what-are-extension-tubes&quot;&gt;extension tubes&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could also expand the search to third-party macro lenses, several of which are excellent, especially for the price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-29T23:54:52.577" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T23:54:52.577" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10363" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10360" CreationDate="2011-03-29T23:40:18.683" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;People have listed a few options for 1:1 as there are plenty. So if you have a 1:1 macro lens coupled with a 2x teleconverter, you'll get to a 2:1 macro as you describe above. That will probably be a less expensive option. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I will caution you on, however, is not to expect miracles from autofocus in extreme macro. Basically, you're dealing with a razor thin depth of field and that can be very, very, challenging for a camera to hit with the AF system. My feeling is that you're going to need a lot of luck and a monstrously steady hand to avoid focus hunting or missed focus if you're trying such shots with AF. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-03-29T23:40:18.683" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10364" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="621" CreationDate="2011-03-30T02:52:10.483" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From my experience with the workshops of &lt;a href=&quot;http://creativelive.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CreativeLIVE&lt;/a&gt;, this is an almost 100% sure bet. And, they're free at the time of the actual recording/broadcasting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T02:52:10.483" />
  <row Id="10365" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10208" CreationDate="2011-03-30T02:56:16.050" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll base my answer on the work done by CIE, which began in the 1930's, and progressed again in the 1960's, with some algorithmic and accuracy improvements to formula over the last couple decades. When it comes to the arts, including photography and print, I think that the work done by the CIE is particularly relevant, as it is the basis of color correction and modern mathematical color models and color space conversion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The CIE, or &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Commission_on_Illumination&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Commission internationale de l'éclairage&lt;/a&gt;, in 1931 established the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CIE 1931 XYZ color space&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. This color space was a plot of full purity color, mapped from 700nm (near-infrared red) through 380nm (near-UV), and progressed through all the wavelengths of &quot;visible&quot; light. This color space is based on human vision, which is a tri-stimulus created by the three types of cones in our eyes: short, medium and long wavelength cones, which map to 420-440nm, 530-540nm, and 560-580nm wavelengths. These wavelengths correspond to blue, green, and yellow-red (or orangish-red) primary colors. (The red cones are a bit unique, in that their sensitivity has two peaks, the primary one in the 560-580nm range, and also a second one in the 410-440nm range. This double peaked sensitivity indicates that our &quot;red&quot; cones may actually be &quot;magenta&quot; cones in terms of actual sensitivity.) The tristimulus response curves are derived from a 2° field of view of the fovea, where our cones are most concentrated and our color vision, under medium to high lighting intensity, is at its greatest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The actual CIE 1931 color space is mapped from XYZ tristimulus values, which are generated from red, green, and blue derivatives, which are based on actual red, green, and blue color values (additive model.) The XYZ tristimulus values are adjusted for a &quot;standard illuminant&quot;, which is normally a sunlight balanced white of 6500K (although the original CIE 1931 color space was created for three standardized illuminants A 2856K, B 4874K and C 6774K), and weighted according to a &quot;standard observer&quot; (based on that 2° foveal field of view.) The standard CIE 1931 XYZ color plot is horshoe-shaped and filled with a &quot;chromaticity&quot; diagram of pure 'colors', covering the hue range from 700nm through 380nm, and ranging in saturation from 0% centered at the white point to 100% along the periphery. This is a &quot;chromaticity&quot; plot, or color without regard to intensity (or color at maximum intensity, to be most accurate.) This color plot, according to some studies (references pending), represents about &lt;strong&gt;2.38 million colors&lt;/strong&gt; that the human eye can detect under moderately high intensity lighting approximately the same color temperature and brightness of daylight (not sunlight, which is closer to 5000k, but sunlight + blue sky light, about 6500k.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, can the human eye detect only 2.4 million colors? According to the work done by the CIE in the 1930's, under a specific illuminant that equates to the intensity and color temperature of daylight, when factoring in only the 2° of cones concentrated in the fovea of our eyes, then it seems we can indeed see 2.4 million colors. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The CIE specifications are limited in scope, however. They do not account for varying levels of illumination, illuminants of differing intensity or color temperature, or the fact that we have more cones spread across at least a 10° area of our retinas around the fovea. They also do not account for the fact that peripheral cones seem to be more sensitive to blues than the cones concentrated in the fovea (which are primarily red and green cones). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Refinements to the CIE chromaticity plots were made in the '60's and again in 1976, which refined the &quot;standard observer&quot; to include a full 10° color sensitive spot in our retinas. These refinements to CIE's standards have never come into much use, and the extensive color sensitivity research that has been done in relation to CIE's work has been largely limited to the original CIE 1931 XYZ color space and chromaticity plot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the limitation of color sensitivity to only a 2° spot in the fovea, there is a strong likelihood that we can see more than 2.4 million colors, particularly extending into the blues and violets. This is corroborated by the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1960_color_space&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1960's refinements to CIE color spaces&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tone, perhaps better labeled luminosity (the brightness or intensity of a color), is another aspect of our vision. Some models blend chromaticity and luminosity together, while others distinctly separate the two. The human eye contains a retina composed of both cones...&quot;color&quot; sensitive devices, as well as rods, which are color-agnostic but sensitive to changes in luminosity. The human eye has about 20 times as many rods (94 million) as it does cones (4.5 million). Rods are also about 100 times as sensitive to light as cones, capable of detecting a single photon. Rods seem to be most sensitive to the blueish-green wavelengths of light (around 500nm), and have lower sensitivities to reddish and near-UV wavelengths. It should be noted that a rods sensitivity is cumulative, so the longer one observes a static scene, the clearer the levels of luminosity in that scene will be perceived by the mind. Rapid changes in a scene, or panning motion, will reduce the ability to differentiate fine tonal gradation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the rod's far greater sensitivity to light, it seems logical to conclude that humans have a finer, and distinct, sensitivity to variations in light intensity than they do to changes in hue and saturation when one observes a static scene for a time. Exactly how this factors into our perception of color and how it affects the number of colors we can see, I can't exactly say. A simple test of tonal sensitivity can be done on a clear day's evening, just as the sun sets. The blue sky can range from near white-blue to deep dark midnight blue. While the hue of such a sky covers a very small range, the tonal grade is immense and very fine. Observing such a sky, one can see an infinitely smooth change from bright white-blue to sky blue to dark midnight blue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Studies unrelated to CIE work have indicated a wide range of &quot;maximum colors&quot; that the human eye can perceive. Some have an upper limit of 1 million colors, while others have an upper limit of 10 million colors. More recent studies have shown that some women have a unique fourth cone type, an &quot;orange&quot; cone, that could possibly extend their sensitivity to 100 million, however that study counted both chromaticity &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; luminosity in their calculation of &quot;color&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That ultimately begs the question, can we separate chromaticity from luminosity when determining &quot;color&quot;? Do we prefer to define the term &quot;color&quot; to mean the hue, saturation, &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; luminosity of the light we perceive? Or is it better to separate the two, keep chromaticity distinct from luminosity? How many levels of intensity can the eye really see, vs. how many distinct differences in chromaticity? I am not sure these questions have actually been answered in a scientific way yet. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another aspect of color perception involves contrast. It is easy to perceive a difference in two things when they contrast well with each other. When trying to visually determine how many &quot;colors&quot; one sees when looking at varying shades of red, it can be rather difficult to tell if two similar shades are different or not. However, compare a shade of red with a shade of green, and the difference is very clear. Compare that shade of green in sequence with each shade of red, and the eye can more easily pick up the differences in the red shades in peripheral relation to each other as well as in contrast with the green. These factors are all facets of the vision of our mind, which is a far more subjective device than the eye itself (which makes it hard to scientifically gauge color perception beyond the scope of the eye itself.) Given a setting with appropriate contrast, one may be able to detect far more distinct colors &lt;em&gt;in context&lt;/em&gt; than a setting without any contrast at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When discussing the number of colors perceptible to the human eye, I tend to refer to the 2.4 million colors of the CIE 1931 XYZ color space. It is a fairly solid, scientifically founded number, although I do admit it may be limited in context. I think it may be possible for the human eye to be sensitive to 10-100 million distinct &quot;colors&quot; when referring to both chromaticity and luminosity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-30T04:38:43.317" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T04:38:43.317" CommentCount="12" />
  <row Id="10366" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-30T03:54:04.647" Score="2" ViewCount="206" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a 200mm telephoto zoom lens. I would like to see the zoom distance between the 200mm compared to 300mm and 500mm. Are there any sample comparison images anywhere I can look at?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2777" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T09:14:43.533" Title="Where can I compare telephoto zooms? 200 vs 300 vs 500 mm?" Tags="&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;telephoto&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="10367" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9133" CreationDate="2011-03-30T04:29:03.690" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tamron has made a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tamron.eu/en/lenses/focal-length-comparison.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;focal length comparision&lt;/a&gt; page. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, you can crop your own images made with a shorter focal length to see how a picture made with a longer lens would look like. You should crop both height and width by the multiplier the other focal length is longer. For example, in order to preview how a picture made with 500mm would look like, you have to divide width and height of an image taken with 200mm by 500/200=2.5 and crop an area with calculated dimensions, preferrably from center of the original image to avoid &quot;shift lens&quot; effect. The resulting image shows you the field of view the 500mm would have. In a cropped image, the effective f-number is also multiplied the crop factor, so if you started with an image taken at 200mm f/4, depth of field in  the preview will be similar to 500mm f/10.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-30T04:41:33.743" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T04:41:33.743" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10368" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9133" CreationDate="2011-03-30T04:31:43.787" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Photo.net have &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/equipment/tamron/200_500_Di/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a review of the Tamron SP AF200-500MM F/5-6.3 Di LD (IF)&lt;/a&gt; which handily covers the zoom range you discuss.  Sample images &lt;strike&gt;are reproduced below&lt;/strike&gt; available by following the link.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3356" LastEditorUserId="3356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-30T09:21:05.623" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T09:21:05.623" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="10369" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10371" CreationDate="2011-03-30T04:36:50.737" Score="3" ViewCount="130" Body="&lt;p&gt;My DSLR, like most, uses a proprietary lithium-ion battery pack. I've got four batteries that have been used quite a lot. Only two of them can be reliably charged and used for any significant length of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any way to revive a battery with diminished capacity? I realize that eventually, they do wear out forever. But is there a possibility that some sort of reconditioning would extend their useful life?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Failing that, is there any way to turn the old batteries over for recycling, and to get a recycling credit towards the purchase of a new one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2312" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T09:09:59.377" Title="Uses for a dead/dying lithium-ion battery?" Tags="&lt;batteries&gt;&lt;accessories&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10370" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9133" CreationDate="2011-03-30T08:40:09.950" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nikon has a simulator of lenses. Try it &lt;a href=&quot;http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/simulator/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. It supports up to 600mm&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;UPD:&lt;/strong&gt; As &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/users/472/john-cavan&quot;&gt;John Cavan&lt;/a&gt; noticed (thanks to him):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Bear in mind that the Nikon DX format (APS-C) is actually a little larger than the Canon APS-C format. Not a huge difference, but it's there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2272" LastEditorUserId="2272" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-31T07:04:30.830" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T07:04:30.830" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10371" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10369" CreationDate="2011-03-30T09:09:59.377" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If they're fading away (as opposed to just suddenly died) no, there isn't much that can be done for them. Every charge/discharge cycle builds up crystals inside the battery that detract from it's electrical carrying capacity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on the type of metal used in the chemistry, there are some things that can be done to pro-long the life of Lithium batteries before they get to that point though. The simplest is to store them at a lower charge level. So if you have 4 batteries, and 3 of them spend 75% of the time sitting on the shelf, or in your bag, then make sure they sit there in storage drained. Don't charge them up until you're about to head out on a trip where you need them, instead of charging them as soon as you get home from the previous one. You can also make sure you store them in a cool location, or better a cold location. Both of those will preserve their ability to hold a charge longer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T09:09:59.377" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10372" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-30T09:18:30.260" Score="0" ViewCount="140" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon 550D DSLR that I've been using for the past 6 months to learn photogragphy. It has the 18-135mm lens and I also got the 50mm/1.8 lens. As I learn more I now think it's time for me to get more lenses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I mostly shoot nature and cityscapes. I want a lens that is sharper and faster than the 18 - 135mm and more specialised for the type of photography I like. I was thinking of adding a wide-angle and a telephoto lens to my gear. Any suggestions on which are good Canon (or compatible lenses). I can go as high as $700-$800 (each) but can't really afford the more expensive ones. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1924" LastEditorUserId="1924" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-30T10:04:42.950" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T05:56:39.787" Title="Which lenses to buy next?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;telephoto&gt;&lt;wide-angle&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10373" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10377" CreationDate="2011-03-30T09:41:15.483" Score="1" ViewCount="215" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to recreate the lighting setup from this picture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rRikx.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://i.imgur.com/rRikx.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is: How do I do it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My guesses so far:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sun from above and behind the model, slightly to the right&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Big softboxes with strong flashes from left and right&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do you think?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4529" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-30T11:25:29.743" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T11:39:17.280" Title="How do I recreate this outdoor portrait lighting setup?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;outdoor&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="10374" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10372" CreationDate="2011-03-30T09:56:01.490" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That will get you ONE decent lens, not two.&#xA;Make your choice :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T09:56:01.490" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10375" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10372" CreationDate="2011-03-30T10:00:33.237" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm afraid at your budget (even assuming you mean $700-800 each) and your lens type requirements you won't get a lens considerably faster, but I've got some suggestions anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For your wide angle lens I'd suggest the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-s-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-usm-lens-review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM&lt;/a&gt;, though this isn't any faster than your 18-135 and doesn't have IS, but it will allow you to take a much wider angle photo. I'm afraid having a crop sensor camera such as the 550D hinders you here, but purchasing another camera sounds like this isn't pratical for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For your telephoto lens having a crop sensor camera advantages you, so I'd suggest the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 70-200mm f4L USM&lt;/a&gt;, this is faster (especially at the long end) and sharper than your 18-135mm but again doesn't have IS. A cheaper option might be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-is-lens-review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF-S 55-250&lt;/a&gt; which has more reach and IS but isn't any faster than your current lens and isn't as sharp as the 70-200.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1580" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-30T10:11:35.347" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T10:11:35.347" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="10376" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10372" CreationDate="2011-03-30T10:52:27.103" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm in a similar situation, and have decided on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tokina-11-16mm-f-2.8-AT-X-Pro-DX-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX&lt;/a&gt;.  There are a bunch of good EF-S wide-angles available from third-party manufacturers as well as Canon, but the Tokina has been relatively well reviewed.  I would strongly consider its several advantages over the Canon 10-22mm recommended by ChrisFletcher:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It goes a little wider, and although it spans a smaller focal range you already have the longer end of that range covered by your 18-135mm.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It has a fixed minimum aperture of F2.8, which is about as fast as it gets for a wide angle.  I'm not sure if you wanted a fast wide-angle, or just a fast telephoto but it certainly can't hurt, especially if you like street photography.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Its very sturdily constructed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It suffers less from vingetting than the Canon, and is reputed to be a little sharper.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's $200 cheaper!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the downside:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It lacks a USM, meaning focusing is a little slower and noisier.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It suffers from signficant chromatic aberations, particularly wide open, although this can be easily post-processed away.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Its heavier than the Canon.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In anycase, if you are considering going wide, definitely check out the third-party options, as they may deliver what you need in a cheaper package than the Canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3356" LastEditorUserId="3356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-30T11:07:49.870" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T11:07:49.870" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10377" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10373" CreationDate="2011-03-30T11:10:07.107" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My money would be on unadulterated ambient light. Once you learn to decompose studio light, you see it everywhere in natural images, however it is possible to overanalyse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Late evening sun gives you the highlights you see in addition to filling in the shadows light a softbox. It may be the case her face was lightened in PP. It also gives you the same bokeh as this image when shining through trees.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there were softboxes left and right you'd see their specular reflections in her glasses and eyes. In particular I would expect a strong white line where her eyeglass lenses curve at the extremes. The reflections could have been photoshopped out, but there are still some reflections in her eyes which looks like light coming through trees which makes you wonder why those would have been left in. Finally if I were shooting a model with glasses in the golden hour I certainly wouldn't introduce any extra lighting as that's simply more work all round!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've shot in similar conditions with similar results. I'll see if I can dig out some images. Edit: here's an image with strong highlights and softly lit faces, no extrnal lighting:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/d8DxJ.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, where did this image come from? Could you ask the photographer how it was shot?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-30T11:39:17.280" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T11:39:17.280" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10378" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="292" CreationDate="2011-03-30T11:54:16.050" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I personally find remote, online storage to be the most &quot;comforting&quot;. No chance of a fire, theft or power spike wiping out everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For total security it seems impossible to beat Amazon's S3 storage since they write each chunk of data to multiple geographically separate data stores, read it back and do it again if they don't agree (then it rolls through and rechecks all the data regularly to be sure!). And they will send you the lot on a brand new disk if you are in a hurry and can't wait to download a backup (and are willing to pay but it's quite reasonable).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You need a bit of friendly backup software to put the data into S3 and take it out again. I recommend &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.jungledisk.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jungle Disk&lt;/a&gt; since I've used it for years, but there are others that use S3 that might be worth a looking (Cloudberry for instance).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, even at a mere 15 cents (USD) per gig, per month the price can mount up. So you might like to look at an &quot;all you can eat&quot; plan such as provided by someone like BackBlaze (great data-centre - but only one data centre - depends on your level of paranoia whether that's okay with you).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or even a mixture of both; S3 for &quot;critical&quot; images and another &quot;all you can eat&quot; provider for bulk backup of things you'd hate to lose - but not quite as much...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some &quot;reviews&quot; here which seem reasonably impartial but certainly serve as a good starting point for looking at online backup software:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.onlinebackupsreview.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.onlinebackupsreview.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I spent quite some time evaluating a couple of them myself, and blogged it here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://drw.me.uk/RedYeti/2010/03/20/would-you-mind-if-you-lost-all-the-pictures-from-your-travels/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://drw.me.uk/RedYeti/2010/03/20/would-you-mind-if-you-lost-all-the-pictures-from-your-travels/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4502" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T11:54:16.050" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10379" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2138" CreationDate="2011-03-30T11:59:55.157" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming that this question is about ensuring that the images are backed up properly, I'd highly recommend an online-backup as mentioned in my answer on this question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/292/what-method-is-best-to-take-backups-of-your-digital-photos/10378#10378&quot;&gt;What method is best to take backups of your digital photos?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4502" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T11:59:55.157" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-30T11:59:55.157" />
  <row Id="10380" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-30T13:44:21.993" Score="3" ViewCount="208" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to tweak a &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CHDK&lt;/a&gt; script for my Canon PowerShot G12 to take pictures at a regular interval. The goal is to make &lt;em&gt;smooth&lt;/em&gt; time lapse videos.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I've previously burned the sensor of a G11 because of an unexpected lighting change, and would like to prevent this from happening again. So now I'm looking for a way to either:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adjust the exposure slowly over the span of several pictures, or&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Detect a certain level of overexposure and abort the script&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is what I have so far:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;@title Timelapse photo fixed&#xA;&#xA;@param m Interval (min) &#xA;@default m 0 &#xA;@param s Interval (sec) &#xA;@default s 5&#xA;@param h Number of takes (x100)&#xA;@default h 10 &#xA;@param x Initial delay (sec) &#xA;@default x 10&#xA;&#xA;set_raw 0&#xA;&#xA;t=100*h&#xA;if t&amp;lt;100 then t=100&#xA;&#xA;i=60000*m+1000*s&#xA;if i&amp;lt;100 then i=100&#xA;&#xA;if x&amp;lt;5 then x=5&#xA;sleep 1000*x-2000&#xA;&#xA;print &quot;Pressing shutter halfway...&quot;&#xA;press &quot;shoot_half&quot;&#xA;sleep 2000&#xA;&#xA;for j=1 to t&#xA;    cls&#xA;    print &quot;Taking photo&quot;,j,&quot;of&quot;,t &#xA;    click &quot;shoot_full&quot;&#xA;    press &quot;shoot_half&quot;&#xA;    print &quot;   Waiting&quot;,m;&quot;:&quot;;s,&quot;...&quot;&#xA;    print &quot; &quot;&#xA;    sleep i&#xA;next j&#xA;&#xA;release &quot;shoot_half&quot; &#xA;&#xA;end&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(The &lt;code&gt;shoot_half&lt;/code&gt; bits are there to prevent the exposure/focus from changing during a shoot; if there is a better way to do that I'd also love to about it.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where should I go from here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4220" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T09:17:01.773" Title="CHDK: Timelapse/intervalometer with gradually adjusting exposure or overexposure detection." Tags="&lt;timelapse&gt;&lt;chdk&gt;&lt;intervalometer&gt;&lt;powershot&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="10381" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1892" CreationDate="2011-03-30T15:35:32.303" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The internal resistance of NiMH batteries increase rapidly as they near the end of their useful life.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.buchmann.ca/Chap8-page4.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;See this reference&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.buchmann.ca/chap6-page1.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this reference&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.buchmann.ca/Chap6-page3.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this reference&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080214215136AACzjrF&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This reference&lt;/a&gt; shows you how to measure the internal resistance of a battery.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;As a rule of thumb, when the internal resistance has doubled the battery is approaching the end of its life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T15:35:32.303" />
  <row Id="10382" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10383" CreationDate="2011-03-30T15:38:35.973" Score="1" ViewCount="153" Body="&lt;p&gt;I consider better to mean:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it focuses faster&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it focuses better in low-light&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it is sharper&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it has less vignetting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have the 35-70mm f/2.8D and am considering upgrading to the G.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4199" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-30T15:41:52.243" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T17:28:34.563" Title="Is the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G lens better than the Nikon 35-70 f/2.8D?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="10383" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10382" CreationDate="2011-03-30T16:02:32.857" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I only have the 35-70mm on crop, but considering the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the 35-70 is from the early 1990s&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you get 11mm more on the wide end, where it matters&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In general, AF-S lenses are faster focusing than AF-D lenses. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Low light performance should be the same, considering the same maximum aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would say the 24-70 is a better lens (for some values of better). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T16:02:32.857" />
  <row Id="10384" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10382" CreationDate="2011-03-30T16:22:13.557" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems like, on paper, the 24-70 is better than the 35-70.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But consider the price: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2164/AF-S-NIKKOR-24-70mm-f%252F2.8G-ED.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;$1500-ish&lt;/a&gt; vs. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800768860-USE/Nikon_1963_Zoom_Wide_Angle_Telephoto_AF.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;$500-ish&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me, as a non-professional, the price difference is well worth the sacrifice for what still is a great lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T16:22:13.557" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10385" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10386" CreationDate="2011-03-30T16:57:04.870" Score="14" ViewCount="473" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a small, &lt;em&gt;ultra white&lt;/em&gt; matte 13x10 room that I need to photograph and film people in. The most important thing to me is a person's skin color. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/attachments/photon-management/2566d1175744456-shooting-compact-fluorescent-lights-cfls-interview3.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Something like this&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yesterday I purchased some &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=clamp%20work%20light&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;client=ubuntu&amp;amp;hs=a7J&amp;amp;channel=cs&amp;amp;prmd=ivns&amp;amp;biw=1920&amp;amp;bih=942&amp;amp;bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&amp;amp;um=1&amp;amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;amp;cid=1717821757992049697&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=PF-TTdb4OMmCtgekzvRe&amp;amp;ved=0CHYQ8wIwAA#&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;clamp work lights&lt;/a&gt; and a few &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lowes.com/pd_88959-371-60058_0__?productId=1264029&amp;amp;Ntt=compact%20fluorescent%20&amp;amp;pl=1&amp;amp;currentURL=/pl__0__s?Ntt=compact%2bfluorescent%2b&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;6500k CFL bulbs&lt;/a&gt;. However, after taking some test photos with these lights I noticed that the skin color of my subjects looked very white (and even &lt;em&gt;green&lt;/em&gt; where veins where). It seems that this lighting is a bit much for people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the correct temperature for shooting people in an indoor room? I also have some nasty, yellow soft-white (2300k?) and halogen lights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1950" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-30T17:30:48.393" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T04:07:12.367" Title="Best fluorescent bulb color temperature for shooting people and interviews?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;people&gt;&lt;color-temperature&gt;&lt;fluorescent&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="10386" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10385" CreationDate="2011-03-30T17:14:16.043" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem with fluorescent lighting isn't the color temperature, exactly. You can generally adjust white balance to account for that. If there's a green tint, that can usually be compensated for with &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10319/when-should-i-use-manual-white-balance-settings&quot;&gt;manual white balance&lt;/a&gt;. But the poor color rendering is harder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is that by their nature fluorescent tubes only produce light in narrow ranges of wavelengths (depending on the composition of the gasses and phosphors used). Since colors in objects are in a sense only actually &lt;em&gt;there&lt;/em&gt; if the matching wavelength of light can be reflected back into your eyes or camera, this means fluorescent lighting flattens color in weird ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is one of those cases where the human vision system's magical qualities run us into trouble. Your brain adjusts for this so quickly that you don't really notice unless you've got a reference light source to compare to. (There's a cool little exhibit on this at the Museum of Science in Boston, if you're ever in my area.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Full spectrum&quot; bulbs use a combination of gasses to cover more spectrum. But even then, it tends to be spiky and weird, not the wide incandescence of, say, the sun (or a traditional light bulb). Many fluorescent bulbs list something called CRI, or &quot;Color Rendering Index&quot;. This isn't perfect — I don't think it's regulated, and it appears to be determined by each manufacturer, not independently. And the process / standard could stand to be updated to an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.knt.vein.hu/staff/schandaj/SJCV-Publ-2005/521.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;approach using more rigorous scientific understanding&lt;/a&gt;. But, it's what we've got.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, you want to look for bulbs advertising a CRI at least in the high 80s — 100 is perfect on the scale. There's lots more detail in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_rendering_index&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the Wikipedia article on CRI&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, you could avoid the problem by using incandescent (including halogen) light sources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-31T04:07:12.367" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T04:07:12.367" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10387" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10382" CreationDate="2011-03-30T17:28:34.563" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can see a good comparison between the two lenses at Ken Rockwell (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/3570.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Review&lt;/a&gt;)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;His summary is&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I just got one of these to compare against the 24-70mm f/2.8 AFS. The good news is that this lens, Nikon's flagship professional midrange zoom of the 1990s, has pretty much the same optical performance as the AFS lenses on a D3, with a lot less weight. As of 2007, this 35-70mm is also available at a bargain close-out price of about $470!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of the sharpness of the 35-70 he says  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sharpness is great.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It's sharp in the center at all settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On the Nikon D3, it's a little softer wide open in the corners, and sharpens up a stop or two down. Even wide open it's pretty good and much better than the cheaper zooms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Compared directly to the $1,700 24-70mm f/2.8 AFS, the 35-70mm f/2.8 is only a little softer in the corners wide open on a D3. This is only visible by setting up a deliberate test where the corners have subject material that will be in perfect focus at f/2.8 and then looking at the images at 100% on my monitor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On film, I doubt I'd see any of the corner softening even on tests. It's only visible deliberately shooting from a mountain top at infinity, so that there are details to see, in focus, in the far corners. Real subjects we shoot at f/2.8 aren't flat like the Earth, so I've never seen this in anything but deliberate test photos.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;On the other hand you should see the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1121/cat/13&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SlrGear.com review of 24-70 lens&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The results are singularly good. This is an outstanding lens.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I reproduce one graph below from the SLRGear web site. I leave it to you decide whether the results justify the higher price.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Note the unusual measure of sharpness, the Blur Unit. You can think of this as one Blur Unit being very roughly equal to the blurring of an edge by one pixel. One Blur Unit is about as sharp as you can get.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/dup8v.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T17:28:34.563" />
  <row Id="10388" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10385" CreationDate="2011-03-30T17:34:13.310" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're going to use fluorescent bulbs, you want a full-spectrum bulb, probably with a &quot;CRI&quot; rating of at least 90 or so. I've used Ott-lite for a few years, but there are now  alternatives that are considerably less expensive and provide (at least very close to) the same quality. If memory serves, one I've seen used that seemed to be quite good was branded &quot;Blue Max&quot; (or maybe &quot;BlueMax&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T17:34:13.310" />
  <row Id="10389" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10385" CreationDate="2011-03-30T17:37:24.617" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've also tried using CFLs in clamp lights for photography, and I've also been disappointed with the color rendering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Color temperature is a measurement that properly only applies to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;black body radiators&lt;/a&gt;, which produce a continuous spectrum. CFL bulbs aren't black body radiators and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp#Spectrum_of_light&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;don't output a continuous spectrum&lt;/a&gt;, so the color temperatures claimed for them are largely a marketing fiction. The color temperature on the box may tell you how blue (high temperature) or how yellow (low temperature) you will perceive the bulb's light to be, overall, with your eyes, but it won't tell you very much about how colors will look in the light of the bulb. Because a CFL's spectrum isn't continuous, some colors in your scene simply aren't present in CFL light, and white balance adjustments can't ever add them back in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A better measurement for color rendering is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_rendering_index&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Color Rendering Index, or CRI&lt;/a&gt;. CRIs in the 80s are good enough for general purpose illumination, and are common for CFLs. CRIs in the 90s are considered very good. Most CFL boxes don't specify a CRI, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Incandescent lights, including halogen lights, are very nearly ideal black body radiators, and give off a continuous spectrum. They are considered to have a perfect CRI of 100, the maximum for the scale. The light they give has a low color temperature (a yellow/orange cast) but that can be corrected in post much more convincingly than the discontinuous spectrum of fluorescent light can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe a combination of CFLs and incandescents could improve your color rendering without making too much heat. Maybe all-incandescent is the way to go. I'd say: experiment and report back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2312" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T17:37:24.617" />
  <row Id="10390" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10385" CreationDate="2011-03-30T17:46:27.230" Score="18" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Of what you have in stock, the halogens will give the best image results. They'll also be very hot if you use enough of them to avoid cranking up the video gain and reducing the video quality (assuming you aren't running some really top-level pro gear). Since this question applies as much to photography as video, I'll make this a one-size-fits-all answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Continuous lighting is necessary for video, and has its advantages for still photography. Incandescent light sources are full-spectrum lights, but because they are &quot;pure&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;black body radiators&lt;/a&gt; (for the most part -- there are a couple of weird exotics used in industrial applications that don't follow the rules) they can only emit &quot;whiter&quot; light (light with more amplitude in the blue/violet range) by running much hotter than normal. Photofloods and halogens are good examples; they run in the mid-3000K range (3200-3400), but even a modest light output comes with a huge heat penalty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's why LED and fluorescent solutions for continuous lighting make so much sense -- they emit light on a different principle that doesn't rely on things getting super-hot. LEDs are &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; efficient, but panels that are bright enough &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; cover enough of the visible spectrum to be useful are prohibitively expensive. Without commercial backing, LEDs are not a practical solution yet (although they may come down enough in price soon -- I remember when the brightest LEDs couldn't be seen at all under sunlight conditions, and now they're being used as traffic lights and brake lights on vehicles).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fluorescents can be great -- but they have to be the right fluorescents. It's not the color temperature that matters (you can adjust the white balance on your camera, or select film and filter to suit), but the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_rendering_index&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Color Rendering Index&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. Common fluorescents only use enough different phosphors (the compounds in the white powder coating the inside of the tube that convert ultraviolet to visible light) to allow you to see things, period. High-CRI bulbs (CFLs with a CRI of 90 or better) use a lot of different compounds to fluoresce across almost the entire visible spectrum. (And, as a bonus, they also use high-frequency ballasts and long-decay phosphors to eliminate flicker.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many of the usable CFL bulbs are sold specifically as photographic or design professional equipment, and carry (sorry) prices appropriate to that realm. But, really, forty bucks a bulb for 65-Watters isn't that bad over the long term. And there are lower-power bulbs you can buy elsewhere (like at Lowe's) -- the 25W OttLite CFLs are a particular favorite of mine for tabletop lighting. (Oddly, Ott has probably the best spectrum I've come across, but they don't actually state the CRI anywhere on their packaging or ads.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;The 25-cent (or less) Diffraction Spectrograph Solution&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A quick test -- grab a CD or DVD, and look at it under the lights you want to use. Make sure that you're using a bare bulb, or for large lights, that you're far enough away from the light to make it a small source. Tilt the disc so that you get that &quot;rainbow&quot; going from center to edge. Who needs thousands of dollars worth of lab equipment when you can do the essentials with a scratched-up old CD? Even if you have to waste a brand-new DVD+R, you're only out a quarter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can see the entire rainbow without any large gaps, you can make the light work. You may have to create a custom white balance (see your camera manual) for that particular light source, but unless your subject is a narrow-spectrum monochromatic reflector/transmitter (like if you're doing cross-polarized pictures of crystals), even a few &lt;em&gt;small&lt;/em&gt; gaps in the spectrum won't be noticeable in the final image/video.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you only see a few bright spots of color, nothing you can do will fix the image properly -- it may be better than total darkness, but not much. If you have a choice, use something else instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keep the disc in your camera bag -- scratches won't affect its performance, and it can help you do a better job whenever you're on location.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastEditorUserId="2719" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-30T20:08:18.207" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T20:08:18.207" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="10392" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10393" CreationDate="2011-03-30T19:51:50.073" Score="1" ViewCount="99" Body="&lt;p&gt;In older Nikon DSLRs like the D70 there was an option to not add image rotation information to the EXIF data of the image. I can't find this option in a D7000. Can anyone please confirm that it is not available anymore or where I can find it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4537" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-30T21:13:16.617" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T21:13:16.617" Title="How can I disable EXIF auto rotation on a Nikon D7000?" Tags="&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;nikon-d7000&gt;&lt;autorotation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10393" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10392" CreationDate="2011-03-30T20:06:12.210" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is there, in the Setup menu (the one with the wrench/spanner icon). It's called Auto Image Rotation, and it comes between 'Image Content' and 'Image Dust Off ref photo'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T20:06:12.210" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10394" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11033" CreationDate="2011-03-30T20:46:49.203" Score="1" ViewCount="109" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've bought a Powershot sx20 half a year ago and I'm quite happy with it although I know it doesn't compare to a DSLR. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've learning photography on my own: bought a 58mm ring and some filters (cpl, nd8, macro, star cross). I've got chdk to save in RAW so later with Photoshop I can reduce the noise of the pictures (and also use post-processing techinques to enhance them), and I'm using chdk's histogram to check if the picture has a good range.&#xA;But there are some concepts I'm not fully understanding:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) Aperture priority: even in the widest range mode, where it has from 2.8 to 8, I don't see any difference in the picture. I know that AP is used for DOF, and that P&amp;amp;S have huge DOF because of the sensor size, but then why is this mode here? What's supposed to do in a P&amp;amp;S?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) Manual Focus: the slider goes from 0cm to infinity (Depending on the zoom) and even you have the option to see a zoomed zone in the center of the picture for a refined focus, I don't see much difference between little steps. May it be because it's an electronic viewfinder instead of optical?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) Exposure: I've read that you should get a proper exposure. There is an indicator that warns me if the picture is going to be too dark or too bright, but the only options I have to change the exposure are the shutter speed and ISO, which I always try to be at 100 in order to avoid noise (of course during daylight or in a well-lit room). How can I know if it's really proper? Right now I have a post processing plugin in photoshop which does exposure compensation so I'm checking how much does the picture change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks, I hope these questions are clear enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1595" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T08:58:41.777" Title="Photography concepts using SX20" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;&lt;manual-focus&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="10395" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10396" CreationDate="2011-03-30T21:23:29.787" Score="11" ViewCount="221" Body="&lt;p&gt;DSLR cameras, by and large, give very complete information about how the photo is exposed, in the form of a histogram and image of a trial exposure. It shows the light distribution for both luminance and the colours. It shows if there is any clipping of highlights and shadows. Looking at the test image itself allows me to quickly assess whether the key tones are correctly exposed. And if they are not they will be close enough that I can easily correct them in post processing.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems to me to give all the information I need to make an accurate exposure. In fact I can't imagine a better way. And yet many people still advocate using the Zone System. But I fail to see it's advantages.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was recently a similar question: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/867/is-the-zone-system-useful-with-a-dslr&quot;&gt;Is the Zone System useful with a DSLR?&lt;/a&gt;. While it gave some interesting references the replies were bland statements of the form 'it is worth it'.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I am posing the question in a more direct and specific form in the hope I will get more specific answers:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why should I use the Zone System when the test histogram and image seems to give me all the information I need?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="456" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-30T22:00:23.147" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T10:00:35.013" Title="Why should I use the Zone System when the histogram gives me all the information I need?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;histogram&gt;&lt;zone-system&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10396" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10395" CreationDate="2011-03-30T21:53:37.020" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well for starters, using the zone system allows you to obtain the correct exposure before you take the photograph. I'm a big fan of getting it right first time - if you take a photo, check the histogram, adjust settings, take another photo, check the histogram etc. you are using up valuable time, especially if you are shooting something time sensitive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use the zone system as it gives me total control over the exposure. A lot of photos I take do not have the even distribution of tones that would result in an even histogram, especially some of the gig photographs where the singer is the only light part of the photo and the background is very dark, if not pure black. The histogram for an example of these shots looks like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/egMvk.png&quot; alt=&quot;Sample histogram&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the photo, which to my eyes is correctly exposed, looks like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/A6JmZ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Högni&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think the histogram works in ALL situtions, whereas the zone system does. For this reason alone, I think it is preferable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T21:53:37.020" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10397" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10395" CreationDate="2011-03-30T21:56:25.373" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The zone system tells you what to base metering on in a scene of higher dynamic range than your camera could capture, and what you will gain and lose when changing the exposure either way - by adjusting exposure for a higher zone, you will push all the other zones down and lose  your lowest zone (and vice versa for underexposing). For example, what was textured black would become texture-free near black - if your subject is a black animal, you will avoid such adjustment although it might bring your highlights into range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can tell which zones different parts of scene are in, you can estimate how much dynamic range would be required, and if the picture will have as much contrast as you want it to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T21:56:25.373" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10398" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10395" CreationDate="2011-03-30T22:51:01.370" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several aspects of the zone system which can still be useful, and which the histogram doesn't represent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, you can use it as an aid to visualization of a scene before you take a picture. This is useful for any case where you care about composition, and this kind of forethought and planning will usually pay off with better results than unconsidered snapping. Now, I don't think you need to use the particular zone system scale to do this, but thinking about the scene before you in terms of relative level of brightness is a worthwhile exercise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, unless you have a better histogram tool than I do, the histogram doesn't really tell you anything about the relative brightness of different parts of the frame. You can estimate this some on review using the LCD screen — but that's exactly where the zone system concepts can come into play. As you're examining the test image, how do you decide on the relative exposure of tones? The zone system gives you a mental vocabulary for dividing the scene, and for deciding where you want each tone to fall in brightness. It's a way to think about what will happen to the rest of the image if you decide that a certain tone in the scene will be exposed highly or as shadow. The histogram shows you the sum of the entire image; this is about considering the different parts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, as you make adjustments to the image (in computer-based post-processing or simply through selecting image output options in the camera), you can use the idea of zones of as a tool for decisions about overall and relative contrast — the tone curves. That's not so valuable to me personally, but apparently enough people find it a useful way to work that there's a whole RAW processor built around the idea — LightCrafts' &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lightcrafts.com/lightzone/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LightZone&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-03-30T22:51:01.370" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10399" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2072" CreationDate="2011-03-31T05:45:27.450" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Action scene... one raw exposed to the right (usually +2/3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still life or landscape or anything else that's not moving... 3 raws, exposed to the right. (ususally -2 1/3, +2/3, +3 2/3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T05:45:27.450" />
  <row Id="10400" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10372" CreationDate="2011-03-31T05:56:39.787" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Considering you'll be buying two lenses, one telephoto and one wide angle, I'd recommend:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sell your 18-135mm lens off&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Get Canon 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 USM IS&lt;/strong&gt;, its a lot sharper and 15mm is good enough for any casual landscape/cityscape shooter. In addition to a decent wide angle, you get a perfect walk-around lens to put on your camera body for most of the times. Trust me, you wont regret buying this lens. Get the hood and a CPL filter if possible for fabulous landscapes/cityscapes. You should not consider Tokina 11-16mm because that's &lt;strong&gt;extreme wide&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;might not be the best choice for landscapes always&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For telephoto need, you'll need to &lt;strong&gt;decide on a focal length first&lt;/strong&gt;. Telephotos are very specific purpose lens and once you decide to get one, you can check the following lenses: Canon 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM, Canon 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 USM IS and if your budget allows, I highly recommend &lt;strong&gt;Canon 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 L USM IS&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T05:56:39.787" />
  <row Id="10401" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-31T06:40:30.443" Score="2" ViewCount="389" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been trying to use my 18-55 kit lens as a macro but have no idea how to go about it.&#xA;Do I need an adapter to mount the lens reversed on the camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, is it possible to use canon 50mm f/1.8 as macro by reversibly mounting it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to reverse any lens to function as a macro lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4489" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-16T22:19:05.233" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T22:19:05.233" Title="How to reverse the canon 18-55 kit lens to use it as macro?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;reverse-mount&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10402" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10401" CreationDate="2011-03-31T07:32:09.510" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, you need a reversing ring to mount any lens backwards. Theoretically any lens can be reversed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T07:32:09.510" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="10403" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10401" CreationDate="2011-03-31T09:04:34.020" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you own both of the two lenses you mentioned, just keep one on the camera, then hold the other (reversed) in front of it (you can tape the two lenses together if you want). &lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Doing this you'll get extreme magnification; on the other hand, depth of field will be close to none. You'll probably want to avoid getting most of the image black so &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;keep the aperture of the reversed&#xA;lens wide open blocking the small&#xA;lever in the mount with a piece of&#xA;paper or something similar&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;if the on-camera lens is the zoom (which seems to be better, at least in my experience),&#xA;zoom it to the longest focal.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Switch autofocus off and don't bother with manual focus, you won't need it as moving a millimeter will change what's in focus. As this technique reflects some problems of a huge focal length, it's better to have enough light to use the camera in shutter priority with a short time (e.g. 1/300 s).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could just reverse ONE lens, buying a reverse ring or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diyphotography.net/diy_reverse_macro_ring&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;making one&lt;/a&gt; but not all cameras allow you to shoot w/o a lens on, and/or the meter wouldn't work. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3364" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T09:04:34.020" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10404" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10395" CreationDate="2011-03-31T10:00:35.013" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ansel Adams, who invented the Zone System is &lt;em&gt;still&lt;/em&gt; a clever chappy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The zone system is a way of categorising the tones that we can see. A digital camera can only see about  +/- 2 zones from what you're metered for. So you have to make a choice on what you want to meter for, what you're willing to turn black or burn out. For me, it's about &lt;strong&gt;pre-visualising&lt;/strong&gt; what you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/how-to/shooting/the-digital-zone-system.html?start=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; in Outdoor Photographer valuable a while ago. Browsing it again, I'm realising I need to read it properly all over again. Hope you find it helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Slightly off topic, this is what we're trying to do with HDR - to shoot over a wider range of zones so that we can merge them into a single image. This image will have reduced contrast because we're adjusting what we can record.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3650" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T10:00:35.013" />
  <row Id="10405" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10409" CreationDate="2011-03-31T10:21:46.353" Score="5" ViewCount="160" Body="&lt;p&gt;In some occasions autofocus doesn't focus what I intend it to. What is the better option - to use autofocus, focus what I want and recompose, or use manual focus in that situation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4435" LastEditorUserId="456" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-31T10:33:03.723" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T11:06:55.283" Title="Autofocus and recompose vs manual focus" Tags="&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;focus&gt;&lt;manual-focus&gt;&lt;composition&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10406" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10405" CreationDate="2011-03-31T10:32:25.970" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Focus and recompose will work just as well in most cases; the exception is when the aperture is so wide that the object being focused on actually leaves the plane of focus when you recompose (most likely in macro photography). If you are able to select AF points manually, then choose the one that's closest to the item you are focussing on to minimise this effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have the time and the means (e.g. zooming in on live view), manual focus will give you full control, but if you're in a hurry, stop down a few stops (if you can) and use focus and recompose. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T10:32:25.970" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10408" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10405" CreationDate="2011-03-31T10:45:12.150" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;i always lock the auto focus point selection to the center and not auto point selection.&#xA;That way i can first put the focus where i want and then recompose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4179" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T10:45:12.150" />
  <row Id="10409" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10405" CreationDate="2011-03-31T10:52:46.127" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general, modern AF cameras have focusing screens optimized for bright viewing rather than accurate focusing. This means that the AF system is potentially more accurate than your eyes using the focusing screen, if the AF system is calibrated correctly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've found that the wider the lens is, the harder it is to achieve critical focus while focusing manually. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For critical manual focusing, either use Live view, if you have it, or install a custom focusing screen for your camera. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are using AF and recompose, I've found it useful to decouple the focusing action from the shutter release. Most cameras will let you assign focusing to a separate button, instead of having to maintain a half-press of the shutter while recomposing-&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T10:52:46.127" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10410" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10405" CreationDate="2011-03-31T11:06:55.283" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You don't state what camera model you're using but if it somehow happens to be a Hasselblad H4D series then you're in luck as your camera has a truefocus feautre.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is essentially an orientation sensor so that you can focus and recompose and the camera automatically adjusts the plane of focus to accommodate for the shift when you recompose. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T11:06:55.283" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10411" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10401" CreationDate="2011-03-31T11:18:56.860" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To firmly assemble the two lenses, i used two P series Cokin adaptor rings, so i can put a rubber band around those two rings, and the lenses are assembled temporarly and without a reversing ring :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cokin.fr/ico2-p1.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cokin.fr/ico2-p1.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4291" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T11:18:56.860" />
  <row Id="10412" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10422" CreationDate="2011-03-31T15:30:35.383" Score="8" ViewCount="366" Body="&lt;p&gt;In his book &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.focalpress.com/books/photography/the_photographer39s_eye.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Photographer's Eye&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, photographer and author Michael Freeman says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Another consideration is relative brightness. Different hues are perceived as having different light values, with yellow the brightest and violet the darkest.  In other words, there is no such thing as a dark yellow, nor is there a light violet; instead, these colors become others — ochre, for example, or mauve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Update:&lt;/em&gt; Freeman is clearly talking about something more serious than the &lt;em&gt;labeling&lt;/em&gt; of colors. In &lt;em&gt;The Photographer's Eye&lt;/em&gt;, the above quote is part of a relatively small section, but the same concept occurs throughout an earlier book of his, &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=3ilf-lPA2kYC&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;dq=Mastering%20Color%20Digital%20Photography&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;ei=pfuUTZHgJ8ea0QHRyI3zCw&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=book_result&amp;amp;ct=result&amp;amp;resnum=1&amp;amp;ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=dark%20yellow&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mastering Color Digital Photography&lt;/a&gt;. The idea seems to be that when darkened, yellow loses the &lt;em&gt;essential qualities that make it yellow&lt;/em&gt;, and when made bright violet &lt;em&gt;loses the essential qualities that make it violet&lt;/em&gt; — in a way that red or blue do not. These qualities are clearly more than their position in a color space, and they're &lt;em&gt;also&lt;/em&gt; clearly more than the name applied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My earlier discussion (the next few paragraphs) was about how I've seen this in practical effect, and how I think you probably can too if you haven't thought about it before. But the question I still have is &lt;em&gt;why?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the answer may be cultural, but if it were &lt;em&gt;entirely&lt;/em&gt; arbitrary, it seems odd that these particular effects would be claimed in reverse for colors which are direct contrasting colors on the color wheel. That seems to imply some technical reason beyond any sort of thing like &quot;purple is royal because of the rareness of the dyes in ancient times.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, particularly with yellow, I've seen this to be true. If you've ever worked with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lexipixel.com/graphics/colors_vga_html_hex.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;16-color VGA pallette&lt;/a&gt;, you know what I'm talking about — in fact, the HTML 4 spec names dark yellow &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_colors#HTML_color_names&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;olive&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. I realize that the other colors have, well, colorful names (lime, for example) but who ever heard of a &lt;em&gt;yellow&lt;/em&gt; olive? And this isn't something wacky with the restricted colors available — it's what you get when you take pure red and pure green mixed, and then cut the brightness in half. I don't think this is just a matter of &lt;em&gt;naming&lt;/em&gt; — I remember being frustrated with the inability in a 16-color scheme to make a dark yellow that &lt;em&gt;reads as yellow&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I assumed that this was basically due to a limitation of the RGB color model — that the color exists, but we just can't &lt;em&gt;get to it&lt;/em&gt; in that way. (Edit: this appears to be true of violet, in a scientific sense; it can only be approximated with purple, which is a mix of red and blue. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple#Purple_versus_violet&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this Wikipedia link&lt;/a&gt; provided by Evan Krall in the comments below. There's something called the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bezold-Br%C3%BCcke_shift&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bezold–Brücke shift&lt;/a&gt; involved, which might be part of the answer to this question.) But Freeman suggests something more about our perception than about the color model.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What's going on here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-24T18:04:41.700" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T18:04:41.700" Title="Why are there no dark yellows, or bright violets?" Tags="&lt;color&gt;&lt;human-vision-system&gt;&lt;color-theory&gt;&lt;michael-freeman&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="10413" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-31T17:42:17.190" Score="5" ViewCount="140" Body="&lt;p&gt;Might be a naive question, but I want to fix few subjective metrics / parameters which would let me decide image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I mean, I can use some objective metrics like Mean Squared Error or Mean Absolute Difference, if I have the &quot;golden reference image&quot;, but in real life situations, most of time there is no reference image. In those cases, how do I decide the quality of image by viewing it?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2438" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-31T18:33:29.633" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T03:07:03.243" Title="What parameters can I use to evaluate a &quot;Perceptual Image Quality&quot;?" Tags="&lt;image-quality&gt;&lt;judging&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10414" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10413" CreationDate="2011-03-31T17:59:10.990" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Photography is first and foremost an art, not a science. The 'quality' of an image is subjective: if you like a photo, it's a good photo. There are rules of thumb that aid composition, such as the Rule of Thirds, but these aren't hard and fast laws - they won't always produce a good photograph.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T17:59:10.990" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10415" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10412" CreationDate="2011-03-31T18:03:08.277" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it's a cultural/developmental/language thing rather than anything to do with the RGB colour space or human perception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The words for colours are closely related to things, the most obvious example is &quot;orange&quot;. &#xA;I think you can have a dark yellow, it's just that we call it something different. Why? Perhaps because there are objects which are naturally dark yellow - olives! There may be fewer reasons to distinguish between dark red and light red, so the same word is used. However, if for reasons of survival you need to know to pick the yellow fruit but not the olive coloured fruit, it helps to have different words for these colours to avoid confusion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short I believe we came to name colours based on convenience, not as some orderly partition of the perceivable colour space.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note I'm not an anthropologist or etymologist so this is pure conjecture on my part!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is almost certainly a perception component as well, colours we can distinguish between more easily deserve unique names, whilst there's no point naming colour we can't see very well...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-31T18:19:26.630" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T18:19:26.630" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10416" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10413" CreationDate="2011-03-31T18:30:53.147" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Start out with Stan Rogers's answer to the question &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8877/how-to-capture-the-scene-exactly-as-my-eyes-can-see/8919#8919%20%22.&quot;&gt;How to capture the scene exactly as my eyes can see?&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. Think about what exactly that &quot;golden reference image&quot; you describe would look like. Would everything in the scene be in crisp focus? Would colors be as we observe them, or would they be as a perfect sensor would record under a perfect light source? How would the image be framed and cropped? Would vertical lines appear straight, or would they converge? Would it be three-dimensional?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I think you're going about things in a very wrong direction. Even if you were to have some sort of magical way to measure against a Perfect Reference of Reality, the quantitative, objective things you could calculate wouldn't relate very well to &lt;em&gt;what makes a good photograph&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, that said, there are some things you can consider to assess the &lt;em&gt;technical qualities&lt;/em&gt; of a photograph. Unfortunately for your goal, these aren't really &lt;em&gt;measurables&lt;/em&gt; — but they are aspects to examine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Was the exposure choice good? Does the brightness level work for the composition? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are there details lost in shadow that leave the image incomplete? Are highlights clipped in an unnatural way? Or, on the other hand, are does the dynamic range of the image feel unnatural, or otherwise leave &lt;em&gt;too little&lt;/em&gt; to the imagination?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the image is in color, do the colors seem natural? If they don't, is it for a good reason?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are the lighting choices good? Where is the light coming from, and how is it managed?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is the focus where it was meant to be? Is the depth of field sufficient for everything that should be in focus, and do the out-of-focus areas work?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are the point of view and field of view appropriate? Do distortions of perspective detract from the image?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How well is purple fringing and other optical artifacts controlled? Is there unattractive lens flare where it should be? Is there patterned image noise? Are there other visual distractions of that sort? What about digital artifacts like posterization or visible compression oddities?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's certainly more, but there's some places to start. As you can see, some of these get into very subjective areas. I've intentionally left &quot;composition&quot; from the list, but it really shouldn't be missing. In fact, it can't be removed from what I've already put there — it's part of all of the above already.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And keep in mind that while technical things &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; important to making photographs, they're not the &lt;em&gt;heart&lt;/em&gt; of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-31T20:59:21.983" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T20:59:21.983" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10417" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10412" CreationDate="2011-03-31T18:50:20.010" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because they have their own names. That's why. These are my interpretations of these variants:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Dark yellow&lt;/strong&gt; is simply known by &lt;strong&gt;brown&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Light violet&lt;/strong&gt; is simply known by &lt;strong&gt;pink&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2110" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T18:50:20.010" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10418" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2138" CreationDate="2011-03-31T18:55:27.690" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm a big fan of using Cloud based online storage for my images (DropBox, Amazon S3, etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I use JungleDisk to sync all my &quot;keeper&quot; images to Amazon S3 IN ADDITION to having multiple local copies on external harddrives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notes:&#xA;1. I only archive JPG's (not RAW images) online to keep the storage costs down.&#xA;2. I rate all images as part of my normal workflow, and then I export JPGs of all 1+ star images to the directory structure that gets backed up to Amazon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4544" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T18:55:27.690" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-03-31T18:55:27.690" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10419" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10412" CreationDate="2011-03-31T19:02:12.803" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I guess I would consider &quot;Brown&quot; to be &quot;Dark Yellow&quot;. From a modern color theory standpoint, which is a three dimensional model of hue, saturation, and luminosity, you end up with brownish or brownish-green (i.e. olive) colors along the &quot;yellow&quot; chromaticity axis when luminosity drops around 50% or lower.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've never heard of brown listed as a &lt;em&gt;secondary&lt;/em&gt; color, outside of maybe some interior design books and magazines. Usually, the primaries are red/green/blue or red/blue/yellow or the combination of the two, and secondaries are violet/orange/cyan/magenta.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One way to gain insight into the question of &quot;color&quot; would be to model color in three dimensions, and examine the radial axis of any primary or secondary color (as radiating from the white/black point Z-axis outwards toward the full saturation of the hue in the X/Y plane.) In three dimensions, at maximum luminosity, you have colors ranging from 0% to 100% saturation, radiating in a 360­° hue circle. But that is only at maximum luminosity. You could divide luminosity into a 5 levels (just to keep things workablyh simple), at 100%, 75%, 50%, 25%, 0%, and for each radial color axis (such as yellow), you would see the colors that fall under that specific hue. The colors &lt;code&gt;Brown&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;Olive&lt;/code&gt; both fall near the &quot;Yellow Hue Axis&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do think there is indeed a &quot;Dark Yellow&quot;, as much as I think there is a &quot;Light Violet&quot;. I think it is indeed be very cultural or language bound to separate Yellow from Brown. Brown is just a word we use to describe &quot;Dark Yellow&quot;, just as &quot;Pink&quot; is a word used to describe &quot;Light Violet&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T16:41:10.427" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T16:41:10.427" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="10420" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6667" CreationDate="2011-03-31T19:31:08.400" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a couple of more downsides for second-curtain sync not yet mentioned in other responses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With TTL, flash power needed for correct exposure is determined by measuring reflection from a preflash before the shutter opens. Using rear-curtain flash, the distance between subject and the flash may have significantly changed during exposure and the pre-calculated value is more prone to be wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, focus (especially auto-focus) is usually based on where things were at the start of exposure, not where they are expected to be by the end - you have more chances of missing focus for a moving subject using rear-curtain flash unless you have planned for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: Also, with most cameras viewfinder is black during exposure. Handheld, you will have harder time trying to keep desired composition and avoiding tilting the camera until flash fires.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-31T20:36:00.620" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T20:36:00.620" />
  <row Id="10421" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10412" CreationDate="2011-03-31T19:41:09.133" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I work preparing images for a studio to send them our lab. I know pure yellow ie (Red255, Green255, Blue0 in Adobe Colour space) is beyond the range of our photographic prints. In fact all primary colours are out of Gamut. Most new monitors these days can produce 100% Adobe colour space. So your monitor can produce a wider range of colours than you can get on paper. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4545" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T19:41:09.133" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10422" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10412" CreationDate="2011-03-31T19:52:41.460" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it's a bit more than simply saying &quot;we have other names for those colours.&quot; Yes, there is a cultural component. If English didn't have the word &quot;pink&quot; we may very well refer to a colour &quot;light violet.&quot; Some languages &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-green_across_cultures&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;don't even distinguish between blue and green&lt;/a&gt;. But I believe in the case of Yellow, that the way our brain interprets colour means that the very best we can do with &quot;dark yellow&quot; is call it &quot;gold.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think about describing colour with &quot;-ish&quot; for example. We can have a bluish-green, or an orangish-yellow, but imagine the color yellowish-blue. It doesn't exist. The same with greenish-red. (Scintillating colour-changing fabrics notwithstanding.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;pure&quot; colours our eyes perceive and our brains interpret are yellow, blue, green, red, and possibly brown. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opponent_process&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;opponent process&lt;/a&gt; theory.) Other colour names are cultural and variations on those. For example, orange is a reddish yellow or yellowish red, pink is a pale bluish-red, violet a reddish-blue. So we find it difficult to imagine a &quot;dark yellow&quot; because our eyes and brain are more likely to interpret it as a &quot;dark desaturated green&quot; or possibly a &quot;greenish brown.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3334" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-31T20:33:22.533" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T20:33:22.533" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10423" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10413" CreationDate="2011-03-31T20:28:00.953" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The quality of an image can be judged in three broad categories:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Technical quality&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Here we have factors like sharpness, exposure, color, white balance, depth of field, noise/grain, etc.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Compelling emotion or insight&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The photo must elicit some emotion that makes it memorable. A compelling photo provokes an 'aha' experience, hard to describe but easily recognised.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Aesthetically pleasing&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;This is what we usually call composition. It includes things like line, shape, color, tone, balance, perspective, etc.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good photo will score well in all three categories. If you must rate photos then I suggest you score them on a scale of 1 to 5 in each category. The big question though, is, does each category have equal weight? My personal preference is to give more weight to 'compelling' photos.  My advice is not to get too detailed about individual aspects of the three categories. go by your overall impressions of Quality, Compelling and Aesthetics.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thomas Carlyle said 'There is nothing more terrible than activity without insight'. He could easily have been talking about photographers. The bottom line, for me at least, is that a good photograph provides a compelling insight.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just to round things off, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.studiolo.org/Photography/Judging/Judging01.htm#top&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here is a counter-intuitive view of the subject&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T20:28:00.953" />
  <row Id="10424" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10425" CreationDate="2011-03-31T20:31:22.433" Score="3" ViewCount="174" Body="&lt;p&gt;Free is good, good quality results are better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to automatically create collages from a set of photos that were collated by hand. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm interested in what the software can do rather than having a pre-set idea of what the output should look like, but there should be some control over how the photos are laid out, and at what size and orientation they are placed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T19:19:43.363" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T07:11:41.800" Title="recommendations for photo montage/collage software" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;collage&gt;&lt;montage&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="10425" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10424" CreationDate="2011-03-31T22:11:25.810" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question is a bit vague, but have you looked into Google Picasa?  It has a function that allows you to pick your pictures and automatically put them into a collage.  Is is pretty basic, but a pretty good starting point. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This function is under the &quot;Create&quot;, &quot;Picture Collage&quot; menu item.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4520" LastEditorUserId="4520" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T04:26:39.270" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T04:26:39.270" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10426" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10219" CreationDate="2011-03-31T22:38:41.577" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, you want the funky iris reflections? Or, more generally, you want to enhance the eye colour and contrast/sparkle? (It doesn't have to be to the &quot;special effects&quot; end of the spectrum -- sometimes you'll make a wonderful portrait that, unfortunately, doesn't relay the subject's bright, beautiful eye color and you just want to fix that. The same process applies in both cases.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can do the same thing in any image manipulation application that supports layers (and, preferably adjustment layers as well). I'll leave the instructions vague so they're not tied to any particular application.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Select only the iris area of each eye, and copy it to a new layer. The circular marquee tool will probably work best, but make sure that the selection is feathered by a pixel or two. You're going to include some portion of the lids and lashes, but don't worry about it. It's easiest if your selection tool lets you select the center and drag a radius, but with a little practice you can learn to make the selection quickly with a &quot;bounding box&quot; selector (the kind where you click in the upper-left-hand corner of a square that will contain your circle, then drag to the lower-right).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Merge the two eye layers together -- you want &lt;em&gt;exactly&lt;/em&gt; the same effect in both eyes. Now hide the base (background) layer so that all you can see are the two eyes on a transparent background. Use the eraser tool (with a soft edge) to remove anything outside of the iris (like the eyelid slices that were probably part of the original selection). Now you're ready to do magic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Create an adjustment layer that only affects the eye layer. You'll probably find that a Curves adjustment is the most useful here, since it will let you adjust the gamma (contrast) curve as a whole (leaving the pupil black, bringing up the midtone brightness, and keeping the highlights under control) &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; playing with the color channels individually to enhance or reveal the eye color that your original image failed to capture. You will want to make these adjustments with the base/background layer turned back on so you can see the overall impact on the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to go the SFX route, you can duplicate and multiply the eye layer to your heart's content, but it's not something I'd want to do unless I was trying to sell myself as a poor, misunderstood &lt;em&gt;artiste&lt;/em&gt; in a world of corporate Philistines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can make it an action/macro in most programs, with stop points for you to make the selections, use the eraser and set the color curves, but it only saves you a couple of keystrokes (or clicks) and the process is really very quick once you've done it once or twice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I've done something like that, and after I've gotten a break from the image so I can look at it with fresh eyes before making a final judgement, I usually merge (flatten) the completed image and save it as a new file -- PSDs (or .pspimage files, or whatever working format the editor uses) are huge in comparison to a low-compression JPEG or a TIFF or PNG. I always keep the original.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastEditorUserId="2719" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-03-31T23:26:11.290" LastActivityDate="2011-03-31T23:26:11.290" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10427" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-03-31T23:14:49.900" Score="1" ViewCount="46" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a lovely new Panasonic LX5, replacing my LX3. I am using the same SD card as in the LX3, which already has the folders 100, 101, 102, ... 116 (yes, that was a thousand photos per folder...). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The manual seems to imply that the new camera would continue with photos starting with 1170000.jpg; however, it has started at 1000000.jpg, and is blithely placing the new photos mixed up with the occasional old one into the existing folders. So I will have every filename twice on my pc, unless I rename all the old files - something I have no intention of doing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can I get the new camera to start numbering its files with a later number? Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="133" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T01:27:05.397" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T01:27:05.397" Title="How do I get the photo filenames from my LX5 to continue from a given number?" Tags="&lt;memory-card&gt;&lt;panasonic&gt;&lt;filenames&gt;&lt;file-management&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="10428" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10427" CreationDate="2011-04-01T00:00:59.290" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hah - the third time I put the SD card in, it &lt;strong&gt;did&lt;/strong&gt; start numbering the pictures starting at 1170000. So I guess the answer is &quot;keep trying&quot;. I will leave the question in case someone has a method of changing the number which is more general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="133" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T00:00:59.290" />
  <row Id="10429" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10219" CreationDate="2011-04-01T00:22:26.253" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would add two things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) have lots of ambient light so the subject's pupils are small and the iris, which contains the color and reflections is big&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) play with things in front of the subject (lights, objects, etc) and behind the camera that will be a part of the reflection in the subject's eyes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then follow Stan's instructions for enhancing the eyes in post-processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4199" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T00:22:26.253" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10430" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10427" CreationDate="2011-04-01T01:14:20.363" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm glad it worked out for you. I'm not sure what exactly made it decide to continue from the number the third time — it's always creepy when software behaves non-deterministically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know you said you didn't want to rename your old files, but I find it really convenient to do so. There are a number of free (open source and otherwise) cross-platform programs which will do it for you systematically based on the EXIF metadata in the image files. I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/jhead/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;jhead&lt;/a&gt;, with the options &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;jhead -autorot -nf%Y%m%d-%f *&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which losslessly rotates the images based on the embedded rotation flag and then prefixes them with a date-based filename.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T01:14:20.363" />
  <row Id="10431" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10413" CreationDate="2011-04-01T02:49:20.660" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was going to just pop this in as a comment, but what the heck, I think I'll battle a little against the idea of objective metrics. Objective metrics are good things for camera reviews, not so much for photographs because you take the art out of the equation with this concept. People have listed some good, relevant, factors in what makes a &quot;good&quot; image, by definition, and yet you could follow every single measure and still produce an image that is utterly lifeless and dull.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this century we're often obsessed with hard numbers, quantifiable information. Cameras, today, can operate at speeds and in conditions that cameras in the golden age of film could not and so far beyond the ability of early cameras that you almost can't compare. There are images from these bygone eras that would fail some of these objective tests, such as sharpness, noise, grain, etc. and still they're masterpieces of the photographic art. Sometimes, imperfection is what makes the image something special! Lomography is premised on this very thing and there have been some seriously stunning images taken with toy cameras that will fail all of your objective tests. There's also Lensbaby, creating lenses to do the opposite of what many would cite as objective criteria for a good image. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in my opinion, there's really only one objective measurement for the quality of an image in my eyes: does it evoke something for me. That's all. It can evoke wonder, intrigue, the science geek in me, the romantic, whatever, but when an image makes me take a longer look at it, then it's a quality image in my book. I can be objective here, the only emotion that causes me to ignore is &quot;blah&quot; and I know it when I hit it. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T02:49:20.660" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10432" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10413" CreationDate="2011-04-01T03:07:03.243" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objective&lt;/strong&gt; quality compares an image to a reference image, and will computationally work out a quality factor based on some sort of algorithm (PSNR, SSIM etc).  You need a reference image to measure objective quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Subjective&lt;/strong&gt; measures tend to involve getting people to rate or rank images, and to rank images against each other they don't need to be compared to a reference.  Of course it them becomes statistical, so the more data you have the more sure you can be about there being a real pattern behind the results.  It also stops being about qualities that can be objectively measured and becomes more about aesthetics or perception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You set up a bunch of images and get people to rank them according to technical skill, pleasantness, or whatever - you have to decide how to phrase it depending on what you want to gauge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyone remember hotornot.com?  That was, believe it not, quite a good example of someone taking a subjective measure of image quality - though it's probably not the 'quality' you are going for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T03:07:03.243" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10433" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10235" CreationDate="2011-04-01T07:33:12.253" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could try one of the Crumpler &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.crumpler.co.uk/?product=Jimmy_Bo&amp;amp;page=details&amp;amp;product_id=JBO700-005&amp;amp;view=8&amp;amp;size=&amp;amp;lsc=&amp;amp;lcc=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jimmy Bo&lt;/a&gt;'s, they come in various sizes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or even the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.crumpler.com/AU/Camera-Bags/Camera-Bags/4-Million-Dollar-Home.html?LanguageCode=EN&amp;amp;SKU=MDH001-B00P40&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;4 million dollar home&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4551" LastEditorUserId="230" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-21T06:35:51.857" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T06:35:51.857" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10434" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9133" CreationDate="2011-04-01T09:14:43.533" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon also has a visualization tool - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/EFLenses101/focal_length.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/EFLenses101/focal_length.html&lt;/a&gt;. This one is a step visualization tool unlike the continuous ones provided by Nikon &amp;amp; Tamron. It covers a longer range (15-1200mm) than the other two though, while Nikon has support for different body &amp;amp; lens types.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1977" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T09:14:43.533" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10437" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10424" CreationDate="2011-04-01T14:35:15.167" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that Lightroom (from version 3) has a feature in the Print module which is like a montage - it allows you to position images where you like on the page for printing.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you were after something to create a new image, I don't think that Lightroom does that.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Appologies for vagueness - I haven't used this feature yet.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T14:35:15.167" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10439" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10444" CreationDate="2011-04-01T15:29:58.980" Score="6" ViewCount="285" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm to take pictures at a boxing match, probably under low lights conditions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My plan is to set the camera on a fixed shutter speed, and the let the camera automatically set aperture and ISO. But how slow can I safely take the pictures. I hope I can bring my tripod, so it's not as much a question of camera shake, more a question of catching the action.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My equipment is a canon EOS 500D and a Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4559" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T16:34:22.270" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T21:50:16.793" Title="How &quot;slow&quot; can I take a picture at a boxing match?" Tags="&lt;shutter-speed&gt;&lt;sports&gt;&lt;motion-blur&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="10440" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10443" CreationDate="2011-04-01T15:39:18.797" Score="4" ViewCount="165" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my work I am dealing with *.CR2 raw images taken by a Canon DSLR in raw mode.&#xA;When I read about the format &lt;a href=&quot;http://wildtramper.com/sw/cr2/cr2.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, I was surprised to find that it has 4 TIFF IFDs which contain a) Original Size JPEG Image b) Thumbnail JPEG image c) Uncompressed RGB data d) Lossless JPEG image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My impression until now was any camera captured RAW image file would have Raw Bayer Data i.e. R,Gr,B,Gb kind of bayer data, and some EXIF data about camera capture settings etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But after reading this CR2 specification I am slightly confused as to how can it have a RGB data or even surprisingly JPEG data. This seems to be the data after demosaicing(obtaining the missing R/G/B pixel data for the original sensor Bayer pattern). If thats the case I would not consider *.CR2 as &quot;truly raw&quot; data. It has done demosaicing before dumping the socalled raw file.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Am I missing something?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does any other Camera Raw formats(e.g. Nikon - *.NEF, Kodac - *.kdc, Pentax - *.ptx/pef,...) have real raw bayer data without any processing done?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2438" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-04T11:22:21.887" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T11:22:21.887" Title="Does the Canon *.CR2/CRW format contain &quot;truly RAW&quot; data?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;cr2&gt;&lt;file-format&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="10441" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10412" CreationDate="2011-04-01T15:40:09.333" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think this has to to with the normal ranges of color that are perceptible by the human eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The CIE chart shows the range of human perceptible colors on an x-y table:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/CIExy1931_fixed.svg/500px-CIExy1931_fixed.svg.png&quot; alt=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CIExy1931_fixed.svg&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The numbers in blue around the outside edges (full saturation) represent the wavelength of the light at that point.  At the center (roughly 0.35x 0.35y) is white light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice how certain wavelengths for example (520mm) are more distant from the central point than others (580mm). This means that some colors, like green, simply have a wider range of saturation that others, such as yellow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That means that green can be distinguished as such at a much lower saturation than yellow can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Impact on photography&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some colors, yellow as one example, don't hold up as well at a lower saturation, but some are still readily distinguished even when you near monochrome levels of desaturation.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/98F2a.png&quot; alt=&quot;desaturated version&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T15:40:09.333" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10442" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10424" CreationDate="2011-04-01T16:03:20.790" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can imagine doing so with a software like GIMP. Just define yourself a canvas big enough and start copy-pasting your images in layers on that canvas. You can apply different effects to the individual images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not an automated process, but if the other suggestions are not enough for you, you can try this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T16:03:20.790" />
  <row Id="10443" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10440" CreationDate="2011-04-01T16:10:40.037" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you are most definitely missing something. Consider: JPG is used to store (and usually compress, lossy) images. Any image. What is an image? It is a great big bundle of pixels, when all is said and done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The output from the camera sensor is a great big bundle of pixels, too. They just happen not to be full-colour RGB pixels, they are monochrome pixels - whether any individual pixel represents R G or B depends on its location on the image sensor, which is known. But their monochrome, colour-given-by-position nature does not mean that they cannot be usefully stored in the JPG way. A bundle of pixels is a bundle of pixels, and why reinvent the wheel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look more closely at the document. &quot;So with a BAYER grid of RG/GB, the even rows has interleaved HuffCode/Diff data for ...RGRGRG..., while the odd rows it is ...GBGBGB...&quot;. So, the raw Bayer output is stored in a JPG format. Lossless, it is stated (otherwise we'd have a problem!) and presumably in more than 8 bits' depth. You have too cook this quite a lot to get a useful photo from it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other JPG images are used for in-camera preview, histogram and such. It makes good sense to cook these once and for all as the image is taken, rather than having to do it on the fly each and every time you want to look at them. This also means that the computer can fish these out for thumbnail purposes once you unload the camera into the PC.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;*&lt;/em&gt; I can't add a comment for some reason, so this goes here:&#xA;Goldenmean, what makes you think that there is a problem that you don't have full RGB info for each pixel? Assuming that you are creating a RAW format and have a measurement of 128 from a &quot;red&quot; sensor cell; you can either choose to store this as 128,0,0 or 128,128,128 or, of you are feeling clever, 128,&quot;data from next cell&quot;, &quot;data from the cell after that&quot; to save some space. Doesn't matter really. It's the RAW converter's job to keep track of this (though I'm sure the programmers would appreciate it if you documented how you chose to store your sensor data) and make an actual picture from it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastEditorUserId="3458" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-04T09:35:14.070" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T09:35:14.070" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10444" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10439" CreationDate="2011-04-01T16:23:14.643" Score="17" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Any speed will give you something. It will render the photo differently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the question should not be &lt;em&gt;how slow can I take the photo?&lt;/em&gt; but &lt;em&gt;how slow do I want to take the photo?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some ideas:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you want to freeze the sweat flying off the boxer's face when he takes a hit, I suggest 1/2000s or faster.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you want to freeze the boxer's body and leave the hands blurry (to convey the action), then try around 1/500s.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you go slower then 1/250 you will probably blur the entire boxer, at least by a bit.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You should be able to go down to 1/focal-length (or 2 stops lower with stabilization) to get convey the action while keeping the ring and background sharp.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll have to try a lot but you are right about using Shutter-speed priority. You may want to fix the ISO and let camera play the aperture if you do not want all your shots to be at F/4, since most cameras prefer opening the lens than raising the ISO when light is low.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T16:23:14.643" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10445" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1733" CreationDate="2011-04-01T17:03:27.047" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can determine the minimum shutter speed to avoid camera shake by&lt;br&gt;&#xA;1) applying the following approximate rules of thumb. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;See Wikipedia article - rule of thumb&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2) or carrying out careful measurements, as I did.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1) The rules of thumb&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;a) With NO image stabilisation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The approximate rules of thumb are:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Full frame cameras : min shutter speed = 1/focal_length&lt;br&gt;&#xA;APS-C cameras : min shutter speed = 1/(focal_length*1.6)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that these are approximate rules and are heavily dependent on photographer technique, which is why they are called rules of thumb (my thumb and your thumb are not the same).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;b) With image stabilisation&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Here the rule of thumb is to take the above calculation and increase the above shutter speeds  by either two or three stops, depending on your confidence in the manufacturer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2) Measured results&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By conducting more than 1000 measurements under carefully controlled conditions I arrived at the following results. The fully documented study can be found on scribd.com:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scribd.com/doc/27274532/Study-of-the-Effectiveness-of-Shake-Reduction-in-the-Pentax-K7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A Study of the Effectiveness of Shake Reduction in the Pentax K7&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The graph below shows the main result of this study. With a 50mm lens motion blur was kept below one pixel down to a shutter speed of 1/8 sec, which is more than acceptable.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;This is effectively equivalent to the following rule (for the Pentax K7):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;min shutter speed = 1/(focal_length*1.6) - 3 stops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/jnvSZ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;A Study of the Effectiveness of Shake Reduction in the Pentax K7&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However at shutter speed below about 1/30 sec the result are critically dependent on photographer technique. The graph below shows how variability of the results increases rapidly at lower shutter speeds, which illustrates the importance of photographer technique.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/unvgb.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Variability of motion blur vs shutter speed&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T17:03:27.047" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10446" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-01T18:09:54.917" Score="5" ViewCount="247" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon 5D Mark II and normally shoot with natural light (I try to stay away from flash). However, I am taking on more situations where I need to use my hotshoe flash (Canon Speedlite 580 EX II).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have not been able to figure out how to easily get the flash to get the right exposure &lt;em&gt;without&lt;/em&gt; having to use the Automatic/ETTL mode. I normally shoot in AV mode, and would like to get the flash to sync with it.  What would you recommend I try? Canon's flash manual isn't very clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4560" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-03T21:45:44.510" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T05:26:37.823" Title="How can I get proper flash exposure in AV mode without using ETTL?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;speedlite&gt;&lt;hotshoe-flash&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10447" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10456" CreationDate="2011-04-01T18:17:07.007" Score="7" ViewCount="220" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've got a shot in mind that's going to require precise lighting (sources &amp;amp; angles). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to do a lighting simulation. I want place objects &amp;amp; light sources in some sort of 3D virtual environment and see the results. Adjust &amp;amp; repeat until I achieve what I want. Then I can set up the physical lights to match and shoot the real thing — without wasting precious time with my model.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are my options? My ideal software would simulate lots of modifiers, be free, and run on OS X.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that I'm not (just) looking to create a lighting diagram; for that, I &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/641/software-for-creating-lighting-plans-diagrams&quot;&gt;already have several options&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T18:35:39.147" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T20:12:35.473" Title="What software can I use for 3D lighting simulation?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;studio-lighting&gt;&lt;simulation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10448" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10447" CreationDate="2011-04-01T18:29:01.307" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I used to play with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.povray.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;POVRay&lt;/a&gt; a bit, and it was capable of pretty sophisticated simulations like this, but it was far from easy to set stuff up.  I'd be floored if there wasn't something easier to use today -- &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blender.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Blender&lt;/a&gt;, maybe?  Here's a link to &lt;a href=&quot;http://bensimonds.com/2010/06/03/lighting-tips-from-the-masters/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;one of their lighting tutorials&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T18:29:01.307" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10449" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-04-01T18:52:19.490" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For cameras with interchangeable lenses, the non-lens portion is often referred to as the body - i.e. the section housing the film or digital sensor&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T18:52:19.490" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T18:52:19.490" />
  <row Id="10450" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-04-01T18:52:19.490" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Questions about the non-lens portion of cameras that have interchangeable lenses" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T18:52:19.490" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T18:52:19.490" />
  <row Id="10451" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-04-01T19:06:59.693" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T19:06:59.693" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T19:06:59.693" />
  <row Id="10452" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-04-01T19:06:59.693" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Questions about photography using 35mm film or a digital sensor of equivalent size." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T19:06:59.693" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T19:06:59.693" />
  <row Id="10453" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-04-01T19:08:57.507" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T19:08:57.507" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T19:08:57.507" />
  <row Id="10454" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-04-01T19:08:57.507" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Questions about renting equipment such as camera bodies or lenses." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T19:08:57.507" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T19:08:57.507" />
  <row Id="10455" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="377" CreationDate="2011-04-01T19:32:49.600" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;strength&lt;/strong&gt; of a macro lens is called its &lt;strong&gt;magnification&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Nikkor 105mm Micro has a 1X (or 1:1) magnification.&lt;/strong&gt; All but one (the Canon MP-E 65mm) macro lens of major camera brands have the exact same magnification. Some third-parties like Sigma also have 1:1 lenses but all their other lenses are less powerful, sometimes putting &lt;em&gt;Macro&lt;/em&gt; on 0.5X (1:2) or 0.33X (1:3) magnification lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So, as far as lenses for Nikon go, the 105mm has the highest magnification.&lt;/strong&gt; Take a look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_lens.php?mount=nikon&amp;amp;macro=1&amp;amp;by=feature&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;list of macro lenses for Nikon mount&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The primary difference between various 1:1 macro lenses is the &lt;strong&gt;focal-length which determines how far you have to stand from your subject to get maximum magnification&lt;/strong&gt;. You can see that it varies from 35mm to 200mm. At 35mm you have to focus at 14cm from the sensor which makes it hard to get the lens not to cast a shadow on your subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see a small variance in maximum aperture (F/2 to F/4). Most macro shooting though tends to be done at smaller apertures since DOF becomes so shallow at those distances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T19:32:49.600" />
  <row Id="10456" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10447" CreationDate="2011-04-01T20:12:35.473" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You may just have uncovered a niche for somebody to develop for. I've used a lot of 3d graphics programs, from the text-based POVRay through Blender, 3dsMax, Maya, SoftImage 3D and the quirkier stuff from Daz. They all have steep learning curves, and except for the FOSS family (which have a high entry point from a usability perspective) they're pretty expensive. Like good, fast, long glass expensive -- certainly more expensive than you'd want to pay if you then have to spend a month learning how to do the basics, create stored light objects (different sotboxen, reflectors, grids, barndoors that obey the laws of physics, lights with different power characteristics, etc., that won't let you simulate perfectly something your gear can't actually accomplish).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The one truly usable-out-of-the-box app, Caligari's TrueSpace, is Windows-only and orphaned since Microsoft acquired them, but it &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; a free download. Unfortunately, the online tools and tutorials mostly refer to a feature set that was cut from the free version, but you can still accurately model lights, reflectors and so on. There's also a free &quot;learning edition&quot; of Maya, but the ability to save out objects for reuse is either missing or extremely limited (perhaps the one time I managed it represented a bug in the crippling code). Too bad, because Maya does lighting &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; well, and you don't really need high-rez unwatermarked renders for this application.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to go the 3D simulation route, then the most cost-effective option would probably be Blender. It would help considerably if you could find, create (or, preferably, have created for you) a standard set of lights and reflector panels as objects you can just add to the scene, then drag around and play with controls that mimic the ones actually on your gear. Unless you're in it for the curiosity, there's too high a frustration factor in building the world from the ground up every time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All that being said, though, there's no substitute (yet) for a mannequin (or an assistant). Even a grey-painted styrofoam wig head on a light stand will tell you everything you need to know to get the broad strokes right, then you can just do minor refinements when your model/subject arrives. (Or &lt;em&gt;major&lt;/em&gt; refinements if your subjects are much like the real people I used to work with -- sometimes it's all about lighting that one good eye perfectly and letting everything else fall into shadow, you know?) And for just playing around with ideas, an &quot;action figure&quot; or two, a couple of flashlights, one small sheet of one-stop ND gel to selectively lower the output of each light, and tabletop tripods (the cheap ones the sell at non-photography stores) will let you noodle about quite effectively without wasting anyone else's time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-04-01T20:12:35.473" />
  <row Id="10458" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10459" CreationDate="2011-04-01T23:49:49.140" Score="11" ViewCount="256" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you stack two 3-stop neutral density filters, does it reduce the exposure by 6 stops or 9 stops?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3829" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-01T23:53:18.857" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T02:52:07.857" Title="What's the result of stacking ND filters?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;neutral-density&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="10459" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10458" CreationDate="2011-04-02T00:01:41.533" Score="24" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's six.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember, the stops are &lt;em&gt;already&lt;/em&gt; logarithmic. That is, a 3-stop reduction (as from a 3-stop ND filter) is a 2³× loss of light — ¹⁄₈ of the light gets through. A one stop filter halves light, since 2¹ is just 2 (→ ¹⁄₂), and two stop filter is 2² (→ ¹⁄₄ the light). When you stack them together, you're adding the exponents, so 2³ stacked with 2³ is 2⁶ — or ¹⁄₆₄th the light. That's the same as thinking &quot;three stops is one over 2³, or ¹⁄₈, and ¹⁄₈ × ¹⁄₈ = ¹⁄₆₄ — which is one over 2⁶&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, fortunately (and in fact partly why it's &lt;em&gt;done&lt;/em&gt; that way), you don't have to remember all this. Just remember that 2³ + 2³ = 2⁶ — or, &lt;strong&gt;3 stops plus 3 stops is 6 stops.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, this is just the math. In the real world, there may be other practical effects, like vignetting in the corners (due to the increased thickness) or color casts — you're adding more layers for the light to go through, and that takes a toll on image quality. See the comments below. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-05T02:52:07.857" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T02:52:07.857" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="10460" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="172" CreationDate="2011-04-02T01:19:18.693" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some sort of calibration thingy to include in at least one shot per &quot;scene&quot;. There are a number of different makes &amp;amp; models from different makers -- I like the Lastolite collapsible XpoBalance and the XRite ColorChecker Passport -- but anything that will help you set a white balance at shooting time and set white, mid and black points in post will help immensely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, speaking of Lastolite (as one brand, again, among &lt;em&gt;many&lt;/em&gt; good ones), it profiteth not to venture forth shooting people without a reflector. I usually carry a collapsible white/soft gold model with me, even for &quot;just walkin' around&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-04-02T01:19:18.693" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-02T01:19:18.693" />
  <row Id="10461" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10446" CreationDate="2011-04-02T02:49:44.803" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Essentially, you'll need to adjust aperture, ISO, and flash power until you get proper exposure. If your image is too bright, tighten your aperture, decrease ISO, or decrease flash power until it's properly exposed. If it's too dark, do the opposite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you like to do math in your head, you can use the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2689/how-do-you-set-the-power-for-a-flash-in-manual-mode&quot;&gt;guide number&lt;/a&gt; of the flash as an aide for proper exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keep in mind that your flash shines more light on objects that are near to it, so if your flash(camera)-subject distance is varying, you'll have to quickly adjust the flash power to compensate. In quickly-changing situations, you'll probably want to use TTL.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adjusting shutter speed affects only the ambient light, up to your flash sync speed (usually 1/200th or thereabouts.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Strobist's &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lighting 101&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/06/lighting-102-introduction.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lighting 102&lt;/a&gt; series are fantastic intros to manual flash operation. I've only scratched the surface here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-02T23:43:51.547" LastActivityDate="2011-04-02T23:43:51.547" />
  <row Id="10462" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10467" CreationDate="2011-04-02T05:13:34.390" Score="8" ViewCount="228" Body="&lt;p&gt;Like lens flare, extreme high contrast, and all the other effects that are oh-too-easy to apply in digital post-processing, the vignette effect is overused. So I ask this question in all seriousness, with the goal of making better pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When does the application of a vignette effect contribute to (and when does it work against) the quality of the resulting image?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And--an even better question--how can I know when to use it appropriately to improve my final image?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1480" LastEditorUserId="1480" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-02T16:31:23.393" LastActivityDate="2011-04-03T23:27:01.543" Title="When is adding vignetting appropriate in post-processing?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;vignetting&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="10464" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10462" CreationDate="2011-04-02T05:51:03.730" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It’s not a crime when:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It &lt;em&gt;enhances the photo&lt;/em&gt; by &lt;strong&gt;drawing the eye to the subject&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It &lt;em&gt;darkens the corners&lt;/em&gt;, but doesn’t &lt;strong&gt;make the corners black&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I forget where I read it, but someone recommended playing with vignette until you were happy, then reducing that by about half. It’s something that should be subtle, instead of right in your face. Put another way: You should be able to easily see the difference if you toggle the effect on and off, but you shouldn’t immediately notice it when it’s on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look at it this way: Do you consider dodging a crime against good taste? A vignette is just applying the same dodge to multiple photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1905" LastActivityDate="2011-04-02T05:51:03.730" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="10465" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8011" CreationDate="2011-04-02T07:29:01.960" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The OP asks ' I understand that primes are better in general, but what I want to know is that is it that much better that it would justify me lugging around 3 lenses when walking around or travelling?'  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The quick answer, is no, if you use sharpness as your main criterion.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slrgear.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Slrgear.com&lt;/a&gt; measurements demonstrate that the loss in sharpness of the 24-70L zoom lens, when compared with the three primes lenses is relatively slight.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See these links for more details:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/canon35f14/tloader.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sharpness of the 35mm f1.4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/canon50f14/tloader.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sharpness of the 50mm f1.4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/canon85f18/tloader.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sharpness of the 85mm f1.8&lt;/a&gt; (no test results available for the f1.4)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/canon24-70f28/tloader.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sharpness of the 24-70mm f2.8&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To illustrate the point, below are extracts of the graphs from slrgear.com at f5.6. This aperture was chosen as this usually gives optimum results.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what do you lose by using the 24-70 zoom lens?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;1) a small loss in sharpness that will only be visible in photos where you require the very highest levels of sharpness, e.g. in very large prints.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2) the depth of field that f1.4 offers, probably not that important for travel and walk around photography. F2.8 is usually sufficient in these cases.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;3) the prime lenses offer better contrast and clarity. This is a quantity difficult to measure. Once again the differences will only be visible in critical photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/FRAyb.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/biepA.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/t1HQs.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/FSOjw.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-04-02T07:29:01.960" />
  <row Id="10466" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10424" CreationDate="2011-04-02T08:24:32.860" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are three sets of comparisons of collage software:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photo-collage-maker.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Review of collage software&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aolej.com/mosaic/compare.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Comparison of selected photo mosaic applications&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo-collage-software-review.toptenreviews.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2011 Photo Collage Software Comparisons and Reviews&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer, I have used none of these packages and am not in a position to make recommendations.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have used Gimp to make large collages and find it to be very effective, if somewhat time consuming. Note also that, as the number of photos increases, memory requirements also increase sharply.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But there is one category that demands specialised software and that is mosaic creation.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Here is just one example: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aolej.com/mosaic&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mosaic Creator - professional mosaic software&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Disclaimer, I have not used it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-04-02T08:24:32.860" />
  <row Id="10467" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10462" CreationDate="2011-04-02T08:30:32.840" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would argue that the vignette effect cannot be overused.  It is only &lt;strong&gt;inappropriate or bad use of vignette&lt;/strong&gt; that can be overused.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you've ever watched an episode of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear_%282002_TV_series%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Top Gear&lt;/a&gt; and paid attention, you'd notice that basically every single outdoor shot has had vignette effect applied to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't detract from the show (well, at least not most of the time).  In my mind it's proof that done a certain way and applied to certain material, the vignette effect can be used basically &lt;em&gt;all the time&lt;/em&gt; and not detract from the material.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bad use of vignette may involve:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Adding vignette over the top of overexposure (white highlights) or where you don't have headroom in the highlights.  What should be highlights become &lt;a href=&quot;http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rZNj4rQyCn8/SgbrZNWwJfI/AAAAAAAAaws/FMnpvdLv404/s400/snap016.bmp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;yucky&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mcklinkyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/9final.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gray mush&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Using the &lt;a href=&quot;http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2212/2519636600_638b234b21.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;same, smooth, oval-shaped&lt;/a&gt; vignette no matter what the subject or where in the frame a subject is.  If your subject is off-centre, &lt;a href=&quot;http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3464/3203436620_d16018a2eb_o.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;shape your vignette so it's off-centre&lt;/a&gt;.  Try also making your vignette more &lt;a href=&quot;http://pixelmator-tutorials.s3.amazonaws.com/vignette/Top.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;harsh-edged&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Using vignette where it doesn't really enhance the contrast or pop of an image but actually has the &lt;a href=&quot;http://profiphotos.com/blog/photos/articles/High-Key%20Lightroom/Vignette-Photo.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;opposite&lt;/a&gt; effect, de-emphasising interesting details.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Some vignetting algorithms/filters just seem to be made badly, causing colours to become dull and towards gray instead of more contrasty and towards black.  Technically I believe this is because it does not account for the values already being gamma corrected.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's hard to think of other examples.  It may be hard to describe what bad vignette is, but it's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pocket-lint.com/images/dynamic/bbe8d49ae6d762bc3cb44ca4a7dbbbc4d7de0a0e.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;obvious&lt;/a&gt; when you &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.all-things-photography.com/images/create-a-vignette-effect-4.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;see it&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good vignette, on the other hand, boosts contrast, makes an image more edgy, especially the subject within the image.  It may even give a framing effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are &lt;a href=&quot;http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/54706/54706,1206605094,1/stock-photo-slanted-view-with-vignette-effect-of-a-chess-board-during-the-first-stage-of-the-game-10819927.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;some&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/mid0/nisFRd6FbjRkuIchNDXoVy8HmhQduWgK3JEqyyWcC0grMhYlZAs9toDhl81N/20091011-IMG_4210.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;better&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sonyericsson.com/x10photos/assets/images/pagespecific/free-photography-apps/vignette3.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;examples&lt;/a&gt; of vignette that I &lt;a href=&quot;http://ragesoss.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/2010-08-15-16-28-11-364-450x299.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;found&lt;/a&gt; when researching this answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-03T09:01:14.763" LastActivityDate="2011-04-03T09:01:14.763" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="10469" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10446" CreationDate="2011-04-02T10:23:21.977" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon flash is a bit convoluted. Exactly how the flash behaves varies by camera mode, in some modes the flash will try to act as main light, in other modes it will try to act as fill flash. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unless I misremember, in AV mode the flash will automatically, always, try to behave as a fill flash; the photo will be pretty correcly exposed per the light-meter without flash and then the flash will try to fill out the foreground only. If this means a three-second shutter speed then so be it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I prefer to use M mode when flashing, in this mode the flash will be the main light and I have explicit control of the natural-light exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, and &quot;right exposure&quot; with a Canon flash means ETTL. By definition, pretty much. I can't rememeber if the 580 series have their own independent light-sensor on the front, as Nikons have had for a couple of decades now, but if so they are the first Canon ones to have it. Lacking this, a flash has no way of measuring the light emitted without resorting to TTL.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-04-02T10:23:21.977" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10470" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10473" CreationDate="2011-04-02T12:52:18.320" Score="2" ViewCount="67" Body="&lt;p&gt;How big are your .psd or .tif edits?  Mine average between 300 and 700 MB.  Is that excessive?  I try to use smart objects when possible, but over time, the files just drift from the 5MB NEF to sometimes close to a gig.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3181" LastActivityDate="2011-04-02T15:59:24.083" Title="Size of Photoshop edits" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10471" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-02T15:10:01.923" Score="2" ViewCount="56" Body="&lt;p&gt;My 30D + 340EX has started acting up. About half the time the flash doesn't synch properly, leaving some portion of the frame incorrectly exposed (sometimes the top doesn't get flash, sometimes the bottom doesn't get flash, sometimes none of the frame gets flash).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This happens in both manual and ETTL mode, at different shutter speeds (even at 1/30th),  with second-curtain enabled and disabled, and with high speed synch enabled and disabled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The contacts look fine on both the flash and the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 30D's built-in flash appears to work without issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt;: I've switched to my 20D, and the flash appears to be working fine there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any ideas what could be causing this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="515" LastEditorUserId="515" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-02T17:54:08.120" LastActivityDate="2011-04-02T17:54:08.120" Title="Canon 30D + speedlight not synching properly" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;sync-speed&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10472" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10471" CreationDate="2011-04-02T15:32:41.760" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sounds like you've gone through a variety of troubleshooting steps - if you can't discern any sort of pattern or consistency in the errant behavior, it might be a problem with the flash.  If you have a friend with a Canon camera, see how the flash behaves on his unit - or perhaps bring it down to your favorite camera store and see if they'd let you test it out on another body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-04-02T15:32:41.760" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10473" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10470" CreationDate="2011-04-02T15:59:24.083" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is how big my .psd files are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/dDFit.png&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; title=&quot;Hosted by imgur.com&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a lot in the 300-700MB range (mostly around 300MB). Some of these would be larger (probably a couple of gigabytes) but I flatten the layers occasionally to stop the files getting too large.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it excessive? I don't think so, if you have plenty of layers. Quite a few of my bigger files are panoramas. One thing I have noticed it that if you turn off &quot;compatibility mode&quot; when saving the files can be quite a bit smaller.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-04-02T15:59:24.083" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10474" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10458" CreationDate="2011-04-02T16:35:34.503" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to @mattdm's answer - the result of stacking ND filters can also be vignetting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-04-02T16:35:34.503" />
  <row Id="10475" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="377" CreationDate="2011-04-02T19:02:54.020" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You already got a lot of good answers. So I add my experience on the 105. I use the 105mm f2.8 VR on my D7000 (not full frame) and I love it. The lens though is a full frame lens, so you will be just fine. I do not love it just because it's a great macro lens, but also because I can use it as a shorter tele lens, which happens more often than I imagined before I purchased it. At this point the VR makes pretty much sense. I also did get some pretty good results with the VR on some &quot;walk-by hand-held&quot; close ups.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, one thing to consider is, that the frame size (image size) changes while focusing. For me this is no issue, but it might be for you. Personally I would not go below that focal length unless, as pointed out by others already, you know you will never need a longer working distance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2549" LastActivityDate="2011-04-02T19:02:54.020" />
  <row Id="10476" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10479" CreationDate="2011-04-02T19:54:27.270" Score="12" ViewCount="517" Body="&lt;p&gt;Maybe it's a subjective question, but most of the time my photos look best when I leave the Sharpening slider of Lightroom in a value close or equal to zero.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which are the benefits of digital sharpening?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt;: It would be awesome to see some examples where sharpening made a lot of difference in the final photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4039" LastEditorUserId="4039" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-02T21:48:04.973" LastActivityDate="2011-04-03T17:17:22.893" Title="Why do photos look best without any sharpening?" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;sharpening&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="10477" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10476" CreationDate="2011-04-02T21:01:33.363" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, everyone has their own tastes, and if you are used to unsharpened photos, they will look best. Oversharpening can make a photo look fake, which might be what you are seeing. Also, if you zoom in really close, it creates rainbow effects. However, an appropriate level of sharpening will usually improve the image. The appropriate level depends on what your final goal of the image is. A billboard will be sharpened differently than a photo for the photo of the week competition, for instance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-04-02T21:01:33.363" />
  <row Id="10478" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10584" CreationDate="2011-04-02T21:06:26.510" Score="1" ViewCount="501" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just bought a new Canon EOS 60D and a new 8GB SDHC card.&#xA;When I started it the first time I realised that the shutter count on Battery-Information-Menu was at 256 taken photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I made a few shots an copied them on my pc. Then I realised that my first pic had the name IMG_3881.JPG&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How are theses counters set? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The SD card was in its original package but I didn't have to format it. Is it possible that the camera was already in use?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4569" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-02T22:39:52.487" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T13:22:23.930" Title="Why does my new Canon EOS 60D appear to have 3880 photos taken already?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;canon-60d&gt;&lt;shutter-actuations&gt;&lt;filenames&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10479" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10476" CreationDate="2011-04-02T21:08:25.183" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lot of that depends on the camera, the exposure, the subject matter, and the size of the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most modern digital cameras deliberately blur the image somewhat when you take a picture. There is an anti-aliasing filter over the sensor to prevent &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moir%C3%A9_pattern&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;moiré&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; when the subject contains small, regular details. While the AA filter does solve one problem, it introduces another. (Which is why the high-end medium format digital cameras/backs -- and Leica, in the M-series -- choose to forgo the AA filter.) Some AA filters are more aggressive than others, resulting in softer images -- sometimes to the point where the softness is visible when the image is sized to fit a monitor. That's not nearly as big a problem now as it was in the sub-10MP days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The exposure can make a difference as well. If your image contains a lot of noise (relatively speaking) then the noise will be exaggerated by the sharpening -- it's just &quot;detail&quot; as far as the sharpening algorithm is concerned. In a &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; noisy image, you can run a noise-reduction filter/routine over the image to make it look pristine, then the sharpening filter just comes along and recovers all of that valuable noise detail for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some subjects benefit a lot more from sharpening than others, and that can be true both across different images and within a single image. For instance, you probably want people's hair, eyes and so on to be pretty darned sharp-looking, but unless you are documenting dermatological conditions, you probably don't want their skin to be anywhere near as sharp. You can have the most perfect model with the smoothest porcelain skin and impeccable makeup in front of the camera, and the sharpening filter will give you a picture of someone who took a face full of birdshot (at a distance) in a tragic hunting accident. (Everybody's skin is textured and has hair in the most surprising places. If you do a lot of portraiture, you'll find yourself -- or your lab -- spending a lot of time fixing skin problems in the &quot;keepers&quot;.) On the other hand, if you are trying to recreate Ansel Adams' &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.ca/images?q=Ansel%20Adams%20Aspens%20New%20Mexico&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Aspens, New Mexico&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, you'll want every twig, every detail in the bark, and every vein in the leaves to stand out. Clearly, these are two different classes of images with two different sharpening requirements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, there's the image size to consider. If you're looking at an image on-screen (and that's where it's going to live), then the kind of sharpening that would be appropriate for a large print (with a lot of local microcontrast) is going to scale down as noise, especially with the simplistic on-the-fly scaling that occurs when a large, multi-megapixel image is forced to be displayed at a much smaller size. On the other hand, if you sharpen according to what looks good on a 1920x1080 monitor at 100% and use that to make a 13x19&quot; print, you'll probably be very disappointed in the result (even if the same file looked really nice when you printed a 4x6). The image will look like an enlargement of something smaller rather than something that was meant to be big all along, and you won't be able to quite put your finger on why.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While there are no real universals in sharpening, it's probably best to restrict the initial sharpening to be just enough to overcome what the AA filter did when you took the picture. Save the final sharpening for the end product, and make it appropriate to the output medium, whether that's a small JPEG on a web page or a huge gallery print. Take some time to learn what works for screen and for prints at various sizes, and try to understand that if you are working for print, you need to take what's on your monitor with a grain of salt -- at least until we get really nice 300 pixels-per-inch monitors to work with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-04-02T21:08:25.183" />
  <row Id="10480" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10486" CreationDate="2011-04-02T21:35:20.857" Score="7" ViewCount="242" Body="&lt;p&gt;My daughter just started playing Tee-Ball and I was out there with my Digital Rebel XT and a Sigma 300mm.  I know enough to be dangerous and I was shooting in &quot;Auto mode&quot; with the action preset (the little running guy).  When she was up at bat and running bases I would basically hold the shutter button down to continuously snap pictures.  Some of these came out pretty darn nice and others not so much.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have one pictures of her, where there is a kid in front taking up almost the whole picture and he is blurry, while the top of her head (all you can see behind the kid in front) was crystal clear.  In other pictures, she is the only thing in the frame other than clay and the camera seemed to focus on the clay even though she was dead center.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Am I doing something wrong?  If not, how can I improve my odds of getting a good shot with the intended subject in focus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4570" LastEditorUserId="4570" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-03T07:59:47.337" LastActivityDate="2011-04-03T07:59:47.337" Title="How to get focused pictures for action shots?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;sports&gt;" AnswerCount="5" />
  <row Id="10481" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10476" CreationDate="2011-04-02T21:51:30.150" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sharpening of digital images is made necessary by two things that degrade the image:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) the anti-alias filter, to prevent aliasing it filters out high frequency information, but that degrades the image sharpness.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2) the Bayer matrix, this is a scheme to recover pixel level colours from a 3x3 matrix which also degrades image sharpness.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This degrading of image sharpness is quite significant so it is normal to try to reverse the degradation somewhat by applying sharpening. And herein lies the problem. The precise amount (and manner) of sharpening is a subjective process and when too much is applied the image acquires an artificial look with thin white/black/grey lines or halos around edges.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good way to see this is to use a tool like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.quickmtf.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;QuickMTF&lt;/a&gt; to analyse the edge sharpness of a five degree slanted edge.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first image below shows the edge sharpness of an image with very little sharpening applied. Here the edge blur is 2.57 pixel.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second image has moderate sharpening applied and the edge blur has decreased to a very respectable value of 1.64 pixel.   Now the shape of the curve indicates very little 'ringing' which means there will be no sharpening artifacts visible.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The third image has had excessive sharpening applied which has reduced the edge blur to 1.56 pixel. You will see considerable 'ringing' in the graph indicating the over sharpening.  So while the image is sharper there will be visible sharpening artifacts.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How much sharpening you want must be balanced with how much artifacts you are prepared to tolerate and this is your subjective choice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Image 1, very slight sharpening. Edge blur = 2.57 pixel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/BimhT.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Image 2, moderate sharpening. Edge blur = 1,64 pixel.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/OtM9Z.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Image 3, over sharpening. Edge blur = 1.56 pixel.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Yijt5.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-02T22:12:46.427" LastActivityDate="2011-04-02T22:12:46.427" />
  <row Id="10482" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10480" CreationDate="2011-04-02T22:50:35.037" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's two concepts that are important to learn as they're very applicable to your situation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/depth-of-field&quot;&gt;Depth of Field&lt;/a&gt;: the amount of space (in terms of distance from your camera) where objects are in acceptable focus. (Also see the closely related term &quot;Field of Focus&quot;: the actual space that's in foucs). You want the field of focus to be roughly centered on your subject (your daughter), and have enough depth that she'll stay in focus if her distance to you changes rapidly. Take a look at the Photo.SE questions tagged with depth-of-field, and check out the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Depth of Field Calculator&lt;/a&gt;; these are great resources for learning.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Autofocus points. The camera needs to know at what distance to autofocus. It does this by looking at your scene, guessing what is the important part, and setting the focus distance to that distance. Sometimes it gets this right; sometimes it doesn't. There's ways you can help the camera choose the right autofocus points (they're different for different cameras; I'm not familiar with yours but someone will be able to help you there). There's also &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10405/autofocus-and-recompose-vs-manual-focus&quot;&gt;techniques&lt;/a&gt; that you can use to &quot;outsmart&quot; the autofocus system. Or, you could just go full manual focus.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With some combination of focus techniques and proper depth-of-field, you'll be able to get the right clarity in your photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-04-02T22:50:35.037" />
  <row Id="10483" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10480" CreationDate="2011-04-03T00:36:34.173" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a dad learning to shoot Little League myself a few years ago, I know there's a lot to learn. A few things you can try that helped me:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Set your AF mode to AI Servo. With this setting the camera will continuously focus for the entire time you press the shutter. Otherwise it will find a focus and lock it there. This is good for a single static shot, but not necessarily for sports.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Position yourself so the action is not coming straight at you. AF sometimes has difficulty with this, such as when a runner is moving directly towards the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Set your camera to use the center AF point only. By default it uses all 7 AF points and has to determine which of them should be in focus. For baseball I have found that the center AF point works well for most shots. When you are more comfortable, you can learn to select the AF point you want on the fly, but for now try just the center point.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Give these a try and you should see better results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2873" LastActivityDate="2011-04-03T00:36:34.173" />
  <row Id="10484" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10480" CreationDate="2011-04-03T01:18:07.680" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For the beginner, one point that may be missed in the answers already given is that you should increase the aperture setting a little (perhaps around 10), especially on a fast lens.  If you're getting motion blur, in addition to using a vibration reduction or image stabilization lens/camera (and learning to pan if you're trying to catch action shots), you can turn the ISO up a bit to compensate (try around 400-600 if you find you'll need it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Test these changes on something like grass in the backyard, where you can easily see the increase in DOF from the aperture, and detect any added grainy texture from the increased ISO setting.  This way you can double check the results on a large computer screen rather than guessing when you're on the field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3723" LastActivityDate="2011-04-03T01:18:07.680" />
  <row Id="10485" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10480" CreationDate="2011-04-03T04:15:52.337" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recommend beginning with the photos you have already taken. Open them in an application where you can see the EXIF data and spend some time examining the Aperture, Shutter Speed, and ISO of the ones that are in focus and sharp. Now compare those against the blurry ones. What do you see that is different?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I shoot youth sports I put the camera in Aperture priority mode usually around f/5.6, this is the maximum aperture for the 100-400 lens I use, and then begin adjusting the ISO. On a bright day of baseball the ISO may be 100, on a cloudy day it may be 800, and at night I may push it to 1600. My camera goes up to ISO 12,800 but I am unhappy with the noise level at anything above 1600.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I let the camera choose the shutter speed even though it is the MOST IMPORTANT part of the exposure equation in shooting action sports. The shutter speed is what you use to stop motion. Search around and you will find many discussions on what shutter speeds to use, for youth sports I try for the 1/500 to 1/1000 range depending on what I am shooting. If I am shooting a pitcher or batter and want to see the threads on the ball I will go to 1/1000 and faster, but for general shooting I would rather lower the ISO a stop and have a shutter speed around 1/500 which is fast enough to freeze most of the kids running bases and running for balls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/7dIld.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Pitching&quot;&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The photo above is f/5.6, ISO 400, Shutter speed 1/800. Notice that the threads on the ball are frozen. To get the ball in focus would require a very high aperture which would require the shutter speed to be very low which would cause a blurry mess.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not shoot sports in manual mode because the quality and amount of light is always changing, clouds pass overhead, trees shade the outfield, I shoot into the dugout, you get the idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also set your focus to the center sensor only and use AI Servo after reading up on it a bit. The center sensor is usually the most sensitive sensor in the camera and it helps speed up focusing and will give you confidence to know exactly where the camera is trying to focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4273" LastActivityDate="2011-04-03T04:15:52.337" />
  <row Id="10486" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10480" CreationDate="2011-04-03T04:42:27.490" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Back when we only had film, people thought that having a motor drive would help them &quot;get the shot&quot; by holding down the shutter release and blasting through a roll of film. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Shaw, the nature and landscape photographer, and author of a lot of great books on photography, said that motor drives were not fast enough to get the perfect shot. They were useful for making sure the camera was ready for the next shot though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Move forward to now, when we have digitals that can shoot a lot faster. Mine can do 8 frames a second. I mostly shoot fast action and only use single shot mode, but one day was thinking about Shaw's comments and decided to do an experiment. In daylight, at 1/5000 shutter speed, while shooting some very fast action, I switched to continuous mode and mashed on it for over a second. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later, looking at the images there was significant gaps in the action between the frames. Out of a second's worth of movement, the camera only caught 8/5000 of what went on, which left about 4992/5000 of a second unaccounted for. In other words, most of the second was missed and the odds of me getting the best action were very small as a result. I had repeatedly gotten better results by watching the action and timing my shots. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, that's something I've heard repeatedly from pro photographers shooting baseball, and all sorts of other sports. The big name pro baseball shooters have a holy grail of getting a bat-on-ball shot and like to show the results of using the continuous mode vs. timing it, and that they have better results also, by timing it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, while it's cool to have a high frame rate, what is more important is that the camera can respond faster and be ready to shoot again faster, but it's your ability to pick the right moment to release the shutter that will get the best results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, regarding focus while following fast action: You have to think about what the camera needs in order to focus. It needs good light, obviously, but also needs good contrast on the subject, either in patterns or changes of color. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The camera tries to locate the edges of things, and then reduce the blur of the edge by focusing until it's got the least amount of blur. When it's dealing with a monochromatic subject or very low contrast the focus can, and often will, switch to a slow seek to try to find the focus, or worse, give up after seeking several times. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can test that by focusing on a wall with no contrast then lowering the lights and doing it again, then focusing on something with lots of contrast or patterns, then lowering the lights and doing it again. As the light levels go down, or the patterns go away, the camera has to work harder and eventually gives up. Now, imagine how much harder the camera has to work when the subject is moving all around and it's easy to understand why the camera goes out of focus often.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nikon and Canon try to do predictive autofocus by figuring how fast the subject is moving toward or away from the camera as it's tracking, then adjust the lens' focus when you release the shutter to pre-compensate for the subject's motion toward or away from you so the image will be sharp. That's all fine, but often the lens can't focus fast enough so it is still behind or in front of the subject. A faster focusing lens can help, which is why both Canon and Nikon have their high end pro-lenses. My Canon 70-200L F2.8 AFS lens will run circles around my wife's 70-300 F4.5-5.6 lens when tracking action, but then again, my needs are different than hers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, having decent light and a faster focusing lens can help, but so can you, by tracking the area on the subject that will give the camera the best chance. Using the center sensor helps a lot, but where you put that sensor can make a difference, so find whatever part of the subject moves the least and keep the sensor there as you track movement. The waist and hip area moves less than arms and legs or the head so I go for mid-chest to waist or the hips. And, as the action unfolds hopefully you can keep one of those areas in view. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even though today's cameras are much more sophisticated than ones from a few years ago, they're still not able to deliver consistent results in tough circumstances. That's when the photographer has to take over and tell it what to do, and when. You need to be able to recognize those times the camera is going to get it wrong in advance, and take over in time, or you'll miss the shots you want when the light isn't good enough or things are moving too fast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1514" LastEditorUserId="1514" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-03T05:10:07.080" LastActivityDate="2011-04-03T05:10:07.080" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10487" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-03T08:13:20.270" Score="2" ViewCount="220" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recently companies like Sony have released relatively compact cameras that use DSLR-like lenses. Two of my friends have a camera like that (They're beginning photographers). I know eight other people who use DSLRs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not that good right now but I would like to improve in the future — would an SLD work for me, or would it be better for me to carry the extra weight of a DSLR and choose that instead? (Future-proof, more lens/peripherals, ...?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1185" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-03T17:19:36.700" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T02:34:37.073" Title="Does an interchangeable-lens compact camera (SLD) give me room to grow vs. a  DSLR?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;sld&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10488" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-03T08:33:12.513" Score="1" ViewCount="125" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm a new Nikon D90 user, and i was shooting jpeg till now. I'm planning to start shooting raw from now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What i've heard is that Nikon's camera profile is dynamically generated according to selected camera settings and encoded into the generated NEF file. This format is proprietary and only Nikon's capture NX2 can reliably read it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is this true that dynamic camera profile will not be available to any software other than capture NX2?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If it is, then what difference does it make?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(Optional) it will be really helpful if you can tell me what software you use for reading and editinh NEF files.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2773" LastActivityDate="2011-04-03T14:50:46.367" Title="Quality difference in editing NEF (Nikon Electronic Format) on Capture NX2 vs other software" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;nef&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10489" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10487" CreationDate="2011-04-03T10:29:15.017" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;A foreword: I don't have a NEX 5 or NEX 3, so take this with a grain of salt. I might be wrong about something, just let me know.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Technically, either would work fine if you want to learn about photography. Sony's NEX 3 and NEX 5 have manual control over shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. To quote from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonynex5nex3/default.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DPReview's review&lt;/a&gt; (which I would highly recommend reading - DPReview is very thorough), &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sony has made clear that it is aiming for compact camera users who wish to upgrade (a market it estimates at around 10 million potential buyers), rather than trying to offer a second camera for existing DSLR users. And the NEX models have more in common with compact cameras than DSLRs - including very few buttons and a resolutely unconventional interface.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It looks like you can get access to the most important functions &amp;mdash; shutter speed, aperture, and ISO &amp;mdash; through the dial and maybe a button press or two, which is good. To me, the dial looks awkward compared to an SLR's wheel(s). However, the less-frequently-adjusted-but-still-important options like AF mode, white balance, metering mode, shooting mode (P,A,S,M), etc. seem to be buried in menus. Once you start to learn the technical aspects of photography&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other downsides:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There only seem to be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ci=274&amp;amp;N=4288584247+4289240790&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;3 lenses available now&lt;/a&gt; for the NEX series. Since these are all still in production, and have only been out for a few years, it will be difficult to find used lenses. You can get &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_E_mount#Available_adapters&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;adapters&lt;/a&gt; for several mounts, including one that supports autofocus, auto-exposure, and auto flash for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/712886-REG/Sony_LAEA1_LAEA1_ADAPTER_f_A_MOUNT_LENS.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Alpha system&lt;/a&gt;, but that's one more thing you have to buy. DSLRs, especially Nikon, Pentax, and Sony, have a wide range of used lenses which can be much cheaper than the new models.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No upgrade path. If you want to move up from your consumer-oriented camera body into something with a few more buttons, dials, and features, you'll have to switch to a DSLR line and buy a whole new set of lenses.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Doesn't have a standard hotshoe. It does have a &quot;Smart Accessory Terminal&quot; to which you can attach Sony's small external flash. You might be able to find an adapter, but there &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/alpha-nex/discuss/72157625318363068/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;doesn't seem to be one yet&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Contrast detection autofocus. This is the autofocus system that most P+S cameras use, as opposed to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_detection_autofocus#Phase_detection&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;phase detection&lt;/a&gt; autofocus system used by most SLRs. Generally, contrast detection AF is slower than phase detection.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;With a zoom lens attached, too big to put in your pocket, but still smaller than a DSLR.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The upsides:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fairly pocketable with the 16mm f/2.8 lens attached. This is somewhat fast and very wide angle. This might be appropriate for parties and other dark, crowded social gatherings. With a DSLR, there's always the risk that you won't have your camera with you when you want to take pictures because it's big and heavy; this might get around that, to some degree.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;People won't be intimidated when you ask them to take a picture for you &amp;mdash; it looks like it handles mostly like a point and shoot.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They actually seem to have decent build quality &amp;mdash; the lenses are metal-cased, and the NEX-5 has a magnesium frame, something you don't usually see on sub-$1k SLRs.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I were just starting out in photography now, I'd probably go with an SLR or a hobbyist's compact like the P7000, G12, or LX5. To me, the NEX series has the inflexibility of a compact camera, combined with the lack of portability of DSLRs. That's just my opinion, though. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-03T10:53:58.817" LastActivityDate="2011-04-03T10:53:58.817" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10490" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10208" CreationDate="2011-04-03T11:00:12.473" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A couple of points.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The one million discriminable colors, even if true, at best applies to ideal laboratory conditions. In the real world, the number is doubtless going to be much, much smaller.  You can safely ignore all this talk about millions of colors. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In photography, the dynamic range is a tiny fraction of the scene dynamic range, so you can’t produce many of the colors anyway. All technology lists the range of color production drastically. Especially prints. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The number of bits needed depends on much more than the number of colors. Color space is not linear (see Weber’s Law, Fechner’s Law, McAdam ellipses, etc) , so you can’t simply break color space up into a series of equal size steps based on the number of bits.  You will always need many more bits than the number of colors suggests. 24 bits produces 16 million colors, but it still doesn’t produce good images. You need at least 10 or 12 bits per color to create smooth gradients of without banding.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4574" LastActivityDate="2011-04-03T11:00:12.473" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10491" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10492" CreationDate="2011-04-03T11:17:33.133" Score="2" ViewCount="55" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to buy some ND grad filters but am unsure whether to purchase the Cokin a-series or p-series. I prefer smaller and lighter equipment because it is easier to transport and since my lenses (18-55mm and 55-200mm) both have a 52mm filter thread, is there any disadvantage to buying into the a-series rather than the larger p-series? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastActivityDate="2011-04-03T11:53:15.990" Title="Cokin a-series or p-series filters for 52mm filter thread lenses?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;filters&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="10492" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10491" CreationDate="2011-04-03T11:53:15.990" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 18mm focal length of your wider lens would show the filter holder in the frame, if you used the A-series. Cokin themselves only &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cokin.co.uk/pages/cokinA.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;recommend&lt;/a&gt; using the A series for 36mm focal lengths and above, but if you're using a cropped sensor camera you could probably get away with 24mm. Even the P-series are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cokin.co.uk/pages/cokinP.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;recommended&lt;/a&gt; for 28mm and longer, but again that would probably be more like 18mm on a cropped sensor, so you may just get away with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The P-series filters and holders aren't really too cumbersome, and even if you are restricted from using the wider end of your 18-55mm zoom, that would be less of an inconvenience than having to lug around and pay for the very expensive X-Pro or Z-Pro series.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2011-04-03T11:53:15.990" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10493" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10487" CreationDate="2011-04-03T13:14:36.470" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The cameras you referring to are called &lt;em&gt;SLD&lt;/em&gt; which stands for &lt;em&gt;Single Lens Display&lt;/em&gt; (or &lt;em&gt;Single Lens Digital&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;Single Lens Direct&lt;/em&gt; View, depending who you ask). They are far from being point and shoots as they all feature full-manual controls, interchangeable lenses and plenty of advanced features.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;SLDs offer similar quality to entry-level DSLRs and their controls let you learn photography just as well. The primary differences are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Much fewer native lenses exist&lt;/strong&gt; but when they do they offer reduced weight and bulk. There are adapters to use SLR lenses though, so you are not limited in terms of capability from the perspective of lenses.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Most SLDs are slower at autofocus.&lt;/strong&gt; That is because other than the Sony Alpha SLT-series, they all use contrast-detect autofocus rather than the faster phase-detect autofocus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A number of &lt;strong&gt;advanced features have not been implemented yet in SLDs&lt;/strong&gt;. No SLD is weatherproof for example.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;SLDs do handle video very well and &lt;strong&gt;let you shoot video at eye-level&lt;/strong&gt;, contrarily to all DSLRs.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;All SLDs offer 100% coverage viewfinders&lt;/strong&gt; (electronically, off course) but DSLRs with 100% viewfinders cost a lot more than those with partial viewfinders.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Sony SLT-series offer full-time exposure-priority displays&lt;/strong&gt; which lets you preview exposure before taking a shot (except when using flash). This advantage is &lt;em&gt;huge&lt;/em&gt; even though it can seem subtle. After a few days of using the A55, I came to the wonderful realization that I no longer needed to check my shots after taking them. No more chimping!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Depending which system you go for, the &lt;strong&gt;size advantage can be quite significant&lt;/strong&gt;. A number of Micro Four-Thirds lenses are much smaller than lenses with equivalent coverage.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-04T02:34:37.073" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T02:34:37.073" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="10494" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10478" CreationDate="2011-04-03T14:41:00.650" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My conclusion, the cam was already in use. Maybe it was used with an old SD-Card, so it started to count at 3500 but there were a minimum of 256 photos taken.&#xA;I'll bring the DSLR back to the store on monday. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4569" LastActivityDate="2011-04-03T14:41:00.650" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10495" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10488" CreationDate="2011-04-03T14:50:46.367" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not a Nikon shooter, but I would seriously doubt that a company like Adobe is left guessing at information in the NEF format as that would mean Nikon wasn't interested in professional work which we all know isn't the case! In general, the following commercial packages are going to handle the NEF format just fine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adobe Lightroom&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/photoshop/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adobe Photoshop&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apple.com/aperture/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Apple Aperture&lt;/a&gt; (if you have a Mac)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_optics_pro/introduction&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DxO Optics Pro&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.phaseone.com/en/Software/Capture-One-Pro-6/About/Pro-Overview.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Capture One Pro&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bibblelabs.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bibble Labs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are more options as well, but these are amongst the most common. I've tried not to link specific versions, you should generally go with the most recent one. I couldn't do that with Capture One.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, some open source software also will handle the Nikon NEF format, but it is the case were there's some reverse engineering going on. Having said that, it's not so hard and it's generally been done. Bear in mind that they'll get access to a lot of images over time and Nikon is going to be pretty common. Anyways, one of the best options here is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rawtherapee.com/?&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Raw Therapee&lt;/a&gt; which offers a host of features (and I would suggest the beta over the old, but stable version).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for myself, I use Photoshop CS5 in general, but I've also used Raw Therapee on machines for which I don't have Photoshop installed. If you're willing to spend some money, however, I would recommend Adobe Lightroom 3 as your best choice as it's very powerful while being very friendly to the newcomer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-04-03T14:50:46.367" />
  <row Id="10496" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10498" CreationDate="2011-04-03T15:28:39.687" Score="4" ViewCount="264" Body="&lt;p&gt;So recently, I was just browsing through Canon's product lists and found the 17-40 f/4 L to be quite interesting, although I will not buy it anytime in the near future. Still, I decided to make some comparisons, just for fun:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&amp;amp;Camera=474&amp;amp;FLI=0&amp;amp;API=0&amp;amp;LensComp=455&amp;amp;CameraComp=474&amp;amp;SampleComp=0&amp;amp;FLIComp=0&amp;amp;APIComp=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF 17-40 f/4 L USM vs EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These shots were, according to the website, done with the same camera, aperture and almost the same focal length. What struck me is that the L lens seems to be only a little bit sharper in the center, and, even worse, &lt;strong&gt;the kit lens seems to beat it in the corner areas&lt;/strong&gt;!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can this be? Is the test flawed? Anything I missed out? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, the 17-40 needs to draw a bigger image circle in order to suit FF cameras, and the 18-55 is optimized for an APS-C sensor. But until now I assumed I could still expect clearly better image quality even on an APS-C camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2069" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T03:33:02.670" Title="Why does the cheap kit lens seem to be sharper than the expensive L wide-angle?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;wide-angle&gt;&lt;comparison&gt;&lt;sharpness&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10497" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10496" CreationDate="2011-04-03T15:55:19.020" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, one must consider the age of the technology when doing fair comparisons. The 18-55 IS is a fairly new lens (replaced the 18-55 non-IS only a couple of years ago), while the 17-40 is an older lens (by itself, though, it does not necessarily mean that a newer lens is better/sharper).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, like any mechanical device, there are manufacturing tolerances among batch samples. It is not impossible that the L sample in the test is not the best example of this line.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third, it can be that the lens just needs calibration after some use and mounting on the specific camera body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fourth, the &quot;L&quot; stands for more than just image quality. It also counts for build quality, weather resistance, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many more aspect contributing to the image quality that are not seen in this focus test. Resistance to flare, color rendering, geometry distortions, aberrations, and more. All these can count towards a better IQ even with lesser sharpness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-04T03:33:02.670" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T03:33:02.670" />
  <row Id="10498" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10496" CreationDate="2011-04-03T16:16:48.307" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;L&quot; lenses aren't always necessarily sharper than their non-L cousins. In fact, some of them are very much softer, often as a consequence of being two or three stops faster than the cheaper lenses, but sometimes just because they're a decade or two older in design.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; get with &quot;L&quot; lenses is professional features and the build quality of a light armoured vehicle. For instance, you might not care so much about a constant aperture while zooming, but I can guarantee that somebody who is using separately-metered studio-type flashes either as main or auxiliary lights would. And the manual focus ring on kit lenses (so far true of both Canon and Nikon) is just a little less than useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There have been a couple of &quot;L&quot; lenses that were, frankly, lousy lenses by most objective standards, the most notorious being the now-discontinued 50mm f/1.0. Considering it as a &quot;standard&quot; lens and using it at f/5.6 or f/8, you'd have to be an idiot to spend the extra two grand on that lens (and that was in early-'90s dollars) -- but when TMax P3200 was that fastest thing around, being able to go to f/1.0 for &quot;available darkness&quot; shooting made the difference between being able to get the shot and not being able to get the shot. It didn't matter that the $50 (at the time) f/1.8 version could shoot rings around it at other apertures -- that stop and a half meant everything to the people who needed a lens that fast. Most of the &quot;L&quot; series for the old FD mount were like that -- they filled a niche that pros needed to do their jobs, but were actually worse for general photography than the non-&quot;L&quot; variety. Things got better for the AF EOS era, but there have been a couple of stinkers along the way too. The worst of them have already been replaced by updated designs, but some adequate performers are still in need of an update.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want (or need) the build quality, usability and environmental sealing of a pro lens, then the &quot;L&quot; is almost always worth the money. If you're making pictures for your own pleasure and can afford the sometimes fiddly and fragile nature of consumer lenses, then the newer, cheaper optics are often a much better option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-04-03T16:16:48.307" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10499" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10476" CreationDate="2011-04-03T17:17:22.893" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is an example I shot:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cl.ly/5iXB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Without sharpening&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cl.ly/5inb&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;With sharpening&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Data for the picture: Canon EOS 450D, EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS @ 18mm, f/7.1, 1/125s, RAW, sharpened using unsharp mask in PS&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think sharpening clearly made an improvement here, and it is not the only case where I am noticing this. I apply sharpening in LR to almost all of my pictures (shot in RAW).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2069" LastActivityDate="2011-04-03T17:17:22.893" />
  <row Id="10500" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10496" CreationDate="2011-04-03T17:45:02.690" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lot of on-line commentators &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=3&amp;amp;sort=7&amp;amp;cat=27&amp;amp;page=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;express disappointment&lt;/a&gt; with the 17-40's optics and consistency in particular. And it's smallest, lightest L lens available. It's among the cheapest as well. The L &lt;em&gt;primes&lt;/em&gt; cost and weigh more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reviews all seem to agree that the 18-55 IS has really good optics for the price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some observers of photo tech trends &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;argue that modern high-pixel-density sensors are quite a lot more demanding&lt;/a&gt; of lenses than lower-density sensors from just a few years ago. The 17-40L was released in 2003, so it was probably designed during 2002 or before, when it was obvious that digital photography was the future but it perhaps wasn't as obvious that SLR sensors would become as dense as they have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2312" LastEditorUserId="2312" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-03T19:17:52.960" LastActivityDate="2011-04-03T19:17:52.960" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10501" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-03T20:51:05.397" Score="3" ViewCount="128" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been dithering about getting an S90 for a year or more. Then of course the S95 came out and it looked as if this model came without the few and largely trivial things users objected to e.g. slippy control dial. However to my continued surprise, the S95 is much cheaper on the usual internet stores than its older brother. Is there a technical reason? I'd prefer to get myself the latest model, but this discrepancy is unsettling me, pre-purchase :-o&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2547" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-04T14:55:40.863" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T14:55:40.863" Title="Is there a reason the Canon S90 is still more expensive than its successor the S95?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;canon-s90&gt;&lt;canon-s95&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="10502" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10501" CreationDate="2011-04-03T21:11:41.787" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nope. This is usually the case since stores do not reprice old cameras often enough. I've seen examples of far more ridiculous pricing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eventually when they realize the S90 is not selling, they will reduce the price. If they paid already more than it's worth, a store can probably get a manufacturer rebate to help sell stock without a loss. Different stores have different arrangements with the manufacturer, some manufacturer will take it back which is better for the store than to sell it at a loss, so there is no incentive to reduce the price. That also relieves pressure from the newer models.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-03T21:11:41.787" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10503" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10505" CreationDate="2011-04-03T21:26:59.357" Score="1" ViewCount="150" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm shopping for a 70-200 F/4 USM IS L, and took a few test shots with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a &lt;a href=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fTPRS.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;full resolution jpeg&lt;/a&gt;, and a &lt;a href=&quot;http://i51.tinypic.com/25556b8.png&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;100% crop&lt;/a&gt; with a focus point highlighted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was shot handheld with IS on at 70mm / F4 / 1/400 sec.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In-camera picture style was set to Sharpening (3).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The image is NOT sharp as far as I can tell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm I being unrealistic in my expectation from the lens that gets the best reviews all over the place?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1834" LastEditorUserId="1834" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-04T00:03:49.263" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T00:20:40.817" Title="Am I being unrealistic about image quality expectations from Canon 70-200 F/4 USM IS L Lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;image-quality&gt;&lt;sharpness&gt;&lt;canon-40d&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10504" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10501" CreationDate="2011-04-03T21:36:59.967" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It doesn't make sense to look at the new price of an out-of-production item because it is priced for opaque reasons. The used market is perhaps a better indicator of how much an item is worth. On ebay the s90 is currently selling for 250-300, and the s95 is selling for 350-400. Of course this isn't a totally clean comparison because the s90s on ebay are probably more used than the s95s. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1125" LastActivityDate="2011-04-03T21:36:59.967" />
  <row Id="10505" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10503" CreationDate="2011-04-03T21:52:41.457" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When performing a test to determine X its best to remove all the variables you're not testing for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're wondering about the sharpness of your lens:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shoot on a tripod&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use manual focus with live view for critical focus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use mirror lockup&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shoot in RAW&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use a low ISO, at a reasonable shutter speed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Turn IS off&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem with your example is it looks like your focusing was off (the 'B' looks much more in focus) which could mean you focused and then moved the camera slightly, the AF mis-focused because of a myriad of reasons, in camera processing did something weird, your body has back focusing problems...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of those things are your fault, some of them are the camera's fault and some of them are both your faults but if you want to determine where the cause of the sharpness problem is you need to narrow down the variables and test each thing individually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1819" LastActivityDate="2011-04-03T21:52:41.457" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10509" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10462" CreationDate="2011-04-03T23:27:01.543" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is something I've asked my self more frequently since the whole switch to digital. In times gone by I would only rarely add mild vignetting to images, if they needed it. With modern software it's become so easy to create a myriad of vignette styles, I must admit to using it much more frequently. Certainly when displaying stuff on the web, I feel a stronger look can make images stand out a bit, the web is stuffed with images and making some visual impact is important. &#xA;With this in mind, I think it's important not to get to hung-up about the right and wrongs, do what works for the image given certain viewing conditions, and the market. My work is nearly all wedding photography, and again a strong style is important, if strong vignetting helps to define a 'style' so be it, I'm not there yet but things change, who knows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interesting subject&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Graham Morgan&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4577" LastActivityDate="2011-04-03T23:27:01.543" />
  <row Id="10510" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10503" CreationDate="2011-04-04T00:20:40.817" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That lens &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/55&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;tests&lt;/a&gt; very highly for sharpness, even at its widest zoom and at widest aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a regular zoom lens I'd normally say don't get too excited about its perfromance wide open at the wide end, but with this lens it really should be very good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My thoughts are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Possibly a focus issue.  This is the most likely reason.  Try overriding the autofocus.  Choose a particular part of the image you want to be in focus, as the depth of field is fairly narrow at that focal length and aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Might as well put it on a tripod.  This will also help ensure that you can focus and shoot without moving in between.  Also, it's a heavy lens, so you may as well lock it down.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T00:20:40.817" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10511" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-04T00:42:41.337" Score="4" ViewCount="172" Body="&lt;p&gt;what is the difference between black and white film and color film?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4579" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-05T02:53:01.900" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T02:53:01.900" Title="difference between black and white film and color film" Tags="&lt;film&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="13" />
  <row Id="10512" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5566" CreationDate="2011-04-04T02:07:26.240" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's white &lt;em&gt;balance&lt;/em&gt;, so the white rectangle represent &quot;white&quot; while the two triangles represent a fulcrum, the &quot;white&quot; being &quot;balanced&quot; between them, like a see-saw.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4581" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T02:07:26.240" />
  <row Id="10513" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10511" CreationDate="2011-04-04T04:38:01.260" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Color film contains several layers, each sensitive to a different color of light (red, green, blue).  When exposed to light and developed, these produce magenta, cyan and yellow colors in the negative.  The printing process works in a similar way.  This is similar to the way digital sensors work, in that there are filters to exclude all but one color of light, so that a receptor can record the intensity of just that color, and then the separate RGB values are combined into a single image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Black and white film typically has a single layer that responds to the all wavelengths of light and the negative that results has various densities between clear and black. There is no attempt to filter different colors, just to record the overall luminence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4191" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T04:38:01.260" />
  <row Id="10515" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-04T05:40:52.807" Score="10" ViewCount="346" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently bought a Canon 50mm f1.8 for my Canon 1000d. But, I find that the images are not as sharp as those I saw in the reviews or any other images taken using other cameras like the 550d and above. I shot in Raw as well as JPEG L (&quot;fine&quot; quality).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the lens produce different quality images depending on the camera used?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4481" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-05T03:30:39.070" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T03:30:39.070" Title="Does image quality of a lens depend on the camera used?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;sharpness&gt;&lt;image-quality&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="10516" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10515" CreationDate="2011-04-04T06:40:10.107" Score="18" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To an extent, yes. There are several ways in which the camera body can affect sharpness and image quality in general:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Autofocus&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your camera's autofocus is inaccurate, your subject might just be slightly out of focus, causing a loss of focus. The 550d has a cross-type center AF point which can focus more accurately with lenses faster than f/2.8; as far as I can tell, the 1000d lacks this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Resolution&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 550d is an 18 megapixel camera, almost twice the 10.1 megapixels you have. This means it (theoretically) can resolve about 34% smaller details than the 1000d. Generally, primes are sharp, so the limiting factor may in fact be the camera. Sometimes, the camera can out-resolve the lens, so a higher megapixel camera won't have as much of an effect on image sharpness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Noise and Noise reduction&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;High-ISO noise and noise reduction can also destroy a lot of detail. The 550d has an ISO range of 100-6400, compared to the 1000d's 100-1600. At the same ISO, I would expect that the 550d has much lower noise, meaning less detail-destroying noise reduction needs to be applied to the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Camera shake/Motion blur&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another benefit of having a camera capable of high ISOs is the ability to increase shutter speed. The 1000d may be able to produce a reasonably low-noise picture at ISO 1600, while you have to shoot at ISO 800 or ISO 400 to produce similar results. This means you'll have to decrease shutter speed to compensate if you want to keep aperture the same. Slower shutter speed = more motion blur, either by camera shake or from subject motion. A tripod can help you avoid camera shake, but won't keep your subject steady.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Some other considerations:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keep in mind that lenses are generally sharpest when stopped down a bit &amp;mdash; Wide open, some of the light has to bend at hard angles; stopped too far down, and you hit the diffraction limit. It appears that your lens is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_50_1p8_ii_c16/page3.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sharpest at about f/4.5&lt;/a&gt;. Also, a lot of the example images you find in reviews are shot outside, under daylight. A hard light source like the sun will give you sharp shadows and lots of contrast; this makes for a sharper-looking image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-04T08:08:26.840" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T08:08:26.840" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10517" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-04T09:37:51.943" Score="3" ViewCount="172" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a 16GB SDHC Ultra II that I use for my Nikon D7000 and I shoot RAW. Before the display in the camera says that it holds around 448 or something pix but now after I transferred some of the pix back to the computer (I used around 200 yesterday) and deleted those in the cards, the camera still shows I have ONLY space for 230 pix in the card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can this happen? I have already deleted those pix in the SD card and I have actually re-formatted the card (using the menu in the camera) but still it shows 230 instead of the original 448. Can anyone help?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4584" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T19:40:15.097" Title="My 16GB SDHC card capacity shrinks from 400 something to 230 something?" Tags="&lt;sdhc&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="10518" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-04T09:59:37.597" Score="4" ViewCount="160" Body="&lt;p&gt;The sharpness of a lens is a major concern for most photographers. This might be because we are worried about a defect in the lens, a problem with our technique or a problem with the camera. Or we might want to select a better lens.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In all these cases it is very helpful if we had an accurate and reproducible procedure for checking the sharpness of a lens that can be used by all or most photographers.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So with that background, how can I/should I check the sharpness of my camera lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-04T11:28:29.560" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T13:02:42.260" Title="How can I/should I check the sharpness of my camera lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;sharpness&gt;&lt;tests&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="10519" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10518" CreationDate="2011-04-04T10:45:48.770" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've read the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF5.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Norman Koren&lt;/a&gt; tutorial on the subject a few times and he offers up a test chart as well as some links to others (some are dead, however). In a nutshell, however, you basically need:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A lens test chart. The usual reference is the United States Air Force lens test chart, but there are variations on this and he suggests that it's inappropriate for digital tests and offers up his own for testing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A solid surface. Wooden and carpeted floors are not good, concrete is good. Basically, you want to eliminate vibration.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A very sturdy tripod, again to eliminate vibration.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mirror up delay and a, preferrably, a cable release or remote, the remaining vibration equation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sweet spot of a lens varies, so you'll probably want to test at various apertures using a constant ISO (preferrably 100), so make sure everything is very well lit. Anyways, reading and handling the results are on his site and I probably shouldn't repeat them here. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T10:45:48.770" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10520" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10515" CreationDate="2011-04-04T11:52:20.157" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to Evan's answer I would like to stress the importance of the subject distance, because it affects the total &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Depth of Field&lt;/a&gt; which then affects the overall image focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try setting the lens to Hyperfocal distance when comparing different bodies for the same lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S. This would be a comment, but I don't have enough points to add comments...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1579" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T11:52:20.157" />
  <row Id="10521" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10517" CreationDate="2011-04-04T12:59:12.020" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What does the computer say about its capacity? Is there still a 16GB partition, or has it perhaps been resized?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are you still recording RAW only, or perhaps RAW+FINE? (I guess not though since my 16GB card shows 440 images as well for RAW (14-bit lossless compression), but still 312 for RAW+FINE)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Did you put another card into the second card slot and chose its role as &lt;em&gt;Backup card?&lt;/em&gt; This is most probable. The number of images you can shoot when Card 2 is set to Backup is the lower number of images that you can store on either card. If the second card has only 8 GB space left, then it does not matter whether you've got 8 GB or 800 GB on the first card. (Ok, in the latter case science might perhaps be interested in the card.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4149" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T12:59:12.020" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10522" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10518" CreationDate="2011-04-04T13:02:42.260" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another issue can be back- or front-focus. This essentially means that the camera's AF system is not calibrated correctly. The lens may be very sharp but the camera sets the focus incorrectly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A quick and dirty way to check this is to use a ruler, set at an angle away from the camera. By focusing on a spot on the ruler, you can inspect the image to see if the focus is indeed on that spot, or closer or further away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a number of test charts available for download that make this easier, I used &lt;a href=&quot;http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/focus-chart&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jeffrey Friedl's chart&lt;/a&gt;. Another more expensive setup is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whibalhost.com/lensalign/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lens-Align&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some more higher-end cameras allow you to set an offset for each lens to correct for focusing errors, up to a certain point. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T13:02:42.260" />
  <row Id="10523" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10528" CreationDate="2011-04-04T13:03:31.767" Score="2" ViewCount="195" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have Photoshop CS2, which is a bit slow but generally does everything I want. I have recently tried the trial version of CS5, and while the main program itself seems fairly similar (although faster), the real difference I've noticed is with the newer version of Camera RAW.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;CS2 has the old, clunky version (no Clarity/Vibrance settings, basic noise reduction, etc.). I can't afford to upgrade to CS5, but I understand that Elements comes with ACR as well, and that's a tenth of the price. I have tried free RAW editors such as RAWTherapee, but they aren't a patch on ACR in my opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone tell me if Elements' (9) version of ACR is the same as CS5's, or similar? The main points I like in the the later version are the above mentioned settings and Adjustment Brushes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-04T13:10:19.090" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T15:01:54.143" Title="Is Adobe Elements 9's version of Camera RAW the same as CS5s?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;photoshop-elements&gt;&lt;adobe&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10524" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-04T07:18:04.073" Score="4" ViewCount="212" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many of new model of lenses are defined as megapixel (i.e 1MP, 2MP, 5MP...).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My problem is that I did not find any difference between a standard lens and a &quot;megapixel&quot; one, in the focus quality.&#xA;I suppose that a difference should be remarked in the focus quality during the calibration step.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm working with several megapixel sensors, and I'm still looking for a megapixel lens that could fit with my sensors.&#xA;For example with a 2MP sensor, with a pixel size equal to 4um, the MTF should be at least 0.5 at 125 lp/mm. &#xA;My working distance is about 15m and the illumination wavelength is 850nm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5120" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-04T14:59:22.667" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T14:59:22.667" Title="Does a real &quot;megapixel lens&quot; exist?" Tags="&lt;lens-design&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;optics&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10525" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10524" CreationDate="2011-04-04T07:49:57.780" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The lens is related to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;angular resolution&lt;/a&gt;, while the megapixel rating has to do with the capturing device, i.e., &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled_device&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCDs&lt;/a&gt; etc. I haven't done the calculations, but it may be that it is not the angular resolution that limits the resolution in digital images, but the the image capture technology. So the lenses from the different cameras may be similar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T12:22:29.477" />
  <row Id="10526" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10524" CreationDate="2011-04-04T08:54:28.067" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pixel count almost exclusively refers to detector quality/cost, it is the number of seperate elements capable of recording an image.  The Modulated Transfer Function (MTF) is a quantative measure of the optical train in front of the detector.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important to differentiate between a monochromatic CCD and a CMOS sensor.  In most retail digital cameras now there will be a CMOS sensor which works in three colours simultaneously, which has the effect of dividing your pixel count by three, but allows one shot colour pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also just because there are micron sized detector elements in the image plane this does not mean that your optics is capable of focussing to that level of detail.  You need to consider the resolution needed in your image and set your pixel requirements accordingly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T08:54:28.067" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10527" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10524" CreationDate="2011-04-04T09:56:48.697" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a misnomer, if not pure marketing corruption of terms. The lens doesn't do anything to the &quot;megapixel count&quot;, that's determined solely by the sensor.&#xA;At most the lens might have the capability to resolve details to a level where a sensor of at least a certain element density is required to record them, but then you'd still not have a number of pixels as the size of the sensor as well as its element density determines that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T09:56:48.697" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10528" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10523" CreationDate="2011-04-04T15:01:54.143" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems it is the same version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Camera Raw 6.3 (which is the most current) update pages (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4917&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Windows&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4916&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;OS X&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;) both have links to Photoshop Elements ACR update and Premiere Elements ACR update pages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To reduce your clicks:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4920&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photoshop Elements 9 Camera Raw 6.3 update for Windows&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4919&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photoshop Elements 9 Camera Raw 6.3 update for OS X&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This new version of the Camera Raw plug-in replaces the original Camera Raw plug-in that was installed with Adobe® Photoshop Elements 9 software. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photoshop Elements version &lt;strong&gt;9&lt;/strong&gt; is minimum requirement. For PSE 8, last ACR plugin is v6.2 and for PSE 7 it's v5.6.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1913" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T15:01:54.143" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10529" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10617" CreationDate="2011-04-04T15:02:17.813" Score="5" ViewCount="150" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recently I've been playing around with some longer exposures during which I rotate the camera in a way that, if structured, would have the axis running down the center of the lens.  Here is one such image, as you can see the center of the image doesn't show much blur while the outside shows the effect of the half-second exposure during the rotation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/4vNRc.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Motion blur while rotating camera&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any sort of device - tripod head or otherwise - that would allow one to mount a camera and then provide some stabilization for a smooth rotation such as this?  I've thought about starting to build such a device, but if someone else has solved the problem, I'm certainly willing to buy such a mounting mechanism...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T21:13:23.097" Title="Device to allow camera to rotate on an axis that runs down the center of the lens?" Tags="&lt;motion-blur&gt;&lt;tripod-heads&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="10530" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10529" CreationDate="2011-04-04T15:17:11.557" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With a long telephoto, you might be able to get away with using a slightly-loosened tripod collar. If you don't mind a bit of cleanup afterward, you could apply some Vaseline to get a smoother motion. Other than that, I can't think of anything...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4590" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T15:17:11.557" />
  <row Id="10531" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10529" CreationDate="2011-04-04T15:18:26.433" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Never heard of a dedicated device but the easiest way to get this effect is to use a normal tripod and a lens with a tripod collar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This feature lets you attach the lens to the tripod and then rotate the lens within the collar. If you do not know what it looks like, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=519&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here is an example&lt;/a&gt;. A number of lenses have this feature, usually long ones but they do not have to be that long. I have a Pentax 60-250mm and Canon 70-200mm which both come with a tripod collar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you need other focal-lengths and do not mind spending a good chunk of money, you can probably use a spherical panoramic head. You'll have to check a few models individually but some will let you do that. I suppose you can buy two L-brackets and assemble them to get that movement too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T15:18:26.433" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10533" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2011-04-04T18:34:31.490" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not much of a blog, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;National Geographic&lt;/a&gt; has some truly inspirational photos worth watching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1579" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T18:34:31.490" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-04T18:34:31.490" />
  <row Id="10534" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10535" CreationDate="2011-04-04T19:02:32.017" Score="5" ViewCount="456" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was taking pictures of some water splashes. I knew I needed a fast shutter speed to make them look frozen in time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have not used manual mode yet. I use the settings where I can pick the shutter speed and the camera picks the appropriate aperture (and vice versa).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am using the Canon 60D. My only lens currently is the 18-200mm kit lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I set the shutter speed to about 2000. The picture overall looked good but the splash wasn't as sharp as I would have liked it. (I did not use a tripod but I held it pretty steady and my lens has IS)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I switched to the max shutter speed of 8000, I do not know how sharp it was, because the picture was too dark to see any detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is this? It was midday, a little gloomy but still decent daylight. I know I could possibly have made it brighter by raising the ISO but I don't want the photo to look noisy either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2777" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-04T19:44:04.460" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T12:21:37.843" Title="How to take fast-shutter-speed photos that aren't dark?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;sharpness&gt;&lt;shutter-speed&gt;&lt;high-speed&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10535" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10534" CreationDate="2011-04-04T19:11:56.517" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When you set a shutter speed, the camera will increase and decrease the aperture to match the desired shutter speed. If your aperture is maxed out on either end, it'll over/under expose the image. There are a few newer cameras that have an auto-ISO feature, which will attempt to expand the range, but without knowing what kind of camera you have, I can't tell you if you have that feature or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are 3 ways to counteract underexposing, if this is the affect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Increase the ISO. This is the easiest, cheapest, and likely best way to improve performance, but might increase the noise.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Increase the light. This can be done by waiting for better sunlight, external lighting, or even flash.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Get a lens with a better max aperture setting- If you already have one, give it a shot. Otherwise, this might be expensive.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T19:11:56.517" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10536" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10534" CreationDate="2011-04-04T19:15:07.077" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A shutter speed of 2000 should be fast enough to catch a splash of water. Are you sure the photo was in focus on the water splashes (are you using auto focus?)? &#xA;Failing that, you must do as @pearsonartphoto suggested and increase the light entering the sensor by whatever methods available&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1580" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-04T19:22:55.060" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T19:22:55.060" />
  <row Id="10537" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10534" CreationDate="2011-04-04T19:16:22.483" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;1/2000 sec is usually fast enough for not requiring a tripod and having frozen splashes. If you use a tripod, make sure that the IS is actually turned off, otherwise you induce blur into the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For solving the &quot;darkness&quot; problem, use a flash and stroboscope technique (long shutter speeds in a dark room, where the flash is what freezes the motion).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If that's not possible (has to be outdoors in daylight), then higher ISO may be your best chance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hiviz.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This website&lt;/a&gt; teaches the basics of high speed image capture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-04T19:32:07.953" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T19:32:07.953" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10538" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10517" CreationDate="2011-04-04T19:24:58.603" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This camera has two SD card slots; have you got a card in each slot, or just in one? Could it be that you've filled up one card and re-formatted the other?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Guessing that a D7000 14-bit, losslessly compressed raw file is around 19MiB (20 x 10^6 bytes) and that your 16GB card actually has 14.9GiB (16 x 10^9 bytes) of formatted capacity, you should get about 800 pictures per card, not 400. So maybe the card was having issues the first time around as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2312" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T19:24:58.603" />
  <row Id="10540" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10546" CreationDate="2011-04-04T20:20:18.143" Score="2" ViewCount="214" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I take HD video with my Canon 60D camera, it stops automatically after about 5 seconds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am guessing this is because my card is not fast enough to handle the stream.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am using my card from my old camera which is a 6 year old sandisk 1gb card (I have no clue what the speed is).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It handles pictures just fine (not very many though!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what kind of card do I need to be able to take video continuously (for the whole card if I want)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2777" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-04T20:43:10.870" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T04:43:38.230" Title="What kind of SD card do I need to keep my dSLR from stoppping every few seconds when taking HD video?" Tags="&lt;memory-card&gt;&lt;video&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10541" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10534" CreationDate="2011-04-04T20:48:59.933" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you mean a shot like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/DUbGo.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Water Drop&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can just pop up your on-camera flash, like I did. I believe this was taken at about 1/250 with an ISO of 400. Live View is useful for pre-focussing, and continuous shooting mode means you don't have to perfectly time your shot. I just put a jug in my kitchen sink and set up with a tripod.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T20:48:59.933" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10542" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10540" CreationDate="2011-04-04T20:53:34.290" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You need a Class 6 SD card or better. The higher the Class, the faster the card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital#Speed_Class_Rating&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital#Speed_Class_Rating&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4039" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T20:53:34.290" />
  <row Id="10543" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-04T22:04:12.943" Score="6" ViewCount="292" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been wanting this camera for a while.  And mostly to just take pictures of my children.  I have no clue how to use it, even though I have read the booklet.  I mostly use it in Auto mode, and still my pictures, no matter the lighting or time, come out horrible and worse than my older point and shoot camera.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any advice for a totally new photographer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4312" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-06T15:07:05.230" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T15:07:05.230" Title="I have a new dSLR and am terrified — any advice for a totally new photographer?" Tags="&lt;learning&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="10544" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10543" CreationDate="2011-04-04T22:22:50.347" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Learn the basics of photography:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Read an introduction book. &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0762102926&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Reader's Digest Photography Manual&lt;/a&gt; is a classic and usually available in public libraries.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take an intro to photography class. Local stores either teach it or should point you in the right direction (I teach one for DSLR users here in Montreal, it takes 4 weeks evenings to complete).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reading the manual only helps when you know what those things mean. Once you complete one of the above, you can read it and it will make much more sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T22:22:50.347" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10545" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10543" CreationDate="2011-04-04T22:25:24.243" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not sure what you mean by horrible, but guessing your pictures are dark, lack color or are blurry?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point and shoot cameras typically have a wide angle lens where everything will be in focus.  If you are using the D3000 with a zoom at normal or telephoto lengths you may have to take more care to hold the camera steady and squeeze the shutter release to allow the camera to focus and to avoid camera shake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as the image colors, the point and shoots usually produce &quot;punchy&quot; images.  You can set the Picture Controls in your camera to the Vivid setting, you may find that closer to the point and shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the images are too light or too dark, then there could be a number of causes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd suggest in addition to the instruction manual you pick up a book on digital SLRs in general and read that, or something like the Magic Lantern guide for your camera.  These will give you a better understanding than the instruction manual which covers the buttons and knobs but doesn't give you the big picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4191" LastActivityDate="2011-04-04T22:25:24.243" />
  <row Id="10546" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10540" CreationDate="2011-04-04T22:48:40.090" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have found that Class 6 is the slowest you can go for &lt;strong&gt;guaranteed&lt;/strong&gt; non-stop HD Video recording, however I have found that some fast Class 4 cards (such as the SanDisk 8GB 'Ultra' Class 4 which I use primarily) can keep up pretty much the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As well as actually recording on-location, the other area that Class 6 cards some into their own is back on your computer, copying files onto the Hard Drive. There's quite a noticeable speed difference there between Class 4 and Class 6.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; Also Andres' link from above is a good introductory read.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3375" LastEditorUserId="3375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-05T04:43:38.230" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T04:43:38.230" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10547" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-04T23:56:06.050" Score="11" ViewCount="325" Body="&lt;p&gt;As the proud parent of a new baby, I am eager to take beautiful pictures of my newborn daughter. However, I've found that although it is easy to get stunning pictures of older babies, the charm of newborns stubbornly evades my camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there poses, lighting techniques, focal lengths or any other techniques that will bring out the charm of a newborn?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1677" LastEditorUserId="560" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-06T13:10:06.003" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T13:11:04.957" Title="What are good techniques for photographing newborns?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;baby-photos&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10548" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1484" CreationDate="2011-04-05T00:02:46.813" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer some questions about how CHDK does its thing: After CHDK has been installed and is running on a CHDK-capable camera, then a script is loaded from your SD card (in the scripts folder on the card) to make use of the motion-detection feature of CHDK programming. This lightning script was optimized for fastest response times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;camera features chart at the CHDK Wiki&lt;/a&gt; You'll see that many of the Powershot cameras have motion-detection response times in the 30-100ms range. A lighting strike consists of several well-defined events. First there is the stepped-leader strike. This is the first faint strike that ionizes the air to allow it to conduct the main strike. If it is bright enough, this will be detected by a camera running CHDK with a motion-detection script, then 30-100ms later the shutter will open (response time being camera model dependent).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lightningtrigger.com/CameraCompatibility6/CameraCompatibility6.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the chart on this page of the timing of a lightning events&lt;/a&gt;, there are many cloud-to-ground and ground-to-cloud strikes during one lightning strike as it quickly oscillates (like any capacitor discharges). If CHDK can trigger on the 1st or 2nd event, then you have a good chance of capturing all the rest. In most cases, it will capture the 2nd return strike at 62ms (for those models of cameras with response-times faster than that).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The interesting aspect of using CHDK is that for the first time in history you can now take hand-held photos of lightning strikes. You no longer have to leave the shutter open for many seconds while it is mounted on a tripod, all the while hoping that a strike happens during that time. If you set your Lightning Script parameters correctly to account for ambient light levels so it only triggers on anything brighter, then it will automatically trigger the shutter for you only when there's a strike. If mounted on a tripod or just held securely braced against something, it will ONLY trigger whenever there's a lightning strike, resulting in EVERY frame having a lightning bolt captured on it. The biggest drawback to doing lightning-photography this way is sorting through so many captures to pick out the best ones (been there, did that).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More information is available in the CHDK Wiki — follow the section on &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples%3a_Lightning_photography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lightning Photography&lt;/a&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4595" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-07T15:24:50.413" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T15:24:50.413" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10549" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10534" CreationDate="2011-04-05T00:08:53.453" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a number of good DIY projects for high speed photography on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diyphotography.net/taxonomy/term/174&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DIYphotography.net&lt;/a&gt;. They generally make use of a flash and the bulb setting on your camera and start with a darkened room.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3650" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T00:08:53.453" />
  <row Id="10550" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10547" CreationDate="2011-04-05T00:10:33.997" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Photography is about telling a story. Start there. Think about the message you want to send, and then craft a picture around it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Technique wise, there isn't much different about photographing a newborn that wouldn't also  apply to other portraiture (much of which, in turn, applies to &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; photgraphy). The only things I can think of that might be different are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Be careful with your flash, so as to not to wake or startle your kid. Lean towards natural light whenever possible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Getting in close&quot;, which is good advice, means getting in &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; close for your small subject. Consider getting a lens with good close-in/macro performance.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, look for general &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/portrait&quot;&gt;portraiture&lt;/a&gt; techniques, both here and in other resources. Here's some quickies:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use off-axis / off-camera lighting, including natural lighting.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use diffuse lighting. (Especially important for newborns as it makes them look more delicate)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Keep the eyes in focus above all else&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use shallow depth-of-field whenever possible to bring your subject out from the background&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Try to fill the frame with face; it makes for a more interesting photo&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastEditorUserId="48" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-07T05:04:01.950" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T05:04:01.950" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10551" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10529" CreationDate="2011-04-05T02:07:04.693" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are devices called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Camera-Rotators/ci/3582/N/4289938233&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Camera Rotators&lt;/a&gt; that might facilitate this. They're designed to let you rotate your tripod-mounted camera between portrait and landscape orientation, so most of them seem to be limited to 90 degrees of motion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T02:07:04.693" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10554" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-04-05T03:36:35.933" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This tag should only be used on questions which are directly about &lt;em&gt;the process of learning&lt;/em&gt; — questions about schooling or about educational resources, for example. It shouldn't be used to indicate that one would like to learn the answer to a particular question, because that's implied for anything asked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-05T04:10:08.760" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T04:10:08.760" />
  <row Id="10555" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-04-05T03:36:35.933" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Learning is the process and experience of gaining knowledge. Questions tagged with this are about ways to enable that process to and find that experience." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-05T04:09:41.367" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T04:09:41.367" />
  <row Id="10556" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8707" CreationDate="2011-04-05T03:44:25.867" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When it comes to processing RAW images, there is not necessarily a single correct way to process the data. RAW images contain &lt;em&gt;original&lt;/em&gt; sensor data, which is usually a bayer array of RGBG pixels (rows of red/green/red/green and green/blue/green/blue pixels). The most common form if RAW image processing is bayer interpolation, which samples 2x2 quads of RGBG pixels at each intersection to produce a final image. This is the most common form of RAW processing, and is used by all of the major programs you listed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other ways to process RAW images if they are a Bayer sensor (Foveon sensors are different, in that they stack all three colors at each photosite). These include &quot;super-pixel&quot; processing, which produces a lower-resolution final image, but does not overlap and interpolate sensor data to produce each image pixel. This usually results in less color moiré, and produces better color per pixel, at the cost of megapixels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another form of RAW processing is called Bayer Drizzle, which is based on Nasa's Drizzle supersampling algorithm. This process applies the drizzle algorithm to RAW pixels rather than RGB pixels, and produces a supersampled image output that can be two or three times as large as the original image. This process is not ideal for all types of images, however it is quite popular in astrophotography. There are even image stacking algorithms that can drizzle super-sample pixels from multiple RAW inputs, producing truly fantastic output. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://deepskystacker.free.fr/english/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DeepSkyStacker&lt;/a&gt;, and astrophotography stacking program, offers a Bayer Drizzle RAW processing option.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A very popular third-party, open sourced RAW processor is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DCRaw&lt;/a&gt;, which supports a wide variety of RAW formats, and gives developers low-level access to the original pixel layouts of the RAW files for maximum flexibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T03:44:25.867" />
  <row Id="10557" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10561" CreationDate="2011-04-05T04:24:36.960" Score="4" ViewCount="274" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello, I use a 550D for photography. I got dust in my sensor few days ago while I was doing reverse macro and cleaned it from Canon Service Center. After cleaning I checked my sensor (taking picture of blue sky in smallest aperture) and It was okay. However, I'm afraid I'm seeing some other type of image quality degradation in my images. For example; ISO 1600 is producing more grainy images than before. Everything else is okay but I'm just afraid its producing more noises. Can it be an effect of bad sensor cleaning or its something in my head? I shoot RAW and I use 18-55mm lens. To be more subjective, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is there any side affects of cleaning camera sensors that might affect image quality, particularly by increasing noise/grain? &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;How do I check whether my sensor is performing at its best or it has some problem?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T09:53:23.003" Title="Loss of image quality after sensor cleaning?" Tags="&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;iso-noise&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10560" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10543" CreationDate="2011-04-05T05:00:30.977" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Start by learning the basics of the basics:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/learning-exposure-in-digital-photography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;exposure triangle - light&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/exposure-triangle-not-just-about-moreless-light&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;exposure triangle - the other side&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both of these might shed some light on why you are not satisfied with your photos. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1579" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T05:00:30.977" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10561" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10557" CreationDate="2011-04-05T05:08:08.807" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems unlikely that a sensor cleaning would increase digital noise. (Not impossible, just unlikely.) It's more likely that you're just noticing the same amount of noise more now than you were before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If some sort of fluid were used to clean the lens, it's possible that there could be a residue on the sensor. This would cause general or spotty unsharpness, might leave a color cast, etc., but shouldn't cause digital noise. It's also possible that your antialias filter is scratched - this would probably show up as a line of blurriness across the image. From what I understand, scratching your AA filter is pretty tough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're still concerned, here's how I would double-check:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Find a high-ISO photo that you took before the sensor cleaning. Preferably, this would be a photo from some place you have access to. (One from your own home would be perfect.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set up your camera the exact same way this old photo was taken. Put your camera in manual exposure mode, and make sure these settings are all the same (They should be available from the EXIF info of the old photo):&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shutter speed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aperture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ISO&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Noise reduction&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Image quality (raw vs JPEG high quality vs JPEG low quality.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;White balance/Color balance.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Any picture settings, HDR modes, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Go to where the photo was taken. Replicate the lighting that was used in the photo. If you can't get to where the original photo was taken, find a similarly-lit location. You may need to adjust shutter speed and aperture to get the same exposure as before.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take as similar of a photo as you can. Same place, same direction, same zoom. The exact subject of your old photo may not be present (people, etc.) but do the best you can.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that you've replicated the photo, load it into the same program you used before (Lightroom, iPhoto, whatever) and apply the same presets and adjustments. If you have the raw file for your old photo, re-process both without noise reduction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compare the new photo with the old one. Compare corresponding places from each photograph. Hopefully, they're the same; reassure yourself that the increase in noise is just in your mind. If they're different, call Canon, present the evidence you've just collected, and hopefully they'll fix or replace your camera for free. Then, of course, post the evidence here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T05:08:08.807" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10563" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10543" CreationDate="2011-04-05T08:15:13.583" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Treat your equipment with respect.  Keep it clean, protect it from dust and sand and greasey fingers, and learn to clean the lenses.  I know too many absolute beginners who have greasey marks on their lens or who get sand in stuff because they don't carry it in a proper case.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Experiment a lot.  Don't learn solely by reading, but also take a lot of photos.  Hundreds and hundreds.  Fill entire memory cards when you go away.  Use a decent photo organising software (I recommend Google Picasa to newbies) which lets you organise tons of photos amd lets you view the Exif data to see what settings you used when you took them.  Remember to back up too, but that's another story.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Don't just try manual mode because you think you should.  Get to know your auto mode and its limitations first - you'll know it's the right time to switch to manual mode when you understand why auto mode isn't doing what you want.  Until then, there's no shame in using auto mode for the time being and concentrating on other things, like actually taking photos.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you read, don't just read instructional books, but also pick up photo magazines.  Depending on what photos you might like to take, pick up National Geographic, or Vogue, some &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ukmagz.co.uk/mags-dir/Bird%20Watching%20.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;bird watching magazine&lt;/a&gt;, or a sports magazine.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Have patience.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Learn (the hard way) to create awesome photos on the equipment you have rather than buying new equipment thinking it will improve your photos.  It's true that there are certain types of photography for which you need special equipment.  However, buying more expensive equipment will not help your end result if you are struggling to master it on the cheap equipment.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Remember that family and friends and nice people on the internet will praise your photos whether they're good or bad, bless them, so don't rely on them for critique.  You need to develop your own eye for what is good and what is bad.  Having this 'eye' - your own concept of what makes a good photo and desire to improve - is what distinguishes you from casual snapshotters that just point the camera and shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-06T13:52:50.987" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T13:52:50.987" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10564" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="381" CreationDate="2011-04-05T08:22:01.710" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would learn about Photography itself- essentially lighting and composition and not worry much about the &quot;digital&quot; or &quot;SLR&quot; part. Digital makes everything easier - if you want to take better pictures, worry about the subject (what you are clicking) and not about the gadgets you use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the books mentioned above are good. Here are couple I like&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(The Negative) &lt;a href=&quot;http://readershideout.com/Book/Show/47&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://readershideout.com/Book/Show/47&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Photographic Composition) &lt;a href=&quot;http://readershideout.com/Book/Show/32&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://readershideout.com/Book/Show/32&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope these help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4599" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T08:22:01.710" />
  <row Id="10565" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10543" CreationDate="2011-04-05T08:30:16.260" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check out www.kenrockwell.com. He has a lot of information on &quot;How-to&quot; that should help users get started. He may have a manual (a detailed one) for your camera as well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4599" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T08:30:16.260" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10566" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10380" CreationDate="2011-04-05T09:17:01.773" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;These problems were encountered when trying to compensate from the bright sunlight to the dark of night for sunset and sunrise events. There've been a couple of &quot;sunset&quot; scripts created long ago to circumvent these problems, as well as trying to adjust for exposures when the light levels are far too low and the camera's own exposure meter can no longer function. Done by polling the data directly from the RAW sensor data when needed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look into these scripts on these two links:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php?topic=2156.0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php?topic=2156.0&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php?topic=3079.0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php?topic=3079.0&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4595" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T09:17:01.773" />
  <row Id="10567" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10543" CreationDate="2011-04-05T09:25:34.237" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've just got my first DSLR not so long ago and it is downright intimidating with all those controls and all those numbers - but its really not difficult at all after you learn a few basic terms and techniques.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the first question is what you want to do with your camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Option 1: I just want to take OK pictures of the family.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case using the auto mode is fine - but you still have to take care of focusing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most basic technique is &quot;focus and recompose&quot; - you aim your camera at whatever you want to photograph, press the shutter button half way and hold it there, wait for the camera to focus, move your camera to get the composition you want and only then press the shutter button all the way to take the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, you have to make sure the camera is focusing on your subject and not some random detail in the background, there's usually a blinking red dot in the viewfinder or a small frame in the &quot;live view&quot; to show you where the focus is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can just ignore all the camera's features and settings and get OK pictures - but the pictures generally won't be better then what you get from a good point-and-shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Option 2: I want to learn about photography and make great pictures&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In that care you got to the right place :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically there are 3 factors that control the picture (Aperture size, Shutter speed and sensor sensitivity) just read about the &quot;exposure triangle&quot; to understand how they relate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then take your camera out of auto mode and start to experiment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2481" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T09:25:34.237" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10568" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10439" CreationDate="2011-04-05T09:41:21.957" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The more skilled you become at shooting action shots, the more you learn to use slow shutter-speeds and use the subjects' motion to highlight the important activity and give the image impact. At a slow shutter-speed, you should, with practice, be able to completely blur the boxers' arms, legs, boxing-ring, and audience, but capture that moment when glove makes contact, making it the most sharp and abrupt part of the image. In this case, pun intended, a real moment of impact. Using the motion blur to frame and focus the most important part of the image, leading the viewer's eye there. Not unlike the same way that shallow DOF is used to isolate a part of the subject from foreground and background, but in this case it is accomplished with motion-blur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This takes practice with both knowing how to quickly pan and follow a subject as well as knowing your subject to know how it will move, and the limits of how each movement might stop abruptly or halt motion during a sudden change of direction. Examples: snapping off a shot at the peak of a jump, or when a football player makes a 180-degree turn on the field, when a baseball hits the bat. (These skills are also invaluable in wildlife and birding photography, but then you must also know animal behavior as well as you might know human behavior.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Too often people assume they need the highest shutter-speeds for action photography, when actually some of the best shots ever taken of these kinds of subjects were with slow shutter-speeds and low ISOs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4595" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-12T21:50:16.793" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T21:50:16.793" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10569" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-05T09:55:18.417" Score="2" ViewCount="293" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the difference between a 100mm lens and 100mm macro, or 50mm and 50mm macro?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can we use a macro lens to shot portraits? If yes, what focal length is the best? Please suggest a Canon macro lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4489" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-05T11:32:46.650" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T08:30:05.053" Title="What's the difference between a regular lens and a macro lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;macro&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10570" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10569" CreationDate="2011-04-05T10:08:21.430" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lens designated as 'Macro' is designed to allow you to focus really close to the subject, usually to the point that the image on the sensor or film is the same size as the subject itself (which is described as 1:1 macro). Apart from that there is no difference in principle; you should still be able to use it for portraits and landscapes etc as it will still focus to infinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best focal length for portraits is the 35mm equivalent of around 85mm or above. If you're using a cropped sensor camera this means you should use a lens of about 60mm focal length or longer. Lenses wider than that tend to distort the features, especially on a full-frame close-up. However a macro lens is not a requirement for portraiture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon make a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Macro/EF-S_60mm_f2.8_Macro_USM/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;60mm Macro lens&lt;/a&gt; with f/2.8 maximum aperture which would be suitable for portraiture on cropped sensor cameras (i.e. all but the 1Ds and 5D series of Canon cameras). But you should check the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;reviews on Fredmiranda.com&lt;/a&gt; to see which lens would be best for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastEditorUserId="456" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-07T08:30:05.053" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T08:30:05.053" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="10571" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9932" CreationDate="2011-04-05T10:11:36.890" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the handy things to keep in a camera bag are 2 high-quality polarizer filters, one circular and one linear. When stacked in the right order (circular between camera and linear filter), you can rotate them to create a variable ND filter. This does depend on the quality of the filters however. Two good filters will extinguish almost all light when crossed at 90-degrees. Poorer quality ones will only darken partially. Contrary to instinct, price and &quot;trusted&quot; brand-name is no indication of polarizer quality. Some bargain-basement generic filters have more polarizing strength than $100-$150 ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using this method you can dial-in the exact amount of motion blur that you want by using your preferred or required shutter-speed, aperture, and ISO. The one caveat is that if your scene has any important highlights in it reflecting off of water or other smooth surfaces, either of the polarizers could diminish their intensity. In cases like this it's usually sufficient to rotate both as one filter to readjust their planes of polarization to allow those highlights to show through again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4595" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T10:11:36.890" />
  <row Id="10572" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9908" CreationDate="2011-04-05T10:21:59.893" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;See the list of compatible cameras on this link:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://alkenius.no-ip.org/Cam4you_remote/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://alkenius.no-ip.org/Cam4you_remote/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is, by the way, the BEST tethered-shooting software I've ever found (after testing them all). Best of all, it's now FREE. It has more options than any other remote-shooting software available at any cost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might also want to check into the long list of Canon Powershot cameras now supported by CHDK: &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;CHDK's experimental PTP mode has now been implemented as a default on all camera models (it seems). And while it is experimental and requires installing some additional software to the PC, it will also allow for tethered shooting and automatic off-loading of photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do a search for PTP and PTPCamGUI on the CHDK Discussion Forum (link found on that Wiki page) to learn more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4595" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T10:21:59.893" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10573" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9883" CreationDate="2011-04-05T10:34:09.350" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Suggesting using ND filters to photograph the sun is a foolhardy suggestion. You need to know if they also filter out the IR part of the spectrum. If you are trying to photograph a partial eclipse or sunspots with a long telephoto lens for example, then you need the same filtering methods that astronomers use. A very popular and exceptional filter material for this purpose is Baadar's AstroSolar Safety-Film filter material. It's rather inexpensive, and a small sheet of it can be used to make many camera filters as well as additional filters for binoculars and small spotting scopes. Failing that, some good quality silverized mylar will suffice. You must inspect it thoroughly though for any signs of pinholes or areas where the silvering might have become damaged. Stack enough layers so that looking at the sun with your naked-eye is quite comfortable, then it will be safe for your camera too. The one drawback is the amount of contrast loss using this method. The AstroSolar film doesn't cause this and produces a sunlight much more closer to daylight. Silverized mylar giving the sun a strong bluish cast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(One other caution: Do NOT use exposed and developed transparency film for this purpose. It might look black to you, but it also makes a very effective IR filter for doing IR photography, allowing almost the full spectrum of IR light through.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4595" LastEditorUserId="4595" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-05T12:58:48.717" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T12:58:48.717" />
  <row Id="10574" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10580" CreationDate="2011-04-05T10:54:04.350" Score="8" ViewCount="195" Body="&lt;p&gt;A friend has requested a full-res copy of a photo I posted on Facebook a few years ago. Back then I just had a point and shoot, I didn't organize my photos well, and since I have started organizing photos, it's only the newer ones that are organized. So somewhere in the mess of folders on my drive is this photo, what's the best way to find it (amongst tens of thousands of photos)? Is there a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tineye.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tineye&lt;/a&gt;-like program I can download and run on my machine?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4014" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-05T11:42:27.987" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T01:29:06.287" Title="I've 'lost' a photo. I know I have it but I don't know where — how can I find it?" Tags="&lt;photo-management&gt;&lt;curation&gt;&lt;search&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="10575" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10569" CreationDate="2011-04-05T11:15:17.590" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The macro lens is capable of focusing on things that are really close.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A 1:1 magnification means that a lens can focus on something so close, its image on the film/sensor is the same size as the subject itself, so you can imagine that's probably about as close to the lens as the lens is long (depending on the lens design).  A lens with a 1:1 magnification ratio or greater is clearly a macro lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Macro lenses are designed to be able to focus close, but that doesn't mean they can't focus out to infinity as well, and they may serve as a good portrait lens too.  You don't have to use them for actual macro photography (that's something I never realised when I was new to SLRs).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A macro lens of a similar quality and design will typically be more expensive, because its ability to focus so close requires a few design considerations.  It may also be slightly more bulky.  It may, however, have better image quality in some respects, and not just when taking macro photographs.  These are generalisations only and each lens is going to be different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastEditorUserId="3422" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-06T00:08:57.683" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T00:08:57.683" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10576" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10574" CreationDate="2011-04-05T11:27:32.337" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The technology certainly exists, as you mention TinEye has the functionality to find a high res image based on a low res sample, but I don't know of any desktop implementation of that approach.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your best bet is probably to do an advanced search based on date, working out the most accurate date you can from memory (when you uploaded to Facebook). Narrow it down to a few tens of images and then eyeball it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="63" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-05T16:29:05.970" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T16:29:05.970" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10577" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10574" CreationDate="2011-04-05T11:47:12.047" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Simply do a wildcarded search for JPEGs (*.jpg), narrowed down by date; all OSs have this functionality. You might have to do a bit of manual looking through, but this may jog your memory and help you narrow down the date range anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T11:47:12.047" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10578" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10534" CreationDate="2011-04-05T12:02:13.197" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have a look at the ultra-fast shutter speeds with 100% flash-sync in all the models of Powershot cameras that are CHDK compatible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You're no longer limited to using flash for stopping high-speed events, nor having to do it in a darkened place so that ambient light doesn't blur your subjects. Nor will your fast moving subjects be geometrically distorted by focal-plane shutter distortions. Example:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080607012049/chdk/images/4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Focal Plane Shutter Distortion&quot;&gt; (It's particularly interesting to note that the tail-rotor and shadow of the rotor on the ground are 90-degrees to each other as well.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nor will your flash-output light levels be reduced by the shutter speed, except in the cases where CHDK cameras' shutters can be even faster than the xenon flash duration itself. (Yes, even that is possible.) Nor are you limited to the types of high-speed events that can be captured. For example, subjects that are self-luminous, where using a flash would make the very thing you wanted to photograph invisible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can get any of the older CHDK compatible cameras as used for far less than the price of a DSLR kit-lens. Or maybe you have a Powershot camera already and don't know this is all possible for many years now, and for free.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4595" LastEditorUserId="4595" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-05T12:21:37.843" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T12:21:37.843" />
  <row Id="10579" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10574" CreationDate="2011-04-05T12:04:02.657" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This touches on file management and I think a search on &lt;a href=&quot;http://superuser.com/search?q=indexer&quot;&gt;Super User&lt;/a&gt; for a drive indexer program may help you here. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Let the indexer run overnight&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Run queries against the catalog&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: Some indexers may even generate a small low-res thumbnail for you to look at.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T12:04:02.657" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10580" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10574" CreationDate="2011-04-05T12:11:23.840" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The people who make TinEye have a product called &lt;a href=&quot;http://ideeinc.com/products/pixmatch/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PixMatch&lt;/a&gt; which can search individual collections. It's not implemented as a desktop application, though — it's a server-based API. And it appears to be priced for serious enterprise use, not for individuals. So that's &lt;em&gt;there&lt;/em&gt;, but not really an answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But a competing company does have something for the desktop — &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imense.com/similarsearch/desktop&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Imense Desktop Similar Image Search&lt;/a&gt;, which runs on Apple Mac OS or Microsoft Windows with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/creativesuite/bridge/features/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adobe Bridge CS4&lt;/a&gt;. It's free for collections of up to 4000, and seems reasonably priced above that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are, in fact, a ton of things, once I figured out what to search for: &lt;strong&gt;Content-based image retrieval&lt;/strong&gt;. There is actually a lot of work in this area, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CBIR_engines&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a ton of both open source and closed tools&lt;/a&gt;. Most of these are focused on the big-enterprise/academia side of things, and are in various states of completion and polish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of these, I think &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imgseek.net/desktop-version&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;imgSeek&lt;/a&gt; is the most interesting for the desktop case. This is Python/QT-based and so in theory should run on pretty much any platform, but is focused on Linux. It does a comparisons based on metadata (date, time, etc.), simple features like average luminosity or color, or by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imgseek.net/isk-daemon/documents-1/similarity-details&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sophisticated wavelet-based estimation of similarity&lt;/a&gt;. That's probably overkill for finding the exact same image in a different size with different compression, but should work really well since that's basically the easiest possible case. It'll also find near matches, like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/J7gea.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All that may be too much work for this specific one-time problem. How &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; your not-organized photos stored? Even if their filenames aren't helpul, the EXIF metadata should still be good. One simple approach is to import them into a program which can examine this data and search or sort by it. Or, you could use a program like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/jhead/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;jhead&lt;/a&gt; to rename them all so they have sensible date-based names. (Maybe both.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-06T01:29:06.287" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T01:29:06.287" />
  <row Id="10581" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10208" CreationDate="2011-04-05T12:39:23.990" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;#3 is a matter of encoding. You never need more bits than the size of the data.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For practical purposes, you are incorrect. The nonlinear response of the eye and of most display devices ensures that most of the levels at the high and low end will be wasted. Many of the color levels will produce indistinguishable colors. There some ways around this with specialized equipment that maps high resolution data on top 8 bits, but having done it, I found that it is not worth the trouble.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4574" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T12:39:23.990" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10582" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10298" CreationDate="2011-04-05T12:53:50.203" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There was a study done on this long ago in an astrophotography forum, taking watts, photons, metal properties, micro-lens properties, Bayer filter materials, etc. all into account. It was found that it took a surprisingly long amount of time before the image of the sun focused in one spot on a sensor could cause permanent damage. Don't quote me on this but I vaguely recall it was well over 30 seconds. Most of this was due to the very good heat-sinking properties of the sensor itself. Keep in mind though that wide-aperture wide-angle lenses will focus a smaller image of the sun and therefore risk damaging individual photosites faster than a smaller-aperture longer focal-length lens that creates a larger image of the sun spread over a larger area on the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Something that is of greater risk these days are those who are playing with pot-modded 5mw lasers, turning them into 50-120mw models with a simple turn of an onboard potentiometer. Many a camera sensor now has funny little squiggly lines burnt into it when they were playing with light-painting images on their walls and it accidentally reflecting off of something shiny back into the camera, or pointing the laser at the camera. That damage was instantaneous and irreparable. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4595" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T12:53:50.203" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10583" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9738" CreationDate="2011-04-05T13:17:34.020" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sorry to dissappoint, but none of those explanations are true. On every sensor there is a region outside of the imaging area that also contains photosites. Some of these are turned off, some are turned on completely, and some are used for other monitoring purposes. These are used to set amp and white-balance levels, as a &quot;control set&quot; against those doing the actual imaging.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you take the RAW sensor data from any of the CHDK compatible Powershot cameras, and use dcraw to convert them, you can obtain the full sensor image including these 100% black and 100% white regions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is interesting though, is that in-camera RAW image-size resolution is always larger than in-camera JPG results. The reason being, the simpler and faster interpolation methods used in-camera to go from RAW to JPG require surrounding RGB photosites to determine each pixel's final color. Edge and corner photosites don't have these surrounding color references on all sides to do so. Doing the process later though on a computer with better RAW interpolation software, will enable you to regain a little more image-size resolution than what can be obtained from an in-camera JPG.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;p.s. DPReview reviewers and article authors should never be taken as gospel by anyone. I've found so many holes in their tests and blatant examples where the testers didn't even know how to use cameras, that I have discounted their advice many years ago.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4595" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T13:17:34.020" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10584" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10478" CreationDate="2011-04-05T13:22:23.930" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Using the filename to get shutter count might be inaccurate because of previously stored photos.&#xA;You can try using utilities like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mydigitallife.info/2010/10/20/download-eosinfo-to-check-shutter-count-for-canon-dslr/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.mydigitallife.info/2010/10/20/download-eosinfo-to-check-shutter-count-for-canon-dslr/&lt;/a&gt; to get the real shutter count&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4606" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T13:22:23.930" />
  <row Id="10585" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9326" CreationDate="2011-04-05T13:33:54.270" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;CHDK &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK&lt;/a&gt; and SDM (Stereo Data Maker, an off-shoot of the CHDK project) can sync all cameras with 1/10,000th second accuracy between them all, as many cameras as you want, using simple USB cables and a button switch. This of course is not useful info to anyone using DSLRs, but important to anyone wanting an inexpensive and dependable way to accomplish the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4595" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T13:33:54.270" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10586" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9100" CreationDate="2011-04-05T13:50:50.107" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A simple and inexpensive method can be done by using any CHDK compatible Powershot cameras, or using the off-shoot from that project, called SDM (Stereo Data Maker) found at this site: &lt;a href=&quot;http://stereo.jpn.org/eng/sdm/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://stereo.jpn.org/eng/sdm/index.htm&lt;/a&gt; The SDM operating system dedicated with special alignment assist and scripting-command tools for 3D stereo imagery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These both allow you to sync two or more cameras within 1/10,000th second of each other. Allowing you to now take 3D images of high-speed subjects. There are other free tools on creating 3D images and movies which can be found here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://stereo.jpn.org/eng/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://stereo.jpn.org/eng/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4595" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T13:50:50.107" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10587" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9008" CreationDate="2011-04-05T14:00:48.490" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lens can take a surprisingly large amount of damage to it before it will greatly degrade an image. In the event that a favorite irreplaceable filter has gotten a small conchoidal fracture at the edge or a scratch in it, blacken that area with a fine-pointed sharpie pen, removing (rubbing away) any excess ink outside of the scratch or fracture, and this will minimize any contrast-loss that you might get from when it is illuminated by bright light. I always keep a fine-pointed sharpie and a larger black magic-marker in my camera bag. The latter for blackening cyclone-fence wiring or other metal-grids that I might have to shoot through. Blacking any small section of fence or enclosure wire that I have to shoot around/through makes it nearly completely disappear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4595" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T14:00:48.490" />
  <row Id="10588" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8814" CreationDate="2011-04-05T14:18:04.060" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Windex Microfiber Cloths. Better than any lens microfiber cloths ever made. A soft open-weave mesh traps dust and grit instead of pushing it around on the lens surface. So inexpensive that you can cut each sheet into 4ths and have enough to dispose of after only a couple uses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not exactly a household item, but invaluable for macro-photography. Skate-boarder's knee and elbow pads found in any kids' sporting section. You can follow a snake, spider, skittish butterfly or beetle, turtle, frog, or anything that moves, for hours if you need, to get the right shot. Without flinching at the very last moment from a sharp rock or stick in your knee or elbow and scaring said rare critter away. Not to mention the amount of new-clothes purchases this has reduced. They pay for themselves in saving just one pair of pants from edge-of-swamp-mud stains.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A bungee cord, securely attached at its midpoint to the center bottom of a compact tripod. I can latch that tripod securely to nearly any object.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My hand. Works better than any lens-hood I've ever tried to use. A finger or two blotting out the precise ray of sun causing a flare.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two free pocket fresnel lenses (given as swag with advertising on them), when stacked and attached in front of a camera's own flash unit (with the correct sides toward each other and the flash), can be used to focus the flash to distances of 100 ft. away for tight zoom photos with perfect exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4595" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T14:18:04.060" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-05T14:18:04.060" />
  <row Id="10589" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8780" CreationDate="2011-04-05T14:29:10.743" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This becomes invaluable for wildlife and bird photography with long telephoto lenses. With both eyes open I study what part of the frame in the viewfinder is also seen in my other open eye, in relation to the end of the lens seen by my naked-eye. Imaging that now &quot;virtual viewfinder&quot; floating out in front of the camera in my mind's-eye. I am able to swiftly follow a fast bird in flight using the eye not in the viewfinder and judge rather accurately when it is fully centered in the viewfinder just by how far it is and in what direction it is from from a spot on the edge of the lens. In the event the bird settles to a perch or another one is noticed sitting still, I then swiftly locate it with the naked-eye, and then quickly and more accurately frame it in the viewfinder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4595" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T14:29:10.743" />
  <row Id="10590" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8747" CreationDate="2011-04-05T14:37:06.633" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Look for Lee Polyester IR filter material. It is inexpensive and works just as well as any glass filters I've ever used. Accurately cut a disk of it to fit into the mount of any inexpensive UV filter you might have laying around, ensuring it is a close-enough fit so that no visible light leaks around it when the filter's retaining-ring is put back in place. For about a $14-$25 investment you can make a $100-$250 filter for yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When stacked with a Wratten Green filter, this works exceptionally well with any of the Sony cameras that have their &quot;NightShot&quot; mode in them, to bring the IR light levels of daylight and sunlight precisely within range of their restricted shutter-speeds used for nighttime IR photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4595" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T14:37:06.633" />
  <row Id="10591" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-05T14:39:14.593" Score="2" ViewCount="262" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recently I bought a Canon 60D and I am uncertain about when and how to use/activate the Al Focus and Al Servo functions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand the One Shot autofocus function for still subjects. You press the shutter and the camera/lens will autofocus for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With AL Servo AF (for moving subjects), I also press down the shutter button and follow/point towards the subject as it moves around? Till the camera finally finds the autofocus point?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can someone please explain if this is the correct method?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Al Servo function... I have read the menu, but I am still unsure what this does and when should I use this function.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, what is the difference of these functions when compared to “panning.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4423" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-05T14:57:09.313" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T15:36:40.450" Title="What is the difference between Al Focus and Al Servo autofocus modes?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;focus&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10592" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10591" CreationDate="2011-04-05T15:36:40.450" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;AI focus works like single shot but if the subject starts moving as you shoot the focus system will track the subject (so that it doesn't move out of the plane of focus). It's good for still subjects that may move unexpectedly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;AI servo continuously tracks the subject as long as you hold down the focus button and is good for continually moving subjects. For example if the subject is moving toward you the camera constantly measures the distance and adjusts the lens so that when you press the shutter the subject will be in focus (in theory, it can get it wrong).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The focus mode is separate to focus point selection, if you select a specific focus point that is the one the camera will use for all AF modes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally I don't understand the last question, panning in a technique to move the camera to track a subject, not an autofocus mode. You should probably us AI servo when panning as you would expect the distance from the subject to camera to change as you pan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T15:36:40.450" />
  <row Id="10593" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10574" CreationDate="2011-04-05T16:18:04.377" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like @ElendilTheTall's answer, but:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recommend a thumbnail viewing program like &lt;a href=&quot;http://irfanview.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Irfanview&lt;/a&gt;'s thumbnail viewer. Open the program, hit &quot;T&quot; for thumbnail view (or File &gt; Thumbnails). You then have a folder tree on the left and thumbnails on the right. This is a quick way to view images within a folder, and it lets you skip folders you know it &lt;em&gt;isn't&lt;/em&gt; in. The full *.jpg search will find a massive amount of images that aren't part of your collection, such as cached web images, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also using Windows 7 you can easily view thumbnails, but I find that the operating system will view every folder somewhat differently based on its content and it can be more time consuming to set the view to thumbnails with the size you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="63" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T16:18:04.377" />
  <row Id="10594" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10574" CreationDate="2011-04-05T16:29:20.180" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you were on mac or unix I'd have suggested an implementation of basically what @ElendilTheTall answered with. But Windows... yeah, not my favorite place to work so not sure how to go about doing it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BUT, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LightRoom&lt;/a&gt; has a free 30 day trial. You could download that, throw all your images in it and then use it's filtering to slice and dice your way to the image. Filter by camera, then by date, then spin through the grid until you find it. I have most of my photos organized in folders on my drives, but I use that approach to finding images on a regular basis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-05T20:20:52.063" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T20:20:52.063" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10596" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12249" CreationDate="2011-04-05T18:39:15.853" Score="4" ViewCount="210" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a collection of around 35.000 JPG's and 5.000 NEF files. Previously I imported and &quot;organized&quot; this bulk load of pictures using RoboImport. It quite fitted my workflow as I could give it almost every name possible depending on the attached (EXIF) metadata.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recently I got myself an extra hard drive to have as main photo drive, aiming to use the old one as a backup. I took the opportunity to create a new naming scheme separating the NEF files from the JPG's. This way I could have Windows Live Photo Gallery for only the JPEG part, preventing double images in the gallery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Roboimport always has been stable, but with the biggest bulk, the NEF and JPG files from my dSLR, the app chokes around 1/5th. It crashes, and I can't really resume it, as it didn't exactly transfer the images chronologically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is a good application also capable of moving around files based on metadata. Doesn't have to be sophisticated, as I am using applications like Picasa etc to actually browse my collection. Linux is be preferred, as this is the OS I spend the most time on, although I have Windows on the same machine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4613" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-23T15:44:40.657" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T15:44:40.657" Title="What's a good application for file and folder for organizing large amounts of images on Linux?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;linux&gt;&lt;organisation&gt;&lt;file-management&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="10597" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2884" CreationDate="2011-04-05T18:47:43.627" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.karmacritic.com/photography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KarmaCritic&lt;/a&gt; is a site where the more good feedback you give others for their photos the more prominence you get for your work.  The feedback is peer rated, and the submissions are not.  On many sites, the lesser work often gets the least replies, but often are those that need the feedback the most.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the concept is solid, unfortunately the user interface, presentation, and most importantly, &lt;strong&gt;community size&lt;/strong&gt;, needs to improve.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm in no way related to the owner, but I think it's a great idea.  I can't figure out how to view submissions older than a month other than my feedback history: here are some examples of the thought out feedback it can foster: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.karmacritic.com/content/farm-building&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.karmacritic.com/content/zombies&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can log in with any OpenID (google, facebook, twitter, etc.) or create your own account (a bit hidden).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For now I'd give them a 2/5, but with the highest potential of all the sites I've been to.  You might not get a lot of feedback, but what you get will be of high quality, because people love upvotes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-21T03:38:43.907" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T03:38:43.907" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-07T02:57:07.643" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10598" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-05T19:20:34.787" Score="9" ViewCount="267" Body="&lt;p&gt;We own a landscape company and we wanted to use photos of landscape jobs we've installed and photos of gardens we have planted. Do we need permission to post these photos we've taken on our website?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4614" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-05T19:21:30.857" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T07:43:25.273" Title="Do you need photo permission for landscape work you/your landscape company has done?" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;permission&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="10599" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10598" CreationDate="2011-04-05T19:24:01.333" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Germany: if you can't take the photo standing on public property (without aiding devices like ladders), then you would have to ask. See &lt;a href=&quot;https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Panoramafreiheit&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Panoramafreiheit&lt;/a&gt; (in english).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd say, yes, for the rest of the world too. Put your right to publish a photo of your work in the contract.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastEditorUserId="2317" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-05T20:30:01.920" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T20:30:01.920" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10600" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10598" CreationDate="2011-04-05T19:28:38.303" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the United States, this falls into the gray area of &quot;you might need a property release&quot; (which, to my knowledge, has never been tested in court other than with buildings that are trademarked).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best solution is to likely include a photo release as part of your standard contract; buyers likely won't even flinch and you'll be protected from a legal standpoint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, consult one if you want advice that's more accurate than an internet message board.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-05T19:30:47.530" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T19:30:47.530" />
  <row Id="10601" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10607" CreationDate="2011-04-05T19:36:15.703" Score="2" ViewCount="87" Body="&lt;p&gt;While this is a legal question, it's an area often broached by photographers: that of the property release.  An individual's right of publicity is widely recognized, and obtaining model releases from recognizable individuals in photos used for commercial purposes is accepted as common practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I've heard that the notion of needing a property release to utilize images of private property is one that has &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; been tested in court in the United States.  &lt;strong&gt;Are there any examples of companies or individuals which have gone to court and received a ruling indicating whether a property release is needed?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(note: I realize that if a building/property has a formal trademark, such as the Transamerica Building, this becomes a trademark infringement issue - I'm concerned here with a general property release issue)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T03:27:31.990" Title="Has there ever been a ruling on the necessity / legality of a property release for non-trademarked property?" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;model-releases&gt;&lt;property-release&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="10602" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10439" CreationDate="2011-04-05T19:36:56.703" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recommend leaving your tripod at home.  I can take pictures at 1/60 or 1/100 without noticeable camera shake.  If you're taking pictures faster than that anyway, it would just slow you down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4615" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T19:36:56.703" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10603" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2884" CreationDate="2011-04-05T19:39:30.087" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Facebook has been very valuable to me for attaining some feedback from all sorts of folks . . . but if you're looking for great feedback from like minded, photography enthusiasts, You can go wrong with Photography Corner:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photographycorner.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.photographycorner.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Enjoy and good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-pmk&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4616" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T19:39:30.087" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-07T02:57:07.643" />
  <row Id="10604" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10543" CreationDate="2011-04-05T19:50:50.307" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I always tell new camera owners to first - read the manual with the camera right in front of you so you can experiment . . . then, forget everything you've read and begin playing. I will say, I do most of my shooting on Aperture Priority mode . . . &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're a book reader, then you can't go wrong with Scott Kelby's Digital Photography books . . . I've given them as gifts to new photographers and they've all turned into wonderful shooters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-pmk&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4616" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T19:50:50.307" />
  <row Id="10605" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10598" CreationDate="2011-04-05T20:29:12.853" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is not a question of rights, it is a question of common &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nanhua.co.za/Reading/Master/Courtesy.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;courtesy&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;It is courteous to ask, and if refused, to respect their choice, after all it is their property.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put yourself in their shoes. Do you really want photos of your garden used in some company's publicity work? Perhaps you do or perhaps you don't mind but you would definitely expect them to ask first, as a matter of respect and courtesy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just to extend this answer somewhat. People in their private homes have strongly held ideas about privacy and we have to be careful to respect that. The concept is enshrined in the phrase &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://past.oxfordjournals.org/content/199/1/147.full&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;An Englishman's home is his castle&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/an-englishmans-home-is-his-castle.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;See also this reference.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;William Pitt (in 1760) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.englishforums.com/English/WilliamPittElderPittPoorest/lnqwp/post.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;said&lt;/a&gt; &quot;The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it. The rain may enter. The storms may enter. But the king of England may not enter. All his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-07T07:43:25.273" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T07:43:25.273" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10606" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10596" CreationDate="2011-04-05T21:54:09.087" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Renaming the files bases on EXIF/IPTC can be done by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xnview.com/en/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;XnView&lt;/a&gt; under Windows and it is stable enough for my several GB (sometimes after a vacation). As you can search for EXIF/IPTC you could move them based on the metadata - but moving and renaming at the same time not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T21:54:09.087" />
  <row Id="10607" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10601" CreationDate="2011-04-05T22:39:23.977" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've never seen a legal precedent in discussions of this topic on any photographic forums, as you say it's something that comes up a lot.  The consensus seems to be that property doesn't have the same right to privacy for publicity that people do, with possible exceptions of trademarked items, artwork and the like.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gray areas I've seen mentioned would be photographing a race horse and using the image commercially, or photographing a well-known person's home or other property and using the image in way that is defamatory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the article below, no case law is known that covers this issue.  That doesn't mean there won't be law suits, some dropped or settled out of court, but as for any rulings, I'm not aware of any&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://asmp.org/tutorials/using-property-releases.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://asmp.org/tutorials/using-property-releases.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4191" LastActivityDate="2011-04-05T22:39:23.977" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10608" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-06T02:46:30.480" Score="2" ViewCount="85" Body="&lt;p&gt;OK, so the worst thing happened during my last trip abroad - When replacing the 10-22 with a another lens, I put it in the backpack (KATA 3N1-33) that was laying on the bench. Unfortunately, I did not close the zipper. When finished shooting I folded up the equipment and raised the bag to my shoulders. Then I heard the horrible sound of the 10-22 and the 28-135 tossed on the hard Jerusalem stone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later on, I checked the lenses and it happens that the 10-22 still works, except for not zooming out all the way to 10mm - it now ranges only 13-22mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am about to send the lens for service (it is still under warranty) in one of the center. However, checking at the Canon website, there happen to be 3 of them (NJ, CA, VA). I remember reading in the past that the centers are different in their quality of service. So, my question is - for those of you who are experienced with the Canon service, which center is considered best and what is the expected turnaround time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T03:26:40.813" Title="Servicing my equipment in one of Canon USA Service Centers" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;service-recommendation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10610" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10608" CreationDate="2011-04-06T03:26:40.813" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have used the service center in California, to repair a gritty tension ring on my EF 100-400mm L series lens. (Turned out that some kind of bearing inside the tension ring had shattered, leaving a very rough, gritty feeling when twisting it.) The inter-personal service was pretty good, people were friendly and moved me through the process pretty quickly during the initial stages. I had some up-front questions that I wanted to ask before sending it off, and that was where my experience got a little strange. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was eventually forwarded to a man who sounded like he was in his late 50's or early 60's, sitting in his dimly, oddly yellow-green lit garage, tinkering with lenses and rummaging through old metal cabinets. It was one of the most ad-hoc, down-to-earth, &quot;out of the remote wastelands&quot; kind of conversations I think I've ever had with a support center...I really felt like I was getting answers from and shipping my lens off to some little shack on an island out in the middle of the arctic circle, manned by one old geezer who Canon &lt;em&gt;apparently&lt;/em&gt; thought was an absolute lens repair &lt;strong&gt;wizard&lt;/strong&gt;.... VERY &lt;em&gt;DISTINCTLY&lt;/em&gt; ODD EXPERIENCE.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, the service was pretty quick, I think it took just over two weeks (shipping time included), and when I received my repaired lens, it worked great. Still works great. There were a couple days of lag time from the point where my lens was marked as received at the service center to the time it was actually worked on. That spanned a weekend, so it felt like a long time, when I think it was only two or three days at most. The time actually in service was just a day, if I remember correctly, with an extra lag day after service before it shipped. One thing that was a bit frustrating was the fact that a service order number apparently could not be created until the service center actually received my lens and put the physical item into their pipeline. That made it difficult to track until shipment arrived, AND they had time to process it. I eventually found out that I was able to track by my serial number before an order number was created, but after the order number was created, I had to track by that and not the serial number (still getting the feel of an arctic wasteland shack here....)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I ignore the odd conversations with the &lt;em&gt;optics wizard in the arctic island shack&lt;/em&gt;, I felt the service was pretty good and decently quick. If I include the odd conversations...well, it can't be anything better or worse than simply odd. I would get some opinions on the NJ and VA service centers before sending your gear off to the CA one...just to see if you can get a more refined experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T03:26:40.813" />
  <row Id="10611" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10601" CreationDate="2011-04-06T03:27:31.990" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer to your question is sort of... At least as far as I can tell. Here's a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photoattorney.com/2009/01/update-on-lawsuit-against-benjamin-ham.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;synopsis&lt;/a&gt; of a legal case in the United States related to this concept with the rulings of interest really boiling down to that if the image is taken on the property, then trespass may apply, otherwise the owner may well be out of luck. However, with tresspass, the photographer still has the image and can sell it as that seems to be the outcome of mediation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, none of that is to say that there's a well established body of case law here, so tread carefully as the result may not apply in other states. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T03:27:31.990" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10612" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10547" CreationDate="2011-04-06T04:17:52.010" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Agree with all that is said before. To simplify it a bit - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Newborns, toddlers do not like light flashed on their face. However, you will have to use flash as most of the pictures you click will be indoors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the easiest thing to do is to get an external flash (something like a Nikon SB 400 or canon equivalent)and bounce it off the roof.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you watch your baby long enough (most parents do), you will know when to click and what the best expression would be. So, take care of light and most else should fall into place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4599" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T04:17:52.010" />
  <row Id="10614" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-06T09:08:21.420" Score="4" ViewCount="257" Body="&lt;p&gt;On my D7000 in live view mode, taking a picture performs these steps:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(Mirror is up, aperture is stopped down.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shutter closes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aperture opens all the way.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aperture closes back down.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shutter opens and closes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aperture opens all the way back up.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There's a pause of about half a second between these steps.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aperture closes back down.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shutter opens, live view resumes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why does the aperture need to move at all? Couldn't it simply stay stopped down?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I'm in manual focus, so it's not autofocus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I'm in manual exposure mode, so it's not metering.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I've set white balance manually, so it's not white balance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The high dynamic range mode (Active D-lighting) is off, so it's not that.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flash is off.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have noticed that if I change the aperture setting during live view, the aperture doesn't change right away - when you take the picture, it opens all the way up, then closes down to the new aperture setting. This doesn't explain why it opens and closes after the picture, though, since it stays at the new aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-22T09:04:25.523" LastActivityDate="2011-04-22T09:04:25.523" Title="In live view, why does my aperture open before and after a picture?" Tags="&lt;nikon-d7000&gt;&lt;live-view&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10615" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10543" CreationDate="2011-04-06T09:44:45.040" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Experiment. Persist. I think producing horrible photos is a necessary part of learning - so I wouldn't worry. Mastery of any worthwhile skill takes time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you'd prefer not to post photos of your children here, take photos of your cat instead and post them here, explain exactly what you don't like about them, I'm sure people here will be happy to help you improve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm1.static.flickr.com/19/159376150_9d494dd385.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;cat&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2520" LastEditorUserId="2520" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-06T09:50:20.137" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T09:50:20.137" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10616" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10621" CreationDate="2011-04-06T11:21:43.987" Score="3" ViewCount="168" Body="&lt;p&gt;I currently have a cheap UV filter that was initially purchased with the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am looking at buying a HOYA UV or Skylight filter as it is suggested this may help improve the image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many people mention that the skylight adds a pink tint. I wondered is this cancelled out if you set a custom white balance?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="560" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-06T12:07:19.240" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T19:49:45.023" Title="Does custom white balance cancel out the pink of skylight filter?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;white-balance&gt;&lt;uv&gt;&lt;skylight&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10617" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10529" CreationDate="2011-04-06T11:33:52.237" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Really Right Stuff &lt;a href=&quot;http://reallyrightstuff.com/ProductDesc.aspx?code=CRD-87-Pkg&amp;amp;type=3&amp;amp;eq=&amp;amp;desc=CRD-87-Package%3a-Camera-Rotation-Device&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Camera Rotation Device CRD-87&lt;/a&gt; is a device designed for such use with lens without a collar. Its components are also &lt;a href=&quot;http://reallyrightstuff.com/Items.aspx?code=CRDComponents&amp;amp;key=cat&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;available separately&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-06T21:13:23.097" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T21:13:23.097" />
  <row Id="10618" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10614" CreationDate="2011-04-06T11:38:22.500" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The aperture opens as wide as it can to let in a maximum amount of light so the camera will have the best chance of focusing. When taking a photo without using live view the same process occurs. The D7000 does include a &quot;Depth-of-field preview&quot; button you can use to preview what the depth-of-field will look like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4273" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T11:38:22.500" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10619" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10616" CreationDate="2011-04-06T12:01:48.570" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes.  As long as you take your custom white balance image with the filter on the lens, it will compensate for any tint added by the filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1651" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T12:01:48.570" />
  <row Id="10620" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10616" CreationDate="2011-04-06T12:06:35.417" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are using automatic white balance, or measure custom white balance with the filter on, the color tint will mostly be cancelled out by the white balancing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The filter &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; change the light that falls through it, so even if the white balancing compensates, you can't say that the effect is totally cancelled out. There might still be a visible difference in some situations, even if it's not visible as a pink tint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T12:06:35.417" />
  <row Id="10621" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10616" CreationDate="2011-04-06T13:01:10.553" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Removing filters improves image quality, not adding them :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UV filters should only be used for eminent dangers such as salt-water spray and flying sand. For protection against knocks and reduction of flare, a lens hood is far more effective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UV filters as well as Skylight filters greatly increase the chance of flare which reduces image quality and contrast because it adds a flat (and relatively cheap) piece of glass in the optical path.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Skylight filters are pretty silly to use on a digital cameras since, as you suspect, the camera compensates for it when using TTL white-balance. On most cameras that means Auto and Custom white-balance. Preset and Kelvin white-balance will get the pink tint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your cameras has en external white-balance sensor (such as some Olympus and Nikon DSLRs), then it will not correct for the pink tint when it decides to use the external sensor and will correct when measuring TTL. You can sometimes disable the external sensor but these camera generally decides when to use the external one vs the internal sensor. To be sure to cancel the pink out, you need to use custom white-balance from an image taken with Skylight filter on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T13:01:10.553" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10622" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10614" CreationDate="2011-04-06T13:09:34.023" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are three potential reasons since the viewfinder chamber contains sensors for:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Focus:&lt;/strong&gt; The camera lets you use Phase-Detect or Contrast-Detect AF. The former requires the aperture to be open at max. Try switching to MF to see the difference.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Metering:&lt;/strong&gt; The camera may be set to meter on exposure, rather than on half-press. Try going to Manual exposure to see what difference it makes. Note that most cameras meter in Manual mode to tell you how far you are from the computed exposure, but that should happen before you take the shot.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;White-balance:&lt;/strong&gt; On AWB and sometimes even Preset white-balance (for cameras that have automatically variable presets). Try setting a Kelvin or Custom White-Balance to see if that makes a difference.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will probably end up doing all 3 things above before you see the aperture stop opening.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just in-case, turn off the flash while doing all that. It it possible (but I am guessing here) that the TTL flash is measured at the widest aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T13:09:34.023" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10623" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10596" CreationDate="2011-04-06T15:45:40.837" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;find /path/to/photos -type f -name &quot;*.NEF&quot; -exec mv {} /path/to/destination/ \;&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This command will find all files that have the extension &quot;NEF&quot; and move them to the specified destination (one at a time). You can repeat this for your jpeg files too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4231" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T15:45:40.837" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10624" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10547" CreationDate="2011-04-06T15:53:39.543" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It might help to start from, &quot;what do I want to remember from those days?&quot; and making a list of shots needed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A newborn's awake time is mostly spent with parents, so I'd recommend having a parent or two on most photos as well. Interaction is the important part to look for. A baby alone in front of a weird black staring and clicking machine might easily feel (and look) uncomfortable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Watch the background. With a little kid in the house, your room can become messy quite easily; you might want the distracting clutter stay off your photos though. Diapers and some cleaning pads should stay somewhere nearby, nature might make its call any moment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try black and white if color does not seem to work for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T15:53:39.543" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10625" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10626" CreationDate="2011-04-06T15:53:58.747" Score="8" ViewCount="314" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had a scare last night when everything in my view port looked blurry on my brand new Canon 60D, even the digital display a red focus boxes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The images photos came out clear, the live view was clear, the auto focus was working but everything in the view finder was fuzzy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realized spinning/adjusting the small wheel next to the view port fixed this issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question is, why is this needed at all, what is it for? Is there a way to turn it off? I don't want to accidentally spin it again and make everything fuzzy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2777" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-06T16:00:29.833" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T20:05:04.117" Title="What is the small +- wheel next to my view port for?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;viewfinder&gt;&lt;canon-60d&gt;&lt;diopter&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="10626" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10625" CreationDate="2011-04-06T15:59:06.327" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That control adjusts the &lt;strong&gt;diopter&lt;/strong&gt;, an optical adjustment to the viewfinder that allows folks with varying vision abilities to see things clearly.  Think of it a bit like reading glasses - it allows for minor vision correction.  The idea is that folks who have decent vision but might need minor correction can make an adjustment on the diopter so that as they look through the viewfinder, objects are clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you note, for someone with perfect vision, throwing and adjustment in there can actually make things look worse and cause problems with manual focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As it is a manual/mechanical adjustment, I'm not aware of a way to disable the ability to adjust the diopter, although a bit of gaffer's tape over the dial might help avoid inadvertent adjustments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T15:59:06.327" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10627" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10625" CreationDate="2011-04-06T15:59:51.647" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Diopter adjustment. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you need glasses, you can use this little wheel approximate the correction your glasses provide. Then, it's easier for you to shoot without your glasses on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4269" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T15:59:51.647" />
  <row Id="10628" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10625" CreationDate="2011-04-06T16:01:07.840" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That is the dioptre adjustment wheel. A &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioptre&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dioptre&lt;/a&gt;&quot; (or sometimes diopter) is the measure of optical power in a lens. Usually, cameras have a -3 to +1 dioptre control that adjusts where the viewfinder focuses. It is not a very powerful adjustment, and is generally intended to allow users with minor vision imperfection (very slight near or far sightedness) to use the viewfinder without needing corrective lenses of their own. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There should be a tick mark on both the camera body and the wheel, and when the two are matched, it indicates the &quot;zero&quot; setting, or default setting. A good way to set the dioptre correctly for your eyesight is to use Live View to get perfect focus on a subject, then look through the viewfinder and adjust the dioptre until it looks sharpest. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T16:01:07.840" />
  <row Id="10629" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10640" CreationDate="2011-04-06T17:21:37.770" Score="3" ViewCount="169" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm interested in knowing the answer to this, especially if you're &lt;strong&gt;not a pro&lt;/strong&gt; (if you are I'm also interested of course). What I'm wondering is how many photos do you usually take to get remotely usable pictures? (E.g., 5 photos? 10 photos?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know whether I'm being very pedantic or not, but it happened that I took 200+ photos while travelling ad taking rather random photos on the streets) and none of them turned out to be worth putting on my desktop. Some may have nice subjects but most weren't interesting enough, or lighting was off, or the picture was out-of-focus or whatever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway. How many photos per &lt;strong&gt;great one&lt;/strong&gt; do you usually take? If you have any in-depth insight into this I would love to hear about it, especially if you have some sort of advice on how to improve this ratio...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2110" LastEditorUserId="2110" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-06T18:08:45.110" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T19:02:57.750" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-07T03:08:38.367" ClosedDate="2011-04-07T03:09:11.410" Title="What percentage of your photos are actually good ones?" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="10630" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10629" CreationDate="2011-04-06T17:30:16.167" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;At the moment I'm on a 1:10 ratio, and by that I mean that one out of every ten photos will be a get used somewhere like Flickr or 500px. But that varies depending on what I'm shooting. I usually get a better keep to bin ratio shooting landscapes and a much worse ratio when it comes to portraiture or macro photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But photography is fun like that, the goal posts are always moving and there's always some aspect where we can do better to improve what we shoot. I quite often browse other people's work and look to see if I can replicate a photo (not copy) and shoot it in a similar way. If I can't then I keep trying and exploring different options until I'm satisfied. Not sure if that's what you were looking for but I hope it helps! :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4625" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T17:30:16.167" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-07T03:08:38.367" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="10631" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10629" CreationDate="2011-04-06T18:11:26.287" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would have to count but I don't get better than 1 in 20.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this depends on a number of things:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;how critical you are of your own work. Part of the path of becoming an artist is to learn to examine your own work critically.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;whether you expose yourself to the work of good photographers. Examining good photos is a humbling experience that allows one to see one' own work more objectively.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;whether you ask your peers for criticism. Once again this is a humbling experience that allows one to see one's work more objectively.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;whether you are driven to strive for much higher standards. In that case your photos will always seem imperfect but it is a powerful impetus to strive for better work.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;whether you are experimental and prepared to take a chance. A free wheeling, free thinking approach uncovers better opportunities but it has a higher cost in rejects.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, I think one should not strive for more keepers but instead strive for better keepers.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then there is my favourite aphorism:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;No one learns from success, they only learn from failure.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that is only true if one makes a practice of examining the failures critically, asking what went wrong and how they could be improved. So the failures in one's collection might be more important than you think. They will give you an opportunity for reflective examination of your work, looking for opportunities for improvement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some other opinions:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&amp;amp;message=35018381&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dpreview&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photographic-discussions/155799-percentage-keepers.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;thephotoforum&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photoblog.com/forum/post/4665/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photoblog&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-06T18:26:37.483" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T18:26:37.483" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-07T03:08:38.367" />
  <row Id="10632" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10625" CreationDate="2011-04-06T18:16:46.637" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The other posters explained what this dial is. To complete the answers, here's how and why to use it. Assuming you wear glasses with a small enough number, you can set the diopter dial to compensate for your vision imperfection. The way to do that is usually to set the dial such that the numbers and indicators in your viewfinder (like aperture and speed indicators) look sharp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to your question of &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; should you do that - many times viewing through the viewfinder with glasses actually reduces the apparent image of the scene so it degrades your ability to perfectly compose and frame your image. This is because the glasses further away your eye from the eyepiece (try looking at the viewfinder from afar and see what I mean). Removing the glasses lets you stick your eye to the viewfinder so you can see the whole frame. (Now, there is a technical term for that, but I just can't recall what it is.) If this is not a particular problem for you, then you can leave the diopter unchanged and stay with your glasses. I wish &lt;em&gt;my&lt;/em&gt; number was low enough to allow me to remove my glasses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, it eliminates yet another layer of (possibly dirty) glass between you and the scene.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-06T20:05:04.117" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T20:05:04.117" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10633" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10636" CreationDate="2011-04-06T18:17:48.040" Score="6" ViewCount="154" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm a total amateur. I went to Verona, Italy a couple of weeks ago. I was just taking photos of random stuff that I thought might be interesting and especially to improve my composition. So I wasn't necessarily shooting memories.. But when I took the photos off of my camera it turned out that I don't like any of the photos I took. Not to think about my lousy composition but I realised that subjects I decided to shoot were just plain dull.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it turns out I take a mix of pictures. Some landscapes, some architecture and some portraits... Chaos I know. I've read many guides about composition and I've improved even though I often get it completely wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My wife is also some small magazine editor and I can say in general that she doesn't like my photos at all. And hence I became more and more demanding of myself. But still. I don't really know what am I doing wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;So help me&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How should I decide what's worth taking a picture? And how much time is worth spending on capturing a shot that will be worth keeping?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Example&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are two photos that I at least like. First one because of the composition and the kind of doors I'd like to have at home, and the second one because the colourful wall is interesting. Of course both are post processed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/MaSmX.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Verona door&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/yDOJx.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Giullieta wall&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this one is completely unaltered. Somehow interesting but the subject doesn't really stand out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fdgv2.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Venice mask&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And one (original + altered) that &lt;strong&gt;I don't like at all&lt;/strong&gt;. I wanted to capture the city hall with the old arena and then I got so easily distracted by this coach... Put it in the middle, because I started shooting fast because I obviously didn't have much time... Anyway. A completely unaltered one with a rotated + cropped + curves post processed photos:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/tcdzf.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/4TtL2.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Edit&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I edited the Venetian mask as suggested. I overexposed mask by 1/2 and underexposed background by 1/2. Added some light on left+up pointing surfaces and added some shadow on the opposite site. Also blurred background a bit more. This was fast done, but you can get judgemental.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;original underneath for comparison&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/sFjZ9.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Venice mask take 2&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fdgv2.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Venice mask original&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2110" LastEditorUserId="2110" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-06T20:19:37.780" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T20:19:37.780" Title="When travelling, how do I decide what's interesting enough to be photographed" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;travel&gt;&lt;street-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="10634" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8133" CreationDate="2011-04-06T18:21:33.627" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Using any DSLR (or SLR) is not the answer for this type of project. No camera with a focal-plane shutter will suffice. You require any of the cameras that use leaf-shutters which can be accurately synced with flash at high speeds so that you don't get any geometric focal-plane shutter distortions of your moving subjects. (Google for focal-plane shutter distortions to see what I'm talking about.) Otherwise you cannot accurately measure sizes nor trajectories.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a good example of what I'm talking about:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080607012049/chdk/images/4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Focal Plane Shutter Distortion&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can't measure that helicopter's rotor-width accurately and especially not its shape. If you look closely, you'll even notice that the tail-rotor is 90-degrees different in orientation than its own shadow on the ground. Sorry, a focal-plane shutter camera is out the question when precise measurements are required for any high-speed subjects. They just can't do what is needed. Not if anything other than high-speed flash is the only light source illuminating the subject in a very dark environment. It's physically impossible for them to capture an accurate image of any fast-moving subjects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See this page &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync&lt;/a&gt; for a reliable method whereby anyone can take exposures as short as 1/60,000th of a second under any lighting conditions, even under bright sunlight, with over 60 models of readily available and relatively inexpensive cameras. No extra high-speed flash is required. Just use the built-in flash in any of the camera models. It is also interesting to note that special-purpose and expensive high-speed flash units don't usually have flash durations much shorter than 1/20,000th of a second.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Surprisingly, one person even reported attaining exposure speeds as fast as 1/224,000th of a second with one particular camera model and external flash arrangement, as mentioned on this page &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures&lt;/a&gt; (Under notation 5.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4595" LastEditorUserId="4595" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-06T18:27:52.203" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T18:27:52.203" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10635" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10633" CreationDate="2011-04-06T18:28:00.370" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I was travelling and weighing up what's worth photographing I'd measure up the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Could I shoot the same thing (or something similar) closer to home?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If so, is it worth me doing this when I could be shooting something different?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is shooting this subject going to require a lot of my time restricting me from shooting other subjects?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Have I shot something like this before and was it successful. If so then it might be best to try something different.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is this a one-off event or something which happens rarely?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the main thing to consider is &quot;&lt;em&gt;If I miss this opportunity how hard would it be to come back and try again?&lt;/em&gt;&quot;. Of course you can't be expected to shoot everything perfectly all of the time - nobody can. But what I think you should try to do instead is make the most of &lt;em&gt;this&lt;/em&gt; opportunity &lt;em&gt;right now&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've actually been to Verona with family about four years ago and it's a lovely place. At the time I was shooting on a film SLR and I was shooting just about everything I could whilst trying to conserve film as much as possible. It wasn't easy, but the good thing about digital photography is that you can try something, delete it, try again until you succeed or more often than not in my case: give up! :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4625" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T18:28:00.370" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10636" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10633" CreationDate="2011-04-06T18:41:09.977" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like  Bendihossan's list, but especially during travel I might add &quot;Is this exactly like all the other shots of seen of &amp;lt; insert event or place here &gt; ?&quot;.  Photography is art and uniqueness counts.  If you're taking the picture the same way its been done a million times before and/or the same way you can walk up and see it - then it's probably not going to stand out.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shooting a famous landmark?  Catch a reflection in a window or pool of water.  Shoot it from a rooftop.  Shoot it at night against the moon. Show us something we haven't seen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In reference to the 4 photographs, I'll address each one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I think this one suffers from exactly what I was talking about before. Its the perspective everybody has.  There's nothing particularly that makes the viewer think its anything special.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;This one looks like its a story begging to be told - but there's no context.  What is the writing, whose doing it, where's the wall?  It needs something in the foreground to provide some context to the photo.  Maybe a kid writing and looking caught..or a sign saying &quot;warning graffiti will bring death&quot;...or a couple making out under all the love notes...SOMETHING.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Your background, while somewhat out of focus, is too busy.  It either needs a shallower DOF or a less busy background.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Well it sounds like you know what happened on the last one.  You got distracted by the coach and thought a picture needed to be taken - but you're really not sure why and you really didn't have time to put together a &quot;photograph&quot;.  Its &quot;just a snapshot&quot; and the viewer suffers the same thing.  There's no story and no apparent reason for the somewhat random picture of a horse and carriage.  It's memory to you, but to anybody else its just another horse and carriage.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-06T19:33:55.963" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T19:33:55.963" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="10637" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8263" CreationDate="2011-04-06T18:44:21.423" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have same problem, and same camera. What I do to solve the problem is get it focused with automatic first. Then as I now have it the way I want, switch to manual and take the shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4628" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-07T03:11:26.510" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T03:11:26.510" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10638" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10633" CreationDate="2011-04-06T18:55:10.960" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Look at as many other people's work as you can. Really look and then ask what you are drawn to, what fascinates you. You will be at the beginning of understanding the style and subjects that inspire you.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now set about unashamedly copying them. This will develop your skill in mastering the style and subject. From there it is a short step to developing your own original approach. Your search through other people's work will lead you to the subjects that inspire you and you will learn so much from them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another approach. Imagine you have a friend living in, say, rural Africa (or anywhere else for that matter). Now imagine how the region you live in would be fascinating and unusual to your friend. Look at it through his eyes. If he came to visit you, what would you show him and what would you tell him? Then set about creating a photo essay that would convey to your friend what is so fascinating, unique or unusual about the area where you live. Then make a photo book. Having a tangible goal like this will concentrate your mind and help motivate you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have found this is a powerful technique for seeing photo opportunities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T18:55:10.960" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10639" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10629" CreationDate="2011-04-06T18:58:29.083" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I does depend on what I am shooting and how the final photos will be used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am a staff photographer with DragonCon and I turn in about 1 out of 3 photos to the con, I personally publish on my web site about 1 out of 2. The con does not need 120 pictures of Firefly cast members, but I do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I am shooting the a costume contest I get very few photos that are not keepers, the contestants are walking quickly across the stage an I have to on-point to get them in the short time that I have. It is rare that I take more than 2 pictures of a contestant unless I know I screwed something up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.davenelson.com/DragonCon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DragonCon Photos&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I shooting baseball or other youth sports my ratio can get as low as 1 in 10, but I am overshooting at that point. I usually post around 40 photos from a game, but take between 250 and 400.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.davenelson.com/Sports&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Youth Sports Photos&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I am shooting for myself and being very artistic it gets as low as 1 in 20, for macro it may even be 1 in 30. For pictures of my child to share with family it is around 1 in 20.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have many more keepers now than I did 5 years ago, I don't like spending a lot of time editing photos anymore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4273" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T18:58:29.083" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-07T03:08:38.367" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10640" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10629" CreationDate="2011-04-06T19:02:57.750" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The ratio that's reasonable varies &lt;em&gt;dramatically&lt;/em&gt; with the subject matter you tackle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're taking pictures of landscapes or flowers (for a couple of examples) it doesn't take a lot of practice to get to something like 2 out of 3 being at least reasonably acceptable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you decide you want your flower picture to include (for an obvious example) a bee, that ratio immediately drops drastically -- 1 out of 20 is probably doing quite well, and 1 out of a hundred wouldn't really be any reason for major disappointment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, a subject that's large and fairly slow moving tends to be relatively easy. A subject that's small, shy, fast moving, or (worst) all of the above, can be difficult to capture reasonably at all, not to mention really well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Innate attractiveness (beauty, cuteness, etc.) of the subject makes a big difference as well. If you start with a sunset, flower, kitten, puppy, baby, beautiful woman, etc., about all you have to do is avoid &lt;em&gt;obvious&lt;/em&gt; problems for most people to judge it a good picture. In portraits, the technical quality of the picture is &lt;em&gt;usually&lt;/em&gt; much less important than the expression you capture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you take a picture of a leaf, tree bark, railroad tracks, old building, etc., your creativity and the technical excellence of the picture become much more critical. With a beautiful subject, a mundane capture can be entirely adequate; with a mundane subject, you need a beautiful capture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T19:02:57.750" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-07T03:08:38.367" />
  <row Id="10641" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8099" CreationDate="2011-04-06T19:37:56.650" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use a pocket-size fisheye adapter on a superzoom camera as my wide-angle adapter. This affords me a seamless zoom range from 9mm-36mm (35mm-equivalent) focal-lengths on my superzoom cameras. On one camera it even gives me an effective widest aperture of f/2.0 throughout that whole range. The cameras' own zoom lenses then providing focal-lengths beyond that range. I found one fisheye adapter-lens for less than $100 that is nearly 100% chromatic-aberration free, more-so than even dedicated Nikkor fisheye lenses for D/SLR cameras when I've tested the resulting images against each other. When the superzoom camera's zoom+fisheye adapter is set at 18mm fl, then I get a full-frame corner-to-corner wide angle image. Below that then it starts to vignette until I get a full circle fisheye image at 9mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4595" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-12T21:45:41.823" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T21:45:41.823" />
  <row Id="10642" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10235" CreationDate="2011-04-06T19:41:24.943" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just got the  Think tank speed demon. Think it should fit the 5d. (it is not a bag but a belt system which I find easier to use)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thinktankphoto.com/products/speed-demon-belt-pack.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.thinktankphoto.com/products/speed-demon-belt-pack.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is available for less on Adorama.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4599" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T19:41:24.943" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10643" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8073" CreationDate="2011-04-06T19:54:48.213" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I made a harsh-environment cover for my cameras with a baggie and an old UV filter cemented into the side of it. Works well. It even completely protected my camera when it accidentally slid off the seat of an old and leaky crab-fishing boat into a foot of water one time. When it comes time to replace the baggie from wear-'n-tear, there's no huge cost involved. When making one for yourself, put your largest camera and lens in the baggie to discern the best location to mount the filter so that all controls and viewfinder options are readily accessible through the plastic. You don't want, for example, any printing on the baggie being right over your LCD or EVF. Word of advice, few sealants and cements will adhere to the poly plastics used in sealable baggies. The only one I found to work well is a product by Loctite called Stick'n Seal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4595" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T19:54:48.213" />
  <row Id="10644" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10674" CreationDate="2011-04-06T20:20:04.430" Score="0" ViewCount="126" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to know if its big enough for my camera + lens. There is nowhere local where I can look at the bag before buying. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it does fit, would it fit with a hood on the lens? (possibly backwards if not forwards)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also any other information about that bag being a good/bad choice is appreciated but not necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2777" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T14:14:06.173" Title="Will the Kata 3n1 22 bag be big enough for a Canon 60D with 18-200mm kit lens?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;camera-bag&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10645" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8749" CreationDate="2011-04-06T21:30:36.863" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to info passed by &lt;a href=&quot;http://bythom.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Thom Hogan's site&lt;/a&gt;, Nikon's lens factory in Tochigi was affected by earthquake and therefore closed for almost two weeks. Therefore there could be shortage of many Nikon lenses. Also, the factory in Sendai making FX bodies was severely damaged.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T21:30:36.863" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10646" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7871" CreationDate="2011-04-06T21:31:32.440" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Using intervalometers to create time-lapse photography is more of a research tool than it is for artistic expressions, but both can coincide, and often do. Time-lapse allows us to see things beyond the basic perspective of human perception. Much like the eye can only see visible light, but we all know that that range extends far beyond that, into the IR and UV areas of the spectrum. Time-lapse imagery allows us to see into the IR portion of the temporal (time) spectrum, conversely, ultra high-speed videography allows us to see into the UV portion of the temporal spectrum.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, the uses for an intervalometer for photography are varied and many. Watch any nature special and you'll see how a seed sprouts into a mature plant; how a fungus fruits into a mushroom; how a slime-mold will crawl with its million of amoeba-like cells across a log and eventually form into fruiting stalks; or the most common time-lapse video clip, the opening of a flower. When watching video-clips of growing plants, you'll often see them swing side to side during any 24 hour period, this revealed the aspects of plant-growth and plant-behavior now known as phototropism and eventually the chemicals that cause this in plants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did you ever see something hours, days, or weeks later that has changed shape, position, color, size, or other attribute and wonder to yourself, &quot;How did it do that?&quot; Now you have a means of discovering the answers to that question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If looking for possible subjects to capture for time-lapse video events, you need only ask yourself that simple question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And who knows, the very most simplest thing that all others have always taken for granted, could just lead to a whole new branch of science. Just because you noticed something and became curious about it, enough to capture it in a time-lapse sequence. But if you do, please pay attention to composition as well. I wish more researchers would take artistic values into account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.&quot;  -  Albert von Szent-Gyorgyi&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4595" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-12T17:14:21.440" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T17:14:21.440" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10647" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8483" CreationDate="2011-04-06T22:07:45.777" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Any of the compact and superzoom cameras listed on this page &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK&lt;/a&gt; can sync up to 1/60,000th second with their built-in flash duration. Some with even shorter flash durations up to 1/224,000th of a second. Perfectly synced with actual shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4595" LastActivityDate="2011-04-06T22:07:45.777" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="10651" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10652" CreationDate="2011-04-07T03:07:31.593" Score="6" ViewCount="211" Body="&lt;p&gt;How can you control the size of &quot;starbursts&quot; from light sources in photographs? For example, the lights on the shore in this photo have very sharp and long starbusts: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanbudhu/5586533632/sizes/l/in/photostream/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanbudhu/5586533632/sizes/l/in/photostream/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to control this through a combination of aperture and shutter speed? Or, is this more determined by the camera lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4199" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-07T03:29:48.977" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T04:01:44.517" Title="How to control &quot;starbursts&quot; around light sources?" Tags="&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;artifacts&gt;&lt;lights&gt;&lt;starbursts&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10652" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10651" CreationDate="2011-04-07T03:15:36.363" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The effect is caused by diffraction.  Typically this occurs stronger at smaller apertures - open your aperture (use a smaller f/number) to &lt;em&gt;reduce&lt;/em&gt; the effect.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The shape of the star is caused by how many blades your aperture has.  A lens with a rounded blade aperture should also reduce the effect.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can read some basic, non-super-technical information about it &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cameratechnica.com/2011/02/24/how-to-create-and-avoid-starburst-highlights/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-07T04:01:44.517" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T04:01:44.517" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10653" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-04-07T03:21:25.490" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-07T03:21:25.490" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T03:21:25.490" />
  <row Id="10654" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-04-07T03:21:25.490" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Questions about law/legal issues affecting photographers" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-07T03:24:49.043" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T03:24:49.043" />
  <row Id="10655" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10651" CreationDate="2011-04-07T03:24:18.933" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think rfusca is correct as to the reason for it in your linked image, but it's also possible to get the effect using a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tiffen.com/star_filters.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;star filter&lt;/a&gt; and then the size of burst is dependent on the light source that triggers it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T03:24:18.933" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10664" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-07T07:58:39.247" Score="3" ViewCount="295" Body="&lt;p&gt;I bought the Canon SX30is last week. I want to buy a filter for that. Can you suggest to me which is the better filter for that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I read lots of reviews on that — there is confusion about 52mm UV filters directly attached on lens and 67mm with an adaptor. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which should I buy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4640" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-07T11:14:54.200" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T19:22:06.953" Title="Which is the correct filter size for Canon SX30 IS?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;uv&gt;&lt;canon-sx30&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10665" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10664" CreationDate="2011-04-07T08:05:28.070" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The SX30is doesn't have a thread for filters to screw directly onto the lens. You need the FA-DC67A adapter, which allows you to fit 67mm screw-on filters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T08:05:28.070" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10666" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10644" CreationDate="2011-04-07T13:03:08.163" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I contacted Kata and this is what hey said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Canon 60D with the 18-200 lens&#xA;  attached should fit in the 3N1-22.&#xA;  However, it will only fit vertically,&#xA;  which means that you won't be able to&#xA;  use the Quick Access feature of the&#xA;  bag. In the 3N1-33 – there shouldn't&#xA;  be a problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which sucks because the -33 looks gigantic, too big to tote around everywhere, and whats the point of forking over the money for a high end bag when you can't use it right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2777" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T13:03:08.163" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10669" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10671" CreationDate="2011-04-07T14:01:48.267" Score="2" ViewCount="103" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can you point me to some brand which build tripod's head which accept the Arca Swiss plates system? I know Arca have a ball head, but I want to know if some other companies provides such heads (I guess Manfrotto is not providing such except with adaptor).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4056" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-07T14:28:46.090" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T21:11:53.180" Title="Which tripod heads accept the Arca Swiss plate system?" Tags="&lt;tripod&gt;&lt;tripod-heads&gt;&lt;quick-release&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10670" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10664" CreationDate="2011-04-07T14:02:33.100" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The SX30 IS has a thread which is designed to hold a slim step-up ring to 67mm which Canon sells as an accessory. This lets you use 67mm thread. If you use smaller thread directly, it will ruin your photos taken near wide-angle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T14:02:33.100" />
  <row Id="10671" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10669" CreationDate="2011-04-07T14:08:56.850" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;RRS, Kirk, Novoflex, that I know of. Be advised that my Novoflex lens/camera plates are just a tiiiiny bit too narrow to be used with an RRS quick-release tripod mount - the quick-release does not grip them securely and they can slide straight out which rather defeats the point of having the stuff in the first place!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T14:08:56.850" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="10673" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10669" CreationDate="2011-04-07T14:10:59.517" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Also &lt;a href=&quot;http://acratech.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acratech&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2138" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T14:10:59.517" />
  <row Id="10674" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10644" CreationDate="2011-04-07T14:14:06.173" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given your equipment is fixed, I would have asked the question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;What is the smallest bag that can hold the Canon 60D and 18-200mm lens?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the answer would probably be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://products.lowepro.com/product/Toploader-Zoom-50-AW,2204,8.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lowepro Toploader Zoom 50AW&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to also fit the lens hood, you will want:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://products.lowepro.com/product/Toploader-Zoom-55-AW,2205,8.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lowepro Toploader Zoom 55AW&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These bags are great and make it easy to access your camera. I own the even bigger&#xA;Zoom Pro 75AW which fits my 60-250mm lens and I often configure it for two lenses&#xA;(smaller ones though), the a second one below the camera and lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T14:14:06.173" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10675" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10669" CreationDate="2011-04-07T14:24:18.617" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know of Induro, Benro, and Foba (danger -- expensive) as well as Acratech. If budget's a concern, the Induro and Benro AS-compatible heads start at under $200 with a reasonable load limit (that is, over 5kg) and &quot;feel&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T14:24:18.617" />
  <row Id="10676" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10679" CreationDate="2011-04-07T20:28:34.793" Score="5" ViewCount="172" Body="&lt;p&gt;On a Nikon DSLR such as the D7000 which doesn't have integrated GPS, is it possible to add some sort of accessory to the camera which will embed GPS data into the files at time of capture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see a couple other good questions about adding GPS data (&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3675/what-gps-would-you-recommend-for-geo-tagging&quot;&gt;What GPS would you recommend...&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1306/what-options-do-i-have-for-gps-geotagging-with-a-digital-slr&quot;&gt;What options do I have for GPS/Geotagging...&lt;/a&gt;) but both of them go down the path of using an external GPS unit and then using software to sync the data during post-processing.  I'd prefer to eliminate this step if possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-04-30T07:53:42.370" Title="Can I get GPS data into my Nikon RAW files at time of capture?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;gps&gt;&lt;geotagging&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10677" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10676" CreationDate="2011-04-07T21:03:07.567" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I haven't used this, but Nikon does sell a &quot;GP-1 GPS Unit&quot; that connects to the camera. According to the manual it does record the GPS information with the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2228" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T21:03:07.567" />
  <row Id="10678" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10676" CreationDate="2011-04-07T21:03:09.093" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nikon has a special GPS unit, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/GPS/25396/GP-1-GPS-Unit.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;GP-1&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In urban areas (where there are Wi-Fi networks in range) you could use &lt;a href=&quot;http://uk.eye.fi/products/prox2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EyeFi&lt;/a&gt; Geo/Explore/Pro memory/WiFi cards which perform &lt;a href=&quot;http://uk.eye.fi/how-it-works/features/geotagging&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;geotagging&lt;/a&gt; automatically using WPS data when uploading the data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T21:03:09.093" />
  <row Id="10679" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10676" CreationDate="2011-04-07T21:06:10.847" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I personally use my Android device to record a track and then tag the images in Lightroom as discussed here:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/adobe-lightroom-geotagging.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/adobe-lightroom-geotagging.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that I have been doing that I can see why you want to get a device:-)  The nikon mailing list has discussed this before and several people have used a di-gps device:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dawntech.hk/di-GPS/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dawntech.hk/di-GPS/index.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One such discussion on D1iscussion can be found here:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.d1scussion.com/thread/202788/#r202802&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.d1scussion.com/thread/202788/#r202802&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nikon makes one:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/GPS/25396/GP-1-GPS-Unit.html#tab-ProductDetail.ProductTabs.CompatibleWith&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/GPS/25396/GP-1-GPS-Unit.html#tab-ProductDetail.ProductTabs.CompatibleWith&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While trying to find the di-gps I also found this:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.gerardprins.com/blog2.php/2009/06/05/competition-nikon-gp1-promote-gps-d90&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://blog.gerardprins.com/blog2.php/2009/06/05/competition-nikon-gp1-promote-gps-d90&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2155" LastEditorUserId="2155" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-07T21:18:16.433" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T21:18:16.433" />
  <row Id="10680" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10669" CreationDate="2011-04-07T21:11:53.180" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Induro make some as well - I bought the BHD1 and was not very happy with its build quality (http://www.vistek.ca/store/ProPhotoTripods/244986/induro-bhd1-tripod-head.aspx)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can recommend Markins Q10&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.ppsna.com/product_info.php/cPath/21/products_id/872?osCsid=f88cae2aac8fc730793d2b132ec8cc40&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://www.ppsna.com/product_info.php/cPath/21/products_id/872?osCsid=f88cae2aac8fc730793d2b132ec8cc40&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have been using it for a couple of years now and I am really happy with it.  You may read people complain that the pano lock is its weakest part.  I agree.  But if you remember to turn it tight - real tight you can get it to lock.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2155" LastActivityDate="2011-04-07T21:11:53.180" />
  <row Id="10681" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-08T00:53:00.347" Score="2" ViewCount="192" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I go into Canon Photo Professional and change the dpi output to 300 or 350, do I also need to go down to resize setting and change those?  The vinyl banner will be 48x108 with the photo being about 24x36.  The shop tells me I need a photo of 300 dpi or higher but every picture I try to get info on from my computer says 72 dpi from my Canon Rebel XSI, yet my cheap Kodak point and shoot says 480 dpi.  I am so confused.  Can I take a picture with my 85mm lens, indoors, without flash and a bumped up ISO and get the 300 dpi they need for the banner?  Or change the 72 dpi to 300?  I know Canon Photo Professional will change the dpi but.... what will the blown-up pic look like?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4651" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-08T10:33:31.137" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T06:05:27.397" Title="How do I get a photo of the required 300dpi or  for a 24x36&quot; vinyl banner?" Tags="&lt;printing&gt;&lt;dpi&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10682" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10681" CreationDate="2011-04-08T01:21:50.917" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your confusion is understandable because the DPI in the photo is meaningless. It does not make any sense to speak about DPI without something that can be measured (like a print) but the cameras have to put something in there, so most put 72 and a few ones let you specify a different value.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get the DPI of something divide the number of pixels by the size you want it printed on in each direction. Conversely multiply the size of the print (36&quot;x24&quot;) by the requested DPI (300) to get the resolution you need (10800 x 7200) pixels in your case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/article.php?id=image_size_resolution&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This short article&lt;/a&gt; explains this in details and has a calculator where you can input two of DPI, resolution and size and it calculates the missing one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T01:21:50.917" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="10683" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10681" CreationDate="2011-04-08T01:31:27.177" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The DPI setting coming out of the camera doesn't mean much (if anything). You have a fixed number of pixels coming out of the camera (4272 x 2848, to be exact). Since you're enlarging it quite a bit, you probably want to shoot in raw format to ensure you get everything that camera can produce.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you've done that, you &lt;em&gt;might&lt;/em&gt; want to &quot;upres&quot; the picture to fit what the printer has asked for. In this case, that'll be a resolution of 10800x7200 pixels, which means more than doubling the resolution in each dimension.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several ways to do that. There are some programs written specifically for that kind of task (e.g., &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ononesoftware.com/products/perfect-resize/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Perfect Resize&lt;/a&gt;). You can also do this in Photoshop using `Image -&gt; Image Size&quot;. There are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photoshopsupport.com/tutorials/cb/enlarge.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;tricks&lt;/a&gt; you might try using in Photoshop to see if they improve your results (but do look around -- different methods work better for different subject matter).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you're done, the picture shouldn't look drastically different on screen, though when/if you zoom in to 100% at the increased resolution, you can expect that it won't look particularly sharp -- a bit better than if you just zoom in to 250-300% on screen, but (honestly) not a whole lot. At the same time, it's a fair guess that people will generally be looking at a 48x108 banner from a fair distance away, not up nearly as close as most of us look at our monitors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given this level of enlargement, however, you &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; want to be as careful as possible to ensure the picture is sharp -- you probably &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; want to use either flash or a tripod (or both), especially shooting indoors (where the light is usually relatively dim). You probably also want to set your aperture to about 2 stops below the maximum for the lens to get the best performance it can provide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your subject is something that stays perfectly still, you could also &lt;em&gt;consider&lt;/em&gt; shooting a number of overlapping pictures of parts of the subject, and stitching the pictures together. Photoshop can do this, and there are also tools specifically for the job such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://hugin.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hugin&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/groups/ivm/ICE/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Microsoft ICE&lt;/a&gt;. These can give you a picture close to (or even greater than) the overall target resolution (but as I said above, this &lt;em&gt;probably&lt;/em&gt; isn't a major problem).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T01:31:27.177" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="10684" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10681" CreationDate="2011-04-08T01:38:19.357" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your camera will record a certain number of pixels, which is a fixed number based on the sensor.  Let's say it's 3000 pixels by 4000 pixels = 12 megapixels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A computer screen typically has a standard of 72 dpi (dots per inch), so if you want to show the image at 100% on the screen, at 72 pixels per inch it will be 4000 divided by 72 = 59 inches wide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Printers can place the dots/pixels much closer together, and if you don't do this, you can see &quot;pixelation&quot;.  So at 300 dpi, that's only 4000 / 300 = 13 inches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With an image editor like photoshop you can increase the image size by interpolating pixels, and you can preview what it might look like when printed (or print off a small section as a test).  As long as you're not viewing too close it usually looks fine in my experience. It depends on the subject matter and the viewing distance to the photo/banner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4191" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T01:38:19.357" />
  <row Id="10685" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4564" CreationDate="2011-04-08T02:33:50.717" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since you recently purchased a D3100 with its kit lens (18-55 VR) I would highly recommend that you use it for a while (say 6 months or so) before you make another purchase. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is why&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You will miss some amazing shots if you carry more than one lens when travelling or shooting with family. Especially when there are kids around something always keeps happening and you will not have the time to change the lens before you shoot. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Give yourself time to see what you really like and what is the focal length range you use most before you decide to spend even $200 on a 55-200 mm lens. Everyone is different, there is no solution that fits all- the only solution that comes close to fitting all is the kit lens :)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Kit lens is truly amazing, provides a good, most commonly used zoom range and has VR. It should meet all the needs that you have mentioned above. Even if you cannot zoom into something at 55 mm, you should be able to crop and get desired results easily. At 55 mm, it provides sufficiently good bokeh (see comments above in this thread and elsewhere on how to get good bokeh).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Most people who start with photography buy a camera with a kit lens, then buy a fixed prime lens, then a zoom lens, then a wide angle, then filters - the list keeps going on. There is nothing wrong with buying a bunch of lenses but I would strongly recommend that you give yourself some time with what you have before you make a purchase.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: I have the 35mm 1.8 AF-S, but I am not sure how you can use that lens to click portraits. I almost can never get anything out of focus and if I do, the bokeh still sucks. I find that the kit lens provides me with much better results. Having said that it is great lens for low-light and like most prime lenses- it is very sharp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have to buy, sell the 18-55 mm VR, spend a few 100 more and get the 18-200 mm VR. But I would try to do that only after I have used the kit lens for a bit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4599" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T02:33:50.717" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10686" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3" CreationDate="2011-04-08T04:10:33.257" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;HDREfx Pro is a good software, which provides different Settings. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The simple trick in my experimentation is to get different HDR algorithms in work. You should try qtpfsgui. Then use different algorithms for different aspects of the image. For ex: use fattal for saturation, mantuik for texture etc... and then combine them together. Also use enfuse as the base... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have tried to explain these in the following tutorials:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://dejoe.tumblr.com/post/1637026681/open-source-hdr-processing&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://dejoe.tumblr.com/post/1637026681/open-source-hdr-processing&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://dejoe.tumblr.com/post/1591055512/simple-fix-for-your-hdr-problems&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://dejoe.tumblr.com/post/1591055512/simple-fix-for-your-hdr-problems&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lemme know if this helps&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3828" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T04:10:33.257" />
  <row Id="10688" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10691" CreationDate="2011-04-08T07:13:57.453" Score="1" ViewCount="179" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm about to buy a camera but before you dismiss this question as argumentative read it first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used to take photos years ago on Canon EOS 500N (yes film camera) with default lens that came with it which I like at wide angles mostly, because going to 80mm colours were washed out etc. You know its problems. Then some years afterwards I used P&amp;amp;S Sony pocket camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I've borrowed Nikon D80 few weeks ago and tested it with a Sigma 17-50/f2.8 lens. Actually I liked all those buttons it had left of LCD. Accessible, fast settings changes etc. Very nice camera that made me want to buy SLR again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway. I'm still leaning toward Canon. 60D to be exact. Why? Because I know Canon's line of lenses (even though it's not always easy to pick the correct one) and since I don't know anything about Nikkor lenses whatsoever. But the fact that Nikon D7000 is similarly priced to Canon's 60D it makes me wonder... Because I generally think that this particular camera is superior to 60D. I consider Nikon's D7000 more in line with Canon 7D than 60D. I know that 60D has swivel LCD which I actually missed when testing D80, because taking images of my dog required me to get really low on the ground. This feature alone would probably become very useful. But is not the main factor, because I probably won't shoot that much video. Actually my coming baby will be the main subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway. I know this question &lt;strong&gt;can be argumentative&lt;/strong&gt; so let me ask a question that will end up in votable answers so I'll be able to accept the best one. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a sharpness difference when D7000 has 1.5 crop and canon 1.6 with different resolutions? Because full frame bodies tend to be sharper due to bigger pixels. Same can be assumed here or?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the main thing is I need advice what features/things/facts should I be thinking of when considering either 60D or D7000. Which things would you be considering? They do have different resolution but both of them use considerably high one so it's already &lt;em&gt;over the optimum margin&lt;/em&gt; on both. I haven't tested Canon 60D yet to see the user-friendlyness of its buttons and settings. So this is something I am interested in. So what advice can you give me when considering 60D and D7000 and what would your choice be today if you'd have to buy one of these?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please avoid answers as &lt;em&gt;because Nikon is the best&lt;/em&gt;. Try to provide factual data that can actually help me decide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2110" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-08T10:52:28.210" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T10:52:28.210" Title="What advice do you have on choosing between Canon 60D and Nikon D7000?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon-d7000&gt;&lt;canon-60d&gt;&lt;advice&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10690" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10688" CreationDate="2011-04-08T07:39:10.377" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yeah, Nikon is the best :) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me the answer is straight forward. I would get the D7000 because I am used to how the Nikon buttons/settings work and because I have a few lenses that would work on the D7000. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Feature wise, for me the backup memory card option on the D7000 is a very good one to have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not sure if the camera make matters that much otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4599" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T07:39:10.377" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10691" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10688" CreationDate="2011-04-08T07:46:55.647" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Put your hands on a 60D before you do anything else. Canon has some &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; nice lenses to be sure. So does Nikon, and there are some darned good third-party lenses that are available in both mounts. If you have no existing stock of lenses you'd like to use (if you're starting afresh) then you can find happiness in either mount. In practice, the D7000 performs better at very high ISO levels, but the 60D is arguably somewhat sharper at the low ISO end. Both, as you've stated, have an adequate number of pixels for most purposes. Back to the coin toss.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I went Nikon for one reason and one reason only -- I have a physical disability that makes the Canon's rear control wheel difficult to reach and manipulate. I noticed that in the early EOS film days, but then it was only a slight disagreement between my mental model of a good electronic control design and what Canon had implemented. In the digital era, the wheel seems to have dropped lower on the camera body (likely so a single wheel can be used both with the standard button set and the vertical controls, either in a grip or built into the EOS 1 series), and I can no longer force my thumb that low. In other words, it came down to a purely ergonomic choice for me. Price was the only real consideration when choosing between Nikon and Pentax (whose ergonomics also agree with my hands).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let your fingers and thumbs do the walking and the talking -- there's not enough difference between them to let anything but comfort and ease of use guide your decision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;As an aside&lt;/strong&gt; I'd much prefer to see a DSLR with the control layout of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/previews/fujifilmx100/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fujifilm Finepix X100&lt;/a&gt;, with a proper shutter speed dial and an aperture ring where the damned aperture ring belongs (even if it's a part of the camera face rather than the lens). Maybe that's just old-fogey talk, but I miss cameras that work like cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastEditorUserId="2719" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-08T10:00:21.950" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T10:00:21.950" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10692" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10688" CreationDate="2011-04-08T07:59:45.677" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Please go to the 2 links below for a full review on these two cameras, I suggest you also go and try them on your hand if you can so that you see how it feels, the moment I tried Canon models I did not like the feeling so I went towards Nikon, that I liked (my opinion though):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos60D/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos60D/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond7000/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond7000/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4603" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T07:59:45.677" />
  <row Id="10693" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10688" CreationDate="2011-04-08T08:50:20.980" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Robert, I really think this kind of question should not be asked here, for a number of reasons.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is inevitably divisive as people rise to defend their tribal loyalties.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The question and replies don't add lasting value to this site. After all within two years time the replies are all irrelevant. The questions and their answers then become just noise in the system.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It lends itself to abuse as troll and astroturfers use it as an opportunity to do their destructive work.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you will get far better answers on one of the large forums like DPReview where they delight in answering this kind of question and happily engage in long, heated debates. So why waste your time here?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;and finally you must bear in mind that every make has its ardent supporters. Why? Because the camera best suits their particular needs and circumstances. There is no best camera. There is though a camera that best suits your needs and circumstances, but only you accurately know your needs and circumstances. But we don't know and so can never accurately advise you. You must carefully research your needs and the cameras that seem to meet your needs, because you know your circumstances.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer: I own neither Nikon or Canon equipment so don't have a horse in this race.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-08T09:12:06.990" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T09:12:06.990" />
  <row Id="10695" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10696" CreationDate="2011-04-08T09:29:16.727" Score="3" ViewCount="175" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I'm to buy a cropped sensor Canon camera for personal needs (family shootings, treveling etc - probably &lt;strong&gt;75% outdoors&lt;/strong&gt; some macro like + portraits + streetshootings + landscapes, &lt;strong&gt;25% indoors&lt;/strong&gt; mostly portraits) I need as good walkabout lens as possible. For indoor photography I'll buy a decent flash to support the whole thing. My considerations are with these two lenses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS USM&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF 24-105 F4 L IS USM&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They're priced somewhat similarly. The first one is faster (and supposedly optically excellent), but I suppose that IS on the second one (L line =&gt; optical excellence) is so good that lens speed doesn't play a huge role with indoor shooting with either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So based on my needs which lens should I prefer and why?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2110" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-08T13:06:36.083" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T13:06:36.083" Title="Why and when would you consider Canon 17-55 lens over 24-105?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="10696" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10695" CreationDate="2011-04-08T10:37:15.287" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lot of that depends on how you see the world. I'm a bit of a long-lens kind of guy -- in the film days, my walking-around lens was a 90mm/2.8 macro, and I don't think I shot more than a couple of hundred pictures wider than 50mm out of several tens of thousands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 24-105 is a great lens, but probably not the one you want if landscapes and travel photography are going to be a big part of your repertoire. The crop sensor means that the widest setting on the 24-105 is going to be the equivalent of just a hair under 40mm on full-frame 35mm. That really restricts the kinds of pictures you can take -- huge vistas and grand architecture (particularly in the sometimes narrow confines of European city streets) are going to be largely off the menu. On the other hand, if people and details are your main interests, you have most of the portrait and tight-crop range covered. Do note that the f/4 maximum aperture will somewhat restrict your ability to selectively focus -- you need to be pretty close in order to limit your depth of field to the subject at the wide-to-mid focal lengths. From all accounts, though, it's a superb studio lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 17-55, on the other hand, gets you significantly wider at the wide end (equivalent to having a 28mm full-frame lens), but the 55mm end might be a little short for tight people shots (it's around the same as a 85-90mm lens on full-frame 35mm, which is okay until you go for tight head shots). The extra stop, though, means that it's easier to throw the background out of focus at the long end. Again, it depends on how you see the world -- 55mm is where my world starts, really, but I shoot people almost to the exclusion of everything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There may be a workable compromise in the offing, though, if you tend toward log-lens shooting. The &quot;kit&quot; 18-55mm lens is a perfectly adequate, if unspectacular, lens, and if you pick it up with the body, it should be dirt cheap. It may be something you don't use very often (and may not like using -- it doesn't feel nearly as good as either of the lenses you've mentioned) but it can be there in your bag (or jacket pocket -- it's pretty small) when you want to go a bit wider, and would make a reasonable companion to the 24-105 &quot;everyday&quot; lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T10:37:15.287" />
  <row Id="10697" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10695" CreationDate="2011-04-08T11:09:09.840" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both lenses are excellent optically. Don't let the fact that the 17-55mm isn't designated as an 'L' lens put you off -- this was purely a marketing decision by Canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your needs are similar to my own. I tried both lenses before settling on the 17-55mm. The 24-105mm may be the ideal walkabout lens on a full-frame body, but on a 1.6x crop, the wide end simply isn't wide enough for architecture and landscape shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The f2.8 aperture of the 17-55mm will also give you more flexibility creatively, and will certainly come in useful if you are shooting in low light. The one stop difference between f2.8 and f4 might not sound much, but this equates to twice as much light entering the lens, which will also give you a brighter viewfinder and improved autofocus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3775" LastEditorUserId="3775" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-08T11:55:22.470" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T11:55:22.470" />
  <row Id="10698" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10695" CreationDate="2011-04-08T11:16:57.613" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 17-55 is a normal zoom on your camera, the 24-105 is not. And optical quality does not compensate for a slow aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have the 24-105L on a Canon 1Ds mk II and I am very happy with it, but if had a crop camera body instead of full frame I'd certainly go with the 17-50. The missing wide-angle on the 24-105 would be a major drawback, especially indoors where stepping back several feet is not an option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T11:16:57.613" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10699" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-08T11:42:21.650" Score="1" ViewCount="150" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6047/is-there-a-rule-of-thumb-that-i-can-use-to-estimate-depth-of-field-while-shooti&quot;&gt;Is there a &amp;#39;rule of thumb&amp;#39; that I can use to estimate depth of field while shooting?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do you estimate the aperture needed to produce sufficient depth of field for a given subject?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Suppose I am facing a bicycle from the front and use whatever combination of focal length and subject distance is necessary to have the bicycle completely fill the frame. I focus on the handle bars as I would like this to be the sharpest point of focus. How can I best estimate the aperture needed to ensure that entire length of the bicycle is within acceptable focus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have tried using my camera's DOF preview button, but the resulting image is too dark in the viewfinder to determine the depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could use a DOF calculator, but this would take too long.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could take a few shots at varying apertures, but again, this would take too long.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What methods do you use to visualise depth of field in situations like this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3775" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T16:58:19.983" ClosedDate="2011-04-09T00:01:10.897" Title="How to estimate depth of field?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="10700" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10699" CreationDate="2011-04-08T12:02:41.807" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would either stop down as far as I can get away with, or shoot and check the image on the rear LCD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure there's an approximation of the DOF formula that's simple enough to do a quick mental calculation, after guessing your subject distance and reading the focal length off the lens, but it's important to understand that there's really only one plane of focus, i.e. one depth that is as sharp as possible, and a certain area either side which is merely &quot;sharp enough&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;DOF calculators rely on a standard definition for what it &lt;em&gt;acceptably sharp&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;*&lt;/strong&gt;. The depth values given guarantee that anything in those depths will be &quot;acceptably sharp&quot;. But what if your definition of what is acceptable differs? With high resolution digital sensors some areas within the accepted depth of field limits will be less sharp than others. By shooting a couple of test images you can quickly verify if the areas you care about are sharp enough for &lt;em&gt;your&lt;/em&gt; standards of acceptability.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've said this before on similar questions, but it's worth stating again &lt;em&gt;why estimate when you can have the actual answer in front of you in seconds?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;--&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;*&lt;/strong&gt; To be fair the standard definition is sensible as it's based on the angular resolution of the eye so it applies to printed images you have in front of you as much as it does to billboards, &lt;strong&gt;provided you view the whole image at once&lt;/strong&gt;. This is not the only way to view images, however! Let's say you're selling the bike on a website and want to create images people can zoom right into to see the details. Now you might need those areas to be a bit sharper. In this case it's important not to rely too heavily on DOF calculations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-08T12:09:12.503" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T12:09:12.503" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10701" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10695" CreationDate="2011-04-08T12:24:14.310" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I used a 28-75 f/2.8 as a walkabout all purpose lens on an APS-C body for many years. There were certainly times when I wanted to go wider than 28 (which is fairly long on a crop) at the time the extra stop was worth more, and I had a 10-22 for when I &lt;em&gt;needed&lt;/em&gt; to shoot wide, mostly when indoors. So I think you could get away with 24mm on the long end for most things (though you do say you want to shoot 25% of the time indoors which could be a problem).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Landscapes don't have to be ultra wide. In fact I think it's much more difficult to use a wide lenes for landscapes as they will shrink the background and give you loads of foreground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you have any other digital camera currently? If so you could simulate 24mm on a crop DSLR by zooming the lens on your camera to a horizontal field of view of 49 degrees (you might need a tape-measure, e.g. find something 370cm long and fill the frame horizontally with it at a distance of 4 meters) and walk round your house to get a feel for what you'll be able to capture at 24mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-08T12:48:22.720" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T12:48:22.720" />
  <row Id="10702" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10699" CreationDate="2011-04-08T12:34:43.510" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Experience!  Once you've taken enough photos at various apertures and distances, you will have the experience to get the DOF right on the first or second try, without having to measure distances or perform calculations.  With an accurate enough estimate, bracketing should get you quickly to the right aperture.  Many cameras offer auto-bracketing options, so if you're able to do a relatively accurate guesstimate, then you can fire off three or five bracketed shots with one press of the shutter button.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Until you have the experience, you're either going to have to make guesses and review the results in the viewfinder (my recommendation), or get out the tape measure and use a calculator if you really require precision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3486" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T12:34:43.510" />
  <row Id="10703" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10699" CreationDate="2011-04-08T13:57:00.233" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;DoF calculators are good for when you can take your time setting up a landscape shot (and if your lens has a focus distance scale), but for more dynamic situations there are general rules of thumb that can help you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For wildlife or portraits, you should be fine pretty much wide open on a normal lens - about f/4-f/5.6 should be fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If depth of field isn't a major issue, say if your subject is against a wall or multiple subjects are all at the same distance from the camera, a general aperture of f/8-f/11 should be fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For situations like you describe in your question, I'd go for something like f/16 - but don't be afraid to go up around f/22 if you have the light to handle it. There's a lot of scare-mongering around the net that f/22 or similar will give you horrible diffraction, which simply isn't true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing to be aware of is that as your apertures get smaller, you have to make sure you're getting a decent shutter speed to minimise blurring. This is especially tricky when you are trying to balance DoF with a fast shutter speed for subjects like cyclists - unless you have bright sunlight, you will probably have to bump up the ISO to compensate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T13:57:00.233" />
  <row Id="10704" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10709" CreationDate="2011-04-08T14:01:47.497" Score="4" ViewCount="150" Body="&lt;p&gt;Where can I get a good chart to measure dynamic range?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would probably be a plastic or cardboard which would show stripes of different reflectance in small increments, preferably 1/4 EV or smaller. Something like a gradient but with a known tonal-range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Already got color-charts, grey cards, white-balance cards, but this one has been eluding me!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T17:36:36.073" Title="Where to get a dynamic-range test chart?" Tags="&lt;dynamic-range&gt;&lt;chart&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10705" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10704" CreationDate="2011-04-08T14:12:46.733" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Printed paper has a pretty small dynamic range (the numbers I've seen are 5-7 stops), much less than a decent camera, and you'd have to be very careful about the illumination of the reflective chart, in terms of uniformity and specular reflections. So camera dynamic range is usually measured with a backlit, transmissive &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/314701-REG/Photographers_Formulary_09_0330_09_0330_Step_Wedge_120.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;step wedge&lt;/a&gt;. Even the one I linked to is only about 10 stops or so, so you might have to do a couple of different exposures and &quot;chain&quot; them together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2138" LastEditorUserId="2138" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-08T17:36:36.073" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T17:36:36.073" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10706" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10708" CreationDate="2011-04-08T14:35:30.433" Score="4" ViewCount="112" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am not asking how to create a bokeh effect. I found the answer to that quesiton here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/898/best-way-to-get-shaped-bokeh&quot;&gt;Best way to get shaped bokeh?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answers on that question say you basically cut out an image from a piece of paper and tape it over your lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This puzzles me as to why this creates a bokeh effect. I would just expect your image to be in that shape (like looking through a keyhole) with the outside of the shape being black.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know the science behind it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2777" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-08T14:53:11.863" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T14:53:11.863" Title="How is Bokeh created?" Tags="&lt;bokeh&gt;&lt;optics&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10707" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10704" CreationDate="2011-04-08T14:35:44.613" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are you trying to measure just the dynamic range, or the tonecurve / response curve of the sensor? If you just want to know dynamic range then you don't need a chart, simply find the saturation point (what exposure yields fully saturated sensels under constant lighting) then reduce the exposure time until you can no longer make out details and are left with an image of noise. Then calculate the ratio in these times (log base 2 if you want your answer in stops).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If &quot;until you can no longer make out details&quot; sounds a bit vague and non-scientific to you that's because the definition of dynamic range is vague and non-scientific! Most benchmark sites use a noise threshold to determine when &quot;you can no longer make out details&quot;. Different thresholds lead to different recordings of dynamic range (and arguments on internet forums!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T14:35:44.613" />
  <row Id="10708" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10706" CreationDate="2011-04-08T14:47:16.130" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's complicated but I'll have a go at explaining it. Light from a single point spreads out in all directions and hits the entire front surface of the lens, this light gets focused back down onto a tiny dot by the lens &lt;em&gt;if&lt;/em&gt; the lens is focussed at the distance of the point. If not (i.e. the point is part of the background) the light lands on the sensor in a big circle and creates bokeh. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you put a shape on the front of the lens you block out bits of the spread of light from the point and the result is that instead of a circle, your shape is projected onto the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your shape has to be very close to the lens for this, otherwise the light from the point wont have spread far enough by the time you start occluding it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I would just expect your image to be in that shape (like looking through a keyhole) with the outside of the shape being black.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason you don't simply see an image in the shape of your bokeh filter like you suggest is that the filter is very close to the front of the lens and so doesn't block the centre of the lens. Any light which hits some part of the lens front element has a chance to get into the picture, so there are no black edges etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the shape is a little distance in front of the lens, then there will be parts of the scene which are blocked from hitting &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; of the lens surface, these areas will appear black in your image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-08T14:52:32.673" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T14:52:32.673" />
  <row Id="10709" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10704" CreationDate="2011-04-08T15:57:52.623" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The standard way of testing the dynamic range of your camera is to use the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stouffer.net/TransPage.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Stouffer step wedge&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;You can see their &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stouffer.net/Productlist.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;price list here&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, you can do it yourself pretty accurately without spending any money.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Here is the result of a test I did myself:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/J5Sve.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The procedure in outline is this:&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;use a uniform white wall (or similar surface) as a target.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;put your camera on a tripod.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;take a photo to get your starting exposure. All your photos must be taken in RAW mode. You should get a mid grey image.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;now set your camera to manual exposure.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;take a series of photos at decreasing EV steps until you have pure black, add one for good measure. You will probably need at least six photos.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;take a series of photos at increasing EV stops until you have pure white. Add one for good measure. You will probably need at least six photos.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that you have your photos you will analyse them as follows  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;open the first one in Ufraw (or similar RAW converter)  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;set exposure to default, input curve to linear, output curve to linear, choose no profile, choose manual white balance and adjust to neutral.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Under live histogram you will see the average RGB levels for the entire image.  Take the average of the RGB values and use that as the average brightness of the image.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;repeat for all photos in this set&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you will now have sets of relative EV values paired with average brighness values.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;plot them on a graph as I have done above.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;this will give an accurate indication of the dynamic range.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main limitations on the accuracy of this procedure is the accuracy of your shutter speed and aperture. You will see this effect as small deviations from an ideal curve. For better resolution you can do the test at half stop intervals.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take all photos in a short enough time that changes in ambient light have no effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-08T16:11:50.453" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T16:11:50.453" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10710" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10699" CreationDate="2011-04-08T16:58:19.983" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What methods do you use to visualise depth of field?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I used a Nikon FE, I used to look through the viewfinder and press the &quot;stop-down&quot;/&quot;depth of field preview (DOF)&quot; button. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None of my cameras since have had one. It is certainly a feature I miss. Nowadays I mostly guess.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2520" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T16:58:19.983" />
  <row Id="10711" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10724" CreationDate="2011-04-08T22:31:11.210" Score="7" ViewCount="286" Body="&lt;p&gt;My Yashicaflex twin lens reflex camera has reached the end of the road now that the shutter release has failed. Given the problems of film availability and processing it hardly seems worthwhile fixing.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I am in love with the waist level style of photography that the twin lens reflex made possible. I have always thought this was ideal for candid street photography. I have searched for digital equivalents and there seem to be none.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However a number of compact cameras have flip out LCD screens that can tilt into the horizontal position.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I want to know whether anybody has used this feature to practice waist level photography and whether this is really a practical alternative to the twin lens reflex cameras of yesteryear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T09:55:44.897" Title="Is waist level photography with a digital camera practical?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10712" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10711" CreationDate="2011-04-08T23:10:02.643" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hmm... this maybe out of the price range you're looking at, but I'm not sure if it isn't too far from where a working Yashicaflex is these days. :) If what you really are looking for is a digital top view camera, then there are certainly some options available in the medium format space... like putting a digital back on a hassleblad V series.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another option, if you don't mind an addon accessory, is to combine &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&amp;amp;q=lcd+viewfinder+for+canon&amp;amp;um=1&amp;amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;amp;cid=3747987753389116962&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=qJSfTardD8Lo0QHVtrD7BA&amp;amp;ved=0CD4Q8wIwBA#&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this unit&lt;/a&gt; (or similar) with just about any modern dSLR with live view. I've seen someone use that sort of like a waist level TLR. They basically had that mounted on the neckstrap so they could look down at it and still work the camera normally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-08T23:19:32.103" LastActivityDate="2011-04-08T23:19:32.103" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10714" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10833" CreationDate="2011-04-08T23:27:15.020" Score="3" ViewCount="53" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am renting a Canon Speedlite 580EX II.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had the pull-out Wide Panel (aka diffuser) out and, and when I went to push it back in I noticed that it was very, very loosely attached to its little black bar. Then, it popped off in my hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I can put the panel back on its mount fine, with the little spring in its notch and the little nubs on the ends in their holes, but it still feels really loose. I can push the panel back into the flash unit, but it pops off when I pull it out again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://downloads.canon.com/cpr/software/camera/Speedlite-580EXII.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;manual&lt;/a&gt; that it warns me not to use excessive force (which I wasn't...) or the panel can detach.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, can anyone tell me how to re-attach the panel so that it stays tight? Nothing appears to be at all broken, as best I can tell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2861" LastEditorUserId="2861" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-08T23:51:04.230" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T03:28:21.527" Title="Re-attach Canon Speedlite Wide Panel (diffuser)" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;repair&gt;&lt;equipment-rental&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="10715" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10716" CreationDate="2011-04-09T00:18:15.357" Score="4" ViewCount="248" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've recently been shooting in raw with my new 100mm usm is macro but I'm getting strange results in out of focus areas with bright colours in. I've used Lightroom for ages and not had any issues with it but it's not giving me the results I'd expect, over saturated with what I'd describe as colour bleed. I gather that the camera and the eos utility might be showing me some sort of preview, but they look very different!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first screenshot is what the canon eos utility v2.9 shows me (and the same in camera) and gives me the bokeh I'd expect from a lens like this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second is what lightroom 3.3 shows me without any developing done. I've reimported with settings reset, and copied over with adobe bridge and photoshop and had the same results. This is with lens corrections off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't ask why the filenames appear to be different between the screenshots, I assure you they're the same photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/CbJF8.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/oFlfg.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1580" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-06-04T12:45:50.417" LastActivityDate="2011-06-04T12:45:50.417" Title="Why do my photos look different in Photoshop/Lightroom vs Canon EOS utility/in camera" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;eos-utility&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10716" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10715" CreationDate="2011-04-09T00:49:19.507" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;RAW formats are simply sensor data, to get a viewable image certain modifications need to be made to the photo (e.g. temperature correction, denoising, demosaicing, removing hot pixels, etc). Furthermore, there is no real correct way of processing a RAW image, so different RAW editors will present different looking images. Canon's utility is the most &quot;official&quot; software, and as I understand it will create images that look like your camera's jpeg output, but this does not mean is is necessarily the &quot;best&quot; RAW software.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1125" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T00:49:19.507" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10717" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10715" CreationDate="2011-04-09T01:37:04.120" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To view a RAW image on screen, it must first be preprocessed (usually by interpolation) to convert sensor pixels into screen pixels. RAW processing is an undefined field, outside of the common algorithms that can be used to process sensor pixels into screen pixels, and the algorithms to apply tone curves. Different RAW processors can interpolate pixels differently, and weight red, green, and blue sensor pixels differently and apply custom tone curves. The results when crossing between different RAW processors will rarely be the same. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is one of the benefits of the Lightroom+Photoshop pairing...both use the same underlying RAW processing engine. Technically speaking, assuming you interpolated the sensor pixel data identically, used identical tone curves, and used identical precision in all calculations, two RAW processors should produce the same output. Identical processing is rarely the case, though, so you will usually see some degree of difference when moving images about between one RAW processor and another (excepting LR/PS of course.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T01:37:04.120" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10718" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9631" CreationDate="2011-04-09T03:23:46.477" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem is that placing the beam splitter between the lens and the cameras increases the distance between the lens and the sensor to the point where you can focus only at very close distances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One solution is to buy a lens for a large-format or viewfinder camera: these are designed for greater lens-to-focal plane distances and many of them have largish maximum apertures.  There's a good market in secondhand lenses.  See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/4x5.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ken Rockwell's article&lt;/a&gt; for a start.  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ebonycamera.com/articles/ext.exp.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ebony site&lt;/a&gt; has a good discussion of lens extension and points out that retrotelephoto lenses can be used to get greater extension (than their nominal focal lengths indicate).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T03:23:46.477" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10719" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10681" CreationDate="2011-04-09T04:09:39.573" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Shoot RAW instead of JPEG, that shall give you 300 dpi in EXIF after converting. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Now about capturing photos which you know will be enlarged for printing as much as twice/thrice their original size, no matter what tool you use, you can not generate pixels out of the blue which your camera didnt take. So, why not take several photos and stitch them to get the full size in one photo while keeping the IQ the very same? You can try using &lt;strong&gt;Brenizer Method&lt;/strong&gt;. You already have a 85mm, and you're ready to go. Please check this link out for details on how to do it:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.buiphotography.com/2009/07/the-brenizer-method-explained-with-directions/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://blog.buiphotography.com/2009/07/the-brenizer-method-explained-with-directions/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its a fairly simple method and doesn't hurt much. I have been trying this for last few days and I love it =)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastEditorUserId="2476" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-09T06:05:27.397" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T06:05:27.397" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10720" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10725" CreationDate="2011-04-09T06:10:52.283" Score="7" ViewCount="186" Body="&lt;p&gt;Few years ago, Canon introduced some sort of internal sensor cleaning system that (as far as I understand it) shakes the sensor off any dust it collected during use. This shake is very high frequency.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Questions&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How effective is this system? What kind of dust is it actually able to remove? What's your experience.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Where does the &lt;em&gt;removed&lt;/em&gt; dust go? As it probably stays inside how likely is it that it land on the sensor again?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Has the system been improved since its introduction?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does Nikon have equivalent system that works in a similar fashion or do they have something else (or nothing at all)?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2110" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-09T20:26:28.787" LastActivityDate="2011-04-10T06:33:44.507" Title="How effective are in-camera integrated sensor cleaning systems, and have they improved?" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;cleaning&gt;&lt;dust&gt;&lt;technology-generations&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10722" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10720" CreationDate="2011-04-09T08:39:35.130" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I can't find the link right now, but someone ran an experiment where he put dust on the sensors of several cameras (of different brands) and tested how much remained after running the camera's self-cleaning function many times. The results, as I recall, indicated that no brand was very effective at self-cleaning. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I'm not exactly sure, but I believe the idea is largely to prevent dust from sticking to the sensor rather than to remove it from the camera itself.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1125" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T08:39:35.130" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10723" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10720" CreationDate="2011-04-09T09:38:40.707" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;4) Yes, every time I turn my D5000 off or on it runs a sensor clean, and I can force one in the menus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the effectiveness, I've had the camera for a couple of years and have never had a problem with spots on the sensor. I am fairly careful when I change lenses (i.e. do it fast and turn the camera off) but no more than the next person I would say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T09:38:40.707" />
  <row Id="10724" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10711" CreationDate="2011-04-09T09:42:31.890" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use the flip out screen and Live View mode on my Nikon D5000 all the time for just this purpose. Autofocus isn't quite as effective in Live View so I usually use manual, but it works just fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T09:42:31.890" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10725" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10720" CreationDate="2011-04-09T10:19:41.890" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Shaking the dust does help, but it won't remove all the dust. Some particles will cling to the filter glass in front of sensor hard enough not to be shaken out. Moisture and fat particles will gladly help with the clinging. The sensor still has to be cleaned now and then, but interval is somewhat longer than without shake. Before important shootings, the sensor should be cleaned and checked manually, the shake system is not reliable enough.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The dust is meant to fall on an adhesive strip below the sensor, so it will work best if the camera is held horizontally in landscape orientation during the shake.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I know that Nikon started using anti-static tin oxide coating at some point, but Canon has used anti-static materials on self-cleaning sensors since 400D, so I'm not sure if they have improved anything since then.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Nikon has a similar system on many newer models starting from D60 and D90. Pentax cameras have had it since K100D Super and K10D.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T10:19:41.890" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10726" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10728" CreationDate="2011-04-09T11:00:44.303" Score="1" ViewCount="152" Body="&lt;p&gt;I suppose that photographers mainly use screen protectors for keeping screens free from scratches because of bags and other things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wonder whether screen protectors are still needed on Canon 60D while it has flippable screen that gets best protection possible when packed into a bag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any protective screens for this camera in the first place? And do they prevent the screen from being back flipped (screen facing body)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2110" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-09T20:23:22.220" LastActivityDate="2011-04-11T04:50:34.610" Title="Are screen protectors necessary on cameras with &quot;flippable&quot; screens (like the Canon 60D)?" Tags="&lt;equipment-protection&gt;&lt;lcd&gt;&lt;screen-protector&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="10727" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10726" CreationDate="2011-04-09T11:30:16.233" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's good to have a screen protector for camera LCD even if you have a flippable one. This will ensure you don't get the oil from your nose onto the LCD while looking through the viewfinder. This way you wont be afraid to push your eye closer. I used to look through the viewfinder from several inches away just because I didn't want to ruin the LCD screen with scratches and oils, that was before I got the protector. Also if you have a wife/girl friend who wears nose-pin, screen protector is a &lt;strong&gt;must&lt;/strong&gt; before you let them use the camera!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't get a screen protector built specificly for your camera, you can buy one made for large-screen cell phones (I used the one which was designed for iPhone) and cut it to your  camera screen size. Search for '&lt;strong&gt;Lexard TruVue&lt;/strong&gt;' screen protectors, they make some good products for cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastEditorUserId="2476" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-09T11:45:18.350" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T11:45:18.350" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10728" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10726" CreationDate="2011-04-09T11:30:38.533" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given that the actual screen on Canon cameras is already mounted behind a rather solid transparent plastic plate from the factory, third-party screen protectors are not actually screen protectors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are screen protector protectors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T11:30:38.533" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="10729" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10750" CreationDate="2011-04-09T12:55:44.820" Score="1" ViewCount="125" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I am in aperture mode in my d90 camera, I have noticed I can also change my shutter speed by clicking the rear wheel.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Is that a bug? How is it possible? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it is not a bug, how do I know the original shutter speed that my camera initially chose for that aperture ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4657" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-09T20:34:03.540" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T20:34:03.540" Title="How does the second wheel change the shutter speed in aperture-priority mode on my Nikon D90?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;camera-controls&gt;&lt;aperture-priority&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10730" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10729" CreationDate="2011-04-09T13:02:47.613" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;{My bad - probably a lack of sleep made me write the previous nonsense}&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is your way of doing Auto Exposure Compensation. You can tell what is the original (neutral) speed by looking at the AEC indicator on your camera. If the indicator is at 0, that this is the standard exposure. Otherwise, you are compensating.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update 2:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When shooting in an auto or semi-auto mode (like the Aperture mode), the camera sets the 3 exposure parameters (Aperture, Speed, ISO) so as to get a &quot;standard&quot; amount of brightness in the metered area. In the semi-auto modes, you set one or two of the parameters, and the camera then calculates the 3rd.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes, the standard exposure (Auto Exposure) is not giving the right exposure to the scene. For example, when shooting snow, the AE will generate a dark (gray) image instead of bright white. You can then tell the camera to make your scene brighter and look like it was actually was. This is the AE Compensation, or AEC. This is done by means of overriding the automatically calculated value of the 2nd or 3rd parameter. In this case they are the speed and ISO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not familiar with Nikon systems, but I assume you can tell the camera to fix the ISO at a constant value, then the speed is the only variable left.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-09T13:32:13.803" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T13:32:13.803" CommentCount="15" />
  <row Id="10731" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16" CreationDate="2011-04-09T14:07:21.673" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0240808193&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Light: Science and Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting&quot;&gt;Light: Science and Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting&lt;/a&gt; really good book for photographers. After all photography is nothing but managing light. The chapters mostly use artificial lighting, but it is the concept building of why a particular setting was used makes the book informative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2773" LastEditorUserId="2773" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-09T17:12:25.817" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T17:12:25.817" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10732" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10711" CreationDate="2011-04-09T14:55:11.777" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With digitals you wouldn't really need a special camera.  Autofocus, bracket your exposure to the extent the camera permits and use a field of view somewhat wider than what you are actually aiming for.  You can line it up by eyeball well enough and then crop the result to deal with the imperfect aim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With an old film P&amp;amp;S I used to do this so inconspicuously that nobody could tell I did it--even people who knew what I was going to do.  Composition was of course terrible and I lost a few shots to failing to judge nearby obstructions properly (I was normally walking while taking the shot) but at least 90% contained the desired image somewhere on the frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course this isn't going to work too well for a zoom shot but you rarely need to be inconspicuous with a zoom lens.  I did do it once with a SLR with a lens zoomed to it's stop at 100mm.  The camera was sitting on a table.  That one I blew the exposure on--my target was centered but it was a lot darker than the surround and I didn't compensate enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1843" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T14:55:11.777" />
  <row Id="10733" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16" CreationDate="2011-04-09T15:12:41.570" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Try to find a book that specifically covers your camera. These generally duplicate the information in the manual, but they are more detailed. An they also tend to cover more general photography elements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;E.g. I just started reading, &quot;Canon Rebel T1i / 500D: From Snapshots to Great Shots&quot;&#xA;By Jeff Revell, and so far it does seem like a book I could recommend to any 500D owner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4559" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T15:12:41.570" />
  <row Id="10734" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10739" CreationDate="2011-04-09T17:26:32.263" Score="13" ViewCount="293" Body="&lt;p&gt;When using manual focus or back focus on D60, I sometimes zoom in the lens, set the focus, and then zoom out. Does changing the focal length (zooming out), also change the focus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In case the answer depends on the lens, I use Nikkor 55-200 and 18-55.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1932" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-09T17:30:28.627" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T18:33:07.807" Title="Does changing the focal length change focus?" Tags="&lt;focus&gt;&lt;focal-length&gt;&lt;optics&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10735" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10751" CreationDate="2011-04-09T17:55:58.957" Score="3" ViewCount="317" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sample JPG &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wikiupload.com/QBPCWAB658QAZ5J&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.wikiupload.com/QBPCWAB658QAZ5J&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;(click &quot;Download File&quot;, it is 4.5 Mb download.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With this Nikon D5000, indoor flowers come out detailed. Outdoor violet and blue flowers are detailed, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But outdoor bright red flowers give us problems. They come out as a single flat detail-less spot. Sometimes bright yellow flowers do this too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why?  What we are doing wrong? Is it a camera defect?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this picture, you see small white reflections on the petals, but on other shots, the whole red flower appears flat, as one blob of same-color pixels, lifeless and volume-less. It is disturbing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not asking how to to photoshop this image. The question is how to shoot correctly in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Condition: outdoor, sunlight, Nikon D5000, unresized, unprocessed jpeg.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other details are seen in EXIF info in jpeg.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4333" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-09T20:32:32.137" LastActivityDate="2011-04-11T16:58:02.997" Title="Why do bright red flowers end up without details?" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;color&gt;&lt;outdoor&gt;&lt;nature&gt;&lt;color-red&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10736" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10734" CreationDate="2011-04-09T18:04:15.103" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In most cases, yes - zooming does change focus. There are &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; exceptions, google up on &quot;parfocal&quot; lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T18:04:15.103" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10737" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10735" CreationDate="2011-04-09T18:13:52.017" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When shooting red flowers I usually have to tell the camera to underexpose from what it thinks is the correct exposure. I don't know if the D5000 has separate histograms for red, green, and blue. If it does then you can use the red histogram to make sure you're not blowing out the red highlights. Otherwise you'll have to check the picture and on the camera and see if you can see detail in the flower - if you can't tell the camera to underexpose a bit more and try again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe it's because most camera's metering is biased towards green, but I don't have any sources to back that up apart from my own memory. Your red flower will have very little green in it and so the camera will overexpose it, losing the detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3521" LastEditorUserId="3521" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-11T15:19:57.403" LastActivityDate="2011-04-11T15:19:57.403" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10738" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16" CreationDate="2011-04-09T18:18:35.340" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ansel Adams' books, especially &quot;The Camera&quot;. It over-focuses on large format cameras sometimes, but the knowledge there is invaluable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, thumbs up on &quot;Light: Science and Magic&quot;. It's great!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3462" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T18:18:35.340" />
  <row Id="10739" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10734" CreationDate="2011-04-09T18:20:56.173" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not supposed to, but usually does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basic difference between a &quot;varifocal&quot; lens and a &quot;zoom&quot; is that a zoom stays in focus as the focal length changes. That's typically done by moving different lens elements simultaneously. The problem is that it's (at least normally) done mechanically, so manufacturing tolerances and wear in the lens prevents it from working quite perfectly in most cases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There have been a &lt;em&gt;few&lt;/em&gt; lenses that were poorly designed (at least in this respect) so the changes in focus were consistent, but in most cases it's more about mechanical tolerances, so it's mostly specific to a particular lens, not a design in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T18:20:56.173" />
  <row Id="10740" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10734" CreationDate="2011-04-09T18:33:07.807" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The technique of zooming in to check focus and then zooming back out to the desired focal length is common in the video industry, where lenses do tend to maintain the same focus distance across the zoom range. In the still photography world, however, lenses may shift the focus distance as you zoom in and out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This makes sense from the standpoint that in still photography you will generally have time to refocus between shots, but when recording video the subject must be kept in focus the entire time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://notesonvideo.blogspot.com/2010/06/video-terms-parfocal-lens.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://notesonvideo.blogspot.com/2010/06/video-terms-parfocal-lens.html&lt;/a&gt; for further reading.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1480" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T18:33:07.807" />
  <row Id="10741" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10720" CreationDate="2011-04-09T18:48:40.507" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You asked how effective the sensor dust removal systems are for Nikon and Canon cameras and whether they have improved.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the questions I searched the DPReview forums for mentions of sensor dust.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The search was conducted first for the entire period of all known postings and then for the last 12 months only.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The search of all postings confirmed the subjective impressions that at one time dust on sensors was a major concern for both Canon and Nikon owners, with Canon owners seemingly more affected than Nikon owners (0.94% vs 0.64%).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The search during the last 12 month period shows a dramatic four fold improvement for both Canon and Nikon owners, but with the Nikon results still slightly better (0.16% vs 0.20%).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is striking confirmation of the subjective impressions that modern dust removal systems are greatly improved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/KYi4H.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methodology&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;DPReview was chosen because it has a large volume of postings covering a period of many years.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The following commands were used to search Google and the number of replies are the figures quoted in this study. This was done for the last 12 months and for the entire time period.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;sensor dust &quot;forum=1034&quot; site:http://forums.dpreview.com/forums&lt;br&gt;&#xA;sensor dust &quot;forum=1039&quot; site:http://forums.dpreview.com/forums&lt;br&gt;&#xA;sensor dust &quot;forum=1021&quot; site:http://forums.dpreview.com/forums&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&quot;forum=1034&quot; site:http://forums.dpreview.com/forums&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&quot;forum=1039&quot; site:http://forums.dpreview.com/forums&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&quot;forum=1021&quot; site:http://forums.dpreview.com/forums  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;sensor dust &quot;forum=1031&quot; site:http://forums.dpreview.com/forums&lt;br&gt;&#xA;sensor dust &quot;forum=1019&quot; site:http://forums.dpreview.com/forums&lt;br&gt;&#xA;sensor dust &quot;forum=1032&quot; site:http://forums.dpreview.com/forums&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&quot;forum=1031&quot; site:http://forums.dpreview.com/forums&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&quot;forum=1019&quot; site:http://forums.dpreview.com/forums&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&quot;forum=1032&quot; site:http://forums.dpreview.com/forums  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Caveats&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The absolute number of complaints has no useful meaning since it is a self selected sample that may contain multiple mentions of the same problem. But it forms a good basis for making comparisons. The large number of postings, ca. four million for both Canon and Nikon are enough to give reasonable confidence in the comparisons.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I do not use or own Canon or Nikon equipment&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-10T06:33:44.507" LastActivityDate="2011-04-10T06:33:44.507" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10742" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10744" CreationDate="2011-04-09T18:52:54.170" Score="8" ViewCount="365" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveon_X3_sensor&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Foveon&lt;/a&gt; sensor should be able to produce better images, because it's not dependent on the separate red, green, and blue pixels as exist on most digital cameras. However, cameras equipped with Foveon sensors are pretty much nonexistant. Why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Side note: This question was inspired by &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10735/why-bright-red-flowers-show-without-details/10737#10737&quot;&gt;Bayer Filter answer&lt;/a&gt; where the Bayer filter potentially caused problems...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2361" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-09T20:27:53.623" LastActivityDate="2011-05-21T04:14:31.037" Title="What happened to Foveon sensors?" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;foveon&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10743" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10742" CreationDate="2011-04-09T19:01:27.660" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Foveon sensors are great in theory, but in practice they aren't a compelling choice. They're generally much lower resolution and can only compete by counting the 3 sensors at each pixel position to be individual pixels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sigma still produces cameras with Foveon sensors: &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.sigmaphoto.com/2011/faqs-the-sigma-camera-and-its-foveon-x3-direct-image-sensor/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://blog.sigmaphoto.com/2011/faqs-the-sigma-camera-and-its-foveon-x3-direct-image-sensor/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="775" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T19:01:27.660" CommentCount="15" />
  <row Id="10744" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10742" CreationDate="2011-04-09T19:17:02.297" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What happened is that Sigma bought Foveon and put a lot of pressure on them to produce a sensor that is actually capable of competing with standard DSLR sensors. Now that Sigma is building the whole camera and sensor, there is a lot more focus on producing a compelling end-product.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Last year Sigma announced the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/sd1-dslr-sigma&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SD1&lt;/a&gt; which uses an APS-C (1.5X crop) sensor with 15 million photosites. They way they count Sigma calls it a 46 megapixels sensor. They have not released many details to members of the press (me at least) but is expected to be available by this summer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are still several Sigma cameras (DP1x, DP2s, SD15) in production which use the 1.7X Foveon sensor with 4.5 million photosites (aka 14 megapixels). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T19:17:02.297" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="10745" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10742" CreationDate="2011-04-09T19:25:25.937" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It comes down to this: at least for most people, spatial resolution (especially in green range of colors) is much more important than color resolution, especially in the reds and blues. The color response curve I included in &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10201/what-is-the-photopic-luminous-efficiency-function/10207#10207&quot;&gt;a previous answer&lt;/a&gt; gives at least some notion of the reason for this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is particularly relevant when the &lt;em&gt;vast&lt;/em&gt; majority of pictures stored/displayed electronically are in JPEG or MPEG formats. These formats support down-sampling the chroma channels to half resolution anyway -- and (especially in the case of MPEG) that's how most pictures are stored. As such, converting data from a Foveon sensor to JPEG or MPEG format typically throws away quite a bit of the extra information you collected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though the benefit isn't necessarily huge, some Bayer-sensor cameras (e.g., the high-end Leaf/Phase One's) support sensor-shifting to take a series of four pictures (of a fixed subject) with the sensor shifted to different positions, so each pixel in the final picture has full color information (and still has twice as many bits for green as for red or blue, so it still fits reasonably well with normal vision).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-09T19:32:01.420" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T19:32:01.420" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="10746" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10749" CreationDate="2011-04-09T19:34:44.137" Score="7" ViewCount="364" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've recently been borrowing my grandmother's Nikon D40, in order to take pictures at Microsoft's &lt;a href=&quot;http://bit.ly/fsx8fQ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Imagine Cup US Finals&lt;/a&gt;. I'm not really a big photography guy, and I don't anticipate using most of the features offered by this camera. But I'm impressed because it's the first DSLR I've used. It's got several things I like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The images it creates aren't noisy (I guess this is due to the larger sensor)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It produces useable images in low light scenarios&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Autofocus is pretty much instant&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Taking a picture is pretty much instant (rather than the delay usually there in Point and Shoots)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But two I don't:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;s&gt;Turning off the flash is a pain&lt;/s&gt; Fixed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's freaking huge! (But apparently small for a DSLR)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't use things like the aperture priority settings, shutter priority settings, any manual switch or do-dad, or anything like that. I'm not an artist -- I'm a programmer -- so it's unlikely that I'll be using this for anything too artsy anytime soon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore I'd like to find something that has some of the performance of the DSLR but which is a point and shoot (if such a thing exists).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can I find such a thing if it exists?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2361" LastEditorUserId="2361" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-10T05:44:41.873" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T08:49:33.487" Title="Do point and shoots exist which can get close to what DSLRs can produce? (And where could I find one?)" Tags="&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10748" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10735" CreationDate="2011-04-09T19:51:55.297" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are mainly two factors that can cause this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The red channel may be over exposed, so the red colours are simply blown out and all detail is clipped.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Red colors have fewer distinguishable nuances. We can see a lot of differnt blue nuances, a bit fewer green, and quite few red. You simply can't expect to see as many details in a red flower as in a blue flower.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T19:51:55.297" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10749" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10746" CreationDate="2011-04-09T19:53:30.363" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A few possibilities you might want to consider would be a high-end P&amp;amp;S, a micro 4/3&lt;sup&gt;rds&lt;/sup&gt;, or a Sony NEX.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A higher-end P&amp;amp;S camera (e.g., Canon G-series) gets rid of (most of) the shutter lag common in the cheaper P&amp;amp;S cameras. Image quality can be pretty decent as long as you have lots of light, but like other P&amp;amp;S cameras it deteriorates &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; quickly in lower light. These also typically cost close to as much as a low-end dSLR that will generally produce considerably higher quality pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A micro-4/3&lt;sup&gt;rds&lt;/sup&gt; is more like an SLR -- they use an electronic viewfinder, but still have interchangeable lenses. They're smaller/lighter than an SLR, but still rather on the largish side for a P&amp;amp;S. The sensor size (and low-light performance) is similar to an SLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Sony NEX are slightly different from micro-4/3&lt;sup&gt;rds&lt;/sup&gt; -- they have a slightly larger sensor, and different lens mount. Otherwise, they have roughly the same tradeoffs; bigger than most P&amp;amp;S, but smaller than an SLR. Image quality is roughly on a par with an SLR -- better than many older SLRs, but not as good as a current higher-end SLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None of these addresses focusing speed though. SLRs using phase detection focusing, which is a large part of what lets them focus so fast. P&amp;amp;S cameras use contrast detection focusing which is almost unavoidably slower.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want the fast focusing of an SLR, about the only choice is an SLR. For small size/light weight with excellent quality, a Pentax would be a strong possibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-09T23:33:18.467" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T23:33:18.467" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10750" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10729" CreationDate="2011-04-09T20:27:45.750" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You may be changing the aperture in Shutter Priority mode (or the shutter speed in Aperture Priority mode) &lt;em&gt;indirectly&lt;/em&gt; by actually changing the ISO. Look at custom menu setting d3 (Show ISO/Easy ISO) -- if that is turned on, the &quot;unused&quot; dial for your priority mode becomes the ISO dial -- you don't have to hit the ISO button to make a change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T20:27:45.750" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10751" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10735" CreationDate="2011-04-09T20:57:11.087" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;So the other posts are correct in that the red channel is being blown, but what you really want to know is how to overcome the issue within the camera without post editing.  The Nikon D5000 has the Picture Control System giving users the ability to customize image capture preferences. Six settings are available — Standard, Neutral, Vivid, Monochrome, Portrait, and Landscape, along with the ability to create up to nine custom Picture Control settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I shoot with a Nikon D300 and have EXACTLY the same problem as yourself.  Normally I have my picture control set to Vivid as I shoot a lot of nature, landscape and macro so it's nice to have the colours punch through.  However whenever I am then shooting red flowers I change the control to either Standard or Neutral so the red is not blown.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I shoot all my images in RAW (NEF) format and this allows me to change the Picture Control in post (using Nikon's NX2 software) which means I can choose the end result utilizing a larger screen and also I don't have to change the camera configuration for a single image while out in the field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are additional Picture Control setups that you can download at &lt;a href=&quot;http://nikonimglib.com/opc/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://nikonimglib.com/opc/&lt;/a&gt; but I don not know if these are compatible with the D5000, they may be as it is possible to add up to nine custom Picture Controls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1410" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T20:57:11.087" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10752" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10746" CreationDate="2011-04-09T20:58:48.400" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sheer brute sensor size is the major difference when it comes to image quality. Point&amp;amp;shoots have fingernail-sized image sensors and pay for it with noise in low light. To get around this, look at the micro 4/3 cameras, Sony NEX, Fuji X100, Leica X1 type of camera, all have more-or-less DSLR sized sensors; five or ten times the size of a P&amp;amp;S image sensor or so. None of these cameras are exactly small - they will fit in a pocket if it's a big pocket, not otherwise :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Autofocus remains a problem, though. Jerry Coffin covered this issue quite well in his reply. Fuji had a brainwave recently and put phase detection circuitry on the image sensor itself, we shall have to wait and see if this works well enough in practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-04-09T20:58:48.400" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10753" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10746" CreationDate="2011-04-10T06:01:03.377" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the other cameras mentioned, The Sigma DP-1x and DP-2x cameras are compact cameras (can fit in a jeans pocket although quite tight) that contain APS-C sizes sensors, roughly about the same size as your D40, thus producing very little noise.  They have fixed-focal length lenses with no ability to zoom, but using primes produces image sharpness on par with a good (or even great) DSLR lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some full-size examples can be found here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/users_dp2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/users_dp2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/users_dp1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/users_dp1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of my example DP-1 shots showing both detail and low noise (click on &quot;other sizes&quot; for full size image):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/kigiphoto/3353122692/in/set-72157615145445011/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/kigiphoto/3353122692/in/set-72157615145445011/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Yin9K.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other cameras mentioned can also be good, though generally not as compact (especially with a good lens).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both cameras have full manual controls so shots can be instant, though if you just stick with aperture priority and pre-focusing a lot of shots you have essentially no shutter lag even with a slower AF system (as another responder noted, all compacts have a somewhat slower AF system than you'll find on a DSLR).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-04-10T06:01:03.377" />
  <row Id="10754" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10742" CreationDate="2011-04-10T06:52:09.110" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What happened to the Foveon sensor is that Sigma adopted the technology early on, but other camera companies were reluctant to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That state continues to this day.  Sigma continues to evolve cameras, currently offering an SD-15 DSLR, and the fixed-focal length large sensor compact cameras DP-1 and DP-2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However recently Foveon technology seems to have been on the upswing.  As another post mentioned, Sigma seems close to releasing a greatly improved Foveon sensor in the SD-1 with even better noise handling, and resolution that exceeds pretty much any consumer DSLR today (though not medium format systems).  The new sensor is known to be roughly 46MP, which translated into Bayer equivalence means around 30MP of roughly equal detail to a Bayer image - that is to say, if you took the 15 million pixel output image from a RAW converted from an SD-1, and upsampled it to 30MP it would look identical to a 30MP bayer image.  Only it would also lack color pattern issues a Bayer sensor might have, and have better falloff in detail.  Foveon sensors have traditionally held a large dynamic range, and also very low noise at lower ISOs, but since the new sensor seems so different we need to wait to see what the characteristics are like going forward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what has changed for the better that allows for such advances?  It' partly because we are seeing the result of steady R&amp;amp;D work at Foveon, but also because Sigma bought Foveon and have them focused now wholly on producing better large camera sensors.  Before Foveon was trying to see what segment of the photographic market might make a good customer for the technology and as a result was a lot more scattered in goals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not only are the results of this focus seen in really significant resolution increases from the sensor over previous generations, but also that they technology was selected to go to Mars by the ESA:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=da&amp;amp;sl=ko&amp;amp;tl=en&amp;amp;u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.styledb.com%2Fbbs%2Fboard.php%3Fbo_table%3DB08_news%26wr_id%3D102&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=da&amp;amp;sl=ko&amp;amp;tl=en&amp;amp;u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.styledb.com%2Fbbs%2Fboard.php%3Fbo_table%3DB08_news%26wr_id%3D102&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sorry for the rough translation, I cannot find a single other source for that news.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So basically what's happening for Foveon technology is that it's still evolving, just at what was seemingly a slower pace than other sensor technologies but what may end up being a leap ahead of them.  We need to see what the new sensor can do to see where the state of Foveon technology really sits these days, so really this is probably a great question to review in three months time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you really want more information on just how it is a 15 million Foveon output image can contain as much more more detail than a 30 MP bayer output image, read this article comparing a 4.7MP Foveon sensor to a 12MP Bayer one (the Canon 5D):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Especially note color chart resolution and ponder this interesting question - a 15MP bayer camera has only 3.75 million photosites detecting red.  So if you put a traditional red filter like B&amp;amp;W photographers like to use, all the other sensors are blacked out and you are now shooting with a 3.75MP camera.  Meanwhile a 46MP Foveon sensor with three layers of 15 million photosites detecting red/green/blue (roughly) does not care what filter you put in front of it, every pixel of output will hold data from 15 million different red sensors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That might seem an arbitrary case, but what about tone shifts in something like a red car - or a blue sky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those REALLY wondering where Foveon is going at a technical level, read the latest patent from Foveon basically covering the fundamentals of what is probably the SD-1 sensor:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2010/0155576.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2010/0155576.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One last thing of note is that some form of the Foveon technology, even if not the Foveon design exactly does seem to be the future of imaging - patents have started to arrive from Sony and other companies also looking at ways to layer sensors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastEditorUserId="1192" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-10T23:44:38.163" LastActivityDate="2011-04-10T23:44:38.163" CommentCount="23" />
  <row Id="10755" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10770" CreationDate="2011-04-10T07:25:25.440" Score="11" ViewCount="335" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Nyquist Limit is frequently mentioned in the context of lens and sensor resolution.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;What is it and what is its significance to photographers?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an example of it being used by DPReview.com in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond7000/page13.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;their resolution testing&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/3W5pl.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Vertical resolution of the Nikon D7000&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-10T07:36:56.517" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T12:37:16.177" Title="What is the Nyquist Limit and what is its significance to photographers?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;resolution&gt;&lt;test&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10756" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10755" CreationDate="2011-04-10T08:27:32.480" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Nyquist Limit is mostly used in digital sound recording, but it also applies to digital photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In digital sound recording, the highest frequency sound that you can possibly record is half of the sampling frequency. A sound recording av 44100 kHz can not record any sound frequencies above 22050 Hz.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In photography it means that you can't possibly capture a wave pattern where the waves are closer together than two pixels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In sound recording, everything is frequencies, so the Nyquist Limit is always relevant. In photography you don't often have wave patterns that are affected, so it's mostly used as a theoretical limit of the resolution of the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see the effect of this limit in a few situations where there is a horisontal or vertical wave patterns in a photo, like for example taking a picture where there is a window at a distance with the blinds pulled. If the blades in the blind are closer than two pixels, you can't distinguish the separate blades. However, you are more likely to see a wave pattern that is not exactly horizontal of vertical; it is in that case you will instead see the effect of jagged edges or moiré patterns which occur before the Nyquist Limit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="3375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-10T13:15:09.233" LastActivityDate="2011-04-10T13:15:09.233" CommentCount="24" />
  <row Id="10757" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-10T12:33:54.263" Score="6" ViewCount="181" Body="&lt;p&gt;Clearly to achieve reliable results, it is essential to calibrate key parts of the imaging pipeline - particularly the computer display on which images are edited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Few seem to question the presumption that the only really correct way of calibrating a display is with a dedicated hardware colorimeter and associated (generally proprietary) software.  I wonder what kinds of results can be achieved through somewhat alternate means; in particular, use of a (profiled) camera in place of dedicated colorimeter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is an open source library called ArgyllCMS which is primarily a free colour management tool designed to be used with dedicated hardware colorimeters; they have collected &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.argyllcms.com/doc/instruments.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;notes&lt;/a&gt; on such instruments and use with their software. *&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There must be some reason why they don't even bother to mention the possibility of using a camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://hoech.net/dispcalGUI/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://hoech.net/dispcalGUI/&lt;/a&gt; is a cross platform GUI front end for ArgyllCMS, which looks quite promising for linux based workflows or as an alternative to being up-sold to top end versions of products just because one wants to calibrate two screens, for example (although I appreciate the cost of software development, I don't really think colour-management is something particularly complicated or requiring of original thought in developers).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can see that a device which attaches directly to the screen is going to be able to eliminate the effects of ambient light on the readings and also that some devices have facility for monitoring ambient light and compensating appropriately.  Clearly the sensor in a dedicated colorimeter will have different characteristics to a camera; what are the salient features?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've got an inkling that if results good enough to be acceptable to somewhat serious amateurs were achievable without extra specialised hardware, then it would be more widely known and discussed; however I am also generally cynical about orthodox opinions stating 'you must have &lt;code&gt;x&lt;/code&gt; or you'll never be a proper &lt;code&gt;y&lt;/code&gt;' - something that I'm afraid internet photography forums in particular have a tendency to epitomise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hopefully some clear light can be shed on the matter, I think it could be generally educative to get some more views on the subject here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.freelists.org/post/argyllcms/using-a-digital-camera-as-a-colorimeter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A discussion from 2005 on ArgyllCMS mailing list about use of a digital camera for printer calibration&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*One thing that is notable here is that Datacolor's business model seems to be particularly oriented around not only differentiating their own Spyder products on the basis of the functionality of provided software, but also obstructing the use of the hardware by third party software.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2063" LastEditorUserId="2063" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-10T13:38:19.007" LastActivityDate="2011-04-10T18:16:05.590" Title="Why not use a camera as a colorimeter?" Tags="&lt;color-management&gt;&lt;color&gt;&lt;hardware&gt;&lt;display-calibration&gt;&lt;colorimeter&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="10758" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10742" CreationDate="2011-04-10T13:00:45.647" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biggest reason &quot;nobody&quot; uses Foveon, I think, has little to do with Foveon and a lot to do with Sigma. Had Canon or Sony bought up the tech instead of Sigma, it would be mainstream by now, the basic idea is a good one. Sigma is a bit-player in this field, too small to do it all by themselves, and Sigma cameras are something of an acquired taste.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-04-10T13:00:45.647" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10759" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10742" CreationDate="2011-04-10T13:37:33.400" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two issues which have been problematic for Foveon sensors &lt;em&gt;other&lt;/em&gt; than the problem of spatial resolution. These are both inherent to Foveon's key concept: using the spectral absorption of different depths of silicon to separate colors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With a Bayer array, the different filters are created with dyes carefully selected to match the chosen red, green, and blue primaries. With Foveon, the distinction is entirely based on the physics of silicon, which isn't as neat a match as the marketing materials typically show. This results in the two problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, the three primary colors recorded by Foveon sensors are further from the primary wavelengths that the human eye's cone cells respond to, and in fact the shape of the wavelength curve to which each depth responds is very different from that of our vision. That means the &lt;em&gt;native&lt;/em&gt; color space of the device is a different, shifted shape from sRGB and other typical output color spaces — or from human vision. The sensor records &quot;imaginary colors&quot; — ones we can't really see — in some part of its color range, and other parts of the color range aren't covered perfectly. This doesn't show up as &lt;em&gt;missing&lt;/em&gt; colors, but as a sort of color-blindness (the analogy there is actually quite good, since it's effectively the same problem), where colors which should be distinct are represented similarly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second,  lower-frequency red light is absorbed at the deepest level, which unavoidably results in some attenuation — which means more noise in the red channel. As I understand it, noise reduction in Sigma cameras deals with this by blurring the red channel more strongly. I know that my Bayer-sensor camera exhibits, by a wide margin, more noise in the &lt;em&gt;blue&lt;/em&gt; channel. I'm not sure if that's an inherent problem with Bayer or CMOS sensors, or if it's &lt;em&gt;double&lt;/em&gt; problem on Foveon. (I made that &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/10760/1943&quot;&gt;its own question&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None of this is to say that the widespread Bayer technology is perfect, or even absolutely better than Foveon. It's just that &lt;em&gt;everything&lt;/em&gt; has its compromises, and Foveon actually turns out to have some tough ones. The big issues with Bayer (aliasing, color resolution) can be solved by throwing more pixels at the problem, given corresponding increases in noise handling. This has worked out very successfully so far, and of course it's no accident that it corresponds well to megapixel-based marketing.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update (May 2011): Sigma has just announced the new &quot;SD1&quot; model, priced at around $9,700 — comparable in cost to something like the Pentax 645D medium-format camera, but with an APS-C sized sensor. It'll be interesting to see if they have, indeed, been able to address some of these issues. My speculation is that they probably have, but at the sort of cost that led them to change the target market. But even then, I'm not so sure — the maximum ISO is still 6400, which is two stops behind the current crop of Bayer sensors. (Remains to be seen, of course, if they simply decided on a more conservative limit. Without staring too much harder at the crystal ball, there's no way to tell; I'll update this again when the reviews are in, and if I'm very lucky after I get a chance to play with the camera — unfortunately unlikely at that price!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Disclaimer: I don't have a Foveon-sensor camera (although I've used one, and it was cool!). I don't follow the technology very closely. Sigma is putting lot of research into working around or solving these problems.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-21T04:14:31.037" LastActivityDate="2011-05-21T04:14:31.037" CommentCount="19" />
  <row Id="10760" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10771" CreationDate="2011-04-10T13:43:37.137" Score="19" ViewCount="760" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is &lt;a href=&quot;https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=blue%20channel%20noisiest&amp;amp;btnG=Search&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;safe=off&amp;amp;sa=2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;widely observed&lt;/a&gt; that the blue channel in digital cameras is the noisiest. I've certainly noticed that with my camera. Why is this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it an artifact of some particular technology (e.g. Bayer array or CMOS sensors), or is something to do with the physics of higher-frequency light, or is it related to human vision?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Followup question: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11209/why-are-sensors-less-sensitive-to-blue-light&quot;&gt;Why are sensors less sensitive to blue light?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-23T20:25:34.710" LastActivityDate="2011-04-23T20:25:34.710" Title="Why is the blue channel the noisiest?" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;color&gt;&lt;noise&gt;&lt;color-blue&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="10761" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10755" CreationDate="2011-04-10T14:55:06.900" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just to add to the previous answers... if you have a pattern beyond the Nyquist limit, you may experience aliasing — i.e. it may show as a lower frequency pattern in the image. This used to be very apparent on things like checked jackets on TV. Therefore, you do need a low pass anti-aliasing filter before sampling so that this artifact is not a problem. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4667" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T12:37:16.177" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T12:37:16.177" />
  <row Id="10762" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10766" CreationDate="2011-04-10T15:17:53.967" Score="14" ViewCount="344" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recently I've gotten into street photography, and I've noticed there are some situations where it is technically impossible to autofocus, to be precise, when you have moving objects and don't want to focus on the object that is closest to the camera. Picking a specific AF sensor would, obviously, be way too slow in this situation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I'm wondering is: Is it possible to train focussing manually so well that you can be sufficiently fast in these situation that you can focus correctly in these situations even with a wide aperture? Obviously, this would require a big viewfinder, a lot of manual-focussing training and a lot of composition training (you have to know what to focus on in order to actually focus). Can anybody of you do this? ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2069" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-10T19:22:04.073" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T18:11:30.780" Title="Can manual focus be faster than autofocus?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;manual-focus&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10764" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10762" CreationDate="2011-04-10T16:29:42.510" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lot will depend on your expectations in terms of accuracy, as well as the equipment you're using and mostly, of course, your own skill and the style of shooting you do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Myself, I use manual focus most of the time, often on moving subjects.  My results are admittedly somewhat inconsistent, but there are plenty of other reasons for that :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found that in the past I was occasionally let down by slow AF in low light... since my old camera couldn't be set to always take a photo as soon as the shutter button was fully pressed, I found that there were times when I'd have rather had a slightly OOF shot that caught the moment, but that this was denied to me by factors somewhat out of my control...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I met a Leica rangefinder user, who as you might imagine has quite impassioned views on the benefits of manual focus.  I now echo many of these sentiments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing to be aware of is that the stock focus screens installed in most SLRs are not apparently able to correctly represent depth of field at apertures larger than F/2.8.  So, no matter how good your vision and skills, this will be a limiting factor in your results with wide open fast lenses.  It is possible to replace the screens for ones with manual focussing aids such as split prisms.  In the past, I brought a cheap one of these from an ebay vendor and found that it was badly calibrated or otherwise faulty for use with my camera at the time; many people regard &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.focusingscreen.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.focusingscreen.com&lt;/a&gt; and KatzEye as being worth the cost (I'm considering buying a new one at some point).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that I'm in the practise of manually focussing regularly, I may or may not be as fast as the machine would be in a given situation, but I feel a closer connection with the subject and process, and rarely am I frustrated by my equipment.  I also don't alert my subjects with the sound of AF motors; so even though at times I may take several seconds composing and framing a shot, people often comment that they find my photography very unobtrusive.  I realise that supersonic AF motors might mitigate the acoustic effect, but I'm not too interested as I now feel that MF is fairly integral to my technique.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do frequently set focus to the right approximate range before shooting as well, particularly if I feel like my subject might be a bit touchy...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2063" LastEditorUserId="2063" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-14T18:11:30.780" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T18:11:30.780" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="10765" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10760" CreationDate="2011-04-10T16:49:43.277" Score="24" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given the current state of the art, the noise in the blue channel is a combination of cascading effects that work together to make the blue &quot;look&quot; the worst. First, with the Bayer pattern setup, there are twice as many green pixels as red or blue ones in the matrix*. This immediately puts the blue and red at a spacial disadvantage as compared to the green channel and results in much more spectral noise for those two channels when the RGB triplets are reconstructed from adjacent sensor pixels. For example, a 10M pixel sensor is going to have 5M source green pixels, 2.5M red ones and 2.5M blue ones. Clearly, when you form that raw information into the final 10M RGB triplets, it's clear that there can be no better than 1/2 as much information for red or blue channel and this appears as a form of noise in the final image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next effect has to do with the spectral sensitivities of the sensor system through the Red, Green and Blue filters. As a system, modern CMOS sensors are about 50% more sensitive to the Green and Red areas of the spectrum than they are to the blue areas. For example, for this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.1stvision.com/cameras/AVT/dataman/ibis5_a_1300_8.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CMOS sensor from Cypress&lt;/a&gt;, we can see on Page 3 that the relative sensitivities are about Red (75%), Green (80%), Blue (50%) when you index the curves at the right wavelengths for each color. This lack of sensitivity combined with a fixed level of sensor and sampling noise for all pixels across the sensors put blue at a significant signal to noise ratio disadvantage as compared to the other two colors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Netting this out, this means that color CMOS sensors are doing the best at reproducing Green, followed second by Red, and finally by Blue which is the worst of three from an overall noise perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking toward the future, note that these limitations with the blue channel are really mostly a matter of a cost/performance optimization. That is, there is nothing inherent to physics that requires blue performance to be worse, only that it would be MUCH MUCH more expensive given current device constructions to improve the blue channel by a noticeable margin. Also, given that the human eye is not very sensitive on the blue/yellow color axis the solutions are already a very well optimized solution. In fact, I'm sure most camera makers would prefer total cost to drop first before paying the same or more &lt;em&gt;just&lt;/em&gt; to improve blue channel noise performance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*&lt;em&gt;Bayer chose to setup the matrix this way because the human visual system gets the majority of it's luminance signal (ie: brightness information) from the green part of the color spectrum. That is, the rods in the eyes are most sensitive to green light making the green part of the spectrum the most important visually.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="892" LastEditorUserId="892" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-14T01:35:55.447" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T01:35:55.447" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="10766" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10762" CreationDate="2011-04-10T17:34:56.373" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Absolutely! And especially in street photography or low-light situations, you don't even need to be quick.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Say, you are shooting people walking along the sidewalk while you are sitting at a cafe across the street, you can pre-focus once and just snap away as interesting people walk by. Autofocus would try to refocus every time you took a shot, and that lag causes lost shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you understand your aperture and shutter speeds well enough, you can also employ something called &quot;hyperfocus&quot; that allows you to control the depth of field and set a range of distances in which everything will be in focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And as for your Leica buddy, the photographer views the scene in a rangefinder through a different lens. So there is a tradeoff: while they might be able to focus more critically on distant objects (which are also more likely to be in focus anyway due to depth of field), they have more difficulty focusing on and composing close objects due to parallax (the viewfinder and lens see the scene from a different angles).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4670" LastEditorUserId="4670" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-10T17:41:01.967" LastActivityDate="2011-04-10T17:41:01.967" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10767" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10757" CreationDate="2011-04-10T18:16:05.590" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The obvious problem (or &lt;em&gt;an&lt;/em&gt; obvious problem, anyway) is that relatively few cameras have (even very close to) the degree of accuracy and repeatability of exposures to make it work at all well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Back when magazine review budgets allowed it, some of them included graphs of camera shutter speed accuracy. Especially in faster shutter speeds, it was pretty routine to see an inaccuracy of 30% or more. Apertures varied a little less, but still quite a bit. Cameras using electronic shutters probably get the exposure time more accurate, but still have the same problem with aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just for example, almost anybody who's stitched a few panoramas learns very quickly that it's &lt;em&gt;routine&lt;/em&gt; to have easily visible &quot;seams&quot; where the separate pictures are stitched together. Some of this may be due to changes in ambient light, but I'd guess &lt;em&gt;most&lt;/em&gt; are due to the camera's exposure variation. You could reduce the variation at the same exposure by averaging several shots together, but this wouldn't tell you much about how much the exposure had really changed when you did what was supposed to be (say) a one-stop change in exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bottom line: I'd be &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; surprised if you could get even close to the exposure accuracy needed to produce a meaningful profile. I'd bet that a reasonably careful eyeball-based profile (e.g., using Adobe's color widget) would be more accurate than what you could plan on getting from most cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-04-10T18:16:05.590" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10768" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10746" CreationDate="2011-04-10T18:44:43.470" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The new breed of P&amp;amp;S cameras that are coming out all use the same size sensor as your grandmother's D40.  That is to say, they all use the APS-C size sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order of physical size some to look at are the Sony NEX-3/5, Leica X1, Fujifilm X100. All have &quot;automatic&quot; modes and come with built in (or attachable in the case of the NEX) flashes. The X1 is $1999 (MSRP) new, the X100 is $1199 (MSRP) but not available in the US yet, and the NEX-5 will run about $700 with the kit zoom. The NEX accommodates interchangeable lenses, the X1 has a zoom, and the X100 has a fixed-length lens. All can use the LCD screen on the back for composing and focusing but only the X100 has an integrated viewfinder. This allows for removing the prism (a big, heavy hunk of glass) and the mirror the DSLR must have and allows for a smaller form factor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 4/3rd and Micro 4/3rds cameras have a smaller sensor size then the D40 but offer excellent picture quality, small-ish form factors, and a wide selection of lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I expect with the enthusiasm of the X100, though, that we will be seeing more cameras with integrated viewfinders, APS-C sized sensors... and interchangeable lenses. The rumor mills, in fact, point to an unconfirmed Nikon EVIL (electronic viewfinder, inter-changeable lens) camera and the Sony NEX-7 as possible products in that direction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In full disclosure, I've owned the Leica D-Lux2, Panasonic L1 (4/3rds), Leica M8 and Nikon D3000 (both APS-C-esque), but am currently hooked on my Sony NEX-5 which is smaller by far than the others, has full-automatic and full-manual exposure and focusing modes, a detachable flash, a low buy-in dollar-wise (comparable to the D-Lux), and offers what I consider to be equal to superior image quality when compared to the other digitals I've owned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4670" LastActivityDate="2011-04-10T18:44:43.470" />
  <row Id="10769" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10762" CreationDate="2011-04-10T18:57:09.807" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A couple of years ago, I met a guy who mostly shoots basketball for Sports Illustrated. From what he said, neither he nor &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; of his colleagues used autofocus at all. The trick, at least according to him, was that you had to get to the point of focusing without really using the viewfinder to check focus at all -- he simply &quot;knew&quot; where the focus ring needed to be for any given distance. He claimed (and I can believe it, after seeing him) that in most cases it wasn't even in focus yet when he hit the shutter release -- he was finishing focusing during the 1/10&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; of a second (or so) between hitting the shutter release and the shutter actually opening.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other side of it is, however, that being that good requires a level of fanaticism most of us will never even approach. I ran into him sitting in a bar having a drink -- but he had his camera with him, and picked it up, focused, and shot at least once every couple of minutes. From the way he acted, I'd almost bet he slept with the camera...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-10T19:07:42.693" LastActivityDate="2011-04-10T19:07:42.693" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10770" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10755" CreationDate="2011-04-10T19:05:39.953" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Please note that the following is a simplification of how things actually work&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In digital photography, a light pattern is focused by the lens onto the image sensor. The image sensor is made up of millions of tiny light-sensitive sensors whose measurements are combined to form a 2-dimential array of pixels. Each tiny sensor produces a single light intensity measurement. For simplicity, I will look at the 1-dimensional case. (Think of this as a slice that looks at only a single row of pixels).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sampling:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our row of tiny sensors, each of which is measuring a single point of light, is performing &lt;strong&gt;sampling&lt;/strong&gt; of a &lt;em&gt;continuous signal&lt;/em&gt; (the light coming through the lens) to produce a &lt;em&gt;discrete signal&lt;/em&gt; (light intensity values at each evenly spaced pixel).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sampling Theorem:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The minimum sampling rate (i.e., the number of sensors per inch) that produces a signal that still &lt;em&gt;contains all of the original signal’s information&lt;/em&gt; is known as the &lt;em&gt;Nyquist rate&lt;/em&gt;, which is twice the maximum frequency in the original signal. The top plot in the figure below shows a 1Hz sine wave sampled at the Nyquist rate, which for this sine wave is 2Hz. The resulting discrete signal, shown in red, contains the same information as the discrete signal plotted beneath it, which was sampled at a frequency of 10Hz. While a slight over simplification, it is essentially true that no information is lost when the original sample rate is known, and the highest frequency in the original signal is less than half the sample rate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Mqq4n.png&quot; alt=&quot;sampling at 2f&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/EuuDV.png&quot; alt=&quot;sampling at 10f&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Effects of under sampling:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the sample frequency were less than 2 times the maximum frequency of the signal, then the signal is said to be under sampled. In that case, it is not possible to reconstruct the original continuous signal from the discrete one. An illustration of why this is the case can be found in the figure below. There, two sine waves of different frequencies sampled at the same rate produce the same set of discrete points. These two sine waves are called aliases of each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rXxVo.png&quot; alt=&quot;Aliases&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All discrete and digital signals have an infinite number of aliases, which correspond to all the sine waves that could produce the discrete signals. While the existence of these aliases may seem to present a problem when reconstructing the original signal, the solution is to ignore all signal content above the maximum frequency of the original signal. This is equivalent to assuming that the sampled points were taken from the lowest possible frequency sinusoid. Trouble arises when aliases overlap, which can happen when a signal is under sampled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;But Photographs Don't Look Like Sinusoidal Waves. How is all this Relevant?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason all of this matters for images is that through application of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FourierSeries.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fourier Series&lt;/a&gt;, any signal of finite length can be represented as a sum of sinusoids. This means that even if a picture has no discernable wave pattern, it can still be represented as a sequence of sinusoids of different frequencies. The highest frequency that can be represented in the image is half the Nyquist rate (sampling frequency).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Meanings of Similar Terms:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Nyquist rate&lt;/strong&gt; - The lowest possible sampling frequency that can be used while still guaranteeing the possibility of perfect reconstruction of the original continuous signal. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Nyquist frequency&lt;/strong&gt; - The highest frequency continuous signal that can be represented by a discreet signal (for a given sampling frequency).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These two terms are two sides of the same coin. The first gives you a bound on sampling rate as a function of max frequency. The second gives you the max possible frequency as a function of sampling rate. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem#Practical_considerations&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia: Nyquist frequency&lt;/a&gt; for further reading.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Nyquist Limit&lt;/strong&gt; is another name for Nyquist frequency. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NyquistFrequency.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&#xA;wolfram.com: Nyquist Frequency&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1480" LastEditorUserId="1480" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-10T21:55:41.040" LastActivityDate="2011-04-10T21:55:41.040" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="10771" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10760" CreationDate="2011-04-10T19:20:37.340" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the sensor response discussed by Tall Jeff, most scene illumination (sunlight, incandescent) is deficient in blue light relative to green and red. Fire up this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.astro.ucla.edu/undergrad/astro3/blackbody.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Java blackbody simulator&lt;/a&gt; and see that blue is lower than green or red for color temperatures of interest (~5500 K daylight, ~3000 K incandescent).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's another small factor that compounds the problem. CCD and CMOS arrays are photon-counting detectors. Most plots, including those in the blackbody simulator above, show spectral &lt;em&gt;energy&lt;/em&gt; density, not photon counts. Blue photons are more energetic than red photons, by the inverse ratio of their wavelengths, so for the same energy value on the plots, you would get about 25% more red photons than blue photons. And that's the starting point for the sensitivity effects Tall Jeff describes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding CCDs and backside-illuminated sensors, frontside-illuminated CCDs do suffer from the same diminished blue sensitivity, as much of the blue light is absorbed while passing through the non-sensitive gate structure of the chip. Backside-illuminated sensors will see an improved blue response. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccd.com/ccd101.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this typical spectral response curve&lt;/a&gt; (for various types of research-grade CCDs).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2138" LastEditorUserId="2138" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T13:35:48.567" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T13:35:48.567" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10772" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-10T20:28:01.657" Score="7" ViewCount="124" Body="&lt;p&gt;The slant edge SFR method has become the standard for measuring resolution of lenses and camera systems.  It works by scanning a five degree slanted edge to calculate a line spread function. This is differentiated to produce an edge spread function which is in turn passed through a fast Fourier transform to produce an MTF curve (rough description).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;EDIT - for the purpose of this question assume there is no anti-aliasing filter since that is a limit independent of the Nyquist Limit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.149.2643&amp;amp;rep=rep1&amp;amp;type=pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This article by Peter Burns&lt;/a&gt; (the originator) better describes the method.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See the graphs below for an example of a measurement conducted on a Nikon D7000  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The measurements would seem to be limited by the Nyquist Limit of the sensor in the camera. &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/10755/1368&quot;&gt;See this discussion.&lt;/a&gt;  But, because the edge is slanted by five degrees it is, in effect, being by super-sampled during the scan.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question: does this super-sampling of a five degree edge allow us to measure lens resolution beyond the Nyquist Limit of the camera sensor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/bLiqI.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/DxRCg.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Measurements were made on this &lt;a href=&quot;http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/nikond7000/samples/resolution/nikond7000-res-ACR.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;test image for the Nikon D7000 from DPReview.com&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-10T20:54:30.330" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T03:47:06.537" Title="Can the slant edge SFR method measure lens resolution greater than the Nyquist limit for the camera sensor?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;resolution&gt;&lt;measurement&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="10773" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="456" CreationDate="2011-04-10T21:59:01.830" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The information above is quite good, so I won't try to compete, but here is a nice infographic:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/H9Ami.gif&quot; alt=&quot;megapixelguide&quot;&gt;&#xA;The boxes are the number of megapixels for a print of the size according to the scales on the axes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This great graphic comes from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.design215.com/toolbox/images/megapixels.gif&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;D215&lt;/a&gt;. :D&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastActivityDate="2011-04-10T21:59:01.830" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10774" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8043" CreationDate="2011-04-10T23:53:50.610" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, in looking for something completely different, I stumbled across Michael Reichmann's short essay &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photoinf.com/Image_Balance/Michael_Reichmann/Colour_Theory_as_Applied_to_Landscape_Photography.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Colour Theory as Applied to Landscape Photography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, which turns out to be &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; of what I was after in asking this question, although it is really too short to be comprehensive. (And more on the artistic side, less on the technical. But that's okay.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Michael Freeman's book (no longer in print; hopefully it will be released in a better-edited new edition) &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=3ilf-lPA2kYC&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mastering Color Digital Photography&lt;/a&gt; also has more useful information along the same lines and in more depth. (In many ways, it seems like an expansion of Reichman's short article.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(I've marked this question &quot;Community Wiki&quot;, since I'm not really saying anything of my own here.)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-11T01:19:29.367" LastActivityDate="2011-04-11T01:19:29.367" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-10T23:53:50.610" />
  <row Id="10775" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-11T01:15:34.360" Score="0" ViewCount="94" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to know if there are any sites or books that I can learn to make paper props for background (e.g. grass, trees, buildings...).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a few figurines but my photographs look pretty plain without any background props.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1786" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-11T12:52:20.550" LastActivityDate="2011-04-11T12:52:20.550" ClosedDate="2011-04-11T18:21:53.613" Title="Where can I get instructions for making paper background props for photographs of small figurines?" Tags="&lt;background&gt;&lt;paper&gt;&lt;still-life&gt;" CommentCount="12" />
  <row Id="10776" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11955" CreationDate="2011-04-11T02:06:36.880" Score="2" ViewCount="127" Body="&lt;p&gt;When using the standard Lightroom templates for printing I can select the Zoom to Fill option so the photos will get cropped to the appropriate size BUT I can not select 2 different 5x7 photos on the same 8.5 x 11 sheet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I created a user template with 2 separate 5x7 photos BUT it appears that on custom user templates there is no way to have the photos Zoom to Fill.  The Zoom to Fill choice under Image Settings doesn't even show up as a choice on user templates.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps there is another way to go about this?  I was trying to avoid having to manually crop each individual photo to fit the desired print size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4674" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-11T02:10:02.503" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T03:36:56.390" Title="How can I get Adobe Lightroom to automatically crop two different 5x7 photos to fit on one 8.5x11 sheet?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;printing&gt;&lt;zoom-to-fill&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="10777" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10776" CreationDate="2011-04-11T03:48:44.557" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The printing pane turns out to be pretty easy once you get the hang of the basics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Either get one of the existing templates, or create a new one and delete everything off of the page (highlight each element and then delete).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Toggle the filmstrip on the bottom of the screen and select one of the photos you want and drag it onto the canvas.  It should show up in a new box that you can move and resize.  Holding shift (to lock the aspect ratio), resize the image and move it around the page until it is where you want it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Repeat for the second image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are selectors for inner stroke and photo border that you can adjust as you like to get your desired look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4618" LastActivityDate="2011-04-11T03:48:44.557" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10778" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10762" CreationDate="2011-04-11T04:40:55.553" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As with every skill it is quite useful to have the ability to work with manual focus properly. &#xA;Especially low light situation can cause wrong or very slow auto-focusing, whereas a manual focus works squally fast in any situation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Learn about the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfocal_distance&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hyperfocal Distance&lt;/a&gt;&quot; (Wikpedia Entry) that will give you some basic knowledge about getting sharp results in many situations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you've got your head around this basic understanding of focusing, you have to get a feeling for each of your lenses, since they behave completely differently. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Grab your most used lens at first and try to find the point where things are the sharpest. work with non moving objects first. &#xA;after you focused on an object, start altering your distance (move your feet) to this object. See and feel how the object gets out of focus, or does it become even sharper? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Work with aperture values &gt; f8 first, since your DOF allows you more tolerance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end it is all about practice. Don't forget: Some decades ago, no one had auto focus at all and this era produced some of the most stunning pictures ever made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4675" LastActivityDate="2011-04-11T04:40:55.553" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10779" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10726" CreationDate="2011-04-11T04:50:34.610" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;you could flip your screen over, so that the plastic side is faced towards you. But since the obvious downside is that you can't preview your pics anymore, no one will ever do this anyway. :-) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4675" LastActivityDate="2011-04-11T04:50:34.610" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10780" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10023" CreationDate="2011-04-11T05:30:02.593" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Addition:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Link: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adobe DNG Converter Homepage&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some day even CS5 will be outdated and probably face the problem as CS4 already does. Some RAW Formats are available for the latest ACR versions only. But to update ACR you need a newer CS version and so on... DNG Converter is always up to date, hence .dng files can be edited with older CS versions even if you have the latest camera models.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4675" LastActivityDate="2011-04-11T05:30:02.593" />
  <row Id="10781" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9467" CreationDate="2011-04-11T06:25:56.947" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's nothing that technically differentiates between the two except the way the user operates the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you use a $10.000 SLR on full auto mode so you never do more than point and shoot, you're using it as a point and shoot camera.&#xA;If you have a decent compact with options for manual control and use those, it's not a point and shoot camera for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;IOW: point and shoot isn't a type of camera, it's a style of using cameras. &#xA;SLR otoh is a type of camera, a camera with a single lens assembly and a moving mirror to direct light coming through that assembly either to the viewfinder or to the film plane (nowadays, sensor plane).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-04-11T06:25:56.947" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10782" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10784" CreationDate="2011-04-11T10:42:54.103" Score="5" ViewCount="245" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading the book &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.focalpress.com/Adobe-Photoshop-CS5-for-Photographers-The-Ultimate-Workshop.aspx?cat=98&amp;amp;sub=966&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Adobe Photoshop CS5 for Photographers: The Ultimate Workshop&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; by Martin Evening &amp;amp; Jeff Schewe (Focal Press. 2011) and read this paragraph about film lenses and DSLRs:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;… film lenses were designed to resolve a color image to three separate … film emulsion layers which overlaid each other. Consequently, film lenses were designed to focus the red, green and blue wavelengths at fractionally different distances and at even further distances apart towards the corner edges of the film emulsion area. Since the red, green and blue photosites are all in the same plane of focus on digital sensor, lenses … should now focus the red, green and blue wavelengths to a single plane of focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does this mean in practice when using a film lens on a DSLR? The book does not state any effects. The text above is from a chapter titled &quot;Improving camera capture sharpness&quot;, so it presumably has to do something with the image sharpness. Could this also affect color accuracy? How? Anything else? Are the differences &quot;lab only&quot; or should they be seen with the naked eye?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a few photos taken with film lenses on a DSLR, but I don't know what/where to look at. The lens' effects to sharpness are hard (impossible) to judge from my shots as most of them are out of focus due to the combined effect of unexperienced manual focusing and the quality of focusing screen &amp;amp; viewfinder of Canon 450D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1913" LastEditorUserId="1913" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-11T14:18:06.710" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T07:53:51.877" Title="Were lenses for film designed to focus different colors at different depths, and what does that mean for digital?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;lens-design&gt;&lt;sharpness&gt;&lt;digital-vs-film&gt;&lt;old-lenses&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="10783" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10782" CreationDate="2011-04-11T11:14:36.030" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That statement about lenses actually being designed, on purpose, to focus colours in separate planes sounds dubious. Even in film days, &quot;APO&quot; was a selling point for lenses - &quot;Apochromatic&quot;; APO meaning that all three colours are actually focused in one and the same plane. We can infer from this that achieving this was no mean feat and that it was a desireable feature to have. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Film being slightly three-dimensional may have given lens designers a bit more leeway, I suspect. Digital is more ruthless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-04-11T11:14:36.030" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10784" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10782" CreationDate="2011-04-11T11:16:31.987" Score="21" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a lot of nonsense. The goal for lens designers in the film days was the same as it is now -- to approach (or achieve) &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apochromat&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;apochromatic&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; performance. That is, to design a lens that focuses all visible wavelengths of light on a single plane (or at a single point). That's not an easy thing to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; true that some more modern lens designs come a lot closer to this ideal than typical older lenses. That has to do, though, with advances in materials (such as low-dispersion materials that produce reduced &quot;rainbows&quot; on refraction, and anomalous-dispersion materials that produce &quot;backwards&quot; rainbows) and construction, not with a change in design philosophy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Failing to hit the apo target (something most lenses do, especially at shorter focal lengths/wider angles) results in lateral chromatic aberration (color fringes that you can see in areas of high contrast). As long as they aren't really bad, they can be corrected (often, the camera will do it for you if you are shooting JPEGs). RAW processing programs will often let you apply a lens profile to deal with both chromatic aberration and geometric distortions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only real &quot;digital difference&quot; I'm aware of (besides creating lenses specifically for the smaller formats of many digital cameras) is that greater attention is being paid to the antireflection coating at the rear of the lens, since the digital sensor is &lt;em&gt;much&lt;/em&gt; more reflective than film, so flare originating behind the lens is a much greater concern.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-04-11T11:16:31.987" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10785" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10786" CreationDate="2011-04-11T14:54:20.560" Score="13" ViewCount="639" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am primarily an amateur photographer but I do take small jobs from time to time.  I'm looking to upgrade my equipment but I'm not sure if I should be spending money on my body, glass, or both.  I have two common issues that I'd like to improve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I shoot a lot at ice rinks and find that even in servo mode I get a lot of shots that are slightly out of focus.  I try to keep the AF target on face masks but many shots will come out focused an inch or two off (ears, hands, etc).  I'm shooting F/1.8-F/2.8 to get action stopping shutter speeds so you can really tell when the focus is even a hair off.  I don't know if this is a limitation of my camera, lens, or the human operator.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Most of my paid work is indoors shooting candids where a flash is inappropriate.  I feel like I need to use a higher F-number to get more subject in focus but I usually can't do it without upping to ISO 3200 unless I'm using a flash.  By the time I clean up the high ISO noise in Camera Raw I end up with an image lacking detail.  So far this hasn't been a big problem because the photos are typically used in magazine prints only an inch or two wide but it's still driving me nuts.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the equipment currently in my bag:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon Rebel T2i&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II (no IS)&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Collecting dust, came with my old Rebel XTi.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Purchased with my T2i.  This is my workhorse lens but I'm disappointed with the soft images it produces at higher focal lengths.  Stopping down makes the images acceptable but that's not always an option.  My eyes want more contrast and color but considering how inexpensive this lens is I can't really complain.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This was purchased with an older camera and doesn't get used much anymore.  The images are too soft beyond 200mm and the AF seems sluggish.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I am extremely happy with the images I get from this lens.  I use it indoors all the time and also paired with extension tubes for some macro work.  Some of my best ice hockey images have been from this lens even though I didn't have sports in mind for this lens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My initial plan was to upgrade to a 60D or 7D body but after doing some reading it occurred to me that I might invest in better glass first.  I'm unsure of what will help improve focusing, image quality, high ISO shooting, etc.  Maybe it's a new camera, new glass, photography lessons, or a little of everything?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking to keep my next round of purchases under $3,000 and am willing to trade in some of my used equipment to offset costs.  Would anyone care to make a recommendation?  I'm looking at the EOS 60D and 7D bodies.  Not sure if the 7D is overkill for my needs.  I'm also looking at the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM lens to be my new workhorse but I'm concerned that it may not be wide enough on an APS-C body and the lack of IS might be an issue.  There's also the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM but I'm thinking it wouldn't be wise to spend all my budget on that lens right now (or maybe not?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Thanks!&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks so much everyone for all of the insight.  I think the first thing I'm going to do is look at the 7D body and EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens.  If that lens is a step up from my 18-135 then that should keep me happy for a while.  If the lens doesn't meet my expectations I think an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM might be a good alternative.  Either way I can keep things under budget.  I was trying to not buy another EF-S lens but I have to keep reminding myself that I'm not a professional!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Amateur hockey season won't start back up for a while so after this purchase I will sell off a few items and save up for the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM.  Based on the reviews this thing looks like the real deal and even though it's a bit pricey it should service me well for at least a decade even if I should move to a FF body.  I may also go with a 100mm or 135mm prime at a fraction of the cost.  I already shoot at the rink without a zoom lens, why start now, right???  Saving the $2500 will probably make the wife happier too.  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;What I Ended Up Doing&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ended up buying a Canon 7D and a 24-70mm f/2.8L lens.  A huge upgrade indeed and I'm very happy with my purchase.  I plan to invest in a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II in a couple years to complete my range of needs.  I now have a mint condition T2i to sell.  :)  Thanks again everyone!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3845" LastEditorUserId="3845" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-12T18:23:07.543" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T02:40:33.663" Title="Which piece of equipment is holding me back?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;canon-7d&gt;&lt;canon-60d&gt;" AnswerCount="9" />
  <row Id="10786" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10785" CreationDate="2011-04-11T15:05:43.853" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would gravitate to lens choices over the body. There's a couple of reasons...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The lenses will be useful in the future when another opportunity to purchase arises.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fast glass, such as f/2.8 zooms, are very helpful in low light. These are, often, pro grade lenses as well, so that helps sharpness.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end result, you'll have these lenses for years, the bodies will come and go. So, that investment will pay long term dividends starting now. The other thing to keep in mind, cameras like the 7D will start to appear on the used market and so you may find you'll have budget when that happens and you'll have nice lenses for it when it does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, having said that, the big upside to a 7D now is the speed of the camera. The frame rate is high and that helps a lot in the situations you shoot in. A common technique in these environments is to shoot a bunch of frames of the same scene, it ups the odds that one is sharp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, I'd go lenses first if you have a cap on spending.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-11T19:36:42.877" LastActivityDate="2011-04-11T19:36:42.877" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="10787" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10785" CreationDate="2011-04-11T15:09:36.290" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are right to be looking at the 60D and the 7D. If you are into sport shooting, as it appears you are, then the 7D will suit you better. That will help you dramatically with the focus issues, and it'll give you a slight boost in ISO performance as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as lenses, you should consider two things. First of all, a 70-200mm lens would serve you very well for the ice rink shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the indoor work, it depends on what kind of work it is. If you are the type to get really close, you might consider getting a prime lens that will help you to get close, or the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/ef_lens_lineup/lens_standard_pro/ef_s_17_55_f_2_8_is_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;17-55mm 2.8&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you get these 3 things, I think you'd do well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/ef_lens_lineup/lens_standard_pro/ef_s_17_55_f_2_8_is_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;17-55mm 2.8&lt;/a&gt; $1,180&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/ef_lens_lineup/lens_telezoom_pro/ef_70_200mm_f_4l_is_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;70-200mm 4.0&lt;/a&gt; $700&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/digital_slr_cameras/eos_7d&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 7D&lt;/a&gt; $1700&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Total: $3,680&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a bit more than you wanted, but these prices are Canon's, brand new. If you look at a site like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;BH photo video&lt;/a&gt;, or &lt;a href=&quot;http://amzn.to/gGO0vh&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Amazon&lt;/a&gt;, you should be able to find some better deals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-04-11T15:09:36.290" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="10788" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10785" CreationDate="2011-04-11T15:24:35.923" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For the body, stepping up to the x0D range will get you a little better IQ on higher ISO, allowing you to keep the shutter speeds and stop down the iris to get more DOF. Assuming you stick with a crop sensor format then your current glass will all be able to come along. The kit lens on a 60D is one you already have, so skip that and go body only... a 60D body can be had for $1000, leaving $2000 in your budget for a nice fast lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as glass goes, if you have any aspirations to ever move up to &quot;bigger and better&quot; cameras, stop buying EF-S glass now. The 17-55 f/2.8 you mentioned is a nice lens, and can be had for $1200 most places. If you're doing a lot of hockey, you could also look at the 70-200 f/2.8L which can usually be had for $1500. It doesn't have IS, but with a constant 2.8 all the way out to 200mm you're going to get enough light coming in that combined with a higher ISO capable back you're probably going to be ok with just supporting it on the boards with your arm. (I'm assuming a tripod/monopod is out of the question.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another thing you might consider is spending some of that budget on upgraded workflow software. Lightroom (and Aperture) in my experience can ususally get better quality results when you really have to dig deep into the raw to get an image than the bundled software from Canon does, and give better tooling than camera raw alone, or even camera raw as an input to photoshop. Unlike the back or the glass, that's one you can preview for free... (at least lightroom, not sure about aperture) just download the demo and pull in some of your shots that you were less than thrilled with and see what you can do with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-12T14:34:09.367" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T14:34:09.367" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="10789" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10785" CreationDate="2011-04-11T15:43:14.993" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You mentioned you major problems are accurate focus in large apertures and high noise in high ISO. My understanding is that you already have very fast lenses (correct me if I'm wrong). I can't see how buying a new lens will solve these particular problems. Especially, the noise problem, the only way to deal with that is to get a body with a better (larger) sensor. Then, a 5DMkII is the logical option. If budget is a concern, and since you don't need movie mode (do you?), then a used 5D may do a great work for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-04-11T15:43:14.993" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10790" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10782" CreationDate="2011-04-11T15:49:27.623" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Designing a lens to focus on different layers based on wavelength, where the layers themselves are thinner than the mechanical tolerance of the lens/body parts seems a little over-design (if not an overkill) to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, as an engineer, I've seen some funny attempts at overdesigning a project, so it is possible that a design team or two really made that consideration and took the effort to actually optimize the lens for the film structure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a side note - if this statement is indeed true, then Foveon sensors may have an edge here...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-04-11T15:49:27.623" />
  <row Id="10791" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10735" CreationDate="2011-04-11T16:58:02.997" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pay attention to the lighting. If you can control the lights, try to have a lightsource at 45degree to the plane of the petal, which would reveal some detail. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Also try taking bracketed shots to see if it is an exposure issue.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you are shooting a red flower in bright light (like at noon), you &lt;em&gt;need&lt;/em&gt; to restrict the amount of light hitting the flower.. just put an umbrella over the flower and use a reflector to redirect sunlight/flash.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="55" LastActivityDate="2011-04-11T16:58:02.997" />
  <row Id="10792" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10785" CreationDate="2011-04-11T17:16:33.300" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have shot some youth basketball recently and find the 70-200 2.8L IS to be invaluable, it is the only lens I use on the court. The IS is not necessary, but I do not think I would by this lens without it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For wide angle, the 16-35 2.8L is the choice for me, but I just bought it to replace the 17-55 2.8 which I do not like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think you can go wrong with L glass and I agree that for shooting sports IS is not necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My current body is a 7D which I like a lot, the 50D was just ok, I have not tried the 60D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I were you, I would spend the money on the 70-200 2.8L IS, and start saving for the 16-35 2.8L.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are still in doubt rent a couple of them and give them a test drive, or buy from a reputable dealer where you can return them if you are not satisfied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4273" LastActivityDate="2011-04-11T17:16:33.300" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10793" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9120" CreationDate="2011-04-11T17:46:56.513" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;CCDs can have &quot;electronic shutters&quot;; they can be electronically &quot;turned off&quot; before the mechanical shutter closes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With this feature, you can achieve higher flash sync speeds. For instance, the Nikon D70s and its electronically-shuttered CCD can sync at 1/500s.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;CMOS sensors typically can't do this, so they're limited to how fast the mechanical shutter can close. The Nikon D90, for instance, has a max flash sync speed of 1/250s.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-04-11T17:46:56.513" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10794" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10785" CreationDate="2011-04-11T19:01:30.237" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are lots of good lens recommendations being made, but I'd like to also suggest the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/112539-USA/Canon_2520A004_Telephoto_EF_135mm_f_2_0L.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 135mm f/2L&lt;/a&gt;.  For hockey shooting I assume you're away from the action so the longer focal length shouldn't be a problem.  The f/2 lens will give you an additional stop of light over the f/2.8 lenses, and this lens is often cited as one of (if not) the sharpest lenses in Canon's lineup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an event shooter, I often used this as my &quot;from the back of the room&quot; lens and it worked out really well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-04-11T19:01:30.237" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10795" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-11T20:44:27.670" Score="7" ViewCount="128" Body="&lt;p&gt;How can I find a modern flatbed scanner with a reasonably large depth of field? Here &quot;reasonably large&quot; would be something like at least 2mm of DoF above the scanner glass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Typically DoF is not listed anywhere in the technical specification, and few people are interested in testing it when they are reviewing a scanner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on what I have learned so far, it seems that older scanners often had a fairly deep DoF. For instance, my old (&gt; 10 years) HP ScanJet 4200C performs reasonably well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, many modern scanners seem to have an extremely shallow DoF. My guess is that this is related to the fact that older scanners used a CCFL lamp while a modern scanner often uses LEDs. With LEDs, the scanner can be made much thinner. Perhaps the small physical size of the scanner favours a lens that has a shallow DoF?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this is just a guess, as I don't really know anything about the construction of the &quot;lens&quot; that is used in scanners. Can one somehow explain it in &quot;SLR terms&quot;? Does it make sense to use terms like focal length and aperture in the context of a scanner?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Some background:&lt;/em&gt; I am abusing my scanner as a digital camera; I use it to take pictures of nearly flat objects. For example, if you need a quick snapshot of a handmade greeting card (flat decorations glued to a cardboard background, etc.), a scanner is surprisingly convenient in comparison with a DSLR: you don't need to worry about aligning the camera perpendicular to the object or setting up lighting, and you won't have any lens distortion that you need to fix in post.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this is possible only if the scanner has enough depth of field above the glass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="247" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T01:54:23.447" Title="Scanners with large depth-of-field?" Tags="&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;scanner&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10796" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10795" CreationDate="2011-04-12T01:54:23.447" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are scanners that are advertised as having 3D object scan ability. A search at Google came up with an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/588633-REG/Epson_B11B193141_Perfection_V30_Flatbed_Scanner.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;example&lt;/a&gt;. I believe the DoF should be deep enough for your needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T01:54:23.447" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10797" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10785" CreationDate="2011-04-12T04:24:37.673" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;what's holding you back is that you are too gear-minded. Rather than thinking &quot;I have this gear, now how can I use it to do what I want to do&quot;, you're thinking &quot;what new gear do I need to do what I want to do&quot;.&#xA;That way you will always be &quot;held back&quot;, because you're never going to actually fully use what you have, will constantly be worrying about what you don't have yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T04:24:37.673" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10798" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10746" CreationDate="2011-04-12T04:28:55.237" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A 20X superzoom lens easily outperforming a 3x zoom on a DSLR:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's another:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Three-year old compact cameras beating the image quality of the latest&#xA;DSLRs being made:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A handheld compact camera rivaling the image quality of a medium format&#xA;Hasselblad. Even when the Hasselblad is securely locked on a tripod. Even&#xA;when using a cable release, mirror lock-up, and a time-delay&#xA;shutter-release for it too. The handheld compact camera still rivaled the&#xA;images from the Hasselblad.&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, even my most favorite small-sensor camera from 2002 was beating the image quality of all the DSLRs being made that year. This is nothing new. The ONLY thing a larger sensor has going for it is better performance in lower-light levels. Nothing more. &quot;Image Quality&quot; is dependent on the optics more than the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4595" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-12T21:52:51.533" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T21:52:51.533" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10799" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10746" CreationDate="2011-04-12T04:37:48.787" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's another:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Three-year old compact cameras beating the image quality of the latest&#xA;DSLRs being made:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4595" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T04:37:48.787" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10800" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10616" CreationDate="2011-04-12T04:48:17.917" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;An interesting way that you can exploit auto white-balance compensating for filter tints is putting some of those old color filters to good use. I have an old filter that is a deep orange-brown color. It was designed long long ago for portrait photography to enhance skin-tones. Today I find that it is invaluable for fall foliage photography. When used with auto white-balance the camera compensates for this large color shift, while it strongly enhances all the golds, oranges, and crimsons of fall colors. Adding further color-channel dynamic-range for those hues in the final data which gives me much more latitude in post-processing for fine-tuning those particular colors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4595" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T04:48:17.917" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="10801" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10557" CreationDate="2011-04-12T05:02:09.357" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depending on how you cleaned your sensor, you can actually set up semi-permanent static charges in the sensor's layers. This is well known by all who have taken apart web-cams to remove the IR filter. Immediately after their sensors are full of noise. But ... over a week's period of time, these static-charges will dissipate (usually). These induced static charges that remain are what are the basis behind all &quot;electret&quot; devices. Some electret designs have been known to retain their charges for hundreds of years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To prevent this, avoid any of the cleaners that use the film or colloidal type of cleaning systems. Those where you have to pull away a sticky film from the sensor's surface. The two different materials being pulled away from each other can induce very large static charges in the underlying layers. Adhesive-tape companies go to great lengths to formulate their adhesives and substrates to try to prevent some of this, but it will always be an issue whenever two different materials are brushed against each other or pulled away from each other. Look up the Triboelectric-Series to see why this is so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4595" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T05:02:09.357" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10802" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10711" CreationDate="2011-04-12T05:47:47.460" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This also comes in handy for wildlife photography. Trying to hold a camera's long zoom-lens up to your eye for long periods of time while following a bird in high tree-branches, one that's hopping from branch to branch, can become an arm-and-neck-muscle-exhausting experience. But if I use an articulated LCD viewfinder and hang the camera down to chest or belly-level I can follow that bird for hours if need be until I get just the right shots. If most of your photography will involve daylight levels, don't hesitate to use any of the smaller sensor superzoom and compact cameras that have an articulated LCD feature. Their image quality has been rivaling and even beating DSLRs for years, contrary to the opinions of those who are only trying to blindly justify the expense of their DSLR camera gear. Some even rival the image quality of medium-format sized sensors in Hasselblads. Even when that compact camera is handheld and the Hasselblad is on a sturdy tripod while using cable-release, delayed shutter, and mirror-lockup to remove all vibration. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml&lt;/a&gt; If your photography involves longer focal-lengths in lower light levels, then superzoom cameras still win because they can have much larger apertures at the longer focal-lengths than any DSLR glass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some further uses for an articulated LCD that go far beyond the old uses for waist-level viewfinders:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Close-quarters Architectural or Spelunking Photography -- Swing out the LCD and hold the camera's back to a house or cave wall to gain further FOV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Industrial and Machinery Photography - Holding the camera at an arm's length deep inside some machinery while still being able to view the LCD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nature Photography - Use &quot;pole photography&quot; techniques. When the camera is mounted to a long pole you can photograph subjects less invasively, or in situations where the species cannot be disturbed at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Landscape Photography - When on a train passing over a trestled canyon, hold the camera at arms-length out the window to get shots rivaling those taken by helicopter or plane.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Event Photography - Holding the camera above the heads of a crowd.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Macro Photography - The instances where this feature can be employed are limitless. Especially for subjects low to the ground or at ground-level.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To describe but a few.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4595" LastEditorUserId="4595" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-12T06:24:57.880" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T06:24:57.880" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10803" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-12T06:19:37.437" Score="11" ViewCount="258" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon Rebel XTI now, and am considering upgrading my camera body at some point. Aside from the increase in megapixels have there been other improvements to the CMOS sensors of the newer bodies like the 7D, 50D, or 60D? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know they go up to higher ISO values then my XTI, but do they have the same level of noise as my XTI at the same ISO? Has there been any improvement to the dynamic range that can be captured?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1431" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-12T10:56:01.973" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T11:16:35.960" Title="Are the sensors of newer DSLRs better beyond just having more MP?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;technology-generations&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10804" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10782" CreationDate="2011-04-12T07:53:51.877" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is unlikely for two reasons:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It ignores the case for monochromatic film.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is difficult to get film to lie flat against the backing plate and the slight curvature of the film will in all probability greatly exceed the layer thicknesses.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;See this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF6.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;discussion by Norman Koren&lt;/a&gt; (scroll down three to four pages).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T07:53:51.877" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10805" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10803" CreationDate="2011-04-12T08:23:48.187" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ask yourself why you're considering upgrading your body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are you unhappy about its output? Or is it something else?&#xA;Small changes in sensor technology no doubt still happen, but for most users they'll not yield any different results on their own from the sensors used in their current cameras (and neither will more megapixels, not unless they go from a sub-6MP camera to a 10MP+ camera at least).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Differences in metering, AF logic, ergonomics (control layout, form factor, etc). are far more important. And that's always been the main difference between the lowend and midrange/highend cameras. To some it's not worth the investment, to others it is (to me for example, the differences in the viewfinder size of the Nikon D200 and D70 alone were worth spending the extra money on the professional body, the higher spec sensor and metering were very welcome icing on the cake).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T08:23:48.187" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10806" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10803" CreationDate="2011-04-12T09:18:31.450" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Rather than saying more MP = better, one should take the sensor size into account thus the transistor/inch ratio.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The higher the density the smaller the transistor will be, the higher the temperature will be, therefore the more noise and lower quality you will get.&#xA;Thats why a point and shoot camera with 12MP compared to an 10MP DSLR is not necessarily the better camera.&#xA;Also, a bigger sensor means more area that can catch light, hence better low light abilities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Modern cameras have either CCD (charge-coupled device) or CMOS (complementary metal–oxide–semiconductor) sensors, whereas both types have their trade-offs and there is no apparent winner at first sight.&#xA;Since CMOS is cheaper to produce and doesn't tend to produce funny results while dealing with heat or very bright spots as the cheaper CCDs this is a popular design indeed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;High quality CCDs won't suffer of the same problems as their cheaper siblings, in fact if a high quality camera, film cameras in particular, is used, often they come with a 3CCD, which means that instead of having 1 sensor that has to deal with RGB color information, the color is split up into red, green and blue with some kind of a prism and therefore each color is handled by its own sensor. Needless to say that this often delivers very good results and helps improving noise and dynamic range indeed, but unfortunately I don't know a current DSLR that is using 3CCD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After all, there is more to a camera than just a image sensor. It is the careful fine tuning and orchestration between several hardware parts, the software and last but not least the lenses&#xA;All these little delicate properties will tell you if a camera will deal better with lowlight than others. But as this is one of the main fields of development, as a rule of thumb you can expect modern cameras being better in lowlight situation (see that I am not saying sensor?) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before focusing too much on a sensor itself look at the bigger aspects of a DSLR and rethink if you really need extreme low light features so that you have to keep track of the current sensor development. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4675" LastEditorUserId="4675" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-12T09:25:49.153" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T09:25:49.153" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10807" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10803" CreationDate="2011-04-12T09:43:36.280" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to DXO mark there's a slight improvement in noise and dynamic range between the 400D and 60D (about half a stop at base ISO to a stop at high ISO).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a much bigger improvement in the latest Pentax and Nikon bodies (k5 and d7000 respectively) in terms of dynamic range at low ISO, worth about three stops. This is mostly due to a reduction in the noise floor so there's no reason Canon couldn't match this if they pulled their finger out!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If noise is a problem to you I would first look to faster lenses if possible not to a new body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T09:43:36.280" />
  <row Id="10808" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10803" CreationDate="2011-04-12T11:03:39.177" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have compared the sensor of your camera (Canon 400D) with its latest upgrade (Canon 600D) and the Canon 7D, all data taken from dxomark.com (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Camera-Sensor/Compare/Compare-sensors/%28appareil1%29/184|0/%28appareil2%29/692|0/%28appareil3%29/619|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Canon/%28brand2%29/Canon/%28brand3%29/Canon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;you can see the comparison here&lt;/a&gt;). All images are copyright DxO Labs.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Also attached are MTF plots showing the edge blur for the three cameras. Analysis conducted on images from DPReview.com.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bottom line is that the newer bodies show some improvements in dynamic range and significant improvement in low light situations. The MTF graphs show only some improvement in resolution which is probably hardly noticeable.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I won't comment on other features of the newer bodies since that was not part of your question other than to say it might be an important factor in your calculations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fiHA2.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/MNyd7.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/MJq0n.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/qrElW.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/BL2WX.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/SuVrK.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/t0mlA.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/unWo8.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-12T11:16:35.960" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T11:16:35.960" />
  <row Id="10811" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4814" CreationDate="2011-04-12T15:13:34.370" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Looks like there is no easy solution. Here is how I manage for now. It's neither automatic nor perfect and requires a little discipline but gets you a good part of the way there.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For cropped images, I used hierarchical keywords since &lt;em&gt;Smart Collections&lt;/em&gt; are not flexible enough yet to distinguish between exact aspect ratios.&lt;/strong&gt; Like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/fN2zx.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the part that requires discipline since, every time an image is cropped to one of these unusual-but-even aspect ratios, the right keyword must be applied. For example, images with 2:1 aspect ratio get the 2x1 keyword.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This obviously leaves out images with odd aspect ratios. Lucky for me, I only crop 1.2% of images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For standard aspect ratios, I created an &lt;em&gt;Aspect Ratio Collection Set&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Smart Collections&lt;/em&gt; for each aspect ratio.&lt;/strong&gt; Like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/tZLCK.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Above &lt;em&gt;3x2&lt;/em&gt; is a Smart Collection which selects on:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Cropped&lt;/em&gt; is &lt;em&gt;False&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;keywords&lt;/em&gt; does not contain &lt;em&gt;AspectRatio&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Camera&lt;/em&gt; contains &lt;em&gt;DSLR K-5 K-7 K20D K10D EOS REBEL S5Pro E-5 E-620 SLT D3 D300 ...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where &lt;strong&gt;....&lt;/strong&gt; is actually a long list of Nikon DSLR, since like Pentax, there is no identifying keyword for all of them. In the case of the &lt;em&gt;4x3&lt;/em&gt; collection, that would be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Cropped&lt;/em&gt; is &lt;em&gt;False&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;keywords&lt;/em&gt; does not contain &lt;em&gt;AspectRatio&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Camera&lt;/em&gt; contains &lt;em&gt;PowerShot Coolpix Finepix DiMAGE DMC DSC E-P1 E-PL2 Photosmart Optio Tough Stylus X70 XZ-1 Exilim EasyShare&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;camera&lt;/em&gt; does not contain &lt;em&gt;S5Pro&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is a little easier since fixed-lens cameras are grouped into families by nearly everyone, for some reason you will notice the Pentax X70 does not say 'Optio'. Also note the Fuji S5Pro is part of the Finepix line, so it must be excluded explicitly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Excluding the &lt;em&gt;AspectRatio&lt;/em&gt; keyword hierarchy from these collections lets me label images that come out of cameras with a strange aspect ratio.&lt;/strong&gt; A number of compact cameras for example support &lt;em&gt;Sweep Panorama&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;Automatic Panorama&lt;/em&gt; features that produce images that do not correspond to the sensor's native aspect ratio. The same is required for multi-ratio cameras such as many Panasonic Lumix models. When such an image gets imported, simply labeling it with the correct &lt;em&gt;AspectRatio&lt;/em&gt; keyword such as 7x1, excludes it from incorrectly appearing the the &lt;em&gt;Aspect Ratio Smart Collection&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T15:13:34.370" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10812" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10664" CreationDate="2011-04-12T15:39:52.607" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can use a slim UV filter without any problems with edges in wide angles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4688" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-12T18:44:17.887" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T18:44:17.887" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10813" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10822" CreationDate="2011-04-12T17:52:57.897" Score="4" ViewCount="236" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm curious about best practices for photo and project organization. I'm starting to have too many projects to just have them listed by date, like iPhoto does. I've recently switched to Aperture, and see that there are endless ways of organizing photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't seem like Apple recommends a particular method for organizing, which I would otherwise start out with. What do people do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've seen suggestions to do nested folders of year/month/project, but this seems like a lot of bookkeeping for me, and I don't really remember or care whether my trip to California was in July 2006 or August 2006.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've also seen category/client/project name, but I'm not a professional, and a lot of my photos would fall into a friends, family &amp;amp; vacation category.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or should I just give up on organizing project and try to use keywords on individual photos?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4690" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T00:21:02.370" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T20:35:11.593" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-13T00:30:39.960" Title="What are best-practices for personal photo organization in Aperture?" Tags="&lt;apple-aperture&gt;&lt;organisation&gt;&lt;curation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10814" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10816" CreationDate="2011-04-12T18:30:16.070" Score="4" ViewCount="90" Body="&lt;p&gt;While the meaning of most of the parameters in the exif info is decipherable, I didn't understand what do these two mean? Also, it would be great if someone can explain how are they measured.&#xA;For an example, check this out: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/19224593@N04/5613491852/meta/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/19224593@N04/5613491852/meta/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="688" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T19:56:57.217" Title="What do the global angle and global altitude in the exif info mean?" Tags="&lt;metadata&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10815" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10814" CreationDate="2011-04-12T18:45:50.820" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The altitude is the height above the geoid, and can be calculated by a GPS unit that has a good signal from at least four satellites. If the planet were a perfect ellipsoid, this would be the height above mean sea level.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The angle is the bearing in which the camera was facing at the time - this can either be measured with an electronic compass or interpolated from two GPS fixes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T18:45:50.820" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10816" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10814" CreationDate="2011-04-12T18:54:49.400" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check out the spec (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.exif.org/Exif2-2.PDF&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pdf&lt;/a&gt;).  I think Global Angle is GPSImgDirection (pp.50) and Global Altitude is GPSAltitude (pp.48).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2155" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-12T19:33:10.007" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T19:33:10.007" />
  <row Id="10818" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10814" CreationDate="2011-04-12T19:56:57.217" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is a bit more in-depth Exif information:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Exif property GPSAltitude  holds ONLY the altitude in meters; it goes along with GPSAltitudeRef, which determines if whether it's above / below sea level. A negative value indicates it's below sea level (i.e. Holland or the Dead Sea).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same is true for GPSImgDirection plus GPSImgDirectionRef, which specifies whether the direction is given as &quot;true&quot; north or &quot;magnetic&quot; north. iPhone 4 owners can see the difference with the Compass app, it allows you to switch between the two different references (I can see a difference of 13 degrees at my location). By default, GPS directions are given in &quot;true&quot; values.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4695" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T19:56:57.217" />
  <row Id="10819" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-12T21:48:11.823" Score="6" ViewCount="74" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a 3DS. It can take stereoscopic photos, albeit with a low-res and noisy sensor. I'm not expecting great photos, however, I am seeing one issue I can't explain simply by cheap sensors. In some lighting conditions, when I take a picture, one of the pictures turns out much darker than the other. It's not predictable whether it's the left or right camera, but it's often one of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only thing I can think of is that it it's related to fluorescent lighting - that it takes the photos serially and one of them takes place just late enough that the bulb has done a half-cycle, resulting it in being either lighter or darker, and then it doesn't do separate color-correction. In my test cases it has never happened under incandescents or the sun, but happens regularly - but not always - under fluorescents. (However, the sample size is biased because we only have one incandescent light in our apartment.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I know jack about cameras and lighting. Does this explanation sound reasonable? Has anyone else run into similar problems taking stereoscopic photos? Since the camera is useless except for quick spur-of-the-moment shots, can I do anything to compensate for it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4696" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-12T22:30:29.013" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T18:18:28.260" Title="Why does the lighting sometimes differ between the two images when taking stereoscopic photos with my 3DS?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;3d&gt;&lt;fluorescent&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10822" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10813" CreationDate="2011-04-12T22:50:31.773" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Photo organization is one of those things where I think it's hard to nail down 'best practices' because there are lots of different needs (I organize my professional work somewhat differently than my personal work) and every person seems to have a variation that seems 'most correct' to them (perfectly valid). With that being said my overall goal was to have a system that required &lt;strong&gt;as few levels of folder structure as possible to fully sort as many of my photographs as possible&lt;/strong&gt;. The &lt;em&gt;last&lt;/em&gt; thing I wanted was to have to drill down through 4 (or 6... or 8(!)) folders in order actually get to my photographs. So here's what I ended up doing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Professional Work:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do both commercial and client-based work, bust what has seemed to work best for me is to organize everything based on the following hierarchy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Client Name] -&gt; [Project Date - Project 'Short Title'] -&gt; Photographs&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I format the date as YYYY.MM.DD, so that the projects all sort in date order, but as often as not it's the 'short title' that I end up looking for because I tend to name my projects in my mind, whether they're a 'Wedding Shoot' or a 'Product Shoot,' or whatever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Personal Work:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I name in a somewhat similar method to above, but instead of the top-level being the client, I use the year:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[YYYY] -&gt; [Photoshoot Date - Photoshoot 'Short Title'] -&gt; Photographs&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, the 'short title' tends to be something memorable to me ('Hawaii plants', 'Park Photowalk,' whatever). I also do take the time to give a tag everything as I've found that I have a good enough memory that I'm able to recall with 'reasonable' accuracy the personal shoots that I've done over the last couple of years, but as the memory fades I find myself thinking things like &lt;em&gt;'what was that one shoot I did with the awesome looking cloud next to that building...'&lt;/em&gt; and at that point keyword searching becomes my best friend.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other piece to the puzzle for me is in my culling procedures... This is what I use to trim down the photographs that either aren't that good, or that I'm probably never going to use (or miss!) if I delete them. That's a whole different topic, but if you're curious you can find more info over at &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8236/whats-a-good-strategy-for-choosing-what-to-keep/8242#8242&quot;&gt;What's a good strategy for choosing what to keep.&lt;/a&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, that's how I tackle the problem for my own collection (which is now approaching 250,000 personal images and 100,000 professional ones).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T00:12:01.377" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T00:12:01.377" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-13T00:30:39.960" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10823" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-12T22:57:58.490" Score="7" ViewCount="252" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many lenses (like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses/smc_PENTAX_DA_15mm_F4_ED_AL_Limited/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pentax DA 15mm f/4 Limited&lt;/a&gt;, or the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2198/AF-S-NIKKOR-35mm-f%252F1.4G.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.4G&lt;/a&gt;) are described as having &quot;aspherical lens elements&quot;. Does this mean that regular lenses are spherical lenses? What's the difference, and what are the advantages of one over the other?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4700" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-12T23:35:46.127" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T00:27:28.580" Title="How does a spherical lens differ from an aspherical lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;lens-design&gt;&lt;optics&gt;&lt;spherical&gt;&lt;aspherical&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="10824" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9683" CreationDate="2011-04-12T23:17:36.680" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi Jonathan,&#xA;I'm a big believer in looking outside the box at the less obvious options, so this may not apply to you - but rather than having software based on your machine, have you thought about one of the web-based imaging systems?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a few around, that would allow you to create a private area (website if you like) that all your images could be uploaded to.  Smugmug is one that springs to mind, and there's another system being launched in the UK later this year, which would easily handle what your asking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The trade-off I guess, is a yearly cost but your removing the hassle of storing and backing up images, and gaining a backed up, fully searchable system?  Also with Smugmug, you can send them a drive of images and they'll upload them for you, saves all the hassle of sending them over the web!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just a thought, you may not want to go down that route, but its a decent alternative, and as Smugmug offers unlimited storage, your never going to fill the account!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4701" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T23:17:36.680" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10825" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10823" CreationDate="2011-04-12T23:23:27.210" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The photographer's answer is that it does not matter. We let optical engineers find the best way to build lenses and then use them for our craft.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The technical answer is yes, non-aspherical lenses are spherical in the sense that one of their surfaces corresponds to the outer surface of a sphere of some radius.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aspherical lenses are more complex and are not constrained to following the curve of a sphere. That also means there are lots more variance among aspherical lenses. This gives optical engineers more freedom when designing such lenses and therefore more chances to correct for optical issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T23:23:27.210" />
  <row Id="10826" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-12T23:23:38.660" Score="4" ViewCount="197" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tunnels being naturally dark may not be the most intuitive choice for a place to take pictures. But I love the '&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/lightjunkies/pool/with/5613549344/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;painting with light&lt;/a&gt;' work that artists such as '&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/twincitiesbrightest/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Twin Cities Brightest&lt;/a&gt;' are putting out and they're clearly seeking out places like tunnels, caves, garages... Dark places in other words, to create their works of art. Which brings two questions to mind:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How do I go about finding places that I can accomplish this sort of 'tunnel photography.'&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What are some techniques that I can use to 'paint with light' in my photography once I have found some locations?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="1356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-16T19:54:52.557" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T20:09:12.830" Title="'Painting with light' photography: locations and techniques" Tags="&lt;night-shooting&gt;&lt;darkness&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="10827" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10823" CreationDate="2011-04-12T23:47:24.427" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is simple and relatively cheap to make lenses whose surfaces are parts of a plane or parts of a sphere.  Such lenses do not focus light perfectly; this lack of focus is &lt;em&gt;spherical aberration.&lt;/em&gt;  This graphic from a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_aberration&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt; schematically illustrates how the light rays fail to converge (lower half) compared to a hypothetical perfect lens (upper half).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/DdLNQ.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Spherical aberration is especially prominent in large, fast (bright) lenses.  This lack of focus shows up as various forms of fuzziness.  The problem can be corrected by placing other lenses in front of and behind the lens.  It can also be corrected by changing the shape of the lens surfaces (making them &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspheric_lens&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;aspherical&lt;/a&gt;), but that tends to be more difficult and expensive to carry out: glass spherical shapes are simple to make and measure; aspherical ones are not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When additional lens elements are added as correction, they increase the amount of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;flare&lt;/a&gt; and reduce the contrast of the photograph, as well as adding to the size and weight of the lens.  They might also alter the colors a little.  Therefore, aspherical elements typically signal a lens that is crafted to produce contrasty, colorful images and to be lighter and easier to use.  They do not in themselves assure high quality, because lenses can exhibit other problems besides spherical aberration.  For instance,  small aspherical lenses can be molded of plastic and routinely appear in cheap photo equipment.  However, a large glass aspherical lens is much more expensive to produce and usually reserved for better lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T23:47:24.427" />
  <row Id="10828" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10823" CreationDate="2011-04-13T00:27:28.580" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lens marketed as &quot;aspherical&quot; will usually have only one surface (one side of one piece of glass) aspheric, and all the other surfaces will be spherical (or flat).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the vast majority of glass in any lens, even those lenses marketed as aspherical, is spherical anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An aspheric surface can help correct for spherical aberration, which can make the image look soft when the aperture is wide open.  But it's not an exact science, because compromises have to be made.  For example, the spherical aberration correction can sometimes make background bokeh more harsh, which isn't great for portraits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aspheric lens surfaces are much more expensive to produce, because they can't be ground by a natural rotary motion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Fun fact: high quality aspheric lens surfaces have been around &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspheric_lens#History&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;since 1667&lt;/a&gt;, used in telescopes, reading glasses and burning glasses (!).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T00:27:28.580" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10829" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10813" CreationDate="2011-04-13T00:30:25.437" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you really want to have the quickest access to your photographic works, a hierarchical storage structure is not really going to solve the problem. Hierarchical storage structures are great for physical project organization and historical/archival purposes, but they do not lend themselves well to &quot;finding&quot; your work. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most professional photography tools, such as Aperture or Adobe Lightroom, allow you to add a fairly extensive amount of metadata to your photos. Metadata is information about each photo, which would include the standard stuff like date and time, camera equipment used, possibly a GPS location, etc. In addition to the standard stuff, you can also add your own metadata. This includes standardized fields like IPTC properties (artist, title, label, etc.) as well as generic properties which are usually called tags, keywords, or categories.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adding metadata should generally be done up front, and in tools like Aperture or Lightroom, you are often able to create prefab sets of metadata or manually enter common metadata that can be applied to everything you import from your camera or memory card. Common attributes like &quot;Mountains, Sunset, Vacation to California&quot; can be applied in bulk like this. After import, you will probably want to work through your import set and fine tune the metadata for each photo. To lighten the workload, at the same time you can decide which photos are &quot;keepers&quot; and which photos are &quot;discards&quot;, and which may be neither, and only focus on adding more specific metadata to the keepers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By adding metadata and keywords to your photos, you now have a dynamic (rather than fixed, as would be the case with a rigid hierarchy) way to &lt;strong&gt;search&lt;/strong&gt; your photographic library to find what you need quickly and with little effort. You can usually search by any EXIF (camera hardware, date/time, location) or IPTC (artist, title, copyright) metadata, tool metadata (rating, color tags, edits applied, etc.), or custom metadata (keywords/tags/categories). Many tools offer a way to create saved searches, sometimes called smart collections or smart libraries, to save search criteria and quickly find any photos with the specified metadata. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apple Aperture should support most if not all of these metadata features, and allow you to search your library to find any set of photos you want in short order. As to &lt;strong&gt;exactly&lt;/strong&gt; what metadata you add to your photos...thats up to you. Organize your work in a way that best works with the way you think. Finding what you need should be a synch after that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T00:30:25.437" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-13T00:30:39.960" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="10830" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10826" CreationDate="2011-04-13T02:11:16.013" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Any scene with isolated elements much brighter than their surroundings is fair game.  Expose for the bright lights so that everything else is suppressed and go to work.  A 1/4 to 5 second exposure works well: it gives you enough time to do interesting things but not too much to really screw it up ;-).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My favorite, since I first got a decent camera as a child, has been the annual Christmas tree.  You can shoot it out of focus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/EK8aa.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Out of focus&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Front focus and back focus give slightly different shapes to the bokeh.  The size is determined largely by how out of focus the image is, but it depends on the lens and the aperture too.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can move the camera around during the exposure:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/sNpx2.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Swirled&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Zooming during the exposure gives a characteristic effect:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ZMkhE.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Zoomed&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can do these in combination, such as this one that was unfocused while zooming:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/dotIf.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use your imagination and have fun!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Incidentally, it can be difficult to stop down a brighter scene.  These images were taken at ISO 100 with apertures around f/11 for 1 - 4 seconds in a darkened room.  An ND filter would be your friend with brighter lights (such as daylight at the end of a tunnel).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T02:11:16.013" />
  <row Id="10831" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10785" CreationDate="2011-04-13T03:22:14.503" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had the 450D and upgraded to the 7D recently, and am quite sure its a much better camera for action/sports (not that this was my motivation), &lt;strong&gt;but&lt;/strong&gt; I think the improvement you'll get out of a more appropriate lens (something with USM to replace the 18-135!) will be more significant than the improved focus tracking in the 7D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given how much you like the 50mm, maybe its worth investing in another prime to keep costs down?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It really depends how much the distance varies between you and the 'action'. If you're using much the same focal length for half an hour at a time, then you might do well to invest in a ~30mm prime and one or two of the 85mm, 100mm, 135mm primes. There's L and non-L options for each.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wider than 50mm&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 28mm f/1.8 USM ~$350 — &lt;em&gt;this would be my pick&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 24mm f/1.4L II USM ~$1700&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 35mm f/1.4L USM ~$1200&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Longer than 50mm&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM ~$400 — &lt;em&gt;this is probably the most appropriate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 85mm f/1.2L USM ~$1800&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 100mm f/2 USM ~$400&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM ~$500 — &lt;em&gt;or this if you like macro&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM ~$900 — &lt;em&gt;or this if you crave IS too!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 135mm f/2L USM ~$1000&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's probably also worth remembering that your photos can be heavily cropped and still have sufficient resolution for a 2-inch wide magazine print, so shooting with a prime even half the focal length you'd ideally select on the zoom may be OK. That said, even a low quality zoom will produce a sharper image once scaled down that far, so its probably much the same either way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you need the zoom due to rapid/regular change in focal lengths, then a replacement for the 18-135 'workhorse' would depend on what focal lengths you really value in that lens (especially if you're happy to use the 50mm and a zoom lens that's only wider/longer as needed)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similar range zooms to the 18-135mm&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM ~$400 — not L but better image quality and cheap!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM ~$1100 — L quality, better quality again&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM ~$2300 — L quality, loooong (but not very wide)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wider / Longer zooms (if you mainly use one end of the 18-135mm?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM ~$1000 — wide aperture thanks to shorter zoom ratio&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 USM ~$1100 — wide aperture as above&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, apart from the 70-200 you're losing about 2-3 stops compared to equivalent primes (the 70-200 only loses 1 stop)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T03:22:14.503" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10832" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10614" CreationDate="2011-04-13T03:24:21.607" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would be willing to bet this is simply due to the camera changing modes back and forth between live view, actually exposing a photograph, and returning to live voew. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In live view, it sounds like it stops the aperture down to where it should be. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When you take the shot, live view &quot;exits&quot;, so the camera is set back to normal. That would reset the aperture to normal and close the shutter. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;However, since you are actually taking a photograph, it then has to restop the aperture, expose the sensor, then restore the camera back to its default settings again. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Finally, since you were using live view, it starts up live view again, which will open the shutter and set the aperture appropriately for your live preview.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've done some basic embedded systems programming in the past, and you often run into limitations that are tough to overcome given the nature of the hardware you are working with (which is usually very, very limited.) Its fairly common and pretty easy to simply use a basic state machine and workflow to track what &quot;mode&quot; the system is in, and have a reset action take place when you transition between states. In the case of a camera, you would want to make sure that everything is set back to &quot;zero&quot; or &quot;default&quot; state before exposing, so the logic that actually performs an exposure is working from known good starting values. It requires more registers, more memory, more constants, and more logic to share 'state data' between one 'machine state' and the next, when generally state machines are supposed to be globally data stateless in the purest sense of the word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T05:25:50.277" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T05:25:50.277" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="10833" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10714" CreationDate="2011-04-13T03:28:21.527" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As it turns out, the little nubs that make the panel stay in place had worn down and finally gotten to the point where they were to small to reliably hold the panel in place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rental place swapped my unit for a working one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2861" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T03:28:21.527" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10835" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10873" CreationDate="2011-04-13T03:39:18.077" Score="0" ViewCount="115" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am thinking of getting Nikon AF Micro Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D.&#xA;I'm not a stamp collector so what I am looking for is characteristics of 100mm macro lens for Full Frame camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should I get 100mm macro for that even if I own Nikon D90 which is DX format camera?&#xA;Or Should I get 60mm macro which would be the closest to 100mm after the crop factor considered?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4703" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T14:21:38.933" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T14:45:13.420" Title="After considering crop factor on Nikon D90, which macro lens should I get?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;macro&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="10836" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-13T04:05:25.353" Score="3" ViewCount="434" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon 50/f1.8. I am looking for a zoom lens. After much research, I have zeroed in two lenses as my second lens: either Tamron 18-270 mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD &lt;em&gt;or&lt;/em&gt; Canon EF75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want decently sharp images, though they don't need to be very sharp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anybody who has used the above offer advice? Do you have any other suggestions? My budget is around $700-800&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Kind of photography I am interested in are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Portraits (children)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Travel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flowers/Insects&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wedding&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4489" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T11:44:04.690" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T02:43:39.793" Title="Would the Tamron 18- 270 mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD make a good choice as my second lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;superzoom&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="10838" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10836" CreationDate="2011-04-13T04:30:02.103" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A superzoom like that will be the jack of many trades, master of none.  If you are used to the sharpness of the prime, you may be seriously disappointed with the softness of a superzoom.  My experience is limited to the 18-200 style lenses, but beyond basic sharpness, consider:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You are used to 50 mm f/1.8.  You now want to have a starting aperture of f/3.5 (and even then, only at the widest setting).  At that aperture, the zoom will be weak, and only by stopping down to something like f/6.3 or f/8 will you get quality close to what you're used to.  That will make your entire shooting style different, since there will be much more light required to take the shot.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Composition with the 50mm is much more locked.  With the zoom, angle of view becomes another portion of the equation you have to take into consideration when shooting.  That may slow you down.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;This essay was very informative on my style:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Pontification/n_Telephoto_Is_For_Wimps/a_Telephoto_Is_For_Cowards.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Telephoto is for cowards.&lt;/a&gt;. That's a style decision. so if you disagree, by all means.  But as a result of that, I have no lens longer than 85mm, and have not really found myself limited.  That 85mm is an f/1.8 prime, and I love it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T08:20:38.457" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T08:20:38.457" />
  <row Id="10841" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8133" CreationDate="2011-04-13T05:20:32.840" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Now that your sample picture is actually visible, I think your problem may be your depth of field is too shallow.  Your &quot;ghost&quot; drops look like they're point light sources from the reflections of your spray in the out of focus area.  If you stop down your lens, you may be able to reduce/avoid this. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may need to increase your ISO to overcome the stopping down though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T05:20:32.840" />
  <row Id="10842" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6129" CreationDate="2011-04-13T08:37:15.230" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The one-over-focal-length rule of thumb is just that — a rough guideline. With smaller sensors and higher resolution, it's somewhat dated, and it's quite reasonable to want to update that by a stop or two faster. Having image stabilization at the &quot;normal&quot; focal lengths (or even at moderate wide angles) effectively means that we can keep using the same old rule to higher standards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it absolutely necessary? No, of course not. Is it nice to have? For some shooting styles, absolutely. For others, it's perfectly reasonable to not really care.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T08:37:15.230" />
  <row Id="10843" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10846" CreationDate="2011-04-13T08:37:24.823" Score="4" ViewCount="301" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the features that make a DSLR costlier?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, I am wondering why the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Digital-SLR-Cameras/25444/D700.html#tab-ProductDetail.ProductTabs.Overview&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon D700&lt;/a&gt; costs $2000?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4705" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T08:40:08.127" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T18:39:53.477" Title="Why does a higher-end camera body like the Nikon D700 cost so much?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;pricing&gt;&lt;features&gt;" AnswerCount="5" />
  <row Id="10846" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10843" CreationDate="2011-04-13T08:57:18.060" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Nikon D700 has a full-frame (FX) sensor. Such sensors are inherently more expensive than APS-C (DX) sensors, due in part to the relatively lower yield from chip manufacturing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, the D700 is a &quot;pro-grade&quot; body, featuring alloy chassis, multiple controls, and AI-lens metering capability. Compared to a D300s for example, which has similar features, the premium is basically all in the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T08:57:18.060" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10847" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10874" CreationDate="2011-04-13T08:59:11.327" Score="2" ViewCount="133" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am looking for a polarization filter for a couple of my lenses. I have heard great things about Nikon CP filters and I am using Nikon NC filters myself on some of my most precious lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I recently heard about Hoya HD CP filters. I don't really care about how sturdy these are since I take great care of my equipment. Nonetheless, these Hoya filters are cheaper (about 1/3th cheaper) and allow more light to pass (I never use a polarization filter as a substitute for a grad filter). The downside is that I've heard that the Nikon CP are easier to handle and that the Hoya have a tendency to get stuck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sadly enough, searching DPReview, Sack Exchange and searching Google did not provide me with a satisfactory comparison (the Nikon CP is rarely discussed and the Hoya HD CP is quite new). Does anyone have any experience with either CP filter and can anyone recommend which brand I should choose (and why)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4708" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T13:54:26.637" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T15:32:48.107" Title="Should I choose Hoya HD CP or Nikon CP II polarization filters?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;filters&gt;&lt;polarizer&gt;&lt;hoya&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="10851" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10843" CreationDate="2011-04-13T09:27:44.500" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a significant extra cost to manufacture the sensor as gerikson states (with 2.25 times the area the chances of a defect is much higher so they have to throw more chips away per wafer due to defects). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But there's another factor to consider and that is that D700s cost more because people are willing to pay more! It's the same everywhere you look, the premium models cost a disproportionate amount. The extra money is used to subsidize the entry level models whose sales figures are far more price sensitive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T09:27:44.500" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="10852" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3770" CreationDate="2011-04-13T09:48:40.947" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have touched on a surprisingly difficult question we all face. Mostly we intuitively feel our way towards the right answer but it can be very helpful to parse out the influences we factor into our decision.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Return on investment.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Have you had enough use, in terms of photos and enjoyment, to effectively recover the investment you made in your equipment.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Added value of new investment.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;In what way will your new investment add value to your photography? Will there be a technical improvement? Will you be more creative? Will new opportunities be opened to you? Will it add more joy to your photography?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Place on the technology curve.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;While on the steep part of the technology curve it makes sense to have short upgrade cycles with longer upgrade cycles on the shoulder. With mature technology the upgrade cycle is determined by things like wear and tear.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;New needs and aspirations.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Have you grown as a photographer and found that you have new needs or aspirations that can only be satisfied with new equipment.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Wear and tear.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Has your equipment suffered from significant wear and tear requiring replacement?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;External influences.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Are you the victim of external influences? Companies bring very considerable powers of persuasion to bear in the hope of shortening your replacement cycle. Camera forums add to this problem, creating a veritable hot house of eager anticipation of the latest and greatest.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Changed perceptions.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Have your perceptions of your equipment changed? Is this because you have found the equipment to have shortcomings? Or is it because you have allowed yourself to become the victim of external influences?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Cost of lost opportunity.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Failure to grasp an opportunity also has a cost. And this cost may be greater than the cost savings of waiting for prices to fall. So, what opportunities will you be missing and how valuable/important are they to you?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Disposable income.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Are you sure you are using your disposable income in the wisest way, considering the many demands on you?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reasons for original investment.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;It is helpful to cast your mind back and ask why you made your choice in the first place? Do those reasons still apply? If not, what has changed?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Law of unintended consequences.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Have you taken the time to list possible adverse consequences? Believe it or not this is what corporations get wrong every time. Their hunger for the marshmallow blinds them to the consequences, see next point.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Delayed gratification or the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ted.com/talks/joachim_de_posada_says_don_t_eat_the_marshmallow_yet.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Marshmallow Test&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;You have read through this list and by now you should have a good idea of what your decision should be. Now ask yourself a searching question. Are you able to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_gratification&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;practice self discipline and wait&lt;/a&gt; until the time is right to re-invest in your equipment or have you been overcome by your desire for a marshmallow? Are you like one of the kids that failed &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ted.com/talks/joachim_de_posada_says_don_t_eat_the_marshmallow_yet.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the Marshmallow Test&lt;/a&gt;?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My advice is to carefully think about each of these items and ask the question, does this support my decision to re-invest? There is no magic formula but you will have examined the problem from all angles making it likely that you will make the right decision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It all comes down to one last question. Will this really make me a better photographer? Is it worth the cost?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T22:45:26.493" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T22:45:26.493" />
  <row Id="10854" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10843" CreationDate="2011-04-13T10:04:19.000" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another reason is that professional level photographers expect, indeed need, higher levels of support. This means better spares availability, faster turn around on repairs, stocking of replacement kit and more support staff. All of this adds to the price of the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T10:04:19.000" />
  <row Id="10855" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10856" CreationDate="2011-04-13T10:11:42.403" Score="3" ViewCount="303" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am mostly a passion driven photographer and planning to buy &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Digital-SLR-Cameras/25446/D90.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon D90&lt;/a&gt; with the kit lens this week.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What other mandatory things should I buy along? At this phase, I only want to get those items which are really must for starting up photographing, as I need to learn a lot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4433" LastEditorUserId="1913" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T11:07:26.063" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T03:11:21.677" Title="What should a beginner buy with Nikon D90 and the kit lens?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon-d90&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10856" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10855" CreationDate="2011-04-13T10:24:11.330" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A good tripod is useful in many situations. Basic editing software is also useful, something like Adobe Photoshop Elements (though there are good free alternatives).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other than this, it really depends on the kind of photography you plan on doing, and what budget you have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you plan on doing landscapes, then the aforementioned tripod is a must, along with perhaps a remote trigger, a polarising filter and ND grad filters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you plan on doing portraits, then you are better off investing in a good speedlight so you can do some off-camera lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if you are only just beginning photography, I would suggest you hang fire on just about all these, except the tripod, until you learn how to use your camera effectively, and get a clear idea of what you like doing with your camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T10:24:11.330" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10857" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10855" CreationDate="2011-04-13T10:25:43.127" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Get  multiple memory cards. If you're new and if you shoot RAW, you'll need them the most.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Get an additional battery for D90. You'll need to use the live view most of the times, so an extra battery will help for sure.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Get a tripod and a remote. This will help you to shoot long exposures and I bet you'll love them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Get 50mm f/1.8. Your kit lens will not perform great in low light situations, not even in mediocre lights. It'll also hunt for focus. If you can manage to get the 50mm f/1.8, you'll get the edge required for shooting in low light, also get used to the concept of walking-zoom.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Welcome to the world of photography, happy clicking :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T10:25:43.127" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="10858" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10855" CreationDate="2011-04-13T10:32:13.590" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mandatories:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Camera body&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Memory Card&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nice to have, but totally optional:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;USB-cable (usually, if not always, comes with the camera body; and not even necessary if you have a memory card reader)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Camera bag (highly convenient for travel and for storing)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is all what is needed and it is just enough to start. Actually, this was all what I got when I bought my first DSLR and I didn't actually need anything else for at least the next 6-9 months. There was &lt;em&gt;so much to learn&lt;/em&gt; even with these bare necessities. Try to think the photographs first and gear the second. If you'll need some extra gear later on, you will notice it. It is impossible to go to the store and buy the perfect kit (unless one considers body+lens+mc as perfect).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1913" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T10:32:13.590" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10859" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10862" CreationDate="2011-04-13T10:38:25.017" Score="9" ViewCount="205" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there any website that can help me to choose the best lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to find a website where I can specify a range of minimum focus distance, a range of maximum focus distance, range of aperture, number of elements/groups, compatibility to bayonetes(mounts), etc. to search the lens that fit to my criteria.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A website with additional samples of photos on different focus+aperture would be useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2272" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-27T11:25:47.737" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T11:25:47.737" Title="A website that can help me in choice of new lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;web&gt;&lt;comparison&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="10860" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10855" CreationDate="2011-04-13T11:22:48.663" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi Umesh,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First check camera and see what you're getting with it. As you said you're buying with kit lens ( I hope it is 18-105mm ) it will come with a lens hood. I am a D90 owner. If you're very new to this field then take some time understanding the camera and its different settings and do your research about different tripods, tripod heads, lenses, filters, etc.. again it all depends on in what type of photography you are interested in and what type of lenses required.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As of now I would suggest only few things&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Camera with a kit lens( or a telephoto lens)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Memory cards&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Camera bag&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Filters - UV filters must to protect your lens ( don't invest in cheap quality lenses)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;50mm f/1.8 ( its a very good lens for low light and very less priced) I would also like to include this here because its cheap, good lens, teaches you how to frame your subject, and its a fast prime.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would say these are sufficient for you to get going.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Optionally &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;tripod ( must for taking long exposures)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;remote ( must for long exposures and to avoid camera shake)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;different filters &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Additional battery (battery provided with D90 gives a good backup, also if you consider buying a battery pack)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;more lenses based on your interest&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, get to know your camera first and invest later in the right product.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4714" LastEditorUserId="4599" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-14T07:55:51.733" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T07:55:51.733" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10861" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10859" CreationDate="2011-04-13T11:36:13.037" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The big online camera/electronics stores offer searches that encompass some of this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ci=274&amp;amp;N=4293344976&amp;amp;cm_sp=Filters-_-Category-_-SLR_Camera_Lenses&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;B&amp;amp;H Photo SLR Lenses&lt;/a&gt;:  check the options in the left column.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=itemlist&amp;amp;cat1=Cameras%20&amp;amp;%20Lenses&amp;amp;cat2=Lenses%20&amp;amp;%20Accessories&amp;amp;cat3=35mm%20&amp;amp;%20Digital%20SLR%20Lenses&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adorama SLR Lenses&lt;/a&gt;: look in the right column.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This isn't quite as specific as you might like, but it's pretty good. Some things you mention, like number of elements, can't be searched on easily, but you can find those in the listing for each individual lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T11:36:13.037" />
  <row Id="10862" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10859" CreationDate="2011-04-13T11:48:58.087" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You should try &lt;a href=&quot;http://lenshero.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.lenshero.com&lt;/a&gt;. You can select your camera and then narrow down lens choices based on aperture, focal length, etc. I've not used it much myself but it sounds like exactly what you're after.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T12:39:22.430" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T12:39:22.430" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10863" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10859" CreationDate="2011-04-13T11:49:29.807" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can check &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/&lt;/a&gt; This site provides almost all I need and is really helpful. They have a long list of reviews and I found them more or less non-biased in their opinions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T11:49:29.807" />
  <row Id="10864" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-13T12:48:01.087" Score="11" ViewCount="242" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was looking to get a circular polarizing filter and an UV filter for my Canon 550D, 18-135mm lens. When I checked online I found these filters came in different sizes, like 62mm, 67mm, 72mm, 77mm. How do I know which is right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, will there be any degradation of photo quality if I put both these filters on the lens? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1924" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T12:55:05.403" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T06:49:15.753" Title="How do I find the right size of filters for a lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;filters&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10865" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10864" CreationDate="2011-04-13T12:55:15.293" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The filter size is usually printed on the lens. If you look at the front of it, it's usually either just inside the edge before the glass (which I think is the case for your lens) or just along the outside of it. I suspect it's 67mm, but you should confirm it. It will have what looks like an O with a vertical line through it (Greek phi), followed by the size in mm. Something like Φ67mm is what you want to find.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt linked to an answer about UV filters in terms of effect. In general, the more glass you put in front of the image sensor, the more you impact the image quality. However, this can often be undetectable and acceptable for the gains that a particular filter may provide in other ways. For example, a polarizer may allow you to get a shot that you might not otherwise, so if there is a loss of image quality, you'd accept it. Having said all that, it's not really an issue for the most part. The only thing to be aware of is that polarizer will reduce the light by a couple of stops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T13:05:27.900" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T13:05:27.900" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="10866" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10864" CreationDate="2011-04-13T12:55:51.330" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Take a look at the business end of the lens, i.e the end you point at subjects. Around the outside of the glass is a plastic bit where it says 'Canon Zoom Lens 18-135mm' etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Somewhere on there will be a symbol - a circle with a line through it, followed by a number. In the case of your 18-135mm, it should say 67mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T12:55:51.330" />
  <row Id="10867" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10859" CreationDate="2011-04-13T12:57:07.177" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DPReview.com&lt;/a&gt; has just launched rather nice &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/products/search/cameras&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Camera&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/products/search/lenses&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lens&lt;/a&gt; feature search tools.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T14:39:20.830" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T14:39:20.830" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10868" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10859" CreationDate="2011-04-13T13:00:14.010" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_lens.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;lens search by specifications&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Neocamera&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; suits the most of your needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can specify the following criteria:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Brand&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mount&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Min crop factor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wides focal length&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Longest focal length&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Widest aperture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Min focus distance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Magnification&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Filter thread size&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Zoom&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lens length&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lens diameter&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lens weight&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hood type&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Focus (internal/external)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Focus motor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Focus drive&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tilt (yes/no)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shift (yes/no)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Discontinued (yes/no)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Image stabilization (yes/no)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Weatherproof (yes/no)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Perspective&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rectilinear&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fisheye&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Stereoscopic (3D)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And if the results look too overwhelming, you could rather easily refine your search by just clicking more filters. Or if the search page looks too overwhelming, you could try the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_lens.php?by=feature&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;lens search by features&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; page on the same site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No reviews or sample images though. But it helps you to narrow down the options and to decide what lenses you should search the reviews and samples from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1913" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T13:00:14.010" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10869" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10843" CreationDate="2011-04-13T13:18:53.627" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because professionals and ambitious amateurs (especially ambitious amateurs!) will pay for it. That is the sole reason why. You don't need an expensive camera to take good pictures; in fact, there is almost certainly no photography application for which you couldn't use a cheaper camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By contrast, there are many applications that would be better (or more conveniently) served by large or medium format cameras, which are even more expensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4663" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T13:18:53.627" />
  <row Id="10870" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10864" CreationDate="2011-04-13T13:21:54.553" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As per other answers, it is usually &lt;strong&gt;marked with the ⌀ symbol&lt;/strong&gt; on the front and, if not, on the barrel. Some specialty lenses do not accept filters, in which case you won't find any markings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For your lens, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=169&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the thread is 67mm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the thread size which means you can &lt;strong&gt;attach that size of filter directly&lt;/strong&gt;. This convenient but costly. Instead, I buy my filters in the largest size (77mm usually) and have &lt;strong&gt;step-up rings to bridge the gap&lt;/strong&gt;. A step-up ring costs about $12, so if you buy 77mm filters and have a 58mm, 67mm and 77mm lens, you need 2 step-up rings: 58-&gt;77 and 67-&gt;77. The only catch that you can't use a step-up ring and a lens hood at the same time. &lt;strong&gt;It saves lots of money considering a good polarizer costs over $200.&lt;/strong&gt; Even if you have just two lenses with different filters you'll save. My lenses have 8 filter sizes so you can imaging how much money I saved on polarizers alone!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;There will be a degradation in image quality if you use a filter.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10616/does-custom-white-balance-cancel-out-the-pink-of-skylight-filter/10621#10621&quot;&gt;See my answer to this question&lt;/a&gt;. Generally, the less you pay, the more degradation there will be. UV filters are usually sold for protection but polarizers have a genuinely useful photographic purpose, attenuating glare, surface reflections and increasing color saturation of the sky and some other surfaces as a side-effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="3356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-10T06:49:15.753" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T06:49:15.753" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10871" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1294" CreationDate="2011-04-13T13:35:13.310" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check which release mode it is set to - Single Frame, Continuous Low, Continuous High. In Single frame you can take 1 picture at the press of the shutter button, in Continuous Low you can take up to 1-4 fps and in Continuous High you can take 4.5fps until you release the shutter button.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also set the Autofocus to AF-C so that it will keep on hunting for the focus on the active focus point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To change the release mode button look on the top right side of the camera a button with stack of rectangles on it, press it and turn the main command dial for the desired setting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4714" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T13:35:13.310" />
  <row Id="10872" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10847" CreationDate="2011-04-13T13:47:06.627" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;At 1/3 of the price, for what for you is better performance, what is the concern? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it really gets stuck (and with care it won't), you can buy a suitable wrench to free it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4663" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T13:47:06.627" />
  <row Id="10873" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10835" CreationDate="2011-04-13T14:45:13.420" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I started doing macro work (back in the film days) I started with a 90mm Tamron (good lens BTW).  What I found was that the working distance was too short.  I could not get close enough to bugs and the field of view often included too much background.  As soon as I could afford it I bought a Nikon 200mm f4 Micro lens.  The field of view is great for framing and the working distance is long enough that I don't scare away bugs &lt;em&gt;every&lt;/em&gt; time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In your case a 60mm may have the field of view of a 90mm on a film camera but the working distance for minimum focus does not change so your working distance will be even worse than what I experienced.  I do not think you will be happy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recommend that you consider a longer lens like the Nikon 200 or the Sigma 180 (I have experience with the Nikon but not the Sigma so I have nothing to say about how well the Sigma performs).  You will get an working distance that will be as good as you can get and even narrower background framing than what I get on my D700.  A lens like that can be a bit pricey, so, alternatively look at a Tamron 90mm or a Nikon 105mm instead.  My experience with the Tamron is with the older MF version but what I have heard is the newer ones are even better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ian&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2155" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T14:45:13.420" />
  <row Id="10874" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10847" CreationDate="2011-04-13T15:32:48.107" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Read the polarizing filter review at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lenstip.com/115.1-article-Polarizing_filters_test.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lenstip.com/115.1-article-Polarizing_filters_test.html&lt;/a&gt; and then consider the top-rated Marumi DHG super circular polarizer for the same price as the Hoya.  (I share the 77 mm version of the Marumi among several lenses via a step-down ring.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T15:32:48.107" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="10875" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10836" CreationDate="2011-04-13T16:09:21.973" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to softness, pay attention to what sort of distortion you see out of zoom lenses.  I don't know that there are any zooms available that won't show some sort of distortion at their extreme focal lengths, but when you're looking at a good zoom lens, it'll typically show only one type of distortion at a time, which is reasonably correctable in most post-processing programs.  Superzooms or lower-quality zooms sometimes show complex distortions, though, and these can be trickier to deal with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Less distortion to begin with, of course, is really much better, and this is made more difficult as zoom ranges increase.  As another huge generalization, it's easier to make a high-quality prime than a high-quality zoom, and the larger the zoom range, the harder it is to maintain quality.  You've got to be careful to compare apples to apples, of course, because there are some fine high-quality zoom lenses out there, but these lenses tend to be quite expensive because they're complicated and the optics need to be incredibly precise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might also consider what sort of lens speed you need.  If you're shooting with natural light, you're probably going to find that a lens slower than f/2.8 is going to struggle quite a lot with indoor lighting (which could be a factor for weddings).  This is another one of those factors that tends to be pretty rare in large-range zooms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking at this from another point of view, if it were possible to make a lens of that range with excellent quality, I'd expect Canon to offer an &quot;L&quot; lens with that sort of range and speed.  After all, who wouldn't want to have all that range if it didn't mean giving up something else in return?  The closest Canon comes to that sort of range is their 28-300 f/3.5-5.6.  This is an &quot;L&quot; lens that'll run you about $2500, but even at this level, if you go look up &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-300mm-f-3.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;reviews&lt;/a&gt; for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-28-300.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this lens&lt;/a&gt;, you'll see that it's a compromise compared to primes or smaller-range zooms.  Note also that this isn't an especially fast lens, at f/3.5-5.6.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of this suggests that Tamron's 18-270 lens is far from a lousy lens; on the contrary, it's remarkable that they can pull off that zoom range with any sort of quality at all, but an all-in-one lens entails a lot of compromises.  If you can possibly cover that range with two or more lenses, you'll very likely be better off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T16:09:21.973" />
  <row Id="10876" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10864" CreationDate="2011-04-13T16:48:10.790" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No matter what filter size you use, you always want to put the polarizing filter on last.  The end of the polarizing filter rotates so that you can filter the light from any direction (or camera orientation), so you don't want to have anything on the end of that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not even sure if my polarizing filter (B+W) has threads to accept additional filters stacked on top now that I think about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4618" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T16:48:10.790" />
  <row Id="10877" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-13T16:56:08.330" Score="9" ViewCount="252" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Background&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm a web developer (diploma) and computer scientist (degree), so I know a thing or two about computers and software. I just got into photography in Nov '10, but have been using Photoshop and GIMP since 2002-03ish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was hired by a friend of a friend, who is a retiree/photographer, commissioned to set up a backup system for his laptop and desktop to an in-house backup server.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During this time I got to watch him use Lightroom 2.7 and we discussed the benefits of having a catalogue over individual photos in a folder and using Photoshop/GIMP.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Lightroom Upgrade Disaster&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also, unfortunately, got to watch him upgrade to Lightroom 3.0 and then to 3.2. I've never seen an upgrade go so badly. He had files scattered all over his computer (from the Desktop to C:/ to H:/) and Lightroom had linked to them from all these locations (but did not copy them to a single directory). Somehow, during the upgrades, a new library was created in D:/My Pictures and he ended up losing 500 of his best 4000 photos (the originals, but not the linked edits in the catalogue).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Current Workflow&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The benefits of Lightroom and Aperture are obvious, but as a computer scientist, I fear proprietary software because I don't know what it's doing. Right now I have hundreds of folders that hold all my photoshoots organized by &quot;YYYYMMDD Description&quot; with a sub-folder called 'edits' where I save my edits in .xcf (GIMP's equivalent to .psd), .png and .jpg. The problem is this is very time consuming and takes up a lot of space on my hard drive. So I'm looking to switch to one of these programs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Benefits of Lightroom/Aperture&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the biggest benefits of using Lightroom or Aperture is they save your edits as metadata in a database, so you go back and finely adjust edits that are years old at anytime. Even .psd or .xcf files don't save that data non-destructively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Fears&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My fear is a reliance on these programs and the fact that if the Lightroom catalogue were ever to become corrupt (via an upgrade, malicious program, accident, etc.), I could loose all my edits. Even if I back it up, I could have a catalogue that is a month old and all my most recent edits (possibly hundreds of photo edits), could be lost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I take my external hard drive to another computer that doesn't have Lightroom, I can't view my photos. Saving all my images in .jpg and .png allows me to view them on any computer via any medium. Now Lightroom has a 'Library' that allows you to export all your edits to .jpg (with your watermark and whatever else you want), correct? So that may appease my concern there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I make edits in GIMP, I touch two things: curves and levels (and brushes like healing, cloning, perspective, dodge/burn, etc.) When I downloaded a trial version of Lightroom, I noticed that I couldn't edit &lt;em&gt;either&lt;/em&gt; as effectively as I could in GIMP. I felt lost without those two tools. What can I do to appease this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What Can I Do?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I just want to know what others are doing or have done that fear using monolithic programs such as these and have a very real and avid fear of losing their data, including losing functionality that will be lost from switching from GIMP or Photoshop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, it hurts that I'm an Ubuntu Linux user, but I need a real photography workflow program, so I'm willing to dual-boot into Windows or purchasing a Mac just for editing my photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4720" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T15:54:16.113" Title="Reservations on making the move to Adobe Lightroom or Apple's Aperture" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;apple-aperture&gt;&lt;workflow&gt;&lt;gimp&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="6" />
  <row Id="10878" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10877" CreationDate="2011-04-13T17:09:35.093" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As both a computer scientist and a photographer, I can tell you that the benefits of a program like Lightroom, to me, far outweigh the risks.  I've been using Lightroom since the 1.0 days because photoshop/imagej/gimp/etc were just not cutting it for me when I had 500+ images to edit in two hours or so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I should preface by saying that I don't fear monolithic or proprietary systems, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It all depends on how you use the system, to me.  First, I store all my photos on a Drobo, so the chances of data loss from drive death are lessened (though, of course, not eliminated).  It also centralizes all the image information into one place, rather than having everything scattered all over the place.  Next, for the edits, all of my final images I save out as separate, full-quality jpgs that then get uploaded to a remote server.  That way, the 'best' images that I like I already have saved somewhere offsite and I don't have to worry about retaining the Lightroom editing stream.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also rarely return to images that are more than a few months old.  Once the jpgs are done and stored remotely, I just don't go back.  I have all the images in raw, just in case, but it's been several years now, and I find that I just don't have the need.  When I do, I find that it's better to process the image from scratch, because I now know more than I did then, and can do a better job reprocessing the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T17:09:35.093" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10879" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10877" CreationDate="2011-04-13T17:12:17.313" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't use Lightroom in production, so I cannot comment completely, but I've been playing with the 30-day trial and I'm thinking of switching to it from IMatch + Bibble on Windows. A few points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;LR can be configured to write your metadata changes and development settings to XMP &quot;sidecar&quot; files that live with your images. This mitigates the risk of losing the entire catalog.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;LR can be configured to import your images by copying them to a specific place, instead of referencing them wherever they are. It can automatically organize in subdirectories by date, much like you're doing now. So set that up to your liking, and you shouldn't in your friend's situation of having files scattered randomly.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You may currently use curves and levels, but those aren't necessarily intended as LR's primary controls, and you may be better off learning new habits than fighting LR. Think like a darkroom junkie instead of a computer scientist, because that's who it's made for. :-) Play with exposure, blacks, fill light, etc., and see how they work.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BTW, I'm running the 30-day evaluation in VirtualBox (Windows host and guest) and it runs pretty well on my Core i7-930 with 6 GB (with 3 GB allocated to the VM). So that's another option besides dual booting or buying new hardware.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2138" LastEditorUserId="2138" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T17:45:28.957" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T17:45:28.957" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10880" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1484" CreationDate="2011-04-13T17:15:44.523" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you've got an itch to DIY, you can also use an arduino with a photo transistor to detect the rapid change in light and trigger the shutter.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wire up a basic circuit with a photo&#xA;transistor as an arduino input. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wire up the&#xA;arduino to trip your shutter cable.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Write a small script to detect fast&#xA;light changes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can check out some details &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.glacialwanderer.com/hobbyrobotics/?p=16&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you camera has a low enough shutter response time, its doable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T17:15:44.523" />
  <row Id="10881" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10864" CreationDate="2011-04-13T18:15:59.777" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question about diameter has already been answered I see. As for the stacking question, stacking filters should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Each filter adds two new surfaces that can be dirty and/or scratched, which is a bad thing. Each filter also adds two new surfaces which can cause flare and reflections, which is a worse thing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a general principle, ditch the UV filter. It serves absolutely no photographic purpose on a digital camera. It gives some small measure of protection for the front element, but so does a lens-hood which in addition does serve a photographic purpose by reducing flare. Add a filter only when you need to - the only ones you need to, largely speaking, are polarizing filters and neutral gray filters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T18:15:59.777" />
  <row Id="10882" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10877" CreationDate="2011-04-13T18:16:26.173" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A couple of your fears aren't really true, let me try to put your mind to ease on them. (I'm a photographer (Arts degree) and a computer scientist (CS degree) that spent over a decade on linux before moving to the mac, and I use LR for all my photo workflow... so I might be biased, but I also identify with the position you're in pretty well.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Lost edits from catalog corruption&lt;/em&gt;. Lightroom (and I'm pretty sure Aperture) have an option to automatically store all edits in sidecar files, you should turn that option on. (either xmp or rolled into the dng, depending on what you're using.) While it's true that you will loose your edit HISTORY if the catalog gets destroyed, the non-destructive edits will still be stored in those side cars and will be recoverable. I've actually taken a DNG from one machine to another and loaded it up into LR in a totally different catalog and had all my edits sitting there, just no history of how I got to that point.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Access to files without Lightroom&lt;/em&gt;. When you import photos into Ligthroom there are a couple options on what to do with the files. Storing them on a central location such as your external harddrive is usually a good choice, which it sounds like your friend wasn't doing. That hard drive still has all your images on it, and you can view them without Lightroom. (you can even edit them, though I wouldn't suggest doing so.) If you choose to import to DNG and have a decent image viewer, it can even view them with your edits applied. Alternately if you write all your changes to the xmp side cars, and use a program that's XMP aware (like PhotoShop) then again you can even view them with (at least rough approximations to) your edits applied. Aperture to the best of my knowledge does NOT work this way.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;you have to switch from Linux to get a real photo workflow&lt;/em&gt;. Several months ago I did a presentation for my local LUG on LR equivalents on linux. Darktable, bluemarine, digiKam and fspot are all attempts at capturing photo workflow and management in an opensource package. Some of them are blatant clones of LR / Aperture... so you get something that makes sense to a darkroom type, some of them are built by computer geeks trying to figure out how to manage photos, so you get something that looks and feels more like the Gimp.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T18:16:26.173" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10883" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10889" CreationDate="2011-04-13T18:17:07.293" Score="2" ViewCount="91" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to know if there are any advantages to using this calibration software package instead of the ones that came with my colorimeter (a Spyder 2 Express)? I've read a number of reviews online, but none of them seem to answer the obvious question: Why would anyone pay lots of money for a software package that comes for free with your colorimeter?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2528" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T18:18:08.523" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T19:00:05.337" Title="Does Color Eyes Display Pro have advantages over the software that came with my colorimeter?" Tags="&lt;color-management&gt;&lt;color-calibration&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="10884" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-13T18:21:39.600" Score="6" ViewCount="196" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can see the benefit of designing and manufacturing a &lt;em&gt;wide-angle&lt;/em&gt; lens specifically for APS-C sized sensors instead of full-frame sensors: you will get smaller, lighter, and cheaper lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But is it really useful &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; for wide-angle lenses? For example, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-S_lens_mount&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia page on Canon EF-S lenses&lt;/a&gt; writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The proximity of the rear element to the image sensor greatly enhances the possibilities for wide angle and very wide angle lenses, enabling them to be made smaller, lighter (containing less glass), faster (larger aperture) and less expensive. Most current Canon EF-S lenses are wide angle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence the question: does the size of the sensor matter that much with &lt;strong&gt;fast telephoto prime&lt;/strong&gt; lenses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance, if there was a Canon EF-S 200mm f/2.8 lens, would it be much smaller, lighter, and cheaper than Canon EF 200mm f/2.8?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="247" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T19:05:14.650" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T18:50:35.290" Title="Fast telephoto primes for APS-C mounts — would they make any sense?" Tags="&lt;lens-design&gt;&lt;cropped-sensor&gt;&lt;lens-mount&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10885" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10843" CreationDate="2011-04-13T18:39:53.477" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't forget that the development costs are divided over the number of units sold, so for specialist cameras that are beyond the needs of most camera users, the total number of units sold is lower, and the cost of R&amp;amp;D per unit is higher.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="160" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T18:39:53.477" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="10886" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="321" CreationDate="2011-04-13T18:42:38.590" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're not averse to a commercial product, you might want to have a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibblelabs.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bibble Pro&lt;/a&gt;. I used it very regularly when Linux was my primary OS and I found it to be the best digital asset management package available for that platform. It supports cataloguing, non-destructive adjustments, layers and there is a long list of plug-ins that do some very cool things. It's also a fairly competent RAW converter, though I've found that it makes a &lt;em&gt;slight&lt;/em&gt; sacrifice to image quality for conversion speed (it's &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; fast compared to dcraw/RawTherapee/ufraw). The early 5.0 releases were buggy, but I imagine that the latest 5.2 release is better on that front.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2528" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T18:42:38.590" />
  <row Id="10887" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10884" CreationDate="2011-04-13T18:54:18.480" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It would be smaller, lighter and cheaper. A smaller image circle requires less glass, less glass will get by with a weaker (lighter, cheaper) AF system. Fewer materials reduce weight and price. Compare a 80mm f/2.8 medium format lens (Hasselblad, Pentacon Six) to a 80mm f/1.8 35mm SLR lens, the size difference is noticeable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And that's why it probably won't get made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a common problem a lot of people who discuss cameras on the internet fall into: they want cheap, premium-quality accessories for lower-level gear. Canon has it's market pretty well divided: cheaper cameras for people who are willing to go with a 1.6x crop and more expensive, higher-end cameras for people willing to pay the non-crop premium (the 7D being an exception to this). I will say this plainly: if you didn't bother to buy a high-end body, you will probably never buy an expensive lens. Most crop sensor camera buyers never spend more on lenses than they do on bodies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EF-S/DX lenses only really make sense when a) dealing with focal lengths that are unwieldy on full frame and b) creating cheap kit lenses that have to be small and cheap. Great examples of a) are the 17/18mm-50/55mm 'kit' lenses made by pretty much every crop sensor manufacturer. A 17mm lens on full frame is extremely wide and requires a lot of glass to get anything close to a high quality image. Compare the size of a 17-40 f/4L to a 18-55 kit lens. A good example of b) would be the 55-250mm. It's a tiny, cheap lens. Compare it to the 100-400 f/3.5-5.6L - a tremendous difference. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thing with the 200mm f/2.8 is this - by creating an EF-S model, Canon would likely sell a few more lenses than just by having an EF model. The problem is, it would cannibalize sales of the more expensive, higher margin EF lens. Most people who want a 200mm f/2.8 prime will just buy the EF, the number of people who'll forgo getting it just because it's not an EF-S lens is incredibly small. To create an EF-S version Canon would have to lay out money for R&amp;amp;D, promotion, etc. They would create a lens that many people would avoid, thinking &quot;if I ever upgrade to full frame, I'll never be able to use this lens.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, Canon telephotos are excellent, expensive pro lenses. You need to be serious about your photography if you're willing to drop 5 grand on a 300mm f/2.8L. I doubt there are many people - and I'm sure Canon will agree with me here - who look at a $5000 lens and say, &quot;if this was only $4000, I'd buy it in a heartbeat&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastEditorUserId="3050" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T19:02:18.223" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T19:02:18.223" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="10888" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10884" CreationDate="2011-04-13T18:54:40.460" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My guess is that the question of making sense is a complex one. First, you have to ask yourself &lt;em&gt;for who&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is probably certain that a lens can be designed smaller and lighter for a smaller sensor. The cost per lens is likely to be cheaper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now if you assume you already have a lens of the same specifications for a larger sensor, you have to take into account the incremental cost of adding a second assembly line and all other resources that must be added to build a second version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is probably the case that for wide-angle lenses, the savings of designing and manufacturing small-sensor versions are significant, while for telephoto they are not. The expected volume is certainly a factor here too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T18:54:40.460" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10889" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10883" CreationDate="2011-04-13T19:00:05.337" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The basic calibration software that comes with the Spyder 2 Express just does bare-bones calibration. It leaves many things up to however they are currently calibrated or set by the factory, such as screen luminance, and tries to calibrate as best it can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More advanced calibration software, such as Spyder 3 Elite v4, or the Color Eyes Display Pro, perform much more extensive calibration. I have the Spyder 3 Studio Elite package myself, and use the Elite v4 software. It adjusts my screen brightness to a specific luminance (I usually calibrate to 120cd/m), sets a precise black and white point, and does more extensive color calibration. The Elite v4 software also supports synchronized calibration across multiple screens, as well as performing various tests over the full screen surface to check for things like screen backlight illumination evenness, gamma tuning, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It sounds like the Color Eyes Display Pro does many of the same things. One thing about the Color Eyes software is it seems to be calibration device independent, so if you upgrade from one version of the Spyder device to another, or move to another brand, the Color Eyes software will still work. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T19:00:05.337" />
  <row Id="10890" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-13T19:00:25.617" Score="3" ViewCount="62" Body="&lt;p&gt;We need a solution to mount a camera to a wall. We'd like an option that swivels and tilts, which &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Makaw-MKVP06-Camera-Mounting-System/dp/B002OREONQ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this option&lt;/a&gt; does. This option uses a vise to mount, which means we need to install something into the wall to attach the vise to. Does anyone have ideas? Or another solution that is effective for our goal?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4722" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-16T22:07:31.343" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T22:07:31.343" Title="What should I use to mount a camera to a wall, with the option to swivel and tilt?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="10891" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10890" CreationDate="2011-04-13T19:08:08.573" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First thought that came to my mind: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Umbra-330637-560-Conceal-Shelf-Nickel/dp/B000IVRTBO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1302721514&amp;amp;sr=8-2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Umbra Conceal Wall Book Shelf&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those things are pretty cool to just see a pile of books floating on a wall. They should be able to more than handle the weight of a small camera on that device. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T19:40:03.390" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T19:40:03.390" />
  <row Id="10892" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10890" CreationDate="2011-04-13T19:18:13.153" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adorama.com/BG3277.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wall mount system&lt;/a&gt; available at Adorama that sounds exactly like what you're looking for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, depending of the surface and the use you are planning on, a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=itemlist&amp;amp;cat1=Tripods&amp;amp;cat2=Specialized%20Camera%20Supports&amp;amp;cat3=Suction%20Mounts&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;suction mount&lt;/a&gt; might be a good option too, since it wouldn't require any holes in the wall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T19:18:13.153" />
  <row Id="10893" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9567" CreationDate="2011-04-13T20:09:24.750" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The costs to print in the USA using self-publishing or vanity-publishing services is too cost-prohibitive for me. I have conducted a lot of research and found this to be the best option for photographers to self-publish their own hardback, full-color photo book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Find overseas printing services on Alibaba.com. Make sure to check out the reputation of the seller, and use an escrow service if possible. Quality can widely vary from vendor to vendor or event from order to order, so there is some risk. But, the cost is significantly less than US-based printers. Just go to Alibaba and search for &quot;full color hardback book printing&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4199" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T20:09:24.750" />
  <row Id="10894" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10813" CreationDate="2011-04-13T20:35:11.593" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One way I found to separate personal of professional works was use multiple Aperture Libraries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do use nested folders, by category/client/year/project fro the professional stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the Personal library I use category/year/event&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I found that its not a best practice, is just what it works well to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2924" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T20:35:11.593" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-13T20:35:11.593" />
  <row Id="10895" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10896" CreationDate="2011-04-13T20:41:40.180" Score="4" ViewCount="185" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am putting together a photo book. I shot all the photos in RAW. The prints will be 300pi on 13x11 inch glossy paper. I am laying out the pages in InDesign, which doesn't allow me to import and place RAW images. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should I convert the images to JPG or TIFF? I know TIFF is higher quality but is it really that much better? Is the difference noticeable?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4199" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T20:54:41.173" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T21:25:36.527" Title="Should I use JPG or TIFF for high-quality prints?" Tags="&lt;prints&gt;&lt;jpeg&gt;&lt;file-format&gt;&lt;tiff&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="10896" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10895" CreationDate="2011-04-13T21:01:24.600" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;These two formats are different:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;JPEG general info&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;JPEG is used to store images on smaller disk space&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;JPEG compression algorithm changes image data while converting it. Amount of change can be controlled but not its location which is &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; around sharp colour changes&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;JPEG is primarily an RGB format&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you'd be saving and opening the same image several times, you'd end up with an unusable image, because every time it would save it it would generate some changes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;But&lt;/strong&gt;: Photographic image material is especially well suited for JPEG format, because it contains lots of different colours and nuances. Since JPEG's compression changes these things they become rather &lt;em&gt;invisible&lt;/em&gt; in the image. That's why the most priminent parts with JPEG artefacts are very sharp contrast changes as shown in the below images example.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;TIFF general info&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;TIFF is primarily used in press&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's perfectly natural for a TIFF file to save image data in CMYK colour space which is used in press&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;TIFF can also compress image data but uses such an algorithm that doesn't change source data (lossless compression)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;TIFF format also supports &lt;em&gt;alpha&lt;/em&gt; channel (transparency) which is also relevant in press&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you'd be opening and saving the same TIFF file, you'll end up with exactly the same image as source. Nothing would change in terms of image data.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Saving&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want your images to stay as true to original as possible I'd rather go with TIFF format (with compression) because I can later open it, manipulate it etc and not taking the risk that resulting image (once again saved) would become useless with each save.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Verdict&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since RGB -&gt; CMYK conversion used to be bad on prepress machines it was perfectly normal to prepare all images in CMYK format and saved in TIFFs. Since I used to do prepress couple of decades ago I feel natural using TIFF whenever preparing anything for press/print because I can easily control the outcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nowadays these things are more similar yet I'd still rather use TIFF/CMYK because of lossless (saved image is same as original) compression and output control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can more or less always tell that a certain image was saved as a JPEG because in areas with strong contrast you can see the JPEG compression artefacts. The stronger the compression the more JPEG &lt;em&gt;noise&lt;/em&gt; or artefacts. If you'd use maximum JPEG quality these would be minimized but still not none. So some image is still distorted due to JPEG compression.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is an example of an exaggerated artefact JPEG artefact. First the original and then the low quality JPEG so you can see the difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/BNBh5.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Artefact free&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/1rf5B.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Artefact&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;sidenote&lt;/strong&gt;: both of these images are JPEGs although the &lt;em&gt;original&lt;/em&gt; is saved with maximum JPEG quality (22.5kb) and the bad one uses lowest possible JPEG quality (20.1kb). Size difference would be significant when images are big (or even huge) and containe lots of colurs and nuances. But as previously stated, it's harder to see JPEG artefacts in nice gradients than around sharp contrast transitions. And since every lens is more or less soft at pixel level there are less sharp contrast/colour transitions that would enhance JPEG artefacts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2110" LastEditorUserId="2110" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T21:25:36.527" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T21:25:36.527" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10897" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10895" CreationDate="2011-04-13T21:06:04.237" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While TIFF is technically 'better' in that it is lossless, if you use high-quality JPEGs you will save yourself a lot of memory issues and you will probably not notice the difference in final quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It may be worth checking with your print company to see what they recommend.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T21:06:04.237" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10898" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10912" CreationDate="2011-04-13T22:35:57.307" Score="15" ViewCount="762" Body="&lt;p&gt;Someone more experienced than me said that he always shoots so that his photos are underexposed (darker) and I should too. The reasoning being that you can always increase the exposure in postproduction, but you can never get the details back from overexposed parts of the photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if I think about it I think that you lose the dynamic range with this technique.&#xA;So I have three questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;i&gt;What should I do?&lt;/i&gt; Should I do it that way, or does it depend on the circumstances (like if I have enough time to test for proper exposure, etc.). Or should I rather try to learn to &quot;guess&quot; the right settings (I will fail a lot but also learn a lot)?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;i&gt;What do you do?&lt;/i&gt; How do you aproach a shoot?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;i&gt;How does underexposing affect dynamic range of photos?&lt;/i&gt; Does it effectively reduce contrast?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4725" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T19:03:18.753" Title="Should I shoot underexposed photos?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="10899" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10898" CreationDate="2011-04-13T22:45:39.610" Score="23" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's been alot of talk of ETTR which is the opposite of what you're talking, but not much about underexposing.  Basically, no, you shouldn't.  On most sensors the dark parts are by far the noisest parts of the image, and pushing that in post is just going to make it noisier.  You can't recover from pure black either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reality is you should expose &quot;properly&quot; - get the creatively correct exposure for the picture you want.  Exposure is a creative tool as much as the rest of the tools in the photog's toolbox.  With digital cameras, you get instant results, just take the picture how you think you want it and chimp.  In critical situations, where you may only get one shot you're going to need to take several pre-exposures of the surrounding area and combine it with experience to get what you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not a fan of anybody who says you should &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; decrease or increase the exposure based on what would properly do it in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T22:45:39.610" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="10900" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-13T23:11:45.983" Score="6" ViewCount="181" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's say you attend a marathon where participants wear bibs with their race number. You take hundreds or (cough) thousands of pictures and would like to upload them to share them (for free) with racers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather than simply upload them to (for example) Picasa Web, give the link to people and say &quot;here, go browse several thousand pictures and try find yourself,&quot; I'm looking for clever workflow and/or tools that might help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can think of two main high level options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Photographer tags before they&#xA;upload. They view each picture,&#xA;enter the bib number(s) they see in&#xA;each picture (how is TBD), then&#xA;upload them somewhere.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Photographer uploads all pictures,&#xA;    then asks participants to tag them&#xA;    (again, how is TBD) while they are&#xA;    viewing them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Option #2 is preferred because, well, the photographer has done enough and wants to get on with their life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With either option, a requirement is that users be able to search for their bib number and have a list of applicable pictures returned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So this is a multi-part question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What sort of techniques/tools do professional websites (e.g. ASI) use for large races? Do they use automation (e.g. OCR of bib numbers?) or is it manual (e.g. each individual photographer (or centralized resources) tags and uploads pictures using custom and/or off-the-shelf software?)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to simulate what those sites do using software/workflow/an online service (preferably free for the online service part)?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A friend and I chipped away at doing this with Picasa Web but we couldn't quite pull it off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A not-particularly elegant alternative we considered was a simple google spreadsheet with a column containing the name of each picture (in order). People (or the photographer) could simply populate the second column with bib numbers as they browsed through the pictures and then people could search the spreadsheet to find pictures of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any thoughts?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4723" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T01:57:20.247" Title="Crowdsource tagging of a large number of running race photos" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;workflow&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10901" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10898" CreationDate="2011-04-13T23:12:16.297" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I could turn that same logic on it's head as such: &quot;The reasoning being that you can always decrease the exposure in postproduction, but you can never get the details back from underexposed parts of the photo.&quot;  The parts that are pure black are just as hard to get detail out of as the parts that are pure white. And in reality, with digital, since sensor noise is &quot;worse&quot; in the dark areas then it's harder to get usable detail out of borderline underexposed area than it is out of borderline overexposed area. (because the slight difference between pixels is proportionally huge compared to the value of the pixel itself.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is additionally some arguments that the upper range of the exposure band has more room for detail in it. This is where the &quot;Expose to the Right&quot; or &quot;Shoot to the Right&quot; (ETTR/STTR) mentality comes from that a lot of folks follow. The reasoning behind this is mathematical in nature. Basically it says that if you look at light, it's an exponential growth curve, if you move one stop up, you double the light. But if you look at the digitalized version of that in a file, it's linear. Why does that give you more detail in the right hand side of the spectrum? well, imagine we have 7 stops of light to spread across a 14 bit raw file. In order to do that the 4th stop of light has to have 2x the number of values in it than the 3rd stop of light. Say the 3rd stop of brightness runs from 128 to 256 (that gives it 128 individual brightness levels within the stop), the next stop of light would run from 256 to 512 (giving it 256 individual levels within the stop), the one after that will run from 512 to 1024, then 1024 to 2048... etc. Each stop of light, in order to maintain the logic that a stop is double the light will have a different number of unique levels of brightness within it, those unique levels are what gives you your subtle shadings, more levels = more subtle shades = more detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I should say the above is how it works from a gross theoretical standpoint. The camera makers aren't dumb, they know this quickly leads to absurd imbalances in the quality of their images, so they do skew things in their raw files to give more bits to the darker end than the light end... part of the magic of reading a raw file is having the right curves to apply to them to undo that. So it's not quite as bad as those numbers imply if you're shooting raw. BUT the general pattern they show does seem to hold true. This is the origin of the ETTR concept.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To you specific questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;any hard and fast rule that says you should always do something, is probably wrong. You need to always take the current situation into account. (yes, I realize what I just did there. ;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;personally, I agree with the ETTR concept, I usually start with my in camera meter set to +2/3 ev and work from there based on what I see in the histogram. If I ever have to pick between slightly over and slightly under due to technical limitations... I always pick raw + slightly over, because I know I can get better results pulling it down in post than I can pushing it up.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In my experience it will reduce the level of detail within an area, and it will add noise. The recovery of those problems could well reduce contrast.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T23:12:16.297" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="10902" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-13T23:13:57.983" Score="0" ViewCount="63" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;that runs on either AAA or AA batteries!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I need something for a somewhat longer trip to an area in which electricity is not so readily available. I was looking at Panasonic's FS, FX and TZ series and they fit me fine except they all run on proprietary batteries, while I need something I can stockpile.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, generally looking for something in that range but that runs on commonly found batteries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does such thing exists? Would appreciate your feedback on this one ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4693" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T08:01:08.703" Title="Looking for a recommendation for a ultra compact/compact with zoom" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;batteries&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10903" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10900" CreationDate="2011-04-13T23:23:35.377" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It wouldn't be free, and you might have a bit of work to set it up, but my wife has in the past done &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Amazon Mechanical Turk&lt;/a&gt; work units that was basically that... type the list of bib numbers from race pics into the form. They really didn't pay very well, like maybe 5¢ per work unit, which had 10 images or so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T23:23:35.377" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10904" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10900" CreationDate="2011-04-13T23:31:45.927" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;OK, up front this is outside of my area of expertise, but since I was given a 'tour' of a pro race system last year, here's what I know... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With regards to your first question, the half-marathon that goes on in my hometown every year has been using a RFID solution with tags embedded into the bibs for the last few years. When the runner crosses the start line their start time is automatically recorded, and then at the finish line the RFID tag is again used to automatically record the finishing time of the runner, snap pictures of them crossing the finish line from several cameras at the same time (for providing multiple views of a runners big finish, and to provide some redundancy, I suppose), tag those pictures with their registration information and upload them to the race website so the runner can go find themselves (and purchase prints if they so desire) later on. As it was explained to me, no human intervention necessary with any part of this system. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The management of this particular race is actually handed over to a company which sets up the system they use. According to the person who gave me the tour, the company they use charges the race organizers a small flat fee (which I believe covers travel and shipping expenses for the staff needed to set up and run this system), and that any profit made is as a result of advertising revenue and selling photographs to runners at a profit. Although I don't know for sure, I would be very surprised if there weren't multiple companies that ran this sort of business and would be available to events that were 'big enough to turn a profit' (whatever size that happens to be) I'd also be very surprised if this wasn't similar (if not exactly) what most reasonably well-known race events do...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm afraid I don't really have any light I can shed with regards to your second question, however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-13T23:49:47.013" LastActivityDate="2011-04-13T23:49:47.013" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10906" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10911" CreationDate="2011-04-13T23:53:38.060" Score="3" ViewCount="124" Body="&lt;p&gt;Which image compression is better, LZW or ZIP? I am using Lightroom to export images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4199" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T01:34:55.017" Title="Which TIFF image compression is better, LZW or ZIP?" Tags="&lt;image-compression&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10907" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10906" CreationDate="2011-04-14T00:04:38.600" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the image is line art with large flat colours then &lt;strong&gt;LWZ&lt;/strong&gt; compression wich is run length compression will work best. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have a photographic image I think &lt;strong&gt;ZIP&lt;/strong&gt; will give better compression.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4727" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T00:04:38.600" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10908" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10902" CreationDate="2011-04-14T00:12:43.200" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use actually the Canon SX20IS with incredibles results you can take a look of my gallery here: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://flickr.com/photos/fotoarte&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://flickr.com/photos/fotoarte&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This camera (Canon SX20IS) use four batteries AAA and have a zoom of 20X, and has just been replaced by the new Canon SX30IS have 35x of optical zoom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The quality of the photos are hight, and have a lot of options in the Manual Mode. Also support external flashes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_Camera/PowerShot/PowerShot_SX20_IS/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon PowerShot SX20 IS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_Camera/PowerShot/PowerShot_SX30_IS&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon PowerShot SX30 IS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4727" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-14T08:01:08.703" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T08:01:08.703" />
  <row Id="10909" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10312" CreationDate="2011-04-14T00:31:37.497" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've suggested RAW+JPEG to photographers who are fairly new to digital photography and are ambivalent about switching to a raw workflow, because they don't have raw-capable tools or are worried about the effort involved. I point out that they can keep using the JPEGs like they always have, but the raw files will be there, like a digital negative, for whenever they're ready to work with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2138" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T00:31:37.497" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10910" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10902" CreationDate="2011-04-14T00:36:02.043" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That's an easy search on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php?by=feature&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Neocamera&lt;/a&gt;, there are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php?aa=1&amp;amp;by=feature&amp;amp;ultrazoom=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;26 ultra-zooms that run on AAs&lt;/a&gt;. When you said with zoom, I assume you meant an ultra-zoom since all cameras today have optical zoom anyways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Among the compact models, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=199&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon Poweshot SX130&lt;/a&gt; is a good entry-level camera and has full manual controls for creative uses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php?aa=1&amp;amp;by=feature&amp;amp;size=ultracompact&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ultra-compacts with AAs&lt;/a&gt; are more rare and have limited zoom. Those are all entry-levels and are very limited in terms of functionality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T00:36:02.043" />
  <row Id="10911" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10906" CreationDate="2011-04-14T01:34:55.017" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Better is a relative term and, to some degree, will vary in terms of amount between the two depending on a variety of factors including the bit-depth, frequency of discrete colours, etc. Some experimentation may be necessary on this front, though my reading indicates LZW is good for lower bit-depth images with lots of the same colours and tones in it and ZIP for when that is not the case. In other words, if the image is 8 bits go LZW and if it is 16 bits go with ZIP, as a rule of thumb, but with the caveat that it's not an absolute rule and there may be exceptions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only other thing I'd note is that LZW has been in the TIFF standard since 1992 and ZIP since 2002 (as part of a supplement when Adobe added it). While that's probably more than enough time for it to no longer be an issue, there may be the odd piece of software out there that handles LZW compression but not ZIP.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T01:34:55.017" />
  <row Id="10912" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10898" CreationDate="2011-04-14T03:35:11.853" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With underexposure, a third of a stop won't hurt you much.  Two-thirds is not great, but not that bad.  A whole stop means you're doubling your noise.  Two stops and you're quadrupling it.  So underexposure is by no means &quot;free&quot;, but there are grades of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With overexposure, any amount will start to clip.  Whether that is very detrimental will depend on the subject matter, but it's generally more damaging to your image than the noise of underexposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now to your questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;What should I do? Should I do it that way, or does it depend on the circumstances (like if I have enough time to test for proper exposure, etc.). Or should I rather try to learn to &quot;guess&quot; the right settings (I will fail a lot but also learn a lot)?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No, don't underexpose.  Aim to expose correctly.  If you are not sure if you've exposed correctly, and you're using JPEG (or TIFF?) then it's better to underexpose a little than overexpose a little, that is true, though it still won't get results as good as exposing correctly. If you have the opportunity to try again if you make a mistake, it's better to aim for a correct exposure and try again later if you don't get it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;What do you do? How do you aproach a shoot?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I try to get it spot on.  I check the display on the LCD, and might check the RGB histogram, and if I've under- or over- exposed then I take another one.  Of course this is not a luxury you have if you're doing photojournalism or anything like that.  But that's me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also shoot in RAW, where you can manipulate the exposure a bit more afterwards.  I don't want to say you can overexpose, or that it can work miracles, because you can't and it won't.  But you can at least have a little more play in your exposure afterwards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;How does underexposing affect dynamic range of photos? Does it effectively reduce contrast?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Underexposing reduces dynamic range of your shadows.  So underexposing by one stop reduces your dynamic range in shadows by one stop (ie, by half).  The noise floor raises, so the loss in dynamic range is expressed as an increase in noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't reduce &quot;contrast&quot; as such.  It increases noise and you lose some detail in the blacks - I am not sure how you are using the word &quot;contrast&quot; but it doesn't sound like how I'd describe it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T03:35:11.853" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10913" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-14T03:53:30.313" Score="0" ViewCount="61" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dear all,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am looking for a link where i can download the photo of the large white statue in Milton's(al-paccino) office in Devil advocate movie.&#xA;I google on the internet and found something similiar for frederick hart arts, but i need a full photo in that movie.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone kindly advise?&#xA;appreciate your help specially no one is paying for you to answer my question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Best Regards&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4729" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T03:53:30.313" ClosedDate="2011-04-14T04:12:54.940" Title="Required a photo from a Video &quot;Devil Advocate&quot;" Tags="&lt;art&gt;" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10914" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10915" CreationDate="2011-04-14T06:08:13.160" Score="4" ViewCount="190" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9263/why-cant-the-iso-level-on-most-digital-cameras-be-set-below-80&quot;&gt;Why can&amp;#39;t the ISO level on most digital cameras be set below 80&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, take your typical DSLR sensor. It probably tops out at anywhere between 1600 - 6400 ISO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason for this is that (as far as I understand) it gets expensive to make a more sensitive sensor, because all the components need to be more refinded and just generally of a better quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The big thing that I don't get though, is why sensors 'bottom out' at around 100 ISO (or 50 ISO, if you're shooting on something particularly expensive like the 1D). Why should it be that sensors are limited to being this sensitive?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Surely it's easy to just set an electronic component to be &lt;em&gt;less&lt;/em&gt; sensitive (say, to get 50, 20, whatever ISO)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was looking at &lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/630314&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; Whirlpool Forums thread, and there doesn't seem to be anything on there lower than 50. Then looking at the beautiful film, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.annedarlingphotography.com/iso-film-speed.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; blog mentions that there was Kodak film that went down to a phenomenal 6 ISO!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main reason I'm asking is because if we could set our cameras to a much lower ISO, we could all do daytime long-exposures without ND Filters. Oh, and I'm sure there's some other purposes for it too. Maybe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3375" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T15:44:02.387" ClosedDate="2011-04-14T15:57:39.500" Title="What is preventing sensor ISOs from going lower than 100?" Tags="&lt;iso&gt;&lt;digital-vs-film&gt;&lt;digital-iso&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10915" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10914" CreationDate="2011-04-14T06:46:56.277" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is down to the way digital sensors work. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This tutorial&lt;/a&gt; is a good introductory article on the way digital sensors work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the purposes of illustration, think of the light cavity as a bucket. Let's assume that a well exposed image at the sensor's base ISO of 100 will fully fill the light cavity of a photosite. Therefore, going from ISO 100 to ISO 200 will halve the exposure time and will only half fill the light cavity. Each stop of increment in the ISO speed will result in the corresponding halving of the amount of light filling the cavity. This is why you have a usable ISO range on digital cameras, e.g. the light cavity is full at base ISO and it is &quot;almost empty&quot; or filled to the minimal amount that is usable at maximum ISO. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With most cameras, you get a usable ISO range of about 6-7 stops which corresponds to an ISO range of ISO 100 - ISO 6400. Camera manufacturers are free to shift the sensitivity window of the sensor to any value they like. The reason most cameras choose to have ISO 100 - ISO 6400 is because it's the most useful range for a wide variety of photography as opposed to a camera that went from ISO 6 - ISO 400. It's also doesn't hurt that having a &lt;em&gt;bigger&lt;/em&gt; number always impresses!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While you may be able to push the camera below the base ISO, e.g. setting your camera to ISO 100 and overexposing by +2EV. This is equivalent to going to ISO 25 on a sensor with a base ISO of 100. You'll end up with an image that clips the highlights as the light cavities have overflowed and you won't be able to recover them. This is similar to what you get at the opposite end, where if you push a camera beyond it's maximum rated ISO you will end up with clipped shadows. For more information about these techniques, please look for the term &quot;Push Processing&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2528" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T06:46:56.277" />
  <row Id="10916" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10898" CreationDate="2011-04-14T07:52:40.003" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both under- and over-exposure are exactly as the name says...not correct exposure, so you end up limiting your dynamic range, if overexposed, you have less noise, but you will wash out highlights; if underexposed, you get more detail in shadows but more noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aim to get it as right as possible in the camera, and then post production tweaking will be minimal and you'll have the widest possible dynamic range to play with - always a good thing!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3011" LastEditorUserId="3011" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-14T08:20:30.457" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T08:20:30.457" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10917" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10890" CreationDate="2011-04-14T08:28:16.210" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a lot of cheep wall mounts designed for security cameras, generally they are small, cheep and can swivel and tilt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are two example products in this category: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Videosecu-Adjustable-Universal-Ceiling-Bracket/dp/B000IDBXBO/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1302769368&amp;amp;sr=8-3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A simpler mount ($6)&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Videosecu-Adjustable-Universal-Mounting-Bracket/dp/B000IDCDZY/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1302769368&amp;amp;sr=8-2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A more complex system ($8)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They should be able to support a compact camera, consumer video camera and maybe even a small DSLR without any problem (but I wouldn't try to mount a larger DSLR or a camera with an heavy tele lens on them).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They do require drilling &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2481" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T08:28:16.210" />
  <row Id="10918" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10914" CreationDate="2011-04-14T09:33:37.193" Score="-4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nothing. It's just a function of the fact that when presenting a list of settings, there has to be a cut-off somewhere. There are hacks for Olympus cameras that will take the ISO lower.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this is bothering you, buy a neutral density filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4663" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T09:33:37.193" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10919" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3986" CreationDate="2011-04-14T10:46:52.797" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Remember that full frame is not explicitly better than APS-C, it's just 'different'. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's perceived as better because shallow depth of field is very trendy, and that's the advantage of full frame, and for the portrait work I do it's invaluable, and even more important is the fact that I can shoot a scene at f2.8 and have it sharp, if I shoot the same scene on a crop and want the same bokeh then I have to shoot at f1.4 and it's significantly softer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, if you need maximum depth of field then full frame becomes a disadvantage. For example I shoot 3 or 4 models at a time and need the depth of field to cover them, this requires a very small aperture- like f8, this then requires a lot of light to fill the scene. If I shot the same scene with a crop camera I can get away with f5.6, and half the lighting power- the tradeoff being that the 5d files will be sharper, and allow me to crop in more, but if the shoot doesn't have the budget to cover the lighting costs then the small increase in sharpness is moot. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I shoot both full frame and APS-C because I need to use them both for different purposes. I'm even considering dropping down to micro 4/3 because I could have a use for that too (i.e. maximum depth of field at large apertures with minimal lighting)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4735" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T10:46:52.797" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10920" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10921" CreationDate="2011-04-14T11:58:13.380" Score="1" ViewCount="92" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is an example of a bracketed photo with a range of detail on both ends of the exposure spectrum:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.peciva.com/archives/2009/06/hdr_necropolis.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.peciva.com/images/blog/hdr-necropolis/bracketed-exposures.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is: is there a filter (likely in Photoshop) that can take a set of bracketed photos and extracted/merge the photos?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4660" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-14T12:30:44.160" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T12:30:44.160" Title="Is there a Photoshop filter for extracting and merging details from bracketed photos?" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;hdr&gt;&lt;bracketing&gt;&lt;exposure-blending&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10921" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10920" CreationDate="2011-04-14T12:00:13.423" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are essentially talking about HDR. You can do it in Photoshop (File &gt; Automate &gt; Merge to HDR), or you can use dedicated software like Photomatix. It is tricky to get good looking results. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When done well they can be stunning - unfortunately they aren't often done well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T12:00:13.423" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10922" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-14T12:19:15.020" Score="4" ViewCount="219" Body="&lt;p&gt;Looking for a listing photographic methods/techniques just like &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category%3aPhotographic_techniques&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this one on Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, but possibly better, any suggestions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4660" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-14T13:42:36.863" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T22:20:15.457" Title="Is there an online Encyclopedia of Photographic Methods/Techniques, better than that in Wikipedia?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;web&gt;&lt;reference&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10923" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3067" CreationDate="2011-04-14T12:57:18.007" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Memory card&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simple and inside your budget. But I'd suggest you wait until the beginning of December because memory prices tend to fall. Just don't wait too long so the shopping spree season would start.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2110" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T12:57:18.007" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-14T12:57:18.007" />
  <row Id="10924" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10864" CreationDate="2011-04-14T13:42:40.227" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check the inside of the lens cap, it should have the filter diameter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you put both the filters on the lens, you may get black corners on your images at 18 mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T13:42:40.227" />
  <row Id="10925" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3067" CreationDate="2011-04-14T13:46:39.313" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;An &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?q=SLR%20remote&amp;amp;ie=utf-8&amp;amp;oe=utf-8&amp;amp;aq=t&amp;amp;rls=org.mozilla%3aen-US%3aofficial&amp;amp;client=firefox-a#q=canon%20OR%20nikon%20remote&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;client=firefox-a&amp;amp;hs=7Ji&amp;amp;rls=org.mozilla%3aen-US%3aofficial&amp;amp;biw=1280&amp;amp;bih=865&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=T_mmTbvhB9GdgQf88oD0BQ&amp;amp;ved=0CDsQpwUoAA&amp;amp;tbs=,price:1,ppr_min:0,ppr_max:50&amp;amp;tbm=shop&amp;amp;tbo=&amp;amp;bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&amp;amp;fp=3152f48d8563059a&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;infrared or cable remote&lt;/a&gt; will fit your price range and will introduce you to new possibilities with your camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4231" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T13:46:39.313" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-14T13:46:39.313" />
  <row Id="10926" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10922" CreationDate="2011-04-14T13:55:23.663" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.brooksphotopedia.com/definitions.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Brooks Photopedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4231" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T13:55:23.663" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10927" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10914" CreationDate="2011-04-14T15:44:02.387" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In rough terms, each photon that impacts a photosite induces one electron of charge to be stored for that sensel. There's a limit on the number of electrons the site can store, which (in turn) acts as a lower limit on the ISO speed rating. That leaves only a few ways to lower the base ISO. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first and most obvious would be to reduce the number of electrons that can impact the photosite. The primary way to do that would be to insert filtration in front of the sensor. If you used neutral density filtration, this would only accomplish the same thing you already can by putting an ND filter in front of the lens. The difference would be that you couldn't change or remove the filter -- ever. An ND filter in front of the lens is clearly better in almost all respects: it can be removed when light is low, swapped for a stronger filter when light is particularly high, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another possibility would be to use stronger color filtration. This would at least potentially provide a small advantage in providing a broader gamut. The problem is that current cameras already support a gamut that's as broad as most people care about. To an extent this seems to already happen anyway. Just for example, Sony sensors appear to use slightly stronger color filters than Canon's sensors. This does (at least according to sites like DxoMark that test such things) give a slightly broader gamut. It also, however, gives noisier pictures at higher ISOs. Based on sales of (for example) the Canon 5DII versus the Sony Alpha 850/900, it would &lt;em&gt;appear&lt;/em&gt; that a lot more people find other factors like video and/or lower noise at high ISOs more important than the broader color gamut at low ISOs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is yet another possibility (that has also been implemented in real cameras). This is to simply simulate a really low ISO by taking multiple pictures and averaging them together to minimize noise. This has a couple of obvious problems. First of all, it's only good (as low ISOs tend to be in general) for still-life type subjects. Using the ISO 6 you mentioned as an example, consider that the &quot;sunny f/16&quot; rule says the normal daylight exposure should be 1/6&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; of a second at f/16, or (for example) 1/250&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; at f/2.8. with a &quot;pro&quot; level zoom, you'd still be shooting wide-open to just edge into the lower end of the range where you can hope to freeze much movement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think from most people's viewpoint, there's a simple lack of need: below ISO 200 (or so) most current cameras have so little noise that trying to reduce it further is simply pointless, at least for most people. Quite a few routinely shoot at ISO 400 (or higher), even in broad daylight, just because dropping the ISO below that doesn't gain enough to be worth bothering, at least in most cases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T15:44:02.387" />
  <row Id="10928" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10941" CreationDate="2011-04-14T15:47:32.070" Score="7" ViewCount="288" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've always been shy to refer to any of my work as &quot;fine art&quot;... preferring instead to call it &quot;still life&quot;. But I recently had an interesting conversation with an Art History major who said that my work wasn't in fact &quot;still life&quot; because there were no people in it, and that to be &quot;still life&quot; it needed to be of people or animals in their daily life activities. Instead she says my work is &quot;fine art&quot;. So what is it that actually defines &quot;fine art&quot;? Is it the content? Is it the style? Is it the presentation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(For reference, the photos I'm talking about are of flowers and fireworks... but I'm not looking for an answer specific to my images, but rather a general answer.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT to add, after finally accepting an answer: The genesis of this question was attempting to write the bio bit on a guest blog post I wrote at work, thanks to everyone that answered and the comments, the spark of thoughts that this kindled eventually lead to me &quot;accepting&quot; the moniker of &quot;Landscape and Fine Art Photographer&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-04T06:57:11.670" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T06:57:11.670" Title="What makes &quot;fine art&quot; fine art?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;fine-art&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="10929" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10928" CreationDate="2011-04-14T15:53:39.037" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is the answer a friend gave during the above referenced conversation. I provide it here as the low bar for future answers to shot to overcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Fine art is like pornography, I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T15:53:39.037" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10930" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10928" CreationDate="2011-04-14T16:01:35.117" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll take a shot at &quot;low bar, part II&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond the literal definition (art for art's sake), I've heard that it's &quot;fine art&quot; if someone will pay money for it -- presumably if they didn't commission the work to begin with (ie, a paid portrait).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the idea here is that you've seen something you consider art-worthy, captured it with your camera, and presented it to others in a form that makes at least some of them agree that it's art-worthy.  The &quot;pay for it&quot; part is merely an indication that the appreciation rises above &quot;meh&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T16:01:35.117" />
  <row Id="10931" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10928" CreationDate="2011-04-14T16:49:44.723" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fine arts&lt;/strong&gt; are to be contrasted with &lt;strong&gt;Useful arts&lt;/strong&gt;.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fine arts&lt;/strong&gt; were originally understood to mean visual things created primarily for aesthetic purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness whereas &lt;strong&gt;Useful arts&lt;/strong&gt; were decorative work or craftwork such as tapestry etc. They appealed to the 'finer senses' and also reflected social distinctions (some would say social pretensions).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now Fine Arts are split into Visual Arts, Auditory Arts and Performance Arts.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The defining characteristic of Fine Arts is the purity of the discipline in its pursuit of aesthetic beauty without reference to usefulness or truthfulness..  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;References&lt;br&gt;&#xA;1. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_art&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fine Art (Wikipedia)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2. &lt;a href=&quot;http://arthistory.about.com/cs/reference/f/visual_arts.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;What is visual art?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;3. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/definitions/fine-art.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fine art: definition and meaning&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T16:49:44.723" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10932" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10928" CreationDate="2011-04-14T17:05:26.043" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't tell you what fine art is &lt;em&gt;in photography&lt;/em&gt;, even though I suspect this definition is not dependent on the subject, but on the techniques used. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing I can tell you: no way still life is related with people or animals! from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Still_life&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A still life (plural still lifes) is a&#xA;  work of art depicting mostly inanimate&#xA;  subject matter&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;sure, what you do &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; still life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3364" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T17:05:26.043" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10933" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10937" CreationDate="2011-04-14T17:12:59.283" Score="-5" ViewCount="175" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;High-class photographers will never use editing software.&quot; Is that statement correct?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Edit&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my definition, &#xA;the &quot;high-class photographers&quot; are those who can produce good results for every single shot. Therefore, they no longer need post editing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4741" LastEditorUserId="4741" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-14T18:24:14.087" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T20:25:09.023" Title="Is it true that high-class photographers will never use editing software?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;photographer&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="10934" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10933" CreationDate="2011-04-14T17:32:44.980" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, that is incorrect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, some photographers do avoid digital post-processing, and some still shoot film.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To say that all &quot;high class&quot; photographers would avoid editing software is far to general of a statement though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &quot;high-class photographer&quot;, by your definition, one who can produce good results for every single shot would not use editing software. So, yes given that definition, that statement is correct.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem I then see is that there are no &quot;high-class photographers&quot; because no person will get every shot perfectly exposed every time, with the exact color balance, sharpness, and contrast that they intended. No one is perfect, and that definition is basically requiring perfection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-14T18:42:50.250" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T18:42:50.250" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10935" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10898" CreationDate="2011-04-14T17:52:36.907" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not certain this is the correct physical explanation but CCDs are sensitive to not only light but temperature so the pixel value they compute actually is light + some measure of heat. The extra value from heat is called dark count. Your camera tries to correct for this by subtracting off to compensate for the dark count but because it is a random factor it can't be done perfectly, and what remains is called dark noise. Since brightening an image is done by scaling pixel values by a factor the percentage error in a pixel value is the real measure of error (when rescaling). Don't know if this dark noise is the main contributor that makes the dark regions of an image look so bad when scaled up, but it is a candidate, because in bright regions if you have plus or minus 5 noise in each pixel that is a small percentage error, but in dark regions, thats a huge percentage error and would scale up to look horrible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2451" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T17:52:36.907" />
  <row Id="10936" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10928" CreationDate="2011-04-14T18:01:31.987" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It turns out that there is an entire Wikipedia article simply about different &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classificatory_disputes_about_art&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;disputes about the classification of art&lt;/a&gt;. That has a paragraph which I think is useful to this discussion:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The second, more narrow, more recent sense of the word “art” is roughly as an abbreviation for creative art or “fine art.” Here we mean that skill is being used to express the artist’s creativity, or to engage the audience’s aesthetic sensibilities. Often, if the skill is being used in a lowbrow or practical way, people will consider it as craft rather than art. Likewise, if the skill is being used in a commercial or industrial way, it will be considered design instead of art. On the other hand, crafts and design are sometimes considered applied art. Some thinkers have argued that the difference between fine art and applied art has more to do with value judgments made about the art than any clear definitional difference (&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=CaDVSgAACAAJ&amp;amp;dq=David%20Novitz,%20The%20Boundaries%20of%20Art.%201992&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;ei=VDSnTe7_CIL30gHih9T5CA&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=book_result&amp;amp;ct=result&amp;amp;resnum=1&amp;amp;ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Novitz, 1992&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I mentioned in a comment above, some of what you do is probably indeed still life, and some of it might not be. Some photography certainly falls into a practical realm; product photography, family snapshots, journalism. Art is a slippery term no matter how one tries to define it, and certainly some work within those frameworks can wear the label comfortably. But some doesn't, and that's okay too. There's some interesting discussion on this on popular photo blog The Online Photographer — &lt;a href=&quot;http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/02/why-is-it-not-art.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Why Is It (Not) Art?&lt;/a&gt;. If you're interested in this, it's worth reading that and the surrounding articles and comments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of &lt;em&gt;my&lt;/em&gt; photographs aren't taken with art in mind. They're taken to be photographs. I'm happy with that — although I wish I had more time to devote to working on making art intentionally, as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T18:01:31.987" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="10937" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10933" CreationDate="2011-04-14T18:08:37.823" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is at least partly true of some of the busiest photographers. It has nothing to do with the photographs not being edited, and simply means the &lt;em&gt;photographer&lt;/em&gt; isn't the one doing the editing. Just for example, during the Olympics, the guys doing shooting &lt;em&gt;just&lt;/em&gt; shoot. They have at least a couple of cameras, and an assistant who's responsible (among other things) for ensuring that that they always have a camera with memory space available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When one's full, they trade cameras with the assistant. The assistant usually won't handle the editing either -- his job is primarily swapping cards and (if necessary) lenses. The cards he just gets (via whatever means) to other people who download the pictures, bring the cards back to the assistant, etc. &lt;em&gt;Somebody&lt;/em&gt; eventually edits the shots, but there are probably going to be three or four layers of other people in between the photographer and the person who does the editing (and, just to keep things interesting, a fair number of those people probably have something like &quot;editor&quot; in their job title).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That, of course, is a fairly extreme case, but the same &lt;em&gt;general&lt;/em&gt; idea remains in a lot of other cases as well. The photographer handles shooting, and leaves the editing to people who specialize in editing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If what you intended to imply was shots so good they didn't need editing at all, then it's mostly nonsense. To even stand a chance of being true at all, you have to start by defining &quot;editing&quot; pretty narrowly. Just converting a raw file to a &quot;picture&quot; at all requires a fair amount of &quot;editing&quot;. Except for the &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; most simplistic conversion (that nobody would willingly use) there are quite a few &quot;editing&quot; types of input into the process of converting a raw file into a picture (e.g., sharpening, adjusting brightness, contrast, white balance, etc.) In this case, there is no really &quot;unedited&quot; version of things -- at most, there's the &quot;default&quot; version, which basically just means leaving the &quot;editing&quot; to the people who wrote the software (and since they obviously can't see the picture in question, their decision(s) are rarely optimal for any given photograph).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you mean there are no localized edits, and all that's done is &quot;global&quot; editing (the aforementioned adjustments to overall brightness, contrast, WB, etc.) then it starts to have at least some possibility of being true at least part of the time -- but only if you make it a tautology, by defining &quot;high class photographers&quot; as photographers who don't do any of that sort of editing. Otherwise, it's still pretty much nonsense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: in response to edited question: By you added definition of &quot;high class photographers&quot;, I'd say there simply is no such thing. I've known a fair number of excellent professional photographers. I doubt that &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; of them would consider publishing or displaying even 10% of the pictures they took. For most, the number is probably closer to 1%. Part of that is from experimenting and such, taking pictures they don't expect to be worth much. Part, however, is simply having high enough standards that even slight imperfections are enough that a picture won't be used (at least as-is). The reality, however, is that if even half your pictures come out &quot;good&quot;, you either have very low standards, or you're not challenging yourself much (if at all).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-14T20:25:09.023" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T20:25:09.023" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10938" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2884" CreationDate="2011-04-14T18:37:25.090" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Another option is at &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/photo-critique-forum/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photo.net&lt;/a&gt;, but they have a bit of a reputation for being a little harsh in their critique. That might be fine, but it's something to keep in mind.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I have gotten very sparse feedback from here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;0/5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-21T03:33:52.820" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T03:33:52.820" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-14T18:37:25.090" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="10939" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10884" CreationDate="2011-04-14T18:50:35.290" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pentax does not make full frame cameras, so most of their lenses in production are for APS-C.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's take Pentax DA* 300mm f/4, a reasonably fast telephoto prime made for APS-C sensors. It seems fair to compare it with Nikon 300mm AF-S and Canon EF 300mm f/4 USM (both full-frame). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pentax: 1.07kg, 83 x 184 mm, $1400&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon: 1.44kg, 90 x 220 mm, $1199&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon: 1.2kg, 90 x 215 mm, $1389 (non-IS is 0.1kg heavier)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From here, it seems to me that a lens with similar focal length and aperture is indeed lighter and smaller when made for APS-C, but not necessarily cheaper. However, if we consider each lens on its optimal body, the crop factor implies you'll only need a 200mm f/2.8 lens to achieve similar field and depth of field on APS-C as 300mm f/4 on FF; that would be even smaller and lighter, but still not much cheaper:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pentax DA* 200mm f/2.8 is 825g, 83 x 134mm, $1200&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Prices quotes were taken from Adorama (not affiliated).&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T18:50:35.290" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10940" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10898" CreationDate="2011-04-14T19:03:18.753" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think your advisor might have meant that when the light levels on scene are so different that you have to choose whether to under- or overexpose, underexposing (losing shadow detail) should be preferred to overexposing (losing highlight detail), since missing shadow detail is less noticeable than bright splashes of solid white.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Underexposing might also be a safe bet when your camera does not show histogram for separate color channels, and some color is distinctly dominating. By &quot;exposing to the right&quot;, you might accidentally clip an individual color channel (e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10735/why-do-bright-red-flowers-end-up-without-details&quot;&gt;red&lt;/a&gt;) while others still stay below white.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T19:03:18.753" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10941" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10928" CreationDate="2011-04-14T19:07:25.347" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are really two rather different ways &quot;fine art&quot; is used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One is to refer to a &lt;em&gt;category&lt;/em&gt; of photography. Here what matters isn't necessarily the &lt;em&gt;quality&lt;/em&gt; of the photograph, but the &lt;em&gt;intent&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider, for example, another possibility. If my primary intent in taking a picture is to document a newsworthy event, then I'm going photojournalism, even if I don't work for a newspaper/TV station/magazine/whatever. If my pictures are good enough, I might be able to get them published; if they're poor, I probably won't. Their later publication or lack thereof, doesn't change the fact that what I'm doing is photojournalism though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, if I take a picture with the &lt;em&gt;intent&lt;/em&gt; that people will look at it and like it simply because I've taken a beautiful picture, then I'm going fine art photography, even if my result is an abject failure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By this usage, the intent when taking the picture is (at least primarily) what places it in one category or another. Whether it succeeds in that intent or not is an entirely separate question. By this standard, I think it's fair to say that essentially all still lifes, landscapes, nature photography, etc., falls under the category of &quot;fine art&quot; photography, regardless of how good or poor it might be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other usage is what (at least IMO) others have commented on: the actual quality of the photograph in question. I'd tend to agree with what I see as the essence of the opinions already expressed: this falls into the domain of opinion and taste, not fact. Not to put it too crassly, but from this perspective, &quot;fine art&quot; tends to be whatever you can manage to sell -- and the higher price you can sell it for, the &quot;finer&quot; it is. Yes, there are &quot;authority figures&quot; whose opinions on what constitutes fine art tend to be trusted. These can have a huge effect on prices -- but in all honesty, I (for one) consider them mostly self-fulfilling prophecies; when they commend something as great art, the price goes up, largely because of investors (who often either don't have, don't trust, or just don't care about taste of their own) who pay a lot for the work, in the expectation that it'll become valuable &lt;em&gt;because&lt;/em&gt; of what the authority figure has said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T19:07:25.347" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10943" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-12T06:53:25.650" Score="7" ViewCount="176" Body="&lt;p&gt;My old camera was taking images that had blotches of the wrong colors when zoomed in, and I take a lot of macro pictures.  I bought a new camera and put my old sd card into it and now it's doing the same thing.  I can only imagine that it is the card, since that is the only thing these two cameras have in common.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I read somewhere that you should reformat SD cards ocassionally.  I've never reformatted mine at all.  Could this help my problems or do I need a new card?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, my daughter has my old camera and is using her memory card in it.  She says there are no bad spots in her photos now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-14T21:46:23.010" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T05:45:10.107" Title="Are these blotches of wrong color caused by a corrupt SD card?" Tags="&lt;artifacts&gt;&lt;data-corruption&gt;&lt;sdcard&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="10944" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10943" CreationDate="2011-04-12T07:21:27.277" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I understand from your explanations, the SD card is &lt;em&gt;probably&lt;/em&gt; the culprit here. If you are using Windows, you can format your SD card either by right-clicking on it and selecting Format or by using a 3rd party program like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sdcard.org/consumers/formatter_3/eula&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SD Formatter&lt;/a&gt;. In either case, use the normal format mode instead of quick format. If this does not solve your problem, try a new SD card (or your daughter's SD card as well) on your camera and tell us what happens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T07:21:27.277" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10945" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10943" CreationDate="2011-04-12T07:29:11.027" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From my manual (Pentax) &#xA;&lt;em&gt;Be sure to use this camera to format (initialize) an SD Memory &#xA;Card that is unused or has been used on other cameras or digital &#xA;devices.&lt;/em&gt; &#xA;So I can't see you can cause any harm by doing so occasionally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T07:29:11.027" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10946" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10943" CreationDate="2011-04-12T08:14:31.260" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/users/705/chuqui&quot;&gt;chuqui&lt;/a&gt; over at photos.stackexchange.com on &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1988/how-often-should-memory-cards-be-formatted&quot;&gt;How often should I format my memory card?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I format my card every time I stick it&#xA;  in my camera and start a shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I do this for a couple of reasons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;First, it means every time I start a&#xA;  shoot, I don't accidentally leave the&#xA;  previous shoot on it (and it also&#xA;  means I don't delete it until I start&#xA;  the next shoot, by which time those&#xA;  images are safely on various backup&#xA;  disks; gives me an emergency backup on&#xA;  the card until I'm sure I've got&#xA;  multiple copies elsewhere).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Second, I use multiple camera bodies,&#xA;  and I know people who've had&#xA;  corruption issues with cards formatted&#xA;  by the computer (which I never do) or&#xA;  by one body and used in another&#xA;  because the bodies interact with the&#xA;  card slightly differently. By&#xA;  formatting every time, I know the&#xA;  formatting is what the camera wants&#xA;  and is expecting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Third, formatting at the start of the&#xA;  shoot will (or should!) catch a card&#xA;  that is starting to fail. At the&#xA;  least, it'll catch some early failure&#xA;  modes in the card -- and in two cases&#xA;  for me so far, it has. So if the card&#xA;  hits an error during format, I know to&#xA;  immediately retire it. I'd rather find&#xA;  out I have a card error at the START&#xA;  of the shoot that midway into it, or&#xA;  worse, when I'm trying to read the&#xA;  images out later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Note: any time I get a card error, I&#xA;  retire that card. Cards are cheap.&#xA;  Dead cards that eat my only copy of an&#xA;  image is expensive. And formatting a&#xA;  card every time means that every time&#xA;  I shoot gives me a blank slate in a&#xA;  known state that hasn't reported an&#xA;  error. Which means many fewer&#xA;  potential problems later. And FWIW, I&#xA;  basically never run into corrupted&#xA;  cards, lost images or problems during&#xA;  a shoot or during a post-shoot import.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Even if it means the card will wear&#xA;  out sooner, I don't care. I want&#xA;  reliable cards, not ancient ones. I'll&#xA;  happily replace them rather than try&#xA;  to recover images from them....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="248" LastActivityDate="2011-04-12T08:14:31.260" />
  <row Id="10947" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10943" CreationDate="2011-04-12T11:37:55.410" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;first of all if you want to format your SD card then you should always format it in the camera with which you will use it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are unable to format your card in the camera then first try to format it in pc(do not quick format) and then try to format it in the camera again. Because only the camera interact with your card when you take picture. I am saying this because your camera may handle the file system a little different to your pc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to your problem first try to format it as i say above. And if problem persist then you are better of buying a new card because pictures are more precious then your card and these days cards are really very cheap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;you can reformat your card every time you make changes to your card with pc or every time you transfer your pictures to pc.&#xA;when your card is full transfer all the pics to pc and format the card with your camera for a new session. it is completely on you when you want to reformat it. but i suggest that if you have delete a pic or write data to card with your pc you can consider to format it in your camera for the safest approach.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;you can check your sd cards(and flash drives) for any defect by this freeware utility &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.technibble.com/downloads/windows-tools/ChkFlsh.zip&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.technibble.com/downloads/windows-tools/ChkFlsh.zip&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4731" LastEditorUserId="4731" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-19T05:45:10.107" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T05:45:10.107" />
  <row Id="10948" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10855" CreationDate="2011-04-14T22:06:05.037" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Absolutely Essential for you to love your photography. This is what I did after I bought my D90.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tripod &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A Prime Lens (50mm F1.8 is my pick.)  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A Circular Polarizing filter. Try Hoya. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Remote Release.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cleaning Equipments (A blower, and a lint free cloth)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All others are luxury. And I assume that you are going to buy a cover and memory card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And what NOT to buy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;UV filters. They are useless. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A telephoto lens. Not now.. the kit lens - 18-105mm is just good for me. I have not used the telephoto lens that I bought.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Additional Battery - The battery life of your D90 is really really good. I have not found myself without Power for the one and half years that I used it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3828" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T22:06:05.037" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10949" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10950" CreationDate="2011-04-14T22:13:19.137" Score="1" ViewCount="158" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading the recently released &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-II-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;review of the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II&lt;/a&gt; over at The Digital Picture, and really liked the neat little tripod used for the example shots. The head is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Acratech-GV2-Ballhead-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acratech GV2 Ballhead&lt;/a&gt;, but I can't figure out the legs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know what tripod this is? Do you have something similar (or better) to recommend?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/erxqQ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;camera and tripod&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1678" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-14T23:06:53.790" LastActivityDate="2011-04-15T02:36:56.760" Title="What tripod is this? Can you recommend something similar or better?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;tripod&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="10950" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10949" CreationDate="2011-04-14T22:20:59.180" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a Really Right Stuff tripod; I think it's the &lt;a href=&quot;http://reallyrightstuff.com/ProductDesc.aspx?code=TP-243&amp;amp;type=0&amp;amp;eq=&amp;amp;desc=TP-243-Ground-Level-Tripod&amp;amp;key=it&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ground Level Tripod&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2138" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T22:20:59.180" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10951" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10949" CreationDate="2011-04-14T22:47:38.953" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's nice but you can get much the same effect with any tripod without the legs extended and with the center column either removed or not down the center.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most tripods allow you to splay legs at just about any angle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you were going to be wanting to use a tripod in this way all the time though, that would be a great tripod for the job.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastEditorUserId="1192" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-15T02:36:56.760" LastActivityDate="2011-04-15T02:36:56.760" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10952" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10943" CreationDate="2011-04-14T22:49:34.710" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To run counter to the questions here - there is NO WAY the quality of your card can affect image quality or content.  All a bad card can do is not save images correctly (or at all).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The noise would very likely be from the camera itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T22:49:34.710" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10953" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10949" CreationDate="2011-04-14T23:22:10.383" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are also the tablet tripods like this one. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.manfrotto.com/product_list/8374.58969.76910.0.0/Table_Tripods&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.manfrotto.com/product_list/8374.58969.76910.0.0/Table_Tripods&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They can have and extention that make it taller. I always have one of this in my bag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="236" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T23:22:10.383" />
  <row Id="10954" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1286" CreationDate="2011-04-14T23:25:13.200" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The other thing to be careful of is a retroactive decision from your insurer that your gear is professional, even if you don't make money at it. I know someone who had a large quantity of gear that he was SURE was covered by his homeowners insurance policy (they had the serial numbers and purchase prices and told him it was covered). Some of it was stolen, and they denied his claim based on the fact that anyone with 15k worth of gear can't possibly be an amateur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1678" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T23:25:13.200" />
  <row Id="10956" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2884" CreationDate="2011-04-14T23:46:07.543" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Digital photography school (DPS) has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/critique/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;nice critique section&lt;/a&gt; on their forums. The community there is fairly nice, but they are still willing to be critical. This would be my first recommendation, especially as a beginner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;DPS has strict requirements when posting such as EXIF info, picture size, and specific questions. That said, it's one of the better places to get consistently helpful feedback. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4/5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-21T03:28:24.927" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T03:28:24.927" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-14T23:46:07.543" />
  <row Id="10957" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10949" CreationDate="2011-04-14T23:58:49.677" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since you asked for 'something better', I have to recommend the Gorillapod SLR Zoom by Joby.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Great for travel, and can handle a 5D2 (sans grip) and a 24-105.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Joby-Gorillapod-SLR-Zoom-Flexible-Digital/dp/B000KFRSG4/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1302825443&amp;amp;sr=8-3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Amazon Linky&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2011-04-14T23:58:49.677" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10958" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-15T05:21:24.283" Score="3" ViewCount="158" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon 1000D with a 50mm f/1.8. I also have the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens, but I am not very satisfied with its performance. I'm looking for a better zoom lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a budget of around $1000, and some of the lenses I'm looking at are listed below. I've already &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10836/would-the-tamron-18-270-mm-f-3-5-6-3-di-ii-vc-pzd-make-a-good-choice-as-my-secon&quot;&gt;ruled out a superzoom&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 macro + Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 75-300 f/4-5.6 III USM + Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My interests are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flowers / Insects / Macro photography&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Weddings &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Portraits (particularly of children)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Travel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What should I look for, and how should I decide?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4489" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-15T11:40:33.007" LastActivityDate="2011-04-15T16:25:38.973" Title="How do I choose a zoom lens to replace the kit lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10959" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10922" CreationDate="2011-04-15T06:07:04.390" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Online? Well not quite yet but hopefully this site will get there after a few years.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the mean time The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography is a good read.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;References.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blogcritics.org/books/article/book-review-the-focal-encyclopedia-of/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Book review&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0240807405&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Amazon books&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.co.za/books?id=VYyldcYfq3MC&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;dq=focal%20encyclopedia%20of%20photography&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=sZm8EvPk8S&amp;amp;sig=4o2s3QXXrjqbS0QOK6Kuo8APzec&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;ei=SN2nTYC-OMKqhAfdr_HYCQ&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=book_result&amp;amp;ct=result&amp;amp;resnum=6&amp;amp;ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Google Books&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-04-15T06:07:04.390" />
  <row Id="10960" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10958" CreationDate="2011-04-15T06:20:20.583" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Honestly, unless you have a line on these lenses used (or know somebody who found a case of them that &quot;fell off a truck&quot;), your $1000 budget isn't going to be nearly enough except for the 75-300 and an off-brand macro (several of which are &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; good) &lt;em&gt;or&lt;/em&gt; the Sigma 24-70.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given your subject matter, I wouldn't go for the 75-300. I'm not saying that it's a horrible lens, but if 50mm is your widest lens and your next choice is at 75mm at the wide end, you're missing a lot of territory. The 300mm end of the scale is equivalent to 480mm on a full-frame (or 35mm) camera, and that's too long for shooting people to their best advantage. (There are ways to make an extremely long &quot;people&quot; image work, but it usually involves making the person/people a subtext to another subject. Or celebrity peep shots, which have little to do with flattering your subject.) You would be much better off giving up what &lt;em&gt;seems&lt;/em&gt; like a lot at the long end in order to get something considerably shorter at the wide end of the zoom range. If you want to go long, the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 and the Tokina/Pentax 50-135mm f/2.8 (if you can find one -- Tokina makes them for the Canon mount, but the supply chain seems to be broken at the moment) are the APS-C equivalent of the 70-200mm pro standbys. (Why Nikon and Canon don't offer a fast 50-135 baffles me.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of the choices you've offered, the Sigma 24-70mm comes closest to fitting most of your requirements. It falls within (or just ever so slightly beyond) your budget, and it offers an excellent range of focal lengths for shooting people and general travel photography. It isn't a true macro lens, but it does focus to 40cm and comes close to a 1:4 reproduction ratio at 70mm, which is sufficiently &quot;macro&quot; for florals on APS-C. 70mm, though, might be a little short for some types of wedding shots that are in vogue lately (don't worry -- we did just fine without supertelephotos at weddings in the caveman days, and I'm sure you can, too). The Canon 24-70 is similar, but it'll be tough to haul in that catch for under $1000.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To a point, getting physically closer beats getting optically closer every time, and a 70mm lens on a crop-sensor DSLR is a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; longer than the 110mm &quot;long&quot; lens I used to use on a 6x7cm medium-format camera for weddings. You might want to go longer later, but don't try to do it all with one lens unless you're willing to give up a lot in the bargain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-04-15T06:20:20.583" />
  <row Id="10961" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1520" CreationDate="2011-04-15T08:04:53.837" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lenstip.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lens Tip&lt;/a&gt; is a lens review site that is more detailed than Photozone. They haven't reviewed as many lenses, but I've found the reviews to be very detailed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2528" LastActivityDate="2011-04-15T08:04:53.837" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-15T08:04:53.837" />
  <row Id="10962" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10963" CreationDate="2011-04-15T09:48:07.870" Score="11" ViewCount="383" Body="&lt;p&gt;We're doing a photoshoot and there's a turtle that should be in the shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is most flattering for a self-conscious half-shell?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3254" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-15T12:35:11.467" LastActivityDate="2011-04-15T13:14:09.793" Title="How do you pose a turtle?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;posing&gt;&lt;animals&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10963" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10962" CreationDate="2011-04-15T10:36:20.960" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming you're not just trying to expropriate the Michael, and that the testudine in question is to be the star of the show...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try a front three-quarter view (with the camera essentially aiming towards the center of the shell from an angle between the head and one of the forelimbs) from slightly above the seam line. I would put the rearmost front limb near the edge of the frame -- even given that it's a turtle, the idea that an animal is being captured just before it runs away still works. And getting in tight enough to exaggerate the apparent size of the turtle would probably help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ideally, the head would be turned back towards the camera. (Sorry, I don't know how to get a turtle's attention, but maybe something tasty?) That makes the subject look like it's a full participant in the exercise. The key light should probably come in from the body's apparent direction of travel (or just a bit more to the side). The light should probably be from a relatively low angle as well -- nobody looks their best with harsh overhead lighting. And, depending on the species and the environment your set is creating, a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuculoris&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;cookie&lt;/a&gt; to create a dappled lighting pattern on the shell and the surroundings (while leaving clear light on the head and &quot;shoulders&quot;) might add a lot to the atmosphere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want it to look alive, it would probably look best in mid-stride (you'll probably have to use a fast shutter speed, like 1/8s or even higher) and moving slightly uphill (I assume you have the liberty to build that into the &quot;set&quot;). Get it all right, and you can make people believe that you have a singularly energetic and enthusiastic model. And do take note of the head and camera angles and the jaws -- you can actually make most turtle species appear to smile with the right lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-04-15T10:36:20.960" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="10964" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10958" CreationDate="2011-04-15T12:10:10.737" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you can afford it buy the Canon 24-70 2.8L, you will not be disappointed by its performance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this is the path I took when I started out. Over a couple of month I bought a 10D then the Tamron 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6, Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4, and Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 macro which were all very budget minded lenses, AKA cheap. I hated the 75-300 and tried the Sigma and Canon versions and hated both of them too, but I continued using the Tamron and furiously saved money until I could afford better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I upgraded the 75-300 to the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS because when I looked at the photos I had been taking that was the range I took the most photos in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next I bought the Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS because I needed the reach for youth sports.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just recently I bought the Canon 16-35 2.8L and am in love all over again like I was when I first got the 70-200 2.8, it is just fantastic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has taken me over 10 years to build this kit, I am still using the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 but hope to replace it with L glass in the next two or three years. No rush.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S.&#xA;I also replace the camera body I use as soon as the new one is released and sell the old one. I began this journey with a Canon 10D then in succession the 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, and now shoot a 7D. The body is important but glass is forever, almost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4273" LastActivityDate="2011-04-15T12:10:10.737" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10965" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10962" CreationDate="2011-04-15T13:14:09.793" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think ideally, you'd like to see legs and neck extended.  This is pretty easy to recognize when you see it - this one spent a couple hours poking around the shore - maybe looking for a place to nest.  This shot is head-on, which doesn't show as much of the turtle's body as the 3/4 shot Stan mentioned, but it's got pretty good extension of the head and legs:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Xnbhh.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Trying to get the turtle to do this on demand, though, could very well end up looking like an episode of Gilligan's Island.  If it's a pet turtle, hopefully you could get to reach for whatever its favorite food is, but if it's not tame, you may be forced to operate on the turtle's schedule.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lighting is going to depend somewhat on the kind of turtle you're shooting, I think.  As you can see in my photo, some of them have fairly shiny shells, so you could end up with some glare (in this shot, the sun was very low on the horizon behind the turtle, and she'd just crawled out of the water, so her shell was wet, too).  Land turtles (tortoises) are generally going to have a dry, rough shell, though, which won't be as prone to showing glare.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess it would also be helpful to know if you're trying to have the turtle look natural, or if you're going for something more staged.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-04-15T13:14:09.793" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="10966" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10968" CreationDate="2011-04-15T13:24:05.780" Score="5" ViewCount="276" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sometimes I have a picture which I don't know, or which I have taken a long time ago. So how do you identify unknown stuff on your image?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example I saw this picture, and what is the best approach to identify the hill on it?&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/4nweP.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4753" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-15T15:01:34.507" LastActivityDate="2011-04-15T15:11:37.727" Title="How do I identify the object of a picture I've taken?" Tags="&lt;photo-management&gt;&lt;curation&gt;&lt;picture-samples&gt;&lt;search&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10967" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10966" CreationDate="2011-04-15T14:29:16.717" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Find out the capture date. Then check on shots you took before and after this one. Also be sure to look into your calendar/diary (if you have one) to see where you were at that time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's the only way I can think of. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2069" LastActivityDate="2011-04-15T14:29:16.717" />
  <row Id="10968" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10966" CreationDate="2011-04-15T14:40:56.943" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have had some success posting pictures on Flickr asking for help identifying what it is, tagging with anything relevant possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastActivityDate="2011-04-15T14:40:56.943" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10969" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10966" CreationDate="2011-04-15T14:47:40.930" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Try &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/mobile/goggle&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Google Goggles&lt;/a&gt; if your phone can do it. You take a picture and Google looks up what it is. You mileage may vary but it works for reasonably well known location even with not so direct framing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-15T14:47:40.930" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10970" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10966" CreationDate="2011-04-15T15:07:17.300" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could try using &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tineye.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;TinEye Reverse Image Search&lt;/a&gt; to see if there are some similar pictures, perhaps those have some description nearby.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-04-15T15:07:17.300" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10971" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10966" CreationDate="2011-04-15T15:11:37.727" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the photo was &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geotagging&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;geotagged&lt;/a&gt;, then at least you can find out &lt;em&gt;where&lt;/em&gt; it was taken. That might be enough to help you identify the subject. (In this case, it almost certainly would, as it's a landscape shot).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some cameras have GPS/geotagging built-in. Some can do it with an add-on module. If you have synchronized clocks and a standalone GPS, you can get software to match up your photos with your track, and apply geotags in post-production.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-04-15T15:11:37.727" />
  <row Id="10972" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10958" CreationDate="2011-04-15T16:08:47.430" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;How do I choose a zoom lens to replace the kit lens?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You've gotten a good start, list your interests, come up with a budget, find lenses that might match.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next, what about the performance of the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 left you dissatisfied?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was it low light? Build Quality? Color cast?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Identifying what you didn't like about that lens, should help you understand what you should look for in your replacement lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next, for each area of interest, understand what are the desirable characteristics of a lens that match that area (you'll find that it difficult to find a single lens to meet every area of your interests--which is why many of us have more than a few lenses)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Macro, bugs and flowers&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For macro, you need at least 1:1 magnification. Unless you buy a dedicated macro lens, which is a specialty lens, you don't get 1:1 magnification. Many lenses claim &quot;macro&quot; mode, but they're really just close focusing. Do you want &lt;em&gt;real&lt;/em&gt; macro photographs, or do you just want to take close photos? Also having a large aperture allows a shallow depth of field allowing the subject to stand out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Weddings&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Weddings are difficult to shoot. If you just want to take photographs while attending a wedding, any decent zoom lens should work, though low-light performance will help. If you want to be a wedding photographer, I personally think that shooting with a single, general purpose lens will actually be a disservice to your clients. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Portraits&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Typical portrait lenses have focal lengths between 85-135mm, though you can step out of those limits for creative images. Really any lens can be a portrait lens. Are you thinking studio portraits?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Travel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is my biggest area of interest. For travel, you want a light lens. Fatigue is no fun. You also want a lens that is wide enough to capture indoor and outdoor shots. Having IS is important when in museams, churches, and other buildings that don't allow flash. I also like having some reach for times where I can't get close enough to what I want to photograph. A fast lens also gives you more options with lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So of the lenses you've listed, which should you buy? None.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given what you've said were your interests are, I would recommend the EF-S 17-55. It's optical quality is superb, it has IS and a max aperture of f2.8 so for available light, it's freaking amazing. It's a little above your budget, at $1150&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of it's available light performance, it works really well for travel, weddings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's f2.8 aperture makes it a great lens for flowers and portraits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's 17mm (27.2mm on the 1000D) means' its wide enough for travel and some indoor shots.&#xA;It's 55mm (88mm on the 1000D) is not super long, but good enough for travel (my main travel lense is 105mm)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The biggest downside (besides it's price) is that it's not a close focusing lens, so it's not ideal for taking close up photos. However, since no general purpose zoom is also a macro lens, you pretty much need a dedicated macro to do real macro photography. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recommend the 17-55 over the 24-70 mostly because of the IS, and because it gives you a good working zoom range from wide-angle to near-telephoto.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The optical quality is amazing, and unless you plan on moving to a 5D2 or 1Ds series body, the EF-S lens will be a long time performer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-15T16:25:38.973" LastActivityDate="2011-04-15T16:25:38.973" />
  <row Id="10973" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-15T19:18:57.053" Score="3" ViewCount="157" Body="&lt;p&gt;Photoshop can do this but it's really really slow — it takes almost an hour to do 100 pictures on my machine. More annoying is the fact that I can't just start two instances of Photoshop and do two separate folders in parallel (to use both cores on this box), because Photoshop complains when one tries to open multiple instances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's got to be a faster way of doing this... is there one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2361" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-15T21:43:39.217" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T00:48:25.913" Title="How should one quickly convert a large number of NEF (RAW) files into JPEGs?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;batch&gt;&lt;nef&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="10974" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10973" CreationDate="2011-04-15T19:33:00.407" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Adobe Lightroom is significantly better for large operations like that. And you can fire up more than one action at a time.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to batch operations like that, it's built to be more streamlined into a work process for multiple photos.  If you're doing color corrections, contrast enhancement, and other operations that effect the whole photo - you'll love Lightroom compared to Photoshop. If you mainly do localized touch ups - Photoshop is much better at that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-15T19:39:09.807" LastActivityDate="2011-04-15T19:39:09.807" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="10975" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10973" CreationDate="2011-04-15T19:54:32.443" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unless you have multiple physical hard drives involved, you probably do &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; want to use multiple instances. I'd guess a significant part of the time involved is disk I/O, and multiple instances are likely to slow that down with extra head seeking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For speed, Bibble Pro is hard to beat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-04-15T19:54:32.443" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="10976" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10973" CreationDate="2011-04-15T20:18:35.870" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This won't be sped up significantly, regardless which program you use. You might speed up by using multiple cores (you tried: parallel execution, if supported by the program) and a lot of ram (your os does: caching the files).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The whole point of converting your RAW on your computer is to fiddle a bit more with the parameters than available in your camera chip - which is specialized for converting fast and good. So converting will take a bit more time of your general cpus time. The human fiddling alone should take some time ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;36secs/picture is actually not bad compared to the performance of RawTherapee on my (Turion X2 L335) - CameraRaw is actually a bit faster on it too (edit: but somehow I like the RawTherapee-interface more).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; Just for the statistics - in RawTherapee twiddling my standard knobs (white balance, more sharpening, adding denoising and curves) for a bad indoors-picture from my D90 nearly doubles processing time (from 30 to 54 seconds). The Amaze-demosaicing of the program alone eats 15 seconds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastEditorUserId="2317" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-16T00:48:25.913" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T00:48:25.913" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="10977" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10973" CreationDate="2011-04-15T21:05:51.137" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're enterprising, I would look at using &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DCRaw&lt;/a&gt;. It's for linux, but it is possible to build a binary for windows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's command line only, but should be a noticeable improvement on speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2011-04-15T21:05:51.137" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10978" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10979" CreationDate="2011-04-16T01:01:25.930" Score="2" ViewCount="125" Body="&lt;p&gt;A while back when I was buying my D90 (like many others) I picked up an &lt;code&gt;18-55mm VR&lt;/code&gt;/&lt;code&gt;55-200mm VR&lt;/code&gt; kit for my hello into photography. These are still the only two lenses and I have gotten a lot out of them but now I have a big event comming up and am looking to upgrade my kit. I love my 18-55mm for all that it is worth and I have gotten a lot of use out of it but I am ready to get something a little more flexible for that focal range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've researched it as best as I know how and it looks like the most flexible option for a zoom within my budget is an F-mount &lt;code&gt;Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 Di-II&lt;/code&gt; sans &lt;code&gt;VC&lt;/code&gt;. (Never used VR on my kit anyway) The thing is, it looks like a $350 lens posing as a $2,000 one. I know the reviews indicate otherwise but I don't want to have the same experience with it as my little kit lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not talking about my experience specifically but are third party lenses generally solid enough choices to keep in your bag?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4758" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T06:21:23.967" Title="Is a Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 enough of a step up from a kit lens" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;kit-lens&gt;&lt;tamron&gt;&lt;third-party&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10979" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10978" CreationDate="2011-04-16T01:13:14.933" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like mine a lot for indoor-shooting of parties. Nice and bright, have to step down a bit for max sharpness, but even then it will be brighter than your current 5.6 at the long end of 50mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At a wedding I saw it been used by the professional hired there for the people-shooting too (note 1: it was our wedding-photographer too, but we weren't the one who recommended him; note 2: he really wanted to have mine, because his looked looked a bit worn ;) ). Mine and his being sans VR, because VR does not help with the other people moving (stills of the surrounding best be done before night).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally I think that third-party-lenses can be a nice compromise between high prices and quality - and sometimes even the better choice if you don't find a prime fitting your niche.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T01:13:14.933" />
  <row Id="10980" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10983" CreationDate="2011-04-16T03:08:27.140" Score="19" ViewCount="876" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that nothing helps more when buying a lens to actually test it out yourself, but in my case anyway I feel it's good to know many people's experiences. Kenrockwell is a website that I run into a lot when trying to get info on a lens. When I google a model it's usually one of the first results. The problem is, any time I or anyone else brings up KenRockwell at freenode's &lt;code&gt;#photogeeks&lt;/code&gt; (among other places) they lambast it simply because it is from KenRockwell. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other news, I'm thinking of getting a cheap mild telephoto prime (outside of my zoom lens budget &lt;code&gt;(c;&lt;/code&gt;) so I've been researching the &lt;code&gt;Nikkor 85mm 1.8 D&lt;/code&gt; fairly extensively. After having handled it myself, I am fairly certain it's the one I'm going to buy. Let's see what Ken Rockwell says about it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He gives some remarks on OOF elements in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/85AF.htm#perf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;performance section&lt;/a&gt;. (I won't paste it here as I think he says he doesn't want his stuff copied anywhere)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given, bokeh is not as good in the 85mm 1.8 as it is in the 1.4 but from what little &lt;strong&gt;I've&lt;/strong&gt; used the lens (and seen from photos taken with it on like flickr and stuff), I wouldn't call it 'fairly poor'.  He gives a pretty specific criticism on halos for not having used the lens much, but I think that is kind of a nitpick on my part.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the big things &lt;code&gt;#photogeeks&lt;/code&gt; complains about is the little blurb in the About section that says that he adds satire and fiction to the site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I notice many websites of this sort (Kenrockwell, ByThom [although Mr. Hogan doesn't review lenses that he doesn't claim to have used]) don't have too many sample pictures and the ones they do have are usually heavily scaled. Kenrockwell's gallery's pictures aren't even 640x480.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there good reasons to trust massive single-user for-profit photography websites like KenRockwell.com?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have not noticed yet, this rant is pretty biased. I apologize. This is what the people at &lt;code&gt;#photogeeks&lt;/code&gt; have shown me. I'm more than open for someone to show me otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: Perhaps I should not have dragged Mr. Hogan into this question as his writings do indicate that he has much more experience with the equipment than Mr. Rockwell. I am no photography expert but his reviews on the lenses I own fit the bill exactly. As many of you have mentioned, (and as is evident in reading their sites) Mr. Rockwell and Mr. Hogan have totally different review methods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason I thought to include Mr. Hogan is because both he and Mr. Rockwell are big photography reviewers who make a lot of money from their websites. That doesn't make them bad reviewers. I just feel that even on something as petty as product reviews you can fall into a trap of getting biased towards a particular reviewer's opinions. I know it happened to me when I was first looking to buy. I though Mr. Rockwell was the bomb dot com because of the heaps of praise he threw on the really cheap lenses within my budget while I looked with disdain at more analytic reviewers' opinions (read: ByThom) on the same lenses. I guess that is because the more real reviews revealed the lens's real shortcomings. People will see what they want to see. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is evident to me now that Mr. Hogans reviews carry more weight in the real world but I can see how bias can go both ways. I guess there really is nothing better than trying the lens out for yourself. As I have mentioned I have done above, just never with big $1000+ investment lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That brings me back to my question: On an &lt;strong&gt;absolute scale&lt;/strong&gt; how much can you trust these review sites? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S. Thank you for reading my rant! If you have gotten this far you are the winner &lt;code&gt;(c:&lt;/code&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4758" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-24T14:51:59.153" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T08:17:34.803" Title="Are websites like kenrockwell.com and bythom.com reliable?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;photographer&gt;&lt;review&gt;&lt;thom-hogan&gt;&lt;ken-rockwell&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="10982" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10980" CreationDate="2011-04-16T04:15:43.660" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;K-rock has some interesting opinions, but I often think of him as the Matt Drudge of the Photography world. I suspect most of his opinions are to generate views, and to that end, he has succeeded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is how I judge the opinions of online photographers; how do their own personal galleries look? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T04:15:43.660" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="10983" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10980" CreationDate="2011-04-16T05:51:06.033" Score="21" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find that when it comes to stuff like reviews (including, but not limited to photography equipment), you probably don't want to put all your eggs in one basket for anything important.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look at two or three (or more) reviews, however, you should start to see some common themes emerging -- ie, the lens is soft wide-open, or it focuses slowly, or it's got great bokeh -- whatever.  To the extent you start to see these attributes come up time and again for a given piece of equipment, you can start to be pretty sure there's something real there.  If you do this a few times, you'll also start to have a good frame of reference for how reliable any given source of information is; so in the future, you'll have a pretty good feel for whether you want to start with Ken Rockwell, or whether you'd be better off starting with someone like DPReview.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea here is that any given review on even the most trusted site could be off, so don't rely on a single source of information unless it's a purchase you're comfortable taking a gamble on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T05:51:06.033" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10984" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10988" CreationDate="2011-04-16T05:57:22.773" Score="9" ViewCount="190" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some lenses will produce distortion near a photo's edges (lines that should be straight begin to curve). Fisheye lenses definitely do this, and some ultra-wide lenses will do this too. I like wide lenses, but I'm not a fan of the distortion a fisheye lens produces. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the widest lens I can get before distortion is apparent? Lens length (mm) or capturable degrees would be the preferred answer format... but I won't be surprised if the answer is more complicated than that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4231" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-16T12:47:59.243" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T12:47:59.243" Title="How wide can a lens be before it begins to produce distortion?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;wide-angle&gt;&lt;fisheye&gt;&lt;distortion&gt;&lt;ultra-wide&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="10985" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10980" CreationDate="2011-04-16T05:57:36.257" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Websites like kenrockwell.com and bythom.com are entertaining and idiosyncratic. They are an expression of their owner's personality and deserve reading for that reason.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But when you are looking for good guidance when selecting a lens you should rather go to one of the several sites that approach the matter in a serious disciplined way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a number of highly regarded lens review sites. By glancing through them you will see a consensus emerge about the lens that is a pretty good guide.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1520/lens-review-sites&quot;&gt;List of lens review sites&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is worth emphasizing the importance of looking at several reviews. In this way you form a rounded opinion of the strengths and weaknesses of the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of these sites include customer reviews. You will also find a good selection of customer reviews under each lens on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example there are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423714-REG/Tamron_AF016C700_17_50mm_f_2_8_XR_Di.html#costumerReview&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;226 customer reviews for this lens&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is in the customer reviews that one starts to see whether there are specific quality related problems with the lens. They can be invaluable for gauging the manufacturing quality and reliability. The normal consumer has no other way to collect this information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-19T21:55:33.960" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T21:55:33.960" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="10986" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10978" CreationDate="2011-04-16T06:08:23.937" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/355/cat/23&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Slrgear.com&lt;/a&gt; have this to say about the lens  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This was another lens that was a really pleasant surprise when we ran it through its paces in our test lab; its performance was really excellent in practically every parameter, and it sells for a very attractive price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;At its maximum aperture (a very wide and constant f/2.8), it's blur plot is remarkably flat across almost its entire focal length range, softening a bit overall and more in the corners at 50mm. One stop down to f/4, and its sharpness is very good to excellent across the entire frame at all focal lengths.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/tamron17-50f28/tloader.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The sharpness test results&lt;/a&gt; are impressive.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also the customer reviews on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/550954-REG/Tamron_AF016NII_700_17_50mm_f_2_8_XR_Di_II.html#costumerReview&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;bhphotovideo.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-16T06:21:23.967" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T06:21:23.967" />
  <row Id="10987" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10984" CreationDate="2011-04-16T06:17:36.627" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_%28optics%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Barrel distortion&lt;/a&gt; is the result of lens design, regardless of focal length. The Canon 50mm f/1.4 has slight barrel distortion, that's only visible if you photograph a &quot;straight line&quot; at the very edges, and that is by no means a wide angle lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A fisheye lens is a special design created to enhance and underline barrel distortion. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-14mm-f-2.8-l-ii-usm-lens-review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2163/AF-S-NIKKOR-14-24mm-f%252F2.8G-ED.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon&lt;/a&gt; both make 14mm lenses that cover full frame and don't have the fish-eye effect. Do they have distortion at the edges? Yes, but it's not the barrel distortion of a fisheye lens, but distortion created by perspective, which is inherent in any wide-angle lens design, and is often both sought after and looks very natural.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T06:17:36.627" />
  <row Id="10988" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10984" CreationDate="2011-04-16T06:32:30.087" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is &lt;em&gt;much&lt;/em&gt; more complicated than that. There are 85mm prime lenses I'm aware of that exhibit some degree of barrel distortion, and barrel distortion is almost a given at the wide end of a zoom lens no matter how long that wide end is. On the other hand, at the &quot;long&quot; end of the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, you would have to be shooting brick walls to notice any barrel distortion, and even then it's only at the very edges of the frame (on a crop-sensor camera, of course). And the very same lens may exhibit different geometric distortions at the same focal length but at different focus distances. Modern lenses are a complex interplay between a lot of different lens elements that often change their spatial relationships as the lens is adjusted (focused or zoomed).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several prime lenses under 20mm that come close to being properly rectilinear. Sigma's 14mm lens was great in that regard, but a lousy lens otherwise, unfortunately (it was terminally soft anywhere but at the center of the image, had poor contrast, flare everywhere, etc.). Nikon and Canon both offer 14mm lenses that have slight and easily correctable barrel distortion (&lt;em&gt;slight&lt;/em&gt; being relative in the extreme wide-angle world).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The good news is that geometric distortions are fairly easy to correct in post. (And recent Nikons will do it in-camera; I don't know about other brands.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bad news is that even if gross geometric distortions are corrected, that does nothing about the foreshortening distortion that makes spheres appear like ellipsoids and gives people at the edge of the frame funny-shaped heads.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's not got anything to do with the rectilinearity (the absence of barrel and pincushion distortion) of the lens, but with perspective. In order for things to look right, your point of view (when looking at the picture) needs to be about the same as the camera's point of view was when the picture was taken. (Give it a try -- if you have a picture that has perspective distortion, just get your face really, really close to the print.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T06:32:30.087" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="10989" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10984" CreationDate="2011-04-16T10:23:40.090" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One way to answer your question is look at the distortion test results given by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photozone.de&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example here are two test results for representative wide angle zoom lenses:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/406-canon_1022_3545_50d?start=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF-S 10-22mm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/515-sigma816f4556apsc?start=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma AF 8-16mm&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Run your cursor over the different focal lengths for the distortion diagram and you will see the results come up. I was surprised to see how relatively low the rectilinear distortion was (but that's just my opinion). You would need to do it yourself and make your own judgment call on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T10:23:40.090" />
  <row Id="10990" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10984" CreationDate="2011-04-16T10:47:51.727" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;All lenses show some degree of distorsion, but I suppose that you mean the difference between regular lenses and fish-eye lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The widest non-fish-eye full-frame lens that I know of is the Sigma 12-24mm 1:4,5-5.6 DG HSM.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A focal length of 12mm on a 36mm sensor gives you an angle of view of 112,6°.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are EF-S lenses with shorter focal length, but the angle of view is still smaller. An EF-S lens with a focal length of 8mm on a 22.2mm sensor gives an angle of view of 108,4°.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T10:47:51.727" />
  <row Id="10991" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-16T15:41:29.103" Score="2" ViewCount="117" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just bought a &lt;strong&gt;canon 1014 xl-s&lt;/strong&gt; for 10 euro's on the flea market (this was a real bargain, since they go for 500-700 on eBay). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This camera records using super 8, but since this would be a costly thing (buting empty tape, having it developed, ... alls for 4 minutes of film), I was wondering if couldn't just buy or (even better) make my own digital back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This back would just replace the tape and I'd be able to just record digitally, saving me a lot of hassle. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know if this is possible, or am I just dreaming? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What would I need if I build one myself? Are there any good references?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4763" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-16T16:28:50.137" LastActivityDate="2011-04-17T09:29:39.977" Title="Super 8 digital &quot;back&quot; ?" Tags="&lt;digital-vs-film&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;digital&gt;&lt;digitizing&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10992" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10991" CreationDate="2011-04-16T16:06:57.617" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm pretty sure they don't sell a digital super-8 back after some Googling around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm also pretty sure the required level of expertise to make such a thing is quite high.  I'm not going to say its impossible, but &lt;strong&gt;well&lt;/strong&gt; beyond the hope of the average person hoping to save some money on digital recording.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're interested in shooting the film and digitally editing - they are many services available to digitally convert, but for a price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T16:06:57.617" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="10993" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-16T16:40:04.967" Score="3" ViewCount="201" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've outgrown my modest bag and now I'm going on vacation, I need a new one. I need a backpack which can double as a cabin luggage (will need to hold laptop, D90, lenses, strobes, and some other gadgets), carrying the camera plus some food and clothing on short hikes, and camera storage at home. Kata has some great offers, like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kata-bags.com/productFRM2HS.asp?p_Id=19805&amp;amp;Version=Photo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Owl 272 pl&lt;/a&gt; or the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kata-bags.com/productFRM2HS.asp?p_Id=19779&amp;amp;Version=Photo#p7GPc1_2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bumblebee 220 pl&lt;/a&gt;, but all the models I liked cost 180 to 280 Euro, which is the price of a decent prime lens. Other producers offer models in similar sizes at half or two thirds Kata's prices, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lowepro-deutschland.de/produkte/index.php?article_id=241&amp;amp;clang=0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lowepro Vertex 100 AW&lt;/a&gt; makes a good impression. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't seen any of the bags with my eyes and will order over the Internet. I have the right to send it back if I don't like it, but as they are not always in stock, buying a second model if the first disappoints me could take too long, in the worst case it won't arrive before I fly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if you have had any hands-on experience with Kata bags (in general, not only the models I linked): do they have any tangible benefits over comparable models from other manufacturers, or is the higher price just a premium paid for owning a famous brand? Or do you know of any reliable test reports (not Amazon reviews, but tests made by reliable pro magazines) which confirm or disprove the higher Kata quality? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2099" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T17:26:57.397" Title="Are Kata bags worth their price?" Tags="&lt;camera-bag&gt;&lt;pricing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="10994" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1520" CreationDate="2011-04-16T16:56:45.553" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For anybody who cares about Minolta/Sony equipment, there are a few sites worth noting:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dyxum.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dyxum.com&lt;/a&gt; is has a large lens database and many member-written reviews. Like most enthusiast reviews, ratings tend toward the high side.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://kurtmunger.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kurt Munger&lt;/a&gt; has a chart of Minolta/Sony equipment and quite a few equipment (especially lens) reviews. Lens testing is based on real-world subjects, not charts.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mhohner.de/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Michael Hohner&lt;/a&gt; has a few equipment reviews, and a large equipment database with links to other reviews.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T16:56:45.553" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-16T16:56:45.553" />
  <row Id="10995" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10993" CreationDate="2011-04-16T17:19:18.257" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I own the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kata-bags.com/productFRM2HS.asp?Version=Photo&amp;amp;p_Id=19773&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KATA 3N1-33&lt;/a&gt; bag, which I bought mainly for travel. Last year, it cost me about $140, and it seems like you can have it for $115 in the US now. The main advantage I see for this model over the other two KATA bags you mentioned is the top compartment that lets me carry some non-photo stuff that may be needed as a carry-on (you know, underwear/toothbrush for 1-2 days, until lost baggage is found). It fits conveniently in the top compartment above the airplane seat, and holds a nice amount of gear (can get heavy when fully loaded, especially with a big laptop). Its ability to open on the side to get your camera out w/o opening the main flap is great, and I use it a lot. It also doubles as a sling bag configuration, but I never use it in this configuration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its build quality is great and it keeps its form and shape after a long time of use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the bad side - the lack of chest strap is annoying, especially when it is fully loaded. However, you can use it in the 'X' configuration to overcome this. The access to the top items in the main compartment is a little hard b/c the main flap opens from bottom up. This also made me drop two lenses when forgetting to close the zipper (...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Owl looks like a smaller version of the 3N1, and seems like your space for non-photo stuff is more limited. I must admit that I can't see why this bag is significantly costlier than the 3N1.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For comparison, I also own the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Case-Backpack-Video-Camera-ACPRO2000/dp/B000WH86BQ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Norazza Ape Case 2000 PRO&lt;/a&gt; bag. I used it for  a very short time and then got the KATA. The main reason is it being so-big. Although when measured it is not much bigger, but it is certainly much &lt;em&gt;deeper&lt;/em&gt;. This made it inconvenient for me. As for build quality, the Ape looks sturdy, but it can't compete with the looks and feel of the KATA. The KATA is much more &lt;em&gt;elegant&lt;/em&gt;. I guess this is why KATA's cost more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T17:19:18.257" />
  <row Id="10996" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10993" CreationDate="2011-04-16T17:26:57.397" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my opinion, yes they are. But &quot;worth the price&quot; is something that is highly subjective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sad fact is that specialty bags carry a higher price, just because.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have to ask yourself, how often do you plan on making use of it? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Kata bags are more comfortable, and are more rigid than Lowepro. My first camera backpack was a lowepro and I didn't like it. The inserts felt cheap, and while there was room for my gear at the time, the bag was bulky and didn't do a good job of distributing the weight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also found that Kata had a much nicer construction quality compared to lowepro.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I travel a lot with my gear, so for me, buying a nicer bag was important. I moved to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Crumpler-WHICKEY-Camera-Backpack-Metal/dp/B000W8SVE2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Crumpler&lt;/a&gt; line, because I found their quality to be top notch (even if it's a higher price).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T17:26:57.397" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="10997" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-16T18:07:21.643" Score="10" ViewCount="200" Body="&lt;p&gt;I need to buy a new monitor and I do not want to spend hours calibrating. I have an Apple pro laptop and I use Adobe Photoshop. Do all monitors do calibration? I was told that the Apple monitor does not need calibration. What would you recommend when buying a monitor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4765" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-16T18:57:10.283" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T21:18:35.780" Title="Do all monitors do (or need) calibration?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;color-calibration&gt;&lt;monitors&gt;&lt;display-calibration&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="10998" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10997" CreationDate="2011-04-16T18:35:33.680" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Some monitors need more calibration than others and their color-gamut limits how close they can actually get to showing accurate colors.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, if a monitor can only has 80% coverage of sRGB, then even after the best calibration it will at most show 80% of colors right. Good monitors now cover 100% (at least 98%) of sRGB and a good percentage (92%+) of AdobeRGB.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The second important fact is that most regular monitors cannot be calibrated, &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.neocamera.com/?p=432&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;instead you have to calibrate the graphics card&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt; This improves the accuracy of colors but introduces banding artifacts. There are exceptions to this but those are quite rare and require graphic-card and operating system support.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;You should look for monitors that can be calibrated.&lt;/strong&gt; There is not excuse anymore since these are much much cheaper then they used to be. The cheapest color-calibratable monitor that I know of is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.neocamera.com/?p=312&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NEC Multisync P221W&lt;/a&gt;, which I have two of and one 30&quot; LCD3090WQXi, NEC offers a number of monitors between those two.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The manufacturer site should tell you the color-space coverage and the bit-depth of the color-calibration tables. It should be at least 10-bits, but 12-bits and 14-bits are even better. If the manufacturer does not show you those numbers, then I would assume they are sub-par since otherwise these are great things to boast about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T18:35:33.680" />
  <row Id="10999" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11002" CreationDate="2011-04-16T18:56:07.700" Score="5" ViewCount="105" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are reverse lens mounts only for use with prime lenses? I was wondering if I could use my zoom lens with a reverse mount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4470" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-16T22:18:48.620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T22:18:48.620" Title="Are reverse mounts only for use with prime lenses?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;prime&gt;&lt;reverse-mount&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11000" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6617" CreationDate="2011-04-16T19:03:07.927" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I personally would not send out my photos because they are irreplacable and I've had many bad experiences with sending out photos and not getting them back. However, I have no quick answer to your problem either. I am thinking about trying the Epson Perfection 2480 Limited Edition Photo Flatbed Scanner with Feeder (B11B172171).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4766" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T19:03:07.927" />
  <row Id="11001" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10999" CreationDate="2011-04-16T19:51:28.643" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Reverse mount are intended for the filter thread of a lens. With that in mind, it is clear that you can mount a zoom lens as well as a prime, reversed on the mount (as long as it has the matching filter diameter, of course). Note that there are rings that let you mount a lens onto the body mount (say EF mount for Canon), and rings that will let you mount a reversed lens to the filter ring of a straight mounted lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T19:51:28.643" />
  <row Id="11002" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10999" CreationDate="2011-04-16T20:15:25.120" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a mechanical viewpoint, you can reverse a zoom just as well as a prime -- you're using the lens' filter ring, so the type of lens makes little difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From an optical viewpoint, at least when I've tried it the results didn't impress me much. In fairness, however, reversing lenses tends to be a bit hit or miss, so I might have just had rather bad luck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T20:15:25.120" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11003" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10997" CreationDate="2011-04-16T20:23:43.350" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer is that yes, essentially all monitors need calibrating if you're going to do photoediting. Apple makes some decent monitors, but they're not particularly different from others, nor (specifically) any less in need of calibration than others. Keep in mind, however, that calibration isn't magic -- it won't suddenly make a really cheap monitor dramatically better. It tends to do the most good for monitors that are already quite good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The good point is that calibrating does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; take hours, or anything like it. It's more like 10 or 15 minutes. Probably half of that (or so) it does entirely on its own, so you just put the calibrator on the monitor, tell it to do its thing, and come back after a cup of hot chocolate (or whatever beverage you prefer). There is, however, typically 5 minutes (or so) at the beginning while you do some work (adjusting the brightness, contrast and color controls on the monitor).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-04-16T20:23:43.350" />
  <row Id="11005" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11006" CreationDate="2011-04-17T06:55:19.470" Score="11" ViewCount="246" Body="&lt;p&gt;In lens reviews, ability to override auto-focus manually is often referred to as a good (and important) feature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have rarely, if ever used that feature, so I feel I might be missing out on an important technique. I can see how it could be useful when letting the camera decide which point to focus by, but I always select the focusing point myself. Would overriding auto-focus be also useful with selected AF point?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T08:31:31.350" Title="When would one need manual focus override?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;technique&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;manual-focus&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11006" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11005" CreationDate="2011-04-17T07:28:31.270" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When AF is hunting because of low light or lack of contrast in the subject.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When you're doing intensive macro shooting.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When you don't have enough time to change focus point.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When you want to fine tune your focus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-04-17T07:28:31.270" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="11007" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10991" CreationDate="2011-04-17T09:00:08.600" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Super 8 is a pretty tiny format: 4.0mm x 5.8mm. At first glance, this would appear to be even smaller than most of today's compact cameras, which have 1/2.5&quot; (10mm), 1/1.7&quot; (15mm), etc. sensors. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, due to a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/news/0210/02100402sensorsizes.asp#bottom&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;weird anomaly in how CCD sizes are specified&lt;/a&gt;, that's actually just larger than a 1/3&quot; CCD, which is pretty common. Many webcams, security cameras, etc. use the 1/3&quot; format, so you might be able to hack something together. Essentially, get a 1/3&quot; camera, remove its lens, and place it so its sensor sits where the film used to. You might want to look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/browse/Surveillance-Video/ci/3496/N/4293342959&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Surveillance Video&lt;/a&gt; category at B&amp;amp;H for a source of &lt;strike&gt;body&lt;/strike&gt;camera parts for your Frankencamera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are you going to make a better camcorder than camera companies are able to? Probably not. However, it could be a fun project. If you do end up drilling holes in your camera, let us know how it turns out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-04-17T09:00:08.600" />
  <row Id="11008" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10991" CreationDate="2011-04-17T09:29:39.977" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The reason you can't buy such a device is amply illustrated by the &lt;a href=&quot;http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php/Silicon_Film&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Imagek saga&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2520" LastActivityDate="2011-04-17T09:29:39.977" />
  <row Id="11009" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11005" CreationDate="2011-04-17T10:52:33.120" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I guess you are referring to the &quot;full-time manual focus&quot; feature which allows you to do manual focus without switching from AF to MF mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I find it very &lt;strong&gt;convenient&lt;/strong&gt; if you combine it with &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8771/what-is-the-advantage-to-back-button-autofocus&quot;&gt;back-button autofocus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. Then you will never need to fiddle with the AF/MF switch. You can just leave your lens on AF all the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want autofocus, it is immediately available in the back button (just like with any autofocus lens). If you want manual focus, you can directly turn the focusing ring (as if your lens was in the MF mode).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And you can combine these any way you want. For instance, you can first AF and then immediately after that fine-tune. Or if you notice that AF starts hunting, you can simply give up with AF and use manual focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course there is a downside, too: it is easier to &lt;em&gt;accidentally&lt;/em&gt; change the focus when you are handling the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="247" LastActivityDate="2011-04-17T10:52:33.120" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11010" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11011" CreationDate="2011-04-17T12:48:42.287" Score="1" ViewCount="88" Body="&lt;p&gt;I own a Nikon D7000 and also got an Sony HVL-F36AM flash from my old Sony Alpha 100. Is there a way to use the Sony flash with the Nikon D7000 in wireless mode? Or does Sony somehow block its flash so it only work with Sony DSLRs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4772" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-17T13:15:36.820" LastActivityDate="2011-04-17T21:37:29.150" Title="Is there a way to use a Sony flash with a Nikon camera in wireless mode?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;sony&gt;&lt;wireless-triggers&gt;&lt;wireless&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="11011" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11010" CreationDate="2011-04-17T13:18:51.793" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is: no, this won't work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But it's not because Sony actively is blocking the flash from working. It's just that Nikon's wireless TTL system (which they call &quot;CLS&quot; — &lt;i&gt;C&lt;/i&gt;reative &lt;i&gt;L&lt;/i&gt;ighting &lt;i&gt;S&lt;/i&gt;ystem) isn't compatible with Sony's wireless TTL protocol, which they call &quot;WL&quot; (presumably for &lt;i&gt;W&lt;/i&gt;ire&lt;i&gt;L&lt;/i&gt;ess). The concept is the same — a measurement preflash, and then the control flash on the camera sends a digitally-encoded optical signal telling the slaves how much power to use and when to fire. But the implementation of the signal is different (and proprietary), so the two brands can't talk to each other. The same is true with Canon, Pentax, and Olympus's wireless flash systems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Sony flash's wireless capabilities are limited to this WL system; it does not have non-TTL &quot;digital slave&quot; mode, so you can't use it that way either. (If it did, you could set flash power manually and still get basic wireless functionality.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, you could spend some money and get a radio-based third party wireless trigger system like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pocketwizard.com/products/transmitter_receiver/36/PW-P-TR/overview/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pocketwizard &lt;/a&gt;, which you can hook to the flash &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickbicanic/2495442093/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;with an adapter&lt;/a&gt;. Many people find the radio systems superior to the optical built-in systems, but for a wide variety of cases the built-in systems are great. (Less bulk, and of course less to buy, and TTL operation, which is available through the higher-price radios but not the budget ones.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nikon's CLS flash lineup is excellent (and widely regarded as the best optical TTL slave system). So, while the bad news is that you probably can't easily make great use of your existing flash, the good news is that you won't go wrong in the new system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-17T21:37:29.150" LastActivityDate="2011-04-17T21:37:29.150" />
  <row Id="11012" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-17T15:04:25.937" Score="6" ViewCount="155" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've just cleaned sensor on my Nikon D40x for the first time using sensor swabs and Eclipse solution. &#xA;Here is a picture taken before cleaning &lt;a href=&quot;http://imgur.com/86kmI&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://imgur.com/86kmI.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt; and after &lt;a href=&quot;http://imgur.com/Kfj00&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://imgur.com/Kfj00.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dark spots on the first photo do not appear on the second, so it looks like I cleaned the sensor from the dust, but there new are light spots of different colors on the second photograph. How do I get rid of those? I repeated the process two more times, but still have those light spots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4773" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-17T15:24:40.867" LastActivityDate="2011-04-17T15:24:40.867" Title="How do I get rid of these different spots after sensor cleaning?" Tags="&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;cleaning&gt;&lt;artifacts&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11013" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11012" CreationDate="2011-04-17T15:16:05.230" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are talking about the circular colour spots in the top left of the second image, these are not caused by the sensor but rather are caused by the sun hitting the front of your lens at an angle.  Try photographing an image at 180 degrees from the sun to ensure you do not get lens flare.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When cleaning your sensor a better method to see how clean it is would be to photograph a well lit blank white sheet of paper, using your highest F-stop (such as F22) and out of focus ... any foreign objects, smears or stains on your sensor or lens will then show either fully in focus or very nearly in focus.  Personally I shoot a blank wall at home on F22 and move the camera while the shutter is open, then I know any impurity in the image has to be on the sensor or lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1410" LastActivityDate="2011-04-17T15:16:05.230" />
  <row Id="11014" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11012" CreationDate="2011-04-17T15:18:01.870" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The dark spots are dust. You managed to clean then. Good job!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The light spots are not dust, they are flare.&lt;/strong&gt; That is caused because by sunlight entering the lens. Even though it is out of the frame, some stray rays can enter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First, you can easily confirm this by shooting away from the sun.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, you can learn to minimize flare by using a lens hood. Lens hoods are not 100% effective and almost always (there are exceptions) become less effective when you zoom in. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If it fails, you will simply have to point your camera in another direction or wait for the sun to move.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-17T15:18:01.870" />
  <row Id="11015" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11012" CreationDate="2011-04-17T15:19:04.947" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Spots caused by dirt and dust on the sensor are dark, by nature of being shadows - your second shot shows lens flare, which is caused by reflections within the lens - it may be a side effect of your sensor now being sparkly clean (after all, digital sensors are far more reflective than film ever was), or it may be that there is a little bit of dust within the lens - it just be that your shot is towards a bright light source, which is always a high-risk for flare.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're still worried about dust, the recommendation would be to shoot a known plain surface, like a sheet of paper, rather than the sky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2011-04-17T15:19:04.947" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11016" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11005" CreationDate="2011-04-17T15:54:51.827" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is invaluable when accurate focusing is critical to the result as you then need not worry about the sometimes uncertain nature of auto-focus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This applies particularly in the following situations:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;macro photos where the depth of field is very small.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;photos of flat objects such as documents where you want to select a focus point such that the entire field of view is sharp.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;in some cases where the focus point is featureless, creating difficulties for the auto-focus system.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;in low light conditions where speed is necessary the auto-focus may prove to be too slow or unreliable.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get the best results from manual focus, you should use live view and magnify the image.  It is possible then to get an exact focus (but for some applications this is rather too slow).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A useful technique is to let the auto-focus make the first selection and then to use  the manual focus override to fine tune the focus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From time to time I like to deliberately use manual focus just to keep those skills alive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-18T07:24:27.130" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T07:24:27.130" />
  <row Id="11017" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11005" CreationDate="2011-04-17T17:12:43.863" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sometimes you must manually focus because there are foreground objects that can't be avoided and will draw off the autofocus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also have a situation where the target has enough noise around it to keep the autofocus from working at all.  Say a marine mammal popping out of the water in a cloud of spray.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, when you can't focus and recompose because there's nobody behind the camera--timer or remote trigger--and the auto is going to go astray for some reason.  (Or my old SLR that did the focus when you started the timer rather than when it fired.  If you were using that timer to get into the shot it would go astray if there wasn't something suitable there.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1843" LastActivityDate="2011-04-17T17:12:43.863" />
  <row Id="11018" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10980" CreationDate="2011-04-17T19:22:31.287" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Interesting that you put Ken Rockwell and Thom Hogan in the same question; my take is that these are very different types of people. As others have said, Ken is kind of a nut. On the other hand, I find Thom Hogan's reviews particularly compelling because they relate real experiences and read very sane - for example, Thom has a good attitude (IMO) about when imperfections matter and when they don't, and talks a lot about using the lens rather than just spewing numbers (measurebators) or making hysterical claims (Ken Rockwell).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2011-04-17T19:22:31.287" />
  <row Id="11020" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-17T19:38:27.913" Score="3" ViewCount="78" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been thinking about Micro Four Thirds, which in many cases encodes distortion and chromatic aberration correction into the raw files. But, the raw processor I currently use (Bibble) ignores this data, and I'm having a hard time figuring out what software does use it - for example, does Lightroom use its own database (as Bibble does) or the data in the raw files? Bonus points for info on Linux software, but I'm to the point where I'm willing to switch to Mac or Windows too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would also be reasonably happy if there were separate software that could create profiles that I could import into Bibble (&lt;a href=&quot;http://support.bibblelabs.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=94&amp;amp;t=15277&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;specs for that&lt;/a&gt;, and it seems like the parameters are fairly standard). Since it would be easy to create corrected and uncorrected JPEGs (using Bibble and in-camera, respectively), that seems like it could be straightforward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T14:26:43.697" Title="Which raw processors interpret distortion/CA correction from Micro Four Thirds cameras?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;linux&gt;&lt;micro-four-thirds&gt;&lt;distortion&gt;&lt;chromatic-aberration&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11021" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5936" CreationDate="2011-04-17T20:31:02.887" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Great question but when I first read it this seemed like semantics (how wrong could I be?).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now as I read the answers I realise that there is a deeper process involved which is very akin to the De Bono Six Thinking Hats approach. In that approach you consciously don a certain kind of thinking hat. It means that you deliberately enter that thinking mode and bring that approach to the problem at hand.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same way we, as photographers, put on different photographic hats at different times:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- The Journalist's Hat. We &lt;strong&gt;take&lt;/strong&gt; a photo (the Red Hat)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- The Director's Hat. We &lt;strong&gt;make&lt;/strong&gt; a photo (the Blue Hat)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- The Artist's Hat. We &lt;strong&gt;create&lt;/strong&gt; a photo. (the Green Hat)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- The Critic's Hat. We &lt;strong&gt;assess&lt;/strong&gt; the photo. (the Black Hat)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You ask  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So, the question: is taking really so bad? Does it inherently mean thoughtlessness, and rapid-fire snapshots? Should every genuine photographer be encouraged to engage in making? Or can taking photographs as observation alone be a valid, serious form of the art?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First&lt;/strong&gt;. A good photographer intuitively engages his store of experience when he 'takes' a photo. He need not consciously summons up that knowledge or plan the photo. It emerges without conscious volition. This is often desirable because creativity thrives without the limits placed on us by our conscious 'making' mind.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Second&lt;/strong&gt;. Every photographer should be encouraged to engage in 'making' in the earlier stages of his photographic journey. By consciously engaging and practicing skills we embed them in deeper stores of knowledge so that they are quickly available to you, without thought, when you later engage in 'taking'.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we need to distinguish between the 'taking' of the unpractised amateur (snapshots) and the 'taking' of the experienced photographer. In his case this is the fluency of practised skill.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The diagram below outlines De Bono's Six Thinking Hats (copyright the De Bono Group). One is supposed to put on each hat in turn when approaching a given issue so that you approach it from all points of view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/yiY5M.png&quot; alt=&quot;De Bono Six Thinking Hats&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;References&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.debonogroup.com/six_thinking_hats.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;De Bono's Six Thinking Hats&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.debonoforschools.com/asp/six_hats.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A Tool for Creative, Innovative, &amp;amp; Critical Thinking&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Thinking_Hats&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia - Six Thinking Hats&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lesswrong.com/lw/1wn/sequential_organization_of_thinking_six_thinking/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sequential Organization of Thinking: &quot;Six Thinking Hats&quot;&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-21T05:35:28.650" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T05:35:28.650" />
  <row Id="11022" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11049" CreationDate="2011-04-17T21:15:15.870" Score="6" ViewCount="190" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10265/how-to-produce-a-huge-photograph-on-a-hard-surface&quot;&gt;quest to print large images&lt;/a&gt;, I discovered that most such places, as opposed to photo labs,  only accept CMYK images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I consider myself an image processing expert, I realize there is a blatant gap in my knowledge around CMYK! I read &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/5022/are-rgb-numeric-values-equal-to-cmyk-percentages&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; which sums up mostly what I already knew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I need is to convert my sRGB images into CMYK images and understand how colors will be affected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first trouble point is that sRGB is a color-space based on an RGB representation and CMYK, AFAIK, is not a color-space but representation of colors. This tells me we need a CMYK color-space, preferably a common one since printers I talked to just said CMYK when I asked for a color-space.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, we need to establish how much of sRGB can be represented in a chosen CMYK color-space and determine how much precision (bit-depth) is needed for the representation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The final question therefore is: &lt;strong&gt;How to losslessly convert and sRGB image into a CMYK one?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-18T13:36:19.827" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T16:38:09.130" Title="Is there a lossless sRGB to CMYK conversion?" Tags="&lt;cmyk&gt;&lt;rgb&gt;&lt;srgb&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="11023" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11022" CreationDate="2011-04-17T21:48:32.423" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;AFAIK, there isn't a way to losslessly convert between a color in sRGB to a color in CMYK. Given that each color space will represent a different gamut, there is no exact way to convert between one color to another, without some amount of estimation/approximation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2011-04-17T21:48:32.423" />
  <row Id="11024" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11022" CreationDate="2011-04-17T23:47:45.360" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I haven't done the math, but I believe there is a lossless RGB to CMYK transform, just as there is from RGB to Lab or RGB to HSL and back. I believe you just want to ignore the black channel, and reflect the R, G, and B channels across the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_cube&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;color cube&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thing is, in what way would that be useful? No one makes CMYK images with the intent of showing them on a device with a gamut like that of a computer display. Their purpose is to go to print, and there can be no lossless &lt;em&gt;RGB to print&lt;/em&gt; transform.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is because paper is a reflective medium and computer displays are a transmissive medium. The latter make their own light, whereas paper and ink can only reflect light it receives. You cannot make the move from one to the other losslessly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your imaging program of choice changes the colors you see on the monitor when going from RGB to CMYK, that's a good thing. It is trying to model the type of color shifts you will see when you actually make the print. This may save you a trial or two, because you can counteract the color shifts, or at least plan for them, ahead of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4141" LastActivityDate="2011-04-17T23:47:45.360" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11025" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11026" CreationDate="2011-04-18T00:46:43.710" Score="14" ViewCount="297" Body="&lt;p&gt;What sort of printer options do we have to deliver photo prints quickly for low operating costs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We tried to set up our HP Color LaserJet to work for the speed. The image is just not good enough to sell. Too grainy. We would like to offer genuine photo prints without breaking the budget.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Main concern on inkjet is ink costs, laser printers with high enough quality and a good paper suggestion would also work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These will mostly be 4x6 size prints and sometimes 5x7.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4775" LastEditorUserId="4775" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-19T18:02:22.070" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T18:02:22.070" Title="Good economy photo printer for 200+ people/night, low operating costs" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;printing&gt;&lt;prints&gt;&lt;ink-jet&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11026" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11025" CreationDate="2011-04-18T02:45:47.233" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Until a couple of years ago, there was an easy, automatic answer for the entry level -- get a couple of Epson R800s with outboard bulk inking systems, use roll paper and go to town. Unfortunately, the R800 is with us no more, and while you can do the same job with larger inkjet printers, transportation, setup and tear-down, consumables management and so forth make it altogether impractical for more than a makeshift solution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a cost of doing business, and making on-site printing manageable and profitable comes with a little bit of up-front pain. The weapons of choice these days are dye-sub printers that will run you $2-4K (depending on the maximum print size you need). As business expenses go, it's something that amortizes quickly -- and since the profit is in the print, not the image, it doesn't make sense to be penny wise and pound foolish here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The brands I keep hearing songs of praise for are the Sony SnapLab series and Mitsubishi. Both appear to be robust and bullet-proof (the Sonys are designed for retail kiosk use as well as event photography). Both use system consumables -- if you have paper, you also have ink. Yes, the consumables seem expensive up front, but when you consider that you've already sold the print before you print it, it's really not so bad. They're monolithic -- you just plug them in and turn them on, and they're ready to go. (Inkjets that see a lot of banging around often need to go through a head-cleaning/ink charge cycle before they're ready to use. Even lasers may need to have the toner carts jiggled so the toner level is, well, level.). And they're fast (you can get a 4x6 in under 20 seconds).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's probably more up-front expense than you were hoping to deal with, but a good printer will pay for itself in only a very few events, and the consumables pay for themselves as you go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T02:45:47.233" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11027" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11025" CreationDate="2011-04-18T03:13:36.270" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have owned a mid-level Canon iP4500 for quite a number of years. The printer cost about $180 back in the day, and has comparable modern counterparts for around the same price. When it comes to economical printing of 4x6 and 5x7, I wouldn't look farther than this level and quality of printer. Despite only using four ink colors (CMYK), the color quality and ink density is excellent. A 4x6&quot; or 5x7&quot; print can be spit out in a matter of a few seconds (less than 20 in most cases), and the printer supports bulk feeding of small format photographic papers (I think stacks of 50 using the feeder cartridge.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This level of printer from Canon is a dye based printer, so its resolution is very high (the printer DPI is 4800x2400, prints at 600PPI). Tonal gradients and gamut are very good, and colors tend to be quite vibrant. The gamut is certainly not as large as a modern pigment based printer like the Canon PIXMA 9500 II or Epson Stylus R2880, however it is incredibly cheap to run (dye ink is pretty cheap compared to pigment.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A couple cons of note regarding dye inks. They dry extremely fast, but tend to be more water soluble than pigments. The quick drying time is a boon for quickly handing out prints, but they need to be handled with more care. A quick dye-safe sealing spray could help improve their resilience. They don't have quite the permanence of pigment inks either, however their longevity when cared for properly is upwards of 75-90 years. If you need good longevity and greater durability, it might be worth spending $500 or so to get a pigment based printer, rather than a dye based printer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T03:13:36.270" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11028" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11022" CreationDate="2011-04-18T03:24:10.447" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When talking &quot;CMYK&quot;, your talking a completely different language than RGB, the range of gamuts there tends to be rather diverse and device dependent. I would say its less about &quot;lossless&quot; conversion, and more about properly converting an RGB image to the right mix of CMYK inks for each pixel. There WILL be loss, but when a final print is viewed, the differences will hardly be noticeable (if at all.) Every printer is different, and each uses different types of ink, each ink color will be slightly different between printers, printed ink density will differ, and the way ink is dispersed on paper is different (it may be dithered, or it may be half-toned.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally, conversion to CMYK is a meticulous process involving at least a moderate understanding of how the image will actually be printed by the specific printer in use. CMYK is indeed a color space, however the gamut of that space is device-dependent, and usually smaller than the gamut of the computer screen you are working with. Proofing, both hard and soft, is a critical step in properly converting an RGB image into CMYK for accurate reproduction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T03:24:10.447" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11029" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10760" CreationDate="2011-04-18T04:06:27.127" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because human eyes/brains are not as sensitive to changes in blue light as they are to changes in green/red lights. The modern camera sensors acts more like human eyes and therefore its less sensitive to blue than it is to green/red. Since the standard for displaying neutral on color monitors is to have equal amounts of blue, green, and red, and since the sensors are less sensitive to blue than to red and green, it is convenient to amplify the blue channel. Amplifying the blue channel signal also amplifies blue channel noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Camera noise reduction is only applied if you're shooting JPEG but since a lot of people shoot RAW, the blue channel is always somewhat noisy. I've searched for a remedy to this problem. One suggested to convert the image to lab color and smooth/blur only the luminance channel, then convert back to RGB to remove noise. You can try.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastEditorUserId="2476" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-18T07:20:47.120" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T07:20:47.120" CommentCount="13" />
  <row Id="11030" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11020" CreationDate="2011-04-18T06:26:56.473" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the thread from Bibble Labs that you linked to, there is a post that refers to a tutorial on using &lt;a href=&quot;http://hugin.sourceforge.net/tutorials/calibration/en.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hugin&lt;/a&gt; to create lens correction profiles. I used that technique over a year ago with Bibble and found that it worked. Hugin runs under Linux.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2528" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T06:26:56.473" />
  <row Id="11031" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10980" CreationDate="2011-04-18T07:51:49.617" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For me buying a gear is a completely objective process (well.. mostly). If I was buying a lens, I'll know what focal length i'd want and how much money I'm ready to put into it. Then I'd head over to sites like photozone.de which do indepth analysis of each lens.. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Kenrockwell.com at the end of the day is just a blog that tries to communicate the author's opinion and facts in an over simplified verbiage so that a newbie can grasp it much easily.. I can see that pissing off some pundits.. and definitely techies/gear_heads you'll most likely find on an IRC channel (seriously.. do photographer's really hang out on IRC?!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="55" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T07:51:49.617" />
  <row Id="11032" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11005" CreationDate="2011-04-18T08:31:31.350" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another one: when the AF can't keep up.&#xA;I regularly photograph airshows and other aircraft displays. The AF sensor simply can't focus rapidly enough on an aircraft coming in at hundreds of miles an hour, so what you do is you lock focus on a set distance and take your shot when the aircraft gets to that point.&#xA;Having bright weather so you can use a deep DOF helps a lot in that, as it greatly increases the margin of error you have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T08:31:31.350" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11033" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10394" CreationDate="2011-04-18T08:58:41.777" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1) Aperture priority: even in the&#xA;  widest range mode, where it has from&#xA;  2.8 to 8, I don't see any difference in the picture. I know that AP is used&#xA;  for DOF, and that P&amp;amp;S have huge DOF&#xA;  because of the sensor size, but then&#xA;  why is this mode here? What's supposed&#xA;  to do in a P&amp;amp;S?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are correct in saying that a P&amp;amp;S has a huge DOF, however on these types of cameras the &lt;code&gt;Av&lt;/code&gt; mode is often used as an alternative for Macro (little flower icon) mode. Having the aperture wide open is a common characteristic of Macro photographs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2) Manual Focus: the slider goes from&#xA;  0cm to infinity (Depending on the&#xA;  zoom) and even you have the option to&#xA;  see a zoomed zone in the center of the&#xA;  picture for a refined focus, I don't&#xA;  see much difference between little&#xA;  steps. May it be because it's an&#xA;  electronic viewfinder instead of&#xA;  optical?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd definitely agree that it's far more difficult to see focus adjustments on an LCD (the electronic viewfinder) rather than an optical eyepiece. Again, it's not an entirely useless feature, but rather a more advanced version of a possibly pre-existing function. Setting focus in manual on your P&amp;amp;S would be useful when shooting landscapes (the mountains or hills icon, normally) or again if shooting Macro (little flower).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3) Exposure: I've read that you should&#xA;  get a proper exposure. There is an&#xA;  indicator that warns me if the picture&#xA;  is going to be too dark or too bright,&#xA;  but the only options I have to change&#xA;  the exposure are the shutter speed and&#xA;  ISO, which I always try to be at 100&#xA;  in order to avoid noise (of course&#xA;  during daylight or in a well-lit&#xA;  room). How can I know if it's really&#xA;  proper? Right now I have a post&#xA;  processing plugin in photoshop which&#xA;  does exposure compensation so I'm&#xA;  checking how much does the picture&#xA;  change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I dare say the comments above handled this nicely: read up, research. You'll understand it, it's something all photographers have to wrap their heads around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3375" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T08:58:41.777" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11034" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-18T10:17:26.493" Score="4" ViewCount="129" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've recently started shooting with the Canon AE-1 Program and am loving it. I do enjoy the film look (it's rather expensive in the long term though) but it's the way I use the camera that really appeals to me. Also I do miss the convenience of digital. Therefore I've been looking around for a digital equivalent that fulfills the following criteria:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;compact size&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;has interchangeable lenses&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;large and bright viewfinder&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ease in manual focusing (ideally, something built for manual focusing)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, just a AE-1 with a digital sensor in place of film. So far I've looked at the Leica M9 and Fujifilm Finepix X100. While the M9 is what I would want, it's just way out of my budget (which is just around $1500, note that this refers to my budget and not how much the M9 costs), and suppose that of most people, whereas the X100 misses on the manual focusing, large viewfinder, and interchangeable lens part. (It still looks fun to use though; just don't wanna plunk down that much money for it.) However, if anyone who's used a X100 can address my concerns for it or workarounds, I'm all ears. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So are there any other cameras out there that I should have considered but missed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I intend to use it solely for street photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1635" LastEditorUserId="1635" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-18T14:52:05.083" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T15:50:32.887" Title="What retro design, compact-sized digital cameras are there?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;street-photography&gt;&lt;compact-large-sensor&gt;&lt;decisive-moment-digital&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="11036" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11037" CreationDate="2011-04-18T11:55:26.673" Score="5" ViewCount="107" Body="&lt;p&gt;I own a Nikon D3000 Camera with the AF-S 18-55mm VR Kit Lens. Last week I lost the lens cap and now I want to buy a new one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But when I went to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flipkart.com/cameras/lens-caps&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this online store&lt;/a&gt;, I got confused with the different ranges of lens names —  LC-62, LC-78, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My concern is what if I order one lens cap and it won't fit correctly on my lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you guys have an D3000, can you please let me know how to find the correct lens cap names?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="851" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-18T12:40:23.617" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T16:44:41.917" Title="How can I find the right lens cap for my lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-protection&gt;&lt;lens-caps&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="11037" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11036" CreationDate="2011-04-18T12:15:42.583" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The number part of the Nikon part number for the lens cap is the filter size. (The LC stands for &quot;lens cap&quot;.) Your lens takes a 52mm filter; you'd need an LC-52 lens cap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T12:15:42.583" />
  <row Id="11038" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10980" CreationDate="2011-04-18T13:22:34.267" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think these two sites should not be &lt;em&gt;completely&lt;/em&gt; lumped together. Let's let each man talk for himself. From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ken Rockwell's &quot;About&quot; page&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Apparently the world finds my opinions very useful, but remember, they are the opinions of one man. I have a big sense of humor, and do this site to entertain you (and myself), as well as to inform and to educate. I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good hoax. Read &lt;em&gt;The Museum of Hoaxes&lt;/em&gt;, or see their &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;site&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;strong&gt;A hoax, like some of the things I do on this website, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it&lt;/strong&gt; by overactive minds as a practical joke. Even Ansel Adams kidded around when he was just a pup in the 1920s by selling his photos as &quot;Parmelian Prints.&quot; I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact. &lt;strong&gt;I enjoy making things up for fun, as does &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theonion.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Onion&lt;/a&gt;, and I publish them here&lt;/strong&gt; — even on this page.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Emphasis mine, links to other sites in the original, although I've removed the one that is a promo-code link to a book on Amazon — even found in the about page. (I've got no problem with product linking in general, but the fact that even this section contains one seems... indicative.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thom Hogan's site &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;simply says&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Here you'll find extensive information about Nikon photographic equipment and support for all of Thom's Nikon-related books. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/thom.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;about&lt;/a&gt;&quot; section is devoted to biography and bibliography. I don't think there ever seems to be a push anywhere on the site for anything but the idea that it's the writings and opinions of one particular expert. Whether it's reliable or not mostly comes down to whether you trust that expertise (and how far you trust it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's probably valuable to also include sites like Mike Johnston's &lt;a href=&quot;http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Online Photographer&lt;/a&gt; (which has &lt;a href=&quot;http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a more journalistic mission&lt;/a&gt;, and which is meticulous about distinguishing opinion statements from simple facts and even more so — with a sort of midwestern guilt — about highlighting commercial connections), and Michael Reichmann's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/index.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luminous Landscape&lt;/a&gt;, which &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/about/critic.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;says&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It's easy to be a critic. You just need to have an opinion and a soapbox to spout it from. But when I listen to or read someone's opinions I want to know what combination of knowledge and experience allows them to hold forth on a given topic. Since I pontificate on many subjects in various essay and reviews on this site I figure that you deserve to knew a bit about who I am and what experience I bring to the table in each of these areas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;None of this makes my opinions right. But it means that when I criticize something my opinion comes from some fairly extensive photographic and industry experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Am I biased? Yup! I like equipment that produces first-class image quality and that does so with well-designed ergonomics and user interface. A good product needs both. A product fails, in my book, if it only succeeds in one of these two areas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do I make mistakes in my reviews? Sure, lots of them. Who doesn't from time to time? I do my best to correct them though when I do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That seems like the &lt;em&gt;right way&lt;/em&gt; to do it — in my subjective opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-18T23:54:29.930" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T23:54:29.930" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11039" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5282" CreationDate="2011-04-18T13:24:19.120" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Using a Spyder3 with the Spyder3Express software version 4.0 on SnowLeopard, I can confirm that cabbeys method of renaming the profile and switching the screen works. However, I recommend to rename both the file and the internal name of the profile. Here is what I did step by step (partly borrowed from cabbey):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;run a calibration on whichever screen is your main display (it's the one with the menu bar and dock).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;go into the system preferences, display settings and choose the color tab on your main monitor. Select the Spyder3Express profile and select &quot;Open Profile&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A new window pops up, where you can edit the name of the profile. The name is field #1 called 'desc'. The name appears three times. I edited all occurrences for good measure. E.g. Append &quot;Left&quot; To the existing name (results in Spyder3ExpressLeft).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Upon closing that window it will ask to save your changes. Tell it to save.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;go into the profiles directory ( /Users/username/Library/ColorSync/Profiles/ ) and COPY the profile it just created (right click and choose &quot;Diplicate&quot;. you get a file named &quot;Spyder3Express copy&quot;. Rename that file to the same name you renamed the profile (e.g. &quot;Spyder3ExpressLeft&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;change which display is primary (Display settings, arrangement tab, drag the white bar at the top to the other one)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;run another calibration. This time it will be on the other display.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;go rename that profile too (steps 2-5 from above). Append e.g. &quot;right&quot; to the profile name.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;put your primary display back.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;in the color tab of the displays preference on each monitor, pick the profile you renamed with the &quot;Left&quot; and &quot;Right&quot; names.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And another tip: If you want to get rid of that Spyder3Utility from your menu bar, you can do the following: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Navigate to /Applications/Datacolor/Spyder3Express&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Drag Spyder3Utility.app to the dock&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ctrl-click (right click) on the Spyder3utility icon in the dock&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Uncheck Options-&gt;Open at login&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4780" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-27T13:33:11.860" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T13:33:11.860" />
  <row Id="11040" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11034" CreationDate="2011-04-18T13:39:17.410" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Considering you were happy using a film camera at least 27 years old, perhaps you could try hunting for a used &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_M8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Leica M8&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epson_R-D1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Epson R-D1&lt;/a&gt; (here's a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/09/07/choosing-a-digital-rangefinder-camera-part-1-the-epson-rd-1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;review by Steve Huff&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-18T15:50:32.887" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T15:50:32.887" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11041" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-18T14:15:55.537" Score="3" ViewCount="239" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm an amateur photographer and have been for a few years. I've had a Canon EOS 400D for a few years, and am thinking of upgrading to a 7D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've looked at the spec sheet and on paper the 7D is just &quot;better&quot;. I'm curious to know if there are any really compelling reasons to upgrade that people are aware of, to help justify the purchase.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Video and &quot;live view&quot; aren't killer features for me, but I note from various online reviews that it seems to be a large collection of small(ish) changes that add up to a very big overall improvement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1194" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T06:46:30.443" Title="Benefits of upgrade from Canon EOS 400D to 7D" Tags="&lt;canon-7d&gt;&lt;upgrade&gt;&lt;canon-400d&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11042" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11041" CreationDate="2011-04-18T14:32:28.497" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The higher-end cameras first all have dual-control dials&lt;/strong&gt;, this will be true if you go to a 7D or even a 60D. This and added buttons lets you &lt;strong&gt;operate the camera much faster&lt;/strong&gt; since there are more direct controls and less reasons to enter the menu system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the 7D but not the 60D, you get a &lt;strong&gt;100% coverage viewfinder&lt;/strong&gt;. This feature alone is worth the upgrade if you care about perfect composition. Once you there, it is very difficult to go back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are plenty of other details which may or may not be important to you. Many appreciate the &lt;strong&gt;higher-end build quality&lt;/strong&gt;, faster-speed of operation, faster drive and more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you shoot action or street photography, for example, the &lt;strong&gt;faster speed will greatly increase your chances of snaring a keeper&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The dual-axis digital level is a really nice bonus.&lt;/strong&gt; I have a 3-axis add-on for the hot-shoe (which predates digital camera's having levels) but I find having the levels in the viewfinder much more ergonomic. I rarely use the hot-shoe one anymore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T14:32:28.497" />
  <row Id="11043" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11044" CreationDate="2011-04-18T15:30:58.917" Score="6" ViewCount="167" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9810/how-should-i-start-with-film-photography&quot;&gt;I'm interested in trying out film photography&lt;/a&gt; and I would also love to try out a rangefinder camera as &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10762/can-manual-focus-be-faster-than-autofocus&quot;&gt;those seem to be perfect for manual focusing&lt;/a&gt; in street photography. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, of course, the question is: Which camera and lenses should I buy? What are the differences? I'm all new to these cameras, so don't hesitate to include some very basic stuff in your answers :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the price: As it is an experiment, I don't want to spend any more than 1000 USD in total for the beginning. If the whole thing turns out to be not for me, I should be able to sell the equipment for a good price, right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2069" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T17:58:13.950" Title="What film rangefinder camera can I buy for a reasonable price?" Tags="&lt;film-photography&gt;&lt;rangefinder&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11044" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11043" CreationDate="2011-04-18T15:45:47.277" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're willing to reduce your budget by a factor of 10, you could get a Canonet QL17 GIII, which has a permanently mounted 40mm f/1.7 lens and shutter-priority auto exposure. I really enjoyed mine and considered it an excellent value. The 40mm focal length suited me well, and the lens &quot;drew&quot; nicely, with sharp focus and pleasant bokeh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/KwueH.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Tour guide, Ste.-Chapelle (Paris)&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/uQnUl.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Hale Telescope, Palomar Observatory&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2138" LastEditorUserId="2138" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-18T16:01:47.460" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T16:01:47.460" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11045" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10922" CreationDate="2011-04-18T15:46:40.727" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;there is always &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Photography school&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4738" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T15:46:40.727" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11046" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7541" CreationDate="2011-04-18T16:05:42.677" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are point-and-shoot cameras that already have many features of a phone - microphone, speaker, touch screen, WiFi connectivity, similar form factor. I see no reason why there would not be a model in  near future that is fully capable of mobile networking, including making phone calls. The network rates are already cheap enough to afford this. After all, easy instant sharing seems to be a buzzword for selling P&amp;amp;S cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T16:05:42.677" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-18T16:05:42.677" />
  <row Id="11047" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7541" CreationDate="2011-04-18T16:32:04.927" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most of the photographers here are being photographers, and are answering &quot;No,&quot; because even compact cameras will continue to enjoy image quality and handling benefits over phones, at least as far as we can predict.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that wasn't the question. The question was &lt;em&gt;will they ultimately replace point-and-shoot cameras&lt;/em&gt;, and in the marketplace, I think the answer is mostly &quot;Yes.&quot; Most people aren't that picky about image quality, and don't want to carry around a bunch of different devices. Already, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/18/iphone-4-becoming-most-popular-camera-on-flickr/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;iPhone 4 will soon be the most popular camera on Flickr&lt;/a&gt;, and some have attributed the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/04/12/businessinsider-iphone-flip-2011-4.DTL&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;death of Flip compact video cameras&lt;/a&gt; to the smartphones. That's not to say that the compact segment will disappear entirely; there will always be something like the S95 and G12 for people who want a more serious compact camera, but I think you'll see more and more people foregoing the P&amp;amp;S for their phone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2138" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T16:32:04.927" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-18T16:32:04.927" />
  <row Id="11048" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11052" CreationDate="2011-04-18T16:33:42.320" Score="6" ViewCount="193" Body="&lt;p&gt;Suppose we have time to shoot with an DSLR. Before actually shooting, some settings have to be adjusted to get a picture. Suppose we have a brand new DSLR in hand and every setting has to be defined.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, getting the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;right&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; picture depends on the subject, the context, the personal taste, etc. but I don't matter on the artistic point of view, just on the order (if such a determined one exists) and the importance of all the required technical step.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a debutant, I imagine it could be this (rather simple) one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ISO&lt;/strong&gt;, depending on the current lightness ;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;white balance&lt;/strong&gt;, depending on the light color ;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;aperture&lt;/strong&gt;, depending on the desired depth of field ;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;composition&lt;/strong&gt;, depending on the subject ;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;shutter speed&lt;/strong&gt;, depending on the desired exposition ;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and finally...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SHOOT!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this a correct way to handle things? Is such an order (this one or another) very typical or does it change for each picture? If different, what's yours, and why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2337" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T17:59:00.753" Title="Is there a typical settings order before shooting?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;technique&gt;&lt;workflow&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11049" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11022" CreationDate="2011-04-18T16:38:09.130" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, sRGB is a &lt;em&gt;single&lt;/em&gt; color space, with defined boundaries and defined mappings from RGB values to (for example) CIE XYZ values, a specified viewing environment, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;CYMK, by contrast, is really a whole &lt;em&gt;family&lt;/em&gt; of color spaces. All the color spaces in the family are subtractive, but you can't count on them having a lot in common beyond that. The exact colors of the primaries (i.e., the shade of cyan, magenta, yellow, and even black) vary. Since CMYK is used almost exclusively in printing, the color of the paper, brighteners, ability to accept ink, etc., all affect perceived color as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a theoretical viewpoint, there's no question that conversion from RGB to CMYK can be completely lossless, so (for example) you can do a round-trip conversion (RGB to CMYk, then back to RGB) and guarantee that the result is identical to the original input.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a practical viewpoint, CMYK (as noted above) is used almost exclusively for printing. That being the case, the real question is whether there's a real printer that can display the entire sRGB gamut. Although I could be mistaken on this, I &lt;em&gt;believe&lt;/em&gt; the answer to that is no. In addition to that, it's difficult (probably impossible, really) to get exactly the same look on paper that you do on a monitor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In particular, paper only reflects light that's shining on it, and the ink on the paper restricts the amount that's reflected. That means under normal lighting, what you see on the paper is always at least somewhat &lt;em&gt;less&lt;/em&gt; bright than the ambient light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A normal monitor emits light. Especially the higher-end monitors typically used for photo-editing are typically used in a relatively dark environment, and often have hoods as well. As a result, the monitor is typically &lt;em&gt;brighter&lt;/em&gt; than ambient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A gallery will typically attempt to display prints a bit more as you see them on a monitor, with lighting directed on the picture that's substantially brighter than ambient. Proofing boxes generally do roughly the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bottom line: even though sRGB to CMYK &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; be lossless, it normally isn't -- and since it's normally for printing, really shouldn't be, except in the rare (nonexistent?) case of a printer that covers the entire sRGB gamut.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T16:38:09.130" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11050" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11041" CreationDate="2011-04-18T16:49:35.010" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I used to have a 450D, now I have a 7D. I will speak from experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 450D is of course an upgrade to the 400D and the changes/improvements between the 400D and the 7D will probably be greater than between the 450D and the 7D, so add that up while reading this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To begin, as you most likely are aware, lenses matter more for image quality than the actual camera does. The 18MP sensor, allows me to see the details on the photos more, and how unsharp some of my lenses are (I see differences very clearly compared to what I saw with the 12MP sensor of the 450D). So, we have more pixels, not that important, but you do get more details and most importantly, you get a greater possibility to crop images. Otherwise, regarding quality of the image, there is little difference between my 7D and my old 450D. I believe the 7D has somewhat better colors though, but otherwise, I think they are almost equal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 7D's build quality blows the 450D away. This beast is not the kind of plastic (but expensive) &quot;toy&quot; that my 450D was. It feels a lot better in the hand, and I am way more confident about it being able to take some rough handling at times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Changing settings, such as focus mode and so on, is much faster with the 7D. It is more of a &quot;pro&quot; camera. It also has way more options, allowing you to fine tune the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The autofocus is amazing. It is faster than the 450D, and it is easier to set up, and more precise. Depending on what you do, this might make the difference between a great image and a &quot;meh&quot; image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It shoots series of pictures faster too, which will matter if you photograph wildlife or sports.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I should also add that the 7D handles high ISO numbers much better. This is not &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; important for me as I mostly use a tripod anyway, but still nice to have when you shoot without it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also has nice features such as a built in gyro, so you can check whether the horizon (or something) actually is straight. You also get filming, which is nice, but I have not used that for anything serious; it takes great movies though. I know you don't care, but it is nice :).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I really like is the built in wireless flash control. I have an external 440EXII flash, and if I wanted to control it wirelessly with the 450D, I would either have had to buy a transmitter (circa 200$) or a 580EXII (which has a built in transmitter, but ain't exactly cheap either).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As already mentioned here, the 100% viewfinder makes getting the composition &quot;just right&quot; easier. I shoot landscapes (and close ups and wildlife), and it really helps here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It feels more sturdy, and it gives you more freedom. It is more of a serious hobbyist or professional camera, while the 450D mostly is a first-DSLR or family camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3171" LastEditorUserId="3171" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-18T16:55:49.923" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T16:55:49.923" />
  <row Id="11051" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11048" CreationDate="2011-04-18T17:03:32.203" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think you're going to find a &quot;correct&quot; way to handle things, since &lt;strong&gt;this will all be very subjective&lt;/strong&gt; depending on the circumstances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I want a shot where the subject stands out and I want a lot of bokeh, then the aperture probably becomes the most important and first thing to configure.  If I'm photographing fast-action sports, the first consideration will be a very short shutter speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's not likely a certain set of steps that will apply in most situations.  &lt;strong&gt;A photographer should evaluate the situation, think about the photograph that he or she wishes to create, then use the appropriate camera settings for that vision.&lt;/strong&gt;  If there's a camera setting (aperture, shutter speed, etc.) that will facilitate that vision, then that setting becomes the most important.  Others will need to be considered (I'm still going to think about white balance in almost any situation) but they won't be as important as the setting that helps facilitate the primary challenge or vision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T17:03:32.203" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11052" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11048" CreationDate="2011-04-18T17:04:25.137" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I never really thought about it, and I don't really think there's a &lt;em&gt;right&lt;/em&gt; sequence, but I guess my typical sequence is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;White balance&lt;/strong&gt;: I shoot raw, and almost always leave the camera in Auto White Balance, because it's usually an OK starting point, and precise adjustment will be done in raw development.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Shooting mode&lt;/strong&gt;: Most often Aperture Priority (Av)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;Independent variable&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;: That is, for Aperture Priority, I set the aperture that I want to shoot&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First guess at ISO&lt;/strong&gt;: Based on my perception of the light&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Check &quot;dependent variable&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;: Point the camera at a &quot;typical&quot; or &quot;approximate&quot; version of the shot's composition and see if the camera-selected exposure variable (shutter speed in Av mode) is acceptable. Adjust ISO if not.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exposure compensation&lt;/strong&gt;: Adjust +/- exposure compensation based on subject matter (e.g. + compensation for snow scenes) and/or a test shot&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Focus, compose, and fire&lt;/strong&gt;: I would not typically want to be worrying about exposure any more when making the final composition.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2138" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T17:04:25.137" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="11053" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11048" CreationDate="2011-04-18T17:50:08.013" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Prior to leaving home:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A. Lens (decided by subject matter, expected subject distance, expected available light). Ultrawide, normal zoom, telezoom, ridicilously fast prime, superzoom?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When entering the area of shooting:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;B. ISO (dictated by available light and my anticipated needs for shutter speed and depth of field)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prior to shooting a sequence of shots:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;C. Aperture (for depth of field, or lack thereof)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;D. Shutter speed (for freezing the subject or blurring movement)&#xA;These two must be balanced against each other, and possibly with the ISO setting as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;E. Take a test shot to verify that the histogram is where it ought to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, compose and shoot. Note that I generally keep the settings as they are over a sometimes large number of pictures, given constant light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I couldn't care less about the white balance. That's a matter for the RAW conversion afterwards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T17:50:08.013" />
  <row Id="11054" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11057" CreationDate="2011-04-18T17:56:28.630" Score="4" ViewCount="123" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have some questions regarding Barrel distortion and pincushion distortion. Since they are related I have put them in single post.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I am aware that barrel distortion&#xA;occurs more in wide-angle &#xA;lenses, wherein straight lines near&#xA;edges of the frame curve outwards.&#xA;Is it pincushion distortion when&#xA;lines curve inward, and in what&#xA;conditions (what types of lenses, etc.) does &#xA;pincushion distortion occur?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I am aware that some new&#xA;cameras (DSLRs, DSCs, SLDs) have&#xA;in-camera corrections for these&#xA;distortions, and also there are some&#xA;tools to correct it in post&#xA;processing (e.g., PTlens) but what is the&#xA;exact procedure used in the&#xA;correction process? Does the&#xA;correction process work in Raw Bayer&#xA;domain, or after some color&#xA;conversion to YCbCr?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any pointers (especially for question 2) would be useful, as I am trying to implement one post process for this type of correction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2438" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-19T14:01:46.753" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T14:01:46.753" Title="What are Barrel and Pincushion distortion and how are they corrected?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;distortion&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11055" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11043" CreationDate="2011-04-18T17:58:13.950" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Canonet GIII as suggested is a good one. It does have a fixed lens though, and it is an old camera model so some luck is needed to get a good working one, in particular you will want to get one whose light-seals have been replaced recently. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For an entry-level interchangeable lens rangefinder, take a look at the various R2, R3, R4 offerings from Cosina-Voigtländer, they are quite reasonably built, of recent vintage, take Leica M optics of all kinds, and each has a modern, built-in lightmeter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Of course, for a thousand bucks you should be able to get the real deal - an old Leica M with a lens.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T17:58:13.950" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11056" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11048" CreationDate="2011-04-18T17:59:00.753" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The typical set of steps I go through when I see a scene I want to photograph. They are presented in order of importance:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Composition&lt;/strong&gt;: No point randomly snapping unless I know what the focal point in a scene is, and how I wish to interpret the scene. This really must be the first thing you do as everything else flows from this.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Move&lt;/strong&gt;: I get into position, as this will affect the focal length of the lens I use. Do I want to compress the depth of the scene and bring objects that are far apart closer together? I move further back and use a telephoto lens. Do I want to exaggerate lines and distances? I go up close and personal with an ultra wide angle.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pick AF point&lt;/strong&gt;: Once I know where my point of interest lies, I pick the AF point that best corresponds to the location of the subject. If this is not possible, I switch to manual focus or use the manual focus override.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Aperture &amp;amp; Shutter speed&lt;/strong&gt;: Then I set the aperture to achieve the desired depth of field and the correct shutter speed to express motion.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I generally leave the ISO setting at Auto, which is configured to go from ISO 80 - 6400 on my K-5. White balance is left on Auto or Cloudy, depending on my mood. All of this can be fixed easily in post processing so there's no point in mucking about with them at point of capture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2528" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T17:59:00.753" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11057" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11054" CreationDate="2011-04-18T18:04:04.653" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Your interpretation of distortion is correct. For an example of a lens that exhibits barrel distortion at the wide angle and pin cushion distortion at the telephoto end, have a look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/462-canon_18135_3556is?start=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 18-135mm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tools like PTLens and Hugin perform the corrections after the demosaicing of the Bayer data. I'm not sure why this would matter?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're interested in understanding how this correction is done, the equations are presented &lt;a href=&quot;http://hugin.sourceforge.net/docs/manual/Lens_correction_model.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2528" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T18:04:04.653" />
  <row Id="11058" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11041" CreationDate="2011-04-18T18:08:10.377" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're keen on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.strobist.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strobist&lt;/a&gt; work, then the 7D allows you to trigger an external flash gun wirelessly with full E-TTL metering. You could do the same on your 400D with an ST-E2 transmitter, but that's a minor inconvenience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The biggest reason IMHO would be the better ergonomics of the 7D, i.e. twin dials, direct access buttons for ISO, white balance, metering, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2528" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T18:08:10.377" />
  <row Id="11059" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11041" CreationDate="2011-04-18T18:19:15.467" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I upgraded from 350D (Rebel XT) to the 7D. The important factors for me when upgrading were the built-in wireless flash controller, the 100% viewfinder, better controls and so much better LCD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is definitely a body with a pro feel. If you have bigger hands, the 7D's bigger size is very comfortable in your hand. Once I got the new camera, I completely stopped using the old one. Not even once (well, once for actually shooting my new gear, and a few times for stopping down lenses to be reversed mounted on the 7D).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you consider upgrading and can afford the 7D, you wont be sorry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T18:19:15.467" />
  <row Id="11060" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11067" CreationDate="2011-04-18T18:49:03.387" Score="15" ViewCount="386" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently was in a discussion with a photography mentor who asserted that over the years he has composed most of his award-winning and/or 'most popular' photographs using the 'Diagonal Method,' and that in his opinion because photographs composed in this manner were more aesthetically pleasing than shots composed using the 'Rule of Thirds,' they were thus more likely to win awards, be chosen by customers, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the Diagonal Method, how can I apply it to my photography, and is it better than 'The Rule of Thirds?'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-01T08:10:55.893" LastActivityDate="2011-05-01T08:10:55.893" Title="What is the 'Diagonal Method' and should I use it instead of 'The Rule of Thirds?'" Tags="&lt;composition&gt;&lt;composition-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="4" />
  <row Id="11061" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10826" CreationDate="2011-04-18T20:09:12.830" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not directly related to photography, but to techniques regarding Light Painting: You might also want to take a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://kdenlive.org/users/granjow/writing-light-graffiti-effect&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Light Painting for Video&lt;/a&gt;. Instead of using long exposure, you take a video and apply the effect. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The page linked describes an effect I have written, there are also other implementations, but to my knowledge these are not public (i.e. kept at home in a treasure, kind of).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4149" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T20:09:12.830" />
  <row Id="11062" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11041" CreationDate="2011-04-18T21:06:46.507" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 7D (aswell as the 550D) uses a new type of sensor that uses gapless microlenses as explained briefly here &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos550d/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DP 550D Review&lt;/a&gt;. So far as I can tell this results in vastly lower noise at higher ISOs (550D in comparison to my old 1000D).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1580" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T21:06:46.507" />
  <row Id="11063" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10922" CreationDate="2011-04-18T22:20:15.457" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was just recommended this site by my photography teacher. I have never used it myself&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpbestflow.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Photography BestFlow&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4738" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T22:20:15.457" />
  <row Id="11064" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11060" CreationDate="2011-04-18T22:23:59.510" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For detailed information see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diagonalmethod.info/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.diagonalmethod.info/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rule of thirds, 'Golden Section' or 'Golden Ratio' and this diagonal method are rules of thumb.  As mattdm says, having your subject off-center gives an image a more dynamic feel, and all of these methods place the subject in a similar location in my opinion.  There is no &quot;right&quot; method. You can always find an images that seem to fit whatever rule you follow, but they often look contrived to me.  Just because Mona Lisa's right eye happens to fall onto a crosshair doesn't seem that significant to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4191" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T22:23:59.510" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11065" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11041" CreationDate="2011-04-18T22:25:31.540" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My view is that if you need reasons to justify purchasing a new body, you don't really need the body (yet). To spend wisely, you'd have a problem first, then search for solution, not the other way around. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps a new lens, a flash, a sturdy tripod or an exotic trip would make more difference to your photos than a body that just seems &quot;better&quot; in no important way. A lens would also last more years than the body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-18T22:36:14.600" LastActivityDate="2011-04-18T22:36:14.600" />
  <row Id="11066" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11060" CreationDate="2011-04-19T00:04:56.597" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the end, the Rule of Thirds, Golden Spiral, Golden Section and Diagonal Method are simple ways to potentially produce a pleasing composition, not because they're magical and revolutionary, but because are what has been found to be a factor in good composition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's the difference between saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Use (rule) because it's correct.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We found that pleasing composition tended to use one of many coincedental ratios, such as thirds, or the golden ratio.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that when &lt;em&gt;I&lt;/em&gt; am composing a photo, I'm not really thinking about any ratios, rather what feels right &lt;em&gt;or&lt;/em&gt; what I'm required to photograph (if I'm photographing for a client).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It just so happens that what I feel is &quot;right&quot; in composition tends toward the golden ratio.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T00:04:56.597" />
  <row Id="11067" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11060" CreationDate="2011-04-19T01:18:11.480" Score="17" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;diagonal method&quot; appears (as seen on a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diagonalmethod.info/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;site dedicated to its advocacy&lt;/a&gt;) to have been invented — he says &quot;discovered&quot; — in 2006 by photographer and photography teacher &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.edwinwesthoff.nl/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Edwin Westhoff&lt;/a&gt;. The &quot;method&quot; is simple. It states that details which are important to the artist will be found within a very close precision along an imaginary diagonal line drawn at 45° from one one of the corners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/mHZcj.png&quot; alt=&quot;diagonals&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rule states that these important details will be &lt;em&gt;no more&lt;/em&gt; than 1.5mm from the diagonal on an A4 print. That's about 0.5%, which is the width of the red lines in the illustration I've made. So, in order to fit the diagonal method, a picture must have details precisely on one of those  red lines; if it doesn't the diagonal method does not apply. The rule makes no claims about &lt;em&gt;where&lt;/em&gt; on the lines the details should fall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No particularly strong reason is given for the importance of these lines; Westhoff writes that this is a discovery based on observation. He suggests that it might be because of the way artist and viewer's eyes track over an image. There's no analysis given of these particular 45% lines over, for example, lines going corner-to-corner, or to divisions of the golden ratio, or otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Westhoff makes two arguments in favor of the diagonal method over the rule of thirds. First, he says that because this rule requires more precision than the approximation-is-okay statements that usually accompany the rule of thirds, it is more testable. Second, he argues that it is not a rule for overall composition, but an &lt;em&gt;indicator&lt;/em&gt; of &quot;details which are important to the artist in a psychological or emotional way.&quot; Notably, this importance could even be subconscious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first point seems somewhat disingenuous. An article on the above web site &quot;testing&quot; the method &lt;em&gt;starts first&lt;/em&gt; by discarding all photos where the author judges the diagonals not to be meaningful; then, of the remaining ones, some fraction have some details determined to fit the method. Color me a bit skeptical on that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the second, well.... it's decidedly subjective. Without artist's statements, it's hard to be certain whether the chosen details really are the ones of particular importance, or if Westhoff's analysis is simply circular.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But here, the &quot;method&quot; is in very good company, because the earlier rules make similar claims. Actually, they make similar claims on &lt;em&gt;both&lt;/em&gt; of these counts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Rabatment of the Rectangle&lt;/em&gt; is a quite similar concept; in fact, Westhoff comes near to describing it in his description of his rule: &quot;I called this the Diagonal Method because these lines are also the mathematical diagonals of the two overlapping squares within a rectangle.&quot; The imaginary lines forming those two squares are said, by Charles Bouleau in &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0878172599&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Painter's Secret Geometry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; in 1963, to be found throughout history in painting — again, perhaps subconsciously.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Rule of Thirds&lt;/em&gt; appears to have been &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/521/what-is-the-rule-of-thirds/9239#9239&quot;&gt;invented by John Thomas Smith&lt;/a&gt; in around 1797. The interesting thing here is that Smith doesn't seem to go for the imprecision Westhoff dismisses his rule for. He seems pretty certain that this ratio is precisely the best way to divide lines or areas. Over the centuries, of course, the rule in practical application hasn't held up to that sort of exactness, and in fact is really quite useful &lt;em&gt;when applied generally&lt;/em&gt; and not as a fixed rule. But overall, Smith seems to following the same method of &quot;discovery&quot;. He argues that lines divided in this way will be the most beautiful, whether intentionally composed in that way or by accident.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;And of course, &lt;em&gt;The Golden Ratio&lt;/em&gt;. This one &lt;em&gt;certainly&lt;/em&gt; is quite precise, although the degree of adherence to it allowed by different advocates varies. And, the idea that it is important to humans psychologically even though an artist might not realize it consciously is almost ubiquitous (that idea, for example, underlies the argument that the Rule of Thirds gains its power through similarity to this ratio). But the interesting thing, I think, is that modern conception of The Golden Ratio as a rule for aesthetics originated in writings &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; like Westhoff's. &lt;a href=&quot;http://herz-fischler.ca/zeising.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adolph Zeising&lt;/a&gt;, a 19th-century German intellectual, discovered what seemed to be the appearance of the ratio in the branching of plants, and then started finding it everywhere. This touched off a fad of searching for the ratio everywhere, from ancient Greek art and architecture, to the Pyramids, to the Renaissance masters.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Westhoff goes to great pains to claim that this is a &quot;method&quot; of analysis, &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; a rule for composition, but it really does come down to the same thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of these follow the same basic idea: someone examining works of great art comes up with a mathematical rule, to which special power in aesthetics is ascribed, whether for overall composition or for the most-powerful placement of important details. Samples throughout history are produced, with lines drawn to show amazing correspondence. There's a very strong appeal in having such a rule. Strong composition is very &quot;right brained&quot; and hard to pin down into logical, fixed rules, and it would be so nice if it turned out that there was a simple, mathematical rule that shook it out into left-brained logic after all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That doesn't mean that such rules aren't useful. Having &lt;em&gt;forms&lt;/em&gt; and limitations are great ways to aid the creation of art. Sonnets have a strong mathematical structure; it doesn't mean that they're mystically the best way to produce a poem, but if you can work within that form, you've got a &lt;em&gt;focus&lt;/em&gt; for making good poetry. These rules can all be used in that same way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using the diagonal method in the field would be quite difficult without a focusing screen engraved with the proper lines, at least if you are to follow the 0.005%-precision aspect of the rule. One could certainly use it more informally by sighting mentally from the corners of the frame. In fact, Westhoff suggests that many artists do this intuitively already.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rule explicitly doesn't concern itself with the overall composition, just the placement of details. Westhoff's writing is a bit inconsistent on the point of whether this is useful for aesthetics, or for indication of meaning and emotion without regard for beauty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Westhoff suggests that it might also be useful in cropping an existing photo. One could use a template with 45° diagonals to ensure that important elements intersect the lines of the rule.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, if you subscribe to the theory, you could use a template overlaid on existing photographs for analysis; the rule states that the details intersected by these particular diagonal lines have special psychological importance or emotional meaning. So, you could look at your existing works and see if the theory holds true for you, or the works of a favorite artist to see if that artist subconsciously uses the method.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-20T12:29:58.247" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T12:29:58.247" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11068" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-19T02:47:03.140" Score="6" ViewCount="183" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently came across a clip on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7_wL0ZZi6k&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;youtube&lt;/a&gt; which showed the process of making camera lenses. I noticed them using acetone as a lens cleaner. My question is how effective is acetone as lens cleaner? Will acetone damage the coating on the lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1494" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-19T02:58:40.567" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T06:17:26.693" Title="Is acetone safe and effective as a lens cleaner?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;cleaning&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="11069" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10855" CreationDate="2011-04-19T03:11:21.677" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would suggest that you hold off on most of your purchases until you get a better feel for what kind of photography you like doing. The only thing I would suggest from the start is to try to get a body only D90 and getting an 18-200mm lens. I own both the kit 18-105 and the Sigma 18-200VR and I haven't seen any noticeable difference in quality between the two, while the 105-200mm range comes in handy a LOT for me (I do travel photography mainly). Keep in mind that the Sigma lens tends to 'slide' out if you hold the camera towards the ground, which is a bit annoying, but it is quite a bit cheaper than the Nikkors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, make sure you put UV filters on all your lens to protect them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other things, as mentioned above (but with a few caveats):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) Spare battery - I've never personally seen a need for a battery kit, but a spare battery fully charged has saved me on a number of occasions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) Prime lens - A F1.8 prime is definitely very useful, and can be bought quite cheap. The 'nifty fifty' 50mm F1.8 from Nikon is great, but keep in mind that it's actually more like 80mm on your cropped sensor, which is better for portraiture. For day-to-day use, I prefer the Nikon 35mm F1.8, which approximates a full frame 50mm. Most of my favorite photos are shot with one of these two primes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) Flash - the built in flash on the D90 is a bit crap. Even if you're not interested in off-camera flash (check out strobist.com), you still need a flash in a lot of situations. Go for the Nikon SB600 (SB900 is overkill unless you get serious).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4) Tripod - depending on the type of photography you do, this has differing levels of use. I'd suggest a smaller travel tripod to start with, so you can get a feel for its use, then you can look at something bigger (more expensive). I'm happy with my Velbon MaxiL for traveling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5) Polarizing filter and ND grad filters - these are pretty darn useful for landscape photography, but will put you out by quite a bit. I'd definitely hold of on these until you discover a passion for this type of photography. Saying that, the Cokin ND filters are good value if you really want these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;6) Camera bag - stick with something basic to start with as you will want to chose something later that better fits with your equipment and needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All in all, it's tempting to buy a lot of stuff, but your equipment will not make you a better photographer, experience will. Take your time to understand what your priorities are and then look at buying things to suit those, as your budget allows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4785" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T03:11:21.677" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11070" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11068" CreationDate="2011-04-19T03:23:04.237" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's Bob Atkin's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/lens_filter_cleaning.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;answer&lt;/a&gt; on the topic and I generally agree. In a nutshell, don't use it unless you really know what you're doing and have it sourced. As a general rule of thumb, use lens cleaning supplies specifically made for lenses and don't get too paranoid about the front element being clean. Seriously, it takes quite a bit to really mess your image quality and it isn't necessary to be fastidious about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T03:23:04.237" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11071" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11068" CreationDate="2011-04-19T05:30:15.760" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You'll note that at the point they did that, it was just a glass blank. What will the acetone do to the glass and coating? Pretty much nothing. What will it do to the rubber gaskets that seal the dust out of the lens? That's the real question to me. Having worked around fibre-glass for a few years, which uses acetone in pretty large quantities... well, I wouldn't be putting it into contact with anything rubberized that I cared about keeping the rubber in good shape... it just seems to dry it out way too fast and lead to cracks. Just not worth it to me, especially when we are talking about the outer surface of the front element.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T05:30:15.760" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11072" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11068" CreationDate="2011-04-19T06:01:48.127" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Acetone is an excellent solvant for some plastics. I've tested it with styrofoam once &lt;a href=&quot;http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei%3aAceton_on_Styrofoam.jpg&amp;amp;filetimestamp=20100411160145&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It does clean pretty good though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For my filters (polarizer etc.) I was most successful with liquid soap and water. Not everything works, but there are liquid soaps which do not leave any stains (and which I'm using for my glasses as well now :)). Also works for lenses, but then you should not pour water on them directly but use a wet towel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Edit:&lt;/em&gt; Generally about alcoholes for cleaning. I tested them a little bit, Alcohol and Isopropyl alcohol, mixed with water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Isopropyl always smears. &lt;em&gt;Iff&lt;/em&gt; you hold the cleaning towel with your hands. The reason is that it will solve grease from the fingers and evenly distribute it on the surface. The solution is to use something grease-free for holding the towel (or whatever it is).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Alcohols alone dry too quickly and leave stains.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Water alone does not solve greasy particles.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The best way to clean with alcohol based liquids I've found so far is to use water with some drops of alcohol (one of the above); the alcohol will bind greasy particles, the water will prevent the liquid from evaporating too quickly, so the drops can be removed easily and without stains using a dry towel.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4149" LastEditorUserId="4149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-19T06:17:26.693" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T06:17:26.693" />
  <row Id="11073" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1402" CreationDate="2011-04-19T07:20:46.093" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could use a Tripod and also a remote trigger (self-timer is also ok). But in day light I think 2 major components &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lowest ISO &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Smallest Aperture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also the use of ND filters considerably help the process. Incase of emergency you could even use your sunglasses. But be careful that it cover the whole lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also if the scene allows it use the extended zoom. You get couple of extra f-stops with that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4786" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T07:20:46.093" />
  <row Id="11074" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11075" CreationDate="2011-04-19T10:26:59.150" Score="12" ViewCount="371" Body="&lt;p&gt;Suppose you want to store your photos at some lower resolution, let's say about ~1 MB large.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You own a camera able to make photos at 5 MPix and more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, you want to have the maximum quality at the smaller size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would it be better to make a photo at highest resolution and then resize it with PC software (with a good filter of course), or to directly set the camera to make photos at 2 MPix only?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4788" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-19T12:44:08.833" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T20:18:16.577" Title="Does it give higher quality to shoot in low-res mode in-camera, or to downsize high-res photos later?" Tags="&lt;image-quality&gt;&lt;resolution&gt;&lt;megapixels&gt;&lt;rescaling&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11075" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11074" CreationDate="2011-04-19T10:51:40.683" Score="18" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Downscaling a larger image on computer is almost certainly going to produce a better result. This is because resizing an image is very processor intensive, and there is a difference in quality between the various resampling algorithms (e.g. Lanczos vs Bicubic). Getting a 5 MP camera to produce a 2 MP image is going to cause the camera to perform the resizing and this is bad for 2 reasons: a) You can't control what resampling algorithm is used and b) The camera is always going to have a weaker processor than your computer so will inevitably use a resampling algorithm that's optimized for speed not quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if quality is important, do your resizing on the computer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2528" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T10:51:40.683" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11076" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11074" CreationDate="2011-04-19T11:00:03.937" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Philip has it spot on there, resampling on a computer will give you more control and access to better resampling algorithms. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's another reason not to select a smaller size on camera and that is if you download your photos and find one that is really good you can keep it in high resolution. If you set your camera to 2 megapixels there's no going back! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the choice between a 5MP and 2MP camera, shooting the 5MP camera and resizing will also give you better image quality (all else being equal) as you'll have better colour resolution and less aliasing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T11:00:03.937" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11077" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1402" CreationDate="2011-04-19T11:51:02.560" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the in-camera methods (small apertures, low ISO, ND filters...) you could take several exposures, and average them digitally in post-processing. That should work well for things like waterfalls and streams, but could introduce gaps in star trails, automobile traffic, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2138" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T11:51:02.560" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11078" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11074" CreationDate="2011-04-19T12:52:32.393" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It probably doesn't matter very much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The computer has an advantage because it can bring more processor power to bear. You can use more sophisticated algorithms, including tailoring the right one to each image. (And, as Matt Grum points out, you have the larger version available if you change your mind. This is probably the most compelling reason to go this route – it's hard to guess your future needs.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The in-device conversion may have other advantages, though, depending on how it's implemented. First, it can do its downsizing on the raw sensor data rather than working on an already-converted JPEG. That avoids saving in JPEG more than once (which, given that you're discarding detail, isn't that important in this case), and allows the camera to do the downsizing as part of Bayer de-mozaicing. This &lt;em&gt;might&lt;/em&gt; give a minor quality improvement. Second, the sensor &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; do a hardware-level pixel binning, which decreases read noise when shooting at a lower resolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But those advantages are highly implementation-dependent. I think the best thing to do is actually take some images and compare. If you can't tell the difference, go with whatever is easiest. (Or take the advice of storing the larger versions somewhere after all, just in case.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T12:52:32.393" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11079" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11036" CreationDate="2011-04-19T13:10:10.213" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Like @Stan Rogers points out, all that you need to know is the filter diameter for the lens, which should be listed in just about every data sheet or review of the lens that you can find. The AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR (which I take it you mean) does indeed take a 52 mm filter according to Nikon's web site and a quick Google search.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;However&lt;/em&gt;, you don't need to buy an original lens cap unless you specifically want to for some reason. There is no functional difference between an original lens cap and one of another brand. Picking up a no-name cap of the same diameter is most likely to get you exactly the same results for half the price or less.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1772" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T13:10:10.213" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11080" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10877" CreationDate="2011-04-19T13:23:33.167" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my experience, anytime you're using a media management software like Lightroom, Aperture or even iTunes, it's safest to just go all-in and let the software manage the files. I've seen so many corrupted iTunes and iPhoto libraries from people or are really possessive about managing the EXACT LOCATION OF EVERY FILE, and then something innocent happens and screws the whole thing up:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;one of the external hard drives becomes unplugged&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;someone accidentally renames a root folder&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;there's a bug in the software upgrade that doesn't account for an unusual scattering of files&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You get a new computer and the folder locations don't exactly match up&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Plus, if you let Lightroom or Aperture manage the media for you, it's not going to stuff every image into a fragile, proprietary database. It's just going to shuffle them out of site and keep an eye on them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt;: Just took a look at how Aperture is keeping track of my photos, and it's sorting them into folders like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Masters/&amp;lt;YYYY&amp;gt;/&amp;lt;MM&amp;gt;/&amp;lt;DD&amp;gt;/&amp;lt;album id&amp;gt;/filename.PEF&#xA;Previews/&amp;lt;YYYY&amp;gt;/&amp;lt;MM&amp;gt;/&amp;lt;DD&amp;gt;/&amp;lt;album id&amp;gt;/filename.jpg&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...plus a bunch of behind-the-scenes database stuff. This isn't exactly the scheme I would come up with if I were self-managing, but it's perfectly clear. So in the unlikely event that Aperture freaks out and self-destructs, all the images are still there. Sure I might loose some metadata and album sorting, but we're talking worst-case situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think letting Aperture handle the sorting is any riskier than doing it myself -- a rogue malicious program or small child could still make a huge mess -- but at least I'm not fighting with the software for control. Plus, why spend your time bookkeeping when you can let the software do it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4690" LastEditorUserId="4690" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-19T15:54:16.113" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T15:54:16.113" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11081" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10877" CreationDate="2011-04-19T13:51:04.443" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a few linux solutions you could use.  I'm primarily a linux user too, so I can't comment on lightroom because I haven't used it, but I agree 100% that if you can't export the data later you're locked into that solution which I don't like either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a number of linux tools that are free, which I'm sure you've found.  Personally, I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kphotoalbum.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;kphotoalbum&lt;/a&gt; because it doesn't touch the source files and provides a very extensive tagging/labeling/cataloging facility.  But, it doesn't target itself toward the editing you're looking for.  There are filters and plugins that modify the file, but for the same reasons you mentioned I don't use it: I want the original untouched.  For this, I invoke gimp from within kphotoalbum (right-clicking) and edit the file.  Then I use kphotoalbum's auto-stacking methods so that the new file gets auto-&quot;stacked&quot; above the original so I only see the new copy.  Functionally, that leaves me with an original and the preferred &quot;better&quot; version.  But the best thing about kphotoalbum is that the database is stored as a XML file, which I've read in and even manipulated with external tools.  The data is always available for you to tinker with and extract from if you need to, and thus there is no lock-in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also one professional utility that works on linux, and that's &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibblelabs.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bibble&lt;/a&gt;.  I looked at it briefly and it seems to offer much of what you're looking for.  Personally, I want to go try the demo and play with it as it's something I'm considering using as well but I'd want to check out the lock-in aspects of it before switching as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3558" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T13:51:04.443" />
  <row Id="11082" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11020" CreationDate="2011-04-19T14:26:43.697" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some folks on DPReview &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&amp;amp;message=34944594&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;say that Lightroom/Camera Raw apply the embedded corrections automatically&lt;/a&gt;, e.g.:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Adobe applies all the lens corrections that either Panasonic or Olympus lenses and bodies inject into the raw files from the lens' firmware with both the Camera Raw plugin and Lightroom. There is no issue if these are your raw processing tools. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.adobe.com/message/3003806?tstart=-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this Adobe thread&lt;/a&gt;, which indicates that the correction is applied automatically and cannot be turned off:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The distortion correction is applied automatically based on the available metadata (from the camera + lens system). The resulting shape of the image should closely match the result of shooting JPEGs. It cannot be disabled in CR/LR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2138" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T14:26:43.697" />
  <row Id="11083" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10877" CreationDate="2011-04-19T15:29:40.997" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I also like to know where my files are and currently mainly use Bibble for RAW processing (available natively on Linux). However there are a few things in your question that I don't think are correct which may be why you're having trouble getting to an answer (or you may already know all this, if so then feel free to ignore me):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;To most people the biggest benefit of Aperture/Lightroom is that they convert RAW photos to JPGs. That is their main purpose in life, closely followed by workflow for a lot of people. If you aren't going to switch to shooting RAW then check carefully as I believe only one of Aperture and Lightroom actually support JPG editing (I can't remember which one unfortunately).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It sounds like you are currently shooting JPG and doing edits in GIMP. It's true that the edits you do in a RAW converter are stored separately from the original RAW file and are usually small. However, the RAW file itself still needs to live on your drive and will be much larger than the equivalent JPG.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The latest versions of Photoshop allow a lot of edits to be applied non-destructively as layers (disclaimer I don't use Photoshop!) so if non-destructive editing is your main reason for switching, Photoshop may already be able to do what you want.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you don't back up frequently enough to ensure that you don't lose too much data, does it really matter what you are backing up? i.e. If you're drive failed now, wouldn't you lose just as many pictures and edits as you would if you were using Lightroom/Aperture?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you aren't planning to output your images from Aperture/Lightroom as JPGs what are you going to do with them?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The GIMP (and Photoshop obviously) is currently better at a lot of editing than Aperture/Lightroom. Most people use both if they like to do serious post processing. It may help to think of the post processing tools in Aperture/Lightroom as useful extras rather than their main reason to exist. It wasn't too long ago that RAW converters just allowed some colour balancing and converted RAW to JPG/TIFF. Recent tools like Aperture/Lightroom have added a load of useful tools to the point that a lot of photographers won't ever need GIMP or Photoshop, but they are not supposed to replace those tools completely (yet).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It might help to explain what I think a &quot;normal&quot; workflow for most people would be and how Aperture/Lightroom would fit into it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Import RAW files from camera/card (manually or using Aperture/Lightroom)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do sorting, colour balance, &amp;amp; simpler edits in Aperture/Lightroom&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Export photos to JPG/TIFF for upload to web or printing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For a few photos that need heavy editing open the JPG/TIFF in GIMP/Photoshop and carry on editing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I use Bibble which is quite similar to Aperture/Lightroom in a lot of ways. I use it to convert and process my pictures and most of the time is does enough that I don't need anything else. However, I still use GIMP when I need to.&#xA;Bibble allows you to work on photos directly from folders if you want to, however it can also import pictures into catalogues (either moving or leaving the files where they are). One nice thing is that it allows you to work in both modes - i.e. you can have a catalogue but also work on any picture in any folder without having to import it. Personally I'm just about to try moving from editing directly in folders to importing into catalogues. As far as I know I can always go back again by getting Bibble to write it's edits out to sidecar files (as it does when working in folder mode).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3521" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T15:29:40.997" />
  <row Id="11084" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11036" CreationDate="2011-04-19T15:40:56.770" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just worry about the diameter of the lens. Eg: In your case its a 52mm. Any lens can with a 52mm will work. You can even get a good quality 3rd party lens cap also. Also just in case you don't want to loose your cap again you could invest on a lens cap leash. Its a little annoying to use but works well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4786" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T15:40:56.770" />
  <row Id="11085" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11060" CreationDate="2011-04-19T15:53:28.373" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Diagonal Method is harder to understand then the rule of third.  I don't think Diagonal Method is for amateurs, because an amateur needs to fix his evident composition problems, and that's where rule of thirds, in my opinion, helps. If you follow the principle of &quot;rule of thirds&quot; when you are starting out and have no or very little creativity, you cannot go wrong with &quot;rule of thirds&quot; beacause is is like a babysitter watching you to make sure you're doing ok.  Once you master the skills of photography through countless hours of practice, then you can start exploring DM theory in your work.  DM requires that you know what your trying to convey.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is another theory which is not mentioned but is practiced in Graphic Design, it is the theory of balance.  Meaning you balance the art elements so that one side does not outweigh the other side, or else the composition begins to lean and cripple.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4246" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T15:53:28.373" />
  <row Id="11086" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10980" CreationDate="2011-04-19T16:02:45.290" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Thom Hogan is a very reputable guy and his site has a lot of insightful info especially when it comes to lenses.  I read a lot of great lens reviews from Dpreview and such, but Thom goes a step further than all of them, he actually tells you why this particular lens behaves this way in this particular situation, or what makes it underrated or overrated lens.  The guys is a genius when it comes to lenses.  I also read his D700 book, and I found it more fascinating than the one I bought from BN, because he goes into more detail about how things work in your camera. And he actually explains how the different AF settings behave (unlike other books which tell you how the AF works), and why, so you get a more in depth picture about the inner workings of your camera and lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4246" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T16:02:45.290" />
  <row Id="11087" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11036" CreationDate="2011-04-19T16:04:43.057" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're looking for the ø symbol with a number after it:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/lx5M9.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After you find that, you can get any lens cap that is for that diameter lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4738" LastEditorUserId="4738" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-19T16:44:41.917" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T16:44:41.917" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11088" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11092" CreationDate="2011-04-19T16:31:50.570" Score="5" ViewCount="147" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am looking for a place to find used or inexpensive photography equipment like tripods, light stands, backdrops, ext.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4738" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-19T17:14:44.747" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T11:33:49.553" Title="Where can I buy used photography equipment?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;studio&gt;&lt;used-equipment&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11089" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11088" CreationDate="2011-04-19T17:05:48.617" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The well-regarded used camera dealer &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.keh.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KEH&lt;/a&gt; has categories for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-NA/system-Tripods?s=1&amp;amp;bc=41&amp;amp;bcode=TR&amp;amp;bco=570&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;tripods&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.keh.com/search?store=camera&amp;amp;brand=Studio-Lighting&amp;amp;category=Stands,-Booms,-and-Accessories&amp;amp;k=EmptyKey&amp;amp;s=1&amp;amp;bcode=SL&amp;amp;ccode=55&amp;amp;grade=Grade&amp;amp;sprice=0&amp;amp;eprice=0&amp;amp;r=SE&amp;amp;e&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;light stands&lt;/a&gt;. I could not find one for backgrounds in a quick look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2138" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T17:05:48.617" />
  <row Id="11090" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11088" CreationDate="2011-04-19T17:22:48.967" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;KEH is decent, but they're a business, and so their prices are obviously skewed to make a profit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've found that the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/10&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;buy and sell forums on Fred Miranda&lt;/a&gt; are one of the best places to buy used equipment from reputable sellers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've purchased several light stands from sellers there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T17:22:48.967" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11091" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2536" CreationDate="2011-04-19T17:24:41.557" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Cropped sensors have &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10079/can-a-smaller-sensors-crop-factor-be-used-to-calculate-the-exact-increase-in-d&quot;&gt;longer depth of field&lt;/a&gt; at similar f-number and field of view, which might be beneficial in some cases (macro, photo-journalism, low-light, manual focus based on distance scale) or detrimental in others (portraiture, cluttered background, selective focus).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-16T17:09:16.533" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T17:09:16.533" />
  <row Id="11092" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11088" CreationDate="2011-04-19T17:34:15.523" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Beyond ebay &amp;amp; Craigslist, here are a couple other ideas:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Watch for refurbs at Adorama.  I think you can find these from some other vendors, too.  At a minimum, use these prices as absolute top-dollar for used equipment (if you can buy it refurbished for $X, you wouldn't want to pay more for it used).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adorama (as well as many camera shops) also carries used equipment, but you won't find too many steals on this stuff.  The only benefit is that these guys will do a good job of grading equipment, so if they say it's in good shape, it's in good shape.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Watch for used stuff from rental outfits like lensrentals.com -- this stuff is well-used, obviously, but it's also (generally) well-maintained.  If a lens comes back w/ a complaint about something, it'll be serviced before it's rented out again.  On top of that, the people who are renting from these vendors are serious about their camera equipment, and they're likely to know how to take care of it (you don't ship in a 400mm f/2.8 lens for Billy's birthday party).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T17:34:15.523" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11093" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7541" CreationDate="2011-04-19T17:55:13.233" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Camera phones will largely replace point and shoots in the consumer and hobbyist markets. However for the prosumer, true professionals and enthusiasts markets, I seriously doubt this will be the case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Camera phones tend to have the ability to implement many features in software to compensate lack of physical space for some features. On the other hand, cameras may change shape and size drastically to accomadate features while at the same time being capable of any amount of soft-features.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lenses, sensor size, compression circuitry, &lt;em&gt;real time&lt;/em&gt; enhancement circuits such as light and color balance, anti-blur and many similar features are very different implemented as hardware or cannot be simulated effectively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I see it, this means there is a need for cameras in general that camera phones cannot fill due to restrictions inherent to the product.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Someone &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; come out with a phone that had interchangeable lenses or one or two extra features. Perhaps even a phone for photographers, but they still would not have the same depth of features or quality as high-end point and shoot cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4775" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T17:55:13.233" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-19T17:55:13.233" />
  <row Id="11094" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10819" CreationDate="2011-04-19T18:18:28.260" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Along with your current theory I'd like to point out that flourescents often have a bluer wavelength than other lights. It could be that they simply don't put out enough red colors while the sun and incandescents put out a healthy range of light in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4775" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T18:18:28.260" />
  <row Id="11095" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11098" CreationDate="2011-04-19T18:29:22.333" Score="9" ViewCount="101" Body="&lt;p&gt;Was reading &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11074/does-it-give-higher-quality-to-shoot-in-low-res-mode-in-camera-or-to-downsize-hi&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; and got to thinking. How exactly can you determine what the best resampling solution is? I have a concept, albeit somewhat vague, of what the basic methods do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there some good general rules for different types of images? For instance using a particular set of resampling algorithms for photos and a different set for web graphics? Would the overall color of the image, contrast of the subject and the background, etc. come into play?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4775" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-19T19:55:51.160" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T21:17:55.923" Title="How can one determine the ideal resampling algorithm for a given type of image?" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;image-quality&gt;&lt;rescaling&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11096" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11095" CreationDate="2011-04-19T18:48:15.070" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This site (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.general-cathexis.com/interpolation/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Comparisons of Image Magnification Methods&lt;/a&gt;) does a good job of comparing the different interpolation methods. And if you download their tool (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.general-cathexis.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SAR Image Processor, version 4.3&lt;/a&gt;) you can actually measure the differences in quality.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While it seems to be a good guide it does not answer the question of what algorithm suits what type of image.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Below is an extract of their test results for the various interpolation algorithms. Diagram copyright &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.general-cathexis.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;general-cathexis.com&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/UL4Kw.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-19T19:00:31.967" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T19:00:31.967" />
  <row Id="11097" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11088" CreationDate="2011-04-19T19:09:28.773" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check you local photography store, they have tons of used equipments (that are often not cataloged on the web). Keeble &amp;amp; Schucat in the SF Bay area, B&amp;amp;H in NYC are some well known stores.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="55" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T19:09:28.773" />
  <row Id="11098" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11095" CreationDate="2011-04-19T19:42:26.547" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a series of very informative tutorials on Cambridge in Colour that deal with the subject of image resizing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-interpolation.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Understanding Image Interpolation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; covers the basic theory behind image interpolation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-resize-for-web.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Image resizing for Web and Email&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; covers downsizing images and the pitfalls to look out for.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-photo-enlargement.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Optimizing Digital Photo Enlargement&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; similarly covers up-scaling images.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The last tutorial is particularly good, as there is a table of common interpolation algorithms together with a diagram that helps you visualize the trade-off each algorithm has with respect to anti-aliasing, blurring and edge halos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2528" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T19:42:26.547" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11099" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11074" CreationDate="2011-04-19T20:18:16.577" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would add that taking high resolution pictures on the camera allows you to crop and resize the picture on your computer. For instance you could keep half of the area of your 5MP image and still save it in 2MP if you took a shot too wide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4797" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T20:18:16.577" />
  <row Id="11100" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7541" CreationDate="2011-04-19T21:04:25.827" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is much larger than a debate about cameras.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The technology is advancing quickly and the cell phone is acquiring a number of capabilities that are giving it a unique place in our lives.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- a phone (obviously).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- a computing device with downloadable 'Apps'.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- a video camera.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- a conventional still camera.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- a credit card.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- a bus/airline/theater, etc ticket&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- a navigation device.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- a security access device.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- a payment transfer system.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- an information resource - Internet.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- a book reader.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- a music player.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- a video player.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- a navigation device.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;- a personal organiser.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is thus becoming an essential device that all people must have with them at all times.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So does this mean it will displace the P&amp;amp;S camera?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No, not really. It is extending photography to the vast number of people who were not photographers in the first place. So many more people are becoming photographers, in the limited sense of everyday snapshots.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of these people, through exposure, will aspire to better photographs and migrate upwards to more capable cameras. These will be P&amp;amp;S cameras because their experience with cell phones will condition them to expect nearly the same convenience.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the existing owners of P&amp;amp;S cameras will instead use their new cell phones simply because they are conveniently always available and the quality in any case is good enough for them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And still others will have multiple devices for multiple purposes just as today many DSLR owners also have a P&amp;amp;S camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the market will be layered with cell phones owning a vast proportion. P&amp;amp;S cameras will have lost somewhat to this while it will also gain some of the new converts to photography.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My cloudy crystal ball says that the cell phone will have brought so many new converts to photography that enough of them will upgrade to P&amp;amp;S cameras to offset any losses to the cell phone.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And for many people it is not a case of either/or but rather using different tools for different circumstances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photography, as a hobby, will be the winner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T21:04:25.827" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-19T21:04:25.827" />
  <row Id="11101" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11095" CreationDate="2011-04-19T21:17:55.923" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The direct answer is that ultimately, you don't. In an awful lot of cases, it comes down to a question of taste. Three people looking at resized versions of a particular image might (and often will) have three different opinions about which one is best. About the best you can do is pick out which features of an image you consider important, and choose a method based on that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, nearest neighbor does quite a good job of maintaining sharp edges on lines -- much more so than most interpolation methods. At the same time, it can when applied to things that should look &quot;smooth&quot; (e.g., clear blue sky) it can produce artifacts that look rather like edges.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reverse is also true: interpolation can help smooth gradients, but also tends to &quot;smooth&quot; away what should be sharp edges. If you go too far, fine details can be wiped out completely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the better methods are adaptive to some degree. Simplifying considerably, they estimate how &quot;sharp&quot; of gradients the original data contains and attempt to maintain roughly the same level of smoothness/sharpness that's present in the original. The adaptation is normally done by scanning the picture in blocks, and applying the adaptation on a block-by-block basis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, if you have a landscape with a clear blue sky and trees with lots of fine detail (branches, leaves, etc.) it'll apply a lot less smoothing to the branches than to the sky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are, however, various ways of estimating gradients, none of which is perfect, and various sizes of windows, none of which is ideal for all pictures. That leaves room for a fair amount of difference even between adaptive algorithms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-04-19T21:17:55.923" />
  <row Id="11102" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10900" CreationDate="2011-04-20T01:57:20.247" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I might have the solution for you.  We are in the final stages of beta testing our processes right now.  We have created software which scans each image for bib numbers and saves the file with the corresponding bib number.  We have worked with several active event photographers to get images to test with.  Our best at this point is 3000 images a minute.The image scanning software is being used in other industries, but we felt there might be a market in the running,cycling...active photography segment as well.  Would love to give you a test with your images for free. Our goal is to roll this out via website in the next few weeks to test the market.  you will have a place to load images, we scan and return the images.The question becomes...what is a photographer willing to pay for this service. Is $.16 an image too much? ethan@eventphotosort.com &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4800" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T01:57:20.247" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11103" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-20T02:05:03.830" Score="18" ViewCount="346" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm taking a lot of pictures and publishing them online even showing a few in a gallery but...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a hard time thinking up names for them!  I'm not entirely comfortable numbering them, and I think the images speak for themselves.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I'm asking for any kind of input as to what I might have in mind when trying to title these things, or good-sounding justifications for not titling them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3444" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-20T12:34:28.043" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T06:17:55.307" Title="How do I choose a title for a photograph?" Tags="&lt;art&gt;&lt;marketing&gt;&lt;publishing&gt;&lt;titles&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="11104" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11103" CreationDate="2011-04-20T02:11:25.340" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I'm having trouble thinking of a title I sometimes use a one-word title that expresses some relatively obvious attribute of the photo.  Some examples might be Dark, Happy, Sunshine, Clouds, Green.  It doesn't require much thought, and since it's only one word you don't end up with a potentially clumsy phrase. If I'm feeling witty I try to come up with a clever or punny title.  A photo featuring tulips might get the title Two Lips (ok, not really that clever!).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3486" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T02:11:25.340" />
  <row Id="11105" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11103" CreationDate="2011-04-20T03:48:48.180" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You mention that the images speak for themselves, well when you first look at them what exactly are they saying?  That is the title.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All photographers are trying to invoke an emotion of some type with their image, the title is often either a direct description of that emotion or additional text to help enforce the message.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good example is an image of a single yellow tulip amongst a sea of red tulips, the title is &quot;The Right To Be An Individual&quot; as that is what I felt the yellow tulip was saying to me in that position ... &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thetrueshot.com/Photographs/Pages/Floral.html#77&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.thetrueshot.com/Photographs/Pages/Floral.html#77&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Really when it comes down to it, you are the artist, so the title is what the image says to you ... listen to your heart and emotion!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1410" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T03:48:48.180" />
  <row Id="11106" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11108" CreationDate="2011-04-20T05:30:01.313" Score="9" ViewCount="238" Body="&lt;p&gt;While perusing the local Craigslist photo/video listings, I saw someone trying to sell something called an L-plate. What the heck is an L-plate?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T17:30:03.547" Title="What is an L plate?" Tags="&lt;tripod-heads&gt;&lt;quick-release&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="11107" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11106" CreationDate="2011-04-20T05:36:07.267" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;An L-plate is a quick release plate that extends to the side of the camera, offering two mounting options: landscape and portrait. &lt;a href=&quot;http://reallyrightstuff.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Really Right Stuff&lt;/a&gt; sells them, and seems to be the most popular brand (if there are any other brands at all).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They've got a &lt;a href=&quot;http://reallyrightstuff.com/WebsiteInfo.aspx?fc=80&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;video explaining them and showing why you might want one&lt;/a&gt;, which basically boils down to &quot;you can attach your camera to a tripod in portrait orientation.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T05:36:07.267" />
  <row Id="11108" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11106" CreationDate="2011-04-20T06:00:48.773" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Typically when attaching a camera to a tripod it is designed to be attached in the landscape position via the threads on the bottom of the camera. This potentially creates three problems for the photographer if/when the photographer wants to rotate the camera into the portrait orientation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Once rotated, the weight of the camera is no longer directly over the center of the tripod, potentially compromising the stability of the tripod (especially with heavier camera/lens combinations)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Once rotated into the portrait orientation the photographer must recompose their shot as the camera has been shifted down and to the left of where it was initially positioned.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;On some 3-axis tripods, the handles get in the way such that it is difficult or impossible to completely rotate a camera into the portrait orientation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An L Plate is a... well... 'L' shaped quick release plate- often milled out of aluminum- that attaches to the bottom of a camera similarly to any other tripod quick release plate. The difference is that it extends across the bottom of the camera and up the side, as visualized in &lt;a href=&quot;http://reallyrightstuff.com/WebsiteInfo.aspx?fc=44&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this diagram&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At its essence it is a device that allows the photographer to rotate the camera from landscape to portrait orientation by simply detaching the quick release plate on the bottom and attaching the camera again via a &lt;em&gt;second&lt;/em&gt; quick-release plate positioned &lt;em&gt;on the side&lt;/em&gt; of the L plate and camera. This has the advantage of keeping the camera positioned squarely over the center of the tripod (thus ensuring stability and vibration dampening regardless of camera orientation, as well as ensuring that tripod handles aren't extended such that they interfere with the rest of the tripod), and meaning that the photographer doesn't have to recompose his shot once the camera has been rotated, because the camera hasn't been shifted down and to the left.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While there are several companies that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0001BK44U?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;tag=diy0c-20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;make&lt;/a&gt; 'L Bracket' &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kirkphoto.com/L-Brackets.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;products&lt;/a&gt;, and there are various tutorials available to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diyphotography.net/diy-l-plate-l-bracket&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;roll your own&lt;/a&gt;, the phrase and the product 'L Plate' is most commonly associated specifically with products manufactured by the company &lt;a href=&quot;http://reallyrightstuff.com/Index.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Really Right Stuff&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-20T17:30:03.547" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T17:30:03.547" />
  <row Id="11109" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11103" CreationDate="2011-04-20T06:03:06.803" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First one must contrast titles with captions.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Titles are brief one liners that need not have any grammatical structure.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Captions can be a short sentence of one or more lines, often also called a sub-title..  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The terms are often used interchangeably but a photo can have just a title, just a caption or both.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The purpose, in both cases is&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Firstly to guide the viewer to see the photo in a particular way.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Secondly to supply some context.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Thirdly to provide additional, explanatory, helpful information. Though this is usually done in a caption/sub-title.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally we use titles to evoke a suitable response to the photo.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Examples could be:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;surprise  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;contrast, contradiction, cognitive dissonance  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;pique curiosity  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;amazement  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;amusement  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;empathy  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;horror&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in creating title/captions we need to answer the following questions:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How do we want the viewer to see the photo?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does it need context for understanding?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Will additional information be helpful?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What reaction are we trying to create in the viewer?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally the title gives us a small insight into the mind of the photographer.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cato the Elder said it best - &quot;&lt;em&gt;Rem tene, verba sequentur&lt;/em&gt;&quot; (grasp the subject and the words will follow).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;References&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_caption&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photo caption&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3aManual_of_Style_%28captions%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Manual of Style (captions)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.captionmachine.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Caption Machine&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_%28disambiguation%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Title (disambiguation)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-25T06:17:55.307" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T06:17:55.307" />
  <row Id="11110" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11122" CreationDate="2011-04-20T06:27:13.633" Score="1" ViewCount="71" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to use my 580EX II as a master and trigger via wireless remote. When not in Master mode, the 580EX II triggers remotely. However, once I put it in Master mode, it no longer works. Thus, I can't setup master/slave.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a photo of the settings of the 2 lights:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i56.tinypic.com/f41pqw.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Image and video hosting by TinyPic&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any ideas what is wrong? How do I make this work?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4803" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T16:14:01.130" Title="Problems Setting Up 580EX II as Master, 430EX as slave" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;strobist&gt;&lt;strobes&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="11111" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10424" CreationDate="2011-04-20T07:11:41.800" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Adobe Photoshop is and will be your best choice for this kind of project.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4804" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T07:11:41.800" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11112" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-20T07:26:58.287" Score="1" ViewCount="91" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am wondering if I should buy Sony α230 DSLR or not. My price range is $500. Does this camera have a removable lens, or a fixed one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are pros and cons of this camera model?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4805" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-20T13:56:42.717" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T15:30:06.503" Title="What are the pros and cons of the Sony α230 DSLR?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;sony&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11113" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11103" CreationDate="2011-04-20T07:29:55.707" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are uploading so many photos that you cannot even think of a title for each them, then rather stop and think over if you need to upload so many photos. Why not limit yourself to a smaller collection of most valuable photos?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4807" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T07:29:55.707" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11114" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10557" CreationDate="2011-04-20T09:53:23.003" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've tested my 550D's sensor against my colleagues 550D and seems like its doing just fine. I did not find any previous high ISO reference shot from my camera to compare so I compared it against my colleagues, same settings, same subject. So, in fact, it was my mind playing with me, nothing else. &quot;It's more likely that you're just noticing the same amount of noise more now than you were before.&quot; said by Evan Krall seems to be the perfect line, I selected his answer as the accepted one for that line. Though no one suggested to compare my camera with someones having the same model!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you all for your help! I'm feeling somehow relieved now!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T09:53:23.003" />
  <row Id="11115" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11088" CreationDate="2011-04-20T11:33:49.553" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the UK, most camera shops have at least some second hand gear.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have used &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jacobsdigital.co.uk/t-preownedequipment.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jacobs&lt;/a&gt; in the past, (both for new and second-hand) and I liked them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T11:33:49.553" />
  <row Id="11116" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11103" CreationDate="2011-04-20T12:54:05.273" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My titling scheme is simple: for portraits, the title is the subject's name. For cityscapes, it's either the subject itself or the part of town the photo is taken in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end there's no right answer. I prefer brief descriptive titles myself, but &quot;untitled&quot; is valid too. Personally I dislike long and florid &quot;pretentious&quot; titles, but if it's part of the image, go for it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd suggest you browse photos at a local gallery or on a site like Flickr to see what others do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T12:54:05.273" />
  <row Id="11117" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11112" CreationDate="2011-04-20T13:33:37.300" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, it has an interchangeable lens. The mount is compatible with all Sony and Minolta A-mount (Maxxum/Dynax/Alpha) lenses (and, of course, there are compatible lenses from the usual third-party manufacturers like Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't used one enough to really many much in the way of recommendations. I did play with one a little bit, and didn't find it particularly comfortable -- the grip didn't fit my hand very well. I should add, however, that I'm mostly accustomed to Minolta/Sony 9-series cameras, and normally (always, really) use them with the vertical grip installed. This has probably warped my perceptions of what to expect as far as the size/weight of a camera goes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T13:33:37.300" />
  <row Id="11118" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11112" CreationDate="2011-04-20T13:58:02.357" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would recommend you go to one of the popular forums like DPReview where you will get much more information.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the DPReview.com review which is closest to your camera.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra380/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra380/&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And here you can ask question of the many enthusiastic users of these cameras.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1037&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1037&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer: I have owned/used Minolta film cameras for several years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T13:58:02.357" />
  <row Id="11119" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11112" CreationDate="2011-04-20T14:06:35.430" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not that is anything wrong with the A230, all recent DSLRs are good and feature interchangeable lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only the A230 is discontinued. Sony's new sensors give much better image quality in low-light and they do have several models within your price range: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=147&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sony A290&lt;/a&gt; goes for under $400. They also have the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=146&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A390&lt;/a&gt; which costs more but with a smaller viewfinder and live-view instead, the rest is the same so the cheaper model leaves you more money for lenses, which is more important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There may be other brands too but not many models under $500. Since Sony makes sensors for almost everyone except Canon, expect image quality to be similar among cameras of the same generation. The biggest different is which lenses you can attach and that Sony cameras have built-in stabilization (like Pentax and Olympus) which gives you that feature for free without paying more money for stabilized lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-20T15:30:06.503" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T15:30:06.503" />
  <row Id="11120" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11121" CreationDate="2011-04-20T15:43:34.537" Score="7" ViewCount="140" Body="&lt;p&gt;I shoot in RAW and post-process in Aperture where needed. Does the in-camera noise-reduction do anything that I can't do in Aperture? It seems to add a bit of time to the saving process, and I wonder if I can just defer it to my computer, if/when I decide I need some noise reduction. (I know that the long-exposure NR feature shoots another dark frame, which is something that can't be done after the fact. But they are individual settings on my Pentax.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4690" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T16:02:41.270" Title="In-camera high-ISO noise reduction worthwhile?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;iso&gt;&lt;noise-reduction&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11121" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11120" CreationDate="2011-04-20T16:02:41.270" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you shoot in RAW, the in-camera noise reduction probably does not take effect, and if it did, it is really reducing the value of RAW on your camera. When you shoot RAW, you really just want the original output from the sensor with as few modifications applied as possible...none at best. You have far more control over noise during post processing, and far better algorithms at your fingertips to combat that noise with the more powerful software you can run on your computer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would recommend you keep your RAW images as bare-bones and neutral as possible, giving you maximum capability in post processing. Noise reduction, highlight tone curves, and other such features should generally be disabled when shooting RAW. Additionally, its normally (but not always, sometimes you may wish to choose alternatives) best to use AWB and the standard or neutral tone curve/picture setting of your camera to produce as &quot;original&quot; an output image as you can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dark frames are a slightly different matter than your average noise reduction. They can be useful when you are doing very long exposures, such as during astrophotography. You should enable Long-Exposure NR/Dark Frames on an as-needed basis when the shoot actually calls for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T16:02:41.270" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11122" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11110" CreationDate="2011-04-20T16:14:01.130" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 580exII needs to be attached to your camera to be able to trigger things remotely as a master.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to trigger both, you need to have another 580exII, ST-E2 wireless transmitter or use the built in transmitter that comes with the 60D or 7D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3541" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T16:14:01.130" />
  <row Id="11123" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8425" CreationDate="2011-04-20T16:32:07.903" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the biggest problems with electronic cameras (I currently have 3) is the battery management. They usually switch off long before the batteries are discharged. This makes me very angry.  I've been doing some measurements on leading brand batteries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Different makes of NiMH battery have varying &quot;fully charged&quot; voltages - I have three kinds and measure 1.28v, 1.35v, 1.45v.  A big difference!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;discharged&quot; voltages measured after being removed from my HS10, for example, vary from 1.13v to 1.25v. These are nowhere near being fully discharged.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cameras have to assume all manufacturers batteries are the same, but that is clearly &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; the case. I believe cameras should have a setting for this in their firmware, or they will get a bad name for their cameras having a short battery life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sanyo ENELOOPS have always consistently outperformed any other make of battery despite being supposedly only 2000 mA/Hour.  I can get over 5 hours continual use from a HS10 with screen on hight brightness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4815" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T16:32:07.903" />
  <row Id="11124" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11125" CreationDate="2011-04-20T16:33:39.867" Score="7" ViewCount="297" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've read in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.petapixel.com/2011/04/19/frazier-ultimate-lens-shows-everything-in-focus-with-massive-depth-of-field/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PetaPixel&lt;/a&gt; about this &quot;Frazier lens&quot; that can achieve a massive DOF. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06t8TGAffNA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this video&lt;/a&gt; is shown the capabilities of this lens and I must say I'm very impressed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can this lens achieve such a DOF? Most of the shots were made on a sunny day, so I'm guessing that it has a tiny diaphragm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyone has more technical information about this lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4039" LastEditorUserId="1356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-20T18:01:42.787" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T18:18:59.023" Title="How can a Frazier lens achieve that massive DOF?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11125" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11124" CreationDate="2011-04-20T16:41:57.960" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The lens is nothing magical and does not have &quot;infinite depth of field&quot; as some have claimed. However it does achieve a very deep depth of field, by a combination of short focal length, small aperture and tilted plane of focus. It was developed by wildlife photographer/filmmaker Jim Frazier who was fed up with the limitations of traditional lenses for shooting wildlife subjects close up. According to Jim the device started out as a mirror on a stick attached to a camera which allowed ground level shots without the camera or operator lying on the ground. The device needed to be refined, as he found himself panning left when the subject went right, due to the mirror!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;Frazier lens&quot; is a really a system of lenses, the main body of which is a wide adaptor, i.e. the opposite of a teleconverter. This unit accepts one of a series of &quot;taking lenses&quot; of different focal lengths. These are traditional optics that have been specially modified for the system, including sealing the units to prevent dust from entering, and locking the controls (aperture is set via controls on the main lens unit).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Traditional macro lenses use a long focal length to achieve a comfortable working distance (a long focal length allows 1:1 magnification at a greater physical distance between the subject and front of the lens). A downside of a long focal length is decreased depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Frazier lens system allows wide angle macro shots to be made. It also includes a prism element that allows the lens body to articulate in order to get close to small subjects to make up for the lack of working distance by moving the camera body further away. Here's the lens in use showing the articulation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/2ngUB.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lens also tilts the plane of focus (like a tilt-shift) to maximise the depth of field with respect to the ground plane (where most subjects/items of interest are likely to be).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's worth noting that the apparent depth of field is much larger when you look at low resolution imagery such as standard definition video, as depth of field is defined as the range in which objects are &quot;acceptably sharp&quot;. When you downsample you lose the ability to distinguish really sharp areas and thus everything can look &quot;acceptably sharp&quot;. You too can achieve really deep depth of field with a DSLR using an ultra wide lens if you downsample your images to 0.3 megapixels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-20T18:18:59.023" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T18:18:59.023" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11126" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11124" CreationDate="2011-04-20T17:21:02.683" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The stated purpose of the lens's inventor was to create an &quot;optical system for producing the features of a wide angle lens, a deep field lens and a close focusing lens, all in one optical system.&quot; According to he inventor in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/case_studies/frazier.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; he spent 10 years tinkering in order to discover a series of optical elements in order to achieve his desired result. All the technical information you could ever want about this lens can be found by looking at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents?id=xOICAAAAEBAJ&amp;amp;printsec=abstract&amp;amp;zoom=4&amp;amp;source=gbs_overview_r&amp;amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;patent&lt;/a&gt; for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is perhaps worth noting that the patent for the Frazier Lens has a slightly colorful history, and as a result it was ruled &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.patenthawk.com/blog/2005/08/inequitable_depth_of_field.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;unenforceable&lt;/a&gt; in 2005. Additionally, the rights to manufacturer the lens are currently held by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.panavision.com/content/spherical-specialty&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Panivision&lt;/a&gt;, and thus it is impossible to buy this lens (because Panivision doesn't sell anything- they only rent their equipment). Finally, while it is conceivable that this lens could be attached to a still camera, the lenses intended purpose is for uses with cinema film and video cameras and thus it attaching it to a still camera would not be a trivial problem to solve as Cinema PL mounts are radically different than anything that is currently used in the still camera world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T17:21:02.683" />
  <row Id="11127" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11187" CreationDate="2011-04-20T17:35:22.663" Score="-1" ViewCount="185" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although I can still access the CF card from the camera, I can take pictures and browse them. It's just that the mac can't mount the CF card anymore (I can read other cards). The same card was working fine before the formatting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The very weird thing is that I can't see the CF card anywhere (not in /Volumes, not in Disk Utility) and same thing happens if I try to read the CF card by connecting the camera with the USB cable. But still I can see the content of the CF card from the camera browser. The card is a Sandisk Ultra II (2GB). And this happens since I've formatted the card from the 300D with the UnDutchables Firmware. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have tried reading the card with a PC and I got the same result, Windows show the drive letter but throws an error if I try to open the disk.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have also tried the same process with a different CF card and I got the same result (I can't access the CF card anymore). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any suggestion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4818" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-22T20:51:04.630" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T10:43:01.863" Title="Why can't I read a 2GB CF card from a Mac or PC after having formatted it on a 300D with a 1.1.1 firmware?" Tags="&lt;compactflash&gt;&lt;canon-300d&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11128" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11103" CreationDate="2011-04-20T18:10:53.700" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like taking pictures which convey a moment in time and tells a story.. so I have titles like &quot;there she goes&quot;, &quot;I'm not dating her&quot;, &quot;What are we searching for&quot; etc which convey the same and makes the viewer see the pictures through my eyes..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it is an architectural picture for which I'm not looking for an emotional response, I'll have pithy descriptions like &quot;Romantic Taj&quot; or &quot;Awe inspiring grand canyon&quot; etc.. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depends on the type of pictures you take and what kind of response you want to expect from the viewer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="55" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T18:10:53.700" />
  <row Id="11129" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11127" CreationDate="2011-04-20T18:35:27.833" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure what an &quot;Untouchables Firmware&quot; is (my assumption is that it's some 3rd-party firmware) but it sounds as if the camera has somehow formatted the card into a format that only it can read.  If it's happened with a second CF card, my suspicion is that there's a problem with the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you install a default/Canon firmware on the camera and see how it behaves at that point?  I wonder if there might be a defect in the firmware you're using.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sounds like a software problem rather than hardware...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T18:35:27.833" />
  <row Id="11131" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11135" CreationDate="2011-04-20T20:06:48.140" Score="5" ViewCount="267" Body="&lt;p&gt;My camera is &lt;strong&gt;Canon 60D&lt;/strong&gt; and I will be using it to shoot a short parkour video, that means:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a lot of motion, moving subjects, moving camera&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;focal length usually from 24 mm to 75 mm, but there will also be a scenes shot at 200 mm&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a lot will be shot in 1080 at 24 fps (or should I use 25 fps or 30 fps ?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;some scenes will be shot in 720 at 60 fps&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Accessories:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I do have a steadicam&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I have got 1.8 lenses (24 f/1.8, 35 f/1.8, 50 f/1.8) so I &lt;strong&gt;can&lt;/strong&gt; use low f-stops.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What shutter speed should I use? I have read that it &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; be double the FPS. Why so? What if I break this rule?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When I use low shutter speeds (1/120) and I'm shooting during the day, I need f-stop at around f/12. Does this mean that my f/1.8 lens are useless in this case and I can use any bundle f/4 lenses instead?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Any tips on improving whatever I wrote above?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4822" LastEditorUserId="4822" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-20T21:40:29.710" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T05:10:37.420" Title="What shutter speed to use when shooting video?" Tags="&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;shutter-speed&gt;&lt;f-stop&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="11132" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11131" CreationDate="2011-04-20T20:46:49.070" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is all about balance. Since you want lots of depth-of-field then you need a small aperture. To get a proper exposure you'll have to increase ISO and/or decrease shutter-speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Smooth motion is rendered by shutter-speeds close to the frame rate. So for 25 FPS, 1/30 is great and 1/15 is good. Slower shutter-speed are obviously not possible and faster ones create motion-blur gaps between frames which is why motion won't look so smooth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given your aperture requirement and the shutter-speed needed for smooth motion, you'll mostly be left with choosing the right ISO to get a proper exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;F/1.8 lenses mean they can open up to F/1.8 but they can also stop down. Most likely to F/22 but that depends on the model, I've seen limits between F/16 and F/64. So, no, those lenses are not useless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that you plan on shooting different format seems odd to me but I guess it may have to do with the way the videos are presented. If you are producing a single video stream for upload to Youtube or one of its clones, then sticking with one format will save you headaches in the editing phase.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T20:46:49.070" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11133" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11131" CreationDate="2011-04-20T23:06:50.133" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What shutter speed should I use? I have read that it should be double the FPS. Why so? What if I break this rule?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The double the framerate suggestion comes from the film days when the shutter would close for the duration of the film advance and open to expose the next film cell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Following this rule will produce natural looking footage as we're most used to seeing film shot with 1/48s exposures. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you shoot 1/24s the footage will look a little fake. If you shoot faster speeds the motion will look jerky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;24 fps isn't really enough to create the illusion of motion so some motion blur is necessary in order to get smooth lookingfootage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-04-20T23:06:50.133" />
  <row Id="11134" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2880" CreationDate="2011-04-21T00:49:53.317" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Make sure the jewelry items are perfectly clean. Shoot tethered if possible and compose on your computer's screen. Any tiny defect or dirt that you think is invisible b/c you don't see it on your camera's screen &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; be seen when enlarged. It will also greatly help you assess and control unwanted reflections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T00:49:53.317" />
  <row Id="11135" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11131" CreationDate="2011-04-21T02:35:35.850" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The reason that many people will recommend to shoot at double your framerate is because then the 'shutter angle' is 180 degrees.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is back from when film cameras were used. To cover the negatives whilst the next frame was 'wound on', a disc would spin, blocking the light as the negative moved. When the negative was in place, this disc would spin open again. Wikipedia has a good animation of this &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3aMoviecam_schematic_animation.gif&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The amount of covering the disc provides and the framerate give this 180 degrees that is as close as you get to a 'standard' in filmmaking. For further reading on this (or a better explanation!) I'd suggest looking &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.tylerginter.com/?p=385&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;over here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for a specific recommendation of shutter speed, it depends on the look you want. For example, some action films (using these as an example because they have lots of movement within the frame) will use a very fast &lt;strong&gt;shutter speed&lt;/strong&gt; for sharp images, but being professional films they are still shooting at a &lt;strong&gt;framerate&lt;/strong&gt; (or 23.976). Others will use the slowest they can get away with, and this will give them lots of motion blur within the shot. A good film that shows examples of both of these is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258463/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Bourne Identity&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;TL;DR - It's a creative decision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the problem with your F-stops, this is (unfortunately, because you have some real nice lenses) just something you're going to have to live with. Consider whether a slow shutter speed is absolutely necessary for these scenes. Using a faster one could allow you to use your f1.8. Also, depending on the camera you're shooting on, sometimes setting it to 'Auto ISO' can actually let the camera reduce the ISO below the minimum (100, normally) using some metadata hacks or something. (This may just be for stills, though!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3375" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T02:35:35.850" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11136" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2884" CreationDate="2011-04-21T03:19:24.730" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Flickr's critique groups actually on average gave some pretty good feedback in the discussion section, despite flickr's photocomments usually being pretty bland.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Photography Critique&quot; has a larger user base and typically gets more responses, but &quot;Critique&quot; is still quite good.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The downside is that they want it to be posted on flickr.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the upside, they critique in the discussion, in case you're worried about people blasting your photos on the photo page.  In addition, it's a bit useful to look at the streams of people commenting as you can gauge their level of skill.  And of course, if you post a good shot, you can get more views as people will peruse your photostream.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3/5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-21T03:32:42.243" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T03:32:42.243" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-21T03:19:24.730" />
  <row Id="11137" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2884" CreationDate="2011-04-21T03:21:04.260" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;TrekLens seems like a very cool site, a bit like flickr with an emphasis on geolocating photos and critique.  However, I haven't gotten the most useful feedback there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;0/5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-21T03:32:55.363" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T03:32:55.363" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-21T03:21:04.260" />
  <row Id="11138" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2884" CreationDate="2011-04-21T03:23:43.963" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;PentaxForums usually gives me a wide range of feedback and their critique forum interface is a bit easier to use than most others.  The community is friendly, filled with people of all skill levels who are generally pretty helpful, and they don't care what camera you shoot with.  I'd give them a 3/5.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T03:23:43.963" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-21T03:23:43.963" />
  <row Id="11139" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2884" CreationDate="2011-04-21T03:35:43.583" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Photography-on-the.net gives consistently good feedback for me.  4/5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T03:35:43.583" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-21T03:35:43.583" />
  <row Id="11140" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2884" CreationDate="2011-04-21T03:36:10.493" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fredmiranda is packed with great shooters that offer some great critical feedback whether or not you ask for it (e.g. in the non critique forum) 4/5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T03:36:10.493" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-21T03:36:10.493" />
  <row Id="11141" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10980" CreationDate="2011-04-21T04:48:16.833" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer is that Bythom is one of the best places to get high-quality, honest, hands-on opinions on (mostly) Nikon equipment. Ken Rockwell is opinionated, fishes for page views but I personally like a good proportion of his own photographs so I don't dismiss him of out of hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said that, the fact that the OP lumps together the two makes me suspect that he hasn't actually spent much time on either site--they're really chalk and cheese. If you were to spend about 30 minutes comparing equivalent pages (say &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor-200-400mm-lensreview.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor-200-400mm-lensreview.htm&lt;/a&gt; with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/200400.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/200400.htm&lt;/a&gt;), then your question would answer itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4827" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T04:48:16.833" />
  <row Id="11142" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11131" CreationDate="2011-04-21T05:10:37.420" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Understanding the shutter angle as outlined in @Crashdown's answer is very important. The gist of it is that it essentially means you 'have to' eliminate one of the three controls you have over your exposure- shutter speed. Because when recording video &lt;strong&gt;if you want it to look like film&lt;/strong&gt; you need to be very deliberate about what you choose for your shutter speed (it should be set at twice the framerate you've chosen to use, or as close as you can get) and then &lt;em&gt;leave it there for the entire shoot&lt;/em&gt; unless you're changing it temporarily for a specific effect (such as the oft-cited 'stuttering' effect that was used during the action scenes in 'Saving Private Ryan').&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you've observed, this may mean that you won't be able to use your lenses wide open... or even 'somewhat' open... Turning down your ISO will only go so far on a bright day. After that if you want wide open apertures your only options are to turn down the light source (easier said than done if your light source is the sun) or put a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/609253-REG/Singh_Ray_RT_86_77mm_Vari_ND_Variable_Neutral.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Neutral Density (ND) filter&lt;/a&gt; in front of your lens in order to lessen the amount of light entering your camera externally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T05:10:37.420" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11143" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11148" CreationDate="2011-04-21T06:11:43.643" Score="7" ViewCount="115" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the reading I have done on extension tubes, I understand that some are just 'dumb' tubes while others have electronics that may allow for metering and autofocus to still work. Further, from &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8296/extension-tube-set-elements&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; I gather that not all manufacturers or extension tubes are created equal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What should I look for when shopping for an extension tube set?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Does Pentax sell their own or officially support a certain brand?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Are there certain known manufactures to look out for?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How big a difference is there really between a cheap extension tube set and an expensive one?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Does autofocus really work with 'smart' extension tubes?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Does it make a difference (for the auto features) what lens is being used?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Are electronic extension tubes even worth it, or should I just put the money toward a macro lens?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1480" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T13:15:23.347" Title="What extension tube options are there for the Pentax system?" Tags="&lt;macro&gt;&lt;pentax&gt;&lt;extension-tubes&gt;&lt;k-mount&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11144" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11143" CreationDate="2011-04-21T07:07:37.787" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Auto-focus is quite useless in macro shooting anyway - the depth of field is very thin and it's hard for AF to hit. Focusing (at least roughly) is done by adjusting distance between camera and subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More important is ability to control aperture from camera - most modern lenses do not have an aperture ring. You'll want to have the aperture wide open for focusing and small aperture when taking the actual shot (to have a deeper DOF).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, an extension tube with electric connections would let you record lens information along with your photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Optically, there is no difference between advanced and cheap extension tubes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The cheapest extension tubes work well with old vintage lenses that would not gain from any connections anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T07:07:37.787" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11145" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-21T08:42:54.697" Score="1" ViewCount="119" Body="&lt;p&gt;When opening raw files in Canon Digital Photo Professional then all settings from camera are loaded inside DPP. Is it possible to load camera settings inside Camera Raw? By default, Camera Raw adds lot of contrast and color is completely different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3614" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T13:38:03.410" Title="Camera Raw (Photoshop) profile for Canon 5D II?" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;canon-5d-mark-ii&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11146" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10235" CreationDate="2011-04-21T12:09:28.180" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like my LowePro OffTrail 2 for such things (though the OffTrail 1 might be large enough for you).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://products.lowepro.com/product/Off-Trail-2,1981,7.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://products.lowepro.com/product/Off-Trail-2,1981,7.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Small, easy to carry as either a shoulderbag or a beltpack, removable side pouches for extra gear, sturdy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T12:09:28.180" />
  <row Id="11148" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11143" CreationDate="2011-04-21T13:15:23.347" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pentax &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; make their own extension tubes, but they are not AF-capable. You can get a set of tubes (12, 19 and 26mm) or separate 50mm and 100mm tubes that are auto-aperture, as well as a helicoid (adjustable) 26-46mm tube that requires setting the aperture manually on the lens. If you want extension tubes strictly for shooting macro (and want to stick to the Pentax brand name), then the Extension Tube Set K will get you where you want to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the KA mount is compatible with the old K mount, there is a large catalog of &quot;dumb&quot; tubes out there to choose from, some selling for under ten bucks brand-new.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is at least one reputable third-party manufacturer, Kenko, offering &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Kenko-Auto-Extension-Tube-Pentax-AF/dp/B0000BZLVY&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;autofocus-capable tubes&lt;/a&gt; for the Pentax mount. If you just want a tube to get a little closer than the close-focus limit of one or more of your lenses, then it's worthwhile getting tubes with AF coupling. You'll lose infinity focus with the tube mounted, of course, and you may find that some lenses are very badly behaved inside their design limit, but when a tube and lens combination works well, it is a glorious thing indeed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T13:15:23.347" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11149" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4797" CreationDate="2011-04-21T13:30:39.017" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is a BEAUTIFUL book I am using for my lightroom Class&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=QdLVQgAACAAJ&amp;amp;dq=adobe%20lightroom%203&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;ei=JTGwTebSJ8jn0QGy05CkCQ&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=book_result&amp;amp;ct=result&amp;amp;resnum=1&amp;amp;ved=0CEgQ6AEwAA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 Book:&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4738" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T13:30:39.017" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-21T13:30:39.017" />
  <row Id="11150" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11145" CreationDate="2011-04-21T13:38:03.410" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On the camera profiles tab of ACR there will be a dropdown list with various profile selections. There will be an &quot;Adobe Standard&quot; and likely a handful of Canon ones that you can try out as a starting point for raw development. If you find one that is similar to DPP, then you can set it as a default (I don't have ACR in front of me right now to give specific guidance on that). Better yet, you may find a different profile that you like better than either... :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, ACR gives you some options, but not shooting Canon, I can't say what the exact list of profiles will look like for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T13:38:03.410" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11152" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11153" CreationDate="2011-04-21T16:00:32.733" Score="0" ViewCount="167" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Nikon D5000, and am looking to rent a wide angle lens for a day. Any suggestions as what should be a good lens to try out? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1732" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-21T16:20:54.877" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T03:06:58.273" Title="What would be a good wide angle lens to rent for Nikon?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;wide-angle&gt;&lt;renting&gt;" AnswerCount="6" />
  <row Id="11153" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11152" CreationDate="2011-04-21T16:10:17.257" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The two main WIDE options for DX are the Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 and Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. Since the D5000 doesn't have an autofocus screw the Tokina would have to be focused manually (easier with the depth of field available at these really wide angles). I have the Tokina for my D90 and it's a great lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3758" LastEditorUserId="3758" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-21T20:36:52.770" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T20:36:52.770" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11154" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11152" CreationDate="2011-04-21T16:20:23.537" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends how wide you want to go and whether you have a full-frame or cropped-sensor body, but you probably can't go wrong with the highly-praised &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.borrowlenses.com/product/nikon_wide_angle/Nikon_14-24_2.8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;14-24mm f/2.8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T16:20:23.537" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11155" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11152" CreationDate="2011-04-21T16:45:20.500" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is a wonderful lens. Also you could try the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 . Then there is the Nikon. But personally i prefer the Tokina just because of the f/2.8. Also you could consider a couple of fish eye's. They have a wonderful effect. Maybe the Nikon 16mm f/2.8.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4786" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T16:45:20.500" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11156" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11152" CreationDate="2011-04-21T17:40:36.570" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Sigma 8mm is considered one of the best wide lenses you can shoot. All you have to do is figure out how to keep your feet out of the frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2998" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-21T18:23:38.843" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T18:23:38.843" />
  <row Id="11157" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-21T18:41:34.227" Score="0" ViewCount="133" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the advantage to the new 3d camera technology that is out?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4835" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T15:29:47.453" Title="3d digital cameras?" Tags="&lt;3d&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11158" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11157" CreationDate="2011-04-21T18:46:53.597" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The is pricey and AWESOME technology produces a realistic 3D photo by taking 20 consecutive photos and overlaying the two best images which provide a 3D image that can then be played on a 3D HDTV. The format of the 3D image is compatible with MPO, and can also be played back on other MPO-compatible equipment such as a televisions, digital photo frame and printers&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4836" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T18:46:53.597" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="11159" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-21T20:27:11.763" Score="1" ViewCount="142" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon EOS 60D and I tried the copyright function and, after that, I copied the pictures to my laptop but they did not appear. So I put my memory card back into my camera and I then tried viewing the pics and realized that I could view them from the camera but not from the computer... please help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4838" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-06-04T12:47:56.720" LastActivityDate="2011-06-04T12:59:00.420" Title="A picture taken appears in the camera but does not appear when it is copied to the computer...." Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;canon-60d&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11160" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11161" CreationDate="2011-04-21T23:20:58.107" Score="4" ViewCount="152" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want take a photo of a scene lit by a yellow-orange street light.  Unlike many of the questions here, I don't want to balance the colours in the scene, rather I want the areas lit by that light to remain yellow.  The street light is the dominant light source in the scene.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What white balance settings do I need to capture the cast of a coloured light?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3356" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-21T23:51:29.373" LastActivityDate="2011-04-22T09:53:43.253" Title="What white balance settings do I need to capture the cast of a coloured streetlight?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;white-balance&gt;&lt;color-temperature&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="11161" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11160" CreationDate="2011-04-21T23:24:41.337" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Try sunlight. That'll give you a fixed setting which will assume a relatively &quot;hot&quot; light source, which will render the more-yellow light sources as yellow in your image. (Conversely, if you shoot actual sunlight in incandescent-wb, you'll get a strong blue cast.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your camera (or RAW processing software) allows you to set color temperature in Kelvin, try setting it around 5000, and adjust up and down to find the cast that looks right to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aside: Somewhat unfortunately, the numbers used for color temperatures come from science rather than art, so hotter light is more whitish blue, and cooler light more yellow-red — the opposite of our natural sense of white/blue as cold and red/orange/yellow as warm. Oh well; just more functional jargon to learn. Rather than going into it in much more detail in this answer I'll just point to another couple of questions: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10076/what-is-color-temperature-and-how-does-it-affect-my-photography&quot;&gt;What is color temperature and how does it affect my photography?&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3037/what-is-the-meaning-of-white-balance&quot;&gt;What is the meaning of White Balance&lt;/a&gt;, which have good information on the topic already.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some built-in WB presets will also adjust on a magenta-green scale, which isn't taken into account by color temperature. This is important when photographing under some fluorescent lighting. If you're shooting under high-pressure sodium-vapor lights (like many streetlights), with their characteristic pink-orange glow, you're pretty much out of luck in getting &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; natural looking balance, because the spectrum is so narrow and strange. In that case, going with a daylight preset and just preserving the odd look may be best. Or, deciding not to worry about it and going to black and white.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-21T23:39:44.247" LastActivityDate="2011-04-21T23:39:44.247" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11162" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11160" CreationDate="2011-04-21T23:57:01.837" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Set your WB to &lt;a href=&quot;http://support.pentaximaging.com/node/1198&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CTE&lt;/a&gt; (Color Temperature Enhancement)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This preserves the color-cast in the scene and actually emphasizes it a little. If you like the color-cast of street-lights, sunset and sunrise, this is purposely made for that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-22T00:28:49.713" LastActivityDate="2011-04-22T00:28:49.713" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="11163" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11160" CreationDate="2011-04-22T00:18:31.363" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Take a bunch of shots with the different settings and see which you like best! This is the great part of digital photography. Since you're intentionally trying to circumvent the camera's AWB guess, there's not going to be a single, specific right answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4690" LastActivityDate="2011-04-22T00:18:31.363" />
  <row Id="11164" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11166" CreationDate="2011-04-22T00:46:12.117" Score="6" ViewCount="251" Body="&lt;p&gt;Looking at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Camera-Lenses/index.page&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;product page for Nikon lenses&lt;/a&gt;, I notice a distinction between telephoto lens and zoom lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the difference between the two?  Why would I want one over the other?  I &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephoto_lens&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wiki'd telephoto lens&lt;/a&gt; but remain confused about this distinction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Please talk to me like I'm stupid. :) I am hoping for a completely lay explanation.  In particular, I'd like to understand in what situations I'd use a telephoto lens, and in what (other) situations I'd use a zoom lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4477" LastEditorUserId="4477" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-22T01:01:56.223" LastActivityDate="2011-04-23T16:32:22.160" Title="What is the difference between a telephoto lens and a zoom lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;telephoto&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11165" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11164" CreationDate="2011-04-22T00:58:56.640" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A zoom lens means the lens can change focal length via zooming, i.e. it is not a prime lens. A telephoto lens has a long focal length (I do not know if there is an official threshold to call a lens telephoto, but Nikon seems to start it at 85mm. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, you can have a prime telephoto lens that is not a zoom, and you can have a wide angle zoom lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1125" LastActivityDate="2011-04-22T00:58:56.640" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11166" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11164" CreationDate="2011-04-22T01:21:52.933" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The focal length of a lens determines its field of view on your camera. If it has a long focal length, it has a narrow field of view, making the things in front of you appear large in the photograph. If it has a short focal length, it has a large field of view--it's a &quot;wide angle&quot; lens that takes in a large area, making objects appear small.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &quot;zoom lens&quot; is a lens whose focal length can change. You twist the barrel, or push a switch on the camera, and it takes in a narrower or wider field of view, making objects appear bigger or smaller.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The term &quot;telephoto lens&quot; has a particular technical meaning in terms of lens design, but in common usage it refers to a lens with a long focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A zoom lens could &quot;zoom&quot; from a short (wide-angle) to long (&quot;telephoto&quot;) focal length, making things look bigger and closer as you zoom in. Or it could zoom from an extreme wide-angle to a moderate wide-angle, never coming close to a &quot;telephoto&quot; focal length. Or any other range of focal lengths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So &quot;zoom&quot; = focal length you can change, and &quot;telephoto&quot; = long focal length. A lens can be one, or the other, or neither, or both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The focal length is normally measured in millimeters (mm). A zoom lens will have two measurements, for example &quot;18-200 mm&quot; (a wide-angle to telephoto zoom). It zooms from a short focal length of 18 mm to a long focal length of 200 mm. A non-zoom lens, also called a &quot;prime&quot; lens, will have a single focal length, for example &quot;135 mm&quot; (a moderate telephoto).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2138" LastEditorUserId="2138" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-22T01:56:23.197" LastActivityDate="2011-04-22T01:56:23.197" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11168" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11164" CreationDate="2011-04-22T02:01:10.667" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Technically 'Telephoto' means that the focal length [the mm] is longer than the lens is. In my experience, people in the photography world usually don't talk about it under that definition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the time people say 'Telephoto' they just mean 'zoomed in' or in other words 'high mm' or 'long focal length' As has been mentioned, Nikon seems to say that 85mm is the shortest focal length that they will call telephoto. I have seen people call anything above 50mm telephoto.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;'Zoom' just means that it has a range of focal lengths. That range could be telephoto, it could be below telephoto, or it could range from below telephoto to above telephoto. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are a few examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A 300mm lens &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; a &lt;strong&gt;telephoto&lt;/strong&gt; but &lt;em&gt;is not&lt;/em&gt; a &lt;strong&gt;zoom&lt;/strong&gt; because 300mm is high mm (in other words, 'long focal length' or 'zoomed in') but it does not cover a range of focal lengths. (You can only use that lens at 300mm, not 299mm or 472674mm) Insead, we call these lenses &lt;strong&gt;prime&lt;/strong&gt; lenses. A prime lens does not cover a range of focal lengths, just one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A 10-20mm lens &lt;em&gt;is not&lt;/em&gt; a &lt;strong&gt;telephoto&lt;/strong&gt; lens but &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; a &lt;strong&gt;zoom&lt;/strong&gt; lens. It is not zoomed in at all. It has a short focal length, low mm. It's called &lt;strong&gt;wide angle&lt;/strong&gt;. If you felt like it, you could shoot at 15mm when you feel jumpy and 16mm when you feel bumpy.  You could not, however shoot at a high focal length as you could with the 300mm lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An 18mm lens &lt;em&gt;is not&lt;/em&gt; a &lt;strong&gt;telephoto&lt;/strong&gt; lens and it &lt;em&gt;is also not&lt;/em&gt; a &lt;strong&gt;zoom lens&lt;/strong&gt; because it has low mm and there is only one focal length. You'd call it a &lt;strong&gt;wide angle&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;prime&lt;/strong&gt; lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An 18-200mm lens is a strange beast. It &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; a &lt;strong&gt;zoom&lt;/strong&gt; lens but it can be considered both a &lt;strong&gt;wide angle&lt;/strong&gt; (at 18mm) and a &lt;strong&gt;telephoto&lt;/strong&gt; lens (at 200mm) because it's zoom range is so huge. You could shoot at 200mm and it's telephoto or you could shoot at 18mm and it's wide angle. In my experience if it is capable of telephoto, then you call it a telephoto. You'd then call it a &lt;strong&gt;telephoto zoom&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to talk about focal lengths:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's either a &lt;strong&gt;wide angle&lt;/strong&gt; lens (zoomed out) or a &lt;strong&gt;telephoto&lt;/strong&gt; lens. (zoomed in)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And to talk about focal length range:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's either a &lt;strong&gt;prime&lt;/strong&gt; lens (only one focal length) or a &lt;strong&gt;zoom&lt;/strong&gt; lens (range of focal lengths)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4758" LastEditorUserId="4758" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-22T02:08:39.660" LastActivityDate="2011-04-22T02:08:39.660" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11170" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11160" CreationDate="2011-04-22T06:51:51.920" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For my taste, &quot;tungsten&quot; has worked best in such situation. The street lights are actually way more yellow than standard tungsten, but the eye somewhat adjusts to the color cast, so the photo will be quite similar to what was actually seen. For example, this shot is a (resized) camera JPEG, tungsten WB:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ERciV.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;A bridge to the bright side&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The grass and side of the bridge were lit by orange streetlights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-22T09:53:43.253" LastActivityDate="2011-04-22T09:53:43.253" />
  <row Id="11171" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-22T10:18:32.027" Score="1" ViewCount="180" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/19/is-it-possible-to-take-shallow-depth-of-field-photos-with-point-and-shoot-cameras&quot;&gt;Is it possible to take shallow depth of field photos with point-and-shoot cameras?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I shoot portraits with my brother's Nikon D90, this is quite easy to fade out the background. But with my Fuji HS10, super-zoom camera, I haven't been able to take such photos yet. I choose a large aperture for my camera but it still doesn't work. I know that standing further and zooming will result in a smaller depth of field. Why DSLR cameras are so much better in this area? Why zooming make the depth of field smaller? What are the general recommendations to do the job using a super-zoom?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4841" LastEditorUserId="2138" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-22T13:08:27.703" LastActivityDate="2011-04-22T13:08:27.703" ClosedDate="2011-04-22T16:00:01.040" Title="How to blur the background using a super-zoom camera?" Tags="&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;nikon-d90&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="11172" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19" CreationDate="2011-04-22T10:28:53.490" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Blurring out the background is a function of the Depth of Field. The DoF itself is determined by several parameters, like the aperture and the sensor size. Since in a point-and-shoot camera the sensor size is significantly smaller than in the D90, you are not able to achieve the bokkeh that is possible with the Nikon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can use the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dofmaster&lt;/a&gt; site to determine the possible DoF of your cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-04-22T10:28:53.490" />
  <row Id="11173" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19" CreationDate="2011-04-22T10:55:56.403" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Point-and-shoots and super-zooms typically have massive depth of field, which makes it very hard to blur the background. You need at least something like a Panasonic Lumix or Sony NEX (which advertises 'background defocus' as one of its USPs) to really have a decent chance of good results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-04-22T10:55:56.403" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11174" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19" CreationDate="2011-04-22T12:13:07.403" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, there are a few factors that control the DOF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Sensor size&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your HS10's sensor is smaller than D90's. Check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SensorSizes.svg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;these&lt;/a&gt; sensor sizes. Sensor size in HS10 is 1/2.3&quot; (about 6 x 5 mm), while D90's sensor is APS-C size (23.6 x 15.7 mm) - it has more than ten times the area of the HS10.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Okay, so it's bigger, &lt;i&gt;why should you care&lt;/i&gt;? Well, if you attach the same lens to a smaller sensor, this sensor will collect a smaller portion of the image (like if you do a crop of the original image). And if you think about it, this means that it will be more zoomed in (yeah, think about it for a sec).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So: &lt;b&gt;smaller sensor means more zoomed in picture&lt;/b&gt;.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Now comes the hard part: &lt;i&gt;if&lt;/i&gt; (!) you could use the same lens on both sensors, you would have to zoom &lt;i&gt;out&lt;/i&gt; on your smaller sensor to get the same picture. And less zoom means more DOF (less blur of the background) - we'll get to that later. So your HS10 will have more DOF for the same picture composition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But you don't believe me, do you? You'll say that you have the same zoom (say 150 mm) on both cameras, right? Yeah, but that's because &lt;i&gt;150 mm on your camera is not the same as 150 mm on D90&lt;/i&gt;. Why not? I'll try to explain.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Like we said before, smaller sensor means more zoomed in picture. But when the photographers talk to each other, they want to say: &quot;just put your camera to 120 mm&quot; and they want it to mean the same no mather the sensor size. Otherwise they would first ask you for your sensor size, then compute the real mm length ;).&#xA;So camera and lens makers now show the focal distance in relative terms of 35 mm equivalent focal length. Read about it &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_equivalent_focal_length&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More expensive cameras have a smaller DOF (greater blur) because of (amongst other things) bigger sensors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Aperture&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A bigger aperture has a shallower DOF. A bigger f number (f/5.6) is actually a smaller opening than a smaller f number (f/2.8) - see the divide sign? You actually devide the focal length by a certain number: thus a greater number, smaller aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have a lens on your HS10 that can be open up to f/2.8, if you are zoomed out. But if you zoom completely in then it can be opened to only f/5.6.&#xA;But your brother may have a lens that can be more open at the same relative focal length. You didn't mention the aperture of both shots, but if you have a more open aperture on D90 then your pictures will have a shallower DOF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Zoom (Focal Length)&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More zoom means shallower DOF. It has to do with something called Circle of Confusion. Read about it &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; or on Google.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in a nutshell, a longer focal length means that the lens will bend parallel rays of light less. That means that the angle between these rays will be less than in a lens with shorter focal length: and that means (this is crucial for DOF) that if they don't meet on the same point on the sensor, they will be more far apart on the sensor - thus more DOF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4725" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-22T19:51:57.217" LastActivityDate="2011-04-22T19:51:57.217" />
  <row Id="11175" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-22T12:40:43.480" Score="4" ViewCount="205" Body="&lt;p&gt;I saw an older post on the site that mentioned &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6061/good-diy-photography-projects-for-an-old-digital-camera&quot;&gt;Kite Photography&lt;/a&gt;. I find that very interesting, and I want to try it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a couple of old compact cameras that I wouldn't mind putting them at risk.&#xA;(Ideally I would like to try it with on old Olympus mju 300.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What tips and information do you have to share?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I cannot really figure out how to have the compact camera take pictures while in the air, and away from my hands. How can I accomplish that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2895" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-22T13:02:47.317" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T01:02:41.363" Title="How do I control the camera in Kite Photography?" Tags="&lt;remote&gt;&lt;wireless&gt;&lt;kite-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="11176" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11103" CreationDate="2011-04-22T12:58:43.140" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me take you on a bit of a different direction... as one of the tags on your question is mentioning art!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think of not using any titles (or captions) on your photographs!!!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the photograph has a great deal of things to say, I want to explore the picture myself! There are times that a title might through me off the picture!! I mean that sometimes I see a photograph and I think of a story in my mind... I might get various emotions from that ... and then I see a title that is completely different to what I am thinking and feeling! then I usually turn away and move on to the next.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So for me... I would prefer no titles!! Let your viewers see and understand you from your photographs... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2895" LastActivityDate="2011-04-22T12:58:43.140" />
  <row Id="11177" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11175" CreationDate="2011-04-22T13:04:16.510" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think your best bet would be to find a compact camera that can support time-lapse photography (natively or via &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;custom ROM&lt;/a&gt;).  When you start to get into pricier equipment and more sophisticated control mechanisms, you really need to be looking at a different platform (ie, a plane or helicopter) because of the added weight and the risk of damage should you lose control of the kite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-22T13:06:37.660" LastActivityDate="2011-04-22T13:06:37.660" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11178" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11175" CreationDate="2011-04-22T13:11:56.440" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Concerning how the camera keeps taking pictures while on the kite, you might have read &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7871/intervalometer-ideas/7873#7873&quot;&gt;my answer to the question what one can use the intervalometer-script of the CHDK for Canon-cameras&lt;/a&gt; for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you own an older Canon compact, &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;look at the list here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastActivityDate="2011-04-22T13:11:56.440" />
  <row Id="11179" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11175" CreationDate="2011-04-22T13:42:48.553" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi, that's an interesting question!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first thing you need to consider I guess is the type of kite you wish to use; i.e. will you be using a single line kite, or a 2-4 line controllable kite? I'd recommend using a large-ish single line kite which will allow you to more easily use a really long line which will help to get the camera to a better altitude.  Probably go for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.spiritofair.co.uk/delta_conyne.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a delta kite&lt;/a&gt; or a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.activetoys.co.uk/shop/kites/single-line-parafoils-soft-kites/flowform-single-line-kites-363128.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;parafoil/flowform kite&lt;/a&gt; of around 1-2 square metres.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second thing to think about is how to activate the shutter.  The easiest way would be to simply use the time delay having the camera mounted about half way along the kite line (as shown in Fig. 78 of the image below).  If you want a more elaborate way to activate the shutter (which also enables you to have the camera mounted closer to the kite and hence higher) you could consider using radio control gear from an old car or plane; you'd basically need to mount a servo with a cam on the output shaft mounted on top of the camera (this is shown in the photo below). I'm doing exactly this to get aerial shots from a radio controlled aeroplane!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[[Images from the book &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=a5IgqOYZzEwC&amp;amp;dq=editions%3aa5IgqOYZzEwC&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kites and other wind machines&lt;/a&gt;&quot; by Andre Thiebault removed due to copyright infringement]]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My own remotely operated shutter release, soon to be attached to an RC plane!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/7pwCU.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Servo operated shutter release&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;After initial tests, I can confirm that I &lt;strong&gt;do not&lt;/strong&gt; recommend attaching a camera to a remote controlled aircraft :-(&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(See below image)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ZUbf2.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3263" LastEditorUserId="3263" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-24T01:02:41.363" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T01:02:41.363" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="11181" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11152" CreationDate="2011-04-22T18:32:07.770" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The older (than the 10-24) Nikkor 12-24 f4 DX could also be an option. I own this lens and am very happy with it (D80 and D7000). It is tack sharp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have never compared it with the 10-24, but from a little (very little) Google research, the 12-24 might be the slightly better performer and of better build quality. The latter may not be of interest to you, though, since you'll be renting it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2549" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-23T07:07:28.470" LastActivityDate="2011-04-23T07:07:28.470" />
  <row Id="11182" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11185" CreationDate="2011-04-22T18:33:15.150" Score="8" ViewCount="128" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have two cameras, a 6mpix Panasonic FZ8, and 14mpix Canon A2200.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I compare shots from two cameras, one of differences I notice is&lt;br&gt;&#xA;dpi number that camera reports in JPG info:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;FZ8 reports dpi=72&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A2200 reports dpi=180&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What physical meaning can these numbers have? I am at loss for guesses.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am fairly familiar with notion of dpi in scanning and printing. I can calculate density of pixels on the sensor of the camera. But then, the linear density of pixels on the sensor will be hundreds times larger than number above. So what, if anything, does it mean?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4333" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-22T18:49:01.160" LastActivityDate="2011-04-23T02:45:00.190" Title="Does the dpi number reported by camera in JPG have any meaning?" Tags="&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;jpeg&gt;&lt;dpi&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11183" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11182" CreationDate="2011-04-22T18:41:40.520" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my experience those numbers have no special meaning. The camera makers just pick one and use it in all their firmware.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-04-22T18:41:40.520" />
  <row Id="11184" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11182" CreationDate="2011-04-22T19:12:21.947" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The number is just a random filler. It has no significance since the camera does not know how big you will print.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most cameras default to 72 which according to the EXIF standard is the default value. Some cameras let you set it yourself. Then again, it has little meaning unless you will print all your images without cropping exactly at the same size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-22T19:12:21.947" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11185" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11182" CreationDate="2011-04-22T19:12:49.720" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The values are arbitrary and meaningless, and only serve to confuse people. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.exif.org/Exif2-2.PDF&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EXIF standard&lt;/a&gt; seems to imply that if the tag is missing, 72 is the (still-meaningless) default. However, it is apparently mandatory for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/content/tiff_tags.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;TIFF standard&lt;/a&gt;, from which the JPEG/EXIf format basically inherits everything. So maybe it has to have some value to properly comply with the standard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can still ignore it, though. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-23T02:45:00.190" LastActivityDate="2011-04-23T02:45:00.190" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11186" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-22T19:36:09.767" Score="1" ViewCount="152" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicates:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/19/is-it-possible-to-take-shallow-depth-of-field-photos-with-point-and-shoot-cameras&quot;&gt;Is it possible to take shallow depth of field photos with point-and-shoot cameras?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9980/what-are-the-depth-of-field-capabilities-of-point-shoot-cameras&quot;&gt;What are the depth-of-field capabilities of point &amp;amp; shoot cameras?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have seen several posts about blurring the background of photos, but I want to know how this relates specifically to my camera. The P100 has the following specs:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Megapixels, image sensor size, type:&lt;/strong&gt; 10 megapixels, 1/2.3-inch CMOS (backside illuminated) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Lens (zoom, aperture, focal length):&lt;/strong&gt; 26x, f2.8-5 26-678mm (35mm equivalent)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I want to take pictures 3 to 5 feet from the subject with blurred background, what would be the best settings and how far away would the background have to be?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Read more: &lt;a href=&quot;http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/nikon-coolpix-p100/4505-6501_7-33966421.html#ixzz1KHY0zVcz&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/nikon-coolpix-p100/4505-6501_7-33966421.html#ixzz1KHY0zVcz&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4846" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T08:34:30.923" ClosedDate="2011-04-27T18:24:25.113" Title="DOF, bokeh, Nikon P100" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;bokeh&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="11187" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11127" CreationDate="2011-04-22T20:53:21.197" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The UnDutchables firmware hack is based on a russian replacement firmware package which has been known to do weird things when formatting CF cards. I would suggest reformatting the card on your mac and not formatting it in camera again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-04-22T20:53:21.197" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11189" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-23T07:54:16.857" Score="6" ViewCount="86" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to get into astrophotography, and would like subjects that are a bit more unusual than the things we see every night like constellations and the moon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where can I read about upcoming celestial events, such as comet appearances, lunar and solar eclipses, meteor showers, planet alignments, et cetera? What information can I use to predict which events will likely be spectacular, and worth driving away from city lights to photograph, and which events I can guiltlessly skip?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-04-23T16:06:02.420" Title="How do I know what celestial events will be visible soon?" Tags="&lt;astrophotography&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11190" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11189" CreationDate="2011-04-23T08:37:53.680" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Google will tell you most of these things, as they are all regular and 'calculatable' events. Wolfram Alpha has a very comprehensive eclipse set-up too. Or you can simply buy a book - there are plenty of 'star guides' that include dates for eclipses and meteor showers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unless you have your camera hooked up to a telescope, or you have a massive lens and a motor drive, things like planetary alignments are probably not worth driving out of town for. Likewise, meteors are tricky to photograph as they are unpredictable and flash across the sky in a split second.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eclipses and comets are somewhat more stationary, but they are few and far between.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why limit yourself to 'events'? There's plenty in the night sky to photograph every night. The plain old moon can make spectacular photos, especially if you shoot it in its gibbous stage so you've got some shadows in the craters. Point your camera at the lower half of Orion's sword, open the shutter for 5 seconds, then take a look at the screen. You will see a glowing purple cloud: the Orion Nebula, a stellar nursery. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shooting things that are there every night also means you get good practice for taking photos of rarer astronomical events.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-04-23T08:37:53.680" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11191" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="335" CreationDate="2011-04-23T11:30:00.987" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Asymmetric lighting of umbrella may also show up as asymmetric &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/11657/4390&quot;&gt;catchlights&lt;/a&gt; in subjects' eyes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T15:59:23.693" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T15:59:23.693" />
  <row Id="11192" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11198" CreationDate="2011-04-23T11:37:19.663" Score="3" ViewCount="57" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm just starting out with astrophotography and have read that this years most spectacular meteor shower display (at least where I live in Canberra, Australia) will be the &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.seasky.org/astronomy/astronomy-calendar-2011.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Eta Aquarids Meteor Shower&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;May 5, 6&lt;/em&gt;  - Eta Aquarids Meteor Shower.&#xA;  The Eta Aquarids are a light shower,&#xA;  usually producing about 10 meteors per&#xA;  hour at their peak. The shower's peak&#xA;  usually occurs on May 5 &amp;amp; 6, however&#xA;  viewing should be good on any morning&#xA;  from May 4 - 7. A thin, crescent moon&#xA;  will set early in the evening leaving&#xA;  dark skies for what could be an good&#xA;  show. The radiant point for this&#xA;  shower will be in the constellation&#xA;  Aquarius. Best viewing is usually to&#xA;  the east after midnight, far from city&#xA;  lights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I am new to this, I'm not too sure what settings I will need to use. I'd like to avoid star trails that may distract from the meteor itself.   Advice on focal length, shutter speed, aperature and ISO would be appreciated.  I'm using a 550D if that is relevant to the ISO recommendation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3356" LastActivityDate="2011-04-23T14:06:01.077" Title="What technique and settings should I use to capture meteor showers?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;astrophotography&gt;&lt;meteor-shower&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="11193" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5936" CreationDate="2011-04-23T12:10:40.030" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pedantic here,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would argue that one &quot;&lt;strong&gt;takes&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; photographs, or &quot;&lt;strong&gt;captures&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; photographs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;One can never &quot;Make&quot; a photograph&lt;/strong&gt;, since what a photo is fundamentally composed of is a bunch of semi-ordered photons, focused through a lens. Unless you are personally placing every photon which goes to create the images, &lt;strong&gt;you are not &quot;making&quot; anything&lt;/strong&gt;, merely &lt;em&gt;capturing&lt;/em&gt; what already is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if you are in complete control of the scene, you are still capturing a representation of it, not making a representation of it (unless you are doing a painting, perhaps).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think of it like an animal - You can &quot;Capture&quot; a bird, or &quot;take&quot; a bird, but you can never &quot;make&quot; a bird.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, you can say what ever you want, &lt;strong&gt;but claiming you &quot;Make&quot; photos will always be technically incorrect&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Caveat - I am an engineer, and work with professional scientists, so I may be more caught up in the technicalities of wording than most. However, from the perspective of the dictionary, the above is true.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Personally, I tend to use snapshot/photograph instead of take/make respectively, as other answers describe their usage, since it conveys the same information, while being semantically correct.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Opinion: If you ask me, the whole &quot;Make&quot; photograph thing sounds like professional photographers being snobs, and trying claim they do something fundamentally different then tourists on a vacation, rather then merely a refinement of it. There is more then enough space within the category of refinement to accommodate both.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2611" LastEditorUserId="2611" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-23T12:24:40.683" LastActivityDate="2011-04-23T12:24:40.683" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="11194" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-23T12:53:31.233" Score="5" ViewCount="200" Body="&lt;p&gt;Even when bouncing flash off the ceiling or nearby walls, you can occasionally blow out or overexpose a picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What methods work best in Lightroom 3 or other software to reduce or eliminate the impact on the photo?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="326" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T20:12:57.607" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T20:12:57.607" Title="What post-processing methods work best to &quot;fix&quot; photos that are blown out from flash?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;highlights&gt;&lt;overexposure&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="11195" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11194" CreationDate="2011-04-23T12:59:55.303" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a stop or so of headroom in raw images so you may get away with just reducing the exposure slider in LightRoom. If it's totally blown and there are areas which are pure white then there's no real fix.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a &quot;recovery&quot; slider which attempts to fix overexposure in the even of one channel becoming overexposed (usually the red channel if it's faces) but if all three channels then you're out of luck - any fix will result in grey skin as you have lost all colour information.You could try painting in the correct colours in Photoshop but it will be a time consuming fix.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-04-23T12:59:55.303" />
  <row Id="11197" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11189" CreationDate="2011-04-23T13:57:21.047" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To start, you can look at this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.seasky.org/astronomy/astronomy-calendar-2011.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Astronomy Calendar&lt;/a&gt; for upcoming events (I've linked the current year). Based on the information there you can either dig around on the site a bit or use Google to determine the nature of the event before making the trip. Some of them will be pretty hard to capture with a camera, but may still be worth going to see anyways. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-04-23T13:57:21.047" />
  <row Id="11198" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11192" CreationDate="2011-04-23T14:06:01.077" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My favourite site for astrophotography in formation is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/TRIPOD/TRIPOD6.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catching the Light&lt;/a&gt;  and I've linked that to their article on meteor shooting, but you may also want to read through the rest of the information there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a nutshell, however, it's moderately long exposures (5 to 10 minutes) on a sturdy tripod with the camera pointed at about 45 degrees to the radiant (where the meteors appear to come from). Focal length is up to you. A very wide angle will likely increase your odds of catching something, but it will be more faint. A longer length will reduce your odds of catching something, but what is caught will be much more visible in frame. The site author runs about 6 cameras at a time with varying focal lengths!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-04-23T14:06:01.077" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11199" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-23T14:17:13.540" Score="2" ViewCount="180" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am reading &lt;em&gt;Bryan Peterson's&lt;/em&gt; book &lt;em&gt;Understanding Exposure&lt;/em&gt;. Quoting text &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=drQOfkvxSd8C&amp;amp;lpg=PA52&amp;amp;dq=With%20my%20camera%20pointed%20upward%20to%20the%20green%20leaves&amp;amp;pg=PA52#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;from the book&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I set up my camera and 75-300mm lens on&#xA;  a tripod. I set my focal length to&#xA;  130mm and aperture to f/32 and focused&#xA;  a third of the way into the scene.&#xA;  With my camera pointed upward to the&#xA;  green leaves, I adjusted the shutter&#xA;  speed until a -2/3 exposure was&#xA;  indicated - 1/25 sec. I then&#xA;  recomposed to get the scene here and&#xA;  fired off several frames.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a couple of questions based on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What does he mean by -2/3 exposure and why is that required? There is a discussion about this in the book. But I can't understand it fully from the book. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Most of the shots which he explains in this book were taken by recomposing the scene. I am not understanding the concept behind recomposing. Why is that required? And how can I decide whether to recompose a scene or not?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon 500D with the 18-55mm kit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4705" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-24T14:11:15.287" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T11:40:25.847" Title="Why would one recompose after setting exposure?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;composition&gt;&lt;bryan-peterson&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11200" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11199" CreationDate="2011-04-23T14:33:31.297" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;He initially pointed his camera so that the green leaves were in the center of the viewfinder. He didn't do this because he wanted them in the center of the photograph; he did this so that he could take a meter reading off the leaves, probably using &lt;em&gt;spot metering&lt;/em&gt;, which is a metering mode that's sensitive to only a small area in the center of the view finder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He the adjusted the exposure by -2/3 because he wanted those green leaves to be 2/3 of a stop darker than a middle tone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He then &quot;recomposed the scene&quot; because he had only placed the leaves in the center of the field for metering purposes. That's not where they belonged in the photograph. &quot;Recompose the scene&quot; just means point the camera so that everything is where you want it to be in the frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Just as the author recomposed after taking a meter reading, people will sometimes put an object in the center of the frame to &lt;em&gt;focus&lt;/em&gt; on it, either using the central autofocus point, or a manual-focusing aid in the center of the viewfinder. Then they would recompose after focusing.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2138" LastActivityDate="2011-04-23T14:33:31.297" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="11201" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11199" CreationDate="2011-04-23T14:34:01.973" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A -2/3rds, as I recall, only is if you are primarily focusing on green things, specifically the dark green leaves that are common in some areas. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recomposing the scene usually involves focusing on a point, and then changing where the camera is pointed to get the optimal picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-04-23T14:34:01.973" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11202" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11189" CreationDate="2011-04-23T14:41:04.977" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A planetarium software can also be very useful. You can easily check the current and future position of the stars, planets ... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stellarium.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;stellarium&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="507" LastActivityDate="2011-04-23T14:41:04.977" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11203" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11189" CreationDate="2011-04-23T16:06:02.420" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Joining a local astronomy local provides a huge wealth of resources.  You'll probably meet other astrophotographers to swap tips with and they'll provide lists of &quot;here's what you'll likely to see&quot; in your area.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They'll know where the best places are and what realistic expectations are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;May be worth checking out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-04-23T16:06:02.420" />
  <row Id="11204" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11164" CreationDate="2011-04-23T16:32:22.160" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Zoom lens = can do this: &lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Zoom.gif&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Telephoto lens = it can display stuff that are far away so big so that you can see them in detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Angleofview_50mm_f4.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;taken with normal lens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Angleofview_210mm_f4.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;taken with telephoto lens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Animation by &lt;a href=&quot;http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Stefan-Xp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Stefan-Xp&lt;/a&gt; from &lt;a href=&quot;http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zoom.gif&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikimedia Commons&lt;/a&gt;, CC-BY-SA, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Angleofview_50mm_f4.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;both&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Angleofview_210mm_f4.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pics&lt;/a&gt; by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Koyaanis_Qatsi&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Koyaanis Qatsi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2011-04-23T16:32:22.160" />
  <row Id="11205" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11208" CreationDate="2011-04-23T17:10:55.283" Score="11" ViewCount="290" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;Understanding Exposure&lt;/em&gt; (3rd edition, &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=drQOfkvxSd8C&amp;amp;lpg=PA48&amp;amp;ots=EUfRUxOH5&amp;amp;pg=PA48#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;on page 48&lt;/a&gt;), Bryan Peterson has what might be called a rant against modern on-line conventional wisdom about diffraction limits. Answers on &lt;em&gt;this&lt;/em&gt; web site are pretty much in line with that conventional wisdom; see &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8304/what-is-a-diffraction-limit&quot;&gt;What is a &amp;quot;diffraction limit&amp;quot;?&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6489/whats-the-benefit-of-a-tiny-aperture&quot;&gt;What&amp;#39;s the benefit of a tiny aperture?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Peterson is particularly dismissive of &quot;photography forum Web sites&quot;, and says he &quot;wants to set the record straight&quot;. Is there a grain of truth to what he says, or is he totally off-base?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Particularly, he says that f/22 is &quot;the smallest lens opening that, in turn, produces the greatest depth of field&quot; with a wide-angle lens, and that f/22 is therefore the &lt;em&gt;only way&lt;/em&gt; to record sharpness from front to back. &lt;strong&gt;Will stopping down beyond the diffraction limit give more consistent across-the-field sharpness, even if it isn't absolutely as sharp, perhaps?&lt;/strong&gt; Or does the diffraction limit mean that at certain point, far before f/22 on APS-C dSLRs, everything is as as sharp as it's going to get, and beyond that, &lt;em&gt;everything&lt;/em&gt; gets worse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peterson also says &quot;The question of using f/22 was &lt;em&gt;never&lt;/em&gt; an issue during the days when we all shot film, and it should &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; be an issue today.&quot; In &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8304/what-is-a-diffraction-limit/8339#8339&quot;&gt;this answer on this site&lt;/a&gt;, jrista (convincingly, I thought) argues that the limit is a function of the recording medium. Does Peterson, despite credentials as being a best-selling photography author, not give enough credence to the difference between film and digital?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-25T11:58:28.877" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T17:59:37.887" Title="Do smaller apertures provide more depth of field past the diffraction limit, even if peak sharpness suffers?" Tags="&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;digital-vs-film&gt;&lt;diffraction&gt;&lt;bryan-peterson&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11206" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2011-04-23T17:36:51.197" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Photo equipment distributor Manfrotto has what they call an &quot;on-line school&quot;, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://manfrottoschoolofxcellence.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Manfrotto School of Excellence&lt;/a&gt;. This has a series of articles from professional photographers and writers, including Michael Freeman, and apparently Scott Kelby is signed up for 2011. There's several sections of the site; some are overtly related to Manfrotto products and promotion, but others are general-interest photography. Particularly interesting sections are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://manfrottoschoolofxcellence.com/category/learn-share/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Learn &amp;amp; Share&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://manfrottoschoolofxcellence.com/category/beyond-the-basics/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Beyond the Basics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-04-23T17:36:51.197" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-23T17:36:51.197" />
  <row Id="11207" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2011-04-23T18:07:43.830" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am surprised that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.petapixel.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Petapixel&lt;/a&gt; has not been suggested yet&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4738" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-23T18:10:42.837" LastActivityDate="2011-04-23T18:10:42.837" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-23T18:07:43.830" />
  <row Id="11208" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11205" CreationDate="2011-04-23T18:45:09.640" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, it &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; an issue on film. If Bryan Peterson wasn't aware of it at the time, it just shows what he didn't know, &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; that it actually wasn't a problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There were differences though. First of all, we didn't have EXIF data, and most people didn't keep careful enough notes to really know why shot X came out quite a bit sharper than shot Y. Even for those who did keep notes, doing real testing, such as taking 100 shots of the same subject while varying the camera settings to see what worked well and what didn't was enough work that &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; few people every really tried.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, for most people standards were a lot lower. Looking at pictures on a computer monitor, in particular, makes it &lt;em&gt;much&lt;/em&gt; easier to zoom in tightly, to the point that you see really minor defects that you'd never see in a reasonable-size print or by projecting a slide, even &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; large.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third, there's something of a psychological effect involved. When you shoot at f/22, &lt;em&gt;everything&lt;/em&gt; is a little bit blurry, so you tend to (for example) just not look at it quite as closely. Most people will never really notice it much, because they have a tendency to quit looking more closely when they (usually subconsciously) realize there's no more detail to see there. By contrast, if you shoot at, say, f/5.6 the parts of the picture that have exactly the same size CoF as the would at f/22 &lt;em&gt;look&lt;/em&gt; out of focus, because you can (at least usually) see parts that are substantially sharper. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fourth, a great deal depends on the quality of the lens involved. If you look at/play with lenses from (say) 50 or 60 years ago, you can pretty much depend on the fact that by current standards they pretty awful when they're wide open. An f/2 lens might easily need to be stopped down to f/8 or so before it's even &lt;em&gt;fairly&lt;/em&gt; good by modern standards. The aberrations when it was wide open were bad enough that quality was still improving up to f/11 or even f/16 in a lot of cases. A great lens and a really poor lens are about equal at f/22 -- but at f/8 the great lens will be a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get closer to your direct question: yes, sensor size does have a considerable effect.  With a larger sensor, you need to be closer to the subject to get the same framing with the same focal length of lens. That means a larger sensor will normally reduce the apparent DoF so you gain more by stopping down. Second, as you use a larger sensor, you're enlarging less to get the same size print. This keeps the loss of sharpness from a small aperture from being nearly as apparent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To give an extreme example many of the best-known &quot;classical&quot; photographers like Adams and Weston belonged to what they called the f/64 club. Shooting an 8x10 (or even larger) camera, they &lt;em&gt;needed&lt;/em&gt; a tiny aperture to get any DoF at all, and (obviously enough from the name) considered f/64 the ideal aperture. The loss of sharpness didn't matter a lot, for the simple reason that they were rarely enlarging much. Starting from an 8x10 negative, even a 24x30 print was only a 3:1 enlargement -- slightly &lt;em&gt;less&lt;/em&gt; enlargement than producing a 3x5 print from a full-frame digital camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: First of all, f/22 is only rarely necessary from a viewpoint of DoF. Consider hyperfocal distances for a 50mm lens at various apertures:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;f/8:  41 feet&#xA;f/11: 29 feet&#xA;f/16: 21 feet&#xA;f/22: 15 feet&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The nearest point that's in focus is half that number in each case, so going from f/16 to f/22 gains you about 3 feet of foreground that's in focus. There are undoubtedly times that gaining that 3 feet is worth almost &lt;em&gt;anything&lt;/em&gt;. Let's be honest though: it's not really very common -- and probably 95% of the time that you can use f/22 to do the job, you could use focus stacking (for one example) to accomplish the same &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; get much higher sharpness overall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a typical landscape, it's rarely necessary at all. Consider, for example, a FF camera with a 50mm lens being held at eye level (say, 60&quot; above the ground) with the nearby ground roughly flat and level. For simplicity, we'll assume they're holding the camera approximately level.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, the nearest foreground at the &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; edge of the picture is about 250 inches (just under 21 feet) away. That means f/8 is small enough for the &lt;em&gt;entire&lt;/em&gt; picture to fall within the DoF. Somebody how looks &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; closely at the &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; edge of the picture might be able to notice that it's just slightly softer than the center -- but what they're seeing is still somewhat sharper at the edge and a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; sharper at the center than if you'd taken the shot at f/22.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I feel obliged to add, however, that DoF isn't the only reason to use a tiny aperture. I sometimes use a tiny aperture specifically to give a rather soft, low-contrast picture. Setting f/22 (or f/32, if available) can be a really cheap alternative to a soft focus lens, and when you want a soft, dreamy look like you might expect from a pinhole camera, f/32 can be an easy substitute.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bottom line: It's entirely possible to produce some really nice pictures by shooting at f/22 or f/32 -- but when/if you use it, you should do so based on at least some idea of what to expect and knowing that you want the kind of picture you're going to get. Do &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; do it because Bryan Peterson (or anybody else) has assured you that it's the right thing to do, nor should you do it expecting a picture at f/22 to come out even close to as sharp as one at f/11.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me close with a short series of pictures. These were all taken from a tripod with teh mirror prefired, all within a few seconds of each other so the light changed very little, etc. First an overall shot:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/gygWw.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then 100% crops at f/11, f/16, f/22, and /f32:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/baEzW.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/573Mk.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/DFBH6.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ja5b8.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, it's true that we're pixel-peeping to at least some degree here, but it's also true that the loss of quality at f/22 and (especially) f/32 is pretty obvious. Frankly, though most tests show some loss at f/16 when shooting flat, high-contrast targets, here on a real picture, f/16 doesn't show up as all that different from f/11. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OTOH, at f/22 the loss of quality is pretty noticeable, and at f/32 the result is frankly pretty awful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, and these are all taken at 200mm. If you believe a long lens is going to save you from the effects of diffraction, prepare for some disappointment...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-25T17:59:37.887" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T17:59:37.887" CommentCount="19" />
  <row Id="11209" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-23T20:22:27.270" Score="6" ViewCount="100" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a followup question to &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10760/why-is-the-blue-channel-the-noisiest&quot;&gt;Why is the blue channel the noisiest?&lt;/a&gt;. The simple answer to that question is that sensors are less sensitive to blue, and therefore require more amplification, which results in more noise. (This is compounded by the fact that typical scene illumination like sunlight or incandescent lamps are lacking in blue.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; are sensors less sensitive to blue light?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this just the way many sensors right now are, or is it more fundamentally a &quot;law&quot; of photography?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T07:28:18.253" Title="Why are sensors less sensitive to blue light?" Tags="&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;color&gt;&lt;light&gt;&lt;noise&gt;&lt;color-blue&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11210" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11209" CreationDate="2011-04-23T20:32:06.387" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The cheapest sensor types by far are CCD and CMOS. They work by taking advantage of the bandgap phenomena of silicon. A sensor is optimized if it's tuned for a wavelength more powerful than the bandgap, but not too powerful. The badgap for silicon corresponds to a 1.1 um light. That's why cameras can typically see in the IR, and require an IR filter to block the signal out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the signal becomes much more powerful than the bandgap, sensitivity decreases. Instead of increasing the built up charge, it will tend to just pass through the system entirely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Blue of the 3 channels has the shortest wavelength, and thus most energy. It's at the point that sensitivity is already decreasing. Further wavelengths, like the UV, are even less sensitive, and thus aren't even imaged (Hence why digital cameras don't need a UV filter)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-04-23T20:32:06.387" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11211" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-24T00:58:12.967" Score="6" ViewCount="107" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just picked up a Hoya R72 infrared filter, and I'm having a lot of fun experimenting with it. I'm in love with the false color style that can be added. So now I'm  contemplating converting my DSLR to a dedicated infrared camera. I own a Nikon D40, which apparently has a reputation for being a decent unmodified infrared camera (when using a IR filter). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've put my own list of conclusions and considerations in the answers section. Please post an alternative answer if any of my assumptions are wrong. I'm also interested in what other differences (if any) I would see in my photos if I did the IR conversion. What else am I missing/overlooking?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4231" LastEditorUserId="4231" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-24T04:06:25.390" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T14:52:56.920" Title="What are the benefits of infrared conversion?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;infrared&gt;&lt;infrared-conversion&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="11212" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11217" CreationDate="2011-04-24T02:28:20.263" Score="0" ViewCount="488" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've owned a Nikon D40 for about 4 years now, and I'm thinking it's time for an upgrade... just I don't know what camera to upgrade to. I have an upcoming trip to India for a month, and I want to make sure I am well-equipped to take pictures and &lt;em&gt;videos&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The D7000 is my dream camera, and really over my price range but I could splurge if I need to. The D5100 seems good (HD video, a couple of the same specs as D7000), but it doesn't have an built-in auto-focus motor or a 100% viewfinder. The D90 is a bit old and doesn't have as good specs as the D5100, but it does have an auto-focus motor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm a fairly casual photographer, however I like to take advantage of the advanced features in a camera. Apart from my Nikon D40, I have only three other pieces of equipment: two lenses (the cheapest Nikon 18-55 and 55-200 lenses) and an SB-400 flash. So, what camera body would you recommend that I buy? (I'm leaning towards the D5100, but I'm not sure.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for the help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4856" LastEditorUserId="4856" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-24T02:40:35.590" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T14:20:28.337" Title="D40 upgrade to D5100, D90, or D7000?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11213" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11212" CreationDate="2011-04-24T02:37:18.573" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The D7000 as you said is the best of the bunch and the 100% coverage viewfinder alone is worth the price difference. If you want a new DSLR, go for it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You also get much improved low-light capability, increased resolution, faster burst rate and most importantly direct controls including dual control-dials which let you control the camera faster. If you decide you can't afford the D7000, then the D90 will get you some of this but not the viewfinder or low-light performance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your lenses are actually your limiting factor now but since you're camera is that old, I understand the desire to upgrade body first. You'll have more choice of lenses with the D7000 compared to the D40 too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BTW, they all have an autofocus sensor. If you mean AF during video, it is achieved via contrast-detect, not a dedicated sensor, and it honestly useless of you want your videos to have any semblance of decency. The hunting and back-and-forth movement during AF is truly disturbing and you never see that (nor would you want to) in good videos. As hard as it seems, manual focus is essential for video and this is the way they do it for films and TV productions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T02:37:18.573" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11214" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11211" CreationDate="2011-04-24T03:05:56.503" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;After doing some reading about infrared, and what it would take to convert, and playing with the R72 filter, I've come to a few conclusions on my own. Here is a mixed list of some pros and cons about whether to convert:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A IR filter only allows infrared light to pass, and blocks the visible spectrum. So if you use an IR filter over the lens, your viewfinder will be worthless. This makes taking pictures...&quot;more challenging&quot;. (oh, why didn't I think about that before I bought the R72 filter!)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Modifying the camera should resolve that problem, as the IR filter would be installed over the camera sensor, and behind the lens, which will let you see normal light through the viewfinder again.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Long exposure time is needed using an unmodified camera. Most DSLRs have an IR blocking filter installed. The D40 just has a poor one. I guess the strategy to get around the IR blocking filter is to leave the shutter open longer, which will (slowly) let more IR pass through. But now you have to work around a long shutter requirement. My shots today needed over 1 second to get a proper exposure, even in direct sunlight. That means you need a tripod in most cases :(&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Again, modifying the camera should resolve the shutter speed problem, as IR light will enter the sensor much more quickly, now that the blocking filter is removed.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I tried bumping up the ISO to get around the shutter speed problem, but noise seemed to creep in much sooner than a normal picture would. Not sure if that is expected when shooting IR photos, or just a one time occurrence.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When pointing the camera near the sun, I was much more prone to lens flare (even with a lens hood), or maybe it was this IR hot spot thing I read about. Would this problem go away if I did the conversion?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Modifying a camera for IR is risky (you literally have to &lt;a href=&quot;http://photocamel.com/forum/nikon-forum/58248-nikon-d40-infrared-conversion-tutorial.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;take your camera apart&lt;/a&gt;!), and can be expensive if you pay someone else to do it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4231" LastEditorUserId="4231" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-24T14:52:56.920" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T14:52:56.920" />
  <row Id="11215" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11218" CreationDate="2011-04-24T03:14:38.600" Score="6" ViewCount="103" Body="&lt;p&gt;I seem to have to dust-like spec on my Sony Cybershot S950's lens, but it appears randomly every few pictures. Could something be going bad internally? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/xMOXC.png&quot; alt=&quot;possible dust spec sample&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4857" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-24T03:44:19.730" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T09:57:00.803" Title="Dust-like spec visible every few pictures — is it dust, or worse?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;cleaning&gt;&lt;dust&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="11216" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-24T03:26:54.877" Score="1" ViewCount="87" Body="&lt;p&gt;My built-in flash D50 is broken. It is popping up, but it isn't flashing. It fell down, so is it broken, or can I still fix it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4858" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-24T03:32:40.407" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T04:05:48.057" Title="How can I tell if the built-in flash on my dSLR is broken beyond self-repair?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;repair&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11217" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11212" CreationDate="2011-04-24T03:37:03.090" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Did another comparison of these cameras, and if you're don't want to splurge for the D7000, than I would recommend the D5100. It has the same MSRP as the D90, but is much newer, and the specs match or outperform the D90 in nearly all categories:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;more megapixels (16 vs. 12)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;higher max ISO (25,600 vs 6,400)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1080p HD movie recording (vs. 720)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;both have a 3&quot; LCD screen&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;both have 11 AF points&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;both have 3-shot bracketing abilities&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;both have live view&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4231" LastEditorUserId="4231" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-24T03:45:33.880" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T03:45:33.880" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="11218" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11215" CreationDate="2011-04-24T03:51:44.907" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That sure looks like sensor dust, for which I'd recommend seeing the answers in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/12/best-way-to-clean-the-sensor-on-a-digital-slr&quot;&gt;Best way to clean a DSLR sensor&lt;/a&gt; thread.  The spot may appear &quot;randomly&quot; because it only appears when you're using a narrow aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, it seems you don't have a dSLR, thus no interchangeable lenses which are what usually causes the situation where dust can get inside the camera body.  I suppose it's possible that dust got inside the camera through some other way although I think that's a fairly rare occurrence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the camera is still under warranty, it's worth a call to the manufacturer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-24T09:57:00.803" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T09:57:00.803" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11219" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11216" CreationDate="2011-04-24T04:05:48.057" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Unless you're a camera technician, it's broken beyond self-repair.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't mess around with flashes if you're not skilled with high-voltage electronics and camera internals. Flashes need to store charges of 300V or so in order to work, and may not discharge all the way when you turn the camera off. If you open up your camera and touch the wrong thing, you'll get a nasty shock, and could end up dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the risk of death isn't enough to scare you, add in the risk of frying or otherwise breaking the rest of your precious camera. I'd really recommend taking/sending it to a repair shop. Chances are, you'll need to replace some parts, and a shop will either have them on hand or be able to get them quickly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T04:05:48.057" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11220" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11209" CreationDate="2011-04-24T07:28:18.253" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To build on Pearsonartphoto's answer see this application note by Kodak:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;cd=8&amp;amp;ved=0CFQQFjAH&amp;amp;url=http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/business/ISS/supportdocs/ColorCorrectionforImageSensors.pdf&amp;amp;ei=Q8CzTe3CDYXcvQPvhqGPBw&amp;amp;usg=AFQjCNFTv8KIPlL7358akAYeBQFgRjHRZA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Color Correction for Image Sensor - Kodak&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This graph shows the natural spectral response of a CMOS sensor(copyright Kodak):&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/LH7Tc.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;For reference, here is a table relating wavelength to colour(copyright Wikipedia):&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/kQVSo.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The monchrome signal from the CMOS sensor is converted to an RGB signal by siting a Bayer Colour Filter Array before the pixels. This produces, after interpolation, the colour response shown below(copyright Kodak). Note that the peak for blue at 460 nm is roughly 50% lower than the peak responses for red and green. The greater amplification required by this signal  produces more noise.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ck1Si.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compare this with the spectral sensitivity of the human eye, below.(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/shur/Broadband/fac_schubert.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;copyright E Schubert&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;cd=6&amp;amp;ved=0CEkQFjAF&amp;amp;url=http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/~schubert/Light-Emitting-Diodes-dot-org/Sample-Chapter.pdf&amp;amp;ei=Q8uzTYCHGpGavAOM7oCHBw&amp;amp;usg=AFQjCNFxw7vpb1avQxCl55p10oYCnwhBkA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Human eye sensitivity and photometric quantities&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/RjLCm.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T07:28:18.253" />
  <row Id="11221" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11211" CreationDate="2011-04-24T08:26:29.497" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.msp.rmit.edu.au/Article_03/02d.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Infrared light focuses on a slightly different plane&lt;/a&gt; than visible light (unless using a specially designed or mirror lens), so your auto-focus will be always missing unless you convert AF sensors also (it's going to be &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9339/are-infrared-dslr-conversion-companies-safe-what-about-diy-infrared-conversion/9374#9374&quot;&gt;more complicated&lt;/a&gt;). If your lens has infrared focusing marks, you could use those to correct focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Considering ease of focusing, a camera with Live View capability might be better suitable for converting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-24T08:33:04.667" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T08:33:04.667" />
  <row Id="11222" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11194" CreationDate="2011-04-24T08:50:29.060" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bouncing is a tool for making light softer and giving it another direction. For controlling power, you should instead use flash exposure compensation (in TTL mode) or adjust aperture, ISO or flash power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the blown surface is not essential for your photo, perhaps it can be cropped out. Clipped highlights are inadvisable because the bright area draws viewer's eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T08:50:29.060" />
  <row Id="11223" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11211" CreationDate="2011-04-24T10:23:10.093" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've had a camera converted, and some experience using IR filters with an unmodified camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A converted camera is a real joy to use compared to using filters. The ability to see through the viewfinder and snap away handheld is worth it compared to 30s exposures with a tripod.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Live view is really good with IR converted cameras, not only for dead on autofocus but also just to be able to see the world in infrared, as infrared can be unpredictable.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;As well as autofocus metering will be out as it's designed for visible light. It's just a matter of setting +1.5 stops exposure compensation and occasionally reshooting.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hot spots are still a problem with IR conversions, you just have to try a lot of lenses to find ones that work well in IR.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T10:23:10.093" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11224" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11205" CreationDate="2011-04-24T10:24:23.447" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know this isn't a proper answer to your question but I wanted to avoid to lengthen the comments thread on the first (and good) answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I just took a Siemens test pattern (from &lt;a href=&quot;http://fotofreaks.de/fototechnik/siemensstern/Siemensstern_v1.1.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://fotofreaks.de/fototechnik/siemensstern/Siemensstern_v1.1.pdf&lt;/a&gt;) and checked my DSLR's (Pentax K-20D with 18-135mm WR Pentax zoom) resolution.&#xA;My tests showed that, at various focal lengths, I always get significantly sharper pictures at f/11 than at f/32.&#xA;That suggests to me that indeed the small apertures above f/16 tend to cause negative diffraction instead of increasing sharpness.&#xA;That also would explain that you can't get a larger focal depth as the diffraction works again this goal, right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, this isn't an explantion, only an example, and done by someone with not too much in-depth knowledge of the physics involved. But I encourage you to do similar tests.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4859" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T10:24:23.447" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11226" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10980" CreationDate="2011-04-24T16:29:06.057" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some of the replies have expressed quite forthright &lt;em&gt;opinions&lt;/em&gt; though mattdm contributed an informed and balanced analysis.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To continue in that vein I show below how many times they, and other respected authors, are cited in photo.SE. Like the citation index in academic literature, this can be an important indicator of the interest this community, as whole, has in the authors.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Number of references in photo.SE to the following authors (there may be some duplicates), Click on each link to see the actual references:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Patterson - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.co.za/search?hl=en&amp;amp;lr=&amp;amp;client=firefox-a&amp;amp;rls=org.mozilla%3aen-US%3aofficial&amp;amp;biw=778&amp;amp;bih=460&amp;amp;q=Patterson%20-Newest%20-%22Questions%20containing%22%20site%3aphoto.stackexchange.com&amp;amp;aq=f&amp;amp;aqi=&amp;amp;aql=&amp;amp;oq=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;5 references&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Johnston - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.co.za/search?q=Johnston%20-Newest%20-%22Questions%20containing%22%20site%3aphoto.stackexchange.com&amp;amp;ie=utf-8&amp;amp;oe=utf-8&amp;amp;aq=t&amp;amp;rls=org.mozilla%3aen-US%3aofficial&amp;amp;client=firefox-a&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;5 references&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reichmann - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.co.za/search?hl=en&amp;amp;client=firefox-a&amp;amp;rls=org.mozilla%3aen-US%3aofficial&amp;amp;q=Reichmann%20-Newest%20-%22Questions%20containing%22%20site%3aphoto.stackexchange.com&amp;amp;btnG=Search&amp;amp;aq=f&amp;amp;aqi=&amp;amp;aql=&amp;amp;oq=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;6 references&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Koren - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.co.za/search?hl=en&amp;amp;lr=&amp;amp;client=firefox-a&amp;amp;rls=org.mozilla%3aen-US%3aofficial&amp;amp;biw=1034&amp;amp;bih=908&amp;amp;q=Koren%20-Newest%20-%22Questions%20containing%22%20site%3aphoto.stackexchange.com&amp;amp;btnG=Search&amp;amp;aq=f&amp;amp;aqi=&amp;amp;aql=&amp;amp;oq=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;5 references&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Petersen - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.co.za/search?hl=en&amp;amp;client=firefox-a&amp;amp;hs=ZTM&amp;amp;rls=org.mozilla%3aen-US%3aofficial&amp;amp;q=Peterson%20-Newest%20-%22Questions%20containing%22%20site%3aphoto.stackexchange.com&amp;amp;btnG=Search&amp;amp;aq=f&amp;amp;aqi=&amp;amp;aql=&amp;amp;oq=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;25 references&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Freeman - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.co.za/search?hl=en&amp;amp;lr=&amp;amp;client=firefox-a&amp;amp;rls=org.mozilla%3aen-US%3aofficial&amp;amp;biw=778&amp;amp;bih=460&amp;amp;q=Freeman%20-Newest%20-%22Questions%20containing%22%20site%3aphoto.stackexchange.com&amp;amp;aq=f&amp;amp;aqi=&amp;amp;aql=&amp;amp;oq=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;25 references&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hogan - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.co.za/search?q=Hogan%20-Newest%20-%22Questions%20containing%22%20site%3aphoto.stackexchange.com&amp;amp;ie=utf-8&amp;amp;oe=utf-8&amp;amp;aq=t&amp;amp;rls=org.mozilla%3aen-US%3aofficial&amp;amp;client=firefox-a&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;60 references&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rockwell - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.co.za/search?q=Rockwell%20-Newest%20-%22Questions%20containing%22%20site%3aphoto.stackexchange.com&amp;amp;ie=utf-8&amp;amp;oe=utf-8&amp;amp;aq=t&amp;amp;rls=org.mozilla%3aen-US%3aofficial&amp;amp;client=firefox-a&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;77 references&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a surprising and interesting result. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that I am not expressing an opinion about the relevance of any of these authors. I am pointing out the degree of interest the community has in these authors, and provide the links, in the hope of contributing to a more informed debate.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To make a useful assessment one should follow the links and read the references.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T08:17:34.803" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T08:17:34.803" />
  <row Id="11227" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10980" CreationDate="2011-04-24T18:11:02.307" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to add just a cautionary note about one particular often-referenced Thom Hogan article, &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/graycards.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Meters Don't See 18% Gray&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;. Take a look at Jerry Coffin's response to that in this question/answer: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1048/what-is-the-18-gray-tone-and-how-do-i-make-a-18-gray-card-in-photoshop/1549#1549&quot;&gt;What is the 18% gray tone, and how do I make a 18% gray card in Photoshop?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T18:11:02.307" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-24T18:11:02.307" />
  <row Id="11228" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10277" CreationDate="2011-04-24T18:55:33.920" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Canon eos 550d is the best Camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4864" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T18:55:33.920" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11230" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-24T19:21:08.100" Score="3" ViewCount="63" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use my EF100-400 on a Canon 10D. While in IS and auto focus mode, I was shooting a soccer match when the lens abruptly  failed to focus, and I got an error message on the camera. I turned off the camera, removed the lens and remounted it. The lens would focus and the stabilizer would work, but after focusing and stabilizing the subject, the image in the viewfinder would abruptly shift to the left then pulsate.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My lens has worked perfectly since purchased on 2002. I can't find any information on troubleshooting or the problem I'm having. Can anyone out there help me or point me to a resource?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4865" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-24T21:26:50.133" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T21:29:06.700" Title="How do I troubleshoot Canon EF100-400L IS USM failure?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;repair&gt;&lt;troubleshooting&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="11231" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11212" CreationDate="2011-04-24T19:26:03.460" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not sure if you're looking for this sort of an answer but you should evaluate if not having a better camera body is what is holding back you photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I wouldn't spend a dime on a new body till I had all the lenses and tripods (and if you use them, lights) I needed. I stuck to my ancient D50 and spent money on a 18-200, a 10-20, an SB-600, a decent Manfrotto tripod before buying a D90. And I'm sure that was the right thing to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The D40 may be oldish but you may want to give a thought to whether a D7000 with the lenses you have will give you more satisfactory photographs than you are getting today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4827" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T19:26:03.460" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11232" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11237" CreationDate="2011-04-24T19:34:50.273" Score="4" ViewCount="167" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have observed lately during my shoots that when I try to capture a red object with hardly anything in the background, the color doesnt seem to come exactly as what it is in reality. With flash or without flash, either way it is too saturated or a bit desaturated. Is this normal behaviour and is it common for all colors?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have seen this behaviour in natural lights only, have never shot in studio lights so no idea about that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1209" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-24T21:18:42.493" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T07:59:03.020" Title="Why are red objects coming out unnaturally in my photographs?" Tags="&lt;color&gt;&lt;color-red&gt;&lt;saturation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11233" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11230" CreationDate="2011-04-24T19:43:07.297" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sounds like a problem with the lens.  To confirm, try using the lens on a different camera (perhaps you have a friend you whose camera you could borrow for a few minutes)?  If it works fine on other camera, try using a different lens on your camera and see how things are.  This should narrow down whether the problem is the lens or the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try turning off the image stabilization feature and see if the problem continues.  It's possible the problem might only be with the IS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If these things confirm it's a lens problem, you should send the lens to one of Canon's service centers and they can provide an estimate for repair.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T19:43:07.297" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11234" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11232" CreationDate="2011-04-24T19:44:08.280" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the subject is truly taking up the entire shot, then I would suspect the white balance meter doesn't have enough range of colors to pick from to correctly determine what &quot;white&quot; is. This will throw your colors off. That can be fixed by using a grey card before shooting a series. Alternatively, you can shoot in RAW, and fix the white balance in post production.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4231" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T19:44:08.280" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11235" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11230" CreationDate="2011-04-24T19:47:16.513" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My first step would be to clean the lens and body contacts thoroughly&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then if that doesn't correct the problem  try the lens on a friends Canon digital body to see if it behaves in a similar manner - if it does you've got a lens problem - if not your 10D has a problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do have lens or body problem the USA repair sites are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon USA Inc. 15955 Alton Pkwy Irvine, CA 92718 tel: (949) 753-4237&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon USA Inc. 210 Ward Avenue Suite 200 Honolulu, HI 96814 tel: (808) 522-5930&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon USA Inc. 6325 Muirfield Drive Hanover Park, IL 60103 tel: (630) 582-8773&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon USA Inc. 100 Jamesburg Rd Jamesburg, NJ 08831 tel: (732) 521-7007 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3675" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T19:47:16.513" />
  <row Id="11237" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11232" CreationDate="2011-04-24T21:08:21.263" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is difficult to answer the question accurately without knowing what you really photographed. But what you have reported is very similar to what many photographers experience when photographing red flowers.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This has a two fold cause.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;First the CMOS sensor in the camera has an extended spectral response extending into the near infrared. See the diagram below. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;cd=8&amp;amp;ved=0CFQQFjAH&amp;amp;url=http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/business/ISS/supportdocs/ColorCorrectionforImageSensors.pdf&amp;amp;ei=Q8CzTe3CDYXcvQPvhqGPBw&amp;amp;usg=AFQjCNFTv8KIPlL7358akAYeBQFgRjHRZA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Taken from this Kodak publication&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A near infrared filter is normally fitted to limit the response to 700 nm, corresponding to the human eye. In practice the sensor is still responsive to some light in the near infrared range. See Thom Hogan, &lt;a href=&quot;http://bythom.com/infrared.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Shooting Infrared With Digital Cameras&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly many red flowers have a strong spectral reflectivity extending into the near infrared. See the spectral response plot for the poppy below.(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reflectance.co.uk&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.reflectance.co.uk&lt;/a&gt;, a database of flower reflectance) See also this paper, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;cd=2&amp;amp;ved=0CCEQFjAB&amp;amp;url=http://precedings.nature.com/documents/1846/version/1/files/npre20081846-1.pdf&amp;amp;ei=ESi1TZuXOoHMrQeGzKnIDQ&amp;amp;usg=AFQjCNHysPsVi3axT67q4wESLpnCd35vZg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;FReD: The Floral Reflectance Database&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is the additive combination of strong reflectance extending into the near infrared and the slight sensitivity of the sensor to the near infrared that results in saturated, over exposed red flowers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/433qB.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/6DtGh.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way to deal with this problem is to spot meter on the brightly reflecting red object and treat it as if it were a highlight(which it is). Then increase your exposure by about 2 EV. The exact value will depend on the lighting and you will need to do some tests to determine the correction value.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-25T07:59:03.020" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T07:59:03.020" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11238" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11230" CreationDate="2011-04-24T21:29:06.700" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The primary resource for problems like this is the lens manufacturer. They have people who are paid to troubleshoot this kind of problems, and repair centers to fix them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Canon USA support number is &lt;code&gt;1-800-OK-CANON&lt;/code&gt;, or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer?pageKeyCode=repairLanding&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;visit their web site&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T21:29:06.700" />
  <row Id="11239" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-04-24T22:02:06.633" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-24T22:02:06.633" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T22:02:06.633" />
  <row Id="11240" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-04-24T22:02:06.633" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="A sensor is the digital camera's equivalent to film. It contains millions of tiny light-detecting areas called photosites, which convert light into an electric charge. After exposing the sensor to light, this charge is read from each pixel and converted into a digital image." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-25T00:36:11.823" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T00:36:11.823" />
  <row Id="11241" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-04-24T22:06:31.730" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-24T22:06:31.730" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T22:06:31.730" />
  <row Id="11242" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-04-24T22:06:31.730" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Autofocus is the ability of a camera/lens system to automatically adjust the focus of the lens via a motor attached to the focus group of the lens. Contrast with manual focus." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-25T00:35:18.390" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T00:35:18.390" />
  <row Id="11243" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-04-24T22:11:56.407" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-24T22:11:56.407" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T22:11:56.407" />
  <row Id="11244" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-04-24T22:11:56.407" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Manual focus is the direct control of a camera/lens's focus by the photographer. This is generally accomplished by turning a focus ring which is mechanically coupled to the lens's focus, but some cameras without focus rings allow manual control over the autofocus motor." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-25T00:35:46.737" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T00:35:46.737" />
  <row Id="11245" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-04-24T22:34:34.950" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-24T22:34:34.950" LastActivityDate="2011-04-24T22:34:34.950" />
  <row Id="11246" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-04-24T22:34:34.950" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Stands for &quot;Do it yourself&quot;, and refers to the creating or improvising equipment out of materials on hand, as opposed to purchasing a pre-made product." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-25T00:35:37.017" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T00:35:37.017" />
  <row Id="11247" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11249" CreationDate="2011-04-25T00:02:40.140" Score="12" ViewCount="642" Body="&lt;p&gt;Being a beginner, I can't see why I must choose an 80-200 over an 18-200. Are there scenarios where an 80-200 would be preferable over an 18-200?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will be buying a D7000 soon and am looking at these:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/1986/AF-Zoom-NIKKOR-80-200mm-f%252F2.8D-ED.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;AF Zoom-NIKKOR 80-200mm f/2.8D ED&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2192/AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-18-200mm-f%252F3.5-5.6G-ED-VR-II.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but similar considerations would apply to other brands as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2362" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T11:42:57.437" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T18:02:14.010" Title="Why choose an 80-200mm over an 18-200mm lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;telephoto&gt;&lt;superzoom&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11248" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11247" CreationDate="2011-04-25T00:37:17.500" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a really, really broad generalization, it's easier to make a high-quality zoom lens with a smaller zoom range, rather than a larger one.  Although it's really tempting to look for one zoom that'll cover your entire range of shooting (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-18-270mm-3-5-6-3-Aspherical-Nikon/dp/B001DYC0CS&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamron's 18-270&lt;/a&gt; comes to mind), these lenses tend to be fairly ill-behaved over portions of their range (at least), and suffer from softness and complex distortions that aren't easily fixed in post-processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The two lenses you indicate are really fairly different; the 80-200 is a fast lens (f/2.8), while the 18-200 is quite a bit slower.  You'd be giving up a lot of optical performance to get that extra range, which is why most people end up covering this range with two lenses, more or less.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T00:37:17.500" />
  <row Id="11249" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11247" CreationDate="2011-04-25T00:43:45.393" Score="21" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biggest reason for difference in the two lenses is aperture. The 80-200mm is a constant f/2.8 throughout the focal range and the 18-200mm varies from f/3.5 to f/5.6, so substantially slower, especially at the far end. All this really means is that the 80-200 can let in more light at the same focal length over the other. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, generally, zooms with constant apertures are higher grade lenses. I hesitate to make this statement a truism, but it pretty much is. Consumer grade lenses are often massive zoom ranges with variable aperture whereas more professional grade variants are smaller zoom ranges and constant apertures. The professional variants tend to be fast, sharper, and better built. There are exceptions, but this is generally the case regardless of brand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, that is why you might make the choice of the 80-200mm lens. I made such a choice with a Pentax variant not so long ago...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your other question, I would probably recommend the super zoom (18-200) for a newcomer if you want a single, general purpose, lens. I would expect the 80-200 to be optically superior, but also more expensive, and it would probably mean a second, equally expensive, lens to fill in the range. Worth it to some of us, but not for everyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-25T03:52:06.253" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T03:52:06.253" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11250" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11247" CreationDate="2011-04-25T00:54:38.293" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nobody is saying that you &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; choose an 80-200 over an 18-200. An 80-200 (f/2.8) has some severe drawbacks compared to an 18-200, price, size and weight being among them besides the obviously limited zoom range. On the other hand, an 80-200 is far better behaved optically; it will tend to focus faster and more accurately (on a given camera body, and assuming similar focus motor technology as the superzoom), it can let in four times more light at 200 mm (f/2.8 versus f/5.6) which can make all the difference. And if you are attacked by a rabid bull, you can easily beat it to death with the lens and still snap a photo of the carcass afterwards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An 18-200ish superzoom tries to do all things and does nothing particularly well; an 80-200 f/2.8 does only one thing and does it supremely well. It is one of &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; bread and butter lenses for journalists. I have one myself. But, I must add, I have carried it around all day long as a tourist and that is no fun at all. Add a normal zoom to supplement the missing wide-angle of this lens and it is even less fun to lug it all around. Which is, I suspect, why superzooms were invented in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should keep in mind that for a superzoom to work well, you &lt;em&gt;have&lt;/em&gt; to have rather good light. As in bright daylight, preferably. An f/5.6 aperture is quite limiting both in terms of exposure and in terms of autofocus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T00:54:38.293" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11251" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11276" CreationDate="2011-04-25T02:57:48.333" Score="2" ViewCount="78" Body="&lt;p&gt;In choosing a light-tent for product photography, I noticed the cost difference between various sizes is only a few dollars, so I started considering a larger tent than I &lt;em&gt;presently&lt;/em&gt; need. The question then is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Other than the space it takes, are there any disadvantages to using a larger-then-needed light-tent?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My present goal is to photographs photo gear (cameras, lenses, camera bags, etc) with as much of a seamless and shadowless background as possible. The tent will be illuminated from several directions including underneath. For the moment, a 36&quot; cube will do but I see that it costs almost the same to get a 48&quot; or 60&quot; cube. How does this impact how diffuse and seamless the background appears?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T22:58:44.033" Title="What is the impact of light-tent size?" Tags="&lt;studio-lighting&gt;&lt;product-photography&gt;&lt;light-tent&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="11252" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11152" CreationDate="2011-04-25T03:06:58.273" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Sigma 8-16mm lens is excellent and really sharp - it's not a FF lens, but should work fine with the D5000 1.5x crop factor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sigma also makes a 12-24mm FF lens if you think you might get a larger body in the future, and they also make a 10-20 mm lens - though I don't think that lens is as good as the 8-16mm lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T03:06:58.273" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11253" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11251" CreationDate="2011-04-25T03:20:35.003" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my opinion, not at all. I've done various sized DIY rigs for this and the seamlessness of the background is more due to good lighting angles, the background itself, the and technique used instead of specific sorts and sizes of tents. I've also done seamless without a tent structure and it works, you just need a little more care with the lights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, the tents are great, and so the size question is probably more relevant to use. If the 36&quot; does it and you just don't anticipate going beyond that size need, then don't get a larger one as it's less space, neater package, and easier to handle. Go for the larger sizes if you do, in fact, anticpate needing to shoot something larger or are unsure if the case will arise. However, I think the whole difference is space... :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T03:20:35.003" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11254" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11255" CreationDate="2011-04-25T03:31:16.187" Score="7" ViewCount="81" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to shoot the Milky Way, some constellations, and planets.  I want to include some natural landscapes in these photos, similar to these:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/35492781@N08/4665431960/in/faves-blakeperdue/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/35492781@N08/4665431960/in/faves-blakeperdue/&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/digitallion/3824172978/in/faves-blakeperdue/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/digitallion/3824172978/in/faves-blakeperdue/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to plan the composition of some shots in advance given my limited time on location. Given a specific date/time and your GPS coordinates or city location, what tools are available to tell you where the Milky Way, planets and constellations will be in the sky?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4199" LastEditorUserId="4199" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-25T03:39:54.607" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T03:50:52.277" Title="How to plan the composition of astrophotography?" Tags="&lt;astrophotography&gt;&lt;composition&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11255" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11254" CreationDate="2011-04-25T03:50:52.277" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stellarium.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Stellarium&lt;/a&gt; is great tool for showing astronomical bodies.  And its free!  Set your location, change your light pollution parameters and go!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check on the light pollution for potential sites with this Google Earth &lt;a href=&quot;http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&amp;amp;Number=130109&amp;amp;filename=269838-ArtificialNightSkyBrightnessforNorthAmerica.kmz&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;overlay&lt;/a&gt; - just have Google Earth installed first and double clicking the downloaded file should work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T03:50:52.277" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11256" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-04-25T05:05:12.320" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-25T05:05:12.320" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T05:05:12.320" />
  <row Id="11257" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-04-25T05:05:12.320" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Acronym for High Dynamic Range photography - a method of combining multiple images with varying tonal ranges into a single image that shows a wider range of values (from dark to light) than can be captured in-camera in a single frame." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-25T09:27:12.617" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T09:27:12.617" />
  <row Id="11259" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-25T05:45:46.613" Score="9" ViewCount="189" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sensor noise is a random variation in pixel values, but what &lt;em&gt;kind&lt;/em&gt; of random is it? Does it follow a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;normal distribution&lt;/a&gt;, one of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_distribution&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gamma distributions&lt;/a&gt;, or something funky like an &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-distribution&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;F distribution&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What applications does this knowledge have?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastEditorUserId="1913" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-03T13:48:08.120" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T13:48:08.120" Title="What is the statistical distribution of sensor noise?" Tags="&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;noise&gt;&lt;noise-reduction&gt;&lt;iso-noise&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="11260" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-25T05:46:13.340" Score="4" ViewCount="124" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to explore further in the world of black and white photography, and I would like advice on if it is worthwhile to invest in post-processing programs such as PS Lightroom or Silver Efex Pro 2 for my pics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the key differences between these programs (and other options) for black and white? What are their strengths and weaknesses in these areas?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3788" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-25T11:19:10.830" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T14:23:30.660" Title="Is it worth upgrading to more expensive software for B&amp;W processing?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;black-and-white&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="11261" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11259" CreationDate="2011-04-25T07:55:23.097" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many different sources of noise in images with different distributions. For example shot noise, which is a large contributor in low light arises from the random emission of photons follows the poisson distribution. Dark current noise and read noise (major contributions in shadow noise in good light) are more complex as they exhibit banding and are rarely evenly distributed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding applications of this knowledge, most commercial noise reduction software works by fitting a distribution to the image data by finding an area of constant colour (either automatically or by user intervention) to estimate the parameters of the distribution so knowing these values in advance is not important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T14:08:07.507" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T14:08:07.507" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11262" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11264" CreationDate="2011-04-25T14:07:18.847" Score="13" ViewCount="408" Body="&lt;p&gt;A couple of months ago I was playing with my camera and a magnifying glass and I noticed that this glass produced a very soft chromatic aberration. Here's an example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/MsRs5.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Here is the full size, &lt;a href=&quot;http://365.andresrey.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/IMG_0538.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;18mp image&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Altough the effect was pretty cool, &lt;strong&gt;I couldn't focus too far from the lens&lt;/strong&gt;. Here's another example, but with an object to a few meters farther.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/vidoU.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;dog&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe at this resolution the dog seems to be focused, but in the full picture you can notice that it isn't. Also the CA effect isn't that pronounced as in the first picture. (For pixel peepers, &lt;a href=&quot;http://365.andresrey.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/IMG_0550.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here's the full size image&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, &lt;strong&gt;is there an easy way to produce chromatic aberration?&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;I know that there are some lensbaby optics that can do that, but I'm looking for something like DIY.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ADDENDUM&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just a random thought: Could I emulate it by shifting the color layers of the image? I mean, the image is composed by three diferent layers of color, if i offset them a few pixels, will that produce some CA?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm pretty sure that the colors of the photo will go nuts, but maybe there's a related solution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ADDENDUM ADDENDUM&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm offering &lt;strong&gt;300 sexy points&lt;/strong&gt; of my own reputation for a cool, nice and &lt;strong&gt;DIY solution&lt;/strong&gt; for this. &lt;strong&gt;Go go go&lt;/strong&gt;!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;LASTUM ADDENDUM ADDENDUM&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, &lt;strong&gt;this wasn't easy&lt;/strong&gt;. Coneslayer gave me &lt;strong&gt;the best answer&lt;/strong&gt;, but Autopulated gave me the most easy, direct and (not-so) &lt;strong&gt;DIY solution&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;em&gt;So&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) &lt;strong&gt;I've accepted Coneslayer answer&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) &lt;strong&gt;I've gave the 300 sexy points to Autopulated&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for your help, you both are awesome!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4039" LastEditorUserId="4039" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-01T01:50:30.637" LastActivityDate="2011-05-01T01:50:30.637" Title="Is there an easy way to force chromatic aberration?" Tags="&lt;optics&gt;&lt;diy&gt;&lt;chromatic-aberration&gt;&lt;lo-fi&gt;&lt;toy-camera&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="11263" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11260" CreationDate="2011-04-25T14:23:30.660" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lightroom doesn't really have a lot of tools especially meant for B&amp;amp;W work, if you already have an image editor it may not do much more than what you can do now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Silver EFX has a lot of powerful tools targeted at just B&amp;amp;W conversion, along with a lot of presets to give you a good starting place for an image, and a chance to think over different effects that might be possible.  I also really like the &quot;u-control&quot; technology they have, basically the chance to influence a range of tones without affecting too much other nearby dissimilar tones, it makes targeted changes to areas of an image easier than with masking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One reason to get Lightroom (or Aperture) is that the Lightroom/Aperture plugins are cheaper than the version that has full photoshop support.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One other tip: Sign up for any SilverEFX webinar, and you'll get a discount code you can use to buy the software.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T14:23:30.660" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11264" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11262" CreationDate="2011-04-25T14:24:42.397" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the dog is &lt;em&gt;in focus&lt;/em&gt;, but it's not &lt;em&gt;sharp&lt;/em&gt;. And it's not sharp because a magnifying glass isn't corrected for any aberrations, chromatic or otherwise. In other words, it's a technically poor lens (though you're still welcome to have some fun with it, of course).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lenses focus light by slowing it down as it passes through the glass, which bends the rays (&quot;refraction&quot;). But glass slows down blue light more than red light, bending the blue light more strongly, so the different colors come to a different focus. We say the &lt;em&gt;refractive index&lt;/em&gt; for blue light is greater than for red light, and the fact that they're different is called &lt;em&gt;dispersion&lt;/em&gt;, and the difference can be expressed as a &lt;em&gt;dispersion index&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While all types of glass are dispersive, some are more dispersive than others. If you combine two lens elements made with different types of glass in the right way, one with a high dispersive index and the other with a low dispersive index, you produce an &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achromatic_lens&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;achromat&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, which reduces the chromatic aberration by bringing red light and blue light to the same focus. Pretty much any camera lens provides at least this level of correction; your magnifying glass does not. An achromat still has some residual chromatic aberration; for example, green light may come to a different focus than red and blue. Further correction produces an &lt;em&gt;apochromatic lens&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you swapped the glass type for the two elements of an achromat, it seems like you would end up with a system that exaggerates chromatic aberration. You might be able to source the required elements from an educational supplier like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scientificsonline.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Edmund Scientific&lt;/a&gt;. Or you could just try to find a convex singlet (like your magnifying glass) made from a high-dispersion glass, which may be called &quot;flint glass.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are lots of other lens aberrations besides chromatic aberration: These include spherical aberration, which degrades sharpness. Your magnifying glass is, again, uncorrected for spherical aberration, which contributes to the lack of sharpness. In a real camera lens, spherical aberration is corrected through the use of multiple lens elements and/or aspherical lens elements, which are more difficult to produce than spherical elements (whose surface conforms to the surface of a sphere).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2138" LastEditorUserId="2138" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-25T15:25:29.187" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T15:25:29.187" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11265" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11267" CreationDate="2011-04-25T14:44:55.133" Score="3" ViewCount="117" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am coming from StackOverflow, from this question specifically:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5773032/how-to-stop-gd2-from-washing-away-the-colors-upon-resizing-images&quot;&gt;How to stop GD2 from washing away the colors upon resizing images?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Summary: I have a photo gallery website on which the image resizing feature throws away a lot of the saturation of a photo, but only if that photo has a color profile embedded that is not sRGB. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fixing this is not easy, therefore my question is: roughly speaking, what would be the statistic on users uploading photos that have non-SRGB profiles such as Adobe RGB (1998) embedded? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know this stat is likely specific per audience, but I'm looking for a very rough number for the web as a whole. Is it 1%? 10%? This number will help me determine whether it is worth fixing the issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4875" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-25T14:53:42.363" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T22:04:31.060" Title="What are the statistics on users posting photos to the web with a color profile embedded?" Tags="&lt;color-management&gt;&lt;web&gt;&lt;srgb&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11266" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11268" CreationDate="2011-04-25T17:06:02.843" Score="1" ViewCount="112" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think my trusty EOS 300D is beginning to show its age and is suffering from a worn out compact flash slot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Over the course of the weekend I've been seeing a mixture of &quot;No CF&quot;, &quot;Full CF&quot; or &quot;Err 02&quot; error messages.  It appeared to be completely random and impossible to track down any common cause, but playing around at home I've just come across a repeatable problem.  I have a 4GB and a 32MB CF card.  Both have been formatted in the camera.  I take 3 raw photos on the 32MB card, it correctly reports that I can't take a 4th photo because the card is now full.  I make sure the camera is not writing to the card and switch it off.  I replace the 32MB card with the 4GB card and switch it back on.  The camera fires up but continues to tell me that the card is full — it has not recognised that the card has been changed.  I've tried several other 512MB cards and they all do the same — the camera does not recognise the CF card has been changed — it continues to display the &quot;CF Full&quot; message and a &quot;zero&quot; for the estimated number of shots renaming.  In fact if I take the CF card out and switch it on, it still says &quot;CF full&quot; rather than the expected &quot;No CF&quot; message.  I've checked the camera CF slot, all the pins are still straight (none bent).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Has anyone experienced this before, or throw any light on the problem?  Is it just a case that my camera should be placed in a retirement home — if there is a problem then I'm sure it could be fixed, but it's probably not financially viable to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1271" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-25T18:05:01.683" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T18:05:01.683" Title="Is there an easy fix for this Canon EOS 300D Compact Flash problem?" Tags="&lt;repair&gt;&lt;compactflash&gt;&lt;troubleshooting&gt;&lt;canon-300d&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="11267" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11265" CreationDate="2011-04-25T17:10:39.457" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know of any statistics that I can back this up with, but I feel like a very high majority (I'd guess at least 99%) of images on the web are going to be in sRGB.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The primary reason for this is historically most browsers have not been color managed (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;you can test yours here&lt;/a&gt;), and default to treating all images as sRGB, and further, many web services strip exif data, so as a photographer you have to expect that your images will be rendered as sRGB.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This has led to many photo editing programs to use sRGB for &quot;Saving for web&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://livedocs.adobe.com/en_US/Lightroom/1.0/help.html?content=WS0F7BFFFA-CE53-4ceb-B3D3-9D6256B8917D.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lightroom documentation&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Lightroom automatically exports images&#xA;  in the Slideshow and Web modules using&#xA;  the sRGB profile so that the color&#xA;  looks good on the majority of computer&#xA;  monitors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T17:10:39.457" />
  <row Id="11268" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11266" CreationDate="2011-04-25T17:55:17.173" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Based on your tests, it really sounds like a hardware problem with the camera.  Given that you're seeing the same symptoms with several memory cards, it's likely the camera (not the cards) that is the culprit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One option would be a repair on the camera, but as you note this is an older unit and you could probably pick up something like a T1i or for not much more money than a repair on the 300D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T17:55:17.173" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11269" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4917" CreationDate="2011-04-25T20:52:51.167" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On one hand it is certainly a matter of taste, but the reason there are so many ISOs of film available is because they each have their uses and trade-offs.  The higher the speed film, the more grain will be seen on an image, and this is especially noticeable as you enlarge the image or crop significantly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Typically, studio work is a much more controlled environment, with lighting, camera stabilization,  precise and known distances and framing. In this case, since lighting can be easily added to provide any desired aperture or shutter speed regardless of ISO, lower speed film can be utilized without sacrificing creativity. In addition, one must look at the application and destination of the image. Slower speed film has less grain, and can be enlarged (and cropped) with much more freedom before there are negative effects. Therefore for print and pre-press work, lower ISO provides much more latitude without resulting grain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, if you prefer the grain, ISO 400 is then a design choice, not a trade-off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastEditorUserId="4880" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T14:06:53.153" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T14:06:53.153" />
  <row Id="11270" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11265" CreationDate="2011-04-25T21:26:53.367" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think the number of users uploading non-sRGB photos is going to help you too much with analysis, as I suspect the bulk of users are uploading from point and shoots onto Flickr, etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you should investigate is how many of &lt;em&gt;your&lt;/em&gt; users, coming to &lt;em&gt;your&lt;/em&gt; site, are using color managed browsers.  Safari on Mac and Windows are color managed, as is Firefox 3.6 and 4.0 (possibly earlier versions as well, not certain) as well as the latest IE (8). But, none of those have the bulk of the install base yet.  However, even with color managed browsers, you must also worry about what gamma a users machine is set to (Macs are different until just recently).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Smugmug has posted a significant amount about this issue..found here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.smugmug.com/great-prints/2005/06/27/mac-browsers-can-you-believe-your-eyes/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://blogs.smugmug.com/great-prints/2005/06/27/mac-browsers-can-you-believe-your-eyes/&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;http://blogs.smugmug.com/great-prints/2005/06/25/why-icc-profiles-dont-fly-on-the-internet/  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As they conclude, you are better off assuming no color-correction, as most of your buyers don't know what that means, and frankly, just want to buy the best looking photos. You probably should do whatever you can to ensure they get what they want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T21:26:53.367" />
  <row Id="11271" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11265" CreationDate="2011-04-25T22:04:31.060" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can not say anything about stats, but you could give imagemagick &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imagemagick.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.imagemagick.org&lt;/a&gt; a try. As far as I recall, it can handle (and convert) images with color profiles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2549" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T22:04:31.060" />
  <row Id="11272" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11289" CreationDate="2011-04-25T22:23:16.677" Score="4" ViewCount="89" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Braun Novamat 35mm slide projector which is now completely redundant since I have scanned my entire 35mm slide collection.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was going to junk it when I started wondering if there was some useful DIY project that I could use it for.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems a pity to waste a good lens and condenser. Can you suggest a good use for this in a DIY project?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T16:31:49.113" Title="What is a good use for an old 35mm slide projector?" Tags="&lt;diy&gt;&lt;slides&gt;&lt;project&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11273" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11280" CreationDate="2011-04-25T22:24:38.207" Score="-1" ViewCount="146" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi all need some advice, thinking of selling my Olympus E420 and buying a full frame DSLR. I bought the Olympus thinking that a smaller camera would mean I take it to more places but when combined with the lenses the body really makes no difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So selling.. any recommendations on where best to sell? Thinking e-Bay and Gumtree at the moment. I have a 14-42 and 70-300 lens, should I sell these separately or with the camera&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should I buy new or buy second hand? Which lens? I hate swapping lenses so maybe a 25-150?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bit of background which may help, I am amateur that wants to get into photography. I mainly photograph when on holiday at the moment and am planning to take couple of short courses one studio and one wildlife photography. I enjoy landscapes, wildlife and architecture. Do enjoy night photography also. &lt;a href=&quot;http://flikr.com/rakkhi&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://flikr.com/rakkhi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for your help!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4881" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T20:02:02.873" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T20:02:02.873" Title="Selling and buying a DSLR" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;purchase&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="11274" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11285" CreationDate="2011-04-25T22:38:44.593" Score="4" ViewCount="163" Body="&lt;p&gt;Single point perspective is a technique used in drawing.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using one perspective, parallel lines converge to one point somewhere in the distance. This point is called the vanishing point (VP). This gives objects an impression of depth.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have seen mentions of this in the context of photography.  What is single point perspective photography and is it a useful technique for creating compelling photos?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/MkZsN.gif&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-27T18:11:10.990" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T18:11:10.990" Title="What is one (single) point perspective photography?" Tags="&lt;composition&gt;&lt;perspective&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11275" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11274" CreationDate="2011-04-25T22:50:52.953" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ider.herts.ac.uk/school/courseware/graphics/one_point_perspective.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;One Point Perspective&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.boostinspiration.com/photography/one-point-perspective-black-and-white-photography/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;29 Examples of One Point Perspective Black and White Photography&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4727" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T16:02:12.213" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T16:02:12.213" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11276" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11251" CreationDate="2011-04-25T22:58:44.033" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The smaller the light tent, the closer the light will be, and the larger the angles of light hitting the subject, so you may get slightly softer shadows and more &quot;wrap&quot; of the light.  You'll have a bit more light falloff in the larger tent.  All of this would be barely measureable though, it is more a case of affordability and convenience. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4191" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T22:58:44.033" />
  <row Id="11277" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11273" CreationDate="2011-04-25T23:04:30.470" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon vs. Nikon:  You can't go wrong with either, highly suggest you visit a camera store and hold the cameras, as they vary in size, weight and the feel in your hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I buy most lenses 2nd hand.  I wouldn't buy a body 2nd hand unless it was from someone I knew and trusted - there is a lot more to go wrong with a camera body than a lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It might pay to do your photography courses and put off buying more gear until you have learned more?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4191" LastActivityDate="2011-04-25T23:04:30.470" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11278" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11283" CreationDate="2011-04-25T23:22:28.107" Score="2" ViewCount="79" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've done a lot of searching but haven't been able to find the answer to a problem I'm having. I have several projects in Aperture 3. I just noticed that three of those projects now have duplicates. If I rename a project, its duplicate also gets renamed. So, they're linked. If I go to delete one of the projects, I get a scary warning saying the images are referenced elsewhere. How do I get rid of these duplicates? Was it something I did?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4883" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T03:21:05.367" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T03:21:05.367" Title="How do I get rid of duplicate projects in Apple Aperture 3?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;apple-aperture&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="11280" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11273" CreationDate="2011-04-26T00:04:17.240" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Selling equipment on eBay is OK but you should also try Craigslist and Kikiji. The time-limit for eBay auctions make it harder to get a good value. Also locals can see and handle the gear which gives it higher perceived value. That being said, I've sold through all 3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon vs Nikon is an eternal theme which only has subjective answers. Handle at least one full-frame camera of each brand. You may prefer the control placement and logic of one or the other. The second important thing to consider are lenses since the vendor controls which lens you have access to. Both Canon and Nikon have a wide-range of lenses but you may find some lenses that suit your needs better with one brand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For low-light photography, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=10&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon's D3S&lt;/a&gt; is extremely interesting due to its larger pixels, at the expense of higher resolution. This is a niche Nikon has for itself now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want a single lens, you have to make compromises depending on the range you want. For something not too dim and starts ultra-wide, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=43&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikkor 24-120mm F/4&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=174&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 24-105mm F/4&lt;/a&gt; are quite good. Both Nikon and Canon have an ultra-zoom 28-300mm F/3.5-5.6 which is rather dim at the long end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T00:04:17.240" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11281" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11299" CreationDate="2011-04-26T01:36:03.583" Score="4" ViewCount="115" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm just looking for what's the best technique to test for noise on a camera. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like what settings are best? What type of photo is best? What lenses should I test with? Like those sorts of things. I've felt for a long time that the noise on my 30D is pretty bad and I'm looking at upgrading, so I'm trying to either prove/disprove myself. I've read/heard that 30D's are bad but I need to test for myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I did a quick test earlier today.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Photos were shot in RAW on the Canon EOS 30D at f/1.8 on the EF 50mm f/1.8 lens with the 580EX II on ETTL.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.heyvian.com/30d-noise-test.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://photo.heyvian.com/30d-noise-test.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4124" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T14:54:03.163" Title="How to test noise?" Tags="&lt;noise&gt;&lt;tests&gt;&lt;canon-30d&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11282" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11281" CreationDate="2011-04-26T01:51:04.987" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To prove how bad things are :) you need to set an exposure which will give a dark output without under-exposing. Use something with fine-details or a texture. Noise is always most apparent in dark regions and its effect it to destroy fine-details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To see how good things are ;) do the same with a bright exposure, without over-exposing of course. Use a slightly out-of-focus target.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any reasonable lens will do. Set it to its sharpest aperture, usually 2 stops down from wide-open. Focus manually and shoot with different ISOs, letting the shutter-speed vary. Use a self-timer or cable-release to make sure the softness you see is caused by noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T01:51:04.987" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11283" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11278" CreationDate="2011-04-26T02:11:47.760" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;1) Back up your aperture library.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) Hold down &quot;Command&quot; and &quot;Option&quot; at the same time, while you click on the Aperture application to run it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) You are given a dialog box with the option to &quot;Repair Permissions&quot;, &quot;Repair Database&quot;, or &quot;Rebuild Database&quot;.  Start with &quot;Repair Database&quot;, and see how your library looks when that is done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4) If that didn't fix the issue, try &quot;Rebuild Database&quot; - that's pretty slow (many hours usually) but should resolve the issue if nothing else does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T02:11:47.760" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11284" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11286" CreationDate="2011-04-26T03:23:49.520" Score="0" ViewCount="155" Body="&lt;p&gt;This may not be as simple a problem as it may seem at first, so read carefully.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I set my (Canon 60D, but this doesn't really matter at all) camera to record at 24 fps (I think it's actually 23.976 fps, but again, this shouldn't really matter), the film fps, it looks so &quot;perfect&quot;, like any Hollywood movie. It is a bit stuttery, kind of &quot;low fps&quot; on the first sight, but it's exactly how it should look - a perfect film - and this is exactly what I want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the problem is, when I record at 60 fps to have a few more frames in case I need a slowmotion, the movie (when played back at 60 fps) looks too &quot;fluid, fast&quot;, like a low-budget documentary movie or something like that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The question&lt;/strong&gt;: Can I record all my scenes at 60 fps and &lt;em&gt;then&lt;/em&gt; somehow &quot;convert&quot; the 60 fps footage so that it looks like it was recorded at 24 fps ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason: I need to record all the scenes in 60 fps, because I don't know which of them I will need in slowmotion later. I &lt;em&gt;cannot&lt;/em&gt; record in 24 fps, but I &lt;em&gt;do want&lt;/em&gt; the final cut to look as if it was recorded in 24.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4822" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T13:12:26.727" ClosedDate="2011-04-27T18:19:22.323" Title="Convert a 60 fps video to a 24 (film) video - is it possible?" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;movie&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11285" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11274" CreationDate="2011-04-26T04:12:39.923" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Single point perspective photography or drawings are based on leading lines running from the edges of the image &quot;away&quot; from the viewer, creating a sense of depth. It's a very popular technique among beginning illustrators as it allows you to keep a check on proportions and lets you &quot;snap to a grid&quot;, for lack of a better term.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most typical example I can think of are images &lt;a href=&quot;http://frjamescoles.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/southwest-desert-road.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;like this&lt;/a&gt; - shooting down a straight road with a wide angle lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, is it a useful technique for creating compelling photos? Like any photography technique, it has it's uses, but it's far from enough to create a compelling photo. It can be one element of a successful image, but that's just because it's a natural result of how we and cameras perceive the world. In my opinion, images that treat it like a gimmick tend to be banal. Stuff that would be popular on postcards, at best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, IMO shooting a street like that tends to work really well as a background for portraits, but others might not agree with me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T04:12:39.923" />
  <row Id="11286" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11284" CreationDate="2011-04-26T04:23:46.140" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can, there's a lot of frame blending algorithms that will do it for you. That said, none of them is really great. All your 60fps footage will have a different look than your 24fps footage. You flat out cannot evenly go from 60fps to 24fps, there's just too little overlap in where the frames actually show up on a timeline. For frame conversions of that magnitude (24p-&gt;60i for TV, for example), the big boys have traditionally used telecine/telesync setups where they would literally film an image projected from a movie reel with a television camera.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider shooting 50fps (if that's an option). It's much easier to go from 50 to 24 (drop every other frame, then drop one frame a second) than it is to do 60-&gt;24.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T04:23:46.140" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11287" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11272" CreationDate="2011-04-26T08:17:35.890" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I still like projecting slides better than showing images on a computer screen or television myself (even if the latter is more convenient).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might with a lot of electronics be able to turn it into a projection device for your laptop. Not sure how much it would take, but it wouldn't be trivial.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T08:17:35.890" />
  <row Id="11288" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11302" CreationDate="2011-04-26T08:55:37.073" Score="3" ViewCount="97" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was attempting a time lapse the other evening, outdoors and after a warmish sunny day, with a fairly cool air temp. I set my camera up and set it clicking away and left it for about 3 hours. Most of the time when I checked on it it was perfectly fine. But when I finally went out there was loads of condensation on the lens, glass and barrel, and on the back of the camera too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had set my camera up a few hours before it went dark, just to get the framing right, so I assume it was at the ambient temperature. It wasn't in the sunlight, so it could only have cooled down from when I set it up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a reliable and simple way to stop this happening? I hope so, as it must be a fairly common occurrence. Main reason is I don't want a damp camera as it will do it no good. Second reason is that it will ruin my timelapses!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3802" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T10:21:51.220" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T15:51:49.020" Title="How do I prevent condensation on a lens when outdoors?" Tags="&lt;equipment-protection&gt;&lt;timelapse&gt;&lt;condensation&gt;&lt;outdoors&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="11289" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11272" CreationDate="2011-04-26T09:26:49.713" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You can always use it as a source of&#xA;light for your photography! &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Project slides onto other objects&#xA;to create interesting&#xA;double-exposures.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hand paint/draw with markers on slides and project that for interesting, organic images.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But as far as coverting it to do something cool... No clue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T09:26:49.713" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11290" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4917" CreationDate="2011-04-26T09:30:17.607" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depending on your lighting setup, you might find ISO 400 too fast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've shot in a smallish studio with powerful strobes, and even with the strobes at their lowest setting and shooting at ISO 200 I had to stop down to f/22. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This obviously isn't a problem if you're using flashguns, or if you have a big studio where you can position your strobes further away. Another option is to use an ND-grad filter in this case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T09:30:17.607" />
  <row Id="11291" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11292" CreationDate="2011-04-26T09:44:47.757" Score="10" ViewCount="335" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been reading about Hasselblad, Mamiya (medium format) and Sinar (large format), both offer lots and lots of megapixels and the frame format. On the other hand, I've been learning about concepts that additional light (flashes) help images to get sharper in a way that even using an iPhone you can still get amazing pics (&lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2010/07/its-lighting-stupid.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what's the point investing so much money in high end cameras like them &lt;em&gt;plus&lt;/em&gt; the lightning equipment, when you can be investing in just the lightning equipment with a FF, an APS-C, or even a smaller sensor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4650" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T11:36:55.847" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T15:45:44.810" Title="Why invest in high end large- and medium-format digital cameras?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;medium-format&gt;&lt;large-format&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11292" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11291" CreationDate="2011-04-26T09:56:37.610" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Firstly there's reproduction size. Yes you can get good results &lt;strong&gt;on screen&lt;/strong&gt; with an iPhone and properly lit photo, it wont look good printed in a glossy magazine, or on a 10 foot advert! I see this time and time again when someone produces an attractive image from an otherwise maligned camera such as a phone camera and uses it to argue that more expensive cameras are redundant, and the image in question is 600 pixels by 400 pixels!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other advantages to medium format other than image resolution, that is superior lenses (even the most expensive 35mm lenses costing over $2000 are comparatively mass produced and inferior to the best medium and large format lenses), faster sync speed due to leaf shutters, and better micro contrast on account of the format size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another issue is repeatability and reliability. You might be able to get good results with cheaper gear and that's great. But it might also be a lot more work and less reliable, making the expensive gear a better option for a professional. I shoot with a 1D and 1Ds, not because they take better quality images, but because they are more reliable, and have features such as simultaneously recording to two memory cards in case one fails.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally pro photographers aren't stupid or wasteful (though it often seems that way!) if they could generally get the same results with an iPhone then most simply wouldn't buy a Hasselblad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;iPhones aside you make a good point regarding full frame DSLRs which are genuinely starting to tread on the toes of medium format, with talk of 30 megapixels plus in the next generation. However the genuine advantages of format size in terms of sharpness and micro contrast (note that I don't consider shallow depth of field to be an advantage of MF due to lack of extreme fast lenses) will always hold out, as will the lens and accessory support.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T10:17:11.597" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T10:17:11.597" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="11293" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11288" CreationDate="2011-04-26T11:06:35.880" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Normally, condensation occurs in a humid environment as a result of the difference of the temperatures of the air and the object on which it occurs. The problem here appears to be a more or less rapid drop in temperature I guess - one solution might be the use of a see-throuh rain cover, or a large enough ziplock bag with appropriate cuts, applied before taking the camera out of doors to minimize the humidity trapped in it. Otherwise, the same humidity will still condense within the rain cover itself instead of in the camera just like when one uses a rain cover in cold weather with a warm camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another, not as practical, but effective solution might be to regulate the temperature around the camera, but isolating it from humidity is the more guaranteed solution, even if it is only applicable in very few situations...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4889" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T11:06:35.880" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11294" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11272" CreationDate="2011-04-26T11:35:54.470" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Entertain the cats. Be sure to project slides relevant to their interests.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/47a3H.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Cat interacting with projected slide of hummingbird&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Then, of course, you can do as Jędrek Kostecki suggested, and use the projected slide as the starting point for a new photograph.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2138" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T11:35:54.470" />
  <row Id="11295" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11291" CreationDate="2011-04-26T11:57:57.150" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matt Grum has it right: micro-contrast, lens quality and reproduction size are the main reasons, but I wanted to add a couple more points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;High-end MF cameras are outrageously expensive for amateurs photographers, they aren't for people who treat photography as a business. If you're a hobbyist or you use a computer for office work, the price of a workstation built for a high-end 3D graphics artist is incredibly overpriced, but for them it's a necessity. Same thing with cars: you can have a shipping company using a minivan, but really, you need a trailer truck to deliver the level of service customers in logistics expect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While investing in light is a great idea, you can't light everything. Large format sensors tend to have a greater dynamic range, which is crucial for architecture, landscape, natural light, outdoor photography. Sure, you can mix exposures (HDR-style), and you can use GND filters... as long as you don't have people in your shots. Or anything that moves. Or you don't want to spend hours compositing the images. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luminous Landscape&lt;/a&gt; is probably one of the top digital MF sites on the net, most of its contributors are landscape photographers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's also one seemingly trivial matter: impressing clients. When a client shows up to a shoot, they won't be impressed a normal black DSLR. Pull out a Hasselblad, and they'll feel they're getting their money's worth. Is it completely illogical? Yes, but it's very real.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides, most beauty/fashion professional photographers rent their gear and pass the cost on to the clients, who demand the best their company's money can buy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T11:57:57.150" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11296" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11157" CreationDate="2011-04-26T12:03:54.047" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Citing something as advantageous depends on what you consider as an advantage; that said, if your goal is to generate an image that gives the viewer a sense of &quot;being there&quot; instead of some of the other uses to which photography can be put, then yes, there are advantages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Right now, there are at least the following technologies regarding 3D:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;New 3D movie cameras&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, this is a new type of 3D camera system developed by James Cameron which is a smaller in size than previous cameras used in shooting 3D movies, allowing for entire movies to be shot in 3D. These have so far been used in at least the movies Avatar and Resident Evil: Afterlife. The main advantage here is making the movie production easier, but for the viewer, the experience is a lot less jarring as well since the 3D is produced directly by the camera system and is balanced by the expertise of the camera operators. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;3D Twin lens still cameras&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are not really new. The idea existed long before digital devices, sometimes with a mirror to make a divided exposure on a single frame of film, and sometimes with middle format devices with two lenses set apart recording on 35mm film to record two images at the same time. The digital versions only offer the advantage of automatically assembling the resulting two images into a stereoscopic image in a set way. This is not necessarily an improvement though as there are ways of viewing stereoscopic images that do not necessitate the extra equipment (often a 3D tv or some special display like the back of some cameras or and external LCD frame)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Sony Nex 3 and 5 cameras&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is something new here, as far as I know. The 3D image is produced by the panorama function on the device, and involves moving the camera in a sweeping motion while the device fires off a very rapid set of exposures. Stitching is automatic and since the number of exposures is very high, a stereoscopic image can be generated from the panorama with the help of the excess overlapping parts of the individual images. Producing 3D images with these is quick, painless and automatic and as long as you're willing to view them on 3D tvs, very impressive.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4889" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T12:03:54.047" />
  <row Id="11297" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11284" CreationDate="2011-04-26T13:12:26.727" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If it really is 60fps video (and not just field-doubled), you could do essentially the reverse of 3:2 pulldown.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is, take the third frame, then the second after that, the third after that, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would look quite watchable, though not as natural as anything shot at 24fps (or 48, or 72, etc).  It would have a slight effect analogous to 3:2 pulldown, an effect Americans are very familiar with from all the 24fps films shown on their TVs and DVDs.  Pans would appear slightly more busy or as having an extra ghost.  Rolling credits may be affected more than other content and may need to be re-generated, if best results are to be desired.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3422" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T13:12:26.727" />
  <row Id="11298" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11273" CreationDate="2011-04-26T14:21:05.000" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Regarding selling, here is my experience:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I prefer to sell where the photographers go, which includes some of the popular boards, like Digitalgrin.com (Smugmug), FredMiranda.com, and Photography-on-the.net. On these boards, you will likely find that most buyers are looking for a specific camera body or lens, so they sell better separately.  However, selling as a bundle is great for a beginner, so I recommend pricing as a bundle, and then offer separate pricing where you should consider a discounted price for the bundle over separate pricing per piece.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The alternative is to sell your gear to reputable photo gear vendors, where you can also get a good indication of the bottom price you should consider for your gear. So, visit KEH.com, Adorama.com and BHphoto.com and get quotes on selling them your gear. Then you have both a base price and a fall back should you not find a buyer on the boards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T14:21:05.000" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11299" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11281" CreationDate="2011-04-26T14:34:36.603" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can measure the noise ratio at different ISO settings in a fairly simple way and use Gimp (Photoshop) to visualise the results.  Below are the results with my camera, a Pentax K7.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ISO 100 is used as the basis for comparison.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The Noise Ratio is a dimensionless number showing the increased noise above that of ISO 100.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you photograph a perfectly uniform grey surface, the standard deviation of the pixel values should be exactly zero. Any deviation from that should be noise of different types. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, in practice we can't create a perfectly uniform grey surface. So we photograph the same surface at all ISO settings and use the ratio of increased standard deviation above that at ISO 100 to measure the ratio of increased noise.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One can see below, that my K7, for all its virtues, is not a stellar noise performer.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Procedure&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take test photos as follows:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;photograph a uniform dark surface at each ISO setting as follows.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;set the aperture to the maximum.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;focus on infinity, we want the image as blurred as possible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;determine the normal exposure and decrease the shutter speed by 2 EV.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;mount the camera on a tripod, each photo must cover exactly the same area.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;set your camera to raw.    &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Process the test photos as follows:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;set the raw convertor to no profile, linear input, linear output, default exposure (not auto).  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;open the result in Gimp and select the central 500 x 500 pixel area.  It is important to select the same area in each photo.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Select Colors|Info|Histogram and note the mean and standard deviation readings.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Calculate the coefficient of variation = (std. dev.) / mean.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Calculate the Noise Ratio = (coefficient of variation of test sample) /  (coefficient of variation at ISO 100).  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results for Pentax K7&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/MFBX6.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;To help visualise the results I show the extracted noise at each ISO by by overlaying the test layer over the base layer at ISO 100 and setting the &lt;a href=&quot;http://%20standard%20deviation,%20the%20background%20is%20extracted%20noise%20%28%5Busing%20a%20grain%20extract%20layer%20in%20Gimp%5D%5B2%5D%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;layer mode to Grain Extract&lt;/a&gt;. This is used as the background of the histogram, below. Note how the histogram spreads out as the noise increases. Performance up to ISO 400 is good but noises creeps in from ISO 800 onwards.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ISO 100 standard deviation, the background shows extracted noise.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/jpiGu.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;ISO 200 standard deviation, the background shows extracted noise.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/d5q7f.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;ISO 400 standard deviation, the background shows extracted noise.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/eA2Zt.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;ISO 800 standard deviation, the background shows extracted noise.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/604vv.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;ISO 1600 standard deviation, the background shows extracted noise.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/DTb26.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;ISO 3200 standard deviation, the background shows extracted noise.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/2Aaph.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;ISO 6400 standard deviation, the background shows extracted noise.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ww6x6.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T14:54:03.163" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T14:54:03.163" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11300" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11157" CreationDate="2011-04-26T15:29:47.453" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can take 3D shots quite simply using a normal camera - just take two shots of the same subject with a small shift in position in between - not much good for moving objects, but it is a great way to start out in 3D...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stevefenton.co.uk/Content/Blog/Date/201007/Blog/3D-Photography/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.stevefenton.co.uk/Content/Blog/Date/201007/Blog/3D-Photography/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With two images, you can use free software to combine them...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stereoeye.jp/software/index_e.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.stereoeye.jp/software/index_e.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2114" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T15:29:47.453" />
  <row Id="11301" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11304" CreationDate="2011-04-26T15:35:01.787" Score="6" ViewCount="220" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have had a Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens for quite a long time. It is a great lens. I use a 7D as the body, thus I get 1.6x magnification as compared to a &quot;real&quot; 35mm sensor body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While this is great for photographing flowers and the like, it is not as great for insects as I feel like I won't get close enough. What is a (preferably) cheap way (less than 200€) for me to get even closer? I have thought about adding a macro filter or an extension tube.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3171" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T22:45:34.860" Title="I have a Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro. How can I get even closer to the subject?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;extension-tubes&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11302" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11288" CreationDate="2011-04-26T15:38:20.347" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're right, the problem with heating the environment is that it can produce &quot;heat waves&quot; which show up in your photographs if you're not very careful. All in all it seemed like bringing a heater (propane, or otherwise) was something that I was going to have to monitor and fiddle with a lot, so I didn't ever go down the path of trying to keep the environmental temperature above the dew point... One of my goals when doing time lapses is to be as automated as possible, so the heater didn't 'pass the test' for me in that regard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you might imagine, this is a very common problem in the astronomy world, so it's one area where we can simply borrow liberally from their techniques (and their equipment as well). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Lens Sleeve:&lt;/strong&gt; On the 'low cost' end of the scale is simply wrapping the front part of your lens. I went out and bought some neoprene and fashioned my own 'lens sleeve,' but if you're more interested in purchasing something, telescope accessory manufacturers such as Orion make &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.telescope.com/Accessories/Dew-Control/Orion-FlexiShield-Flexible-Telescope-Dew-Shields/pc/-1/c/3/sc/44/e/18.uts&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;similar products&lt;/a&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Heat Strap:&lt;/strong&gt; One step up the scale (in both sophistication and complexity) is to use a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.telescope.com/Accessories/Dew-Control/Orion-Dew-Zapper-12V-DC-Heating-Straps/pc/-1/c/3/sc/44/e/17.uts&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;heating strap&lt;/a&gt;. With a heating strap you simply strap it to your lens near the front element and it keeps the glass warm enough that condensation can't form.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Multiple Solutions:&lt;/strong&gt; If you're expecting really wide temperature swings (depends on your region... Where I live in the spring and fall we can experience 20 to 30 degree swings between day and night), a single heating strap may not be enough. I've had some success with the lens sleeve plus the heating strap, but I finally did bite the bullet a couple years ago and bought a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.telescope.com/Accessories/Dew-Control/Orion-Dew-Zapper-Pro-4-Channel-Prevention-System/pc/-1/c/3/sc/44/e/22.uts&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;multi-channel prevention system&lt;/a&gt; so I could keep the entire lens warm (not just at the front element). Carrying the idea to its extreme, I've recently done some full-winter day-to-night timelapses here in the northwest where I've been using a full neoprene 'suit' for my entire camera and lens (made myself, cut the pieces from an old wetsuit and sewed them together like a 8-year-old cub scout trying to earn his leatherwork badge at camp! It ain't pretty, but it works...) &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; a multi-channel heating system together, which worked like a champ. Obviously the downside to this type of solution is its complexity, but for all-night timelapses I'm already hauling car batteries and motorized dolly platforms, so adding another powered item didn't seem like such a big deal. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(NOTE: I'm not affiliated with Orion Telescopes, and there are other companies that manufacture similar products... Just a user of their products.)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T15:51:49.020" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T15:51:49.020" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11303" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11301" CreationDate="2011-04-26T15:41:31.123" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several ways to increase magnification other than buying a new lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Buying &lt;strong&gt;close-up adapter&lt;/strong&gt; (sometimes called diopter) is quite cheap. You need to buy one that screws to the front of your lens, so check your thread-size (the same sizes when buying filters). Close-up adaptors come in different strength and quality levels. They best about this option is that you retain all the camera's feature set (AF, metering, DOF preview, etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other inexpensive option is to use &lt;strong&gt;extension tubes&lt;/strong&gt;. They are available in different lengths, longer ones increase magnification more. Depending which ones you get, you may have to use your lens manually though. On the other hand, extension tubes do not add optical elements and so do not reduce image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T15:41:31.123" />
  <row Id="11304" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11301" CreationDate="2011-04-26T15:42:12.527" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Macro extension tubes. Get the Kenkos, they have no optical element so there's no sense in shelling out for the Canons. You can only get so close up with the 100 f/2.8 though, if you want to get even closer, you'll need to swap your lens in for a 180mm f/3.5L macro and, ultimately, an MP-E.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't use macro filters, they degrade the image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T15:42:12.527" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11305" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11272" CreationDate="2011-04-26T16:31:49.113" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Funny; I just posted this on a comment to &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11262/is-there-an-easy-way-to-force-chromatic-aberration&quot;&gt;another question&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.cow.mooh.org/2010/04/fisheye-tin-cam.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Fisheye Tin Lens&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a lo-fi fisheye lens constructed from a 35mm slide projector lens, a door peephole lens, a soda can, a t-mount adapter, and miscellaneous other junk. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T16:31:49.113" />
  <row Id="11306" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11247" CreationDate="2011-04-26T16:46:52.840" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Optically a lot superior.&#xA;Constant 2.8 aperture up-to 200mm focal length.&#xA;Sharp as a razor across the zoom range.&#xA;Superior bokeh.&#xA;Better build quality.&#xA;Faster AF (assuming you buy the AF-S version).&#xA;Performs much better on Full Frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4246" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T16:46:52.840" />
  <row Id="11307" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11301" CreationDate="2011-04-26T16:47:44.003" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As has been mentioned already, one or more extension tubes will get you closer than the macro lens by itself can. That will only get you so far, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Somewhat counter-intuitively, if you want really huge magnification while keeping the camera assembly to a manageable size, you need to go to a wider lens, not a longer lens. At sizes of 1:1 or smaller, a longer lens gives you additional working space at little cost, but as the magnification gets bigger, the amount of extra room required behind the lens becomes an extreme penalty. Canon's answer is a &quot;reverse zoom&quot; (the 1:1-5 65MP-E), which is essentially a zoom lens with the far end of the lens anchored in place (instead of the end at the flange, as with a normal zoom); reducing the focal length of the lens increases the magnification at the film/sensor plane. The cheap option for this strategy would be to reverse-mount a wide-angle lens on extension tubes or bellows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to get really big and don't mind fishing around in the used equipment and odds-and-sods end of the photo market, a &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; interesting option would be the Minolta micro lenses. They are actually microscope-type lenses, available at 12.5mm and 25mm focal lengths, IIRC. They're used on a bellows, and you can get adapters that will couple the Minolta MC/MD mount lenses/bellows to a Canon EF-mount camera. The 12.5mm lens will let you get close-ups of the eyes of the things that live on the eyes of the insects you're talking about. (You can probably find similar combinations of things that will let you use Zeiss microscope lenses on your camera as well.) Forget about depth of field, though -- there isn't any.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T16:47:44.003" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11308" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11194" CreationDate="2011-04-26T17:08:24.473" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find the best way to adjust photos that have exposure problems is to first click the 'triangles' in the corners of the Histogram view in the Develop Module.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These will show you, in your image, where you have highlight blowouts (in red) and dark areas where detail is lost (blue areas). Now the trick is the adjust the image so that you eliminate most of the red and blue. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its best to start with how the workflow is arranged in Lightroom: start first with Exposure, reducing or increasing as needed, Now as you go down the workflow, note that the adjustments impact smaller and smaller portions of the image. Exposure being at the top impacts the most, so be careful and pay attention to its impact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next, adjust Recovery, which will make dramatic impacts to overblow areas, but too much Recovery can add odd artifacts. Keep adjusting and examining your image. Then move to Fill light, which is useful for overly dark areas, and Blacks, which of course impact dark areas, but also overall contrast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also adjust Brightness and Contrast, bringing you image back to acceptable levels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastEditorUserId="4880" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T17:18:00.470" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T17:18:00.470" />
  <row Id="11309" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11273" CreationDate="2011-04-26T18:22:48.247" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From your questions you are at a place where all of us have been and now you are looking for guidance as you move forward. That is an entirely reasonable thing to do.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the problem is that you are asking us to recommend a path that you take. We cannot do that because we cannot ever know enough about your circumstances, goals and needs.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What we can do is give you information that will help you to make your own decision.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So please ask yourself what specific information you need in  order to make your decisions. We will try and provide that information. But do not ask us to recommend the decision itself. That is something you must do.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note also that we strive to be vendor neutral. We do not take sides when it comes to make of camera, lens or buying/selling sites. Once again, that kind of decision is only one you can make for yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T18:22:48.247" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11310" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11186" CreationDate="2011-04-26T18:43:36.637" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To get bokeh or the &quot;blurred background&quot; you will want to set your camera to the largest aperture setting such as f/2.8-5.  It will also help if you zoom into the subject more.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try a setting such as f/4.5 at 150mm or so, with the subject a few feet away, and the background 10 or more feet past that.  This should give you a good amount of bokeh and give you an idea of where to start with your settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T18:43:36.637" />
  <row Id="11311" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11291" CreationDate="2011-04-26T19:20:10.233" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm mostly going to address one point raised in Matt Grum's answer and (especially) the comments on that answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On average, a MF camera/back does give more control over depth of field than a smaller format camera can. With the larger format, you don't &lt;em&gt;need&lt;/em&gt; as fast of a lens to get just as shallow of depth of field. A &quot;full frame&quot; MF camera has a sensor roughly 1.7 times the size of a full-frame 35mm-sized sensor. At the same focal length you need to be just over half as far away to get the same framing, which reduces the depth of field considerably.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@Jędrek Kostecki commented that you often don't want shallow DoF. This is only sort of true at best. For a lot of product shots, what the designer often (usually?) wants is a depth of field that's almost impossible to achieve just by adjusting the aperture. With normal adjustments, the depth of field follows a pattern something on the general order of a sine wave -- at some distance, you get maximum sharpness, and then becomes progressively less sharp as you get further away from that ideal distance. With a large aperture, the sharpness falls over very quickly, and with a smaller one it falls off more gradually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What the designer often wants wants is more like a square wave: essentially &lt;em&gt;perfect&lt;/em&gt; sharpness for the full depth occupied by the product, combined with an &lt;em&gt;extremely&lt;/em&gt; fast reduction in sharpness for all other distances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a few ways to do that. One is to manipulate the setting, so everything else in the picture is either a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; closer, or a lot farther away than the subject. The problem with this is that it frequently leads to rather unnatural-looking perspective. To combat that, you can shoot from a quite a ways away with a long lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just for example, I shot one like this with a 600mm lens (so old the focal length was marked as &quot;24 inches&quot;) on a 4x5. It worked, but it was a &lt;em&gt;pain&lt;/em&gt; to set up -- in that case, we had the camera way up in one corner of the studio (had to climb a ladder to get to it), the background at the diagonally opposite corner something like 60' away, and the subject object on a stand roughly halfway between. It &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; impressive looking though (I was looking at the GG, so I didn't get to see it, but I was told that the client walked in just as I was pulling the dark cloth over my head, incidentally &quot;unveiling&quot; that giant old polished brass lens barrel -- from the rather indelicate description I was given afterwards, he almost...um...wet himself on the spot).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A much easier way to do it is to set up all the objects at roughly normal distances, use a wide enough aperture to get the fast falloff of focus you want, and use focus stacking to get the amount in focus that you want. For small format cameras, focus stacking is mostly the domain of a few lunatic fringe macro specialists and such. With MF cameras, I've seen focus stacking used even for landscapes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, I would probably be remiss if I didn't also at least mention the fact that quite a few MF cameras also have T/S lenses available, or (in the case of a tech camera) have at least limited movements built into the camera (e.g., rise/fall is fairly common). This, again, lets you control DoF in ways that aperture alone just can't duplicate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: (mostly in response to Matt's comment): &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; even close to purely theoretical. For example, let's consider the Hasselblad 100mm f/2.2. At the risk of being accused of cheating, I'll figure things up for its closest focus (90 cm), using a CoC of .03 mm (fairly standard).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, I get a total DoF of .97 cm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking at the Nikon 105 f/2, and increasing the distance to maintain the same framing (approximately, anyway -- it can't be identical, since the sensors aren't the same proportion), I get a distance of ~160 cm. At that distance, (and using the same CoC) I get a DoF of 2.6 cm -- well over double the DoF with the Hasselblad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I go to the Nikon 85/1.4 instead, I have to move closer, to about 130 cm away, and I get a DoF of 1.86 cm -- down to just a tad &lt;em&gt;under&lt;/em&gt; double the DoF of the Hasselblad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I go to the Canon 85 f/1.2 instead I maintain the same distance, but the larger aperture decreases the DoF to 1.56 cm -- only about half again more than the Hasselblad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming I could find a Canon 50 f/1.0, I'd move in a bit closer yet (76.5 cm away), and my DoF drops to 1.31 cm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;About the only possibility that's left would be to use the Leica 50 f/0.95 instead. That would drop the DoF to something like 1.25 cm, but it's still definitely more than the Hasselblad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do also feel obliged to point out that to use the Leica Noctilux 50 f/0.95, you're starting to get into MF-style pricing as well. The lens itself goes for $10,495, and to use it, you need a Leica M-series camera -- I believe the sole (digital) choice is the M9, which goes for $6,995. Assuming I've typed the numbers into my calculator correctly, that works out to $17,490 for the pair.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the Hasselblad side, an H4D-31 (with an 80/2.8 lens) goes for $13,995, and the Hasselblad HC 2.2/100 goes for $3,255, giving a total of $17,250.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bottom line: the guy on DPReview was wrong. An MF will produce shallower DoF, and even coming close with a 35mm sized-sensor isn't exactly cheap either -- and the Canon option is the one that requires a lens that's really hard to find.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit (mostly as a more complete reply to @coneslayer's comment): I've held the CoC constant because what's interesting here is the characteristics of the cameras themselves, &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; characteristics I might choose to impose on the results I get from those cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I change the size of the circle of confusion from one camera to another, then the result you get from the computation is almost entirely one of my own choosing. It's no longer based on the characteristics of the cameras themselves, but simply of my own judgement about the final result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, it becomes a matter of my creating depth of field by fiat -- deciding that if X amount of unsharpness was produced by one camera, that it still qualifies as &quot;sharp&quot;, but if it came from the other camera, it's &quot;not sharp&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you start to do that, you can get whatever result you decide you want. The result you get no longer has much of anything to do with the cameras themselves at all -- it's just my preconceived notion, fed into a formula and turned into a number to disguise my idea as if it was an objective fact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I don't mean to attack the basic notion of varying the CoC to suit the kind of print you're going to produce. If you decide you want to be able to print a particular picture at a particular size, and have it meet some specific criterion for sharpness, that's perfectly fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While it's certainly true that the camera/lens have some effect on the decisions you might make in such a case, it's also true that most of the driving factors are the decisions &lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt; make, not the camera or lens. If you want to know something about the camera and/or lens, you need to factor your own judgements out of the equation -- and in the case of computing DoF, the only real way to do that is to hold the CoC constant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-27T15:45:44.810" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T15:45:44.810" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11312" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3301" CreationDate="2011-04-26T20:22:08.933" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The real answer is the same as it was fifty years ago -- use a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_blimp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;blimp&lt;/a&gt;. Naturally, constructing a blimp is a little more complicated than it once was, and you may have to forgo some features to get there (you can't as easily create mechanical linkages to all of the controls on a modern DSLR as you could on a film camera). If your autofocus and autoexposure are reliable, though, all you'd really need to link to is the shutter. As long as the sound is adequately damped at the body, the minor amount of leakage at the lens (from leaving the zoom ring exposed) shouldn't be enough to bother anybody except at a recording session.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can't find a commercial blimp, it's easy enough to construct one. Just be wary of overheating (something that wasn't a concern in the film days).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T20:22:08.933" />
  <row Id="11313" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11314" CreationDate="2011-04-26T20:27:07.860" Score="3" ViewCount="170" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am looking to buy a digital camera or a SLR for simple photography. By that I mean, photographs of family and such. I am not interested in professional photography or complex stuff like the discussions on this site!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am having difficulty choosing between a digital camera and a SLR. My only concern is clarity -- size of the photographs doesn't matter much; not too less but I don't need gigantic photos also. I read and researched that megapixels doesn't matter. So what should I look for? Note again, I am looking for only &lt;strong&gt;clarity&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4894" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-03T19:24:29.310" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T19:24:29.310" Title="What camera will give me the most clarity for simple photography?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11314" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11313" CreationDate="2011-04-26T20:37:35.680" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If &quot;clarity&quot;, which I'm going to take to mean sharpness only matters to you - just get a decent namebrand point and shoot.  Something like a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-SX130IS-Stabilized-3-0-Inch/dp/B003ZSHNG8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon PowerShot SX130IS&lt;/a&gt; is a decent little camera for family shots and doesn't break the bank.  Its a decent balance of cost and power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For average family shots - don't get an SLR, its way overkill.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T20:37:35.680" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="11315" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3301" CreationDate="2011-04-26T20:47:55.627" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bear in mind that the shutter release/mirror slap noise sounds much louder to the photographer than it does to others.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is because, in the first place, it is so close to your ears, and secondly the camera is pressed against your face causing some additional sound to reach your ears by bone conduction.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In practice few people expect silent cameras. I suspect that in many cases it is only the photographer who thinks it is too loud, for the reasons above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T20:55:04.293" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T20:55:04.293" />
  <row Id="11317" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11301" CreationDate="2011-04-26T21:22:57.367" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-extension-tubes-closeup.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cambridge in Color page on Macro Extension Tubes and Close-Up Lenses&lt;/a&gt; includes calculators for determining exactly what magnification and working distance will be achievable with a particular lens/tube or lens/close-up lens combination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although apparently matters are complicated by the fact that macro lenses' effective focal length can change considerably from the nominal specification at close focusing distances. Various sources around the web say the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 macro lens in particular is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/489-canon_100_28_5d&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;effectively about 75-78mm&lt;/a&gt; at 1:1 magnification. There's some discussion about how caveats like that effect the calculation &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/macro123/discuss/112332/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2312" LastEditorUserId="2312" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-26T22:45:34.860" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T22:45:34.860" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11318" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6052" CreationDate="2011-04-26T22:58:17.330" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;They have the pretty same sensor, just 550d comes with more megapixels which i think u don't need them but 50d it;s semi professional which means u have full control of the camera and let u do whatever u want in real, not just some automatic functions...&#xA;plus 50d has better construction, it's heavier with magnesium alloy construction and etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;50D has faster continuous shooting up to 6.3frames per sec.&#xA;And faster shutter speed up to 1/8000s&#xA;And if u don;t care about video recording u can go for 50D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In reality u can't compare a semi-pro model with entry level products...&#xA;I already have a Canon EOS 50D and i think it;s pretty good camera for it;s money and what can do... But first check the camera feel the camera before buying it...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nikon has many good models but they are pretty expensive if u want to go to the good ones...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4898" LastActivityDate="2011-04-26T22:58:17.330" />
  <row Id="11319" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11322" CreationDate="2011-04-27T02:39:52.087" Score="7" ViewCount="174" Body="&lt;p&gt;My Pentax K-5 comes with a &quot;regular&quot; low ISO setting of 100, but if you enable &quot;expanded ISO&quot; you can set it as low as 80 (plus go up to an absurd 51200!). I know that in general to reduce noise, lower ISO settings are better, but I'm wondering if that holds true for this &quot;expanded&quot; setting as well. If I'm outside and there's plenty of light and I can use 80 ISO without ruining my shot with inappropriate shutter and aperture settings, should I?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I know there may be certain specific circumstances where the super-low ISO would be helpful, e.g. if you are shooting right into the sun and don't want the shutter at 1/8000 s. That's not the situation I'm talking about.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4690" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T14:54:57.867" Title="Should I use low-end expanded ISO?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;iso&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11320" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11319" CreationDate="2011-04-27T02:52:58.110" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can use it and it gives excellent dynamic-range and very low image noise but really barely any different from the ISO 100 setting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What helps more is the use the &lt;em&gt;Dynamic Range Expansion&lt;/em&gt; function. This will limit the ISO sensitivity to 200-12800 normally or 160 to 51200 with Expanded ISO turned on. You get extremely low noise but an extra stop of dynamic-range for highlights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ISOs above 12800 are of no use to me due to their performance and I do not want to accidentally use them, I keep the expanded ISO off and the expanded range on. This gives me ISO 200 is my base setting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To use slower shutter-speeds in bright light, rather than reducing the ISO, use an ND filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T02:52:58.110" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11321" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11319" CreationDate="2011-04-27T02:53:25.877" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Speaking as someone with a couple of k-5s, I can't say that I've ever noticed any real difference in the image quality at ISO 80 versus ISO 100. While there's probably some difference in the outcome to the lesser when it comes to the expanded range, it is so minute that I can't really detect it. Now, on the other end, that's a different story, ISO 51200 is pretty close to unusable though it may be the only way you get anything, so that's something at least. At best, though, you're printing 4x6 and hoping it's sort of decent. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T02:53:25.877" />
  <row Id="11322" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11319" CreationDate="2011-04-27T02:53:33.400" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;True, lower ISO does typically bring lower noise, but all digital cameras adjust ISO by altering internal exposure sensitivity, and any change from the 'native' ISO typically introduces some noise, or other trade-off, such as dynamic range. This includes setting ISO below the 'native' ISO. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This 'native' ISO is that for which the sensor and electronics are optimized. Other ISOs are achieved by pushing (or pulling) exposure internally.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since your camera offers this 'expanded ISO&quot; that provides for 80 ISO, you can assume that this ISO is sub-optimal, and could exhibit more noise or a loss of dynamic range than the 'native' ISO. Unfortunately, few camera manufactures publish what the 'native&quot; ISO is, but for the most part it is assumed to be the lowest ISO in normal settings. Some suggest Canon cameras are 'native' for ISO 100, and full stop ISO are best (100,200,400 etc.), but I haven't seen such results for Pentax.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Google for &quot;native ISO&quot; and you likely will find some interesting discussion and even sample images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastEditorUserId="4880" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-27T11:33:05.110" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T11:33:05.110" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11323" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11325" CreationDate="2011-04-27T02:56:49.577" Score="10" ViewCount="113" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is micro contrast, and why is it important? How is it different than regular contrast?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt Grum mentioned it in &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11291/why-invest-in-high-end-large-and-medium-format-digital-cameras&quot;&gt;his answer about larger-format cameras&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There are other advantages to medium format other than image resolution... better micro contrast on account of the format size... the genuine advantages of format size in terms of sharpness and micro contrast... will always hold out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the first I'd heard of the term.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T04:05:29.970" Title="What is Micro Contrast?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;contrast&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="11324" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6052" CreationDate="2011-04-27T03:24:20.317" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that as Canon does not release all their camera models at the same time, inevitably models at any point in time seem to have close or similar specs where you would not expect them, such as with the 550D and 50D. The 550D is significantly newer than the 50D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, ignoring the technical specs, the largest difference is in the handling and the flexibility of the systems. The 50D is physically a bit larger, and usually described as much more comfortable in the hand. There are many, many more custom functions, allowing for significant customization of buttons, features and camera operations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One particular feature I prefer is the ability to separately adjust shutterspeed with the front control wheel while the back one will adjust aperture. This allows for simple and fast adjustments making Manual mode actually useful and productive.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, support for micro adjustments of lenses is another critical difference found in the 50D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, the 7D is light years above even the 50D!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastEditorUserId="4880" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-27T11:28:55.440" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T11:28:55.440" />
  <row Id="11325" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11323" CreationDate="2011-04-27T03:32:08.730" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Micro-contrast refers to contrast as measured between adjacent or nearly adjacent pixels&lt;/strong&gt;. It is often perceived as sharpness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Contrast usually refers to the contrast of the entire image&lt;/strong&gt; which is an indicator of the captured dynamic-range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is possible for an image to show high micro-contrast (being very sharp) and low image contrast (being a subject with very uniform tonalities).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The converse is also possible, as any scene which exceeds the dynamic-range of a sensor will have high contrast but if shot with a poor lens or at an aperture beyond the diffraction limit it will have low micro-contrast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T03:32:08.730" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11326" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11323" CreationDate="2011-04-27T04:05:29.970" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To add to Itai's great answer, Micro-contrast is an aspect of digital photography that is extremely vulnerable to anti-alias filters, or low-pass filters. A digital image sensor is only capable of processing information down to a certain limit (the Nyquist Limit), after which any additional information will be captured as undefined or ill-defined &quot;noise&quot;. This undefined information can be a great detriment to image quality for high &lt;em&gt;density&lt;/em&gt; sensors such as those found in your average DSLR. A low pass filter is often placed in front of a digital sensor to eliminate image frequencies below the limit of a sensor. Poorly or cheaply designed filters can have a visible and detrimental effect on micro-contrast in the other direction...softening an image and reducing its sharpness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Larger format sensors have the benefit of high resolution and lower density on their side. With larger pixels, the need for a low pass filter is greatly lowered, and they are usually eliminated entirely. This allows larger format sensors to achieve much greater micro-contrast...contrast differentiation between individual pixels, than is usually possible with smaller format sensors such as APS-C and Full Frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T04:05:29.970" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11327" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11319" CreationDate="2011-04-27T05:47:23.767" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With JPEG, you will not notice any difference.  If you shoot JPEG with the K-5, definitely turn on highlight correction which will shift the DR from the shadows (lost in JPEG) to the highlights, but you'll still notice little difference from highlight corrected ISO 160 to 200.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you shoot RAW, you will get around a 0.4 stops of increased dynamic range (less noise in the shadows) if you decide to heavily dodge your shadows.  This is because the native ISO of the K-5 isn't 100, it's somewhere less than 100.  Pretty much all cameras don't have a native ISO of exactly 100, but subscribe to the current 'standard ISOs&quot; of 100, 200, 400, etc.  For those with a native ISO above 100, what you'll get is a reduction of dynamic range, but this is not the case with the K-5.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The DR is pretty huge on that sensor and it'd be hard to notice anyway.  A bigger benefit to ISO 80 is that you can lower the shutter speed or wider aperture if you need to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-27T14:54:57.867" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T14:54:57.867" />
  <row Id="11328" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11329" CreationDate="2011-04-27T06:18:10.243" Score="2" ViewCount="100" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been doing research to purchase a DSLR. I think I have a handle on how to evaluate a body, feature-wise, but I'm finding it difficult to understand lenses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since buying a body locks you into a particular lens manufacturer's system, my next step is to decide what manufacturer makes the best lenses: &quot;best&quot; meaning good general-purpose lenses, with a good selection of other lenses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not asking who makes the best lenses. I am asking: What do I need to learn so that I can look at lenses from various manufacturers intelligently? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3376" LastEditorUserId="3376" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-02T17:48:23.583" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T17:48:23.583" Title="How to learn enough about lenses to be able to evaluate a lens manufacturer?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;camera-systems&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11329" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11328" CreationDate="2011-04-27T06:44:36.733" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Few things that makes a lens stand out are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aperture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sharpness&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Focal length&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Build quality&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Other features: (IS/VR, FTM, Distance Meter etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Aperture&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Some lens have fixed aperture throughout the entire focal length and some have variable. Most lenses with fixed focal lengths are generally better and considered top notch. Some lenses have fast aperture (ie. f/2.8) but the sharpness you get on that aperture is close to unusable, so make sure your lens has descent sharpness on entire focal length using the widest aperture. The wider the aperture is, more light can enter the lens and this gives you the ability to do better in low light conditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sharpness&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Most lenses produce softest image on the fastest aperture, and sharpness generally increases when aperture is stopped down a stop or two. Top quality lenses doesn't compromise image sharpness even when using the widest aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Focal length:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;This is something you'll need to decide. There are zoom lenses and fixed/prime lenses. Primes have better sharpness in general. You can go as wide as 8mm and as long as 1200mm (of-course not in the same lens) these days. General purpose lens are considered to have 15-24mm on the wide-end and 70-135 on the tele-end. Super zooms (ie. lenses having 5X+ zoom) generally do not produce high quality images, unless you want an all-in-one solution, do not go for a super zoom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Build quality&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Good lenses have metal mounts, weights more and some are weather proof. Pro series lenses have better build quality than non-pro lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Other features:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;Stabilization:&lt;/em&gt; Its called different names for different manufacturers but more or less works the same. It helps you to take hand-held picture of non-moving subjects better and is a nice to have feature. Please note that, this feature often add a huge money on the lens and drains more power from your battery. Also IS doesn't keep your subject from moving, it can not freeze motion.&#xA;&lt;em&gt;FTM:&lt;/em&gt; this gives you the ability to fine-tune focus without having to switch to MF.&#xA;&lt;em&gt;Distance Meter:&lt;/em&gt; Gives you subject-to-camera distance.&#xA;&lt;em&gt;Non Rotating Front Element:&lt;/em&gt; This means the front element does not rotate when you change focus. This gives you ability to use CPL filters better.&#xA;&lt;em&gt;Perfocal:&lt;/em&gt; These lenses do not change focus when zoomed in out out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually there are a lot more, but I believe once you start, you'll learn them all. I highly recommend www.the-digital-picture.com for lens reviews. They provide ISO chart crops to compare sharpness between two selected lenses at different focal length and aperture. This feature is quite useful to check what the lens is capable of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastEditorUserId="2476" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-27T09:27:21.510" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T09:27:21.510" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11330" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11313" CreationDate="2011-04-27T08:09:10.180" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I would take your demand for &quot;clarity&quot; serious I would strongly recommend a low end DSLR with a close to standard, quality lens. For DX format for instance a 35mm f1.8 lens or for full frame (not really low end DSLR anymore) a 50mm f1.8. Those lenses are reasonable priced, high quality resulting in sharp images, lots of light available, selective focus possible, limited distortion, ... all things that contribute to the &quot;clarity&quot; of a picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This will require you to study and practice the art of photography. If you're not interested in that and only want to make clear shots the Point 'n Shoot suggested earlier is a better option for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;6 megapixels would be the limit for some occasional enlargements. You don't need more than 6mp when you only want to make snapshots. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still the DSLR will let you make better pictures than any other Point and Shoot, but only after learning how to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4899" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T08:09:10.180" />
  <row Id="11331" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11159" CreationDate="2011-04-27T08:12:49.273" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What did you see on your SD card? Did you change anything else? Maybe you updated from JPEG mode to RAW and have no utility installed yet on your pc for viewing RAW files? If so try picasa or any other RAW viewer. Your canon should come with a cd with software. A viewer for instance with support for RAW images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4899" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T08:12:49.273" />
  <row Id="11332" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8831" CreationDate="2011-04-27T08:29:13.830" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A good tutorial on making digital negatives using The Gimp. A free image editing software platform. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/negatives/digital-negatives-gimp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/negatives/digital-negatives-gimp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can make them on your computer and then print using any printer you have. Not sure why you mention your printer? Maybe some printers have this option built in?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4899" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T08:29:13.830" />
  <row Id="11333" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11186" CreationDate="2011-04-27T08:34:30.923" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer from user4892 is a good general answer that will help you achieve what you want with any camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also get into the technical details using tools like a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Depth of Field Camera&lt;/a&gt;. This will estimate the amount of depth based on your sensor and optics. Since you mention these technical details you might be interested in that also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Technical information about this subject can be found at this &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DOF wiki&lt;/a&gt;. Besides all the practical information it also lists the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field#DOF_formulas&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DOF formula's&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4899" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T08:34:30.923" />
  <row Id="11334" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10836" CreationDate="2011-04-27T10:18:49.007" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As stated above, if you are not happy with 18-55 you will not be happy with a 18-2xx.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a high quality zoom available from canon available within you budget. Canon 70-200 F/4L&#xA;it is exceptionaly sharp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a review:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However i still se great value in 18-200, 18-135 and others superzooms, but you have to accept the lower quality, for the benefit of wide and tele in the same lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your have your 50mm prime when high optical quality is a must, so imo you could live with a super zoom as the 2nd lens. Again if you dont mind swapping lens and you have your kit lens, you can go for to 70-200 and get excelent quality in that range aswell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It all comes down to convenience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4900" LastEditorUserId="4900" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-27T10:26:37.270" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T10:26:37.270" />
  <row Id="11335" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-27T10:24:47.053" Score="1" ViewCount="147" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am looking to get some Raw images in Cannon- CR2/CRW; Nikon- *.NEF ; or Adobe DNG- *.DNG files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am looking to process them using some post-processing tool like Lightroom and want to test a few image processing tools provided in it, hence looking to get these raw images from publicly available raw image content.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2438" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-27T14:33:04.783" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T16:43:49.870" Title="Where can I find sample Raw images?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;picture-samples&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="11336" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11335" CreationDate="2011-04-27T10:46:41.997" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dcraw&lt;/a&gt;'s FAQ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Where can I get an assortment of raw&#xA;  photos to test my software?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Try &lt;a href=&quot;http://raw.fotosite.pl/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;raw.fotosite.pl&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rawsamples.ch/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.rawsamples.ch&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.glasslantern.com/RAWpository/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Glass Lantern&#xA;  RAWpository&lt;/a&gt;. A &quot;full review&quot; at&#xA;  Imaging Resource usually includes a&#xA;  few raw shots. For the complete dcraw&#xA;  test suite (every camera supported by&#xA;  dcraw), I sell a 3-DVD set for $700&#xA;  and web-based updates for $300/year.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="507" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T10:46:41.997" />
  <row Id="11337" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11335" CreationDate="2011-04-27T11:21:09.190" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apart from pointers given by asalamon74, for many,good raw images here is what I found:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cs.tut.fi/~foi/sensornoise.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cs.tut.fi/~foi/sensornoise.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also one of the URL mentioned my asalamon74 was broken, here is the working/cached version:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://replay.web.archive.org/20090121110307/http://raw.fotosite.pl/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://replay.web.archive.org/20090121110307/http://raw.fotosite.pl/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2438" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-27T16:43:49.870" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T16:43:49.870" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11338" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11341" CreationDate="2011-04-27T11:25:12.667" Score="6" ViewCount="142" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, I mount a 200mm lens on my Canon 450D. It effectively becomes a 320mm lens. Is this the equivalent of 320mm on a full frame camera? That is, from what I've figured out I get an equivalent field of view but nothing I've read is indicating that I get the magnification to go along with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So as my question says in the title, does my crop sensor camera &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; turn my lens into a longer one (in terms of magnification), or does it just look like it based on the reduced field of view I get?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3650" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-27T12:06:22.587" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T14:10:23.807" Title="Does my crop sensor camera actually turn my lenses into a longer focal length?" Tags="&lt;focal-length&gt;&lt;crop-factor&gt;&lt;magnification&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11339" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-27T11:33:57.883" Score="1" ViewCount="100" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have some RAW files (CR2 and NEF) captured using Canon &amp;amp; Nikon cameras. If I have to perform Colour balancing/Colour correction using Lightroom or Adobe Photoshop CS, would those tools give me the colour correction matrix (assuming it uses a 3x3 or 3x4 matrix to perform colour balancing of the raw image after it has been demosaiced/interpolated to RGB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Will I be able to get the coefficients of the colour correction matrix used by the post processing tools. I need these matrix coefficients to plug in my own post processing code to see If I get similar output after colour correction or not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any pointers would be useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;thanks,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-AD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2438" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-27T13:39:41.390" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T13:39:41.390" Title="Colour correction/Colour balance in Post processing of Raw images" Tags="&lt;color-correction&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="11340" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11199" CreationDate="2011-04-27T11:40:25.847" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found this video that shows the exposure compensation scale on the display of the camera. There's one just like it inside your viewfinder at the bottom. Check the bit of video at 1:30. You're looking for the scale that goes from -2..-1..0..1..2 just up from the centre of the screen. Then note the button near the top right corner of the display. It's labelled AV and has a +/- symbol. Press this and spin your dial to see it move. That's how to set your exposure compensation.&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_500D_Digital_Rebel_T1i/video_review.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;enter link description here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3650" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T11:40:25.847" />
  <row Id="11341" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11338" CreationDate="2011-04-27T11:56:11.547" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The lens does not actually &lt;em&gt;turn&lt;/em&gt; into a different focal length, since that's a real, physical property of the optics that can't be changed without more optics. So from that point of view, the answer is a definitive &lt;em&gt;no&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, when you get to the question of &lt;em&gt;is it effectively the same in terms of magnification&lt;/em&gt;, the answer is &quot;pretty much, given some assumptions.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A key one is to assume you're printing at the same size. That means: you're &lt;em&gt;increasing the magnification&lt;/em&gt; of the image from the smaller sensor. If you print at sizes different by the same ratio of the crop factor, you get exactly the same result as if you just took a full-frame photo, printed large, and then cropped out the middle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is, if you print your full-frame picture at 12×9&quot;, and your crop-factor picture at 7.5×5.6&quot; (for Canon; 8×6&quot; for others, or 6×4.5&quot;, or whatever), and then chop down the full-frame print to match, they'll be roughly the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Roughly&quot; comes in because, of course, the actual sensors won't be equivalent in image quality. (The crop-factor print may have larger resolution, but from denser photosites, depending on the technology generation used in each camera.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Blowing up that cropped image — either from the full-frame cropped print, or from the cropped sensor — has two effects which are very like changing the focal length. And these two things are the most visible effects of changing focal length — field of view, as you've noted; and depth of field, &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10079/can-a-smaller-sensors-crop-factor-be-used-to-calculate-the-exact-increase-in-d/10121#10121&quot;&gt;which changes exactly as if you'd adjusted the f-stop by the amount of the crop&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you've ever used a point and shoot camera with &quot;digital zoom&quot;, that's what's actually going on. It's cropping the photo and then expanding it. From a practical point of view, zoom is indistinguishable from cropping. But of course, that raises the spectre of decreased image quality — we all know that digital zoom can be awful. The answer is simply that sensor technology is really very good, and amazing, excellent results can be produced at even large print sizes even with a 1.5 or 1.6× crop — but if you do want to go larger with your prints, eventually you need &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11291/why-invest-in-high-end-large-and-medium-format-digital-cameras&quot;&gt;a larger sensor&lt;/a&gt;. And, equivalently, if you want to zoom in more, you can do that with more cropping, but eventually, you need actual higher-focal-length glass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that this doesn't address macro shooting. I don't really do any of that, so I'll let someone else handle that aspect of the question — which I think is well-addressed here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8932/macro-shots-and-crop-factor-bodies&quot;&gt;Macro shots and crop factor bodies.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-27T12:01:51.140" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T12:01:51.140" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11342" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11339" CreationDate="2011-04-27T12:10:11.557" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm 99% sure there's no way to export a colour correction matrix from Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw, because a) I've gone through every menu in the past and not seen anything like it, and b) I believe the colour correction is more complex than a linear transform. Adobes camera colour profiles are 'twisted' which means the colours change depending on luminance to mimic changes in colour perception. I wouldn't be surprised if Adobe used other tricks as well so I don't think you'll be able to replicate the colour correction in your own code.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T12:10:11.557" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11343" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11346" CreationDate="2011-04-27T12:26:00.037" Score="7" ViewCount="202" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon 60D that I use for my primary hobby that is photography, but sometimes the pictures that I took are with the incorrect exposure like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/DMMtC.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Image with an incorrect exposure&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I want to know how I can choose the correct exposure for situations like night, intense light, poor light conditions...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;PS: The image is intentionally unfocused because I was playing with styling my photos a bit, not that it's a problem.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3086" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-27T13:30:36.417" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T02:22:08.307" Title="How to choose the correct exposure?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11344" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6634" CreationDate="2011-04-27T12:40:14.020" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off, comparing images on the Internet is a misleading business since the resolution is usually too low to show up differences. Images from my old 2.1 Mp Canon P&amp;amp;S look not much inferior to my present 15 Mp DSLR when displayed in a normal web page.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However DPReview.com have, very fortunately for us, had a policy over many years of taking photos of the same resolution chart, under the same conditions and storing the original image for download. It is a marvelous resource. There you can find resolution images going back many years for all the major camera models.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Technical image quality has several dimensions and all need to be measured if you want a complete result. For many people though, resolution and chromatic aberration are the most important results. Luckily these things are easy to measure if we use the DPReview.com resolution image library.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagine we want to compare the following cameras (selected for no particular reason)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;You can find the converted raw images under the Resolution heading of the camera reviews:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/nikond7000/samples/resolution/nikond7000-res-ACR.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon D7000&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/nikond5100/samples/resolution/DSC_0038.USM.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon D5100&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD3100/samples/resolution/res_ACR.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon D3100&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/Canoneos600d/Samples/Res/IMG_7384-ACR.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 600D&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicDMCGF2/samples/res/P1010584-ACR.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Panasonic DMC-G2&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Procedure&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Click on the links to download the full size images of resolution charts.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Download a copy of quickmtf. You can find it on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.quickmtf.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Quickmtf.com&lt;/a&gt;. You can get 50 free measurements before you have to pay for it. We use quickmtf because it uses the ISO standard for measuring resolution &lt;a href=&quot;http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.149.2643&amp;amp;rep=rep1&amp;amp;type=pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;according to the SFR slant edge method&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Open each image in Quickmtf. You will see a number of 5 degree slanted edges at different points in the chart. Choose one of interest to you.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Using the cursor tool, draw a rectangle to enclose part of the slanted edge.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A graph will open up showing the MTF curve. Now you can read off things like line pairs per picture height.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In the tool bar click on the buttons for Edge Spread and Line Spread. You will be shown the edge spread and line spread functions. Here you can read off the edge blur and the chromatic aberration.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Horizontal edge, 15% from the center.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Edge blur in pixel (chromatic aberration in pixel).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;For reference - 1.27 pixel is the best attainable result.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;code&gt;Nikon D7000........2.5 px (0.8 px)&lt;/code&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;code&gt;Nikon D5100........2.6 px (0.6 px)&lt;/code&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;code&gt;Nikon D3100........2.1 px (0.7 px)&lt;/code&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;code&gt;Canon 600D.........2.4 px (0.6 px)&lt;/code&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;code&gt;Panasonic DMC-G2...2.0 px (0.2 px)&lt;/code&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I show edge blur because it is immediately understandable to most people. Reading MTF graphs is challenging. The important thing to note is the ringing in the graphs for Canon and Panasonic. This indicates that the images have been sharpened more than the images for Nikon, which distorts the results. Ideally the images should not have been sharpened, but we have to work with what is available.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The graphs are shown below:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Nikon D7000&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/k7uW8.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Nikon D5100&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/3Dbc8.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Nikon D3100&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/J5yXc.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Canon 600D&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/MDSUR.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Panasonic DMC-GF2&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/0J16L.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T12:40:14.020" />
  <row Id="11345" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11343" CreationDate="2011-04-27T12:55:04.727" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm guessing that we're going to run afoul of the term &quot;correct&quot; here, because you're trying to take a nighttime scene and make it appear as if it's daytime, which isn't really a faithful reproduction of ambient conditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Artistically, you're absolutely free to do exactly what you're describing, and in some cases, this can turn out really well.  Soft, even light (diffused moonlight, maybe) across a scene could work really well for this, I believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to increase exposure, you could use exposure compensation (probably available in several of your camera's modes), but to really turn night into day, you're probably going to have to go into manual mode and set up a really long exposure.  Make sure you're tripod-mounting your camera in order to do this, and slow the shutter speed until you get the effect you're looking for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a shot like your example, though, where lighting isn't really diffused at all, but rather, is coming from all those point sources on the horizon, I believe you're going to blow out all those highlights before you really achieve anything that looks like daylight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T12:55:04.727" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11346" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11343" CreationDate="2011-04-27T13:28:21.970" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There isn't really any &quot;correct exposure&quot;. You can expose a picture however you like. Some choices may be &lt;em&gt;more typical&lt;/em&gt;, and if you expose photos in a moderate, even way, it will tend to appeal to most people without a thought as to the exposure as an element of the composition. In other cases, you may choose to make the exposure darker or lighter, perhaps making the photograph low key or &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10232/what-does-it-mean-for-a-photograph-to-be-high-key&quot;&gt;high key&lt;/a&gt;. If this is very strong, it will become a central element of the image; if it's more subtle, the effect may just be subconscious. Or, it may cause some viewers to dislike your choice, which is okay, because hey, it's your photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In most compositions, choosing how bright to make the main subject is the most important point. If that's all you care about, and you just want to make it medium brightness, &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/597/what-situations-are-best-suited-for-spot-metering&quot;&gt;spot metering&lt;/a&gt; might do the trick. Usually matrix or evaluative metering will too, with more consideration to the rest of the frame as well. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4687/when-best-to-use-multi-zone-matrix-spot-or-center-weight&quot;&gt;When best to use Multi-Zone/Matrix, Spot, or Center-Weight?&lt;/a&gt; for more on metering.) Relying on the camera's metering will give you an average-brightness exposure, and you can use EV compensation if you decide you want the image to be brighter or darker than that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7616/what-is-dynamic-range-and-how-is-it-important-in-photography&quot;&gt;dynamic range&lt;/a&gt; of the whole scene you are photographing is an important thing to think about too. If there's very dark areas, keeping the exposure low will lose detail there; if there's very bright areas, a higher exposure will cause blown highlights. In many common cases, there's enough of both that you can't satisfy both sides given the technical limitations of cameras, so you need to make a decision as to where you will compromise. It's possible to use techniques to &lt;em&gt;compress&lt;/em&gt; the range into one image (for example, &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7623/what-is-hdr-photography&quot;&gt;HDR&lt;/a&gt;&quot;), but that can look unnatural. So, usually, choosing where to keep detail and where it's okay for detail to be lost in shadow or &quot;blown-out&quot; into white is a crucial decision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, a thought process for exposure might be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How bright do I want the subject to be?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How bright do I want the overall tone of the image to be?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How do I want to deal with highlights and shadows?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and the exposure choice follows from there. Many people find that Ansel Adam's &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6769/what-is-ansel-adams-zone-system&quot;&gt;Zone System&lt;/a&gt; provides a good framework for this, even in the modern digital age.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And really, I don't feel like my answer here is complete without a plug for a book by one of my favorite authors on photography, &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.focalpress.com/books/photography/michael_freeman39s_perfect_exposure.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Michael Freeman's Perfect Exposure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;. This book goes beyond the typical what-is-metering, what is aperture, etc. questions (which, by the way, we cover pretty well here under &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/camera-basics&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'camera-basics'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;camera-basics&lt;/a&gt;), and looks carefully at a photographer's mental process for choosing the &quot;correct&quot; exposure for a given photograph to meet a certain intent, with both practical examples and theory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-28T02:22:08.307" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T02:22:08.307" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11347" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11343" CreationDate="2011-04-27T13:39:49.460" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Modern exposure technique, at least outside a high-pressure professional environment, is basically about quick feedback and exposure compensation. That is, let the camera decide, then look at the screen (with the histograms on) and dial in some compensation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you've done this for a lot, you start getting a feel for what's happening and develop an awareness for what the camera will do and how you will compensate even before you shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing that could help in developing this awareness is to switch off matrix-metering and use a plain center-weighted pattern. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4827" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T13:39:49.460" />
  <row Id="11348" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-27T13:41:51.457" Score="1" ViewCount="200" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the best anti blur plug-in for Photoshop image editor and how effective can it be without compromising with the image quality or increasing sharpness/noise?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am especially interested in rectifying the camera shakes caused by slow shutter-speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4904" LastEditorUserId="2127" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-28T13:40:28.317" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T19:08:42.820" Title="Anti Blur Plugin for Photoshop" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="11349" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11338" CreationDate="2011-04-27T14:10:23.807" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The crop sensor does not change any property of the lens - but by seeing just the center of the image it makes it look like everything is multiplied by the crop factor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The focal length does not change - but by looking only at the center of the image makes it look similar to what you get by using a longer lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The magnification also does not change, a marco lens with 1:1 magnification will still have 1:1 magnification (object size in reality = object size on sensor) but now that the sensor is smaller the object on the image will be 1.6 bigger, for example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Full frame:                              Crop Sensor:&#xA;+-sensor----------------+&#xA;|                       |&#xA;|   +-subject--------+  |                +-subject--------+&#xA;|   |                |  |                |   +--sensor--+ |&#xA;|   |                |  |                |   |          | |&#xA;|   |                |  |                |   +----------+ |&#xA;|   +----------------+  |                +----------------+&#xA;+-----------------------+        &#xA;subject is entirely inside image         subject is exactly the same size and &#xA;                                         position but is now larger than image&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The subject projection on the sensor is exactly the same size (lens magnification didn't change) but it take a larger area of the image because the sensor is smaller.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2481" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T14:10:23.807" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11350" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11352" CreationDate="2011-04-27T14:18:19.803" Score="1" ViewCount="120" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Nikon D3100, a standard 18-55mm and Sigma 70-300mm lens without IS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is it true that a teleconverter cannot be used with my Sigma lens?  Can it be used only with block lenses, or is there any way I can make use of the teleconverter for extended zoom?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;At the full 300mm zoom my images seems to degrade in quality (soften), is there any way to fix this problem?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4904" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-27T17:16:42.323" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T14:58:18.873" Title="Can a Teleconverter be used to extend a Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;teleconverter&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11351" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11343" CreationDate="2011-04-27T14:38:55.260" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am going to give a general answer and propose a modified form of the Zone System which I call the Highlight Zone System. Its goal is to preserve selected highlights faithfully. It is also known as 'expose for the highlights and develop for the shadows'.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set your camera to spot metering.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Place the center spot over a highlight that you want to reproduce properly.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lock in the exposure with your AEL button.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;According to the table below dial in an exposure compensation of +1 to +4 EV to reproduce the highlight in the shade you want.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No compensation will make your highlight Zone 5 or mid grey, which is almost certainly not what you want.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Recompose and take the photo accordingly.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For difficult shots this will be your starting point from which you work by looking at the histogram and making further adjustments.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/vTSLG.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The principle is that for most, but not all, subjects, faithful reproduction of the highlights is what matters most. In post processing you can adjust dark or mid tones to your taste and the limits imposed by noise.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://ronbigelow.com/articles/white-point/white-point.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ron Bigelow puts it this way&lt;/a&gt;:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The human eye selects the brightest point in its view and treats it as pure white. Of course, there are limitations to this. If the brightest point in the eyes' view is very dim or is not even close to white, this effect no longer applies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All other colors are referenced to the brightest point.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The illustration of dynamic range on my camera, below, illustrates why this matters.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The sensor has a sharp cut off as brightness approaches saturation of the sensor. Thus it is easy to burn out highlights. So we have to expose carefully for the highlights to avoid burning them out and losing detail.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/v2DhY.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;References&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Zone System - Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.normankoren.com/zonesystem.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A Simplified Zone System for Making Good Exposures - Norman Koren&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://ronbigelow.com/articles/white-point/white-point.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;White Point - Ron Bigelow&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-27T19:08:49.427" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T19:08:49.427" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11352" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11350" CreationDate="2011-04-27T14:52:17.767" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; use a teleconverter with some zoom lenses -- but not with your Sigma. In fact, most of Sigma's higher-end zooms are specifically designed to work with a teleconverter (Sigma's), and a couple of them actually perform slightly better in some respects (specifically in terms of chromatic aberration and vignetting) with the teleconverter added than without.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main problem with your lenses (apart from any other aspect of the lens design) is the maximum aperture. A 1.4x converter increases the effective focal length of the lens by a factor of 1.4, but it also &lt;em&gt;decreases&lt;/em&gt; the effective maximum aperture by one full stop. That means your Sigma would become a 98-420mm f/5.6-8 lens, and would not be able to autofocus on your D3100 except at its widest setting. A 2x teleconverter doubles the focal length of the lens, but at a cost of two full stops, so your lens would be a 140-600 f/8-11, and would not autofocus at all on your camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, the optical design of the lens can complicate all of this a great deal. It's not &lt;em&gt;just&lt;/em&gt; about the maximum aperture; the shape of the light path behind the lens has a lot to do with it as well. Not all lenses, whether zoom or prime, have an optical characteristic that plays nicely with teleconverters. Most current telephoto zooms with a maximum aperture of at least f/2.8 work well with converters (some are restricted to 1.4x converters and should not be used with 1.7x or 2x converters -- see the lens manual). &quot;Consumer grade&quot;, slow, variable-aperture lenses usually don't work well, or don't work at all, with a teleconverter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T14:52:17.767" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11353" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11262" CreationDate="2011-04-27T15:06:24.083" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the search phrase you're looking for is &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;amp;q=diy%20%22toy%20lens%22&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DIY toy lens&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This will lead you to a number of interesting projects, including &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikkokam/tags/buildingthetoylens/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this one made from toy magnifying glasses&lt;/a&gt; like the one you were playing with. The basic construction is quite simple: an extension tube is used to mount a tube of cardboard to the camera, and the lenses mounted within that tube. That's pretty simple, and flexible enough that you could adapt the idea with lots of different possible improvements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other projects, like &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.cow.mooh.org/2010/04/fisheye-tin-cam.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the fisheye tin-can lens&lt;/a&gt; use peephole lenses designed for looking out one's front door. That gives a different effect, but may also appeal to you since the results will be decidedly lo-fi.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T15:06:24.083" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11354" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9381" CreationDate="2011-04-27T15:15:52.157" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've got the 2.8 i7 with 8GB of RAM. Thinking about upgrading to 16GB as I just saw it on Newegg for $179.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't tried running Aperture 3 alone on this machine, but while rendering in After Effects Aperture was SLOW...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wish I had the Mid-2010 model so I could install an SSD internally, but just ordered an 8TB RAID system instead so will see how I can use that to speed things up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4906" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T15:15:52.157" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11355" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11262" CreationDate="2011-04-27T15:24:27.920" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think what you are looking for is similar to the effect you can get with a Lensbaby lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the simplest way to get this effect, and I think the most flexibile, because you can do this AFTER the image is taken, is to do this is Photoshop ( or even GIMP). This way, you can determine where you wish to put the focal point, and what range you wish the CA to cover.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather than outline the technique here, I suggest you Google: photoshop lensbaby effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few interesting links: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photocreative365.com/day-30-lens-baby-effect-in-photoshop/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://photocreative365.com/day-30-lens-baby-effect-in-photoshop/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adorama.com/alc/article/A-Faux-Lensbaby-Effect&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.adorama.com/alc/article/A-Faux-Lensbaby-Effect&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T15:24:27.920" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11356" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11348" CreationDate="2011-04-27T16:01:09.153" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a lot of options; I have used Sharpener Pro from Nik Software with good results. Obviously I try to take a well-focused photo at the start, to avoid needing a plugin to reduce blur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see more info about this plugin at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.niksoftware.com/sharpenerpro/usa/entry.php?&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;official Sharpener Pro page.&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4727" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-28T06:07:59.400" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T06:07:59.400" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11357" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-27T16:24:41.940" Score="0" ViewCount="48" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the effective way of lighting the subject for portraiture photography?&#xA;How can i improve the single source lighting with dark or aesthetic background?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4904" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T16:24:41.940" ClosedDate="2011-04-27T17:44:18.777" Title="lightings for portraiture" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11358" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11262" CreationDate="2011-04-27T16:32:20.943" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are correct that you could simulate this in an editor by shifting the layers a bit, however since the amount of fringing grows as things are farther away you end up needing to slice and dice the image and shift different parts of the image different amounts. Also the corners of the lens tend to shift more than the center, so you would need to shift more out there as well. And also... since CA isn't side to side, it's radial inside to outside, you would need to shift different pixels in different directions based on where they are in the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, if I were going to try to fake it in PS, I'd use a bit of motion blur instead of shifting pixels. Split it into color plates like you suggested, take the blue to the outside and the red to the inside. Probably copy the layers, apply the radial motion blur to the key items in the image, based on how close they are, then apply a bit more to the background, and finally apply a layer mask that hides most of the effect in the middle of the shot and none of it in the corners. You aren't likely to get an exact technical replication of what CA is going to looklike, but if you're looking for the artistic effect it presents, you'll get close.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OR just go buy a cheap plastic lens. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T16:32:20.943" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="11359" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-27T17:19:31.370" Score="8" ViewCount="140" Body="&lt;p&gt;As one reads about zoom lenses, a relatively common comment that comes up in reviews of some lenses (especially lower-priced lenses) is that the lens is not as sharp (&quot;soft&quot;) at one or both ends of the focal length zoom range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why would a lens have differing levels of sharpness at different focal lengths, and why would the extremes be the worst?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T21:41:37.573" Title="Why are some zoom lenses &quot;soft&quot; at either end of the focal length range?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;optics&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="11360" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11350" CreationDate="2011-04-27T17:26:59.640" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The other answer is fantastic, but as a practical matter you should also know about the Sigma teleconverter compatibility chart:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sigmaphoto.com/sigma-lens-teleconverter-compatability-chart&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.sigmaphoto.com/sigma-lens-teleconverter-compatability-chart&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have a Sigma lens and it is not on there, you cannot use a TC with it.  The chart is also helpful to understand if you'll be able to use AF with a converter on a specific lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastEditorUserId="1192" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-28T14:58:18.873" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T14:58:18.873" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11361" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11359" CreationDate="2011-04-27T17:34:24.220" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lenses involve significant corrections for abnormalities. These abnormalities are known as aberrations. There are a variety of aberrations, some of the more common are spherical, astigmatism, chromatic, coma, barrel, pincushion, field curvature, and out of focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If these aberrations didn't exist, lens design would be very easy. Simply put a lens or two in a straight line, and you'd have a perfect image, every time. But, we know that these aberrations exist. It's impossible to completely correct these aberrations, for any but a single point. The more of these aberrations there are, the more &quot;soft&quot; an image will look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One can minimize distortion over a large period of time, mostly by making more expensive lenses. The more expensive lenses come from making non-spherical shaped lenses, which are harder to manufacture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The more that you get away from the lens sweet spot, the more soft it will be. Changes of focal lengths, aperture, and focal distance all are influencers in the sweet spot. Thus changing any one of the 3 will degrade quality. If the lens is of a high enough quality, the degradation will barely be noticeable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T17:34:24.220" />
  <row Id="11362" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11359" CreationDate="2011-04-27T17:53:49.333" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately I have also seen lenses where central focal-lengths are worst, so your assumption is not always correct.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically a zoom is made of moving optical elements and they have to move relative to each other to change the focal-length of the lens. Optical engineers are responsible for optimizing the performance throughout the zoom with a fixed set of parts in a fixed order. You can imagine this is a difficult process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Extremities are more vulnerable to issues because the optical elements together often work best at a set position and the further away from that position, the further away from optimal performance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T17:53:49.333" />
  <row Id="11363" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11359" CreationDate="2011-04-27T17:58:05.587" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Zoom lens design, unlike prime (single fixed focal length) lens design, tends to be rather complex. With a prime lens, it is much easier to correct for optical aberrations like chromatic aberration, spherical aberration, distortion, etc., and so so with fewer lens elements. The fewer lens elements (individual glass lenses used in the construction of a complex camera lens), the better your image quality will generally be, since each piece of glass will affect the focusing of light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Zoom lenses generally have more lens elements than prime lenses, sometimes considerably more. When it comes to the wider focal lengths, some zoom lenses are longer than their focal length and require a &quot;retrofocal&quot; group at the back. All of these extra lens elements each add to the optical aberrations, some correcting the aberrations of other lens elements. In a zoom lens, optical correction must be done in such a way that it produces the best overall quality throughout the zoom range, which usually means a compromise must be made somewhere (can't have your cake and eat it too.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Zoom lenses usually have &quot;sharper&quot; points and &quot;softer&quot; points. It is not always at the extremes of the focal range...sometimes its right in the middle. Sometimes the compromise comes at the cost of image &quot;edge&quot; sharpness vs. &quot;center&quot; sharpness, which may be worse at one focal length than another. Either way, accommodating a variable focal range requires compromise due to necessary complexity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Higher quality lenses will often use more advanced optics to correct aberrations, usually at considerable cost. A midrange lens may simply use more lenses to correct for aberrations and ignore how aberrations change throughout the focal range. A top grade professional lens will account for variability in aberrations, use advanced optics like high density glass, low dispersion glass, aspheric lens elements, fluorite lens elements, apochromatic lens elements, extra corrective groups, etc. to maintain the highest quality throughout the focal range of a zoom lens. Compromises must still be made relative to prime lenses, however the degree of compromise tends to be much less.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T17:58:05.587" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11364" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11247" CreationDate="2011-04-27T18:02:14.010" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Usually lenses with a large focal ranges end up having poorer quality than lenses for each &quot;normal&quot; focal range (tele, wide, regular zoom). You get more versatility with lower image quality, it's a case of &quot;Jack of all trades, master of none&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="938" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T18:02:14.010" />
  <row Id="11365" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11262" CreationDate="2011-04-27T20:06:17.573" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You'll have more CA by using fast glass, i.e. where the ratio of focal length to diameter is smaller; for more chromatic aberrations, you'll want to avoid achromatic lenses. Along with CA, faster lens will also make image more misty (spheric aberrations); you can reduce that by stopping the lens down using an aperture disc (I cut mine out of a plastic binder). &lt;a href=&quot;http://nagi.ee/photos/a4imrel/sets/300541/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;My first DIY lens&lt;/a&gt; was based on a 110mm f/1.8 magnifying glass bought from local market, CA was quite prominent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ordered glass for my second DIY lens (64mm f/1.7 achromatic, US $7 + $5 int'l shipping) from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.surplusshed.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Surplus Shed&lt;/a&gt; - they have quite wide selection of lenses at affordable prices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-29T20:41:37.580" LastActivityDate="2011-04-29T20:41:37.580" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11366" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11367" CreationDate="2011-04-27T20:46:33.703" Score="6" ViewCount="142" Body="&lt;p&gt;What type of equipment does one need for taking shots at night, of moving targets? Not specific lenses or anything, but what attributes would such a lens need to have?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;O. Winston Link has some great night photos of trains at night, and there is no blur, can anyone comment on the type of equipment used for photos like this? (on a higher resolution print you can clearly see that all of the lines are very crisp.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/rWUhY.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;O. Winston Link Night Shot&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3206" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T07:43:13.247" Title="What type of equipment does one need for taking night shots of moving objects with minimal blur?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;night-shooting&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11367" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11366" CreationDate="2011-04-27T21:00:32.617" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Wikipedia (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Link&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Link&lt;/a&gt;) he used a total of 43 flashbulbs (wired to trigger simultaneously) for the shot you have as an example. Certainly the shot looks lit by flash. Looking at a higher resolution copy, I think at least one of the flashbulb heads near the tracks are visible in the shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2228" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-28T07:43:13.247" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T07:43:13.247" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11368" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11366" CreationDate="2011-04-27T21:01:48.457" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You need a DSLR Camera with a high range value of ISO, or a good illumination, not there special lenses, only you need setting good illumination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4727" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T21:01:48.457" />
  <row Id="11369" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11366" CreationDate="2011-04-27T21:12:47.110" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The blur is caused by motion during exposure. There are two ways to get around this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fast shutter-speed&lt;/strong&gt;: To get a proper exposure at night with a fast shutter-speed you need to &lt;strong&gt;increase the ISO sensitivity&lt;/strong&gt; and open the aperture. Keep in mind that opening the aperture reduces your depth-of-field, so you may not want to shoot at F/1.4 even if your lens can do it. Modern full-frame DSLRs are fantastic in the regards, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=10&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon D3S&lt;/a&gt; is considered best-in-class due to its relatively low 12 megapixels resolution and sensitivity up to ISO 102400. Yes, it gets noisy there but it lets you obtain nearly impossible shots.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Flash&lt;/strong&gt;: This lets you take an exposure where the &lt;strong&gt;subject is illuminated for a short duration&lt;/strong&gt;. It takes a lot of flash power (multiple flashes) to light up a train and you have to get your lights close enough to be effective and have enough lights to light up the whole thing. Not an easy or cheap task but I know people from National Geographic who made such shots with a team of people working together.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T21:12:47.110" />
  <row Id="11370" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-27T21:36:47.287" Score="4" ViewCount="133" Body="&lt;p&gt;Today I upgraded Adobe Photoshop Lightroom to &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2011/04/lightroom-3-4-and-camera-raw-6-4-now-available.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;version 3.4 which lists newly supported lenses&lt;/a&gt;. I was hoping that it would change some of my lenses from &lt;em&gt;'Unknown Lens'&lt;/em&gt; to a specific model, but it did not. &lt;em&gt;Scan for metadata&lt;/em&gt; update did nothing either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is there a way to tell Lightroom to rebuild its lens database without removing and reimporting all the images?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While on the topic of lens meta, is there a way to add my own recognition and correct errors? I have one lens which incorrectly shows up, one lens that is only recognized part of the time and one that was recognized exactly once. None of these images have EVER been edited or modified by any software. The directories are on a read-only file-system to avoid all accidental changes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-29T06:14:47.840" Title="Lightroom Upgrade vs Lens Metadata" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;metadata&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11371" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11359" CreationDate="2011-04-27T21:41:37.573" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Warning: this is yet another of my &quot;book length&quot; answers... :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's start by a quick review of how a zoom lens works. Consider the simplest possible lens design -- a single element. One big problem with a single element lens is that the focal length of the lens determines the distance the element has to be from the film plane/sensor to bring a scene into focus, so a 300 mm lens (for example) would have to be 300mm away from the sensor to focus on infinity. Conversely, wide angle lens would need to be &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; close to the film plane/sensor to focus on infinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lens designers soon figured out a pretty cool trick though: they could create a long &lt;em&gt;effective&lt;/em&gt; focal length by putting a short focal length element at the front, and a (slightly weaker) negative element behind it. With the negative element, the light hit the film plane at exactly the same angle(s) as if it had been refracted by a long lens. Exaggerating a bit (or a lot), we get a substitution like the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/5q3Mb.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both lenses have he same effective focal length, &lt;em&gt;but&lt;/em&gt; (obviously enough) the second one is physically quite a bit shorter -- it doesn't have to stick out the front of the camera nearly as far.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The doubled upper-line in the second design, however, brings us to our second point: chromatic aberration. The &quot;inner&quot; line represents blue light going through the lenses, and the &quot;outer&quot; line red light. Because of its shorter wavelength, blue light is always refracted (bent) more as it goes through a lens than red light is. Depending on the glass, however, the difference between the refraction of the red and blue light may be quite large or relatively small.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we pick the right glass for the front versus the rear element, we can achieve roughly what's shown in the picture -- the amount of extra bending in the front element is exactly compensated by the amount of extra bending in the second element, so the red and blue light come into focus exactly together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With a zoom lens, however, things don't work out quite that easily. To get a zoom lens, we take the second design, but &lt;em&gt;move&lt;/em&gt; the rear element relative to the front element. In this case, if we move the front element forward, the blue light will have diverged &lt;em&gt;less&lt;/em&gt; from the red when they enter the second element, and since there's no more room behind the second element, it'll be bent more -- as a result, instead of coming into focus exactly together, the blue light will end up &quot;outside&quot; the red light, which will show up in the picture as chromatic aberration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conversely, if the rear element is moved back closer to the sensor, the blue light will have diverged further away from the red light when it gets to the second element. Then, since the second element is closer to the sensor it won't converge with the red, so it'll end up still &quot;inside&quot; the red when it gets to the sensor -- again, chromatic aberration (but in the opposite direction).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we left it at that, zoom lenses would all be pretty awful -- every change in focal length would give &lt;em&gt;huge&lt;/em&gt; amounts of CA. To combat that, elements are grouped. Instead of just the front element and second element, with one compensating for the CA introduced by the other, you'd have two groups of elements, each of which compensates for its own CA, and moving the groups relative to each other doesn't change the CA at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's still not that simple though. It's physically impossible for a group of elements to completely compensate for CA. An element always bends blue light by some &lt;em&gt;angle&lt;/em&gt; that's greater than angle at which it bends red light. At best, if you put the elements really close together, you can get the red and blue light traveling very close together and almost parallel, but still slightly separated. If you bend them back toward each other, they're only going to converge at one exact distance; at any other distance, you're going to end up with CA in one direction or the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As already noted, however, with a zoom lens, the distances involved &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; change. What the lens designer is &lt;em&gt;normally&lt;/em&gt; going to do is try to minimize the worst case CA. Doing that is pretty easy (at least in theory): he looks at the range through which the rear element moves, and figures out the angle that'll produce convergence at exactly the middle of that range. This way he's splitting things, so it'll get CA in one direction as the rear element moves closer to the sensor, and in the other direction as it moves farther away. Of course, it's not really just the rear element though -- he has to look at the combination of all the movements of all the element groups (and account for the dispersion introduced by each, of course).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once he's figure out the range, however, he usually minimizes the worst case by splitting the difference -- optimizing for roughly the middle of the range, so it gets a little worse in each direction. The exception is a lens that's expected to be used primarily at one end or the other. In this case, it can make sense to optimize for approximately the expected usage range, and live with the fact that the worst case is going to be worse than it would really have to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, this is also looking at only one of the &lt;em&gt;several&lt;/em&gt; factors important to a lens design -- the designer also has to take into account (at least) coma, astigmatism, vignetting, distortion, and spherical aberration -- not to mention a few minor details like size, weight, cost, and simply being able to manufacture a real lens that works the way he's designed it to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T21:41:37.573" />
  <row Id="11372" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11348" CreationDate="2011-04-27T21:58:36.183" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're already using (and happy with) Topaz Labs products, then take a look at Topaz InFocus. In addition to being an excellent sharpening plug-in in general, it has a deblur tool that can recover directionally blurred images very well and make up somewhat for focus errors (always a bit of a gamble, since the plugin has no way of knowing what the intended point of focus might have been).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T21:58:36.183" />
  <row Id="11373" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-04-27T22:02:34.647" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-27T22:02:34.647" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T22:02:34.647" />
  <row Id="11374" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-04-27T22:02:34.647" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Conditions where the ambient (existing) light is of a low level (dark).  Photographers often use additional lighting equipment or long exposures in low light conditions." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-27T23:05:24.567" LastActivityDate="2011-04-27T23:05:24.567" />
  <row Id="11375" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10294" CreationDate="2011-04-28T00:25:22.463" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;NTSC pixel aspect ratio is 9:10.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So you need to crop images to the right image aspect-ratio considering the pixel aspect-ratio. Which is crop to 4:3 ratio and then resize to 720x480 without constraining proportions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once the pixel aspect-ratio is taken into account this gives a 4:3 image that fills an NTSC screen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-28T03:33:51.250" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T03:33:51.250" />
  <row Id="11376" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11370" CreationDate="2011-04-28T01:04:05.497" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lightroom wizard Godfrey DiGiorgi posted this to the Pentax-Discuss Mail List today, in response to the same issue. I have not tried it myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Select &quot;All Photographs&quot; in the&#xA;Library module, Catalog panel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set Grid view&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use the filter bar, Metadata&#xA;switch, set the first column to&#xA;&quot;Lens&quot;, and click on &quot;Unknown&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Select all&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use the &quot;Metadata-&gt;Save metadata&#xA;to file...&quot; command to write out all&#xA;keywords and other IPTC metadata to&#xA;the file system for this set of&#xA;files&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use the &quot;Metadata-&gt;Read metadata&#xA;from file...&quot; command to refresh all&#xA;the metadata for this set of files&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2138" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T01:04:05.497" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11377" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="633" CreationDate="2011-04-28T03:06:50.810" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Che's description of the lighting sounds about right, but I want to address another issue you brought up. You said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;use a 4 foot octobox, center at eye level with the model, 1.5 feet out from model's face at center, and 45 degrees off camera axis?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only time the center of the softbox should be pointed at your sitter is when you are doing over-and-under lighting (or &quot;clamshell&quot; lighting) or Paramount lighting (&quot;butterfly&quot; lighting). If the softbox is off the camera axis and the center is pointed at your sitter, then half of the light is passing behind your sitter into empty space.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead, move the softbox so that the sitter is near the far edge. You don't have to move it far enough forward to be a &quot;feathered&quot; light; just don't waste all of that wonderful diffuser area lighting empty space (unless you really want to restrict the light for effect). And yes, &quot;close enough&quot; is a lot closer than most people think if you are really going for soft light -- you'd want to be right on the ragged edge of having the box in-frame a lot of the time. Once you're about twice the box's diagonal away from the subject, it's just another light -- you might as well be using an ordinary reflector for all the good the softbox is doing you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T03:06:50.810" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11378" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11262" CreationDate="2011-04-28T09:05:36.017" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you split your image into red, green and blue channels, and then:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Leave the green channel alone.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Scale the red channel &lt;strong&gt;up&lt;/strong&gt; slightly, around the centre of the image&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Blur (slightly) the outside of the red channel: you could use a radial followed by rotational blur to do this.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Scale the blue channel &lt;strong&gt;down&lt;/strong&gt; more than you scaled the red channel up, still about the centre of the image.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Blur (slightly more) the outside of the blue channel.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Recombine your red green and blue channels.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;crop off the edges of your image (where you scaled the blue channel down).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This will reasonably accurately re-create some chromatic aberration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2019" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T09:05:36.017" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="11379" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11383" CreationDate="2011-04-28T11:11:42.967" Score="2" ViewCount="117" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there any difference in images produced using in-camera bracketing (-2,0,+2) and images produced using exposure correction (-2,0,+2) from RAW images in DPP? I'll be traveling tomorrow to a place where I think I'll take a lot of bracketed photos for HDR processing. Since I don't have too much memory cards with me, can I just take one properly exposed photo and later generate -2 and +2 exposed photos in DPP from it instead of taking 3 bracketed shots and get the same quality? Bracketed/Generated images will be used for HDR processings mostly, so its okay as long as the generated HDR (I use Photomatix 4.0) has the same quality and look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[EDIT: I've done the test, the HDR generated from 3 in-camera bracketed shots gave me a tack sharp HDR with no noise but the HDR from exposure corrected images in DPP generated much more noise in the merged HDR, it was almost unusuable. I used Photomatix 4.0]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastEditorUserId="2476" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-19T04:08:21.033" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T04:08:21.033" Title="In-Camera Bracketing vs Exposure Correction in DPP" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;hdr&gt;&lt;bracketing&gt;&lt;exposure-compensation&gt;&lt;exposure-correction&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11380" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7720" CreationDate="2011-04-28T11:23:01.607" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jrista said:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now, if someone can come up with a consistent, reasonably accurate test that can provide real-world photographers with a real-world idea of how much DR they can actually eek out of their camera .  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My posting is in answer to Jrista's question and I hope it will shed some light on Shizam's original question. These tests represent what you can actually achieve in real-world conditions with your camera. I did these tests at ISO 200 since that is the speed I normally work with. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can do it yourself pretty accurately without spending any money. Instructions follow below the graph.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the result of a test I did myself. I interpret this as meaning that, under practical conditions, with my camera, at ISO 200, I can usefully get a dynamic range of 8 EV.  DxO give a result of 10 EV while DPReview give a result of 8.4 EV (all at ISO 200).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is useful to look at noise levels as well, &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11281/how-to-test-noise/11299#11299&quot;&gt;see this procedure for measuring noise levels&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/J5Sve.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The procedure in outline is this:&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;use a uniform white wall (or similar surface) as a target.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;put your camera on a tripod.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;take a photo to get your starting exposure. All your photos must be taken in RAW mode. You should get a mid grey image.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;now set your camera to manual exposure.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;take a series of photos at decreasing EV steps until you have pure black, add one for good measure. You will probably need at least six photos.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;take a series of photos at increasing EV stops until you have pure white. Add one for good measure. You will probably need at least six photos.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that you have your photos you will analyse them as follows  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;open the first one in Ufraw (or similar RAW converter)  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;set exposure to default, input curve to linear, output curve to linear, choose no profile, choose manual white balance and adjust to neutral.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Under live histogram you will see the average RGB levels for the entire image.  Take the average of the RGB values and use that as the average brightness of the image.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;repeat for all photos in this set&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you will now have sets of relative EV values paired with average brighness values.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;plot them on a graph as I have done above.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;this will give an accurate indication of the dynamic range.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main limitations on the accuracy of this procedure is the accuracy of your shutter speed and aperture. You will see this effect as small deviations from an ideal curve. For better resolution you can do the test at half stop intervals.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take all photos in a short enough time that changes in ambient light have no effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The standard way of testing the dynamic range of your camera is to use the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stouffer.net/TransPage.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Stouffer step wedge&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;You can see their &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stouffer.net/Productlist.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;price list here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1368" LastEditorUserId="1368" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-28T11:32:20.117" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T11:32:20.117" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11381" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-04-28T11:27:25.957" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-28T11:27:25.957" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T11:27:25.957" />
  <row Id="11382" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-04-28T11:27:25.957" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Exposure Correction " OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="2476" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-28T15:11:04.733" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T15:11:04.733" />
  <row Id="11383" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11379" CreationDate="2011-04-28T11:43:29.140" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Exposure correction is using a single image to do something like HDR, but not true HDR.  The reason is that you do not have the same dynamic range as three images provides. A true HDR will utilize multiple images, and have much more detail than a single image...meaning you will be able to see many more objects from the shadows of a single image, and you will be able to recover objects that are in the blown out detail of a single image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you do bracketing, the camera takes 3 images. One is exposing the entire scene two stops less than the 'base' exposure, but this will be correct for many objects in the image, and incorrect for others. Next, it takes exposures at 0 (base) and +2 (2 stops over), where you are exposing different portions of the image &quot;correctly&quot;, and different portions &quot;incorrectly&quot;. (I am using &quot;correctly&quot;/&quot;incorrectly&quot; in this instance to mean that there is adequate detail, vs incorrectly, meaning there is no detail available). In this case, each image has detail from different portions of the image that will be missing in the other images. When you combine the images, you are generating an image that combines all the exposed areas, throwing out the incorrectly exposed ones, thus leveraging ALL the detail available in all 3 images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you create one image, you expose for either an average of the scene, or a small portion of the scene, depending on camera settings. In this case, there are areas that are exposed incorrectly, and provide NO detail. In a single image, there is NO detail to be recovered, even in RAW...you simply will not have the information in your image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The end result will likely be very different, however sometimes a single image &quot;HDR&quot; can provide more detail than you would get otherwise, and may be the photo you wanted.  Just remember, you can not replace detail that simply isn't in your image, so its best to capture the detail as best you can, which means 3, or more images to capture all available detail. Also note that true HDR works best with RAW images. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastEditorUserId="4880" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-28T13:00:55.843" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T13:00:55.843" />
  <row Id="11384" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11379" CreationDate="2011-04-28T11:46:10.900" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer is: It depends entirely on your ability to expose one photo correctly for the environments you'll be shooting. If you can, go with it HDR, if the environments truly do have more dynamic range than your camera can handle, go with bracketing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The longer answer is not so clear - bracketing will generally give you more detail than just one exposure since you'll likely want to use either method in cases where you &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; exceed the dynamic range of your camera and HDR really is just a method of trading local contrast in to emulate a higher dynamic range. As the +2 and -2 images in bracketing will contain far more information in the highlights and shadows than just a RAW image exposed for midtones, you will potentially get more data to work with, all depending on the jpeg performance of your camera and your settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get the most starting data for HDR, you'd probably want to go with bracketing RAW images, but considering that you want to preserve your space, that is not what you would want. If you use bracketing correctly, making sure to keep your depth of field constant, you will likely achieve far better images with bracketing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4889" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T11:46:10.900" />
  <row Id="11385" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-04-28T12:02:27.257" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Exposure compensation allows a photographer to request the the camera meter based on the specified compensation factor; This allows for a dark scene to be metered as dark, and a bright scene metered as bright, rather than both being metered for a mid tone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-28T12:02:27.257" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T12:02:27.257" />
  <row Id="11386" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-04-28T12:02:27.257" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Questions relating to the use of exposure compensation" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-28T12:02:27.257" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T12:02:27.257" />
  <row Id="11387" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-28T13:03:42.080" Score="4" ViewCount="257" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just made a pinhole lens for my Canon EOS 1000D (Rebel XS), but now I have no idea what to do next. The bulb-mode is on and ISO is 400. Camera says the aperture is ƒ00, which I can't change. What does it mean? Is there no diaphragm?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the camera even recognize my lens? If it doesn't, is there a setting to tell the camera there is a lens even if it isn't recognized?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if I take a picture, there is a lot of black and barely a little point can be seen. Not only trough the viewfinder, but also on the picture at the screen. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I constructed the lens by making a hole in the middle of a bodycap with a drill. Behind the gap I put a piece of aluminium, and I made a small point in that with a needle. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone help me? I really really want this to work, because I'm a huge fan of pinhole photography. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4895" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-02T14:52:00.960" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T14:52:00.960" Title="DIY pinhole lens' aperture is ƒ00, which can't be changed and pictures turn out mostly black" Tags="&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;pinhole-cameras&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11388" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-04-28T13:05:04.140" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bracketing is the process where a camera uses &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/exposure-compensation&quot;&gt;exposure compensation&lt;/a&gt; to automatically collect several images with differing exposures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-28T13:05:04.140" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T13:05:04.140" />
  <row Id="11389" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-04-28T13:05:04.140" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Questions about exposure braketing" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-28T13:05:04.140" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T13:05:04.140" />
  <row Id="11390" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11387" CreationDate="2011-04-28T13:22:56.357" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A pinhole is essentially a very small and fixed aperture, so you will need to use Manual mode and set a nice and long exposure (A second or five should be good to see what kind of exposure you're getting for starters) to determine just what you're getting out of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, you will need a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; of light to get any picture at all on your viewfinder since there is so little light passing through the pinhole. Depending on the hole you've made and the exact placement and distance, it could be the equivalent of f/64 or more, so think accordingly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4889" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T13:22:56.357" />
  <row Id="11391" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11387" CreationDate="2011-04-28T13:23:15.300" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The camera cannot read the lens aperture, that is why it says F00.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is good for you because you have a pinhole lens which, well, does not have an aperture by definition. (Note that sometimes a camera reports this when using legacy lenses too simply because it cannot determine the aperture).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon makes no pinhole lens, so there is little chance the camera will recognize it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you need to do next is either stay in bulb mode or go to manual exposure if you want the camera to time things. The point is that there is only ISO and shutter-speed to control at now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your photos are coming out dark then either take a longer exposure or raise the ISO or both. You'll have to experiment. Try 30s, 60s, 2mins.... until you get a bright enough image. In bulb mode that means hold the shutter open and let go after the set time has passed looking a watch. Raising the ISO will let you get away with a shorter exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T13:23:15.300" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11392" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11393" CreationDate="2011-04-28T13:50:00.107" Score="12" ViewCount="270" Body="&lt;p&gt;How can I take good pictures using the built-in popup flash of my camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Usually I try to use available light only but sometimes there's just isn't enough light for proper exposure (at a reasonable shutter speed).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know about all the drawbacks of the popup flash, I know it's hard to take good pictures with it — but it's all I have at the moment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please don't tell me to just get an external flash (I know, but don't have the budget at the moment). My camera is a Canon 550D (Rebel X2i in the US) if it makes any difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2481" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-28T14:21:35.520" LastActivityDate="2011-04-30T01:58:07.137" Title="How to get good results with the built-in popup flash?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;popup-flash&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="11393" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11392" CreationDate="2011-04-28T13:57:38.640" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem with the pop-up flash is that it's a small, directional point of light, aiming directly at the subject. This gives harsh shadows behind the subject and makes the photo generally unflattering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a number of things that you can do to make this better:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make the point of light larger. The professionals often use massive softboxes - large uniformly illuminated boxes of light which give very soft shadows which are very flattering. You can make your source of light slightly larger by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/LumiQuest-LQ-051D-Soft-Screen/dp/B000B5H2BE&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;buying&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diyphotography.net/diy-built-in-pop-up-flash-diffuser&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;making&lt;/a&gt; a diffuser - something that sits in front of your flash and diffuses the small point into a larger point of light.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bounce the flash off the ceiling. This is like turning the ceiling into a massive softbox. You can achieve this by putting a small piece of white card at a 45 degree angle in front of the flash. Experiment until you get the best results.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use a longer exposure to balance the flash and the ambient light. Try putting the camera on a tripod or stable surface and allowing a long exposure as well as the flash. This is good for capturing a specific moment but allowing the background light to fill in the dark shadows that you would get otherwise. This is often set up as an automatic scene mode called &quot;Night Portrait&quot; or something similar. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2127" LastEditorUserId="2127" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-28T14:04:00.490" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T14:04:00.490" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11394" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11379" CreationDate="2011-04-28T14:07:32.143" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can just test it for yourself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Find a location near your house where you can see both bright sky and deep shadows.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Take the 3 bracketed pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Make two HDR images, one with the bracketed pictures and one with the images generated from just the middle image raw file&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This will tell you if the single exposure HDR is good enough with your specific camera, lens, software and your taste (I suspect the multiple exposure HDR will be better - but the single exposure image can be good enough).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2481" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T14:07:32.143" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11395" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11387" CreationDate="2011-04-28T14:26:40.587" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;DSLRs read the aperture data from the lens via electronic connections. Reading ƒ/00 basically means that either there is no aperture data on the lens' chip &lt;strong&gt;or&lt;/strong&gt; that there is no electronic connection at all, which is probably the case with your DIY pinhole lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaphragm_%28optics%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;diaphragm&lt;/a&gt; resides always in the lens, not in the DSLR. So: there is no diaphragm if you haven't built one — and it would be rather useless in a pinhole lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no setting to tell the camera that there &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; is a lens even if the camera doesn't recognize it. This is more a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7633/why-the-af-confirm-lights-wont-blink-when-the-spot-is-in-focus-while-using-an-al&quot;&gt;problem for the autofocus system&lt;/a&gt;, your DSLR should be able to take a picture even without a lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason your photographs come out almost black might be because your exposure time is not sufficient. To determine a &quot;correct&quot; exposure, you should either calculate the aperture of your pinhole lens &lt;strong&gt;or go and experiment&lt;/strong&gt;, which is usually easier or at least a lot more pleasant option than to worry about the math.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinhole_camera#Calculating_the_f-number_.26_required_exposure&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; gives a concrete example on calculating the aperture of a pinhole lens:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The f-number of the camera may be calculated by dividing the distance from the pinhole to the imaging plane (the focal length) by the diameter of the pinhole. For example, a camera with a 0.02 inch (0.5 mm) diameter pinhole, and a 2 inch (50 mm) focal length would have an f-number of 2/0.02 (50/0.5), or 100 (f/100 in conventional notation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your pinhole's aperture is ƒ/100, note that it is approx. 5⅓ stops* smaller than a ƒ/16 lens, and therefore needs approx. 39 times** longer exposure, if other settings are intact. The &lt;strong&gt;Bulb&lt;/strong&gt; setting you are using doesn't have a fixed exposure time — with bulb, the camera exposes as long as you hold the shutter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Viewfinder can't be much helped, though. You could get a &lt;em&gt;rough&lt;/em&gt; estimate of where you are pointing your camera at by first using a regular lens and when done switch the pinhole.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;*) See: &lt;a href=&quot;http://imaginatorium.org/stuff/stops.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://imaginatorium.org/stuff/stops.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;**) (100 ÷ 16)&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; = 39,0625&lt;/sub&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1913" LastEditorUserId="1913" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-28T14:41:22.197" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T14:41:22.197" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="11396" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-28T15:07:19.143" Score="13" ViewCount="326" Body="&lt;p&gt;I usually get better light at sunrise (compared to sunset). I do though hate to wake up early in the morning to use that light ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the biggest differences between sunrise and sunset?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3171" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-30T13:08:08.310" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T05:33:31.077" Title="What's different about photographing at sunrise vs. sunset?" Tags="&lt;light&gt;&lt;sunset&gt;&lt;sunrise&gt;&lt;time&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11397" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11406" CreationDate="2011-04-28T15:07:32.050" Score="9" ViewCount="110" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redscale&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Redscaling&lt;/a&gt; is a technique where the film gets exposed in the wrong side. This creates a strong red hue in the images &lt;em&gt;and it's very cool&lt;/em&gt;. You should definitely try it if you never did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, &lt;strong&gt;what would happen if a redscale a black&amp;amp;white film&lt;/strong&gt;? Nothing? Inverted images? &lt;strong&gt;Has anyone tried it&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4039" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-30T17:32:30.927" LastActivityDate="2011-04-30T17:32:30.927" Title="What happens if I redscale a B&amp;W film?" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;black-and-white&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="11399" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11396" CreationDate="2011-04-28T15:21:11.523" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sunrise light is cooler (color temperature-wise) because there are less particles in the air, which is what gives sunsets their multicoloured nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T15:21:11.523" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11400" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11401" CreationDate="2011-04-28T15:26:25.713" Score="5" ViewCount="204" Body="&lt;p&gt;I captured a Raw image using my Canon 450D. When imported this RAW(CR2) file into Lightroom and Photoshop CS5, it showed the Temperature as 4900 and White Balance setting - &quot;As shot&quot;. When I checked the EXIF data associated to this raw CR2 file, there is no mention of the colour temperature setting in it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used Irfanview to see this EXIF data. Irfanview + Canon raw plugin can open this Canon raw CR2 file.**&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;So how does Photoshop/Lightroom compute the colour temperature from the Raw image data?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Would be interested in knowing What kind of algorithm/mathematical computation it does to get this temeprature number?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Could it be possible that the CR2 raw file has this Colour temperature information embedded into it, but Irfanview Exif information display somehow missed it/messed it?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any pointers  would be useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2438" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-28T15:45:03.343" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T18:30:12.547" Title="How does Photoshop/Lightroom get the Colour temperature of a Raw image?" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;color-temperature&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="11401" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11400" CreationDate="2011-04-28T15:44:53.827" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; in the EXIF data, but the info is under Canon tag. For any EXIF-related tasks, I wholeheartedly recommend &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ExifTool&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; by Phil Harvey.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an example of a real file (which coincidentally was shot with Canon 450D)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;strong&gt;$ exiftool -canon:&quot;WB_RGGB*&quot; -canon:&quot;*temp*&quot; MG_5366.CR2&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;WB RGGB Levels As Shot          : 2270 1024 1024 1520&#xA;WB RGGB Levels Auto             : 2270 1024 1024 1520&#xA;WB RGGB Levels Measured         : 2267 1023 1024 1518&#xA;WB RGGB Levels Daylight         : 2245 1024 1024 1425&#xA;WB RGGB Levels Shade            : 2595 1024 1024 1197&#xA;WB RGGB Levels Cloudy           : 2422 1024 1024 1299&#xA;WB RGGB Levels Tungsten         : 1660 1075 1075 2222&#xA;WB RGGB Levels Fluorescent      : 1960 1024 1024 1945&#xA;WB RGGB Levels Kelvin           : 2245 1024 1024 1425&#xA;WB RGGB Levels Flash            : 2485 1024 1024 1273&#xA;Camera Temperature              : 18 C&#xA;Color Temperature               : 5200&#xA;Color Temp As Shot              : 4955&#xA;Color Temp Auto                 : 4955&#xA;Color Temp Measured             : 4955&#xA;Color Temp Daylight             : 5200&#xA;Color Temp Shade                : 7000&#xA;Color Temp Cloudy               : 6000&#xA;Color Temp Tungsten             : 3200&#xA;Color Temp Fluorescent          : 3776&#xA;Color Temp Kelvin               : 5189&#xA;Color Temp Flash                : 6310&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NB:&lt;/strong&gt; Windows users: double-check that you use double-quotes, not single quotes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt; The Color Temp infos are &quot;nice to know&quot; data, but they do not hold any other value than informational. The °Kelvins are probably based on camera's WB calculations and post-processing software most likely uses the WB RGGB Levels data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I tested this by changing the &lt;code&gt;Color Temp As Shot&lt;/code&gt; value from &lt;code&gt;5200&lt;/code&gt; &amp;rArr; &lt;code&gt;7000&lt;/code&gt; and opened the file in Photoshop (Adobe Camera Raw). Nothing did change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then I changed the &lt;code&gt;WB RGGB Levels As Shot&lt;/code&gt; value of a copy of the original file from &lt;code&gt;2270 1024 1024 1520&lt;/code&gt; &amp;rArr; &lt;code&gt;1000 1000 1000 1000&lt;/code&gt; and the image changed to this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ZYqXa.png&quot; alt=&quot;wb rggb change&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I did not change the &lt;code&gt;Color Temp As Shot&lt;/code&gt; value, but Adobe Camera Raw shows the temperature as &lt;code&gt;2150&lt;/code&gt; (tint &lt;code&gt;-144&lt;/code&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summa summarum&lt;/strong&gt;: Adobe Camera Raw calculates the &quot;Color Temperature&quot; from the EXIF-data, from WB_RGGBLevels* tag, under the Canon group (under the Maker Notes group).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1913" LastEditorUserId="1913" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-28T18:30:12.547" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T18:30:12.547" CommentCount="15" />
  <row Id="11402" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11397" CreationDate="2011-04-28T15:55:22.573" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since redscaling tends to virtually eliminate blue tones and emphasise red ones, it would probably have a similar effect to using a red filter: red and yellow objects would be lighter, blue objects (especially the sky) would be dark. It would probably work well for landscapes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, there's only one way to know for sure: go forth and photograph! We look forward to your report :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T15:55:22.573" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11403" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11392" CreationDate="2011-04-28T15:59:55.000" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's more than one potential problem with a built-in flash; the location of the light is just one of them.  It's also important to be aware of the power and range of this flash -- especially if you start playing around with diffusing it or bouncing it, as this will impact its range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Short of getting an external flash (which you'll definitely want to keep on your wish-list), you should also look at how you can affect your shots by using the flash exposure compensation control on your camera to increase or decrease the flash amount, relative to the metered setting.  You'll definitely want to be familiar with this control if you start bouncing or diffusing the built-in flash, because the camera doesn't know that you're altering the flash in this way, and thus, is likely to get the flash intensity wrong unless you give it a little help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BTW, if you let us know what sort of problems, specifically, you've seen with the built-in flash, we can target our answers a little more specifically, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastEditorUserId="269" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-28T16:07:57.690" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T16:07:57.690" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11404" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11407" CreationDate="2011-04-28T17:28:58.997" Score="7" ViewCount="130" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been going back and forth with this. I've been looking more into working with some HDR to just get a feel for the process. I have a 500D and I'm using exposure bracketing to take 3 shots. 0, -2, and +2 EV. I've been using the HDR tool in Photoshop and wonder if just putting 3 RAW files in is giving me the best results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've considered trying to expand my files by going from -3 to +3 by using the RAW files to fill in the gaps and converting them to jpegs. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To summarize, is it better to work with RAW or jpegs when making HDR's. and if using jpegs is better, should I use the RAW's to get as many different exposures as possible? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4440" LastActivityDate="2011-04-30T10:28:45.157" Title="Should I convert RAW to jpeg before making an HDR?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;hdr&gt;&lt;jpeg&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="11405" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11392" CreationDate="2011-04-28T17:30:11.507" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Flash photography can be among the more complex photography, and part of this is due to the smarts on-board the camera, known as ETTL in the Canon world. Do yourself a tremendous favor and read thru the fantastic bible of EOS Flash photography on Photonotes.org:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you use your on-board, flip up flash, you have no choice in using ETTL, so you need to understand how it is impacting your choices of camera mode setting and what the camera does in each setting. Experimentation is key in learning this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there is plenty of light to expose the image properly, choosing Tv or Av will ask the flash to work as a fill, and the camera will set the shutter speed and/or aperture based on the ambient.  If ambient is too low, the camera will chose the settings that match ambient, meaning it will likely be poor settings for hand holding or capturing moving people (like f4, 1/15 sec).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, you can always move to Manual, set the shutter speed below 1/250, and choose your aperture, thus forcing the camera to decide for itself how to power the flash. This often results in odd flash results, which you can then control by using FEC or Flash Exposure Compensation. Look in the Flash Control section of the Camera Menu. This setting allows you to reduce or increase the power of the flash, thus balancing things out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, if you just want a reasonable image with on-board flash, try out the 'P' mode, as it generally does a fairly nice job for the run of the mill photos where you dont' want to think about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T17:30:11.507" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11406" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11397" CreationDate="2011-04-28T17:32:25.790" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Having accidentally wound an entire batch of cassettes backwards in the bag I can tell you it's not nearly as impressive as redscaling color film. The image will be slightly softer, and it will behave as if it was filtered with a slightly orange/brown-tinted ND filter (not the same as red or yellow, somewhere in between) due to the light passing through the film stock before it reacts with the chemistry. You'll also have more scratches in the film since the fragile chemistry side will be exposed to the mechanical parts that normally only see the smooth polyester base side of the film. Once I realized the mistake a couple rolls into the batch and started to compensate by treating it as slower film than it actually was I was largely able to ignore it and move on with my assignments... that's how minimal the effect was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T17:32:25.790" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11407" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11404" CreationDate="2011-04-28T17:58:04.087" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Raw files are definitely the best starting point for doing HDR processing (or almost any other editing). JPEGs should (in general) be used purely as a write-only format -- i.e., you produce a JPEG for viewing, possibly printing, etc., but once you've converted something to JPEG, you'd ideally never do any editing on it again. Instead, you should generally start from the original, do the editing, and produce another JPEG.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes you may have no choice but to start from a JPEG, but it's definitely not what's really preferable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T17:58:04.087" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11408" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11387" CreationDate="2011-04-28T18:00:56.610" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While a mechanical lens can't communicate its value electronically to the camera, a pinhole lens &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; have an f-stop value. The pinhole itself is literally the aperture of the &quot;lens&quot;, and the focal length is the distance from the pinhole to the focal plane. And the f/number is simply the focal length divided by the aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can find this focal length value by looking for the &lt;strong&gt;⌀&lt;/strong&gt; symbol on your camera body, which represents the location of the sensor (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8994/what-does-the-theta-symbol-near-the-flash-represent&quot;&gt;What does the theta symbol near the flash represent?&lt;/a&gt;). Measure from there to the location of your pinhole. (Technically, since there's no lens, this isn't &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; a &quot;focal length&quot;, but it functions in the same way.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Measuring the size of the pinhole itself is somewhat more difficult to do with meaningful precision, but one suggestion would be to put the material you've put the hole in on a scanner, scan at a certain DPI, and then check how many pixels across it is.&#xA;(I'm not sure I'd use that method in a scientific paper, but it should be good enough to get a reasonable idea.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, simply divide the first number by the second, and there you go. For what it's worth, Lensbaby says the f-number of their &lt;a href=&quot;http://lensbaby.com/optics-pinhole.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pinhole Optic&lt;/a&gt; is f/177. That sounds  &lt;em&gt;ginormous&lt;/em&gt;, but is only 7 stops down from f/16, the same as from f/16 to f/1.4.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This will help you calculate the exposure value you need, and therefore the shutter speed. But it also may end up being imprecise enough that trial and error is the better method than all the math in any case. After all, there's very little cost to trying with a digital camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T18:00:56.610" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11409" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11404" CreationDate="2011-04-28T18:25:39.453" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The way HDR merging is performed, it is much easier for software to blend RAW files than JPEG images.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is because RAW files use linear values while JPEG values are transformed by the tone-curve of the RAW-&gt;JPEG conversion process. This is different depending which Picture Style or Color Mode and image parameters used during the conversion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Software generally analyzes the images to inverse the curve before blending values together. This introduces the possibility for inaccuracies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, the difference when using good software will be minimal. If you work with JPEG images all the time, you may not want to bother changing formats just for HDR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T18:25:39.453" />
  <row Id="11410" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-04-28T18:34:57.880" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-28T18:34:57.880" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T18:34:57.880" />
  <row Id="11411" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-04-28T18:34:57.880" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="A technique for creating images that offer a wide view of a scene, where the image width is usually significantly wider than the image's height.  Panorama images can be created by cropping or, more commonly, by &quot;stitching&quot; several images together to create the larger image." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-28T18:35:24.307" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T18:35:24.307" />
  <row Id="11412" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11414" CreationDate="2011-04-28T18:36:42.947" Score="7" ViewCount="124" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just read &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://terrywhite.com/techblog/archives/7567&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lessons Learned on The Flash Bus Tour&lt;/a&gt;&quot; and saw &lt;a href=&quot;http://terrywhite.com/techblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/wpid7591-TLW1133.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this image&lt;/a&gt;. In it, an assistant is holding some sort of white shoot-through diffuser (I got a similar one in my 5-in-one reflector kit) right in front of a soft box, which is lighting a portrait from above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is Joe McNally and David Hobby teaching at a workshop, so I assume there's a good reason for this. However, I don't know what it could be, or why it works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;My understanding is that the larger the effective area of the light source, the softer the light.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The softbox accomplishes this by bouncing the point-source light from the strobe around inside the box. When it exits, it's coming from a much larger &quot;hole&quot; (the front of the softbox), and from multiple angles, so it's nice and diffuse.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The hand-held diffuser doesn't increase the surface area of the light much at all, since it's being held so close to the soft box.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It would definitely reduce the amount of light, and I can understand needing that, but I'd think you could also do that by reducing the flash power (and saving your batteries).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what is the intent, results, and mechanism behind adding in the additional diffuser?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T19:02:10.327" Title="Why diffuse a softbox?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;lighting-modifiers&gt;&lt;softbox&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="11413" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11412" CreationDate="2011-04-28T18:52:37.983" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can think of a couple of reasons why I might do that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The minimum power on the strobe is still more light than I want and so extra diffusion is needed. It can happen... :)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The light duration is what I want, but the amount of it is too much. If I reduce the power on the strobe, I reduce the duration of the light, so this lets me reduce the amount of light without adjusting the power.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suspect there may be others, but these two immediately come to mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T18:52:37.983" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11414" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11412" CreationDate="2011-04-28T19:02:10.327" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a few reasons that I'm aware of to combine soft-box and an additional diffuser:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;With smaller softboxes and hotter lights (read: flashes) the softbox isn't always able to completely diffuse the light source, which causes a 'hotspot'... Essentially the center of the diffusion 'square' is brighter than the edges. It's better than a 'nekkid' flash, but often you can still see the effects of that hotspot on the subject. There are several solutions (lower flash power, bigger box, move the flash further back in the box, etc.) but often the most expedient way to deal with the problem during a 'live' shoot is simply to throw another layer of diffusion in front of the box to soften out the hotspot.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;To lower the power of the light without having to rip open the box and fiddle with the flash. If you're within a stop(ish) of where you want the light to be and your light source is a manual flash where the controls are not easy to get at, it's often more expedient to simply lower the light by throwing another layer of diffusion in there than to monkey with the controls on the flash.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is possible to make a small box somewhat bigger (at the expense of power) by hanging a diffuser in front of it... Now you're correct that this is not what's going on with this particular picture (the diffuser is too close to the box to have much effect in this regard), but for the sake of 'completeness' I thought I'd mention it. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me personally, adding a diffuser is mostly a 'hack' manuver (not hack as in 'unprofessional,' hack as in 'hacker') when I have actual clients in the studio and I don't have the time (or don't want to take the time) to be fussing with the lights while they sit there and wait for me to get it right by 'dialing it in.' If the light is already 'pretty close' but I just need to dial it down 'a bit more,' or 'soften it slightly' it's usually a big time savings just to hack the solution, rather than fiddle with making it 'really really right' by dialing it in at the source, or moving the lights back and forth... again all while the client sits there and waits for me (extra not good if the client is in the short-attention-span set... AKA a child). :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T19:02:10.327" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="11415" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11348" CreationDate="2011-04-28T19:08:42.820" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Software can only attempt to rectify the issue after it's been recorded.  The ideal approach, if you're interested in becoming a better photographer, is to deal with the issue at it's source, meaning you should learn to shoot images that are not blurring in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are recording still life, there are many effective methods to photographing precisely sharp images with a slow-shutter speed.  I used to shoot sunsets with 20 second exposures.  Using a tripod, mirror-lock-up, and a remote, I never had any problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are hand-holding the camera, shooting an average focal length (around 35mm) you will most always get blurring of anything slower than 1/60 sec. exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you must shoot at these slower speeds, and are holding the camera, you will never get sharp results out of camera.  You will want to open up to a larger aperture, letting more light into the lens, thus decreasing your exposure time.  That means you can then use a faster shutter-speed which of course equals less blur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are looking for an easy fix to avoid blur, just kick up the ISO and then increase your shutter speed.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ISO designates the &quot;speed&quot; of the photographic sensor, which means you can increase the shutter-speed.  The result is added noise/grain as you go to higher ISOs.  However, increased ISO can be very effective in low-light situations where you must hold the camera and need sharp images.  The noise/grain is viewed as artistic enhancement by some, and problematic for others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Enjoy!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4925" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T19:08:42.820" />
  <row Id="11417" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11421" CreationDate="2011-04-28T21:11:12.573" Score="13" ViewCount="707" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have photos in Getty Images, in Shutterstock, Imagekind and I recently added some to RedBubble, but I'm not having the expected results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone have some history of success selling photographs or working as a photographer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples of my work are available in &lt;a href=&quot;http://flickr.com/photos/fotoarte&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;my gallery on Flickr&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4727" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-11T15:31:28.857" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T15:31:28.857" Title="How can I make extra money with photography?" Tags="&lt;business&gt;&lt;stock-photography&gt;&lt;professional&gt;&lt;selling&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="11418" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7795" CreationDate="2011-04-28T21:15:47.087" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found a solution that worked on my 550D (Rebel X2i), the page is about the 5D Mk2 so I guess it works on all canons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slashgear.com/how-to-remove-stuck-pixel-on-your-digital-slr-2227392/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.slashgear.com/how-to-remove-stuck-pixel-on-your-digital-slr-2227392/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The relevant part:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Test for dead pixels&lt;/strong&gt; : Left lens-cap&#xA;  on, set camera to exposure 30 seconds&#xA;  black-out image at varies ISO&#xA;  settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fix for dead Pixels&lt;/strong&gt; : Set camera to&#xA;  perform sensor cleaning mode manually&#xA;  (not auto) for one minute. You only&#xA;  execute the function, not exactly&#xA;  performing the whole sensor cleaning&#xA;  procedure. Magically, the sensor&#xA;  cleaning task should shake the stuck&#xA;  pixels off, if not, repeat couple more&#xA;  times until it does. Otherwise, time&#xA;  to call the technical support.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've tested for hot pixels using only ISO 100 (I'm lazy), the image clearly showed the 2 pixels that caused me to look for this + another red pixel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After enabling the manual lens cleaning function (without even taking the lens off) and waiting for a minute the first two pixels disappeared, after 2 more &quot;cleanings&quot; the third also disappeared.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2481" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T21:15:47.087" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11419" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11417" CreationDate="2011-04-28T21:58:08.657" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem with stock sites these days is that they are utterly saturated with photos. Your photos are just a few amongst thousands; the chances of them being picked up are therefore small. Type 'sunset' into Getty Images and you get over 50,000 hits on more than 800 pages. If your photos appear on any page over about 10, you can probably forget about anyone seeing them!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might try 'cutting out the middle-man' and selling more directly. You have some great photos in your gallery (loving that bee, she's posed in an almost human way!), many of which would make excellent art prints. Try getting these displayed in coffee shops, restaurants, even bookshops, and offer prints for sale through them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a good way to get started selling photos as you have control over what is displayed and where, and the overheads are low. You can simply keep a few prints in stock and supply them as and when necessary, giving the coffee shop a commission for each sale.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could also look at selling prints at local creative fairs, or approaching local institutions like public art galleries or libraries that might let you put on a mini-exhibition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another option is to send a sample of photos direct to fine-art print companies, or even calendar/postcard companies. This is not only a source of income, but also a way of advertising your work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All these are much lower yield than you would potentially get from a stock site, but it's better to &lt;em&gt;actually&lt;/em&gt; sell 50 prints than it is to &lt;em&gt;potentially&lt;/em&gt; sell 100 images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastEditorUserId="3205" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-28T22:09:04.727" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T22:09:04.727" />
  <row Id="11420" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11396" CreationDate="2011-04-28T22:19:07.003" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sunrise can be a better time to shoot for few reasons too ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There are considerably less people about if you are shooting scenery, landscape and/or nature shots.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There is often moisture about which can potentially be used to create some unique images .. check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thetrueshot.com/Photographs/Pages/Drops_Of_Life.html#0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.thetrueshot.com/Photographs/Pages/Drops_Of_Life.html#0&lt;/a&gt; which was shot early in the morning to catch a dew drop before it dried in the sun.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The images from sunrise are often not seen by most people due to the time of day.  Yes it can be a pain to get up very early, especially in the summer months, but sometimes getting up at 4am can provide great results that no one else has ...    &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thetrueshot.com/Photographs/Pages/Sunrise.html#10&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.thetrueshot.com/Photographs/Pages/Sunrise.html#10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These factors will certainly help to make them more unique and hence more marketable if you happen to be selling them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I shoot both sunrise and sunset time of the day as each has it's own unique qualities.  I find sunset very colourful and the ability to include people in to the image can add interest too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1410" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T22:19:07.003" />
  <row Id="11421" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11417" CreationDate="2011-04-28T22:19:11.957" Score="34" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to be a bit blunt here: your photography isn't the kinds of stuff clients who buy stock/microstock go for. In 2011, the vast majority of stock photography is used to sell business products to business people. And if it's not that, it's used as a source of images to be composited with other images. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've worked in interactive and print advertising and design for the past 13 years, on literally hundreds of campaigns for international brands the world over.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are things we bought: people in suits doing business things (all white, we're in europe); people in suits doing non-business things - like jumping, running, hanging off a ledge; pretty, neutral spaces like kitchens, offices, living rooms we could put people and products into; an amazing amount of travel photography with clearly visible landmarks for an airline; landscape photography that included sweeping vistas that we could, again, place items into. Give me any of these things in a cohesive series and I will love you to death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some things stand out in your photography that would cause me to look over most of it, even if I had a market for the subject matter. Post processing for a look either by defocusing elements, color tinting the image, adding blur - I want sharp objects I can cut out/composite with other objects. I want my starting images to be as neutral as possible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a huge difference between people liking your work on flickr and actually buying your work. For someone to buy stock photo, they have to be able to use it as an element of making more money for themselves. Look at your photography and ask yourself if this is the kind of work you can imagine being used by people who actually lay out the money to license those images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ask the microstock houses what kind of photography they need more. I almost tried selling stock on a now defunct stock site. They had a great list of what they had more than enough of, and what kind of stuff they needed. Number one with a bullet is always: &quot;People in suits doing things.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T22:19:11.957" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11422" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11417" CreationDate="2011-04-28T22:49:52.573" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I make extra money through photography by developing personal relationships with potential clients, and using the internet as more of a portfolio guiding people rather than as a primary money maker by itself.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of my photography money comes from shooting events (weddings, etc), or from one-off gigs where people want something photographed more nicely than they can do themselves with a pocket camera.  I make more in any individual session than in the combined 5 years I've had my site.  These sessions tend to be very directed as well-- the client needs such and such specific thing photographed, and are willing to pay $x for it.  We both know what we're getting in the end, and it's a much more guaranteed prospect.  If you can get the work, of course.  That's where the relationships come in, like photographing school plays or other things in your community and then letting people know where they can find your photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your photos are quite good, and looking through them, I think that there's a lot I can learn from you.  One thing I would suggest is to categorize your photos.  That way, people who come to your site can look for particular things that interest them.  People who are interested in plant macros may or may not be interested in graffiti or musical instruments.  If you approach your site as one way to advertise yourself, and think like a potential client, you can arrange things to suit the kind of client you want to attract.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastEditorUserId="266" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-29T14:24:08.980" LastActivityDate="2011-04-29T14:24:08.980" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11423" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11392" CreationDate="2011-04-28T23:05:24.623" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually, by experimenting you can get some decent results. I personally use different kinds of paper as diffusers. I have even used credit card vouchers in a hurry. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, my native language is Spanish so it's hard for me to say the correct names of the papers I've used but I can tell you that translucent papers are the best. Other solutions may come from some objects otherwise known as garbage, for example, I once experimented with the &quot;lens&quot; that had come off a car lamp during a crash. Also a bike reflector can do (removing the dark plastic backing).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few considerations: The flash radiates light in some sort of a cone. Your improvised diffuser should be as big as to intercept completely this cone, and you should hold it as far from the flash lamp as possible, but never further than the front of the lens. If your diffuser does not cover completely the flash's light cone, you will get it's shadow projected in the background, and if you put it further than the front of the lens, the light from the flash will bounce directly into the lens ruining your picture (Unless any of these are your intended results, creativity after all...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bigger the &quot;diffuser&quot; the more it will soften the light.&#xA;Maybe you can make some sort of diffuser mount out of cardboard paper, clips, adhesive tape, etc... so you keep your both hands free to operate the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But after all, remember, the built-in flash has more limited power, and any diffuser you use will dim the light. Do not expect to get professional looking pictures, but they can definitely improve. Experiment until you get decent results, and do not limit your creativity, you can use diverse materials, even colored ones, papers, plastics, cellphone silicone covers, etc. But take into account the previous advice, do not spend money in any of these! Recycle! Use any material you come across for free! And please, no not stick or glue anything to your camera, but if you feel you need to, use only adhesive tape like masking tape and remove it as soon as you can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also consider a small mirror like the ones in makeup kits, or aluminum foil to redirect the flash and bounce it in the ceiling or a wall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some situations I've had an advantage from this: 1) Once in a darkly lit restaurant and having only my Point&amp;amp;Shoot, I was able to take a better picture by using a credit card voucher to avoid burned areas in the noses and foreheads. 2) I had forgotten to recharge my external flash batteries, so they where dead, I had no tripod but wanted to take a picture outdoors at night. With a little piece of paper I did the trick.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4913" LastActivityDate="2011-04-28T23:05:24.623" />
  <row Id="11425" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6634" CreationDate="2011-04-29T08:39:02.867" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.kenrockwell.com/&lt;/a&gt; is a bible for choosing a lens or a camera !&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2145" LastActivityDate="2011-04-29T08:39:02.867" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11426" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-29T08:46:35.327" Score="6" ViewCount="156" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am looking for a printer that can be used at home for printing photos. I am not expecting very high quality prints, but want ones that can last for a couple of years without much color loss.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And obviously the paper &amp;amp; cartridge cost would have to be equal or lesser when compared to getting the prints from a studio. Any suggestions and your experience if you're printing at home?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4936" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-29T16:07:47.613" LastActivityDate="2011-04-29T17:45:06.153" Title="Printing at home - how do you rate the printers available now?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;printing&gt;&lt;printer&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11427" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11432" CreationDate="2011-04-29T12:34:30.313" Score="13" ViewCount="599" Body="&lt;p&gt;Say someone takes a picture of Lord Nelson's statue in Trafalgar Square at dusk, and sells on his website for profit.   Is it not arguable that people would not buy it if it weren't a statue of a famous historical figure, and thus the end product is as indelibly formed of public property as it is of the photographer's technical skill?  A more apt example, perhaps, would be that of a paparazzo snapping a picture of a famous celebrity in scandal &amp;mdash; why should  the celebrity not have coequal rights as the photographer to profit off of or restrict the copyright of an image that  relies on his person to be attractive?  So my question is: What philosophical justifications have photographers generally accepted or promulgated to rebut these arguments?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;N.B. To be clear, I'm not hostile towards photography or photographers; I just thought of this argument, and the resolution to it wasn't quite clear to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4112" LastEditorUserId="4112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-30T02:22:06.873" LastActivityDate="2011-04-30T02:22:06.873" Title="What is the philosophical justification generally accepted by photographers on why they should be able to profit privately over public property?" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;philosophy&gt;&lt;moral-rights&gt;&lt;intellectual-property&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="17" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="11428" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11427" CreationDate="2011-04-29T12:53:26.470" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A photo is not the object, but a representation of the object. It is, in fact, the photographer's, as artist or creator, interpretation of that object, that object at a point of time, or the moment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try your question, substituting the word &quot;painting&quot; and see if you still have the same question.  Would you argue that Monet's painting of the bridge should not sell for millions because the bridge is in a now public park?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastActivityDate="2011-04-29T12:53:26.470" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11429" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11427" CreationDate="2011-04-29T13:40:27.613" Score="22" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A photograph is no more its subject than a descriptive paragraph would be. It has no depth, no shape, just a one dimensional recording of light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In practice, the situation you've describe is legal because to make it illegal would be absolutely ridiculous. Should authors pay royalties for describing landmarks? What if someone builds a model of a train station, from drawings, should they pay the artist or the architect? Who should a news station pay to show a warehouse burning, the building's owner, or the arsonist who started the fire?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could also approach this from this angle: Anybody can do it, because everybody can do it. We're all free to photograph and profit from public spaces. Again, it's because we profit from the work we've created, not the object itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All that said, there are more restrictions being implemented every day on our right to create art based on physical spaces. Many locations require location releases - a sort of model release for a specific space. Lots of people photography requires model releases, as people have something called &quot;likeness rights&quot;. There are waivers for those rights when reporting news, that's why you don't need a model release to photograph the President making a state visit, but you need one to use his photo to sell a product. Art photography doesn't fall into news usage, and many photographers shooting street portraits will travel with an assistant who takes care of the model releases as needed. Laws vary by country though, in Poland you can use a photo with 3 or more people in it without any kind of release.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historically speaking, photographers haven't had to rebuff these arguments because the insane sort of intelectual property entitlement that currently exists in the western world is an brand new invention that's only gotten this... out of hand in the past 20-30 years. Artists have always ripped each off since the beginning of man's creativity. Many artists (especially painters and sculptors) were incredibly secretive about their techniques, the current sharing of knowledge we're accustomed to just didn't exist. More than a few secret recipes for pigments have been taken to the grave. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-29T20:34:36.417" LastActivityDate="2011-04-29T20:34:36.417" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11430" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11426" CreationDate="2011-04-29T14:56:06.770" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both Epson and Canon make very well respected photo printers. The Epson R printers and the Canon Pro printers make extremely good quality photos that will last many many years, and are suitable for sales. But, they can be pricey.  Lower level models in the Epson and Canon line make serviceable prints, especially if you purchase one that has several ink cartridges on board, and you use high quality paper.  The more ink cartridges in the printer the better the color range and quality in your print...typically. I would avoid printers that rely on a single color cartridge, which has three small pots for three colors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, a personal recommendation for a printer I love at home: Canon Selphy printer. These are compact dye-sub printers that print only 4x6 prints, but these prints are indistinguishable from those you would get at your average photo printer (Walgreens, Target, Walmart, etc). They print fast, are waterproof, smudge free, and cost about $0.25 each, when you buy a large pack of ink and paper.  I have an older Selphy 400, and its fantastic to make prints for the fridge, guests to take home, or for Grandma.  While its only 4x6, that's basically what most people get from Walmart, etc anyway. Look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/printers_multifunction/compact_photo_printers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon Selphy 780 or 800 currently available&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the bulk of my casual printing is done on the Selphy, and I really no longer print on my photo printer (an old Canon 850), instead I send them off to Mpix or the Smugmug printer for larger images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastActivityDate="2011-04-29T14:56:06.770" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11431" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11426" CreationDate="2011-04-29T15:44:14.730" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've given up on making prints at home. I've had various inkjet photo printers over the years, from Canon to Epson to HP. I've never had the high-end models, but I've had some from mid-range on down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, I got good results from the mid-range ones, and it's true that they offer more flexibility, but the constant problem I had was &lt;em&gt;not printing enough&lt;/em&gt;. This meant that every time I went to print, ink had dried out, and the print heads needed to be cleaned and realigned. Not only was this tedious and annoying, but the wasted ink drove up the costs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're doing serious work and need the control and utmost quality, a high-quality printer makes sense. Otherwise, I think a printing service is usually the best bet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-04-29T15:44:14.730" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11432" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11427" CreationDate="2011-04-29T15:54:24.463" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short and simple answer is that a photograph is a form of expression. I'm free to express myself as long as I don't infringe on somebody else's rights in doing so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of something like street photography, that usually works out fairly simply: if I take a picture in a place where somebody has a reasonable expectation of privacy, then I'm infringing on their rights, and I can't do it (without their permission). If they're in a place where they don't have a right to privacy, then I'm not infringing on their rights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking at it from the other direction, going into a public place gives implicit consent to be watched, talked about, written about, videotaped, photographed, etc. If somebody prefers not to give the consent implicit with going into public, that's fine -- they're welcome to stay in a private place as long as they wish. When/if they choose to go into public, they have given up any right to privacy, and others' right to freedom of expression becomes the controlling factor, and a photograph is no different from any other form of expression.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Giving the subject of the speech, writing, photograph, videotape, etc., control over the results would infringe on the freedom of expression of the speaker/writer/photographer. The mere fact that they are the subject of the expression in question does not give them a right to limit or infringe on others' freedom of expression. Attempting to grant them such a right would utterly destroy freedom of speech/expression.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a philosophical viewpoint, I see little difference between publishing a photograph of something &quot;scandalous&quot;, or writing about the same subject. If we allow the subject to control that, it's a short, slippery slope to &quot;you can't gossip about me&quot;, and even &quot;you can't think nasty thoughts about me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: As @John Cavan pointed out, there are limits on the loss of privacy implicit in going out in public. In particular, what I &lt;em&gt;make&lt;/em&gt; public becomes public, and what I keep private remains private. There mere act of walking out my door does not, of course, give anybody the right to look in my bank account, remove my clothes so they can take pictures of me naked (not that anybody would want to in my case!), break into my house to see what videos I like to watch, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-29T18:34:38.330" LastActivityDate="2011-04-29T18:34:38.330" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11433" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11426" CreationDate="2011-04-29T16:01:55.627" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For your stated budget-- $100-$200-- I'd stick with going to a place like Costco, Walgreens, etc.  They will make your prints with 'reasonable defaults', meaning that the colors will be predictably saturated, but they won't give you prints with border problems, with the colors wildly off (green skin tones, etc, unless you took a picture of The Hulk), and won't charge you if they mess up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My home printing experience is limited to an Epson r800, and I moved to a Canon Pro 9500 Mark II, as per &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1901/what-printer-should-i-get-to-replace-an-epson-r800&quot;&gt;this question here&lt;/a&gt;.  Both of these printers require calibration, and the only calibration solution that I've found has been one that combined both monitor and printer calibration (as per &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3251/what-color-calibration-tool-should-i-use-to-step-up-past-my-spyder-2&quot;&gt;this question here&lt;/a&gt;).  Prior to that, I would end up with strange color artifacts, such as bad skin tones and incomplete gradients ('stairstepping', where you can see individual tones).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One benefit of home printing is that you can mess with paper options past the standard 'matte', 'glossy', and 'luster.'  But when weighed against the cost of ink (one set of inks for the Canon is ~$130, or most of your budget), it's just far more cost effective to use one of these labs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another benefit of home printing, though, is privacy.  If you're printing photos you don't want other people to see at all, then home printing is the way to go.  I just think that, to do it &lt;em&gt;right&lt;/em&gt;, requires a lot of preparation and groundwork that is beyond your budget.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2011-04-29T16:01:55.627" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11434" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11426" CreationDate="2011-04-29T17:45:06.153" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Epson R2400 I bought off Ebay for $100. &lt;strong&gt;It can produce excellent prints but is very tempermental&lt;/strong&gt; &amp;amp; can go though a ton of ink ($130 for a whole set of inks which get used up really quickly). I've had two head cleanings in the last 8 months at about $80 a pop &amp;amp; the printer still will &lt;strong&gt;occasionally have banding issues&lt;/strong&gt; (this is where you can see horizontal lines in the print from the printhead). Occasionally it will print flawlessly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If you are semi-serious (or more) about your photography then &lt;em&gt;you gotta learn to print yourself&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;--there just isn't any other way for you to &lt;strong&gt;get a handle on print quality&lt;/strong&gt; until you start digging in the weeds. This means $ and time and frustration. It also means that you &lt;strong&gt;start learning all the details that go into making good prints&lt;/strong&gt; (i.e inksets, printhead technologies, RIP drivers, photoshop tweaks, color corrections, etc). Sending your images to the big black box may get you acceptable and even great prints, but you won't have a clue about how to make it better because you will be completely divorced from that knowledge quotient. So maybe you don't keep printing yourself, but after becoming painfully familiar with the complications and what works/doesn't you will be a much better consumer of send-it-out labs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You can get very high quality printers (such as the R2400) on Ebay for relatively cheap--it's the inks that cost ya. And you really have to print a lot to keep the ink moving through the print head, making clogs less likely.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Paper makes a big difference&lt;/strong&gt;. Printing at home gives you the opportunity to try basically any paper out there. You will start to get a feel of certain papers strengths and weaknesses and how certain images may benefit from one paper over another. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2998" LastActivityDate="2011-04-29T17:45:06.153" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11435" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-29T18:10:58.917" Score="5" ViewCount="177" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the best work-arounds out there for dealing with the built-in flash when trying to use the Wireless Flash feature of the 7D?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a Canon version of the SG-3IR? Or do you use a modified version?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there camera settings or techniques that eliminate (or almost eliminate) the light from the on-camera pop-up flash?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my specific situation, a model wearing glasses and looking at the camera gets the built-in flash reflecting off her glasses. I'm using a wide open 50mm f/1.8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4124" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-29T18:51:43.990" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T13:00:40.760" Title="How do I reduce the light from the pop-up flash as a wireless controller on a Canon 7D?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;off-camera-flash&gt;&lt;canon-7d&gt;&lt;wireless&gt;&lt;popup-flash&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11436" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11435" CreationDate="2011-04-29T18:20:59.490" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When you use the pop-up flash on the 7D as a ETTL Master, you have the choice of whether the flash is used as a light source or not. If you choose to not use it, it will not fire when the shutter is open. Don't mistake the pre-flashes that are used to communicate with slave flashes, with the actual exposure flash.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit and Update:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on the request from @Imre, I will update my answer as best I can. Unfortunately, I do not have immediate access to a 7D, as my experience is with another photographer's camera. Therefore I will post evidence of others, until I can produce my own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My first link is a shooter on FredMiranda.com forums, who posts two pictures, one showing no flash contribution from the 7D pop-up:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&amp;amp;message=33209810&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&amp;amp;message=33209810&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further down this &lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&amp;amp;message=33213965&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;same thread, user &quot;Jehuty&quot; reports&lt;/a&gt; that they configured the 7D for wireless control, and turned off the external flashes, taking a photo of the 7D in a mirror. The result was no visible flash. Unfortunately, there is no photo evidence of this provided.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, there is information &lt;a href=&quot;http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/tipsandtricks.do?filter=eos_7d&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;on CPN&lt;/a&gt; (Page 2, &quot;EOS 7D: Integrated Speedlite Transmitter uses&quot;) that discusses this tangentially. It suggests that you &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; use the pop up flash as a fourth group, but that its power will be reduced to a GN of 4, due to the power of the flash being first used to signal the other flashes. As Canon suggests, this has little impact other than providing catch lights in eyes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;EOS 7D: Integrated Speedlite&#xA;  Transmitter uses&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thanks to its Integrated Speedlite&#xA;  Transmitter the built-in flash on the&#xA;  EOS 7D can be used as the master in a&#xA;  multi-flash set-up to control wireless&#xA;  slave units, but it can also be used&#xA;  as a fourth lighting group to add a&#xA;  little bit of front light. If you do&#xA;  this though, the power from the&#xA;  built-in flash will only have a&#xA;  maximum guide number of 4 because it&#xA;  will have used the majority of its&#xA;  stored power to trigger the other&#xA;  remote flashguns. However, this may be&#xA;  just enough to add a gentle catch&#xA;  light to a subject’s eyes without a&#xA;  high risk of causing redeye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though they do not say it explicitly, this again suggests that unless you enable it as a fourth group, the pop-up flash does not fire and contribute to the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Until I, or someone else can contribute a set of images taken in a mirror, I suspect this will always be a contentious issue. However, the 7D manual and CPN both suggest that the flash does not fire at the moment of the shutter being open.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not what to make a scene of this, and am happy to be proven wrong, in which case I will gladly withdraw or update my answer, as it would not be contributing to the knowledge of this board. I am not here to be 'right' I am just doing my best to add to the knowledge. Unfortunately, I am not able to test and confirm, and hope that others can to 'illuminate' this topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastEditorUserId="4880" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T13:00:40.760" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T13:00:40.760" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="11437" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11427" CreationDate="2011-04-29T18:22:48.320" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When public property is photographed it actually benefits the public property, since there are taxes on the equipment purchases, image sales, and profits of the photographer. Therefore, there actually are &quot;hidden royalties&quot; already being paid by the photographer in the form of taxes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4941" LastActivityDate="2011-04-29T18:22:48.320" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11438" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-29T18:47:40.390" Score="6" ViewCount="168" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am new to photography, and need a little advice. I currently have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/L83T/L83TA.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Samsung L83t&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get rolling, where do I go from here? Does the camera matter? Is this camera enough to start with?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4916" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-30T06:02:10.797" LastActivityDate="2011-04-30T18:05:23.067" Title="Where to start with photography?" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;learning&gt;&lt;photography-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11439" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11438" CreationDate="2011-04-29T19:01:57.350" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Welcome to photography!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any camera is good to start with. Photography is more about the photographer than the camera, even if at some point you will find the limitations of a point-and-shoot like yours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4203/digital-photography-tutorials&quot; title=&quot;Digital Photography Tutorials&quot;&gt;this question about photography tutorials&lt;/a&gt; to learn the theory about light, composition, etc. and try out with your current camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="741" LastActivityDate="2011-04-29T19:01:57.350" />
  <row Id="11440" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11435" CreationDate="2011-04-29T20:00:26.757" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer your specific question about alternate equipment to use if you don't want to use the built-in flash as the controller, Canon makes a wireless controller that attaches via the hotshoe - it's the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/speedlite_flash_lineup/speedlite_transmitter_st_e2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon ST-E2&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-04-29T20:00:26.757" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11441" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11438" CreationDate="2011-04-29T20:21:05.877" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the most important thing I can say is to go out and take pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take the kind of pictures &lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt; want to take (not test, practice or drill pictures) and pay attention to what you are doing and what results you get from what you are doing (I could say &quot;take notes&quot; -- but that doesn't work for everyone). If you do that, you will be learning about Photography and &lt;em&gt;doing&lt;/em&gt; Photography. Too often we get caught up in learning without doing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you have taken enough pictures you will realize that you have been learning about photography and will eventually decide (well, perhaps) that you need a different camera to be able to more easily capture what you want to capture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But -- fall in love what you do with you equipment, don't fall in love with your equipment (or worse, equipment you can't afford). I've shot with cameras typically considered &quot;nice&quot; or &quot;high end&quot; in the past and they haven't ever turned a junk shot into a fantastic one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This might not be the best advice, but it is from the heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2228" LastActivityDate="2011-04-29T20:21:05.877" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11442" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11438" CreationDate="2011-04-29T20:57:28.043" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Also find time to study other photographers' work.  You will see that everyone captures the moment/scene in a different way, and different equipment can make this and that possible.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But there is no best equipment or method, it's all about what kind of effect and message you want to display in your work.  Everyone uses different tools, to tell different stories.  Only time and experience will unveil what you're after. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4925" LastActivityDate="2011-04-29T20:57:28.043" />
  <row Id="11443" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11417" CreationDate="2011-04-29T21:05:08.347" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Find your niche in photography where you really stand out (at least in your area), then organize courses and/or write a book on how to make such photos. In addition to direct income, this is ought to make you known as a master of your chosen niche and might get you some customers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-03T17:36:50.353" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T17:36:50.353" />
  <row Id="11444" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11446" CreationDate="2011-04-29T21:22:24.490" Score="5" ViewCount="248" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recently, Nikon announced their &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.iamnikon.com/en_GB/product-news/get-creative-with-our-new-af-s-nikkor-50mm-f1-8g-lens/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;new 50mm f/1.8G lens&lt;/a&gt;, as revamp of the old 50mm f/1.8D. &lt;a href=&quot;http://gizmodo.com/#!5796442/why-you-should-buy-nikons-new-18-nifty-fifty-lens&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here's how Gizmodo describes the difference&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The main difference between this new&#xA;  &quot;nifty fifty&quot; and the almost&#xA;  decade-old ƒ1.8D is that it has an&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;autofocus motor inside&lt;/strong&gt;. This means you&#xA;  can use it with any current or recent&#xA;  Nikon SLR. The older lens lacks this&#xA;  motor and is instead driven by one in&#xA;  the camera, which cheaper bodies don't&#xA;  have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I currently use a Nikon D80 (and I don't plan on changing that any time soon), and I've been considering getting such a lens. &lt;strong&gt;Is there any difference between the D and the G lenses when used on a D80?&lt;/strong&gt; I believe that the D one works just as well, since D80's have internal autofocus motors - is that right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides the autofocus motor aspect, &lt;strong&gt;is there any other big difference&lt;/strong&gt; between them? Since the D is priced at around $120 and the G at $220, should I just get the D?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="74" LastActivityDate="2011-04-30T10:09:38.567" Title="What's the difference between using a 50mm f/1.8G and a 50mm f/1.8D with a Nikon D80?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;50mm&gt;&lt;nikon-d80&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11445" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11444" CreationDate="2011-04-29T21:37:22.937" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes the &quot;D&quot; will work with the D80. Here is a good review about it : &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5018daf.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5018daf.htm&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a D80 and the 50mm 1.8 D, here's a little feedback about it :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the focus ring turns when you focus. You can't touch it without disabling autofocus first (as it would be on a G lense), because you could break it. I find this slightly annoying, especially for a wide lens where you need to control your focus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the autofocus is not very fast, and has some trouble focusing on low light (not as worse a the same canon lens that a friend has though).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope that the &quot;G&quot; version, with a different autofocus, will correct this. I have another lens that is &quot;G&quot; and the focus ring don't turn when you focus (it's more silent and faster too). This is a plus when you have a polarizing filter, because with the &quot;D&quot; lens the filter turns everytime you focus, so using a polarizing filter with that is hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Except that, the 1.8 is a cheap lens, I find it very good for trying something different (fixed focal length brings challenges, you can have great bokehs...) and for portraits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2145" LastActivityDate="2011-04-29T21:37:22.937" />
  <row Id="11446" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11444" CreationDate="2011-04-29T21:55:58.033" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, the 50 f/1.8G hasn't really been released to 3rd parties yet, so it's difficult to say if any of these things are true for sure, but here's a few ways the AF-S version might be better than the AF-D version:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Autofocus is quieter. This is fairly certain, as the AF-D version made some pretty audible focus noise, but AF-S lenses are all fairly quiet. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Autofocus is generally faster with AF-S, though the similar &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2183/AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-35mm-f%252F1.8G.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;35mm f/1.8 DX AF-S&lt;/a&gt; isn't known for lightning-fast autofocus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Better image quality, maybe. Again, it's difficult to say at this point, because 3rd party sites like DxOMark and DPReview haven't gotten copies of the new lens yet. Certainly, Nikon is &lt;em&gt;trying&lt;/em&gt; to improve image quality, which is why the new version has an aspherical element. The coatings are probably better, as well.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Autofocus override. You can adjust the focus after autofocus happens simply by turning the focus ring.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some other differences:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Different filter size. The AF-S version has 58mm filter threads, compared to 52mm for the older AF-D version.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Newer lens comes with a bayonet hood and a lens pouch.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The older, AF-D can go up to f/22, but the newer lens can only go to f/16.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The AF-S lens is an ounce heavier.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You can get the older lens today, but you'll have to wait for the AF-S.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-04-29T21:55:58.033" />
  <row Id="11447" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11392" CreationDate="2011-04-30T01:58:07.137" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can build a &quot;light shovel&quot; with cardboard, aluminum foil and duct tape to redirect and soften the flash.  The flash bounces off of a small mirror, travels through the shovel to a larger mirror, and out toward your subject.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/rosember/3804000174/in/set-72157607155897064/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here are instructions to build one&lt;/a&gt; along with a picture of the light shovel, and links to some sample photos.  Very clever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3486" LastActivityDate="2011-04-30T01:58:07.137" />
  <row Id="11448" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11396" CreationDate="2011-04-30T03:14:30.310" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The sun is in a different place!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know, that sounds obvious, but, as someone living in a coastal city, I though it ought to be mentioned. In the east, if you want the sun over the ocean, that's a sunrise. If you want a sunset over the water, you need to find a west coast. (Any continent will do.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, this extends to non-oceanic photos as well. The light in many landscapes is rooted in geography. The morning sun and evening sun show the same mountains very differently -- not in the same human-schedule way a city street may be transformed (working class people early in the morning, yuppie parents with kids during the day, and then the nightlife) -- but still, uniquely. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-30T13:10:13.020" LastActivityDate="2011-04-30T13:10:13.020" />
  <row Id="11449" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="724" CreationDate="2011-04-30T05:36:09.250" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You should take a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rawtherapee.com/?mitem=2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;RawTherapee&quot;&gt;RawTherapee&lt;/a&gt;. It used to be a proprietary application, but the author changed that a few years ago and now it is available under the GPL. You have to compile it yourself to run it on Mac OS X, but I guess that is part of the FOSS experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1447" LastActivityDate="2011-04-30T05:36:09.250" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-04-30T05:36:09.250" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11450" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11453" CreationDate="2011-04-30T06:59:34.917" Score="19" ViewCount="238" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was perusing a book called &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1584280964&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Success in Print Competition for Professional Photographers&lt;/a&gt;&quot; and one section referred to a composition technique called Bakker's Saddle. Three related questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is Bakker's Saddle? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How do I apply it to my photography? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is there a time when I should consider using it over other composition methods such as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/521/what-is-the-rule-of-thirds&quot;&gt;Rule of Thirds&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8965/what-is-the-golden-ratio-and-why-is-it-better-than-the-rule-of-thirds&quot;&gt;The Golden Ratio&lt;/a&gt;, or the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11060/what-is-the-diagonal-method-and-should-i-use-it-instead-of-the-rule-of-thirds&quot;&gt;Diagonal Method&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-01T08:11:46.187" LastActivityDate="2011-05-01T13:50:23.067" Title="What is Bakker's Saddle?" Tags="&lt;composition&gt;&lt;composition-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="11451" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11396" CreationDate="2011-04-30T07:12:24.520" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sunrise shots can require more scouting ahead of time, because you are getting someplace in dark or twilight and it can be difficult to visualize how light will strike the area when it comes up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sunset gives you the luxury of having more time to analyze the scene in front of you on the spot, and is I think easier to visualize how the sun will shift as it goes down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, after a lot of shooting both sunrise and sunset it seems like the light stays more &quot;interesting&quot; for longer around sunrise (both before and after) than sunset.   I'm not sure why this is, but after a lot of different shoots it sure seems like I have a lot more time to spend on a sunrise than sunsets in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The light that first comes up at sunrise is often quite sharp compared to a sunset though, and can really cut through haze.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-04-30T07:12:24.520" />
  <row Id="11452" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10676" CreationDate="2011-04-30T07:53:42.370" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Nikon device is quite expensive (USD 230) in comparison with other real-time geo-tagging units, such as Geometr, Solmeta and Promote (± USD 150). &#xA;Also, Nikon does not reveal the origin of its gps chip, which leaves at least reasonable doubt about it's effectiveness.&#xA;Most third party units use the latest generation SiRF Star III, which is extremely fast at locking in on satellites, and generally maintains locking even indoor, under tree cover or heavy clouding.&#xA;Most Nikon's - apart of the so-called Babies - include a geo-tagging device connection, be that the 10 pin remote or a dedicated port; no other camera brand except for Fuji currently allows for real time geo-tagging. For more information you might want to read this:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.gerardprins.com/blog2.php/2009/04/29/geotagging-for-nikon-review-promote-gps&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://blog.gerardprins.com/blog2.php/2009/04/29/geotagging-for-nikon-review-promote-gps&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;http://blog.gerardprins.com/blog2.php/2009/06/05/competition-nikon-gp1-promote-gps-d90&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All recent Nikon cameras, including the (baby) D3100, allow for real time geo-tagging.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4951" LastActivityDate="2011-04-30T07:53:42.370" />
  <row Id="11453" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11450" CreationDate="2011-04-30T08:03:05.527" Score="22" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bakker's Saddle is a guide, much like the Rule of Thirds, about where to put the subject of your image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To calculate the power points for Bakker's Saddle:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Draw a line diagonally from one corner to the opposite corner.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Next, draw lines perpendicular to the diagonal that intersect with the other two corners.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Place your subject at one of these two intersections.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a 3:2 image, this ends up matching the Rule of Thirds pretty closely: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/CZtXL.png&quot; alt=&quot;Bakker's Saddle on a 3:2 aspect ratio image&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, with a more extreme aspect ratio, such as 5:2, Bakker's Saddle puts the power points closer to the corners:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Ng5ra.png&quot; alt=&quot;Bakker's Saddle on a 5:2 aspect ratio image.&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the way I have drawn these places the power points near the top left and bottom right, you could reverse this and put your subject near the top right or bottom left.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I might actually prefer something closer to Bakker's Saddle over the Rule of Thirds if I were placing a person in a wide landscape shot &amp;mdash; the Rule of Thirds would leave an awkward amount of space between the person and the edge of the frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that Bakker's Saddle, the Rule of Thirds, the Golden Ratio, etc. are all guidelines, not hard and fast rules. They can be good suggestions for where to put your subject in the frame, but they won't necessarily make a good picture, nor will your picture necessarily be bad if you ignore these rules.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-30T08:53:06.653" LastActivityDate="2011-04-30T08:53:06.653" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11454" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11444" CreationDate="2011-04-30T09:46:50.243" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As noted in Evan Krall's answer, the substantive differences between the older 50mm f/1.8 D AF and the new 50mm f/1.8 G AF-S are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;newer optical formula in the G, with the inclusion of an aspheric element. The 50/1.8 has been around forever (well since the middle of the 70s) but it's generally been regarded as good all those years, so we'll have to wait for the 3rd-party reviews to see if it makes a difference. The MTF charts published by Nikon indicate better performance, and it's possible the out of focus rendering (&quot;bokeh&quot;) will be better too. This is an aspect that's been criticized earlier.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AF-S obviates the need of a focus motor in the body, as well as providing instant manual focus override. Focusing speed may or may not be affected, the recently released 50mm f/1.4 G AF-S was reported to be on par or even slower than its AF predecessor.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Larger filter size, 58mm vs 52mm.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now to as to why buy a new G lens vs the older D lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Future-proofing: with nearly all Nikon's current lenses being AF-S (the big holes in the lineup are the 105mm and 134mm DC portrait lenses) it may well be that Nikon will phase out the in-body focus motor in most coming bodies. I predict it will be a legacy feature reserved for the higher end models. You say you're happy with your D80, but there's a slight risk that when you want to upgrade to a similar model it won't have a focus motor. Another factor is that the prospective pool of second-hand buyers is larger, considering that most Nikon DSLR owners are using DX bodies without the in-body focus motor.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Price: $100 is not much in the photo gear world ;) I've paid half that for a replacement eyepiece ring on an older body. On the other hand, the new lens will probably drive down the price of the D lens on the used market, so you might get a better deal there.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Filter size: not a big concern unless you have an extensive investment in 52mm filters.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I'd get a G version, as I think the performance will be better and the AF-S features are pretty useful. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-04-30T09:46:50.243" />
  <row Id="11455" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11565" CreationDate="2011-04-30T09:53:08.933" Score="2" ViewCount="108" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently took some images of a girls soccer team.  Upon opening the images in Adobe bridge, about 12 of 250 images had missing data.  The &quot;bad&quot; images used different lenses, shutter speeds (from 1/8000 - 1/200), apertures, ISO and flash/no flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;example: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.frozenpixelstudios.com/p342759622/ead12d15#h1168e8d1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.frozenpixelstudios.com/p342759622/ead12d15#h1168e8d1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At first, I thought I had a shutter issue, but I would think that there would be some data in the &quot;black area&quot;.  For the heck of it, I opened one of the images in Photoshop, and the issue went away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;example: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.frozenpixelstudios.com/p342759622/ead12d15#had12d15&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.frozenpixelstudios.com/p342759622/ead12d15#had12d15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My second guess was that this is just an error while writing the embedded jpg to the NEF file?  However, these errors didn't show up on the camera's LCD.  Also, after opening the file, the issue goes away in bridge -- its almost as if it is being &quot;fixed&quot;, but NEF files can't be edited.  When I copy the NEF to a new location, the image is still &quot;repaired&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any ideas what is happening, or what could cause this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(relevant camera data is in exif data for the second picture, approximately 70,000 clicks on a D3 body)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4952" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-03T12:15:30.043" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T02:09:09.510" Title="Why do these NEF files appear corrupt in Adobe Bridge but fixed by opening in Photoshop?" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;adobe&gt;&lt;data-corruption&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="11456" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11444" CreationDate="2011-04-30T10:09:38.567" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;All good answers so far... a few other features include the M/A switch on the lens that can be used for quick switching between manual and auto-focus.  Also, I think the aperture blades will be 'rounded' instead of straight on the 'D' version which might improve bokeh (maybe not noticeable :-)).  I haven't been able to determine if this lens will have any &quot;nano-coatings&quot; or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4952" LastActivityDate="2011-04-30T10:09:38.567" />
  <row Id="11458" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11404" CreationDate="2011-04-30T10:28:45.157" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Photoshop will merge your bracketed images into a 32-bit HDR image.  If you are starting with 8-bit jpgs, it requires more &quot;guess&quot; work than if you use the 16-bit NEF's.  Itai might be right that its hard to tell the difference, but I always worry that the one case where it will be a huge difference will happen to me :-).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4952" LastActivityDate="2011-04-30T10:28:45.157" />
  <row Id="11459" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11396" CreationDate="2011-04-30T13:26:22.793" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sunrise is near the coolest part of the day. As a result, it typically has less wind, and thus less dust. Also, it tends to have somewhat less moisture in the ground than would otherwise be there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of this causes a few unique affects&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There will be somewhat reduced haze, making images appear sharper.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The lesser amounts of dust will make the sunrise somewhat cooler in color temperature.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Most likely, there will be somewhat lower levels of pollutants, because not as much stuff is used earlier in the morning.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of these add to a unique look for sunrise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm going to spare you the details about the location of where the sun is when the sunrise/set occurs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2692" LastActivityDate="2011-04-30T13:26:22.793" />
  <row Id="11460" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11438" CreationDate="2011-04-30T14:12:34.753" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll throw my take into the ring as well... The answers to your questions do depend on what kind of photography you're interested in. You didn't really say one way or another, so I suppose I'll make some assumptions about it such as that you don't plan on formal, studio, style photography. However...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, is the camera good enough? Well, yeah, it is. If it generally takes a picture, then it's got something and it can be used. The camera is a tool and any camera is capable of doing good things given the right person controlling it. For example, I've seen the results of a &lt;a href=&quot;http://fstoppers.com/iphone&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fashion shoot&lt;/a&gt; using an iPhone and your camera is more capable than an iPhone. So, evidence that you have something to start out on and proof that it can even be done in a studio!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, now that we've established that the camera can get you started, where do you start? Start by taking pictures, lots of them, but with a sense of what you're trying to convey. I wouldn't worry too much about the mechanics of the camera yet, just get comfortable with the idea of photography and let the camera deal with the mechanics for now. Focus on composing your images, capturing a mood, these kind of things. Don't worry if you end up with a bunch of dreck, we all do, tons of it too, since you can just toss them away and move on. This is a big advantage of digital, by the way, and you want to take advantage of it: it's not film. It doesn't really cost you anything extra to take the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, after a while, you should look to start taking control of the camera as well. Learn to use the more manual modes on it and start controlling things like aperture and shutter speed, seeing what they do for you. There are questions and answers on the site about these things, but in a quick nutshell: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Aperture will affect the depth of field (how much is in focus) of the image. More open, the depth is shallow, more closed, the depth increases.  There is no right or wrong on this, it's what you intend. The only thing to note is that shallow depth of field is harder to do with a point and shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Shutter speed will affect motion. Fast shutter freezes it, slow shutter does not. If you're good, you can get some pretty wild looking pictures by tracking fast moving objects or people with a slow shutter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, in all of that, read and try. Lots and lots of tutorials and demos out there on photography. Don't just read them, do them. Then, once you're well and truly hooked, go get a dSLR. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-04-30T14:12:34.753" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11461" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11396" CreationDate="2011-04-30T15:08:52.107" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Due to temperatures at sunrise, low fog is more common, allowing you to take pictures like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.123rf.com/photo_8179865_mountain-sunrise-with-morning-fog-at-cameron-highland-malaysia.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2011-04-30T15:08:52.107" />
  <row Id="11462" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3333" CreationDate="2011-04-30T16:22:55.423" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;ISO is changed by applying gain at the analog stage of the signal (which, incidentally, is why you can't change the ISO in raw), and the base ISO is the amount of gain at which the signal-to-noise ratio is the maximum.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In practice, the one at which the image is the cleanest. But that part is already obvious to everyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4827" LastActivityDate="2011-04-30T16:22:55.423" />
  <row Id="11463" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-30T16:33:11.643" Score="2" ViewCount="80" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do I remove and replace the built-in flash in a Nikon D80?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4956" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-01T20:49:50.397" LastActivityDate="2011-05-01T20:49:50.397" Title="How can I fix the flash in a Nikon D80 camera?" Tags="&lt;diy&gt;&lt;repair&gt;&lt;popup-flash&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11464" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-04-30T16:37:02.743" Score="5" ViewCount="315" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Nikon D3100 camera, and am trying to use an &quot;Automatic Fixed Mount Vivitar 200mm lens&quot; with it. When I attach the lens, I get the message &quot;Lens not attached&quot;. and nothing works. HELP!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't easily take it to a camera shop, as I live in the Mojave Desert, about 200 miles away from any camera shop. This is a new lens, and a new camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4957" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-30T21:28:16.503" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T08:33:40.507" Title="Why does my Nikon D3100 give the error &quot;Lens not attached&quot; with a Vivitar 200 telephoto lens?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;troubleshooting&gt;&lt;vivitar&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11465" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11463" CreationDate="2011-04-30T17:27:55.097" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best way is to take it to a certified nikon repair center to have it checked out, if it's under warranty. Otherwise seek out a camera repair person who can service it for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See this &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11216/how-can-i-tell-if-the-built-in-flash-on-my-dslr-is-broken-beyond-self-repair&quot;&gt;related question&lt;/a&gt; for why attempting to fix your pop-up flash is a bad idea. To summarize: you could seriously injure or kill yourself if you try.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2011-04-30T17:27:55.097" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11466" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11438" CreationDate="2011-04-30T18:05:23.067" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/DePEJ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Thank You everyone, got inspired by the replies. Tried manual setting shot, I really like the way it has come, what you say, can I continue shooting photos?&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4916" LastActivityDate="2011-04-30T18:05:23.067" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11467" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11464" CreationDate="2011-04-30T18:23:06.060" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some things you'll want to try:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Give the contacts on both the lens and the camera body a good cleaning. Rubbing alcohol if you have it, a damp paper towel or rag if you don't... Even spit will work in a pinch if you can live with the 'ick factor.' ;-) (Mojave desert. Yee haw!)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Check to see if any of the contact points on the lens or camera are 'stuck.' Depending on brand, contacts are often spring loaded and designed to move up and down slightly. Occasionally that can mean that a contact point gets stuck so it no longer connects when attaching the lens due to poor manufacturing tolerances, or even a bit of dirt. Use a paperclip (or something paperclip-like) and &lt;em&gt;gently&lt;/em&gt; dislodge the contact point. They can be pretty fragile, so you'll want to use as little force as you have to... On occasion over the years I've even simply ran my fingers across the row of contact points and it has been enough to get the stuck contact point to pop back out. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/huskerbrown/sets/72157623395271967/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here are a few images&lt;/a&gt; identifying the contact point that generally causes the error message.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you're still getting the error message after trying these things you've kinda exhausted your options for dealing with it yourself and you will want to consider taking it in to a professional who has the tools and knowledge to dig deeper into what is going on with your camera/lens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-04-30T19:21:38.187" LastActivityDate="2011-04-30T19:21:38.187" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="11468" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11464" CreationDate="2011-04-30T18:49:42.017" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If it is a older lens, try to use the camera in Manual mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: See other comments for explantation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4959" LastEditorUserId="4959" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-01T17:56:26.487" LastActivityDate="2011-05-01T17:56:26.487" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11469" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11464" CreationDate="2011-04-30T20:34:50.343" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If this is an older lens, it probably doesn't have the correct contacts (if any) for your D3100 - that camera generally only recognizes much newer lenses.  You will probably need to switch to manual mode and will almost certainly not get any metering on your camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-01T16:48:23.917" LastActivityDate="2011-05-01T16:48:23.917" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11470" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11474" CreationDate="2011-04-30T21:11:47.170" Score="12" ViewCount="279" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to be photographing in a club setting. Imagine a foggy atmosphere, with a lighting nightmare: everything from strobe lights to colored spotlights and everything in between, both bright and dark. The atmosphere is very fast-paced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for tips on lenses, ISO settings, camera settings (I have a Nikon D90 if that helps), since this is such a difficult atmosphere, I want to go in at least having some sort of plan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3367" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-01T06:33:32.853" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T18:21:33.293" Title="What should my plan be for photographing in a nightclub setting?" Tags="&lt;nightclubs&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11472" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11470" CreationDate="2011-04-30T23:50:57.357" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Maybe the most important thing is a flash w/ TTL. ISO depend on the amount of surrounding light: People photos in clubs look best, when there is some background/fill light. So if it's dark, you maybe have to go until ISO 800. The other thing is the exposure time. With a flash you can set that from 1/100 to 1/20s or even longer (still depending on the amount of surrounding light). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A flexible zoom lens in the standard range is probably best: 24-70 on a full frame and 17-55 on a crop camera like yours. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you haven't done much with a flash yet, try it on your friends/roommates/etc before going out. People in clubs won't stand 20 minutes in front of your camera, until you get the right shot. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And last but not least: Experiment!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4962" LastActivityDate="2011-04-30T23:50:57.357" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11474" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11470" CreationDate="2011-05-01T08:09:54.657" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's at times like this that digital photography really out-shines anything you could ever do with film... because you're going to get a lot of missed shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a strategy that's worked for me in the past: Get an external flash &lt;em&gt;with TTL&lt;/em&gt; (very important) and an off camera cable. A mid-ranged zoom will be fine, it doesn't even have to be a good one, you're going to be shooting at f/5.6 or f/8 anyway. Don't use a 50mm on your D90, it's going to be too long. If you can get a flash bracket, that'd be even better. I know it looks a bit ridiculous, but putting the light off the camera is a god-send quality wise AND it will signal to the club goers that you are a serious photographer, not just some creep with a camera. That actually does make a big difference in how they react to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To start shooting, set your camera to Manual mode, What you want to do is to get up close with your subject, but keep the in the night club context. You don't need high ISO to do this, 400 will be more than enough. Drag the shutter a bit, 1/30 or 1/15 and keep your aperture around f/5.6-f/8, that should be more than enough with a crop sensor. This will let you freeze your subject (speedlites shoot at up to 1/10000s) while getting enough ambient light to keep them in a club setting. I'd stay on the wide-end of your focal range, that puts the viewer &quot;in the middle of things&quot;, using longer focal lengths makes them feel like they're looking at something happening far away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Resist chimping after getting the first few shots, spend time in the club shooting, you'll get a chance to check it all later. Shoot extra, you never know if someone shut their eyes. Just get in, pop pop pop, get out. Bring extra batteries. You might not be able to AF because the club might be just too dark, but if you shoot people from more or less the same distance at f/8 you probably won't need to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cool effects I've seen used: wide angles (10-22) with the flash set to a longer distance, that lights just the middle of the frame while creating a cool fall-off around it. Multiple exposures to tell a story in a single frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, and do what Michael Bolli said - test it out on your friends at home first, but to be honest it's a pretty easy for of photography to get right. Concentrate on getting interesting looking people and situations over the technique tho, because nobody's going to care if a shot isn't perfectly lit as long as the content is great.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-05-01T08:09:54.657" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11475" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11479" CreationDate="2011-05-01T08:27:43.110" Score="23" ViewCount="413" Body="&lt;p&gt;In furthering my reading on photographic composition I came across a compositional technique called the &quot;Rule of Odds.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is the &quot;Rule of Odds&quot;? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why is it important?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How do I apply it to my photography? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T19:17:03.240" Title="What is the Rule of Odds?" Tags="&lt;composition&gt;&lt;composition-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="11476" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-01T09:21:50.310" Score="0" ViewCount="81" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7406/whats-the-difference-between-using-black-and-white-mode-in-camera-and-convertin&quot;&gt;What&amp;#39;s the difference between using Black and White mode in-camera, and converting in post?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hey, what is the best way to make black and white photo's with my Canon eos 1000d? Should I use the settings on the camera, or is it better to edit the photo after I it? And what is the best software to edit? Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4895" LastActivityDate="2011-05-01T09:21:50.310" ClosedDate="2011-05-01T16:05:17.610" Title="B&amp;W, edit or use settings on the camera?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;black-and-white&gt;&lt;canon-1000d&gt;" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="11477" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11464" CreationDate="2011-05-01T11:19:12.840" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Set your camera body to Manual (M). Adjust the shutter speed to what you want, and adjust the aperture on the lens. The camera will fire, and stop down the lens automatically. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You won't get any metering, so you'll need to eyeball the exposure, chimp with the rear screen (enable histogram view), or use an external meter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/365610@N21/discuss/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;group on Flickr dedicated to using manual non-metering lenses on Nikon bodies&lt;/a&gt;, you might want to check out their discussions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the nice things about the cheaper Nikon DSLRs, like the D3100, is that you can use &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; really old Nikkor lenses that lack the AI indexing on the aperture ring. As these lenses are not mountable on newer, more capable Nikons without damaging the body, they can sometimes be found for less money than newer lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastEditorUserId="3114" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T08:33:40.507" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T08:33:40.507" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="11478" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11475" CreationDate="2011-05-01T11:25:08.750" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The rule of odds is that an odd number of subjects looks better than an even number.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would have thought that whatever you read would have mentioned that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3947" LastActivityDate="2011-05-01T11:25:08.750" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="11479" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11475" CreationDate="2011-05-01T11:34:29.943" Score="26" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Rule of Odds states that having an odd number of objects in an image will be more interesting and therefore pleasing. In case there is an even number of objects, your brain would have an easy time &quot;organizing&quot; the objects into pairs and therefore bringing in symmetry and dullness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have one main object, accompany it with two supporting objects, not one. This way, one of them will be a middle one. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can find a parallel from the art of writing, where &lt;em&gt;rule of three&lt;/em&gt; states remember that lists of three examples are the most efficient in carrying forward the presented idea.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Human eye tends to wander to the center of a group. With even number of objects, eye will end up at the negative space in center.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rule becomes important when trying to achieve a visually pleasing composition of several objects. A common form of usage is having three objects in frame, they always form either a line or a triangle, both are considered pleasurable shapes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rule will not matter with larger groups though, few people will feel any different if there are 36 or 37 fish in the sea. The amount translates to &quot;plenty&quot; in brain either way.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You should strive to apply the rule when including a &quot;group of&quot; objects as an important element of your photo. E.g. five flowers in a vase will be more pleasing than four or six. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Implied from the rule is that you should have an even number of objects if the paired relationship or dullness is what you want to express (for example, a shot of students sitting in pairs would carry the idea of a dull long lesson, while adding a teacher  would turn it around into a photo of educational interaction).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the way, both the question and this answer serve as examples of using Rule of Odds.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-02T19:17:03.240" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T19:17:03.240" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="11480" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7406" CreationDate="2011-05-01T12:48:58.120" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I once tried shooting B&amp;amp;W on my camera (Nikon D90), and when I imported the raw images to Aperture, they came out full colour!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 'black and white' setting merely set the way that the raw data should be interpreted, and that RGB data from the sensor were sill stored in the file.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know if Canons work the same way, but I suspect they do if you shoot raw. So, since then I've normally just post-processed to black and white.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2019" LastActivityDate="2011-05-01T12:48:58.120" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11482" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11450" CreationDate="2011-05-01T13:50:23.067" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A couple of additions to Evan Krall's excellent answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It was named after, and possibly invented by, illustrator and photographer &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wisconsinart.org/archives/artist/gerhard-h-bakker/profile-8.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gerhard Bakker&lt;/a&gt;, who lived from 1906–1988, and worked an artist and a teacher of photography.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is possible that the rule includes the idea of different meanings for the four different points created at the various intersections. However, I'm going to need to do a bit more research on that; it may be something added after.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-05-01T13:50:23.067" />
  <row Id="11483" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11470" CreationDate="2011-05-01T14:29:16.373" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've done quite a lot of &lt;a href=&quot;https://picasaweb.google.com/crosby.james/Undertow#&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;club photography&lt;/a&gt;, and a fair deal in other dark places like theatres.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I'd recommend &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; using a flash&lt;/em&gt;. A flash completely changes the atmosphere: yes, flashes let you capture the people, instantaneously as they were, (probably posing for your camera...), but you won't capture how it felt to be there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shooting without a flash is difficult. You need steady hands, a camera with decent low light performance (probably a CMOS sensor rather than CCD) the D90 is great in this respect, plenty of patience, and you need to be prepared to deal with noisy images afterwards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some tips:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;get to know your camera really well&lt;/strong&gt;: in particular how to adjust exposure compensation and ISO as quickly as possible in the dark when you can't see anything. (On the D90 get used to using the menu buttons as modifiers for the adjustment wheel without having to look to see which one you want). Also, get used to using the &lt;strong&gt;focus lock&lt;/strong&gt; button!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;practise using all the available light&lt;/strong&gt;: try taking photos on the street at night, using only the illumination from street lights. In very low light you can still easily take sharp pictures if the subject is in silhouette against a light source, for example.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;don't fight the dark&lt;/strong&gt; Your photos are going to be dark, because the club was dark! Don't fight this, but make sure that there is still interesting detail: very rarely can you fill the frame with light.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;experiment, and try lots of things&lt;/strong&gt;: Don't just take the same sort of photo all night: move around and capture as lots of angles and subjects&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;use a wideangle lense, and learn to shoot without looking&lt;/strong&gt;: if you don't have to have your eye to the viewfinder you can capture lots more angles, and catch things faster than if your camera is glued to your face.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;enjoy yourself&lt;/strong&gt;: It's no fun taking photos if you're not taking part in the party :)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(P.S. my favourite lens for this -- and most other things, to be honest -- is the 10.5 DX fisheye ;)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2019" LastActivityDate="2011-05-01T14:29:16.373" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11484" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11396" CreationDate="2011-05-01T15:13:33.467" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most &lt;strong&gt;humans&lt;/strong&gt; need much more convincing for participating in a shoot during sunrise than during sunset. Applies to models, stylists, assistants etc. On the other hand, &lt;strong&gt;wildlife&lt;/strong&gt; is usually more active during sunrise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you need to have a natural-light shot made in a certain day, shooting during sunrise leaves you a &lt;strong&gt;second chance&lt;/strong&gt; in case something goes wrong. In case of a sunset, being late means too late.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Chances of catching rays shining through &lt;strong&gt;mist&lt;/strong&gt; are higher in mornings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-05-01T15:13:33.467" />
  <row Id="11485" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9455" CreationDate="2011-05-01T15:57:39.507" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Specular highlights from flash can be reduced simply by dialing down your flash, or closing down your aperture. Ambient light, the continous sort of light you will have in your image, is controlled by your exposure length, but as flash is instantaneous, only aperture controls the ratio of ambient vs. flash illumination in your photos. If your image is too dark after either dialing down your flash or closing your aperture, you can probably still gain back a stop or two by raising your ISO if you are using a DSLR. If you have access to a flash cable, use it to get your flash away from your camera, though this is less to eliminate glare and more to put the right shadows in your photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4889" LastActivityDate="2011-05-01T15:57:39.507" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11486" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9875" CreationDate="2011-05-01T16:00:24.920" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I would suggest shooting 'RAW', and converting to 16-bit TIFF using the camera's auto white balance but no gamma correction (i.e. color balanced but linear output).  16-bit will enable better calculation of ratios and indices in deep shadows and highlights (i.e. no clipping).  DCRAW can do this but your camera would come with its own software that's probably easier to use.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you want indices then RGB is really the only useful color space.  You've already mentioned the 'green divergence' index (also called Excess Green Index) - this and the closely related Green Leaf Algorithm work pretty well.  If you want to perform color-based pixel classification (i.e. veg versus non-veg) then I would look closely at L*a*b* color space rather than HSV/HSI.  There is actually a pretty good demo on the Mathworks website that illustrates L*a*b* analysis.  Classification could conceivably be combined with spectral analysis to answer the questions a) how many green pixels are there and b) how green are they?  This might be more useful than just a greeness index, which would also be influenced by background spectral quality (soil, litter, etc.), which could also change over time.  You mentioned a corn crop so I assume that you're pointing the camera down, not up?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you had two cameras then you could combine downward looking images (measuring greeness) with upward looking images that measure vegetation cover.  Upward images would not be suitable for spectral analysis and pixel classification would be based on contrast between sky/non-sky, probably using only the blue channel of the RGB image.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you are collecting a (daily?) timeseries then you can divide the downward images into 'cloudy day' images and 'sunny day' images and check for bias.  You could play with color balance during raw processing to correct for bias, if present, or just rescale one series to match the other (keep it simple) assuming that sunny and cloudy days are interspersed.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have fun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4967" LastActivityDate="2011-05-01T16:00:24.920" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11487" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-01T16:04:56.417" Score="2" ViewCount="192" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to buy a plugin from Nik Software; which is the better plugin between Silver Efex Pro and Color Efex Pro?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="78" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-01T20:48:42.707" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T07:44:45.207" Title="Which is better: Silver or Color Efex Pro from Nik Software?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;color&gt;&lt;black-and-white&gt;&lt;plugin&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11488" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11487" CreationDate="2011-05-01T16:41:09.987" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;SEP is for B&amp;amp;W while CEP is for colour photos. It's like comparing apples and oranges. That aside though, I would recommend getting the whole suite as it's cheaper that way, plus Define and Sharpener is actually pretty useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1635" LastActivityDate="2011-05-01T16:41:09.987" />
  <row Id="11489" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11487" CreationDate="2011-05-01T16:48:13.977" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;SilverEFX has a lot of fine grained control over B&amp;amp;W conversions for images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ColorEFX is like a super-general toolbox, good for all sorts of things.  It does have B&amp;amp;W conversion modules as well, though they are more limited in adjustment than SilverEFX.  It also has stuff like skin smoothers (that works really well), custom color changes (like washing out colors) and many other interesting things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both can be downloaded as a demo, so you can try them out and see what you think.  As I said, note when you play with ColorEFX that each module is different with different adjustments, whereas in SilverEFX the presets are all just different settings of the same controls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I agree with jon2512 though, that buying the whole set is a good idea... if you are willing to work with them as plugins in Aperture/Lightroom it's a lot cheaper than the Photoshop versions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One tip around Nik software, is that if you want to buy one you should sign up for a webinar on the Nik website - when the webinar completes you'll be given a discount code at the end that gives you 10-15% off the software.  It's good for the specific software discussed in the webinar, and I think possibly on the whole suite also (not sure about that).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastEditorUserId="1192" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-02T06:35:59.477" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T06:35:59.477" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11490" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11487" CreationDate="2011-05-01T17:12:49.887" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the Nik Software Complete Collection for Lightroom, and I've found that I use Color  Efex Pro a lot more than Silver Efex Pro. Silver Efex Pro provides some nice templates for B/W conversions, but I've found that the B/W conversion in Lightroom coupled with the channel mixer to provide me with enough control over the B/W conversion process. As such, Silver Efex Pro is rarely used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Color Efex Pro on the other hand, has loads of useful filters that produce effects that cannot be done using Lightroom alone. I do lots of portraits, and I've found it an invaluable tool.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/xFNrn.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Example portrait&quot;&gt;&#xA;This is an example that was processed using Color Efex. The skin was softened, eyes were enhanced and some touch ups were done to the exposure. While eye enhancements and skin softening can be done in Lightroom/Photoshop, I've found that Color Efex produces the most pleasing effects (i.e. not too over done) with minimal effort.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not just useful for portraits. This is another photo that I edited in Color Efex to bring out the autumn colours while leaving the subject (the lady pushing the pram) untouched. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/eAZsc.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Lady in Red&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, I cannot recommend Color Efex enough. It's a fantastic bit of software for your toolbox. I know that this is not part of the question, but if you're after another plug-in from Nik I would highly recommend Viveza.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2528" LastActivityDate="2011-05-01T17:12:49.887" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11491" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11493" CreationDate="2011-05-01T22:14:06.587" Score="13" ViewCount="201" Body="&lt;p&gt;When creating a panorama for a scene of huge dynamic range, intuitively I always &lt;strong&gt;merge exposure brackets to HDR and tone-map them and then stitch the resulting images into a panorama&lt;/strong&gt;. My intuition here is that the HDR process is much more predictable than the stitching process, so I start with the former. I realize this may be because I know a lot about HDR (worked on HDR S/W for 9 years) and little about stitching software.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is this the right order to do this and why?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question came up because in the book &lt;a href=&quot;http://oreilly.com/catalog/9781933952451&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mastering Panorama Photography&lt;/a&gt; the author stitches first and then merges the LDR panoramas into a HDR one. He mentions this but does not explain why.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-01T23:11:30.907" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T08:58:42.013" Title="HDR then Panorama, or Panorama then HDR?" Tags="&lt;hdr&gt;&lt;panorama&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11493" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11491" CreationDate="2011-05-01T23:34:10.757" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Doing HDR first has advantages: the HDR process is working on a smaller image size, and you only have to stitch one set of images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the disadvantage of doing the HDR step first is it becomes more difficult to exactly match the tones between sets of images, so when you stitch them together you get more obvious seams.  If you are able to control this and don't have this problem, then I could see it being easier to do HDR first.  But for most people they will have ended up with slightly different HDR adjustments done and they will have seams to deal with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4191" LastActivityDate="2011-05-01T23:34:10.757" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11494" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11396" CreationDate="2011-05-02T05:33:31.077" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sunrise and Sunset are also very different when it comes to shadows and back light. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Never forget that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Therefore the shadows and light will be a completely different although in both cases the sun is low over the horizon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if you want to have the sun in your picture and you are on an east coast beach you have to get up early if you like it or not :-) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4675" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T05:33:31.077" />
  <row Id="11495" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9455" CreationDate="2011-05-02T06:50:27.243" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would use a off camera flash with some kind of diffuser. This would help immensely. Also using a lens hood sometimes helps. Just so that you can avoid flare and extra spillage of light. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the best thing is to bounce it off something. Maybe a card on top or the roof. Basically your problem happens when you shoot the flash direct at the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When i have shot in dance parties and stuff, I found the off camera flash extremely useful. I use remote triggers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4786" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T06:50:27.243" />
  <row Id="11496" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11491" CreationDate="2011-05-02T07:29:48.577" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Stitching first has its obvious advantage. You can tune for your suitable HDR when you get the whole image and only once :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4565" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T07:29:48.577" />
  <row Id="11497" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11491" CreationDate="2011-05-02T08:58:42.013" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the answers presented already, there's a huge potential disadavantage of stitching first - the stitching programs might decide to stitch each exposure differently leading to misalignment when you do the HDR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unless the stitching program lets you repeat the warping with different images this could be the deciding factor in which to do first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most panorama assembly programs use a series of primitive image features (corners, line segments, small details) matched between images in order to warp and align adjacent frames. If some of these features are not visible in one of the image sets a different features could be used of alignment, giving different results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagine a sequence in which you have an exposure for the sky for which the land is almost pure black. The program might have great difficulty stitching the sky due to lack of details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best approach in my opinion would be to merge to HDR first, then stitch, &lt;strong&gt;then tonemap&lt;/strong&gt;. That way you create the HDR image which should match between frames of the panorama, then assemble the panorama using the maximum available data, then tonemap the HDR panorama back down into a low DR image suitable for displaying on computer screens, with the ability preview your settings on the whole scene. See&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7630/what-is-tone-mapping-how-does-it-relate-to-hdr&quot;&gt;What is Tone Mapping? How does it relate to HDR?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T08:58:42.013" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11498" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11511" CreationDate="2011-05-02T12:02:26.483" Score="9" ViewCount="136" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently bought a second-hand Carl Zeiss Jena PANCOLAR MC 1.8/50mm Lens off eBay (still waiting for it to arrive though) and am going to mount it to my Canon 7D via a M42 adaptor. I primarily shoot video and am not a fan of high ISO so I thought the 1.8 would be a good way to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My mate has a similar lens, but in the 2.8, and he reckons that the images won't be as sharp because of the larger aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone explain why this might be? And how noticeable it may be?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cheers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4912" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T15:21:49.720" Title="Is there a noticable difference in sharpness between a 1.8 lens and a 2.8 of similar design?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;sharpness&gt;&lt;old-lenses&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11499" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11498" CreationDate="2011-05-02T12:22:14.193" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, sharpness varies from one lens to another. A 50mm f/1.8 might not be as sharp as an f/2.8 lens if sharpness in considered at the widest possible aperture, but, if you step down the f/1.8 lens to f/2.8 you got yourself a contender!&#xA;For example, Canon 50mm f/1.8 is almost equal in sharpness if compared to 50mm f/1.4, but you have bigger aperture in the 2nd lens and therefore better low light performance. Lenses with slightly smaller aperture always give you better sharpness but sharpness might not always be the thing you'll need, faster lenses generally have shallower DOF and better bokeh which should be considered as well. Remember, you can always step down a f/1.8 lens to f/2.8 if sharpness is the only thing needed for a particular photo but you can not step up a f/2.8 to f/1.8 if need be!&#xA;Again, like almost every other photography gears, this selection is very subjective and depends on your own choice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T12:22:14.193" />
  <row Id="11500" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7406" CreationDate="2011-05-02T12:49:23.063" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The B&amp;amp;W setting is simply only applies to JPEG. It configures the in-camera image processing to create a B&amp;amp;W JPEG image.  If you shoot JPEG only, you will only get a B&amp;amp;W image. If you shoot RAW, basically nothing will happen, as the setting is only for the JPEG conversion. If you shoot RAW+JPEG, you will get a regular RAW image, plus a B&amp;amp;W JPEG image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T12:49:23.063" />
  <row Id="11501" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11554" CreationDate="2011-05-02T12:55:05.053" Score="3" ViewCount="70" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do you suggest using a teleconverter with a dedicated macro lens? I have tried out using a Kenko TC with canon macro lens - however I am not 100% satisfied with the &quot;extra&quot; magnification that I got on the cost of loosing some of the available light and the quality of the image. I have read that using an TC will work wonders if you're shooting under ample light. Any suggestions? Is this a cheaper solution for magnification ratios more than 1X?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an example of what I got with the extender (sorry I did not have a chance to get the same shot without extender)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/moulikumar/5088001355/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Untitled by MouliKumar, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4089/5088001355_0f0e22c688_m.jpg&quot; width=&quot;199&quot; height=&quot;240&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Click on the image for a larger version in flickr&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4936" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T04:58:08.357" Title="Do you suggest using an extender/tele converter with a Macro lens such as Canon 100mm f2.8 macro lens?" Tags="&lt;macro&gt;&lt;image-quality&gt;&lt;teleconverter&gt;&lt;extender&gt;&lt;magnification&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="11502" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11498" CreationDate="2011-05-02T13:24:06.227" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fast lenses typically perform best (or near their best) when stopped down about 2 stops from the maximum aperture. For example, see the resolution chart for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://lenstip.com/189.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_85_mm_f_1.2L_II_USM_Image_resolution.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 85mm f/1.2&lt;/a&gt;. Note that while all lenses are different and I haven't been able to find resolution charts for the Zeiss 50mm f/1.8, but the characteristic of producing near optimal sharpness 2 stops from the maximum aperture holds for most lenses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your 50mm f/1.8 is likely to be as sharp or sharper than the f/2.8 lens at the same aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2528" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T13:24:06.227" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11503" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-02T13:29:07.330" Score="15" ViewCount="389" Body="&lt;p&gt;Multiple sources on the internet (including answers on this site) claim that red-eye is created by light from the flash reflecting on the blood vessels in back of the eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, why do animals like dogs, that I believe also have red blood (I'm not going to injure my dog in order to test this, but I'm pretty sure the blood is red) have green-eye?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2481" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-02T13:34:48.403" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T16:01:22.330" Title="Why do animals get green-eye?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;animals&gt;&lt;redeye&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11504" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11509" CreationDate="2011-05-02T13:43:37.980" Score="5" ViewCount="136" Body="&lt;p&gt;Simple question: Which lens is better?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The L Series (non-IS) Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM or the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am an enthusiast and usually shoot landscape, my kids playing indoors and out, some people and architecture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Already have the Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS that came with my 60D but also purchased the Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM Lens only because I like this focal length and the speed of this lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not thrilled with the budget EF-S 18-135mm and need something that is better quality and has more reach. Eventually I would also like to get a better wide angle and get rid of the kit lens all together but that will be in next year's budget. For now I am deciding between the two above. I am leaning towards the L-series lens but cannot afford the IS in this class. The Canon EF 70-300mm comes with IS. Is the IS on the L series really that important? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4977" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-02T14:58:00.750" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T15:15:29.960" Title="Which is better for me: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM or Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM (without IS)?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;telephoto&gt;&lt;image-stabilization&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="11505" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11503" CreationDate="2011-05-02T13:49:03.243" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Wikipedia it seems that animals that exhibit this phenomenon (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapetum_lucidum&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;eyeshine&quot;&lt;/a&gt;) have an extra layer of tissue within their eyes that cause light to be reflected in a different way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/YfCut.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapetum_lucidum&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3258" LastEditorUserId="2738" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-02T16:01:22.330" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T16:01:22.330" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11506" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11540" CreationDate="2011-05-02T14:00:23.687" Score="16" ViewCount="317" Body="&lt;p&gt;I live in a small urban apartment with my wife, two children, two cats, a goat, and a flock of chickens. Or, at least it feels like that sometimes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to set up an area for basic portrait photography, for my family and friends who are willing to let me experiment on them. However, we really do consume every available square inch with living space.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can I set up a &quot;portrait corner&quot; under these circumstances? The walls are brightly painted in a variety of colors, and decorated nicely, so a backdrop will be required, in addition to light stands and whatever else. My wife puts up with enough, so a key requirement is that whatever solution I have can &lt;em&gt;get out of the way and out of sight&lt;/em&gt; quickly. But it also needs to be quick to set up, or else the practical details of life mean that everything will just stay packed away except for rare occasions, which both misses the point &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; makes things worse because it's not like we've got a lot of storage space either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simply throwing up a backdrop hides the background, but I'm looking for more than just hiding the walls. How can I control and shape light within these limitations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/83OcQ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Guen&quot;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Guenevere, with unwanted shadow to the left, and simple &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6495/in-portrait-photography-what-is-broad-lighting-what-is-short-lighting&quot;&gt;broad lighting&lt;/a&gt; — I've got some practicing to do.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there pre-made solutions that might help me? (Perhaps gear designed for traveling professionals?) Or are there clever D.I.Y. suggestions I might follow?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-10T11:21:48.990" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T15:43:49.340" Title="How do I set up a home portrait studio area in zero space?" Tags="&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;studio-setup&gt;&lt;home-studio&gt;&lt;portable&gt;&lt;limited-space&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="11507" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11506" CreationDate="2011-05-02T14:14:49.853" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm afraid &quot;zero space&quot; and &quot;studio&quot; don't go together particularly well. Without space the lights you set up will reflect back off everything, filling in the shadows you try to create to define your subject. Also it's very hard to light your background and subject separately when close together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This isn't to say you can't use your home, or get good results, just warning you will lose a lot of control over your light, and there will be some images you simply wont be able to replicate. Are your brightly painted walls a neutral colour? If not you're reflected light will be a different colour to your key compounding the problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clamps are better than stands for compact spaces, especially if you have shelves etc. that you can fix lights and gobos onto. A small background is a must, it would be ideal if it can hang instead of using stands as you'll be able to get it closer to the wall. Curtain rails are good for this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T14:14:49.853" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11508" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11503" CreationDate="2011-05-02T14:21:07.757" Score="17" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many animals, including cats and dogs, have a reflective layer of cells at the back of the eye called the &lt;em&gt;tapetum lucidum&lt;/em&gt; ('the tapestry of clarity'). This reflects the light back through the light-sensitive cells in the retina for a 'second pass', allowing the animal to see better at night.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T14:21:07.757" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11509" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11504" CreationDate="2011-05-02T14:21:09.847" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I tried both, and purchased the L lens.  One thing to note, is that the IS USM lens is 5.6 at 300mm, and something between at 200mm (don't recall exactly). The L is f4 at 200, always. As you probably have discovered, both lenses are quite close in price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;True, the IS USM is 300mm, and it is IS.  IS is nice when trying to shoot at 300mm and handheld, especially when you do not have a tripod and especially when your shutter speed is near 1/300 or lower. So, if you expect to find yourself in these situations often, then perhaps you should lean in this direction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the L lens is brighter, focuses impossibly fast, has manual focus override, and it zooms internally, so it stays the same size always, never extending. But, even with all that, the difference in sharpness and clarity are simply amazing, and still, after thousands of shots and 3 years, bring a smile to my face, and causes giddy pixel peeping every time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 70-200 f4 L lens, is, in my opinion, the best bargain among the L lineup, and just maybe the entire Canon lens list.  I can highly recommend this lens, and unless you absolutely must have 300mm, you should purchase this lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To see these differences in clarity and sharpness, be sure to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&amp;amp;Camera=453&amp;amp;Sample=0&amp;amp;FLI=0&amp;amp;API=0&amp;amp;LensComp=358&amp;amp;CameraComp=453&amp;amp;SampleComp=0&amp;amp;FLIComp=0&amp;amp;APIComp=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;look at these comparisons&lt;/a&gt; that are available on the-digital-picture.com.  Compare the images at 70 and at 200mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, there is a 70-300 f4 L lens available, but its just a tad more expensive (!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T14:21:09.847" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11510" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-02T14:24:52.137" Score="10" ViewCount="338" Body="&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/canondslr/discuss/72157620448786604&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;OT - &amp;quot;scanning&amp;quot; negatives with a macro lens - UPDATED&quot;&gt;flickr discussion&lt;/a&gt;, pointed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/5192/whats-the-best-way-to-scan-in-hundreds-of-pictures/5269#5269&quot;&gt;an answer&lt;/a&gt; to &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/5192/whats-the-best-way-to-scan-in-hundreds-of-pictures&quot; title=&quot;What's the best way to scan in hundreds of pictures?&quot;&gt;another question&lt;/a&gt;, got me excited in scanning old slides &amp;amp; negatives with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/max_sang/3674833086/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a tripod, lightbox, macro lens and a DSLR&lt;/a&gt; (or with a similar set).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have rather minimal experience in scanning with a flatbed scanner and non-existent experience with slide or negative scanner. So: &lt;strong&gt;what would be missed from a dedicated scanner when digitizing with a DSLR&lt;/strong&gt; (if one already has the sufficient gear)? What generally are the major drawbacks? &lt;strong&gt;Or will a DSLR excel in some aspects?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Resolution is something that my Canon 450D probably wouldn't match to the 4000+ dpi that scanners offer, but that's probably something I could cope with (or is it?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm aware of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/5192/whats-the-best-way-to-scan-in-hundreds-of-pictures&quot; title=&quot;What's the best way to scan in hundreds of pictures?&quot;&gt;possible&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2907/what-to-consider-when-scanning-35mm-film-and-scanning-in-general&quot; title=&quot;What to consider when scanning 35mm film (and scanning in general)&quot;&gt;alternatives&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1121/inexpensive-method-of-digitizing-large-numbers-of-35mm-slides&quot; title=&quot;Inexpensive method of digitizing large numbers of 35mm slides?&quot;&gt;mentioned&lt;/a&gt; in older questions, but I don't consider them as interesting right now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To summarize strengths of a scanner so far:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11510/what-are-the-major-drawbacks-when-digitizing-slides-negatives-with-a-dslr-vs-a-s/11515#11515&quot;&gt;ICE &amp;amp; Multi-Scan&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;IR-based ICE: definitely will be missed. Can't be easily DIY-duplicated &amp;mdash; though this just means more time will be spent on the post-processing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Multi-Scan: doable with image stacking&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11510/what-are-the-major-drawbacks-when-digitizing-slides-negatives-with-a-dslr-vs-a-s/11529#11529&quot;&gt;Slide holder &amp;amp; even lighting&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Slide holder: DIY-doable.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Even lighting: might be hard to set up, but doable.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11510/what-are-the-major-drawbacks-when-digitizing-slides-negatives-with-a-dslr-vs-a-s/11514#11514&quot;&gt;Time&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;More human intervention is needed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Setup time is longer and scan time per slide is probably shorter with a DSLR, but scanning won't be a background activity.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this it? &lt;strong&gt;Are there any other &lt;em&gt;technical&lt;/em&gt; aspects that are commonplace among scanners, but hard or nearly impossible to MacGyverize (like IR-based ICE) for a DSLR?&lt;/strong&gt; I would suspect there is, as the scanning techniques are drastically different &amp;mdash; then again, I don't have much scanning experience with a scanner. Is there any impact on the image quality? Would a scanner capture some details that a DSLR couldn't? Or the other way around?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm offering a cake for some more details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found some good info on comparing the density &amp;amp; dynamic ranges on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.filmscanner.info/en/Dichte.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ScanDig&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scantips.com/basics14.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;scantips.com&lt;/a&gt;. I have a hunch that in terms of the density range, devices would be ranked:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;flatbed scanner &amp;lt; DSLR &amp;lt; negative scanner &amp;lt; drum scanner. Unfortunately, I don't currently have deep enough understanding to form an answer based on those articles &amp;mdash; and my hunch may as well be incorrect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do the negative/drum scanners excel my DSLR, that has a dynamic range of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Camera-Sensor/All-tested-sensors/Canon/EOS-450D&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;10.8 EVs&lt;/a&gt;? (And would my DSLR actually be better than a flatbed scanner when scanning negatives/slides (= transparent material)?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1913" LastEditorUserId="1913" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-17T16:02:55.497" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T08:59:02.650" Title="What are the major differences when digitizing slides/negatives with a DSLR vs. a scanner?" Tags="&lt;scanning&gt;&lt;digitizing&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11511" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11498" CreationDate="2011-05-02T14:28:52.670" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Firstly for video work lens sharpness isn't that important anyway as a 1080p image is about 2 megapixels so there isn't the resolution to pick up the extra sharpness that may be available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A larger physical aperture tends to produce softer images on account of dispersion due to the larger volume of glass the light passes through, and from aberrations in the lens which result from the larger spread of ray angles that are difficult to correct for when designing a lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However stopping down a large aperture lens to match a smaller aperture lens mitigates these problems so you can expect similar sharpness at the same f-stop. There is a theory that because lenses get sharper when stopped down a faster lens stopped down will always beat a slower lens wide open, but this doesn't account for the causes of softness and in practice the results are mixed, with some fast lenses worse stopped down that their slower (but simpler) counterparts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T14:28:52.670" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11512" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11313" CreationDate="2011-05-02T14:31:20.093" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whether or not you should even get a DSLR camera would depend on the type of photography you will use it for. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is closing on a subject far away important as well as taking a picture of a wide landscape?  You should probably go with a Compact zoom such as the likes of the Canon PowerShot. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are willing to approach the subject and want a higher quality image then you should be looking at fixed &quot;prime lens&quot; likes of the new Fuji Pix X 100. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are still leaning towards a DSLR camera but want the convenience of not having to change lenses then you will want to get it with an &quot;all-around or walk-about&quot; lens, something that can go from wide-angle to a telephoto range. These lenses are optically inferior so you will have to sacrifice image quality for convenience. You will pay premium for a half decent &quot;walk-about&quot; lens and it will never be as good in a given focal length as a prime lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, if you want a really smooth, crisp image then we should be discussing lenses not cameras. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could always get a inexpensive DSLR with a mediocre &quot;walk-about 18 - 200+mm&quot; lens but in this case that's just an over-sized &quot;compact zoom&quot; (what you refer to a digital) camera. However, purchase an inexpensive fast 50mm lens and you will be able to achieve stunning artistic shots of your family with great bokeh and all. (Canon has one of those lenses for $100, couple it with a Canon Rebel and the 18 - 135+mm lens and you will not be disappointed)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4977" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T14:31:20.093" />
  <row Id="11513" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11504" CreationDate="2011-05-02T14:33:59.240" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;True, the 70-200 f/4.0 L is probably one of the best lenses in any respect available for canon. In fact, the IS version is even a tad better, but this shouldn't be of concern here since this is not part of your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this is really your only option then I'd rather go for the 70-200 than the 70-300 since it is better build, has better image quality, is sharper and faster. I worked with both lenses and they are not really the same league. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But strangely enough I've stumbled upon an article recently that changed by mind completely towards telephoto. Since then I am regretting my recent bought of the 70-200 f1/4 IS. But maybe thats just me. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, read the following article before you decide:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Pontification/n_Telephoto_Is_For_Wimps/a_Telephoto_Is_For_Cowards.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Why Telephoto is for Cowards&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4675" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T14:33:59.240" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11514" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11510" CreationDate="2011-05-02T15:27:51.857" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The quality from a DSLR photograph might rival a scanner if you get the macro lens properly positioned, but I'd say the big thing you'd lose is &lt;strong&gt;time&lt;/strong&gt;. Hours and hours of time. It will take forever to line those slides up properly for each frame, and then you're going to have to spend some time on your computer rotating slightly, cropping, and doing lens distortion correction to get a workable negative. Looking at the setup on that thread you link to, I just cannot imagine spending all that time hunched over something, fiddling with the negatives, trying not to exhale too deeply and unseat it all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unless you only have a few frames to do or think this would be a &quot;fun project&quot; (I don't), I would stay away. Can you not send them off somewhere to be done? Or get a used scanner on Craigslist?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to estimate quality, you could get a rough sense of the resolution using the megapixel count of your camera with the size of the negative in capture. For instance, your Canon has 12 MP. If your macro lens will let you get close enough to have the negative fill half the frame (70% in each direction), you'll be getting about a 6 MP image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt; Based on comments it seems like this is more of a fun DIY project request, which I guess puts it in the same category as pinhole cameras and such. Which is totally fine, of course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I maintain that the most efficient way to get good results would be to send them off somewhere reputable, and the second-best would be to get a dedicated scanner. It's true it might take a little longer in absolute time, but a quick check on Amazon shows several entry-level negative scanners that can do a frame in less than a minute at 3000 or 4000 dpi. While the Flickr thread does mention that things get going quickly once you're set up, there are also lots comments like &quot;Getting the color balance right is really time consuming and it's driving me crazy&quot; and the instruction to &quot;fiddle endlessly with the tripod to get the focus and framing exactly right.&quot; I'd rather load a negative scanner up with 4 strips and come back in half an hour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4690" LastEditorUserId="4690" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-02T23:13:34.293" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T23:13:34.293" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="11515" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11510" CreationDate="2011-05-02T15:54:40.407" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A better negative scanner (like my Nikon Coolscan V) has one tremendous advantage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;dust/scratch removal (ICE - Nikon, FARE - Canon)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is (in my case) done by an extra IR-lightsource that adds the information of bumps and scratches that can't be part of the picture. I once tested it with a now about 40 year old dia-positive of my father: without ICE it looked bad, with ICE like it was taken yesterday ... in the 60s in Prague ;) (Edit: is said not to work with BW-films - I guess the reflection-spectrum is different)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my experience there is always a hair or some dust on a negative you had stored as we amateurs do store stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing that I use often is Multi-Scan, offered by better scanner software (like Vuescan or Silverfast). The result is that you lower the noise - the impact is visible. That could be reproduced with a DSLR and image-stacking. I really don't know if this is important today, as the DSLR-sensor is at least five years younger and a lot less noisy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastEditorUserId="2317" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-02T16:07:02.220" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T16:07:02.220" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11516" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8819" CreationDate="2011-05-02T16:16:10.000" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;commander mode is not working on my D7000 + SB-700 or SB-900 while I have no problem with D300 with same CMD settings. MY D7000 has the latest firmware 1.02 (2/5/2010)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4981" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T16:16:10.000" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11518" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11520" CreationDate="2011-05-02T17:49:36.703" Score="5" ViewCount="178" Body="&lt;p&gt;Using a long (10 second) exposure I found I was getting an odd &quot;reflection&quot; in the picture, where the brightest object leaves a residue in the opposite part of the frame.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see it here:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://alastairc.ac/images/examples/fire-reflection.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;sample of the problem&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was still getting it in 4/5 second exposures as well. NB: Using Canon 550d with a 11-16mm F2.8 Tokina lens, at 16mm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I assume it is some physical thing like an internal mirror or lens thing, but does anyone know for sure? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3959" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-02T17:57:55.807" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T22:18:38.723" Title="Where does this reflection come from in a long exposure shot?" Tags="&lt;long-exposure&gt;&lt;artifacts&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="11519" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11518" CreationDate="2011-05-02T17:54:05.993" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hazarding a guess, it looks like you have badly coated element in there, or perhaps a non-coated filter, those are likely to cause such things in some situations. It has to do with brightness striking the glass at just the right angle, so it might not be noticeable in shorter exposures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4889" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T17:54:05.993" />
  <row Id="11520" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11518" CreationDate="2011-05-02T18:08:52.730" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This isn't uncommon to see when you have a UV filter attached to the lens which, generally, a lot of people do because it gets recommended by the camera store as lens protection. If you want a really detailed explanation, there's one on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luminous Landscape&lt;/a&gt; showing and explaining the issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My take, and it's a personal opinion, is to lose the UV filter if you have one. The &quot;protection&quot; offered is usually minimal, at best, and the impact to certain images is not. So, to my way of thinking, the loss outweighs the gain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, all of that assumes you have a filter on your lens... Looks like it, but you didn't say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T18:08:52.730" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="11521" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11518" CreationDate="2011-05-02T18:22:09.187" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it possible that light from the fire is illuminating the smoke? it's possible that in the 10 seconds there was enough smoke to receive enough light to create the anomaly. Does this also occur in other nighttime long exposures without the fire subject?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4977" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T18:22:09.187" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11522" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2180" CreationDate="2011-05-02T19:03:06.680" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to K-mount, there were &lt;strong&gt;Pentax 645&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;Pentax 67&lt;/strong&gt;, both are medium formats. Those lenses are quite heavy and you'll need an expensive adapter for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before K-mount, Pentax used a screw-mount called &lt;strong&gt;M42&lt;/strong&gt;; you'll need an adapter to use an M42 lens. There's a huge selection of those lenses available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll want to have either a &lt;em&gt;preset&lt;/em&gt; lens, or one with fully manual diaphragm; your dSLR cannot trigger aperture pin on an M42 lens, sometimes the pin can be glued though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With some non-Pentax M42 lens (especially wider or faster ones), you need to check that the rear element does not &lt;strong&gt;protrude&lt;/strong&gt; enough to get in mirror's way. Same warning for &lt;strong&gt;aperture pins&lt;/strong&gt; used on some designs evolved from M42 (your dSLR will not use the pin to stop down the lens). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, some designs have protrusions on back that will get stuck on auto-focus coupler or screw heads on the rim of bayonet, thus getting &lt;strong&gt;stuck&lt;/strong&gt; on the camera. Always check for possible problems before screwing on an M42 lens for first time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-09T21:51:28.813" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T21:51:28.813" />
  <row Id="11523" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11506" CreationDate="2011-05-02T19:40:59.360" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd recommend to instead look for some light-weight portable lighting gear (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpex.com/browse.cfm/2,916.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strobist kits&lt;/a&gt; being a good starting point) and scouting for visually interesting locations nearby. In a crammed space, you won't be able to get enough variability, separation and attractive perspective. And the goat will eat your cables :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you (or your loved ones) insist on staying inside, I'd suggest a large piece of black cloth with some (DIY?) stands to set it up in designated corner will be most useful as both reflections control and a demure background. Somehow I doubt you're willing to actually paint your walls black.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T19:40:59.360" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11524" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="57" CreationDate="2011-05-02T20:01:04.203" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Cost&lt;/strong&gt; of the filter is a very real downside. In case of a consumer-grade lens and a good UV filter, you might find yourself spending something around 1/5 of full replacement cost on &quot;insurance&quot; against dust (hardly affects image quality, removable), dropping and scratches (worse, but happen seldom).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you use the lens in good conditions and/or rarely, you have certainly paid more than the risk is actually worth, while you could have used the money towards &lt;strong&gt;some other&lt;/strong&gt; piece of equipment that would actually broaden your photographic abilities (e.g. a &lt;em&gt;polarizing&lt;/em&gt; filter).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;strong&gt;lens hood&lt;/strong&gt; would give you most of the same &quot;insurance coverage&quot; plus better optical quality for less cash. It makes access for possible scratchers and stainers harder; and in case of a fall, I would expect a hood to absorb the shock even better than a filter. And instead of degrading image quality with extra glass, it will enhance it by keeping stray light away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In some environments with air pollution (sparks, paint, chemicals, oil, sandstorm), lens hood does not provide enough protection and using a protective filter does make sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-14T21:51:34.353" LastActivityDate="2011-05-14T21:51:34.353" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11525" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="57" CreationDate="2011-05-02T20:30:20.723" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have never looked at a picture and said to myself: &quot;Oh wow this picture was so shot with(out) a UV-Filter...&quot; because no one has ever seen the difference. It is just a tool like any other tool. Use it against scratches and if it makes trouble for you in a certain situation remove it from your lens and shoot without it. You won't use your flash every time just because it is attached to your camera, right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are usually on the right track using a good UV-Filter because it&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;protects your lens from dust and scratches, scratch the filter and loose 100$ instead of 1000$&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;doesn't notably affect your image quality in conditions where no strong light sources are in front of you&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it does apparently filter out some nasty UV-Rays, well same here haven't seen them before :-) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you want to use a thick UV filter to simulate some vignetting on a wide angle?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But as aforementioned it is not a flawless tool because&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;sometimes you want to use more useful filters like CPL or ND Filter so you have to remove the UV usually&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you want a slim filter to avoid vignetting on the wide angle side but please get a filter that still allows you to use your standard lens cap otherwise this will turn into a rather annoying trade off&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;keep in mind that you can protect your lens from scratches but not so much from dust with a lens hood also, so maybe it is more useful if you are not shooting with a hood&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;if the light is strong you will have more reflections because with the filter there is another layer prone to all sorts of optical issues. But still, when you are shooting towards the sun that is because you wanted to achieve something special right? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;more glass to detach means more glass to clean to have perfect conditions. No matter of the quality of glass, it has to be very clean in the first place otherwise all fancy  arguments about optics are quite useless. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;UV filter can be an issue for shooting video. I am not quite sure why, but in a moving picture a slightly dirty, even dusty filter stands out much more than in a still picture, so be extra careful here.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After all I am shooting with UV most of the time because it protects my lens when I am outdoors and some punk runs into me at the traffic lights.&#xA;Again, when I am shooting pictures I have to think about more crucial things of my composition than the UV filter, because a high quality filter simply does its job - keeping the aforementioned bullet points in mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4675" LastEditorUserId="4675" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-02T20:50:41.153" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T20:50:41.153" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11526" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1210" CreationDate="2011-05-02T20:30:34.750" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two apps that are both seem to be well-liked that provide the pan/sweep functionality you desire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/360-panorama/id377342622&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;360 Panorama&lt;/a&gt; (by Occipital - currently $1.99)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/photosynth/id430065256?mt=8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photosynth&lt;/a&gt; (by Microsoft - currently free)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both apps allow you to look at the phone's screen, pan/sweep the camera to record, and the app will stitch together a panoramic image based on the area you captured.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T20:30:34.750" />
  <row Id="11527" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11506" CreationDate="2011-05-02T21:13:19.640" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I remember seeing, on some site, a studio set up in a room filled with furniture that is not a good background for a picture. This mostly involved using clamps to hang fabric backdrops over closets and bookshelves (and pushing chairs and tables out of the way).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can solve color problems due to reflections off the walls by covering them with fabric (clamp it to some furniture or to the &quot;system&quot; in the first link below).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can use smaller, less powerful lights closer to your &quot;model&quot; — this should save space both while photographing and in storage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also clamp your lights to a shelf on the &quot;far&quot; wall instead of using lightstands.  (Why not take advantage of the fact the wall is too close?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, finally, you can use a harness and a 1/4&quot; screw to attach lighting equipment to the goat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While looking for pages about the living-room-turned-studio, I found some links that maybe useful:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diyphotography.net/low-profile-low-cost-backdrop-wall-mount&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Low Profile, Low Cost Backdrop Wall Mount&lt;/a&gt; - a simple way to hang backdrops over walls that don't have a convenient shelf  you can clamp to.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diyphotography.net/going-from-bedroom-to-studio-to-bedroom-in-108-seconds&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Going From Bedroom To Studio To Bedroom In 108 Seconds&lt;/a&gt; - just what the title says.  :-)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2481" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-12T21:42:28.443" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T21:42:28.443" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11528" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="57" CreationDate="2011-05-02T21:26:00.873" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another downside is that filters tend to add artifacts and reflections to an image due to the different sensitivity to light (than film). As a result, if you have a filter on, even a high end one, you can get weird artifacts. I have only found this to happen when taking night shots of bright lights, and then it is unmistakeable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digitalmason.smugmug.com/photos/i-Gxqpb26/0/XL/i-Gxqpb26-XL.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here is an example of a forgettable image I took&lt;/a&gt;, but one that shows the artifacts being produced by the large porch lights on the house.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The nice thing about a filter is that its removable, nothing is permanent. I leave B+W UV filters on all my lenses, as it protects them and also keeps greasy fingers from the elements. When taking night shots or critical shots that don't need the filter, I take it off. Its easy to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;edit: &lt;a href=&quot;http://digitalmason.smugmug.com/photos/i-4k28KGj/0/X2/i-4k28KGj-X2.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;found another that's even more apparent.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastEditorUserId="4880" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-02T21:36:10.163" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T21:36:10.163" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11529" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11510" CreationDate="2011-05-02T22:13:14.030" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're going to copy slides/negatives by taking a picture with the camera, you almost certainly want to get (or build) something closely akin to a slide copier -- something like a set of extension tubes to screw onto the filter threads of the lens, with a little holder on the end that will automatically hold the slide/negative aligned and at the correct distances for a 1:1 (or just less than) copy. This pretty easy to do for slides, but quite non-trivial for negatives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you've done that, the main thing to deal with is assuring you have even lighting. To get that, you'd want a few layers of diffuser between the slide/negative and the light source. IIRC, when I built one I used something like three layers of plastic from a milk jug with some white cloth in between. It may not have been the best, but it seemed to work all right. I believe I also built a small bracket onto the end to mount a flash onto (the copier got lost somewhere along the line, but I still have the trusty Vivitar 283). Since you're shooting at a fixed distance (etc.) a manual flash really isn't much of a problem to get set up and working.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T22:13:14.030" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11530" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11518" CreationDate="2011-05-02T22:18:38.723" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The reflection is just a form of lens flare, you actually get reflections like this in every image, but the intensity is usually lower than the rest of the incoming light so it's totally invisible. Here the fire is massively overexposed allowing the reflection to show up against a dark background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it's not the result of a filter there's not a lot you can do about it except reduce the exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T22:18:38.723" />
  <row Id="11531" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11532" CreationDate="2011-05-02T22:57:30.870" Score="9" ViewCount="191" Body="&lt;p&gt;Forgive this novice question, I am basically a complete newbie to photography.  Really, all I've ever used for most my of short life have been point-and-shoots; I've only recently started to pick up some curiosity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, from what I've gathered, reading through many of the &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/camera-basics&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'camera-basics'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;camera-basics&lt;/a&gt; questions, most serious photographers use the optical viewfinder as their primary tool to determine what makes a good shot.  Live-preview isn't used much at all; it seems its help is to primarily set up the shot.  Reading a Wikipedia article seems to confirm this view, adding that &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[l]ive preview in DSLRs does not typically serve as their principal means of framing and previewing before taking a photograph, with this function still being mainly performed with optical viewfinder. While initially largely &lt;em&gt;a novelty feature&lt;/em&gt;, live-preview functionality has become more common on DSLR cameras... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My questions are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What are the myriad advantages of using the viewfinder over live preview, what does it help one accomplish in achieving the goals of photography?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What are some interesting ways serious photographers use live preview to take better shots they might have otherwise missed?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4112" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T08:04:33.930" Title="What are the advantages of using the optical viewfinder over live preview to take photos on a DSLR?" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11532" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11531" CreationDate="2011-05-02T23:02:41.627" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Using live preview means that the camera must be held out in front of the photographer... This is not inherently an especially stable way to hold a camera- especially if the photographer has to hold it that way for a while- because it offers very little additional support for the arms... Pulling the camera up close and using a viewfinder allows the photographer to stabilize the camera because it is closer in to the body. Additionally, live preview becomes more unwieldy the heavier the camera equipment gets, and DSLRs by their very nature are much heavier than the typical P&amp;amp;S... Add a large lens on the front of the camera, and it becomes nearly impossible to use live view handheld.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other major drawback of live view is that because it requires the mirror to be locked up, it means that the auto focusing mechanism is unavailable. Live view actually uses a different AF technique- one that is quite a bit slower than a DSLRs main autofocus. Obviously this means that in environments where it is necessary to focus quickly and accurately, live view doesn't make for an ideal situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where live view comes in very handy is when taking pictures where it's difficult or impossible to get ones eye up to the viewfinder. A good example of this might be the photographer at a wedding who wants to get shots of the crowded dance floor. Prior to live view he would simply hold the camera above his head, snap off pictures, and pray that some of them had decent framing. With live view it is actually possible to frame up a shot while holding the camera over the head on shots such as these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, live view can be a great option where there is no need for the stability needed by pulling the camera in close to the body, such as when it is on a tripod, and/or where there is no requirement for speed inthe autofocusing of shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-02T23:09:26.160" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T23:09:26.160" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11533" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11531" CreationDate="2011-05-02T23:05:25.330" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biggest drawback in my opinion is the shutter lag.  There is generally a delay in the shutter activating when you use live preview.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4191" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T23:05:25.330" />
  <row Id="11534" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11531" CreationDate="2011-05-02T23:11:26.570" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The original advantage of thru the lens view was that it provided an exact view of precisely the image that would be exposed on the film or sensor. Not an aproximation, but the same view, because you were looking thru the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some earlier cameras offered EVF, or electronic viewfinders. These had the advantage of showing what the sensor was 'seeing'. But the problem with them was they were of very poor quality, they were dark and not 'lifelike'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today, many of the live views are bright and very good quality. But, they are not 1:1 quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An advantage over the viewfinder is the ability to view the scene when looking thru the view finder is impractical. Like when the camera is being held above the head to get a shot over a crowd, or very low for macro shots. It also offers lots of information in the overlay, things like live histogram and other information important for taking the shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many photographers use live view to aid in extremely precise focusing.  This is important when you have very shallow depth of field and want to ensure that say the eye on the model in in focus. Sometimes, autofocus misses, front focuses, or back focuses, ruining a shot. By putting the lens in manual focus and using the live view, you can guarantee that your subject is in focus. This is very difficult via the optical viewfinder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have also seen this used often with macro photography, again for precise manual focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T23:11:26.570" />
  <row Id="11535" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11531" CreationDate="2011-05-02T23:21:00.473" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches, and you should choose the right technique given the circumstances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When shooting &lt;em&gt;very dark&lt;/em&gt; scenes (night skies, for example), often times &lt;em&gt;live view does not work&lt;/em&gt;. That is, you get a completely black image in the, whereas you can see a very dark image in the viewfinder.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When focusing manually, &lt;em&gt;live view is often superior&lt;/em&gt;, since you can blow up the specific part of the frame you want to focus on to a very large size. It can be more difficult to nail focus through the viewfinder, which presents a much smaller image.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I won't repeat the other answers except to say that I mostly agree with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key here is that &lt;strong&gt;they are different tools&lt;/strong&gt;, a means to an end. There is no right answer, but knowing their relative strengths will help you choose the appropriate one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1905" LastActivityDate="2011-05-02T23:21:00.473" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11536" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-02T23:56:13.653" Score="15" ViewCount="499" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was hanging out with a friend of mine who is a professional photographer (for 15+ years), and has a solid portfolio, web-presence, and regional and national exposure. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He never uses a flash. Period. Swears to never use them for his engagements (mostly wedding). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where does flash make sense? Or rather:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can one have a full photographer experience/service without ever using a flash?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4988" LastEditorUserId="4112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-03T13:48:43.707" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T14:33:22.773" Title="Is it acceptable in photography to never use flash?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;style&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11537" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11542" CreationDate="2011-05-03T00:24:29.427" Score="17" ViewCount="235" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard of a condition in imperfect lenses known as &quot;decentering&quot;.  What is decentering?  When a lens is decentered, what exactly is wrong with the optical elements?  What are its symptoms and how does it affect image quality?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4506" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T00:59:07.877" Title="What is decentering?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;image-quality&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="11538" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11536" CreationDate="2011-05-03T00:26:01.220" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why not. Flash is IMHO necessary when lighting is harsh, time is short and details in shadow are important. That is three combined factors that can be avoided.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Concerning the weddings: If he can convince the pair not hold the ceremony in full sunlight he will be able to manage - for the formal pictures he can use reflectors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T00:26:01.220" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11539" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11536" CreationDate="2011-05-03T00:34:39.167" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;full photographer experience&quot; is the kicker here really.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you do weddings? Apparently, because your friend does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you create a dramatically lit portrait in a fully lit, bright room against a bright walls without it...probably not.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you always have control over your environment and only want to do certain kinds of shots - then of course you can do it....but you're certainly missing out on a whole dimension of your photography you can control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shooting without flash is part of his &lt;em&gt;style&lt;/em&gt; and thats what he's selling.  There's not really an inherent advantage to refusing to use flash - its just that its helping to define his style.  And having a style - that's an advantage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-03T00:44:07.910" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T00:44:07.910" CommentCount="14" />
  <row Id="11540" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11506" CreationDate="2011-05-03T00:36:04.163" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As with most &quot;big boy&quot; hobbies, the WAF (&lt;em&gt;Wife Acceptance Factor&lt;/em&gt;; similar XAFs exist for other types of relationships) is an elusive thing. At least in the photography realm (unlike, say, the world of the audiophile), the impact on the decor is transient and forgivable. Well, unless you start attaching curtain rods all over the living room, that is. (I have no idea what the heck those other guys were thinking. Ah, yes -- &quot;other &lt;strong&gt;guys&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;.  And geeks to boot. I think that's the answer.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, your best options for a quick set-up and tear-down (and actual lighting control, etc.) are going to involve what may lie outside of the Acceptable Outlay Parameter (one of the key terms of the WAF equation, along with Persistence in Visual Field, Ugliness Quotient and Wiring Ratio).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pop-ups (or collapsibles) are your best bet for the &quot;now you see it, now you don't&quot; part of the equation. That can include the background, as well as reflectors. And the key to getting anything like modelling from lighting in a very small space is your new best friend, the black &quot;reflector&quot; panel*. And, as it happens, that &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; the off-the-shelf professional location solution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, before you start to imagine a world in which every imaginable square inch is occupied by a light stand, understand that many of these pop-up reflectors and backgrounds are available with &quot;feet&quot; -- and that there isn't a whole lot to creating something similar if your panels' maker doesn't happen to offer them. A background panel can often just be leaned against the wall with neither feet nor stand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These panels come pretty big if you want big (like for the background -- 6'x7' and 7'x8-9' are common enough sizes); but they are also available in a &quot;rather tall but not too terribly wide&quot; (approximately 1m x 2m) size that will take up less storage space. You'll probably find that if you can control the bottom six feet of the space you're in, you can at least get some directionality and dimensionality in your images. (Full-figure pictures are probably not in the cards anyway if the space is really small.) You'll still get more fill than you'd probably like from overhead, but it's better than uncontrolled reflections from too many walls that are in too close. A perfect solution -- except that it's not &lt;em&gt;quite&lt;/em&gt; free, and the DIY version (PVC pipe and fabric panels) either takes up too much space (and is difficult to transport) or starts to get a bit fiddly in the set-up/tear-down space because of the number of joints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are sticking to torturing your immediate family, they'll quickly get used to humoring you for short stretches. That means that you can make your subject space really very small, with the lights and reflectors in a lot tighter than you might imagine they ought to be. Really, most people keep the lights and so forth way too far away. The closer your lights, the more rapid the falloff at the subject position, and the more control you gain when making fill decisions and so on. The space may be a bit claustrophobic for some, but, honestly, it's the best thing you can do for your portrait lighting short of renting 400-600 square feet with 16-foot ceilings whenever you get the itch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you reduce the space around your sitter (subject), you can move them a little farther away from the background &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; stand a better chance of effectively flagging off unwanted foreground lighting (and shadows). What light leakage you do have will have had plenty of chance to fall off &lt;em&gt;if&lt;/em&gt; you're using black &quot;reflectors&quot; to contain your key and fill lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Now, when I say &quot;black 'reflector' panel&quot;, I actually have a preference for a dead-black collapsible background in tiny spaces. The velour/velvet panels stop light dead in its tracks; the standard black panels still reflect an appreciable amount of light. That reflection is a Good Thing in a more open space, but when coupled with the unavoidable fill from walls and ceiling in a small space, it really isn't enough light deadening for my tastes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T00:36:04.163" />
  <row Id="11541" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11536" CreationDate="2011-05-03T00:36:27.470" Score="20" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lets break this down into sub-questions to make the answer more obvious:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It is possible for someone NEVER to use the flash?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes. Buy a DSLR without a built-in one and do not pay for an add-on flash, and voila!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Can you make great photos without EVER using a flash?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes. Just look at photos taken without a flash. My &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neoluminance.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;entire gallery has been taken without a flash&lt;/a&gt;. Sometimes I use flash, it is extremely rare but not an absolute for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Are you going to run out of photos to take if you do not use a flash?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No. There is always more to shoot, more subjects, more angles, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Can you take every type of imaginable photograph without a flash?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No. Some shots require flash to get it a certain way. High-speed photography like water-drops are a good example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Can a photographer be a professional if he only shoots photos without a flash?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why not? It is part of style. Some photographers are even more restrictive. I've heard of one which shot everything in natural light with a 50mm lens over a 30+ year career. He neither run out of photos to take nor of people willing to pay for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Honestly your friend probably has an excellent advantage on his side. His wedding photos probably look unlike most typical wedding photos. That is a pretty cool selling point!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T00:36:27.470" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11542" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11537" CreationDate="2011-05-03T00:59:07.877" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Decentering is when an element (or more than one) doesn't have its optical axis quite perfectly aligned with the others. Decentering is really a matter of degree -- every lens element is decentered to at least some degree. All that's open to question is whether it's severe enough to cause a real problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending a little on what element is off center, the result is normally that the sharpest part of the picture isn't at the center, and (usually) the fall-off in sharpness isn't entirely symmetrical. Typically it shows up as one corner being sharper than another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is one if those issues that's often rather exaggerated in many lens tests. When you shoot a large target that's entirely flat and has lots of detail right out to every corner, it can be pretty obvious when one corner is sharper than another. When you shoot mostly 3D targets and the corners are rarely in perfect focus, you could easily shoot a lens that was pretty badly decentered for years and never have a clue anything was wrong at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T00:59:07.877" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11543" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11546" CreationDate="2011-05-03T01:31:11.707" Score="4" ViewCount="94" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a series of photos I took and a GPS log of my whereabouts for the corresponding time. I would like to geotag the photos with the GPS tracks, matched by timestamp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using Aperture 3, I can go to the &quot;Places&quot; mode to view and modify geotagging metadata. There is even an option to &quot;Import GPS log&quot; which will open and display the log on a map, but I can't figure out how to tag the photos from the tracks. I feel like this should be obvious, but am missing the final step. How do I do this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4690" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-03T10:18:09.297" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T10:18:09.297" Title="How do I geotag photos in Apple Aperture?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;apple-aperture&gt;&lt;geotagging&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11544" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11549" CreationDate="2011-05-03T02:07:27.513" Score="11" ViewCount="225" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question may be a little off topic, &lt;strong&gt;but why does the JPEG quality option go up to twelve&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the option in the Save dialog of PS:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ppumN.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thats a whole new definition of &lt;em&gt;it goes up to eleven&lt;/em&gt;.**&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;** I'm from Argentina and my native language is Spanish, so maybe I'm writing that incorrectly :F&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4039" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-03T07:01:08.410" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T09:37:31.903" Title="Why does JPEG quality go up to twelve?" Tags="&lt;jpeg&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="11545" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11536" CreationDate="2011-05-03T02:13:55.587" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As long as he's not using flash for the right reasons, then it's completely fine. The wrong reasons sound like the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I HATE using flash! It's soooo unnatural!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a chronic illness among new (D)SLR owners, and it's just a ridiculous statement (especially with an entry-level camera). Technology can only get you so far, and then you help yourself with Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, etc. In a perfect world the lighting will always be great. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world; sometimes it's too dark, sometimes it's too bright, sometimes it's super bright on someone's forehead and dark on the rest of her body. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photography is about capturing what's reflected in light. With tools you can shape the light to your needs. Flash shapes that light during the shoot. Software, and other tools, shape the light post-shoot. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to answer your first question, flash makes sense where the lighting is not to your liking. Then you use flash (and reflectors, diffusers, etc)  as a tool to shape the lighting to your needs. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your second question, yes it's possible to take photos your whole life without using flash at all. I'm sure your friend does a fair amount of post-processing to help his pictures come to life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4989" LastEditorUserId="4989" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-04T01:01:18.220" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T01:01:18.220" />
  <row Id="11546" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11543" CreationDate="2011-05-03T02:14:30.937" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Drag'n'drop &lt;strong&gt;one&lt;/strong&gt; of your photos in the right location along the track. (Try to place it as accurately in the &lt;em&gt;time&lt;/em&gt; dimension as possible. For example, if the clock of your camera happened to be off by 10 seconds, find a location such that the GPS time stamp and photo time stamp differ by exactly 10 seconds in the right direction. Make sure you drop the photo so that it &quot;snaps&quot; onto the track.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then Aperture asks if you want to tag &lt;strong&gt;all other photos&lt;/strong&gt; (see the bottom of the map screen). Press the button and it does exactly what you would expect it to do: it places all other photos with the same offset (difference between GPS time and camera time).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The automatic geotagging tool affects all matching photos in the entire project. It is therefore best to use it only in a newly created project that holds just photos from one session.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is a bad idea to mix photos taken with two different cameras unless you have synchronised the clocks (or fixed the time stamps after importing the photos).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A typical workflow:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Check the clock of the camera and compare it with the real time (e.g., GPS time) – preferably soon after the photo shoot. The clocks in cameras are lousy, and there may be a lot of clock drift; it can be difficult to guess what was the right time offset if you do geotagging several months after shooting the photos.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Import all photos to a &lt;strong&gt;new&lt;/strong&gt; project. Import photos from only &lt;strong&gt;one camera&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Import all GPS tracks. Delete the tracks that you don't need, and then display all relevant tracks.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use the automatic geotagging tool (= what I described above) and try to get everything as correct as possible. You can fine-tune the offset and try the automatic placement again, if necessary.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do all manual geotagging (= fix GPS errors, add coordinates to photos that were taken when there was no GPS signal, etc.) only after that. Do not touch the automatic tagging tool ever again; you can otherwise easily lose your manual edits.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do whatever you want with your photos. Merge the new project with an old project if you don't want to have a new project. Repeat for another camera, if needed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="247" LastEditorUserId="247" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-03T02:29:14.247" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T02:29:14.247" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11547" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11544" CreationDate="2011-05-03T02:50:42.523" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The JPG quality scale is arbitrary - I'm not sure why Photoshop goes to 12 whereas most programs provide a 1-10 or 1-100 scale.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jeffrey Friedl has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/jpeg-quality&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;great analysis of the JPG quality settings&lt;/a&gt; and output from Lightroom, and in his results the output when compared between Lightroom and Photoshop varies... even Lightroom's 0-100 scale does not correspond to the 0-100 scale in Photoshop's &quot;Save for Web&quot; dialog.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why does Photoshop's dialog go to twelve?  Because it does :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-03T03:01:11.663" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T03:01:11.663" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11548" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-03T02:56:30.980" Score="13" ViewCount="318" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have purchased my first DSLR (a Canon 500D) and have been playing around quite a lot within the aperture priority mode, with auto shutter speed and ISO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways as I would like to become a better photographer I would like to start taking &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; my photos in Full Manual mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any general rules that I should use to help me select a shutter speed and ISO combination? Currently I am using trial and error and while I get there in the end, it often takes a while. I understand that I will learn this with experience, but anything to get me started will help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further to this, do most 'Professional' photographers set these manually? The auto settings work so well for an average shot, and it seems too time consuming to adjust these for every angle and light variation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4990" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-03T12:12:12.480" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T15:01:26.660" Title="Are there general rules for selecting the correct shutter speed and ISO in manual mode?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;iso&gt;&lt;shutter-speed&gt;&lt;manual-mode&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="11549" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11544" CreationDate="2011-05-03T03:11:34.797" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off, realize that those numbers are 100% arbitrary... a 6 out of 12 on one application may or may not match a 50/100 on another application, even though they are mathematically the same. So don't try to compare those values across applications.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that in place... what that control is adjusting are the &quot;quantization tables&quot; of the compression algorithm. Usually the are the Luminance and Chrominance quantization tables. These tables describe how much of each type of information is discarded by the compression engine, for different types of repeating patterns. Forexample a &quot;fine&quot; QT might have a very low number in all parts of the table, saying no matter how often a pattern repeats, don't discard it, where as the opposite table would have larger numbers in the areas of the table that are represent frequently occurring patterns. Basically saying &quot;this is a common pattern, you can compress it down a lot more, it's not as important to the image.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Different things that do compression have different sets of tables stored in them. My camera for example has 2 (Fine and Coarse) per jpeg size. (at least I'm betting that Small Fine doesn't use the same tables as Large Fine... but they might!) I've seen a couple cameras that had 4 levels (Low, Normal, Fine, SuperFine). Photoshop traditionally has 13 (0-12), Lightroom claims 101 (1-101) (more on that in a moment.) and I've seen other tools with anywhere from 5 (1-5) to 256! (0-255).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So let's start with Photoshop's 13 levels. Basically they have 13 sets of QTs built into the application which make up spectrum of more and more detail. 0 is horrid, compressing things to well past anything useful. 12 is equally unusable, but for the opposite reason, it can actually result in files LARGER than what would be needed to represent the image in a loss-less compression such as PNG, or even in an uncompressed format like BMP! So why is it there? Well, the commonly accepted reasoning, and I've seen this over and over, was that the original PS team expected most people to use 0-10, and 11 and 12 were left in place for &quot;research&quot; or for bridging over to another application to let it do the compression. (though if you're going to do that, why even export as jpg? just export TIFF or something.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, lightroom's 101 step claim got torn apart pretty well a while back by &lt;a href=&quot;http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/jpeg-quality&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jeffrey Friedl&lt;/a&gt;. There are two big findings there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;LR maps that 101 values into just 13 different QTs, each 7 or 8 points wide. 93, 95, 99, and 100 for example, all use the same values.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;LR 0 doesn't actually resemble anything else's 0 value. It's MUCH better.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T03:11:34.797" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11550" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11548" CreationDate="2011-05-03T03:16:17.957" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general you want to use as low an ISO setting as you can to avoid noise.  If the lowest ISO means shooting at a low shutter speed, say 1/15th then you may bump up the ISO a bit so that you can shoot at a faster shutter speed.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the light isn't changing, setting everything manually means that you get consistent exposures.  Think of a sports or events photographer.  If you leave in Aperture priority, then as your background changes (more sky in the photo for example) the camera may adjust the exposure and you end up with under or overexposed images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nothing wrong with using Aperture or Shutter priority if it suits you.  Full manual yields more consistent results when you have time (and remember you're in manual!) and especially when you'll do a lot of shots in the same light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4191" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T03:16:17.957" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11551" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11548" CreationDate="2011-05-03T03:25:27.260" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Shooting manual mode doesn't make you a better photographer, understanding what all the settings effectively do will. Your camera has three basic settings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Aperture&lt;/strong&gt;: Use this to control depth of field (DoF). This is usually the most important setting to most photographers, as it influences both subject matter and composition. You're not going to be taking pictures of things if they're too big to fit into focus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Shutter speed&lt;/strong&gt;: Use this to control in-frame movement and blur. While very important, there's really not much of a difference in a typical print between a normal, semi-still image shot at 1/250 and 1/8000. As a general rule, if you're trying to keep motion frozen you want this above 1/125.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ISO&lt;/strong&gt;: This determines the &quot;image quality&quot; of an image. Keep this as low as possible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most common strategy is to first set the aperture, make sure that you have enough DoF to cover your entire subject (or whatever you're trying to achieve). Have your ISO set to the lowest possible value (without going into 'extended ISO' modes) and check your shutter speed. Is it at least 1/60 or 1/125? No? Bump the ISO up a stop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your 500D has a exposure level reading that you can see the bottom of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/500d/t1i_viewfinder.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;its viewfinder&lt;/a&gt;. Use that to determine where your exposure needs to be. For example, if you're dialed in at f/5.6 and 1/500 @ 100 ISO, but the meter reads -2, you know you're going to underexpose with those settings. You can change your shutter speed to 1/125 or increase your ISO to 400 to get to the 'correct' exposure.  If it reads +1, increase your shutter speed or lower your ISO to compensate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All that said... experiment. Play around with it. You're shooting digital, who cares if some of your shots are blurry?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also try using the Sunny 16 rule, it might help you 'get' exposure. The Sunny 16 rule says: on a bright, sunny day, you can set your aperture to f/16 and your shutter to the same speed as your ISO value (so 1/100 for ISO 100, 1/400 for ISO 400). On a sunny, but slightly less so day, try f/11 or f/5.6 on cloudy day. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Manual mode's number 1 use is for consistency. When you take a series of photos in non-changing light conditions, you want your known color values to stay as close to each other as possible. With constant metering, especially in-camera metering, you can't hope for that kind of consistency. Point your camera at a white wall, look at the readings, then put a piece of black paper on that wall and see how wildly the meter reading changes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also situations where in-camera metering doesn't do you any good, mainly in the studio. I don't know of any camera that meters for strobe/flash light effectively. 4&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T03:25:27.260" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11552" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11576" CreationDate="2011-05-03T04:15:33.147" Score="16" ViewCount="156" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was looking into alternative methods of photography and I happened upon something called a 'zone plate.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Three questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is a zone plate? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How does it work?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What can I do with it?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-03T04:25:46.330" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T03:03:35.677" Title="What is a zone plate?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;optics&gt;&lt;lo-fi&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11553" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11552" CreationDate="2011-05-03T04:34:08.910" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;They're an alternative to lenses. Basically using diffraction instead of refraction to focus light. They're very common in some forms of lithography when dealing with wavelengths that glass blocks. You can actually think of a single pinhole as a degenerate case of a zone plate. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T04:34:08.910" />
  <row Id="11554" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11501" CreationDate="2011-05-03T04:58:08.357" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One or more extension tubes (or a bellows) will get you greater magnifications without introducing extra optical elements that may degrade image quality. You will &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; pay for magnification with light loss, though. Whether you use a teleconverter or simply increase the lens extension, you are reducing the effective aperture of the lens, while at the same time reducing the apparent depth of field, which necessitates further reducing the real aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's one of the reasons why macro photography often involves flash mounted on the lens, either as independent light sources or as a ring. Often, the &quot;available light&quot; would require shutter speeds that are either too long for the subject (especially when shooting living things) or that are long enough to result in significant sensor noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T04:58:08.357" />
  <row Id="11557" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11558" CreationDate="2011-05-03T05:52:35.350" Score="3" ViewCount="123" Body="&lt;p&gt;Surfing the web, I stumbled on an &lt;a href=&quot;http://funnerlabs.com/apps/slitscan&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;iPhone application to make slit-scan images&lt;/a&gt;. However, I have no intention of buying a smartphone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How could one achieve similar results using a dSLR (preferably, but not necessarily, in-camera)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-03T10:22:27.373" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T10:22:27.373" Title="How can I make slit-scan photographs with a dSLR?" Tags="&lt;slit-scan&gt;&lt;alt-technique&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="11558" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11557" CreationDate="2011-05-03T06:15:22.313" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depending on what it is you want to photograph, producing a slit-scan image can either be trivial (done wholly in camera), or somewhat difficult (require various contraptions).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most modern dslr's use a &quot;rolling shutter&quot; which in effect, emulates the slit-scan technique used by cinematographers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The effect of which is very pronounced when using a dSLR that also shoots video. The so called &quot;jello effect.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if you want to try making slit-scan photographs, you can take a photo of something fast (like an airplane propeller), or shake or &lt;a href=&quot;http://cameratoss.blogspot.com/2005/10/camera-toss-mini-howto.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;throw the camera&lt;/a&gt; while taking the picture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Otherwise, you'll need to set your dlsr on long exposure, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://jpglprojects.com/2010/02/03/diy-slit-scan/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;setup your own &quot;slit&quot; shutter&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I'd just pony up for an iphone and buy the $1.99 app, rather than toss my camera around or build a shutter system ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T06:15:22.313" />
  <row Id="11559" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8819" CreationDate="2011-05-03T06:46:19.420" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some things to check:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make sure custom setting e3, &lt;strong&gt;Flash cntrl for built-in flash&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;strong&gt;Menu&lt;/strong&gt; &gt; &lt;strong&gt;Custom Settings Menu&lt;/strong&gt; &gt; &lt;strong&gt;Bracketing/Flash&lt;/strong&gt; &gt; &lt;strong&gt;e3&lt;/strong&gt;) is set to &lt;strong&gt;CMD↯&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Under setting &lt;strong&gt;e3&lt;/strong&gt;, Group A should be set to &lt;strong&gt;TTL&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;M&lt;/strong&gt;. The SB-600 doesn't have a thyristor sensor, so &lt;strong&gt;A&lt;/strong&gt; won't work.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make sure your compensation or power isn't set so low that you can't see much light.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Under setting &lt;strong&gt;e3&lt;/strong&gt;, set &lt;strong&gt;Channel&lt;/strong&gt; to 1.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The SB-600 should be in slave mode. Hold &lt;strong&gt;Zoom&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;-&lt;/strong&gt; until the menu appears, and press &lt;strong&gt;+&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;-&lt;/strong&gt; until the synchronization icon (squiggly right arrow) appears press &lt;strong&gt;Mode&lt;/strong&gt; until this turns to &lt;strong&gt;On&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make sure your camera is in P, S, A, or M -- CLS doesn't work in Auto or Scene.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make sure you have line of sight from the D7000's on-camera flash to the IR sensor on the SB-600.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is the D7000's flash firing?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, and one thing that I find really annoying that might be tripping you up: Make sure to hit OK after changing settings in the Commander Mode menu -- just changing them without hitting OK won't save them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T06:46:19.420" />
  <row Id="11560" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11562" CreationDate="2011-05-03T07:41:39.083" Score="3" ViewCount="189" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am planning to buy a Nikon D5100, body only. I'd like to go with a macro lens which gives better results than the 18-55mm, as I have heard that the results from this basic kit lens are not good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please suggest a good lens with an affordable price. My budget is around $200-$250.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4923" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-03T12:15:07.233" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T12:59:56.133" Title="What macro lens should I buy in place of the 18-55mm kit lens?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;kit-lens&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11561" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11487" CreationDate="2011-05-03T07:44:45.207" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi Olivier DUVAL,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not own a copy of Colour Efex but I do own a copy of Silver Efex Pro 2 (together with Elements 9) and from the two pics below I am happy to say that i have no regrets buying it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5148/5678836122_336ab7e5e4_z.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5148/5678836122_336ab7e5e4_z.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5308/5672665131_52b05fc0d0_z.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5308/5672665131_52b05fc0d0_z.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;to be honest, these two programs are very different animals as Colour is primarily for colour and Silver Efex is primarily for B&amp;amp;W. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pros of Silver Efex 2, the simplicity of usage, even for a newbie like me. you just need to watch the official youtube video and you are ready to go. A pic will take less than 5 mins for me to process. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do agree with the previous post that alternatively you can buy the complete suit package but if costs are your concern, i would recommend you getting a &quot;student package&quot; / alternatively you can go to the Niksoft website and look for the authorized dealers, i got my for USD $120 for version 1 (with free upgrade to version 2), market price is selling at a much higher price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3788" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T07:44:45.207" />
  <row Id="11562" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11560" CreationDate="2011-05-03T07:55:08.207" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Firstly, there's nothing wrong with the 18-55mm Nikon kit lens. It will do everything an amateur needs and more, though macro work is rather specialised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will find it very hard to find a new macro lens within your budget - most start at around $400. You might consider investing in a set of good extension tubes instead, which will let you use the kit lens as a pseudo-macro lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Extension tubes are simply hollow tubes that fit between the lens and the camera. The math is somewhat complex, but essentially this allows you to get much, much closer to your subject. So they essentially turn a standard lens into a kind of macro lens. They usually come in 3 sections, which you can attach in any combination for varying levels of magnification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can get very cheap ($20) extension tubes that are just tubes with lens mounts, but you lose aperture control, metering and autofocus. More expensive tubes have the electronic contacts which allow the camera to communicate with the lens, as well as aperture control mechanisms, so you can use the lens as normal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your other option is macro lens adaptors. These are essentially magnifying glasses that screw onto the front of the lens, with obvious effects. The quality of the image tends to suffer a little with these, but they are a more affordable alternative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It really depends on your situation: if this is your first SLR, then I'd recommend you take the kit lens, which will let you experiment with everything from landscapes to portraits and help you decide what kind of photography you like; there's no point in diving straight into macro only to find you don't really care for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If, however, you have your heart set on macro then I'd either look at second-hand Nikkor lenses or save up for new versions of the same. Always try out any new equipment where possible to make sure it suits your needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastEditorUserId="3205" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-03T08:42:33.420" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T08:42:33.420" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11563" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11531" CreationDate="2011-05-03T08:04:33.930" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A couple of things I'd like to add to other answers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In scenes with fast action, an EVF or LV will always have a slight &lt;strong&gt;lag&lt;/strong&gt; behind reality, which is bad when you want to nail a certain moment (using the other eye as an optical input may help, though the delay between two eyes might give you a headache soon).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, Live View is a handy tool when shooting with an &lt;strong&gt;IR-converted&lt;/strong&gt; camera as it shows you what the camera sees and you don't.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T08:04:33.930" />
  <row Id="11564" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11544" CreationDate="2011-05-03T09:37:31.903" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't provide an answer for why there is the option to go to 12 - but I can provide an example of the different qualities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/McUEW.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;JPEG12&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/8Obog.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;JPEG11&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/3mhxM.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;JPEG9&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/2a99p.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;JPEG3&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have taken these directly from one of my lecturer's slideshows, it's not my own work. &#xA;The images were used to illustrate that there is no difference between JPEG quality 12 and 11 other than file size (at least not one that is visible to the human eye). Therefore 11 is the better option because of the smaller file size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know it's not the answer to your question, but thought it might be a little bit of help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4912" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T09:37:31.903" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11565" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11455" CreationDate="2011-05-03T09:39:47.973" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jess,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll ask &quot;the stupid question&quot; first:  Have you tried clearing the cache in Bridge?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that out of the way:  Have you tried to preview the images in a file manager other than Bridge?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Iain&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4997" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T09:39:47.973" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11566" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11548" CreationDate="2011-05-03T10:09:07.807" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h1&gt;Exposure&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several technical factors that will affect your images directly which you have control over. Depending on each situation that you want to shoot, you may want to have the others adjusted automatically by your camera, or adjust all of them manually yourself. Shooting moving subjects generally means shooting in Shutter priority mode and shooting portraits usually means shooting in aperture priority mode or manual mode. Doing serious flash photography, you will almost always use manual mode to be able to expose freely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Focal Length&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a property of your lens. Focal lengths are normally given as 35mm equivalent focal lengths, that is to say, the length given on the lens indicates the focal length when used with 35mm film, or a full frame sensor. Focal length along with aperture, affects depth of field, longer focal lengths generally having a larger effect on the amount of blurring than just a wide aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Aperture&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This determines just how wide your lens will be opened once the shutter is triggered. It directly restricts the total amount of light that is going to hit your film or sensor, and as a result, controls all lights in your image, whether they are there for the entire duration of the exposure, or only appear for part of your exposure, like a flash, or a car entering your image at night in the middle of your exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Depth of Field&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The depth of field of an image is the distance in front of and behind the subject you focus on which is in focus. Wide apertures give you a shallow depth of field, allowing you to blur your backgrounds to draw attention to your subject while closing down your aperture allows you to get a wider shot while keeping several subjects at different distance in focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Flash control&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The light of a flash is instantaneous, as such, if you are using flash with constant power (Manual flash settings), you can adjust the effect that the flash is having on your exposure precisely by changing your aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Shutter speed&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exposure length is the length of time that the shutter will remain open once triggered. This controls just how long your sensor will be exposed to light. Exposure length controls whether you can shoot a photo hand-held without camera-shake affecting sharpness as well as how subjects appear in the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Short exposures&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Short exposures allow for shooting still images of subjects in motion, things that the naked eye cannot perceive as anything but a blur. For really high-speed photography, additional light sources are a necessity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Long exposures&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Long exposures can be used to get a bright enough exposure under low light conditions, or, combined with a &lt;a href=&quot;https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Polarizing_filter_%28Photography%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;circular polarizer filter&lt;/a&gt; / &lt;a href=&quot;https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Neutral_density_filter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ND filter&lt;/a&gt; used to capture motion in a still image. Moving lights will appear as streaks in an otherwise unmoving frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Long exposures with flash&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Flash used at the beginning of a long exposure will cause the subject to appear to be frozen at the beginning of their motion while the rest of their motion appears trail off of this first image. The backlights of a moving car would actually become a streak of light over the car in a photo shot this way.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Flash used at the end of exposure is generally called &lt;a href=&quot;https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Flash_synchronization#Rear-curtain_sync&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;rear curtain flash&lt;/a&gt; and allows for motion trails to lead to the sharp, well exposed image in a long exposure. The backlights of a moving car shot with rear curtain flash would become a streak of light behind the car.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Camera Shake&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Combined with the focal length, shutter speed also determines if an exposure can be made hand-held, a rule of the thumb on this is to match focal length to shutter speed - so if you're using a 50mm lens, shooting at 1/50 or faster, or 1/200 with a 200mm lens is supposed to give you about 100% blur free images if you have relatively steady hands. However, image stabilization on a lens affects this, and it is possible to shoot at high-speed burst modes and get completely sharp photos with an unstabilized lens at speeds approaching even 1/4 of the speed the above rule would suggest as the rule only really applies to probabilities - the human nervous system has completely normal, random muscle shakes several times a second, so if there's a 25% chance that a given shutter speed is long enough to include a shake, there is still a possibility that this won't happen and the image will come out sharp at that speed if you simply shoot 4 times - this is why it's a good idea to use high-speed burst mode at low light conditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;ISO&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ISO value is a property of the film or the sensor in your camera. Basically, it is the speed at which the film or sensor absorbs light. The faster this speed, that is to say, the larger the ISO, the grainier an image will become, especially in the darker parts. However, the slower (smaller) ISO numbers will not only result in a much cleaner image, but will also require more light to properly expose. Unless you wish to achieve a certain grainy look, try to shoot at the lowest ISO level that your other considerations for your image will allow you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4889" LastEditorUserId="4889" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-04T15:01:26.660" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T15:01:26.660" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="11567" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11548" CreationDate="2011-05-03T12:12:55.090" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Taking all photos in full manual mode seems a bit extreme to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get proper exposure in manual mode just use the small light meter in the viewfinder or on the back screen and adjust the settings until the little arrow is in the middle - or - half press the shutter button on Auto, P, Av or Tv mode (this will show you the settings both in the viewfinder and on the screen) and copy the settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Than, after you used the light meter to get the baseline adjust the setting to your taste (I assume you want to adjust them because if the light meter gave you the results you are looking for just use P/Av/Tv and save the time it takes to &quot;dial in&quot; the settings)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you take ISO off auto mode you get most of the control also in Av and Tv mode (learn to use exposure compensation), here are my rules for choosing modes (I'm an amateur learning photography, I expect people with years of experience will have completely different rules - especially the first one):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;For once in a lifetime photos take at least one photo on Auto - that way you at least have a picture, losing a once in a lifetime chance to incorrect camera settings hurts.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you care more about movement (you either want to freeze motion or create motion blur) use Tv mode (example: children playing, sports)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you care more about depth of field use Av (example: portraits, landscape)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you want consistent settings between photos (or controlled changes) use M (example: panorama, HDR, multiple pictures that will be printed together on the same page)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you do anything that confuses the camera, obviously use M (example: lightnings, fireworks, external manual flashes that don't use the camera's flash metering system)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Av and Tv modes always look at the automatically chosen values (Shutter speed in Av mode and Aperture in Tv mode) before taking the picture - just the make sure the camera didn't choose something ridicules like 30 seconds (Av mode, too dark for the value you set - happens to me all the time) or f/36 (Tv mode, way too much light for your settings)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2481" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T12:12:55.090" />
  <row Id="11568" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11548" CreationDate="2011-05-03T12:14:38.920" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, stay away from the &quot;icons&quot; on your 500D.  These are the automated settings, and offer no freedom to choose your aperture and shutter speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you do that, here are four simple rules I follow:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Rule #1: stay above 1/60.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are using a tripod, you can go below this speed, but when hand holding the camera, always stay above this speed.  If you do not, you will tend to get blurring from camera movement. Yes IS can help....but just remember the rule, its easy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Rule #2: Keep your shutter speed 'above' your lens focal length.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This also helps ensure reduction of blur from camera shake.  If you are shooting at 200mm, be sure your shutter speed is above 1/200th a second.  If you are shooting 75mm, stay above 1/75th. If you are shooting 35mm, stay above...careful...1/60th.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Rule #3. Remember to choose bigger aperture numbers when you are shooting things farther away.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When shooting landscapes or other scenes, or when you want your background in focus, choose a &quot;bigger number&quot; for aperture.  This actually selects a smaller aperture, but the result is that you get more distant objects in focus, even if you are focusing on a subject fairly close by. Basically, the camera is 'squinting its eyes&quot; , just like you do, trying to bring distant objects in focus.  This suggests that you can use aperture to manage the 'look' of your image, which indeed is what you do: pick an appropriate shutter speed (rules 1 and 2) and then adjust aperture until you get the look you want, within rules 1 and 2.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Rule #4: if you can not take your shot within any of the above 3 rules, adjust your ISO up, until you get a rule to apply.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if you shoot at ISO 100 or 200 (and you should basically all the time), move up to ISO 400, then 800, etc until you can follow the rules.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Rule #0: Check your ISO DAILY!&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Always check your ISO before you use your camera, as you will be very upset when you shoot a critical event at ISO 3200 and have awful grainy shots when you didn't need ISO 3200.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T12:14:38.920" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="11569" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-03T12:28:24.273" Score="-4" ViewCount="120" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why is my camera burry; can someone help? When I take a picture only a black image is showing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4999" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-03T14:14:28.953" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T14:16:51.337" ClosedDate="2011-05-03T23:21:23.647" Title="Why is my camera blurry?" Tags="&lt;troubleshooting&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11570" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11569" CreationDate="2011-05-03T12:36:41.547" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This might be a silly question but, is there a lens cap (a piece of black plastic) covering the glass on the front of the camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1580" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T12:36:41.547" />
  <row Id="11571" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-03T13:18:53.913" Score="13" ViewCount="328" Body="&lt;p&gt;Now that I am finally getting a fast zoom (Tamron 17-50mm 2.8) I've been considering a fast prime to go with it, specifically a Sigma 50mm 1.4. Despite its shortcomings, it still does really nice subject isolation past f/2, which is important to me. I was wondering if it might be redundant since my zoom is already a pretty fast fixed aperture. Of course, 1.4 is two stops faster than 2.8, but as with all primes you have to stop it down to get sharp results. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main thing I am worried about is that if I drop $500 on a Sigma, it won't get used because there is already something O.K. in that range. Basically, is two stops difference enough to make you want to switch lenses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: Perhaps I should add and as may have already been mentioned, these $500 could go to a nice speedlight which could sove the low-light 'issue' you get with f/2.8 vs f/1.4.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4758" LastEditorUserId="4758" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T23:08:36.110" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T11:11:42.050" Title="Would a prime be redundant with a fast zoom?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;prime&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11572" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11571" CreationDate="2011-05-03T13:23:05.750" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sometimes I think people's reliance on asking question on the internet is getting out of hand...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look, the only way you can know if the prime or ther zoom will better satisfy your need for a 50mm lens is if you actually make the plunge and get both. Yes, 1.4 is 2 stops faster, but at 2.8 you'll be sharper than the zoom at 2.8 - zooms aren't sharpest wide-open either. There's really nothing more I can add, other than:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Buy lenses at new focal lengths because you're not getting the image you want, not as a technical exercise.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T13:23:05.750" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11573" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11571" CreationDate="2011-05-03T13:31:31.580" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have you given any thought to how you use your lenses?  The biggest benefit of a zoom is that it can do the walking for you.  You'll be able to find all sorts of threads talking about how great primes are, and that you should move yourself to frame your shots, and so on.  There are settings where that makes a ton of sense, and then there are photos that you're just going to miss if you don't have a camera ready to snap a shot within a second or two -- so which kind of photos are you shooting?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd say that if you find yourself taking photos where you can set up the shot and frame it to fit a 50mm lens, you'll probably love the prime - this would seem to be the case for your portraits, for instance.  On the other hand, you mentioned candid shots -- if you need to grab your camera and take a snapshot in a hurry, the zoom might save a lot of shots that you'd just miss with a prime.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T13:31:31.580" />
  <row Id="11574" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11571" CreationDate="2011-05-03T13:35:26.957" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Primes are typically much sharper, and often brighter than zooms. No matter what brand or price you pay for a zoom, there are inherent trade-offs made in the design to get a zoom to be reasonable at all focal lengths. In every situation, a similar quality, and often lower quality prime will out perform a zoom at all focal lengths.  If you want the absolute best quality image with no compromise, you should choose primes over zoom.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, having a bag of 20 primes can get a bit expensive and be inconvenient, which is why many of us go with zooms instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A recommendation is to choose a few primes that will help you in focal lengths you most often use. If you shoot lots of portraits, then perhaps an 85mm would be useful. Lots of landscapes? then consider a 24mm or 35mm.  Need a bright, all around lens for indoors? Try a 35mm or 50mm. Both Nikon and Canon make a respectable 50mm f1.8 that is surprisingly cheap and outperforms most zooms of any price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T13:35:26.957" />
  <row Id="11575" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11571" CreationDate="2011-05-03T13:37:08.097" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would use the new zoom for a while, to see where in the focal length range you are taking the shots you like. If you're gravitating towards the long end, by all means consider getting a longer prime. If you haunt the wider angles you might want to go even wider with another zoom (zoom, because there are precious few affordable primes below 17mm).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T13:37:08.097" />
  <row Id="11576" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11552" CreationDate="2011-05-03T13:40:16.953" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A zone plate is a way of focusing light, like a lens, but using &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_diffraction&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fresnel diffraction&lt;/a&gt; instead of refraction. This is cool from a theoretical point of view, because it &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arago_spot&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;demonstrates the wave nature of light&lt;/a&gt;. And it's cool from a photography point of view, because the images produced have a unique glow, with a impressionistic almost-painted look. If you're attracted to a certain lo-fi &quot;old-camera&quot; aesthetic, using a zone plate is a way to get it authentically, rather than faking it in post-processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Construction and Principles&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The plate, which is a small piece of glass, plastic, or something else relatively transparent, is inscribed with concentric opaque circles. In order to create a focused image, these are placed so that the interference creates &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/dir-016/_2398.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;zones&lt;/a&gt; of &quot;constructive&quot; interference, forming a focused image. The D.I.Y zone plate web page &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whizkidtech.redprince.net/zoneplate/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Whiz Kid Technomagic Zone Plate Designer&lt;/a&gt; explains the math and pratical physics behind the choice of size and spacing quite nicely. And the Wikipedia &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_plate&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article on zone plates&lt;/a&gt; has some graphics, one of which I'm borrowing here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zone_plate.svg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Zone_plate.svg/500px-Zone_plate.svg.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Graphic by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3aBrighterorange&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tom Murphy VII&lt;/a&gt;, licensed CC-BY-SA&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(This same sort of image is also used, for unrelated reasons, and with finer circles than the one above, to produce moiré patterns for testing display quality, or for &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1/what-is-the-best-way-to-micro-adjust-a-lens/9984#9984&quot;&gt;tuning autofocus&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Versus Pinhole Lens&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A zone plate is often compared to a pinhole lens, but there are important differences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, it &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; have a depth of field and therefore can be focused, although usually the DoF is rather large (like using a 35mm lens stopped down to &lt;a href=&quot;http://assets.lensbaby.com/newsletter_archive/2009-05-28/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;f/22 or so&lt;/a&gt;). Second, the amount of light let through is significantly greater. For example, Lensbaby's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensbaby.com/optics-pinhole.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pinhole/Zone Plate optic&lt;/a&gt; provides an f/177-equivalent pinhole, and in zone plate mode is like f/19 — 6½ stops faster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means that with a modern SLR, you can, with care, shoot hand-held. And, although it'll be dark, you can even compose through the viewfinder. (On my Pentax K-7, the metering even works accurately.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Look&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And perhaps most importantly, the look is quite distinctive. Point sources of light will actually show the concentric-circle pattern of the zone plate in a very dramatic way. And as with &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2706/&quot;&gt;bokeh in a lens&lt;/a&gt;, this affects the image even in non-highlight areas — &#xA;areas of bright light have a, well, &lt;em&gt;diffused&lt;/em&gt; glow around them. Personally, I don't care for the &quot;archery target&quot; effect of highlights and try to avoid them, but I like the soft look which suffuses the image if point sources are avoided:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/7VXQu.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;zone plate portrait&quot;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Photo by me, licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0 at this resolution.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/zoneplates/pool/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;examples on Flickr&lt;/a&gt;, and since Lensbaby sells a zone plate optic, they also provide a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensbaby.com/gallery-photo.php?o=zoneplate&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gallery of Zone Plate Samples&lt;/a&gt;, which nicely illustrates the effect — both the &lt;a href=&quot;http://lensbaby.com/gallery-storage/686.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;concentric-circle lights&lt;/a&gt;, and some more subtle effects as well. I think it works particularly well on &lt;a href=&quot;http://lensbaby.com/gallery-storage/666.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;flowers&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://lensbaby.com/gallery-storage/678.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;portraits&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Some Zone Plate Options&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the Lensbaby product: I'm not sure I'd spend $100 (or more) for a &lt;a href=&quot;http://store.lensbaby.com/categories/Lens-Bodies/?sort=priceasc&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lens body&lt;/a&gt; plus $40 for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://store.lensbaby.com/products/Pinhole-%7B47%7D-Zone-plate.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pinhole/zone plate optic&lt;/a&gt; &lt;em&gt;just&lt;/em&gt; for this, but if you already have a Lensbaby, or are thinking of getting one for the other optics, and are interested in this kind of photography, I think it's well worthwhile. Since moving the focus plane and area of sharpness isn't really a consideration here, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://lensbaby.com/lenses-scout.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Scout&lt;/a&gt; lens body might be the best choice, although that is currently only &lt;a href=&quot;http://store.lensbaby.com/products/Scout-with-Fisheye.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sold with the Fisheye optic&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pinhole Resource also offers &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pinholeresource.com/shop/shop?page=shop.browse&amp;amp;category_id=15&amp;amp;vmcchk=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;zone plate body caps&lt;/a&gt;; at around $65 for the dSLR versions, these are considerably cheaper than the Lensbaby combo (but of course more expensive if you're considering a whole Lensbaby kit anyway). I haven't used these, so I can't meaningfully compare them in practice. I notice that they're f/45 — two and a half stops slower than the Lensbaby.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, there's the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whizkidtech.redprince.net/zoneplate/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;D.I.Y. zone plate page&lt;/a&gt; I mentioned above. This suggests an older process using B&amp;amp;W film to make precise lines, or else simply printing on a transparency with a laser printer. This is probably less precise than the machine-made more-expensive zone plates, which would result in a loss of overall resolving power — but if you're going this approach, resolving power probably isn't your top concern anyway, and as the site notes, you'll have the flexibility to tune your zone plates to different wavelengths of light or to different focal lengths and aperture sizes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-04T03:03:35.677" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T03:03:35.677" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11577" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11560" CreationDate="2011-05-03T13:56:33.610" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On a budget, take a look at the manual-focus 55mm Micro-Nikkors. They exist in the older f/3.5 version and an newer f/2.8. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are AI-s lenses, so they'll mount on your D3100, and will automatically step down to the aperture you have set on the lens (use M mode on the camera), but you won't get metering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;55mm might not offer you enough working distance though. Nikon has other macro lenses (they are called Micro because &quot;Macro-Nikkor&quot; denotes their microscope lens line). They are not as cheap or plentiful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/micronikkor/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this page on the excellent MIR site about different Micro-Nikkors&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T13:56:33.610" />
  <row Id="11578" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11571" CreationDate="2011-05-03T14:14:57.917" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're only going to shoot your 50 f/1.4 at f/2.8 then yes it is redundant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;but as with all primes you have to stop it down to get sharp results&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd replace &quot;primes&quot; with &quot;f/1.4 lenses&quot;, plenty of primes are sharp wide open. Few ultra wide aperture lenses are really sharp. The Sigma 50 is actually pretty good. #Certainly sharp enough to consider using wide open, I have the Sigma 30 f/1.4 and was blown away by the sharpness wide open.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short a 50 f/1.4 isn't redundant as it's two stops faster, which can mean shooting ISO400 instead of ISO1600, or 1/50s compared to 1/12s. You don't have to stop it down for sharpness, a little softness is really not that big a deal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T14:14:57.917" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11579" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11569" CreationDate="2011-05-03T14:16:51.337" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If your image is only black, then it's not really &quot;blurry.&quot; They're two different things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if the image dark (underexposed), then there's a reasonable chance your exposure settings (ISO, aperture, shutter speed, flash power) are set too low to make a properly-exposed photograph.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is usually only possible in one of the non-automatic modes (aperture priority, shutter priority, manual), assuming your camera has such things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the causes of blurry pictures is a slow shutter speed; your hand motion/shake is enough to blur the picture while the shutter is open. Increasing this may help with blur, but it will probably make the &quot;black&quot; problem worse. You'll have to increase your other exposure settings even more to compensate. You should study &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/exposure&quot;&gt;exposure fundamentals&lt;/a&gt; to learn how to best do that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, there could be lots of other things that could be causing your problems (lens cap, greasy lens, broken sensor, etc). Without some more information it will be impossible to give accurate answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, these answers would be very specific to your case, and not necessarily helpful to the wider Internet. Perhaps they'd be better asked on &lt;a href=&quot;http://chat.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Photo.StackExchange Chat&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T14:16:51.337" />
  <row Id="11580" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11536" CreationDate="2011-05-03T14:18:31.443" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Weddings are a special type of engagement in my opinion.  The rule I have always heard is &quot;Flash kills the romance&quot;.  It is usually a truth in wedding photography.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I rarely use a flash in my own wedding photography, but it does come into play in certain situations.  I think it would be completely acceptable not to ever use a flash if that is the effect you are going for.  If you shoot with prime lenses and wide open apertures, you really do not need to use a flash to freeze your subjects even in dim light.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where I think a flash would be useful:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Posed group shots indoors, such as in a church.    &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Indoor wedding reception at night  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dimly lit church procession  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of these situations can be covered if you shoot with a wide open aperture such as f/1.2 and a high ISO, but you are going to be hit with a razor thin depth of field which might not be adequate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Overall, I would say it is unlikely, but possible that a professional wedding photographer would never use any type of flash/strobe/lighting besides natural light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastEditorUserId="4112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-03T14:48:06.580" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T14:48:06.580" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11581" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11504" CreationDate="2011-05-03T15:15:29.960" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You asked a &quot;simple question&quot;, which lens is better.  The 70-200mm f/4 is better.  The 70-300mm provides more for the money, but the 70-200 is optically better.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T15:15:29.960" />
  <row Id="11582" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11498" CreationDate="2011-05-03T15:21:49.720" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Blockquote&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My mate has a similar lens, but in the 2.8, and he reckons that the images won't be as sharp because of the larger aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Blockquote&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These factors are independent of the maximum aperture.  A lens with a maximum aperture of f/1.2 might provide considerably better sharpness then a lens with a maximum aperture of f/4.  The reverse could be true as well.  It depends on the lens elements quality, among other build factors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the most part, a lens with a wide aperture such as f/2.8 is considered a higher quality more professional lens then something in the f/4-5.6 range, but since you are comparing f/1.8 to f/2.8 it is difficult for a blanket recommendation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T15:21:49.720" />
  <row Id="11583" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11585" CreationDate="2011-05-03T15:53:24.403" Score="0" ViewCount="174" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1306/what-options-do-i-have-for-gps-geotagging-with-a-digital-slr&quot;&gt;What options do I have for GPS/Geotagging  with a digital SLR?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a Panasonic DMC-TZ10 and what I really love about the cam is the build-in geo tagging. Now I'm planning to buy a DSLR camera, and saw that none of the actual products has built-in geo tagging.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was wondering if it's realistic that, let's say, Canon/Nikon will implement this in the new models in the next year, or is it something that will never find place in a DSLR cam?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1361" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-03T21:47:58.520" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T21:47:58.520" ClosedDate="2011-05-04T00:35:23.557" Title="Will DSLR models support built-in geotagging in the next year?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;geotagging&gt;&lt;features&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11584" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11583" CreationDate="2011-05-03T15:57:50.127" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to see this in DSLR's myself as a Canon user! I've no experience with this but Nikon sells a geotagging unit which is compatible with some of their DSLR's:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/GPS/25396/GP-1-GPS-Unit.html#tab-ProductDetail.ProductTabs.Overview&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/GPS/25396/GP-1-GPS-Unit.html#tab-ProductDetail.ProductTabs.Overview&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1580" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T15:57:50.127" />
  <row Id="11585" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11583" CreationDate="2011-05-03T15:58:52.170" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It's hard to speculate about what may or may not be included in future models&lt;/strong&gt; (you won't get a definite answer), but thus far neither manufacturer has seemed interested in adding that functionality into a DSLR.  Nikon makes it relatively easy to add a separate GPS accessory unit (the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/GPS/25396/GP-1-GPS-Unit.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;GP-1&lt;/a&gt;) to most of its current and recent DSLRs; to my knowledge with Canon you need to use a third party solution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regardless of manufacturer, you can use a separate GPS tracking device and ensure that the camera's time is synced with the GPS time and then use software to match/add the GPS information once you have the photos on your computer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T15:58:52.170" />
  <row Id="11586" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11583" CreationDate="2011-05-03T16:18:56.723" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could just buy &lt;strong&gt;a separate GPS tracker and the sync it with your images&lt;/strong&gt;. With this you don't need to speculate when companies are going to release a GPS enable camera.&#xA;Also this device will be compatible forever (As long RAW and JPG specifications don't change).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've got a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gisteq.com/PhotoTrackr/phototrackr-dpl700.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gisteq Phototrackr&lt;/a&gt; and it's quite awesome. Does it job perfectly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4039" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T16:18:56.723" />
  <row Id="11587" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11583" CreationDate="2011-05-03T16:36:34.930" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is very easy to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php?size=slr&amp;amp;gps=1&amp;amp;by=feature&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;search for DSLR cameras with GPS capabilities built-in&lt;/a&gt; and you can see there are currently two, both from Sony.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course we speculate about other brands but the few people who know for sure won't tell us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are lots of ways to get GPS tagging to a DSLR without a built-in GPS. Add-on units such as the one pointed to in another answer let the cameras tag photos directly but you can also tag photos later using a stand-alone GPS or even a phone with GPS capabilities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T16:36:34.930" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11588" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11591" CreationDate="2011-05-03T16:41:13.787" Score="3" ViewCount="201" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been reading a lot about the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaximaging.com/product.aspx?id=smc%20PENTAX-DA%2018-135mm%20F3.5-5.6ED%20AL%20%5bIF%5d%20DC%20WR&amp;amp;cat=camera-lenses&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pentax DA 18-135mm lens&lt;/a&gt; and its performance compared to other lenses.  I've heard that this lens is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photozone.de/pentax/597-pentax_18135_3556?start=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;very soft at 135mm regardless of aperture&lt;/a&gt;.  However, I've also read that the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax_18-135mm_review.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;image quality is overall better than the 18-55mm lens&lt;/a&gt;.  I am confused about the performance of the two lenses as a result.  Since I own an 18-55mm lens (came with my Pentax K-r), how does the image quality of the 18-135mm lens compare to the 18-55mm, especially wide open in the edges and corners?  Is it better or worse than the 18-55mm in terms of resolution?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4506" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-03T19:26:02.163" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T19:26:02.163" Title="How do the Pentax 18-55mm and 18-135mm compare in image quality?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;image-quality&gt;&lt;sharpness&gt;&lt;pentax&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11589" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11590" CreationDate="2011-05-03T16:51:31.687" Score="5" ViewCount="96" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&#xA;I have a Nikon D3100. When I unload the pictures from the camera to the computer, the numbering of the file names goes back to zero.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes, when they are still about the same event, I would prefer if it kept going where it left off. Is there a way to tweak those settings?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5003" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-03T17:18:04.163" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T17:18:04.163" Title="How do I prevent a Nikon D3100 from resetting the file image numbering each time?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;file-management&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11590" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11589" CreationDate="2011-05-03T17:11:19.380" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Go to the Setup Menu (The one with the wrench icon) and set File Number Sequence to ON.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T17:11:19.380" />
  <row Id="11591" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11588" CreationDate="2011-05-03T17:35:05.327" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a pretty decent lens, despite what the Photozone review says. You've already seen the Pentax Forums review that includes crops of a chart. I'd trust your eyes over what some chart with numbers on the web says. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've had the lens for a few months, and it's softer in the corners at the telephoto end compared to my DA* 50-135mm. Despite that, the 18-135mm lens is my most frequently used lens as it's &quot;good enough&quot; and it covers a very useful range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2528" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T17:35:05.327" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11592" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1955" CreationDate="2011-05-03T17:51:53.963" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I carry 2 16 gb Sandisk Extreme Pro and 1 8gb Sandisk Extreme III class 10 as a back up.  I like having medium capacity cards because it gives me the option of shooting RAW or JPEG.  I also download about every 600 shots so I do not need the larger capacity cards...at this time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5004" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T17:51:53.963" />
  <row Id="11593" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10997" CreationDate="2011-05-03T17:53:19.560" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another factor to consider is the type of panel that you purchase.  IPS or in-plane switching panels are better at all viewing angles and are also very good at reproducing colors.&#xA;Typical inexpensive monitors will use TN(twisted nematic) panels which will not produce the same colors and have a smaller viewing angle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your question yes all monitors still need calibration, even IPS panels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T17:53:19.560" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11594" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11571" CreationDate="2011-05-03T17:58:06.403" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;f/1.4 is very useful if your other lens is f/2.8.  I would certainly pull out my bag and grab the f/1.4 lens when the need arises.  Indoor portraits, indoor sports, low light anything etc all will greatly benefit, if not require f/1.4.  On the other hand, you aren't going to find a 17-50 f/1.4, so that is why you will need the prime.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T17:58:06.403" />
  <row Id="11595" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11313" CreationDate="2011-05-03T19:09:00.200" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a lot of factors when buying a camera, and although most dealers are focused on Megapixels, that is actually one of the least important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a basic camera, that will take very high quality images, you can focus on a few pieces.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;at least 6 megapixels (I didn't say it wasn't useful)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Max aperture of f/2.8 or lower (f/2.0 is great for a point and shoot)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Image stabilization&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The aperture and IS both contribute to the ability to take pictures in low light, and also of fast-moving objects. For family, birthday parties, and children that comes in handy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My picks for a point and shoot would be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://amzn.com/B003WJR69E&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://amzn.com/B003ZSHNGS&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon Powershot S95&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond those, take a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://snapsort.com/explore/best-digicams&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;snapsort.com's best digicam search&lt;/a&gt;. That will have the most up to date info, and allow you to do a more specific search based on your needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T19:09:00.200" />
  <row Id="11596" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-03T19:37:40.263" Score="2" ViewCount="137" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a way to apply one smart filter to multiple layers?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to figure out a better CS5 Photoshop sharpening workflow using smart filters. I am working with scanned film. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before sharpening, I create a new layer above the background layer and do all my cloning on there (mostly dust removal). Then, in order to sharpen, I select the &quot;Cloning&quot; layer and the background (and any layer with actual content), duplicate them, and merge them into one layer. This is the layer that I apply the unsharp mask to (after making a selection of all edges).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to use the unsharp filter as a smart filter, but I don't know how to do this on multiple layers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any suggestions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5005" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-04T00:51:03.027" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T01:02:02.317" Title="Can I apply a Photoshop smart filter to multiple layers, for a better sharpening workflow?" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;film&gt;&lt;workflow&gt;&lt;layer&gt;&lt;sharpening&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="11597" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11536" CreationDate="2011-05-03T19:51:17.497" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes you can work without ever using flash, however I'd consider taking an anti-flash stance and saying &quot;I'd never use it&quot; to be pointless. Every technique has its merits and uses — it's like saying &quot;I'd never use a wide angle lens&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Flash photography doesn't have to look like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/flash/bad_flash.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When done right it can look like this (all of these were shot at events with an on-camera flash):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/flash/_MG_1472.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/flash/_MG_1390____0072.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/flash/_MG_1417.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/flash/_MG_1444.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/flash/2010-08-07-22h11m01%20Jon%20and%20Sam%20small.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And for anyone who thinks flash kills the mood at weddings I present the following, all using flash in some form:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/flash/_MG_1771____0077.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/flash/2010-08-07-20h41m45%20Jon%20and%20Sam%20small.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/flash/kat_and_paul__2009_mg_1213.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/flash/_MG_1466____0074.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/flash/pano_real_cyl3.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-04T08:23:29.083" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T08:23:29.083" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11600" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10997" CreationDate="2011-05-03T21:18:35.780" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, all monitors need to be calibrated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, you need to recalibrate your monitor regularly since the monitor color reproduction changes over time (mostly due to &quot;aging&quot; of the backlight lamp).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Big monitors can even have different color representation in different parts of the screen (technically, this can happen on smaller monitors but it tend to not be noticeable) - as far as I know there's no way to calibrate the monitor to solve this problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You also need to calibrate your printer - for every type of paper you use, or, if you send your photos to be printed in a lab use only labs that provide a color profile.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's actually no end to how far you can go to get better and better colors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, if you are not doing this professionally and mostly edit and print pictures of friends and family you can probably get &quot;good enough&quot;  results without any calibration and only worry about it if you actually notice any color problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2481" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T21:18:35.780" />
  <row Id="11601" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10446" CreationDate="2011-05-03T21:24:56.457" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With manual flash, you have &lt;strong&gt;two separate exposures&lt;/strong&gt; you'll have to set and balance - background exposure and subject exposure (illuminated by flash). Both are affected by aperture and ISO, while only background exposure is affected by shutter speed and only subject exposure is affected by flash power setting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, you'll set your aperture, ISO and shutter speed so that depth of field and &lt;strong&gt;background exposure&lt;/strong&gt; is like you want them to be. For getting more accent on your subject, you might want to underexpose background by a stop or two. With digital, it's easy to confirm the exposure by taking a test shot (flash powered off) and studying the histogram. For most efficient flash power usage, your shutter speed would be equal to your camera's sync speed (for a 5D mark II, 1/200 s according to specs, but that often causes a dark band with flash, 1/160 would be safer). Using high-speed sync is rarely a good idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next, you'll adjust &lt;strong&gt;flash exposure&lt;/strong&gt; by setting your flash power to a guessed approximate value (don't worry, you'll get a feel for setting the initial power after you've done this a few times) and pop another test shot. Adjust flash power to get the exposure you like and voilà!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With multiple flashes, you'll adjust power for each flash one after another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see, operating a flash in manual mode is a bit time-consuming, not very well suited for &quot;capturing the moment&quot; or moving around a lot. That's what you have TTL for. Manual flash is for when you sculpt out an image the way you want it to be. Therefore, Av mode may feel awkward with manual flash (you don't have control over shutter speed to control background exposure) and M mode might be better suited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-04T05:26:37.823" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T05:26:37.823" />
  <row Id="11602" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-03T21:31:04.860" Score="7" ViewCount="172" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm seeing vague and conflicting reports on the web.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Supposedly, the 60D and T3i both allow you to hook up a USB hard drive and shoot directly to the drive without using an SD card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this is true, second question: Does it work with HD video recording?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2592" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-03T21:32:35.740" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T13:22:56.673" Title="Can the Canon T3i use a USB hard drive directly?" Tags="&lt;video&gt;&lt;storage&gt;&lt;canon-60d&gt;&lt;hardware&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="11603" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11602" CreationDate="2011-05-03T22:30:28.767" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't believe you can record directly to a USB hard drive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/842/cpsid_84221.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adobe's documentation&lt;/a&gt;, you &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; shoot tethered with the 60D and Lightroom.  This would allow you to use a computer/laptop running Lightroom to control the camera and have the files stored onto your computer - or an external USB hard drive - via Lightroom.  That same document does not indicate support for the T3i, although older models of the Rebel series are included.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not aware of a way to record HD video in a tethered mode. Edit: Jay points out in a comment that the Canon EOS Utility (supplied with the camera) apparently supports tethered video capture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-04T00:57:18.950" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T00:57:18.950" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11604" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11602" CreationDate="2011-05-03T23:08:39.763" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Supposedly, the 60D and T3i both allow you to hook up a USB hard drive and shoot directly to the drive without using an SD card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your information is incorrect, there is no support in either the Canon 60D or the Canon T3i for being able to hook up a USB drive directly to the camera and shoot directly to it (still photographs &lt;em&gt;or&lt;/em&gt; video) without some intermediate hardware in between (read: a computer).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If this is true, second question: Does it work with HD video recording?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since it is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; true, this means that by default the answer to your second question is also 'no.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-05-03T23:08:39.763" />
  <row Id="11605" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-03T23:39:46.107" Score="1" ViewCount="48" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a measly Sony Cybershot 7.2MP digital camera and I was wondering if it is possible to manually adjust the exposure length. My goal is to try and take a photo of lightning.  It seems like the night mode has a longer exposure length than the rest... Grahh am I limited in functionality because of this model?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2892" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-04T00:10:41.573" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T00:12:20.357" Title="How do I set exposure length for my Sony Cyber-Shot P&amp;S camera?" Tags="&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;&lt;shutter-speed&gt;&lt;lightning&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11606" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11605" CreationDate="2011-05-04T00:04:00.303" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;cd=2&amp;amp;sqi=2&amp;amp;ved=0CCMQFjAB&amp;amp;url=http://www.docs.sony.com/release/DSCW90_handbook.pdf&amp;amp;rct=j&amp;amp;q=sony%20cybershot%20dsc%20w80%20manual&amp;amp;ei=W5PATfbLE5K8sQPd7cngBw&amp;amp;usg=AFQjCNGNE4Tp2B6j-Y-bfYIQt3R89uStrw&amp;amp;sig2=7f2rzmBslBp9gEV12fJHCg&amp;amp;cad=rja&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the manual&lt;/a&gt; for the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W80- currently the highest-end model in the Cyber-shot lineup which has a 7.2mp sensor- there is &lt;em&gt;no direct way&lt;/em&gt; to adjust the exposure length (e.g. the shutter speed and aperture) on this camera model. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sooo, without knowing exactly which model Cyber-shot camera you have, since the DSC-W80 (the highest-end Cyber-shot model) does not have this functionality, it's a pretty safe assumption that any lower-end model would also not have the ability to manually change exposure length. &lt;strong&gt;Thus, it does appear that you will be limited in this functionality with your current camera.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-04T00:12:20.357" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T00:12:20.357" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11607" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-04T00:24:13.207" Score="2" ViewCount="119" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm still using an old DSC-P72 I picked up 5+ years ago for about $110, and aside from the low ISO, I've found its image quality &lt;strong&gt;a lot&lt;/strong&gt; better than any of the low-end cameras I've seen and tried in retail chains these days in the $90-160 price range. Everything inexpensive now seems to have really bad CCDs, bad optics, bad firmware, etc. with inflated megapixel claims to make them look attractive. I also do a good bit of photography in places where electricity to charge proprietary-form-factor batteries is not readily available, but I can carry a lot of rechargeable AA's or pick up throw-away AA's locally in a pinch, so I'm especially looking for cameras with AA batteries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any hope of finding a mode modern camera of similar or better quality to what I have now, or is the market just full of junk these days unless you move to a higher price range?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5007" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-04T15:05:32.863" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T01:06:11.330" Title="Which inexpensive digital cameras are decent these days?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;digital-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11608" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11596" CreationDate="2011-05-04T00:33:45.897" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unless I am missing something, if your final step before sharpening is to copy all the previous layers and merge them into a single new layer...then you should only have to apply sharpening to that final layer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The nature of sharpening algorithms generally won't allow them to work seamlessly &quot;across&quot; multiple layers. Even if they did, I'm not sure why you see the need. You've already prepared a layer explicitly for the sharpening process, so you shouldn't need to worry about cross-layer sharpening.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without a much clearer explanation of your post-processing workflow, and the goals you have when it comes to sharpening, I can't really offer much more in the way of an answer. Are you trying to achieve some level of non-destructive editing in CS5?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T00:33:45.897" />
  <row Id="11609" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11607" CreationDate="2011-05-04T00:41:06.400" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use actually the Canon SX20IS with incredibles results you can take a look of my gallery here: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://flickr.com/photos/fotoarte&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://flickr.com/photos/fotoarte&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This camera (Canon SX20IS) use four batteries AAA and have a zoom of 20X, and has just been replaced by the new Canon SX30IS have 35x of optical zoom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The quality of the photos are hight, and have a lot of options in the Manual Mode. Also support external flashes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_Camera/PowerShot/PowerShot_SX20_IS/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon PowerShot SX20 IS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_Camera/PowerShot/PowerShot_SX30_IS&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon PowerShot SX30 IS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This cameras cost is $ 429.00 USD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4727" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T00:41:06.400" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11610" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11607" CreationDate="2011-05-04T00:52:46.357" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To start there are unfortunately less and less camera models that run on AA batteries. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php?aa=1&amp;amp;by=feature&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here is the complete list&lt;/a&gt;. If you look at the breakdown, most of them are compact or ultra-zooms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The compacts are mostly generic but there are some stand-out models. One is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=199&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon Powershot SX130&lt;/a&gt; which has full manual controls and a stabilized wide-angle 10X optical zoom. Image quality is good but for its price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ultra-zooms are larger and a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php?aa=1&amp;amp;sensortype=cmos&amp;amp;by=feature&amp;amp;ultrazoom=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;few models use CMOS sensors&lt;/a&gt; but will cost you 2 or 3 times more compared to the SX130. That will improve quality a little but certainly not by the same factor as the cost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Better image quality in a fixed-lens camera comes from cameras with larger sensors, all of which use proprietary batteries and cost noticeably more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T00:52:46.357" />
  <row Id="11611" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11596" CreationDate="2011-05-04T01:02:02.317" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Instead of &lt;code&gt;merging&lt;/code&gt; the layers together, try to convert them to a &lt;code&gt;Smart Object&lt;/code&gt;. The smart object contains all the original layer data (which also can be later edited &amp;mdash; just double click the smart object), but appears as a &quot;single layer&quot; in the &lt;code&gt;Layers&lt;/code&gt; window.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you now apply the &lt;code&gt;Unsharp Mask&lt;/code&gt; filter to the smart object, it is created as &lt;code&gt;Smart filter&lt;/code&gt; and as such, can also be non-destructively edited later on. As the smart object you previously created contains multiple layers, your filter is &lt;em&gt;effectively&lt;/em&gt; applied to multiple layers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1913" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T01:02:02.317" />
  <row Id="11612" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-04T02:01:19.020" Score="0" ViewCount="93" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have tried to search, but I can't find:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com.hk/search?safe=strict&amp;amp;q=Hg+Init+tool+draw+Joel&amp;amp;aq=f&amp;amp;aqi=&amp;amp;aql=&amp;amp;oq=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.google.com.hk/search?safe=strict&amp;amp;q=Hg+Init+tool+draw+Joel&amp;amp;aq=f&amp;amp;aqi=&amp;amp;aql=&amp;amp;oq=&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The picture in Joel's Mercurial tutorial seems to be wrote by his own hand, but I think that maybe some tool to help to do this job.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5010" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T02:01:19.020" ClosedDate="2011-05-04T02:41:01.280" Title="Which tool did Joel draw the picture in his article &quot;Hg Init&quot;" Tags="&lt;software&gt;" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11613" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11615" CreationDate="2011-05-04T02:21:42.270" Score="4" ViewCount="219" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon 550D with the standard 18-55mm kit lens. The 550D has a 1.6× crop factor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is very simple but whenever I've asked before (Yahoo Answers) I always got overly-complicated answers which confused me even more. So here goes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I get the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM lens, will it be the same as setting my EF-S zoom lens to 50mm when attached to the 550D? Or will it be the equivalent of an 80mm EF-S lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5011" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-04T12:11:31.720" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T02:47:13.207" Title="Is an EF 50mm f/1.4 the same as 50mm with an EF-S lens on a Canon 550D?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;focal-length&gt;&lt;cropped-sensor&gt;&lt;crop-factor&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11614" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11613" CreationDate="2011-05-04T02:28:03.350" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The field of view (the picture you see through your lens) will be the same with any 50mm lens - regardless if its EF or EF-S.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T02:28:03.350" />
  <row Id="11615" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11613" CreationDate="2011-05-04T02:30:08.667" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to go with the very simple answer here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The lens does not change. The f/1.4 50mm EF lens has exactly the same focal length (and everything that goes with that) as your EF-S zoom lens set to 50mm.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;crop factor&quot; is not useful for comparing different lenses on the same camera. It's only useful for comparing lenses across different camera formats — which means different film or sensor size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And then, because I can't help myself, I'm going to go a bit further. This seems like overcomplicated nonsense, but it's actually both pretty simple (it only &lt;em&gt;seems&lt;/em&gt; complicated — honest!), and a reasonably useful tool to know about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in case you want to chase things further, once you're &lt;em&gt;definitely&lt;/em&gt; unconfused and clear about the basics, see:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3338/is-the-kit-lens-focal-length-specified-for-aps-c-or-ff&quot;&gt;Is the kit lens focal length specified for APS-C or FF?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/380/what-is-the-difference-between-ef-and-ef-s-lenses&quot;&gt;What is the difference between EF and EF-S lenses?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11338/does-my-crop-sensor-camera-actually-turn-my-lenses-into-a-longer-focal-length&quot;&gt;Does my crop sensor camera actually turn my lenses into a longer focal length?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/139/what-is-the-difference-between-focal-length-and-crop-factor&quot;&gt;What is the difference between focal length and crop factor?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1592/why-do-we-talk-about-focal-length-when-frame-sizes-are-different&quot;&gt;Why do we talk about focal-length when frame sizes are different?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which give some depth and background. But still, remember, the answer to your question is simple: focal length is a property of the lens, and you can't change it without &lt;em&gt;more optics&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-04T12:14:03.810" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T12:14:03.810" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11616" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11613" CreationDate="2011-05-04T02:33:01.753" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It will be the same as your zoom set to 50mm.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A 50mm focal length lens is a 50mm focal length lens, neither lens &quot;knows&quot; what sort of sensor you have behind it.  It's just that the smaller sensor captures less of the projected image, so the resulting image is cropped.  This is similar (but not the same) as what you'd get on an FX sensor with about an 80mm lens.   This is true whether you are using an 18-55mm zoom at 50mm, or any fixed focal length 50mm.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4191" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T02:33:01.753" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11617" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11613" CreationDate="2011-05-04T02:49:18.963" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both lenses are 50mm. the only real difference is that the EF-S can be a smaller piece of glass, because it need only illuminate a smaller sensor. The EF must be able to illuminate at full frame sensor, so it is a physically bigger piece of glass. This is the primary reason that EF-S lenses are less expensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T02:49:18.963" />
  <row Id="11618" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11613" CreationDate="2011-05-04T03:02:17.070" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As the previous answers stated correctly, the Field of View (FoV) will be the same with the two lenses. That means that you will capture the same scene with the two. However, note that there &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; a difference in the maximum aperture between the lenses. The 50/1.4 will let you shoot in lower light, and can produce shallower Depth of Field (DoF) than the kit lens. It is also much sturdier than the kit lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I added this answer b/c your question was &quot;...will it be the same as...&quot;. So, to be picky, no - it will not be the same, but it will be pretty similar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T02:47:13.207" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T02:47:13.207" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11619" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11602" CreationDate="2011-05-04T11:34:13.907" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;CF (Compact Flash) uses the IDE interface, identical to internal IDE hard drives. I have seen mods of equipment using CF to work with HDD's, and this is also how the CF based internal hard drive adapters work (you can buy one for very cheap to be plugged into one of your HDD slots, to speed up disk access. It is essentially just wiring, no electronics required). Given that, I can imagine modding a CF-based camera to work with external drive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;SD is a different story, as it implements a completely different interface. I think there are SD to CF adapters that will let you use a SD card in a CF device, but I'm skeptical that the reverse conversion exists. So, with a SD based camera, your only solution seems to be shooting tethered with EOS Utility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-04T13:22:56.673" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T13:22:56.673" />
  <row Id="11620" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-04T13:23:04.537" Score="13" ViewCount="221" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am fortunate to have access to the rooftops of several highrise buildings in my city, and am tasked with taking some panoramic photographs of the city for my firm, ideally 360-degree views.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not something I will be able to easily repeat, so I would like to do as much preparation as possible to get good shots. I have a couple questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is the best time of day to do this? Midday, when the sun won't be in any shot?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do I take many shots with a long focal length, or use a wide lens and take as few as possible, to make stitching easier?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I know it is best to only rotate the camera, not move it, when doing panoramas. For some buildings this may be possible, but I expect that I will have to walk around a bit to get complete coverage on a lot of them. Is there any way I can mitigate this problem? Would I be better off doing two 180-degree panoramas from opposite corners instead of trying to get one all the way around?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anything else I should know about?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt; Lots of good suggestions, thanks. I hadn't even thought about exposure settings, and it seems that there is a mix of &quot;better to use manual so all shots are the same&quot; and &quot;better to use auto so that you get better dynamic range from light to dark spots.&quot; Anyone had good or bad results with one way or the other?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4690" LastEditorUserId="4690" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T13:47:28.570" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T20:43:23.107" Title="How should I plan for taking panoramas from rooftops?" Tags="&lt;panorama&gt;&lt;cityscape&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11621" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-04T13:36:59.377" Score="27" ViewCount="435" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a hard time manual focusing my Canon EOS 350D.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Compared to the few higher spec DSLRs that I played with, and that have a pentaprism, my Rebel's (pentamirror) viewfinder feels crammed and somewhat darker.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I feel like I have to squint in order to figure out if the subject is in focus.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;It also has a simple matte focusing screen, so it doesn't help figuring out when critical focus is achieved either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I remember having used my dad's all-manual Praktica film camera in my teen years, and at the time I felt no burden with manual focus (exposure, now, that's a different story...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the focusing screen on that camera was a split image + microprism setup, something like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Full viewfinder view: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.focusingscreen.com/picture/fsxb.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.focusingscreen.com/picture/fsxb.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Up close: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.focusingscreen.com/picture/fsxbs.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.focusingscreen.com/picture/fsxbs.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All this being said, here's my question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why do (most of?) the DSLRs of today &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; use such focusing screens?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Do the manufacturers work under the assumption that most focusing is AF (which is probably true)? But still, how would it hurt to have a split image as a focusing aid?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is there an obvious downside to such focusing screens, that I am missing?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the sake of completeness, I have found two places that sell replacement focusing screens for DSLRs. I'm sure there are others. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.focusingscreen.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This is the 1st one&lt;/a&gt;, I think based in Taiwan. They have a great &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.focusingscreen.com/privacy.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;comparison&lt;/a&gt; of different types of focusing screens (that's where the above image links go, too).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This is the other one&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The installation procedure looks a lot less scary than I would have guessed. I think I'll get me one of those, maybe it will put an end to my manual focusing misery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4994" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T03:13:04.590" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T03:13:04.590" Title="Why don't DSLRs come equipped with &quot;classic&quot; focusing screens (split prism etc)?" Tags="&lt;manual-focus&gt;&lt;focusing-screen&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11622" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11620" CreationDate="2011-05-04T13:37:05.347" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Time of day will depend on what kind of shot you want. If you just want a 'record' shot of the view, then midday will be fine. If you want something more artistic, sunrise or sunset would be better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The wider the angle you use when taking the shots, the more distorted the panorama will be when you stitch it. However, most stitching software these days is fairly good at correcting this kind of thing. Ultimately the angle will be determined by how much you want in your shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would say for those buildings where you can't just stand in the middle and rotate the camera, taking the shots in sets of 4, one quarter of the view from each corner, is probably best. The important thing is to make sure you have good overlaps in each shot so the stitching software has plenty to work with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other important point is to put your camera in Manual mode so the exposure remains the same throughout the pano - if you have it any auto mode (or Av/AP Sv/SP) the camera will adjust and you will get 'banding'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T13:37:05.347" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11623" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11631" CreationDate="2011-05-04T13:41:33.380" Score="4" ViewCount="170" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have some raw images captured using Canon,Nikon,Minolta cameras.(*.CR2, *.NEF, *.MRW)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to change resize them and store them back as the original format.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I checked in two tools, Canon Digital photo professional and Adobe CS5, but could not  find any resize option for raw images. Do they have it? &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;How can I resize these images and store in same format as original file?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2438" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-04T15:38:04.807" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T07:25:13.530" Title="How can I resize Raw images and store them back in the original format?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;image-processing&gt;&lt;file-format&gt;&lt;rescaling&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11624" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11620" CreationDate="2011-05-04T13:42:16.547" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to need to answer these in the reverse order and I'm going to assue you're probably going to be blowing these up quite large.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you're going to move the camera several feet to get the shots you want, you're going to get some sort mismatch when you stitch.  If you're then going to blow the pictures up large, it's very likely going to look some degree of bad along a seam.  How to mitigate this is really to either just do smaller pano's or find a 360 degree spot.  There's alot of things that will determine how bad or not bad this will be - largely based on the particular field of view you have, but make sure to have as much overlap there as possible.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Choosing your focal length is probably your biggest decision as it drives a few other things.  The higher you go, the more impressive its going to be.  When you've got a city pano and the viewer realizes they can see the guy in the office building staring out two streets away, its a neat feeling.  BUT, it comes at a cost.  Its significantly harder to shoot and takes much longer - which means your light can change a lot over your total shoot.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If time isn't a factor and you can spread it out over several days to do a high focal length shoot at sunrise or sunset - its going to be much more impressive than a few wide angle midday shots.  The light at sunrise and sunset is just much better.  If you can isolate the sun in a single frame, it will alleviate some of the problems, get it when its behind a building perhaps.  Or you could plan several shoots to combine together at twilight, just after the sun has gone done.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should definitely be setting manual mode, and if you don't have a good tripod/head, consider renting some decent gear, it will make your life easier.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-04T14:24:02.673" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T14:24:02.673" />
  <row Id="11625" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11621" CreationDate="2011-05-04T13:43:37.163" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do the manufacturers work under the assumption that most focusing is AF (which is probably true)? But still, how would it hurt to have a split image as a focusing aid?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, they do. A straightforward plain piece of glass (with perhaps a bit of laser etching) is simply cheaper and easier to make than a split-screen/microprism ring setup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T13:43:37.163" />
  <row Id="11626" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11621" CreationDate="2011-05-04T13:48:17.673" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The exposure is measured though the focusing screen. This means that the exposure becomes less accurate, when measured through a split image or microprism. Canon's professional models support such screens. But they have also an exposure compensation custom setting for those screens. If you put a modified screen in a model which does not support it, you have to expect exposure errors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5019" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T02:03:28.820" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T02:03:28.820" />
  <row Id="11627" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11621" CreationDate="2011-05-04T13:50:16.697" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For entry level camera - it's likely not going to end your manual focusing misery.  It may help, but the viewfinders are just much smaller than some of their full frame or classic film brothers.  That size hurts, &lt;em&gt;alot&lt;/em&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reading up on focusing screens shows that it can throw off exposures values by a half stop or so in some cases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T13:50:16.697" />
  <row Id="11628" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11623" CreationDate="2011-05-04T13:51:39.587" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can't resize RAW files &lt;em&gt;per se&lt;/em&gt;. You can crop them in a RAW editor like Adobe Camera RAW, and the crop information will be stored in the sidecar XMP file, but the RAW file itself remains the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This depends on your editor, but generally when you 'edit' a RAW file you are just storing settings in a 'sidecar' file. When you re-open the RAW file, the editor reads the sidecar file and reapplies the settings. The RAW file itself is untouched.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can, however, save out a copy of the RAW file in a lossless format like TIFF, which you can 'properly' resize and edit however you like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T13:51:39.587" />
  <row Id="11629" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11621" CreationDate="2011-05-04T14:04:11.277" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Split-prism focusing screens went away with AF. I have a Nikon F90 from the early 90s with a plain matte screen (and only one focus area). I can't speak for other brands and models, AF film bodies being the red-headed stepchildren of the used gear market. They're cheap because no-one wants them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the reasons for not having them are both usability - a plain screen allows you to see the AF focusing patches (which you're assumed to be primarily using) and economic. A matte screen is less complicated to manufacture - just cut from a larger sheet! No need to calibrate and center etc. Also, your manual focus lenses just became harder to use - why not get one of these new cool AF lenses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding third-party screens: I recently purchased a Katz Eye screen for my D200. It was pricey, but worth it! Maybe the D200 has a slightly larger viewfinder than other DSRLs, but I now find focusing manually much easier. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T14:04:11.277" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11630" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-04T14:05:31.550" Score="-3" ViewCount="98" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am looking to buy 3 canon lenes for my EOS 7D. What are the three best lenses that will help give me different ranges. I want to get a fast general purpose zoom lens, a macro lens and a telephoto zoom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5020" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T15:29:16.627" ClosedDate="2011-05-04T16:34:30.737" Title="What canon lenses should I buy?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11631" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11623" CreationDate="2011-05-04T14:11:23.100" Score="17" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The entire point of raw files is to save the full unprocessed output of the sensor, there are no programs that edit raw files because if you do any editing it's no longer the raw output and you are better off generating a TIFF from the raw and editing that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A note about resizing - most camera sensors have a pattern of red, green and blue pixels, where each pixel is only sensitive to a single color - the raw processing program (Adobe camera raw, lightroom, aperture, DPP, the built in camera software, etc.) takes that data and creates a picture where each pixel has 3 values (red, green and blue), as a side note, every software does it a little differently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Resizing a raw would require generating a picture (using what software? with what settings?), resizing it and then trying to create a &quot;raw&quot; file that would generate the new resized image - after all this processing the new &quot;raw&quot; would have less accurate information that a TIFF (and probably even an high quality JPEG) - so I really don't see the point of going to all that trouble to write a very complicated algorithm that would only degrade the image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2481" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T14:11:23.100" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11632" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11621" CreationDate="2011-05-04T14:15:43.677" Score="28" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Split-prism focusing depends on your using fairly fast lenses. When the normal &quot;kit&quot; lens was a 50/1.8 (or 50/1.7, or something similar) that worked well. With slower lenses, one side or the other (or both) will be &quot;blacked out&quot; nearly all the time, and it provides no help in focusing. A typical kit lens nowadays is a zoom with a maximum aperture of something like f/4.5 of f5.6, which is too slow for a typical split-prism to work well at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can design a split prism to work with slower lenses, but the slower of lens you design it for, the less precise it becomes (the less offset you see between the two sides as the image goes out of focus). I've never tried one that was designed for something like f/5.6 so I can't say for sure, but at a guess the offset would be small enough that it wouldn't be very helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Microprisms lose effectiveness with slow lenses in much the same way (when you get down to it, they're basically a large number of much smaller split prisms).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a third possibility. Most current focusing screens don't diffuse the light very much as it passes through the screen. The less it diffuses the light, the less apparent blurring is as the picture goes out of focus. If you use a screen that diffuses the light more, it'll give a better indication of how well the picture is focused.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This has a shortcoming too though: diffusing the light more also makes the &quot;picture&quot; in the viewfinder dimmer. Much as with the others, you're stuck with tailoring the focusing screen to the lenses you're going to use. Professional level cameras that they expect to be used (at least primarily) with fast lenses will also typically have focusing screens available that diffuse the light more, and therefore give a better indication of focusing. The trade-off of that is that the view they give is dimmer, so you nearly &lt;em&gt;need&lt;/em&gt; to use them with relatively fast lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T14:15:43.677" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11633" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11630" CreationDate="2011-05-04T14:16:10.227" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since you didn't give any specifics about what you photograph or a price range, I'll just recommend three great lenses in those ranges.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425812-USA/Canon_1242B002AA_EF_S_17_55mm_f_2_8_IS.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/647011-USA/Canon_3554B002_EF_100mm_f_2_8L_Macro.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/680103-USA/Canon_2751B002_EF_70_200mm_f_2_8L_IS.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have a budget in mind, or any other details about your intended use for the lenses, please update your question.  As it's currently worded, it's kind of broad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T14:16:10.227" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11634" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11620" CreationDate="2011-05-04T14:29:23.737" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are right in that the best practice is to rotate the camera w/o translating its position (for the kind of photo you are looking for. There are certainly occasions where pure translation is preferred). However, to make it as precise as possible, you need to rotate it around the lens' nodal point. There is one point around which objects in different depths will keep their relative position once the lens is rotated. It is situated inside the length of your camera+lens, so there is not so much to guess. You can test where this point is for your lens (at a specific focal length) by placing it on the table with a few objects in front (say, standing batteries) one partially occluding the other. Then try rotating along several points and take shots. Where the image of the object does not change, this is the nodal point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Usually, the problem with implementing that for panos is that mounted on a tripod, you don't have the luxury of sliding the camera back and forth on the head. If this proves to be a real issue for your situation, you can manufacture a DIY adapter for you tripod head that shifts the screw position to the nodal point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: Found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0HaRZi-FWs&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this video&lt;/a&gt; that nicely explains the settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT 2: From &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1798/what-can-a-fisheye-lens-be-useful-for/1933#1933&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt;, it appears that the critical point is the &quot;effective entrance pupil&quot;, rather than the &quot;nodal point&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-13T20:43:23.107" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T20:43:23.107" />
  <row Id="11635" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11536" CreationDate="2011-05-04T14:33:22.773" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another point is that Modern DSLR with high iso low(ish) noise make flash less and less necessary.  Working with an argentic camera with an iso 100 film aint the same as working with a D7000 at iso 1600 or 3200.  Clearly for a given low light there is more requirement for flash in the former case than the later!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1638" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T14:33:22.773" />
  <row Id="11636" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11621" CreationDate="2011-05-04T14:35:49.267" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;UPDATE: The below appears to be incorrect. Thanks RBerteig for the correction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Canon EOS 7D has an active focusing screen that changes its marking according to the current mode (I assume 60D and maybe T3i are same). It is probably impossible to keep this functionality with a split prism screen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-04T23:11:54.437" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T23:11:54.437" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11637" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11630" CreationDate="2011-05-04T15:29:16.627" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My 3 recommendation would all all be 'L' glass:&#xA; - Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Autofocus Lens&#xA; - Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto Lens&#xA; - Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With these lenses you know you are getting the best. The Kenko extension tubes for Macro.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4273" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T15:29:16.627" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11638" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-04T15:32:57.170" Score="2" ViewCount="264" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't have a &quot;Pro&quot; account on Flickr, just the free one, so my photo uploads are capped to 15 megabytes/file. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After post-processing, my photos end up being too large to be uploaded to Flickr. I do my edits in Photoshop, which might be the reason they get too big.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What can I do to have my photos uploaded to Flickr?&lt;/strong&gt; How to reduce the file size of my photos from over 15 MB to under 15 MB?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5021" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T10:37:38.427" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T11:50:25.477" Title="How to reduce the file size of my photos (to under 15 MB)?" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;file-format&gt;&lt;image-compression&gt;&lt;file-size&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11639" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11435" CreationDate="2011-05-04T16:12:43.927" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/layeroption/5397715457/in/photostream/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;instructions in LayerMask's Flickr stream&lt;/a&gt; on how to modiy a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Flash-Couplers/4905/SG-31R-IR-Panel-for-Built-In-Flash.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon SG-31R&lt;/a&gt; to be compatible with Canon. Basically, you have to cut off the part of right-hand edge of foot which would click microswithes in a Canon hot-shoe while leaving the rear end intact to provide support.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a cheap DIY alternative, a dark (overexposed) frame of a developed film negative could be used in front of the pop-up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-04T16:40:48.407" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T16:40:48.407" />
  <row Id="11640" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11435" CreationDate="2011-05-04T16:33:30.550" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From my experience, if shooting in a relatively small space (i.e, a large room, not outdoors), you don't really need the line of sight to control the slave unit. The reflections form the walls/ceiling does the job. You can try making a small deflector that gets on the built-in flash and obscures the light from reflecting in the models glasses, while still communicating with the slave. A few pieces of black cardboard and aluminum foil can do the job.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T16:33:30.550" />
  <row Id="11641" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11643" CreationDate="2011-05-04T16:35:40.237" Score="5" ViewCount="157" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to take pictures of people from 5-20 feet away. I attend lots of group events and am free to walk around and snap photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I just purchased a Canon t3i and it comes with a 18-55mm kit lens. The aperture can go down to f/3.5 at the largest. However, I have a friend with a Canon 5D with 50mm f/1.8 lens and I noticed that his photos always come out nice when shooting up close. The background is always blurred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I find that I get the shallowest depth of field when I zoom in (even if the aperture goes up), which is a problem. I don't want to have to back up from the subject to get a nice photo. If I really try, I can sometimes get the subject with a blurred background if I move in close (3ft) with a f/3.5.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So do I just need to learn how to use this lens, or would a getting a 50mm f/1.8 lens really help with taking pictures of people?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1950" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-04T16:43:09.013" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T17:42:23.307" Title="Will a lens with a low aperture value give me better portrait photos?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11642" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11649" CreationDate="2011-05-04T16:40:32.600" Score="3" ViewCount="92" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi, I'm looking for a point and shoot digital camera (or adapter card like Eye-Fi) that can transfer photos via Bluetooth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I'm specifically interested in Bluetooth because the Wi-Fi adapter on my laptop will be busy)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5024" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T19:37:04.393" Title="Camera that transfers photos via Bluetooth" Tags="&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;&lt;wireless&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="11643" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11641" CreationDate="2011-05-04T16:46:24.233" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, a lens with a larger aperture (numerically smaller f/number) will produce a shallower depth-of-field, and a more blurred background. However, there's another factor working in the 5D's favor: It has a &quot;full frame&quot; sensor, the same size as 35mm film, while your camera has a smaller &quot;APS-C&quot; sensor. The larger sensor results in a shallower depth of field, for the same composition and aperture setting. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3986/aps-c-vs-full-frame-why-should-i-care&quot;&gt;Matt Grum's comparison in this thread&lt;/a&gt;. So the 50/1.8 will be an improvement, but may not reach what you're seeing from your friend's 5D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, you said you don't like zooming in with your 18-55 lens, because you prefer to work closer. Keep in mind that a 50mm lens will be similar to the long end of your zoom, so it may not mesh with your preferences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2138" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T16:46:24.233" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11644" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11641" CreationDate="2011-05-04T16:48:57.950" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes if you really want to blur the background get a fast (wide aperture lens). If you don't like having to back up to shoot at 55mm with the kit lens you should probably look at the Sigma 30 f/1.4&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Otherwise the Canon 50 f/1.8 is great value.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T16:48:57.950" />
  <row Id="11645" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11638" CreationDate="2011-05-04T17:24:26.017" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I suggest you resize the photos in Photoshop, go to the image menu, select &quot;Image Size...&quot; in the document size box enter something like 25%, save the image and you should be able to upload them onto Flickr without problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T17:24:26.017" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11646" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11638" CreationDate="2011-05-04T17:28:58.983" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What format are you saving the files in? If you're saving as TIFF or PSD, you could instead try saving to JPEG, which will be much smaller. If you're using JPEG and the files are still over 15 MB, those must be some HUGE images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Flickr is probably just going to convert the file to JPEG anyways to save on bandwidth when serving the images, so it's not like you're going to be able to get away with a loss-less format.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4690" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T17:28:58.983" />
  <row Id="11647" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11638" CreationDate="2011-05-04T17:41:59.487" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have you tried the email to your account? Flickr allows you to email to upload your photos:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/account/uploadbyemail/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/account/uploadbyemail/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5026" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T17:41:59.487" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11648" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11641" CreationDate="2011-05-04T17:42:23.307" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Without a doubt. You will not even need to try very hard and you will get the results you want. The only thing is that the the bokeh on the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II is a bit noisy (only five non-rounded aperture blades)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is even a faster (and still reasonably priced) lens available: Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used both lenses and the f1.8 lens feels really, really cheap. (and you can really tell that a picture was shot with this lens because of the distinctive bokeh) Still a great value. Although I keep dreaming about the L series f1.2 version I did purchase the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM lens and I am extremely pleased. Some reviews say that it's a bit soft at f1.4 but I did not find it so.  The build quality is good (not as good as my old pentax f1.4 50mm which was solid metal) but the focusing ring feels a bit rough. Still, in my opinion, very much worth the investment.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4977" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T17:42:23.307" />
  <row Id="11649" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11642" CreationDate="2011-05-04T17:43:42.087" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While there aren't a &lt;em&gt;ton&lt;/em&gt; of cameras out there with bluetooth support, here are a few I found which you may want to look into:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.samsungimaging.net/2009/10/07/finding-myself-with-the-gps-samsung-digital-imaging-st1000cl65/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Samsung ST1000&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/13/samsung-crams-wifi-gps-and-bluetooth-2-0-into-well-specced-cl65/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Samsung CL65&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakv610/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kodak EasySshare V610&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now all of these cameras are a little 'long in the tooth,' and I haven't used any of them... This was just me and Google coming up with some options. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also found an interesting accessory for Olympus cameras called the '&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.geeky-gadgets.com/olympus-penpal-sends-photos-via-bluetooth-11-01-2011/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PENpal&lt;/a&gt;' (unfortunate name, IMO). Apparently it attaches to any appropriately equipped Olympus camera and adds bluetooth transfer capabilities. Might be worth checking out...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There has been some &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ismashphone.com/2011/01/why-fi-new-eye-fi-cards-promise-to-cut-the-cordless.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;minor speculation&lt;/a&gt; on 'teh interwebs' regarding an upcoming EyeFi bluetooth release, but at this point I'd have a hard time characterizing them as more than rumors, so I wouldn't count on anything appearing &lt;em&gt;soon&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, there's a few links to help your research along.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-04T17:49:25.153" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T17:49:25.153" />
  <row Id="11650" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2221" CreationDate="2011-05-04T17:46:19.233" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a very subjective question. But if you want a schoolbook answer; one that the teachers will tell you is an 85mm lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An 85mm F1.8 lens is more appropriate for individual portraits. It's inexpensive and faster than the more expensive Canon 85mm F1.2 counterpart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a great lens!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5026" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T17:46:19.233" />
  <row Id="11651" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11435" CreationDate="2011-05-04T17:49:35.160" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;To answer your problem about the light spot in your models glasses.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recommend making the &quot;catch light&quot; more appealing. If you cover it with a white circle spot and bouncing it off that; it'll make a more appealing reflective shape.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5026" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T17:49:35.160" />
  <row Id="11652" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11642" CreationDate="2011-05-04T17:49:58.303" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are unable to find a Bluetooth solution, and you cannot connect the Eye-Fi to the same WiFi network that the computer is using, one alternative would be to purchase a USB WiFi adapter for the computer, to provide a second WiFi interface. You can use the second WiFi interface to &lt;a href=&quot;http://support.eye.fi/product-info/specs-details/setup-requirements/does-the-eye-fi-card-support-ad-hoc-wi-fi-2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;communicate with certain models of Eye-Fi in Ad Hoc mode&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2138" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T17:49:58.303" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11653" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11642" CreationDate="2011-05-04T18:00:27.013" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://gizmodo.com/#!5441536/samsung-cl80-a-point+and+shoot-crammed-with-14-megapixels-wi+fi-and-amoled-touchscreen&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Samsug CL80&lt;/a&gt; (ST5500 in Europe) is a model of spring 2010 providing bluetooth connectivity. It resizes pictures down to 1024x768 when sending over Bluetooth to fight the slow transfer (and bluetooth IS slow).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-04T19:37:04.393" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T19:37:04.393" />
  <row Id="11654" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-04T18:10:42.583" Score="11" ViewCount="123" Body="&lt;p&gt;With photographic composition I often hear people talk about 'leaving enough headroom' for portrait photographs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is headroom?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How can I properly apply it to my photographs?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What are the psychological and art history underpinnings of this 'rule?'&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-04T19:02:32.023" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T19:02:32.023" Title="What is headroom as it relates to photographic composition?" Tags="&lt;composition&gt;&lt;composition-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11655" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11654" CreationDate="2011-05-04T18:27:13.343" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;'Leaving headroom' means leaving a space between the top of the subject's head and the top edge of the frame, usually when taking shots head-on. It is related to the Rule of Thirds; the idea is that your subject's eyes should lie on the upper third-line of the frame. Like the Rule of Thirds, it's roots lie in painting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The concept is related to 'looking room': if you have a subject looking to the right, you should leave some space on the right hand side of the frame for the subject to 'look into'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As ever, these are rules of thumb, not absolute laws.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T18:27:13.343" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="11656" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11654" CreationDate="2011-05-04T18:27:31.087" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headroom_%28photographic_framing%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; has a full article on this subject with examples and the definition.  Basically, position your subjects eyes 1/3 of the way down in the frame and you are set.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T18:27:31.087" />
  <row Id="11657" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11661" CreationDate="2011-05-04T18:47:51.940" Score="20" ViewCount="411" Body="&lt;p&gt;In portrait photography, what is a &quot;catch light&quot;?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is it good or bad?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How do I produce or avoid them?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are some kinds better than others?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-04T19:11:50.407" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T08:10:42.530" Title="In portrait photography, what is a &quot;catchlight&quot;?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="11658" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11669" CreationDate="2011-05-04T18:53:40.497" Score="19" ViewCount="250" Body="&lt;p&gt;Reading about photography, I have now and then stumbled on recommendations to &quot;create a path for viewer's eye&quot;, or to &quot;lead it through the picture&quot; without any specific guidelines how to achieve that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can a photographer influence where the eye lands, how it travels and where it stops on its way through the picture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T15:53:56.650" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T18:58:35.190" Title="How to create an eye-path?" Tags="&lt;composition&gt;&lt;human-vision-system&gt;&lt;composition-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11659" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11658" CreationDate="2011-05-04T19:06:06.497" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fibonacci spiral?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jakegarn.com/the-rule-of-thirds/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.jakegarn.com/the-rule-of-thirds/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4977" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T19:06:06.497" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="11660" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11657" CreationDate="2011-05-04T19:06:08.963" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My friend, a catchlight is specular reflection in the eyes, usually small. The term comes from &quot;light catching the eyes&quot;. A symbolic representation of these catchlights is extremely popular in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hwlibrary.org/Images/Bright_anime_eyes.png&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;anime/manga-style eyes&lt;/a&gt;, with large, white catchlights at angles that really don't have anything to do with how light actually behaves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like most things in photography, it's neither inherently good or bad, it's a tool that you can use as you see fit. A lot of people like them, and they are quite popular in high-energry (high contrast) portraits, ones with rim lights, kickers and such. I have a favorite photo (which I can't find) where the model's hair is softly lit while her face is cast in darkness, with just a catchlight in her eye to give it a touch of humanity. Really nice stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To produce them, point a light source at your subject in a way that produces a reflection in their eyes when you look at the model through your viewfinder. Yes, it's that easy. They're the same as any specular reflection, find your angle of incidence and go crazy. To get rid of them, do the opposite: remove your light source from a position where it can reflect in the eyes of your subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to their quality, small even catchlights are often considered superior to others. Umbrella catchlights are often not optimal, as they tend to be uneven and hard to remove in post processing. Ringlights create very characteristic catchlights, some people love them, others hate them - again, it's a matter of personal choice. For a classic look, position your light to create a catchlight at about &lt;a href=&quot;http://digital-photography-school.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/catchlights-at-10.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;10 or 2 o'clock&lt;/a&gt; on the subject's eyes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Experiment with what works best for you. There are no right or wrong answers in photography, past &quot;this picture works&quot; and &quot;this picture doesn't&quot;. Have fun with it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T19:06:08.963" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11661" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11657" CreationDate="2011-05-04T19:08:01.653" Score="29" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;What is a catchlight?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A catchlight is is what is used to describe the highlight that can appear in a portrait subjects eyes. This is generally a desirable thing to have because it brighteness the whites of a subjects eyes, brings out their eye color and generally adds 'life' to a subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a 100% crop from a  recent photo shoot I did using all natural lighting. The catchlight (a window) can be seen clearly reflected in the subjects eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/4xCgx.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;100% Crop example of a catchlight&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a general statement, catchlights are a great thing in portraits. It's the little 'gleam' in the eye that adds a professional sparkle to a portrait. Conversely to not have a catchlight can make a subject appear a little 'flatter' and not quite as alive. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;How can I create catchlights?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While a catchlight can happen quite naturally by facing a subject towards a natural light source (and thus no artificial lighting is &lt;em&gt;necessary&lt;/em&gt; in order for a photograph to have one), it is often something that is built into the lighting scheme by a portrait photographer using artificial lighting specifically in order to highlight the eyes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although this is by no means the &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; way to accomplish a catchlight setup, one of the most common artificial catchlight setup consists of placing a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7278/different-light-modifiers-and-their-uses&quot;&gt;snoot&lt;/a&gt; over a light (snooted so that the light doesn't spill over into unwanted areas of the photograph) slightly off-axis from the camera (to avoid the potential for red-eye), dialed in to be a couple of stops under the key light (so it doesn't overpower the main lighting source), and aimed at the subject's face.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/qJZiK.gif&quot; alt=&quot;Catchlight with a snoot lighting diagram&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another popular method of adding a catchlight is via a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7278/different-light-modifiers-and-their-uses&quot;&gt;ringlight&lt;/a&gt;. Ringlights are desirable because of the unique circular highlight that they add to a subjects eyes, which can add a sense of the unusual, or dramatic to a picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Z3jKh.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;100% crop of a ringlight catchlight&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(Photograph by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/rschoeller/3524013307/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Robert Scholler&lt;/a&gt; - Used with permission)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When working with a ringlight it is often necessary to move everything closer to the model in order for the ringlight to have much effect, so in general ringlight portraits are suitable for close to mid-range shots... Full shots, or anything at a distance generally will not show any benefit from a ringlight, whereas to some extent it's always possible to add more 'punch' to a snooted strobe at a distance by simply dialing up the strobe's power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/0MM3J.gif&quot; alt=&quot;Catchlight with a ringlight lighting diagram&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, it is often easier to 'catch' a catchlight if a subject is looking slightly up. This is because most people's eyelids droop (sometimes a lot) when they look down. Looking up widens the eyelids, and thus the eyes giving a more 'alert' look and giving the light more eye to reflect off of. Commonly when my camera is below a subjects natural eye line I will have them adjust where they are looking to exploit this fact. When in doubt, have subjects look up slightly when taking their picture...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are some catchlights better than others?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like most things in photography, catchlights defy hard and fast rules. From natural lights, to softboxes, snoots to ringlights there are a variety of methods to achieving a catchlight, and more often than not it simply boils down to what equipment you have available, the specific needs of the shoot you're working on, and/or which of the various methods suits your photographic style the best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T00:00:42.600" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T00:00:42.600" />
  <row Id="11662" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2221" CreationDate="2011-05-04T19:12:37.397" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to give you the kind of answer that doesn't fly too well around here: outside of the MP-E, any lens Canon makes is a good lens to take portraits. I've seen great portraits shot with super wide angles, I've seen them shot with super-teles. Personally, I love shooting portraits with a 28mm lens and would recommend that focal length to anyone interested in people photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A wider lens allows you to put yourself &quot;into&quot; the situation - you're not offering your viewer a peephole into your world, you're taking them along. You photograph people with context - something so many amateur portait shooters forget. Closeups of faces are trite and boring, there's no story in them no matter how weathered the features. Back up a little and you open a whole world, and that's pretty cool.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T19:12:37.397" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11663" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11666" CreationDate="2011-05-04T19:25:18.500" Score="-4" ViewCount="139" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can someone explain the main differences (pros/cons) between the Canon XS and XSi?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5028" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T17:36:15.280" Title="Canon XS vs XSi" Tags="&lt;canon-450d&gt;&lt;canon-1000d&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11664" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11658" CreationDate="2011-05-04T19:31:58.893" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I usually see this described as creating a &quot;leading line&quot;.  The human eye typically will read/view left to right, so typically a leading line will follow this notion and lead the viewer right to what the photographer intended to highlight in the photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on the type of photography you can use things such as roads, trees, a fence, a models hair, the church aisle, or similar to direct your viewer to a certain area in the photo.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The leading line can give your photos a sense of depth and make it easier for the viewer to see the intended focal point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-04T21:02:10.730" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T21:02:10.730" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11665" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11657" CreationDate="2011-05-04T19:34:33.303" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jay Lance has promised more complete examples, but here's a quick one to get the idea 'til he gets a chance:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Rb2yl.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;My oldest son, Royce&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His right eye (to the left as we see it) has a distinct catch-light. His left eye does not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T19:34:33.303" />
  <row Id="11666" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11663" CreationDate="2011-05-04T19:38:49.200" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1000d/page2.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DPReview's done a great job on that&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Highlights (advantage XSi):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Higher resolution&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Better autofocus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Highlight tone priority&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Improved viewfinder&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of these, the sensor &amp;amp; processor are worth the price of admission.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastEditorUserId="269" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T17:36:15.280" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T17:36:15.280" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11667" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11663" CreationDate="2011-05-04T19:39:32.583" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mainly the XSi will have a higher resolution 12/10MP, more focus points 9/7, larger LCD screen 3in/2.5in, and a faster continuous drive 3.5fps/3fps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are more similar then they are different.  If the price difference is much, I would save the money and spend it on a lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T19:39:32.583" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11668" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11674" CreationDate="2011-05-04T20:15:34.363" Score="3" ViewCount="90" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not a professional photographer, but I use my camera on a regular basis to photograph my familiy and activities I attend.  I own a Canon G7 (older version of the G11) and instead of upgrading to a full-on (D)SLR camera, I've heard that getting a new lens for it would help with picture quality immensely.  So what is a decent general-use lens (or a few common single-purpose lenses) that that will improve the quality of my photos?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5031" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-04T20:39:41.693" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T16:43:57.633" Title="What's a good lens for my Canon G7?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;image-quality&gt;&lt;canon-g11&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="11669" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11658" CreationDate="2011-05-04T20:16:59.977" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The human eye seeks the light, and usually locates the brigthest spot in the image. If there is one bright spot, that's usually the place we start looking. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are no definitive rules in photography, and I'm not trying to say that you always need to let the subject be the &quot;bright spot&quot; in the image, but if you want to lead the viewer to the most important part immediately, you should make it be brighter than it's surroundings. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we look around our eyes tend to follow lines and connected &quot;paths&quot;. There are unlimited ways of how to create such paths, but try using &quot;lines&quot; in the environment. It can be tree branches, buildings, roads,...anything that seems to be connected, but not cluttered. Something with contrasts, that's easy for our eyes to identify and &quot;follow around&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I really enjoyed Michael Freeman's book &quot;The Photographer's Eye&quot;, in which he explains this topic well.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To illustrate how our eyes search bright spots, and follow lines, I have linked to a couple of images from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/larspreben/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;my Flickr page&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an image from the St. Peters church. What is the first you notice in the picture, and how far does the eye lead you automatically?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bright spot in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/larspreben/5162957966/in/set-72157625350398362/lightbox/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;St. Peters Church&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4153/5162957966_ce21af1e04.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;St. Peters Church&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take a look at the image of the bridge in the clouds, and notice what parts of the image you see by letting your eyes guide you automatically. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Leading lines on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/larspreben/5002411149/in/photostream/lightbox/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bridge in the clouds image&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4083/5002411149_6818ce2d14.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Bridge in the clouds image&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I'm looking at the picture from St. Peters Church, my eyes goes directly to the window, and then following the light down to the group of people. It's no path for the eyes to follow from there, which actually works in this picture: For me the most interesting thing is what's happening just there where the light hits the people. ...and who is that enlightened person which everyone is gathering around? ;) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the other image, the bridge it self is the main subject. There are not much contrast in the image, so my eyes does not lock on a specific parts of the image. Instead the eyes &quot;grab on&quot; to something and follows the lines around the picture from there on. When I'm viewing this image, my eyes basically explores the entire frame, ending up in the center of the image where all the lines end.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5029" LastEditorUserId="5029" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T18:58:35.190" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T18:58:35.190" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11670" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11658" CreationDate="2011-05-04T20:21:00.440" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The classic is just converging perspective lines, with the subject at the apex (e.g., a building at the end of a road, person at the end of a rack full of pipes, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With a little care, you can find other possibilities as well though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/pdPMS.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The part I worked at was getting her head lined up so if you follow the curve of the pool from the bottom right, it leads directly to her eyes. I rather liked the cross-wise lines in the grating all pointing directly toward her as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T20:21:00.440" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11671" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11658" CreationDate="2011-05-04T20:25:23.730" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The human brain follows two things very well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Faces &lt;a href=&quot;http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008133566_faces23.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(there's a whole portion of the brain dedicated to it)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Contrast (the optic nerve operates on &lt;a href=&quot;http://ajplegacy.physiology.org/content/130/4/700.extract&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Spatial Summation&lt;/a&gt;, where the nerves outside of a region that's receiving light damps, emphasizing the light).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the first thing that people will look for is a face, and they will follow contrast.  Things that look like faces will also work for point number 1, and if you want to avoid putting faces in, then contrast (or local intensity variations between pixels) will also serve, with the highest contrast areas generally acting as the starting point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those elements provide a place for the eye to land initially, and then the eye will follow contrast around.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T20:25:23.730" />
  <row Id="11672" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11668" CreationDate="2011-05-04T20:26:14.270" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are right that a new lens can improve image quality considerably.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, the &lt;strong&gt;G7 is a fixed-lens camera and therefore you cannot get a new lens for it&lt;/strong&gt;. Sadly I have seen vendors say the contrary to make people buy it but it is a lie.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T20:26:14.270" />
  <row Id="11673" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11668" CreationDate="2011-05-04T20:28:31.013" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Improving the quality of photos&quot; is a difficult goal without knowing what you think is wrong with your shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, you can get a lens adapter, from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensmateonline.com/store/g9.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LensMate&lt;/a&gt;, for instance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, you can use &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CHDK&lt;/a&gt; and get more control over your firmware.  Maybe you feel like your photos can be improved by adding things like timelapse shots?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T20:28:31.013" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11674" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11668" CreationDate="2011-05-04T20:38:56.777" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can in fact get additional lenses for the Canon G7.  More precisely they are called &quot;&lt;strong&gt;converters&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;.  The &quot;gotcha&quot; is that they only sit on top of your existing fixed lens that is built into the G7.  The &lt;strong&gt;Canon WC-DC58B&lt;/strong&gt; is one option that will convert all focal lengths to .75 of the original focal length.  Another option is the &lt;strong&gt;Canon TC-DC58C&lt;/strong&gt; Teleconverter which will give you 2x the focal length of the original lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in fact you aren't going to get higher picture quality, rather you have the ability to shoot at different focal lengths by using these lens converters.  Common knowledge suggests that this will only &lt;strong&gt;multiply any flaws your current built in fixed lens has&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are unsatisfied with the G7's quality of the photos, you aren't going to be able to switch to a different lens or modify it with one of the above converters to get a higher quality.  A DSLR might be the path you want to follow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastEditorUserId="4892" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T16:43:57.633" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T16:43:57.633" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11675" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11638" CreationDate="2011-05-04T20:59:46.540" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are saving to JPEG after processing check your compression settings. File size can climb astonishingly high the closer you get to 100% quality without any noticeable difference in quality. Dropping it down to around 90% can cut file size quite a bit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3758" LastActivityDate="2011-05-04T20:59:46.540" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11676" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11638" CreationDate="2011-05-05T01:47:15.497" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could do &quot;Save for Web&quot; in Photoshop. That'll save you a few MBs. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4989" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T01:47:15.497" />
  <row Id="11677" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-05T04:30:32.783" Score="1" ViewCount="111" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am new to this group. I am just a beginner in photography. I would like to take some personal photographs (especially of kids). Kindly give your suggestions/tips for making it good. Best way of editing, things to consider for taking photos...please forgive my ignorance in this subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My camera is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/compacts/canon_a620&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon A620&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5037" LastEditorUserId="2138" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T15:57:53.477" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T15:57:53.477" Title="Taking/Editing personal photos" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;photo-editing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11678" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3223" CreationDate="2011-05-05T05:05:17.563" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Katz Eye in my Nikon D200, and while I love it, the issues raised by @walter in his answer are there. Visual clutter is the thing I notice most.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another potential issue is the risk of damaging your camera. Rooting around in your expensive piece of photographic equipment can a hairy experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I consider myself being average when it comes to the do-it-yourself department, and I had no problem changing the screen myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T05:05:17.563" />
  <row Id="11679" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11623" CreationDate="2011-05-05T07:25:13.530" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dxo.com/us/photo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DxO Optics&lt;/a&gt; can output processed photos as DNG files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not entirely certain &lt;em&gt;what&lt;/em&gt; it is doing in the DNG file, but they certainly have something in them, since a 25 MB .CR2 somehow turns into a 75 MB .DNG.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2611" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T07:25:13.530" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11680" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11638" CreationDate="2011-05-05T07:47:27.390" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a quick tip photoshop files are .psd files which has all the extra informations of photoshop for further editing. To publish or share it with others in flicker or what ever we convert that file from .psd format to .jpg, .png or .gif as per requirement. Generally .jpg are more suitables one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now for reducing sizes:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;1.) Check image size in photoshop using image-&gt;image size and set it to nearly 800x600 or something that you think more appropirate for sharing. remember larger the dimension larger the file size.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2.) Save it with less jpg quality... again larger the quality larger the size. It can be done using File-&gt;Save for web menu...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;so maintain those two as per requirement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;KOOL, &lt;a href=&quot;http://outsourcingnepal.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Outsourcing Nepal&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5041" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T07:47:27.390" />
  <row Id="11681" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11682" CreationDate="2011-05-05T07:50:07.013" Score="2" ViewCount="95" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have some photos in which I have a lot of subjects, but I would like a single person to be the main focus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I would like to blur other people and subjects in that photo using Adobe Photoshop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can I do it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5041" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T11:48:45.847" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T11:48:45.847" Title="How do I blur the subjects other than main one in photoshop?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;blur&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11682" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11681" CreationDate="2011-05-05T08:02:36.073" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You need to mask out the person you wish to remain sharp, by 'selecting' them. There are various ways to do this. The most precise way is the Polyganol Lasso tool - you simply click a line around the subject. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also automated ways of doing it, the success of which depend on how complicated the selection is: if the subject is isolated on a neutral background, the results are generally good. If the background is 'busy', you might have problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check your Photoshop help file for 'Making Selections' or Google the same for heaps of tutorials.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you have made your selection, you need to 'invert' it, so that you have selected everything &lt;em&gt;but&lt;/em&gt; your subject. You should then Feather the selection, which softens its edge and prevents an artificial looking transition between the subject and background - about 5px is generally fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the most realistic blurring option (i.e. the one that looks most like depth of field blur) is the Lens Blur filter (Filter Menu &gt; Blur &gt; Lens Blur). You can tweak various options to get the result you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is just an overview of what you need to do: there are hundreds of tutorials online. This answer should help you find the right ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T08:02:36.073" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11683" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11657" CreationDate="2011-05-05T08:10:42.530" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jay Lance's answer is fantastic. Can't top that. But just thought I would provide a few good examples and mention that in the Australian film industry, we use the term 'eyelight'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without Eyelight:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Hojbo.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;No Eyelight&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With Eyelight:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/VKmVb.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Eyelight&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/Mz8NL.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4912" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T08:10:42.530" />
  <row Id="11684" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="57" CreationDate="2011-05-05T08:13:40.537" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Others have already discussed most pros and cons, but I'll just have to add this one thing: &lt;strong&gt;Some lenses don't like any filters&lt;/strong&gt;, no matter how good or expensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, Canon EF 85/1.8 USM with an UV filter will create tinted reflections all over the picture from bright lights. This especially bad when shot wide open. I've tried and experienced this with two of these lenses and with high-end coated filters from B+W and Hoya. Ultimately I just gave up and never use any filters with this lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess this probably happens because the front elements of the lens throw some kind of reflection out of the lens in an angle small enough that any additional glass surface will reflect it back in. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1420" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T08:13:40.537" />
  <row Id="11685" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11691" CreationDate="2011-05-05T08:44:32.827" Score="3" ViewCount="133" Body="&lt;p&gt;I need recommendations on entry level budget DSLRs with plenty of bracketing modes (exposure, F-stops, etc for HDR and DOF shots). I am in Germany and am willing to spend upto €600. The brand doesn't matter to me. Also want to know if there are programmable bracketing modes available in entry level DSLRs. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5044" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T11:37:11.657" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T05:14:57.520" Title="What Budget DSLR has bracketing modes?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;hdr&gt;&lt;bracketing&gt;&lt;entry-level&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="11686" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11685" CreationDate="2011-05-05T09:15:23.020" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With that budget, I believe you are looking at something along the lines of the Canon EOS 500D or the Nikon D5000. These are now slightly out of date cameras (still damn fine though) but newer entry level models (like the Nikon D3100) don't have bracketing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bracketing usually means auto-exposure adjustment, which is what you use for HDR. F-stop bracketing is more of a 'hack' - you set the AE bracketing as normal, but you set the camera to Shutter Priority, so that the camera is forced to adjust the aperture to modify the exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not sure what you mean by 'programmable bracket mode'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastEditorUserId="3205" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T09:49:50.497" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T09:49:50.497" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11687" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-05T09:47:39.333" Score="1" ViewCount="139" Body="&lt;p&gt;this is very beginner's question, i am asking this before buying my first DSLR.&#xA;I just like to know what is the video size for Nikon D5100 in both 720px, 1080px videos.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;i heard that it's 4GB for 10min. is that true?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;and how to convert them in small size?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4923" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T09:47:39.333" ClosedDate="2011-05-05T19:11:05.290" Title="Video size / length of Nikon D5100" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;hd-video&gt;&lt;slr&gt;" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="11688" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11695" CreationDate="2011-05-05T10:59:01.727" Score="15" ViewCount="206" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I take a photo of a distant object with a zoom lens, and then geotag it manually, would it be more useful to tag the location of the distant object (what is seen in the photo) or the location from where the photograph was taken? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, if I take a photograph of Alcatraz from Coit Tower in San Francisco, should I tag that photo with the location of Alcatraz or Coit Tower?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2127" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T14:31:08.560" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T18:04:14.777" Title="Should I geotag the location of the subject or the photographer?" Tags="&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;geotagging&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="11689" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11694" CreationDate="2011-05-05T11:03:52.123" Score="35" ViewCount="1407" Body="&lt;p&gt;I prefer PNG format to JPG, because JPG uses &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossy_compression&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lossy compression&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I capture a screen in my PC or scan a picture or document in my scanner, I always save them as PNG format.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;If a camera could save its data as PNG format, I'd use the feature even if I needed to buy more memory cards.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I haven't see any camera that does. Why not? Why don't most (or any) cameras support PNG format?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/product_finder/cameras/digital_camera/ixus/digital_ixus_200_is/index.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;My camera&lt;/a&gt; doesn't support RAW.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2078" LastEditorUserId="2078" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T00:54:57.960" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T11:05:02.820" Title="Why don't most cameras support PNG format?" Tags="&lt;jpeg&gt;&lt;file-format&gt;&lt;image-compression&gt;&lt;png&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="11690" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11689" CreationDate="2011-05-05T11:23:01.027" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;PNG may use a lossless compression algorithm, but it is lossy in comparison to the raw data. You lose bit depth, the camera may introduce demosaicing artifacts, you may bake in a bad color balance, the camera may apply inappropriate sharpening, the in-camera noise reduction may wash out detail, etc.  I don't think there's a big demand for a format that's as large as raw, but less amenable to postprocessing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2138" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T11:23:01.027" CommentCount="19" />
  <row Id="11691" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11685" CreationDate="2011-05-05T11:47:14.037" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Pentax K-r is currently at €598 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.de/Pentax-SLR-Digitalkamera-Megapixel-LiveView-Videofunktion/dp/B002PHN274/ref=sr_1_6?s=ce-de&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1304595510&amp;amp;sr=1-6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;with the two-lens (18-55mm and 50-200mm) kit&lt;/a&gt;, and it includes a basic automatic bracketing mode, which will take three shots with different exposure. It also has an automatic in-camera HDR mode (also with three images), and a multi-exposure mode which automatically overlays the 3 with a simple blend.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can choose how many stops to vary the exposure by, and what order (underexposed first, then regular, then overexposed, or another way) you want them in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if you want more shots than 3, or if you want to vary something other than exposure (or choose &lt;em&gt;which&lt;/em&gt; exposure parameter is varied), I don't think you'll be able to get it without spending more. (The twice-as-pricey Pentax K-5 has a lot more options.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on your needs, you might be best served by a non-dSLR camera — specifically, a Canon point-and-shoot model running the &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CHDK firmware hack&lt;/a&gt;, which could give you very powerful programmatic control over bracketing. With your budget, you could go for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.de/Canon-PowerShot-Digitalkamera-Megapixel-bildstabilisiert/dp/B0042X04L6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1304596898&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;high-end P&amp;amp;S Canon G12&lt;/a&gt;, which is listed as &lt;a href=&quot;http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/G12&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;supported by a beta version of CHDK&lt;/a&gt;. (Models change all the time, of course; if you come back to this question a year from now, make sure to see what's latest.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, you can, of course, simply bracket manually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T12:04:14.590" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T12:04:14.590" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11692" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11689" CreationDate="2011-05-05T12:17:18.333" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Shoot RAW, develop to a PNG file (if the software allows).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T12:17:18.333" />
  <row Id="11693" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11677" CreationDate="2011-05-05T12:46:18.660" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you might want to try Google Picasa. It's an easy to use photo-organizer that also has some non-destructive editing features. You can crop, rotate, sharped, correct color, saturation, light, apply B &amp;amp; W filters, etc. It's also very easy to upload your images to facebook, flick or make your own photo web site. It's free and easy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4977" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T12:46:18.660" />
  <row Id="11694" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11689" CreationDate="2011-05-05T12:52:42.297" Score="37" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The JPEG format has the advantage of giving small files. The RAW formats have the advantage of preserving all the data collected at the shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The PNG format gives neither of these advantages, so you don't even get a compromise between the other formats, you get almost only the drawbacks from both formats.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T11:05:02.820" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T11:05:02.820" CommentCount="11" />
  <row Id="11695" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11688" CreationDate="2011-05-05T12:59:41.680" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most of the time you have more use of the position from where you took the photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you know from where the picture was taken, you can often from the photo see exactly which direction the camera was pointed. If you know the position of the subject, you might be able to see approximately which direction it was taken from, but seldom the exact position.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, if you know that you will only ever be interrested in the location of the subject, you can discard any other information. Geotagging is always a bit of a compromise; it would be nice to have an exact three dimensional vector from the position of the camera to the position of the subject, but we only tag one point, and only in two dimensions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T13:06:10.397" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T13:06:10.397" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11696" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11689" CreationDate="2011-05-05T13:23:31.110" Score="26" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Image size notes aside, a big reason is that PNG does not have a standardized means of EXIF embedding and that will immediately shy the camera makers away from it. There would be a lot of information lost by doing image conversion to PNG in camera as a result and, for the most part, would probably been seen as a negative by most photographers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T13:23:31.110" CommentCount="15" />
  <row Id="11697" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11688" CreationDate="2011-05-05T14:30:45.723" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's no &quot;right&quot; answer to this question; that said I would take a look at why you geotag your photos.  Depending on the answer I could make arguments either way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you geotag photos to keep a record of &lt;strong&gt;where you've been&lt;/strong&gt; then it probably makes sense to tag them with the location of the camera.  Using your example, as you view your geotagged pictures you'll be able to look back and say &quot;Ah, yes, I was at Coit Tower and here are the images I created while there.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you geotag photos as a &lt;strong&gt;descriptor of the photo subject&lt;/strong&gt; then the geotag should be applied to the location of the subject.  Again with your example, you could geotag the photo with the location of Alacatraz and then if you upload to Flickr, someone could see your image as they browse photos of Alcatraz.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your choice depends on how you plan to use the information in the future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T14:30:45.723" />
  <row Id="11698" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-05T14:44:43.417" Score="2" ViewCount="75" Body="&lt;p&gt;I intend to take some raw images using my Canon-450D, and process them offline using some tool. Then I need to get some objective(numerical) metrics for those images like Image Noise, Image Sharpness(blur), Colour Accuracy(or some kind of Colour artifacts) which would help me decide the quality of the processed image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What are the tools which could help me get these metrics for BMP/JPEG images?It could be 'absolute measurements' or some relative computations which may need a reference image. Either of these options are ok.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a. Noise in Image&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;b. Image Sharpness(Blur in the image &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;c. Chroma noise/some metric measuring colour artifacts ?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What are other objective metrics which help in deciding image quality?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S.: I have checked &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imatest.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Imatest&lt;/a&gt;. But there, to get almost any metric, one needs to have the captured images of Standard Test charts (like X-Rite colour chart, ISO Charts, SFRPlus charts, etc.), because it seems to allow the user to select patches in the test chart images as Region of Interest and then computes the metrics for those regions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't seem to give metrics for images having any general content/scene in it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2438" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T15:10:20.790" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T15:24:16.883" Title="How can I get objective, numerical Image Quality measurements for my photos?" Tags="&lt;image-quality&gt;&lt;judging&gt;&lt;metrics&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11699" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11698" CreationDate="2011-05-05T15:14:51.787" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although you're looking for computational metrics rather than human perception ones, I think John Cavan's answer to that question nails both counts. See:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10413/what-parameters-can-i-use-to-evaluate-a-perceptual-image-quality/10431#10431&quot;&gt;What parameters can I use to evaluate a &amp;quot;Perceptual Image Quality&amp;quot;?&lt;/a&gt;, answer #10431.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm marking this answer Community Wiki since it's not a direct answer — I encourage everyone to go read John's answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(And I'm also not marking this question as a duplicate of that one, since while I think the answer is the same in this sense, there may be pragmatic &lt;em&gt;just give you what you're asking for rather than disagreeing with the assumptions&lt;/em&gt; answers that differ from the answers from the human parameters.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T15:24:16.883" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T15:24:16.883" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-05T15:14:51.787" />
  <row Id="11700" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11689" CreationDate="2011-05-05T15:37:49.860" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;IMO you should always shoot in RAW, if you are not worried about memory costs RAW is the way to go. This gives you the best opportunity to correct images in post processing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Below is a quote from:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/252-PNG-and-Cameras.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/252-PNG-and-Cameras.html&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PNG is absolutely wonderful for storing true 24-bit color images. Processing PNG files is very simple and requires no application-specific fields. However, it is computationally expensive, lacks the ability to store multiple images, and does not have many standardized text fields for managing meta data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;JPEG is a wasteful file format filled with specialized fields. It is also a poor choice for true color representation. However, it is computationally inexpensive, supports multiple image storage, and scaling images is trivial. And sadly, it widely accepted as the de facto standard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5056" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T15:37:49.860" />
  <row Id="11701" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11677" CreationDate="2011-05-05T15:48:30.817" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To take photos I would suggest putting your camera into the &lt;strong&gt;&quot;Kids and Pets&quot; custom mode&lt;/strong&gt;.  This should give you a good basis to shoot kids that are often moving around quickly.  If you want to get more technical you could put the camera into &lt;strong&gt;&quot;Av&quot; or Aperture priority&lt;/strong&gt; mode and set the aperture to be the widest value possible such as f/2.8-4.1.  This allows the most light possible into the lens, and will freeze your subject(kids).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Editing comes down to personal preference.  If you are looking for free software to get started with organization and cataloging of photos, &lt;strong&gt;Picasa by Google&lt;/strong&gt; is a great choice.  If you are looking to do more advanced manipulation of the photos then Picasa will allow, &lt;strong&gt;Photoshop Elements&lt;/strong&gt; is a great option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T15:48:30.817" />
  <row Id="11702" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11712" CreationDate="2011-05-05T16:03:39.470" Score="9" ViewCount="85" Body="&lt;p&gt;I realize the best resource is a lawyer, but aside from that. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How did you write your contracts for your photography business? Are there resources out there to help me write my own contracts and model releases? Are there any exceptional templates you have found?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are key things I should include in the contract? What are key things I should be aware of?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Areas of interest specifically are rights to photos, payments and use of photos in portfolio.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4124" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T17:14:46.970" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T15:25:10.433" Title="What resources can you suggest to help me write contracts?" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;business&gt;&lt;contracts&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11703" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11688" CreationDate="2011-05-05T16:31:53.387" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Think of large subjects, especially mountains. You're going to get wildly different viewpoints depending on where you stand (and thus what angle you take your photo at).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you or someone else wanted to do something from the same perspective (ex: recreate the photo), they'd need to know the photographer's location, not the location of the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Geotagging with the subject's location means that you effectively lose data. There can be a large number (infinite, really) of different locations from which to photograph a single subject. It's probably easier to figure the subject location from the photographer's location than vice versa.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a perfect world, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The metadata would include the direction the camera is pointing (azimuth), vertical (inclination) angle, and even the distance to the subject&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You'd have two sets of metadata for geotagging: photo location, subject location. (The latter could even be calculated if you have the direction/inclination/distance. Barring that though, you could set it manually.) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T16:31:53.387" />
  <row Id="11704" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11689" CreationDate="2011-05-05T16:33:39.173" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;PNG is &lt;em&gt;portable &lt;strong&gt;network&lt;/strong&gt; graphics&lt;/em&gt;. It is targetted for the web, and rather simple (in colors) images. Its compression is &lt;em&gt;very ineffective&lt;/em&gt; for realistic graphics as you will shoot with a camera, so the results are nearly uncompressed. As such you can then simply use RAW files, which do add the benefit, that there is no lossy conversion to an RGB colorspace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason JPEG is used is simply that its compression is very good and works very well with more realistic graphics where individual artifacts are invisible to the human eye. In addition JPEG is supported by nearly any device and offers many way to add additional metadata, including color profiles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No single RGB file format is able to store the image exactly as the camera sensor sees it; there is always some kind of loss in that conversion. As such it makes sense to use a format that has good compression which doesn't really harm the picture in total. If you are looking for a real lossless format, the camera's RAW is the only direction you can go, from which you then can create whatever file you desire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1435" LastEditorUserId="1435" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T16:51:04.460" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T16:51:04.460" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="11705" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11707" CreationDate="2011-05-05T16:45:38.303" Score="6" ViewCount="128" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I'm shooting my pictures as RAWs (or actually JPEG+RAW) for a while, I haven't really have ever worked with the RAW files so far.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When opening the RAW files, and playing with the options, I'm always scared of changing the “defaults” (i.e. the inherit settings of that particular image) for that RAW. As such I'm usually opening the file as a copy (i.e. the “Open as copy” function in CameraRAW).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What happens to the file when I'm opening it directly, without creating a copy first? Will the RAW be changed, and as such the change time touched? I've seen somewhere that the RAW file is untouched and instead some configuration file for that RAW is created. Does it always work like that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1435" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T17:09:59.017" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T17:56:52.783" Title="Are RAW files safe from changes?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;raw&gt;&lt;file-management&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11706" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11705" CreationDate="2011-05-05T16:51:27.357" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally, the RAW files are not really changed. The changes you perform are saved in an associated file and are applied to the raw data for viewing and conversion to JPEG.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T16:51:27.357" />
  <row Id="11707" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11705" CreationDate="2011-05-05T17:03:11.160" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Using Adobe Camera RAW you are essentially just flipping switches that don't do much till you export the file to a format such as &lt;strong&gt;JPEG&lt;/strong&gt;.  Your original capture time, and the EXIF data associated with that original shot will not degrade due to you changing the EV value or similar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Changes made to the RAW file are completely non-destructive&lt;/strong&gt;.  The only thing that changes is the metadata stored on how to render that image to an output such as JPEG.  The original file is left unchanged and intact completely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Technically Adobe Camera RAW as part of Photoshop has the option to store your camera raw settings in two places, either the &lt;strong&gt;Camera Raw Database or an XMP Sidecar File&lt;/strong&gt;.  The Camera Raw database is indexed by file content, so the image retains camera raw settings even if the camera raw image file is moved or renamed(on the same computer).  The XMP sidecar file stores the settings in a separate file, in the same folder as the camera raw file, with the same base name and an .xmp extension.(&lt;a href=&quot;http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Photoshop/11.0/WSD94FB319-761D-4e9a-BC8D-24DF7EBC05B4.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ref&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you edit a RAW file in an Application such as Lightroom, you have the option to store the changes to a &lt;strong&gt;sidecar XMP file&lt;/strong&gt;.  This not only preserves the original RAW file without modification, but frees your images from the Lightroom catalog.  You can now move your files around and only bring along the XMP file instead of the entire Lightroom catalog.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Overall, &lt;strong&gt;go ahead and mess around with the Camera RAW settings&lt;/strong&gt;, you aren't going to do any damage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastEditorUserId="4892" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T17:56:52.783" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T17:56:52.783" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11708" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11705" CreationDate="2011-05-05T17:05:59.007" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming the CameraRAW you refer to is Adobe's, so you're opening in something like LightRoom or Photoshop, it won't change the raw file itself. It saves you're settings in a sidecar file (same base name, extension of &lt;code&gt;.XMP&lt;/code&gt;) or in a separate database, not in the file itself. When you go to save it, there won't be any option for just saving the original file, only for creating a new file with same base name (though if type in the original name, &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; tell it you want to overwrite the original, I suppose you &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; do so).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you've messed up the settings for a particular picture so badly you want to get back to the beginning, you can just delete the &lt;code&gt;whatever.xmp&lt;/code&gt; file. There are usually other ways, but that's a fairly dependable last resort unless you're using LightRoom and storing the settings in a database.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T17:05:59.007" />
  <row Id="11709" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11702" CreationDate="2011-05-05T17:10:34.663" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would recommend visiting ASMP's website: &lt;a href=&quot;http://asmp.org/tutorials/business-forms-and-contracts.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://asmp.org/tutorials/business-forms-and-contracts.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They have extensive information about business formation, contracts and the rest. They're an awesome group; i highly recommend considering obtaining membership to their association.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Membership allows you access to a variety of resources, networking, and seminars.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, You can also check out PPA: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ppa.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ppa.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With their membership they give you access to their lawyers who specialize in Photography. They might be able to provide you very valuable legal advice at affordable rates.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact the PPA has a landing page devoted to Sample Contracts: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ppa.com/articles/search.php?category=18&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ppa.com/articles/search.php?category=18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5026" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T17:10:34.663" />
  <row Id="11710" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11702" CreationDate="2011-05-05T17:11:46.113" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many of the professional trade organizations such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://asmp.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ASMP&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://asmp.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PPA&lt;/a&gt;, etc. offer sample/template documents including contracts, model releases, and other legal documents.  In addition to providing various sample information, they have relationships with lawyers and others who have experience with the law as it relates specifically to photographers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T17:11:46.113" />
  <row Id="11711" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11714" CreationDate="2011-05-05T17:16:27.483" Score="11" ViewCount="257" Body="&lt;p&gt;The original JPEG format was updated in 2000 to provide a variety of features including less artifacts, better compression and lossless compression.  Why haven't cameras updated to use this new format?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5058" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T20:09:08.680" Title="Why don't cameras support JPEG 2000 format?" Tags="&lt;jpeg&gt;&lt;file-format&gt;&lt;image-compression&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11712" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11702" CreationDate="2011-05-05T17:18:19.273" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could try the book &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/158115206X&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Business and Legal Forms for Photographers&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The perfect answer to your question might be multiple answers.  If you are looking for a model release you will want a different contract then a wedding for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Digital Photography School has an &lt;strong&gt;example contract &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/sample-wedding-photography-agreement&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.  As well as some &lt;strong&gt;tips &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/wedding-photography-agreement-contract-tips&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally if you want to go the cheap route I would browse and copy a few that you find online, and build it to the best of your knowledge.  Overall you want to make sure you don't get sued or lose your house over a failed photography shoot, but to make sure of that the only way is to &lt;strong&gt;hire a lawyer&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastEditorUserId="4892" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T17:41:55.697" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T17:41:55.697" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11713" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11711" CreationDate="2011-05-05T17:18:47.993" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because people who really care a lot about quality generally just use raw files. JPEG 2000 is quite a bit of extra work to implement, for what is apparently perceived as a fairly minimal benefit in quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T17:18:47.993" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="11714" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11711" CreationDate="2011-05-05T17:27:02.747" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;JPEG 2000 has not garnered wide acceptance due to a few factors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lacking backwards compatibility to JPEG&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lack of wide browser support&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Questionable legal status&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(Only) 20% higher performance, while considering how inexpensive storage is&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Additional processing power/time needed to create&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;JPEG already considered quite good&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Amount of rework to the code in cameras and desktop software is high&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T17:27:02.747" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11715" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11711" CreationDate="2011-05-05T17:29:20.600" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wager it never really was adopted as a better JPG-standard due to its &lt;a href=&quot;https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/JPEG_2000#Legal_issues&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;licensing issues&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T17:29:20.600" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11716" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11711" CreationDate="2011-05-05T17:47:00.747" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With any improved image format, there's a chicken and egg problem. A format isn't useful unless people can see it, and if there's not widespread display medium support, it's hard to get started. If you look at Wikipedia's &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000#Applications&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;list of applications with JPEG 2000 support&lt;/a&gt;, you'll notice that major web browser support is weak at best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Same goes for digital picture frames, smart phones, and even printers with native support. So, if you have a JPEG 2000 image, it's hard to &lt;em&gt;do anything&lt;/em&gt; with it.This means that no one has much incentive to make devices which produce JPEG 2000 files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or maybe it's the other way around. Chicken and egg and all that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That means that in order for something to really catch on, it has to have a big, clear benefit, either to end users who demand it, or as a secret-sauce competitive advantage for a manufacturer, or else some sort of overall industry agreement to move forward (which is like &lt;em&gt;herding&lt;/em&gt; those chickens). If there's no advantage, or if there's even possible drawbacks (JPEG 2000 isn't perfect in avoiding artifacts, is comparatively computationally expensive, and it went through a long period of patent licensing uncertainty), there's not going to be a place to start from, and so nowhere to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All that seems unlikely for any progress at all, but I think &lt;em&gt;eventually&lt;/em&gt; as consumer technology gets better at broader gamut displays, the current JPEG standard is going to really see its age, and maybe we'll eventually see something like &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XR&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;JPEG XR&lt;/a&gt; start to gain traction. But maybe not — maybe the rapidly expanding data storage universe, which is growing to hold more and more &lt;em&gt;video&lt;/em&gt; content, will make the storage and data-transfer needs for lossly-compressed images seem humorously small anyway. And then we'll all go back to 1986's &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagged_Image_File_Format&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;TIFF format&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="4892" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T20:09:08.680" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T20:09:08.680" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11717" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11688" CreationDate="2011-05-05T18:04:14.777" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/TagNames/GPS.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/TagNames/GPS.html&lt;/a&gt; shows a list of GPS-Exif-Tags. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides [GPSLatitude, GPSLongitude] I find [GPSDestLatitude, GPSDestLongitude] and [GPSDestBearing, GPSDestDistance].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it is possible to tag both locations - but which software supports this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5061" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T18:04:14.777" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11718" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-05-05T18:11:33.060" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T18:11:33.060" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T18:11:33.060" />
  <row Id="11719" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-05-05T18:11:33.060" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="The storage media used by digital cameras.  Currently the most common memory card formats are Compact Flash (CF) and Secure Digital (SD)" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T18:23:04.293" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T18:23:04.293" />
  <row Id="11720" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-05T19:12:43.637" Score="10" ViewCount="303" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been looking into the &lt;a href=&quot;http://gopro.com/cameras/hd-hero-960-camera/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;GoPro HD Hero 960&lt;/a&gt; as an option for more creative photography pursuits.  Examples include high speed exterior car photography, rock climbing, skydiving, bicycle riding, underwater shots, and so on.  Basically anywhere I wouldn't dream of bringing a $3k DSLR.  It has a 5MP time lapse still shot capability, with the option to shoot every x-seconds or take a single shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am having trouble finding high quality examples of this practice.  I can only find people who took one-off shots, or are not serious about photography.  I plan to do as much as possible with the images, show them off on my website, flickr, to friends, print them, etc.  Not likely to sell any of these images, but who says that isn't possible?  How will this camera suit my needs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastEditorUserId="4892" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T20:18:45.053" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T11:52:11.493" Title="How does the GoPro camera perform for photography?" Tags="&lt;timelapse&gt;&lt;sports&gt;&lt;gopro&gt;&lt;extreme-sports&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11721" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11723" CreationDate="2011-05-05T20:48:53.043" Score="9" ViewCount="124" Body="&lt;p&gt;After a certain number of repairs or warranty claims does Canon replace the equipment?  Specifically Canon EF lenses.  If no defined policy exists, do you have experience one way or another?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T23:53:26.803" Title="Does Canon have a no lemon policy on EF lenses?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;repair&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="11722" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11721" CreationDate="2011-05-05T21:01:57.157" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon's warranty terms state that a defective lens:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;will be repaired with new or&#xA;  comparable rebuilt parts or exchanged&#xA;  for a refurbished Product, as&#xA;  determined by Canon or the authorized&#xA;  service provider n their sole&#xA;  discretion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I find nothing to indicate that Canon specifically has any sort of &quot;no lemon&quot; policy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Terms found by browsing Canon's website to a current lens, then expanding the &quot;Service &amp;amp; Support&quot; section, then the Warranty link.  I couldn't find a way to link to it directly.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T21:32:02.830" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T21:32:02.830" />
  <row Id="11723" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11721" CreationDate="2011-05-05T23:07:50.823" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I doubt that Canon has a sweeping 'no lemon' policy beyond what is offered in their basic warranty language, I will say this: photographers who are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/standard_display/CPS&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon Professional Services&lt;/a&gt; members are offered services well above and beyond those that are offered within the basic warranty language. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As someone who over the years has had equipment lens malfunctions both as a non-CPS member, and also as a member I've personally experienced the difference in service level... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had a regular warranty claim several years ago which essentially went the 'standard' route with Canon of 'ship the lens back to us at your expense and we'll repair or replace it. You'll be without your lens for 2 or 3 weeks while we take care of it.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a CPS member, on the other hand... Last year I had a lens go out on me in the middle of a project with a tight deadline and their response was one of 'no-questions-asked' next-day-air shipping of a brand-new duplicate to the malfunctioning lens at their expense. Upon shipping my defective lens back to them (again, at their expense), I was told that my lens's electronics did indeed have a problem (which was causing AF 'scrubbing' problems) and to simply keep the lens they had sent me in exchange 'with their apologies.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I get the feeling that the customer service reps with the CPS program are given pretty broad leeway in how they can handle things for the members... Maybe that's where the notion/idea/rumor of a 'no lemon' policy has stemmed from?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-05T23:53:26.803" LastActivityDate="2011-05-05T23:53:26.803" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11724" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11726" CreationDate="2011-05-06T00:51:46.260" Score="7" ViewCount="140" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Digital-SLR-Cameras/25446/D90.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon D90&lt;/a&gt; and would like to set the aperture to f/1.4 and the shutter speed to around 1/60, all while having the camera compute what ISO is required for the current light conditions.  I am choosing these settings to get the most possible light without worry that an unsteady hand will cause picture blur due to movement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have the &quot;A&quot; setting where aperture and ISO are held and shutter speed varies as well as &quot;Auto&quot; where all three are set by the camera and it doesn't ever seem to choose f/1.4.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2371" LastEditorUserId="4892" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T03:09:11.297" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T03:57:27.010" Title="How do I manually set the aperture and shutter speed, while auto selecting ISO with the Nikon D90?" Tags="&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;iso&gt;&lt;nikon-d90&gt;&lt;shutter-speed&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11725" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11607" CreationDate="2011-05-06T01:06:11.330" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://amzn.com/B003962DXE&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH20K&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; is an excellent camera that just matches your $160 price range.  Unfortunately for you it does use a Li-Ion battery pack.  I would grab this model and head to ebay for a handful of off brand batteries for extremely cheap.  If you don't have an issue with carrying a ton of AA's, then I don't see why this wouldn't work either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/ur4gr.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T01:06:11.330" />
  <row Id="11726" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11724" CreationDate="2011-05-06T01:32:05.230" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It sounds like you are interested in an &lt;strong&gt;Auto ISO&lt;/strong&gt; type mode, that Pentax refers to as TAv mode.  This allows you to manually adjust the aperture and shutter speed, and the camera determines the optimal ISO.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nikon does not have a special name for this mode, but you can achieve the same results by putting the camera into &lt;strong&gt;&quot;M&quot; for manual mode, and setting your ISO to Auto ISO&lt;/strong&gt;.  In your case, just set it to &quot;M&quot; mode, Auto ISO, with an aperture of f/1.4 and a shutter speed of 1/60.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastEditorUserId="4892" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T01:58:15.180" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T01:58:15.180" />
  <row Id="11727" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11724" CreationDate="2011-05-06T01:58:37.023" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming you have a lens that can do f/1.4, set yourself to manual, with aperture at 1.4, shutter speed to 1/60, and then turn on auto-iso (in the menu; I use this on the d300 all the time, but I'm sure it's in a different location in the d90).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That way, the aperture and shutter speed will be constant, but the iso will fluctuate as you like.  I set my auto iso to go in 1/3 steps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T01:58:37.023" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11728" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3632" CreationDate="2011-05-06T05:07:02.463" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just to add something to Karel's very useful link. I think there's a saying &quot;not to cover expensive glass with cheap glass&quot;. (Even though &quot;cheap&quot; may not always mean &quot;low-quality&quot;) If you modify/filter the light with low-quality/cheap glass your expensive lens may not be able perform up to its maximum, and then the sensor/film either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And may be investing on an expensive CPL and buying the biggest possible (may be 86 instead of 56) and buying adapters (that's relatively cheap) to match your filter screws might be an idea to think about as well. So you won't be spending money that frequently on expensive filters each and every time you buy a lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And stacking CPL with UV might also not be a good idea (specially if you are just using UV filter for protection) since UV filter can also modify the light to a certain degree.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope these will give you a start exploring more on these :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5070" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T05:07:02.463" />
  <row Id="11729" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-06T05:50:32.080" Score="3" ViewCount="136" Body="&lt;p&gt;I work in the entertainment industry and am looking to produce friendly looking images of our employees (sales managers, customer support people, and so on) to put on our company's website.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What things should I be considering in order to get the best pictures possible?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I have a &quot;canvas&quot; of 203×227 (width×height) and image on canvas would be 152×157. Currently I have different sizes of images. What would be the best way to make images that fit well into that image size, aspect ratio with respect to the image size (i.e. 152×157)?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What should the background/lighting of the image be?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Any advice, hints etc.?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5072" LastEditorUserId="5072" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-07T05:05:31.760" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T05:05:31.760" Title="What should be considered for employee photos to put on company's website?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;image-quality&gt;&lt;web&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11730" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11734" CreationDate="2011-05-06T05:55:37.720" Score="9" ViewCount="203" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the best way to achieve very long exposures in very bright, sunlit conditions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Right now, I have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adorama.com/HY77ND400.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hoya ND-400 X&lt;/a&gt; filter (9 stops reduction), and even with my camera set to ISO 50, and F22, my exposures are still in the range of 5-30 seconds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ideally I want at least 1 minute, 5 would be nice. I've had some great (night) shots that involved 800 second (14 minute) exposures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've tried stacking crossed polarizers on top of the ND filter, but I get a LOT of vignetting, and the entire affair is rather unwieldy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a better way to manage very long exposures during the day?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;I'm mostly shooting beach scenes, which are generally very bright white. Wave motion in long exposures produces a beautiful hazy effect, that I really like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;B+H produce a 17 stop ND filter, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adorama.com/BW77ND1XC.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;according to Adorama&lt;/a&gt;, but I can't find anyone selling it, or find it on B+H's website, for that matter.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2611" LastEditorUserId="2611" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T22:14:29.897" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T02:22:46.093" Title="ND Filter not Dense enough - How do I get long exposures in very bright situations, where my ND filter isn't enough?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;long-exposure&gt;&lt;sunlight&gt;&lt;neutral-density&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11731" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11730" CreationDate="2011-05-06T06:07:07.933" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One option would be to stack multiple ND filters together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The primary disadvantage to this (other than cost) is that as you stack the filters you'll increase the chance of vignetting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T06:07:07.933" />
  <row Id="11732" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11730" CreationDate="2011-05-06T06:07:43.713" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, the first and most obvious solution is not to shoot such exposures in the middle of the day. If you &lt;em&gt;have&lt;/em&gt; to, then try getting another high-stop ND filter and stacking that in front of your existing one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T06:07:43.713" />
  <row Id="11733" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11730" CreationDate="2011-05-06T06:10:24.363" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A pinhole would give you about 6 stops slower exposure than f/22, and you could attach your ND filter with a carefully placed gaffer tape.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T06:10:24.363" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11734" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11730" CreationDate="2011-05-06T06:18:29.510" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I see two options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/10458/378&quot;&gt;stack ND filters&lt;/a&gt;. Sounds like you just need to eke out another stop or four, so your second filter doesn't have to be quite as extreme as the 9-stop filter you already have. By only having two filters, rather than 3, you should be able to reduce the vignetting a bit. It would help if your filters were the slim kind designed for wide-angle lenses. You might also consider getting a bigger-diameter filter and a step-up ring, or a square gel-type kit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other option, which doesn't require buying any more hardware, is to take multiple long exposures and &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/8092/378&quot;&gt;average them in post-processing&lt;/a&gt;. Just take several shots at the exposure level you can achieve, then blend them together. This is a pretty common technique when creating star trails, and you can achieve different looks by using different blending modes (e.g. star trails will appear brighter than they &quot;should&quot; if you use a Maximum blending mode instead of the average.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T06:18:29.510" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11735" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-06T06:28:04.560" Score="13" ViewCount="426" Body="&lt;p&gt;For example, for a recent &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11544/why-does-jpeg-quality-go-up-to-twelve/11549#comment-17612&quot;&gt;conversation about JPEG compression&lt;/a&gt; I wanted to compare pixel for pixel what changed between two JPEGs (one with compression level 100, and one with compression level 95).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do I generate good visual maps of what changed without tedious custom software programing? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T12:20:53.107" Title="How can I tell exactly what changed between two images?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;comparison&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="11736" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11735" CreationDate="2011-05-06T06:45:19.597" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Gimp has two functions implemented to show the difference of two images. Take a look here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.linuxtopia.org/online_books/graphics_tools/gimp_advanced_guide/gimp_guide_node55_001.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.linuxtopia.org/online_books/graphics_tools/gimp_advanced_guide/gimp_guide_node55_001.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to calculate the exact difference you need a tool like Matlab. See here for an example:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mathworks.com/help/toolbox/images/ref/imabsdiff.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.mathworks.com/help/toolbox/images/ref/imabsdiff.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5019" LastEditorUserId="5019" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T07:22:59.220" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T07:22:59.220" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11737" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11735" CreationDate="2011-05-06T07:01:20.713" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you use Photoshop, here's how I'd do it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put the two jpegs in the same psd file, in two separate layers. They should overlap exactly, since their dimensions are the same. (which one goes on top doesn't matter).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Set the layer blending mode to &quot;Difference.&quot; You'd see a mostly black result. Depends on the quality difference between the two original layers you may see more or less of the noise. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/I6VPG.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T07:01:20.713" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="11738" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11735" CreationDate="2011-05-06T07:04:38.857" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Open one of the images in GIMP or Photoshop.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Add the second image as a new layer on top of the first one.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set the blend mode of the top layer to &quot;Difference&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the resulting image the black parts show where the original images are identical and anything lighter shows differences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3521" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T07:04:38.857" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11739" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11735" CreationDate="2011-05-06T07:10:57.347" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Photoshop + Layers FTW. (yes, you can also use the Gimp, or any other editing software with the same functions.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Start with your base image, in the case above, I used the jpeg quality 100 image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;create a new layer atop it&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;paste the second image into that layer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;set the layer style to &quot;difference&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;create an effect layer atop that&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;set the effect to threshold&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;set the threshold value to 1&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the resulting image, any pixel that is any any way different between the two images will be white. You can adjust it to allow things to be &quot;a little different&quot; by altering the threshold value.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example showing a LOT of difference between jpeg 92 and 100 from Lightroom.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/l0YN2.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;comparing jpeg 92 and 100 from LR with photoshop layers&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example showing no difference at all between 95 and 100.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/kzEaH.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;comparing jpeg 95 and 100 from LR with photoshop layers&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not that's just showing a binary &quot;changed or not&quot;, what if you wanted more detail on how much it changed, say by color channel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Replace the threshold adjustment layer with a curves adjustment layer.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;edit the curve&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;turn on show clipping&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;grab the input white handle below the lower right corner and drag it over to the left, as far as you can go&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;slowly move back to the right until you don't see any clipping (the preview image is all black)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;turn clipping back off and save the curve change&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The brighter the resulting pixels, the more they're different in that color. The downside though is you end up with a lot of grey mud... so sometimes it's easier to just threshold it to see where differences are. That's why I build both and toggle which one is visible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/4w1GQ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;more descriptive view of the difference&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T07:10:57.347" />
  <row Id="11740" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-06T07:12:57.080" Score="14" ViewCount="352" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm curious about a photographic technique called 'Miksang photography.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is Miksang photography?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What are some resources for helping me to learn how to 'do' Miksang photography (or incorporate it into my photography)? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does Miksang photography have any grounding in art history (e.g. similarly to how- in a broad sense- the development of 'modernism' in art can be seen as a reaction against the more traditional 'romantic' art movement of the late 19th and early 20th century), or is the technique an outlier with no underpinning in the timeline of photography as art.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-07T17:15:14.067" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T06:24:23.990" Title="What is Miksang Photography?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="17" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="11741" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11689" CreationDate="2011-05-06T07:16:24.750" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both formats have their Pros and Cons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the real reason why JPEG is more prevalent than PNG is that the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jpeg.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;people behind JPEG&lt;/a&gt; do aggressive licensing, which PNG lacks. (www.libpng.org/pub/png/)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is very similar to MP3 vs. OGG vs. FLAC. MP3 Creators &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mp3-history.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;licensed aggressively&lt;/a&gt; in the beginning... leading to the popularity. Due to this, now, manufacturers approach MP3 to get licenses!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5076" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T07:16:24.750" />
  <row Id="11743" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11730" CreationDate="2011-05-06T09:02:34.173" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You may try solar filters. For instance &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.baader-planetarium.com/sofifolie/sofi_start_e.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Baader AstroSolar 3.8&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;D=3.8 so it's an ND-6310 filter (10^3.8=6310 approx), which is approximately 12.6 stops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I only used this filter for Sun photography, don't know  if it's good for other purposes. It may have strange color artifacts. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="507" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T09:02:34.173" />
  <row Id="11744" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-06T09:23:33.113" Score="9" ViewCount="256" Body="&lt;p&gt;It strikes me that all the photographers I have heard of are one-man bands.  I don't know of any famous partnerships or teams in photography.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other areas of human endeavour have plenty of partnerships, from Lewis and Clark to Morecambe and Wise, but I don't know of any like this in photography. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this just my perception?  Are there famous photographic partnerships?  If not, what is it about photography that encourages this solitary behaviour?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realise that many photographers have a team supporting them, but that's not quite the same thing.  Or is it?  Let me know.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T11:48:10.657" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T07:03:39.500" Title="(Why) Do Photographers Work Alone?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;partnership&gt;&lt;teamwork&gt;&lt;famous-photographers&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11745" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11729" CreationDate="2011-05-06T09:24:12.220" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm assuming you are looking for shots which will be put on a site to promote your company, rather than for internal use. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might want to look at stock photography sites to get ideas, as there are many thousands of great photographs of happy employees in a variety of poses and lighting conditions. Example stock sites are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.shutterstock.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;ShutterStock&quot;&gt;Shutterstock&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.istockphoto.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;iStockPhoto&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Currently the most popular results on those sites are brightly-lit portraits with white or light-blue backgrounds. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2127" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T09:24:12.220" />
  <row Id="11746" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11744" CreationDate="2011-05-06T10:16:44.093" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My impression is that photographers tend to differ on what they want to photograph, and what they think makes a good photograph. If you're on safari or touring round a foreign city (travel photography) then two people will want to photograph different things, this makes it quite difficult for both people to be happy, it's simpler for the individual photographers to work on their own. If you're out with a friend or partner its possible to compromise, but I imagine as a professional photographer this is something you wouldn't want to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously some areas of photography such as wedding and sports mean both photographers are geographically constrained. This allows photographers to work together, one covering close ups and another covering the more wide shots for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1580" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T12:45:15.947" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T12:45:15.947" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11747" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11729" CreationDate="2011-05-06T10:37:31.970" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For a standardish &quot;head and shoulders&quot; business portrait, there are a number of conventions you might want to consider.  As ever, these are guidelines not rules and will probably make your images more conventional which may not be the look you are after.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Aspect ratio&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a &quot;business portrait&quot; you probably want an aspect ratio of between 1:1.6 to 1:1.2, depending on the layout of your website.  I'm not sure I understand your constraints regarding image size, so you may have to work this out yourself. But if your maximum image height is 208 pixels you probably want to consider an image width between 132 and 175.  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8965/what-is-the-golden-ratio-and-why-is-it-better-than-the-rule-of-thirds&quot;&gt;golden ratio&lt;/a&gt; of 1:1.61 is considered by some to be aesthetically pleasing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may also want to consider where you place the subject in the frame.   Generally, you have the face centred in the frame with the eyes &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/521/what-is-the-rule-of-thirds&quot;&gt;two-thirds&lt;/a&gt; of the way up the frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Lighting&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would advice looking at different styles of lighting to see what suits you, and probably vary these depending on the subject.  However, the one constant is that &lt;strong&gt;you will want &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/5230/why-is-it-important-to-move-the-flash-away-from-the-camera&quot;&gt;off-camera lighting&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, whether it is natural or artificial.  Lighting styles you may wish to investigate include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6601/what-is-rembrandt-lighting-and-when-do-i-use-it&quot;&gt;Rembrandt lighting&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6495/in-portrait-photography-what-is-broad-lighting-what-is-short-lighting&quot;&gt;Broad lighting&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6495/in-portrait-photography-what-is-broad-lighting-what-is-short-lighting&quot;&gt;Short lighting&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You probably also want to ensure your subject have a twinkle in their eye or &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11657/in-portrait-photography-what-is-a-catchlight&quot;&gt;catchlight&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Background&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a stylistic choice in terms of colour, but you generally want to avoid a skin-toned background.  Probably the most important thing when it comes to background is that it is neutral and uncluttered.  Positioning your subject a good distance from the background massively improves portraits, whether the background be &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7762/what-do-i-need-to-get-photos-with-a-unifom-black-background-not-with-post&quot;&gt;black&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4107/tips-for-an-inexpensive-white-backdrop/&quot;&gt;white&lt;/a&gt;.  Portrait photography is much more difficult if you &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11506/how-do-i-set-up-a-home-portrait-studio-area-in-zero-space&quot;&gt;do not have sufficient room between the subject and background&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Other &quot;tips&quot;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Focal length&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;classic&quot; portrait &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/916/which-focal-length-lens-is-is-usually-used-for-portrait-photography&quot;&gt;focal length&lt;/a&gt; is 80mm to 135mm on a 35mm camera, or 50mm to 85mm on a 1.6 crop sensor.  If you choose a focal length that is much wider than that you risk distorting the subjects features.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Depth of field&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you are focusing on the head and shoulders, you probably want a narrowish depth of field to blur out uninteresting background details.  Consider an aperture of f/2.8 - f/4.  How much of the face you keep in focus is a matter of taste, but make sure you always focus on the eyes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Posing&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unless your colleagues are exceptionally handsome, you might want to consider posing them on a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6818/why-are-most-portraits-taken-with-the-subject-at-45-degrees-to-the-camera&quot;&gt;slight angle&lt;/a&gt; to the camera.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It might take you awhile to get the subject comfortable enough with being photographed to start looking &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1039/how-can-i-get-my-portrait-subjects-to-look-natural-and-drop-the-cheesy-smile&quot;&gt;natural and comfortable&lt;/a&gt;, so take your time, chat and be prepared to take lots of shots you will delete later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3356" LastEditorUserId="3356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T11:26:20.870" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T11:26:20.870" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11748" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11638" CreationDate="2011-05-06T11:50:25.477" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two settings that affect JPEG file size, resolution and compression.  Experiment with both these settings until you get a balance between the two that works for you.  All other things being equal, I usually compress my images more rather than resizing them more, however Flickr has size limits that may affect your choice here.  &lt;strong&gt;Always remember to keep an original uncompressed and unresized copy of your photo as well!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Compression&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you save an image as a JPEG, the quality of the image is degraded in order to make the file smaller.  You can control the filesize versus quality tradeoff in photoshop when selecting &lt;code&gt;File&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;Save as...&lt;/code&gt; and choosing the JPEG format.  You will be prompted for a compression setting.  I never set this to more than 10 and neither should you, and settings down as low as 8 are generally satisfactory for me.  When you set the JPEG quality, photoshop will estimate what the resulting filesize will be, enabling you to tailor this setting for the desired file size:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/CPLs6.png&quot; alt=&quot;Photoshop JPEG options dialog&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Resolution&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Resolution is the size of your image in pixels (or megapixels).  My 550D saves images at 5184 x 3456 pixels, which is almost always way more than I need.  For the purpose of posting to Flickr, &lt;em&gt;unless you have a Pro account&lt;/em&gt; the practical maximum dimensions is 1024 pixels along the longest size, so there is little point in having a larger image than that.  You can reduce filesize by resizing your image to a smaller size by going to the &lt;code&gt;Image&lt;/code&gt; menu and select &lt;code&gt;Image size&lt;/code&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/aHxyS.gif&quot; alt=&quot;Photoshop image size dialog&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3356" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T11:50:25.477" />
  <row Id="11749" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11756" CreationDate="2011-05-06T12:14:19.910" Score="3" ViewCount="73" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a 58mm filter threaded lens and I want to use my 77mm filters on it. I thought maybe I could buy a hood that is double threaded for different sizes. This would probably look less awkward than having a direct 58-77mm step up filter adapter on it. Does such a product exists? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5079" LastEditorUserId="5079" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T12:40:04.767" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T13:18:41.253" Title="Is there a lens hood, step up filter ring combination in the market?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;filters&gt;&lt;adapter&gt;&lt;lens-hood&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="11750" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11744" CreationDate="2011-05-06T12:17:41.720" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Photographers may often work alone, but in ain't necessarily so.  As Matt Grum points out in &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11744/why-do-photographers-work-alone/11754#11754&quot;&gt;his answer&lt;/a&gt; photographers often work together for commercial reasons. However, the great art-historic photographic collaborations that come to my mind do not necessarily involve another photographer!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, think of the now famous &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0618127496&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Let Us Now Praise Famous Men&lt;/a&gt;, a collaboration between photographer Walker Evans and writer James Agee that documented hard times among sharecroppers in rural USA in the 1930s.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same era and location, Dorothea Lange collaborated with economist Paul Taylor to document poverty among sharecroppers.  She took photographs, and he collected interviews and statistics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3aYoung_migratory_mother_in_Edison,_Kern_County,_California.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/qCfWG.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Dorothea Lange, 1940. Young migratory mother in Edison, Kern County, California, originally from Texas. On the day before the photograph was made, she and her husband traveled 35 miles each way to pick peas. They worked 5 hours each and together earned $2.25. They have two young children... Live in auto camp.&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Young migratory mother.&lt;/em&gt; Dorothea Lange, 1940. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another, perhaps a more artist collaboration took place between photographer and painter Philippe Halsman and Salvador Dalí.  The most famous result of their collaboration is perhaps &lt;em&gt;Dali Atomicus&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3aSalvador_Dali_A_%28Dali_Atomicus%29_09633u.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/xZN1b.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Dali Atomicus.&lt;/em&gt; Philippe Halsman, 1948.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3356" LastEditorUserId="3356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T13:45:58.783" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T13:45:58.783" />
  <row Id="11752" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11735" CreationDate="2011-05-06T12:20:53.107" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;GitHub has some interesting image diff tools built into it on the web, &lt;a href=&quot;https://github.com/blog/817-behold-image-view-modes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;as described here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://github.com/cameronmcefee/Image-Diff-View-Modes/commit/8e95f70c9c47168305970e91021072673d7cdad8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;demonstrated in this demo&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T12:20:53.107" />
  <row Id="11753" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11787" CreationDate="2011-05-06T12:58:57.177" Score="5" ViewCount="73" Body="&lt;p&gt;As &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11688/should-i-geotag-the-location-of-the-subject-or-the-photographer/11717#11717&quot;&gt;Patrick Kowalzick pointed out&lt;/a&gt; in a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11688/should-i-geotag-the-location-of-the-subject-or-the-photographer&quot;&gt;previous discussion&lt;/a&gt;, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.exif.org/Exif2-1.PDF?page=62&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EXIF standards&lt;/a&gt; since 1998 have included tags to document the &lt;code&gt;destination point&lt;/code&gt; of a photograph.  Tags include &lt;code&gt;GPSDestLatitude&lt;/code&gt;, &lt;code&gt;GPSDestLongitude&lt;/code&gt;, &lt;code&gt;GPSDestBearing&lt;/code&gt;, and &lt;code&gt;GPSDestDistance&lt;/code&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any camera, GPS or software (or combination of the above) which support the GPSDestXYZ exif tags?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3356" LastActivityDate="2011-05-15T22:48:53.657" Title="Is there any combination of camera, GPS and software which support the GPSDestXYZ exif tags?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;geotagging&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="11754" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11744" CreationDate="2011-05-06T13:04:44.630" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lots of successful photographers have teams as you suggest, it is truly a collaboration in a lot of cases it's just branded as an individual for market purposes. Chase Jarvis for example represents a crew including assistants and retouchers, all under the guidance of Chase. Clients don't really care about the personnel, they just was to ask for the &quot;Chase Jarvis look&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Usually the assistants operate a second camera and sometimes the big name that was hired won't even shoot any images. Gregory Crewdson is a good example, he doesn't operate a camera himself, he just directs but claims images as &quot;his&quot; as everything was done according to his artistic vision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In wedding Photography it is common to see teams (usually pairs) of photographers working in order to cover every angle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T13:10:28.310" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T13:10:28.310" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11755" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11759" CreationDate="2011-05-06T13:17:34.810" Score="2" ViewCount="62" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've had a Canon PowerShot A1100 IS camera for almost a year now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;About a week ago, I went on a trip, took pictures the whole trip, everything was ok.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I got home, and tried to turn the camera to move the pictures to my PC, I got an error: &quot;Lens error, restart camera&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lens doesn't even start to open, doesn't make any sounds of trying even.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What can I do to fix this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3274" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T22:43:13.817" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T22:43:13.817" Title="What should I do about Canon A1100IS &quot;Lens error, restart camera&quot;?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;troubleshooting&gt;&lt;error&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11756" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11749" CreationDate="2011-05-06T13:18:41.253" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think it exists as the shape of a lens hood is determined by the angle of view of the lens, you would need a different step-up hood combo for every different filter diameter &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; every different focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also screwing on a filter inside the hood would be fiddly. What you want is a lens hood that attaches to a 77mm filter thread, but then I fear it would be fragile and prone to damaging the threads due to the bulk of the hood and the risk of knocking it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T13:18:41.253" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11757" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11965" CreationDate="2011-05-06T13:35:54.167" Score="8" ViewCount="142" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was using a 50mm f/1.8 II lens on my Canon 40D yesterday, and I was trying to capture some action shots using continuous high-speed drive mode and AI Servo autofocus mode.  I was using a shutter speed as high as 1/4000, but I didn't seem to be getting the burst rate I expected (should be better than 6 frames / sec).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a hunch, I tried changing to a lens with a USM focus motor (17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM), and even though I couldn't keep the shutter speed up as high (due to the smaller aperture), the burst rate seemed to improve.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I didn't have time to actually measure the burst rates, so my experience is somewhat anecdotal, but I was wondering if the focus speed of the lens could have been impacting the burst rate of the camera.  One of the benefits of Canon's USM motors is faster focus speed, but I was also under the impression that the AI Focus mode on the 40D is supposed to take shots even if it's not able to &quot;lock&quot; focus.  Am I out to lunch, or can my burst rate be affected by the focusing of the lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T16:09:05.143" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T16:06:22.100" Title="Can lens focus speed affect continuous shooting speed?" Tags="&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;continuous-autofocus&gt;&lt;continuous-drive&gt;&lt;burst-mode&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11758" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11755" CreationDate="2011-05-06T13:47:56.850" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Less than a year? Cool. Send it to Canon for warranty service. The lens mechanism on compact cameras is one of the most vulnerable points, and it can get damaged even under normal use. They should fix this for free. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T13:47:56.850" />
  <row Id="11759" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11755" CreationDate="2011-05-06T13:52:03.107" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This can come up for a variety of different reasons, &lt;strong&gt;typically it happens after the camera is dropped&lt;/strong&gt;.  If the camera was dropped, compressed in your luggage too tight, gathered a grain of sand while on the beach, or had a similar occurrence, you can find yourself with this error message.  These cameras are mostly made of plastic, and it can even happen under regular use where nothing was done wrong.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't fret, you have options.  Some people have luck with removing and replacing the batteries multiple times, so you could try that.  But if you are still within the &lt;strong&gt;warranty period&lt;/strong&gt; I would do that before taking more invasive measures such as giving the lens a nice hard bump.  Head over to &lt;strong&gt;Canon's repair website &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer?pageKeyCode=repairLanding&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T13:52:03.107" />
  <row Id="11760" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11783" CreationDate="2011-05-06T14:09:20.190" Score="5" ViewCount="108" Body="&lt;p&gt;What's the main difference between the &lt;a href=&quot;http://lensbaby.com/lenses-composer.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Composer&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://lensbaby.com/lenses-composer-pro.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Composer Pro&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only difference that the reviews mention &lt;strong&gt;is the metal construction&lt;/strong&gt;. Has anyone tried both? Is there any significant difference? Are the extra $50 dollars in the Pro price worth it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4039" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T14:30:37.810" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T19:48:53.180" Title="What's the difference between the Lensbaby Composer and the Composer Pro?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;lensbaby&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="11761" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11720" CreationDate="2011-05-06T14:17:10.150" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although this test is with a &quot;GoPro Hero&quot; ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The GoPro camera can be used for photos but ... the resulting photos are not very good especially not in low-light conditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First a photo from the GoPro (Hero) (EXIF: F4.9, ISO 250 and 1/15 second)&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/w4IT8.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;GoPro image example&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and now the same scene with a Nikon D80 + Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (EXIF: F5.0, ISO 250 and 1/15 second)&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/l8Ruz.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both camera where supported by a monopod and in both images the same part was used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see the quality of the GoPro image is not as good as the DSLR image; both in sharpness and colour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, yes, the GoPro can take pictures but this image size is smaller and lower image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But for short movie-clips in rough conditions it is just the thing! :-)&#xA;I've used it a lot on my motorcycletours through Europe. This thing can take a lot of punishment!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: Here is the orginal GoPro image (resized):&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/alvrs.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;GoPro image example&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(adding to my previous answer)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to use the GOPro camera to &quot;serious stuff&quot; then you should properly go for the &quot;GoPro Hero&quot; in stead of the &quot;GoPro Hero 960&quot; because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Missing from the HD HERO 960 are 720p @ 60fps, 1080p video, and the&#xA;  HERO BUS expansion port in the rear of&#xA;  the camera that will let you take&#xA;  advantage of GoPro’s forthcoming&#xA;  BacPac accessories – LCD screen &amp;amp;&#xA;  Battery Extension&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Especially the LCD screen would be an useful accessory. The you are able to see your photos and video on the go without using a computer.&#xA;Here a link to the LCD accessory: &lt;a href=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/w4IT8.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;GoPro LCD accessory link&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although the GoPro cameras are ideal for many (rough) situations I don't see it as a &quot;high quality image&quot;-option. But if the subject matter is good enough the image quality perhaps is not so significant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3428" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-09T11:52:11.493" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T11:52:11.493" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11762" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11760" CreationDate="2011-05-06T14:25:23.883" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was just looking at this the other day. I haven't actually touched the Pro, and so haven't physically compared the two, so a better answer will be from someone who does. But I have used the non-Pro version, and I &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; find the plastic ball-and-socket configuration less than smooth — which is what they're &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensbaby.com/forum/read.php?1,147257&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;promoting with the new metal ball-and-socket&lt;/a&gt;. So, yeah, the metal construction &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; the main difference, but I don't think it's insignificant. It's not just a matter of durability, since it's a &lt;em&gt;functional&lt;/em&gt; element that's constructed differently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;↑&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;that's the &quot;off-topic now&quot; line :)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the name &quot;Composer&quot; is apt, by the way. It's appropriate for Lensbaby shots where you're working slowing and carefully. The Muse, on the other hand, is much more fluid and fun. It's also considerably cheaper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;↑&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;and that's the &quot;way off-topic&quot; line&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My favorite, though, is the Lensbaby 2.0. The new optic swap system is cool, especially if you're interested in pinhole or &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11552/what-is-a-zone-plate&quot;&gt;zone plate&lt;/a&gt;, or if you get really into it and want to change between plastic and glass and so on. But the older models are considerably smaller, and the flexible tubing &lt;em&gt;more&lt;/em&gt; flexible (and less squeaky, something I find a little bit disturbing with the Muse).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T16:12:14.767" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T16:12:14.767" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11763" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2010-08-06T09:36:17.500" Score="6" ViewCount="57" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have several photos of similar subjects on the same background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As they were taken outside at different times, the lighting conditions are different, and so the colours in the photos aren't equivalent. For example, in some photos the grass is much bluer than in others, even though it's the same grass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to be able to pick a colour or area of the photos, and say 'This should be the same colour', and have the photos adjusted accordingly.  Hopefully, then, the colours of the subjects will be more comparable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this possible? Will it work? What Windows or Linux software (preferably not Photoshop, please!) will do it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T16:27:46.880" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T01:14:17.620" Title="How do I adjust colour casts between photos taken at different times?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;white-balance&gt;&lt;light&gt;&lt;color-correction&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11764" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11757" CreationDate="2011-05-06T15:23:43.590" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Obviously, the &lt;strong&gt;lens cannot focus any faster just because the drive mode is set to burst&lt;/strong&gt;. The time it takes to focus is the time it takes to focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you can do is &lt;strong&gt;tell the camera to take the shot without waiting for focus to lock&lt;/strong&gt;. This is called &lt;em&gt;Release Priority&lt;/em&gt; as apposed to &lt;em&gt;Focus Priority&lt;/em&gt;. To change that you have to go to the Setup menu and find the custom setting which lets you choose between them. Your camera probably has that option but not all do. Of course, the shots you fire before focus is locked will me slightly out of focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;You can always to manual focus to make things more predictable.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T15:23:43.590" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11765" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3632" CreationDate="2011-05-06T15:47:00.893" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Choosing a polarizer you have to consider the size, its use and the conditions that you will be under.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The price range of polarizers coincides with a huge variance in quality. I have owned several between $80 and $280 USD and I can tell you first hand that the $280 is absolutely the best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, before you go and buy the most expensive one for you should consider what the quality difference means:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Light transmission:&lt;/strong&gt; Higher quality polarizer let more light through but at least one stop difference compared to the cheapest ones. If you plan to shoot from a tripod or with plenty of light, this is not important.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Resistance to glare:&lt;/strong&gt; This depends on what you photograph. If there are direct light sources (bright lights) in the scene, then a super-multi-coated filter will perform better. If you can control the lighting and make sure it is diffuse, then you do not have to worry about it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Color&lt;/strong&gt;: A polarizer should not affect the hue of colors directly. Bad ones do. So if you are trying to make an accurate reproduction of something you need to get a high quality polarizer.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Contrast&lt;/strong&gt;: A polarizer that is not well coated will reduce contrast and make your images look dull.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By your setup you can manage to nullify the impact of the first two points above but if you buy one that does not give you accurate color and good contrast, you may find yourself spending time corrected for this using image manipulation software.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are afraid of the costs you can consider buying the largest filter size and use step-up-rings so that the expensive filter you buy will be suitable for all your lenses. That is the strategy I used only at first I underestimated the size I needed and settled on 77mm, so I ended up also buying a single 86mm circular polarizer for my largest lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T15:47:00.893" />
  <row Id="11766" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11777" CreationDate="2011-05-06T15:48:59.887" Score="5" ViewCount="114" Body="&lt;p&gt;In a comment on &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11689/why-dont-most-cameras-support-png-format/11694#11694&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; someone suggested that camera sensors typically only output 12-14 bits of data. I was surprised because that would mean that 24 bits of color is only useful for doing photo manipulation (where the added bits reduce the noise one picks up from interpolating middle values repeatedly doing multiple manipulations). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know enough about camera sensor to be able to authoritatively answer the 12-14 bit claim? If so, what are typical encodings? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2451" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T16:30:55.850" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T17:03:34.447" Title="How many bits of data are typically actually captured by a digital camera sensor?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;bit-depth&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11767" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11766" CreationDate="2011-05-06T15:53:47.610" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Current DSLR cameras top out at 14-bit output.  Some medium format cameras claim 16-bit output, but it's been argued by various folks (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpbestflow.org/camera/sensor&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;such as the ASMP's dpBestflow site&lt;/a&gt;) that the increase in bit depth between 14 bits and 16 bits actually produces a better image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T15:53:47.610" />
  <row Id="11768" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11868" CreationDate="2011-05-06T15:55:37.647" Score="14" ViewCount="467" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there any harm in leaving my camera in high speed burst even when it's not specifically required? Will it have a negative affect on my photos when I'm not shooting action shot, such as portraits and so on?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Currently using the Canon 7D, but I don't think it would hurt to point out if certain cameras perform worse than others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4124" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-12T12:01:46.193" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T13:16:00.550" Title="What are the downsides of leaving my camera in burst mode all the time?" Tags="&lt;burst-mode&gt;&lt;continuous-drive&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11769" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11766" CreationDate="2011-05-06T16:01:43.527" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Be careful not to confuse per-pixel bit-depth and per-component bit-depth.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The output of digital sensors is &lt;strong&gt;almost always between 10 and 14-bit per-component&lt;/strong&gt; on a linear scale. That would give between 30-bit color (1 billion) and 42-bit (4 trillions) per-pixel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The site DXOMark measures this using a normalized scale (explained in their white-paper) and publishes per-pixel bit-depth which accounts for noise that tends to destroy the lower-order bits. &lt;strong&gt;Based on their findings full-frame, DSLRs can reach 24.7 bits-per-pixel&lt;/strong&gt; while medium format cameras reach 26-bits. For cropped-sensor cameras, 23.8 bit is the current maximum.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T16:01:43.527" />
  <row Id="11770" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11768" CreationDate="2011-05-06T16:04:45.067" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not really - even on non action shots I fire off a couple and usually find that my 2nd or 3rd shot in is the sharpest.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The biggest problem now is that you have 2-3 times the number of pictures to go through in post if you took more than you would have normally taken because of this.  Its time consuming and its time you could be spending taking more pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course taking more, also eats up more shutter clicks if thats something that bothers you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T16:04:45.067" />
  <row Id="11772" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11768" CreationDate="2011-05-06T16:12:35.963" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unintentional bursts, which I do on occasion. In turn, this can mess with your flashes (they have to struggle to keep up with the shutter).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I haven't noticed much of a problem in image quality with this. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's also the consequence of those extra &amp;amp; unnecessary frames you shoot. On digital, they're an annoyance. On film, that's real money you're burning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By and large, these aren't a big deal for me, and so I leave my camera in burst most of the time. I'd prefer to throw away an occasional (digital) redundant photo than miss a high-speed sequence because I wasn't in burst mode already.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T16:12:35.963" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11773" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11768" CreationDate="2011-05-06T16:15:44.553" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You did not say which camera you have and that makes a huge difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On most DSLRs, you will not encounter any downsides if your camera is set to &lt;em&gt;Focus Priority&lt;/em&gt; other than the volume of photos as @rfusca said. If it is set to &lt;em&gt;Release-Priority&lt;/em&gt; you may get out-of-focus shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On compact cameras, the burst-mode &lt;em&gt;often&lt;/em&gt; turns off preview and you end up following action with the image of the previous frame rather than a live-preview. This makes it extremely difficult to follow a moving subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some cameras adjust the way they unload the buffer to be able to shoot continuously and you will notice that the post-shot review takes longer to appear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T16:15:44.553" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11774" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11768" CreationDate="2011-05-06T16:22:50.107" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A related problem: just because you're intentionally &lt;em&gt;in&lt;/em&gt; burst mode and ready to take a burst of shots, you shouldn't necessarily &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; it always. A less-important burst might make you miss out on a more-important burst.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On digital cameras, there's a &quot;burst buffer&quot; that queues up a series of shots for internal processing. If you take more shots than this buffer can handle, the camera will reduce the speed/frequency of subsequent frames until it can clear the buffer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More than once, I've filled my buffer on a &quot;hey, that's neat&quot; burst, then kicked myself as I missed a &quot;woah, that's awesome&quot; burst.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lower-end digital cameras have smaller buffers, so this problem becomes more pronounced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T16:22:50.107" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11775" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11763" CreationDate="2011-05-06T16:26:10.300" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know of a fully automatic way to do what you want. The closest thing I can think of is the white balance tool. Any decent post app should have an eyedropper that you can click, which lets you choose a point in the photo which is white or neutral gray. From there, I'd try to eyeball the saturation and levels to get the tones matching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aperture lets you display photos side-by-side, which is helpful for this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This obviously doesn't scale past a few shots. Sorry I don't have a better answer for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1905" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T16:26:10.300" />
  <row Id="11776" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11763" CreationDate="2011-05-06T16:31:32.853" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If your photos were taken under different lighting conditions, it is unlikely you will be able to fully normalize all of them relative to each other. Lighting is a very critical aspect of photography, and changing it will indeed change the color balance of your photos. You may have some leeway to correct and improve similarity, however it is doubtful that you would be able to achieve total normalization for all tones and colors in each image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can use a tool like Lightroom to automatically color balance based on a particular &quot;neutral&quot; pixel. If there is a particular element in each photo that should be a neutral color (preferably white, but grays also do), you can use the White Balance Picker tool to simply select the same area in each photograph, and correct white balance around that pixel. You might get a closer normalization, but it won't get you all the way there. You could then use the color temperature and tint sliders to fine tune each image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T16:31:32.853" />
  <row Id="11777" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11766" CreationDate="2011-05-06T16:51:46.683" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The photosites of a digital sensor are actually &lt;em&gt;analog&lt;/em&gt; devices. They don't really have a bit depth at all. However, in order to form a digital image, an analog-to-digital converter (A/D converter) samples the analog signal at a given bit depth. This is normally advertised in the specs of a camera — for example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the Nikon D300 has a 14-bit A/D converter&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But keep in mind that this is &lt;em&gt;per channel&lt;/em&gt;, whereas 24-bit color usually means 8 bits per channel. Some file formats — and working spaces — use 16 bits per channel instead (for 48 bits total), and some use even more than that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is partly so the extra precision can reduce accumulated rounding errors (as you note in your question), but it's also because human vision isn't linear, and so the color spaces we use tend to not be either. Switching from a linear to &quot;gamma compressed&quot; curve is is a lossy operation (see one of the several questions about &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/raw&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'raw'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;raw&lt;/a&gt; files), so having more bits simply means less loss, which is better if you change your mind about exposure/curves and don't have access to the RAW file anymore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T16:51:46.683" />
  <row Id="11778" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11850" CreationDate="2011-05-06T16:54:35.207" Score="2" ViewCount="103" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've created my own action in Photoshop CS5 and in my example I am recolouring grass.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The action stops for the user to paint a selection on a layer mask and continues with a colour balance adjustment.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The action then continues to use the selection mask from the first layer and another mask is created, this time the user adjusts the hue/saturation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On occasion, after I've changed the hue/sat there are some areas on the masks that I've missed.  Is there any way I can make adjustments (in this case painting/selecting) the second layer and have it linked to the first layer so I don't have to paint/select both layers individually? Right now when I want to include more selection area I have to repaint the selection on both the colour and the hue/sat layer masks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5084" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T17:34:20.500" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T21:55:31.220" Title="How do I link selections on two different layer masks in Photoshop?" Tags="&lt;photoshop-cs5&gt;&lt;masks&gt;&lt;image-manipulation&gt;&lt;layers&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11779" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11766" CreationDate="2011-05-06T17:03:34.447" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most sensor chips only record one color component per pixel, so one pixel can contain for example 14 bits of data for green intensity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The pixels are laid out in a grid where 50% of the pixels record green data, 25% red and 25% blue:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;RGRGRGRGRGRGRGR&#xA;GBGBGBGBGBGBGBG&#xA;RGRGRGRGRGRGRGR&#xA;GBGBGBGBGBGBGBG&#xA;RGRGRGRGRGRGRGR&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When this data is converted to RGB, two color components per pixel are interpolated from the information in surrounding pixels. A pixel holding green information for example has two neighboring pixels holding red data and two holding blue data, which are used to create the RGB value.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, 14 bits per pixel of RAW data produces 42 bits per pixel of RGB data. Of course, the interpolated data is less accurate, but you usually process it down to 24 bit RGB anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T17:03:34.447" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11780" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10664" CreationDate="2011-05-06T19:22:06.953" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just verified it does  has some ~52 mm threads but not quite. I tried some of my 52mm  macro lenses/adapters  and they kind fit, but not precisely as they do in real 52mm lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5087" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T19:22:06.953" />
  <row Id="11781" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11744" CreationDate="2011-05-06T19:26:44.723" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.strobist.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;David Hobby&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.joemcnally.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Joe McNally&lt;/a&gt; are doing &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theflashbus.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flash Bus&lt;/a&gt; tour together. They sound pretty famous to me. But the partnership is about educating, not about making photos together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's fairly hard to find ways how two persons could complement each other's ideas as equal partners. Success in photography is, after all, mostly driven by having a &lt;em&gt;unique&lt;/em&gt; vision and established style, while mutual agreements would require a &lt;em&gt;common&lt;/em&gt; vision. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if two people go on assignments or trips together, it does not show in each other's photos, so the partnership between them does not get much attention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-08T07:03:39.500" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T07:03:39.500" />
  <row Id="11782" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11788" CreationDate="2011-05-06T19:39:03.723" Score="15" ViewCount="264" Body="&lt;p&gt;My Canon MP560 printer requires one &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PGI-220-Ink-Tank-Black/dp/B001CSMJKI&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PGI-220BK&lt;/a&gt; black cartridge and one &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-CLI-221-Ink-Tank-Black/dp/B001CSO794&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CLI-221BK&lt;/a&gt; black cartridge (which is a part of a CMYK bunch). What is the difference between the two?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1872" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T20:19:22.847" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T21:57:30.483" Title="What is the difference between Canon's black inks?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;printing&gt;&lt;ink-jet&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="11783" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11760" CreationDate="2011-05-06T19:48:53.180" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lensbaby claims the focusing ring on Pro is smoother. I have the non-pro, and yes, it is a &lt;em&gt;bit&lt;/em&gt; sloppy, but never bothered me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;pro&quot; version can be bought with either &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensbaby.com/optics-sweet35.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sweet 35&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensbaby.com/optics-double.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Double Glass&lt;/a&gt; optic in kit, while the non-pro version only comes with the latter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T19:48:53.180" />
  <row Id="11784" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11744" CreationDate="2011-05-06T20:04:20.150" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artMakerDetails?maker=3992&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Virginia Beahan and Laura McPhee&lt;/a&gt; would be a good example of a great partnership. &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=2jeOwWCHOmYC&amp;amp;lpg=PA119&amp;amp;ots=TDW-wV6m6d&amp;amp;dq=under%20the%20cloth%20john%20mcphee&amp;amp;pg=PA119%5C&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Under the Cloth&lt;/a&gt; by John McPhee (Laura's father) has a good description of their technique. It involves a lot of time together behind the ground glass of a large view camera. Also check out their book &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0893817333&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;No Ordinary Land&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5088" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T20:04:20.150" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11785" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11782" CreationDate="2011-05-06T20:11:02.280" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;PGI-* are Pigment inks, CLI-* are the new ChromaLifeInks which are dye based. They're two very different inks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T20:11:02.280" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11786" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11744" CreationDate="2011-05-06T20:14:04.133" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While we are not famous, I'll chime in on this :) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been working with a photographer/videographer for three years now. In the beginning I started out as 'the computer guy'. At this point I handle alot of the editing and enhancements/effects/etc.. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Over the years we've developed a pretty close business relationship, way past being just part of the rest of the team. He does go solo on a fair number of projects but we partner up on the projects I'm part of. Now I realize I do very little of the actual photography, however, there is a large difference in what we can shoot and offer to folks now, on both sides.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do notice that most photographers I've met are solo acts. I somewhat have thought this is due to how many people get involved in the industry: just themselves, a camera and a dream.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4776" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T20:14:04.133" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11787" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11753" CreationDate="2011-05-06T20:55:22.183" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Solmeta sells two Geotaggers supporting orientation:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.solmeta.com/dede/pro.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.solmeta.com/dede/pro.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Geotagger Pro: 3 axis electronic&#xA;compass, output heading&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Geotagger&#xA;N2: 2 axis electronic compass, output&#xA;heading&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some cameras have built in compass as well: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Panasonic Lumix DMC-FT3&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sony Cybershot DSC-HX5V / HX7V / HX100V&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;RICOH G700SE&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sony Alpha SLT-A55&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Casio Exilim H20G (Hybrid GPS - Trackins indoor movements using accelerometer and compass)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think for GPSDestLatitude, GPSDestLongitude and GPSDistance there is some software and manual processing necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5061" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-15T22:48:53.657" LastActivityDate="2011-05-15T22:48:53.657" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11788" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11782" CreationDate="2011-05-06T21:20:52.653" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The difference is in the kind of ink particle...the dye or pigment. In your case, PGI-* are pigment inks, and CLI-* are dye (ChromaLife 100 year) inks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dye inks use dye particles, which are soluble substances. Dye particles tend to be smaller than pigments, lay flatter on the surface of papers, and are often a bit more vibrant in the way they reflect light (which can actually be a detriment, rather than a bonus, when trying to print color-accurate photos.) Dye inks tend to do quite well on glossy papers and do not usually exhibit gloss differential. Dyes, as they are soluble, tend to have shorter lifetimes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pigment inks use pigment particles, which are insoluble substances simply suspended in solution. Pigment particles are larger, and can often lay unevenly on paper. Pigment inks can also exhibit certain effects such as metamerism, bronzing and gloss differential, however these days pigment inks are highly advanced, and such problems are mitigated to their minimums. Pigments also tend to be more controllable than dyes, and an extensive range of pigment inks is available for high quality pigment-based ink jet printers. Gamut and overall color quality that can be achieved by full pigment ink printers is second to none these days. Pigments, being non-soluble (and given their significant technological advances over the recent years), tend to have significantly longer lifetimes than dye inks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The particular printer you have is not really known as a high quality photographic printer in the grand scheme of things. It probably has a pigment black ink to improve the permanence of text printouts, and possibly to support matte papers better (which have a tendency to absorb dye inks a bit too much, washing out the color.) The dye is probably used to support gloss better, as pigment ink usually causes a gloss differential...if pigment black is used on gloss with the dye colors, it usually leaves quite noticeable gloss differential for all the black (text, lines, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-06T21:57:30.483" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T21:57:30.483" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11789" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11782" CreationDate="2011-05-06T21:21:16.030" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The two black cartridges you are referring to fall into two main categories: Pigmented and Dye-Based Ink.  Your &lt;strong&gt;PGI-220BK is pigment based&lt;/strong&gt; and your &lt;strong&gt;CLI-221BK is dye based&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Dye-Based Ink Advantages&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;More &lt;strong&gt;vibrant&lt;/strong&gt;, and more &quot;color&quot; produced&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Better for &lt;strong&gt;text&lt;/strong&gt;, and printing darker&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Lower cost&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flow better in ink-jet applications&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dries quickly&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Translucent in nature&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Can be used with all types of paper&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pigmented Ink Advantages&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Less suseptable to fading&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ability to reach &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Archival Quality&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Better for blending in &lt;strong&gt;graphics applications&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;More &lt;strong&gt;water resistant&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The type of paper you are using, the final presentation, and the artistic feeling you are going for all contribute to which type of ink you will prefer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Graphic and fine arts are much more likely to use pigment based inks because they are much more stable and can last more then 200 years on some paper types.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In photography specifically, the decision typically comes down to the printer design.  If your printer supports both, you will find that using &lt;em&gt;pigmented inks for fine art presentations on specialty paper might be the best option&lt;/em&gt;.  If you want a print to be ready quickly and not necessarily last 200 years, while considering the &lt;em&gt;cost of the ink, you might find dye based inks to be the best choice&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T21:21:16.030" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11790" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11778" CreationDate="2011-05-06T21:44:07.280" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Paint in the desired changes to one of the layer masks.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Alt-Click the layer mask icon (the one you've edited) in the Layers palette to show the mask.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Select All and Copy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Alt-Click the other layer mask, Paste.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-05-06T21:44:07.280" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11791" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11763" CreationDate="2011-05-07T01:14:17.620" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both Lightroom, as well as Photoshop Camera RAW have very simple features that allow you to click on something you know to be white in the image, and based on this assumption, will set the white balance for the image. You would then select this same object in the other photos, which will then correct the balance in the other images to ensure that the object is white. For these tools, there is an eyedropper you use. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is also available in Photoshop Elements, and Paintshop Photo Pro for a bit cheaper price. Also, consider the free &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.getpaint.net/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Paint.net&lt;/a&gt;, for Windows, which has lots of &lt;a href=&quot;http://paint.net.amihotornot.com.au/Features/Effects/Plugins/Color/White_Balance/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;plug ins&lt;/a&gt; that can do this as well. If you prefer open-source, then you should download GIMP, which works for both Windows or Linux. However, GIMP is not quite as simple, though if you are using RAW, the UFRAW tool does have a one step eyedropper similar to Photoshop.  Otherwise, it can be much more involved.  Google &quot;GIMP White Balance&quot; for your choice of tutorial.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Do yourself a favor and just get Lightroom, you will be glad you did]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T01:14:17.620" />
  <row Id="11792" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11730" CreationDate="2011-05-07T02:22:46.093" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Add a circular polarizer. By itself a circ. polarizer is very useful, so its always great to have one in your bag. If you stack the circ. polarizer onto the ND, you will get significantly more 'darkness'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another option is to get Cokin ND filters, as you can add them over your existing filter, and you can even hand-hold them to the front of your lens. They are very inexpensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T02:22:46.093" />
  <row Id="11793" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9968" CreationDate="2011-05-07T03:05:27.450" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can also &lt;a href=&quot;http://explore.live.com/windows-live-photo-gallery-face-facial-recognition-using?os=other&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;use Windows Live Photo Gallery to add face tags&lt;/a&gt; to the photos. It will be added as metadata properly and if you don't do anything else then you won't lose any of your other tagging done through LR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Windows Live Photo Gallery seems to be more metadata friendly than Picasa. Or at least more predictable in what it does (not to mention I prefer the editing wizards a bit and find myself using them over LR sometimes).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5089" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-07T04:42:11.377" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T04:42:11.377" />
  <row Id="11794" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11795" CreationDate="2011-05-07T03:15:19.013" Score="22" ViewCount="225" Body="&lt;p&gt;Continuing to educate about basic compositional techniques,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is &quot;Lead Room?&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why is it important to consider Lead Room when taking pictures?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When do I apply it to my photography?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T05:07:48.363" Title="What is Lead Room?" Tags="&lt;composition&gt;&lt;composition-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="11795" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11794" CreationDate="2011-05-07T03:15:49.697" Score="22" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;What is Lead Room?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lead Room (also variously referred to as leading, nose room, or leading space) is a foundational compositional technique that is frequently employed in the visual arts such as cinematography, painting, and of course photography. In essence the 'rule' of lead room is that when framing a subject, well composed shots will include 'white space' in the direction that a subject is facing, or in the case of moving objects, in front of the direction that an object is moving.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Why is lead room important?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lead room is an important compositional technique to keep in mind even if you're deciding to &lt;em&gt;break&lt;/em&gt; the guideline and not give a photo lead room because altering the lead room has the potential to alter the mood or 'feeling' of a photograph. For example, in this portrait lead room has been given in the direction the model's body is facing and as a result the portrait feels open and relaxed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/TAsi2.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if we take the same exact picture and shift the model to the other side of the frame, all of a sudden it feels as though the model is cramped within the frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/kptvs.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The effects of lead room can be even more pronounced when the subject of a photograph is in motion. In the following image the airplane has a sense of moving through the frame from left to right because it appears that it has room to move... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/GwdA7.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whereas when the same photograph is cropped so the photograph's white space is behind the airplane all of a sudden there seems to be something missing. There's a sense of motion that has been removed because there doesn't appear to be anywhere for the plane to go!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Q8AIA.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;How do I apply lead room to my photography&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like most things in photography, this is not a 'hard-and-fast' rule... more accurately this is a rule of thumb. Generally speaking, lead room can be applied to living subjects (e.g. humans, animals, etc.), and objects in motion. Inanimate objects that aren't in motion can't really benefit from using lead room. But it is important to understand the effects on a images perception that lead room can have as you compose your pictures in order to take advantage of (or negate the advantage of) this rule of thumb. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NOTES: &lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Original airplane image courtesy of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/alvaretz/5673565925/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Alvaretz&lt;/a&gt;. Used via Creative Commons Attribution.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-07T03:42:56.780" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T03:42:56.780" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="11796" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11804" CreationDate="2011-05-07T03:25:58.280" Score="3" ViewCount="151" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi all,  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just returned from a vacation and processed my pics. Then realized what I really use Lightroom for and it's mainly the advanced import function to be able to rename files into my preferred hierarchy:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Photos \ YYYY \ MM \ DD \ YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS-####  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Note: I would love suggestions to reform or simplify my naming hierarchy as for some reason I'm not in love with it)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Otherwise I'm actually really happy using Windows Live Photo Gallery to do some tagging, captioning, quick crops, red eye fixes, straightening, panoramas, etc. I prefer it over LR even.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This brings up two questions:&#xA;1) Is there an alternative (free / lightweight ideally) that would give me the import abilities of LR in a separate package? Ideally then I wouldn't have to open up LR at all. Or even as a plugin to Windows Live Photo Gallery? I'm open to another DAM (provided it does metadata properly in the file and not in some proprietary database).&#xA;1a) How nuts am I for really wanting my directories and filenames just so, no answer truly needed here, but welcome all the same :)&#xA;1b) Learning to be comfortable w/ a pre-packaged naming convention supported by Windows Live Photo Gallery or another &quot;easy&quot; DAM would be fine by me.&#xA;2) Instead would you suggest that I learn how to be just as fast using LR for these tasks? If so, any top resources you recommend?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for your help!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS - Should note that I'm not much of a serious shooter, although I'm hoping to up my volume a bit; however am finding that I use my camera more and more since it's always on me. Might pop for a micro 4/3 which may get me back in the swing of things a bit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5089" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T15:59:26.623" Title="Lightroom Import alternative?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;workflow&gt;&lt;import&gt;&lt;file-management&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11797" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11768" CreationDate="2011-05-07T03:27:08.363" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I gave up on automatic burst modes when I realized that even with 5 to 10 fps, there's still plenty of time between each shot when shooting e.g. fast paced sports action. For that reason alone, I think it's better to learn to anticipate the moment and press the shutter manually. I think you have much better chances at capturing great shots this way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you anticipate the moment, you also have better time to verify the focus and exposure settings are right when you go from half-press to full press on the shutter button.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With a little practice, you can manually shoot several times per second, enough to fill the buffer when shooting in RAW.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2559" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T03:27:08.363" />
  <row Id="11798" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11724" CreationDate="2011-05-07T03:57:27.010" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Camera companies could do photographers a favour by calling this 'Shutter+Aperture Priority' auto mode instead of presenting it as a manual mode with auto ISO. By carrying over the film terminology, they are failing to communicate that in digital, there are THREE ways of controlling exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, you already have what is effectively an auto mode where the photographer controls the shutter speed as well as the aperture and still gets auto-exposure because the camera can vary the ISO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, most cameras' auto ISO is a step ahead of auto shutter or auto aperture because one can limit the range within which the camera can vary the ISO. I'd love to be able to do the same with shutter or aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4827" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T03:57:27.010" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11799" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11800" CreationDate="2011-05-07T04:52:58.563" Score="10" ViewCount="107" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just picked up my first polarized lens filter from Tiffen — a 52mm SR Polarizer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It looks like a small portion of the lens is NOT polarized, but this being my first lens, I wanted to confirm this before going through the hassle of returning it. (online purchase, of course)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/IL62j.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Defective Polarizer?&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5042" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-07T05:16:02.640" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T06:01:50.413" Title="Is it normal for a small portion of a polarized lens filter to appear unpolarized?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;polarizer&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11800" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11799" CreationDate="2011-05-07T05:02:53.073" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While their are two types of polarizing filters, circular and regular, they should never look like this.  This looks defective to me.  Some filters do have areas with no &quot;filtering&quot; such as with a graduated neutral density filter.  In this case 25% or 50% of the filter may appear clear such as this.  Although for a polarizer I would never expect to see something like this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastEditorUserId="4892" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-07T06:01:50.413" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T06:01:50.413" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11801" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11796" CreationDate="2011-05-07T05:29:45.413" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If &lt;strong&gt;speed&lt;/strong&gt; is your main objective, you should really check out &lt;strong&gt;Bibble&lt;/strong&gt;.  The goal of that piece of software is to literally be the &lt;em&gt;fastest DAM software&lt;/em&gt; on the market.  This becomes very important for high volume photography shops, but since you are doing this more for fun, you might not want to spend that kind of money.  Below I have listed some various other pieces of software that will do what you are asking, as well as much more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Free Options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;FastStone Image Viewer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Windows Explorer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Picasa &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paid Options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bibblelabs.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Bibble&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.camerabits.com/site/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Photo Mechanic&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.picajet.com/en/index.php?page=roboimport&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;RoboImport&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ACDSee&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Capture One&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Breezebrowser&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adobe Bridge&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Overall I think that &lt;strong&gt;Lightroom&lt;/strong&gt; is a fantastic option and you already have the best or nearly the best option.  Although there is a reason why competition exists so that is why we have so many other choices in this market.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastEditorUserId="4892" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-07T15:14:22.660" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T15:14:22.660" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11802" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11794" CreationDate="2011-05-07T07:05:27.167" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to add a couple of small things to @Jay's excellent answer...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When I was just starting out I only thought of lead room (although I've always called it 'Nose Room') as something that happened left to right across the frame, or vice-versa. It was only after shooting for a while that it occurred to me that nose room can also happen vertically, or diagonally across the frame. The classic example being a picture of a pretty girl laying in the grass. You wouldn't want to stick her nose right up against the top of the frame (unless you've got a good reason to!)... Give her some nose room!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rules are meant to be broken! There are lots of times when I don't follow the nose room rule and although Jay says it in his answer, it does bear repeating... It's good to understand rules of thumb so you better understand what the outcome will be if you break it, but once you understand the rule (of thumb), then don't be shackled by it, and especially don't be afraid to experiment!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4032" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T07:05:27.167" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11803" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-07T09:42:22.363" Score="3" ViewCount="52" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have an Epson Stylus Photo 1400, that could print up to A3+, but the paper loading mechanism has been designed by idiots: only one roll placed at the extreme right margin. that means it's good in printing 4&quot; x 6&quot; pictures, but, when printing something bigger than A4, it will skew the sheet: no surprises here, with only one pinch roll placed at the extreme right margin, it's impossible to load a 17&quot; wide sheet without let it skew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, since I did not buy this printer to print 4R pictures, I want to get rid of that, and buy an Epson R1900. Unfortunately, no store has this in stock, I have to order it online. Anyone has this printer and can tell me how the pinch roll is made?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5092" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T02:39:00.650" Title="How reliable is the paper loading mechanism in Epson R1900?" Tags="&lt;printing&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11804" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11796" CreationDate="2011-05-07T10:39:26.900" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.camerabits.com/site/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photo Mechanic&lt;/a&gt; has been among the favorite tools primarily focused on import and import automation for several years. If you simply want an import tool that is flexible and allows custom imports, I doubt you will find a more feature rich solution. That being said, it is not an editing tool, but one focused on import, especially multiple-card import and automation ( auto tag, multiple-destination copy, etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Lightroom, I no longer use specialized tools such as Photo Mechanic, Bibble, or heck, even Camera Raw. I barely use Photoshop any longer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, to your second question. Can't say how nuts you are, as I think we all may be a bit bent for being such camera/photo geeks, but I suggest that relying on directory structure to provide you with information is so, well, DOS. Technically, you will be limited to certain characters, lengths, etc allowed by your current OS, and those same file names. Directories, etc may be truncated if you move or copy to a different OS. For example, do not copy your images to a FAT formatted disk, or older PC. And your camera won't be able to read them, not that I suspect that is an issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead, if you use tagging, collections, and IPTC metadata, you can gain much more flexibility. With Lightroom, I simply let the tool import with the default directory settings ( year, month date). I don't pay attention to this, as once imported, I add keywords, event and other info into IPTC tags, and then leverage Lightroom to create Smart collections, and to arrange images based on this info. So a set of images might be in 2011/May_3, 2011/May_2, and 2010/Dec_23, but in Lightroom, they are all in a group called Family Portraits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The downside is this ties one to Lightroom a bit closer, but if you use IPTC, and embed the metadata in sidecars or even DNG, you should be future proof.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastEditorUserId="4880" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-07T10:55:23.093" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T10:55:23.093" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11805" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-07T12:53:31.900" Score="0" ViewCount="65" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4203/what-are-good-resources-for-a-beginning-photographer&quot;&gt;What are good resources for a beginning photographer?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hi All,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;i have got D90 just few days back now i am exploring the features of this but i am new to this field so learn some basic things about photography.&#xA;Can any one suggest me good resources to learn some tips or any other pointer in thi regard will be much appreciated&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4433" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T14:14:38.897" ClosedDate="2011-05-07T15:23:50.440" Title="SLR photography resources" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;nikon-d90&gt;&lt;learning&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11806" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-05-07T12:58:44.423" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-07T12:58:44.423" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T12:58:44.423" />
  <row Id="11807" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-05-07T12:58:44.423" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Questions about specific terms used within photography" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-07T12:58:44.423" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T12:58:44.423" />
  <row Id="11808" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-05-07T13:07:07.253" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lighting tends to have differing shades under different conditions, although the human eye largely compensates. Film is balanced to behave and give accurate colour reproduction under set conditions; with digital photography, the process is done mathematically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-07T13:07:07.253" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T13:07:07.253" />
  <row Id="11809" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-05-07T13:07:07.253" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Questions about how to choose the correct colour balance for a given scene, and how it affects photos." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="21" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-07T13:07:07.253" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T13:07:07.253" />
  <row Id="11810" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11796" CreationDate="2011-05-07T13:42:12.663" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nothing wrong with the answers you already got but what you are looking for is probably &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.picajet.com/en/index.php?page=roboimport&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;RoboImport&lt;/a&gt;. This is a cheap file-import and renaming utility that can use all sorts of information to set the filenames on import.  Actually they have a deal that gives you this software for free if you try another product, otherwise it's $40 USD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same company has a simple and very fast DAM software called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.picajet.com/en/index.php?page=features&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PicaJet&lt;/a&gt;. They have a bundle with RoboImport to save you money on both, otherwise its $60 USD. This is the only DAM software I tried which comes close to the speed of Bibble Pro. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/article.php?id=dam-software&amp;amp;page=picajet&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;You can read my review of it here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T13:42:12.663" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11811" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11805" CreationDate="2011-05-07T14:14:38.897" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a ton of information on the Internet, but it might be difficult to point you in the right direction since you are asking a &quot;broad&quot; question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words: you are not stating what kind of photography you are interested in. Landscapes? People? Animals? Architecture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My best tips is: Just start by bringing your camera with you and experiment. Bring a photography book along with you and use it for reference when you need it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The book I have recommended the most to new photographers is Scott Kelby's &quot;Digital Photography&quot;. The book is easy to read, and divided in small (usually one page) sections. Each sections describes a technique for a specific case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you have tried out some different types of photography, using different techniques, then you'll find it easier to research since you can narrow down your searches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5029" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T14:14:38.897" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11812" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11813" CreationDate="2011-05-07T15:05:49.633" Score="3" ViewCount="67" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have an old Konica FS-1 35mm SLR camera with quite a nice F1.8 lens on, but I'd like to use a different body (without a battery pounding auto wind on mechanism!).  There seem to be plenty of Minolta cameras on ebay, but relatively few Konica ones.  I know that Minolta bought out Konica at some point, but are the lenses from these ~30/40 year old cameras still interchangeable? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3263" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-07T18:17:05.337" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T18:17:05.337" Title="Are Konica and Minolta lenses interchangeable?" Tags="&lt;old-lenses&gt;&lt;35mm&gt;&lt;lens-mount&gt;&lt;minolta&gt;&lt;konica&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11813" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11812" CreationDate="2011-05-07T15:10:17.377" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sorry, but no -- a Konica FS-1 uses a different mount than either the Minolta MC/MD or the A mount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Konica did buy out Minolta, but this was quite a while after the FS-1, FT-1, etc., had been discontinued. They also sold the Minolta camera division off to Sony &lt;em&gt;quite&lt;/em&gt; soon after acquiring Minolta. As far as I know, there was never any work done on creating any sort of adapter to allow any compatibility between the two completely separate camera lines (and when Sony bought it, they got the Minolta camera division, but as far as I know, the old Konica camera division was long gone, so they didn't acquire any rights to it at all).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T15:10:17.377" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11814" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11796" CreationDate="2011-05-07T15:59:26.623" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to Nikon Transfer (again part of &lt;a href=&quot;http://alternativeto.net/software/viewnx-2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ViewNX2&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have come across &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://alternativeto.net/software/http---www-adebis-com-photo_sorter-/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adebis Photo Sorter&lt;/a&gt; for windows&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://alternativeto.net/software/dragoman/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dragoman&lt;/a&gt; For the Mac&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but as stated above...if you own &lt;a href=&quot;http://alternativeto.net/software/adobe-lightroom/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lightroom&lt;/a&gt;, or have access to it, it is my personal FAVORITE by far&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4738" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T15:59:26.623" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11815" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-07T18:31:59.510" Score="4" ViewCount="182" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been researching this night and day for months now. Photos viewed on my website look terrible compared to the same file viewed with other mediums. I have contacted many website support specialists (many of who can not even view a difference between the photos) with out any luck of fixing this problem. I am starting to think it takes a photographers eye to see the difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am a artist / photographer and I use my website through Wordpress, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.davidmccarthymedia.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.davidmccarthymedia.com&lt;/a&gt; to display my work. I typically resize my photos to max 600 w/h and save as high quality jpeg in Photoshop. When I view them on my website the contrast, sharpness, and vibrancy is lost. I have toggled between seeing the same photo off the web, in a blank web browser window, on social networking platforms such as Facebook, and using Windows Picture Viewer. There is a drastic difference when viewing the same photo on my wordpress website vs. having it just in a browser. Sadly, my website is where I would like them viewed in their native quality. The website takes my photos and makes them look like point and shoot snap shots, and its starting to make my blood boil because I can not get to the root of this problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have tried saving the photo in every possible format (.png, .tiff, .gif, etc.) and uploading them. They're always the same when viewed on my website&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My roommate is a web programmer and he can not understand it himself. His explanation is that the browsers are making the photos lighter. This does not agree with me because when I view the photos right off the server in a browser they're pretty close to perfect. But then they are viewed through my website they look terrible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realized that there is one difference between seeing them on my website and seeing them off my server, the wordpress gallery program.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Step 1. I upload the files to my server via FTP&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Step 2. I then go into word press and import the photos using nextgen.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Step 3. I then insert the code on a post in my website allowing the images to be seen.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its not the fact that they are online that is distorting them its that they go through this secondary uploading type process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is driving me mad. The only time I can view them perfectly off my website is when I use the change the options in the gallery and change the JavaScript Thumbnail effect to highslide. but then they are opening up to just a browser window and not being viewed on my website. At that point Im not entirely sure where that script is showing the image from. My server or NextGEN.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If some of this does not make sense I apologize, I am not that literate in this dept and only know what I have been able to teach myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a series jpeg of the screen shots from each viewing platform. The website (top photo) is of the poorest quality. Facebook (the middle) is close to the original (the bottom) photo. You can see a clear difference in the saturation and contrast. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://davidmccarthymedia.com/russ/really%20annoying%20problem.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;samples&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5094" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-16T13:38:04.900" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T13:38:04.900" Title="Why is Nextgen / wordpress is reducing the quality of my photographs?" Tags="&lt;image-quality&gt;&lt;web&gt;&lt;troubleshooting&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11816" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11815" CreationDate="2011-05-07T18:58:34.920" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This kind of thing is usually a color space issue. Make sure you save the images as sRGB, not Adobe RGB; the latter is intended for print, not web display.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T18:58:34.920" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11817" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11815" CreationDate="2011-05-07T19:57:08.920" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As the other answer suggests, this may be related to color management, though you say that you are viewing the image in the same browser, but from your server vs the website, which to me suggests there is some modification being done by code in your website.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My recommendation is to check to see if any of the several stylesheets you have going on are impacting the images. Try removing them one at a time to see if there is any change in the image to isolate it down to one.  For example &quot;prettyPhoto.css&quot; sounds like a candidate to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are also forcing image sizes, make sure that the sizes you are forcing are the sizes you are uploading, or there will be some resizing going on by the browser or server, which can lead to impacts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastActivityDate="2011-05-07T19:57:08.920" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11818" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-07T20:00:27.330" Score="3" ViewCount="48" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for an inkjet paper that is reasonably priced (compared to top-end choices from Epson, Hahnemuhle, etc.), while still allowing me to produce high-quality prints (in terms of color, sharpness, dmax) that would satisfy a trained eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The tradeoff I am willing to accept here is one of longevity and archival qualities (the prints will be used for portfolio giveaways and such). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both matte and glossy papers are relevant, for use with the Epson UltraChrome and Canon Lucia inks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5097" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-08T01:17:53.140" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T01:32:06.930" Title="What is a cost-effective inkjet paper for good IQ but without archival requirements?" Tags="&lt;printing&gt;&lt;ink-jet&gt;&lt;paper&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11820" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11818" CreationDate="2011-05-08T01:32:06.930" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are looking for a quality photographic ink jet paper that will work for both Canon and Epson printers, you can look at some of the companies that have been making paper far longer than either of those two: Hahnemühle , Ilford, Museo Fine Art, Moab (Legion) Paper, etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can't guarantee that the price will be much cheaper (may be more expensive, depending on the specific type of paper you select), however at lest those brands I've listed usually have ICC profiled for both brands of printers, and several models for each brand. You listed several key factors of a high quality print, such as accurate color reproduction, high sharpness, good density for a &lt;em&gt;trained eye&lt;/em&gt;. Its tough to find a paper that offers a high level of those things and is also cheap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon's fine art papers are actually made by Hahnemühle , and they may actually be cheaper than buying the same stuff from Hahnemühle  direct. You might want to look at the HARMAN papers by Hahnemühle , as they may be cheaper (joint project between the founder of Ilford and Hahnemühle .) Ilford is renown for its papers, particularly its true photographic (exposed by light) papers, however they also have a good selection of quality ink jet papers. They might be cheaper than Hahnemühle , although possibly not quite as high quality.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T01:32:06.930" />
  <row Id="11821" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11815" CreationDate="2011-05-08T01:45:20.383" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a problem with the ICC profile used to &lt;strong&gt;RENDER&lt;/strong&gt; the image when you save it out. Color Management workflow is still a rather niche thing these days, and few applications, including browsers, support a proper color managed workflow. Most web browsers make the assumption that &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; images should be displayed as if they are tagged with the sRGB ICC color profile.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, you want to keep your images in a wider gamut, such as Adobe RGB (not Apple RGB) while you perform your post processing, as this gamut better represents the displayable color range of higher quality or professional LCD screens these days (i.e. Apple CinemaDisplays, Eizo, LaCie 730 series, NEC photographic screens.) After post processing, and at the time you crop, scale, and render for final output media, its generally best to convert to the de-facto industry standard color space, sRGB. Most computer devices support sRGB, and most software will by default render images as if they were sRGB. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If an image that is tagged with another color space (such as Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB) is rendered by a non-color managed program, colors will usually appear less saturated than they should be...hence the washed-out appearance. Converting your images to sRGB as part of final rendering will ensure they look correct on the broadest range of devices and software possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T01:45:20.383" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="11822" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11823" CreationDate="2011-05-08T02:30:39.380" Score="3" ViewCount="48" Body="&lt;p&gt;My wife broke her point-and-shoot camera, so we're in the market for a replacement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of her friends has an older Kodak, and I believe it has a dock that is directly attached to a printer — something like that would be ideal, but I can't find any reference to it on the Kodak site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any cameras that come with a dedicated printing system for a reasonable price, or is there always going to be a computer required?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a computer is required, what would be the simplest software for printing occasional pictures?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="134" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-08T02:46:39.183" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T02:48:59.360" Title="Is there any system or software that will allow a non-technical user to print pictures simply?" Tags="&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;&lt;printing&gt;&lt;workflow&gt;&lt;computerless&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="11823" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11822" CreationDate="2011-05-08T02:48:59.360" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Any camera will do and you have several options for easy home printing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do not want to involve a computer than &lt;strong&gt;buy a printer which has memory card slots&lt;/strong&gt;. The ones I know and the one I own is from HP, other brand have them too. They are called Photosmart. Mine does not have a screen but the new ones do, so you can see your photo before printing and even do simple things to it like cropping, selecting print sizes, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mine is a multi-function model that does photo-copying, scanning and faxing. I was truly impressed the first time I used it. It has an &lt;strong&gt;index print function which lets you print a thumbnail of all your photos and then you mark the ones you like, the size you want and how many copies.&lt;/strong&gt; Put the index print back into the fax part of the all-in-one and, guess what?, it prints the photos you want in the size you want and number of copies! That is certainly the best integration job I have ever seen from ANY technology company.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some cameras have a direct print function which lets you attach the camera to a printer directly. I have never tried that since it both limits which cameras you can buy and which printers. I would much rather choose a good camera based on photographic merits and a printer based on quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T02:48:59.360" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11824" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11829" CreationDate="2011-05-08T04:07:24.033" Score="11" ViewCount="320" Body="&lt;p&gt;I usually use the &quot;[auto]focus and recompose&quot; method for taking candid photographs.  In &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/597/what-situations-are-best-suited-for-spot-metering&quot;&gt;situations where there is a high degree of contrast&lt;/a&gt;, I would like to use &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7326/how-do-i-use-spot-metering&quot;&gt;spot metering&lt;/a&gt; to correct expose for skin-tones.  However, when I do this using the focus and recompose method, exposure changes during recomposition.  This does not happen using the &quot;evaluative metering&quot; mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know I can use exposure lock to help in situation, but I am not sure how.  &lt;strong&gt;What exact sequence of button presses on a Canon 550D do I need to use to get the result I am looking for in aperature priority mode?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3356" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-08T16:28:27.713" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T16:28:27.713" Title="How do I &quot;focus and recompose&quot; using spot metering?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;metering&gt;&lt;spot-metering&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="11825" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11824" CreationDate="2011-05-08T04:20:11.453" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It sounds to me like you are pre-focusing to prepare for the perfect moment, and you want to not only pre-focus but pre-expose.  If that is the case, I think you will find the following information helpful on how exactly to use exposure lock.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Aim the camera at the part of the&#xA;  subject or scene that’s most important&#xA;  to meter accurately. Press the &lt;strong&gt;shutter&#xA;  button half-way&lt;/strong&gt; to start metering, and&#xA;  then &lt;strong&gt;press the rear AE Lock button&lt;/strong&gt;.&#xA;  The &lt;strong&gt;asterisk&lt;/strong&gt; will appear in the&#xA;  finder, so you know exposure won’t&#xA;  shift as you move the camera to&#xA;  re-compose the shot. You do need to&#xA;  keep pressing the shutter button&#xA;  half-way to keep the meter active (and&#xA;  locked); if you were to pull your&#xA;  finger totally off the shutter button,&#xA;  the camera would turn the meter off in&#xA;  about 4 to 6 seconds, and at that&#xA;  point you’d lose the reading you just&#xA;  locked-in.  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/autoexposure_ae_lock_article.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Essentially you just point, press your shutter button halfway, and hit the AE Lock button.&lt;/strong&gt;  I think you will find &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/autoexposure_ae_lock_article.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; link very helpful and full of details on the process.  I could reiterate it here, but honestly it covers the topic much more in depth then is necessary for this exercise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T04:20:11.453" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11827" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11824" CreationDate="2011-05-08T06:40:11.270" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since I can't comment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Could you confirm that the correct order is: 1) Place active AF point over desired focal point 2) Press shutter button half-way to autofocus, 3) Recompose to place centre-point in viewfinder over region to meter from 4) Hit AE Lock button to lock-in exposure, 5) recompose image in viewfinder to the composition for the finally photograph, 6) Fully depress shutter button to take photograph, 7) Release shutter button and AE-Lock button (in any order)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, I just tried this with AE mode set to spot metering on my EOS 7D and it works. So it should be the same on the 550D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's worth noting that you probably don't have to do it in that order, when I fooled around I found that you can just press the AE-Lock before or after you focus. If you press it before you focus, either keep AE-lock pressed or half-press shutter release within 4 seconds (the duration is in my instruction manual). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As long as &lt;strong&gt;either AE-lock or halfway shutter release&lt;/strong&gt; is pressed, your AE settings won't change. It's even possible to switch between the AE-lock button and half-pressed shutter release like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Press AE-lock once for your wanted&#xA;AE settings.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Half-press to focus, keep half&#xA;pressed and take a couple of shots.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;While half-pressing, press AE-lock&#xA;and keep pressed, then depress&#xA;shutter release.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Half-press shutter release again to get a new focus,&#xA;with unchanged AE-settings.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems a bit more comfortable than keeping AE-lock pressed throughout the shoot. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, and of course what I wrote applies to One shot AF. If you use AI Servo or AI Focus the AE-lock is still active when you half-press, and focus will change automatically as per those AF modes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for asking the question, I didn't know this!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4156" LastEditorUserId="4156" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-08T08:03:24.653" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T08:03:24.653" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11828" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11830" CreationDate="2011-05-08T07:19:40.917" Score="24" ViewCount="476" Body="&lt;p&gt;During a bicycle trip, I wanted to take a pic to show how sharp the slope was (about 20%). The same applies downhill. See below, the viewer can't really tell whether it is downhill or flat or uphill:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/nqmc6.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;uphill 25%&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are your tricks to imply the steepness of a slope?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1498" LastEditorUserId="2692" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-08T18:29:07.933" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T18:29:07.933" Title="How to show a slope? Even mountain roads appear flat." Tags="&lt;composition&gt;&lt;landscape&gt;&lt;viewpoint&gt;&lt;mountain&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="11829" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11824" CreationDate="2011-05-08T08:54:20.450" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two basic ways to accomplish this, and it all boils down to being able to separately control autofocus and your meter. You can meter first and then autofocus, or you can autofocus first, then meter. I've listed a few different methods, but ovens vary; adjust cooking time accordingly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Meter, Focus, Recompose, Shoot&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Method one: AE-lock on half shutter, AF-lock button.&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;Camera settings:&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make sure your camera locks exposure when you half-press the shutter release.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set autofocus to continuous servo.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Your AE/AF lock button should be set to AF-lock only.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;When shooting:&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Place your meter point where you want to meter. Hold the shutter release halfway down.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Place your autofocus point over your subject.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wait until autofocus locks on.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Press and hold the AF-lock button.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Recompose&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fully depress the shutter release.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Method two: AE-lock button, single servo AF.&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;Camera settings:&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AE/AF lock button should be set to AE-lock only.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set autofocus to single-servo.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;When shooting:&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Place your meter point where you want to meter.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Press and hold the AE-lock button. (On my camera, this will start up the meter if it has turned off after a delay)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Place your AF point over your subject.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Half-press and hold the shutter release.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Recompose&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shoot.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Focus, Meter, Recompose, Shoot&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Method one: AF-On, meter on half-press.&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;Camera settings:&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AE/AF lock button should be set to AF-On (Or whatever Canon calls this. Basically, autofocus only happens when you're holding this button.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make sure your camera locks exposure when you half-press the shutter release.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set autofocus to single-servo.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;When shooting:&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Put your focus point over your subject.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Press the AF-On button until AF locks, and continue to hold the button. (You might be able to let go of the AF-On button if your camera can be to shutter priority, as opposed to focus priority.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Put your meter point over where you want to meter.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Half-press and hold the shutter release.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Recompose&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shoot.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Method two: Focus on half press, AE-lock.&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;Camera settings:&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AE/AF lock button should be set to AE-lock only.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set autofocus to single-servo.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make sure your camera does &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; lock exposure when you half-press the shutter release.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;When shooting:&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Put your focus point over your subject.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Half-press the shutter to focus. Hold the shutter release halfway.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Put your meter point over your metering target.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Press and hold the AE lock button.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Recompose.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shoot.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T08:54:20.450" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11830" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11828" CreationDate="2011-05-08T10:09:12.297" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You need to shoot from an angle - if all the trees/signs are in front of you then they will all appear vertical in the image regardless of the slope. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is actually a well known illusion that gives rise to &quot;gravity hill&quot;, a road which slopes downhill but looking head on in the absence of any visual cues the brain interprets it as flat/sloping up, which causes objects to appear to roll uphill!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/fluxn/2526527503/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3247/2526527503_ede72258f1_z_d.jpg?zz=1&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photo by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/fluxn&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fluxn&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you shoot side-on or from an angle there would be a clear difference in the line of the trees and road which would give the viewer the information that the road is sloping.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an extreme example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/fb5.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The slope is clearly evident when you look at the trees. Note that photo was taken by a friend with my camera, as I'm in it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-08T10:26:03.853" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T10:26:03.853" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11831" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11828" CreationDate="2011-05-08T12:08:07.553" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to Matt's answer, if you can until the bottom of the hill is in sight you can also get an idea of slope without shooting from an angle.  See, for a not particularly good example, the following taken from Flickr:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/fransdewit/4841294297/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/4841294297_252512abf7.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Tour de France&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Credit: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/fransdewit/4841294297/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Frans de Wit&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;cc licensed&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This obviously only applies if you're facing downhill.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3356" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T12:08:07.553" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11832" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11828" CreationDate="2011-05-08T13:06:08.370" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Shoot sideways. Certain things are most often vertical, regardless if they are on a slope or not. So, I would shoot the slope at an angle so that you can see the slope and those naturally vertical objects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In your example, the trees and road-signs should be vertical (although I know in some extremely rare occasions they are not which cause an optical-illusion of sorts), so there should be a non-90-degree angle between the slope of the hill and tree-trunk and road-signs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T13:06:08.370" />
  <row Id="11833" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11853" CreationDate="2011-05-08T15:40:23.123" Score="1" ViewCount="196" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I have it set to the highest JPG quality, my 8GB card can hold about 1000 images. If I switch to RAW format, it drops the capacity to about 200 images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why do images captured as RAW take up 5 times the space of images captured as JPEGs? Is the picture quality &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; different? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2777" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-09T21:19:42.467" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T21:19:42.467" Title="Why does the RAW file format take up so much more space than JPEG?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;file-format&gt;&lt;image-compression&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11834" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11837" CreationDate="2011-05-08T15:42:04.243" Score="3" ViewCount="110" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a 60D and I know sdhc cards work in it, I am unsure about sdxc though?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2777" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T15:49:48.707" Title="Can a Canon 60D use sdxc cards?" Tags="&lt;canon-60d&gt;&lt;sdxc&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="11835" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11833" CreationDate="2011-05-08T15:44:01.107" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;JPG files use lossy compression, which means that as well as throwing away some information, they take up less space. RAW is effectively a direct sensor dump - nothing is thrown away or compressed (though some cameras offer a compressed RAW option).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1969" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-08T18:52:43.987" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T18:52:43.987" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11836" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11833" CreationDate="2011-05-08T15:46:11.947" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;RAW files contain the raw data right form the chip (often uncompressed, or otherwise compressed losslessly). They also contains more bits per pixel (usually 12 or more, per color channel) compared to JPEG, which only stores 8bits per pixel &amp;amp; color. These extra bits give you a much wider range of light/dark values, and more granularity within the range of available values, for all three color channels. This is also known a Dynamic Range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, JPEGs &quot;save&quot; space by login two pieces of information: (a) dropping dynamic range down to 8bit and (b) lossy-ly compressing the resulting data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5105" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T15:46:11.947" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="11837" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11834" CreationDate="2011-05-08T15:49:09.773" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes&lt;/strong&gt;.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_60d?selectedName=Features&amp;amp;fileName=0901e024801e2fb2_feature9.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;According to Canon's website&lt;/a&gt;, the 60D has:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Compatibility with SD/SDHC/SDXC memory&#xA;  cards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T15:49:09.773" />
  <row Id="11838" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11834" CreationDate="2011-05-08T15:49:48.707" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes&lt;/strong&gt; the Canon 60D is compatible with SDXC cards.  You will see it mentioned first on page 2 of the manual.  You can find a link to the manual on Canon's website &lt;a href=&quot;http://pdisp01.c-wss.com/gdl/WWUFORedirectTarget.do?id=MDMwMDAwNDAxOTAy&amp;amp;cmp=ABR&amp;amp;lang=EN&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T15:49:48.707" />
  <row Id="11839" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-08T16:09:24.740" Score="6" ViewCount="201" Body="&lt;p&gt;I run a photobooth for a friend at a party for a side job and last night we came across a predicament.  We only were able to use one flash on a tripod, instead of the usual two, along with the camera flash that has a Gary Fong on it.  I couldn't seem to get rid of some dark shadows under people's arms and ears/hair.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What would be the best placement for the umbrella flash when I come across this again?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5106" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-09T08:47:13.993" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T10:26:52.773" Title="How do I light a photo booth with a single flash and an umbrella?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;off-camera-flash&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11840" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11839" CreationDate="2011-05-08T16:41:25.080" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6601/what-is-rembrandt-lighting-and-when-do-i-use-it&quot;&gt;Rembrandt Lighting&lt;/a&gt; (high and to one side) is a one-light setup. It's probably the most common and useful one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Get the umbrella as close as possible (while still being out-of-frame) to avoid hard shadows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on exactly where the dark shadows are, you might be able to increase the power of your on-camera flash (ie: your fill light) relative to your main flash (ie: your key light).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if this is a one-time-setup fire-and-forget photobooth, you might not be able to get good shots every single time. People, bodies, poses, and positions will change every time. Manage your expectations accordingly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T16:41:25.080" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11841" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11846" CreationDate="2011-05-08T17:30:12.347" Score="10" ViewCount="247" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am currently looking at 32GB class 10 SDHC cards. The prices per brand are extremely varied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/712659-REG/Transcend_TS32GSDHC10_32GB_SDHC_Card.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Transcend - $54.88&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/757925-REG/SanDisk_SDSDRX3_032G_A21_Extreme_SDHC_Class_10.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SanDisc  - $97.95&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/751143-REG/Hoodman_RAWSDHC32GBST_32GB_RAW_STEEL_SDHC.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Raw Steel - $209.99&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the cause of the price difference?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This creates the perception in my mind that the Transcend card must be a piece of junk that I should not buy. Is this true? Or is it just a much better deal?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are the differences just for pros? Something an amateur like me wouldn't notice, or does the difference mean the cheaper ones will die sooner?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2777" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-10T11:59:46.197" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T12:48:19.923" Title="What's the difference in media card brands?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;memory-card&gt;&lt;sdhc&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="11842" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11839" CreationDate="2011-05-08T18:04:53.240" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you have some resources on hand for creating a reflector of some sort, you can go with a butterfly using the strobe and the reflector. Pretty much any basic white board of some sort will do the trick assuming you can get the light high on the subject. DIY Photography has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diyphotography.net/one-light-portrait-setup-1-butterfly-lighting-optional-strobe&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pretty good article&lt;/a&gt; on the technique showing a diagram and some outcomes as well as Jay has &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6772/what-is-butterfly-lighting-and-when-do-i-use-it&quot;&gt;one here with much prettier diagrams&lt;/a&gt;. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, if you can't take the strobe off the camera but you can tilt/rotate it, then you can try to make it a bigger light source. One approach to this, again with the makeshift reflector is to direct the light to the side and onto the reflector that is then aimed at the subject. This will soften the light and make it bigger, creating softer shadows. A second reflector may be useful, if you can, to fill in the other side, further reducing and softening the shadows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a side note, the reflectors can be bristol board or something along that line, they do not have to be expensive, professional, options. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-09T10:26:52.773" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T10:26:52.773" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11843" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11841" CreationDate="2011-05-08T18:21:17.260" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;SDHC cards get a class rating (6, 8, 10) which denotes how fast the card can transfer data, higher class cards will transfer data faster and for that reason cost more money. However the 3 cards you've linked to are all class 10.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other difference between them is quality, cheaper cards are more likely to fail sooner in my experience. I've had a search around and I can't find any studies done on this, maybe someone else can. I've personally had issue's with a Transcend branded card very early in its life and since then I've only bought Kingston cards (and have yet to have an issue). Others will likely recommend other brands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's my understanding that flash memory is actually produced in very few places by very few companies and that the majority of brands that you find on cards haven't actually produced the flash memory itself, they simply buy it from the places that do and put their own branding on it. I suspect that some of the cheaper brands will buy the lower quality samples from factories!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I won't tell you to buy the most expensive card but neither will I tell you to by the cheapest either, I'm afraid you have to decide how much you feel is a reasonable price and shop around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1580" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-09T10:24:58.393" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T10:24:58.393" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11844" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-08T18:39:24.640" Score="0" ViewCount="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can someone direct me to a photoshop cs5 book that details the image making process from beginning to end ie showing how to make an image from scratch, best techniques etc Please share why you think this book is good and why you recommend the particular book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5108" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T18:39:24.640" ClosedDate="2011-05-08T18:42:03.980" Title="What Photoshop CS5 Book Describes Making Images From Scratch?" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;image-processing&gt;&lt;photoshop-cs5&gt;" />
  <row Id="11845" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11833" CreationDate="2011-05-08T19:17:59.247" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is the picture quality that different?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, and no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The RAW file does contain that much more information, but it's more information than is possible to make visible in an image, so you can't see all the difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The extra information in the RAW image is useful if you need to process the image afterwards. If the image is underexposed or overexposed, or if you need to change the contrast, the extra information in the RAW image will keep it from degrading as quickly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you process a JPEG image too much, you will see the lack of information as banding or compression artifacts. The JPEG image contains just enough information to make it look like it does, all extra information is removed in the conversion to the 24-bit color depth and the image compression.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T19:17:59.247" />
  <row Id="11846" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11841" CreationDate="2011-05-08T19:42:17.443" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Reliability, brand, exclusivity determine the price of memory card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sandisk, for example, has multiple series, usually with different colors. Blue ones are low end and no entirely reliable. Black ones are more durable, usually labelled 'Extreme' and &lt;a href=&quot;http://shop.sandisk.com/store/sdiskca/en_CA/pd/productID.102238800&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;red 'Ducati' edition&lt;/a&gt; which are modified extreme with additional durability and performance testing. The red ones are more expense than the black ones but I find them equally reliable (zero failures among 12 black and 4 red cards I own).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lexar has a similar color-scheme with higher reliability for more premium lines. Lexar memory are all extremely reliable but they are, as you may notice, more expensive than competitors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then there are tons of other brands. Kingston for example as an excellent one and cheap because it does not the brand recognition of the big two. Now when it gets cheaper than that, reliability suffers. It is not that they won't work but you'll get more and more corrupted photos (examples have been posted to this site by unlucky ones) or a card that simply stops working.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your risk depends on your workflow and how important your photos are. If you copy your images very day, you will lose at most one day of photos for example. Even a brand name card can fail, I've never experienced it but if you search around, you'll find.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Never heard of Raw Steel but it sounds like they have produced a premium product. How much it matters, I do not know. I've had both Lexar and Verbatim cards come out of the laundry without any negative impact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T19:42:17.443" />
  <row Id="11847" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11841" CreationDate="2011-05-08T20:04:44.063" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two basic types of flash memory: Single-level cell (SLC) and multi-level cell (MLC). By using multiple voltage levels to store information, MLC memory can pack more data into the same area of silicon, bringing price down.  However, this improved density causes disadvantages when it comes to read/write speeds and write endurance.  Therefore, lower-cost cards typically are MLC types, while higher-cost cards are SLC.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should also be aware of the rather complex supply chain for these cards. In the flash fabrication department, Toshiba partners with SanDisk, Intel partners with Micron, and Infineon, Micron, Renesas, Samsung, and ST Microelectronics round out the major suppliers.  Most of these companies also make the controllers for the memory, but there are even more companies that make their own controllers.  See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this 10-k filing&lt;/a&gt; by Lexar from way back in 2005:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[Excerpt 1] We compete with semiconductor companies that manufacture and sell flash memory chips or flash memory cards. These include Hynix, Infineon, Micron, Renesas, Samsung, SanDisk, ST Micro and Toshiba. Micron and Intel have recently formed a joint venture known as Intel Micron Flash Technologies. SanDisk and Toshiba jointly develop and manufacture both low-cost and high-performance flash memory through their Flash Vision joint venture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[Excerpt 2] We also face significant competition from manufacturers or card assemblers and resellers that either resell flash cards purchased from others or assemble cards from controllers and flash memory chips purchased from companies such as Renesas, Samsung or Toshiba, into flash cards. These companies include Crucial, Dane-Elec, Delkin Devices, Feiya, Fuji, Hagiwara, Hama, Hewlett Packard, Data I/O, Infineon, Kingston, Kodak, M-Systems, Matsushita, Memorex, Memory Plus, Micron, PNY, PQI, Pretec, Ritek, Samsung, SanDisk, Silicon Storage Technology, SimpleTech, SMART Modular Technologies, Sony, TDK, Transcend, Viking InterWorks and many others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[Excerpt 3] In addition, an increasing number of companies are manufacturing their own controllers, including Genesys, Hyperstone, Prolific, SanDisk, Sigmatel, Silicon Storage Technology, SMI, Solid State System, Sony and Zoran. Such companies either combine their controllers with flash memory from third parties to manufacture their own flash cards or sell their controllers to third parties who use them to assemble flash cards. Additionally, major semiconductor companies such as Infineon, Micron, Renesas, Samsung and Toshiba have also developed or are currently developing their own controllers that will likely compete with our controller and/or card sales.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Importantly, note that some manufacturers, including the Kingston brand praised in other answers to this question, &lt;em&gt;doesn't manufacture any flash memory.  &lt;strong&gt;They buy it from their competitors.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;  The only value-add that Kingston offers is branding, packaging, testing, and controller firmware.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I don't know which of those three links use which type of memory, or which Flash foundry, or which controller.  I know that the SD card manufacturing industry is full of counterfeits, so be careful who you buy from (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=918&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this post&lt;/a&gt; from Bunnie Studios for an example of the counterfeiting in Kingston cards). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5110" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T20:04:44.063" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="11848" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12331" CreationDate="2011-05-08T20:27:52.010" Score="0" ViewCount="200" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently purchased Nikon D7000 and would like to learn how to use it properly and want to learn photography using it. Can anyone suggest good online tutorials which I can look at or any DVDs which I can purchase?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5111" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-09T16:56:53.097" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T03:14:47.763" Title="What are good online or DVD tutorials for my new Nikon D7000?" Tags="&lt;learning&gt;&lt;nikon-d7000&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="11849" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11839" CreationDate="2011-05-08T21:20:22.313" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking for 'photobooth' style photography the &lt;em&gt;number one&lt;/em&gt; priority is for a lighting setup that will work for every single person who sits in front of the camera without having to fiddle with the lighting at all for the entire time the photobooth is set up. Not having to monkey with lighting is what allows the camera operator to get as many people in and out as fast as possible with very predictable and uniform results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is actually a relatively easy thing to to do with a single light source... Simply place the light directly behind and above the photographer pointing right at the subject adjust the light's power once at the beginning of the evening to get a reasonable balance, and you shouldn't have to adjust it again. This will produce a flat light that is not especially interesting (or all that great looking) but it will tend to give a bit of sparkle to the eyes, and most importantly will light people's faces in a uniform way and will eliminate &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; harsh shadows from the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Companies that provide these types of photographs (santa pictures, yearbook photos, prom pictures, photobooths, etc.) often refer to this as 'yearbook portrait' lighting (as well as other &lt;em&gt;much&lt;/em&gt; more derogatory terms), but its value to these companies is that it's less of a 'lighting style' and more a method of lighting that produces 'adequate results and can be taught to a minimum-wage camera operator in a 2-hour training session'... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-08T21:33:12.813" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T21:33:12.813" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11850" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11778" CreationDate="2011-05-08T21:55:31.220" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think you can easily do this with multiple masks.  You need to use a single mask, but clip your adjustment layers to that one mask.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assume you have your main background layer called Layer1, a colour balance adjustment layer above that, and hue/sat adjustment layer on top.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Put the colour balance and hue/saturation layers in a group (I do this, not sure if it's a necessary step)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Create the mask only to the bottom of the two (the colour adjustment layer)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Alt-click between Layer1 and the colour adj layer to create a clipping mask.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If necessary, alt-click between the two adjustment layers to clip the hue/sat layer.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the mask will apply to both of your adjustments&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4191" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T21:55:31.220" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11851" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11848" CreationDate="2011-05-08T22:06:52.060" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;best&quot; answer to your question is not going to provide a full tutorial of the D7000 and how to use it.  I would recommend &lt;strong&gt;becoming familiar with basic photography techniques and skills&lt;/strong&gt;, then simply reading the manual or the Magic Lantern guide on your specific model if you have any questions on the actual execution of the techniques you are interested in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some recommended materials:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1454701323&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Magic Lantern Guides&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; -  which are a series of books that can help you get familiar with a new camera.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Blue-Crane-Digital-zBC137-Introduction/dp/B004JHY3X0/ref=pd_sim_p_6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Blue Crane DVD&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; - might be an example of a DVD that you are looking for.  Most would say that these are somewhat basic, but I don't think you will find very advanced material on specifically the Nikon D7000, instead you will find general photography DVS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond7000/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DPReview&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; - A great free online &quot;tutorial&quot; of the in's and out's of that model can be found on dpreview.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other similar questions on the basics that have been asked before:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2760/how-to-start-the-basics-of-photography-which-is-the-best-entry-level-slr-camera&quot;&gt;How to start the basics of photography, which is the best entry level SLR camera?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/5283/how-to-start-learning-photography&quot;&gt;How to start learning photography?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4203/what-are-good-resources-for-a-beginning-photographer&quot;&gt;What are good resources for a beginning photographer?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-08T22:06:52.060" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11852" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11839" CreationDate="2011-05-09T00:43:36.260" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One easy way to help eliminate those shadows, is the use of a relector, as mentioned in another answer. However, this usually means you need help. For an effective reflected fill, try a white floor cover, drop cloth, or even put sheets of white poster board on the floor.  Usually there will be enough reflected fill to soften these shadows, and you don't need any help. This works especially well if the umbrella is above and behind the photographer, and facing the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T00:43:36.260" />
  <row Id="11853" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11833" CreationDate="2011-05-09T01:15:50.910" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Raw files are an &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;intermediate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; format. It's essentially the unmodified sensor data (often in Bayer pattern), packaged with a bunch of metadata about the shot as well as a JPEG preview (for quick viewing). The data is both losslessly compressed and of a higher bit depth than that of JPEG.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You only need to shoot raw if you wish to develop the photos into JPEGs, or other destination formats such as TIFF or PNG, yourself by using a software suite. This has many benefits to photographers wanting to take their photos beyond the camera, as well as provides the ability to extract information  that might otherwise be lost. For example, bringing out detail in shadows, bringing back detail lost in highlights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A raw file is analogous to a film negative in the fact that you can keep producing different versions of a photograph by manipulating settings such as contrast, saturation, white balance, black and white etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main thing to note is that raw files are nothing more than the base data for creating a JPEG representation. They're not some &lt;em&gt;better format&lt;/em&gt; of photo, because they're not the format used to print or to upload to the internet. They're the egg and you are the frying pan. Shooting JPEG means the camera fries the egg for you, in a way you may or may not like. I personally don't take the chance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Main Differences&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;JPEG compression discards information in the image to reduce the size, raw does not.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;JPEG can only store 8 bits of information per component (red, green, blue), where a raw file may contain 12 - 14 bits for most DSLRs these days. The pixel data in a 14-bit raw file is &lt;strong&gt;64&lt;/strong&gt; times more detailed than a JPEG.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Changing white balance and many other basic settings can cause severe loss of quality in a JPEG, with raw you are essentially starting from scratch with the highly accurate data.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Raw files are typically 2 to 5 times larger because of the compression and bit depth of the data.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T01:15:50.910" />
  <row Id="11854" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11856" CreationDate="2011-05-09T01:36:54.827" Score="9" ViewCount="147" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a beginner just starting out in photography, I find myself on the lookout for a good camera bag that will make it easier to keep my camera with me as much as possible. However, without the  experience to know what to look for or how to evaluate what I find, it is easy to get lost in the torrent of available options. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What are the different styles of camera bags in common use, and what are the pros and cons of each?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1480" LastEditorUserId="1480" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-09T01:45:35.630" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T12:06:33.633" Title="What different styles of camera bags exist, and how are they different?" Tags="&lt;camera-bag&gt;&lt;equipment-protection&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11855" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11857" CreationDate="2011-05-09T01:42:13.480" Score="4" ViewCount="118" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What considerations should I factor in when choosing a camera bag of a &lt;em&gt;given style&lt;/em&gt;, and how important is each one?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;For a question on the different bag styles, see: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/11854/1480&quot;&gt;What different styles of camera bags exist, and how are they different?&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an example list of bag qualities to get things started:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Size&lt;/strong&gt;--both in terms of what it can hold and what it's like to carry.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Features&lt;/strong&gt;--such as weather/rain protection, amount of padding, ease of access, places for accessories, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Prices/brands&lt;/strong&gt;--are some brands &lt;em&gt;that much better&lt;/em&gt; so as to justify the sometimes large price differences?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Where to buy&lt;/strong&gt;--online (direct or from a reseller) or in a brick-and-mortar store?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1480" LastEditorUserId="1480" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-09T01:56:26.417" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T22:57:56.417" Title="How do I choose a camera bag?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;camera-bag&gt;&lt;equipment-protection&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="11856" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11854" CreationDate="2011-05-09T01:50:06.863" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems I already wrote the perfect article for you ;) Here it is: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/article.php?id=camera_bags&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Camera Bag Guide&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The importance is to understand the trade-off between each type of bag in terms of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Carrying size - How much equipment? How heavy?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Accessibility - How fast can you get your gear out of it?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Comfort - How the weight is distributed? How does it interfere with your movements?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Airline compliance - Carry-on size? Personal item size?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Different bag types offer various trade-offs among these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-09T04:43:54.313" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T04:43:54.313" />
  <row Id="11857" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11855" CreationDate="2011-05-09T02:02:53.910" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Once you have your style chosen, then the first thing is to &lt;strong&gt;find the right size for you given the circumstances in which you expect to use that bag&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Size with camera bags is kind of abstract since equal volume bags may not be able to fit the same equipment due to their shape. The only way I found of solving this is &lt;strong&gt;going to a photo store with ALL the biggest gear I intend to carry at once and try to fit it&lt;/strong&gt;. Yes, sometimes it take over an hour to try all the models which look about the right size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no reason to get a back without rain protection unless you plan &lt;strong&gt;never&lt;/strong&gt; to be out in the rain with your gear. Otherwise, you'd need an extra bag just for rainy days? And what if the forecast is wrong? Or you happen to walk somewhere where it is customary to throw water-balloons at strangers on that day! (This did happen to some friends of mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Brands have different styles based on their intended audience. A corollary to the first rule is only to buy brands available in local stores. Between those your preference will dictate: Do you prefer a plain looking one or a flashy one? Do you prefer to pay more for one that is durable? Do the zippers on one brand annoy you? etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T02:02:53.910" />
  <row Id="11858" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11859" CreationDate="2011-05-09T02:15:29.060" Score="9" ViewCount="138" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've noticed lately that subjects with darker skin, especially brown hues, tend to come out with lots of red in prints. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When shooting against red or brown backgrounds, this effect is significantly worse. Is this something I can solve with better lighting and/or do I need to change my process in Photoshop?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We're trying to setup my studio with better lighting right now but I also have some trouble understanding the interplay between RGB and CYMK. What can I do to improve the quality of my shots and how can I prepare the images properly for printing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4775" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-09T02:53:54.970" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T03:34:44.333" Title="How can I keep skin color from coming out too red in prints?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;printing&gt;&lt;color&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11859" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11858" CreationDate="2011-05-09T03:25:33.730" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two possible causes and in fact both may be happening ... firstly if you have auto-white balance enabled then the camera may be setting the white balance based on the whole picture, which if you have a red or brown background then it may be the majority of the shot.  To overcome this you need to either adjust the white balance in post processing or set a custom white balance based on the subjects skin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second issue is calibration of the monitor against the printer.  You say the skin become red on printing, so I presume it looks okay on your screen.  This is caused by the screen and printer not being calibrated together.  There are many ways of calibrating them, personally I have found the Spyder series of tools very capable in this process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the image looks okay on your screen then it is the calibration you need to work on, if the image is bad on screen and print then it is the white balance and maybe the calibration also that need correction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1410" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T03:25:33.730" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11860" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11855" CreationDate="2011-05-09T03:27:09.360" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some good things to look at in the accepted answer for the following question ... &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6254/what-are-the-cons-of-a-backpack-style-camera-bag/6267#6267&quot;&gt;What are the cons of a backpack-style camera bag?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1410" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T03:27:09.360" />
  <row Id="11861" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11848" CreationDate="2011-05-09T03:34:19.073" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is an immense wealth of information on Nikon USA's website at ... &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikonusa.com/Learn-And-Explore/index.page&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.nikonusa.com/Learn-And-Explore/index.page&lt;/a&gt; .. in both text/image and video format.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1410" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T03:34:19.073" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11862" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11858" CreationDate="2011-05-09T03:34:44.333" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This sounds like a printer profile selction issue. The way colors look in print is highly dependent upon the inks and papers used, and often the default &quot;mode&quot; for certain printers is to print with saturation intent and a poorly calibrated printer profile for its default paper types. This often results in prints looking too reddish. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not sure what printer you have, but you should check and verify that you always know the following when you print:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What kind of paper is selected?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is the current print ICC profile matched to the selected paper type?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Have you chosen a useful rendering intent?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Programs like Photoshop allow you to manage print output yourself, which is usually what you want to do if accurately reproducing your photos in print is your desire. When manually managing all aspects of print, you should be carefully selecting the type of paper you are putting in the printer (printer brands like Canon and Epson have a fairly broad range of branded papers, and also usually support high quality third party papers.) Once you have selected a paper type in the printer driver, you need to make sure you select a matching properly calibrated ICC color profile for that printer and paper selection. If you are using papers of the same brand as the printer, you should be able to select a matching ICC color profile that was installed with the printer drivers. If you are using a third party paper type, look for an ICC profile for your printer on that paper manufacturers web site. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you match the paper type selected with a valid ICC profile, you should be ready to go. You will want to select a rendering intent to get the best results. Its not alway clear which intent should be used until you have printed at least once...Perceptual usually works for most things, however sometimes you may wish to use Relative Colorimetric. Absolute Colorimetric and Saturation intents should be avoided. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding interplay or conversion between RGB and CMYK...don't worry about it. Thats what the ICC color profile is for, and if you use a good one (most important when using third-party paper types), your printed color rendition should be superb. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T03:34:44.333" />
  <row Id="11863" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-09T08:07:58.310" Score="-2" ViewCount="113" Body="&lt;p&gt;I need a recommendation here for a picture site from which I can use business pictures of men and women, for my websites. It should be low-cost price as well — like $10–15.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5114" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-09T13:12:43.763" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T13:24:45.383" ClosedDate="2011-05-09T15:38:25.963" Title="Where can I get &quot;business pictures&quot; of people for my website?" Tags="&lt;web&gt;&lt;stock-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11864" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11901" CreationDate="2011-05-09T10:15:18.073" Score="7" ViewCount="253" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just bought a new strap which I'm very happy with then saw the fancy-schmancy &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lu.ma/loop&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;slings&lt;/a&gt; that attach to the tripod-screw mount under the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a threaded bolt with a loop or two to allow me to attach one or both ends of my new strap to the tripod bolt? Something &lt;a href=&quot;http://customslr.com/products/c-loop&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;like this&lt;/a&gt; but perhaps cheaper and available in the UK?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a Nikon D5000.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2547" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-09T13:03:51.717" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T05:10:00.943" Title="What can I use to attach a strap to the tripod socket on my camera?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;tripod-socket&gt;&lt;camera-straps&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11865" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-09T11:04:33.407" Score="0" ViewCount="89" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What are the advantages and disadvantages of using F-mount lenses?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that they are designed for wide sensors, that is up to 1&quot;.&#xA;They also have many features that make them very good quality lenses optically (low edge distortion, image stabilization, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lenses i'm working with are C or CS mount. The sensors are 1/3&quot; , 1/2&quot; with C or CS mounting. I am unhappy with their optical quality at the edges of the pictures, so I'm thinking about moving to F-mount lenses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can F-mount lenses solve my problems?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5120" LastEditorUserId="3356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-09T11:53:46.110" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T11:53:46.110" ClosedDate="2011-05-09T19:32:38.890" Title="What are the advantages and disadvantages of using F-mount lenses?" Tags="&lt;video&gt;&lt;lens-mount&gt;" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="11866" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11864" CreationDate="2011-05-09T11:19:54.717" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have improvised my own asymmetric strap using a camera bag strap, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.manfrotto.co.uk/product/8373.56.48467.0.0/118/_/Short_16mm_Spigot_with_14%27_and_38%27_screw&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this Manfrotto spigot&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wickes.co.uk/steel-carbine-hook/invt/159411/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a carabiner like this&lt;/a&gt;. Not pretty, but it works and is relatively cheap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastEditorUserId="48" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-10T16:11:55.797" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T16:11:55.797" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="11867" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11855" CreationDate="2011-05-09T11:30:48.713" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before choosing your camera bag, you need to identify what you want to carry around in it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I own two camera bags, one big, one small. I use the big when when I absolutely have to have the larger of the zooms or more than will fit in the small bag. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People tend to forget how heavy all that gear gets so a key consideration before anything else is how much do you want to carry around and how far do you want to carry it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5015" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T11:30:48.713" />
  <row Id="11868" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11768" CreationDate="2011-05-09T11:53:55.243" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Remember, the camera is engineered around the 'burst mode'. The shutter box, mechanics, and computer+buffer are designed to enable and function at 8 frames per second. The electronics can handle even higher throughput of 30 frames per second, but of course without the mechanics of the shutterbox involved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So there would not be any 'downsides' to keeping the camera in a mode for which it is designed. Shoot away, have fun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;About the only thing I can imagine might be a downside is unintentionally taking extra frames you did not want, and therefore shortening the life of the shutter by a bit each time. Still, the 7D has a 150,000 shot shutter, so it will take a while.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T11:53:55.243" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11869" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11870" CreationDate="2011-05-09T12:52:09.267" Score="15" ViewCount="261" Body="&lt;p&gt;When shooting events or action photos, engaging people, I often find that frontal (or rear) perspective may be very expressive, but my problem is focusing when the subject moves towards the camera (or away from it). I rarely have even a single decent shot in a series.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I use AF, then the lag between autofocusing and the shutter release is long enough for the subject to move out of focus. This is especially a problem when shooting wide open. Burst shooting doesn't help here, because the subject is by definition moving more and more out of focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I tried focusing manually &lt;em&gt;anticipating&lt;/em&gt; the subject, but my eyes are far from perfect in focusing, I often focus at the wrong plane (and it's hard to focus manually when there is nothing at that point yet).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What techniques do you use to shoot such photos?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastEditorUserId="1558" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-10T16:04:58.730" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T20:06:41.743" Title="How can I get better focus when a subject is moving towards or away from the camera?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;focus&gt;&lt;manual-focus&gt;&lt;sports&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="11870" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11869" CreationDate="2011-05-09T13:07:55.103" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a classic use-case for &lt;strong&gt;continuous autofocus&lt;/strong&gt; (AF-C).  Nikon uses that term, Canon refers to this mode as AI-Servo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This does not guarantee anything though, just improves your odds depending on:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Which camera you use:&lt;/strong&gt; Advanced cameras have &lt;strong&gt;predictive-autofocus&lt;/strong&gt; which calculate the speed at which a subject moves and keeps moving the focus in that direction. This is to be &lt;strong&gt;used in combination with burst mode&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Which lens you use:&lt;/strong&gt; Brighter lenses can focus faster even if you shoot at a smaller aperture. Different lenses also focus at different speeds for plenty of other reasons.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The speed of your subject&lt;/strong&gt;: Obviously!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The contrast of the subject&lt;/strong&gt;: Contrast is required to focus and the more contrast the easier it is to focus, so the lens can focus faster.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Shooting aperture&lt;/strong&gt;: A small aperture gives you more depth-of-field so focus can be less precise. Keep in mind if it is too small, the shutter-speed will cause the subject to blur.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The focus point&lt;/strong&gt;: In almost all cameras the center focus-point is more sensitive and can focus faster and with less light.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-09T17:15:32.443" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T17:15:32.443" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11871" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11864" CreationDate="2011-05-09T13:13:49.433" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You may wish to check out the &lt;a href=&quot;http://camdapter.com/home.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Camdapter&lt;/a&gt;, which has been around a while. It functions as both a Arca/Manfrotto/etc quick release adapter and a mount for attaching your shoulder strap, in the usual way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T13:13:49.433" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11872" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11863" CreationDate="2011-05-09T13:24:45.383" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I agree this is a bit off topic, not sure which site is best for it. Really just a simple Google search for &lt;code&gt;&quot;public domain&quot; stock photo&lt;/code&gt; should do great plus no cost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4776" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T13:24:45.383" />
  <row Id="11873" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2884" CreationDate="2011-05-09T13:46:28.830" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nice read and interesting websites. Another website for feedback that is missing in this list is a new and small photo community focussed on feedback: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.focussion.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.focussion.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5123" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T13:46:28.830" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-09T13:46:28.830" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11874" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11768" CreationDate="2011-05-09T13:59:40.173" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find burst mode a bit distracting if taking photos in a controlled environment (shooting). The camera shoots without you really being able to control what it shoots. That is when I use the slow burst mode (D90) - with two pictures a second I really can capture a pose redundant and can stop soon enough if it differs from what I like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Downside: (subjective) loss of control over photo.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Concerning sports I side with Kim Burgaard post - I discovered fast that anticipated photos always were better than burst mode-series. I really use burst mode only if I really don't know what to expect at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Downside: not giving best results in predictable high-speed situations.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(By &quot;I really use&quot; I do mean: burst mode is on nearly all the time, but I snap only one picture and depress again in most situations. Only in unknown situations I keeping pressing for burst.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Upside: You &lt;strong&gt;don't have to&lt;/strong&gt; burst shoot in burst mode ;)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T13:59:40.173" />
  <row Id="11875" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11768" CreationDate="2011-05-09T14:15:33.960" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use the camera in burst mode (nearly) all the time. I don't always &lt;em&gt;shoot&lt;/em&gt; bursts, but it's ready for me to do so if I wish, which I often do because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;things move; if I am outdoors, stuff will move around, so a burst will perhaps give me some different options to choose between&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;people move; when shooting portraits (mostly kids), I do a lot of bursts, because people move their head around, blink, make funny faces and so on&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;and more along the same lines...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is one occasion when I always switch the camera to single shot mode, and that is when I am making images with multiple exposures. Then I want to be certain that I get &lt;em&gt;exactly one exposure&lt;/em&gt; each time I press the shutter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T14:15:33.960" />
  <row Id="11876" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11864" CreationDate="2011-05-09T14:20:25.970" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A quick release plate like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Manfrotto-BOGEN-3157N-Release-Connect/dp/B00009R6FJ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt; can do the job.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update: While thinking about it, this does not solve the swivel problem I noted in one of the comments to ElendilTheTall, as the ring is attached, and rotates with the screw. However, it does give you a better resistance (friction) to unscrewing than his solution, if you tighten it well enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-10T18:33:44.440" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T18:33:44.440" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11877" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11815" CreationDate="2011-05-09T15:38:09.577" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just figured something else out with the help of my roommate who is a web programmer. When the website has a black background the image quality is sacraficed, when the website has a white background the image is at full quality, reguardless of a sRGB conversion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://davidmccarthymedia.com/russ/website%20white.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://davidmccarthymedia.com/russ/website%20white.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://davidmccarthymedia.com/russ/website%20black.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://davidmccarthymedia.com/russ/website%20black.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone see this? I have tested it on several monitors and it only seems to be happening on my main editing monitor sadly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5094" LastEditorUserId="5094" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-09T16:00:05.610" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T16:00:05.610" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11878" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-09T16:03:34.540" Score="22" ViewCount="322" Body="&lt;p&gt;Higher-end SLR cameras include a &lt;em&gt;pentaprism&lt;/em&gt; to transmit the image from the lens to the viewfinder, whereas lower-end SLR cameras use a &lt;em&gt;pentamirror&lt;/em&gt; to accomplish the same task.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What are the differences between a pentaprism and a pentamirror?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why is a pentaprism preferable to a pentamirror in a SLR camera?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T22:48:14.157" Title="What is the difference between a pentaprism and a pentamirror?" Tags="&lt;optics&gt;&lt;viewfinder&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="11879" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11878" CreationDate="2011-05-09T16:57:14.507" Score="22" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The basic difference is that a pentaprism is a solid block of glass. This means it's fairly heavy. It has mirroring material on all but two sides, so the light enters one side, gets reflected around inside, and then comes out the one other un-mirrored side. This means there are only 2 air/glass interfaces involved: one where light enters the prism, and one where it leaves the prism. This keeps light loss to a minimum.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A pentamirror does pretty much the same thing, but it's composed of a number of separate mirrors, so there's air in the middle instead of a block of solid glass. This makes it considerably lighter and less expensive. It also means there's an air/glass interface for each individual mirror, so there's quite a bit more light loss.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a result, a pentamirror is used almost exclusively in relatively low-end cameras where reduced expense and weight matter more than a relatively dim view through the viewfinder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T16:57:14.507" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11880" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12146" CreationDate="2011-05-09T17:18:44.450" Score="0" ViewCount="183" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for a budget telephoto lens and I'm wondering which of these two is the better option. They have very similar specs:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300mm-4-0-5-6-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000EXOXVA/ref=sr_1_1?s=photo&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1304961153&amp;amp;sr=1-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Di LD Macro Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-300mm-4-5-6-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B000AM7CJ0/ref=sr_1_6?s=photo&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1304961153&amp;amp;sr=1-6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is for my Canon EOS XTi. Thank you!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5126" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-09T17:25:40.157" LastActivityDate="2011-05-17T19:29:29.523" Title="Which 70-300mm f4-5.6 lens is &quot;better?&quot;" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;telephoto&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="11881" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2255" CreationDate="2011-05-09T17:34:55.367" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I agree with James that you should consider the fees that professionals charge.  However, there is a baseline cost of work for you below which you should not do the job.  Here is how you calculate it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are three components that go towards figuring out the value of your work. If you charge below the sum of these components you will be losing money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Labour time&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fixed assets&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Consumables&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll address these individually, albeit briefly, below.  You will need to put some flesh on the bones of this calculation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;1. Labour time&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is difficult to estimate.  It is essentially the rate of pay needed to keep yourself in the manner you are accustomed too.  This is obviously a subjective measure - if you are giving up an afterschool job to take photos, then its probably the rate of pay from your other job.  If you don't have any need for income because your parents cover all your costs then you don't &lt;em&gt;have&lt;/em&gt; to value your labour time at all! This is obviously a competitive advantage - other professional photographers not only have to sustain themselves, but often have a family to feed!  Its worth noting that for adults there is a socially acceptable minimum standard of living quantified by the minimum wage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the purpose of this calculation however, &lt;strong&gt;lets assume you are giving up a four hour shift of your after school job to complete this job for which you would otherwise be earning $10 per hour, or a total of $40.&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;2. Fixed assets&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am assuming here that you will not purchase any durable equipment for a photography job but will instead use equipment you already own (otherwise the calculation becomes a little more complicated, but is still tractable).  In this case, the contribution of your fixed assets (e.g. camera, lenses, car, accessories, etc.) is calculated as a proportion of their average lifespan consumed by use.  In some cases you can calculate this directly.  For example, if you are shooting with a 500D that you purchased for $750 with an average lifespan of 100,000 shutter actuations, and shoot 500 photos for a job the calculation looks like this: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;code&gt;Asset value&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/i&gt; &lt;code&gt;x&lt;/code&gt; &lt;i&gt;&lt;code&gt;Amount of asset used&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/i&gt; &lt;code&gt;/&lt;/code&gt; &lt;i&gt;&lt;code&gt;Amount of asset in average lifespan&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/i&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;=&lt;/code&gt; &lt;code&gt;$750&lt;/code&gt; &lt;code&gt;x&lt;/code&gt; &lt;code&gt;500&lt;/code&gt; &lt;code&gt;/&lt;/code&gt; &lt;code&gt;100,000&lt;/code&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;=&lt;/code&gt; $3.75.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You need to reproduce this calculation for each of your fixed assets.  Rather than working this out directly, lets arbitrarily quintuple the figure for your camera body and get a value of &lt;strong&gt;$18.75 of the value of your fixed assets consumed by a job&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;3. Consumables&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the easiest component to calculate, as you can simply keep the receipts.  Lets assume that this job requires $10 worth of gasoline and $20 worth of photo printing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This gives a cost of consumables of $30.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Value of your work&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The value of your work is the sum of these components.  In this rather contrived example, that is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;code&gt;Labour time&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/em&gt; + &lt;em&gt;&lt;code&gt;Fixed assets&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/em&gt; + &lt;em&gt;&lt;code&gt;Consumables&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;= $40 + $18.75 + $30&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;= $88.75&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is your break-even point, below which you should under no circumstances charge.  &lt;strong&gt;If you charge less than this amount you will be losing money.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Price of your work&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, you need not charge your work out at its value.  Indeed, you would have no monetary incestive to run a business if you did so.  Instead, you need to &lt;strong&gt;make a profit&lt;/strong&gt; by charging a rate greater than your costs. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exactly what this profit will be depends on market forces.  You probably cannot charge as much as high-class professional studios, as they offer a quality of services you presumably do not at this stage.  However, you are likely to be the fortunate position (from the perspective of a business owner) that the cost of your labour time is likely to be significantly less than that of your competitors who are presumably raising families, etc.  Thus, you are in the fortunate position where you may be able to undercut your competitors prices and thus attract business while still making a profit (at least until your life becomes more expensive, either by getting expensive tastes or leaving home or starting a family yourself).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3356" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T17:34:55.367" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11882" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11864" CreationDate="2011-05-09T19:50:31.830" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm own a CarrySpeed camera strap that attaches to the tripod socket on my D7000.  I like that the strap itself has a tiny pouch to carry a few extra SD cards as well.&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.carryspeed.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.carryspeed.com/&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a bit more money with more options there is also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blackrapid.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.blackrapid.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5058" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T19:50:31.830" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11883" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11841" CreationDate="2011-05-09T20:17:43.983" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;How important is your data?  If you can risk some card failures, Transcend can offer a great value.  My own searches show Transcend with a spotty record.  Some cards are really good and some really mediocre.  A professional photographer friend of mine uses nothing but Sandisk because they have a really low failure rate.  I haven't heard of Raw Steel and doubt that they can offer that much more to offset double the price of the Sandisk.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5058" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T20:17:43.983" />
  <row Id="11884" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-05-09T21:46:21.543" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Composition basics are all about the 'rudimentary' techniques that photographers use to compose their pictures. Whether used alone, or in combination with one another, composition often makes the difference between 'good' photographs and 'great' ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although they are often referred to as the various 'rules' of composition, (e.g. '&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11475/what-is-the-rule-of-odds&quot;&gt;The Rule of Odds&lt;/a&gt;,' or '&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/521/what-is-the-rule-of-thirds&quot;&gt;The Rule of Thirds&lt;/a&gt;') it is really more accurate to think of them as 'guidelines.' Generally speaking, most photographers can benefit from being aware of these basics of composition even if they have no intention of using them, if only for the fact that understanding them can help a photographer to understand what the outcome of their photographs will be when they decide to &lt;em&gt;break&lt;/em&gt; compositional rules.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-09T22:21:35.310" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T22:21:35.310" />
  <row Id="11885" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-05-09T21:46:21.543" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Composition basics are all about the 'rudimentary' techniques that photographers use to compose their pictures. Whether used alone, or in combination with one another, composition often makes the difference between 'good' photographs and 'great' ones." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-09T22:21:46.323" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T22:21:46.323" />
  <row Id="11886" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11878" CreationDate="2011-05-09T22:48:14.157" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;And for a visual:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Pentamirror&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentamirror&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/SLR_Pentamirror.png&quot; alt=&quot;Pentamirror&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Pentaprism&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentaprism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Pentaprism.svg&quot; alt=&quot;Pentaprism&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T22:48:14.157" />
  <row Id="11887" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11855" CreationDate="2011-05-09T22:57:56.417" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For &lt;strong&gt;holster&lt;/strong&gt; bags, you need to make sure the camera body will fit the width and height of the bag, and that the &lt;strong&gt;lens you use most often&lt;/strong&gt; fits the bag's length. If you have a lens hood, you will want to factor that into the equation, whether or not it slides back or your have to screw it on backwards to fit it in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use a LowePro Toploader 70 AW and it fits this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EOS 50D with battery grip (slightly smaller than a large pro body)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 lens attached to the body&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon 270EX Speedlite with bounce card in top pouch&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;BlackRapid RS-7 strap in one pouch (tight fit)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also have a small lens bag attached (fits a 50-85mm prime) with:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lens cloth&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2x spare batteries&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2x spare AA's&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's essentially my &quot;mobile&quot; setup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/KVFCZ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T22:57:56.417" />
  <row Id="11888" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11890" CreationDate="2011-05-09T23:05:59.047" Score="24" ViewCount="361" Body="&lt;p&gt;We often see that a manufacturer's high-end (D)SLR models offer a &quot;100% viewfinder,&quot; which shows the entire exposed frame, and allows precise composition with regard to objects near the edge of the frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lower-end models may instead have a 96% viewfinder, so the exposed frame extends slightly beyond what you see in the viewfinder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the reason for the less-than-100% viewfinder? Why &lt;em&gt;so close but so far&lt;/em&gt;? Is it related to &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11878/what-is-the-difference-between-a-pentaprism-and-a-pentamirror&quot;&gt;pentaprism-vs-pentamirror&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2138" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T14:25:15.220" Title="Why aren't all viewfinders 100%?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;optics&gt;&lt;viewfinder&gt;&lt;slr&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11889" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11869" CreationDate="2011-05-09T23:07:01.690" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unless your SLR has predictive/&quot;intelligent&quot; continuous autofocus, you're going to have a hard time overcoming it unless you have good enough eyesight and are quick at manually focusing. Unfortunately for most people, that's not the case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon's continuous predictive autofocus is called &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_servo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;AI Servo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nikon's is simply called continuous auto focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T23:07:01.690" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11890" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11888" CreationDate="2011-05-09T23:27:22.483" Score="29" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The main reason is that a 100% viewfinder requires extremely careful adjustment to assure that the framing in the viewfinder exactly matches what will show up on the sensor. In most cases (I'm pretty sure all cases, really) this means they have a little adjustable frame just below the pentaprism that gets adjusted by hand to match up precisely with what the sensor sees. That kind of finicky hand work costs serious money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other part is that a 100% viewfinder requires that you build most of the components in the viewfinder optical path a little larger to allow the larger stream of light through. With a 96% (for example) viewfinder, you can make the view-screen, pentaprism, etc., all just a tad smaller saving a bit on materials and such. This undoubtedly makes the biggest difference to the pentaprism, since increasing the &lt;em&gt;area&lt;/em&gt; of the viewscreen requires increasing the &lt;em&gt;volume&lt;/em&gt; of the prism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In theory, it's not really related to a pentamirror versus pentaprism -- if you wanted to badly enough, you could (theoretically) build a pentamirror camera with a 100% viewfinder -- but it would be a little like a &lt;a href=&quot;http://tatanano.inservices.tatamotors.com/tatamotors/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tata Nano&lt;/a&gt; with a diamond-crusted shift knob.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-05-09T23:27:22.483" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11891" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11888" CreationDate="2011-05-09T23:49:59.160" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The main reason many cameras do not have 100% viewfinders is the same reason that they don't all have full frame sensors, huge buffers, and GPS embedded. The same reason that all lenses are not perfect glass, IS, and f/1.0 : cost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's all a trade-off. Every camera &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; have 100% viewfinder, but it might have to give up a feature, or increase the price.  This is why the Canon 1D/1Ds, and nikon D3x/s are so expensive: they have no or few compromises.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit for coneslayer comments above...I think it reads easier here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will amend this response to add that part of the manufactures decision is not only cost but perceived cost and value. Manufacturers of all goods seek to differentiate their offerings and camera vendors do so by offering different features and benefits. We know that nearly all Canon cameras now have the same basic chips inside, but some cameras claim to have more buffer size, etc. It is also just as likely that some simply have different software loads on the same chip, thus reducing parts costs while offering different features via software. Viewfinder view could be one of these differentiators as well, and at least with Nikon and Canon, we see 100% viewfinders on their top end cameras ($5000+), but often not on beginner models. This suggests that its either a differentiator or a cost factor. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another &lt;em&gt;possible&lt;/em&gt; reason is the following: if a manufacturer promises a 100% viewfinder, this suggests a level of precision that is not in a 96% viewfinder.  100% is just that: it must match the &lt;em&gt;exact&lt;/em&gt; view that is seen by the sensor. If the prism or mirror or anything in the view path is slightly out of alignment, the photographer may assume something is in the shot that actually isn't. Imagine your surprise if your shot is different and does not include the subject as you saw in the viewfinder.  On the other hand, if its a 96% viewfinder, your view will be smaller than the sensor view, and the final shot will include portions of the subject NOT in the viewfinder, giving you ample margin to adjust your image in post as you see fit. With 100%, there is no margin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have to assume that the precision to deliver 100% vs 96% is significantly higher here, and more importantly, much higher cost. Alignment issues on an automated line could mean costly scrapping of expensive parts, and hand assembly I would imagine is too costly for volumes needed for Canon xxxxD/xxxD models. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose a vendor could also provide 110%, and draw a box on the viewfinder around the assumed sensor view...but I don't think I have seen this since old rangefinders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastEditorUserId="4880" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-10T13:18:32.670" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T13:18:32.670" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11892" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11893" CreationDate="2011-05-10T00:59:44.097" Score="2" ViewCount="74" Body="&lt;p&gt;I currently shoot everything in RAW+JPEG and import into Aperture as pairs.  I have a large number of photos that I have not (and will not) make adjustments to and it would be nice to remove the RAW files to free up some disk space.  Is there any way to do this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5068" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-10T10:22:03.510" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T10:22:03.510" Title="Is there a way to delete RAW files from Aperture?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;apple-aperture&gt;&lt;workflow&gt;&lt;file-management&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="11893" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11892" CreationDate="2011-05-10T01:33:52.160" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Aperture treats the RAW file and the JPEG as a single composite master and won't let you do anything with them individually except create a new master from the JPEG. That new master can be deleted, but it doesn't buy you anything since the original RAW is still there with the JPEG file.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The RAW and JPEG images are treated as a single master.&lt;/strong&gt; In a RAW+JPEG&#xA;  workflow, the two images are treated&#xA;  as a single master. If you have&#xA;  imported the images as referenced,&#xA;  avoid deleting either the RAW or JPEG&#xA;  from the Finder - Aperture will lose&#xA;  connection with the remaining master&#xA;  as well.(&lt;a href=&quot;http://support.apple.com/kb/TA24505?viewlocale=en_US&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are ways to delete the RAW files using finder, or terminal scripts, but none that use Aperture such as what your original question asked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T01:33:52.160" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11895" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11848" CreationDate="2011-05-10T02:35:07.327" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This won't be a specific 'tutorial' per se, but Thom Hogan has some pretty highly repsected manuals.  He explains the specifics about how each of the Nikon bodies work in great detail.  Each of the settings and controls are discussed and the effect they will have on your images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They can be found at: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bythom.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bythom.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4952" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T02:35:07.327" />
  <row Id="11896" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-10T02:48:27.480" Score="2" ViewCount="142" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ok so I shoot basically one thing....real estate.  I am in the market for a new camera so I borrowed a friends canon 50d.  I have been using a Rebel xti and been getting good results but I want to upgrade.  I took some exteriors today and they came out like crap.  Very soft!  I shoot with a tripod because i use the AEB functions and layer all of my shots so it wasnt hand shaking.  I have a canon 10mm x 22mm lens, set the iso at 200 and f-stop at 6.3.  I really dont understand much else and could really use help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5129" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T03:36:25.173" Title="Why are my pictures blurry/soft??" Tags="&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;blur&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11897" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13" CreationDate="2011-05-10T03:03:37.080" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like to use the analogy I got from a few folks at Adobe:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS was built by a team of image processing computer science folks and later improved with the addition of a bunch of graphic artist types. There wasn't a clear definition of WHO the product was designed for, photographers, graphic artists, designers; pros or amateurs. Bridge was bolted on the side as an attempt at catalog management by the same type of folks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;LightRoom was built by photographers, for photographers. Period. Now being part of Adobe, and part of the PS product line, they were able to reach out to and tap into that core team of really smart computer science types to do the low level bit twiddling work, so it's awesome at that. But the product had a single design point, a single customer base, and a single driven purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T03:03:37.080" />
  <row Id="11898" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11896" CreationDate="2011-05-10T03:05:22.570" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Rodger Cicala over at &lt;em&gt;LensRentals.com&lt;/em&gt; would suggest that in fact your lens is not soft, or at least you only have a 3-7% chance of that being the case.  You said that you used this lens previously on a Rebel XTi body with good results, and now with a new body the 50D you receive poor results.  Rodger contends that this is &lt;strong&gt;due to slightly different characteristics that each body can have&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A lens may be fine on one camera and&#xA;  not another. A camera may do fine with&#xA;  one lens and not another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another great quote to note&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Until recently, wide angle lenses&#xA;  tended to be soft in the edges and&#xA;  corners and people just accepted it.&#xA;  Recent lenses are so much better that&#xA;  differences from one side to the other&#xA;  became noticeable (the difference&#xA;  between sharp and soft is more obvious&#xA;  than the difference between soft and&#xA;  softer, apparently).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is &lt;em&gt;possible&lt;/em&gt; that you have a miscalibrated lens or body, or even both, but a respected(in my opinion) professional with a great deal of experience believes that it is due to the differences between bodies and lenses.  A suggested solution would be to &lt;strong&gt;send the lens and body combination into Canon&lt;/strong&gt; and the can properly calibrate the two together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More could be determined if you could provide sample images.  If you find this reply to be the best that you receive, please mark this as the accepted answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T03:05:22.570" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11899" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11896" CreationDate="2011-05-10T03:36:25.173" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 50D supports manual calibration for lenses; therefore it is possible that your friend had it calibrated for their lens, which might be far enough off to impact your shots. (This is assuming your friend has the same lenses, otherwise the 50D would have used Canon's calibrations.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few other possibilities, but we we really need to see some example shots in order to give a valid observation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What sensor was used for AF? Center? One of the others? Did you adjust them, or use what your friend had used? (Which may not have been right for your shot...)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Had you gone from an air-conditioned environment (like a car, house, etc.) to a humid environment? Lenses react very badly to sudden changes in environment, and they can take a long time to acclimate.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Did you use Mirror Lockup? (This helps reduce vibrations when shooting longer exposures.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Did you compare at pixel-level or at the same relative size? Your XTi is 10mp vs 15mp. Technically not that large of a leap, but any focus or lens issues that were minimized on the XTi are going to be more present at the pixel-level on the 50D simply because each pixel-sized sensor expects the light to be focused better. I suggest reducing the size of your 50D images to the same size as your images taken with the XTi and then seeing if things still look soft. (This is only a guess. I could have seen it being an issue going from, say, 8mp to 18mp, but I doubt this is your issue. But it's worth throwing out there.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Did you have anything else on the lens that you haven't used before (like a UV filter or Polarizer. A bad filter can do very bad things to an image.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5067" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T03:36:25.173" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11900" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11794" CreationDate="2011-05-10T05:07:48.363" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think what lead room is has been answered so I'll add just one thing. Like the rule of thirds, golden ratio and other composition guidelines, lead room is just another tool in the arsenal of composition. Sometimes it applies, sometimes there's no need for lead room (such as a person's face filling 90% of the frame for a portrait).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lead room should be a naturally occurring composition element, just like the rule of thirds and such. They should come as a result of feeling the need for more space on a specific side of the frame, per sé, not as a result of thinking, &quot;oh yeah, I 'need' lead room&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I'm composing a photo (even if it's in a fast paced environment), I'm &quot;feeling&quot; my way toward the composition that feels right, then I click the shutter. I rarely ever do a mental check list of composition &quot;rules&quot; in my head.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope I'm making sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T05:07:48.363" />
  <row Id="11901" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11864" CreationDate="2011-05-10T08:19:45.317" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Amazon sell the Custom SLR C-Loop Camera Strap Mount in the UK but the price is somewhat prohibitive still:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Custom-SLR-C-Loop-Camera-Silver/dp/B004V71BJM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Custom-SLR-C-Loop-Camera-Silver/dp/B004V71BJM&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1580" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T08:19:45.317" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11902" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11854" CreationDate="2011-05-10T10:49:01.853" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Smallest Suitable Bag&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One factor I have found is that if my bag is too big then I leave it at home rather than grab it and bring it with me.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The solution for me has been to find the smallest possible bag which holds all the gear I always want.  Personally, I have the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lowepro-Slingshot-Digital-Lenses-Panasonic/dp/B000BAX50G/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1305024346&amp;amp;sr=1-3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lowepro Slingshot 100&lt;/a&gt;, which seems to have been replaced by the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lowepro-SlingShot-102AW-Photo-Sling/dp/B003656Q7C/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1305024346&amp;amp;sr=1-2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Slingshot 102&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also own bigger bags which I use when I'm going on a shoot or a trip, and I want to take everything with me, but from your question, I think you're after an everyday always-with-you bag.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope that helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastEditorUserId="191" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-11T12:06:33.633" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T12:06:33.633" />
  <row Id="11903" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11841" CreationDate="2011-05-10T12:48:19.923" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In short, there is no good answer other than keeping up with feedback from the masses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many of the brand vendors don't produce their own flash cards.  This combined with some rather nasty competition has lead to a lot of low quality components on the market from time to time.  Even within a brand, I wouldn't expect quality to stay consistent even with the same technology and highly likely to change when there is a technology shift.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've generally stayed with the lower priced bands that don't have significant complaints.  For me, this meant Transcend.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note, all flash drives have a limited life span and that life span is much shorter than most people expect.  The life span is a factor of how many times each area of the code is written.  If you are a very heavy user, you will see card failures.  It should be part of the plan.  I am not a very heavy user, which is why I haven't seen too many issues.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would hope that the more expensive cards have been designed for an increased number of writes.  You may be able to get this information online in the form of MTBF (mean time between failure) numbers.  This topic has been much more important in the SSD arena where users are much more likely to hit these limits.  And, while the numbers might trend with certain vendors, I've seen a fair amount of variability within similar product lines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.overclockers.com.au/wiki/Flash_Memory&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.overclockers.com.au/wiki/Flash_Memory&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;http://www.vampiric.us/articles/Hardware/CompactFlash/FlashMediaSpecifications.asp&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1445" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T12:48:19.923" />
  <row Id="11904" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11911" CreationDate="2011-05-10T13:25:37.063" Score="4" ViewCount="201" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am doing some experiment with Raw image processing using two post processing tools:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adobe PhotoShop (PS) CS5&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Proprietary Image processing pipeline code. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Data Capture:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I captured some raw images using Nokia-900 in DNG format. This DNG has a Color filter Array data (raw Bayer data) which is extracted and given as input to proprietary code. The proprietary software does not use any Metadata/Exifdata present in the DNG file. Adobe PS takes DNG file as input to process. I want to have comments from experts here about Visual Quality of these two outputs, critical comparison between two based on various factors like - Image Noise, Sharpness (blur), Colour accuracy, Brightness, Contrast, Colour Casts, Chroma Fringing if any, and any other parameter which you can point me to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I fear the output from my code is inferior to Adobe PS output and want to correct/fix this in whatever way it is possible.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;May be Adobe PS is using some extra metadata from the DNG file, or it has superior algorithms to process the image, I would like to understand what exactly is happening here.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Processing Steps:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The steps involved in obtaining the outputs from the two processing pipelines is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Output from Adobe PS: Load DNG, Colour balance to remove any casts by adjusting the colour temperature slider,then apply Unsharp mask(Amount-100%, Radius-2 pixels,Threshold-65), Noise filter Median(radius-1 pixel),Save processed image as a BMP.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Output from Proprietary: Demosaicing(AHD algorithm),Colour balancing using a colour correction matrix, PErform Auto white balancing using a proprietary algorithm, RGB-&gt;YUV colour conversion, Un-sharp masking(proprietary algorithm on Y component alone), Median noise filter on Y,U,V (Standard 3x3 median filter on image), Gamma correction,YUV-&gt;RGB colour conversion, save as BMP.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Results:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Below are the two images (They are uploaded here as JPEG).  Which is better, and what can be done to improve on the second?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Adobe PS output:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/L9XJc.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Adobe PS output&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Output from proprietary image processing pipeline:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/WrGYh.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Output from proprietary image processing pipeline&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2438" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-10T22:25:31.560" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T22:25:31.560" Title="How can I improve the results of my proprietary RAW processing pipeline?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;image-quality&gt;&lt;image-processing&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="12" />
  <row Id="11905" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11888" CreationDate="2011-05-10T14:18:14.050" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From what others have said (very interesting answers and comments!), we could infer coverage percentage is really related to cost, while viewfinder size is mainly related to other factors, i.e. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;people who buy low-end SLRs are most likely to&#xA;expect a smaller and&#xA;lighter camera; a bigger viewfinder&#xA;needs a bigger, heavier body like&#xA;those needed for professional gear, that starts to take money.&#xA;But the cost of making just some parts (of the&#xA;viewfinder) &lt;em&gt;millimeters&lt;/em&gt; bigger is not&#xA;likely to be relevant.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;market segmentation strategies, as&#xA;cmason pointed out. Coneslayer said&#xA;cmason's point was weak in that he&#xA;&quot;compared it to features that really&#xA;do have a substantial cost of&#xA;implementation&quot;. IMHO it's quite&#xA;clear that manufacturers&#xA;differentiate their products with&#xA;both actually expensive features and&#xA;things that wouldn't cost them a&#xA;penny, e.g. some features in&#xA;firmware: in a low-end SLR you can,&#xA;say, assign three functions to a&#xA;button, in a camera which has double&#xA;the price those functions are maybe&#xA;ten or nearly any function available in the&#xA;menu. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A bigger viewfinder is really useful, but 100% coverage compared to 96% or the like is just one more selling point to please professionals and amateurs who, for different reason and with different expectations, still both of them expecting high standards in every part of their gear, spend thousands $/€ on a top level camera body. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, this is not a real answer, just wanted to let out some thoughts I came up with reading other entries, and to respond to some of what others said. Nevertheless I think my post tackles the &quot;why?&quot; part of the question, so it's not entirely off topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3364" LastEditorUserId="3364" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-10T14:25:15.220" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T14:25:15.220" />
  <row Id="11906" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-10T15:05:58.040" Score="4" ViewCount="90" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm playing around with RAW files in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Silkypix&lt;/a&gt; that came with my Panasonic camera and I am thoroughly confused by the sliders for the noise reduction and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/support/manual/ds4/man0006.html#_Anchor4.7.3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Silkypix manual isn't of much help&lt;/a&gt; (at least I've a hard time following it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The options presented as sliders are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;False Color Control &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Noise Reduction &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Noise Canceller - Noise Level&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Noise Canceller - Noise Cancel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would be great if someone could relate these options in a concise way and how to use them to good effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3338" LastEditorUserId="2138" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-10T15:28:41.547" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T15:30:17.977" Title="Noise reduction options explained?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;noise&gt;&lt;noise-reduction&gt;&lt;iso-noise&gt;&lt;silkypix&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11907" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11864" CreationDate="2011-05-10T15:11:52.543" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would recommend products from &lt;a href=&quot;http://lu.ma&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Luma&quot;&gt;Luma&lt;/a&gt; -- they focus on camera slings, but make a tripod mount called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lu.ma/podmount&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;PodMount&quot;&gt;PodMount&lt;/a&gt; that you could probably attach anything you wanted to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Incidentally, their slings are great -- they mount only to the right-side strap mount, letting the camera fall very naturally against your hip.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4690" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T15:11:52.543" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11908" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11906" CreationDate="2011-05-10T15:30:17.977" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The False Color Control will &lt;strong&gt;remove the color noise&lt;/strong&gt;, while the Noise Reduction Control will &lt;strong&gt;remove the high frequency non-color noise&lt;/strong&gt;. These are your two main sliders.  The other two &quot;cancellers&quot; are essentially to &lt;strong&gt;fine tune&lt;/strong&gt; and dial back the other two main sliders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T15:30:17.977" />
  <row Id="11909" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11915" CreationDate="2011-05-10T15:33:38.943" Score="21" ViewCount="508" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the image defect called &quot;moiré&quot;? What causes it, and how can we avoid or reduce it? Is it related to &quot;false color&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2138" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T12:43:07.990" Title="What is moiré? How can we avoid it?" Tags="&lt;image-quality&gt;&lt;artifacts&gt;&lt;moire&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11910" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-10T15:42:57.197" Score="9" ViewCount="146" Body="&lt;p&gt;What kinds of effects are present in digital images that are referred to as noise? (And what causes them, how can you minimize them, and so on?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ask because &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/users/4892/dpollitt&quot;&gt;dpollitt&lt;/a&gt; writes in another answer: &quot;... the color noise ... the high frequency non-color noise ...&quot; and I couldn't find an explanation of the different noise types on this site yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3338" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-10T16:00:02.620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T20:02:48.957" Title="What types of noise can be present in digital photographs?" Tags="&lt;noise&gt;&lt;iso-noise&gt;&lt;artifacts&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11911" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11904" CreationDate="2011-05-10T16:10:13.323" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find it a bit difficult to pick one as being drastically &quot;better&quot; than the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yours clearly shows more noise -- but at least at first glance, also appears noticeably sharper. If I had to pick one as a starting point for processing, I'd prefer yours, but if I had to treat one as a finished product, I'd &lt;em&gt;probably&lt;/em&gt; prefer Adobe's -- at least for typical pictures of people, where most people would prefer (if anything) to lose a bit of detail anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You've definitely done a better job on the gamma ramp - your grey scale looks about evenly distributed. In the Adobe version, the two lightest blocks in the grey scale (just for one example) are nearly indistinguishable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It looks to me like you've gotten the color more accurate in general. To help measure that you can get MacBeth &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.babelcolor.com/main_level/ColorChecker.htm#ColorChecker_data&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;color checker data&lt;/a&gt; -- both official numbers published by Gretag-MacBeth, and from actual measurements. To use that, you'd probably want to pick the color space you were targeting (probably sRGB) and compare your numbers to the average measured numbers for that color space. You could (for example) compute the deltaE for each patch for both your own and Adobe's results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To do that, you'd want to start by averaging the values in each patch to eliminate the effects of noise. For example, yours would look something like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/d4fEm.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can then (for example) get the RGB values in Photoshop in the info window (and I'm sure GIMP provides the same, though I haven't used it recently enough to remember the name it uses for the window you care about).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Plug those into a spreadsheet, add a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?Eqn_DeltaE_CIE2000.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;formula for deltaE&lt;/a&gt;, and you're on your way. If you want to, you can (for example) create a color profile from that to minimize the measured errors, using the Adobe &lt;a href=&quot;http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DNG Profile Editor&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.babelcolor.com/main_level/ColorChecker.htm#Using_the_chart_to_auto-correct&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;various other possibilities&lt;/a&gt;. Of course, that's only useful if your pipeline can &lt;em&gt;accept&lt;/em&gt; a standard ICC profile. If you're interested only in the one specific source, you might prefer to just alter the matrix you're using (or add a matrix if you're not using one). Then again, as I said, your color accuracy is already better than Adobe's anyway so you may want to consider that good enough and concentrate on other areas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T16:10:13.323" />
  <row Id="11912" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11910" CreationDate="2011-05-10T16:35:42.860" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Noise is often defined as any deviation from a &quot;pure&quot; signal. The signal is taken to be brightness pattern of the image so any variation in the pixel values that represent the image is noise. These variations arise principally due to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Shot noise. The random way photons are emitted from a lightsource causes random variations in image brightness. The fewer photons you have the more this noise is evident. Can be reduced by getting more light onto the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Dark current (thermal) noise. Heat produced by the camera (which being electromagnetic radiation just like light can show up on the sensor). Since it's not part of the scene it's noise. It can be reduced by cooling the sensor, limiting exposure times (the sensor heats up the longer it's on) or shooting a dark frame (i.e. with the shutter closed or lens cap on) to subtract from the original image (some cameras have a setting to automate this). &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Read noise. Electrical noise that is generated by the circuitry which reads the values from the sensor pixels. Can be reduced by using a &lt;strong&gt;higher&lt;/strong&gt; ISO (in the case where the signal is not maximised, amplifying the signal prior to readout means read noise is a smaller percentage of the signal) or using a camera with lower read noise. You can look at the shadow noise figures at base ISO to give you an idea of read noise.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Quantisation noise. Rounding errors when an analogue signal is converted into a finite set of descrete digital values. Not usually noticeable, can be reduced by using a sensor which stores more bits per pixel e.g. 14 instead of 12.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The following are technically noise but rarely referred to as such:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Moire/aliasing. A sort of spatial quantisation noise, aliasing arises due to interference patterns and the fixed spacing of sensor elements. It can be reduced by an anti-aliasing filter (usually fitted to the sensor as standard) or increasing the sampling frequency (number of pixels per unit area) i.e. more megapixels with the same lens.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Compression artefacts, when an image is stored as a JPEG. Can be reduced by selecting the highest quality setting for JPEGs or shooting raw.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hot pixels, stuck pixels, dark pixels. Sensor elements that always give either zero or the maximum possible response.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The term &quot;colour noise&quot; describes how the noise manifests itself - it's not a source of noise like the above. Colour noise refers to random variations in the colour of pixels, not just in their brightness. Colour noise is easy to remove since the eye is less sensitive to spatial variations in colour, the loss of detail due to noise reduction is less noticeable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again &quot;high frequency noise&quot; refers to another characteristic, the spatial frequency, or how close together the peaks of the noise are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-10T16:57:12.187" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T16:57:12.187" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="11913" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-10T17:05:37.670" Score="0" ViewCount="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi I am a web dev and competent in Fireworks but not so in Photoshop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have just received a layered PSD file to turn into a web page.  Can anyone tell me the easiest way to 'export all layers to individual png files'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are lots of layers and doing this manually seems wrong!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have seen this &lt;a href=&quot;http://jhilwig.com/LayerCompsToFiles_w_PNG/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://jhilwig.com/LayerCompsToFiles_w_PNG/&lt;/a&gt; but it did seem there should be native functionality for this in PS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have access to Photoshop CS4.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any pointers appreciated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5134" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T17:05:37.670" ClosedDate="2011-05-10T18:18:00.517" Title="Export photoshop layers to individual PNG files - batch process???" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;batch&gt;&lt;layers&gt;" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11914" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11909" CreationDate="2011-05-10T17:48:06.597" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Moiré is an interference pattern&lt;/strong&gt;.  In photography many times it is noticed on the fine detail of a woman's clothing, or a repetitive pattern in architecture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moiré can be caused by a scene that contains areas with &lt;strong&gt;repetitive detail&lt;/strong&gt; which exceed the resolution of the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Anti-alias filters&lt;/strong&gt; reduce or eliminate moiré but also reduce image sharpness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T17:48:06.597" />
  <row Id="11915" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11909" CreationDate="2011-05-10T18:07:52.760" Score="17" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Moiré is a form of aliasing whereby false patterns can be observed in an image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagine a lighthouse which sends a pulse of light every 5 seconds, and a camera (or other observer) which sees the lighthouse for three seconds and is then blocked from seeing it for three seconds:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;lighthouse:        *....*....*....*....*....*....*....*...&#xA;observer:          ***...***...***...***...***...***...***&#xA;&#xA;observed pattern:  *..***.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is actually a regular pulsing is observed as a highly uneven pattern due to temporal aliasing, causes by the sampling frequency being close to but different from the frequency of the phenomenon being observed. This is why wagon wheels can appear to spin backwards when observed with a movie camera with fixed framerate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moiré is exactly the same phenomenon but is an example of spatial rather than temporal aliasing. When a regular pattern of light and dark like a manmade fibre cloth is imaged by a sensor with a fixed pattern of pixels the evenness of the fibres gives way to an artificial pattern at a much lower frequency (more widely spaced):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Moire_on_parrot_feathers.jpg/800px-Moire_on_parrot_feathers.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Image by Fir0002/Flagstaffotos. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:GNU_Free_Documentation_License&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;License&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aliasing is at its worst when the frequency of the pattern is close to the sampling frequency (the density of pixels in the sensor). Low frequency patterns aren't a problem. An anti-aliasing filter blurs the image therefore reducing the frequency of the input and chance of aliasing. The downside is that this also blurs non-repeating patterns which would not cause noticeable aliasing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead of reducing the image frequency by blurring, aliasing can also be mitigating by increasing the sampling frequency, i.e. having more megapixels (without increasing sensor size or lens sharpness). Digital medium format cameras have lots of megapixels but still suffer from aliasing due to sharper lenses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anti-alising filters are fitted to almost all 35mm DSLR sensors as standard. They can be removed; I know of one company that does this: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.maxmax.com/hot_rod_visible.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.maxmax.com/hot_rod_visible.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The advantage is greater sharpness but more moiré. If you only shoot random natural textures then this is probably a good idea. Some digital MF cameras and backs lack an AA filter. Opinion is divided on why, given how bad aliasing can be on fabrics and the fact the MF is frequently used for fashion. My view is that these images are probably shot at f/32 - f/45 with giant lighting power packs, and the diffraction acts as an AA filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moiré can be reduced in software, but only to an extent, it's usually much better to use an AA filter. You can get screw-on anti-alias filters for lenses if your sensor lacks an AA filter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moiré is related to false colour due to the demosiacing process. As [most] digital sensors are monochrome devices, alternating colour filters are placed over each pixel and the colours interpolated to produce a full colour image. When observing a high frequency monochrome pattern, adjacent pixels with different colour filters may see peaks and troughs in the signal respectively, and this can be [falsely] interpreted as different colours being present in the input.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-11T12:43:07.990" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T12:43:07.990" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11916" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11909" CreationDate="2011-05-10T18:33:45.093" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In digital photography, the moiré effect stems from interference between fine detail in the scene, and the grid of sensels in the sensor. You can also get a moiré pattern when scaling a picture down for display -- in this case, the interference happens between the fine detail  in the picture, and the grid of pixels in the display.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Either way, you can get any (or more than one) of a number of different effects. One is the appearance of curved lines even when the original data contains only straight lines. For example, here's a synthesized &quot;picture&quot; drawn entirely with straight lines, but given the appearance of curved lines nearly everywhere:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/SPbHk.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, the appearance of curved lines happen primarily due to the &quot;stair steps&quot; in the lines that happen because a diagonal line gets transformed into pixels that are arranged into a horizontal/vertical grid. In display, it can be prevented (to a large extent) by anti-aliasing -- anti-aliasing smooths those transitions using pixels that are partially lit. If we were to look at a small section of the lines above, one of the transitions would look something like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/8x3LG.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This can be fixed by anti-aliasing the line, which helps fill in that sharp transition with some intermediate gray values, something like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/IBomT.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Magnified like this, the line probably doesn't look much smoother, but at normal size there's (usually) a clear improvement. Here's a sample of three lines drawn at the same angle, the top with no anti-aliasing, and the middle and lower anti-aliased with two different algorithms:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/pcI6w.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most digital cameras do roughly the same thing, filtering the incoming light just &lt;em&gt;minutely&lt;/em&gt;, so where the original image contains sharp transitions like this, a tiny bit of light will be dispersed to neighboring pixels, so they can fill in the &quot;stair steps&quot; a little, and cover up the transitions similarly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dispersing light this way blurs the image (minutely), reducing the visible detail. No matter what amount of AA the manufacturer decides to use, somebody's going to be unhappy with it. A strong AA filter assures you don't see detail that wasn't present in the original, but loses some of the detail that &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; present in the original. A weaker AA filter allows you to see more of the detail from the original, at the expense of (possibly) seeing what looks like detail, but isn't really present in the original at all. It's essentially impossible to produce a &quot;perfect&quot; AA filter that assures against any possible false detail without losing any real detail. Most compromise, losing a little real detail, but also allowing a little false detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All cameras (of which I'm aware) up to APS-C size include an AA filter. Quite a few online forums have long discussions about how strong of AA filter in used in some particular camera or other, usually with an assertion (at least implied) that weaker AA filters are better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most current cameras with 35mm-sized sensors also include AA filters, but some older ones (e.g., the Kodak DSLR/n and DSLR/c) did not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Larger format digital cameras (e.g., Leaf, Hasselblad, Pentax 645D, etc.) normally do &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; have a physical AA filter. With these cameras, all AA processing is done in software. Depending on the software used (and sometimes parameters supplied to the software) many of these can (and will) produce false detail that's not present in the original subject matter at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;False color is closely related. Consider an extremely thin white line in the picture -- but it's &lt;em&gt;so&lt;/em&gt; thin that it only lights up one sensel at any give point along the line. In a typical Bayer-layout sensor, the sensor wells are laid out so only one color is sensed at any given location. Since our thin white line lights up only one sensor well at each point, it ends up being shown as the color of that sensor well rather than showing up as white (which would require lighting up at least three sensor wells). The AA filter helps prevent this problem as well by dispersing the light enough to assure that any incoming light produces &lt;em&gt;approximately&lt;/em&gt; even illumination across enough adjacent sensor wells to show up as something close to its original color.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, however, de-mosaicing software that attempts to recover maximum detail can (and sometimes will) un-do this to some extent. In the process of finding the finest detail, it can narrow a line back to the point that it acts like it only lit up a single sensor well, and when it does so the line will take on the color of that sensor well instead of the true color of the line itself, which would require input from at least three sensor wells. Different algorithms produce false color to varying degrees, but as a general rule, algorithms that recover more detail are also more likely to produce false color from at least some images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T18:33:45.093" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11917" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11910" CreationDate="2011-05-10T19:56:01.380" Score="-5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You only need to know two kinds of noise which come with all cameras, visible at higher ISOs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Chroma Noise - colored blotched type&#xA;of noise. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Luminance Noise - grain,    film like&#xA;noise.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To  minimize such noise, you need a Nikon D3s pro grade camera, or if you cant afford one try not too shoot at higher ISO's which start to deteriorate image quality (different for each camera). Using fast lenses such as f2.8 or F1.4 could help you in low light situations not to push ISO too high to keep the shutter speed high enough.  If the scene is way too dark, the only way to minimize noise is to use a flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, there is software such as Noise Ninja or Dnoise which can help get rid of some noise for you without sacrificing IQ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5136" LastEditorUserId="5136" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-10T20:02:48.957" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T20:02:48.957" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11918" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11869" CreationDate="2011-05-10T20:06:41.743" Score="-5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You need to switch your camera to Continuous Focus. Focus Priority (Assuming your camera has such). Currently, Nikon is the only company on the market which provides the best AF for tracking subjects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But most of all it takes a lot of practice to feel how the AF behaves on your camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5136" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T20:06:41.743" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11919" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-10T20:08:45.723" Score="-2" ViewCount="178" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am always in awe looking at pictures by professionals &amp;mdash; mainly their nature photos &amp;mdash; and the colors they always seem to get in their pictures. Reading a few posts here I realized that apart from a good lens, post-processing must play an important role.  Unfortunately, as an amateur I know only a few post-processing techniques: color balance, sharpen, shadow, and brightness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Somehow I think in the post-processing of pros more things have to go in to make it a great picture. I know composition plays a very important part in creating that quality, but I am mainly interested in how pros post-process nature shots, like those of sunrise, sunsets, and beach side pictures with incredible blue colors. :).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though there might be many things that are performed, which is the most used technique in post-processing by professionals?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1980" LastEditorUserId="4112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-10T21:00:14.987" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T21:00:14.987" ClosedDate="2011-05-10T21:26:15.000" Title="Which is the single most used technique in post-processing by professional photographers ?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="11920" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11919" CreationDate="2011-05-10T20:45:20.717" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm definitely not a pro, far from it even, but there are a few small things that have had a great impact on the way I do post processing in Photoshop:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Photograph in RAW and learn how to process them in Adobe Camera RAW before exporting them to Photoshop.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Export your RAW files to Photoshop in 16bit.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use non-destructive tools like adjustments layers and layer masks.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Levels, Curves and Black and White adjustment layers are your best friend.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;These adjustment layers come with a layer mask. This is your second best friend.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1107" LastActivityDate="2011-05-10T20:45:20.717" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11921" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11922" CreationDate="2011-05-11T02:10:57.167" Score="2" ViewCount="68" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was considering buying the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 lens from someone, however, they told me that they purchased it more than two years ago.  I am concerned that some of the new productions of this same model may have been upgraded since the original models.  Is this a valid concern or are the models pretty much the same regardless of how old they are?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5139" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-11T02:17:05.000" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T02:33:26.493" Title="Are newer production runs of the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 upgraded from older models?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="11922" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11921" CreationDate="2011-05-11T02:33:26.493" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There do appear to be some production runs that are better than others. As a really &lt;em&gt;general&lt;/em&gt; rule, it seems like the earliest product runs have a somewhat greater chance of of having problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it's really only 2 years old, you're probably pretty safe from this being really early production when you have the highest likelihood of running into problems. OTOH, if it's really more like 2 1/2 years old, or was (for example) bought at a retail store where it may have been in stock for six months, you're starting to get a lot closer to one of the early production runs where problems are more likely (though certainly not a given, by any means).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Realistically, damage since purchase is probably &lt;em&gt;more&lt;/em&gt; likely than a lens that started out defective anyway. If possible, I'd try to test it out at least a little before buying (but that goes almost regardless of age...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T02:33:26.493" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11923" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9455" CreationDate="2011-05-11T09:27:01.960" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One trick I will never forget is to bounce the flash off your hand. it does 2 things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;bounces light &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it warms the light a little, due to your fleshy tones&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would create a slightly better aesthetic to the image, and make the person not look so cold. In a cramped environment it can be an image saver. Just don't have the flash on full power (read flash gets hot).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a 55cm (22&quot;) reflector which can easily be used for bouncing. A friend has a 12&quot; which would be more ideal for a sweaty night club. The beauty of the smaller &quot;fleckys&quot; is they can fold down quite small, so you don't have to be too obvious walking around. Just whip it out, take the shot, tuck your flecky under your arm and walk off. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5140" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T09:27:01.960" />
  <row Id="11924" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="978" CreationDate="2011-05-11T10:25:38.063" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my study they mentioned picking subjects that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;piss you off&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;excite you&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you love&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you hate&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;scare you&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whatever you pick make sure you can stick it out. If you get bored of a subject, it will show in your images. It can be as conceptual or easily accessible as you like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The final project I did while studying was with a charity. By working for a charity, you probably won't be paid, but you will have an experience you won't forget, they will have images for whatever they need them for and you may walk away with some good portfolio stuffers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If that doesn't float your boat, work out where you want your photography to go, and try to come up with projects along those lines. It may help to start with, &quot;I like how &lt;em&gt;_&lt;/em&gt;_(insert any other photographers name) images always grab my attention. How can I do something similar but with my flavour/vision/experiences?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5140" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T10:25:38.063" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-11T10:25:38.063" />
  <row Id="11926" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11927" CreationDate="2011-05-11T14:17:11.380" Score="4" ViewCount="136" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Ray Flash ring flash that I got for macro work. Whenever I mention it to a photographer, they often say that they really like it for portrait work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the advantages of using a ring flash for portrait photography?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-11T14:28:40.493" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T15:34:47.053" Title="What are the advantages of using a ring flash for portraits?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;ring-flash&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11927" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11926" CreationDate="2011-05-11T15:16:46.660" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The advantages when used as a main/only light include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;your work resembles big budget fashion photography from the 80s (when ringlights were used extensively)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;you get a crisp detailed look without the big shadows you'd get from a point source. By surrounding the lens you light from all angles simultaneously you eliminate strong shadows, leaving only a faint shadow which encircles your subject. Here's a comparison I shot between a ringlight and regular on camera flash:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/blogimages/comparison_small.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;you get cool circular catchlights &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;setup is easy with few settings to adjust.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are disadvantages too, unlike a softbox the light is unforgiving of blemishes etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ringlight can also be used more subtly in a multi light setup to improve definition by throwing light into shadow areas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-11T15:27:51.217" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T15:27:51.217" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="11928" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-11T15:20:07.763" Score="7" ViewCount="190" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon produces two macro rings, MR-14EX and MT-24EX, and many other manufacturers also produce such rings. I have a Canon Speedlite 440EX II external flash, which I use when I &lt;em&gt;don't&lt;/em&gt; use a tripod for my shots (that is quite seldom, actually).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The macro rings aren't exactly cheap, and my question is whether it is a good idea to get one for macro shots, or not, if you:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1) Use a tripod (no flash) for macro shots, what I do most of the time&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2) Use the flash extensively while shooting macro&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that I already have a Speedlite, and I can remotely control it from my 7D, so I can put it at a wide variety of angles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3171" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-12T13:40:18.457" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T13:40:18.457" Title="How much better is a macro ring flash than a &quot;normal&quot; external flash, for macro shots?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;macro&gt;&lt;ring-flash&gt;" AnswerCount="4" />
  <row Id="11929" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-11T15:32:34.790" Score="13" ViewCount="287" Body="&lt;p&gt;I often hear reference to &quot;shooting from the hip&quot; in street photography.  What technique can I use to get candid, yet sharp and focused photographs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I am interested in any general advice, the sort of questions I have at the moment are: How do you not make your photography stick out like a sore thumb?  What focal lengths, apertures and shutter speeds are appropriate?  Do you use autofocus or manual focus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not interested in whether or when shooting from the hip is appropriate.  That ought to be the topic for a separate question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3356" LastEditorUserId="3356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-11T15:43:38.330" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T05:11:16.467" Title="How do I &quot;shoot from the hip&quot; in street photography?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;street-photography&gt;&lt;shooting-from-the-hip&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11930" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11926" CreationDate="2011-05-11T15:34:47.053" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ring flash gives a very distinctive look. It virtually eliminates shadows on the face of the subject (ring flash shots are usually taken head-on) while leaving a soft, even shadow around the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T15:34:47.053" />
  <row Id="11931" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11929" CreationDate="2011-05-11T15:43:43.520" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The idea of &quot;Shooting from the hip&quot; is to be inconspicuous, so as not to change the atmosphere. This allows you to capture the shot as you see it, without interfering with the mood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Manual focus, using a lens that has a distance scale.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;f/8 allows you to get a much greater depth of field, so even if your focus is slightly off, you should still have a good shot.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;normal to wide angle, 35mm is a great option.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;rangefinder cameras are often used with this style, because they tend to be much smaller and favor manual focusing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T15:43:43.520" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11932" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11928" CreationDate="2011-05-11T16:02:18.850" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my opinion flash tends to be better than a tripod for macro as you get more control, faster shutter speeds and you can close the aperture really far down. That's not to say you can't get good results with available light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also get good results without a dedicated macro ringlight, if you have a off camera cord. This will let you get your 430EX close to the subject and allow you to find the optimum lighting angle. Diffusing the light will fill in shadows like a ringflash, though shadows aren't usually a problem as even a bare flash is a large (i.e. soft) lightsource compared to a macro subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's definitely worth experimenting to see what you can do with your current gear before investing in a ring light or adaptor. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-11T16:42:21.637" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T16:42:21.637" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11933" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="118" CreationDate="2011-05-11T16:31:41.000" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use YAPB for my website, and I run a gallery with ZenPhoto (which can add watermarks).  I was specifically looking for a combo that let me self-host, as I don't really want to turn my images loose on Flickr or equivalent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T16:31:41.000" />
  <row Id="11935" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11928" CreationDate="2011-05-11T18:34:33.400" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several tutorials available to how to construct your own DIY ringflash:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-flashes-lighting-technique/34400-diy-macro-ring-flash-digital-slr-camera-easy-cheap-durable-fring.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pentax Forums: The &quot;Fring&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/how-to-make-a-diy-ring-flash-tutorial&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Digital Photography School: DIY Ring Flash&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/jedrek/239141592/sizes/l/in/photostream/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;flickr - jędrek: Cheap Ringflash&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This one is very sexy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://metku.net/index.html?path=mods/ring-light/index_eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;metku.net - Ring Light&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/mp2k_net/4487764218/in/set-72157624440069598&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;flickr - iamclaus: LED Ring Light&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can easily find many more through a quick search. Not all are macro rings, but it certainly gives you idea for making your own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-12T12:56:30.680" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T12:56:30.680" />
  <row Id="11936" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2515" CreationDate="2011-05-11T20:28:49.643" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you can find them, get Cokin filters. I was informed (haven't yet confirmed) they were stopped being produced about 9 months ago,. You could get them relatively cheap if you hunt around for second hand gear, or try the bargain bins at your local camera store. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That way you only need one polariser. and just get an adapter ring for each lens diameter. Plus you get the bonus of adding other filters as well, ND, gradients, color effects, or the more extreme star filters. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5140" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T20:28:49.643" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11937" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11928" CreationDate="2011-05-11T20:38:41.220" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I tend to do both, quite often...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of the ring flash, it's around the lens, so the light is more accurately focussed on the subject and, for that matter, is closer to the subject. This is especially handy when the distance to the subject from the front element of the lens is very tight as another form of flash is going to be angled quite off axis, if it can even illuminate the subject properly at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of the tripod, I'd use it anyways for stationary subjects to improve the steadiness and sharpness of the shot. For a moving subject, I'd skip the tripod since it's going to be hard to move in time to the subject moving.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, that all depends on the macro subject... For insects, small parts and devices, and the like, the ring flash works really quite well. For falling water drops, for example, off camera flash is a better approach.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, you can adapters that allow you to turn your regular speedlight into a ring flash. One example of this is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.orbisflash.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Orbis Ringflash&lt;/a&gt;. I went for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metzflash.co.uk/pages/ringflash.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Metz ringflash&lt;/a&gt; myself, rather than an adapter, since it supported every major brand nicely and it was future proofed for me, not to mentioned had some finer grained control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-12T02:58:17.657" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T02:58:17.657" />
  <row Id="11938" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11929" CreationDate="2011-05-11T20:49:41.643" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wide angle with plenty of DOF makes things easier. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I like low shutter speeds, 1/15 to 1/60, in most cases as it adds some motion and energy to the shots. Depends on the subject matter.  If you want sharp you obviously want a bit faster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can hang the camera around your neck, but trigger it from a remote in your hand, no one would guess you were taking pictures.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also use a cellphone camera, and people will assume you're txting&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Practice on parked cars and inanimate objects until you get the hang of aiming and focusing :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4191" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T20:49:41.643" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11939" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11928" CreationDate="2011-05-11T20:54:32.467" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on what you are photographing, and how you want to light behave. If you want to get good light no matter is happening with available light, then flash is fantastic. But if the available light is working for you, use it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A ring light creates a bigger light source, therefore making softer light. Compare the size of the ring flash(9&quot; - 10&quot; across) to your flash head (which is just smaller than a credit card). When you are shooting macro, the subject size in relation to the light source will dictate how the shadows will look. By creating a bigger light source the shadows will become more subtle.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Plus it also is a different shape. Round light anyone? Being round it can mimic natural light. and if you are shooting anything highly reflective (eyes, metal, water) the shape will be reflected back. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since you have a 7D a ring flash could be a good piece of studio lighting. You have a bigger, rounder light source, which you can put anywhere the wireless system can pick it up. So you could use it for more than just macro. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5140" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T20:54:32.467" />
  <row Id="11940" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11958" CreationDate="2011-05-11T21:00:45.897" Score="9" ViewCount="335" Body="&lt;p&gt;On a crop sensor camera, eg Canon 7D, what would be the best kit to travel with around Europe for a few weeks? My shooting style will focus on &lt;strong&gt;landscape, architecture&lt;/strong&gt;, and general purpose travel shots(Of note would be my lack of interest for portraits).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Limit to around &lt;strong&gt;1-3 lenses&lt;/strong&gt;, and I prefer light ones.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Crop sensor camera chosen to save on weight over a full frame option.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Question is open to all brands for general guidance, but I will be using a Canon body.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cost is not a factor, I will rent the lenses I do not already own.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Quality&lt;/strong&gt; is of paramount importance.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I will not have a tripod.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand some may consider this subjective, but I do believe that for a crop sensor body, with weight as a consideration, and a limit to the amount of lenses, a true &lt;strong&gt;best kit&lt;/strong&gt; can be determined.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T15:39:13.117" Title="What lenses would best comprise a travel photography kit?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;travel&gt;&lt;weight&gt;" AnswerCount="12" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11941" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11940" CreationDate="2011-05-11T21:24:43.033" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24mm_f_1_4l_ii_usm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM&lt;/a&gt; and you're done. Traditional moderate wide angle, great for architecture and landscapes. Stellar IQ and wide aperture when you need it. By focusing on just one focal length for your trip, you eliminate the distraction of choosing your zoom point, and will quickly develop the ability to visualize &lt;em&gt;as through that lens&lt;/em&gt; even without the camera to your eye. (If you've used a single focal length extensively you know what I mean.) And it's built to withstand travel. It's not particularly light — but then, with just one, that's hopefully less of a worry. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer: I don't have this lens, but a close friend does, and I've been quite impressed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-11T21:55:13.613" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T21:55:13.613" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11942" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11940" CreationDate="2011-05-11T21:25:19.617" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Quality and weight are often opposed when it comes to lenses&lt;/strong&gt;, so since you emphasized quality, I'll ignore the weight issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also note that &lt;strong&gt;focal-lengths are highly personal and depend on how you see the world&lt;/strong&gt;. Where one photographer uses a wide-angle, another may use a telephoto.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the subject matter you requested, at &lt;strong&gt;least a moderate wide-angle lens is preferable&lt;/strong&gt; and I would even go for an ultra-wide too. A longer one will be useful to pick out details in building, isolating subjects, etc. Since you did not mention wildlife either (or street photography, which is most likely), I assume very long is not needed either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;core of your kit&lt;/strong&gt; should probably be something like an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=178&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then I would add a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=81&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8&lt;/a&gt; or a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=88&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;12-24mm F/4&lt;/a&gt; is you prefer some overlap.&#xA;You may enjoy instead a more expensive &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=223&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon TS-E 17mm F/4L&lt;/a&gt; which is fantastic for architecture, particularly to correct converging verticals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can either get both the ultra-wide and tilt-shift or get something for longer shots such as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=86&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tokina 50-135mm F/2.8.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-11T21:36:52.580" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T21:36:52.580" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11943" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11944" CreationDate="2011-05-11T22:06:19.920" Score="16" ViewCount="434" Body="&lt;p&gt;Galen Rowell in one of his books talks about the &quot;The most memorable, mind-changing photograph of all time. A color landscape shot taken without a tripod by an amateur&quot;. Does anyone have a link to a copy of this or can explain what is special about it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4209" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-12T11:57:09.507" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T11:57:09.507" Title="Which is &quot;the most memorable, mind-changing photograph of all time&quot; that Galen Rowell talks about?" Tags="&lt;amateur&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;famous-photographs&gt;&lt;galen-rowell&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="11944" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11943" CreationDate="2011-05-11T22:14:11.393" Score="23" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://waltgordonjones.com/3/galen-rowell-on-the-greatest-landscape-photograph-ever-taken&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Earthrise&lt;/a&gt; by Apollo 8 Astronaut William Anders - sounds like he was advocating that sometimes all the training or equipment doesn't make a photograph good, but sometimes a subject can be just THAT inspiring.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/moonimg_03.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/HsoTr.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Earthrise&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Credit: NASA&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1913" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-11T22:56:29.347" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T22:56:29.347" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11945" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11929" CreationDate="2011-05-11T22:30:59.173" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Try using a camera with a flip out LCD screen such as the Canon 60D.  This should help quite a bit, and even allow you to hide most of the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T22:30:59.173" />
  <row Id="11946" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11940" CreationDate="2011-05-11T22:52:32.190" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I won't try to pick a specific lens, but do have one thing to say: I used to always leave the big, long, heavy lenses at home when I traveled -- and every time, I ended up wishing I hadn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Short lenses make it a lot easier to get an unobstructed view of buildings -- but (at least to me) it seems like a shot with a much longer lens often does a much better job of conveying the size and majesty -- the feel of the building. There's also the simple fact that there are a zillion shots from up close with a wide angle lens of every major landmark you'll see (and most not-so-major ones as well). It's often harder to come up with a good picture from farther away, but (IME) well worth worth it when you do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's not to say you should &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; use a longer lens or anything like that, just that I've found that the extra size and weight of a lens that's at least a tad on the longer side (say, up to 135mm or so) is a worthwhile investment -- even though when you're in the airport, the investment feels &lt;em&gt;huge&lt;/em&gt; !&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-11T23:01:00.893" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T23:01:00.893" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11947" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11940" CreationDate="2011-05-11T23:54:05.117" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will go the I am going to go the route of describing a full kit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Links are to the digital picture, where he gives some nice analysis of these lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would say: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-30mm-f-1.4-EX-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 30 1.4 HSM&lt;/a&gt; for portraits, close up, wide angle, and super low light. As a friend recently remarked &quot;this lens can shoot in candle light!&quot; This is true. The low light capabilities are pretty astounding, and the sharpness is wonderful. Add to that the super compact size, and the impressively fast focus, and you have yourself a winner.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 24-70 2.8L USM&lt;/a&gt; for portraits, museums, mid-range, and general shooting. This lens has a reputation for being in every pro's bag. IDK if I can say that is true, but of the six Canon shooters I shoot with, five have this lens, and all five love it. It is also not too big, and fast focusing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-70-200mm-f-2.8-l-is-usm-lens-review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II&lt;/a&gt; for some zoom, some perspective shots, killer bokeh portraits, and a million other uses. Another popular lens, and for good reason. In addition to the good range, you have a nice f-stop for a telephoto, it is known for its sharpness, and it focuses like a demon(however demons focus). It is big, it is a little on the heavy side. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as carrying. I recommend leaving the 24-70 on the body, with the others in the bag. This will keep you safe in most situations, and will be more comfortable than constantly holding the 70-200.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Part of my reasoning for recommending these three, is that it covers a huge focal range for everyday use, and you should be prepared for most occurances with these. I personally carry a slightly less expensive version of this kit, because I am a graduate student. :P&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: originally I missed the lack of interest in portraits, however I wouldn't really change my opinion much. Maybe a low f-stop 50mm rather than the 30 to lower distortion on wide architecture shots. Sorry about the oversight!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;enjoy!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="988" LastActivityDate="2011-05-11T23:54:05.117" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11948" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11940" CreationDate="2011-05-12T00:43:34.940" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ever since purchasing the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-3-5-4-5-Digital/dp/B0002Y5WXE&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5&lt;/a&gt; lens I find it invaluable for landscape photography and tight indoor spaces photography. I'd not leave w/o it on a trip.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the long side, I believe the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-Lens-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000I1X3W8/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1305160905&amp;amp;sr=1-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF 70-200mm f/4L IS&lt;/a&gt; is a good tradeoff between superb quality and weight (otherwise, the f/2.8 option is preferable in my opinion).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the midrange, I don't know what &lt;em&gt;light&lt;/em&gt; lens offers high quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T00:43:34.940" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="11949" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-12T01:03:59.250" Score="9" ViewCount="134" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most cameras have a problem with movie recording due to the way pixels are read sequentially off the sensor, rather than all at once.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any dSLR (or otherwise high-quality image) cameras whose movies don't exhibit the rolling shutter artifact (also known as &quot;jello-y&quot;)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2592" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-12T01:50:28.800" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T01:57:52.847" Title="Are there dSLR cameras which can take movies without a rolling shutter artifact?" Tags="&lt;video&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="11950" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11949" CreationDate="2011-05-12T01:27:38.923" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Mastering &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/article.php?id=mastering_hd_video_dslr&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;HD Video with your DSLR&lt;/a&gt;, the author claims that only CMOS sensors suffer from the rolling shutter effect. A &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php?size=slr&amp;amp;sensortype=ccd&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;quick search&lt;/a&gt; shows there are currently NO DSLR with CCD sensors, so you'll have to settle for something smaller.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That does not leave many cameras that distinguish themselves for image quality. A few like the Olympus ZX-1, Nikon P7000, Canon S95, Canon G12 and Fuji F200 EXR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-12T01:42:19.730" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T01:42:19.730" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11951" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11952" CreationDate="2011-05-12T01:34:38.167" Score="4" ViewCount="128" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to mount some of my pictures onto a wall for a simple gallery-showing. I have the physical pictures mounted to a card-stock matte. I'd like to know the best way to hang that matted picture flat onto a wood wall. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've tried double-sided tape which works but when I remove the pictures from the wall it rips the back of the matte. I've thought about the 3m command strips but they are really expensive and not reusable. I don't want to use something that will protrude like a nail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2492" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-12T01:46:27.730" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T18:32:43.833" Title="What is the best way to hang or mount photos for a showing?" Tags="&lt;photo-galleries&gt;&lt;photo-mounting&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11952" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11951" CreationDate="2011-05-12T01:47:15.293" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Advice is what we ask for when we&#xA;  already know the answer but wish we&#xA;  didn't.” - Erica Jong&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, they are expensive but 3M Command Strips are the right answer. If you use enough of them you can hang an image 8 feet wide, so they scale well. The remove completely cleanly. When I looked about 2 years ago, that was the best I found.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T01:47:15.293" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11954" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11940" CreationDate="2011-05-12T03:16:56.300" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For travel, it really depends on your intended subject matter as well as your intentions.  If you are going with the notion to take some great photos of great places, then you will likely want to choose several lenses to reduce trade-offs. On the other hand, you may be after some shots that are better than a p&amp;amp;s can deliver.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My recommendation, based on lots of travel, is that I find wide angles to be much more useful for taking shots in narrow European or Chinese streets, and for taking shots of beautiful vistas and subsets. Telephoto is generally useless, unless you intend to take lots of sport or nature shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to get better than p&amp;amp;s, go for a &quot;all in one&quot; lens, like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-200mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;18-200 from Canon&lt;/a&gt;, Sigma and Tamron. In tests that I have seen, Canon edges the 3rd parties out slightly, but the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-18-250mm-f-3.5-6.3-DC-OS-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 18-250&lt;/a&gt; model does very very well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a balance, somewhere in the middle (better than p&amp;amp;s but not 3 lenses) , if you do not really need the long end of the lens, consider the very well respected &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-VC-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamron&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-17-50mm-f-2.8-EX-DC-OS-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 17-50 f2.8 lens&lt;/a&gt;, which are fantastic 'walk around lenses&quot;. Of course, in this category, the top of the range is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 17-55 f2.8&lt;/a&gt;, but its in another league in terms of cost as well as quality. If money is indeed no object, this is your lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, if you want the best, and don't really mind carrying 3 lenses, I recommend the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 10-22&lt;/a&gt;, or the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-10-20mm-f-4-5.6-EX-DC-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 10-20 EX&lt;/a&gt; (my personal favorite), the Canon 17-50 f2.8, or the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon L 24-105.&lt;/a&gt;  I would add the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.4-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 50 f1.4&lt;/a&gt; or the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-30mm-f-1.4-EX-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 30 f1.4&lt;/a&gt; as well,for dark churches and night shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T03:16:56.300" />
  <row Id="11955" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10776" CreationDate="2011-05-12T03:36:56.390" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have you used the &lt;em&gt;contact sheet&lt;/em&gt; option? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In layout style click on &lt;em&gt;Single image/Contact Sheet&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Click &lt;em&gt;zoom to fill&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I then jumped to &lt;em&gt;Page grid&lt;/em&gt;. 2 rows 1 column &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Changed the settings at &lt;em&gt;cell size&lt;/em&gt; to 5&quot;x7&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Optional&lt;/strong&gt; Then go back to &lt;em&gt;Margins&lt;/em&gt; to position on page&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By doing it this way it will constrain to 5x7 and you can position it how you want on the page&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5140" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T03:36:56.390" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11956" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9409" CreationDate="2011-05-12T03:45:57.343" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is now supported in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photoshoplightroombridge.co.uk/2011/05/lightroom-3-4-and-camera-raw-6-4-go-live/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LR3.4/ACR6.4 update&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Along with Canon EOS 600D (Rebel T3i / Kiss X5 Digital),&#xA;    Canon EOS 1100D (Rebel T3 / Kiss X50 Digital),&#xA;    Fuji FinePix S200 EXR,&#xA;    Fuji FinePix F550 EXR,&#xA;    Fuji FinePix HS20 EXR,&#xA;    Fuji FinePix X100,&#xA;    Hasselblad H4D-40,&#xA;    Kodak EasyShare Z990,&#xA;    Nikon D5100,&#xA;    Olympus E-PL1s,&#xA;    Olympus XZ-1.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5022&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Windows update&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5021&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mac update&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5140" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T03:45:57.343" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11957" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11929" CreationDate="2011-05-12T05:11:16.467" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I &quot;shoot from the hip&quot; pretty extensively using my 5DII.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I leave it on Program-Auto most of the time, sometimes Tv, so you can look like you are just gesticulating or waving your arms (with the camera, incidentally) about while taking exposures. Make sure you activate all the autofocus points, and take several shots for each scene. Move the camera slightly and retrigger the AF between each shot, this increases the likelyhood of getting what you want in focus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could stop down, but I really like having a shallower depth of field for street photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously, there can be some issues if you are in a situation where you have multiple things in the frame, with significant differences in distance from the camera, but for me, at least, it doesn't seem to happen that often.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the distance scale (on most of the good Canon lenses, anyways), is accurate enough that if you do have a challenging composition, you can guestimate the distance to the subject and dither the focus back and forth while taking a few shots, to increase your likelyhood of getting a shot in focus. With the speed of modern cameras, this can all be done in a couple of seconds, so moving scenes can still be shot pretty effectively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mostly, experiment, and always take a couple of exposures, rather then just one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2611" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T05:11:16.467" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11958" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11940" CreationDate="2011-05-12T06:14:03.823" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I literally just got back (a few days ago) from spending a few weeks in Europe with my 7D, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;10-22mm&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;17-55mm&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.8-II-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;50mm&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;55-250mm&lt;/a&gt;. I too have little interest in portraits, and took a lot of landscapes, architecture and &quot;detail&quot; shots on my trip. And I left my tripod at home... so perhaps some of my experiences/thoughts will be useful...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I carried the 3 zooms around with me &lt;em&gt;most&lt;/em&gt; of the time, occasionally taking the 50mm out, and if I wasn't really feeling up to carrying it all, I'd just take the 17-55. I remember at the time thinking the 10-22 and 55-250 were by far the most useful lenses, though oddly the proportion of all photos from each lens was:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM — &lt;strong&gt;44%&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 — &lt;strong&gt;28%&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM — &lt;strong&gt;24%&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF 50mm f/1.8 II — &lt;strong&gt;4%&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've yet to sort through my photos, so if I remember I'll come back and update the percentages based on the photos I actually liked (; I'm quite sure the best will be from the wide and telephoto.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I remember thinking often that I'd have probably been happier with the 10-22mm and a better telephoto (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;70-200 f/4L&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;70-300L&lt;/a&gt;), and just a 30mm in the middle (for weight reasons). The other thing I wanted was a second body... As much as I like my 17-55 (especially if it's the only lens I'm carrying), I have a feeling that two bodies, one with a good wide angle, the other a good telephoto, and a 'normal' (30mm for crop) prime in the bag, just in case, is all one really needs... but it's hard to justify a second body just to be switching lenses less frequently! But for travel or events, when lots of things are new and unexpected, it seems to make sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found the 10-22mm great for the big old churches, even though the 17-55 has a wider aperture, 17mm just didn't cut it in some of them. I think a similar lens that goes as wide as 11 or 12mm would also be fine (e.g. Sigma/Tamron/Tokina offerings), but the 17 or 18mm wide end of 'normal zooms' wouldn't cut it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The tele was great for odd details, especially interesting people (I'm not one to approach people to take a photo), a bit of wildlife and the like. Mine's the kit one I got with my 450D a few years back which I'm saving up to replace with something with a wider aperture, but even so it was very useful and sufficient quality at f/8 to f/16.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 17-55 was most useful when I didn't want to carry a lot, since its kind of wide and kind of long, so I'd probably still take it again, (even if I had a 30mm prime), unless I was expecting to have all my gear with me at all times, and wouldn't be comfortable leaving it behind somewhere on shorter day trips.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if you want to stick to 3 lenses, I'd suggest an ultra-wide like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 10-22mm&lt;/a&gt;, a good tele zoom like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;70-200 f/4L IS USM&lt;/a&gt; (or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;70-300&lt;/a&gt; if you like wildlife which I usually find I'm wanting more than 250 for) and a 30mm prime like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-30mm-f-1.4-EX-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt;: I guess if you're aiming for highest &lt;em&gt;quality&lt;/em&gt;, I should be suggesting the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-1.4-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;35mm f/1.4L&lt;/a&gt; instead of the Sigma.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit 2&lt;/strong&gt;: In hindsight, with a bigger gap than I had between the wide and zoom (i.e. 22 to 70mm instead of just 22 to 55mm, you may be wanting more than just a 30mm or 35mm prime in the middle there... especially if you don't already have a 30mm and use it regularly enough to be comfortable with it!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastEditorUserId="889" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-13T01:34:45.433" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T01:34:45.433" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11959" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11940" CreationDate="2011-05-12T06:30:51.427" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm usually one to take more gear than I need (see my other answer), but if you really want to cut down, and aren't too hung up on a long telephoto reach, then you could get by with &lt;strong&gt;two lenses:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the &lt;strong&gt;EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM&lt;/strong&gt;, and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the &lt;strong&gt;EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You're still getting a reasonable range of focal lengths from 10mm to 105mm, with a negligible gap from 22 to 24mm, and the 24-105 has a bit of wiggle room around the 'normal' 30mm length too. And both use the same size filters (77mm) which may be convenient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, if you're not one for church architecture or ultra-wide landscapes, then perhaps a slightly longer lens for each:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the &lt;strong&gt;EF 16-35mm f/2.8L IS USM II&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;EF 17-40mm f/4L USM&lt;/strong&gt;, and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the &lt;strong&gt;Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8&lt;/strong&gt; or an &lt;strong&gt;EF 70-200 f/4L IS USM&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though the Tokina tele option there is a bit short at the long end (135mm), and the Canon one a bit long at the short end (70mm) but I'm not sure what else to suggest (I really wish Canon would put out a high quality EF-S 55-250 f/4 IS USM to go with the 17-55).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or of course you could ditch the middle range entirely, and go with my other answer's suggestion minus the 30mm:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the &lt;strong&gt;EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM&lt;/strong&gt;, and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the &lt;strong&gt;EF 70-200 f/4L IS USM&lt;/strong&gt; or the &lt;strong&gt;EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You lose 22 to 70mm, but that's what your feet are for, right? (again, wishing Canon would make a high quality EF-S 55-250 because 70 is still pretty long).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T06:30:51.427" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11960" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11768" CreationDate="2011-05-12T07:46:16.517" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The main downside of can think of would be if you are shooting with external lighting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Except for High speed flash, the recycle time on flashes (studio and gun) would be greater than the speed of frames per second your camera is capable. &#xA;If you are shooting wirelessly you may encounter &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/canon_7d_digital_slr/discuss/72157622744414319/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;overheating&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5140" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T07:46:16.517" />
  <row Id="11961" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11768" CreationDate="2011-05-12T09:49:40.890" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no real disadvantage except that sometime you will have multiple copies of the same picture. This can be annoying because you definitely would not need them and will delete them which would take some time. Also if your shooting in RAW you will have memory problem because it consumes a lot of space. And storing everything will not be practical unless your willing to burn it into cd's or buy hard drives. Also the life of your camera reduces with the shutter or any mechanism going on. Increase in processing time also can be a issue. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another major thing will be if you exhaust your memory card then in the process of sitting and deleting the unwanted pictures from the camera, you might miss the good shots while you were trying to delete the pictures. Also burst mode sucks up a lot of battery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use it wisely and it will do you good. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4786" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T09:49:40.890" />
  <row Id="11962" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11951" CreationDate="2011-05-12T09:54:00.560" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could use Velcro. With this would would have multiple options. So if you leave the male or the female on the wall you can keep changing the pictures. The Velcro on the back of the picture you could stick it up with abro (its a cloth like tape which you can rip with your hands) tape. This tape does not damage your pictures. But the best method is to frame them. But this can get a lil expensive. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4786" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T09:54:00.560" />
  <row Id="11963" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5957" CreationDate="2011-05-12T11:18:37.713" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What I was looking for was a way to view the photos (but only view one copy, not both the JPG and the RAW version), and then having both the RAW and JPG files deleted at the same time when I chose to delete the photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't appear there is any simple/cheap way to do this, but I do have Lightroom, so I just import everything, and Lightroom is smart enough to &quot;bundle&quot; the JPG/RAW, preview only one image of each photo, and will delete both files when asked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="227" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T11:18:37.713" />
  <row Id="11964" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="610" CreationDate="2011-05-12T12:31:21.867" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Kristof,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I answer to your question, I have just recently purchased a Canon EOS 1000D &amp;amp; having using it for just over 2months now!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One area which I have been interested in is doing street photography, In particulary portrait shots of people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am currently working on a project of collecting pictures of people from subcultures of Manchester such as goths, punks, indie, metal ect which I will be collecting in a printed book &amp;amp; I generally find that most people have absolutely no problem having their picture taken &amp;amp; most generally find it quite fun!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My approach is to just act natural, be calm, explain why you would like to take their photo ect! I also find it helps to offer to e-mail a copy of any pics you take of them!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my experience, using this approach has worked without any problems &amp;amp; I have only had one girl who has declined so far, which was only due to the fact that she said she usually would but was feeling like crap on that particular day!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing you do need to consider when approaching people is how it will affect your pic &amp;amp; what you are aiming to capture. Most people consider taking candid shots &amp;amp; approaching people to be 2 different styles! Candids get more spontainious shots, where as posed shots are considered more &quot;Street Portraits&quot; rather than just &quot;Street Photography&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just decide which style you would like to do, but don't be nervous about approaching people as I generally find most people are quite willing to help out &amp;amp; some girls even feel flattered!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have fun with it! :D&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5155" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T12:31:21.867" />
  <row Id="11965" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11757" CreationDate="2011-05-12T13:48:55.573" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;We shot round 2 yesterday, and I went back to the 50 to try again.  This time, I shot in &quot;AI Focus&quot; mode instead of &quot;AI Servo&quot; mode, and the 50 worked great.  This left me feeling a bit unsatisfied, however, because I couldn't really explain why I was seeing the results I was seeing.  The user manual, for instance, implies that AI Servo should be ideal for moving subjects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@Itai's answer turned out not to be entirely correct, but it gave me exactly the clue I needed to figure out what went wrong in AI Servo mode.  A little googling turned up a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photonotes.org/other/ai-servo.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;very helpful article&lt;/a&gt; with information that's purportedly straight from Canon.  The key information begins around item 3 -- paragraph A indicates that the first shot in AI Servo mode uses Release Priority, and paragraph B indicates that subsequent continuous shots use Focus Priority.  Although this information is given specifically for the EOS 1, circa 1992, I've yet to find anything indicating that this has changed, and given Canon's tendency to respect backwards behavioral compatibility, I don't expect that this behavior would change without the addition of a menu option to maintain the prior behavior.  Custom Function III-1 seems to be close to to this sort of setting, but I don't think that's really the same thing as release priority vs. focus priority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further searching turned up &lt;a href=&quot;http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=9623975&amp;amp;postcount=15&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an answer that seems to confirm this and extend understanding to encompass what I saw yesterday&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;AI SERVO (at least in the iterations&#xA;  before the 7D, i.e. 20D, 30D, 40D, and&#xA;  perhaps 50D (dunno never had one))&#xA;  will keep shooting at full speed as&#xA;  long as its getting (what it thinks&#xA;  is) focus lock for every shot. With&#xA;  the 7D (and perhaps 50D) there are two&#xA;  C.Fn's that handle how AI Servo AF&#xA;  behaves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;C. Fn III-2 &quot;AI Servo 1st/2nd image&#xA;  priority&quot; 0: AF priority/Tracking&#xA;  priority 1: AF priority/Drive speed&#xA;  priority 2: Release/Drive speed&#xA;  priority 3: Release/Tracking priority&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;of the 4 choices, Choice 2 is the&#xA;  fastest because even with the first&#xA;  shot of the sequence the AF system&#xA;  does not wait for AF Lock, its&#xA;  priority is shutter release.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;of the 4 choices, I use 0 for the&#xA;  simple reason that the 70-200 f/4L IS&#xA;  USM which is the main reason for such&#xA;  speed for me can actually keep up. 2nd&#xA;  fastest lens is probably my 100mm&#xA;  f/2.8 Macro USM, followed by the 17-55&#xA;  f/2.8 IS USM. The speed of the lens's&#xA;  AF motor plays a major role in how the&#xA;  AI SERVO will work. If the lens is&#xA;  slow and your priority is choice 0 for&#xA;  example, you won't likely be able to&#xA;  maintain full 8fps on the 7D. I know&#xA;  on my 40D and 30D before it, slow&#xA;  lenses like the 75-300 III would no go&#xA;  faster than 3fps in AI SERVO, even in&#xA;  High Speed Continuous motor drive.&#xA;  Simply put AI SERVO was originally&#xA;  designed to keep shooting as long as&#xA;  AF is found - no lock, no shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What I used to do with my 40D before I&#xA;  got the 70-200L was I'd set my AF to&#xA;  ONE SHOT and High Speed. It ended up&#xA;  doing the same as option C.Fn III-3&#xA;  Option 1. It locks for the first shot,&#xA;  then just shoots more of the same&#xA;  focus. AI SERVO on the 7D is a lot&#xA;  better tho because now it can still&#xA;  give a damn about focusing the&#xA;  subsequent shots - something ONE SHOT&#xA;  AF is not meant to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;C.Fn III-3 &quot;AI Servo AF tracking&#xA;  method&quot; 0: Main focus point priority&#xA;  1: Continuous AF track priority&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This function deals more with tracking&#xA;  priorities... i.e. if something gets&#xA;  between you and the subject over the&#xA;  course of a sequence... like a tree&#xA;  that gets between you and your dog.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;_&lt;/em&gt;__&lt;em&gt;_&lt;/em&gt;__&lt;em&gt;_&lt;/em&gt;_&lt;/strong&gt; Alan &quot;NuReality&quot; Fronshtein&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This answer supports the idea that the motor speed of the lens is part of what may have been slowing me down with AI Servo, since that mode depends on focus lock for continuous shooting on shots 2-n.  It sounds like later Canon bodies, including the 7D, have an implementation of AI Servo that includes better control over the use of release priority vs. focus priority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastEditorUserId="269" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-12T16:06:22.100" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T16:06:22.100" />
  <row Id="11966" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3280" CreationDate="2011-05-12T14:43:06.020" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If the difference in price is not a major concern&lt;/strong&gt;, I'd go with the 18-135 lens (however, I know &lt;em&gt;nothing&lt;/em&gt; about the reliability of this lens so you should certainly do a research on that). The extra length makes it much more versatile than the 18-55, and may lessen your urge to purchase a telephoto lens shortly after.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When, in the future you gain a better understanding of your photographic needs, you can upgrade to another lens - and sell this one if not needed anymore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In real life, you probably are not going to notice the difference in weight, and as for the size, again, the practical difference is less than what you imagine. That - unless you are really tight in space and wight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Just noticed&lt;/strong&gt; that this is a fairly old question that was bumped up with a recent update. So, @Gregor, can you tell us what you ended up buying and what are your conclusions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T14:43:06.020" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11967" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-12T15:56:11.010" Score="26" ViewCount="994" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are common mistakes seen in images taken by beginning photographers? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, a friend of mine pointed out that the horizon was not straight in one of my images, and now I see it everywhere!  What other mistakes am I probably making without realizing it?  I'm interested in both the artistic and the technical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3356" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-12T17:42:00.817" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T22:50:35.050" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-13T06:32:27.007" Title="What are common beginner mistakes in photography?" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;lighting-basics&gt;&lt;composition-basics&gt;&lt;photography-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="16" CommentCount="13" FavoriteCount="8" />
  <row Id="11968" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11967" CreationDate="2011-05-12T16:17:19.800" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm reminded of &lt;a href=&quot;http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3aITD28AdqnvkJ%3awww.halfjapanese.co.uk/how-to-play-guitar.php%20&amp;amp;cd=2&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;ct=clnk&amp;amp;gl=us&amp;amp;source=encrypted.google.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this classic article&lt;/a&gt; by David Fair of the band &lt;a href=&quot;http://allmusic.com/artist/half-japanese-p13118&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Half Japanese&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I taught myself to play guitar. It's incredibly easy when you understand the science of it. The skinny strings play the high sounds, and the fat strings play the low sounds. If you put your finger on the string farther out by the tuning end it makes a lower sound. If you want to play fast, move your hand fast and if you want to play slower move your hand slower. That's all there is to it. You can learn the names of notes and how to make chords that other people use, but that's pretty limiting. Even if you took a few years and learned all the chords you'd still have a limited number of options. If you ignore the chords your options are infinite and you can master guitar playing in one day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3aITD28AdqnvkJ%3awww.halfjapanese.co.uk/how-to-play-guitar.php%20&amp;amp;cd=2&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;ct=clnk&amp;amp;gl=us&amp;amp;source=encrypted.google.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;read more...&lt;/a&gt;, or in (very entertaining) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcu2ONECf_8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;youtube video form&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-12T17:29:09.320" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T17:29:09.320" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-13T06:32:27.007" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11969" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11967" CreationDate="2011-05-12T16:21:11.230" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think a lot of common beginner mistakes result in photos that are obviously bad -- these are typically &quot;exposure triangle&quot; problems, where the photo is too light, too dark or badly blurred.  Beginners can see these problems pretty easily themselves in many cases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems like you're fishing for problems that are just a bit more subtle, and I think a lot of these are composition problems.  Your crooked horizon one is one of those, as are &quot;rule of thirds&quot; problems, which stick out pretty quickly once you start looking for them.  You can probably also include attention to foreground / background elements with composition, including use of DOF to separate foreground and background and attention to stray background elements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lighting problems are also pretty common -- especially shooting in harsh light, failing to fill-light, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T16:21:11.230" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-13T06:32:27.007" />
  <row Id="11970" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11967" CreationDate="2011-05-12T16:40:03.607" Score="27" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11967/what-are-common-beginner-mistakes-in-photography/11968#11968&quot;&gt;other answer&lt;/a&gt; aside, I think almost all &quot;beginner mistakes&quot; boil down to one of a few things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Not being mindful of what's in the composition. The uneven horizon falls under this, as does the classic &lt;a href=&quot;http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/03/random-snap.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photographer's shadow&lt;/a&gt;* in the frame, or a personal pet peeve of mine: chopped-off feet in otherwise full-length portraits. I know that when I look at my earlier work I see elements which I know I didn't consider at the time. &lt;em&gt;Addressing this comes from taking time to review your photographs with a critical eye.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Technical inexperience. Exposure, focus, all of the how-to-work-the-gear stuff. And I'm including lighting here too. &lt;em&gt;This all just comes with time and practice, and maybe with &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/books&quot;&gt;reading&lt;/a&gt; if you're into that sort of thing.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Being too caught up in equipment, and blaming what one has or doesn't have for problems. (This comes out in a whole bunch of ways: brand-name wars, emphasizing technical qualities over photographic merit, dismissing all flash photography as awful, hunting for lens defects rather than hunting for pictures to take, and so on.) &lt;em&gt;This is solved by remembering to focus on the other two things and not worry about this so much. There's nothing wrong with photo gear as a hobby on its own, but it's not as fun as photography itself.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;* Click that link, by the way. It's on-topic.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-12T16:57:16.207" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T16:57:16.207" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-13T06:32:27.007" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="11971" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11967" CreationDate="2011-05-12T16:44:54.683" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a fellow newbie to DSLR photography, in addition to the other answers, the most important thing I found was &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;get to know your camera well by practicing/shooting. I had the manual (even downloaded the digital version of the manual) as a reference as I experimented shooting under different conditions I anticipate I'll encounter. For e.g. from the manual, I've learned how to set up my EOS 7D to help me avoid uneven horizon consistently even when I'm shooting moving subjects. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ask concisely-worded questions here. The people here have been very helpful and generous in sharing tips. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;invest in (good) lens that fit the type of photography you enjoy. I carry Canon 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 with my EOS 7D which helped me capture landscape and close-up shoots of seagulls flying off the stern of the boat. Even though both lens are expensive, I've learnt that it's better to invest in good lens (since newer bodies will inevitably have new features) -- in my case, I'm planning to eventually save enough to use both my lens with either the next 5D or a 1D.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ask fellow photographers (and verify) their&#xA;assertions/belief/bias.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4083" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-12T17:02:59.070" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T17:02:59.070" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-13T06:32:27.007" CommentCount="11" />
  <row Id="11972" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11967" CreationDate="2011-05-12T17:02:17.323" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The top mistake made by beginners is &lt;strong&gt;using the flash regardless of subject distance&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This occurs by a huge margin above any other mistake. This is terrible not just because you should not be using the flash in most conditions but because when the flash fires in forced on or auto mode (not slow-sync or fill), the camera expects the flash to light up the scene and sets its exposure parameters (aperture, shutter-speed, ISO, depending on the mode) accordingly. This results in an under-exposed image a vast majority of times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then there are variants of this such as shooting with the flash through a window or at artwork behind glass, etc. This results in a photo of a flash reflection and little else, unless shooting at an oblique angle from the reflective surface.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T17:02:17.323" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-13T06:32:27.007" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="11973" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11967" CreationDate="2011-05-12T17:34:34.493" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Composition or uninteresting &quot;pictures&quot;.  Most of the photos I see, the exposure isn't too far off because modern cameras take care of it within an acceptable range the majority of the time automatically.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;But there's two things left up to the photographer every time and it's those two things that bug me the most.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Composition - heads in the middle of the frames with vast quantities of space above,  landscapes with 90% of boring blue sky, horizons off, etc&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Uninteresting &quot;pictures&quot; - (this doesn't apply to like stock photography for example) If you're taking a picture of something boring like a trashcan in an office building and you don't do anything particularly special to it...I don't care if it lines up with a 3rd line and is properly exposed...its boring.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:  Perhaps my &quot;Uninteresting 'pictures'&quot; portion is being misunderstood.  Think of it as the opposite of my answer on &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11943/which-is-the-most-memorable-mind-changing-photograph-of-all-time-that-galen-ro/11944#11944&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;em&gt;Without further creative action&lt;/em&gt; some subjects simply lack interest even with good technical execution.  For evidence, I humbly submit...my foot.  (If you find this picture interesting and would like to purchase it for the rock bottom price of $200 US dollars - I'll consider myself fully proven wrong...and two hundred dollars richer.)&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/4DDuO.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-12T22:15:34.453" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T22:15:34.453" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-13T06:32:27.007" CommentCount="12" />
  <row Id="11974" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11967" CreationDate="2011-05-12T18:38:35.050" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd add &lt;strong&gt;quantity over quality&lt;/strong&gt; (still guilty sometimes myself). Shooting lots of mediocre images instead of &lt;strong&gt;thinking&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;preparing&lt;/strong&gt; to make a good one. This has become much worse with digital where a click does not convert into real money. Theoretically LCD could be used as feedback, but in reality it seems easier to use burst mode and hope for Lady Luck, expensive equipment and post-production to save the day. Planning ahead and analyzing results (what could I have done to make this photo better?) should alleviate this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that it's okay to take a backup shot, experiment, or re-take the photo in a better way; click-and-hope is not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, &lt;strong&gt;zooming in when you could get closer&lt;/strong&gt; seems to be very common. It might seem like it's the same, but it's not - perspective will give you away. By staying distant, you'll also leave the viewer distant, and it seldom feels good to be left out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-13T06:08:34.207" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T06:08:34.207" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-13T06:32:27.007" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11975" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11864" CreationDate="2011-05-12T18:42:44.703" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A really cheap option is to get a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lowes.com/pd_136732-37672-881853_4294856649+4294829729_4294937087_?productId=3012388&amp;amp;Ns=p_product_prd_lis_ord_nbr%7C0%7C%7Cp_product_quantity_sold%7C1&amp;amp;pl=1&amp;amp;currentURL=/pl_Eye_4294856649%2b4294829729_4294937087_?Ns=p_product_prd_lis_ord_nbr%7C0%7C%7Cp_product_quantity_sold%7C1&amp;amp;facetInfo=Eye&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1/4-20 Eye Bolt&lt;/a&gt;.  It can screw into the camera, then you connect the strap to the eye ring.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T18:42:44.703" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11976" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11967" CreationDate="2011-05-12T19:15:23.967" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll be short: My friends that are newbie in photography usually tormenting me with questions, like: &quot;- should I use this mode now?&quot;, &quot;- what is better - mode 'P' or mode 'S'?&quot;, &quot;- Am I good photographer that I use mode 'M' most time?&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So they are focusing onto technical side, not creative. And this is most important mistake they do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2272" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T19:15:23.967" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-13T06:32:27.007" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11977" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11980" CreationDate="2011-05-12T19:26:40.680" Score="9" ViewCount="186" Body="&lt;p&gt;Should I have a provision in my weddings contracts that covers actions which are outside of my control? For instance, how to deal with wedding guests who 'play photographer' and may interfere with a critical shot? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1480" LastEditorUserId="1913" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-12T20:10:17.490" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T20:49:45.377" Title="Should I have a wedding contract provision for actions outside my control?" Tags="&lt;business&gt;&lt;wedding&gt;&lt;contracts&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11978" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11967" CreationDate="2011-05-12T19:38:11.403" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When composing portrait shots, new photographers often overlook the &quot;hacked off limbs&quot; effect. If the edge of your photograph falls on a joint, such as an ankle, wrist, elbow, waist, etc, the extremity appears to have been &quot;hacked off&quot;. Try making the edge of the photograph end in the middle of two joints instead (for example, the middle of the subject's forearm). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4231" LastEditorUserId="4231" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-12T21:13:48.790" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T21:13:48.790" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-13T06:32:27.007" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11979" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11977" CreationDate="2011-05-12T19:49:08.690" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, absolutely.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My contract specifies:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I am employed by the bride and groom, not the mother-in-law or anyone else.  I only follow their directions.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;People who run into a formal shot will delay the shot&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Snap-happy uncles need to be handled by another relative (I tend to use my assistant for this task, to distract them while I get what I need, or to say 'look at me, then look at him')&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If I cannot be present because of illness, etc, I will find a replacement who will be my subcontractor (ie, no extra cost to the couple).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Acts of God mean that I don't refund the deposit, but I don't charge for the rest of the time either (ie, canceling because of tornadoes means I won't charge).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T19:49:08.690" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11980" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11977" CreationDate="2011-05-12T19:54:12.870" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question is about two separate clauses, and I believe they both should be in a well formed wedding photography contract.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exclusivity clauses&lt;/strong&gt; will point out that the hired professional is the exclusive photographer for the event.  Clients take responsibility for notifying guests that they must not interfere with the paid photographers duties.  This does not prevent them from photographing at all, but they must make every effort possible not to interfere.  An exclusivity clause may also give a certain pose or session to the photographer on their own.  Many times you will see the formal wedding portrait time given exclusively to the paid photographer so guests are not distracting eyes and preventing the professional from completing the shots required.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An example: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;EXCLUSIVITY / GUEST PHOTOGRAPHY: It is&#xA;  understood that PHOTOGRAPHERS NAME&#xA;  will act as the sole and exclusive&#xA;  wedding photographer. Because of the&#xA;  fact that flashes from guest’s cameras&#xA;  may ruin shots taken by PHOTOGRAPHERS&#xA;  NAME, THE CLIENT acknowledges that&#xA;  they are responsible for notifying all&#xA;  of their guests that guest photography&#xA;  must not interfere with the&#xA;  professional photographer’s photo&#xA;  taking. The formal photography time is&#xA;  for the exclusive use of PHOTOGRAPHERS&#xA;  NAME to capture the formal wedding&#xA;  portraits. Because of time constraints&#xA;  and the need for subjects to pay full&#xA;  attention to the professional&#xA;  photographer, guest photography must&#xA;  be deferential to the professional&#xA;  photographer. Guest photographers are&#xA;  not permitted on the location shoots&#xA;  as per the wedding schedule.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first item you bring up is very vague.  &lt;strong&gt;Items outside your control&lt;/strong&gt; could mean any number of different things.  Should your contract give clauses to prevent liability in case of fire, acts of god, or other incidences?  I believe that it should.  These are not considered part of what you can control.  One such example would be a clause that prevents you from returning the deposit if the weather cancels the event.  The weather is not under your control, but you may want to keep the deposit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T19:54:12.870" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11981" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11977" CreationDate="2011-05-12T20:27:54.240" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do have various clauses, 'act of god,' 'exclusivity of photographer,' etc. as others have outlined in their answers, and (assuming you're based in the US, YMMV if you're elsewhere) you should have these sorts of clauses too, if nothing else for the following reasons...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unlike many of the photographers I personally know in the city I live and work, I walk through &lt;em&gt;each and every clause&lt;/em&gt; in my contract with the bride and groom, in person, before anyone signs anything. Each bride and groom get's 'the talk' which gives me the opportunity to bring the contract out of the realm of 'legal mumbo-jumbo' for the client, and into the 'how does this apply to me?' realm. Often this gives them the opportunity to handle any problems or prepare a 'Plan B' without me having to do anything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, I sat down for a contract signing with a couple earlier today and when we talked through what I affectionately call my 'what happens if it is raining at your outdoor wedding' clause. Turns out that they had no Plan B in place, and now they're planning for the 'just in case' scenario. That's a clause of my contract that I will never have to act upon because of a little up-front talk...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have only had to invoke my 'Uncle Bob the annoying amateur photographer' clause twice in my career, but both times the conversation was me discreetly pulling aside the groom at a lull in the photography explain the situation, and remind him of the clause in the contract. On both occasions the groom then pulled aside a trusted person and that person discreetly took care of the problem. Again, it wasn't a big deal... because we'd already discussed the points of the contract in detail months before, and they were able to see that having 'Uncle Bob' out of the way was &lt;em&gt;benefiting them&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that the photographer who just hands a couple a contract, expects them to read it, and completely understand all the implications of what they're signing with no additional detail is just asking for problems when and if a problem arises. Too many photographers I know are simply afraid to talk about the contract and the things that are in it for fear that doing-so may 'taint the deal.' On the contrary, in more than 15 years of professional wedding photography I've never lost a client to going over the contract, never been sued, never had to sue, etc. and I think one of the major reasons for that is simply understanding that &lt;em&gt;even totally reasonable things sound underhanded when put in legalese!&lt;/em&gt; By explaining things to clients in plain English I bring everything back into the realm of 'what is reasonable and beneficial for both me &lt;em&gt;and the client&lt;/em&gt;,' and reasonable clients don't have problems with my provisions as a result. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-12T20:32:58.297" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T20:32:58.297" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11982" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11977" CreationDate="2011-05-12T20:49:45.377" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's some great advice in the other answers.  One clause you might want to add is one that specifies that you aren't liable for any restrictions imposed by the venue.  If the bride hired you based on some neat lighting effect you are known for, but you show up and the church officiant decides he won't allow any flash photography, you don't want to be on the hook for the situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The clause I use reads as such:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;VENUE RESTRCTIONS - The Photographer&#xA;  is limited by the guidelines of the&#xA;  event venue and site management.  The&#xA;  Client agrees to accept the technical&#xA;  results of their imposition on the&#xA;  photographer. Negotiation with the&#xA;  officials for alteration of guidelines&#xA;  is Client’s responsibility;&#xA;  Photographer will offer technical&#xA;  recommendations only.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T20:49:45.377" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11983" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11967" CreationDate="2011-05-12T22:00:00.870" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biggest mistake, or should I say the most difficult part of photography is being able to form a mental image of what the resulting picture will be. This may sound trivial, but there is huge difference in how a scene is perceived by you as the photographer and how it appear in the final image. Your eyes and brain will focus on the subject no matter how cluttered the scene is, but when you see the final picture often you will notice all of the distracting elements that you mentally filtered out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The mental picture is closely related to composition. Interesting pictures tell a story to the viewer, and composition is tell the story that you want to tell. So my word of advice is: Think about the message you are sending, and not so much about how sharp your lens is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of cause every beginning photographer will spend some time to learn how to master the technical aspect of the tools they are given, but that is the simple part. Every topic from flash techniques, aperture and shutter, sensor sensitivity (ISO) etc are well covered by other articles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1447" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T22:00:00.870" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-13T06:32:27.007" />
  <row Id="11984" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11967" CreationDate="2011-05-12T22:18:08.627" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Composition - trying to get too much in the image, rather than simplifying.  Busy, distracting backgrounds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Focus - camera shake, motion blur at low shutter speeds or AF on wrong thing without knowing it&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exposure - blown highlights, dark faces of backlit subjects, failure to check histogram and no idea how to use exposure compensation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ignorance of camera functions - fiddling with controls not knowing what they do and leaving the camera in a less than ideal state&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4191" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T22:18:08.627" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-13T06:32:27.007" />
  <row Id="11985" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-12T22:33:19.830" Score="5" ViewCount="325" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found an &lt;a href=&quot;http://lookbook.nu/files/looks/large/703307_shortzzzzzzzzzz_copy.jpg?1279715289&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;interesting fashion photograph&lt;/a&gt; and I want to recreate the effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Z5rzg.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Copy of images&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know for a fact that the pictures are taken in complete darkness using a Canon XSi, the built-in flash, and some post-processing.  I don't know what settings to use on my camera to get this degree of sharpness in complete darkness. Any suggestions? There seems to be a vignette effect at the bottom, but I don't know how to create it. I know this is very amateur photography, please don't bash it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5162" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-13T12:40:11.047" LastActivityDate="2011-05-14T14:00:17.290" Title="How do I get this fashion photograph effect?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;focus&gt;&lt;sharpness&gt;&lt;fashion&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="11986" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11985" CreationDate="2011-05-12T22:48:48.610" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The easiest way I can think of to emulate a shot like this is to do the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Put the camera on a tripod to minimize any inadvertent movement during the shoot.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Choose a high enough f-stop that you can be assured of a crisp image throughout the depth of field.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use autofocus to set the focus &lt;em&gt;with the lights on.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Switch to manual focus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Turn the lights off.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shoot away.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a post-production standpoint the biggest thing that looks like is happening is boosted contrast. In fact, that may be the only post-production effect going on... It may have even been done via setting the camera to a 'Vivid' mode (or a similarly named setting, depending on your camera brand of choice). Also, it's likely that the grain in the photograph is caused by using a very high ISO. Alternatively the grain could be simulated in post-production as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It looks to me like there isn't any post-production vignette going on, the vignette is simply caused by dropoff from the onboard flash. All in all I think this would be a relatively easy shot to recreate- the majority (or possibly even &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt;) of it appears to have been done in-camera. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the tripod is probably optional if your f-stop is set high enough... The idea of expensive camera equipment + darkness just leads me to the natural conclusion of 'make the camera as stable as possible so if &lt;em&gt;I&lt;/em&gt; accidentally trip and fall over something in the dark like a klutz, at least the camera doesn't go down with me.' YMMV. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-12T23:16:00.813" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T23:16:00.813" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="11987" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11985" CreationDate="2011-05-12T23:06:35.980" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use manual focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use high ISO (or add noise in PP)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Underexpose a bit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Might try cross processing effects, or else play with white balance.  The colours look a bit orange to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your flash doesn't produce the circular vignette, fashion a &quot;snoot&quot; out of rolled up paper, Pringles tube etc and fire flash through that&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4191" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T23:06:35.980" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="11988" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11967" CreationDate="2011-05-12T23:14:37.943" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Letting the camera decide aperture/shutter speed.&lt;/strong&gt;  Even if exposure is correct, the subject might get blurred due to the camera's selection of shutter speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Putting the subject in the center of the photograph all the time.&lt;/strong&gt;  If you are doing videographic work, or documentary, instructional, etc. photography, then it might be preferred to have the subject in the center, but when you're going for artsy photographs that are supposed to evoke emotion, you often want the subject off-center.  Similarly, the subject should rarely be looking straight at the camera in an artistic photograph.  This is especially true if you are trying to create a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousand-yard_stare&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Thousand Yard Stare&quot;&lt;/a&gt; impression.  (The guy on the bottom left of the first picture is a good example.  If he were the only person in the photograph, it would be a pretty awesome picture.  If, however, he were centered, the picture would be mediocre at best.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Not knowing how to achieve visual effects&lt;/strong&gt;, such as depth of field, leading lines, etc., or simply not even attempting to achieve those effects due to a lack of knowledge on how to make a photograph look good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exposure and lighting&lt;/strong&gt;, especially with a back-lit subject.  Not waiting for or creating good lighting is a somewhat related issue.  Sometimes pictures look much better if you take them in high-contrast light, or colored light (such as a sunset.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5158" LastEditorUserId="5158" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-12T23:25:49.097" LastActivityDate="2011-05-12T23:25:49.097" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-13T06:32:27.007" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11989" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11991" CreationDate="2011-05-12T23:54:07.047" Score="4" ViewCount="209" Body="&lt;p&gt;First things first, I'm talking &lt;strong&gt;ONLY about framing here&lt;/strong&gt;. No light sensitivity, no bokeh quality, no pixel quantity, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A 50mm in a FF camera will give a certain composition and framing. How can I achieve the same composition and framing with a APS-C camera &lt;strong&gt;without changing the lens&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Will moving away from the subject will give me the same image?&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;I know that zooming isn't the same thing as moving closer or farther from the subject, but will I be able to achieve at least a similar shot?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://vimeo.com/14832168&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This video&lt;/a&gt; triggered this question. Check it out, it's very illustrating.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt;: I know that a 35mm would give me the same shot in a APS-C. I want to know if this is possible &lt;strong&gt;without changing the lens&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4039" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-13T12:03:44.913" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T14:46:40.863" Title="How can I get the same image with the same 50mm lens on both FF and APS-C?" Tags="&lt;focal-length&gt;&lt;full-frame&gt;&lt;crop-factor&gt;&lt;aps-c&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="11990" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11989" CreationDate="2011-05-13T00:06:23.663" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Shoot with a 35mm lens. On an APS-C it gives an equivalent Field of View to a 50mm at FF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moving away from your subject means that you change your perspective. Your image will not look the same, although it will definitely allow you to fit (or frame) the subject in the smaller sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@Matt Grum has a very nice example &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3986/aps-c-vs-full-frame-why-should-i-care/3992#3992&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT After the question was updated&lt;/strong&gt;: The short answer is no, it is not possible to get the same image using the same lens on different sensor sizes. As you could tell by now from the previous discussion, keeping everything else the same (that is, the focal length and the camera position) and changing to a smaller sensor is exactly equivalent to cropping your large sensor image in post-processing. In this case, moving away from the subject will give you the same composition of the subject in the image frame, &lt;strong&gt;but&lt;/strong&gt; you will have a different composition of it with respect to the background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-13T02:41:12.417" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T02:41:12.417" />
  <row Id="11991" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11989" CreationDate="2011-05-13T00:06:49.993" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In terms of field of view, or framing, APS-C is defined as a ratio to full frame. For Canon it's 1.6, for Nikon/Pentax/Sony it's 1.5. So, when looking at this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;X x 1.5 = Y&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;X is the focal length on the APS-C and Y is the focal length on the FF. So, we sub in and rearrange for:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;X = 50 / 1.5&#xA;X = 33.3333&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, you'll get around the same field of view if the lens on APS-C is between 30 and 35mm. Now, if you're using the same lens, you'll have to use your feet. For APS-C, that means moving back and the distance will depend on the subject, but the perspective will change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit For Updated Question&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if the lens is the same...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As mentioned in both answers, the perspective will change as a result of changing position, so the essential answer is no, you can't when you're using the same lens. That leaves you with the last option I can think of: panorama. Several shots, 4 minimum I would think (2 top, and 2 bottom) would allow you to construct an image with the same perspective (or so very close that the difference is very difficult to detect) and same field of view. The drawbacks are obvious and include multiple images, must be a stationary subject, and more. Technically, however, it could be done given a suitable subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-13T03:12:23.613" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T03:12:23.613" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="11992" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11967" CreationDate="2011-05-13T00:35:26.920" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Years ago while taking snapshots with family I took two immediately after each other, one with flash and one without, to demonstrate the difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Flash:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/XT5QF.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No flash:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/uMaju.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Same location, same time of day, but the flash changes the entire look of the scene. Beginners use flash mindlessly without actually understanding what affect it has on their pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(related quick tip: Overcast days are actually the best light for photos.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5164" LastEditorUserId="5164" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-13T00:41:11.723" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T00:41:11.723" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-13T06:32:27.007" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11993" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11967" CreationDate="2011-05-13T01:07:06.107" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h2&gt;John Smith Photography - Facebook&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After one month of owning a DSLR and having begun photography altogether, you decide to start a business. There's so many reasons to avoid doing this until you know what you're doing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lack of experience.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lack of gear and/or backup gear in case things go wrong.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lack of business knowledge and photographer specific, such as pricing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lack of solid understanding of photography in general.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastEditorUserId="609" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-13T22:50:35.050" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T22:50:35.050" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-13T06:32:27.007" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11994" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5689" CreationDate="2011-05-13T01:07:59.493" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would certainly prefer the f/2.8, but another issue may be that many people are hesitant about buying a used lens from an unknown source. When I switched from Canon to Nikon, I think I sold most of my stuff on Craigslist (which works out well because people can meet you to check out the stuff) and Ebay (but I have a high feedback rating).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5165" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T01:07:59.493" />
  <row Id="11995" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11985" CreationDate="2011-05-13T01:20:46.823" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Disregarding focusing and technical problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Lots&lt;/em&gt; of contrast in post processing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Either high ISO or adding noise in PP.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Warmer white balance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Possible warming split tone effect&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastEditorUserId="609" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-13T22:45:52.917" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T22:45:52.917" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="11996" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11940" CreationDate="2011-05-13T01:37:31.327" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm surprised no one has mentioned the new Canon 15-85mm lens. I recently purchased it and found it to be my ideal travel lens. The lens is tack sharp (comparable to the 17-55), well-built (supposedly better than the 17-55 in this regard), has an immensely useful range, and is about 20% lighter than the 17-55. It is also about 25% cheaper than the 17-55mm. As one of Canon's newest lenses, the IS and USM focusing are top-notch. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only con (other than arguably price), and this could be a big one depending on what you shoot, is the variable max aperture. This is not a good night-time lens. It's IS makes it fine for shooting churches and other indoor architecture, but don't expect to get good shots of people at a bar. It also won't get you amazing depth of field (although the bokeh is still nice). Frankly, I consider these minor inconveniences: for night-time or cliched flower shots I just swap out my 35mm prime lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe the 15-85mm was designed in every way as a general walk-around lens, which makes it ideal for the types of vacation shots I take. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1125" LastEditorUserId="1125" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-13T06:26:11.903" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T06:26:11.903" />
  <row Id="11997" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10836" CreationDate="2011-05-13T02:01:18.897" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think you'll like either of those lenses at all when it comes to sharpness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1410/cat/23&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamron 18-270&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; is well tested at that link, and while it performs well for a travel zoom, it is &lt;em&gt;not a sharp lens at all&lt;/em&gt;. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1113/cat/11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 55-250&lt;/a&gt; kit lens is sharper over the same range, for example, &lt;em&gt;much&lt;/em&gt; cheaper, and even has a wider aperture over that range. I'd only recommend the Tamron as the real &quot;all-in-one&quot; lens given its huge zoom range, but it'll be significantly less sharp than even the Canon kit lenses. But... if you're really after one lens to do everything, then it's got about the biggest focal length range you'll find in one lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon has a few sharper lenses with less focal length range, like the:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1219/cat/11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF-S 18-200&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1292/cat/11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF-S 18-135&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/139/cat/11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EF 28-135&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which are all within budget and may or may not suit your focal length needs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/75/cat/11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 75-300&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; is &lt;em&gt;not a good choice in terms of sharpness&lt;/em&gt;, though it is cheap...  There's a lot of offerings in the 70-200 and 70-300 range, so may be worth checking out some of the others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The 55-250 as mentioned above is sharper, though lacks USM and is shorter on both ends. Still very cheap (leaving money left over to put towards the next lens or a tripod or...)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Any of Canon's 70-200L lenses are &lt;em&gt;incredibly&lt;/em&gt; sharp, but yes, much pricier, though the 70-200 f/4 USM might be justifiable if you can stretch your budget just a little...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/253/cat/11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;70-300 IS USM&lt;/a&gt; is somewhere in between in terms of price, but still within your budget I believe. It's a big step up from the 75-300 you're looking at in terms of sharpness, and has a longer reach and added USM over the 55-250, so definitely worth checking out.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also not sure which version of the 18-55 kit lens you got, but the first couple were pretty poor quality. The one with IS is a &lt;em&gt;big&lt;/em&gt; step up in sharpness over the first two without IS. The 55-250 IS is similar in quality to the 18-55 &lt;em&gt;with&lt;/em&gt; IS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, if you want a sharp lens, the 100mm f/2.8 macro lenses (probably not the L version with IS given your budget) are incredibly sharp, great for portraits, wedding, flower/insect photography, and depending on your style may suit travel photography too (I personally prefer zooms at the long and wide end for travel though).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T02:01:18.897" />
  <row Id="11998" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11967" CreationDate="2011-05-13T02:34:42.400" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Buying instead of renting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many camera shops will rent lenses and other gear for a fraction of what it takes to buy -- and sometimes will credit you the rental if you decide to purchase the same.  Also, renting for a weekend is often the same as renting for a single weekday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5166" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T02:34:42.400" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-13T06:32:27.007" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="11999" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10785" CreationDate="2011-05-13T02:40:33.663" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your primary weak point is your lenses. They're all variable aperture, budget lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference between the EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 and the 18-55mm kit lens is very noticeable, as an example. I did exactly this and never went back. In fact, I won't buy a zoom lens until I can get it at F/2.8. A stop is a lot of light to be gaining, not to mention the benefits of the better glass. Even if it costs a lot more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;F/2.8 for the same exposure at all focal lengths.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Very good image stabilisation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Significantly reduced chromatic aberrations.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sharper overall.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Faster, silent auto focus with USM.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Less barrelling and/or pin-cushioning.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are inclined to get a full frame body, I'd be inclined to get two lenses at least.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;24-70mm F/2.8L&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;70-200mm F/2.8L&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You won't regret it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T02:40:33.663" />
  <row Id="12000" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10836" CreationDate="2011-05-13T02:43:39.793" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you value a sharp image free of chromatic aberration and distortion and the ability to capture more light, I'd &lt;strong&gt;avoid it like the plague.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T02:43:39.793" />
  <row Id="12001" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11940" CreationDate="2011-05-13T04:10:11.153" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am agreeing with these people here that a 10-22 and a 17-55 are really great options, but you might end up with lots of unused range in the 17-55 lens when your main focus is architecture and landscape.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am traveling a lot and opted for a combination of a ef-s 10-22 and the 70-200 f/4l IS which gives me the right focal lengths for these purposes, being totally happy with that gap in between that I could easily fill with a 50mm or 35mm prime. you don't need zoom capabilities in that area anyway because things you shoot with such lenghts are in walking distance anyway, whereas you want the telezoom for details of architecture and such.&#xA;So instead of getting the whole focal range from 10-200 i rather accepted a gap in between and got a second body. No lens switching and maximum flexibility when you are using lowe pro top loaders for these cameras. And I am traveling by backpack all the time btw...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4675" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T04:10:11.153" />
  <row Id="12002" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12004" CreationDate="2011-05-13T06:16:31.867" Score="11" ViewCount="144" Body="&lt;p&gt;My camera has a 'bulb mode,' and several questions on photo-SE refer to using Bulb Mode. A few questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is 'Bulb Mode?'&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why is it called 'Bulb Mode?'&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is 'Bulb Mode used for?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T08:50:28.543" Title="What is Bulb Mode?" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="12003" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12002" CreationDate="2011-05-13T06:31:05.760" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;1) It is a shutter speed where the photographer taking the picture can control the shutter speed manually. So basically you can have a shutter speed from a couple of fractions of a second to hour. Depends how long you can hold that shutter button. But you could also use a remote release to do this job for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) If i remember right its a very only terminology where an air bubble was to be pressed to open the shutter and release of it would close it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) Bulb mode is mainly used for shooting long exposures. For example fireworks, light trails, star trails etc. Also a very popular use is for light painting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4786" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T06:31:05.760" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="12004" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12002" CreationDate="2011-05-13T06:37:44.723" Score="19" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The bulb mode is simply a mode where you control the exposure time by holding down the shutter release button.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The name comes from the time when the shutter was controlled by a rubber bulb at the end of a hose. You compressed the bulb to open the shutter, and it would stay open as long as you held the bulb compressed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bulb mode is mostly used when you want a longer exposure than the camera settings allow for. Typically you can set the exposure time up to something like half a minute, so for exposures longer than that you have to control it manually. Typically you would have the camera on a tripod and use a remote shutter release, so that you don't have to push the button on the camera, which would cause the camera to move.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-13T08:50:28.543" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T08:50:28.543" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12005" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11985" CreationDate="2011-05-13T07:25:48.490" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the photos has been flipped horizontally (see how the ends of blouse collar fold over each other).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The shadows reveal that the camera was on its side, and pop-up flash was used. Probably on left side (so the picture on the right is flipped), because you'd need additional support under lens and it'd be awkward to reach shutter the other way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A short focal length to get the pop-up flash vignette so bad. Implied from this, camera is quite close to model.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The shadow in the lower part - shadow of the table the camera was supported by.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Post-production and focusing has already been well described by other answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T07:25:48.490" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12006" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11940" CreationDate="2011-05-13T08:15:10.353" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Former packrat here. I only packed my 17-40mm f/4 and a 7D for my last European trip, and didn't really have many regrets. Shot mostly landscapes/architecture, and some close quarters portraiture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I did wish &quot;Oh I wish I could take a picture of that faraway person&quot; once in a while, but really, you learn to work with the gear you got.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1205" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T08:15:10.353" />
  <row Id="12007" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11989" CreationDate="2011-05-13T09:29:54.303" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes you can acheive the same field of view and perspective using an APS-c camera, by shooting mutlitple images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your lens is something like the Nikon PC-E 45mm or Canon TS-E 45mm, i.e. they allow shift movements then you can get away with shooting three images in the opposite orientation like so:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/ff_vs_aps-c.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To understand how this works imagine you are keeping the lens stationary and moving the camera with respect to the lens. You are effectively moving the sensor across the image plane, like how a flatbed scanner works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not only will you get the same perspective and field of view as the equivalent larger sensor, you will get the same depth of field too!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't have a tilt/shift lens, you can get the same effect with 4 shots if you pivot the camera about the lens optical centre. Pivoting this way gaurantees the perspective doesnt change, despite the larger field of view as the camera does not undergo translation. Four images are now required to match the field of view exactly due to the bow-tie shaped image that results from shooting [rectilinear] panoramas:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/ff_vs_aps-c1.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/ff_vs_aps-c2.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T09:29:54.303" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12008" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11768" CreationDate="2011-05-13T13:16:00.550" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One downside I experienced was: When I did &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; want to shoot multiple pictures, I had to release the shutter right after pressing it. No problem, until I remarked that I did not hold the camera as steady as before anymore since my hand was already prepared to release the shutter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I usually keep Sigle Frame mode where I do not need to worry whether my finger rests another part of a second on the shutter button in order to stabilize the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4149" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T13:16:00.550" />
  <row Id="12009" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11985" CreationDate="2011-05-13T13:31:49.653" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With NIK plugins and the bleach bypass filter. That is in my opinion the easiest way. (This particular filter is a part of the Color Efex Pro package)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the vignette; i believe this is actually a hood on the lens blocking the flash.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4977" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T13:31:49.653" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12010" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2515" CreationDate="2011-05-13T13:44:31.290" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The diameter required for the filter is always written on the lens body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are different polarizers out there; For some time now you can find &lt;em&gt;new ones&lt;/em&gt; which stop down the image by &lt;strong&gt;only one full stop&lt;/strong&gt; (i.e. you need 1/100 s with filter instead of 1/200 s without filter). Older ones consume around 1.5 or more full stops (i.e. rather 1/60 instead of 1/200 s).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hoya calls them HD (like &lt;em&gt;Hoya Pol. Circ. HD Filter, 52mm&lt;/em&gt;), I've got multiple of these and I can recommend them. For other branches you might want to check their specs sheet (or test before buying).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should get a circular polarizer, but it's a long time ago when I last saw a linear polarizer, so this should happen automatically anyway :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4149" LastEditorUserId="4149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-14T05:49:13.313" LastActivityDate="2011-05-14T05:49:13.313" />
  <row Id="12011" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11989" CreationDate="2011-05-13T14:46:40.863" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Crop the full frame to the same ratio (1/1.6), and you'll get an identical framing and perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4690" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T14:46:40.863" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="12012" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-13T15:07:18.157" Score="9" ViewCount="467" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am looking for examples of really great photos made from cheap (sub-$250) point-and-shoot digital cameras.  I have a group of friends who are just getting into photography, and I thought it might be helpful to steer them away from the dreaded gear obsession if I had a few examples of really nice photos taken with lesser gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples of creativity overcoming technical limitations, that sort of thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Especially welcome is any information about photographers who exclusively use point-and-shoot digitals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any ideas?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1651" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T11:51:52.233" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-14T17:12:48.513" Title="Examples of great photos from cheap cameras" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;creative-process&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="12013" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12017" CreationDate="2011-05-13T15:11:05.350" Score="5" ViewCount="70" Body="&lt;p&gt;We need a new compact camera, we liked our Olympus tough that we brought about 3 years ago as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It has buttons that are easy for my wife to use (she has mild Cerebral Palsy)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It does not beak when it is dropped&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We did not have to protect it from the rain, e.g. it could be put in a pocket when it is raining.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is large enough for my wife to hold, but still small enough to go in a pocket.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I have some control over the exposure and other settings.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We did not like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Slow to take photos – so not good for “action shots”&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Len does not go very wide&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We don’t care about:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Being able to use a camera under water.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any camera other than the current Olympus tough range we should put on our short list?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="623" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-13T23:04:07.817" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T23:04:07.817" Title="What other options to an Olympus Tough should we consider?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;ruggedized-equipment&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12014" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12012" CreationDate="2011-05-13T15:19:39.500" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://fstoppers.com/iphone&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lee Morris did a fashion shoot&lt;/a&gt; with an iPhone 3GS about a year ago.  One important point to note is how much better the iPhone 4 is over the 3GS in its camera capabilities.  I know that you are looking for point and shoot examples, but I think that the videos and final shots that Lee created are amazing, and when you consider that they were taken with such a basic sensor, you will be surprised. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am fully aware that he had very expensive supporting equipment and lighting.  But the fact that his image sensor was a tiny 3MP cameraphone, in my opinion is amazing.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Great photography is not about great equipment.  It is only one piece of the equation.  In my eyes it is a small piece.  It depends what type of photography you are going for.  I even pull out my Polaroid LMS and shoot images on 10 year old expired film once in a while, and they turn out so out of focus usually that you can barely read a billboard from 50ft.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;best advice&lt;/strong&gt; I can give to new photographers is not to buy a ton of equipment, but rather purposely limit yourself to a single lens.  Perhaps a single fixed focal length prime lens in the 30-50mm range.  This gives you time to hone your skills and learn the basics rather then focus on technology and expensive equipment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T15:19:39.500" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-14T17:12:48.513" />
  <row Id="12015" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12013" CreationDate="2011-05-13T15:22:29.077" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/digital_cameras/powershot_d10&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon PowerShot D10&lt;/a&gt;.  Canon touts the camera as shockproof from around 4ft.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T15:22:29.077" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="12016" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11702" CreationDate="2011-05-13T15:25:10.433" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just a quick tip, which I'm sure you don't need, but...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't get lost in all these legal formalities to the point where you focus on your legal relationship with your clients and forget about the human relationship.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your human relationship is in good shape then you will be less likely to have to rely on all the legal stuff.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(You still need a good contract, but don't let it become the focus - just sayin')&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T15:25:10.433" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12017" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12013" CreationDate="2011-05-13T15:27:54.220" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;All the rugged cameras go under water, so you cannot get just rugged.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All these cameras have similar image quality due to small sensors, folded optic lenses and somehow none that I know of are great in terms of speed. So if you want to go for action shots, you'll have to let go the ruggedness. Also few fast cameras are pocket size either, so more compromises may be in order.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, a number of newer models have wide-angle lenses. Those include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=267&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fuji XP20&lt;/a&gt; and XP30, which is the same with GPS.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=289&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Olympus TG-610&lt;/a&gt; and TG-810 which is more rugged and goes deeper underwater.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=311&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pentax WG-1&lt;/a&gt; - The largest buttons of these and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=310&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;optionally comes with a GPS&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=302&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Panasonic TS3&lt;/a&gt; - Have not seen this one yet.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T15:27:54.220" />
  <row Id="12018" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12012" CreationDate="2011-05-13T15:36:56.487" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=317651&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wilson Tsoi makes some absolutely superb images&lt;/a&gt; with a Canon A620. This is not a P&amp;amp;S but a camera with manual controls which cost less than $200 USD. You need at least manual controls to get some of creativity used in those shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This camera has long been discontinued but today you can get the $200 USD &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=199&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon SX130 IS&lt;/a&gt; which has a wider and longer lens. That is the one I always recommend now for starting with photography on a budget. The next level up would be the Canon S95 or Olympus ZX-1 which cost between $400-500 USD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T15:36:56.487" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-14T17:12:48.513" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12019" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11940" CreationDate="2011-05-13T15:39:13.117" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For travel, things are often on the move and unplanned, so I carry the following (in order of importance and not specific to Canon):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A nice super-zoom (something like a 20-250mm or better) with built in stabilization.  You'll pay a bit in high price and lower quality, but you make up for it in the versatility.  If I can only have once lens, this is it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A macro lens, high quality since this is where people will focus on the detail.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A wide angle or even a fish eye.  Something that lets you take in everything without stitching stuff back together in photoshop.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I avoid the prime/fixed length lenses as much as possible for travel, they are much better suited for the studio where you have control and can plan the setup.  And while a tripod is bad for travel (too bulky), another small form factor like a clamp or gorillapod is worth considering.  Even a small bean bag that you can put under the lens with the camera on a table would help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, make sure you have a cell phone camera or something that you'll carry everywhere, since you never know when an opportunity will strike and you will have left the camera in the hotel room, packed in the overhead compartment, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3723" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T15:39:13.117" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12020" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12040" CreationDate="2011-05-13T16:59:32.033" Score="8" ViewCount="125" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have noticed that taking photos in bright Texas sunlight on my Canon T3i with a 50mm f/1.8 lens results in a blueish look over the whole photo. Someone said that a UV filter would help to remove some of that — is that true?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1950" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-13T17:27:21.157" LastActivityDate="2011-05-14T16:51:51.027" Title="Do UV filters stop excessive blue light?" Tags="&lt;filters&gt;&lt;color-correction&gt;&lt;uv&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12022" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12012" CreationDate="2011-05-13T17:33:25.243" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;DigitalRev has a challenge called &quot;Pro photographer, cheap camera&quot; which features professional photographers dealing with old/extremely cheap/toy cameras. There's a lot of post-processing after the shot, but the get pretty good results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check the following videos:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGsmVw4tCWY&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pro Photographer, Cheap Camera Challenge (#2 Hermann Lee)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6lNCSHH7Vg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pro Photographer, Cheap Camera Challenge (#3 Eric Wong)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40c3tmRCNFg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pro Photographer, Cheap Camera Challenge (#4 Mark Chung)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And just &lt;em&gt;for the lulz&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAdA9DkPCrk&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pro Camera, &lt;del&gt;Cheap&lt;/del&gt; Noob Photographer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4039" LastEditorUserId="4039" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-13T17:39:47.127" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T17:39:47.127" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-14T17:12:48.513" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12023" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11967" CreationDate="2011-05-13T17:38:38.763" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Common mistakes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Very bad composition.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wrong location for the subject&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Clipped highlights on the subject&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wrong White Balance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shooting Jpegs only&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Focusing on the wrong part of the&#xA;objects body&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of these mistakes are due to not knowing how to use a camera well and not having enough accessories, such as flashes, umbrellas, reflectors, selection of lenses for different applications...etc&#xA;Other mistakes are due to not having enough artistic abilities or the &quot;eye&quot;, which is developed with constant practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4246" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T17:38:38.763" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-13T17:38:38.763" />
  <row Id="12024" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12026" CreationDate="2011-05-13T21:10:21.967" Score="1" ViewCount="80" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am evaluating the opportunity to purchase a CFV I and I am having trouble finding documentation on it which would allow me to compare to the published documentation for the CFV II at:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/digital-backs/discontinued-products/cfv-ii.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/digital-backs/discontinued-products/cfv-ii.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3993" LastActivityDate="2011-05-14T01:04:19.227" Title="What is the difference between the Hasselblad CFV and CFV II digital backs?" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="12025" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9250" CreationDate="2011-05-13T23:22:11.393" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm pretty sure that at lower resolutions, the image is binned 2x2 (only one pixel of each 4 pixel square is used).  At the higher res mode, there aren't enough pixels to 2x2 bin, so the image is just cropped (1920x2 &gt; total # horizontal pixels).  Thus, wider FOV at lower res.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So pixel usage looks like: x_x_x_x_x_x (6 pixels, wide) vs xxxxxxxx (8 pixels, narrow)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5175" LastActivityDate="2011-05-13T23:22:11.393" />
  <row Id="12026" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12024" CreationDate="2011-05-14T00:57:04.160" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;B&amp;amp;H have some &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/437384-REG/Hasselblad_70320515_CFV_Digital_Camera_Back.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;tech specs&lt;/a&gt; available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Retrevo has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.retrevo.com/support/Hasselblad-CFV-Digital-Cameras-manual/id/523ci359/t/2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;user manual&lt;/a&gt; for the HB CFV dated 2006. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The CFV introduced me to digital medium format.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: I just found a &lt;a href=&quot;http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1666&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;forum&lt;/a&gt; discussing the difference. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5140" LastEditorUserId="5140" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-14T01:04:19.227" LastActivityDate="2011-05-14T01:04:19.227" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12027" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12012" CreationDate="2011-05-14T07:12:39.093" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Chase Jarvis made a whole book using a 2 megapixel iPhone - &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0321684788&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Best Camera Is The One That's With You&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-05-14T07:12:39.093" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-14T17:12:48.513" />
  <row Id="12028" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12042" CreationDate="2011-05-14T07:17:32.740" Score="4" ViewCount="187" Body="&lt;p&gt;On the bottom left area of this image, we can see a very prominent pattern of straight lines in two directions crossing each other&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/V9P9R.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Full version of the pic is available at &lt;a href=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NC5Ft.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://i.imgur.com/NC5Ft.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a technical term for this? What could have caused these patterns?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="64" LastEditorUserId="64" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-14T18:40:13.167" LastActivityDate="2011-05-14T18:40:13.167" Title="What are the cross patterns in this image?" Tags="&lt;artifacts&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="12029" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12032" CreationDate="2011-05-14T07:26:54.870" Score="12" ViewCount="192" Body="&lt;p&gt;For example, my Canon 550D will only go as far as 30 sec (and then of course the bulb mode).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For measuring exposure, I think all the camera needs is a timer, and I have no doubt they would have to do no extra work to remove this upper limit if it were only for the timer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What am I missing here? Why do cameras have this upper limit?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="64" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-14T13:18:16.063" LastActivityDate="2011-05-15T21:44:43.670" Title="Why are there limitations to the upper limit of exposure time in digital cameras?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;shutter-speed&gt;&lt;long-exposure&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12030" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12028" CreationDate="2011-05-14T07:31:27.557" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My first thought it is some sort of structure under the water in the harbour as the lines stop where the water is clear of the harbour wall on the lower right of the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The angles of the lines appear to marry up with the perspective of the shot so it seems unlikely to have been caused by anything on the sensor as these would run up/down and left/right across the frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, it also seems remarkably uniform for such a large expanse... very odd!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastActivityDate="2011-05-14T07:31:27.557" />
  <row Id="12031" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12029" CreationDate="2011-05-14T07:34:18.503" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the answer probably is along the lines of &quot;you have to draw the line somewhere&quot;. There will probably be a finite amount of memory in the hardware for settings to be programmed into and whilst you could add lots of different settings, where would you stop? Would you have a shutter speed increment until &quot;forever&quot;? :) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose once you get to a point, it is probably easier to let the user determine how long they want to expose for and allows finer control than the increments allow once you get down to that end of the shutter speed scale.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastActivityDate="2011-05-14T07:34:18.503" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12032" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12029" CreationDate="2011-05-14T07:44:05.973" Score="17" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think there a several reasons that together make sense to limit the shutter speed at about 30 seconds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;At exposures requiring more than 30 seconds, light is so weak your TTL meter will not be able to measure it correctly.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;30 seconds is already longer than you'd ever need for any &quot;normal&quot; night scene.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In a digital camera, sensor heat starts to build up and thermal noise becomes noticeable.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;With film, calculated exposure and actually needed exposure are significantly different thanks to reciprocity failure.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bulb mode helps to sell shutter cables and intervalometers to enthusiasts. Accessories are usually more profitable for manufacturers than cameras themselves - the photographer is already &quot;locked&quot; into the system.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;30 seconds is a very common, but not an universal limit. For example, Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2 limits at 60 seconds. Phase One 645DF limits at 60 minutes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-14T19:43:15.680" LastActivityDate="2011-05-14T19:43:15.680" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="12033" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-14T07:51:40.713" Score="1" ViewCount="90" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10073/how-do-camera-body-motors-compare-to-in-lens-motors-for-focusing&quot;&gt;How do camera body motors compare to in-lens motors for focusing?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have read in &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10074/what-motor-gets-used-if-both-lens-and-camera-body-have-a-focus-motor&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; that the lens motor will be the one doing the focusing if both the body and the lens can autofocus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What advantages does lens-based autofocus bring (e.g. is it faster? more accurate? quieter?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason I want to know (at the risk of being too localized) is that I have a Nikon D90 (which can autofocus) and I am wondering whether there is any benefit in getting the new AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G with its silentwave motor, or whether the existing AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D might be just as good (or better). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realise that the newer lens has not been released yet so it's possible that it will have better or worse image quality, but I'd like an answer that assumes that the image looks identical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5176" LastActivityDate="2011-05-14T07:51:40.713" ClosedDate="2011-05-14T13:42:49.680" Title="What benefits are there from autofocusing with the lens rather than with the body?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;nikon-d90&gt;" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12034" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12036" CreationDate="2011-05-14T10:20:47.573" Score="5" ViewCount="206" Body="&lt;p&gt;By definition, a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_lens&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;prime lens&lt;/a&gt; is a fixed lens system with a fixed focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, simple physics tells us that it should be able to focus only on one plane (at a fixed distance) in front of it. But in fact you can focus on objects near as well as far.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What am I missing here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="64" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-14T13:13:29.033" LastActivityDate="2011-05-14T18:55:27.887" Title="How can a prime lens focus on more than one plane?" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;focus&gt;&lt;focal-length&gt;&lt;prime&gt;&lt;optics&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="12035" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11985" CreationDate="2011-05-14T10:31:06.907" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you don't need a tripod, but you&#xA;could use one to get the same framing&#xA;across different shots&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;just use a high /f number aperture to&#xA;close get enough depth of field (not&#xA;that you need that much)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;any shutter speed will do fine in&#xA;complete darkness, if there's some&#xA;light go up to the sync speed&#xA;of your camera (usually 1/200s).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;high ISO to get some noise in&#xA;shadows. I would say 800 but it could&#xA;be different, just not too low (100 =&#xA;nearly no noise) or too high (depends&#xA;on camera, anyway on an average&#xA;low-end DSLR iso 3200 is guaranteed&#xA;to lose a lot of detail, e.g. hair)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;like someone said, it's impossible&#xA;for the built in flash to fail so bad&#xA;you get 10% of the image black, if&#xA;you don't have an ultrawide lens.&#xA;Much easier, shadow the flash or the&#xA;lens with some piece of cardboard;&#xA;even easier, do it in&#xA;post-production.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Post production is already dealt with nicely in other answers. Did someone mention sharpening?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the highest voted answer is a bit misleading, that's the main reason for mine. why can't you AF in the dark? to my knowledge, cameras which don't have a light for that just use the flash. why switch to manual focus before turning off the light? that would not be (always) accurate, as people are not statues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3364" LastEditorUserId="3364" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-14T14:00:17.290" LastActivityDate="2011-05-14T14:00:17.290" />
  <row Id="12036" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12034" CreationDate="2011-05-14T10:33:59.857" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A prime lens still has a moving focus element allowing you to change the focal plane through the range of the focusing ring's range. A prime is a lens that has a fixed focal length (100mm, 50mm etc) as opposed to a zoom which will allow you to cover a range of focal lengths (70mm-200mm for example).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_focus_lens&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fixed focus&lt;/a&gt; lens cannot change its focal plane, but this is not the same as a prime lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastActivityDate="2011-05-14T10:33:59.857" />
  <row Id="12037" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12029" CreationDate="2011-05-14T14:13:18.443" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Noise and heat are the real issues.&lt;/strong&gt; The longer the exposure, the more heat the sensor generates and the higher the image noise gets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These things obviously kick in differently &lt;strong&gt;depending on ambient temperature shooting ISO&lt;/strong&gt;, they have to &lt;strong&gt;cut it off at a reasonable point&lt;/strong&gt;. Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Fuji stop at 30s. Panasonic and Olympus stop at 30s. Sony usually stops at 30s, sometimes 60s.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The cameras which tried to do something more clever are rare because it becomes confusing. Some models have a 30s limit for ISO 100-400 and then 15s for ISO 800, 8s, for ISO 1600, etc (there are plenty of variants on the theme).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing that is accepted is that when shooting in Aperture priority or Program mode, there can be a shorter limit (1-60s depending on the model) due to metering sensitivity. In Manual obviously one can set a time limit without this restrictions or go to Bulb mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Bulb mode also has limits.&lt;/strong&gt; Only they are poorly documented. Most DSLRs allow between 4 and 30 minutes (some reach hours) of bulb exposure, presumably to avoid sensor overheating. Strangely, several Olympus models allow you to manually set the bulb limit between 4 and 30 minutes. Those models never allow more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For digital cameras which do not forcibly use dark-frame subtraction, one can use exposure stacking to simulate longer bulb exposures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-14T14:13:18.443" />
  <row Id="12038" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12012" CreationDate="2011-05-14T14:51:05.983" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The blog &lt;a href=&quot;http://lifeinlofi.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Life in LoFi&lt;/a&gt; is dedicated to iPhone-based photography, often using &quot;toy camera&quot; post-processing/effects apps. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://lifeinlofi.com/category/flickr/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Faved on Flickr category on the site&lt;/a&gt; showcases some great results (although they do tend towards the highly-processed, not &quot;straight&quot; photography).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-15T14:17:31.327" LastActivityDate="2011-05-15T14:17:31.327" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-14T17:12:48.513" />
  <row Id="12039" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-14T15:09:12.570" Score="3" ViewCount="186" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to host some pictures at low cost (less than flickr). I have come across &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.shareapic.net/index.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Shareapic&lt;/a&gt; and Imgur. However, imagur strips the meta-data off of uploaded images, and I couldn't find much information on shareapic. Note: I want to retain ownership of my photos so Picasa web-upload won't work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4941" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-14T16:10:01.970" LastActivityDate="2011-05-15T15:21:24.823" Title="Where can I host my pictures for free without giving up rights?" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;web&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;presentation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="12040" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12020" CreationDate="2011-05-14T16:51:51.027" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It would really depend on what UV filter you used. Not all UV filters are created equal, and even ones that are supposedly &quot;high-end&quot; might not function correctly, while some cheaper ones function quite well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ultimate goal of a UV filter is to filter out ultraviolet light, which starts around 380nm, and progresses on down to as small as 100nm or so. A quality UV filter will usually stop &quot;filtering&quot; right around 380nm, and be mostly transparent to all other wavelengths of light after that. A poorly designed UV filter may also filter some blue light, and may gradually taper off &quot;filtering&quot; up to around 420nm or so. Really poor UV filters will often also filter some amount of all wavelengths of light, some more green than others, acting as a very slight ND filter as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This &lt;a href=&quot;http://lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt; provides an excellent review of numerous UV filters. It is a little dated, however its process is very solid, and it covers how well each filter blocks just UV light (or not).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your Canon T3i is a DSLR, so you do not really need to use a UV filter unless you &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; need to block excess UV light (most CMOS sensors are sensitive to some degree of UV light, however normal glass as used in camera lenses tends to block most of it.) You can always change the &quot;White Balance&quot; setting of your camera and adjust it more for an orange tint (lower K number). If you would prefer to optically control the color balance of your photos, you could use skylight or coral filters. Skylight filters come in several degrees of tint and will &quot;cool&quot; the tone of light (make it more blueish), while coral filters which also come in several degrees of tint will &quot;warm&quot; the tone of light (make it more orangeish.) Skylight and Coral filters are really a thing of the past these days, as many of the limitations of film no longer exist with digital cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-05-14T16:51:51.027" />
  <row Id="12041" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12028" CreationDate="2011-05-14T17:09:46.240" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;After giving this photo some thourough examination, I can arrive at a few conclusions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, the funky line that streaks through the lower 1/3rd of the image appears to be a slightly out of focus cable or something...it may have just been on the inside border of the depth of field, and did not get entirely blurred away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the &quot;grid&quot;, I can't say anything definitively. Here are some facts that I see about it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It only exists within a very specific area of the water...only in the area with the boats.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It has a VERY specific size, structure, and shape unfettered by any measurable degree of randomness.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It does not seem to appear on any non-water part of the photograph.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some thoughts that come to mind are the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Its actually something real...&quot;design&quot; of part of the bay there. Something under the surface of the water that was picked up by your exposure.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Could be tested by just looking at the same scene with your own eyes and see if the grid pattern is visible without the camera.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is the result of something closer to your camera, outside of the bounds of your depth of field, that has been blurred just enough to be nearly invisible, but visible enough that it affected the lower portion of your photo.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Might be possible, however outside of the slightly blurred cable through the lower part of the scene, I can see nothing else that might hold up such a mesh or grid only in the lower part of your scene, and not in the upper parts.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is the result of an odd wave-interference pattern in the water itself.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rather unlikely, given that such a clear and regular interference pattern would require a rather specific underlying waveform to occur...and the waves on the water otherwise look quite random.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-05-14T17:09:46.240" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12042" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12028" CreationDate="2011-05-14T17:16:54.523" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Looking at the original at &lt;a href=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/NC5Ft.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://i.imgur.com/NC5Ft.jpg&lt;/a&gt; - the pattern is caused by an obstructing diamond-mesh fence in the lower part of the photo. The 'brownish diagonal line' across the lower-third appears to be twisted two-strand wire, holding the mesh up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fence, being much closer to the camera than the subject, is outside the depth of field, thus blurry. The resulting uniform'ish line pattern is most likely an affect of moire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5177" LastActivityDate="2011-05-14T17:16:54.523" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="12043" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12034" CreationDate="2011-05-14T18:55:27.887" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a fundamental lack of understanding of what focal length means. Start with a simple, single-element lens. Hold it far enough away from the plane for something at &quot;infinite&quot; distance (say, the sun or moon) to be in focus. The distance from the lens to whatever you're focusing on is the focal length of that lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The focal length, however, is a direct consequence of how much that lens refracts light, which (at least mostly) depends on two things: the index of refraction of that glass/plastic/whatever in the lens, and the curvature of the lens surfaces.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To change the focus of the lens, you move the lens relative to the plane on which you're forming the image. Specifically, to focus on an object that's closer, you move the lens so it's farther way from the focus plane.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the normal situation where the lens will project an image slightly larger than the sensor/film plane, as you move the lens farther way from the focal plane, the angle of view recorded on the focal plane will shrink. In reality this is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; a change in the angle of view provided by the lens, merely a reduction in the part of the angle of view provided by the lens that your sensor/film is able to record:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/67nmv.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, the grey lines represent the picture being projected by the lens. The lower one represents what we'd get with it focused at infinity, and the upper with it focused considerably closer. The red lines in the upper show the narrower &lt;em&gt;apparent&lt;/em&gt; angle of view due to the closer focusing. Note, however, that this is really a matter of not capturing the whole picture being projected by the lens, &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; a matter of the lens itself having a narrower angle of view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For what it's worth, the same effect accounts for the effective aperture getting smaller as you focus closer -- the light that's projected past the edges of the sensor obviously isn't projected onto the sensor, so the closer you focus, the less light gets focused onto the sensor, so the smaller amount of light from the center portion of the picture is spread over the full area of the center. This means there's less light at any one part of the sensor, thus the smaller effective aperture (e.g., with a typical macro lens at 1:1, you lose &lt;em&gt;almost&lt;/em&gt; 2 full stops, so a lens rated at f/2.8 needs roughly an f/5.6 exposure).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's another effect to keep in mind as well: a lens that does internal focusing is basically also a zoom -- i.e., it &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; change the focal length (and corresponding angle of view through the lens) as you focus. A few (e.g., the current 105 Micro-Nikkor) are designed to have these to effects counteract each other (mostly anyway) so you maintain roughly the same &lt;em&gt;real&lt;/em&gt; angle of view, regardless of where you're focused.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-05-14T18:55:27.887" />
  <row Id="12044" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12047" CreationDate="2011-05-15T00:32:10.563" Score="1" ViewCount="79" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am using ufraw to open .cr2 raw files in gimp, but I'm experiencing a strange issue.&#xA;The .cr2 files are some 7Mb large. A typical dimension could be, for instance, 2374x1591, as reported by my camera and by ufraw itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I am in ufraw everything is fine but when from ufraw I send it to gimp, it's like if the size of each side got &quot;divided by 100&quot;: the resulting image is 24x15 and the size of the file is correspondingly only few kb. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that I'm shooting raw + jpg: gimp correctly opens the jpg without playing strange tricks with the size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have searched the web but maybe I am using the wrong keyword, since I was unable to find a solution. What am I doing wrong?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5032" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-15T15:19:36.667" LastActivityDate="2011-05-15T15:19:36.667" Title="Why do my photos get much smaller when sending .cr2 files from ufraw to gimp?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;gimp&gt;&lt;ufraw&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="12045" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-15T08:04:12.773" Score="15" ViewCount="221" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of my longstanding interests is long exposure night photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, many of the situations where I am shooting require exposure lengths on the order of 10 minutes, which is far beyond what the internal meter in my camera (5DII) can handle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Right now, I take a test exposure, extrapolate from that to guess my exposure time, try again, etc...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This works, but since the test exposure alone can be 10 minutes, and it generally takes me a few shots to get the exposure right, it can take 30 minutes to an hour just to figure out exactly how long I need to expose for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously, this is really inconvenient (fortunately, long exposure subjects don't move much, most of the time). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance, recently I did a series of 13 minute exposures at f4, ISO125. It came out really well, but I would up spending 2 hours to get one shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, is there an easier way to determine how long an exposure has to be, preferably that doesn't take multiple test exposures? I've looked at light meters, but none of them make explicit statements about how low a level of light they can handle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2611" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-15T14:13:12.787" LastActivityDate="2011-05-17T11:50:26.680" Title="How do I meter for long exposures (10+ minutes)?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;metering&gt;&lt;long-exposure&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12046" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12045" CreationDate="2011-05-15T08:19:08.180" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think there exist any technology that can give you exact metering for very long exposures. Most people who shoots long exposures do this on the trial-and-error basis, till you get the perfectly exposed picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Metering itself is very tricky and people always shoot photos that the camera marks as either underexposed or overexposed, but you know its perfectly exposed when you look at the picture. So, even having a technology able to meter very long exposures wont be that much helpful I believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also believe, as you keep spending more time finding the right exposure, your efficiency will increase and you'll be able to settle on the exposure settings quicker. Learn from your mistakes and make your exposure guesses closer to perfect by practicing more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-05-15T08:19:08.180" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12047" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12044" CreationDate="2011-05-15T08:41:24.367" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have found the setting which was giving me this strange behaviour. I had set it without even noticing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was under the &lt;code&gt;crop and rotate&lt;/code&gt; tab, &lt;code&gt;scaling factor&lt;/code&gt; (in italian &lt;code&gt;fattore di ridimensionamento)&lt;/code&gt;. &#xA;In my case it was set to 100, I put it back to 1 and the problem was solved. Notice that this scaling is not applied to the image while in ufraw, but only at the moment of saving/sending to gimp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I couldn't admit defeat and reinstall without understanding, I knew that it had to be a wrong setting on my part, I went through each tab and I finally found the error :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5032" LastActivityDate="2011-05-15T08:41:24.367" />
  <row Id="12048" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12039" CreationDate="2011-05-15T09:06:56.083" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recommend Flickr. You can even choose Creative Commons licenses to assign to photos based on what licensing rights you want to permit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-05-15T09:06:56.083" />
  <row Id="12049" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12045" CreationDate="2011-05-15T11:48:31.493" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;At light levels this low, you'll be much better off by taking some test shots and checking their histograms rather than just relying on a light meter (which is usually optimized for measuring light, not darkness). However, you can make the test shots take less time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perform the test shots at the maximum ISO your camera can handle (avoid the uncalibrated expanded ISOs though), and multiply the measured proper shutter time by the factor you decrease ISO for your real shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Learn how a histogram's right-hand end for shots underexposed by 1/3 steps, 2/3 steps, 1 step looks like, so you'll recognize them and need less test shots. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take the test shots with widest aperture and multiply measured shutter time by the difference to real aperture squared (another way to say it: multiply by two for each stop you'll be closing the aperture).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, if your test shot showed that at f/2.8 and ISO 6400 your exposure should be 8 seconds, then at ISO 125 f/4 you will need to expose for 8 * (6400 / 125) * (4 / 2.8) ^ 2 = 8 * 51.2 * 2 = 819 seconds = 13 minutes 39 seconds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that if you happen to be shooting film, you'll also have to adjust for the  &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6900/what-is-reciprocity-failure&quot;&gt;reciprocity failure&lt;/a&gt; of the film you are using.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-15T21:46:21.593" LastActivityDate="2011-05-15T21:46:21.593" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="12050" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-15T13:14:09.153" Score="0" ViewCount="66" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am looking to buy a D-SLR camera with a rotating display.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The display that I'm referring to is the live view display on the back of the camera, which a few of the D-SLR cameras have and it is mobile that is you can twist it up and down and left to right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not looking for high-end matches, just something affordable and decent (i.e.: 12 Mpx) resolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5181" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-15T15:17:37.653" LastActivityDate="2011-05-15T15:17:37.653" Title="How can I find an affordable D-SLR camera with live view and rotating display?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;cheap&gt;&lt;live-view&gt;&lt;rear-lcd&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="12051" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12050" CreationDate="2011-05-15T14:11:56.167" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That is what a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Camera Finder&lt;/a&gt; is for. There are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php?size=slr&amp;amp;displayattachment=rotating&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;7 current DSLRs with a rotating display&lt;/a&gt;. Those do exactly what you ask for twisting away from the camera body rather than simply tilting up and down as some articulated displays do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a specific recommendation, the truth is that &lt;strong&gt;they are all good&lt;/strong&gt;, particularly if you cannot tell the difference. &lt;strong&gt;Newer ones tend to perform better&lt;/strong&gt; so something like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=341&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon D5100&lt;/a&gt; would have one of the best image quality for an entry-level model. There is also the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=190&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 60D&lt;/a&gt; on the list which is more advanced model that is faster to operate and better build quality. Keep in mind that it is extremely important that you save some of your budget for a good lens, otherwise the performance of your new DSLR will be limited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NOTE: I see someone gave you an partly incorrect answer in the comments. That list includes 4 cameras that are not DSLRs (the last additional one is a discontinued model). Those are SLDs which have interchangeable lenses like DSLRs but not an optical (reflex) viewfinder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-15T14:18:28.270" LastActivityDate="2011-05-15T14:18:28.270" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12052" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12039" CreationDate="2011-05-15T14:31:35.083" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.deviantart.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.deviantart.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1681" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-15T15:21:24.823" LastActivityDate="2011-05-15T15:21:24.823" />
  <row Id="12053" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12059" CreationDate="2011-05-15T16:12:48.677" Score="8" ViewCount="213" Body="&lt;p&gt;How does the colour of ambient lighting affect colour rendition?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For example:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I stand under a sodium-vapour (orange) streetlight and calibrate my camera's white balance, what effect would this have if I were to take a photo of a colour test chart?  Presumably, white would still render as white due to the white balance calibration, but how would other colours be rendered?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How would the result differ under primary and secondary coloured lighting, e.g. a red or yellow light?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3775" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-15T16:37:39.317" LastActivityDate="2011-05-15T21:59:44.777" Title="How does the colour of ambient lighting affect colour rendition?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;color&gt;&lt;white-balance&gt;&lt;color-rendition&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="12054" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12053" CreationDate="2011-05-15T16:40:06.990" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The issue with these sorts of light sources isn't the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10076/what-is-color-temperature-and-how-does-it-affect-my-photography&quot;&gt;color temperature&lt;/a&gt;, but rather the spectrum provided by the light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A camera (or your eyes) can only record colors which are reflected from the objects in the scene (not counting objects which have &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescence&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fluorescent&lt;/a&gt; properties). If the light shining on the object doesn't contain a certain color, it can't bounce to you, and therefore the color of the object can't be recorded in the way it might be under full spectrum light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In your specific example of a sodium-vapor light, the color spectrum looks like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/mAxJ5.png&quot; alt=&quot;low-pressure sodium light spectrum&quot;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;sub&gt;CC-BY-SA image from Wikimedia Commons, author &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3aSOX.png&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Philips Lighting&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see that there's a very narrow spike of light just short of 600nm, which is quite yellow. Everything you see (or photograph) will be in terms of how the object reflects light in that narrow band. So your assumption is correct — you can shift what is recorded as neutral grey/white, but your chart will probably look quite strange and &quot;inaccurate&quot;. And there's really nothing you can do about it besides bringing in other lighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your other lighting is also narrow-spectrum, that will improve rendition of the colors it adds — pretty simple, except when it comes to getting everything in your scene lit the way you'd like it to be with each different color. And your white balance will need to be more of a compromise (probably you'd pick something which would preserve both strong color casts, rather than attempting to neutralize them).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More details are covered in several existing questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10385/best-fluorescent-bulb-color-temperature-for-shooting-people-and-interviews&quot;&gt;Best fluorescent bulb color temperature for shooting people and interviews?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11160/what-white-balance-settings-do-i-need-to-capture-the-cast-of-a-coloured-streetlig&quot;&gt;What white balance settings do I need to capture the cast of a coloured streetlight?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10319/when-should-i-use-manual-white-balance-settings/10324#10324&quot;&gt;When should I use manual white balance settings?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-15T19:08:28.257" LastActivityDate="2011-05-15T19:08:28.257" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="12055" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12065" CreationDate="2011-05-15T18:44:33.190" Score="3" ViewCount="47" Body="&lt;p&gt;While using the Nikon D-90 Live-View mode to record video in 720p, is there a way to pick the pixels from the center of the sensor?  In other words, the sensor on the D-90 is way more than 720 lines of sensor input, so could I get a zoom effect by picking the 720 lines from the center of the sensor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2371" LastEditorUserId="2371" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-15T21:00:17.323" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T00:19:20.540" Title="Is there a way to digitally zoom a Nikon D-90 recording video in 720p?" Tags="&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;nikon-d90&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;digital-zoom&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="12056" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12057" CreationDate="2011-05-15T19:21:42.273" Score="2" ViewCount="92" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR is almost twice as costly as Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX. Why is that so?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only difference I see is the internal Focus. If that ignored are there any other differences between the two in terms of clarity. I was wondering if the 70-300 is worth all that extra money just for the IF!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Amazon links below&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-5-6G-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000HJPK2C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1305485739&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon 70-300&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-55-300mm-4-5-5-6G-ED-VR/dp/B003ZSHNCC/ref=cm_cmu_pg__header&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon 55-300&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4209" LastActivityDate="2011-05-15T19:39:03.127" Title="Why is the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR twice as costly as Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="12057" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12056" CreationDate="2011-05-15T19:39:03.127" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 70-300 is a full frame (FX) lens, the 55-300 is APS-C (DX).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-05-15T19:39:03.127" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12058" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12062" CreationDate="2011-05-15T21:23:35.107" Score="6" ViewCount="176" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've discovered spots on the image sensor of my DSLR camera that cannot be cleaned using a blower bulb, so I would like to know the risk of problems, such as further image deterioration or damage to the sensor or low-pass filter, associated with wet cleaning the image sensor.  Just how high (or low) is the risk?  Is this a difficult task to perform?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The products I expect to use are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/435203-REG/Visible_Dust_2863171_Swabs_for_1_5_1_6x_Sensor.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Visible Dust Swabs for 1.5-1.6x Sensor - Green Series (12-Pack)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/435207-REG/Visible_Dust_2902544_VDust_Plus_Formula_Solution.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Visible Dust VDust Plus Formula Solution&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; After some research, I have found the following products, for which there is a greater degree of trust because the manufacturer &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photosol.com/store/pc/viewContent.asp?idpage=12&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;guarantees against sensor damage&lt;/a&gt; when used properly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/242758-REG/Photographic_Solutions_SS2BOX_Sensor_Swab_Type_2.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photographic Solutions Sensor Swab Type 2 (12-Pack)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/127525-REG/Photographic_Solutions_EC_Eclipse_Optic_Lens_Cleaning.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photographic Solutions Eclipse Optic Lens Cleaning Solution&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, the reviews are generally positive, so is it worth it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit 2:&lt;/strong&gt; My biggest concern at this point is further staining or residue from the cleaning process.  How likely is this going to affect image quality, and would it be worse compared to the dust or other contaminants?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4506" LastEditorUserId="4506" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-16T11:31:20.720" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T11:31:20.720" Title="Wet cleaning image sensor: is it risky or difficult?" Tags="&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;cleaning&gt;&lt;equipment-damage&gt;&lt;maintenance&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="12059" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12053" CreationDate="2011-05-15T21:34:53.283" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;mattdm&lt;/strong&gt; has it spot on - it's not the colour temperature that matters, it's the width of the spectrum. Here are some examples that illustrate the difference nicely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an image I shot a while ago at a bonfire. Straight of camera, without the white balance set it looks massively orange:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/bbq.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And here's an image shot just now under sodium vapour streetlights (I spent a while looking for any image I'd shot under streetlights, which number very few until I realised I just had to step out my front door!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/streetlight.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looks similar. But if you play with the white balance in the first image, you can pull it back to somewhere near neutral. This is because the fire being an incandescent (hot) lightsource, emits a broad spectrum. It just happens to be centred on yellow rather than white like sunlight (which is another incandescent source, but much hotter!). We can simply shift the colours to obtain something more similar to daylight:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/white_balanced.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now you can now make out the difference between foliage, skintones and denim. The streetlight image, on the other hand is lit with a fluorescent lightsource. These lights emit very narrow frequency spikes, the light is not just centred on orange, it's orange alone and no other colour! If you try to shift it so the spectrum is centred on white like we did with the bonfire image, we end up with this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/streetlight_wb.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which is effectively monochrome, even after massive saturation boost - the colours just aren't there. The apparent colours at the top and bottom are actually a lens defect that's been brought out due to the lack of colour information and exaggerated by the saturation boost (+50 in Adobe Camera Raw).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For completeness here's a Gretag MacBeth colour rendition chart shot under the same streetlight. White balance was set in ACR based on the &quot;grey&quot; tile:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/colour_chart.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see the image might as well be monochrome. No amount of gelling of the light, or white balance adjustment can save the image. The colour information simply is not present! If you only have line spectra, all that you'll get back is how much of that particular frequency your subject reflects. Getting technical, colour is a vector-valued variable, that is it consists of several coordinates in the colour space. You can't record a point in colour space with a single value (just like you can't describe your point on a map with one value) which is what you have when you illuminate your scene with only one wavelength of light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is why fluorescent lights are bad, many of them emit very narrow spectra (though broader than your average streetlight). In particular many are missing a chunk of the red part of the spectrum which results in unnatural greenish skintones. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not all fluorescent lights are bad, here's the chart illuminated by the fluorescent lights in my house which were specifically chosen for their wide spectrum (as described by the CRI (colour rendering intent) number of 93 (sunlight is 100)):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/colour_chart2.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No colour problems here!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-15T21:59:44.777" LastActivityDate="2011-05-15T21:59:44.777" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12060" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12029" CreationDate="2011-05-15T21:44:43.670" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Once upon a time, the reasons were quite practical. Back when shutters were timed mechanically, the long shutter speeds involved running a mechanical timer -- i.e., the first shutter curtain would open, then the time would run, then the second shutter curtain would close. To let that timer run for a longer interval, you needed a larger mainspring that took more turns to wind. As such, the maximum shutter speed affected the overall size, cost, and usability of the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Modern shutters are timed electronically, of course, but the longest shutter speed supported hasn't really been an issue/selling point for most, so it's remained pretty much the same for quite a long time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a practical perspective, 30s is also long enough that exposing by hand is almost certainly plenty accurate. For most people, doing a 1 second exposure by hand would be pretty challenging. Reactions faster than 1/10&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; of a second are quite rare, and noticeably slower than that are fairly common.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you're talking about an exposure over 30 seconds, however, being off by even a second or two no longer makes much real difference. Just for example, let's assume you wanted something that was 1/3&lt;sup&gt;rd&lt;/sup&gt; of a stop longer than 30 seconds -- about the smallest increment most cameras directly support anyway. Since one more stop would be a minute, 1/3&lt;sup&gt;rd&lt;/sup&gt; more would be about 40 seconds. As long as you hit somewhere between 37 and 43 seconds (or so) your accuracy is probably close to as good as the camera will do anyway (and possibly &lt;em&gt;more&lt;/em&gt; accurate than its fastest shutter speeds).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you were starting with a base exposure of, say, one second, you'd need reactions on the order of an Olympic athlete's to even have a hope of getting that kind of accuracy and/or repeatability. Granted, most people &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; probably do all right at least than 30 seconds. They could probably remove the 30 second and 15 second spots without any real loss, and 8 seconds &lt;em&gt;probably&lt;/em&gt; wouldn't be a big problem either. Much below that, however, would probably be getting a lot more difficult to justify.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-05-15T21:44:43.670" />
  <row Id="12061" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12058" CreationDate="2011-05-15T22:06:48.407" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's both risky and difficult. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sensor cleaning has come a long way from the DIY solutions used many years ago, but it's still not fool proof. Most the sites that sell such products have ample enough warnings which should be a clear indication of the risks involved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A licensed camera repair facility can easily clean the sensor for you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or you could consider waiting till the problem becomes much more noticeable, and use image processing (clone/healing brushes) to mask out the problem until then.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="170" LastEditorUserId="170" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-15T22:11:49.590" LastActivityDate="2011-05-15T22:11:49.590" CommentCount="0" />
  <row Id="12062" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12058" CreationDate="2011-05-15T22:08:09.260" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do it regularly, I don't regard it as difficult. It's not that risky in the grand scheme of things but it's riskier than it used to be, especially with larger full frame sensors. Before the useless &quot;self cleaning&quot; function was implemented, the low pass filter assembly sat right on the sensor. Now there is an air gap to facilitate vibrating the LPF in order to dislodge dust. This airgap removes support for the glass LPF in the middle allowing it to bend and potentially break under pressure. See this photographers's cautionary tale:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&amp;amp;message=30812646&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&amp;amp;message=30812646&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if you have a new camera with &quot;self cleaning sensor&quot; be &lt;strong&gt;very&lt;/strong&gt; careful, esp. if it's full frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-05-15T22:08:09.260" CommentCount="9" />
  <row Id="12063" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-15T23:09:18.013" Score="9" ViewCount="106" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do I need to get photo releases from people in the images I capture at public events?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, &lt;strong&gt;do I need photo releases from all wedding guests pictured&lt;/strong&gt; in order to use my photos for self-promotional purposes (i.e., my website or portfolio)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;I'm refraining from mentioning a specific country in my question so that the answers are relevant to as many people as possible.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1480" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T01:53:36.423" Title="Are photo releases necessary when using event photos in my portfolio?" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;business&gt;&lt;web&gt;&lt;wedding&gt;&lt;portfolio&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12064" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12063" CreationDate="2011-05-15T23:19:55.193" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given the standard &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;IANAL&lt;/a&gt; disclaimer, this is not a scenario in which I've ever heard of one obtaining releases.  I know that many wedding, and event, photographers include clauses in their contracts that specify that a photographer will use images for portfolio or other promotional purposes, but I've not heard of anyone obtaining a release from event guests.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since right of publicity issues revolve around whether or not someone could reasonably think that the subject of the photo was endorsing a product or service (such as your photography), assuming you're offering the images as examples of event photography work I would be surprised if anyone would be successful in a lawsuit against a photographer for such usage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While it's possible for anyone to file a lawsuit for any reason, valid or not, this is an area where you don't need to worry about releases from event guests.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-16T00:41:40.630" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T00:41:40.630" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12065" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12055" CreationDate="2011-05-16T00:19:20.540" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The video mode is a program in the D90 that obviously either downscales sensor data or ignores/alternates entire sensor lines. As long as you can't change this program the higher resolution of the input won't be of any help to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;AFAIK either an official update from Nikon (hell freezing over) or a hacked firmware are necessary to change the program of the current &quot;video mode&quot; to make your wish happen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2317" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T00:19:20.540" />
  <row Id="12066" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-16T00:41:58.717" Score="3" ViewCount="79" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have installed Picasa on my wife's notebook (it's Ubuntu 11.04 on an HP Pavillion), but she'd like to switch to some other software (there are some issues with Picasa that bother her). She didn't like Gimp's interface (she's an artist, but not expert in digital images or photography — she's into fashion design, and the Gimp's GUI is too complex for her).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So — is there some other image editing software that is as easy and intuitive to use as Picasa? It needs to run on Linux. Preferably free, as we really can't afford anything right now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5188" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-16T03:22:26.007" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T03:22:26.007" ClosedDate="2011-05-18T02:14:36.463" Title="Alternative to Picasa on Linux?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;picasa&gt;&lt;linux&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12067" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10319" CreationDate="2011-05-16T00:48:12.427" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Shoot in Manual WB mode when shooting video, otherwise you might get changing colors if the Camera does adjustments to the WB while shooting and the light is changing or something like that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4675" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T00:48:12.427" />
  <row Id="12068" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12073" CreationDate="2011-05-16T00:50:24.003" Score="2" ViewCount="84" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it common/wise to invest in multiple flashers for different situations or can you use one given it has enough intensity? Another way to read this is: can a flash be &lt;em&gt;too&lt;/em&gt; bright?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4775" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-16T01:19:24.060" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T02:01:29.510" Title="How bright should a flash be?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;studio-lighting&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12070" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12068" CreationDate="2011-05-16T01:16:35.423" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For many typical situations, having one (mid- to high-end) flash provides plenty of light in terms of quality, but it's not necessarily &lt;em&gt;where you want it&lt;/em&gt;. Take a look at questions here in the &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/lighting-basics&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'lighting-basics'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;lighting-basics&lt;/a&gt; tag for some very nice explanations (including diagrams) of some basic portrait-lighting setups, many of which involve multiple light sources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another part of your question seems to be about flash power. Almost all modern hotshoe strobe flashes automatically (either through camera control or their own sensors) fire at reduced power when the full discharge isn't required for the exposure. Or, you can set power level manually (to various degrees depending on the exact flash model).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T01:16:35.423" />
  <row Id="12071" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12063" CreationDate="2011-05-16T01:53:36.423" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;IANAL&lt;/a&gt;, but I do have a lawyer that I consult with in my own photography business, and &lt;em&gt;his&lt;/em&gt; legal opinion to me for my photography business was that the public has no right to an expectation of privacy when in a public place, or at an event 'where photography is a common and expected thing' (e.g. a birthday party, wedding or other similar event), so as long as the following conditions are met:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The people are 'background players' in a photograph (e.g. Guests at a wedding, not the bride)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The use-case is portfolio and advertising of my own business (e.g. Selling to a stock site, or using it as a commercial work is a different story with different release requirements)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I'm not altering the people in the picture in a way that could be construed as libelous or scandalous (e.g. I can't use Photoshop to alter a picture to falsely portray a wedding guest snorting coke off the wedding cake... Unless it actually happened!)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As long as those three requirements are met, according to my lawyer, I'm all good to use the picture for portfolio or advertising purposes. In practice this means that I get model releases from any &lt;em&gt;main&lt;/em&gt; subject(s) in a picture I take (for weddings I generally have the entire bridal party, minister, etc. sign releases), and even though they have no legal right to ask me to, if someone pictured asks me not to use a picture with them in it I generally comply because I'd rather take down a picture than have to field a lawsuit (even one I know I would win). I've never actually had to take down a picture, however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T01:53:36.423" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12072" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-16T01:56:04.160" Score="15" ViewCount="482" Body="&lt;p&gt;Talking about &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_speed#Fast_lenses&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fast lenses&lt;/a&gt;, Wikipedia mentions&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/redbook-e/repro/tv.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon TV-Nikkor 35mm f/0.9-Fastest Nikon lens ever made&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why don't, for example, f/0.5 lenses exist?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there some special construction that comes into play for an f/0.9 lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="64" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-16T03:14:35.030" LastActivityDate="2011-05-17T23:28:16.977" Title="What is special about lenses with f-number &lt; 1?" Tags="&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;lens-design&gt;&lt;fast-lenses&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="12073" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12068" CreationDate="2011-05-16T02:01:29.510" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can typically reduce a flash's intensity, either by lowering it's power setting (I have a couple that go to 1/64 their full power), or by adding &quot;neutral density&quot; gels to it. So you can almost always make a flash &lt;em&gt;less&lt;/em&gt; bright if necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But it's pretty much impossible to make a single flash &lt;em&gt;brighter&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, there's usually very little danger in having a flash that's &lt;em&gt;too&lt;/em&gt; bright. Most times you'll have the opposite problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there's lots of other good reasons to have multiple flashes. @mattdm has already mentioned having multiple lights with multiple angles. And occasionally, when you need a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; of light, you'll want &lt;em&gt;multiple&lt;/em&gt; bright flashes (usually mounted on &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/09/lustworthy-gear-brewer-bracket.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;some sort of bracket&lt;/a&gt;). This is most common when shooting outdoors in full daylight, and you still want to shape your light; you need enough flash to &lt;a href=&quot;http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/09/lighting-102-31-balance-flashsun.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;overpower the sun&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T02:01:29.510" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12075" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12072" CreationDate="2011-05-16T02:27:44.977" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You know, I was going to argue lens mount and then I realized that I have a 200mm f/2.8 and the aperture on that is 71.4mm which is larger than the opening on my camera. So, I the only reason I can think of is cost...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get the advantages of an aperture wider than the mount diameter, the maker has to be doing some extra work with the rear elements and that will cost. This becomes a cost benefit analysis because they aren't going to expend the effort on a lens that will then cost so much that almost nobody will buy it (happens every now and then, Google the Canon 5200mm lens). They have to ask, what does the extra light really give on any given lens? I think, for the most part, once you're in to the 1:1 ratio of aperture to focal length, the answer is not a lot, or at least not a enough to justify.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to how they can squeeze the benefit of an aperture larger than the mount, well, I'm not a physicist or a lens maker... I'll leave that to people smarter than I. Mind you, I suspect that there is a limit to how big an opening you can get for a given focal length, regardless, but how to arrive at that, I don't know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T02:27:44.977" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="12077" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12078" CreationDate="2011-05-16T02:36:04.700" Score="6" ViewCount="90" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/product_finder/cameras/digital_slr/EOS_550D/index.aspx?specs=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;specifications of Canon 550D&lt;/a&gt;, about the lens the following is mentioned&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;LENS&#xA;Lens Mount      EF/EF-S&#xA;Focal Length    Equivalent to 1.6x the focal length of the lens&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now this is really confusing, why is the focal lenth &lt;strong&gt;1.6 times&lt;/strong&gt; the focal length of the lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I thought the focal length of the lens was the focal length of the lens!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="64" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T03:38:37.613" Title="What does 'Equivalent to 1.6x the focal length of the lens' mean?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;focal-length&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12078" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12077" CreationDate="2011-05-16T02:41:28.683" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is just their ultra confusing way of dealing with a crop factor field of view.  It just means that a lens mounted on the 550D will have a field of view equivalent to 1.6 times narrower than the field of view of the same lens on a full frame.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-16T03:30:17.833" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T03:30:17.833" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12079" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12077" CreationDate="2011-05-16T03:38:37.613" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;@rfusca's answer is totally right. I just wanted to make this part completely clear. You say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I thought the focal length of the lens was the focal length of the lens!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and in short, you are right and they are wrong, confused, and confusing. Their web page should be fixed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T03:38:37.613" />
  <row Id="12082" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7535" CreationDate="2011-05-16T04:10:44.117" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a niche feature that requires extra hardware (which increases manufacturing and warranty costs). It makes camera interface more confusing. It eats battery and there are privacy concerns, so many users might choose to keep it switched off even if they had the feature (but why would they still want to pay for it?). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An average point-and-shoot user snapping family pictures simply doesn't care. I have geotagged some of my photos in past, but didn't see the value for most pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Entry level systems are competing on price. Upper level systems are built modularly, and accessories usually yield a higher margin to the manufacturer and resellers. As long as customers don't turn down new models because they lack built-in geotagging, there's no need to add the feature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T04:10:44.117" />
  <row Id="12083" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12090" CreationDate="2011-05-16T05:00:43.607" Score="5" ViewCount="63" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm considering getting an FA Limited lens for my Pentax DSLR. The FA series has an aperture ring with an &quot;A&quot; setting for control by camera bodies that support it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can I instead use the aperture ring to set the &lt;em&gt;actual&lt;/em&gt; aperture value in Av (aperture priority mode), letting the camera pick a shutter speed, or am I limited to the &quot;A&quot; aperture and have to use the thumb dials on the body to control aperture? I don't want to go full-manual mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4690" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T07:45:32.233" Title="Pentax FA lens with aperture priority mode?" Tags="&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;pentax&gt;&lt;aperture-priority&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="12084" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11864" CreationDate="2011-05-16T05:10:00.943" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;They look cool - until the thing works loose and your camera gets dropped. What's wrong with attaching the camera strap to the camera strap fixing points ?&#xA;I believe it's 1/4&quot; BSP - British Standard Pipe thread. 1/4-20 is pretty close. 3/8&quot; is for medium and large format film cameras - pro kit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5191" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T05:10:00.943" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12085" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11685" CreationDate="2011-05-16T05:14:57.520" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could try 'tethering' a camera to a PC - free software is available that has more bracketing functions. One is a .HTA file so written in Javascript - you could even re-program it yourself. I think I saw focus when looking at 'focus stacking' software. Google is your friend. I think it requires LiveView, but maybe only for seeing what you're doing on the computer as well as the camera ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5191" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T05:14:57.520" />
  <row Id="12086" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11571" CreationDate="2011-05-16T05:24:56.780" Score="-3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tripod ?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Will your camera work with an f:1.4 ? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Old low-end models have AF and focussing-screens that only work well between f:2.8-5.6. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon D40, D40x gave me &amp;lt;10% sharp at f:1.4 D3100 is &gt;90%. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Best to borrow a lens or try it in the shop. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Amazon f:1.4 reviewers tend to keep sending the lenses back, but it's the camera's fault.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5191" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T05:24:56.780" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12087" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12091" CreationDate="2011-05-16T05:27:03.993" Score="17" ViewCount="196" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here and there I read of people who set their lens to a small aperture while testing their sensor cleanness, supposedly to get the best image of dust speckles. However, the image of the on-sensor dust particles should not, to my understanding, be affected by the sharpness induced by the lens settings. Same is true for dust particle on the lens elements themselves. It makes me wonder - do these people misunderstand the theory of how the optical system work, or am I missing something?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-16T05:41:31.187" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T06:44:56.080" Title="Why use a small aperture when trying to see sensor dust?" Tags="&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;cleaning&gt;&lt;dust&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12088" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12072" CreationDate="2011-05-16T05:36:38.507" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The wider a maximum aperture, the more prevalent optical aberrations will tend to be (given a &quot;simple&quot; lens.) Wide aperture lenses become increasingly difficult to manufacture at reasonable cost, as you have to put more effort into correcting those optical aberrations. Additional lens elements are necessary to mitigate chromatic aberration (which can become quite horrendous at apertures wider than f/2), correct for distortions (to maintain rectilinear behavior and minimize distortion effects), correct for spherical aberration and the focus shifts that result from it (or, leave the spherical aberration in, and correct for focus shift with additional electronic intelligence), etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should also be noted that a larger f/# must maintain the ratio of light allowed with other similar lenses. An f/0.9 lens must allow 1.5 more stops (more than 2x as much light) than an f/1.4 lens, and the physical size of the aperture to achieve that often requires a larger lens barrel diameter. Increasing the barrel diameter requires, at the very least, a larger front element, which can quickly add to the cost of a lens. An f/0.5 lens must allow nearly 3 stops more light through as an f/1.4 lens (a volume of 8x greater light), and requires a physical aperture that has a diameter 2.8 times larger. Note that it is important to remember that the physical aperture size as calculated from relative aperture is only &lt;em&gt;as viewed through the front lens element&lt;/em&gt; (which tends to magnify the innards a bit.) The true physical size of the aperture is usually not quite that large, however lenses with particularly large maximum apertures beyond f/1 do generally necessitate a bulky lens barrel. It is possible to correct for an aperture larger than the mount with more optics...but thats part of where the added cost of wider apertures comes into play.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Combined with the necessity of correcting the increasing effects of optical aberrations, faster lenses require larger elements, more glass, in more groups, with more moving groups, to achieve usable quality at wide apertures. That amounts to tremendous cost, requiring prices that are out of range for most photographers. When it comes to a manufacturer like Zeiss, the creation of an f/0.7 lens (the fastest camera lens on earth, as far as I know), it is probably more of a prestige thing than a money maker...the best lens maker on earth had better have the best lenses in all cases, right? ;) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(As it turns out, Zeiss pretty much does, given their superb optics, and between having the fastest 50mm f/0.7 lens, and the longest at and clearest telephoto lens with their Apo Sonnar T* 1700mm f/4 lens...and believe me, a 1700mm f/4 is almost as insane as a 50mm f/0.7...thats a TON of light for such a long focal length!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-17T20:04:28.330" LastActivityDate="2011-05-17T20:04:28.330" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="12089" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12087" CreationDate="2011-05-16T05:49:18.387" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I understand your question correctly, stopping the aperture down to its narrowest ensures that light is focused as tightly as possible. If you take a photograph at a wider aperture, excess non-incident light will still make it to the sensor, and mitigate the effects of sensor dust.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To put that in more precise technical terms...with a narrow aperture, the light that strikes the sensor is from as narrow a field as possible, and as close to perpendicular as possible (90° to sensor plane). That causes dust particles to create a &quot;sharp shadow&quot; on the sensor. At a wider aperture, the light that strikes the sensor is from a wide field of view, and light may not always be perpendicular (could be anywhere from 90° to say 70°), since the entire lens surface plays a role in &lt;code&gt;focusing&lt;/code&gt; light. Those off-axis rays of light cause dust particles to create a &quot;soft shadow&quot; on the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/ssUtA.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could demonstrate the effect at a macro scale, if you need a visual exemplar. Hold your hand up a foot or two from your wall, and point a bright but narrow beam of light at it...say from a flashlight about 10 feet away. The shadow from your hand should be clear and sharp. Perform the same experiment again, however this time, set up several shaded lamps that emit light in a broad field in a line parallel to the wall about 10 feet away. The shadow from your hand should be soft and dim, if visible at all (except under closer scrutiny.) Narrowing your aperture is akin to using the flashlight, while widening it is akin to setting up a wider row of lights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-16T06:35:51.840" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T06:35:51.840" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="12090" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12083" CreationDate="2011-05-16T06:37:52.353" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To use aperture priority on  Pentax dSLR with FA lens, you have to leave the aperture ring to &quot;A&quot; and select the aperture on body. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With aperture ring in A mode, the FA lens will behave just like a DA lens. You can use Av mode and set aperture on the body, shutter time will be calculated according to automatically measured exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With aperture ring set on a specific aperture, the body does not know what you have set it to and would not be able to select shutter speed. By default, shutter will not work. You can enable using aperture ring in Custom Settings, but that will just enable using shutter - the lens will be used wide open regardless of the setting on aperture ring.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's where the &quot;crippled&quot; part of the &quot;crippled KAF2&quot; mount on Pentax dSLR-s shows up - they do not have the mechanical linkage to read aperture settings from an aperture ring.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-16T07:45:32.233" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T07:45:32.233" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12091" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12087" CreationDate="2011-05-16T06:44:56.080" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the dust was really on the sensor proper, you'd be absolutely correct.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At least in the normal case, it's virtually impossible for dust to get on the surface of the sensor itself, because there's a couple millimeters or so of filters directly in front of the sensor. The front-most of these is (at least in the usual case) the AA filer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The important thing is that all of this transparent glass. Therefore, with a wider aperture, there's more light coming at the sensor from various angles. Since the light can travel at whatever angle through those filters (because they're all at least mostly-transparent glass), the dust spots won't normally block all the light. With a smaller aperture, the light comes nearly straight back from the small aperture, so the edges of any dust spots are clearly defined.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In practice, the difference is pretty obvious. Here's a shot at f/1.7, then shot taken a few moments later at f/22 (same camera, same lens, etc. -- all that's changed is the aperture and shutter speed):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;f/1.7:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/DIFzC.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;f/22:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/UheNW.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like usual for this situation, I've also boosted the contrast to make the dust more visible -- since it's a plain, low-contrast subject, the histogram starts out like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/hrkkF.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To make the dust more apparent, you adjust the levels something like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/vBIub.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you apply it to the f/1.7 picture (as I did above, to keep things fair), that will also overemphasize the light falloff at the corners of the picture. Though there is some anyway, it's not normally even close to as bad as it looks in the first shot above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that this is a pretty rigorous test. This sensor is clean enough that on &lt;em&gt;typical&lt;/em&gt; shots, there's no sign of dust on the sensor at all. Between the total lack of contrast/detail in the subject, tiny aperture, and extreme boost of contrast, we're seeing quite a bit that we'd never see in any normal picture (not to mention that the two worst spots here are near the bottom of the frame, where there's nearly always at least a little detail to hide these problems anyway). If you test this on your own camera, don't be too surprised if it looks (quite possibly a lot) worse than the ones above. From what I've seen, I'd guess that &lt;em&gt;most&lt;/em&gt; dSLRs (and a pretty fair number of P&amp;amp;S cameras too) are at least a little, and often a lot, worse than this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T06:44:56.080" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12092" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12058" CreationDate="2011-05-16T09:41:19.390" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not that risky (apart from as previously mentioned the self cleaning sensors).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However I find it difficult, because it's hard to remove all of the residue from even dedicated cleaners.  If you need to do this (and some things like pollen even the best sensor brush will not remove) then just be careful and apply a VERY tiny amount of fluid to clean with (a drop or two).  Look when you are done if there is any kind of sheen across the sensor, you can try sample shots of something very flat in color across the whole frame (out of focus white paper with flat lighting) to make sure any residue left is not affecting the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also like the Visible Dust sensor cleaning pads, they are very wide and let you do a wet clean with just a pass or two.  They have a sensor cleaning solution that seems to work just fine but you may be able to find cheaper cleaning solutions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T09:41:19.390" />
  <row Id="12093" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12072" CreationDate="2011-05-16T10:03:29.667" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lenses faster than f/1.0 exist but the prices skyrocket once you get below 1.0 as you're close to the limit of how far glass can actually bend incoming light! Tolerances become very tight and manufacture is expensive. The limit is around f/0.5 for glass (which has a refractive index of 1.5) to go faster you'd need to use a more exotic material such as quartz or sapphire, pushing the cost even further. I once read a thread online where someone calculated you could.make an f/0.25 lens but it would have to be built entirely out of diamond...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'd have to have a very good reason to go faster, &quot;to take better pictures indoors without flash&quot; doesn't quite do it. It has to be something like &quot;I'm going to walk on the surface of the moon for the very first time&quot;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fastest lens I've ever heard of was f/0.55, almost two stops faster than Canon's legendary f/1.0! They are used for lithographic etching of silicon wafers and the aperture is required to avoid diffraction limiting the resolution. The same effect that causes soft images with DSLRs at f/16 starts to occur at wider and wider apertures as you try to extract more detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-16T15:52:57.300" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T15:52:57.300" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12094" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7535" CreationDate="2011-05-16T10:43:28.560" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Couple of reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;GPS suck in a lot of battery power. Mostly because unlike the camera itself they need to keep running (you can't just turn it on when there is a click because the gps needs to find the co-ordinates and initialization takes time)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Low ROI: With apps like GeoTag for smartphones, its relatively easy to tag photos.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Most of the celebrity photographers who are the testers of new models and request features for cameras are studio photographer who have no need for geotagging.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Only street and nature photographers need this feature. Most of the hardcore nature photographers (e.g that of National geographic etc) don't use the normal prosumer cameras on the market. They need something with water proofing, weather proofing, light weight etc.. not sure if they carry an external gps unit.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="55" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T10:43:28.560" />
  <row Id="12095" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9759" CreationDate="2011-05-16T10:58:14.210" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well what i'm going by is that the mountain affects the lighting of sunrise and sun set because it's shadow covers a large a mount of space so keeps that one place reasonably dark for a few minuets.So that if you wait a while you still get the beautiful effects of the sunrising or setting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;                      ![enter image description here][1]&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5196" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T10:58:14.210" />
  <row Id="12096" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-16T10:58:48.737" Score="11" ViewCount="357" Body="&lt;p&gt;During a nice nature trip, sitting at a table with a bottle of wine, somehow we had the ridiculous idea to test a lens as burning glass (which performed quite well).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After we went home I started cleaning the lens and noticed a small curly path inside the lens, which I image could be the scars left from an intense heat beam damaging the lens’s guts, like some coating or other damage-prone surface.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, is it possible that the immature act to use a lens as burning glass forever damaged the optics inside, or could it be something else? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Stupidity left aside, it ain't some heavy glass lens, but a third-party prime, and quality seems untouched, so I don't really bother.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; So here are some pics. Didn't have a macro lens available though:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-TffUYzXNPJw/TeNeRyAOhjI/AAAAAAAACqg/90v3WL_nnCs/s400/IMG_1068.JPG&quot; alt=&quot;Lens1&quot;&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/Mq3lAfJ0wb9EaR0zWVhVNJiaKJSGCEQPSVn5IEPu_-g?feat=directlink&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Direct Link&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-90CG332WztU/TeNeSoK1I8I/AAAAAAAACqo/Y4ltpUxGiVU/s400/IMG_1078.JPG&quot; alt=&quot;lens2&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/Wu9S3qh2-YIe45I52vrJJ5iaKJSGCEQPSVn5IEPu_-g?feat=directlink&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Direct Link&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-UQWmRwRqAPo/TeNeTPdJ_rI/AAAAAAAACqs/cLXA1yFiX9E/s400/IMG_1080.JPG&quot; alt=&quot;lens3&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/xJEvf4CrXVhonYna2h5rqpiaKJSGCEQPSVn5IEPu_-g?feat=directlink&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Direct Link&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By looking more closely to it, it could be a small filament of some sorts. It really is &lt;strong&gt;inside&lt;/strong&gt; the lens, I guess between the front and the second element. Impossible to get a precise side view as the image gets distorted by the front element. On the second picture you can even see a rainbow pattern on it as the light gets dispersed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, it's almost invisible. I had to highlight it with a LED light from the side to to have it come out like that (like a scratch in a glass surface would).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2025" LastEditorUserId="2025" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-30T09:31:26.327" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T09:31:26.327" Title="Could my lens be damaged after being used as burning glass?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;troubleshooting&gt;&lt;equipment-damage&gt;&lt;sunlight&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12097" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12096" CreationDate="2011-05-16T11:15:59.390" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is my theory&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When kids use a magnifying glass to burn ants in the park its one piece of glass&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A camera lens is made of many elements of glass - so when the sun hits the first piece of glass it could be burning the second or the third element or the coating&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That’s my two cents worth - might be possible to get the lens cleaned or repaired by a professional.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sounds like a cool thing to try, for sciences sake did whatever you were burning burn quickly?!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5052" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T11:15:59.390" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12098" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12099" CreationDate="2011-05-16T13:02:54.030" Score="10" ViewCount="350" Body="&lt;p&gt;It has been mentioned at &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9624/what-exactly-determines-depth-of-field/9626#9626&quot;&gt;a&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7904/how-does-background-blur-bokeh-in-relate-to-sensor-size/7908#7908&quot;&gt;few&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3986/aps-c-vs-full-frame-why-should-i-care/3992#3992&quot;&gt;places&lt;/a&gt; that a larger sensor results in images with a shallower depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example image: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/FF_vs_APS-C.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;http://www.mattgrum.com/FF_vs_APS-C.jpg&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/6wQFU.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;APS-C Canon 30D left, FF Canon 5D right, same lens, same composition, both f/2.8&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3986/aps-c-vs-full-frame-why-should-i-care/3992#3992&quot;&gt;APS-C Canon 30D left, FF Canon 5D right, same lens, same composition, both f/2.8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand how sensor size would relate to, for example, field of view, but the relationship with depth of field does not seem straightforward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It actually seems contradictory - &lt;strong&gt;I have more wells on my sensor, and I am able to focus on less number of points&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the reason for this effect?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="64" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-16T13:32:27.277" LastActivityDate="2011-05-17T15:05:27.020" Title="Why does a bigger sensor lead to a shallower depth of field?" Tags="&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;sensor-size&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12099" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12098" CreationDate="2011-05-16T13:25:05.403" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Firstly, the number of wells on the sensor has no bearing on where you can focus or 'how much' you can focus on. Out of focus light is still light hitting the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simply put, you have shallower depth of field with a full-frame sensor because you have to get closer to the subject (or zoom in) in order to fill the frame. Note that in your example it says &lt;em&gt;same composition&lt;/em&gt;: the camera has been moved or the focal length changed in order to fill the frame with the bottle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To put it another way, if you fix a tripod in place and take a shot with an APS-C camera with the bottle filling the frame, then take the same shot in exactly the same position with a full-frame camera, you will have more space around the bottle. So you will either need to zoom in or move the camera closer to achieve the same shot where the bottle fills the frame, either of which will alter the depth of field, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this excellent summary of sensor sizes and their effects.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastEditorUserId="3205" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-16T13:52:37.793" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T13:52:37.793" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="12100" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12096" CreationDate="2011-05-16T13:31:44.917" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would say at least for most practical purposes the answer is no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, you only get intense heat where the light comes (at least close to) in focus, which does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; happen inside the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, you only get heat when the light is &lt;em&gt;absorbed&lt;/em&gt; -- but a typical lens transmits virtually all the light, which translates to absorbing essentially none of it. A lens can't absorb any significant amount of light and still function even &lt;em&gt;reasonably&lt;/em&gt; well as a lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T13:31:44.917" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12101" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12098" CreationDate="2011-05-16T13:39:19.627" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Without moving the camera you will get shallower depth of field when using a larger sensor whilst maintaining aperture ratio and field of view (whilst maintaining the same final output size). I.e. if you keep the same settings but zoom the FF camera to match the angle of view (yielding an equivalent composition).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depth of field is a function of the physical size of the aperture. A 75mm f/4.0 lens on a full frame camera has a physical aperture that is 75/4 i.e. 18.75mm, whereas a 50mm f/4.0 lens on a 1.5x crop camera has a physical aperture that is 50/4, 12.5mm&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this it is easy to work out what equivalent aperture you'd need to get the same depth of field with both cameras/lenses, to get a physical aperture of 18.75mm with a 50mm lens it would have to be f/2.6 (50/18.75) which is more than a whole stop faster!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-16T18:18:57.313" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T18:18:57.313" CommentCount="14" />
  <row Id="12102" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12098" CreationDate="2011-05-16T13:40:03.010" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;maybe the clearest way to explain this is: if you compare it to a cropped (aps-c) sensor, shooting the same thing from the same point, to get the same result (framing) on full frame you need a longer focal length; as a matter of fact, longer lenses give a shallower depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;edit(more accurate, more annoying): so it's uncorrect and misleading to say a bigger sensor leads to a shallower depth of field, at least directly, no way this could actually happen. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depth of field really depends on focal lenght and f-number ONLY; on every possible sensor (or film) the same lens (same settings) will give the same depth of field.&#xA;If we assume every camera we put this given lens on has the right mount to fit it and the same distance between the lens and the focal plane to get focus right, all we get comparing all possible sensor/film formats is different cropped parts of the same projected image circle. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE: Here's an update to tell my commenters (and everybody interested) why I didn't account for CoC in relation to sensor size in my answer above. Most people who may read this already know probably more than me about this subject and may find stupid to read something they already know; keep in mind I'm just trying to put this in perspective.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those who don't know, a Circle of Confusion is one among infinite dots of light a lens projects on its focal plane, in our case the part of a camera where a sensor or some film is. The closest this dot gets to a point (which has no size, but our dot is never a point because lenses are not perfect), the sharper the image (in that area), and vice versa. (A rough definition just to introduce newcomers to the subject, experts please don't waste time criticizing this).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think we can agree the maximum permissible CoC is a value used to determine with mathematical certainty what is in focus and what is not; it serves the purpose of &quot;drawing a line&quot; (as actually there is a smooth transition between in focus and not in focus), and it may well be adjusted according to the print size you want to achieve, as a larger print would make this transition more evident and, at some level, one would notice that some areas, appearing to be in focus looking at a smaller print of the same image, are actually out of focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Applying formulas in which one element is the CoC to determine DOF is an analytic process, so it's a way to understand what's going on, not changing things (i.e. the image a lens is projecting on a focal plane). The fact that CoCs exist and that one needs to decide what's the right CoC size to produce a sharp image of a given size is not changing the way a lens works across different sensors/film formats. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to get a large print, I understand it may be needed to consider a different acceptable sharpness. &#xA;In my answer above I assume (and I declared I do) the focal plane is always the same, that's what's happening in modern DSLRs we're talking about: the different rendition of a lens on different bodies is just a matter of cropping.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;an ugly oversimplified drawing sometimes helps&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/PmBFe.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;that's it&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;making two print of the same size from the two different sensors will give varying results depending on the resolution of the two sensors. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;if we assume pixel density is the same for both sensors and we print at a fixed resolution, the prints from the smaller sensor will look exactly like the larger ones, just cropped. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;if again we assume pixel density is the same and we print at a fixed size, the prints from the smaller sensor will look like enlarged crops of the larger ones, at a lower quality. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;if we simply and more correctly to the purpose of our analysis assume both have enough pixels to print a fixed size we want without noticeable loss in quality, what we get in prints from the smaller sensor is like a cropped enlargement of the print from the bigger sensor, so we can indeed see a difference in depth of field, that is, we see more detail so it's easier to spot slightly out-of-focus areas. &#xA;This we could have accounted for if we decided to put a larger CoC in the formula when, while shooting, we calculated the DOF. Who's so rough a photographer not to do so? ;-) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I'm not really mocking anyone. I'm just saying, long story short: if you do big prints you might want to squeeze a bit more DOF out of your aperture selecting a higher f-number, so some part of the image around the line separating out of focus and in focus will be sharp enough to be considered fully in focus also in enlargements. That's it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same lens with the same aperture settings (at the same focal length if it's a zoom) will always give the same result. CoC is not a physical variable like those I just mentioned which really changes light coming out of the lens and into you camera, it's a parameter used to determine mathematically if something is in focus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can't say DOF is a function of sensor size (among others) because larger sensors are used for large prints and in large prints you see out of focus areas that in small prints you don't see. First because to call this an indirect relation is an euphemisms, then because this is accounting for detail at the expenses of sheer exactness. Maybe I'm missing on... more than something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3364" LastEditorUserId="3364" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-17T15:05:27.020" LastActivityDate="2011-05-17T15:05:27.020" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="12103" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-16T14:06:51.520" Score="5" ViewCount="100" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking to buy my first external flash to use on my Canon 350d (which I bought used — no problems).  Most likely this will be a Speedlite 430EX II.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking on Ebay, it looks like I can save over 25% by buying used, so I am rather tempted, given the cost new is around GBP200, vs GBP130-150.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any major drawbacks to buying a used flash, assuming that the one I got had been cared for?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not a professional photographer — this would just be for family and holiday snaps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anything specific to look out for when buying used flashes, specifically Speedlite?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="926" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-16T14:38:48.593" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T23:06:24.460" Title="Are there any major drawbacks to buying a used flash gun?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;speedlite&gt;&lt;used-equipment&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="12104" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12106" CreationDate="2011-05-16T14:22:46.033" Score="3" ViewCount="176" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a question about image quality. Does noise in an image is depends upon &quot;Megapixels&quot; or on &quot;ISO&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4923" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-16T14:40:30.680" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T23:15:03.357" Title="Does noise in images depend upon &quot;Megapixels&quot; or &quot;ISO&quot;?" Tags="&lt;iso&gt;&lt;image-quality&gt;&lt;noise&gt;&lt;iso-noise&gt;&lt;megapixels&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="12105" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12103" CreationDate="2011-05-16T14:24:34.503" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think there are any drawbacks to buying a used flash beyond those of buying any sort of used gear.  I've purchased a used flash in the past and ended up having no problems with it.  With eBay you'll be buying it sight unseen, but if you buy it used locally and can meet the seller you'll have the opportunity to test it out at the time of purchase.  If this is the case, ensure that it works in both TTL and manual modes as well as looking for signs of physical damage (be sure to check out the hotshoe area).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T14:24:34.503" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12106" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12104" CreationDate="2011-05-16T14:38:07.227" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Noise originates due to a number of factors, see:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11910/what-types-of-noise-can-be-present-in-digital-photographs&quot;&gt;What types of noise can be present in digital photographs?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Increasing the number of megapixels keeping everything else constant (sensor size, technology etc.) will increase noise per pixel, but also has the effect of making the noise finer grained which is less objectionable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ISO does not by itself increase noise, only if you combine increasing ISO with decreasing shutter time / closing aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's [probably] worth repeating this again here...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Increasing ISO whilst keeping shutter-speed/aperture constant does not increase noise&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/ISOcomparison/ISO_100_vs_ISO_1600.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an example, as the ISO 100 shot was underexposed, raising the ISO to 1600 yielded a much less noisy result!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-16T14:57:51.350" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T14:57:51.350" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12107" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12104" CreationDate="2011-05-16T14:38:40.900" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Response: ISO&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;ISO 80 (low iso)  -&gt; image without    noise &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;ISO 6400 (high iso) -&gt; image    with a lot of noise&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you raise the ISO level, you will five the photo more noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2113" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T14:38:40.900" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12108" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12104" CreationDate="2011-05-16T14:39:41.523" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both of those factors can have an impact on noise.  Of the two, the effect of ISO is the most immediately visible.  All digital cameras exhibit image noise that rises as ISO increases.  Depending on the camera, you may see little or no noise at ISO 100, for instance, and proportionally more as you approach the maximum ISO setting for your camera (typically 1600 to 6400 or more).  There are plenty of examples of this for just about every camera on the market (reviews for each specific camera will often show examples).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Image size (megapixels) doesn't &lt;em&gt;directly&lt;/em&gt; impact noise, but it &lt;em&gt;indirectly&lt;/em&gt; impacts noise when you consider two sensors of the same size.  In this case, all things being equal, the larger-megapixel sensor will show more noise as a side-effect of trying to &quot;squeeze&quot; more pixels onto a sensor of similar size.  Although this can be shown in certain cases within a camera line, this factor can be difficult to pin down because cameras also often have upgraded sensor or processing technology that manages noise more effectively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some great answers on this site already regarding specific aspects of noise.  If you search for &quot;noise&quot;, you'll find &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/search?q=noise&quot;&gt;all sorts of great reading&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T14:39:41.523" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="12109" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-16T14:51:21.447" Score="4" ViewCount="79" Body="&lt;p&gt;I installed my 50mm f/1.4 Nikon lens on my Olympus E-P1. I notice some properties of the lens changed - namely: magnification increased and DoF increased.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand magnification increases because of the smaller sensor (which results in crop). Is it only that or is magnification also influenced by the adapter (because the lens is further away from the sensor)? Also, why is DoF larger?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any other lens properties that change when changing the camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm talking about optical properties, not certain features (such as autofocus) not being supported.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1184" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-16T15:13:38.253" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T15:13:38.253" Title="What is the camera's influence on lenses' optical properties?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;optics&gt;&lt;adapter&gt;&lt;sensor-size&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12110" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12109" CreationDate="2011-05-16T15:12:27.490" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The lens properties stay exactly the same. However, you might record the image differently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sensor size is going to be the biggest factor, as you noticed, as it affects both &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/5917/what-is-angle-of-view-in-a-dslr&quot;&gt;field of view&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10079/can-a-smaller-sensors-crop-factor-be-used-to-calculate-the-exact-increase-in-d&quot;&gt;depth of field&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And since you're recording a smaller area in the center of the image circle, you're (probably — individual results may vary) getting the best part of the lens, and corner softness and possibly vignetting won't be as significant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The smaller sensor doesn't inherently increase magnification. If you're printing the resulting image at the same size, that'll require &lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt; to magnify it more, but the size of the image projected by the lens remains the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The distance to the sensor &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; the focal length of the lens, and this doesn't change. Or it shouldn't — some combinations of camera mounts and lenses make adapters which put the lens in exactly the right place impossible, so focal length will change slightly and you'll probably lose the ability to focus at infinity (and possibly be able to focus a bit closer, which &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; increase magnification). This shouldn't be the case with Nikon lenses adapted to micro four thirds, though —  the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;flange distance&lt;/a&gt; is so small that there's plenty of room for an adapter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other things, of course, will depend simply on the different properties of the sensor — depending on the camera, the photosites might be closer together, for example, and Nikon and Olympus are going to render colors somewhat differently. None of that is the lens itself, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T15:12:27.490" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12111" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12114" CreationDate="2011-05-16T16:03:30.867" Score="6" ViewCount="158" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi, I was wondering what's the name of the effect in this photograph. I've heard of Chromatic Aberration, but I'm not really sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, is it possible to reproduce this kind of effect (without photoshop, of course)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/tMkzO.png&quot; alt=&quot;Luciano Supervielle&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS_ The photo is from Luciano Supervielle's latest album.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="323" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-16T16:46:03.870" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T16:46:03.870" Title="What is this red/blue effect called?" Tags="&lt;chromatic-aberration&gt;&lt;3d&gt;&lt;anaglyph&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="12112" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12117" CreationDate="2011-05-16T16:06:40.887" Score="3" ViewCount="78" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am capturing raw images using N900 camera. It gives me DNG files. I have some question regarding the colour temperature of these raw images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Objective:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am trying to map the CIE-XY Camera white point values given in this DNG image to its colour temperature value. The DNG tag is :As Shot White XY&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Steps in Experiment  :&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;For this I have set the White balance mode on N900 capture application to manual mode. All other settings like Shutter speed/Aperture/Focus are in Auto mode.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Then I set a particular colour temperature using a slider provided by the app.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Capture raw image of a scene(general) indoors.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When I inspect the metadata present in this DNG file, it has two CIE-XY white point values: As shot XY. Say, x1,y1.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Then keeping the colour temperature setting constant, I just capture a different scene, by slightly moving the camera by very small amount. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Now when I see the XY values, they seem to be different(slightly) than earleir image ones. Whereas I thought since camera is in manual WB mode, and colour temperature set is unchanged, it should have given same white point values.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Question:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Am I correct in thinking that 'As shot White XY' values present in DNG metadata give the white points at that set colour temperature?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If yes, why does it change in above setup. Does colour temperature depend upon the CMOS sensor temperature or some other parameter like exposure (Aperture/Shutter speed)?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any pointers regarding WB, Colour temperature, CIE coordinates, XY white points would be useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2438" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-16T20:24:31.707" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T20:24:31.707" Title="Why does the &quot;As Shot White XY&quot; metadata tag change even when WB is set manually?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;white-balance&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12113" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12115" CreationDate="2011-05-16T16:09:00.500" Score="8" ViewCount="190" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm planning to do a time lapse of my wedding from 9 am to midnight (I know that's a lot of photos) Thinking of doing one every 5 seconds to capture everything (space is not really an issue).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have the following kit&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nikon D60 &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sigma 10-20mm f4.5-5.5 &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;50mm Nikkor 1.4f afs&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tamron 18-270 f3.5 -6.3 &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Laptop with timelapse software and USB cable &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A sturdy tripod &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;External power source for camera and laptop&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The camera will be located above the room in a balcony; the room is about 20m by 80m.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are four big windows which light the room quite well, but not massively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to achieve a nice smooth time lapse, where people are blurred but sometimes still, and I need to account for the changing light conditions throughout the day&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the above equipment and info, what camera mode and other settings should I use?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5052" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-18T18:00:08.880" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T18:00:08.880" Title="What settings should I use for a timelapse of my wedding?" Tags="&lt;timelapse&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="12114" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12111" CreationDate="2011-05-16T16:10:30.270" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That is definitely not chromatic aberration. It looks like an artistic effect inspired by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaglyph_image&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Anaglyph images&lt;/a&gt;, which are those old style 3D images that used red and blue goggles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: On further inspection it appears to actually be an anaglyph image, although it is of course possible that this was used as an artistic effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2877" LastEditorUserId="2877" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-16T16:19:03.450" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T16:19:03.450" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12115" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12113" CreationDate="2011-05-16T16:44:19.570" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You might get lucky, but I don't think that it's likely you'll be able to get an &lt;em&gt;entire&lt;/em&gt; 9am to midnight timelapse capture with no human intervention at all, regardless of the equipment chosen, barring the construction of a light-sensitive intervalometer which can make adjustments shot-by-shot[1]. The reason for this is that it is still a complex and 'fiddly' task for cameras to handle lighting changes during timelapses (especially during the critical day --&gt; night transition which can easily span more than 12 stops of light).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said that... With the equipment you have, the only &lt;em&gt;potential&lt;/em&gt; way to achieve a smooth day-to-night timelapse transition with no human intervention is to do the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;take bracketed exposures[2] with as many stops between the brackets as your camera will allow, cross your fingers that at least one of the bracketed exposures will be 'in the ballpark' of properly exposed, and then use fading transitions in a video post-production solution to 'fake' a smooth transition when the most drastic day --&gt; night lighting changes will occur.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set your camera to its Manual mode, focus the lens, set the aperture[3], and then disengage the lens from the camera by unlocking it and giving it a quarter turn so the communication contact points are no longer touching.[4]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Start the timelapse and hope for the best.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt; [1]Yes, I have built one. No it is not easy, and it does require both electronics and imbedded circuit programming knowledge (or at least the time and willingness to experiment with them). Sadly, there is currently no commercial equivalent on the market, though I'm aware of a couple different manufacturers who have been poking around the &lt;a href=&quot;http://timescapes.org/phpBB3/index.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Timescapes&lt;/a&gt; forum (where all of us &lt;em&gt;hardcore&lt;/em&gt; Timelapse geeks hang out and experiment with these sorts of things). So at &quot;some point&quot; down the road there &lt;em&gt;might&lt;/em&gt; be a commercial option available.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt; [2]Which if you're planning to shoot at 5 second intervals will work out to be approximately 32,400 individual frames, so... Make sure you've got plenty of space on that tethered laptop! :-) &lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt; [3] You'll probably want to set your aperture to give yourself a relatively deep depth of field... Somewhere between f/8 and f/11, I'd guess... &lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt; [4] Your camera resets its aperture between every shot. While it is accurate enough for still shots when performing this reset, there is still some variation every time it performs the operation... Which will cause constant flickering throughout your timelapse unless you disengage the lens so the camera can't change the aperture between shots. &lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-16T17:42:18.893" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T17:42:18.893" CommentCount="10" />
  <row Id="12116" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12098" CreationDate="2011-05-16T18:00:13.320" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depth of Field is a function of many variables, one of them being the distance to subject. In the example shot you posted, the left-hand side was taken with a Canon 30D, which has an APS-C cropped sensor (24mm), while the right-hand side was taken with a Canon 5D, which has a Full Frame sensor (35mm). Both photographs were taken with the same lens at the same aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason DoF changed between the 30D and 5D is because to maintain &lt;strong&gt;framing&lt;/strong&gt;, or the size of the subject relative to the size of the image, you have to get the 5D closer. This is because the 5D has a wider Field of View for any given lens than the 30D. The closer you focus to a subject, the thinner your Depth of Field will be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T18:00:13.320" />
  <row Id="12117" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12112" CreationDate="2011-05-16T20:13:24.407" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I doubt you're going to get a real answer (this really isn't -- it's really a comment that's way too long to fit in a comment box).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is fairly simple: neither the question nor the answer is really related to photography. Rather, they're both related to how the firmware of the particular camera in the particular phone you're dealing with happens to be designed, and what data it chooses to encode into the raw files it produces.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer would/will apply (almost?) exclusively to that particular camera/phone, not to photography in general. Just for example, when/if I set a manual white balance in my camera, and open the raw file its produces, the &quot;as shot&quot; white balance that's encoded in the raw file seems to remain constant across fairly radical changes in lighting. I just did a quick check of a couple pictures of the wall of my office, first under artificial light, and then opened the blind to get sunlight. The apparent color of the wall, as shown in the picture changes quite noticeably from one shot to the other, but the the &quot;as shot&quot; white balance stays precisely constant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll add that the &quot;as shot&quot; white balance does seem to be coded indirectly -- in particular, although the number given for the color temperature doesn't change from one shot to the other (even though the white balance clearly &lt;em&gt;has&lt;/em&gt; changed), different programs opening the file seem to have slightly different interpretations of how to convert what is included back to a color temperature. Just for example in the test I mentioned above, I set the balance in the camera to 5500K. When I open the files with ACR, it says they were shot at 5600K. Bibble, on the other hand, says they were shot at 5231K.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T20:13:24.407" />
  <row Id="12118" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12131" CreationDate="2011-05-16T20:34:41.750" Score="15" ViewCount="318" Body="&lt;p&gt;I noticed on my Canon 18-55mm kit lens there is a dot on the zoom scale between 24 &amp;amp; 35mm (though skewed very much towards 24mm).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This position appears to be the spot where the lens is physically the most compact, but I have a hard time believing that there would be a marking just for that.  What is this dot for?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/wzzXV.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;18-55mm lens&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5068" LastActivityDate="2011-05-17T13:50:54.660" Title="What does the dot on some zoom lens scales mean?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12119" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12118" CreationDate="2011-05-16T20:50:21.440" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=491897&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Some discussion&lt;/a&gt; suggests it marks 28mm focal length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="926" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T20:50:21.440" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12120" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12103" CreationDate="2011-05-16T20:53:21.720" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have bought all of mine 2nd hand with success.  However I would only buy ones described as excellent/mint condition and only if I could inspect before buying.  Things to look for would be corrosion in the battery compartment, any signs of condensation inside from rain or being dropped in the pool :)  If the flash has a zoom function, check that, as it's a mechanical thing that often stops working.  Same with any popup diffuser, if the flash has one - they often break off. Set flash to manual and fire off at full power, half power and a low power setting and make sure it's not stuck on full power. Maybe a quick run through the menus or function buttons to make sure the electronics all seem ok.  Check for any dents or cracks, signs of being dropped.  I've also found that most flashes that have been well looked after have all the original accessories (stands, cases, diffuser). If those are missing you wonder how careful they are with their gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4191" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T20:53:21.720" />
  <row Id="12121" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-16T21:20:10.583" Score="5" ViewCount="164" Body="&lt;p&gt;How many cameras apart from the iPhone have a gyroscope for orientation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Am I right to assume that there is a standard way to “tag” an image with the direction the camera was pointing in, as well as the GPS position?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do any cameras have positional tracking better then a GPS?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am thinking about a method to join photos when the subject does not have enough “random” detail for the current software.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="623" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-22T15:27:51.883" LastActivityDate="2011-05-22T15:27:51.883" Title="How common is it for cameras to have a gyroscope?" Tags="&lt;panorama&gt;&lt;geotagging&gt;&lt;gps&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12122" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12121" CreationDate="2011-05-16T22:43:20.793" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Among the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/search_camera.php?gps=1&amp;amp;by=feature&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;current cameras with GPS&lt;/a&gt; you will notice that more than half also record orientation. Just look at the row towards the bottom of the table that says GPS at the above link.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I have no idea if they use accelerometer or gyroscopes but all those record the orientation of the camera. At least the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera.php?id=294&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Casio H20G&lt;/a&gt;, which is also among the digital cameras to include a built-in GPS with orientation, is known to use accelerometers because it actually tracks your position indoors (or other places where GPS do not reach) too by measuring direction and speed from the last known GPS location. They call this &lt;em&gt;Hybrid GPS&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-17T01:46:06.233" LastActivityDate="2011-05-17T01:46:06.233" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12123" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2536" CreationDate="2011-05-16T22:51:53.327" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is another aspect of Crop Sensors: in a crop sensor the incidence angle is closer to 90 degrees at the corners of the sensor, and is less perpendicular for large sensors. This can lead to some &quot;vigneting&quot; caused by the light transmitting less &quot;power&quot; to the sensor at such angles, in a way similar as a solar cell being less effective if not perpendicular, the crop sensor is less prone to this. I have seen this effect in rather cheap cameras, the image is slightly darker when far from the center, however, I have never handled a camera with a big sensor. (I use Four Thirds)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4913" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T22:51:53.327" />
  <row Id="12124" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12103" CreationDate="2011-05-16T23:06:24.460" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As with anything you buy used, wear and tear can be a drawback. Flash heads and key electronics do have a limited life, though I can't recall having a flash 'bulb' die on me, usually some other, unknown issue takes their life before then.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the record, I purchased a used 420EX that was used as a rental unit by my local store. So I assumed going in it had considerable use and probably was cared for like a rental car. But it has been a trooper and performed flawlessly. I would not fear the used flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T23:06:24.460" />
  <row Id="12125" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7535" CreationDate="2011-05-16T23:11:19.873" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't forget that GPS only works when you are outside, with a clear view of the sky. Really expensive GPS chips can acquire satellites indoors or under heavy tree cover, but given they typically cost more than point and shoots, I doubt you will find high end chips in cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mobile phones have GPS chips because they are required by US and Europe law for location during 911 calls and other emergencies. Most of these do not have high end chips, instead they have chips that require first narrowing location via cell towers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, P&amp;amp;S don't have GPS often because GPS chips that work are very expensive, or require GSM/CDMA connections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T23:11:19.873" />
  <row Id="12126" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12104" CreationDate="2011-05-16T23:15:03.357" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When it comes to &lt;strong&gt;ISO&lt;/strong&gt;, it's a misnomer that increasing the ISO increases noise. It's doing nothing of the sort. The reason high ISO produces noisy images is entirely due to the fact that for a higher ISO, you have to cut the amount of light (signal) hitting the sensor, ultimately increasing noise ratio before ISO amplification even takes place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T23:15:03.357" />
  <row Id="12127" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12121" CreationDate="2011-05-16T23:18:05.833" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To have &quot;positional tracking better than a GPS&quot; you will need an INS (Inertial Navigation System) of the kind that exists in cruise missiles... The on-board sensors you get in your camera/smartphone merely tell you the orientation and motion, but not the position.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1024" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-16T23:57:23.540" LastActivityDate="2011-05-16T23:57:23.540" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12128" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12118" CreationDate="2011-05-17T02:24:28.243" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe this mark is intended to indicate 28mm (just zoom to the dot and take a photo, you should see 28mm in EXIF.) In general, I think the mark is also intended to indicate the point of least extension (based on anecdotal evidence I have from using three of the pictured lenses), however there does appear to be some variation, with least extension occurring between 27mm and 31mm. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-17T03:33:27.010" LastActivityDate="2011-05-17T03:33:27.010" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="12129" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12072" CreationDate="2011-05-17T04:02:21.047" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Others have already mentioned cost, and they're right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another that's probably more meaningful for most practical purposes is that your depth of field would nearly evaporate into none at all. Just for example, consider a shot with a 50 mm lens from around 3 feet away -- a more or less typical head/shoulders type of shot. At f/1.0, your DoF is already down to 3/4&lt;sup&gt;ths&lt;/sup&gt; of an inch. At f/0.5, it would be approximately 3/8&lt;sup&gt;ths&lt;/sup&gt; of an inch -- if, for example, you focused on somebody's eye lashes, the eye itself would be noticeably blurred (or vice versa).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess if your primary ambition is to shoot pictures of stamps under glass at night, the minimal DoF wouldn't be a problem -- but for most subjects, using it well would be challenging.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-05-17T04:02:21.047" />
  <row Id="12130" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12045" CreationDate="2011-05-17T11:50:26.680" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you've got an Android phone then there's an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.androidzoom.com/android_applications/tools/exposure-calculator_hnct.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exposure Calculator&lt;/a&gt; app available. You can download it from the link and it's also in the Android store (it's free).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="697" LastActivityDate="2011-05-17T11:50:26.680" />
  <row Id="12131" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12118" CreationDate="2011-05-17T13:50:54.660" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the link dunxd posted, here's &lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1031&amp;amp;message=21862217&amp;amp;changemode=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;another one discussing the same sort of dot&lt;/a&gt; on a Sigma lens (I saw this on a couple other Sigma lenses, too).  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_18-55_3p5-5p6_is_c16/page2.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DPReview examination of the 18-55 lens&lt;/a&gt; offers the same explanation.  There's mention in dunxd's link about the 28mm explanation being the &quot;official Canon response&quot;, but I can't see anything that traces this statement back to Canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking at other Canon lenses, this isn't a very common feature - I also found this mark on the following lens:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was not able to find a 28mm mark on:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF 8-15 L&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF-S 10-22 f/3-4.5 USM&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF 16-35 f/2.8 L USM (28mm is marked explicitly w/ a number)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF 17-40 f/4 L USM - EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM (28mm is marked explicitly w/ a number)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF-S 17-85 IS USM&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS II (There's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-II-Lens-Review.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a review on The Digital Picture&lt;/a&gt; that shows the I-series and II-series side-by-side)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF-S 18-135 f/3-5.6 IS&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF-S 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 IS&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 USM (28mm is marked explicitly w/ a number)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF 24-70 f/2.8 L USM (28mm is marked explicitly w/ a number)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II USM&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF 28-135&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF-S 55-250&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF 70-300 IS USM&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;EF 70-300 DO IS USM&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that I checked some lenses that don't cover the 28mm focal length.  If any of these had shown the mark, that would certainly have ruled out the 28mm explanation.  Also note that Canon appears to have removed this mark ob the II-series of the 18-55 lens, indicating that 28mm is an interesting, but not critically important measure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found observations supporting both &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.camerahacker.com/Canon/18-55mm.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;for&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=5394523&amp;amp;postcount=8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;against&lt;/a&gt; the &quot;least extension&quot; idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-05-17T13:50:54.660" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12132" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12147" CreationDate="2011-05-17T15:19:29.260" Score="11" ViewCount="283" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was walking through streets of San Francisco and found this interesting advertisement: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/XvEGG.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;giraffe pole banner&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The subject is obviously interesting, but the image here is very straightforward and feels comparatively boring. How can I translate the interest of the subject into an equally-compelling photograph?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2867" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-17T16:24:06.023" LastActivityDate="2011-05-17T22:42:29.453" Title="How can I make interesting photographs of interesting things found on the streets?" Tags="&lt;composition&gt;&lt;street-photography&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="15" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12133" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12132" CreationDate="2011-05-17T15:48:59.120" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd try to find a more appealing background to the pole. From this perspective, you have a 'boring' building which barely adds to the sense of location. Shooting from the other side of the street (i.e., from the pole's side), you may be able to catch a better, more detailed background. It may be less regular and geometric which can help isolating the subject (or not) and you definitely will have more depth to get a better blurring of the background.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-05-17T15:48:59.120" />
  <row Id="12134" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12132" CreationDate="2011-05-17T15:52:59.090" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I often wonder the same thing when I see interesting stuff just wondering about. I've found a few things I try to keep in mind when taking those types of shots:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Background -- what will end up being the backdrop of my subject?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Framing -- try to frame the shot in an interesting and unique way, your subject doesn't &lt;strong&gt;have&lt;/strong&gt; to be in the center&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Perspective -- Try getting some interesting perspective on the subject, in your example. I'd try shooting from below or from above instead of straight on. Get a good angle on the subject that helps make it more interesting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3206" LastActivityDate="2011-05-17T15:52:59.090" />
  <row Id="12135" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12132" CreationDate="2011-05-17T16:06:07.087" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;At least as I see it, the big problem right now is that the background intrudes too much into the picture -- in fact, it &lt;em&gt;almost&lt;/em&gt; looks like it's intended to be a picture of the building, and this ad just happened to be in the way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a number of possibilities for making the subject stand out more. First, I'd almost certainly cross the street so you're shooting along the street instead of across it. At least in most cases, this means most of the background will be a lot farther away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then I'd consider one of two approaches:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Get quite close and shoot upward with a much wider-angle lens (if you have one). This will tend to exaggerate the height (probably a good thing in this case) &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; makes objects in the background get a lot smaller in a hurry.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The direct opposite of #2: back away a bit farther (still along the same side of the street though) and use a very large aperture (small aperture number) to minimize the depth of field to blur the background as much as possible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there's just the one ad like this (in sight) the first is &lt;em&gt;probably&lt;/em&gt; preferable, especially if you can get nice weather so most of the background is a nice, blue sky (but yes, I realize how uncommon that is in San Francisco...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have a number of the ads in sight, then #2 might be better, assuming you can line things up so you have the one in focus, and more of the same making up a substantial part of the background. If you can get them to nearly fill the frame, it might be worth using more depth of field to get more of them (reasonably) sharp, forming a repeating pattern -- but &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; if you can keep from adding distractions in the process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It &lt;em&gt;might&lt;/em&gt; be interesting to try a variation of that last idea even if there's only the one ad in sight, but with other light poles in the background as kind of metaphorical giraffes. It's hard to guess how well that kind of thing will work until you see it though (and sometimes even after you take the picture, it's hard to decide whether it really worked or not). The more metaphorical you get, the more sophisticated the audience needs to be to have a hope of &quot;getting&quot; it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-17T16:12:27.147" LastActivityDate="2011-05-17T16:12:27.147" />
  <row Id="12136" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11510" CreationDate="2011-05-17T17:26:03.597" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Wet mounting&lt;/strong&gt; (sealing the film with fluid between scanning surface and clear acetate on the back, or between film and an acetate sleeve around it) often used in drum scanning, also available for flatbed scanners, is probably something you will skip with your DIY dSLR setup. According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/scanners/drum_scans.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an article By Bill Glickman&lt;/a&gt;, it greatly enhances clarity of the film, blends film grain unnoticeable and removes most scratches and dust.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://scanscience.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ScanScience&lt;/a&gt; (a supplier of wet mounting products) also claims richer colors and better dynamic range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The technique does take some tinkering though. For example, David Mantripp first reported &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.snowhenge.net/index.php/pblog/article/wet_mount_scanning&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;minor improvements with slide film&lt;/a&gt; probably not worth the hassle and later &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.snowhenge.net/index.php/pblog/article/wet_mount_scanning_postscript&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;admitted clear benefits with negative film&lt;/a&gt;.Thomas Robinson has also demonstrated  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.historicphotoarchive.com/stuff/wet.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;clearly enhanced results with old black-and-white nitrate negative&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-18T08:59:02.650" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T08:59:02.650" />
  <row Id="12137" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-17T17:37:09.610" Score="0" ViewCount="66" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hey Guys,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been using my Canon 7D primarily for photography and am starting to get into the video realm with it. I realize this question may not belong here, but the reality is that the line between photography and videography is becoming very thin and I believe photographers should embrace the video features of their camera's instead of ignoring them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that said I tried using the Deshaker plug-in for VirtualDub on some of my shaky/not usable footage. I like the program but want to have as little quality loss as possible. Does anyone have suggested settings to use? Also has anyone tried &quot;streaming&quot; the output of Deshaker into something like Sony Vegas?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks,&#xA;Paul&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;p.s. If you don't think this question belongs on this site let me know, you won't hurt my feelings :) I love the stackexchange site format and want to stay in this ecosystem as much as possible to keep from spreading out too much and forgetting where I ask questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5212" LastActivityDate="2011-05-17T17:37:09.610" ClosedDate="2011-05-17T20:04:58.937" Title="Question about using the DeShaker plug-in for VirtualDub" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;canon-7d&gt;&lt;hd-video&gt;" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="12138" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12132" CreationDate="2011-05-17T17:40:24.707" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I agree with the answers about perspective. I would try to get way down low and shoot up at the sign. People are so acclimated to looking at things from 5-6 feet above the ground that when they see a picture taken from that range their reaction is many times, meh. Whereas if you show someone something they may have even seen before, but it's from a totally different perspective they will usually be really drawn in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5212" LastActivityDate="2011-05-17T17:40:24.707" />
  <row Id="12139" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12012" CreationDate="2011-05-17T17:52:35.227" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check out my gallery of photos shot with my Panasonic LX-5. Not exactly in your price range, but still a point-and-shoot:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jpwphoto.com/p332913122&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.jpwphoto.com/p332913122&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1469" LastActivityDate="2011-05-17T17:52:35.227" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-17T17:52:35.227" />
  <row Id="12140" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12142" CreationDate="2011-05-17T18:34:49.983" Score="7" ViewCount="212" Body="&lt;p&gt;I shot some photos of a store's interior for a blog that was highlighting that particular store. Is it legal for me to sell prints of the interior of that store? The photo just includes chocolate in a display case. In this case I am referring to a store in New York state (USA).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5213" LastEditorUserId="5213" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-17T20:08:14.363" LastActivityDate="2011-05-17T20:08:14.363" Title="Is it legal for me to sell a photo taken from within a store without the store's permission?" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;property-release&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12141" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-17T18:36:13.460" Score="3" ViewCount="148" Body="&lt;p&gt;What type of metadata should I add to my photos? IPTC, XMP, or EXIF? I want to add copyright info to my photos. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4941" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-18T02:49:07.997" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T13:42:50.743" Title="What format should I use to store photo copyright metadata in my JPG files?" Tags="&lt;metadata&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12142" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12140" CreationDate="2011-05-17T18:47:15.680" Score="15" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;IANAL&lt;/a&gt;, and this advice is &lt;strong&gt;U.S.-centric&lt;/strong&gt; 'cause that's where I live and work... but this is how my lawyer explained it to me for my own photography business... If the picture was taken on private property and the store is identifiable, you do need to get a location release in order to be able to sell it. If, however, the store is not identifiable, you can go ahead and use it as you see fit with no need to acquire additional releases. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course this correctly brings up the question of 'identifiable to whom?' Generally the test is that if the image is inflammatory or libelous towards the business owner &lt;em&gt;and is not being used in an editorial capacity&lt;/em&gt; then the test is 'is the image identifiable to the owner of the business.' If it is not an inflammatory or libelous photograph then the legal test is less strict- 'is the business identifiable to the general public.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I will say again, IANAL, this is U.S.-centric advice, and is &lt;em&gt;general&lt;/em&gt; advice... The laws and policies in your specific jurisdiction may vary from these general guidelines, so do your homework and/or hire a lawyer if need-be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-17T19:10:54.640" LastActivityDate="2011-05-17T19:10:54.640" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12143" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12140" CreationDate="2011-05-17T18:53:30.917" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tough question. If you show the owner and or current manager the respect of asking, more times than not I would imagine that they would be ok with it. You might as well have them sign some kind of release if they are agreeable just to be on the safe side. The reality of it is that most places would love the extra PR! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously if a business is media oriented and they depend on that for their source of income, it would be a different situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5212" LastActivityDate="2011-05-17T18:53:30.917" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="12144" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12141" CreationDate="2011-05-17T18:59:25.780" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;All rights to this photograph belong to ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't have to be complicated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally use EXIF&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5212" LastActivityDate="2011-05-17T18:59:25.780" />
  <row Id="12145" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12141" CreationDate="2011-05-17T19:10:23.283" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depending on where you live, you may need to mention copyright explicitly, this depends on the laws of your country obviously.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally add a simple copyright statement in camera with EXIF and IPTC later when I import to digikam.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4889" LastActivityDate="2011-05-17T19:10:23.283" />
  <row Id="12146" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11880" CreationDate="2011-05-17T19:29:29.523" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have you checked fred miranda for reviews and ratings?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He does a great job breaking down the lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5026" LastActivityDate="2011-05-17T19:29:29.523" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12147" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12132" CreationDate="2011-05-17T22:24:33.813" Score="19" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You've identified your subject, the tricky part is expressing what you want to say to others in a single picture. What is it you want to say?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In your example photo, everything is in focus, there is little contrast between the post and background, and everything has vertical lines. How is the viewer meant to know what parts of the photo are important? What is it you want to show people?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The pole decoration incorporated into the banner? &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/mochiland/205416509/lightbox/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/mochiland/205416509/lightbox/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The pole in its environment? &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/lhirlimann/4375549238/lightbox/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/lhirlimann/4375549238/lightbox/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Something a little more 'dynamic'? &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/cogdog/2773153913/lightbox/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/cogdog/2773153913/lightbox/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a ton of information about 'composition' on the web just waiting to be Googled. Some of it good, a lot of it so-so. Take it all as suggestion, rather than set-in-stone rules - as you develop as a photographer, you'll find your own way to do things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Study photos you like (your own and other people's) - work out what it is you like about it and how it was done. Shoot as much/often as you can - to improve you need practice, practice, practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For starters though, direct people to what they should be looking at.&#xA;(The links below are just extrem'ish examples grabbed from a quick Flickr search.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try separating your subject from the background (differences in colour, brightness, focus). &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/southen/5610096056/lightbox/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/southen/5610096056/lightbox/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Draw attention to your subject - contrast between subject and background, lines pointing to the subject. Have a path for the eye to follow to the subject. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/mecan/81470204/lightbox/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/mecan/81470204/lightbox/&lt;/a&gt; &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/sparth/5730541580/lightbox/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/sparth/5730541580/lightbox/&lt;/a&gt; &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/smash13/5713904476/lightbox/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/smash13/5713904476/lightbox/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is size important? Give a sense of scale by including something that people know the size of (eg a person, car, or building). &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabricabri/5713429646/lightbox/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabricabri/5713429646/lightbox/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is the subject of out place? Show how it is different from others (eg a giraffe pole peeking out of a row of normal light poles, or the giraffe pole 'eating' a tree).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before raising the camera to your eye, compose the photo in your mind. Know what it is you want to capture, then position yourself and make the photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5177" LastEditorUserId="5177" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-17T22:42:29.453" LastActivityDate="2011-05-17T22:42:29.453" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12148" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12072" CreationDate="2011-05-17T22:56:33.743" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a Zeiss Lens called &quot;Carl Zeiss Super-Q-Gigantar 0.33/40mm&quot;&#xA;Yes it got a max aperture of f/0.33 and therefore is the fastest lens ever made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the moment it is on auction at Westlicht-Auction. &#xA;Since I am not sure if I am allowed to link to such a page here is the description:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Carl Zeiss Super-Q-Gigantar 0.33/40mm (c. 1960) &#xA;  This is the world's fastest lens ever made, for Contarex Bullseye. Unique lens made by Carl Zeiss for Public Relation purposes - ex Barringer Collection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not really sure if this monster ever produced pictures, because there are simply no samples around. Everybody seemed to make pictures OF the lens, but not with it :-) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/145/czeisshw5.jpg/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Picture of the Super-Q-Gigantar&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4675" LastEditorUserId="4675" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-17T23:28:16.977" LastActivityDate="2011-05-17T23:28:16.977" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12149" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12141" CreationDate="2011-05-18T03:17:55.743" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://iptc.cms.apa.at/std/photometadata/specification/IPTC-PhotoMetadata-201007.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;IPTC core&lt;/a&gt; defines a few pieces of meta data information that, I think, is appropriate to your purpose:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Copyright notice&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Creator&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Creator's contact info (including email)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And a whole lot more. Read the spec, I think you'll see that it covers your needs more than adequately and there are plenty of tools (Adobe's various options, like Lightroom or Bridge, or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;exiftool&lt;/a&gt;) that can do this in batch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T03:17:55.743" />
  <row Id="12150" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-18T04:08:58.467" Score="13" ViewCount="446" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to understand why I would ever want to select an auto focus point other then the center point. I have a Canon XTI Rebel DSLR which has 9 auto-focus points, but I'm also looking into getting a 7D with 19 points.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of time I have my camera set to the center auto-focus point. Then when I take a picture I aim the center point at the object I want to focus on, half press the shutter button to trigger the focus, recompose if necessary, and then fully press the shutter button to take the picture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why would I ever want to explicitly select another auto focus point? I don't think of wanting a point at the top left of the frame to be in focus, but rather I want a specific object in the frame to be in focus and that object might end up in the top left of the frame. In the next picture I may want that object to be in the top right of the frame, but I don't want to have to fumble around with switching AF points between every shot. It just seems so much easier to simply point center AF point at an object then it is to fiddle with selecting a specific point. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1431" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T04:11:23.190" Title="Why would I want to select an autofocus point?" Tags="&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;canon-7d&gt;&lt;canon-400d&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12151" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12150" CreationDate="2011-05-18T04:25:54.880" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're trying to compose your photo so that the subject isn't directly in the center (using &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/521/269&quot;&gt;rule of thirds&lt;/a&gt; or similar composition), the selectable focus point is a big help.  You can pick a point to the left or right of center (or any of the other points) and compose around that point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An alternate technique is &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/11824/269&quot;&gt;focus and recompose&lt;/a&gt;, where you focus on-center, and then recompose your photo while holding focus as-is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although either of these techniques work equally well in many cases, you might find reasons to use one vs. the other in certain situations.  Setting a specific focus point does limit you to that point, which can seem constraining, but when you know you're going to compose in a certain way, it lets you lock focus on that point and shoot very quickly, whereas focus-and-recompose will always require that extra split second on your part to move the camera after focus is locked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're looking at selectable focus points in the XTI vs. the 7D, be sure to check out the improvements found in the 7D's autofocus system.  You might find that features like AF Point Expansion make the selectable points a little easier to live with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastEditorUserId="269" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-18T04:45:15.660" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T04:45:15.660" />
  <row Id="12152" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12150" CreationDate="2011-05-18T04:25:58.270" Score="19" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With some lenses (mostly fast wide-angles) there's a possible problem from focusing and then re-composing: as you re-compose, what you originally focused on will no longer be on the plane of focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With longer lenses, this is rarely much of a problem, if you're shooting with something like a 30/1.4 on full frame, your subject could be quite a ways out of focus by the time you compose the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/bwhcL.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This makes the biggest difference when there's a fairly large angle between where you focused and where you shoot. The slower the lens, the more depth of field you have to cover the discrepancy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="603" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-18T04:47:56.873" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T04:47:56.873" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12153" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12150" CreationDate="2011-05-18T04:35:38.610" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For regular shooting the center point method works. But for action photography they somehow find the use a little more. Not really sure how but this is what i heard from a bird photographer. I think it would be nice to use the multi-point system in auto mode rather than a single point selected for best results. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4786" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T04:35:38.610" />
  <row Id="12154" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12150" CreationDate="2011-05-18T04:36:01.177" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One situation where you want a different focusing point is when  you have action shots you wanna take.&#xA;Imagine a bike race for example and you want the rider in the left part of the picture, then you won't really have time for focus and recompose.&#xA;Another application is shooting a flying bird.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course you could use your AF Servo function to trace a moving object, but sometimes this is not always possible, for example if your background plays a crucial role in your composition too. &#xA;Maybe think here of a passing car in front of a monument where the monument really should be centered and the car should be in focus  when it enters the frame. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4675" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T04:36:01.177" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12155" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12096" CreationDate="2011-05-18T04:39:37.670" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There might be some damages internally incase of any plastic parts. Not sure about the internal construction. But yeah, definitely not a very good thing to try. But as for the glass the coating maybe damaged but I'm sure nothing would have happened to the glass. They definitely are made to last. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4786" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T04:39:37.670" />
  <row Id="12156" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12150" CreationDate="2011-05-18T04:58:20.660" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps it would be helpful to select a non-center point if your camera is on a tripod and you have it set up so the framing is just right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4690" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T04:58:20.660" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="12157" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12220" CreationDate="2011-05-18T06:55:21.963" Score="3" ViewCount="263" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm sort of a &quot;weekend&quot; photographer who likes to take photos of landscapes/cityscapes and nature/wildlife. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the moment I'm using Tamron AF 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro that has served me well so far in landscape photography, but it is not sufficient for wildlife photography.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It does not get me as close as I would like.&lt;/strong&gt; There is too much of the surroundings in the frame. With this lens I have to get close to photographed animal, which I find difficult with wild animals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I'm looking at some &quot;start-up&quot; telephoto lenses for wildlife photography, and my options so far are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/telezoom/50-500mm.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tamron.eu/en/lenses/overview/single/product/sp-af-200-500mm-f5-63-di-ld-if-1.html?tx_keproducts_pi6%5Bcam%5D=&amp;amp;tx_keproducts_pi6%5Bvc%5D=false&amp;amp;tx_keproducts_pi6%5Bsp%5D=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamron SP AF 200-500mm F/5-6,3 Di LD &lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do you think? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5216" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-19T16:11:51.647" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T08:22:27.587" Title="What &quot;start up&quot; telephoto lenses do you recommend for Canon for wildlife photography?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;telephoto&gt;&lt;canon-500d&gt;&lt;wildlife&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12158" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12150" CreationDate="2011-05-18T08:20:38.940" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The additional AF points are &lt;strong&gt;essential&lt;/strong&gt; for Action/Bird photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have enough trouble keeping fast-moving birds within the viewfinder, let alone keeping the center AF point over the bird. As it is, with the 9 AF points on the 5D2, It's quite challenging to even get a shot in focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take, for example, a Diving &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelican&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pelican&lt;/a&gt;. You have something like 2-5 seconds to notice which pelican is diving (there are generally a few about, at least where I live), get it in the viewfinder, focus, and take the shot. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I seriously considered going for a 1Ds3 over a 5D2, simply because it has better/more AF points (this was before the 7D, and I really wanted FF anyways).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obn the other hand, when you get a shot in focus, it's worth it.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/ZeLzU.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;One second later:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/WeAkG.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2611" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T08:20:38.940" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12159" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12157" CreationDate="2011-05-18T09:56:44.830" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have you considered digiscoping?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digiscopediary.co.uk/dslr.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.digiscopediary.co.uk/dslr.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5052" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T09:56:44.830" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12160" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12157" CreationDate="2011-05-18T10:45:20.887" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You do not specify why your current lens is &quot;not sufficient&quot;, but the following are all excellent lenses for wildlife photography, depending on your exact requirements:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF 200mm f2.8L II USM (~£600)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF 300mm f4L IS USM (~£1000)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF 400mm f5.6L USM (~£1000)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The latter two are £100 over budget, but I don't think you would be disappointed if you could stretch to either of these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or for more flexibility at a slightly higher price and loss of speed at the short-end:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM (~£1100)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope that helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3775" LastEditorUserId="3775" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-19T12:50:37.117" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T12:50:37.117" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="12161" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2413" CreationDate="2011-05-18T10:56:53.087" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;if you already have some good lenses with sony mount, why not invest in a new sony camera body? surely recent &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/slrs&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sony DSLRs&lt;/a&gt; can go higher than 400 ISO! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I actually don't know if your lenses are good, but if they don't suck it would be a bad idea to invest in a new camera system. As of now, Sony makes some pretty good DSLRs and you can get their excellent lenses from both Zeiss and Minolta.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You would save a lot of money, I wouldn't throw an AF 50/1.6 and other lenses away just because my current body goes only up to 400 iso. If you save on lenses you can get a high-end sony body, and you can always get other nice lenses later. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;please note I never used Sony gear, and I'm not getting any money from them :-) I just think it's wiser, if you're not a pro, not to change &lt;em&gt;everything&lt;/em&gt; you have because your body is old. Lenses never get old.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;now my opinion on new stuff (nikon, as that's what I use and know, I just won't mention canon to be honest):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;there are beautiful macro lenses,&#xA;they sure don't come cheap but you&#xA;can stay quite under 1000 $. nikon calls these &quot;micro&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;beautiful fast tele primes, they cost&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;a lot&lt;/strong&gt;. those you could use for birdwatching.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;tele zooms up to 200mm or 300m, not&#xA;very fast, but very cheap and sharp.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;mid/high-end tele zooms, around 2000$&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know about other brands, but with nikon you really get different lenses depending on the camera, if it's DX(cropped sensor) or FX(full frame). &lt;br&gt;&#xA;Most nikkor lenses are made for FX or 35mm film, they sometimes cost a lot, but you have a lot of choice (also used) and you can find excellent stuff at a good price/quality ratio. If your camera is DX (aps-c sensor) you also get some cheap, still optically amazing lenses. But you can't get, say, the 50mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4, nikon's best designs; for normal purpose you need the 35mm on DX (a good lens anyway for 200 $), the 50mm you can use for portraits.&#xA;Problem is FX bodies are expensive professional stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you plan on buying a nikon body (which, anyway, I already advised you against) you can get some good macro lens from Tokina. It's, IMHO, the only brand actually as good as nikon at making lenses for nikon cameras, and they have better prices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE: macro and (usable for)birdwatching nikon lenses at a decent price (all prices(rounded) at my local store, except where otherwise noted):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;macro&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tokina AF 100mm f/2.8 Macro - 379€&#xA;(both canon and nikon mount)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D - 400€&#xA;new on ebay (this is a beautiful high quality pro lens)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;60mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Micro NIKKOR -&#xA;550€&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;105mm f/2.8G AF-S VR Micro NIKKOR -&#xA;850€&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;birdwatching (VR is optical stabilizer)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AF-S VR 55-200 f/4-5.6G ED -&#xA;around 200€ new on ebay &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;70-300mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR&#xA;Nikkor - 590€&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tokina 80-400 / 4,5 - 5,6 MM AF-D&#xA;(this is available for both nikon and&#xA;canon) - 630€&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;80-200mm f/2.8 D-ED AF Zoom Nikkor -&#xA;930€&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a real birdwatching lens: 400mm f/2.8G&#xA;ED AF-S VR Nikkor - 9360€&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;super cheap, both birdwatching and macro if you want&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tamron AF70-300mm F/4.0-5.6 Di LD&#xA;Macro 1:2 - 170€ (canon, nikon, pentax and sony mount)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3364" LastEditorUserId="3364" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-18T12:27:35.167" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T12:27:35.167" />
  <row Id="12162" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11571" CreationDate="2011-05-18T11:11:42.050" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just returned from a 2 week trip. Deliberately left my f/2.8 zoom at home and took a bunch of primes instead.&#xA;Bit more cumbersome to use (changing lenses regularly), but the savings in size and weight (the primes combined were slightly smaller and about a third less heavy as compared to the zoom I'd otherwise have taken) were well worth it.&#xA;Plus it forces you to think and compose with your feet, yielding overall higher quality pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As is, after this trip I am seriously considering buying one more prime (to cover the gap in my prime coverage remaining) and storing the zoom semi-permanently (keeping it as a spare) or selling it (depending on the money I can get for it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mind I still have zooms for other purposes, talking only about the 28-70 range here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T11:11:42.050" />
  <row Id="12163" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12012" CreationDate="2011-05-18T11:51:52.233" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Magnum photographer Alex Majoli uses Olympus C-5050 and C-8080 cameras on assignment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2228" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T11:51:52.233" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-18T11:51:52.233" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12164" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12165" CreationDate="2011-05-18T15:28:31.163" Score="5" ViewCount="160" Body="&lt;p&gt;I took a few pictures around work and they were used on our &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.iqmetrix.com/careers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;website&lt;/a&gt; (more &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/tristanmoss/sets/72157626625507635/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;). I've just been asked to do some shots of the executives, and it looks like there may be more requests like this. Any advice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Money came up. What's a fair price? Pay per shoot, or increase salary?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rights agreement — any gotchas I should look out for?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Other stuff I should think about?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4269" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-18T15:36:46.570" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T02:11:25.973" Title="What should one be aware of when taking pictures at work, but not as one's primary role?" Tags="&lt;copyright&gt;&lt;pricing&gt;&lt;photographer&gt;&lt;salary&gt;&lt;contract&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12165" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12164" CreationDate="2011-05-18T16:08:52.637" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This greatly depends on your intentions, if you intend to become a full time photographer then drawing up an agreement would be a very worthwhile endeavour. I'm not a lawyer but in that case you'd probably want to ask to retain the rights to use photos for promotional purposes for use on your website etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't then I'd suggest specifying a nominal fee of say 150CDN (you don't say how many photos we're taken) on the understanding any more sets of photos will incur a further fee. If you take this route you're being rewarded monetarily for your time and investment in equipment but also by being seen as performing an act of good will to the company because you're cheaper than getting in a professional photographer.&#xA;I'd be wary of asking for an increase of salary because that implies that you would become 'official company photographer' and as great as this sounds that might affect your career by taking your time from your main position.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1580" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-22T20:00:59.377" LastActivityDate="2011-05-22T20:00:59.377" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12166" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12150" CreationDate="2011-05-18T16:26:52.573" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're using a method known as 'focus and recompose' which works well in many situations, however if you're not using the 'one shot' focus mode (using 'ai servo' for example) then there's a drawback to this. As you move the camera to recompose the shot the camera will re-focus to try and keep your original point in focus, which is not what you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case multiple focus points are very useful, especially as you can change the focus point without removing your eye from the viewfinder, something you cannot do with the focus mode (atleast on my 550D).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1580" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T16:26:52.573" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12167" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12141" CreationDate="2011-05-18T16:44:33.073" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Good question: &lt;code&gt;Copyright&lt;/code&gt;, &lt;code&gt;Description&lt;/code&gt;, &lt;code&gt;Creator&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;Date/Time&lt;/code&gt; are the only fields that are present in all three metadata formats (Exif, IPTC-IIM &amp;amp; XMP).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Generally, when to use which&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metadataworkinggroup.org/pdf/mwg_guidance.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Metadata Working Group's recommendation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; is to use&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cipa.jp/english/hyoujunka/kikaku/pdf/DC-008-2010_E.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exif&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; for device properties&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;IPTC-IIM&lt;/strong&gt; for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.iptc.org/site/Photo_Metadata/IIM/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;IIM&lt;/a&gt; properties&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adobe.com/devnet/xmp.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;XMP&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; for &lt;a href=&quot;http://iptc.cms.apa.at/cms/site/index.html?channel=CH0099&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;IPTC Core &amp;amp; IPTC Extended&lt;/a&gt; properties, cached Exif properties and all other custom properties.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;General answer on metadata reconciliation&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;I.e. if two or more are present, which wins?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If both (native) Exif and XMP are present, the aforementioned four fields are the only fields that get mapped between Exif and XMP: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt; Exif  ∧ ¬XMP  ⇒ read Exif&#xA;¬Exif  ∧  XMP  ⇒ read XMP&#xA; Exif  ∧  XMP  ⇒ read both, but prefer Exif&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;IPTC-IIM and XMP can have a lot of more data in common. Good things to note are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.iptc.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;IPTC&lt;/a&gt; encourages the use of IPTC Core, which can be written to both IPTC-IIM blocks and XMP blocks; and use the (older) IIM data just in the IPTC-IIM block.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Moreover: it is recommended to write the IPTC Core data to XMP, unless backward compatibility is needed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;IPTC-IIM has length limitations, while XMP hasn't.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;to help solve possible conflicts, a checksum of the IPTC-IIM data should be written.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if both IPTC-IIM and XMP data are present:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;¬IPTC-IIM  ∧  XMP                     ⇒ read XMP&#xA; IPTC-IIM  ∧ ¬XMP                     ⇒ read IPTC-IIM&#xA; IPTC-IIM  ∧  XMP ∧  (Checksum match) ⇒ read both, prefer XMP&#xA; IPTC-IIM  ∧  XMP ∧ ¬(Checksum match) ⇒ read IPTC-IIM&#xA; IPTC-IIM  ∧  XMP ∧  ¬Checksum        ⇒ read both, prefer XMP&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Above suggests that Exif and XMP are the most preferred. In my opinion, Exif is great for technical details of the photo (time, aperture, focal length, white balance, GPS etc.) and XMP is great for the rest (keywording, post-processing, rating, description etc.). While the Exif data could be written to XMP, I wouldn't trash the Exif as it is so much more widely used and supported than XMP.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Concerning &lt;code&gt;Copyright&lt;/code&gt; metadata&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember, only &lt;code&gt;Copyright&lt;/code&gt;, &lt;code&gt;Description&lt;/code&gt;, &lt;code&gt;Creator&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;Date/Time&lt;/code&gt; exist in all three metadata formats and the reconciliation guidance is specific for each property &amp;mdash;  &lt;code&gt;Date/Time&lt;/code&gt; being the least straightforward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exif &lt;code&gt;Copyright&lt;/code&gt; (33432, 0x8298), IPTC &lt;code&gt;CopyrightNotice&lt;/code&gt; (IIM 2:116, 0x0274) and XMP &lt;code&gt;dc:rights&lt;/code&gt; &lt;strong&gt;are&lt;/strong&gt; (should be) &lt;strong&gt;mapped together&lt;/strong&gt;. The mapping happens in the program that reads the data, so it cannot be 100% guaranteed. However, &lt;code&gt;CopyrightURL&lt;/code&gt; should be stored in XMP &lt;code&gt;xmpRights:WebStatement&lt;/code&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the ultimate answer is: &lt;strong&gt;whatever fits best to your workflow&lt;/strong&gt;. How do you plan to use the info? The copyright info is, well, just info and as @&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/users/4889/roland&quot;&gt;Roland&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/12141/what-format-should-i-use-to-store-photo-copyright-metadata-in-my-jpg-files/12145#12145&quot;&gt;said&lt;/a&gt; you might need to mention the copyright explicitly, which metadata generally isn't. If in doubt, write the info to all three. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I usually write the copyright info in to the IPTC Core, which Lightroom most probably (being an Adobe product and Adobe being a member of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metadataworkinggroup.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Metadata Working Group&lt;/a&gt;) ultimately writes into XMP.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1913" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T16:44:33.073" />
  <row Id="12168" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12150" CreationDate="2011-05-18T18:02:44.853" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've toyed with this for the purpose of framing a moving baby.  I can't center-and-recompose all the time because she's in motion, but I want to keep re-focusing on her face.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3595" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T18:02:44.853" />
  <row Id="12169" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11470" CreationDate="2011-05-18T18:21:33.293" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;See this, by Mozilla-hacker-turned-nightclub owner &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jwz&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jamie Zawinski&lt;/a&gt;. It is awesome:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/05/nightclub-photography-youre-doing-it-wrong/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nightclub photography: you're doing it wrong.&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You may be unsurprised to learn that I&#xA;  have opinions about nightlife&#xA;  photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I'm not the world's greatest&#xA;  photographer, but I take a lot of&#xA;  photos in nightclubs, and I spend a&#xA;  lot more time than that sifting&#xA;  through other people's photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This means I see a lot of crappy&#xA;  photos, and I see a lot of different&#xA;  people making the same mistakes over&#xA;  and over again. So here's some advice&#xA;  for those of you shooting inside a&#xA;  nightclub that I believe will&#xA;  dramatically increase the quality of&#xA;  your photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Most of this is aimed at people using&#xA;  SLRs with real lenses, but some of it&#xA;  will apply to smaller cameras too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The indivdual points are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Stop using your flash.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Stop using a zoom lens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Stop standing at the back of the room.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;But, stop standing right at the front of the stage.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Stop standing still.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Look around first.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Stop checking the back of the camera after every shot.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Stop posting every damned photo.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Your first shot was the best shot.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Don't post almost-identical photos.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Don't post the photo you almost got.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Post big photos, not just oversized thumbnails.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Don't post photos where people look like crap.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lose the giant watermark.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And each of those is backed up by a short (or long, in some cases) highly-opinionated and entertaining paragraph. Of course, it's a rant, so it's not exactly what one might call &lt;em&gt;fair and balanced&lt;/em&gt;, but it's still great stuff. Really, you should &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/05/nightclub-photography-youre-doing-it-wrong/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;go read it all&lt;/a&gt;. A lot of this is good advice for many situations beyond nightclubs too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I'm marking this answer &lt;em&gt;community wiki&lt;/em&gt;, since this isn't really an answer, let alone &lt;em&gt;my&lt;/em&gt; answer; just a pointer to someone else's article which serves an answer.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T18:21:33.293" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-18T18:21:33.293" />
  <row Id="12170" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12174" CreationDate="2011-05-18T19:09:10.140" Score="5" ViewCount="62" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard a little bit about the &lt;code&gt;Auto Lighting Optimizer&lt;/code&gt; function of Canon cameras. Digital Photography School has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digital-photography-school.com/what-is-canons-auto-lighting-optimizer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;small review&lt;/a&gt; of it. Is it a useful feature? Should I just stick with RAW and tweak my shadows in Lightroom?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4039" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-18T21:50:36.117" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T21:50:36.117" Title="What does the Auto Lighting Optimizer function do?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;auto-lighting-optimizer&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12171" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12173" CreationDate="2011-05-18T19:11:14.587" Score="8" ViewCount="138" Body="&lt;p&gt;This seems to be available in most of recent Canon cameras. I am curious how it works, and how it is different from the Auto Lighting Optimizer. Is it a useful function?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4039" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-18T21:51:40.157" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T01:05:45.690" Title="What is &quot;Highlight Tone Priority&quot;?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;highlight-tone-priority&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="12172" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12171" CreationDate="2011-05-18T19:52:08.233" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is the same as Nikon's Active D-Lighting.  It helps reduce overexposure that results in blown highlights when shooting JPG in bright scenes.  It's very useful if you shoot JPG.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4191" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T19:52:08.233" />
  <row Id="12173" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12171" CreationDate="2011-05-18T20:03:19.273" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Highlight tone priority is a camera mode that internally fiddles with exposure to preserve as much detail as possible in the &quot;highlight range&quot; of tones...the brightest tones in a photograph. It does this, however, at the cost of tones in the shadow range, as the ultimate effect is a shift of the histogram down towards the shadows. The cost of shadow tones is a bit less than the gain in highlight tones, however it is something to be aware of. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should also be noted that HTP affects both RAW and JPEG images. This is in contrast to Automatic Lighting Optimizer, which applies an alternative tone curve when processing the sensor output for saving to JPEG. ALO only affects JPEG images, and has the tendency to compress dynamic range...thus costing you in your overall tonal range. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T20:03:19.273" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12174" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12170" CreationDate="2011-05-18T20:07:53.530" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Auto Lighting Optimizer is a feature that attempts to improve the contrast of a photograph by adjusting the overall tonal range. It does this by applying a more attenuated tone curve when saving images to JPEG. As such, it only affects JPEG images, and has no effect on RAW images. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is in contrast to Highlight Tone Priority, which affects the original output from the sensor, and does affect both RAW and JPEG images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally do not use either of these camera modes. ALO only affects JPEG, and I only shoot in RAW. HTP is changing things behind the scenes, and I prefer to have control over my photographs. That is most certainly not to say that the features are useless...they have their place. They are most useful when you have little time to think about your shots, and just have to take the shots you have. This is often the case when photographing sports or weddings. Enabling ALO or HTP can help ensure that your photographs don't accidentally get blown out or end up too washed out, without having to put a lot of effort into ensuring as much yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T20:07:53.530" />
  <row Id="12175" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12178" CreationDate="2011-05-18T20:21:02.077" Score="2" ViewCount="60" Body="&lt;p&gt;I own a Canon Rebel T1i, and when I try to record video, there are two dark spots on the screen. These do not appear when I take photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Video (spots in center and right center):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/VXH8E.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Video&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photo:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/qWfGB.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Photo&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does the video mode use a different sensor than the photo modes?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How do I fix this?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1803" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-18T21:49:28.190" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T21:49:28.190" Title="Why might my camera show spots in video mode?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;artifacts&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12176" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12171" CreationDate="2011-05-18T20:21:51.193" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is one of the few image-enhancement settings that is extremely useful. It is in the custom menu because once you set it, you leave it and do not fiddle with it between shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When enabled, your camera will preserve more details in the highlights at the expense of some details in the shadows. If your style is to expose for the highlights, then it will greatly help. If you do not know what your style is, just turn it on, you'll thank me later ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NOTE: There is another semi-related setting called something like 'Lighting Optimizer', make sure that one is OFF since what it mostly does is make your photos look dull with less contrast and adds noise to shadow areas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-19T00:56:47.160" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T00:56:47.160" />
  <row Id="12178" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12175" CreationDate="2011-05-18T20:44:22.810" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That looks like dust on the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dust is more visible at small apertures and becomes mostly invisible at wide apertures. So it is just that your photo was taken at a wider aperture compared to the video. You can easily confirm this by taking a shot in Aperture priority mode (A) and setting a small aperture (say F/22). The dust should appear again and you should go have your sensor cleaned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T20:44:22.810" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="12179" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12164" CreationDate="2011-05-18T23:03:31.287" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In terms of rights, you may be limited by privacy requirements on those staff/executive portraits. Make sure to have a model release form signed by the subjects you want to use for promotional purposes. Remember that they may not want to have their photo displayed elsewhere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The model release form should allow the subject to choose where their photo is used. Perhaps if you have a check box to opt out of personal promotional use (apart from being on the company website).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd say you would absolutely benefit from taking a professional approach to the photography (contracts, licensing, pay) from the start. Your software developer role likely &lt;strong&gt;doesn't&lt;/strong&gt; include photography so that's probably why they're offering to pay, since they would otherwise pay another photographer to do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nice work on the site's photography too!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-05-18T23:03:31.287" />
  <row Id="12180" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12171" CreationDate="2011-05-19T01:05:45.690" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Excerpt from an official Canon Quick Guide:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Highlight Tone Priority (HTP)&#xA;  All cameras have a fixed dynamic range, from shadow &#xA;  to highlight, that they can capture. HTP shifts some of &#xA;  the available dynamic range from the mid-tones to the &#xA;  highlights to produce smoother tones, with more detail &#xA;  in bright areas. This helps prevent JPEG images with &#xA;  overexposed highlights that can’t be recovered. HTP is &#xA;  also useful to RAW shooters who process their images &#xA;  with Canon’s DPP software. Most third-party RAW &#xA;  processing software will not recognize Highlight Tone &#xA;  Priority.&#xA;  When the camera is set to HTP, the lowest available &#xA;  ISO will be 200. The HTP setting will be indicated by a D+ &#xA;  symbol in the LCD display. Avoid using HTP in low light or &#xA;  when shooting subjects with heavy shadows because it &#xA;  may cause more noise to appear in those areas. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;furthermore it says about automatic lighting optimization:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Auto Lighting Optimizer (ALO)&#xA;  ALO performs in-camera processing to help preserve &#xA;  shadow detail in high-contrast scenes. It also adds a &#xA;  modest boost in contrast to low-contrast scenes. The &#xA;  amount of adjustment can be set to Off (0), Low (1), &#xA;  Standard (2) or Strong (3). ALO can be useful for JPEG &#xA;  shooters working on a deadline and who don’t have time &#xA;  to manually adjust the contrast of each photo.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Recent EOS models apply ALO at the Standard level &#xA;  by default, even when set to Manual exposure mode. &#xA;  Users who desire full control over shadow and highlight &#xA;  values may therefore wish to turn ALO off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Link to the Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/app/pdfs/quickguides/CDLC_EOS_Cfn_QuickGuide.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon QuickGuide to &#xA;EOS Custom Functions (PDF File)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4675" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T01:05:45.690" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12181" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-19T02:18:02.753" Score="3" ViewCount="83" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a Nikon D90 user and fairly new to photography. I am considering purchasing a wired remote shutter release as intervalometer for taking time-lapses. However since I'm also a fan of HDR, it will be a matter of time before I want to experiment with HDR time-lapse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, will any intervalometer work the same? Or do I need an HDR-specialized intervalometer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An example intervalometer I had my eyes on that is relatively cheap and has the full features:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cgi.ebay.com/130338921382&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://cgi.ebay.com/130338921382&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have also seen expensive ones mentioning they take HDR time lapse:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.promotesystems.com/products/Promote-Control.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.promotesystems.com/products/Promote-Control.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was inspired by &lt;a href=&quot;http://philipbloom.net/2011/05/07/24hoursofneon/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Philip Bloom's HDR Time-lapse tutorial&lt;/a&gt; and it seems like his intervalometer(s) do more than standard interval with auto-bracketing on camera. Instead of &quot;[ev0] [wait] [ev-1] [wait] [ev+1]...&quot;, it seems like his intervalometer(s) are doing &quot;[ev0] [ev-1] [ev+1] [wait]...&quot;. Is that right??&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT2:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After reading &lt;a href=&quot;http://johnrappold.org/photoblog/?p=409&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Rappold's article&lt;/a&gt;, I think the reason most shutter releases ask you to set to &lt;strong&gt;bulb mode&lt;/strong&gt; is so it can accurately time the shutter open time. Does this mean if I set &quot;hold time&quot; to 2 seconds, use &lt;strong&gt;continuous mode&lt;/strong&gt; and takes 3 brackets of 0.25sec, 0.50sec, 1sec, it will produce the desired result I seek for??&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4320" LastEditorUserId="4320" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-19T05:44:13.480" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T05:44:13.480" Title="Are Intervalometers different for standard Time-Lapse and HDR Time-Lapse" Tags="&lt;hdr&gt;&lt;timelapse&gt;&lt;intervalometer&gt;&lt;shutter-release&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12182" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12181" CreationDate="2011-05-19T03:02:17.820" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Based on the Promote Control page, it sounds like its HDR capabilities are limited by the camera. Some cameras may support a continuous stream of bracketed shots, while others may require a pause between each. I figure that is because some cameras support burst-mode bracketing, while others require separate shutter releases for each shot of a bracket.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on Philip Bloom's 'HDR' timelapse video, I'm not really sure I see anything there that probably couldn't be achieved with single RAW frames from a camera with decent enough dynamic range. Most HDR images are not actually physically high-dynamic-range...they are low dynamic range images &lt;em&gt;tone mapped from&lt;/em&gt; high dynamic range images. According to DxO Mark, the Nikon D90 has about 12.5 stops of dynamic range, which gives you quite a bit of headroom to eek out a quality &quot;HDR&quot; video comparable to Philip Bloom's with single shots. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T03:02:17.820" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="12183" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12150" CreationDate="2011-05-19T04:11:23.190" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depending on the camera and the mode, pressing the shutter release half down may also lock in the exposure settings as well as the focus.  In that case, you may not want the focus point in the centre when setting the exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5225" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T04:11:23.190" />
  <row Id="12184" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12194" CreationDate="2011-05-19T06:47:52.177" Score="6" ViewCount="128" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm an avid traveller and photographer, and I've got some cool travel pics. I'm not looking for money, just the recognition and satisfaction in knowing that my photos are good and useful enough to be published by a reputable publication house. I took a look at the usual suspects like Nat Geo and Travel+Leisure, but of course competition is really tight. Seems like everyone is a photographer today. I did post one photo to Nat Geo's MyShot section, so fingers crossed, but small chance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any advice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4989" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-19T07:50:52.710" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T10:00:39.337" Title="How would I get my travel photos published?" Tags="&lt;travel&gt;&lt;publishing&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12185" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12190" CreationDate="2011-05-19T07:17:22.927" Score="11" ViewCount="307" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had my Nikon D7000 on single-point auto focus and it just would not focus on the spots I wanted. I have marked the spots that could not be focused on with red circles, and the parts that could be focused on with green circles. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/k2hkS.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Could not focus on red circles&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was using a Nikon 35 mm f/1.8, although I don't think this was a lens' problem since it has happened before with other lenses too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4989" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-19T07:53:51.960" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T08:13:27.200" Title="Why can't my SLR autofocus on certain parts of a scene?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;focus&gt;&lt;troubleshooting&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12186" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-19T07:31:51.970" Score="0" ViewCount="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;We have a house finch nesting on the side of our cottage, and I have a webcam trained on her. Using the excellent EvoLV package, I am able to expose the camera through a web interface, and I have a port mapping set up so friends and family (mine, not the bird's) can watch the nest remotely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is, that's a lot of outbound traffic. Often there are simultaneous connections. Also, sometimes my IP changes, and I'd love to have it set up on an external website.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I figure that if I had an external site, it could proxy my webcam feed and share it out, meaning I would need only one outbound video stream from my house even if there were many viewers watching on the site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any idea how I can set this up? I don't think a normal Apache proxy pass will do the trick, because of the streaming video and the need for a single connection from my house to the server.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know there are services like Justin.tv that let you broadcast your webcam, but their setup doesn't allow me to control the rotation and zoom of the camera, and I don't like having ads on it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5227" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T07:31:51.970" ClosedDate="2011-05-19T07:57:09.960" Title="Best way to host a webcam publicly?" Tags="&lt;video&gt;" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12187" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12184" CreationDate="2011-05-19T07:47:47.207" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Find a series of likely publications that you think your work would be appropriate for and make direct contact with them. Include a link to some examples of your &lt;em&gt;very best&lt;/em&gt; work. Apply to various photography magazines for their &quot;featured&quot; sections (most mags feature photographer's work each month) as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keep trying to make contacts, make sure you get to a variety of exciting locations and keep promoting yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Putting photos on the internet doesn't mean the work will come to you, you need to get out there pushing yourself and getting in people's faces and really do the leg work. It will be tough going and the whole process might take 5 or 6 years before you start getting a decent hold.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Avoid mentioning you're happy to work for free. A lot of magazines / publications will pay their photographers as a matter of course and working for free just undermines and de-values those out there doing it for a living (you hope to be one of these one day I would imagine so keep that in mind).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I offer images free of charge to good causes and non profit organisations and I say as much on my website. If the photo is required for a commercial venture, they will be making money from it - it is a business, they wouldn't expect their printers to produce copies of their magazine for free would they?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T07:47:47.207" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12188" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12184" CreationDate="2011-05-19T07:55:17.963" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you noticed, the competition is massive. And that competition exists mainly of 2 groups:&#xA;1) professionals with established contacts and a large portfolio of quality work to show to potential buyers. They're going to take most of the publication slots.&#xA;2) wannabees who think they can sell their vacation snapshots for massive money. They're just making things harder for serious people to enter the marketplace as people looking for new content their regulars can't provide will likely give up after the first 10 pages of garbage on websites where people can show off their work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sounds like you may be in category 3), people who are serious and trying to get noticed.&#xA;The only times I've been published (4 shots over the last decade only) it was people contacting me for publication rights after seeing a photo they liked on a website dedicated to the genre (this wasn't travel photography).&#xA;Some might have luck through microstock agencies, or by contacting small publications directly (don't try for NatGeo without a published portfolio, they'll probably laugh you out of their offices).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T07:55:17.963" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12189" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2413" CreationDate="2011-05-19T07:59:23.670" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For macro, I mainly use a Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX Macro, and sometimes it's 105mm cousin.&#xA;For birding, maybe an 80-400VR Nikkor would do the trick (it's pretty equivalent to the 100-400L Canon). Else you are looking at more expensive options like the 200-400VR Nikkor.&#xA;Myself, I use a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX with 2x EX teleconverter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;instead of the 50mm I have a 35mm f/2.0 Nikkor which I like better than a 50mm. You could of course get a 60mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor and have both the walkaround and macro lens in one smallish package, saving weight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T07:59:23.670" />
  <row Id="12190" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12185" CreationDate="2011-05-19T08:04:32.060" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's two types of autofocus systems in modern cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One is the contrast-detection AF, which is used in most point and shoot cameras and in live-view in many dSLRS. This works by moving the lens back and forth until the setting which gives most contrast between adjacent pixels is found. Obviously, this requires actual contrast in the subject — you &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9095/why-doesnt-auto-focus-work-with-an-all-white-subject-like-a-wall&quot;&gt;can't focus on an all-white wall&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other type is phase-detect AF, which uses a beam-splitter to tell whether patterns of light and dark are back- or front-focused, and moves then lens accordingly. (This is what you're probably using with your Nikon dSLR.) Phase-detect AF also requires the focus area to have a pattern with high contrast in order to work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's more about this here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6907/how-does-auto-focus-work&quot;&gt;How does auto-focus work?&lt;/a&gt;, if you're curious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In your example, the red points which don't work for focus are on a relatively plain grey area. There's simply not enough contrast for the AF system to do its thing. The green points, where you are able to focus, have clear, high-contrast detail — perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-19T08:13:27.200" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T08:13:27.200" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12191" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12185" CreationDate="2011-05-19T08:05:17.257" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem is probably due to a lack of contrast in the areas you have indicated. They are just flat grey with no shading, which makes it difficult for the camera's AF system to determine when it has focused image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The green-circled areas, however, have strong shadows and highlights and so the camera can easily focus on them (though if the contrast is too strong it can also cause problems).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you check out the autofocus section of your camera's manual, you will probably see a section listing conditions where AF may not work correctly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T08:05:17.257" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12192" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12185" CreationDate="2011-05-19T08:05:24.523" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The phase detection autofocus on your D7000 works by calculating the offset between an observed brightness pattern seen by a pair of miniature sensors, consisting of single rows of pixels, that make up each AF point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to be able to find a reliable match and thus measure the offset there needs to be a strong variation in the brightness observed over the length of these strips, i.e. there must be a line feature or some other local detail that crosses the strip.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The areas you are focusing on simply don't have enough detail for the camera to find an unambiguous match. There are a couple of other cases when you can have detail and still not be able to focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although displayed as a little box in the viewfinder these AF strip pairs have either horizontal or vertical orientation (or both in the case of a &quot;cross type&quot; AF point usually found in the centre only). Thus if the AF point is parallel to the edge there wont be any variation along the length of the strip.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally the boxes displayed are not always very well aligned with the actual AF sensors, so if you have a small detail surrounded by a plain surface it's possible to miss it and AF to fail even though the box in the viewfinder looks like it's right on it! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-19T08:13:25.967" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T08:13:25.967" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12193" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12300" CreationDate="2011-05-19T08:28:07.540" Score="2" ViewCount="108" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon 500D with the kit lens. Recently I have observed that its not able to focus at higher zooms but it works at min zoom. To get it to focus, I have to zoom out or recompose and it works. &#xA;Why would this happen?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1209" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-19T08:36:30.410" LastActivityDate="2011-05-22T22:00:00.680" Title="Why is my Canon 500D with kit lens having trouble focusing at higher focal lengths?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;kit-lens&gt;&lt;troubleshooting&gt;&lt;canon-500d&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12194" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12184" CreationDate="2011-05-19T09:49:28.330" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I realize this probably isn't &lt;em&gt;Exactly&lt;/em&gt; what you're looking for (because it is a bit of cold water in the face, potentially), but hopefully you'll find it helpful anyway... There are three main reasons that photographers get their work published:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;They differentiate.&lt;/strong&gt; What makes your photographs different than every other photographer's photographs? If you don't know what the answer to this question is, &lt;em&gt;you will simply not get published.&lt;/em&gt; The cold, hard fact is that in all likelihood every photo editor you will ever come in contact with has seen exactly what you are offering a thousand times... unless you figure out &lt;em&gt;right now&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;before&lt;/strong&gt; you start taking more pictures how your photographs are going to be different than every other photographer out there and then take all your pictures that way and work that angle to the bone. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thing that makes your work different &lt;em&gt;cannot&lt;/em&gt; be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The location or subject matter of your photographs is so unique and different (unless you're taking pictures on Mars, you don't have the market cornered on unique locations or subject matter)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The technical proficiency of your work (Everybody's work will be as technically proficient as yours... Your work must be technically &lt;em&gt;perfect&lt;/em&gt; just to be in the game at all)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The cool post-production effects you use (Leave the heavy Photoshopping at home, only amateurs do more than basic color correction, cropping, levels, dodging and burning)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How pretty your pictures are (Anybody can take a pretty picture. If your picture isn't saying something more profound than 'I'm pretty!' you're going to have trouble getting published)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;What does that leave for you to differentiate yourself with? Figure that out and you'll find publishing success.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;They network.&lt;/strong&gt; Sorry to say, but the old cliche is true- it isn't &lt;em&gt;what&lt;/em&gt; you know, it's &lt;em&gt;who&lt;/em&gt; you know. Photo editors are human too. If they have the choice between someone they know and an unknown, most will choose the known quantity every time. The vast majority of editors are not out there 'lookin' to give a new guy his big break.' So how do you break through? Become known. There are a couple of ways to get known, but the absolute best way is to follow the advice in point #1 so the work stands out in the crowd of photographs that the photo editor will be looking through. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Submit often, submit only your best stuff (never, never, &lt;em&gt;never&lt;/em&gt; submit even a single photo to &lt;em&gt;anyone&lt;/em&gt; that isn't of the highest quality. Never. Did I mention never?) and follow up with robot-like consistency. Ask for assignments. Even if they never result in publication, assignments can demonstrate that you're reliable and a 'go-getter.' Ask what a publisher has coming up in future issues and then take pictures that fit the requirements. Become someone who the photo editor (or at least the photo editor's receptionist) knows by name. If you've got a history of submitting exceptional work consistently (even if there wasn't room to publish it at the time you submitted it) editors will start to remember your name. And then one day you'll suddenly find yourself on the inside, instead of the outside.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;They work their @ss off.&lt;/strong&gt; It's very simple... Part-timers don't get published. Now you can point me to dozens of part-timers who have been published once, twice, maybe even a few times over the course of a lifetime, sure... But you will never find a part-timer who publishes on a regular basis. &lt;em&gt;&quot;Now wait a second,&quot;&lt;/em&gt; you may say... &lt;em&gt;&quot;I can't afford to quit my job and be a full-time photographer! So there's no hope for me?&quot;&lt;/em&gt; Ah... Here's the secret (minor secret though it may be)... Work your full-time job, and also work as a full-time photographer. Do that until photography becomes the full-time job. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I say all of the above knowing full-well that you stated you weren't interested in getting paid, but another cold, hard truth is that part-timers may (or just as often they may &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt;) get a few lucky shots published over the course of their life, but full-timers are working every day to generate enough output that they're no longer relying on luck to take the sorts of photographs that belong in publications... and there really isn't a whole lot of middle ground, unfortunately. If publication is your goal, then it cannot be reliably achieved as a part-timer.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the thing... The above may sound harsh, or like a whole lot of work, and potentially it is both. But I've been a working professional photographer for 15+ years now and I'm speaking from experience when I say that you don't need a self-help book's worth of advice to get where you want to be. If you work these three angles like they're your last hope on earth you &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; become successful eventually (and probably sooner rather than later), and if you don't... You probably won't be. I've seen plenty of people go both ways over the years to know that the odds will favor you, or be against you purely based on how hard you work. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-19T10:00:39.337" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T10:00:39.337" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12195" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12272" CreationDate="2011-05-19T11:13:46.117" Score="9" ViewCount="185" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm from Ukraine, and I know where I can shoot here and when. I had few trips to USA where I know it's very difficult to shoot on the street, without encroaching on someone else's private life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I plan a travel to some of the European countries soon, but I don't know what I can shoot, and what can I not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is there any proper information (e.g. government website or article) about photography rules in European countries?&lt;/strong&gt; Is there any difference between photography rules in, for example, Germany and the Czech Republic?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2272" LastEditorUserId="3356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-19T12:34:36.320" LastActivityDate="2011-05-21T11:43:04.040" Title="What legal restrictions to photography are there in European countries?" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;street-photography&gt;&lt;people&gt;&lt;moral-rights&gt;&lt;law&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="12196" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-19T11:18:00.503" Score="1" ViewCount="161" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am trying to find out whether my Nikon 18-55 mm (f/3.5-5.6G VR) kit lens has something wrong with it since I'm getting a whole lot of &quot;fogginess&quot; in the pictures I take as compared to my other lens. Here I have taken two pictures at the same focal depth (35 mm), same aperture (f/5), same shutter speed (1/100) and slightly different ISOs (900 and 1000) (VR off, AF on), AF is on the bottom of the Kestine box. The problem isn't as clear here as it is in some of my other photographs but I still consider it a problem. Can anyone give me a clue as to what, if anything, is wrong with this lens or give me further advice for troubleshooting this kind of problem?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://imgur.com/a/ifWlV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://imgur.com/a/ifWlV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ps. The other lens is a Nikkor 35 mm f/1.8 lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5234" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T08:23:26.103" Title="Is there something wrong with this 18-55 lens?" Tags="&lt;kit-lens&gt;&lt;troubleshooting&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12197" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-19T11:35:41.207" Score="0" ViewCount="98" Body="&lt;p&gt;The focus points leds (red colored ones), looks shadowed (smudged) in my Canon 550D. Not all points, but the bottom 3 points, when the light glows, looks kind of shadowed. I tried cleaning the both the lens and the mirror, but no effect. I don't see any dust in the final output of the images. What could be the reason?? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5235" LastEditorUserId="5235" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-20T08:13:38.493" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T11:28:47.117" Title="Why do the focus points leds appear shadowed?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;troubleshooting&gt;&lt;focusing-screen&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12198" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12195" CreationDate="2011-05-19T11:39:39.360" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;All laws will vary by jurisdiction, and you'd be best advised to speak to a qualified lawyer if you intend to sell or publish your pictures; but in general, if you're in a public place, then you can take a photo of whatever you like (as long as you're not breaking other laws, such as those dealing with public nudity). Be aware that some seemingly public places aren't, and they can place restrictions as they wish - for example, shopping centres are private property, and although they allow you to treat them as a public place, they often impose restrictions on photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Government guidance is often hard to come by, but various lawyers have published their interpretation of the laws for a particular territory; Personally, I carry several copies of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;UK Photographers Rights information sheet&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T11:39:39.360" />
  <row Id="12199" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12196" CreationDate="2011-05-19T12:29:55.417" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The lower of the two images is not as sharp. I would have to see more to know for sure what the cause is, but I think this is just inherent in the lens design.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although the settings used were the same, there are a lot of differences in the lens design.  The key difference here is that at f/5.0 the 35mm is &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9610/what-is-the-meaning-of-stopped-down&quot;&gt;stopped down&lt;/a&gt; a full 3 stops from it's maximum aperture, whereas the 18-55 is &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6177/will-using-a-lens-at-max-aperture-wide-open-result-in-poor-images&quot;&gt;almost wide open&lt;/a&gt;.  This makes a big difference in the sharpness, because in general, a lens will be sharper when stopped down a bit.  You might want to try finding the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2917/how-do-you-find-out-the-sweet-spot-of-a-lens&quot;&gt;sweet spot&lt;/a&gt;&quot; of your 18-55 (I would guess around f/8) and see if you notice a difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="67" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T12:29:55.417" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="12200" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12306" CreationDate="2011-05-19T12:59:05.330" Score="12" ViewCount="310" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/12197/why-do-the-focus-points-leds-appear-shadowed&quot;&gt;Why do the focus points leds appear shadowed?&lt;/a&gt; raises another question for me. How are these indicator lights implemented in typical dSLRs? Are they actually small LEDs etched into the focusing screen, and if so, how do they get their power? Or are they projected/reflected from somewhere?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The new Fujifilm X100 has a &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmX100/page6.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;hybrid viewfinder&lt;/a&gt;&quot; which can show arbitrary heads-up information, including completely switching to electronic viewfinder mode. Is this a much-further-along extension of the same approach taken in dSLRs, or is it different?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In their &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3s/page4.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;review of the Nikon D3S&lt;/a&gt;, DPReview says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The AF points are not etched onto the focusing screen, but are displayed on the LCD layer sandwiched inside it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this correct for this model, and do other models and brands follow the same approach? Are there advantages and disadvantages to different designs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-23T18:45:46.577" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T08:41:51.673" Title="How are the red focus point indicators displayed on a dSLR's focusing screen?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;viewfinder&gt;&lt;camera-design&gt;&lt;focus-point-selection&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="12201" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11560" CreationDate="2011-05-19T12:59:56.133" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Nikon 85mm f/3.5 MICRO lens that is currently retailing for $499 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-85mm-3-5G-Digital-Cameras/dp/B002SQKVE4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1305809301&amp;amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;on Amazon&lt;/a&gt;. The 85mm part makes it great for long-range pictures, and the micro part means it's great for, well, microscopic photography. It won't do too well within a small room. It is surprisingly GREAT for portrait photography. Pictures are really clear, and the bokeh is great. Some examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/flKta.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Panda&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/hlANb.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Red Panda&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Fqq8Q.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Tibetan woman and baby&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Vk2MB.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of these were taken from a great distance. I don't exactly remember how far, but suffice to say my 17-55mm would have been completely useless. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope that helps! More examples at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kevinpw.net&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;my gallery&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4989" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T12:59:56.133" />
  <row Id="12202" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11212" CreationDate="2011-05-19T13:09:03.633" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just upgraded to a D7000 from a D5000, and I can't say enough good things about it. The 100% viewfinder alone is worth the price. The high ISO is awesome, as well as 39 AF points. I think example photos would be best for you. Here's a gallery full of them from my &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kevinpw.net/Travel/China-2011/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;enter link description here&lt;/a&gt;. A few pics here if you're too lazy to browse the gallery:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/kNpeG.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;man on bike&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Low light example during a stage show. The lights were mostly off and the guy was running down the aisle. Still got a decent shot I think. Would not have been possible with my D5000.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/j5FRD.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another low-light example. The room was completely dark except for one rather dim and eerie flood light on this guy on stage.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/zB1kp.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4989" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T13:09:03.633" />
  <row Id="12203" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-05-19T13:20:14.227" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-19T13:20:14.227" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T13:20:14.227" />
  <row Id="12204" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-05-19T13:20:14.227" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Linux is a family of free and Open Source operation systems." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="187" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-19T14:44:53.337" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T14:44:53.337" />
  <row Id="12205" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10596" CreationDate="2011-05-19T13:37:11.920" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While you can find several &quot;automator&quot;-style programs for Linux (there's also one specific for working with images, though I can't remember the name off the top of my head).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if you really want something advanced (and possibly cross-platform), I believe your best option is to develop something yourself. Personally, I quite like Python for such tasks (good with data management, cross-platform &amp;amp;c) - but you may have other preferences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="187" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T13:37:11.920" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12206" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12141" CreationDate="2011-05-19T13:42:50.743" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I generally set the &lt;code&gt;comment&lt;/code&gt;-field to something like &lt;code&gt;Copyright 20XX / Creative Commons CC-BY / Morten Siebuhr / my@email.tld&lt;/code&gt; on JPEGs I hand out. I (mis)use the comment-field, as it is the one even fairly ignorant users will have a chance of being exposed to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="187" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T13:42:50.743" />
  <row Id="12207" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12200" CreationDate="2011-05-19T14:07:13.557" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To get the definitive answer you can try to find and study the &lt;em&gt;service&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;repair manuals&lt;/em&gt; for some cameras. For the stupid secrecy of the camera makers they are usually removed from the public access, but can be found elsewhere. This is a page from the Pentax K10D service manual; I don't know if you can figure from it how the LEDs themselves are positioned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/8lstX.png&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/8lstX.png&quot; alt=&quot;Pentax K10D Service Manual: adjust positioning SI-LED (p.26)&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T14:07:13.557" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="12208" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11212" CreationDate="2011-05-19T14:20:28.337" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I had the money I would go for the D7000 which is a superior camera in every aspect, when compared to the other two you mentioned; otherwise the D90 is good camera, I know because I used one many times. At its price it's as close as you can get to professional (I'm talking about changing every setting quick, customizing buttons..., handling, build quality)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't get fooled by the higher resolution of the 5100, which btw I don't like because of the way buttons are arranged on the body. It's more of a filmmaker camera than a photographer's, maybe I would get a p&amp;amp;s instead if I was given the choice. &lt;br&gt;&#xA;The low-end D3100 which I own has better controls, it costs less, and it has the same full HD video features. The D90 has just 720px HD, but if you're a photographer you don't care, and the quality of videos (rendition of light, color and detail) is perfect anyway. If you get a camera w/o the AF motor, you're gonna regret it when it comes to lens shopping.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;End of the story: if the D7000 is too much money for you but you really like it, get the D90. It's so much better than the D5100, words are not enough to say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3364" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T14:20:28.337" />
  <row Id="12209" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-19T15:27:54.180" Score="-1" ViewCount="146" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had asked a question previously &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/11339/2438&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; which though not duplicate but is related to this. Asking this one as I feel it is different.&#xA;My question is basically related to colour balancing/colour correction in raw image,post processing tools. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I give as input to Adobe-PS, a raw captured, DNG file for post processing. This DNG file has a) A Raw bayer 16-bit per sample data. b) A preview RGB image of smaller size. c) Lot of metadata.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Then I just save this image opened in Adobe-PS as a BMP file. i.e. no processing/filtering is done in Adobe-PS.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Then I modify the Colour matrices metadata information present in the DNG files and repeat steps above. The outputs are differemt.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Questions: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Exactly Which metadata information from the DNG file or from its own database, does Adobe-PS use to perform colour balancing/colour correction. The DNG file has below tags which I thought are related to Colour balancing- a) AS shot whtie XY b) 2-Color matrices1 c) Calibration Illuminant 1/2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I know for sure that Adobe definitely uses Color matrix information as I explained above. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But my question is along with these matrices, Adobe sure seems to use something else/or uses these matrices after some scaling or in a different way, because when I use these matrices in my own image processing tool, they produce a different  output/colours. So in what all ways and how does adobe differ in colour balancing/correction is done. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S. I did not see any XMP metadata files which could have some colour profile info in Adobe installation folders or in some other Adobe folders on my PC. But I did notice a lot of files in a folder called Presets(image shown below) in Adobe installation. What are these files and what info they contain?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/QngqR.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2438" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T15:27:54.180" Title="How is colour balancing performed in post processing of raw images." Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;image-processing&gt;&lt;adobe&gt;" CommentCount="11" />
  <row Id="12210" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12157" CreationDate="2011-05-19T16:17:25.837" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Invariably, you will buy a longer lens and then realise that it doesn't get you as much closer as you think. The advice above will cover your lens choices suitably though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With wildlife photography the key, in combination with an appropriate telephoto lens, is doing your homework on the animals you're interested in photographing at that specific location. Where do they feed? What areas do they use at specific times of day? Where is the sun in relation to those locations at different times of day? Which way does the wind commonly travel in the areas (your scent will alert animals to your presence if you are up wind of them).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should also look at purchasing yourself a pop-up hide and speaking to the land owner about putting it up somewhere (after doing the homework) which will get you close enough to where you need to be. This needs to be done a few days before the shoot so your target animals become accustomed to its presence. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One day you will need to turn up, set up and be prepared to wait... a lot... you need patience and the ability to just sit still in silence watching the world go by :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T16:17:25.837" />
  <row Id="12211" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12200" CreationDate="2011-05-19T17:43:48.397" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps a closeup of one of these tiny surface-mount LEDs would be interesting:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/9zCFn.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's magnified quite a bit -- the package is actually 1.6 mm long. The LED itself is the small square at the center with the gold wire connected to the top. I can't (of course) guarantee that this is &lt;em&gt;exactly&lt;/em&gt; the same LED package used in the particular camera in question, but it's probably at least pretty close -- and if there is a difference, it's probably just an even smaller package (which makes little difference since, as I already pointed out, this is already magnified quite a bit).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[FWIW: Alpha 700, Minolta 100mm/f2.8 macro @1:1+68mm of extension tubes, 1 second @ f/8]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T17:43:48.397" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12212" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11951" CreationDate="2011-05-19T18:32:43.833" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another suggestion I saw on LifeHacker today was to use magnets. Not a bad idea. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2492" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T18:32:43.833" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12213" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-19T20:27:04.450" Score="0" ViewCount="41" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a 20 minute video that needs to finish rendering at a maximum of 7 hours. The video format needs to compatible with Windows without Quicktime.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What the the best options to render the video?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: Sorry if this is the wrong site; photos seemed most related to videos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5242" LastActivityDate="2011-05-19T20:27:04.450" ClosedDate="2011-05-19T23:46:38.837" Title="Best rendering options for Sony Vegas 8 Pro?" Tags="&lt;video&gt;&lt;sony&gt;" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12214" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8091" CreationDate="2011-05-20T00:57:43.300" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Microsoft has &lt;a href=&quot;http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc645050%28v=vs.95%29.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Deep Zoom&quot;&gt;Deep Zoom&lt;/a&gt; (a.k.a.&lt;a href=&quot;http://gallery.expression.microsoft.com/SeadragonAjax&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Seadragon&lt;/a&gt;, a.k.a &lt;a href=&quot;http://zoom.it/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Zoom.it&lt;/a&gt;, a.k.a.&lt;a href=&quot;http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.controls.multiscaleimage%28v=vs.95%29.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;MultiScaleImage&lt;/a&gt;), which is part of Silverlight. The images need to be pre-processed by the Deep Zoom Tools or a similar tool, which breaks the image into tiles at many different resolutions, starting at a 1px x 1px version all the way up to the full version. The pre-processing will require some time, particularly for a 100+ MP image, but once it's been done, it can be very easily viewed using even a low-end system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Microsoft didn't invent this type of image viewing, but their implementation is pretty good. The control only uses image information that's relevant to the current view, and doesn't bother to download or hold in memory every single pixel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know of any single-purpose Deep Zoom viewer program, but there could be one that exists. A Silverlight app can run out-of-browser as a standalone application (as of version 3). If you have any .NET programming experience, this would be trivial to write.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, this won't be much use if you want to edit the image, but if all you're looking for is a way to open it up without bringing your system to its knees, it would be great.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4690" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T00:57:43.300" />
  <row Id="12215" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12235" CreationDate="2011-05-20T01:20:02.083" Score="12" ViewCount="162" Body="&lt;p&gt;How can I test a new lens to make sure it is operating correctly? I found two similar questions with answers specific to things such as sharpness and focus, but I want to cover any and all possible tests for a new lens.  What can I check for or do?  What specific things do you do when you are inspecting a brand new lens from the manufacturer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Related:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10518/how-can-i-should-i-check-the-sharpness-of-my-camera-lens&quot;&gt;How can I/should I check the sharpness of my camera lens?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3999/how-can-i-determine-if-my-sigma-10-20mm-lens-copy-is-appropriately-sharp-and-focu&quot;&gt;How can I determine if my Sigma 10-20mm lens copy is appropriately sharp and focusing right?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-20T18:15:28.107" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T18:15:28.107" Title="How can I test a new lens to make sure it is operating correctly?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;image-quality&gt;&lt;test&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="12216" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12218" CreationDate="2011-05-20T03:10:08.160" Score="3" ViewCount="102" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was wondering the way of getting this kind of effect (colors)&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/malinthepix/5729985347/in/photostream&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/malinthepix/5729985347/in/photostream&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/malinthepix/5384563043/in/photostream&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/malinthepix/5384563043/in/photostream&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you guys know some good tutorials?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4470" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-20T03:55:55.517" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T16:08:40.203" Title="Are the colors in these pictures from retouching or color correction?" Tags="&lt;color-management&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12217" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12216" CreationDate="2011-05-20T03:52:29.843" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To me, it looks like he has merely used a higher contrast and warmed the white balance to give that warm tint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T03:52:29.843" />
  <row Id="12218" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12216" CreationDate="2011-05-20T03:53:32.617" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;These pictures don't look like they have been retouched much, if at all. The color in those pictures comes from the natural color cast of each of the light sources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;In the first picture:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The building near the center of the picture is lit by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;incandescent&lt;/a&gt; or &quot;tungsten&quot; light, which is warm light -- that is, it has more red and less blue than sunlight, so it appears &quot;orange&quot;. The tree on the far-left side is also lit by tungsten light.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The lights on the ground also appear to be tungsten. (They could be candles -- I can't really tell.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The small building/obelisk on the left is mostly lit by what seems to be &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode#White_light&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;white LEDs&lt;/a&gt;. Cheap white LEDs emit very cool light -- they have more blue and less red than sunlight, so they appear blue. There is also a string of incandescent lights on the left side, and some red and green lights on the front.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The street light is probably a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury-vapor_lamp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;mercury vapor lamp&lt;/a&gt;, which is close to sunlight in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;color temperature&lt;/a&gt; but has a greenish tint. This gives the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6605/why-do-light-sources-appear-as-stars-sometimes&quot;&gt;starburst&lt;/a&gt; and the things hanging on the wire a green color.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;In the second picture:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The billboard at the top/center of the image is probably lit by some variety of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_discharge_lamp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;high-intensity discharge lamps&lt;/a&gt; with a color balance near daylight.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The red streaks across the bottom of the image are trails caused by car taillights moving past.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The passenger train on the bridge probably has &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_lamp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fluorescent lights&lt;/a&gt; inside, which can have all sorts of different colors. Much of the time, these have a yellow or green tint.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The street lights are &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_vapor_lamp#High_pressure_sodium&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;high-pressure sodium vapor lamps&lt;/a&gt;, which are orange-yellow and have very little green or blue content.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The stop lights, of course, are red.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There appears to be a storefront casting fluorescent light onto the sidewalk.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There's also a cool-white fluorescent lighting the poster and wall on the left edge of the frame.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T03:53:32.617" />
  <row Id="12219" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12215" CreationDate="2011-05-20T04:41:46.053" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Make the photos you bought the lens for. For each feature of the lens that is important for you, make a photo that utilizes it. Only you know why it is important to you, so you can construct the best test photo. For example, I really hate having color aberration around tree branches in front of clear sky, so I'd test for that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Make sure the lens has an opportunity to show its best. Give your camera a secure support (sturdy tripod on level ground, legs as short as reasonable, central column not extended). Use a lens hood, avoid protection filters. Unless your scene has a lot of action, use mirror lock-up, remote control of self timer to trigger the shutter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Analyze the photos and see if you are satisfied with them. If not, analyze if the bad aspects can be attributed to the lens, some other piece of equipment or your technique. Ask here if you're not sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Making the photos, you will notice any obvious deficiencies. No lens is perfect, no matter how much it costs. Engineered products are always results of a series of compromises. If the results look good, stop worrying and make more photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-20T04:48:05.613" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T04:48:05.613" />
  <row Id="12220" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12157" CreationDate="2011-05-20T06:59:08.740" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The tamron 28-300 is a fascinating and frustrating lens. It doesn't go wide enough (on a cop sensor camera like the 500d or 7d, I'd want the wide angle for landscape to be more liky 15-17 and not 28; it makes me want to add the sigma 10-20 to my arsenal). And at the telephoto end, it goes soft like most super zooms do. I try not to use it much past 28-150 except in an emergency. This week I had that emergency (ran across a bear in yosemite with the &quot;wrong&quot; lens in hand) and realized just how much I wish I'd had my other lens available. Oh well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But it's a perfectly nice street lens, especially for what it is, once you learn its weaknesses and work around them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said that, for landscape, 28mm isn't wide enough, and 300mm isn't telephoto enough for wildlife or birds. IMHO. You will find that no matter how powerful a telephoto you buhy, you'll run into situations where you want more. There are days when 800mm isn't enough. This implies that as you progress, technique and planning become as important, or more important, than raw lens power. So don't overbuy lenses expecting it to solve things magically, it won't. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;300mm, however, isn't powerful enough for most bird photography and most wild animals. 400mm on a crop sensor can be used very successfully. I use the canon 100-400 a lot; I use the canon 300/F4 + 1.4x tele some and I'm leaning on that combo more because it's sharper than the zoom but not as flexible; basically, I use the 100-400 handheld, the 300+tele mostly on a tripod. Either will run you roughly $1500 out the door. ($US). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Art Morris his shifted to using the canon 70-200 F2.8 IS USM (you want IS) with a 2x Tele instead of the 100-400. That's a big hunk of glass, it's much sharper, and it'll run you twice the cost of the 100-400. But that combo is very powerful and flexible and good, and it's something I'm considering experimenting with, not that I can afford it any time soon. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've read a number of reports on the sigma 50-500 indicating it's a good lens, but like most megazooms, goes soft at the top magnification. You should rent and test these lenses before buying them, to see if they're acceptable. some photos I've read think it is, others don't. That's really true of any lens: rent and test before buying. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You won't cover all the ranges you want happily with one lens. Maybe not two. And lenses bigger than 300mm get expensive, although the canon 400 F4 is surprisingly affordable amd would probably tolerate a 1.4x tele on it fairly well. I haven't tried yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If getting closer is your primary wish, then I'd suggest looking at the 400F4. It's a bit more expensive than the Sigma but it'll be a much higher quality lens. Add in a 1.4x tele at some point to push it further. Or plan to upgrade your lenses over time. I have as I've gotten better at this moved away from zooms that cover larger ranges in favor of higher quality zooms that don't zoom as much, but are sharper and crisper and faster. Faster gives you options in the field to shoot in poorer llight or use teleconverters to leverage your lens collection. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a perfect world, the Sigma 10-20, Canon 24-70 F2.8, Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS USM, Tele 1.4, Tele 2x and the Canon 400 F2.8 would make me happy. That's ONLY $4000 US in glass, not including the $8000 US for the canon 400 F2.8. Here in the real world, not gonna happen. and I haven't asked for a macro, fisheye, or tilt shift yet... (grin)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But with the lens you have, the Canon 400/F4 adds range. Over time, you can add in a better wide angle (canon 15-85, maybe?) and then the 70-200 F4. Not sure I'd use that with a 2x tele, but the 1.4x would cover your rang up to the 400. and the 1.4x on the 400 pushes you out over time from 15-500mm coverage with reasonably fast, sharp glass. That's still $4000 US, but it's a lot better than $12,000 US for being about a stop slower across the range. Going from F4 to F2.8 is expensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One other option to consider: upgrade your body. the Canon 7d sucks in a lot of pixels. One thing that lets you do is CROP without losing your detail, and you still keep the crop sensor which is useful for leveraging your glass for wildlife. So instead of pushing more powerful glass, get a more powerful body that captures more pixels so you can crop them away and still have usable images. or do some combination of all of this. Over time. Remember, buying GOOD glass over time is a nice investment because lenses should last you a long time if cared for, where bodies are going to get upgraded more often. So it's usually better (IMHO) to buy better glass and lesser bodies, or wait a bit and buy better lenses later than a cheaper one now...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="705" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T06:59:08.740" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12221" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12196" CreationDate="2011-05-20T08:23:26.103" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Looks like the bottom picture is mis-focused. The box is not as sharp as in the top picture. Have you tried turning on the VR and see if it makes a difference?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4989" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T08:23:26.103" />
  <row Id="12222" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12224" CreationDate="2011-05-20T09:05:33.807" Score="6" ViewCount="266" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/southen/5610096056/lightbox/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Click here for picture&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I feel like the blur is not natural. Looks like it was Gaussian Blurred with the couple as the center. What do you guys think?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4989" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-20T11:33:20.560" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T16:11:47.323" Title="Is the bokeh in this picture naturally occurring, or added in post-processing?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;bokeh&gt;&lt;blur&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12223" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-20T09:12:14.183" Score="1" ViewCount="73" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm wondering how to convert programmatically (i.e. with a programming language rather than an editor) from one colour temperature to another?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If, for example, I make the assumption (and it's a big assumption) that a white balance algorithm could take a processed image (e.g. JPEG, etc.) and place the overall temperature in a scene at 6500, how would you algorithmically &quot;cool&quot; or &quot;warm&quot; the scene to a specific temperature? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously this is a common operation in an image editing program, but these typically operate on RAW images which have no processing applied (colour space manipulation or otherwise). In the case of RAW files, perhaps the individual RAW files contain sufficient information (in the file header) regarding the colour calibration of the camera sensor to make the specific temperature transformation more deterministic?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the way, I asked &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6060087/adjust-white-balance&quot;&gt;this question on the regular Stack Overflow&lt;/a&gt; and it was suggested I may get a better answer here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4348" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-20T17:46:24.637" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T17:46:24.637" Title="How can I adjust the colour temperature of an image programmatically?" Tags="&lt;image-processing&gt;&lt;color-temperature&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12224" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12222" CreationDate="2011-05-20T09:14:27.177" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The bokeh behind the couple looks normal, the sides seem to have had a gaussian blur applied to give a fake tilt shift effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The telling factor is the highlights. The light coming from the windows is much brighter and ought to have a sharp cutoff when rendered out of focus. Gaussian blur gives a soft edge to such highlights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;edit:&lt;/strong&gt; reading the text of the image, the photographer states that this was created as a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8508/what-is-bokeh-panorama-aka-brenizer-method&quot;&gt;&quot;bokeh panorama&quot;&lt;/a&gt; (otherwise known as a panorama) hence the apparent shallow depth of field. This doesnt quite wash as there are elements of the background that are the same distance as the couple and hence ought to be in focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My guess is now that the photographer took a tele shot of the couple and a wide shot of the surround and blurred the latter to match, the blur in the corners just doesn't look like lens blur to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-20T09:39:35.520" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T09:39:35.520" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12225" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12228" CreationDate="2011-05-20T09:22:43.473" Score="6" ViewCount="148" Body="&lt;p&gt;It has been just a couple weeks since I bought an old Nikon D40X after using a Canon SX120IS for a year.  The only things I miss so far are the ability to fine adjust the exposure using the back display and getting as close as 1 cm to the subject.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, what are some common mistakes I might make and what are some things I can do now that I might not know I can?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3444" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T15:46:19.960" Title="What are some common gotchas and missed capabilities migrating from compacts to DSLRs" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12226" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-20T09:30:13.433" Score="3" ViewCount="223" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sean Flanigan is probably one of my favorite photographers. His photos has an extremely unique feel to them, at least to me they are unique. Whenever I try to describe his photos, words fail me. I don't know if &quot;vintage,&quot; or &quot;retro,&quot; or what is the correct word. I've been trying to learn and replicate his colorsin Lightroom, but haven't come close to being successful. Maybe you guys will know more. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing that I have learned is that his white is never truly white, and his black is never truly black. Check out his black and whites and you'll see what I mean, and this treatment can be seen on all his photos, kinda like his signature. I don't think he changes his colors much, it's just the &lt;strong&gt;blending&lt;/strong&gt; of colors, if that makes any sense at all. His colors just kind of blend together evenly and nicely, and then he adds something to it to make them feel vintage/retro. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another thing I notice is that he does a lot of tilt-shifting, either by Photoshop or by actual tilt-shift lens. Just can't figure out what it is about his colors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would really appreciate some lessons from other master photographers. Thank you!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/GXr2j.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;image 1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/vXgjG.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;image 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/2bmpb.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;image 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/U6Y1j.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;image 4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/nUxAZ.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;image 5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/cWnGN.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;image 6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4989" LastEditorUserId="4989" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-21T02:14:42.107" LastActivityDate="2011-05-21T03:44:52.590" Title="What kind of color treatment is applied to these photos?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;photoshop&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="12227" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12226" CreationDate="2011-05-20T09:59:05.587" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The colours are different in each of the images you've posted, some warm, some cool, some monochrome. The consistent factor is the lighting, it's always very soft, from overcast skies (except in the final sunset shot, but you get very soft light anyway at this time of day). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other than that the colours are desaturated, and the image contrast is low. Some of them might have been split-toned I.e. different colour balance set for the shadows and highlights. This technique is often used to give photos a retro feel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T09:59:05.587" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="12228" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12225" CreationDate="2011-05-20T10:07:23.713" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Potential mistakes include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Overreliance on zoom. Many compacts have huge zoom ranges. People get used to this and either struggle when given a limited zoom range or prime lens, or they go out and buy a superzoom lens with inferior image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Being afraid to change lenses. This relates to the last point, people aren't used to changing lenses or are afraid they might get dust in the camera. The ability to change lenses is one of the biggest advantages to the SLR system. It allows you to have a large range of focal lengths without compromising image quality.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Using the SLR just like a compact. Some people think that merely possessing a DSLR will make their pictures better. To improve you need to use your camera differently. Such cameras offer new opportunities but you have to actively seek them out in order to really improve.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Using the pop-up flash. Whilst (almost) all the same lighting options are available to compact owners, 99% of people use the built in flash, to save carrying an external unit. If you have an SLR plus lenses with you there's probably space for a hotshoe flash which will allow much better lighting by bouncing/diffusing/getting the flash off-camera.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-20T11:19:42.553" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T11:19:42.553" />
  <row Id="12229" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12222" CreationDate="2011-05-20T10:59:34.420" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can always tell if blur was added in photoshop by trying to find the plane of focus. Look at the couple, everything in front of them and to the sides is OOF. To get that kind of effect w/o post processing you'd have to somehow throw the plane of focus in an extremely weird way. Optics don't work like that, even with a technical camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T10:59:34.420" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12230" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12222" CreationDate="2011-05-20T11:27:14.433" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think this was achieved with the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.buiphotography.com/2009/07/the-brenizer-method-explained-with-directions/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Brenizer method&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Essentially it is the same concept used by landscape photographers known as panorama stitching except instead of stitching a bunch of horizontal shots together to form a wide image, the images are horizontally and vertically stitched to create a wide and tall image not unlike a square. And because you are stitching together many files, you are creating a very high resolution image that can hold up to very large print sizes without loss in quality. By shooting at a very shallow depth-of-field (DOF) and then stitching the shots together, you’re exaggerating the shallow DOF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1107" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T11:27:14.433" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12231" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12197" CreationDate="2011-05-20T11:28:47.117" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know exactly how the red dots are produced on that model (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/12200/how-are-the-red-focus-point-indicators-displayed-on-a-dslrs-focusing-screen&quot;&gt;How are the red focus point indicators displayed on a dSLR&amp;#39;s focusing screen?&lt;/a&gt;), but I'm sure that what you are seeing is an artifact of that. Possibly something is misaligned, but it's also possible that the effect is just a compromise of the design.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it causing an actual problem in your composition or focusing? As you note, this won't show up in the captured image. The fact that you're worried about it suggests that it's very dramatic. Do you have access (at a store, perhaps) to other cameras of the same model to compare?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T11:28:47.117" />
  <row Id="12232" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12225" CreationDate="2011-05-20T13:34:33.520" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would add:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Inattention to focusing. The DSLR has a bigger sensor, and in most circumstances will have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/12098/why-does-a-bigger-sensor-lead-to-a-shallower-depth-of-field&quot;&gt;much shallower depth of field&lt;/a&gt; than the compact camera. This requires attention to your focus. At the very least, pay attention to which autofocus sensor the camera thinks is in focus, and think about whether that's what you want. You may want to set your camera to &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/12150/why-would-i-want-to-select-an-autofocus-point&quot;&gt;always use the central AF point, or another specific AF point&lt;/a&gt;, instead of letting it pick from all of them. The depth of field can be so shallow that &quot;focus on the face&quot; may not be good enough. You usually want to focus on the eyes of people and animals. Photographers coming from compacts usually aren't used to worrying about whether the focus falls on the nose, eyes, or ears.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2138" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T13:34:33.520" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12233" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12234" CreationDate="2011-05-20T13:38:45.063" Score="15" ViewCount="282" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to create one of those &quot;stacked&quot; action shot images where multiple exposures are combined to show the subject moving across a static background.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/dfunkpinoy/2755832144/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here's an example I found on Flickr&lt;/a&gt; (by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/dfunkpinoy/2755832144/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Laurence Asuncion&lt;/a&gt;): &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/dfunkpinoy/2755832144/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/dfunkpinoy/2755832144/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ideally, I'd like tips both for the photography part of this and for post-processing.  For example, I'd imagine I want to shoot manual w/ the same exposure for all shots (as with a panorama), but I'm not sure if there are any other helpful tips for taking the shots.  At one point, for example, I thought I'd have to tripod-mount the camera and keep the same framing for all shots, but I've now seen several examples where the composition moved from shot-to-shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm also interested in recommendations for post-processing -- software, technique, etc.  I can envision a manual process where I stack layers and align them by hand in Photoshop Express, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't a better way — maybe using a pano tool like Hugin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-23T16:53:31.517" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T20:16:50.480" Title="How do I combine multiple exposures for action shots?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;panorama&gt;&lt;sports&gt;&lt;multiple-exposure&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="5" />
  <row Id="12234" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12233" CreationDate="2011-05-20T14:28:20.047" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Everything that applies to shooting a panorama applies to shooting one of these. A tripod makes assembling more convenient but means you can't pan to follow the action. It's important to rotate the camera and not move your feet in order to make sure the shots line up. Locking the focus is going to be necessary. Same with shutter/aperture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've only done one of these, it could have been shot on a tripod but the location didn't allow it! I loaded the images in Photoshop, auto-aligned and then manually masked the overlap areas, this was quite easy as the frames are just the right distance apart to minimise overlap. A bit of overlap adds to the effect, too much can make it hard to see what going on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are the original shots:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/action/frames.jpg&quot;/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photoshop's built in panorama tool has no trouble aligning the images:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/action/aligned.jpg&quot;/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A drop shadow has been added to show where the edges are. As you can see there was a little panning. I did not shoot the images but I did the post production (and modelling :) the actual photos were taken by a friend of mine. Here are the images blended together:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/action/masked.jpg&quot;/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are the masks used:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/action/masks.png&quot;/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I did a bit more blending, rotated the image, and filled in some missing sky/foreground and adjusted the contrast slightly, here is the final image:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/action/final.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The camera settings were 1/800s f/8.0 ISO200 22mm&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would be possible to automate the process of overlapping the subject by subtracting the common background areas and layering up the frames in chronological order.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-23T20:16:50.480" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T20:16:50.480" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="12235" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12215" CreationDate="2011-05-20T14:29:35.417" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;More than testing you should learn about your new lens. Although it is good to get some sanity checking first:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set up a flat target with sharp details that can cover the field-of-view of your lens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set up your camera on a tripod pointing strait at the target.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Repeatedly autofocus on your target and see if you can improve accuracy by manual focusing. If it is off, then you'll have to micro adjust your lens (see questions on this site)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Once you got perfect focus, start shooting.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take one shot at each aperture from the widest to the one stop beyond the diffraction limit. Say F/1.4 to F/16 on a modern DSLR.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make sure each shot is taken with the self-timer and mirror lockup, preferable remote triggered.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Repeat above steps for various focal lengths from the widest to the longest.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Repeat all of the above using a blank completely uniform target.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Loot at all those photos and note:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How does sharpness change from the center to the corners?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;See how the above changes for each aperture.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How does brightness change from the center to corners?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take note of any apertures you would NOT be happy using.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Take note if there are focal-lengths you would NOT be happy using.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then comes the subjective part. You need to judge if this is the quality you expect from&#xA;such a lens. It is normal for lenses to by softer wide-open, some sharpen after 1/2 stop,&#xA;some after 2. Personally, I find it easy to avoid certain apertures since I work in A-mode&#xA;95% of the time but I do not like having to avoid entire focal-lengths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T14:29:35.417" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12236" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12222" CreationDate="2011-05-20T14:39:22.570" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This could be achieved without &quot;fake blur&quot; by shooting a series of photos with focus point bracketing and combining them, picking chosen areas focused and chosen out of focus a'la hand-made HDR (except picking focus instead of contrast ).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this is the case here... doubtful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5245" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T14:39:22.570" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12237" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12301" CreationDate="2011-05-20T15:22:27.787" Score="9" ViewCount="99" Body="&lt;p&gt;Exploring the Gigapan website, I found amazing panoramas assembled from hundreds or thousands of images that include large crowds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How does the Gigapan automated panorama device handle movements in the scene?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How well did it work in general?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="4892" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-20T18:33:07.250" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T13:46:28.840" Title="How does Gigapan Handle Movement?" Tags="&lt;panorama&gt;&lt;gigapan&gt;&lt;motion&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12238" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12225" CreationDate="2011-05-20T15:46:19.960" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll also add:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Being afraid of not taking it everywhere. Since is not as compact (d'oh), specially if you have many lenses and a flash. Try to get a bag (maybe one to put a tripod as well) and go explore!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Don't forget to enable RAW!. I don't know if you used CHDK with the Canon, but if you didn't, try to explore the capabilities that the RAW format brings you. If possible have more than one large-sized (8gb or more) memory cards. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1595" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T15:46:19.960" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12239" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12222" CreationDate="2011-05-20T15:55:43.453" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think either field curvature or a T/S lens could reasonably account for what I'm seeing here. A T/S lens can change the orientation of the plane that's in focus, but you still get a plane. Field curvature can warp that so it's no longer planar, but it still defines a virtual &quot;surface&quot; that's focused.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we look at the floor (for one example) a few feet to the left or right of the couple, there's simply no transition from out of focus to in-focus to back out of focus. Perhaps a comparison would be in order:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/dT7Ze.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This shows a distinct line across the floor that's in focus. With field curvature, that line would be curved instead of straight. With a T/S lens, it could be an an angle instead of perpendicular to the camera. The subject picture has nothing of the sort -- no ling across the floor that comes into focus at all, straight or curved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose if you wanted to badly enough, a combination of extreme tilt &lt;em&gt;with&lt;/em&gt; field curvature &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; focus stacking could &lt;em&gt;almost&lt;/em&gt; produce this effect. You'd basically have to tilt the lens so much the focus plane would normally be almost parallel to the floor, but have a lens with lots of field curvature. You'd then do a stack, moving your focus from slightly above the floor up toward the head of the couple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Offhand, the only lens I know of that would even be sort of close to producing that amount of field curvature would be the old, long-since discontinue Minolta &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rokkorfiles.com/24mm%20VFC.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;VFC&lt;/a&gt; (variable field curvature) macro. With one of those on a T/S mount in front of something like a u4/3&lt;sup&gt;rds&lt;/sup&gt;, I suppose you might be able to at least get sort of close. Even then, of course, Matt Grum's point about the windows would still stand though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-20T16:11:47.323" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T16:11:47.323" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12240" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12216" CreationDate="2011-05-20T16:08:40.203" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One point that hasn't been raised (but deserves mention, IMO) is careful timing: taking the picture when it's dark enough for artificial lights to show up well, &lt;em&gt;but&lt;/em&gt; there's still enough daylight for the sky to be (dark) blue instead of black, and you have some ambient light so shadows aren't just inky black like they tend to be when it gets much darker.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T16:08:40.203" />
  <row Id="12241" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-20T16:12:15.670" Score="2" ViewCount="190" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to upgrade from compact (Sony 24x superzoom) to more enthusiast-style camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After extensive search and comparison (dpreview.com and elsewhere) I have selected Sony SLT A55, Lumix GH2 and Nikon 5100 to be the best cameras for me. So I'm looking for &lt;strong&gt;lenses for Sony Alpha, Nikon F or Micro 4/3rds&lt;/strong&gt;. The final decision about the camera depends on the lens that I can mount on them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I travel a lot and &lt;em&gt;I'm fascinated by nature, people and cities when traveling.&lt;/em&gt; I want to use the new camera with the lens to shoot those things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I estimate I will shoot following types of shoots at this rates with the lens:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Landscape: 30%&lt;/strong&gt; (includes natural scenes, different kinds of human creations/architecture, travel mates on in different situations and environments).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Wild life: 15%.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Faster action: 15%&lt;/strong&gt;. Not Olympics, but shots like birds, my travel-mates jumping over rock gaps, locals playing football, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Indoor/Low light&lt;/strong&gt; (late evening): &lt;strong&gt;15%.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Portrait: 15%.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Macro: 10%.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't want to play for photographic safari, so the lens should give good results in all six situations and should still be portable (under 650g).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I prefer faster auto focus so I can take picture in right moment and one after another. Especially when shooting wild life (#2), faster action (#3) or portrait (#5). It should not be too noisy and  should provide some kind of image stabilization (not necessary if camera itself has good enough stabilization — if I remember it right only A55 is the case). Other than that, the only criteria is best photos quality given those six scenarios above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand all the disadvantages of having single lenses for all these purposes. I'll definitely buy some lens to use when not traveling later. But for traveling I can only carry one lens with me. I'm technically skilled, I have some experience with DSLC and I understand the terms. Please, do not hesitate to suggest high-end solutions and be technical in your answer if you prefer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If appropriate, please also comment my choice of cameras or suggest another one. My final goal is to achieve best photo quality in the six situation (above) in with equipment of travel-enabled size and weight (given the fact that I'll not carry tripod and I like fast AF).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt; As the first scenario (Landscape) will do around 1/3 of all my photographic activity with this lens, I think that the one sure requirement for the lens is that the wide end should be 28mm equivalent to 35mm film (typically 18mm or 14mm for Micro 3/4).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5244" LastEditorUserId="5244" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-20T23:48:54.920" LastActivityDate="2011-05-21T14:51:47.477" Title="What &quot;all rounder&quot; travel lenses can help me decide between Sony, Nikon, or Panasonic Micro Four Thirds?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;travel&gt;&lt;sony&gt;&lt;micro-four-thirds&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="12242" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12223" CreationDate="2011-05-20T16:21:58.010" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You would need to do a color space white point conversion in L*a*b* space. Most color models that we normally work with, primarily RGB but often CMYK, are designed to support the limitations and requirements of physical hardware. Those models usually don't represent the &quot;perceptual&quot; space of color very well, though, and white point is definitely a perceptual aspect of color. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whenever you need to apply perceptual adjustments to an image, such as color temperature or tint shifts, it is best done by converting from RGB to XYZ, and during the conversion, you can apply &quot;reference white points&quot; for the source and destination color space. Conversion from XYZ to Lab then gets you into a color space where you can perceptually remap the white point and all the colors such that they maintain continuity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Color space conversions, chromatic adaptation, white point adjustments, etc. are rather complex mathematically. The more perceptually accurate you intend to be, the more complex the math usually ends up. An excellent source of information for color space conversions can be found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://brucelindbloom.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bruce Lindbloom's web site&lt;/a&gt;. Some additional useful information can be found on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lab_color_model&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;. You might also find this information on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_illuminant&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CIE's D-Series Illuminants&lt;/a&gt; useful, as it contains white point specific information, calculations, and constants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T16:21:58.010" />
  <row Id="12243" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12259" CreationDate="2011-05-20T16:23:32.067" Score="13" ViewCount="145" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have some very old primes (grandfather's 1950s Exakta Varex lenses, ranging from 28mm to 85mm) that I've been really enjoying on my Sony NEX with an adapter.  It's partially sentimental, but I've also gotten some great shots from them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of my favorites of the series is the 85mm, but it has quite a bit of dust on the inside, and the focus ring puts up a heck of a fight when it's moved.  There are a couple specks of dust that are occasionally noticeable in my pictures, sometimes glaring.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It feels silly to pay for professional cleaning of lenses that are likely worth far less than the cleaning cost.  I'm mechanically inclined; what are my chances of success disassembling and cleaning them myself?  Is there a generic guide about lens cleaning that you have used with success (what to oil the aperture blades with, what cleaning products to use, etc.)?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5247" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-20T17:43:32.377" LastActivityDate="2011-05-21T03:06:14.073" Title="How do I to clean prime lenses' internals? Or should I even try?" Tags="&lt;cleaning&gt;&lt;old-lenses&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12244" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12226" CreationDate="2011-05-20T16:29:26.787" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am not sure the effect your looking at is purely, or even primarily, color treatment. Some of the photos you have linked are black and white, some are color. Regarding the color images, they all appear to be largely, but not entirely, desaturated. They also appear to be largely white balanced, with only slight shifts towards the cooler or warmer temperatures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Overall, across all of the images, I think the key factor is lowish contrast and clipped or nearly-clipped highlights. Larger areas of bright backgrounds are allowed to encroach upon the foreground of many of the photos. Bright background highlights, usually the sun, are often used to intentionally create soft flare and create a localized contrast reduction. I have also always liked Sean Flanigan's work (ever since I first encountered him), and his style has always kind of felt &quot;journalistic&quot; to me, with a touch of retro. I guess thats the name I would give his style, &quot;retro journalistic&quot;, which is somewhat unique, and which does indeed include real tilt/shift photos taken with a TS lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T16:29:26.787" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="12245" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12241" CreationDate="2011-05-20T17:33:59.360" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A superzoom fits the bill in terms of travelling light while covering most eventualities. As for buying advice, simply get the best you can afford!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given your choice of cameras, I would choose the Nikon. The Lumix isn't a true SLR, and I've heard differing opinions on the SLT system of the Sony. Nikkor lenses are almost universally excellent - they have an 18-200mm VR lens which is supposedly very good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As with all new camera purchases, don't buy based only on online reviews. Go to a store and try out several models (and lenses if possible). Only then can you be sure of a happy purchase.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T17:33:59.360" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12246" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12241" CreationDate="2011-05-20T18:02:54.560" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your narrowed-down camera choices are still pretty far from each other, and suggest a certain price range more than they suggest a particular feature-set or usage preference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You're right to be looking at lenses for the decision, though. The question &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9355/how-much-do-lens-lineups-vary-across-platforms&quot;&gt;How much do lens lineups vary across platforms?&lt;/a&gt; might be helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However the six scenarios you give don't really narrow things down much. Mostly, that's &quot;I'll do a bunch of general stuff&quot;,  in turn &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; suggests that you'd be fine with anything from either of your three choices (or from a dozen other options, really).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know you've said that you want only one lens while traveling. Take a look at Matt Grum's answer to &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/12225/what-are-some-common-gotchas-and-missed-capabilities-migrating-from-compacts-to-d&quot;&gt;What are some common gotchas and missed capabilities migrating from compacts to DSLRs&lt;/a&gt;, which someone just asked a few hours ago. The first two points are &quot;overreliance on zoom&quot; and &quot;being afraid to change lenses.&quot; I agree whole-heartedly. Superzooms are so full of compromises that you're really not getting much advantage in going to a larger-sensor camera. Once you get used to it, it's much less hassle to transport and change multiple lenses than you might imagine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So at this point, my advice is to consider what your heart is telling you to get, go with that, get the &lt;em&gt;several&lt;/em&gt; lenses you need, take pictures, and don't look back at the brand choice. It's pretty much all good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T18:02:54.560" CommentCount="13" />
  <row Id="12247" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12241" CreationDate="2011-05-20T18:04:22.797" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem with your prerequisites is that you've painted yourself into a corner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First you asked for a single lens suitable for landscape (generally wide) and wildlife (long or very long). This restricts you to the few super-zooms around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then you've asked for that same lens to be good for fast actions and low light, both of which require bright lenses. Even ignoring Macro, you will find exactly ZERO lenses that satisfy your needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You need to give in somewhere. If the range is most important, then you will find that each of those brands has exactly ONE barely-adequate current option:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=122&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Zuiko 14-150mm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=145&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sony 18-250mm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=42&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon 18-200mm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet none of these will truly cut it for wildlife. Since weight is an important factor you may want to consider that two Micro 4/3 lenses will weight the same as one APS-C. If you cut the long end out of the requirements you will have much better options, particularly with Nikon (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=75&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikkor 17-55mm F/2.8&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/lens.php?id=31&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;24-70mm F/2.8&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-21T14:51:47.477" LastActivityDate="2011-05-21T14:51:47.477" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="12248" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12215" CreationDate="2011-05-20T18:07:46.120" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fairly comprehensive, but easy to follow tips.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/11/how-to-test-a-lens&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;How LensRentals.com tests lenses&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4098" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T18:07:46.120" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12249" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10596" CreationDate="2011-05-20T18:31:09.957" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exiftool&lt;/a&gt; is a very powerful utility to sort and organize photos automatically. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/filename.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;RENAMING EXAMPLES&lt;/a&gt; section of its manual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A new directory can be specified by setting the value of the Directory tag. For example, the following command moves all images originally in directory &quot;DIR&quot; into a directory hierarchy organized by year/month/day:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;exiftool &quot;-Directory&amp;lt;DateTimeOriginal&quot; -d &quot;%Y/%m/%d&quot; DIR&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To move and rename files you may also use &lt;code&gt;-filename&lt;/code&gt; option. For example, to sort images by file type, year, and date and time when they were taken you can run:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;exiftool -d '%%e/%Y/%Y%m%d/%H%I_%%f.%%e' '-filename&amp;lt;DateTimeOriginal' YOURDIR&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then a file in YOURDIR named like &lt;code&gt;imgp1234.dng&lt;/code&gt; taken on May 20th, 2011 at 08:01 a.m. will be moved to folder &lt;code&gt;dng/2011/20110520/&lt;/code&gt; and renamed as &lt;code&gt;0801_imgp1234.dng&lt;/code&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Attention, please, that &lt;code&gt;exiftool&lt;/code&gt; moves only images, so if you have sidecar files along with your RAW files, you need to take care of them somehow. If some of your photos lack EXIF data, they will not be moved this way. Add option &lt;code&gt;-r&lt;/code&gt; to process YOURDIR recursively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T18:31:09.957" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12250" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12237" CreationDate="2011-05-20T18:32:51.003" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As with any panoramic photo created by a standard camera and lens you will need an amount of &lt;strong&gt;overlap&lt;/strong&gt; to achieve a seamless final product.  In many cases I use about 1/3 of the image as an overlap to create a final image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might be familiar with an option that Adobe Photoshop has to &lt;strong&gt;stack images and remove parts of the image that are unwanted&lt;/strong&gt;.  It does this by creating a smart object that contains all of the stacked images that you shot, then Photoshop &lt;strong&gt;automatically identifies areas that are similar between the photos, and removes the elements that change between the shots.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I do not know as a fact that the Gigapan device uses the same logic, I would assume that is the only technically possible way to achieve this without manual intervention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is more detail on how Adobe Photoshop CS4 accomplishes this task: &lt;a href=&quot;http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Photoshop/11.0/WSA1E7602F-1D34-4ecf-B2FE-2BB344D6937Ca.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adobe.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T18:32:51.003" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12251" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12226" CreationDate="2011-05-20T18:40:47.663" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would categorize the sample color images as having a &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1110/uses-for-cross-processing&quot;&gt;cross-process&lt;/a&gt; effect. In film, that's developing negatives with chemicals designed for a different type of film. (In other words, you're &quot;crossing&quot; the development processes.) Depending on the combination used, this will result in different color and tone shifts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Various digital effects which attempt a similar look are relatively common — there's a zillion iPhone apps that purport to do it, for example, and searching for &quot;digital cross process&quot; will probably get you some productive results. (Or it could be a new question here....)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A similar technique is &quot;bleach bypass&quot;, which leaves out a step in processing, resulting higher contrast, reduced saturation, and some color shifts. Being relatively young and all, I have never actually developed color film myself, and my actual exposure to these techniques is through their digital incarnation, where they're often stretched in ways which may not completely match the way they work with real chemistry. (Both because people write poor software, and because, hey, if you can do it, why not?) So, I couldn't place any bets on exactly &lt;em&gt;what&lt;/em&gt; the emulated alternative processing technique which will get you this should properly be called, but I am pretty sure that by looking into these post-processing techniques, you'll find what you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T18:40:47.663" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12252" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12255" CreationDate="2011-05-20T19:45:44.500" Score="4" ViewCount="57" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just got my first roll of film printed and noticed that some of the exposures were off. I don't know why I didn't notice this before but there isn't an AE-lock on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_AV-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon AV-1&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, does anyone have any suggestions to compensate for the lack of exposure lock? Most of my subjects aren't centered and I need to be able to compensate quickly without losing the moment nor the mood of the picture...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3594" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-20T23:27:13.793" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T23:27:13.793" Title="How do I compensate for lack of exposure lock on a Canon AV-1?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;film&gt;&lt;35mm&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12253" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-20T20:26:59.683" Score="6" ViewCount="113" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a high-end digital video camera able to output a higher number of megapixels than my digital photo camera. This is true only when using the camera to take stills. Is there anything that's going to come back and bite me from using the still image feature on my video camera? Could there be benefits?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7872/high-resolution-photo-from-video&quot;&gt;Related Question&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Edit, Further info:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;My camera can use an uncompressed, progressive scan format.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Camear gets very close to 18 megapixels, has shutter and iris control with some other still options as well.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;I also do video editing and there are occasions where a higher-quality image of a frame would be useful to replace a freeze-frame.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4775" LastEditorUserId="4775" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-21T16:45:51.027" LastActivityDate="2011-05-21T16:45:51.027" Title="Can a video camera produce a high quality still photo shoot?" Tags="&lt;digital-photography&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;image-quality&gt;&lt;resolution&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12254" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12253" CreationDate="2011-05-20T21:06:30.827" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From my experience the still shot capabilities on video cameras leaves quite a bit to be desired.  That is, the quality is very poor.  Your question asks if you can create high quality stills on your video camera, and the answer to that would be, it depends.  Yes they can be high resolution(Megapixels), and they might even be higher resolution then your point and shoot still camera, but from my experiences they are poor in color, contrast, and to some degree sharpness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One advantage many camcorders do have is that many times they have a very wide focal range, often extending into many 3-500mm of zoom.  This can be quite nice, but to get a good still image you will likely have to use a tripod.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T21:06:30.827" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12255" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12252" CreationDate="2011-05-20T21:19:43.933" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I also had this issue and this is what I did. Take your desired exposure on your subject. Lets say you need a shutter speed of 1/50. Then, move you camera to where you want to place the shot, and adjust the ISO dial.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if you want you shutter slower, take your ISO down, else take it up. This works perfectly for me, not the quickest, but then again, this camera is old! still a nice camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Makes sense ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5250" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T21:19:43.933" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12256" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-20T21:40:19.333" Score="3" ViewCount="76" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon 60D and all those programs that come with it installed on my Macbook Pro, so I want to know  if there is any way to record videos with it and store them directly on the computer using the USB cable. Since I only have a 8GB SDHC, but it's a class 2(I'll be getting a better one soon) and I need to record a 18 minutes video using my camera...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3086" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T03:52:32.690" ClosedDate="2011-05-23T14:10:32.387" Title="Record Videos Directly To The Computer" Tags="&lt;video&gt;&lt;storage&gt;&lt;tethering&gt;&lt;canon-60d&gt;&lt;usb&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="12257" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12253" CreationDate="2011-05-20T23:40:38.420" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I don't think it is &lt;em&gt;impossible&lt;/em&gt; to produce a video camera that could produce a good still, I also have yet to see a video camera actually &lt;em&gt;do it&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think there are divers reasons as to why:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Digital Video has, for a long time, been a low resolution format. Yes, the sensor is usually capable of much more than, say, 640x480, but what's going on is that the sum of a larger number of pixels at the sensor level is going into the output of a single pixel in the video format. This permits two things: 1) &quot;better&quot; light gathering capabilities of this output pixel, and 2) Increased perception of sharpness.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This increased perception of sharpness means that the optics on the camera don't have to be all that great. The optics are going to be made to get as much light as possible in 1/30s or 1/60s (or even 1/24s) to the sensor, and then permit the downscaling to &quot;increase&quot; the sharpness of the image. What might look just a bit fuzzy at the full 15mp (or whatever it is), will probably look just fine at 2mp (which is HD, btw).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Video is a continuous experience, and our vision takes the incoming video and tends to sum it over many frames. So lower-quality sensors can be quite acceptable. If the color isn't perfect in each frame, or if there's a bit of noise across the frames, etc., it really doesn't matter to a large degree primarily because our brains will average it out, and so as long as it isn't overtly horrible (or long in duration), our brains will take care of it. But look at a still from the recording, and it's going to be horrible. (To some degree, I think this is why we can accept video compression; as long as it isn't so obvious as to cause obvious blocking and other visual artifacting, our brains are happy to accept it as &quot;close enough&quot; and go with it.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;While the zoom range is quite nice (30x, 60x, 80x, etc.), you're dealing with an incredibly small sensor, and the fact that to get a stable image you need to have a shutter speed of at least 1/, which means high ISOs. Now look at a compact digital camera using a small sensor at ISO1600 and 300mm-equivalent. That image will look nasty.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Side note: whilst you could tell that digital camera to go back to ISO100 and hold the shutter open for a lot longer, there are many video cameras that aren't going to permit that option. Some do, but don't count on it. Which means even if you get that tripod, it's going to shoot at high ISO regardless of what you &lt;em&gt;think&lt;/em&gt; it should do.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, professional level digital video cameras (like those used by major studios), are probably pretty good at giving the control necessary to get good stills. But you're also looking at good glass in front of the sensor, and the level of control is much higher as well. I'm sure the RED Scarlet does fine, but it also costs a very pretty penny, and may as well be considered a hybrid system that can do both photography and video.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5067" LastActivityDate="2011-05-20T23:40:38.420" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12258" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-21T00:56:39.553" Score="0" ViewCount="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;I notice that the format for the video my camera takes is not AVI or MPEG. The output video file is .mts (AVCHD). Are there are free converters for this (to convert to AVI)? After googling around the only software I can find is stuff you have to pay for. Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5251" LastActivityDate="2011-05-21T00:56:39.553" ClosedDate="2011-05-21T02:29:24.173" Title="How to load a video from my Sony TX7 Camera to YouTube" Tags="&lt;sony&gt;&lt;hd-video&gt;" />
  <row Id="12259" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12243" CreationDate="2011-05-21T03:06:14.073" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would suggest trying it yourself, especially if you are mechanically minded and have had success at other small part disassemble/reassemble jobs.  If you do decide to give it a go, I am an electronic engineer by trade and here are some suggestions that I use when I have to repair small electronic devices ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Have a LARGE clean, clear, flat and preferably white area available.  Spend time cleaning it and if you have to, cover with a white cotton sheet.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Break the disassemble down in to stages so you work towards one small goal at a time.  Each time you reach the end of a stage spend the time to ensure everything is ready and set for the next stage.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Have a collection of small pots available to put screws or small parts in from different stages of the disassemble. I use a collection of old 35mm film canisters as if I then have to pause during the repair I can put the lids on knowing I will not loose parts.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Make notes on what you have done at each stage, what parts were removed, how and how many screws were involved as well as what container they are now in.  You could even take photographs of each stage.  This is invaluable when you come to reassemble it back and will ensure that you don't have the dreaded left over screws at the end.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Take your time, the more you invest in to the task the greater the euphoria at the end when you have a lens that is like brand new :)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do hope you manage to clean them up successfully as every time you take a great shot with the old lenses you will be happy knowing you have done your grandfather proud!  Besides the optics in those old ones are probably pretty good glass compared to a lot of modern mass produced stuff.  Good luck Evan!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1410" LastActivityDate="2011-05-21T03:06:14.073" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12260" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-21T03:13:37.757" Score="1" ViewCount="70" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me clarify this: &lt;strong&gt;In movie mode&lt;/strong&gt; (or live view), the sensor is gathering light all the time, and due to this the heat starts to build up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a problem in certain situations, due to the heat produces more noise and sometimes the heat is so intense that the camera turn off itself for security reasons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard a rumor that if you enter the menu while in movie mode, the sensor gets &quot;deactivated&quot;, reducing the heat on it. This is very convenient due to switching from live view to the normal mode back and forth has some impact in the shutter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is this true? How do you prevent heat without leaving the live view?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4039" LastActivityDate="2011-05-21T07:32:37.163" Title="Do cameras turn off their sensors when entering the menu?" Tags="&lt;noise&gt;&lt;heat&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12261" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12226" CreationDate="2011-05-21T03:44:52.590" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have achieved this effect by dropping down the 'Vibrance' in Lightroom and increasing the exposure either in the camera or the software. The most common pattern I noticed was the high Saturation on any one color. So using the single color pallet you can increase the Saturation of a single color. That really brings out the key point in the image. But be careful not to over do it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The black and white is quite straight forward. You just have to drop the &quot;Saturation&quot; down to zero. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4786" LastActivityDate="2011-05-21T03:44:52.590" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12262" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12241" CreationDate="2011-05-21T03:57:50.613" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lens like 18-200mm would suite you best. Just to be safe you could pick up a 1.4x converter. With a spec like what you have in mind its difficult to do it with a single lens because it will either be very expensive or there definitely will be a quality loss. I suggest you look at Canon 550d or Canon 60d also because Canon has more range of lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also for traveling a Battery grip (the one below the camera which can hold a extra battery also) will be helpful not only to provide the extra juice but also by helping you shoot vertical with ease. This would help you in your portraiture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For macro work you could buy extension rings. This is very light but very effective and also don't cost a much. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for low light photography you could pick up a Gorilla Pod. Its handy and can be easily stored. And you can literally fix it anywhere. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just to conclude, a lens with a f-stop 2.8 or lower would suite your needs but its difficult to get it cheap and moreover it wont be light. So I am guessing something like &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A 18-200mm lens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Extension tubes&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1.4x Teleconverter &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;would do the trick for you. Hope this helped. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4786" LastActivityDate="2011-05-21T03:57:50.613" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12263" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-21T04:32:36.837" Score="4" ViewCount="97" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have two prints stamped on the back &quot;Best's Studios&quot;. One has the name Best signed on it. They look like Ansel Adams photos but none that I have seen anywhere I have looked.  Both have some sort of coloring to them, just a little. Green, brown and blue, dabbed or rubbed into the tree areas and water.  They are very old.  Has anyone ever seen this?  I have tried to find information on it but can't.  They have a number on the back and it says &quot;in ordering duplicates refer to number&quot;. Any info would be great.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5252" LastActivityDate="2011-05-21T05:55:13.497" Title="Has anyone ever seen an Ansel Adams print with color added?" Tags="&lt;ansel-adams&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="12264" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12269" CreationDate="2011-05-21T05:36:06.367" Score="6" ViewCount="281" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was browsing an unrelated question here and noticed this photo:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/sparth/5730541580/lightbox/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/sparth/5730541580/lightbox/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've seen countless street-photography shots with this kind of color effect / exposure. At best guess It looks like the WB was warmed a bit, blacks were dialed up and saturation was dialed down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't been able to do a similar effect though, I'm curious If I am missing something obvious here, this is a common visual style I see in many places and I'm interested in something similar for some of my photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for the answer ElendilTheTall, I took a quick sample shot and tried this out on it. It wasn't the ideal shot for the effect, but I was able to apply the effect for the most part, some tweaking in the future on the shots I would like to do this on should render some cool results:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Original:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://images.reanmachine.com/Photo/Otafest2011-Josh-Original.png&quot; alt=&quot;Original&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Processed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://images.reanmachine.com/Photo/Otafest2011-Josh-WashedSepia.png&quot; alt=&quot;Processed&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5142" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-22T14:58:56.007" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T01:58:15.860" Title="How do I get this &quot;Washed out&quot; effect for street photography?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;color&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" />
  <row Id="12265" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12263" CreationDate="2011-05-21T05:55:13.497" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have. To be quite honest, I didn't like them. If you want to see Ansel Adams quality work, in color... buy HIS book &quot;Ansel Adams in Color&quot; (ISBN: 9780316056410). It's a little known secret that he actually shot in color periodically, trying the new technology to see if it ever caught up with his artistic vision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adams married Virgina Best, who was also an artist, and owned &quot;Best's Studios&quot;. Any &quot;marketing&quot; of his images has been handled through their brand. They actually run www.anseladams.com as a dba under the name &quot;Ansel Adams Studio&quot;. So anything with their numbers and such on the back are likely legit reprints from them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I don't think the coloration came from them. The ones I've seen for sale were done by an artist in California who's name I never caught. He bought archive prints from them and added color to them with various media. (Personally, I would almost use the word &quot;deface&quot; to describe what he was doing... but only because I dream to capture images with the depth of character that Adams is known for.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have any doubt about the authenticity, call them and ask. The place is run by photographers who care about photography as an artform, the last time I talked to anyone there they were very knowledgable and helpful in my quest to identify if a print I was looking at purchasing was legit or not. Given a re-order number, I'm betting they'll be able to tell you exactly what it is. It's quite possible it's not an Adams image, but one of some other member of the studio, possibly his wife's if it bears her signature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-05-21T05:55:13.497" />
  <row Id="12266" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3405" CreationDate="2011-05-21T07:08:55.453" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Shoot a photo so that a light source is in the frame to test if a damaged filter (or lens front element) has visible effect. Look for extra flare or streaks shaped like the scratch(es).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard of fixing the flare by painting over the scratch with a marker, but haven't had a chance to verify it. You might want to start out with a whiteboard marker to test.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-05-21T07:08:55.453" />
  <row Id="12267" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12260" CreationDate="2011-05-21T07:32:37.163" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as going into a menu whilst recording, I can tell you that my Canon T1i does not permit the action. That is, pressing the MENU button results in no action, and recording continues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Going into MENU is only supported in LIVE VIEW while not recording. Here you may see some heat savings as the return &lt;em&gt;back&lt;/em&gt; to to LIVE VIEW takes around a half-second to accomplish, so I expect there is some initialization of the sensor going on. That said, the mirror remains up, and the sensor remains exposed during this time. I can't, however, see any reason to be reading the data out while in a menu.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps your camera supports going into a menu while recording, but I'm thinking that Canon dSLRs, anyway, are out of the equation on that one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5067" LastActivityDate="2011-05-21T07:32:37.163" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12268" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12241" CreationDate="2011-05-21T07:57:30.240" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, for your fast focusing requirement: skip any camera that must do contrast-detect AF (which pretty much knocks most m4/3rds out of the running). You'll end up with a camera that is great from a portability perspective, but will be consistently frustrating as it hunts through its zoom range to find the best contrast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, for your lens requirements:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No one great lens will do it all, and no one lens that does it will do it well.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A 18-200mm or 18-270mm might work for you. I'd look at Tamron/Sigma.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;These lenses are consumer-level lenses intended to get back to a 10x+ zoom experience.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The lenses, when compared with their shorter zoom and prime counterparts, are significantly less sharp and more prone to distortions and chromatic aberrations.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The lenses are often slow; they may start out nice (e.g., f/3.5 at 18mm) but they will quickly end up at f5/6 or f6.3 well before you've hit the end of the focal length.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you can live with two lenses, I'd suggest a 24-70mm and a 70-200mm + 1.4x TC or even a 100-400mm.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Neither are light lenses. My 24-70mm f/2.8 is nasty heavy and could have been used for weight-training. But it's fast to focus, fast wide open (f/2.8), and has gorgeous optics. My 70-200 f/4 is lighter than my 24-70mm f/2.8 and I can say the same things about it: fast focuser, good light performance (though not tops; the f/2.8 obviously wins), and fantastic optics.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If m4/3rds is absolutely required, try the Panasonic 45-200mm plus either a pancake prime or the kit 12-42mm lens. The 45-200mm is bulkier on the m4/3rd body, but is a reasonable performer, though slower at focusing. (Forget chasing animals with this one.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Finally, let's go through a few more things:&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;IS (optical stablization) always makes a lens heavier and more expensive. If you can drop the IS, you can usually get the next stop lower lens for the same price at a similar weight.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fast glass always makes the lens larger, heavier, and more expensive. Further, fast glass isn't always better. (Case in point: Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 -- not as sharp as the 1.4 through most of the aperture settings. So much so that some wedding photographers love it simply due to the &quot;dreamy&quot; effect it can produce.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A nifty-50 is never a bad thing to have in your camera bag. They are almost universally cheap, light, and have high-quality optics (even if the Canon 50mm f/1.8 feels disposable -- it is --, but it has great glass). Put it this way, My 50mm f/1.8 goes with me, period. Low light, check. Decent focal length, check. Weight, next to nothing. May as well go in the bag along with everything else.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5067" LastActivityDate="2011-05-21T07:57:30.240" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12269" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12264" CreationDate="2011-05-21T08:03:40.253" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;These desaturated shots seem to be growing in popularity. This one appears to have been tinted slightly with a sepia tone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have Photoshop, open the photo you want to use. Duplicate the background layer and set its Blending Mode to Multiply. The image will darken. Make a new Hue/Saturation adjustment layer and drop the saturation to 0. Set the opacity of this layer to about 40% - experiment with this. Finally make a new Levels or Curves layer above all the others, and use it to bring the brightness of the image to a normal level. Add a Photo Filter layer set to Sepia to add that brownish tint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-05-21T08:03:40.253" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12270" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7406" CreationDate="2011-05-21T10:01:43.697" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;When using a camera with monochrome sensor, such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/achromatic.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Phase One Achromatic+&lt;/a&gt;, or &lt;a href=&quot;http://maxmax.com/ldp_b&amp;amp;w.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a camera converted by MaxMax&lt;/a&gt;, B&amp;amp;W photos will have significantly more detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two reasons for this. First, these sensors do not use Bayer color filter, so every pixel will record full spectrum luminance value instead of only one color channel. Second, missing anti-alias filter means image won't be slightly blurred between pixels (although &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11909/what-is-moire-how-can-we-avoid-it&quot;&gt;moiré&lt;/a&gt; might become problem in some cases).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-21T10:07:35.987" LastActivityDate="2011-05-21T10:07:35.987" />
  <row Id="12271" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-21T10:55:10.313" Score="1" ViewCount="100" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do all compact cameras now allow turning-off any unnecessary noise, like shutter sounds and startup sounds? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I mean cameras like Panasonic Lumix, Canon IXUS, Canon Powershot, Nikon Coolpix, etc, and noise which is deliberately played rather than being caused by motors etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5254" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-21T13:14:27.280" LastActivityDate="2011-05-21T13:14:27.280" ClosedDate="2011-05-22T02:06:33.043" Title="What compact cameras don't allow turning off shutter sound?" Tags="&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;&lt;keeping-quiet&gt;" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12272" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12195" CreationDate="2011-05-21T11:43:04.040" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I live in the Czech Republic, and travelled a little bit around neighouring countries. As for the legal situation, I know we have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panoramafreiheit&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;freedom of panorama&lt;/a&gt;. Practically, I don't remember having any issues with protographing stuff around me, even though there are some private and publicly accessible spaces (like shopping centers), where photography is forbidden, in which case it's probably better not to fight local security when they want you to stop taking pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a tourist I've recently been to Austria, Germany, Italy, and the UK, and it was completely fine everywhere except for the UK, where some local security guard didn't like me taking the following photo of security-camera-loaded train station. (I didn't quite understand what he was exactly saying, but he let me be after I said sorry and put the camera away.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://vvv.mokrakocicka.cz/gang/0514_e65652_birmingham.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2011-05-21T11:43:04.040" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="12273" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12274" CreationDate="2011-05-21T15:26:20.920" Score="6" ViewCount="183" Body="&lt;p&gt;I shot many long exposure photos (from 5 minutes to 30 minutes) back in December of 2010 with a two month-old Nikon D7000 and Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 lens.  The photos I took had very little noise.  I used the same camera and lens last night (5 months later) and my photos have a ton of red, green and a few blue dots on them. My ISO was the same (200) and my aperture was almost the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what gives? Does noise increase as equipment ages? Or is there dust on my sensor? Or does temperature affect noise (ie, colder months have less noise and warmer months have more noise)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Close up of the noise:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/LudUg.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Overall:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/aRDwR.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4199" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-21T18:06:47.537" LastActivityDate="2011-05-22T03:48:18.047" Title="What is the source of this multicolored noise in these samples?" Tags="&lt;noise&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="12274" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12273" CreationDate="2011-05-21T15:33:29.417" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Inherently, no - time will not cause noise.  You &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; have inadvertently damaged your sensor somehow if you tried to clean it manually or change a focusing screen or something internal with your camera.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also doubt the ambient temp has risen enough to account for the difference, unless you were taking pictures in Alaska and you're now in a desert.  But temperature will effect noise (you see this in astrophotography - but we're taking super long, repeated exposures, and even then its barely, if at all noticeable until we start messing with the picture in post).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dust shouldn't show up as multi colored dots, so that's probably out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My guess is that its you're photos last night were underexposed and they've been pushed too far in post and you're starting to see some noise.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try posting examples and you'll get much more definitive answers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit:&#xA;OOOOooooOOOOO (after looking at your sample you've just posted) - thermal noise on the sensor from a long exposure.  Is your camera's long exposure noise reduction feature turned on?  That will help if its not on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-21T18:07:41.390" LastActivityDate="2011-05-21T18:07:41.390" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="12275" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-21T21:41:32.290" Score="1" ViewCount="35" Body="&lt;p&gt;Panasonic GH2 automatically corrects lens geometric distortion and chromatic aberration. If I understand it right, it always applies this correction just after reading from the sensor — so the image displayed by EVF is distortion and aberration free, as are RAW shoot, and JPEGs. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcgh1/page17.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;More info on how GH cameras correct lens aberration is here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This in fact makes all supported lens aberrations free.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Can Sony A55 do something similar ??&lt;/strong&gt; Technically it should be no problem, as it uses an EVF as the Panasonic GH2 does. The only thing that should matter is the installed software (and maybe the lens needs to provide some info to the camera).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5244" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-21T23:44:55.397" LastActivityDate="2011-05-21T23:44:55.397" Title="Can the Sony A55 software-correct lens aberrations like the Panasonic GH2 does?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;chromatic-aberration&gt;&lt;distortion&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12276" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12275" CreationDate="2011-05-21T22:43:26.950" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neocamera.com/camera/sony/slt_a55/review&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;No it does not&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good question though, in all my years of reviewing cameras I have never thought of listing what a camera does not do except for truly rare omissions (no tripod mount, no built-in flash, that's about it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-21T22:43:26.950" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="12277" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12273" CreationDate="2011-05-22T03:48:18.047" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That looks like a few hot pixels my 20D has. Basically some of the photo sites in the sensor ramp up WAY faster than they should such that any exposure over a few 10ths of second and those subpixels go full on. The fact that those seem to be in 3 groups: 100% red, 100% blue and 50% green is a really good indication of that. I bet if you look at them in the RAW you'll see they're all exactly 1 px square. (They get distorted out by jpg compression.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1872" LastActivityDate="2011-05-22T03:48:18.047" />
  <row Id="12278" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12286" CreationDate="2011-05-22T04:59:54.690" Score="1" ViewCount="53" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a D7000 (and a D50 and D80) that I use with a SB-800 speedlight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also have a SC-29 TTL coiled cord (which includes its own illuminator).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have successfully used this with an optical slave trigger and my SB-28 Speedlight in studio situations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I now have a Stroboframe Quick Flip flash bracket and had to swap off its built-in flash shoe mount for the flash shoe mount on the SC-29.  I had to hack it with some washers to make the included screw work.  I don't like this arrangement for two reasons: one, its a hack and two, the SC-29 is bulky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I mindlessly bought an SC-15 sync cord thinking &quot;Oh, I'll just plug one end into the camera and the other to the flash&quot;.  Then I discovered/noticed that the D7000 does not have a Nikon sync cord socket!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So now I'm confused.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My primary question is &quot;What is the lightest/least bulky corded cable that will optimally let me control my SB-800 from my D7000 while it's mounted on my Quick Flip flash bracket?&quot;  Ideally it would be something that did NOT include another shoe mount for the flash, allowing me to use the lightweight one that came with the Quick Flip. It would use a cable that plugged into either the sync socket or &quot;other&quot; socket on my SB-800.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which brings me to my backup question:  What is that &quot;other&quot; socket for (female with 3 male pins) that sits above the sync socket on the SB-800?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5264" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-22T14:19:05.167" LastActivityDate="2011-05-22T14:19:05.167" Title="What light/non-bulky Nikon flash cord will let me control my flash from a camera without a sync cord socket?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;off-camera-flash&gt;&lt;nikon-d7000&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="12279" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12280" CreationDate="2011-05-22T05:48:59.087" Score="8" ViewCount="220" Body="&lt;p&gt;What do the &lt;strong&gt;T&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;v&lt;/strong&gt; stand for?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/OvW0o.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Picture of Canon mode dial.&quot;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Public-domain image from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3aCanonEOS100TopLeft.JPG&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="64" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-22T16:59:58.123" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T14:31:05.340" Title="How does 'Tv mode' translate to shutter priority mode?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;camera-modes&gt;&lt;shutter-priority&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12280" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12279" CreationDate="2011-05-22T06:00:23.943" Score="29" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tv stands for &quot;Time value&quot;. Similarly Av stands for &quot;Aperture value&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_priority&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_priority&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2773" LastActivityDate="2011-05-22T06:00:23.943" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="12281" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-22T06:11:28.567" Score="2" ViewCount="243" Body="&lt;p&gt;For example, from this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?q=canon%20eos%20rebel%20digital&amp;amp;tbs=shop:1&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;aq=f&amp;amp;qscrl=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Google search&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/f5Ii7.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the middle camera is way more blue in color than the others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the reason behind this? Do these cameras have some special type of glass that results in blue color or is it something else?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="64" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T22:24:47.533" Title="Why do some cameras have a blue lens shown in their photographs?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;canon-eos&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="12282" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12287" CreationDate="2011-05-22T06:36:37.420" Score="7" ViewCount="110" Body="&lt;p&gt;The definition of high key photographs is &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10232/what-does-it-mean-for-a-photograph-to-be-high-key&quot;&gt;thoroughly answered&lt;/a&gt; by &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/users/1943/mattdm&quot;&gt;@mattdm&lt;/a&gt;. What I understood is that a light toned subject is the most important requirement to take a high key image. However, it seems there are other pre/post processing arrangements that needs to be considered. If you see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/hinfrance/3203702931/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photographer's description&lt;/a&gt; on the example image mattdm posted in his reply, there are few things to note:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He exposed it for 3secs. (Probably to get unsharp edges.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He is using halogen worklights. (To lighten the tones?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question is: what are the lighting and other pre- or post-processing requirements for a high key image similar to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/hinfrance/3203702931/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2773" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-23T02:36:18.083" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T02:36:18.083" Title="What lighting and pre- or post-processing is required for a high key image?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;high-key&gt;&lt;camera-modes&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="12283" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12281" CreationDate="2011-05-22T06:52:27.063" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It looks like the whole middle image has a blue tint, maybe due to blue lighting, vs yellow lighting in the other two. Also, note that the lens in the middle one is the newer version of the 18-55 kit lens, while the other two have the older kit on them, so possibly there are different coating with different color.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-05-22T06:52:27.063" />
  <row Id="12284" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12281" CreationDate="2011-05-22T08:26:35.580" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it's to do with white balance. If you look at the housings, the middle camera seems to me to have a much bluer tinge than the other two.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastActivityDate="2011-05-22T08:26:35.580" />
  <row Id="12285" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12281" CreationDate="2011-05-22T09:13:53.667" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The difference is likely due to different lighting setups. The two cameras on the sides seems to be photographed in one setup, and the middle camera in a different setup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The camera houses will reflect the light from the lamps that are set up to light up the camera, while the glass in the lens will reflect light that comes from the surrounding room. The color tint in the lens is the difference in light temperature between the product shoot setup and the surronding room.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The setup for the cameras on the sides would have a colder light for the setup, for example flashes, and a warmer light in the surrounding room, for example regular lightbulbs. The setup for the camera in the middle would have a warmer light for the setup, pretty much any kind of lamp, and a colder light in the surrounding room, like flourescent light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the white balance for the photos are adjusted to the light of the product shoot setup, the difference in lighting only shows up in the reflection in the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Edit:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I adjusted the white balance to roughly make the reflected light in the lenses neutral, so that you can see the difference between the surrounding light and the setup light:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/R7u5k.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-23T22:24:47.533" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T22:24:47.533" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12286" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12278" CreationDate="2011-05-22T10:03:06.717" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;other&quot; socket is for the SD-8A battery pack, an external pack using 6 AA-type batteries for quick recycling. If you want TTL control and need to use a cord (that is, for one reason or another you cannot use the pop-up as a controller, such as with a flash bracket) then the SC-29 is the correct cord. Note that the screw you need is a common thread (1/4-20) and that you should be able to find a replacement of the correct length at any reasonably well-stocked hardware store.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-05-22T10:03:06.717" />
  <row Id="12287" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12282" CreationDate="2011-05-22T10:22:00.313" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The halogen work lights are a common DIY substitute for more expensive photograhic &quot;hot lights&quot; (such as the Lowel Tota-Lite or the Ianiro RedHead) -- you can usually pick up a 250 or 500 watt fixture with bulbs for under $50 rather than spending hundreds on the &quot;real deal&quot;. They're usually much lower temperature than photographic lights, but filters (with film) or a white balance adjustment (video or digital photography) will make up the difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The picture is not only high-key, but overexposed for effect. (The overexposure is absolutely &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; necessary for high key.) If we assume 2 250W lights and a one-and-a-half to two stop overexposure, 3 seconds is not a tremendously long exposure at a low ISO -- hot lights may seem ridiculously bright when you're looking at them, but they can't hold a proverbial candle to the sun or to a flash. The long exposure was probably made, as you assumed, for the etherial quality it lends the subject due to subtle motion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for high-key as a concept, it simply means that the majority of the tones in the image are lighter than mid-tone. An image can have a full tonal range and still be high-key, such as, say, a still life consisting of white objects on a white background with full-developed shadows, or a floral macro consisting of a wash of pinks against a light background, with accents of deeps reds and purples. It's just a matter of where the majority (usually the preponderance) of tones in the image lie on the tonal scale.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-05-22T10:22:00.313" />
  <row Id="12288" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12290" CreationDate="2011-05-22T11:15:29.907" Score="4" ViewCount="45" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've just been experimenting with some of the built-in filters on my Panasonic Lumix DMC-G10, and after importing them into Aperture 3, the filter is no longer there and I'm seeing the photo exactly as it would have looked without a filter. For example, the monochrome shot is in full colour! I'm not doing any adjustments on import. I'm also shooting in RAW only, not sure if that makes a difference. Would really appreciate any help with this. While I can always re-apply different filters, it's annoying as I'd managed to get a couple of really nice monochrome shots. Thanks all!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5266" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-22T17:00:48.183" LastActivityDate="2011-05-22T17:00:48.183" Title="Why are my filters lost on import in Aperture?" Tags="&lt;apple-aperture&gt;&lt;digital-filters&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="12289" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12121" CreationDate="2011-05-22T11:43:35.937" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The gyroscope in an iPhone doesn't actually let you track the direction the camera was facing at the time of a shot. All it does it track motion--it has no frame of reference to determine what point of the compass the camera is actually facing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;digital compass&quot; in the iPhone 3G S onwards can give some idea of that, except that it's designed to be used when the iPhone is more or less flat. It would thus require a mirror to be fitted to the camera lens to be useful, and in any case compass data isn't included in the EXIF info. I would expect that any camera providing directional capabilities would be using an equivalent &quot;digital compass&quot; using a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetometer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;magnetometer&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5266" LastActivityDate="2011-05-22T11:43:35.937" />
  <row Id="12290" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12288" CreationDate="2011-05-22T13:00:00.400" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;RAW images are straight from the sensor, no processing included.  These effect filters on your camera would only apply to jpeg.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5068" LastActivityDate="2011-05-22T13:00:00.400" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12291" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3675" CreationDate="2011-05-22T13:18:23.673" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use an app called &lt;a href=&quot;http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/trails-gps-tracker/id289190494?mt=8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Trails&lt;/a&gt; on my iPhone, which exports (via email) GPX files. It's quite configurable (especially good if your speed is highly varying, e.g. driving then walking), and does intelligent things like turning off the screen after a short time period, resulting in pretty good battery life. Unless your long walks go for more than 3-4 hours, I wouldn't be too concerned with battery life. You can always get a little battery pack if you need it too (there's plenty of small and inexpensive ones around.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5266" LastActivityDate="2011-05-22T13:18:23.673" />
  <row Id="12293" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12288" CreationDate="2011-05-22T14:48:28.913" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The term RAW is not an acronym, even though it is usually written in all-caps. It's meant to be taken as &quot;uncooked&quot; — that is, the data is read from the sensor and dumped into a file with minimal processing. It's not ready to eat, as it were. The uncooked data has several characteristics which make it less than tasty:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;our own response to light follows a curve, whereas the sensor measures straight linear values;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;most cameras use a pattern of red, green, blue, green sensors, which need to be merged together;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the human vision system adjusts to different colored light sources (the white balance) almost instantly and transparently;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it may be desirable to correct for lens flaws at this stage;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;and etc. — this is not a complete list.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in every case, the uncooked data needs to be converted into a final image via some software process. If you save it into a RAW file for use later, you would use desktop-computer software to do the baking. That would do the above corrections, and apply any color toning, effects, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which brings us to the filters in your question. The camera has built-in software (&quot;firmware&quot;) which includes¹ JPEG conversion routines. The filters you are using are applied as part of these routines².&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apple Aperture doesn't have the same code, and so it can't do the same thing. RAW files generally contain metadata — notes, basically, saved by the camera's firmware along with the sensor data capture. Those notes record the camera's basic settings like ISO, aperture, and shutter speed, but they can also include more esoteric settings, like which firmware-based filter was used. If the desktop RAW conversion software recognized that note, and if it had routines that did the same thing, it could apply the same effects — so your filters wouldn't be lost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Panasonic provides &lt;a href=&quot;http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/silkypix/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a version of SilkyPix&lt;/a&gt; with the camera, and it's &lt;em&gt;possible&lt;/em&gt; that they've included the required filter routines with that software, although it's not listed as a feature online. It'd be interesting to try it as an experiment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;1. As on all cameras except some really old models, like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.casio.com/products/archive/Cameras/QV_Series/QV-10A/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;QV-10A&lt;/a&gt; I had 15 years ago, which saved in RAW only.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;2. On some cameras, they can be applied after the fact &lt;em&gt;to&lt;/em&gt; JPEG images on the camera, and may not work with RAW files. I assume these are features added at the last minute by marketing requirements, and work on JPEG for convenience, going on the fact that if you're applying a dramatic filter, the minimal quality loss through re-doing JPEG compression will be inconsequential.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-22T14:55:54.417" LastActivityDate="2011-05-22T14:55:54.417" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12294" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12296" CreationDate="2011-05-22T17:01:39.230" Score="4" ViewCount="159" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a lot of experience doing travel, landscape, product, ... in short, things that don't move much. Models? Not so much. I have a beautiful 85mm portrait lens for my Canon 1Ds Mk III DSLR, and at f/6.3, I have a fairly high miss rate with auto-focus. By &quot;miss&quot; I mean the focus point was not the eyes, which I prefer to have in focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Models, as we know, don't stand still, so what is a typical reject rate because of focus? Should I feel bad if 20% of my images are focused on the nose? 30%? How do you deal with this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clarification: 80% in focus 20% focused on the wrong place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5270" LastEditorUserId="5270" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-22T17:52:27.880" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T18:10:32.777" Title="What's a Typical &quot;In-Focus&quot; Rate for Portraits with an 85mm?" Tags="&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;people&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12295" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3675" CreationDate="2011-05-22T17:18:11.207" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been using Runkeeper on my iPhone4 for geotagging, and on a full battery it easily lasts for 4 hours. This is really a fitness tracking app, so it will also tell me how many calories I have burned on my walk ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know how long exactly it will last because I have never drained it completely, but I suspect that it would do 6-7 hours on a full battery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4559" LastActivityDate="2011-05-22T17:18:11.207" />
  <row Id="12296" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12294" CreationDate="2011-05-22T17:42:21.207" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, that's not a good in-focus rate, but would be a good keeper rate (IMHO).  Some things to check:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make sure you are telling your camera which exact focus point to use.  You want to select a focus point on their eyes, and not let the camera choose out of many focus points.  Keep that point on the model's eyes and continuously focus as you shoot.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Typically, a camera will pick the closest near center object to focus on if you don't tell it which one to use. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Focus and recompose will change the plane of focus as you rotate.  This can be noticeable at close distances and narrow depths of field. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Check for front or back focusing with your lens + body combination and lighting conditions.  See &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1/what-is-the-best-way-to-micro-adjust-a-lens&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-23T17:30:55.660" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T17:30:55.660" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12297" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5634" CreationDate="2011-05-22T20:23:53.007" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This one seems good for the umbrella adaptor: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/621575-REG/Interfit_STR117_STR117_Umbrella_Bracket_with.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Interfit STR117 Umbrella Bracket with Hot Shoe Adapter&lt;/a&gt;. I'd also recommend getting a sandbag or two if you don't want the whole rig either blowing away in the wind or getting knocked over by a passerby.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bear in mind that umbrellas are among the least sensitive mods in terms of quality and can be pretty inexpensive without being useless. It's not like you can't upgrade later. One feature many people like in an umbrella is a dual-purpose reflected and shoot-through umbrella. Almost everyone makes one. Dynalite has one (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/750900-REG/Dynalite_UCBW_40_Umbrella_40.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dynalite Umbrella (40&quot;)&lt;/a&gt;) that isn't completely bank-breaking if that's a feature you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Umbrellas provide pretty hard light with moderately rapid fall-off so you'll need to keep it focused on the &lt;strike&gt;victim's&lt;/strike&gt; subject's  face.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5270" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-22T20:30:55.580" LastActivityDate="2011-05-22T20:30:55.580" />
  <row Id="12298" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12264" CreationDate="2011-05-22T21:17:59.177" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This kind of effect is a ton easier to achieve using a filter like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.niksoftware.com/colorefexpro/usa/entry.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nik Color Efex Pro&lt;/a&gt;. Alternatively, a number of RAW image processors, including Lightroom have some of these grunge effects included as presets. Try Bleach Bypass as a sample.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5270" LastActivityDate="2011-05-22T21:17:59.177" />
  <row Id="12299" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12264" CreationDate="2011-05-22T21:19:16.723" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the common features to such images are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;story telling through perspectives; little to do here in post-processing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;dramatic high-contrast scenes (bright sky or artificial light sources and almost black silhouettes and shadows); this can be emphasized with curves;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;undersaturated colors; this can be achieved in different ways, but saturation slider is the easiest way;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;color tints (and also split-tones, with one tint in shadows, and another tint in highlights); through channel combinations, separate color curve adjustments or with a dedicated instrument/filter;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;emphasized or artificial vignetting (darker corners like in cheap lenses); radial gradient masks and channel combinations or a dedicated instrument/filter&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All together this gives slightly wrong colors and lo-fi look, and somewhat resembles vintage amateur photography. Overall it may give a surprisingly good impression, and there are countless variations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your photo processed this way in Darktable, saturation reduced to 65%, split tone (cyan in shadows, red in highlights), vignetting; curves untouched:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/P12od.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;example&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Increased contrast may be great sometimes, but I think you overdid it in your processed example. There is enough of it already in this photo. Undersaturated colors stand out from the oversaturated colors of commercial imagery around us, and have a retro feel. They are also more forgiving for custom color tints. Color tints help to avoid dull gray of the modern urban architecture, and also make even distant accidental colors appear closer and more harmonic. They define the general warm or cold apperance of the image. Split tone may be used to increase &lt;em&gt;color&lt;/em&gt; contrast though, and in some shots may help the subject to stand out. Vingetting darkens the border of the frame, to draw attention to the subject in, otherwise, often too noisy street photo composition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastEditorUserId="1558" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-22T21:43:27.603" LastActivityDate="2011-05-22T21:43:27.603" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12300" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12193" CreationDate="2011-05-22T22:00:00.680" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If this is the f/3.5-5.6 lens, then as you zoom out the max aperture is reduced ( f/3.5 at 18mm, but f/5.6 at 55mm).  Autofocus will struggle in lower light at the f/5.6 end.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can try to find something high contrast to focus on, or use manual focus if you have to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you focus at 18mm then lock focus and zoom in, that won't necessarily still be in perfect focus at 55mm. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4191" LastActivityDate="2011-05-22T22:00:00.680" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12301" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12237" CreationDate="2011-05-23T01:48:49.340" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sorry guys, it's all manual masking out unwanted movement and &quot;ghosts&quot; shot by shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5276" LastEditorUserId="67" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-23T13:46:28.840" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T13:46:28.840" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12302" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12264" CreationDate="2011-05-23T01:58:15.860" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That is likely a split tone effect. He used Photoshop, but it's very easy also in Lightroom (it's a built-in effect).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The highlight colour would be the warm creamy white and the shadow colour would be a cool hue, probably blue on the border of aqua.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I have time I will see if I can recreate the look and report the settings used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T01:58:15.860" />
  <row Id="12303" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12164" CreationDate="2011-05-23T02:11:25.973" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given that most IT employment contracts consider all &quot;work&quot; done with the work environment to be included, them offering to pay you any extra at all for photos is a nice bonus! And unless you're seriously interested in moving towards photography in a professional capacity, keeping to pay-per-shoot will probably work better for you than a salary increase (this would probably required a job description update to include being official office photographer, which you may not want).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for rights, again, your employment contract (especially as a developer) almost certainly means that any works created (no matter whether software or photographic) while employed at the company are automatically owned by the company. If you can negotiate something to allow you to retain rights to use the photos for non-commercial use or something that would be good, but don't count on it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5266" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T02:11:25.973" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12304" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12256" CreationDate="2011-05-23T03:52:32.690" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apparently not.  You can shoot video in tethered mode, but it first records to the memory card and then transfers to the computer when the recording has finished.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/7/0300004047/01/eu29-m-en.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EOS Utility 2.9 for Macintosh Instruction Manual (EOS 60D)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You can control your camera from EU&#xA;  [EOS Utility] and shoot movies from&#xA;  your computer screen.  You cannot&#xA;  shoot movies without a memory card in&#xA;  your camera [p. 41].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...image data will be downloaded from&#xA;  the camera's memory card to your&#xA;  computer image data. [p. 43].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3356" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T03:52:32.690" />
  <row Id="12305" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12307" CreationDate="2011-05-23T06:10:02.633" Score="5" ViewCount="90" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking to take an image looking out at a storm in the distance that has a fairly uneven horizon due to trees and a foreground fence post and only increase the contrast and decrease the brightness on the sky portion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lighting in the image is such that the foreground grass/fence becomes far too dark when I increase contrast and decrease brightness, but it makes the sky look absolutely fantastic. I've tried to use the magic wand and intelligent scissors in Gimp to try and outline the horizon and each and every time even the slightest mistake like missing some sky or including some tree in the selection is very obvious once the adjustments are made (avoiding that seems almost impossible). If no better solution exists I suppose a tedious hand draw is possible, I'm just curious about alternatives. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there an effective way to split the image across the horizon so I can only modify the sky portion in Gimp and leave the ground unchanged?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5281" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-23T14:48:16.970" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T14:48:16.970" Title="How do I effectively split an outdoor image across an uneven horizon in Gimp?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;gimp&gt;&lt;image-manipulation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="12306" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12200" CreationDate="2011-05-23T07:04:28.260" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a variety of ways to display highlighted focus point indicators in the viewfinder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the earliest (yet still common) methods is to direct light back through the pentaprism to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reticle#Illuminated_reticles&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;reflect off the rear-surface of reticles&lt;/a&gt; etched on the focusing screen or dedicated &quot;superimpose plate&quot;. Displayed information is limited to highlighting the etched indicators.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/zrbdM.png&quot; alt=&quot;Rough example of reflective etched-focus points&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A relatively recent method has been to place a monochromatic transmissive LCD just above the focusing screen. This allows more information to be displayed (a choice of framing guides and myriad focus points) as required, however the LCD becomes less responsive in cold weather and significantly dims the viewfinder when unpowered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/rkSyI.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Canon 7D viewfinder system&quot;&gt;&#xA;(Canon EOS 7D)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another way is to use &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichroic_prism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dichroic prisms&lt;/a&gt; between the pentaprism and viewfinder eyepiece lens to reflect an illuminated superimposition display (SI) LCD without affecting the brightness of the viewfinder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/PKHVj.png&quot; alt=&quot;Canon 1D MkIII cutaway&quot;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/s0Kcz.png&quot; alt=&quot;Canon 1D MkIII viewfinder system&quot;&gt;&#xA;(Canon EOS 1D MkIII)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally, the new hybrid viewfinders superimpose a colour LCD display using a half-mirror - however the mirror will darken the optical image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/91vBn.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Fujifilm X100 hybrid viewfinder system&quot;&gt;&#xA;(Fujifilm FinePix X100)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5177" LastEditorUserId="5177" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T08:41:51.673" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T08:41:51.673" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="12307" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12305" CreationDate="2011-05-23T07:35:01.107" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Forget the magic wand. Grab the Free Select (Lasso) tool, and draw a selection around the sky. You can make sure you get right to the edges by going outside the image boundary at the top, left and right. When it comes to the horizon, follow the line of trees very roughly but don't worry about being too precise. Now go to Select &gt; Feather, enter 150 pixels and click OK. This will give you a soft, natural looking transition between the sky and foreground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, it's always best to edit non-destructively. Because GIMP doesn't have Adjustment Layers like Photoshop, this means editing separate image layers. So, duplicate the background layer (there's an icon at the bottom of the layers palette to do just that). Then right click the new layer and click Add Layer Mask. Choose Selection and click OK. The area you had selected (i.e. the sky) is retained, and the foreground is masked out, so you are in fact looking at the foreground on the layer beneath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Make sure you have selected the layer contents rather than the mask by click on the layer thumbnail icon (it should have a white border around it). You can now use the Levels or Curve tools (avoid Brightness/Contrast) to adjust the sky however you like. If you want to adjust the foreground, simply select the appropriate layer (duplicate the background layer again to retain a non-edited version) and adjust that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T07:35:01.107" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12308" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12313" CreationDate="2011-05-23T08:25:41.073" Score="4" ViewCount="144" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been trying to do freelensing for a couple of days now (yes I know it's only been a short time) without much success. All I've gotten so far are grainy, underexposed images, with some light leaks. &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://content.photojojo.com/tutorials/tilt-shift-and-macro-freelensing/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This photojojo tutorial&lt;/a&gt; says that I need a 50mm or longer lens to get this to work. Is that true? Since my D7000 is a 1.5x crop sensor the 35 mm is about 53mm on a full frame, so I'm thinking it should be ok, but I want to make sure. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, any tips on how to do this right? Thank you!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4989" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T11:35:10.187" Title="Can I do freelensing using a D7000 and a Nikon 35mm f/1.8?" Tags="&lt;tilt-shift&gt;&lt;freelensing&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12309" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-23T08:58:54.247" Score="8" ViewCount="271" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why is it that 35mm film is always supplied in a small plastic canister, when the film itself is enclosed in a hard, opaque carapace itself. Now, potentially for high-sensitivity films like Ilford Delta 3200 this would make sense, as it comes with an (ostensibly) light-proof canister. But then again, lower sensitivity films (eg: Neopan 100) is supplied with a light translucent container. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But then again, it seems likely that there is a good reason--perhaps to keep out excess moisture, or other potential harmful airborne substances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4400" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T15:04:14.263" Title="What is the point of film canisters?" Tags="&lt;film&gt;&lt;storage&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="12310" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12309" CreationDate="2011-05-23T09:20:17.997" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think, like you said, the canisters are made for protecting the film from external influences. The plastic casing of the capsules is not completely shut. Dust, small water drops and light might get inside without an extra casing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1297" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T09:20:17.997" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12311" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12309" CreationDate="2011-05-23T09:52:21.720" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can use the translucent ones as diffusers for pop-up flashes. Take the lid off, cut a notch out of one side, place it on the flash and put the lid back on. Voila! Softened flash, no more &lt;em&gt;Coccoon&lt;/em&gt; shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T09:52:21.720" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12312" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3675" CreationDate="2011-05-23T10:19:53.503" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are shooting &lt;strong&gt;in the wilderness&lt;/strong&gt;, then consider a dedicated GPS unit. Garmin devices are great (map format aside). I used GPSmap 60Cx with Sirf Star III chipset, and it was reliable and precise even in narrow mountain valleys/gorges. Garmin doesn't advertise which chipsets they use anymore, but you can find this information from the third parties. I think &lt;em&gt;a good chipset&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;battery life&lt;/em&gt; is what matters the most for outdoor use. Rugged case is the next. Devices from the more expensive series tend to have better chipsets than devices with similar or better features from the cheaper series (e.g. GPSmap is better than eTrex).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I didn't find GPS maps very useful (also for the lack of official maps for my region few years ago and no support of scanned geo-referenced maps until the very recent Garmin models). It consumes the battery when used actively, the screen is not large enough, and you still have to carry a paper map with you. So if I were buying a new GPS unit now, I'd not pay extra for the mapping features. If you want a lightweight, but rugged unit, consider also the Foretrex series, which is also a wrist GPS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Smartphone-based GPS trackers do not work reliably where there is no cellular coverage. Also, spare batteries tend to be much more expensive than spare AA- (or AAA-) batteries of dedicated GPS units.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S. If you buy a Garmin unit, just &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gpsmap.net/GarminHints.html#GarminSaveFunction&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;don't use its &lt;code&gt;Save track&lt;/code&gt; feature&lt;/a&gt;, it makes tracks useless for geo-tagging. Otherwise any device is capable of writing a GPX-track today. And there are plenty of free software packages to geotag photos later without hassle (ExifTool included).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastEditorUserId="1558" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-23T10:25:26.113" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T10:25:26.113" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12313" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12308" CreationDate="2011-05-23T10:56:45.030" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;if you get very underexposed images it's probably because you're not keeping the aperture open by holding a lever in the right position. I used to keep it in place with a piece of paper, also it seems some fancy adapters can be useful to the same purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've not tried this extensively, still enough to notice it's really easier with a slightly longer lens; if you have a kit lens or another all-purpose zoom (usually around 18-55 for cropped sensors) it gives decent results at its longest end. &lt;br&gt;&#xA;If you read photojojo's tutorial you likely noticed they suggest to move the lens very little from its usual position, this is important to get things in focus and to avoid light leaks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/MC6qf.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&#xA;sorry for the bad quality of the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I removed from my answer a couple lines of mild criticism some seemed to find offensive.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I still advise against freelensing (as more than a brief experiment) because it leads to good chances of damaging both the camera and the lens used. &lt;br&gt;&#xA;I also think, as answering a request for advice on this matter, it's fine to state  I stick to my most (apparently) controversial opinion (anyway already clear if one reads the comments), i.e. not considering freelensing a proper photographic technique, because &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it makes permanent gear damage easy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it gives little to no control over&#xA;the technical basics of photography&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it doesn't allow for basic&#xA;consistency in results&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;hope this made my point clear in a polite way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3364" LastEditorUserId="3364" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-24T11:35:10.187" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T11:35:10.187" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="12314" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3675" CreationDate="2011-05-23T11:12:36.063" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use a &lt;a href=&quot;https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=145&amp;amp;pID=8703&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Garmin Vista HCx,&lt;/a&gt; which is a slightly older model of Garmin dedicated GPS. You can find them on sale at REI for $150.  I simply turn on the GPS, toss it in my bag, and forget about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I get home, and download my images, I put them in a temp folder on my desktop. I hook up the GPS to my computer, and then run &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlyinnovations.com/gpsphotolinker/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;GPSPhotolinker&lt;/a&gt;, free software that will download the tracks from the Garmin, and then match them with the timestamps of the images in my temp folder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is one or two extra steps, but is very simple and mostly automated. Once I get the GPS metadata in my RAW images, I then import into Lightroom and follow my normal workflow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This Garmin unit is bulletproof, waterproof and relatively simple to operate. It has a high sensitivity GPS chip, and USB port. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other recommended software in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.houdah.com/houdahGeo/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;HoudahGeo&lt;/a&gt;...but GPSPhotolinker is free. HoudahGeo costs money, but has many more features and more automation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T11:12:36.063" />
  <row Id="12315" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12309" CreationDate="2011-05-23T14:20:02.227" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you ever used a reloadable film cassette, then you know how easily those things fall apart.  When you take apart a one-use cassette in the darkroom, you have to use a church key or special tool to take it apart without hurting yourself.  You end up with a couple pieces of bent metal in the process.  A reloadable cassette will come apart just by pulling the top off — it is in fact &lt;em&gt;harder&lt;/em&gt; to take the top off a canister than it is to disassemble a reloadable cassette, especially once you've used it a half dozen times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5284" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T14:20:02.227" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12316" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12378" CreationDate="2011-05-23T14:27:02.130" Score="2" ViewCount="87" Body="&lt;p&gt;I noticed a quiet sound (like squeaking) when using the built-in sensor cleaning of my Nikon D90. In some forums I read about many people having this behavior with the Nikon D700 and some Canon cameras. It is often called a side effect of the ultra-sonic cleaning, but a friend of mine also got the D90 and he does not have this sound.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does any one know anything about this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1297" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-23T14:44:53.430" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T21:51:23.140" Title="Why does my Nikon D90 make a strange sound during built-in sensor cleaning, when my friend's D90 doesn't?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;nikon-d90&gt;&lt;cleaning&gt;&lt;troubleshooting&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12317" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12279" CreationDate="2011-05-23T14:31:05.340" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;TV stands for Time Value. This is basically to indicate that you can set the Shutter Speed manually and the aperture will set automatically depending on the other parameters you've set like the exposure and the ISO. This mode is very handy in case of bird photography, sports photography or anything where shutter speed needs to be constant. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4786" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T14:31:05.340" />
  <row Id="12318" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12309" CreationDate="2011-05-23T15:04:14.263" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This was the subject of a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.guardian.co.uk/search?q=35mm%20film%20canister&amp;amp;show=recent&amp;amp;tag=tone/letters&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;long-running letter thread&lt;/a&gt; in the Guardian newspaper a couple of years back. You'd be amazed what people use them for. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3644" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T15:04:14.263" />
  <row Id="12319" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-23T17:01:38.060" Score="4" ViewCount="83" Body="&lt;p&gt;My dad has some old Nikkor AI Lenses from the 80's that are in great shape and are great all around lenses. I used to use them his Nikkormat growing up but now I want to use them on a digital format.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to buy a Canon 60D because of its video capabilities but how well do Canon -&gt; Nikon adaptors work? Are there even adaptors that work with lenses that old?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any advice? I'm not dead set on the 60D but I want the SLR to have great video capabilities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5289" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-23T17:08:20.757" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T18:35:12.143" Title="How well do 1980s AI Nikkor Lenses work on a Canon 60D with an adaptor?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;canon-60d&gt;&lt;adapter&gt;&lt;old-lenses&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="12320" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12233" CreationDate="2011-05-23T17:06:30.117" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're right — &lt;a href=&quot;http://hugin.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hugin&lt;/a&gt; works very well for this. This is from a series of pictures I took with a P&amp;amp;S Fujifilm camera at the Children's Museum. It's not an action shot except in the sense that all pictures of children are action shots, but the process is pretty much the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/iFtIg.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Multi-Guen!&quot;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Photo by me. Licensed &lt;a href=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CC BY-SA 3.0&lt;/a&gt; in this size.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The images were all hand-held (braced against my knee), so there's pretty inevitable twists and turns between shots. Actually, since it wasn't really fast action, there's more difference than their might be in a burst. Hugin straightened that out, and adjusted the slight differences in exposure. The UI is really designed for people who know what they're doing, but I made it work anyway — selecting a projection and guessing at things until it came out right (which, despite the complication, just took a little experimentation). As a bonus, the considerable barrel distortion from the point-and-shoot zoom lens is turned into mostly-straight lines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I took the resulting stack of images into Gimp as layers and erased through where my daughter is in each chair. Even though there's quite a bit of texture in the background, Hugin worked well enough that I didn't really have to worry about the overlap at all — it was all just smooth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-23T18:00:44.677" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T18:00:44.677" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12321" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12319" CreationDate="2011-05-23T17:12:00.613" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would look at the Nikon D7000 which has excellent video capabilities, is in a similar price range, and would eliminate the need for the Nikon-to-Canon adapter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-23T18:34:01.210" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T18:34:01.210" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="12322" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3675" CreationDate="2011-05-23T17:13:30.317" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another vote for Garmin - I went for a Garmin Legend HCx after finding that capturing a trail on my iPhone killed the battery. The Garmin stores trails on a micro-SD card, so for very little money you can easily store a couple of weeks' worth of trails without needing to download them to a PC (great when travelling).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the time comes to copy them off the device, Garmin's BaseCamp software makes it very straightforward to download trails to your PC and export them in GPX format. As a final cherry on the cake, I then use Jeffrey Friedl's excellent &lt;a href=&quot;http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/gps&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Geoencoding plugin&lt;/a&gt; to automatically tag all my images in Lightroom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3644" LastEditorUserId="3644" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-23T17:37:15.627" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T17:37:15.627" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12323" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12294" CreationDate="2011-05-23T18:10:32.777" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depends on the camera, technique, and situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the situation is badly lit, the keeper rate is less, but with a camera that can focus better in low light, keep rate would increase.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For models who cant stand still, you need a camera with a more reliable and faster AF. Sometimes Focus and Recompose technique often employed for center focus point will not do on a moving model. You cannot rely on center focus point for reliable focus all the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Polishing your technique, which comes with countless hours of practice, would help you achieve your desired goals. Maybe learning from Sports Shooters would help you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4246" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T18:10:32.777" />
  <row Id="12324" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12396" CreationDate="2011-05-23T18:12:09.867" Score="10" ViewCount="216" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm new at photography and I have taken some pictures where the subjects in the foreground are exposed correctly but the sky is very overexposed. What is the best way to handle it in post production? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I have pictures in RAW format.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5288" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-23T18:27:40.423" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T12:54:25.597" Title="What is the best way to handle overexposed sky in post-processing?" Tags="&lt;post-processing&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;dynamic-range&gt;&lt;sky&gt;&lt;overexposure&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12325" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12319" CreationDate="2011-05-23T18:28:51.347" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are lots of adapters for Nikon lenses on Canon cameras.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With all of them, you'll get infinity focus, due to the fact that Canon's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.markerink.org/WJM/HTML/mounts.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lens registration&lt;/a&gt; is shorter than Nikon's. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you'll forgo is autofocus and auto-stopdown during exposure. You will have to meter by stopping down, setting the exposure, opening up to focus, and then stopping down just before taking to shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With some Nikon DSLRs, basically from the D7000 and up, you can mount these lenses and the body will meter. You can use A and M modes. On cheaper models, you can mount the lens, but you will not get metering. You will however get auto stopdown when taking the shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some caveats though with lens compatibility. I'd use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Roland Vink's Nikon serial number database&lt;/a&gt; to identify the lens mount variant on your dad's lenses. Anything newer than &quot;AI&quot; will mount fine on the D7000. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To add to the confusion, the Nikon-&gt;Canon lens adapter will not have any compatibility issues with different lens mount variants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastEditorUserId="3114" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-23T18:35:12.143" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T18:35:12.143" />
  <row Id="12326" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12324" CreationDate="2011-05-23T18:37:48.603" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on how badly the sky was overexposed.  If it's &quot;blown out&quot; to pure white, the only real option to restore any sort of definition or texture is to bring the image into Photoshop or another editor and create a composite of multiple images - if you have an image with a properly-exposed sky, merge the two images together so that you use the sky from the good image along with the foreground from the image with the blown out sky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the sky isn't blown out to pure white but is just overexposed somewhat, you should be able to make some localized exposure adjustments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T18:37:48.603" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12327" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12233" CreationDate="2011-05-23T19:17:39.993" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have two excellent answers already, but as @Maynard has enquired about alternative techniques, there is another option if you have a flashgun with a stroboscopic mode:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/javo_noso_comio/3414155008/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/javo_noso_comio/3414155008/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/14643312@N02/4510423513/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/14643312@N02/4510423513/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This basically works by firing the flash multiple times during a single exposure to illuminate the subject as it moves across the frame. The downside is that you would need darkness or very low levels of ambient light to do this. However, it is much simpler as it can be done in-camera without any post-processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3775" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T19:17:39.993" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12328" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12233" CreationDate="2011-05-23T19:57:51.797" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's also an alternative application to Hugin: Autopano Pro by Kolor (http://www.kolor.com/panorama-software-autopano-pro.html) might be useful, but actually I am not sure how it would deal with the &quot;differences&quot;, a.k.a. the motives you are actually looking for. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3150" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T19:57:51.797" />
  <row Id="12329" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12324" CreationDate="2011-05-23T20:28:46.207" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you shot that image in RAW, you can try to recover some detail using Photoshop, or better yet your camera's native RAW converter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the sky is suppoed to be pure blue, you can just do a color replace in photoshop and apply blue, or duplicated the layer, apply blue filter to it, and erase everything else but the sky to show the original image below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If all else fails, convert the image to B/W.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4246" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T20:28:46.207" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12330" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12324" CreationDate="2011-05-23T20:35:28.317" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What software do you use for post-processing? The highlight recovery tool in Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw (for Photoshop) does exactly what you're after. (Other software such as Aperture will certainly have a similar feature.) It may be that the sky is so badly overexposed that you simply can't recover any detail, but you'll probably be pleasantly surprised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Incidentally, this is exactly why you've done the right thing to shoot in RAW: in JPEG mode the camera has already discarded the additional detail in any blown highlights so recovery isn't an option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3644" LastEditorUserId="3644" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-23T20:44:20.047" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T20:44:20.047" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="12331" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11848" CreationDate="2011-05-23T20:44:03.223" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Try out this website from Nikon. It contains an interactive digital tutorial on how to use the D7000. It should be helpful in learning about your new camera. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nikondigitutor.com/eng/d7000/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nikon D7000 Digital Tutorial&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5293" LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T03:14:47.763" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T03:14:47.763" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12332" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12324" CreationDate="2011-05-23T20:45:55.217" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If subjects do not reach sky, you could crop it out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T20:45:55.217" />
  <row Id="12333" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10715" CreationDate="2011-05-23T21:05:09.850" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A couple of tips that I don't think others have mentioned so far:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Have you checked what setting is selected in the Camera Calibration panel in Lightroom? You'll find it at the bottom of the right-hand panel in the Develop module. Lightroom used to suffer from terrible colour reproduction in RAW files (for example, reds in Canon .CR2 files used to appear very orangey), but it now comes with individual colour profiles for all major cameras and it's made a world of difference. For Canon cameras (and I'm sure it's the same for other brands), there are camera calibration settings to match each of the built-in picture styles: so for example, if I shoot with the Standard picture style selected, selecting &quot;Camera Standard&quot; in the Camera Calibration pane matches exactly the preview colours I see on the camera screen.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Do you by any chance have a wide-gamut monitor on your computer? (If you don't know the answer to that question, it's probably no: wide-gamut displays are pretty non-standard and make colours look very over-saturated unless they've been properly calibrated.) The reason I ask is because weirdly, Lightroom uses different colour spaces for the Library and Develop modules. On a monitor with a very wide gamut (capable of showing a much larger range of colours than usual), the difference is visible and colours sometimes appear a little off in the Library module.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These days Lightroom does an excellent job of reproducing colour in RAW images (at least that's been my experience with Canon SLRs). Hope you get your problem sorted out!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3644" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T21:05:09.850" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12334" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-23T21:52:20.487" Score="16" ViewCount="637" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yesterday, I've been to the Britomart train station in Auckland, New Zealand, to take some pictures of that place. To do so, I carried my tripod with me. &#xA;Aware of the fact, that some places don't like tripods I double checked their really huge sign of things that are forbidden in that place (busking, smoking, running etc.), using tripods was not among these things, so I thought I was fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, that was a misconception after I got told by a security guard that tripods are forbidden at the train station. Since it makes no sense to discuss with these people, I tucked it away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know, legal questions are totally country related, but in general I always wonder why such facilities are so apprehensive towards tripods. Anyone has an idea?&#xA;After that incident I put my camera on the ground with some books and other pieces to get an appropriate angle for my shot and the sec guy was totally fine with that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore how do you deal with it? Do you try and get something like a official permission of the owner to use it? Is that even worth the hassle? How do you deal with restrictions in (Semi-)public spaces? Especially when you think that they are wrong and you should have the right to use it in a certain place?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question is not so much headed to get a answer in the sense of law, rather than how to deal with it while out there in the wild.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4675" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T19:07:01.590" Title="Why are tripods forbidden in some public spaces and how to deal with it?" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;tripod&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12335" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12334" CreationDate="2011-05-23T22:16:20.487" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I belive that tripods in general are understood as a sign that you take photography seriously, especially in museums and culturally important places, where tripod-equipped (=professional) photographers may be considered a threat to the ability of institutions to sell postcards. (Or by stealing the soul of art they possess.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And of course you have to bear in mind that people with tripods may be terrorists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T22:16:20.487" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="12336" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12334" CreationDate="2011-05-23T22:21:24.553" Score="27" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If it's a crowded, public place - it's often perceived as a tripping hazard by many a security guard, possibly even a weapon.  Its also possible that if its photographing public art, they don't want you to &quot;steal&quot; it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are times were it makes sense to try to get permission if you need to a long exposure.  Depending on the person, they may ask you to take other precautions (caution tape, cones, etc) to ward off potential trippers or they may just tell you no. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't need really long exposures, but just some more stability, try a monopod (this confuses enough people because they don't know what it is, that you can often get away with it).&#xA;If you need the stability, try a Gorillapod or other clamping system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they don't want you to &quot;steal&quot; it, then you may just be out of luck unless you obtain special permission.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T22:21:24.553" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12337" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12334" CreationDate="2011-05-23T22:22:05.037" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that some places avoid tripods because they take up a fair amount of space (as much as three people standing in close proxmity sometimes) and could represent a tripping hazard for which the public place does not wish to be held liable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would recommend trying a monopod at address the concerns I mentioned. If it is because they dont want &quot;serious photography&quot; taken there, you'll be out of luck either way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3206" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T22:22:05.037" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12338" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-23T22:23:00.370" Score="1" ViewCount="132" Body="&lt;p&gt;What extra features Nikon D300S offers over Nikon D7000? Or Why is Nikon D300S is more expensive than D7000?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5295" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T01:35:46.880" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T01:35:46.880" ClosedDate="2011-05-23T23:49:16.587" Title="What does Nikon D300S offers over Nikon D7000?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;nikon-d7000&gt;&lt;pricing&gt;&lt;marketing&gt;&lt;nikon-d300s&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12340" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12334" CreationDate="2011-05-23T22:44:57.553" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another reason yet to be mentioned is that some tripods have spikes which can damage floors or walls if you're careless manuoevering with the 'pod.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they wont let you use a monopod even then a piece of string with a loop that goes round your foot and attaches to the tripod mount (via a bolt with a eye hole) can work well. Or bracing your lens hood against a vertical structure like a wall or pillar. The latter might get you told off as well, but it's easy enough to stop doing it until they go away...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T22:44:57.553" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12341" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12338" CreationDate="2011-05-23T22:46:59.567" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a full comparison here &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond7000/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DP review&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5221" LastActivityDate="2011-05-23T22:46:59.567" />
  <row Id="12342" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12334" CreationDate="2011-05-24T00:14:28.140" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer the last part of your question, one way of dealing with it is simply to setup and take the shot as quickly as you can, and by the time security (or whoever) come and tell you to stop, you're already done. Just be nice when they turn up, say that the view (or whatever) is just so amazing, smile a lot, and pack up!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that I wouldn't advise this if there are actually signs up saying &quot;No tripods&quot;, as in that case your plausible deniability goes out the window! I'd also be hesitant doing this in any part of the world where security is likely to get aggressive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5266" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T00:14:28.140" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12343" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12346" CreationDate="2011-05-24T00:23:21.433" Score="7" ViewCount="327" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been using a cheap basic tripod for several difference scenarios recently, specifically panoramas, night time shots, and HDRs. I'm thinking of upgrading to a better tripod (this one is rather heavy and clunky), and it was suggested that a monopod might be better. I don't tend to take much with me other than my camera, so the smaller/lighter, the better. I know that a monopod isn't going to give me quite as much stability as a tripod, but what advantages does it have instead? And can anyone recommend a good quality budget one? Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5266" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T02:11:49.833" Title="Why would I get a Monopod over a Tripod?" Tags="&lt;tripod&gt;&lt;monopod&gt;" AnswerCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12344" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12343" CreationDate="2011-05-24T00:28:33.790" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why? It can sometime help you overcome &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/12334/why-are-tripods-forbidden-in-some-public-spaces-and-how-to-deal-with-it&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; kind of troubles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T00:28:33.790" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12345" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12343" CreationDate="2011-05-24T00:31:53.860" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Tripods are banned where you want to take pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You need some stability but increased mobility from a tripod (concerts or some sports shooting for example).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You need something lighter to carry and don't intend on taking really long exposures.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Manfrotto-680B-Monopod-4-SCTN/dp/B004PKM5XG&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Manfrotto very similar to this&lt;/a&gt; and find it perfectly fine.  Depending on your application, you may want to get a head similar to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Manfrotto-234-Monopod-Tilt-Replaces/dp/B001A1POL8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this tilt head&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T00:31:53.860" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12346" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12343" CreationDate="2011-05-24T00:40:39.767" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;portability&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;access to places that don't allow it&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;weight (when hiking)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;mobility&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;in wildlife photography and other similar feats, a monopod is often good enough for long lenses&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;in sports, racing, birding, it can be easier to follow the action&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;utility (as a walking stick)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;takes the weight off of big lenses (especially when the shutter speed needed is sufficiently fast for hand-holding)&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;sports (especially when trying to get a low angle for a good perspective and background)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;airshows&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;stick a flash on it and get off camera flash look without much setup&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;get higher angles if you have a remote shutter/use self timer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;defense&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It can also be very stable if you use it &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.outdooreyes.com/photo5.php3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;correctly&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-24T02:11:49.833" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T02:11:49.833" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12347" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12334" CreationDate="2011-05-24T02:05:47.063" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Couple of reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We photographers, are generally not aware of our surrounding when we are framing a shot. This is an issue when you are moving around with the tripod lens extended, camera still attached to the tripod.. in a crowded area.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some public places are absurdly crowded, e.g. the every damn person in the world who goes to Agra wants to get his picture taken on a bench where princess Diana posed infront of Taj.. time taken to compose a shot and setting up a tripod is just not acceptable.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It looks a lot like something you can use to hinge a sniper rifle.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hard to manually inspect (since you can't just carry them through a metal detector).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can get a written permission of some authority incharge. I have seen people (who more or less look like pro photographers) flashing some sort of id card and moving around with an open tripod in restricted areas.. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="55" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T02:05:47.063" />
  <row Id="12348" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-24T02:25:59.910" Score="0" ViewCount="30" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been searching online for a company that does good quality analog to digital video conversion. Mainly I've got a number of old 8mm and 16mm reels that I'd like to digitize and have transferred onto DVDs but I don't have a lot of experience nor the time to do it myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have you ever used a service such as iMemories or FirmTransfer.com? What do you recommend?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5298" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T02:25:59.910" ClosedDate="2011-05-24T10:33:18.907" Title="What is a reliable analog to digital video transfer service?" Tags="&lt;video&gt;&lt;digitizing&gt;" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12349" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7499" CreationDate="2011-05-24T03:14:57.323" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I created software, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://searisen.com/products/p.aspx?id=4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SeaRisen Image Browser&lt;/a&gt; to organize and quickly find your images.  I too have gigabytes of images and find it a real time saver when looking for particular images, or series of images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5299" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T03:14:57.323" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-05-24T03:14:57.323" />
  <row Id="12350" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10772" CreationDate="2011-05-24T03:47:06.537" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This reply expands on the discussion in the comments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The averaging idea turns out to be the right one, as ably explained by Douglas Kerr in a nice little &lt;a href=&quot;http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles/MTF_Slant_Edge.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;online paper&lt;/a&gt;.  The basic ideas are two:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The lens &quot;resolution&quot; is most fully described by considering the mathematical relationship between the light leaving the subject and what reaches the sensor.  This relationship, the &quot;modulation transfer function,&quot; can be deduced from the simplest of all possible targets: a perfectly dark half-plane on a perfectly bright homogeneous background.  Obviously the image on the sensor should be a region of light abruptly terminating along a perfect line.  It never is perfect, though, and the imperfections affect the resolution.  Ultimately the MTF is determined by looking at how the light intensity varies as we move straight out from the boundary (in both directions, into the dark and into the light) across the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is a statistical fact that averages can be more precise than the measurements of which they are constituted.  For typical measurement error, the precision follows an inverse square root law: to double the precision, you need four times as many measurements.  In principle you can get as precise as you want by averaging enough independently repeated measurements of the same thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This idea can be exploited (and is) in two ways.  One is actual repetition, achieved by taking multiple images of the same scene.  This is time consuming.  The slanted-edge MTF analysis creates repetition &lt;em&gt;within a single image.&lt;/em&gt;  It does this by slanting the line slightly.  This does not change the MTF in any material way and it guarantees that the patterns of the lens's response do not align perfectly with the sensor's pixels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagine the line being nearly vertical.  Each row of pixels serves (almost) as an independent set of measurements of the MTF.  The rows march outward from the line, almost perpendicularly.  The pixels are registered with respect to the (ideal) line location in varying ways, producing slightly different patterns of response.  Averaging these patterns over many rows has almost the same effect as taking multiple images of the line.  The result can be adjusted for the fact that the pixels aren't quite perpendicular to the line.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this way, the slanted-edge method can detect frequencies in the MTF that exceed the limiting frequency of a single image.  It works due to the simplicity and regularity of the test pattern.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have left out many details, such as checking that the line really is straight (and adjusting for slight deviations from linearity).  Kerr's article is accessible--there's almost no math there--and well illustrated, so check it out if you would like to know more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1356" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T03:47:06.537" />
  <row Id="12351" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12334" CreationDate="2011-05-24T05:06:10.223" Score="16" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have also run in to this problem a couple of times, again security guards asking me to clear the tripod away when no signage indicated they were not permitted.  In both situations I complied as requested and then went home and followed up by finding the management of the establishment online and emailing them to ask why.  In both circumstances they apologised and said the security guard was being over zealous (there's a surprise) and invited me back to photograph their place.&#xA;Took some patience and return trips, but the results were worth the effort.  So if denied use of a tripod, politely check with the real bosses if it is possible in any way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1410" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T05:06:10.223" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12352" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12353" CreationDate="2011-05-24T07:55:38.410" Score="6" ViewCount="143" Body="&lt;p&gt;The other day, I was using my Canon 500D with the EF-S 55-250 IS lens.  A couple of times after focusing I tried to recompose the picture, and noticed the image in the view finder suddenly shifted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm assuming this was caused by the IS mechanism trying to keep the image stabilized, and then all of a sudden giving up as I moved the camera too far and too quickly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm guessing this is something I want to try to avoid, but could I actually damage the lens by doing this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4410" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-24T11:06:54.583" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T12:46:08.803" Title="Can I damage an IS lens by moving it too quickly?" Tags="&lt;image-stabilization&gt;&lt;equipment-damage&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="12353" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12352" CreationDate="2011-05-24T08:08:20.073" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I very much doubt you can damage the lens in this way, the glass that the IS system moves is designed to be very light so as to have low inertial stiffness so it can move quickly and accurately. This same trait means it should be able to move against any momentum you put into the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Empirically having seen the way some people abuse their super-teles (300 &amp;amp; 400 f/2.8) I think Canon would have had it by now if their IS system wasn't robust.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T08:08:20.073" />
  <row Id="12354" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-24T08:20:29.137" Score="5" ViewCount="65" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like software to remotely (via USB tether) control my G10 from my MacBook running OS X 10.6. This software seems to do exactly what I want, but for Windows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.breezesys.com/PSRemote/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.breezesys.com/PSRemote/index.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anything similar for the Mac?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a house finch nest on the side of my house and I have a webcam trained on it, getting some ok shots, but I really want to get high-quality stills of the little chicks and mom, it's pretty adorable. Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apparently, the CameraWindow software from Canon will do this, but you can't download it and I have no idea where the CD that came with the camera is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've also tried Capture One Pro 6, but it doesn't recognize when the G10 is attached.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5227" LastEditorUserId="5227" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-25T03:07:37.027" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T03:07:37.027" Title="Is there any software available on Mac OS X that can remotely control my Canon G10?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;tethering&gt;&lt;macintosh&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="12355" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-24T10:11:02.910" Score="5" ViewCount="89" Body="&lt;p&gt;I’m looking to buy a tripod online.  (My one local camera shop doesn’t stock many options, and those it does have are much more expensive there than are online.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Price, size, weight — all these are easy to compare when browsing online.  But sturdiness is very important in a tripod, and I don’t know how to judge it from written descriptions or specs!  Is there any way to gauge the sturdiness of a tripod apart from actually feeling it?  Something to look for in the materials, or where it’s manufactured, or…?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3305" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-24T11:49:47.513" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T06:02:11.397" Title="How do I judge tripod sturdiness when buying online?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;tripod&gt;&lt;online-shopping&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12356" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12355" CreationDate="2011-05-24T10:30:19.547" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tripod specs usually include maximum load you can put on them. If you have 2 kg camera, it's probably going to be much more stable on tripod that can handle up to 5 kg of load than on one with 2 kg limit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T10:30:19.547" />
  <row Id="12357" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12352" CreationDate="2011-05-24T10:33:00.747" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Moving is not a problem, it's the acceleration or deceleration that can cause problems. The sort of jolts and shakes you'd get by attaching a camera to the roll bar on a safari Jeep would be OK, but the sharp deceleration it would experience if said Jeep rolled over may prove terminal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general though, a lens should be able to handle most things - just don't try using IS on acrobatic jet...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T10:33:00.747" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12358" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12334" CreationDate="2011-05-24T10:42:24.530" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In some situations using a lens/camera combination that provide image stabilisation might help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1580" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T10:42:24.530" />
  <row Id="12359" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12355" CreationDate="2011-05-24T10:44:18.683" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For almost any recognized brand, you can find online reviews. You can decide on tripods which have higher maximum load limit comparing to others. Weighty tripods are sturdier and have higher load capability. Its better if you can take a look what your friends and other local photographers use and get one of those models. You did not mention what camera and lens you're planning to use on it. However, its always better to get a tripod which can handle roughly twice the load you'll actually be putting on it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T10:44:18.683" />
  <row Id="12360" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12354" CreationDate="2011-05-24T12:14:05.287" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gphoto.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gPhoto&lt;/a&gt; can be installed on a Mac (it may be &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.dcclark.net/2009/05/how-to-gphoto-primer.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;difficult&lt;/a&gt; a bit). It &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gphoto.org/proj/libgphoto2/support.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;supports&lt;/a&gt; Canon G10.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="507" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T12:14:05.287" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12361" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12362" CreationDate="2011-05-24T12:17:39.247" Score="24" ViewCount="651" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can I rotate lossily compressed photos that I view in &lt;em&gt;Windows Photo Viewer&lt;/em&gt; without worrying about losing even more information to compression?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5306" LastEditorUserId="5306" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-24T12:38:51.920" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T17:46:17.657" Title="Are &quot;Windows Photo Viewer&quot; rotations lossless?" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;jpeg&gt;&lt;image-compression&gt;&lt;photo-viewer&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="14" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="12362" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12361" CreationDate="2011-05-24T12:26:18.993" Score="25" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the dimensions of the image are multiples of 8 (or 16 if chroma subsampling is used) then the rotations are lossless. Otherwise it is not possible to rotate the image without recomputing the blocks i.e. recompressing the image, which is lossy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason for this is that jpeg images are broken up into a series of 8x8 or 16x16 blocks which are compressed individually. Incomplete blocks are only allowed on the right edge and bottom edge. Thus is your image is not an exact multiple of 8/16 it will contain incomplete blocks, which will end up on the wrong edge after rotation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I verified the above assertion using the version of Windows Photo Viewer that ships with Windows 7. I used two images of colour noise. One image was 256x256 i.e. both sizes multiples of 8. The other image was the same but cropped to 253x253 i.e. neither size was a multiple of 8. Here are the images:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/losslessrotation/256x256.jpg&quot;/&gt;&#xA;256x256&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/losslessrotation/253x253.jpg&quot;/&gt;&#xA;253x253&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I then performed four anti-clockwise rotations, closing photo viewer after each rotation to ensure the image was saved in it's rotated state.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/losslessrotation/256x256_rotated.jpg&quot;/&gt;&#xA;256x256&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/losslessrotation/253x253_rotated.jpg&quot;/&gt;&#xA;253x253&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's no need to perform a subtraction to see the difference with the 253 pixel image, it's noticeably darker and muddier!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A diff on the other image looks like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/losslessrotation/diff.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;i.e. the images are identical, the rotations were lossless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-25T17:46:17.657" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T17:46:17.657" CommentCount="12" />
  <row Id="12363" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12352" CreationDate="2011-05-24T12:46:08.803" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recognisewhat you describe, and your assumption is correct. The stabilisation will counter small movements, but if you move too far or start to pan, it will &quot;give up&quot; and instead try to make the movement smoother.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For normal movements this is not at all harmful. As the lens contains moving parts, you could of course damage it with too vivid movement, but that would be something much more violent than just moving the camera a little.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T12:46:08.803" />
  <row Id="12365" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3462" CreationDate="2011-05-24T13:14:09.470" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find it repetitive and without any use in digital photography, at least some cameras have quite dark back lcd designs, causing no obstruction in night photography, has much more information, the menu thing is really not a thing when you do the same settings on the back lcd with the speed and ease of the top screen,since you use the same buttons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've used Nikon and Canon in film photography, nowadays I use Sony DSLR and I don't miss a thing about it. (yes, flame me, I use Sony, I like their pro entry level overall quality and price, besides, I had a huge range of minolta mount lenses and by the time I also had lots of bayonet adapters for other lens brands).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think its just an anchor from film photography and makes no meaning in having it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I even sometimes in nightshoots, use a 7'' screen attached to the hdmi to do precise focusing. BTW, imho, in nightshoots, you don't really need our eyes nightvision, instead, dealing with cameras sensibility and behaviour makes a lot more sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5308" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T13:14:09.470" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12366" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1975" CreationDate="2011-05-24T13:33:37.967" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use Lightroom for this - you can import both the JPEGs and the Raw files, then use Autostack by capture time (set to 1 sec) to stack the JPEG with the RAW image, and collapse the stacks, effectively hiding either the RAW or the JPEG. In my experience Lightroom consistantly has the JPEG as the top image in the stack, which works for me. Picasa is pretty good, especially if you are also managing videos from your digicam. If it had stacking, for me it would be a perfectly acceptable free alternative to Lightroom, accepting the develop features etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="926" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T13:33:37.967" />
  <row Id="12367" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12334" CreationDate="2011-05-24T13:43:25.337" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Gorillapods are awesome:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://joby.com/gorillapod&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://joby.com/gorillapod&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That won't help if the guard is against any photography however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5164" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T13:43:25.337" />
  <row Id="12368" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-24T14:06:48.110" Score="2" ViewCount="77" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have an Olympus OM-1 which I've been using as a backup camera for my film Canon Rebel. However, when the mirror trap became stuck &quot;up&quot; in the Olympus, I tried gingerly to pull the trap back down. It eventually gave way and reset properly — but not before cracking and having pieces break away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The camera still works great. The broken mirror doesn't mess with the viewfinder nearly as much as I thought it would, but it bothers me. Is it possible to repair this on my own? If so, how?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1992" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-24T15:34:09.917" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T16:23:25.587" Title="How can I fix a broken SLR Mirror?" Tags="&lt;repair&gt;&lt;slr&gt;&lt;mirror&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12370" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-24T14:42:45.730" Score="0" ViewCount="40" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;·         The Bosch LTC 0498 Series Dinion2X Day/Night Camera specifies a Dynamic Range of 120 dB (20-bit image processing) which is very good but the best digital SLR cameras have a dynamic range of 14 to 17 stops (or EV or bits). The dynamic range of a human eye is about 14 stops. How is it possible that a CCTV camera can be better than the human eye a good DSLR?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;·         The Signal-to-Noise Ratio of most CCTV cameras is about 50 dB. How is a good dynamic range possible with such a low S/N ratio?&#xA;Thanks! &#xA;Frank&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5310" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T14:42:45.730" ClosedDate="2011-05-24T17:18:42.310" Title="Technical Apprentice CCTV Technology" Tags="&lt;dynamic-range&gt;" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12371" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12368" CreationDate="2011-05-24T15:34:23.147" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;h3&gt;It doesn't look good&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I'm jumping in because nobody else has answered)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short answer&lt;/strong&gt;: I would be very surprised if there were a feasible way to fix this at home.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be fair, I am not a repair technician, so I could be wrong, but I don't think many photographers would want to risk it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if you don't want to take it to an approved repair shop, I think you'll just have to get used to it as it is.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sorry about that  :-(&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T15:34:23.147" />
  <row Id="12372" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12373" CreationDate="2011-05-24T15:35:39.150" Score="2" ViewCount="80" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been taking photos with the supplied kit lens with my Sony Alpha 200 for the last couple of years. I'm looking at changing the body to a Nikon D7000 at some point in the future and I'm also looking at getting a 50mm prime lens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, which lens can I buy that would fit a Sony Alpha 200 and also a Nikon D7000? Should I get a Nikon lens and a lens adapter or is there some form of 'one-size-fits-all' lens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5312" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-24T16:34:11.697" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T16:34:11.697" Title="&quot;One size fits all lens&quot; for Sony and Nikon, or a Nikon lens plus adapter?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;sony&gt;&lt;adapter&gt;&lt;lens-mount&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="12373" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12372" CreationDate="2011-05-24T15:50:44.117" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;There is no such thing as a universal lens.&lt;/strong&gt; The shape of the connection, position of the contacts (and electric protocol too), distance between the connector and sensor are all different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;There are adapters to bridge the gap which are mostly used for legacy lenses.&lt;/strong&gt; The reason is that with those adapters you will lose most communication between the body and lens, so you have to focus manual, probably have to set aperture manually and sometimes will have to use the camera in Manual mode only (no metering).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There two extremely important points to note above:&#xA;- If the lens you use (such as ALL kit lenses for DSLRs) does NOT have an aperture ring, you will only be able to shoot at one aperture (usually either the smallest or the largest).&#xA;- If you adapt a lens who is supposed to sit closer to sensor, it will be be able to focus very far and you will almost certainly lose infinity focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given all this and my understanding that your lens investment is minimal, I would recommend simply buying the lenses you need for your new camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T15:50:44.117" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12374" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12372" CreationDate="2011-05-24T15:56:49.577" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, it is possible. See this answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1109/is-it-possible-to-adapt-lens-from-one-brand-into-another-brands-body&quot;&gt;Is it possible to adapt lens from one brand into another brand&amp;#39;s body?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your Sony Alpha uses the old Minolta mount, which has a flange distance of 44.5mm. Nikon cameras have a 46.5mm flange distance. This means that an adapter could be fitted to a Nikon lens which would allow it to be used with a Sony/Minolta camera, but &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; the other way round. In general, the lower the flange distance of your camera the easier it is to adapt other lenses. Canon's EF mount is only 44.0mm, which means lots of old Nikon, Pentax, etc. lenses can be used with EOS DSLR's. Because Nikon's flange distance is larger, most old lenses won't work with a Nikon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, you will lose autofocus (though you can get AF-confirm adaptors for Canon) and you will have to adjust the aperture manually too. If you don't have much invested in a lens system, better to just get lenses that are designed for your body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2329" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T15:56:49.577" />
  <row Id="12375" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12368" CreationDate="2011-05-24T16:23:25.587" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given the age of the OM-1, it's a fair guess that the only way to get a replacement mirror would be to buy a junk OM-1 with a good mirror, and remove the mirror from one body and transplant it into the other. As you've already found, the mirror is &lt;em&gt;quite&lt;/em&gt; fragile, so doing this would be fairly difficult.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, it's easy to find film cameras in &lt;em&gt;good&lt;/em&gt; condition so cheaply that unless you're emotionally attached to this particular one, there's almost no point anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I'd just use it as long as it works, and when/if it dies, decide whether to buy another, or consolidate to a single mount for both the main and backup body. Either way, any but the &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; most minor of repairs on a film camera is &lt;em&gt;extremely&lt;/em&gt; difficult to justify anymore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T16:23:25.587" />
  <row Id="12376" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12334" CreationDate="2011-05-24T19:07:01.590" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many of the answers are, on the face of things, sensible. Tripods do take up space. It's possible someone might trip over one. And so on. But having been up and down this particular road in places like Grand Central Station (with a &lt;em&gt;permit&lt;/em&gt;), I have reached the conclusion that it is more about people equating tripod with professional, and then extrapolating to professional = money and then extrapolating to there's either something in this for me or that photographer isn't going to take his/her pictures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's become such an administrative hassle, I simply avoid taking a tripod if I am not certain I won't get into a bureaucratic fight over some meaningless rule. My rights as a photographer are simply not regarded as highly as the rights of people who want to share in whatever gain (yeah, right) I might realize from making that one great image from a vantage point they govern. It's like dealing with medieval warlords.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5270" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T19:07:01.590" />
  <row Id="12377" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12452" CreationDate="2011-05-24T19:52:03.707" Score="5" ViewCount="108" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Mac, my wife has a Win7 machine. Currently I take all of our photos and put them into iPhoto. There's about 35K images in there now. The problem is that they are all accessible only from my Mac and she has to wait for me to put the images on there, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm willing to switch away from iPhoto. I know there are some tools that are cross platform (Lightroom, Picasa), but are there any that support a shared library? I can share a volume out via NFS or CIFS that we could both mount, but I want to avoid problems of (potentially) both of us hitting the image database at the same time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5316" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-24T20:10:56.460" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T17:19:32.967" Title="Suggestions for shared cross-platform photo management?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;storage&gt;&lt;windows&gt;&lt;macintosh&gt;&lt;file-management&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12378" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12316" CreationDate="2011-05-24T21:51:23.140" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From Nikon's website:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Sensor cleaning takes approximately 3 seconds to complete. During this time a high pitched noise may be heard. This nearly inaudible squeal is just slightly louder with the D300 than the D700, and this may be due to the different sensors used in these cameras. The D90 noise is slight as well, but is audible is you listen closely enough.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers//detail/a_id/16067&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers//detail/a_id/16067&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My D90 makes a very faint &quot;sqeak&quot; and slight vibration. I can hear and feel this only if I hold the camera body against my ear (or very near my ear in a quiet room).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't be surprised to find that different camera bodies make different sounds, since those vibrations would be felt throughout the camera body and anything, say a memory card, could vibrate and contribute to the noise.  There are thousands of parts in there that could be vibrating.  At least you can hear yours, and know it's working &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4191" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T21:51:23.140" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12379" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5" CreationDate="2011-05-24T23:01:56.903" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;A new product, HandlePod, may work for your purpose. It is small, light (4 oz.) and can be use where tripods are not allowed. It is a handle topped by a 3-axis rotating camera mount and backed by four rubber feet. Hold it against any available solid object for tripod-like stability. Check it out at www.handlepod.com.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5319" LastActivityDate="2011-05-24T23:01:56.903" />
  <row Id="12380" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12386" CreationDate="2011-05-25T01:11:48.910" Score="2" ViewCount="81" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.manfrotto.com/product/8374.31708.83523.0.0/MH055M8-Q5/_/055_MAG_PHOTO-MOVIE_HEAD_Q5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;MH055M8-Q5&lt;/a&gt; just arrived. Once I mount the camera on the quick release plate, I can't seem to rotate the knob to completely tighten it, there is no room because the camera obstructs the knob. Can someone please let me know if I'm doing something wrong?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5109" LastEditorUserId="5109" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T03:26:48.717" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T05:15:40.040" Title="Am I correctly mounting my camera on a MH055M8-Q5 Manfrotto Photo-Video Head?" Tags="&lt;tripod-heads&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" />
  <row Id="12381" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-25T02:09:29.447" Score="10" ViewCount="152" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do most of my fashion shots at home and due to lack of space I'm forced to do them in a narrow white corridor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I only have a single light for now and I'm trying to get pictures where there are no shadows from head to toes on me. Any suggestions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5320" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-25T02:12:47.860" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T15:37:59.903" Title="How can I set up lighting for fashion shots in a narrow hallway?" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;&lt;fashion&gt;&lt;limited-space&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12382" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12381" CreationDate="2011-05-25T05:01:40.083" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most effective way of getting no shadows with a single light would be be with ring light around your lens. I'm assuming it's a speedlight, in which case you could add a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diy-lighting-kits.com/ring-flash/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DIY Ring Flash Kit&lt;/a&gt; to your light for this purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, you could turn the part of corridor behind your back into a huge ring flash by pointing flash on-axis in opposite direction of the subject. That takes noticeably more flash power though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My personal preference would be to have some slight shadow by a large light source to make the subject more spatial. To get a large light source, the flash has to be bounced from into wall where you'd normally place a softbox. Use a snoot, barn-door, black card etc. to make sure no direct flash hits the subject. A zoomable flash head lets you control size of the &quot;softbox&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-25T19:57:49.957" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T19:57:49.957" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12383" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12377" CreationDate="2011-05-25T05:32:25.613" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I guess the only cross-platform solution in your case is Final Cut Server ($999).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Windows I could suggest Daminion ($299 for Home Server, and $999 for Daminion Server Pro)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4365" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T05:32:25.613" />
  <row Id="12384" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12381" CreationDate="2011-05-25T05:53:07.930" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It would have been really great if you could specify the type of lighting you were using. Would have simplified the job a little more. But assuming that your using a flash gun with a umbrella you could just shoot with it with the stand a little to the camera left or right depending on the situation. You could also the and use a reflector but it would be kinda useless in case of a full body shot. With a flash gun and umbrella it is possible to get a full body shot. I've tried it and it works. A little shadow is unavoidable but sometimes when used well really adds to the shot. Also keep your subject from being close to the background. That way the shadows on the BG can be reduces it for eliminated. Also with this you will achieve a slightly blurry BG. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4786" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T05:53:07.930" />
  <row Id="12385" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12355" CreationDate="2011-05-25T06:02:11.397" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One important thing would be the material of construction. Usually carbon fibre are the best because they are light and can take a good amount of load. But they can be a little pricey. But if its for indoor use a heavy tripod would be good. Any tripod can be made sturdy just by using the bag provided for it and filling it up with a couple of rocks from around and hanging it from the hook that is provided below the tripod head. Also the manufacturers generally provide the maximum load. Please stick to it because it definitely does matter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could find reviews online for recognised brands but not always. But its always better to buy a tripod after looking at it. Not because it wont have the features and stuff but when you just try it out you will know whether you like it or not because tripod like your camera if you take care of it stays with you for ever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another piece of advice is that you rather buy a slightly pricey tripod because the construction would be better and all. Also rather than investing on cheaper ones that eventually start giving problems ( eg: Thread of the head breaking off, buckling of the legs etc) and you would have to invest on another one. Rather you buy a good one now and not really worry about changing or anything like that later. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4786" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T06:02:11.397" />
  <row Id="12386" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12380" CreationDate="2011-05-25T06:03:14.957" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the features on many Manfrotto heads is that the quick-release plate knobs are spring-loaded... Essentially this will enable you to pull the knobs outward which will allow them to be readjusted without tightening (or loosening) the underlying bolt. This gives the ability to 'ratchet tighten' the bolt by shifting the knob when space gets tight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T05:15:40.040" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T05:15:40.040" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12387" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12388" CreationDate="2011-05-25T06:08:22.107" Score="4" ViewCount="83" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm planning to buy extension tubes for my Canon 50mm f1.8 lens. I found Kenko for about $150 but then again there are the others which are going for about $10 or less which does not mention of a brand name or anything. Any particular difference or disadvantage to using the no-name brand to the lens or camera? I find it pointless to spend lots because for sure I know that there are no optics and hence image quality should not be a problem. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4786" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-25T12:25:43.527" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T15:21:28.257" Title="Kenko extension tubes or no name tubes?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;extension-tubes&gt;&lt;generic-brand&gt;&lt;kenko&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="12388" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12387" CreationDate="2011-05-25T07:28:37.917" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The more expensive Kenko tubes have contacts that allow the lens to pass metering and aperture information to the camera, and the necessary mechanics to work the aperture, so you can use the lens as normal. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The cheap ones lack these, so you have to meter manually and your aperture will be fixed at its smallest diameter - ideally you need a lens with a manual aperture ring, which I believe is not the case with your Canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T07:28:37.917" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12389" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-25T09:30:40.677" Score="1" ViewCount="41" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some time ago, I bought a Nikon Coolpix S8000, with big satisfaction for daylight shoots, but in using it I realized that my night shoots were more frequent than I expected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I tried to use it by night, ending with some disappointment, like blurry/noisy photos, caused probably by my inexperience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to shoot good photos, possibly without using a tripod, in situations like concerts or city by night.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you give me some advice for the settings of the camera?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5322" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-25T10:27:28.887" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T10:27:28.887" Title="How to shoot good night photos with Nikon S8000?" Tags="&lt;point-and-shoot&gt;&lt;low-light&gt;&lt;night-shooting&gt;&lt;noise&gt;&lt;blur&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="12390" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12415" CreationDate="2011-05-25T09:32:22.893" Score="6" ViewCount="156" Body="&lt;p&gt;Now I know the &quot;should my expensive lens have cheap glass on the front?&quot; is an age old question that will never be agreed upon and ends up down to preference. What I'm interested in is the UV vs non-UV perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking to get a Canon 70-200 L f/4 IS in the next few weeks and obviously as soon as it comes out of the box I want to protect my baby. I may over time decide that a filter on the front to protect it isn't needed but I'll definitely want one to start with. What I want to know, and can't seem to find online (as it returns arguments about filter-or-not) is: does the L lens need UV protection?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The L lenses have a lot of complicated glass in them with various coatings to that glass, and is that arrangement, or any specific coatings, already designed to cut out any problems caused by UV?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am deciding on whether to get a Hoya Pro protector filter or UV filter, but if the L lens is already designed to remove problems caused by UV I would prefer to have the clear filter to remove any potential problems caused by another UV limiting element. I know the benefits a UV filter can give to a normal camera/lens setup so no need to be letting me know the pros and cons of that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3584" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-25T12:26:25.337" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T23:53:27.130" Title="Does my L lens need UV filtering, or does it already cut out UV?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;filters&gt;&lt;uv&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12391" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12389" CreationDate="2011-05-25T09:41:01.747" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are unfortunately fairly limited as to what you can achieve with a point and shoot camera in tricky conditions like city night shots. To avoid blur you can increase the ISO right up to the camera's maximum of 3200, but you will get quite a bit of noise in your photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A tripod is more or less essential for night shooting even when using a DSLR. Obviously this is probably not practical for concerts, but it certainly shouldn't be a problem for cityscapes; you can get some decent, compact tripods these days that collapse into quite a small, portable package. The other option is a monopod, which is more portable but offers less stability.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T09:41:01.747" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12392" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12390" CreationDate="2011-05-25T10:31:08.247" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I know the lens doesn't offer any specific UV filtering apart from the fact that all glass filters out high frequency UV. Your digital camera sensor does have a specific near visible UV filter on it so UV shouldn't be a problem. The only reason I can think of to use a UV filter on the front of a lens is if you're going somewhere UV is a major problem such as the far north (anecdotally this includes the tip of Scotland, Scandinavia, Arctic Circle) or if you have a camera with insufficiently strong sensor UV filter such as the Leica M8! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T10:31:08.247" />
  <row Id="12394" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12387" CreationDate="2011-05-25T11:58:06.163" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon has extension tubes as well, for almost the same price I believe. Google for &quot;Canon EF 25II&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing to mention, extension tubes has no optics inside, its all air. Apart from Canon tubes, all have AF issues reported in various reviews. So, I dont think one should pay more money just for the air inside the tube. And also, be prepared to use MF if you buy anything other than Canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2476" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T11:58:06.163" />
  <row Id="12395" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12377" CreationDate="2011-05-25T12:41:44.990" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the answer is to use something web-based. You can either run that on a hosted service somewhere, or on your own machine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My recommendation is &lt;a href=&quot;http://gallery.menalto.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gallery&lt;/a&gt;, which has a nice interface and a &lt;a href=&quot;http://codex.gallery2.org/Gallery3%3aFeatures&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;decent list of features&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This isn't ideal if you're doing a lot of image editing and want to integrate it into your workflow, but for organization, it works quite well. And as a plus, it works for presentation too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T12:41:44.990" />
  <row Id="12396" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12324" CreationDate="2011-05-25T12:54:25.597" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use Apple Aperture, and this is my normal way of dealing with an overexposed sky (or anything overexposed for that matter)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Turn on overexposure highlights (option-shift-h), to show where detail is lost to overexposure&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Turn up the &quot;Recovery&quot; slider in the &quot;Exposure&quot; plug-in, until no overexposure is shown (or until the slider is at max). Recovery will bring down the exposure of overexposed bits of the photo.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Turn up the &quot;Highlights&quot; slider in the &quot;Highlights &amp;amp; Shadows&quot; plug-in until the image is visually pleasing (you get the details you are looking for, e.g. interesting cloud formations)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adjust the the Levels.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4559" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T12:54:25.597" />
  <row Id="12397" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-25T13:03:07.230" Score="3" ViewCount="102" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do have Lightroom 3.&#xA;I do not have any Photoshop products.&#xA;I do shoot in RAW.&#xA;I do plan to shoot portraits professionally (studio &amp;amp; outdoors).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5327" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-25T15:38:04.527" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T19:15:59.010" Title="What limitations does Lightroom have for portraiture?  Why might I need/want additional software?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;lightroom-3&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="12398" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-25T13:39:50.707" Score="0" ViewCount="133" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to buy either Sony 18-250 F3.5-6.3 or the new Tamron 18-270 F3.5-6.3 as a travel lens for Sony A55.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have found good reviews that told me quite something about image quality of these lens. The graphs of sharpness, distortion etc. at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slrgear.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.slrgear.com&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1410/cat/23&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tamron here&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1125/cat/83&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sony here&lt;/a&gt;) can be used for quite objective comparison of optical quality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, most important think for me here is &lt;strong&gt;autofocus operation&lt;/strong&gt;. Slow or too noisy AF (AutoFocus) can drive me mad... I hate to miss good shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I cannot find comparison of AF of these two lens. Reviews that I have found are more confusing than helpful when it comes to AF speed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So does Sony 18-250 have faster AF? Or is it opposite? How does their speed compare to A55's kit lens? Is either of them usable for continuous AF? Which has more quiet AF?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Please, do not advise me to not to use superzoom. I know why I want it.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5244" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-25T13:49:05.693" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T11:15:43.327" Title="Sony 18-250 or new Tamron 18-270 lens? Which has better autofocus?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;autofocus&gt;&lt;keeping-quiet&gt;&lt;focus-speed&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="12399" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12401" CreationDate="2011-05-25T15:04:49.260" Score="5" ViewCount="179" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a point and shoot camera with 6X optical zoom. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However when I &lt;strong&gt;shoot with high zoom (above 3X)&lt;/strong&gt;, the &lt;strong&gt;sharpness of the picture&lt;/strong&gt; seems to &lt;strong&gt;come down&lt;/strong&gt;. Is it a feature of all cameras or is it due to higher sensitivity to camera shakes during captures in higher optical zoom regions? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the photos in the higher zoom range&#xA;are pretty good, usually the ones of&#xA;scenery — so I I feel it can not be a&#xA;camera problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Are there any other things to be taken care of when we shoot with higher optical zooms?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5324" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-27T18:37:41.430" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T18:37:41.430" Title="How to take good photos while using maximum optical zoom?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;image-quality&gt;&lt;telephoto&gt;&lt;camera-shake&gt;" AnswerCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12400" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12390" CreationDate="2011-05-25T15:13:28.477" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to @jrista's comment on &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/383/what-are-the-must-have-filters-for-a-new-photographer/569#569&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt;, some canon lenses are more weather-sealed when they have a filter on.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T15:13:28.477" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12401" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12399" CreationDate="2011-05-25T15:16:03.127" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's two things at issue here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first is zoom range, which is the longest focal length a zoom lens has divided by the shortest. That is, a lens which goes between 25mm equivalent focal length and 150mm is a &quot;6x&quot; zoom lens. This terminology is usually reserved for point and shoot cameras; for SLR lenses, one usually gives the actual focal lengths instead. High-zoom-range lenses require more design compromise, and it's likely that that compromise results in relatively weak performance at the extreme ends of the range. So that could be part of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second is the issue of camera movement. Higher focal lengths — &quot;more telephoto&quot;, or as you say, in the higher part of the zoom range — show a smaller portion of the scene magnified to the same size, and that means that small movements in the camera translate into larger movements in your photo. This means the effect of camera shake is much more pronounced the more you zoom in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can easily demonstrate this to yourself by simply looking at the live-view screen (or viewfinder) as you turn the camera slightly — at short focal lengths you can see a small change, and zoomed-in you can see that the whole scene changes with just a little turn. This same effect magnifies very small movements as well, increasing blur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a particular compromise that most point and shoot cameras and superzoom lenses have which makes camera shake more of an issue when zoomed in. Specifically (as @&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/12399/how-to-take-good-photos-while-using-maximum-optical-zoom/12402#12402&quot;&gt;Itai points out&lt;/a&gt;), these lenses usually provide a more-limited aperture at higher zoom. This means less light, which means either boosting the signal (higher ISO), resulting in more noise, or else longer shutter speeds — making it more important to reduce camera movement.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's not much to be done about the first except to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of your equipment, and to avoid using the higher focal lengths in situations where the weaknesses are most obvious — like in low-light. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the second, simply keeping your camera more still will help significantly. You can get better results with improved technique and awareness of your motion as you press the shutter, but a tripod or other support will be even better. You'll also want to make sure that image stabilization is enabled in your camera if available — and make sure it has a chance to activate by half-pressing the shutter and waiting a second before firing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-27T11:58:53.663" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T11:58:53.663" />
  <row Id="12402" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12399" CreationDate="2011-05-25T15:17:17.080" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The only possible cause which you can do something about is camera shake.&lt;/strong&gt; This is best done by using a tripod. Other less stable camera support exists if a good tripod is too heavy for your needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other possible causes which you cannot do anything about without changing your camera:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Optical characteristics of the lens. It is simply possible that the lens performs less well at the telephoto end. This even happens in DSLR lenses of lower cost or long zooms.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When you zoom in, the maximum aperture becomes smaller in all current P&amp;amp;S and you may hit the diffraction limit of your camera.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T15:17:17.080" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12403" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12387" CreationDate="2011-05-25T15:21:28.257" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;For 10 bucks, surely it's worth trying the cheap ones?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's what I've done, and the results are quite acceptable.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used @Paul Dixon's method to set the aperture (I'm using Canon).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T15:21:28.257" />
  <row Id="12404" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12397" CreationDate="2011-05-25T15:29:55.133" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I may be wrong but I believe Lightroom is aimed at making general, overall adjustments to photos like color and exposure correction. Retouching portraits often requires more fine control than that. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, you may want to sharpen the eyes and hair but leave the skin soft. For this reason I would think that dedicated software might be useful. Something like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.portraitprofessional.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Portrait Professional&lt;/a&gt; should do the trick and won't break the bank.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T15:29:55.133" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12405" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12397" CreationDate="2011-05-25T15:35:08.393" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As someone who uses Lightroom and creates a fair amount of portraits, but there's one big area where I find Lightroom's tools lacking and I jump to Photoshop: &lt;em&gt;retouching&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Cloning&lt;/strong&gt; - Lightroom has a spot removal tool which allows for a circular clone-like function, but if you need to do true cloning to remove blemishes, stray hairs, etc. you'll find that the circular tool doesn't work so well.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Healing Brush&lt;/strong&gt; - The healing brush tool in Photoshop really works great for blemish removal; Lightroom can make some localized adjustments but doesn't have the healing/blending functionality.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Liquify&lt;/strong&gt; - I don't use it often, but the Liquify tool in Photoshop can be used for overall slimming as well as some facial feature adjustments and it doesn't have anything comparable in Lightroom.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If price is a concern, you can get the Cloning and Healing Brush features in Photoshop Elements which is under $100.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T15:35:08.393" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12406" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12397" CreationDate="2011-05-25T15:52:01.907" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's probably fair to say that portrait photography (as opposed to the more general class of &quot;people pictures&quot;) presents a set of challenges not found in most genres.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While it is not possible to characterise the whole genre, portraitists are generally tasked with telling the truth, but not the whole objective truth. There are, of course, photographers who've made it their style to create photographs in a hyperrealistic &quot;warts and all&quot; fashion, where every pore and blemish on the subject's skin is paraded for all to see. At the other end of the scale, there is the romantic, soft-focus, painterly rendition that leaves everything to the imagination. Both approaches are legitimate, but very much a matter of taste and vogue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of us, though, aim somewhere in the middle -- call it selective sharpness. We want the eyes, the hair, and (sometimes) the clothing to have a lot of detail, immediacy and presence. We also want the skin to look like skin -- we rarely want to make manneqins or wax figures of our subjects -- and want the shape and contours to remain identifiably and unquestionably those of the subject. At the same time, we want to avoid calling undue attention to flaws -- the zit that was there on the day you took the picture, but wasn't there the day before or the week after, a roughness of skin texture that is very much at odds with the character of the sitter (subject), lines that show clearly in the photograph but are much less noticeable when you see the sitter in person (particularly when emphasizing great age is not the aim of the picture), fine facial hair that you rarely notice except in detailed photographs, &lt;em&gt;et cetera&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is in removing or reducing those flaws that can't be addressed by lighting and posing that something like Photoshop and its like (and the plugins available for same) make their presence felt. Used properly, these tools will allow one to do away with the distractions without making the finished work look like anything other than a well-shot photograph.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it cheating? I don't know, but we used to do the same thing with pencils, dyes and bleach on the negative and the print back in the film days. My feeling has always been that a portrait is meant to portray the sitter (thus the name), and that there is a much greater subjective truth to be told in the portrayal than the mere objective truth gained by the process of fixing a pattern of light and shadow on paper. It is only very rarely that I find a &quot;straight&quot; photograph to be an adequate portrayal of the subject. I never actually lie; I just withold or gloss over those aspects of the whole truth that do no good for anyone. My opinion, then (and it is only an opinion) is that some use of competent image editing software is practically indispensible for portraiture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2719" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T15:52:01.907" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12407" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7153" CreationDate="2011-05-25T18:44:02.747" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Instead of using the facial recognition to tag the blurry photos, turn off facial recognition for those photos then just drag the appropriate name from the tag list onto the picture. That way your picture will still come up when you search on tags but the system won't link it to a face so it won't confuse or overload the facial recognition software. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I've included lots of blurry faces and it still works fine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5332" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T18:44:02.747" />
  <row Id="12408" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-25T19:15:30.313" Score="5" ViewCount="71" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Canon Rebel XTi which has been ruining CF cards (when I try to see the pictures it tells me the CF card is corrupted--three different cards which were formatted). Anyway I want to know if I should bother getting it repaired or just get a new one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if I get a new one, what about a refurbished one from Canon?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5333" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-25T19:29:14.097" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T15:12:46.540" Title="My DSLR appears to be corrupting CF cards — get new camera or repair?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;repair&gt;&lt;troubleshooting&gt;&lt;data-corruption&gt;&lt;cfcard&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12409" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12397" CreationDate="2011-05-25T19:15:59.010" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lightroom is only a raw/jpeg image batch processor. It's like Adobe Bridge on steroids.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll need Photoshop if you want more granularity and fine adjustments. Lightroom is merely a tool to speed up your workflow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would also depend on your business model. Per print or per session (hundreds of photos).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5026" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T19:15:59.010" />
  <row Id="12410" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12408" CreationDate="2011-05-25T19:22:27.350" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depends on your budget. If your camera is in warrantee you may actually be able to get a free repair from canon. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Budget: $500 and under&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would recommend buying a used camera. Any old camera used will do: canon 50d, canon xt, etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As long as the person hasn't used registered their camera warantee you're in good shape. I would inspect any pictures etc. Or ask about the shutter count.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Budget: $500+&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Buy refurbished from canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5026" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T19:22:27.350" />
  <row Id="12411" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12381" CreationDate="2011-05-25T19:30:03.033" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Utilize butterfly lighting from above and mix it with ambient light. Not sure if it's possible. You didn't state in your post.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Or lookup some various setups with one light.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you have anymore space try adding some ambient tungsten lighting as your fill or to add some color/dimension to your photos.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5026" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T19:30:03.033" />
  <row Id="12412" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12377" CreationDate="2011-05-25T19:41:06.797" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Cloud solution: Dropbox/sugarsync&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're sharing files for just a small handful at a time dropbox maybe the best solution as well. They have a lan sharing option for fast updates and it's free 2gb's: &lt;a href=&quot;http://db.tt/8EkkRuP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://db.tt/8EkkRuP&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or sugarsync: &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.sugarsync.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://www.sugarsync.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Networking&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think your answer is looking into networking. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Setting up a network would be best for file sharing and collaboration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5026" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T19:41:06.797" />
  <row Id="12413" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-25T23:21:56.573" Score="1" ViewCount="173" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a D7000 and recently got a BlackRapid RS7 strap for it. I love the RS7, but there are times when I'd rather have just a simple strap attached to the eyelets on the camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The standard Nikon strap that comes with the D7000 (same on my D80 &amp;amp; D50) can only be attached/removed by threading the nylon in insanely intricate ways.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I want is a small, secure clip that will clip to the eyelets on the camera body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have not been able to find anything like that. Nor have I been able to find a simple strap that has a built-in clip mechanism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Related question: What do people do with the existing eyelets when they use something like an RS7 all the time?  They are not removable and are pretty annoyingly in the way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5264" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T05:28:18.533" Title="Why don't stock DSLR camera straps have quick-releases on them? And where can I find a simple strap that does?" Tags="&lt;nikon-d7000&gt;&lt;camera-straps&gt;" AnswerCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12414" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12413" CreationDate="2011-05-25T23:36:11.703" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Anything quick release represents a point of inherent weakness - a breaking point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any QR system has a means of releasing it, be it a movement in a specific direction or clasping of 2 points on the clip itself. These can be activated by mistake when they come into contact with other clothing or your bag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have known quite a few people have theirs go unexpectedly on them and end up with a smashed camera. The intricate attachment of the strap makes it more secure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use Black Rapid straps which do have quick release buckles on them but they are very secure and usually away from anything else which could clash with them. I haven't found the eyelets to be an issue or annoying but I have Canon gear so I can't comment on your Nikon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T23:36:11.703" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="12415" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12390" CreationDate="2011-05-25T23:53:27.130" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are interested in protecting the lens itself, namely the front lens element, then a lens hood will generally perform that job quite well. I do believe that lens comes with a hood in the box (make sure that your buying from a reputable dealer, as shadier ones often remove those items and up-sell them as extras!) I have the Canon 100-400 L IS, and I have never used it without the hood. It is far too easy to bump the front of the lens into things that you just don't realize are there, and a hood offers far more protection for such encounters than a simple UV/P filter. A lens hood might get scraped up, but it only takes a moderate amount of force to completely crush a UV/P filter, and the slimmer ones that don't cause vignetting sit close enough to the front lens element that a solid crunch might still scratch the lens glass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for filtering out UV light, I don't think that is really a concern these days with digital camera. Glass itself is a UV filter, as most glass, even the cheap glass in a normal window, block 90% of UV light. Lower-frequency, or near-UV light in the 400-380nm wavelengths range, may not be fully filtered by the glass of the lens itself. Despite the supposed &lt;em&gt;&quot;common sense fact&quot;&lt;/em&gt; that camera sensors have UV filters in front of them, that is actually a misnomer. Most digital cameras have a filter stack in front of them that includes an IR filter, a set of horizontal and vertical low-pass filters, and possibly some multi-coating...but they usually do not include a specific UV filter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/eTcOE.gif&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&#xA;(From &lt;a href=&quot;http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS5DMarkII/Images/features/sensordiag.gif&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DPReview&lt;/a&gt; of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5dmarkii/page3.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 5D Mark II&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you really want to filter out those near-UV, you might throw on a quality UV filter (make sure you find some reviews that actually test them, as many UV filters are no better than the glass already on your lens, and they often reduce the quality without providing any real UV filtering.) I would say do without it, as it really won't provide any better physical protection than the lens hood, and could impact the quality of your photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-05-25T23:53:27.130" />
  <row Id="12416" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12413" CreationDate="2011-05-26T00:06:30.267" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use OpTech with pro-loop. Aside from the QR, this strap also has strecthing neoprene/membrane, where it helps ease the burden of shouldering your camera/lens combo. I actually have 2 straps for 4 cameras, since mostly I only use/bring 2 cameras at any given moment/trip. For the rest, I just attach the loop on the camera and exchange/swap the neoprene strap as needed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where to get: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/118283-REG/OP_TECH_USA_1501372_Pro_Loop_Strap_Black.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/118283-REG/OP_TECH_USA_1501372_Pro_Loop_Strap_Black.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T00:06:30.267" />
  <row Id="12417" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-26T00:12:05.483" Score="-1" ViewCount="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can use whatever image format as I want, hopefully open. For more tech-savvy answers, please, see my question targeting it &lt;a href=&quot;http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/13801/unix-tool-to-change-an-image-containing-text-and-numbers-to-text-and-numbers&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose I take a picture of this site or just a screenshot, how can I change that picture to plain text? Is there some tool that would keep the layout and positions at the right places and would fill the colors and other things with ASCII or something like that? I need some of my images to plain text so I can manage them while I am on small screens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please, add the label &quot;OCR&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2798" LastEditorUserId="2798" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T00:17:25.823" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T00:17:25.823" ClosedDate="2011-05-26T00:45:30.850" Title="OCR: photo containing numbers and alphabets to plain text?" Tags="&lt;image-processing&gt;" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12418" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-26T01:21:30.960" Score="3" ViewCount="51" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am about to give a presentation on the basics of exposure for the newcomers in our photo club. When talking about the shutter, I'd like to show the actual operation of the mechanism. There are a few instructional videos available in YouTube that explain the theory in length, accompanied by animations of the process. However, I need just short clip of the real thing in slow motion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best thing I could find so far is &lt;a href=&quot;http://regex.info/blog/2008-09-04/925&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; famous 'video' by Marianne Oelund. The problem, as you can tell, is that it is not really a video, and the mouse interaction is required.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone point to a clip in this style — but a real video?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T01:27:09.473" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T04:23:37.813" Title="Where can I find a video clip of a mechanical FP shutter in operation?" Tags="&lt;presentation&gt;&lt;shutter&gt;&lt;teaching&gt;&lt;clubs&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12419" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12413" CreationDate="2011-05-26T02:31:05.743" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use the Luma Loop:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lu.ma/loop&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lu.ma/loop&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not only is the QR mechanism fantastic (impossible to accidentally trigger and can hold a lot of weight) but the sling system that allows you to quickly pull up a camera in front of you for a shot is fantastic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also got a comfortable strap that does not add too much bulk, I like to be able to tuck the strap inside a bag with my DSLR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T02:31:05.743" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12420" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12413" CreationDate="2011-05-26T03:29:40.140" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Take a look at the Pacsafe strap:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://pacsafe.com/www/index.php?_room=3&amp;amp;_action=detail&amp;amp;id=170&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://pacsafe.com/www/index.php?_room=3&amp;amp;_action=detail&amp;amp;id=170&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has a spring-loaded self-locking mechanism that is simple to unhook yet should not come off accidentally. It has some spongy sleeves that can slide over the mechanism to make it inaccessible as well. Like other Pacsafe products, it features a built-in metal wire so that the strap cannot be slashed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T03:29:40.140" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12421" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12418" CreationDate="2011-05-26T03:48:04.277" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Would a video like this serve your needs? It is currently posted on YouTube, an I am not sure that exhibiting it from there is sufficient, or if you need it to be embedded in your own app. Anyway, useful content starts around time index 1:15.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;amp;v=xOTNTdE3MUw#t=77s&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Shutter - Photography with Imre - Episode 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The following video may also be useful, as it is purely a video of an actuating shutter. It is also found on YouTube:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZP1Xxo5cSk&amp;amp;feature=player_embedded&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Focal-plane shutter - Schlitzverschluss&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, this video may also be useful. It is not an &lt;em&gt;actual&lt;/em&gt; video of an actuating shutter, however it has some very useful animations that demonstrate the concept. It is primarily discussing the effect of flash and flash duration on photography, and how that plays into the length of exposure and the nature of the actuation of the shutter at different speeds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvZ6VujbhjM&amp;amp;feature=player_detailpage#t=67s&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Shutter/Flash Synchronization&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T03:48:04.277" />
  <row Id="12422" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12418" CreationDate="2011-05-26T04:04:20.677" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG5QedhroYQ&amp;amp;NR=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The beautiful D3 at 11 fps&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is at 1/4000s so you can see the sync speed, which causes rolling shutter effect and need for HSS.  It also shows the lens aperture, though the actuator is out of focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastEditorUserId="389" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T04:23:37.813" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T04:23:37.813" />
  <row Id="12423" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12464" CreationDate="2011-05-26T04:35:03.683" Score="5" ViewCount="166" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does Flickr recompress JPEGs after upload? I know that if you upload a TIFF, for example, Flickr converts it to JPEG. But do they also compress incoming JPEGs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've read some complaints about the quality of the JPEG compression used on Flickr. I'm just wondering if it makes sense to upload TIFFs and let Flickr to the conversion or to upload a high quality JPEG in the hopes that Flickr doesn't recompress it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5336" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T10:21:09.090" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T21:55:20.450" Title="Does Flickr recompress JPEGs after upload?" Tags="&lt;jpeg&gt;&lt;web&gt;&lt;flickr&gt;&lt;image-compression&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12424" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12408" CreationDate="2011-05-26T04:54:09.967" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;What tests have you done to check out the camera &amp;amp; CF cards?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would strongly suggest either checking the CF cards in another camera or borrow a known working CF card from someone and try it in your own camera.  You may find your local camera store may help you out there as they would win a potential customer either way, a new camera or a new CF card.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that CF cards DO have a limited life and if your photography is important to you then they should always be replaced at first signs of problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certainly seems strange that the camera would semi-fail in such a way, normally this type of electronics would either work or not work, rather than half function.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1410" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T04:54:09.967" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12425" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12413" CreationDate="2011-05-26T04:57:21.677" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been using Lowepro Transporter Camera Strap: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000H7GFWS/ref=wms_ohs_product_T2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000H7GFWS/ref=wms_ohs_product_T2&lt;/a&gt; for about 3 years now..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apart from the quick release clips, the strap itself is great and helped reduce neck pain when walking around with a long lens attached.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="55" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T04:57:21.677" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12426" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12423" CreationDate="2011-05-26T04:57:31.917" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The original sized jpg on flickr afaik will be the original file you uploaded with no compression (which would have to be converted to kpg if you upload as a TIF) but the smaller sizes will be compressed to some degree as they're resized jpgs. This shouldn't make too much difference as people can view the full sized image if they want to see that much detail. This is assuming you have a pro account to be able to view the original sizes&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3584" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T04:57:31.917" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12427" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12413" CreationDate="2011-05-26T05:28:18.533" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll have to find who makes mine...I bought it on ebay.  Converts from a neck to wrist strap with two quick disconnects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5338" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T05:28:18.533" />
  <row Id="12428" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8205" CreationDate="2011-05-26T06:08:04.593" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just bought this case:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/AsgMQ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/ttDk9.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here on Amazon.com: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001TZUS98?tag=kindsyst-20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Case Logic SLRC-201 SLR Zoom Holster &lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It literally showed up today and I'm pleased to report that I can carry my D7000 + 18-200 lens and my SB-800 just fine.  You need to put the speedlight in first, on the right side (because the camera is bigger on that side) and adjust the &quot;Hammock&quot; slightly to the left.  But once setup like that it works really well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5264" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T06:08:04.593" />
  <row Id="12429" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-26T06:17:35.143" Score="2" ViewCount="44" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just bought a Lowepro Pro Roller x200.  (Love it so far!) This one: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0027JPW8M&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lowepro Pro Roller x200&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/NTCt2.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has a strap that attaches to the top left side, and a little holster like thingy that attaches to the bottom left side for holding a tripod. This works well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it also, apparently has some way of allowing you to mount the tripod on the front. But I cannot figure out how to make it work.  You can see from this picture from the Lowepro website that it is possible.  But the documentation does not help and the picture is too small to figure out what is really going on (the top is obvious):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/yNbxf.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note in this picture there is a little &quot;tripod icon&quot; right below the pockets on the front.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/iAVMV.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This icon matches the icon on the little holster you can see holding the bottom of the tripod in the 2nd picture above.  The question is how does this little holster attach to the front to the bag?  There is a upside down pouch at the base of the front pocket with some velcro in it, but i can't see any way of getting the little holster to stick in place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyone?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5264" LastEditorUserId="4892" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-31T01:14:12.587" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T01:14:12.587" Title="How does a tripod attach to the (front of the) Lowepro Pro Roller x200?" Tags="&lt;tripod&gt;&lt;camera-bag&gt;&lt;travel&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="12430" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11740" CreationDate="2011-05-26T06:24:23.990" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;Miksang&quot; is Tibetan for &quot;Good Eye&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me, the approach is subjective. It's effectively &quot;Zen and the art of photography&quot;. The aim is to use photography as a vehicle to work with your sense of perception. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My interpretation is that it is the use of photography as a &quot;practice&quot; when approaching your state of mind/being. And using your state of mind/being with intention in your photography practice. I've found that when I see this way, that is - looking through the camera wile maintaining awareness of my state of consciousness, I tend to take different photos than I otherwise would. I think the photos I take when approaching photography this way actually capture a feeling better than when I am not shooting in this mode.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a reasonable explanation, see the resource: &lt;a href=&quot;http://miksang.com/miksang.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://miksang.com/miksang.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe Miksang fits into art history in the line of contemplative Buddhist arts. That's a place to look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5336" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T06:24:23.990" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="12431" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12423" CreationDate="2011-05-26T06:25:12.913" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the flickr FAQ:&#xA;&quot;We resize your photos to more web-friendly dimensions. Each image has a 75x75 pixel thumbnail and 100-, 240-, 500-, 640- and 1024-pixel versions (that's the length of the longest side), as well as your original file. ... If you have a free account, no one (including you) can access your original file. ...&quot;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/help/photos/#89&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/help/photos/#89&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I would say they are processing all uploaded files, so the files fit their needs for the presentation on flickr (dimension, file size, compression-quality, dpi ...), and keep the original as is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I do not use TIFF (but RAW), I can not say if it is worth to upload a TIFF in regard of final image quality on flickr, but I doubt it. However it is sure worth for one good reason: backup :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2549" LastEditorUserId="2549" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T06:36:35.927" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T06:36:35.927" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12432" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12429" CreationDate="2011-05-26T07:08:10.523" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Never mind. Right after posting the question I poked around some more.  I discovered that there is a nylon tab, with a loop for the holster strap to go through tucked in that little upside-down pocket!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd post a pic (i took one) but Stackexchange's photo upload appears to be broken right now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5264" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T07:08:10.523" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12433" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4397" CreationDate="2011-05-26T08:07:27.610" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can buy adapters that provide either &lt;a href=&quot;http://araxfoto.com/accessories/tilt/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;tilt&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://araxfoto.com/accessories/shift/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;shift&lt;/a&gt;  from Arax. They work with Pentacon Six mount medium format lenses (which can also be bought from Arax, or eBay). The shortest focal lengths available seem to be 30mm fisheye, or 45mm rectilinear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They also sell a tilt adapter for use with EOS lenses, but it's less useful as its tilt angle is fixed and since it moves lens away from camera, it also acts as an extension tube. It has no contacts, so you'd need an aperture ring on your lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As noted in &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1100/will-a-tilt-shift-lens-solve-my-leaning-building-shots/10103#10103&quot;&gt;my answer&lt;/a&gt; to a question on architecture photography, shift effect can also be achieved by using a regular wider lens in portrait orientation and cropping.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T08:16:52.510" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T08:16:52.510" />
  <row Id="12434" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12437" CreationDate="2011-05-26T09:52:09.773" Score="9" ViewCount="221" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I took a picture of a windmill on the horizon — given that I know the sensor size and the focal length of the lens and other factors to do with the shot — could I calculate how far away an object is from the photographer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5052" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T11:19:16.187" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T13:16:37.303" Title="How do I calculate the distance of an object in a photo?" Tags="&lt;focal-length&gt;&lt;math&gt;&lt;subject-distance&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12435" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12398" CreationDate="2011-05-26T11:15:43.327" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Sony 18-250mm is a slightly modified version of the Tamron 18-250mm. The Sony has quicker AF. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both superzooms you mention have screw-drive AF however, and therefor neither are particularly fast. If AF speed is important to you I'd consider de the Tamron 18-270mm &lt;strong&gt;PZD&lt;/strong&gt;, which has a built-in fast focus motor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4551" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T11:15:43.327" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="12436" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12438" CreationDate="2011-05-26T11:36:55.117" Score="7" ViewCount="140" Body="&lt;p&gt;Please refer to this photo:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/600/1600full.jpg/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/94/1600full.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The image on the left was taken with a Panasonic GH2, a micro-4/3rds camera with a crop factor of 2, and the right one was taken with a Nikon D700, a full-frame camera. Both of the cameras used the same aperture, shutter speed, and ISO, and yet the D700 photo came out about one stop brighter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, why did it come out so drastically different, given the same settings? I've asked the same questions several months back theoretically:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7800/do-the-same-camera-settings-lead-to-the-same-exposure-across-different-sensor-siz&quot;&gt;Do the same camera settings lead to the same exposure across different sensor sizes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But recently I was able to test this with the two cameras. My guess is that both cameras measure ISO differently from each other, but isn't ISO a standard that's shared across camera systems, much like how shutter speed and aperture are? Any insight into the matter would be greatly appreciated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3549" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T13:37:34.143" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T21:52:45.940" Title="Why do two different cameras using the same settings produce photos with different exposure levels?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;iso&gt;&lt;shutter-speed&gt;&lt;standards&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12437" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12434" CreationDate="2011-05-26T11:41:37.890" Score="11" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only other factor you need is the height of the object in real life (otherwise you could be photographing a model which is much closer to the camera).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The maths isn't actually that complex, the ratio of the size of the object on the sensor and the size of the object in real life is the same as the ratio between the focal length and distance to the object.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To work out the size of the object on the sensor, work out it's height in pixels, divide by the image height in pixels and multiply by the physical height of the sensor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the whole sum is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;distance to object (mm) = focal length (mm) * real height of the object (mm) * image height (pixels)&#xA;                          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xA;                          object height (pixels) * sensor height (mm)&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's sanity check this equation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we keep everything else constant and increase the focal length then the distance increases (as focal length is on the numerator). This is what you would expect, if you have to zoom your lens to make one object the size another equally sized object used to be, the first object must be further away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we keep everything else constant and increase the real height of the object then again the distance increases as if two objects of different real heights appear the same height in the image the taller one must be further away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we keep everything else constant and increase the image height, then the distance increases, as if two objects (of the same size, remember we're keeping everything else constant) appear the same pixel size in a cropped and uncropped image then the object in the uncropped image must be further away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we keep everything else constant and increase the object height in pixels then the distance &lt;em&gt;decreases&lt;/em&gt; (we're on the denominator now): two equally sized objects, one takes up more pixels, it must be closer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally if we keep everything else constant and increase sensor size, then distance decreases: two equally sized objects have the same height in pixels when shot with a compact (small sensor, where 20mm is a long lens) and shot with a DSLR (large sensor where 20mm is a wide lens), then the object in the DSLR image must be further away (because it appeared the same size but with a wide lens).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T12:31:59.403" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T12:31:59.403" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12438" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12436" CreationDate="2011-05-26T12:37:47.860" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're right to be skeptical of ISO sensitivity. Yes it is a standardized, but the standard effectively allows for manufacturers to specify their own sensitivity. For a long time ISO320 on a Nikon was equivalent to about ISO400 on a Canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that difference, whilst noticeable, was only a third of a stop. I wouldn't put a whole stop down to ISO differences. It would be silly for a manufacturer to label their camera as ISO3200 when it's the same sensitivity as another manufactuer's ISO1600, that way it will just make their camera look more noisy, as people compare cameras at the same ISO number, not the same actual sensitivity! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it's more likely to be a difference in tonecurves applied during raw processing that makes one image seem darker.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Image processing is the weak link, where it can all break down. Shutter speed is measured in seconds, a one second exposure on one camera is the same duration as a one second exposure on another (ignoring relativistic effects!). Ok there are tolerances so the duration wont be exactly the same, but the point is there is a unit, which is well defined. Same with aperture. But there is no unit of brightness in an image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ISO [badly] defines how much actual light (a proper measurable quantity) it takes to saturate a sensor. But it's the image processing software that translates that into the numbers that get displayed on your screen. Even if the software maps a fully saturated sensor to the value 255 (which would seem to be the only sensible thing for it to do), a half saturated value might also get mapped to 255 or any other value for that matter. And that mapping can dramatically affect the perceived brightness for an image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T14:45:26.880" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T14:45:26.880" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="12440" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12434" CreationDate="2011-05-26T12:52:23.587" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As noted @matt-grum, the most simple formula to estimate distance to the object is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinhole_camera_model&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pinhole projection formula&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/BSF7a.png&quot; alt=&quot;x/f = X/d&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;where &lt;em&gt;x&lt;/em&gt; is the size of the object on the sensor, &lt;em&gt;f&lt;/em&gt; is focal length of the lens, &lt;em&gt;X&lt;/em&gt; is the size of the object, and &lt;em&gt;d&lt;/em&gt; is distance from nodal point to the object. &lt;em&gt;x&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;f&lt;/em&gt;, and &lt;em&gt;X&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;d&lt;/em&gt; are measured in the same units, e.g. mm and m respetively (to calculate &lt;em&gt;x&lt;/em&gt; you'll need to estimate pixel size for your sensor; for example, for Pentax K20D it is 23.4 mm/4672 px ≈ 5.008e-3 mm/px, i.e. an image 100 px long corresponds to &lt;em&gt;x&lt;/em&gt; = 50.08e-3 mm).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the following I assume that the size of the object (&lt;em&gt;X&lt;/em&gt;) is unknown, and the only known parameters are &lt;em&gt;x&lt;/em&gt; (image size) and &lt;em&gt;f&lt;/em&gt; (focal length).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is that we cannot tell from one photo if is a small object very close to the camera or a big object far away, because the depth of field in landscape shots is usually very big (and that's why pinhole formula is applicable).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To solve this problem we may use two or more images to measure the distance. Provided you can measure all angles and distance between two camera positions, you can also calculate distance to the remote object. But measuring all angles is not an easy task.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An easier approach is to take two photos which stay on the same line with the object, with object in the center of the image. Let distance to the object on the first photo be &lt;em&gt;d₁&lt;/em&gt;, and image size be &lt;em&gt;x₁&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/59Drq.png&quot; alt=&quot;x_1/f = X/d_1&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then if we move the camera &lt;em&gt;s&lt;/em&gt; meters directly towards the object, then on the second photo we have image size &lt;em&gt;x₂&lt;/em&gt; slightly bigger than &lt;em&gt;x₁&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/MYcQx.png&quot; alt=&quot;x_2/f = X/(d_1 - s)&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which gives us&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/roP1U.png&quot; alt=&quot;d_1 = s x_2 / (x_2 - x_1)&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Evidently, if &lt;em&gt;s&lt;/em&gt; is not big enogh to affect image size significantly, you cannot estimate distance reliably, and need to use more complicated methods. The bigger is difference &lt;em&gt;x₂ - x₁&lt;/em&gt;, the better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1558" LastEditorUserId="1558" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T13:16:37.303" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T13:16:37.303" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12441" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6598" CreationDate="2011-05-26T13:34:02.897" Score="26" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;The Exposure Triangle&quot; is a catchy phrase meant to encompass the three factors which affect the exposure of a photograph of a scene with a given amount of light. It's often given to new photographers as a learning aid. I'm not sure if he invented it, but it is certainly popularized and spread by Bryan Peterson, as in his book &lt;em&gt;Understanding Exposure&lt;/em&gt;. (The popular web site Steve's Digicams &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowledge-center/how-tos/photography-techniques/understanding-the-exposure-triangle.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gives Peterson credit for the term&lt;/a&gt;, as do &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=QxMO5h2000EC&amp;amp;lpg=PT162&amp;amp;dq=%22Exposure%20triangle%22&amp;amp;pg=PT162#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;other authors&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The three factors are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/shutter-speed&quot;&gt;Shutter&lt;/a&gt; — how long you let light in&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/aperture&quot;&gt;Aperture&lt;/a&gt; — how large of an opening you let light through (how much at once)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/iso&quot;&gt;ISO&lt;/a&gt;  — how sensitive your film or sensor is to light&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each factor is interchangeable in terms of exposure, so that a decrease or increase in one factor must be met by the same amount of change in another.  (More on this below!) And each has intrinsic secondary effects on your composition — longer and shorter shutter speeds freeze or blur motion, smaller apertures give more depth of focus, and generally higher ISO causes more noise as one attempts to get more signal out of less light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The problem with the phrase &quot;exposure triangle&quot; is that the relationship between these three factors does not actually share any of the properties of a triangle other than &quot;threeness&quot;. That makes it a bad analogy, which can introduce more confusion than necessary, as new photographers attempt to reason from the information they've learned.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's say we have a triangle where the sides (or corners — it doesn't matter) represent a shutter speed of ¹/₆₀th, aperture of f/11, and ISO 100. We draw a triangle, and we label that &quot;Properly Exposed for EV 13&quot;. (See the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article on EV&lt;/a&gt; for where the value &quot;13&quot; comes from). So far, so good — we've got our triangle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, what if we want to change the shutter speed to ¹⁄₃₀th, and the aperture to f/16? That should give the same exposure. But what happens to our triangle? Do we double the size of one line, and halve the other? Or is there some other relationship that's meaningful?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/qHWAp.png&quot; alt=&quot;Exposure Triangle Fail&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't take much mucking about with a pencil and paper to determine that, &lt;strong&gt;no, this just breaks down&lt;/strong&gt;. If you attach any actual meaning to the dimensions of the sides or the angles of the corners, not only is there no relationship to the area or size of the triangle, you'll quickly find that many settings yield impossible triangles even though they're perfectly valid exposure settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An alternate approach would be to leave the triangle's geometry constant, and put labels along the sides. This is somewhat more useful for thinking about the non-exposure effects of the parameters, but fails on actually showing anything about exposure. (And worse, may cause confusion by implying a linkage between the factors where they come together at the corners — bokeh connects with motion blur?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/mGDTm.png&quot; alt=&quot;Triangle Attempt, Take Two&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, it'd be just as useful to say The Exposure Clover, or The Exposure Tricycle, or the The Exposure Set of Juggling Balls. Or the Exposure Branches of the U.S. Government, although that may be harder to draw in an intro-to-photography book. I humbly submit the following illustration for anyone's use; I'll leave the other suggestions as an exercise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(But I'm not ending with unhelpful sarcasm, I promise. Keep reading below.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/1LMUi.png&quot; alt=&quot;The Exposure Tricycle&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm joking, but I'm also serious: there's nothing particularly useful about the triangle for explaining these factors, and in fact it might be detrimental, so might as well use something funny.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A better representation might be a The Exposure &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuboid&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cuboid&lt;/a&gt; — a rectangular box. That sounds nerdier and not nearly as catchy, but it has the advantage of actually being useful. Each dimension — width, length, height — corresponds to one of the exposure factors, and the volume of the box corresponds to the the exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This works out exactly right. Each of the three settings can be adjusted independently, and a doubling of any of them doubles the overall exposure — or cutting one in half cuts the overall exposure by half. This is just the same way that changing the length of one of the sides of a box changes its volume. So, we get both a visual analogy &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; an accurate mathematical representation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it's nice from a simplicity point of view, because we can start by leaving off one of the dimensions. If one were using this as a tool to actually explain exposure, we'd start with shutter speed and aperture alone — that's a (plain old regular two-dimensional) rectangle. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Exposure Rectangle&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; isn't quite as catchy as &lt;em&gt;triangle&lt;/em&gt;, but at least everyone knows what a rectangle is, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take some graph paper, and mark off shutter speeds along one side. Start at, say, ¹⁄₂₅₀th at the first mark, then double that time to ¹⁄₁₂₅th at the second mark, and then ¹⁄₆₀th at the &lt;em&gt;fourth&lt;/em&gt; mark, and ¹⁄₃₀th at the &lt;em&gt;eighth&lt;/em&gt;, ¹⁄₁₅th at the &lt;em&gt;sixteenth&lt;/em&gt;, and so on. Actual doubling of time is directly represented by actual doubling of space. We'll get to the concept of &quot;stops&quot; in a bit. (And you'll notice that the number sequence I'm using isn't exactly doubling — for whatever analog-days reason, this is the standard sequence and it isn't exactly precise. That's another chapter, really — at this point, just consider it rounded-off and close enough.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Along the other axis, we'll mark apertures. Start at the first mark with something small, like f/22. Then, follow the standard sequence of aperture values from there, &lt;em&gt;again&lt;/em&gt; making sure to double for each rather than just marking each square — so, f/16 at the second mark, f/11 at the fourth, f/8 at the eighth, f/5.6 at the sixteenth, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, you can &lt;em&gt;directly visualize&lt;/em&gt; the effect of increasing or decreasing one of the factors. The exposure of the scene is the area. Any combination of aperture and shutter speed which gives a rectangle of the same area will give the same exposure. Doubling the shutter speed actually doubles the exposure, just as one would expect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you draw a rectangle with one corner at the origin and going out to ¹/₆₀th and f/11, with the labels as above, you get a 4×4 rectangle — area 16. (Here, the actual number 16 is just an artifact of how we decided to start our labeling and the size of the squares — the actual number is meaningless.) Change to ¹⁄₃₀th and f/16, and it's 8×2, or ¹⁄₁₂₅th and f/8 for 2×8 — either way, still the same area.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/uW0pI.png&quot; alt=&quot;The Exposure Rectangle&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And adding in the third factor, ISO, is simply extending this to the third dimension. This is harder to draw on paper or put in a book, but once you have the idea of the rectangle down, it's not a far leap conceptually. Imagine an ISO axis extending upward out from your page, labeled similarly to the others. The exposure value becomes the volume of the cuboid, and pretty much everything works the same way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/wG84x.png&quot; alt=&quot;The Exposure Cuboid&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another convenience is that shutter-priority or aperture-priority modes can be visualized as flat rectangles within the 3D box. Turn it so whatever two values are adjustable are conveniently aligned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But a problem with this is that the paper — or cuboid — gets big pretty quickly. And those big areas get cumbersome to work with. That's where the concept of &quot;stops&quot; comes in. Rather than working with linear labels and area, we can work in a logarithmic space based on powers of two. That might sound intimidating, but it simply means that we count the &lt;em&gt;number of doublings&lt;/em&gt;, rather than using the direct numbers. Again, sounds like I'm using too many big words, but the great thing is that &lt;em&gt;counting is easy&lt;/em&gt;. In fact, you don't even have to count — every modern camera has a meter which &quot;weighs&quot; these things automatically and tells you how many stops you are off. Just like a balance scale.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/ScINL.png&quot; alt=&quot;The Exposure Balance&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That loses out on the concept of &quot;threeness&quot; entirely, and it feels a bit unnatural to add things to &lt;em&gt;darken&lt;/em&gt; exposure. Someone spending a lot of time thinking about which direction is up isn't really learning the important part. And I sure did end up putting way too much explanatory text there. That's problematic for an introductory diagram (although I'm sure with some work it could be cleaner).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, the point is: it's catchy to say &quot;triangle&quot;, and since there's three factors, it seems obviously true, garnering automatic nods from people who are familiar with the concepts already. And for many people it's pretty harmless. However, there's a &lt;em&gt;more useful&lt;/em&gt; geometric explanation which can actually be used to show how the factors &lt;em&gt;really relate&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If that seems too complicated, why bother with a geometric analogy at all? Putting the three factors in a list works just fine, and doesn't add any inadvertent confusion. Or you can stick with the tricycle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-06-02T17:54:32.593" LastActivityDate="2011-06-02T17:54:32.593" CommentCount="24" />
  <row Id="12442" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-26T13:47:09.217" Score="0" ViewCount="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have an image and from it I want to create a new palette. But PSP Help isn't much and doesn't much. The menu choice I want might say &quot;from the selected image, create a new palette,&quot; but that choice doesn't exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can I create a brand-new palette from the image?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5345" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T16:19:38.860" ClosedDate="2011-05-26T16:53:31.747" Title="Paint Shop Pro 7: how to create a new palette from my image?" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;color&gt;" AnswerCount="0" />
  <row Id="12443" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12445" CreationDate="2011-05-26T14:00:43.600" Score="1" ViewCount="111" Body="&lt;p&gt;I saw a nice panoramic image online. How do i go about creating my own (say, for my house yard)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5346" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T15:12:26.720" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T05:34:05.943" Title="How do I create a panoramic picture?" Tags="&lt;panorama&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12444" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12436" CreationDate="2011-05-26T14:27:00.780" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to differences in tone curves and sensor ISO sensitivity levels, there are more factors that could be affecting exposure with same settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The cameras have different optics attached. That means different number of elements, materials, coatings, all of which have effect on transparency of the lens.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Aperture diaphragms are not precision devices, even the &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/12113/what-settings-should-i-use-for-a-timelapse-of-my-wedding/12115#12115&quot;&gt;same lens may close down differently each time&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Artificial light varies during AC power cycle (more noticeable with higher shutter speeds, should even out by 1/20s as in question).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Filters in front of lens (with polarizer being the easiest to forget).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Some cameras (such as Sony α55 and α33) have translucent fixed mirror that constantly tunnels part of the light into viewfinder and AF sensors (not the case for any of the cameras mentioned in question though).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When shooting JPEG, the following might be classified under different tone curve, or not:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Contrast setting.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Dynamic range expansion.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T18:21:43.050" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T18:21:43.050" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12445" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12443" CreationDate="2011-05-26T15:12:05.020" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The easiest way to produce a high quality panorama is to &lt;strong&gt;take multiple shots and stitch them together using &lt;a href=&quot;http://cvlab.epfl.ch/~brown/autostitch/autostitch.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;AutoStitch&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (Windows only). AutoStitch is free and there is almost nothing to do except to chose your images and save the results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basic principle is to take multiple shots with overlap between them (20%-30% is recommended) while keeping everything constant (exposure, aperture, focus and white-balance).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your camera has a Stitch or Panorama Assist mode, that is exactly what it does: It locks all the settings and shows you an overlay of the last photo you took so that you can line them up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-27T03:04:30.647" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T03:04:30.647" />
  <row Id="12446" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12443" CreationDate="2011-05-26T15:26:51.023" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although there's &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/230/269&quot;&gt;a previous answer that covers stitching tools&lt;/a&gt;, as I discovered in &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/12233/269&quot;&gt;my question about action shots&lt;/a&gt;, there are important considerations when you're shooting the pictures that you're going to combine, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make sure you're shooting in Manual&#xA;mode so that your exposure is the&#xA;same for all the shots in the&#xA;panorama.  Stitching software is&#xA;getting better and better at dealing&#xA;with mismatched exposures, but the&#xA;better raw material you can feed in,&#xA;the better your results will be.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use a tripod if you can.  Again,&#xA;stitching software is becoming&#xA;remarkably good at compensating for&#xA;hand-held shots, but a steady camera&#xA;platform will improve your inputs.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There are pricy tripod heads made specifically for panoramas that are designed to pivot the camera / lens to avoid &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;parallax&lt;/a&gt;, but you should be fine starting with a regular tripod until you get to a point where you need that extra quality.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use a fairly deep depth of field (DOF) so a lot of your shot is in focus.  This is fairly common for landscape shots anyway, but you want to avoid trying to match up blurred areas in adjacent photos, as there aren't any crisp details for the stitching software to use as alignment points.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe stitching is fairly well-covered in the other question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T15:26:51.023" />
  <row Id="12447" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12381" CreationDate="2011-05-26T15:37:59.903" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If it's a narrow white corridor then it's worth trying a sto-fen.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Flash could be on-camera. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the confined space, the light will go everywhere and come off the white walls.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... Also off the ceiling and floor, so it depends what colour they are.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... Still, might work nicely.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T15:37:59.903" />
  <row Id="12448" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11506" CreationDate="2011-05-26T15:43:49.340" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently put up a pure white roller-blind over a fairly large window &lt;em&gt;at my wife's request&lt;/em&gt; (she didn't like the curtains we had previously - not that you wanted to know that.  sorry).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This turns out very nicely because the blind can go all the way to the floor, and makes a perfectly acceptable background.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, the blind could potentially be another colour (depending on wife-related parameters).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't know if that helps.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T15:43:49.340" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12449" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12443" CreationDate="2011-05-26T16:10:06.863" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most importantly get a good tripod, and make sure you rotate around your focal point, take the images as rapidly as possible with partial overlap. (to avoid clouds/wind/movement artifacts)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then also a great tool to use in my experience is &lt;a href=&quot;http://hugin.sourceforge.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hugin&lt;/a&gt;. It is Open Source and available for Linux, Windows, and Mac. It may not always work automatically, but the advanced options are awesome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5348" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T16:10:06.863" />
  <row Id="12451" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10127" CreationDate="2011-05-26T16:58:38.630" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Photography is a pretty huge field, you might want to specify what kind of school (trade, fine art, etc) you're looking to get into. A couple people I know finished &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fashion.arts.ac.uk/courses/photography/ba_fashion_photography.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The London College of Fashion's&lt;/a&gt; BS Fashion Photography program and they're pretty happy with it. One of them even works as a pro photographer, which you'll find isn't that common among people who finish photography school.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T16:58:38.630" />
  <row Id="12452" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12377" CreationDate="2011-05-26T17:19:32.967" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The issue you are going to face is similar to any database-based solution: the issue is ownership over a file and if two systems are trying to change a file at the same time. This can often corrupt a database for systems that are not designed with this concurrency in mind, and most systems are not designed with this in mind. As mentioned above, there are some higher end solutions that are designed with this in mind, but they are expensive and typically designed with an agency in mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming you do not wish to purchase an agency solution, Lightroom would do fine, &lt;em&gt;if&lt;/em&gt; you did not wish to share the database and each others edits.  In this case, you would simply share an external drive with the photos themselves, but each keep your own catalog of edits local to your system.  I am not sure if Aperture works this way or not, others can perhaps chime in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only alternative to get something close to this function with Lightroom, is for you to share the hard drive of photos as above, but then, use the export/import catalog function of Lightroom to &quot;share' the catalog between machines. So, have your wife export a catalog of images she has edited, and then you import them into your catalog...and so on.  Not especially simple, but it will work, as long as you can put up with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, if you can get by without sharing edits, then simply put all your images on a network accessible drive, point each copy of Lightroom at this shared drive and edit away. One note: when your wife adds images, they will not automatically be added to your catalog, but you can easily solve this by right clicking on the shared drive link in the Library view, and select 'Synchronize Folder&quot; which will add any new images to your local catalog.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T17:19:32.967" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12453" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-05-26T18:46:55.147" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T18:46:55.147" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T18:46:55.147" />
  <row Id="12454" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-05-26T18:46:55.147" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T18:46:55.147" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T18:46:55.147" />
  <row Id="12455" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-05-26T18:49:33.807" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T18:49:33.807" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T18:49:33.807" />
  <row Id="12456" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-05-26T18:49:33.807" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T18:49:33.807" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T18:49:33.807" />
  <row Id="12457" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-05-26T18:53:00.687" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T18:53:00.687" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T18:53:00.687" />
  <row Id="12458" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-05-26T18:53:00.687" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="The shutter speed is a measure of how long how film or sensor is exposed to light, due to the shutter being opened and closed. This is usually measured in seconds, or fractions of a second. Longer shutter speeds allow more light to onto the film or sensor and allow more subject movement." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T19:31:26.493" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T19:31:26.493" />
  <row Id="12459" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-05-26T19:02:01.033" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T19:02:01.033" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T19:02:01.033" />
  <row Id="12460" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-05-26T19:02:01.033" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T19:02:01.033" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T19:02:01.033" />
  <row Id="12461" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5917" CreationDate="2011-05-26T19:28:21.970" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two things.  First, whatever lens buying guide the quote came from that prompted this question is wrong.  You cannot directly calculate the difference in angle of view using the crop factor.  You must convert to the equivalent focal length first. The calculation is trigonometric, not arithemetic.  You get fairly close, but as I'll suggest below, close is not entirely useful in this area.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The last thing asked in the query was why should we care about this.  Let me answer that with an example.  I've been trying to decide if getting a 20mm lens for my 1.5 crop factor camera would make sense in light of the fact I've already got a 24mm.  Here are the numbers (from an on line calculator).  On the Dx body the 24 gives you 53.1 horizontal, 36.9 vertical, and 63 degrees diagonal.  The 20 provides 61.9, 43.6, and 71.6, respectively.  But when you look at what's in the frame of a picture those numbers add up.  At 10 feet from the sensor, the 24 encompasses an area of 10 feet by 6.7 feet or 67 square feet.  The 20mm frames 96 square feet (12x8) at that same distance.  At 20 feet the difference in what's within the frame is 118 square feet (266 v 384).  The 20mm lens thus encompasses 44.4 % more ground within its frame at 20 feet than the 24mm.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, if you can back up 2 feet from the 10 foot subject, increasing the subject to sensor distance to 12 feet, the exact same field of view is available with the 24mm as at 10 feet with the 20mm.  At 20 feet, you'd have to back up 4 feet.  So, in the situations you shoot, are those one or two steps backwards something you can take (keeping in mind that changing the distance to your subject changes perspective as well)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The end result for me is I'm still undecided. But at least I quantified my dilemma.  That's why angle and field of view matter.  (Of course, a wide angle zoom would arguably solve my dilemma; but to keep equivalent speed, the price of poker goes up by more than $1,400.00 and 1.5 lbs, and avoiding THAT, is why I went back to primes in the first place.)     &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5350" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-29T12:11:54.410" LastActivityDate="2011-05-29T12:11:54.410" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12464" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12423" CreationDate="2011-05-26T21:48:24.010" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you upload a JPEG, Flickr does not modify the Original-size image in any way (apart from changing the filename), at least not on a Pro account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I tested it out by uploading a full-size, 100% quality JPEG to Flickr then re-downloading the Original size image and comparing it with the original (using a comparison tool called Beyond Compare). The two files are identical, byte for byte. That means not only has the image not been compressed but all the original metadata (Exif etc.) is also intact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm on a Pro account so I can't be sure about Basic accounts but my guess is that the same applies, they just restrict you from viewing it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also tested a TIFF and the Original image on Flickr is a JPEG. So in the case of TIFFs, they are compressed. (All JPEGs are compressed so some extent, even if you choose 100% quality - hence the size difference between JPEG and an equivalent TIFF.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3644" LastEditorUserId="3644" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-26T21:55:20.450" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T21:55:20.450" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12465" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12436" CreationDate="2011-05-26T21:52:45.940" Score="-2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While there are a lot of good answers here, I noticed one major difference, which is that the Micro 4/3rds shot is taken at 20mm, while the FF is at 50mm. Since aperture is a ratio of the aperture diameter to the focal length, this means that the opening for ƒ2 on the 4/3rds setup was 10mm wide, while the opening for ƒ2 at 50mm full-frame was 25mm. In absolute terms, a larger amount of light was admitted inside the body of your D700.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know for certain that this is what causes the difference, but it was the first thing that jumped out at me. I'd retake the shots so they are framed similarly at identical focal lengths and see if that made a difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1905" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T21:52:45.940" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12466" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12443" CreationDate="2011-05-26T22:39:36.943" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;On Windows, the Windows Live Photo Gallery app (http://get.live.com) makes it REALLY easy to stitch photos together into great panoramas. It works better than almost all other tools I've tried (and is far simpler).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, it's free too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5264" LastActivityDate="2011-05-26T22:39:36.943" />
  <row Id="12467" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12470" CreationDate="2011-05-27T03:34:32.327" Score="2" ViewCount="148" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just bought a Canon Rebel T2i (EOS550D/Kissx4) with 18-55mm kit-lens and I have an additional $300 USD to spend on a lens. I had decided to buy a Canon EF-S 75-300mm f/4-5.6 (without IS) and a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 and these are just $150 and $110 respectively. However, my friend just got a new camera with an 18-135mm lens so he's selling his current Canon EFs 55-250mm IS for $250. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I choose Canon EF-S 70-300mm f4-5.6 &amp;amp; 50mm I can get 2 lenses for the same price. If I choose the Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS, I will just get only one. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Advice on which one to choose, please?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5351" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-27T11:30:24.300" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T18:33:04.637" Title="How do I decide between the Canon 55-250mm or 70-300mm + 50mm?" Tags="&lt;lens&gt;&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12468" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12467" CreationDate="2011-05-27T03:51:21.987" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Take some time to get to know your new camera and learn what sort of photos you enjoy shooting.  At some point, you'll start to understand what you need to see in your next lens -- maybe you need more reach (zoom), or maybe you'll end up looking for better low-light performance.  Until then, you're really just guessing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[elaboration]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that you've got a camera and at least one lens, any additional lenses you might be contemplating &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; do one of two things for you, photographically-speaking:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Let you take a picture you weren't previously able to take&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Improve the quality of a picture you could have taken with your current setup&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider the first case.  If you've got an 18-55 lens, there are wide-angle shots that you just can't get with your lens.  Assembling a bunch of photos into a panorama doesn't count.  The same goes for telephoto shots -- if you can't frame a far-away object (a bird, for instance) so that it takes up a meaningful amount of real-estate in your image, you don't really have enough reach for that shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In cases like these, expanding your focal range with a wide-angle or telephoto lens will allow you to take shots you just couldn't touch before.  This case is relatively easy to understand and evaluate.  There's a reason you see kit lenses covering ranges like 18-55, 17-85, 18-135, and so on -- these ranges cover the most common focal lengths for general photography.  This is the same reason you usually see two-lens kits covering something like 18-250 or 18-300 with a pair of lenses -- that shows you where that next-most-popular range is.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, if you don't have any idea what focal lengths you're likely to need , a two-lens solution covering 18-250 or so is a great place to start.  I would expect you to use your kit lens more often than the telephoto lens with a setup like this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you become more advanced and learn more about the photos you want to take, you may find that you want to expand even more on the wide or telephoto ends.  A wide-angle lens will take you out to 8-12mm or so, which can be useful for landscapes or indoor shots where you don't have room to back up to frame your shot.  Longer telephoto lenses (400+ mm) are most often used for wildlife photography.  Both of these types of lenses tend to be pricy, and you shouldn't buy one until you know how to evaluate your needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second case takes over where the first one leaves off.  There are a number of areas where a better lens would improve on the quality of your kit lens:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A wider aperture (f/2.8 or faster) allows you to take photos with less ambient light, or to blur backgrounds on photos with a narrow depth-of-field(DOF).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A prime lens, dollar-for-dollar, tends to be both more clear and wider than a comparable zoom lens.  For those reasons, they're very popular for portraits and macro photography.  The reason you see the 50mm f/1.8 lens recommended so often for new shooters is that it's a great &quot;bang for the buck&quot; lens that gives you a taste for what a prime lens can do.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Higher-quality lenses often have improved mechanical bits, including focus motors.  Not only does this make them &quot;feel&quot; better, they will usually focus more quickly and more quietly, and they may let you focus manually without having to stop to flip an AF/MF switch.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Higher-quality lenses will have better optics with less distortion, more clarity, and more resistance to undesirable optical defects like chromatic aberration and lens flare.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Higher-quality lenses are generally built more solidly with better weather sealing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you're just starting out, this is a lot to soak in, and the best way to learn about these things is to go shoot pictures.  As you shoot, you'll start to recognize where a larger aperture would be helpful, or why it might be nice to have Full-Time-Manual focusing on your lens.  At the point where you recognize why you're want something like that, you've become an informed buyer, and you'll be way better-equipped to evaluate whether you're getting what you need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In your case specifically, you mentioned both a 75-300mm lens and a 70-300mm lens (in addition to the 50 and the 55-250).  When I read your question, it looks like this may be a typo, and that you're really talking about the 75-300 lens exclusively.  This is an important clarification, because the 75-300 lens is very inexpensive (matching the price you indicated in your question) and not very well-regarded in terms of image quality, whereas the 70-300 is newer, pricier ($500 new, and easily $350-400 used), and has IS and USM.  If you can really get the 70-300 for $150, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.  If you're talking about the 75-300, however, which I think you are, I'd be much more cautious.  Most of the reviews I've seen really pan the 75-300, and the resale market for this lens is soft.  This is important because you're &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; likely to want to resell that lens -- maybe not long after you acquire it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 55-250 is a solid beginner telephoto lens (I owned this lens for a while), but $250 is too much to pay for it.  I bought mine refurbished from Adorama for $200, and it's still available there at that price.  You should never pay more for a used lens than a refurbished one unless you have very specific and reliable information about the use of that lens.  If you believe you'll use a telephoto lens, offer your friend $160-175 for the 55-250 - I think you'll be much happier with that lens than the 75-300.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens, and there's a good chance you'll end up owning it at some point -- most Canon shooters do.  At $110, that's a good deal, but not a steal.  If you know you want to try out a prime lens, then this is a great place to start.  If not, you might consider saving the $110 to apply toward a good tripod or flash - both of which would help the performance of whatever lens is hanging off your camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="269" LastEditorUserId="269" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-27T18:33:04.637" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T18:33:04.637" />
  <row Id="12469" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12467" CreationDate="2011-05-27T04:23:12.143" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;No matter what, pick up a 50mm f/1.8. It opens up a whole new world of Dof creativity, low-light possibilities, and forces you to work with one (and only one) field of view. For around $100, they are practically disposable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides that, though, it really depends on what you like to shoot the most. Do you like to shoot portraits? Landscapes? Macros (extreme closeups)? Wildlife? Sports? What conditions are you shooting in? What is your subject doing? (Moving quickly, posed, etc.?) All of that will depend to some extent what your lens choice should be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I had to pick between the two lenses you mentioned, I would suggest the EF-S 55-250mm. The 70-300mm model that I'm guessing you are referring to is not that great optically, and you aren't gaining much usable reach. On the other hand, I've seen the 55-250 do some pretty great images and the IS helps out tremendously as well. Furthermore, it matches your kit lens' ending focal length -- the 70-300 leaves a gap, and unfortunately, (in my opinion), it's a pretty noticeable gap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So even though you've said if you get the 55-250, that's the only one you can get, I suggest trying somehow, someway to get the 50 on top. Maybe your friend will budge a little? Because that 50mm f/1.8 is a beauty, even if it is practically disposable (and feels like it, too. But the glass is nice.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best solution, IMNSHO, however, would be to pick the 50 up now, and then start saving for the really good glass. One, you'll have had time to figure out what you like to shoot, and two, the really good glass is &lt;em&gt;really good&lt;/em&gt;! Once I went to my 70-200mm f/4 L and my 24-70mm f/2.8 L, the kit lens and my older 55-250mm lens never saw the light-of-day again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5067" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T04:23:12.143" />
  <row Id="12470" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12467" CreationDate="2011-05-27T04:31:03.443" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If your purpose is for the outdoors then go with your first option of 2 lenses. Personally I have used both lenses and I feel the quality is more or less the same. Again it depends on your style of shooting, but the 50mm f1.8 is a low light lens which you could use in case of bad light. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The IS in the 55-250mm is nothing great and since you have the ISO advantage its worth taking the risk of the 70-300mm and you would have more range too. Don't worry about the lost 55-75 range. Trust me, it does not matter as you always have your feet to compensate for that. Just walk into your subject or away and you have more or less the same result. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My suggestion would be pick up the first option since you'll have the 50mm. Once you use that lens there is no turning back, especially for its bokeh and sharpness at that price. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4786" LastEditorUserId="472" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-27T10:38:31.830" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T10:38:31.830" />
  <row Id="12471" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12443" CreationDate="2011-05-27T05:34:05.943" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apart from the the answers suggested by others, i recommend few other tips. Based on what i read.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shoot the pics in Vertical mode. You might have to take more shots, but you'll realize at the end that the edge distortion is less when you click in Vertical mode. When you shoot in horizontal mode, you end up getting the edges cut when the final output is obtained. Its more like a thin horizontal strip. In vertical mode, this can be avoided to a great extent.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;DO NOT shoot in Auto Mode, as all the parameters would change after 1 or 2 shots. Instead press the shutter half-way in Auto mode, note down the values of f, shutter speed etc, switch to manual mode and then key-in these values and try them out.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;DO NOT set the White Balance to Auto, instead set it to Cloudy or anything else as the case maybe.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Once you take the first segment, turn off the Auto Focus of your lens, you don't want your camera to focus different points in different segments.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Have your finger in left / right corner to mark the first photo of the Panoramic series &amp;amp; like-wise right / left corner for the last photo of the series.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Overlap about 20-25% of the last shot and make sure that 1/4th of the last shot appears in the current one.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shoot really quick. You don't want the clouds or any of the other background details to change too much. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use a remote or a timer of 2,5 secs to make sure that you don't shake the camera when you click the shutter. Whatever vibration you might have caused while clicking might have got subdued at the end of 5 secs for sure. (Hopefully)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Once all of it is done, go for any of the popular panoramic photo-stitching software.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Last but not the least, go for a very good tripod. Its not possible without a tripod. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps... Happy Shooting :-) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5352" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T05:34:05.943" />
  <row Id="12472" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12491" CreationDate="2011-05-27T05:49:51.487" Score="0" ViewCount="225" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently bought a Canon 7D, upgrading from a 50D. I was blown away by what I saw on the back of the camera after I took a few shots. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that i've taken the time to import the photos into lightroom &amp;amp; DXO... I'm finding the noise level to be very high, even on low ISO shots I find myself dealing with much more noise than I'm used to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Has anyone experienced this? Are there any solutions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've had this camera for two days and I'm already thinking of selling it... if I can't find a solution for all this noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; After some discussions, and comparissons, jpg files rendered by the body look great. I'll just have to get used to post processing a bit more. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also foudn out that for the best results use multiples of 160 ISO. (I need to test this)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2132" LastEditorUserId="2132" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-30T17:05:46.167" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T17:05:46.167" Title="Why is there so much noise in RAW files from my new Canon 7D?" Tags="&lt;troubleshooting&gt;&lt;canon-7d&gt;&lt;noise&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="12473" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-27T08:00:35.143" Score="2" ViewCount="103" Body="&lt;p&gt;I need a computer screen for editing photos (and playing games, but that's another story). Maximum price is around 200$. Sizewise 21-22&quot; would be nice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-christian&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5355" LastEditorUserId="2127" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-27T10:27:46.593" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T15:38:17.967" Title="Good budget display for photo editing?" Tags="&lt;photo-editing&gt;&lt;display&gt;&lt;low-budget&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12474" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12476" CreationDate="2011-05-27T12:13:44.413" Score="2" ViewCount="49" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just recently purchased a Pentax K-r. It has two formats to shoot raw with, PEF and DNG. Are there advantages or disadvantages with using one over the other?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5356" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-27T12:46:28.633" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T12:50:35.777" Title="What's the difference between PEF and DNG RAW formats?" Tags="&lt;raw&gt;&lt;pentax&gt;&lt;dng&gt;&lt;file-format&gt;&lt;pef&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12475" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12474" CreationDate="2011-05-27T12:48:31.753" Score="-1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use Pentax camera a lot and I prefer Adobe DNG, because it works very well in Adobe's Lightroom. I know that full support for PEF is also there, but in my case is more habit then the choice based on some in-depth comparison of the formats.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look at the internet forums people seem to have various opinions on that topic. Some prefer more generic Adobe DNG others native Pentax PEF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a handful of links you may find interesting:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.photographyreview.com/showthread.php?t=40159&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://forums.photographyreview.com/showthread.php?t=40159&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/26452-pentax-raw-format-dnf-files-better.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/26452-pentax-raw-format-dnf-files-better.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&amp;amp;message=37067973&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&amp;amp;message=37067973&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/kx/discuss/72157623112183203/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.flickr.com/groups/kx/discuss/72157623112183203/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&amp;amp;message=28778787&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&amp;amp;message=28778787&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.steves-digicams.com/pentax-samsung-dslr/156014-pef-vs-dng.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://forums.steves-digicams.com/pentax-samsung-dslr/156014-pef-vs-dng.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4089" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T12:48:31.753" />
  <row Id="12476" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12474" CreationDate="2011-05-27T12:50:35.777" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;PEF is Pentax's proprietary RAW format. DNG is the semi-standard owned by and promoted by Adobe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In reality, there's no practical difference. They both hold the same information. It seems like there might be an advantage in having a standard format, but as a practical matter, RAW converter software needs to be updated with information for each camera anyway, and so DNG doesn't really add much. And pretty much all software that supports Pentax cameras via DNG can also read PEF files.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In older Pentax models, PEF could be (losslessly) compressed and DNG was always uncompressed. In modern cameras, they're both compressed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T12:50:35.777" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12477" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12478" CreationDate="2011-05-27T13:04:56.923" Score="3" ViewCount="40" Body="&lt;p&gt;My Canon 580EX II has a distance scale running from 0.5m to 18m.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the flash is in manual mode, a single segment of the distance scale illuminates to  indicate the maximum effective range for my current aperture and ISO settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In E-TTL II mode, the scale illuminates a number of segments. For example, if I set my aperture to f5.6 and ISO to 400, 7 segments illuminate between 1m and 9m. What does this mean?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3775" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-27T13:07:44.240" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T13:16:40.157" Title="How do I read the flash distance scale on the Canon 580EX II?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;flash&gt;&lt;ettl-ii&gt;" AnswerCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12478" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12477" CreationDate="2011-05-27T13:16:40.157" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This shows you the optimum range of distances you can use those settings with. In your example, beyond 9m and the camera settings mean you won't be able to illuminate the subject properly; and closer than 1m and the subject will be overexposed even on the flash's minimum setting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In manual mode, you've already determined the flash power, so the effective range is reduced to just the single bar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T13:16:40.157" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12479" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12408" CreationDate="2011-05-27T15:12:46.540" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had the same problem last time. That too after a photoshoot. I could not read the card with the card reader or the camera itself. I use a Canon Rebel XT. But one format (OUCH!) and it was back up and running. Format should be on the camera itself. Also, after transfer of pictures make sure that you format the card in the camera. This should work fine. If it does not you can either try to fix the firmware or chuck the camera and pick up a new one. The choice would be ultimately yours. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4786" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T15:12:46.540" />
  <row Id="12480" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-27T15:20:11.457" Score="13" ViewCount="286" Body="&lt;p&gt;I started photography sometime back, and always wondered when is high ISO handy in photography? Also can it be used to get any special effect in pictures?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My camera has Max ISO of 800 but I see some camera which boast of 64,000 etc. Does it really affect the performance? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4786" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-27T15:21:33.410" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T12:18:15.030" Title="Is high ISO useful for photography?" Tags="&lt;iso&gt;&lt;high-iso&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12481" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12494" CreationDate="2011-05-27T15:20:51.953" Score="4" ViewCount="51" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to help someone with a Canon XSi. I'm not used to the Canons that use menus (rather than buttons on the body). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know how to set up the Canon XSi to take a bracketed exposure of 3 photos? -1, 0, and +1?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5359" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-27T15:24:09.027" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T20:08:34.610" Title="How do I take automatically bracketed exposures with the Canon XSi?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;canon-450d&gt;&lt;bracketing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12482" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12488" CreationDate="2011-05-27T15:26:05.113" Score="6" ViewCount="119" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm having some trouble with the Lightroom viewer (In develop mode) when zoomed out. Look at this picture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://mugredelcajon.com.ar/photose/1.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See how the sky seems to have a lot of chroma noise&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now check the zoomed in version (Of the sky part)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://mugredelcajon.com.ar/photose/2.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't see any (significant) chroma noise here!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, check this side by side comparison: Lightroom (RAW original file) and Windows image viewer (Exported JPG, 100 quality) (&lt;a href=&quot;http://mugredelcajon.com.ar/photose/3.png&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Click here&lt;/a&gt; for the full size version)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://mugredelcajon.com.ar/photose/3.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The windows image viewer shows a much better sky, without all the &quot;blotches&quot; of color and strong noise that the LR version shows. Do I have something wrongly configured? Do you suffer the same issue?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4039" LastEditorUserId="4892" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-27T19:47:43.857" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T14:44:20.407" Title="Is it me or is the Lightroom's zoomed out preview inaccurate in displaying noise and color?" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;software&gt;&lt;noise&gt;&lt;sharpening&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12483" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12480" CreationDate="2011-05-27T15:36:20.207" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, it is useful as there are some situations where there just isn't enough light to take photos at low ISOs.  I take quite a few photos of the am-dram productions I'm involved in, and even with a F1.8 lens I often find myself shooting at an ISO between about 800 and 1600 in order to be able to have a short enough shutter speed to freeze the action.  It's not the extreme of 64,000 that you've mentioned but it's certainly a higher ISO than I use if I'm shooting outside during the day time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2818" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T15:36:20.207" />
  <row Id="12484" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12480" CreationDate="2011-05-27T15:44:51.160" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer the second question you ask, ISO really does affect the performance and one thing to keep in mind is that the higher the ISO you use the more noise you will end up with in your image. Although, this is being improved upon and becomes less of an issue with each successive generation of cameras. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="538" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T15:44:51.160" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12485" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12480" CreationDate="2011-05-27T16:08:25.703" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd say it's extremely useful, because photography is about capturing good looking light, and it's easier for light to look good when there's not much of it, e.g. at night, at sunset/dawn, in pubs, at concerts, in the woods. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's why the industry strives to make sensors (and film, in the past) with good high iso performance and fast lenses, and photographers are willing to buy the equipment that is most advanced with regard to these aspects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3364" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T16:08:25.703" />
  <row Id="12486" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12480" CreationDate="2011-05-27T16:17:49.340" Score="8" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Shooting action in low-light conditions or freezing very fast action are common situations where you might need to compromise on the ISO to get the shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, I recently shot some pictures of jets passing by at an air show. I found that even at noon on a day with clear skies and the aperture at 2.8, ISO 100 was too low to get me the shutter times I wanted. I had to go to ISO 800 to get 1/8000 shutter times. Now, ISO 800 produces perfectly good results with my camera, but if I could have shot even faster shutter times than 1/8000 then I would definitely have tried out ISO 1600 too, as even 1/8000 wasn't always fast enough to freeze an F-15 buzzing the crowd.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding high ISO for effects, I rarely find chroma noise pleasant to look at so I usually post-process high ISO pictures in black and white. While luminance noise from a digital sensor doesn't compare to the grain of high ISO black and white film, it sometimes provides passable results with a little post-processing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an example of a night time shot with ISO 6400. It's not a technically very good shot--the noise is very pronounced--but it's a shot I couldn't get any other way as I didn't bring any flashes with me that day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/WIyBt.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Rollerblader&quot;&gt;&#xA;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://kim.burgaardphotography.com/Street-Scenes/Nice-rollerbladers-2010-Aug/15740066_eMczq#1179969937_gfQjt&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;original&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2559" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T16:17:49.340" />
  <row Id="12487" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12481" CreationDate="2011-05-27T16:26:36.327" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;AEB&quot; at the top of the second photo-options menu.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5189" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T16:26:36.327" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12488" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12482" CreationDate="2011-05-27T16:28:07.013" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't use Lightroom but I regularly use Adobe Camera Raw which is pretty much the same thing but built into Photoshop, and have observed the same effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By default ACR applies chroma noise reduction to the raw image. The noise reduction only seems to be applied in the preview when you zoom in (perhaps Adobe figured the noise wouldn't be visible in the zoomed out view due to resampling), so what you're seeing in the zoomed out version is the actual noise level, and what you're seeing zoomed in is what it looks like after Lightroom has smoothed the noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could confirm this by turning off noise reduction in Lightroom and seeing if you get the same result zoomed in as zoomed out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As soon as you export to JPEG the noise reduction is applied to the whole image, which is why you don't see it in the Windows Photo Viewer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T16:28:07.013" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12489" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12480" CreationDate="2011-05-27T16:42:11.807" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;ISO is very useful as it helps overcome read noise by amplifying a weak analogue signal prior to digitization (which adds a more or less constant amount of noise) thus &lt;strong&gt;giving a &lt;em&gt;better&lt;/em&gt; signal to noise ratio.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's all raising the ISO does, amplify the signal. It does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; make the picture noisier because it only amplifies what's already there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See this example. The ISO100 shot was significantly underexposed and suffers from really bad read noise. The same amount of light enters the camera in the second shot, but due to ISO the signal is amplified before readout, thus read noise is a smaller percentage of the signal and overall signal to noise ratio is better:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/ISOcomparison/ISO_100_vs_ISO_1600.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To using a high ISO actually helps to &lt;strong&gt;reduce noise&lt;/strong&gt; when you have a limited amount of light (and you can't get any more by opening the aperture or shutter for longer).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T16:42:11.807" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12490" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12493" CreationDate="2011-05-27T17:47:32.593" Score="1" ViewCount="59" Body="&lt;p&gt;One feature I loved in my old Canon G6 was the ability to do focus bracketing in macro photography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any hope of focus bracketing using my Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 macro lens on my D90 body?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5336" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T19:46:53.560" Title="Is there a way to do focus bracketing on Nikon D90 with Nikkor 105mm f/2.8?" Tags="&lt;macro&gt;&lt;focus&gt;&lt;nikon-d90&gt;&lt;bracketing&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="12491" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12472" CreationDate="2011-05-27T18:38:19.510" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_density&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pixel density&lt;/a&gt; I would say. Your 50D had the highest pixel density in Canon's lineup when it was released, at 4.5MP/cm2. At that density the lens becomes the limiting factor, you need good glass. A few reviews pointed out that the image quality of the 50D wasn't much better than the 40D it was replacing actually, with a density of 3.1 MP/cm2. This is even more true for the 7D, which topped the 50D with a 5.4 MP/cm² density. For reference, the full frame Canon 5D II is at 2.4 MP/cm2. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a theoretical point of view &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrsensors/dslrsensors4.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pixel density should affect the amount of random digital noise&lt;/a&gt; and the dynamic range in the image the camera produces. Granted, a lot is going on under the hood in the 7D to reduce/fix this &quot;limitation&quot;, but that could be why you feel there is more noise in your 7D than in your 50D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a 5DMII. Friend of mine bought a 7D. We tested in a room I had used my 5DMII in, and I was surprised by the noise myself, it didn't have the same &quot;quality&quot; as what I would see on the 5DMII. Granted, we should have put my L lens on his 7D, instead of his kit lens. He sold it to buy a 5DMII. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1273" LastEditorUserId="1273" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-27T21:49:14.623" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T21:49:14.623" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="12492" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12482" CreationDate="2011-05-27T19:37:00.843" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This isn't an issue per say, so much as a &lt;strong&gt;limitation of Lightroom&lt;/strong&gt;.  The application does not apply noise and/or sharpening settings unless you &lt;strong&gt;view images at the 1:1 size&lt;/strong&gt; representation or higher.  That is why they introduced the preview window in the develop module a few revisions back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At one point there was a &lt;strong&gt;workaround&lt;/strong&gt; that allowed the less than 1:1 size to show the noise settings.  If you &lt;strong&gt;zoomed into 1:1 then back out&lt;/strong&gt;, at that time you could see the applied settings.  I do not have Lightroom in front of me to test this with the current version.  Note, this is only for noise reduction and not for sharpening.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another workaround would be to &lt;strong&gt;switch back from the develop module to the library module&lt;/strong&gt;.  This should display the image as the JPEG output would be displayed, thus running the image through the noise and/or sharpening settings you have in the develop module.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have read that the limitation is setup this way to improve the speed of the develop module, but I do not believe this is published information from Adobe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T19:37:00.843" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12493" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12490" CreationDate="2011-05-27T19:46:53.560" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two main reason why you would want to focus bracket.  The first is Focus Stacking where you achieve a &lt;strong&gt;greater depth of field&lt;/strong&gt; by combining multiple images with different focal points.  The second is to ensure that you receive a single final image with the &lt;strong&gt;desired focus point&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are using this for macro photography so I am assuming that you would like to &lt;strong&gt;stack images&lt;/strong&gt; in order to achieve a greater depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;Nikon D90 does not have the ability to bracket focus&lt;/strong&gt;.  This is one area where many point-and-shoot or pocket digital cameras have a slight advantage to most DSLRs.  You can achieve a similar effect simply by &lt;strong&gt;putting your lens into manual focus mode and racking the focus back and forth for multiple images&lt;/strong&gt;.  You also can put the camera into auto mode and simply select a different focus point over multiple image captures, but in practice this will be slightly cumbersome.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T19:46:53.560" />
  <row Id="12494" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12481" CreationDate="2011-05-27T20:08:34.610" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Canon 450D/XSi has the ability to automatically bracket exposures +/- 3.0 EV, in 0.5 or 0.3 EV increments.  To get to the AEB menu you have to have another thing setup correctly.  It is displayed only in the &lt;strong&gt;P, TV, Av, M or A-DEP modes&lt;/strong&gt;, not in any of the 'Basic Zone' modes (such as full Auto or the Scene modes). Once you have that setup, &lt;strong&gt;hit the Menu button&lt;/strong&gt; on the back and scroll over right to the &lt;strong&gt;second option in the menu&lt;/strong&gt;, and you will see the first option is &quot;AEB&quot;.  Select that and you can &lt;strong&gt;expand the selection&lt;/strong&gt; using the right and left arrows up to a full +/- 3 depending on what you would like.  In your particular case you would expand it to -1,0,and +1 to get the desired effect you asked for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At this point when you start shooting images it will take a series of three images for the bracketing.  It is usually a benefit to put the camera into a continuous shooting mode for faster shots at this point, but that is a preference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The website dpreview does have images of the menu if you would like a visual of that screen &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos450d/page11.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T20:08:34.610" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12495" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-27T21:19:08.320" Score="-2" ViewCount="84" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's settle this once and for all...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the best AA NiMH chargers out there for:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;prolonging the life of the batteries&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;charging quickly&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;nothing else&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2592" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-27T21:59:37.260" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T21:59:37.260" ClosedDate="2011-05-28T06:05:36.717" Title="What is the best AA NiMH battery charger?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;battery&gt;&lt;charger&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12496" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12495" CreationDate="2011-05-27T21:46:23.610" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not sure that this belongs on the photography site, but personally I'm a fan of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Crosse-Technology-BC-9009-AlphaPower-Battery/dp/B00077AA5Q&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;La Crosse&lt;/a&gt; charger (BC-9009 or BC-700).  It charges each individual battery, offers a basic recharge, a discharge for prolonging the life, and a refresh for restoring old batteries or getting new ones up to their peak (it runs it through multiple discharge/recharge cycles).  If you have a bad battery, it will tell you which one.  It also lets you adjust the current to charge faster, but I personally charge everything at the slowest rate (there's a lot of debate on what's best).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only downside I've experienced is that a completely dead battery takes a bit of work to get it to charge (the charger doesn't detect it).  The trick is to unplug it and short the positive terminal with a neighboring battery for 30 seconds using a paper clip, which will give it just enough charge to be detected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3723" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T21:46:23.610" />
  <row Id="12497" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12499" CreationDate="2011-05-27T22:14:59.227" Score="9" ViewCount="156" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am trying to find a simple yet solid solution for a self-hosted photo site. I have been through a bunch but have found them outdated code-wise (Gallery2), technology-wise (Flash based) or just plain ugly or disorganized (Coppermine).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am considering using non-photo CMS like WordPress simply because the themes look good and the user interface is so simple, but would like to know if there are any other options out there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S.: Please don't mention photo sharing sites like Flickr, Picassa, etc. I'm not interested in anything that is not self hosted. And nothing based on Flash, please. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit. I am a web developer and have no problem working with code/servers/etc, just wondering what options are out there, most everything I have seen is dismal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5367" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-27T23:15:22.990" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T20:43:58.893" Title="What solutions are available for a self-hosted portfolio website?" Tags="&lt;software&gt;&lt;web&gt;&lt;presentation&gt;&lt;portfolio&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="12498" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12497" CreationDate="2011-05-27T22:37:51.353" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you just want a  very simple way of displaying photos on the web you could give picasa a try.  Not the Google hosted service but the &quot;export as html page&quot; option in the folder menu.  This then generates static html files which can be put on any web server without requiring any server side scripting or a database.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2818" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T22:37:51.353" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12499" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12497" CreationDate="2011-05-27T22:41:49.987" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My favorites are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.prophotoblogs.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ProPhoto&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://rawfolio.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;RawFolio&lt;/a&gt;.  Both of these are going to cost you money up front and both of them have self hosting options.  They even have the option to install the software for you if you decide that is the path you want to follow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will find that the ProPhoto blog is used across the photography industry.  It is hard not to run into this template at some point if you view a lot of photography websites.  I personally like it, and am very happy with its customization options.  The backend GUI is very intuitive, and the support staff is very helpful if you need further customization added.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-27T22:41:49.987" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12500" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12525" CreationDate="2011-05-28T02:30:07.623" Score="1" ViewCount="77" Body="&lt;p&gt;When in Live-View and Manual (M) exposure mode, I can control the shutter-speed with the  command-dial but the aperture does not respond to the sub-command dial. This does not occur when using the viewfinder (not in live-view) and does not occur in Aperture-Priority (A) mode, only in both Live-View and Manual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am baffled by a camera. :(&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this Nikon D7000 defective? &lt;em&gt;It seems to have changed hands quite a bit, so it is possible.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can D7000 owners try this if they have not yet:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set the mode-dial to Manual (M) exposure.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use the front and rear dials to change aperture and shutter-speed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Confirm the previous step  works.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Enter Live-View mode.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use the front and rear dials to attempt to change aperture and shutter-speed. Note&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Confirm that changing the shutter-speed works between 1/30s and 1/8000s.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Confirm (or not) that changing aperture does not work.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Go to Aperture-Priority (A) mode and confirm that changing aperture works.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-28T13:59:48.447" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T19:40:47.327" Title="Is it normal that manual exposure does not work on the Nikon D7000 in Live-View?" Tags="&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;troubleshooting&gt;&lt;nikon-d7000&gt;&lt;live-view&gt;&lt;manual-exposure&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12501" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12480" CreationDate="2011-05-28T06:34:40.357" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sure, high ISO is relevant. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm a journalist and very often I have to take pictures in conditions where I can't use flash, but to &lt;em&gt;have&lt;/em&gt; a picture is much more relevant than the &lt;em&gt;quality&lt;/em&gt; of the picture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moreover, if you take a picture for a regular newspaper there is no difference if one uses ISO 200 or 1200 - printing will be worse either way... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5370" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-28T12:18:15.030" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T12:18:15.030" />
  <row Id="12502" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12504" CreationDate="2011-05-28T06:40:39.760" Score="5" ViewCount="147" Body="&lt;p&gt;I see that some smartphones now have dual LED flash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What exactly is the purpose of a dual LED flash?&lt;/strong&gt; Anything to do with brightness? What can a dual do that a single flash cannot? Would a triple LED flash be a possibility even?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="607" LastEditorUserId="4039" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-29T21:58:49.653" LastActivityDate="2011-05-29T21:58:49.653" Title="What is the purpose of a dual LED flash?" Tags="&lt;flash&gt;&lt;led&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="12503" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12502" CreationDate="2011-05-28T07:18:45.483" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Greater illumination. Three LEDs should be brighter, although would use more power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/features/item/Camera_Nitty_Gritty-part_2.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here are some example pictures&lt;/a&gt; comparing images produced by several Nokia mobile phones equipped with single LED, dual LED, and Xenon flashes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5177" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T07:18:45.483" />
  <row Id="12504" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12502" CreationDate="2011-05-28T07:22:13.187" Score="13" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The distance from which you can light subjects with a flash is proportional to square root of luminous power due to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.geofflawrence.com/photography_tutorial_inverse_square_law.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;inverse square law&lt;/a&gt;. A dual LED flash can emit twice as much light as a single LED, which means you can lit subjects 1.4 times further away. It also draws twice as much power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A triple LED flash would increase your reach 1.7 times compared to a single LED (1.2 times compared to dual LED). So the difference is not as significant as when stepping from single to dual, but increase of manufacturing costs and power drain is similar. Triple LED flash is not unheard of - Pentax Optio W90 uses three LEDs to aid during macro shots. As they are placed triangularly around the lens, they effectively create a ring light effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally, if you need more light than a dual flash, you'll be happier with a Xenon flash. A Xenon flash would also let you add regular speedlights off-camera in optical slave mode, but cannot act as a continuous video light / torch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-28T07:43:32.897" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T07:43:32.897" />
  <row Id="12505" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4592" CreationDate="2011-05-28T08:29:23.043" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could reduce film grain by using &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wetmounting.com/Pages/basics.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wet mounting&lt;/a&gt; (immersing film in fluid) during scanning, if your scanner allows it. It would also help with saturation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T08:29:23.043" />
  <row Id="12506" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4645" CreationDate="2011-05-28T09:26:42.517" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While TTL is mostly used in context of flash metering, it could also refer to basic light metering through the lens (especially in context of older cameras, when this was a luxury feature). This is how most current cameras meter their exposure. You use it to let the camera set proper exposure for scene you have currently framed, and fine-tune it by setting exposure compensation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T09:26:42.517" />
  <row Id="12507" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-28T09:51:15.160" Score="5" ViewCount="145" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/q/9597/64&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; I figured that my camera has either three or six blades.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But yesterday I took another shot at night with the same setup which has twelve srokes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/MPvWD.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The camera is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/product_finder/cameras/digital_slr/EOS_550D/index.aspx?specs=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 550D&lt;/a&gt; and I used the same 18-135 lens for both the shots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this possible with 3 or 6 blades?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="64" LastEditorUserId="1356" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-28T20:19:12.240" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T20:19:12.240" Title="How many blades does my lens' aperture diaphragm have when I get 12-pointed starbursts?" Tags="&lt;camera-basics&gt;&lt;aperture&gt;&lt;canon-550d&gt;&lt;optics&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" />
  <row Id="12508" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12507" CreationDate="2011-05-28T10:16:16.560" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not your camera that has blades, the aperture diaphragm (located in lens) has them. With different lenses, your camera will have different number of aperture blades.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T10:16:16.560" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12509" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12507" CreationDate="2011-05-28T10:56:10.950" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Canon 18-135 lens has 6 circular aperture blades.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3584" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T10:56:10.950" />
  <row Id="12511" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12507" CreationDate="2011-05-28T12:37:59.217" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yours has 6 blades. There are a few ways of finding out for sure:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Look at the shape of light bursts or &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;bokeh&lt;/a&gt; in pictures. I can see how your image above is a bit confusing but it's actually 6 shapes (each with two &quot;outer lines&quot;) rather than 12. Likewise, the shape of the bokeh in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/cholden/2107581320/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this shot&lt;/a&gt; clearly shows it was taken with a 7-blade lens. However, that won't always work: it depends on the aperture the shot was taken with, and some lenses have more curved blades that lead to very round bokeh.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Look at the lens. As others have pointed out, the aperture blades are in the lens, not the camera body. Normally the camera keeps the aperture wide open (regardless of the setting you may have chosen) until you actually press the shutter: this is to let plenty of light through the lens while you're composing and focusing your shot. However, your camera has a button that forces the aperture to close to the currently set value and lets you see the blades very clearly. On a Canon it's a small round button, positioned just below the lens release button (you can see it on the bottom right image &lt;a href=&quot;http://a.img-dpreview.com/previews/CanonEOS550D/images/allroundview.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;). So, to see the aperture blades for yourself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Set the camera into AV mode and select a reasonably narrow aperture (f/8 will do fine).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Look into the front of the lens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Press that button! See the blades?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Find the lens specifications online. You'll find a spec for most lenses and that should tell you how many blades it has. I searched for &quot;canon 18 135&quot; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Standard_Zoom/EF-S_18-135mm_f3.5-5.6_IS/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon specification page&lt;/a&gt; came up in my Google results. As we suspected: 6 blades.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3644" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T12:37:59.217" />
  <row Id="12512" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12517" CreationDate="2011-05-28T12:50:43.550" Score="11" ViewCount="275" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that a real gray card is the best thing to use to determine exposure. But I'd like to know if there are other naturally available features that can be used in a quick and dirty way. Are fields of grass or road tarmac appropriate? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason for asking is that I suspect that my new used (manual focus) lens is exposing incorrectly using my camera body. I don't have access to a gray card, but I do have access to lawns and pavements, nicely and evenly lit by a cloudy sky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-28T14:42:03.817" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T19:04:27.303" Title="What's a good ad-hoc replacement for a gray card?" Tags="&lt;exposure&gt;&lt;metering&gt;&lt;gray-card&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12513" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-28T13:03:05.037" Score="1" ViewCount="110" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm planning to buy one of the above, and, &lt;strong&gt;leaving aside image quality, lenses, and other issues,&lt;/strong&gt; how do the 2 bodies compare in terms of handling to each other as well as to the 450D (Rebel XSi) I'm currently using?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2069" LastEditorUserId="2069" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-28T14:31:17.573" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T14:31:17.573" Title="What can I expect from the 5D Mark II and the D700 in terms of handling?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;nikon&gt;&lt;canon-5d-mark-ii&gt;&lt;handling&gt;&lt;nikon-d700&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12514" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12497" CreationDate="2011-05-28T13:11:21.823" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I haven't tried it myself (I use Flickr) but I've heard good things about &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.staceyapp.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Stacey&lt;/a&gt;. Personally I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blosxom.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;blosxom&lt;/a&gt; as my blog and Stacey seems to have a similar philosophy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T13:11:21.823" />
  <row Id="12515" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12512" CreationDate="2011-05-28T13:57:09.697" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do you have a camera bag? A lot of them have a gray interior that's fairly close to what you're looking for, especially if you have dividers you can pull out and use by themself. You may have to tweak the final balance, but it will be in range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An another approach is to DIY it on a printer. Again, it won't be perfect, but it would be close enough for basic testing to eyeball any adjustments afterwards. If you go this route, in a decent editor, fill an image with 18% gray and then print it. A good photo printer is probably better than a laser, but don't use high gloss paper, it should be mat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Plain &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;white&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; paper can also be used. This will not be gray, of course, but is a known white. Using that, you can adjust until it is white and then everything else should be balanced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the way, shoot raw so that you can make adjustments after the fact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="472" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T13:57:09.697" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12516" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12513" CreationDate="2011-05-28T14:17:00.640" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This is highly subjective so the best answer is for you to try them out in a store.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;If local stores do not have those, you can at least get a feel using the another close model for each brand like the Canon 7D and Nikon D300S.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously both cameras you are looking at are high-end units which dual control-dials, plenty of external controls. In terms of handling, &lt;strong&gt;the placement and shape of those controls will make the difference&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, one area where &lt;em&gt;I&lt;/em&gt; prefer the Nikon is the control dials, having them both high up on the camera lets me control it without shifting my grip. The Canon has its rear control dial lower on the body which for my hands feels awkward. If you use a hand-strap rather than neck-strap, the lower control dial feels even more inconvenient. Also the Canon's joystick is too small and overly sensitive. Then there are subtleties like the Canon's AE-L is sticky and does not let go when pressed again if you change your mind. If you use long exposures often, you may also prefer the Nikon because of the built-in viewfinder shutter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I am sure someone can say different things that favor the Canon. I manage with my Canon DSLR too ;) but, for the features that I use, the ergonomics of the Nikon suit me better and even more that of my Pentax DSLRs (both cropped-sensors, so a different class).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt; Forgot about the 450D part, which I believe is the Rebel XSi on this side of the Atlantic ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The move to a higher-end body is &lt;strong&gt;always about the handling and you will notice it&lt;/strong&gt;. In your case you will also go full-frame which gives quality too but among high-end cameras of the same brand, the handling is extremely similar (Ex: D300S vs D700).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The dual control-dials and extra buttons simply let you work faster. Changing common settings can nearly always be done (IIRC except measuring custom white-balance on the Canon) without going through the menu which gives you more time to take pictures and reduces the chances that you will miss the shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bigger bodies are less cramped too, giving a more comfortable grip and you won't have to smash your nose against the rear LCD and wipe-off sunscreen later because you can't see anything anymore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-28T14:24:14.647" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T14:24:14.647" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="12517" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12512" CreationDate="2011-05-28T14:21:59.187" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Grass is generally considered to be 18% grey. I would guess if you shoot in grey scale mode and your exposure is said to be correct, it should come up 18% grey. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's also the sunny 16 rule, which is on a sunny day, shoot at 1/ISO shutter speed, f16. This should produce a correctly exposed picture. You can check to see if this results in a correct picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both of these were tricks I was taught back in film days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5376" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T14:21:59.187" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12518" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12482" CreationDate="2011-05-28T14:44:20.407" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;To understand what's going on here, it's useful to know a bit about how Lightroom handles your images under the hood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you import photos you may notice Lightroom telling you it's generating &quot;previews&quot;. These are JPEG images, usually smaller than the full-size image you've imported, which Lightroom generates automatically and stores in its catalog database. It does this because it's subsequently much faster to load one of these JPEGs than to load up your original photo (especially if it's a RAW image) and re-apply all your edits before displaying it. The preview is updated whenever you apply a new edit to a photo, or you can force it to be re-generated from the menu (&lt;em&gt;Library &gt; Previews &gt; ...&lt;/em&gt;). Whenever possible (for example, in the Library grid and loupe views), Lightroom will display the faster-loading preview rather than the original RAW image, hence making the experience of browsing through your catalog a bit more slick and responsive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The blotchy sky you're seeing in the comparison with Windows image viewer is because your previews are set to low or medium quality: this generates smaller JPEGs which load quicker at the expense of some &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;compression artefacts&lt;/a&gt;. To fix that, just go to &lt;em&gt;Edit &gt; Catalog Settings... &gt; File Handling&lt;/em&gt; and set the preview quality to &lt;em&gt;High&lt;/em&gt;. You may want to change it back if you notice this slows Lightroom down appreciably.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also see the noise issue you've described, and I can always fix it by zooming in to the full-size view of the image (in the Develop module) then back out again. The problem seems to be that the zoomed-out version of the image just update properly when you make noise adjustments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3644" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T14:44:20.407" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12519" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12512" CreationDate="2011-05-28T15:20:47.210" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Grass (or other leaves), a clear, blue sky, or the palm of your hand -- but it does need to be the palm, not the back or other parts of your skin. Other parts have pigmentation that varies the color, but palms have (almost) no pigmentation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T15:20:47.210" />
  <row Id="12520" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6598" CreationDate="2011-05-28T16:00:29.577" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given all the excellent answers so far, I'd just add that whoever came out with this metaphor, probably had a bad (but catchy) selection of words, and what he meant to say is &quot;&lt;strong&gt;the exposure tripod&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; - i.e., &quot;the three legs of exposure&quot;. He did not intend to imply a relationship (dependency) between the 3 variables, but merely to name the parameters affecting the exposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T16:00:29.577" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12521" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12523" CreationDate="2011-05-28T17:57:25.060" Score="3" ViewCount="113" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a &lt;strong&gt;Canon 400D&lt;/strong&gt; I am quite happy with it, the maximum ISO and resolution though leave something to be desired when I use more up-to-date cameras. I recently bought a &lt;strong&gt;Sony nex-5&lt;/strong&gt; to have a portable back-up. It is portable, but not really &lt;em&gt;pocketable&lt;/em&gt;. It has an incredible burst rate, though it lacks good lenses and I really prefer canon's raw format, because of canon's excellent raw editing software.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have two good lenses; the &lt;strong&gt;Sigma 50mm 1.4&lt;/strong&gt; and the &lt;strong&gt;Canon 28mm 1.8&lt;/strong&gt;. I can use these manually on the Sony nex with an adapter I have. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am thinking about selling one of&#xA;   them and getting a &lt;strong&gt;Canon 550D&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;600D&lt;/strong&gt;. I know both these cameras have pretty slow burst rates. Oh well, both my 400D and Nex are very fast.&#xA;   So which should I sell?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If I sell the&#xA;Sony, I'll be able to use both my lenses in auto-focus and keep a continuous Canon RAW workflow.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If I sell the 400D I'll have two&#xA;modern High ISO cameras to work with but my&#xA;Sony will have to be focused&#xA;manually.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you guys! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5079" LastEditorUserId="5079" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-28T18:15:39.463" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T19:06:56.150" Title="Which camera to keep?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="12522" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12512" CreationDate="2011-05-28T19:04:27.303" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could try using &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Zone System&lt;/a&gt; if you have objects in your scene that you can relate to a specific zone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, you could use a white piece of paper or a bright cloud (zone 7), and use a +2 exposure compensation, to make sure it remains white. Or you could use &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;clear north sky; dark skin, average weathered wood&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;to get a good exposure without exposure compensation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just take a look at the &lt;em&gt;Zones as tone and texture&lt;/em&gt; section on the Wikipedia page.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3922" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T19:04:27.303" />
  <row Id="12523" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12521" CreationDate="2011-05-28T19:06:56.150" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just from personal experience, I suggest grabbing either the 550D or 60D and selling the Sony. (If I had my preference, I'd keep the Sony too, though.) Reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Same lenses, similar capabilities (no manual focus)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use existing workflow&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use existing knowledge of how Canon cameras work (important, IMNSHO. It is critical that you can use your camera without having to always look for the buttons!)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Good backup to your new Canon.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I have two Canon bodies (450D and 500D) with some sweet glass on them, and then my Olympus E-P1 for more casual/vacation shooting. I love both systems, and both can produce fine images, but the glass available for Canon (or other dSLRs) is fantastic, and I won't part with it, especially since I already have it. ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've done enough manual focus work to know that in fast situations that it, to me anyway, would be annoying. I'd rather have AF than none at all, especially since my eyes will frequently lie to me if something is or isn't in focus (Contacts + astigmatism. Diopter adj helps, but not completely).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can, keep them all; but if keeping the same lenses (with the same capabilities) and the same workflow is important, then get another Canon and sell the Sony.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Side point: Note that your adapter is going to require the use of your Canon-mount lenses wide-open. Which means your 50mm is always at 1.4, and your 28 is always at 1.8. Not the sharpest point of either lens, and likely not always what you're after in terms of DoF. Some lenses will let you stop down manually -- perhaps the Sigma does -- don't know though. Canon lenses rarely do, however, so that is also a point to think about.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5067" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T19:06:56.150" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12524" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-28T19:35:59.707" Score="0" ViewCount="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can I link to layer masks together?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to create a divider bar in Photoshop, that fades out at each end (see picture).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/74jDC.png&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://i.stack.imgur.com/74jDC.png&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see, I have it fading out at the bottom. How can I do the same to the top?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5378" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T19:35:59.707" ClosedDate="2011-05-28T21:34:58.033" Title="Photoshop multiple layer masks" Tags="&lt;photoshop&gt;&lt;layer&gt;&lt;masks&gt;" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12525" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12500" CreationDate="2011-05-28T19:40:47.327" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The D7000 won't change how the aperture is stopped down until you take a picture or restart live view mode, but you should be able to change the displayed aperture value using the front dial.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Running through your steps, I am not able to reproduce your problem. I can change the displayed aperture value using the front dial in live view mode, just as I can with live view off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Make sure you're not accidentally holding any buttons when turning the dials. Also, Custom setting f7 (Release button to use dial) will hijack the dials after you press almost any button until you press that button again or half-press the shutter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T19:40:47.327" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12526" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12497" CreationDate="2011-05-28T20:43:58.893" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Give a try to Piwigo : this is an open source photo gallery software. It includes many features such as hierarchical albums, tags, search, browse by date or in a map, EXIF/IPTC support, additional features with 150+ plugins, change appearance with themes... A few examples made with Piwigo:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photos.tarrajat.fr/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sébastien Tarrajat&lt;/a&gt; animals and landscapes&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.audreyetjulien.fr/galerie/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Audrey &amp;amp; Julien - Life In Pictures&lt;/a&gt; travels and landscapes&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Piwigo can be downloaded (for free) on Piwigo.org and you can test it very quickly on Piwigo.com (no installation required).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're a web developer, you will probably appreciate to have a &quot;ready to use&quot; solution and the possibility to adapt it to your needs with themes and plugins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5331" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T20:43:58.893" />
  <row Id="12527" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12529" CreationDate="2011-05-28T21:13:30.517" Score="19" ViewCount="734" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've always wondered what is the use of digital zoom, apart from viewing the subject clearly on the LCD display.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can &lt;strong&gt;take a photo&lt;/strong&gt; with the optical&#xA;zoom and &lt;strong&gt;crop the photo&lt;/strong&gt; to the desired&#xA;region of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;How does a photo taken with digital zoom compare with one using the above method?&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;What are the &lt;strong&gt;advantages&lt;/strong&gt; of having a &lt;strong&gt;high digital zoom&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5324" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-28T21:50:47.443" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T05:09:58.417" Title="Is digital zoom really useful?" Tags="&lt;zoom&gt;&lt;cropping&gt;&lt;digital-zoom&gt;" AnswerCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12528" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12527" CreationDate="2011-05-28T21:15:56.273" Score="12" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Same photo will result from using digital zoom or cropping.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Advantage of digital zoom: you don't need a computer to crop it. You can upload straight to Facebook, print it out, etc. Cropping is a very common post-processing technique and this lets you do it easily, on the fly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Advantages of cropping after the fact: you can take more time to compose the crop (and change your mind later).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4690" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T21:15:56.273" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12529" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12527" CreationDate="2011-05-28T22:57:11.563" Score="19" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No, it does not have much use.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Digital zoom is a restricted form of cropping:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is always done around the center.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is constrained to certain fixed increments.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is limited in quality by the firmware of the camera.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, cropping can:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Be of arbitrary size.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Be taken from any part of the image.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Be processed using a variety of state-of-the-art algorithms designed to produce higher-quality results than your camera can.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is reversible if you use a non-destructive editing software such as Lightroom or Bibble.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T22:57:11.563" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="12530" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12527" CreationDate="2011-05-28T23:23:13.630" Score="10" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;If your camera only saves in JPEG, using digital zoom instead of cropping later avoids IQ loss from compressing twice. This is usually minor, but there it is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1943" LastActivityDate="2011-05-28T23:23:13.630" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="12531" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12527" CreationDate="2011-05-29T03:19:01.740" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Digital zoom may also help with exposure, by cropping out relatively bright or dark zones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5382" LastActivityDate="2011-05-29T03:19:01.740" />
  <row Id="12532" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12527" CreationDate="2011-05-29T06:15:07.180" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In some cameras (such as my old Panasonic DMC-FZ30) digital zoom is equal to extra optical (tele) zoom when you are shooting video or photos with less than maximum sensor resolution (e.g. for web use only). Using digital zoom, the camera would use smaller area of sensor to compose the picture, but not less pixels than in resulting file. I mostly shot water sports for web / computer display and found the extra reach with 3MP much more useful than full 8MP resolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-05-29T06:15:07.180" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12533" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12542" CreationDate="2011-05-29T12:30:35.787" Score="3" ViewCount="76" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm just beginning to familiarize myself with Adobe Lightroom 3.3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've noticed that the keyboard shortcuts in Lightroom change &lt;em&gt;substantially&lt;/em&gt; when you change the user interface language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am German but prefer all my applications with an English UI - because, frankly, most of the German localizations suck and documentation/tutorials on the Internet are generally in English, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, when it comes to keyboard shortcuts, I prefer the German variant. That's because my German keyboard layout makes it something between awkward and impossible to type certain shortcuts that would be easy on an English keyboard. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Switching to English UI greatly diminishes the usability of Lightroom for me. Working with a German UI is usable but sucks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question is - is there any way to convince Lightroom to use one Locale for the UI and a different one for keyboard shortcuts?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5387" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T06:30:52.797" Title="Localized keyboard shortcuts in Lightroom" Tags="&lt;lightroom&gt;&lt;keyboard-shortcuts&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="12535" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-29T18:51:30.717" Score="-4" ViewCount="48" Body="&lt;p&gt;Im looking for a webservice/ webpage where i can get a high quality images for the following theme/concept&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historic Sites&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Natural Landscape&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Dance Forms&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Bodh Gaya Buddha statue&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Rajastan desert with camels&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Bharatnatyam&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Pongal with kolam&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Bahai Temple&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Kerala backwaters with boat houses&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Bhangra&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Diwali with lights&lt;br&gt;&#xA;khajraho sculptures&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Himalyan mountain range&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Kathak&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Pooram in Kerala with elephants&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Meenakshi Amman Temple&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Deccan plateau&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Manipuri&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Golden Temple&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Hava Mahal  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5389" LastActivityDate="2011-05-29T18:51:30.717" ClosedDate="2011-05-29T22:28:16.640" Title="High Quality images" Tags="&lt;image-quality&gt;" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12536" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12537" CreationDate="2011-05-29T18:52:47.577" Score="9" ViewCount="229" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was thinking at the differences between SLR and DLSR (in Manual mode). In both cases you can change aperture and shutter speed as it suits you. &#xA;But with SLR you are stuck with the ISO of the film which you happen to have in the camera at the moment, while with DSLR you can vary ISO as you wish, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now maybe the question is naive, but how is this handled in practice? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I imagine that it requires more planning: you want to shoot today under this particular light and you choose a specific film roll rather than another. &#xA;What if you find a nice shot but there is a shadow which changes the light: you can recover the exposure by changing the other parameters but this is not side-effects free obviously.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the effects of this &quot;freedom&quot; afforded by DSLRs? Is it making me (a complete beginner) lazy because I am not forced to think about it? Is it freeing me of a burden by removing an unnecessary constraint?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5032" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-29T18:57:27.747" LastActivityDate="2011-06-01T03:45:08.810" Title="How does flexible ISO make shooting digital different from film?" Tags="&lt;iso&gt;&lt;digital-vs-film&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12537" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12536" CreationDate="2011-05-29T19:42:58.100" Score="9" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With film, you generally don't think of sensitivity as a free variable. Often your favorite emulsion is only available in one or two ISOs. So you have to reach proper exposure by adjusting aperture, shutter speed and/or lighting. Also, negative film is generally considered forgiving on slight underexposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In digital, you have more freedom to choose other variables, but you should still remember the simple truth that having more light on sensor will give you less noise in photo, so that is what you should consider first before pumping up ISO. But this does not mean that you should &lt;em&gt;never&lt;/em&gt; use higher ISO values - noise would still be a far easier problem than excess blur or underexposure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually, with film, you can change ISO by swapping film - take a note which frame you had the film on, rewind and when re-using take as many frames (plus one to be sure) with lens cap on. Some advanced bodies (such as Pentax MZ-S) also offer winding film to chosen frame. In medium format, many cameras employ interchangeable film backs. Large format film is handled as sheets, not roll film, so you can always change it between frames.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-31T04:12:32.443" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T04:12:32.443" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="12538" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12536" CreationDate="2011-05-29T20:12:40.440" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;With digital, you &lt;strong&gt;should&lt;/strong&gt; think about what happens if you change ISO. While you can change white balance in post-production, what you set as your ISO is how your sensor captures the data. Why think about it? Because you can have more freedom to explore the creative aspect of the relationship between shutter speed and aperture if you can change ISO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, for example, if I know I can't get a high enough shutter speed to shoot anything other than wide open, I will often increase the ISO. If I'm looking for shallow depth of field, I will often decrease the ISO. The difference is not in whether you plan, but at what point during your shoot you plan. You can plan a sequence of shots in digital and vary the ISO rather than planning around a roll of film (or swapping a film back).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember, before you become too cavalier about the ISO changing, higher ISOs yield more digital noise. How much more depends on your sensor and the length of the exposure, but your lowest ISO will always give you the best image quality. From a purist's perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5270" LastActivityDate="2011-05-29T20:12:40.440" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12539" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12544" CreationDate="2011-05-29T20:42:14.170" Score="4" ViewCount="165" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am specifically considering using the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/194451-USA/Canon_4657A006_100mm_f_2_8_USM_Macro.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 100mm Macro&lt;/a&gt; as a portrait lens.  If I want to have a macro in my bag, but not carry around a 70-200 2.8 due to weight, size, white color, or price if it is not purchased - is this a valid alternative?   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this lens a great macro lens, but an &quot;OK&quot; portrait lens?  Or is the performance near or on par with the typical zoom lens offerings in this range(70-200).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that the 100mm Macro also has a newer more expensive L version offered.  If that is much better suited to portrait work please include that in any responses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T01:00:44.077" Title="Should I use a 100mm Macro lens as a portrait lens?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;portrait&gt;&lt;macro&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12540" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12539" CreationDate="2011-05-29T20:57:41.150" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question is a bit subjective, but the following tests should enable you to make a fair comparison.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&amp;amp;Camera=453&amp;amp;Sample=0&amp;amp;FLI=1&amp;amp;API=0&amp;amp;LensComp=107&amp;amp;CameraComp=453&amp;amp;SampleComp=0&amp;amp;FLIComp=0&amp;amp;APIComp=0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Resolution test&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=687&amp;amp;Camera=453&amp;amp;FLIComp=0&amp;amp;APIComp=0&amp;amp;LensComp=107&amp;amp;CameraComp=9&amp;amp;FLI=1&amp;amp;API=0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Vignetting test&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Distortion.aspx?FLI=1&amp;amp;FLIComp=0&amp;amp;Lens=687&amp;amp;Camera=453&amp;amp;LensComp=107&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Distortion test&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?FLI=1&amp;amp;API=0&amp;amp;FLIComp=0&amp;amp;APIComp=0&amp;amp;Lens=687&amp;amp;Camera=453&amp;amp;LensComp=107&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flare test&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just hover over the images to compare results. You could also compare the L and non-L lenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3775" LastActivityDate="2011-05-29T20:57:41.150" CommentCount="7" />
  <row Id="12541" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12539" CreationDate="2011-05-29T21:27:58.323" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would.  I'm going to make my argument for any 100mm Macro, not that specific brand/model however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The focal length is well within the classic portrait range.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The sharpness should be excellent since its a macro lens and intended to show ultra fine detail.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The sharpness will probably be better than a zoom, since its a prime.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The distortion on macro lenses is typically much lower than zooms ( you don't want distorted faces).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;f/2.8 is about as open as you want to realistically shoot &lt;em&gt;most&lt;/em&gt; normal portraits anyway.  You can go more open, but often the back of your subject's head may be out of focus (obviously this depends on a few factors).  The 100mm range even gives you the ability to stop down a &lt;strong&gt;little&lt;/strong&gt; and still get excellent shallow depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Intentional sharpness is important in portraits as soft features can become very evident.   (If you're looking at some portrait work with intentional soft focus...that's a whole different ballgame and obviously the sharpness points above don't apply).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Frankly, the 100mm macro is the next lens on my list - for portraits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastEditorUserId="1917" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-29T21:33:08.333" LastActivityDate="2011-05-29T21:33:08.333" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12542" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12533" CreationDate="2011-05-29T22:03:47.547" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately there is not a way to get Lightroom to recognize one locale for the UI, and another for the keyboard shortcuts by default. &lt;em&gt;However&lt;/em&gt;... all is not lost!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because you're using Lightroom 3, you may find the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/keyboardtamer.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Keyboard Tamer Lightroom plugin&lt;/a&gt; to be the next best thing to the functionality you want. It is 'donationware' so it isn't completely free, but since you get to decide how much you want to pay for it, it shouldn't cost a fortune...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially the plugin will allow you to remap all your keyboard shortcuts to different (potentially more convenient) keyboard combinations. So the downside is that you'll have to spend a bit of time essentially recreating the shortcuts that would already be done for you if you were using the German locale, but the upside is that you can reassign all your keyboard shortcuts to be whatever you would like them to be while holding onto the English UI...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;NOTE: I'm not affiliated with the Keyboard Tamer product or developer(s) in any way, and I don't get anything for mentioning it (except the warm fuzzy feeling that comes from knowing that I may have helped a fellow photo-SE user)...&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2838" LastEditorUserId="2838" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-30T06:30:52.797" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T06:30:52.797" CommentCount="5" />
  <row Id="12543" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12539" CreationDate="2011-05-29T23:41:06.487" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The focal length is good for portraits, however many macro lenses suffer from poor bokeh, if you want a nice creamy background.  My Nikon 105mm has average bokeh - doesn't look bad until you compare to the 85mm.  I haven't used the Canon 100mm, reviews seems to imply it has fair bokeh.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another negative with most macros, and again I don't know the Canon 100mm, but many of them have fairly slow AF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It will certainly be sharp, even wide open - some would say &quot;too sharp for portraits&quot;, which I think is nonsense.  But do check out the bokeh and autofocus speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4191" LastActivityDate="2011-05-29T23:41:06.487" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12544" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12539" CreationDate="2011-05-29T23:58:53.310" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've used the EF 100 f/2.8 and the EF 100 f/2.8L for portraits. I find the focal length ideal for full frame and APS-H (might be a bit long for APS-C unless you're doing tight headshots). I find I need to have a macro in my arsenal and working double duty as a short tele makes either 100 particularly useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Stopped down in a studio setting both lenses are razor sharp and free from distortion. Here's the non L:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/blogimages/headshot/oliver_medium.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/oliver_1x1_crop.jpg&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;actual pixels, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro on 5D&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On FF you get images so sharp you could cut yourself on. I bought the L version to use as a long(ish) lens for events as IS enables me to get more ambient light into the shot, but it still excels in the studio:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/mil.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.mattgrum.com/photo_se/mil_1x1_crop.jpg&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;actual pixels, Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro on 1D mkIV&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bokeh on either lens is good in my opinion (I'll dig out a sample when I get the chance), though if you want to shoot portraits with great bokeh there are better lenses (85mm f/1.2L, 135 f/2.0L).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-30T00:20:52.597" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T00:20:52.597" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12545" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12539" CreationDate="2011-05-30T01:00:44.077" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the the older USM lens and the newer L-series. I love them both for macro and for portraits. I use them less for portraits than my 85 because I tend to work more closely with my subjects. Before you make a decision, take a zoom and crank it to about 100mm, then shoot a portrait session in studio and on location -- nothing fancy, mock it up with family or friends -- but just figure out if moving with that long a lens will work for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know a lot of people love the 70-200 for portraits, but I've never figured that out. Not that I can't get great shots with the lens, but it's not doing anything for me that a prime wouldn't. I know there are those &quot;I want to back up but there's a wall here&quot; moments on location, or &quot;jeez, if I could just reach out a little further...&quot; that make zooms more flexible, but I'm kind of stuck on the 85mm for portraits, the 100mm macro for macro and really open-area portraits, and the 24-105 for grab-bag situations where I have no idea what obstacles I might encounter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5270" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T01:00:44.077" />
  <row Id="12546" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12548" CreationDate="2011-05-30T03:53:56.113" Score="4" ViewCount="111" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have these tiny dots in a lot of my pictures. They look like tiny stars.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On this Nikon D60 I've tried cleaning the area where the shutter is (what's this called?) with a hand pumping duster, but they're still there. I can't see a single speck of dust.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does it look like a stuck/dead pixel problem?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am about to list this camera for sale and want to disclose the issue properly (unless you can help me remedy it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Rmkny.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5392" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-31T03:01:52.167" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T03:01:52.167" Title="Does this look like a sensor problem?" Tags="&lt;dslr&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;troubleshooting&gt;" AnswerCount="1" />
  <row Id="12547" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12536" CreationDate="2011-05-30T03:58:59.760" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is it making me (a complete beginner) lazy because I am not forced to think about it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the contrary, I think having an always available ISO selection encourages you to think about it more often. With film, ISO is basically constant, so you only have one thing you can change: the balance between shutter and aperture. With digital, you now have to consider the entire &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6598/what-is-the-exposure-triangle/12441#12441&quot;&gt;exposure tricycle&lt;/a&gt;, and now have two degrees of freedom for a given exposure level.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather than only considering the shutter-aperture balance, you now have to think whether it might be a good idea to change ISO so you can achieve a faster or slower shutter speed, more or less depth of field. Rather than being stuck with a certain amount of grain, you can (and should) make the decision before every shot of how much noise you're willing to accept.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How is this handled in practice? On a lot of cameras, particularly older DSLRs that were heavily influenced by film SLRs, ISO is only controlled via a menu or maybe a programmable function button. Even new cameras, such as the Finepix X100&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eventually, we'll start seeing program modes on the mode dials that involve ISO. Some Pentax cameras already have TAv (auto ISO, manual shutter/aperture), and most cameras should be able to select an ISO for you with auto-ISO settings, though the setting may be buried in the menus. I've set up one of my user-defined as a sort of TAv mode, and use it when I'm in a moderately dark place and everything's pretty fast-paced -- It's nice to be able to set e.g. 1/60th @ f/4 and let the ISO go as high as it needs but drop when the light is available, as opposed to using shutter or aperture priority, where I'd have to set the ISO high to begin with so I can get the shutter/aperture I need in the darker areas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="378" LastEditorUserId="378" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-06-01T03:45:08.810" LastActivityDate="2011-06-01T03:45:08.810" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12548" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12546" CreationDate="2011-05-30T04:21:00.887" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Those do indeed look like stuck pixels, however I'm curious if they are always in the same place? A stuck pixel is always there, in the exact same spot, regardless of other picture detail. I would try taking a black exposure with the lens cap on, and see if any of those pixels light up. If none do over several exposures, then it might be some kind of bayer interpolation issue. If those specific pixels always show up in a black exposure, they they are indeed stuck pixels. Most modern DSLR cameras have a feature or the ability (it may be buried) to map and exclude stuck pixels from interpolation. Generally speaking, ignoring the pixel is better than including it in interpolation. I am not aware of any way to actually &quot;unstick&quot; a stuck pixel, and I have heard that sensors ship with pre-mapped stuck pixels every so often. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="124" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T04:21:00.887" CommentCount="6" />
  <row Id="12549" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6598" CreationDate="2011-05-30T04:42:30.660" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;While the other answers explain the concept of exposure triangle quite well, exposure triangle has the downside that it gives impression you only have three variables to control exposure - shutter speed, aperture and ISO sensitivity. Actually there is &lt;strong&gt;fourth variable&lt;/strong&gt; that works similarly in the system - &lt;strong&gt;illumination&lt;/strong&gt; of the scene. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By doubling illumination, any of the other three variables can be reduced by one stop; and by halving illumination, any of the other variables needs to be raised one stop. It also works in opposite direction - e.g. increasing ISO by one stop allows halving illumination. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Relationship between shutter time and flash exposure is a bit quirky since flash illumination is not linear in time:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;flash at faster than sync speed will illuminate only part of scene&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;flash at slower than sync speed will illuminate just as much as on sync speed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Illumination can be increased by&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;using an additional light source&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;increasing power of artificial light source&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;removing an obstructing object between light source and scene&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;bringing a light source closer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;focusing light to a narrower area&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;placing light source under angle where it reflects more (usually closer to on-axis)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and reduced by doing the opposite -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;removing a light source&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;reducing power of artificial light source&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;adding an obstructing object between light source and scene&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;placing a light source further&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;spreading light over wider area&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;placing a light source under angle where it reflects less (usually further from on-axis or behind scene)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some light sources are not under photographer's control, but their behavior can be somewhat anticipated (such as sunlight or streetlights).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photography means &quot;writing with light&quot;. Exposure &lt;em&gt;triangle&lt;/em&gt; gives the impression that you may not bring your own pen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-30T09:03:12.863" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T09:03:12.863" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12550" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12527" CreationDate="2011-05-30T05:09:58.417" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only advantage I can come up with is if you're planning to take the memory card out of the camera, put it into a print machine in a store somewhere, and have them print the pictures.&#xA;Nice for those vacation snapshots you're getting printed onto cardstock on location to send as postcards to the family, or for people who don't want to bother with postprocessing, but no more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're going to do any post processing at all, having the full image and cropping and rescaling yourself in quality software will typically yield better results as well as giving you more freedom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T05:09:58.417" />
  <row Id="12551" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12536" CreationDate="2011-05-30T08:00:33.587" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can just say that having the ISO &quot;locked in&quot; once the camera is loaded is the one major pain in the backside when shooting my sweet film Leicas compared to my Canon 1Ds2 digi-beast. Everything else with the Leicas is great, this is very much not. It severely limits the flexibility; if a 100 ISO slide film is in there I can forget about night-time or indoors shooting. Conversely, if an 800 ISO colour neg is loaded, I know that daytime shots will be craptastic unless I change films. One solution is to carry two Leicas with different film... which kind of defeats the point of having such a camera instead of the big Canon in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3458" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T08:00:33.587" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12552" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4242" CreationDate="2011-05-30T08:03:48.397" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think this is happening because Bibble (at least the version you're using) isn't applying the metadata in the LX5's RW2 file that tells it how to correct for the lens' deformations. Perhaps this is a setting in Bibble, or a missing feature in their RW2 converter. I'll bet if you convert your RW2's to DNG with Adobe's free DNG converter, Bibble be able to read and apply that data and produce a 'corrected' image. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've come to this conclusion (and found your question) by noticing the same artifacts you mentioned when using Picasa 3.8 to view images created using Adobe DNG Converter 6.4.0.139 from my LX5's RAW files. This happens when I ask Adobe DNG Converter to create files for &quot;Camera Raw 5.4 and later&quot;, the max setting. This theory was backed up by the fact that the JPG preview looks corrected when compared to the image rendered by Picasa when it renders the DNG. Not only that, but the JPG preview rendered by Adobe DNG converter matches the JPG's that came straight from the camera for the same shot (clearly the converter is applying the same transformations that the camera did internally to make the JPG).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After playing around a bit, I discovered that the artifacts go away in Picasa 3.8 when I have the DNG Converter create files for &quot;Camera Raw 4.6 and later&quot;. I assume this means Picasa 3.8 doesn't understand Camera Raw 5.4, but it CAN understand Camera Raw 4.6, and will apply the correction automatically to conforming DNG files. No more corner vignette and barrel distortion on the resulting DNG files in Picasa, and in theory all the information from the RW2 is in the DNG!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also - I wouldn't be put off by the correction - it's a good thing - and supposedly no information is thrown away. The DNG / RW2 files contain the raw sensor data plus additional information on the lens / camera aberrations, and viewing software can elect to apply these transformations or not. The 'true' sensor data can always be accessed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5394" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T08:03:48.397" />
  <row Id="12553" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12554" CreationDate="2011-05-30T08:06:33.093" Score="5" ViewCount="172" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand the concept of (auto-)bracketing, in general. And I understand that exposure bracketing is used for HDR and focus bracketing is used for focus stacking. But I am unable to imagine what DOF bracketing is or what its use could be. Any pointers?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1438" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-30T13:24:47.957" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T17:57:54.420" Title="What is Depth Of Field bracketing?" Tags="&lt;depth-of-field&gt;&lt;bracketing&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="12554" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12553" CreationDate="2011-05-30T08:14:57.740" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;DoF bracketing is essentially the same as focus bracketing, but rather than change the focus point/plane for each shot, you change the aperture to vary the depth of field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagine you are taking a shot of, say, a cluster of cherry blossoms. You want the background blurred so you open the aperture right up. But this means only part of the cluster is in focus. So you stop down the aperture a little, which gives you deeper DoF, so more of the flowers are in focus, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you've got the shots you need to get the entire cluster in focus, you can put them all together in post - sharp flower cluster and blurred background. Bracketing in small increments means you can get a nice transition between the fore and backgrounds. If you just took one at f/2.8 and another at f/16 it would be tricky to get a natural looking result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastEditorUserId="3205" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-30T08:26:51.333" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T08:26:51.333" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12555" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12553" CreationDate="2011-05-30T08:52:21.883" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depth Of Field bracketing is performed by taking several shots of same scene with different aperture (compensating change in exposure by adjusting ISO, shutter speed or lighting power).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bracketed images are then used to have a wider selection of images to select the one with most appropriate depth of field in post. Or you could use masking and combine background from wide aperture shot with subject from tight aperture shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T08:52:21.883" />
  <row Id="12556" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-30T12:44:50.947" Score="3" ViewCount="137" Body="&lt;p&gt;How can I take a perfect picture from a crystal chandelier?&#xA;whould someone explain all tips about this kind of photography?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5397" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T11:37:38.480" Title="Crystal chandelier photography" Tags="&lt;lighting&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12557" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12561" CreationDate="2011-05-30T16:40:17.297" Score="15" ViewCount="404" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my Canon 60D, there's a setting between Adobe RGB and sRGB. What's the difference and what should I prefer when shooting to RAW ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4822" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-30T17:46:36.863" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T22:06:14.247" Title="What's the difference between Adobe RGB and sRGB and which should I set in my camera?" Tags="&lt;color&gt;&lt;color-spaces&gt;&lt;srgb&gt;&lt;adobe-rgb&gt;" AnswerCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="12559" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12557" CreationDate="2011-05-30T17:03:05.780" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;It does not matter what you set in your camera if you shoot raw.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(What matters is how you configure the software that you use for raw conversion.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="247" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T17:03:05.780" />
  <row Id="12560" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12557" CreationDate="2011-05-30T17:07:54.883" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;sRGB is best for images view on screen, Adobe RGB is best for printing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These, are color spaces, which affect the rendering of an image on the mediums.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found that sRGB will give you the most consistant result for screens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;n.b :. no screens will ever give you the exact same result (even if they have been calibrated)&#xA;color management can be quite complexe to master.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2132" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T17:07:54.883" />
  <row Id="12561" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12557" CreationDate="2011-05-30T17:08:35.080" Score="14" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;sRGB is the most common color-space used anywhere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;AdobeRGB is a wider color-space which can represent more colors but with less precision when looking at the colors which overlap sRGB.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neither color-space &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; matters when shooting RAW.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The embedded thumbnail or preview within a RAW file may be affected by the choice of color-space though, so keeping sRGB selected is usually the most sensible thing to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T17:08:35.080" />
  <row Id="12562" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12564" CreationDate="2011-05-30T17:11:28.500" Score="0" ViewCount="37" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm slowly working on cleaning up the metadata in all my old images that I imported into Aperture from iPhoto.  I'd like to get a list of the images that I haven't added a certain metadata field to but I can't figure out how to search for a missing value.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example I'd like to get a list of all images that don't have a GPS location, or all images that don't have copyright info, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5068" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-30T18:25:17.667" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T18:25:17.667" Title="How do I display all images missing a given piece of metadata in Apple Aperture?" Tags="&lt;metadata&gt;&lt;apple-aperture&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="12563" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12562" CreationDate="2011-05-30T17:43:57.350" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the search tool, you can choose, for example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Add rule: Place&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Place: Is empty&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Add rule: IPTC&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;IPTC: Creator: Is empty&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can do this using the search tool in the browser view (inside a project, or in the view that shows all photos). Alternatively, you can create a &quot;Smart album&quot; if you need these queries frequently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="247" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T17:43:57.350" />
  <row Id="12564" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12562" CreationDate="2011-05-30T17:48:47.230" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Open up any metadata search criteria, add in either EXIF or IPTC fields you want to search by (using the &quot;Add Rule&quot; dropdown), and indicate you want images where the EXIF/IPTC &quot;is empty&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An example for copyright:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/Dj8wN.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1192" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T17:48:47.230" />
  <row Id="12565" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12553" CreationDate="2011-05-30T17:57:54.420" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;So you know, what &quot;bracketing&quot; means in general... taking a series of shots other than the one you or the meter have chosen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exposure bracketing is the most common. Right. It is done by the photographer or automatically by the camera, by taking an exposure at the suggested speed, aperture and ISO settings, and then one or more exposures using a different speed, aperture or ISO setting -- but always only one of these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;DoF bracketing is less common because DoF can be considered part of the composition and is a matter of artistic interpretation, something better left to the photographer rather than the camera. Like exposure bracketing, it can be done by the photographer or the camera (assuming your camera has DoF bracketing). But DoF bracketing is done by taking one exposure at the suggested speed, aperture and ISO settings, and then one or more exposures using a different aperture &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; a complimentary change in speed or ISO setting to compensate for the change in aperture. So, two settings are changed not just one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can't think of a reason to use DoF bracketing, try to come up for a reason to use either speed or ISO bracketing in general use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In the case of Canon cameras&lt;/strong&gt;, however, there was once a function called DoF bracketing that allowed the photographer to focus on the nearest point they wanted in focus, take a reading by partially depressing the trigger, and then a second reading at the furthest point they wanted in focus and taking a second reading. This locked in that focus range by setting the aperture automatically and allowed the photographer to the photographer or program mode to modify the other two settings as needed to keep the focus. I haven't owned a Canon or worked at a camera shop since Moses so I'm not sure if Canon still uses that terminology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4670" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T17:57:54.420" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12566" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-30T19:04:58.620" Score="5" ViewCount="195" Body="&lt;p&gt;As my photographic equipment is getting bigger (new lenses, new addons, new bodies) I think I need a better storing solution. &lt;strong&gt;Currently I just keep all my stuff in a desk drawer&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do you store your cameras and lenses? Just to clarify, I don't mean storing it for a long time, I mean when you just stop using the camera for the day (or week).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Bags? Boxes? Bigger desk drawers?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4039" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-30T19:08:36.127" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T08:49:47.830" Title="How do you store your equipment?" Tags="&lt;equipment-protection&gt;&lt;storage&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12567" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12566" CreationDate="2011-05-30T19:14:01.510" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no right or wrong way. Chase Jarvis made &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R73OJzKxUs&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this YouTube video&lt;/a&gt; about how he does it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.homedepot.com/Storage-Organization-Garage-Storage-Freestanding-Shelving-Units/h_d1/N-5yc1vZb9pd/R-100655787/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&amp;amp;storeId=10051&amp;amp;catalogId=10053&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;shelving from Home Depot&lt;/a&gt;. They have less expensive shelf units. On the shelves, I have plastic bins &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R-202295951/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&amp;amp;storeId=10051&amp;amp;catalogId=10053&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;like this&lt;/a&gt;. The idea behind the bins is to organize as much as to keep dust off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5270" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T19:14:01.510" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12568" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-30T19:15:40.843" Score="2" ViewCount="79" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a huey color one and i can only color calibrate one monitor with one color profile. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do you save different color profiles for each monitor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My computer runs on Windows 7 and i use 2 monitors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5026" LastEditorUserId="5026" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-31T14:03:28.503" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T14:03:28.503" Title="Multiple Monitors Seperate Color Profiles?" Tags="&lt;color&gt;&lt;color-management&gt;&lt;windows-7&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12569" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12566" CreationDate="2011-05-30T19:37:28.537" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I store my camera and all my lenses in by LowePro Primus AW backpack ready to go.  If I get a chance to go out and shoot I don't want to waste time getting gear together so the bag is always packed, batteries charged, cards emptied and I regularly clean the gear too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1410" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T19:37:28.537" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12570" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12616" CreationDate="2011-05-30T20:06:01.610" Score="1" ViewCount="88" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a way to import a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.technicolor.com/en/hi/cinema/filmmaking/digital-printer-lights/cinestyle&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Technicolor CineStyle&lt;/a&gt; S-curve lookup table in Gimp-&gt;Color-&gt;Curves?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lookup table is just a text file with 256 lines, with a numeric value (0..255) on each line: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;0    ...    17    18    18    19    20    21    22    ...    244    244    245    246    246    247    247    248    ...    255&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking at the way Gimp saves Curves settings, it creates a more verbose file: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;# GIMP curves tool settings&#xA;(time 0)&#xA;(channel value)&#xA;(curve&#xA;    (curve-type smooth)&#xA;    (n-points 17)&#xA;    (points 34 -1.000000 -1.000000 0.054878 0.000000 ... -1.000000 -1.000000)&#xA;    (n-samples 256)&#xA;    (samples 256 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 ... ))&#xA;(time 0)&#xA;(channel red)&#xA;(curve&#xA;    (curve-type smooth)&#xA;    (n-points 17)&#xA;    (points 34 0.000000 0.000000 ...&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and so on for the Green, blue and alpha channel&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a way to make Gimp accept the lookup table from sample 1 or is there a script that converts it to the format in sample 2?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3922" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-31T20:55:04.430" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T20:55:04.430" Title="Is there a way to get Gimp to use color curves from a Technicolor CineStyle S-curve lookup table?" Tags="&lt;gimp&gt;&lt;curves&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12572" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-30T20:47:27.507" Score="1" ViewCount="81" Body="&lt;p&gt;My GPS didn't work for two and a half days. I had no GPS signal at all, even if I left the camera to search for the satellite all the time the (option 1 in the camera's menu). I was in Gran Canary where the sky was 100% clear all the time!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is any way to improve GPS reception with this camera? Is there something wrong with mine?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5402" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-31T16:28:06.953" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T16:28:06.953" ClosedDate="2011-06-02T04:03:46.433" Title="Can I improve GPS reception with my Fuji F550EXR?" Tags="&lt;troubleshooting&gt;&lt;gps&gt;" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" />
  <row Id="12573" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-05-30T20:54:18.393" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-30T20:54:18.393" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T20:54:18.393" />
  <row Id="12574" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-05-30T20:54:18.393" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="Equipment protection is the practice of ensuring equipment stays in full working order by avoiding damage." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="1580" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-30T21:09:31.657" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T21:09:31.657" />
  <row Id="12575" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12568" CreationDate="2011-05-30T21:56:48.847" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have to make the calibration program make a separate profile for each monitor. Depending on how the program works you either select the monitor in the program, or you might have to make the other monitor the main display to make the program profile it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Color Management in the control panel you can select which profiles are associated to which monitor. Your utility should then use that to determine which profile to use for each montior.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T21:56:48.847" />
  <row Id="12576" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12557" CreationDate="2011-05-30T22:06:14.247" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;sRGB is the default color space, which is way that RGB values translate to actual colors. In RGB, (255,0,0) means &quot;full red&quot;, but what exact color is this going to be usually depends on the display or printer that's used for the output. As this is undesirable for professional purposes, people employ &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_management&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;color management&lt;/a&gt; to ensure their idea of &quot;red&quot; will display the same way everywhere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, apart from the sRGB, there is Adobe RGB, which has slightly bigger &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamut&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gamut&lt;/a&gt; (captures more colors) especially in the greens. If you want to make use of these extra colors, you need to employ color management workflow, and make sure the printer you use is able to process Adobe RGB (and has an appropriate &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICC_profile&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ICC profile&lt;/a&gt; to translate the color to what the device is able to print), and you also need to have a color profile for your monitor to adjust its output to match what you're going to see on the printer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, as export to RGB file is done after RAW conversion, the camera setting does not matter when you're shotting RAW, as you can change it afterwards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key thing is that unless you're doing color management, you should keep it to default sRGB, because otherwise you're display will interpret the image in its own &quot;probably-slightly-off-sRGB&quot; way and you will get washed out colors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2011-05-30T22:06:14.247" />
  <row Id="12577" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12570" CreationDate="2011-05-30T22:13:38.883" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Description of the format can be found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://osdir.com/ml/video.gimp.windows.user/2002-11/msg00057.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;video.gimp.windows.user usenet group archive&lt;/a&gt;, if that's any help. The syntax of the file is apparently &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gimp.org/tutorials/Basic_Scheme/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;some dialect of Scheme&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-31T07:36:09.903" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T07:36:09.903" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12578" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12566" CreationDate="2011-05-31T00:00:43.830" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Personally I have two bags that I keep all of my gear in(sans tripods/lighting).  One &lt;a href=&quot;http://products.lowepro.com/product/CompuTrekker-AW,1924,16.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;large lowepro backpack&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://products.lowepro.com/product/Passport-Sling,2190,4.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lowepro passport sling&lt;/a&gt;.  I have my sling bag ready to go with a body and 2-3 lenses with batteries, cards, and a flash.  This is my versatile kit that I can grab and be covered for any fun family outing, or non paid gig quickly and not worry about what I do or don't have.  If it is a bigger assignment or location shoot I'll grab my bigger backpack filled with the rest of my lenses, flash accessories, and other odds and ends.  It also stores my on location laptop for transferring photos and checking image focus on site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;My gear either has to fit in my two backpacks, into the category of tripods or light stands, or I don't need it&lt;/strong&gt;.  I try to keep my extra camera gear that isn't needed at a shoot to a minimum.  I have one small box that I keep old bodies in for sentimental value, but other then that, the rest of it gets sold before it is ready to be retired to a shelf or box beyond my 2 main gear bags.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;You might be saying, &lt;em&gt;yea but I have a ton of stuff and two bags isn't going to do it with my ever expanding collection&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt;  Take a look at this two video set of what professional wedding photographer Henry Chen takes on a 3 week trip to China.  He goes into in depth detail about every piece of equipment, and you can see how he can fit it all into two bags and literally have everything you would need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Henry Chen - What's In My Bag &lt;a href=&quot;http://vimeo.com/14563242&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt; &amp;amp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://vimeo.com/14563486&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are serious about equipment protection, since that was one of the tags you used in the question, I would recommend checking out Pellican cases.  You can run them over with Humvee's or throw them in a river and not have any problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your question seems to allude to the fact that you are looking for a piece of furniture or a fixture in your house to store your gear in.  For me at least, I do very little photography at my house, so I want my gear in bags ready to go as soon as I see an opportunity.  It is for that reason that I try to limit the amount of gear I own to what can fit into two portable bags.  It keeps me in the field and not at home trying to organize and store it all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4892" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T00:00:43.830" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12579" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12556" CreationDate="2011-05-31T01:34:05.133" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a start, I would imagine you'll want a large main light source, bounced off a wall or the ceiling to evenly light the chandelier and avoid harsh shadows.  Then a smaller light source in the vicinity of the camera to provide specular highlights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4191" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T01:34:05.133" />
  <row Id="12580" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12566" CreationDate="2011-05-31T02:32:01.633" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;My camera and a few of my current favorite lenses are always in my bag, ready to go, along with spare battery, memory cards, and a few other odds and ends I may need.  My other lenses, flash, props, and other accessories are kept in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.target.com/s/plastic-container&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;clear plastic storage containers&lt;/a&gt;.  The containers keep the dust and pets away, yet I can still see what's in them when I'm searching for that specialty lens or some other occasionally-used accessory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3486" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T02:32:01.633" />
  <row Id="12581" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11803" CreationDate="2011-05-31T02:39:00.650" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've had an R1900 for about 2 years, and have printed roll paper in both 8.3&quot; and 13&quot; widths, and 13x19 sheets with no problems,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="492" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T02:39:00.650" />
  <row Id="12582" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12566" CreationDate="2011-05-31T03:31:18.470" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note that you asked how the gear is packed not how we like it to be packed ;)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Presently each camera is in its own bag with a few lenses. My most used gear stays in my most used bag 90% of the time. That is one DSLR, 5 lenses, plus field accessories (batteries, memory, WB card, remote, etc but not chargers and cables). Each tripod is in its own tripod bag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As others have pointed out, it is a good idea to have something ready to go. Unfortunately, that means I spend a whole lot of time shuffling depending what I predict the shoot will need. The annoying part is that I have to shuffle from one bag to another one just because I have no other safe place to leave my gear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the future, I've had my eye on two closed closet-units from Ikea with locking doors and I would keep my photo equipment there. I never use open shelves because of dust and kids. That way, I would choose the equipment I need and a bag where it fits and put things together as needed, thus avoiding shuffling that I find annoying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T03:31:18.470" />
  <row Id="12583" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12566" CreationDate="2011-05-31T03:52:18.443" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most important thing in storage is moisture control.  That's how fungus grows.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I grabbed some &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.silicagelpackets.com/dry-packs-dehumidifier-products/dry-packs-40-gram-silica-gel-aluminum-canister.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;thin rechargeable Silica Gel canisters&lt;/a&gt;(orange/green is the non-toxic kind) that can be recharged to put in my camera bags on long trips.  Usually I just leave them in my cabinets along with all the silica gels from shipping that I've acquired.  I open those bags, put them in a tin can w/ holes, and recharge them along with the indicating ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T03:52:18.443" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12584" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12566" CreationDate="2011-05-31T04:55:34.297" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I store my &lt;em&gt;current&lt;/em&gt; gear (body, 4 lenses and a flash) in a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kata-bags.com/product.asp?Version=photo&amp;amp;p_Id=19773&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KATA 3N1-33&lt;/a&gt;. This is my take-on bag. My older gear is stored in the even-bigger &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apecase.com/acpro2000.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Norazza ApeCase Pro 2000&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1024" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T04:55:34.297" />
  <row Id="12586" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12566" CreationDate="2011-05-31T05:15:10.313" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've several bags and hard cases. 1 bag is always packed for the road, another as a ready spare (can be rapidly repacked if needed, different model with different capacity for when I've different needs).&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Things I use less frequently are kept in bag #3 in a dry closet, which also contains a hard case with equipment rarely used and kept either because of potential use sometimes or because it has by now no resale value (like my old F80).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4000" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T05:15:10.313" />
  <row Id="12588" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11041" CreationDate="2011-05-31T06:46:30.443" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I upgraded from 350D and the features that makes it worthwhile for me are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Higher fps: Hand held bracketed shots for hdr is just awesome.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Better noise reduction at higher ISO+ higher ISO support: If you have ever shot at a night club, you'd know what you are missing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Custom setting on the dial (along with M/Tv/Av).. Huge asset when it comes to shooting at different conditions at the same event (E.g. a wedding in a church and when the bride walks out).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wireless flash control.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Better LCD.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Digital level.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Better autofocus, autofocus points and modes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Point metering.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="55" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T06:46:30.443" />
  <row Id="12589" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12566" CreationDate="2011-05-31T08:49:47.830" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I put my gear that I always use into my Kata 3n1. Stuff that I do not use that often is stored in drawers. The drawers have boxes and compartments so my lenses, filters and so on do not roll around and get messed up while opening and closing the drawer. That way my bag is always ready and not overpacked, in the case I need something specific, I just take it from the drawer and put it the bag. I find it more convenient to store my gear in drawers or shelves than have multiple bags, since I can use my bag more versatile. But I am a hobbyist, so this may not be a proper advice in any case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recently had a similar question in mind, but more concerning storage than packaging. Since this thread is about storing the equipment, if I might be so bold, I just ask it along with my answer. I currently store my gear in a mansard which is above my flat in the attic and that I use as workroom too (Computer, NAS, and so on). In summertimes temperature may climb above 30°C/86°F and stay there for multiple days (and nights). I am concerned that plastic and rubber may become brittle and break, as-well as the sensor of the camera or other (lens-/filter-)coatings my suffer. So I am wondering if these temperatures may damage my gear and which environments are best to store photo gear?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2549" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T08:49:47.830" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12590" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12595" CreationDate="2011-05-31T09:08:57.223" Score="8" ViewCount="246" Body="&lt;p&gt;My partner is creating a sculptural work using MIG welding and has asked me to document the process.  I have a few questions regarding how to photograph it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Looking at the arc can damage your eye-sight.  Can it damage my camera's sensor?  Are there any protective measures I should take?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Any tips for capturing the arcs, depth of field wise?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3356" LastActivityDate="2011-06-01T16:06:45.973" Title="How can I photograph welding?" Tags="&lt;technique&gt;&lt;sensor&gt;&lt;equipment-protection&gt;&lt;equipment-damage&gt;&lt;welding&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="12591" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12593" CreationDate="2011-05-31T09:38:32.047" Score="9" ViewCount="163" Body="&lt;p&gt;Spot metering is my preferred metering mode on the Canon 50D. This allows me to nail the exposure first time -- 99% of the time -- by using AE-lock on my subject and applying the desired amount of exposure compensation. However, I find this too slow for some situations, so would like to learn to use one of the &quot;full frame&quot; metering modes (i.e. Evaluative or CWA).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have tried using both of these modes. On the whole, I found Evaluative to be unpredictable. I found myself having to second-guess when and by how much the camera had automatically added exposure compensation. On the other hand, I found CWA to be much more predictable, but slower as it was still necessary to AE-lock and recompose for off-centre subjects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that Canon designed Evaluative metering largely as a replacement for CWA, and that by not using this, I would somehow be missing out on much of the ability of my camera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How would I be better investing my time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a) Using Evaluative metering and learning to recognise how it responds in certain situations so that I can second-guess it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;b) Using the much simpler CWA metering and learning to read the scene to determine the required amount of exposure compensation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If only Canon had an &quot;active focus point weighted average&quot; mode, it would be perfect!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3775" LastActivityDate="2011-06-03T11:21:35.113" Title="How should I learn to understand Canon's metering?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;metering&gt;&lt;exposure-compensation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" />
  <row Id="12592" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12591" CreationDate="2011-05-31T09:46:27.940" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I stick with CW most of the time, and for the rest go with Spot. Evaluative just takes too much of the scene into account for a good exposure (in terms of creativity) for my liking. To me, Evaluative metering is there to help the folks who keep their camera on Auto.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suggest you go with CW and learn to read the scene, as you say. You shouldn't have to be second guessing anything. Of course, this is all subjective anyway; many people might prefer Evaluative metering. You could set yourself a challenge and take shots for a week using only one metering mode, then repeat with the other, and see which one you prefer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T09:46:27.940" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12593" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12591" CreationDate="2011-05-31T10:06:19.787" Score="6" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Metering will always be trial and error, because the camera assumes everything you're shooting reflects 18% of the incoming light back at the camera. It has no way of knowing whether your subject is white or grey, or even what part of your scene is the intended subject!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The closest the camera can get to knowing the latter is by looking at the currently selected focus point, as you suggest. In fact some Canon bodies do offer spot metering linked to the active focus point. I suspect it's only on the more expensive models. Edit: yes it seems to be just the 1D/1Ds models. And it's only activated when you're using a subset of the 45 AF points, which is disappointed (you'd think it could use the closest spot metering point when you have all 45 activated).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contrary to &lt;strong&gt;ElendilTheTall&lt;/strong&gt; I use Evaluative mode almost exclusively (no I don't use the camera on auto ;). The reason for this is I don't want to be constantly recomposing to meter. Also whilst Evaluative might not get it right as much as spot metering, but when spot metering gets it wrong, it can get it wrong by a huge margin. Example, if you happen to have a deep shadow in the centre of the scene you'll massively overexpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the end of the day metering is fixable in post as long as you're close, unlike for example, focus. So when shooting quickly I concentrate on nailing the focus, even if it means the metering is off. Evaluative allows me to do this. If I'm not shooting quickly I'll bracket exposure or use manual to get the exposure exactly how I want it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T10:06:19.787" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12594" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12590" CreationDate="2011-05-31T10:14:58.643" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I would not advise welding in front of lens for longer than necessary, even with shutter closed (you could heat and malform it - while it's not on focusing plane, better safe than sorry). Given that there &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; photos of welding on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=welding&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;prmd=ivnsbm&amp;amp;tbm=isch&amp;amp;tbo=u&amp;amp;source=univ&amp;amp;sa=X&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Google Image Search&lt;/a&gt; that seem to be taken in usual ambient lighting, a short exposure should be okay. Authors claiming to have taken such shots in &lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.adobe.com/message/2218281&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;relevant&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.steves-digicams.com/general-discussion/20965-taking-digital-pictures-welding-arc.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;threads&lt;/a&gt; also seem to agree that no filters are necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming you want to expose other parts of your photo correctly, the actual welding point is going to be overexposed anyway and you could leave that behind some little detail in front. The welding point is going to be recognizable by the glow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding using a filter, the situation is tricky. There are going to be sparks, so you'll want to use a protective filter when shooting from close distance. But also, there is a light source in the frame, which would create extra flare with a filter - so another option to try is a longer focal length without filter from a safe distance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you want to expose for the arc, I'm afraid you don't have much choice but to use a tight aperture (to cut down brightness) and a short shutter speed (to freeze the arc). But you don't have to worry for bokeh, because you won't have anything bright enough in the background anyway. Luminance varies faster than your camera can meter, so use manual settings, take multiple shots and adjust according to how most of the shots appear to be exposed.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some more thoughts, not directly asked in question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A good moment for photographing welding point is right after the act, while the welding rod and metal are still hot and glowing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;While welding is a very bright light source, the luminance it creates falls off pretty fast with distance in accordance with &lt;a href=&quot;http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/isql.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;inverse square law&lt;/a&gt;. You might want to use some diffused flash to bring out the welder's face, gelled to match ambient light or slightly more blue (to hint reflection from welding).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4390" LastEditorUserId="4390" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-06-01T16:06:45.973" LastActivityDate="2011-06-01T16:06:45.973" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12595" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12590" CreationDate="2011-05-31T10:16:56.957" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Any sufficiently bright lightsource can damage the camera internals (not just the sensor, the shutter curtains can heat up and deform). However the sparks from an arc welder are very brief so they don't transfer that much heat energy. I wont say you couldn't damage the camera but it seems less likely than for example photographing the sun, which is a continuous light source. If you want to be on the safe side you can use an ND filter on the lens to absorb some of the light. See this question for more information: &lt;a href=&quot;http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4016/can-the-sun-damage-the-camera-sensor-under-what-conditions&quot;&gt;Can the sun damage the camera sensor? Under what conditions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I would just experiment with lots of different settings, you probably want a longish shutter to get nice arcs. It might look good if the sparks start in focus and transition to out of focus so I'd use a variety of apertures and just see what looks good.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T10:16:56.957" />
  <row Id="12596" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12556" CreationDate="2011-05-31T11:37:38.480" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;This may be a broader answer than you were asking for, but my go-to reference is this book: &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0240808193&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Light: Science And Magic&lt;/a&gt; (Amazon.co.uk link).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the link on &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0240808193&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Amazon.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've recently finished it, and although it is a hard read (well written by very technical), it was well worth it.  It explains why certain lighting schemes work for lighting different kinds of surfaces with different kinds of reflections.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it would equip you with some depth of understanding about not just &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; to light a chandelier but &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; that it the way to do it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="191" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T11:37:38.480" />
  <row Id="12597" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12603" CreationDate="2011-05-31T11:45:15.670" Score="3" ViewCount="70" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there real time/instant negatives viewer, i.e. one where you can slide into or place a negative onto its sensor and preview the results via a screen or in a window of software on an attached computer desktop? (Budget up to say around 75$/100pounds).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ask because there are many negatives scanners but it would appear that they are operated by push button scan and you view the result afterwards - either via an attached computer or if standalone, via a built-in screen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fine, but the whole scan-then-view process seems slow to me, especially when you may not want to keep the negative, and want to quickly move onto the next. The scan-then-view negative generates a file for each scan that you would have to delete, more steps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2561" LastEditorUserId="2561" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-31T15:39:07.387" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T15:39:07.387" Title="Does anyone make a digital real-time negative viewer/quick preview,  with no scan-then-view delay?" Tags="&lt;equipment-recommendation&gt;&lt;negative-scanner&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="12598" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12597" CreationDate="2011-05-31T12:08:35.610" Score="1" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've never seen a product like that and I would be absolutely amazed to find it at the price point you're talking about it - even used, low-end neg scanners come out past the $300 mark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only thing that I can think of that could work like this would be a slide-reproduction lens/aparatus - a macro lens + negative strip holder. Maybe a custom profile to deal with color inversion? Hook the camera up to a tethered computer or even a TV set and have at it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Outside of that, if speed is your main concern, I would recommend you look at a used Epson Perfection scanner, one that can take a full set of neg strips and scan them into one image. Invert and add curves and you can look at an entire strip in a few minutes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, you could, you know... just use a magnifying glass and light box.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3050" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T12:08:35.610" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12599" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12597" CreationDate="2011-05-31T12:32:05.707" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do you have a cheapish digital compact with &quot;macro mode&quot;? Here is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://kenshukan.net/john/archives/2011/04/19/my-film-scanner-my-film-scans/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;short description on using a neg holder and a compact to quickly make &quot;digital contact prints&quot;&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3114" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T12:32:05.707" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12600" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12602" CreationDate="2011-05-31T12:48:08.140" Score="4" ViewCount="58" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm starting into the realm of photography and learning about the various additions to cameras that assist in good photos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have the Canon EOS 1000d, I believe the Rebel in the US? It came with the stock lens EF-S 18-55mm. (Unfortunately at the time, I wasn't aware of &quot;Image Stabilizer&quot; so it's not an IS lens.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question: I bought a petal lens hood from Amazon.co.uk as I couldn't find mention of a Canon one anywhere. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B004HZ1XM8/ref=oss_product&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Product is here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe I have the wrong one? When I attach it as tight as it will screw on, it rotates when focusing, so then I see the sides of the hood in photos. When it is perpendicular it seems fine and no shadowing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I loosened it and can move it into position when focusing but it just seems to much hassle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe I'm using the clamp ring wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do you all think? At 6.99 pounds it isn't a complete loss if it is wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5418" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-31T13:05:06.987" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T13:09:52.087" Title="Do I have the right lens hood for my Canon 1000D with EF-S 18-55mm kit lens?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;kit-lens&gt;&lt;lens-hood&gt;" AnswerCount="2" />
  <row Id="12601" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12600" CreationDate="2011-05-31T13:03:09.950" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;That particular lens has a rotating front element which is undesirable for a number of reasons, one being that you can't attach a hood without it rotating (the other main reason being certain filters are orientation sensitive, such as a polarizer, graduated neutral density and these will also rotate when focussing). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is an official non petal shaped hood available for the 18-55, the Canon EW-60C, but it's much smaller due to the need to accommodate the 18mm wide angle of view:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/mujitra/4094807293/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2571/4094807293_b46396bf71_z.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;photo by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/mujitra&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;MJ/TR (´･ω･)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-31T13:09:52.087" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T13:09:52.087" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12602" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12600" CreationDate="2011-05-31T13:04:07.163" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Canon EF-S 18-55mm lens has a rotating end, which is used for focusing (i'm sure you're aware of this). So a petal-based hood is definitely the wrong choice for this lens. That Amazon seller is marketing it wrongly, IMO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll find that higher-end lenses have a fixed (rotationally speaking) end, and so can be used with a petal hood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My advice would be to either find a non-petal hood, or to not use one at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2131" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T13:04:07.163" />
  <row Id="12603" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12597" CreationDate="2011-05-31T14:30:48.997" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.maplin.co.uk/5mp-compact-film-and-slide-scanner-503038?utm_source=Maplin&amp;amp;utm_medium=TopProducts&amp;amp;utm_content=503038&amp;amp;utm_campaign=Frontpage&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This one&lt;/a&gt; doesn't scan first - it's essentially a 5MP webcam with a light and negative holder. I've used it myself; it's not earth-shattering but does a fairly decent job for the price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3205" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T14:30:48.997" CommentCount="4" />
  <row Id="12604" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12473" CreationDate="2011-05-31T14:56:19.093" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you'll be able to find a monitor for that budget you have. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would recommend checking Newegg.com or Fry's for prices. They always have great sales on monitors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be sure to review websites for reviews or google will work (although you have to take more time to filter through them).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Trusted Reviews:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;cnet.com: &lt;a href=&quot;http://reviews.cnet.com/monitors/?tag=revCatWrap&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://reviews.cnet.com/monitors/?tag=revCatWrap&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;PC Magazine: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pcmag.com/category2/0,2806,2355089,00.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pcmag.com/category2/0,2806,2355089,00.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Anandtech: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.anandtech.com/tag/displays&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.anandtech.com/tag/displays&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Consumer Reports (Review one up at the library if you need to. As their reviews aren't free).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It shouldn't matter how much just be sure to color calibrate your display and that your display is durable (as i've had a monitor die on me).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5026" LastEditorUserId="5026" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-31T15:01:36.060" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T15:01:36.060" />
  <row Id="12606" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12473" CreationDate="2011-05-31T15:38:17.967" Score="2" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Its hard to go wrong with Dell Ultrasharp, they are really nice displays in all sizes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As mentioned, the preferred display for photo editing is an IPS display. It can be confusing to figure out which displays are IPS. Apple's iMac and Cinema Displays are IPS, and many Ultrasharp's are, but Dell seems to change supplier's on a whim and the technology changes as often. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As of this post, Dell claims their 27&quot; and 30&quot; are IPS, but no mention of what other sizes are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4880" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T15:38:17.967" />
  <row Id="12607" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12608" CreationDate="2011-05-31T16:38:19.750" Score="3" ViewCount="112" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/9/0300004019/02/eos60d-im2-en.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;latest official manual&lt;/a&gt; for &lt;strong&gt;Canon 60D&lt;/strong&gt; says that a 1920x1080 movie with any FPS recorded takes up 330 MB/min.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/5/0300004275/02/eos7d-im4-en.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;latest official manual&lt;/a&gt; for &lt;strong&gt;Canon 7D&lt;/strong&gt; says that a recording with the same movie settings on this camera will also take up 330 MB/min.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this definitely mean both the cameras produce exactly the same results, or may it still be possible that one of the cameras produces worse video recording?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure it could be possible if those cameras were totally different, using different codecs for encoding, etc, but as those cameras are very similar and definitely using the same compression, I assume the aforementioned could be true, which makes me to ask the ultimate question: is the double DIGIC4 processor in Canon 7D useless when using it for shooting a video, compared to a single DIGIC4 processor in Canon 60D?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4822" LastEditorUserId="4822" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-31T16:45:29.067" LastActivityDate="2011-06-03T16:37:47.447" Title="Does this calculation for Canon 60D vs. Canon 7D video recording work?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;video&gt;&lt;canon-7d&gt;&lt;canon-60d&gt;&lt;hd-video&gt;" AnswerCount="3" />
  <row Id="12608" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12607" CreationDate="2011-05-31T16:43:27.530" Score="4" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;As you said, they &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; be 100% identical.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In all likelyhood they are not but given the bit-rate is the same for the same resolution, frame-rate and codec, I think it is safe to say that &lt;strong&gt;any difference will probably be negligible&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are probably right that the second processor is probably not fully needed for video in this case. It is probably there to improve full-resolution continuous shooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T16:43:27.530" />
  <row Id="12609" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-05-31T16:50:19.003" Score="9" ViewCount="90" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can I publish old company event photos (for a Company book that includes &quot;Our History&quot;) without all the employees signing release forms? I'm having trouble even finding/contacting the old employees since it was so long ago. I need to know the legality in doing this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5419" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-31T16:52:06.790" LastActivityDate="2011-06-01T05:20:41.750" Title="Are photo release forms required for old company-event photos?" Tags="&lt;legal&gt;&lt;model-releases&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12610" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12615" CreationDate="2011-05-31T18:22:50.613" Score="11" ViewCount="245" Body="&lt;p&gt;What's the difference? Why do professional cameras support CF but amateur models don't?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both are flash based, both support FAT filesystems — &lt;strong&gt;what's the difference&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4039" LastEditorUserId="1943" LastEditorDisplayName="" LastEditDate="2011-05-31T20:17:05.523" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T20:17:05.523" Title="What's the difference between CF and SD cards?" Tags="&lt;memory-card&gt;&lt;sdcard&gt;&lt;cfcard&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" />
  <row Id="12611" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12610" CreationDate="2011-05-31T18:31:15.940" Score="7" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompactFlash&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CompactFlash&lt;/a&gt; came out in 1994, while &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Secure Digital&lt;/a&gt; came out in 1999.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Five extra years of adoption helps explain why higher-end cameras support CF over SD (and vice versa). Pros tend to standardize; they buy a lot at once, have supporting equipment to match, and don't want to switch frequently. Thus professional standards have higher market inertia, and end up lasting longer than consumer ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, pro cameras tend to be bigger (especially relative to point-and-shoot and smaller &quot;amateur&quot; DSLRs). CompactFlash is a much larger card than Secure Digital, so the smaller camera form factor forces CF out (in favour of SD and the rest) earlier. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="48" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T18:31:15.940" CommentCount="2" />
  <row Id="12612" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12610" CreationDate="2011-05-31T18:33:01.157" Score="0" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;The primary difference, as far as I can tell, is the size of the card. I have pro cameras that support both CF and SD so it's not based on your &quot;seriousness&quot; level. In practice, SD cards are smaller in a crowded camera bag, so you have to be extra careful to track where you put them. Otherwise, I don't see a diff. I've been shooting on a 32 gig SD card for a while (about a year) and it's been as reliable as any CF card I've used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing you'll find is that if you are using an external reader and fast connectivity (i.e., Firewire) is important to you, it's very hard to find a Firewire SD card reader. Fortunately, many laptops come with built-in SD readers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5270" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T18:33:01.157" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12613" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12610" CreationDate="2011-05-31T18:35:18.257" Score="-3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;They offer the same storage and speed capacities, but CF cards are said to be more durable, and less flimsier than the smaller SD cards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3072" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T18:35:18.257" CommentCount="3" />
  <row Id="12614" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12609" CreationDate="2011-05-31T18:36:32.310" Score="5" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, you can. I'm not an attorney, but a non-commercial company book would seem be an editorial use. You don't need model releases for editorial use. If you are really concerned, you might want to either consult an attorney who's up to speed on this kind of intellectual property or get in touch with your local chapter of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://asmp.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ASMP&lt;/a&gt; to see if they can offer a definitive opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5270" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T18:36:32.310" />
  <row Id="12615" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12610" CreationDate="2011-05-31T18:40:55.303" Score="18" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fundamentally they are the same thing in a different package but they work differently.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SD cards use their own protocol&lt;/strong&gt; which was extended to go beyond 2 GB up to 32 GB with the introduction of SDHC (there were a few 4GB SD cards but not very compatible) and then to support up to 2 TB with the introduction of SDXC. The SD to SDHC transition if you remember was particularly painful as it took years for most other devices (Readers, Picture Frames, Card Readers, Laptops, etc) to catch-up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;CF cards use the IDE protocol&lt;/strong&gt; which can index large volumes by using pseudo head, track, sector coordinates. That they just kept working as capacities grew, although FAT32 support is used above 2 GB. That makes the protocol more stable and extensible although the next revision is CFast (Compact-Fast) which is based on the SATA protocol.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The larger physical size of Compact Flash also gives them an edge in capacity and they still have a lead in terms of maximum speed as well.&lt;/strong&gt; This has historically been significant but the gap is so narrow now that it is mostly a case of legacy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of camera grades, &lt;strong&gt;there are high-end models which each type of memory&lt;/strong&gt;. The Pentax 645D Digital Medium-Format camera uses SDXC cards, Canon top-of-the-line models accept both CF and SD. This leaves only Nikon to exclusively use CF cards in their high-end models.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T18:40:55.303" />
  <row Id="12616" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12570" CreationDate="2011-05-31T20:31:22.490" Score="3" ViewCount="" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is what I did:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the input file with one number per line:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;0    ...    17    18    18    19    20    21    22    ...    244    244    245    246    246    247    247    248    ...    255&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I copied it into Spreadsheet, divided each number by 255, and formatted all the values to 6 decimal places.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After that, I edited a saved Gimp curve, removed the Red, Green, Blue and Alpha channels and the points used to define the curve, replaced the 256 values with the new ones from Spreadsheet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what it looks like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;# GIMP curves tool settings&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(time 0)&#xA;(channel value)&#xA;(curve&#xA;    (curve-type smooth)&#xA;    (n-samples 256)&#xA;    (samples 256 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.003922 0.003922 0.003922 0.003922 0.003922 0.007843 0.007843 0.007843 0.011765 0.011765 0.011765 0.015686 0.015686 0.019608 0.019608 0.019608 0.023529 0.023529 0.027451 0.031373 0.031373 0.035294 0.035294 0.039216 0.039216 0.043137 0.047059 0.047059 0.050980 0.054902 0.058824 0.058824 0.062745 0.066667 0.070588 0.070588 0.074510 0.078431 0.082353 0.086275 0.090196 0.094118 0.098039 0.101961 0.101961 0.105882 0.109804 0.113725 0.117647 0.125490 0.129412 0.133333 0.137255 0.141176 0.145098 0.149020 0.152941 0.156863 0.160784 0.168627 0.172549 0.176471 0.180392 0.184314 0.192157 0.196078 0.200000 0.203922 0.211765 0.215686 0.219608 0.227451 0.231373 0.235294 0.243137 0.247059 0.250980 0.258824 0.262745 0.266667 0.274510 0.278431 0.286275 0.290196 0.294118 0.301961 0.305882 0.313725 0.317647 0.325490 0.329412 0.337255 0.341176 0.349020 0.352941 0.360784 0.364706 0.372549 0.376471 0.384314 0.388235 0.396078 0.400000 0.407843 0.411765 0.419608 0.427451 0.431373 0.439216 0.443137 0.450980 0.454902 0.462745 0.466667 0.474510 0.482353 0.486275 0.494118 0.498039 0.505882 0.509804 0.517647 0.525490 0.529412 0.537255 0.541176 0.549020 0.552941 0.560784 0.568627 0.572549 0.580392 0.584314 0.592157 0.596078 0.603922 0.607843 0.615686 0.619608 0.627451 0.631373 0.639216 0.643137 0.650980 0.654902 0.662745 0.666667 0.674510 0.678431 0.686275 0.690196 0.698039 0.701961 0.709804 0.713725 0.717647 0.725490 0.729412 0.737255 0.741176 0.745098 0.752941 0.756863 0.760784 0.768627 0.772549 0.776471 0.784314 0.788235 0.792157 0.800000 0.803922 0.807843 0.811765 0.819608 0.823529 0.827451 0.831373 0.835294 0.839216 0.847059 0.850980 0.854902 0.858824 0.862745 0.866667 0.870588 0.874510 0.878431 0.882353 0.886275 0.890196 0.894118 0.898039 0.901961 0.905882 0.909804 0.913725 0.917647 0.921569 0.921569 0.925490 0.929412 0.933333 0.937255 0.937255 0.941176 0.945098 0.949020 0.949020 0.952941 0.956863 0.956863 0.960784 0.964706 0.964706 0.968627 0.968627 0.972549 0.972549 0.976471 0.976471 0.980392 0.980392 0.984314 0.984314 0.988235 0.988235 0.988235 0.992157 0.992157 0.992157 0.992157 0.996078 0.996078 0.996078 0.996078 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000))&#xA;    # end of curves tool settings&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When imported into Gimp, this is how the curve looks like:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://i.stack.imgur.com/lBvxQ.png&quot; alt=&quot;Gimp color curves&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3922" LastActivityDate="2011-05-31T20:31:22.490" />
</posts>